365bet娱乐

This of course raises the question of the nature of bhagavat and the relation of bhagavat to Brahman. Considering the numerous quotations from the Bhagavata-purana found in the Bhakti-rasayana and the loving descriptions of the form of Krsna found in Madhusudana's devotional verses, we might conclude that his Blessed Lord is an anthropomorphically conceived deity and that the highest devotional experience is some type of mystical apprehension of a personal form. But the fact is, and this would be surprising were The Elixir of Devotion not written by so rigorous an Advaitin, that the first and most important chapter of the work is, despite the title, almost completely lacking in a personalized concept of the Godhead. Bhagavat appears in the particularized form of Krsna, Narayana, etc., only in the numerous verses of the Bhagavata-purana that are quoted in the text. The sole exception occurs in the first stanza, where Madhusudana speaks of devotion to "Mukunda" as the highest goal of life, and in section X, where he glosses the same stanza as follows:

168 The name "Mukunda" indicates the object of the yoga of devotion. It will be stated that He alone, the inner controller and Lord of all is the objective cause of the sentiment of devotion. 30 At the beginning of chapter two, Madhusudana defines devotion as the "form of Govinda that has entered firmly into the melted mind." "31 He then goes on to analyse the different types of bhakti in terms of the experience of the various participants in the Krsna-lila, as recounted in the Bhagavata-purana There is, however, no discussion of the nature of bhagavat himself. So, although "Mukunda" and "Govinda" are both names of Krsna and it is certain that Madhusudana is a devotee of that deity, we cannot determine from such references, which are either too brief or too general, how he understands either Krsna or devotional experience of We must look to the rest of the text to discover Krsna. this. Section XI gives us, in passing, an important hint as to Madhusudana's thinking on this subject. There he suggests that, though it is not the ordinary practice, devotees may take up the study of the Vedanta "for the sake of determining the essential nature of the object of their worship (bhajaniya)."32 While he does not develop this idea, it is warning enough. We should not be taken aback when, as we continue to read, we gradually realize that his portrait of bhagavat is practically indistinguishable from an orthodox Advaitic description of Brahman. Stanza 30, for

169 example, gives a number of adjectives intended to reveal the nature of the Blessed Lord, and the commentary explains each of them in turn: "`Omnipresent' indicates that He pervades all space, 'eternal' that He exists through all time, 'full' means that since He is one without second He is the substratum of the whole illusion of duality, and 'consciousness and bliss' indicates that He is the supreme goal of life."33 Commentary on stanzas 11-13 gives, as has already been mentioned, an Advaitin's argument in support of the blissfulness of rasa in general and of bhaktirasa in particular. Complete with quotations from the Upanisads and the Brahmasutras, a discussion of the two powers of maya, and a brief exposition of the non-dualist theory of knowledge, it reads like one of the author's more formal metaphysical treatises. For purposes of this discussion, Madhusudana shifts abruptly from using the word bhagavat as a designation of the highest principle to the use, instead, of Brahman and caitanya ("Consciousness"). These terms are employed interchangeably for each other, and for bhagavat as well. This practice continues in section XXIII, where Madhusudana establishes that the form of the Lord is innate in the mind. To provide authoritative support for his argument, he cites a portion of Suresvara's Sambandhavarttika that proves the innateness, not indeed of bhagavat, but of the Self or atman. A little later, quoting a well-

170 known passage from the Chandogya Upanisad, Madhusudana clearly identifies bhagavat and Brahman: "The Upanisadic text, `All this, verily, is Brahman, in origin, duration, and dissolution' [Chandogya Upanishad 3.14.11], teaches that all things arise from the Blessed Lord alone, exist in the Blessed Lord 34 alone, and dissolve into the Blessed Lord alone. Finally, in section XXIII, Madhusudana gives a definition of bhagavat which explicitly identifies Him with the atman of the Advaitins: "The Blessed Lord is the non-dual Self, a mass of perfect being, consciousness, and bliss, the pure existence which is the substratum of all. 35 Such passages make it obvious that the Bhakti-rasayana's understanding of bhagavat is thoroughly Advaitic; it certainly shows no influence of the Bengal Vaisnavas' elevation of bhagavat above the unqualified brahman. If anything, there is an opposite movement which would be totally unacceptable to the Gosvamins: the concept of bhagavat becomes quite depersonalized and closely identified with the unqualified, supreme Brahman of Advaita. I pointed out in chapter two that Samkara often spoke of the personal God and the Absolute as if they were 36 equivalent. Madhusudana's tendency in this direction is even more marked, and, as the following excerpts from the Gudhartha-dipika will demonstrate, it is by no means confined to the Bhakti-rasayana: "To Me [Krsna] alone," i.e., the undivided Self whose nature is being-consciousness-bliss, devoid of all limiting adjuncts.

171 And so it is said by Brahma regarding the Blessed Lord Sri Krsna: "Thou art the one Self, the ancient Person, the self-luminous truth, infinite, without second, eternal, imperishable, perpetual bliss, unstained, full, free from all limitation, immortal" [Bhagavata-purana 10.14.23]. meaning is, "You are the Self, the Brahman that is devoid of all limiting adjuncts. . . Blessed Lord Krsna is the ultimate reality, the unconditioned Brahman which is the support of all false projections. ** 38 The Reading passages such as these along with those from the Bhakti-rasayana just quoted, we might well wonder if Madhusudana wishes to completely efface the difference between the Lord and the transpersonal ultimate. The Bhakti-rasayana, at least, leaves us to search on our own for hints as to exactly what the difference between the two, if any, might be. In his chapter on the Bhakti-rasayana, Gupta maintains that the essential distinction is that in Brahman knowledge and bliss remain undifferentiated while in bhagavat bliss is separated out, I find no basis for as it were, and fully manifested. 39 this conclusion in the text. In fact Madhusudana at one point defines bhagavat in passing as a "mass of bliss and consciousness" and adds the qualifier "undivided."40 Moreover, caitanya and moksa are also identified as "supreme bliss."41 The only real clue to this problem given in the Bhakti-rasayana appears in section XI, where Madhusudana is discussing the difference between bhakti and knowledge of Brahman. I will therefore anticipate my consideration of that important passage by noting that in it the author makes a statement

172 that points clearly, if indirectly, to an important distinction between bhagavat and Brahman. He asserts that devotion is a determinate (savikalpaka) mental modification while knowledge of Brahman is indeterminate (nirvikalpaka).42 The distinction between determinate and For indeterminate perception is recognized by all schools of Indian thought, although their understanding of it differs according to their various metaphysical inclinations. the realists such as the Nyaya, both are types of relative, objective experience, indeterminate being bare apprehension, raw and uninterpreted, and determinate being cognition that is concretized and differentiated through conceptual thought. For late post-samkara Advaitins, however, all relative experience is savikalpaka, conditioned by "name and form" (namarupa), and only intuitive awareness of the undifferentiated, objectless Consciousness--i.e., Brahman-is nirvikalpaka. 43 Building on their understanding of this distinction, these writers distinguish between savikalpaka samadhi ("differentiated enstasis"), the experience of the qualified Brahman at the borderline of transcendence, and nirvikalpaka samadhi, the realization of absolute transcendence and complete identity with the unqualified Brahman. 44

173 The point of introducing this somewhat technical discussion is that to characterize a mode of awareness, Madhusudana has done, is also to characterize its object. If bhakti is a determinate experience, bhagavat, its object, must be a determinate or conditioned reality. Likewise, if spiritual knowledge is an indeterminate experience, Brahman, its object, must be indeterminate. It becomes apparent that, like Samkara, Madhusudana does not abandon the distinction between the personal God and the higher Brahman, even though he may relax it temporarily. Bhagavat, as we may have suspected all along, is the same as the Isvara of orthodox Advaita. He is the qualified (saguna) Brahman. Though ultimately identical with the unqualified, attributeless (nirguna) Brahman, he is conceptually--and for the mystic perhaps also experientially--distinguishable from the final state of pure Being. In the Gudhartha-dipika we find Madhusudana, in accord with Advaitic tradition, describing Isvara or bhagavat as having all the attributes and functions of a supreme personal God, qualities which make the Lord a savikalpaka, as opposed to a nirvikalpaka, reality. The determinate nature of bhagavat is obvious, for example, his commentary on Bhagavad Gita 7.14: The Blessed Lord, who is "original" (bimba), is possessed of infinite powers. He is the controller of maya, omniscient, the bestower of all results [of actions], sleepless, having a form (murti) of pure bliss. The supreme guru, he assumes numerous incarnations in order to grace His devotees. 45

174 This is the Lord who is the object of bhakti or, more accurately, who becomes bhakti when reflected in the melted mind of the devotee. The language used is appropriate for a description of the qualified Brahman; it could never be used in reference to the actionless, attributeless, impersonal Absolute. With a little research and thought, then, it becomes clear that the objects of bhakti and knowledge of Brahman can, in fact, be distinguished. There is, however, a danger that a rigid, "textbook" understanding of the Advaitins' distinction between the saguna and nirguna Brahman might lead us to conclude that Madhusudana regards the Lord as a merely phenomenal reality. It is true that certain of Sankara's followers, in their anxiety to preserve the complete transcendence and purity of Brahman, place Isvara within the realm of maya. This at least appears to be the result of the theories which take the pure Brahman itself as the bimba ("original"), regarding the personal God as its reflection (pratibimba) in the universal maya and the jIva as its reflection in individual Ignorance or the mind. Such thinking makes Isvara a kind of collective jIva; though greater perhaps in power than the individual soul, he seems, since both he and the jiva are reflections, to be equally involved in phenomenality. 46 But Madhusudana, as we have seen, follows the Vivarana school in refusing to reduce the Lord to the status of a reflection.

175 Isvara is himself the bimba, the very Brahman in its aspect of relatedness to the world. Even though appearing to be conditioned (upahita) in consequence of his role as the "prototype Consciousness" (bimbacaitanya), he remains nothing other than Brahman. Hence, Madhusudana can write: "Everything other than the Blessed Lord (mayika), 鈥� 鈥� is false "47 It is the Blessed Lord alone is real. necessary for Madhusudana to make a distinction between bhagavat and Brahman, since it is essential for the conceptual differentiation of bhakti and jnana, without which the whole enterprise of writing on devotion would be useless, as we shall see in the next section. Nevertheless, he is not anxious to stress the distinction in the Bhakti-rasayana, as this would imply a diminution of both bhagavat and bhakti. Given long established Advaita tradition and his particular reading of Isvara as bimba, he is well able to speak of the Lord in terms that we might think more appropriate to the nirguna ultimate and even to use language which seems to identify the two. We here approach the realm of the paradoxical, the ultimate mystery of Advaita that defies rigid conceptualization. As long as there remains a universe for Brahman to be related to--which is, according to Samkara Vedanta, forever--the personal God exists as one with the transpersonal Absolute. Hence, when the Lord speaks in

176 scripture, his voice is often to be interpreted as the "voice" of Brahman in both its aspects, qualified and unqualified, saguna and nirguna, as in Madhusudana's striking gloss at Gudhartha-dipika 12.8: "Having fixed your mind in Me, the qualified Brahman, you, having attained knowledge, with your Self absorbed in Me, will dwell in Me alone, the pure Brahman. "48 Who or what, then, is the Bhakti-rasayana's bhagavat? It is clear that, as far as the text is concerned, the Blessed Lord is equivalent to Brahman. Yet, while bhagavat is identical with the non-dual ultimate, he is that highest reality appearing in determinate form in order that, among other things, the supreme bliss which is his/its very nature may be relished. As to the nature of that form, Madhusudana is silent, except to suggest by his abundant use of the Bhagavata-purana that in some unspecified way it is, at least for him, that of his beloved Krsna.