ter lived shortly after Rāmānuja is rejected by S.N. Dasgupta (1940), who puts him in the mid-14th century, based on internal evidence and also on the grounds that his doctrine is not mentioned by the Sarvadarśanasamgraha (The Compendium of Systems) of Mādhava. Until R. Bose (1940–1941; 1943), there existed no English translation of Nimbārka’s commentary of the Brahmasūtra. This Bengali scholar is also the first to identify the main successors of Nimbārka until the 19th century and to give a comprehensive survey of their philo-sophical works. Another early exposition based on primary sources is V.S. Ghate (1918), who, on the basis of a comparison among the five main commentaries on the Brahmasūtra, declared Nimbārka’s more faithful to their teachings than either Śankara’s, Rāmānuja’s, → Madhva’s, or → Vallabha ’s teachings (Ghate, 1981, 169). Thanks to these authors and to other ones, the present state of our knowledge of the philosophical and theological ideas of the Nimbārkīs is quite satisfy-ing. The same cannot be said about their devo-tional literature. It is from the 16th century on that, side by side with Sanskrit textbooks dealing mostly with philosophical matters, one finds a corpus of mystical poetry composed in Brajbha-sha, the classical Braj dialect of Hindi, expressing a sensuous form of devotion for Krsna (Sharma, 1978; McGregor, 1984). This vast body of texts in vernacular is often difficult to date accurately; it still awaits critical editions, translations, and detailed analysis. New research in this field is done by I. Bangha (2007). The history and organization of the sect have also been neglected by scholars. The most thorough expositions are found in P. Mital (1968) and A.W. Entwistle (1987), while G.N. Ghurye (1953) and C. Clémentin-Ojha (1990; 1999; 2000; 2003; 2006) focus on ascetics or religious leaders. Since the early 20th century, learned Nimbārkīs have also published books and journals about their sect. A very well-documented sectarian account is that of Pandit Brajvallabha-sharana (Brajvallabhaśarana, 1972). All these stud-ies pay little attention to householder Nimbārkīs, their mode of recruitment, their financial contri-bution to the sect, or their place in society. It is thus difficult to have an integrated view of the Nimbārka Sampradāya.

The sectarian tradition or → sampradāya of Nimbārka (not earlier than the 13th cent.?) is one of the oldest extant groups of → Visnu worshippers (or Vaisnavas) in North India. As in all Hindu sects, its members are recruited through initiation by a → guru. Today the greatest concentration of Nimbārkīs (also called Nimāvats) is found in the northwest regions, particularly in Braj (the region around the town of Mathura; → Uttar Pradesh), the holy land of → Krsna with which the sect is associated since its foundation, and in nearby eastern → Rajasthan. Also called Sanakādi Sampra-dāya and Hamsa Sampradāya from the names of its divine founders, and Harivyāsa Sampradāya after its 16th-century leading authority, the sect is both a theistic school of → Vedānta and an institu-tionalized community with an elaborate social organization. The Nimbārka Sampradāya com-prises two classes of initiated disciples, ascetics (vairāgī, lit. bereft of emotion) and householders (grhastha). The number of its members is unknown.

The Nimbārka Sampradāya was hardly noticed by the first scholars who wrote about Hindu sects in the 19th century, with the notable exceptions of H.H. Wilson (1861), F.S. Growse (1883), and G.A. Grierson (1889). Among those who do not mention it are J.H. Garcin de Tassy (1870–1871) and W.J. Wilkins (1887). Judging from the articles “Bhakti-mārga” (Grierson), “Bairāgī” (Crooke), “Hinduism” (Crooke), and “Sect” (Crooke) of Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (Hastings, 1908–1926), the sect was still somewhat obscure at the turn of the 20th century; in “Nimāvat,” A.S. Geden echoed H.H. Wilson and F.S. Growse, but underlined that Nimbārka was probably influ-enced by the Vedāntin theologian → Rāmānuja (11th cent.).

It is as a school of Vedānta philosophy that the sect first draws the attention of scholars, who illus-trate that its philosophical doctrine developed in the context of reaction against → Śankara ’s pure nondualistic interpretation of the → Upanisads (kevalādvaitavedānta; see → Vedānta). R.G. Bhan-darkar (1913) gives a description of the sect’s main tenets on the basis of an annotated English trans-lation of the Daśaślokī, a “ten-verse” Sanskrit work attributed to Nimbārka. His argument that the lat-

Nimbārka Sampradāya

430 Nimbārka Sampradāya

tifies brahman with Krsna, whereas for Rāmānuja the highest reality is Visnu-Nārāyana accompa-nied by Śrī (→ Śrī Laksmī; for a summary of their philosophical differences and similarities, see Bose, 1943, 249–250).

A number of religious texts exposing a difference-nondifference interpretation of the Vedānta are attributed to Nimbārka, all in Sanskrit. The two most important are the Vedāntapārijātasaurabha (The Perfume of the Pārijāta Tree of Vedānta), which is a short commentary on the Brahmasūtra, and the Daśaślokī (Ten Verses), a brief doctrinal exposition in ten verses. While the first of these works mentions Krsna as the sole object of medi-tation, the second introduces → Rādhā by the left side of Krsna. This fact leads some authors to argue that the Daśaślokī could not be attributed to Nimbārka himself but to a disciple of his who lived much later in Braj, at a time when the cult of Rādhā had become widespread there. However, in his commentary on the Daśaślokī, Purusottomācārya, the third successor of Nimbārka, mentions Rādhā. But he does not give her any role in the process of salvation: it is Krsna, and he alone, who saves the faithful disciple, whereas with later Nimbārkīs Rādhā becomes an intercessor. As we will see, the status of Rādhā seems to have under-gone some important changes within the sect in the 16th century.

According to Vedāntapārijātasaurabha, as elu-cidated by Nimbārka’s immediate successor Śrīnivāsa in the Vedāntakaustubha, there are three equally eternal realities, brahman, the cit, and the acit – that is to say, the highest reality, or both the material and efficient cause of the universe (VedPāSau. 1.4.23–27) on the one hand, and the soul and the world on the other hand, which are its effects. These three are eternal, because brahman is essentially other than the soul (VedPāSau. 1.4.18; 2.1.21) and the universe (VedPāSau. 2.1.4–6; 2.1.16). Just as the rays of the sun and the sun (VedPāSau. 3.2.28) or just as the different kinds of stones and the earth (VedPāSau. 2.1.22) are both different and not different from each other, the universe and the soul being effects and parts of brahman, are also nondistinct from it (VedPāSau. 2.1.5). Thus the relation among the three basic realities is not of absolute identity (as in the Advaita interpretation of Śan kara), and their dif-ference is as significant as their nondifference (unlike Rāmānuja, for whom the difference is superseded by nondifference; Bose, 1943, 250) –

Doctrines

A Vaisnava School of VedāntaIn sectarian sources, a number of stories are told about Nimbārka, but their historical validity is questionable. According to Purusottama, his third successor, Nimbārka was born in the Telinga Kingdom (today Telangana, northern Andhra Pradesh; Bose, 1943, 2). According to Śrīni-vāsa, his immediate successor and author of the Vedānta kaustubha (The Kaustubha Jewel of Vedānta), Nimbārka is “the founder of the sect of the reverend Sanatkumāra” (VedKau. 1.1.1); his direct guru is the → rsi Nārada, a disciple of the four Kumāras (Sanakakumāra, Sanandakumāra, Sanātanakumāra, and Sanatkumāra, who are the sons of → Brahmā and also rsis), who had been instructed by Hamsa (“Swan”), the swan incarna-tion of Brahmā (VedKau. 1.1.1). This pedigree amounts to a claim to high antiquity. Other sec tarian accounts do not appear earlier than the 16th century. They depict Nimbārka as a naisthikabrahmacārin, a perpetual Brahmanical student or a person who has adopted lifelong celi-bacy. In the absence of sound historical research, it is impossible to be specific about his period of life. He could not have lived before Rāmānuja (11th cent.), whose commentary on the Brahma-sūtra seems to have inspired his own, nor before the dualist Madhva (12th cent.), whose ideas he refutes (Bose, 1943, 17). Some hold him to be posterior even to Vallabha (Bose, 1943, 17). Though the scholars of his tradition maintain that he flourished long before Śankara (7th cent.; Brajvallabhaśarana, 1972, 66–79), there is little doubt that Nimbārka is part of the general reac-tion against the champion of nondualist (Advaita) Vedānta. His insistence on the reality of plurality greatly resembles Rāmānuja’s doctrine of qualified nondualism (Viśistādvaitavāda). His view of sal-vation too agrees with that of Rāmānuja. These similarities are accounted for when one keeps in mind that both theologians identify → brahman with a personal god and attempt to graft their the-istic concerns on the orthodox Vedānta system. Both also borrow several theological concepts and rituals from the → Bhāgavata and → Pāñcarātra schools of Vaisnavism. Thus they have in common the initiation with five sacraments (pañcasamskāra-dīksā) and the form of spiritual discipline called prapatti (surrender to god). But there are some dif-ferences, the main one being that Nimbārka iden-

Nimbārka Sampradāya 431

hence the name given to the doctrine of Nimbārka: svābhāvikabhedābheda (VedPāSau. 2.3.42; 3.2.27–28) or natural difference–nondifference (Bose, 1943, 42).

Salvation (moksa; see → liberation) means attain-ing similarity (sāmya) with brahman (VedPāSau. 3.2.26). It implies the destruction of narrow ego-tism but not the annihilation of the individuality of the soul (as in the advaita doctrine of Śan kara) since the soul is eternally different from brahman. In fact, salvation means the full development of one’s own real and essential nature (ātmasvarū-palābha; VedPāSau. 4.4.1–2; Bose, 1943, 43). This happens only after death once all karmic effects of one’s actions have been exhausted. The soul is finally released when it is freed from the body: the Nimbārkīs do not believe in jīvanmukti (see → jīvanmukta).

After Śrīnivāsa, the philosophical doctrine of bhedābheda was further elaborated by Puru sottamācārya, Devācārya, Sundarabhatta, Keśava Kaśmirī Bhatta, and Svabhūdevācārya (alias Puru sottamaprasāda Vaisnava I) – respec-tively, the second, fourth, 12th, 13th, 29th, and 32nd in the line of spiritual succession. Judging from their literary works, all were erudite theolo-gians. But outside their intellectual production, nothing certain is known about them. Purusottamācārya, the third guru, is the first known Nimbārki to criticize the rival Advaita position. He comments on the Daśaślokī in his Vedāntaratnamañjusā (Receptacle of Vedānta Gems). Strangely enough, he makes obeisance to Śrīnivāsa and not to his supposed guru, Viśvācārya (Bose, 1943, 69). It is also remarkable that he him-self is quoted as an authority (Bose, 1943, 108) by Devācārya, though there are eight gurus between them. Two other points are equally noticeable. On the one hand, Keśava Kaśmirī Bhatta, the 29th successor of Nimbārka, manifests a great rever-ence for Sundarabhatta, who, as the direct disciple of Devācārya, is the 13th successor of Nimbārka. And on the other hand, Svabhūdevācārya quotes Purusottamācārya, Devācārya, and especially Sundarabhata, who are also supposed to have lived much earlier than him (Bose, 1943, 141). Besides the fact that all these texts are undated, another historiographical challenge is the absence of reli-able information on the gurus whose names are not connected with any work. What the above observations nevertheless show is that, theologian after theologian, the Nimbārka Sampradāya con-

stituted its own tradition of interpretation and a type of institutional arrangement that rendered commentaries and subcommentaries available for reference and study.

The Joint Cult of Rādhā and KrsnaNimbārka’s attempt to reconcile philosophical explanations of the ultimate categories with theis-tic concerns about the attributes of the highest reality is reflected in his identification of brahman with Visnu (the husband of Ramā, i.e. Laksmī; VedPāSau. 1.1.1), Hari, Nārāyana, Vāsudeva, and, more often, Krsna (VedKau. 1.1.1–2). Brahman-Krsna is essentially possessed of attributes (VedKau. 1.1.1–2), is the cause of the world (VedKau. 1.1.2), cannot be known by perception or inference but only through an omniscient guru who is well versed in the Veda (VedPāSau. 1.1.3–4), and is the giver of salvation. In the Daśaślokī (5), Nimbārka introduces another character besides Krsna: the “daughter of Vrsabhanu,” that is to say Rādhā. Standing on the left side of Krsna (identi-fied with brahman and Hari in verse 4), she is always to be remembered along with him. Rādhā is known to the Prakrit literature of North India as early as the 3rd century (Stoler-Miller, 1984, 26–27). Though she is the most beloved gopī (cow-herdesses) of Krsna, she is but one among many milkmaids of Braj ready to leave everything for the love of the young god. Modern-day Nimbārkīs claim that the Daśaślokī is the first Vaisnava canonical text to permanently associate Rādhā with Krsna and to install her on his left side, a position adopted by all the other Krishnaite sects in Braj. According to them, moreover, the fifth verse of the Daśaślokī calls the “daughter of Vrsabhanu” a goddess (devī), thus introducing a conception of Rādhā hitherto unknown in the Vaisnava world. The question to consider is whether their sect is, as they claim, the first one to attribute a divine status to Rādhā or whether this conception is not rather a development connected with later religious history.

It is difficult to know what Nimbārka’s concep-tion of Rādhā is since, as we have seen, he does not mention her in his philosophical commentary on the Brahmasūtra (the Vedāntapārijātasaurabha) and does not develop any theological discourse on her in the Daśaślokī: it is Krsna who is the supreme being and he alone who is the direct means of salvation (DaśŚl. 8). Rādhā does not figure in his disciple’s work. She reappears with

432 Nimbārka Sampradāya

Purusottamā cārya, the third in the line of suc-cession, in his Vedān taratnamañjusā, the oldest known sectarian commentary on the Daśaślokī. Following Nimbārka, Purusottamācārya holds that brahman-Krsna is the abode of all beauty, grace, and auspiciousness. He describes his qualities along the lines of the Pāñcarātra tenets, incorpo-rating also their tantric concept of vyūha (emana-tion), a form that the highest reality assumes for the sake of creation (Bose, 1943, 75). Coming to the fifth verse of the Daśaślokī, which mentions “the daughter of Vrsabhānu” and devī, Purusottamācārya understands these words to refer to two distinct characters: Laksmī (for devī) and Rādhā (for “daughter of Vrsabhānu”), whom he also calls “the woman of Braj” (vrajastrī). Here, therefore, Krsna has two consorts, one of whom, Rādhā, is on his left side. Considering the pancar-atric heritage of the Nimbārkīs, it might also be useful to recall that, in some dhyānaśloka (meditation stanza) of the Pāñcarātra, Krsna is positioned between Rukmin ī on his right side and Satyabhamā on his left (Viśvaksenasamhitā, 11.129; see also → Pāñcarātra; see Smith, 1969, 155).

The striking fact about Rādhā is that until Śrībhatta’s poetry (composed in Brajbhasha in the mid-16th century), where she takes central stage, she disappears from the writings of Puru sottamācārya’s successors. The latter men-tion only the couple Purusottama-Laksmī and identify brahman, Purusottama, and Krsna. The silence surrounding Rādhā is all the more striking in the case of Keśava Kaśmirī Bhatta since he is the guru of Śrībhatta. In his Kramadīpikā (Light on the Method), Krsna is the son of Nanda (KrDī. 4.25) and Devakī (KrDī. 4.47; 5.50); he plays the flute in the midst of the gopas and gopīs of Braj and dances the rāsa dance with them (KrDī. 5.50–62; see → līlā). In another evocation, Krsna stands in the middle of 16 thousand bedecked women with Rukmin ī on his right and Satyabhamā on his left side (as in some dhyānaśloka of the Pāñcarātra), and they are surrounded by the Vrsnis, Krsna’s clan at Dvārakā (7.9–13; today Dwarka). Krsna is called Rukmin ī’s husband and also the gopīs’ lover (gopījanavallabha), but he is never seen with Rādhā. Given the fact that philosophical texts do not always reflect actual religious practices, these intellectual elaborations omitting Rādhā do not prove that she was not worshipped by the Nimbārkīs of that period; they do, however,

show that her ontological status had remained unchanged since Purusottamācārya.

It seems then that for several generations of Nimbārkīs, Rādhā is this exceptional woman of Braj who rules the heart of Krsna. Things change with Śrībhatta and with his disciple Harivyāsa ( fl. late 16th cent. and early 17th cent.) when she acquires an altogether new dimension and takes on the characteristics that Nimbārkīs were to associate with her to this day. Śrībhatta’s main work is the Yugalaśataka (The Century of the Couple), a hundred dohās (rhyming couplet), each commented on by a pada (verse composi-tion), composed in Brajbhasha. It emphasizes emotional devotion and a form of worship cen-tered on Krsna and Rādhā as a married couple always united (YugŚa. 9, 10, 99). Despite having different forms, Rādhā and Krsna are essentially one; they reflect each other (YugŚa. 60). With Śrībhatta’s disciple, Harivyāsa, also an accom-plished poet like his guru, the exaltation of Krsna’s beloved asserts itself. Rādhā acquires divine status. Harivyāsa articulates this theoretical inno-vation in two works: the Siddhāntaratnāñjalī (Handful of Gems on the Doctrine), a Sanskrit commentary on the Daśaślokī of Nimbārka, which we recall had until then only been commented on by the third guru Purusottamācārya; and the Mahāvānī (The Great Word), a commentary in Brajbhasha of Śrībhatta’s Yugalaśataka, simi-larly composed in dohās and padas. In the Siddhāntaratnāñjalī, Harivyāsa transforms the “daughter of Vrsabhānu” into an incarnation of Laksmī. In the Mahāvānī, he situates her on the same ontological plane as Krsna because she sym-bolizes → prakrti and he → purusa. From their per-petual loving union, the world and the universal activity originate (Siddhāntasukha [The Happy (Chapter) on the Doctrine]; MaVā. 16). Rādhā and Krsna seem to be two, but they are a single essential form (svarūpa), for he is the śaktimat (possessed of energy), and she his hlādinīśakti (energy of infinite felicity). Rādhā’s female com-panions (sakhī), who lovingly contemplate their union, symbolize the souls; they are a mani-festation of their energy of desire (icchāśakti; Siddhāntasukha; MaVā. 18). Harivyāsa gives an elaborate list of sakhīs.

Thus, with Harivyāsa appears the conception that brahman, who is one by nature, is composed of two equal principles, Purusottama– śaktimat-Krsna and prakrti-śakti-Rādhā. This is a major

Nimbārka Sampradāya 433

innovation in the theology of the sect. For the earlier Nimbārkīs, the assimilation of Krsna with Purusottama does not imply the assimilation of Rādhā with a corresponding feminine principle such as prakr ti. According to Nimbārka himself, brahman is Purusottama, not Purusottama and Laksmī, and → śakti is not an independent princi-ple, but remains in Purusottama (brahman-Krsna). While it cannot be denied that a source of inspiration for Harivyāsa was the theory of śakti as systematically exposed in the works of → Rūpa Gosvāmī (1489–1564), Sanātana Gosvāmī (1488–1558), and → Jīva Gosvāmī (1513–1598) of the Gaudīya Vaisnava Sampradāya (→ Gaudīya Vaisnavism), a number of his ideas can be traced to the old pancaratric heritage that was shared by the Krishnaite movements active in Braj. The Laksmī of this tradition in particular presents several characteristics of Harivyāsa’s Rādhā. Some ideas also seem to come from the Brahma-vaivartapurāna. Thus the cult of Rādhā and the double assimilation of Rādhā with prakrti and śakti are characteristics of this Purāna, which con-structs a synthesis of Śākta and Krishnaite ele-ments (Brown, 1974). Besides, new as they appear, the conceptions introduced by Harivyāsa can be cast in the ancient doctrinal mold of the sect: they do not upset its general perspective of a relation of difference and nondifference (bedhābheda) between brahman and individual souls (now sym-bolized by the sakhī). Though the Mahāvānī is both doctrinal and devotional, it is not primarily a philosophical treaty, but rather a guideline for devotional conduct and contemplative life, as we shall see later. From then on, Nimbārkīs will com-pose poetic works in Brajbhasha inspired by the tender love of Rādhā and Krsna. Though quite a few are noted for their poetic skills, they do not add any significant religious feature to Harivyāsa’s conceptions.

History and Organization An Early Association with BrajThese new theological conceptions are insepara-ble from the growth of the cult of Rādhā and Krsna around Mathura and Vrindaban and the emer-gence of a devotional literature of outstanding quality in the local Brajbhasha. The region of Braj becomes an important seat of Krsna culture in the 16th century as new religious figures make their

apparitions in the old cultural center of Mathura and reclaim sacred sites associated with the early life of Krsna (Vaudeville, 1976). They teach an emotional variety of devotion inspired by the Bhāgavatapurāna (Mital, 1968; Entwistle, 1987). If each of these personalities brings a unique contribution to the religion of Krsna, the con-centration of Krishnaite movements around Mathura and Vrindaban, the small size of the region, and the fact that all address their devotion to the same divinity are conditions that render reciprocal borrowings as well as intense sectar -ian rivalry inevitable. Yet some names stand above others, the most outstanding being those of Vallabha (1481–1533), Rūpa Gosvāmī and Sanātana Gosvāmī (see above), Haridāsa ( fl. 16th cent.), and → Hit Harivamś ( fl. 16th cent.), the respective founders of the Pustimārga (→ Vallabha Sampradāya), the Gaudīya Vaisnava Sampradāya, the → Haridāsī Sampradāya, and the → Rādhāvallabha Sampradāya.

In these developments, the part taken by the Nimbārkīs is difficult to assess due to lack of his-torical evidence. In the 16th century, they seem to have been a small group of ascetic scholars orga-nized in a single lineage of spiritual transmission (guruparamparā) and possessing but few belong-ings. Unlike the followers of → Caitanya, who build impressive temples right from their foundation, they do not seem to attract rich patrons. All their large temples in the region date from much later periods, when they benefit from the protection of the rulers of Amer-Jaipur, Bharatpur, and Gwalior. Should one therefore dismiss as a retro-spective tradition the sectarian claim that Nimbārka himself and the first Nimbārkīs were long settled in Braj by the 16th century? The fact that the Ācāryacarita, the oldest existing hagi-ography of Nimbārka, is not from before the 16th century casts doubt on that claim. However, the association with Braj is a determining feature of the sect from the time of Keśava Kaśmiri Bhatta, who is an older contemporary of Vallabha and Caitanya (Entwistle, 1987, 137). This is borne out to some extent by the sectarian tradition that three memorial stones found at Narada Tila in Mathura are the cenotaphs (samādhis) of Keśava Kaśmiri Bhatta, of his disciple Śrībhatta, and of the latter’s disciple, Harivyāsa. Besides, Keśava Kaśmiri Bhatta is the first Nimbārkī to be associated with the Braj country by a nonsectarian source. In the Bhaktamāla (The Garland of Devotees; chappaya

434 Nimbārka Sampradāya

[four-verses rhyming stanza] 75) of Nābhādās ( fl. 1600), he is shown defeating the → mlecchas in Mathura and frightening several Muslim mag-istrates (kājī, i.e. qāzī). According to F.S. Growse, the story refers to the reign of Sikandar Lodi (1489–1517), when the Hindus of Mathura were forbidden to take their ritual bath in the Yamunā (Growse, 1883, 34, 141–142; Mital, 1968, 196–197; Entwistle, 1987, 135). The Vallabhīs claim that it is Vallabha who delivered the Hindus from this ban. Apart from the Kramadīpikā, Keśava Kaśmiri Bhatta wrote the Vedāntakaustubhaprabhā (Light on the Kaustubha Jewel of Vedānta), a commen-tary on Śrīnivāsa’s Vedāntakaustubha.

With Śrībhatta and his disciple Harivyāsa, the links with Braj are consolidated. Śrībhatta, whose literary activity has been dated between 1525 and 1575 (McGregor, 1984, 92), stands out as the first Nimbārkī to write in Brajbhasha (hence his sectarian title of ādivānīkāra). The Bhaktamāla (chappaya 76) remembers him as a great poet whose evocation of the loving pair of the son of Nanda and the daughter of Vrsabhānu ravishes the heart of those who know how to taste its rasa or aesthetic emotional flavor (see → rasa theory). Harivyāsadeva is active between 1568 and 1618 (McGregor, 1984, 93). Like his guru, he belongs to the locally dominant Gauda Brahman subcaste, and his main disciples do too. This social identity is at odds with the supposed earlier pattern of hav-ing Tailanga Brahmans at the head of the sect, in keeping up with Nimbārka’s admitted own caste affiliation. Is it a sheer coincidence, then, that at the very time at which these local Brahmans take their lead, the Nimbārkīs start composing in the local language, thereby adding to their old rep-ertoire of stern vedantic commentaries in San-skrit, a mystical type of poetry in Braj? These two innovations could have helped them strengthen their old bonds with Braj and culturally close areas, such as eastern Rajasthan, when the region was undergoing notable transformations under the influence of new devotional (→ bhakti) sects and important political developments. The lives of Śrībhatta and his disciple Harivyāsa span the greater part of the 16th century, a period during which the Braj country witnesses great changes. Within 15 years of the death of Sikandar Lodi, Babur (1483–1530) lays the foundations of the Mughal Empire, which his grandson Akbar (1542–1605) consolidates from his accession to the throne in 1556. Mathura and Vrindaban

benefit from being close to the political seats of power of Agra and Fatehpur Sikri, the imperial capital between 1569 and 1585.

Spatial Expansion, New Organization, and Sectarian DivisionsThere seems little doubt that the sect experienced a renaissance of sorts from the early 17th century under the able leadership of Harivyāsa, arguably the most important Nimbārkī ascetic after Nimbārka himself. The fact that in their old sources Nimbārkīs are named “Harivyāsīs” seems to point to his organizational skills and dynamism. According to sectarian accounts, Harivyāsa not only worked at increasing the membership of the sect, but also gave it an unprecedented spatial expansion by sending his 12 ascetic disciples outside the Braj area to propagate his teachings. They are remembered as Svabhūrāma, Vohita, Hrsīkeśa, Mādhava, Paraśurāma, Keśava, Bāhubala, Gopāla, Madanagopāla, Lāparagopāla, Uddhava (or Ghamanda), and Mukunda. The growth of the sect from the 17th century is also due to another innovation that can be traced to Harivyāsa too: the foundations of autonomous householder lineages by family relations of his and of two of his disci-ples, Paraśūrāma and Svabhūrāma. F.S. Growse (1883, 194–196) met with the patrilineal descen-dants of the brother-in-law of Harivyāsa at Dhruva Tila in Mathura (see also Wilson, 1861, 86). This family and others have to this day the hereditary custody of a number of Nimbārkī temples in Braj. Their authority is an emanation of the ascetic branches from which they have sprung. Though the implications of this development for the insti-tutional arrangements within the sect is not known, it could be a sign of the historical changes of the age since a similar phenomenon of secular-ization is observed among other contemporary movements. For example, the Gaudīya Vaisnava Sampradāya has given hereditary charges to householders right from its foundation, while the leadership of the sect of Vallabha has been recruited from within his own family. Finally, Harivyāsa extended the Vaisnava influence in yet another way. According to Bhaktamāla (chappaya 77), he gave initiation (dīksā) to the Goddess (Devī; → Mahādevī). In the early 18th century, a gloss of the Bhaktamāla unraveled this somewhat cryptic episode by explaining that once “Vishnu-ized,” the bloodthirsty Devī opted for vegetarian offerings. It is not forbidden to see in this divine

Nimbārka Sampradāya 435

encounter an echo of the decline of Śākta cults and animal sacrifices, once Krsna bhakti spread in the regions where they were earlier dominant (Vaudeville, 1976, 204; Entwistle, 1987, 114–116; Clémentin-Ojha, 2003).

The Paraśurāma Branch and the Monastery of SalemabadSince the 17th century, the structure of the Nimbārka Sampradāya is one of distinct and autonomous, though interrelated, “doors” or branches (dvāra, śākhā) that claim the same ances-tor and are divided into ascetic and householder lineages (guruparamparā). The ascetic lineages, which represent the main channels of sectarian authority, are each under the direction of an abbot (mahant), who is the spiritual as well as the admin-istrative head of their monastery. Today, the most developed lineages are those issued from two of the disciples of Harivyāsa, Svabhūrāma, and Paraśurāma ( fl. 17th cent.).

Literarily gifted, Paraśurāma is the author of the Paraśurāmasagara (The Ocean of Paraśurāma), a long praise of the formless god, which offers a rare example of the → nirguna (without attributes) conception of the divine in a sect that so much emphasizes personified godhead. The Bhaktamāla (chappaya 137) records that he brought Nimbārka’s tenets to the people of eastern Rajasthan, thus pushing yet a little further the spatial (and may be social as well) boundaries of the sect. Paraśurāma’s branch grew and prospered thanks to generous patronage of the kingdom of Kishangarh, within whose borders the monastery of Salemabad stood, and of the kingdom of Amer-Jaipur. The activities that these Rajput kingdoms patronized were both secular and religious, and it is in this context that one should view their appreciation for devotional poetry. Writing in Brajbhasha, their court poets drew much of their inspiration from the theme of the love games of Rādhā and Krsna in which mun-dane and divine loves are inextricably connected. It is therefore highly plausible to link the influence of the Nimbārkīs on Kishangarh in the 18th cen-tury to the prominent place it gave to Rādhā – a beloved woman elevated to the status of an inde-pendent goddess – as it corresponded to new fem-inine ideal and literary tastes (Bangha, 2007, 323). Some of the poets of Kishangarh who excelled in this devotional genre belonged to the ruler’s fam-ily (Entwistle, 1987, 210). Two of them were closely associated with Salemabad: Queen Bankavatī,

wife of Rājasimha (r. 1706–1748), and Rājasimha’s son, Savantsimha (r. 1725–1757), who wrote under the name of Nāgarīdāsa. Whereas the claim that the latter was initiated into the sect has been challenged by the Vallabhīs, the queen was a dis-ciple of Vrndāvanadeva, the abbot of Salemabad, between 1697 and 1740 – himself a skilled poet (Bangha, 2007, 331). Another very fine poet of the time who had also taken initiation from Vrndāvanadeva was Ānandaghana (Ghanānanda), of the Kāyastha caste. Although closely acquainted with Nāgarīdāsa, he does not seem to have been a court poet at Kishangarh (Bangha, 2007, 343). He is said to have died at Vrindaban in 1757 during the massacre perpetrated by the Afghan ruler Ahmad Shāh Abdalī.

The patronage of Salemabad by the Kachcha-vaha dynasty of Amer-Jaipur also started with Vrndāvanadeva, who was one of the spiritual advi-sors of Jayasimha II (r. 1688–1743). In 1791, the mother of Pratāpasimha (r. 1778–1803) built a temple (the Śrījī kī Modī Temple) for one of his successors within the precincts of the royal palace. Under the abbotship of Nimbārkaśarana (1814–1838), who was the guru of the regent Queen Bhattiān ī (r. 1819–1835), the monastery received a number of tax-free lands, and the abbot started sporting the grand royal title “Śrījī Mahārāja.” From 1826, the head of the Salemabad monastery was also in a position to assert his presence in Vrindaban, where the regent queen offered him a magnificent temple (the Śrījī kī Badī Kuñj Temple). This happened at a time when the Braj area was experiencing some prosperity under British rule. It is certainly not a coincidence if it is also then that the abbot of Salemabad started offi-cially claiming jurisdiction over all the branches of the Nimbārkīs with the political backing of Jaipur (which had signed an alliance with the East India Company in 1818). A chancellery document endorsed by the British in 1822 calls him the “master of the seat of the sect of Nimbārka” (Clémentin-Ojha, forthcoming). This claim led to the formation of several factions within the sect and the creation of divergent histories; it was par-ticularly challenged by the Svabhurāma branch, which held that the central monastic seat of the sect had been shifted to Bengal. Yet F.S. Growse offers some evidence that in the 1870s the abbot of Salemabad did indeed possess an authority that went beyond Rajasthan (Growse, 1883, 196), whereas there does not seem to have been any

436 Nimbārka Sampradāya

Nimbārkī establishment of importance at Mathura at that time. The ascetics with whom F.S. Growse met there were mostly pious individuals living in solitude in the countryside, not much concerned with philosophical issues and with little knowledge of the canonical sectarian literature. However, as for the state of the Nimbārkīs settled in Bengal in those days, it is not known.

Their ideal of the ascetic unconcerned with worldly acquisition notwithstanding, the lineage of Salemabad accumulated considerable immov-able properties at Jaipur thanks to the patronage of the royal family. But this privileged relationship dating from the days of Jayasimha II came to an abrupt end under the rule of Rāmasimha II (1851–1880), when, giving up his ancestral faith, the mahārājā converted to the Śaiva tradition and started questioning the orthodoxy of Vaisnava rituals and theology. Alarmed, the abbot of Salem-abad left Jaipur surreptitiously in October 1864 to take refuge in Salemabad. A few years later, all his Jaipur properties were confiscated by the state. No Salemabad abbot ever returned to the Kachchvaha Kingdom. The first one to visit since the dramatic

departure of 1864 went there in 1950, when Jaipur had become the capital of the new state of Raja-sthan in the secular Republic of India (Clémentin-Ojha, 1999). Since 1944, the abbot of Salemabad has been Jagadguru Nimbarkacharya Swami Shree Radhasarveshvarasharana Devacharya (his fol-lowers call him Shree Shreeji Maharaja). Another outstanding personality in this lineage was Pandit Brajvalla bhasharana (1901–1994), certainly the best intellectual the sect has known in modern times.

The Svabhurāma Branch and Minor BranchesIt is universally admitted in the sect that Svabhūrāma was the eldest disciple of Harivyāsa and went to Punjab, where he founded an estab-lishment at Tirkhuyagya (Tirkhutirtha), near Sinkh (in today’s Hariyana). This branch was pros-perous at first, but according to sectarian accounts it later declined due to the growing influence of the → Rāmānandīs in the region. However, its exact history is yet to be put together. It could have suffered from the political and economic uncer-tainties that befell the Punjab throughout the

Fig. 1: To the left Pandit Brajvallabhasharana (1901–1994) in Vrindaban, 1988 (photo by Catherine Clémentin-Ojha).

Nimbārka Sampradāya 437

second half of the 17th century and the 18th cen-tury. Today it is divided into many lineages and sublineages (Mital, 1968; Brajavallabhaśarana, 1972). From the mid-18th century on, however, the situ-ation of Svabhurāma’s branch improved thanks to the contribution of some outstanding ascetics living in Braj. By then the entire region of Mathura had recovered some prosperity after decades of political turmoil and incessant wars among Afghans, Jats, and Marathas under the helpless gaze of the Mughal emperor. Pilgrims were flock-ing again to the banks of the Yamunā and new temples, and new ghāts were being built by rich merchants and aristocrats (Entwistle, 1987, 211–216). The region, which since 1803 was under the control of the East India Company, benefited from the patronage of the Marathas and Rajputs, and also of the Jats, who ruled at nearby Bharat-pur. Within the elder lineage of Tirkhuyagya, Caturcintāman i alias Nāgājī (18th cent.), an adept of the most rigorous forms of asceticism, estab-lished the yearly sectarian pilgrimage called caurasīkosbrajparikramā (“the 84 kos [approx. 150 km] long circumambulation of the Braj country”). In the early 19th century, the sublin-eage of the Kāthiya Bābās was founded, whose name comes from their permanently donning a chastity belt in wood (katha) as a sign that they are steadfast in celibacy. Settled in Vrindaban, these ascetics annually lead the above-mentioned cir-cumambulation of Braj, a very popular event, which starts two days after Krsna’s birthday (janmāstamī) and lasts for 45 days (Entwistle, 1987, 17–18). They also take the lead of the Nimbārkī warrior ascetics (→ akhārās) during the kumbhamelā (see below). The learned Pandit Kishoradasa (1873–1965) too can be counted as an initiated member of the branch of Svabhurāma. Three more lineages that significantly contributed to the reputation of this sectarian branch are based at Vardhman (the “Bengal” lineage), Vrindaban (Bihārījī kā Bagicā), and Mathura (Narad Tila). The seat of Vardhman, which was founded in 1757 by Naraharideva, seems to have been a dynamic center with a lot of lands attached to it at some point. Svabhudevacharya, alias Purushottama-prasada Vaishnava I, the 19th-century erudite theologian whose work R. Bose examined, belonged to that lineage. In the early 1970s, there arose a sharp controversy within the sect when the monastery of Vardhman was projected as the real main seat of the sect by the descendants of

Svabhurāma, with the notable exception of the Kāthiya Bābās, who gave their support to Salem-abad. Nimbārkīs of other branches too backed this claim. But the Vardhman abbot was killed by Naxalites (Maoist activists) militants in 1978, and the monastery has been in decline ever since (Clémentin-Ojha, 1999). In the lineage of Bihārījī kā Bagicā (Vrindaban), one finds Haripriya-sharana, alias Pandit Dulare Prasada Shastri (1863–1932), a well-known sectarian scholar who composed a compilation of older ritual textbooks on the rules of the Nimbārkī initiation called the Dīksātattvaprakāśa (Light on the Principles of Initiation; 1924). Among his modern-day spiri-tual descendants, Gopalasharana, disciple of Lalitasharanadeva, who passed away in 2006, has founded the Shri Golok Dham Ashram institution and has brought the sectarian teachings to the United Kingdom.

Besides the descendants of Paraśurāma and Svabhurāma, one can also still trace the where-abouts of the descendants of three other disciples of Harivyāsa. Those of Uddhava/Ghamanda can be followed in Hariyana, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, and Bengal; those of Mukunda at Topivali Kunj in Vrindaban and in Punjab; and those of Lāpa-ragopāla in Vrindaban, where Madhavasimha II (r. 1880–1922) of Jaipur and Jayaji Rava Shindhiya (r. 1843–1886) of Gwalior each built an impressive temple for the ascetic Giridharisharana (or Brahma-cariji, 1798–1889; Mital, 1968, 544).

Some Nimbārkī lineages continue to be active as traditional seats of learning, maintaining Brah-manical schools (pāthaśālā), libraries, and print-ing presses. Nowadays, an emphasis on social activity being expected, some have developed secular activities. They have set up schools, col-leges, and dispensaries, or organize free medical camps. Lineages that have a long history of receiv-ing donations from rich patrons now manage institutions and, side by side with the traditional collection of tithe from their disciples, raise money within the frame of law of the Republic of India.

Warrior Ascetics and the Catuh SampradāyaAnother important historical development was the organization of the Catuh Sampradāya (“Four Sects”), a loose federation of Vaisnavas claiming affiliation with the sects of Rāmānuja, Madhva, Visnusvāmī, and Nimbārka, hence the name. One of the early mentions of the Four Sects is found in

438 Nimbārka Sampradāya

the Bhaktamāla (chappaya 28–29), but the history of how it became a major institution is yet to be written. Its organization owes much to the religious policy of Jayasimha II (Ghurye, 21964, 178–179; Roy, 1978; Entwistle, 1987, 191–194; Elkman, 1986, 43–44). At that time, the ruler of Amer-Jaipur, who was one of the important nobles of the declining Mughal Empire, was conducting a general process of Brahmanization and asserting his profile as a good Hindu king, upholder of → dharma. His ambition was to erase the divisions of the sectarian Vaisnavas and to cleanse them of their non-orthodox principles and practices (Horstmann, 2006; 2009). This homogenizing policy operated on three levels: theological, social, and military. On the theological level, the crite-rion for orthodoxy was the possession of a recog-nized commentary on Vedānta. All the Vaisnavas who wanted to establish the legitimacy of their group had to formally affiliate with one of the four existing schools of theistic Vedānta founded by Rāmānuja, Madhva, Nimbārka, and Visnusvamī. As a consequence, the followers of Svāmī Haridāsa – who himself may have been ini-tiated into the Nimbārka Sampradāya (Entwistle, 1987, 156) – became a branch of the latter (Haynes, 1974, 121–123; Datt, 1977). On the social level, the Vaisnava ascetics were forced to conform to the orthodox Brahmanical norms of the varnāśramadharma (dharma of the four castes and of the fours stages of life). The main implica-tion of this seems to have been that they had to give up their rule of lifelong celibacy (since they were not able to maintain it?). The Nimbārkīs were directly affected when Jayasimha II, following the death of Vrndāvanadeva (who as we have seen was one of his gurus), appointed Jayarāma Śesa, a learned Maharashtrian Brahman who had been married, as abbot of Salemabad. But the Nimbārkī ascetics did not let him enter the precincts of the monas-tery and finally managed to impose a lifelong celi-bate on the seat of Salemabad (Clémentin-Ojha, forthcoming). Finally, on the military level, the policy of unification of Jayasimha II led to the for-mation of a coordinated body of warrior ascetics, or nāgās (“naked ones”; see also → akhārās). Thus federated, the Four Sects became the repository of Vaisnava orthodoxy and orthopraxy in North India, a coveted reputation, which was reflected back positively on the sect of Nimbārka.

The creation of a coordinated body of Vaisnava warrior ascetics seems to have taken place at four

successive conferences held in Vrindavan and Jaipur under the supervision of the powerful Rāmānandī abbot Bālānanda (Thiel-Horstmann, unpubl. paper). The Nimbārkī Vrndāvanadeva also played an important role. This led to the for-mation of 18 training centers (→ akhārā/akhādā), regrouped in three armed regiments (anī): the Nirvānī, Digambara, and Nirmohī anī (Ghurye, 21964; Sinha & Sarasvati, 1978). Whereas the akhārās are strict sectarian bodies, the superior level of organization of the anis is suprasectarian and is headed by a mahant who represents all the sects concerned and is elected by them.

Out of the 18 akhārās, eight are Nimbārkīs. These are independent centers, distinct from the monasteries of the sect; they also have their own method of initiation. They are said to recruit regardless of caste, a formulation that, generally, implies that their members belong to the lower strata of society. Though the emergence of a mili-tary culture within the Nimbārka Sampradāya, a milieu supposedly committed to undistracted devotion to Rādhā and Krsna, awaits a thorough study that will take into account local politics, it should not be seen as an isolated element. It is also the result of wider social, political, and economic changes that affected the whole of North India. It appears to have been part of a more general militarization of different religious groups in the context of the Mughal Empire (Pinch, 2000). According to the Nimbārkīs (and other Vaisnavas), the nāgās were jointly organized by the Rāma and Krsna worshippers of North India in order to defend their sampradāyas against the Śaiva nāgās. Sectarian violence between the worshippers of Śiva and Visnu are indeed well attested (Lochtefeld, 1994). But until the mid-19th century, when they were finally disbanded by the colonial state, the nāgās were also economically successful and well integrated into the economic networks of the time (Pinch, 1996). They were also politically useful, as shown by their career as mercenaries ready to serve different rulers. It is thus known that Nimbārkī nāgās attempted to defend Bharatpur against the British siege of the city during the war of succession of 1826 (Sarkar, 1955).

The Catuh Sampradāya does not possess any permanent structure; it has neither seat nor chief, and the sects that compose it keep their distinct identity. If today’s practices reflect anything of the past, one is led to conclude that it enters mostly into function during the kumbhamelā, when the

Nimbārka Sampradāya 439

bodies of its warrior ascetics meet. During this pil-grimage festival (see → tīrtha and tīrthayātrā) that takes place every three years alternatively at four locations (Haridwar, Prayag [Allahabad], Nasik, and Ujjain), the nāgās hold their camp amid thou-sands of ascetics of other persuasions and scores of pilgrims. Their spatial distribution reflects their sectarian divisions. Besides going together to take ritual baths at astrologically propitious moments in impressive processions, they hold assemblies to discuss matters of common concern. All their activities are conducted under the leadership of four mahants said to represent the four original schools of theistic Vedānta. The mahant for the Nimbārkī school is the Braj Videhī Mahant (the “Disincarnated Abbot of Braj,” i.e. who does not identify with his limited body), also called Khālsā Mahant. As already mentioned, this title is the prerogative of the Kathiya Bābā lineage.

Religious PracticesTo free oneself from all causes of bondage is the goal of the Nimbārka Sampradāya. Salvation (see → liberation) implies adopting spiritual methods

(sādhanā, → pūjā) based on the philosophical tenets of the sect; these methods, in turn, suppose having been formally initiated by a Nimbārkī guru. Thus there are two main stages of initiation in the sect: as a disciple and as a guru.

Initiation as DiscipleAccording to the Dīksatattvaprakāśa (see above), initiation (dīksā) as a disciple entails receiving the fivefold sacrament (pāñcasamskāra). Adapted from the Pāñcarātrā, the ancient Vaisnava school on which Nimbārkīs built much of their own ritual tradition, it includes five rites performed by the guru:

(1) tāpa or branding (or stamping) the disci-ple’s shoulders with the conch (śankha) and the disc (→ cakra), two symbols of Visnu,

(2) pundra or drawing the vertical U-shaped marks of Visnu on his body with a holy clay (gopīcandana),

(3) nāma or giving him a new name,(4) → mantra or transmitting him one of the

initiatory formulas, and(5) yāga or teaching him how to perform the

cult.

Fig. 2: The symbols that an initiated Nimbārkī bears on his body: the disc of Visnu (visnucakra), the sectarian body mark (tilaka), the conch shell of Visnu (visnuśankha), and the mantra: śrī bhagavannimbārkamahāmunīndrāya namah (salutations to the king of ascetics, Lord Nimbārka).

440 Nimbārka Sampradāya

Tying around the neck of the disciple a necklace of basil (tulasīmālā) is added to these standard sacraments. The sect has two secret mantras: the mantra of taking refuge (śaranagatimantra) from the Nāradapāñcarātra, and the 18-syllable mantra of Krsna-Gopāla (astaksaragopālamantra or just gopālamantra) from the Gopālatāpanyupanisad (Brajavallabhaśarana, 1972, 378). It is left to the discretion of the initiatory guru to transmit one or the other to his disciple, but the gopālamantra is the most widely used of the two.

Householders and ascetics alike receive the same five sacraments, but the latter first undergo the rites of pañcabhadra, the ritual shaving of five parts of the body (head, armpits, beard, and pubis). Once initiated, all Nimbārkis are bound to wear their distinctive sectarian insignia: the necklace of → tulasī beads and the U-shaped vertical marks, which are to be drawn every morning after bath-ing on 12 (or fewer) parts of the body. Ascetics further distinguish themselves by donning a loin-cloth (langoti) and a white dress and by keeping long hair, some of them displaying extremely lengthy matted hair ( jatā), which bears witness to the duration of their asceticism. These are unmis-takable signs of permanently maintained celibacy. Ascetics also adopt a special code of behavior. But the sect does not have any rite resembling the ritual of world renunciation (samnyāsa; → āśrama and samnyāsa). While householder members usually continue to live as family men in society, with all the responsibilities that go with it – thus not changing their social identity – ascetics are in principle affiliated with the monastery of their guru, even if many choose to live a settled solitary existence or to be permanently on the move; all have access to the networks of sectarian monas-teries during their peregrination.

Holding as they do that Visnu saves each and every devotee of his regardless of birth, Nimbārkīs are not in principle troubled by the issue of caste. Their gurus initiate members of all the four varnas (→ caste). They are not, however, entirely immune to considerations of status, and these affect the procedure of initiation. Thus Śūdras and women receive an abridged form of mantra and only one of the 12 pundras. And in keeping with Brahman-ical ideas that only members of the first varna qualify for transmitting salvific knowledge, male Brahmans alone are eligible to become gurus in the sect.

Initiation as GuruAccording to the Dīksātattavaprakāśa, only one who has given up one’s own sense of self and pos-session can be initiated as guru by his guru. The method comprises a succession of sequences that ritually solidify their relationship. It integrates the remarkable rite of “anointing in sovereignty” (svarājyābhiseka) by which the old guru transfers his power to his chosen successor and invests him with the insignia of guru-hood.

Besides being a male Brahman, other sociolog-ical factors are taken into account when it comes to admitting someone to the rank of guru. The selection of a suitable heir to a given spiritual lin-eage is made with due regard to personal aptitudes and qualifications; it rests also on family-based connections. Little is known about this aspect of the institutional history of the sect. The case of the present abbot of Salemabad, who has been reign-ing since 1944, sheds some light on the circum-stances surrounding the investiture of a Nimbārkī guru in an important lineage on the eve of independence (Clémentin-Ojha, 2006). Born Ratanalala Sharma in a Gauda Brahman family, he was only 11 years old in 1941 when the old abbot selected him as his heir, and only 14 when three years later he was ritually consecrated as the 13th abbot of Salemabad. Four criteria had made him eligible: he was a Brahman, he had received the Brahmanical initiation (upanayana; → yajñopavīta), he was unmarried, and his horo-scope forecasted ascetic tendencies. A closer look at the boy’s social background shows that his nomination was also determined by kinship ties. In fact, in modern times, the monastic succession to the seat of Salemabad has been organized in a limited number of families of Gauda Brahman. The succession to spiritual leadership and to monastic property rights has thus followed lines of kinship. The present abbot followed the same rules when, in 1993, he decided to appoint as his own successor his young nephew, then aged six. From the point of view of the sectarian institution, lifelong celibacy (naisthikabrahmacārya), suppos-edly introduced by Nimbārka himself, offers some guarantee of stability. It allows the abbot to be well trained for his future responsibilities right from his youth and to benefit from the advice of the older generation. A notable exception to this sec-tarian rule in modern times was Swami Santadasa (1859–1935, b. Tara Kishor Chaudhury), who, after exercising a brilliant career as a judge at the

Nimbārka Sampradāya 441

Calcutta High Court and the usual responsibilities of a householder, was chosen in 1919 to succeed Swami Ramadasa at the head of the Kāthiya Bābā lineage and had to become an ascetic (Clémentin-Ojha, 1990a, 27).

Means of Salvation, Pūjā, and SādhanāThe means of salvation fall into three classes, vedic, puranic, and tantric, depending on the scriptural authority that gives them sanction or on the textual origin of the mantra that they require. As already noted, the Nimbārkīs do not abandon orthodox socioreligious norms even though they hold that all castes can gain salvation through the → grace of Krsna. It is his grace alone that leads a man to seek salvation, to approach a guru for ini-tiation, and to adopt a means of salvation, and, finally, that makes him free. But if the grace is one, then the means of salvation differ according to the → adhikāra or aptitude of the concerned individu-als. This is partially determined by birth. Given their belief in transmigration, the Nimbārkīs do not hold birth to be a purely sociological criterion: whether one is born a Brahman or a Śūdra has to do with one’s → karma, the accumulated result of one’s past actions. Accordingly, whereas the three higher varnas or twice-borns can adopt all means of salvation, Śūdras, because they are barred from those requiring the ritual aptitude for vedic stud-ies, can only adopt the means prescribed in the Pāñcarātra and Purānas. There are two broad types of means of salvation: pūjā and sādhanā. Being both oriented toward obtaining the ultimate goal, they are closely related: it is with the same spirit of total dedication to Krsna that the disciple adopts them.

Once initiated, all Nimbārkīs are expected to focus their attention on Krsna, whom they con-sider always united with Rādhā. Judging from what they say of their present-day practices, their pūjā may take two main forms, depending on their adhikāra and also on their personal prefer-ence. One form, called vedic (vaidika) because it uses the mantra from the Veda, requires several utensils (a pitcher of water, sandal paste, a lamp, etc.) and consists of a series of services (upacāra), such as offering flowers, water for washing the feet and rinsing the mouth, honey, milk, sandal paste, incense, light of a camphor flame, food offerings, and so forth. A pūjā may include 16, 32, or 48 such services. It is usually performed in a temple and addressed to an image (pratimā) of Rādhā and

Krsna, which is fabricated and then installed according to rules laid down in the Pāñcarātra. A typical temple belongs to a monastic or to a lay lineage. But some individuals also perform this worship at home in a private chapel. Nimbārkīs are not supposed to take any → food that has not been previously consecrated to Krsna during the pūjā. The other worship called tantric (tāntrika) follows the indications given by Keśava Kaśmirī Bhatta in his Kramadīpikā and uses the mantra from the Gopālatāpanyupanisad, the Gautamīya tantra, and the Sammohantantra. The Sva dhar māmr tasindhu (The Ocean of Nectar of Rules of Conduct), a 19th-century ritualistic text composed by Śukadeva on the religious obser-vances of the Nimbārkīs, describes an extremely elaborate pūjā that integrates these two forms into a vast set of ritual actions. Divided into two main parts, it starts with an internal or mental pūjā, based on a complex tantric procedure, and proceeds with the external cult, based on vedic rules and addressed to divine images (Bose, 1943, 262–272). It seems reserved for the very advanced disciple.

Besides anthropomorphic divine images (pratimā), the Nimbārkīs also worship an aniconic form, the → śālagrāma. The cult of black ammonite stones, symbolizing Visnu, appears to be very ancient in their sect. It is said to go back to its founder himself. Daily, the abbot of Salemabad, privately worships the śālagrāma Śrīsarveśvara, which is held to have been handed down to him in an uninterrupted manner from the time of Nimbārka, who himself had received it from his guru Nārada. The tiny sacred stone never leaves his side; it either hangs in a locket tied around his neck when he is on the move, or is kept inside the temple of the monastery when he is in residence. Possession of it supports the claim of his lineage to being the leading authority of the Nimbārkīs. The rival Svabhurāma branch has a divergent account and another equally sacred stone emblem to con-solidate its claim of being the head lineage. The worship of the śālagrāma, which does not require any permanent architectural structure and is per-formed with few and readily available ingredients (water and tulasī leaves) and no utensils, appears to be more adapted to the simple, and even itiner-ant, lifestyle of ascetics than to that of household-ers. The oldest known description of the rites of initiation by Sundarabhatta, the 13th abbot, only mentions the adoration of the sacred stone emblem (Clémentin-Ojha, 1990b, 336).

442 Nimbārka Sampradāya

There are broadly two types of sādhanā or spir-itual disciplines in the sect. The first is the com-plete surrender directly to Kŗsna (prapatti or śaranāgati) or through dedication to the guru (gurūpasatti), which can be adopted by all, irre-spective of birth and social status. The second is the method of meditation on the knowledge of brahman–Krsna, which is reserved to the twice-born and takes three forms: vidyā (learn-ing), upāsanā (hommage), jñānayoga (concentra-tion). This classification of the means of salvation goes back to the work of Purusottamācārya, the third successor of Nimbārka (Bose, 1943, 100–105). His work also shows that right from its beginning, the sect did not regard renouncing the world as a condition for salvation. An initiated member of the sect could strive to obtain the liberating knowledge while in the householder stage as long as he showed aversion to worldly concerns (Bose, 1943, 101). However, the method of gurūpasatti seems to have been reserved for ascetics. From the 13th guru, Sundarabhatta, if not earlier, it is described as a complex ritual of initiation meant for those who have renounced all ties and belongings in order to serve their guru (Bose, 1943, 117–118). By dedicating himself, body and soul, to the guru by obeying and serving him, the disciple frees himself from the fetters of the world and is able to have a direct contact with Krsna: in gurūpasatti, the guru is the intermediary between the disciple and god.

After the 16th century, given the glorification of Rādhā, one finds the rasopanā, the contemplation (upasanā) of Rādhā and Krsna, as the source of the aesthetic flavor (rasa) that is the basis of the spiritual experience. Though it is said to be entirely dependent upon the grace of god, it requires a strict discipline whose rules are found in Harivyāsa’s Mahāvānī. Emulating the sakhīs who constantly serve the divine couple, the devotee aims at perceiving himself as one of Rādhā’s female companions and at cultivating the intense and exquisite emotion that she feels while gazing at the dalliance of Rādhā and Krsna. The detailed descriptions of the sakhīs’ actions in the Mahāvānī help him project himself in the divine play. In this path of contemplation of love, which requires absolute detachment, the most accomplished rasikas are ascetics. Those who follow it take as a secret name the name of one of the sakhīs, which is only revealed after their death.

ConclusionThe Nimbārka Sampradāya appears as a unified group of Vaisnavas at the doctrinal level because its canonical literature offers a synthetic view of its philosophical and devotional teachings. But its mode of organization suggests otherwise. The Nimbārkīs do not form a monolithic organiza-tion. They do not obey a single uncontested authority, vested in a central and permanent body, even if today most of them (but not all) recognize the precedence of the monastery of Salemabad (Rajasthan), a position that was constructed in the early 19th century, but which the charismatic fig-ure of the 13th abbot has greatly contributed to consolidate, especially given the length of his rule (since 1944). One should rather see the Nimbārka Sampradāya as a loosely coordinated structure of autonomous lineages of spiritual succession (guruparamparā) that trace descent to the same founder. It is under the guidance of their own guru and by following the teachings of the sect, as understood and transmitted by him, that Nimbārkīs lead their religious life. It is therefore within their own lineage that their sectarian iden-tity is constructed.

BibliographyBangha, I., “Courtly and Religious Communities as Cen-

tres of Literary Activity in Eighteenth-Century India: Ānandghan’s Contacts with the Princely Court of Kishangarh-Rūpnagar and with the Math of the Nimbārka-sampradāy in Salemabad,” in: C. Dezső, ed., Indian Languages and Texts Through the Ages: Studies by Hungarian Indologists in Honour of Prof. Csaba Töttössy, New Delhi, 2007, 307–354.

Bhakta-māla, Gosvāmī Śrī Nābhājī krta Śrī-bhakta-māla, Śrī Priyādāsajī pranīta tīkā-kavitta, Lucknow, 1977 (Hind.).

Bhandarkar, R.G., Vaisnavism, Śaivism and Minor Reli-gious Systems, Varanasi, 1913, 2 1965.

Bose, R., Vedāntapārijātasaurabha of Nimbārka and Vedāntakaustubha of Śrīnivāsa (Commentaries on the Brahma-sūtras), vols. I-II., Calcutta, 1940–1941; vol. III: Doctrines of Nimbārka and His Followers, Calcutta, 1943.

Brajvallabhaśarana, ed., Śrī Nimbārka aura unkā sampradāya, Vrindaban, 1972 (Hind.).

Brown, C.M., God as Mother: A Feminine Theology in India, Vermont, 1974.

Clémentin-Ojha, C., “ ‘Ascetics’ Rights in Early 19th Cen-tury Jaipur (Rajasthan),” in: P. Flügel & G. Houtman, eds., Asceticism and Power in the South and South-Asian Context, Richmond, forthcoming.

Nimbārka Sampradāya 443Clémentin-Ojha, C., “Replacing the Abbot: Rituals of

Monastic Ordination an Investiture in Modern Hindu-ism,” AS/EA 40/3, 2006, 535–573.

Clémentin-Ojha, C., “The Initiation of Devi: Violence and Non-violence in a Vaishnavite Tale,” in: E. Meyer, G. Tarabout & D. Vidal, eds., Violence/Non-violence: Some Hindu Perspectives, Delhi, 2003, 127–142.

Clémentin-Ojha, C., “La Vie Exemplaire de Shriji Maharaj de Salemabad,” in: A. Montaut, ed., Le Rajasthan, ses dieux, ses héros, ses hommes, Paris, 2000, 167–186.

Clémentin-Ojha, C., Le trident sur le palais: Une cabale anti-vishnouite dans un royaume hindou à l’é poque colo-niale, Paris, 1999.

Clémentin-Ojha, C., La divinité conquise: Carrière d’une sainte, Nanterre, 1990a.

Clémentin-Ojha, C., “La renaissance du Nimbārka sampradāya au XVIe Siècle: Contribution à l’étude d’une secte krsnaïte,” JA 278/3–4, 1990b, 327–376.

Crooke, W., “Bairāgī,” in : J. Hastings, ed., Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. II, New York, 1908–1925, 337.

Crooke, W., “Hinduism,” in : J. Hastings, ed., Encyclopae-dia of Religion and Ethics, vol. VI, New York, 1908–1925, 686–715.

Crooke, W., “Sects (Hindu),” in : J. Hastings, ed., Encyclo-paedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. XXI, New York, 1908–1925, 329–331.

Dasgupta, S.N., History of Indian Philosophy, vol. III, Cam-bridge UK, 1940.

Datt, G., Svāmī Haridāsa kā sampradāya aura uskā vānī-sāhitya, New Delhi, 1977 (Hind.).

Dīksātattvaprakāśa, Pandita Śrī Dulāreprasāda Śāstrinā samgrhītah, Calcutta, 1924, 21966.

Elkman, S., Jīva’s Gosvāmin’s Tattvasandarbha: A Study on the Philosophical and Sectarian Development of the Gaudīya Vaisnava Movement, Delhi, 1986.

Entwistle, A.W., Braj: Centre of Krishna Pilgrimage, Gron-ingen, 1987.

Farquhar, J.N., An Outline of the Religious Literature of India, Delhi, 1920, 21967.

Garcin de Tassy, J.H., Histoire de la littérature hindouie et hindoustanie, 3 vols., Paris, 1870–1871.

Geden, A.S., “Nimāvat,” in : J. Hastings, ed., Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. IX, New York, 1908–1925, 373–374.

Ghate, V.S., Le Vedanta: Etude sur les Brahma-sutra et leurs cinq commentaires, Paris, 1918; ET: The Vedānta: A Study of the Brahma-sūtras with the Bhāsyas of Śamkara, Rāmānuja, Nimbārka, Madhva, and Vallabha, Poona, 1981.

Grierson, G.A., The Modern Vernacular Literature of Hin-dustan, Calcutta, 1889.

Growse, F.S., Mathura: A District Memoir, Ahmedabad, 1883, 21978.

Ghurye, G.N., Indian Sadhus, Bombay, 1953, 21964.Grierson, G.A., “Bhakti-mārga,” in: J. Hastings, ed., Ency-

clopaedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. II, New York, 1908–1925, 539–551.

Hastings, J., ed., Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, New York, 1908–1926.

Haynes, R.D., “Svāmī Haridās and the Haridāsī Sampradāy,” diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1974.

Horstmann, M., Der Zusammenhalt der Welt. Religiöse Herrschaftslegitimation und Religionspolitik Mahārājā Savāī Jaisinghs (1700–1743), Wiesbaden, 2009.

Horstmann, M., Visions of Kingship in the Twilight of Mughal Rule, Amsterdam, 2006.

Lochtefeld, J., “The Vishva Hindu Parishad and the Roots of Hindu Militancy,” JAAR 62/2, 1994, 587–602.

McGregor, R.S., Hindi Literature from Its Beginning to the Nineteenth Century, Wiesbaden, 1984.

Mital, P., Braja ke dharmasampradāyom kā itihāsa, Delhi, 1968 (Hind.).

Pinch, W.R., Warrior Ascetics and Indian Empires, Cam-bridge UK, 2000.

Pinch, W.R., Peasants and Monks in British India, Delhi, 1996.

Roy, A.K., History of Jaipur City, New Delhi, 1978.Sarkar, J.N., “The Jat Dynasty of Bharatpur,” BPP 74/1–2,

1955.Sharma, N., Nimbārka-sampradāya aura uske krsna bhakta

hindi kavi, Mathura, 1978 (Hind.).Sinha, S., & B. Saraswati, Ascetics of Kashi: An Anthropo-

logical Exploration, Varanasi, 1978.Smith, D., Vaisnava Iconography According to Pāñcarātrā-

gama Texts, Madras, 1969.Stoler-Miller, B., Jayadeva’s Gītagovinda: Love Song of the

Dark Lord, Delhi, 1984.Thiel-Horstmann, M., “Warrior Ascetics in 18th Century

Rajasthan and the Religious Policy of Jai Singh II,” unpubl. paper.

Vaudeville, C., “Braj, Lost and Found,” IIJ 18, 1976, 195–213.

Wilkins, W.J., Modern Hinduism: Being an Account of the Religion and Life of the Hindus in Northern India, London, 1887.

Wilson, H.H., Religious Sects of the Hindus, Calcutta, 1861, 1958.

Catherine Clémentin-Ojha