Bhakti and Embodiment

by Barbara A Holdrege

  35. The edited collections by Law (1995) and Coakley (1997) include essays by specialists focusing on different aspects of the body in particular religious traditions. A number of seminal studies focus on Christian traditions: for example, Bell 1985; Brown 1988; Camporesi 1988; Miles 1989; Bynum 1987, 1991, 1995b. Among studies of discourses of the body in Jewish traditions, see, for example, Gilman 1991; Eilberg-Schwartz 1992; Boyarin 1993, 1997; Wolfson 1995, 2005; Gillerman 2005; Sommer 2009; Baader, Gillerman, and Lerner 2012. Among studies of Islamic discourses of the body, see, for example, Malti-Douglas 1991; Zannad Bouchrara 1994; Khuri 2001; Katz 2002; Kugle 2007. For an extended study of the body in Aztec culture, see López Austin 1988. Studies of the body in Asian traditions include edited collections of essays, such as Kasulis, Ames, and Dissanayake 1993, as well as works focused on specific traditions: for example, Chinese traditions (Schipper 1993; Zito and Barlow 1994; Csikszentmihalyi 2004) and Japanese traditions (Shaner 1985; Yuasa 1987, 1993; Nagatomo 1992; Faure 1998, 2003). Relevant studies of the body in South Asian traditions will be discussed later and in nn. 47–50.

  36. A number of works have been concerned with reevaluating the mind/body problem from the perspective of Asian traditions. See, for example, Shaner 1985; Griffiths 1986; Yuasa 1987, 1993; Nagatomo 1992; Kasulis, Ames, and Dissanayake 1993.

  37. A number of scholars have emphasized the need for sociologists and anthropologists of religion to undertake extended research on the ways in which the body is represented and constructed in religious traditions. See, for example, McGuire 1990; Simpson 1993; Ruth 1974. With respect to studies of the body as a site of sociopolitical power in specific religious traditions, see, for example, the collection of essays edited by Zito and Barlow (1994) on Chinese discourses of the body.

  38. See, for example, Rousselle 1988; Brown 1988; Biale 1992; Cabezón 1992; Boyarin 1993, 1997; Faure 1998; White 2003; Urban 2003; Wolfson 2005; Hopkins 2007; and the essays on the sexual body in Eilberg-Schwartz 1992.

  39. See, for example, Bell 1985; Bynum 1987.

  40. See, for example, Larson 1993; Csordas 2002; Wujastyk 2009; and the essays on the medical body in Zito and Barlow 1994.

  41. See, for example, Miles 1989; Bynum 1991; Malti-Douglas 1991; Cabezón 1992; Cooey 1994; Wilson 1996; Boyarin 1993, 1997; Wyke 1998; Narayanan 1999; Faure 2003; Gyatso 2003; Wolfson 1995, 2005; Biernacki 2006; Powers 2009; Baader, Gillerman, and Lerner 2012; Anderson [2014]. See also the essays on the gendered body in Law 1995; Eilberg-Schwartz 1992; Zito and Barlow 1994. The Encylopedia of Women and Religion, edited by Serinity Young, includes a series of essays on the body in microhistorical societies (Grillo 1999), Western traditions (Hollywood 1999b), and Asian traditions (Prentiss 1999b; Ko 1999). A review essay by Hollywood (1999a) provides a critical assessment of contemporary feminist body theories, including debates between feminists such as Bordo and Butler, and emphasizes the importance of such theories for scholars of religion. See also Hollywood’s (2002) study of the ways in which the bodily forms of mysticism expressed by certain female Christian mystics have influenced contemporary French proponents of sexual difference such as Irigaray. For recent collections of essays in which scholars of religion evaluate the applicability of Butler’s theories of the body to a range of issues in various religious traditions, see Armour and St. Ville 2006; Holdrege [2014c].

  42. This expression derives from Pollock 1993: 114–115.

  43. This expression derives from Cabezón 2006: 31.

  44. The divine body is a particular focus of the present study. Among other studies, see Waghorne and Cutler 1985; Malamoud and Vernant 1986; Hopkins 1993, 2002; Wolfson 1995, 2005; Busse 2007; Sommer 2009; Barua 2009, 2010; and the essays on the divine body in Law 1995; Eilberg-Schwartz 1992; Feher, Naddaff, and Tazi 1989.

  45. The central importance of the ritual body has been emphasized in particular by Bell (1990, 1992, 2006). See also the essays on the ritual body in Law 1995; Zito and Barlow 1994.

  46. The devotional body is a particular focus of the present study. For other studies of the role of embodiment in bhakti traditions, see Prentiss 1999a; Holdrege [2014a], [2014b].

  47. See, for example, Waghorne and Cutler 1985; Olivelle 1995; Narayanan 1999; Prentiss 1999a; Hopkins 1993, 2002; Alter 1992, 2004; Flood 2006; Biernacki 2006; Smith 2006; Holdrege [2014c]. For an extended study of a range of Hindu discourses of the body, see Holdrege forthcoming(a).

  48. See, for example, Griffiths 1986; Cabezón 1992; Wilson 1996; Makransky 1997; Wallace 2001; Gyatso 2003; Germano and Trainor 2004; Strong 2004; Mrozik 2007; Ohnuma 2007; Radich 2007, [2014]; Anderson [2014].

  49. For edited collections and special issues of journals that explore the role of embodiment in a variety of South Asian traditions, see Kasulis, Ames, and Dissanayake 1993: 37–145; Pechilis 2006; Michaels and Wulf 2009; Holdrege and Pechilis [2014]. See also Wujastyk 2009.

  50. See Holdrege 1998, 2008, forthcoming(a).

  51. For discussions of the ways in which Hindu theories of the body challenge the mind/body dichotomy posited by Western philosophy, see Koller 1993; Staal 1993; Larson 1993.

  52. See Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.1–5.

  53. For Sāṃkhya perspectives on the gross and subtle bodies, see Larson and Bhattacharya 1987.

  54. For Advaitin perspectives on the three bodies and the five sheaths, see Potter 1981.

  55. See Koller 1993.

  56. Perspectives on embodiment and liberation in Pātañjala Yoga will be explored more fully in Chapters 1 and 2.

  57. Advaitin perspectives on embodiment and liberation will be explored more fully in Chapters 1 and 2.

  58. In Chapters 1 and 2 I will explore at length Gauḍīya models of embodiment and personhood and will consider the ways in which the Gauḍīya discourse of embodiment challenges the contending perspectives on embodiment and personhood promulgated by Pātañjala Yoga and Advaita Vedānta.

  59. See Marriott 1976 for his formulations of the notions of “dividual” and “transactional.”

  60. For an extended study of the discursive representations and practices associated with these five processual bodies in distinct Hindu discourses of the body, see Holdrege forthcoming(a). For brief analyses of a range of Hindu discourses of the body, see Holdrege 1998, 2008.

  61. Figure 1 provides a schematic representation of the integral bodies and processual bodies. The specific configuration of the integral bodies in this figure reflects early Vedic constructions of the ritual body, in which the divine body is the encompassing totality within which the cosmos body, social body, and human body are subsumed. A separate figure could be generated for each of the other processual bodies in which the integral bodies would be reconfigured to highlight the relative importance of, and changing relationships among, the four bodies.

  62. I use the term theurgy to refer to practices intended to influence the structures of the cosmos and/or divine realm.

  63. The four varṇas, or social classes, as defined by the brahmanical discourse of dharma in the Dharma-Śāstras, are the brahmins, priests; kṣatriyas, kings and warriors; vaiśyas, merchants, agriculturalists, and artisans; and śūdras, servants. The four āśramas, or stages of life, pertain to the brahmacārin, student; gṛhastha, householder; vānaprastha, forest-dweller; and saṃnyāsin, renunciant. The differential norms of varṇāśrama-dharma will be discussed in Chapter 4. For an analysis of the brahmanical discourse of dharma, see Holdrege 2004.

  64. See Holdrege forthcoming(a).

  65. See Aṣṭādhyāyī 4.3.83–100. Cited in Hardy 1983: 25–26.

  66. Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 6.23.

  67. Among studies of the category of bhakti, see in particular Hardy 1983; Sharma 1987; Ramanujan 1993; Prentiss 1999a; Lorenzen 2004; Hawley 2005; Holdrege [2014a]. See also Hawley 2007; Narayanan 2007; Novetzke 2007; and the other essays in the special issue of the International Journal of Hindu Studies on The Bhakti Movement—Says Who? (2007). For more recent collections of essays, see the special issues
of the Journal of Hindu Studies on Mughal Bhakti (2013) and on Bhakti in Hindu Cultures (2013). For bibliographic essays reviewing scholarship on a range of bhakti traditions, see Lutgendorf 2003; Coleman 2011a.

  68. Bose 1951: 113.

  69. Ramanujan 1993: 135–136.

  70. For a collection of essays exploring diverse forms of divine embodiment in a variety of bhakti contexts, see Waghorne and Cutler 1985.

  71. For an illuminating analysis of Vedic perspectives on divine corporeality, see Malamoud 1996.

  72. In his study of the development of the concept of avatāra, Hacker (1960) provides an analysis of the terminological antecedents that are used in the Mahābhārata and early Purāṇas to designate manifestations of a deity on earth, including the term prādur-bhāva (appearance), which is gradually replaced by the term avatāra. In a more recent study Couture (2001: 313) suggests that Hacker “fails to deal adequately with the original context of the word avatāra,” and he seeks to fill this lacuna by providing a careful analysis of the semantic valences of the verb ava-tṝ and its substantive derivations avataraṇa, avatāraṇa, and avatāra in the Mahābhārata and the Harivaṃśa, the appendix to the epic. Couture (2001: 313–314) notes that the terms avatāra and avatāraṇa only appear once in the critical edition of the Mahābhārata (in 3.146.33 and 1.2.34, respectively), with the epic favoring the substantive form avataraṇa. The earliest texts to regularly use the terms avatāra and avatāraṇa are the Brahma Purāṇa and the Viṣṇu Purāṇa. Regarding the terminology used to designate the manifestations of Viṣṇu and Kṛṣṇa in particular, see Hardy 1983: 23–25. For an extended study of the relationship between Viṣṇu and Kṛṣṇa as reflected in the theories of avatāra presented in the Harivaṃśa, Viṣṇu Purāṇa, and Bhāgavata Purāṇa, see Matchett 2001.

  73. For analyses of the complex network of significations associated with the term tīrtha, see Eck 1981; Bhardwaj and Lochtefeld 2004. For a survey of representations of tīrthas in epic and Purāṇic sources, see Bhardwaj 1973. For a critical assessment of secondary studies of Hindu pilgrimage traditions, see Bhardwaj and Lochtefeld 2004: 486–488. For an extended study of the sacred geography of India, see Eck 2012.

  74. Malamoud (1996: 208) remarks: “The India of the Vedas is … ‘aniconic.’ To be sure, there exists neither any rule nor any account condemning the manufacture of divine images. It remains the case, however, that Vedic India has left no vestige whatsoever that might bear witness to the prior existence of sculpted or painted effigies…. [T]here is no mention whatsoever—in this enormous agglomeration of hymns, prayers, aetiological narratives and prescription, bearing on the most minute details of worship—of objects depicting the gods.” Malamoud emphasizes the links between Vedic aniconism and the perspectives on divine corporeality propounded in Vedic texts. It is important to note that we do find some evidence of aniconic—as opposed to iconic—representations in the Vedic period. For example, the bird-shaped fire altar in the agnicayana ceremony is understood to be a representation of the body of the creator Prajāpati.

  75. The notion of an image-incarnation is formalized in Pāñcarātra traditions, where it is ascribed the status of one of the five modes of manifestation of the deity and is termed an arcā-avatāra, a divine descent in the form of a ritual image (arcā or mūrti). As I will discuss in Chapter 1, the Śrīvaiṣṇavas appropriated and recast Pāñcarātra constructions in their own theological formulations, in which they allot a pivotal role to arcā-avatāras as the most accessible of Viṣṇu’s five modes of manifestation. As we shall see, the early Gauḍīya authorities also revere mūrtis as image-avatāras and may have been directly influenced in this context by Śrīvaiṣṇava formulations

  76. The Vedic antecedents of bhakti formulations concerning divine names will be discussed in Chapter 4.

  77. For a discussion of relevant Vedic notions, see Holdrege 1996: 30–70.

  78. See Prentiss 1999a: esp. 6, 9, 153–154.

  79. Novetzke 2007: 261. See also Novetzke 2008.

  80. For an extended analysis of the range of ontologies, devotional modes, and goals found in bhakti traditions, see Holdrege [2014a].

  81. For a summary of scholarly opinions concerning the date of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, see Rocher 1986: 147–148; Hardy 1983: 486–488, with n. 10; Bryant 2002. One of the dominant scholarly perspectives, articulated by Hardy (1983: 488) and many others, dates the Bhāgavata to the ninth or early tenth century CE. This perspective has been challenged in recent years by Hudson (1995, 2002, 2008) and Bryant (2002: 61–62, 67–69), who invoke Hudson’s groundbreaking studies of the Vaikuṇṭha Perumāl temple (c. 770 CE) in Kāñcīpuram to suggest that portions of the Bhāgavata may be datable to earlier than the eighth century CE. In his earlier essays as well as in his 2008 monograph that was published posthumously as the culminating achievement of his career, Hudson argues that the Pallava emperor Nandivarman II Pallavamalla designed the eighth-century temple to be a “visual summa of Bhāgavata lore” in the form of a three-dimensional maṇḍala that was a “built form of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa” (1995: 138, 143). As part of his innovative hermeneutical project, Hudson attempts to decode the narratives on the fifty-six sculpted panels of the three-story vimāna (pyramidal tower) of the temple by interpreting them as sculptural depictions of the exoteric and esoteric narrative sequences of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa (1995). In his 2008 monograph he frames his “working hypothesis” as follows:

  Careful reading of the stories in the Bhagavata Purana, especially the prayers, revealed that it was more intimately connected to the Pancharatra Agama than I had thought. Moreover, as I read the stories that explained the sculpted panels whose subjects I recognized, the details of the panels in turn taught me how to read the stories. Sculpted texts and written texts were interpreting one another. At times the detailed correspondence between Bhagavata Purana narratives and prayers and their sculpted depictions astonished me…. I did not yet fully understand the pattern, but the sculptural program obviously corresponded to the Pancharatra theology of God’s four vyuha formations.

  This evidence finally persuaded me to formulate a working hypothesis: the sculpted program of the vimana and porch [of the temple] document a single yet complex religious vision consistent with the Bhagavad-gita, the Bhagavata Purana, the Pancharatra Agama, and the poems of the Alvars (Hudson 2008: 10–11; cf. 2002: 22–23).

  Although Hudson’s studies of the Vaikuṇṭha Perumāl temple are invaluable in illuminating the structural and symbolic dimensions of the temple’s architectural and sculptural program, his readings of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa and the Bhagavad-Gītā are at times highly speculative in that he tends to over-interpret the texts in light of a Pāñcarātra hermeneutical frame that is often not supported by the textual evidence. As Lipner (2012: 462–463) notes in his review of Hudson’s monograph, “[T]he four textual sources mentioned in the ‘working hypothesis’ driving the book are amalgamated interpretively so seamlessly that a strong impression is given passim of over-interpretation and conflation of the source material. Ideas not apparent in the Sanskrit of the source material are claimed, without due justification, to be present there, and the Gītā, for one, becomes inter alia a blatant Pāñcarātric-cum-Bhāgavata text!” Given the problems with Hudson’s readings of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa and other texts, I am not inclined to accept his argument that the Bhāgavata provided the basis for the sculptural program of the Vaikuṇṭha Perumāl temple and his conclusion that the text thus predates this eighth-century temple.

  82. With respect to the Bhāgavata Purāṇa’s place of origin, the scholarly consensus is that it originated in the Tamil region of South India. For a summary of the evidence for the text’s South Indian origin, see Hardy 1983: 488–489, 637–646. See also Rocher 1986: 148; Vaidya 1925; Ray 1932; Mukerjee 1957: 72–74; Hopkins 1966: 4–6; Rukmani 1970: 9–11; Tagare 1976: pt. 1, xl. For a refutation of a number of the arguments in support of the South Indian provenance of the Bhāgavata
Purāṇa, see Bryant 2002: 63–67.

  83. For a brief overview of scholarly opinions concerning the connections between the Bhāgavata Purāṇa and the Tamil devotional traditions of the Āḻvārs, see Hardy 1983: 41–43.

  84. Hardy 1983: 44.

  85. Hardy 1983: 489.

  86. Hardy 1983: 489.

  87. For studies of the role of bhakti in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, see Gail 1969; Hardy 1983; Matchett 1993; Hopkins 1994; Smith 1998; Huberman 1998; Schweig 2005a. For a recent collection of essays exploring the various dimensions of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa from a diverse array of methodological perspectives, see Gupta and Valpey 2013. The transcendent authority ascribed to the Bhāgavata Purāṇa as the consummate scripture of Kṛṣṇa bhakti will be explored at length in Chapter 3.

  88. For an enumeration of representative commentaries on the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, see Rocher 1986: 149; Tagare 1976: pt. 1, lxvi–lxix.