Bhakti and Embodiment

Fashioning Divine Bodies and Devotional Bodies in Krsna Bhakti

Barbara A. Holdrege

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781317669098
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Hinduism

The historical shift from Vedic traditions to post-Vedic bhakti (devotional) traditions is accompanied by a shift from abstract, translocal notions of divinity to particularized, localized notions of divinity and a corresponding shift from aniconic to iconic traditions and from temporary sacrificial arenas to established temple sites. In Bhakti and Embodiment Barbara Holdrege argues that the various transformations that characterize this historical shift are a direct consequence of newly emerging discourses of the body in bhakti traditions in which constructions of divine embodiment proliferate, celebrating the notion that a deity, while remaining translocal, can appear in manifold corporeal forms in different times and different localities on different planes of existence. Holdrege suggests that an exploration of the connections between bhakti and embodiment is critical not only to illuminating the distinctive transformations that characterize the emergence of bhakti traditions but also to understanding the myriad forms that bhakti has historically assumed up to the present time.

This study is concerned more specifically with the multileveled models of embodiment and systems of bodily practices through which divine bodies and devotional bodies are fashioned in Krsna bhakti traditions and focuses in particular on two case studies: the Bhagavata Purana, the consummate textual monument to Vaisnava bhakti, which expresses a distinctive form of passionate and ecstatic bhakti that is distinguished by its embodied nature; and the Gaudiya Vaisnava tradition, an important bhakti tradition inspired by the Bengali leader Caitanya in the sixteenth century, which articulates a robust discourse of embodiment pertaining to the divine bodies of Krsna and the devotional bodies of Krsna bhakta s that is grounded in the canonical authority of the Bhagavata Purana.

1 The Limitless Forms of Kṛṣṇa

Fashioning Divine Bodies

In the Introduction I briefly surveyed some of the new forms of divine embodiment that emerged in the Indian religiocultural landscape with the rise of bhakti traditions in the period between 200 BCE and the early centuries of the Common Era. In this chapter I will focus on the ways in which these general trends find robust and particularized expression in the discourse of divine embodiment developed by early Gauḍīya authorities in the sixteenth century CE. The Gauḍīya discourse of divine embodiment celebrates the deity Kṛṣṇa as ananta-rūpa, “he who has endless forms,” his limitless forms encompassing and interweaving the various planes of existence. This discourse is delineated by Rūpa Gosvāmin in his Laghubhāgavatāmṛta and is systematically elaborated by Jīva Gosvāmin in his Bhagavat Sandarbha, Paramātma Sandarbha, and Kṛṣṇa Sandarbha. Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja encapsulates the key elements of the Gosvāmins’ formulations in his Caitanya Caritāmṛta. As mentioned in the Introduction, in addition to providing an elaborate theory of Kṛṣṇa’s divine forms on the transcosmic, macrocosmic, and microcosmic planes, the Gauḍīya discourse of divine embodiment includes a number of “mesocosmic,” or intermediary, forms that serve as concrete means through which bhaktas can encounter and engage the concentrated presence of the supreme Godhead in localized forms in the gross material realm.

The Absolute Body and Its Endless Manifestations: The Gauḍīya Discourse of Divine Embodiment

In his recent study of Jīva Gosvāmin’s contributions to Indian philosophy, Ravi Gupta argues that Jīva, as one of the principal architects of the Gauḍīya theological edifice, helped to construct a distinct system of theology—Caitanya Vaiṣṇava Vedānta, or Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Vedānta—by bringing into dialogue “four powerful streams of classical Hinduism: (1) the various systems of Vedānta; (2) the ecstatic bhakti movements; (3) the Purāṇic commentarial tradition; and (4) the aesthetic theory of Sanskrit poetics.”¹ I would contend that this integrative tendency is particularly evident in the Gauḍīya discourse of divine embodiment, as articulated not only by Jīva Gosvāmin but also by Rūpa Gosvāmin and Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja. Moreover, I would argue that this integrative tendency is itself at times used in the service of a broader principle, which I term the principle of “superordination.” Through this principle the Gauḍīya authorities attenuate the challenges posed by competing traditions by selectively appropriating and accommodating elements of those traditions’ teachings and integrating them into an encompassing hierarchical system that ultimately serves to domesticate and subordinate the competition. In the following analysis we shall see how this principle of superordination is at work in the Gauḍīya discourse of divine embodiment, which constructs a number of hierarchical taxonomies that classify and rank the multifarious divine forms of Kṛṣṇa as ananta-rūpa. In delineating these taxonomies the Gauḍīyas appropriate and subordinate elements of the teachings propounded by competing philosophical schools and bhakti traditions and establish a multidimensional hierarchy of ontologies, paths, and goals in which their own distinctive form of embodied Kṛṣṇa bhakti is represented as the pinnacle of spiritual realization.

Bhagavān’s Absolute Body and Self-Referral Play

The most important of the Gauḍīya taxonomies involves a hierarchical assessment of the three aspects of the supreme Godhead, from lowest to highest: Brahman, Paramātman, and Bhagavān. As we shall see, in allotting the highest place in their ontological hierarchy to Bhagavān, who is represented as a personal Godhead endowed with an absolute body, infinite qualities, and innumerable śaktis (energies), the early Gauḍīya authorities engage in a polemic that challenges the contending ontologies of two rival philosophical schools: the monistic ontology of Advaita Vedānta, which identifies the ultimate reality with the impersonal, formless Brahman, and the dualistic ontology of Pātañjala Yoga, which posits a plurality of nonchanging, formless puruṣas as the highest reality.

Brahman, Paramātman, and Bhagavān

To provide a scriptural basis for their hierarchical assessment of the three aspects of the Godhead, the Gauḍīyas invoke Bhāgavata Purāṇa 1.2.11 and interpret the order of terms in the verse as indicating increasing ontological importance: “The knowers of reality declare the ultimate reality to be that which is nondual knowledge. It is called Brahman, Paramātman, and Bhagavān.”² In Gauḍīya formulations these three aspects of the Godhead are associated with different dimensions of embodiment. Brahman, the lowest aspect of the Godhead, is the impersonal, formless, attributeless, and undifferentiated ground of existence that is beyond the material realm of prakṛti and is the radiant effulgence of the absolute body of Bhagavān. Paramātman, the intermediary aspect of the Godhead, is the indwelling Self, who on the macrocosmic level animates the innumerable universes, or cosmos bodies, and on the microcosmic level resides in the hearts of all jīvas, embodied beings. Bhagavān, the highest aspect of the Godhead, is transcosmic—beyond both the macrocosmos and the microcosmos—and is personal, endowed with an absolute body (vigraha), replete with infinite qualities (guṇas), and possessed of innumerable śaktis. Bhagavān is ascribed the status of the Godhead in his complete fullness (pūrṇa), who encompasses within himself Brahman and Paramātman and is at the same time beyond both.

In the first seven sections (anucchedas) of the Bhagavat Sandarbha, Jīva Gosvāmin introduces the three aspects of the Godhead, Brahman, Paramātman, and Bhagavān. He then provides an extended analysis of the nature of Bhagavān in the remaining sections of the Bhagavat Sandarbha and an extended analysis of the nature of Paramātman in the Paramātma Sandarbha. In a not-so-veiled critique of Advaitin claims regarding the ultimacy of Brahman, Jīva insists that it is not necessary to devote a separate Sandarbha to an analysis of Brahman because the Bhagavat Sandarbha, by providing a full explication of the nature of Bhagavān, simultaneously serves to clarify the nature of Brahman as an incomplete manifestation (asamyag-āvirbhāva) of Bhagavān.³ After expounding the three aspects of the Godhead in the Bhagavat Sandarbha and Paramātma Sandarbha, Jīva’s principal concern in the Kṛṣṇa Sandarbha is to establish Kṛṣṇa’s supreme status as pūrṇa Bhagavān, the full and complete Godhead. In this context he invokes the declaration in Bhāgavata Purāṇa 1.3.28 that “Kṛṣṇa is Bhagavān himself (Bhagavān svayam)” as the mahā-vākya, authoritative scriptural utterance, that is the definitive statement of the entire Purāṇa. Moreover, he goes even further and argues that because the Bhāgavata Purāṇa is the “sovereign of all śāstras (scriptures),”⁴ the canonical authority of the Bhāgavata’s mahā-vākya is indisputable and establishes the supreme truth at the basis of all śāstras, to which all apparently contradictory scriptural statements must be reconciled.⁵

Bhagavān’s Self-Referral Play with His Śaktis

The Gauḍīya discourse of divine embodiment emphasizes that Bhagavān is śaktimat, the possessor of innumerable śaktis, energies or powers. The three principal types of śakti are the svarūpa-śakti, māyā-śakti, and jīva-śakti. The svarūpa-śakti operates on the transcosmic level as the śakti that is intrinsic (antar-aṅga) to Bhagavān’s essential nature (svarūpa), comprising three aspects: saṃdhinī-śakti, the power of sat, being; saṃvit-śakti, the power of cit, consciousness; and hlādinī-śakti, the power of ānanda, bliss. The māyā-śakti operates on the macrocosmic level as the śakti that is extrinsic (bahir-aṅga) to Bhagavān and that is responsible for manifesting and regulating the material realm of prakṛti and for subjecting jīvas, individual living beings, to the bondage of saṃsāra, the cycle of birth and death. The jīva-śakti operates on the microcosmic level as the intermediary (taṭasthā, literally, “standing on the border”) śakti that constitutes jīvas as, on the one hand, an aṃśa, or part, of Bhagavān in the svarūpa-śakti and, on the other hand, subject to the binding influence of the māyā-śakti.

Jīva introduces the three principal types of śakti in the Bhagavat Sandarbha and then focuses on the svarūpa-śakti that is intrinsic to Bhagavān’s essential nature. In the Kṛṣṇa Sandarbha, after establishing that Kṛṣṇa is svayaṃ Bhagavān, he further explicates the svarūpa-śakti through an extended analysis of Kṛṣṇa’s essential nature (svarūpa), absolute body (vigraha), transcendent abode (dhāman), and eternal associates (parikaras or pārṣadas). He provides an analysis of the functions of the māyā-śakti and the jīva-śakti in relation to Paramātman in the Paramātma Sandarbha.

In his discussions of the three types of śakti, Jīva provides the earliest formulation of the distinctive ontology of the Gauḍīya Sampradāya in which the relationship between Bhagavān, as the śaktimat, and his śaktis is represented as acintya-bhedābheda, inconceivable difference-in-nondifference. The śaktis exist in an inconceivable (acintya) relationship to the śaktimat in which they are held to be aṃśas, parts, of Bhagavān that are simultaneously nondifferent (abheda) from him, partaking of his divine nature, and distinct (bheda) from him, as parts of his encompassing wholeness. S. K. De emphasizes the significance of this ontological formulation, which serves to distinguish the Gauḍīya Sampradāya from other Vaiṣṇava schools:

[T]he relation between the Śaktis and the Possessor of the Śaktis is represented as an incomprehensible (acintya) relation of sameness and difference (bhedābheda), the whole theory thus receiving the designation of Acintya-bhedābheda-vāda (incomprehensible dualistic monism), a peculiar point of view which distinguishes the Bengal school from other Vaiṣṇava schools by the qualifying word acintya which brings in a mystical attitude. It speaks of the inconceivable existence of distinction and non-distinction. The Śaktis are non-different from the Bhagavat, inasmuch as they are parts or Aṃśas of the divine being; but the very fact that they are parts only makes the superlativeness of divine attributes inapplicable to them, and there is thus an inevitable difference.⁶

The section of Jīva’s analysis that is critical to our understanding of the Gauḍīya discourse of divine embodiment concerns the structures and dynamics of the svarūpa-śakti. The svarūpa-śakti, as explicated by Jīva, assumes two forms: the svarūpa, which is Bhagavān himself in his essential nature and absolute body; and the svarūpa-vaibhava, which includes his transcendent abode, dhāman, and his eternal associates, parikaras or pārṣ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• Figures
• Preface
• Introduction
• 1 The Limitless Forms of Kṛṣṇa: Fashioning Divine Bodies
• 2 The Embodied Aesthetics of Bhakti: Fashioning Devotional Bodies
• 3 Bhāgavata Purāṇa as Text-Avatāra: From Purāṇa-Veda to Embodiment of Bhagavān
• 4 Nāman as Sound-Avatāra: From Transcendent Vibration to Reverberating Name
• 5 Vraja-Dhāman as Place-Avatāra: From Geographic Place to Transcendent Space
• 6 Meditation as Devotional Practice: Experiencing Kṛṣṇa in His Transcendent Dhāman
• Conclusion: Bhakti and Embodiment
• Note on Translations and Editions
• Notes
• Selected Bibliography
• Index