Hermeneutical Strategies in Jīva Gosvāmī’s Bhāgavata-sandarbha

Ravi M. Gupta

The task of a Vedantic commentator is to show that his philosophical viewpoint consistently and comprehensively explains the entire body of scriptural texts. This interpretive task becomes especially challenging in two areas where scripture often makes conflicting statements: the nature of Brahman and the relation of the world to Brahman. In this essay, Ravi Gupta shows how Jīva Gosvāmī addresses these two Vedantic concerns from a Caitanya Vaiṣṇava standpoint in Bhāgavata-sandarbha. The key to Jīva Gosvāmī’s hermeneutical strategy lies in the concept of Bhagavān, which is the starting point for the doctrines of a three-fold Godhead and a three-fold energy. Gupta argues that these two well-known doctrines are more than ontological claims about the nature of Divinity; they also serve as hermeneutical tools to explain, interpret, and reconcile conflicting scriptural statements.

Much of Caitanya Vaiṣṇavism’s early literature was composed by the six Gosvāmīs of Vṛndāvana, who were mandated by Śrī Caitanya himself to systematise and expound his teachings.¹ They did this exclusively in Sanskrit, despite the increasing use of the vernaculars during their time. Of the six Gosvāmīs of Vṛndāvana, the youngest and most prolific was Jīva Gosvāmī. To the community of Vaiṣṇavas who consider themselves followers of Caitanya, Jīva Gosvāmī epitomises, from his own time to the present, the highest ideal of devotional erudition used in the service of Kṛṣṇa.

Jīva Gosvāmī’s main philosophical work is Bhāgavata-sandarbha, or Ṣaṭ-sandarbha. The text is complete in six volumes, called Tattva-, Bhagavat-, Paramātma-, Kṛṣṇa-, Bhakti-, and Prīti-sandarbhas.² The second and third are especially rich in philosophical content, and engage directly with the standard issues relevant to Vedānta. Thus they will be the focus of our study.

The word ‘sandarbha’ literally means ‘weaving’ or ‘arranging’; the Bhāgavata-sandarbha is a thematic arrangement of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, woven with the intention of systematically and comprehensively expounding Caitanya Vaiṣṇava doctrine and practice. The Bhāgavata Purāṇa lies at the very heart of Caitanya Vaiṣṇavism. Śrī Caitanya regarded the Purāṇa as the highest source of knowledge (pramāṇa) and the natural commentary on the Brahma-sūtra, since both were written by the same author, Bādarāyaṇa Vyāsa. The Bhāgavata Purāṇa is, indeed, replete with Vedāntic themes, and because it enjoys undisputed preeminence among Caitanya’s followers, it provides that community an excellent bridge into the realm of Vedānta. At the end of the Paramātma-sandarbha, Jīva Gosvāmī provides a commentary on the first four aphorisms of the Brahma-sūtra. This Catuḥsūtrī Ṭīkā represents the first Purāṇa-based commentary on the Brahma-sūtra.

One of Jīva Gosvāmī’s main goals in the Paramātma-sandarbha is to show that Bhagavān, the Supreme Lord, is the ultimate import and primary subject matter of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa (and, by extension, of the Brahma-sūtra). This thesis may at first seem quite obvious, and the argument rather tautological. After all, the word ‘Bhāgavata’ is derived from ‘Bhagavān’ and literally means ‘that (text) which has to do with Bhagavān’. When Jīva says that ‘this great Purāṇa has the name Śrī Bhāgavata because it teaches about him (Bhagavān)’, is he teaching us an elementary grammar lesson? Surely the fact that the Purāṇa has Bhagavān as its main topic of instruction cannot be a point of serious disagreement.

The significance of Jīva’s thesis immediately becomes apparent, however, if we recall that ‘bhagavān’ is a technical term in Gauḍīya literature. While in ordinary Sanskrit usage ‘bhagavān’ (‘the glorious one’) often functions simply as a respectful title for a god or a sage, it is clear to anyone who has studied the first three Sandarbhas that Jīva’s intended meaning is quite specialised and far from trivial. Jīva Gosvāmī provides a definition of ‘Bhagavān’ at the end of the second treatise, Bhagavat-sandarbha. The location and comprehensive nature of this definition indicate that it functions as a summary statement of the entire second Sandarbha.³

He who is the very form of existence, consciousness, and bliss; who possesses inconceivable, multifarious, and unlimited energies that are of his own nature; who is the ocean of unlimited, mutually contradictory qualities, such that in him both the attribute and the possessor of attributes, the lack of differences and varieties of differences, formlessness and form, pervasiveness and centrality (madhyamatva) all are true; whose beautiful form is self-luminous, distinct from both gross and subtle entities, and consists entirely of his own nature; who has unlimited such forms manifested by his chief form called Bhagavān; whose left side is beautified by Lakṣmī, the manifestation of his personal energy, suitable to his own form; who resides in his own abode, along with his associates, who are furnished with forms that are a special manifestation of his own splendour; who astonishes the hosts of ātmārāmas (those who take pleasure in the self) by his wonderful qualities, pastimes, and so on, which are characterised by the play of his personal energy; whose own generic brilliance is manifested in the form of the reality of Brahman; who is the sole shelter and life of his marginal energy, called the living entities (jīvas); whose mere reflected energy is the modes of nature (guṇas), visible in the unlimited phenomenal world; he is Bhagavān.4

This definition includes all the major topics discussed in the Bhagavat-sandarbha: the Lord’s form, qualities, abode, and associates, his three energies (śaktis), and his inconceivable, transcendental nature. Understood in this way, the word ‘Bhagavān’ encompasses within its scope all of Caitanya Vaiṣṇava ontology. Thus, proving that Bhagavān is the Bhāgavata Purāṇa’s main topic is tantamount to showing that the Bhāgavata is a Caitanyite text, or, better yet, to establishing all of Caitanyite theology on the basis of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa.

The power of Bhagavān extends even further than this, however. In this essay, I will attempt to show that the concept of Bhagavān – once it has been established on the basis of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa – provides a hermeneutic for interpreting the Purāṇa itself and, indeed, all other relevant scriptural texts. More specifically, it provides Caitanya Vaiṣṇavas with the means to fulfil a central task of any Vedāntic system: to show that all scriptural texts are unified in purpose and meaning, by resolving apparent contradictions between them.

Bhagavān

The key to the Gauḍīya understanding of Bhagavān lies in a verse found in the second chapter of the first book of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa:

vadanti tat tattva-vidas tattvaṁ yaj jñānam advayam
brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavan iti śabdyate

Knowers of reality declare that reality to be non-dual consciousness, called ‘Brahman’, ‘Paramātmā’, and ‘Bhagavān’ (1.2.11).

This text is cited and explained so often in Gauḍīya literature5 that some authors credit the entire Caitanya Vaiṣṇava theory of the threefold Godhead to this verse alone. Although the theory, and especially the concept of Bhagavān, is, in fact, based on a much broader understanding of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa,6 the verse nevertheless occupies a crucial place in Gauḍīya theology for several reasons.

If Jīva is to establish the concept of Bhagavān in the technical, Caitanyite sense of the term, he must first of all introduce a distinction between Bhagavān and other commonplace conceptions of Godhead, such as the inner controller (antaryāmī) and supersoul (paramātmā). By juxtaposing three different names for God in a single line (Brahman, Paramātmā, and Bhagavān), the Bhāgavata verse allows exegetical space for such a distinction to be made. After all, why would the Purāṇa mention these three names and claim that they are ‘non-dual’ if there were no reason to think them separate in the first place?

Jīva recognises the fact that the three designations are often used interchangeably in texts; the Bhāgavata-sandarbha mentions them here in order to indicate their primary significance.7 The selection of names is not arbitrary; the verse does not, for example, give ‘living entity’ (jīva) as a name of the non-dual reality. Nor is the order in which the names appear random. The Bhāgavata Purāṇa is indicating a hierarchy of forms from Brahman to Bhagavān, based on the degree of revelation. Bhagavān is the complete manifestation of the non-dual reality and, indeed, identifiable with it. In him, all the Supreme’s inherent energies (śaktis) are clearly visible: beauty, power, wisdom, majesty, abode, and associates.8 Then, depending on the degree to which the fullness of the Lord’s glory is hidden, he is known as either Brahman or Paramātma. When Bhagavān’s energies are manifest in a partial way, mainly in regard to directing material nature (prakṛti) and the living entities (jīvas), he is known as Paramātma, the inner controller, inspirer, and supporter of the cosmos.9 When his attributes are totally unmanifest, he is known as Brahman, the undifferentiated, unqualified, and impersonal Absolute.10

It is important to observe that the hierarchy proceeds ‘top-down’ rather than ‘bottom-up’. That is, although Brahman in this scheme appears very similar to the qualityless (nirguṇa) Brahman of the Advaitins, in fact Brahman here is not the essential, most fundamental form of Reality, upon which various attributes must be ‘added’ in order to ‘get to’ Bhagavān. Rather, Bhagavān in all his fullness is the starting point for the Gauḍīya concept of the Supreme. Brahman is Bhagavān, but with the splendour and glory suppressed. As O. B. L. Kapoor puts it, ‘Brahman is a creative potentiality, but a potentiality that is eternally actualised in its most perfect state as Bhagavān’ (92).

By introducing multiplicity in the Divine, the ‘vadanti’ verse allows Gauḍīya theologians to develop and lay claim to the concept of Bhagavān. The verse is equally important, however, for just the opposite reason: Once the threefold scheme has been developed, the verse protects Gauḍīya commentators from accusations of dividing the Absolute, since it clearly states that the three are a non-dual reality. The first line of the verse is as useful to Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava writers as the second, for by identifying the non-dual reality with Kṛṣṇa, they can claim Kṛṣṇa to be the ultimate referent of all three names: Brahman, Paramātma, and Bhagavān. This allows them to direct even monistically inclined Upaniṣadic passages toward Bhagavān. In his instructions to Sanātana Gosvāmī at Kāśī, Caitanya explains the implications of the ‘vadanti’ verse:

The word ‘Brahman’ refers to Svayaṁ Bhagavān,11 who is one consciousness without a second, and without whom there is nothing else. ‘Knowers of reality declare that reality to be non-dual consciousness, called “Brahman”, “Paramātmā”, and “Bhagavan”.’ That non-dual reality is Kṛṣṇa, Bhagavān himself. He exists in all three phases of time (past, present, and future). This is evident from the scriptures. …

The word ‘ātmā’ refers to Kṛṣṇa. His nature is greatness (bṛhattva). He is all-pervading, the witness of everything, and the supreme form. … Although the words ‘Brahman’ and ‘Ātmā’ refer to Kṛṣṇa, by conventional usage they refer to the Undifferentiated (nirviśeṣa) and the Inner Controller (antaryāmī), respectively.12

Here we get the essentials of a hermeneutical strategy: Scriptural passages that speak of God in conflicting ways can be taken to refer to his different aspects, but these aspects are actually members of a single reality (advaya-tattva). That reality is Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa, and therefore he is the ultimate import of scriptural passages. Jīva Gosvāmī uses this strategy at the beginning of his Catuḥsūtrī Ṭīkā to explain the meaning of the first sūtra, athāto brahma-jijñāsā:

‘Brahma-jijñāsā’ is explained by ‘paraṁ dhīmahi’ (in the first verse of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa). … ‘Param’ refers to Brahman. Because of its greatness, Brahman is within everything and also outside it. Therefore, it is by nature superior (param) to everything, just as the sun is to its rays. Thus, to indicate the original form (Bhagavān), the word ‘brahman’ is explained by the word ‘param’. So Bhagavān alone is intended here.

Thus the referent of the word ‘brahma-jijñāsā’ gets ‘passed on’ from Brahman to Bhagavān via the word ‘param’ in the first verse of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa. Since Brahman is in fact a form of Bhagavān, inquiry into Brahman necessitates inquiry into Bhagavān, who is the actual subject matter of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa.

This interpretive method can also work in the other direction, where a description of Bhagavān will be ‘passed down’ to Brahman. An example of this is found at the beginning of the second Sandarbha, where Jīva Gosvāmī quotes a well-known definition of Bhagavān from the Viṣṇu Purāṇa. The problem is that the passage begins with a description of Brahman and then applies this rather impersonal description to Bhagavān Visnu.

That which is unmanifest, unaging, inconceivable, unborn, imperishable, indescribable, formless, and without hands, feet, or other limbs; which is almighty, present everywhere, eternal, the origin of living entities, causeless, all-pervading, and impenetrable; and which is the source of everything; that, indeed, is what the sages see. That is Brahman, the highest resort. It is the object of meditation for those desiring liberation, and it is subtle. It is described by the words of śruti. It is the supreme destination, Viṣṇu.13

For Jiva Gosvami, the interpretive key here is the word Brahman used as a qualifier of Bhagavān (Viṣṇu). When Bhagavān is understood as formless and without limbs, he is known as Brahman, which is the kevala-viśeṣya, or pure substance to which nothing has yet been attributed.14 One may describe Bhagavān in a negative way (‘formless’, ‘imperishable’, and so on) by passing the referent of the verse down the ladder to Brahman, the unqualified, partial manifestation of non-dual reality.15

This ‘pass-the-referent’ approach is not uncommon in Vedānta, where it is important to maintain both the integrity and unity of scriptural texts, that is, to remain faithful to what is perceived to be the intended meaning of the texts and at the same time to demonstrate the unity of their intention. This can often be accomplished most easily by a ‘divide-and-unite’ strategy, wherein distinctions are introduced to serve as referents for differing descriptions of Brahman, and then the resulting divisions are held together using an overarching theological principle. This is indeed how Rāmānuja uses the body-soul analogy to interpret Upaniṣadic texts. Brahman and the world consisting of living entities and matter comprise an ‘organic and dynamic complex of being’, related to each other as the embodied soul is to the body (Lott, p. 49). The body, though distinct from and completely controlled by the soul, can nevertheless serve as a referent for designations that actually apply to the soul. This is quite legitimate, insofar as the body is pervaded by and ‘included’ in the soul. The two make up an inseparable and interdependent whole. Thus when the Upaniṣads speak of the individual souls or the world as Brahman, they do so just as we refer to the body as ‘myself’ or ‘yourself’. When we say, ‘I adorned myself with fine jewellery’, we mean ‘I adorned my body with fine jewellery’. This is indeed how ‘you’ (tvam) should be understood in the famous Upaniṣadic statement, ‘you are that’ (tat tvam asi). To make sense of how the finite soul could be Brahman, we must ‘pass on’ the referent of ‘tvam’ to Brahman, who both includes and transcends the world of souls. Van Buitenen summarises it well: ‘Just as the body terminates in the soul, so the soul terminates in the inner Soul. Consequently all the words which describe the body ultimately refer to the soul, and all the words which refer to the soul ultimately refer to God’. (Vedārtha Saṁgraha 64–5)¹⁶

Bhagavān’s śakti

The doctrine of Bhagavān’s energy or power (śakti) functions in much the same way in Caitanya Vaiṣṇavism. Whereas in Rāmānuja’s system, the operative model is the self-body relationship, here we find the analogy of fire and its all-pervasive light: ‘Just as a fire is situated in one place, but its light spreads, so the energy (śakti) of the Supreme Brahman spreads throughout the universe’.17 Bhagavān’s śakti is his most important attribute. Indeed, all his other attributes can be subsumed within it, for everything about the Lord (his form, abode, activities, excellences, associates, and his creation) is a manifestation of his infinite energy. In other words, each of his attributes can be characterised in terms of his śakti. Thus, his attribute of knowledge is his jñāna-śakti, his attribute of maintenance is his pālana-śakti, and so on.

The analogy of fire and its light is used repeatedly in Jīva Gosvāmī’s writings and in Caitanya Vaiṣṇava texts in general.18 A survey of the occurrences of the above verse from the Viṣṇu Purāṇa reveals that the verse is cited for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, the analogy is used to argue for the innate (svābhāvika) nature of Bhagavān’s śakti. Just as fire and its radiance are invariably coexistent, and radiance emanates from fire without any extraneous endeavour on the fire’s part, so the Lord’s śakti is inseparable from the Lord, and proceeds from him as a result of his own nature. In Jīva Gosvāmī’s writings, we find a persistent emphasis on the naturalness of the Lord’s śakti, for his concern here – even more than in the threefold Godhead doctrine – is to preserve the unity and simplicity of the Supreme. The most important scriptural proof-text in this regard comes from the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad, which says, ‘It is known that (his) śakti is supreme, manifold, and part of his very nature’.19 Just as Rāmānuja argued that the body is included in the self, Jīva reminds us that any concept of Bhagavān must include his śakti.

Once Bhagavān and his śakti have been so intimately associated, the Vedāntist is immediately faced with the problem of the world and its vagaries. Surely, this material world of change and suffering cannot be included within the immutable and blissful Brahman. How can a pure and transcendent entity produce, or even be associated with, something that is so opposite its nature? Of course, Vedāntic thinkers in general reject the Sāṅkhya notion that an effect must be of the same nature as its cause. Our analogy proves useful here as well: the light of a fire does not possess many of the attributes of fire, such as the power to burn or provide warmth.20 Still, the question remains as to the locus of the phenomenal world, since too much proximity with Brahman would undermine his perfection. And so, after the initial unification of Bhagavān and his śakti, they must be distanced again.

It is here that Caitanya Vaiṣṇava writers introduce the doctrine of manifold śakti. So far, we have been speaking of Bhagavān’s śakti as a single power that is held responsible for all that is related to him. Although the unity of śakti must still be upheld, distinctions need to be introduced depending on the distance of powers from Bhagavān’s essential nature (svarūpa). Again using the Viṣṇu Purāṇa as their source text, Gauḍīya theologians have divided śakti into three: internal (antaraṅgā), external (bahiraṅgā), and marginal (taṭasthā, ‘on the verge’).21 The internal energy, also called svarūpa-śakti, is the power through which Bhagavān acts in his personal affairs. This energy is of the same transcendental nature as Bhagavān, and so is responsible for manifesting everything directly related to him, such as his form and abode. The internal energy has three aspects (sandhinī, saṁvit, and hlādinī), which correspond to the Lord’s threefold nature as eternity, knowledge, and bliss (sac-cid-ānanda).22

The external energy, however, manifests the temporary phenomenal world of matter. Because of the inferior nature of this śakti, known also as māyā, Bhagavān sets it into motion but remains aloof from its activities. Bhagavān is both the efficient and substantial cause of the universe, but only indirectly, through the agency of the external energy. Jīva Gosvāmī thus identifies two parts to this śakti: the qualitative or efficient energy (guṇa- or nimitta-māyā) and the substantial energy (upādāna-māyā).23 These two perform the creative functions on Bhagavān’s behalf and are therefore the immediate cause of the living entities’ bondage and delusion. Jīva Gosvāmī also accepts the Advaitin analysis of two aspects of māyā’s deluding power: āvaraṇātmikā, covering the living entity’s natural knowledge, and vikṣepātmikā, attaching him to other kinds of knowledge.24 The living entity himself is the marginal energy of Bhagavān, for he can move within either the internal or external śaktis, although he is essentially part of the superior energy.

Now the analogy of fire and its light ceases to be useful, since at this point it does not provide much scope for introducing degrees of difference between an object and its powers. Instead, Jīva Gosvāmī shifts to the analogy of the sun and its splendour.25 Here, we can distinguish four levels of distance from the sun: the sun-god or sun globe, the fiery radiance within the sun’s orb, the rays that proceed outward from the sun, and the sun’s reflection (on water or a polished surface). The sun-god is like the Lord himself in his original form (svarūpa), Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa, the very source of all śaktis. The powerful radiance most closely associated with him is the internal energy, by which all the opulence of his realm, Vaikuṇṭha, is manifested. The living entities are like the sun’s rays; they possess the same nature as the brilliance within, but with less intensity, and they stand somewhere between the sun and the world of reflection.26 The sun’s reflection, with its multi-colours and shapes, is the external energy, the world of matter. The reflection is produced by the sun and depends on the sun for its existence, yet its uncertainties and fluctuations cannot disturb the sun.

Once again, we have ended up with a ladder of identification within Brahman. Whereas the Brahman-Paramātmā-Bhagavān scheme allowed us to reconcile scriptural passages about the nature of Godhead, the ladder of śaktis allows us to make sense of texts describing the relationship between God and the world. Once again, the ‘pass on the referent’ technique works wonders. Take for example the famous Upaniṣadic saying, ‘sarvaṁ khalv idaṁ brahma’ (‘all this, indeed, is Brahman’). Here, some account needs to be given of how the temporary, changing world can be the same as the perfect Brahman. If we understand the world as the external energy of Brahman (who is himself understood as Bhagavān using the first ladder), we can legitimately identify the energy with the possessor of energy, just as we can point to the sun’s reflection and say, ‘that’s the sun’. This is because, as we have seen, the Lord’s śakti is natural to him (svābhāvikī) and fully dependent upon him. Thus, the Upaniṣad is not saying that the suffering and change that constitute the world are Brahman. Rather, the world, even though it is external to Brahman, still has the quality of being Brahman, insofar as it is his energy.

It is indicated here that because everything is born from Brahman, it has the quality of being Brahman. But, being unchanged in the process, Brahman is existence (sat). Thus that portion (of Bhagavān) which is the supreme refuge is the pure Brahman taught here.27 (Bhagavat-sandarbha 97).

Thus, the referent of ‘brahman’ in the passage ‘sarvaṁ khalv idaṁ brahma’ has been ‘passed on’ from the world back to Brahman, so that a comfortable distance between the Lord and the world can still be maintained.28

As we saw earlier, the referent can also be passed in the other direction, that is, ‘passed down’ from Brahman to the world. This process is just as important as the first, since explaining the creation of the world from Brahman is one of the most important and difficult tasks for Vedānta. The Brahmasūtra begins with the aphorism ‘(Brahman is that) from which there is the birth, etc., of this (world)’, and generally endorses the view that the world is a transformation (pariṇāma) of Brahman. How a changeless Brahman can change himself into a constantly changing world is of course the vexing issue for Vedāntins, and the attempt in general is to create a distance between Brahman and the process of transformation. Śaṅkara does this by relegating transformation to the realm of mere appearances (vivarta), while Rāmānuja restricts the transformation to the body of the Lord. Caitanya Vaiṣṇavas deal with the problem by positing the transformation of the Lord’s energies (śakti-pariṇāma-vāda), specifically the external energy (bahiraṅgā śakti).

Take, for example, the Chāndogya Upaniṣad’s (sixth chapter) description of the creative process. The passage begins, ‘In the beginning, the eternal (sat) alone existed, one without a second’. This highlights the quandary of origination: everything that exists must come from Brahman; there can be no second, coexistent source. ‘And then it thought, “Let me become many. Let me propagate myself.”’ The key phrase for our purposes is ‘bahu syām’, an expression of the desire for self-multiplication. The first thing that Jīva Gosvāmī draws from this statement is the reality of the world. If the world is a transformation of Brahman’s śakti, and śakti is natural to him, then surely the creation cannot be false. ‘The Supreme Lord, who possesses real, natural, and inconceivable śakti, would never make a mere illusory world, just as the master of a touchstone (cintāmaṇi) or the stone itself would never produce counterfeit gold’.29 The example of a touchstone is significant, for this gem is said to have the special ability to produce large quantities of gold and other varieties of gems at the owner’s will. Yet the stone remains undiminished and unchanged. If a mere material object like the touchstone can possess this inconceivable power, then why cannot the transcendent Lord?30 Jīva also returns to the analogy of fire and its light to make the same point: the light energy from a fire is as real as the fire, and the fire does not become diminished or transformed in any way by the spread of its light.31

Conclusion

In our journey through Caitanya Vaiṣṇava hermeneutics, we have seen two opposing forces constantly at play with each other: unification and separation of the Lord and his various aspects. We insisted that Bhagavān and Brahman comprise a single, non-dual reality, but then distinguished the two in order to account for opposing scriptural statements. We described Bhagavān and his śaktis as identical in nature, and then we distanced them to preserve the Lord’s transcendence. We made sure that the creation had no existence separate from the Lord, and then took care to ensure that it did not compromise his perfection. We emphasised Bhagavān’s role as the ultimate cause of the world, while insisting that its fluctuations and miseries had nothing do with him. And, on the basis of scripture, we established that the world is God, and that the world proceeds out of God.

This constant struggle between unity and difference that characterises the search into ultimate reality has been accepted by Caitanya Vaiṣṇavism as characteristic of the very nature of that reality. The relationship between Bhagavān and his energies is bhedābheda, simultaneous difference and non-difference. The polarities seen above must be accepted as they are. Both sides are equally reasonable, supported by scripture, and necessary; therefore, both must be held together. This, of course, is inconceivable to the human mind, and so the relation of bhedābheda is called acintya, inconceivable.32

It is important to remember that this derivation of acintya rests on an important assumption about the nature of scripture, namely, that all scriptural statements about Brahman – those affirming difference and those affirming non-difference – must be given equal weight and taken in their direct sense. Even the contradictions arising from reasoning about the nature of Brahman – that Brahman is unique yet diverse, aloof yet involved, changeless yet creative – are dependent on scripture, for it is scripture that tells us that Brahman must have all these opposing qualities.

Thus, if the tension in scriptural statements were to be removed in some other way, we would not arrive at inconceivability (acintya). Śaṅkara, for example, does find another way; he employs a complex hermeneutical method in which he bestows overarching importance on a few scriptural passages concerning the nature of Brahman, which he calls ‘great statements’ (mahā-vākyas). All other statements are then interpreted in light of them. The great statements invariably stress non-duality and the absence of attributes, allowing Śaṅkara to relegate statements of difference and quality to the realm of pragmatic reality (vyāvahārika-sattā). The perfect and infinite Brahman is so far beyond the realm of finite and determinable reality that words, even the words of scripture, have no direct access to it. Rather, they can only indirectly indicate it. ‘Even the great saying, “He is the Self; that thou art”, can only be applied to the supreme Self in a subtly indirect sense’ (Lott, p. 31). Later Advaita writers, such as Sureśvara have distinguished between the chief or direct meaning (mukhya-vṛtti) and the secondary or implied meaning (lakṣaṇā-vṛtti) of a sentence. Statements such as ‘that thou art’ are to be read in accordance with the secondary meaning.33

This way of interpreting scripture, of course, is unacceptable to Caitanya Vaiṣṇava Vedāntists, to whom statements describing Brahman’s manifold attributes are as important as assertions of his non-duality, since they provide the basis for a devotional relationship between the Lord and the devotee. For a complete understanding of scripture, one must accept statements of difference as well as non-difference, and be ready to hold both in tension with each other, without relegating one to a trivial status. As Gerald Carney puts it, ‘…the transformation of the Lord’s powers is unthinkable but is not a relative truth perceived differently from finite or transfinite standpoints. Instead the operation of divine powers is unthinkable because it must be perceived as both different and identical, as manifest and unmanifest, from the same standpoint’ (p. 107). That standpoint is available only to Bhagavān, for he is, as Jīva Gosvāmī puts it, ‘the ocean of unlimited, mutually conflicting qualities’,³⁴ capable of reconciling all contradictions within himself.

Bibliography

Primary sources

Bhāgavata Purāṇa [Śrīmad Bhāgavatam]. Trans. A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda. 18 Vols. 1987. Los Angeles: Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1998.

Jīva Gosvāmī. Bhāgavatasandarbha (Ṣaṭsandarbha). Ed. Purīdās. Vrindavan: Haridās Śarma, 1951.

—— Bhagavatsandarbha (with the Gopālatoṣaṇī Commentary of Śyāmdās). Trans. (Hindi) Śyāmdās. Vrindavan: Vrajagaurav Prakāśan, 1990.

—— Paramātmasandarbha. Ed. Chinmayi Chatterjee. Calcutta: Jadavpur University, 1972.

—— Paramātmasandarbha. Trans. (Bengali) Rāmanārāyaṇa Vidyāratna. Kolkata: Sanskrit Pustak Bhandar, 1998.

—— Paramātmasandarbha (with the Gopālatoṣaṇī Commentary of Śyāmdās). Trans. (Hindi) Śyāmdās. Vrindavan: Vrajagaurav Prakāśan, 1999.

—— Śrī Paramātma-Sandarbha: An Essay on the Supersoul. Trans. Kuśakratha dāsa. 6 vols. n.p.: Kṛṣṇa Library, 1993.

—— Sarvasamvādinī with Commentary Cūrṇikā by Jīva Gosvāmī. Ed. Purīdās. Vrindavan: Haridās Śarma, 1953.

—— Tattvasandarbha (with the Commentary of Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa and Gopālatoṣaṇī Commentary of Śyāmdās). Trans. (Hindi) Śyāmdās. Vrindavan: Vrajagaurav Prakāśan, 1984.

Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja. Caitanya-Caritāmṛta of Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī. Trans. A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda. 9 Vols. Los Angeles: Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1996.

Ṛgveda: A Metrically Restored Text with an Introduction and Notes. Eds. Barend A. van Nooten, and Gary B. Holland. Cambridge: Harvard University, 1994.

Upaniṣads. trans. Patrick Olivelle. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Secondary sources

A. C. Bhaktivedānta Swami Prabhupāda. The Complete Teachings. Folio Infobase Program. Sandy Ridge, NC: Bhaktivedanta Archives, 2003.

Carney, Gerald T. ‘The Theology of Kavikarṇapūra’s Caitanyacandrodaya, Act II’. Doctoral Dissertation. Fordham University, 1979.

Lott, Eric. Vedāntic Approaches to God. London: Macmillan, 1980.

Murty, K. Satchidananda. Revelation and Reason in Advaita Vedānta. New York: Columbia UP, 1959.

Srinivasachari, P.N. The Philosophy of Viśiṣṭādvaita. Madras: Adyar Library and Research Centre, 1978.

van Buitenen, J. A. B., trans. Vedārthasaṁgraha. Poona: Deccan College Postgraduate and Research Institute, 1956.

Notes

1. The six Gosvāmīs are Rūpa, Sanātana, Raghunāthadāsa, Raghunātha Bhaṭṭa, Gopala Bhaṭṭa, and Jīva. Rūpa and Sanātana were the seniormost; once they had settled in Vṛndāvana, the others were sent at different times to join them.

2. It is important to clearly distinguish the terms ‘Bhāgavata-sandarbha’ and ‘Bhagavat-sandarbha’. The former is the title of the entire work of six treatises, while the latter is the title of the second treatise.

3. All translations in this essay are my own, unless otherwise stated.

4. tad evaṁ sac-cid-ānandaika-rūpaḥ svarūpa-bhūtācintya-vicitrānanta-śakti-yukto dharmatva eva dharmitvaṁ nirbhedatva eva nana-bhedavattvam arūpitva eva rūpitvaṁ vyāpakatva eva madhyamatvaṁ satyam evety ādi-paraspara-viruddhānanta-guṇa-nidhiḥ sthūla-sūkṣma-vilakṣaṇa-sva-prakāśākhaṇḍa-sva-svarūpa-bhūta-śrī-vigrahas tathā-bhūta-bhagavad-ākhya-mukhyaika-vigraha-vyañjita-tādṛśānanta-vigrahas tādṛśa-svānurūpa-śaktyāvirbhāva-lakṣaṇa-lakṣmī-rañjita-vāmāṁśaḥ sva-prabhā-viśeṣākāra-paricchada-parikara-nija-dhāmasu virājamānākāraḥ svarūpa-śakti-vilāsa-lakṣaṇa-adbhuta-guṇa-līlādi-camatkāritātmārāmādi-gaṇo nija-sāmānya-prakāśākāra-brahma-tattvo nijāśayaika-jīvana-jīvākhya-taṭastha-śaktir ananta-prapañca-vyañjita-svābhāsa-śakti-guṇo bhagavān iti. (Bhagavat-sandarbha 100).

5. The verse is discussed six times in the Caitanya-caritāmṛta, and more than a hundred times in the writings of A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda, a modern exponent of Caitanya Vaiṣṇavism.

6. This is evident from the Bhagavat-sandarbha, wherein Jīva assembles and explains a wide variety of verses from the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, to establish the concept of the threefold Godhead and the supremacy of Bhagavān. A similar attempt is made in section 105 of Paramātma-sandarbha, wherein the six indicators of meaning (tātparya-liṅgas) are delineated using verses from various parts of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa.

7. yady apy ete brahmādi-śabdāḥ prāyo mithortheṣu vartante tathāpi tatra tatra saṅketa-prādhānya-vivakṣayedam uktam (Bhagavat-sandarbha 3).

8. Jīva Gosvāmī provides a definition of Bhagavān in terms of the ‘vadanti’ verse: tathā caivaṁ vaiśiṣṭye prāpte pūrṇāvirbhāvatvenākhanḍa-tattva-rūpo ‘sau bhagavān. (Bhagavat-sandarbha 3).

9. Paramātmā is defined as follows:
yena hetu-kartrā ātmāṁśa-bhūta-jīva-praveśana-dvārā saṁjīvitāni santi dehādīnī tad-upalakṣaṇāni pradhānādi-sarvāṇy eva tattvāni yenaiva preritatayā caranti sva-sva-kārye pravartanti tat paramātma-rūpaṁ viddhi. (Bhagavat-sandarbha 4)

10. Jīva defines Brahman in this way:
brahma tu sphutam aprakaṭita-vaiśiṣtyākāratvena tasya (bhagavataḥ) evāsamyag āvirbhāva ity āyātam. (Bhagavat-sandarbha 3).

Or in Bhagavat-sandarbha 4:
yad aviśiṣṭaṁ cin-mātratvena prakāśamānaṁ tad brahmarūpaṁ viddhi. ‘That which is not qualified, and which shines because it is pure consciousness – know it to be Brahman’.

11. The title ‘svayaṁ bhagavān’, (‘Bhagavān himself’, or ‘directly Bhagavān’) is used exclusively to designate Kṛṣṇa. It is drawn from the famous statement of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa:

ete cāṁśa-kalāḥ puṁsaḥ kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayaṁ

‘All these (avatāras) are portions or portions of portions of the Lord, but Kṛṣṇa is Bhagavān himself’. (1.3.28). This half-verse appears at the end of the list of twenty-two prominent incarnations (avatāras), and is on par with the ‘vadanti’ verse as a pace-setting text in Caitanya Vaiṣṇava theology. It forms the basis for the complex classification of Kṛṣṇa’s forms and manifestations found in the Laghu-bhāgavatāmṛta of Rūpa Gosvāmī, Caitanya-caritāmṛta, and Kṛṣṇa-sandarbha.

12. sei brahma-śabde kahe svayaṁ bhagavān

advitīya-jñāna yāṅhā vinā nāhi āna (Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.24.73)

vadanti tat tattvavidas tattvaṁ yaj jñānam advayam

brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate (2.24.74)

sei advaya-tattva kṛṣṇa svayaṁ bhagavān

tina-kāle satya tiṅho śāstra-pramāṇa (2.24.75)

ātma-śabde kahe kṛṣṇa bṛhattva-svarūpa

sarva-vyāpaka sarva-sākṣī parama-svarūpa (2.24.77)

brahma-ātmā-śabde yadi kṛṣṇere kahaya

rūḍhivṛttye nirviśeṣa antaryāmī kaya (2.24.82)

13. yat tad avyaktam ajaram acintyam ajam akṣayam

anirdeśyam arūpaṁ ca pāṇi-pādādy-asaṁyutam

vibhuṁ sarva-gataṁ nityaṁ bhūta-yonim akāraṇam

vyāpy-avyāptaṁ yataḥ sarvaṁ tad vai paśyanti sūrayaḥ

tad brahma paramaṁ dhāma tad dhyeyaṁ mokṣa-kāṅkṣiṇām

śruti-vākyoditaṁ sūkṣmaṁ tad viṣṇoḥ paramaṁ padam

śruti-vākyoditaṁ sūkṣmaṁ tad viṣṇoḥ paramaṁ padam

tad etad bhagavad-vācyaṁ svarūpaṁ paramātmanaḥ

vācako bhagavac-chabdas tasyādyasyākṣarātmanaḥ

The passage continues from here with a syllable-by-syllable etymology of ‘bhagavān’. Note the echo of the Ṛg Veda (1.22.20): ‘tad vai paśyanti sūrayaḥ’ and ‘tad viṣṇoḥ paramaṁ padam’. I have chosen to take the genitive case of Viṣṇu (viṣṇoḥ) in a weak sense of simply naming or clarifying that which belongs to it (paramaṁ padam). This allows the passage to function (as intended by Jīva) as a description of Viṣṇu Bhagavān, rather than simply his abode.

14. arūpaṁ pāṇi-pādādy-asaṁyutam itīdaṁ brahmākhya-kevala-viśeṣyāvirbhāva-niṣṭham (Bhagavat-sandarbha 3).

15. Jīva Gosvāmī also offers another explanation of ‘formless, and without hands or feet’: these descriptions remind us that the Lord has no material (prākṛta) form or limbs. This is a common Vaiṣṇava interpretation of negative statements, and it is the one offered by Caitanya to Sārvabhauma Bhattacārya:

apāṇi-pāda-śruti varje ‘prākṛta’ pāṇi-caraṇa

punaḥ kahe śīghra cale kare sarva grahaṇa

ataeva śruti kahe, brahma saviśeṣa

‘The śruti text ‘apāṇi-pāda’ precludes material hands and feet, but also says that he moves quickly and grasps everything. Therefore śruti says that Brahman possesses attributes’. (Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.6.150–52).

16. This technique of ‘passing on’ the referent is grounded in a grammatical rule called correlative predication, or sāmānādhikaraṇya, which Rāmānuja uses to great effect in his theology. Correlative predication occurs when words that have different connotations denote the same entity, as in the phrase, ‘big, blue, beautiful lotus’ (Srinivasachari 237). Each qualifier has a different meaning, yet all refer to the same lotus. Here is the key: This apparently simple grammatical point has significant ontological consequences. Each qualifier has a different connotation precisely because it has a different ground for occurrence – that is, there are real differences within the object itself which give reason for the application of different qualifiers. Using this, Rāmānuja argues against the Advaitin doctrine of an undifferentiated Brahman, in favor of a Lord who is qualified by different attributes, such as eternity, knowledge, and bliss.

17. This is a quotation from the Viṣṇu Purāṇa (1.22.54):

eka-deśa-sthitasyāgner jyotsnā vistāriṇī yathā

parasya brahmaṇaḥ śaktis tathedam akhilaṁ jagat

18. The above verse is cited in Caitanya-caritāmṛta (2.20.110), Bhagavat-sandarbha (16), and thrice in the Paramātma-sandarbha (70, 71, and 106). The analogy of fire and its energy is also found in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa (3.28.40–41), which compares Bhagavān to fire and the living entities to sparks. The two verses are commented upon by Jīva Gosvāmī in anuccheda 68 of Paramātma-sandarbha.

19. na tasya kāryaṁ karaṇaṁ ca vidyate na tatsamaś cābhyadhikaś ca dṛṣyate

parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate svābhāvikī jñāna-bala-kriyā ca (6.8)

20. Jīva Gosvāmī makes a careful study of causality in the Paramātma-sandarbha, arguing in support of commonly held Vedāntic views on the subject. See for example, anuccheda 70, where he makes use of the fire analogy: kāryaṁ kāraṇa-dharmasya sarvāṁśenaivānugataṁ bhavatīti niyamo na vidyata ity arthaḥ. dahanādy-udbhave prabhādau dāhakatvādi-dharmādarśanād iti bhāvaḥ. Jīva then quotes the ‘fire verse’ from Viṣṇu Purāṇa.

21. The Viṣṇu Purāṇa, however, gives different names to the śaktis:

viṣṇu-śaktiḥ parā proktā kṣetra-jñākhyā tathāparā

avidyā-karma-saṁjñānyā tṛtīyā śaktir iṣyate

‘Viṣṇu’s (personal) energy is called parā (superior), the second energy is known as kṣetra-jña (knower of the field), and the third is named avidyā-karma (ignorance and activity)’ (6.7.61). The sandhi in ‘tathāparā’ can be resolved as ‘tathā aparā’ or ‘tathā parā’. The second option would give us, ‘the energy called kṣetrajña is also parā (superior)’. This meaning is consistent with the Gītā (7.5), where Kṛṣṇa calls the jīvas his parā prakṛti, and also with Gauḍīya theology, which regards the jīvas as essentially part of the internal energy.

22. This further tripartition is again found in the Viṣṇu Purāṇa (1.12.68). Verse 6.8 of the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (quoted above) is also cited in support of the partition. There, the Lord’s inherent śakti is described as jñāna-bala-kriyā, ‘consisting of knowledge, strength, and activity’. Knowledge corresponds to saṁvit, strength to sandhinī, and activity to hlādinī.

23. Each part is further subdivided according to māyā’s various functions. See Paramātma-sandarbha, anucchedas 53 to 55 for a detailed analysis with supporting evidence from the Bhāgavata Purāṇa.

24. athāvidyākhyasya bhāgasya dve vṛttī āvaraṇātmikā vikṣepātmikā ca. tatra pūrvā jīva eva tiṣṭhantī tadīyaṁ svābhāvikaṁ jñānam āvṛṇvānā. uttarā ca taṁ tad-anyathā-jñānena sañjayantī vartata iti. (Paramātma-sandarbha 54).

25. See Bhagavat-sandarbha, section 16: ekam eva tat parama-tattvaṁ svābhāvikācintya-śaktyā sarvadaiva svarūpa-tad-rūpa-vaibhava-jīva-pradhāna-rūpeṇa caturdhāvatiṣṭhate. Sūryāntarmaṇḍalastha-teja iva maṇḍala-tad-bahirgata-raśmi-tat-praticchavi-rūpeṇa … śaktiś ca sā tridhā antaraṅgā bahiraṅgā taṭasthā ca. tatrāntaraṅgayā svarūpa-śaktyākhyayā pūrṇenaiva svarūpeṇa vaikuṇṭhādi-svarūpa-vaibhava-rūpeṇa ca tad avatiṣṭhate. taṭasthayā raśmi-sthānīya-cid-ekātma-śuddha-jīva-rūpeṇa bahiraṅgayā māyākhyayā praticchavigata-varṇa-śāvalya-sthānīya-tadīya-bahiraṅga-vaibhava-jaḍātma-pradhāna-rūpeṇa ceti caturdhātvam

26. Jīva Gosvāmī uses the jīva–ray analogy in a more restricted way in the Tattva-sandarbha:
yathā janma-prabhṛti kaścid gṛha-guhāvaruddhaḥ sūryaṁ vividiṣuḥ kathaṁcid gavākṣa-patitaṁ sūryāṁśu-kaṇaṁ darśayitvā kenacid upadiśyate eṣa sa iti etat tad-aṁśatvaṁ ca tad-acintya-śakti-viśeṣa-siddhatvenaiva paramātma-sandarbhe sthāpayiṣyāmaḥ

‘Suppose someone who has been shut in a dark room of the house since birth desires to know the sun. Someone shows him a tiny ray of sunlight that has somehow come in through a hole and says, “This is the sun”. In the Paramātma-sandarbha, we will show that the jīva is similarly a portion of Brahman, for his existence is due to a particular aspect of Brahman’s inconceivable śakti’. (52).

This parable describes the pedagogical method used by the Upaniṣads to reveal the nature of Brahman. They point to the jīva and say, ‘This is Brahman’. Phrases such as ‘tat tvam asi’ should not be taken as statements of absolute identity, but only as indications of similar natures. Their purpose is to give an idea of Brahman’s nature to those born in the darkness of ignorance, with only themselves as reference points.

27. taj-jātatvād iti hetoḥ sarvasyaiva brahmatvaṁ nirdiśya tatrāviṣkṛtaḥ sad idam iti pratīti-paramāśrayo yo ‘ṁśaḥ sa eva śuddhaṁ brahmety uddiśyate

28. Earlier in the Bhagavat-sandarbha, Jīva Gosvāmī explains the Chāndogya passage in this way:
kiṁ ca brahma-padena sarvaṁ khalv idaṁ brahmeti prasiddhiṁ vyajya sattvādi-guṇa-maya-māyāyās tad-anyatve ‘pi nirguṇasyeti prākṛta-guṇair aspṛṣṭatvam aṅgīkṛtya teṣāṁ bahiraṅgatvaṁ svīkṛtam.

‘Furthermore, the word “brahman” in the famous passage “everything, indeed, is this Brahman” makes it clear that although māyā, consisting of qualities such as sattva, is nondifferent from Brahman, still it is agreed that Brahman, being nirguṇa, is untouched by material qualities and that these qualities are external (to it)’. (16).

29. bahu syāṁ prajāyeya iti. tat-saṅkalpa eva vā vācyaḥ. satya-svābhāvikācintya-śaktiḥ parameśvaras tuccha-māyikam api na kuryāt cintāmaṇīnām adhipatiḥ svayaṁ cintāmaṇir eva vā kūṭa-kanakādivat (Paramātma-sandarbha 71)

30. Caitanya asks this question of Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī in the Caitanya-caritāmṛta (1.7.127):

prākṛta-vastute yadi acintya-śakti haya

īśvarera acintya-śakti ithe ki vismaya

See verses 121–7 for Caitanya’s explanation of the doctrine of the transformation of energies (śakti-pariṇāma-vāda).

31. See the end of Jīva’s commentary on the first aphorism of the Brahma-sūtra, where he again quotes the fire verse from the Viṣṇu Purāṇa.

32. The term acintya-bhedābheda is not widely used as the official name of Caitanyite Vedānta in the early literature of the school, although both the elements (acintya and bhedābheda) are ubiquitously discussed and frequently juxtaposed. The clearest statement of this nomenclature is found in the Sarva-saṁvādinī, where Jīva Gosvāmī lists the names of different teachers and their schools of Vedānta, and then concludes by saying, ‘sva-mate tu acintya-bhedābhedaḥ’, ‘but my view is acintya-bhedābheda’.

33. For a discussion of the Advaita interpretation of tat tvam asi, see Murty pp. 91–3

34. paraspara-viruddhānanta-guṇa-nidhiḥ (Bhagavat-sandarbha 100)