Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Early History of the Vaishnava Faith and Movement in Bengal, from Sanskrit and Bengali Sources c9.s3: 3. The Saṃkṣepa-Bhāgavatāmṛta

Early History of the Vaiṣṇava Faith and Movement in Bengal, from Sanskrit and Bengali Sources c9.s3

Language
English

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.

c9.s3.41

From what has been indicated in the two works of Rūpa and Sanātana mentioned above, as well as from other authoritative sources like the works of Jiva (to be discussed below), we can now summarise the theory of Avatāra propounded by the Bengal school of Vaiṣṇavism thus:

c9.s3.42

(i) The supreme being, though one, can manifest himself in various forms, all forms being real, perfect, eternal and intelligential, but there are degrees of excellence in the character of the manifestations.

c9.s3.43

(ii) The Avatāra is real and not illusory, but he is also supernatural (divya) and eternally existent (nitya).

c9.s3.44

(iii) The form or body assumed is non-natural and incorruptible (aprākṛta) and has nothing of the grossness of earthly forms (apārthiva). It is an intelligential essence (jñānātmā), but it consists of a Vigraha or concrete form of pure existence, bliss and intelligence (saccidānanda-vigraha) like the form of the deity himself. The Avatāra thus retains absolute knowledge, absolute existence and absolute bliss, as well as omnipotence and power to grant salvation (mokṣadatva-svabhāva). But

c9.s3.45

(iv) The Avatāra assumes human nature in two ways, namely, the shape and form of man (manuṣya-samniveśatva) and the ordinary human acts (manuṣya ceṣṭā).

c9.s3.46

(v) The humanity is real, but it is human reality without its imperfections. Hence Jiva Gosvāmin speaks of Aprasiddha-mānuṣatva and Aprākṛtatva of the Avatāra.

c9.s3.47

(vi) As the Avatāra retains divine power and perfection, he is capable of performing superhuman (*atimartya*) acts.

c9.s3.48

(vii) Although some of the Avatāras appeared in past ages, yet being eternal they are still worthy of worship. Each Avatāra has not only a distinctive form or body, but also a place of habitation in a particular Loka.

c9.s3.49

(viii) The Avatāra is a partial descent or manifestation in the sense that the deity exists at the same time in his essential and complete form. The obvious object of descent is to do good to the world,¹ but since the supreme being cannot be regarded as having a particular motive, the descent occurs as an aspect of his grace (Prasāda), which is a display of his inherent Śakti, to his faithful devotee.

c9.s3.50

¹ It should be noted that the Avatāras are not taken as ideals of perfection to which humanity moves in gradual evolution (cf. S. Radhakrishnan, *Indian Philosophy*, i, p. 545-46). On the contrary, the whole theory suggests implicit pessimism regarding the capacity of humanity by requiring the appearance of an Avatāra from time to time to rescue it!

c9.s3.51

It is clear that this theological dogma rests ultimately on a curious combination not only of mythology and philosophy but also of the natural and the supernatural, of the real and mystical,—a trait which characterises the whole religious literature of Bengal Vaiṣṇavism; for the Vṛndāvana legend is taken not as religious myth but as religious history.

c9.s3.52

The second part of Rūpa Gosvāmin's *Saṃkṣepa-Bhāgavatāmṛta* is a very brief section; and, as its title *Bhaktāmṛta* implies, it deals entirely with the theme of the Bhakta or devotee of Kṛṣṇa. It gives us the gist of the first part of the *Bṛhad-Bhāgavatāmṛta* of Sanātana Gosvāmin and practically summarises it in a precise form.

c9.s3.53

It lays down at the outset that the adoration of Kṛṣṇa's Bhakta is as indispensable as the adoration of Kṛṣṇa himself. The neglect of the Bhakta would be deemed a religious fault or demerit. A list is given from the Padma-purāṇa enumerating the chief Bhaktas famed in myth and legend, namely, Mārkaṇḍeya, Ambariṣa, Vasu, Vyāsa, Bibhīṣaṇa, Puṇḍarīka, Bali, Śambhu, Prahlāda, Vidura, Dhruva, Dālbhya, Parāśara, Bhīṣma, Nārada and others. Various Purāṇa texts are further cited to establish the worship of the Bhakta; for he alone is the greatest Bhakta who is a Bhakta of Kṛṣṇa's Bhakta; and he who worships Kṛṣṇa but does not worship his Bhakta must be deemed an arrogant and misguided person.

c9.s3.54

Of the Bhaktas, Prahlāda is the chief, but the Pāṇḍavas are greater than Prahlāda on the testimony of the Śrīmad-bhāgavata itself. Some of the Yādavas, again, are greater than the Pāṇḍavas. But of the Yādavas, the chief Bhakta is Uddhava, whose greatness is praised in the Śrīmad-bhāgavata. The Vrajadevīs or Gopīs of Vṛndāvana, however, are greater than Uddhava, who himself desired to possess the sweetness of their love for Kṛṣṇa. Hence those who desire to worship Kṛṣṇa must also worship the fair damsels of Vraja. But of these Vraja-sundarīs, again, Rādhā is the greatest; which conclusion indicates that there is no greater Bhakta of Kṛṣṇa than his eternal consort Rādhā.

c9.s3.55

These are the principal theological dogmas of the Bengal school of Vaiṣṇavism. The works mentioned above either give a poetical account of them in the form of imaginary narratives, or set them forth in the form of precise and systematic statements, supported by illustrative or explanatory Purāṇic texts; but they hardly attempt any elaborate philosophical justification of them. Such an attempt, however, is made in the six Saṃdarbhas of Jīva Gosvāmin, with its supplementary Sarva-saṃvādinī, as well as incidentally in his Krama-saṃdarbha commentary on the Śrīmad-bhāgavata. We now turn to these six Saṃdarbhas and their supplementary works.

c9.s3.56

Sanātana's *Bṛhad-Bhāgavatāmṛta* being a poetical work composed in the style of the Purāṇas, hardly gives ony scope to the citation of authorities, but Rūpa's more systematic supplement contains a larger number of quotations and references. The following index of works and authors, actually cited by name in the *Saṃkṣepa-Bhāgavatāmṛta*, will give a rough idea of its sources and authorities. The largest number of quotations is of course derived from the Purāṇas, chiefly the *Bhāgavata* and the *Padma-purāṇa*, and these constitute the principal original authorities. Some Tantra works as well as sectarian devotional treatises are also cited, but these form secondary authorities.

c9.s3.57

[The references are by pages to the Murshidabad edition of the work, printed at the Radharaman Press, B.E. 1303 (=1896 A.D.)]

c9.s3.58

*The Epics and the Purāṇas:*

c9.s3.59

Mahābhārata (Mokṣa-dharma, Nārāyaṇīya only) 30, 54, 208, 206, 308-10; Harivaṃśa 112, 126, 157-59; Śrīmad-bhāgavata (especially Daśama) 19, 21, 25, 27, 30, 31, 50, 55, 57, 58, 60-64, 69, 71-85, 87-89, 91, 95, 96, 99, 101, 104-7, 124-5, 132, 136, 138, 169, 171-73, 181, 182, 190-93, 197-98, 210, 213, 220, 221, 223, 227, 235, 261, 265-68, 275, 280-81, 285-86, 288-89, 301, 314-15, 317, 328 (anon.), 332-33, 338-40, 365, 372-74, 378-81, 384-88, 392; Pādma or Padma-purāṇa (generally Uttara-khaṇḍa) 22, 43, 54, 56, 70, 73, 96, 112, 123, 135, 141, 170, 208, 227, 242, 244, 246, 249, 284, 303, 304, 307, 313, 321, 342, 344, 358, 359, 370, 376, 377, 393; Skanda 123, 179, 220, 286, 320 (Mathurā-khaṇḍa), 345-46 (Ayodhyā-khaṇḍa), 379; Viṣṇu-purāṇa 24, 54, 91, 92, 144 f. 159, 226; Bṛhad-vaiṣṇava 303; Brahmāṇḍa 53, 76 (anon, but this according to commentary), 96, 264, 273, 286, 296, 302, 368, 370; Ādi-purāṇa 378; Mahāvarāha 59, 165; Kūrma-purāṇa 171, 274, 279; Bṛhad-vāmana 389; Purāṇa 66 (Matsya, according to commentary), 143, 295, 301, 315, 393; Paurāṇika Upākhyāna 284 (Padma-purāṇa, according to commentary).

c9.s3.60

*Tantra and Āgama:*

c9.s3.61

Sammohana Tantra 366; Sātvata Tantra 25, 190, 209; Śrī-yāmala 334; Bhārgava Tantra 244; Tantra 374; Svāyambhuva Āgama 165, 219; Āgama 393.

c9.s3.62

*Other Devotional Texts and Commentaries:* Gītā 161, 228; Vedānta-sūtra (two sūtras cited anonymously) 13, 178; Maharṣi Brahma-sūtra-kṛt 13, 178; Brahma-saṃhitā 15, 28, 44, 47, 49, 196, 232, 287, 355, 356; Vāsudeva-Upaniṣad 305; Vāsudevādhyātma 307; Nārāyaṇādhyātma 312; Madhvācārya-bhāṣya 310; Gopāla-tāpanī 368; Nṛsiṃha-tāpanī 134; Viṣṇu-dharma 113; Viṣṇu-dharmottara 51, 66 (Mārkaṇḍeyena bhāṣitaḥ), 110, 111, 117, 141, 200-201, 273, 274; Pañcarātra 208, 243; Nārada-pañcarātra 166; Svāmin, Svāmi-pāda or Śrīdhara-svāmin 24 (from the commentary on Viṣṇu-purāṇa), 68, 131 (from Bhāvārtha-dīpikā), 191, 383; Brahma-tarka 226 (evidently a work on Logic, but it is not known elsewhere; Rūpa and Jīva perhaps got their reference to this work from Madhva's writings); Bhakti-viveka 186; Hari-bhakti-sudhodaya 377; Bilvamaṅgala 142; Krama-dīpikā 219; Rāmārcana-candrikā 134.

c9.s3.63

*Anonymous Citation:* Bhāgavatāḥ purātanāḥ 331.

Linked texts (36)