The Spiritual Form

For a couple of years now, a Vaishnava has been going around thinking that he has "defeated" the proponents of raganuga-bhakti, specifically in his "research" and interpretation on the siddha-pranali issue. Basically his point was that the siddha-pranali idea of being "bestowed" a spiritual body by the guru is a falsity as the liberated jiva attains "his own form " at the stage of mukti. Therefore what is the use of a "bestowed" body when mukti includes the realisation of one's "own" form?

The guy quoted Sri Baladeva Vidyabhushan's Govinda-bhashya to support this. Here is a typical quotation:

Vedanta Sütra 4.4.1
sampadyävirbhävaù svena-çabdät
sampadya—of he who has attained; ävirbhävaù—manifestation; svena—svena; çabdät—by the word.

Because of the word "svena" it is the manifestation of he who has gone.
Commentary by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa
The individual soul who, by means of devotional service accompanied with knowledge and renunciation, attains the effulgent Supreme, becomes free from the bondage of karma and attains a body endowed with eight virtues. This body is said to be the soul's original form. Why is that? The sütra explains, "svena-çabdät" (because of the word "svena"). The word "svena" here means, "in his own original form". For this reason it cannot be said that this passage means, "the soul arrives there and then accepts a form which is an external imposition". In that way it is proved that the form here is the original form of the soul. This is not contradicted by the use of the word "niñpadyate" in the verse of Chändogya Upaniñad, for that word is also used to mean, "is manifested". An example of that usage is seen in the following words found elsewhere the Çruti-çästra:
idam ekaà su-niñpannam
"He is manifested."

Also, it is not that the manifestation of the soul's original form cannot be a goal of human endeavour, because it already exists. This is so because even though the soul's original form exists it is not openly manifested. Therefore it is not useless to say that the soul may endeavour to make manifest the original form of the soul.

Sound familiar?

For the record, I highlighted several problems with this view, not least the fact that the Vaishnava was relying heavily on an English translation of the Govinda-bhashya and couldn't be sure if the original Sanskrit supported the point. Anyway I found these tidbits here today. I recently received a copy of David Haberman's 'Acting As A Way To Salvation' and I couldn't help digging in. And it wasn't long before I found the juice:

In his Priti Sandarbha, Jiva Gosvamin has described the form (rUpa) or body (deha) given to the liberated souls who have attained Bhagavan Krsna. In so doing, he also gives the scriptural authority for the Gaudiya Vaisnava understanding of the siddha-rUpa. He writes:

The Lord makes a body for the liberated one that is identical to those eternal bodies of the people of Vaikuntha (Vraja), which consist of a particle of light from the Lord of Vaikuntha (Vraja).

That is, after the bhakta attains liberation, the Lord will grant him or her an eternal body with which to reside in the eternal world. Once again we see that it is an identity/body that connects one with a particular world. The scriptural authority for this statement comes from the Bhagavata Purana. Jiva cites two verses:

All the people living there are endowed with a form of Vaikuntha (vaikuntha-mUrtI).

When I was transformed into a pure divine body (bhAgavatI-tanu), my earthly body in which past karmic effects had been extinguished fell away.

Jiva also cites Sridhara's commentary on the latter verse. This authoritative commentary indicates that the 'companion body' (pArSada-tanu) of those acting in Krsna's lila is pure, eternal, and devoid of karma.

So there you have it. Makes a body, endowed with a form, transformed into a pure divine body and all of that. For reference, the first statement ("The Lord makes a body..") is from Priti Sandarbha 10 (Puridasa Edition, 1951). The Bhagavata references are 3.15.14 and 1.6.29 respectively. Here's the Sanskrit text for both of them:

vasanti yatra puruSAH
sarve vaikuNTha-mUrtayaH
ye 'nimitta-nimmitena
dharmeNArAdhyan harim

prayujyamAne mayi tAM
zuddhAM bhAgavatiM tanum
Arabhda-karma-nirvANo
nyapatat pAJca-bhautikaH

Haberman may have been quoting from a critical edition of Bhagavata or he was one verse off, because the second verse is 1.6.28 in the ISKCON edition. it should also be noted that this carries the weight of Sripada Jiva Gosvami, another great Gosvami along with Srimat Rupa Gosvami and Srimat Sanatana Gosvami. All these three outdated Sripada Baladeva Vidyabhusan by several hundred years or so? Sripada Baladeva's commentary on the Vedantasutra needs to be analysed but it is suffice to say that he had to follow the structure of Vedanta, but that doesnt deny the fact that at least three Vrindaban Gosvamis subscribe to the "given" theory rather than the "inherent" theory.

Either way, make of this what you will.