SECTION TWENTY-SEVEN

             Therefore, to determine what is the ultimate good for a person, and while keeping proper harmony and consistency in the beginning, middle, and end, the Çrémad Bhägavatam alone will be analyzed. Our introductory statements in the Ñaö-sandarbha will be like the sütras and the statements of the Çrémad Bhägavatam will be the subject matter.

            The Bhägavatam commentaries of the great Vaiñëava, His Holiness Çrédhara Svämé, are mixed with advaitaväda to attract the minds of impersonalists towards the glories of the Lord. These impersonalists are very popular in the middle region at present. Whenever Çrédhara Svämé's commentray is in accordance with the pure Vaiñëava principles we will quote it as it is. That will be like the bhäñya of our sütras. Sometimes we will accept his views found elsewhere.

            We also accept those interpretations in accordance with the doctrines of respectable Çré Rämänujäcärya Bhagavatpäda, found in his writings such as Çré Bhäñya. He is the famed leader of the Çré sampradäya, which originated directly from Çré Lakñmé. These great devotees can be found in plenty in the land of Draviòa (Tamilanäòu, Ändhra Pradeça and Karnäöaka). As stated in the Çrémad Bhägavatam: "O King, a few Vaiñëavas can be seen here and there, but they can be seen in multitudes in Draviòa..." (SB. 11.5.39). In some places our explanations will differ (from Çrédhara Svämé and Rämänuja) to maintain the natural sense of the original text.

            Since the principles of Advaitaväda are well known, they will not be explained too much here (as the antithesis).

 

ÇRÉ JÉVA TOÑAËÉ COMMENTARY

            Here Çréla Jéva Gosvämé explains his way of analyzing the Çrémad Bhägavatam. He plans to follow a format similar to that used by Çréla Vyäsadeva in Vedänta Sütra, in which the sütras are Vyäsa's introductory statements and the Upaniñad mantras are the subject matter. Jéva Gosvämé also indicates that his explanations are not his personal opinion nor are they imaginary, but are in agreement with the previous Vaiñëava äcäryas such as Rämänujäcärya and Çrédhara Svämé.

            From Çrédhara Svämé's commentaries on the Çrémad Bhägavatam, Bhagavad-gétä, and the Viñëu Puräna it is clear that he was a great Vaiñëava, although he accepted the renounced order of life in Çaìkara's sampradäya, which is opposed to the personalism of Kåñëa consciousness. Nevertheless, in his commentaries, Çrédhara Svämé clearly states that the Lord's form, qualities, abode, associates, and names are all transcendental and eternal, and that devotion to the Lord continues even after liberation. These key philosophical points are all opposed to monism and so they reveal Çrédhara Svämé's true stance.

            Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu also accepted saìnyäsa in Çaìkara's line, but from the onset His teachings refuted the mäyäväda doctrine. Hence the fact that Çré Caitanya accepted Çrédhara Svämé and had great respect for his Bhägavatam commentary is clear proof Çrédhara Svämé was not a mäyäväda saìnyäsi at heart any more than was Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu. Caitanya Mahäprabhu, who considered all mäyävädis offenders at the lotus feet of Kåñëa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, would not tolerate even a mild or indirect criticism of Çréla Çrédhara Svämé. When Vallabha Bhaööa said he had written a Bhägavatam commentary that surpassed Çrédhara Svämé's Lord Caitanya refused to hear it and he rebuked Vallabha Bhaööa. The incident is described in the Caitanya Caritämåta, Anyta Lélä, Chapter Seven.  From this we can understand the exalted status of Çrédhara Svämé as a sold out pure devotee of the Lord. We can also understand that Jéva Gosvämé, as a loyal follower of Lord Caitanya, holds Bhävärtha dépikä in high esteem. Thus Çréla Jéva Gosvämé refers to Çrédhara as "parama-vaiñëava", a topmost devotee.

            The reason for Bhävärtha-dépikä being a mixed commentary is given in this section. Some followers of Çaìkara, by reading some of his devotional prayers based on the Çrémad Bhägavatam, developed a leaning towards the Bhägavatam, but with a mäyäväda slant. To attract these saìnyäsis to the path of devotion, Çrédhara Svämé wrote a mixed commentary on the spotless Puräna. Just as a fisherman uses bait to catch fish, once in a while Çrédhara Svämé gives monistic opinions on some of the less crucial Bhägavatam verses. By this, his Advaitin readers would not feel alienated, but he was not a monist himself. This was merely part of his preaching strategy.

            Nevertheless, although Jéva Gosvämé understands Çrédhara Svämé's motives, he does not use the monistic explanations given in Bhävärtha-dépikä, for it does not suit his purpose in compiling the Ñaö-sandarbhas. In fact he does the very opposite. At every opportunity throughout the Sandarbhas, Çréla Jéva Gosvämé demolishes the Mäyävädi view. Clearly he does not consider the mäyävädis his primary audience the way Çrédhara Svämé must have when he wrote his commentary. Jéva Gosvämé's intention is clear from his declaration in the sixth anuccheda where he says that his book is not to be read by anyone who does not desire to serve the lotus feet of Lord Kåñëa.

            The audience in Jéva gosvämé's mind are persons who are already on the path of Kåñëa consciousness or willing to take to it. Naturally, therefore, he says he will quote Çrédhara Svämé's explanation "only when it is in accordance with the pure Vaiñëava principles". Because of this, some modern scholars have criticized Jéva Gosvämé for not respecting the sentiments of Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu, but this criticism springs from a superficial understanding.

            Çrédhara Svämé was not a monist, although he had a reason for giving a monistic slant in some parts of his Bhägavatam commentary. Considering this fact, why should Çréla Jéva Gosvämé, in an entirely different work, with an entirely different audience in mind, maintain a guise of accepting those explanations of Çrédhara that are opposed to the true conclusion of the Bhägavatam and even to Çrédhara Svämé's convictions. Çré Jéva has already established Çrémad Bhägavatam as the supreme authority and subsequently he avoids any explanations that contradict it. Çréla Jéva Gosvämé makes his policy explicit: He respects the purports of Çrédhara in as much as they follow the spirit and intent of the Çrémad Bhägavatam. In this way, he remains true to the Vaiñëavism of Çréla Çrédhara Svämé and to his own sampradäya.

            At the end of this annucheda, when Jéva Gosvämé says he is not giving the details of the monistic doctrines, since they are well known, he implies that monism although popular is only the apparent meaning of the çästras and not really worthy of discussion and that he will refute it.

            Next, Çréla Jéva Gosvämé explains the source of the references he plans to cite as evidence in the Ñaö-sandarbhas.