101. It is for these sorts of reasons that the eighteenth-century Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa wrote a commentary on the Vedānta Sūtras on behalf of the Gauḍīya tradition. Without this, no emerging school claiming to be representing the true teachings of the Vedas or Vedānta can be considered authoritatively grounded in the old Śruti (Vedic) texts (we have noted this is an ongoing expectation, with the Swami Nārāyaṇa tradition’s most recent addition to the commentarial tradition).
102. See Yoga Sūtras I.7; Sāṅkhya Kārikā IV.
103. Despite the usually poorly informed references to the so-called Hindu trinity, Brahmā, the (nominal) third Īśvara, is a mortal being and so is never a genuine contender for the role of supreme transcendent Īśvara, as we will see from his tale within. Although there are Purāṇa stories where the three compete, the playful competition in the Purāṇas is between Viṣṇu and Śiva, which is resolved according to the sectarian nature of the different lineages. Brahmā, if he competes, as in the Atri story mentioned above, is merely a placeholder (see Bhāgavata X.89.1–20).
104. While these traditions are “later” in terms of the compositions of their textual traditions, in fact it is impossible to tell how old some of the stories they contain are or if they may have existed orally (especially if they did not feel compelled to engage in orthodox Vedic rituals or Vedāntic exegesis). In all probability they coexisted with the ancient Vedic corpus. See the Devī Bhāgavata Purāṇa, Devī Māhātmyā, or Devī Gītā as important “later” texts in the Goddess tradition.
105. For example, we have discussed how Śaiva schools follow similar bifurcations between, for instance, Kaśmir Śaiva and Śaiva Siddhānta expressions, as to whether the form of Śiva is ultimate and supreme or derived from a higher transpersonal Truth. Likewise, there are Vaiṣṇava Śākta traditions as well as Vaiṣṇava advaita adherents; and one can find Śaivite Vedāntins and the like. This can all be seen as reflecting the infinite and unlimited potentiality of the Divine from the Purāṇic perspective.
106. We need not concern ourselves with the Purāṇic references associated with Brahmā, which are considered of the nature of rajas, for reasons offered in note 103.
107. There are some differences among Purāṇa lists as to which Purāṇas constitute the eighteen.
108. Brahmā is associated with its creation, a quality of rajas, but as we have noted, he is a mortal being and not in the same category as Viṣṇu and Śiva.
109. As we will see, the Vaiṣṇava Purāṇas associate Śiva and Brahmā with religiosity that seeks material gain (or, at best, spiritual gain mixed with materialism, as in I.2.26–27, quoted later). Hence the statement here that the ultimate good—which was established in the opening verses of the Bhāgavata as being free of any such motives (I.1.2 and note)—is attainable only from Viṣṇu.
110. Vedic religiosity involves a highly elaborate, technical, and expansive set of rituals, for which fire, as consumer of the oblations, is central. The metaphor indicates that fire—as actual consumer of the offerings and a form of the god Agni—is more important than wood or smoke, even as these are intertwined and inseperable.
111. We reiterate that for the Vaiṣṇava traditions, Viṣṇu’s form is made not of prakṛti, but of Brahman, the viśuddha sattva noted here.
112. The Harivaṁśa is another extensive account of Kṛṣṇa’s life, added as an appendage to the Mahābhārata epic and generally taken by scholars to be an older rendition.
113. In the Mahābhārata, Harivaṁśa, and Viṣṇu Purāṇa, there is no doubt that Kṛṣṇa is an incarnation of Viṣṇu. The roles, for the most part, have been somewhat reversed in the Bhāgavata: while there are abundant passages in the text that relate to Viṣṇu without explicitly subordinating him to Kṛṣṇa, particularly in the books prior to the tenth, the general thrust of the tenth book, which takes up a quarter of the entire twelve books of the Purāṇa, prioritizes Kṛṣṇa. The Gītā can also be read as prioritizing Kṛṣṇa (see VII.6–7, X.8) but is obviously not viewed this way by Rāmānuja and Madhva.
114. Rūpa identifies four aspects unique to Kṛṣṇa that are not manifest in any other Īśvara form: “His līla, the unsurpassed love of His devotees, the sweetness of His flute, and His beauty” (Bhaktirasāmṛtasindhu Southern Quadrant 1.43).
115. See, for discussion, Sheth (1982).
116. Mahāvākyas are especially associated with Śaṅkara and the advaita tradition, for whom tat-tvam-asi (“you are that [ātman],” Chāndogya Upaniṣad VI.9–11) is the best known among four prominent in that tradition. Rāmānuja also has his equivalents of the mahāvākyas, such as “In the beginning, son, this world was simply what is existent—one only, without a second … and it thought to itself: ‘Let me become many.’” (Chāndogya Upaniṣad VI.2.1–3; Lipner 1986, 82). See Goswami (2012) for a discussion about Kṛṣṇas-tu Bhagavān svayam as a parallel mahāvākya of the Bhāgavata and its derivative traditions.
117. This is a reference to parama-Śiva, the ultimate expression of Truth in Śaivite theology.
118. The text reminds us constantly that “Brahmā, Śiva … the Goddess of Fortune, Śrī, are only a fraction of a fraction of Him [Kṛṣṇa]” (X.68.37). Śiva discloses to his consort Parvatī that it is upon Viṣṇu that He meditated when He engaged in yoga for one thousand years (VIII.12.43–44). See also Śiva’s eulogy of Viṣṇu’s supremacy after being bewildered by the latter’s female incarnation of Mohinī (VIII.12.4–13). Śaiva Purāṇas claim the same for Śiva, as we will see below.
119. Since bhūta can refer to “ghosts” (literally “one who has gone”), Jīva mentions Bhairava here, a particular form of Śiva that is the Lord of ghosts and other afflicted beings.
120. We can also mention here, from the Bhāgavata, Sudakṣiṇa (X.66.27ff.) and Saubha (X.76). Likewise, the story of Hiraṇyakaśipu, who attained near invincibility from the worship of Brahmā, is an important narrative of the Bhāgavata that we will encounter in part 2.
121. There are exceptions to just about everything in the Purāṇas!
122. The text adds here: “He is ego in its three divisions of sattva, rajas, and tamas. The transformations from this have resulted in the sixteen ingredients of the world.”
123. See I.12.23, IV.4.15, and X.76.5.
124. “Who see all beings in the ātman.”
125. However, it can be inferred from the Agha story in part 3 that one variant of sāyūjya involves an actual merging into Kṛṣṇa’s body, which would entail, to all intents and purposes, becoming one with Viṣṇu (not a spiritual clone, so to speak, as is the case with sārūpya). This state is called ātmasāmya in X.12.38.
126. See Valaveetil (1996) for a brief discussion on this.
127. Consider, for example, this passage from the Rūdrasaṃhitā of the Śiva Purāṇa: “Śiva thought within Himself like this: ‘Another being shall be created by Me. Let him create everything, protect it, and in the end let him dissolve it with My blessing. Having entrusted everything to him, we two [Śiva and Śakti] … shall roam as we please, keeping only the prerogative of conferring salvation. We can stay happily … free from worries.…’ Thereupon [after Śiva churns the ocean of His mind] a person came into being who was the most charming one in the three worlds, who was calm with Sattva Guṇa being prominent, and who appeared to be the ocean of immeasurable majesty.… He bowed to Śiva Parameśvara and said: ‘O Lord, give me names and assign me my task.’ On hearing it, Lord Śiva laughed. With words thunderlike in resonance, Lord Śiva addressed the person thus. Śiva said: ‘You will be famous as Viṣṇu by name as you are all-pervasive. You will have many other names conferring happiness on devotees’” (6.33–43). Interestingly, Viṣṇu’s association with sattva and his creatorship and dominion over everything are retained in this story but reworked into a very different relationship with Śiva. See also Śiva Purāṇa, Vāyavīyasaṃhitā 13.11–47. The most widely recounted story associated with Śiva’s supremacy is the famous narrative where Viṣṇu (and Brahmā) is not able to find the limits of Śiva’s liṅga (uniconic) form: Śiva Purāṇa, Rudrasaṃhitā 7–9; Liṅga Purāṇa I.17–19; Skanda Purāṇa, Uttarārdha 9–14. See also Śiva Purāṇa, Vidyeśvarasaṃhitā 5.28–29. Elsewhere, this text expresses an interesting arrangement whereby all three Lords get to be progenitors of the other two in different ages, albeit always as derivative entities born of the great Śiva (Vāyavīyasaṃhitā 13.2–26). All Puraṇas quoted here from the Motilal Banarsidass edition.
128. For an example from the Devī tradition, see the Devī Gītā I.14ff. and the Devī Bhāgavata Purāṇa 7.29.23–30.
129. See, for instance, Gītā II.62–62 and III.37; Yoga Sūtras II.12; Kaṭha Upaniṣad VI.14–15; Mokṣadharma, Śānti Parvan 251.7. Consider also the Second Noble Truth of Buddhism, the cause of suffering (that is, desire).
130. With some qualifications, in certain Tantra traditions it is not desire that must be renounced, since prakṛti is citi-śākti, the power of consciousness, and thus (for instance, in Kaśmir Śaivism) nondifferent from Śiva and therefore divine, not a negative entity to be renounced. So it is not the desire to enjoy prakṛti, but the illusion of enjoying as an entity imagined to be separate from Śiva that must be relinquished. Once that ignorance is removed, and one realizes one’s own Śiva nature, then one can enjoy śākti. Nonetheless, the schools of right-handed Tantra do follow yama equivalents.
131. The devas, by the time of the Gītā and Bhāgavata, are depicted as beings in saṁsāra who, because of inordinately good karma, have attained highly sāttvic forms in celestial realms. However, they too reattain a human birth once this good karma has expired (Gītā VIII.10).
132. In fact, the Gītā’s comments pertaining to the Vedic texts parallels the discussion above of the Bhāgavata’s perception of other Purāṇas: “The subject of the Vedas is the three guṇas. Become free of the guṇas, Arjuna. Be situated always in sattva…” (II.45).
133. See also Gītā IX.23–24 and X.20–42.