Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Early History of the Vaishnava Faith and Movement in Bengal, from Sanskrit and Bengali Sources c9.s4.t2: b. The Bhagavat-saṃdarbha

Early History of the Vaiṣṇava Faith and Movement in Bengal, from Sanskrit and Bengali Sources c9.s4.t2

Language
English

b. The Bhagavat-saṃdarbha

c9.s4.t2.1

The principal object of this Saṃdarbha is to establish and explain the concept of the Bhagavat. Having explained the concept of the Absolute as implied by the phrase advaya-jñāna-tattva in the verse cited above from the Bhāgavata (i. 2. 11), Jiva Gosvāmin now turns to an interpretation of the second line of the same verse, which further amplifies that concept. The line signifies that although the Absolute is one and indivisible, it has threefold aspect, according to the particular capacity of realisation of the devotee (upāsaka-yogyatā-vaiśiṣṭyena). The same ultimate reality, therefore, can be viewed respectively as Brahman, Paramātman and Bhagavat, although it is never, as Jiva Gosvāmin carefully notes, designated by the term Jiva. Our author now proceeds in this Saṃdarbha to explain these three concepts of the Absolute, which he takes as three stadiums or gradations of one and the same Reality. Here he deals principally with the concept of Bhagavat as the highest and most perfect manifestation of the Advaya-jñāna-tattva. It is not perfectly clear if this peculiar doctrine of graded Trinity is actually and consistently implied in the Bhāgavata; but it is, at any rate, one of the fundamental postulates of the school which Jiva Gosvāmin represents. It is possible to find conflicting texts existing on the subject, but our author attempts to reconcile them, partly by rejecting those which go against the theory, partly by ingenuities of interpretation, and partly by presuming that the apparently contradictory terms or ideas are to be taken in different senses in different contexts; for instance, by presuming that some apply to the concept of the Brahman, some to that of the Bhagavat.

c9.s4.t2.2

The concept of the Paramātman and its relation to Prakṛti and Jiva are dealt with in detail in the *Paramātmā-samdarbha*; the present Samdarbha, as its title implies, has for its principal theme the concept of the Bhagavat. There is no need for a Brahma-samdarbha, for if the concept of the Bhagavat is clearly realised, that of the Brahman will also be understood, and the latter concept has already been fairly fully explained by the school of Advaita philosophers. The Brahman (neuter) is in fact the *nirviśeṣa* state of the Bhagavat, and as the non-differentiated substance it corresponds to the Brahman of the school of Śaṃkara. But the Bhagavat represents the higest being in the hierarchy of spiritual manifestations, the most perfect person in whom all the *viśeṣas* are most perfectly developed. In orther words, the Brahman is unqualified, but the Bhagavat is infinitely qualified by an infinity of blessed and perfect attributes. In the Bhagavat all the divine Śaktis or Energies eternally come into full play, but in the Brahman they remain in a potential or indiscrete state.¹ The essence of the Bhagavatā or Lordship consists in this actualisation of the Śaktis, the nature of which will be explained later on; and the Bhagavat, as the religious concrete, can be realised in the full display of his distinctive features, potencies, attributes, dwelling places and associates. The Brahman, on the other hand, is the philosophical Absolute, in which these attributes and powers remain undifferentiated; it is devoid of all *viśeṣas*² and forms an absolutely homogenous and indivisible substance. Thus, thought cannot be predicated as an attribute of the Brahman. but thought forms its very essence; that is, the Brahman is not a thinking being but the thought-substance itself; in the same way, the Brahman cannot be said to exist but it is existence itself. The Bhagavat is regarded as the Lord in full manifestation (*pūrṇa āvirbhāva*), because the appearance in this case is accompanied by all the divine Energies (*sa-śaktika āvirbhāva*), while the Brahman, from this point of view, constitutes an imperfect or incomplete manifestation (*asamyag āvirbhāva*). The sacred texts, therefore, describe the Brahman as the bodily lustre (*tanubhā*) of the Bhagavat; and in the *Gītā* the Bhagavat describes himself as the *pratiṣṭhā* of the Brahman. In other words, the realisation of the Bhagavat, as taught by the theistic Vaiṣṇava school, indicates a stage superior to the realisation of the Brahman of the Advaitavādins; and we are told that the Brahman is the object of realisation of the Paramahamsas who are Jñāna-yogins, but the Bhagavat reveals himself only to the Bhāgavata-paramahamsas, who are Bhakti-yogins. Although the Bhagavat is one and indivisible reality, this distinction is possible because some Sādhakas do not possess the fullest capacity of realisation; to them the highest reality therefore appears in the general or incomplete form of the Brahman.¹ Such Sādhakas

c9.s4.t2.3

¹ *avivikta-śakti-śaktimattā-bhedatayā pratipādyamānam.*

c9.s4.t2.4

² The idea of *Viśeṣa* is not specifically mentioned by Rūpa Gosvāmin, in his *Saṃkṣepa Bhāgavatāmṛta*, although we are not sure if it is not already there by implication. But it is difficult to believe that Rūpa and Jiva could differ on such a fundamental issue. The theory of *Viśeṣa* or differentiation, however, is dealt with in some detail by Rādhādāmodara in his *Vedānta-syamantaka* (ed. U. C. Bhattacharya, Lahore 1930, pp. 11-12), a work which, in spite of its name, belongs to the Bengal school of Vaiṣṇavism and attempts to reconcile Vedānta doctrines with its sectarian tenets. The *viśeṣa* is also explained by Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa in his *Siddhānta-ratna* (ed. Sarasvati Bhavana Texts, Benares 1927). According to these writers the Viśeṣa is

c9.s4.t2.5

¹ *tri-bhagavān evākhaṇḍam sādhaka-viśeṣāṇām tādṛśa-yogyatvā-bhāvāt sāmānya-bhāvodayotvena tad-asamyak-mūrtir eva brahma.*

c9.s4.t2.6

not exactly a difference but it functions as a difference (*viśeṣaś ca bheda-pratinidhiḥ*) and produces the consciousness of difference when there is no real difference (*bhedābhāve'pi tat-kāryam pratyāyayan dṛṣṭaḥ*). It is thus the power by which there is a realisation of difference in non-difference (*bhedābheda*), or as Baladeva puts it: *yatra bhedābhāvo bheda-kāryam ca pramimite, tatraiva bheda-pratinidhir viśeṣaḥ kalpyate*. It is by means of this *viśeṣa* that the same substance appears as different, and this *viśeṣa* is a power inherent in the Lord, who as the Bhagavat thus exhibits himself as the Brahman and Paramātman. The whole Acintya Bhedābheda theory of the school is based upon this conception of differentiation of Viśeṣa.

c9.s4.t2.7

are the philosophers of the Advaita school, but the Bhaktas proceed a stage further. There is, however, no absolute difference between the two forms; for the difference is one of degree only, and the limitation is in relation to the capacity and stage of realisation of the devotee.

c9.s4.t2.8

In order to elucidate the concept of the Bhagavat further, Jiva Gosvāmin proceeds to discuss and analyse its attributes and explain its divine Energies or Śaktis. He begins by showing that these attributes reside really and eternally (*nitya*) in the Bhagavat in intimate or inner relation, which is understood in philosophical terminology as the Samavāya (perpetual co-inherence) relation, as opposed to the mere Samyoga or separable relation. In other words, the Guṇas and Śaktis are not adventitious or *āropita*, but essential or *svarūpa-bhūta*. In this connexion the author refers to the etymology or Nirukti or the word Bhagavat and shows, on the authority of the Purāṇas, that the various syllables indicate the various attributes and Śaktis which go to make up the concept! Thus, the syllable *bha* in the name implies the sense of supporter and protector (*bhartṛ* or *sambhartṛ*) and refers to his creating and sustaining the Bhakti of his devotee; while the syllable *ga* bears the sense of leading (*gamayātṛ* or *netṛ*) and signifies the idea of his making the devotee attain the bliss of divine love (Premānanda). Altogether the name is made to imply the totality of the virtues of Aiśvarya (power), Virya (potency), Yaśas (fame), Śrī (prosperity), Jñāna (Knowledge) and Vairāgya (non-attachment), which constitute the sixfold lordliness of the Bhagavat.² The terms are thus explained: Aiśvarya=power to subjugate all (*sarva-vaśīkāritā*), Virya=magical potency similar to that of precious stones, magic spells etc. (*maṇi-mantrāder iva prabhāvaḥ*), Yaśas=fame arising from excellent qualities of mind, body and speech (*vāṅ-manaḥ-śarīrāṇām sādguṇya-khyātiḥ*). Śrī= all kinds of prosperity (*sarva-prakāra-sampad*), Jñāna = omniscience (*sarvajñatvam*) and Vairāgya = non-attachment to the things of the phenomenal world (*papañca-vastvanā-sakti*). These attributes, however, must be conceived as having received their perfect and infinite development in the Bhagavat.

c9.s4.t2.9

² In another Purāṇic version these six virtues are enumerated as Jñāna, Śakti, Bala, Aiśvarya, Virya and Tejas.

c9.s4.t2.10

But Jīva Gosvāmin takes pains to show that the three Prākṛta Guṇas (Sattva, Rajas and Tamas) can be predicated only of the Jīva, and not of the Bhagavat, who is beyond their sphere. We shall see later that these Guṇas are due to the Māyā-śakti of the Lord, but having eternally subjugated or transcended this Śakti, which is extraneous to his essential self, the Lord himself is entirely unaffected by its influence. If therefore he has any Guṇa, it is *aprākṛta* or non-phenomenal. We are told that in the Vaikuṇṭha where he dwells, there is no Sattva, Rajas or Tamas; but there is only a function of his Svarūpa-śakti or Intrinsic Energy, namely, a pure existence or Śuddha Sattva, which is *prākṛtātita* or beyond the sphere of the phenomenal world. It is called Pure or Śuddha because it is untouched by the influence of his extraneous Māyā-śakti, to which are due the evolution of Prakṛti and the Guṇas. The absence of Rajas indicates, we are further informed, that the Lord is incapable of being created (*asṛjatva*), that of Tamas implies that he is indestructible (*anāśatva*) and that of Sattva signifies that he consists of pure existence (Sat), pure consciousness (Cit) and pure bliss (Ānanda).

c9.s4.t2.11

In order to understand the concept of the Brahman and the Bhagavat, as well as of the Paramātman, it would be necessary to understand the nature of Śakti or Divine Energy, upon whose degree and quality of display the distinction really rests. Jīva Gosvāmin now turns to the peculiar theory of Śakti which his theistic school teaches; but he points out at the outset that the Śaktis possess the two characteristics of Acintyatva and Svābhāvikatva. By Acintyatva is meant that the Śaktis in themselves are inscrutable and beyond the reach of human thought and reason (*tarkāsaha*) or that they are capable of bringing about impossible effects (*durghaṭa-ghaṭakatva*); but it also refers to the peculiar relation in which these Śaktis stand to the Śaktimat, the possessor of the Śakti, and which consists of an inscrutable relation of difference in non-difference (*acintya-bhedābheda*). By Svabhāvikatva is meant that the Śaktis are natural to the Lord and constitute in their totality his very self or essence, although in his infinite power he actually transcends them. These ideas will be made clear as we proceed with a detailed consideration of the theory of Śakti.

c9.s4.t2.12

The Śakti or Divine Energy of the Bhagavat is viewed in three aspects and is accordingly grouped into three classes, namely, Śakti as Svarūpa, Śakti as Taṭasthā and Śakti as Bahiraṅgā. These are successively called Parā or Svarūpa-śakti, Taṭasthā or Jīva-śakti, and Bahiraṅgā or Māyā-śakti. The division bases itself upon a text of the *Viṣṇu-purāṇa* which style them respectively as Parā, Kṣetrajñā and Avidyā. The present Saṃdarbha, which is concerned chiefly with the question of the Svarūpa of the Bhagavat, deals naturally with the Svarūpa-śakti, leaving the consideration of the other two Śaktis to the *Paramātma-saṃdarbha* to which they are primarily relevant. The Svarūpa or Parā Śakti, as the name itself implies, may be described as that Energy which constitutes the intrinsic perfect selfhood of the Bhagavat and is therefore inseparable from him. This Energy is thus Antaraṅgā or intrinsic, as opposed to the other Māyā-śakti which is Bahiraṅgā or external and never affects his true self. This Māyā-śakti causes the creation, sustenance and dissolution of the phenomenal world, and consists of an aspect of Bahiraṅgā Vaibhava or extraneous power in the form of the material Prakṛti or Pradhāna. Although unconnected with the essential self, this Energy is as real as the other, and not a power of illusion such as the Advaita-vādins presume; the resulting phenomenal world therefore is also realatively real. Through this Māyā-śakti, the Bhagavat limits himself into his partial manifestation as the Paramātman, who is thus the godhead immanent in Spirit (Jiva) and Nature (Prakṛti). It must be admitted that a Sakti cannot stand by itself, it must inhere in a body; in this sense the Bhagavat is much as the substratum of the Svarūpa-śakti as of the Māyā-śakti; and in the form of the Paramātman the Bhagavat is a direct displayer of Māyā-śakti. But this Śakti is said to be extraneous to his essence or Svarūpa, because this self-determined limitation does not exist in his highest form as the Bhagavat and is not perceived by the Jiva as soon as the latter releases itself from the diverting influence of the Māyā-śakti by the power of Bhakti, which is an aspect of the display of his Svarūpa-śakti. Thus, the highest form of the deity is uncontaminated by the Māyā-śakti, and that highest uncontaminated form, therefore, can be attained only when the Jiva is no longer under the bondage created by the Māyā-śakti. The Taṭasthā or Jiva-śakti is, as the name itself implies, that form of the divine Energy which, being distinct from both, does not fall under either of the above categories of Antaraṅgā and Bahiraṅgā Śaktis, and which is yet related to both. The Jiva or individual self is an aspect of this Śakti which the Bhagavat displays in his rôle of Paramātman. Being subject to the Māyā-śakti, the Jiva cannot, until released, be connected with the Svarūpa-śakti, which is beyond the affection of the Māyā-śakti; but since the Bhagavat is the ultimate essential source of the Jiva, who can in spite of deviation return to the Lord by shaking off the Māyā-śakti, the Jiva can yet be finally connected with the essential Svarūpa-śakti. Hence to explain the nature and position of the Jiva it is necessary to presume an intermediate Taṭasthā Śakti which is connected with, but distinct from, both the Antaraṅgā (Svarūpa-) and Bahiraṅgā (Māyā-) Śaktis.

c9.s4.t2.13

Thus, in the highest form of the Bhagavat there is a direct and full display of his Svarūpa-śakti, which goes to make up his Svarūpa or perfect self. The other two Śaktis are displayed indirectly through the medium of his partial form of Paramātman. In other words, these two Śaktis have scope only when the Jiva is in the earlier deluded (*vimohita*) stage, but when it attains the Bhagavat himself, the Jiva is subject only to the Svarūpa-śakti of the Lord, of which Bhakti is a function. The highest form of the Bhagavat himself is indifferent to the work of the Paramātman or the other two Śaktis, which give rise to creation, rebirth and bondage; but this indifference implies that the Bhagavat possesses the attribute of impartial benevolence to all. The delusion (*sammohana*) of the Jiva produced by the Māyā-śakti is not in itself pleasing to the Lord, and in his highest form of the Bhagavat he has nothing to do with it; but it is due to the Jiva's natural averseness (*bahirmukhatā*) to the Bhagavat. This disinclination at a lower stage is due again to the deity's Taṭasthā Jiva-śakti, which is equally prone to his intrinsic Svarūpa- and to his extrinsic Māyā-śaktis. But the question arises—why should the Bhagavat, who is merciful to the Jiva, permit this act of delusion by the Māyā-śakti which is a cause of suffering? The reply is that the Māyā, as a Śakti, having power over creation, is as such an eternal servant of the Lord, towards whom it is not possible for her to assume a hostile attitude; but as the Lord is at the same time full of mercy to the Jiva he desires that the Jiva should for fear of Māyā take refuge in him and work for deliverance. As to the ultimate question of the reason or necessity of such complicated display of three kinds of Energy, the answer is that it is an aspect of his inscrutable (*acintya*) Līlā or divine sport, and the existence and character of the threefold Śakti, as explained above, are facts vouched for by the *Bhāgavata* and other scriptures. If one objects to the absurdity of imagining two contradictory Śaktis residing in the deity, the reply is that the Lord's power is inscrutable and even contradictions merge in him.

c9.s4.t2.14

The Svarūpa śakti, viewed in its different aspects, is classified, on the authority of the *Viṣṇu-purāṇa*, into Saṃdhinī, Saṃvit and Hlādinī Śaktis, which correspond roughly to the Sat, Cit and Ānanda of orthodox philosophy. The Saṃdhinī Śakti is the energy of existence of the self-existent being which also upholds the existence of the Jiva and Prakṛti. It is in relation to this Śakti that the Bhagavat is described as the ultimate reality, and the world and the individual as relative reality.¹ By the Saṃvit Śakti, the Bhagavat is both the knowledge and the knower, and makes others possessed of knowledge.² The last Hlādinī Śakti is the Bhagavat's energy of infinite bliss, by which he is bliss itself, becomes blissful and also causes in the devotee pure bliss.³ These Śaktis exist infinitely in the Bhagavat; but since the Jiva is only an *aṇu* or infinitesimal part of the Bhagavat, the smallest atom of the limitless divine existence, knowledge and bliss is capable of causing the existence, knowledge and bliss of the Jiva.

c9.s4.t2.15

¹ *sattva-rūpo'pi yayā sattāṃ dadhāti dhārayati ca sā saṃdhinī.*

c9.s4.t2.16

² *jñāna-rūpo'pi yayā jānāti jñāpayati ca sā saṃvit.*

c9.s4.t2.17

³ *hlāda-rūpo'pi bhagavān yayā hlādate hlādayati ca sā hlādinī.*

c9.s4.t2.18

All these aspects of the Svarūpa-śakti are regarded as collateral attributes, existing inseparably and eternally in the Bhagavat; they are yet graded in a peculiar manner. Although in their totality they form the very self of the Bhagavat and therefore constitute an undifferentiated unity, yet of Saṃdhini, Saṃvit and Hlādinī each succeeding Śakti is supposed to include and supersede the preceding.⁴ The Hlādinī Śakti, therefore, is the most important, as it includes and transcends the other two. This prominence given to the Hlādinī Śakti explains the peculiar standpoint of Bengal Vaiṣṇavism which conceives that its deity is essentially composed of infinite bliss, which is his highest attribute and which necessarily involves the other attributes of knowledge and existence. By this Śakti also he has the power of communicating atoms of this infinite bliss to his Associates (Pārṣadas) and his Devotees (Bhaktas). It must be noted in this connexion that the Svarūpa-śakti is supposed to take two forms, namely, (i) the Svarūpa, which refers to the Lord himself, and (ii) Svarūpa- Vaibhava, which includes his Associates, his Residence, his Devotees etc., which are thus parts or functions of himself. The theory which gives exclusive prominence to the Hlādinī Śakti may, therefore, be expressed in theological language by saying that this is the eternal Līlā or divine sport of the Lord, which consists of pure and infinite bliss and which he enjoys with his Associates and Devotees; for they are merely aspects of his divine energy, and their very existence, consciousness and bliss are relative to the absolute existence, consciousness and bliss of the Lord. This brings us to the idea, to which we shall revert later on, of the Lord as Rasa or Ānanda which attribute is nothing but an aspect of the Hlādinī Śakti. This Rasa, which constitutes the Svarūpa of the Lord, must be taken ultimately to signify the highest and best Rasa recognised by the Vaiṣṇava Bhakti-śāstra of this school, namely, Mādhurya or Madhura Rasa, which is another name of the religiously sublimated erotic sentiment. This attitude is a kind of erotic mysticism, which seeks to express religious ideas in the intimate language of earthly passion, for it conceives divine love as a reflex of the human emotion. The Śaktimat in his infinite bliss sports with his own Śaktis; in other word, the godhead realises himself in his own bliss. The Śaktis are accordingly represented, in terms of human relationship considered in its emotional aspect, as his consorts or wives; and this devout yet sensuous attitude entirely humanises the deity and his consorts and presents them in a lovable human relation to their Associates and Devotees. As the Lord is not only infinite bliss himself but he also makes others enjoy the bliss, the Bhakti or ecstatic devotion, by means of which a taste of this infinite bliss is attained, is also an aspect or function of the Hlādinī Śakti. We shall see presently in the Śrīkṛṣṇa-sandarbha that as Kṛṣṇa is identified with the Bhagavat, Rādhā, who is his eternal consort and greatest Bhakta, is represented as the highest form of his Hlādinī Śakti.

c9.s4.t2.19

⁴ *tatra cottarottara-guṇotkarṣeṇa saṃdhinī saṃvid hlādinīti kramo jñeyaḥ.*

c9.s4.t2.20

This brings us to the question of the nature of the relation of the Saktis to the Saktimat. As the Jiva is also an aspect of the divine Jiva-sakti, the relation is the same as that between the Jiva and Paramātman; and the question accordingly assumes importance as one of the fundamental metaphysical questions regarding the relationship of the individual to the universal self. We shall have occasion to deal with the question from this point of view in connexion with its treatment in the Paramātma-sandarbha; but we may briefly indicate here that the relation between the Saktis and the Possessor of the Saktis is represented as an incomprehensible (acintya) relation of sameness and difference (bhedābheda), the whole theory thus receiving the designation of Acintya-bhedābheda-vāda (incomprehensible dualistic monism), a peculiar point of view which distinguishes the Bengal school from other Vaisnava schools by the qualifying word acintya which brings in a mystical attitude. It speaks of the inconceivable existence of distinction and non-distinction. The Saktis are non-different from the Bhagavat, inasmuch as they are parts or Amsas of the divine being; but the very fact that they are parts only makes the superlativeness of divine attributes inapplicable to them, and there is thus an inevitable difference. The Saktis, therefore, possess a reality which is indeed relative to that of the Lord but which is nevertheless absolute in itself. The respective character of the reality, however, of the three kinds of Sakti, namely, Antaranga, Bahiranga and Tatastha, is not, as their names are designed to imply, entirely identical. This distinction has already been explained above, but it is also illustrated by an analogy. It is like the threefold aspect in which the sun manifests itself, namely, the solar disc (mandala), the solar rays (rasmi) and the solar reflexion or halo (bimba), the Antaranga or Svarupa-sakti corresponding to the luminous disc or body of the sun itself, the Tatastha or Jiva-sakti to its rays scattered away but ultimately contained in the sun itself as the original source, and the Bahiranga or the Maya-sakti being regarded as the reflection which is a real but dazzling emanation from the solar disc.

c9.s4.t2.21

obscuring it, but existing outside and not forming an integral part of the sun.

c9.s4.t2.22

Although this is the principal classification of the Śaktis, they are said to be infinite in number, and all of them are presented as wives of the Lord. As such they are distinctive deities, having name, form and personality. The Antaraṅgā Mahāśakti of the Lord is Lakṣmī or Mahālakṣmī, who forms his Svarūpa and, being the first manifestation, is the ground or Āśraya of all other Śaktis. The Bahiraṅgā Śakti is of course named Māyā. Each of these again has many aspects and is named accordingly. The text mentions only some of the aspects of Mahālakṣmī as Svarūpa-śakti; but each of them can also have an additional significance as aspects of the Bahiraṅgā Māyā-śakti. Thus Śrī as an aspect of Mahālakṣmī signifies divine excellence or Bhagavat-sam ad; but Śrī as an aspect of Māyā means worldly excellence or Jagat-sampad. In the same way, Ilā is both Līlā-śakti and Bhū-śakti; and Kānti, Kīrti etc. are similarly interpreted as possessing two meanings and included in both the aspects of Śakti. As an aspect of Lakṣmī, Vidyā is the source of spiritual knowledge (Tattva-jñāna), and of the bliss of divive love (Premānanda) by which the Lordship of the Bhagavat is suppressed voluntarily and posited into a personal relationship with the devotee; but as an aspect of Māyā it becomes Avidyā which has the function of obscuring and causing the Jīva to forget his own nature. Lakṣmī is again classified into Saṃdhinī, Saṃvit and Hlādinī; but the support (ādhāra) of these Śakti-mūrtis are Vimalā, Jayā, Yogā, Prahvī, Īśānā and Anugrahā. The functions of these are indicated roughly by the names themselves; for instance, Jayā=Utkarṣaṇī, power of eminence; Yogā=Yogamāyā or Sarjanārthā Śakti, creative power; Prahvī=Vicitrānanda-sāmarthya-hetu, the power which causes the capacity for excellent bliss; Īśānā=Sarvādhikāritā, mastery over all beings etc. The Māyā is to be similarly classified but the subject is dealt with later on in the next book. The Jīva-śakti is Guṇamayī, consisting of the three Guṇas, viz. Sāttviki, which causes bliss (Hlādakari), Tāmasi which causes suffering (Tāpakari), and Rājasī which possesses the power of causing a mixed effect (Misrā).

c9.s4.t2.23

This conception of inherent Śaktis in the Lord naturally presumes the idea of the Bhagavat as the Perfect Person, and conceives him not as a formless entity but as an embodied substance in which inhere infinite attributes and energies. Scriptural texts are cited in which the supreme being is described as cid-ghana, ānanda-ghana, rasa-ghana etc., and it is maintained that the word ghana (=compact or solid) implies the idea of Mūrti or image, in accordance with the dictum mūrtau ghanaḥ of Pāṇini. The Lord is therefore not amūrta or unembodied, but possesses a blessed Mūrti or form.¹ It is, however, clearly explained that by this form or body of the Lord, his Mūrti or Vigraha, is not to be understood any gross or sensuous body like that of human beings. The limited limbs and senses of the Jiva are due to the Jiva-śakti only, and therefore they are phenomenal (prākṛta) and material (jaḍa); but the Lord in his Svarūpa-śakti possesses a non-phenomenal and spiritual body. This body consists entirely of pure existence, knowledge and bliss, and he is therefore called Saccidānanda-vigraha. As there is no distinction of form and essence (svagata-bheda) in the Bhagavat, there is no differentiation between the different organs, so that existence, knowledge and bliss, which constitute his form, are eternally simultaneous and non-different from his essence. The divine person (Vigraha) is therefore identical with the divine essence (Svarūpa) in the supreme unity of the godhead. The attributes, like intelligence, bliss etc., are merely terms or symbols to indicate aspects of his essence; and their totality is called form or body because of its eternally self-manifest character (vyakti). His body, or what may be called his body, is his soul;² it is eternal, supernatural and spiritual and has nothing gross, natural and material in it; but at the same time it is not *nirviśeṣa* or undifferentiated, it is something real and *saviśeṣa* possessing its own divine attributes. He is *vi-karaṇa* in the sense that he does not possess the human organs of senses, but he is also *sa-karaṇa* in the sense that he possesses divine or non-natural forms of these. The Śruti texts establish that this body is like that of the human being, but the similarity is only in respect of form and not of the ingredients. The Lord is not subject to change (*vikāra-rahita*) or limitation, but by his Svarūpa-śakti he can limit himself into a conditioned or unconditioned form.¹ Hence, it follows that Kṛṣṇa as the Bhagavat never entered into a gross body like an ordinary Jiva, but only appeared to do so.² This divine form is no doubt unthinkable, but for purposes of meditation or devotion it is thinkable. The scriptures describe the form sometimes as two-handed, sometimes as four-handed, or even six-handed or eight-handed, and as possessing head, eyes, feet etc. The assumption of these various forms does not imply impermanence or changefulness, for they are all real and eternal (*nitya*) and coexist in him, like the diverse forms of a Vaidūrya-maṇi (Lapis-lazuli), which make their appearance simultaneously. But Jiva Gosvāmin cites authorities to show that, although no particular divine form exists apart from his other forms, the two-handed form of the divinity, of which presumably man is the image, is the best and most beautiful for purposes of meditation and worship; for it exhibits his attributes to their best advantage.

c9.s4.t2.24

¹ sa ca bhagavān pūrvodita-lakṣaṇa-śrīmūrtyātmakāeva, na tvamūr-taḥ.

c9.s4.t2.25

² deha-dehi-bhidā cātra neśvare vidyate.

c9.s4.t2.26

¹ *svarūpa-śaktyaiva paricchinnam aparicchinnam ca tad evam vapuḥ.*

c9.s4.t2.27

² *dehīva jīva iva ābhāti krīḍati, iva-śabdena śrīkṛṣṇas tu na jīvavat pṛthag deham praviṣṭavān iti gamyate.*

c9.s4.t2.28

The Lordship of the Bhagavat which is described above is thus intrinsic to his selfhood; and the attributes and energies have no touch of gross quality in them but inhere in his essential character (*svarūpa-bhūta*). The Vigraha or the form of the Bhagavat is not something different from his essence but is eternally identical with it (pūrṇa-svarūpa-bhūta) and therefore possessed of essential reality. It follows from this that when the Lordship or Vibhutva is manifested in the state of an Avatāra, it is also intrinsic, real and eternal, even if the Avatāra seemingly belongs to a past age. The Lord is unborn, but when we speak of his birth, only appearance or Prādurbhāva is meant¹. Though the appearance occurs in the phenomenal world, it is itself not phenomenal but an expression at will of his essential divine Svarūpa. Although the chief Vigraha of the Bhagavat is one, he is capable of assuming simultaneously infinite forms² whether these forms be mere Prakāśas, Āvirbhāvas or Avatāras; hence his attribute of Sarva-rūpa-svabhāvatva or the capacity of assuming all kinds of forms and shapes. Even when the deity assumes phenomenal forms, he retains his non-phenomenal Svarūpa. But he appears to the devotee in the form or plane of realisation which has been attained by the latter's devotion³. It is, however, laid down that the deity always appears only in the form which is agreeable to his devotee. If he appeared in the disagreeable form of an ox to Rantideva, that form was illusory (māyika), for what is supersensuous cannot be horrible⁴.

c9.s4.t2.29

¹ ajananasya janmetyanena prādurbhāva-mātram bodhayati.

c9.s4.t2.30

² ekam api mukhyam bhagavad-rūpam yugapad ananta-rūpātmakam bhavati.

c9.s4.t2.31

³ yathā yādṛśam yeṣām upāsanā-phalodaya-bhūmikāvasthānaṃ tadā tathaiva te paśyanti.

c9.s4.t2.32

⁴ aprākṛtatvena kutsitatva-sambhavābhāvāt.

c9.s4.t2.33

Having established the general character of the Bhagavad-vigraha, Jiva Gosvāmin now proceeds to analyse in detail some of its special characteristics. These attributes are not something imposed from outside but they form invariable (avyabhicāri) aspects of the divine essence and therefore they are the deity's inherent attributes (svābhāvika dharma). These may be briefly summarised here as forming the constituent elements of the concept of Lordship: (1) The attribute of all-pervasiveness (sarva gatatva), by means of which the Bhagavat can not only pervade the universe, but, in spite of being one, he can appear as many at different places, not in a different but in the same form. This, we are told, is not Kāya-vyūha, or mere illusory multiplication of the same form, all of which act in the same way in different places; for here, though the various forms are the same they can act in different ways.¹ Each of these appearances thus is not illusory but real, and has the same divine characteristics and capacity of independent action.² In other words each appearance (prakāśa-bheda) has different egoism (abhimāna-bheda) and different series of acts (kriyā-bheda), and this may occur simultaneously at the same or different places. (2) The attribute of self-luminosity or self-manifestation (svaprakāśatva). (3) The attribute of surpassing both the gross and the subtle (sthūla-sūkṣmātiriktatva), implying also the fact that the Lord is beyond mundane existence (sat) and non-existence (asat). (4) Non-liability to change or limitation (avikāritva). This attribute implies that the Lord is not subject to the six Vikāras or forms of evolution, viz., Janman (birth), Astitva (existence), Vṛddhi (growth), Pariṇāma (transformation), Kṣaya (decay) and Vināśa (destruction). He is also independent of the fourfold fruit of action (caturvidha-kriyā-phala-rāhitya), namely, Utpatti (production), Prāpti (acquisition), Vivṛti (expansion) and Saṃskāra (fruition or merit). (5) Possession of indwelling spirit-form (pratyag-rūpatva), not visible to the mortal eye. Hence he is the Antaryāmin or the inward ruler, and is called Adhokṣaja, which term is explained as signifying that he exists beyond perception of the senses.³ He can be seen or perceived only in virtue of his own Energy (*nija-śaktitaḥ*), and this Energy comes into play only through his grace.¹ (6) Non-liability to mundane (*prākṛta*) birth (Janman), form (Rūpa) and action (Karman), but also the capacity of assuming all these in a real and eternal character (*nitya*) by his Svarūpa-śakti. We are told that such assumption of birth, though real and eternal in character (*nitya*), constitutes only an Āvirbhāva and not actual mundane or human birth, but it either resembles mundane birth or is sometimes different from it.² In other words, the appearance assumed in the phenomenal world is really non-phenomenal, although in all respects it may appear as phenomenal.³ The deity is really Svayam-rūpa, that is, his form is identical with his essence; hence if he assumes the attributes of birth, childhood etc., these are not phenomenal, but attributes of his inherent divine nature.⁴ Of the same character is the form (e.g., Matsya) which is assumed in an Avatāra; and this form, as well as the exploits of an Avatāra, he can assume or discard at will. In the same way, his Karman or action is not guided by any motive,⁵ inasmuch as the Bhagavat is motiveless (*āpta-kāma*), but it is due to his Ānanda or Hlādinī Śakti⁶ It is an aspect of his Līlā or divine sport which is natural to his essence of bliss.⁷ As Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa explains the idea in his *Govinda-bhāṣya*: That the most complete should proceed to the act of diversified creation is due to his Līlā, which is not preceded by any desire of the fruits of action for himself.⁸ Jiva

c9.s4.t2.34

¹ teṣāṃ prakāśānāṃ tayalvācintya-śaktyā pṛthak pṛthag eva kriyādīni bhavanti.

c9.s4.t2.35

² ekatve'pi pṛthak prakāśatvam, teṣu pṛthak pṛthak kriyādhiṣṭhānāditvam.

c9.s4.t2.36

³ akṣajam aindriyakaṃ jñānaṃ tad adho'rvāg eva yasya.

c9.s4.t2.37

1 *tādṛśa-śakter apyullāse tat-kṛpaiva kāraṇam.* 2 *śrīmūrter ayam āvirbhāva eva, na tvasmadādivaj janma : prākṛta-janmānukaraṇenāvirbhāva-mātratvam, kvacid ananukaraṇena vā.* 3 *prapañca-vad bhāti na tu prapañca-rūpam.* 4 *bhagavad-vigrahe śiśutvādayo vicitrā eva dharmāḥ svābhāvikāḥ santi.* 5 *na tu prayojanāpekṣayā.* 6 *tathā karmaṇo vilakṣaṇyam svarūpānanda-vilāsa-mātratvam.* 7 *svarūpānanda-svābhāvikyeva tallīlā.* 8 *paripūrṇasyāpi vicitra-sṛṣṭau pravṛttir līlaiva kevalā, na tu sva-phalānusamdhi-pūrvikā.*

c9.s4.t2.38

Gosvāmin further explains that this Līlā arises from the awakening of the bliss intrinsic to the deity, and it has no reference to any particular motive of himself.¹

c9.s4.t2.39

In this way Jiva Gosvāmin proceeds to analyse the concept of Lordship or Bhagavattā and discusses in detail the various divine attributes which constitute its principal features. One of the interesting points which he deals with as a fundamental creed of his school is the theory of the efficacy and eternity of the blessed name itself (Nāma-māhātmya). The theory is based partly on the old doctrine of the eternity of sound; but the Bengal school goes a step further in maintaining the essential identity of the name and the possessor of the name (nāma-nāminor abhedah). In other words, he believes that the name itself is the essence of the Lord,² so that one who utters the name with devotion attains the Lord himself. Not only the name but even the syllables (akṣara) or its symbol (saṃketa; for instance, the syllable Om) are enough to produce the same effect. Just like the Avatāras of the Lord, this is a kind of Varṇa-Avatāra.³ The deity, however, is often called Nameless or Anāman in the scriptures, but this usage is on a par with the employment of terms like birthless (ajanman), formless (arūpa) or actionless (akartr). It does not mean that he has no name but that his name is aprākṛta or aprasiddha; that is, his name is not like the common names we have in the phenomenal world, but it possesses a spiritual significance and efficacy. It is for this reason that the name or names which have been established in the Śāstras as bringing the Bhagavat himself instantaneously into consciousness are alone appropriate, and not those which are merely imaginary.⁴ In the same way Jiva Gosvāmin speaks

c9.s4.t2.40

1 svarūpānandodrekena sva-prayojanam ananusamdhāyaiva līyate. 2 bhagavat-svarūpam eva nāma. 3 avatārāntaravat parameśvarasya varṇa-rūpeṇāvatāro'yam. 4 ato yaḥ śāstre'ti-prasiddhair nāmabhiḥ śrī-bhagavān eva jhaṭiti praṭito bhavati....teṣām svataḥ-siddhatvam, anyeṣām kalpanāmayatvam jñeyam.

c9.s4.t2.41

of the colour which is appropriate to the deity, for the coloured figuration of deities plays an important part in sectarian devotion in general. He informs us that the particular colours of the deity are not due to the presence of particular Guṇas. The dark (kṛṣṇa) colour of the Bhagavat does not indicate Tamo-guṇa, but it is a peculiar suggestion of his Svarūpa-śakti (svarūpa-śakti-vyañjitatvam). The white colour is often taken to signify Sattva-guṇa, but the colour of the Indian crane (Baka), a bird which is proverbial for its cunning and its tendency to mischief, is white.

c9.s4.t2.42

Jiva Gosvāmin concludes this topic by summing up that all this assumption by the Lord of birth, form, action, name and colour has no motive behind it, but they are to manifest his Svarūpa-śakti and make his devotee enjoy its bliss ; for the Bhakti or devotional attitude itself is an aspect of his peculiarly wonderful nature which consists of the display of intrinsic bliss.¹ If one argues that the Lord has no form, name, birth and colour, this very argument would tend to put a limitation to his unlimited Śakti.² It is by Bhakti alone, and not by Sāṃkhya and Yoga, that the true character of the Lord is attained.³ That the divine Vigraha is the Bhagavat himself has been realised and testified to by great sages,⁴ This intuition of the great sages or Mahad-anubhava is said to be the only true Pramāṇa (satya-pramāṇam). For these great men are really Āveśa-Avatāras who, being inspired by the Lord, themselves partake of the nature of his Vigraha. So also do his partial manifestations, his Aṃśas or his Guṇāvatāras ; and their appearance possesses the same eternal, real and supernatural characteristics.¹ But the Lord himself in his supreme form is far superior to all these.

c9.s4.t2.43

¹ svarūpānanda-vilāsa-bhūta-paramāścarya-svabhāva-viśeṣaḥ.

c9.s4.t2.44

² yadi tasmin nāma-rūpivādikam nāsti, tarhi tacchaktimattvam prati sāntatvam prasajyeta.

c9.s4.t2.45

³ yoga-sāṃkhyayos tattvam na samyak prakāśate kim tu bhaktau eva.

c9.s4.t2.46

⁴ śrī-vigrahaḥ sa eva ca bhagavān iti vidvadbhiḥ pratyate prayujyate caiva.

c9.s4.t2.47

¹ tadamiśānām api tādṛśatvam.

c9.s4.t2.48

From the theory described above that the supreme deity is the Perfect Person, having a peculiar form and a characteristic set of attributes, it follows that he has also a transcendental dwelling place, distinctive colour, decoration and associates peculiar to himself as a personal god. Of his dark colour we have spoken above. No doubt he dwells in the Jiva or individual self and pervades the universe, but this is only in his partial aspect as the Paramātman. In his complete and perfect form as the Bhagavat he has a Dhāma or residence far beyond the phenomenal world (prapañcātīta). His decorations are also transcendental and are a part of his divine essence. A symbolical meaning is therefore assigned to some of his ornaments; for instance, the Kaustubha which the Lord bears on his breast is not a mundane precious stone, but typifies the Jiva-śakti. These are thus manifestations of the deity's self assumed through his grace to his devotees, who alone have a beatific vision of them. All this is established by the vision of the great devotees, which is its only and true Pramāṇa. In the same way the Vaikuṇṭha-loka (sometimes called the Goloka or Mahā-vaikuṇṭha, to distinguish it from a lower Vaikuṇṭha), which is his place of residence (Dhāma), as well as his Associates or Attendants (Pārṣadas), represents eternal and transcendental expression of his Svarūpa-śakti. The word Dhāma has also the sense of lustre, and is explained as the Lord's inherent power of manifestation²: but as a personal god, the deity is represented as having a real, and not merely figurative, abode for the display of his Svarūpa. This Loka, which is conceived as the highest paradise of Bengal Vaiṣṇavism, cannot, on account of its being beyond phenomenal existence, be attained by Jñāna or Karman,³ but only by Bhakti. Once attained there is no fall from it (*tato'skhalanam*). Since it is beyond the phenomenal world, it follows that it cannot be attained by means of the three Guṇas; it is therefore called Nirguṇa or Guṇātīta; for it is said in the *Bhāgavata* (xi. 25. 21) that by the Sattva-guṇa men reach Svar-loka, by the Rajo-guṇa the Nara-loka and by the Tamo-guṇa the Naraka or Hell; but the Loka of the Bhagavat is beyond the reach of these three Guṇas. Hence it is eternal and beyond Prakṛti (*prakṛteḥ param*), which is an effect of the Māyā-śakti. It is consequently beyond the Māyā-śakti itself, so that the Jiva can never reach it as long as he is subject to that Śakti. This Loka, being an expression of the Svarūpa-śakti, can be attained only by another aspect of the Svarūpa-śakti, namely, Bhakti. Like the Vigraha of the Bhagavat himself, his Loka, which is thus really and eternally a part of himself, consists of the three attributes of Sat, Cit and Ānanda (*saccidānanda-rūpatva*). It is called by the Vedic name of Viṣṇupada, and it is higher than all other Lokas, such as Svar-loka, Śiva-loka etc. Just as the form or Vigraha of the Bhagavat makes its appearance in the world, so it is said that his Dhāma, Pada or Residence also sometimes makes its appearance.¹ Although this appearance is real, it is usually not manifest (*aprakaṭa*), but it becomes manifest only to the vision of the devotee who can always perceive the deity's eternal divine sport in his favourite earthly resorts like Dvārakā, Mathurā or Vṛndāvana.

c9.s4.t2.49

² svarūpa-bhūta-prakāśa-śaktiḥ.

c9.s4.t2.50

³ jñāna-karmabhir aprāpyam, prapañcātītatvāt.

c9.s4.t2.51

¹ *evam ca bhagavad-vapur āvirbhavati loke, tathaiva kvcit kasyacit tatpadasyāvirbhāvaḥ śrūyate.*

c9.s4.t2.52

The above remarks apply also to the Pārṣadas or Attendants and Associates, who are the Lord's eternal retinue (Parikara) in his Paradise, being parts of his own self (*tadaṅgabhūta*) and expressions of his intrinsic Ānanda or Hlādinī Śakti.² Thus, Śrī or Lakṣmī, his eternal consort, is, as we have already noticed, inseparable from his Svarūpaśakti (svarūpānatiriktatvam). The subject is treated in detail in the Śrīkṛṣṇa-sandarbha; but in the present connexion Jīva Gosvāmin points out that to the deity's Pārṣadas the bliss of worship (Bhajanānanda) is greater than the bliss they enjoy from their being merged in the divine self (Svarūpānanda). The theory of this school is that release does not mean cessation from devotional activity; even these emancipated souls who are the deity's Pārṣadas engage in an eternal worship of the Bhagavad-vigraha. They desire only a taste of his Mādhurya, and not of his Brahmatva,¹ because it is the nature of the Vigraha of the Bhagavat, which consists of bliss, to make others enjoy that bliss (sukhadatva) as a Vilāsa of his Svarūpa-śakti.

c9.s4.t2.53

² *bhagavad-ānanda-śakter vilāsamayatvam.*

c9.s4.t2.54

¹ kevala-tan-mādhuryāpekṣayā, na tu brahmatvānubhavāpekṣayā.

c9.s4.t2.55

This last position Jīva Gosvāmin now attempts to establish by reverting to his original topic of the distinction between the two forms of the deity, namely, Brahman and Bhagavat. The distinction is not a distinction of one into two, for the concept of ultimate reality is one and indivisible; nor is it a mere difference in designation according to difference of appearance.² It is due to the deity's inherent power of Viśeṣa or differentiation, by which there is a consciousness of difference even when there is no actual difference and by which the same substance appears as different. It must not, however, be supposed that the Lord's possession of Viśeṣa necessarily makes him conditioned or qualified, for the possession of an infinity of attributes is the reason why he cannot be qualified or conditioned by any one of them. The relation of Brahman to Bhagavat is thus one of difference in non-difference. The distinction arises from the stage or degree of realisation of the two kinds of devotee whose capacities are different and who follow different paths of Jñāna and Bhakti according to their respective capacity of worship.¹ But the manifestation of the Bhagavat-form is said to be superior to that of the undifferentiated Brahma-form, because in the former stage of realisation the true self of the deity in its perfection is revealed through a complete display of his Svarūpa-śakti or Intrinsic Energy.² In the Brahma-form the full and special character of the deity is not reached;³ even the Prakāśa of the Brahman is not independent but due to the Śakti of the Bhagavat. It must not be supposed that the vision of the one form is real and the other unreal, for the authority of the scriptures shows both to be real;⁴ nor should the one be regarded as a part of the other through the function of transformation or Vikāra, for the supreme deity is not subject to any Vikāra.⁵ The two forms in their essence are identical, but the apparent difference is due to a difference of vision based upon a difference of the mode of worship.⁶ In the one case, where the deity reveals himself in his undifferentiated state of Brahman, the vision is incomplete (*asampūrṇā dṛṣṭi*); in the other case, where the vision takes in the full Vigraha of the Bhagavat, accompanied by all his Śaktis which form his essence, it is perfect (*sampūrṇā*). For this full or proper vision (Samyag-darśana) we are told that Bhakti is the only means,⁷ for Bhakti is due to a display of the deity's Svarūpa-śakti itself. This, therefore, establishes the superiority of the Bhakti mode of worship to every other mode; for according as the deity reveals himself in his twofold aspect as the Brahman and the Bhagavat, his Svarūpa-śakti reveals itself correspondingly as Jñāna and Bhakti. The way of Jñāna is indeed not wholly rejected, but since the Bhagavat is spoken of as the Aṅgin (principal) and the Brahman as Aṅga (subordinate), the Brahmānubhava or perception of the Brahma is included (antargata) in the perception of the Bhagavat. But, at the same time, in the direct realisation of the Bhagavat through Bhakti, the realisation of the Brahman is not distinct (na sphuṭaḥ) and therefore superfluous. The bliss arising from the Brahmāsvāda is entirely merged in the superior bliss of Bhagavad-darśana. Hence it is maintained that devotional worship or Bhakti for the Bhagavat is superior to the release or Mokṣa consequent upon the knowledge or Jñāna of the Brahman. It is for this reason, as already noted above, that even the emancipated souls make light of mere Mokṣa and delight in the continuous worship of the Bhagavat (Bhajanānanda).

c9.s4.t2.56

² ekam eva tattvam dvidhā śabdyata iti na vastuno bheda upa-padyate; āvirbhāvasyāpi bheda-darśanān na ca saṃjñā-mātrasya.

c9.s4.t2.57

¹ *sva-sva-darśana-yogyatā-bhedena dvididho'dhikārī dvidhā dṛṣṭam tadupāsta iti.*

c9.s4.t2.58

² *svarūpa-śakti-prakāśenaiva svarūpa-prakāśasyādhikatvāt, nirviśeṣa-brahma-prakāśasyāpyupari śrī-bhagavat-prakāśa-śravaṇāt.*

c9.s4.t2.59

³ *brahma-prakāśe tat-visiṣṭānupalambhanāt.*

c9.s4.t2.60

⁴ *tatrāpyekasya darśanasya vāstavatvam anyasya bhramajatvam iti na mantavyam, ubhayor api yāthārthyena darśitatvāt.*

c9.s4.t2.61

⁵ *na caikasya vastunaḥ śaktyā vikriyamāṇatvāt apiṣṭo bhedaḥ, vikṛtatva-niṣedhāt tayoḥ.*

c9.s4.t2.62

⁶ *upāsanā-bhedena darśana-bhedaḥ.*

c9.s4.t2.63

⁷ *bhaktir eva samyag-darśane hetuḥ.*

c9.s4.t2.64

Having established the superiority of Bhakti to Jñāna, Jiva Gosvāmin maintains that the scriptures which speak of Bhakti are superior to the scriptures which speak of Jñāna: that is, the devotional texts are superior to those which are merely philosophical. For, those scriptures which are inspired by Bhakti lead to the Bhagavat, those which are actuated by Jñāna lead to the Brahman. It is true that the Brahman being an appearance of the Bhagavat, scriptures like the Upaniṣads which lead to the Brahman may also lead ultimately to the Bhagavad,¹ yet, the Brahman being an imperfect appearance, the scriptures, which speak of Brahman, only dimly and incompletely perceive the true character of the Bhagavat. It follows from all this that the Śrīmad-bhāgavata is the greatest and the most authoritative of all scriptures: because, apart from its other causes of greatness, it has for its exclusive theme the Bhagavat-tattva which is the greatest of all Tattvas¹. It is superior to both the Jñāna-kāṇḍa and the Upāsanā-kāṇḍa of the Vedas, not only for the reason stated above, but also because its Ṛṣi-author was an incarnation of the Bhagavat himself, than whom a greater author cannot be found (parama-śreṣṭha-kartṛtva), and the direct beatific vision of the deity (Bhagavat-sākṣātkāra) is described in the work itself. Hence all desirous of attaining the highest spiritual truth should constantly listen to it.

First 64 of 70 passages. Read on

Cites (6)