Early History of the Vaishnava Faith and Movement in Bengal, from Sanskrit and Bengali Sources c7.s5.23

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.