The Commentators

The Commentators

Śrīdhara Svāmī (12th century CE) wrote Bhāvārtha-dīpikā. He is in Viṣṇusvāmī’s line: The presiding deity is Rudra, yet Śrīdhara Svamī prays to Nṛsiṁhadeva. The meaning of Bhāvārtha-dīpikā is: “It illuminates the meanings of bhāva” (or a lamp for the goal of bhāva). Śrīdhara Svāmī explains the term bhāva as bhakti (Bhāvārtha-dīpikā 1.5.12; 3.29.8; 10.23.42) and as prema (Bhāvārtha-dīpikā 10.10.42). In Vedānta philosophy, scriptural authority is foremost. Śrīmad Bhāgavatam is the topmost scripture, and Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu declared that Śrīdhara Svāmī is the authoritative commentator on Bhāgavatam:

prabhu hāsi’ kahe,“svāmī nā māne yei jana |
veśyār bhitare tāre kariye gaṇana” ||

eta kahi’ mahāprabhu mauna dharilā |
śuniyā sabāra mane santoṣa hailā ||

“With a wry smile, the Lord said: “Whoever disregards the svāmī (husband; or Śrīdhara Svāmī) is to be counted among the prostitutes.” Mahāprabhu held silence. Everyone felt content by hearing this statement.” (Caitanya-caritāmṛta 3.7.115-116)

Lord Caitanya also told Vallabhācārya: śrīdhara-svāmī-prasāde ‘bhāgavata’ jāni, jagad-guru śrīdhara-svāmī ‘guru’ kari’ māni. śrīdhara-upare garve ye kichu likhibe ‘artha-vyasta’ likhana sei, loke nā mānibe. śrīdharer anugata ye kare likhana saba loka mānya kari’ karibe grahaṇa.

“I understand Bhāgavatam by the grace of Śrīdhara Svāmī. I consider that he, the spiritual master of the universe, is a guru. Whatever you write beyond Śrīdhara out of pride would be contrary to the real meaning. People would not pay attention to it. One who writes following Śrīdhara’s statements will be respected by and accepted by everyone.” (Caitanya-caritāmṛta 3.7.133-135)

Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura (c. 1630–1725 CE) wrote Sārārtha-darśinī. It is the commentary that illustrates (darśinī) the meanings (artha) of the essence (sāra). He takes the essence of other commentaries and reiterates those ideas clearly and strikingly. He often copies Bhāvārtha-dīpikā. Sometimes he acknowledges it. Similarly, on occasion he admits he takes an idea from the Toṣaṇīs. Viśvanātha Cakravartī has an awesome writing style, and his own ideas are astonishingly witty. His commentary is the cream of the crop, therefore it deserves to be placed immediately after Bhāvārtha-dīpikā.

Sanātana Gosvāmī (1482–1564 CE) wrote Bṛhad-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī (the big Vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī), a commentary exclusively on the Tenth Canto. In the tradition, Sanātana Gosvāmī’s Vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī was renamed Bṛhad-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī after Jīva Gosvāmī edited it to make his own version. According to Purī Dāsa, the real name of Sanātana Gosvāmī’s commentary is Vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī śrī-daśama-ṭippanī, “the glosses on the Tenth Canto that delight the Vaiṣṇavas.” The word ṭippanī, also written ṭippaṇī, signifies ‘gloss’ (a word given as a synonym of a terse term), ‘notes’, ‘comment’, and ‘gloss on a gloss’, as if the commentator were giving a tip on an inner meaning: Often Sanātana Gosvāmī follows in the wake of Śrīdhara Svāmī’s explanations before giving further interpretations.

Sanātana Gosvāmī, the most humble paramahaṁsa, seeks to wring out every verse to the last drop. His humility even makes stones melt. Viśvanātha Cakravartī helps one climb the bhakti ladder, and Sanātana Gosvāmī makes one reach the top. Reading Bṛhad-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī is the best assurance of opening up the gates to prema-bhakti. Sanātana Gosvāmī’s writing style is particular: It is the medium through which his kṛṣṇa-prema is conveyed to the readers. He softens the heart.

prema-sanātana dūre
bhavaṭ-ṭīkāyai praṇāmo ’stu |
paṭhāmi cet tadā suṣṭhu
hṛl-layas tataḥ kiṁ karomīti śaṅke ||

“O Sanātana, you have prema. Let me offer my respects to your commentary from afar. I think that if I keep reading it, my heart will completely melt away. Then what am I going to do?”

Alternatively: “If I read it, my heart completely melts away. Then I suspect that all that is left is I as a servant and those meanings of yours.” (kiṁ karomīti = kiṅkaro ’mī iti) (amī = amī padārthāḥ)

Jīva Gosvāmī (c. 1515–1600 CE) revised Bṛhad-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī at Sanātana Gosvāmī’s request. His commentary is called Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī. It means either: “the small Vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī” or “the Toṣaṇī that delights the little Vaiṣṇavas,” therefore Purī Dāsa gave it the name: Saṅkṣepa-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī (abridged Vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī). Kṛṣṇa-Śaṅkara Śāstrī, another editor, uses the name Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī. In Purī Dāsa’s editions, Bṛhad-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī consists of 594 pages of text, whereas Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī comprises 556 pages. In Sārārtha-darśinī, Viśvanātha Cakravartī uses the name Vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī indiscriminately, and likewise for the name Bhāgavatāmṛta. All these ācāryas see right through the paper on which a verse is written, let alone the verse itself.

At times Jīva Gosvāmī explains Śrīdhara Svāmī’s commentary: On occasion, those portions of Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī are translated only as a footnote in the section on Bhāvārtha-dīpikā. And to further lighten the translation of Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī, the footnotes in the same rendering of Bṛhad-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī are not shown again.

Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī marks a radical shift in the history of Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism: Jīva Gosvāmī deleted Sanātana Gosvāmī’s philosophical explanations which are in line with Śrīdhara Svāmī’s statements, and some of Sanātana Gosvāmī’s emotional interpretations.

Jīva Gosvāmī clearly says that he himself follows Rāmānuja. Jīva Gosvāmī’s close friend was Gopāla Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmī, a former Śrī-Vaiṣṇava. At the outset of the Sandarbhas, Jīva Gosvāmī specifies that Gopāla Bhaṭṭa is the original compiler of the Sandarbhas. In a series of bold strategic moves, Jīva Gosvāmī attracted the Vaiṣṇavas of South India: He rashly criticized Māyāvāda philosophy, virtually labeled Śrīdhara Svāmī a Māyāvādī, classified Parakīya-vāda as unorthodox, and composed literature about the marriage of Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa to promote Svakīya-vāda (Gopāla-campū 2.35).

In that regard, many sentences in Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī are also in the Sandarbhas, but on occasion important scriptural details in Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī are not found in the same sentences in the Sandarbhas. For example, in Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī 10.14.28, Jīva Gosvāmī says Pratibimba-vāda is partially valid, based on Vedānta-sūtra, but in the same section in Tattva-sandarbha (37-39) the relevant aphorisms he had cited from Vedānta-sūtra are not seen, and therein he equated Pratibimba-vāda with Māyāvāda. Jīva Gosvāmī compiled the Sandarbhas after writing Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī, because in Krama-sandarbha he referred to the Sandarbhas whereas in Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī he did not.

Śrīdhara Svāmī’s writings at large are not irreproachable. Rūpa Gosvāmī was the first Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava to point out that Śrīdhara Svāmī’s commentary on Bhāgavatam is not perfect. Śrīdhara Svāmī made blatant mistakes in his commentary on Bhagavad-gītā.

In his commentary on Bhāgavatam, however, he wrote ambiguously, on purpose. In Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī, Jīva Gosvāmī attacked Śrīdhara Svāmī on several occasions (10.3.24; 10.13.57; etc.). This rivalry adds zip to the commentaries. Viśvanātha Cakravartī and Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa voiced their own opinions on the issues. All in all, it is only fitting that the transcendental taste makers should make their commentaries juicy. Still, on the whole Śrīdhara Svāmī’s commentary on Bhāgavatam justifies Caitanya Mahāprabhu’s approval. In many ways, he propounded the highest philosophy. For example:

tvat-kathāmṛta-pāthodhau viharanto mahā-mudaḥ |
kurvanti kṛtinaḥ kecic catur-vargaṁ tṛṇopamam ||

“Some accomplished persons who are greatly joyful while sporting in the ocean of nectar topics about You render the four goals of life insignificant like straw.” (Bhāvārtha-dīpikā 10.87.21) (quoted in Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 1.1.40)

Jīva Gosvāmī condemned Parakīya-vāda in accordance with the wishes of one of his disciples, a wealthy donor called Gopāla Dāsa. Jīva Gosvāmī dedicated Gopāla-campū to Gopāla Dāsa: śrī-gopāla-gaṇānāṁ gopālānāṁ pramodāya, bhavatu samantād eṣā nāmnā gopāla-campūr yā, “May this book entitled Gopāla-campū bring about the pleasure of the gopālas in the group of Śrī Gopāla.” Some details about Gopāla Dāsa are given in the ninth chapter of Sādhana-dīpikā, a book written by Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa Dāsa, a disciple of the famous Haridāsa Gosvāmī who was the chief sevaka of the Rādhā Govinda deities during the time of the Gosvāmīs. In the epilogue of his grammatical treatise, Jīva Gosvāmī directly referred to Gopāla Dāsa:

hari-nāmāmṛta-saṁjñaṁ yad-artham etat prakāśayāmāse |
ubhayatra ca mama mitraṁ sa bhavatu gopāla-dāsākhyaḥ ||

“May Gopāla Dāsa, for whose sake I wrote this book, Hari-nāmāmṛta, be my friend in this life and in the next.” (Hari-nāmāmṛta-vyākaraṇa)

In his commentary on Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi, Jīva Gosvāmī admits that his viewpoint about svakīya-rasa is not his own: svecchayā likhitaṁ kiñcit kiñcid atra parecchayā, “In this regard, something is written out of my own desire and something is written out of another’s desire” (Locana-rocanī 1.21). However, at the end of the section in Kṛṣṇa-sandarbha that establishes svakīya-rasa, Jīva Gosvāmī begs forgiveness from the Lord for promoting that conception: yad etat tu mayā kṣudra-tareṇa taralāyitam, kṣamatāṁ tat kṣamā-śīlaḥ śrīmān gokula-vallabhaḥ, “May the beloved Lord of Gokula, who is forgiving by nature, forgive insignificant me for my fickleness” (Kṛṣṇa-sandarbha 181).

Jīva Gosvāmī aimed at safeguarding the sacredness of Kṛṣṇa’s pastimes: jāra-bhāva-mayaḥ saṅgamaś ca sadaiva sopadravas tasmād asau paryavasāna-puruṣārthatve tat-tac-chāstra-sammato na syāt, “A meeting consisting of the mood of paramours is always associated with outrage. Therefore the scriptures do not support it in terms of being a goal of life” (Kṛṣṇa-sandarbha 178).

Jīva Gosvāmī was bold enough to pen a description of the wedding of Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa (Gopāla-campū 2.35). In a different context, Their marriage is heard of in Brahma-vaivarta Purāṇa (4.15) and in Garga-saṁhitā (1.16). In Kṛṣṇa’s pastimes of acting as a paramour, svakīya-bhāva is the proper perspective from the viewpoint of tattva, whereas parakīya-bhāva is the proper designation in terms of rasa. In addition, Jīva Gosvāmī established pastimes of Kṛṣṇa’s on the platform of svakīya-bhāva from the viewpoint of rasa. Jīva Gosvāmī opened the door of another kind of Goloka Vṛndāvana. There is sweetness in this also. Moreover, when Jīva Gosvāmī’s name appears in bold type in the translation, it denotes Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī.

Krama-sandarbha is his very own commentary on the entire Bhāgavatam. Some say it is named in this way because he includes sequentially (krama) his statements in the Six Sandarbhas. In that regard he wrote:

śrī-bhāgavata-sandarbhān śrīmad-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇīm |
dṛṣṭvā bhāgavata-vyākhyā likhyate ’tra yathā-mati ||

“This explanation of the Bhāgavatam is written herein to the best of my judgement after looking at Śrīmad-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī and the six Sandarbhas.” (Krama-sandarbha 1.1.1)

Although not all the information in the Sandarbhas concerning Bhāgavatam can be found in Krama-sandarbha, in his introductory verse to the Tenth Canto Jīva Gosvāmī says Krama-sandarbha is a summary of the Sandarbhas (sandarbhāṇāṁ samāhṛtiḥ).

In Krama-sandarbha, Jīva Gosvāmī does not comment on each verse, and in the Tenth Canto, for the most part he refines the syntax and rephrases the ideas set forth in Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī. When he does so, often the translation of Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī follows the syntax of the same idea edited in Krama-sandarbha; at other times, both of his interpretations are shown.

Only Bhāvārtha-dīpikā, Sārārtha-darśinī, Bṛhad-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī, and Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī are translated in their entirety. Whenever another commentary contains an idea that was already expressed in one of those four, that idea is not shown again in the translation, unless significant details are added by the commentator. However, whenever Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī is the same or almost exactly the same as Bṛhad-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī, a note is made at the beginning of the entry of the translation of Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī to specify that Jīva Gosvāmī’s additions are underlined.

Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa (c. 1680–1780 CE) is the author of Vaiṣṇavānandinī (it delights the Vaiṣṇavas). He often paraphrases Viśvanātha Cakravartī. In the translation, Vaiṣṇavānandinī is placed after Krama-sandarbha, which follows Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī, but on occasion Vaiṣṇavānandinī is placed after Sārārtha-darśinī. According to Haridāsa Dāsa, Vaiṣṇavānandinī is only a commentary on the Tenth Canto of Bhāgavatam.

Śrīnātha Paṇḍita (c. 1500 CE) wrote Caitanya-mata-mañjūṣā (the casket of Caitanya’s opinions). It is the first Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava commentary on Bhāgavatam. In their respective editions, Purī Dāsa and Kṛṣṇa-Śaṅkara Śāstrī refer to him as Śrīnātha Cakravartī. However, in Caitanya-caritāmṛta (1.10.107) and in Vaiṣṇava-dig-darśinī he is called Śrīnātha Paṇḍita. He was a disciple of Śrī Advaita Prabhu and the guru of Kavi Karṇapūra.

The sense of ‘casket’ is a receptacle of jewels. He explains Śrī Caitanya’s opinions at the outset of his commentary on the first verse of Bhāgavatam:

ārādhyo bhagavān vrajeśa-tanayas tad-dhāma vṛndāvanaṁ
ramyā kācid upāsanā vraja-vadhū-vargeṇa yā kalpitā |
śāstraṁ bhāgavataṁ pramāṇam amalaṁ premā pum-artho mahān
itthaṁ gaura-mahāprabhor matam atas tatrādaro naḥ paraḥ ||

“The Lord to be worshiped is the son of the chief of Vraja; His abode is Vṛndāvana; the most delightful method of worship is the one conceived by the young wives of Vraja; the scripture called Bhāgavatam is the spotless means of valid knowledge; and prema is the highest goal of life. These are the opinions of Gaura Mahāprabhu, therefore we have the highest respect for them.” (Caitanya-mata-mañjūṣā, Maṅgalācaraṇa 1)

Śrīnātha Paṇḍita follows the readings in Śrīdhara Svāmī’s edition of Bhāgavatam. Haridāsa Dāsa specifies that Śrīnātha Paṇḍita wrote his commentary after looking at Śrīdhara Svāmī’s commentary. This is sometimes indicated by Śrīnātha Paṇḍita himself. He and other Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas who had the direct association of Caitanya Mahāprabhu had great reverence for Śrīdhara Svāmī. He praises him as follows:

śrīdharasvāmi-pādānāṁ jīyād bhāvārtha-dīpikā |
ālokena yadīyena sarvaḥ panthā vilokyate ||

“The commentary of venerable Śrīdhara Svāmī, Bhāvārtha-dīpikā, is glorious. By means of its light, the whole path is seen.” (Caitanya-mata-mañjūṣā, Maṅgalācaraṇa 4)

The next commentary in the sequence is Bṛhat-krama-sandarbha. It is attributed to Jīva Gosvāmī. This was certainly the intention of the author of Bṛhat-krama-sandarbha since the title is suggestive and the first introductory verse to the Tenth Canto is the same as the one in Krama-sandarbha. Yet this attribution of authorship is erroneous because Bṛhat-krama-sandarbha is a paraphrase of Caitanya-mata-mañjūṣā. Anyone who seriously compares both commentaries can clearly perceive it. The possibility that Caitanya-mata-mañjūṣā is a paraphrase of Bṛhat-krama-sandarbha is impossible, since the style in Bṛhat-krama-sandarbha is clear, which is uncharacteristic of Jīva Gosvāmī’s work. After the first chapter of the Tenth Canto, Śrīnātha Paṇḍita seldom comments; whenever he does not, the Bṛhat-krama-sandarbha commentary is rarely seen. Consequently it is translated selectively and presented immediately after the translation of Caitanya-mata-mañjūṣā.

On the whole, in the first three chapters of the Tenth Canto the commentaries of the ācāryas are extensive.

Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī’s commentary, called Tathya, is also presented from time to time. Sometimes an entry is simply the translation of his word-for-word rendering in Sanskrit, which he did in the form of a syntactical connection: He rearranged the words of a verse in proper order and gave a synonym for each word, all in one section.

Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī also did the syntactical connection of each verse of Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu along with a gloss of every word, based on Viśvanātha Cakravartī’s commentary.

On occasion, Bhāgavata-tātparya, the commentary of Madhvācārya (1238-1317 CE), is shown.

Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī based his translation of Bhāgavatam on the commentaries of Śrīdhara Svāmī, Viśvanātha Cakravartī, Sanātana Gosvāmī, Jīva Gosvāmī, and so on, since he occasionally rendered in Bengali small excerpts of the commentaries of these ācāryas and of Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha, Vīra-Rāghava, Vallabhācārya, and Śukadeva Mahārāja. Following in his footsteps, from time to time their commentaries are translated. They are as follows: (1) Pada-ratnāvalī, by Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha, also known as Jayadharma, from Madhvācārya’s line, (2) Bhāgavata-candra-candrikā, by Vīra-Rāghava (fourteenth century), a Śrī-Vaiṣṇava, (3) Subodhinī, by Vallabhācārya, and (4) Siddhānta-pradīpa, by Śukadeva Mahārāja, from Nimbārka’s line.

In conformity with Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī’s approach, the four Vaiṣṇava sampradāyas are thus represented in this translation. Bhaktivedānta Svāmī Prabhupāda often quoted Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha and Vīra-Rāghava, and in his Purport after the opening verse he honorably mentioned Vallabhācārya’s commentary: “Within the past five hundred years, many erudite scholars and ācāryas like Jīva Gosvāmī, Sanātana Gosvāmī, Viśvanātha Cakravartī, Vallabhācārya, and many other distinguished scholars even after the time of Lord Caitanya made elaborate commentaries on the Bhāgavatam. And the serious student would do well to attempt to go through them to better relish the transcendental messages.”

Often, Vijadhvaja Tīrtha’s and Vīra-Rāghava’s readings of the text of Bhāgavatam are the same, although their readings sometimes differ from other ācāryas’ readings. Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha (fourteenth century), who followed the readings in the edition of Bhāgavatam used by Madhvācārya, is the recipient of an honorable mention by Jīva Gosvāmī (Tattva-sandarbha 28).

Rāmānujācārya(1017-1137 CE) did not comment on Bhāgavatam. Vīra-Rāghava (fourteenth century) filled the gap in a remarkable fashion. He often elucidates Śrīdhara Svāmī’s commentary, and his own ideas are well-thought-out, lucid and amazing. Another Śrī-Vaiṣṇava who commented on Bhāgavatam is Sudarśana Sūri, who wrote Śuka-pakṣīyam.

Vallabhācārya (1479-1531 CE) was an exalted Vaiṣṇava who obtained the personal association of Caitanya Mahāprabhu on several occasions. The sannyāsa-guru of Vallabhācārya was Mādhavendra Purī. Moreover, in 1668 the Śrīnātha deity was brought from Govardhana to Nāthadvāra, in Rajasthan. The darśana of this deity, accompanied with the vibrant enthusiasm of local devotees, is a moving experience. Rūpa Gosvāmī honorably refers to Vallabhācārya when he says that another name of rāgānuga-bhakti is puṣṭi-mārga (Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 1.2.309). In Vallabhācārya’s system, the maryādā-mārga is only open to men in the first three castes, whereas puṣṭi-mārga is open to all. He strongly emphasized the necessity of obtaining the Lord’s mercy.

Notably, some of Vallabhācārya’s followers greatly assisted A.C. Bhaktivedānta Svāmī Prabhupāda:

We disciples of Śrīla Prabhupāda are grateful to the puṣṭī-mārga devotees because they aided Śrīla Prabhupāda early in his mission. Śrīmati Sumati Morarji, a lifelong follower of Śrī Vallabhācārya, was a main trustee of the Śrīnāthajī temple. She helped Śrīla Prabhupāda print his books and served as a patron for him in Bombay. As the head of a shipping company, she arranged for his original passage to New York on one of her ships, the Jaladuta. And since that time, faithful followers of Śrī Vallabhācārya have helped Śrīla Prabhupāda’s efforts to spread Śrī Kṛṣṇa’s glories throughout India and the rest of the world.

Ācārya Vallabha did not comment on all the cantos of Bhāgavatam. Specifically, he commented on cantos one to three, on canto ten, and on the first five chapters of canto eleven. Nonetheless, his contribution to the legacy of commentaries on Bhāgavatam has been undeservingly underrated. His Subodhinī contains many astounding interpretations. In addition, his ideas are often seen in Bṛhad-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī. Sanātana Gosvāmī indirectly acknowledged it once (Bṛhad-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī 10.8.19). In Bṛhad-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī 10.21.7, Sanātana Gosvāmī directly mentions him and his commentary. Thus sometimes ideas that were originally penned by Vallabhācārya are found in Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī! Moreover, some interpretations of Vallabhācārya’s are seldom seen in Sārārtha-darśinī, and on occasion some others are found in Vaiṣṇavānandinī. In Sārārtha-darśinī 10.29.38, Viśvanātha Cakravartī quotes Vallabhācārya’s commentary and mentions him by name. Most likely, Viśvanātha Cakravartī consulted his commentary on other verses of Bhāgavatam. This is apparent in Sārartha-darśinī 10.2.8, because his interpretation that the ṣaḍ-garbhas represent the six sensory objects is also Vallabhācārya’s idea (Subodhinī 10.2.5). Although Vallabhācārya, also known as Vallabha Bhaṭṭa, received a mantra from Gadādhara Paṇḍita (Caitanya-caritāmṛta 3.7.171), he is said to be in the line of Viṣṇusvāmī, although Vallabhācārya’s views differ from Śrīdhara Svāmī’s philosophical conclusions.

Śukadeva’s commentary, Siddhānta-pradīpa, is scholarly. He often follows Śrīdhara Svāmī. Śrīla A.C. Bhaktivedānta Svāmī Prabhupāda quoted Śukadeva in his Purport on Bhāgavatam 10.2.17. To avoid confusion, in the translation the name of his commentary (Siddhānta-pradīpa) is written instead of his name, and in the footnotes and elsewhere Śukadeva is referred to as Śukadeva Mahārāja.

The Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava philosophy, acintya-bhedābheda-tattva, “the principle of inconceivable difference and nondifference” (paradox), is very similar in name to Nimbārka’s philosophy, called svābhāvika-bhedābheda, “differences and nondifferences pertain to the inherent nature.” The concept of bhedābheda is an old one. It was propounded at first by Auḍulomi and Bhāskara, but they were influenced by Māyāvāda. Nimbārka’s bhedābheda is the simultaneous real existence of difference and nondifference between Brahman and a soul, and between Brahman and the world. In addition, Nimbāditya’s followers aspire to worship Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa in a mood of love. Most of them cherish sakhī-bhāva, if not vātsalya-bhāva. Notably, Nimbārkācārya is known as one who did not attack other schools of philosophy.

Other commentaries are presented on occasion. Of those, Bhāvārtha-dīpikā-prakāśa, by Vaṁśīdhara Paṇḍita (nineteenth century), is an elucidation of Śrīdhara Svāmī’s commentary.

Another noteworthy commentary is Anvitārtha-prakāśikā (the revealer of syntactically connected meanings), by Pandit Gaṅgā Sahāya (late nineteenth century). He too was a Vaiṣṇava. He paraphrases Śrīdhara Svāmī’s commentary and very often fills the gaps left by our ācāryas regarding an explanation of grammatical discrepancies in Bhāgavatam. Sometimes he also elucidates Viśvanātha Cakravartī’s and Jīva Gosvāmī’s commentaries and syntactical connections.

⇐ Предыдущая 12