Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Early History of the Vaishnava Faith and Movement in Bengal, from Sanskrit and Bengali Sources c9: Chapter V. The Theology and Philosophy of Bengal Vaiṣṇavism

Early History of the Vaiṣṇava Faith and Movement in Bengal, from Sanskrit and Bengali Sources c9

Language
English

Contents

Chapter V. The Theology and Philosophy of Bengal Vaiṣṇavism

1. General Characteristics

c9.s1.1

It is difficult to give a proper exposition¹ of the philosophy of Bengal Vaiṣṇavism without a detailed reference to the sacred texts which are cited throughout as revealed and indisputable, and on which indeed the faith elaborately bases its philosophical ideas. The whole system is built up on a direct explication of its own peculiar sectarian texts; and absolute faith in their interpretation by its acknowledged theologians is essential for an acceptance of their truth. Such entire reliance upon verbal authority and verbal interpretation makes it difficult in any exposition to steer clear of the texts which are quoted at every step, but it also impairs the value of its theology and philosophy as an independent system of thought. The usual procedure is to make a dogmatic statement, and then support it not so much by argumentation, which is held at discount, as by a compilation of authoritative texts, chiefly derived from the *Śrīmad-bhāgavata Purāṇa*, and by interpretation of those texts in the light of the peculiar dogmas and doctrines of the school. The basic theory of the threefold Śakti of the Supreme Being, for instance, is founded upon a text of the *Viṣṇu-purāṇa*, amplified by other texts, while its other fundamental doctrine of the threefold aspect of the deity as the Brahman, Paramātman and Bhagavat is entirely based upon a system of interpretation of a single text of the *Śrīmad-bhāgavata*. The same remarks apply to its central postulate of the highest and exclusive divinity of Kṛṣṇa, while its doctrine of Bhakti is deduced from a peculiar theory of emotional realisation which is based entirely upon a series of devotional texts and dogmatic statements.

c9.s1.2

¹ For a brief account of the theology and philosophy of Caitanya-ism, as well as of its Rasa-śāstra, see S. K. De, introd. to the *Padyāvalī* (Dacca 1934), pp. liv-civ.

c9.s1.3

It is true that in some older systems of Indian philosophy mere Tarka or discursive reasoning is deprecated as a means of attaining ultimate truth; and in most systems, belief in Śruti or revelation and interpretation of revealed texts are at least theoretically accepted as the proper mode. But in the speculations of the Bengal school, this attitude of reverence for infallible testimony appears to have been carried to its extreme limit, and theological heresy is counted as a grievous sin. The Bengal school of Vaiṣṇavism, believing that everything is revealed by the grace of a personal god, theoretically rejects all Pramāṇas (sources of knowledge) excepting Śabda or revealed word, but Śabda as a source of belief has a peculiar significance in this school. We shall have occasion later on to explain its theory of Pramāṇa, but briefly speaking, the appeal is not to reason but to a peculiar system of scriptural authority. It is true that theoretical homage is paid to Śruti or the Veda in the wider sense of Indian philosophy, but the term Śabda in practice denotes other kinds of sectarian scriptures which, as Smṛti, are hardly admitted by older philosophical schools. The Pramāṇa is practically circumscribed to a few Vaiṣṇava Purāṇas and other sectarian texts; but it is curious to note that these texts are regarded as revealed or authoritative chiefly on the strength of statements to that effect contained in these texts themselves. Older Śruti texts, when convenient, are indeed cited with respect, but we are told that the sense of the earlier Śrutis is unfathomable, and that the Vaiṣṇava Purāṇas, which can explain them properly, are the only kinds of revelation which are accessible at the present decadent age. In the compilation and exposition of the Purāṇa and Smṛti texts, again, the same dogmatic attitude is prominent. Non-vaiṣṇava texts are rejected as tāmasika and untruthful; and even among Vaiṣṇava texts the Śrīmad-bhāgavata alone is regarded as the quintessence of all Śastras and as possessing the supreme authority. Other schools of Vaiṣṇavism propound their doctrines by writing elaborate commentaries on the *Vedānta-sūtra* and interpreting it in their own way; but the Bengal school regards the *Śrīmad-bhāgavata* as Vyāsa's own commentary on his *Vedānta-sūtra*, and therefore confines itself to an interpretation of this Purāṇa in its own light, instead of composing a separate commentary on the Sūtra. The Bengal school, therefore, proceeds almost entirely on an explication of the *Bhāgavata Purāṇa*. If some of the texts cited from this or other sources are apocryphal, this fact makes no difference so long as they fall in with the peculiar doctrines of the school. Even of Vaiṣṇava texts there is a careful selection and arrangement of those which are favourable; and inconvenient texts are sometimes quietly forgotten or glossed over and sometimes twisted in an ingenious way to suit its particular views. These methods are not unfamiliar to students of sectarian religious literature, but they possess little philosophical interest. The details of such a method may prove interesting and valuable to the faithful devotee, but they hardly appeal either to the general reader or to the critical enquirer.

c9.s1.4

It would appear, therefore, that as it is chiefly a system of mystical-emotional dogmatics, the strictly philosophical views of the Bengal school of Vaiṣṇavism are intimately mixed up with the details of its devotional theologism and its emotional erotic mysticism, which are set forth in its pious text-books of legend and fancy. Its purely speculative thought, therefore, cannot be easily disentangled from its sentimental and mythical envelopment. The Bengal Vaiṣṇavism, no doubt, presents itself as a deliberate historical religion promulgated by a definite founder, but in the practical working out of the system by the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmins the direct intuitive realisation or the teachings of the Master¹ hardly find a place.

c9.s1.5

¹ Teachings are imputed, no doubt, especially by Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja, a disciple of the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmins, but these teachings

c9.s1.6

Except the usual obeisance and homage to Caitanya and general passages testifying to his identity with the supreme deity, there is nowhere in the extensive works of Sanātana, Rūpa and Jiva any direct reference to his personal views and teachings. These theologians and philosophers are chiefly concerned with the godhead of Kṛṣṇa and his Līlā as revealed in their older scriptures, and Kṛṣṇa in their theory is not an Avatāra but is alone the supreme deity himself (svayam bhagavat). They are almost entirely silent about Caitanya-līlā and its place in their devotional scheme, and it is somewhat strange that in presenting a system of religion in his name they rely upon older sources and do not refer at all to his direct realisation of spiritual truths. The divinity of Kṛṣṇa as the exclusive object of worship is elaborately established, but the divinity of Caitanya, which is implicitly acknowledged in Namaskriyās and other devotional verses, is hardly ever discussed. If Jiva Gosvāmin wrote a Kṛṣṇa-samdarbha, he never wrote a Caitanya-samdarbha. It is said in the Bengali biography of Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja that these works of the Gosvāmins were not only inspired but were directly communicated to these disciples by Caitanya himself; but even then there is no direct acknowledgment of this fact by the Gosvāmins themselves¹. There cannot be any doubt that the devout life of Caitanya inspired these faithful disciples, but in the building up of their systems of theology and philosophy there is no reference to the life, personality or views of Caitanya himself. There is, on the other hand, an entire dependence upon a complicated system of text-interpretation, rather than upon any direct and vivid spiritual illumination. It must be admitted that in these treatises we reach a high level of the emotional Bhakti-doctrine in the setting of a vital and practical system of religious beliefs, and

c9.s1.7

¹ See above, p. 115.

c9.s1.8

are, as we have stated above (pp. 75, 85), clearly those of the Gosvāmins themselves.

c9.s1.9

the life and personality of Caitanya must have been to his devout followers a powerful exemplification of these beliefs and doctrines: but we still move in an indefinite haze of mythology, sentiment and speculation, derived from Purāṇic tradition: while the intellectual seriousness or the ethical nobility of the tenets is hardly propounded with the force of direct realisation, inasmuch as they are completely merged in a floating mass of uncertain myths, legends and traditional beliefs.

c9.s1.10

The theology and philosophy found in the writings of the Navadvīpa disciples are vague and unsystematic, and can be briefly summarised here. They are concerned more with simple and direct faith than with elaborate discussion; and their aim is to depict chiefly the passionately devotional life of Caitanya, rather than to set forth his teachings. Unlike the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmins, they take Caitanya as the centre of their thought and emotion, and regard him as the highest reality and object of adoration of their faith. This has been characterised as the Gaura-pāramya-vāda, which (whatever may have been their personal attitude) the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmins never discuss or set forth in their theological treatises. In the eyes of the contemporary composers of Padas on Caitanya, for instance, Caitanya is Kṛṣṇa himself who, in his recollection of Vṛndāvana, pines for Rādhā. They also believe in the Rādhā-bhāva of Caitanya, that is, they regard Caitanya as both Kṛṣṇa and Rādhā in one personality. They do not, however, consider it necessary to discuss the question but take it as already established by Anubhava or personal experience. Narahari and his disciple Locana, however, develop a doctrine of Gaura-nāgara-bhāva,¹ in which the devotee (in the Rāgānugā way) regards Caitanya as the Nāgara and himself as a Nāgarī; but this doctrine receives little credit in the orthodox circles. Murāri considers Caitanya as an incarnation (Avatāra) of the Bhagavat. He believes in two kinds of Avatāra—

c9.s1.11

¹ See above, pp. 59, 65.

c9.s1.12

Yugāvatāra and Kāryāvatāra. In the four Yugas, the different Avatāras, in his opinion, are respectively Śukla, Yajña, Pṛthu and Caitanya; the ten Kāryāvatāras are Matsya, Kūrma, Varāha, Nṛsiṃha, Vāmana, Bhārgava, Rāma, Kṛṣṇa, Buddha and Kalkin, in which list (slightly different from that of Jayadeva) Caitanya's name does not appear (i. 4. 18-33). Elsewhere (i. 8. 9-10), Murāri accepts Caitanya as an Āveśa-Avatāra; and like his other biographers, he regards Caitanya as having manifested divine character from the very beginning. He thus speaks of Caitanya as an Aṃśa of Hari (i. 5. 4), but, not very consistently, as the Bhagavat himself (i. 15. 1), and bows to him as the Caturbhuja Viṣṇu (i. 1. 14). Kavikarṇapūra, on the other hand, regards Caitanya definitely as Dvibhuja Kṛṣṇa, śrīmad-vraja-varavadhu-prāṇanātha (Kāvya i. 8), and believes that his descent was for the purpose of saving men from suffering (ibid, xvii. 7), for refuting Advaitavāda (drama i. 7), and for teaching devotion to Hari, that is, to himself (ibid, i. 28). In his introductory Namaskriyā to his Ānanda-vṛndāvana-campū (śl. 3), he pays homage to Caitanya as his family deity and as Hari himself (devo naḥ kuladaivatam vijayatāṃ caitanya-kṛṣṇo hariḥ). The faith of the biographers of Caitanya in his divinity is axiomatic and does not require demonstration; but they seek to establish it partly by recording personal feeling and experience of his followers and partly by the enumeration of Caitanya's devotional and miraculous acts. Kavikarṇapūra distinguishes the Vaidhi from the Rāgānugā Bhakti (drama iii. 19), but thinks that the Rāgānugā can never follow a fixed course. He never considers Advaita Mukti as the summum bonum, but states (drama i) mukti-śabdo'tra pārṣada-svarūpa-paraḥ, and regards Saṃkīrtana to be the sole means of Bhakti. In his Gaura-gaṇoddeśa, however, he elaborates a complete hagiology of the faith and purports to develop Svarūpa Dāmodara's doctrine of Pañcatattva, which regards Caitanya, Nityānanda, Advaita, Gadādhara and Śrīvāsa as the five Tattvas of the faith, but which considers Caitanya as the Mahāprabhu, and Advaita and Nityānanda as Prabhus. Vṛndāvana-dāsa, accepting the divinity of Caitanya as manifested from his very birth (in which view Locana and Jayānanda also agree) and his identity with Kṛṣṇa, does not consider it as worth discussing, but models the early life of Caitanya (before his Saṃnyāsa) on the Vṛndāvana life of Kṛṣṇa. He rejects, however, the Gaura-nāgara doctrine with contempt and rules out erotic traits from Caitanya's life as Kṛṣṇa, although occasionally, following the Rāgānugā doctrine, he describes the Rādhā-bhāva of Caitanya. All the biographers are concerned more with the description of the inner emotional life of Caitanya than with outward doctrine. A short theological work, called *Śrīkṛṣṇa-bhajanāmṛta*¹ is ascribed to Narahari Sarkār Thākur. It is composed in prose, with interspersed verses, and discusses such questions as the diversity of Vaiṣṇava devotees; conduct towards the Dīkṣā-guru and the Śikṣā-guru respectively; the incarnation of Balabhadra in relation to Kṛṣṇa; Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Śiva as Guṇāvatāras of Kṛṣṇa; Lakṣmī, Rukmiṇī, Jānakī and Rādhā as consorts of the deity, and so forth. Although the work pays homage to Caitanya and regards him as an Avatāra of Kṛṣṇa, there is no trace of the Gaura-pāramya-vāda or Gaura-nāgara-vāda which is prominent in the Padāvalis ascribed to Narahari as a Navadvipa devotee of Caitanya. The genuineness of the attribution is, therefore, open to doubt, and its theology offers nothing new, being obviously influenced (which indication is somewhat strange) by the views of the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmins. In the following pages, we need, therefore, confine ourselves to the systematic exposition given by the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmins in their laborious theological treatises.

c9.s1.13

¹ Published in Bengali characters and with a running Bengali translation by the Raghunandana Samiti, Shrikhanda, Burdwan B.E. 1309.

c9.s1.14

Having regard to the peculiar method and standpoint of the Bengal school of Vaiṣṇavism, it would not be possible for us to refer in detail to the large mass of texts cited in the works of the Gosvāmins for scriptural justification and interpretation. The more or less scholastic disquisition of words and phrases are neither profitable nor possess general interest. The learning displayed in these works is amazing, but it is learning of a limited sectarian kind. The theological acumen is praiseworthy, but the whole discussion and its pot-pourri method are marked more by intellectual subtlety than intellectual virility. All that we can do here is to give a rapid résumé of the main dogmas and doctrines, and indicate only generally the way in which these are sought to be established. As our object is chiefly historical, we shall, as far as possible, avoid criticism and discussion, and confine ourselves to a descriptive exposition of the essential features of its philosophical and theological ideas. Historically again, Bengal Vaiṣṇavism derives a great deal, in an eclectic spirit, from previous Vaiṣṇava systems, especially from the doctrines of the Rāmānuja sect; but with our limited object in view, it will be necessary for us to avoid all comparative observations and maintain an attitude of descriptive objectivity. We shall also limit ourselves to an account of the subject chiefly derived from the theological and philosophical works of Rūpa, Sanātana and Jiva, excluding its further development in the much later works (18th century) of Viśvanātha Cakravartin and Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa.

c9.s1.15

The main theological presuppositions of the school are set forth in Sanātana's *Bṛhad-bhāgavatāmṛta*, and its supplement *Saṃkṣepa-* or *Laghu-bhāgavatāmṛta* written by his brother Rūpa, although most of their implications find a place in the Saṃdarbhas of their nephew Jiva, more especially in the latter's *Śrīkṛṣṇa-saṃdarbha*. We shall, therefore, begin with a brief survey of the two *Bhāgavatāmṛtas*¹ and pass on to the more professedly philosophical treatises of Jiva.

c9.s1.16

¹ Our references are to the only available edition of the *Bṛhad-bhāgavatāmṛta* published by Nityasvarup Brahmachari in Devanāgarī characters, (Brindavana?) 1904; and to the Murshidabad edition of the

2. The Bṛhad-Bhāgavatāmṛta

c9.s2.1

This work has the form of a Purāṇic narrative, with occasional descriptive and poetical flights of fancy, in the course of which there is an exposition of the theology of the Bengal school of Vaiṣṇavism. The exposition is sometimes direct, but more often implied in the narrative and description; and the work is accompanied by an elaborate *Digdarśanī* commentary by the author himself, which is intended to bring out the theological ideas imbedded in the poetical text. The work begins with obeisance to Kṛṣṇa, the Gopīs including Rādhā, Caitanya, Mathurā, Vṛndāvana, Yamunā and Govardhana, assigning one verse to each of these objects of reverence, and then proceeds to praise Kṛṣṇa-bhakti and Kṛṣṇa-nāman. It then makes a general acknowledgment of its inspiration to Caitanya, but does not refer to any special instruction, alleged to have been received from him, in Bhakti-śāstra (I. 1. 10-11).

c9.s2.2

The work is supposed, in the manner of the Purāṇas, to have been narrated by Jaimini to Janamejaya as a supplement to the *Mahābhārata* itself! Uttarā, mother of Parīkṣit and devoted to Kṛṣṇa, requests her son to impart to her the essence of the instruction regarding Kṛṣṇa, which was related to him by Śukadeva; Sanātana's poetico-theological venture purports to be a report of that course of instruction subsequently narrated by Jaimini to Janamejaya. The design is bold and ambitious, but it is possible for pious zeal to dare a great deal. As the work naively claims to embody the Amṛta churned from the ocean of the *Śrīmad-bhāgavata* by such great devotees as Śuka and Nārada, it professes, according to the commentary, to be the gist of all the Vedas! Al-

c9.s2.3

*Saṃkṣepa-bhāgavatāmṛta*, with the Rasika-raṅgadā commentary of Vṛndāvana-candra Tarkālaṃkāra, Radharaman Press, B.E. 1303 (=1896 A.D.). A better edition of this latter work is that published in Bengali characters by Gauracandra Bhāgavata-darśanācārya, which contains, besides Vṛndāvana-candra's commentary, also the Sāraṅga-raṅgadā commentary of Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa (Calcutta 1934).

c9.s2.4

though the narrative portion is mostly invented to illustrate certain theological dogmas, there can be no doubt that the author's mind was steeped in the fancies and ideas of the *Śrīmad-bhāgavata*, and he attempts deliberately to reproduce its style and treatment ; but it is doubtful if his work attains, as a devotional poetical document, the same level of excellence or the same power of religious appeal.

c9.s2.5

The work is divided into two parts or Khaṇḍas, of which the first part deals with the imaginary narrative of a quest of Nārada for the greatest favourite and Bhakta of Kṛṣṇa. Leaving aside the large amount of descriptive, narrative and theological matter, the main story is brief and simple. Once upon a time as the great Ṛṣis were sitting on the banks of the Ganges at Prayāga, a certain Brahman devotee of the Bhagavat came there with the purpose of entertaining them with his generous hospitality. When he was returning after accomplishing his object, Nārada came there, praised him for his devotion, and hailed him as the greatest Bhakta and favourite of Kṛṣṇa. The Brahman replied in humility that he did not deserve that honour and that the grace of Kṛṣṇa would be found showered in profusion upon a certain prince of the South. With his curiosity excited Nārada hastened to the South to meet this princely devotee of Kṛṣṇa, but the Southern prince in his turn told him that the honour was undeserved ; for what mortal could attain the grace of Kṛṣṇa in the same way as Indra in heaven did ? (Ch. I). Nārada repaired to Indra's heaven, but he was told there by Indra himself that the real favourite and Bhakta was Nārada's own father, Brahmā. Having met Brahmā in the Brahma-loka, Nārada learnt from Brahmā that his quest must now lead him to Śiva who was a greater favourite and Bhakta ; for was not Śiva reputed to be in close friendship with Kṛṣṇa ? In course of the conversation Brahmā gives an account of Śiva-loka (Ch. II). The indomitable Nārada thereupon flies to Śiva's place, but Śiva and Pārvatī deny that they are the greatest favourites. They instruct him in a great deal of theology and direct him to Prahlāda, living in Sutala, as a greater Bhakta of Kṛṣṇa (Ch. III). In this way the quest goes on from Prahlāda to Hanūmat, who has attained Dāsya or state of servitude to the Lord (Ch. IV); from Hanūmat to the Pāṇḍavas, whom Kṛṣṇa himself served as a charioteer, counsellor, friend, messenger and courtier (Sakhya and Sevā); from the Pāṇḍavas to the Yādavas at Dvārakā who illustrate the attitude of Prīti, Preyas etc. (Ch. V); from the Yādavas to Uddhava who is the chief Bhakta among them (Ch. VI); from Uddhava to the Gopas and Gopīs at Vṛndāvana. Here Nārada discovers at last that the most beloved of Kṛṣṇa are the Gopīs who have attained the Madhura Bhāva, and among whom the chief is Rādhā (Ch. VI-VII). Here therefore ends his quest, and with it the first part of the work concludes. The narrative is obviously intended to explain the characteristics of a Bhakta, and the different stages of devotional attainment, ending in the Madhura or erotic attitude of the Gopīs towards Kṛṣṇa.

c9.s2.6

The second part gives a more complicated and elaborate poetical narrative with a larger amount of descriptive and theological matter. It is concerned not with the Bhakta's attaining the grace of Kṛṣṇa, but with Kṛṣṇa's mode of manifesting himself to his Bhakta. It thus reverses the process described in the first part, and deals with another kind of quest, namely, the search after the place and form in which Kṛṣṇa reveals himself most perfectly to his Bhakta; but in the end the conclusions agree, for it is to the highest type of Bhakta that Kṛṣṇa manifests himself most perfectly.

c9.s2.7.1

Without going into the details of the story narrated in the second part, it can be outlined briefly. There was a Brahman of Prāgjyotiṣa who worshipped the goddess Kāmākhyā, and through her grace obtained in dream a Mantra of ten syllables (Gopāla-mantra) to meditate upon Kṛṣṇa. He practised uttering of the Mantra, which gave him great peace of mind. Starting on a pilgrimage he comes to Benares where the goddess Kāmākhyā appears to him in a dream and directs him to go to Mathurā. At Mathurā he meets a young Gopa or cowherd (Gopa-kumāra), who has received the grace of Kṛṣṇa and who now begins to relate his own history. The rest of the work is taken up with the story of the strange and varied devotional experiences of the Gopa-kumāra, which, in its allegorical form, is a kind of *Pilgrim's Progress* perhaps of Sanātana's own spiritual experiences. He was the son of a Vaiśya cowherd of Govardhana; and on one occasion he happened to meet on the banks of the Yamunā a pious Mathurā Brahman named Jayanta, an incarnation of Kṛṣṇa born in Gauḍa and greatly devoted to the worship of Kṛṣṇa. The Brahman becomes his Guru or religious guide, and gives him a similar Kṛṣṇa-mantra of ten syllables. The Gopa-kumāra is filled with a great desire to see Kṛṣṇa, and at the direction of his Guru goes to Puri where he stays for some time and worships the image of Jagannātha.

c9.s2.7.2

In course of time he becomes the adopted son of the ruler of the province, but the adoptive father dies and the Gopa-kumāra succeeds him on the throne. One day Jagannātha appears to him in dream and bids him go to Mathurā (Ch. I). The second chapter describes how by means of his Mantra the Gopa-kumāra goes to Svarga-loka and sees Indra and his court there. About this time Indra disappears to do penance for having violated Ahalya, and the Gopa-kumāra is unanimously elected, on the strength of his piety, to be the ruler of Svarga-loka. One *divya* year is spent in this way, but this temporary elevation to Indratva does not satisfy him, and he cannot forget his quest. The advent of Bhṛgu and other Maharṣis who were inhabitants of the Mahar-loka, inspires him one day with a curiosity to visit this superior paradise. He goes to Mahar-loka and worships the Yajñeśvara form of Kṛṣṇa there. The great Ṛṣis of that Loka desire to bestow Brahmanhood on the Gopa-kumāra, but he refuses the honour. Then he proceeds to Jana-loka where reside the great devotees Sanaka, Sanatkumāra, Sanandana and Sanātana, whom he meets, but he is denied a sight of the form of the deity present in that Loka. One of the Ṛṣis, Pippalāyana, however, instructs him as to the means of obtaining sight of the deity by great devotion and concentration of mind, and shows him the different divine forms in which the deity manifests himself.

c9.s2.7.3

Then the Gopa-kumāra goes to Puṣkara-dvīpa and sees Brahmā, who lives in the Satya-loka. There the Gopa-kumāra is instructed further in the Bhakti-śāstra, and is advised to return to Mathurā (Ch. II). After meeting his Guru at Mathurā, the restless Gopa-kumāra again resolves to start on his quest. By means of his Mantra he commences a highly allegorical journey. He goes through the disc of the Sun; and penetrating through the six sheaths (āvaraṇa), he gets a vision of the four Vyūhas and the Mahāsiddhis. This is followed by the appearance of Śiva and the Pārṣadas of Kṛṣṇa who have obtained Sārūpya or identity of form with their deity at Vaikuṇṭha-loka. They instruct him in Bhakti-lakṣaṇa or characteristics of the devotional attitude, and tell him that Vaikuṇṭha is attained by devoutly listening to the Līlā-kathā of the Bhagavat, reading the Bhāgavata scriptures and having faith in the efficacy of Kīrtana, which they extol as one of the best means in this decadent age. The Gopa-kumāra again returns to Mathurā (Ch. II). The third chapter deals with a similar visit to Vaikuṇṭha and describes the place and its inhabitants. The deity whom the Gopa-kumāra meets there supplies the information that his Guru Jayanta was no other than the deity himself; apparently it is an allegorical representation of Caitanya who was Sanātana's Guru.

c9.s2.7.4

Nārada now comes on the scene and narrates to the awe-stricken Gopa-kumāra the wonders of Vaikuṇṭha-loka, incidentally theologising a great deal on the theory of Avatāra and the worshipping of images (Pratimārcanā). Nārada advises him to go to Ayodhyā, Mathurā and Dvārakā, which places are next visited. At Ayodhyā the Gopa-kumāra meets Hanūmat worshipping Rāma; and on Hanūmat's direction he goes to Dvārakā (Ch. IV). The fifth chapter describes the visit to the Yādavas at Dvārakā, where the Gopa-kumāra meets Uddhava. Nārada appears again, and advises the Gopa-kumāra to visit Vṛndāvana, which is in reality the earthly Goloka; he describes briefly the Līlā of Kṛṣṇa and instructs him as to the means of witnessing this eternal divine sport (Ch. V). The last two chapters (VI, VII) are occupied with the visit to Mathurā and Vṛndāvana, with a description of the entire eternal Nitya-līlā of Kṛṣṇa, including Govardhana-dhāraṇa, Kāliya-damana and Rāsa, and the whole is concluded with the attainment of the grace of the deity. The chief object, thus, of the second part is to establish that Vṛndāvana is the real paradise of Kṛṣṇa, where the unmanifest (Aprakaṭa) eternal sport of Kṛṣṇa becomes manifest (Prakaṭa) to him alone who is blessed with real Bhakti for the deity.

c9.s2.8

The significance of these narratives, versified in the Purāṇic style, cannot be mistaken. But it is not necessary to bring out and explain in detail the theological teachings involved in them, for the doctrinal implications are set forth in more precise and systematic manner of a Śāstra by Rūpa Gosvāmin in his Saṃkṣepa-bhāgavatāmṛta. This latter work by its title professes to be a summary of the previous work; but, as an epitome of the theological tenets of the school, it is, in spite of its derivative character, a largely original treatise. We shall now turn to this latter work of Rūpa Gosvāmin, and by an analysis of its content give an outline of its principal doctrines.

3. The Saṃkṣepa-Bhāgavatāmṛta

c9.s3.1

This is a much shorter work composed, after the manner of Śāstric compendiums, in the form of Kārikās in the Śloka metre, accompanied by illustrative passages from various authoritative Vaiṣṇava scriptures; but the author Rūpa himself informs us that his work really summarises (saṃkṣepena) what is said at great length by Sanātana in his (Bṛhad-) Bhāgavatāmṛta. We are told that of all the adorable deities (upāsya) Kṛṣṇa is the chief. As one of the most fundamental doctrines of the Bengal school is that Kṛṣṇa as the supreme personal god of the faith is not an Avatāra but the divine being himself in his essential character, Rūpa Gosvāmin begins his work by a discussion of the essential selfhood or Svarūpa of Kṛṣṇa, which is one of the principal themes of his work; and in this connexion he deals with the different manifestations and appearances of the supreme deity. Like its prototype, the work is divided into two parts, but the order in which the two aspects of the subject are discussed is reversed. Instead of dealing first with the Bhakta as we have it in the original work, the Svarūpa of Kṛṣṇa is propounded elaborately in the first part, while the second part, which is very short, determines the character and gradation of the Bhaktas, who are represented as equally adorable. The two parts are, therefore, respectively named Kṛṣṇāmṛta and Bhaktāmṛta.

c9.s3.2

At the outset the author records his intention to avoid the process of reasoning (yukti-vistāra), because he considers Śabda or 'testimony' to be the chief Pramāṇa¹ or source of knowledge; and he thinks that this position is established by the Vedānta-sūtra, I. 1. 3 and II. 1. 11. As Tarka is discarded, the method which he follows is to make a dogmatic statement, which is often definitive, following it up by the process of analysis or classification, and supporting it by elaborate citations chiefly from the Vaiṣṇava Purāṇas or other Vaiṣṇava and Tantra texts. Sometimes the cited texts are further elucidated by means of explanatory Kārikās. The work is an epitome and convenient manual of the whole theological speculation of the school, but the most important part of its treatment is concerned with the doctrine of Avatāra² and its relation to the deity and the devotee.

c9.s3.3

¹ pradhānatvāt pramāṇeṣu śabda eva pramāṇyate.

c9.s3.4

² On the subject of Avatāra in general, see H. Jacobi, Incarnation (India) in Hastings' Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, vii, p. 193f; on the Avatāra-doctrine in the Mahābhārata, see G. A. Grierson in Indian Antiquary, 1908, p. 273 footnote and Mrinal Dasgupta in IHQ, 1932, pp. 74-77; for some aspects of later development of the doctrine, see F. Otto Schrader, Introduction to the Pañcarātra, Adyar Library,

c9.s3.5

The Svarūpa of Kṛṣṇa, which is dealt with in the first part of the work, is defined and classified into three aspects:

c9.s3.6

1. Svayam-rūpa, which is not dependent on anything else (ananyāpekṣi), that is, self-existent (svataḥ-siddha).

c9.s3.7

2. Tadekatma-rūpa, or hypostatic manifestation which is identical in essence and existence with the Svayam-rūpa, but seems different by its appearance (Ākṛti), attribute (Vaibhava), etc. This manifestation may be either (a) Vilāsa, which is of equal power with the Svayam-rūpa (prāyeṇātma-samam śaktyā), e.g. Nārāyaṇa who is a Vilāsa of the highest Vāsudeva (Later cult would regard Nityānanda as a Vilāsa in Gaurāṅga-līlā), and (b) Svāṃśa, which is inferior in power (nyūna-śakti), e.g. Saṃkarṣaṇa or the Matsya.

c9.s3.8

3. Āveśa, which consists of appearance in the 'possessed' forms of inspired men and prophets, into whom the deity enters through Śakti, Jñāna, Bhakti, etc. Śeṣa is cited as an example of Śakti-āveśa, Sanaka of Jñāna-āveśa, and Nārada of Bhakti-āveśa.

c9.s3.9

The Prakāśa or mere appearance is not considered in the above classification. It occurs when one and the same form appears at the same time as many, which are really identical in essence (tatsvarūpa), e.g. Kṛṣṇa at Dvārakā appearing at the same time in the rooms of all his 16.000 wives, as described in Śrīmad-bhāgavata, x. 70. 2. The deity who is two-handed (dvi-bhuja) sometimes appears as four-handed (catur-bhuja); this must be regarded as mere Prakāśa.

c9.s3.10

It must be noted that these forms are not Māyika or produced by illusion, but that they are real and eternal.

c9.s3.11

Madras 1916 and Grierson in IRAS, 1909, pp. 624-29. For Jiva's treatment of the doctrine see below, chap. v under Kṛṣṇa-samdarbha.

c9.s3.12

(*nitya-rūpa*). The classification mentioned above may be represented thus in a tabular form:

c9.s3.13

[Figure: The Svarūpa of Kṛṣṇa Svayam-rūpa | Tadekatma-rūpa | Aveśa Vilāsa | Svāṃśa]

c9.s3.14

Usually the Svāṃśa and Āveśa forms appear as Avatāras, the Svayam-rūpa appearing only once in the Dvāpara Age as Kṛṣṇa. These appear as if in a new form (*apūrva iva*), either by themselves (*svayam*, e.g. in its self-manifestation as Tadekatma-rūpa) or through some other means (*dvārāntareṇa*, e.g. through a Bhakta like Vasudeva). The commentary explains that the phrase 'as if in a new form' implies that the deity exists at the same time in his essential eternal form. The *raison d'être* of an Avatāra is *viśva-kārya* or work of the world. The Avatāra is thus a partial descent or appearance of the supreme deity in the world with the object of performing some action in the world, either through or without the medium of a phenomenal being. The term Viśva-kārya is not explained by Rūpa Gosvāmin, but Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa explains it as signifying cosmic action or action done in the world,¹ which consists of (*i*) disturbance of the equilibrium of Prakṛti, followed by the evolution of Mahat etc.² (*ii*) increasing the delight of the gods and other beings by suppressing the wicked³ and (*iii*) propagating the bliss of divine love among the expectant devotees and spreading pure Bhakti.⁴

c9.s3.15

¹ *viśva-rūpaṃ viśvasmin vā yat kāryam.*

c9.s3.16

² *prakṛti-kṣobha-mahadādyutpādanam.*

c9.s3.17

³ *duṣṭa-vimardanena devādīnāṃ sukha vivardhanam.*

c9.s3.18

⁴ *samutkaṇṭhitānāṃ sādhakānāṃ premānanda-vistāraṇaṃ viśuddha-bhakti-pracāraṇaṃ ca.*

c9.s3.19

The Avatāras may appear in various forms, but they are classified generally into three groups. The obvious object of this classification is to gather together all the Avatāras who are spoken of in legends or pious texts as having appeared or will appear in the world, and unify them as Vaiṣṇava manifestations of the supreme Kṛṣṇa. These three general groups are:

c9.s3.20

1. Puruṣa Avatāras. The first Avatāra is Puruṣa, who, though unconditioned, becomes the conditioned creator. This Puruṣa appears in threefold aspect: (i) as the creator of the Mahat (mahataḥ sraṣṭṛ), who is known as Saṃkarṣaṇa, the Kāraṇodaka-śāyin, (ii) as existing in the cosmic egg (aṇḍa-saṃsthita), who is named Pradyumna, the Guṇodaka-śāyin, and (iii) as existing in all beings (sarva-bhūta-sthita), who is called Aniruddha, the Kṣīrodaka-śāyin. This is really a modification of the older Vyūha-doctrine of the Nārāyaṇīya, which doctrine however is referred to independently later on (p. 205 f).

c9.s3.21

2. Guṇāvatāras. These are Avatāras according to the three Guṇas, of which they are the respective presiding deities; viz. Brahmā as creator (Rajas), Viṣṇu as protector (Sattva) and Śiva as destroyer (Tamas).

c9.s3.22

3. Līlāvatāras. The character of these Avatāras is not defined, but these forms have been declared by the Śrīmad-bhāgavata, i. 3. They are twenty-four in number as follow: (1) Catuḥsana, that is the four ‘Sanas,’ who in four forms are really one, namely, Sanaka, Sanandana, Sanātana and Sanatkumāra, who appeared as Brahman ascetics to propagate Jñāna and Bhakti, (2) Nārada, the author of the Sātvata Tantra, (3) the Varāha, four-legged (catuṣpād), but also two-legged according to some (dvipād), (4) the Matsya, (5) Yajña, (6) Nara and Nārāyaṇa, (7) Kapila, (8) Dattātreya, (9) Hayaśīrṣa, (10) the Haṃsa, (11) Dhruva-priya or Pṛśnigarbha, (12) Ṛṣabha, (13) Pṛthu, (14) the Nṛsiṃha, (15) the Kūrma, (16) Dhanvantari, (17) the Mohinī, (18) the Vāmana, (19) Bhārgava (Paraśu-rāma), (20) Rāghava, (21) Vyāsa, (22) Balarāma and Kṛṣṇa, (23) the Buddha and (24) Kalkin. These are also the Kalpa-Avatāras, as they appear in each Kalpa.

c9.s3.23

The Manvantara-Avatāras. At each of the fourteen Manvantaras there is an Avatāra who destroys the enemies of Indra and becomes the friend of the gods. They are in their order: (1) Yajña, (2) Vibhu, (3) Satyasena, (4) Hari, (5) Vaikuṇṭha, (6) Ajita, (7) the Vāmana, (8) Sārvabhauma, (9) Ṛṣabha, (10) Viṣvaksena, (11) Dharmasetu, (12) Sudhāman, (13) Yogeśvara and (14) Bṛhadbhānu. Of these, Hari, Vaikuṇṭha, Ajita and the Vāmana are the chief (pravara).

c9.s3.24

The Yugāvatāras. A Yugāvatāra flourishes at each of the four Yugas. They are according to their individual names (nāman) and colour (varṇa): In Satya-yuga, Śukla (white), in Tretā, Rakta (red), in Dvāpara, Śyāma (dark) and in Kali, Kṛṣṇa (black).

c9.s3.25

In each Kalpa these Avatāras become fourfold in accordance with the condition of Āveśa, Prabhava, Vaibhava and Paratva, which terms are now explained. The word Āveśa literally means 'possession'. The Āveśa-Avatāra has already been mentioned : but this kind of Avatāra, of which examples are the sages Sanaka, Sanandana etc., Kumāra, Nārada, and Pṛthu, is merely aupacārika ; that is, they are not real Avatāras but Avatāras by analogy ; because here the Lord enters into particular Jivas and thus exalts them into Avatāras. Even Kalkin is supposed by some theologians (e.g. in Viṣṇudharma) as belonging to this order. The two terms Prabhava and Vaibhava practically mean the same thing, namely, power, but probably differ in the degree of the significance. This class of Avatāras is identical in essence with the supreme deity (*svarūpa-rūpa*) and they are so called according to the degree of their Śakti or power (*śaktinām tāratamyena*), but they are inferior to the Parāvastha Avatāra (*parāvasthebhya ūnakah*). The Prabhava Avatāras may again be classified according as (i) their appearance does not endure for a long period of time (*nāticira-vyakta*), or (ii) their not having an extended reputation (*nāti-viśruta-kīrti*). The examples of the first kind are the Mohinī, Haṃsa and Śukla, who disappeared as soon as their work was finished; the examples of the second variety include such Śastrakāra ascetics as Dhanvantari, Ṛṣabha, Vyāsa and Kapila. The Vaibhava Avatāras are the Kūrma, the Matsya, Nārāyaṇa with Nara, the Varāha, Hayaśīrṣa, Pṛśnigarbha, Balarāma, and the fourteen Manvantara-Avatāras beginning with Yajña.

c9.s3.26

Each of these Avela, Prabhava and Vaibhava Avatāras has a place of habitation of his own in a particular Loka. Thus the Kūrma lives in a lake in Mahātala, the Matsya in a lake in Rasātala, Nara and Nārāyaṇa in Badarī, the two-legged Varāha in Mahar-loka, the four-legged Varāha in Pātāla, the Hayaśīrṣa in Talātala, Pṛśnigarbha above the Jana-loka of Brahmā, Balarāma in the same place as occupied by Kṛṣṇa (although his partial manifestation or Aṃśa named Saṃkarṣaṇa lives in Pātāla), Vaikuṇṭha in Svarga-loka (but also in Vaikuṇṭha-loka which he himself discovered), Ajita in Dhruva-loka, Trivikrama (who is distinguished from the Vāmana) in Tapoloka and the Vāmana in Bhuvar-loka. But all the Avatāras live in a lower region that Para-vyoman or Mahāvaikuṇṭha, the highest paradise of the supreme beings. This is given in accordance with the *Viṣṇudharmottara*. The school, however, does not seem to possess any definite cosmology of its own, but follows the *Bhāgavata*, *Padma* and other Purāṇas indiscriminately.

c9.s3.27

In this connection the author briefly discusses the alleged Avatāratva of Upendra, the younger brother of Indra, and Nārāyaṇa, the twin-brother of Nara. This allegation however is not, in his opinion, acknowledged by learned people.

c9.s3.28

The Parāvastha is described as possessed of the Para or complete state (*sampūrṇāvastha*), for these Avatāras possess all the six Aiśvaryas and are comparable to a lamp lighted from the original lamp (*dīpād utpanna-dīpavat*). They are the Nṛsiṃha, Rāma and Kṛṣṇa.

c9.s3.29

With regard to the Nṛsiṃha the author cites the authority of the *Bhāgavata*, *Padma-purāṇa* and Śrīdhara (who is known to have been a worshipper of Nṛsiṃha), and notes that the Māhātmya or greatness of the Nṛsiṃha Avatāra is described in full in the *Nṛsiṃha-tāpanī Upaniṣad*. The Nṛsiṃha lives in Jana-loka, but also in Viṣṇu-loka. Rāma lives in Ayodhyā and in Mahāvaikuṇṭha. Some (e.g. *Viṣṇudharmottara*) are of opinion that the four Vyūhas (Vāsudeva etc.) were incarnated in Rāma, Lakṣmaṇa etc.; but according to the *Padma-purāṇa*, the process of incarnation was as follows: Rāma = Nārāyaṇa, Lakṣmaṇa = Śeṣa, Bharata = the disc Sudarśana of Nārāyaṇa, and Śatrughna = the Pāñcajanya conch-shell of the deity. Kṛṣṇa, according to the Purāṇas, lives in four places, viz. Vraja, Mathurā, Dvārakā and Goloka.

c9.s3.30

In this connexion the author discusses the question whether Rāma and the Nṛsiṃha can be regarded as Parā-vastha-Avatāras of equal grade with Kṛṣṇa. A *Viṣṇu-purāṇa* text is quoted to equalise Rāvaṇa, Hiraṇyakaśipu and Śiśupāla, who were hostile respectively to Rāma, the Nṛsiṃha and Kṛṣṇa, but it is shown that the first two of these (Rāvaṇa and Hiraṇyakaśipu) did not attain Sāyujya emancipation because they lacked true Bhakti for the deity. Texts are also cited to show that Kṛṣṇa is the deity himself (*bhagavān svayam*), and not an Avatāra Rāma and the Nṛsiṃha have, no doubt, equal character or Svabhāva with Kṛṣṇa, but they do not possess the distinctive qualification of bringing emancipation to the enemy that is slain (*hatāri-gati-dāyaka*); for while Śiśupāla was finally emancipated, Rāvaṇa and Hiraṇyakaśipu had to suffer re-birth. Although all these Avatāras are perfect (*pūrṇa*), there is yet a difference in excellence according as all the Śaktis or Energies of the Lord find expression in them or not. An Aṃśa is that Avatāra in which the all-powerful expresses only a part of his infinite power, while a Pūrṇa Avatāra occurs where all the powers are fully manifested. Although the Śakti is the same in the case of a lamp and a heap of fire for burning down a house, there is yet a difference in their respective virtue of bringing delight by the removal of cold, and so forth.

c9.s3.31

Incidentally Rūpa Gosvāmin discusses how contradictory qualities, like unity (Ekatva) and diversity (Pṛthakatva), fullness (Amśitva) and division (Amśatva), can inhere in Kṛṣṇa. This is explained as being possible because the power of the godhead is incomprehensible (*acintya-śaktitaḥ*); and this position is supported by the citation of Purāṇa texts. The sixteen Kalās (i.e. parts or digits), assumed by the supreme being for the creation of the world (*bhuvanānāṃ sisṛkṣayā*), are spoken of in the Vaiṣṇava Bhakti-śāstras as his sixteen Śaktis or Energies. They are enumerated as Śrī, Bhū, Kīrti, Ilā, Līlā, Kānti, Vidyā, Vimalā, Utkarṣaṇī, Jñānā, Kriyā, Yogā, Prahvī, Satyā, Īśānā and Anugrahā; but their respective characteristics are not explained.

c9.s3.32

A modification of the much older Vyūha doctrine is next mentioned by our author (pp. 205 f). The four Vyūhas in their order of emergence are given as:

c9.s3.33

Saṃkarṣaṇa presiding over Ahaṃkāra. Vāsudeva presiding over Citta, Pradyumna presiding over Buddhi, Aniruddha presiding over Manas.

c9.s3.34

The author refers to the fact that in the Nārāyaṇīya¹, Pradyumna is presented as presiding over Manas, and Aniruddha over Ahaṃkāra, but the above view, in his opinion, is supported by all Pañcarātra scriptures. The four arms of Hari are said to represent the four Vyūhas. In some Sātvata Tantra, we are told, there is an enumeration of nine Vyūhas², viz. Nārāyaṇa, Nṛsiṃha, Hayagrīva, Mahāvarāha and Brahmā, in addition to the four mentioned above; but the four appear to be the original and generally accepted Vyūhas. The Vyūha-doctrine is accepted by our author from these older sources, but its exact bearing upon the theology of his own school is not clearly explained. It appears, however, that the school does not accept fully the older position that each of these Vyūhas is a cosmic spiritual evolute or creative emergence in successive order, parallel to the order of cosmic material evolutes of Ahaṃkāra etc.; but it would regard each of the Vyūhas (Saṃkarṣaṇa etc.) as independent creative manifestation of the primal Puruṣa-Avatāra of the supreme being, each having (as already explained) a distinctive character and habitation of his own, like every other kind of Avatāra. Nor can each of these, in the opinion of the Bengal school, be regarded as corresponding to the series of cosmic material causation like Ahaṃkāra, Manas and Buddhi, which are, in its theory, the result of the extraneous Māyā-śakti of the Bhagavat and are therefore non-conscious (jaḍa) evolutes. In other words, these Vyūha manifestations are aspects of the Puruṣa-Avatāra of the Bhagavat, who do not correspond but apparently have presiding functions over the creative evolutes of Ahaṃkāra, Manas, etc.

c9.s3.35

¹ On the older Vyūha-doctrine in the Mahābhārata, see Barnett, introduction to his English translation of the Bhagavadgītā, pp. 52-55; Mrinal Dasgupta in IHQ, 1932, pp. 68 f. For later development of the dogma, see Schrader, Introduction to the Pañcarātra, pp. 35 f.

c9.s3.36

² Also referred to in Śrīkṛṣṇa-samdarbha, p. 154 (*sātvatāṃ vāsudeva-saṃkarṣaṇa-pradyumnāniruddha-nārāyaṇa-hayagrīva-varāha-nṛsiṃha-brahmāṇa iti ya nava mūrtayaḥ*).

c9.s3.37

The author next attempts to remove the erroneous view sometimes propounded that Kṛṣṇa is Vāsudeva, the first of the four Vyūhas. He maintains that Kṛṣṇa is not an Avatāra but the deity himself, who is greater than Vāsudeva; for Vāsudeva is merely an aspect of the Puruṣa-Avatāra for creative purposes. Every other form or manifestation as declared by the Śrīmad-bhāgavata (i. 3. 28) is Aṃśa and Kalā, but Kṛṣṇa is the supreme Bhagavat himself. This position is supported by a series of Purāṇa texts, which establish that inasmuch as there is an excess of qualities, especially of the quality of Mādhurya, Kṛṣṇa is superior in turns to Brahman, Puruṣa, Nārāyaṇa, and consequently to all other deities, Vyūhas and Avatāras. In this connexion the Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad is cited as one of the greatest authorities. It is noteworthy that the Bengal school admits the reality practically of all deities mentioned in the Śāstras, as well as of all Vyūhas, Avatāras and other forms or manifestations testified to by the Purāṇas; but it denies their alleged superiority to Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa is *par excellence* the only supreme deity; the other deities are there, but they are inferior to Kṛṣṇa and even derive their existence from him. Jīva Gosvāmin, for instance, states in his *Śrīkṛṣṇa-sandarbha*, that Brahmā is the first Bhakta of Kṛṣṇa, but Śiva, being described in the scriptures as an ideal Vaiṣṇava, is greater than Brahmā, while Lakṣmī who is the foremost embodiment of the teaching of Bhakti, is greater than Śiva, and is therefore admitted into the highest companionship (*parama-sakhya*).

c9.s3.38

The question as to how the Unborn can be born is answered by the mystical dogma of incomprehensible power (Vaibhava) and by the metaphor that although the fire remains hidden in the fuel, it comes into existence by friction. The cause of divine manifestation is found in the theory of grace or Prasāda, which the deity vouchsafes to his faithful devotee as an aspect of his inherent divine Śakti.

c9.s3.39

Then the author proceeds to discuss the Līlā or divine sport of Kṛṣṇa, which is a display of his inherent divine Energy or Śakti. This topic is further elaborated in the *Śrīkṛṣṇa-sandarbha* of Jīva Gosvāmin in its philosophical aspect; but here the dogma is barely stated and supported by authoritative texts. The Līlā, as an aspect of divine Śakti or Energy, is real and eternal (*nitya*), whether it is manifest (Prakaṭa) or unmanifest (Aprakaṭa). Hence also are Kṛṣṇa's forms (Mūrtis) and Avatāras real and eternal. His Prakaṭa Avatāra-līlā, that is, his manifest birth in its real and eternal character, is the result of his grace or Anugraha to the world, and he shows himself in the way in which his faithful devotee wishes to see him. As the Līlā is eternal, his true Bhakta even to-day sees Kṛṣṇa sporting in Vṛndāvana. His qualities or Guṇas are not *prākṛta* or phenomenal, because he is beyond the sphere of the three Prākṛta Guṇas of Sattva, Rajas and Tamas. It is for this reason that he is sometimes called Nirguṇa or attributeless, but his real attributes are non-natural or supersensuous (*aprākṛta*), being an essence of his inherent self (svarūpa-bhūta). Hence his form (Rūpa) and name (Nāman), his greatness (Aiśvarya) and his retinue (Pārṣadas) etc. have, through his display of Līlā, a supersensuous reality, although in his essence he is formless (a-rūpa), nameless (a-nāma), etc.

c9.s3.40

That the Kṛṣṇa līlā is real and eternal is laid down in the Śrīmad-bhāgavata and other Vaiṣṇava scriptures. The Līlā, which is a display of the divine Śakti or Energy, is of two kinds, namely, Prakaṭa or manifest, and Aprakaṭa or unmanifest; the one is cognisable in the external world (prapañca-gocara), the other is not. In the Prakaṭa-līlā Kṛṣṇa seems to go to and fro from Vṛndāvana, Mathurā and Dvārakā, but in the Aprakaṭa-līlā he stays eternally in Vṛndāvana which he never forsakes as his eternal habitation. Here he sports with one Gopī (gopayikayā, p. 334) and appears as Dvibhuja, although elsewhere he is sometimes Caturbhuja. At Vṛndāvana he is Kṛṣṇa, but at Mathurā he becomes Vāsudeva, while at Dvārakā he manifests his Pradyumna and Aniruddha forms,—which theory is a curious mystical attempt to reconcile the old Vyūha theory with the new Kṛṣṇa legend. His birth as the son of Devakī appears in his Prakaṭa-līlā, but in his Aprakaṭa-līlā he is the eternal son of Yaśodā. In the Prakaṭa-līlā there is an apparent separation from Vṛndāvana but during all this time he is really in union with his beloved ones. This union is of two kinds, namely, Āvirbhāva and A-gati. The Āvirbhāva occurs when he appears to his dear ones who long for him during separation : e.g. at the time of Uddhava's message, Kṛṣṇa appeared in Vṛndāvana, although he lived apparently in Dvārakā. When to prove the genuineness of his promise and to show his love to his dear ones he comes in his chariot to Vṛndāvana, it is called A-gati, e.g. the advent as described in Śrīmad-bhāgavata, x. 39. 33 f. Thus by means of his manifest and unmanifest Līlā he remains at the same time in the three places, Vṛndāvana, Mathurā and Dvārakā. His habitation is in reality twofold, namely, Vṛndāvana and Dvārakā, the former again being twofold, namely, Vṛndāvana and Mathurā. The Goloka or the highest paradise of the deity is really a Vaibhava, or display of Śakti, of Vṛndāvana itself. In all these places his Līlā is Nitya, but Vṛndāvana is the best because here he lives eternally in all his glory and sweetness. This sweetness or Mādhurya consists of his power (Aiśvarya), his sport (Krīḍā), his flute (Veṇu) and his personal appearance (Mūrti), all of which exist in fullness in Vṛndāvana.

First 67 of 719 passages. Read on

Linked texts (48)