Abstract
Through an examination of Bhāgavata Purāṇa X.43.17 and its interpretation by early commentators like Vopadeva, Hemādri, Śrīdhara, Sanātana, Rūpa, and Jīva, I argue that they created forms of hierarchical inclusivism by the application of rasa in the interpretation of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa. In doing so, I examine bhakti as a rasa, showing how rasa theory provided a vocabulary to include the characters of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa and their diverse experiences of the God Kṛṣṇa within hierarchical systems of bhakti. By hierarchical inclusivism, I mean a theory, e.g., in the case of rasa, “the superiority of passionate love over fear,” and that this theory provided criteria to order items, e.g., in the case of rasa again, “the character of the cowherd women is superior to the character of the king.” In this case, hierarchical inclusivism is a theory for organizing and evaluating the mystical and aesthetic experiences of the ten characters mentioned in Bhāgavata Purāṇa X.43.17. I look at how commentators also used rasa for the basis for doctrines about God’s being and nature.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Unless otherwise noted, all translations are my own.
The Sanskrit verses and commentaries on Bhāgavata Purāṇa X.43 used in this article are from Kṛṣṇaśaṅkara Śāstrī’s (1965–1995) edition of the text in Book Ten, containing Chapters 36–49, Volume Five, pages 439 ff.:
vṛtau gopaiḥ katipayair baladeva-janārdanau | raṅgaṃ viviśatū rājan gaja-danta-varāyudhau ||
mallānām aśanir nṛṇāṃ nara-varaḥ strīṇāṃ smaro mūrtimān.
gopānāṃ svajano’satāṃ kṣiti-bhujāṃ śāstā svapitroḥ śiśuḥ |
mṛtyur bhoja-pater virāḍ aviduṣāṃ tattvaṃ paraṃ yogināṃ.
vṛṣṇīnāṃ para-devateti vidito raṅgaṃ gataḥ sāgrajaḥ ||
Elsewhere, I argued that the life story of Kṛṣṇa as told in the Bhāgavata could be divided into seven parts: (1) Kṛṣṇa’s birth and movement from Mathurā to Vṛṅdāvana (chapters 1–5); (2) Kṛṣṇa’s childhood in the village of Vṛṅdāvana (chapters 6–28); (3) the circle dance among Kṛṣṇa and the cowherd girls in Vṛṅdāvana (chapters 29–33); (4) the conclusion of Kṛṣṇa’s youth in Vṛṅdāvana (34–41); (5) Kṛṣṇa’s young adulthood in the city of Mathurā (chapters 42–51); (6) Kṛṣṇa’s married life in the city of Dvārakā (chapters 52–69); and (7) the remainder of his life in Dvārakā (chapters 70–90) (Edelmann, 2019a, b).
Madhva (1238–1317 ad) did not comment on X.43 in his Bhāgavata-tātparya-nirṇaya, but he may have discussed these verses elsewhere.
Although Sheldon Pollock (2016: 408, fn.37) argues the first instance of “bhakti-rasa is found in the tenth-century Shaiva Stavacintāmaṇi of Bhatta Narayanan (v.50),” I have not seen evidence that Vopadeva had read the Stavacintāmaṇi. It may be the case that Vopadeva arrived at the concept independently of Bhatta Narayanan. It is also not clear to me that Śrīdhara—who used the term sa-prema-bhakti-rasa—had read the Stavacintāmaṇi, or Vopadeva. Thus, it is possible that, like controversy over the discovery of calculus by Newton and Leibniz, there may have been multiple first “discoveries” of the bhakti-rasa.
Vopadeva made a distinction between bhakti that is “enjoined” (vihitā) and “not enjoined” (avihitā, or perhaps “spontaneous” since Vopadeva does not mean niṣiddhā, “prohibited”); the former has fourteen types, the latter has four types (cf. Mishra, 1967: 75). This distinction is similar to Rūpa’s vaidhi-bhakti and rāgānuga-bhakti.
According to Hemādri, this refers to the aspects of bhakti like detachment.
bhakti-rasasyaiva hāsya-śṛṅgāra-karuṇa-raudra-bhayānaka-bībhatsa-śāntādbhuta-vīra-rūpeṇānubhavāt | (Bhattacharyya 1944: 164).
kenāpy upāyena mano-niveśaḥ sthāyī | caritra-śravaṇādaya uddīpana-vibhāvāḥ | viṣṇu-bhaktāś cālambanam | anubhāvās tu stambhādayo vakṣyamāṇā yathā-yogyaṃ dhṛty-ādi-vyabhicāriṇaś ca | (ibid. 167).
hataṃ kuvalayāpīḍaṃ dṛṣṭvā tāv api durjayau | kaṃso manasy api tadā bhṛśam udvivije nṛpa ||3|| (Bhattacharyya, 1944: 249). See Sheth (1984: 57–61) for the argument that Kaṃsa in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa knows that Kṛṣṇa is divine from the beginning, whereas in the Harivaṃśa King Kaṁsa “merely suspects Krishna to be Viṣṇu,” and in the Viṣṇupurāṇa he comes to the conclusion he is a “portion” of Kṛṣṇa and Saṅkaraṣaṇa.
For a discussion of Rūpa’s, Kavikarṇapūra’s, and Jīva’s views on the rasa of fear, see Buchta (forthcoming).
agocarasya gocaratve hetuḥ prakṛti-guṇaḥ sattvam | gocarasya bahu-rūpatve rajaḥ | bahu-rūpasya tirohitatve tamaḥ | tathā parasparam udāsīnatve sattvam | upakāritve rajaḥ | apakāritve tamaḥ | (Bhattacharyya, 1944: 8, 1.7).
While further study is still required, it seems that Hemādri’s view is that Vopadeva wrote the Muktāphala for liberation seekers despite the fact they interpret the Bhāgavata Purāṇa in the terms of bhakti-rasa. For example, Hemādri writes in Kaivalyadīpikā, “Now, [Vopadeva] the Ācārya made this clear composition to help those who desire liberation.” iha mumukṣūpakārāya ruciraṃ prakaraṇaṃ cikīrṣur ācāryaḥ (Bhattacharyya 1944: 1).
Abhinavagupta had to justify śānta as a rasa when it seems to imply a suppression of emotion rather than an enhanced emotional experience as in the case of the other rasas (Gerow, 1994: 187).
Perhaps one could describe Vopadeva and Hemādri as “anti-realist” rasa theorists in the sense that each rasa is part of the ultimately illusory material being, whereas Sanātana, Rūpa, and Jīva could be seen as “realist” rasa theorists in the sense that rasa, when experienced in relation to eternal being of Kṛṣṇa, is part of the eternal and true nature of being (alaukika). I would like to thank an anonymous peer-reviewer for suggesting the usage of these terms—realist and anti-realist—in relation to rasa theory.
na kevalaṃ sa ekaḥ samāviśat kintu vṛtau gopair iti ||16|| tatra ca śṛṅgārādi-sarva-rasa-kadamba-mūrtir bhagavān tat-tad-abhiprāyānusāreṇa babhau na sākalyena sarveṣām ity āha mallānām iti | mallādīnām ajñānāṃ draṣṭṝṇām aśany-ādi-rūpeṇa daśadhā viditaḥ san sāgrajo raṅgaṃ gata ity anvayaḥ | mallādiṣv abhivyaktā rasāḥ krameṇa ślokā nibadhyante | raudro’dbhutaś ca śṛṅgāro hāsyaṃ vīro dayā tathā | bhayānakaś ca bībhatsaḥ śāntaḥ sa-prema-bhaktikaḥ || (Kṛṣṇaśaṅkaraśāstrī, 1965: 439). Cf. Gupta (2007: 73, fn.12) for another translation of this selection.
Dates for the Gosvāmins based on Edelmann (2015:50). Although Rūpa is younger than Sanātana, I have discussed his views on rasa first since they are helpful in making sense of Sanātana.
For example, Sheth (1984: 108), for instance, argued that the Bhāgavata is, “saturated with devotion, every page drips with the juice (rasa) of devotion. In its variety, elaborateness and intensity, it leaves the Harivaṃśa and Viṣṇu Purāna far behind.” Gavin Flood (1996: 140) reads classical rasa theories into the Bhāgavata: “Although much of the Bhāgavata contains references to Kṛṣṇa’s love-play with the gopīs, it does not mention by name Rādhā who only appears with the Gītagovinda and in later literature and visual art. In Vaiṣṇava mythology, she is an older married woman and the love between her and Kṛṣṇa is conventionally adulterous. Rādhā leaves a shadow of herself by her husband’s side and goes out at night, pulled by the sound of Kṛṣṇa’s flute, to meet him. This is theologically important and relates to a distinction in Sanskrit poetics between love-in-union (svakīyā, ‘own’s own woman’) associated with marriage, and love-in-separation (parakīyā, ‘another’s woman’) associated with adulterous love. The former is characterized by lust (kāma) and union, and the latter by pure love (prema) and longing.”.
mukhyas tu pañcadhā śāntaḥ prītaḥ preyāṃś ca vatsalaḥ | madhuraś cety amī jñeyā yathā-pūrvam anuttamāḥ || II.5.115 || hāsyo’dbhutas tathā vīraḥ karuṇo raudra ity api | bhayānakaḥ sa bībhatsa iti gauṇaś ca saptadhā || II.5.116 || (Haberman, 2003: 382–3).
Delmonico (1990: 260) suggested a connection between the early Gauḍīyas and Bhoja as well: “My suggestion is that Rūpa’s familial, ancestral and social connections with the South […] were responsible for the surprising direction that Rūpa’s sacred aesthetic took and for the similarity between Bhoja’s aesthetic and Rūpa’s. This most striking implication of this similarity is a shared philosophical orientation that valued individual identity and refused to accept any outlook that ultimately required its dissolution” quoted in Theodor (2016: 102).
tatra mallānāṃ parama-śuram manyatayā garvvitānām aśani-tulyāṅgatvena hareḥ parijñānād visparddhamānānāṃ tadīya-salīla-praveśenāvajñātam ivātmānaṃ manyamānānāṃ cāṇurādīnāṃ krodhaḥ | nṛṇāṃ dveṣi-vyatiriktānāṃ paurādīnāṃ lokottara-rūpa-vilāsādi-darśanena vismayaḥ | (Kṛṣṇa Śaṅkaraśāstrī 1965: 444 ff.).
strīṇāṃ prīyatākhyā ratir vyaktaiva | gopānāṃ śrīdāmādīnāṃ svajano vayasyaḥ tato gaja-rakta-mada-bindu-dantādi-jātena vilakṣaṇa-veśena mahā-vikrama-bhājo’pi śramābhivyañjakena svedena ca teṣāṃ hāsyaḥ |
asatāṃ rājñāṃ tasya śāstṛtva-jñānād vīryātiśaya-darśanena yuddhotsāhaḥ | pitror devakī-vasudevayoḥ śrī-gopendra-vasudevayor vā mallādi-daurātmya-jñānena śiśutvāt tadīya-mārdavādi-jñānena ca śokaḥ | kaṃsasya mūrto mṛtyur mṛtyu-hetur vā tena bhayaṃ vyaktam eva |
aviduṣām aty-anabhijñānāṃ vikalatva-jñānena jugupsā | […] yoginām abheda-dṛṣṭināṃ kevala-jñāna-vatāṃ paraṃ tattva brahma | yadvā bhedābheda-dṛṣṭīnāṃ jñāna-bhaktānāṃ tattvaṃ brahma para-tattvaṃ paraṃ brahma cid-ānanda-ghana-vighras tena śāntiḥ | vṛṣṇīnām uddhavākrūrādīnāṁ paramārādhyas tena prītiḥ iti |
Harald Frey (1961: 73–73) used the terms inclusive and exclusive to think about Baptist views on other denominations within Christianity, but Alan Race (1982) used inclusivism, exclusivism, and pluralism to distinguish three positions on Christian views of other religions. This threefold system is defined by Paul Hedges (2008: 17–18) as: exclusivism, “refers to those systems that excluded non-Christians from salvation” and it says that revelation is only in and through this one religion; inclusivism, “refers to those who wished to include believers from other religious traditions among the ranks of those who could be saved”; and pluralism, “holds that no one tradition has a monopoly on revelation or salvation,” and that “each religion knows transcendent reality (‘God’) yet in a partial perspective.” This threefold arrangement is often taken as exhausting the options for how any religion might see the religious other, although Hedges (2008: 25) notes there are other positions.
For example, these passages are frequently quoted to express an inclusivism, tolerance, pluralism, and related concepts: “The truth is one; sages speak of it in many ways” (ekaṃ sad viprā bahudhā vadanti, Ṛgveda 1.164.46); “The whole world is one family” (vasudhaiva kuṭumbakam, quoted in Kale, 1989: 15); or “Whichever form pleases his people, that is his form; whichever name pleases his people, that is his name; whichever way pleases his people who meditate without ceasing, that is his way—the One who holds the discus.” This latter verse is quoted and evaluated with classical Hindu commentaries, and it is given comparative analysis with Christian theology in Clooney, 2008: 233.
References
Primary Sources
Bhattacharyya, D. (Ed.). (1944). Muktāphala of Vopadeva with the Kaivalyadīpikā commentary of Hemādri. Calcutta Oriental Press.
Chatterjee, C. (1988). Śrī-prīti-sandarbha of Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī. Jadavpur University Press.
Gopīparāṇadhana Dāsa. (2016). Laghu-Bhāgavatāmṛta of Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī. Giriraja Publishing.
Haberman, D. L., editor and translator. (2003). Bhaktirasāmṛtasindhu of Rūpa Gosvāmin. Gandhi Centre for the Arts and Motilal Banarsidass.
Kṛṣṇaśaṅkara Śāstrī, editor. (1965). Śrīmad Bhāgavata Mahāpurāṇam. Contains Śrīdhara Svāmin’s Bhāvārthadīpikā, Śrī Vaṃśīdhara’s Bhāvārthadīpikāprakāśa, Śrī Rādhāramaṇadāsa Gosāmin’s Dīpinī, Śrīmad Vīrarāghava’s Bhāgavatacandrikā, Śrīmad Vijayadhvajatīrtha’s Padaratnāvalī, Śrīmad Jīva Gosvāmin’s Kramasaṃdarbha, Śrīmad Viśvanātha Cakravartin’s Sārārthadarśinī, Śrīmad Śukadeva’s Siddhāntapradīpa, Śrīmad Vallabhācarya’s Subodhinī, Śrī Puruṣottamacaraṇa Gosvāmin’s Subodhinīprakāśaḥ, Śrī Giridharalāla’s Bālaprabodhinī. Śrībhāgavata Vidyāpīṭha.
Paṇditśivadatta, editor. (1894). Nâtya-śâstra of Bharata Muni. Nirnaya-sagara Press. Kāvyamālā. 42.
Pollock, Sheldon, translator and editor. (2016). A Rasa Reader: Classical Indian Aesthetics. Columbia University Press.
Tagare, Ganesh Vasudeo, translator. (1976). The Bhāgavata-purāṇa. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. English Translation. English Translation with English notions.
Secondary Sources
Bhaduri, N. (1988). Bhakti (devotion) as an aesthetic sentiment. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 16(4), 377–410.
Brekke, T. (1999). The role of fear in Indian religious thought with special reference to Buddhism. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 27(5), 439–467.
Buchta, D. and Schweig, G. (2010). Rasa Theory. Brill’s Encyclopedia of Hinduism, Vol. 2, edited by Knut A. Jacobsen. Brill.
Buchta, D. (forthcoming). Fear and Devotion in Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Rasa Theory. Journal of Dharma Studies.
Clooney, F. (2008). Imago Dei, Paramaṃ Smāyam: Hindu Light on a traditional christian theme. International Journal of Hindu Studies., 12(3), 227–255.
Delmonico, N. (1990). Sacred rapture: A study of the religious aesthetic of Rupa Gosvamin. PhD thesis, University of Chicago.
Doniger, W. (2014). On Hinduism. Oxford University Press.
Duquette, J. (2015). Tradition, identity and scriptural authority: Religious inclusivism in the writings of an Early Modern Sanskrit Intellectual. Religions of South Asia., 9(3), 265–289.
Edelmann, J. (2019a). Bhāgavatapurāṇa. In Brill’s Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Edited by Knut A. Jacobsen, Helene Basu, Angelika Malinar, and Vasudha Narayanan. Brill.
Edelmann, J. (2019b). Śrīdharasvāmin. In Brill’s Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Edited by Knut A. Jacobsen, Helene Basu, Angelika Malinar, and Vasudha Narayanan. Brill.
Frey, H. C. A. (1961). Critiques of Conciliar Ecumenism by Conservative Evangelicals in the United States. Boston University School of Theology, Th.D., Religion.
Fuller, J. D. (2008). Bhaktivinoda Thakura, Colonialism, and the Philosophia Perennis. Journal of Vaishnava Studies., 16, 119–136.
Gerow, E. (1994). Abhinavagupta’s aesthetics as a speculative paradigm. Journal of the American Oriental Society., 114(2), 186–208.
Ghosh, A. (2014). Vaiṣṇavism and the West: A study of Kedarnath Datta Bhaktivinod’s Encounter and Response, 1869–1909. PhD dissertation, University of Chicago.
Gupta, R. M. (2007). The Caitanya Vaiṣṇava Vedānta of Jīva Gosvāmī: When Knowledge Meets Devotion. Routledge Press.
Hacker, P. (1995). Aspects of neo-Hinduism as contrasted with surviving traditional Hinduism. In Philology and Confrontation: Paul Hacker on Traditional and Modern Vedānta, edited by Wilhelm Halbfass. State University of New York Press. pp.229–55.
Halbfass, W. (1988). India and Europe: An Essay in Understanding. State University of New York Press.
Hatcher, B. (1999). Eclecticism and Modern Hindu Discourse. Oxford University Press.
Hedges, P. (2008). A reflection on typologies: Negotiating a fast-moving discussion. Race. In Christian Approaches to Other Faiths. Edited by Alen and Paul M Hedges. SCM Press.
Holdrege, B. A. (2015). Bhakti and Embodiment Fashioning Divine Bodies and Devotional Bodies in Kṛṣṇa Bhakti. Routledge Press.
Kale, M. R. (1989). Hitopadeśa of Nārāyana. Motilal Banarsidass.
Largen, K. J. (2011). Baby Krishna, infant Christ: A comparative theology of salvation. Orbis Books.
Lipner, J. (1994 [2010]). Hindus: their religious beliefs and practices. Routlege Press.
Long, J. (2005). Anekanta Vedanta: Toward a deep Hindu religious pluralism. In Deep Religious Pluralism, edited by David Ray Griffin. Westminster John Knox Press.
Lutjeharms, R. (2014). Aesthetics. In Caitanya Vaiṣṇava Philosophy: Tradition, Reason and Devotion. Gupta, Ravi, editor. 2014. Ashgate.
Mishra, ĀP. (1967). The Development and Place of Bhakti in Śāṅkara. University of Allahabad Press.
Okita, K. (2008). A Caitanya Vaiṣṇava response to the nineteenth-century Bengal Renaissance Movement According to the Works of Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura. Religions of South Asia, 2, 195–214.
Race, A. (1982). Christians and Religious Pluralism: Patterns in the Christian Theology of Religions. Orbis Books.
Radhakrishnan, S. (1952). The religion of the spirit and the world’s need: Fragments of a confession. In The Philosophy of Radhakrishnan. Edited by Paul Arthur Schilpp. Tudor Publishing Company.
Radhakrishnan, S. (1927). The Hindu View of Life: Upton Lectures Delivered at Manchester College Oxford 1926. George Allen & Unwin Ltd.
Sanderson, A. (2015). Tolerance, exclusivity, inclusivity, and persecution in Indian religion during the early mediaeval period. In Honoris Causa: Essays in Honour of Aveek Sarkar, edited with a foreword by John Makinson. Allen Lane, pp. 155–224.
Schweig, G. M. (2005). Dance of Divine Love: The Rāsā-Līlā of Krishna from the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, India’s Classic Sacred Love Story Introduced, Translated and Illuminated. Princeton University Press.
Sheth, Noel, SJ. (1984). The Divinity of Krishna. Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers.
Theodor, I. (2016). The ‘Fifth Veda’ of Hinduism: Poetry, Philosophy and Devotion in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa. I.B. Tauris.
Venkatkrishnan, A. (2018). The River of Ambrosia: An alternative commentarial tradition of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa. The Journal of Hindu Studies, 11, 53–66.
Wong, L. (2018). Universalising Inclusivism—and Its Limits: Bhaktivinod and the Experiential Turn. Journal of South Asian Intellectual History, 1(2), 221–263.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Edelmann, J. Bhakti, Rasa, and Organizing Character Experience: Vopadeva, Śrīdhara, and Sanātana on Bhāgavata Purāṇa X.43.17. DHARM 4, 223–239 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42240-021-00110-5
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42240-021-00110-5