This fourfold model persists in later Vedic and post-Vedic discourses of the body, although the relative importance of, and interrelationship among, the four integral bodies is reconfigured to accord with the epistemological perspective of each discourse. This fourfold model is further complicated by post-Vedic taxonomies that, building on earlier Vedic taxonomies, distinguish among different classes of deities (devas) and also delineate a manifold array of subtle beings (bhūtas) who inhabit subtle worlds between the divine and human realms and who each have their own distinctive forms of embodiment. These subtle beings include gandharvas (celestial musicians), apsarases (celestial dancing nymphs), nāgas (semidivine serpents), and yakṣas (chthonic spirits); various classes of demonic beings such as asuras, rākṣasas, and piśācas; and disembodied human spirits such as pretas (ghosts) and pitṛs (ancestors).
Processual Bodies
The human body is represented as assuming various modalities in order to mediate transactions among the social body, the cosmos body, and the divine body.
In Hindu traditions the human body is generally represented not as “individual” but as “dividual”—to use McKim Marriott’s term—that is, a constellation of substances and processes that is connected to other bodies through a complex network of transactions.59 The dividual human body is represented in different traditions as assuming distinctive modalities—which I term “processual bodies”—in order to mediate transactions among the social body, the cosmos body, and the divine body. Among the various types of processual bodies that have assumed central importance in Vedic and post-Vedic traditions, my own work has focused on the ritual body, the ascetic body, the purity body, the tantric body, and the devotional body.60 Each of these processual bodies is constituted by specific practices and adopts a distinctive configuration of transactions with the various integral bodies (see Figure 1).61
Figure 1 Integral Bodies and Processual Bodies.
Ritual Body. Vedic sacrificial traditions, as represented in the Vedic Saṃhitās (c. 1500–800 BCE) and the Brāhmaṇas (c. 900–650 BCE), ascribe central importance to the ritual body as the modality of embodiment that mediates the inherent connections (bandhus) among the divine body, the cosmos body, the social body, and the human body. As mentioned earlier, the earliest formulation of this quadripartite model is found in the Ṛg-Veda Saṃhitā (c. 1500–1200 BCE) in the Puruṣa-Sūkta, Ṛg-Veda 10.90. The Puruṣa-Sūkta depicts the primordial yajña, sacrifice, by means of which the wholeness of the body of Puruṣa, the cosmic Man, is differentiated, the different parts of the divine anthropos giving rise to the different parts of the universe. The divine body of Puruṣa is represented as the paradigmatic ritual body, the body of the sacrifice itself, which serves as the means of manifesting the cosmos body, the social body, and the human body. This model is extended and adapted in the Brāhmaṇas (c. 900–650 BCE), sacrificial manuals attached to the Saṃhitās, which foster a discourse of sacrifice that centers on the divine body of the Puruṣa Prajāpati, the primordial sacrificer, and on the theurgic efficacy of the yajña, sacrificial ritual, as the instrument that constitutes the divine body and its corporeal counterparts and then enlivens the connections among this fourfold hierarchy of integral bodies.62 First, the yajña is celebrated as the cosmogonic instrument through which the creator Prajāpati generates the cosmos body, setting in motion the entire universe, bringing forth all beings, and structuring an ordered cosmos. Second, the yajña is represented as the theogonic instrument through which the divine body of Prajāpati himself, which is disintegrated and dissipated by his creative efforts, is reconstituted and restored to a state of wholeness. Third, the yajña is portrayed as the anthropogonic instrument that ritually reconstitutes the embodied self of the yajamāna—the patron of the sacrifice, who is the human counterpart of Prajāpati—in the form of a divine self (daiva ātman) through which he can ascend to the world of heaven (svarga loka). Finally, the yajña is represented as the sociogonic instrument that constructs and maintains the social body as a hierarchy of bodies differentiated according to social class (varṇa) and gender.
Ascetic Body. In the metaphysical speculations of the classical Upaniṣads (c. 800 BCE–200 CE), the epistemological framework shifts from the discourse of yajña, sacrifice, to the discourse of jñāna, knowledge. In accordance with the ascetic interests of the forest-dwelling Upaniṣadic sages, the Upaniṣads’ discursive reshaping of the body interjects two new emphases. First, the divine body is recast in relation to the ultimate reality—generally designated as Brahman or Ātman—which is the focus of the Upaniṣads’ ontological and epistemological concerns. Second, the ascetic body displaces the ritual body as the most important modality of human embodiment, which is to be cultivated through minimizing transactions with the cosmos body and the social body in order to attain realization of Brahman-Ātman. The Upaniṣadic sages locate the source of bondage in the embodied self’s attachment to the material psychophysical complex and consequent failure to recognize its true identity as Brahman-Ātman, which in its essential nature is unmanifest, nonchanging, unbounded, and beyond all forms of embodiment. In this context the human body is often ascribed negative valences, becoming associated with ignorance, attachment, desire, impurity, vices, disease, suffering, and death. In contrast to the ritual body—which is constituted as a means of enlivening the connections among the divine body, the cosmos body, the social body, and the human body—the ascetic body, as described in the Upaniṣads and in later post-Vedic ascetic traditions, is constituted as a means of overcoming attachment to all forms of embodiment. The regimen of practices that structures the ascetic body includes disciplines of celibacy aimed at restraining the sexual impulse; practices of begging and fasting aimed at minimizing food production and consumption; and meditation techniques, breathing exercises, and physical austerities aimed at disciplining and transforming the mind, senses, and bodily appetites.
Purity Body. In the Dharma-Śāstras (c. first to eighth centuries CE), brahmanical legal codes, the body is re-figured in accordance with the epistemological perspective of the discourse of dharma, and more specifically varṇāśrama-dharma, the system of ritual and social duties that regulates the four social classes (varṇas) and the four stages of life (āśramas).63 The Dharma-Śāstras’ discursive reshaping of the inherited models of embodiment results in two new emphases. First, the ideological representations of the Dharma-Śāstras give priority to the social body among the four integral bodies. They attempt to provide transcendent legitimation for the brahmanical system of social stratification by invoking the imagery of the Puruṣa-Sūkta in which the body of the divine anthropos is portrayed as the ultimate source of the hierarchically differentiated social body consisting of four varṇas. Second, the modality of human embodiment that is of central significance to the Dharma-Śāstras is the purity body, which must be continually reconstituted through highly selective transactions with the cosmos body and the social body in order to maintain the smooth functioning of the social and cosmic orders. In the discourse of dharma the purity body is not a given but rather an ideal to be approximated, for the human body is considered the locus of polluting substances associated with bodily processes and secretions, such as urine, feces, semen, menses, saliva, phlegm, and sweat. The purity body, its boundaries constantly threatened by the inflow and outflow of impurities, must be continually reconstituted. The regulations and practices delineated in the Dharma-Śāstras for structuring the purity body focus in particular on the laws that govern the system of interactions among castes (jātis), including the laws of connubiality that regulate marriage transactions among castes and the laws of commensality that circumscribe food transactions among castes, determining who may receive food and water from whom.
Tantric Body. In tantric traditions the body is reimagined in accordance with the epistemological framework of the discourse of tantra. The nondual Trika Śaiva tradition of Kashmir (c. ninth to eleventh centuries CE), for example, delineates a multilevel
ed tantric ontology in which the absolute body of Paramaśiva, the ultimate reality, manifests itself simultaneously on the macrocosmic level as the cosmos body and on the microcosmic level as the human psychophysiology. This discursive reframing of the body results in two new emphases. First, among the four integral bodies, the human body is given precedence as the principal locus of embodiment onto which the divine body and the cosmos body are mapped in the form of the subtle physiology, which consists of an elaborate network of nāḍīs (channels) and cakras (energy centers) and the kuṇḍalinī. Second, the ideal modality of human embodiment is envisioned as a tantric body, in which the material body (bhautika-śarīra) is transformed into a divinized body (divya-deha). The tantric body is constituted through an elaborate system of ritual and meditative practices, termed sādhana, that involves instantiating the divine-cosmos body in the human psychophysiology with the aid of such devices as bīja-mantras (seed-syllables), maṇḍalas and yantras (geometric diagrams), mūrtis (ritual images), and mudrās (bodily gestures).
Devotional Body. In bhakti traditions the body is re-figured to accord with the epistemological perspective of the discourse of bhakti, devotion, which interjects two new emphases. First, among the fourfold hierarchy of integral bodies, the divine body is given precedence and is represented in a standardized repertoire of particularized forms of the deity who is revered as the object of devotion—whether Viṣṇu, Kṛṣṇa, Śiva, or Devī (the Goddess). Second, the modality of human embodiment that is of central significance is the devotional body, which is to be cultivated as a means of encountering, engaging, and experiencing the deity. The Gauḍīya tradition provides a robust example of the multileveled models of embodiment that are integral to many bhakti traditions. The discourse of embodiment developed by the early Gauḍīya authorities in the sixteenth century CE celebrates the deity Kṛṣṇa as ananta-rūpa, “he who has endless forms,” his limitless forms encompassing and interweaving all aspects of existence: as Bhagavān, the supreme personal Godhead, who is endowed with an absolute body (vigraha) that is nonmaterial; as Paramātman, the indwelling Self, who on the macrocosmic level animates the innumerable universes, or cosmos bodies, and on the microcosmic level dwells in the hearts of all embodied beings; as Brahman, the impersonal, formless ground of existence, which is the radiant effulgence of the absolute body of Bhagavān; and as the avatārin, the source of all avatāras (divine descents), who descends to the material realm periodically and assumes a series of forms in different cosmic cycles. The Gauḍīyas delineate an elaborate regimen of practices, termed sādhana-bhakti, by means of which the bhakta can realize a siddha-rūpa, a perfected devotional body that is eternal and nonmaterial, and rise to that sublime state of realization in which he or she savors the exhilarating sweetness of Kṛṣṇa-preman—the fully mature state of all-consuming love for Kṛṣṇa—in eternal relationship with Bhagavān.
In a separate study I have provided an extended analysis of the discursive representations and practices associated with these five processual bodies—ritual body, ascetic body, purity body, tantric body, and devotional body—in distinct Hindu discourses of the body, along with an exploration of the connections between these modes of embodiment and notions of the person and the self.64 My focus in the present study is on the role of embodiment in bhakti traditions and more specifically on the mechanisms through which devotional bodies are constituted in dynamic engagement with divine bodies in Kṛṣṇa bhakti traditions.
Bhakti and Embodiment
The term bhakti, from the root bhaj, “to share, partake of,” is first and foremost about relationship. Among the earliest occurrences of the term, in Pāṇini’s Aṣṭādhyāyī (c. 500–400 BCE)65 and the Mahābhārata (c. 200 BCE–100 CE) the term bhakti is at times used to refer to a relationship of loyalty, service, and homage to a king or military leader, while in the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (c. 400–200 BCE)66 and the Bhagavad-Gītā (c. 200 BCE) the meaning of the term is extended to include service, reverence, love for, and devotion to a deity. In later bhakti traditions the term is also at times extended further to include the guru as the object of bhakti.
Bhakti, as a term concerning a relationship with a deity, connotes sharing in, partaking of, and participating in the deity as Other. The various traditions that constitute themselves in relation to the category bhakti tend to posit an initial duality between the bhakta as subject and the divine Other as object and then delineate a path by means of which the bhakta can overcome the state of separation and engage in an increasingly intimate relationship with the divine Other conceived of as a personal God. This relationship finds fruition in the ultimate goal of union with the deity, which is variously represented, ranging from a state of union-in-difference to a state of undifferentiated unity without duality. Bhakti, as a term connoting partaking of and participation in the deity, is thus at times invoked as both a means and an end, as constitutive of the path as well as of the goal.67
In order to illuminate the connections between bhakti and embodiment and to highlight more specifically the various factors that tend to distinguish highly embodied traditions and less embodied traditions, I would like to briefly examine the role of embodiment in the emergence of bhakti traditions.
Embodying the Divine
The period between 200 BCE and 200 CE marks the transition from the Vedic period to the post-Vedic period in which a new brahmanical synthesis—that “federation of cultures popularly known as Hinduism”68—emerged, which attempted to bring together and reconcile diverse strands of Indian thought and practice. Although certain proto-bhakti currents may be found in Vedic traditions, it is only in the period between 200 BCE and 200 CE that we see the emergence of popular bhakti movements. The bhakti stream, the underground currents of which may have been gathering force for centuries, suddenly bursts forth in certain areas of the Indian subcontinent in the last centuries before the Common Era, finding expression in the rise of sectarian devotional movements centering on the deities Viṣṇu and Śiva and in the upsurge of multiform vernacular traditions venerating a panoply of goddesses at the local village level.
The historical shift from Vedic traditions to post-Vedic bhakti traditions is accompanied by a shift from abstract, translocal notions of divinity to particularized, localized notions of divinity and a corresponding shift from aniconic to iconic traditions and from temporary sacrificial arenas to established temple sites. A. K. Ramanujan has provided a succinct encapsulation of a number of features that define this historical shift:
This shift [from Vedic to bhakti traditions] is paralleled by other religious shifts: from the noniconic to the iconic; from the nonlocal to the local; from the sacrificial-fire rituals (yajña and homa) meant to be performed only by Vedic experts to worship (pūjā) by nearly all; from rituals in which a plot of ground is temporarily cordoned off and made into sacred space by experts in a consecration rite—to worship in temples, localized, named, open to almost the whole range of Hindu society. These changes are accompanied by a shift away from the absolute godhead, the non-personal Brahman of the Upaniṣads, to the gods of the mythologies, with faces, complexions, families, feelings, personalities, characters. Bhakti poems celebrate god as both local and translocal, and especially as the nexus of the two.69
I would argue that the various transformations that characterize this historical shift from Vedic traditions to post-Vedic bhakti traditions are a direct consequence of newly emerging discourses of the body in bhakti traditions in which constructions of divine embodiment proliferate, celebrating the notion that a deity, while remaining translocal in his or her essential nature, can appear in manifold corporeal forms and assume various types of concentrated presence in different times and different localities on different planes of existence.70 These new constructions of divine embodiment can be distinguished from earlier Vedic formulations in seven ways.
Particularized Divine Bodies. In contrast to Vedic texts, which make formulaic allusions to the bodies of gods and god
desses while eschewing individualized descriptions of their corporeal forms, bhakti traditions develop elaborate and particularized descriptions of the bodies of the deities.71 The rise of bhakti traditions is accompanied by the elaboration of iconographic and mythological traditions in which each of the major deities becomes associated with a standardized repertoire of particularized forms, with distinctive postures, gestures, and emblems.
Embodiment of the Divine in Time. The emergence of bhakti traditions is accompanied by the development of post-Vedic notions of “divine descent”—designated by the terms avatāra, avataraṇa, or other substantive forms derived from the root tṝ + ava, “to descend”—in which certain deities are represented as descending from their divine abodes to the material realm periodically and becoming embodied in manifest forms—whether divine, human, animal, or hybrid forms—in different cosmic cycles.72
Bhakti and Embodiment Page 5