115 
^884.] R. Mitra— Psychological Tenets of the Vaishnavas. 
To resume our analysis of the work under notice. The objection 
which next suggests itself to our author is—since Madhva, Ramanuja 
and Vishnu Svami have been recognized as teachers and great Vaishnavas, 
how can their opinion be rejected ? But this is evaded by the remark 
that their tenets have not been completely developed in their works. 
^^^ext comes S^ridhara Svami, a renowned exegesist on the Bhagavata, 
in regard to whom Chaitanya himself had said—“ What is opposed to 
the tenets of Svami should be spurned by us” \_8vdmimata-viruddham 
yat tad asmdJcam anddaramyam.'] He upholds the doctrine of S'uddha- 
dvaita, and how is that to be reconciled with the assumption of Chaitanya 
having followed Himbaditya ? This is met by a reference to the Sandar- 
bhas,* where it is argued that in his commentary on the Bhagavata, STi- 
dhara Svami has devoted very little space to the explanation of the 
doctrine of knowledge combined with faith (jndnamisra-hhaktif whereas 
he has dwelt largely on pure faith, (suddha-hhaJcti), and it is obvious 
therefore that he preferred the latter. According to the Advaita system, 
God is always and invariably unconditioned, and never becomes condi¬ 
tioned, but in the Bhagavata Parana his incarnation is repeatedly admitted, 
and S ridhara Svami having admitted that, it must also follow that he 
did not entertain the pure Adual doctrine, and ex necessitate rei must 
have accepted the theory of Dualistic Aduality. 
The last position opens the way to the question, why not then at 
once admit the Dualistic theory which is more favourable to the incarna¬ 
tion dogma than the other ? If we believe human souls to be emanations 
of the Divine one, every birth would be an incarnation of the Divinity, 
and there would be no difference between ordinary births and incarna¬ 
tions, except, perhaps, in the quantity of the divine essence contained in 
each, and we have to divide the unconditioned into quantities of greater 
and less proportions, whereas the Dual theory marks a radical differenco 
of essence, and thereby obviates every difficulty. It is appropriate, too, that 
the inferior should evince faith and devotion to the superior, but where 
there is no difference in essence, it is inconsistent to talk of faith and devo¬ 
tion. And inasmuch as Chaitanya laid the greatest stress on incarnations 
* Six different works on the religion of Chaitanya bearing the common appellation 
of Shat-sandarbha. Their specific names are—(I) Bhakti-sandarhha, (II) Tattva-san- 
darbha, (III), Bhagavat-sandarbha, (TV), Paramdrtha-sandarbha, (Y) Krishna-sandar- 
hha, (YI) Priti-sandarbha. There is a 7th under the name of Dasamalcrama-scmdar- 
bha, which is looked upon as an appendix to the hexapartite work. These were 
written by Jiva Gosvami under the superintendence and instruction of Rupa and 
Sanatana, the two foremost disciples of Chaitanya. The object of the works is to 
prove that the doctrine inculcated in the Bhagavata is the same which Chaitanya 
taught. 
