राधारसिकरायेज्यं विद्याभूषणशिष्यकम् ।
राधादामोदराख्यं तं वन्देऽहं देशिकोत्तमम् ॥
rādhā-rasikarāyejyaṁ
vidyābhūṣaṇa-śiṣyakaṁ
rādhā-dāmodarākhyaṁ
taṁ
vande’haṁ
deśikottamam
“I salute the
most exalted spiritual preceptor named Rādhā-Dāmodara, whose worshipable
deities are Rādhā-Rasikarāya, and whose foremost disciple is Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa.”
Introduction
The Brahma-sūtra composed
by the sage Bādarāyaṇa, better known as Vyāsadeva, forms the basis of the
Vedānta system, which methodically presents the philosophical conclusion (anta)
of the Vedas. Each of the four Vedas — Ṛg, Sāma, Yajur,
and Atharva — consists of the Saṁhitā, Brāhmaṇa, Āraṇyaka, and Upaniṣad
portions. Thus, Vedānta is also known as Uttara-mīmāṁsā, “examination of
the subsequent,” since it is concerned with the Upaniṣads, the portion
of the Vedas that deals with spiritual knowledge (jñāna-kāṇḍa).
This designation contrasts with the Pūrva-mīmāṁsā, “examination of the
antecedent,” a system propounded by Jaimini, which is concerned with the ritualistic
portion (karma-kāṇḍa) of the Vedas, as seen in the mantra portion
of the Saṁhitās as well as in the Brāhmaṇas. This also implies
that Vedānta surpasses whatever falls within the scope of Pūrva-mīmāṁsā, whose
results are limited to earthly and heavenly delights.
Among the multiple philosophical systems that
originated in ancient India, Vedānta has been enjoying the foremost position
for more than a thousand years and has played a central role in curbing the
influence of other systems that once thrived, some of which, consequently, no
more exist as part of a living tradition at present. The total corpus of all
Vedānta schools, including the treatises that have been lost, is so extensive
that it would not be possible to exactly ascertain the numbers, which may
easily amount to over a thousand texts, or even more. The philosophical
production of other systems in India is nowhere close to such numbers, which continue
increasing even now, both in Sanskrit and vernacular. Complete commentaries on
all aphorisms of the Brahma-sūtra are relatively few, but there are many
hundreds of Vedānta-prakaraṇas, philosophical treatises that deal with
particular topics on Vedānta. The Vedānta-syamantaka is one of such
treatises.
The Authorship
The authorship of the Vedānta-syamantaka has been under dispute for
the last two centuries. Out of nine different publishers, only two attributed
the text to Rādhā-Dāmodara, while six of them credited it to Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
in their respective editions. This happened in great part because the first
publisher, Kālidāsa Nātha, for reasons known better to him, decided to give
Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s name as the author when he printed the text in 1886 AD. He not
only avoided justifying this claim but also refrained from writing even a
single line as front matter.
On the one hand, Vidyābhūṣaṇa clearly signed each of his works, with the
exception of Govinda-bhāṣya, Siddhānta-ratnam, and Prameya-ratnāvalī,
all of which are well-known as his compositions, and in whose commentaries
Vedāntavāgīśa directly mentions the name “Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa” as the author.
On the other hand, every single manuscript of the Vedānta-syamantaka
ends with the following verse:
rādhādi-dāmodara-nāma-bibhratā
vipreṇa vedānta-mayaḥ syamantakaḥ
śrī-rādhikāyai vinivedito mayā
tasyāḥ pramodaṁ sa tanotu sarvadā
“This Syamantaka-like treatise on Vedānta is offered to
Śrī Rādhikā by me, a brāhmaṇa named Rādhā-Dāmodara. May it always give
her joy.”
Style and
content-wise, since the work itself abounds in quotations and is in good part
based on other treatises, it is somewhat difficult to sort out idiosyncratic
patterns that could point to only one of these authors. Moreover, at present
there are no other philosophical treatises written by Rādhā-Dāmodara that could
serve as a means of comparative study. The matter becomes even more complex by
the fact that Vidyābhūṣaṇa extensively elaborated on the same topics in the Siddhānta-ratnam.
Out of the multiple manuscripts
consulted, there was only one (entered below as ‘ba’) in whose colophon an
unidentified scribe voices his opinion on the matter. He claims that the author
of the Vedānta-syamantaka is Vidyābhūṣaṇa, and that he wrote the name of
his guru instead of his own “in order to attain Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa.” I
would take these words seriously if the scribe had at least attempted to
justify such a claim, which he did not. His whole transcription is so flawed
that it is obvious that he was clueless about Sanskrit, an impression further
corroborated by those few lines in the colophon, all of which are grammatically
incorrect and full of spelling mistakes, which means he was no scholar.
Moreover, I fail to grasp the reasoning here. If the desire to attain Rādhā and
Kṛṣṇa was Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s motive for writing a book under his guru’s
name, we may assume that he did not entertain such a desire in any of his other
many books. Also, I am unaware of any tradition in which the means to attain
Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa is to write books under the name of one’s guru. Had the
scribe actually been acquainted with Vidyābhūṣaṇa and his works, he would have
known about the gloss written by him and included it in his transcription,
which he did not. What is indeed remarkable is that since the manuscript is
dated Śakābda 1730 (AD 1808), it is clear that as early as that, there was
already confusion regarding the authorship of the text.
The fact is that in the Vedānta-syamantaka
there are a few idiomatic constructions, sources, and references that do not
seem to be present in Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s works. While there is no doubt that this
text was handed down through the hands of Vidyābhūṣaṇa, there are no justifiable
grounds to doubt the literal meaning of the verse quoted above. Further
evidence shall be discussed below, in the section about the gloss.
The Author
Śrī Rādhā-Dāmodara Gosvāmī belonged to the seventh generation in the Gauḍīya
disciplic succession:
1. Caitanya Mahāprabhu and Nityānanda Prabhu
2. Gaurīdāsa Paṇḍita
3. Hṛdaya-caitanya Ṭhākura
4. Śyāmānanda Prabhu
5. Rasikānanda Murāri
6. Nayanānanda Gosvāmī
7. Rādhā-Dāmodara Gosvāmī
There is hardly
any available information about his life and contributions, but we can infer
that he was born around the middle of the 17th century. From Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s
invocation in the beginning of his commentary on the Chandaḥ-kaustubha
it is clear that Rādhā-Dāmodara Gosvāmī was his guru:
arcita-nayanānando
rādhā-dāmodaro gurur jīyāt
vivṛṇomi yasya kṛpayā
chandaḥ-kaustubham aham mita-vāk
“All glories to my guru, Śrī Rādhā-Dāmodara,
who worshipped Śrī Nayanānanda as his spiritual master. By his mercy I am
writing this commentary on the Chandaḥ-kaustubha in a few words.”
Vidyābhūṣaṇa
further clarifies: atha nayanānanda-padāravinda-sevāsādita-nikhila-śāstrārthaś
chando-vidvad-vṛnda-vandyaḥ śrī-rādhā-dāmodarābhikhyaḥ kānyakubja-vipra-vaṁśāvataṁso
mahattamaḥ kaviḥ. “The greatest poet named Rādhā-Dāmodara is the crest-jewel
of the dynasties of brāhmaṇas from Kānyakubja. He is venerable to all those
learned in prosody, and by serving the lotus feet of Śrī Nayanānanda he
obtained knowledge of the meaning of all scriptures.”
At the end of the
Siddhānta-ratnam, Vidyābhūṣaṇa writes the following verse:
vijayante
śrī-rādhā-dāmodara-pāda-paṅkaja-dyutayaḥ
yābhiḥ sakṛd
uditābhir vinirmito me mahān modaḥ
“All glories to the splendour of
Śrī Rādhā-Dāmodara’s lotus feet, which upon being seen, suddenly gave me great
joy.”
Vedāntavāgīśa explains this verse in the following words:
atha sva-mantra-deśikotkarṣaṁ maṅgalam ante pradarśayati — vijayanta iti.
rādhā-dāmodaraḥ kānya-kubja-vipra-vaṁśottaṁsaḥ svasya mantropadeṣṭā mahattamo
vidvad-agraṇīs tasya pāda-paṅkaja-dyutayaḥ. mahattamatāṁ dyotayituṁ sakṛd iti.
modaḥ parattvāvagati-hetukaḥ sat-sabhānukampā-bhājanatā-hetuko nṛpendra-sabhā-jana-hetukaś
ca. “Here at the
end, the author presents an auspicious verse about the excellence of his
mantra-guru. Śrī Rādhā-Dāmodara, the author’s mantra-guru, is the crest-jewel
of the dynasties of brāhmaṇas from Kānyakubja, the greatest and foremost
scholar. The splendour of his lotus feet is praised here. To elucidate his
greatness, the author says ‘sakṛt’ (suddenly). The word ‘modaḥ’ means the joy
caused by understanding the Supreme, by being an object of mercy among the
congregation of saints, and by being a member of the king’s court.”
Rādhā-Dāmodara’s great scholarship is self-evident in
the Vedānta-syamantaka and Chandaḥ-kaustubha, and also by the
fact that he converted such a genius as Vidyābhūṣaṇa into Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism,
which in due course of time proved to be his greatest preaching achievement. He
spent the last portion of his life in Puri, Odisha, where he was appointed as
the head priest of the Kuñja Maṭha, one of the temples belonging to the
Śyāmānandī line, and dedicated his life to worshipping the deities, Śrī Śrī
Rādhā-Rasikarāya, and spreading the philosophy of Lord Caitanya. His samādhi
is said to be located next to the temple. Being described by Vidyābhūṣaṇa
as a great poet or wise man (kavi), and being renowned for his profound
discourses on Jīva Gosvāmī’s six Sandarbhas, it is possible that Rādhā-Dāmodara
may have written treatises on different topics, but at present, Chandaḥ-kaustubha
and Vedānta-syamantaka are his only available works.
The Text
In the tenth book of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam
(chap. 56), we find the episode about the Syamantaka gem, which was given by
the sun-god to Satrājit, a resident of Dvārakā. Although small enough to be worn
on a necklace, that jewel emitted powerful rays which resembled those of the
sun. It was also able to produce a large amount of gold daily and prevent all
sorts of calamities. Similarly, the Vedānta-syamantaka is very short,
but each of its chapters is like a ray that dissipates the darkness of
ignorance about the truth pertaining to the essential nature of various
elements. The knowledge propounded here enables one to check the calamity of
material existence and ultimately attain the lotus feet of Lord Hari, as stated
by the author at the end of the text. Thus, the knowledge offered herein is
actually the most valuable jewel, more precious even than the Syamantaka gem
itself, which produced only temporary, mundane benefits.
The first ray-like chapter deals
exclusively with Vaiṣṇava epistemology. Valid knowledge (pramā) can be
acquired only through an effective means (pramāṇa), or evidence. Drawing
from Jīva Gosvāmī’s Sarva-saṁvādinī, the author here elaborates on the
various kinds of evidences, defining and illustrating each of them. He
substantiates that what may seem to be different kinds of evidences is indeed
correctly classified within three major pramāṇas: direct perception (pratyakṣa),
inference (anumāna), and verbal testimony (śabda), either
individually or combined. Since the first two are subject to failure, the
conclusion is that verbal testimony proceeding from the infallible Vedas
is the most reliable means of knowledge.
Each of the subsequent rays
discusses a different object of knowledge (prameya). The second ray explains
the nature of Lord Viṣṇu, the Supreme Lord of everything (sarveśvara).
He is endowed with eternal and unlimited transcendental attributes that are
intrinsic to His svarūpa, such as omniscience, omnipotence, and so on.
His multifarious potencies are also inherent within Him and act in various
capacities. All these are non-different from the Supreme Lord, yet function as
if different on account of viśeṣa. Lord Viṣṇu is superior to all
demigods, is the source of all of them, and is the worshipable Lord of all of
them. He is the Supreme Soul within all beings, and surrender unto Him is the
means of liberation. He is manifested in many forms, such as two-handed,
four-handed, and eight-handed, all of which are eternal and spiritual. His
various manifestations are always accompanied by His eternal consort, Lakṣmī,
who also manifests herself in conformity with His form. Just as Kṛṣṇa is the
original form of all Viṣṇu-tattva manifestations, Rādhā is the original form of
Lakṣmī-tattva.
The third ray describes the
original nature of the individual soul (jīva). All individual souls are
minute consciousness and eternal parts of the Supreme Lord. The ‘I’ remains
existing even after liberation, for all jīvas are eternal servants of
God in their pure, spiritual state. The individual soul is a doer and is
accountable for its own deeds. By performing devotional service under the
instruction of a spiritual master, one becomes liberated. The various monistic
theories that equate the individual soul with Brahman are all mistaken, for
they are self-contradictory, and contradict both logic and the scriptures. If
the souls were all one, the very existence of an instructor and an instructed
person would not be possible.
The fourth ray delineates
material nature (prakṛti) and its elements. Prakṛti is eternal,
devoid of consciousness, and it consists of the three modes (guṇas). It
is the source of the universe and the material bodies of all living beings
within it. The unbalanced state of the three modes gives rise to the mahat-tattva.
Due to its contact with the modes, the mahat-tattva becomes threefold
and gives rise to threefold ahaṅkāra. From the ahaṅkāra in the
mode of ignorance emanate the five tanmātras, from which emanate the
five great elements. The Supreme Lord divides and combines (pañcīkaraṇa)
the five great elements, which gives rise to all the planetary systems. The
primordial elements gradually unfold to make a total of twenty-four elements.
Yet the substance of these elements is considered as non-different, since cause
and effect are merely states of the same element.
The fifth ray briefly defines
the nature of time, which is an insentient element devoid of the three modes.
Time is eternal, all-pervasive, and manifest as past, present, future, quick,
long-lasting, and similar conventions. It is the cause of creation and
destruction and controls everyone within the material world. Yet time is
controlled by God and exerts no influence on His abode.
The sixth ray outlines karma
(material activities). Karma is beginningless and divided as pious and
sinful. Pious activities are classified as optional (kāmya), regular (nitya),
occasional (naimittika), and expiatory actions (prāyaścitta). Sinful
activities are those condemned in the scriptures, such as murder. Spiritual
knowledge annihilates the results of both pious and sinful deeds. Knowledge
about Lord Hari qualifies one to become liberated and attain His abode. Knowledge
can be direct or indirect. Direct knowledge is characterized by the realisation
of bhakti, while indirect knowledge is mere scriptural knowledge.
The Gloss
Of all the consulted manuscripts, the one entered below as ‘ai’ has the
most accurate readings and is the only one that has the complete gloss written
by Vidyābhūṣaṇa. Although his name is not written anywhere on this manuscript,
several factors corroborate his authorship. First of all, the gloss was penned
by Dayānidhi, who served as Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s scribe for many years. Secondly,
this is one of the four manuscripts that were gifted to King Sawai Jai Singh II
(1688-1743
AD), the others being Tattva-dīpikā
(also penned by Dayānidhi), Brahma-sūtra-kārikā-bhāṣya — both written
under the King’s order — and Kāvya-kaustubha, all of which are part of
the King’s private library, the Khasmohor Collection. As it was Jai Singh’s
wish to become familiar with the Gauḍīya philosophy, Vidyābhūṣaṇa also
presented him with a copy of his guru’s work and added his own gloss to
it to clarify whatever he judged appropriate. This is confirmed by the
manuscript ‘ḷ,’ which seems to be an earlier and shorter version of the gloss
that was later revised and expanded. On its colophon, we read ‘iti śrī-vidyābhūṣaṇa-varṇite
vedānta-syamantake (…) ṣaṣṭhaḥ kiraṇaḥ,’ “Thus ends the sixth ray of the Vedānta-syamantaka
explained by Śrī Vidyābhūṣaṇa.” There are no known instances of Vidyābhūṣaṇa
explaining or glossing any of his own writings, but he did so on works of ācāryas
like Rūpa Gosvāmī, Jīva Gosvāmī, Rasikānanda, and Rādhā-Dāmodara. This is a
further indication that the Vedānta-syamantaka was not composed by
Vidyābhūṣaṇa. Any reader going through the gloss will promptly understand that
its author must be different from the author of the main text, as most of the
notes could have been directly inserted within the main text if the author were
the same person. On the other hand, to make one’s own writing clearly
distinguished from the original text is the etiquette and standard when
glossing on someone else’s work. Furthermore, despite its brevity, the whole
gloss is very consistent with Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s style and scholarship.
Several other manuscripts share some of the gloss found in
‘ai,’ while others have different notes as well, obviously written by different
and unidentified people. It seems that a manuscript with some of Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s
earlier draft may have been copied and circulated, to which others added their
own notes. The final and complete version submitted to Jai Singh was confined
to his personal collection, and as it was the case with other texts there, it
was not accessible to others to be copied. Some of those notes may have been
initially written by Vidyābhūṣaṇa while teaching the text to his students. There
are yet other manuscript copies that have notes not at all related to those
written by Vidyābhūṣaṇa.
(...)
