Vishal Sharma | University of Oxford (original) (raw)

Papers by Vishal Sharma

Journal of American Oriental Society, 2024

UniVersity of oxford This paper argues that a concept of rebuking God (bhagavannindā) existed as ... more UniVersity of oxford This paper argues that a concept of rebuking God (bhagavannindā) existed as a prohibited act in premodern Sanskrit Brahmanical texts, with the earliest examples in medieval Vaiṣṇava narratives (in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa and Viṣṇu Purāṇa) of Vena and Śiśupāla. The concept of bhagavannindā problematizes the Bhāgavata Purāṇa rereading of the Śiśupāla story: how can someone rebuke a god (here Kṛṣṇa) and be seemingly rewarded (through sāyujya [union] with the god)? I argue that to this problem in Vaiṣṇava and epic narratives the Bhāgavata Purāṇa offers dveṣabhakti / vairānubandha (liberation through enmity or hatred) as a potential solution. Finally, through investigation of two early modern commentaries on the Mahābhārata, I argue that reading this concept of divine censure into the epics was not without tensions. The epic commentators sometimes reveal their own ambivalent readings of episodes where Kṛṣṇa is rebuked. The paper draws attention to the importance of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa as a commentary on the Mahābhārata, upon which later exegetes relied. It surveys how and why the peculiar concept of dveṣabhakti emerges in Vaiṣnava theology and presents narrative as both the source where this orthodox concept of divine censure emerges and the site where the concept is reinforced in commentary. Author's note: This article was made possible through the support of the Leverhulme Trust (RPG2021-177). I thank Robert Goldman and Christopher Minkowski for their comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Furthermore, I am grateful to the anonymous referees and to Stephanie Jamison for improving the quality of this work with their feedback. 1. Mahābhārata Critical Edition (hereafter MBh CE) 7.118.14: ko hi nāma pramattāya pareṇa saha yudhyate/ īdrṣaṃ vyasanaṃ dadyād yo na kṛṣṇasakho bhavet //.

Journal of Hindu Studies, 2021

The Sanskrit Mahābhārata is considered to be a śāstra in Mādhva Vaiṣṇavism, and Madhva composed o... more The Sanskrit Mahābhārata is considered to be a śāstra in Mādhva Vaiṣṇavism, and Madhva composed one of the earliest treatises dedicated to explaining the Mahābhārata’s deeper meaning. In doing so, he pays careful attention to the distinction between the righteous Pāṇḍavas and corrupt Kauravas—a distinction that exists in theory if not always in practice. How does Madhva demarcate the Kauravas and the Pāṇḍavas, and why does this matter for his own theology? Looking at two episodes that either blur or upend the demarcation of the Kauravas and Pāṇḍavas, the mace-battle between Bhīma and Duryodhana (9.60) and the Pāṇḍavas’ journey to heaven (17-18.3), this article shows how Madhva’s Mahābhāratatātparyanirṇaya explains key tenets of Madhva’s ontology and theology. When read carefully, each episode brings out important features of Madhva’s doctrine of devatātāratamya—the gradation of gods. Rather than simply understanding Madhva’s commentary as a theologisation or vedānticisation of the narrative, I argue that his exegesis itself develops and explains central doctrines of Dvaitavedānta, particularly tāratamya and aparokṣajñāna. Vedānticization, in this understanding then, is not simply bringing forth an interpretation of the narrative that fits one's prior philosophical commitments, but it is a process of constituting theology through the narrative.

International Journal of Hindu Studies , 2020

In the Mahābhārata, Kṛṣṇa is regularly accused of ignoring harm that befalls its various characte... more In the Mahābhārata, Kṛṣṇa is regularly accused of ignoring harm that befalls its various characters. In fact, the Sanskrit verb upekṣ (“to overlook, disregard, or ignore”) is applied more consistently to Kṛṣṇa than any other figure in the epic. Through its use, both the Mahābhārata and the tradition raise a question: how can Kṛṣṇa be indifferent to two genocides (the massacre of the Kurus and the Yādavas) and the mistreatment of Draupadī? Although previous studies on theodicies in the epic have focused on the issue of Kṛṣṇa’s omnipotence (or lack thereof)in the Mahābhārata, this article argues that the question of omnipotence is irrelevant because Kṛṣṇa does not want to prevent the suffering of a large-scale war—his neglect is intentional. From this question of (intentional) neglect, the theological problem of indifference to suffering arises for these early readers of the Mahābhārata: under what circumstances is it justified for Kṛṣṇa to neglect the suffering of others, despite being able to prevent it? In presenting this problem, this article also draws attention to the importance of commentaries on the epics and Purāṇas as a source of study for vexed ethical and theological questions such as this one.

Journal of American Oriental Society, 2024

UniVersity of oxford This paper argues that a concept of rebuking God (bhagavannindā) existed as ... more UniVersity of oxford This paper argues that a concept of rebuking God (bhagavannindā) existed as a prohibited act in premodern Sanskrit Brahmanical texts, with the earliest examples in medieval Vaiṣṇava narratives (in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa and Viṣṇu Purāṇa) of Vena and Śiśupāla. The concept of bhagavannindā problematizes the Bhāgavata Purāṇa rereading of the Śiśupāla story: how can someone rebuke a god (here Kṛṣṇa) and be seemingly rewarded (through sāyujya [union] with the god)? I argue that to this problem in Vaiṣṇava and epic narratives the Bhāgavata Purāṇa offers dveṣabhakti / vairānubandha (liberation through enmity or hatred) as a potential solution. Finally, through investigation of two early modern commentaries on the Mahābhārata, I argue that reading this concept of divine censure into the epics was not without tensions. The epic commentators sometimes reveal their own ambivalent readings of episodes where Kṛṣṇa is rebuked. The paper draws attention to the importance of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa as a commentary on the Mahābhārata, upon which later exegetes relied. It surveys how and why the peculiar concept of dveṣabhakti emerges in Vaiṣnava theology and presents narrative as both the source where this orthodox concept of divine censure emerges and the site where the concept is reinforced in commentary. Author's note: This article was made possible through the support of the Leverhulme Trust (RPG2021-177). I thank Robert Goldman and Christopher Minkowski for their comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Furthermore, I am grateful to the anonymous referees and to Stephanie Jamison for improving the quality of this work with their feedback. 1. Mahābhārata Critical Edition (hereafter MBh CE) 7.118.14: ko hi nāma pramattāya pareṇa saha yudhyate/ īdrṣaṃ vyasanaṃ dadyād yo na kṛṣṇasakho bhavet //.

Journal of Hindu Studies, 2021

The Sanskrit Mahābhārata is considered to be a śāstra in Mādhva Vaiṣṇavism, and Madhva composed o... more The Sanskrit Mahābhārata is considered to be a śāstra in Mādhva Vaiṣṇavism, and Madhva composed one of the earliest treatises dedicated to explaining the Mahābhārata’s deeper meaning. In doing so, he pays careful attention to the distinction between the righteous Pāṇḍavas and corrupt Kauravas—a distinction that exists in theory if not always in practice. How does Madhva demarcate the Kauravas and the Pāṇḍavas, and why does this matter for his own theology? Looking at two episodes that either blur or upend the demarcation of the Kauravas and Pāṇḍavas, the mace-battle between Bhīma and Duryodhana (9.60) and the Pāṇḍavas’ journey to heaven (17-18.3), this article shows how Madhva’s Mahābhāratatātparyanirṇaya explains key tenets of Madhva’s ontology and theology. When read carefully, each episode brings out important features of Madhva’s doctrine of devatātāratamya—the gradation of gods. Rather than simply understanding Madhva’s commentary as a theologisation or vedānticisation of the narrative, I argue that his exegesis itself develops and explains central doctrines of Dvaitavedānta, particularly tāratamya and aparokṣajñāna. Vedānticization, in this understanding then, is not simply bringing forth an interpretation of the narrative that fits one's prior philosophical commitments, but it is a process of constituting theology through the narrative.

International Journal of Hindu Studies , 2020

In the Mahābhārata, Kṛṣṇa is regularly accused of ignoring harm that befalls its various characte... more In the Mahābhārata, Kṛṣṇa is regularly accused of ignoring harm that befalls its various characters. In fact, the Sanskrit verb upekṣ (“to overlook, disregard, or ignore”) is applied more consistently to Kṛṣṇa than any other figure in the epic. Through its use, both the Mahābhārata and the tradition raise a question: how can Kṛṣṇa be indifferent to two genocides (the massacre of the Kurus and the Yādavas) and the mistreatment of Draupadī? Although previous studies on theodicies in the epic have focused on the issue of Kṛṣṇa’s omnipotence (or lack thereof)in the Mahābhārata, this article argues that the question of omnipotence is irrelevant because Kṛṣṇa does not want to prevent the suffering of a large-scale war—his neglect is intentional. From this question of (intentional) neglect, the theological problem of indifference to suffering arises for these early readers of the Mahābhārata: under what circumstances is it justified for Kṛṣṇa to neglect the suffering of others, despite being able to prevent it? In presenting this problem, this article also draws attention to the importance of commentaries on the epics and Purāṇas as a source of study for vexed ethical and theological questions such as this one.