Vedānta, Bhakti, and Their Early Modern Sources

Front matter

DE GRUYTER

Rosina Pastore

PHILOSOPHICAL AND RELIGIOUS DIMENSIONS OF BRAJVASIDAS’S PRABODHACANDRODAYA NĀTAKA

Part I: Critical Study of the Prabodhacandrodaya Nātaka

1 Brajvasidas's Prabodhacandrodaya Nātaka —— 19 1.1 Brajvasidas's Life and Works — 19 1.2 The Prabodhacandrodaya Nātaka —— 24 Chapter Summary —— 61

2 The Prabodhacandrodaya Nataka and the Prabodhacandrodaya Tradition — 65 2.1 Krsnamisra’s Prabodhacandrodaya and its Reception —— 68 2.2 Banvālīdās's Persian Gulzār-i Hal —— 73 2.3 Nanddas’s Prabodhacandrodaya —— 76 Chapter Summary —— 78

3 Tulsīdās's Rāmcaritmānas and the Prabodhacandrodaya Story —— 79 3.1 The Influence of the Rāmcaritmānas on Early Modern Works — 79 3.2 The Place and Significance of Viveka in the Rāmcaritmānas —— 84 3.3 The Role of the Rāmcaritmānas in Brajvasidas's Prabodhacandrodaya Nātaka — 100 Chapter Summary — 106

VIII —— Contents

4 The Prabodhacandrodaya Nataka’s Vedanta and Bhakti — 109 4.1 Ontology and Metaphysics — 109 4.2 A Bhakta Yogi and the Path to Freedom — 169 Chapter Summary —— 194

Part II: Annotated Translation of the Prabodhacandrodaya Nātaka Note to the Translation —— 207

Selection of Dramatis Personae —— 213

ACT I — 213 ACT II — 213 ACT III — 213 ACT IV — 214 ACT V — 214 ACT VI — 215 Selection of Additional Characters — 217

ACT I — 219 ACT II — 249 ACT III — 267 ACT IV — 281 ACT V — 295 ACT VI — 315

Index — 357

List of Tables and Figures

Table 1 Narrative Levels established in Act I —— 33

Table 2 Synthetic Reading of the PcN through its Dohas —— 59 Table 3 Matra Vrttas in Act I —— 60

Table 4 Varna Vrttas in Act I —— 61

Figure 1 Genealogy of the PcN's family —— 218

3 Open Access. © 2024 the author(s), published by De Gruyter. [COBZTETIN) This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Note to the Reader

The Indic languages featured in this book are presented in a transliterated form using the Latin alphabet with diacritical marks, following the system outlined by Ronald S. McGregor in the Oxford Hindi-English Dictionary. Sanskrit, Brajbhāsā, and Avadhi terms keep the final short -a, which is not retained for modern Hindi terms and expressions nor the names of authors. Hence, we have “Brajvasidas” (or “Brajvasi”) instead of “Brajavasidasa” and “Tulsidas” (or “Tulsi”) instead of “Tulasidasa”. The titles of lesser-known Brajbhasa and Avadhi works retain the final short -a, while titles of well-known works are presented in their most recognised format. For example, Rāmcaritmānas instead of Rāmacaritamānasa and Sursagar instead of Sūrasāgara.

Terms of Perso-Arabic origin found in Brajbhasa texts are transliterated according to the method employed for Brajbhasa itself. Conversely, titles of Persian works are transliterated following the conventions outlined in John Platts’s A Dictionary of Urdu, Classical Hindi, and English. Proper names of renowned historical figures of Perso-Arabic origin are transliterated without diacritical marks, such as “Dara Shukoh". Geographical place names are written with diacritical marks only when they appear so in literary works. For example, *Ayodhyā” is used when referring to the capital of King Ràma's reign in the Ramcaritmanas.

Adjectives of Indic origin combined with English suffixes are presented in accordance with (British) English orthography and without diacritical marks, following the spelling of the Oxford English Dictionary. As such, terms such as Advaitic, Puranic, shastric, Vedantic, Upanishadic, and yogic are used instead of $astric, Upanisadic, and so on. Nouns of Indic origin currently used in the English language also adhere to this rule, such as “yogi”. All other Indic terms are transliterated with diacritics. English translations or explanations of these terms are provided, which may vary depending on the context, and are used interchangeably with the original terminology. Dates following Vikram era dating are prefaced with *VS", while other cases follow the Gregorian calendar.

The written representation of Indian poetry exhibits a remarkable variability, showcasing a range of influences, historical contexts, and linguistic factors. Consequently, it becomes essential to establish clear definitions of certain terms used in this book. A poetic line (or *line”) denotes a single metrical line in a poetic composition. A *verse" is a grouping of poetic lines, which may consist of one or more lines, according to the organisation of that specific poetic composition. Within a poetic line, a *pāda” refers to a distinct section, typically separated by a single danda (comparable to a full stop), with the other half concluding with a double danda. Where quoted verse runs on in the text or notes, the end of the first pāda is indicated by a single vertical slash (|), while the end of the second is

3 Open Access. © 2024 the author(s), published by De Gruyter. [C)B] This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. D d g/10 978 0638

XII —— Note to the Reader signalled by double slashes (|), which may or may not coincide with the end of a poetic line. As such, vertical slashes are being used here in place of dandas. It is important to note that a poetic line can comprise two or more padas, depending on the particular metre employed. All translations provided in this book are my own unless otherwise specified.

List of Abbreviations

Texts

BhG Bhagavadgītā

BhP Bhāgavata Purāņa

BS Brahmasūtras

GH Gulzār-i Hāl by Banvālīdās

KPC Prabodhacandrodaya by Krsnamisra

NS Nātyašāstra by Bharata

PcN Prabodhacandrodaya Nataka by Brajvasidas

RcM Ramcaritmanas by Tulsīdās

Ys Yogasūtras by Patafijali

Upanisads

BAU Brhadaranyaka Upanisad

CU Chāndogya Upanisad

MU Muņdaka Upanisad

$vU Svetasvatara Upanisad

Dictionaries

HSS Shyamsundar Das (1965-1975): Hind? Sabdsāgar. Kashi: Nagari Pracarini Sabha.

MW Monier Monier-Williams (1899): A Sanskrit-English Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

OHD Ronald S. McGregor (1993): The Oxford Hindi-English Dictionary. Oxford; Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Platts John T. Platts (1884): A Dictionary of Urdu, Classical Hindi, and English. London: W. H. Allen & Co.

SK Dindayal Gupta / Premnarayan Tandan (1974): Brajbhāsā Sür-ko$. Lucknow: Lucknow Vishvavidyalaya.

Other

MSH Modern Standard Hindi

PC Prabodhacandrodaya (the story, not necessarily a specific text)

Skt. Sanskrit

VS Vikram Samvat

3 Open Access. © 2024 the author(s), published by De Gruyter. [C)B] This work is licensed under the

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. 977 a

Introduction

This book delves into the realm of philosophy in early modern India, with the specific focus of exploring the positioning of Brajvāsīdās (b. 1730s—?), an author who wrote in Brajbhāsā, in philosophical matters through his first composition, the Prabodhacandrodaya Nātaka (The Drama of the Rise of the Wisdom Moon, c. 1760 [VS 1817]; hereafter referred to as PcN). The PcN, which remains unedited and untranslated to this day, belongs to a tradition of allegorical dramas, a retelling of a story best known in its Sanskrit form as the Prabodhacandrodaya, composed by Krsnamisra in the eleventh century (hereafter referred to as KPC). Within Brajvasidas’s text, philosophical and religious speculations abound, challenging the conventional sources commonly employed to study Vedanta and bhakti in the early modern era. This book aims to demonstrate how an allegorical drama can contribute to tracing the history of philosophical ideas during this period.

By examining my own translation of the PcN, upon which this critical study is based, it becomes evident that Brajvasidas’s imagery draws from, on the one hand, the Upanisads and the teachings of Vedānta philosophers and, on the other, the literary universe of bhasa (regional or local languages). Thus, this study seeks to illustrate that relying solely on Sanskrit shastras, intended as systematic and argumentative theorisations of a subject, when analysing a vernacular philosophical text partially obscures the author's creativity. The following two sections will further elucidate the interpretive frameworks and research questions guiding this work, as well as the methodologies employed. An overview of the book's chapters concludes the introduction. However, before proceeding, it is essential to clarify the approach taken towards the PcN and the Prabodhacandrodaya tradition.

In this study, the PcN is not considered a version of the original Sanskrit Prabodhacandrodaya but rather a telling or retelling. The terms “telling” or *retelling” are preferred over “version” or “adaptation” as they emphasise an aspect that will be explored in the subsequent pages, one that should not be overlooked: orality. Consequently, references will be made not only to the Prabodhacandrodaya tradition/parampara (hereafter PC tradition/paramparā) but also to the Prabodhacandrodaya story (PC kathā). Similar to the Rama story (Rama kathā), this book demonstrates that “Prabodhacandrodaya” was not solely Krsnamisra’s Prabodhacandrodaya as a written text but also a tale that existed independently of a standardised version. People were aware of the story, which was recounted and retold orally according to their preferences, sometimes blending with other narratives. Furthermore, Paula Richman, in the introduction to her edited book

3 Open Access. © 2024 the author(s), published by De Gruyter. [C)B] This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. D d g/10 9/8 063836-00

Many Rāmāyaņas, astutely observes that (re)tellings of the Rāma story *vary according to historical period, regional literary tradition, religious affiliation, genre, intended audience, social location, gender and political context”.' Building on this insight, this book investigates the multifaceted layers surrounding the PcN's creation, considering how Brajvāsī s work uniquely positions itself within the larger literary, philosophical, and religious landscape.

It is important to note that the approach taken in this study does not seek to untangle Vedanta and bhakti (commonly translated as “devotion”’). Instead, through a meticulous investigation of these intertwined dimensions, the book strives to present a compelling case for “Greater Vedanta(s)” and create a space within the realm of Vedanta philosophies for texts like the PcN. This prompts the fundamental question: How can we situate the texts that retell the PC story within the broader histories of Indian philosophy, specifically within the domain of Vedanta philosophies?

Greater Vedanta(s): Exploring Multilingual and Multi-Genre Philosophy

The historical narrative of Vedanta philosophies has predominantly been read through literature composed in Sanskrit. More specifically, it has been primarily examined through commentaries and sub-commentaries on the Upanisads, Badarayana’s Brahmasūtras (BS), and the Bhagavadgita (BhG),* as well as in independent treatises, compendiums, and primers. Even notable exceptions, such as Surendranath Dasgupta's monumental History of Indian Philosophy, which includes chapters on the philosophical viewpoints found in non-technical texts,* have maintained a strong association between philosophy and Sanskrit.° However, the mere juxtaposition of shastras with various other genres of texts in addressing Indian philosophy, as done by Dasgupta, does not seem to have exerted significant influence. A quick look at the table of contents of publications

2 On the meaning of bhakti in the PcN, see footnote 31 of Chapter 1.

3 These three canonical texts are often collectively referred to as the prasthanatrayi, meaning “three sources”. They are deemed to have epistemic authority, especially for the Vedanta schools. See Potter 1981: 5.

4 Dasgupta 1922. This multivolume work includes chapters on “The Philosophy of the Yoga- Vasistha” and “Speculations in the Medical Schools".

5 In the preface, Dasgupta refers to the object of his study as “Sanskritic ways of thought” (1922, vol. 1: x).

focusing on the most extensively studied school of Vedānta, Advaita Vedānta,* reveals the limited attention given to non-shastric texts. Dasgupta’s unease with the unsystematic nature of these texts seems to have had a lasting impact on the study of Indian philosophy, overshadowing his recognition of their importance to understanding Indian thought.’

Nonetheless, in recent times, scholars have sought to challenge the established assumptions about what qualifies as philosophy. For instance, Jessica Frazier raises questions about the prevailing notion of separate domains for philosophy and religion in the South Asian context. Instead, she argues for a “constitutive” relationship between the two and highlights the phenomenon of the “narrativisation of philosophy”, which refers to the inclusion of philosophical discourses within texts considered primarily literary or theological.* Frazier emphasises that “popular religious poetry, drama and myth became the new clothing for philosophical ideas” in the medieval period.” This prompts us to ponder: What insights might we glean from philosophy in sources beyond commentaries and treatises?

This preoccupation, among others, has informed recent scholarly endeavours, notably special issues of the International Journal of Hindu Studies (edited by Michael Allen and Anand Venkatkrishnan) and the Journal of Indian Philosophy (edited by Jonathan Peterson), the latter of which includes articles by Allen and Venkatkrishnan.' The two issues are titled New Directions in the Study of Advaita Vedanta and Pluralising the Non-Dual: Multilingual Perspectives on Advaita Vedanta, 1560-1847. Several essays in these issues not only delve into philosophy beyond the confines of the shastras but explore philosophical ideas expressed in languages other than Sanskrit. Allen and Venkatkrishnan explain the need for such studies in the field of Advaita Vedanta because “scholars have yet to provide even a rudimentary, let alone comprehensive account of the history of Advaita Vedanta in the centuries leading up to the colonial period". Exploring texts from this period is, they argue, crucial to enhancing our understanding of how the school was received and interpreted in later times. Thus, they propose a critical inquiry into overlooked periods, authors, texts, and languages within the realm of post-Šankara (i.e. post-eighth century) Advaita Vedanta. In a complementary vein, Peterson

6 See e.g. Potter 1981; Narain 2003; Deutsch/Dalvi 2004. Chaudhuri 2012 also covers other Vedantic traditions.

7 With the sole exception of the Bhagavadgita. Dasgupta 1922, vol. 2: 7.

10 Special issues: Allen/Venkatkrishnan 2017; Peterson 2020a. Articles: Allen 2020; Venkatkrishnan 2020. See the bibliography for details.

11 Allen/Venkatkrishnan 2017: 272.

emphasises that the exploration of multilingual sources has the potential to “fill out, and perhaps complicate, our understanding of the social and intellectual histories of Advaita Vedanta”.

The PcN is a drama composed in Brajbhasa during the early modern period in North India, evidently not a shastra. Consequently, it aligns with the genres of texts, periods, and languages examined in the aforementioned studies. However, it is essential to acknowledge certain caveats when adopting such a perspective. First, this book does not primarily contribute to “Greater Advaita Vedanta”. Moreover, it does not focus solely on Advaita Vedanta itself. In my view, not only the study of Advaita Vedanta but also all the schools falling under the umbrella of Vedanta, as traditions engaged in Upanishadic exegesis, can benefit from insights derived from non-classical sources and languages.” Thus, I have chosen to omit the term “Advaita” in the heading of this section and instead opted for a neutral and pluralistic understanding of “Vedanta(s)”.

Michael Allen has advocated for the concept of “Greater Advaita Vedānta”.'* This notion contrasts with the canon of “Classical Advaita Vedanta”, which encompasses thinkers like Sankara (eighth century), his students such as Padmapada (700-750 CE), Citsukha (thirteenth century), and later thinkers like Madhustidana Sarasvati (sixteenth century). As previously mentioned, it includes Advaita Vedanta “also in narratives and dramas, ‘syncretic’ works blending Vedanta with other traditions, and vernacular works”.” Allen proposes two fundamental criteria for identifying an Advaita thinker in the premodern era: explicit endorsement of the world’s unreality and the doctrine of the individual self (jīva) being identical with brahman.' This leads us to question whether the PcN presents these views and, if so, how Brajvasidas aligns with Advaita philosophy.

12 Peterson 2020b: 2. See also Pahlarai 2013, which specifically examines the epistemological aspect of the Vrttiprabhakar by Niscaldas (1791-1863), an independent treatise from the Advaita Vedanta perspective.

13 Publications on these traditions also tend to prioritise Sanskrit sources. See e.g. Gupta 2007; Okita 2014, 2020. See also Maharaj 2020, an edited volume that encompasses early modern thinkers like Jiva Gosvami (sixteenth century) within the category of “Classical Vedanta” and includes Ramakrishna Paramahansa (1836—1886), Aurobindo Ghose (1872—1950), and the French intellectual Romain Rolland (1866—1944) in Modern Vedanta. Although there is not enough space to expand this discussion here, it is worth noting that labelling early modern thinkers like Gosvami as “Classical Vedanta” might obscure the fact that their historical contexts and perspectives may have differed from those of Sankara or Vedāntadešika.

While we will return to these specific issues later in this study, it is important to consider that categorisations such as “Greater Advaita Vedanta” or “Greater Vedanta” should not create further divisions within the intellectual history of Vedanta. Instead, terms like “Greater (Advaita) Vedanta”, with necessary parentheses, can be useful in signalling a distinct approach to studying Vedanta philosophies. Such terminology highlights a diverse body of sources that has been often overlooked by scholarship on these traditions. However, it is crucial to clarify that this book does not interpret the PcN as inherently opposing traditional texts and philosophers. Instead, its objective is to demonstrate that Brajvasidas’s work draws inspiration from traditional sources while also incorporating other influences, albeit not exclusively and not without critical examination.

Anand Venkatkrishnan has argued for a “bottom-up” view of philosophy, wherein localised and non-scholastic forms of knowledge permeate a wide range of Sanskrit texts. He examines the commentary composed in Marathi by the poet Eknath in the sixteenth century on the Sanskrit Hastamalaka Stotra. The story revolves around Hastamalaka, a mute boy who encounters Sankara, the philosopher. When questioned about his identity and provenance, Hastamalaka initially takes a Mahānubhāva anti-Brahminical stance. However, the conclusion of the commentary takes a Brahminical turn as Sankara initiates the boy as a renunciate, followed by an exposition on the Dašanāmī order. Although traditionally associated with Sankara as its founder, research has revealed that the Dašanāmī order emerged between the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.” The presence of an unusual Dašanāmī denomination in Eknath’s commentary suggests that he might have been acquainted with this knowledge from local sources or direct contact with such groups rather than relying solely on Sanskrit sources." This leads Venkatkrishnan to propose that Eknath potentially engaged with sources beyond Sanskrit, although in the poet’s Vedantic works he demonstrates familiarity with classical sources like the Upanisads and “Greater Vedanta” sources such as the Bhagavata Purana (BhP; ninth-tenth century) and the Yogavasistha (twelfth-fourteenth century).

Considering these studies, it becomes crucial to not merely view the PcN in relation to the KPC but to investigate its interactions with other texts and contexts closer in time, language, and inspiration. Moreover, the endeavour undertaken in this book to reflect on early modern Vedanta in bhāsās departs from the inclination to exclusively compare Brajvasidas with figures like Sankara or the founders

17 See Clark 2006. 18 Venkatkrishnan 2020: 16-17. 19 Venkatkrishnan 2020: 19.

of the tradition to which Brajvasidas belonged: specifically, Vallabha (1478-1530) and his son Vitthalnath (1516—1572). This approach stems from the belief that addressing the dearth of knowledge concerning early modern philosophical activity and, more specifically, enriching and complicating the history of Vedanta philosophies requires exploration beyond commentaries and treatises.” Moreover, it necessitates discarding the bias that knowledge must conform to a single model of systematicity to be considered efficient and valid — to be actual *Knowledge" — and instead examines genres where philosophical communication intersects with poetry and, in the case examined here, drama.”

In the context of the language of knowledge, Sheldon Pollock raises the notion of “the clear and untranscendable limits of vernacular textualization in the early modern period" 7 He argues that, aside from alankārašāstra (science of poetics) texts, there are close to no works in bhasa addressing philosophical schools of thought. He notes that only vaidika (works associated with the Vedas) are found.? This prompts the question of whether these vaidika works can be regarded as representative of how philosophy and philosophical knowledge were conceived and transmitted in local languages.”*

20 See Ganeri 2017: intr.

21 In a volume on Advaita Vedānta edited by Debi Prasad Chattopadhyaya as part of a multivolume work on the History of Science, Philosophy and Culture in Indian Civilization, there is a section on *Advaita in the Vernacular". The essays in this section explore Advaita in various languages such as Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, Kannada, Marathi, Gujarati, Hindi, Punjabi, Bengali, and Oriya. While the endeavour is laudable, when reading the chapter on Advaita in Hindi by Surendra K. Srivastava, one encounters several conceptual difficulties. The chapter primarily focuses on Nišcaldās and his independent works on Advaita. The last part of the chapter discusses translations, commentaries in modern Hindi, and secondary literature from the twentieth century. Thus, early modern philosophy is reduced to Nišcaldās and a single section on the *Advaita of the Saint Tradition". In this section, various authors and contexts that are in fact remarkably different from one another - Kabir, Tulsīdās, Nanak, and the Maratha bhaktas — are combined under the vague banner of Advaita. Srivastava's essay predominantly presents a unified movement with anti-caste and anti-Vedic claims, subsuming it even further under the label of Advaita. This perspective does not align with the goals of the present book, which aims to provide a historical and philosophical analysis of the PcN without imposing a preconceived structure on the text. See Srivastava 2010: 582—599.

24 There remains a significant body of texts dealing with philosophical matters to be explored. For instance, Tyler W. Williams has uncovered references within the Niranjani and Dādū sampradayas that indicate the existence of “vernacular religious scholarship" in the early modern period, which suggests a rich corpus of untapped material. See Williams 2019a: 10—12. Even more than Vedānta, scholars have often assumed that Nyāya (Reason/Logic) remained untouched by

Furthermore, philosophy cannot be said to be divorced from poetry. In addition to composing scholastic texts in Sanskrit, many thinkers also expressed their ideas through poetry.” The BhP - along with the prasthānatrayī (Upanisads, BS, BhG), the primary scriptural basis for the Vedanta schools that flourished in Braj during the sixteenth century — exemplifies this connection, as it is itself a remarkable piece of poetry.” Could it have served as an inspiration, demonstrating alternative ways to explore profound philosophical matters?

Friedhelm Hardy provides valuable insights into a religious tradition that does not consider the BhP as one of its primary references. He demonstrates how the celebrated Višistādvaita philosopher Vedantadesika (1269—1370), also known as Venkatanatha, incorporated quotations from both the poetry of the Alvars and the Paficaratra scriptures in his Dehalisastuti. Although Hardy acknowledges that the content of the poem may not precisely align with Vedantadesika’s “proper” philosophy, he recognises that Vedantadesika may have had purposes beyond adhering to systematic notions. He suggests that the hymn, dedicated to a particular form of Visnu, could provide a space for the convergence of conflicting traditions within Visistadvaita (eleventh century) - namely, the Vatakalai and the Tenkalai — on a central theme like prapatti (surrender to Visņu).”” Significantly, Hardy concludes that Vedantadesika’s identity as both a kavi (poet) and a tarkika (philosopher) is not diminished or mutually exclusive and that exploring the technical and poetical output of a single author can significantly contribute to the study of Indian thought.”

However, notwithstanding Hardy’s viewpoint, eclectic material, particularly allegorical drama, continues to face scepticism. Vedantadesika’s work provides us with a further example. As a prolific author, he also crafted a retelling of the PC story from the Visistadvaita perspective, titled Sankalpasūryodaya (The Rising of the Sun of [Visnu's] Will). Steven Hopkins, while introducing the works attributed to this influential philosopher, highlights the Sankalpasūryodaya and acknowledges that:

bhasas prior to the colonial era. See Pollock 2011: 23-24. However, the PcN in fact addresses Nyāya through a treatment of six categories of debate (vada). See Pastore 2023.

25 For example, the sixteenth-century Gaudiya theologian Rüpa Gosvāmī also composed dramas. See Wulff 1984.

26 See Theodor 2016: 1-8. On the difficulties of translating the BhP, see Gupta 2018: 175-189. Among the traditions, chief were those founded by Vallabha and the Bengali Caitanya (1486-1533). The Gaudiyas, for example, saw the BhP as the perfect commentary to the BS. See Gupta 2007: 105. 27 See Hardy 1979: 315-316. The arcāvatara (manifestation of Visnu in a worshippable form) of Dehalisa (Lord of the Porch) is one of the central deities of Tamil bhakti. See Shulman 2016: 115—116.

Samkalpasūryodaya is a fine example of the limitations of works written to evoke santa — “transcendental peace” — as their main aesthetic experience (rasa). Though šāntarasa is at the heart of some extraordinarily powerful poetry in Sanskrit, including (according to tradition) portions of the Mahabharata and the Buddhist kāvyas of A$vaghosa, most often its poets err on the side of self-consciousness. What to A$vaghosa was merely the mixing of *pitter herbs with honey" becomes in many works of this genre a shoehorning of doctrinal views into verse, straining the already limited scope of philosophical allegory. Like other examples of the philosophical drama, Desika’s play sometimes, in M. R. Rajagopala Iyengar's phrase, “smells of the lamp."?

Although Hopkins's observations are not explicitly directed towards Vedānta but rather the conveyance of $àntarasa (sentiment of peace), they suggest a dismissive attitude towards sources that differ from what one considers canonical. Such biases hinder the careful expansion of self-imposed boundaries within scholarship. Interestingly, a few lines later, the scholar acknowledges that *the posturing and heavy allegories of Desika’s play do not get in the way of its appreciation by Vatakalai scholars and devotees. Instead, the play is often used as a veritable manual in the proper interpretation of Višistādvaita philosophy". While we have confirmation of the Sankalpastryodaya’s value within its tradition, we lack similar information about the PcN. Nonetheless, we can endeavour to understand how it conveyed philosophical matters, which specific topics Brajvāsīdās sought to communicate, and which audience he aimed to address.

Returning to Frazier's words quoted at the beginning of this section, it is important to state that adopting a new literary genre did not merely provide a fresh appearance to the same body of thoughts. Rather, each author offered their own interpretation of philosophical doctrines. Additionally, the new garb or outward form influenced the modality through which these ideas were presented. This implies that the conventional approach to studying poetical works dealing with philosophy may not always yield fruitful results.

Angelika Malinar's essays on philosophy in the Mahābhārata propose alternative ways of reading philosophy in texts beyond the canon.” Malinar points out that scholars often identify *philosophical texts" within the epic and study them in isolation, detached from their context, as a separate category. Another approach she identifies is an attempt to identify a *philosophy of the epic", a coherent framework of thought that presupposes *a unity of meaning along with a unity of composition”.*” Furthermore, Malinar highlights that scholarship has assigned various positions to this “epic philosophy” within the history of Indian philosophy. It has been seen as a proto-philosophical form, mixed or transitional.** According to Malinar, Western academia’s perception of the term “philosophy” carries biases that have hindered a serious consideration of texts like those found in the Mahabharata. While these texts may not possess original philosophical value per se, they still hold fundamental importance as documents contributing to the overall history of Indian philosophy.** The unsystematic nature of texts like those in the corpus examined poses a challenge, as readers expect philosophical doctrines to be presented in specific chapters or in a more argumentative manner.” However, what is discovered in the epic does not always conform to a shastra intended as a *system” of philosophy. Often, it is expressed in narrative form and with affirmative statements. Malinar suggests that we consider that some teachings could have been included not solely for their philosophical content but for didactic or encyclopedic purposes or to enhance significance or appeal.??

These suggestions inform my approach to reading the Vedānta philosophical discourses in the PcN, focusing on personified concepts such as paramātama, maya, jīvātama, and mana, the meanings of which I shall discuss later. The book acknowledges that their presentation in the PcN, similar to the Mahābhārata, does not follow a systematic exposition on a given topic but unfolds as a story. Consequently, the PcN sometimes presents different and contrasting viewpoints that I do not attempt to reconcile philosophically at all costs. Instead, I aim to consider other factors, such as their contexts of enunciation, their interrelationships, their placement within the development of the PcN story, and the overall function and purpose of the PC story for Brajvāsīdās.

In his monograph on Navya Nyāya (New Reason), Jonardon Ganeri proposes contextualism as an effective method for exploring Indian intellectual cultures. Building upon Quentin Skinner's theory of *illocutionary intervention", Ganeri expands its application through the concept of “intertextual intervention". However, he cautions against applying the same expectations as Skinner's theory to the Indian context. Skinner's approach depended on examining the biographical,

35 Anxiety around this expectation seems evident in Dasgupta, for example, who, in the preface to his history of Indian philosophy, states that he covered the Brāhmaņas (prose commentaries attached to the Vedas) concisely since he *did not think it worthwhile to elaborate the broken shreds of thought of this epoch". Dasgupta 1922, vol. 1: x.

political, and social circumstances surrounding a text.?? In the realm of intellectual literature in Sanskrit, however, there is often an abundance of texts and a scarcity of information about the authors, resulting in a lack of contextual details.? Ganeri suggests an alternative approach by investigating “intertextual contexts”, which involves identifying the kind of authorial intervention one seeks to make within one’s framework of affiliation, which in the case of Sanskrit scholars is to a tradition of shastra.*°

Regarding early modern Advaita Vedanta between 1500 and 1800, Christopher Minkowski also raises the question of approaching the tradition from a historical perspective rather than viewing it as a static phenomenon immune to change and variation. Minkowski proposes tracing interconnected authors, exploring institutional ties, examining geographical locations and movements, and discerning literary trends of the respective periods. These methods help construct a social history of Advaita and alleviate the lack of knowledge about these centuries." That said, Minkowski acknowledges that studying the school during the early modern period poses unique challenges, as many thinkers and authors deviate creatively from conventional routes and established demarcations of the past.

In the case of Brajvāsīdās, we also need to ask what it means to put his PcN into context. While it seems certain that, from a literary point of view, he wanted to make his intervention within the PC tradition, we lack substantial information about him beyond his Vallabhite affiliation. Only recently have Vallabha's and his sons’ works garnered renewed scholarly attention.“ At the same time, it is important to reiterate that the PcN does not belong to a Sanskrit shastra tradition. Consequently, understanding Brajvasidas’s overall intellectual intervention regarding philosophical and religious perspectives poses a challenge. Unfortunately, studies on eighteenth-century North Indian literature do not offer much assistance, as the handful of authors whose works have been partially explored seem to have different concerns to Brajvāsīdās or have received attention for other aspects of their poetry.”