365bet娱乐

The next step in the development of Madhusudana's conception of Advaita-bhakti is a subtle change of emphasis, connected with his discussion of bhakti as a sentiment (rasa). 20 Whatever is Having introduced the concept of devotion as a vrtti that has assumed the form of the Lord, Madhusudana from section XVIII on begins to focus his attention on the form itself, as present in the mind. apprehended while the mind is in its melted state, he says, becomes a permanent impression. The form of the object, retained in the mind in this particular way, becomes the basis, the permanent emotion (sthayibhava), of rasa. The form of the Lord (bhagavadakara), then, is the permanent emotion which develops into bhaktirasa. This Though aesthetic categories are here inserted into the discussion, the underlying conceptual foundation remains that of Advaita. Especially interesting is Madhusudana's use of the "reflection theory" (pratibimbavada). doctrine was developed by Sarvajnatma Muni, Prakasatman, and other post-sankara Advaitins as an explanation of the relation between Brahman, Isvara, and jiva. The theory has several variations. Some authors regard both Isvara and jiva as reflections of the pure Brahman, the former in the universal, cosmic Ignorance (avidya) or maya, and the latter in individual Ignorance or, in come cases, in the individual

163 mind (antahkarana).21 In Madhusudana's version, Brahman, the supreme Consciousness (caitanya), when associated with Ignorance, appears as Isvara, the bimbacaitanya or " "prototype-Consciousness.' Jiva, then, is the reflection (pratibimba) of Isvara in Ignorance.22 Madhusudana draws on this doctrine in his explanation of bhaktirasa, specifying that the form of the Lord, which is the permanent emotion that develops into the sentiment of devotion, is his reflection in the melted mind. The immediately obvious intention of this statement is to prepare the way for a new argument for devotion's being supreme bliss. This, in turn, will establish, not that devotion is the highest goal of life, as the previous argument was designed to do, but that it is the highest sentiment (rasa). Since the Lord is bliss, Madhusudana says, his reflection must also be bliss: Reflected in the mind, the Lord, who is supreme bliss, becomes a permanent emotion and reaches the state of being a sentiment. Hence it is beyond question that the sentiment of devotion is of the nature of supreme 23 bliss. The worldly sentiments, according to the non-dualist analysis given in the commentary on stanzas 11-13, have as their objects the supreme bliss appearing in limited forms. Bhakti, on the other hand, is the supreme bliss itself manifested in its full abundance. to be counted as the highest rasa. Therefore bhakti deserves

164 While this last idea is of considerable interest in its own right, a discussion of the theory of rasa and its adoption by devotional writers must be reserved for the next chapter. Of immediate concern, however, are the philosophical implications that Madhusudana has worked into this discussion for the benefit of the discerning reader. In this connection, I must again emphasize that much of the most significant teaching of this text is implicit rather than explicit. First it should be noted that our author is no longer speaking of devotion as a vrtti, but as a reflection of bhagavat. Observe also that he is careful to start by defining his key term so that we know exactly what he is talking about: "A reflection is nothing but the original (bimba) itself, apprehended within limiting adjuncts. "24 Placed as it is at the beginning of the section, this definition can only be intended to alert the knowledgeable reader to the fact that the author is making use of the pratibimbavada. More specifically, it is designed to bring to mind one of the important distinguishing features of this doctrine, the idea that the "reflection is nothing but the original itself." Unlike the appearance theory (abhasavada). its closest rival, the reflection theory regards the ' pratibimba as real and identical with the bimba.25

165 Vidyaranya, for example, argues that the image is but the original itself appearing as if located in the mirror, and that it is not the reflection that is illusory but merely its apparent location. 26 Normally, the point of the pratibimbavada's identification of reflection and original is to establish the identity of jIva and Brahman. But Madhusudana is here utilizing the doctrine in an analysis of devotion. Since he is a master expositor of the various conflicting schools of thought in post-Sankara Advaita, we can be sure that he is well aware of the theoretical implications of the reflection theory and the consequences of its application here. He is expecting his readers to recognize the most important of these, namely, that bhakti, as a reflection, is to be identified with bhagavat, the original.27 Although he does it without any announcement, Madhusudana makes a further shift from he Bhagavata-purana's simple definition of devotion as a mode of the mind. As he strives to arrive at a clearer conception of bhakti from an Advaitic standpoint, he allows it to become, at least implicitly, identical with the Blessed Lord himself. Consider the sequence of thought and the grammatical structure in his sentences: "A reflection is nothing but the original itself. . Reflected in the mind, the Lord [subject ] 鈥� 鈥� 鈥� becomes a permanent emotion I must and reaches the state of being a sentiment." therefore agree in substance with Gupta when he says:

166 Madhusudana started with his pledge to the Bhagavata and thus declared cittavrtti [the mental mode] to be bhakti. But later on . he almost unconsciously landed into a spiritual region where bhakti becomes Bhagavat Himself 28 and not a mere cittavrtti. Madhusudana is forced in this direction for two related reasons, though I am not at all not sure that this movement is unconscious, as Gupta suggests. First, in his desire to establish that it is the paramapurusartha and the highest sentiment, he wishes to identify bhakti with supreme bliss. A mere mental mode, a product of maya, cannot be bliss, so Madhusudana has to establish that bhakti is something greater. 29 But it is axiomatic in Advaita that only Brahman and Isvara (in the language of the Bhakti-rasayana, bhagavat) can be said to be supreme bliss. On this account alone, then, bhakti must be identified with one or the other. Second, Madhusudana wants to give devotion an otological status that is, at the very least, commensurate with that of moksa. But how can a cittavrtti be placed on a par with liberation, especially when the latter has been identified by Samkara as equivalent to the unchanging Absolute? So again, bhakti must somehow be assimilated to the supreme principle. The well-known equation of moksa and Brahman has already closed off one way of accomplishing this. While the Gosvamins give bhakti a near-absolute status by equating it with the Lord's highest sakti, this

167 route is not open to Madhusudana. As an Advaitin, he must hold that Brahman's only sakti is maya, which is insentient (jada), like the vrtti, and in the final analysis not fully real. Given the options, then, the identification of bhakti and bhagavat is Madhusudana's natural and indeed only recourse.