Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Early History of the Vaishnava Faith and Movement in Bengal, from Sanskrit and Bengali Sources c7.s5: 5. Sanātana, Rūpa and Jīva

Early History of the Vaiṣṇava Faith and Movement in Bengal, from Sanskrit and Bengali Sources c7.s5

Language
English

5. Sanātana, Rūpa and Jīva

c7.s5.1

Of the two brothers, Sanātana and Rūpa, and their nephew Jiva, whose literary productions far outweigh those of other Gosvāmins in range, depth, quality and magnitude, there exists a more detailed and reliable record. Jiva himself at the close of his abridgment (*Laghu-toṣaṇī*) of Sanātana’s commentary on the *Bhāgavata*¹ gives us the genealogy of the family, as well as a list of the principal works of Sanātana and Rūpa. This list, which can be generally corroborated from other sources, is quoted with approval in the *Bhakti-ratnākara*, which together with Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja’s biography and the *Prema-vilāsa*, supplies additional information about these three venerable Gosvāmins of Vṛndāvana. From these accounts we learn that they were originally Karṇāṭa Brahmans,² who had migrated at about the end of the 14th and beginning of the 15th century and settled in Bengal. It is somewhat curious that the work of the four Gosvāmins, whose ancestors are said to have belonged to Karṇāṭa or the South, far excelled in extent and importance the work of the two who belonged strictly to Bengal. The previous history of the

c7.s5.2

¹ Printed at the end of the 10th Skandha of the Murshidabad (Radharaman Press) edition of the *Śrīmad-bhāgavata*, and also quoted in full in the *Bhakti-ratnākara*. In the Dacca University collection there is a complete MS of *Vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī* (laghu), which agrees substantially with the printed text. This account by Jiva occurs at the end, after the colophon to Sanātana’s work, as a supplement or epilogue. This portion is missing in the India Office MS no. 387-388 (Eggeling, *Catalogue*, vi, p. 1266), but is contained in the MS noticed in Mitra, *Notices*, vi, p. 290.

c7.s5.3

² For other references to their being Brahmans, see B. Majumdar, *op. cit.*, p. 123 f. Yet, why is it that Sanātana is made by Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja to say repeatedly: नीचवंशी मोर जन्म (Antya iv. 28), नीचजाति देह मोर अत्यन्त असार (*ibid.*, 6), मुइ नीचजाति किछु ना जानों आचार (Madhya xxiv. 320) etc ?

c7.s5.4

*Padyāvalī* (Dacca 1934). Two Brajabuli songs (nos. 1088, 2833) are attributed to Gopāla Bhaṭṭa in the Bengali Vaiṣṇava anthology, *Pada-kalpataru*, compiled by Vaiṣṇava-dāsa.

c7.s5.5

family of Rūpa and Sanātana is thus given by Jīva. There was a prince of Karṇāṭa, named Sarvajña Jagadguru of the Bharadvāja-gotra of Brahmans, who is said to have added to his other princely qualities a knowledge of the three Vedas. His son Aniruddha, who succeeded him, was also a renowned prince, but he fancied only the Yajur-veda. Of Aniruddha's two sons, Rūpeśvara and Harihara, by his two wives, the first became an accomplished scholar, but the second took to evil ways and turned out his elder brother from his principality. Rūpeśvara, who fled to some country in the east, had a son, named Padmanābha, who was well versed in the Yajur-veda and the Upaniṣads. Padmanābha settled on the banks of the Ganges at Navahaṭṭa (modern Naihati, according to the *Bhakti-ratnākara*), performed a Yajña (sacrifice) and had five sons, of whom Mukunda was the youngest. On account of a quarrel with his relations Mukunda left Navahaṭṭa and went to Vaṅga (East Bengal) settling, according to the *Bhakti-ratnākara*, at Fatoyabad, near Jessore, under the Bāklā Candradvīpa Pergunna. Mukunda had a son named Kumāra. Kumāra appears to have several sons of whom we are concerned here with three; to them Caitanya gave the names of Sanātana, Rūpa and Anupama.¹

c7.s5.6

¹ Anupama's original name is given as Vallabha, but our information is uncertain with regard to the original names of Rūpa and Sanātana. It is sometimes said that their original names were Amara and Santoṣa, but there is nothing about this in the earlier records of the sect.

c7.s5.7

The eldest Sanātana appears to have learnt Sanskrit from (Ratnākara?) Vidyāvācaspati,² a scholar of Navadvīpa, who is said to have been a younger brother of Vāsudeva Sārvabhauma and whom Sanātana reverentially mentions as his Guru in the opening verses of his *Vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī*.¹ He became a high official (a Mahāmantrin, we are told) at the Muhammadan court at Gauḍa, acquired considerable wealth and power, and settled with his brothers at the village of Rāmakeli, near Gauḍa, where he met Caitanya for the first time. Rūpa also appears to have held some official position at the same court. Although Sanātana and Rūpa were widely known by their Muhammadan name or title of Sāker Malik and Dabir Khās respectively, before Caitanya gave them new names, there is no evidence to show that they actually adopted the Muhammadan faith. On the contrary, the *Bhakti-ratnākara* tells us that they invited a colony of Karṇāṭa Brahmans to settle near Rāmakeli and apparently kept up their inherited social and religious practices, only considering themselves impure because of their contact with the Mlecchas. They kept themselves in touch with the Vaiṣṇavas of Navadvipa, and had from the beginning an obviously Vaiṣṇava disposition. Rūpa's *Dāna-keli-kaumudī*, apparently composed in 1495 A.D. before he met Caitanya, as well as his two early *Dūta-kāvyas*, bears testimony not only to their retention of ancestral faith but also to their early interest in Kṛṣṇa-līlā. At any rate, their anomalous position, as well as their innate Vaiṣṇava proclivities, must have made them spiritually dissatisfied, and they welcomed Caitanya's presence at Rāmakeli as a means of escape and salvation. After some time Rūpa¹ left home with his younger brother Anupama (alias Vallabha) and joined Caitanya at Allahabad on the latter's way back from Vṛndāvana. After ten days' stay Rūpa wanted to accompany Caitanya to Benares, but he was directed to go to Vṛndāvana. Sanātana came to Caitanya at Benares, and requested Caitanya's permission to accompany him to Puri; but he was also directed to go to Vṛndāvana first and then come to him at Puri. Having visited Vṛndāvana, Rūpa left for Puri with his brother Anupama, who, however, died on the way in Bengal on the banks of the Ganges. Rūpa stayed for about ten months at Puri and returned to Vṛndāvana. Caitanya is represented as giving him at Allahabad, as well as his brother Sanātana at Benares, detailed instructions regarding the composition of various Śāstric works for the sect. Soon after Rūpa left, Sanātana also visited Caitanya at Puri. After these short visits, Sanātana and Rūpa settled at Vṛndāvana till their death, carrying on with selfless devotion the laborious work which was entrusted to them by Caitanya himself and for which they were eminently fitted by their great learning² and piety. Jiva tells us that such was their sincerity of devotion that Kṛṣṇa revealed himself to them on one occasion as a young Gopa boy bringing milk to them.³

c7.s5.8

² On Ratnākara Vidyāvācaspati, see Gopinath Kaviraj, *op. cit.*, pp. 68-69. He is said to have written a commentary on the *Tattvacintāmaṇyāloka* of Pakṣadhara.—It is noteworthy that in Jīva's account Padmanābha is said to have been honoured by prince Danujamardana-deva.

c7.s5.9

¹ B. Majumdar, *op. cit.*, pp. 127 and 131, is certainly incorrect in thinking that all the six persons to whom Sanātana pays homage in the two stanzas (भट्टाचार्यं सार्वभौमं विद्यावाचस्पतीन् गुरून् । वन्दे विद्याभूषणं च गौडदेशविभूषणम् ॥ वन्दे श्रीपरमानन्दभट्टाचार्यं रसप्रियम् । रामभद्रं तथा वागीविलासं चोपदेशकम् ॥) were all his Gurus; for the word *gurūn* in the passage expressly qualifies *vidyāvācaspatīn* only, and the plural is honorific. Majumdar holds that Caitanya himself was Sanātana's Dikṣā-guru; this may have been so, but the passages cited in support are hardly conclusive.

c7.s5.10

¹ The story of Rūpa and Sanātana's Vairāgya is romantically told in the Prema-vilāsa.

c7.s5.11

² Caitanya himself is reported (C-C, Antya i. 200) to have said that "there is not a greater learned man than Sanātana" and his brother; and it was this qualification which probably led him to choose them among all his followers for the special task.

c7.s5.12

³ gopāla-bālaka-vyājād yayoḥ sākṣād babhūva ha| sākṣāc-chryuta-gopālaḥ kṣīra-haraṇa-līlayā|| (Laghu-toṣaṇī).

c7.s5.13

Jiva Gosvāmin was the only son of their untimely deceased brother Anupama. He must have been very young when his uncles turned hermits and his father died. After staying at home at Fatoyabad for some time, he was also filled with the same desire for ascetic life, and the story of his Vairāgya is told picturesquely in the *Bhakti-ratnākara*.¹ After a short visit to Nityānanda at Navadvīpa,² he left for Benares, where he is said to have studied under Madhusūdana Vācaspati, who appears to have been an accomplished grammarian, Smārta and Vedāntist.³ He joined his uncles at Vṛndāvana, where he lived thereafter the arduous life of a recluse and scholar. He must have been carefully instructed by them in Bhakti-śāstra, and afterwards taken in as a worthy collaborator in their literary efforts for the cause of Caitanyaism. With the exception of Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja who, however, mentions Jiva only a few times⁴, other biographers of Caitanya are silent about him. Jiva's birth-date is uncertain, but he does not appear to have seen Caitanya. Towards the end of the 16th and beginning of the 17th centuries, however, his reputation was well established; and it was through him and his pupils Śrinivāsa Ācārya, Narottama and Śyāmānanda, that the Bhakti-śāstra of the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmins was widely propagated and established in Bengal. Jiva became the highest court of appeal in doctrinal matters so long as he lived, The Caitanyaism, as it is known to-day, is mainly the product of Sanātana, Rūpa and Jiva and their disciple Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja, its metaphysics being mainly Jiva's contribution. We have already noted that, like most great religious teachers, Caitanya appears to have refrained from discussing metaphysical problems (or writing about them) with his followers, who took his metaphysics according to their own light. But the view of the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmins ultimately prevailed.¹

c7.s5.14

¹ Also in the spurious 23rd chapter of the *Prema-vilāsa*.

c7.s5.15

² *C-C*, Antya iv, 232-235.

c7.s5.16

³ He appears to be identical with the Madhusūdana Vācaspati who wrote an *Advaita-maṅgala* (Oppert, *Lists*, no. 3422), an *Aśauca-saṃkṣepa* (Mitra, *Notices*, ii, no. 987) and a *Madhumatī* commentary on the *Mugdha-bodha* (Eggeling, *India Office Catalogue*, nos. 1078, 1164). He appears to have been a Bengali, and the colophon to the *Aśauca-saṃkṣepa* calls him a Mahāmahopādhyāya. In Haraprasad Sastri's *Notices*, ii, nos. 93, 201, 225, three Smṛti works, entitled respectively *Durgārcā-kāla-niṣkarṣa*, *Vrata-kāla-niṣkarṣa* and *Śrāddha-kāla-nirūpaṇa* are ascribed to him. He could not have been the famous Madhusūdana Sarasvati, author of the *Advaita-siddhi*; see B. Majumdar, *op. cit.*, p. 150-151.

c7.s5.17

⁴ Adi i. 36, iii. 4, x. 85; Madhya i. 42-45, xviii. 50; Antya iv. 228-235.

c7.s5.18

¹ It is our impression (and the reasons have been given above) that Caitanya could not have been such an anti-Saṃkara as depicted by Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja. The Kavirāja, however, is careless enough to give us a rough idea as to what Caitanya's metaphysics could possibly have been, when he makes Caitanya ridicule Vallabha Bhaṭṭa for differing from Śridhara's commentary on the *Bhāgavata* and say that Śridhara was 'Jagad-guru'. In his commentary on Jiva's *Tattva-sandarbha*, Rādhamohana Gosvāmin says that the Saṃkara sect was divided into two main branches—(i) the Smārtas, possibly the pure Advaitins who did not care about Bhakti and (ii) the Bhāgavatas, who tempered the idea of Mukti with Bhakti; and that Śridhara belonged to the latter branch. Possibly Caitanya was a Saṃkarite Saṃnyāsin of the Śridhara type, although he was far ahead of Śridhara in what he understood to be the implications of Bhakti, and the Bhakti, which he practised may have been very much like what Rūpa and Jiva say about it. For Śridhara's treatment of Bhakti see his brief comment on *Bhāgavata* x. 43. 17.

c7.s5.19

The following list of Vaiṣṇava treatises, composed by Sanātana and Rūpa respectively, is given by Jiva:

c7.s5.20

Sanātana's works:² (i) (*Bṛhad-*) bhāgavatāmṛta (with its *Digdarśanī* commentary)³. (ii) *Hari-bhakti-vilāsa*, on the authorship of which we have spoken above, with its commentary entitled also *Digdarśanī*. (iii) *Līlā-stava*, also called Daśama-carita by Narahari (Bhakti-ratnākara, p. 57) and Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja (C-C, Madhya i. 30-31)—now lost, and (iv) a commentary on the 10th Skandha of the Śrīmad-bhāgavata, entitled Vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī, of which an abridged (*Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī* or briefly *Laghu-toṣaṇī*) edition was prepared in Śaka 1504 (=1582 A. D.) by Jīva himself.¹

c7.s5.21

² *athāgraja-kṛteṣvagryam śrīla-bhāgavatāmṛtam / hari-bhakti-vilāsaś ca saṭṭīkā-dikpradarśanī // līlāstava-tippaṇī ca seyaṃ vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī* yā saṃkṣiptā mayā kṣudra-jīvenāpi tadājñayā // .—Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja also gives a general list of Rūpa's and Sanātana's works in C-C (Madhya i. and Antya iv), which is not exhaustive, but which substantially agrees with Jiva's enumeration.

c7.s5.22

³ Ed. Nityasvarup Brahmachari, Vṛndāvan 1905 (in Devanāgari characters).

c7.s5.23

¹ On this abridgment, see below. Works mentioned under Sanātana Gosvāmin in Aufrecht, i, 693a are almost all instances of mistaken or doubtful ascription, with the exception of (Bṛhad-) bhāgavatāmṛta and Vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī (wrongly entered as Viṣṇu-toṣaṇī). No descriptions of Bhakti-bindu and Ujjvala-rasa-kaṇā mentioned in the Oudh Catalogue are available; but they cannot be Sanātana's. They look suspiciously like summaries of the two works of Rūpa's on Bhakti-rasa-śāstra, and are probably the same as Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu-bindu and Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi-kiraṇa, which are summaries of Rūpa's two works by Viśvanātha Cakravartin. The Yoga-jataka-vyākhyāna, quoted by Rāyamukuṭa as Sanātana's, cannot be assigned to our Sanātana; for Rāyamukuṭa, whose Pada-candrikā commentary on Amara-kośa was composed in 1431 A.D., must have been an earlier writer. The remaining works entered by Aufrecht are either by Rūpa, Jīva or Gopāla Bhaṭṭa. The mistakes arise, of course, from the insufficient or wrong descriptions given in the original catalogues, as well as from wrong scribal ascriptions in the MSS themselves. Instances of such confusion are frequent with regard to the works of the six Gosvāmins, and some have been noted in S. K. De, Sanskrit Poetics, 1st. ed. i, p. 255, and in Annals of the Bhandarkar Institute, x, p. 117. Some have also been noted below.

c7.s5.24

Rūpa's works²: (i) Haṃsa-dūta (Kāvya), (ii) Uddhava-

c7.s5.25

² > tayor anuja-sṛṣṭeṣu kāvyaṃ śrī-haṃsa-dūtakam/

c7.s5.26

śrīmad-uddhava-sandeśal chando'ṣṭadaśakam tathā//
stavaś cotkalikāvallī govinda-birudāvalī/
premendu-sāgarādyaś ca bahavaḥ supratiṣṭhitāḥ//
vidagdha-lalitāgrākhya-mādhavam nāṭaka-dvayam/
bhaṇikā dāna-kelyākhyā rasāmṛta-yugam punaḥ//
mathurā-mahimā padyāvalī nāṭaka-candrikā/
saṃkṣipta-śrī-bhāgavatāmṛtam ete ca saṃgrahāḥ//—A survey of Rūpa's literary works will be found below under ch. vii.

c7.s5.27

saṃdeśa (Kāvya)¹ (iii) Aṣṭādaśa-cchandas² (iv) Utkalikā-vallarī, Govinda-birudāvalī, Premendu-sāgara, etc., all Stavas or Stotras. These, as well as Aṣṭādaśa-cchandas, were collected together, apparently sometime later, by Jīva himself under the name *Stava-mālā* (total number of pieces is sixty-four). (v) *Vidagdha-mādhava* (Drama),³ (vi) *Lalita-mādhava* (Drama), (vii) *Dāna-keli-kaumudī* (Bhāṇikā), (viii) and (ix) *Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu*⁴ and *Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi*⁵ (Bhakti-rasa-śāstra) (x) Mathurā-mahiman or -māhātmya, now said to be included in the Varāha-purāṇa (not separately published); a MS⁷ of this work is noticed in Haraprasad Sastri, *Notices*, 2nd Series, p. 264, no. 265. (xi) *Padyāvalī* (Anthology),⁸ (xii)

c7.s5.28

¹ These two works have been published very often in India. They have been also printed in Devanāgarī in the Haeberlin, Kāvya-saṃgraha, pp. 323 f and in Jīvananda Vidyasagar, Kāvya-saṃgraha, Calcutta 1888, pts. ii, pp. 441-507 and iii, pp. 215-275.

c7.s5.29

² It is not clear what this work was. The C-C (Madhya i. 39) speaks of it as Aṣṭādaśa-līlā-cchandas. From Śl. 2 of the Nandotsavādi-carita, ascribed to Rūpa in the collected Stava-mālā:

c7.s5.30

³ Also ed. Kāvyamālā 81, Bombay 1903.

c7.s5.31

⁴ Also ed. Damodara Gosvamin, Acyuta Granthamālā Series, Benares 1932.

c7.s5.32

⁵ Also edited in Kāvyamālā 9⁶, Bombay 1913.

c7.s5.33

⁷ The MS of this work, ascribed to Rūpa Gosvāmin, in the Vaṅgīya Sāhitya Pariṣad, Calcutta (Descriptive Catalogue, no. 1152, p. 230), describes in Śloka metre Vṛndāvana in relation to Kṛṣṇa; but this MS which we examined is incomplete.

c7.s5.34

⁸ Also critically ed. S. K. De, with introd. and appendices, Dacca University Oriental Publ. Series, Dacca 1934.

c7.s5.35

nandotsavādayas tāḥ kaṃsa-vadhāntā harer mahātlāḥ/
chandobhir lalitāṅgair aṣṭādaśabhir nirūpyante//

c7.s5.36

it appears that the twenty-three short pieces, beginning from the Nandotsavādi-carita and ending with Raṅgasthala-krīḍā (i.e. Kaṃsa-vadha) included in the Stava-mālā, were known and described by Jīva as Aṣṭādaśa-cchandas. The Gītāvalī, included also in the Stava-mālā, is apparently by Rūpa, and not by Sanātana.

c7.s5.37

⁶ Aufrecht misunderstands the description rasāmṛta-yugam of these two works (i.e. two works on the Rasa-śāstra) in Jīva's enumeration, and enters Rasāmṛta as two poems by Rūpa.

c7.s5.38

*Nāṭaka-candrikā (Dramaturgy)¹ and (xiii) *Saṃkṣepa-bhāgavatāmṛta (Theology), which is not an abridgment of Sanātana's work of the same name, but an independent work.

c7.s5.39

¹ Some account of this work will be found in S. K. De, Sanskrit Poetics, 2nd ed. i, p. 253, 256.

c7.s5.40

With the exception of the questionable ascription of Hari-bhakti-vilāsa, of which we have spoken above, the lists are fairly correct,² and enumerate all the important works of Sanātana and Rūpa. But the Bhakti-ratnākara quotes also some other traditional Sanskrit verses³ which add four more works (making a total of seventeen) to the list of Rūpa's literary efforts:

c7.s5.41

² As marked by asterisk, most of these are printed by the Radharaman Press at Berhampur in Bengali characters and published at Murshidabad, with the exception of those which are noted as having been printed at Vṛndavan or of which editions are also publised in the Kāvyamālā series of the Nirnaya Sagar Press, Bombay or elsewhere. All the Bengal editions, unless otherwise marked, are as a rule printed in Bengali characters.

c7.s5.42

³ The additional list is ascribed to Jiva's disciple, Kṛṣṇadāsa Adhikārin. It mentions Stava-mālā compiled by Jiva later on.

c7.s5.43

(i) Śrī-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā, both Bṛhat and Laghu. This work is better known as *Rādhā-kṛṣṇa-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā and has been printed at Murshidabad;⁴ it is said to exist in Bṛhat and Laghu versions. (ii) Prayuktākhyāta-candrikā, apparently a grammatical work, dealing with verbs, but no information is available about it. (iii) Kṛṣṇa-janma-tithi-vidhi. Nothing is known about this work, but it may be the same work as noticed by Aufrecht in his Leipzig Catalogue, no. 621, entitled Kṛṣṇa-janma-tithi-vidhi. The author's name does not appear on the manuscript which consists of 22 folios, but the opening verse says that it was composed at the direction of the Lord (prabhūnāṃ vinideśataḥ), by which honorific term Rūpa often refers to Sanātana. Also (iv) *Aṣṭakālika-ślokāvali*, consisting of eleven verses, which Rūpa is said to have given to Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja for elaborating.¹ This must have been the basis of Kṛṣṇadāsa's *Govinda-līlāmṛta*, which deals with the same theme, and which in xxiii. 94 appears to refer to some such work by Rūpa (*śri-rūpa-darśita-diśā likhitāṣṭakālyā/ śri-rādhikeśa-kṛta-keli-tatir mayeyam*). Haraprasad Sastri in his *Notices* (2nd Series i, p. 418, no. 414) mentions a work entitled *Smaraṇa-maṅgalai-kādaśa* which, however, does not consist of eleven but thirty-five verses, but the colophon of which says: *iti śrimad-rūpa-gosvāminā viracitam śri-rādhā-kṛṣṇayor aṣṭa-kālika-ślokāvali-smaraṇa-maṅgalam samāptam*.² (v) Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa,

c7.s5.44

⁴ At the Radharaman Press as noted above. The genuineness of this work is very doubtful: see B. Majumdar, op. cit., p. 141. The work is dated Śaka 1472=1550 A.D.; if so, why is it not mentioned in Jiva's list compiled in 1582 A.D.?

c7.s5.45

¹ The following works are sometimes found ascribed to Rūpa, but their authenticity is extremely doubtful: (i) *Upadeśāmṛta*, consisting of 43 verses, which give arguments for and against asceticism, supposed to have been addressed to Jiva (Mitra, *Notices*, viii, p. 13, no. 2560). (ii) *Gaṅgāṣṭaka*, eight stanzas in praise of Gaṅgā-devī, daughter of Nityānanda (Mitra *Notices*, iv, p. 203, no. 1628). According to Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja, Rūpa met Nityānanda both at Rāmakeli (Madhya i. 173-4) and at Puri (Antya i, 152); but it is curious that Rūpa never mentions Nityānanda, although he speaks of Advaita. Raghunātha also omits Nityānanda's name, but includes Advaita's. Only Sanātana, in the Maṅgala-ślokas of his *Vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī*, pays homage to Nityānanda. It is extremely unlikely, therefore, Rūpa should have written anything on Nityānanda or his family. (iii) *Śikṣā-daśaka* (Roth's *Tübingen Catalogue*, 10). (iv) *Sādhana-paddhati* (Mitra, *Notices*, ix, p. 55, no. 2842), consisting of only two folios, on Rādhā-kṛṣṇa worship. But the colophon merely says: *śri-rūpa-gosvāmyukta-sādhana-paddhati*, and not *śri-rūpa-gosvāmi-kṛta*. This may or may not be the same as *Sādhanāmṛta*, ascribed to Rūpa, in A. V. Kathvate's *Report* (1904), p. 22, no. 314. Some of Aufrecht's entries in i. 533 are merely separate

c7.s5.46

वैष्नव-इच्छाय एकादश श्लोक कैल ।
कृष्णदास कविराजे विस्तारिते दिल ॥
अष्टकाललीला ताते अति रसायन ।
भाग्यवन्त जन से करये आस्वादन ॥
(*Bhakti-ratnākara*).

c7.s5.47

in his commentary on Rūpa's *Govinda-birudāvali*, speaks of a *Biruda-lakṣaṇa* by Rūpa, which discussed the metrical and other characteristics of a *Biruda-kāvya*.¹ Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja also, in his enumeration of Rūpa's works, speaks of गोविन्दबिरुदावली आर ताहार लक्षण. This appears to be the recently published work *Sāmānya-birudāvali-lakṣaṇa*.²

c7.s5.48

¹ Viśvanātha, for the first time, defines it in his *Sāhitya-darpaṇa* thus: *gadya-padyamayi rāja-stutir birudam ucyate*; but from the specimens it appears to be an exercise in metrical and rhetorical skill in weaving Sabdālaṃkāras!

c7.s5.49

² Printed by Haridas Das, Navadvipa 1941, along with Jiva's *Gopāla-birudāvali*.

c7.s5.50

Two copies of a commentary on Kālidāsa's *Megha-dūta*, entitled *Tātparya-dīpikā*, by Sanātana Gosvāmin, are noticed by Eggeling in his *India Office Catalogue* (vii, pp. 1422-23, no. 1584 and 1570). This appears to be a genuine work, which is perhaps omitted in the above list as being non-religious, but which Sanātana might have composed before he began his theological labours.

c7.s5.51

Jiva Gosvāmin was a more prolific, versatile and voluminous writer, and it is difficult to give a complete list of his works. The enumeration of Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja (Madhya, i; Antya, vi) is very brief, but the *Bhakti-ratnākara* cites some traditional Sanskrit verses which assign more than twenty different works to Jiva. Most of his works, however, are

c7.s5.52

mention of the Stotras (of which separate MSS are available), included in Rūpa's *Stava-mālā*, e.g. Utkalikā-vallari, Kārpaṇya-pañjikā, Govinda-birudāvali, Caitanyāṣṭaka, Premendu-sāgara, Mukunda-muktāvali, (but not its commentary which is anonymous, see Eggeling's *India Office Catalogue*, vii. p. 1469, no. 1184g/3896), Yamunāṣṭaka. Other entries are wrong attributions, e.g. Paramātma-sandarbha, Prīti-sandarbha and Hari-nāmāmṛta-vyākaraṇa all of which belong to Jiva; Gaurāṅga-stava-kalpataru, Vilāpa-kusumāñjali and Vrajarāja-stava are Raghunātha-dāsa's, included in his *Stavāvali*. Similarly, in Aufrecht, iii. 113 b, Keśavāṣṭaka is one of the stotras of Rūpa's *Stava-mālā*, separately mentioned. The *Rasāmṛta-śeṣa* in *Ulwar Catalogue* 1077 is not Sanātana's but Jiva's.

c7.s5.53

commentaries, abstracts or supplements, elucidating the learned treatises of his uncles, who found in him a very apt and learned interpreter. Jiva's authentic works, arranged according to their subject-matter, may be given as follows:

c7.s5.54

(i) Grammar: (a) *Hari-nāmāmṛta-vyākaraṇa* (Bṛhat and Laghu), a compilation in which all the rules and illustrations of Sanskrit grammar are associated, in the true sectarian spirit, with the names of Kṛṣṇa, Rādhā or their Gaṇas, and therefore made specially suitable to devout Vaiṣṇavas, who by reading it would realise the double purpose of learning grammatical rules and reciting the blessed names. (b) (*Dhātu-)sūtra-mālikā*, which is probably a Dhātu-pāṭha supplement (described as Dhātu-saṃgraha) of the above, but of which no information is available.

c7.s5.55

(ii) Vaiṣṇava Kāvyas: (a) *Gopāla-campū*¹ a voluminous Campū in prose and verse, divided into Pūrva in 33 Pūraṇas and Uttara in 37 Pūraṇas, which give a poetical-mystical treatment of the life of Kṛṣṇa. (b) *Saṃkalpa-kalpa-druma*, a half-philosophical, half-poetical work on Vaiṣṇava doctrine, illustrated by references to the Kṛṣṇa-lilā, in three parts, respectively entitled Janmādi-lilā, Nitya-lilā, and Sarvartu-lilā, with a concluding Phala-niṣpatti. The work must have been written at Vṛndāvana when Jiva was very old (*vṛndāranye jarañ jīvah*, i. 4), even after the completion of the two parts of his *Gopāla-campū*, which are mentioned (in i. 264). (c) *Mādhava-mahotsava*, a Kāvya in nine Ullāsas, dealing with the Abhiṣeka of Rādhā by Kṛṣṇa and the festivity consequent upon it.² (d) *Gopāla-birudāvali*³ a small Biruda-kāvya of panegyrics on the Vṛndāvana-lilā of Kṛṣṇa.

c7.s5.56

¹ Ed. Rasavihari Samkhyatirtha, in five parts, Berhampur 1910. An account of Jiva's literary works will be found below under ch. vii.

c7.s5.57

² Ed. Haridas Das, Haribole Kutir, Poḍāghāṭ, Navadvīpa 1941 in Bengali characters. The work is dated Śaka 1477 (*sapta-sapta-manu-śāke*)=1555 A.D. The work is mentioned in the *Bhakti-ratnākara* list of Jiva's works.

c7.s5.58

³ Printed along with *Sāmanya-birudāvali-lakṣaṇa* of Rūpa Gosvāmin, by Haridas Das, Navadvīpa 1941.

c7.s5.59

(iii) Rasa-śāstra: (a) Rasāmṛta-śeṣa, mentioned in the Ulwar Catalogue 1077, may be Jīva's, but wrongly attributed there to Sanātana. This work appears to have been recently recovered and printed:¹ it is a short rhetorical supplement (based chiefly on Viśvanātha's Sāhitya-darpaṇa) to Rūpa's two works on the subject. (b-c) commentaries entitled *Durgama saṃgamanī* and *Locana-rocanī*² respectively on Rūpa's Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu and Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi.

c7.s5.60

¹ Ed. Haridas Das, Haribole Kutir, Navadvīpa 1941 in Bengali characters.

c7.s5.61

² Also edited along with the text in the Kāvyamālā 95.

c7.s5.62

(iv) Vaiṣṇava Ritualism: Kṛṣṇārcā-dīpikā, apparently on the modes of Kṛṣṇa-worship. Nothing is known of this work.³

c7.s5.63

³ An anonymous Kṛṣṇārcā-dīpikā is mentioned in Aufrecht i. 124 a.

c7.s5.64

(v) Vaiṣṇava Theology: (a-e) commentaries on the Gopāla-tāpanī-upaniṣad, on the *Brahma-saṃhitā*,⁴ on the Yoga-sāra-stava of the Padma-purāṇa, on the Gāyatrī-māhātmya of the Agni-purāṇa,⁵ and on the sections on Rādhā-kṛṣṇa-pada-cihna of the Padma-purāṇa. (f) a commentary, entitled *Krama-sandarbha*, on the Śrīmad-bhāgavata, included in the Murshidabad edition of the text. (g) An abridgment (Laghu) of Sanātana's Vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī commentary on the 10th Skandha of the Bhāgavata, prepared at the latter's command.⁶ (vi) Vaiṣṇava Philosophy : *Bhāgavata-samdarbha*, consisting of six elaborate Samdarbhas, viz. *Tattva-*, *Bhagavat-*, *Paramātma-*, *Kṛṣṇa-*, *Bhakti-* and *Prīti-*¹ which give the first systematic exposition of the entire philosophical dogmatics of the Bengal school. (*b*) *Sarva-samvādinī*, a brief exposition on the first four of the above Samdarbhas (*Anuvyākhyā*),² but really a summary and supplement to them. No mention is made of this work in the *Bhakti-ratnākara* list of Jīva's works, but neither this list nor that of Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja, as indicated by the word *ādayaḥ* has any pretension to being exhaustive.³

c7.s5.65

⁴ The name of the commentary on the Brahma-saṃhitā does not occur in the printed text, but in the MS noticed by Eggeling (India Office Catalogue, iv, p. 820, no. 199) the name is given as Digdarśanī, though it is wrongly attributed to Rūpa. The opening verse which refers to Kṛṣṇa-sandarbha would hardly leave any doubt as to the authorship. Cf. Mitra, Notices, ii, no. 691.

c7.s5.66

⁵ Ed. Haridas Das, as appendix to his ed. of Jīva's Bhakti-rasāmṛta-śeṣa (see above).

c7.s5.67

⁶ The original work (Vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī) does not appear to have been printed fully, for the printed work in the Murshidabad ed., as well as most manuscripts, appear to represent the Laghu-toṣaṇī compiled by Jīva.

c7.s5.68

1 All the six Samdarbhas are published in Devanāgarī characters by Shyamalal Gosvami (Calcutta, Saka 1812=A.D. 1890). The *Tattva°*, *Bhagavat°*, *Paramātma°* have been printed by the Radharaman Press with a Bengali translation and with the Sanskrit commentary of Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa on the *Tattva-samdarbha* only. The *Tattva°* has also been printed in Devanāgarī characters by Nityasvarup Brahmachari (Calcutta 1919), by Satyananda Gosvami (with Bengali translation, Calcutta B.S. 1318=1911 A.D.). The *Bhagavat°* has also been printed, with a Bengali translation, by Satyananda Gosvami (Calcutta B.S. 1333=1926 A.D.). The *Kṛṣṇa-samdarbha* has been printed, with a Bengali commentary, by Prangopal Gosvami from Nadia (1925); as also the *Prīti°* (1929). The *Prīti°* has also been published in Devanāgarī characters by Shyamalal Gosvami (Calcutta, 1901). Only a few fascicules of the *Bhakti-samdarbha* have so far been published with a Bengali commentary by the Gauḍīya Mādhva Maṭha, Calcutta. Good MSS of these works exist in the Dacca University Library; and a critical edition of the Samdarbhas is desirable. A survey of the six Samdarbhas will be found below under ch. v.

c7.s5.69

2 Ed. Rasikmohan Vidyabhusan, Vaṅgīya Sāhitya Pariṣad, Calcutta 1920, with a Bengali translation.

c7.s5.70

3 With the exception of those noted, all the works of Jīva have been printed at the Radharaman Press, Berhampur, in Bengali characters and with Bengali translation (as indicated by asterisk). Aufrecht in his entries under Jīva Gosvāmin in *i.* 207a is often misled by wrong identifications or insufficient descriptions of the original catalogues on which he had to rely. Jīva wrote only the commentary on *Brahma-saṃhitā* and not the text itself; the *Muktā-caritra* and *Stava-mālā* are by Raghunātha-dāsa and Rūpa respectively. The *Sāra-saṃgraha*, With regard to the exact dates of Rūpa, Sanātana and Jiva, no authentic information is available: but from their relation to Caitanya and from the dates of composition recorded at the end of some of their own works we can approximately fix the period of their literary activity. Rūpa Gosvāmin's two Duta-kāvyas mentioned above were probably composed before his conversion, as there is no Namaskriyā or reference to Caitanya in them. The Padyāvali, which is cited by name in his Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu, Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi and Nāṭaka-candrikā, was probably also an early compilation, which may have been recast or added to before the composition of these three works.¹ It does not also give any Namaskriyā or reference to Caitanya. But it gives all the eight verses of the Śikṣāṣṭaka with the subscription Śrī-bhagavataḥ. It does not also give verses from any of Rūpas dramas, which have been very profusely utilised for illustrative verses in his two works on Rasa-śāstra mentioned above, as well as in his Nāṭaka-candrikā. The Padyāvali in its turn quotes verses from the following Stotras, included in his Stava-mālā viz. Govinda-birudāvali, Vṛndāvana-govatsa-cāraṇādi-līlā and Mathurāṣṭaka, which must have been even earlier. Some

c7.s5.71

¹ For a discussion of the probable date of this compilation, see S. K. De, in IHQ x, 1934, pp. 311-312.

c7.s5.72

noticed in Mitra, Notices, iv. pp. 303-4, no. 1722, appears to be a late metrical compilation on the Bhakti-rasa-śāstra wrongly ascribed to Jiva. In its opening and concluding verses Jiva's name does not appear; it is given only in the colophon. The opening verses, again, are directly plagiarised from other well known works, e.g. the first verse=verse no. 4 of Rūpa's Saṃkṣepa-bhāgavatāmṛta; the second=one of the concluding verses of Raghunātha-dāsa's Muktā-caritra etc. The authenticity of the attribution of the work to Jiva, therefore, is questionable, especially as its contents merely summarise well known views. Aufrecht in i. 208a assigns the Gopāla-campū to one Jivarāja, son of Kāmarāja (not Kāmarūpa) Sūri; this is obviously a mistake, which originated from Mitra's Notices, i, p. 40, no. 72. Several other apocryphal works are sometimes ascribed to Jiva, but their genuineness is extremely doubtful.

c7.s5.73

of Rūpa's other works, however, are expressly dated. His *Dāna-keli-kaumudī*, which professes to have been written at Nandīśvara for the pleasure of some dear friend living on the banks of the Kuṇḍa, appears to bear the earliest date Śaka 1417=1495 A. D.¹ If this date is correct, then the drama must have been written long before the author met Caitanya, who himself could not have been more than ten years old at that time. As such, it might have been one of his earliest works. This appears to be corroborated by the fact that while his other dramas pay opening homage to Caitanya, the *Dāna-keli-kaumudī* makes no direct reference to him.¹ Next comes the *Vidagdha-mādhava* which gives us the date *Saṃvat* 1589=1533 A. D.² and the completion of the *Lalita-mādhava* is dated in the month of Jyaiṣṭha, Śaka 1459=1537 A. D.³ The *Nāṭaka-candrikā* which draws upon all these dramatic works for its illustrations, as well as upon the *Padyāvalī*, but which has no reference to the two semi-rhetorical works on Rasa-śāstra, must have been composed after the dramas were completed. His *Bhakti-rasāmṛta* appears to have been completed in Śaka 1463=1541 A. D.⁴; and his *Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi*,

c7.s5.74

¹ *grathitā sumanaḥ-sukhadā yasya nideśena bhāṇikā-srag iyam/ tasya mama priya-suhṛdaḥ kuṇḍa-taṭim kṣaṇam alaṃkuruṭām// gate manu-śate loke candrasvara-samanvite/ nandīśvare nivasatā bhāṇikeyām vinirmitā//*. This verse occurs not only in the printed text, but also in Haraprasad Sastri, *Notices*, i, no. 164 and in *Descriptive Cat. of Madras Govt. MSS Library*, xxi, p. 8407, no. 12521. The date cannot be Śaka 1471=1549 A.D.; for the *Dāna-keli-kaumudī* is cited in the *Bhakti-rasāmṛta* composed in Śaka 1463=1541 A.D. The date of this work makes it impossible that Rūpa could have written this drama, as the commentary explains, for his friend Raghunātha-dāsa. On the other hand, there is nothing improbable, apart from this date, in the explanation that Nandīśvara means Vṛndāvana and Kuṇḍa-taṭī refers to the Rādhā-kuṇḍa in Vṛndāvana where Raghunātha-dāsa, Rūpa's friend, resided. The verse which contains this date is indeed placed after the colophon, but this fact, though suspicious, is not conclusive, and the verse cannot be rejected lightly; for the anonymous person living by the Kuṇḍa-taṭī is also distinctly referred to in the body of the text itself in the verse *rādhā-kuṇḍa-taṭī-kuṭīra*. In verse 5 of the drama, again the description of the devotional ecstasy of the Bhakta can apply very well to the familiar description of such ecstasies of Caitanya himself. It can be supposed that the work was actually composed as early as the date given, but that it was later on revised (with the addition of the verse 5 and the verse *rādhā-kuṇḍa-taṭī-kuṭīra*) and dedicated to Raghunātha-dāsa; but the verse containing the date, if genuine, makes two things clear: (i) that at the time of composition the author was actually living at Nandīśvara, which was apparently Vṛndāvana and (ii) that the work was actually composed (*grathitā*) (and not revised merely) at the instance of the friend residing at Kuṇḍa-taṭī. This latter fact is also indicated by the verse *rādhā-kuṇḍa-taṭī-kuṭīra*; and there is nothing to show that it was a later addition. The problem of the correctness of the date given by the verse in question is, therefore, not free from difficulty. The internal evidence of the text, as discussed above, makes it probable that the work was composed some time after 1553 A.D., i.e., after Rūpa and Raghunātha-dāsa settled at Vṛndāvana, but before 1541 as it is cited in *Bhakti-rasāmṛta*. Bimanbihari Majumdar (*Sāhitya Pariṣat Patrikā*, vol. 42,

c7.s5.75

¹ But see *śl.* 5 in which is described the devotional ecstasy of a Kṛṣṇa-bhakta, reminding one very forcibly of the ecstasies of Caitanya.

c7.s5.76

² *nava-sindhura-bāṇendu-saṃkhye saṃvatsare gate| vidagdha-mādhavam nāma nāṭakam gokule kṛtam||* (v. 1. *nanda* for *nava* in Madras Catalogue, xxi. p. 8514).

c7.s5.77

³ *nandeṣu-vedendu-mite śakābde| śakrasya māsasya tithau caturthyām|| dine dine dineśasya harim praṇamya| samāpayam bhadravane prabandham||*. (v. 1. *nandāṅga-vedendu-mite*).

c7.s5.78

⁴ *rāmāṅga-lakra-gaṇite śāke gokulam adhiṣṭhitena| śrī-bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhur vijṛmbhitaḥ kṣudra-rūpeṇa||* The v. 1. *rāmāṅka-lakra-gaṇite* is noticed by Bhandarkar, *Report* 1883-84 (Bombay 1887), p. 76, which would give Śake 1493. But the commentator (probably

c7.s5.79

B.E. 1342, pp. 51-52) suggests the ingenious emendation *candra-śara* (instead of *candrasvara*) in the verse in question, giving us Śaka 1451 (=1529 A.D.). This would be about four years before Caitanya's passing away, when both Rūpa and Raghunātha were well settled at Vṛndāvana. There is, however, another tradition that Raghunātha-dāsa did not leave Purī for Vṛndāvana till after Caitanya's passing away in 1533. If that were so, he could not have been living at Rādhā-kuṇḍa in Śaka 1451=1529 A.D. which would be the date proposed by Bimanbihari's emendation *candra-śara*. If any emendation is permissible, one would be tempted to suggest *candra-rasa*, which would give us Śaka 1461=1539 A.D.

c7.s5.80

which purports to be its supplement, must have been composed later. His next dated work appears to be the alleged *Bṛhad-rādhā-kṛṣṇa-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā* which was completed¹ in Śrāvaṇa, Śaka 1472=1550 A. D. (July-August), while his *Utkalikā-vallarī Stotra* (included in the *Stava-mālā*) is dated in Pauṣa, Śaka 1471, would give us the same date A. D. 1549-50 (December-January).² These dates would make it clear that the most flourishing period of Rūpa's literary activity falls between 1533 and 1550 A. D., but it probably began as early as 1495 A.D.

c7.s5.81

¹ *śake drg-aśva-śakre nabhasi nabhomaṇi-dine ṣaṣṭhyām/ vraja-pati-sadmani rādhā-kṛṣṇa-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikādipi//*.

c7.s5.82

² *candrāśva-bhuvane śake pauṣe gokula-vāsinā/ iyam utkalikā-pūrva-vallarī nirmitā mayā//*. The Dacca University Manuscript collection contains a MS of Kavikarṇapūra's *Caitanya-caritāmṛta-kāvya*, which bears Śaka 1464=1542 A.D as its date of composition; the scribe of this MS calling himself Viṣṇudāsa adds a few verses after the colophon, which state that Rūpa Gosvāmin made a copy of this work in Śaka 1467=1545 A.D., i.e., only three years after the work was actually composed (*caitanya-candra-caritāmṛtam adbhutābhair/ dvya-ṣṭabdikair viracitam kavikarṇapūraiḥ// rūpākhya-mat-prabhuvaraiḥ sva-karāmbujena/ śāke hayartu-bhuvane likhitam purā yat// ālokya sāmpratam anena ku-medhasāpi/ svapne'pi tad-ratim ṛte mṛtaka-prabheṇa/ kenāpi lubdha-manasā vata viṣṇudāsa-/ nāmnā sva-jīvana-mahauṣadhim ācitam tat// (saṃdānikam)// idam kāvyam śrī-rūpa-gosvāminā caturdaśa-pūrva-sapta-ṣaṣṭhitama-śaka-varṣe likhitam, tad-anantaram śrī viṣṇudāsa-gosvāminā*. This indication is very interesting, as it shows that the Navadvīpa works were well known to the Vṛndāvana circle, although the earlier Navadvīpa authors (except, of course, Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja) do not show familiarity with the works of the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmins. Probably Viṣṇudāsa, who describes himself as a follower of Rūpa, copies this work from Rūpa Gosvāmin's own copy. The Dacca University MS, which is not old, must be a later copy of that copy by some other scribe. Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja tells us that Rūpa's handwriting was very fine ( *रुपेर अक्षर येन सुकृतार पंक्ति* Antya i. 97).

c7.s5.83

Jīva) distinctly explains *tri-ṣaṣṭhyadhika-caturdaśa-gaṇite*, and further notes the corresponding Saṃvat as *vikramādityasya tvaṣṭa-navatyadhika-pañcadaśa-śatī-gaṇita iti jñeyam*. The reading of the Dacca University manuscripts (nos. 2459 and 2483), which we consulted, is *rāmāṅga-śakra-gaṇite*, and the explanation in the commentary is as given above.

c7.s5.84

Sanātana, as his associate, must have accomplished his literary labours at about the same period of time. But Jīva tells us that Sanātana's *Vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī* commentary was completed in Śaka 1476=1554 A.D., so that Sanātana must have been alive up to this date. The *Bhakti-ratnākara* records that both Sanātana and Rūpa died in the same year at the interval of a few months. If this is true, then Rūpa must have also been alive in 1554 A.D. Beyond this nothing at present can be said with regard to the dates of these two Gosvāmins.

c7.s5.85

Jīva as their nephew and younger contemporary must have belonged to a generation later; for tradition says that he was quite young when his father and uncles left home. He appears to have survived the other Gosvāmins, being the youngest; and, as we learn from the *Bhakti-ratnākara* and the *Prema-vilāsa*, he continued to be the doctrinal dictator to the Bengal Vaiṣṇavas. His exact dates are not known, but his *Mādhava-mahotsava* is dated Śaka 1477 (=1555 A.D.), while the first part of his *Gopāla-campū* is dated in Saṃvat 1645 or Śaka 1510 (=1588 A.D.), the second part four years later in Śaka 1514 (=1592 A.D.). The *Saṃkalpa-kalpadruma*, which speaks of the completion of both parts of the Campū, is of later date; according to his own account the author was then in advanced old age (*jaran jīvaḥ*).

c7.s5.86

Although the range and versatility of their literary works are remarkable, the six Gosvāmins appear to have divided among themselves the work entrusted to them according to their individual taste, inclination and capacity. Sanātana, more devout than scholarly, concerned himself chiefly with theology and interpretation of theological texts; the more practically minded Gopāla Bhaṭṭa elaborately codified its ritualism and devotional practices; while Raghunātha-dāsa, more poetically and emotionally disposed, gave fanciful expression in prose and verse to the erotic mysticism with which the faith associated Kṛṣṇa's sports. Rūpa Gosvāmin, a passionate devotee, but possessing a trained scholastic mind took up especially the emotional analysis of Bhakti as a Rasa and wrote authoritatively on its peculiar psychology and pathology, systematising a rhetorical Bhakti-rasa-śāstra, as well as composing illustrative dramas and poems and compiling an anthology of its varied literary expression. He also supplemented in a more scholastic spirit the theological labours of Sanātana by his *Laghu-* or *Samkṣepa-Bhāgavatāmṛta* which, purporting by its name to be only a summary of Sanātana's work of the same name, is really an independent treatise. He might have also indicated a system of romantic Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa associations, which later formed the basis of an elaborate hagiology of the cult. Trained by them and deeply read in their authoritative works, Jiva possessed a more versatile mind and wrote on almost all the branches of the Vaiṣṇava Śāstra; but his natural predilection, as well as his early philosophical training at Benares, fitted him for the task of giving an elaborate exposition of its mystical-metaphysical dogmatics. Raghunātha Bhaṭṭa alone wrote nothing. In this way the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmins practically covered the whole range of Vaiṣṇava Śāstra; and, with the exception of the much later works of Viśvanātha Cakravartin and Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa (18th century), they practically created the entire philosophical and religious literature of Bengal Vaiṣṇavism.

Linked texts (33)