Bhakti and Embodiment
Page 7
The early Gauḍīya authorities, in delineating a discourse of embodiment pertaining to divine bodies and devotional bodies, are also concerned to establish the boundaries of the social body that distinguish the Gauḍīya bhakta-saṅgha, the community of bhaktas who follow the path of sādhana-bhakti delineated by Caitanya and the Gosvāmins, from other contending paths, schools, and movements in the Indian religocultural landscape. In the course of articulating these boundaries, they establish a socioreligious hierarchy based on a series of successive dichotomies. First, Hindus are distinguished from Yavanas, a term that is often used interchangeably with the term mlecchas (“babbling barbarians”) to designate foreigners and more specifically Muslims.104 Second, among Hindus, followers of the bhakti-mārga, path of devotion, are distinguished from the followers of competing mārgas—in particular, the jñāna-mārga, path of knowledge, advocated by exponents of Advaita Vedānta; the yoga-mārga, path of yoga, promulgated by exponents of Pātañjala Yoga; the karma-mārga, path of action, advocated by brahmanical exponents of varṇāśrama-dharma; and the mantra-mārga, path of tantra, promulgated by the exponents of Pāñcarātra. Third, among followers of the bhakti-mārga, Vaiṣṇavas are distinguished from non-Vaiṣṇavas and more specifically from various Śaiva and Śākta groups. Finally, among Vaiṣṇavas, the early Gauḍīya authorities are concerned to establish a distinctive tradition-identity for the Gauḍīya bhakta-saṅgha in relation to other Vaiṣṇava bhakti schools—in particular, the Śrīvaiṣṇava Sampradāya established by Rāmānuja, the Brahma Sampradāya founded by Madhva, the Puṣṭi Mārga established by Vallabha, and Rāma bhakti traditions. The exponents of the Gauḍīya bhakta-saṅgha thus position themselves at the apex of this pyramidal religious hierarchy as the paradigmatic representatives of Vaiṣṇava bhakti and more specifically Kṛṣṇa bhakti.
In Chapter 1 I will examine the Gauḍīya discourse of divine embodiment, which provides a complex theory of Kṛṣṇa’s divine forms on the transcosmic, macrocosmic, and microcosmic planes. In addition, this discourse includes a number of intermediary forms in which Kṛṣṇa’s bodily presence is instantiated, which we encountered earlier in our opening sketch of Kṛṣṇa bhakti practices in contemporary Vraja. I term these forms “mesocosmic” modes of divine embodiment in that they function in Gauḍīya formulations as mediating forms through which bhaktas can access, engage, and experience the concentrated presence of the deity in localized forms on the gross material plane: grantha-avatāra, Kṛṣṇa’s avatāra in the form of a scriptural text (grantha or śāstra) that is identified more specifically as the Bhāgavata Purāṇa; nāma-avatāras, Kṛṣṇa’s avatāras in the form of divine names (nāmans); Vraja-dhāman, Kṛṣṇa’s embodiment in the form of a geographic place (dhāman); and arcā-avatāras, Kṛṣṇa’s avatāras in the form of ritual images (arcās or mūrtis). In Chapter 2 I will turn to an analysis of the Gauḍīya discourse of human embodiment and will be concerned more specifically with Gauḍīya formulations of the “embodied aesthetics of bhakti” and the regimens of practice for fashioning a devotional body. In Chapters 3 to 5 I will provide a sustained analysis of the ways in which three of the mesocosmic forms of Kṛṣṇa—the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, nāman, and Vraja-dhāman—are represented in the Bhāgavata and other Purāṇic texts and are reimagined in the Gauḍīya discourse of embodiment as critical components in the construction of devotional bodies. I will then turn in Chapter 6 to a consideration of the role of meditation as a devotional practice in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa and other Purāṇic texts, followed by an analysis of the pivotal role allotted to various meditative practices in the Gauḍīya regimen of sādhana-bhakti as a means of realizing a siddha-rūpa, a perfected nonmaterial devotional body, in eternal relationship with Kṛṣṇa in his absolute body. I will conclude this study with some general reflections on the role of embodiment as the “very epicenter” of bhakti and more specifically of the bhakti-śāstra and sādhana-bhakti system developed by the early Gauḍīya authorities. After reviewing the key components of the Gauḍīya discourse pertaining to divine bodies and devotional bodies, I will consider the critical role of this discourse in constructing a distinctive social body, the Gauḍīya bhakta-saṅgha, with a unique tradition-identity that sets it apart from contending philosophical schools and bhakti traditions. Finally, I will consider the potential contributions of the Gauḍīya discourse of embodiment to reimagining theories of the body in the human sciences.
1 The Limitless Forms of Kṛṣṇa
Fashioning Divine Bodies
In the Introduction I briefly surveyed some of the new forms of divine embodiment that emerged in the Indian religiocultural landscape with the rise of bhakti traditions in the period between 200 BCE and the early centuries of the Common Era. In this chapter I will focus on the ways in which these general trends find robust and particularized expression in the discourse of divine embodiment developed by early Gauḍīya authorities in the sixteenth century CE. The Gauḍīya discourse of divine embodiment celebrates the deity Kṛṣṇa as ananta-rūpa, “he who has endless forms,” his limitless forms encompassing and interweaving the various planes of existence. This discourse is delineated by Rūpa Gosvāmin in his Laghubhāgavatāmṛta and is systematically elaborated by Jīva Gosvāmin in his Bhagavat Sandarbha, Paramātma Sandarbha, and Kṛṣṇa Sandarbha. Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja encapsulates the key elements of the Gosvāmins’ formulations in his Caitanya Caritāmṛta. As mentioned in the Introduction, in addition to providing an elaborate theory of Kṛṣṇa’s divine forms on the transcosmic, macrocosmic, and microcosmic planes, the Gauḍīya discourse of divine embodiment includes a number of “mesocosmic,” or intermediary, forms that serve as concrete means through which bhaktas can encounter and engage the concentrated presence of the supreme Godhead in localized forms in the gross material realm.
The Absolute Body and Its Endless Manifestations: The Gauḍīya Discourse of Divine Embodiment
In his recent study of Jīva Gosvāmin’s contributions to Indian philosophy, Ravi Gupta argues that Jīva, as one of the principal architects of the Gauḍīya theological edifice, helped to construct a distinct system of theology—Caitanya Vaiṣṇava Vedānta, or Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Vedānta—by bringing into dialogue “four powerful streams of classical Hinduism: (1) the various systems of Vedānta; (2) the ecstatic bhakti movements; (3) the Purāṇic commentarial tradition; and (4) the aesthetic theory of Sanskrit poetics.”1 I would contend that this integrative tendency is particularly evident in the Gauḍīya discourse of divine embodiment, as articulated not only by Jīva Gosvāmin but also by Rūpa Gosvāmin and Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja. Moreover, I would argue that this integrative tendency is itself at times used in the service of a broader principle, which I term the principle of “superordination.” Through this principle the Gauḍīya authorities attenuate the challenges posed by competing traditions by selectively appropriating and accommodating elements of those traditions’ teachings and integrating them into an encompassing hierarchical system that ultimately serves to domesticate and subordinate the competition. In the following analysis we shall see how this principle of superordination is at work in the Gauḍīya discourse of divine embodiment, which constructs a number of hierarchical taxonomies that classify and rank the multifarious divine forms of Kṛṣṇa as ananta-rūpa. In delineating these taxonomies the Gauḍīyas appropriate and subordinate elements of the teachings propounded by competing philosophical schools and bhakti traditions and establish a multidimensional hierarchy of ontologies, paths, and goals in which their own distinctive form of embodied Kṛṣṇa bhakti is represented as the pinnacle of spiritual realization.
Bhagavān’s Absolute Body and Self-Referral Play
The most important of the Gauḍīya taxonomies involves a hierarchical assessment of the three aspects of the supreme Godhead, from lowest to highest: Brahman, Paramātman, and Bhagavān. As we shall see, in allotting the highest place in their ontological hierarc
hy to Bhagavān, who is represented as a personal Godhead endowed with an absolute body, infinite qualities, and innumerable śaktis (energies), the early Gauḍīya authorities engage in a polemic that challenges the contending ontologies of two rival philosophical schools: the monistic ontology of Advaita Vedānta, which identifies the ultimate reality with the impersonal, formless Brahman, and the dualistic ontology of Pātañjala Yoga, which posits a plurality of nonchanging, formless puruṣas as the highest reality.
Brahman, Paramātman, and Bhagavān
To provide a scriptural basis for their hierarchical assessment of the three aspects of the Godhead, the Gauḍīyas invoke Bhāgavata Purāṇa 1.2.11 and interpret the order of terms in the verse as indicating increasing ontological importance: “The knowers of reality declare the ultimate reality to be that which is nondual knowledge. It is called Brahman, Paramātman, and Bhagavān.”2 In Gauḍīya formulations these three aspects of the Godhead are associated with different dimensions of embodiment. Brahman, the lowest aspect of the Godhead, is the impersonal, formless, attributeless, and undifferentiated ground of existence that is beyond the material realm of prakṛti and is the radiant effulgence of the absolute body of Bhagavān. Paramātman, the intermediary aspect of the Godhead, is the indwelling Self, who on the macrocosmic level animates the innumerable universes, or cosmos bodies, and on the microcosmic level resides in the hearts of all jīvas, embodied beings. Bhagavān, the highest aspect of the Godhead, is transcosmic—beyond both the macrocosmos and the microcosmos—and is personal, endowed with an absolute body (vigraha), replete with infinite qualities (guṇas), and possessed of innumerable śaktis. Bhagavān is ascribed the status of the Godhead in his complete fullness (pūrṇa), who encompasses within himself Brahman and Paramātman and is at the same time beyond both.
In the first seven sections (anucchedas) of the Bhagavat Sandarbha, Jīva Gosvāmin introduces the three aspects of the Godhead, Brahman, Paramātman, and Bhagavān. He then provides an extended analysis of the nature of Bhagavān in the remaining sections of the Bhagavat Sandarbha and an extended analysis of the nature of Paramātman in the Paramātma Sandarbha. In a not-so-veiled critique of Advaitin claims regarding the ultimacy of Brahman, Jīva insists that it is not necessary to devote a separate Sandarbha to an analysis of Brahman because the Bhagavat Sandarbha, by providing a full explication of the nature of Bhagavān, simultaneously serves to clarify the nature of Brahman as an incomplete manifestation (asamyag-āvirbhāva) of Bhagavān.3 After expounding the three aspects of the Godhead in the Bhagavat Sandarbha and Paramātma Sandarbha, Jīva’s principal concern in the Kṛṣṇa Sandarbha is to establish Kṛṣṇa’s supreme status as pūrṇa Bhagavān, the full and complete Godhead. In this context he invokes the declaration in Bhāgavata Purāṇa 1.3.28 that “Kṛṣṇa is Bhagavān himself (Bhagavān svayam)” as the mahā-vākya, authoritative scriptural utterance, that is the definitive statement of the entire Purāṇa. Moreover, he goes even further and argues that because the Bhāgavata Purāṇa is the “sovereign of all śāstras (scriptures),”4 the canonical authority of the Bhāgavata’s mahā-vākya is indisputable and establishes the supreme truth at the basis of all śāstras, to which all apparently contradictory scriptural statements must be reconciled.5
Bhagavān’s Self-Referral Play with His Śaktis
The Gauḍīya discourse of divine embodiment emphasizes that Bhagavān is śaktimat, the possessor of innumerable śaktis, energies or powers. The three principal types of śakti are the svarūpa-śakti, māyā-śakti, and jīva-śakti. The svarūpa-śakti operates on the transcosmic level as the śakti that is intrinsic (antar-aṅga) to Bhagavān’s essential nature (svarūpa), comprising three aspects: saṃdhinī-śakti, the power of sat, being; saṃvit-śakti, the power of cit, consciousness; and hlādinī-śakti, the power of ānanda, bliss. The māyā-śakti operates on the macrocosmic level as the śakti that is extrinsic (bahir-aṅga) to Bhagavān and that is responsible for manifesting and regulating the material realm of prakṛti and for subjecting jīvas, individual living beings, to the bondage of saṃsāra, the cycle of birth and death. The jīva-śakti operates on the microcosmic level as the intermediary (taṭasthā, literally, “standing on the border”) śakti that constitutes jīvas as, on the one hand, an aṃśa, or part, of Bhagavān in the svarūpa-śakti and, on the other hand, subject to the binding influence of the māyā-śakti.
Jīva introduces the three principal types of śakti in the Bhagavat Sandarbha and then focuses on the svarūpa-śakti that is intrinsic to Bhagavān’s essential nature. In the Kṛṣṇa Sandarbha, after establishing that Kṛṣṇa is svayaṃ Bhagavān, he further explicates the svarūpa-śakti through an extended analysis of Kṛṣṇa’s essential nature (svarūpa), absolute body (vigraha), transcendent abode (dhāman), and eternal associates (parikaras or pārṣadas). He provides an analysis of the functions of the māyā-śakti and the jīva-śakti in relation to Paramātman in the Paramātma Sandarbha.
In his discussions of the three types of śakti, Jīva provides the earliest formulation of the distinctive ontology of the Gauḍīya Sampradāya in which the relationship between Bhagavān, as the śaktimat, and his śaktis is represented as acintya-bhedābheda, inconceivable difference-in-nondifference. The śaktis exist in an inconceivable (acintya) relationship to the śaktimat in which they are held to be aṃśas, parts, of Bhagavān that are simultaneously nondifferent (abheda) from him, partaking of his divine nature, and distinct (bheda) from him, as parts of his encompassing wholeness. S. K. De emphasizes the significance of this ontological formulation, which serves to distinguish the Gauḍīya Sampradāya from other Vaiṣṇava schools:
[T]he relation between the Śaktis and the Possessor of the Śaktis is represented as an incomprehensible (acintya) relation of sameness and difference (bhedābheda), the whole theory thus receiving the designation of Acintya-bhedābheda-vāda (incomprehensible dualistic monism), a peculiar point of view which distinguishes the Bengal school from other Vaiṣṇava schools by the qualifying word acintya which brings in a mystical attitude. It speaks of the inconceivable existence of distinction and non-distinction. The Śaktis are non-different from the Bhagavat, inasmuch as they are parts or Aṃśas of the divine being; but the very fact that they are parts only makes the superlativeness of divine attributes inapplicable to them, and there is thus an inevitable difference.6
The section of Jīva’s analysis that is critical to our understanding of the Gauḍīya discourse of divine embodiment concerns the structures and dynamics of the svarūpa-śakti. The svarūpa-śakti, as explicated by Jīva, assumes two forms: the svarūpa, which is Bhagavān himself in his essential nature and absolute body; and the svarūpa-vaibhava, which includes his transcendent abode, dhāman, and his eternal associates, parikaras or pārṣadas. The svarūpa-śakti also includes Kṛṣṇa’s līlā, divine play, as svayaṃ Bhagavān, which is represented as the spontaneous expression of the hlādinī-śakti, the bliss that is intrinsic to Bhagavān’s essential nature. The transcendent dhāman is called Kṛṣṇaloka and is the domain where Kṛṣṇa engages eternally in his līlā. Kṛṣṇaloka is subdivided into three dhāmans. The innermost dhāman is the transcendent Vraja-dhāman, which is also called Goloka, Gokula, Vṛndāvana, or Goloka-Vṛndāvana and is the transcosmic prototype of the earthly region in North India that is variously designated as Vraja, Gokula, or Vṛndāvana. The two outer dhāmans of Kṛṣṇaloka are called Mathurā and Dvārakā and are the transcosmic prototypes of the earthly cities of Mathurā and Dvārakā. Building on Rūpa Gosvāmin’s formulations in the Laghubhāgavatāmṛta, Jīva seeks to establish that Kṛṣṇa’s līlā, which is recorded in narrative form in the tenth book of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, occurs on both the manifest (prakaṭa) and unmanifest (aprakaṭa) levels. The Bhāgavata Purāṇa portrays Kṛṣṇa as descending to the material realm and unfolding his līlā on earth at a particular time and place in history: in the terrestrial region of Vraja in North India at the end of Dvāpa
ra Yuga in the current manvantara (interval of Manu) known as Vaivasvata Manvantara in approximately 3000 BCE.7 In a hermeneutical turn that is critical to the Gauḍīya discourse of divine embodiment, Jīva interprets this earthly līlā as the manifest counterpart of the unmanifest līlā that goes on eternally within Bhagavān in Kṛṣṇaloka beyond the material realm of prakṛti and beyond Brahman. He also ascribes an eternal status to the cowherds (gopas), cowmaidens (gopīs), and other companions of Kṛṣṇa who are the key characters in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa’s literary account of the divine drama in Vraja. Kṛṣṇa’s foster parents Nanda and Yaśodā, attendants, cowherd friends, and cowmaiden lovers are represented as his eternal associates, parikaras or pārṣadas, eternally perfect beings who participate in his essential nature as part of the svarūpa-śakti and engage with him eternally in the unmanifest līlā in his transcendent Vraja-dhāman.1