2  The Embodied Aesthetics of Bhakti

Fashioning Devotional Bodies

Among the various forms of Vaiṣṇava bhakti traditions, we find a broad spectrum of modes of devotion. On one end of the spectrum we find more intellectual, contemplative, and meditative forms of bhakti, as expressed, for example, in the Bhagavad-Gītā (c. second century BCE), the Viṣṇu Purāṇa (c. fourth to fifth century CE), and the Śrīvaiṣṇava teachings of Rāmānuja (1017–1137 CE). On the other end of the spectrum we find intensely emotional, passionate, and ecstatic forms of bhakti, as expressed, for example, in the devotional hymns of the Āḻvārs (c. sixth to ninth centuries CE), the Bhāgavata Purāṇa (c. ninth to tenth century CE), and the Gauḍīya tradition inspired by Caitanya (1486–1533 CE). I would argue that one of the distinguishing characteristics of the Vaiṣṇava traditions that favor more passionate and ecstatic expressions of devotion is that they share a concern for the human body as a site of central significance. In this chapter I will focus in particular on the new form of embodied bhakti that is expressed in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa and on the ways in which this embodied bhakti is appropriated and reimagined in the Gauḍīya tradition as a distinctive new discourse of human embodiment that I term an “embodied aesthetics of bhakti.”

Erotic-Ecstatic Devotion: The Embodied Bhakti of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa

A number of scholars have noted that the passionate and ecstatic bhakti expressed in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa constitutes a distinctive new form of devotion that is markedly different from the more intellectual and contemplative forms of bhakti that find expression in different ways in the Bhagavad-Gītā, the Viṣṇu Purāṇa, and Rāmānuja’s teachings. What these scholars have not noted, however, is that one of the critical dimensions of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa’s portrayal of bhakti that sets it apart from these other forms of bhakti is its embodied nature. In the Bhāgavata’s representations of bhakti the bhakta’s internal ecstatic state is often described as manifesting through the external body, overflowing into the senses and limbs and erupting in spontaneous bodily manifestations such as the bristling of body hair, stammering speech, weeping, laughing, singing, and dancing. The following passage is representative:

Without the hair of the body bristling, without the heart melting, without being inarticulate due to tears of bliss (ānanda)—without bhakti how can consciousness be purified? He whose speech is stammering, whose heart melts, who weeps repeatedly and sometimes laughs, who unabashedly sings and dances—such a person, united by bhakti with me [Kṛṣṇa], purifies the world.¹

J. N. Farquhar was one of the first scholars to suggest that the Bhāgavata Purāṇa presents a “new theory of bhakti,” which he characterizes in terms that are reminiscent of the Bhāgavata passage just cited:

What distinguishes it [the Bhāgavata Purāṇa] from all earlier literature is its new theory of bhakti; and therein lies its true greatness. Some of its utterances on this subject are worthy of a place in the best literature of mysticism and devotion.… Bhakti in this work is a surging emotion which chokes the speech, makes the tears flow and the hair thrill with pleasureable excitement, and often leads to hysterical laughing and weeping by turns, to sudden fainting fits and to long trances of unconsciousness.… Thus the whole theory and practice of bhakti in this purāṇa is very different from the bhakti of the Bhagavadgītā and of Rāmānuja.²

Jan Gonda similarly suggests that the “passion and emotionalism” of devotion in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa constitutes a “new stage” of bhakti that differs from the “more speculative description of the earlier texts”:

Bhakti has entered here a new stage…[and] displays here aspects which in the older texts did not…become manifest, and these aspects were illustrated and stressed with a fervour and a conviction which can amaze the unprepared Western reader. Particularly in the life of the young herdsman god Kṛṣṇa a theory and practice of bhakti is developed in a very emotional and sensual poetry, which differs in its passion and emotionalism from the more speculative description of the earlier texts. Bhakti is here an overpowering, even suffocating emotion, which causes tears to flow and the voice to falter, and even stimulates hysterical laughter, loss of consciousness, and trance.³

S. N. Dasgupta, in his discussion of bhakti as a form of “devotional mysticism,” distinguishes three progressive levels, from (1) self-abnegation, self-surrender to God, and contemplative union with God, as taught in the Bhagavad-Gītā and reflected in the teachings of Rāmānuja, to (2) the desire for contemplative union combined with the longing to taste God’s love, as expressed by the devotee Prahlāda in the Viṣṇu Purāṇa, to (3) the intoxicating, sensual, blissful, and ecstatic love of God that is celebrated in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa. Dasgupta notes:

This bhakti…is no longer the old contemplative meditation of God, stirred by a deep-seated love. It is the ebullition of feelings and emotions of attachment to God. It manifests itself in the soft melting of the heart and expresses itself in tears, inarticulate utterances of speech, laughter, songs and dances, such as can only be possible through a mad intoxication of love. This kind of bhakti is entirely different from the calm contemplative life of complete self-abnegation and self-surrender to God and a mind wholly immersed in God and the thought of God.… They [the bhaktas] come to experience such intense happiness that all their limbs and senses become saturated therewith and their minds swim, as it were, in a lake of such supreme bliss that even the bliss of ultimate liberation loses its charm.… The bhakta who is filled with such a passion does not experience it merely as an undercurrent of joy which waters the depths of his heart in his own privacy, but as a torrent that overflows the caverns of his heart into all his senses. Through all his senses he realizes it as if it were a sensuous delight; with his heart and soul he feels it as a spiritual intoxication of joy. Such a person is beside himself with this love of God. He sings, laughs, dances and weeps. He is no longer a person of this world.⁴

Paul Hacker, through a comparison of the portrayals of the devotee Prahlāda in the Viṣṇu Purāṇa and the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, has demonstrated the differences between the representations of bhakti in the two Purāṇas. The more contemplative bhakti of the Viṣṇu Purāṇa is characterized by Prahlāda’s remembering, thinking about, or meditating on Viṣṇu, whereas the more emotional bhakti of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa is characterized by Prahlāda’s ecstatic weeping, laughing, singing, and dancing while immersed in the bliss of Kṛṣṇa’s love.⁵

Hardy, in his study of the early history of Kṛṣṇa devotion, emphasizes that the Bhāgavata Purāṇa is the first work in Sanskrit to express this new type of “emotional Kṛṣṇa bhakti,” which he characterizes more specifically as an “aesthetic-erotic-ecstatic mysticism of separation.”⁶ By adopting the canonical form of a Purāṇa, the Bhāgavata Purāṇa provided a brahmanical Sanskritic framework for this mysticism of love-in-separation, viraha-bhakti, which has its roots in the South Indian devotional traditions of the Āḻvārs. This viraha-bhakti—which finds consummate expression in the devotional laments of the Āḻvārs Nammāḻvār and Āṇṭāḷ and in the impassioned yearnings of the gopīs, the cowmaiden lovers of Kṛṣṇa, in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa—involves a dialectic of union and separation that is never fully resolved. Charlotte Vaudeville remarks:

The theoricians of Bhakti entertained, from the time of the Āḻvārs, a dynamic conception of Bhakti, whose highest state is less a repose than a tension, an unquenchable thirst even in the possession of God, a continual yearning and stretching for a fuller apprehension of the divine Lover, who unceasingly draws all souls to Himself. There can be no satiety in divine Love; and so it was the pathetic character of the virahiṇī, the faithful wife forever tormented by the pangs of separation from her Lord and longing for Him even when she enjoys the bliss of His presence, which remained for the Āḻvārs, as well as for their spiritual descendents, the most adequate symbol of Love divine.⁷

In the tenth book of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, which celebrates Kṛṣṇa’s festival of love with his cowmaiden lovers, the gopīs are represented as the paradigmatic exemplars of erotic-ecstatic viraha-bhakti, who in their insatiable yearning for their divine lover alternate between the agony of separation and the bliss of union. Moreover, the viraha-bhakti of the gopīs is embodied bhakti, in which the gopīs’ surging passion for Kṛṣṇa erupts in an array of involuntary bodily manifestations. Their body hair bristles, their eyes overflow with tears, their voices falter, and their breasts tremble as their bodies thrill with the intoxication of devotion.⁸

Bodies of Devotion, Bodies of Bliss: The Embodied Aesthetics of Bhakti in the Gauḍīya Tradition

The early Gauḍīya authorities develop a distinctive new discourse of human embodiment in which they appropriate and reimagine the embodied bhakti of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa in a system of discursive representations and practices that can be characterized as an embodied aesthetics of bhakti. The Gauḍīyas interweave three categories—bhakti, devotion; rūpa or deha, body; and rasa, aesthetic enjoyment—in order to generate this distinctive new discourse in which the human body is ascribed a pivotal role not only on the path but also as an integral part of the goal of spiritual realization. In his Bhaktirasāmṛtasindhu and Ujjvalanīlamaṇi, Rūpa Gosvāmin reframes the authoritative devotional teachings of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa in light of Indian theories of aesthetics and produces a new form of embodied aesthetics founded on the category of bhakti-rasa. In Rūpa’s theory of bhakti-rasa the experience of rasa, aesthetic enjoyment, is reimagined as a transcendent religious experience and the religious experience of bhakti is reimagined as a transcendent aesthetic experience, and it is this transcendent aesthetic-religious experience of bhakti-rasa that is the culmination of the Gauḍīya path. This theory of bhakti-rasa is elaborated by Jīva Gosvāmin in his commentaries on Rūpa’s works and in his Bhakti Sandarbha and Prīti Sandarbha. Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja provides an encapsulation of the key elements of the theory in his Caitanya Caritāmṛta.

The theory of bhakti-rasa is a critical component of the theology of superordination through which the early Gauḍīya authorities accommodate, domesticate, and subordinate the teachings promulgated by rival philosophical schools and bhakti traditions. First, as discussed in Chapter 1, they deploy their discourse of divine embodiment to establish the supremacy of the Gauḍīya bhakti-śāstra over the jñāna-mārga of Advaita Vedānta and the yoga-mārga of Pātañjala Yoga. Second, as I will discuss in this chapter, they deploy the rhetoric of rasa from Indian aesthetic theories to reimagine the bhakti-mārga and establish a hierarchy of modes of devotional relationship that distinguishes the embodied aesthetics of bhakti promulgated by the Gauḍīya Sampradāya from other forms of bhakti propounded by competing Vaiṣṇava schools. Moreover, they articulate a distinctive model of human embodiment and personhood grounded in the embodied aesthetics of bhakti that serves to further secure their claims to supremacy over the contending paths of Advaita Vedānta and Pātañjala Yoga.

Gauḍīya formulations of the embodied aesthetics of bhakti are founded on a discourse of human embodiment that is the counterpart of the discourse of divine embodiment discussed in Chapter 1. The notion that jīvas, individual living beings, are parts, or aṃśas, of Bhagavān assumes new significance when understood in relation to the Gauḍīya taxonomy of Kṛṣṇa’s divine forms in which certain classes of avatāras are termed svāṃśas, Kṛṣṇa’s “own aṃśas.” These svāṃśas, as discussed in Chapter 1, are regarded as partial manifestations of the vigraha, the absolute body of Bhagavān, and they are therefore considered part of the svarūpa-śakti and full of sat, cit, and anānda. Jīvas, in contrast, are termed bibhinnāṃśas, “separated aṃśas,” and are considered part of the jīva-śakti and therefore “on the border” (taṭasthā) between the material realm of prakṛti governed by the māyā-śakti and the transcendent domain of the svarūpa-śakti. While jīvas are thus considered aṃśas of Bhagavān, they are at the same time separated from the supreme Godhead because they are subject to the bondage of māyā-śakti. The ultimate goal of every jīva, according to the Gauḍīyas, is to awaken from the sleep of ignorance, throw off the shackles of the māyā-śakti, and realize its true identity as an aṃśa of Bhagavān. In this way the veil of separation-in-bondage will be lifted, and the jīva will enjoy an eternal relationship of inconceivable difference-in-nondifference, acintya-bhedābheda, with Bhagavān.⁹

The path to this goal, as framed by the Gauḍīyas, involves fashioning a devotional body by means of sādhana-bhakti, an elaborate system of embodied practices that comprises two forms of devotional discipline: vaidhī-bhakti and rāgānugā-bhakti. In vaidhī-bhakti the practitioner, or sādhaka, performs external bodily practices with the sādhaka-rūpa, the material psychophysical complex, and engages in a regimen guided by scriptural injunctions (vidhis) that is designed to purify and transform the psychophysiology, reconstituting the body of bondage as a body of devotion in which the mental faculties, sense organs, and organs of action are all oriented towards one-pointed worship of Kṛṣṇa. In rāgānugā-bhakti, an advanced form of sādhana-bhakti characterized by passionate love (rāga), the bhakta engages in a regimen that combines internal meditative practices with external bodily practices in order to realize a siddha-rūpa, a perfected devotional body that is an eternal, nonmaterial body of bliss.

In the following analysis I will begin with a consideration of Rūpa Gosvāmin’s theory of bhakti-rasa as an embodied aesthetics of devotion. I will then turn to an analysis of the Gauḍīya path of sādhana-bhakti, focusing on the regimens of practice for re-figuring the bhakta’s bodily identities and fashioning a perfected devotional body.

Aesthetics Reimagined as Bhakti-Rasa

The theory of bhakti-rasa is developed by Rūpa Gosvāmin in the Bhaktirasāmṛtasindhu and Ujjvalanīlamaṇi as part of his creative appropriation of the rhetoric of rasa derived from Indian aesthetic theories. This theory, which is elaborated by Jīva Gosvāmin and Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja, includes a hierarchical assessment of the various modes of devotional relationship (bhāvas) that are cultivated in the bhakti-mārga and that find fruition in the various “flavors” through which the bhakti-rasa of preman, pure transcendent enjoyment of supreme love for Kṛṣṇa, is savored.

The Rhetoric of Rasa

The Sanskrit term rasa encompasses a range of meanings, including “essence,” “juice,” “nectar,” “taste,” and “flavor.” In Indian aesthetics rasa is ascribed central importance as the pivotal term that designates aesthetic enjoyment. The aesthetic theory of rasa first appeared in the Nāṭya-Śāstra (c. fourth or fifth century CE), an authoritative treatise on drama attributed to Bharata. The theory remained primarily within the sphere of drama until the advent of Ānandavardhana’s Dhvanyāloka (ninth century CE), which introduced the notion of dhvani (suggestion) and assigned primacy of place to rasa in traditional Sanskrit poetics. The rasa theory attained its classical formulation in the Dhvanyāloka-Locana (tenth to eleventh century CE), the commentary on the Dhvanyāloka by Abhinavagupta, the eminent exponent of Kashmir Śaiva traditions. Abhinavagupta’s reflections on rasa were systematized by Mammaṭa in his Kāvya-Prakāśa (twelfth century CE), the standard compendium of literary theory. Finally, it remained for Viśvanātha to incorporate the science of dramaturgy and the science of poetics into a single work, the Sāhitya-Darpaṇa (fourteenth century CE). This tradition of reflection on rasa, which celebrates Abhinavagupta as its principal spokesman, became the dominant school of Indian aesthetics. A radically different theory of rasa was advanced by a second influential school of Indian aesthetics whose principal exponent was Bhoja, an eleventh-century king of Malwa (Rajasthan). As we shall see, it appears that Bhoja’s school may have exerted a more profound influence on Rūpa Gosvāmin’s theory of bhakti-rasa than Abhinavagupta’s school.¹⁰

The theory of rasa, as originally laid out in the Nāṭya-Śāstra, classifies human emotions into eight fundamental types termed sthāyi-bhāvas, or abiding emotions: rati (love), hāsa (humor), śoka (sorrow), krodha (anger), utsāha (courage), bhaya (fear), jugupsā (disgust), and vismaya (wonder). Eight types of rasa are also enumerated, which correspond to the sthāyi-bhāvas: śṛṅgāra (erotic), hāsya (comic), karuṇa (tragic), raudra (furious), vīra (heroic), bhayānaka (terrifying), bībhatsa (disgusting), and adbhuta (wondrous). Some recensions of the Nāṭya-Śāstra, as well as Abhinavagupta’s commentary the Abhinavabhāratī, add a ninth rasa, śānta (tranquil), which corresponds to a ninth sthāyi-bhāva called śama (tranquillity).

The Nāṭya-Śāstra elucidates the dramaturgic principles through which each of the sthāyi-bhāvas can be reproduced on stage and elicit the corresponding rasa, which will be relished by the audience as aesthetic enjoyment. According to the famous rasa-sūtra of the Nāṭya-Śāstra, “Rasa is produced from the combination of the vibhāvas, the anubhāvas, and the vyabhicāri-bhāvas.”¹¹ The vibhāvas are the stimulants that, when represented in a play, make possible the audience members’ appreciation of the sthāyi-bhāva and savoring of the corresponding rasa. The vibhāvas are of two types: the ālambana-vibhāvas, or substantial stimulants, are the objects towards which the emotions are felt, such as the hero (nāyaka) and the heroine (nāyikā) of the play; and the uddīpana-vibhāvas, or enhancing stimulants, are the factors that serve to foster the emotion, such as the time frame and setting of the play. The anubhāvas are the words, bodily gestures and movements, and other outward manifestations through which the characters of the play indicate the presence of the sthāyi-bhāva. The vyabhicāri-bhāvas are transitory emotions, such as envy, intoxication, and confusion, that often accompany the sthāyi-bhāvas. In addition to the vibhāvas, anubhāvas, and vyabhicāri-bhāvas, Bharata introduces a fourth category, the sāttvika-bhāvas, which are involuntary bodily manifestations of certain emotional states, such as perspiration, bristling of the body hair, and trembling, that indicate the sthāyi-bhāva’s presence in the character. The dramatist is expected to be a highly adept craftsman who skillfully makes use of these four aesthetic components in order to allow the audience members to savor the most delicate nuances of the rasa.

Ānandavardhana’s Dhvanyāloka, in developing the dhvani theory of poetry in which rasa assumes a central role, extended the category of rasa beyond the sphere of drama into the domain of poetics. According to the dhvani school as expounded by Abhinavagupta, everyone has latent impressions (vāsanās) of the sthāyi-bhāvas generated by previous emotional experiences. If the dramatist or poet is successful in suggesting the presence of a particular sthāyi-bhāva, such as love (rati), in the characters of the play or poem, then the latent impressions of the emotion will be aroused in the sahṛdayas, sensitive persons of refined taste, who view the play or hear the poem, enabling them to experience the distilled essence of the emotion. Savoring of the distilled essence of the emotion is termed rasa and leads to an apprehension of the universal essence of the emotion that transcends the ego-bound concerns of the individual sahṛdayas and is experienced as pure impersonal joy. Abhinavagupta compares the pure aesthetic enjoyment that results from the savoring of rasa to the bliss (ānanda) that arises from the realization of Brahman.

Śṛṅgāra-rasa, the erotic rasa, which is savored as the distilled essence of the sthāyi-bhāva of rati, love, is the most celebrated of all the rasas. The preeminence of the erotic rasa is emphasized in Bhoja’s Śṛṅgāra-Prakāśa, which provides a detailed analysis of every phase of śṛṅgāra-rasa. Bhoja’s theory of rasa is unique in that, in contrast to other exponents of Indian aesthetics, he insists that there is only one rasa: śṛṅgāra-rasa. Moreover, in contrast to Abhinavagupta’s aesthetic theory, in which the experience of rasa is an impersonal experience that is utterly distinct from the sthāyi-bhāva, in Bhoja’s theory the experience of rasa is a personal emotional experience that is an intensified form of the sthāyi-bhāva. It is likely that Bhoja’s reflections on śṛṅgāra-rasa had a significant influence on the rasa theory expounded by Rūpa Gosvāmin in the Bhaktirasāmṛtasindhu and Ujjvalanīlamaṇi.¹²

From Aesthetic Taste to Flavors of Bhakti-Rasa

In Rūpa’s theory of bhakti-rasa, the aesthetic experience of rasa is reimagined as a transcendent (alaukika) religious experience that is the culmination of the path of bhakti. The various components of classical Indian aesthetics—sthāyi-bhāvas, vibhāvas, anubhāvas, sāttvika-bhāvas, and vyabhicāri-bhāvas—are reformulated as critical components of the divine drama, Kṛṣṇa’s līlā, that is recorded in literary form in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa.

The tenth book of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, as discussed in Chapter 1, recounts the divine drama through which Kṛṣṇa, the supreme Bhagavān, descends to earth at the end of Dvāpara Yuga in approximately 3000 BCE and appears in the form of a cowherd boy as Gopāla Kṛṣṇa. Gopāla Kṛṣṇa is celebrated as a playful youth who during his sojourn on earth frolics with his fellow cowherds (gopas) and cowmaidens (gopīs) in the area of Vraja in North India. In the Gauḍīya interpretation of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa’s account, this earthly līlā, which is represented in the Bhāgavata as occurring at a particular time and place in history, is the manifest līlā, prakaṭa līlā, that is the terrestrial counterpart of the unmanifest līlā, aprakaṭa līlā, that goes on eternally within Bhagavān in the transcendent Vraja-dhāman, Goloka-Vṛndāvana, beyond the material realm of prakṛti and beyond Brahman. The various companions of Kṛṣṇa in Vraja—his foster parents Nanda and Yaśodā, attendants, cowherd friends, and cowmaiden lovers—are ascribed the status of his eternal associates, parikaras or pārṣadas, who participate in his essential nature as expressions of the svarūpa-śakti and revel with him for all eternity in the unmanifest līlā.

In Rūpa’s appropriation of rasa theory, the Bhāgavata Purāṇa’s account of Kṛṣṇa’s līlā is recast as an aesthetic-religious drama in which Kṛṣṇa and his eternal associates in Vraja assume the roles of the central characters and the bhakta, the devotee of Kṛṣṇa, assumes the role of the religious aesthete (sahṛdaya) who relishes the divine play. This theory gives precedence to rati—and more specifically to Kṛṣṇa-rati, love for Kṛṣṇa—as the principal sthāyi-bhāva, which matures in the heart of the bhakta and is savored as the bhakti-rasa of preman, the pure transcendent enjoyment of supreme love. “The sthāyi-bhāva here is declared to be that love (rati) which has Śrī Kṛṣṇa as its object (viṣaya).”¹³ Rūpa describes the sthāyi-bhāva of Kṛṣṇa-rati as a special form of śuddha-sattva, pure luminous being, that participates in Kṛṣṇa’s essential nature (svarūpa) as a manifestation of the mahā-śakti. Jīva Gosvāmin’s commentary glosses the terms śuddha-sattva and mahā-śakti as the hlādinī-śakti, the blissful aspect of the svarūpa-śakti, and thus in this perspective rati, the love for Kṛṣṇa that arises in the heart of the bhakta, is the spontaneous expression of Kṛṣṇa’s own blissful nature.¹⁴ The sthāyi-bhāva of Kṛṣṇa-rati finds fruition in its fully mature expression in the bhakti-rasa of preman, which is represented as the intensified form of Kṛṣṇa-rati. The sthāyi-bhāva is compared to a ray of the sun of preman that softens the heart and that gradually expands into the full sunshine of preman, which melts the heart completely.¹⁵ “When the bhāva has softened the heart completely and is very intense in nature…it is called preman by the wise.”¹⁶

According to the theory of bhakti-rasa, the sthāyi-bhāva of Kṛṣṇa-rati manifests in five distinct modes of devotional relationship, or bhāvas, which are forms of primary Kṛṣṇa-rati: (1) śānti, tranquillity; (2) prīti, respectful affection; (3) sakhya, friendship; (4) vātsalya, parental love; and (5) priyatā or madhurā, erotic love.¹⁷ This theory recognizes that, among the diverse array of bhaktas, the particular form of rati towards which each bhakta is inclined is determined by his or her unique inherent nature (svarūpa) as a vessel (āśraya or pātra) of love for Kṛṣṇa.

Rati assumes a particular form due to the particular nature of the vessel (pātra), just as the sun’s reflection assumes a particular form in a crystal or other object.¹⁸

The five forms of primary Kṛṣṇa-rati find fruition in five corresponding flavors of the bhakti-rasa of preman, which are called primary rasas and are ranked hierarchically, from lowest to highest, according to increasing degrees of intimacy: (1) śānta, tranquil; (2) dāsya or prīta, serviceful affection; (3) sakhya or preyas, friendship; (4) vātsalya or vatsala, parental love; and (5) mādhurya or madhura, erotic love.¹⁹ The theory of bhakti-rasa thus incorporates two of the nine rasas of classical Indian aesthetics in its hierarchy of five primary rasas: śānta-rasa, the tranquil rasa, which is positioned at the bottom of the hierarchy, and śṛṅgāra-rasa or mādhurya-rasa, the erotic rasa, which is ranked at the top of the hierarchy. The other seven rasas of Indian aesthetics—hāsya (comic), adbhuta (wondrous), vīra (heroic), karuṇa (tragic), raudra (furious), bhayānaka (terrifying), and bībhatsa (disgusting)—are relegated to the status of secondary rasas, for they are based on seven corresponding emotions (bhāvas) that are nourished by contracted forms of Kṛṣṇa-rati but are not direct manifestations of śuddha-sattva, pure luminous being.²⁰

The Gauḍīya theology of superordination domesticates and subordinates the yoga-mārga by including śānta-rasa in its hierarchy of rasas, which it frames as a meditative form of bhakti based on Kṛṣṇa-rati in which Kṛṣṇa is experienced in the state of samādhi as Paramātman and appears in his four-armed aiśvarya form as Viṣṇu. In contrast to the practitioner of the aṣṭāṅga-yoga system of Pātañjala Yoga, whose meditative practice leads to asamprajñāta samādhi or nirvikalpa samādhi, a distinctionless state of absorption in the formless Self (puruṣa), the adherent of śānta-rasa is represented as attaining a higher state of samādhi that is characterized by a direct visionary experience (sākṣāt-kāra) of Kṛṣṇa’s four-armed form as Vāsudeva, or Viṣṇu.²¹

That bliss (ānanda) which, due to the complete destruction of all ignorance, manifested in the meditative state of nirvikalpa samādhi became concentrated and increased ten-millionfold when the Lord of the Yādavas [Vāsudeva] appeared directly (sākṣāt) to me.²²

Although those yogins who take up this purely meditative form of bhakti may experience Paramātman, the intermediary aspect of the Godhead, and thereby attain a higher state of samādhi than the practitioners of aṣṭāṅga-yoga, the early Gauḍīya authorities ultimately relegate śānta-rasa to the lowest rung of the hierarchy of rasas because it does not entail an intimate emotional relationship with Kṛṣṇa in his fullness as svayaṃ Bhagavān. Moreover, as we shall see, they claim that the adherent of śānta-rasa does not attain the highest form of samādhi that involves a direct cognition of Kṛṣṇa’s two-armed gopa form—which is the svayaṃ-rūpa, essential form, of his absolute body as Bhagavān—and of his aprakaṭa līlā.

The paradigmatic exemplars of the other four forms of rasa are the eternal associates of Kṛṣṇa in Vraja, who are represented as the eternally perfect (nitya-siddha) vessels (āśrayas) of love for Gopāla Kṛṣṇa as pūrṇa Bhagavān. Dāsya-rasa, the rasa of serviceful affection, is exemplified by the various attendants of Kṛṣṇa in Vraja, who are respectful, serviceful, and submissive in attending to his every need. Sakhya-rasa, the rasa of friendship, is exemplified by the cowherd boys of Vraja, who romp and play with their companion Kṛṣṇa with carefree affection, adoring him as the first among equals. Vātsalya-rasa, the rasa of parental love, is exemplified by Kṛṣṇa’s elders and more specifically by his foster parents in Vraja, Nanda and Yaśodā, who care for and cherish Kṛṣṇa as an adorable, mischievous child.

Mādhurya-rasa, the rasa of erotic love expressed in the lover-beloved relationship, is exemplified by the gopīs, the cowmaidens of Vraja, who are completely consumed by the intoxicating power of preman for their cowherd lover Kṛṣṇa. As the highest in the hierarchy of rasas, mādhurya-rasa is celebrated as the most intimate, refined, and sublime expression of preman. The gopīs are represented as the paradigmatic exemplars of mādhurya-rasa and of erotic-ecstatic viraha-bhakti, alternating between the impassioned agony of separation (vipralambha) and the intoxicating bliss of union (sambhoga). Rādhā is singled out among the gopīs as the perfect embodiment of mādhurya-rasa who alone gives consummate expression to the enraptured devotion of preman. Moreover, as discussed in Chapter 1, on the level of the unmanifest līlā that goes on eternally within Bhagavān in the transcendent Vraja-dhāman, Goloka-Vṛndāvana, Rādhā is ascribed a special ontological status as the quintessential expression of the hlādinī-śakti who embodies Kṛṣṇa’s bliss and from whom the other gopīs emanate as manifestations of that bliss.²³

Rūpa’s theory of bhakti-rasa thus provides a hierarchical assessment of the various flavors of the bhakti-rasa of preman that encompasses the two forms of bhakti discussed at the beginning of this chapter, with the meditative form of bhakti relegated to the lowest rung of the hierarchy and the erotic-ecstatic form of bhakti represented as the pinnacle of realization. Śānta-rasa, the meditative form of bhakti that culminates in an experience of Paramātman, is ranked at the bottom of the hierarchy of rasas because it is devoid of an intimate emotional relationship with Kṛṣṇa as svayaṃ Bhagavān. At the same time primacy of place is allotted to mādhurya-rasa, the intensely intimate, emotional, and ecstatic form of bhakti embodied by the gopīs. Haberman remarks regarding the typology of religious experience established by Rūpa’s theory of bhakti-rasa:

Rūpa has created a typology of religious experience that ranks the various types of possible ultimate relationships in terms of intimacy with the divine and intensity of emotion. Within this typology Rūpa is able to place both the Peaceful (śānta) experience of the ascetic yoga traditions, which often define the ultimate state as the absence of all emotions, and the Amorous (śṛṅgāra) experience of passionate devotion, which seeks to utilize the power of all emotions to establish a solid connection with the divine as beloved. These two impulses represent polar tensions that have defined and enlivened much creative debate within Hindu philosophy, and Rūpa’s presentation provides yet another way of viewing their relationship.²⁴

The Embodied Aesthetics of the Divine Play

Rūpa’s theory of bhakti-rasa ascribes a central role to sādhana-bhakti, the Gauḍīya regimen of devotional practices, as the means through which the sthāyi-bhāva of Kṛṣṇa-rati, love for Kṛṣṇa, is generated.

Dedicated devotion to sādhana arouses a taste (ruci) for Hari, then generates attachment (āsakti) to him, and then engenders love (rati) for him.²⁵

Once the sthāyi-bhāva of Kṛṣṇa-rati has manifested in the heart of the bhakta, the embodied practices of sādhana-bhakti also serve as the means through which rati is raised to the supreme state of the bhakti-rasa of preman.

In his discussion of the path of sādhana-bhakti, Rūpa introduces the technical terminology of Indian aesthetics in order to explain the specific mechanisms through which Kṛṣṇa-rati is raised to the relishable state of bhakti-rasa.

This sthāyi-bhāva, Kṛṣṇa-rati, is raised by means of the vibhāvas, anubhāvas, sāttvikas, and vyabhicāris to a relishable state in the hearts of bhaktas through hearing (śravaṇa) and other practices, and it thereby becomes bhakti-rasa.²⁶

As discussed earlier, the vibhāvas, anubhāvas, sāttvika-bhāvas, and vyabhicāri-bhāvas are described in the Nāṭya-Śāstra and later aesthetic works as the four aesthetic components that the dramatist or poet utilizes in order to suggest the presence of a particular sthāyi-bhāva in the characters of the play or poem so that the sahṛdayas who view the play or hear the poem can savor the corresponding rasa as pure aesthetic enjoyment. In Rūpa’s reformulation these four aesthetic components are elements of Kṛṣṇa’s līlā, the divine play, which bhaktas enjoy through hearing recitations of the līlā (līlā-śravaṇa) as recounted in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa or other texts, witnessing dramatic performances of līlā episodes (rāsa-līlās), and other forms of sādhana. In this context the vibhāvas, anubhāvas, sāttvika-bhāvas, and vyabhicāri-bhāvas serve as the means through which the sthāyi-bhāva of Kṛṣṇa-rati matures in the hearts of bhaktas so that they can savor the ambrosial nectar of the bhakti-rasa of preman as pure transcendent enjoyment of supreme love.²⁷

In accordance with the conventions of classical Indian aesthetics, Rūpa’s discussion of the vibhāvas distinguishes between the ālambana-vibhāvas, or substantial stimulants, and the uddīpana-vibhāvas, or enhancing stimulants. The ālambana-vibhāvas are Kṛṣṇa, who is the object (viṣaya) of love, and his bhaktas, who are the vessels (āśrayas or ādhāras) of love.²⁸ Rūpa celebrates Kṛṣṇa, the central character in the divine play, as the “crown-jewel of heroic lovers (nāyakas)” and provides a detailed account of his forms and qualities.²⁹ The account begins with a description of Kṛṣṇa’s svarūpa, essential form, as a beautiful two-armed young cowherd:

The sweet form (mūrti) of the enemy of Madhu [Kṛṣṇa] brings me intense joy. His neck has three lines like a conch, his clever eyes are charming like lotuses, his blue-black limbs are more resplendent than the tamāla tree,…his chest displays the Śrīvatsa mark, and his hands are marked with the discus, conch, and other emblems.… This lover has a beautiful body (aṅga) and is endowed with all auspicious marks, radiant, luminous, powerful, eternally young.³⁰

While the major portion of Rūpa’s analysis of the ālambana-vibhāvas focuses on the nature of Kṛṣṇa, the divine object (viṣaya) of love, he also provides a brief account of the qualities of Kṛṣṇa bhaktas, who are the vessels (āśrayas) of love. His taxonomy classifies bhaktas into five principal categories corresponding to the five primary bhāvas, or modes of devotional relationship, and their respective rasas: tranquil, servant, friend, parent or other elder, and lover. Within each of these five categories of bhaktas Rūpa distinguishes three possible levels of spiritual attainment: sādhakas, practitioners who are following the path of sādhana-bhakti but are not yet perfected; samprāpta-siddhas, bhaktas who have obtained perfection through the practice of sādhana-bhakti; and nitya-siddhas, the eternally perfect associates of Kṛṣṇa in Vraja who have never been subjected to the bondage of saṃsāra.³¹ This schema thus includes both the paradigmatic bhaktas who are the central characters in the eternal līlā of Kṛṣṇa and the bhaktas who engage the līlā through hearing stories of the divine play and other forms of sādhana. This point is highly significant, for in the final analysis bhakti-rasa functions not simply as a theory of religious aesthetics but above all as a path to realization. In contrast to the secular aesthete, the goal of the bhakta is not simply to attain a temporary state of pure aesthetic enjoyment through hearing recitations of līlā narratives or witnessing dramatic performances of līlā episodes on the manifest plane of human existence. Rather, the ultimate goal of the bhakta is to attain an eternal state of pure transcendent enjoyment through direct experiential realization of Kṛṣṇa’s līlā on the unmanifest plane of the transcendent Vraja-dhāman, Goloka-Vṛndāvana. Having become a samprāpta-siddha, the perfected bhakta attains a direct cognition (sākṣāt-kāra) of Kṛṣṇa and the aprakaṭa līlā, unmanifest līlā, that goes on eternally as self-referral play within the Godhead. In this state of realization the jīva not only awakens to its true identity as an aṃśa of Bhagavān but also, in accordance with its unique inherent nature (svarūpa), reclaims its distinctive role in the aprakaṭa līlā in relation to Bhagavān—whether that of a servant, friend, elder, or lover.

As part of his articulation of the embodied aesthetics of bhakti-rasa, Rūpa describes the uddīpana-vibhāvas, or enhancing stimulants, that serve to enliven the flow of Kṛṣṇa-rati and foster the bhakta’s ability to relish the ambrosial nectar of prema-rasa. His account of the uddīpana-vibhāvas centers on a lavish description of the distinguishing bodily characteristics of Kṛṣṇa’s svarūpa, essential form, including his age, beauty, complexion, mode of dress, hairstyles, body paintings and forehead mark, ornaments, bodily fragrance, and emblems such as the flute.³²

While Rūpa’s account of the uddīpana-vibhāvas focuses on the absolute body of Kṛṣṇa, his account of the anubhāvas and sāttvika-bhāvas focuses on the bodies of Kṛṣṇa bhaktas. The anubhāvas are the bodily gestures and movements through which the bhaktas give manifest expression to their internal state of Kṛṣṇa-rati, such as dancing, whirling, rolling on the ground, singing, roaring, sighing, and laughing loudly.³³ The sāttvika-bhāvas are the eight forms of involuntary bodily manifestations through which the bhaktas’ internal devotional state is marked on their external bodies: stupefaction, perspiration, bristling of body hair, faltering voice, trembling, change of color, tears, and loss of external consciousness.³⁴ Rūpa’s reformulation of the four aesthetic components concludes with a discussion of the vyabhicāri-bhāvas, the thirty-three transitory emotions, such as despondency, intoxication, madness, joy, and envy, which serve to enhance the sthāyi-bhāva of Kṛṣṇa-rati by adding variety to the ways in which the abiding emotion of love is experienced.³⁵

Rūpa suggests that the sthāyi-bhāva of Kṛṣṇa-rati is raised to the relishable state of the bhakti-rasa of preman in the hearts of bhaktas through specific forms of sādhana that serve as means of engaging the divine līlā in which Kṛṣṇa and his eternally perfect bhaktas in Vraja are the protagonists.

Rati…becomes rasa in the bhaktas by means of their hearing about (śruta), apprehending (avagata), and remembering (smṛta) Kṛṣṇa and other aspects [of his līlā], which function as the vibhāvas and other aesthetic components.³⁶

This verse points to three specific forms of sādhana through which bhaktas can engage Kṛṣṇa’s līlā: hearing (śruta) recitations of līlā narratives; apprehending (avagata) the līlā by witnessing dramatic performances of līlā episodes; and remembering (smṛta) the līlā by means of dhyāna, meditation, or līlā-smaraṇa, contemplative recollection. Elsewhere in the Bhaktirasāmṛtasindhu Rūpa includes līlā-śravaṇa, hearing about Kṛṣṇa’s līlā; līlā-kīrtana, singing about the līlā; and krīḍā-dhyāna, meditating on the divine play, as three important practices that are part of the regimen of sādhana-bhakti.³⁷

Sādhana-Bhakti: Re-figuring Bodily Identities

The aesthetics of bhakti is a path of embodied aesthetics that engages both the external (aṅga) and internal (antar-aṅga) aspects of the psychophysiology.³⁸ This path, as delineated in the discourse of human embodiment developed by Rūpa Gosvāmin and Jīva Gosvāmin and elaborated by Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja, involves fashioning a devotional body by means of the two forms of sādhana-bhakti: vaidhī-bhakti and rāgānugā-bhakti. In vaidhī-bhakti the bhakta performs external bodily practices such as śravaṇa and kīrtana with the sādhaka-rūpa, the sexually marked material body that the jīva enters at the time of birth and that is constructed by the residual karmic impressions (saṃskāras) accumulated from the jīva’s previous births. The regimen of vaidhī-bhakti is designed to reconstitute the karmically constructed biological body as a body of devotion. In rāgānugā-bhakti the bhakta engages in an advanced regimen of internal meditative practices such as dhyāna and līlā-smaraṇa in order to attain an embodied state of realization in which he or she ceases to identify with the karmically constructed biological body and realizes a siddha-rūpa, a perfected devotional body that is eternal and nonmaterial.³⁹ I will provide an analysis of the Gauḍīya path of sādhana-bhakti in terms of the progressive transformation of the bhakta’s bodily identities: from (1) the ascribed identity associated with the karmically constructed biological body to (2) the inscribed identity in which the biological body is reconstituted as a devotional body to (3) the re-membered identity in which the jīva awakens from the sleep of ignorance and realizes its perfected nonmaterial body.

Ascribed Identity: The Body of Bondage

According to the Gauḍīyas’ analysis of the human condition, as discussed earlier, jīvas are consigned to a betwixt-and-between status in which, on the one hand, they are aṃśas of Bhagavān and participate in his essential nature, and, on the other hand, they are separated from Bhagavān because they are subject to the bondage of the māyā-śakti that governs the material realm of prakṛti. Enslaved by the binding influence of the māyā-śakti, the jīva becomes deluded by ignorance (avidyā) and, forgetting its true identity as an aṃśa of Bhagavān, assumes a false sense of atomistic personal identity in which it mistakenly identifies with the material psychophysical complex, which includes not only the physical body but also the mental faculties—mind, intellect, and ego—that are subtle forms of materiality.

The early Gauḍīya authorities, in reflecting on the nature of bondage and the mechanisms of refashioning bodily identities, appropriate traditional formulations of karma in which the law of karma is held to determine the circumstances of an individual’s birth in each lifetime, including the species, sex, ethnocultural community, and family in which the jīva is born. In this perspective an individual jīva’s ascribed identity is determined at birth by the law of karma and is circumscribed by the biological body that is constructed by the residual karmic impressions (saṃskāras) accumulated from previous births. This karmically constructed biological body is sexually marked as either male or female and may be further classified as part of a social class (varṇa) and caste (jāti) in accordance with brahmanical norms of varṇāśrama-dharma elaborated in the Dharma-Śāstras, brahmanical legal codes.⁴⁰

Inscribed Identity: Fashioning a Body of Devotion

The early Gauḍīya authorities emphasize the efficacy of the path of sādhana-bhakti in purifying the material psychophysical complex and attenuating the residual karmic impressions (saṃskāras) that are the root cause of bondage and serve to perpetuate the cycle of rebirth. In vaidhī-bhakti, the initial phase of sādhana-bhakti, the bhakta engages in a regimen of external bodily practices with the sādhaka-rūpa in order to re-figure the karmically bound biological body as a body of devotion. The defective material body born through biological reproduction and delimited by brahmanical markers of ascribed identity—sex, social class (varṇa), and caste (jāti)—is born anew out of the ritual womb of vaidhī-bhakti and reconstituted as a “devotionally informed body” that—evoking Bourdieu’s notion of a “socially informed body” (habitus)—is inscribed with the socioreligious taxonomies of the bhakta-saṅgha, the Gauḍīya community of bhaktas.⁴¹

Rūpa, in his discussion of sādhana-bhakti in the Bhaktirasāmṛtasindhu, repeatedly emphasizes the embodied nature of devotional practices. He defines bhakti as “service with the senses (hṛṣīka) to the Lord of the senses (Hṛṣīkeśa),”⁴² and he characterizes the sixty-four practices of vaidhī-bhakti as “forms of worship (upāsanas) for the physical body (kāya), senses (hṛṣīka), and mental faculties (antaḥ-karaṇa).”⁴³ Through these practices the bhakta re-figures the psychophysiology by focusing all aspects of the sādhaka-rūpa, the material psychophysical complex, on Bhagavān, including the mind, the sense organs (ears, sense of touch, eyes, tongue, and nose), and the organs of action (mouth, hands, feet, limbs, and so on). Rūpa and Kṛṣṇadāsa both invoke the Bhāgavata Purāṇa’s description of the embodied practices of the paradigmatic bhakta:

He engaged his mind on the lotus-feet of Kṛṣṇa, his words in recounting the virtues of Vaikuṇṭha, his hands in cleaning the temple of Hari, his ears in hearing glorious stories about Acyuta, his eyes in seeing the images and temples of Mukunda, his sense of touch in touching the bodies of his servants, his nose in smelling the fragrance of the tulasī leaves placed at his lotus-feet, his tongue in tasting the food that had been offered to him, his feet in traveling by foot to the holy places of Hari, his head in bowing to the feet of Hṛṣīkeśa, and his desire in serving him.…⁴⁴

Among the sixty-four practices of vaidhī-bhakti, five are singled out by Rūpa and Kṛṣṇadāsa as most important for cultivating prema-rasa, the fully mature state of supreme love for Kṛṣṇa: (1) hearing (śravaṇa) the Bhāgavata Purāṇa and savoring (āsvāda) its meanings; (2) singing (kīrtana or saṃkīrtana) the names (nāmans) of Kṛṣṇa; (3) residing (sthiti or vāsa) in Mathurā-maṇḍala, the “circle of Mathurā,” that encompasses the entire region of Vraja; (4) worship (sevana) of ritual images (mūrtis) of Kṛṣṇa; and (5) association (saṅga) with holy persons (sādhus).⁴⁵ Four of the five fundamental practices—as well as many of the other vaidhī-bhakti practices—thus involve engaging the four types of mesocosmic forms, discussed in Chapter 1, in which Kṛṣṇa becomes embodied on the gross material plane: (1) śāstra, Kṛṣṇa’s avatāra in the form of a scriptural text, grantha-avatāra, identified as the Bhāgavata Purāṇa; (2) nāman, Kṛṣṇa’s avatāras in the form of names, nāma-avatāras, that are revered as identical with Kṛṣṇa’s essential nature and absolute body; (3) dhāman, Kṛṣṇa’s embodiment in the form of a geographic place, the earthly Vraja-dhāman, that is extolled as the manifest counterpart of his transcendent Vraja-dhāman; and (4) mūrti, Kṛṣṇa’s avatāras in the form of ritual images, arcā-avatāras, that are worshiped as his localized instantiations in temples and shrines. As discussed in Chapter 1, Rūpa extols the “inconceivable power” (acintya śakti) of these four mesocosmic forms—Bhāgavata Purāṇa, nāman, Vraja-dhāman, and mūrti—as “transmundane (alaukika) forms” that are nondifferent from Kṛṣṇa and are therefore capable not only of enlivening the sthāyi-bhāva of Kṛṣṇa-rati, love for Kṛṣṇa, in the hearts of bhaktas but also of manifesting Kṛṣṇa himself on the gross material plane.⁴⁶

Each of these modes of divine embodiment is associated with a distinct sensorium, or perceptual world, in which a particular “ratio of the senses”⁴⁷ dominates. In two of these mesocosmic forms Kṛṣṇa is embodied in language—as śāstra, the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, or as nāman, name—and therefore the principal modes of reception are śravaṇa, hearing; paṭhana, recitation; and kīrtana, singing. These practices are then extended through a variety of cognitive and corporeal modalities. On the one hand, they are internalized through meditative practices such as dhyāna, meditation; smaraṇa, contemplative recollection; or japa, silent repetition. On the other hand, they are externalized through bodily performances such as rāsa-līlās, dramatic performances, or nṛtya, dance. In the other two mesocosmic forms Kṛṣṇa is embodied in place in visible forms—as the sacred geography of Vraja-dhāman, or as the mūrti enshrined in the temple—and in these cases the principal perceptual modalities are darśana, seeing, and sparśana, touching. The associated bodily performances involve ritual negotiation of sacred space through tīrtha-yātrā, pilgrimage, or the carefully choreographed postures and gestures of mūrti-sevā, service to the mūrti.

Bhāgavata Purāṇa. Bhaktas engage the Bhāgavata Purāṇa through hearing (Bhāgavata-śravaṇa) and recitation (Bhāgavata-paṭhana). More specifically, they engage the text through hearing about (śravaṇa), singing about (kīrtana), meditation on (dhyāna), and contemplative recollection of (smaraṇa) the world of Kṛṣṇa that is enshrined in his text-avatāra, including not only his līlā but also his names (nāmans), forms (rūpas), and qualities (guṇas). They savor (āsvāda) the meanings (artha) of the Bhāgavata and drink (pāna) from its inexhaustible supply of ambrosial nectar (amṛta or rasa), reveling in its bliss-bestowing stories of Kṛṣṇa’s līlā.⁴⁸ They also relish the enactment of the Bhāgavata’s stories of Kṛṣṇa’s līlā in dramatic performances, rāsa-līlās, in which the actors who embody Kṛṣṇa and Rādhā are revered during the performance as svarūpas, living forms of the deity and his eternal consort.⁴⁹ In addition, they venerate the concrete book as a ritual icon that is a text-incarnation of Kṛṣṇa.⁵⁰

Nāman. Bhaktas engage the nāman through singing (nāma-kīrtana), hearing (nāma-śravaṇa), contemplative recollection (nāma-smaraṇa), and silent repetition in meditation (mantra dhyāna or japa) of the divine names of Kṛṣṇa, invoking his nāma-avatāras to experience the divine presence. They also inscribe their bodies with the letters of the divine name (nāmākṣara) as a means of embodying Kṛṣṇa in their own flesh.⁵¹ During nāma-saṃkīrtana, communal singing of the divine names, the pulsating reverberations of the divine name at times overflow from the speech into the limbs, inspiring bhaktas to dance and whirl in ecstatic celebration of the nāman.⁵²

Dhāman. Bhaktas engage the dhāman through residing (sthiti or nivāsa) in the land of Vraja and through pilgrimage (tīrtha-yātrā), which serve as means of encountering Kṛṣṇa’s divine presence instantiated in the sacred geography of Vraja-dhāman, the most celebrated of all tīrthas. As pilgrims circumambulate the network of līlā-sthalas, the sites where Kṛṣṇa’s playful exploits are held to have occurred, they obtain darśana of Kṛṣṇa embodied in the landscape; touch (sparśana), roll in, and ingest the dust that has been consecrated by his feet; and embrace the sacred ground through full-body prostrations (daṇḍavat-praṇāmas).⁵³ Advanced sādhakas incorporate meditative practices (dhyāna or smaraṇa) into their daily regimen as a means of attaining direct experiential realization of Kṛṣṇa in his transcendent Vraja-dhāman.⁵⁴

Mūrti. Bhaktas venerate the mūrti through seeing (darśana), touching (sparśana), and worshiping Kṛṣṇa’s image-avatāra with ritual offerings (upacāras) and mantras in arcana, pūjā, and other forms of mūrti-sevā. They also engage in various forms of bodily service through circumambulating (parikrama), prostrating (daṇḍavat-nati), singing (kīrtana or stavana), and dancing (tāṇḍava or nṛtya) before the mūrti. In addition, through partaking of the prasāda, the remnants of the ritual offerings that are suffused with the deity’s blessings, they enliven and cultivate the various sense faculties. More importantly, they invest their own bodies with the qualities of the deity’s form through relishing (svāda) the food offered to him, savoring (svāda) the water used to wash his feet, smelling (āghrāṇa) the sweet fragrance of the incense and flowers enjoyed by him, and adorning their own bodies with the clothing, ornaments, and flower garlands blessed by the touch of his form.⁵⁵

The bhakta thus fashions a devotional body through invoking, hearing, seeing, touching, tasting, smelling, and embracing the various mesocosmic forms in which Kṛṣṇa is embodied on the gross material plane. Through engaging and partaking of Kṛṣṇa’s mesocosmic forms, the bhakta’s own psychophysiology is gradually suffused with the qualities and substance of Kṛṣṇa’s absolute body (vigraha), which consists of sat-cit-ānanda, being, consciousness, and bliss.⁵⁶

Re-membered Identity: Realizing a Nonmaterial Body of Bliss

In rāgānugā-bhakti the bhakta engages in an advanced regimen of practices in order to realize a siddha-rūpa, a perfected devotional body that is eternal (nitya), nonmaterial (aprākṛta), and consists of cit and ānanda, consciousness and bliss. The practices of rāgānugā-bhakti are represented as the means to catalyze the bhakta’s shift from the inscribed identity of a devotionally informed material body to the re-membered identity of a perfected nonmaterial body that is like—but at the same time eternally distinct from—the absolute body of Kṛṣṇa.

In rāgānugā-bhakti the advanced sādhaka enters into an intimate relationship with Kṛṣṇa characterized by passionate love (rāga). This form of bhakti is achieved through emulating the nitya-siddhas, the eternally perfect associates who reside with Kṛṣṇa in the transcendent Vraja-dhāman, Goloka-Vṛndāvana, and who are called rāgātmikā bhaktas because their very essence (ātman) is spontaneously absorbed in passionate, all-consuming love (rāga) for Kṛṣṇa.⁵⁷ According to Rūpa’s definition, “That [bhakti] is called rāgānugā which emulates the rāgātmikā-bhakti that shines forth clearly in those who reside in Vraja.”⁵⁸ The process of emulation involves cultivating one of the four principal rasas that are embodied by the paradigmatic rāgātmikā bhaktas: dāsya-rasa, the mode of service, exemplified by the attendants of Kṛṣṇa; sakhya-rasa, the mode of friendship, exemplified by Kṛṣṇa’s cowherd friends; vātsalya-rasa, the mode of parental love, exemplified by Nanda and Yaśodā and other elders; and mādhurya-rasa, the mode of erotic love, exemplified by Kṛṣṇa’s cowmaiden lovers.

Rūpa suggests that the rāgānugā sādhaka should seek to realize the rasa that accords with his or her unique inherent nature (svarūpa)—whether that of a servant, friend, elder, or lover—by emulating a corresponding rāgātmikā bhakta of the transcendent Vraja “with both the sādhaka-rūpa and the siddha-rūpa.”

One should dwell (vāsa) continually in Vraja, absorbed in various stories (kathā) about it, remembering (root smṛ) Kṛṣṇa and his beloved associates whose devotional mode accords with one’s own. One who wishes to realize a particular devotional mode (bhāva) should perform devotional service (sevā) emulating the residents of Vraja with both the sādhaka-rūpa and the siddha-rūpa.⁵⁹

Although Rūpa himself does not elaborate on the nature of these two bodies, in his commentary Jīva Gosvāmin renders the term rūpa as deha, “body,” and glosses sādhaka-rūpa as the “body as it is” (yathāvastitha-deha) and siddha-rūpa as an “internal meditative body (antaś-cintita-deha) that is suitable for one’s intended devotional service (sevā) to Kṛṣṇa.”⁶⁰ Kṛṣṇadāsa suggests that the sādhaka’s emulation of the rāgātmikā bhaktas with both the sādhaka-rūpa and the siddha-rūpa—which he terms the sādhaka-deha and the siddha-deha—entails becoming identified with the chosen rāgātmikā bhakta on two levels: first, by emulating the chosen rāgātmikā bhakta through performing external bodily practices such as śravaṇa and kīrtana with the sādhaka-rūpa that engage Kṛṣṇa and his līlā; and, second, by cultivating a state of inner absorption in the aprakaṭa līlā of the transcendent Vraja through internal meditative practices such as līlā-smaraṇa and dhyāna, which culminates in the realization of a perfected devotional body, siddha-rūpa.

This sādhana has two parts: external and internal. External is the performance of śravaṇa and kīrtana with the body of the sādhaka [sādhaka-deha]. In their minds [these sādhakas] mentally construct their own perfected bodies [siddha-dehas], and day and night they serve Kṛṣṇa in Vraja.… Following after one who is beloved of Kṛṣṇa,…in their inner minds they serve him eternally.⁶¹

This passage presents the difference between the sādhaka-rūpa and the siddha-rūpa in terms of different forms of practice: the physical body utilized in external bodily practices, and the meditative body constructed through internal mental practices. However, in other contexts the distinction between the sādhaka-rūpa and the siddha-rūpa is presented as an ontological distinction between two categories of embodiment: the material (prākṛta) psychophysical complex that is subject to the binding influence of Kṛṣṇa’s māyā-śakti in the material realm of prakṛti; and the eternal, nonmaterial (aprākṛta) body that participates in Kṛṣṇa’s svarūpa-śakti in the transcendent Vraja-dhāman. In this perspective every jīva possesses a siddha-rūpa, an eternal body, which is an aṃśa of the self-luminous effulgence (jyotir) of Bhagavān and, like the absolute body (vigraha) of Kṛṣṇa himself, is constituted of cit and ānanda.⁶² Due to the binding influence of the māyā-śakti, the jīva becomes deluded by ignorance (avidyā) and mistakenly identifies with the material psychophysical complex and forgets its true identity as an aṃśa of Bhagavān. Moreover, the jīva forgets its unique inherent nature (svarūpa), which determines its distinctive role as an eternal protagonist in the aprakaṭa līlā and the corresponding form of its siddha-rūpa in the transcendent Vraja-dhāman. The goal of rāgānugā-bhakti is to awaken the jīva from the sleep of ignorance so that it can realize its svarūpa, unique inherent nature, and the particular form of its siddha-rūpa, nonmaterial body, which is eternally gendered in relation to the male Godhead, Kṛṣṇa, as either female—a female lover or maternal elder—or male—a male friend, paternal elder, or male attendant.

The Gauḍīya discourse of human embodiment emphasizes the role of the guru and of meditative practices such as līlā-smaraṇa and dhyāna as two critical components in the rāgānugā sādhaka’s realization of the siddha-rūpa. The realized guru, who has attained the status of a samprāpta-siddha, perfected bhakta, and continually delights in the aprakaṭa līlā of the transcendent Vraja-dhāman, Goloka-Vṛndāvana, is ascribed a role in revealing or confirming to the sādhaka the identity of his or her particular siddha-rūpa.⁶³ The practice of līlā-smaraṇa—contemplative recollection of the līlā of Kṛṣṇa and his eternal associates in Vraja—along with other forms of smaraṇa and dhyāna then serve as the means through which the sādhaka can gain direct experiential realization of the siddha-rūpa and reclaim his or her distinctive role as an eternal protagonist in the aprakaṭa līlā.

Rūpa provides the basis for the practice of līlā-smaraṇa by instructing practitioners of rāgānugā-bhakti to dwell continually in Vraja by remembering (root smṛ) Kṛṣṇa and his beloved companions.⁶⁴ Jīva elaborates on Rūpa’s instruction by providing an extended analysis of smaraṇa, which he defines as contemplative recollection of the names (nāmans), forms (rūpas), qualities (guṇas), eternal associates (parikaras), service (sevā), and playful activities (līlās) of Kṛṣṇa. He distinguishes five stages of smaraṇa: (1) smaraṇa, thinking about Kṛṣṇa in any manner; (2) dhāraṇā, withdrawal of the attention from external sense objects and focusing the mind on Kṛṣṇa; (3) dhyāna, meditation on the forms and other aspects of Kṛṣṇa; (4) dhruvānusmṛti, a more advanced stage of meditation in which consciousness flows in an unbroken stream towards Kṛṣṇa; and (5) samādhi, the most advanced stage of meditation in which the sādhaka attains a state of complete absorption that culminates in a direct cognition of Kṛṣṇa and his aprakaṭa līlā.⁶⁵ In his analysis of the five-stage meditative practice of smaraṇa, Jīva deploys the principle of superordination by appropriating three terms that are central to the practice of yogic meditation in aṣṭāṅga-yoga—dhāraṇā, dhyāna, and samādhi—and embedding them in a devotional framework that reinscribes them as stages in the Gauḍīya practice of meditation on Kṛṣṇa. He explicitly distinguishes his understanding of the highest form of samādhi, in which the bhakta attains a direct cognition of the self-luminous absolute body of Bhagavān, from the yogic ideal of asamprajñāta samādhi, which he frames as a lower form of samādhi in which the yogin attains an objectless state of absorption in the impersonal, formless Brahman. Moreover, he suggests that those yogins who take up the purely meditative form of bhakti, śānta-rasa, in which they are intent on experiencing Kṛṣṇa as an object of meditation but do not desire an intimate emotional relationship with him, do not attain the highest form of samādhi in which direct experience of Kṛṣṇa’s aprakaṭa līlā is attained. Direct experiential realization of Kṛṣṇa’s vigraha, absolute body, and his aprakaṭa līlā is available only to rāgānugā sādhakas who seek to realize one of the four modes of passionate (rāga) loving relationship with Kṛṣṇa as pūrṇa Bhagavān: dāsya-rasa, sakhya-rasa, vātsalya-rasa, or mādhurya-rasa.⁶⁶ Jīva allots a pivotal role to the meditative practices of smaraṇa and dhyāna as means to attain the highest stages of realization in rāgānugā-bhakti, as I will discuss further in Chapter 6.

Building on the insights of Rūpa and Jīva, Kṛṣṇadāsa and later Gauḍīya authorities developed the practice of līlā-smaraṇa into complex meditation techniques in which the rāgānugā sādhaka visualizes in elaborate detail the aṣṭa-kālīya-līlā, the eight periods of Kṛṣṇa’s daily līlā that goes on eternally in the transcendent domain of Vraja. As part of these meditation techniques, the sādhaka visualizes the svayaṃ-rūpa, the beautiful two-armed cowherd form of Kṛṣṇa’s absolute body; the eternal forms of the gopīs, gopas, and other residents of Vraja; the spatial arrangement of the transcendent Vraja-dhāman, Goloka-Vṛndāvana, including the specific locale of each līlā activity; and the time of day in which the līlā activity occurs. The sādhaka also constructs a mental image of his or her own siddha-rūpa and visualizes this meditative body interacting with the eternal residents of Vraja in particular līlā activities. For example, if the guru has revealed or confirmed the identity of the siddha-rūpa to be that of a particular gopī, then the sādhaka visualizes his or her gopī body in all its particularity, including the gopī’s name, age, appearance, dress, place of residence, mode of service, and so on.⁶⁷ The implication of the Gauḍīyas’ analysis is that regular meditation involving visualization of the mentally constructed siddha-rūpa serves to catalyze an awakening in which the jīva re-members (smaraṇa) its eternal siddha-rūpa and reclaims its distinctive role as an eternal participant in the aprakaṭa līlā. Established in the highest state of realization as a member of Kṛṣṇa’s transcendent entourage, the jīva savors the exhilarating sweetness of prema-rasa in eternal relationship with Bhagavān.

Contending Bodily Identities

The early Gauḍīya authorities, like contemporary feminist advocates of social constructionism, thus recognize a distinction between sex and gender, with the sādhaka-rūpa corresponding to the sexed body and the siddha-rūpa corresponding to the gendered body. However, whereas contemporary proponents of the sex/gender distinction essentialize the sexed biological body as a “natural” datum and relegate gender to the secondary status of a sociocultural construction, the Gauḍīya formulations reverse this hierarchical assessment in their ontological framing of the two categories: they essentialize gender as intrinsic to the eternal, nonmaterial siddha-rūpa and relegate the sexed material body to the secondary status of a karmic construction.

In imagining the sex/gender distinction, the Gauḍīyas have grappled historically with the potential dilemmas posed by contending bodily identities in the state of realization. For example, consider the case of a Gauḍīya practitioner whose sādhaka-rūpa, sexed material body, is that of a male brahmin but who claims to have realized his siddha-rūpa, eternally gendered nonmaterial body, which is that of a female gopī. In other words, he/she is male outside but female inside. Does such a person transgress the heterosexual imperative and qualify as “transgendered”? Or would a more appropriate designation be “metagendered,” since we are dealing with an alternative bodily state that is simultaneously physical and meta-physical? How does such a person contend with these competing bodily identities? Does he/she continue to engage in external devotional practices as a male brahmin while internally identified as a female gopī, or does he/she adopt the dress and behavior of a gopī on the external plane as well?

Although Rūpa Gosvāmin, Jīva Gosvāmin, and Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja do not directly address such matters, these issues were actively debated by later Gauḍīya authorities between the second half of the seventeenth century and the early eighteenth century. As Haberman has discussed, Rūpa Kavirāja and Viśvanātha Cakravartin are the two central protagonists in the debate. Rūpa Kavirāja (seventeenth century CE), in his Sanskrit works Rāgānugāvivṛtti and Sārasaṃgraha, claims that the sādhaka-rūpa is not the ordinary material body (taṭastha-rūpa), which Jīva glosses as the “body as it is” (yathāvastitha-deha), but rather it is the reconstituted material body that has been ontologically transformed through initiation and therefore is exempt from normative socioreligious injunctions. He interprets Rūpa Gosvāmin’s instruction that the sādhaka should emulate “the residents of Vraja with both the sādhaka-rūpa and the siddha-rūpa”⁶⁸ to mean that a male practitioner whose siddha-rūpa is a gopī should cease to think of himself as a male and should adopt the identity of a gopī in thought, speech, and behavior on the level of the sādhaka-rūpa as well as the siddha-rūpa. He insists that the betwixt-and-between state in which “I am a male outside and a gopī inside” must in the end give way to a singular identity in the supreme state of realization: “I am a gopī, outside and inside.” The teachings of Rūpa Kavirāja expounded in his two works were condemned by a Gauḍīya council in Jaipur in 1727.⁶⁹ However, despite this official condemnation by the normative Gauḍīya tradition, the positions articulated by Rūpa Kavirāja have persisted and have found expression up to the present day in the living practices of bābās in Braj who assume the identity of a gopī both internally and externally, adopting dress, ornaments, and mannerisms appropriate to their gopīhood. There are even reports of bābās who claim that their female siddha-rūpas have gradually transformed their male sādhaka-rūpas from the inside out—for example, by spontaneously manifesting breasts.⁷⁰

The normative Gauḍīya position in the debate over Rūpa Kavirāja’s teachings is represented by Viśvanātha Cakravartin (seventeenth to eighteenth century CE), an authoritative Gauḍīya theologian in the lineage of Jīva Gosvāmin’s disciple Narottama Dāsa, who composed original works as well as influential Sanskrit commentaries on the works of Rūpa Gosvāmin and other early Gauḍīya authorities. He is credited with resolving the debate by positing a two-model solution in which he interprets Rūpa Gosvāmin’s statement that the sādhaka should emulate the residents of Vraja with both the sādhaka-rūpa and the siddha-rūpa as operating on two distinct levels referring to two types of Vraja residents. On the one hand, in the case of a male practitioner whose siddha-rūpa is a gopī, he should construct in meditation a meditative body in the form of a gopī and should identify internally with the devotional mode of the eternally perfect gopīs who reside perpetually with Kṛṣṇa in the transcendent Vraja-dhāman and who are the paradigmatic exemplars of mādhurya-rasa. On the other hand, with the sādhaka-rūpa he should emulate the external devotional practices of Rūpa Gosvāmin, Jīva Gosvāmin, and the other Gosvāmins of Vṛndāvana who resided in the earthly Vraja and who are the paradigmatic exemplars of sādhana-bhakti.⁷¹ In the final analysis the Gosvāmins are celebrated by Viśvanātha and his lineage as doubly paradigmatic, for their sādhaka-rūpas are male, while their siddha-rūpas are female gopīs, and they thus possess “bodies that matter”⁷² on both the physical and meta-physical planes.

The Physical Signs of Enraptured Devotion

Irrespective of the gender of the siddha-rūpa and the sex of the sādhaka-rūpa, the samprāpta-siddha, perfected bhakta, is represented in the Gauḍīya discourse of human embodiment as enjoying an embodied state of realization in which he or she remains inwardly identified with the siddha-rūpa, while outwardly the sādhaka-rūpa manifests as a transformed material body that is marked with the physical signs of enraptured devotion. The internal ecstatic state saturates all the senses and the organs of action and erupts in spontaneous bodily manifestations such as perspiration, trembling, bristling of body hair, tears, faltering voice, and change of color, which are termed sāttvika-bhāvas in the rhetoric of bhakti-rasa theory.⁷³

It is the nature of prema to agitate the body and mind.… By the nature of prema the bhakta laughs, and cries, and sings and being mad he dances and runs here and there. Sweat, trembling, thrilling, tears, choking, pallor, madness, sadness, composure, pride, happiness, humility—in all these bhāvas does prema cause the bhakta to dance; he floats in the sea of the nectar of ānanda of Kṛṣṇa.⁷⁴

The early Gauḍīya authorities emphasize that while the realized bhakta’s consciousness, immersed in the ocean of Kṛṣṇa’s ānanda, reverberates with the exhilarating waves of the nectar of prema-rasa, the physical body also thrills with the “divine madness” (divyonmāda) of devotion. The transformed material body, infused with bliss, manifests an array of involuntary physical symptoms, sāttvika-bhāvas, that are considered the externalized manifestations of the internal ecstatic state.⁷⁵ This brings us back full circle to the passage from the Bhāgavata Purāṇa with which we began our analysis and which we can now re-vision, from the perspective of the Gauḍīya discourse of human embodiment, as the paradigmatic expression of the embodied aesthetics of bhakti:

Without the hair of the body bristling, without the heart melting, without being inarticulate due to tears of bliss (ānanda)—without bhakti how can consciousness be purified? He whose speech is stammering, whose heart melts, who weeps repeatedly and sometimes laughs, who unabashedly sings and dances—such a person, united by bhakti with me [Kṛṣṇa], purifies the world.⁷⁶

The Gauḍīya Challenge to Advaita Vedānta and Pātañjala YogaRevisited

In the Gauḍīya Sampradāya the human body is thus a site of central significance that is ascribed a pivotal role on three levels: first, as the material psychophysical complex that is to be cultivated on the path to realization; second, as the eternal, nonmaterial body that is to be attained in the highest state of realization; and, third, as the transformed material body that is the external counterpart of the eternal body of bliss. In Chapter 1 I discussed how the Gauḍīya discourse of divine embodiment challenges, both implicitly and explicitly, the ontologies, paths, and goals advocated by Advaita Vedānta and Pātañjala Yoga. The Gauḍīya discourse of human embodiment discussed in this chapter poses additional challenges to the perspectives on embodiment and personhood promulgated by the exponents of these two philosophical schools by ascribing a critical role to the human body at every phase of the path and, more importantly, as part of the goal of realization.

As discussed in the Introduction, in both Advaita Vedānta and Pātañjala Yoga the human body is regarded as a fundamental problem intrinsic to the human condition because it is inextricably implicated in the bondage of the material realm. The root cause of bondage is not the human body in itself but rather ignorance (avidyā), which causes the empirical self to assume a false sense of atomistic personal identity by mistakenly identifying with a particular material psychophysical organism. In both schools the goal of human existence is to attain a state of liberation in which the jīva, empirical self, casts off its false sense of personal identity and realizes its true nature as the eternal Self—Ātman-Brahman in Advaita Vedānta or puruṣa in Pātañjala Yoga—that in its essential nature is beyond the material realm and the fetters of embodiment associated with saṃsāra, the endless cycle of birth and death. The exponents of the Gauḍīya Sampradāya, in contrast, ascribe central importance to both the body and the person in their constructions of the path as well as the goal of realization.

I would suggest in this context that the early Gauḍīya authorities, in developing their discourse of embodiment, have deliberately chosen terminology to designate human bodies and persons that is intended to distinguish their formulations from those of Advaita Vedānta and Pātañjala Yoga. More specifically, they have chosen to use the terms rūpa and deha to designate the two principal categories of human bodies, with Rūpa Gosvamin using the designations sādhaka-rūpa and siddha-rūpa and Jīva Gosvāmin and Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja using sādhaka-deha and siddha-deha. I would argue that in both cases they have deliberately eschewed the term śarīra—which is the term that is generally used to designate the body in Pātañjala Yoga and Advaita Vedānta—because of its association with material bodies, whether gross material bodies (sthūla-śarīras) or subtle material bodies (sūkṣma-śarīras). They have chosen instead to use the terms rūpa and deha, which are not as burdened with the semantic baggage of materiality and thus can be used to designate not only material bodies, sādhaka-rūpas or sādhaka-dehas, but also perfected nonmaterial bodies, siddha-rūpas or siddha-dehas. Similarly, the early Gauḍīya authorities have chosen to use the term jīva to designate both the empirical self in bondage and the realized self that has awakened to its true identity. In this case I believe that they have eschewed the terms that are employed by Advaita Vedānta and Pātañjala Yoga to designate the eternal Self—whether Ātman-Brahman or puruṣa—because these terms are implicated in the notions of absolute unity and absolute separation, respectively, that the Gauḍīyas abhor. By using the term jīva to designate the realized self, they invest it with a distinct personhood in the form of a unique essential nature (svarūpa) and a unique nonmaterial body (siddha-rūpa) that distinguish it from all other realized jīvas while at the same time allowing for a personal relationship of union-in-difference with the supreme personal Godhead, Kṛṣṇa.

In order to further elucidate the distinctive approaches of the three schools—Advaita Vedānta, Pātañjala Yoga, and the Gauḍīya Sampradāya—and the relative importance ascribed to the body and the person in their respective models of realization, I will present each school’s model in terms of a comparative framework that distinguishes four phases in the progression from bondage to the state of liberation or realization.

Advaita Vedānta

Bondage. The jīva, empirical self, deluded by ignorance (avidyā), becomes bound in saṃsāra through its infatuated absorption in the illusory world of māyā and its mistaken sense of personal identity based on attachment to the material psychophysical complex (śarīra).

Path. The aspirant embarks on the path to liberation, mokṣa or mukti, which, as laid out by Śaṃkara, involves abandoning the accoutrements of worldly life—home, family, sexuality, food production, ritual practices, and social duties—and adopting the lifestyle of a lifelong saṃnyāsin (renunciant) whose sole focus is the attainment of jñāna, knowledge, and more specifically Brahma-vidyā, knowledge of Brahman. The renunciant adopts a regimen of practices that is designed to reconstitute the body of bondage as an ascetic body, including disciplines of celibacy, practices of begging and fasting, and meditation techniques, breathing exercises, and physical austerities aimed at disciplining the mind, senses, and bodily appetites and uprooting attachment to the psychophysical complex.

Embodied Liberation. The renunciant attains an embodied state of liberation, jīvanmukti, which is represented as a state of unity in which he or she awakens to the universal Self, Ātman, that is identical with the undifferentiated unitary reality, Brahman. The liberated sage, established in the unitary vision of the all-pervasive Brahman, continues to maintain the material body and the associated vestiges of personal identity as leśāvidyā, the remnant of ignorance, until the time of death.

Liberation beyond Death. At the time of death the liberated sage’s body and all other vestiges of personal identity cease and the impersonal, formless, distinctionless Brahman alone remains as the limitless totality of sat-cit-ānanda.⁷⁷

Pātañjala Yoga

Bondage. The jīva, empirical self, becomes ensnared in the web of afflictions, kleśas, that perpetuate the bondage of saṃsāra—ignorance (avidyā), egoism (asmitā), attachment (rāga), aversion (dveṣa), and clinging to life (abhiniveśa)—and mistakenly identifies with the ever-changing material realm of prakṛti and the fluctuations of ordinary empirical awareness (citta-vṛtti).

Path. The aspirant embarks on the path to liberation, kaivalya, which, as laid out in aṣṭāṅga-yoga, the eight-limbed Yoga of Patañjali, centers on the purification and transformation of the material psychophysical complex (śarīra) in order to attenuate the kleśas and the residual karmic impressions (saṃskāras) that are the root causes of bondage. The yogin engages in sustained practice of the eight-limbed program that is designed to reconstitute the body of bondage as a yogic body, a perfected material body (kāya-sampad) that manifests siddhis, psychophysical powers. This eight-limbed program entails a regimen of preparatory external practices—vows of abstinence (yama), psychophysical disciplines (niyama), bodily postures (āsana), and breathing exercises (prāṇāyāma)—and centers on a meditation technique through which the yogin withdraws the mind from external sense objects (pratyāhāra), focuses the attention inward (dhāraṇā), and experiences increasingly refined mental states (dhyāna), culminating in samādhi, an enstatic experience of absorption in the Self, puruṣa, pure consciousness.

Embodied Liberation. The yogin attains an embodied state of liberation, which is represented as a dualistic state of isolation, kaivalya, in which he or she becomes permanently established in the Self, puruṣa, in eternal separation from prakṛti and from other puruṣas. The liberated yogin, having become established in the nonchanging puruṣa, remains eternally nonattached as the uninvolved witness of the ever-changing transformations of prakṛti while at the same time continuing to maintain a perfected material body until the time of death.

Liberation beyond Death. At the time of death the perfected body ceases along with all remnants of atomistic personal identity, and in this bodiless state of liberation (videha-mukti) the puruṣa alone remains as pure luminous consciousness.⁷⁸

Gauḍīya Sampradāya

Advaita Vedānta and Pātañjala Yoga thus both ascribe negative valences to embodiment and personhood as inextricable components of the bondage of saṃsāra. Although the human body is ascribed a provisional role as an instrument to be disciplined or transformed on the path to realization, this instrument is dispensed with once the goal is reached. In Gauḍīya constructions, in contrast, both the body and the person are ascribed critical roles not only on the path but also as part of the goal of realization.

Bondage. The jīva forgets its true identity as an aṃśa of Bhagavān and, turning away from Kṛṣṇa, mistakenly identifies with the material psychophysical complex and becomes enslaved by the binding influence of Kṛṣṇa’s māyā-śakti that governs the material realm of prakṛti.

Path. The aspirant turns towards Kṛṣṇa and embarks on the path to realization, becoming a sādhaka who follows the twofold discipline of sādhana-bhakti. In vaidhī-bhakti the sādhaka engages in a regimen of external bodily practices with the sādhaka-rūpa that is designed to reconstitute the body of bondage as a body of devotion, transforming all aspects of the material psychophysical complex—mental faculties, sense organs, and organs of action—into instruments of devotion to Bhagavān. In rāgānugā-bhakti the sādhaka engages in an advanced regimen of internal meditative practices that is designed to catalyze the realization of a siddha-rūpa, a perfected devotional body that is an eternal, nonmaterial body of bliss.

Embodied Realization. The sādhaka becomes a samprāpta-siddha, perfected bhakta, who has attained an embodied state of realization in which the jīva awakens to its svarūpa, unique essential nature, and siddha-rūpa, the unique form of its nonmaterial body, and reclaims its role as a participant in the unmanifest līlā in the transcendent Vraja-dhāman, Goloka-Vṛndāvana, in eternal relationship with Bhagavān. While inwardly the realized bhakta remains absorbed in savoring the exhilarating nectar of prema-rasa with the siddha-rūpa, outwardly he or she continues to perform external bodily practices with the sādhaka-rūpa, the transformed material body, which thrills with the bliss of devotion.

Realization beyond Death. At the time of death the sādhaka-rūpa ceases, but the realized jīva maintains its nonmaterial personal and bodily identity in the form of its unique svarūpa and siddha-rūpa in the transcendent Vraja-dhāman and relishes the intoxicating streams of prema-rasa for all eternity in a relationship of inconceivable difference-in-nondifference, acintya-bhedābheda, with the supreme personal Godhead, Kṛṣṇa, pūrṇa Bhagavān.

The exponents of the Gauḍīya Sampradāya, in grappling with the contending teachings of Advaita Vedānta and Pātañjala Yoga, thus engage in a theology of superordination through which they hierarchize and subordinate the competition. As discussed in Chapter 1, they begin with a threefold ranking of models of realization, from lowest to highest: (1) absolute unity without distinction (Advaita Vedānta); (2) absolute separation in eternal distinction (Pātañjala Yoga); and (3) inconceivable difference-in-nondifference (Gauḍīya Sampradāya). Then, as discussed in this chapter, within the latter category they further distinguish four different flavors of the bhakti-rasa of preman through which the bhakta can savor union-in-difference with the deity. This theology of superordination serves as a means through which the Gauḍīyas accommodate, domesticate, and subordinate the models of realization propounded by the exponents of Advaita Vedānta and Pātañjala Yoga and position their own ideal of acintya-bhedābheda, inconceivable difference-in-nondifference, as the pinnacle of realization. They thereby radically re-figure notions of embodiment, personhood, and materiality on both the divine and human planes, culminating in a vision of the highest state of realization as an eternal relationship between two persons—the supreme personal Godhead, Kṛṣṇa, and the individual jīva with its unique svarūpa—each of whom possesses an eternal, nonmaterial body.