Abstract
Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas frequently assimilate and recast ancient and established ideas and practices to suit and justify their own theology and goals. The final aim of this strategy is to promote their version of mature emotional bhakti, as devotional participation. Their depictions of mature divine interactions are often mapped by way of rasa theory, originating as ancient poetic and dramatic aesthetic theory. Although only explicitly used to map aspects of mature religious experience, this paper explores an often-neglected side of the tradition’s pedagogy, namely its tacit appeal to rasa theory to explain practices meant primarily for ordinary practitioners. An example of this strategy appears in the sixteenth century Gauḍīya treatise, Ṣaṭ-sandarbha. The author, Jīva Gosvāmī, offers a reformulated account of a typical set of Pāñcarātra meditation rituals. However, although the rituals are necessarily performed in the imagination, he paradoxically warns that the generated mental images should not be considered imaginative. By correlating his explanations of these ritual visualisations with elements of his yet to be depicted rasa theory, a consistent and non-problematic role of ritual imagination can be revealed. Since Jīva offers nothing explicit to arrive at this conclusion, this paper infers how a prominent Gauḍīya seems to be reformulating even ordinary ritual by way of rasa theory. This analysis acts as an individual example of a broader strategy in Gauḍīya texts.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu is a precursor to Jīva’s Ṣaṭ-sandarbha and it contributes greatly to it, especially regarding the higher levels of bhakti. Jīva also wrote a commentary on it entitled Durgama-saṇgamana.
Rūpa defines vaidhī as a kind of bhakti that has arisen through the teachings of canonical texts and not from the attainment of rāga, or affection (Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 1.2.6). Vaidhī is frequently presented merely in terms of the following of rules. This is the guiding emphasis behind a number of its recent scholastic depictions. For instance, it is portrayed as being: external, injunctive, ritualistic, mechanical (Kapoor, 1994, p. 194), preliminary (Wulff, 1984, p. 42), as embracing a sense of “ought” (Chatterjee, 1996, p. 119), or as motivated by a fear of sin (Mukundadāsa Gosvāmī cited by Haberman (2001, p. 65)). Haberman (2001, p. 66) also notes that the internal desire that is part of rāgānugā is “…opposed to the external law of vaidhī.”.
For this use of “paradigmatic,” see Haberman (2001, pp. 8–10). Rāgānugā, unlike vaidhī, is often presented as a practice that is not dependent on injunction, since such prescriptions are meant for persons not inclined to act of their own accord for their own benefit. See Bhakti-sandarbha 310, 312; for Rūpa, the desire to act spontaneously is a kind of greed: Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 1.2.291–2 (Gosvāmī & Haridāsaśāstrī, 1986a; Gosvāmī & Dāsa, 1961). For Jīva, rāgānugā is more spontaneous and is characterised by an intense desire for a relationship with Kṛṣṇa, though this can ultimately be the result of following canonical injunctions (Bhakti-sandarbha 312, 325). It largely comprises internal meditative practices. Recent scholarship frequently expresses rāgānugā in terms of being, for instance: internal, spontaneous (Kapoor, 1994, p. 194; Wulff, 1984, p. 181), supporting of a natural inclination (Kapoor, 1994, p. 196), or esoteric (Haberman, 2001, p. 65).
Although Holdrege refers (even in her subtitle) to a “fashioning” of a siddha-rūpa, a perfected devotional body, this is a contested issue in Gauḍīya thought and so I will refer to it throughout this paper as “realising” so as to include the possible senses of its being “developed” or “uncovered.” The following is part of David Haberman's overview of the issues regarding the siddha-rūpa. The ideas of sādhana-rūpa and siddha-rūpa in Gauḍīya literature first appeared in Rūpa Gosvāmī’s Bhakti-rasamṛta-sindhu 1.2.295, wherein he states that the practitioner should perform service following the residents of Vraja in both kinds of body. In his commentary on this verse, Jīva glosses “sādhana-rūpa” as “the body as it [presently] stands” (yathāsthita-deha), i.e., the practitioner’s physical body. The siddha-rūpa, however, is both a perfected body that the practitioner meditates on in order to serve the divine in the imagination and is also a perfected body that is inhabited after liberation. It is not clear, however, whether Rūpa and Jīva imply that this body is developed by the practitioner or discovered as a result of following a religious process. This vagueness has been the source of differences of opinions. (Haberman, 2001, pp. 86–93; Holdrege, 2015, pp. 300–303).
David Shulman (2012, p. 131) in his study on the poetic uses of imagination considers that such ritual visualisation is not “symbolic.”.
Gavin Flood (2006, pp. 118, 172) notes a line of reasoning given in Lakṣmī-tantra regarding the practitioner’s even bothering to perform external pūjā after mānasa-yāga, which is that each has a role in removing distinct sets of karmic traces: the external removing those that result from actions in the world and the internal destroying those that occur as a consequence of thoughts.
It should be noted that in all the texts referenced in this paper, the male pronoun is used for practitioners.
Flood (2002, p. 29) mentions the lack of clarity regarding the impure body again being symbolically dissolved.
The Pāñcarātric terminology of “mānasa-yāga” connects the ritual with Vedic sacrifice, or yajna. (Jīva also calls this practice “antara-pūjā” or “inner-worship.”).
Jīva claims that mānasa-pūjā can also be performed as a standalone practice: see Bhakti-sandarbha 286 excerpt (B) translated later in this paper.
For an explanation of the Tantric visualising of phonemes, see Timalsina (2013, pp. 57–58).
For an explanation of this praxis, see Haberman (2001, pp. 124–133). Jīva’s descriptions of remembrance as part of vaidhī in Bhakti-sandarbha 275–279 can be seen as preparatory or as descriptive of entering the mood of līlā-smaraṇa.
Holdrege (2015, p. 290) writes: “In this way the practice of bhūta-śuddhi serves as a method through which an advanced practitioner of rāgānugā-bhakti can realise the particular rasa that accords with his or her svarūpa, unique inherent nature.” Jīva describes rāgānugā-sādhana-bhakti and its meditations in Bhakti-sandarbha 310–12.
The prose in Bhakti-sandarbha 286 is long and so I only translate excerpts relevant to the issues at hand. The labelling (A) through (J) is not in the same order as in the section but is in thematic order for references in this paper. I cite the Sanskrit in the footnotes.
The connotation of “yathārtha” is that the deity’s companions and activities are cognised as real entities and events.
Bhakti-sandarbha 286: tathā mānasādipūjāyām bhūtapūrva-tat-parikara-līlā-samvalitatvam api na kalpanāmayam, kintu yathārtham eva, yatas tasya prākatya-samaye līlās tat-parikarās ca ye prādurbabhūvus te tādṛśās cāprakatam api nityam tadīye dhāmni samkhyātītā eva vartante.
Bhakti-sandarbha 1: prayojanaṁ ca tad-anubhavaḥ, sa cāntar-bahiḥ-sākṣātkāra-lakṣaṇaḥ.
Bhagavat-sandarbha 95: …puruṣārtha-śiromaṇi-śrī-bhagavat-sākṣātkāraḥ. (Gosvāmī & Haridāsaśāstrī, 1984).
Prīti-sandarbha 7: svaccha-cittānām eva sākṣātkāraḥ, sa eva ca mukti-saṁjña iti sthitam. (Gosvāmī & Haridāsaśāstrī, 1986b).
Prīti-sandarbha 7. Citing Nārāya-ṇādhyātma: nityāvyakto’pi bhagavān īkṣyate nija-śaktitaḥ.
Bhakti-sandarbha 14: sarva-vāsanā-nāśāt cittaṁ śuddha-sattvam agraṁ sat bhagavat-tattva-sākṣātkāra-yogyaṁ.
For examples of this kind of polemic, see Bhagavat-sandarbha 85 and 100.
Bhakti-sandarbha 286: eṣā kvacit svatantrāpi bhavati. mano-mayyā mūrter aṣṭamatayā svātantryeṇa vidhānāt.
Bhakti-sandarbha 286: atha śrīmat-pratimāyāṁ tu tad-ākāraka-rūpatayaiva cintayanti ākāraikyāt, “śilā-buddhiḥ kṛtā kiṁ vā pratimāyāṁ harer mayā” iti bhāvanāntare doṣa-śravaṇāc ca.
One could query visualising Kṛṣṇa’s companions, which are not always represented by mūrtis. Recognising the mental images of these companions supports Holdrege’s view that their reality is explainable by way of a teleology of praxis. However, as we will see, the ambiguity between imaginals of companions and the mind-mūrti also supports my final argument that the reality is not explained through the image-object distinction but through the relationship the practitioner brings to the visualisation praxis.
Bhāgavata-purāṇa 11.27.12. The eight substances are stone, wood, metal, earth, paint, sand, mind, and jewels. (Vyāsa & Shastri, 1999).
Although Jīva only uses “acintya” once in connection with his overall ontological framework known as “bhedābheda” (difference and non-difference), this is enough to warrant my positing this particular argument. See following footnote for reference.
Jīva argues for acintya bhedābheda in Sarva-saṁvādinī (his self-commentary on the first four volumes of his treatise) of Paramātma-sandarbha 77-78.
The verbal root of kalpanā is kḷp (“to produce; make; effect; shape; fashion; intend; imagine”). David Shulman (2012, p. 18) points out some of the relevant terms that share this root, namely the early ritual term “kalpa” (“doing,” “generating”); the classical Sanskrit “kalpanā” and “vikalpa,” both of which generally connote “mentation” or “intellection” (in Bhāgavata-purāṇa “vikalpa” is often used in the sense of “option”) yet more specifically denote “creative imagination”; the relative “(vi)kalpita,” or “thought up”; the artistic and musicological versions of “kalpanā” or “vikalpa” that refer to the generation of visible or audible surfaces; and the related “saṅkalpa,” or “intention; thought; determination; imagination.”.
Respectively, Bhakti-sandarbha 153: arthavāda-kalpanāyāṁ doṣaḥ; 134: lakṣaṇā-maya-kaṣṭa-kalpanā; and 265: with regard to the offence to chanting divine names known as: “[hari-namni] kalpanaṁ” tan-māhātmya-gauṇatākaraṇāya gaty-antara-cintanam.
To say that this is a power of the reproductive imagination (as in Kant) would minimise the degree to which these memories then form a lived experience in the mind, which implies creative imagination.
On mantra meditation and mantropāsanā in Gauḍīya rāgānugā-sādhana-bhakti, see Holdrege (2015, pp. 280–285).
Bhakti-sandarbha 309: yathā smaraṇa-kīrtana-pāda-sevana-mayam upāsanam eva āgamokta-vidhimayatva-vaiśiṣṭyāpattyārcanam ity abhidhīyate.
Bhakti-sandarbha 275: śaraṇāpatty-ādibhiḥ śuddhāntaḥ-karaṇaś … nāma-kīrtanāparityāgena smaraṇaṁ kuryāt.
Bhakti-sandarbha 276: paramātmani śrī-kṛṣṇe prema-lakṣaṇāṁ bhaktim iti mukhyaṁ phalam, anyāni tv ānuṣaṅgikāṇi.
Jīva’s five stages of smaraṇa in Bhakti-sandarbha 287 are informed by Yoga-sūtra and Rāmānuja. They are smaraṇa (again), dhāraṇā, dhyāna, dhruvānusmṛti, and samādhi.
For example, in Bhakti-sandarbha 1, Jīva mentions trace impressions (saṁskāras) of experiences of the absolute from past lives: …janmāntarāvṛtta-tad-arthānubhava-saṁskāravato… In Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 1.2.264, Rūpa states that trace impressions (vāsanās) inspire a preferred type of service or practice that brings about a desired result. Also see Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 2.1.7–10. Although “vāsanā” and “saṁskāra” are sometimes defined differently (for example, the former in terms of the seed of desire or tendency and the latter in terms of the sprouted seed of desire or imprint, residue, trace), Rūpa and Jīva tend to use them as synonyms.
Pollock (2016, p. 2) notes that the Western term “aesthetics” cannot neatly be applied to any pre-modern Indian thought system. The translation “taste” is not in the sense of good or bad taste but is instead like the adding to a preparation of different spices and condiments to create a particular flavour.
In Bhāgavata-purāṇa, all rasas are said to be possessed by Kṛṣṇa (10.87.34), who also bestows rasa (10.42.1). His devotees know rasa (1.1.19, 1.5.19, 1.18.14, 3.15.48, 3.20.6, 4.31.21), long for it (4.4.15), and are immersed in it (5.1.5, 6.3.28).
Whether Rūpa and, later, Jīva consider their descriptions of religious experiences to be explainable through secular aesthetics or whether such experiences are in themselves an extraordinary kind of aesthetics as defined by aestheticians is debatable. Pollock (2016, pp. 306–310) sees them as extraordinary aesthetics. Haberman (2001, p. 31) and Wulff (1984, pp. 25–27) seem to see them as analogous with aesthetics.
Also see Pollock (2016, pp. 5–6). Estimates dating Nāṭya-śāstra range from the fifth century CE back to the fifth century BCE. The text may have been revised around the ninth century CE, possibly in Kashmir.
Bhoja’s theory is addressed in Rūpa Gosvāmī’s Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi 15.3, 15.102 and in Jīva's Prīti-sandarbha 110 as well as his commentary on Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi 15.185–187. Bhoja is not just a source of citations for these authors; he deeply influenced them (Gosvāmī & Dāsa, 1955). Also see Bhattacharyya (1963, pp. 106–119), Haberman (2001), and Lutjeharms (2016). There are other theories that seem to influence Gauḍīya rasa theory; for instance, those of Siṃhabhūpāla and Daṇḍin. However, the three I address are sufficient for the argument made in this paper.
Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 1.3.1.
Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 1.2.4.
Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 1.1.18–19.
Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 1.1.30.
Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 2.5.6. Jīva refers to the second emotion, affection (prīti), in terms of servitorship inasmuch as the devotees see the Lord as the object of mercy, this maintaining the spirit of Rūpa’s idea of affection (Prīti-sandarbha 84). He also adds in Prīti-sandarbha 6 that amorous love (priyatā) is a special awareness with a positive attitude towards an object, this involving bliss and the desiring of that object (Gosvāmī & Haridāsaśāstrī, 1986b).
Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 2.5.18.
Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 2.5.22. Lutjeharms (2016, pp. 203, Footnote 165) notes that although Rūpa only mentions the first three, the fourth can be assumed.
Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 2.5.2. Also see 1.2.2.
Nāṭya-śāstra 6.17. Pollock (2016, p. 8) posits that this seemingly limited list of eight can be justified by virtue of its being a categorisation only of emotions that are communicable during the performance of a drama.
See Haberman (2001, pp. 13–16).
Nāṭya-śāstra: part of an explanation of sentiments immediately after to 6.31. tatra vibhāvānubhāvavyabhicārisaṁyogādrasaniṣpattiḥ. (Bharata et al., 1926).
“Factor” is Pollock’s (2016, p. 7) terminology as used in his Nāṭya-śāstra post-6.31 explanation.
Nāṭya-śāstra 7.94.
Nāṭya-śāstra 6.18–21.
Nāṭya-śāstra 6.15.
Śṛṅgāra-prakāśa 1.8: aprātikulikatayā manaso mudāder yaḥ saṁvido'nubhavahetur ihābhimānaḥ (Bhojarāja & Raghavan, 1998). It should be noted that Bhoja’s Śṛṅgāra-prakāśa comprises both verses and prose. I cite verse numbers where appropriate and I cite prose via page numbers in Raghavan’s printed version.
Śṛṅgāra-prakāśa 1.4: sarvātma-sampad-udayātiśayaika-hetuḥ.
Bhojarāja and Raghavan (1998, p. 662). Bhoja notes that the most abundant expressions of these comportments are affinities of, for instance, love, strife, vexation, and joking.: rasaṁ tv iha premāṇam evāmananti, sarveṣām api hi raty-ādi-prakarṣāṇāṁ rati-priyo raṇa-priyo’marṣa-priyo parihāsa-priya iti premṇy eva paryavasānāt.
Bhojarāja and Raghavan (1998, p. 5) sa cānubhavaikagabhya tvādasarvaviṣayatvācca duravaseyaḥ.
Sāhitya-darpaṇa 3.1: vibhāvenānubhāvena vyaktaḥ saṃcāriṇā tathā, rasatāmeti ratyādiḥ sthāyībhāvaḥ sacetasām … vyakto dadhyādinyāyena rūpāntarapariṇato vyaktīkṛta eva ras[a]…. (Kavirāja & Dvivedi, 1982). To illustrate this, Viśvanātha offers a widely used gastronomy example for his own purposes: that when ingredients, such as sugar and pepper, are mixed together to create a certain preparation, in this case prapānaka (a drink), they are tasted in terms of their combination and not as a collection of individual flavours. Sāhitya-darpaṇa 3.15: pratīyamānaḥ prathamaṁ pratyekaṁ hetur ucyate, tataḥ saṁvalitaḥ sarvo vibhāvādiḥ sa-cetasām, prapāṇaka-rasa-nyāyāc carvyamāṇo raso bhavet.
Sāhitya-darpaṇa 3.2–3: … akhaṇḍasvaprakāśānanda-cinmayaḥ … camatkāraprāṇaḥ…
19: pārimityāl laukikatvāt sāntarāyatayā tathā, anukāryyasya ratyāder udbodho na raso bhavet. The implication here is that rasa is not laukika, or ordinary, but alaukika, or extraordinary.
Prīti-sandarbha 61: sukha-duḥkhayor āśrayau.
Prīti-sandarbha 94: bhagavad-viṣayā mamatā tu svātma-gata-tadīyābhimāna-viśeṣa-hetukaiva, tad-abhimāna-viśeṣaś ca tat-svabhāva-viśeṣa-hetuka ity uktam.
Prīti-sandarbha 112: asya bhagavad-viṣaya-prīty-ālambanatvam api yuktam, smaraṇādi-pathaṁ gate hy asmiṁs tad-ādhārā sā prītir anubhūyate, ālambana-śabdaś ca viṣayādhārayor vartana iti.
Prīti-sandarbha 116: atha uddīpanāḥ: yad-viśiṣṭatayā śrī-kṛṣṇa ālambanas ta eva bhāva-vibhāvana-hetutvena pṛthaṅ-nirdiṣṭā uddīpanāḥ kathyante, te ca tasya guṇa-jāti-kriyā-dravya-kāla-rūpāḥ, guṇāś trividhāḥ kāya-vāṅ-mānasāśrayāḥ.
Prīti-sandarbha 158: Citing Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 2.2.2: nṛtyaṁ viluṭhitaṁ gītaṁ krośanaṁ tanu-moṭanam, huṅkāro jṛmbhaṇaṁ śvāsa-bhūmā lokānapekṣitā, lālā-sravo’ṭṭahāsaś ca ghūrṇā-hikkādayo’pi ca.
Prīti-sandarbha 158: atha sāttvikāḥ antar-vikāraika-janyāḥ, yatrāntar-vikāro’pi tad-aṁśa iti bhāvatvam api teṣāṁ manyante, tatra—(citing Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 2.3.16:) te stambha-sveda-romāñcāḥ svara-bhedo’tha vepathuḥ, vaivarṇyam aśru pralaya ity aṣṭau sāttvikāḥ smṛtāḥ.
Prīti-sandarbha 158: Citing Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 2.4.2.
Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 2.1.7–10.
Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 1.4.1.
The five primary flavours are listed in Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 2.5.6. Rūpa describes each of the transformations of the sthāyī-bhāva of a rati to a bhakti-rasa via the other elements (vibhāvas, anubhāvas, sāttvika-bhāvas, vyabhicāri-bhāvas) in the first to fifth “Waves” (chapters) of the “Western Section” of Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu (i.e., 3.2.1—3.5.37). The five transformations of rati are explicitly stated in the following Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu verses: śānti-rati to śānta-bhakti-rasa (3.1.4); prīti to prīti-bhakti-rasa (3.2.3); sakhya to preyo-bhakti-rasa (3.3.1); vatsalya to vatsalya-bhakti-rasa (3.4.1); and madhura-rati to madhura-bhakti-rasa (3.5.1). Rūpa also lists the five rasas in Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 2.5.115. Jīva states in his commentary on this verse that “anuttamāḥ” means “inferior,” and so the list is a progression in order of superiority.
Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 2.5.132.
Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 2.5.39.
Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 4.7.14.
Śṛṅgāra-prakāśa 1.7: …leke gatānugati-katva-vaśād-upetāmetāṁ….
Pollock (1998, pp. 130–131) comments on Bhoja’s bhāvanā when explaining the concept of rasa in Śṛṅgāra-prakāśa: “[…]“tasting" may refer to the character's capacity for experiencing, by way of the epiphenomena that manifest it (erotic desire and all the other factors), the primal Passion that otherwise “transcends the plane of the coming-into-being of feeling (bhāvanā) (vs. 10).”.
Bhojarāja and Raghavan (1998, p. 664): śṛṅgārī hi ramate, smayate, utsahate, snihyatīti. te tu bhāvyamānatvāgbhāvā eva na rasāḥ. yāvatsambhavaṁ hi bhāvanayā bhāvyamāno bhāva evocyate. bhāvanāpathamatītastu rasa iti. mano’nukūleṣu hi duḥkhādiṣu ātmanaḥ sukhānubhavābhimāno rasaḥ. sa tu pāramparyeṇa sukhahetutvāt ratyādibhūmasūpacāreṇa vyavahniyyate. ato na ratyādīnāṁ rasatvaṁ, api tu bhāvanāviṣayatvādbhāvatvameva. For a translation and explanation see Pollock (2016, pp. 125, 361 (Endnote 105)).
Śṛṅgāra-prakāśa 1.10: yo bhāvyate manasi bhāvanayā sa bhāvaḥ, yo bhāvanāpathamatītya vivartamānaḥ, sāhaṅkṛtau hṛdi paraṁ svadate raso 'sau.
Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 2.5.132.
Jīva on Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 2.5.132. For Jīva’s distinction between dhyāna and samādhi, see my above description of the five stages of remembrance.
For example, in Prīti-sandarbha 110, Jīva comments on “bhāvukā” as “those who are expert at bringing-into-being (bhāvanā) excellent rasa.” (evam evābhipretya bhāvukā ity atra rasa-viśeṣa-bhāvanā-caturā iti ṭīkā). Similarly, in Prīti-sandarbha 111: “The audience in which rasa arises consists of the devotees. That is established. In dramas, there are rules for bringing-into-being (bhāvanā) rasa in the audience. (atha sāmājikā api bhaktā eveṣṭā iti. tatrāpi siddhiḥ. iti dṛśya-kāvyeṣu rasa-bhāvanā-vidhiḥ).
Prīti-sandarbha 111: bhagavat-prīti-rasikāḥ dvividhāḥ—tadīya-līlāntaḥ-pātinas tad-antaḥ-pātitābhimāninaś ca. tatra pūrveṣāṁ prāktana-yuktyā svata eva siddho rasaḥ. uttareṣāṁ tu dvividhā gatiḥ, tat-tal-līlāntaḥ-pāti-sahita-bhagavac-carita-śravaṇādinaikā.
Prīti-sandarbha 111: tat-tal-līlāntaḥ-pāti-sahita-bhagavac-carita-śravaṇādinaikā, bhagavan-mādhuryādi-śravaṇādinā cānyā.
Prīti-sandarbha 111: atha sāmājikā api bhaktā eveṣṭā iti … bhagavan-mādhuryādi-śravaṇādinā cānyā. tatra pūrvatra yadi samāna-vāsanas tal-līlāntaḥ-pātī bhavet tadā svayaṁ sadṛśo bhāva eva tasya tal-līlāntaḥ-pāti-viśeṣasya vibhāvādikaṁ tādṛśatvābhimānini sādhāraṇī karoti. Jīva first distinguishes that rasa arises in an audience of devotees. Then, after differentiating between two ways of participating in the Lord’s activities—i.e., though hearing about the Lord’s sweetness and about his divine play—, he makes the point that if on hearing about the Lord’s activities the devotee internally participates in them with similar emotions, then he has a similar bhāva and so his own identity takes on the same kind of emotions. He then cites Viśvanātha’s Sāhitya-darpaṇa 3.12 (below).
Sāhitya-darpaṇa 3.9–11: nāmnā sādhāraṇī-kṛtiḥ (Kavirāja & Dvivedi, 1982). The notion of “commonization” possibly originated in the analyses of Abhinavagupta and Bhaṭṭanāyaka.
Sāhitya-darpaṇa 3.12: parasya na parasyeti mameti na mameti ca, tad-āsvāde vibhāvādeḥ paricchedo na vidyate. (“tad” refers to rasa).
Sāhitya-darpaṇa 3.9–11.
Bhakti-sandarbha 286: Sāhitya-darpaṇa 3.11: raty-āder api svātma-gatatvena pratītau sabhyānāṁ vrīḍātaṅkādir bhavet, para-gatatvena tv arasyatāpātaḥ.
Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 2.5.103.
See Prīti-sandarbha 111. For Sanskrit and explanation see footnote 84.
Prīti-sandarbha 94. For Sanskrit see footnote 65.
Bhakti-sandarbha 286: atha teṣāṁ śuddha-bhaktānāṁ bhūta-śuddhy-ādikaṁ yathā-mati vyākhyāyate.
For Jīva on exclusive bhakti, see Bhakti-sandarbha 165 and 234; on mixed bhakti, see Bhakti-sandarbha 217–230.
Bhakti-sandarbha 286: tatra bhūta-śuddhir nijābhilaṣita-bhagavat-sevaupayika-tat-pārṣada-deha-bhāvanā-paryantaiva tat-sevaika-puruṣārthibhiḥ kāryā nijānukūlyāt evaṁ yatra yatrātmano nijābhīṣṭa-devatā-rūpatvena cintanaṁ vidhīyate tatra tatraiva pārṣadatve grahaṇaṁ bhāvyam, ahaṅgrahopāsanāyāḥ śuddha-bhaktair dviṣṭatvāt. aikyaṁ ca tatra sādhāraṇya-prāyam eva tadīya-cic-chakti-vṛtti-viśuddha-sattvāṁśa-vigrahatvāt pārṣadānām.
Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 1.1.11. Bhakti-sandarbha 216: Jīva cites Garuḍa-purāṇa 227.3 which defines bhakti as service through taking account of its Sanskrit root “bhaj:” bhaja ity eṣa vai dhātuḥ sevāyāṁ parikīrtitaḥ, tasmāt sevā budhaiḥ proktā bhaktiḥ sādhana-bhūyasī. Soon after this quote, Jīva affirms the intrinsic nature of bhakti to be service: sevā-śabdena svarūpa-lakṣaṇam, sā ca sevā kāyika-vācika-mānasātmikā trividhaivānugatir ucyate.
This kind of practice is part of Tantric worship. Though not referred to as “ahaṅgrahopāsanā,” it is also one of several upāsanās that appear in the early Upaniṣads. See Crangle (1994, pp. 71, 74–75, 87). Upāsanā embodies elements of visualization and psychosomatic practices. It can take the form of either worship or meditation according to context.
Bhakti-sandarbha 286: atha bahir upacārair antaḥ-pūjāyāṁ veṇv-ādi-pūjā tad-aṅga-jyotir-vilīnāṅgasya svasyāṅge niviṣṭasya tasya tan-mukhādav eva bhāvyā na tu sva-mukhādau. tathā veṇvādi-tad-bhūṣaṇa-mudrā-darśanam-sva-mukhādau tathā veṇvādi yat kriyate, tac ca tasmai tadīya-tat-tat-priya-vastūnāṁ darśanārtham eva, na tu svasyaivāṅge tāni bhāvyanta iti pūrva-hetor eva.
Bhakti-sandarbha 286: paramopāsakāś ca sākṣāt parameśvaratvenaiva tāṁ paśyanti, bheda-sphūrter bhakti-vicchedakatvāt tathaiva hy ucitam, ittham evoktaṁ bhagavatā—“vastropavītābharaṇa-patra-srag-gandha-lepanaiḥ, alaṅkurvīta sa-prema mad-bhakto māṁ yathocitam.” [Bhāgavata-purāṇa 11.27.32] ity atra mām iti sa-premeti ca, ata eva ‘viṣṇudharme’ tām adhikṛtya ambarīṣaṁ prati śrī-viṣṇu-vākyam—“tasyāṁ cittaṁ samāveśya tyaja cānyān vyāpāśrayān, pūjitā saiva te bhaktyā dhyātā caivopakāriṇī, gacchaṁs tiṣṭhan svapan bhuñjaṁs tām evāgre ca pṛṣṭhataḥ, upary-adhas tathā pārśve cintayaṁs tām athātmanaḥ” [Viṣṇu-dharma 2.73-74], ity ādi.
Prīti-sandarbha 155; Bhakti-rasamṛta-sindhu 2.1.301–302 and 3.3.83.
From Mṛtyu-sañjaya-tantra and also cited in Hari-bhakti-vilāsa 3.110.
Bhakti-sandarbha 286: atha mukhyaṁ dhyānaṁ śrī-bhagavad-dhāma-gatam eva, hṛdaya-kamala-gataṁ tu yogi-matam, “smared vṛndāvane ramye” ity ādy-uktatvāt. ataiva mānasa-pūjā ca tatraiva cintanīyā.
Bhakti-sandarbha 286: śrī-kṛṣṇādīnāṁ tu mathurādi-kṣetraṁ mahādhiṣṭhānam, “[rājadhānī tataḥ sābhūt sarva-yādava-bhūbhujām] mathurā bhagavān yatra nityaṁ sannihito hariḥ” [Bhāgavata-purāṇa 10.1.28] ity-ādy-ukteḥ, tathā tat-tan-mantra-dhyeya-vaibhavatvena mathurā-vṛndāvanādīnāṁ śrī-gopāla-tāpanyādau prakhyātatvāt, mathurādi-kṣetrāṇy evānyatrādhiṣṭhāne dhyānena prakāśya teṣu bhagavāṁś cintyate.
Jīva’s reference is too vague to give a precise citation.
Bhakti-sandarbha 286: asurās tu na tatra cetanā, kintu yantra-maya-tat-pratimā-nibhā jñeyāḥ. “evaṁ vihāraiḥ” [Bhāgavata-purāṇa 10.14.61] ity ādau, “nilāyanaiḥ setu-bandhair markaṭa-plavanādibhiḥ” [Bhāgavata-purāṇa 10.14.61] itivat tat-tal-līlānāṁ nānā-prakāśaiḥ kautukenānukriyamāṇatvād bhagavat-sandarbhādau hi tathā sa-nyāyaṁ darśitam asti.
Sāhitya-darpaṇa 3.9–11.
One of the blind reviewers took exception to this inference, claiming that Jīva’s explanation of Rāma, etc. is better interpreted as outlined in the previous paragraph above. That explanation is a valid way to interpret this statement of Jīva’s. My alternate interpretation might be creative, but discounting it completely would not push the envelope on trying to make sense of the practical implications of Gauḍīya writings.
References
Sanskrit Sources
Bharata, M., Abhinavagupta, Rāmakṛṣṇakavi, M., & Pade, J. (1926). Nátyasāstra, with the commentary of Abhinavagupta. Central library.
Bhojarāja, & Raghavan, V. (1998). Śṛṅgāra-Prakāśā. Dept. of Sanskrit and Indian Studies, Harvard University.
Gosvāmī, J., & Haridāsaśāstrī. (1984). Śrī-Bhagavat-Sandarbhaḥ. Vṛndāvana. Śrīgadādharagaurahari Press.
Gosvāmī, J., & Haridāsaśāstrī. (1986). Śrī-Bhakti-Sandarbhaḥ (Dvitīyasaṃskaraṇam ed.). Vṛndāvana. Śrīgadādharagaurahari Press.
Gosvāmī, J., & Haridāsaśāstrī. (1986). Śrī-Prīti-Sandarbhaḥ. Vṛndāvana. Śrīgadādharagaurahari Press.
Gosvāmī, R., & Dāsa, H. (1955). Ujjvala-Nīlamaṇi, with the commentary of Vṣṇudāsa. Haribol Kuṭira.
Gosvāmī, R., & Dāsa, H. (1961). Bhakti-Rasāmṛta-Sindhu, with commentaries of Jīva Gosvāmin, Mukundadāsa and Viśvanātha Cakravartī. Haribol Kuṭira.
Kavirāja, V., & Dvivedi, D. (1982). Sāhitya-Darpaṇa. Daryaganj.
Vyāsa, K. D., & Shastri, J. L. (1999). Bhāgavata-Purāṇa of Kṛṣṇa Dvaipayana Vyāsa, with Sanskrit commentary Bhāvārtha-Bodhinī of Śrīdhara Svāmī. Motilal Banarsidass.
Secondary Sources
Bansat-Boudon, L., & Tripathi, K. D. (2011). An introduction to Tantric Philosophy: The Paramarthasara of Abhinavagupta with the commentary of Yogaraja. Routledge.
Bäumer ‘Sharada,’ B. (2014). Creative contemplation (Bhāvanā) in the Vijñāna Bhairava Tantra. In H. Eifring (Ed.), Hindu, Buddhist and Daoist meditation cultural histories. Hermes Publishing.
Bhattacharyya, S. (1963). Bhoja’s rasa-ideology and its influence on Bengal Rasa-Śāstra. Journal of the Oriental Institute, 13(2), 106–119.
Chatterjee, A. (1996). Jīva Gosvāmin. Asiatic Society.
Crangle, E. F. (1994). The origin and development of early Indian contemplative practices (Vol. 29). Otto Harrassowitz Verlag.
De, S. K. (1963). Sanskrit poetics as a study of aesthetic. University of California Press.
Flood, G. D. (2002). The purification of the body in Tantric ritual representation. Indo-Iranian Journal, 45(1), 25–43.
Flood, G. D. (2006). The Tantric Body: The secret tradition of Hindu religion. I.B. Tauris.
Flood, G. D. (2009). Text reception and ritual in Tantric scriptural traditions. In J. Schaper (Ed.), Die Textualisierung der Religion (pp. xi, 307 p.). Mohr Siebeck.
Haberman, D. L. (2001). Acting as a way of salvation: A study of Rāgānugā Bhakti Sādhana. Motilal Banarsidass Publ.
Holdrege, B. A. (2015). Bhakti and embodiment: Fashioning divine bodies and devotional bodies in Kṛṣṇa Bhakti. Routledge.
Kapoor, O. B. L. (1994). The philosophy and religion of Sri Caitanya. Munshiram Manoharlal.
Lutjeharms, R. (2016). An ocean of emotion: Rasa and religious experience in early Caitanya Vaiṣṇava thought. In R. M. Gupta (Ed.), Caitanya Vaisnava philosophy: Tradition, reason and devotion (pp. 175–230). Ashgate.
Nyman, P. (2005). On the meaning of Yathārtha. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 33(5), 553–570.
Pollock, S. I. (1998). Bhoja’s Śṛṅgāraprakāśa and the problem of rasa: A historical introduction and annotated translation. Asiatische Studien, 52(1), 117–193.
Pollock, S. I. (2016). A rasa reader: Classical Indian aesthetics. Columbia University Press.
Raghunathan, R. (2017). Two theories of motivation and their assessment by Jayanta. In J. Ganeri (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of Indian philosophy. Oxford University Press.
Shastri, D. N. (1976). The philosophy of Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika and its conflict with the Buddhist Dignāga school. Bharatiya Vidya Prakashan.
Shulman, D. D. (2012). More than real: A history of the imagination in south India. Harvard University Press.
Timalsina, S. (2013). Imagining reality: Image and visualization in classical Hinduism. Southeast Review of Asian Studies, 35, 50–69.
Timalsina, S. (2015). Language of images: Visualization and meaning in tantras. Peter Lang.
Tripathi, G. C. (2004). Communication with God: The daily Pūjā ceremony in the Jagannātha temple. Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts: Aryan Books International.
Wulff, D. M. (1984). Drama as a mode of religious realization: The Vidagdhamādhava of Rūpa Gosvāmi. Scholars Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The author declares no competing interests.
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
Herbert, A. Ritual and Rasa: a Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Recasting of the Role of Ritual Imagination. DHARM 5, 121–152 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42240-022-00125-6
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42240-022-00125-6