Aleksandar Uskokov

This article interprets the religious epistemology of the Caitanya Vaiṣṇava theologian Jīva Gosvāmin, specifically his division of perception in 'learned' and 'ignorant', to argue that 'learned' perception is supersensible cognitive experience shaped by learning and language. The article goes on to show that the contemporary scholarship on religious experience can learn an important lesson from Jīva's epistemology, namely that the social construction of categories that shape religious experience need not involve ontological agnosticism with respect to the existence of objects presented in it.

There is a widespread belief in Hinduism that Vyāsa, the alleged editor of the Vedas and author of the Mahābhārata, is identical with Bādarāyaṇa, the author of the Brahma-sūtra. The identification of these two mythic characters, however, originated between 800–980 ce, after the likes of Śaṅkara, Padmapāda, and Bhāskara, but before Vācaspati Miśra, Prakāśātman, Sarvajñātman, and Yāmuna. The purpose of this paper is to understand how and why such identification took place. The argument developed here is that the Bādarāyaṇa-Vyāsa identity was invented by the author of or community behind the Bhāgavata Purāṇa as part of a complex of self-representation strategies. The Bhāgavata intentionally makes itself a work of Vedānta, indeed the Brahma-sūtra itself, over which it builds a new soteriology that is centered on the idea of bhakti. Two factors in particular stand out in light of the Bhāgavata’s Vedāntic background: Vyāsa’s paradigmatic character as the preserver of old dharma and the innovator, visionary, of new soteriologies; and the image of Vyāsa’s son Śuka as the model ascetic and ideal candidate for the new soteriological vision, through whom the Bhāgavata community chose to represent itself.

In this article, I focus on the idea of mahā-vākya in the theology of Jīva Gosvāmin. I show how Jīva drew on two distinct understandings of mahā-vākya, those of Mīmāṁsā and Advaita Vedānta, to claim that: (1) the whole Veda, including the Itihāsa-Purāṇa corpus, was one large mahā-vākya; (2) a quarter verse from the Bhāgavata was a mahā-vākya; (3) the praṇava Oṁ was a mahā-vākya. I argue that Jīva used the notion of mahā-vākya to show that all the Vedas, epics, and Purāṇas denote Kṛṣṇa through the fact that the single most important scriptural statement, ‘Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Lord’ of Bhāgavata Purāṇa 1.3.28, has Kṛṣṇa as its reference. I conclude that mahā-vākya for Jīva was just a tool that he used for the purpose of canon formation in which the central role would belong to the Bhāgavata.

Paper presented at the 47th Annual Conference on South Asia, October 13, 2018, on the panel “Yāmuna in Context: Innovation and Argument in South Indian Intellectual History,” with Whitney Cox and Lawrence McCrea (co-panelists) and Srilata Raman (respondent).

This is a 1.0 version of the prose portion of Śaṅkara’s Upadeśa-Sāhasrī in roman transliteration, keyed for my private needs. It is still likely to contain many errors, but it is shared for search purposes in the spirit of the Serbian saying, “better a sparrow in hand than a pigeon on the branch.” The edition I used is the one in Volume 14 of “The Works of Sankaracharya” published by Vani Vilasa Press in Srirangam, 1914. The printed text is very liberal with the use of sandhi and no attempt has been made to standardize it. I have also looked at the 2003 Sarasvatībhavana-Granthamālā edition, edited by Rama Kiśora Tripāṭhī.