365bet娱乐

In the Gudhartha-dipika, then, Madhusudana claims for samnyasins the right to enjoy bhakti without, as he did in the Bhakti-rasayana,

351 granting non-renunciate devotees a corresponding access to moksa. He furthermore ignores the idea of bhakti as the The problem now remains: If the Bhakti-rasayana and paramapurusartha. the Gudhartha-dipika have different and indeed contradictory teachings on the place and function of devotion in Advaita, which is Madhusudana's true outlook? We hypothesized at the start of this chapter that one motivation for his writing on bhakti may have been to think through his own spiritual experience and somehow bring together the two strands of Upanisadic non-dualism and Krsna devotionalism on which it was based. If this was the case, as seems impossible to doubt, something of what he wrote must represent his own personal understanding of the problem. But what? If we take definite agreement between the Bhakti-rasayana and the Gudhartha-dipika, his two major works on bhakti, as our criterion, three things can be said. First, it is at least clear that Madhusudana, who regarded himself as a jivanmukta, believed that it was perfectly possible to experience devotion in that state. Second, it is equally certain that he thought bhakti a great help at all levels of spiritual practice. Third, both texts make it obvious that he saw a very close relation between the Brahman of Advaita and the bhagavat of the Bhagavata-purana, and that he identified the latter with Krsna. Beyond these points, however, we cannot speak with certainty.

352 As to the especially important question of whether or not Madhusudana actually felt that bhakti was an independent path to moksa, the texts are in direct conflict. The Bhakti-rasayana says that it is, the Gudhartha-dipika that it is not. Which is the final position? The fact that Madhusudana repeatedly refers to the Bhakti-rasayana in the Gudhartha-dipika would seem to debar the simple explanation that he had changed his mind and repudiated the teaching of his earlier work, so we must look elsewhere for an answer. Madhusudana himself was a samnyasin of one of the most prestigious orders and a disciple of orthodox teachers. It would seem likely that during his novitiate he had followed the traditional disciplines of the Samkara school. The relatively conservative brand of devotional Advaita taught in the Gudhartha-dipika would therefore probably be more representative of his own personal spirituality.67 Madhusudana nevertheless continues to recognize the significantly different vision of the Bhakti-rasayana, it is possible that the earlier text was the product of a sense of obligation to instruct the unenlightened in terms acceptable to them, perhaps designed, as I have already suggested, to encourage Krsna devotionalists to come closer to the true views of the Sankara school, as modified by him to make room for devotion. Since It is significant that, in his Prasthanabheda (actually a portion of his commentary on the Mahimnastotra),

353 Madhusudana enunciates the principle that those teachers who advocate viewpoints inconsonant with the highest truth of Advaita are not necessarily ignorant. They are only, he says, seeking to capture the minds of those whose awareness is not sufficiently developed to comprehend non-duality, hoping thereby to prevent the latter from embracing 68 heterodox doctrines. Was the Bhakti-rasayana part of a similar stratagem? If so, the theory that Madhusudana was seriously attempting to modify the exclusivistic stance of Advaita Against this would be subject to serious question. understanding, it could be argued that his sympathy for devotional spirituality was indeed so great that his concession to orthodoxy in the Gudhartha-dipika was just that, a concession designed to make his presentation of the value of bhakti in the path of knowledge more acceptable to his conservative fellow samnyasins. It would, however, be more difficult to find support for this alternate hypothesis. The loss for the devotionalist of the notion of bhakti as an independent path and supreme goal of life is mitigated in the Gudhartha-dipika only by the fact that the continuance and blissful development of bhakti is allowed as an experiential enhancement of the state of jivanmukti. however, is really no compensation at all, since there is also in this text a renewed emphasis on Advaita's conservative social teaching. The bhaktas, unless as male This,

354 Brahmins they qualify for samnyasa, are not eligible for jIvanmukti. But, at least according to the Bhakti-rasayana, the full development of devotion presupposes that state. So the final result is somewhat ironic. The Advaitin renunciate, in borrowing Krsna-bhakti from the devotionalists, has excluded the latter from the highest levels of their own path, which have, in effect, been preempted for the samnyasins alone. Again, therefore, the teaching of the Gudhartha-dipika represents in certain crucial respects not an accommodation but actually a betrayal of the devotional ethos of the Bhagavata-purana In view of his tradition and training, as well as the orthodox nature of his major works, I am inclined to the conclusion that the teachings of the Gudhartha-dipika, and not the Bhakti-rasayana, are closer to Madhusudana's own personal experience as a jnanin-devotee and more indicative of his final outlook. The result is that Madhusudana's reputation as a champion of devotion must be qualified. To be sure, his status as the foremost advocate of the inclusion of bhakti within the Advaitic spiritual experience remains intact. But it is somewhat diminished by his failure to provide an adequate theoretical justification of his position, at least in reference to the problem of devotion in jivanmukti, and perhaps on other levels as well. reputation as a liberal who sought to open Advaita to all by Furthermore, his making devotion an independent path to non-dual realization

has been shown to be almost entirely undeserved. Despite his encounter with the Lord of the cowherds, Madhusudana remains an orthodox Advaitin and, as such, an incurable spiritual elitist. 355