Why ´Sr¯ıdhara Sv¯am¯ı? The Makings of a Successful Sanskrit Commentary

: ´Sr¯ıdhara Sv¯am¯ı’s commentary on the Bh¯agavata Pur¯an.a , called Bh¯av¯artha-d¯ıpik¯a and composed sometime between the mid-fourteenth to the mid-ﬁfteenth centuries, has exerted extraordinary inﬂuence on later Bh¯agavata commentaries, and indeed, on Vais.n.ava traditions more generally. This article raises a straightforward question: “Why ´Sr¯ıdhara?” Focusing on the Caitanya Vais.n.ava tradition, particularly J¯ıva Gosv¯am¯ı, for whom ´Sr¯ıdhara is foundational, we ask, “What is it about ´Sr¯ıdhara Sv¯am¯ı’s commentary—both stylistically and theologically—that made it so useful to Caitanya Vais.n.avas and other Bh¯agavata commentators?” This question, to the extent that it can be answered, has implications for our understanding of ´ Sr¯ıdhara’s theology as well as the development of the early Caitanya Vais.n.ava tradition, but it can also lend insight into the reasons for ´Sridhara’s inﬂuence more generally in early modern India.

and derivative works, such as Bahirā Jātaveda's Marathi commentary, Bhairavī, 3 and Vis . n . upurī's anthology of Bhāgavata verses, called Bhakti-ratnāvalī. 4 Srīdhara's pervasive influence has meant that scholars of the Bhāgavata have tended to assume his reading as the natural sense of the text. Daniel Sheridan argues that scholarly overreliance oń Srīdhara's commentary "does a disservice toŚrīdhara, who has not been studied in his own right by contemporary critical scholarship" (Sheridan 1994, p. 47). In other words, by assumingŚrīdhara's reading as natural, we ignore his genius in offering an interpretation of the Purān . a that dominated the subsequent commentarial tradition. Sheridan therefore calls for further study ofŚrīdhara Svāmī and his commentary, which, he says, would lead to "understanding of the reason for the great authority of Srīdhara's ostensibly Advaitin commentary within the later Vais . n . ava schools" (Sheridan 1994, p. 47). Indeed, despiteŚrīdhara's inestimable influence on Vais . n . ava traditions from the fifteenth century onward, he remains an enigma for both theologians and historians of Vais . n . avism.Śrīdhara is generally regarded as a sannyāsī withinŚaṅkara's Advaita tradition, 5 and yet his predilection for bhakti has made him a torchbearer for Vais . n . ava commentators. In the mid-sixteenth century, the Caitanya Vais . n . ava thinker Jīva Gosvāmī acknowledgesŚrīdhara's enigmatic theology by suggesting that "the most excellent, esteemed Vais . n . avaŚrīdhara Svāmī" sometimes included nondualist views in his commentary in order to entice Advaitins to appreciate the greatness of the personal Deity. 6 Srīdhara himself adds to the confusion by stating that he wrote his commentary on the insistence of his sampradāya. 7 Here, we will set aside questions of commentarial intent and formal affiliation, and instead attempt to answer Sheridan's call by examiningŚrīdhara's theological standpoint and its influence on later commentators.
This article raises a straightforward question: "WhyŚrīdhara?" Focusing on the Caitanya Vais . n . ava tradition, particularly Jīva Gosvāmī, for whomŚrīdhara is foundational, we shall ask, "What is it aboutŚrīdhara's commentary-both stylistically and theologically-that made it so useful to Caitanya Vais . n . avas and other Bhāgavata commentators?" This question, to the extent that it can be answered, has implications for our understanding ofŚrīdhara's theology as well as the development of the early Caitanya Vais . n . ava tradition, but it can also lend insight into the reasons forŚridhara's influence more generally in early modern India.

Why Choose an Advaitin?
The first matter that looms before us is the question ofŚrīdhara Svāmī's Advaita leanings. Jīva Gosvāmī was clearly aware of the Bhāgavata commentaries found within the Mādhva school of 3 Madhavi Narsalay and Vrushali Potnis-Damle write, "It is thus amply clear that the Bhairavī is based on the Bhāvārthadīpikā . . . . Bahirā has high regard forŚrīdhara. This is evident from the many respectful references toŚrīdhara throughout his commentary on the 10th as well as the 11th skandhas. He addressesŚrīdhara as Tikāprakāśabhāskara (Bhairavī 11.10.7), Jñānarūpabhāskaru (Bhairavī 11.24.5), Samartha (Bhairavī 11.7.1),Āchārya (Bhairavī 11.77.8), Haridāsa (Bhairavī 10.6.212), Yogapāla (Bhairavī 10.43.2), Avatāripurus . a (Bhairavī 10.1.59), Sākśātkārī (Bhairavī 10.1.60),Ātmajñānī (Bhairavī 10.1.59) and Jivanmukta (Bhairavī 10.1.61). He also refers toŚrīdhara as guru (Bhairavī 11.20.5) out of deep respect. Bahirā likens himself to a beggar waiting for leftovers, but still in search forŚrīdhara's bowl (Bhairavī 11.87.17)." (Narsalay and Potnis-Damle 2018, p. 155). 4 S.K. De writes, "One of the closing verses of this work [Bhakti-ratnāvalī] apologises for any departure the compiler might have made from the writings of the greatŚrīdhara; and there can be no doubt adout [sic]Śrīdhara's influence on the work." (De 1961, pp. 18-19) 5 Edelmann (2018) and Sukla (2010, pp. 13-22), following earlier authors, suggest thatŚrīdhara Svāmī was the abbot of an Advaita monastery in Puri, Odisha. Nevertheless,Śrīdhara's institutional and sampradāyic affiliation is still a question requiring further historical research. 6 Jīva Gosvāmī writes in his Tattva-sandarbha: "Our interpretation of the words of the Bhāgavata, representing a kind of commentary, will be written in accordance with the views of the great Vais . n . ava, the reveredŚrīdhara Svāmin, only when they conform to the strict Vais . n . ava standpoint, since his writings are interspersed with the doctrines of Advaita so that an appreciation for the greatness of bhagavat may be awakened in the Advaitins who nowadays pervade the central regions etc." (Elkman 1986, p. 119). 7 sampradāyānurodhena paurvāparyānusāratah . |śrī-bhāgavata-bhāvārtha-dīpikeyaṁ pratanyate (verse 4 from the opening maṅgala verses of the Bhāvārtha-dīpikā). Dvaita Vedānta. He mentions Madhva's Bhāgavata-tātparya-nirn . aya by name in his Tattva-sandarbha, and if we are to accept B.N.K. Sharma's dating of Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha (fl. 1410-1450, then the latter's complete commentary, which closely follows Madhva's work, 8 was well established by Jīva's time. Furthermore, in his six-part Bhāgavata-sandarbha, Jīva argues forcefully against the core philosophical positions of classical Advaita, 9 and yet he takes the Bhāvārtha-dīpikā-which by Jīva's own account shows clear Advaitic tendencies-as foundational for his theological project. Jīva follows-indeed, reiterates-Śrīdhara's interpretation for almost every Bhāgavata verse he quotes. Why? We could, of course, point toŚrī Caitanya's well known statement in Kr . s . n . adāsa Kavirāja's Caitanya-caritāmr . ta (3.7.133-34) that any commentary not based onŚrīdhara is illegitimate: I know the Bhāgavata byŚrīdhara Svāmī's grace.Śrīdhara Svāmī is the guru of the world, and I take him as my guru. If you arrogantly write anything to surpassŚrīdhara, people will not accept such confused meanings. 10 No doubt this would have been a significant factor for Jīva. Nevertheless, such an explanation only shifts the problem back by a generation, for we might ask the same question of Caitanya: "WhyŚrīdhara?" Furthermore, pointing to the Caitanya-caritāmr . ta is a tad circular, for this canonical account of Caitanya's life is deeply influenced by the theology of the Vr . ndāvana Gosvāmīs, including Jīva himself. 11 Another way in which scholars have attempted to resolve this question is by claiming that Jīva only pays lip service toŚrīdhara (because of Caitanya's insistence) and that, in fact, Jīva is not committed tó Srīdhara because of the latter's Advaita leanings. This line of thought is put forth by Stuart Elkman, building upon similar reasoning by S.K. De (1961). Elkman writes: . . . it seems likely that Jīva's claims to followŚrīdhara represent more a concession to Caitanya's beliefs than a personal preference on his own part. In actual fact, Jīva followś Srīdhara on only the most minor points, ignoring all of his Advaitic interpretations . . . (Elkman 1986, p. 180). 12 Elkman and De's argument is grounded on two assumptions that turn out to be suspect, namely, thatŚrīdhara's institutional affiliation makes him the type of Advaitin that Jīva argues against in his writings, and that therefore Jīva's use ofŚrīdhara must be nothing more than a "concession" on "the most minor points." We shall address the first assumption in due course, but as for the second, we can note here that a careful reading of Jīva's Bhāgavata-sandarbha and Krama-sandarbha simply does not support Elkman's view. Jīva quotes, paraphrases, or draws salient points from the Bhāvārtha-dīpikā nearly every time he comments upon a Bhāgavata verse in his Bhāgavata-sandarbha. Jīva followsŚrīdhara's interpretation in most cases, but when the latter's Advaita tendencies create difficulties for Vais . n . ava dualism, Jīva finds ways of supportingŚrīdhara's interpretation-first, by harnessing the Caitanyaite bhedābheda theology (emphasizing the nondifference side) to create space for nondualist interpretations, 8 See B.N.K Sharma's analysis of the relationship between Madhva's Bhāgava-tatātparya-nirn . aya and Vijayadhvaja's Pada-ratnāvalī (Sharma 1981, p. 458), as well as the latter's dates (p. 456). 9 See, for example, Jīva's Paramātma-sandarbha, anuccheda 105, for a refutation of the doctrine of adhyāsa, superimposition (Gupta 2007, pp. 174-77 and second, by layering atopŚrīdhara an alternate interpretation that is more appropriate to Caitanya Vais . n . avism. 13 In essence, Jīva functions as an interpreter ofŚrīdhara-explaining and expanding his ideas, clarifying ambiguities, rereading him in light of Caitanya Vais . n . ava theology, and resolving potential theological conflicts, but never "ignoring" him, as Elkman suggests. 14 Kiyokazu Okita finds a similarly complex dynamic at work in the Krama-sandarbha, where Jīva sometimes followsŚrīdhara exactly (Okita 2014, p. 82), sometimes diverges from him (p. 104), and occasionally fills in ambiguities (p. 122), but always works hard to show his conformity withŚrīdhara (pp. 105, 123). Okita concludes that given "the fact that Jīva was aware of Madhva's works," it is striking "how much attention he pays toŚrīdhara's commentary" (p. 124). So the question remains: how are we to make sense of Jīva's commitment toŚrīdhara, given the latter's Advaitic tendencies? Perhaps the real problem lies with the question itself, which presupposes hard boundaries between dualism and nondualism, static conceptions of sampradāya affiliation, and normative notions of what constitutes Advaita and Vais . n . ava. These reifications have led many to express surprise atŚrīdhara's devotional theology despite his Advaita affiliation, or Caitanya's rejection of māyāvāda despite his love forŚrīdhara, or Jīva's frequent use of the Bhāvartha-dīpikā despite his commitment to "pure Vais . n . avism." Michael Allen has recently called for a broadening of our understanding of Advaita Vedānta, to include not only "a received canon of Sanskrit philosophical works," such as those ofŚaṅkara and Man . d . ana Miśra, but also "narratives and dramas, 'syncretic' works blending classical Vedāntic teachings with other traditions, and perhaps most importantly, vernacular works . . . " (Allen 2017, p. 277) 15 This larger world he calls "Greater Advaita Vedānta," and he includesŚrīdhara Svāmī within it. 16 Although Allen intentionally leaves the boundaries of this world fuzzy, he suggests that "the acceptance of māyāvāda, or illusionism, might provide a useful touchstone for determining how deep the influence of Advaita Vedānta runs in a given work" (Allen 2017, p. 293). If that is the case, then we will need to leave out the canonical Caitanya Vais . n . ava texts from this rubric, as māyāvada is unacceptable to all of them.
Nevertheless, it is indisputable that the early theologians of the Caitanya school were actively engaged with the Advaita tradition, freely borrowing key ideas and terminology. After all, the doctrine of acintya-bhedābheda includes abheda, nondifference, as one of its key components, even if it is preceded by bheda, or difference. In his Bhāgavata-sandarbha, Jīva is quite happy to adopt concepts from Advaita theologies, including the notion of a kevala-viśes . ya Brahman, 17 an unattributed, transcendent reality that would have been anathema to Rāmānuja; the possibility of jīvan-mukti, liberation while living; the categories of svarūpa-laks . an . a (essential characteristics) and tat . astha-laks . an . a (contingent characteristics) to describe the nature of Brahman; 18 and the insistence that ultimate reality is nondual (advaya) 19 and thus all beings are part of Kr . s . n . a's nature, an idea quite unacceptable to Madhva. Each of these concepts is developed differently than in classical Advaita Vedānta, but each also represents a choice on the part 13 For examples of both these dynamics at work in Jīva's relationship withŚrīdhara, see the section "Svāmī and Gosvāmī" in Gupta (2007, pp. 65-84). 14 On a few occasions, Jīva does directly contradictŚrīdhara when the latter's Advaitic statements become impossible to harmonize with Caitanya Vais . n . ava theology, as we shall discuss later in this article. However, Elkman's example of Jīva refutingŚrīdhara (in Tattva-sandarbha, anuccheda 60) turns out to be based on a misreading of the Sanskrit. As Gupta (2007, pp. 77-80) shows, anuccheda 60 is a fine example of Jīva functioning as an interpreter ofŚrīdhara, affirminǵ Srīdhara's interpretation and then redeploying it in the service of Caitanya Vais . n . ava theology. 15 Venkatkrishnan has argued along similar lines: "Instead of assuming the coherence of Advaita Vedānta as school of philosophy, and singling out individual authors for their deviations from a norm, we might instead consider the tradition itself fragmented and fractured" (Venkatkrishnan 2015a, p. 234). 16 Allen remarks, "The degree of Advaitic influence inŚrīdhara's commentary has been debated; . . . Without entering the debate, I might simply note that much hinges on how broadly Advaita Vedānta is defined." (Allen 2017, p. 292, n38). 17 See Bhagavat-sandarbha, anuccheda 3: arūpaṁ pān . i-pādādy asaṁyutam itīdaṁ brahmākhya-kevala-viśes . yāvirbhāva-nis . t . ham. 18 See Jīva Gosvāmī's Paramātma-sandarbha, anuccheda 105. 19 The insistence on an ultimate, nondual reality is grounded on the Bhāgavata Purān . a 1.2.11, "Knowers of reality declare that reality to be nondual consciousness, called 'Brahman,' 'Paramātmā,' and 'Bhagavān.'" This verse is crucial for Caitanya Vais . n . ava theology, for it simultaneously affirms the singular nature of Divinity while also introducing distinctions within him, thus leading to the doctrine of acintya-bhedābheda.
of the early Caitanya Vais . n . ava theologians to not only engage with, but to also adopt concepts from, a tradition whose soteriology they rejected. Take for example, the notion of jīvan-mukti. Rūpa Gosvāmī defines it quite differently from the way it is understood in Advaita Vedānta, 20 but his use of the concept nevertheless represents something significant; Rūpa could have just as easily rejected the possibility of jīvan-mukti altogether, as does Rāmānuja, whose influence is strongly felt in other ways within early Caitanya Vais . n . ava theology. 21 Along similar lines, Rūpa and Jīva are willing to accept the possibility of a state of liberation, namely, sāyujya-mukti, where the individual experiences a state of ontological oneness with Brahman-similar to the way in which Madhusūdana Sarasvatī describes sāyujya-mukti (Lutjeharms 2018, p. 397). The Gosvāmīs regarded such a state as extremely undesirable for a bhakta, but they affirmed its possibility nonetheless. As Rembert Lutjeharms has shown, "the consistent attempt to make space for the experiences of the Advaitins among early Chaitanya Vaishnava theologians seems particularly remarkable" because it forces them to "relinquish" the term moks . a to the Lutjeharms (2018, p. 403).
We shall give one last example: Jīva Gosvāmī, in his commentary on the third aphorism of the Brahma-sūtra, acceptsŚaṅkara's interpretation ofśāstra-yonitvāt, namely, that Brahman is the source of scripture, even though this interpretation is rejected by both Rāmānuja and Madhva. Jīva's theology takes an eclectic approach toward other Vedāntins, 22 and he was working in a milieu where Advaitins were innovative, bhakti-oriented, and open to practices of kīrtana. 23 We see evidence of this milieu in the Caitanya-caritāmr . ta, where Kr . s . n . adāsa describes a debate between Caitanya and an erudite Advaita sannyāsī of Benaras, Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī. When he meets Caitanya, Prakāśānanda presents a social argument against kīrtana, but not a philosophical one; he praises bhakti as salutary and pleasing, but objects to Caitanya engaging in public singing and dancing in the company of sentimental commoners, instead of studying Vedānta among his sannyāsī peers. 24 Indeed, the religious landscape in which early Caitanya Vais . n . avas flourished was saturated with an Advaita that was itself saturated with Kr . s . n . a-bhakti. 25 Lutjeharms lists no less than twenty-two sannyāsī companions of Caitanya who possibly belonged to an Advaita order, as Caitanya himself did (Lutjeharms 2018, pp. 401-2).
Seen in this context,Śrīdhara's commitment to Vais . n . ava-bhakti, Caitanya's commitment toŚrīdhara, and Jīva's skillful ease in harmonizingŚrīdhara's Advaita with Caitanya Vais . n . ava theology-all become less of a surprise and less of a problem.

When Not to ChooseŚrīdhara
Nevertheless, the "WhyŚrīdhara?" question persists. As we have seen, the Vr . ndāvana Gosvāmīs are adept at adopting elements of Advaita that are suitable to their theology. But they are not Advaitins, and there are limits to their willingness to walk that path. What then do we make of Jīva's statement 20 See Rūpa Gosvāmī's Bhakti-rasāmr . ta-sindhu (1.2.187):īhā yasya harer dāsye karman .ā manasā girā nikhilāsv apy avasthāsu jīvan-muktah . sa ucyate, "One whose every effort-in mind, speech, and action, and in all circumstances-is in the service of Hari, that person is called jīvan-mukta, liberated while living.") 21 For example, Jīva's commentary on the first five sutras of the Brahma-sūtra (found in Paramātma-sandarbha, anuccheda 105 and translated in Gupta 2007, chp. 7) often quotes from Rāmānuja'sŚrī-bhās . ya. Gopāla Bhat . t . a Gosvāmī's Hari-bhakti-vilāsa, the main Caitanya Vais . n . ava ritual manual, also displays the influence ofŚrīvais . n . avism. 22 For a detailed discussion of the sources of Jīva's Vedānta theology, includingŚrīdhara, Rāmānuja, Madhva, andŚaṅkara, see Gupta (2007, chp. 3 that he only acceptsŚrīdhara in so far as his views are consistent with pure Vais . n . avism? What does Jīva mean by the "pure Vais . n . ava thesis" (śuddha-vais . n . ava-siddhānta), and which "doctrines of Advaita" (advaita-vāda), interspersed inŚrīdhara's commentary, does he find unacceptable? 26 Centuries later, the Caitanya Vais . n . ava Vedāntist Baladeva Vidyābhūs . an . a describesŚrīdhara's Advaitic statements as "meat on the end of a hook, meant to lure fish" (Elkman 1986, pp. 119-20). What, exactly, is the meat? Given the presence of multiple influences in Caitanya theology, B.N.K. Sharma's claim that "pure Vais . n . avism" refers to Madhva's Vedānta appears untenable (Sharma 1981, p. 528). I would suggest, rather, that Jīva can find a way to incorporate nearly all ofŚrīdhara's Advaitic statements into Caitanya Vais . n . ava theology except for those that employ Advaita theories of illusion, particularly the notion of māyā. The problem is not with māyā as the Lord's illusive power; that, indeed, is quite compatible with the Caitanya Vais . n . ava concept ofśakti, Kr . s . n . a's multifaceted energies. Rather, the problem lies with māyā when, in Jīva's eyes, it is "weaponized" by Advaitins to deny the transcendent reality of Kr . s . n . a's form, the eternal individuality of living beings, and the substantive nature of this world, thus precluding the possibility of bhakti in the liberated state. As Caitanya says in his conversation with Sārvabhauma Bhāt . t .ā cārya, "Bhagavān has a blissful form replete with six kinds of majesty, and you call him formless? . . . Listening to the commentary of a māyāvādī destroys everything!" (Caitanya-caritāmr . ta 2.6.152-69). 27 Indeed, it is in the context of discussions about māyā that Jīva argues against Advaita in both Tattva-sandarbha and Paramātma-sandarbha, 28 speaking strongly against adhyāsa andāropa (superimposition), vivarta (apparent transformation), eka-jīva-vāda (a single living being), pratibimba-vāda (doctrine of reflection), and other concepts grounded in Advaitic ideas of ignorance and illusion. He dedicates significant space in the Bhagavat-sandarbha to arguing that Bhagavān and his abode, associates, and accoutrements are nonmaterial (aprākr . ta) and inherent to the Lord's nature (svābhāvika).
To be sure,Śrīdhara himself is not keen on "weaponizing" māyā. He often explains māyā as the veiling, multi-faceted power of the Lord, without recourse to heavyweight Advaita terminology. He repeatedly misses opportunities to discuss avidyā,āropa, anirvacanīya, vivarta, upādhi, and the rope-snake metaphor. Take, for example, his commentary on Bhāgavata 1.7.6, a verse that describes how bhakti-yoga, as taught in the Bhāgavata Purān . a, can remove living beings' ignorance. The verse is crucial to Jīva's argument for the Bhāgavata's supremacy as scripture, but the verse is also susceptible to Advaita theories of ignorance. In his commentary,Śrīdhara explains māyā as follows: "The Lord, who possesses allśaktis, who knows everything, who has an eternally manifest, supremely blissful form (svarūpa), controls māyā by his knowledge-śakti. The living being . . . is bewildered by the Lord's māyā." Srīdhara follows this with a quotation from Vis . n . usvāmī describing the Lord's powers of knowledge and bliss. Finally,Śrīdhara offers two verses-presumably of his own composition-in praise of the man-lion avatāra, Nr . simha: "The one who controls māyā is the Lord, and the one pained by her is the living being . . . . We praise Nr . hari, who continually delights with his own māyā." 29 This, indeed, comes close to the Caitanya Vais . n . ava understanding of māyā as the Lord'sśakti.
Occasionally, however,Śrīdhara becomes more explicit in his application of Advaita theories of illusion, and as far as I can tell, these are the only moments when Jīva directly rejectsŚrīdhara's interpretation (instead of simply layering an alternative interpretation, which Jīva does often). A good example ofŚrīdhara in a sharper register is the Bhāgavata's opening verse, which provides ample opportunities for nondualist interpretation. In the third line,Śrīdhara interprets vinimaya as vyatyaya, the false appearance of one element in another, like a mirage seen on a hot surface, water seen in glass, and glass appearing like water-examples that are typically Advaitic. 31 Even here,Śrīdhara does not bother to spell out a theory of illusion. Rather, he seems to assume the core concepts of classical Advaita Vedānta as a general background to his work, without feeling the need to delineate or defend them. For him, the essential point is that the world (which he alternately calls true, satya, and false, mithyā) finds its basis in the true reality of Brahman, who has the power to dispel all confusion. Nevertheless, the implication ofŚrīdhara's metaphors is that the world is mere appearance, and Jīva finds this unacceptable. He comes down strongly against this view, calling it a fictitious interpretation (kalpanā-mūla), but never mentionsŚrīdhara directly, as he is usually wont to do.
Since the interpretation given here is based on theśruti, other fictitious interpretations are automatically defeated. In those interpretations, fire and the other elements, which were indicated in a general way [in the verse], are explained in a particular way. This does not please the grammarians. If this was what the Bhāgavata meant, it would have said "like water in a mirage" and similarly for the other elements. Moreover, in that [incorrect] view, the threefold creation [trisarga] is not born from Brahman in the primary sense of the word "born". Rather, the word janma is taken in the sense of superimposition (āropa). 32 At this point, Jīva presents several arguments in quick succession as to why superimposition cannot constitute the relationship between the world and Brahman. The disagreeable commentary he is referring to is clearly the Bhāvārtha-dīpikā (1.1.1), which states: "Vinimaya is transposition-the appearance of one thing in another. That [appearance] passes as reality because of the reality of its substrate [i.e., Brahman]. In this regard, the perception of water in fire, that is, in a mirage, is well known." 33 30 The full verse from the Bhāgavata Purān . a is as follows:tasmiṁs tadā labdha-rucer mahā-matepriyaśravasy askhalitā matir mamayayāham etat sad-asat sva-māyayāpaśye mayi brahman . i kalpitaṁ pare (1.5.27)The entirety ofŚrīdhara Svāmī's comments on this verse is as follows: priyaṁśravo yasya tasmin bhagavati labdha-rucer mamāskhālitāpratihatā matir abhavad ity anus . aṅgah . . yayā matyā pare prapañcātīte brahma-rūpe mayi sad-asat sthūlaṁ sūks . maṁ caitac charīraṁ sva-māyayā svāvidyayā kalpitaṁ na tu vastuto 'stīti tat-ks . an . am eva paśyāmi. 31 The relevant portion ofŚrīdhara's comments on Bhāgavata 1. Despite such instances of Advaitic concepts emerging in the Bhāvārtha-dīpikā, there is broad consensus among scholars thatŚrīdhara Svāmī is not a radical nondualist. 34 In his excellent study of Srīdhara's commentary on the catur-ślokī (the four essential verses of the Bhāgavata Purān . a, as determined by commentators), Okita finds thatŚrīdhara's theology was "closer to Rāmānuja's nondualism" (Okita 2014, p. 75), asŚrīdhara sometimes affirms the reality of the world and at other times moves closer toward Advaitic understandings of māyā (Okita 2014, p. 123). Sharma finds similar variance (Sharma 1981, pp. 458-59). Indeed, as we have seen above, it is impossible to placeŚrīdhara within any predefined Vedantic system, as he moves fluidly and unapologetically from Advaita-leaning positions to more dualistic views. 35 This fluidity makes the Bhāvārtha-dīpikā enticing to a broad spectrum of commentators, from a variety of sectarian backgrounds, across the subcontinent.
We have argued here that we must take seriously the fact that Jiva too, with his acintya-bhedābheda theology, is halfway to nondualism, and this makesŚrīdhara an easy choice-except, of course, when the choice is not easy, requiring a delicate interpretive dance on Jīva's part. We have argued that the acceptability ofŚrīdhara's theology is dependent largely on his stance toward Advaitic theories of illusion. On the one hand,Śrīdhara's reticence to build an Advaitic theory of māyā, even when there are opportunities to do so, makes it possible for Jīva to use him as a foundation for Caitanya Vais . n . ava theology. On the other, whenŚrīdhara does venture in the direction of māyā, risking the reality of the world and the individuality of the self, we encounter the boundary that Jīva draws in Tattva-sandarbha: "Our interpretation . . . will be written in accordance with the views of the great Vais . n . ava, the revered Srīdhara Svāmī, only when they conform to the strict Vais . n . ava standpoint." (Elkman 1986, p. 119).

WhyŚrīdhara? The Question Revisited
But we have spent much too long on the question ofŚrīdhara Svāmī's Advaitic tendencies and the effect that those tendencies have on his status as the canonical Caitanya Vais . n . ava commentator. Surely, there must be other reasons forŚrīdhara's appeal, other ways in which we can answer the question, "WhyŚrīdhara?" Indeed there are, and we will now go through them more briefly.
First, we must noteŚrīdhara's special regard for the Bhāgavata itself. The second verse of the Purān . a proclaims the text's distinctiveness and preeminence: The Bhāgavata is free of fraudulent dharmas, truthful in content, salutary for listeners, and productive of God's presence in their hearts. The third line raises a rhetorical question: "This beautiful Bhāgavata was written by the great seer. What then (is the use) of others (kiṁ vā paraih . )?" 36Ś rīdhara interprets "others" as "other scriptures (śāstraih . )," and provides a detailed argument for the Bhāgavata's superiority to the entire gamut of scriptural texts, including those of the karma-kān . d . a (Vedic ritual), jñāna-kān . da (philosophical), and devata-kān . d . a (devotional) genres. The Bhāgavata, he says, "is superior to all scriptures, including the three kān . d . as, because it perfectly conveys their meaning. Therefore, this book should be heard continuously." 37 Indeed,Śrīdhara's conviction in the Bhāgavata's preeminence is evident in chapter 87 of Book 10, where the Vedas praise Vis . n . u and thus implicitly accept their subordinate status to the Bhāgavata Purān . a.Śrīdhara, who is normally brief and pointed in his comments, waxes eloquent in this chapter, ending his commentary on each verse with his own verse composition in praise of Nr . siṁha. There is little doubt thatŚrīdhara accords to the Bhāgavata a privileged position above other sacred 34 For example, see De (1961, pp. 17-18), Okita (2014, chp. 3), B.N.K. Sharma (1981, p. 128), Sheridan (1994, pp. 58, 65), and Hardy (1974, p. 32). 35 Ananta Sukla (2010, pp. 74-76) argues thatŚrīdhara's theology draws from a variety of traditions, including Vais . n . ava,Śaiva, Sākta, Vedānta and Sāṅkhya, and he rarely criticizes thinkers from any of these traditions. Sukla (2010, p. 19) also points to the Bhāvārtha-dīpikā's third opening verse, which honors the "two Lords, Mādhava andŪmādhava [Śiva]." 36 dharmah . projjhita-kaitavo 'tra paramo nirmatsarān .āṁ satāṁvedyaṁ vāstavam atra vastuśivadaṁ tāpa-trayonmūlanamśrīmad-bhāgavate mahā-muni-kr . te kiṁ vā parairīśvarah . sadyo hr . dy avarudhyate 'tra kr . tibhih .ś uśrūs . ubhis tat-ks . an .ā t (Bhāgavata 1. A second feature ofŚrīdhara's commentary that would have made it particularly appealing to Caitanya Vais . n . avas is the central place he accords to Kr . s . n . a in his theology. Let us examine that verse in Book 1, chapter 3, which is of consummate importance to Caitanya Vais . n . avas and which Jīva considers to be the mahā-vākya, controlling thesis, of the entire Bhāgavata, 43 because it establishes Kr . s . n . a as the original Lord, the source of all other divinities: "These [aforementioned avatāras] are parts and portions of the Supreme Person, but Kr . s . n . a is Bhagavān, the Blessed Lord, himself." 44Ś rīdhara does two interesting things in this commentary: first, he provides a hierarchical typology of avatāras that would have been of great interest to early Caitanya Vais . n . ava theologians, who develop this into an extensive avatāra classification system.Śrīdhara tells us that some avatāras are aṁśas (parts) of the Supreme Lord, whereas others are kalā (smaller portions) and vibhūtis (powers). He then gives examples of each type, explaining that Matsya and other (major) avatāras are omniscient and omnipotent, but they manifest theirśaktis only inasmuch as is useful for their roles. Others, such as the four Kumāras, are possessed by powers of the Lord, such as knowledge, as are appropriate to their respective positions. The second taskŚrīdhara takes up in this verse is to explicate the particular position of Kr . s . n . a, and from a Caitanya Vais . n . ava standpoint, he could not have done it better. "Kr . s . n . a is indeed Bhagavān, none other than Nārāyan . a. Because he manifests allśaktis, he is the culmination of all [avatāras]." 45 Although Caitanya Vais . n . avas would regard Nārāyan . a as a portion of Kr . s . n . a,Śrīdhara is halfway there: he places Kr . s . n . a at the head of all avatāras and identifies him with their origin, Nārāyan . a. By way of contrast, we can again point to Vijayadhvaja's comments on this verse, where he takes the word kr . s . n . a as merely a reference to Vis . n . u's blackish complexion (megha-śyāma), and takes particular care to 38 As Christopher Minkowski (2005) shows, by the time of Nīlakan . t . ha Caturdhara, the seventeenth-century author of the Bhārata-bhāva-dīpa commentary on the Mahābhārata, the authority and status ofśruti and smr . ti were being reversed, with smr . ti texts, particularly the Bhāgavata Purān . a, bolstering the status of the Vedas rather than the other way around. See Gupta (2006) for a discussion of Jīva Gosvāmī's role in thisśruti-smr . ti reversal process. 39 The relevant section of Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha's commentary on Bhāgavata 1.1.2 states: kiṁ viśis . t . e. mahā-muni-kr . te aparaih kiṁ vā . . . tathā coktaṁ rājante tāvad anyāni purān .ā ni satāṁ gan . e yāvan na dr .ś yate sāks .ā tśrīmad-bhāgavataṁ param iti. . . . mahā-munir vyāsah . sāks .ā nnārāyan . ah . tena kr . te pran .ī te . . . dharmādi-kathanaih . kiṁ vā prayojanam. 40 See Laks . mīdhara's commentary on the Bhāgavata's second verse. I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer for pointing out this reference. Laks . mīdhara also provides an argument for the Bhāgavata's (and the Purān . as') preeminent status in his Bhagavan-nāma-kaumudī, a text that was quoted appreciatively by Caitanya Vais . n . avas (Venkatkrishnan 2015a, chp. 3). 41 In his commentary on the first verse of the Bhāgavata, Laks . mīdhara employs and defends a panoply of Advaita concepts, including bimba-pratibimba, vivarta, anirvacanīya, mithyā-jagat, and cid-eka-rasa. See Venkatkrishnan (2018) for a full discussion of Laks . mīdhara's engagement with Advaita Vedānta as well as other salient features of his commentary. 42 The relationship between Laks . mīdhara andŚrīdhara is not entirely clear. Venkatkrishnan notes that, among other confluences, "the first chapter of the BNK [Bhagavan-nāma-kaumudī] can be considered an elaboration ofŚrīdhara's brief and scattered comments on the power of the divine name into a full-fledged theology" (Venkatkrishnan 2015a, p. 72). On the hand, Laks . mīdhara's Amr . ta-taraṅginī commentary, Venkatkrishnan says elsewhere (Venkatkrishnan 2018, p. 55), "seems to show no awareness ofŚrīdhara's writing whatsoever." 43 For a detailed discussion of the role of mahāvākyas in Jīva Gosvāmī's theology, see Aleksandar Uskokov (Uskokov 2018). 44 Bhāgavata 1.3.28: ete cāṁśa-kalāh . puṁsah . kr . s . n . as tu bhagavān svayamindrāri-vyākulaṁ lokaṁ mr . d . ayanti yuge yuge 45 kr . s . n . as tu bhagavān nārāyan . a evaāvis . kr . t . a-sarvaśaktitvāt sarves .āṁ prayojanam identify the referent asŚes . aśāyī, the Lord who lies upon the serpentŚes . a, calling him the mūla-rūpī, the original form. 46 There is no interpretive space here for a Caitanya Vais . n . ava commentator. We could point to other elements inŚrīdhara's theology that make him appealing to Caitanya Vais . n . avas, such as his discussion of the power of Kr . s . n . a's name in the Ajāmila episode, 47 or the beginnings of a theory of bhakti-rasa in his commentary on Bhāgavata 10. 43.17. 48 But in the interest of space, we shall limit ourselves to one final observation aboutŚrīdhara's commentarial method that may explain his appeal not just among Caitanya Vais . n . avas but among readers of the Bhāgavata more generally.
Despite the theological choices and innovations we have documented above-that demonstraté Srīdhara's creative voice as a commentator-his exegetical method is more restrained than most commentators who succeed him.Śrīdhara's word definitions and grammatical parses tend to be what one would suspect on a first reading of the verse, with little recourse to obscure etymologies or creative resolutions of sandhi. The alternative interpretations, beginning with yad vā, that so delight later Bhāgavata commentators are less frequent in the Bhāvārtha-dīpikā, even when there is ambiguity in grammar or sandhi. Take, for example, the second verse of the Bhāgavata Purān . a that we examined above. Vīrarāghava and Vijayadhvaja give several alternate explanations of words throughout the verse, 49 placing it carefully within the theological frameworks of their own traditions, and thus both commentators have much to say on this important verse.Śrīdhara, on the other hand, offers an alternative gloss to but a single word and does not acknowledge any ambiguity in sandhi. This makes his comments relatively short (although still rather long by his own standard). Srīdhara's creative exegesis and theological digressions become even less frequent and more limited in scope as we move further into the Purān . a. There are, of course, exceptions toŚrīdhara's typical brevity and exegetical restraint, most obviously in his commentary on the Bhāgavata's first verse, 50 where he offers alternative interpretations of several words, along with two ways to resolve the sandhi of trisargomr . s .ā . 51 But even here,Śrīdhara is remarkably restrained compared to most other commentators, who sometimes offer multiple, unrelated interpretations of the entire verse, spanning several pages. Indeed, the first verse receives some of the longest and most complex commentaries of any verse in the Bhāgavata.
We can offer one more example ofŚrīdhara's commentarial restraint, from Book 3, chapters 15-16 of the Bhāgavata Purān . a-the story of Jaya and Vijaya's fall from grace. Jaya and Vijaya serve as Vis . n . u's attendants, guarding the innermost gates of Vaikun . t . ha. When the four child-sages, the Kumāras, 46 Another interesting feature of Vijayadhvaja's commentary on this verse is that he explicitly rejects the possibility of gradations of avatāras (asŚrīdhara outlines) as well as simultaneous difference and nondifference between the Lord and the avatāras (as the Caitanya theologians claim for certain kinds of avatāras). Rather, Vijayadhvaja insists that all avatāras are nondifferent from each other and from the avatārī, the original Lord Vis . n . u. The relevant portion of his commentary on 1.3.28 runs as follows: eteśes . a-śāyinah . parama-purus . asya svāṁśa-kalāh . svarūpāṁśāvatārah . na tatrāṁśāṁśināṁ bhedah . pratibimbāṁśavat. kim uktaṁ bhavati. kr . s . n . o megha-śyāmah .ś es . a-śāyī mūla-rūpī padma-nābho bhagavān svayaṁ tu svayam eva naśākhiśākhāvat bhedābhedopīti bhāvah . . 47 See Bhāgavata Purān . a, Book Six, chapters 1-3, for the story of Ajāmila's life and near-death experience. Gupta and Valpey (2016, chp. 13) provide an overview of multiple commentaries on this episode, focusing on the commentators' discussion of the power of the divine names. 48 Bhāgavata 10.43.17 describes the different ways in which Kr . s . n . a was perceived when he entered Kaṁsa's wrestling arena in Mathurā. In his commentary on this verse,Śrīdhara immediately introduces the concept of rasa: "Bhagavān, who is the embodiment of the multitude of all rasas beginning with amorous love, appeared in accordance with the wishes of each person there, and not in his fullness to everyone. . . . The rasas which were manifest in the wrestlers and members of the audience are delineated in order by this verse, '[The rasas are] wrath, wonder, amorous love, mirth, heroism, compassion, terror, disgust, tranquility, and devotion (bhakti) with love (prema).'" 49 For example, Vīrarāghava writes: yad vā matsara-śabdah . kāmādīnāṁ pradarśanārthah .ś ama-damādy-upetānāṁ mumuks .ū n .āṁ dharmah . . (Bhāgavata 1.1.2). See note 39 above for other relevant portions of Vijayadhvaja's commentary on Bhāgavata 1.1.2. 50 As mentioned above,Śrīdhara's commentary on theŚruti-stuti (Bhāgavata Book Ten, chapter 87) is also unusually long and complex. 51 The sandhi of trisorgomr . s .ā can be resolved as trisargah . mr . s .ā "the threefold creation is false," and trisargah . amr . s .ā "the threefold creation is not false." This, of course, has significant theological ramifications, andŚrīdhara incorporates both interpretations into his comments. arrive at these gates seeking to see the Lord, the gatekeepers turn them away, not recognizing the boys' greatness. The sages become angry and curse the gatekeepers to fall to earth and take three successive births as demonic enemies of Vis . n . u. Jaya and Vijaya instantly recognize their folly and repent, as Vis . n . u hastens to the scene to resolve the situation and give the sages what they had longed for-an audience with the Lord. At this point, the sages also feel deeply remorseful for their angry behavior, but Vis . n . u is unperturbed; he reassures both sides that all this was part of his divine plan. He asks Jaya and Vijaya to accept the curse and requests the sages to ensure that the gatekeepers' return to Vaikun . t . ha is swift. 52 The story of Jaya and Vijaya's fall from Vaikun . t . ha has intrigued commentators because it demonstrates what is said to be impossible-a liberated devotee of God falling from his divine abode to earth. This is the question that occupies commentators: Did Jaya and Vijaya truly deserve to be cursed and to fall from their posts in heaven? Who is to blame for their cursing-the four child-sages, the gatekeepers, Vis . n . u himself, or some combination of the three parties? The Bhāgavata itself incriminates different individuals at various points in the story, and the commentators duly acknowledge the text's attributions of guilt. But each commentator also has his own sense of what went wrong and who is truly at fault. Vallabhācārya, for example, makes note of the fact that although Vaikun . t . ha has seven gates, the sages were able to pass through six without difficulty. 53 The first six gates represent Vis . n . u's six excellences-majesty, strength, fame, beauty, wisdom, and renunciation-which the sages were qualified to perceive. But the Kumāras did not possess the quality necessary to enter the seventh gate, namely bhakti. Thus, even before the sages have uttered any curse, Vallabha makes it clear that the sages did not deserve to be there, and so the gatekeepers cannot truly be blamed for obstructing their path. 54 Nevertheless, the gatekeepers were not entirely innocent, says Vallabha, for they harbored pride in their status as the Lord's attendants, and pride is the characteristic quality of demons.
The other Vais . n . ava commentators tend to be less critical of the sages at the outset, but they too shift their sympathies to Jaya and Vijaya later in the story. Jīva takes the word avadhārya ("ascertained") to indicate that the gatekeepers had not recognized the four naked boys and thus their offense was unintentional. Vijayadhvaja says that the gatekeepers' immediate repentance shows that they were not at fault. 55 When Vis . n . u beseeches the sages to make his attendants' exile short, the Vais . n . ava commentators note the Lord's heartfelt concern for his devotees. When Vis . n . u finally takes blame upon himself, by claiming that he ordained the curse, Viśvanātha declares that both sides were faultless, since the entire event was set into motion by the Lord for the purpose of intensifying his loving relationships with his devotees.
All throughout the episode,Śrīdhara seems not to have a stake in the argument. He sticks closely to the Bhāgavata's explicit attribution of guilt, emphasizing the sages' qualification and the 52 The story of Jaya and Vijaya is one of the few narratives to be told twice within the Bhāgavata, in Books Three and Seven. In its second iteration, the story serves as part of an answer to the question of whether God behaves partially when he kills some and saves others. Kr . s . n . a's slaying of the hateful kingŚiśupāla, we are assured, was in fact a blessing in disguise, becausé Siśupāla was one of the two gatekeepers, and this was his last birth on earth as a demon. But this explanation ofŚiśupāla's death simply pushes the question further back in time-did Jaya and Vijaya truly deserve to be cursed and to fall from their posts in heaven? This is the question that interests commentators in their commentaries on the Jaya-Vijaya episode. 53 See Vallabha's remarkable commentary on Bhāgavata 3.15.27: "Here the sages passed through six gates without lingering, but at the seventh they saw two celestial beings holding clubs. Both were of equal age and they were beautifully dressed with the most excellent crowns, earrings, and armlets." 54 But what do we make of the Bhāgavata's statement, in 3.15.31, that the sages were most deserving (svarhattamāh . ) of visiting Vaikun . t . ha? Vallabha explains that because the sages were jñānīs (men of wisdom), they were certainly more deserving than mere ascetics or others with good behavior. Even for them, however, entering the Lord's private chambers would have been a major transgression (presumably because they were not yet devotees, as discussed above), and allowing this to happen would have been a mistake on the part of the gatekeepers. To protect both sides from this offense, the sages were forbidden entry into the Lord's private chamber. 55 See Jīva's and Vijayadhvaja's commentaries on Bhāgavata 3.15.35. The verse is as follows: "When the sages uttered these terrible words, the gatekeepers realized [avadhārya] that this was a brāhman . a's curse, which cannot be counteracted by any number of weapons. The servants of Hari became very fearful and immediately fell to the ground, grasping the sages' feet in desperation." gatekeepers' mistake. 56 When the text says that the gatekeepers' conduct was displeasing to the Lord, every commentator must explain why it was displeasing.Śrīdhara simply looks to the next chapter, where the fault is identified as disrespect of brāhman . as. 57 He moves with the narrative, apportioning blame as it is handed out by the text-first to the gatekeepers for insulting brāhman . as (3.15.30), then to the sages for cursing two sinless persons (3.16.25), and finally to Vis . n . u for making this part of his masterplan (3.16.26).Śrīdhara makes little attempt to harmonize these conflicting accounts of culpability and causality, focusing instead on the verse at hand and its immediate narrative context. 58

Conclusions
We have explored the question "WhyŚrīdhara?" from two directions. First, we asked, "What was it about early Caitanya Vais . n . ava theology that made it amenable toŚrīdhara Svāmī?" and second, "What was it aboutŚrīdhara that made his work so attractive to Caitanya Vais . n . ava authors (and a wide variety of other commentators)?" As we attempted to answer these questions, we saw the historical and theological confluences that madeŚrīdhara Svāmī and the Caitanya Vais . n . avas residents of a shared religious landscape, while carefully noting the boundaries between them. We also studiedŚrīdhara Svāmī's distinctive commentarial voice, often presenting itself in paradoxical forms-his creativity as an exegete alongside his restraint, his focus on Kr . s . n . a together with his theological fluidity, and his insistence on following the flow of the text along with his resistance to harmonizing it.
There is a conversation in the Caitanya-caritāmr . ta that is worth noting here, for it indirectly points to these facets ofŚrīdhara's method. A Vais . n . ava named Vallabha Bhat . t . a visits Caitanya and expresses his dissatisfaction with the Bhāvārtha-dīpikā: "I cannot acceptŚrīdhara's explanations. He explains things by accepting whatever he reads wherever he reads it. There is no consistency [in his explanations], and therefore I do not accept him as the master (svāmī)." (3.113-114). Although couched as a criticism here, these features ofŚrīdhara's work-attention to a verse's context, little attempt at achieving theological consistency, the lack of an easily-identifiable theological system, reticence toward conspicuous exegetical creativity, and the resulting brevity-have helped make his commentary virtuously synonymous with the plain sense of the Bhāgavata in the eyes of later authors.
And yet there is commentarial play inŚrīdhara's conservative method-a willingness to dance between opposing poles of dualism and nondualism, to push the boundaries of sampradāya, to dabble in emerging theories of bhakti-rasa, to follow the Bhāgavata's narratives wherever they might lead. That playfulness allowsŚrīdhara to write a lucid commentary and himself remain an enigma, to be claimed by all and belong to none. Perhaps Jīva was right in comparingŚrīdhara's commentary to a casket of jewels, hiding a cintāman . i gem from the eyes of all who were indifferent to its value. 59 For whether one followedŚrīdhara's lead or resisted him, indifference, it seems, was not an option.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: An earlier, much shorter version of this paper was presented at the World Sanskrit Conference in Vancouver. My sincere thanks to my fellow panelists and members of the audience, particularly Michael Allen (University of Virginia), David Buchta (Brown University), Jonathan Edelmann (University of Florida), 56 See Bhāvārtha-dīpikā 3.15.30 and 3.16.26. 57 Bhāvārtha-dīpikā 3.15.30: vāta-raśanān nagnān vr . ddhān api pañca-vars . a-bālakavat pratīyamānān. ca-kārādājñayā ca. askhalayatāṁ nivāritavantau. na tat skhalanam arhantīti tathā tān. aho atrāpi dhārs . t . yam ity evaṁ tes .āṁ tejo vihasya. bhagavato brahman . ya-devasya pratikūlaṁśīlaṁ yayoh . . 58 In our attempt to determine the reasons forŚrīdhara's influence, we might note another fruitful area of inquiry, namely, the social networks that conveyed the Bhāvārtha-dīpikā across much of the subcontinent less than a century after its composition, drawing the attention of those who were his near-contemporaries, such as Bahirā Jātaveda in Maharashtra and Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha in the south. At present, we know precious little about the Bhāvārtha-dīpikā's socio-political context, its precise location of origin, or the intellectual networks that drew texts and their authors from Orissa (where the Bhāvārtha-dīpikā was presumably composed) to other parts of the subcontinent. We hope further research will shed light on these questions, although they lie outside the scope of this article. 59 See Okita (2014, p. 103).