Lalitha Sahasranama, a revered text of Srividya, comprises a thousand divine appellations extolling the intangible qualities of Goddess Sri Lalitha Tripurasundari. Over the centuries, this sacred hymn has inspired numerous commentaries, each offering unique interpretations and profound insights into its spiritual significance and metaphysical symbolism. Among these commentaries, the Saubhagya Bhaskara by Bhaskararaya and the Jayamangala by Bhatta Narayaṇa emerge as notable works, distinguished by their depth of analysis and scholarly approach.

Saubhagya Bhaskara Commentary by Bhaskararaya:

The Saubhagya Bhaskara commentary of Bhaskararaya stands as a prominent and revered exposition of the sacred text of Sri Lalitha Sahasranama within the Srividya tradition. Bhaskararaya’s commentary has garnered widespread acclaim and popularity among scholars and devotees alike for its depth of insight, scholarly rigour, and profound spiritual wisdom.

Bhaskararaya hailed as a great master of Mantra and Tantra vidya, brought a wealth of knowledge from various sacred texts and traditions to his commentary. He extensively quoted from Upaniṣads, lexicons, Tantra works, and Puranas, demonstrating his comprehensive understanding of diverse philosophical and spiritual currents within Sanatana Dharma. His commentary reflects a deep engagement with the esoteric teachings of Tantra, particularly the Vamamarga tradition.

One of the distinctive features of Bhaskararaya’s commentary is his identification of 32 syllables selected as the beginning letters of epithets in Lalitha Sahasranama. This meticulous analysis underscores his attention to detail and commitment to unravelling the intricate layers of meaning in the sacred text. Bhaskararaya’s interpretation of the epithets as qualifying Brahman, encompassing all three genders, reflects his profound metaphysical insights and adherence to Vedantic principles.

Moreover, Bhaskararaya’s commentary offers a plethora of alternative explanations, demonstrating his erudition and versatility in interpreting complex theological concepts. His commentary serves as a comprehensive guide for seekers and scholars alike, providing valuable insights into the mystical dimensions of Lalitha Sahasranama and its significance in the spiritual journey.

However, it is important to note that Bhaskararaya’s commentary presupposes a certain level of familiarity with Tantra and Vedanta works on the reader’s part. This highlights the depth and complexity of his exposition, which may require a nuanced understanding of Hindu philosophical and spiritual traditions to appreciate fully.

Saubhagya Bhaskara’s commentary on Bhaskararaya is a towering testament to the richness and profundity of this sacred text. His scholarly mastery and spiritual insight have earned him a revered place among commentators on Lalitha Sahasranama, inspiring generations of seekers on the path of divine realisation.

Jayamangala Commentary by Bhatta Narayana:

Another notable commentary on Lalitha Sahasranama is the Jayamangala, authored by Bhatta Narayana, which stands out for its unique approach and distinctive features. The introductory and concluding sections of Jayamangala provide intriguing insights into the background of its author, shedding light on his lineage, spiritual lineage, and the circumstances surrounding the composition of this work.

According to the colophon and introductory sections of Jayamangala, Bhatta Narayana was born into a family deeply rooted in the Advaita tradition. His father, Venkatadhvari, was known as an Advaita teacher, indicating that Bhatta Narayana inherited a rich spiritual heritage from his paternal lineage. Additionally, his mother’s name is recorded as Narayanamba, although her significance beyond her name remains unknown.

One of the most intriguing aspects of Bhatta Narayana’s life is his association with his Guru in Srividya, identified as Paramasivanandanatha. This indicates that Bhatta Narayana received initiation and spiritual guidance in the Srividya tradition, emphasising the Divine Mother’s worship in her various forms. The influence of his Guru and his immersion in the practices of Srīvidya likely played a significant role in shaping Bhatta Narayana’s spiritual outlook and approach to interpreting Lalitha Sahasranama.

Despite these insights into his background, much about Bhatta Narayana’s life remains mysterious. The lack of detailed information about his personal life and historical context adds intrigue to his persona, enhancing the mystique surrounding his commentary on Lalitha Sahasranama.

The Jayamangala commentary by Bhatta Narayana is a testament to his spiritual lineage, scholarly insight, and devotion to the Divine Mother. While limited information is available about his life, his association with the Advaita tradition and his Guru in Srividya provide valuable insights into the background of this enigmatic figure. Through his commentary, Bhatta Narayana continues to inspire seekers on the path of devotion and spiritual realisation, leaving behind a legacy of profound wisdom and devotion to Goddess Lalitha Tripurasundari.

Comparative Analysis

The division and arrangement of the epithets within Lalitha Sahasranama present an intriguing aspect of the commentaries by Bhatta Narayaṇa and Bhaskararaya. While both commentators delve into the thousand epithets’ profound symbolism and spiritual significance, they adopt different organisational structures, each reflecting their unique interpretive approaches and scholarly methodologies.

In his Jayamangala commentary, Bhatta Narayana divides the text into ten sections. This division provides a systematic framework for understanding and exploring the diverse themes and motifs in Lalita Sahasranama. Additionally, Bhatta Narayana’s utilisation of verses from Hayagrīva and citations from various Shaiva and Tantric works underscores his broad engagement with diverse philosophical and spiritual traditions. By incorporating these references, Bhatta Narayana enriches his commentary with additional layers of meaning and context, inviting readers to explore the interconnectedness of different theological currents within Hinduism.

On the other hand, Bhaskararaya divides the text into twelve kalās or sections in his Saubhagya Bhaskara commentary. This division may reflect his desire to align the commentary with specific doctrinal or ritual frameworks associated with the worship of Goddess Lalitha. 

Bhaskararaya’s profuse quotations from earlier scriptures, meticulous analysis, and alternative explanations highlight his deep reverence for the sacred text and his commitment to unravelling its mysteries.

Despite their differing organisational structures, Bhatta Narayaṇa and Bhaskararaya maintain the integrity of the thousand epithets, ensuring the total count remains unchanged. This demonstrates their adherence to the textual tradition of Lalitha Sahasranama while allowing flexibility for commentarial elucidation and interpretation. The occasional splitting or grouping of epithets serves the purpose of commentarial felicity, enabling the commentators to explore the nuances and interconnections between different epithets within the larger thematic framework of the text.

The division and arrangement of the epithets within Lalitha Sahasranama by Bhatta Narayaṇa and Bhaskararaya reflect their respective interpretive methodologies and scholarly inclinations. Their commentaries offer valuable insights into the sacred text’s spiritual depth and metaphysical significance, inviting readers to embark on a journey of contemplation and devotion in reverence to Goddess Lalitha Tripurasundari.

Variant Readings

The comparison of variant readings between the commentaries of Jayamangala by Bhatta Narayana and Saubhagya Bhaskara by Bhaskararaya provides valuable insights into the interpretive differences and stylistic choices made by these two commentators.

Tattvamayī – Tat tvam ai: In this example, Bhatta Narayana’s version combines “tattva” and “mayī” into a single epithet, while Bhaskararaya’s interpretation separates them into distinct words, “tat,” “tvam,” and “ai,” possibly emphasising different nuances of meaning.

Kaumārī gaṇanāthāmbā – Kumāragaṇanāthāmbā: Bhatta Narayana combines “kaumārī” and “gaṇanāthāmbā” into one epithet, while Bhaskararaya presents them as separate words, perhaps highlighting different aspects of the Goddess’s identity.

Śōbhanāsulabhākr̥tiḥ – Śōbhanāsulabhāgatiḥ: Here, Bhatta Narayana’s version combines “śōbhana” and “asulabhā” into one epithet, whereas Bhaskararaya’s interpretation separates them, possibly to emphasise distinct qualities attributed to the Goddess.

Lajjārambhavivarjitā – Lajjā rambhādivanditā: Bhatta Narayana combines “lajjārambhavivarjitā” into one epithet, while Bhaskararaya divides them, potentially offering different perspectives on the Goddess’s attributes.

Anaghādbhutacāritrā – Anaghā adbhutacāritrā: Bhatta Narayana combines “anaghā” and “adbhutacāritrā” into one epithet, while Bhaskararaya separates them, possibly highlighting different facets of the Goddess’s divine nature.

These examples demonstrate the varying approaches and stylistic preferences of Bhatta Narayana and Bhaskararaya in their commentaries on Lalitha Sahasranama. While both commentators offer profound insights into the divine attributes of Goddess Lalitā, their treatment of specific epithets reveals nuances in their interpretive methods and theological perspectives.

In certain instances within the Lalitha Sahasranama, Bhatta Narayana amalgamates two epithets, combining them into a single entity without providing a clear rationale for this merger.

Śivā + Svādhīnavallabhā: Bhatta Narayana combines the epithets “Śivā” and “Svādhīnavallabhā,” potentially to emphasise their interconnectedness or to underscore the inherent unity between the qualities represented by these epithets. The reason behind this amalgamation remains ambiguous.

Kṣētrasvarūpā + Kṣētrēśī: Similarly, the merging of “Kṣētrasvarūpā” and “Kṣētrēśī” by Bhatta Narayana could suggest a thematic link or complementary nature between these epithets, possibly relating to the Goddess’s association with the sacred space and her sovereignty over it. However, the exact rationale for this amalgamation is not explicitly elucidated.

Mūrtā + Amūrtā: The combination of “Mūrtā” and “Amūrtā” by Bhatta Narayana may signify the synthesis of tangible and intangible aspects of the Goddess’s manifestation, highlighting her simultaneous embodiment of form and formlessness. Nevertheless, the precise motivation behind merging these epithets remains unspecified.

Bālā + Līlāvinōdinī: Bhatta Narayana’s fusion of “Bālā” and “Līlāvinōdinī” possibly aims to underscore the playful and joyous nature of the Goddess, combining attributes related to her youthful innocence with her role as the source of divine play and delight. However, the rationale behind this amalgamation remains elusive.

In these instances, Bhatta Narayana’s decision to club two epithets together is a stylistic choice to highlight thematic connections or present a unified interpretation of the Goddess’s attributes. Despite the lack of a clear explanation, these amalgamations contribute to the richness and complexity of the Lalitha Sahasranama, inviting contemplation on the multifaceted nature of Goddess Lalitha Tripurasundari.

In the commentary of Bhatta Narayana on Lalitha Sahasranama, specific epithets have been omitted, while Bhaskararaya, in his commentary, has provided commentary on them. This discrepancy raises questions about the selection criteria and the interpretive choices made by Bhatta Narayana.

Kaulinī: Bhatta Narayana excludes the epithet “Kaulinī” from his commentary, whereas Bhaskararaya provides commentary. The rationale behind this omission remains unclear, leaving the significance of this epithet unexplored in Bhatta Narayana’s interpretation.

Śrīkarī: Similarly, “Śrīkarī” is omitted by Bhatta Narayana despite Bhaskararaya’s commentary on it. The absence of commentary on this epithet in Bhatta Narayana’s work leaves readers with unanswered questions regarding its significance within the Lalitha Sahasranama.

Nirmōhā: Bhatta Narayana’s omission of “Nirmōhā” contrasts with Bhaskararaya’s commentary on it. The lack of commentary on this epithet by Bhatta Narayana deprives readers of insights into its potential meanings and symbolic importance.

Bhaktamānasahaṁsikā: This epithet is left off by Bhatta Narayana, although Bhaskararaya provides commentary. The exclusion of this epithet from Bhatta Narayana’s commentary raises questions about his interpretation of devotion-related attributes within Lalitha Sahasranama.

Samastabhaktasukhadā: Bhatta Narayana does not include commentary on “Samastabhaktasukhadā,” while Bhaskararaya does. This omission potentially overlooks the Goddess’s role as the bestower of happiness to all devotees, a theme explored by Bhaskararaya.

Lākinyambāsvarūpiṇī: Bhatta Narayana’s lack of commentary on “Lākinyambāsvarūpiṇī” contrasts with Bhaskararaya’s analysis of it. The absence of discussion on this epithet by Bhatta Narayana potentially overlooks its significance within the Lalitha Sahasranama.

Caturvaktramanōharā: Bhatta Narayana omits commentary on “Caturvaktramanōharā,” while Bhaskararaya provides insights into it. The exclusion of this epithet from Bhatta Narayana’s commentary may result in a gap in the understanding of the Goddess’s captivating qualities.

Vīrārādhyā: Finally, “Vīrārādhyā” is not commented upon by Bhatta Narayana, whereas Bhaskararaya provides commentary on it. The absence of analysis of this epithet by Bhatta Narayana leaves readers with unanswered questions about its significance and interpretation within Lalitha Sahasranama.

Overall, the omission of these epithets by Bhatta Narayana, despite commentary by Bhaskararaya, underscores differences in interpretive priorities and thematic focus between the two commentators.

In his introduction to Jayamangala, P.G. Lalye (not a Srividya Upasaka) compares the commentaries of Bhatta Narayana and Bhaskararaya on Lalitha Sahasranama. Lalye suggests that in some instances, such as with epithets like Bhagamālinī, Kāmapūjitā, mādhvīpānālasā, yōninilayā, Bhatta Narayana’s explanations appear more convincing than those of Bhaskararaya.

For instance, Lalye highlights the interpretation of the epithet Bhagamālinī. According to Bhatta Narayana, the term ‘bhaga’ signifies aiśvarya (divine attributes or splendour), implying that Bhagamālinī refers to the Great Mother as the possessor of the entire spectrum of aiśvarya in the cosmos. This interpretation emphasises the Goddess’s supreme sovereignty and divine qualities.

In contrast, Bhaskararaya interprets Bhagamālinī differently. He draws upon references from the Liṅga and Devībhāgavata Mahāpurāṇas, interpreting ‘bhagāṅka’ as the vibhūti (manifestation) of Gaurī, a specific Tithinityā deity. Additionally, Bhaskararaya hints at mantrasaṅkēta (recitations of sacred mantras) and pūjāsaṅkēta (ritual worship) associated with this interpretation while also adhering to the understanding of ‘bhaga’ as aiśvarya.

Lalye’s analysis suggests that while both commentators offer valuable insights into the epithet Bhagamālinī, Bhatta Narayana’s explanation may be more persuasive due to its emphasis on the Goddess’s overarching sovereignty and divine attributes.

Similarly, Lalye compares Bhatta Narayana’s interpretation of Kāmapūjitā with that of Bhaskararaya. Bhatta Narayana suggests that ‘kāma’ signifies prema (divine love) in this context, while Bhaskararaya focuses on ‘kāma’ as desire, specifically the desire for liberation (mokṣakāma). Lalye argues that Bhatta Narayana’s explanation aligns more closely with the philosophical underpinnings of Advaita Vedānta, emphasising the significance of divine love (prema) in the devotee’s spiritual journey.

Through these comparative analyses, Lalye highlights the nuanced differences between Bhatta Narayana’s and Bhaskararaya’s commentaries, providing valuable insights into their interpretive methodologies and philosophical orientations. While both commentators offer profound interpretations of Lalitha Sahasranama, their approaches and emphases may vary based on their respective theological backgrounds and philosophical commitments.

In summary, the comparison between the commentaries of Bhatta Narayana and Bhaskararaya on Lalitha Sahasranama reveals nuanced differences in their interpretive methodologies, stylistic choices, and theological perspectives. While both commentators offer profound insights into the divine attributes of Goddess Lalitha, their treatments of specific epithets may vary, reflecting their unique approaches to interpreting the sacred text. These comparative analyses enrich our understanding of Lalitha Sahasranama and invite readers to explore the multifaceted nature of Goddess Lalitha Tripurasundari’s divine manifestations.

For those interested in deeper exploration, Sri Lalitha Sahasranama and Srividya Upasana, Mahavidya Sadhana Centre provide structured courses in advanced spiritual practices such as Srividya, Dasha Mahavidya and Kundalini Sadhana, aimed at guiding individuals towards enlightenment and self-realisation.

_{This specific article draws upon a publication from Sri Kamakoti Mandali for reference.}