The position of Sridhar Swami

[Guest guest]

Bolo Gauranga

pamho

 

Srila Sridhara Svami

 

Srda Sridhara Svami was born in a Maharastriya brahmana family in the

province of Gujarat. His guru was Paramananda of the Rudra Vaisnava

Sampradaya in the disciplic succession of Acarya Visnusvimi. The exact

chronology of his birth is mysterious and unknown; but what the advaita-vadis

(impersonalists) postulate does not seem to be true or accurate. Some assume

that as Madhvacarya did not mention him in any of his writings he must be

born after him in the 13th century. But it is not correct to surmise that

this is so just because Madhvacarya did not mention him and this should not

be the gauge to determine this. It would not be judicious or sagacious. Srila

Sridhara Svami having no commentary on Srila Vyasadeva's Vedanta-sutra or on

any of the Upanisads did not offer Madhvacarya any chance to make reference

to him otherwise he would have surely mentioned him. In Srila Sridhara

Svami's commentary on Visnu Purina named "Atmi Prakisa", he

refers to Sankaracarya therein. If Ramanuja had had any idea of this

annotation he would have referred to it and cited it using it as evidence in

his "Sri Bhasya" (commentary on Vedants sutra). But even this does not

confirm that Srila Sridhara Svami was born subsequent to Ramanuja.

 

So in this respect whether or not he was a predecessor or sucessor to

Ramanuja and Madhvicarya is difficult to determine; but authoritative opinion

is that if he had been born subsequently to Ramanuja or Madhvacarya he would

have been able to easily come across their books and he wouldn't have had any

vestige of mayavadism (Impersinalism) in his writings and since he was aware

of Sankaracarya he certainly would have also been aware of the empowered

founders of the four sampradaya's who declared war on mayivadism. They openly

and boldly challenged everything Sankaracarya stood for. One must analyze all

available commentaries before one commits one's own commentary to writing and

in some of Silal Sridhara Svami's earlier commentaries there is a slight

smell of impersonalism. Because of this, the mayavidis try to postulate that

Sriala Sridhara Svami is a member from their rank and fold. By extreme good

fortune due to past pious activities

Srila Sridhara Svami had the association of a Vaisnava sannyasi. In his

commentary on Bhigavad-Gita called "Subodhini" he names this Vaisnava sannyasi

as Paramananda Tirtha, a worshipper of Nrsimhadeva and the first preacher of

Visnusvami's suddha-advaita-vada tattva (the name of the philosophy). Acarya

Visnusvami was present in this world long before the birth of Sankaracarya in

786 A.D. He was also known as Adi Visnusvami So since Srila Sridhara Svami was

definitely aware of Sankaracarya as is evident from his reference to him in

his "Atma Prakasha" when he had some vestiges of impersonalism. Then it would

be safe to surmise that later by the mercy of Paramanada Tirtha when he became

a staunch Vaisnava he would have surely been aware of Ramanuja and would have

certainly mentioned him. As Ramanuja was born in 1017 A.D. it is safe to say

that Srila Sridhara Svami lived sometime between the death of Sankaracarya in

818 A.D. and the

birth of Ramanuja in 1017 A.D.

 

Another proof in this regard is that Madhvacarya, the founder of the

Brahma Vaisnava Sampradaya (the name of our disciplic succession) was born in

1238 A.D., over 200 years after the birth of Ramanuja in 1017 A.D. and

although Ramanuja was the founder of the Sri Vaisnava Sampradaya and lived

two centuries before; yet Madhvacarya was still very much aware of Ramanuja's

and his vasista-advaitavada philosophy as is evidenced in Madhvacarya's

immortal work "Sri Tattva-muktavali" verse 52 revealed below:

 

 

ramanujh sista-ganagra-garryo

nininda bimba-pratibimbawadam

sistair grhitam na matas to

yasmat tasmad bhavec carutaram tonunam

 

Ramanujah,-Ramanuja, 'sista-of learned philosophers, gang of the

multitude, agra-ganyah-the foremost, nininda-refuted,

bimba-pratibimba-vadanr--the mayavadi hypothesis that the living entities and

the Supreme Lord are identical, 'sistaih-by the intelligent,

grhitanc-accepted, na-not, match--considered, tu-indeed, yasmat because,

tasmat therefore, bhavet may be, carutarari*-logical, tu-indeed,

nunam--certainly

 

Translation

 

Ramanuja the foremost of the multitude of learned philosophers has already

refuted the mayavadi hypothesis that the living entity and the Supreme Lord

are identical, therefore the intelligent will not consider or accept this

mayavadi axiom because certainly it is not logical.

 

So although Madhvacarya lived 200 years later he still documented the

details of Ramanuja who preached prolifically all over India and whose

accomplishments were so awesome that still they were influencing subsequent

acaryas two centuries later. For those who say that if Madhvacarya knew about

Ramanuja then why did he not know about Srila Sridhara Svami as well if he

was born after him we will submit that Ramanuja was known all over India for

his preaching and his stand against mayavadism (impersonalism) and this was

Madhvacarya's main purpose to defeat mayavadism wherever and whenever it was

manifest. The concensus is that it is credible that Ramanuja and Madhvacarya

may not have heard about Srila Sridhara Svami so prolifically were they

engaged in their preaching and writings all over India. But it is not seemly

that Srila Sridhara Svami who became a Vaisnava in his later life could have

been unaware of Ramanuja's and

Madhvacarya's great and illustrious fame throughout Mother India.

 

It would, also be worthy to note that Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu appreciated

the commentary of Srila Sridhara Svami very much; so much so that no acarya

in any Gaudiya Vaisnava Sampradaya (Our disciplic succession) will have an

opinion that does not conform with this opinion. In Sri Caitanya Caritamrita,

Antya-lila, chapter 7, sloka 133 , Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu states Himself:

 

sridhara-seamprasade

bhagavata'jani jagad-guru

sridhara-svami guru kari'mani

 

'sndhara-svamr-SrRa Sndhara Svami, prasade-by the mercy, bhagavata

jani--we can understand Srimad Bhagavtam, jagadquru =the spiritual master of

the entire world, sndhara-svamfiSrRa Sndhara Svaml, guru kari -as spiritual

master, mani-I accept

 

Translation

 

Srila Sridhara Svami is the spiritual master of the entire world, by his

mercy we can understand the Snmad Bhagavatam. I accept him as a spiritual

master.

 

Srila Sridhara Svami's commentary on Srimad Bhagavatam is called

"Bhavartha Dipika" or "A Torchlight to Illumine the Meaning of the Moods".

This illustrious commentary reveals the profound and esoteric essence of the

slokas (verses) within Srimad Bhagavatam, illuminating the hidden purport of

the verses as well as clarifying the obvious meanings.

 

After serious contemplation Srila Sridhara Svami realizing the utter

hopelessness and futility of pursuing mayavadism with its concocted,

speculative hypothesis for some illusionary salvation; he turned to the path

of true devotion for the attainment of transcendental knowledge , bliss and

eternity and real tangible salvation. At the end of his " Subodhini "

commentary on 'Bhagavad Gita" he wrote the following:

 

sruti-smrti-purana-vacanani

evam sati samaniani bhavanti

tasmat bhaktir eva

moksa-hetur iti siddham

 

'sruti smrti purana-vacanani--the statements of the Vedas, the

SrimadBhagavatam, the Bhagavad-43ff a, the Upanisads and the Puranas, evam

satiwhen like this, samanjani-easily understandable, bhavantibecomes, tasmat

therefore, bhakti-devotion to the Lord, eva-only, moksa-hetur-root cause of

salvation, itiis, siddhan-proved

 

Translation

 

When this is the case, the statements of the Vedas, the Srimad Bhagavatam,

the Bhagavad GIta, the Upanisads and the Puranas all become easily

understandable. Therefore it is proved that devotion to the Lord only is the

root cause of salvation.

 

If Srila Sridhara Svami is held to be a mayavadi how is it possible for

him to concur and support these basic tenets of Bhagvad Gita which is the

very root of Vaisnava ontology. Then why do the mayavadis include him in

their lists? No mayavadi will accept the view of devotion to the Supreme

Lord; but still they do not wish to lose his association. There is a very

surprising incident that occurred that we feel is apropriate to share with

our readers below.

 

Once after traveling a very long distance in his preaching commitments,

Srila Sridhara Svami reached Kasi and decided to write his commentary on

Bhagavad-Glta there. When he finished it the mayavadis were very aggrieved

and upset and began finding fault with it. The science of Vaisnavism was

beginning to be perceived by the mayavadis as being beyond the range and

scope of their competency and so confused and disorientated they unitedly

approached Siva in his form of Sri Visvanatha in Kasi to seek his advice. The

order that he gave directly was the following:

 

 

aham vetti suko veto

vyaso vetti na veto va

sridharah sakalam vetti srf

nrsimha prasadatah

 

aham-the ego, vetti-knows, 'suko-Sukadeva Gosvim% vetti-knows,

Vyaso-Vedavyasa, vettiknows, na vetti vaknows or not, 'sridharah-Sridhara,

sakalam-everything, vetti knows, 'sri nrsimha-prasadatah by the grace of Lord

Nrsimha

 

Translation

 

The ego knows or not, Sukadeva knows or not, Vedavyasa knows or not, but

Sridhara Svami knows all by the grace of Lord Nrs imha.

 

So we know as confirmed by this sloka that Srila Sridhara Svaml by the

mercy of Paramananda Tirtha defeated all the advaita-vadis in Kasi and thus

it can be seen that only by the mercy of a Vaisnava can one become a

Vaisnava. Vaisnava Vijaya! (All glory (or victory) to a Vaisnava)

 

Hare Krishna

Jaya Prabhupad

ard

 

 

 

Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using

Messenger with Voice.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Avadhuta Raya prabhu

 

Thank for this enlivening post. One thing: Tattva-muktavali has

been erroneously ascribed by Kusakratha to Madhvacharya. It is

actually the work of a famous follower of Ramanuja.

 

Gerald

 

 

 

 

[vrajavasi 0]

Radhe Krishna,

 

This has been discussed threadbare in Gaudiya discussion fourm. Bangli @ jijaji, gaurhari, Angrezi and so many persons discussed it over there.

 

Sobodhini was not composed by Shridharacharya but Vallabhacharya.

 

Whatever it is, Shridhariya Vyakhyanamm on Shrimad Bhagavatham is the oldest and most referred vyakhyana.

 

Radhe Krishna

[vrajavasi 0]

Radhe Krishna,

 

And subodhini was not a commentary on Bhagawath Geetha but Bhagawatham. Primarily it was a commentary on Dashama Skanda

 

Radhe Krishna