Professional Documents
Culture Documents
NELSON
If love of God were an accomplishment, it would not be highest goal of life, since it would
then be a thing produced.
– Jı̄va Gosvāmı̄1
Everything other than Vāsudeva, since it is a product of māyā, is not real. Vāsudeva alone
is real, is the dearest, because He is the Self.
– Madhusūdana Sarasvatı̄2
Śaṅkara (c. 650–700 C.E.), the great systematizer of the Advaita (nondua-
list) Vedānta, is not known as a theologian of bhakti, the Hindu path of
salvation through loving devotion to God. Nevertheless, the conception of
devotion that he and his followers developed set the parameters for much
of the subsequent discussion in the various schools of Vedānta. He taught,
of course, that knowledge (jñāna) is the only means to moks.a, or spiritual
liberation, identified as the supreme goal of life (parama-purus. ārtha), and
that bhakti is at most a means of purifying the mind (citta-śuddhi) and,
as such, no more than a means to knowledge. The Bhāgavata Purān.a
(BhP, eighth-ninth century),3 however, proclaimed that bhakti is both the
highest spiritual discipline and the most desirable goal, superior even
to moks.a. Following this lead, Rūpa Gosvāmı̄ (c. 1470–1560) and the
other theologians of the Gaud.ı̄ya or Bengal Vais.n.ava tradition identified
bhakti as itself the supreme goal of life. Surprisingly enough, so did
Madhusūdana Sarasvatı̄ (sixteenth-seventeenth century), a monastic and
scholiast in the Śaṅkara tradition famed as a champion of Advaita Vedānta
who nonetheless had strong inclinations toward Kr.s.n.a-devotion.4
1 bhāvasya sādhyatve krtrimatvāt paramapurus ārthatvābhāvah syād, DS on BhRS 1.2.2.
. . .
All translations in this paper are my own unless otherwise specified.
2 vāsudevātiriktam sarvam satyan nāsti māyikatvāt, vāsudeva evātmatvāt priyatamas
. .
satya ityarthah., BhRT. 1.32, p. 88.
3 On the dating of the BhP, see Dennis Hudson, “The Śrı̄mad Bhāgavata in Stone: The
Text as an Eighth-Century Temple and its Implications”, Journal of Vais.n.ava Studies 3
(Summer 1995): 137–182.
4 For Rūpa’s dates, see Neal Delmonico, “Sacred Rapture: A Study of the Reli-
gious Aesthetic of Rūpa Gosvāmin”. Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago (1990), 279–286.
Prior to both Rūpa Gosvāmı̄ and Madhusūdana, bhakti had already been
defined as a mental, and therefore phenomenal, state in Advaita and other
sources. As citta-vr.tti (modification of mind), mano-dharma (attribute of
mind), mano-gati (mental flow), etc., even love of God was relegated to
the status of, in Advaita terminology, a jad.a-tattva, an insentient principle.
Perhaps curiously from a Western perspective, Indian thought has always
seen mind as unconscious and quasi-material, the light of consciousness
being borrowed from the transcendent ātman. India’s spiritual traditions,
moreover, have tended to regard mind as suspect: fickle, wandering, diffi-
cult to control but in need of control. The mind is – to be sure – an
instrument of liberation if disciplined, but at the same time it is a signifi-
cant obstacle thereto. Consider Patañjali’s well-known definition of yoga
as ‘the suppression of the fluctuations of the mind’ (citta-vr.tti-nirodha).
The later Advaita tradition speaks even of ‘destruction of the mind’ (mano-
nāśa) as necessary for final liberation. The mind must be subdued – even
destroyed – in service of the emergence of a higher, more permanent truth.
Against this background, the present paper will explore how bhakti made
the transition from the realm of psychology to that of ontology – that is,
from being regarded as a mental state to being portrayed as an expression
of highest reality – in the work of Gaud.ı̄ya Vais.n.ava theologians, especially
Rūpa Gosvāmı̄, and the Advaitin Madhusūdana Sarasvatı̄. We shall see that
Vais.n.ava theology provided a more hospitable ground for this develop-
ment, while Madhusūdana’s effort to valorize bhakti in this way was made
more complex, and theoretically less satisfying, by his orthodox Advaitin
presuppositions.
and accepted as valid and even necessary pursuits, they were acknowl-
edged as having a common orientation toward worldly, transient concerns.
Liberation, on the other hand, was placed in a different category. It was
recognized as a spiritual goal, one achieved only through its own unique
means. Since it was placed in a class by itself, partaking of ultimacy and
finality, it became known, especially among the teachers of Advaita, as the
parama-purus. ārtha, the ‘highest goal of life’.
With the rise of the devotional schools, however, the notion that bhakti
is an end in itself, worthy of pursuit for its own sake, began to come
into circulation. The BhP proclaims bhakti to be the ‘highest religion’
(paro dharmah., 1.2.6) and tends to devalue the quest for moks.a. By the
sixteenth century, we find the Gosvāmı̄s of the Bengal Vais.n.ava move-
ment refusing to accept the finality of either the traditional formula of four
purus.ārthas or the exaltation of moks.a as being the highest among them.
They extol instead an expanded list that includes bhakti as the fifth goal
of life (pañcama-purus. ārtha). As the ‘ocean of the nectar of the bliss of
divine love’, it is for them a higher attainment than moks.a, being itself the
parama-purus. ārtha, the final and ultimate end of all human striving.5
This claim on behalf of bhakti arises from the Vais.n.avas’ perception
of liberation as a limited goal. Based on their reading of BhP 1.2.11, the
Gosvāmı̄s propose understanding Kr.s.n.a as a threefold Supreme Being,
comprising the hierarchy of Brahman, Paramātman, and Bhagavān (Abso-
lute, Supreme Self, and Blessed Lord). They teach that the moks.a attained
by the jñānin (‘knower’ of Brahman) results in the attainment of union
5 “Prema toward Krsna is the highest end of man [sic], before this the other four ends
.. .
of man are as blades of grass. The fifth end of man [pañcama-purus. ārtha] is the sea of the
nectar of the joy of prema; and the joys of moks.a and the rest are less than a single drop
of it” (kr.s.n.avis.ayaka premā – parama purus.ārtha | yāra āge tr.n.a tulya cāri purus.ārtha ||
pañcama-purus. ārtha premānandāmr. ta-sindhu | moks.ādi ānanda yāra nahe ekavindu, CC
1.7.81–82); “Bhakti toward Bhagavān is the parama-purus.ārtha” (bhagavāne bhakti –
parama-purus.ārtha haya, CC 2.6.166). All translations of the CC are from Edward C.
Dimock, Caitanya Caritamr.ta of Kr.s.n.adāsa Kavirāja: A Translation and Commentary, ed.
by Tony K. Stewart (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999). See also BhRS 1.1.33
and Jı̄va’s commentary thereon. Neither the BhP nor either of the Bhakti Sūtras refer to
bhakti as a distinct purus.ārtha. The earliest trace of this notion that I have been able to find
is in the work of the thirteenth century Maharashtrian saint, poet, and theologian Jñānadeva.
In his celebrated Marathi version of the BhG the Jñāneśvarı̄ (9.191, 18.864), he anticipates
the Gosvāmı̄s by declaring bhakti superior to the four commonly recognized goals of life.
See V. G. Pradhan, trans., Jñāneśvarı̄ (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1967), 1.229
and 2.289; B. P. Bahirat, The Philosophy of Jñāinadeva (3d ed.; Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass,
1984), 95. Jñānadeva also seems to have been the first to identify bhakti with the supreme
power or śakti of the Godhead, though he does it from a nondualistic Śaiva perspective
(owing much to Kashmir Śaivism), to which the Gosvāmı̄s could scarcely acknowledge
any debt (Bahirat, Philosophy of Jñānadeva, xii–xiii, 93–96).
348 LANCE E. NELSON
(sāyujya) with no more than the first (and least interesting) of these three
aspects of the Deity. In this way of thinking, Brahman is a limited form
of Kr.s.n.a, his unqualified, or nirviśes.a, aspect. A limited experience of
bliss in this condition is allowed, since the Vais.n.ava concept of union
entails an inexplicable ‘difference and non-difference’ rather than the
Advaitins’ absolute identity. Still, the brahmatva (‘Brahmanhood’) of the
jñānins is a state far lower than the yogins’ realization of Paramātman or
the devotees’ attainment of Bhagavān. In comparison with the supreme
bliss of the vision of the saviśes.a (‘quality-full’) Bhagavān attained by
devotees through bhakti, the bliss of union in moks.a with the nirviśes.a
(‘qualityless’) Brahman is insignificant.6
The Gosvāmı̄s, therefore, follow the BhP in its tendency to devalue
the experience of moks.a in favor of the joy of bhakti. Twice in the first
chapter of his Bhaktirasāmr.tasindhu (BhRS, ‘Nectar-Ocean of Devotional
Sentiment’), for example, Rūpa Gosvāmı̄ declares that devotion ‘makes
light of liberation’.7 He goes on to make his understanding of the superio-
rity of bhakti unmistakably plain: “Even if the bliss of Brahman were
magnified a hundred thousand billion times, it would not be equal to an
infinitesimal droplet of the ocean of the bliss of bhakti”.8 At BhRS 1.2.22
he begins a long section on this topic by describing the desire for moks.a
as a demon that will never disturb the devotee whose mind is absorbed
in the service of the Lord. True devotees, he proclaims, are so intent on
bhakti that they exhibit no interest at all in acquiring any of the five forms
of moks.a commonly recognized by Vais.n.ava schools.9
None of this, however, is meant to deny that moks.a may be attained
by devotees or that it can have spiritual value for them. Despite the fact
that, as true bhaktas, they do not desire it and are reluctant to accept it
even as a gift, the Lord does grant liberation to his devotees.10 To be sure,
this is not the moks.a of the followers of the way of knowledge, which
entails losing one’s individual identity in the impersonal Brahman, an
ideal the Vais.n.avas must stoutly condemn. Liberation is given a specifi-
cally Vais.n.ava, devotion-friendly, definition, becoming the realization of
6 BhRS 1.1.33; CC 1.7.133, 2.24.57–61, 2.25.30; Sushi Kumar De, Early History of the
Vaisnava Faith and Movement in Bengal: From Sanskrit and Bengali Sources (Calcutta:
General Printers and Publishers, 1942), 291–292.
7 moksalaghutākrt, BhRS 1.1.17, 33.
. .
8 brahmānando bhaved esa cet parārdhagun ı̄krtah | naiti bhaktisukhāmbhodheh
. . . . .
paramān.utulām api, BhRS 1.1.38.
9 BhRS 1.2.22–57. BhRS 1.2.22 is quoted at CC 2.19, śloka 26. Cf. BhP 3.29.13, quoted
by Rūpa at BhRS 1.2.28, at five places in the CC, and by Madhusūdana at BhRT. 1.32.
10 CC 1.4, śloka 37 (= BhP 9.4.67); CC 3.3.177, with śloka 12 (= BhP 3.29.13). Cf.
BhRS 1.1.34, 1.2.55; BhP 11.20.34.
THE ONTOLOGY OF BHAKTI 349
one’s true nature (svarūpa) as a participant in the eternal lı̄lā of Kr.s.n.a, the
abandonment of one’s false identity as a material being, and release from
the bondage created by māyā-śakti, the Lord’s power of material creation.
The Gaud.ı̄ya tradition even speaks of the possibility of liberation while
still in the physical body (jı̄vanmukti). By no means, however, does this
‘liberation in devotion’ (bhaktye mukti) entail an end of devotional activity.
Bhakti, previously restricted in its expression by māyā-śakti, becomes free
in moks.a to manifest itself in its ecstatic fullness.11 Still, liberation must be
regarded an incidental by-product (tuccha-phala) of devotional practice;
bhakti remains the highest goal.12
11 Rūpa Gosvāmı̄: “This very rati, when fully developed, attains the state of mahābhāva,
which should be sought after by the muktas and the most excellent bhaktas” (iyam eva ratih.
praud.hā mahābhāvadaśām vrajet | yā mr.gyā syād vimuktānām. bhaktānām. ca varı̄yasām,
UNM 14.51). Jı̄va Gosvāmı̄: “Even the liberated, having assumed a form for sake of [parti-
cipating in the divine] sport, worship [the Lord] . . . For bhakti is eternally blissful, even
for the liberated” (muktā api lı̄layā vigraham. kr.tvā bhajanta iti | . . . muktānām api bhaktir
hi nityānandasvarūpin. ı̄ti, BhagS 72). Kavikarn.apura: “Here [in our system], the word
‘liberation’ means [attaining] one’s real nature/form (svarūpa) as an attendant [of Kr.s.n.a]”
(muktiśabdo ‘tra pārs.adasvarūpaparah. ), quoted by De, Early History, 175; trans. and
brackets mine). This notion is based on BhP 2.10.6, ‘Liberation is abiding with one’s true
form (svarūpa), having abandoned other [adventitious] forms’ (muktir hitvānyathārūpam.
svārūpen.a vyavasthitih.). In the CC we read: ‘Jı̄van-muktas are many; they also are of two
kinds: jı̄van-muktas in bhakti, and jı̄van-muktas in jñāna. The jı̄van-muktas in bhakti are
drawn by the qualities of Kr.s.n.a; jı̄van-muktas in dry jñāna are plunged below because of
offenses . . . By the power of bhakti the svarūpa [one’s real nature] is gained, and the divine
body [divya-deha]; drawn by the qualities of Kr.s.n.a they worship at Kr.s.n.a’s feet . . . The
abandonment of other forms, and remaining in the svarūpa is called mukti . . . And when
one gains mukti in bhakti, he inevitably worships Kr.s.n.a’ (jı̄vanmukta aneka, sei dui bheda
jāni | bhaktye jı̄vanmukta, jāne jı̄vanmukta māni || bhaktye jı̄vanmukta gun.ākr.s.t.a hañā
kr.s.n.a bhaje | śus.ka-jñāne jı̄van-mukta aparādhe adho maje || . . . bhakti-bale prāpta-svarūpa
divya-deha pāra | kr.s.n.a-gun.ākr.s.t.a hañā bhaje kr.s.n.a-pāya || . . . muktir hitvānyathārūpam
svarūpena avasthitih. || . . . bhaktye mukti pāileho avaśya kr.s.n.ere bhajaya, 2.24.91–93, with
śloka 43 = [BhP 2.10.6], and 2.24.96; trans. Dimock, Caitanya Caritamr.ta; brackets mine).
See also CC 2.8.203, 2.25.112. De (Early History, 238) explains: “The state of release,
therefore, is only release from the earthly bondage of the Māyā-śakti, but not extinction
. . . nor the merging of the Jı̄va in the Bhagavat (laya). The emancipated self is in reality
no longer the Jı̄va or part of the Jı̄va-śakti, but becomes a part of the Svarūpa-śakti of the
Bhagavat as his Parikara or Attendant in his Paradise”.
12 “So at the beginning of the rising of the name, sins and the rest are dispelled; and
when it is risen there is the manifestation of prema at the feet of Kr.s.n.a. Mukti is an insigni-
ficant result, from a hint of the name” (taiche nāmodayārambhe pāpādi ks.aya | udaya kaile
kr.s.n.apade haya premodaya || mukti tucca-phala haya nāmābhāsa haite, CC 3.3.175–176,
trans. Dimock, Caitanya Caritamr.ta).
350 LANCE E. NELSON
Devotion defined
Rūpa Gosvāmı̄ gives a definition of bhakti early in the BhRS: “Supreme
devotion is reverent service (anuśı̄lana) of Kr.s.n.a, in accord with his
wishes, without any other desire, and unobstructed by knowledge, action,
etc.”.13 Such bhakti is ‘supreme’ because it is pure (śuddha), unmixed with
dry vedantic gnosis, self-serving vedic ritualism, or other elements antago-
nistic to devotion. There appears to be an effort here to maintain a clear
differentiation between bhakti and knowledge, in contrast to the stance
of other Vais.n.ava ācāryas, such as Rāmānuja, Madhva, and Vallabha, all
of whom make room for knowledge in some form in their definitions of
devotion.14 Still, Jı̄va Gosvāmı̄ (c. 1555–1600), here Rūpa’s commentator,
explains that the exclusion of knowledge should not be interpreted so as to
18 sā bhaktih sādhanam bhāvah premā ceti tridhoditā, BhRS 1.2.1. In going through
. . .
the following outline of these stages, the reader should keep in mind that they were not
conceived in a vacuum, but, at least in the case of bhāva and preman, were worked out
in reference to two paradigms. The first was the love for Kr.s.n.a experienced by the gopı̄s
(cowherd girls of Vraja) and especially by Rādhā, the Lord’s favorite among them, as
evoked in the Vais.n.ava literature with all of its emotional intensity and variation. The
second was that same love as relived in the devotional ecstasies of Caitanya, the founding
figure of the Gaud.ı̄ya tradition, the memory of whose life was still fresh in the minds of
his followers. In formulating his understanding of bhakti and its modes, Rūpa drew upon
categories developed earlier in Sanskrit aesthetics (see De, Early History, and Delmonico,
“Sacred Rapture”).
19 “Hearing of the glories of Visnu, singing of them, constant thought of Him, attendance
..
at His feet, worship, reverent prostration, regarding oneself as His servant, thinking of Him
as a close friend, and surrender of oneself to Him – if this nine-fold devotion, offered
to the Blessed Lord Vis.n.u, were practiced by a person, it would indeed, I deem, be the
highest learning” (śravan.am . kı̄rtanam . vis.n.oh. smaran.am . pādasevanam | arcanam. vandanam.
dāsyam. sakhyam ātmanivedanam || ity pum . sārpitā vis.n.au bhaktiś cen navalaks.anā || kriyate
bhagavaty addhā tan manye ‘dhı̄tam uttamam).
20 “Accomplished by action, that [bhakti] called sādhana has bhāva as its goal”
(kr.tisādhyā bhavet sādhyabhāvā sā sādhanābhidhā, BhRS 1.2.2).
21 premasūryāṁśusāmyabhāk | rucibhiś cittamāsrnyakrd asau bhāva ucyate, BhRS 1.3.1
.. .
(quoted CC 2.23, śloka 2).
22 Literally, the ‘sprout (aṅkura) of bhāva’ (BhRS 1.3.26). Bhāva here, confusingly,
seems to be used as a shortened form of mahābhāva (see discussion of the latter below).
Cf. prı̄tyaṅkura in CC 2.22.94. Note that Madhusūdana describes the fifth of his eleven
stages of bhakti, a state of incipient love, as ‘the arising of the sprout (aṅkura) of rati’
(ratyaṅkurotpatti, BhR 1.35).
23 krsnaprasādajah . . . prabalatarānandapūrarūpā . . . sudhāmśukoter api svādvı̄, BhRS
.. . . .. .
1.3.58, 61.
THE ONTOLOGY OF BHAKTI 353
love becomes increasingly pure, and its sweet taste (āsvāda) is intensified,
as it is refined.26
The last of these stages, called mahābhāva (the ‘great ecstasy’) or
simply (and somewhat confusingly) bhāva, is the highest pinnacle of
love. According to Rūpa, it can be experienced by the gopı̄s alone, or
perhaps rarely and with great difficulty (atidurlabha) by Kr.s.n.a’s queens
in Dvārakā.27 But only the inner circle of the gopı̄s, Rādhā’s associates
(rādhikā-yūtha), have the ability to experience the higher (adhirūd.ha)
stage of mahābhāva, known as ‘delighting’ (modana).28 Indeed, in its fully
developed form (mādana, ‘maddening’), mahābhāva can be attained only
by Rādhā.29
Kr.s.n.a and the gopı̄s through a wide variety of stratagems. These need
not be discussed in detail here, but there is some relevance to the present
discussion. The BhP itself intertwines several levels of interpretation, from
explicitly realistic to symbolic and metaphysical. All emphasize that the
bindingness of dharma is suspended in face of the immediate presence and
irresistible call of the divine source of dharma (BhP 10.32.10, 10.33.30–
40). Some later writers allegorize the affair – especially the willingness
of the gopı̄s to endure the social consequences of being unfaithful to their
husbands, which were extreme in India – as symbolic of the demands of
true religious love, which override all other considerations. Others choose
the route of denying that the encounters described in the BhP were sexual,
because the Kr.s.n.a upon whom the gopı̄s doted was too young.30
The Bengal school itself deals with the issue in several ways, the most
interesting of which is the doctrine that the gopı̄s were not ordinary human
beings at all, but incarnations of Kr.s.n.a’s various divine powers or śaktis.
Being such, they were the Lord’s eternal companions (parikara) and there-
fore ultimately inseparable from him. Their engagement was thus merely
a wondrous manifestation of the eternal play (lı̄lā) of Kr.s.n.a and his own
energies, the play that, on a vaster scale, underlies the whole of creation.31
The introduction of the notion of śakti brings us to what is, from
the point of view of the present study, the most important aspect of the
Gosvāmı̄s’ theory of devotion. In defining bhakti as means (sādhana-
bhakti), i.e., bhakti as a form of spiritual practice, Rūpa faces a problem:
the notion of practice might imply that bhakti is something that does not
yet exist, but which has to be brought into existence through sādhana.
His succinct response is at BhRS 1.2.2: “The accomplishment of bhāva,
which is eternally accomplished, consists in its manifestation in the
heart”.32 The word ‘manifestation’ (prākat. ya) is not used casually. It is
chosen to compliment and support the notion that bhāva is ‘eternally
accomplished’ (nitya-siddha). This means that it is not something which
is produced (janita, sādhya),33 say, by spiritual practice, nor is it an
activity of the devotee’s mind. Indeed, the Gosvāmı̄s want to assert that
bhāva is not phenomenal in nature at all but rather an eternally existent,
transphenomenal reality.
While Advaitins deny bhakti any final ontological status, for the Bengal
Vais.n.avas it is the parama-purus. ārtha, superior even to moks.a. Such an
assertion cannot be based on devotional experience alone; it requires an
adequate theological foundation. If bhakti is truly a higher spiritual goal
than moks.a, it must have a corresponding ontological value. Bhakti, in
short, is so important for the Gosvāmı̄s that they seek to give it a meta-
physical status beyond that of the merely psychological. In the thinking
of Rūpa and Jı̄va, it is not a mode of the mind (mano-gati), as it is in
the definition of BhP 3.29.11–12. Neither, in the final analysis, can it be
worshipful service, as in Rūpa’s initial definition, or even love, if the latter
is understood as a function of human consciousness. Bhakti in its essential
nature is an aspect of the highest power (śakti) of God. As Jı̄va writes in
his gloss on BhRS 1.2.2:
If bhāva were something to be accomplished (sādhya), because of being a product, then
it would not be the parama-purus.ārtha. To dispel this doubt, he [Rūpa] says, ‘eternally
accomplished’. This is because, as will be established below, it is a particular function of
God’s śakti.34
(2) the power of consciousness (sam . vit-śakti), and (3) the power of bliss
(hlādinı̄-śakti).37 The last of these, said to include and transcend the other
two, is regarded as the highest aspect of the Lord’s essential power.38
In the BhRS, Rūpa speaks of bhaktas as vessels (pātra) or receptacles
(ādhāra) of bhakti.39 He is able to do so because he does not believe
that devotion is a mental phenomena; it is something that enters into the
empirical self of the devotee from outside, as it were. It is, in fact, the
hlādinı̄-śakti that appears in the heart of the devotee, taking the form of
bhakti (first as bhāva, then preman) and causing the experience of bliss.
At BhRS 1.3.1, Rūpa defines bhāva as ‘having the nature of a special
form of pure sattva’ (śuddha-sattva-viśes. ātmā). Jı̄va explains:
Here, what is called pure sattva is a self-luminous function, called ‘consciousness’
(sam. vit), of the svarūpa-śakti; it is not an aspect of māyā-śakti . . . It is the great power
(mahāśakti) called ‘hlādinı̄’ (gladdening) which is an internal characteristic of the function
of the svarūpa-śakti.40
1.3.1). Mahābhāva, the apogee of ecstatic love, is in turn the most refined
essence (parama-sāra) of preman.42
In an interesting passage (BhRS 1.3.4–5), Rūpa explains how rati
(‘love’, here a synonym of bhāva) becomes manifest (āvirbhūya) in the
mind and even seems to be identical with it:
That rati, having become manifest in a mental mode, attains identity with it; although self-
luminous, it appears like something in need of illumination [by the mental mode]. Although
in reality its nature is self-enjoyment, it becomes the means of enjoyment of objects such
as Kr.s.n.a.43
The śaktis, especially hlādinı̄, are not adventitious, but are part of
the Lord’s essential nature (svarūpa-bhūta, acintya-rūpa-bhāk).48 As
Kr.s.n.adāsa Kavirāja writes: “She [Rādhā] is the true form [svarūpa] of
Kr.s.n.a . . . ; as his śakti, she is one form [eka rūpa] with him”.49 In
terms of the Vais.n.avas’ mytho-metaphysical vision, Rādhā is separate
from Kr.s.n.a, yet tends to union, ultimate non-separation, even identity.
The fullness (pūrn.atā) of Deity is Rādhā-Kr.s.n.a; śakti is half of Kr.s.n.a’s
true form (ardha-svarūpa)’.50 All of this, of course, is very close to the
śakti-vāda of the tāntrikas, with Rādhā-Kr.s.n.a substituting for Śiva-Śakti
as the ultimate bipolar unity. The Gosvāmı̄s, however, retreat from the
abyss of monism, feeling compelled by the requirements of their practical
faith to retain, to some extent, the finality of difference and relationship,
which they regard as necessary for devotional spirituality. They manage
this through their doctrine of ‘inscrutable difference in non-difference’
(acintya-bhedābheda). The svābhāvikatva of the divine energies, their
being an essential part of the Lord’s nature (svabhāva), is tempered by
their acintyatva, the final ‘incomprehensibility’ of their relation with the
ultimate. This allows identity and difference to coexist.
From the standpoint of the present discussion, the most important
consequence of the doctrine of inscrutable difference and non-difference
is that it gives an exalted, even absolute ontological status to the divine
power of bliss and therefore, all the more, to bhakti, which is the highest
essence of that power. Devotion becomes Bhagavān’s own essential energy
and – by extension, since śakti and its possessor (śaktimān) are impossible
of separation – Bhagavān himself, appearing in the heart of the devotee.
Once bhakti is presented as such, described as an eternal relishing of divine
bliss in its most highly articulated form, and shown for these reasons to be
superior to moks.a both metaphysically and experientially, the claim that
it is the supreme goal of life seems a reasonable and, from within these
horizons, a defensible one.
the Goddesses of India, edited by John Stratton Hawley and Donna Marie Wulff [Berkeley:
Graduate Theological Union, 1982], 74–75).
48 svarūpabhūtyā śaktyā, BhagS 3, p. 2 and passim; also BhRS 2.5.92, quoted above,
note 35.
49 . . . krsnera svarūpa | tāṅra śakti tāṅra saha haya ekarūpa, CC 1.4.74. trans. Dimock,
.. .
Caitanya Caritamr.ta, brackets mine.
50 “Calling him ‘nirviśesa’ [distinctionless], not honoring his cit-śakti, is not honoring
.
half his true form, and the fullness of him is lost” (taṅre ‘nirviśes.a’ kahi, cicchakti nā
māni | ardhasvarūpa nā mānile pūrn.atā haya hāni, CC 1.7.133, trans. Dimock, Caitanya
Caritamr.ta, brackets mine); “Rādhā and Kr.s.n.a were one soul [eka ātmā], but contained
in two bodies (rādhā-kr.s.n.a eka ātmā, dui deha dhāri, CC 1.4.49, trans. Dimock, Caitanya
Caritamr.ta, brackets mine). See also CC 1.1.42; 1.4.84–85.
THE ONTOLOGY OF BHAKTI 361
Madhusūdana Sarasvatı̄, the last and one of the most important of the
great post-Śaṅkara Advaitins, was born around the middle of the sixteenth
century C.E., about a century after Rūpa Gosvāmı̄, although it is possible
that their lives overlapped to some extent. While he spent his mature career
in Banaras, it seems likely that he was originally from Bengal. He is most
famous as the author of the Advaitasiddhi (AS), a ponderous and rigorously
dialectical defense of orthodox Advaita nondualism against attacks from
the theistic, devotionally oriented, and militantly dualistic Dvaita Vedānta
school of Madhva.
In view of our present topic, it is significant that, despite his serious
interest in bhakti, Madhusūdana is recognized as one of the great cham-
pions of orthodox Advaita. This reputation has been justly earned on the
basis of such works as the Siddhāntabindu (SB), the Vedāntakalpalatikā,
the Advaitaratnaraks. an.a, and of course, the Advaitasiddhi, all of which
are regarded as authoritative by the Advaita tradition. This is particu-
larly important in light of the fact that classical Nondualist Vedānta,
as I have already indicated, has historically held intuitive knowledge
(jñāna) of the identity of Self and Brahman to be the sole means to
moks.a, relegating bhakti to at best the subordinate role of preliminary
mental purification. While Śaṅkara condones image worship and related
expressions of bhakti spirituality as preparatory for advaitic knowledge,
in the end he seeks to undercut anything, including bhakti, that smacks of
dualism. Speaking for the benefit of his renouncer (sam . nyāsin) followers,
Śaṅkara teaches (BhGŚ 12.13) that any attitude that posits difference
between the Self and God (ātmeśvara-bheda) and a sense of reliance
on an external power (pāratantrya), is a serious hindrance on the steep
ascent to advaitic realization. Devotees are aware of a dependence upon
the Lord (ı̄śvarādhı̄na), while those who have ‘become the very Self
of God’ (ı̄śvarasya ātmabhūtāh. ) have attained a glorious independence
(svātantrya). “No one who has definitively known himself to be the Lord”,
Śaṅkara declares, “would seek out a state of subordination to anything,
for that would be contradictory”.51 Not surprisingly, the teachers of the
51 atra cātmeśvarabhedam āśritya viśvarūpa ı̄śvare cetahsamādhānalaksano yoga ukta
. . .
ı̄śvarārthaṁ karmānus.t.hānādi ca | “athaitad apy aśakto ‘si” ity ajñānakāryasūcanān
nābhedadarśino ‘ks.aropāsakasya karmayoga upapadyate iti darśayati | tathā
karmayogino ‘ks.aropāsanānupapattiṁ darśayati bhagavān “te prāpnuvanti mām
eva” iti | aks.aropāsakānāṁ kaivalyaprāptau svātantryam uktvetares.āṁ pāratanryam
ı̄śvarādhı̄natāṁ darśitavāṁs tes.ām ahaṁ samuddharteti | yadi hı̄śvarasyātmabhūtās te matā
abhedadarśitvād aks.ararūpā eva ta iti samuddharan.akarmavacanaṁ tān praty apeśalaṁ
362 LANCE E. NELSON
“elixir”, comes from the technical vocabulary of Ayurveda, traditional Indic medicine.
Construed differently, however, the Sanskrit compound bhaktirasāyana could also mean
“The way, path, or course (ayana) of the sentiment (rasa) of bhakti. It could be construed,
on this analysis, as referring to the course of the development of bhaktirasa or, possibly,
as naming the cultivation of devotional sentiment as a distinct spiritual path. Sanskrit poets
delight in this kind of double and triple entendre, and there is no doubt that Madhusūdana
chose his title carefully and was conscious of its various possible meanings.
54 When evaluating Madhusūdana’s ‘orthodoxy’ as an Advaitin, one should remember
that the BhR was written after his SB and Vedāntakalpalatikā. Madhusūdana refers his
readers to both in the BhR, and both are straightforward expositions of Advaita doctrine,
regarded as authoritative by the tradition. At the same time, it is clear that the BhR was
written before Madhusūdana’s master works, the AS and GAD. These later texts refer to
each other, and the GAD (at 18.66) refers unapologetically to the BhR. On the chronology
of Madhusūdana’s works, see Divanji, Siddhantabindu, ii–xiii; Gupta, Studies, vii–xvi;
Modi, Siddhanta Bindu, 27–54.
364 LANCE E. NELSON
Devotion as Bhagavān
The next step in the development of Madhusūdana’s conception of bhakti
is a subtle shift of emphasis, connected with his discussion of devotion
as aesthetic sentiment (rasa). Having introduced the concept of devotion
as a vr.tti that has assumed the form of the Lord, Madhusūdana begins to
focus his attention on the form itself, as present in the mind. Whatever
is apprehended while the mind is in its melted state, he says, becomes a
permanent impression. The form of the object, thus retained in the mind,
becomes the basis, the permanent emotion (sthāyi-bhāva), of rasa. The
form of the Lord (bhagavad-ākāra), then, is the permanent emotion which
develops into bhakti-rasa.
Aesthetic categories are here inserted into the discussion, and this leads
to developments which are of considerable interest in their own right.
However, space does not here permit a detailed or even cursory discus-
sion of the theory of rasa, as developed by the Sanskrit aestheticians,
and its subsequent adoption by proponents of Kr.s.n.aite bhakti, including
Madhusūdana as well as the Gaud.ı̄ya Gosvāmı̄s.66 For our present purpose,
we can safely and accurately read bhakti-rasa and bhakti as synonyms,
especially when Madhusūdana is speaking about the highest level of
devotional experience, bhakti as parama-purus. ārtha.
Particularly interesting, in terms of the underlying advaitic conceptual
structure, is Madhusūdana’s use in this context of the ‘reflection theory’
(pratibimba-vāda), which he inserts into his discussion of bhakti in his
commentary on BhR 1.10:
It is said that a reflection is nothing but the original itself, apprehended within limiting
adjuncts. Reflected in the mind, the Lord, who is supreme Bliss, becomes a permanent
emotion (sthāyı̄-bhāva)67 and attains the status of rasa. Hence it is beyond question that
bhakti-rasa is supreme Bliss.68
different from the insentient [mind] is established by scripture and experience” (acetana-
vilaks.an.atvan tu tasya śrutisiddham anubhavasiddham. ca, SB, p. 16). On the above,
Purus.ottama comments: “Then it turns out that the reflection is sentient . . . Because
of [expressions such as] ‘like a mirror’, the inner organ (antah.karan.a), as being the
receptor (grāhaka) of the reflection of Consciousness, is the receptacle (āśraya) of true
knowledge” (tarhi pratibimbasya cetanatvam āpatitam . . . . | darpan.ādivadityādinā yac
citpratibimbagrāhakatvena pramāśrayatvam uktam antan.karan.asya, SB, p. 16). See also
Madhusūdana’s comments on Sam . kśepaśārı̄raka 3.279 and Padmapāda’s remarks quoted
in note 74.
73 bimbam eva hi upādhinisthatvena pratı̄yamānaṁ pratibimbam, BhRT 1.10, p. 45.
.. .
74 He continues: “How can one be precisely the other? Because they are seen to have
a single set of essential characteristics . . . Moreover, common usage in authoritative texts
shows that the reflection is in reality (pāramārthikam eva) identical with the prototype”.
The whole passage: yat punah. darpan.ajalādis.u mukhacandrādipratibimbodāharan. am, tat
ahaṅkartur anidamam . śo bimbād iva pratibimbam . na brahman.o vastvantaram, kim . tu tad
eva tat, pr.thagavabhāsaviparyayasvarūpatāmātram. mithyā iti darśayitum | katham . puna.s
tad eva tat? ekasvalaks.an.atāvagamāt . . . kim . ca – śāstrı̄yo vyavahārah. pratibimbasya
pāramārthikam eva bimbaikarūpatvam. darśayati, PP, pp. 104, 107.
75 cit-pratibimbaś . . . pratibimbapaks e bimbacaitanya evopādhisthatvamātrasya
.
kalpitatvāt, GAD 7.14. See also Madhusūdana’s treatment in the SB: “According to
the adherents of the pratibimba-vāda, the reflection is completely real” (tasya ca
pratibimbasya satyam eveti pratibimbavādinah., SB, p. 16); and again, “Because the
reflection is absolutely real” (pratibimbasya ca pāramārthikātvāt, SB, p. 28).
370 LANCE E. NELSON
76 AS 2.33 (pp. 847–851) contains an elaborate argument refuting all possible objec-
tions to the idea of the identity of the pratibimba and the bimba, beginning: “Thus, the
non-difference of jı̄va and Brahman is to be understood, on account of being reflection
and original, like the reflection of a face and the [original] face” (tathā jı̄vabrahmayor
mukhapratimukhavat bimbapratibimbarūpatvād apy abhedo ‘vagantavyah., p. 847). It
concludes: “Hence, the oneness (aikya) of the reflection and the original being established,
the identity of the all jı̄vas with Brahman is proven, because of [their] being reflections.
Thus in the Advaitasiddhi identity is established according to the rule of reflection and
original” (tad evam . pratibimbasya bimbenaikye vyavasthite | brahmaikyam. jı̄vajātasya
siddham. tatpratibimbanāt || ity advaitasiddhau bimbapratibimbanyāyenaikyasiddhih. ,
p. 851).
77 For Sanskrit, see above, note 68.
78 nāpi ālambanavibhāvasthāyibhāvayor aikyam, bimbapratibimbabhāvena bhedasya
vyavahārasiddhatvād iśvarajı̄vayor iva, BhRT. 1.10, p. 45. In Madhusūdana’s adaption of
the categories of Sanskrit aesthetics to bhakti, the ālambanavibhāva (objective cause) of
bhakti-rasa is Bhagavān. The sthāyibhāva (permanent emotion) is the form of Bhagavān.
From the point of view of aesthetic theory, any suggestion of identity between the objective
causes of rasa – say, the lovers in a play – and the permanent emotion in the spectator –
for example, an erotic sensibility – would be ruled out. Madhusūdana here seems to be
trying to sidestep this potential criticism of his religious re-conceptualization of rasa, in
which the objective cause (bhagavān) and the permanent emotion (bhagavad-ākāra) are
in fact ultimately one. Note that the bhakti-rasa theory of the Gosvāmı̄s would be subject
THE ONTOLOGY OF BHAKTI 371
But it is axiomatic in Advaita that only Brahman and Īśvara (or, in the
language of the BhR, Bhagavān) can be said to be beyond māyā, and only
they are to be defined as supreme Bliss. On this account alone, then, bhakti
must be identified with either Brahman or Bhagavān.
Second, Madhusūdana – like the Gosvāmı̄s – wants to give devotion
an ontological status that is, at the very least, commensurate with that
of moks.a. But how can a citta-vr.tti be placed on a par with liberation,
especially when the latter has been identified by Śaṅkara as equivalent to
the unchanging Absolute? So again, bhakti must somehow be assimilated
to the supreme principle. While the Gosvāmı̄s give bhakti a near-absolute
status by equating it with the Lord’s highest śakti, this route is not open to
Madhusūdana. As an Advaitin, he must hold that Brahman’s only śakti is
māyā, which is insentient (jad.a), like the vr.tti, and in the final analysis
not fully real. Given the options, then, the identification of bhakti and
Bhagavān is Madhusūdana’s natural and indeed only recourse.
He is assisted in this, in a round about way, by his use of the
categories of Sanskrit aesthetics and his identification of bhakti as the
highest rasa. Like the Gaud.ı̄ya Vais.n.avas, Madhusūdhana in the BhR
(3.22) places considerable weight on Taitirı̄ya Upanis.ad 2.7.1, which
famously proclaims, ‘raso vai sah., He [i.e., Brahman] verily is rasa’.
The equation, ‘rasa equals Brahman’, then supports the thesis, ‘bhakti
equals Bhagavān’. While the secular rasas are ‘not causes of reaching
the full Bliss’ (pūrn.a-sukhāsparśitva-kāran. āt, 2.76), bhakti-rasa ‘consists
of supreme Bliss’ (parānanda-maya, 2.12). Moreover, as Madhusūdana
proclaims, “this Bliss has no external support (ādhāra), because it is
nothing less than the Ātman”.82
All of this enables Madhusūdana to claim, regarding his now ‘ontolo-
gized’ bhakti:
When the melted mind grasps the Blessed Lord – who is omnipresent, eternal, full, and of
the nature of Consciousness and Bliss – what else remains? . . . Because the numberless
forms of objects that have entered the mind since beginningless time are destroyed by such
a form of the Lord [that is] contained in the mind (bhagavad-ākāren. a mano-gatena), and
He alone shines forth, the purpose of life is accomplished.83
Of Śaṅkara’s thought, Hacker says, ‘the term ı̄śvara can be replaced for
brahman everywhere’.86 The same appears to be true of Madhusūdana in
the BhR. He continues:
According to the upanisadic text, “All this, verily, is Brahman, in origin, duration, and
dissolution’ [ChU 3.14.1], all things arise from Bhagavān alone, exist in Bhagavān alone,
and dissolve into Bhagavān alone, because they are known to be non-different [from
Bhagavān], like pots from clay, and will be contradicted [by true knowledge] like the
manifestations of the dream state, etc.87
Also in the GAD, Madhusūdana does give a description of what can only
be described as a richly sagun.a awareness of Kr.s.n.a:
Those saintly ones who have Me as their sole support take refuge in – the meaning should
be ‘see’ – ‘Me alone’, the Blessed Lord Vāsudeva, the complete essence of infinite beauty,
the abode of all refinements, whose feet surpass the entire splendor of fresh rain clouds,
whose form is supreme Bliss through and through. Passing their days thinking constantly
[of Me] as such, with their minds immersed in the great ocean of Bliss which is love of
Me, they are not overpowered by all the transformations of the gun.as of māyā.104
103 mām sarvopanisatpratipādyam brahmasvarūpam kı̄rtayantah . . . namaskurvantaś ca
. . . . .
mām. bhagavantam. vāsudevam. sakalakalyān.agun.anidhānam is.t.adevatārūpena gururūpena
ca sthitam | . . . atra mām iti punarvacanam. sagun.arūpaparāmarśārtham | anyathā
vaiyarthyaprasaṅgāt, GAD 9.14.
104 prapaśyantı̄ti vaktavye prapādyanta ity ukte ‘rthe madekaśaranah santah mām eva
. . .
bhagavantam. vāsudevam ı̄dr.śam anantasaundaryasārasarvasvam akhilakalākalāpanilayam
abhinava . . . jaladaśobhāsarvasvaharan. aparamānandaghanamayamūrtim . . . te matpre-
mamahānandasamudramagnamanastayā samastamāyāgun. avikārair nābhibhūyante, GAD
7.14. Interestingly, the edition I am using includes as a possible reading a string of
THE ONTOLOGY OF BHAKTI 381
However, when we ask who it is that has this richly qualified experience
of Bhagavān, our quest for simple distinctions is again thwarted: “Those”,
answers Madhusūdana’s Kr.s.n.a, “who surrender to Me, the undivided true
Self that is Consciousness and Bliss, devoid of all limiting adjuncts, [i.e.,
those] who make [Me] an object of the mental modification that suppresses
ignorance and all its effects, . . . that is generated by the Vedānta texts
and is the form of an immediate, unconditioned realization (nirvikalpaka-
sāks.ātkāra), in the form of inexpressible pure Consciousness”.105 This
kind of shifting focus, which we also see in the BhR should give us
pause. Madhusūdana’s thought in this respect, as in others, has a way of
frustrating any desire for formulaic precision.
Everything other than Bhagavān, because it is transient, is false (māyika) like a dream. It
is devoid of true significance, painful, and to be shunned. Bhagavān alone is real; He is
the supreme Bliss, self-luminous, eternal, the one to be sought after. This is the kind of
knowledge spoken of.110
111 See Lance E. Nelson, “Theism for the Masses, Non-dualism for the Monastic Elite:
A Fresh Look at Śaṅkara’s Trans-theistic Spirituality”, in The Struggle Over the Past:
Fundamentalism in the Modern World, edited by William Shea (Latham, MD: University
Press of America, 1993), 61–77.
112 tato ratyaṅkurotpattih | ratir nāma bhaktirasasthāyibhāvo drutacittapravistabhagavad-
. ..
ākāratārūpasam.skāraviśes.a iti vaks.yate, BhRT. 1.35, p. 124.
113 pratyagātmasvarūpasya sthūlasūksmadehadvayātiriktatvena sāksātkāras sasthı̄
. . . . ..
bhūmikā, BhRT. 1.33–36, p. 126; evaṁ śuddhe tvampadalaks.ye ‘vagate tatpadalaks.yen.a
sahābhedajñānaṁ bhavati, BhRT. 1.33–36, p. 128.
114 anyathā dehendriyādiviks epena jātāyā api rater anirvāhāt, BhRT 1.33–36, pp. 126–
. . .
127. It appears that Madhusūdana’s system of eleven stages represents an expan-
sion of a scheme found in BhP 1.5, as interpreted by Śrı̄dhara in his commen-
tary, the Bhāvārthabodhinı̄ (BhAB). Under BhP 1.5.34, Śrı̄dhara lists nine stages of
bhakti, of which 1–8 correspond almost exactly to the first eight of Madhusūdana’s
eleven. Śrı̄dhara: ata ca prathamam. mahatsevā, tataś ca tatkr.pā, tatas taddharma-
śraddhā, tato bhagavatkathāśravan. am . , tato bhagavati ratih., tayā ca dehadvayavivekātma-
jñānam., tato dr.d.hā bhaktih., tato bhagavattatvajñānam. , tatas tatkr.payā sarvajñatvādi-
bagavadgun. āvirbhāva iti kramo darśitah., BhAB on 1.5.34.
384 LANCE E. NELSON
115 On the conception of jı̄vanmukti or living liberation in Śaṅkara and classical Advaita,
see Lance E. Nelson, “Living Liberation in Śaṅkara and Classical Advaita: Sharing the
Holy Waiting of God”, in Living Liberation in Indian Thought, edited by Andrew O. Fort
and Patricia Y. Mumme (Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1996), 17–62.
116 jı̄vanmuktānām api bhagavadbhaktipratipādanāt, BhRT 1.1, p. 32; GAD introductory
.
ślokas 36–39. See Lance E. Nelson, “Bhakti Preempted: Madhusūdana Sarasvatı̄ on
Devotion for the Advaitin Renouncer”, Journal of Vais.n.ava Studies 6 (Winter 1998):
53–74.
117 This kind of thinking is common among Vaisnavas, with the difference of course
..
that they do not regard the jı̄va or ātman to be identical with Brahman. Yāmuna, at
Gı̄tārthasam . graha 26, writes: “Having realized the ātman as subservient to the Supreme,
with all one’s ignorance removed, one acquires supreme devotion (parām . bhaktim. ) and by
that obtains the highest state” (nirastanikhilājñāno dr.s.t.vātmānam. parānugam | pratilabhya
parām. bhaktim . tayaivāpnoti tatpadam, Svami Adidevananda, ed. and trans., Śrı̄ Rāmānuja
Gı̄tā Bhās.ya [Madras: Sri Ramakrishna Math, n.d.], 7 [my translation]). In his introduction
to chapter three of the BhG, Rāmānuja says that a realization of the real nature of the ātman
THE ONTOLOGY OF BHAKTI 385
Before realization of true knowledge, duality is the cause of delusion. But once knowledge
has arises through intuition, duality can be assumed for the sake of devotion.121
I have not been able to find this verse in any of Madhusūdana’s published
works, nor has he, so far as I know, presented any theoretical exposition of
such ‘assumed’ dualistic awareness. Nevertheless, it may well encapsulate
what Madhusūdana is finally about.
Still, the question of how all this can be justified in terms of Advaita
remains. Indeed it is here, precisely where Madhusūdana’s glorification
of bhakti reaches its zenith, that the conceptual problems of supporting
bhakti as parama-purus. ārtha within a nondualist horizon become most
apparent. Whether or not the jı̄vanmukta can retain a dualistic awareness,
the concept of moks.a in Advaita extends, of course, beyond the state of
embodied liberation. When the mukta’s karma is utterly exhausted, the
liberated one attains videha-mukti, ‘disembodied liberation’. Since in this
state the mukta’s individuality, psychic as well as physical, is dissolved
without remainder, and only the supreme Brahman, with which moks.a
is finally identified, remains, it is often referred to as kaivalya, abso-
lute ‘isolation’, or videha-kaivalya, ‘disembodied aloneness’. Here one
becomes sugar most thoroughly, so to say, but loses completely the ability
to taste it. Even for the jı̄vanmukta who is also a bhakta, Advaita should
predict this kind of absolute liberation from phenomenality upon death,
as a natural consequence of the liberated devotee’s being liberated. What
Madhusūdana in the end completely fails to explain is how bhakti can,
for the erstwhile jı̄vanmukta-bhakta, continue beyond death, in a state in
which the mind, melted or otherwise, must have been left behind. Even
in the BhR, Madhusūdana admits that at the point of moks.a there is a
complete dissolution of the mind (manaso layāt).122 So where and how in
the post-mortem existence of the liberated bhakta is there scope for bhakti?
Madhusūdana does indeed suggest that bhakti continues after death.
After all, how could it not and still remain the parama-purus. ārtha? He has
121 dvaitam mohāya bodhāt prāk jāte bodhe manı̄sayā | bhaktyartham kalpitam dvaitam
. . . .
advaitād api sundaram, quoted by Chakravarti, Philosophical Foundations, 190 n. 65; and
Swami Smarananda, “The Place of Bhakti in Advaita Vedanta”, Prabuddha Bharata 79
(1974): 300. There is another similar verse, also attributed to Madhusūdana: “The highest
truth is nonduality, but duality is necessary for worship. If there is that kind of bhakti,
it is a hundred times superior to liberation” (pāramārthikam advaitam. dvaitam bhajana-
hetave | tādr.śı̄ yadi bhaktih. syāt sā tu muktiśatādhikā, quoted by Chakravarti, Philosophical
Foundations, 190 n. 64).
122 Explaining BS 4.2.8, BhRT 1.32, p. 69.
.
THE ONTOLOGY OF BHAKTI 387
his objector raise that point that, if bhakti is distinct from knowledge of
Brahman, then like heaven (svarga), it cannot be the highest goal of life.
Madhusūdana responds:
Heaven and other such goals cannot be enjoyed forever. They can be experienced only
at certain limited times and places through certain specific bodies and sense organs, and
they are, moreover, pervaded by the two-fold pain of perishability and contingency. So
they are certainly not ultimate. The uninterrupted flow of the Bliss of devotion, however, is
justifiably ultimate because it may be enjoyed equally in all times and places, in all bodies
and through all sense organs, like the fruit of knowledge of Brahman, and because it does
not suffer the two-fold pain of perishability and contingency.123
CONCLUSION
ABBREVIATIONS