Bhakti and Embodiment

by Barbara A Holdrege

  Those whose sole goal is devotional service (sevā) to him [the Lord] should perform bhūta-śuddhi up to the point of contemplation (bhāvanā) of one’s body (deha) as that of his eternal associate (pārṣada), which leads to the realization of the mode of devotional service to Bhagavān that accords with one’s inherent inclination.… Thus wherever it is enjoined that one should think of oneself in the form (rūpa) of one’s own beloved deity, one should instead contemplate oneself assuming the form of an eternal associate because pure bhaktas abhor worship of oneself as identical with the Lord (ahaṅgrahopāsanā). In the latter case one’s identity [with an eternal associate] is in an analogous sense only, since the bodies of the eternal associates are composed of viśuddha-sattva, pure luminous being, which is an aspect of the Lord’s cit-śakti.77

  In his reformulation of the practice of bhūta-śuddhi, Jīva is thus careful to emphasize that the bhakta’s body does not in actuality become identified with the body of an eternal associate, for the eternal associates are nitya-siddhas, eternally perfect beings, whose bodies are composed of śuddha-sattva, pure luminous being, whereas ordinary bhaktas are sādhakas, practitioners of sādhana-bhakti, whose bodies are composed of prakṛti, matter, and who have not yet realized their siddha-rūpas, perfected nonmaterial bodies. For example, if the bhakta’s inherent nature is that of a gopī, then he or she will visualize the body in the form of a gopī and will seek to identify with the devotional mode—but not the actual bodies—of the nitya-siddha gopīs who reside perpetually with Kṛṣṇa in Vraja-dhāman and who are paradigmatic exemplars of mādhurya-rasa.78 Jīva suggests that this process of identifying with the devotional mode of an eternal associate in Vraja-dhāman serves as a means of purifying the bhakta’s material body through gradually imbibing the pure nature of the nitya-siddha.79

  With respect to nyāsa, Jīva explicitly mentions the Keśavādi-nyāsa, which, as discussed earlier, is one of the key nyāsas described in the Haribhaktivilāsa and involves ritually establishing the fifty-one mūrtis of Bhagavān together with his fifty-one śaktis in various parts of the body. Jīva’s brief discussion reaffirms the basic procedure of mentally repeating the mantra associated with each deity (mūrti or śakti) and touching the designated body part. However, in contrast to the Haribhaktivilāsa, which considers the entire body to have been purified through bhūta-śuddhi and therefore does not object to establishing the deity in all parts of the bhakta’s body, including body parts such as the feet or anus that are deemed impure in the brahmanical hierarchy of purity,80 Jīva insists that it is inappropriate for the bhakta to visualize the deity becoming established in the “lowest parts of the body.”

  With respect to the Keśavādi-nyāsa and other nyāsas, whenever the nyāsa is focused on the lowest parts of the body (adhamāṅga), one should meditate (root dhyā) on the specific mūrti, mentally repeat (root jap) the corresponding mantra, and then simply touch that particular part of the body. However, one should not meditate (root dhyā) on the deity of the mantra becoming established in that part of the body because that would not be appropriate for bhaktas.81

  Like the Haribhaktivilāsa, Jīva connects mānasa-pūjā with meditation on Kṛṣṇa in his transcendent dhāman. As discussed earlier, the Haribhaktivilāsa suggests that meditation (dhyāna) on Kṛṣṇa in his dhāman is a prerequisite to mānasa-pūjā, in which the sādhaka makes mental offerings to Kṛṣṇa seated within the heart. However, Jīva goes further than the Haribhaktivilāsa in asserting, first, that the meditation (dhyāna) of true bhaktas should focus on Kṛṣṇa in the lotus of his transcendent dhāman, Goloka-Vṛndāvana, not in the lotus of the heart, and, second, that mānasa-pūjā should also involve contemplation of Kṛṣṇa exclusively in his dhāman, implying that the process of mentally offering upacāras to him should be envisioned as taking place in Vraja-dhāman rather than in the heart.

  Whereas the meditation of the yogins is on [the Lord] stationed in the lotus of the heart, the principal meditation (mukhya dhyāna) [for bhaktas] is on Bhagavān stationed in his dhāman, in accordance with the declaration [in the Mṛtyuñjaya Tantra] that “One should meditate (root smṛ) on him in beautiful Vṛndāvana.” Thus mānasa-pūjā involves contemplation (root cint) of him exclusively (eva) in his dhāman. In the case of meditation (dhyāna) on the kāma-gāyatrī mantra, which makes reference to [the Lord] in the orb of the sun, this meditation also involves contemplation (root cint) of him exclusively (eva) in his dhāman. Thus it is declared [in the Brahma Saṃhitā]: “He who is the Self of all resides exclusively (eva) in Goloka”—with an emphasis on the particle eva, “exclusively.”82

  Jīva further emphasizes that even when the bhakta is residing in other places outside of the earthly Vṛndāvana, he or she should manifest the dhāman in meditation (dhyāna) and contemplate (root cint) Bhagavān residing there. This mānasa-pūjā should also include meditation on Kṛṣṇa engaged with his eternal associates (parikaras) in various līlā activities in his dhāman. Moreover, Jīva maintains that the ultimate fruit of this meditation is not a mental fabrication (kalpanā-maya) of an imaginary world but an actual cognition in samādhi of “reality as it is” (yathārtha) in which the bhakta attains a direct visionary experience of the aprakaṭa līlā that unfolds eternally in the transcendent Vraja-dhāman, Goloka-Vṛndāvana, beyond the material realm.83

  Jīva suggests that during mānasa-pūjā or antaḥ-pūjā, internalized mental worship, the divine body and the bhakta’s body interpenetrate one another, with Kṛṣṇa entering into the limbs of the bhakta and the bhakta’s body becoming immersed in the pure effulgence (jyotir) of the absolute body of Bhagavān. However, he emphasizes that it is important for the bhakta to maintain awareness of the distinction between the divine body and the human body in order to avoid the abhorrent practice of ahaṅgrahopāsanā, worship of oneself as identical with the Lord. For example, when worshiping Kṛṣṇa’s flute as part of the mānasa-pūjā, the bhakta is instructed to contemplate the flute in Kṛṣṇa’s mouth, not in his or her own mouth. Even when displaying the bodily gesture called the veṇu-mudrā (flute gesture), which involves making the gesture of holding Kṛṣṇa’s flute to the mouth, the bhakta is cautioned to always maintain an awareness of the flute in relation to the body of Bhagavān in order to avoid lapsing into ahaṅgrahopāsanā.

  With respect to the worship of ornaments such as the flute that form part of the antaḥ-pūjā involving external upacāras, [the bhakta], whose limbs are immersed (vilīna) in the effulgence (jyotir) of the Lord’s body and into whose limbs the Lord has entered (root viś + ni), should contemplate it [the flute] in the Lord’s mouth and not in his own mouth. The display of mudrās involving the Lord’s ornaments such as the flute—for example, holding the flute to one’s own mouth—should be done only for the purpose of showing him the various articles that are dear to him. However, one should not contemplate these articles as placed on one’s own limbs for the reason previously given [ahaṅgrahopāsanā].84

  In his re-visioning of bhūta-śuddhi, nyāsa, and mānasa-pūjā as parts of sādhana-bhakti, Jīva presents these internalized practices as components of a process of psychophysical transformation that is based on a model of embodiment that diverges in significant ways from the Pāñcarātra model. The Pāñcarātra model of embodiment articulated in the Jayākhya Saṃhitā, like other tantric discourses, gives priority to the human body as the locus of divine embodiment and represents the process of transformation as a three-stage process: (1) in the first stage, bhūta-śuddhi, purification of the material body, the tantric sādhaka visualizes the dissolution of the material body and the reconstitution of a pure luminous body that is identified with the divine body of Nārāyaṇa; (2) in the second stage, nyāsa, imposition of mantras, the sādhaka further divinizes the body by installing divine powers throughout the psychophysiology and visualizing the body as fully identified with Nārāyaṇa; (3) in the third stage, mānasa-yāga, internalized mental worship, the sādhaka establishes the
divine body of Nārāyaṇa in the heart of the divinized human body, which provides the locus for the series of mental offerings. The Gauḍīya discourse of embodiment articulated by Jīva, in contrast, gives priority to the transcendent dhāman as the locus of divine embodiment and recasts the three-stage process of transformation within a devotional framework: (1) in the first stage, bhūta-śuddhi, the bhakta purifies the material body by contemplating the body in the form of an eternal associate of Kṛṣṇa in his transcendent dhāman, Vraja-dhāman, thereby investing the body with the pure nature of the eternal associate; (2) in the second stage, nyāsa, the bhakta further purifies the body by establishing forms of Kṛṣṇa in various parts of the body and thereby investing the psychophysiology with the qualities of the divine body; (3) in the third stage, mānasa-pūjā, the bhakta meditates on Kṛṣṇa, making mental offerings to him in his transcendent dhāman rather than in the heart, and immerses the body in the pure effulgence (jyotir) of the absolute body of Bhagavān in Vraja-dhāman, thereby bringing the process of purification to fruition.

  The ultimate goal of this ritual regimen, as formulated by Jīva, is not to attain a divya-deha, a divinized body that is identified with Kṛṣṇa, but rather to realize a siddha-deha or siddha-rūpa, a perfected nonmaterial body that is like Bhagavān (bhagavat-tulyatva), in that it is an aṃśa of the divine effulgence (jyotir) and partakes of the qualities and substance of the absolute body, but that always retains its distinct identity as a devotional body eternally engaged in a relationship of inconceivable difference-in-nondifference, acintya-bhedābheda, with Bhagavān in the transcendent Vraja-dhāman.85

  Conclusion

  Bhakti and Embodiment

  At the outset of this study I argued that the various transformations that characterize the 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 innovative notions of divine embodiment proliferate along with distinctive new forms of bodily practice. Moreover, I argued that an exploration of the connections between bhakti and embodiment is critical to our understanding of the ongoing history of bhakti traditions and that embodiment indeed constitutes the “very epicenter” of bhakti, as Novetzke has suggested. Bodies matter in bhakti traditions. Divine bodies matter, in their particularized forms—with their distinctive colors, body marks, dress, postures, gestures, and emblems—and in the array of modalities through which they become embodied—in cycles of time, in geographic places, in ritual images, in divine names, in sacred texts, and in human forms. Human bodies matter, particularly in their reconstituted form as devotional bodies, as do the various modes of bodily performance and display through which bhaktas seek to appropriate, engage, experience, and embody the deity in its various forms—through pilgrimage, pūjā, singing the divine names, reciting sacred texts, recounting stories of the divine play, dramatic performances, dance, ritual possession, and other embodied practices.

  Although constructions of divine bodies and devotional bodies form an integral part of bhakti traditions, I have also suggested that it is helpful to posit a spectrum in which we distinguish between highly embodied traditions at one end and less embodied traditions at the other end. Among the exemplars of highly embodied bhakti traditions, I have focused in particular in this study on the Bhāgavata Purāṇa and the Gauḍīya tradition inspired by Caitanya. I have sought to show that the architects of the Gauḍīya theological edifice in the sixteenth century—in particular, Rūpa Gosvāmin, Jīva Gosvāmin, and Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja—developed a formal discourse of bhakti, bhakti-śāstra, whose critical distinguishing feature is its function as a discourse of embodiment. The early Gauḍīya authorities appropriate and reimagine the embodied bhakti of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa in a distinctive system of discursive representations and practices that I have characterized as an “embodied aesthetics of bhakti.” This discourse, which includes a robust discourse of divine embodiment pertaining to the divine bodies of Kṛṣṇa and an equally robust discourse of human embodiment pertaining to the devotional bodies of Kṛṣṇa bhaktas, provides a striking example of the multileveled models of embodiment and systems of embodied practices that are integral to many bhakti traditions. I would like to briefly recapitulate the key components of the Gauḍīya discourse pertaining to divine bodies and devotional bodies before turning to a consideration of the critical role that this discourse assumes in constructing a distinctive tradition-identity for the Gauḍīya Sampradāya in relation to contending philosophical schools and bhakti traditions in the Indian religiocultural landscape.

  Fashioning Divine Bodies

  The Gauḍīya discourse of divine embodiment celebrates Kṛṣṇa, svayaṃ Bhagavān, as both eka-rūpa and ananta-rūpa. While remaining eka-rūpa and maintaining the integrity of his singular vigraha, absolute body, in the form of a two-armed cowherd boy, he is at the same time ananta-rūpa, assuming limitless forms on the transcosmic, macrocosmic, microcosmic, and mesocosmic planes. The early Gauḍīya authorities delineate a multidimensional hierarchical taxonomy of Kṛṣṇa’s divine forms in which they luxuriate in the particularities of the paradigmatic vigraha, absolute body, and in classifying and ranking the categories of divine forms that proliferate from the one vigraha according to the particularities of their bodily shapes, features, emblems, and functions.

  The Absolute Body and Its Partial Manifestations

  The Gauḍīya discourse of divine embodiment begins with the singular vigraha, the absolute body of Kṛṣṇa, and its manifold aṃśas, partial manifestations, on the transcosmic plane. The Gauḍīya maṇḍalization of space extends to the transcosmic plane, with the early Gauḍīya authorities invoking the trope of a lotus-maṇḍala in two distinct iterations to represent transcendent space beyond the material space-time continuum. In the first iteration Jīva Gosvāmin, building on the imagery of the Brahma Saṃhitā, represents the innermost dhāman of Kṛṣṇaloka, Goloka-Vṛndāvana, the transcendent Vraja, as a thousand-petaled lotus and identifies Kṛṣṇa’s yoga-pīṭha as the pericarp, the seed-vessel in the center of the lotus. In the second iteration Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja, as part of his articulation of Gauḍīya cosmography, reimagines Kṛṣṇaloka as the pericarp of a thousand-petaled lotus rather than the lotus itself and identifies the petals of the lotus with the transcendent domain of Paravyoman that encircles Kṛṣṇaloka. In both iterations of the lotus-maṇḍala imagery, Kṛṣṇa’s vigraha, absolute body, stands at the center and is surrounded by a multifarious array of nonmaterial bodies that are considered partial manifestations of the singular vigraha.

  In Jīva’s iteration of the lotus-maṇḍala imagery, the vigraha of Kṛṣṇa, svayaṃ Bhagavān, stands in the yoga-pīṭha, which is the pericarp of the thousand-petaled lotus of Goloka-Vṛndāvana. The vigraha at the center of the lotus-maṇḍala is represented as a nonmaterial (aprākṛta) absolute body that is eternal (nitya), self-luminous (svaprakāśa), and consists of sat-cit-ānanda, being, consciousness, and bliss. Kṛṣṇa’s resplendent vigraha shines forth in his svayaṃ-rūpa, essential form, as a gopa, cowherd boy, with two arms (dvi-bhuja), a dark blue-black complexion, and eyes like lotuses; wearing yellow garments and a crest of peacock feathers; and carrying a flute. This singular vigraha of Kṛṣṇa in the pericarp is encircled by the bodies of his eternal associates, parikaras or pārṣadas, who reside in the filaments and petals of the thousand-petaled lotus. The parikaras are represented as nitya-siddhas, eternally perfect beings, who participate in Bhagavān’s essential nature as part of the svarūpa-śakti and possess nonmaterial (aprākṛta) bodies composed of śuddha-sattva, pure luminous being. The lotus flows with the ambrosial nectar of prema-rasa, which is relished in four distinct flavors by the parikaras, who are celebrated as the paradigmatic rāgātmikā bhaktas of the transcendent Vraja-dhāman: the attendants of Kṛṣṇa savor dāsya-rasa, the mode of service; Kṛṣṇa’s cowherd friends relish sakhya-rasa, the mode of f
riendship; Nanda, Yaśodā, and the other elders of Vraja savor vātsalya-rasa, the mode of parental love; and Kṛṣṇa’s cowmaiden lovers relish mādhurya-rasa, the mode of erotic love.

  Jīva represents the thousand-petaled lotus of Goloka-Vṛndāvana as encompassed by a quadrangle, which forms the outer portion of the lotus-maṇḍala and corresponds to the outer dhāmans of Kṛṣṇaloka—Mathurā and Dvārakā. Whereas in Goloka-Vṛndāvana, the innermost dhāman of Kṛṣṇaloka, Kṛṣṇa remains eternally in his svayaṃ-rūpa and mādhurya mode as Gopāla Kṛṣṇa, in Mathurā and Dvārakā he manifests four different corporeal shapes and appears in his aiśvarya mode as Vāsudeva and the other three ādi catur-vyūhas—Saṃkarṣaṇa, Pradyumna, and Aniruddha—who are ascribed the status of prābhava-vilāsas in the Gauḍīya taxonomy of Kṛṣṇa’s divine forms. The bodies of the ādi catur-vyūhas, as partial manifestations of the vigraha, are represented as nonmaterial (aprākṛta) and full of sat-cit-ānanda.

  In Kṛṣṇadāsa’s iteration of the lotus-maṇḍala imagery, the vigraha stands in the center of Kṛṣṇaloka, which is the pericarp of a thousand-petaled lotus whose petals constitute Paravyoman. The singular vigraha of Kṛṣṇa in the pericarp is encircled by the bodies of his partial manifestations, vaibhava-vilāsas and svāṃśa avatāras, who reside in their own abodes, or Vaikuṇṭhas, in the petals of Paravyoman. The bodies of the vaibhava-vilāsas and svāṃśa avatāras are considered partial manifestations of the vigraha, and thus, like the vigraha, they are nonmaterial (aprākṛta) and consist of sat-cit-ānanda. In his manifestations as the twenty-four vaibhava-vilāsas, Kṛṣṇa assumes a series of divine forms that all have four arms (catur-bhuja) and are distinguished primarily by the unique configuration in which each bears the four weapons—discus, conch, club, and lotus—that are emblematic of Kṛṣṇa in his aiśvarya mode. In contrast to the structural resemblance among the forms of the twenty-four vaibhava-vilāsas, in the five classes of svāṃśa avatāras—puruṣa-avatāras, guṇa-avatāras, līlā-avatāras, manvantara-avatāras, and yuga-avatāras—Kṛṣṇa displays his polymorphous, polychromatic nature by manifesting a striking array of bodily shapes—from the bodies of gods and semidivine ṛṣis to human bodies, animal bodies, and hybrid human/animal forms—in a striking array of colors—from black, blue-black, and green to golden, tawny, rose, red, and white.