Kavya-kaustubha Release

 

For Kindle, click here

For Paperback in India, click here

For Paperback outside of India, click here

Introduction

Traditional learning systems in India encompass a wide variety of disciplines that have been passed down through many centuries. Among them, Sanskrit poetics is a complex field of knowledge with a long history and hundreds of treatises (alaṅkāra-śāstra) that elaborate on every possible aspect of poetic composition. Similar to the various schools of philosophy and other areas, Sanskrit poetics also accommodates several schools that follow the teachings of prominent scholars and hold debates on the merits or demerits of the views propounded by different schools. The works of such scholars became landmarks that not only influenced subsequent generations but also pushed the standards of poetry higher and higher. The word ‘alaṅkāra’ literally means “ornament,” which, in the context of poetry, applies to both sounds and meanings, often referred to as “figures of speech” in English. As poeticians lent more and more weight to the aesthetic value attributed to such ornaments, the word ‘alaṅkāra’ came to be used to designate the entire discipline of poetics itself.

Proficiency in poetics became a desirable skill not only to those who exclusively wrote poetry but also to authors in other genres. The Sanskrit word for a connoisseur of poetics is ‘sahṛdaya,’ which, in a general way, means “learned” but literally means “one who has a heart.” The idea is that an intellectual may be conversant with dry topics such as logic, but if one lacks a soft heart, one will not be able to relish poetry. On the other hand, if one has a soft heart but lacks knowledge, he will not be able to comprehend the subtlety and intricacies that permeate the words crafted by a highly skilled poet. Vaiṣṇava scholars are remarkable for being adorned with these two qualities, and therefore, from ancient times, they have been producing outstanding works not only on philosophy and theology but also on poetry. More than that, they adopted poetry as a means to convey their ideologies.

Pioneering the Kṛṣṇa-bhakti genre of Sanskrit poetry, works such as Jayadeva Gosvāmī’s “Gīta-govinda” and Līlāśuka’s “Kṛṣṇa-karṇāmṛta” went down in history and set the stage for many a great poet in the later centuries. These were indeed two of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu’s (1486-1534 CE) favourite books. Many wannabe poets would approach Śrī Caitanya and request Him to read their compositions, but many of them turned out to be substandard and displeasing. His secretary, Svarūpa Dāmodara, therefore took charge of thoroughly screening all submitted poems first. He once clarified the benchmark in the following words:

vyākaraṇa nāhi jāne, nā jāne alaṅkāra

nāṭakālaṅkāra-jñāna nāhika yāhāra

kṛṣṇa-līlā varṇite nā jāne sei chāra

(Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Antya 5.104-5)

“Without knowing grammar, without knowing poetics, and without knowing dramaturgy, one is an inept who does not know how to describe Lord Kṛṣṇa’s pastimes.”

It was by fully imbibing the highest standards that two of Śrī Caitanya’s followers became exalted poets and poeticians: Rūpa Gosvāmī and Kavi Karṇapūra, who then gave rise to the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava school of poetics, which is deeply connected with its theological system. They were followed by other outstanding poets such as Jīva Gosvāmī, Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja, and Viśvanātha Cakravartī, all of whom left behind an extensive poetic legacy that consolidated the unique identity of Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava poetry.

As literary criticism evolved, the focus of discussions gradually progressed from the technical aspects of poetry, such as language and structure, to its aesthetic value, and then to its power to evoke subtle emotions and impressions in the readers’ minds. Thus, the theory of rasa gained momentum and became a full-fledged area of study. The concept of rasa varies from author to author, but it is generally defined as a poetic flavour, mood, feeling, or emotion that transpires in a poetic composition and triggers the same within the reader. Just as, when properly tuned, the sympathetic strings of a sitar resonate when related notes are played on the main strings, rasa resonates within the mind of a refined person upon listening to high poetry. The number of rasas is disputed, but in deference to Bharata Muni,[1] the author of the earliest treatise on Sanskrit dramaturgy (Nāṭya-śāstra), they are primarily considered to be eight, to which later scholars added śānta-rasa as the ninth. Thus, it is widely accepted that the steady emotions (sthāyi-bhāva) of love (rati), mirth (hāsa), grief (śoka), anger (krodha), determination (utsāha), fear (bhaya), aversion (jugupsā), surprise (vismaya), and tranquillity (śama) respectively develop into the rasas of romantic love (śṛṅgāra), humour (hāsya), sorrow/compassion (karuṇā), wrath (raudra), heroism (vīra), terror (bhayānaka), disgust (bībhatsa), wonder (adbhuta), and peacefulness (śānta). This is not a definitive list, and additional emotions are qualified in different ways by different poeticians regarding the nature of that which ensues from them. Bhaṭṭa Lollaṭa (9^th c.), one of the earliest commentators on Bharata’s work, defended the idea that rasas are infinite. For Rūpa Gosvāmī, the feelings exchanged between friends (sakhya), those of parents towards their children (vātsalya), and those of servants towards the master (dāsya) also develop into individual rasas, while others define these as bhāvas. Similarly, some authors hold the view that certain emotions turn into uparasa (secondary rasa) or rasābhāsa (semblance of rasa).

All in all, the aesthetic experience reached new heights as the poets explored the unlimited realms of rasa. Contrary to what it may appear to the uninitiated, the goal in this is far beyond mundane entertainment. According to Viśvanātha Kavirāja (14^th c.), upon reaching its pinnacle, the aesthetic experience of rasa surpasses worldliness:

sattvodrekād akhaṇḍa-sva-prakāśānanda-cin-mayaḥ|

vedyāntara-sparśa-śūnyo brahmāsvāda-sahodaraḥ||

lokottara-camatkāra-prāṇaḥ kaiścit pramātṛbhiḥ|

svākāravad abhinnatvenāyam āsvādyate rasaḥ||

(Sāhitya-darpaṇa, 3.2-3)

“Through an expanded mind free from passion and ignorance, some experts relish rasa as being non-different from themselves, just as their own bodies seem to be. For them, rasa is complete, self-luminous, blissful, and full of consciousness, resembling God-realisation. Its living force is supramundane astonishment, and its relishment precludes the cognisance of any other object.”

Yet, in the Prīti-sandarbha (110), Jīva Gosvāmī declares that the above statement applies to mundane (laukika) poetry, while bhakti-rasa is transcendental (alaukika) and brought about by viśuddha-sattva, pure goodness untainted by the three modes of nature. Not only that: its relishment also surpasses any other stage of spiritual realisation, such as experiencing the bliss of the impersonal Brahman or liberation itself. This is upheld by multiple verses from the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, such as ‘yā nirvṛtis tanu-bhṛtām’ (4.9.10) and ‘nātyantikaṁ vigaṇayanty api te prasādam’ (3.15.48). The reason for this is stated in the śruti:

eṣa evānandayāti, raso vai saḥ

rasaṁ hy evāyaṁ labdhvānandī bhavati

(Taittirīya Upaniṣad, 2.7)

“The Supreme Lord is the one Who gives bliss. He is rasa personified. One who has obtained this rasa becomes blissful.”

Lord Kṛṣṇa is the source of all rasas and is Himself rasa. Moreover, the astonishment (camatkāra) yielded by His form and pastimes is unparalleled:

yan martya-līlaupayikaṁ sva-yoga-

māyā-balaṁ darśayatā gṛhītam

vismāpanaṁ svasya ca saubhagarddheḥ

paraṁ padaṁ bhūṣaṇa-bhūṣaṇāṅgam

(Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, 3.2.12)

“Showing the power of His internal potency, Lord Kṛṣṇa manifested a body suitable for His pastimes in human form. That transcendental body, the ornament of its own ornaments, the supreme abode personified beyond the greatest beauty, is astonishing also to the Lord Himself.”

Therefore, for Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas, bhakti-rasa is both the means and the ultimate goal, above which there is nothing else. Such bhakti-rasa is cultivated both by composing devotional poetry and by reciting it, as endorsed by Viśvanātha Cakravartī: atha varṇayet kīrtayet, sva-kavitayā kāvya-rūpatvena nibadhnīteti vā,^[2] “One should also narrate (Lord Kṛṣṇa’s pastimes). Or else, one should write (about His pastimes) in the form of poetry according to one’s poetical skills.”

Kāvya-Kaustubha

Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava works on poetics are few, and this might be one of the factors that led Vidyābhūṣaṇa to also contribute a couple of treatises in this field. One, named Sāhitya-kaumudī, is in fact a commentary on the Kāvya-prakāśa’s kārikās,[3] which Vidyābhūṣaṇa attributes to Bharata Muni himself. The other is an independent work named Kāvya-kaustubha, whose earliest known manuscript is dated 1755 CE. Given the fact that the earliest documents that mention Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa pertain to the beginning of the 1740s, it is safe to assume that he composed this treatise sometime between 1740 and 1755. It is not yet clear which of these two texts was written first, as there is no direct internal reference to one or the other, despite both sharing a fair number of verbatim examples, paraphrased examples, and exact or similar sentences. Given the substantial number of manuscript copies found in Rajasthan, the Kāvya-kaustubha was presumably written during the author’s residence in Jaipur. Although nothing is mentioned regarding the purpose of its composition, in works such as Śabda-sudhā and Prameya-ratnāvalī we find the assertion that they are meant for the benefit of students. It is quite plausible that among various disciplines, Vidyābhūṣaṇa also taught poetics and preferred to create his own didactic material. The Kāvya-kaustubha is relatively shorter than some of the texts on poetics that were best known in those days, and it comprises selected topics presented in a total of 298 kārikās of diverse sizes, often accompanied by an explanation and one or more verses given as examples. Its largest portion— nearly half of the text— deals with 112 primary alaṅkāras of meaning and some of their varieties. A distinctive characteristic here is that nearly all the examples have a Vaiṣṇava motif, usually centred on Śrī Rādhā and Lord Kṛṣṇa. In a similar fashion to Jīva Gosvāmī’s Hari-nāmāmṛta-vyākaraṇa or Rādhā-dāmodara Gosvāmī’s Chandaḥ-kaustubha, the purpose is to motivate Vaiṣṇava students to learn a subject matter while hearing Lord Kṛṣṇa’s names and pastimes.

This treatise may thus be considered an introductory work that covers major topics of Sanskrit poetics, with an emphasis on certain aspects that have special relevance to Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas. For the most part, the author refrained from debating the views of other scholars, as seen in other works of this genre. While amply borrowing from multiple sources, Vidyābhūṣaṇa sometimes sides with ancient scholars, and sometimes establishes his particular views. The following are the major sources consulted by him:

Sāhitya-darpaṇa, by Viśvanātha Kavirāja, is one of the most influential texts on poetics and has multiple commentaries to its credit. Not only was its theoretical content extensively borrowed but also many of its illustrative verses, which are featured here either verbatim or in a paraphrased form.

Kāvya-prakāśa, by Mammaṭa Bhaṭṭa, is another classic that has remained popular over the centuries and is one of the most commented texts in the field. Both its kārikās and their explanations have been followed here on a variety of topics, and occasionally, some of the examples given.

Alaṅkāra-kaustubha, by Kavi Karṇapūra (16^th c.), is the first comprehensive alaṅkāra-śāstra by a Gauḍiya Vaiṣṇava. While covering a wide range of poetic theories, the author provides a large number of verses that he composed as illustrations, mostly featuring the pastimes of Lord Kṛṣṇa and His companions in Vṛndāvana.[4]

Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu, by Rūpa Gosvāmī (16^th c.), is a systematic exposition of the intricacies of bhakti-rasa and is considered one of the most important works among Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas. It describes the various stages of bhakti and defines primary rasas and secondary rasas as taking the form of bhakti-rasa when related to Kṛṣṇa.

Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi, also by Rūpa Gosvāmī, is another key work on bhakti-rasa, complementing the Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu with elaborate descriptions of the manifold aspects of śṛṅgāra-rasa, such as the various kinds of heroes and heroines, their companions, messengers, and so on.

Kuvalayānanda, by Appayya Dīkṣita’s (16^th c.), is a short treatise that deals exclusively with ornaments of meaning. Primarily based on the fifth chapter of Jayadeva’s Candrāloka, this work has one hundred alaṅkāras, including some that have not been featured in ancient texts.[5]

These are some of the source texts that have been clearly referred to by the author while composing the Kāvya-kaustubha, but there are possibly many other works he might have consulted. There are multiple books on comparative poetics that can be easily referred to by those interested in finding out how Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s views align with or diverge from those held by earlier poeticians. Apart from the aforementioned texts, the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava school also has a few more: Rūpa Gosvāmī’s Nāṭaka-candrikā, albeit a treatise on dramaturgy, deals with several topics that also pertain to poetics. Jīva Gosvāmī discussed bhakti-rasa in the Bhakti-sandarbha and Prīti-sandarbha. The Bhakti-rasāmṛta-śeṣa, by an anonymous author,[6] replicates the Sāhitya-darpaṇa to a great extent while presenting an overview of Sanskrit poetics. Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi-kiraṇa and Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu-bindu are two short essays by Viśvanārtha Cakravartī (17^th-18^th c.) on Rūpa Gosvāmī’s respective works. Both Jīva Gosvāmī and Cakravartī wrote complete commentaries on the Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu and Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi. Although Vidyābhūṣaṇa may have had access to all these works, it should be noted that the Kāvya-kaustubha deals primarily with what can be called conventional poetics rather than pure Gauḍīya theory. For example, he presented here a brief exposition of nine rasas as taught by Mammaṭa Bhaṭṭa and others, instead of the elaborate bhakti-rasa theory taught by Rūpa Gosvāmī, which covers a total of twelve rasas. This may be seen as a diplomatic approach to teaching traditional disciplines by complying with mainstream standards. The same might be said regarding his teaching of Pāṇini’s grammar instead of Jīva Gosvāmī’s.

Author

Known as the Gauḍīya Vedānta Ācārya, Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa was born either at the end of the 17^th century or at the beginning of the 18^th century in Odisha. At the end of the Śabda-sudhā, he identifies himself as the son of Gaṅgādhara Māṇikya. Nothing definitive is known about his early life before he accepted mantra-dīkṣā from Rādhā-Dāmodara Gosvāmī in Puri. At the end of the Siddhānta-ratnam, Vidyābhūṣaṇa states that his mind was fixed on the philosophy of Madhvācārya, and he acknowledges Pītāmbara Dāsa as his vidyā-guru, from whom he learned several scriptures. It is not clear whether Vidyābhūṣaṇa ever had any formal connection with the Mādhvas and in which capacity. Although well-known as a celibate renunciant, he is not known to have ever used a sannyāsī title or to have ever been referred to by any such title. He played a major role in the religious and philosophical debates that took place in the court of King Sawai Jai Singh II (1699-1743 AD) in Jaipur and was commissioned by him to write at least two works— a Vedānta commentary named Brahma-sūtra-kārikā-bhāṣya, and a text on comparative philosophy named Tattva-dīpikā. Vidyābhūṣaṇa was a polymath and became one of the most prolific Gauḍīya authors, having written at least two dozen texts, some of which appear to be lost. A document[7] dated the fourteenth day of the Bhadra month of Saṁvat 1850 (nineteenth of September, 1793 AD) describes his ceremony of condolence presided by King Pratap Singh (ruled 1778-1803 AD).

Although most of his works are on philosophy and theology, Vidyābhūṣaṇa also composed texts on several other disciplines. On prosody, he commented on Rādhā-Dāmodara Gosvāmī’s Chandaḥ-kaustubha. On Sanskrit grammar, his Laghu-siddhānta-kaustubha, Pada-kaustubha, and Śabda-sudhā are still available as unpublished manuscripts, while the texts named Vyākaraṇa-kaumudī and Bṛhat-siddhānta-kaustubha seem to be lost. On dramaturgy, he allegedly wrote a commentary on Rūpa Gosvāmī’s Nāṭaka-candrikā, which has not yet been located. On poetics, he composed the Kāvya-kaustubha, Sāhitya-kaumudī,[8] and allegedly, a commentary on Jayadeva’s Candrāloka, which appears to be lost.

Gloss

The Sanskrit gloss on the Kāvya-kaustubha is being published for the first time in this edition and is based on the text found in three manuscript copies, labelled below as ‘ga’, ‘gha,’ and ‘ṅa.’ There are no clear indications as to when it was composed or by whom, but it may belong either to the end of the 18^th century or the beginning of the 19^th century, if not earlier. Several other manuscript copies dated the later 18^th century or early 19^th century contain verbatim excerpts from the same gloss, but it is difficult to say which version came first. Given its relative accuracy, manuscript ‘ga’ seems to be the original one out of these three copies. However, it was not the work of a single hand, and occasionally there are two different meanings for a single word in different places on the page. Most of the gloss was written in small characters along the four borders of each page, which proved troublesome to decode where the edges of the paper were damaged. In addition to that, the gloss was often written in even smaller characters on top of the relevant words within the text. Some manuscript copies have a random gloss on a few words, and this mostly differs in each copy. From time to time, the given word meanings were incorrect. Only a selection of that secondary gloss was included here. The primary gloss is of a substantial length and consists mostly of synonyms, with some occasional definitions, illustrations, and dictionary meanings. While helpful to Sanskrit readers, I doubt it would serve any purpose to English readers, and hence no translation has been provided here.

---

[1] Bharata Muni’s date is very controversial, and opinions vary from 500 BCE to 500 CE. The kārikās of the Kāvya-prakāśa and its vṛtti (explanation) are both often credited to Mammaṭa Bhaṭṭa (11^th c.), but not unanimously.

[2] Sārārtha-darśinī on the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (10.33.39).

[3] Kārikā is a verse that sets a rule or definition.

[4] The commentary of Kṛṣṇadeva Sārvabhauma was instrumental in grasping the meaning of some of the verses quoted here. It is appropriate to mention that Viśvanātha Cakravartī did not write any commentary on the Alaṅkāra-kaustubha. The one that has repeatedly been published under his name was in fact written by Sārvabhauma, as confirmed by multiple manuscripts whose colophon reads “cakravarti-viśvanātha-śiṣya-mukhyaḥ satāṁ varaḥ, sārvabhaumaḥ samākhyātaḥ ṭīppanī tena nirmitā,” such as Sarasvati Bhavan (Varanasi) 41060, Vrindavan Research Institute 5349, and Dhaka University 2363, 2394, and 3471. The idea that Cakravartī is the author was propagated by the first publisher, Rāma Nārāyaṇa Vidyāratna, and I suspect the verse he provided at the end of his edition is a forgery. Later publishers either consulted incomplete manuscripts without a colophon or simply took his word on the matter.

[5] It is worth mentioning that Haridāsa’s claim that the Kāvya-kaustubha includes some “new” figures of speech such as viṣādana can only be accurate in the sense that they were not dealt with in the Sāhitya-darpaṇa and other ancient treatises, for they are in fact featured in the Kuvalayānanda.

[6] Haridāsa Dāsa published this text based on a single manuscript copy and credited its authorship to Jīva Gosvāmī, although he did not explain why. The said copy is dated Śāka 1618 (1696 CE) and says nothing about its author. No second manuscript copy has ever been located. On the one hand, Jīva Gosvāmī openly signed his works, and on the other, he also arranged for each of them to be copied in sufficient numbers and distributed far and wide.

[7] Document #117, bundle 34, Toji Dastu Kaumvar, Rajasthan State Archives.

[8] A commentary on it, named Kṛṣṇānandinī, has often been attributed to Vidyābhūṣaṇa. Although the identity of the actual author is yet to be confirmed, it is evident from the very text that this is not an auto-commentary.

Gopala-tapani Release

 

To order a paperback in India, click HERE

To order a paperback abroad, click HERE

To order a Kindle version, click HERE

Introduction

          Sanātana-dharma has its roots in revealed scriptures handed down throughout the ages. They are primarily divided into two major categories of revealed scriptures, namely śruti and smṛti, or that which is heard and that which is recollected. Other names for śruti are nigama and Veda, both defined as ‘that by which knowledge is acquired.’ The Vedas have been classified as Saṁhitās, Brāhmaṇas, Āraṇyakas, and Upaniṣads. The four Saṁhitās, namely Ṛg, Yajur, Sāma, and Atharva, fully consist of mantras in various metres. In contrast with the smṛti, the śruti texts are not connected with an author or compiler. Rather, each mantra in the Saṁhitās is connected with a ṛṣi, or seer, who sees those eternal mantras, not with external eyes, but within the heart in the state of samādhi. The mantras are then uttered by the ṛṣis and heard by others, which marks the outset of the oral tradition still in the primordial stage of the universe. It is only at a very later phase in human history that they are written down.

          The mantra portion of the Vedas is also called brahma, and thus the texts related to them are called Brāhmaṇas. Each Brāhmaṇa pertains to one of the Saṁhitās and deals mostly with the interpretation of the mantras, as well as injunctions (vidhi) and explanations on the performances of rituals. These are usually extensive texts written in prose and cover various observances particularly meant for householders. Together with the Saṁhitās, they comprise the karma-kāṇḍa, or ritualistic section of the Vedas. The Āraṇyakas are texts meant to be studied in the forest (araṇya) by those other than householders. They deal with a different set of rituals, as well as vows, worship, and meditation. Each Āraṇyaka pertains to one of the Brāhmaṇas and comprises the upāsanā-kāṇḍa, or the Vedic section on worship. The Upaniṣads are texts on philosophy and comprise the jñāna-kāṇḍa, or the higher knowledge section of the Vedas. The Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad (1.1.5) indicates that the knowledge offered by the Saṁhitās and their ancillary texts is relatively of a lower order: tatrāparā ṛgvedo yajurvedaḥ sāmavedo’tharvavedaḥ, śikṣā kalpo vyākaraṇaṁ niruktaṁ chando jyotiṣam iti, atha parā yayā tad akṣaram adhigamyate, “The Ṛg-veda, Yajur-veda, Sāma-veda, and Atharva-veda, as well as vyākaraṇa (grammar), jyotiṣa (astronomy), śikṣā (phonetics), chandaḥ (prosody), nirukta (etymology) and kalpa (rituals)— all these comprise lower knowledge (aparā-vidyā). Superior knowledge (parā-vidyā) is that by which one attains the Supreme Lord.” Such knowledge is presented by the Upaniṣads. Each Upaniṣad is said to have been originally part of an Āraṇyaka, but most of these became lost over the centuries, as fewer and fewer individuals felt attracted to live in the forest observing the prescribed rituals and vows. Some Upaniṣads, such as Īśa, consist of mantras from the Saṁhitās, while others also include prose text. Another name for the Upaniṣads is ‘Vedānta,’ as they are classified as the last portion (anta) or acme of the Vedas and present the philosophical conclusion (anta) of the Saṁhitās, Brāhmaṇas, and Āraṇyakas. Vedānta is also known as Uttara-mīmāṁsā, ‘reflection on the subsequent section (jñāna-kāṇḍa) of the Vedas,’ as opposed to Pūrva-mīmāṁsā, ‘reflection on the first portion (karma-kāṇḍa) of the Vedas.’ As the focus of the karma-kāṇḍa is dharma, artha, and kāma, Jaimini’s Mīmāṁsā-sūtra starts with an inquiry into dharma and delves into the exegesis and application of mantras centred on sacrificial rituals, whose purpose is to bring about artha and kāma in this life and the next. On the other hand, the focus of the jñāna-kāṇḍa is mokṣa, and hence Bādarāyaṇa’s Vedānta-sūtra starts with an inquiry into Brahman and culminates in a whole chapter on liberation.

          The word ‘upaniṣad’ is etymologically defined in various ways: that by which spiritual knowledge is obtained (upaniṣadyate); that which destroys (upaniṣādayati) the cycle of birth and death; that within which ultimate liberation lies (upaniṣaṇṇa); that which brings (upagamayati) one to the Supreme, etc. A more popular definition is that these texts are heard and learnt by sitting (niṣaṇṇa) close (upa) to a preceptor. The total number of the original Upaniṣads is uncertain. Vedic branches (śākhā) are responsible for the preservation and transmission of a particular set of texts, rituals, and various customs, and each branch was named after the sage who originally received those texts. According to the Muktikā Upaniṣad, in ancient times there were 1180 such branches, out of which only a few still exist, and the number of Upaniṣads was proportionate to the number of Vedic branches. The Muktikā Upaniṣad also mentions one hundred and eight Upaniṣads, which are presented as the prominent ones. More than two hundred Upaniṣads have been published thus far, some of which might be unauthentic. Ancient commentators occasionally quoted from Upaniṣads that appear to have vanished long, but still today there are manuscripts of unpublished Upaniṣads seen in various places waiting to be duly investigated. 

          Each Upaniṣad is connected with a particular Saṁhitā and Vedic branch. The Muktikā Upaniṣad lists thirty-one Upaniṣads that pertain to the Atharva-saṁhitā, among which the best known are Muṇḍaka, Māṇḍūkya, Praśna, Mahā-nārāyaṇa, Nṛsiṁha-tāpanī, and Gopāla-tāpanī. The Muktikā Upaniṣad also states that the Atharva tradition comprises fifty branches. In the introduction to his commentary on the Atharva-veda, Sāyaṇa (14^th century CE) names nine branches: Paippalāda, Tauda, Mauda, Śaunakīya, Jājala, Jalada, Brahmavada, Devadarśa, and Cāraṇavaidya. Of these, only two exist today, namely the Pippalāda branch and the Śaunaka branch.

          True to the aforementioned etymology, all Upaniṣads are intrinsically esoteric texts that abound in symbolism, metaphors, technical terminology, and obscure passages that can be correctly apprehended when learnt from someone who belongs to the tradition behind those texts and who is thoroughly conversant with the intricacies handed down through that tradition. Texts such as the Tripurā Upaniṣad, for instance, are totally written in symbolic language that will appear abstruse to the uninitiated relying on mere dictionary word meanings. Many of the Upaniṣads are thus grouped as respectively belonging to one of the three major āgamic traditions, namely Vaiṣṇava, Śaiva, and Śākta, depending on whether they propound a system of thought congenial to each of these schools. Besides these, there are four other categories of Upaniṣads. The ten main (mukhya) Upaniṣads, starting with Īśa, are the most commented upon and quoted from, being equally respected by scholars of all denominations. The Sāmānya-vedānta Upaniṣads are generic philosophical texts of comparatively secondary importance and are not so often referred to by commentators. The Sannyāsa Upaniṣads are meant for those in the renounced order and discuss detachment from the world through reflection on the spiritual nature of the self. The Yoga Upaniṣads deal with the various limbs of the yogic practice leading to samādhi.

          The tāpanī, also written tāpinī or tāpanīya, is a sub-category of particularly mystical Upaniṣads. This name has also been interpreted in several ways. As a noun, tāpana means ‘the sun’, ‘austerity,’ and ‘gold,’ and as an adjective, it means ‘illuminating.’ The meaning is that such Upaniṣads shed light on their respective deities just as the sun illuminates the world. Or, they teach austerity in the form of meditation on those deities. For these two reasons, they are bright and valuable like gold. At the moment, the following texts are known to exist: Gopāla-tāpanī, Nṛsiṁha-tāpanī, Rāma-tāpanī, Tripurā-tāpanī, Nārāyaṇa-tāpanī, Rādhikā-tāpanī, Sūrya-tāpanī, and Gaṇeṣa-tāpanī (also called Varada-tāpanī). These last four are not featured in any ancient list and do not seem to have been quoted in major old commentaries. All eight share common characteristics, such as the description of the worship and the mantra of their respective deities.

Text Tradition

          The Gopāla-tāpanī belongs to the Pippalāda-śākhā, which was once prominent among all Atharva branches. According to some commentators,^[1] it flourished in states such as Gujarat. Incidentally, most of the manuscripts of the text are found in Maharashtra, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and Bengal, and the known commentators seem to have been based mostly in those areas. Only very few copies are found in the southern states, which corroborates a strong tradition of the text in the north, in contrast to its oblivion in the south. Among the tāpanī texts, the Gopāla-tāpanī is the most commented and the most published, and its importance keeps growing stronger over time.

          Since the Pippalāda branch was mostly scattered in North India, it should not be a surprise that some of its texts were scarcely circulated in the south, which in part explains why ancient commentators such as Śaṅkarācārya, Rāmānujācārya, or Madhvācārya did not quote from the Gopāla-tāpanī. Its mere omission in their works certainly does not preclude the authenticity and antiquity of the text, for there is plenty of evidence of these elsewhere. In fact, the Gopāla-tāpanī has been revered by Nimbārkīs, Puṣṭimārgīyas, Gauḍīyas, Advaitavādīs, and others for many centuries. 

          In his Vedānta-kaustubha on the first aphorism of the Brahma-sūtra, Śrīnivāsācārya, a direct disciple of Nimbārkācārya,^[2] quoted the text ‘tasmāt kṛṣṇa eva paro devaḥ’(1.54). He also quoted from the Gopāla-tāpanī in several subsequent purports. In the Vedānta-ratna-mañjūṣā (koṣṭha 1 and 3), Puruṣottamācārya, a grand-disciple of Śrīnivāsācārya, quoted ‘sa hovāca taṁ ha vai pūrvaṁ hy ekam evādvitīyam’(2.65) and ‘yathā tvaṁ saha putraiḥ’(2.63). In his commentary on Nimbārkācārya’s Mantra-rahasya-ṣoḍaśī (5), Sundara Bhaṭṭa^[3] quoted ‘klīm-oṁkārayor ekatvaṁ paṭhyate’(2.73). Some believe that he also wrote a commentary on the Gopāla-tāpanī, which is now lost.^[4] In his Kaustubha-prabhā on the first aphorism of the Brahma-sūtra, Keśava Kāśmīrī Bhaṭṭa^[5] quoted the text ‘śrī-kṛṣṇa rukmiṇī-kānta’ (1.49), and so on. Raṇachoṛa-śaraṇa Devācārya (c. 17^th century CE), a disciple of Svabhūrāma Devācārya, wrote a vyākhyā named Tattva-prakāśikā, which might be the earliest available Nimbarkī commentary.

          In his commentary on the Brahma-sūtra (3.3.3), Vallabhācārya (1479-1531 CE) quoted ‘sa hovācābja-yonir avatārāṇāṁ madhye’(2.33). There are many other instances in this and other of his and Viṭṭhalanātha’s works. Apparently, the only available Puṣṭimārga Sanskrit commentary is that by Aniruddhācārya, written over a hundred years ago. Yet in the front matter of the published edition, it is stated that Yogī Gopeśvara (1780-1830 CE), another descendant of the same family, also commented on the Gopāla-tāpanī. It is unclear whether the manuscript has been lost or just remains unpublished.

          For several centuries, monist scholars have not only quoted the Gopāla-tāpanī in their works but also wrote commentaries on it. The oldest extant one is by Viśveśvara Bhaṭṭa, which was referred to by several subsequent commentators. Although his affiliation and dates are uncertain, he was clearly an adept of non-dualism, possibly from the 14^th century CE. Another monist named Nārāyaṇa Bhaṭṭa, a disciple of Rāmendra Sarasvatī, also penned a commentary of unknown date. The best-known Advaita commentary is that by Rāmacandrendra Sarasvatī (18^th century CE), alias Upaniṣad Brahmayogī, a sannyāsī who belonged to Śaṅkara’s line and was based in Kāncīpuram. In that same line, Ayyaṇṇa Dīkṣita (18^th century CE), in his Vyāsa-tātparya-nirṇaya (end of the second pariccheda), quoted a long passage starting with ‘sat-puṇḍarīka-nayanam’(1.10). There is also a commentary by Appaya Dīkṣitācārya,^[6] whose date is unknown. The above references are just a few among countless works in which the Gopāla-tāpanī was quoted in earlier centuries. There may be several ancient commentaries from various schools that are now lost.

          Among the Gauḍīyas, the Gopāla-tāpanī is the only śruti commented upon and extensively quoted in the works of the earlier followers of Caitanya Mahāprabhu. A conspicuous distinction that sets the Gauḍīyas apart from other religious lineages, Vaiṣṇavas or otherwise, is their disinterest in reciting the Saṁhitās and studying the main Upaniṣads. This apparent disconnection from the Vedas is both compensated and justified by the Gopāla-tāpanī itself and the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, which is the mature fruit of the desire tree like Vedic scriptures. The first Gauḍīya commentary is the one attributed to Prabodhānanda Sarasvatī (15^th-16^th century CE), followed by one attributed to Jīva Gosvāmī (c. 1513-1608 CE). Oddly enough, there is very little difference between both commentaries, which raises questions that may be answered only after a thorough investigation of the available manuscripts. The next commentary was written by Viśvanātha Cakravartī (17^th-18^th century CE), followed by one by Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa (c. 1700-1793 CE).

Mantra

          One of the central topics in the Gopāla-tāpanī is the eighteen-syllable Gopāla-mantra, which is defined as the sound form of Gopāla Himself, thus holding the same transcendental nature and potencies. Its japa enables the practitioner to attain anything and everything (1.19).^[7] The component words of the mantra are given in the Gopāla-tāpanī not in a thoroughly explicit way, but rather in a slightly veiled way, as characteristic of esoteric texts. This is an indication that the readers should not feel tempted to bypass tradition by directly adopting the mantra from a book instead of hearing it from a preceptor pertaining to a legitimate disciplic succession. Even in this case, the mantra’s secrecy is maintained by not chanting it loudly, given its esoteric nature and great potency. As described here, it was through the syllables of this mantra that Brahmā created the whole universe (1.30). Yet the highest achievement it yields is nothing mundane but Gopāla Himself (1.12).

          The Gopāla-mantra directly connects the Gauḍīyas to the Mādhva-sampradāya, and indirectly to other Vaiṣṇava-sampradāyas as well. The same mantra and instructions received by Brahmā are corroborated in the Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad and Brahma-saṁhitā. In the Mahā-bhārata-tātparya-nirṇaya (32.27), Madhvācārya states: gopāla-mantraṁ bhajatāṁ phala-prada ekena rūpeṇa bhuvy adṛśyaḥ, “Although invisible, Lord Kṛṣṇa manifests His form in this world to those who worship Him with the Gopāla-mantra, for He rewards them accordingly.” In the Tantra-sāra-saṅgraha (4.39), he further asserts the same Kṛṣṇa-mantra composed of eighteen syllables: kṛṣṇo govic ca kāmetaḥ soddeśo ballavī-janaḥ, priyaś ca tādṛśaḥ svāhā-yukto’ṣṭādaśa-varṇakaḥ, padair aṅgāni samprīti-kāma-mokṣa-prado manuḥ, “The eighteen-syllable mantra consists of the word ‘kṛṣṇa’ together with the Kāma-bīja^[8] and the words ‘govinda,’ ‘svāhā,’ and the synonym of ‘ballavī-jana-vallabha.’ Nyāsa is to be done on the bodily limbs by uttering these same words. This mantra fulfils all desires and gives love of God and liberation.” The present Mādhvas in Udupi can confirm that this is one of the mantras received in their disciplic succession. The same mantra imparted by Lord Kṛṣṇa to Brahmā has come down to the Gauḍīyas via the Mādhva-paramparā, and it is clear from the above verse that Madhvācārya himself propounded that Kṛṣṇa-prema is the goal to be attained by chanting it.

          One of the reasons the Nimbārkīs have great esteem for the Gopāla-tāpanī is that the same Gopāla-mantra is the prominent mantra in their sampradāya, having been transmitted by the Supreme Lord in the form of Haṁsa to the four Kumāra sages, who passed it on to Nārada Muni, who later initiated Nimbārkācārya. Indeed, Nimbārkīs closely follow the text by performing kara-nyāsa, aṅga-nyāsa, and by observing other details mentioned there. This mantra embodies their mode of worship, according to which the Supreme Lord’s form as a cowherd boy in Vraja is paramount, Śrī Rādhā is the Supreme Goddess, and the loving service rendered by the gopīs is the highest. Dedicated sādhakas are known to spend several hours a day doing Gopāla-mantra japa. 

          Similarly, the Gopāla-mantra also occupies a distinct place in the Viṣṇu-svāmi-sampradāya, with the exception that it is not given to the general public. Rather, only the ācārya of the sampradāya chants this mantra and imparts it only to the person who will succeed him in that post. From the perspective that the Puṣṭimārga is a branch of that sampradāya, as held by present-day Viṣṇu-svāmi-sampradāya members, this explains why Puṣṭimārga followers do not chant the Gopāla-mantra, unlike the abovementioned Vaiṣṇavas, although their worshipable Deity is also Gopāla.

          Furthermore, the Kāma-bīja (the syllable klīm) is not only an essential component in Vaiṣṇava mantras but is also present in the worship of various deities in other āgāmic traditions, as well as in Buddhist and Jain practices.

Theology

          Like other Vedic scriptures, the Gopāla-tāpanī starts with inquiries about the identity of the Supreme and gradually unfolds His nature, names, and qualities. Whatever is taught in a vague and indirect way in other Upaniṣads is here described in a straightforward and unambiguous way: Lord Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead (1.3, 2.51), the cause of all causes (2.22), and the sources of all avatāras (2.55), and loving devotional service to Him is the highest achievement of human life (1.13). Such devotional service is not only pursued in this lifetime but in the next too (1.14). He is the ultimate object of knowledge to be known through all Upaniṣads (1.1). This corroborates Vaiṣṇava realism, according to which God, the individual soul, and the scriptures are all absolutely real and eternal. The knowability of God by the jīvas is also factual and feasible, contrary to the belief that He cannot be described by words at all. Gopāla is the referent of the words of the Vedas, is expressed by the praṇava, and is the praṇava personified (2.66). His Deity in this world is non-different from Him and should be worshipped by all means. His svarūpa-śakti shares His same transcendental nature and is His personified energy (2.70-71). Such God realisation is attained by hearing the Vedic scriptures from Vaiṣṇavācāryas through a paramparā. Since Gopāla Himself is the Supreme Absolute Truth, knowledge of His svarūpa is the culmination of knowledge, which is searched for through upaniṣadic inquiries such as: kasmin nu bhagavo vijñāte sarvam idaṁ vijñātaṁ bhavatīti (Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad, 1.1.3), “O revered sage, what is that which upon being known, everything that exists is known?”

          The Supreme Lord’s form and nature, as well as His relationship with His devotees, are further confirmed by the etymological definition of His names given here: He is named ‘Govinda’ because He is well-known (viditaḥ) among the cows, in all planets, and in all Vedas (1.5), and He is named Gopāla because He accepts (ālāti) the gopas, those who drink (pibanti) His beverage-like beauty (go) with their eyes and tongues (2.50). At the time of the universal creation, Brahmā was born from Gopāla (1.23, 2.29), Who later also appeared to Him in that same form as a cowherd boy (1.28).

          Liberation is characterised by pure devotional service (1.14) and the attainment of Gopāla’s abode, which is of the same transcendental nature as Him (1.36-37, 52-53). The means to reach that abode is devotional service itself: meditation on His form and the Gopāla-mantra (1.6, 1.10). Mathurā is the Lord’s Own city, non-different from that in the spiritual world, and it rewards liberation to those who worship Him there (2.74). An apparent non-dualist section of the text (2.49-52) dedicated to meditation on the identity of oneself with Gopāla is reconciled by Śrī Vidyābhūṣaṇa as meant for those in the neophyte stage, which means those who are unable to fathom His ontological position as the Supreme Lord in comparison with that of the atomic individual soul. The principle is that a meditator acquires the qualities of the object of meditation and anyone becomes purified by the mere remembrance of Gopāla (2.7).

          In the beginning of his commentary, Śrī Vidyābhūṣaṇa establishes that one free from material desires is a person qualified (adhikārī) to study the Gopāla-tāpanī; Lord Kṛṣṇa is its topic (viṣaya); the relationship between the referent and the words describing it is the connection (sambandha); and to attain Kṛṣṇa is the purpose (prayojana).

Commentary

          Gauḍīya-vedāntācārya Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa took upon himself the task of commenting on key Vaiṣṇava works such as this one. Following his usual methodology, he consulted multiple commentaries while compiling his own. Although Viśveśvara Bhaṭṭa is the only name directly mentioned by him (1.31), Vidyābhūṣaṇa often paraphrases the words of Prabodhānanda Sarasvatī, Jīva Gosvāmī, and Raṇachoṛa-śaraṇa Devācārya, a Nimbarkī scholar (c. 17^th century CE). It is not clear whether he had access to a copy of the commentary written by Viśvanātha Cakravartī, whose interpretations are substantially different, but he was most likely aware of it. It is also possible that he referred to other commentaries that may not be available today. Curiously, a manuscript of Jīva Gosvāmī’s Gopāla-tāpanī commentary preserved at the Vrindavan Research Institute, accession number 7698, has some notes written by Dayānidhi, who served as Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s scribe, which indicates that it must have been utilised by the latter. Even when borrowing the gist from other authors, Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s commentary is interspersed with his own input. Characteristically, his comments on both sections of the text start with some of his signature invocation verses.

          The Gopāla-tāpanī has its fair share of alternative readings, and as is the case with his other works, Vidyābhūṣaṇa was very particular about the readings he chose as well as the numbers of each text or paragraph. Although undated, a few references to the Siddhānta-ratnam indicate that this commentary was composed after his major Vedānta works had already been written, possibly between 1760 and 1780 CE. The number of extant manuscript copies and their locations are consistent with that of his other texts. On the other hand, not a single page of any other Upaniṣad-bhāṣya manuscript has been yet found, despite over a decade of extensive field search and contrary to the long-standing belief that Vidyābhūṣaṇa commented on the ten major Upaniṣads. In several of his commentaries, as well as in those by his associates such as Vedāntavāgīśa and Vṛndāvana Tarkālaṅkāra, references to the Govinda-bhāṣya, Siddhānta-ratnam, and other works are common, but there was never any allusion to a Daśopaniṣad-bhāṣya or even to one out of ten. This is odd, as such a commentary would have certainly been one of his most important contributions and sufficient copies of it would have been made as with most of his works. Nothing is conclusive yet, but many questions on the matter remain unanswered.

---

[1] The same thing is stated in the commentaries attributed to Prabodhānanda Sarasvatī, Jīva Gosvāmī, and Viśvanātha Cakravartī.

[2] His dates are controversial. While orthodox followers defend the view that Nimbārkācārya appeared over 5,000 years ago, others believe that he lived within a century or so before Śaṅkarācārya (8^th century CE).

[3] He was the thirteenth successor of Nimbārkācārya. Unknown date.

[4] See Bhagīratha Jhā’s introduction to his own commentary on the Gopāla-tāpanī.

[5] He was the nineteenth successor of Nimbārkācārya. His dates are also disputed, propositions varying between the 12^th and 14^th century CE. He is the renowned author of Krama-dīpikā, whose verses and commentaries were quoted in the Hari-bhakti-vilāsa.

[6] Not to be mistaken for the famous 16^th-century Advaita scholar. I wished to consult the manuscript of this text, but my queries to the Adyar Library remain unanswered.

[7] Unless otherwise specified, the references are to the first and second sections of the Gopāla-tāpanī. Only one or two instances are given, but more of them are found throughout the text on most topics discussed here.

[8] A bīja-mantra or seed mantra is a single syllable connected to the mantras of a particular deity. It encapsulates the essence of a multi-word mantra and is the sound form of its deity. The bīja-mantra of Lord Kṛṣṇa is named “Kāma-bīja,” for it is itself the desired object (kāma) and satisfies all desires (kāma).

Syamananda-satakam Release

To order a copy, click HERE

Preface by Bhakti Vikasa Swami

We who are privileged to identify ourselves as members of the Madhva-Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava sampradāya can take pride in being heirs to the legacy of several mighty ācāryas, beginning with Svarūpa Dāmodara and Rūpa Gosvāmī, all of whom were unique and inimitable and who have made lasting contributions to the sampradāya. In terms of his mass preaching exploits, Śrī Rasikānanda Deva remained unparalleled for several centuries until the advent of Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura and Śrīla A.C. Bhaktivedānta Swami Prabhupāda.

It was my great good fortune to bring the glories of Śrī Rasikānanda to the attention of the worldwide Vaiṣṇava community when in 1997 I first published The Story of Rasikānanda, based on Rasika Maṅgala, an extensive Bengali biography by Śrī Gopījanavallabha Dāsa, who, as a direct disciple of Śrī Rasikānanda, was witness to many of the superhuman feats of his Gurudeva. Now, more than a quarter century later, Dr. Baladeva Dāsa has further significantly enriched the Vaiṣṇava world by this publication.

Herein we learn of the calibre of Śrī Rasikānanda’s intimate associates and disciples, and of his unstinting appreciation of them. We gain insights into the exalted level of Kṛṣṇa consciousness that Śrī Rasikānanda constantly experienced and that he communicated to others, and become privy to Śrī Rasikānanda’s deep love for his Gurudeva, Śrī Śyāmānanda Prabhu. A major section of this book consists of Śyāmānanda-śatakam, wherein we learn much about the transcendental characteristics of Śrī Śyāmānanda Prabhu also.

Overall, this is another splendid contribution by Baladeva Dāsa, undertaken with his usual thoroughness and scholarly exactness. Our Gauḍīya ācāryas are inherently glorious, and Baladeva Dāsa is performing important service by revealing their glories to the world, in the form of their writings. May his service, which is particularly but not exclusively focussed on the works of Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, continue to be fruitful for many more years to come.

                                                                                      

 

Introduction by the translator

    Over its five centuries of history, the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava tradition is yet to see preaching accomplishments that surpass the extent of those achieved by Śyāmānanda Prabhu and Rasikānanda Murāri. Together, they are said to have established more than 3,000 temples spread throughout various states in India and propagated a spiritual lineage— the Śyāmānanda-parivāra— that comprised lakhs of disciples, all this in just a few decades during their lifetime. It is difficult to fathom how influential they were in those days, being revered by kings and hooligans alike. Their exploits have been extensively narrated in various hagiographies in Bengali, the most famous ones being Kṛṣṇacaraṇa Dāsa’s Śyāmānanda-prakāśa and Gopījanavallabha Dāsa’s Rasika-maṅgala, which carry the readers through an intense, engaging, and often superhuman series of events from beginning to end. By all accounts, the duo Śyāmānanda and Rasikānanda were adorned with a myriad of virtues and divine charisma that would entice whomever they happened to come across, on occasions, even animals and witches. In corroboration to this, their lives have been a strong and constant source of inspiration for many generations ever since, not only among those who belong to the Śyāmānanda-parivāra, but also among Vaiṣṇavas of all denominations and the public at large. To date, major festivals held in Gopiballabhpur in celebration of their pastimes attract many thousands of visitors. About a century ago, Haridāsa Gosvāmī wrote,^[1] “For almost four hundred years, the mahantas of Gopiballabhpur have been worshipped like Vaiṣṇava kings of the kingdom of devotion in Utkala. (…) Their disciples, comprising eighteen royal dynasties, over a hundred zamindar families, and a hundred thousand families of brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas, and others, expanded the beauty and prosperity of that kingdom. In the present day Vaiṣṇava world, the Śyāmānandī group is exceedingly powerful.”

Added to Śyāmānanda’s and Rasikānanda’s many qualities is their distinguished scholarship, and it is a great fortune that both of them left at least a few literary compositions, some of which are featured in this edition.

Śyāmānanda Prabhu

    In 1535 AD, just months after the disappearance of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu, a boy was born to a couple named Kṛṣṇa Maṇḍala and Dūrikā Devī in a village then called Dhārendā Bāhādurpur, located in the present day Medinipur district. Because the parents were bemoaning the untimely demise of the children they previously had, the boy was named “Duḥkhī” (sad). During childhood, he was very diligent in his studies and was very fond of associating with Vaiṣṇavas. In his youth, he travelled to various places of Mahāprabhu’s pastimes, among which he also visited Ambika Kalna, where he met Gaurīdāsa Paṇḍita’s foremost disciple, Hṛdayacaitanya, who gave him initiation, naming him “Duḥkhī Kṛṣṇa Dāsa,” and engaged him in the service of the renowned Deities of Gaura and Nitāi under his care. In the course of time, with the consent of his guru, he left for an extensive pilgrimage, thus spending several years visiting holy places around India. Once back in his village, with the hope that he would settle down, his father arranged his marriage to Gaurāṅgī Dāsī. It was not long before Duḥkhī decided to return to Kalna, where he would again spend time serving his guru and the Deities. Being very pleased by his service and understanding his mind, Hṛdayacaitanya eventually sent him to Vṛndāvana to study Vaiṣṇava scriptures under the guidance of Jīva Gosvāmī. After spending twelve years in Vṛndāvana engaged in devoted service and deep meditation on the pastimes of Śrī Śrī Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa, one day while sweeping Sevā-kuñja, Duḥkhī found an anklet that belonged to Śrī Rādhā. Lalitā-sakhī appeared before him and requested him to return the anklet, but he insisted that he would only give it in the hand of the actual owner. Śrī Rādhā subsequently allowed him to come to Her presence and touched his forehead with Her anklet, leaving a peculiar mark known as śyāma-mohana. She also declared that he would be henceforth called “Śyāmānanda.” Along with Narottama Dāsa and Śrīnivāsācārya, Śyāmānanda was entrusted by Jīva Gosvāmī to bring copies of manuscripts of all the works of the Gosvāmīs of Vṛndāvana to Bengal. After decades of vigorous preaching work, Śyāmānanda left this world in 1630. It is doubtful whether he ever wrote anything in Sanskrit, but Bengali and Brajbuli poems attributed to him have been published in a compilation named Pada-kalpa-taru. Manuscripts of a text named Vṛndāvana-parikramā are seen in a few libraries.

Rasikānanda Gosvāmī

    Also known as Rasika Murāri, Rasikānanda was born in 1590 AD in Rohiṇī, a village by the bank of the River Subarnarekha in the southern side of the present-day Medinipur district. His mother was Bhavānī Devī and his father was Acyutānanda, a rich landlord and ruler of that region. In his early youth, Rasika was married to Icchā Devī. Both would be later initiated by Śyāmānanda, who on that occasion named her “Śyāma Dāsī.” From then on, Rasikānanda would become his leading disciple and travel multiple times in his company during long preaching expeditions and pilgrimages to various places. He was first entrusted with the Deity worship at the Rādhā-Govinda Temple in Gopiballabhpur and later would also be appointed by his guru as the first mahanta of the Śyāmānandi-parivāra, which implied control over all the temples and properties they had acquired. Becoming the chief spiritual master of that line, he had scores of disciples wherever he went. He mysteriously disappeared in 1652 after having darśana in the Kṣīracora Gopīnātha Temple in Remuṇā, without leaving behind mortal remains. A puṣpa-samādhi in his honour is located within the temple complex. He had three sons and two daughters, and their descendants are still managing some of the temples that remain existing. Rasikānanda was celebrated as an accomplished scholar and authored at least a few works in Sanskrit, some of which seem to remain unknown and unpublished. Some vernacular compositions are credited to him.

 

Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa

    Known as the Gauḍīya Vedānta Ācārya, he was born either at the end of the 17^th century or at the beginning of the 18^th century in Odisha. At the end of his Śabda-sudhā, he identifies himself as the son of Gaṅgādhara Māṇikya. Nothing definitive is known about his early life before he accepted mantra-dīkṣā from Rādhā-Dāmodara Gosvāmī in Puri. At the end of the Siddhānta-ratnam, Vidyābhūṣaṇa states that his mind was fixed on the philosophy of Madhvācārya, and he acknowledges Pītāmbara Dāsa as his vidyā-guru, from whom he learnt several scriptures. It is not clear whether Vidyābhūṣaṇa ever had any formal connection with the Mādhvas and in which capacity. Although well-known as a celibate renunciant, he is not known to have ever used a sannyāsī title or having ever been referred to by any such title. He played a major role in the religious and philosophical debates that took place in the court of King Sawai Jai Singh II (1699-1743 AD) in Jaipur and was commissioned by him to write at least two works— a Vedānta commentary named Brahma-sūtra-kārikā-bhāṣya, and a text on comparative philosophy named Tattva-dīpikā. Vidyābhūṣaṇa was a polymath and became one of the most prolific Gauḍīya authors, writing at least two dozen texts, some of which seem to be lost. A document dated the fourteenth day of the Bhadra month of Saṁvat 1850 (nineteenth of September, 1793 AD) describes his ceremony of condolence presided by King Pratap Singh (ruled 1778-1803 AD).

It was in those debates in Jaipur that Vidyābhūṣaṇa definitively substantiated the affiliation of the Gauḍīyas with the Mādhva-sampradāya, something that he asserts over and over in his books, including his commentary on the second verse of the Śyāmānanda-śatakam, where he says: śrī-kṛṣṇo nanda-sūnuḥ śrī-kṛṣṇa-caitanyākhyayā gauḍe’vatatāra madhva-siddhāntaṁ svīkṛtya hari-bhaktiṁ tatra pracārayāṁ cakāra, “Lord Kṛṣṇa, the son of Nanda, descended in Bengal and became known as Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya. Accepting the philosophical conclusions of Madhvācārya, He preached devotion to Lord Hari in that land.” It is a matter of concern that individuals who are supposed to represent the Śyāmānandi-parivāra are actively engaged in desecrating Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s works and have deliberately removed the above sentence from their editions of the mentioned book, although it appears in all manuscripts and in the edition published by Haridāsa Dāsa.

Sādhanā-sāra-catuḥ-ślokī

    In these four (catuḥ) verses (ślokī) on the essence (sāra) of worship (sādhanā), Rasikānanda briefly summarises the particular mode of spiritual practice to be followed by those in the Śyāmānanda-parivāra. It is doubtful whether these verses have ever been published.

Kuñja-keli-dvādaśakam

    In spite of his large number of followers, Rasika Murāri’s literary works were scarcely copied and circulated, and some might be lost or still unpublished, as seems to be the case with this poetic composition consisting of twelve verses (dvādaśakam) that depict Śrī Śrī Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa’s amorous pastimes (keli) in a grove (kuñja) of Vraja. The theme, the vocabulary, the presentation, the metaphors, the style, and even the chosen metre (śārdūlavikrīḍita) are so consistent with the two works described below that there is simply no scope to doubt that this was certainly written by Rasikānanda, and it indeed befits his name. In a delightful choice of sweet words and expressions, he graphically portrays his personal mode of worship and meditation on the pastimes of the Divine Couple. His descriptions are so vivid that they give the impression that he is merely narrating what he sees before his own eyes.

 

Bhāgavatāṣṭakam

     In this poem in eight verses (aṣṭakam) in the śārdūlavikrīḍita metre, Rasikānanda glorifies the exalted devotees (bhāgavata) of Lord Kṛṣṇa, particularly those who belong to his extensive group of associates. With heartfelt words, he elaborates on their manifold virtues, which culminate in their unflinching devotion to Kṛṣṇa. By illustrating their enthusiasm and deep absorption in devotional service, Rasika gives a glimpse of the joy and inspiration derived from their association, and at the end, he wishes that the reader may also have the same feelings towards such exalted devotees. 

Fortunately, these verses have been further clarified by a scholarly commentary written by Bhajanānanda Gosvāmī, who belonged to the fourth generation of Rasikānanda’s descendants. His father, Vrajajanānanda Gosvāmī (1657-1721 AD) was one the fourth mahanta in Gopiballabhpur, and the latter’s father, Nayanānanda Gosvāmī, was the guru of Rādhā-Dāmodara Gosvāmī, whose most renowned disciple was Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa. This commentary on the Bhāgavatāṣṭakam seems to be Bhajanānanda’s only known composition and it is here translated for the first time.

Śyāmānanda-śatakam

    In this poem consisting of a hundred verses (śatakam), Rasikānanda pours out his heart while extolling Śyāmānanda, his beloved spiritual master. Being his closest disciple and a skilled poet, no one else would have been as capable as Rasika to bring out a work of this nature, which primarily focuses on Śyāmānanda’s mind rather than his external dealings in the world. His descriptions of Śyāmānanda’s svarūpa as Kanaka-mañjarī are detailed and convincing, suggesting that he would indeed directly see him in that form. Clearly inspired by Jayadeva’s Gīta-Govinda and Rūpa Gosvāmī’s poetry, Rasika outlines similar narratives having Kṛṣṇa as the nāyaka (hero) and Kanaka-mañjarī as the nāyikā (heroine), thus transposing the very mode of meditation practised by Śyāmānanda. Further adorned with depictions of Vṛndāvana, the Yamunā, and the exchanges between Śrī Rādhā and Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the text overflows with mādhurya-rasa from beginning to end. 

    Honouring the revered preceptors of his parivāra, Vidyābhūṣaṇa authored an erudite commentary on these verses, shedding light on their most technical and esoteric features, thus leading the readers through various intricacies that would be otherwise easily overlooked or misconstrued. A translation of the complete commentary is being presented here for the first time.

---

[1] Vaiṣṇava Digdarśanī, Navadvīpa, Bengali year 1332 (1925 AD), pages 172-173.