Bhakti and Embodiment

by Barbara A Holdrege

  The Uncreated and Eternal Status of the Vedas

  Jīva’s analysis builds upon and adapts the philosophical arguments developed by the Mīmāṃsakas and Vedāntins to establish the authoritative status of the Vedas as an infallible means of valid knowledge.

  The central focus of the Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā philosophical project is the investigation of dharma as enjoined in the Veda, and thus the Mīmāṃsakas focus on the karma-kāṇḍa the section of the Vedas pertaining to action, with particular emphasis on the injunctive (vidhāyaka) portions of the Brāhmaṇas. In their expositions of dharma the Mīmāṃsakas are concerned to demonstrate the svataḥ-prāmāṇya, or intrinsic authority, of the Vedas as the only transcendent and infallible source of knowledge of dharma. In this context they developed three principal doctrines concerning the nature and status of Veda: (1) vedāpauruṣeyatva—the Vedas are not derived from any personal agent, human or divine, and are therefore uncreated; (2) vedānādi-nityatva—the Vedas are eternal and without beginning; and (3) veda-prāmāṇya—the Vedas are an authoritative means of valid knowledge. In order to prove that the Vedic statements are uncreated, eternal, and authoritative sources of knowledge, the Mīmāṃsakas developed an elaborate philosophy of language regarding the nature of śabda, word; the relationship between word and meaning (śabdārtha-sambandha); and the nature of sentence meaning (vākyārtha). They are concerned in particular to prove the eternality of śabda and to establish that in the case of Vedic words there is an inherent (autpattika) and eternal (nitya) connection (sambandha) between the word (śabda) and its meaning (artha), between the name (nāman) and the form (rūpa) that it signifies. The foundations of the Mīmāṃsaka philosophy of language are established in the Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā-Sūtras (c. 300–200 BCE), attributed to the sage Jaimini. This philosophy of language was further explained and elaborated in the earliest known commentary on the Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā-Sūtras by Śabara, the Śābara-Bhāṣya (c. 200 CE). Śabara’s Bhāṣya was in turn commented on by Prabhākara (seventh century CE) and Kumārila Bhaṭṭa (seventh century CE), from whom two divergent schools of Mīmāṃsā developed.226

  Whereas the Mīmāṃsakas focus on the karma-kāṇḍa, the section of the Vedas pertaining to action, the exponents of Vedānta are primarily concerned with the jñāna-kāṇḍa, the section of the Vedas pertaining to knowledge, and in particular the knowledge of Brahman as expounded in the Upaniṣads. Despite fundamental differences in their philosophical positions, the exponents of the three main schools of Vedānta—the Advaita school of Śaṃkara (c. 788–820 CE), the Viśiṣṭādvaita school of Rāmānuja (1017–1137 CE), and the Dvaita school of Madhva (1238–1317 CE)—generally adopt the principal doctrines of the Mīmāṃsaka philosophy of language in order to establish that the Vedas are apauruṣeya, uncreated; nitya, eternal; and prāmāṇya, authoritative. However, in contrast to the nontheistic Mīmāṃsakas, who maintain that the world is beginningless, eternal, and has no creator, the Vedāntins argue that the cosmos is subject to never-ending cycles of creation and dissolution and that there is a creator who brings forth the universe in each new cycle. The nonexistence of a creator, or of any omniscient being, is one of the central arguments used by the Mīmāṃsakas to establish the apauruṣeyatva of the Vedas. In opposition to the Mīmāṃsakas, the Vedāntins maintain that the apauruṣeyatva and nityatva of the Vedas are not incompatible with the existence of a creator. In his Brahma-Sūtra Bhāṣya Śaṃkara goes even further and invokes prooftexts from śruti and smṛti to establish that the Vedas serve as the eternal plan that the creator employs in every kalpa in order to bring forth the forms and phenomena of creation in accordance with a fixed pattern. Moreover, whereas the Mīmāṃsakas do not discuss the relationship between the Vedas and Brahman, Śaṃkara is concerned to establish that Brahman is the ultimate source of the eternal Vedas.227

  In Tattva Sandarbha 10–11, together with his commentary on these two sections in the Sarva-Saṃvādinī, Jīva invokes the technical terminology and doctrines of the Mīmāṃsakas and the arguments of the Vedāntins in order to establish the transcendent authority of the Veda as an infallible source of knowledge.228 In Tattva Sandarbha 10 he declares that the Vedas, which consist of nonmaterial speech (aprākṛta-vacana) and have been passed down through a beginningless tradition of oral transmission (paramparā), are the only reliable pramāṇa, for they alone are the source of all mundane (laukika) and transmundane (alaukika) knowledge. In his commentary on Tattva Sandarbha 10–11, Jīva cites the Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā-Sūtras as well as the commentaries of Śabara and Kumārila and appropriates Mīmāṃsā terminology in order to establish that the Vedas are apauruṣeya, uncreated; nitya, eternal, and anādi, without beginning; and svataḥ-prāmāṇya, intrinsically authoritative. He also refers to the Mīmāṃsaka doctrine that in Vedic words there is an inherent connection (autpattika sambandha) between śabda and artha, the word and its meaning.229

  While Jīva thus invokes the central doctrines of the Mīmāṃsaka philosophy of language, at the same time he departs in significant ways from the Mīmāṃsakas. In particular, like the Vedāntins, he rejects the Mīmāṃsaka view that there is no creation and no creator and insists instead that the Vedas manifest at the beginning of each new cycle of creation and serve as the primordial utterances through which the creator principle, Prajāpati or Brahmā, brings forth the phenomenal world.230 Moreover, recalling Śaṃkara’s arguments regarding the Vedas and Brahman, Jīva argues that the ultimate source from which the eternal Vedas manifest again and again at the beginning of each new cycle is Bhagavān, the supreme Godhead.

  That [śabda] is none other than the śāstra, the Veda itself, manifesting without beginning (anādi) as that uncreated (apauruṣeya) speech which appears (root bhū + āvir) again and again at the beginning of each creation, manifesting without beginning (anādi) from the cause of all, Bhagavān. That [Veda] is considered free from the defects of confusion.… That [Veda] alone is an infallible means of valid knowledge (pramāṇa).231

  In his discussion of the uncreated and eternal status of the Vedas, their cosmogonic role in creation, and the authoritative status of all Vedic statements, Jīva follows closely Śaṃkara’s commentary on the Brahma-Sūtras and also cites the commentary on Śaṃkara’s Brahma-Sūtra Bhāṣya by Vācaspati Miśra (ninth century CE), the founder of the Bhāmatī school of Advaita Vedānta.232 In addition, he cites the commentaries on the Brahma-Sūtras by Rāmānuja and Madhva.233

  While Jīva thus frequently invokes the authorities of Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā and Vedānta to support his arguments regarding the apauruṣeyatva, nityatva, and svataḥ-prāmāṇya of the Vedas, his arguments are embedded in a distinctive discursive framework that diverges from both the Mīmāṃsakas’ discourse of dharma and the Vedāntins’ discourse of jñāna about Brahman and focuses instead on the discourse of bhakti. As we shall see, Jīva’s discussion of the transcendent authority of the Veda is only the first phase of a three-phase argument that will lead, in the second phase, to his ascribing Vedic status to the Purāṇas generally and that will culminate, in the third and final phase of his argument, with the assertion that the Bhāgavata Purāṇa is the “sovereign of all śāstras” that surpasses all the Vedas and the Purāṇas in its unique status as the embodiment of Bhagavān. Even in the course of the first phase of his argument, when discussing the authoritative status of the Vedas, Jīva occasionally interjects his distinctive Gauḍīya perspective on bhakti into the discussion. For example, in one passage, after asserting that the Vedas are apauruṣeyatva and nityatva, he goes on to argue that even the eternal associates (pārṣadas) of Bhagavān—who, like the Lord himself, are beyond the illusory power of the māyā-śakti—delight in reciting the Sāma-Veda and other Vedas while immersed in the supreme bliss (paramānanda) of bhakti, which transcends the bliss of Brahman. Moreover, Jīva maintains that Bhagavān himself utilizes his own Vedic ordinances when he sets in motion the process of creation at the beginning of each new cycle.234


  Vedas in Creation and Cognition

  To ground his arguments concerning the Veda in the canonical authority of the śāstras, Jīva cites prooftexts from śruti and smṛti, many of which he draws from the commentaries on the Brahma-Sūtras by Śaṃkara, Rāmānuja, and Madhva. In this context Jīva mentions a number of themes that are of central importance in the mythological representations found in Vedic, epic, and Purāṇic texts concerning the cosmogonic role of the Vedas and the process of Vedic transmission.235 Four themes are of particular interest because they resonate with the themes that are emphasized in the Purāṇic representations of the Veda discussed earlier.

  First, as we have seen, Jīva associates the Vedas with Bhagavān, the supreme Godhead, who is represented as the ultimate source from which the eternal Vedas manifest at the beginning of each cycle of creation. Moreover, he claims that Bhagavān utilizes the Vedas when he wishes to initiate the process of creation.236

  Second, Jīva connects the Vedas with the creator principle, Prajāpati or Brahmā. Building on the arguments of Śaṃkara, Rāmānuja, and Madhva, he cites prooftexts from the Ṛg-Veda, Brāhmaṇas, and Mahābhārata to establish that the creator makes use of the eternal Vedic words as the archetypal plan from which he brings forth the names, forms, and functions of all beings according to the same fixed pattern in every cycle of creation.

  In the beginning the self-born lord [Brahmā] sent forth speech (vāc), which was without beginning or end, eternal (nitya), and divine and which consisted of the Vedas (veda-mayī), from which all manifestations are derived. In the beginning the great lord formed from the words (śabdas) of the Vedas alone the names of the ṛṣis and the various creations designated in the Vedas.237

  Third, Jīva discusses the role of the Vedic ṛṣis in cognizing and transmitting the primordial sound impulses of the Vedas at the beginning of each new cycle of yugas. He cites verses from the Ṛg-Veda and Mahābhārata to substantiate his argument that the ṛṣis are not the authors of the Vedas but are simply the vehicles through which the eternal sound impulses are manifested and preserved: “The eternally manifesting śabda of the Vedas simply entered into the various [ṛṣis] rather than being composed by them.”238

  Finally, in later sections of the Tattva Sandarbha, Jīva connects the Vedas to the supreme ṛṣi among ṛṣis, Veda-Vyāsa. As we shall see, he cites passages from various Purāṇas to establish Vyāsa’s role in dividing the one primordial Veda into four Saṃhitās,239 in compiling the extended “Vedic” canon of Purāṇas,240 and in cognizing and recording the Bhāgavata Purāṇa as the consummate śāstra that is the essence of the entire canon of śruti and smṛti texts.241

  Vedic Status of the Purāṇas

  In Tattva Sandarbha 12–17 Jīva Gosvāmin develops the second phase of his argument, in which he extends the Vedic canon beyond the circumscribed corpus of śruti texts and ascribes Vedic status to the Purāṇas. In his opening reflections in Tattva Sandarbha 12, which he explains further in the Sarva-Saṃvādinī, Jīva notes that the meaning of Vedic śabda is difficult to comprehend in the present age of Kali Yuga because the entire corpus of the Vedas is no longer available and human beings have more limited intelligence than in previous ages. He therefore suggests that we turn our attention to the śabda of the Itihāsas and Purāṇas, which are Vedic in form (veda-rūpa) and can serve to elucidate the meaning of the Vedas (vedārtha). He asserts, moreover, that the Itihāsas and Purāṇas are the best source of valid knowledge in Kali Yuga.242

  The Uncreated and Eternal Status of the “Fifth Veda”

  Jīva invokes the philosophical terminology of the Mīmāṃsakas as well as prooftexts from śruti and smṛti to substantiate his argument that the Itihāsas and Purāṇas are nondifferent from the Vedas and therefore can legitimately claim the status of the “fifth Veda.”

  Jīva supports his claim that the Itihāsas and Purāṇas partake of the nature of the Vedas by using two key Mīmāṃsa terms to describe these smṛti texts that both the Mīmāṃsakas and the Vedāntins reserve for śruti texts alone: apauruṣeya and nitya. He asserts that the Itihāsas and Purāṇas are nondifferent (abheda) from the Vedas in that all these texts are apauruṣeya, uncreated. Although nondifferent, these three categories of texts are assigned different names on account of the fact that the Vedic texts use accents and a distinctive word order that are not found in the Itihāsas and Purāṇas.243 Jīva invokes a prooftext from śruti in support of his argument that the Itihāsas and Purāṇas share in the apauruṣeyatva of the Vedas: Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.4.10, which depicts the Itihāsa and Purāṇa as being “breathed forth” from the great Being (bhūta) along with the Ṛg-Veda, Yajur-Veda, Sāma-Veda, and Atharva-Veda.244 Jīva suggests further that the Purāṇas share in the nityatva of the Vedas. He substantiates this claim with a passage from the Skanda Purāṇa, which represents the primordial Purāṇa as nonchanging (dhruva) and eternal (nitya) śabda that issues forth in the beginning of creation from the mouth of the creator Brahmā after the Vedas manifest (root bhū + āvir).245 In his earlier discussion of the apauruṣeyatva and nityatva of the Vedas, Jīva emphasized how the Vedas manifest (root bhū + āvir) periodically at the beginning of each cycle of creation,246 and he argues in a parallel manner that while the Purāṇas are at times manifest (āvir-bhāva) and at other times unmanifest (tiro-bhāva), they cannot thereby be considered noneternal (anityatva).247

  Jīva focuses in particular on the special status of the Itihāsas and Purāṇas as the fifth Veda that together with the four Vedas—Ṛg-Veda, Yajur-Veda, Sāma-Veda, and Atharva-Veda—constitute the expanded Vedic canon. He substantiates this part of his argument with evidence from both the Itihāsas and the Purāṇas. He cites, for example, the passage from the Bhāgavata Purāṇa that depicts the four Vedas as issuing forth in succession from the four mouths of the creator Brahmā, after which the Itihāsas and Purāṇas issue forth from all his mouths together as the fifth Veda.248 He also cites a verse from the Mahābhārata in which the epic claims for itself the status of the fifth Veda.249 In addition, Jīva grounds his argument in the canonical authority of śruti by citing a passage from the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, which provides an enumeration of brahmanical sacred texts and sciences that begins with “the Ṛg-Veda, the Yajur-Veda, the Sāma-Veda, the Atharvaṇa as the fourth, Itihāsa and Purāṇa as the fifth Veda among the Vedas.…”250

  In his discussion of the Vedic status of the Itihāsas and Purāṇas, Jīva emphasizes the special status of the Purāṇas, which he declares to be more important than the Itihāsas—and even more important than the Vedas.251 He cites prooftexts from the Purāṇas, such as the following passage from the Skanda Purāṇa, in order to establish that the Purāṇas provide a nonchanging base of knowledge that serves as a firm foundation for the Vedas and that illumines and supplements the meaning of both śruti and smṛti texts.

  O best of brahmins, I consider the significance of the Purāṇas to be nonchanging (niścala) like the Vedas. The Vedas are all founded (pratiṣṭhita) on the Purāṇas, about this there is no doubt. The Veda is afraid of one with little knowledge, thinking, “He will disrupt me.” But it [the Veda] was rendered nonchanging (niścala) in the beginning by means of the Itihāsas and Purāṇas. For that which is not found in the Vedas is found in the smṛtis, O brahmins, and that which is not found in either of them is extolled in the Puṛānas. O brahmins, he who knows the four Vedas with their subsidiary limbs (aṅgas) and Upaniṣads but who does not know the Purāṇa is not truly learned.252

  Primordial Purāṇa as Primordial Veda

  One of the strategies deployed by Jīva to invest the Purāṇas with Vedic authority is to assert their primordial origins. In this context he invokes the two alternative traditions regarding the origins of the Purāṇas that I discussed in an earlier section.253 However, as we shall see, an important difference distinguishes Jīva’s approach from that of the Purāṇas. Whereas the Purāṇas are primarily concerned to emulate the
Vedic paradigm by providing accounts of their origins that parallel accounts of the Veda, Jīva’s objectives are twofold: first, to establish that the eighteen Purāṇas are nondifferent from the primordial Purāṇa and, second, to establish that the primordial Purāṇa is nondifferent from the primordial Veda.

  With respect to his first objective, Jīva argues that the primordial Purāṇa extolled in the Upaniṣads and in Purāṇic accounts is in the final analysis not different from the eighteen Purāṇas compiled by Vyāsa. In his discussion of Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.4.10, mentioned earlier, which portrays the Itihāsa and Purāṇa as being breathed forth from the great Being along with the four Vedas, Jīva is concerned to refute the argument that the terms Itihāsa and Purāṇa refer, respectively, to historical and mythological materials that are found in the four Vedas themselves and do not refer to the Mahābhārata and the eighteen Purāṇas compiled by Vyāsa.254 Both the Mīmāṃsakas and Śaṃkara adopt this more circumscribed interpretation of the terms Itihāsa and Purāṇa in this context, although Jīva does not explicitly make reference to their positions.255 In any case, he refutes this argument by citing the following passage from the Skanda Purāṇa concerning the primordial Purāṇa:

  In the beginning Brahmā, the grandfather of the gods, practiced intense tapas. As a result the Vedas manifested (root bhū + āvir) along with the six Vedāṅgas and the pada and krama methods of Vedic recitation. Then from Brahmā’s mouth issued forth the undivided Purāṇa, containing all the śāstras, nonchanging (dhruva), consisting of eternal śabda (nitya-śabda-maya), holy, having the extent of a hundred crores [of ślokas]. Listen to the divisions of that [Purāṇa]. The Brahma Purāṇa is first.…256