Harilal Vyasa, a few observations

The Rasa-kulyā commentary on RRSN is pretty interesting, which will gradually come out. As you may already know, there are several points of connection between Gaudiyas and Radha-vallabhis, not the least of which is Prabodhananda Saraswati's role in developing the theology of the school--even if we don't accept that he is the author of RRSN.

Of course, since Prabodhananda was an independent spirit and became more of a Radha-vallabhi than a Gaudiya, there is no point in trying to interpret RRSN as a text following pure Gaudiya siddhanta. (One of the arguments by today's defenders of Harivamsa's authorship are based on the premise that if Prabodhananda wrote RRSN, why does it not follow Gaudiya siddhanta?) Nevertheless, it is clear that Harilal Vyas had a very thorough knowledge of Gaudiya literature.

The reason I am writing this now is because I came across a reference to the Gopa Kumar story from Bṛhad-bhāgavatāmṛta (to verse 96). So far I have come across numerous quotes from Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu, Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi, and Alaṅkāra-kaustubha. These are not as numerous as quotes from the Bhagavatam or Vṛndāvana-mahimāmṛta, which tops the list with literally hundreds of verses throughout the commentary. I have yet to come across a reference to the texts of any other sampradāya.

Of course, the principal source Harilal Vyasa relies on to develop his interpretation consists of internal references from RRSN. Interestingly, there are a few, but not many, citations of Harivamsa's own Brajbhasha songs. This may be due to the inability to do so. Even in the introduction to this edition, the editor tries to defend against the argument that Harivamsa's songs present a different vision of Vraja līlā, and are not at all the same kind of strict exclusive devotion to Radha found in RRSN. (I also made this argument in my articles on the subject.) For instance, in Sphuṭa-vāṇī, it is clear from quite a number of verses that Radha-vallabha Krishna is the iṣṭa-devatā. The editor's explanation is that the words Radha-vallabha indicate a preference for Radha. The argument is a little weak, since the RRSN is going a step beyond Krishna with Radha to the predominance of Radha over Krishna. (See page 15).

Part of this reliance on Gaudiya materials probably has to do with the fact that he is writing in Sanskrit in a sampradāya that has functioned almost exclusively in Brajbhasha. There is literally no material from his own lineage that he can draw on.

At any rate, this familiarity with Gaudiya sources shows the connections between the two sampradayas appear to have been open until at least the time of Harilal Vyasa in the mid- to late 18th century, which is pretty late. Harilal Vyasa, of course, does not have any doubts about Harivamsa's authorship nor any of the other hagiographical material about his life--he received the mantra "Ra-dha" from Radharani herself, etc. This is Harilal's verse--


rādhaiveṣṭaṁ sampradāyaika-kartā-
cāryo mantra-daḥ sad-guruś ca |
mantro rādhā yasya sarvātmanainaṁ
vande rādhā-pāda-padma-pradhānam ||

I bow down with all my being to him whose worshipable deity is Radha, the founder acharya of whose sampradaya is Radha, whose mantra-guru and teacher is Radha, and whose mantra is Radha's name. He [Hita Harivamsa] place Radha's lotus feet above all else. (maṅgalācaraṇa to RRSN commentary)