Bhakti and Embodiment

by Barbara A Holdrege

  89. The eight ślokas, or verses, of the Śikṣāṣṭaka, are recorded by Rūpa Gosvāmin in his Padyāvalī and are presented together for the first time as an eight-śloka unit by Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja in his Caitanya Caritāmṛta (3.20.ślokas 3–10). Regarding the Caitanya Caritāmṛta, see n. 103.

  90. I will discuss the contributions of the six Gosvāmins to the reclamation and restoration of Vraja in Chapter 5.

  91. For an overview of the history and works of the six Gosvāmins, see De 1961: 111–165. Among recent studies of Rūpa Gosvāmin and Jīva Gosvāmin, whose works will be the principal focus of my study, see Haberman 1988, 2003; Delmonico 1990, 1998; Brzezinski 1992, 2007; Gupta 2007.

  92. All dates for the Gosvāmins are tentative. For a discussion of the problems with ascertaining exact dates for the births and deaths of Sanātana Gosvāmin and Rūpa Gosvāmin, see Delmonico 1990: 279–280, 285–286.

  93. Caitanya Caritāmṛta 2.1.26–29. All translations of the Caitanya Caritāmṛta are from Dimock 1999. Regarding the Caitanya Caritāmṛta, see n. 103.

  94. Regarding the Bhaktirasāmṛtasindhu, see n. 100.

  95. The dates of Gopāla Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmin are from Broo 2003: 149.

  96. According to Broo (2003: 149), the Haribhaktivilāsa was composed around 1534 CE. As De (1961: 136–143) has discussed, there has been some debate about the authorship of the Haribhaktivilāsa, which has also been attributed to Sanātana Gosvāmin. However, the general consensus of most contemporary scholars, including De (1961: 143) and Broo (2003: 149), is that the author was Gopāla Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmin, as stated in the Haribhaktivilāsa itself. For a brief analysis of “paradigmatic clusters of ritual” found in the Haribhaktivilāsa, see Valpey 2006: 34–39.

  97. The dates of Raghunāthadāsa Gosvāmin are from Broo 2009: 65.

  98. For a discussion of the problems with determining the date of Jīva Gosvāmin’s birth, see Brzezinski 2007: 53–54.

  99. Regarding the Bhāgavata Sandarbha, see n. 102.

  100. According to Haberman (2003: xxxiii), the Bhaktirasāmṛtasindhu was completed in 1541 CE. The Bhaktirasāmṛtasindhu, “The Ocean of the Nectar of Bhakti-Rasa,” is divided into four quarters (vibhāgas)—Eastern, Southern, Western, and Northern—each of which is subdivided into chapters called “waves” (laharīs). References in the Notes to the Bhaktirasāmṛtasindhu indicate quarter (vibhāga), chapter (laharī), and verse(s). Among recent studies of Rūpa Gosvāmin’s works, see Haberman 1988, 2003; Delmonico 1990, 1998.

  101. References in the Notes to the Laghubhāgavatāmṛta indicate section (khaṇḍa), chapter (pariccheda), and verse(s).

  102. According to Brzezinski (1992: 20), the Bhāgavata Sandarbha was composed between 1555 and 1561 CE. The Bhāgavata Sandarbha is also called Ṣaṭ Sandarbha, since it comprises six Sandarbhas. For brief overviews of the contents of the six Sandarbhas, see Gupta 2007: 201–207; Dasa 2007: 373–387. References in the Notes to the Sandarbhas indicate section (anuccheda). Among recent studies of Jīva Gosvāmin’s works, see Brzezinski 1992, 2007; Gupta 2007.

  103. According to Dimock (1999: 31–32), the Caitanya Caritāmṛta was most likely completed around 1615 CE and Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja died between 1615 and 1620. 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 (1999) translation, Caitanya Caritāmṛta of Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja, which is based on the Bengali edition of the Caitanya Caritāmṛta edited by Rādhāgovinda Nātha (3rd ed., 1948–1952). Among recent studies of Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja’s Caitanya Caritāmṛta, see Dimock 1999; Stewart 2010.

  104. Regarding the use of the terms Hindu, Yavana, and mleccha, see Caitanya Caritāmṛta 2.16.160, with n. 160; 2.1.158, with n. 158; 2.1.186, with n. 186; 2.16.156, with n. 156.

  1 The Limitless Forms of Kṛṣṇa

  1. Gupta 2007: 5.

  2. All translations of Sanskrit texts are my own.

  3. See Bhagavat Sandarbha 7. Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja provides an overview of the three aspects of the Godhead—Brahman, Paramātman, and Bhagavān—in Caitanya Caritāmṛta 1.2.2–18; 2.20.134–137; 2.24.57–60.

  4. In Chapter 3 I will provide an analysis of the arguments that Jīva Gosvāmin uses in the Tattva Sandarbha to establish the canonical authority of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa as the “sovereign of all śāstras.”

  5. For an analysis of the arguments used by Jīva Gosvāmin in the Kṛṣṇa Sandarbha to establish the indisputable authority of Bhāgavata Purāṇa 1.3.28 as the mahā-vākya of all the śāstras, see De 1961: 316–325. As I will discuss later, Bhāgavata Purāṇa 1.3.28 appears at the end of the Bhāgavata’s account of twenty-two avatāras and is invoked not only by Jīva but also by Rūpa Gosvāmin and Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja to establish that Kṛṣṇa, as svayaṃ Bhagavān, is not himself an avatāra but is rather the avatārin who is the source and container of all avatāras.

  6. De 1961: 282. For an analysis of the nature, scope, and significance of acintyatva, inconceivability, in Gauḍīya ontology, see Gupta 2007: 45–55.

  7. The Bhāgavata Purāṇa’s depiction of the time of Kṛṣṇa’s descent to earth reflects Purāṇic cosmogonic conceptions in which creation occurs in endlessly repeating cycles that are composed of four basic units of time: yugas (ages), mahā-yugas (cycles of four ages), manvantaras (intervals of Manu), and kalpas (days of Brahmā). These units of time will be discussed later in this chapter.

  8. For an extended analysis of the category of līlā in the Gauḍīya tradition, see Haberman 1988.

  9. For a recent translation and study of the rāsa-pāñcādhyāyī, see Schweig 2005a.

  10. See, for example, Laghubhāgavatāmṛta 1.1.12–13; 1.5.341–342; 1.5.400; 1.5.402; 1.5.423; Bhaktirasāmṛtasindhu 2.1.38; 2.1.187; Kṛṣṇa Sandarbha 93, 99, 104, 106, 150, 153; Caitanya Caritāmṛta 2.17.127–128; 2.6.150; 3.5.117–118, with śloka 5. Jīva Gosvāmin’s characterization of the vigraha as consisting of sat-cit-ānanda will be discussed subsequently.

  11. Bhaktirasāmṛtasindhu 2.1.22–23. In this passage Rūpa Gosvāmin uses the term svarūpa rather than svayaṃ-rūpa to refer to Kṛṣṇa’s essential form.

  12. Laghubhāgavatāmṛta 1.1.12–13; 1.5.332–343; 1.5.392–426; 1.5.447–448; 1.5.520–525; 1.5.538–540. Rūpa Gosvāmin’s conception of the svayaṃ-rūpa will be discussed further in a later section of this chapter.

  13. See Bhagavat Sandarbha 26–59.

  14. For Jīva Gosvāmin’s arguments regarding the essential form, svayaṃ-rūpa or svarūpa, of Kṛṣṇa’s absolute body, see Kṛṣṇa Sandarbha 82, 93–106.

  15. Kṛṣṇa Sandarbha 105, citing Bhāgavata Purāṇa 10.14.1. In Kṛṣṇa Sandarbha 102 Jīva Gosvāmin also invokes Brahmā’s description of Kṛṣṇa’s narākāra form in Bhāgavata Purāṇa 10.14.1.

  16. See especially Kṛṣṇa Sandarbha 98, 102, 106, 150.

  17. For references regarding the eternality of Kṛṣṇa’s narākāra, see n. 18. For references regarding the nonmaterial nature of Kṛṣṇa’s body, see n. 16. Jīva Gosvāmin invokes the image of the vigraha consisting of sat-cit-ānanda in Kṛṣṇa Sandarbha 93, 99, 104, 106, 150, 153. As will be discussed subsequently, the principal scriptural prooftext that Jīva cites in support of this description of the vigraha is Gopālatāpanī Upaniṣad 1.34.

  18. See especially Kṛṣṇa Sandarbha 82, 93, 98, 104, 106.

  19. Kṛṣṇa Sandarbha 98, 106.

  20. Kṛṣṇa Sandarbha 150, citing Bhāgavata Purāṇa 10.2.18.

  21. Kṛṣṇa Sandarbha 98, 106, 93.

  22. Kṛṣṇa Sandarbha 82, 93, 98. Regarding the role of meditation (dhyāna) in cognizing the essential form of Kṛṣṇa, see Kṛṣṇa Sandarbha 93, 98, 106, 153. I will discuss the role of meditation in cognizing Kṛṣṇa in his transcendent dhāman, Goloka-Vṛndāvana, in Chapters 5 and 6.

  23. Jīva Gosvāmin cites this verse, Gopālatāpanī Upaniṣad 1.3
4, five times in Kṛṣṇa Sandarbha 93, 99, 106, 153.

  24. I will discuss Jīva Gosvāmin’s perspectives on Vyāsa’s role in cognizing the Bhāgavata Purāṇa in Chapter 3.

  25. Kṛṣṇa Sandarbha 104, citing a passage that Jīva Gosvāmin identifies as coming from the Nirmāṇa Khaṇḍa of the Padma Purāṇa. In the printed Veṅkaṭeśvara Press (Veṅk) edition (1927; reprint 1984–1985) of the Southern recension of the Padma Purāṇa, a variant of this passage is found in Pātāla Khaṇḍa 73.22–25, which forms part of the Vṛndāvana Māhātmya. In Kṛṣṇa Sandarbha 93 and 106 Jīva cites other verses regarding Vyāsa’s cognition of Kṛṣṇa’s essential form that he also attributes to the Nirmāṇa Khaṇḍa of the Padma Purāṇa, and in both cases the verses are variants of verses found in the Vṛndāvana Māhātmya of the Padma Purāṇa (Veṅk): Pātāla 73.18–20 (Kṛṣṇa Sandarbha 93) and Pātāla 73.18–19 (Kṛṣṇa Sandarbha 106). Rūpa Gosvāmin also cites variants of these and other verses found in the Vṛndāvana Māhātmya’s account of Vyāsa’s cognition: he cites Pātāla 73.18–19 in Laghubhāgavatāmṛta 1.5.399, Pātāla 73.23–26 in Laghubhāgavatāmṛta 1.5.400–401, and Pātāla 73.26–27 in Laghubhāgavatāmṛta 1.5.507, and in each case he attributes the verses to the Padma Purāṇa but does not specify the Khaṇḍa. In Chapter 5, pp. 216–228, I will provide an extended analysis of the Vṛndāvana Māhātmya of the Padma Purāṇa (Veṅk) and its relationship to the early Gauḍīya authorities. In Chapter 6, pp. 275–276, I will provide a translation and analysis of the Vṛndāvana Māhātmya’s version of these verses, which form part of a single extended passage found in Pātāla 73.18–27.

  26. Caitanya Caritāmṛta 2.20.131–132.

  27. See, for example, Caitanya Caritāmṛta 2.20.137; 2.9.141; 2.20.335.

  28. See Tattva Sandarbha 9. The first four Sandarbhas—Tattva Sandarbha, Bhagavat Sandarbha, Paramātma Sandarbha, and Kṛṣṇa Sandarbha—are concerned with the sambandha; the fifth Sandarbha, the Bhakti Sandarbha, is concerned with the abhideya; and the final Sandarbha, the Prīti Sandarbha, is concerned with the prayojana.

  29. Caitanya Caritāmṛta 2.9.36–39; cf. 2.25.42–48.

  30. Sheridan 1994: 49. In his analysis of Śrīdhara Svāmin’s commentary, Sheridan (1994: 58, 57, 54–55) emphasizes that while Śrīdhara utilizes “the hermeneutical and conceptual tools of Classical Advaita” to interpret the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, at the same time he departs from Śaṃkara’s radical nondualism and theory of māyā and promulgates instead a “theistic non-dualism of sorts” that is strongly influenced by the bhedābheda theology of the Bhāgavata itself.

  31. Hardy 1974: 32–34; cf. Elkman 1986: 16–17. Regarding the dates of Mādhavendra Purī, see Hardy 1974: 31.

  32. See in particular Caitanya Caritāmṛta 1.9.8–13, which includes both Īśvara Purī and Keśava Bhāratī among the disciples of Mādhavendra Purī.

  33. Caitanya Caritāmṛta 1.9.8–10.

  34. See, for example, Caitanya Caritāmṛta 3.8.17–26.

  35. Hardy 1974: 41. See also Hardy 1974: 31–41, in which he argues “on formal-poetic and historical grounds”; that the ecstatic form of bhakti expressed by Mādhavendra Purī may have been directly influenced by “a particular South Indian bhakti milieu” that ultimately stems from the Tamil Vaiṣṇava devotion of the Āḻvārs.

  36. Caitanya Caritāmṛta 3.7.116–120.

  37. Caitanya Caritāmṛta 1.7.101–106. Caitanya’s debate with the Advaitin saṃnyāsins in Vārāṇasī is recounted in Caitanya Caritāmṛta 1.7.38–145. For an analysis of the critiques of Śaṃkara’s teachings in this passage, see Chilcott 2006: 75–79.

  38. Gupta 2007: 63, 64.

  39. Tattva Sandarbha 27. For an analysis of Jīva Gosvāmin’s indebtedness to Śrīdhara Svāmin’s interpretations of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, see Gupta 2007: 65–84.

  40. See Gupta 2007: 3–4, 63–64, 87–91. I will discuss in Chapter 3 Jīva Gosvāmin’s appropriation of Śaṃkara’s arguments regarding the uncreated and eternal status of the Vedas.

  41. See pp. 14–15.

  42. Bhaktirasāmṛtasindhu 1.1.39, citing Haribhaktisudhodaya 14.36; Caitanya Caritāmṛta 2.24.29, with śloka 9; 3.3.184, with śloka 13.

  43. Jīva Gosvāmin develops a number of arguments in refutation of Advaitin doctrines in Tattva Sandarbha 32–45 and then elaborates on these arguments in the Paramātma Sandarbha. See also Caitanya Caritāmṛta 1.7.104–133, in which Caitanya refutes specific Advaitin teachings in the context of his debate with the Advaitin saṃnyāsins in Vārāṇasī.

  44. See, for example, Caitanya Caritāmṛta 2.20.134–137; 2.24.57–60; 1.2.2–18. In the Bhakti Sandarbha Jīva Gosvāmin discusses at length the defining characteristics and practices of bhakti and its relationship to other paths such as the jñāna-mārga and the yoga-mārga. See, for example, Bhakti Sandarbha 326–328.

  45. The term tapas (literally, “heat”) is a multivalent term that refers to the meditative practices and austerities by means of which one accumulates spiritual and creative power.

  46. Caitanya Caritāmṛta 2.20.121, with śloka 13, which cites Bhāgavata Purāṇa 11.14.20. See also Caitanya Caritāmṛta 1.17.71, with śloka 5; 2.22.14–16. Jīva Gosvāmin invokes Bhāgavata Purāṇa 11.14.20 in Bhakti Sandarbha 327 in support of his arguments regarding the supremacy of the path of bhakti over the paths of jñāna and yoga.

  47. Bhāgavata Purāṇa 3.29.12–14; cf. 9.4.67. These verses are invoked by Rūpa Gosvāmin as part of his extended discussion of the glories of bhakti over the quest for mukti in Bhaktirasāmṛtasindhu 1.1.13–17; 1.2.22–57. Regarding the five types of mukti, see Bhaktirasāmṛtasindhu 1.1.13–15; 1.2.28; 1.2.38; 1.2.55–57; Bhakti Sandarbha 234; Prīti Sandarbha 10; Caitanya Caritāmṛta 2.6.236–242, with śloka 23; 2.9.243, with ślokas 24–26; 1.4.172, with ślokas 34–37; 2.19.149–150, with ślokas 22–25; 2.24.119, with śloka 66; 3.3.177, with śloka 12; 1.3.15–16. In the opening sections of the Prīti Sandarbha, Jīva Gosvāmin provides a critical assessment of the various types of mukti in relation to the ultimate goal (prayojana) of human existence: prīti, or preman, supreme love for Kṛṣṇa.

  48. See, for example, Caitanya Caritāmṛta 2.6.236–242; 1.3.15–16; 1.5.27.

  49. Caitanya Caritāmṛta 2.8.203.

  50. Caitanya Caritāmṛta 2.20.137; 2.20.333–335; 2.9.141; 1.2.82–83.

  51. In the Pāñcarātra system the vyūhas are ascribed the status of one of the five modes of manifestation of the deity. As I will discuss in a later section of this chapter, the Śrīvaiṣṇavas appropriated and recast the Pāñcarātra fivefold taxonomy in their own theological formulations concerning the five modes through which Viṣṇu’s divya-maṅgala vigraha, divine auspicious form, manifests.

  52. For an extended study of the Purāṇic theories of avatāra presented in the Harivaṃśa, Viṣṇu Purāṇa, and Bhāgavata Purāṇa, see Matchett 2001. For a discussion of the Gauḍīya avatāra system developed by Rūpa Gosvāmin and elaborated by Jīva Gosvāmin, see De 1960a. For a helpful chart by Tony Stewart that summarizes the system of avatāras and other divine manifestations delineated by Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja in Caitanya Caritāmṛta 2.20 and 1.5, see Dimock 1999: 142–143; Stewart 2010: 206.

  53. Among Gauḍīya assertions that Kṛṣṇa is the source and container of all avatāras, see, for example, Bhaktirasāmṛtasindhu 2.1.40; 2.1.202–203; 2.1.249–250; Caitanya Caritāmṛta 1.2.57; 1.2.74–76; 1.2.82; 1.2.91; 1.2.93–97; 1.5.3; 1.5.111–115; 2.8.106–107.

  54. Bhāgavata Purāṇa 1.3.26; 1.3.28. Both Rūpa Gosvāmin and Jīva Gosvāmin draw on the Bhāgavata’s list of twenty-two avatāras in their discussions of the various categories of avatāras. The principal concern of Jīva in the Kṛṣṇa Sandarbha is to establish that Kṛṣṇa is svayaṃ Bhagavān and that, in his supreme status as the cause of all causes, he is the avatārin who is the source of all avatāras. In this context he invokes Bhāgavata Purāṇa 1.3.28 as the mahā-vākya that provides the authoritativ
e prooftext around which he constructs his arguments.

  55. Caitanya Caritāmṛta 2.8.106–108. The term rasa, which literally means “essence,” “juice,” “nectar,” “taste,” or “flavor,” is used in Indian aesthetics to designate aesthetic enjoyment. As I will discuss in Chapter 2, in the Gauḍīya theory of bhakti-rasa the experience of rasa, aesthetic enjoyment, is reimagined as a transcendent aesthetic-religious experience of pure devotion for Kṛṣṇa, which is savored in a variety of flavors.

  56. See, for example, Caitanya Caritāmṛta 2.21.32–41, with ślokas 11–14, which describes these three domains as the three abodes (āvāsas) of Kṛṣṇa. This passage invokes and expands on Laghubhāgavatāmṛta 1.5.247–248, which cites the description of Paravyoman in Padma Purāṇa (Veṅk) Uttara 227.58–65.

  57. See Bhaktirasāmṛtasindhu 2.1.221–223, which is invoked and expanded on in Caitanya Caritāmṛta 2.20.332–333, with ślokas 64–66.

  58. Among Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja’s descriptions of the three realms of Kṛṣṇaloka, see Caitanya Caritāmṛta 1.5.13–21. Jīva Gosvāmin provides an extended analysis of the three realms of Kṛṣṇaloka in Kṛṣṇa Sandarbha 106–116, which I will discuss in Chapter 5.

  59. See, for example, Caitanya Caritāmṛta 2.21.2–7.

  60. See, for example, Caitanya Caritāmṛta 1.5.28–32.

  61. See, for example, Caitanya Caritāmṛta 1.5.43–44; 1.5.49; 2.15.174–175.

  62. The Gauḍīya conception of the fourteen worlds derives from the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, which enumerates the fourteen worlds in 2.5.36; 2.5.38–41: the six higher worlds above bhūr-loka are bhuvar-loka, svar-loka, mahar-loka, jana-loka, tapo-loka, and satya-loka, and the seven lower worlds below bhūr-loka are atala, vitala, sutala, talātala, mahātala, rasātala, and pātāla.

  63. Laghubhāgavatāmṛta 1.1.11; Caitanya Caritāmṛta 2.20.138.

  64. Laghubhāgavatāmṛta 1.1.12.

  65. Laghubhāgavatāmṛta 1.1.13, citing Brahma Saṃhitā 5.1. For a brief overview of Rūpa Gosvāmin’s arguments concerning the svayaṃ-rūpa, see pp. 36–37.