The early Gauḍīya authorities’ emphasis on the nonmateriality of the siddha-rūpas is grounded in their cosmography in which the singular vigraha, absolute body, of Kṛṣṇa stands in the pericarp of the thousand-petaled lotus-maṇḍala in Goloka-Vṛndāvana, the transcendent Vraja-dhāman. He is encircled by his parikaras, his eternally perfect associates, who have never been subjected to the bondage of the māyā-śakti and possess nonmaterial bodies composed of śuddha-sattva, pure luminous being, and he is also accompanied by samprāpta-siddhas, perfected mahā-bhāgavatas, who have cast off the fetters of the māyā-śakti and realized their siddha-rūpas, nonmaterial bodies composed of cit and ānanda. According to this cosmographic vision, those jīvas who have realized their siddha-rūpas thus not only leave behind their material sādhaka-rūpas at the time of death, they leave behind the earth (bhūr-loka) along with the subtle material worlds above and below the earth that are populated by gods and other subtle beings, and they leave behind the entire material realm of prakṛti composed of innumerable Brahmā-universes. They leave behind the material space-time continuum altogether and abide eternally as embodied persons in their siddha-rūpas in the transcendent Vraja-dhāman beyond Brahman.
Gender beyond Sex
The Gauḍīya discourse of embodiment thus challenges us to imagine the possibility of embodied divine and human persons beyond the realm of matter. Moreover, in the case of realized human jīvas, it challenges us to imagine the possibility of gender beyond sex.
Contemporary feminist proponents of the sex/gender distinction, as discussed earlier, tend to essentialize the sexually marked material body as a naturally given datum and relegate gender to the secondary status of an ideological construction superimposed on this “natural” base. The Gauḍīya authorities, in contrast, imagine the sex/gender distinction in the context of their own distinctive ontological theories of alternative bodily identities and reverse this hierarchical assessment: they relegate the sexed material body, or sādhaka-rūpa, to the secondary status of a karmic construction and essentialize gender as intrinsic to the nonmaterial body, or siddha-rūpa.
In the Gauḍīya perspective the sādhaka-rūpa, material body, into which the jīva enters at the time of birth is sexually marked as male or female as determined by the jīva’s particular karmic heritage in any given lifetime, but this sexed body is simply one in a series of karmically constructed bodies that the jīva is destined to inhabit in the course of its journey in saṃsāra, and its ascribed identity as male or female has nothing to do with the jīva’s svarūpa, essential nature. Indeed, as long as the jīva mistakenly identifies with the sexed body, it remains enslaved by the binding influence of the māyā-śakti in the endless cycle of birth and death. In order to realize its true identity the jīva must cast off this false sense of self and awaken to the reality of its svarūpa, essential nature, and the corresponding form of its siddha-rūpa, nonmaterial body, which is eternally gendered as either female or male in relation to the supreme Bhagavān, whose absolute body is eternally gendered as male.10
At the meta-physical level of the siddha-rūpa, sex is left behind as an epiphenomenon of the physical body and gender alone remains. At this level the gendered identity of the realized jīva as male/masculine or female/feminine is reflected in an integrated state of personal-cum-bodily identity in which the jīva’s svarūpa, essential nature, is simultaneously manifested in its rasa, devotional mode, and in its siddha-rūpa, bodily form. The critical determinant of the jīva’s gender is the rasa that is considered intrinsic to its svarūpa and that manifests in a bodily form of the siddha-rūpa appropriate to the particular devotional mode through which the jīva engages the male Godhead. In accordance with its rasa, the jīva’s siddha-rūpa will manifest either as a female lover who embodies mādhurya-rasa, as a maternal elder or paternal elder who embodies vātsalya-rasa, as a male friend who embodies sakhya-rasa, or as a male attendant who embodies dāsya-rasa.
The Gauḍīya discourse of human embodiment poses potential dilemmas for the samprāpta-siddha who may experience contending bodily identities in the embodied state of realization prior to death. For example, earlier in this study we considered the case of a realized Gauḍīya practitioner whose sādhaka-rūpa, sexed material body, is that of a male brahmin but who inwardly identifies with his siddha-rūpa, gendered nonmaterial body, which is that of a female gopī. How does such a practitioner contend with the competing bodily identities of this “metagendered” state in which he/she is male outside on the physical plane but female inside on the meta-physical plane? Does he/she continue to engage in the external bodily practices of sādhana-bhakti as a male brahmin while remaining inwardly identified as a female gopī, or does he/she adopt the dress, speech, and behavior of a gopī on the external plane as well? Such questions did not remain at the level of philosophical speculation but were actively debated by leading Gauḍīya authorities in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries as matters of critical import for the day-to-day practices of the Gauḍīya community. Although a full consideration of these issues will be reserved for a separate study, I would suggest that these historical debates continue to have important implications to the present day, not only for the lives of contemporary Gauḍīya practitioners but also for contemporary debates about the sex/gender distinction both within and beyond the academy.11
The Gauḍīya discourse of embodiment, in its sustained theorizing about bodies that matter on both the physical and meta-physical planes, thus radically re-figures the relationship between embodiment, personhood, and materiality and between sex and gender. This discourse challenges us to move beyond the materialist constraints of contemporary body theories in the human sciences and to consider the potential contributions of alternative imaginaries to re-figuring our analytical categories and models in the academy.
Note on Translations and Editions
The translations of all Sanskrit passages are my own. The transliteration of Sanskrit terms generally follows the scientific system adopted by the Journal of the American Oriental Society. In most cases I use the stem form when transliterating Sanskrit terms. For example, I use the stem forms preman and dhāman rather than the nominative forms prema and dhāma. However, in the case of proper names I generally use the nominative form—for example, Bhagavān rather than bhagavat and Brahmā rather than brahman.
For editions of Sanskrit texts cited, please refer to the Bibliography. With respect to the Padma Purāṇa, my citations of the Bhāgavata Māhātmya of the Padma Purāṇa refer to the Ānandāśrama Sanskrit Series (ĀnSS) edition (1893–1894), while my citations of the Vṛndāvana Māhātmya of the Padma Purāṇa refer to the Veṅkaṭeśvara Press (Veṅk) edition (1927; reprint 1984–1985). All other citations of the Padma Purāṇa refer to the Veṅkaṭeśvara Press edition.
With respect to the Bhaktirasāmṛtasindhu of Rūpa Gosvāmin, my citations refer to the Devanāgarī edition of David Haberman (2003), which is based on the edition of Puridāsa Mahāśaya (1946) in Bengali script. I have also consulted the Devanāgarī edition of Śyāmdās Hakīm (1981), which includes the commentaries of Jīva Gosvāmin and Viśvanātha Cakravartin as well as a Hindi translation. References in the Notes to the Bhaktirasāmṛtasindhu indicate quarter (vibhāga), chapter (laharī), and verse(s).
With respect to the Laghubhāgavatāmṛta of Rūpa Gosvāmin, my citations refer to the edition of Bhakti Vilāsa Tīrtha (1995). References in the Notes to the Laghubhāgavatāmṛta indicate section (khaṇḍa), chapter (pariccheda), and verse(s).
With respect to the Bhāgavata Sandarbha of Jīva Gosvāmin, in the case of five of the six Sandarbhas—Tattva Sandarbha, Bhagavat Sandarbha, Paramātma Sandarbha, Bhakti Sandarbha, and Prīti Sandarbha—my citations refer to the Devanāgarī edition of Haridāsa Śāstrī (1982–1986), which is based on the edition of Puridāsa Mahāśaya (1951) in Bengali script and provides a Hindi translation. In the case of the Kṛṣṇa Sandarbha, my citations refer to the edition of Chinmayi Chatterjee (1986), wh
ich takes into account the significantly different readings found in the Bengali and Vṛndāvana editions of the text. References in the Notes to the Sandarbhas indicate section (anuccheda).
All translations of the Caitanya Caritāmṛta of Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja are from the translation by Edward Dimock (1999). I have at times inserted Bengali terms in brackets into Dimock’s translations in order to call attention to specific terminology used by Kṛṣṇadāsa. References in the Notes to the Caitanya Caritāmṛta indicate section (līlā), chapter (pariccheda), and verse(s) and follow the numbering convention adopted in Dimock’s translation, which is based on the Bengali edition of the Caitanya Caritāmṛta edited by Rādhāgovinda Nātha (3rd ed., 1948–1952).
Notes
Preface
1. This definition of canonical categories derives from Smith 1989: 202, 216–218.
Introduction
1. For a bibliographic essay reviewing primary and secondary sources pertaining to Kṛṣṇa, including sections on Sanskritic scriptures (Mahābhārata, Harivaṃśa, Viṣṇu Purāṇa, Bhāgavata Purāṇa, and Gītagovinda), regional vernacular poetry, pilgrimage traditions, visual arts, and temple and ritual traditions, see Coleman 2011b.
2. The Bhāgavata Purāṇa’s portrayal of the time of Kṛṣṇa’s descent to earth reflects Purāṇic notions of time, which will be discussed in Chapter 1. For studies of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa’s theology of līlā, divine play, along with the early Vaiṣṇava antecedents of the Bhāgavata’s formulations, see Hospital 1973, 1980, 1995. For more general treatments of Kṛṣṇa’s līlā, see Kinsley 1979; Dimock 1989b; Hein 1995. For a collection of essays exploring theological and performative dimensions of līlā in a variety of Hindu traditions, see Sax 1995. Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava constructions of the category of līlā will be discussed in Chapter 1.
3. In Chapter 5 I will examine literary constructions of Vraja (Hindi Braj) found in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, the Mathurā Māhātmya of the Varāha Purāṇa, and the Vṛndāvana Māhātmya of the Padma Purāṇa. I will then provide an extended analysis of the contributions of the early Gauḍīya authorities to the cultural and discursive reconstructions of Vraja in the sixteenth century, first, through the critical roles they assumed in the cultural reclamation of Vraja and its establishment as a center of pilgrimage and, second, through their discursive reimagining of Vraja as a bimodal domain that functions simultaneously as a geographic place in North India and as a transcendent space beyond the material realm. For earlier studies of Vraja as a literary construction and a major pilgrimage center, see Entwistle 1987; Haberman 1994; Corcoran 1995. For a geospatial, multimedia digital volume exploring the religiocultural spaces of Vraja-maṇḍala, see Holdrege forthcoming(b).
4. A krośa is approximately two miles.
5. Haberman 1994: 125–126. I will examine representations of Vraja as the body of Kṛṣṇa in Chapter 5.
6. I will discuss the Bhāgavata Purāṇa’s portrayal of the Mount Govardhana līlā in Chapter 5.
7. For a discussion of two narratives that seek to account for the modest size of Mount Govardhana by claiming that a sage cursed the mountain, causing it to decrease in size by an amount equivalent to one sesamum seed each day, see Haberman 1994: 112–113; cf. Entwistle 1987: 59.
8. Regarding representations of Mount Govardhana as a body, see Entwistle 1987: 281–282. I will discuss Caitanya’s pilgrimage to Vraja and his veneration of Mount Govardhana as the body of Kṛṣṇa in Chapter 5.
9. For a brief description of ritual practices associated with Govardhana Pūjā, see Entwistle 1987: 283–284; Vaudeville 1980: 1–4. For an extended ethnographic study of Govardhana Pūjā, or Annakūṭa, and other feasts and festivals at Govardhana, see Toomey 1994.
10. See n. 8.
11. For discussions of the rival accounts of the self-manifestation of Śrī Nāthajī given by the exponents of the Gauḍīya Sampradāya and the Puṣṭi Mārga, see Entwistle 1987: 138–143; Haberman 1994: 118–120.
12. Regarding Gauḍīya accounts of the self-manifestation of Govindadeva to Rūpa Gosvāmin, see Haberman 1994: 32–33; Packert 2010: 129–130.
13. Regarding Gauḍīya accounts of the self-manifestation of Rādhāramaṇa to Gopāla Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmin, see Case 2000: 73–76; Valpey 2006: 44–51; Packert 2010: 30–32.
14. For an analysis of the theology and practice of mūrti-sevā at Rādhāramaṇa temple, including a brief discussion of the “double life” of Rādhāramaṇa, see Valpey 2006: 51–78. For an overview of the eight periods of the daily temple service, see Case 2000: 82–96. For an analysis of the interplay of ritual and aesthetic prescriptions and priestly imagination in contemporary practices of ornamentation of the Rādhāramaṇa mūrti, see Packert 2010: 28–73.
15. The earliest formulation of the aṣṭa-kālīya-līlā, the eight periods of Kṛṣṇa’s līlā, is found in Rūpa Gosvāmin’s eleven-verse Aṣṭakālīyalīlāsmaraṇamaṅgalastotra. This stotra provided the basis for the meditative practice of līlā-smaraṇa—contemplative recollection of the līlā of Kṛṣṇa—that was elaborated by Rūpa’s disciple, Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja, in his Govindalīlāmṛta, the authoritative guidebook for this meditative practice. I will discuss in Chapters 2 and 6 the role of līlā-smaraṇa and other meditative practices in the Gauḍīya regimen of sādhana-bhakti.
16. I will discuss Purāṇic and Gauḍīya formulations regarding the divine names as sound-embodiments of Kṛṣṇa in Chapter 4.
17. For a discussion of the efforts by one of the priestly families of the Rādhāramaṇa temple, headed by Puruṣottama Gosvāmin and his son Shrivatsa Gosvāmin, to foster Bhāgavata recitation and Bhāgavata kathā, see Case 2000: esp. 26–27, 85–86, 102–103.
18. I will discuss Purāṇic and Gauḍīya formulations regarding the Bhāgavata Purāṇa as the text-embodiment of Kṛṣṇa in Chapter 3.
19. For extended studies of rāsa-līlā performances, including translations of performances of particular plays that are allotted a central place in the repertoire of līlās, see Hein 1972; Hawley 1981, 1983: 181–257, 1999. See also Hawley 1995.
20. See Merleau-Ponty 1962. Among works on the phenomenology of the body, see, for example, Zaner 1971, 1981; Schrag 1979; Levin 1985; Jackson 1983; O’Neill 1989; Csordas 1990, 1994, 2002.
21. See, for example, the work of Lakoff and Johnson (Lakoff 1987; Johnson 1987; Lakoff and Johnson 1999), who challenge the mind/body dichotomy in the context of broader critiques of objectivism. See also Kasulis 1993; Kasulis, Ames, and Dissanayake 1993; Midgley 1997. For debates among contemporary philosophers concerning the relationship between mind and body, see Warner and Szubka 1994.
22. See, for example, Scheper-Hughes and Lock 1987; MacCannell and Zakarin 1994; Strathern 1996; Varela, Thompson, and Rosch 1991. As discussed later, critiques of mind/body dualism are central to many feminist theories of the body.
23. See Douglas 1966, 1996; Mauss 1979; Bourdieu 1977, 1984, 1990; Foucault 1973, 1979, 1980, 1988–1990. For discussions of perspectives on the body in social theory, along with references to relevant works, see Turner 1996b, 1991a; Dissanayake 1993; McGuire 1990; Frank 1990; Freund 1988. For works concerned more specifically with the anthropology of the body, see, for example, Benthall and Polhemus 1975; Blacking 1977; Polhemus 1978; Jackson 1983; Scheper-Hughes and Lock 1987; Strathern 1996; Asad 1997; Csordas 1990, 1994, 2002; Burton 2001. Among works concerned with the sociology of the body, see, for example, Freund 1982; Armstrong 1983; O’Neill 1985, 1989; Featherstone, Hepworth, and Turner 1991; Shilling 1993; Synnott 1993; Scott and Morgan 1993; Falk 1994; Turner 1996a; Williams and Bendelow 1998; Hancock et al. 2000.
24. Among the most ambitious works concerned with the history of the body is the three-volume Fragments for a History of the Human Body, edited by Feher with Naddaff and Tazi (1989). The third volume includes an extensive annotated bibliography by Duden (1989).
25. See, for example, Foucault 1988–1990; Gallagher and Laqueur 198
7; Rousselle 1988; Brown 1988. For reviews of these and other works concerned with the sexual body, see Culianu 1991: 62–63, 65–72, 1995: 2–4, 5–9; Frank 1990: 145–148.
26. See, for example, Douglas 1966: 29–57; Elias 1978; Bell 1985; Bynum 1987; Mennell 1991; Turner 1982, 1991b, 1996a: 165–196. Bell and Bynum are reviewed in Culianu 1991: 63–65, 1995: 4–5.
27. See, for example, Foucault 1973; Armstrong 1983; O’Neill 1985: 118–147; Scheper-Hughes and Lock 1987; Turner 1992. For a review of other works concerned with the medical body, see Frank 1990: 134–145.
28. For an anthology of classic and contemporary essays by feminists representing a range of theoretical approaches to the body, see Price and Shildrick 1999. For an anthology of essays by prominent feminists that charts the history of debates in the “second wave” of feminist theory since the 1960s, see Nicholson 1997.
29. See Kristeva 1980, 1982, 1986; Irigaray 1985a, 1985b, 1993; Cixous 1976, 1994; Cixous and Clément 1986.
30. See Butler 1993, 1999, 2004. See also Gallop 1988; Grosz 1994; Gatens 1996. For critical analyses of debates among Anglo-American and French feminists, see Moi 1985; Dallery 1989.
31. As an example of this approach, see Bordo 1989, 1993.
32. See, for example, Suleiman 1986; Michie 1987; Martin 1987; Gallagher and Laqueur 1987; Miles 1989; Jacobus, Keller, and Shuttleworth 1990; Laqueur 1990; Malti-Douglas 1991; Bynum 1991; Horner and Keane 2000.
33. Butler 1993: 12.
34. An international conference on “The Body: A Colloquium on Comparative Spirituality,” held at the University of Lancaster in England in 1987, resulted in two publications: a special issue of the journal Religion, The Body: Lancaster Colloquium on Comparative Spirituality (1989), and the collection of essays, Religion and the Body, edited by Coakley (1997). A second collection of essays, Religious Reflections on the Human Body, edited by Law (1995), was engendered by a two-year international forum on the body in religion. More recently, a symposium held at Åbo, Finland, in 2010, resulted in Religion and the Body, a collection of essays edited by Ahlbäck (2011). The Law collection contains a review essay by Culianu (1995; cf. Culianu 1991) that surveys scholarship on the body in Western culture. A review essay by L. Sullivan (1990), which appeared in a special issue of History of Religions on The Body (1990), focuses more specifically on works on the body that are relevant to scholars of religion. An essay by Bynum (1995a) provides a critical assessment of scholarly theories of the body from the perspective of medieval Christian discourses concerning “the body that dies” and is resurrected. See also LaFleur’s (1998) essay on the body as a critical term for religious studies. With respect to book series, the SUNY Series, The Body in Culture, History, and Religion, edited by Eilberg-Schwartz, published twelve volumes in the period between 1992 and 1997. Among recent special issues of journals dedicated to the body, see, for example, Pechilis 2006; Michaels and Wulf 2009.
Bhakti and Embodiment Page 54