3 Bhāgavata Purāṇa as Text-Avatāra
From Purāṇa-Veda to Embodiment of Bhagavān
Among the mesocosmic forms of Kṛṣṇa—the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, nāman, Vraja-dhāman, and mūrti—I will explore in this chapter the transcendent status and authority ascribed to the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, the consummate scripture of Kṛṣṇa bhakti, which is not only celebrated for its authoritative account of Kṛṣṇa’s descent to earth as an avatāra but is also revered as an avatāra in its own right: an avatāra of Kṛṣṇa in the form of a grantha, literary work or text. This grantha is composed of śabdas, words, and in its extant form is arranged in 16,256 verses (ślokas) and organized in twelve books (skandhas) subdivided into chapters (adhyāyas). This grantha, the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, invests its teachings with the canonical authority of śāstra, scripture, and secures for itself a place within the brahmanical Sanskritic canon by assimilating itself to two categories of śāstras: Purāṇa, one of the principal categories of smṛti texts; and Veda, the paradigmatic canonical category that is synonymous with śruti. The Bhāgavata Purāṇa deploys a variety of strategies, first, to establish its canonical status as “Purāṇa-Veda,” a status that it shares with other Purāṇas; and, second, to claim for itself the transcendent authority of “Kārṣṇa-Veda,” the Veda that is identical with Kṛṣṇa and that is the culminating scripture of the entire brahmanical canon. The transcendent authority of the Bhāgavata as a mesocosmic embodiment of Bhagavān (bhagavad-rūpa) and a manifest form of Kṛṣṇa made of speech (vāṅ-mayī mūrtiḥ pratyakṣā) is elaborated in the Bhāgavata Māhātmya, which forms part of the Padma Purāṇa.1 The arguments of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa and other Purāṇic texts are appropriated and extended by the early Gauḍīya authorities as part of their discourse of embodiment, culminating in representations of the Bhāgavata as a grantha-avatāra, an avatāra of Kṛṣṇa in the form of a text (grantha), that is “identical with Kṛṣṇa” (Kṛṣṇa-tulya) and is his “representative embodiment” (pratinidhi-rūpa) on earth in Kali Yuga.2
As discussed in Chapter 2, the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, which is generally held to have originated in South India between the ninth and tenth centuries ce,3 gives expression to a new type of Kṛṣṇa bhakti that is rooted in the devotional traditions of the Āḻvārs: viraha-bhakti, which Friedhelm Hardy characterizes more specifically as an “aesthetic-erotic-ecstatic mysticism of separation.”4 The Bhāgavata is at the same time concerned with domesticating and legitimating its innovative devotional teachings by incorporating them within a Sanskritic framework that accords with the norms of brahmanical orthodoxy. The Bhāgavata Purāṇa’s concern to “scripturalize” its bhakti teachings by establishing its own canonical authority as a śāstra within the brahmanical Sanskritic canon derives in part from the nature of the brahmanical tradition, which is an elite “textual community”5 that self-consciously defines itself in relationship to a canon of authoritative śāstras.
In this chapter I will begin with a brief analysis of the brahmanical canon, which is founded on the category of Veda and includes two classes of śāstras: śruti, “that which was heard,” and smṛti, “that which was remembered.” I will then turn to an examination of the various strategies deployed by the Bhāgavata Purāṇa and other Purāṇas to establish the transcendent authority of the Veda and the special authority of the Purāṇas as an extended “Vedic” canon. I will be concerned more specifically with the arguments that the Bhāgavata Purāṇa and the Bhāgavata Māhātmya of the Padma Purāṇa use to establish the preeminent status of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa within the brahmanical canon of śāstras. Finally, I will analyze the ways in which the early Gauḍīya authorities appropriate and extend the arguments of Purāṇic texts in order to establish the transcendent authority of the Śrīmad Bhāgavata as the “sovereign (cakravartin) of all śāstras” that is distinguished from all other scriptures by its special status as an embodiment of Bhagavān.
Śruti and Smṛti: The Brahmanical Canon of Śāstra s
The brahmanical canon of śāstras is founded on the category of Veda, which means “knowledge.” The Veda functions in Hindu traditions as an authoritative category that is ascribed the status of transcendent knowledge and has both textual and supratextual dimensions. As a textual phenomenon, the Veda is revered in many Hindu traditions as the paradigmatic scripture, which has historically provided a legitimating source of authority for later sacred texts and teachings up to the contemporary period.
The term Veda is used in its narrow sense to designate the four Saṃhitās (c 1500–800 BCE)—Ṛg-Veda, Yajur-Veda, Sāma-Veda, and Atharva-Veda—which are collections of verses (ṛcs), sacrificial formulae (yajuses), chants (sāmans), and incantations and imprecations (atharvāṅgirases or atharvans), respectively. The versified portions of the four Saṃhitās are termed mantras.6 The term is subsequently extended to include not only the Saṃhitās but also three other categories of texts: the Brāhmaṇas (c 900–650 BCE), sacrificial manuals attached to the Saṃhitās that are concerned with correct performance of the Vedic yajñas, sacrificial rituals; the Āraṇyakas, “forest books” that reflect on the inner meaning of the sacrificial rituals; and the Upaniṣads (c 800 BCE–200 CE), the latest portions of the Vedas that contain metaphysical speculations about the nature of ultimate reality.
The Vedic texts—Saṃhitās, Brāhmaṇas, Āraṇyakas, and Upaniṣads—are traditionally understood to have been directly cognized—“seen” and “heard”—by inspired ṛṣis, seers, at the beginning of each cycle of creation and thus are designated as śruti, “that which was heard.” The formal schools of Vedic exegesis, Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā and Vedānta, maintain that the śruti, or Vedic, texts are eternal (nitya), infinite (ananta), and uncreated (apauruṣeya)—not derived from any personal agent, whether human or divine—whereas the Nyāya, Vaiśeṣika, and Pātañjala Yoga schools of Hindu philosophy view the Vedic texts as the work of God.7 All other śāstras are relegated to a secondary status as smṛti, for they are held to have been composed by personal authors and are therefore designated as “that which was remembered” rather than “that which was heard.” The primary criterion for distinguishing between śruti and smṛti texts has thus generally been characterized by both Indian and Western scholars as an ontological distinction between “revelation” and “tradition.”8
While the domain of śruti is in principle circumscribed,9 smṛti is a dynamic, open-ended category, which includes the Dharma-Śāstras (c first to eighth centuries CE), brahmanical legal codes; the Itihāsas, or epics, the Mahābhārata (c 200 BCE–100 CE) and the Rāmāyaṇa of Vālmīki (c 200 BCE–200 CE); and the Purāṇas (c 300–1000 CE and after), popular bhakti texts comprising cosmogonic myths, genealogies, and narratives about gods, kings, and sages. Smṛti also includes a variety of other texts that have been incorporated within this ever-expanding category in accordance with the needs of different periods and groups.10
In the brahmanical canon the Bhāgavata Purāṇa and other Purāṇas are thus classified as smṛti texts, even though, as we shall see, the Purāṇas seek to identify themselves with śruti by claiming the status of the “fifth Veda.” In attempting to assimilate themselves to the Veda, the Purāṇas exemplify a well-documented phenomenon in Indian history whereby any Hindu text or teaching seeking to legitimate its authority had to do so with reference to the Veda. As J. C. Heesterman emphasizes:
The crux of the matter is that the Vedas hold the key to ultimate legitimation. Therefore, even if the Vedas are in no way related to the ways of human life and society, one is still forced to come to terms with them.11
The legitimating function of the Veda within Hindu traditions derives from its role as a transcendent source of authority. The core śruti texts, the Vedic mantras, are represented in the cosmogonic and cosmological speculations of Vedic and post-Vedic texts as eternal, transcendent knowledge that exists perpetually as the source and plan of the universe. The Vedic ṛṣis are portrayed as having stationed their awareness on the transcendent level where they “saw” and “heard” the primordial vibrations of pure knowledge reverberating forth as the fundamental rhythms of creation. They subsequently “recorded” on the gross level of speech that which they cognized on the subtle level, and in this way the mantras assumed a concrete form on earth as recited texts.12 The Vedic mantras are thus granted the status of transcendent knowledge. Any subsequent śāstric text or discourse can participate in that status only by assimilating itself to the Vedic mantras through a variety of strategies, including (1) claiming to form part of śruti, the original cognitions of the ṛṣis, in the case of the Brāhmaṇas, Āraṇyakas, and Upaniṣads; (2) claiming the status of the “fifth Veda,” in the case of the Itihāsas and Purāṇas;13 (3) establishing a genealogy that directly links the text’s teachings to the Veda or to some form of divine revelation, in the case of the Manu-Smṛti, the most celebrated of the Dharma-Śāstras; (4) claiming that the text’s teachings derive from lost Vedic texts, a claim that could potentially apply to all smṛti texts;14 or (5) otherwise conforming to the model of the Veda.15 Through such strategies the term Veda is extended beyond the circumscribed boundaries of the Vedic mantras and, through a process of “vedacization,” comes to include within its purview not only an expanded array of śruti texts but also potentially all smṛti texts and teachings that are promulgated by brahmanical authorities.16
Such strategies, including a variety of other modes of assimilation, have been utilized not only by exponents of the brahmanical hierarchy but also by nonbrahmanical Hindu groups to invest their sacred texts with the transcendent authority of the Veda.17 The domain of Veda is thereby expanded beyond the brahmanical Sanskritic canon of śruti and smṛti texts to include texts derived from nonbrahmanical origins, including a variety of vernacular texts that are authoritative for particular bhakti communities. For example, the Tiruvāymoḻi of Nammāḻvār (c ninth century CE)—the collection of Tamil hymns composed by one of the most acclaimed of the South Indian Āḻvārs—is said to represent the four Vedic Saṃhitās and is designated as the “Dravidian Veda” or “Tamil Veda.”18 The Rāmcaritmānas of the poet Tulsīdās (c sixteenth century CE), a Hindi version of the Rāmāyaṇa popular throughout North India, has been ascribed a similar status as the “fifth Veda” or “Hindi Veda.”19 Even scriptures derived from non-Hindu traditions have at times been identified with the Veda. For example, in South India certain Tamil Christians deem the Bible to be the “true Veda,”20 while Tamil Muslims invest the Qur’ān with an equivalent status.21 While some groups have thus sought to legitimate their texts through assimilating them to the Veda, certain bhakti traditions and tantric movements have responded to the Veda by rejecting or subverting its authority.22 Whether the Veda is revered or rejected, appropriated or subverted, it remains a symbol invested with authoritative power that must be contended with by all those who wish to position themselves in relation to the brahmanical hierarchy.
From Purāṇa-Veda to Kārṣṇa-Veda: Purāṇic Constructions of Canonical Authority
The Bhāgavata Purāṇa, in claiming for itself the preeminent status of the culminating śāstra of the brahmanical canon, builds upon and extends many of the arguments that are used by other Purāṇas to establish their canonical authority. In order to highlight the distinctive nature of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa’s claims, I will provide a comparative analysis of the Bhāgavata’s arguments and the arguments advanced by other Purāṇas concerning the transcendent authority of the Veda and the Vedic status of the Purāṇas generally. I will then focus more specifically on the strategies deployed by the Bhāgavata Purāṇa and the Bhāgavata Māhātmya of the Padma Purāṇa to establish the unique status of the Śrīmad Bhāgavata within the śruti and smṛti canon.
Transcendent Authority of the Veda
The Purāṇas, although technically classified as smṛti texts, are nevertheless concerned with appropriating the status of śruti, the Veda, and more specifically of the core śruti texts at the center of the brahmanical canon: the Vedic mantras contained in the Saṃhitās. The Purāṇas, like other brahmanical texts, utilize a variety of strategies to assimilate themselves to the Veda. These vedacizing strategies have their starting-point in a series of sustained reflections on the transcendent authority of the Veda that are found in most of the major Purāṇas, often in the form of standardized descriptions and formulaic statements that are shared by many of the Purāṇic texts. Four types of formulations are of particular importance in that they serve to ground the Purāṇas’ own claims to Vedic status. These formulations are concerned with establishing the relationship of Veda to Brahman and to the three principal agents in the process of Vedic transmission: the creator Brahmā, the Vedic ṛṣis, and the sage Veda-Vyāsa.
Veda and Brahman
In the Purāṇas Brahman is represented as assuming a personalized form as the supreme Godhead who, in accordance with the sectarian emphasis of the particular Purāṇa, is celebrated as the object of devotion—whether Viṣṇu, Kṛṣṇa, Śiva, or Devī (the Goddess). The Purāṇas emphasize that the nature of the supreme Godhead, as Brahman, is knowledge, and the Veda constitutes both the inner essence and the outer form of this reality.
The Viṣṇu Purāṇa, for example, celebrates Viṣṇu as Brahman, whose essential nature is knowledge (jñāna-svarūpa),23 who is knowledge incarnate (jñāna-mūrti),24 and who is one with the Vedas,25 his form being composed of the Vedic mantras.
He is composed of the ṛcs, of the sāmans, of the yajuses, and he is the Self (Ātman). He whose Self is the essence of the ṛcs, yajuses, and sāmans, he is the Self of embodied beings. Consisting of the Veda (veda-maya), he is divided; he forms the Veda with its branches (śākhās) into many divisions. Creator of the śākhās, he is the śākhās in their totality, the infinite Lord, whose very nature is knowledge (jñāna-svarūpa).26
Another passage in the Viṣṇu Purāṇa describes the Vedic mantras and their supplements, the Vedāṅgas and Upavedas, together with the Itihāsas, Dharma-Śāstras, and other sacred texts, as the body (vapus) of Viṣṇu in the form of śabda, sound (śabda-mūrti).27 The Veda as such is Śabdabrahman, Brahman embodied in sound.
In the Bhāgavata Purāṇa it is Kṛṣṇa—variously designated as Viṣṇu, Nārāyaṇa, Vāsudeva, and Hari—who is identified with Brahman and celebrated as the supreme Lord, Bhagavān, whose Self is the threefold Veda (trayī-vidyātman)28 and whose very substance is Veda (sarva-veda-maya).29 The Bhāgavata emphasizes that the Veda constitutes both his inner nature and his outer form. The body (tanu or mūrti) of Kṛṣṇa is identified with the Veda as Śabdabrahman30 and is said to be composed of the Vedic mantras.31 He is celebrated more specifically as the embodiment of Veda when he assumes the form of a boar, Varāha, whose body (tanu, rūpa, or vapus) is constituted by the Vedic mantras and the elements of the sacrificial ritual, so that he can rescue the earth from the cosmic waters in which it is submerged.32
Viṣṇu-Nārāyaṇa is extolled as the embodiment of knowledge whose form is constituted by the Vedas not only in Vaiṣṇava Purāṇas such as the Viṣṇu Purāṇa and Bhāgavata Purāṇa, but also in nonsectarian Purāṇas such as the Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa and in cross-sectarian Purāṇas such as the Matsya and Kūrma Purāṇas that contain both Vaiṣṇava and Śaiva material.33 For example, the Matsya Purāṇa, in its account of creation, eulogizes Viṣṇu-Nārāyaṇa, who is identified with Brahman, as the secret essence of the Vedas (vedānām rahasya) whose very substance is Veda (veda-maya).34
In Śaiva Purāṇas such as the Śiva Purāṇa, it is Śiva who is extolled as the supreme Brahman whose Self is knowledge (jñānātman) and who is composed of the three Vedas (trayī-maya).35 Moreover, Śiva in his manifest form is described as Śabdabrahman, his body (tanu or rūpa) constituted by the forty-eight varṇas or akṣaras (phones) of Sanskrit and the Vedic mantras.36
Veda and Brahmā
Brahmā, the creator principle or demiurge, is described in the Purāṇas as the manifest form that Brahman—whether identified with Viṣṇu, Kṛṣṇa, Śiva, or Devī—assumes for the purpose of fashioning the forms of creation. The creator Brahmā, as a manifest expression of the nature of Brahman, is extolled as the embodiment of knowledge and Veda incarnate.
The Viṣṇu Purāṇa describes Brahmā as “Hiraṇyagarbha, that form of Brahman which consists of Lord Viṣṇu and which is composed of the Ṛg-, Yajur-, and Sāma-Vedas.”37 The Kūrma Purāṇa declares the ṛcs, yajuses, sāmans, and atharvans to be the inherent form (sahaja rūpa) of Brahmā,38 and he in turn is said to be the embodiment of the Vedic mantras (chando-mūrti)39 as well as their repository (veda-nidhi).40
In the Bhāgavata Purāṇa the creator Brahmā is at times identified with Śabdabrahman,41 and in this capacity he is celebrated as Veda incarnate, who is composed of Veda (veda-maya)42 and the abode of Veda (veda-garbha).43 The various parts of Brahmā’s body (deha), as Śabdabrahman, are described as constituted by the Sanskrit varṇas and the Vedic mantras and meters.44
While on one level the creator Brahmā is depicted as Veda incarnate whose body is composed of the Vedic mantras, on another level he is said to be the source of the Vedic mantras. It is in this latter capacity that Brahmā assumes his role as the first agent in the process of Vedic transmission. The Vedic mantras are often depicted in Purāṇic cosmogonies as emerging from Brahmā at the beginning of creation as the expressions of his speech. A number of the Purāṇas contain a standardized description of the four types of Vedic mantras—ṛcs, yajuses, sāmans, and atharvans—issuing forth from the four mouths of Brahmā—eastern, southern, western, and northern, respectively—along with certain Vedic stomas (lauds), sāmans, meters, and sacrificial rituals.
From his eastern mouth he [Brahmā] manifested the gāyatrī meter, the ṛcs, the trivṛt stoma, the rathantara sāman, and the agniṣṭoma sacrifice. From his southern mouth he brought forth the yajuses, the triṣṭubh meter, the pañcadaśa stoma, the bṛhat sāman, and the uktha portion of the Sāma-Veda. From his western mouth he brought forth the sāmans, the jagatī meter, the saptadaśa stoma, the vairūpa sāman, and the atirātra sacrifice. From his northern mouth he brought forth the ekaviṃśa stoma, the atharvan, the aptoryāman sacrifice, the anuṣṭubh meter, and the vairāja sāman.45
The Bhāgavata Purāṇa provides a variant of the standard account that explicitly links the emergence of the Vedic mantras from Brahmā’s mouths to the cosmogonic process through which he brings forth the forms of creation.
While he was contemplating, “How shall I bring forth the aggregate worlds as before?” the Vedas issued from the four mouths of the creator.… From his eastern and other mouths he brought forth in succession the Vedas known as Ṛg, Yajur, Sāma, and Atharva.…46
There is creative power in the primordial impulses of speech that issue forth from the mouths of Brahmā as the Vedic mantras. When the demiurge wishes to call the forms of creation into being, he simply recites the Vedic mantras, which are represented as the eternal, archetypal plan through which manifold worlds and beings are projected into concrete manifestation. Purāṇic cosmogonies regularly incorporate a standardized description of Brahmā structuring the names, forms, and functions of all beings from the Vedic words.
In the beginning he [Brahmā] formed, from the words (śabdas) of the Vedas alone, the names (nāmans), forms (rūpas), and functions (kṛtyas) of the gods and other beings. He also formed the names and appropriate offices of all the ṛṣis as heard (śruta) in the Vedas.47
Vedic Ṛṣis
The Vedic ṛṣis, who “see” (root dṛś) and preserve the primordial impulses of speech that issue forth from the mouth of Brahmā, are the second link in the process of transmission of the Vedic mantras. Purāṇic representations of the Vedic ṛṣis are embedded in cosmogonic speculations concerning the various cycles of creation that, as discussed in Chapter 1, distinguish between sargas, primary creations, which occur at the beginning of each new lifetime of Brahmā, and pratisargas, secondary creations, which occur at the beginning of each new day in the life of Brahmā, or kalpa. In this context the ṛṣis’ cognitions of the Vedic mantras are depicted not as a unique, one-time event but rather as an eternally recurring process that takes place at the beginning of each new kalpa as well as at the beginning of each of the thousand mahā-yugas (cycles of four yugas, or ages) that make up a kalpa.48
The ṛṣis are represented in the Purāṇas as semidivine beings of extraordinary knowledge and power who know the past, present, and future and who remain unaffected by the minor pralaya, or dissolution, that occurs at the end of each kalpa when Brahmā sleeps for a night. When the three lower worlds and all lower beings are absorbed within the body of Brahmā during the pralaya, the Vedas become unmanifest and the ṛṣis retire along with the gods to the higher worlds.49 When the next kalpa begins the ṛṣis reappear and assist Brahmā in bringing forth various types of beings and also in reintroducing the Vedas onto earth. At the end of each of the thousand mahā-yugas that make up a kalpa the Vedas once again disappear from the earth, and at the beginning of each new mahā-yuga the ṛṣis assume their cyclical role of reintroducing the Vedas.
At the end of the four yugas the disappearance of the Vedas occurs. The seven ṛṣis, having come down to the earth from the heavens, again introduce them.50
The special cosmic dharma of the Vedic ṛṣis, according to the Purāṇas, is thus to reintroduce the Vedic mantras at the beginning of the various cycles of creation. The Bhāgavata Purāṇa provides an account of the role of the ṛṣis in establishing the Vedic recitative tradition through which the mantras are preserved and transmitted generation after generation. In this account the creator Brahmā, as the “first seer” (ādi-kavi),51 brings forth the Vedic mantras from his four mouths in the beginning of each kalpa and then transmits them to his mind-born sons, the brahmarṣis (brahmin seers). The brahmarṣis preserve the Vedic mantras through recitation and subsequently teach the mantras to their own sons, thereby inaugurating the tradition of recitative transmission through which the Vedas are passed down to each succeeding generation.52
Veda-Vyāsa
The Purāṇas emphasize that the primordial Veda that issues forth from Brahmā’s mouths at the beginning of each kalpa is a single unitary totality, which, according to Purāṇic calculations, comprises 100,000 (one lakh) verses. The primordial Veda consists of four quarters (catuṣ-pāda), which remain as one whole as long as human understanding is capable of grasping knowledge in its totality. However, as the mahā-yuga, or cycle of four yugas, progresses—from Satya or Kṛta Yuga to Tretā Yuga to Dvāpara Yuga to Kali Yuga—the strength, understanding, and morality of human beings progressively decline and their knowledge of the Veda gradually diminishes. For this reason, in each Dvāpara Yuga it becomes necessary to divide the Veda into four distinct parts in order to facilitate its preservation and understanding as well as to promote the performance of the Vedic yajñas.
The Purāṇas ascribe the task of dividing the Veda to Veda-Vyāsa, who thus assumes the role of the third principal agent in the process of transmission of the Vedic mantras. In the Purāṇas Veda-Vyāsa is not the name of a specific individual but rather the designation for a particular position—“divider of the Veda” (Veda-Vyāsa)—that is filled by different ṛṣis in successive Dvāpara Yugas. Kṛṣṇa Dvaipāyana is the ṛṣi who fulfilled the function of Veda-Vyāsa in the most recent Dvāpara Yuga. As the twenty-eighth in the sequence of Vyāsas in the current manvantara, Kṛṣṇa Dvaipāyana Vyāsa is acclaimed in the Purāṇas as the supreme ṛṣi among ṛṣis, who is himself a partial manifestation of Viṣṇu and who is the author of the great epic, the Mahābhārata.53 He is also credited with compiling the eighteen principal Purāṇas. Vyāsa’s dual role as divider of the Veda and compiler of the Purāṇas is of central concern to the Purāṇas in their claims to Vedic status, as I will discuss in a later section.
The Bhāgavata Purāṇa celebrates Kṛṣṇa Dvaipāyana Vyāsa as a partial manifestation (kalā, literally, “fraction of a portion”) of the supreme Godhead, Kṛṣṇa.54 Like the ancient ṛṣis who cognized the Vedic mantras, this greatest of all ṛṣis is said to be endowed with the faculty of divine sight (divya cakṣus) and unerring vision (amogha-dṛś) through which he knows the past, present, and future.55 As we shall see, the Bhāgavata Purāṇa is especially concerned with Kṛṣṇa Dvaipāyana Vyāsa’s role in cognizing and recording the Bhāgavata itself as the Kārṣṇa-Veda that is the culmination of the entire śruti and smṛti canon.
The Bhāgavata Purāṇa and other Purāṇas generally concur in their accounts of the process through which Vyāsa divides and disseminates the Veda, with the Viṣṇu Purāṇa providing the most extensive account.56 In order to make the Veda more comprehensible, Vyāsa separates out the four types of mantras—ṛcs, yajuses, sāmans, and atharvans—and arranges them in sections (vargas), forming four Saṃhitās, or collections, of mantras.57 In this conception the distinction between the terms mantra and Saṃhitā is vital, for although the four kinds of mantras emerge in the very beginning of each kalpa, the formal collections—Ṛg-Veda Saṃhitā, Yajur-Veda Saṃhitā, Sāma-Veda Saṃhitā, and Atharva-Veda Saṃhitā—only come into existence in the third of the four yugas through the agency of Vyāsa.
Having separated out the ṛcs, the sage compiled the Ṛg-Veda; having separated out the yajuses, he compiled the Yajur-Veda; and with the sāmans he compiled the Sāma-Veda. With the atharvans the master formed all the ceremonies suitable for kings and the function appropriate for the brahman priest.58
The Purāṇas go on to describe how Vyāsa transmitted each of the four Saṃhitās—Ṛg, Yajur, Sāma, and Atharva—to his four main disciples, respectively. His disciples subsequently divided their respective Vedas into branches, śākhās, and passed them down to their own disciples, who subdivided them even further, and so on.59 In this way the one vast tree of the Veda, having been divided by Vyāsa into four stems, developed into an extensive forest consisting of countless branches.60 After giving a detailed description of the process through which the Veda is divided into four parts and subsequently into innumerable śākhās, the Viṣṇu Purāṇa asserts that this process does not affect the eternal status of the Veda:
Thus the śākhās have been enumerated, and the subdivisions of the śākhās, their founders, and the reason for their division have been declared. The same divisions of the śākhās are established in all the manvantaras. The śruti derived from Prajāpati [Brahmā] is eternal (nitya). These [śākhās] are only its modifications (vikalpas).61
Although the division of the Veda into śākhās in each Dvāpara Yuga serves to facilitate its preservation and understanding, it is inevitable, according to the Purāṇas, that in the course of time as Dvāpara Yuga passes into the final yuga, Kali Yuga, human intelligence and morality continue to decline and sin and corruption increasingly prevail, until eventually, by the end of Kali Yuga, knowledge of the Vedas is entirely lost from human consciousness. In this way at the end of each mahā-yuga the Vedas disappear from the earth. At the beginning of the subsequent mahā-yuga the ṛṣis again reintroduce the Vedic mantras by giving vocalized expression on the gross level of speech to the subtle reverberations of the eternal Veda.62
The Purāṇas, having affirmed the transcendent authority of the Veda through their own distinctive formulations, seek to participate in that status by assimilating themselves to the Vedic mantras. The relationship of the Purāṇas with the Veda has been debated by both Indian and Western scholars, with some scholars arguing that there is a close connection between the two classes of scriptures and others arguing that there is little or no connection.63 The Purāṇas themselves claim direct continuity with the Veda and deploy a variety of strategies to substantiate their claims to Vedic status. The starting-point for Purāṇic reflections on the relationship between the Purāṇas and the Veda entails clarifying the characteristics that distinguish a Purāṇa and establishing their special status as a distinctive “Purāṇic canon” within the larger brahmanical corpus of śāstras.
The Purāṇic Canon
The category Purāṇa is one of the principal categories of smṛti texts within the brahmanical Sanskritic canon. However, as Giorgio Bonazzoli has demonstrated, within the larger brahmanical canon the Purāṇas also form their own distinctive “canon.” The Purāṇas utilize a number of mechanisms to delimit the Purāṇic canon and to establish the authenticity and authority of those texts that are included in the canon.64
First, the Purāṇas delimit the Purāṇic canon by including in their own texts lists of the eighteen principal Purāṇas, or Mahāpurāṇas, as distinct from the eighteen minor Purāṇas, or Upapurāṇas.65 The standard lists given in the various Purāṇas include the Bhāgavata Purāṇa as the fifth of the eighteen principal Purāṇas: Brahma, Padma, Viṣṇu, Śiva, Bhāgavata, Nārada, Mārkaṇḍeya, Agni, Bhaviṣya, Brahmavaivarta, Liṅga, Varāha, Skanda, Vāmana, Kūrma, Matsya, Garuḍa, Brahmāṇḍa.66
A second mechanism used by a number of the Purāṇas to standardize the Purāṇic canon involves including in their enumerations of the eighteen principal Purāṇas idealized representations of the number of ślokas (verses) contained in each Purāṇa, which do not correspond to the actual number of ślokas in the extant printed editions of the Purāṇas. The total number of ślokas in all the Purāṇas taken together is said to be 400,000 (four lakhs)—a number that figures prominently in Purāṇic theories of their own origins. Among these idealized representations, the Bhāgavata is consistently said to contain 18,000 ślokas.67
A third strategy used by the Purāṇas to establish their canonical authority is to invoke the classical definition of a Purāṇa, which is said to be distinguished by five characteristics, pañca-lakṣaṇa: descriptions of primary creation (sarga) and of secondary creation (pratisarga); genealogies of gods, sages, and kings (vaṃśa); accounts of the intervals of Manu (manvantara); and histories of the royal dynasties (vaṃśānucarita).68 However, the extant Purāṇas contain much more than this definition suggests, and some give only minimal attention to these five topics.69 The pañca-lakṣaṇa definition nevertheless remains a sign of authenticity, and hence even those Purāṇas that do not conform to the definition make reference to the pañca-lakṣaṇa as the distinguishing marks of a Purāṇa.70
A fourth mechanism used to establish the canonical authority of the Purāṇas is to ascribe their authorship to Vyāsa, one of the most renowned sages of the brahmanical tradition. As mentioned earlier, in addition to dividing the one Veda into four distinct Saṃhitās, this great ṛṣi is credited with accomplishing two additional literary feats: he composed the epic, the Mahābhārata, and he subsequently compiled and disseminated the eighteen principal Purāṇas. Purāṇic traditions concerning the role of Vyāsa in forming the Purāṇic canon will be discussed in a later section.
The Bhāgavata Purāṇa follows the example of earlier Purāṇas and utilizes each of these four mechanisms in order to secure its canonical status as a Purāṇa. First, the Bhāgavata mentions the distinction between principal (mahat) and minor (alpa or kṣullaka) Purāṇas71 and makes reference twice to the standard list of eighteen principal Purāṇas in which it has a place.72 Second, the Bhāgavata includes an idealized list of the number of ślokas contained in each Purāṇa, in which it ascribes to itself and to the other seventeen Purāṇas the standard number of ślokas.73 The Bhāgavata Purāṇa fulfills the third criterion of authenticity by making explicit reference to the pañca-lakṣaṇa and dealing with all five topics. At the same time it expands upon the normative tradition by incorporating the five topics into an extended list of ten characteristics, daśa-lakṣaṇa, that distinguish a Purāṇa.74 Finally, the Bhāgavata Purāṇa builds on the Purāṇic traditions concerning the role of Vyāsa in forming the Purāṇic canon and attempts to surpass these earlier traditions, as we shall see, by establishing its own preeminent status as the last of the eighteen Purāṇas compiled by Kṛṣṇa Dvaipāyana Vyāsa, which constituted the culmination and fruition of his long career.
The Bhāgavata Purāṇa thus accords with Purāṇic standards of authenticity in order to secure its place in the Purāṇic canon. In adopting the Purāṇic literary form, the Bhāgavata appears to have used the Viṣṇu Purāṇa in particular as its model. It follows the general scheme of topics found in the Viṣṇu Purāṇa while at the same time expanding upon and reconfiguring the scheme.75 More specifically, the life of Kṛṣṇa and his love-play with the gopīs, the cowmaidens of Vraja, which are celebrated in the tenth book of the Bhāgavata, appear to have been modeled after the gopī episodes in the Viṣṇu Purāṇa.76 The Prahlāda episode in the seventh book of the Bhāgavata similarly appears to have been modeled after the Viṣṇu Purāṇa’s accounts of Prahlāda.77 However, as discussed in Chapter 2, the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, in its portrayals of the devotion of the gopīs and of Prahlāda, introduces important innovations—in particular, in its representations of bhakti as a passionate and ecstatic intoxication, in contrast to the more intellectual and contemplative form of bhakti expressed in the Viṣṇu Purāṇa.78
While the Bhāgavata Purāṇa thus conforms with the Purāṇic model, particularly as represented by the Viṣṇu Purāṇa, it at the same time distinguishes itself from the other Purāṇas in significant ways. First, it is the most unified and homogeneous of all the Purāṇas. M. Winternitz remarks that “it is the one Purāṇa which, more than any other of the others, bears the stamp of a unified composition, and deserves to be appreciated as a literary production on account of its language, style and metre.”79 Second, the homogeneity of the Bhāgavata is characterized by a consistent focus throughout the text on bhakti—and, moreover, a distinctive type of bhakti—in contrast to the more sporadic treatment of devotional concerns in the other Purāṇas. Third, the language and style of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa are different from those of the other Purāṇas. In contrast to the epic-Purāṇic vernacular Sanskrit that is generally employed in the Purāṇas,80 the Bhāgavata Purāṇa regularly uses Vedic grammatical forms and vocabulary, as I will discuss further when I turn to an analysis of the Bhāgavata’s vedacizing strategies.
Purāṇas as the “Fifth Veda”
The Purāṇas, while delimiting themselves as a distinctive Purāṇic canon, are at the same time concerned with elevating their status within the larger brahmanical canon by moving beyond their ascribed classification as smṛti texts and connecting themselves with śruti, the Veda. As members of the Purāṇic canon, the various Purāṇic texts tend to deploy a parallel set of strategies to assimilate the Purāṇas—as a general canonical category—to the Veda. Their claims on occasion extend beyond the limits of the Purāṇic canon to include the Itihāsas and Purāṇas together, as two categories of smṛti texts that aspire to śruti status.
The Purāṇas at times simply assert their identity with the Veda, claiming for both the Itihāsas and the Purāṇas the status of the “fifth Veda” alongside the four Vedas—Ṛg, Yajur, Sāma, and Atharva—that constitute the core śruti texts.81 The Bhāgavata Purāṇa, for example, after relating how Vyāsa divided the one Veda into four, declares that the Itihāsas and Purāṇas are the fifth Veda:
he four Vedas were separated out under the names Ṛg, Yajur, Sāma, and Atharva. And the Itihāsas and Purāṇas are said to be the fifth Veda.82
The Purāṇas sometimes invoke the designation “Purāṇa-Veda” to assert their dual status as Purāṇas that form part of the Veda.83 They also declare themselves to be equal to the Veda (veda-samita, veda-sammita, or brahma-sammita)84 and the essence of the Veda (veda-sāra)85—claims that are repeatedly made by the Bhāgavata Purāṇa.86
A number of the Purāṇas emphasize that knowledge of the Vedas is not sufficient but must be supplemented by knowledge of the Purāṇas.
A brahmin who knows the four Vedas with their subsidiary limbs (aṅgas) and Upaniṣads but who does not know the Purāṇa is not truly learned. With both Itihāsa and Purāṇa one should supplement the Veda. The Veda is afraid of one with little knowledge.87
Primordial Origins of the Purāṇas
The Purāṇas seek to substantiate their claims to Vedic status by providing accounts of their origins that parallel Vedic accounts, both in their emphasis on primordial origins and in their focus on the sage Veda-Vyāsa’s role in the process of transmission. As a number of scholars have noted, the Purāṇas present two alternative traditions regarding their origins: (1) one tradition asserts the existence of a single primordial Purāṇa, which was subsequently condensed and divided by Vyāsa to form the eighteen Purāṇas, while (2) an alternative tradition makes reference to an original “Purāṇa Saṃhitā,” which was compiled by Vyāsa from previously existing materials and formed the basis of four Saṃhitās from which the eighteen Purāṇas were derived.88
The seminal expression of the first tradition is found in the Matsya, Vāyu, Brahmāṇḍa, Skanda, Śiva, and Padma Purāṇas and claims that at the beginning of each cycle of creation a single primordial Purāṇa emerges from the creator Brahmā as the “first of all the śāstras,” even prior to the Vedas. This Purāṇa, consisting of one billion (one hundred crores) ślokas, is first recalled by Brahmā, after which the Vedas issue forth from his mouths. The Matsya Purāṇa declares:
Of all the śāstras the Purāṇa was first recalled (smṛta) by Brahmā—eternal (nitya), consisting of śabda (śabda-maya), holy, having the extent of a hundred crores [of ślokas]. Afterwards the Vedas issued forth from his mouths and also Mīmāṃsā and the science of Nyāya together with the eightfold means of valid knowledge (pramāṇa).89
This Purāṇic tradition emulates the Vedic paradigm by invoking the notion of an eternal, primordial Purāṇa that parallels the notion of an eternal, primordial Veda. At the same time this primordial Purāṇa surpasses the primordial Veda in terms of its chronological priority—as the “first of all the śāstras”—and in terms of its vast extent—one billion verses (Purāṇa) versus 100,000 verses (Veda).
Accounts of how the eighteen Purāṇas are derived from this primordial Purāṇa are found in the Matsya, Skanda, Śiva, Nārada, Padma, and Liṅga Purāṇas. According to the variant of this tradition presented in the Matsya Purāṇa, it is through the agency of Vyāsa, a partial manifestation of Viṣṇu, that the one primordial Purāṇa—which as the “first of all the śāstras” was also the “source of all the śāstras”—came to assume its present earthly form as eighteen Purāṇas. Vyāsa, the sage responsible for dividing the primordial Veda of 100,000 verses into four Saṃhitās in every Dvāpara Yuga, is credited with performing a parallel task in every Dvāpara Yuga with respect to the Purāṇas: he condensed the primordial Purāṇa of one billion ślokas into an abridged edition of 400,000 (four lakhs) ślokas and subsequently divided the abridged edition into eighteen Purāṇas. Although it thus assumed a modified earthly form, the original Purāṇa of one billion ślokas continues to exist in the world of the gods (deva-loka).90
The second tradition, which represents the Purāṇas as originating from an original “Purāṇa Saṃhitā,” is found in the Brahmāṇḍa, Vāyu, and Viṣṇu Purāṇas. This tradition relates how Vyāsa, after dividing the primordial Veda by separating out the four types of Vedic mantras to form the four Vedic Saṃhitās and the functions of their respective priests, then proceeded to compile the Purāṇa Saṃhitā from narratives (ākhyānas), episodes (upākhyānas), verses (gāthās), and other materials.91 When Vyāsa taught the four Vedic Saṃhitās to four of his disciples, respectively, he taught this Purāṇa Saṃhitā to his fifth disciple, Sūta Lomaharṣaṇa (or Romaharṣaṇa). Lomaharṣaṇa in turn taught it to his six disciples, three of whom compiled their own Saṃhitās. These three Saṃhitās, together with that of Lomaharṣaṇa, constitute the four principal (mūla or pūrva) Saṃhitās from which the eighteen Purāṇas were derived.92 The Vedic paradigm is clearly evident in these accounts of Vyāsa’s role in compiling, dividing, and disseminating the Purāṇa Saṃhitā as the fifth Veda alongside the four Vedic Saṃhitās.
The Bhāgavata Purāṇa, following the example of earlier Purāṇas, invokes the Vedic model in its accounts of the primordial origins of the Purāṇas and of Vyāsa’s role in transmitting the texts. It does not, however, mention the Purāṇic tradition concerning the primordial Purāṇa that first emerges from the creator Brahmā, after which the Vedas issue forth from his mouths. Instead the Bhāgavata provides an alternative account in which the order of precedence is reversed: the four Vedas issue forth, respectively, from the four mouths of Brahmā, after which the Itihāsas and Purāṇas, as the fifth Veda, emerge from all four mouths together.
From his eastern and other mouths he brought forth in succession the Vedas known as Ṛg, Yajur, Sāma, and Atharva.… Then the all-seeing lord [Brahmā] sent forth from all his mouths together the Itihāsas and Purāṇas as the fifth Veda.93
While chronological precedence is thus ascribed to the Vedas, the ontological precedence of the Purāṇas is implied by the image of Brahmā sending forth the fifth Veda from all four of his mouths simultaneously, in contrast to the emergence of each of the four Vedas from only one of his mouths.
The Bhāgavata Purāṇa also includes a number of traditions that emphasize the role of Kṛṣṇa Dvaipāyana Vyāsa in dividing the one Veda into four Saṃhitās in Dvāpara Yuga and in transmitting the four Vedas along with the fifth Veda—Itihāsas and Purāṇas—to his disciples.94 One account emphasizes the parallels in the process of transmission of the Vedas and the Purāṇas and in this context includes a variant of the Purāṇic tradition concerning the Purāṇa Saṃhitās. Just as Vyāsa divided the one Veda into four Saṃhitās, which he transmitted to his four main disciples and their respective lineages, so he taught the Purāṇas, as the fifth Veda, to his fifth disciple, Romaharṣaṇa, who in turn transmitted four original (mūla) Purāṇa Saṃhitās to his disciples.95 The account concludes with a discussion of the ten characteristics, daśa-lakṣaṇa, that distinguish a Purāṇa, followed by an enumeration of the eighteen Purāṇas that display these characteristics.96
Purāṇas as Accessible Vedas
While in their claims to primordial origins the Purāṇas emulate the paradigmatic Veda, in their earthly status, as concrete texts transmitted in oral and written form, they diverge from the model of the Vedic Saṃhitās by serving as what we might term “accessible Vedas.”
The Purāṇa-Vedas assume the role of accessible Vedas in two interrelated senses: first, they provide a socially inclusive model of scripture that is in principle accessible to people at all levels of the socioreligious hierarchy; and, second, they make the meaning of the Vedas accessible by interpreting and elaborating the Vedic teachings in terms that can be understood by the general populace. In contrast to the Vedic Saṃhitās, which are socially circumscribed scriptures that are restricted to male members of the three “twice-born” varṇas (social classes)—brahmins (priests), kṣatriyas (kings and warriors), and vaiśyas (merchants, agriculturalists, and artisans)—the Purāṇas are socially inclusive scriptures that are intended for people of all social classes, including śūdras (servants) and women.97 The Purāṇas represent themselves as the Veda of the general populace, complementing and supplementing the Vedic Saṃhitās by incorporating popular devotional teachings alongside traditional Vedic teachings.
The Purāṇas declare themselves the repositories of efficacious mantras, comparable in power to the Vedic mantras, and regularly proclaim the fruits (phala) of reciting (root paṭh) a Purāṇa and of hearing (root śru) such recitations. In their perspectives on recitation the Purāṇas depart from the Vedic model in important ways. One of the most significant departures is that whereas the Vedic Saṃhitās may be recited and heard only by male members of the three twice-born varṇas, Purāṇic recitations are intended for the general populace and can therefore be heard by marginalized groups who are excluded from hearing Vedic recitations, in particular śūdras and women. In addition, the Purāṇas emphasize not only the power of mantra but the power of sacred narrative as well. In contrast to recitations of the Vedic Saṃhitās, which focus almost exclusively on śabda, on verbatim reproduction of the Vedic sounds, in Purāṇic recitations both śabda and artha, sound and meaning, are important, for the content of the texts is intended to convey important teachings to the general populace. As Thomas Coburn has emphasized, the Purāṇas exemplify the “didactic” function of smṛti texts, which are intended above all to convey discursive meaning to an audience, in contrast to the “sacramental” function of śruti texts, the sounds of which must be accurately reproduced irrespective of whether their discursive meaning is understood.98 The significance of this synthesis of śabda and artha, sound and meaning, in Purāṇic constructions of scripture has also been emphasized by C. Mackenzie Brown:
The Puranic synthesis of sound and meaning…involved a number of new conceptualizations regarding the nature of scripture. Earlier, the “artha tradition” was subservient to the “śabda tradition.”… In the Purāṇas, the narrative or story literature has become the primary holy word, reincorporating the old mantric tradition under new terms. The saving story itself has taken on the character of mantric efficacy though not the mantric immutability. The shift to an emphasis on meaning and the greater flexibility in the epic-Puranic traditions were crucial factors in the evolution of written scripture.99
As Brown notes, this shift in emphasis from sound to meaning in the Purāṇic tradition is accompanied by a shift in modes of scriptural transmission, in which the Purāṇas depart from the Vedic paradigm of exclusively oral transmission by emphasizing the importance of written transmission as well. They declare the fruits not only of hearing a Purāṇa recited but also of writing or copying the text itself and subsequently giving the book away as a gift.100 The giving of gifts, including the giving of books, is in principle open to everyone, and thus this Purāṇic practice, like that of Purāṇic recitation, serves to consolidate the Purāṇas’ claims to be the Veda of the general populace. As Brown points out, it makes possible “a significant reversal of roles: when scripture was purely oral, it was given by the Brahmans to others; in its written form, it can now be given by others to Brahmans.”101 This emphasis on the written form of the Purāṇas leads to the development of the Purāṇic “cult of the book” in which the book itself is ritually venerated, as I will discuss later with reference to the Bhāgavata Purāṇa.102
Bhāgavata Purāṇa as the Culmination of Śruti and Smṛti
Beyond making claims regarding the Vedic status of the Purāṇas generally, each of the Purāṇas is also concerned to set itself apart as the preeminent Purāṇa that most perfectly embodies Veda. In this context the Purāṇas, in addition to delineating the characteristics that are shared by all members of the Purāṇic canon, also employ taxonomies to differentiate and classify the various Purāṇas according to specific criteria. These taxonomies are at times invoked to hierarchize the members of the Purāṇic canon and to establish the preeminence of a particular Purāṇa within the hierarchy.
One of the principal modes of classifying the Purāṇas pertains to the deity who—in accordance with the sectarian emphasis of the particular Purāṇa—is identified with Brahman and revered as the supreme Godhead. According to this criterion, the Viṣṇu Purāṇa and Bhāgavata Purāṇa, which celebrate Viṣṇu or Kṛṣṇa as the supreme Godhead, are classified as Vaiṣṇava Purāṇas; the Śiva Purāṇa and Liṅga Purāṇa, which revere Śiva as the ultimate reality, are classified as Śaiva Purāṇas; and the Devī-Bhāgavata Purāṇa, which proclaims Devī to be the highest Godhead, is classified as a Śākta Purāṇa. Cross-sectarian Purāṇas that contain both Vaiṣṇava and Śaiva material, such as the Matsya and Kūrma Purāṇas, and nonsectarian Purāṇas, such as the Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa, prove difficult to classify in this type of taxonomic schema.
A second mode of classification involves correlating the various Purāṇas with the three guṇas, the three constituents of prakṛti, primordial matter—sattva (purity), rajas (activity), and tamas (inertia). The Padma Purāṇa, for example, classifies the Purāṇas according to this criterion, declaring that the Viṣṇu, Nārada, Bhāgavata, Garuḍa, Padma, and Varāha Purāṇas are dominated by sattva; the Brahmāṇḍa, Brahmavaivarta, Mārkaṇḍeya, Bhaviṣya, Vāmana, and Brahma Purāṇas, by rajas; and the Matsya, Kūrma, Liṅga, Śiva, Skanda, and Agni Purāṇas, by tamas.103 The three great gods of the trimūrti—Viṣṇu, Brahmā, and Śiva—are represented in the Purāṇas as presiding over the domains of sattva, rajas, and tamas, respectively, and thus the two modes of classification—deity worshiped and guṇas—are at times combined in a single taxonomy. The Matsya Purāṇa provides an example of this type of hybrid taxonomy:
The sāttvic Purāṇas primarily glorify Hari [Viṣṇu]; the rājasic Purāṇas primarily glorify Brahmā; and the tāmasic Purāṇas glorify Śiva and Agni. Those Purāṇas with a mixture of guṇas proclaim the glory of Sarasvatī and of the pitṛs (ancestors).104
While Vaiṣṇava Purāṇas may revel in their ascribed status as the most sāttvic—the most pure and luminous—of all the Purāṇas, at the same time they insist that this sāttvic status is itself secondary. Rather, their primary claim to supremacy is that Viṣṇu or Kṛṣṇa—the deity whom they glorify—is the supreme Godhead who is identical with Brahman and who is the source of Brahmā, Śiva, Devī, and all the other deities. Śaiva Purāṇas and Śākta Purāṇas make comparable claims about the supreme status of their respective deities, Śiva and Devī.
It is above all in this arena of divine power plays that the sectarian Purāṇas vie for hegemony in their contending claims to be the preeminent Purāṇa-Veda. The Śiva Purāṇa, for example, declares that, as the “ocean of knowledge of Śiva” (Śiva-jñānārṇava), it is equal to the Veda (veda-samita),105 the essence of the Veda (veda-sāra),106 and the essence of all the Upaniṣads (vedānta-sāra-sarvasva).107 The Bhāgavata Purāṇa—using almost identical terms—similarly proclaims that, as the “śruti pertaining to Kṛṣṇa” (sātvatī śruti),108 it is equal to the Veda (brahma-sammita or veda-sammita),109 the essence of the entire śruti (akhila-śruti-sāra),110 and the essence of all the Upaniṣads (sarva-vedānta-sāra).111 The Devī-Bhāgavata Purāṇa declares that, as the “Purāṇa pertaining to Durgā” (Daurga Purāṇa),112 it is the essence of the Veda (veda-sāra)113 and conveys the secret teachings of the Veda (nigama-guhya).114
As discussed earlier, one of the key strategies deployed by the Purāṇas to invest their respective teachings with Vedic authority involves asserting the identity of their respective deities with the Veda, which is represented as the inner essence and the outer form of the supreme Godhead who is revered as Brahman. The identification of the personal God who is the object of devotion with the Upaniṣadic Brahman and with the eternal reality of Veda is one of the essential mechanisms through which the devotional teachings of the Purāṇas attained legitimacy as part of the normative brahmanical tradition. However, even more than the other Purāṇas, the Bhāgavata is confronted with a significant problem in connecting itself with the Veda: Kṛṣṇa, the supreme Godhead who is the focus of the text’s devotional teachings, is not mentioned in the Vedic Saṃhitās. Although Kṛṣṇa is identified in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa with Viṣṇu—who does appear as a minor deity in the Vedic Saṃhitās—it is as Kṛṣṇa, not Viṣṇu, that he is above all celebrated as Bhagavān, the supreme Lord. As discussed in Chapter 1, the Bhāgavata proclaims that “Kṛṣṇa is Bhagavān himself (Bhagavān svayam)”115—and yet nowhere in the Vedic Saṃhitās is a deity named Kṛṣṇa mentioned.116 Frederick Smith remarks:
[R]arely is any single Purāṇic deity so estimably beyond the boundaries of Vedic discourse than is Kṛṣṇa.… It is well known that Śiva, as Rudra, as well as the Goddess reside at the peripheries of Vedic mythology and ritual; more central is Viṣṇu. But nowhere in the Vedas is Kṛṣṇa mentioned, at least in any form that could predict his future course on the subcontinent.117
The Bhāgavata Purāṇa seeks to overcome this problem by vedacizing the text and its teachings in a number of ways.
Vedacizing the Bhāgavata Purāṇa
The Bhāgavata Purāṇa makes use of a variety of vedacizing strategies—in terms of its language, content, and self-representations—to invest itself with the transcendent authority of the Veda. First, in terms of language, the Bhāgavata Purāṇa regularly makes use of Vedic archaisms, employing Vedic grammatical forms and vocabulary, in an attempt to imitate the language of the Vedas.118 J. A. B. van Buitenen interprets the Bhāgavata’s use of Vedic archaisms as an attempt to Sanskritize and legitimate Kṛṣṇa bhakti by establishing itself as an orthodox scripture suffused with the power of the Vedic mantras: “I am not only orthodox in the Vedic tradition, I even sound like the Veda.”119 Second, in terms of content, Vedic material is incorporated throughout the text, with the exception of the tenth book, which celebrates the life of Kṛṣṇa. Smith notes that “the Purāṇa, taken as a whole, is saturated with references to Vedic deities, sages, rituals, and myths.”120 Third, in terms of self-representations, the Bhāgavata Purāṇa adopts the common Purāṇic strategy of simply asserting its identity and equality with the Veda, as I will discuss in the following section. However, in order to substantiate its claims to Vedic status it must overcome the problem posed by the Vedic Saṃhitās’ lack of mention of Kṛṣṇa, the supreme Godhead who is the focus of its teachings. The Bhāgavata addresses this problem by representing Kṛṣṇa as the embodiment of Veda and the source and abode of the Vedic mantras. Moreover, as we shall see, it goes further and claims for itself the special status of the Kārṣṇa-Veda that is the embodiment of Kṛṣṇa and that is therefore, by extension, the embodiment of Veda.
By deploying each of these vedacizing strategies, the Bhāgavata Purāṇa is concerned to establish its transcendent authority as the preeminent Purāṇa-Veda that, in its special status as the Kārṣṇa-Veda, is the culminating scripture of the entire brahmanical canon of śruti and smṛti texts.
Bhāgavata Purāṇa as the Culminating Scripture of the Brahmanical Canon
In support of its claim to be the culminating scripture of the brahmanical canon, the Bhāgavata Purāṇa must establish its paramount status among the Purāṇas, among the smṛti texts generally, and among the śruti, or Vedic, texts.
The Bhāgavata Purāṇa unabashedly declares its unsurpassed status among the Purāṇas:
The other Purāṇas shine forth in the assembly of the righteous only as long as the supreme Śrīmad Bhāgavata is not directly beheld. The glorious Bhāgavata is considered to be the essence of all the Upaniṣads (sarva-vedānta-sāra). One who has relished (root tṛp) the ambrosial nectar of its rasa (rasāmṛta) does not find delight anywhere else. Its position among the Purāṇas is comparable to that of the Gaṅgā among the rivers, Acyuta [Kṛṣṇa] among the gods, and Śiva among the Vaiṣṇavas. O brahmins, as Kāśī [Vārāṇasī] is unsurpassed among all the sacred places, so the Śrīmad Bhāgavata is unsurpassed among all the Purāṇas.121
To consolidate its authority among the smṛti texts generally, the Bhāgavata must establish its preeminence not only among the Purāṇas but also among the second major category of smṛti texts with which the Purāṇas are closely associated: the Itihāsas. The Bhāgavata does so by asserting that it is the “very essence (sāra) extracted from all the Itihāsas and Vedas.”122
In both of these statements—concerning its superior status among the Purāṇas and Itihāsas, respectively—the Bhāgavata Purāṇa invokes the authority of the Vedas as one of the means of establishing its superiority: the Bhāgavata is superior to the other Purāṇas in part because of its special status as the essence of all the Upaniṣads (sarva-vedānta-sāra);123 it is superior to the Itihāsas because it is not only the essence (sāra) of the Itihāsas but also of the Vedas. The Bhāgavata reserves for itself the special status of the purāṇa-guhya, the Purāṇa that contains the deepest mysteries, because it alone is the concentrated essence of the entire śruti literature (akhila-śruti-sāra)—not only the Upaniṣads but also the Saṃhitās, Brāhmaṇas, and Āraṇyakas.124 This śruti pertaining to Kṛṣṇa125 ultimately asserts that it is equal to the Veda (brahma-sammita or veda-sammita)126 and proclaims itself the “ripe fruit (phala) of the wish-fulfilling tree of Veda (nigama-kalpa-taru)” that is full of amṛta or rasa, ambrosial nectar.127 Finally, the Bhāgavata goes even further and declares itself the quintessential scripture that is the concentrated essence (sāra) of all the śāstras—śruti and smṛti.128
The Bhāgavata Purāṇa seeks to substantiate its claims to be the quintessential scripture of the entire brahmanical canon by representing itself as the culminating achievement of Kṛṣṇa Dvaipāyana Vyāsa’s life. In this context, in addition to its accounts of the origins of the Purāṇas that I discussed earlier, the Bhāgavata provides a separate account of its own unique origins. The account emphasizes how Vyāsa, after dividing the one Veda into four, composing the Mahābhārata, and compiling the other seventeen principal Purāṇas, was not satisfied. Even though he had accomplished these great literary feats, had mastered the Vedas, and had attained realization of Brahman, he did not feel fulfilled. While Vyāsa was lamenting his lack of fulfillment, the celestial ṛṣi Nārada approached him and explained to him that although he had attained mastery of all knowledge, jñāna, and was adept in the practice of yoga, his heart was not satisfied because he had not yet sung the praises of Kṛṣṇa, the supreme Bhagavān, and extolled the glories of devotion to him.129 Nārada instructed him to engage in contemplative recollection (root smṛ + anu) of Kṛṣṇa’s exploits (viceṣṭita) while established in samādhi. Thus inspired by Nārada, Vyāsa returned to his hermitage and meditated, and, while immersed in samādhi, “in his mind, freed of impurity by bhakti-yoga and completely collected, he saw (root dṛś) the primordial Puruṣa.”130 He then recorded his cognitions of Kṛṣṇa in the form of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, his heart overflowing in blissful celebration of the līlā of the supreme Bhagavān and of the path of bhakti through which he is realized.131
Bhāgavata Purāṇa as Kārṣṇa-Veda
The Bhāgavata Purāṇa, as the Kārṣṇa-Veda, celebrates Kṛṣṇa as Bhagavān, the supreme Godhead who is Veda incarnate. As mentioned earlier, by identifying Kṛṣṇa with the Veda, the Bhāgavata overcomes the problem posed by the lack of reference to Kṛṣṇa in the Vedic Saṃhitās: Kṛṣṇa is not mentioned in the Vedas because he himself is the Veda on an ontological level. Kṛṣṇa is the ultimate reality who is celebrated in the Upaniṣads as Brahman, whose inner essence is Veda, knowledge, and whose outer form is constituted by the Vedic mantras. His Self is the threefold Veda (trayī-vidyātman),132 his very substance is Veda (sarva-veda-maya),133 and his body (tanu or mūrti) is composed of the ṛcs, yajuses, sāmans, and atharvans.134 Realization of the supreme reality of Kṛṣṇa, which is the goal of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa’s devotional teachings, is understood in this context to be tantamount to realization of the eternal Veda.
Kṛṣṇa is extolled in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa not only as the embodiment of Veda but also as the means through which the Vedic mantras are manifested on earth in every cycle of creation. He is celebrated as the ultimate source of the tradition of Vedic transmission and is also identified with each of the three principal agents in the transmission process that I discussed earlier: the creator Brahmā, the Vedic ṛṣis, and Vyāsa.135 Brahmā, as we have seen, is the first agent in the process of transmission, who brings forth the Vedic mantras from his four mouths at the beginning of each cycle of creation.136 The second link in the process of transmission consists of the Vedic ṛṣis, who “see” (root dṛś) and preserve the Vedic mantras, establishing the tradition of recitative transmission through which the mantras are passed down generation after generation.137 The third principal agent in the process of Vedic transmission is the great ṛṣi Vyāsa, who in Dvāpara Yuga divides the Veda into four Saṃhitās to facilitate its preservation and understanding.138
The opening verse of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa proclaims that it is Kṛṣṇa himself, as the supreme Bhagavān, who reveals the Veda to Brahmā, the first seer (ādi-kavi).139 After the Veda disappears during the cosmic dissolution at the end of each cycle of creation, it is he who transmits it to Brahmā at the beginning of the next creation. Kṛṣṇa himself declares:
In the course of time this Word (vāṇī) known as Veda disappeared during the dissolution (pralaya). At the beginning [of the next creation] I imparted to Brahmā this [Word, Veda], in which resides the dharma of devoting oneself to me.140
Kṛṣṇa’s transmission of the Veda to Brahmā is represented by the Bhāgavata as a process of self-disclosure, for he himself is the eternal reality of Veda. The Veda finds differentiated expression in the Vedic mantras, which issue forth as the impulses of primordial speech from Brahmā’s mouths and are preserved by the ṛṣis and their lineages as recited texts. The Vedic texts preserved through recitative transmission are the precipitated expressions of the eternal Veda, Kṛṣṇa, and thus the Bhāgavata claims that their true purpose is to reveal the manifest and unmanifest forms of the supreme Bhagavān and to teach the dharma of devotion to him.141
The creator Brahmā is described in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa as a fraction of a portion (kalā) of Kṛṣṇa and the manifest form that Kṛṣṇa assumes at the beginning of each kalpa in order to bring forth the worlds and animate and inanimate beings.142 He thus participates in Kṛṣṇa’s nature as Veda incarnate and is correspondingly said to be composed of Veda (veda-maya)143 and the abode of Veda (veda-garbha).144 When he embarks on his role as demiurge, Brahmā brings forth the Vedic mantras from his four mouths, and it is through his utterance of the Vedic words that the manifold phenomena of creation are projected into concrete manifestation. As he proceeds with his cosmogonic activities, Brahmā extols the glories of Bhagavān, whose creative powers he expresses, and beseeches him not to allow his utterance of the Vedic words to fail.145
Kṛṣṇa, the embodiment of Veda, is thus represented in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa as assuming the form of Brahmā in order to bring forth the Vedic mantras and to manifest the phenomenal world. In the second phase of the process of Vedic transmission, he is represented as assuming the form of the ṛṣis (ṛṣi-rūpa-dhara) to cognize and preserve the Vedic mantras and thereby inaugurate the recitative and sacrificial traditions.146 Finally, in the third phase of the transmission process, he assumes the form of the ṛṣi Vyāsa in Dvāpara Yuga in order to divide the one Veda into four Saṃhitās.147
The Bhāgavata Purāṇa thus represents Kṛṣṇa as assuming a series of manifest forms in order to bring forth the Vedic mantras, cognize and preserve them as recited texts, and divide them into distinct collections. The entire process is ultimately understood as a process of self-revelation, for the Vedic mantras that he brings forth, cognizes, and divides are simply the differentiated expressions of his own eternal nature as Veda.
This process of self-revelation culminates in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, which Kṛṣṇa reveals to his partial manifestation Brahmā at the beginning of each kalpa.148 Brahmā in turn transmits the Bhāgavata to his son Nārada, who in turn imparts it to Vyāsa when he is meditating.149 It is through the agency of Kṛṣṇa Dvaipāyana Vyāsa, Kṛṣṇa’s partial manifestation (kalā) in the form of a ṛṣi, that Kṛṣṇa reveals himself to himself in the form of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, in which he celebrates the rapturous delights of his own divine līlā.150 Kṛṣṇa is both the ṛṣi Vyāsa and the object of this great ṛṣi’s cognitions. While from the perspective of Kṛṣṇa, the Bhāgavata’s narration of the līlā is self-revelation, from the perspective of the enlightened sage Vyāsa, it is a record of his cognitions of the supreme Bhagavān. Vyāsa’s cognitions of Kṛṣṇa’s līlā are represented as the culminating stage of spiritual attainment, for even though he has realized Brahman he does not feel completely fulfilled until he realizes the supreme reality of Kṛṣṇa and extols the glories of Bhagavān. In this highest state, with his awareness immersed in Kṛṣṇa, he cognizes the hidden dynamics of the Godhead and witnesses the unfoldment of Kṛṣṇa’s divine līlā. Like the Vedic ṛṣis, who cognize the activities of the gods in their celestial realms and give expression to their cognitions in the form of recited hymns, the ṛṣi Vyāsa cognizes the play and display of the supreme Bhagavān and gives expression to his cognitions in the form of recited narratives. Recitation of Kṛṣṇa’s līlā in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa is therefore considered tantamount to recitation of the Vedic mantras.151
The Bhāgavata declares itself equal to the Veda because Kṛṣṇa, who is Veda incarnate, discloses himself most perfectly and completely in this text. The Bhāgavata thus claims for itself the special status of the Kārṣṇa-Veda, which can be understood in two senses: as the Veda whose semantic content pertains to Kṛṣṇa; and as the Veda that is identical with Kṛṣṇa, in the sense that the text itself is the embodiment of Bhagavān. Kṛṣṇa, who is Veda incarnate, is embodied in the Bhāgavata, which is therefore Kṛṣṇa incarnate and, by extension, Veda incarnate. In the final analysis, then, the Bhāgavata’s declarations that it is brahma-sammita152 are assertions of its identity with that totality which is simultaneously Brahman, Kṛṣṇa, and Veda. The Bhāgavata, as Śabdabrahman and śruti incarnate, is Brahman embodied in sound, Kṛṣṇa embodied in text. This Kārṣṇa-Veda Saṃhitā—this collection of recited narratives about Kṛṣṇa’s līlā—is considered the consummate expression on the manifest level of the eternal sound reverberations that constitute Kṛṣṇa’s form on the unmanifest level. At the onset of Kali Yuga, when Kṛṣṇa departs the earth and returns to his transcendent, unmanifest abode (dhāman), he leaves behind the Bhāgavata Purāṇa as his manifest embodiment on earth in Kali Yuga.
This Purāṇa known by the name of Bhāgavata is equal to Brahman/Kṛṣṇa/Veda (brahma-sammita).… This [Bhāgavata] is the very essence (sāra) extracted from all the Itihāsas and Vedas.… Now that Kṛṣṇa has departed for his own abode (svadhāman) along with dharma, knowledge, and so on, this Purāṇa has risen like the sun for the sake of those who are bereft of sight in Kali Yuga.153
The Bhāgavata Purāṇa, both in its oral-aural manifestation as recited narratives and in its written-visual manifestation as a concrete book, is thus revered as a text-incarnation of Kṛṣṇa, which, like his image-incarnations, is to be “placed on a throne of gold” and ritually venerated.154
Fruits of Reciting and Hearing the Śrīmad Bhāgavata
The Bhāgavata Purāṇa emphasizes the fruits (phala) of reciting (root paṭh or root gṝ) this śruti pertaining to Kṛṣṇa as well as the fruits of hearing (root śru) the recitation.155 A brahmin who ritually recites (root i + adhi) the Bhāgavata Purāṇa is promised fruits comparable to those attained through reciting the Vedic mantras.156 However, like other Purāṇas, the Bhāgavata also distinguishes itself from the Vedic paradigm by insisting that—in contrast to the Vedic mantras, which may be recited and heard only by male members of the three twice-born varṇas—this Purāṇa-Veda may be recited and heard by people at all levels of the socioreligious hierarchy, including śūdras and women.157 The Bhāgavata, the fruit (phala) of the wish-fulfilling tree of Veda, declares itself to be full of bliss-bestowing ambrosia (amṛta, rasa, or pīyūṣa) in the form of stories of Kṛṣṇa’s līlā (līlā-kathā), which are relished (root tṛp) by all who hear them and captivate the hearts of gods and humans alike. Those who drink (root pā) the ambrosial nectar of the Bhāgavata’s stories are forever satiated and are no longer afflicted by hunger, thirst, and the mundane cravings of material existence.158 Immersion in the Śrīmad Bhāgavata through hearing (śravaṇa), recitation (paṭhana), and meditation (vicāraṇa) is celebrated as the means through which bhaktas can purify (root pū or root śudh) their hearts and minds of all sins (pātakas);159 attain freedom from fear, suffering, and delusion;160 and cross over the ocean of saṃsāra, the cycle of birth and death, to a state of liberation (mukti).161 Engaging the Bhāgavata—the Kārṣṇa-Veda in which Kṛṣṇa himself is embodied in the form of a text—is intended above all to inspire bhakti by manifesting Kṛṣṇa’s presence in the heart, culminating in attainment of the highest goal of human existence: realization of Kṛṣṇa in his transcendent abode (dhāman).162
As we have seen, the Bhāgavata Purāṇa claims to be a record of the ṛṣi Vyāsa’s direct cognitions of Kṛṣṇa in the form of a collection of narratives in which Bhagavān himself is instantiated. The Bhāgavata declares, moreover, that devotion to Kṛṣṇa and his Kārṣṇa-Veda Saṃhitā is the most efficacious means of realizing the true import of the Vedic Saṃhitās, for Kṛṣṇa himself is the eternal Veda who manifests himself in the differentiated expressions of the Vedic mantras. The Vedic mantras are represented as praising Kṛṣṇa eternally in his transcendent abode beyond the material realm of prakṛti163 and are portrayed more specifically as singing an extended hymn of praise (veda-stuti) in which they glorify the supreme Godhead who is their source, substance, and goal and laud the “ocean of ambrosial nectar consisting of stories (kathāmṛtābdhi)” about him.164 The entire canon of śruti and smṛti texts—the Vedas together with the Vedāṅgas, Upavedas, Itihāsas, and Purāṇas—is represented as bowing down at the feet of Bhagavān.165 The Bhāgavata Purāṇa, as the Kārṣṇa-Veda that is an embodiment of Bhagavān, thus claims for itself the status of the quintessential scripture that is the culmination and fulfillment of the entire canon of śāstras.
Bhāgavata Purāṇa as the Embodiment of Bhagavān
The transcendent authority of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa as the embodiment of Bhagavān is celebrated not only in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa itself but also in the Bhāgavata Māhātmya of the Padma Purāṇa, a eulogistic text that extols the glories of this quintessential śāstra and the fruits (phala) derived from engaging it.166 The Bhāgavata Māhātmya is an independent unit consisting of six chapters that forms part of the Uttara Khaṇḍa in the Southern recension of the Padma Purāṇa adopted by all printed editions.167 The Bhāgavata Māhātmya is one of the latest sections interpolated into this composite Purāṇa, and I would argue that it was composed in the late sixteenth century or early seventeenth century in the area of Vraja in North India following the landmark developments inspired by the leaders of the Gauḍīya Sampradāya and the Puṣṭi Mārga that led to the flourishing of Kṛṣṇa bhakti traditions in Vraja. Moreover, I would argue that the Bhāgavata Māhātmya derives more specifically from a Gauḍīya milieu, since the interests advanced by the text coincide closely with those advanced by the early Gauḍīya authorities, as I will discuss in the following analysis.168
Rejuvenating Bhakti and Her Sons
The Bhāgavata Māhātmya’s provenance is suggested by the narrative that frames the text, which opens in Vraja, or Vṛndāvana, “on the bank of the Yamunā River where the līlā of Hari occurred,”169 and relates the encounter of the celestial ṛṣi Nārada with a hypostatized Bhakti in the form of a young woman, who is accompanied by her two decrepit sons, Jñāna (knowledge) and Vairāgya (renunciation). Bhakti recounts to Nārada an encapsulated version of her own history—from her birth in South India through her coming of age in Karnataka, travels in Maharashtra, and decline into old age in Gujarat, culminating in her recent rejuvenation in Vṛndāvana. The following verses of the Bhāgavata Māhātmya present the classical formulation that is frequently invoked by Vaiṣṇava residents of Vraja170 and by Indian and Western scholars in debates about the history of bhakti traditions in India.171
I [Bhakti] was born in Draviḍa, attained maturity in Karnataka, went here and there in Maharashtra, and became withered by old age in Gujarat. There, on account of the dreadful Kali Yuga, my body was rent asunder by heretics. In a weakened state for a long time, I languished along with my two sons. However, on reaching Vṛndāvana, I have become rejuvenated and beautiful once again. I have now rightfully reclaimed my youth and exquisite form.172
Although her own youth and beauty have been restored, Bhakti laments to Nārada that she is perplexed and distressed because her two sons continue to be afflicted by old age and exhaustion. Nārada explains to her that it is through contact with Vṛndāvana that she has become rejuvenated, for in this most auspicious land Bhakti always dances. However, Bhakti alone flourishes in Kali Yuga, while alternative paths, such as the paths of knowledge and renunciation embodied by her two sons, Jñāna and Vairāgya, are neglected and ineffectual in this woe-filled age in which human beings are plagued by diminished intelligence, lack of discipline, and moral turpitude.
Due to contact with Vṛndāvana you have become young and fresh again. Auspicious is Vṛndāvana, where Bhakti dances. However, these two [Jñāna and Vairāgya] are not able to cast off their old age because of the lack of people seeking them here.173
Nārada then lauds Bhakti—and more specifically devotion to Kṛṣṇa, the supreme Bhagavān—as the only efficacious path in Kali Yuga. He declares that those in whose hearts Bhakti continually abides in the consummate form of preman (prema-rūpiṇī), their bodies purified (amala-mūrti) through devotion, attain liberation (mukti) from the cycle of birth and death and realize the ultimate goal of human existence: union with Kṛṣṇa in his transcendent abode, Kṛṣṇaloka or Goloka.174 Having nourished Bhakti in all of her limbs with his praise, Nārada makes an unsuccessful attempt to revive her sons, Jñāna and Vairāgya, by reciting the Vedic mantras, Upaniṣads, and Bhagavad-Gītā in turn. A voice from the heavens then tells him that the only way to release Jñāna and Vairāgya from the clutches of sleep and old age is to perform a particular ritual designated as a sat-karman.175 After making inquiries about the nature of this ritual to a series of sages who are unable to help him, Nārada seeks the aid of the four mind-born sons of Brahmā known as Kumāras—Sanaka, Sanātana, Sanandana, and Sanatkumāra—who are “ever engaged in Hari-kīrtana and, intoxicated (unmatta) with the ambrosial nectar of his līlā (līlāmṛta-rasa), are sustained by means of such stories (kathā) alone.”176 They reveal to him the sat-karman that alone will be effectual in reinvigorating Jñāna and Vairāgya: a Bhāgavata saptāha, seven-day ritual recitation of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa.
That which is designated as a sat-karman has indeed been declared by the sages to be a jñāna-yajña (knowledge sacrifice). This consists of the recitation of the Śrīmad Bhāgavata, which has been recited by Śuka [the son of Vyāsa] and others. Bhakti, Jñāna, and Vairāgya will be infused with great strength by the sound [of the Bhāgavata]. The suffering of these two [Jñāna and Vairāgya] will be relieved, and the happiness of Bhakti will be restored. All the evils of Kali Yuga will disappear at the sound of Śrīmad Bhāgavata, just as wolves flee at the roar of a lion. Then Bhakti, which yields prema-rasa, accompanied by Jñāna and Vairāgya, will dance in every home and in every living being.177
Nārada then organizes a Bhāgavata saptāha, seven-day ritual recitation by the Kumāras of all twelve books of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, which is invested with the status of a saptāha-yajña, a seven-day yajña. During the saptāha-yajña, when the Kumāras are expounding the glories of the Bhāgavata and the fruits (phala) of reciting and hearing the text over a seven-day period, Bhakti spontaneously manifests in the form of preman (premaika-rūpā) out of the substance of the Bhāgavata’s narrative (kathārtha), adorned with its meanings (artha) as her ornaments. At the conclusion of the seven-day recitation, nourished by the nectar of the Bhāgavata’s narrative (kathā-rasa), Bhakti’s two sons, Jñāna and Vairāgya, are fully rejuvenated and restored to a state of robust youth alongside their mother.178
This frame narrative of the Bhāgavata Māhātmya emphasizes a number of categories and practices that resonate strongly with the Gauḍīya project, which supports my contention that the text most likely derives from a Gauḍīya milieu in Vraja in the late sixteenth century or early seventeenth century. First, the Bhāgavata Māhātmya reimagines the history of bhakti as a singular movement that is synonymous with Kṛṣṇa bhakti traditions and that originated in South India and reached fruition in North India in Vṛndāvana—which is of course the seat of the “six Gosvāmins of Vṛndāvana” who developed and promulgated a distinctive form of Kṛṣṇa bhakti. Second, the specific language and imagery that the Bhāgavata Māhātmya employs in its representations of Kṛṣṇa bhakti evoke Gauḍīya discursive representations and practices—for example, its references to devotional practices such as kīrtana, dancing, and recitation of the Bhāgavata; its characterizations of bhakti with reference to such terms as preman, prema-rasa, and unmatta (intoxication); and its use of the terms Kṛṣṇaloka and Goloka to designate Kṛṣṇa’s transcendent abode. Third, the principal purpose of the Bhāgavata Māhātmya is to celebrate the glories of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa as the foremost of śāstras, and this purpose accords well with the interests of the early Gauḍīya authorities, who construct their theological edifice on the canonical authority of the Bhāgavata and present their own hermeneutical ventures as simply extensions of this paradigmatic śāstra. Finally, the Bhāgavata Māhātmya’s portrayal of the saga of Bhakti and her two sons, Jñāna and Vairāgya, recalls the reflections by the early Gauḍīya authorities on the relationship between the members of this triad, in which they insist that jñāna and vairāgya, knowledge and renunciation, are of value only when they arise spontaneously as the “offspring” (svātma-ja) of bhakti, as natural byproducts of the path of devotion, and remain ever yoked (yukta) to bhakti in the service of their mother. However, if jñāna and vairāgya are cultivated as distinct paths devoid of bhakti, they are ineffectual and worthless (phalgu).179
Bhāgavata Purāṇa as the Nectar-Filled Fruit of Veda
The Bhāgavata Māhātmya elaborates on the Bhāgavata Purāṇa’s own reflections concerning its consummate status as the supreme (parama) Purāṇa180 that is the culminating scripture of the entire canon of śruti and smṛti texts. In this context it at times directly invokes the Bhāgavata’s self-representations, in which it declares that “this Purāṇa known by the name of Bhāgavata is equal to the Veda (brahma-sammita)”181 and proclaims itself the “ripe fruit (phala) of the wish-fulfilling tree of Veda” that is full of ambrosial nectar (amṛta or rasa).182 Although the Bhāgavata Māhātmya thus at times invokes the Bhāgavata’s own self-representations, it goes beyond the Bhāgavata in seeking to clarify what it means to call this Purāṇa the essence (sāra) and fruit (phala) of the Vedic texts. The Māhātmya poses the question, if the Bhāgavata Purāṇa contains nothing more than the substance of the Vedas (vedārtha), why would one expect that recitation of the Bhāgavata would succeed in rejuvenating Bhakti’s sons, Jñāna and Vairāgya, when Nārada’s recitation of the Vedic mantras, Upaniṣads, and Bhagavad-Gītā had failed to revive them?183 The text proposes a solution to this potential dilemma by asserting that the Bhāgavata exists separately from the tree of the Veda as the fruit that is the very best part of the tree.
The Bhāgavata narrative (kathā) is derived from the essence (sāra) of the Vedas and Upaniṣads. Having a separate existence from them as the fullness of the fruit (phala), it is the very best (atyuttama). In a similar way, the sap (rasa) that permeates the mango tree from its root to its top cannot be tasted, but when it is concentrated in a separate form as the fruit, it is delicious to all. Similarly, the ghee that is present in milk does not yield its delectable taste, but when it is separated out it is divine, exhilarating nectar (rasa) for the gods. The sugar that permeates sugarcane from top to middle to bottom when separated out is sweeter. The same is the case with the Bhāgavata narrative (kathā).184
The Bhāgavata Māhātmya then recalls how Vyāsa, even though he had mastered the Vedas and Upaniṣads and had composed the Bhagavad-Gītā as part of the Mahābhārata, felt dejected because he sensed he was lacking complete knowledge. However, when Nārada imparted to him a condensed version of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa in the form of four ślokas, Vyāsa was freed from his distress. In the same way, the only remedy for eliminating the suffering of Jñāna and Vairāgya, which was not relieved by reciting the Vedic mantras, Upaniṣads, and Bhagavad-Gītā, is to recite to them the Bhāgavata, which is the concentrated essence of the Veda in the distinctive form of its delectable fruit full of nectar.185
When the Kumāras commence the saptāha-yajña, seven-day ritual recitation of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, on the bank of the Gaṅgā River in Haridvāra, hosts of Vaiṣṇavas, sages, ṛṣis, gods, and celestial beings assemble there, along with sacred rivers, forests, mountains, and other tīrthas. The Bhāgavata Māhātmya emphasizes the preeminent status of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa as the quintessential śāstra of the entire brahmanical canon by portraying the embodied forms of the other śāstras—including the Vedas, Upaniṣads, other seventeen Mahāpurāṇas, six Darśanas, and Tantras—as among those who come “running to drink the ambrosia (pīyūṣa) of the Śrī Bhāgavata, desirous of its nectar (rasa).”186 The Māhātmya insists that the seven-day yajña consisting of recitation of the Bhāgavata is more efficacious than countless Vedic yajñas and therefore obviates the need for reciting any other śāstras or performing any other rituals.187
Engaging Kṛṣna’s Mūrti Made of Speech
The Bhāgavata Māhātmya also elaborates on the Bhāgavata Purāṇa’s reflections concerning its transcendent status as the Kārṣṇa-Veda, the Veda that is identical with Kṛṣṇa. The Māhātmya declares that “this śāstra, the Bhāgavata, is the embodiment of Bhagavān (bhagavad-rūpa) on earth”188 and seeks to clarify why and how Kṛṣṇa assumed this embodied form as a text. It recounts the story of Kṛṣṇa’s last conversation with his friend and messenger Uddhava before he departs the earth and returns to his own abode (sva-pada). Uddhava laments that the dreadful Kali Yuga is imminent and asks how Kṛṣṇa’s bhaktas will endure the pain of separation (viyoga) when he withdraws his manifest form from the earth.189 In response to Uddhava’s lament, Kṛṣṇa enters into the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, investing it with his luminous energy (tejas), and leaves it behind on earth as his text-embodiment—his mūrti made of speech (vāṅ-mayī)—with which his bhaktas can engage in Kali Yuga.
He infused his own luminous energy (tejas) into the Bhāgavata and, disappearing, entered into the ocean (arṇava) of the Śrīmad Bhāgavata. This is therefore a manifest form of Hari made of speech (vāṅ-mayī mūrtiḥ pratyakṣā). When engaged through ritual worship (sevana), hearing (śravaṇa), recitation (pāṭha), or seeing (darśana), it destroys sins (pāpas). Hearing it in seven days (saptāha-śravaṇa) is the best practice of all, and this has been declared to be the most appropriate dharma in Kali Yuga, surpassing [all] other disciplines (sādhanas).190
This passage points to four modes of reception through which bhaktas can engage the Bhāgavata with the sensorium: in its oral-aural form as a collection of recited narratives that is made of vāc, speech, it is engaged through pāṭha or paṭhana, recitation, and śravaṇa, hearing; and in its written-visual form as a concrete book that is pratyakṣa, visible to the eyes, it functions as a mūrti of Kṛṣṇa that, like sculpted images, is venerated through darśana, seeing, and sevana, ritual worship. In other passages the Bhāgavata Māhātmya emphasizes that bhaktas should also engage the Bhāgavata through pāna, drinking, and svāda, relishing, its ambrosial nectar (amṛta or rasa) and through vicāraṇa, meditating. It asserts, moreover, that the Bhāgavata’s nectar is not available in the heavens; in satya-loka, the abode of Brahmā; in Kailāsa, the abode of Śiva; nor in Vaikuṇṭha, the abode of Viṣṇu. It is only available on earth, where Kṛṣṇa has manifested his mūrti made of speech, and therefore bhaktas should never cease from drinking (root pā) this precious elixir.191
The Bhāgavata Māhātmya devotes a major portion of its sixth and final chapter to delineating the procedures for conducting a saptāha-yajña, seven-day ritual recitation of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa.192 Although the yajña itself centers on reciting (pāṭha or paṭhana) and hearing (śravaṇa) the Bhāgavata in its oral-aural form as a collection of recited narratives, the seven-day ritual begins and ends with worship of the Bhāgavata in its written-visual form as a pustaka, book. The yajña is inaugurated with a pūjā to the book, including ritual offerings of incense, a ghee lamp, and a coconut, followed by a prayer in which the book is directly addressed, “You are Kṛṣṇa himself visible to the eyes (pratyakṣa) under the name of Śrīmad Bhāgavata.”193 The seven-day recitation of the Bhāgavata also concludes with ritual veneration of the book through pūjā.194 Following the conclusion of the seven-day ritual, the chief listener who has sponsored the saptāha-yajña is instructed to install the book, written in beautiful letters, on a throne of gold and, after duly worshiping the Śrīmad Bhāgavata as the localized embodiment of the deity, to present it as a gift to the reciter.195
The Bhāgavata Māhātmya’s portrayal of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa thus presents a vivid example of the Purāṇic “cult of the book” in which the book itself is ritually venerated as a text-incarnation of the deity that functions as a special kind of mūrti. Brown remarks:
The visible, verbal image, in the form of the book, is none other than an incarnation of God, parallel to the idea that an iconic image of God is also an incarnation (arcāvatāra) of the divine. The book, a manifestation of God’s grace and love for his devotees, is infused with his real presence. Seeing the book is tantamount to seeing God.… We see here in the “Bhāgavata Māhātmya” the complete transformation of the holy word from sound to image, from mantra to mūrti.196
The Bhāgavata Māhātmya declares that a person who properly reveres the Bhāgavata by placing the book, in which Kṛṣṇa himself is enshrined, on a throne of gold and presenting it as a gift to a Vaiṣṇava bhakta will attain union (sāyujya) with Kṛṣṇa.197
Fruits of Bhāgavata Saptāha
Although the Bhāgavata Māhātmya thus emphasizes the importance of engaging the Bhāgavata Purāṇa in its written-visual form through darśana, seeing, and sevana, ritual worship, it gives precedence to engaging the text in its oral-aural form through pāṭha or paṭhana, recitation, and śravaṇa, hearing. More specifically, the Bhāgavata Māhātmya emphasizes the fruits (phala) of reciting and hearing the Bhāgavata in its entirety, from beginning to end, over a seven-day period by participating in a Bhāgavata saptāha, which is ascribed the status of a saptāha-yajña, a seven-day yajña. Saptāha-śravaṇa, hearing the Bhāgavata in seven days, is extolled as the supreme dharma of Kali Yuga, which yields incomparable fruits that cannot be attained through any other form of sādhana.198
Those fruits (phala) that cannot be attained through austerities (tapas), through yoga, or through meditative absorption (samādhi) can all be easily attained through saptāha-śravaṇa. The saptāha is superior to sacrifices (yajñas). The saptāha is superior to vows (vratas). It is far superior to austerities (tapas), and it is ever superior to sacred places (tīrthas). The saptāha is superior to yoga, and it is superior to meditation (dhyāna) and jñāna. What shall we say about its superiority? O indeed it is superior to all!199
The Bhāgavata Māhātmya declares that the saptāha-yajña confers the fruits of ten million (one crore) Vedic yajñas,200 and this consummate yajña of Kali Yuga is open to all. Śūdras, women, and others who are excluded from participating in Vedic yajñas are invited to participate in the saptāha-yajña and to relish the fruits of hearing (phala-śruti) the recitation of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa.201
In its discussion of the specific fruits attained by participating in a Bhāgavata saptāha, the Bhāgavata Māhātmya repeatedly emphasizes the purifying power of this seven-day yajña, which derives from the nature of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa itself, “for there is nothing purer (nirmala) on earth than the narrative recited by Śuka.”202 Saptāha-śravaṇa, hearing the Bhāgavata and relishing its pure nectar over the course of a week, is the dharma prescribed in Kali Yuga for cleansing (root pū or root śudh) the hearts and minds of the listeners and for “washing away (prakṣālana) suffering, poverty, misfortune, and sins (pāpas) and conquering desire and anger.”203 The Bhāgavata saptāha is ascribed the power to destroy the entire mound of sins (pāpas, pātakas, or aghas) that the listener has accumulated in the course of innumerable lifetimes—“whether recent or old, minor or major sins (pāpas) incurred by means of thought, word, or action.”204 This seven-day yajña is held to be the only efficacious means of purifying even the most heinous of sinners in Kali Yuga.205
The Bhāgavata Māhātmya directly links the purifying power of a Bhāgavata saptāha to its liberating power, for when the listener’s mound of sins together with their residual karmic impressions are destroyed through hearing the seven-day recitation, the final knot of ignorance is severed and the listener attains liberation (mukti) from saṃsāric existence.
Through saptāha-śravaṇa all doubts are removed, karmic impressions are destroyed, and the knot in the heart is rent asunder. When the sacred water of this narrative (kathā-tīrtha)—which is efficacious in washing away (prakṣālana) the impurities and mire of saṃsāric existence—is established in one’s heart, the sages maintain that liberation (mukti) is ensured.206
Although the Bhāgavata Māhātmya thus extols the purifying and liberating power of a Bhāgavata saptāha, it declares that the seven-day recitation of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa is intended above all to establish bhakti as well as the object of bhakti—Kṛṣṇa himself—in the hearts of the participants.207 According to the frame narrative of the Bhāgavata Māhātmya, as discussed earlier, during the saptāha-yajña organized by Nārada and performed by the Kumāras, personified Bhakti spontaneously manifests out of the substance of the Bhāgavata’s narrative (kathārtha) and is nourished by its nectar (kathā-rasa).208 The frame narrative also emphasizes how during the saptāha-yajña Kṛṣṇa himself manifests in the midst of the assembly in his essential form as the flute-bearing cowherd, whose absolute body consists of transcendent bliss and consciousness (paramānanda-cin-mūrti) and is characterized by divine sweetness (madhura).209 At the conclusion of the Bhāgavata saptāha, the participants in the assembly—which includes hosts of bhaktas, ṛṣis, gods, and celestial beings—celebrate Kṛṣṇa’s presence in their midst by engaging in “transmundane (alaukika) kīrtana,” after which Kṛṣṇa grants them a boon: that in all future seven-day yajñas consisting of recitation of the Bhāgavata, he himself will appear along with his most celebrated bhaktas. Kṛṣṇa then disappears, and the assembly participants, ecstatic (prahṛṣṭa) from drinking (root pā) the ambrosial nectar of the Bhāgavata’s narrative (kathāmṛta), depart. “Hence,” the frame narrative concludes, “on account of their ritual worship (sevana) of the Bhāgavata, Hari becomes established in the hearts of Vaiṣṇavas.”210
The Bhāgavata Māhātmya thus seeks to illuminate the mechanisms through which a Bhāgavata saptāha serves as the most efficacious means of directly enlivening and engaging Kṛṣṇa’s living presence within the text. As discussed earlier, Kṛṣṇa is represented as having entered into the Śrīmad Bhāgavata, which is extolled as his mesocosmic form made of speech that is invested with his luminous energy (tejas). Recitation is ascribed mantric efficacy as the means of activating this reverberating speech-form and drawing Bhagavān’s hidden presence out of the text. Whenever and wherever a seven-day recitation of the Bhāgavata is performed, Kṛṣṇa himself spontaneously manifests along with bhakti and becomes established in the hearts of the participants. Moreover, the Bhāgavata Māhātmya proclaims that the participants in a saptāha-yajña ultimately attain the highest goal of human existence: realization of Kṛṣṇa211 and eternal residence in his transcendent abode, Kṛṣṇaloka or Goloka—a goal that is beyond the reach of even the most accomplished yogins and siddhas.212 “Glorious is the saptāha, which bestows as its fruit (phala) [residence in] Kṛṣṇaloka.”213
Sovereign of All Śāstras and Embodiment of Bhagavān: Gauḍīya Perspectives on the Bhāgavata Purāṇa
The early Gauḍīya authorities appropriate and expand upon the arguments of Purāṇic texts in order to establish the transcendent authority of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa as the consummate śāstra in the brahmanical canon of śruti and smṛti texts, which is celebrated above all for its special status as the embodiment of Bhagavān. The earliest Gauḍīya formulations of the Bhāgavata’s transcendent authority are ascribed to Caitanya himself and are elaborated in the teachings and practices of the Gosvāmins, culminating in the sustained arguments of Jīva Gosvāmin in the Tattva Sandarbha.
In the Caitanya Bhāgavata of Vṛndāvana Dāsa, the earliest Bengali hagiography of Caitanya’s life,214 Caitanya is portrayed as proclaiming that the Bhāgavata Purāṇa is “an avatāra of Kṛṣṇa in the form of a text” (grantha-rūpe Bhāgavata Kṛṣṇa-avatāra).215 Moreover, the Bhāgavata is extolled as one of four forms (vigrahas) of Kṛṣṇa that are intrinsically divine in that, in contrast to Kṛṣṇa’s sculpted images, or mūrtis, they do not need to be ritually consecrated in order to manifest his presence.216 In the Caitanya Caritāmṛta Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja ascribes to Caitanya perspectives on the Bhāgavata Purāṇa that resonate with the earlier hagiography of Vṛndāvana Dāsa, whom he praises as the “Vyāsa of the Caitanya līlā.”217 He represents Caitanya as expounding the transcendent truth (tattva) of the Śrīmad Bhāgavata and declaring its essential form (svarūpa) to be “identical with Kṛṣṇa” (Kṛṣṇa-tulya).218 He also singles out the Bhāgavata as one of four things that are ascribed the special status of tadīya, “belonging to Kṛṣṇa,” and are therefore worthy of veneration (sevā)—a notion that echoes the Caitanya Bhāgavata’s representation of the Bhāgavata as one of four forms of Kṛṣṇa that are intrinsically divine.219
Among the six Gosvāmins, Rūpa Gosvāmin and Jīva Gosvāmin, as the principal architects of the Gauḍīya theological edifice, provide arguments to ground Caitanya’s claims regarding the transcendent authority of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa and also delineate practices through which bhaktas can engage Kṛṣṇa’s text-avatāra. In the Bhaktirasāmṛtasindhu, as discussed in Chapters 1 and 2, Rūpa asserts that the Bhāgavata Purāṇa is one of five “transmundane (alaukika) forms” that are invested with inconceivable power (acintya śakti) because they are nondifferent from Kṛṣṇa and are therefore efficacious not only in stimulating the sthāyi-bhāva of Kṛṣṇa-rati, love for Kṛṣṇa, but also in manifesting the object of this love—Kṛṣṇa himself—on the gross material plane. He maintains in this context that the practice of engaging the Bhāgavata Purāṇa through savoring (āsvāda) its meanings (artha) is one of the five most effective practices for cultivating prema-rasa.220 Building on Rūpa’s reflections, Jīva provides extensive arguments in the Tattva Sandarbha to establish the transcendent authority of the Bhāgavata as the preeminent śāstra that is Kṛṣṇa’s “representative embodiment” (pratinidhi-rūpa) on earth.221 He also elaborates in the Tattva Sandarbha and Bhakti Sandarbha on the practices through which bhaktas can engage the Bhāgavata in both its oral-aural and written-visual forms.
Among the other Gosvāmins who ascribed central importance to the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, Raghunātha Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmin in particular was renowned for his devotion to the Bhāgavata, which found expression not in theological arguments regarding the Bhāgavata’s canonical authority but rather in the practice of Bhāgavata-paṭhana, recitation of the Bhāgavata, and exposition of its teachings. According to the Caitanya Caritāmṛta, Raghunātha Bhaṭṭa, as instructed by Caitanya, spent four years studying the Bhāgavata in Vārāṇasī and subsequently spent the rest of his life in Vṛndāvana blissfully absorbed in reciting and expounding the Bhāgavata in the assembly of Rūpa Gosvāmin and Sanātana Gosvāmin before the mūrti at the Govindadeva temple.222
In the following analysis I will focus primarily on the arguments regarding the transcendent authority of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa that Jīva sets forth in the Tattva Sandarbha, the opening volume of his six-volume Bhāgavata Sandarbha, in which he claims that the purpose of the Bhāgavata Sandarbha is to serve as a kind of commentary (bhāṣya-rūpa) expounding the meaning of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa.223 In order to substantiate his claims regarding the transcendent authority of the Bhāgavata, Jīva devotes the first part of the Tattva Sandarbha, the pramāṇa-khaṇḍa (sections 9–26), to epistemological concerns regarding pramāṇa, the authoritative means of valid knowledge. He uses philosophical arguments and prooftexts from śruti and smṛti—including a number of the Purāṇic traditions discussed earlier—in order to establish (1) the transcendent authority of the Veda (sections 10–11); (2) the Vedic status of the Purāṇas (sections 12–17); and (3) the special status of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa as the “sovereign (cakravartin) of all pramāṇas”224 and the “sovereign (cakravartin) of all śāstras”225 that contains the essential meaning of the Vedas, Itihāsas, and Purāṇas (sections 18–26).
Transcendent Authority of the Veda
Jīva Gosvāmin discusses the transcendent authority of the Veda in Tattva Sandarbha 10–11, which he explicates more fully in his commentary on these two sections in the Sarva-Saṃvādinī. To support his arguments concerning the authoritative status of the Vedas, Jīva makes use of the philosophical arguments of the exponents of Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā and Vedānta, the formal schools of Vedic exegesis, and also invokes the mythological representations of śruti and smṛti texts.
The Uncreated and Eternal Status of the Vedas
Jīva’s analysis builds upon and adapts the philosophical arguments developed by the Mīmāṃsakas and Vedāntins to establish the authoritative status of the Vedas as an infallible means of valid knowledge.
The central focus of the Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā philosophical project is the investigation of dharma as enjoined in the Veda, and thus the Mīmāṃsakas focus on the karma-kāṇḍa the section of the Vedas pertaining to action, with particular emphasis on the injunctive (vidhāyaka) portions of the Brāhmaṇas. In their expositions of dharma the Mīmāṃsakas are concerned to demonstrate the svataḥ-prāmāṇya, or intrinsic authority, of the Vedas as the only transcendent and infallible source of knowledge of dharma. In this context they developed three principal doctrines concerning the nature and status of Veda: (1) vedāpauruṣeyatva—the Vedas are not derived from any personal agent, human or divine, and are therefore uncreated; (2) vedānādi-nityatva—the Vedas are eternal and without beginning; and (3) veda-prāmāṇya—the Vedas are an authoritative means of valid knowledge. In order to prove that the Vedic statements are uncreated, eternal, and authoritative sources of knowledge, the Mīmāṃsakas developed an elaborate philosophy of language regarding the nature of śabda, word; the relationship between word and meaning (śabdārtha-sambandha); and the nature of sentence meaning (vākyārtha). They are concerned in particular to prove the eternality of śabda and to establish that in the case of Vedic words there is an inherent (autpattika) and eternal (nitya) connection (sambandha) between the word (śabda) and its meaning (artha), between the name (nāman) and the form (rūpa) that it signifies. The foundations of the Mīmāṃsaka philosophy of language are established in the Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā-Sūtras (c. 300–200 BCE), attributed to the sage Jaimini. This philosophy of language was further explained and elaborated in the earliest known commentary on the Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā-Sūtras by Śabara, the Śābara-Bhāṣya (c. 200 CE). Śabara’s Bhāṣya was in turn commented on by Prabhākara (seventh century CE) and Kumārila Bhaṭṭa (seventh century CE), from whom two divergent schools of Mīmāṃsā developed.226
Whereas the Mīmāṃsakas focus on the karma-kāṇḍa, the section of the Vedas pertaining to action, the exponents of Vedānta are primarily concerned with the jñāna-kāṇḍa, the section of the Vedas pertaining to knowledge, and in particular the knowledge of Brahman as expounded in the Upaniṣads. Despite fundamental differences in their philosophical positions, the exponents of the three main schools of Vedānta—the Advaita school of Śaṃkara (c. 788–820 CE), the Viśiṣṭādvaita school of Rāmānuja (1017–1137 CE), and the Dvaita school of Madhva (1238–1317 CE)—generally adopt the principal doctrines of the Mīmāṃsaka philosophy of language in order to establish that the Vedas are apauruṣeya, uncreated; nitya, eternal; and prāmāṇya, authoritative. However, in contrast to the nontheistic Mīmāṃsakas, who maintain that the world is beginningless, eternal, and has no creator, the Vedāntins argue that the cosmos is subject to never-ending cycles of creation and dissolution and that there is a creator who brings forth the universe in each new cycle. The nonexistence of a creator, or of any omniscient being, is one of the central arguments used by the Mīmāṃsakas to establish the apauruṣeyatva of the Vedas. In opposition to the Mīmāṃsakas, the Vedāntins maintain that the apauruṣeyatva and nityatva of the Vedas are not incompatible with the existence of a creator. In his Brahma-Sūtra Bhāṣya Śaṃkara goes even further and invokes prooftexts from śruti and smṛti to establish that the Vedas serve as the eternal plan that the creator employs in every kalpa in order to bring forth the forms and phenomena of creation in accordance with a fixed pattern. Moreover, whereas the Mīmāṃsakas do not discuss the relationship between the Vedas and Brahman, Śaṃkara is concerned to establish that Brahman is the ultimate source of the eternal Vedas.227
In Tattva Sandarbha 10–11, together with his commentary on these two sections in the Sarva-Saṃvādinī, Jīva invokes the technical terminology and doctrines of the Mīmāṃsakas and the arguments of the Vedāntins in order to establish the transcendent authority of the Veda as an infallible source of knowledge.228 In Tattva Sandarbha 10 he declares that the Vedas, which consist of nonmaterial speech (aprākṛta-vacana) and have been passed down through a beginningless tradition of oral transmission (paramparā), are the only reliable pramāṇa, for they alone are the source of all mundane (laukika) and transmundane (alaukika) knowledge. In his commentary on Tattva Sandarbha 10–11, Jīva cites the Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā-Sūtras as well as the commentaries of Śabara and Kumārila and appropriates Mīmāṃsā terminology in order to establish that the Vedas are apauruṣeya, uncreated; nitya, eternal, and anādi, without beginning; and svataḥ-prāmāṇya, intrinsically authoritative. He also refers to the Mīmāṃsaka doctrine that in Vedic words there is an inherent connection (autpattika sambandha) between śabda and artha, the word and its meaning.229
While Jīva thus invokes the central doctrines of the Mīmāṃsaka philosophy of language, at the same time he departs in significant ways from the Mīmāṃsakas. In particular, like the Vedāntins, he rejects the Mīmāṃsaka view that there is no creation and no creator and insists instead that the Vedas manifest at the beginning of each new cycle of creation and serve as the primordial utterances through which the creator principle, Prajāpati or Brahmā, brings forth the phenomenal world.230 Moreover, recalling Śaṃkara’s arguments regarding the Vedas and Brahman, Jīva argues that the ultimate source from which the eternal Vedas manifest again and again at the beginning of each new cycle is Bhagavān, the supreme Godhead.
That [śabda] is none other than the śāstra, the Veda itself, manifesting without beginning (anādi) as that uncreated (apauruṣeya) speech which appears (root bhū + āvir) again and again at the beginning of each creation, manifesting without beginning (anādi) from the cause of all, Bhagavān. That [Veda] is considered free from the defects of confusion.… That [Veda] alone is an infallible means of valid knowledge (pramāṇa).231
In his discussion of the uncreated and eternal status of the Vedas, their cosmogonic role in creation, and the authoritative status of all Vedic statements, Jīva follows closely Śaṃkara’s commentary on the Brahma-Sūtras and also cites the commentary on Śaṃkara’s Brahma-Sūtra Bhāṣya by Vācaspati Miśra (ninth century CE), the founder of the Bhāmatī school of Advaita Vedānta.232 In addition, he cites the commentaries on the Brahma-Sūtras by Rāmānuja and Madhva.233
While Jīva thus frequently invokes the authorities of Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā and Vedānta to support his arguments regarding the apauruṣeyatva, nityatva, and svataḥ-prāmāṇya of the Vedas, his arguments are embedded in a distinctive discursive framework that diverges from both the Mīmāṃsakas’ discourse of dharma and the Vedāntins’ discourse of jñāna about Brahman and focuses instead on the discourse of bhakti. As we shall see, Jīva’s discussion of the transcendent authority of the Veda is only the first phase of a three-phase argument that will lead, in the second phase, to his ascribing Vedic status to the Purāṇas generally and that will culminate, in the third and final phase of his argument, with the assertion that the Bhāgavata Purāṇa is the “sovereign of all śāstras” that surpasses all the Vedas and the Purāṇas in its unique status as the embodiment of Bhagavān. Even in the course of the first phase of his argument, when discussing the authoritative status of the Vedas, Jīva occasionally interjects his distinctive Gauḍīya perspective on bhakti into the discussion. For example, in one passage, after asserting that the Vedas are apauruṣeyatva and nityatva, he goes on to argue that even the eternal associates (pārṣadas) of Bhagavān—who, like the Lord himself, are beyond the illusory power of the māyā-śakti—delight in reciting the Sāma-Veda and other Vedas while immersed in the supreme bliss (paramānanda) of bhakti, which transcends the bliss of Brahman. Moreover, Jīva maintains that Bhagavān himself utilizes his own Vedic ordinances when he sets in motion the process of creation at the beginning of each new cycle.234
Vedas in Creation and Cognition
To ground his arguments concerning the Veda in the canonical authority of the śāstras, Jīva cites prooftexts from śruti and smṛti, many of which he draws from the commentaries on the Brahma-Sūtras by Śaṃkara, Rāmānuja, and Madhva. In this context Jīva mentions a number of themes that are of central importance in the mythological representations found in Vedic, epic, and Purāṇic texts concerning the cosmogonic role of the Vedas and the process of Vedic transmission.235 Four themes are of particular interest because they resonate with the themes that are emphasized in the Purāṇic representations of the Veda discussed earlier.
First, as we have seen, Jīva associates the Vedas with Bhagavān, the supreme Godhead, who is represented as the ultimate source from which the eternal Vedas manifest at the beginning of each cycle of creation. Moreover, he claims that Bhagavān utilizes the Vedas when he wishes to initiate the process of creation.236
Second, Jīva connects the Vedas with the creator principle, Prajāpati or Brahmā. Building on the arguments of Śaṃkara, Rāmānuja, and Madhva, he cites prooftexts from the Ṛg-Veda, Brāhmaṇas, and Mahābhārata to establish that the creator makes use of the eternal Vedic words as the archetypal plan from which he brings forth the names, forms, and functions of all beings according to the same fixed pattern in every cycle of creation.
In the beginning the self-born lord [Brahmā] sent forth speech (vāc), which was without beginning or end, eternal (nitya), and divine and which consisted of the Vedas (veda-mayī), from which all manifestations are derived. In the beginning the great lord formed from the words (śabdas) of the Vedas alone the names of the ṛṣis and the various creations designated in the Vedas.237
Third, Jīva discusses the role of the Vedic ṛṣis in cognizing and transmitting the primordial sound impulses of the Vedas at the beginning of each new cycle of yugas. He cites verses from the Ṛg-Veda and Mahābhārata to substantiate his argument that the ṛṣis are not the authors of the Vedas but are simply the vehicles through which the eternal sound impulses are manifested and preserved: “The eternally manifesting śabda of the Vedas simply entered into the various [ṛṣis] rather than being composed by them.”238
Finally, in later sections of the Tattva Sandarbha, Jīva connects the Vedas to the supreme ṛṣi among ṛṣis, Veda-Vyāsa. As we shall see, he cites passages from various Purāṇas to establish Vyāsa’s role in dividing the one primordial Veda into four Saṃhitās,239 in compiling the extended “Vedic” canon of Purāṇas,240 and in cognizing and recording the Bhāgavata Purāṇa as the consummate śāstra that is the essence of the entire canon of śruti and smṛti texts.241
In Tattva Sandarbha 12–17 Jīva Gosvāmin develops the second phase of his argument, in which he extends the Vedic canon beyond the circumscribed corpus of śruti texts and ascribes Vedic status to the Purāṇas. In his opening reflections in Tattva Sandarbha 12, which he explains further in the Sarva-Saṃvādinī, Jīva notes that the meaning of Vedic śabda is difficult to comprehend in the present age of Kali Yuga because the entire corpus of the Vedas is no longer available and human beings have more limited intelligence than in previous ages. He therefore suggests that we turn our attention to the śabda of the Itihāsas and Purāṇas, which are Vedic in form (veda-rūpa) and can serve to elucidate the meaning of the Vedas (vedārtha). He asserts, moreover, that the Itihāsas and Purāṇas are the best source of valid knowledge in Kali Yuga.242
The Uncreated and Eternal Status of the “Fifth Veda”
Jīva invokes the philosophical terminology of the Mīmāṃsakas as well as prooftexts from śruti and smṛti to substantiate his argument that the Itihāsas and Purāṇas are nondifferent from the Vedas and therefore can legitimately claim the status of the “fifth Veda.”
Jīva supports his claim that the Itihāsas and Purāṇas partake of the nature of the Vedas by using two key Mīmāṃsa terms to describe these smṛti texts that both the Mīmāṃsakas and the Vedāntins reserve for śruti texts alone: apauruṣeya and nitya. He asserts that the Itihāsas and Purāṇas are nondifferent (abheda) from the Vedas in that all these texts are apauruṣeya, uncreated. Although nondifferent, these three categories of texts are assigned different names on account of the fact that the Vedic texts use accents and a distinctive word order that are not found in the Itihāsas and Purāṇas.243 Jīva invokes a prooftext from śruti in support of his argument that the Itihāsas and Purāṇas share in the apauruṣeyatva of the Vedas: Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.4.10, which depicts the Itihāsa and Purāṇa as being “breathed forth” from the great Being (bhūta) along with the Ṛg-Veda, Yajur-Veda, Sāma-Veda, and Atharva-Veda.244 Jīva suggests further that the Purāṇas share in the nityatva of the Vedas. He substantiates this claim with a passage from the Skanda Purāṇa, which represents the primordial Purāṇa as nonchanging (dhruva) and eternal (nitya) śabda that issues forth in the beginning of creation from the mouth of the creator Brahmā after the Vedas manifest (root bhū + āvir).245 In his earlier discussion of the apauruṣeyatva and nityatva of the Vedas, Jīva emphasized how the Vedas manifest (root bhū + āvir) periodically at the beginning of each cycle of creation,246 and he argues in a parallel manner that while the Purāṇas are at times manifest (āvir-bhāva) and at other times unmanifest (tiro-bhāva), they cannot thereby be considered noneternal (anityatva).247
Jīva focuses in particular on the special status of the Itihāsas and Purāṇas as the fifth Veda that together with the four Vedas—Ṛg-Veda, Yajur-Veda, Sāma-Veda, and Atharva-Veda—constitute the expanded Vedic canon. He substantiates this part of his argument with evidence from both the Itihāsas and the Purāṇas. He cites, for example, the passage from the Bhāgavata Purāṇa that depicts the four Vedas as issuing forth in succession from the four mouths of the creator Brahmā, after which the Itihāsas and Purāṇas issue forth from all his mouths together as the fifth Veda.248 He also cites a verse from the Mahābhārata in which the epic claims for itself the status of the fifth Veda.249 In addition, Jīva grounds his argument in the canonical authority of śruti by citing a passage from the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, which provides an enumeration of brahmanical sacred texts and sciences that begins with “the Ṛg-Veda, the Yajur-Veda, the Sāma-Veda, the Atharvaṇa as the fourth, Itihāsa and Purāṇa as the fifth Veda among the Vedas.…”250
In his discussion of the Vedic status of the Itihāsas and Purāṇas, Jīva emphasizes the special status of the Purāṇas, which he declares to be more important than the Itihāsas—and even more important than the Vedas.251 He cites prooftexts from the Purāṇas, such as the following passage from the Skanda Purāṇa, in order to establish that the Purāṇas provide a nonchanging base of knowledge that serves as a firm foundation for the Vedas and that illumines and supplements the meaning of both śruti and smṛti texts.
O best of brahmins, I consider the significance of the Purāṇas to be nonchanging (niścala) like the Vedas. The Vedas are all founded (pratiṣṭhita) on the Purāṇas, about this there is no doubt. The Veda is afraid of one with little knowledge, thinking, “He will disrupt me.” But it [the Veda] was rendered nonchanging (niścala) in the beginning by means of the Itihāsas and Purāṇas. For that which is not found in the Vedas is found in the smṛtis, O brahmins, and that which is not found in either of them is extolled in the Puṛānas. O brahmins, he who knows the four Vedas with their subsidiary limbs (aṅgas) and Upaniṣads but who does not know the Purāṇa is not truly learned.252
Primordial Purāṇa as Primordial Veda
One of the strategies deployed by Jīva to invest the Purāṇas with Vedic authority is to assert their primordial origins. In this context he invokes the two alternative traditions regarding the origins of the Purāṇas that I discussed in an earlier section.253 However, as we shall see, an important difference distinguishes Jīva’s approach from that of the Purāṇas. Whereas the Purāṇas are primarily concerned to emulate the Vedic paradigm by providing accounts of their origins that parallel accounts of the Veda, Jīva’s objectives are twofold: first, to establish that the eighteen Purāṇas are nondifferent from the primordial Purāṇa and, second, to establish that the primordial Purāṇa is nondifferent from the primordial Veda.
With respect to his first objective, Jīva argues that the primordial Purāṇa extolled in the Upaniṣads and in Purāṇic accounts is in the final analysis not different from the eighteen Purāṇas compiled by Vyāsa. In his discussion of Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.4.10, mentioned earlier, which portrays the Itihāsa and Purāṇa as being breathed forth from the great Being along with the four Vedas, Jīva is concerned to refute the argument that the terms Itihāsa and Purāṇa refer, respectively, to historical and mythological materials that are found in the four Vedas themselves and do not refer to the Mahābhārata and the eighteen Purāṇas compiled by Vyāsa.254 Both the Mīmāṃsakas and Śaṃkara adopt this more circumscribed interpretation of the terms Itihāsa and Purāṇa in this context, although Jīva does not explicitly make reference to their positions.255 In any case, he refutes this argument by citing the following passage from the Skanda Purāṇa concerning the primordial Purāṇa:
In the beginning Brahmā, the grandfather of the gods, practiced intense tapas. As a result the Vedas manifested (root bhū + āvir) along with the six Vedāṅgas and the pada and krama methods of Vedic recitation. Then from Brahmā’s mouth issued forth the undivided Purāṇa, containing all the śāstras, nonchanging (dhruva), consisting of eternal śabda (nitya-śabda-maya), holy, having the extent of a hundred crores [of ślokas]. Listen to the divisions of that [Purāṇa]. The Brahma Purāṇa is first.…256
This passage recalls the passage quoted earlier from the Matsya Purāṇa, which similarly portrays the primordial Purāṇa as eternal śabda that consists of one billion (one hundred crores) ślokas.257 However, whereas in the Matsya Purāṇa’s account the primordial Purāṇa emerges from Brahmā as the first of all the śāstras, prior to the Vedas, in the Skanda Purāṇa’s account the primordial Purāṇa issues forth from Brahmā after the Vedas. Irrespective of whether the primordial Purāṇa emerges before or after the Vedas, Jīva invokes the Skanda Purāṇa passage to establish that it is this undivided primordial totality that is divided up to form the eighteen Purāṇas, beginning with the Brahma Purāṇa: “Listen to the divisions of that [Purāṇa]. The Brahma Purāṇa is first.…” In other words, the eighteen Purāṇas are simply the differentiated expressions of the undivided Purāṇa and are in that sense nondifferent from the primordial totality.
Jīva provides further scriptural evidence to support his argument by invoking the Purāṇic tradition, discussed earlier, that ascribes to Veda-Vyāsa, a partial manifestation of Bhagavān, the role of condensing and dividing the primordial Purāṇa to form the eighteen Puraṇas. He cites the Matsya Purāṇa’s account of this tradition, which represents the Lord as assuming the form of Vyāsa in every Dvāpara Yuga and creating an abridged edition of the primordial Purāṇa in order to compensate for the diminished capacity of human beings to comprehend the original unabridged version. Vyāsa condensed the primordial Purāṇa consisting of one billion ślokas into an abridged edition of 400,000 (four lakhs) ślokas, which he then divided into eighteen Puraṇas. While the original Purāṇa of one billion ślokas continues to manifest in the realm of the gods, the abridged edition manifests in the realm of mortals as a concise version of the original.258 After citing the Matsya Purāṇa’s account, Jīva concludes by asserting that the abridged edition of 400,000 ślokas that is accessible to human beings in the form of the eighteen Purāṇas contains the most significant portions of the primordial Purāṇa and is thus not a distinct composition.259
Having established that the eighteen Purāṇas are nondifferent from the primordial Purāṇa, Jīva seeks to establish that the primordial Purāṇa is nondifferent from the primordial Veda. To attain this objective he invokes the alternative tradition concerning the origins of the Purāṇas, discussed earlier, which relates how Vyāsa divided the primordial Veda by separating out the four types of mantras to form the four Vedic Saṃhitās and the functions of their respective priests, after which he compiled the Purāṇa Saṃhitā from narratives (ākhyānas), episodes (upākhyānas), and verses (gāthās).260 Jīva cites a redacted version of the Vāyu Purāṇa’s account of this tradition—selectively including certain verses while leaving others out—which allows him to shape the passage to support his own distinctive interpretation, in which he identifies the primordial Veda with the Yajur-Veda and argues that the Purāṇa Saṃhitā is the “left-over portion” (śiṣṭa) that remained after the four Vedic Saṃhitās were formed and thus constitutes a part of the original Yajur-Veda.
There was one Yajur-Veda. He [Vyāsa] divided it into four parts. From that [fourfold division] arose the four priestly functions by means of which he organized the sacrifice (yajña). Along with the yajuses came the function of the adhvaryu priest; with the ṛcs, that of the hotṛ priest; with the sāmans, that of the udgātṛ priest; and with the atharvans, that of the brahman priest.… Proficient in the meaning of the Purāṇas, he compiled the Purāṇa Saṃhitā from narratives (ākhyānas), episodes (upākhyānas), and verses (gāthās), O best of brahmins. This left-over portion (śiṣṭa) is also Yajur-Veda.… This is the definitive pronouncement of the śāstras.261
Through his creative appropriation of this Vāyu Purāṇa account, Jīva suggests that after Vyāsa separated out the four types of mantras—ṛcs, yajuses, sāmans, and atharvans—from the primordial Yajur-Veda, certain materials remained—ākhyānas, upākhyānas, and gāthās—from which he compiled the Purāṇa Saṃhitā. The Purāṇa Saṃhitā is thus the “left-over portion” of the original Yajur-Veda.
In his discussion of the Vedic status of the Purāṇas, Jīva thus invokes the two alternative Purāṇic traditions regarding their own origins that I discussed earlier: (1) he cites the Matsya Purāṇa’s account of the primordial Purāṇa, variants of which are found in the Śiva, Nārada, Padma, and Liṅga Purāṇas; and (2) he cites the Vāyu Purāṇa’s account of the Purāṇa Saṃhitā, variants of which are found in the Brahmāṇḍa and Viṣṇu Purāṇas.262 As Coburn has noted, while the first tradition emphasizes the divine origin of the Purāṇas and represents Vyāsa as the “editor of a divine Purāṇa,” the second tradition emphasizes the human origin of the Purāṇas and represents Vyāsa as the “mortal arranger of previously existing material.”263 However, in Jīva’s creative appropriation there is no conflict between these two traditions regarding the origins of the Purāṇas. After citing the Vāyu Purāṇa’s account of the Purāṇa Saṃhitā, he cites the Matsya Purāṇa’s account of the primordial Purāṇa, and through this juxtaposition he suggests that the Purāṇa Saṃhitā and the primordial Purāṇa are not different but, on the contrary, are identical. The Purāṇa Saṃhitā that is the left-over portion of the original Yajur-Veda is identical with the primordial Purāṇa of one billion ślokas that Vyāsa condensed into an abridged edition and then divided into eighteen Purāṇas. Jīva thereby establishes that the primordial Purāṇa ( = Purāṇa Saṃhitā) is nondifferent from the primordial Veda ( = original Yajur-Veda) of which it constitutes a portion, from which it follows that the eighteen Purāṇas, which are nondifferent from the primordial Purāṇa, also have a legitimate claim to Vedic status.264
Transcendent Authority of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa
In Tattva Sandarbha 18–26 Jīva Gosvāmin develops the third and final phase of his argument, in which he seeks to establish the transcendent authority of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa as the preeminent scripture of the entire canon of śāstras and the embodiment of Bhagavān. At the end of Tattva Sandarbha 17, after establishing the authorititative status of the Purāṇas, he raises a problem regarding the Purāṇas as a whole. He notes that the Purāṇas, like the Vedas, are difficult to comprehend by the less intelligent human beings of Kali Yuga because they are not available in their complete forms and they also present divergent views regarding the supremacy of different deities. In Tattva Sandarbha 18 Jīva proposes that this problem could be resolved by locating a single Purāṇa that fulfills the following list of criteria:
This [problem] would be resolved if there were one [scripture] that has the characteristics of a Purāṇa; is uncreated (apauruṣeya); contains the essential meaning (artha-sāra) of all the Vedas, Itihāsas, and Purāṇas; rests on the Brahma-Sūtras; and is available in its complete form on earth.265
Jīva concludes that the one scripture that fulfills all of these criteria is the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, which he declares to be the “sovereign (cakravartin) of all pramāṇas”266 and the “sovereign (cakravartin) of all śāstras.”267
In Tattva Sandarbha 19–26 Jīva marshals a variety of arguments and scriptural evidence to substantiate his claim that the Bhāgavata Purāṇa fulfills each of these criteria—in particular, that it is the consummate apauruṣeya śāstra that contains the essential meaning of both śruti and smṛti texts and that has its basis in the Brahma-Sūtras. The major portion of his analysis takes the form of an extended commentary on the following unidentified passage from the Garuḍa Purāṇa:
This [text] is utterly perfect. It contains the meaning of the Brahma-Sūtras and establishes the meaning of the Mahābhārata. It serves as a commentary (bhāṣya) on the gāyatrī, it supplements the meaning of the Vedas, it is the Sāma-Veda of the Purāṇas, and it was spoken directly by Bhagavān. Consisting of twelve books, hundreds of chapters, and 18,000 verses, this text (grantha) is called Śrīmad Bhāgavata.268
Bhāgavata Purāṇa as the Sovereign of All Śāstras
To support his claim that the Bhāgavata Purāṇa is the sovereign of all śāstras, Jīva parses the Garuḍa Purāṇa passage and his own list of criteria in Tattva Sandarbha 18, elaborating on each of the characteristics that distinguishes the Bhāgavata as the preeminent scripture of the brahmanical canon. He invokes at times the self-representations of the Bhāgavata itself to substantiate his arguments.
Jīva first establishes the Bhāgavata Purāṇa’s unrivaled status among the Purāṇas. He declares the Bhāgavata to be the most sāttvic of the Purāṇas269 and the most profound (guhya) of the Purāṇas, revealing the deepest mysteries of existence.270 The Bhāgavata contains the essential meaning (artha-sāra) of all the Purāṇas,271 and therefore a bhakta who recites daily even a single verse obtains the fruits (phala) of all eighteen Purāṇas.272 Commenting on the Garuḍa Purāṇa’s characterization of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa as the Sāma-Veda of the Purāṇas,273 Jīva asserts that just as the Sāma-Veda is the most illustrious of the Vedas, so the Bhāgavata is the most illustrious of the Purāṇas. Moreover, he goes so far as to claim that just as the Sāma-Veda reconciles the statements of the various sections (kāṇḍas) of the Vedas by showing that they convey a single message, so the Bhāgavata reconciles the divergent views of the various Purāṇas by showing that they all ultimately glorify Bhagavān.274
Jīva is also concerned to establish the Bhāgavata Purāṇa’s paramount status in relation to the second major category of smṛti texts: the Itihāsas, and in particular the Mahābhārata. He suggests that the Bhāgavata contains the essential meaning (artha-sāra) of the Itihāsas275 and provides scriptural evidence to support this assertion by invoking the Bhāgavata’s own claim that it is the concentrated essence (sāra) extracted from the Itihāsas.276 Commenting on the Garuḍa Purāṇa’s statement that the Bhāgavata establishes the meaning of the Mahābhārata,277 Jīva substantiates this claim by showing that the true import of the epic, like that of the Bhāgavata, centers on Hari, the supreme Bhagavān.278 He cites two verses from the Bhāgavata that emphasize that the Mahābhārata’s purpose is to narrate stories (kathā) about Hari that are intended for the general populace, including śūdras, women, and others who are excluded from access to the Vedic Saṃhitās. In this way, Jīva argues, the Mahābhārata is of “equal weight” (tulyatva) to the Vedas in that it provides a path to salvation for those who are excluded from the Vedic path.279
Having established the Bhāgavata Purāṇa’s preeminence among smṛti texts, Jīva is also concerned to establish the Bhāgavata’s sovereign status among śruti texts. He asserts that the Bhāgavata contains the essential meaning (artha-sāra) not only of the Itihāsas and Purāṇas but also of the Vedas.280 He invokes in this context the Bhāgavata’s own self-representations, discussed in an earlier section, in which it proclaims itself the “ripe fruit (phala) of the wish-fulfilling tree of Veda” that is full of ambrosial nectar (amṛta or rasa)281 and the concentrated essence (sāra) extracted from all the Vedas.282 Jīva ultimately claims that this śruti pertaining to Kṛṣṇa (sātvatī śruti),283 which is the essence of the entire corpus of śruti texts,284 is the highest form of śruti (parama-śruti-rūpatva), for as the sovereign of all pramāṇas the Bhāgavata possesses its own intrinsic authority independent of the Vedas.285 Commenting on the Garuḍa Purāṇa’s assertion that the Bhāgavata supplements the meaning of the Vedas,286 he suggests, moreover, that the Bhāgavata expands on the Vedas by giving luxuriant expression to that supreme reality which he claims is the central import not only of the Itihāsas and Purāṇas but also of the Vedas: Bhagavān.287
As part of his argument regarding the Bhāgavata Purāṇa’s unique status as the highest form of śruti, Jīva also seeks to clarify the Bhāgavata’s relationship to the gāyatrī mantra, the “seminal text (sūtra) that contains the meaning of all the Vedas.”288 This three-lined Vedic mantra is recited daily by male members of the three twice-born varṇas and is celebrated in brahmanical texts as the seed expression of the four Vedas.289 Jīva invokes passages from the Matsya Purāṇa and the Skanda Purāṇa that characterize the Bhāgavata as based on the gāyatrī,290 and he also comments at length on the Garuḍa Purāṇa’s statement that the Bhāgavata is a commentary (bhāṣya) on the gāyatrī.291 Through his extended analysis he seeks to establish, first, that the opening verse of the Bhāgavata alludes to the gāyatrī mantra292 and, second, that the Bhāgavata as a whole provides an extended commentary on this most important of Vedic mantras.293 He claims in this context that the gāyatrī mantra, like the broader Vedic corpus, is concerned with Bhagavān: “Since the text (grantha) known as the Śrīmad Bhāgavata and characterized as ‘based on the gāyatrī’ is concerned with Bhagavān alone, it serves as a commentary (bhāṣya) on the gāyatrī, which is also concerned with Bhagavān.”294
Bhāgavata Purāṇa as the Uncreated Commentary on the Brahma-Sūtras
To establish the transcendent authority of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa as the highest form of śruti, Jīva must demonstrate not only that the Bhāgavata is the sovereign of all śāstras but also that it is the sovereign of all pramāṇas.295 He must demonstrate that the Bhāgavata, like the Vedas, is apauruṣeya, uncreated,296 and is therefore a transcendent and infallible source of valid knowledge. To accomplish this objective he argues that the renowned ṛṣi Vyāsa, like the Vedic ṛṣis, was not the author of the Bhāgavata but was simply the vehicle through which the transcendent knowledge manifested. Like the Vedic ṛṣis, Vyāsa is represented as cognizing in meditation through the subtle faculty of “seeing” (root dṛś) certain suprasensible phenomena, which he then recorded in the form of a text (grantha). However, whereas the Vedic ṛṣis cognized the Vedic mantras reverberating forth from the light-filled realms of the gods, Vyāsa is represented as attaining a direct visionary experience of that supreme reality which is the ultimate source of the Vedic mantras and all the gods: Kṛṣṇa, svayaṃ Bhagavān.
Jīva emphasizes that the Bhāgavata Purāṇa manifested (root bhū + āvir) in Vyāsa’s mind when he was immersed in the depths of meditation in samādhi, and therefore it is apauruṣeya in that it was not composed by Vyāsa or by any other agent.297 He provides an extended analysis of Vyāsa’s experience in samādhi as depicted in Bhāgavata Purāṇa 1.7.4, quoted earlier: “In his mind, freed of impurity by bhakti-yoga and completely collected, he saw (root dṛś) the primordial (pūrva) Puruṣa.” Jīva gives precedence to an alternative reading of this verse found in some manuscripts in which pūrṇa Puruṣa is given in place of pūrva Puruṣa, and he interprets “he saw the pūrṇa Puruṣa” to mean that Vyāsa saw Bhagavān. He maintains that Vyāsa obtained a direct visionary experience of Kṛṣṇa, svayaṃ Bhagavān, in his complete fullness (pūrṇa) and in his essential nature together with his svarūpa-śakti, beyond the material realm of prakṛti. Moreover, he suggests that Vyāsa’s cognitions of Kṛṣṇa also included Paramātman and Brahman, which are subsumed within Bhagavān as partial aspects of his totality. Vyāsa subsequently recorded his cognitions of Kṛṣṇa and his līlā in the form of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, the śruti pertaining to Kṛṣṇa.298
In discussing the mechanisms of Vyāsa’s cognitions, Jīva claims that the Bhāgavata manifested in stages. It first manifested (root bhū + āvir) in a subtle (sūkṣma) form in Vyāsa’s mind. It then appeared in a condensed form as the Brahma-Sūtras. Finally, it manifested (prakaṭita) in its fully expanded form as the Śrīmad Bhāgavata. In this way, Jīva argues, the Bhāgavata serves as a natural (akṛtrima) and self-revealed (svataḥ-siddha) commentary (bhāṣya) on the Brahma-Sūtras and establishes the authoritative standard against which all other commentaries must be judged.299 Moreover, he claims that all the great exponents of Vedānta, including even Śaṃkara himself, recognize the unrivaled authority of the Bhāgavata as the apauruṣeya exposition of Vedānta.300
Bhāgavata Purāṇa as the Embodiment of Bhagavān
In support of his claim that the Bhāgavata Purāṇa is the sovereign of all śāstras, as we have seen, Jīva returns repeatedly to his fundamental premise: the central import of both śruti and smṛti texts is Bhagavān, and since the Bhāgavata’s principal aim is to expound the glories of Bhagavān, it can thereby serve to illumine the “interconnections (samanvaya) among all the śāstras.”301 “In the Vedas, Rāmāyaṇa, Purāṇas, and Mahābhārata Hari is extolled everywhere—in the beginning, the middle, and the end.”302 Therefore, Jīva argues, rather than attempting to master this voluminous collection of śāstras, those who seek to know the supreme reality in the present age of Kali Yuga should focus their studies on the śruti pertaining to Kṛṣṇa, the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, which encapsulates the teachings of the entire canon of śruti and smṛti texts in a single volume.303 Among the many śāstras of this vast canon, the Bhāgavata is the only scripture that adequately illuminates the nature of the supreme reality.304
Throughout the course of his analysis Jīva thus repeatedly suggests that the transcendent authority of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa derives first and foremost from its special relationship to Kṛṣṇa, svayaṃ Bhagavān. He ultimately claims that this śruti that pertains to Kṛṣṇa, illuminating the nature of the supreme reality, is in the final analysis nondifferent from Kṛṣṇa in its unique status as Bhagavān’s self-revelation. The Bhāgavata is “spoken directly by Bhagavān” as his self-revelation to the creator Brahmā at the beginning of each cycle of creation,305 and it is again manifested by Bhagavān to himself in the form of his partial manifestation Vyāsa in Dvāpara Yuga.306 Finally, at the onset of Kali Yuga, when Kṛṣṇa returns to his transcendent abode after completing his sojourn on earth, he leaves behind the Bhāgavata as his “representative embodiment” (pratinidhi-rūpa) on earth in Kali Yuga.
The glorious Bhāgavata is superior to all [śāstras].… It is indeed the representative embodiment (pratinidhi-rūpa) of Kṛṣṇa. As stated in the first book [of the Bhāgavata]: “Now that Kṛṣṇa has departed for his own abode (svadhāman) along with dharma, knowledge, and so on, this Purāṇa has risen like the sun for the sake of those who are bereft of sight in Kali Yuga.”307
Fashioning Devotional Bodies through Engaging the Bhāgavata
Jīva Gosvāmin’s assertion that the Bhāgavata Purāṇa is the “representative embodiment” (pratinidhi-rūpa) of Kṛṣṇa on earth points to two principal functions of the text: as the śruti that represents Kṛṣṇa in that its semantic content comprises narratives about him, and as the śruti that embodies Kṛṣṇa in that it manifests him, disclosing Bhagavān’s living presence in the localized form of a text. Jīva’s claims regarding the special status of the Bhāgavata as Kṛṣṇa’s mesocosmic text-embodiment build on a pivotal notion articulated by Rūpa Gosvāmin in the Bhaktirasāmṛtasindhu. As discussed earlier, Rūpa invests the Bhāgavata with the status of a “transmundane (alaukika) form” that is nondifferent from Kṛṣṇa and is therefore capable of manifesting him on the gross material plane.308 The practices through which bhaktas engage the Śrīmad Bhāgavata are thus celebrated as means of directly engaging Kṛṣṇa’s living presence and catalyzing a psychophysical transformation in which the body of bondage is reconstituted as a body of devotion.
Rūpa recommends engaging Kṛṣṇa’s text-embodiment through “savoring (āsvāda) the meanings (artha) of the Śrīmad Bhāgavata with connoisseurs of rasa (rasikas)”—a practice that he singles out as one of the five practices of vaidhībhakti that is most effective for cultivating prema-rasa.309 Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja, in his enumeration of these five practices in the Caitanya Caritāmṛta, reframes the means of engaging the Śrīmad Bhāgavata as simply Bhāgavata-śravaṇa, “hearing the Bhāgavata.”310 Jīva, in the Tattva Sandarbha and Bhakti Sandarbha, emphasizes the importance of engaging the Bhāgavata in both its oral-aural and written-visual forms as a means of cultivating an intimate relationship with Kṛṣṇa, whose presence is instantiated in the text. Jīva extols the merits of writing a copy of the Bhāgavata, placing this sovereign of all śāstras on a throne of gold, and presenting the book as a gift to a qualified person.311 However, he gives priority to engaging Kṛṣṇa’s text-avatāra in its oral-aural form through three modes of reception: through śravaṇa, hearing, and paṭhana, reciting, the Bhāgavata’s narrative and through pāna, drinking, its ambrosial nectar (amṛta or rasa).
Hearing and Reciting the Śrīmad Bhāgavata
Jīva recommends engaging the language-world of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa on the level of both śabda and artha, sound and meaning. In the Tattva Sandarbha he invokes a number of Purāṇic texts that emphasize the soteriological efficacy of engaging the Śrīmad Bhāgavata in its oral-aural form through hearing (root śru) the text recited and reciting (root paṭh) the text oneself. Recitation of the śabdas of the Bhāgavata that constitute Kṛṣṇa’s reverberating speech-form serves as a means of conjuring his living presence, for “wherever the Bhāgavata śāstra is in Kali Yuga, there Hari goes along with the gods.”312 Those who hear and recite the Bhāgavata imbibe the living presence of Kṛṣṇa, which yields an abundance of fruits (phala).
Bhaktas who recite every day even a single verse of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, the most acclaimed of all śāstras, are promised the fruits (phala) of all eighteen Purāṇas.313 Among the specific fruits of such practices, those who hear the Bhāgavata daily and also recite the text themselves are promised an end to the cycle of birth and death.314 However, Jīva emphasizes that the liberating power of Bhāgavata-śravaṇa and Bhāgavata-paṭhana derives from the more fundamental fruit of such practices: bhakti, and more specifically bhakti in its fully mature expression as preman, all-consuming love for Kṛṣṇa. He invokes the canonical authority of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa itself in support of his claim: “By simply hearing (root śru) this [Bhāgavata Purāṇa], bhakti for the supreme Puruṣa Kṛṣṇa arises in a person, dispelling sorrow, delusion, and fear.”315 In commenting on this verse, Jīva glosses bhakti as preman and maintains that even the residual karmic impressions (saṃskāras) of sorrow, delusion, and fear, which are root causes of bondage, are destroyed by the preman that manifests through Bhāgavata-śravaṇa.
In this verse the word bhakti refers to preman, since this is the goal of sādhana-bhakti in the form of hearing (śravaṇa) [the Bhāgavata Purāṇa]. The word utpadyate, “arises,” means āvir-bhavati, “manifests.” The verse mentions an attendant virtue of this [manifestation of preman] with the phrase “dispelling sorrow, delusion, and fear,” which implies in this context that even their residual karmic impressions (saṃskāras) are destroyed. This is confirmed by the words of [the avatāra] Śrī Ṛṣabhadeva [in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa]: “As long as one has no love (prīti) for me, Vāsudeva, he will not be liberated (root muc) from identification with a body (deha).”316
Bhakti—and more specifically the bhakti-rasa of preman—is awakened in the hearts of practitioners through Bhāgavata-śravaṇa and Bhāgavata-paṭhana and is nourished through repeated immersion in Kṛṣṇa’s reverberating speech-form, culminating in attainment of the ultimate goal of human existence: realization of Kṛṣṇa in his transcendent abode (pada).317
In the Bhakti Sandarbha Jīva discusses the role of Bhāgavata-śravaṇa and Bhāgavata-paṭhana in relation to the broader array of sādhana-bhakti practices associated with śravaṇa, hearing, and kīrtana, singing. In this context he shifts his focus from śabda to artha, from the mantric efficacy of the Bhāgavata’s sounds to the manifold meanings of its discursive content. Building on the insights of Rūpa in the Bhaktirasāmṛtasindhu, Jīva elaborates on the role of śravaṇa and kīrtana as means of engaging the world of Kṛṣṇa—and more specifically his names (nāmans), forms (rūpas), qualities (guṇas), and playful activities (līlās)—enshrined in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa.318
Jīva defines śravaṇa as “contact of the ears with words (śabdas) pertaining to the names (nāmans), forms (rūpas), qualities (guṇas), and playful activities (līlās) [of Kṛṣṇa].”319 He provides a brief discussion of nāma-śravaṇa, hearing the names of Kṛṣṇa (section 248); rūpa-śravaṇa, hearing about Kṛṣṇa’s forms (section 249); and guṇa-śravaṇa, hearing about Kṛṣṇa’s qualities (sections 250–252). He then devotes the major portion of his analysis to līlā-śravaṇa, hearing about the līlā activities in which Kṛṣṇa engages with his eternal associates (parikaras) (sections 253–259), and Bhāgavata-śravaṇa, hearing the Bhāgavata Purāṇa (sections 260–262). Although Jīva concedes that hearing about any of these four aspects of Kṛṣṇa—names, forms, qualities, and līlā activities—in any order can lead to perfection, he recommends a specific progression of śravaṇa practices that correspond to progressive stages of manifestation of Kṛṣṇa in the bhakta’s awareness. The first phase of practice is nāma-śravaṇa, which purifies (root śudh) the heart. The second phase is rūpa-śravaṇa, by means of which the purified heart becomes fit for the manifestation (root i + ud) of Kṛṣṇa’s form. When Kṛṣṇa’s form is fully visible, the manifestation (root sphur) of his qualities ensues, which are savored through the third phase of practice, guṇa-śravaṇa. When the names, forms, and qualities of Kṛṣṇa have fully manifested (root sphur), his līlā spontaneously manifests (root sphur) in the bhakta’s awareness, which is the goal not only of līlā-śravaṇa but of the entire regimen of sādhana-bhakti.320
Jīva maintains that śravaṇa is most effective when the practitioner hears about the various aspects of Kṛṣṇa from great sages (mahats). He distinguishes in this context between two methods of hearing: hearing about Kṛṣṇa from literary works manifested (root bhū + āvir) by great sages, or hearing about his exploits through the recitations (root kīrt) of great sages.321 As an example of the first method of hearing, he singles out the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, which he celebrates as the Mahāpurāṇa that was manifested (root bhū + āvir) through the agency of the renowned ṛṣi Vyāsa for the sole purpose of illuminating the play and display of the supreme Godhead in his manifold dimensions.322 In the final analysis Jīva proclaims Bhāgavata-śravaṇa to be the most efficacious (parama-śreṣṭha) form of śravaṇa because this sovereign of all śāstras is made of transcendent nectar (parama-rasa-maya) and its words (śabdas) are endowed with inherent glory (svābhāvika-māhātmya).323 He establishes a hierarchy of methods of śravaṇa, which culminates in the highest method: hearing the Śrīmad Bhāgavata sung (root kīrt) by great sages.
Hearing (śravaṇa) the names, forms, qualities, and līlā activities of Bhagavān is supremely auspicious. Superior to this is hearing [about Bhagavān from] literary works (prabandhas) manifested (root bhū + āvir) by great sages, and even greater than this is hearing such works sung (root kīrt) by great sages. Hearing the glorious Bhāgavata is superior even to this, especially when sung (root kīrt) by great sages.324
As in his discussion of śravaṇa, Jīva focuses his analysis of kīrtana on singing the names and singing about the forms, qualities, and līlā activities of Kṛṣṇa. He provides an extended analysis of nāma-kīrtana (sections 262–265), followed by brief discussions of rūpa-kīrtana (section 266), guṇa-kīrtana (section 267), and līlā-kīrtana (sections 268–269). After praising the special merits of kīrtana in Kali Yuga (sections 270–274), he concludes by extolling the unrivaled status of recitation of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa as the most efficacious form of kīrtana in the present age (section 275).
Singing (root kīrt) the names, forms, qualities, and līlā activities [of Kṛṣṇa] contained in the glorious Bhāgavata is considered superior to singing (root kīrt) the names, forms, qualities, and līlā activities contained in other [śāstras]. In Kali Yuga this [Bhāgavata] is most acclaimed, as stated [in the Bhāgavata]: “Now that Kṛṣṇa has departed for his own abode (svadhāman) along with dharma, knowledge, and so on, this Purāṇa has risen like the sun for the sake of those who are bereft of sight in Kali Yuga.”325
Drinking the Bhāgavata’s Ambrosial Nectar
Jīva celebrates the Bhāgavata Purāṇa as an ocean of parama-rasa, transcendent nectar, that is amṛta, pure ambrosia. By engaging the words of the Bhāgavata through hearing (śravaṇa) and reciting (paṭhana) their sounds (śabda) and savoring (āsvāda) their meanings (artha), the bhakta transcends sound and meaning altogether and, plunging into the depths of the ocean, drinks (root pā) the Bhāgavata’s exhilarating nectar. Jīva invokes in this context the self-representations of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, which portrays itself as full of ambrosial nectar, amṛta or rasa, and more specifically as an “ocean of ambrosial nectar consisting of stories (kathāmṛta-nidhi) of Hari.”326
Jīva cites a pivotal prooftext from the Bhāgavata that is also cited by Rūpa in the Bhaktirasāmṛtasindhu as an illustration of the practice of “savoring (āsvāda) the meanings (artha) of the Śrīmad Bhāgavata with connoisseurs of rasa (rasikas).”327
The Bhāgavata is the ripe fruit (phala) of the wish-fulfilling tree of Veda that is full of ambrosial nectar (amṛta).… O connoisseurs of rasa (rasikas), continually drink (root pā) this nectar (rasa) even after experiencing the joy of liberation.328
Jīva comments at length on this verse in his commentary on the Bhaktirasāmṛtasindhu, and he also invokes this verse twice in the Bhakti Sandarbha as part of his analysis of the role of the Bhāgavata in śravaṇa. In commenting on this verse, he asserts that the Bhāgavata is rasa-rūpatva, completely made of rasa, nectar, which is identified more specifically as amṛta, pure ambrosia that is the elixir of immortality. Those rasikas, connoisseurs of rasa, who immerse their awareness in the ocean of Bhāgavata and drink (root pā) deeply its ambrosial nectar are filled with transcendent joy (parama-sukha).329
The transcendent joy of the rasikas derives from the very nature of this mesocosmic text-embodiment, which Jīva maintains is made of transcendent nectar (parama-rasa-maya) and serves as a means through which Kṛṣṇa’s living presence immediately manifests in the heart.330 Those who relish (root tṛp) the rasa of the Bhāgavata, which is amṛta, the elixir of immortality, are fully satiated and do not seek satisfaction elsewhere.
“The glorious Bhāgavata is considered to be the essence (sāra) of all the Upaniṣads. One who has relished (root tṛp) the ambrosial nectar of its rasa (rasāmṛta) does not find delight anywhere else.” The rasa of the Bhāgavata is indeed amṛta. This verse [from the Bhāgavata] refers to one who is satiated with that.331
Jīva establishes a direct connection between the rasa of the Bhāgavata and līlā-rasa, the nectar of Kṛṣṇa’s līlā. Plunging into the Bhāgavata, the “ocean of ambrosial nectar consisting of stories (kathāmṛta-nidhi) of Hari,”332 is considered the most expedient means to attain direct realization of Kṛṣṇa’s līlā that is recounted in these stories. The transcendent world of the līlā is itself represented as a “vast ocean of ambrosial nectar consisting of exploits (carita-mahāmṛtābdhi)” of Kṛṣṇa into which exalted bhaktas plunge (parivarta), reveling eternally in its inexhaustible supply of nectar.333 Jīva reminds us that the ṛṣi Vyāsa obtained his cognitions of the līlā through contemplative recollection (root smṛ + anu) of Kṛṣṇa’s exploits (viceṣṭita) while established in samādhi, after which he recorded his cognitions in the form of “this Purāṇa known by the name of Bhāgavata, which is equal to the Veda and contains the exploits (carita) of the illustrious Lord.”334 The implication of Jīva’s analysis is that bhaktas should engage the Śrīmad Bhāgavata, the record of the līlā, not only through śravaṇa, hearing, and paṭhana, recitation, but also, following the example of the paradigmatic sage Vyāsa, through the meditative practice of smaraṇa, contemplative recollection, in order to go beyond the bliss-bestowing stories and plunge into the transcendent world of Kṛṣṇa’s līlā that is accessible only through direct cognition.335