Bhakti and Embodiment Page 9
Caitanya was formally introduced to this Vaiṣṇava-oriented tradition of Advaitin renunciants by his two immediate gurus, who are both included among the disciples of Mādhavendra Purī: Īśvara Purī, Caitanya’s dīkṣā-guru from whom he received initiation into the Kṛṣṇa-mantra, and Keśava Bhāratī, his saṃnyāsa-guru from whom he received initiation into the Bhāratī order of Advaitin saṃnyāsins, which, like the Purī order, is associated with the Śṛṅgerī Maṭha in South India.32 Īśvara Purī is represented in the Caitanya Caritāmṛta as a favorite disciple of Mādhavendra Purī, who, as the guru of Caitanya’s guru, is revered as the parama-guru from whom the many-branched tree of Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava bhakti first sprouted:
Glory to Śrī Mādhava Purī, the stream of Kṛṣṇa-prema; he was the first sprout of the wishing-tree of bhakti. The sprout was nourished, in the form of Śrī Īśvara Purī; Caitanya-mālī [the gardener] himself became the main trunk; that trunk is the basic source of all the branches.33
Although an Advaitin saṃnyāsin, Mādhavendra Purī is portrayed in the Caitanya Caritāmṛta as the embodiment of ecstatic bhakti who eschews the radical nondualism of Śaṃkara and extols the glories of Kṛṣṇa-preman over the “dry jñāna” of Brahma-vidyā.34 In addition to Mādhavendra Purī, whom Friedhelm Hardy argues was “the figure of central importance for the bhakti of Caitanya,”35 Caitanya is represented as holding in high esteem another bhakti-oriented Advaitin saṃnyāsin, Śrīdhara Svāmin. Caitanya defends the authority of Śrīdhara’s interpretations of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa and declares, “We know the Bhāgavata through the grace of Śrīdhara Svāmī; Śrīdhara Svāmī is the guru of the world, and I honor him as guru.”36
Even though Caitanya is represented in the Caitanya Caritāmṛta as affiliated with certain devotionally-oriented Advaitin saṃnyāsins, both through his lineage of gurus and through his own initiation into the Bhāratī samṇyāsin order, at the same time he is portrayed as denouncing those Advaitins whom he deems “māyāvādins” and “dry jñānins” devoid of bhakti who perpetuate the radical nondualism of Śaṃkara. Caitanya’s refutation of Śaṃkara’s teachings is vividly framed in the form of a debate with a group of Advaitin saṃnyāsins in Vārāṇasī headed by Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī, a renowned scholar of Vedānta. Prakāśānanda criticizes Caitanya for abandoning his dharma as a saṃnyāsin and, instead of engaging in the study of Vedānta, wasting his time dancing and singing the name of Kṛṣṇa in the company of “emotionalists” (bhāvukas). Caitanya responds by refuting Śaṃkara’s interpretation of the Brahma-Sūtras, or Vedānta-Sūtras, in his Brahma-Sūtra Bhāṣya, which he claims neglects the primary meaning (mukhya-vṛtti), the most direct and obvious meaning, and gives precedence instead to the secondary meaning (gauṇa-vṛtti).
The Vedānta Sūtra is the word of Īśvara [the Lord], which Śrī Nārāyaṇa spoke when in the form of Vyāsa. Error, confusion, contradiction, want of skill—these faults are not present in the word of Īśvara. Together with the Upaniṣads the sūtra speaks the truth, and that meaning is of the greatest excellence and is easily perceived. But the Ācārya [Śaṃkara] made the bhāṣya [commentary] according to the secondary meaning, and by listening to him all things are destroyed.… [H]e expounded the secondary meaning, hiding the primary one. The chief meaning in the word brahma[n] is Bhagavān, made up of cit and divinity and none is equal or superior to him.37
While Caitanya is thus represented as denouncing the radically nondualist form of Advaita Vedānta advanced by Śaṃkara, Jīva Gosvāmin’s relationship to Śaṃkara’s teachings is more complex. In constructing Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Vedānta as a distinct system of theology, Jīva builds upon, while at the same diverging from, the contending systems of Vedānta expounded by Śaṅkara and the founders of the other principal Vedānta schools, Rāmānuja and Madhva. As Gupta has emphasized, Jīva is “heavily indebted to earlier teachers for his understanding of the Brahma-sūtra—specifically, Rāmānuja, Śrīdhara Svāmī, Madhva, and Śaṅkara,” and he “possesses an intimate working knowledge of his sources,” including Śaṃkara’s Brahma-Sūtra Bhāṣya.38 He is particularly indebted to Śrīdhara Svāmin, whose commentary on the Bhāgavata Purāṇa he frequently invokes, citing with approval his interpretations that “accord with pure Vaiṣṇava principles” while jettisoning any comments that promote a strictly monistic Advaitin ontology.39 Jīva also selectively invokes Śaṃkara’s commentary on the Brahma-Sūtras, deploying at times his terminology, hermeneutical strategies, and modes of argumentation to support his own interpretations of the Brahma-Sūtras and to buttress his own arguments regarding such issues as the uncreated (apauruṣeya) and eternal (nitya) status of the Vedas.40 At the same time, however, as I will discuss in the following sections, he rejects Śaṃkara’s ontological claims regarding the nature of the ultimate reality as well as his assertions regarding the goal of human existence and the most expedient path to the realization of the goal.
Contending Ontologies
The early Gauḍīya authorities deploy a series of arguments to challenge the monistic ontology of Advaita Vedānta and the dualistic ontology of Pātañjala Yoga, whose positions I discussed briefly in the Introduction.41
Classical Advaita Vedānta, as expounded by Śaṃkara, is based on a monistic ontology that identifies the ultimate reality with Brahman, an impersonal unitary reality that in its essential nature is nirguṇa, completely devoid of attributes, and as such is described as undifferentiated (nirviśeṣa), nonactive (niṣkriya), and formless (nirākāra). In refutation of the Advaitins’ characterizations of the ultimate reality, the early Gauḍīya authorities assert that, on the contrary, the highest aspect of the Godhead is personal, replete with infinite qualities (saguṇa), differentiated (saviśeṣa), possessed of innumerable śaktis (śaktimat), and endowed with an absolute body (vigraha) that is nonmaterial (aprākṛta). Moreover, in opposition to the Advaitin ontological hierarchy in which the personal God is identified with saguṇa Brahman and is associated with the domain of māyā as a lower manifestation of the impersonal nirguṇa Brahman, the Gauḍīyas maintain that the impersonal Brahman is itself subsumed within the supreme personal Godhead as an incomplete manifestation (asamyag-āvirbhāva) of Bhagavān. In the Gauḍīya perspective Brahman is simply the effulgence that shines forth from the self-luminous absolute body of Bhagavān (tanu-bhā or aṅga-prabhā). Moreover, they assert that the joy that arises from realization of the impersonal, formless Brahman is as insignificant as a tiny puddle of water contained in a cow’s hoofprint when compared to the pure ocean of bliss (āhlāda-viśuddhābdhi) that arises from direct visionary experience (sākṣāt-kāra) of Bhagavān’s absolute body.42 In addition to countering Advaitin perspectives on the nature of the ultimate reality, the early Gauḍīya authorities also develop arguments to refute their doctrines of māyā and ignorance (avidyā) and their claims regarding the identity of the jīva with Brahman.43
The early Gauḍīya authorities also provide a critical assessment of the dualistic ontology advanced by the advocates of Pātañjala Yoga, which builds upon the ontology and epistemology of Sāṃkhya. In their hierarchical assessment of contending ontologies, the Gauḍīyas allot a higher place to the dualistic ontology of Pātañjala Yoga than to the monistic ontology of Advaita Vedānta. In the Gauḍīya perspective the Pātañjala Yoga goal of kaivalya, in which the yogin awakens to the reality of the nonchanging Self, puruṣa, as distinct from prakṛti and from other puruṣas, is a higher state of realization than the Advaitin goal of mokṣa, in which the jīvanmukta awakens to the reality of the universal Self, Ātman, as identical with the distinctionless unitary reality, Brahman. The Gauḍīyas understand the Pātañjala Yoga goal of realization of puruṣa as pointing to the realization of saviśeṣa (differentiated) Paramātman, which they assert is a higher state than the realization of nirviśeṣa (undifferentiated) Brahman. However, while the advocates of Pātañjala Yoga are viewed as avoiding the Advaitin extreme of absolut
e unity, they are critiqued for indulging in the opposite extreme of absolute separation. While they are applauded for maintaining the distinctions among the plurality of puruṣas—which the Gauḍīyas term jīvas—they are chided for failing to recognize that the individual jīvas are themselves parts (aṃśas) of a greater all-encompassing totality: Bhagavān, who is Puruṣottama, the supreme Puruṣa, and who subsumes within himself both saviśeṣa Paramātman and nirviśeṣa Brahman as partial aspects of his totality.
Contending Paths
The Gauḍīya critiques of Advaita Vedānta and Pātañjala Yoga are articulated as a contestation among paths (mārgas) to realization in which the bhakti-mārga, the path of devotion, emerges victorious as the supreme path that surpasses both the jñāna-mārga, the path of knowledge advocated by the Advaitins, and the yoga-mārga, the path of yoga advocated by the exponents of Pātañjala Yoga. The Gauḍīyas maintain that although those who follow the jñāna-mārga may realize their identity with nirviśeṣa Brahman, the lowest aspect of Kṛṣṇa, and those who follow the yoga-mārga may experience saviśeṣa Paramātman, the intermediary aspect of Kṛṣṇa, neither the jñānin nor the yogin realizes the highest aspect of Kṛṣṇa as Bhagavān, the supreme personal Godhead, who is attained through the bhakti-mārga alone.44 Invoking the canonical authority of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, the Gauḍīyas declare that jñāna and yoga, when devoid of bhakti, are barren paths that cannot yield the highest fruit of realization in which one awakens to Kṛṣṇa as svayaṃ Bhagavān.
The śāstras say: abandon karma and jñāna and yoga. Kṛṣṇa is controlled by bhakti, and by bhakti he should be worshiped.… “Only that very powerful bhakti toward me [Kṛṣṇa] is able to compel me; I am not [compelled by] yoga, sāṃkhya, dharma, Vedic study, tapas,45 or renunciation.”46
The Gauḍīyas’ hierarchical analysis provides a striking example of what I term the theology of superordination in that, in contrast to a theology of supersessionism, the Gauḍīyas do not claim to exclude or replace the contending models of realization propounded by the exponents of Advaita Vedānta and Pātañjala Yoga, but rather they posit a model of realization that incorporates and domesticates the Advaitin and Pātañjala Yoga models by recasting them as lower levels of realization of their own all-encompassing Godhead.
Contending Goals
The Gauḍīya critiques of Advaita Vedānta and Pātañjala Yoga thus encompass not only the nature of their respective paths but also their formulations of the goal of human existence. For the Gauḍīyas acintya-bhedābheda, inconceivable difference-in-nondifference, is not simply an abstract ontological formulation but is the highest goal of realization in which the jīva awakens to the reality of its union-in-difference with Bhagavān. As part of their theology of superordination they relegate to subordinate positions as lower levels of realization both the goal of absolute unity or identity with Brahman advanced by the Advaitins and the goal of absolute separation or isolation (kaivalya) advanced by the exponents of Pātañjala Yoga. In this context they provide a critique of the formulations of liberation, mokṣa or mukti, propounded by both schools.
The Gauḍīyas’ critical assessment of mukti includes an analysis of five types of liberation, which they recast from a theistic perspective as five modes of realization of the deity: sālokya, in which one resides in the world (loka) of the deity; sārṣṭi, in which one enjoys the powers of the deity; sāmīpya, in which one lives near the deity; sārūpya, in which one assumes a form (rūpa) like that of the deity; and sāyujya, in which one attains undifferentiated unity with the deity. Invoking the Bhāgavata Purāṇa as their scriptural authority, the Gauḍīyas reject all five types of mukti—sālokya, sārṣṭi, sāmīpya, sārūpya, and sāyujya—and assert that true bhaktas do not desire any form of liberation but rather cherish bhakti, selfless devotion to Kṛṣṇa, as the highest end of human existence.
The distinguishing characteristic of unqualified bhakti-yoga is declared to be that devotion (bhakti) to the supreme Puruṣa [Kṛṣṇa] which is without motive and ceaseless. Even if sālokya, sārṣṭi, sāmīpya, sārūpya, and ekatva (unity) are offered, devotees do not accept anything except worship (sevana) of me. This very thing called bhakti-yoga is declared to be the highest end.47
Among the various types of mukti, the Gauḍīyas disparage in particular sāyujya, or ekatva, for they consider it to be synonymous with the Advaitin goal of absolute unity in which the realized sage merges with the impersonal Brahman like a drop merging with the ocean.48 In the Gauḍīya hierarchy of models of realization, the ultimate goal is not nonduality but rather union-in-difference in which some distinction between the subject (āśraya) and the divine object of devotion (viṣaya) is maintained so that the bhakta can enjoy eternally the bliss of preman, the fully mature state of supreme love for Kṛṣṇa. Having realized its true identity as an aṃśa of the supreme Godhead, the jīva savors the exhilarating sweetness of preman in eternal relationship with Bhagavān. Consistent with the principle of superordination, the Gauḍīyas assert that the realized bhakta who has attained Kṛṣṇa-preman is the “crest-jewel of muktas,”49 for although liberation is not the goal of the bhakta, it is the natural byproduct of the perfected state of preman.
Ananta-Rūpa: The Limitless Forms of the Absolute Body
The Gauḍīya discourse of divine embodiment, by providing a hierarchical assessment of the Godhead that relegates Brahman and Paramātman to subordinate positions as partial aspects of Bhagavān, thus serves to domesticate and subordinate the ontologies, paths, and goals of two competing philosophical schools, Advaita Vedānta and Pātañjala Yoga. The principle of superordination is also at work in a related Gauḍīya taxonomy, which provides a hierarchical assessment of the multifarious divine forms of Kṛṣṇa that accommodates and subordinates the contending notions of divinity promulgated by rival Vaiṣṇava and Śaiva bhakti movements.
The starting-point for Gauḍīya reflections on the divine forms is the notion that Kṛṣṇa, while maintaining the integrity of his vigraha, absolute body simultaneously assumes innumerable forms (sarva-rūpa-svabhāvatva) on the transcosmic, macrocosmic, and microcosmic planes of existence. Kṛṣṇa has only one vigraha, but the absolute body assumes a limitless (ananta) array of divine forms, termed rūpas, which all participate to a greater or lesser degree in the svarūpa, Kṛṣṇa’s essential form.50 These divine forms are classified and ranked in a hierarchical taxonomy that distinguishes three principal categories of rūpas: prakāśas, vilāsas, and avatāras. As we shall see, prakāśa, vilāsa, and avatāra are the key terms in the complex technical vocabulary that is used to designate distinct classes of divine manifestations.
The basic categories of this hierarchical taxonomy of divine forms are delineated by Rūpa Gosvāmin in the Laghubhāgavatāmṛta. Jīva Gosvāmin provides philosophical arguments to support the taxonomy in the Kṛṣṇa Sandarbha. In the Caitanya Caritāmṛta Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja expands on Rūpa’s taxonomy and seeks to provide an encompassing analytical framework that systematically and precisely defines the distinctive characteristics of each category of divine forms and its relationship to other categories. In the course of elaborating this taxonomy, the early Gauḍīya authorities selectively appropriate and recast a variety of Vaiṣṇava traditions, including the Pāñcarātra theory of vyūhas, divine emanations, which posits four principal vyūhas of the supreme Godhead, who is referred to as Nārāyaṇa or Viṣṇu: Vāsudeva, Saṃkarṣaṇa, Pradyumna, and Aniruddha.51 The Gauḍīyas also reimagine Purāṇic theories of creation, cycles of time, and avatāra.52 In this section I will focus on Rūpa’s formulation of the taxonomy of divine forms in the Laghubhāgavatāmṛta and on Kṛṣṇadāsa’s adaptation and expansion of Rūpa’s categories in the Caitanya Caritāmṛta.
The Source and Container of Avatāras
In their recasting of Purāṇic theories of avatāra the early Gauḍīya authorities emphasize that Kṛṣṇa, as svayaṃ Bhagavān, is not him
self an avatāra, but rather he is the avatārin who is the source and container of all avatāras, descending to the material realm periodically and assuming a variety of forms in different cosmic cycles.53 They provide scriptural evidence to ground this claim by invoking the Bhāgavata Purāṇa’s account of twenty-two avatāras, which culminates in the mahā-vākya that “Kṛṣṇa is Bhagavān svayam”:
O brahmins, the avatāras of Hari, who is the ocean of being, are countless, like thousands of streams flowing from an inexhaustible lake.… All these are portions (aṃśas) or fractions of portions (kalās) of the supreme Person, but Kṛṣṇa is Bhagavān himself (Bhagavān svayam).54
Building on the language and imagery of the Bhāgavata, the Gauḍīyas maintain that Kṛṣṇa, the inexhaustible plenitude of being, sends forth an endless stream of avatāras, which are partial manifestations—whether aṃśas, portions, or kalās, fractions of portions—of his absolute body consisting of sat-cit-ānanda.