I received questions about an article I had written some years ago on Śrī Jīva Goswami’s explanation of the statement ‘kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam’. I have received many questions on this topic, and so I thought to address them here. The article is available here and could be useful to understand the Q/A below.
Q: My question is simple that if our reading loses on having no asatti and just yogyta, hence we need to do adhyāhāra while they don’t have any such adhyāhāra because they have both yogyatā and āsatti, then how is our reading stronger? How do we answer their argument that adhyāhāra is only done when no other gati is present: “Our reading (ekavākyatā) keeps the sentence whole without needing adhyāhāra. Therefore, our alternative wins, and your reading loses.”
A: The discussion here is of verse 1.3.28; Babaji’s translation is here.
In Śrī Jīva Goswami’s explanation, the word ‘tu’ distinguishes the central statement from what precedes it, while the final half-verse is understood separately. I present the three parts and their translations by Babaji:
- ete cāṁśa-kalāḥ puṁsaḥ — All these avatāras are either portions (aṁśas) or minute portions (kalās) of the first Puruṣa
- kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam — Śrī Kṛṣṇa, however, is Bhagavān Himself in His ownmost original existential being.
- indrāri-vyākulaṁ lokaṁ mṛḍayanti yuge yuge — Appearing in every yuga, all these avatāras delight the world when it is oppressed by the enemies of Indra.
Śrī Jīva explains that the portion beginning with ‘indrāri’ does not connect syntactically with ‘kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam’, because ‘tu’ divides the verse, and the central statement is already complete (‘ākāṅkṣā-paripūrti’). He adds that ‘ca’ would have been used had the whole verse been intended as one sentence, in which case the verb mṛḍayanti would have both aṁśa-kalāḥ and Śrī Kṛṣṇa as its two subjects (aṁśa-kalāḥ kṛṣṇaśca bhagavān svayam mṛḍayanti..).
In the translation of the third part, the subject, “these avatāras” is understood from the context. The plural ending of mṛḍayanti indicates a plural agent. One could consider this supplying of a subject as ‘adhyāhāra’, but Śrī Jīva explains that the previously mentioned avatāras are understood as the subjects of the third part from the meaning (arthāt). This is not a defect and is allowed in pūrva-mimāmsā; I have also explained this in the earlier article here.
This is the approach of Śrī Jīva Goswami. The criticism of it, which I have discussed in detail here has several aspects to it. To understand the criticism, consider the opponent’s reading –
4. ete svāṁśa-kalāḥ puṁsaḥ — All these avatāras are svarūpa-amśas of the Puruṣa.
5. kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam — are indeed Parama Puruṣa Bhagavān Himself
6. indrāri-vyākulaṁ lokaṁ mṛḍayanti yuge yuge — [who] appearing in every yuga, delight the world when it is oppressed by the enemies of Indra
There are two major differences here. First, the opponent’s reading is ‘svāṁśa-kalāḥ’ instead of ‘cāṁśa-kalāḥ’. Now, numerous commentators read the words as ‘cāṁśa-kalāḥ’. The opponent tries to argue against Śrī Jīva’s interpretation of the verse but does not use his reading on which his interpretation rests. This is a problem. One must separate two questions: which reading should be accepted, and which interpretation best explains the words of that reading?
Without taking Śrī Jīva’s reading, the opponent argues that the statements in 4-6 are superior to Śrī Jīva’s explanation in statements 1-3. Their stated reason is that their interpretation preserves ‘eka-vakyatā’ and does not require adhyāhāra at all. But this does not establish the superiority of the opponent’s reading which is not accepted by the majority of commentators!
If Śrī Jīva Goswami had the same reading of svāmśa-kalā, and if he used adhyahāra, then an apples-to-apples comparison would have been possible, and one could potentially criticize him for it. Alternatively, if the opponent takes Śrī Jīva’s reading, and shows a superior explanation is possible without adhyāhāra, then one can consider the critique. As it stands, this is not an apples-to-apples comparison.
Furthermore, the opponent’s interpretation of svāṁśa-kalāḥ requires taking the word kṛṣṇaḥ in the secondary sense of parama-puruṣaḥ, rather than its obvious meaning of Śrī Kṛṣṇa, as understood by Śrī Jīva. In Śrī Jīva’s reading of cāṁśa-kalāḥ, the words aṁśa-kalāḥ, which refer to portions (aṁśas) or minute portions (kalās) of the first Puruṣa, require that the sentence be split. The verse cannot be interpreted as a single sentence because the kalās of Bhagavān cannot be equated with Bhagavān Himself (bhagavān svayam).
There is a further and more serious difficulty, which Śrī Jīva has pointed out. Under the opponent’s interpretation, the words ‘kṛṣṇas tu’ become redundant.
Śrī Jīva writes:
yat tu teṣāṁ tathā vyākhyānaṁ tatra kṛṣṇas tu ity anarthakaṁ syāt, bhagavān svayam ity anenaivābhipreta-siddheḥ
In the explanation offered by Śrī Madhvācārya, the phrase kṛṣṇas tu would become redundant, because its purpose would be served merely by the phrase, bhagavān svayam.
In other words, under the opponent’s interpretation, kṛṣṇas tu becomes redundant because their intended meaning is already conveyed by bhagavān svayam. If the intention is merely to say that these avatāras are Bhagavān Himself, then the statement could be expressed as ete svāṁśa-kalāḥ puṁsaḥ bhagavān svayam. The words kṛṣṇas tu are not needed to convey this meaning.
Thus, the opponent claims superiority because their interpretation does not require supplying an understood subject, but this comes at the cost of making words actually present in the verse unnecessary. Śrī Jīva’s interpretation, in contrast, gives kṛṣṇas tu a clear function.
Q: They also argue that interpreting tu as eva is not lakshaṇa as tu being nipāta has two functions bheda and avadharna, they take the second here. I read sri jiva goswami’s, sri visvanatha’s and sri baladeva’s commentary and none of them even mention any such thing. What to take from here? That our patha is different from the purvapaksha the madhva acharyas take?
A: Śrī Jīva himself considers both senses of ‘tu’. In the sense of ‘bheda’, it leads to the statements as explained in 1–3. He also explicitly considers ‘tu’ in the sense of ‘avadhāraṇa’ (tu = eva). In that case, he treats the central statement as a ‘sāvadhāraṇā śruti’. The statements read as follows:
7. ete cāṁśa-kalāḥ puṁsaḥ — All these avatāras are either portions (aṁśas) or minute portions (kalās) of the first Puruṣa.
8. kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam — Śrī Kṛṣṇa alone (tū=eva) is Bhagavān Himself in His ownmost original existential being.
9. indrāri-vyākulaṁ lokaṁ mṛḍayanti yuge yuge — Appearing in every yuga, all these avatāras delight the world when it is oppressed by the enemies of Indra.
Thus, interpreting ‘tu’ as ‘eva’ does not help the opponent. On the contrary, Śrī Jīva takes this meaning to emphasize that Śrī Kṛṣṇa alone is Bhagavān Himself and concludes with the Pūrva-Mīmāṁsā principle that tū=eva makes this a ‘sāvadhāraṇā śruti’, which overrides conflicting statements. Thus, this meaning of ‘tu’ actually strengthens Śrī Jīva’s interpretation.
Q: Also by implication from linga of the plural verb, we get the implied subject te, which can refer back to the plural subject as pronouns routinely do. Then what’s the need for adhyahara?
A: The plural ending of ‘mṛḍayanti’ already indicates a plural agent, and the preceding context identifies that agent as the avatāras of Bhagavān. Śrī Jīva says they are understood from the meaning (‘arthāt’). Whether this is termed ‘adhyāhāra’ or something else, it is a fully valid method of interpretation.
Q: My main point is that it’s clear that our interpretation is the one having the simplest and direct reading of this verse but the madhvas have framed it in a series of mimamsa objections which make it look weaker.
A: Yes I agree with your point.
Q: Can you please clarify here as to whether our patha is different than their purvapaksha and if it’s same then what’s the answer to their reading being stronger on both yogyata and asatti criterias.
A: I hope the answer above has clarified this for you.
Leave a Reply