Sections 41–50

English witness · section(s) 41

TEXT 41

kim ca yady atrabheda-vada eva tatparyam abhavisyat tarhy ekam eva brahmajïanena bhinnam jïanena tu tasya bheda-mayam duhkham viliyata ity apasyad ity evavaksyat. tatha Sri-bhagaval-liladinam vastavatvabhave sati Sri-suka-hrdaya-virodhas ca jayate. Furthermore, if the jivas’ absolute oneness with Brahman were the actual purport of Srimad-Bhagavatam, Suta Gosvami would have said that Srila Vyasadeva saw in His trance how the one Brahman becomes divided because of ignorance, and how knowledge dispels the suffering caused by this duality. And if the Supreme Lord’s pastimes and qualities were unreal, what Sri Sukadeva experienced in his heart would be invalidated.

COMMENTARY Srila Vyasadeva’s Experience Does Not Support Advaita Monism Having presented his logical refutations of Advaita monism, Srila Jiva Gosvami now proceeds to disprove it by reference to sabda-pramana, scriptural evidence. This is the Vedic system. Logic by itself cannot give us an understanding of the Absolute Truth, the Personality of Godhead. In transcendental matters such as this, the final authority is always scripture. Scriptural evidence is so decisive that even if a certain claim defies logic but is supported by sabda-pramana, it should be accepted as conclusively true. Any standard of truth lower than this would be inconsistent with Vedantic epistemology, which is based on the axiom that the Vedas emanate from the Absolute and are thus infallible. Earlier, in the pramana portion of Sri Tattva-sandarbha, Srila Jiva Gosvami showed that Srimad-Bhagavatam is the supreme authority among all types of pramanas. Now he puts Advaita monism to Srimad-Bhagavatam’s test. The essential message of the Bhagavatam is found in the verses narrating what Srila Vyasa saw in trance—the Supreme Personality of Godhead along with His internal potencies, His marginal potency (the jivas), and His external potency (Maya). Vyasa did not see a nondifferentiated Brahman being overpowered by Maya and turning into many jivas. Rather, He saw that the jivas are distinct from the Supreme Lord and are captivated by Maya because they think themselves independent of the Lord. Vyasadeva thus saw that the cause of the jivas’ suffering is their sense of false independence. At the same time, He saw that the solution to the jivas’ predicament is rendering devotional service to the Supreme Person (bhakti-yogam adhoksaje), not imagining a state of oneness with Him. In Suta Gosvami’s prayers to Sukadeva Gosvami, his spiritual master, Suta confirms that merging with impersonal Brahman is an inferior goal. While speaking Srimad-Bhagavatam to the sages at Naimisaranya, Suta Gosvami specifically mentions that originally Sukadeva was absorbed in the bliss of Brahman. Later his heart was captivated when he heard a few Srimad-Bhagavatam verses describing the pastimes and attributes of Krsna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Sukadeva was so entranced that he thoroughly studied the description of the Lord’s pastimes in Srimad-Bhagavatam, and later he excelled in narrating the Bhagavatam. Therefore it is said that the Bhagavatam, which is the ripened fruit of the tree of Vedic literature, became even more relishable when it emanated from the mouth of Sukadeva. Suka means “parrot,” and Sukadeva’s name alludes to the well-known fact that fruits become sweeter after being pecked by parrots. When the fruit of the Bhagavatam was touched by Sukadeva Gosvami’s lips and then tasted by Pariksit Maharaja, it became sweeter than ever. Srila Sukadeva Gosvami’s attraction to the Bhagavatam indicates that the pastimes and attributes of the Supreme Personality of Godhead are both real and completely transcendental; otherwise a liberated soul like Sukadeva, who was beyond all mundane desires, would have never taken an interest in them. Sukadeva Gosvami, the most eminent of all Brahman-realized transcendentalists, demonstrated by his own behavior the falsity of the idea of absolute oneness between the Lord and the jivas. Thus we can conclude that the keys to the Advaita doctrine of monism—namely, pariccheda-vada and pratibimba-vada—are supported neither by logic nor by the scriptures, especially not by the supreme scriptural pramana, Srimad-Bhagavatam. The Mayavadis derive their opinions only from word jugglery and the distortion of scriptural truths, with the result that the innocent who hear their explanations become confused. Next Srila Jiva Gosvami explains the purpose of the monistic statements found in the Vedic scriptures.

English witness · section(s) 42

TEXT 42

tasmat pariccheda-pratibimbatvadi-pratipadaka-sastrany api kathaïcit tad-sadrsyena gaunyaiva vrttya pravarteran. `ambu-vad-agrahanat tu na tathatvam' `vrddhi-hrasa-bhaktatvam antar-bhavad ubhaya-samaïjasyad evam' iti purvottara-paksa-maya-nyayabhyam. Therefore scriptural passages that appear to favor such doctrines as pariccheda-vada and pratibimba-vada must be understood in a secondary sense—that is, as expressing some sort of similarity between the Supreme’s relation to the manifest world and the ordinary processes of division and reflection. The Vedanta-sutra confirms this idea: “The water in a pond covers the land underneath and thus delimits it from the rest of the earth, but Brahman cannot be delimited in this way to become a jiva” [V.s. 3.2.19]. “No, the reference to delimitation is appropriate not in its primary sense but in its secondary sense, that of the water delimiting larger and smaller areas of land. This interpretation fulfills the purpose of the scriptural passages, and thus it is appropriate to compare Brahman to land” [V.s. 3.2.20]. The first of these sutras gives an opponent’s objection, and the second replies to that objection.

COMMENTARY The Meaning of Monistic Statements in the Vedas The Mayavadis accept the Vedas as the supreme authority and cite them profusely in support of their opinions. Indeed, many of the Vedic references they quote may seem to support their theories, but here Srila Jiva Gosvami explains how to correctly interpret the apparently monistic statements in the Vedas. In Sanskrit, words have two kinds of meanings—primary, called mukhya vrtti, and secondary, called gauni vrtti. Vedic philosophers say that by the will of the Supreme Lord each word has some particular potency, which creates a specific relationship between the word and its meaning. For example, the word “cow” has a potency by which it refers to a particular entity having four legs, a tail, two eyes, a dewlap, an udder, and other features. Sometimes, however, in a particular con TEXT a word’s primary meaning fails to convey a relevant sense. In such cases we should conclude that the expression is figurative and accept some appropriate secondary meaning. Whenever the primary meaning of a scriptural statement is inappropriate there must be a secondary meaning intended, because scriptural statements, being apauruseya and thus free of defects, cannot be meaningless. In the Bhagavad-gita Lord Krsna addresses Arjuna as purusa-vyaghra, “tiger among men.” In its primary sense the word “tiger” refers to a ferocious animal with claws and fangs. Arjuna was certainly not such an animal, but since Lord Krsna’s words cannot be meaningless, the need arises for a figurative interpretation of purusa-vyaghra. Here the phrase is a metaphor, in which the Lord is calling Arjuna a tiger only to indicate his courage and prowess as a warrior. The word “tiger” in this phrase applies to these two characteristics that the tiger and Arjuna have in common, not to the primary sense of a tiger’s shape, habits, and so forth. In the same way, Vedic texts that appear to support monistic ideas should not be abandoned as ambiguous babblings just because their primary meaning contradicts the conclusion of Srila Vyasa’s trance. Rather, we should interpret these statements in a way consistent with the underlying purport of the Vedas. Accepting them literally will lead to confusion, and rejecting them outright may lead to contempt for the apauruseya-sabda. In the opinion of Srila Jiva Gosvami, one must search for secondary meanings that agree with Srila Vyasa’s experience. To support this judgment, Srila Jiva Gosvami refers us to sutras 3.2.19 and 20 of the Vedanta. The Vedanta-sutra is divided into four chapters (adhyayas), each having four sections (padas). These are further divided into adhikaranas. Each adhikarana includes a topic statement from the Upanisads followed by a doubt concerning that statement, then an opponent’s position (purva-paksa), then the right conclusion (siddhanta), and finally sangati, a demonstration of how the adhikarana relates to other adhikaranas. Some sutras are simply antitheses that represent the opinions of various sages and philosophers. These are always followed by siddhanta-sutras. Sutra 3.2.18 establishes that the purpose behind mentioning the jiva as a reflection of the Paramatma is not to show that the Paramatma becomes the jiva by reflection but to show that the Paramatma is different from the jiva in the same way that any real object is different from its reflection. If an object and its reflection were absolutely nondifferent, they could not be distinguished from each other. Thus the metaphor of the sun and its reflection in water is presented to establish not the oneness of the Paramatma and the jivatma but just the opposite. Sutra 3.2.18 states, ata eva copama suryakadi-vat: “Therefore, the analogy of the sun and its reflection shows the difference between the Supersoul and the soul.” A doubt is then raised: “This very analogy proves that the Paramatma reflects in avidya and appears to become the jiva. What’s wrong with this interpretation?” The next sutra (3.2.19) answers this doubt. It proves that the jiva is not a reflection of Brahman by pointing out that an upadhi cannot delimit Brahman in the same way that water can delimit land. While commenting on this sutra in his Govinda-bhasya, Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana explains that since Brahman is all-pervading, no object can possibly be distant from Him. Therefore, while the sun can cast a reflection in water because it is some distance from the water, Brahman can cast no reflection in anything because it is all-pervading. Therefore the jiva cannot be a reflection of Brahman. Although the claim of this sutra is valid, it does not agree with those scriptural statements that seem to indicate the jiva is a reflection of Brahman. It is in this sense that Srila Jiva Gosvami calls this sutra a purva-paksa. But if Brahman does not reflect as the jiva in the same way that the sun reflects on water, what do the sruti statements to that effect actually mean? They must have some reasonable purpose. Vyasadeva responds with the siddhanta, or conclusion, in sutra twenty. Although the comparison of the sun and its reflection with Brahman and the jiva is not valid when interpreted literally, it is valid when we consider the secondary characteristics of the analogy: The sun is great like Brahman, and its reflection is small like the jiva. Why do we give this secondary interpretation? To uphold the scripture’s conclusions, which constitute the overarching, consistent message of the Vedas and their corollary literature. Other valid interpretations of this analogy are as follows: (1) The jivas’ pains and pleasures do not affect Brahman, just as disturbances in a reflection of the sun do not affect the sun itself. (2) As a reflection of the sun is dependent on the sun, so the jivas are dependent on Brahman. (3) The jivas are localized like the sun’s reflections, while Brahman extends everywhere as the sun does through its heat and light. If we were to similarly analyze the remaining Brahma-sutras, as well as the Vedas and Puranas, we would discover that all the scriptural statements indicating nondifference between God and the living entity, when understood in such a secondary sense, prove to be based not on absolute oneness but on some common attributes between the analogy and its subject, and thus they are faithful to the conclusion of the Vedas. The Vedic texts never propose complete oneness between Brahman and the jiva. Such a proposal would make the whole body of Vedic scripture self-contradictory; it would reduce the Vedas to babble, a waste of time for anyone wanting to study them for spiritual enlightenment. One may here raise the objection, “Instead of rejecting the primary sense of the monistic statements found in sastra, why not accept them and instead reinterpret those statements that teach dualism?” The answer is that the understanding derived from such an approach would contradict Sri Vyasa’s experience, which is the nucleus of the Srimad-Bhagavatam, the topmost pramana. Next, Srila Jiva Gosvami explains the nondifference between the Supreme Lord and the jiva from the Vaisnava point of view.

English witness · section(s) 43

TEXT 43

tata evabheda-sastrany ubhayos cid-rupatvena jiva-samuhasya tad-ekatve ’pi durghata-ghatana-patiyasya svabhavika-tad-acintya-saktya svabhavata eva tad-rasmi-paramanu-gana-sthaniyatvat tad-vyatirekenavyatirekena ca virodham parihrtyagre muhur api tad-etad-vyasa-samadhi-labdha-siddhanta-yojanaya yojaniyani. Therefore the scriptural statements instructing us about the nondifference between the jivas and Brahman should be reconciled so as to agree with the conclusions Vyasa came to in His trance. This is accomplished by first removing the apparent contradiction in the jivas’ being both different and nondifferent from Brahman: From these statements teaching nondifference we should understand that the jivas are one with Brahman in the sense that both they and Brahman are pure spiritual entities, while by Brahman’s inconceivable, natural potency, which makes even the impossible possible, the jivas are also innately distinct from Brahman by virtue of their being His parts, like the infinitesimal rays of the sun’s light.

COMMENTARY Monistic Statements Need Interpretation Here Srila Jiva Gosvami gives his definitive opinion about the relation between the jivas and the Supreme Lord. Both the Lord and the jivas are naturally conscious beings, and it is primarily this common trait that the Vedic literature refers to when it speaks about their oneness. The purpose of these statements is to help us understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is beyond our experience. We know we are conscious, and so to give us some idea of His nature the Vedas employ various analogies and metaphors to illustrate that the Lord is conscious like us. In the course of these descriptions, we jivas are sometimes described as nondifferent from Him. Thus we should never misunderstand the Vedic statements about oneness to mean that the Lord and the jiva are one in all respects. When we read “He was a tiger in battle” we do not think that a man actually turned into a tiger. Rather, we accept a secondary meaning and understand that in battle the man was as ferocious as a tiger. We must accept similar secondary meanings for the statements in the Vedic literature about the jiva’s and Brahman’s oneness, our criterion always remaining whether our interpretation is consistent with the principles derived from Srila Vyasadeva’s trance. Srila Jiva Gosvami is a follower of Srimad-Bhagavatam’s acintya-bhedabheda philosophy, which he alludes to in the last sentence of this Text. Acintya-bhedabheda means “inconceivable, simultaneous oneness and difference” between the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the living entity, or in other words between the energetic source and its energy. The energy cannot exist without the energetic and is thus in one sense identical to it. At the same time, the energy can be said to be different from the energetic source because the energy’s activities are perceived to be separate from the energetic. Logically, such a relation is ultimately inconceivable. The jivas are like atomic rays of light in relation to the sunlike Lord. As the Svetasvatara Upanisad (6.8) states, parasya saktir vividhaiva sruyate: “The Supreme Lord has manifold energies.” Just as the rays of sunlight are neither completely different from nor exactly the same as the sun, so the jivas are simultaneously one with and different from the Lord. The Vedas’ descriptions of nondifference refer to the qualitative oneness of the Lord and the jivas, and the Vedas’ descriptions of difference refer to their quantitative difference. The Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad (2.1.20) provides an analogy to help us understand: yathagneh visphulinga vyuccaranti evam eva asmad atmanah sarve pranah sarve lokah sarve devah sarvani bhutani vyuccaranti. “Just as sparks emanate from a fire, so all these vital airs, planets, demigods, and living beings come from the Personality of Godhead.” Sparks are obviously different from the fire that manifests them, but because they possess in minute quantity such fiery qualities as heat and light, they can be said to be “one with” the fire as well. In the same way, the jivas can be said to be simultaneously different from and one with the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Any apparent inconsistency in this relationship is resolved by the inconceivable creative energy of the Supreme Lord, which can make the impossible possible. One should not confuse this inconceivable nature of the Lord with the inexplicable (anirvacaniya) nature that the Mayavadis ascribe to Maya. They say that Maya is neither sat (“real”) nor asat (“unreal”) and is hence indescribable. Vaisnavas, however, do not say that the Lord and His energies are indescribable, for the scriptures describe both. Instead Vaisnavas say that because the Lord’s nature and qualities are inconceivable to our limited mind and intellect, the Lord can be understood only through sabda-pramana. Some of the Lord’s inconceivable features are mentioned in the Isopanisad (5): tad ejati tan naijati tad dure tad v antike tad antarasya sarvasya tad u sarvasyasya bahyatah “The Supreme Lord walks and does not walk. He is far away but He is very near as well. He is within everything, and yet He is outside of everything.” Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana gives us another analogy that may help us understand acintya-bhedabheda-tattva: A fair-skinned brahmana boy and a dark-skinned brahmana boy are the same in terms of caste but are different as individuals. Similarly, the Supreme Lord and the jiva are one in that they both possess consciousness, but they are different in that the Lord is the all-pervading, all-knowing, independent controller of Maya, whereas the jiva is localized and may be an ignorant, dependent slave of Maya. Sometimes the Vedas equate the jiva with Brahman because he is subservient to Brahman. The principle behind this idea is not unfamiliar. An ambassador, for example, is in one sense equal to the chief of state he represents, and because of this equivalence any respect or disrespect shown the ambassador redounds upon his master. The reason why people accept a rough equivalence between the two is that the ambassador has some of the master’s power, but no one would ever foolishly consider them identical in all respects. The Mayavadis err by choosing to see just one side of the situation and emphasizing only the nondifference between the jiva and Brahman. One should not deal with the Vedas according to the logic of “ardha-kukkuti,” accepting only statements favorable to one’s viewpoint and rejecting opposing ones. The Vedas contain statements declaring both the difference and the nondifference between Brahman and the jiva. These seemingly contradictory views can most naturally be reconciled by the application of the acintya-bhedabheda philosophy. This doctrine of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu’s is the greatest gift of philosophy to the world. His teachings do not contradict any Vedic scripture or authentic point of view; rather, they resolve the apparent contradictions in the Vedic literature in accordance with the Vedas’ final conclusions. His teachings are the natural and direct explanation of the Vedic literature. In summary, what follows are the ideas underlying the Vedic statements that speak of the oneness of Brahman and the jivas, employing the analogies of reflection and delimitation: 1. The jiva, like Brahman, is by nature purely conscious. 2. The jiva, like Brahman, is distinct from matter. 3. The jiva is one of Brahman’s energies. 4. The jiva is eternally dependent on Brahman. 5. The jiva can never be absolutely one with Brahman. 6. The jiva is constitutionally the eternal servitor of Brahman. 7. The analogies of reflection and delimitation help us understand the purely spiritual nature of Brahman. In the Paramatma-sandarbha Srila Jiva Gosvami will further describe the living entity and his relationship with the Supreme Lord. In the next TEXT he summarizes the facts concerning abhidheya, the process for realizing this subject.

English witness · section(s) 44

TEXT 44

tad evam mayasrayatva-maya-mohitatvabhyam sthite dvayor bhede `daivi hy esa' ity-adi-nyayena tad-bhajanasyaivabhidheyatvam ayatam. Since the Supreme Lord and the jiva thus have distinct identities, the Lord being the foundation of Maya and the jiva being deluded by her, we can conclude that devotional service to the Lord is the only recommended method for self-realization. This conclusion follows logically from such scriptural statements as the following one in the Bhagavad-gita [7.14]: “This divine energy of Mine, consisting of the three modes of material nature, is difficult to overcome. Only those who have surrendered unto Me can easily cross beyond it.”

COMMENTARY Devotional Service Is the Abhidheya Srila Vyasadeva saw that the Supreme Lord is the foundation of Maya: mayam ca tad-apasrayam (Bhag. 1.7.4). He also saw that only the living entity is deluded by Maya: yaya sammohito jivah (Bhag. 1.7.5). Thus the Supreme Lord and the jiva are naturally distinct, for the Lord never comes under Maya’s spell. The Lord can never turn into a jiva, and no jiva can ever make himself God. Srila Vyasadeva also saw that the means for the jiva’s release from bondage is devotional service to the Supreme Lord: bhakti-yogam adhoksaje (Bhag. 1.7.6). In this TEXT the word eva in the phrase tad bhajanasya eva means “only” and indicates that no process other than bhakti-yoga can cut the bonds of Maya. No other method, not even jïana-yoga or astanga-yoga, is potent enough to permanently relieve the jivas’ miseries. As Lord Krsna declares in the Bhagavad-gita (7.14): daivi hy esa guna-mayi mama maya duratyaya/ mam eva ye prapadyante mayam etam taranti te. Maya, the divine energy of the Lord, cannot possibly be overcome by anyone except the person who surrenders unto Him. Other paths may at best elevate a person to the mode of goodness by purifying his heart of the lower modes, but they cannot elevate him to full transcendence without the merciful help of bhakti. Narada Muni confirms this in his teachings to Yudhisthira Maharaja (Bhag. 7.15.28–29): sad-varga-samyamaikantah sarva niyama-codanah tad-anta yadi no yogan avaheyuh sramavahah

yatha vartadayo hy artha yogasyartham na bibhrati anarthaya bhaveyuh sma purtam istam tathasatah “Ritualistic ceremonies, regulative principles, austerities, and the practice of yoga are all meant to control the senses and mind, but even after one is able to control the senses and mind, if he does not come to the point of meditation upon the Supreme Lord, all such activities are simply labor in frustration. As professional activities or business profits cannot help one in spiritual advancement but are a source of material entanglement, the Vedic ritualistic ceremonies cannot help anyone who is not a devotee of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.” In this TEXT the word bheda (“difference”) is also significant. By using it Srila Jiva Gosvami emphasizes that unless the jiva clearly understands he is both different from and subordinate to the Supreme Lord, he will not become interested in pursuing devotional service. This conviction is essential for advancement in spiritual life. The natural tendency of a conditioned soul is to think himself the controller, the lord of all he surveys, and this delusion makes him loathe the very idea of surrendering to the Lord. Indeed, this tendency to control remains a great peril even for those actively engaged in bhakti-yoga, since the jivas’ desires to control are very deep-rooted and can sprout forth at any time, choking off the tender creeper of devotion. Unless a candidate for unalloyed bhakti vigilantly guards against residual desires to be the master of all, these desires will likely manifest themselves and slow his progress toward pure Krsna consciousness. In the next TEXT Srila Jiva Gosvami concludes this part of his discussion with a reference to the prayojana, or final goal, of bhakti-yoga.

English witness · section(s) 45

TEXT 45

atah Sri-bhagavata eva sarva-hitopadestrtvat sarva-duhkha-haratvad rasminam surya-vat sarvesam parama-svarupatvat sarvadhika-guna-salitvat parama-prema-yogatvam iti prayojanam ca sthapitam. From the above discussion we can see that the Personality of Godhead is the most deserving recipient of perfect love because He instructs all people about their ultimate welfare, He removes all sorrows, He is everyone’s Supreme Self (like the sun in relation to its rays), and He is perfectly endowed with all wonderful qualities. Thus is established the final goal of all endeavor (prayojana).

COMMENTARY Love of God Is the Goal of Life The Vedas provide education in religious practice (dharma), economic development (artha), regulated sense enjoyment (kama), and ultimately liberation from the cycle of birth and death (moksa). These four are known as the purusarthas, or goals of human life. On the basis of logic or scriptural authority, every school of Indian philosophy tries to direct the jivas toward liberation, which puts an end to all miseries. Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu’s teachings, however, lead beyond liberation. When Sanatana Gosvami approached Sri Caitanya to inquire about spiritual life, his first question was “What is my duty after liberation?” This question was revolutionary. Before this, almost no one would inquire about a fifth purusartha; liberation was considered the ultimate goal. But Lord Caitanya explained to Sanatana that prema, love of God, is the fifth and ultimate goal of life (païcama-purusartha): prema pum-artho mahan. Lord Caitanya established this purusartha with reference to the Vedas, and in the course of doing so He relied especially on “the spotless Purana,” Srimad-Bhagavatam, promoting it as the ultimate scriptural authority. Along with the final goal of pure love of God, Sri Caitanya also established that Lord Krsna is the most complete manifestation of God and therefore the most perfect object of loving devotional service. Prior to Lord Caitanya, Vaisnavas generally rendered reverential devotional service to the Supreme Lord in His opulent feature. Only a few rare souls knew the true conclusion of the Vedic teachings. Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu, however, revealed to all His followers the fifth goal—love of God—and ordered them to propagate it everywhere. If a person makes prema his ultimate goal in life, he will not detest the material world (as impersonalists do), because he will appreciate it as the creation of his beloved Lord. Following the example of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, a devotee should see everything in this world in relation to the Supreme Lord and use whatever he can in His devotional service. One who adopts this correct outlook will quickly be endowed with all good qualities. The evil traits of lust, greed, envy, and so on will depart from him. Treating every living being as part and parcel of the Lord, he will become everyone’s well-wishing friend and not think of harming or exploiting anyone, even in his dreams. With the followers of Lord Caitanya able to cultivate such an attitude, it is clear that His teachings are the most sublime, practical, and versatile of all spiritual philosophies. Although these teachings emphasize giving up this world and going to the spiritual world, following them also improves the quality of life here. Lord Caitanya’s teachings are thus suitable for all people to study and practice, regardless of caste, creed, or nationality. By contrast, when a spiritual practitioner makes liberation his final objective, he will almost never develop a loving relationship with the Supreme Lord. Rather, he will attempt to use the Supreme Lord to achieve his goal. It is not uncommon to find liberationists who at first worship the Deity forms of Radha-Krsna and then discard these forms at a supposedly higher stage of development, when they imagine they have advanced to the level of Brahman realization. Such deluded souls think that because they have achieved oneness with the Supreme they no longer need the Deity forms. For the Mayavadis, then, the Lord is nothing more than a means to liberation, and thus their impersonalistic philosophy is the ultimate form of selfishness and blasphemy. Based on detachment and introversion, their doctrine cannot bring warmth and sympathy, compassion and serenity, into human society. It only depersonalizes human life. A pure devotee advancing on the path of loving devotional service is not inclined to demand anything of his Lord, not even liberation. He desires only to please his worshipable Lord eternally. To that end he cheerfully tolerates any tribulation. Such unconditional love is in fact the prayojana, or goal of life, promoted by Srimad-Bhagavatam. Although in the previous TEXT Srila Jiva Gosvami said that a jiva should worship the Lord to get free from the clutches of Maya, here he goes further: he rejects liberation as the prayojana and hints at a new goal—love of Godhead, prema-bhakti. Sri Jiva will present his full discussion on prema-bhakti later, in Sri Priti-sandarbha. In this TEXT Srila Jiva Gosvami gives four reasons why the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the most suitable object of love. The first reason is that the Supreme Lord is always thinking of every jiva’s welfare. Therefore He frequently teaches the conditioned souls various ways to better themselves. He comes Himself to give direct instruction, as He did when He taught Arjuna on the Battlefield of Kuruksetra and, as Veda-vyasa, compiled the Vedic literature. To preach His message He also sends His devotees to this material world as good-will ambassadors. Even on the material level the Supreme Lord takes care of all living beings by impartially supplying them with such essentials as light, air, water, and food. Even atheists and agnostics are provided for. The second reason why the Supreme Lord is the most worthy object of love is that He relieves the miseries of the conditioned souls by helping to liberate them from illusion. To take advantage of this help, however, the jivas must surrender to Him: sarva-dharman parityajya mam ekam saranam vraja aham tvam sarva-papebhyo moksayisyami ma sucah “[Lord Krsna said to Arjuna:] ‘Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear’” (Bg. 18.66). The third reason why Sri Krsna is the most lovable object is that He is the ultimate svarupa, or Self, of all beings, just as the sun globe is the ultimate basis of the sun’s rays. The sun’s rays always depend on the sun, and they are glorious only in relation to the sun. In the same way, the jivas perpetually depend on the Personality of Godhead and become glorious only when they reawaken their true relationship with Him through bhakti-yoga. Even material objects find peace only when they are united with their source: rivers all naturally seek the ocean and become finally calm when they reach that goal; similarly, an earthy object separated from the earth, such as an apple thrown into the air, will be spontaneously attracted to return to the earth. We also see that human beings naturally want to revere those they consider superior. Krsna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is the ultimate superior being, and therefore He is the ideal person in whom all jivas may repose their reverence and love. The last reason why Sri Krsna is the best object of love is that He possesses all wonderful, matchless qualities to their fullest extent. Of all the Supreme Lord’s own direct manifestations, His original two-handed form as a cowherd boy is the most beautiful and attractive. Thus Srila Rupa Gosvami writes in his Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu (1.2.59): siddhantatas tv abhede ’pi krsna-Srisa-svarupayoh rasenotkrsyate krsna-rupam esa rasa-sthitih “Although in principle there is no difference between the personalities of Lord Krsna and Lord Narayana, the husband of the goddess of fortune, still Sri Krsna’s form is the unparalleled reservoir of rasas. This, indeed, is the law of rasas.” Srila Vyasa saw this same Krsna in trance, along with all His personal attributes and potencies. He saw that love of Krsna is the ultimate goal of life: krsne parama-puruse bhaktih (Bhag. 1.7.7). Thus we can conclude by both logic and scriptural analysis that Lord Krsna is the supreme object of love. He is the actual prayojana, the ultimate goal of life. Next Srila Jiva Gosvami explains the importance of sadhana-bhakti, devotional service in practice.

TATTVA SANDARBHA

BY SRILA JIVA GOSWAMI

[PART 8]

English witness · section(s) 46

TEXT 46.1

tatrabhidheyam ca tadrsatvena drstavan api yatas tat-pravrtty-artham Sri-bhagavatakhyam imam satvata-samhitam pravartitavan ity aha, anartheti. bhakti-yogo ’tra sravana-kirtanadi-laksanah sadhana-bhakti-yogo na tu prema-laksanah. anusthanam hy upadesapeksam prema tu tat-prasadapeksam iti. In trance Srila Vyasadeva also perceived the process of self-realization (abhidheya), as described above [in TEXT 44]. Then, to propagate it He composed for the saintly Vaisnavas this scripture called Srimad-Bhagavatam. Sri Suta Gosvami describes all this in the verse beginning anartha- [Bhag. 1.7.6]. In this verse the word bhakti-yoga refers to sadhana-bhakti, regulated devotional service, which is characterized by hearing, chanting, and so on, and not to prema-bhakti, devotional service in pure love of God. This is the correct interpretation because sadhana-bhakti depends on instruction, while love of God depends only on the Lord’s grace.

TEXT 46.2

tathapi tasya tat-prasada-hetos tat-prema-phala-garbhatvat saksad evanarthopasamanatvam na tv anya-sapeksatvena `yat karmabhir yat tapasa jïana-vairagyatas ca yat' ity-adau `sarvam mad-bhakti-yogena mad-bhakto labhate ’ïjasa svargapavargam' ity-adeh. jïanades tu bhakti-sapeksatvam eva `sreyah-srtim bhaktim' ity-adeh. atha vanarthasya samsara-vyasanasya tavat saksad avyavadhanenopasamanam sammohadi-dvayasya tu premakhya-sviya-phala-dvarenety arthah. atah purva-vad evatrabhidheyam darsitam. Even so, sadhana-bhakti, being the means for gaining the Lord’s grace, ultimately matures into love of Godhead. Thus it is said that sadhana-bhakti directly removes the jiva’s miseries (anarthopasamam saksad), without depending on anything else. As the Lord states in the Srimad-Bhagavatam [11.20.32–33], “Everything that can be achieved by fruitive activities, penance, knowledge, detachment, mystic yoga, charity, religious duties, and all other means of perfecting life is easily achieved by My devotee through loving service unto Me. If somehow or other My devotee desires promotion to heaven, liberation, or residence in My abode, he easily achieves such benedictions.” By contrast, such methods as cultivating knowledge depend on devotional service for success, as shown instatements like the following [Bhag. 10.14.4]: “My dear Lord, devotional service unto You is the best path for self-realization. If someone gives up that path and engages in the cultivation of speculative knowledge, he will simply undergo a troublesome process and will not achieve his desired result. As a person who beats an empty husk of wheat cannot get grain, one who simply speculates cannot achieve self-realization. His only gain is trouble.” Or else the meaning of anarthopasamam saksad is that sadhana-bhakti, without relying on any intermediate process, directly counteracts the material miseries but that only pure love of God, the mature fruit of sadhana-bhakti, can counteract the two fundamental faults of bewilderment and misidentification. Thus the abhidheya is expressed here [Bhag. 1.7.6] as it was before [Texts 29 and 32].

COMMENTARY The Definition of Abhidheya In TEXT 44 Jiva Gosvami concluded from his analysis of Srila Vyasa’s trance that Srimad-Bhagavatam’s abhidheya-tattva is devotional service to the Supreme Lord. Vyasadeva also saw in His trance that the miseries of the jivas can be vanquished by bhakti-yoga alone, and that this practice of bhakti-yoga will further lead to pure love of Godhead, which brings one direct realization of the Lord. To broadcast this knowledge He compiled the beautiful Bhagavatam and taught it to His son, Sukadeva Gosvami. The word bhakti-yoga is used twice in the Bhagavatam verses describing Srila Vyasadeva’s trance. Srila Jiva Gosvami says that the first occurrence of this word (Bhag. 1.7.4) refers to spontaneous devotional service in full realization of prema, because only on that level of pure love can one have direct personal realization of the Supreme Lord. The second occurrence (Bhag. 1.7.6) refers to devotional service in practice, sadhana-bhakti. Unlike sadhana-bhakti, prema-bhakti does not depend on instruction because at that stage a devotee offers devotional service to the Lord spontaneously. Sadhana-bhakti must be learned from scripture and from saintly persons; it is motivated for the most part by scriptural injunctions. As the devotee performs the regulated practice of bhakti, his heart is gradually purified and he becomes fit for spontaneous devotional service in love of God. Only in this sense can it be said that sadhana-bhakti matures into prema-bhakti. But in fact prema, the internal potency of the Lord, manifests in the aspiring devotee’s heart by the grace of the Lord and His pure devotee. In the Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu Srila Rupa Gosvami states that devotional service which is executed by the senses and which matures into bhava-bhakti is called sadhana-bhakti. When bhava-bhakti intensifies it is called prema-bhakti. The only difference between the two is the degree of intensity: bhava-bhakti is the immature state of prema-bhakti. Bhava-bhakti is like the dawn, prema-bhakti like high noon. Thus Srila Rupa Gosvami defines prema-bhakti as follows: samyan-masrnita-svanto mamatvatisayankitah bhavah sa eva sandratma budhaih prema nigadyate “When bhava becomes very dense and the devotee’s heart melts completely out of intense love for the Lord and great attachment to Him, that state of bhava is called prema by learned scholars” (Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu 1.4.1). Because devotion belongs to the internal potency (svarupa-sakti) of the Supreme Lord, it is as potent as He is and can certainly fulfill all a devotee’s desires. A pure devotee has no desire except to render the Lord service, but if somehow he does have some other desire, to fulfill it he need not take to any process other than bhakti. This is the supreme independence of pure devotional service. On the other hand, other progressive processes, such as jïana-yoga and astanga-yoga, depend on the grace of bhakti for success. Without the merciful glance of devotion, none of these processes can ever give their practitioners their own intended fruits, what to speak of love of God. Just as the body and the senses are worthless without the soul, so these paths are worthless without devotion. In Srimad-Bhagavatam, therefore, after Sukadeva Gosvami lists various demigods one may worship to fulfill material desires, he concludes: akamah sarva-kamo va moksa-kama udara-dhih tivrena bhakti-yogena yajeta purusam param “A person who has broader intelligence, whether he is full of material desires, without any material desires, or desiring only liberation, must by all means worship the supreme whole, the Personality of Godhead” (Bhag. 2.3.10). This statement reveals that bhakti-yoga is the key to fulfilling all desires, whether spiritual or mundane. Srila Rupa Gosvami confirms this in his Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu (1.2.251): kintu jïana-virakty-adi-sadhyam bhaktyaiva sidhyati. “Indeed, only with the aid of bhakti can one attain the fruits available through the cultivation of knowledge, detachment, and so on.” The knowledge and detachment mentioned here are not those related with the Lord and His devotional service. Indeed, the Bhagavatam verse quoted in this TEXT (10.14.4) makes it explicit that knowledge of impersonal Brahman is certainly among those items not related to the Lord and His devotional service. Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.7.6 states, anarthopasamam saksad bhakti-yogam: “Bhakti-yoga directly mitigates the miseries of the conditioned soul.” Srila Jiva Gosvami gives two explanations of the word saksat (“direct”) in this context. He says that bhakti in the first sense is sadhana-bhakti, which, unaided by any other process, directly removes all such worldly miseries as mental and physical disturbances caused by the dualities of heat and cold. However, to dispel the underlying delusion of bodily attachment we need bhakti in the second sense—namely, prema-bhakti, love of God, the fruit of sadhana-bhakti, In the next TEXT Srila Jiva Gosvami discusses the prayojana-tattva as Vyasadeva realized it.

English witness · section(s) 47

TEXT 47.1

atha purva-vad eva prayojanam ca spastayitum purvoktasya purna-purusasya ca Sri-krsna-svarupatvam vyaïjayitum grantha-phala-nirdesa-dvara tatra tad-anubhavantaram pratipadayann aha yasyam iti. bhaktih prema sravana-rupaya sadhana-bhaktya sadhyatvat. utpadyate avirbhavati. tasyanusangikam gunam aha soketi. atraisam samskaro ’pi nasyatiti bhavah `pritir na yavan mayi vasudeve na mucyate deha-yogena tavat' iti Sri-rsabhadeva-vakyat. Next, to clarify the final goal (prayojana), as described above [in Bhag. 1.7.4–6], and to affirm that the purna-purusa mentioned above [in Bhag. 1.7.4] is in fact Lord Krsna, Suta Gosvami speaks the verse beginning yasyam [Bhag. 1.7.7]. While describing the effect of hearing Srimad-Bhagavatam in this verse, he reveals another of Srila Vyasadeva’s realizations. In this verse the word bhakti refers to pure love of Godhead, because that is the goal achieved through executing the devotional practice of hearing. The word utpadyate (“is generated”) here means “becomes manifest.” And the manifestation of pure love of Godhead is soka-moha-bhayapaha—that is, it destroys all lamentation, illusion, and fear, the implication being that even their subtle remnants are destroyed. This is confirmed by the words of Sri Rsabhadeva: “Therefore, until one has love for Lord Vasudeva, who is none other than Myself, he is certainly not delivered from having to accept a material body again and again” [Bhag. 5.5.6].

TEXT 47.2

parama-puruse purvokta-purna-puruse. kim-akare ity apeksayam aha krsne. krsnas `tu bhagavan svayam' ity-adi-sastra-sahasra-bhavitantah-karananam paramparaya tat-prasiddhi-madhya-patinam casankhya-lokanam tan-nama-sravana-matrena yah prathama-pratiti-visayah syat tatha tan-namnah prathamaksara-matram mantraya kalpyamanam yasyabhimukhyaya syat tad-akare ity arthah. ahus ca nama-kaumudi-karah `krsna-sabdasya tamala-syamala-tvisi yasodayah stanan-dhaye para-brahmani rudhih' iti. In this verse [Bhag. 1.7.7] the word parama-puruse (“for the Supreme Person”) refers to the same purna-purusa (“complete person”) mentioned earlier [Bhag. 1.7.4]. What is His form? To this Sri Suta Gosvami replies, “Krsna.” In other words, for those whose hearts are enriched with thousands of scriptural statements such as krsnas tu bhagavan svayam (“Krsna is the original Personality of Godhead”; [Bhag. 1.3.28]), and for those who are attracted to His glories and fame by hearing through a bona fide disciplic succession, as soon as they hear His name their minds are filled with His presence. And as soon as such persons chant the first syllable of His name while uttering His mantra, the Lord’s attention is also drawn to the chanter. That is the form denoted by the word Krsna in this verse [Bhag. 1.7.7]. This is confirmed by the author of Nama-kaumudi: “The conventional meanings of the name Krsna are ‘one who is black like a tamala tree,’ ‘He who was breast-fed by Sri Yasoda,’ and ‘the Supreme Brahman.’”

COMMENTARY Devotional Service Frees One from All Material Miseries In TEXT 45 Srila Jiva Gosvami summarized Srila Vyasadeva’s realizations concerning prayojana-tattva. Suta Gosvami reaffirms these realizations in Bhagavatam 1.7.7, where he states that just by listening to the Bhagavatam one will attain love of Godhead. Bhakti here must refer to love of Godhead and not sadhana-bhakti, devotional service in practice, since hearing Srimad-Bhagavatam is itself the sadhana. In this verse the verb utpadyate (“is generated”) means not that love of God is created anew but that it becomes manifest in the heart. Because love of God is His internal potency, it is never created. As a concomitant effect of love of God, the devotee is freed from all lamentation, illusion, and fear. Indeed, even their dormant seeds are destroyed, so powerful is love of Krsna. The root cause of a jiva’s misery is his forgetfulness of the Lord, but when he attains love of God He never forgets the Lord. One who attains love for Krsna loses interest in all kinds of other pleasures, including even the bliss of impersonal realization. All his doubts are vanquished and all his desires completely satisfied. Nothing can disturb him or deviate his mind from devotional service. In this regard Srila Rupa Gosvami writes (Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu 1.2. 58): tatrapy ekantinam srestha govinda-hrta-manasah yesam Srisa-prasado ’pi mano hartum na saknuyat “Among the various kinds of unalloyed devotees of the Lord, the best are those whose hearts have been captivated by Lord Govinda. Indeed, such devotees have no attraction or desire even for the favor of Lord Narayana, the husband of the supreme goddess of fortune.” A side benefit of such pure love for Krsna, as Srila Jiva Gosvami mentions in TEXT 47.1, is that even the seeds of lamentation, illusion, and fear are destroyed. These seeds are rooted deeply in the soil of bodily attachment, and by quoting Lord Rsabhadeva here Srila Jiva Gosvami emphasizes that there is no way to eradicate this bodily attachment other than by becoming attached to Krsna. And one can easily attain this prayojana of attachment to Krsna by hearing Srimad-Bhagavatam. Vyasadeva saw all this in His trance. Krsna, referred to in Bhagavatam 1.7.7 as parama-purusa, the Supreme Person, is identical with the purna-purusa whom Vyasa saw along with His potencies. In TEXT 30 Srila Jiva Gosvami has already explained that this purna-purusa is the original Personality of Godhead. Now he identifies that Supreme Person as Lord Sri Krsna. Srila Jiva Gosvami next explains who that Krsna is. History records various Krsnas. For example, Arjuna was also called Krsna, as shown in Bhagavatam 1.8.43, where Srimati Kuntidevi addresses Lord Krsna as Krsna-sakha, “the friend of Krsna [Arjuna].” And Vyasadeva was also sometimes called Krsna. Nonetheless, as soon as Vaisnavas coming in the authorized lines of disciplic succession hear the word “Krsna,” the form that immediately comes to mind is Lord Krsna’s, not Arjuna’s or Vyasa’s or that of any other ancient or modern person of the same name. According to Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana, this is the spontaneous experience of eminent personalities like Suta Gosvami, Saunaka Rsi, and Jayadeva Gosvami. Thus the normal, conventional meaning of the name Krsna is the two-handed Lord Krsna who appeared as a cowherd in Vraja. As we have described above, words may have various secondary meanings in addition to their primary ones. The primary meaning of a word is the image that comes to the mind upon first hearing or reading it, before any related thought or analysis can modify its meaning. Thus the primary meaning of the name “Krsna” is Lord Sri Krsna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Sri Laksmidhara Pandita, while commenting on the meanings of various names of the Lord in his Nama-kaumudi, defines “Krsna” as “He who is black like the tamala tree.” In Vaisnava literature Krsna’s bodily hue is often likened to the color of the tamala tree, which is commonly found in the Vrndavana area. Just defining Krsna’s complexion, however, leaves open the possibility that the Krsna referred to is the son of Devaki in Mathura and Dvaraka. Therefore Laksmidhara further specifies the meaning as “the one who was suckled by Srimati Yasoda.” This fixes the primary meaning of “Krsna” as the young cowherd son of Yasoda in Vrndavana, since the older Krsna of Mathura does not drink Mother Yasoda’s breast milk. If doubts still linger about this Krsna’s being the Supreme Lord—since there could always be someone else named Krsna from Vrndavana who has a blackish complexion and a mother named Yasoda—Laksmidhara further limits the meaning of “Krsna” to “the Supreme Brahman,” the Personality of Godhead. In Sanskrit, words have a derived meaning (yaugika), which may sometimes differ from their conventional usage (rudhi). The rudhi, or conventional meaning, is always the primary meaning. In cases where the primary, conventional meaning differs from the derived meaning, the primary meaning always takes precedence: yogad rudhir baliyasi. In the case of the name “Krsna,” the derived meaning is also the Supreme Person, as the Mahabharata (Udyoga-parva 70.5) explains: krsir bhu-vacakam sabdo nas ca nirvrti-vacakah visnus tad-bhava-yogac ca krsno bhavati sasvatah “The syllable ‘krs’ denotes existence, and the syllable ‘na’ denotes bliss. The eternal Lord Krsna is also always Visnu in both these senses.” The Amara-kosa Sanskrit dictionary (1.18) states, visnur narayanah krsno vaikuntho vistara-sravah: “The names Visnu, Narayana, Krsna, and Vaikuntha are synonymous.” One may say that these are names of Visnu, but after listing thirty-nine such names, the Amara-kosa states, vasudevo ’sya janakah: “His father is Vasudeva.” By way of further confirmation that Krsna is supreme, the author then immediately lists the names of Lord Balarama, Krsna’s brother. Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana quotes the following verse in his COMMENTARY on Sri Visnu-sahasra-nama (20), while defining the name “Krsna”: krsir bhu-vacakah sabdo nas ca nirvrti-samjïakah tayor aikyam param brahma krsna ity abhidhiyate “The syllable ‘krs’ means ‘existence,’ and the syllable ‘na’ means ‘bliss.’ The combination of these two is ‘Krsna,’ the name of the Supreme Personality of Godhead” (Gopala-tapani Up., Purva 1.1). In this way both the conventional and the derived meanings of the name “Krsna” are the same—the two-handed cowherd boy who is the son of Mother Yasoda and also the Supreme Godhead. Since Vyasadeva saw this particular Krsna in His trance, the ultimate goal of life must be to attain love of Krsna. The next point Srila Jiva Gosvami makes is that when the word Krsna is uttered in a mantra, as in the Hare Krsna maha-mantra, this sound attracts the attention of Lord Krsna Himself the very moment the first syllable is vibrated. This is so because the name “Krsna” is identical with the person Krsna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. For verification we can examine the experience of many realized souls who attained perfection by chanting the Hare Krsna mantra. In the next TEXT Srila Jiva Gosvami explains that the bliss derived from love of Godhead is far superior to that derived from impersonal realization.

English witness · section(s) 48

TEXT 48

atha tasyaiva prayojanasya brahmanandanubhavad api paramatvam anubhutavan. yatas tadrsam sukam api tad-ananda-vaisistya-lambhanaya tam adhyapayam asety aha sa samhitam iti. krtvanukramya ceti prathamatah svayam sanksepena krtva pascat tu Sri-naradopadesad anukramena vivrtyety arthah. ata eva Srimad-bhagavatam bharatanantara-krtam yad atra sruyate yac canyatrastadasa-purananantaram bharatam iti tad dvayam api samahitam syat. brahmanandanubhava-nimagnatvan nivrtti-niratam sarvato nivrttau niratam tatravyabhicarinam apity arthah. Srila Vyasadeva experienced that this final goal [the bliss of pure love of God] is superior to even brahmananda, the happiness derived from realizing the impersonal aspect of the Supreme. This we know because Vyasadeva taught Sukadeva Gosvami Srimad-Bhagavatam so he could taste the special bliss derived from love of Godhead, even though Sukadeva was already absorbed in brahmananda. Suta Gosvami states this in the verse beginning sa samhitam [Bhag. 1.7.8]. In this verse the phrase krtvanukramya (“after compiling and revising”) indicates that Vyasadeva first wrote Srimad-Bhagavatam in an abbreviated form and that later on, after being instructed by Sri Narada Muni, He expanded and rearranged it. Thus two apparently contradictory statements are reconciled—one found here [in the Bhagavatam] saying that the Bhagavatam was composed after the Mahabharata, and the other found elsewhere [the Skanda Purana, Prabhasa-khanda 2.94], saying that the Mahabharata was compiled after the eighteen Puranas. The word nivrtti-nirata (“attached to renunciation”) implies that because of his absorption in the bliss of Brahman, Sri Sukadeva was living a life of complete renunciation, from which he never deviated.

COMMENTARY Love of God Is Superior to the Bliss of Brahman One of Srila Vyasadeva’s most profound realizations described in Srimad-Bhagavatam was that bhakty-ananda, the bliss derived from rendering loving devotional service to Krsna, is superior to brahmananda, the bliss derived from merging into the impersonal Brahman. Srila Rupa Gosvami confirms this superiority in his Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu (1.1.38): brahmanando bhaved esa cet parardha-guni-krtah naiti bhakti-sukhambhodheh paramanu-tulam api “Even if the happiness of Brahman realization is multiplied trillions of times, it would not equal even a single drop of the ocean of the bliss derived from devotional service.” Indeed, the bliss of pure devotional service always minimizes the happiness of Brahman realization. A father naturally wants to give His son the best thing he has. Thus Srila Vyasadeva taught Srimad-Bhagavatam to Sukadeva Gosvami. But being Vyasadeva’s son was not Sukadeva’s only qualification. Perfectly fixed in renunciation, he had no material desires (nivrtti-niratam). In other words, he had no ulterior motive that would have led him to misconstrue the meaning of Srimad-Bhagavatam for material gain, either gross or subtle. It is for this reason that Srila Vyasadeva regarded Sukadeva as the most qualified of His disciples to hear the Bhagavatam, and by choosing him for this great honor Vyasadeva set the standard for all future students and speakers of Srimad-Bhagavatam. In this TEXT Srila Jiva Gosvami also resolves a controversy concerning the order in which the Srimad-Bhagavatam and the Mahabharata were composed. In the passage beginning with the following two verses, the Bhagavatam itself says it was composed after the Mahabharata: stri-sudra-dvija-bandhunam trayi na sruti-gocara karma-sreyasi mudhanam sreya evam bhaved iha iti bharatam akhyanam krpaya munina krtam

evam pravrttasya sada bhutanam sreyasi dvijah sarvatmakenapi yada natusyad dhrdayam tatah “Out of compassion, the great sage thought it wise to do something that would enable even those who were ignorant of how to act for their own welfare to achieve the ultimate goal of life. Thus He compiled the great historical narration called the Mahabharata for women, laborers, and friends of the twice-born because they do not have access to the Vedas. O twice-born brahmanas, still His mind was not satisfied, although He engaged himself in working for the total welfare of all people” (Bhag. 1.4.25–26). When Vyasa was thus feeling dissatisfied, Narada Muni came and requested Him to compose Srimad-Bhagavatam. Elsewhere, however, it is stated that the Mahabharata was spoken after all eighteen Puranas. Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana, in his COMMENTARY on this TEXT of the Tattva-sandarbha, cites the Matsya Purana (53.70): astadasa-puranani krtva satyavati-sutah cakre bharatam akhyanam vedarthair upabrmhitam “After compiling the eighteen Puranas, Vyasadeva, the son of Satyavati, composed the great history called the Mahabharata, which serves as a COMMENTARY on the Vedas.” To resolve this apparent contradiction in the chronology, Srila Jiva Gosvami explains that Srila Vyasadeva originally composed the Bhagavatam in an abbreviated form. Later He compiled the great history called Mahabharata out of compassion for those who cannot study the Vedas. But even after completing this great epic, Vyasa still felt a void in His heart. Thereafter Narada Muni instructed Him to produce a new, expanded edition of Srimad-Bhagavatam, the one currently available. Moreover, from Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.3.43, quoted below, we can understand that this later edition was composed after Lord Krsna’s disappearance from the earth. Earlier Vyasa had composed the Mahabharata for the welfare of people in the grip of Kali. Pariksit Maharaja’s chastisement of Kali occurred after the dialogue between Narada Muni and Srila Vyasadeva, since it was the spread of Kali’s influence that had saddened Vyasa. Prior to Kali’s appearance Vyasadeva had no reason to feel dissatisfied, since Lord Krsna was still present along with all religious principles. The Bhagavatam (1.3.43) confirms that this later edition of Srimad-Bhagavatam manifested before the brahmana boy Srngi had cursed Maharaja Pariksit, an event that occurred after the disappearance of Lord Sri Krsna: krsne sva-dhamopagate dharma-jïanadibhih saha kalau nasta-drsam esa puranarko ’dhunoditah “This Bhagavata Purana is as brilliant as the sun, and it has arisen just after the departure of Lord Krsna to His own abode, accompanied by religion, knowledge, etc. Persons who have lost their vision due to the dense darkness of ignorance in the Age of Kali shall get light from this Purana.” In this connection we can also refer to the statements of Suta Gosvami in the First Canto, Chapter Four. We can summarize the chronology of the Vedic literature in Kali-yuga as follows: First Srila Vyasadeva edited the one Veda, the original Yajur Veda, into four Vedas. He then abridged the one billion verses of the Puranas into eighteen Puranas consisting of a total of four hundred thousand verses. These included Srimad-Bhagavatam in its original, abbreviated form. Then Vyasa composed His epic work, Mahabharata, after which He distilled the essence of the Vedas, Puranas, and Mahabharata into the Vedanta-sutra. Finally He composed His most significant work of all, Srimad-Bhagavatam, which is Vyasadeva’s own COMMENTARY on the Vedanta-sutra. Some traditional scholars believe there were two versions of the Mahabharata. They say it was first compiled soon after the Vedas in one hundred sections, and later Veda-vyasa reduced it to a hundred thousand verses in eighteen sections after compiling the eighteen Puranas. The Mahabharata’s Adi-parva (10.5) states that Srila Vyasa compiled a samhita with six million verses, of which He gave one hundred thousand to human beings. This Mahabharata was first recited by the sage Vaisampayana to King Janamejaya, Pariksit’s son. Another reference traditional scholars give to support their contention that there were two versions of the Mahabharata is the Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad verse cited in TEXT 12 (B.a. Up. 2.4.10) This verse lists the scriptures that the Supreme Lord breathed out, including the Itihasas, which are listed before the Puranas. Next Srila Jiva Gosvami shows that Srila Vyasadeva’s realization in trance constitutes the epitome of all philosophies, as confirmed by Suta Gosvami.

English witness · section(s) 49

TEXT 49.1

tam etam Sri-veda-vyasaya samadhi-jatanubhavam Sri-saunaka-prasnottaratvena visadayan sarvatmaramanubhavena sa-hetukam samvadayaty atmaramas ceti. nirgrantha vidhi-nisedhatita nirgatahankara-granthayo va. ahaitukim phalabhisandhi-rahitam. atra sarvaksepa-pariharartham aha ittham-bhuta atmaramanam apy akarsana-svabhavo guno yasya sa iti. In reply to a question posed by Sri Saunaka [Bhag. 1.7.9], Suta Gosvami speaks the verse beginning atmaramas ca [Bhag. 1.7.10], further explaining what Srila Vyasadeva experienced in trance and showing logically how it is consistent with the experience of all sages who take pleasure in the self. In this verse the word nirgranthah (“free from bondage”) means either “beyond the rules and regulations described in the scriptures” or “free from the knot of false ego.” The word ahaitukim (“causeless”) means “not desiring any results.” And to put an end to all doubts, Sri Suta says, “Indeed, the nature of Lord Hari is such that even atmaramas feel attracted to Him.”

TEXT 49.2

tam evartham Sri-sukasyapy anubhavena samvadayati harer guneti. Sri-veda-vyasa-devad yat kiïcic chrutena harer gunena purvam aksipta matir brahmanandanubhavo yasya sah. pascad adhyagad mahad vistirnam iti. tatas ca tat-sankatha-sauhardena nityam visnu-janah priya yasya tatha-bhuto va tesam priyo va svayam abhavad ity arthah. ayam bhavo brahma-vaivartanusarena purvam tavad ayam garbha-vasam arabhya Sri-krsnasya svairitaya maya-nivarakatvam jïatavan. tatah sva-niyojanaya Sri-vyasa-devenanitasya tasyantar-darsanat tan-nivarane sati krtartham manyataya svayam ekantam eva gatavan. tatra Sri-veda-vyasas tu tam vasi-kartum tad-ananya-sadhanam Sri-bhagavatam eva jïatva tad-gunatisaya-prakasa-mayams tadiya-padya-visesan kathaïcic chravayitva tena tam aksipta-matim krtva tad eva purnam tam adhyapayam aseti bhagavata-mahimatisayah proktah. In the next verse (beginning harer guna-; [Bhag. 1.7.11]), Suta reiterates this idea by relating Sukadeva Gosvami’s experience. First, when Sukadeva Gosvami heard Srila Vyasadeva recite a few selected Bhagavatam verses describing Lord Hari’s attributes, Sukadeva’s attention was drawn away from the bliss of impersonal Brahman and his heart was captivated. Later Sukadeva studied the complete Bhagavatam, despite its vast size. And thereafter Lord Visnu’s devotees became very dear to him, his affection for them growing as he daily discussed the Lord’s pastimes with them. Or else the word visnu-jana-priya means that he became dear to them. The purport is as follows: The Brahma-vaivarta Purana relates how Sri Sukadeva, even while in the womb of his mother, realized that Lord Sri Krsna could completely dispel Maya’s influence by virtue of His independence. Subsequently, on Sukadeva’s request, Vyasadeva brought the Lord to His hermitage, and when Sukadeva saw Lord Krsna before him even as he lay within the womb, he became free from Maya’s influence. Considering his life successful, Sukadeva at once departed alone. Thereafter Srila Vyasadeva, knowing that He could control Sukadeva only with Srimad-Bhagavatam, somehow made him hear some selected Bhagavatam verses describing Lord Krsna’s superexcellent characteristics. In this way He captivated Sukadeva’s heart, and later He taught him the entire narrative. Thus is declared the supreme glory of Srimad-Bhagavatam.

TEXT 49.3

tad evam darsitam vaktuh Sri-sukasya Sri-veda-vyasasya ca samana-hrdayam. tasmad vaktur hrdayanurupam eva sarvatra tatparyam paryalocaniyam nanyatha. yad yat tad-anyatha paryalocanam tatra tatra kupatha-gamitaiveti nistankitam. Sri-sutah. From the above we can see that the speaker (Sukadeva Gosvami) and Srila Vyasadeva had the same realizations. And therefore we should always study the message of Srimad-Bhagavatam in the light of Sukadeva’s realizations, not otherwise. By implication, we should consider any different interpretation merely speculative and thus deviant from the correct understanding. The verse under discussion [Bhag. 1.7.11] was spoken by Sri Suta Gosvami.

COMMENTARY Srimad-Bhagavatam Attracts Even Atmaramas To explain the essence of Srimad-Bhagavatam, in TEXT 29 Jiva Gosvami first analyzed the Bhagavatam’s description of Sukadeva’s heart. Then he analyzed Srila Vyasadeva’s experience in trance, on the basis of which Vyasa wrote Srimad-Bhagavatam. Jiva Gosvami concludes the discussion of the present TEXT by confirming the outcome of these analyses with the words of Sri Suta Gosvami in Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.7.10, the famous “atmarama verse.” What follows is a list of the major points to be derived from his analysis: 1. The Personality of Godhead is endowed with multifarious potencies in three categories—internal, external, and marginal. 2. The chief and original form is Sri Krsna, but Krsna also manifests countless other expansions. 3. Neither the Supreme Lord’s Supersoul manifestations nor the impersonal Brahman are independent of Him. 4. The finite living entities are different from the Supreme Lord in their personal identity; they can never be one with Him in an absolute sense. 5. Maya is the external energy of the Lord, deluding those living entities who turn their backs on Him. 6. Maya is a devotee of the Lord and is always subservient to Him. 7. Maya cannot influence the Lord and His internal potencies. 8. The jivas can become free from the bondage of Maya only by surrendering to the Lord and engaging in His devotional service. 9. Hearing the Srimad-Bhagavatam is devotional service to the Lord and can thus end the jiva’s miseries. 10. The bliss one derives by engaging in devotional service to the Lord is so superior to the happiness derived from the realization of impersonal Brahman that even self-satisfied sages (atmaramas) become attracted to the Lord’s attributes and pastimes. 11. The purpose of human life is to attain love of God, the mature fruit of devotional service in practice (sadhana-bhakti). 12. Devotional service is supremely independent, like the Personality of Godhead; it does not need the support of any other method of self-realization. When Suta Gosvami finished describing Srila Vyasadeva’s trance, Saunaka Rsi asked him, “If Sukadeva Gosvami was completely renounced, having no interest in anything by virtue of being absorbed in the bliss of the self, what caused him to study this lengthy Bhagavata Purana?” Suta Gosvami replied with these two verses (Bhag. 1.7.10–11): “All different varieties of atmaramas (those who take pleasure in the atma, or spirit self), especially those established on the path of self-realization, though freed from all kinds of material bondage, desire to render unalloyed devotional service unto the Personality of Godhead. This means that the Lord possesses transcendental qualities and therefore can attract everyone, including liberated souls. The heart of the transcendentally powerful Sri Sukadeva Gosvami was captivated when he heard a description of Lord Hari’s attributes and pastimes, and therefore he undertook the study of this great narration, Srimad-Bhagavatam. This made him very dear to the devotees of Lord Visnu.” By this answer Suta Gosvami confirms all the realizations of Srila Vyasadeva and Sukadeva Gosvami. First Suta states a general principle, that many self-satisfied persons, although liberated from material bondage, are still eager to engage in Krsna consciousness. Then he mentions Sukadeva Gosvami as a specific instance of this principle’s application. Thus Suta Gosvami establishes that Sukadeva Gosvami was not the only liberated person who became attracted to the Personality of Godhead’s service. On the contrary, Sukadeva’s experience is corroborated by that of many other atmaramas, demonstrating that the only reason why one would reject the bliss of Brahman realization and take up devotional service must be the wonderful, all-attractive attributes of Lord Hari. By this explanation Srila Jiva Gosvami shows conclusively that Sukadeva Gosvami, Srila Vyasadeva, and Suta Gosvami shared the same realizations. Therefore these realizations should form the basis of any genuine study and interpretation of Srimad-Bhagavatam. Interpretations based on something else must be considered deviant from the scripture’s intended meaning. In TEXT 27 Srila Jiva Gosvami disclosed that Sridhara Svami inserted some impersonalistic ideas into his COMMENTARY on Srimad-Bhagavatam. Sridhara Svami did this as a preaching strategy to attract the Mayavadis to the Bhagavata philosophy. Jiva Gosvami said there that in such instances he would give his own explanations. A recent scholar has criticized Srila Jiva Gosvami for this policy, labeling him an opportunist who accepted only those statements that supported his opinion and belittled others by declaring that they were made with ulterior motives and did not actually express Sridhara Svami’s opinions. This scholar suggests that Jiva Gosvami is not a true follower of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, who highly revered Sridhara Svami’s Bhavartha-dipika. But in this TEXT Srila Jiva Gosvami further clarifies his policy: He accepts any explanation that complements the realization of Srila Vyasadeva, Sukadeva Gosvami, and Suta Gosvami—namely that pure devotional service to Lord Krsna is the ultimate goal of life. That this policy reflects the real desire of Lord Caitanya will be recognized by everyone who knows that Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu was the leading opponent of impersonalism in His time. In debate He defeated two of the leading Mayavadis of His time, Prakasananda Sarasvati and Vasudeva Sarvabhauma, and He frequently condemned the Mayavada interpretation of the Vedanta-sutra. In light of His teachings and example, for Him to embrace a Mayavadi COMMENTARY on Srimad-Bhagavatam is unlikely and not at all credible. Vaisnavas coming in disciplic succession do not have the slightest confusion on this point. Lord Caitanya revered Sridhara Svami’s COMMENTARY for two reasons: first, because Sridhara was in fact a great Vaisnava, and second, because his COMMENTARY kept the natural sense of the Bhagavatam and with its conclusions supported the Vaisnava siddhanta. Therefore it should be obvious to anyone who reads his COMMENTARY that whatever impersonal explanations Sridhara Svami gave did not express his true heart. For example, while commenting on the first verse of the Bhagavatam he states, Srimad-bhagavad-guna-anuvarnana-pradhanam bhagavata-sastram: “Srimad-Bhagavatam was written chiefly to provide descriptions of the Supreme Lord’s qualities.” In the next verse, while commenting on the word vastavam, he writes, vastava-sabdena vastuno ’mso jivah, vastunah saktir maya ca, vastunah karyam jagat, tat sarvam vastv eva: “The word vastava indicates that the jiva is part of the Absolute, that Maya is the energy of the Absolute, and that the material world is the creation of the Absolute. All this is real.” This and many similar statements throughout Sridhara Svami’s Bhagavatam COMMENTARY make foolish any doubt about his status as a pure Vaisnava. And it is equally foolish to criticize Srila Jiva Gosvami for not using the impersonalistic portions of Sridhara’s COMMENTARY here in his Sat-sandarbha. One can fathom the true essence of Srimad-Bhagavatam only from the viewpoint of Sri Vyasa and Sukadeva Gosvami. Because Srila Jiva Gosvami held this opinion, he is a true scholar of the Bhagavatam and a true follower of Sri Caitanya, who desired to see the Bhagavatam established as the final word in philosophy throughout the world. Jiva Gosvami was neither a blind follower of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu nor a blind scholar foolishly trying to understand the supreme scripture without accepting the standard authorities in disciplic succession. Jiva Gosvami was the leading disciple of Srila Rupa Gosvami and Srila Sanatana Gosvami, two principal followers of Sri Caitanyadeva. The Lord personally instructed them in the science of devotional service and ordered them to write books setting forth His precepts. This they did in a most wonderful way, explaining the intricacies of bhakti-yoga so that no follower in their line would have to speculate or misinterpret the teachings of Lord Caitanya. Rupa and Sanatana personally trained Srila Jiva Gosvami in Krsna consciousness. They were so pleased with him that they made him the editor of many of their books. We have no reason, therefore, to doubt that Srila Jiva Gosvami loyally followed in the footsteps of Srila Rupa and Sanatana Gosvamis and therefore of Lord Caitanya. The ultimate proof of this is that one can find no contradictions between the writings of Rupa and Sanatana and those of Jiva Gosvami. Indeed, earlier in Sri Tattva-sandarbha Jiva Gosvami declared that he was writing this work under their order. Moreover, he succeeded Srila Rupa and Sanatana Gosvamis as leader of the Gaudiya Vaisnavas in Vrndavana, Bengal, and Orissa. This universal recognition of his leadership was explicit acknowledgment of his stature as a dedicated follower of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu. We learn from Srimad-Bhagavatam (1.2.2) that Sukadeva Gosvami left his father’s house immediately after his birth. According to the Brahma-vaivarta Purana, when Sukadeva was still in his mother’s womb he could understand the peril of living in the material world, the risk of being captivated by Maya. He also knew that Krsna can counter Maya’s charms, and therefore he forced his father, Vyasadeva, to bring Lord Krsna from Dvaraka. Sukadeva then made the Lord Himself promise to protect him from Maya. Only then did Sukadeva agree to take birth, and even so he immediately left home to enter the forest. Out of natural affection for His son, Srila Vyasadeva followed him, calling him to come back. But Sukadeva was completely unattached to material life and paid his father no heed. Vyasadeva was deeply disappointed, since He wanted to teach Sukadeva Srimad-Bhagavatam. To entice him to return home, Vyasa had some of His disciples recite verses from the Bhagavatam whenever they went to the forest to collect firewood. Once when they were singing these verses, Sukadeva Gosvami heard them. At once his heart was captivated, and he followed the students back to Sri Vyasa. Then Sukadeva, who had already put aside his attachment to the impersonal Brahman, learned the complete Srimad-Bhagavatam from Srila Vyasadeva. At present there is no scriptural reference indicating which verses Sri Sukadeva heard that captivated him, but some Vaisnava scholars state that they included the following three: yam manyase matuleyam priyam mitram suhrt-tamam akaroh sacivam dutam sauhrdad atha sarathim “O King, that personality whom, out of ignorance only, you thought to be your maternal cousin, your very dear friend, well-wisher, counselor, messenger, benefactor, etc., is that very Personality of Godhead, Sri Krsna” (Bhag. 1.9.20). @vpl1 = aho baki yam stana-kala-kutam @vpl2 = jighamsayapayayad apy asadhvi @vpl1 = lebhe gatim dhatry-ucitam tato ’nyam @vpl2 = kam va dayalum saranam vrajema “Alas, how shall I take shelter of one more merciful than He [Krsna], who granted the position of mother to the she-demon Putana although she was unfaithful and she prepared deadly poison to be sucked from her breast?” (Bhag. 3.2.23) @vpl1 = barhapidam nata-vara-vapuh karnayoh karnikaram @vpl2 = bibhrad vasah kanaka-kapisam vaijayantim ca malam @vpl1 = randhran venor adhara-sudhayapurayan gopa-vrndair @vpl2 = vrndaranyam sva-pada-ramanam pravisad gita-kirtih “Wearing a peacock-feather ornament upon His head, blue karnikara flowers on His ears, a yellow garment as brilliant as gold, and a Vaijayanti garland, Lord Krsna exhibited His transcendental form as the greatest of dancers as He entered the forest of Vrndavana, beautifying it with the marks of His footprints. He filled the holes of His flute with the nectar of His lips, and the cowherd boys sang His glories” (Bhag. 10.21.5). These verses describe Lord Krsna’s love for His devotees, His mercy even toward His enemies, and His incomparable charm and beauty. The history of Sukadeva Gosvami described in the Mahabharata differs from that narrated above. Baladeva Vidyabhusana explains that the two accounts describe events from different days of Lord Brahma. Having ascertained the prameya of Srimad-Bhagavatam—that is, what one should learn from it—Srila Jiva Gosvami next says something about the format of Sri Sat-sandarbha.

English witness · section(s) 50

TEXT 50

atha kramena vistaratas tathaiva tatparyam nirnetum sambandhabhidheya-prayojanesu sadbhih sandarbhair nirnesyamanesu prathamam yasya vacya-vacakata-sambandhidam sastram tad eva `dharmah projjhita-kaitavah' ity-adi-padye samanyakaratas tavad aha `vedyam vastavam atra vastu' iti. tika ca `atra Srimati sundare bhagavate vastavam paramartha-bhutam vastu vedyam na tu vaisesikadi-vad dravya-gunadi-rupam' ity esa. Sri-veda-vyasah. Hereafter, to delineate systematically and thoroughly the message of Srimad-Bhagavatam, we shall explain in these six Sandarbhas the principles of sambandha, abhidheya, and prayojana, one after the other. This first book, Tattva-sandarbha, discusses the connection between the subject being described and the TEXT describing it. This connection is mentioned in general terms [in Bhagavatam 1.1.2] with the words vedyam vastavam atra vastu: “Here the real reality is to be known.” Commenting on this part of the verse, Srila Sridhara Svami writes, “Here in this beautiful Bhagavatam the ultimate reality in its highest manifestation is to be known, not reality in terms merely of substance, qualities, and so on, as taught by the Vaisesikas and others.” This verse [Bhag. 1.1.2] is spoken by Sri Veda-vyasa.

COMMENTARY The Subject of the Sat-sandarbha Here Srila Jiva Gosvami informs us that in the six Sandarbhas he will explain in great detail the same sambandha-, abhidheya-, and prayojana-tattvas that Sri Vyasadeva and Sukadeva Gosvami realized. He briefly mentioned them in Texts 8 and 9, and now he will elaborate on them on the basis of Srimad-Bhagavatam. The Tattva-, Bhagavat-, Paramatma-, and Krsna-sandarbhas treat the sambanda-tattva. The Bhakti-sandarbha discusses the abhidheya-tattva, the Priti-sandarbha the prayojana-tattva. The Tattva-sandarbha introduces the subject matter of the six Sandarbhas by establishing the authority of Srimad-Bhagavatam and saying something about its origin and content. As mentioned earlier, the relationship of a subject with its description is technically called the vacya-vacakata-sambandha. The subject of Srimad-Bhagavatam is revealed in its very second verse: vedyam vastavam atra vastu. “The absolute reality is made understandable herein.” As we have already discussed, reality manifests on various levels, but Srimad-Bhagavatam enlightens us about the ultimate reality, Sri Krsna, who encompasses and reconciles all other realities. In contrast to Srila Vyasadeva’s presentation in the Bhagavatam, the philosophies formulated by other ancient sages, such as Gautama and Kanada, incompletely describe reality. Gautama, in his system of Nyaya philosophy, says that by understanding the empirical means and objects of knowledge one can free oneself from material miseries. And Kanada, in his system of Vaisesika philosophy, which was briefly alluded to at the end of this Text, recognizes seven categories of existence: dravya (substances), guna (qualities), karma (motions), samanya (general categories), visesa (particularities), samavaya (inherence), and abhava (nonexistence). With these seven categories the Vaisesikas try to explain all of reality. But although the scientific study embodied in philosophies like Nyaya and Vaisesika may lead to realization of reality on some level, this is far different from realization of the Absolute Reality, which Srimad-Bhagavatam makes available. Srila Jiva Gosvami explains the nature of this reality in the next Text.

TATTVA SANDARBHA

BY SRILA JIVA GOSWAMI

[PART9]