Skip to main content
Log in

Rejecting Monism: Dvaita Vedānta’s Engagement with the Bhāgavatapurāṇa

  • Published:
Journal of Indian Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Madhvācārya’s Bhāgavatatātparyanirṇaya is the oldest Bhāgavata commentary available to us, most probably predating the Advaitic commentary of Śrīdhara (fourteenth century). Thus Madhva’s commentary occupies a crucial place in the development of the Bhāgavata tradition. In this paper, I examine Madhva’s commentary on the first verse of the Bhāgavatapurāṇa, focusing on his exegesis. In so doing, I shall point out how Madhva emphasizes what are arguably the two most important doctrines of Dvaita Vedānta, namely, Viṣṇu’s absolute independence and the reality of the world. With this teaching Madhva vehemently rejects absolute monism and the idea that the world is illusory, which, we might say, are the core doctrines of Advaita Vedānta. This paper is also a modest attempt to revise the general perception of Vedānta as ‘the exegetical tradition on the prasthānatraya’. I argue that we need to include commentaries on the purāṇas within our understanding of Vedāntic discourse since, starting with Madhva, the purāṇas such as the Bhāgavata became an important text for Vedānta authors to comment upon. This is evidenced by the proliferation of commentaries on the Bhāgavata in the early modern period. The Bhāgavatapurāṇa attracted commentaries produced not only by Vaiṣṇava authors such as Sanātana, Jīva, Vallabha and Vīrarāghava but also by Advaita authors like Madhusūdana Sarasvatī and Śaivas such as Rāghavānanda. In this connection, toward the end of this paper I will point out Madhva’s influence on the Gauḍīya school that flourished in the early modern period.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In his Tattvasandarbha (Anuccheda 23 and 24), Jīva mentions several commentaries on the Bhāgavatapurāṇa including some which are unavailable to us (Elkman 1986, p. 113; Gupta 2007, p. 65f).

  2. Sharma (1981, p. 129). Sheridan (1986, p. 118) dates Śrīdhara’s commentary to around 1325. Sharma (1981, p. 129) writes that Madhva’s commentary ‘influenced’ Śrīdhara’s, and Sheridan (1986, p. 118) writes that Śrīdhara ‘softened’ his Advaitic interpretation of the Bhāgavata as a result of Madhva’s non-dualistic interpretation. However, Venkatkrishnan (2015, p. 41f) points out that the textual evidence of this influence is thin. For discussions on Śrīdhara’s commentary on the Bhāgavatapurāṇa, see for example Edelmann (2019a, b), Gupta (2007, pp. 65–84), and Sheridan (1986).

  3. For an overview of commentaries and translations of the Bhāgavata, see Edelmann (2019a, b).

  4. For a concise discussion on Madhva’s arguments against Advaita Vedānta, see Sarma (2019). Sarma summarizes the Mādhva School’s attitude toward the Advaita school as follows: ‘For Mādhvas, the second compulsion after exalting the glory of Viṣṇu is to argue against the Advaita School, the tradition of Vedānta most antithetical to Vaiṣṇavism (2019, p. 107).’

  5. Many vulgate editions read yat.

  6. Govindacharya (1980, p. 1).

  7. Rau (1928, p. 1) offers the following translation of the first verse of the Bhāgavata, based on Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha’s commentary: ‘Let us meditate on that Satya, i.e. the Eternally Blessed Para, i.e. the Protector, perfect in every excellence, that has ever distanced the illusory ways by virtue of His own essential wisdom, from whom the creation, etc. of this world proceed, as proved by positive and negative arguments, (by Srutis and Smritis), who knows every detail of everything, who shines by Himself as the absolutely independent Being, who graciously revealed and expounded the Veda to the Four-faced Brahma, in respect of whom the three-fold creation of Isvara, Jiva, and Jada, just as the modifications of Fire, Water, and Earth are, is of no avail, (though real and useful to other beings).’ While the general thrust of Rau’s translation is fine, it fails to reflect many theological points that are distinct in the commentaries of Madhva and Vijayadhvaja. For example, Madhva’s commentary suggests that satyaṃ param in the first verse refers specifically to Viṣṇu. Madhva also clarifies that janmādi in the Bhāgavata passage refers to Viṣṇu’s eightfold powers.

  8. Recent scholarship (e.g. Minkowski 2008 and Sanderson 2005) has called our attention to the significance of opening verses.

  9. For the sake of comparison with other commentaries, we should note that the expression ‘I reflect (cintaye)’ in the maṅgala verse is Madhva’s gloss on dhīmahi in the Bhāgavata passage. According to Madhva, dhīmahi indicates an act of contemplation rather than worship. As for Vijayadhvaja, he simply glosses dhīmahi as dhyāyema. Although it is beyond the scope of this paper it is important in this connection to think of the Bhāgavata passage and Madhva’s maṅgala verse as stotras or hymns of praise. This literary genre is relevant to our discussion since many stotras are contemplation or meditation on a particular deity (Edelmann 2016, p. 304). Recent works by Hamsa Stainton (2013, 2019) argue for the significance of studying storas in understanding Hindu traditions. See also a special issue of the International Journal of Hindu Studies, Volume 20, Issue 3 (2016) for three papers by David Buchta, Hamsa Stainton, and Steven Vose who explore the stotra literature.

  10. It is noteworthy that Madhva dedicates his commentary to Viṣṇu rather than to Kṛṣṇa or Rāma. Śrīdhara offers opening verses to Nṛsiṃha, Kṛṣṇa, and Śiva, Madhusūdana Sarasvatī to Kṛṣṇa, and Vaṃśīdhara to Kṛṣṇa and Gaṇeśa. Madhva’s emphasis on Viṣṇu is in accordance with his view that Viṣṇu is the source of all avatāras. Madhva does not promote any particular Viṣṇu avatāra, which reflects his understanding that there is no hierarchy among the avatāras. This is in stark contrast with later commentators such as Madhusūdana and Jīva Gosvāmī, who promote the supremacy of Kṛṣṇa.

    Śrīdhara, Bhāvārthadīpikā (Kṛṣṇaśaṅkara Śāstrī 1965, p. 1):

    vāgīśā yasya vadane lakṣmīr yasya ca vakṣasi /

    yasyāste hṛdaye saṁvittaṁ nṛsiṁhaṁ bhaje //1//

    viśvasargavisargādinavalakṣaṇalakṣitam /

    śrīkṛṣṇākhyaṁ paraṁ dhāma jagaddhāma nanāma tat //2//

    mādhavomādhavāv īśau sarvasiddhividhāyinau /

    vande parasparātmānau parasparanutipriyau //3//

    Madhusūdana Sarasvatī (Kṛṣṇaśaṅkara Śāstrī 1965, p. 55):

    śrīkṛṣṇaṃ paramaṃ tattvaṃ natvā tasya prasādataḥ /

    śrībhāgavatapadyānāṃ kaścid bhāvaḥ prakāśyate //1//

    Vaṃsīdhara, Bhāvārthadīpikāprakāśa (Kṛṣṇaśaṅkara Śāstrī 1965, p. 2):

    śrīkṛṣṇaṃ rādhikānāthaṃ vṛndāvananikuṃjagam /

    ballavīgaṇasaṃvītam āśraye sarvakāraṇam //1//

    oṃ svasti śrīganeśāya nama ity asya vyākṛtim /

    srīvaṃśīdharaśarmāhaṃ karomi viduṣāṃ mude //2//

  11. It is interesting to note that Madhva does not emphasize the position of Brahmā when he lists him alongside Rudra and Śrī. The idea of the four Vaiṣṇava sampradāyas headed by Śrī, Rudra, Brahmā and Sanaka became prominent in North India during the early modern period (Hawley 2013, 2015, pp. 99–147). In this scheme the Mādhva School is identified as the Brahmā sampradāya. However, Madhva’s maṅgala verse suggests that he did not conceive of his school in such a manner.

  12. Madhva, Bhāgavatatātparyanirṇaya 1.1.1 (Govindacharya 1980, p. 1):

    sṛṣṭisthityapyayehāniyatidṛśitamobandhamokṣāś ca yasmād.

    asya śrībrahmarudraprabhṛtisuranaradyvīśaśatrvātmakasya /

    viṣṇor vyastāḥ samastāḥ sakalaguṇanidhiḥ sarvadoṣavyapetaḥ.

    pūrṇānando’vyayo yo gurur api paramaś cintaye taṃ mahāntam //

  13. Madhva, Brahmasūtrabhāṣya 1.1.2 (Govindacharya 1969, Pt. 2, p. 2):

    sṛṣṭisthitisaṃhāraniyamanajñānājñānabandhamokṣā yataḥ /

    Madhva, Viṣṇutattvanirṇaya (Govindacharya 1974, p. 20):

    utpattisthitisaṃhārāḥ niyatir jñānām āvṛtiḥ /

    bandhamokṣau ca puruṣād yasmāt sa harir ekarāṭ // iti skānde /

    Vijayadhvaja comments that the compound janmādi is a bahuvrīhi of the tadguṇasaṃvijñāna type, and this analysis is shared with other Brahmasūtra commentators such as Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, Jīva, and Baladeva.

  14. Vijayadhvaja, Padaratnāvalī (Kṛṣṇaśaṅkara Śāstrī 1965, p. 39): ādiśabdena sthitisaṃhāraniyamanajñānājñānabandhamokṣā gṛhyante, na kevalaṃ sthitisaṃhārau, śrutismṛtivirodhāt /

  15. Vijayadhvaja, Padaratnāvalī (Kṛṣṇaśaṅkara Śāstrī 1965, p. 39): yathā sāsnādimān gaur iti vṛddhopadiṣṭasāsnādimantaṃ padārtham aśvādibhyoḥ vyāvṛttaṃ gośabdavācyaṃ pratyeti, tathā jagajjanmādikāraṇaṃ param iti śrutyācāryopadiṣṭaṃ janmādikaṃ pratyekaṃ parabrahmalakṣaṇatayā jñātavyam, vedāntasūtreṣu pratipāditatvāt /

  16. For more discussion on this point see Buchta (2013); Lott (1980, p. 110); Sharma (1986 [1962], pp. 277–278).

  17. Madhva, Bhāgavatatātparyanirṇaya 1.1.1 (Govindacharya 1980, p. 1): anvayāt/ “yato vā imāni (Taittirīya Upaniṣad 3.1)” ityādiśrutismṛtibhyaḥ / As for the smṛti passages, Vijayadhvaja (Kṛṣṇaśaṅkara Śāstrī 1965, p. 39) cites Bhagavadgītā 10.8: ahaṃ sarvasya prabhavo mattaḥ sarvaṃ pravartate, and an untraceable citation attributed to the Skāndapurāṇa (Mesquita 2007, p. 243): sraṣṭā pītā tathaivāttā nikhilasyaika eva tu //

  18. Madhva, Bhāgavatatātparyanirṇaya 1.1.1 (Govindacharya 1980, p. 1): itarataḥtarkataḥ / cetanād dhi pitrādeḥ putrādir utpadyate /

  19. Vijayadhvaja, Padaratnāvalī (Kṛṣṇaśaṅkara Śāstrī 1965, p. 39): pratyakṣāgamābhyām anugṛhītād itarasmāt tarkāt parabrahmaṇaḥ kāraṇatvaṃ jñāyate, "samudāya ubhayahetuko’pi tadaprāptiḥ (Brahmasūtra 2.2.17)" iti bhagavatā kṛṣṇadvaipāyanena paramāṇupuñjavād asya nirastatvāt / […] pradhānāder acetanatvena buddhipūrvakakartṛtvānupapatter asvātantryāc ca kṣityādeś cetanakartṛkatvaṃ pariśeṣasiddhaṃ, cetanād dhi pitrādeḥ putrādyutpattidarśanāt taddṛṣṭāntena brahmādicetanajātam paramacetanād viṣṇor utpadyata iti suśako’yaṃ tarkaḥ samuttiṣṭhate /

  20. Madhva, Bhāgavatatātparyanirṇaya 1.1.1 (Govindacharya 1980, p. 1): abhijñaḥsarvajñaḥ /

  21. Vijayadhvaja, Padaratnāvalī (Kṛṣṇaśaṅkara Śāstrī 1965, pp. 39–40): artheṣughaṭapaṭādiṣv abhitaḥ sarvataḥ aśeṣaviśeṣākāreṇa jānātītyabhijñaḥ, pradhānasya jaḍatvena jñānāśrayatvalakṣaṇāsambhavān nitarāṃ na sarvajñatvaṃ, viṣṇos tu sarvajñatvaṃ śrutismṛtisiddham “yaḥ sarvajñaḥ sa sarvavit (unindentified)”, “tāny ahaṃ veda sarvāṇi na tvaṃ vettha parantapa (Gītā 4.5cd)” ityādi / Cf. Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 1.1.9: yaḥ sarvajñaḥ sarvavit /

  22. Madhva, Bhāgavatatātparyanirṇaya 1.1.1 (Govindacharya 1980, p. 1): ato yujyate “yaṃ kāmaye taṃ tam ugram (Ṛgveda 10.125.5c)”, “mama yonir apsu (Ṛgveda 10.125.7b)” ity anyeṣāṃ tadapekṣatvāt / na cānyāpekṣo’sausvarāṭ /

    Ṛgveda 10.125.5: aham eva svayam idaṃ vadāmi juṣṭaṃ devebhir uta mānuṣebhiḥ / yaṃ kāmaye taṃ tam ugraṃ kṛṇomi tam brahmāṇaṃ tam ṛṣiṃ taṃ sumedhām // ‘Just I myself say this, savored by gods and men: “Whom I love, just him I make formidable, him a formulator, him a seer, him of good wisdom.”’ (Brereton and Jamison 2014, p. 1603).

    Ṛgveda 10.125.7: ahaṃ suve pitaram asya mūrdhan mama yonir apsv antaḥ samudre / tato vi tiṣṭhe bhuvanānu viśvotāmūṃ dyāṃ varṣmaṇopa spṛśāmi // ‘I give birth to Father (Heaven?) on his (own?) head [= Agni?]; my womb is in the waters, in the sea. Thence I spread forth across all worlds, and yonder heaven with its height I touch’ (Brereton and Jamison 2014, p. 1604).

  23. Vijayadhvaja, Padaratnāvalī (Kṛṣṇaśaṅkara Śāstrī 1965, p. 40): nanv asya hetoḥ sarvajñe rudrādāv api vṛtter asādhakatvam iti […].

  24. Vijayadhvaja, Padaratnāvalī (Kṛṣṇaśaṅkara Śāstrī 1965, p. 40): tatrāhasvarāḍiti / svayam eva rājata iti svarāṭ svasya svayam eva rājā nānyo’dhipatir iti vā /

  25. Vijayadhvaja, Padaratnāvalī (Kṛṣṇaśaṅkara Śāstrī 1965, p. 40): “yaṃ kāmaye taṃ tam ugraṃ kṛṇomi (Ṛgveda 10.125.5c)” iti rudrādīnāṃ śrīprāsādāyattajñānādiguṇavattvadarśanāt […] /

  26. Vijayadhvaja, Padaratnāvalī (Kṛṣṇaśaṅkara Śāstrī 1965, p. 40): “mama yonir apsv antaḥ (Ṛgveda 10.125.7b)” iti śriyaś ca viṣṇvanugṛhītajñānādimattvadarśanād […] / I thank David Buchta for clarifying the way in which Vijayadhvaja is likely to have understood the Ṛgveda passage.

  27. Vijayadhvaja, Padaratnāvalī (Kṛṣṇaśaṅkara Śāstrī 1965, p. 40): viṣṇos tv ananyādhīnajñānādiguṇavattvāt tadgatānāṃ viśeṣāṇām anantānāṃ tair ajñātatvān na teṣāṃ nirupacaritasarvajñatvam […] /

  28. Madhva, Bhāgavatatātparyanirṇaya 1.1.1 (Govindacharya 1980, pp. 1–2): kutaḥ?tene brahma hṛdā ya ādikavaye / sa hi “viśvā jātāni pari tā babhūva (Ṛgveda 10.121.10b)”, nānyaḥ /hṛdāsnehāt / “yo brahmāṇam (Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 6.18)” iti ca /

    Ṛgveda 10.121.10: prajāpate na tvad etāny anyo viśvā jātāni pari tā babhūva / yat kāmās te juhumas tan no astu vayaṃ syāma patayo rayīṇām // ‘O Prajapati! No one other than you has encompassed all these things that have been born. Let what we desire as we make oblation to you be ours. We would be lords of riches’ (Brereton and Jamison 2014, p. 1594).

    Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 6.18: yo brahmāṇaṃ vidadhāti pūrvaṃ yo vai vedāṃś ca prahiṇoti tasmai / taṃ ha devam ātmabuddhiprakāśaṃ mumukṣur vai śaraṇam ahaṃ prapadye / ‘The Lord who previously created Brahmā, and who in fact conveyed the Vedas to him—I, being desirous of liberation, resort to that Lord who is bright with his own intelligence.’

  29. Vijayadhvaja, Padaratnāvalī (Kṛṣṇaśaṅkara Śāstrī 1965, p. 40): nanu śrutīnām anantatvād ekatra harer anyādhīnatvakathanasambhāvād ataḥ kuto niścayaḥ?

  30. Vijayadhvaja, Padaratnāvalī (Kṛṣṇaśaṅkara Śāstrī 1965, p. 40): śiṣyaśikṣāyai tathopadeśasambhavāt, caturmukhasya vedopadeśena harer ananyādhipatitvasya kim āyātam iti cet /

  31. Vijayadhvaja, Padaratnāvalī (Kṛṣṇaśaṅkara Śāstrī 1965, p. 40): na, “prajāpate na tvad etāny anyo viśvā jātāni paritā babhūva (Ṛgveda 10.121.10ab)”, iti śrutau caturmukhasya niratiśayamāhātmyakathanāt tadupadeśāt tasyānanyādhipatitvasiddheḥ / […] sakalacetanarāśyuttamasya caturānanasyopadeṣṭuḥ śārṅgapāṇeḥ sarvajñatvaṃ nyāyaprāptam iti bhāvaḥ /

  32. Vijayadhvaja, Padaratnāvalī (Kṛṣṇaśaṅkara Śāstrī 1965, p. 40): “yo brāhmaṇaṃ vidadhāti pūrvaṃ yo vai vedāṃś ca prahiṇoti tasmai (Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 6.18)” iti śruteḥ sakalavedavidyopadeśo’pi siddhaḥ /

  33. Madhva, Bhāgavatatātparyanirṇaya 1.1.1 (Govindacharya 1980, p. 2): na ca prasādaṃ vinā jñātuṃ śakyaḥmuhyanti yaṃ sūrayaḥ /

  34. Vijayadhvaja, Padaratnāvalī (Kṛṣṇaśaṅkara Śāstrī 1965, p. 40): “vedāham etaṃ puruṣaṃ mahāntam ādityavarṇaṃ tamasaḥ parastāt (Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 3.8)” iti śrutau nārāyaṇaviṣayajñāne svātantryakathanāt tadupadiṣṭajñānenaiva tajjñānaṃ kathaṃ saṅgacchata ity āśaṅkya /

  35. Vijayadhvaja, Padaratnāvalī (Kṛṣṇaśaṅkara Śāstrī 1965, p. 40): tatprasādāyattajñānenaitadviṣayaṃ jñānaṃ, na tu svāyattam, anyathā jñānam eva na syād uktahetor ity abhiprety āhamuhyanti yaṃ sūrayaiti / bhūtabhaviṣyadvartamānabrahmādayo yatprasādam antareṇa muhyanti “muh vaicitya (Dhātupāṭha 4.89.)” iti dhātoś citiṃ jñānaṃ na jānanti, kvacid anyathā ca jānantīty arthaḥ /teneity ukter asmād brahmādicetanarāśyacintyamahimā mahīdharaḥ prasādābhāve iti pratīyate /

  36. Madhva, Bhāgavatatātparyanirṇaya 1.1.1 (Govindacharya 1980, p. 2): na cātṛptaḥ pravartate / […] na ca māyāmayī śṛṣṭiḥ /

  37. Madhva, Bhāgavatatātparyanirṇaya 1.1.1 (Govindacharya 1980, p. 2): mṛṣāvṛthaiva “bhittvā mṛṣāśruḥ (Bhāgavatapurāṇa 10.9.6)” itivat / “devasyaiṣaḥ svabhāvo’yam (Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad 1.15.)” iti hi/ yatreti viśeṣaṇān nānyatra / tadviṣaya eva vṛthā /

    Bhāgavatapurāṇa 10.9.6: sañjātakopaḥ sphuritāruṇādharaṃ sandaśya dadbhir dadhimanthabhājanam / bhittvā mṛṣāśrur dṛṣadaśmanā raho jaghāsa haiyaṅgavam antaraṃ gataḥ // ‘After biting his trembling red lip with his teeth, and after breaking a yogurt pot with a mill-stone, Kṛṣṇa who had become angry [and] who had [shed] a pretend tear, ran inside the house and ate clarified butter.’

    Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad 1.15 (Govindacharya 1969, Pt. 1, p. 515): bhogārthaṃ sṛṣṭir iti anye krīḍārtham iti cāpare / devasyaiṣa svabhāvo’yam āptakāmasya kā spṛhā // ‘Some say that creation is for the sake of enjoyment, and others say that it is for the sake of play. Precisely this is the nature of the Lord. What desire does he have, whose desire is satisfied?’

    There has been a considerable scholarly debate concerning the status and the identity of twenty-nine ślokas in the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad. Many modern scholars attribute those ślokas to Gauḍapāda. According to this view, the current verse (bhogārthaṃ…) is Gauḍapāda Kārikā 1.9 (Karmarkar 1953, p. 3). However, Madhva considers these ślokas to be a part of the Upaniṣad. Thus in Govindacharya's edition, the current verse (bhogārthaṃ…) is given as Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad 1.15. Madhva’s Anuvyākhyā 2.1.103 (Govindacharya 1969, Pt. 2, p. 69) also says this particular verse is śruti (devasyaiṣa svabhāvo'yam ity āha śrutir añjasā //). Discussing Madhva’s commentary on the Upaniṣad, B. N. K. Sharma (1981 [1961], pp. 164–167) points out that not only Madhva but also Advaitins (Śaṅkara, Sureśvara, Vimuktātman and so on) and Viśiṣṭādvaitins (Rāmānuja and others) refer to these ślokas as śruti texts. In this paper I treat the current verse as a part of the Upaniṣad and provide the verse number following Govindacharya’s edition since I am discussing Madhva’s commentary. For a response to Sharma’s view see Wood (1992, pp. 36–39).

  38. Vijayadhvaja, Padaratnāvalī (Kṛṣṇaśaṅkara Śāstrī 1965, p. 40): nanv īśvaraḥ sṛṣṭyādau pravartamānaḥ prayojanārthī bhavati, anyathā vā? na prathamaḥ yat prayojanārtham pravartate tasya tatpūrvaṃ tadabhāvād apūrṇatvenāśaktatvāt sṛṣṭyanupapatteḥ / na dvitīyaḥ pravṛttimātrasya svaprayojanoddeśena dṛṣṭatvād vṛthā tadanupapatteḥ, ato māyāmayī sṛṣṭir eṣṭavyety […]/

  39. Brahmasūtra 2.1.34 (Govindacharya 1969, Pt. 2, p. 69): lokavat tu līlākaivalyam //

  40. Vijayadhvaja, Padaratnāvalī (Kṛṣṇaśaṅkara Śāstrī 1965, p. 40): “devasyaiṣa svabhāvo’yam āptakāmasya kā spṛhā (Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad 1.15)”, “lokavat tu līlākaivalyam (Brahmasūtra 2.1.34)” iti śrutisūtrabalād āptasamastaprayojanasya hareḥ līlayaiva pravṛttir iti bhāvaḥ /

  41. Madhva, Brahmasūtrabhāṣya 2.1.34 (Govindacharya 1969, Pt. 2, p. 69): yathā loke mattasya sukhodrekād eva nṛttagānādilīlā, na prayojanāpekṣayā, evam eveśvarasya /

  42. Madhva, Bhāgavatatātparyanirṇaya 1.1.1 (Govindacharya 1980, p. 2): jīveśvarajaḍānāṃ sargastrisargaḥ /

  43. Madhva, Bhāgavatatātparyanirṇaya 1.1.1 (Govindacharya 1980, p. 2): ekasyatejasobahutvavad īśvarasargaḥ /

  44. Madhva, Bhāgavatatātparyanirṇaya 1.1.1 (Govindacharya 1980, p. 2): mṛdoghaṭādivad avyākṛtāj jaḍasargaḥ /

  45. Madhva, Bhāgavatatātparyanirṇaya 1.1.1 (Govindacharya 1980, p. 2): vārinimittapratibimbavaj jīvasargaḥ /

  46. Brahmasūtra 3.2.18 (Govindacharya 1969, Pt. 2, p. 135): ata eva copamā sūryakādivat /

  47. Madhva, Brahmasūtrabhāṣya 3.2.18 (Govindacharya 1969, Pt. 2, p. 135): yasmād evaṃ paremeśvarasvarūpāṇāṃ mitho na kaścid bhedaḥ, ata eva sādṛśyāj jīvasyāpi tathā syād iti tasya pratibimbatvam uktvā caśabdena bhedaṃ darśayati / […] ata eva bhinnatvatadadhīnatvasādṛśyair eva sūryakādyupamā nopādhyadhīnatvādinā /

  48. Śaṅkara, Brahmasūtrabhāṣya 3.2.18 (Anantakṛṣṇa Śāstrī 1938, p. 710): asyopādhinimittām apāramārthikīṃ viśeṣavattām abhipretya jalasūryakādivad ity upamopādīyate /

  49. Madhva, Bhāgavatatātparyanirṇaya 1.1.1 (Govindacharya 1980, p. 2): na ca māyāmayī śṛṣṭiḥ /

  50. Vijayadhvaja, Padaratnāvalī (Kṛṣṇaśaṅkara Śāstrī 1965, p. 40): yathā ekam eva mūlaṃtejaḥsvakāryeṣu pārthivādipadārtheṣu bahudhā bhūtvā praviśati, bahiś ca mathanādināvirbhavati tatheśvaro’pi jagat sṛṣṭvā bahurūpībhūya jagad antaḥ praviśati, bahiś ca bhūtānukampayā vāsudevādibahurūpa āvirbhavati / ayam īśvarasargaḥ /

  51. Vijayadhvaja, Padaratnāvalī (Kṛṣṇaśaṅkara Śāstrī 1965, p. 40): yathā kulālomṛdamupādānīkṛtya ghaṭādīn sṛjati tatheśvaro jaḍaprakṛtim upādāya mahadahaṅkārādyaśeṣajaḍapadārthān sṛjati / eṣa jaḍasargaḥ /

  52. Vijayadhvaja, Padaratnāvalī (Kṛṣṇaśaṅkara Śāstrī 1965, p. 40): yathā sūryāditejasāṃ jalādyupādhinimittaiḥ bahūni pratibimbāni sūryakāntādīni sūryāder jāyante, tathaiva sūkṣmasthūlaśarīrādyupādhinimittaiḥ pratibimbabhūtā jīvā harer utpadyante / eṣa jīvasargaḥ /

  53. Madhva does use the term upādhi. However he radically modifies its Advaita meaning. When he uses the term it does not refer to external factors such as subtle and gross bodies: “If, however, […] one must insist on having some sort of a medium in the case of the Bimbapratibimbabhava relation between Jiva and Brahman also, Madhva has suggested that the Jiva-svarupa itself can be treated as the ‘Upadhi’. This is called ‘Svarupopadhi’.[…] On this view, the Jiva would constitute both the medium and the reflection by the force of his internal Visesas […] The introduction of the idea of ‘Svarupa-Upadhi’ is for the purpose of denying the presence of any external upadhi in the relation of the Jiva to Brahman” (Sharma 1986, p. 331). Thus Madhva’s understanding of upādhi rejects Vijayadhvaja’s pūrvapakṣin’s use of the concept. For a discussion on Madhva’s critique of the Advaita concept of upādhi, see Sarma (2019, pp. 111–114).

  54. Vijayadhvaja, Padaratnāvalī (Kṛṣṇaśaṅkara Śāstrī 1965, p. 40): anena māyāmayī sṛṣṭir ity asya kim āyātam iti ced /

  55. Vijayadhvaja, Padaratnāvalī (Kṛṣṇaśaṅkara Śāstrī 1965, p. 40): yatreśvara iti viśeṣaṇād anyatra jagaty amṛṣā mithyā na bhavati / tathā ca yojanā yathātejovārimṛdāṃ vinimayaḥkāryam arthakriyāyogyatvāt sadasadvilakṣaṇo na bhavati, tathā yatra yadādhāratayā kriyamāṇastrisargomithyā na bhavati / arthakriyopapatir eva mithyātvabādhiketi bhāvaḥ /

  56. Madhva, Anuvyākhyāna 1.4.88 (Govindacharya 1969, Pt. 2, p. 55): sarpabhramādāv api hi jñānam asty eva tādṛśam / tad evārthakriyākāri tat sad evārthakārakam //

  57. Madhva, Bhāgavatatātparyanirṇaya (Govindacharya 1980, p. 2): dhāmnā svena sadā nirastakuhakam / taddhāmnāśriyonirastakuhakatvam, muktānāṃ ca / na ca muktavat pūrvabandhabhāktvam /satyaṃnirduḥkhanityaniratiśayānandānubhavasvarūpam /paraṃ sampūrṇaguṇam /

  58. Vijayadhvaja, Padaratnāvalī (Kṛṣṇaśaṅkara Śāstrī 1965, p. 40): svena dhāmnāsvarūpajñānamahimnāsadānityaṃnirastaṃ kuhakamindrajālādimāyā yena yasya vā sa tathoktaḥ […] /

  59. Vijayadhvaja, Padaratnāvalī (Kṛṣṇaśaṅkara Śāstrī 1965: 40): nityanirastendrajālo viṣṇur māyāmayīṃ sṛṣṭiṃ na vidadhāti /

  60. Vijayadhvaja, Padaratnāvalī (Kṛṣṇaśaṅkara Śāstrī 1965, p. 40): loke vāsamarthaḥ san indrajālādikaṃ sṛjati, na tu samarthaḥ / viṣṇus tu nityaparipūrṇaśaktiḥ kim artham tat karotīty arthaḥ /

  61. Vijayadhvaja, Padaratnāvalī (Śāstrī 1965, p. 40): jagatsṛṣṭyādikartṛtvāt sarvajñatvād ananyādhipatitvāc caturmukhajñānopadeṣṭṛtvāt svānugraham antareṇa durjñeyatvāt svaprayojanānuddeśena kevalalīlayaiva jagatsarjanādipravṛttimattvāt svata eva nirastendrajālatvena satyamahimatvān nirduḥkhanityaniratiśayānandādyanubhavarūpatvāc ca sarvaguṇa pūrṇo viṣṇuḥ sarvair dyeya iti vā tātparyārthaḥ /

  62. Jīva states that the Tantrabhāgavata is a commentary on the Bhāgavatapurāṇa. Cf. Jīva, Tattvasandarbha, Anuccheda 23 (Elkman 1986, p. 109): yasyaiva śrīmadbhāgavatasya bhāṣyabhūtaṃ śrīhayaśīrṣapañcarātre śāstraprastāve gaṇitaṃ tantrabhāgavatābhidhaṃ tantram /

  63. Madhva, Bhāgavatatātparyanirṇaya 1.1.1 (Govindacharya 1980, p. 4).

    artho’yaṃ brahmasūtrāṇāṃ bhāratārthavinirṇayaḥ /

    gāyatrībhāṣyarūpo’sau vedārthaparibṛṃhitaḥ /

    purāṇānāṃ sārarupaḥ sākṣād bhagavatoditaḥ /

    dvādaśaskandhayukto’yaṃ śatavicchedasaṃyutaḥ /

    grantho’ṣṭādaśasāhasraḥ śrīmadbhāgavatābhidhaḥ /

  64. For a discussion on the nature of Madhva’s untraceable citations, see Mesquita (2000, 2007). For an important critique on Mesquita’s work, see Pandurangi (2012, 2014). Concerning the influence of Madhva’s untraceable citations on Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava authors, see Okita (2011, 2017).

  65. Gopāla Bhaṭṭa, Haribhaktivilāsa 10.283 (Śyāmacaraṇa 1911, p. 574).

  66. Kṛṣṇadāsa, Caitanyacaritāmṛta Madhyalīlā 25, pp. 572–573 (Jagadīśvara 1889, p. 675).

  67. Baladeva, Govindabhāṣya on Brahmasūtra 1.1.1 (Kṛṣṇadāsa 1953, p. 3): asya sūtrārthyatvaṃ ca smaryate “artho’yaṃ brahmasūtrāṇām” iti /

  68. Concerning the passages attributed to the Garuḍapurāṇa, Elkman (1986, p. 63) writes: “Though some of the most important verses for the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas, they are nowhere identified by chapter and verse number, and are presumably not found in current editions of the Garuḍa Purāṇa. It is possible that there are some of the verses which Jīva had seen in the writings of Madhva, although some have taken a more skeptical attitude.” Then, presumably as a representative of those who take “a more skeptical attitude” Elkman refers to Rammohan Roy’s discussion on the passages attributed to the Garuḍapurāṇa. However, the passages attributed to the Garuḍapurāṇa are indeed traceable to Madhva’s commentary on Bhāgavatapurāṇa 1.1.1.

References

Primary Sources

  • Anantakṛṣṇa Śāstrī. (Ed.) (1938). The Brahmasūtra Śānkara Bhāṣya: With the Commentaries Bhāmatī, Kalpataru, and Parimala. Second Edition. Bombay: Pāṇḍuraṅg Jāwajī.

  • Govindacharya, Bannanje. Ed. (1969). Prasthānatrayī. Sarva-mūla-granthāḥ, Vol. 1. Pt. 1 & 2. Udupi: Akhila Bhārata Mādhva Mahā Maṇḍala Publication.

  • Govindacharya, Bannanje. Ed. (1974). Prakaraṇas, Ācāra Granthas and Stotras. Sarva-mūlagranthāḥ, Vol. 5. Udupi: Akhila Bhārata Mādhva Mahā Maṇḍala Publication.

  • Govindacharya, Bannanje. Ed. (1980). Sri Bhāgavata-tātparya-nirṇaya: A Commentary on Sri Bhāgavatapurāṇa by Sri Ānandatīrtha Bhagavadpāda. Sarva-mūla-granthāḥ, Vol. 3. Udupi: Akhila Bhārata Mādhva Mahā Maṇḍala Publication.

  • Jagadīśvara Gupta. (Ed.) (1889). Śrī-Śrī-Caitanyacaritāmṛta Madhyalīlā, Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī-viracita. Kalikātā: Devīprasanna Ray Caudhurī.

  • Karmarkar, Raghunath Damodar. (1953). Gauḍapāda Kārikā. Government Oriental Series Class B, No. 9. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Insititute.

  • Kṛṣṇadāsa. (Ed.) (1953). Śrī-Brahmasūtra-Govindabhāṣyam Hindībhāṣānuvādasahitam Śrī-Baladeva-Vidyābhūṣaṇa-mahodaya-viracitam. Mathurā: Puṣparāja Press.

  • Kṛṣṇaśaṅkara Śāstrī. (Ed.) (1965). Śrīmad-Bhāgavata-mahā-purāṇam with Śrīdhara’s Bhāvārthadīpikā, Vaṃśīdhara’s Bhāvārthadīpikāprakāśa, Rādhāramaṇadāsa’s Dīpinī, Vīrarāghava’s Bhāgavatacandrikā, Vijayadhvajatīrtha’s Padaratnāvalī, Jīva’s Kramasandarbha, Viśvanāthacakravarti’s Sārārthadarśinī, Śukadeva’s Siddhāntapradīpa, Vallabha’s Subodhinī, Puruṣottamacaraṇa’s Subodhinīprakāśaḥ, Giridharalāla Bālaprabodhhinī. Nadīya: Kṛṣṇaśaṅkara Śāstrī.

  • Śyāmacaraṇa Kaviratna. Ed. (1911). Śrī-Śrī-Haribhaktivilāsaḥ Gopālabhaṭṭa-Gsvāminā vilikhitaḥ. Kalikātā: Gurudāsa Coṭṭopādhyāya.

Secondary Sources

  • Bhuvaneshwari, S. (2018). The authorship of the Paramahaṃsapriyā commentary on the Bhāgavata Purāṇa. The Journal of Hindu Studies,11(2), 168–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhuvaneshwari, S. (2021, forthcoming). The philosophical and aesthetical interpretation of Madhusūdana Sarasvatī’s commentary on the Bhāgavata Purāṇa invocatory verses (1.1.1–3). Brahmavidyā: The Adyar Library Bulletin.

  • Buchta, D. (2013). Dependent agency and hierarchical determinism in the theology of Madhva. In M. R. Dasti & E. F. Bryant (Eds.), Free will, agency, and selfhood in Indian philosophy (pp. 255–278). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchta, D. (2016). Evoking Rasa through Stotra: Rūpa Gosvāmin’s Līlāmṛta, a list of Kṛṣṇa’s Names. International Journal of Hindu Studies,20(3), 355–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brereton, J. P., & Jamison, S. (Trans.). (2014). The Rigveda: The earliest religious poetry of India. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Carr, B. (2005). Saṅkarācārya. In B. Carr & I. Mahalingam (Eds.), Companion encyclopedia of Asian philosophy (pp. 170–190). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chari, S. M. S. (1998). The philosophy of the Vedāntasūtra: A study based on the evaluation of the commentaries of Śaṃkara, Rāmānuja, and Madhva. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelmann, J. (2016). Introduction to special issue: Stotra, hymns of praise in Indian literature. International Journal of Hindu Studies,20(3), 303–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelmann, J. (2019a). Bhāgavatapurāṇa. In K. A. Jacobsen, H. Basu, A. Malinar, & V. Narayanan (Eds.), Brill encyclopedia of Hinduism. Consulted January 28, 2020, from https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-encyclopedia-of-hinduism/*-COM_1010068427.

  • Edelmann, J. (2019b). Śrīdharasvāmin. In K. A. Jacobsen, H. Basu, A. Malinar, & V. Narayanan (Eds.), Brill encyclopedia of Hinduism. Consulted January 28, 2020, from https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-encyclopedia-of-hinduism/*-COM_1010068425.

  • Elkman, S. M. (1986). Jīva Gosvāmin’s Tattvasandarbha: A study on the philosophical and sectarian development of the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Movement. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glasenapp, H. v. (1992). Madhva’s philosophy of the Viṣṇu faith. Bangalore: DvaitaVedanta Studies and Research Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimes, J. A. (2005). Darśana. In S. Mittal & G. Thursby (Eds.), The Hindu world (pp. 531–552). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, R. M. (2007). The Caitanya Vaiṣṇava Vedānta of Jīva Gosvāmī: When knowledge meets devotion. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawley, J. S. (2013). How do the Gauḍīyas belong? Kavikarṇapūra, Jaisingh II, and the question of Sampradāy. Journal of Hindu Studies,6(2), 114–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawley, J. S. (2015). A storm of songs: India and the idea of the bhakti movement. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiriyanna, M. (2005 [1993]). Outlines of Indian philosophy. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

  • Holdrege, B. A. (2015). Bhakti and embodiment: Fashioning divine bodies and devotional bodies in Kṛṣṇa Bhakti. Oxford: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lott, E. (1980). Vedantic approach to God. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manabe, T. (2017). On the classification of the Śāstras in the Paramahaṃsapriyā: On Bhāgavata 1.1.2. South Asian Classical Studies,12, 215–234 (in Japanese).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mesquita, R. (2000). Madhva’s unknown literary sources: Some observations. New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mesquita, R. (2007). Madhvas Zitate aus den Purāṇas und dem Mahābhārata: Eine analytische Zusammenstellung nicht identifizierbarer Quellenzitate in Madhvas Werken nebst Ubersetzung und Anmerkungen. Wien: Institut für Südasien-, Tibet- und Buddhismuskunde der Universität Wien.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minkowski, C. (2008). Why should we read the Maṅgala verses? In Walter Slaje (Ed.), Śāstrārambha: Inquiries into the Preamble in Sanskrit. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (pp. 1–24).

    Google Scholar 

  • Okita, K. (2011). Book review: Roque Mesquita. (2008). Madhva’s Quotes From the Purāṇas and the Mahābhārata: An Analytical Compilation of Untraceable Source-Quotations in Madhva’s Works along with Footnotes. Delhi: Aditya Prakashan. Indo-Iranian Journal,54, 185–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okita, K. (2017). Quotation, quarrel and controversy in early modern South Asia: Appayya Dīkṣita and Jīva Gosvāmī on Madhva’s untraceable citations. In E. Freschi & P. Maas (Eds.), Adaptive reuse in South Asian literatures and arts. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes (pp. 255–280). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

  • Pandurangi, V. (2012). Review of the [sic] Roque Mesquita’s “Madhva’s unknown literary sources”: Problems of Methodology. Prajna,7, 396–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pandurangi, V. (2014). Review of the [sic] Roque Mesquita’s Madhva’s unknown literary sources” part II: Pancharaatra Texts and Madhvacharya, (co-author Prof. Shrinivasa Varakhedi). Prajna,9, 98–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potter, K. H. (1999 [1980]). Presuppositions of India’s philosophies. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

  • Potter, K. H. (Ed.). (1981). Encyclopedia of Indian philosophies Volume III: Advaita Vedānta up to Śaṃkara and his pupils. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

  • Rau, S. Subba. (1928). Srimad Bhagavatam translated into easy English prose. Vol. I. Skandhas 1 to 7. Tirupati: Sri Vyasa Press.

  • Sanderson, A. (2005). A commentary on the opening verses of the Tantrasāra of Abhinavagupta. Sāmarasya: Studies in Indian Arts, Philosophy, and Interreligious Dialogue—in Honor of Bettina Bäumer, ed. Sadananda Das and Ernst Fürlinger. New Delhi: D. K. Printworld Ltd, pp. 89–148

  • Sarma, D. (2005). Epistemologies and the limitations of philosophical inquiry: Doctrine in Mādhva Vedānta. London: RoutledgeCurzon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarma, D. (2019). Mādhva Vedānta: Defending Vaiṣṇavism against antithetical Advaita Vedānta. Journal of Vaishnava Studies,28(1), 107–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, B. N. K. (1981 [1961]). History of the Dvaita school of Vedānta and its literature: From the earliest beginnings to our own times. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

  • Sharma, B. N. K. (1986 [1962]). Philosophy of Sri Madhvacharya. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

  • Sheridan, D. P. (1986). The Advaitic theism of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stainton, H. (2013). Poetry and prayer: Stotras in the religious and literary history of Kashmir. Doctoral Thesis, Columbia University.

  • Stainton, H. (2016). Poetry as prayer: The Śaiva hymns of Jagaddhara Bhaṭṭa of Kashmir. International Journal of Hindu Studies,20(3), 339–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stainton, H. (2019). Poetry as prayer in the Sanskrit hymns of Kashmir. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venkatkrishnan, A. (2015). Mīmāṃsā, Vedānta, and the Bhakti movement. Doctoral Thesis, Columbia University.

  • Venkatkrishnan, A. (2017). ‘Who owns the Bhāgavata Purāṇa?’ The keynote presentation given at National conference on the Bhagavata Purana, University of Madras, January 6.

  • Venkatkrishnan, A. (2018). The river of Ambrosia: An alternative commentarial tradition of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa. The Journal of Hindu Studies,11(1), 53–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vose, S. (2016). Jain uses of Citrakāvya and multiple-language hymns in late Medieval India: Situating the Laghukāvya Hymns of Jinaprabhasūri in the “Assembly of Poets”. International Journal of Hindu Studies,20(3), 309–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, Thomas E. (1992 [1990]) The Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad and the Āgama Śāstra: An Investigation into the Meaning of the Vedānta. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am grateful for the comments from the following colleagues who helped me improve this paper: David Buchta, S. Bhuvaneshwari, Bergljot Chiarucci, Tomohiro Manabe, and Valerie Stoker. I also thank a blind reviewer for her/his comments. Earlier versions of this paper was presented at the following occasions: “Introducing Bhāgavata Purāṇa Commentaries”, a panel organized by David Buchta and Jonathan Edelmann at the 17th World Sanskrit Conference, University of British Columbia on July 11th, 2018; an international seminar “East and West on Dvaita” organized by Veeranarayana Pandurangi at Poorna Prajna Samshodana Mandiram on February 25th, 2020. I benefitted from the comments I received at those occasions. My research has been supported by Faculty of Liberal Arts, Sophia University, by a JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (A) (19H00554), and by a JSPS Fund for the Promotion of Joint International Research (Fostering Joint International Research (B): 18KK0013).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kiyokazu Okita.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Okita, K. Rejecting Monism: Dvaita Vedānta’s Engagement with the Bhāgavatapurāṇa. J Indian Philos 48, 447–465 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-020-09427-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-020-09427-0

Keywords

Navigation