Notes

Introduction to the Volume

0.      The term purāṇa will be defined more precisely below.

0.      The term “history” has now long been associated not merely with textual narrative, but with empirical disciplines such as archaeology, linguistics, numismatics, and so on. Clearly the Purāṇa literature such as the Bhāgavata dealing with Kṛṣṇa’s incarnation is not subject to this type of empirical scrutiny. On the other hand, a term such as “myth” indicates that the stories have no factual basis at all. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that deals with what constitutes a valid source of knowledge (for instance, empiricism, reason and inference, sacred scripture, and the like), and different epistemologies have been and are prioritized by intellectuals at different points in history and in different contexts and domains. So taking a position that the stories are purely “myths” would be an imposition of epistemological presuppositions and beliefs derived from the post-Enlightenment West upon the worldviews and convictions of countless millions of devotees over a period of two millennia and thereby would run contrary to the stated purpose of this volume, which is precisely to attempt to represent a sense of such beliefs. The term “legend,” in contrast, remains neutral as to the truth content of the stories, indicating simply that these stories present themselves as truth and have been handed down as such, without taking any further stance as to their veracity. We discuss such problems further in the chapter “Concluding Reflections.”

0.      As is by now well-known, “Hinduism” is not a term found in Indic texts prior to the sixteenth century, as it was appropriated from the immigrants and invaders who had introduced it into India. We retain it now for practical purposes, given its de facto intractable usage to refer to the vast array of beliefs and practices that retain some form of nominal allegiance to the old Vedic texts.

0.      Jīva and Rūpa quote the Bhāgavata abundantly, since as traditional commentators they strive to exemplify each theological point with a quote from the primary text in order to substantiate and authorize the devotional principles they are organizing into a system in their expositions. So by following Jīva and Rūpa, we will likewise be quoting profusely from the Bhāgavata itself in part 1 also.

0.      We must note, of course, that there are many expressions of Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism, and we are featuring its more elite—in the sense of erudite and scholastic—canon-forming tradition, imparted by the lineage’s founding figurehead, Caitanya, to Rūpa, whose work we feature, and other followers.

0.      The term “Indic” refers to anything written in ancient Sanskrit (the linguistic name for which is Indo-Aryan), but I use it primarily when I wish to refer to commonalities in thought between Vedic, Buddhist, Jain, and other such traditions.

0.      Thus, we begin with some delimiters: the goal of this volume is not to attempt to lay out some of the prominent features or personages of the diachronically and synchronically variegated landscape of bhakti by tracing its historical, geographic, social, or cultural roots from early historical sources through its growth into its numerous branches past and present. These are all essential projects in their own rights, but they are not the focus of interest in this volume.

0.      As filtered through the subjective understanding of this author, needless to say: we claim no privileged access to any authorial intention underpinning these texts. However, we have tried to minimize our own filter by dint of translating the sources themselves, but, naturally, what we have selected and what omitted reflect our own subjective dispositions.

0.      I note also, for my colleagues in the academy, briefly and perhaps simplistically, that it is my position that one way to navigate around the postcolonial, post-Orientalist impasse as to how to represent non-Western traditions such as those of bhakti yoga, without perpetuating the Eurocentric attitudes and stereotypes as well as the Christian presuppositions and biases of the founders and predecessors of our field of the study of religion, is precisely to at least endeavor to allow these traditions to speak in their own voices, using their own intellectual concepts and terminologies. In other words, to attempt to consider these traditions’ own theologies, practices, metaphysics, epistemologies, and worldviews in their own right, without being filtered either through the religious vocabularies and assumptions of our Western religious traditions or through the theoretical categories and secular presuppositions of our modern Western post-Enlightenment academies. To explicitly or implicitly assume they have so little to offer in their own terms that they require the imposition of Western categories of knowledge and theoretical analysis is, to say the least, a remarkable act of hubris that has long extended its shelf life. This is not to deny that such texts have their own ideologies and attempt to normalize and impose their own structures of power, such as caste and the like. But so much attention has been directed to this aspect of brahmanical Sanskrit culture that we have chosen to direct our own focus on the aspects of the Bhāgavata that concern theology, soteriology, and praxis (we do, however, make some comments on bhakti and dharma in part 1; see “Bhakti and Dharma”).

0.    I use the somewhat problematic term “classical” to refer to transregional Veda-acknowledging texts that reached their completion by or shortly after the Gupta period from the fourth to the sixth century C.E. (as I have argued is the case with the Bhāgavata; Bryant 2002).

0.    Of course, numerous preexisting ingredients that Patañjali was systematizing in his Sūtras, such as the eight limbs of practice and various other elements, surface or are appropriated in numerous distinct sectarian contexts, Jain, Buddhist, Vaiṣṇava, Śākta, Śaiva, and so forth.

0.    Although the view that Vyāsa was Patañjali himself writing a commentary on his own Sūtras has recently resurfaced with the dedicated work of Philipp Maas (2010).

0.    Thus while, for example, the sixteenth-century commentator Vijñānabhikṣu may quibble with the earlier commentator Vācaspati Miśra, and introduce a good deal of Vedānta-related issues, there is no disagreement on the essential metaphysics of Yoga or on the nature of its mental states, practices, or goals (see discussion in Bryant 2009, xxxix).

0.    Thus, from the various topics the Bhāgavata claims to comprise (noted later), part 2 is concerned with mukti, the attainment of liberation from suffering through the practice of bhakti.

0.    From its stated list of topics, Kṛṣṇa is the Bhāgavata’s tenth and final subject matter, the substratum (āśraya) or goal of everything else.

0.    See Bryant (2003) and, for the most comprehensive academic study on the Purāṇas as a genre, Rocher (1986).

0.    Based on Bryant (2003, ixff.).

0.    Even the non-Vedic Buddhist and Jain traditions partly defined themselves in contradistinction to the Vedic one.

0.    For instance, see Kūrma Purāṇa, Pūrva 52.19–20; Padma Purāṇa, Uttara-khaṇḍa 236.18–21.

0.    There are, of course, other texts, such as the Āgamas and Pañcarātras, that provide much information pertaining to the minutiae of ritual and theological technicalities, but they are of interest primarily to ritual specialists and theologians.

0.    In addition to the eighteen mahā (great) Purāṇas, there are a further eighteen upa (minor) Purāṇas, which are just as extensive in scope but deemed less authoritative, being later in composition and much less widespread.

0.    See Matsya Purāṇa 53.9–11; Śiva Purāṇa VII.1.1.37–38.

0.    Brahmā is more of an engineer than a creator in the classical sense, since he creates the forms of the universe from preexisting matter. But in texts such as the Bhāgavata, matter itself emanates from Viṣṇu, who is thus the primary creator. Śiva is assigned the same status in the Śaiva Purāṇas, but Brahmā is never the supreme creator God in this ultimate sense.

0.    Gītā (VIII.17) points to Brahmā’s life span.

0.    The Goddess (Śākta) traditions tend to be monistic, rather than strictly monotheist, a distinction we will discuss in part 5.

0.    See the papers in Gupta and Valpey (2013) as well as Beck (2005) for some sense of this. See also the papers in “Vaishnavism and the Arts” in Journal of Vaishnava Studies 21, no. 2 (2013).

0.    Much of this explosion of interest in the text stems from our featured sixteenth-century Caitanya tradition, of which Jīva is a follower.

0.    See Sharpe (1985, 83ff.) and Davis (2015) for some sense of this.

0.    There are actually several thousand verses fewer than eighteen thousand, but traditional exegetes factor in the extra length of prose passages, as well as colophons and the like, to justify the traditional number (see Satyanārāyaṇa Dāsa 1995, 80n1) for discussion.

0.    These were initiated by influential charismatics such as Caitanya and Vāllabha, whom we will encounter within.

0.    This is mostly on the grounds that neither the later dynasties nor later famous rulers such as Harṣa in the seventh century C.E. are to be found in the king lists contained in the texts.

0.    Bryant (2002).

0.    A number of the other Purāṇas clearly mention the Bhāgavata along with some mention of its subject matter (Skanda Purāṇa, Prabhāsa-khaṇḍa 7.1.2.39–42; Agni Purāṇa 272.6–7; Padma Purāṇa, Uttara-khaṇḍa 22.115, 198.30, and elsewhere; Matsya Purāṇa 53.20–22; these and other references from Satyanārāyaṇa Dāsa 1995). However, in contradiction to this, as we will see in the Tale of Vyāsa, the Bhāgavata places itself as being written by the despondent Vyāsa shortly after the completion of the other Purāṇas. Also, we need not concern ourselves with the controversy raised by the followers of the Devī Bhāgavata, that these references to the Bhāgavata Purāṇa in the other Purāṇas refer to their Devī text, not that of the Vaiṣṇavas (for which see Mackenzie Brown 1983; and Dāsa 1995, 88ff.).

0.    See, for discussion, Preciado-Solis (1984).

0.    See appendix 1 for discussion on the Śruti and Smṛti genres of sacred text.

0.    For example, see III.8.7–9.

0.    These are sarga, creation of the universe; visarga, secondary creation of forms within the universe; vṛtti, maintenance of the living entities; rakṣā, protection of living entities; manvantara, governance of the various Manu dynasties; vaṁsa, dynasties of great kings; vaṁsānucarita, activities of the kings in these dynasties; saṁsthā, annihilation of universe; hetu, motivation; and apāśraya, the Supreme shelter (Īśvara) (XII.7.9–10). Earlier in the text, these are labeled somewhat differently: sarga, primordial creation; visarga, secondary creation; sthāna, maintenance; poṣaṇa, sustenance/grace; ūti, desire; manvantara, periods of the Manus; Īśānukathā, stories of Īśvara’s incarnations; nirodha, annihilation of the universe; mukti, liberation; and āśraya, ultimate shelter (II.10.1–2). According to other Purāṇas, there are only five topics: sarga, pratisarga (destruction), Manv-antarāṇi, vaṁsa, and vaṁsanucarita (Matsya Purāṇa 53.65).

0.    Tattva Sandarbha (anuccheda 58).

0.    The name used here is Uttamaśloka, literally “verses about whom are supreme.”

0.    Book 11, in fact, is mostly devoted to Kṛṣṇa’s instructions to Uddhava, sometimes called the Uddhāva Gītā. It covers a vast range of subject matter, including social and civic duties as well as all manner of yogic and religious practices, all culminating in bhakti.