Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Greater Advaita Vedānta: The Case of Sundardās

  • Published:
Journal of Indian Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To understand the history of Advaita Vedānta and its rise to prominence, we need to devote more attention to what might be termed “Greater Advaita Vedānta,” or Advaita Vedānta as expressed outside the standard canon of Sanskrit philosophical works. Elsewhere I have examined the works of Niścaldās (ca. 1791–1863), whose Hindi-language Vicār-sāgar (“The Ocean of Inquiry”) was once referred to by Swami Vivekananda as the most influential book of its day. In this paper, I look back to one of Niścaldās’s major influences: Sundardās (1596–1689), a well-known Hindi poet and a direct disciple of Dādū Dayāl (d. 1604). Sundardās is typically classified as a bhakti poet rather than an Advaita Vedāntin; certainly he is not included in existing surveys or histories of Vedānta. In his youth, however, he studied Sanskrit and Vedānta in Banaras, and his poems present us with a mind that found no contradiction in claiming Dādū as his master and at the same time embracing the teachings of Advaita Vedānta. I argue that not only should Sundardās be included in histories of Advaita Vedānta, he should be credited for his originality: not only did he “Vedānticize” the Dādū Panth, he “Dādūized” Vedānta. I conclude by comparing Sundardās to two Sanskrit intellectuals from roughly the same period: Mahādeva Sarasvatī Vedāntin and Annambhaṭṭa, both of whom, like Sundardās, had commitments to Advaita Vedānta as well as to other intellectual traditions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Sanderson (1985, p. 210, n. 41): “When Vedānta is expounded by its opponents in Kashmirian sources of our period [ninth to thirteenth centuries] it is the doctrine of Maṇḍanamiśra which is generally in mind. … To my knowledge no source betrays familiarity with the doctrines of Śaṅkara.” (I am grateful to my colleague John Nemec for pointing me to this reference.) Potter similarly observes that Nyāya-vaiśeṣika thinkers of the 10th–12th centuries, such as Śrīdhara and Aparārkadeva, “notice Maṇḍana’s arguments but not Śaṃkara’s” (2008, p. 604, n. 25). According to Hacker, “[i]t is only after Vācaspati Miśra (tenth century) harmonized the teachings of Śaṅkara and Maṇḍana and after Prakāśātman produced in his Vivaraṇa an imposing and fully articulated construction and further development of the system of the school of Śaṅkara that the stature of Śaṅkara the author of the Bhāṣya appears to have grown” (1995, p. 30).

  2. On the dates of Sundardās, see Horstmann (2014, p. 233, n. 1).

  3. Dates of Dādū per Thiel-Horstmann (1991). Sundardās himself refers to the community as the Brahma Sampradāya.

  4. See Mallison (2011, pp. 177–178), who reproduces a list of texts given by the poet Dalpatrām (1820–1898). Among the twenty-nine texts are two by Sundardās: the Jñān-samudra (which I will analyze below) and the Sundar-vilās, an anthology of his savaiyās. Dilipsinhji (2004, p. 11) quotes the following description of the pāṭhśālā by Dalpatrām: “That school for poetry … was perhaps incomparable in the whole world. Many poets after receiving education there, have become poet laureates at the courts of the Maharajas. This school has brought unique prestige to Kutch amongst the native States.”

  5. The date of composition in the colophon to the Bhakta-māl is sometimes read as saṃvat 1717 (1660/1 C.E.), which would place it during Sundardās’s lifetime; see, e.g., Nārāyaṇdās (n.d. [1970?], pp. 4–5, 898–899), whose edition of the Bhakta-māl I will be citing here. Thiel-Horstmann (1983, p. 11, n. 15) has argued that the date in the colophon should instead be read as saṃvat 1777 (1720/1 C.E.). In her more recent works (Horstmann 2014, p. 240; Horstmann 2015, p. 45), however, she seems to accept the earlier dating. See also the discussion of dating by Callewaert (1994, p. 96).

  6. Thiel-Horstmann (1983, p. 13): “All exact data referring to Sundardās are contained in relatively recent texts, the main of these being Mādhavdāsjī’s Santaguṇasāgara-siddhānta, a work attributed to saṃv. 1661 but only preserved in a ms. dated as late as saṃv. 1967.”

  7. On the history of the Dādūpanthī nāgas, see Hastings (2002).

  8. Vv. 6b-7 (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, p. 197): dādūjī jaba dyausaha āye / bālapaneṃ hama darasana pāye // tini ke caranani nāyau māthā / uni dīyau meraiṃ sira hāthā / svāmī dādū guru hai merau / sundaradāsa śiṣya tini kerau // —Throughout this essay, the text of Sundardās’s writings are reproduced per Śarmā (1937), though I should note that for those who do not have access to Śarmā’s edition, Miśra’s 2011 edition (which is based on Śarmā’s) is also excellent. All translations are my own. I follow the transliteration scheme of McGregor (2002), with the exception that I preserve the inherent -a at the end of words ending in consonants when it is part of the meter.

  9. Śarmā (1937, vol. 1, p. 255): parameśvara aru parama guru / doū eka samāṃna /

  10. Throughout this essay, titles of Sundardās’s works are reproduced per the table of contents in Śarmā (1937). But note that word spacing and use of sandhi are inconsistent even within Śarmā’s work. When possible, I have added hyphens to indicate word-breaks within compounds.

  11. For more on Rajjab and his works, see Callewaert (1978).

  12. Cf. Horstmann (2014, pp. 238–9): “Either to redress the silent unassailability of orthodox Hinduism or with the objective of drawing orthodox principles into the sect or perhaps to beat the orthodox with their own weapons, they [leading early Dādūpanthīs] saw to it that capable young Dādūpanthīs were accordingly trained in the art of debating. Among the first generation of young Dādūpanthīs trained in this fashion, Sundardās became the most prominent.” Williams (2014) discusses the parallel case, in the Nirañjanī Sampradāy, of the poet-scholar Tursīdās (fl. 1680), who likewise was sent to Banaras to study and who “organized the community’s beliefs into a structured theology in the same manner that Sundardas did for the Dadu Panth” (p. 29).

  13. V. 512: kāśī kā paṇḍita mahā nāma jaga jīvana hai (Nārāyaṇdās n.d. [1970?], p. 696).

  14. For details on the rulers of Fatehpur during this period, see Horstmann (2014). Horstmann notes that one of the members of the ruling family, Neyāmat Khān (also known as Jān Kavi), was himself an accomplished (vernacular) poet (p. 246).

  15. Thiel-Horstmann (1983, p. 14) describes Sundardās’s language as “a highly polished Braj style exhibiting many Rajasthani and Khaṛī Bolī traits. Very often Sundar uses Sanskrit forms which mix harmonically with the Braj language.”

  16. Dvārikādās-śāstrī (1978, p. 18) states that this edition will appear in four parts, with part 1 being a reprint of Śarmā’s introductory studies, and parts 2–4 providing the text and modern Hindi translation of Sundardās’s works. But I have only been able to locate part 2, which includes the Jñān-samudra, the Sarvāṅgayoga-pradīpikā, and several shorter works.

  17. There is good reason to be skeptical of such narratives. As Schomer (1987, p. 3) notes: “The concept of ‘nirguṇa bhakti’ as a distinct devotional mode contrasting with ‘saguṇa bhakti,’ and of the Sants constituting a separate devotional tradition, is relatively new. The idea that there is a coherent body of Sant teachings (sant mat) and that individual Sants belong to a common spiritual line of descent (sant paramparā) distinct from that of sectarian Vaishnavas did not become fully crystallized until the mid-nineteenth century.” More recently, Hawley (2015) has shown that the idea of a pan-Indian bhakti “movement” is of surprisingly recent vintage.

  18. It might be equally fruitful to inquire into the criteria for classifying a writer as a representative of bhakti, but this is beyond the scope of my study.

  19. For the acknowledgement of Sundardās’s works as a source for the history of yoga, see, e.g., Birch (2013, pp. 410, 414), Burger (2014), and Mallinson (2018, p. 195). —As I discuss below, Sundardās seems to have viewed himself—and the sant tradition more broadly—as heir to all three traditions: bhakti, haṭha-yoga, and Sāṃkhya/Vedānta.

  20. Using these criteria, Dādū himself might arguably be included as a representative of Greater Advaita Vedānta, though his views are less systematically—and therefore less unambiguously—expressed than in the case of Sundardās. On Dādū’s ambiguous use of the term māyā, see Orr (1947, pp. 150–156). As for the identity of the soul with Brahman, Dādū’s position seems clearly Vedāntic. Summarizing Dādū’s teachings, Thiel-Horstmann (1991, p. 39) writes: “Das Absolute oder das Höchste Selbst ist das brahman … . Die Seele, die ihre Identität mit dem Höchsten Selbst realisiert hat, ist der ātman, das Selbst.” Orr (1947) acknowledges that Dādū teaches the identity of Brahman and the self (p. 156) but offers an important qualification: “It is equally clear, however, that a real distinction is implied, not only in isolated expressions which might be freely cited from the Bani, but in Dadu’s whole conception of the relation of the human soul to God” (p. 157). I hope to explore Dādū’s thought and its relation to Advaita Vedānta further in a future essay.

  21. These criteria belong to different categories, of course: three of them (#3, #4, and #7) rely on internal textual references, one of them (#6) pertains to external reception, and another (#4) is based on institutional affiliation. I have emphasized doctrinal criteria over these other criteria because I am primarily interested in tracing intellectual history: how were the doctrines of Advaita Vedānta transmitted and transformed in early modern India? But other approaches are certainly possible. For example, doctrinal criteria might be less relevant for the purposes of a social history of Advaita Vedānta, while institutional affiliation would hold greater importance. It would indeed be useful to have a better understanding of the networks that existed in the early modern period between vernacular scholars and Sanskrit pandits, as well as between renunciates within regional sampradāyas and Daśanāmī renunciates. But this task lies beyond the scope of this essay.

  22. JS 1.1 (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, p. 3): prathama vandi parabrahma parama ānanda svarūpaṃ / dutiya vandi gurudeva diyau jiha jñāna anūpaṃ // tritiya vandi saba santa jori kara tinake āgaya …

  23. JS 1.3 (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, p. 4): uhai brahma guru santa uha vastu virājata yeka / vacana vilāsa vibhāga traya vandana bhāva viveka //

  24. Sundardās’s verse also echoes the opening maṅgala verse in Nābhādās’s Bhaktamāl, which dates to the late sixteenth or early seventeenth century (Hare 2011): bhakta bhakti bhagavanta guru catura nāma vapu eka, “Devotee, devotion, God, guru: four names, one body.” I am grateful to one of the anonymous reviewers for drawing my attention to this parallel.

  25. See Śaṅkara’s bhāṣya on Brahmasūtra 1.1.1, where adhikāra, or qualification for the study of Vedānta, is said to consist of (1) discernment (viveka), (2) detachment (virāga), (3) [six] attainments beginning with tranquility (śama) and restraint (dama), and (4) the desire for liberation (mumukṣutva). The term jijñāsu, “one who desires to know,” also comes from Brahmasūtra 1.1.1: “Now, then, the desire to know Brahman” (athāto brahmajijñāsā).

  26. JS 1.8 (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, p. 7): je gurubhakta virakta jagata sauṃ hai jinakai saṃtani kau bhāva / vai jijñāsa udāsa rahata hai ganata na koū raṅka na rāva // bāda bibāda karata nahiṃ …

  27. JS 1.9b (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, p. 8): chūṭauṃ kauṃna upāya ihai ura antara āṃnata

  28. JS 1.10–11 (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, p. 8): gurudeva binā nahiṃ māraga sūjhaya, guru bina bhakti na jāṃnai / gurudeva binā nahiṃ saṃśaya bhāgaya, guru bina lahai na jñāṃnai … gurudeva binā nahiṃ mokṣa padaṃ //

  29. JS 1.12 (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, p. 9): … tinake prasāda tatva jñāna puni pāiye //

  30. JS 1.15b (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, p. 9): tṛpta jñāna vijñāna acala kūṭastha virājaya / —Cf. Bhagavadgītā 6.8a: jnānavijñānatṛptātmā kūṭastho vijitendriyaḥ /

  31. JS 1.15e (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, p. 10). —Cf. Muṇḍakopaniṣad 2.2.8: bhidyate hṛdayagranthiś chidyante sarvasaṃśayāḥ /

  32. JS 1.16b (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, p. 10): pañca tatva guna tīna mṛṣā kari māṃnaī /

  33. Cf. Muṇḍakopaniṣad 3.2.9: sa yo ha vai tat paramaṃ brahma veda brahmaiva bhavati /

  34. JS 1.31b (Śarmā 1937, vol, 1, p. 13): hauṃ kauṃna, kauṃna yaha jagata-āhi / puni janma maraṇa prabhu kahahu kāhi //

  35. See Vivekacūḍāmaṇi, vv. 34–35 (Madhavananda 2005, p. 12).

  36. V. 49 (Madhavananda 2005, p. 18): ko nāma bandhaḥ katham eṣa āgataḥ … ko ‘sāv anātmā paramaḥ ka ātmā … (translation mine)

  37. V. 12 (Vimuktananda 2005), p. 8): ko ‘haṃ katham idaṃ jātaṃ ko vai kartā ‘sya vidyate / upādānaṃ kim astīha vicāraḥ so ‘yam īdṛśaḥ // (translation mine)

  38. JS 1.32 (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, p. 13): hai cidānanda ghana brahma tūṃ soī / deha saṃyoga jīvatva bhrama hoī // jagata hū sakala yaha anachatau jānau / janama aru maraṇa saba svapna kari mānau //

  39. JS 1.33 (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, p. 14): jau cidānanda svarūpa svāṃmī tāhi brahma kahi kyauṃ bhayau / tihiṃ deha ke saṃyoga hvai jīvatva mānira kyauṃ layau // yaha anachatau saṃsāra kaisaiṃ jo pratakṣya [sic] pramāṃniyeṃ / puni janma maraṇa prabāha kaba kau svapna kari kyauṃ jāṃniyeṃ //

  40. JS 1.34–35 (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, p. 14): bhrama hīṃ kauṃ bhrama ūpajyau, cidānanda rasa yeka / mṛga jala pratyakṣa deṣiye, taisaiṃ jagata bibeka // nidrā mahiṃ sūtau hai jaulauṃ / janma maraṇa kau anta na taulauṃ / jāgi pareṃ teṃ svapna samānā / taba miṭi jāi sakala ajñānā //

  41. JS 1.36 (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, p. 14): svāmin yaha sandeha, jāgai sovai kauṃna sau / ye tau jaḍa mana deha, bhrama kauṃ bhrama kaisaiṃ bhayau //

  42. JS 1.37 (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, p. 15): śiṣya kahāṃ lauṃ pūchihai, maiṃ tau uttara dīna / taba laga citta na āihai jaba laga hṛdaya malīna // jaba laga hṛdaya malīna yathāratha kaisaiṃ jāṃnai …

  43. In this he contrasts with Niścaldās, whose Vicār-sāgar leads the reader deep into scholastic waters. Elsewhere (Allen 2013) I have argued that for Niścaldās, scholastic inquiry is itself a means of spiritual practice; but this view of the relationship of theory to practice is quite different from that of Sundardās. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that Sundardās does not always eschew scholasticism; see his treatment of the four kinds of absence in chapter 5 of the JS, discussed below.

  44. JS 2.1 (Śarmā 1996, vol. 1, p. 16): svāmī hṛdaya malīna mama, śuddhi kavana vidhi hoi / soī kahau upāi aba, saṃśaya rahai na koi //

  45. JS 2.2 (Śarmā 1996, vol. 1, p. 16): sunahiṃ śiṣya ye tīni upāī / bhakti yoga haṭha yoga karāī // puni sāṃkhya suyoga hi mana lāvai / taba tūṃ śuddha svarūpa hi pāvai

  46. JS 2.49a, 54 (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, p. 28–29): sevaka sevya milyau rasa pīvata bhinna nahīṃ aru bhinna sadā hīṃ … hari maiṃ haridāsa bilāsa karai / hari sauṃ kaba hū na bichoha parai // hari akṣaya tyauṃ haridāsa sadā / rasa pīvana kauṃ yaha bhāva judā // —The translation is mine, but I benefited from consulting Thiel-Horstmann (1983, pp. 137, 139), and my rendering of verse 54 follows her translation quite closely.

  47. The Haṭha-pradīpikā and Gorakṣa are mentioned respectively at JS 3.8 and JS 3.60 (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, pp. 33, 47). Miśra (2011), in his notes to this chapter, helpfully quotes parallel passages from the Haṭhayoga-pradīpikā and the Gorakṣa-paddhati. He also notes passages that do not have parallels in either of these sources.

  48. JS 3.10 (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, p. 33): satya su doi prakāra, yeka satya jo boliye / mithyā saba saṃsāra, dūsara satya su brahma hai //

  49. JS 3.77 (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, p. 53): je pada citra vicitra race ati gūḍha mahā paramāratha jāmaiṃ / te avaloki vicāra karai puni citta dharai nihacai kari tāmaiṃ // kai kari kumbhaka mantra japai ura akṣara te puni jāṃni anāmai / sundara dhyāna padastha ihai mana niścala hoi lahai ju virāmai // —My interpretation of this verse follows Dvārikādās-śāstrī (1978), p. 68.

  50. JS 3.78 (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, p. 54): suni śiṣya kahauṃ dhyāna piṇḍasthaṃ / piṇḍa śodhanaṃ kariye svasthaṃ // ṣaṭcakrani kau dhariye dhyānaṃ / puni sadguru kau dhyāna pramānaṃ //

  51. JS 3.85 (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, p. 55): … taha sādhya sādhaka eka hoī kriyā karma nivarttate // nirupādhi nitya upādhi rahitaṃ ihai niścaya āniye / kucha bhinna bhāva rahai na koū sā samādhi bhaṣāniye //

  52. JS 3.86–89 (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, pp. 55–56): nahiṃ śīta uṣṇa kṣudhā tṛṣā … nahiṃ harṣa śoka na sukhaṃ duḥkhaṃ … nahiṃ śabda saparaśa rūpa rasa nahiṃ gandha … nahiṃ deva daitya … nahiṃ yantra mantra …

  53. JS 3.90b (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, p. 56): yā sādhana brahmahi milai, teū kahiye mukta // —The Haṭhayoga-pradīpikā and Gorakṣa-paddhati themselves, of course, present the goal of yogic practice in non-dualistic terms. On the influence of Advaita Vedānta on the Haṭhayoga-pradīpikā, see Mallinson (2014).

  54. JS 4.5 (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, p. 58): puruṣa prakṛtimaya jagata hai brahmā kīṭa paryanta / catura ṣāṃni lauṃ sṛṣṭi saba śiva śaktī vartanta …

  55. JS 4.16 (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, p. 61): atha sātvikāhaṃkāra teṃ mana buddhi citta ahaṃ bhaye … // —See also JS 4.41–44.

  56. See JS 4.18–47 (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, pp. 62–66).

  57. See JS 4.48–63 (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, pp. 67–69).

  58. This interpretation is further confirmed by a passage in Sundardās’s Sarvāṅgayoga-pradīpikā in which figures such as Dattātreya and Vasiṣṭha are listed alongside Kapila as representatives of “Sāṃkhya.” The passage will be discussed below.

  59. JS 4.61 (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, p. 69): turyāvasthā cetana tatvaṃ …

  60. JS 4.62a (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, p. 69): sarbopādhi bibarjita muktaṃ / triguṇātīta sākṣī uktaṃ

  61. JS 4.61 (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, p. 69): … sohaṃ deva sadā tahaṃ lahiyaṃ //

  62. See JS 5.7 (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, p. 71), which I translate and discuss below.

  63. JS 4.63 (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, p. 69): … tīna kauṃ sākṣi rahai turiyātata sundara soi svarūpa hamārau // —Miśra (2011, vol. 1, p. 65, n. 63) incorrectly glosses turiyātata as “the fourth state” (cauthī daśā). Śarmā’s gloss (1937, vol. 1, p. 69, n. 63) is correct: “[that which is] beyond even the fourth state” (cauthī avasthā se bhī pare).

  64. JS 5.4a (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, p. 70): aba tuma turiyātīta batāvahu / tā pīchai advaita sunāvahu //

  65. JS 5.5–7 (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, pp. 70–71): sādhu sādhu śiṣya dhanya tūṃ, bhalo praśna taiṃ kīna / yā kau uttara aba kahauṃ, dvaita miṭai bhrama līna // 5 // sravana manana kīyau teṃ nīkaiṃ / nidadhyāsa puni jānyauṃ ṭīkaiṃ // aba sākṣātakāra tū hoī / taba saṃdeha rahai nahiṃ koī // 6 // turiyā sādhana brahma kau, ahaṃ brahma yauṃ hoi / turiyātīta hi anabhavai, hūṃ tū rahai na koi … // 7 //

  66. The classical source of this mahāvākya (which is the first-person equivalent of the Chāndogya’s tat tvam asi) is Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad 1.4.10.

  67. JS 5.8 (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, p. 71): jāgrata tau nahiṃ mere viṣai kachu svapna su tau nahiṃ mere viṣai hai / nāhiṃ suṣopati mere viṣai puni viśvahu taijasa prājña paṣai hai // mere viṣai turiyā nahiṃ dīsata yāhi teṃ mero svarūpa aṣai hai …

  68. JS 5.8 (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, p. 71): … dūra teṃ dūra parai teṃ parai ati sundara kou na mohi laṣai hai //

  69. JS 5.10 (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, p. 72): urai parai kachu vai nahiṃ, vastu rahī bharapūra / catura bhāva [sic] tosauṃ kahauṃ, taba bhrama hvai hai dūra //

  70. JS 5.22a (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, p. 75): eka brahma kāraṇa jagata, kāraya hai bahu bhāṃti /

  71. JS 5.25 (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, p. 76): … prakṛti na mahatatva ahaṃkāra, triguna na śabdādi vyoma ādi koi hai … sūkṣma na thūla …

  72. JS 5.25 (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, p. 76): … na tau kachu bhayau aba hai na kachu hoi hai //

  73. JS 5.27–28, 31b, 32, 40 (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, pp. 77–78): śiṣa yaha atyantābhāva hoi / nahiṃ utpatti sthiti pralaya na koi / nahiṃ ādi na anta na madhya bhāva / nahiṃ sṛṣṭā sṛṣṭi na ko upāva // 27 // nahiṃ kāraṇa kāraya dvai upādhi / nahiṃ īśvara jīva parai samādhi / nahiṃ tatva atatva vibhāga bhinna / nahiṃ joti ajoti kachū na cinha // 28 // … nahiṃ artha na dharma na kāma mokṣa / nahiṃ pāpa na punya aprokṣa prokṣa // 31b // nahiṃ svargādika nahiṃ naraka bāsa / nahiṃ trāsaka kou na hoi trāsa / nahiṃ veda na śāstra na śabdajāla / nahiṃ varṇāśrama nahiṃ smṛti cāla // 32 // … yaha atyantābhāva hai, yaha hī turiyātīta / yaha anubhava sākṣāta hai, yaha niścaya advīta // 40 //

  74. JS 5.46–47, 52 (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, pp. 80–81): kvā haṃ [sic] kva tvaṃ kva ca saṃsāraḥ kva ca paramāratha kva ca vyavahāraḥ / kva ca me janmaṃ [sic] kva ca me maraṇaṃ / kva ca me dehaḥ kva ca me karaṇaṃ // 46 // kva ca me advaya kva ca me dvaitaṃ / kva ca me nirbhaya kva ca me bhītaṃ / kva ca māyā kva ca brahmavicāraḥ / kva ca me pravṛttihi nibṛtti vikāraḥ // 47 // … kva ca nānātvaṃ kva ca ekatvaṃ / kva ca me śūnyāśūnya samatvaṃ // yo avaśeṣaṃ so mama rūpaṃ / bahunā kiṃ uktaṃ ca anūpaṃ // 52 // —Interestingly, the disciple’s song is not in the vernacular but in (simple) Sanskrit. It is possible that Sundardās had already composed it separately, then used it when writing the JS. One way or another, the placement of the song seems to be a self-conscious gesture to the prestige of Sanskrit.

  75. JS 5.54 (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, p. 81): … taiṃ aba pāyau jīvana moṣā //

  76. JS 5.56b (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, p. 81): ṣāṃna pāṃna vastrādika joī / yaha prārabdha deha kau hoī //

  77. JS 5.57 (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, p. 81): nirālamba nirvāsanā icchācārī yeha / saṃskāra pavana hiṃ phirai śuṣka parṇa jyauṃ deha //

  78. JS 5.58 (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, p. 82): jīvana mukta sadeha tū, lipta na kabahūṃ hoi / tokauṃ soī jāni haiṃ, tava samāna je koi //

  79. According to these verses, the text was completed on Thursday (guruvāsara), the eleventh day of the bright fortnight of Bhādra, saṃvat 1710 (i.e., 1653 C.E.).

  80. Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, p. 83: … jñāna samudra su grantha / sundara augāhana karai lahai mukti kau pantha //

  81. It is quite possible that Sundardās himself was uninterested in answering these questions. Arguably, the JS is not so much a manual for practice as it is an attempt to align (or at to least bring out what Sundardās viewed as the implicit correspondences between) the Dādū Panth and pan-Indian Sanskrit traditions.

  82. SYP 1.3–5 (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, pp. 87–88). —Note that the list of sāṃkhyas includes Kapila (the “founder” of classical Sāṃkhya) as well as figures more typically associated with Vedānta, albeit a Vedānta linked to the pan-Indian, mythological past, rather than to the lineage of Śaṅkara. The Avadhūta-gītā attributed to Dattātreya, the Yoga-vāsiṣṭha, and the Aṣṭāvakra-gīta are all popular texts among Advaita Vedāntins. There is also an Advaitin text, the Praśnāvalī, ascribed to Jaḍabharata.

  83. In another work, the Sahajānand, Sundardās gives a list of those who attained the state of realization, and there he places vernacular and Sanskrit figures side by side (vv. 19–23, Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, pp. 305–306). The list includes Śaṅkara (Śiva), Sanaka etc., Śukadeva, Śeṣa, Hanumān, Dhruva, Prahlāda, Gorakha, Dattātreya, Bhartṛhari, Gopīcanda, Nāmdev, Kabīr, Pīpā, Raidās, and Dādū.

  84. SYP 1.6 (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, pp. 88): mahāpuruṣa je ina matai, tina kī maiṃ bali jāuṃ / māraga āye daśa diśā, pahuñce ekahiṃ gāuṃ //

  85. As I noted at the beginning of this essay, the category of Greater Advaita Vedānta includes not just vernacular Vedānta but also the blending of Vedānta with yogic traditions, a process that began centuries before Sundardās. As a reviewer for this essay pointed out, it is likely that Sundardās was responding not only to “classical” Advaita Vedānta but also to these yogic/Vedāntic syntheses. The reviewer specifically noted the existence of a Dādūpanthī codex, dating to the early seventeenth century, which includes the Sanskrit Yoga-vāsiṣṭha-sāra with a vernacular commentary. I have not seen this manuscript, but one wonders whether there is not perhaps another connection with Banaras here, since Kavīndrācārya Sarasvatī, the celebrated pandit of Banaras, is known to have composed a Bhāṣā-yoga-vāsiṣṭha-sāra; see Rahurkar (1958). Studies of the circulation of such manuscripts in regional sampradāyas would make a valuable contribution to research in vernacular Vedānta.

  86. V. 2 (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, p. 167): veda pragaṭa īśvara vacana …

  87. The absence of haṭha-yoga in this context is telling. It suggests an awareness that haṭha-yoga did not enjoy the same orthodox credentials as bhakti and Vedānta; and given the prominence of haṭha-yoga in Sundardās’s other works, it also suggests that Sundardās—unlike other Vedāntins—did not view the Vedas as the sole source of spiritual authority.

  88. V. 9 (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, p. 168): jo sata karmani ācarai, tinakauṃ bhāṣyau svarga … // —Varṇāśrama-dharma is discussed in vv. 13–14.

  89. V. 19 (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, p. 169): taba hī pragaṭai jñāna phala, samajhai apanauṃ rūpa / cidānanda caitanya ghana, vyāpaka brahma anūpa //

  90. V. 21a (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, p. 169): jñāna su phala ūpara lagyau, jāhi kahe vedānta /

  91. Analysis of Sundardās’s other works would, I believe, support my argument that Sundardās should be viewed as a Vedāntin. His commitments are clear even from the titles of some of these works: Svapna-prabodha (“Waking from the Dream”), Bhram-vidhvaṃs aṣṭak (“Eight Verses on the Destruction of Error”), Ātmā acala aṣṭak (“Eight Verses on the Unmoving Self”), Brahmastotra aṣṭak (“A Hymn to Brahman, in Eight Verses”), and so on. I will not belabor my argument by summarizing them here.

  92. Vv. 2–3, 6 (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, pp. 303–304): cinha binā saba koī āye / ihāṃ bhaye doi pantha calāye // hindū turaka uṭhyau yaha bharmā / hama doū kā chāḍyā dharmā // 2 // nāṃ maiṃ kṛttama karma baṣānauṃ / nāṃ rasūla kā kalamā jānauṃ / nāṃ maiṃ tīna tāga gali nāūṃ / nāṃ maiṃ sunata kari baurāūṃ // 3 // … hindū kī hadi chāḍikai tajī turaka kī rāha / sundara sahajai cīnhiyāṃ ekai rām alāha // 6 //

  93. See Horstmann (2014) for a translation and analysis of these two poems.

  94. Gītak 7 (Śarmā 1937, vol. 1, p. 250): rajju māṃhiṃ jaisaiṃ sarpa bhāsai sīpa maiṃ rūpau yathā / mṛga tṛṣnikā jala buddhi deṣai biśva mithyā hai tathā // jini lahyau brahma akhaṇḍa pada advaita saba hī ṭhāma hai / dādūdayāla prasiddha sadguru tāhi mora pranāma hai //

  95. As noted above (n. 20), this interpretation of Dādū is by no means unreasonable. In any case, it is also worth recalling that for Sundardās, Dādū is not merely a human teacher but an incarnate form of the Supreme Brahman.

  96. Bhakta-māl v. 584 (Nārāyaṇdās n.d. [1970?], pp. 736–737): śaṅkarācārya dūsaro, dādū ke sundara bhayo / dvaitabhāva kara dūra, eka advaita hi gāyo // —This is the opening verse of Rāghavdās’s life of Sundardās.

  97. For the list of Mahādeva Sarasvatī Vedāntin’s works, see Karl Potter’s online Bibliography of Indian Philosophies.

  98. See the edition and translation of Benson (2010).

  99. See, again, Potter’s online Bibliography (2019).

References

  • Allen, M. (2013). The ocean of inquiry: A neglected classic of late Advaita Vedānta. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.

  • Allen, M. (2017). Greater Advaita Vedānta: The case of Niścaldās. International Journal of Hindu Studies,21(3), 275–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bader, J. (2000). Conquest of the four quarters: Traditional accounts of the life of Śaṅkara. New Delhi: Aditya.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balasubramanian, R. (Ed.). (2000). Advaita Vedānta. History of science, philosophy, and culture in Indian civilization (Vol. 2, Part 2). New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

  • Basham, A. L. (1986). The wonder that was India. Delhi: Rupa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benson, J. (Ed. and trans.). (2010). Mīmāṃsānyāyasaṃgraha: A compendium of the principles of Mīmāṃsā. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

  • Birch, J. (2013). Rājayoga: The reincarnations of the king of all yogas. International Journal of Hindu Studies,17(3), 399–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burger, M. (2014). La Sarvāṅgayogapradīpikā de Sundardās: Une classification des chemins de yoga au 17e siècle. Asiatische Studien / Études asiatiques,68(3), 683–708.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burger, M. (2017). Sukzession in der früh-modernen Literatur der Sant-Bewegung am Beispiel von Kabir (gest. 1518) und Sundardas (1596–1689). In A. Renger and M. Witte (Eds.), Sukzession in Religionen: Autorisierung, Legitimierung, Wissenstransfer (pp. 443–464). Berlin: De Gruyter.

  • Callewaert, W. (1978). The Sarvāṅgī of the Dādūpanthī Rajab. Leuven: Departement Oriëntalistiek Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callewaert, W. (1991). Devotional Hindī literature. A critical edition of the Pañc-vāṇī or Five works of Dādū, Kābir [sic], Nāmdev, Raidās, Hardās, with the Hindī songs of Gorakhnāth and Sundardās, and a complete word index. New Delhi: Manohar.

  • Callewaert, W. (1994). Bhagatmāls and parcaīs in Rajasthan. In W. Callewaert & R. Snell (Eds.), According to tradition: Hagiographical writing in India (pp. 87–98). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dilipsinhji, K. S. (2004). Kutch in festival and custom. New Delhi: Har-Anand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dvārikādās-śāstrī, Svāmī. (1978). Śrīsundar-granthāvalī (Part 2). Varanasi: Śrī Kṣamārām Svāmī, Śrī Dādūdayālu Śodh Saṃsthān Trust.

  • Gold, D. (1987). The Lord as guru: Hindi sants in North Indian tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacker, P. (1995). On Śaṅkara and advaitism. In W. Halbfass (Ed.), Philology and confrontation: Paul Hacker on traditional and modern Vedānta (pp. 27–32). Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hare, J. (2011). Garland of devotees: Nābhādās’ Bhaktamāl and modern Hinduism. Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University.

  • Hastings, J. M. (2002). Poets, sants, and warriors: The Dadu Panth, religious change and identity formation in Jaipur state circa 1562 – 1860 CE. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

  • Hawley, J. S. (2015). A storm of songs: India and the idea of the bhakti movement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Horstmann, M. (2009). Als Reiseführer unbrauchbar. https://doi.org/10.11588/xarep.00000331.

  • Horstmann, M. (2014). Sant and Sufi in Sundardās’s poetry. In V. Dalmia & M. D. Faruqui (Eds.), Religious interactions in Mughal India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horstmann, M. (2015). The example in Dadupanthi homiletics. In F. Orsini & K. B. Schofield (Eds.), Tellings and texts: Music, literature and performance in north India. Cambridge: OpenBook.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inden, R. (2000). Imagining India. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jha, G. (2006). Shāṅkara Vedānta. Fremont, Calif.: Jain Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, R. (1999). Orientalism and religion: Postcolonial theory, India and ‘the mystic East’. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madhavananda, Swami. (2005). Vivekacūḍāmaṇi of Śrī Śaṅkarācārya: Text, with English translation, notes and index. Kolkata: Advaita Ashrama.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahadevan, T. M. P. (Ed.). (1968). Preceptors of Advaita. Secunderabad: Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Sankara Mandir.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mallinson, J. (2014). Haṭhayoga’s philosophy: A fortuitous union of non-dualities. Journal of Indian Philosophy,42(1), 225–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mallinson, J. (2018). Yoga and sex: What is the purpose of vajrolīmudrā? In K. Baier, P. A. Maas, & K. Preisendanz (Eds.), Yoga in transformation: Historical and contemporary perspectives (pp. 181–222). Vienna: Vienna University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mallison, F. (2011). The teaching of Braj, Gujarati, and bardic poetry at the court of Kutch: The Bhuj Brajbhāṣā pāṭhśālā (1749–1948). In S. Pollock (Ed.), Forms of knowledge in early modern Asia: Explorations in the intellectual history of India and Tibet, 1500–1800 (pp. 171–183). Durham & London: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGregor, R. S. (1984). Hindi literature from its beginnings to the nineteenth century. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGregor, R. S. (Ed.). (2002). The Oxford Hindi-English dictionary. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minkowski, C. (2011). Advaita Vedānta in early modern history. South Asian History and Culture,2(2), 205–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miśra, R. (2003). Sant Sundardās: Vāṇī aur vicār. New Delhi: Sant Sāhitya Saṃsthān.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miśra, R. (2011). Sundar granthāvalī. New Delhi: Kitāb Ghar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nārāyaṇdās, Svāmī. (1989). Sundar-granthāvalī: Āvaśyak ṭīkā, ṭippaṇī, kaṭhin śabdārth sahit. Jaipur: Śrī Dādūdayālu Mahāsabhā.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nārāyaṇdās, Svāmī. (n.d. [1970?]). Śrī Rāghavdās jī viracit Bhaktamāl, Svāmī Caturdās jī kṛt padya ṭīkā tathā bhaktacaritra prakāśikā gadya ṭīkā sahit. Jaipur: Śrī Dādūdayālu Mahāsabhā.

  • Nārāyaṇdās, Svāmī. (n.d. [1978–9?]). Śrī Dādū panth paricay (3 Vols.). Jaipur: Śrī Dādūdayālu Mahāsabhā.

  • Orr, W. G. (1947). A sixteenth-century Indian mystic. London: Lutterworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potter, K. (2008). Encyclopedia of Indian philosophies, vol. 3: Advaita Vedānta up to Śaṃkara and his pupils. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

  • Potter, K. (2019). Bibliography of Indian philosophies. Retrieved April 27, 2019, from http://faculty.washington.edu/kpotter.

  • Rahurkar, V. G. (1958). The Bhasa-yogavasisthasara of Kavindracarya Sarasvati. In R. Ramanujachari (Ed.), Proceedings and transactions of the all India oriental conference, eighteenth session, Annamalainagar, December 1955 (pp. 471–482). Annamalainagar: Reception Committee, 18th Session of the All India Oriental Conference.

  • Rajpurohit, D. (2018). Bhakti aur rīti kāvya-dhārāoṃ kā saṃvād aur Dādūpanthī Sundardās kī kavitā (A Dialogue of Bhakti and Riti Sensibilities and the Poetry of Dadupanthi Sundardas). Ph.D. dissertation, Presidency University, Kolkata.

  • Rocher, R. (1993). British orientalism in the eighteenth century: The dialectics of knowledge and government. In C. A. Breckenridge & P. van der Veer (Eds.), Orientalism and the postcolonial predicament: Perspectives on South Asia (pp. 215–249). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanderson, A. (1985). Purity and power among the Brahmans of Kashmir. In M. Carrithers, S. Collins, & S. Lukes (Eds.), The category of the person: Anthropology, philosophy, history (pp. 190–216). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Śarmā, Purohit Harinārāyaṇ (Ed.). (1937). Sundar-granthāvalī (Vol. 2). Calcutta: Raghunāth-prasād Siṃhāniyā.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schomer, K. (1987). Introduction: The sant tradition in perspective. In K. Schomer & W. H. McLeod (Eds.), The sants: Studies in a devotional tradition of India (pp. 1–17). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. Z. (1988). Imagining religion: From Babylon to Jonestown. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiel-Horstmann, M. (1983). Crossing the ocean of existence: Braj Bhāṣā religious poetry from Rajasthan, a Reader. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiel-Horstmann, M. (1984). The bhakti theology of the Dādūpanthī Sundardās. Indologica Taurinensia,12, 263–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiel-Horstmann, M. (1991). Dādū: Lieder. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vimuktananda, Swami. (2005). Aparokṣānubhuti [sic], or Self-realization, of Sri Sankarāchārya [sic]: Text, with word-for-word translation, English rendering and comments. Kolkata: Advaita Ashrama.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vivekananda, Swami. (1958). Reply to the Madras address. In The complete works of Swami Vivekananda (Vol. 4, pp. 331–353). Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama.

  • Williams, T. (2014). Sacred sounds and sacred books: A history of writing in Hindi. Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This essay is based on a paper delivered at the 2018 World Sanskrit Conference. I am grateful to the audience and to my fellow panelists for their feedback, to Jonathan Peterson and Puninder Singh for organizing the panel, and to the reviewers for their helpful questions and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Religious Studies, University of Virginia, 323 Gibson Hall, 1540 Jefferson Park Avenue, Charlottesville, VA, 22904, USA

    Michael S. Allen

Authors
  1. Michael S. Allen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael S. Allen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Allen, M.S. Greater Advaita Vedānta: The Case of Sundardās. J Indian Philos 48, 49–78 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-019-09417-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-019-09417-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation