International Journal of Hindu Studies

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11407-018-9240-6

Agradās and Rām Rasik Bhakti Community: The

Politics of Remembrance and the Authority of the Hindu
Saint

Patton Burchett

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Abstract The paper examines the memory and hagiography of the important but
little-researched late sixteenth-century bhakti saint Agradās. After introducing this
influential Vaisnava devotional poet and the Rām rasik tradition he is said to have
˙˙
founded, the paper explores the political realities and motivations behind the
molding of Agradās’s hagiography in particular ways in the nineteenth century and
how his saintly authority has been drawn upon in modern times. Through a case
study of Agradās, the paper makes an argument about the totemic function of the
Hindu saint as a tangible expression of the intangible values and sentiments that
bond and mobilize religious communities.

Keywords bhakti · rasik · saint · hagiography · Vaisnava · Agradās · Rāmānandı̄

˙˙

This paper explores the politics involved in the memory and hagiography of the late
sixteenth-century bhakti saint Agradās, the reputed founder of the Rām rasik
tradition. Agradās is an important, but little-researched devotional poet of the
Rāmānandı̄ sampradāy, a Vaisnava ascetic community centered on the worship of
˙˙
Rām. As we will see, a study of (i) hagiographical depictions of Agradās and (ii) the
corpus of works and verses attributed to him in manuscripts gives us a significantly
different image of him than that found in the Rāmānandı̄ tradition from the
nineteenth century to the present. In what ways is the saint of nineteenth and
twentieth century memory different from the picture of Agradās we get from earlier
sources? What were the political realities and motivations, the historically specific
group interests, behind the molding of his hagiography in particular ways?

& Patton Burchett

peburchett@wm.edu

Department of Religious Studies, The College of William & Mary, Williamsburg, VA 23187,
USA

123
 Patton Burchett

The term “saint” is, of course, a non-Indic term (originating in the Christian
tradition), but one that has come to be used generally to refer to spiritual exemplars
and revered holy people of any religious tradition. As I use it in the following pages, a
“saint” is a person whom a religious community venerates and understands to have
exemplified its values and/or achieved its highest aspirations. It is the crucial role of
the community in “making” (and continually remaking) a saint that I wish to
highlight here. Indeed, this paper proceeds from a simple postulate: saints do not
make themselves; saints are made. For all the charisma, genius, good deeds, miracles,
teachings, and hard work of any religious figure, he or she only becomes a saint when
communally recognized and remembered over time as such by a group. In key
respects, then, a saint is a collective memory, and thus is continuously constructed
and reconstructed through time in a social process, a process that is always political
and in the service of the historically contingent interests of particular groups. As the
case of Agradās will illustrate, in many instances, the politics of making a saint are
none other than the politics of building and sustaining a religious community.
In the following pages, we aim to shed new light on (1) the important sixteenth-century
North Indian bhakti figure of Agradās, (2) the practice and historical development of the
Rām rasik tradition, and, more generally, (3) the function of the Hindu saint as an
expression—made tangible in narrative-based acts of remembrance—of intangible
values and sentiments that bond and mobilize a religious community. At its core, this
paper focuses on how and why Agradās’s memory was molded in particular ways in the
eighteenth century in order to construct a community-binding and tradition-legitimating
authority in his rasik sainthood. It will also briefly discuss how that authority has been
drawn upon in twentieth-century sectarian politics between Rāmānandı̄s and
Śrı̄vaisnavas (Rāmānujı̄s). In our examination of the collective memory of Agradās,
˙˙
we will see how the making (and remaking) of a Hindu saint is akin to the casting (and
recasting) of an authoritative symbol that, given the particular historical circumstances, is
able to embody and awaken a Hindu community’s most dearly held collective sentiments
and morals, and thereby unite and mobilize that community.
Before delving into the life and memory of the saint Agradās, it is important we
gain an understanding of the Rām rasik devotional tradition that he is said to have
founded.

Rām Rasik Bhakti

Rām rasik bhakti first emerged, so far as the historical evidence tells us, in response
to and in dialogue with the earlier rasik tradition of Krsna devotion, which the
˙˙ ˙
Gaudı̄ya Vaisnava Gosvāmı̄s of Vrindāvan developed in the first half of the
˙ ˙˙
sixteenth century. This bhakti tradition took up legends about the adolescent Krsna’s
˙˙ ˙
“erotic” sports with Rādhā and the gopīs and melded them with the Sanskrit
aesthetic theory of rasa to formulate a new kind of devotional practice, inspired by
the ecstatic devotion of the great Bengali mystic saint Krsna Caitanya (1486–1534
˙˙ ˙
CE). Classical rasa theory explains how our transient, individualized emotions can
be transformed into purified and universalized aesthetic experiences; that is, it
describes the aesthetic process by which we can come to savor the pure, sweet

123
Agradās and Rām Rasik Bhakti Community

essence (rasa) at the core of our ordinary emotions. Bhakti theologians such as Rūpa
Gosvāmı̄ (flourished about 1500–1550 CE) reformulated these notions to articulate
how different varieties of human love could be purified and transformed into an
experience of spiritual bliss through the devotional contemplation of the deeds of
Krsna.1 Devotees could assume the role of one of the intimate companions of the
˙˙ ˙
Lord (for example, servant, friend, elder, or lover), imaginatively participating in
and savoring the emotions of the divine “play,” or līlā, of their beloved Krsna.
˙˙ ˙
Those initiated into this system of ritual and practice became known as rasiks,
“those who savor ras,” and undertook a regimen of daily external rituals of worship
and service of the deity as well as internal practices such as visualization,
meditation, and role-playing in order to fully participate in the ultimate reality of
Krsna’s eternal līlā (Lutgendorf 1991a: 311, 1991b: 219).2
˙˙ ˙
Whereas substantial research has been conducted on this Krsnaite rasik tradition,
˙˙ ˙
far less widely known and studied is the very similar tradition of rasik devotion to
3
Rām and Sı̄tā based on their intimate life together. From the sixteenth century
onward, the theology and practices of Rām- and Krsna-oriented traditions developed
˙˙ ˙
along very similar lines and continuously cross-pollinated each other (Lutgendorf
1991a: 310). The success of Krsna devotion and the influence of the theology of the
˙˙ ˙
Vrindāvan Gosvāmı̄s presumably led the Rāmānandı̄ Agradās to rapidly adapt their
teachings and found the Rām rasik community. Indeed, it seems that Agradās and
his disciple Nābhādās were very aware of, and significantly influenced by,
developments in Vrindāvan and held the leading figures of Caitanya’s Gaudı̄ya
˙
Vaisnava community there in high esteem.4
˙˙
1
It was Rūpa Gosvāmı̄ who systematized emotional bhakti religion in terms of aesthetic theory. Rūpa
met Caitanya in 1514, settled permanently in Vrindāvan in 1516, completed his Bhaktirasāmṛtasindhu
(Ocean of Nectar of the Essence of Devotion) in 1541, and died around 1557. He saw bhakti-rasa as the
only true rasa, conceiving it not as a temporary aesthetic experience, but as the spiritual experience that is
the core and culmination of the genuine religious life, one based on devotion. In his Bhaktirasāmṛtasindhu
(2.5.131), Rūpa wrote, “The Rasa associated with the Lord is incomprehensible in every respect for those
without devotion; it can be relished only by those devotees who have made the lotus-feet of Krsna their
all-in-all” (Haberman 2003: 385). ˙˙ ˙
2
For more detailed discussion of rasik practice in the (especially, Gaudı̄ya) Krsna-centered bhakti
tradition, see Haberman (1988) and Stewart (2005). ˙ ˙˙ ˙
3
To date, the only full-length study of the Rām rasik tradition is in Hindi, Bhagavati Prasad Singh’s Rām
Bhakti meṁ Rasik Sampradāy (1957). Some important English-language works that offer discussion of
the Rām rasik tradition and its historical development, and which I have largely relied upon in introducing
the Rām rasik tradition in this paper, include Lutgendorf (1991b, 1991a), whose treatment of Rām rasik
practice depends substantially on Singh’s aforementioned work; van der Veer (1989); and Paramasivan
(2009, 2010).
4
Some scholars have suggested that the interiorized practice of rasik bhakti, with its vivid imaginings
and complex visualizations, beginning as it did in sixteenth-century North India, was a retreat from—or
the establishment of a world of meaning beyond—the Muslim-controlled sociopolitical sphere. See, for
example, Haberman (1988: 43–44). Responding to these claims, Lutgendorf writes, “It is worth
reminding ourselves that the practice of visualization and of the fabrication of inner bodies has a very old
pedigree in the subcontinent, extending back long before the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate, and
also that the ‘other worlds’ of the rasiks came to prominence precisely during a period of generally
amicable relations between Hindus and Muslims—most notably during the age of Akbar and his
immediate successors—when Hindu nobles occupied powerful positions in the imperial administration
and large temples were again being constructed in North India under princely patronage” (1991b: 229).

123
 Patton Burchett

Rām rasiks tend to focus on a very particular portion of the life of Rām and
Sı̄tā—the period of approximately twelve years that they enjoyed together in
Ayodhyā (also known as Sāket) after getting married but before Rām became heir
˙
apparent and was sent into exile. In most versions of the Rāmāyaṇa, this phase of
Rām’s life receives little or no attention; however, Rām rasiks delight in imagining
the details of this idyllic period, a līlā in which Rām and Sı̄tā express their ultimate
reality through the quality of mādhurya, or erotic sweetness. Agradās’s best-known
composition is the Dhyān Mañjarī, a late sixteenth-century Brajbhāsā text that
˙
appears to be the earliest Rām rasik meditation manual, a genre of texts offering
detailed descriptions of Rām, Sı̄tā, and the beautiful city of Sāket with which the
˙
initiated Rām rasik could conduct elaborate visualizations of the intimate life of
Rām and Sı̄tā, typically taking on the role of either a female companion (sakhī) or
maidservant (mañjarī) of Sı̄tā or a male companion (sakhā) of Rām. These
companions were the select few who had access to the inner sanctum of the Kanak
Bhavan (House of Gold) in Sāket where they served and worshiped Rām and Sı̄tā,
˙
witnessing their supreme līlā (Lutgendorf 1991b: 220–21).
Through visualization and role-playing, the initiated rasik is to take on the
emotional character of the specific companion of Rām or Sı̄tā that he has been
assigned. In order to cultivate the appropriate emotion, he is given specific information
about the age, parents, teachers, home, favorite activities, and appearance of that
particular sakhī or sakhā. Having purified himself and mentally assumed the visualized
body and its emotional mood, the initiate may begin the most characteristic of rasik
practices, aṣṭayām devotion, that is, service to Rām and Sı̄tā according to the sequence
of eight periods of the day, in each of which a different type of devotional activity is
prescribed (Lutgendorf 1991b: 222–23, 1991a: 317). As Philip Lutgendorf puts it,
“what begins as an ‘imaginative conception’ (bhāvnā) gradually becomes real”
(1991a: 318) with the devotee interiorizing the divine līlā (through long practice in
visualization meditation) to such an extent that it takes on a life of its own.
While there are both sakhī and sakhā branches of the Rām rasik tradition, Sı̄tā
typically receives the bulk of attention as a means of access to Rām, and
practitioners often inwardly assume the persona of one of Sı̄tā’s girlfriends. Indeed,
according to tradition, Agradās felt that taking on the role of Sı̄tā’s handmaiden, or
mañjarī, during devotional meditation was the most effective means for a
practitioner to become “the supreme participant-observer” of the līlās of Rām and
Sı̄tā, “present and contributing, but not the direct object of [their] attentions,” and
thus perfectly situated to observe and become a vessel of their sublime emotions
(Stewart 2005: 266).
Having gained a general sense of Rām rasik bhakti, we turn now to the life and
memory of one of the tradition’s greatest saints, Agradās.

Agradās (Part I)

Agradās was a disciple of the Rāmānandı̄ ascetic Krsnadās Payahārı̄ at Galtā, on the
˙˙ ˙
outskirts of modern-day Jaipur, Rajasthan. He is considered the founder of the Rām
rasik tradition and was the guru of Nābhādās, the famous author of the Bhaktamāl.

123
Agradās and Rām Rasik Bhakti Community

There are fifty-two recognized Vaisnava initiatory lineages, or dvārās (“gateways”

˙˙
to the Lord), thirty-six of which are Rāmānandı̄, and Agradās is said to have
established at least eleven of these, more than any other individual.5 The literary
record tells us that Agra, unlike any preceding Rāmānandı̄, was a prolific author, the
composer of at least fifteen different works in addition to many scattered verses
found in anthologies of bhakti poetry. Despite his clear importance, extremely little
scholarship exists on the work and influence of Agradās.6
The exact dates of Agradās’s life are difficult to ascertain with any confidence;
however, it is clear that he flourished during the second half of the sixteenth century,
which would have made him a contemporary of Tulsı̄dās and the later Vrindāvan
Gosvāmı̄s.7 Tradition maintains that he was born as a Brāhmana at Pı̄kası̄ village in
˙
Rajasthan and in his late teenage years traveled to Galtā where he took initiation
from Krsnadās Payahārı̄ into the Rāmānandı̄ sampradāy. Our earliest description of
˙˙ ˙
Agradās comes from his disciple Nābhādās’s Bhaktamāl, about 1600 CE. Nābhādās
writes:
Agradās never spent a moment when he was not absorbed in doing bhakti8 to
Hari.

5
Rāghavdās’s Bhaktamāl of 1660 CE (chand 159) lists the following thirteen disciples of Agradās:
Nābhā, Jaṅgı̄, Prāg (Prayāg), Vinodı̄, Pūran, Banvārı̄, Bhagvān, Divākar, Narsimh, Khem, Kisor (Kiśor),
Jaganāth, and Laghu Udhyau. ˙ ˙
6
At the time of writing of this paper, other than my own Ph.D. Dissertation, to my knowledge the only
Western-language scholarship engaging with any of the works of Agradās is that of R. Stuart McGregor.
In a short essay, McGregor (1983) gives a brief but useful description of the contents of Agra’s Dhyān
Mañjarī, but does not translate any of the verses. McGregor also briefly discusses Agradās and the Dhyān
Mañjarī in his “The Progress of Hindi, Part 1: The Development of a Transregional Idiom” (2003). In my
research, I also have not come across any Hindi-language scholarship that seriously engages the
manuscript archive of Agradās’s work or considers his historical influence in North India’s “bhakti
movement.”
7
Rām rasik tradition holds that Agradās was born in Pı̄kası̄ village in 1496 CE and traveled to Galtā and
became a disciple of Krsnadās Payahārı̄ in 1513 or 1514 CE; however, in my estimation, these dates seem
˙˙ ˙Mishra (N.d.) states that the Kacchvāhā king Āskaran, who ruled but a single
a bit too early. Ratanlal
year, 1548 CE, wrote pads while in power in which he identified himself as a ˙devotee of Kı̄lha. Mishra
then further states that, by virtue of this fact, Krsnadās Payahārı̄ must have died by this time and Kı̄lha
taken over as mahant of the Galtā community, which˙˙ ˙ means that Agradās would have gone to Raivāsā by
this time as well (if he went there at all). I have not been able to view these pads myself, but I have met
with Mr. Mishra, who claims to have seen them with his own eyes. If we are to believe Priyādās’s story
about a meeting between Kacchvāhā Mahārājā Mānsingh (ruled 1590–1614 CE) and Agradās, then
Agradās must have lived until at least 1590 CE. According to the Miśrabandhu Vinod (1980: 1631, #242),
one of Agradās’s works can be dated to 1603 CE (1660 VS), suggesting that he must have lived at least
that long.
8
The word bhajan has come to take on the limited meaning of “devotional song” and is often translated
in this way, but the word is actually a verbal noun indicating the doing of bhakti, which includes but
exceeds devotional songs and chanting. Some scholars have translated bhajan as “worship,” but the
connotations of that word are also not sufficient. While the performance of bhakti certainly involves
devotional singing as one of its key components, it goes well beyond both that practice and those
normally associated with pūjā (the word that “worship” usually translates). Thus in most cases, as here, I
have chosen to translate bhajan as “doing bhakti.”

123
 Patton Burchett

He acted in accordance with the good conduct of the saints. In service,

meditation, and remembrance (sumiran9), he kept his heart on the feet of
Rāghav [Rām].
He loved his famous garden and worked on it endlessly with his own hands.
The pure name of God fell from his tongue like rain from a cloud.
Blessing him, Krsnadās [Payahārı̄] gave [Agra] the gift of bhakti and made
˙˙ ˙
him firm in heart, speech, and action. Agradās never spent a moment when
he was not absorbed in doing bhakti to Hari.10
Love, devotion, and service are the focal points of this description of Agra, and he is
also linked to the word sumiran, the remembrance of God. Anantadās, a contemporary
(and grand-disciple) of Agradās, in his Pīpā-parcāī, written in the late sixteenth
century, confirms the lineage given by Nābhā (that is, Rāmānand → Anantānand →
Krsnadās Payahārı̄ → Agradās) and briefly notes that Agra “excelled in love (prem)
˙˙ ˙
and strictly observed the rules of remembrance (sumiran).”11 Nābhādās and
Anantadās’s use of the word sumiran12 was deliberate and particularly apt in that
this term’s two main connotations—the practice of chanting the divine Name and the
practice of visualization meditations on the Lord—seem to have been the two primary
components of Agra’s devotional life and religious practice.13 Nābhādās also makes a
point of mentioning Agradās’s “famous garden” and presenting him as a devoted
gardener, a metaphor for the loving attention, constant care, and dedicated service he
gave to God. Nābhā’s verse suggests that, in particular, Agradās’s repetition of the
name of Rām was the water that nourished and sustained his garden. Our next available
source on Agradās, the Bhaktamāl of Rāghavdās (a member of the Dādū Panth),14

9
The word sumiran, translated here as “remembrance,” in the early modern bhakti context usually refers
to remembering the Lord either in chanting the divine Name or in rasik (visualization) meditation
practice.
10
chappay 40: śrī agradās haribhajan bin kāl vṛthā nahiṃ bitayau | sadācār jyoṃ sant prāpt jaise kari
āye | sevā sumiran dhyān caraṇarāghau cit lāye || prasidh bāg soṃ prīti suhath kṛt karat nirantar | rasanā
nirmal nām manhūṃ varṣat dhārādhar || śrī kṛṣṇadās kṛpā kari bhaktidatt manavac kramakari aṭal diyau |
śrī agradās haribhajan bin kāl vṛthā nahiṃ bitayau || I use the numbering and text of the oldest extant
version of Nābhā’s Bhaktamāl, that available in Jhā’s edition (1978).
11
Anantadās lists his lineage in Pīpā-parcāī 35.25–28, writing: “Anantānand, the disciple of Rāmānanda, /
was pure, appearing like the full moon. / His disciple was Krishnadās Adhikārı̄, / known to all as
dūdhādhārī or ‘having only milk as food.’ / His disciple was Agra who excelled in love [prem] / and
strictly observed the rules of meditation [sumiran]. / Binod received the teachings of Agra, / and I,
Ananta, came as his disciple. / By his grace, I completed this parcaī, / listen, saints, to my true testimony
(sākhī)” (Callewaert 2000: 225).
12
Sumiran is also commonly seen as simraṇ, sumaraṇ, sumiraṇ, and smaraṇ. The very first word of Agra’s
Dhyān Mañjarī is the imperative form of this verb: sumirau śrī raghuvīr—“Remember (meditate on) Rām!”
13
Among rasik bhaktas, it seems that remembrance (sumiran, smaran) of the Name came to be thought
of as purifying and preparing the rasik practitioner for the more difficult remembrance (sumiran, smaran)
of meditation on (visualization of) the līlās of God.
14
Rāghavdās relied heavily on Nābhādās’s text and worked with its rubric of the “four sampradāys,” but
he also formulated a new, parallel quartet, the “four panths” of Nānak, Dādū, Kabı̄r, and Haridās
(Nirañjanı̄), which he explicitly identified and contrasted with the four sampradāys, as a foursome united
by nirguṇ bhakti. Rāghavdās’s anthology of bhaktas includes virtually everyone in Nābhādās’s work but
also adds hagiographical passages devoted to Nāths, Śaiva saṃnyāsīs, Nirañjanı̄s, Nānak and his
successors, and, of course, Dādū and his followers.

123
Agradās and Rām Rasik Bhakti Community

composed in Rajasthan in 1660 CE, gives us no new information on Agra, but echoes
the garden theme, stating: “Understanding his garden to be Hari’s, [Agradās] loved it
very much. Weeding, digging, and watering [the garden] himself, whatever fruits and
flowers grew, he offered them all to Prabhu.”15
Agradās’s garden plays a key role in a popular story, first found in our next
available hagiographical source on Agradās, Priyādās’s indispensable Bhaktamāl
commentary, the Bhaktirasabodhinī,16 composed in Vrindāvan in 1712 CE. In this
tale, Mahārājā Mānsingh comes to visit and pay homage to Agradās (though it is
unclear where exactly this occurs). As Priyādās narrates it, Mānsingh arrived with a
great entourage while Agra was working in his garden. The king entered the garden
but was asked to wait by two guards seated at the entrance. Agra, meanwhile, was
sweeping some leaves out of the garden when he saw the large crowd assembled
outside. Not wanting his devotional routine to Rām and Sı̄tā to be disturbed by them,
he sat down and became absorbed in a state of rasa-filled meditation. At this point,
Nābhādās came to speak with his guru. Having approached and prostrated himself
before Agradās, Nābhā stood up and became so moved by the sight of his beloved
guru engrossed in meditation that his eyes filled with tears. By this time, Mānsingh
had grown tired of waiting and had come looking for Agradās. Arriving at the scene
and witnessing with his own eyes this extraordinary and tender display of love and
devotion, Mānsingh realized that Rām had indeed fully bestowed his mercy and
kindness on these servants of his.17 In this story, Priyādās praises the single-minded
dedication and deep emotion inherent in the devotion practiced by Agra and his
disciple Nābhādās, while simultaneously showing these saints’ interaction with and
impact upon perhaps the leading Hindu Rājpūt political figure in the Mughal
Empire.
We can gain a bit more insight into the figure of Agradās from a few of
Nābhādās’s remarks in his Bhaktamāl. First and foremost, at the very beginning of
the text, Nābhā explains that it was his guru Agra who ordered him to compose this
work in praise of the devotees of God. In the fourth dohā, he states, “Guru Agradev
gave the order: ‘Sing the glory of the bhaktas. There is no other way to cross the
ocean of existence.’ ”18 Nābhādās has been recognized as something of a
revolutionary for raising the status of the bhaktas—the devotees—and equating

15
chappay 157.1–3: bahut bāg sūṃ prīti rīti hari kī jin jāṇīṃ | nīndai gaundai āp āp parvāhai pāṇī | jo
upajai phal phūl soī prabhujī kauṃ arapai |
Narendra Jha (1978: 34) writes that Rām rasik bhaktas continue to follow the example of Agradās by
keeping small gardens in their temples and by combining their names with bāg, kuṅj, nikuṅj, bāṭikā, van,
and other similar horticultural words.
16
On the relationship between Nābhā’s mūl text and the commentary by Priyādās that nearly always
accompanies it, see Hare 2007.
17
kavitt 123. See Nābhājı̄ 2009: 314; also Pinch 1999: 393.
18
dohā 4: śrī guru agradev ājñā daī bhaktan kau jasu gāy | bhavsāgar ke taran kau nāhin ān upāy ||

123
 Patton Burchett

them with God.19 The famous opening line of the Bhaktamāl states, “Bhaktas,
bhakti, God, and guru, though four in name, are one in essence.”20 It seems,
however, that the original inspiration for this idea was actually Agradās, who
stressed that singing the praises of the devotees brings liberation. This is
demonstrated again towards the end of the Bhaktamāl where Nābhā states, “Agra
says, he who narrates the virtues of the followers [of God] gains the power of Sı̄tā’s
Lord [Rām].”21 Nābhā’s verses thus depict Agradās as not simply a great bhakta of
Rām and Sı̄tā, but as a teacher who sought to spread his firm conviction that all true
bhaktas are worthy of devotion and that by cherishing the memory of the great
bhakti saints and following the model they set, one grows closer to the Divine.
To see how the memory of Agradās changes and becomes more detailed over
time, let us jump ahead to the mid-nineteenth century, specifically to the description
of Agradās found in Jivārām Yugalpriyā’s Rasik-Prakāś-Bhaktamāl (1839 CE). This
sectarian hagiography devotes two full stanzas (verses 14–15) to Agradās:
Agra Svāmı̄’s beautiful words showered [revealed] ras like abundant clouds of
bliss;
His use of letters, verses, and alliteration and his passionate love (mādhurya)
were like that of Vālmı̄ki.
He obtained the hidden meaning and secret method of the meeting of the
rasiks. Living in Raivāsā, he enjoyed the worship of Jānakı̄ [Sı̄tā] and her
Lord.
The servant Agra’s garden was a beautiful shelter of ras like Sı̄tā and Rām’s
private royal chamber.
Founder [Leader] of the tradition which delights in ras, he is the greatest rasik
and gave happiness to all the rasiks.
Agra Svāmı̄’s beautiful words showered [revealed] ras like abundant clouds of
bliss.

Agra Svāmı̄ was first [the favorite] among the female companions of Janak’s
daughter [Sı̄tā].
She or he expertly arranged Rām and Sı̄tā’s meeting in the flower garden.
Candrakalā was [Agra’s] name, the beloved female companion who helped
bring Rām under Sı̄tā’s spell [power/control].
Meditating on the feet of the manifest God, Agra deeply tasted ras.
He is the author of that ocean of śṛṅgār ras, the Dhyān Mañjarī.
Whether wise or ignorant, whoever reads this work will know the essence of
the rasik path.22
19
See especially Pinch 1999 and Hare 2011: Chapter Two.
20
dohā 1a: bhakta bhakti bhagvant guru catur nām vapu ek |
21
chappay 180.5: agar anug gun baranate sītāpati tihi hoī bas |
22
ras-bodh vipul ānandaghan agra svāmi bānī biśad | akṣar pad anuprās madhurtā bālmīk sam || āśay
gūṛh upāy prāpti rasikan kī saṅgam | raivāse jānakī vallabhī rahasi upāsī || lalit rasāśray raṅg mahal kal
kuñj khabāsī | ācāraj ras rās-path rasik barj rasikan sukhad || ras bodh vipul ānandaghan agra svāmi bānī
biśad || 14 || agra svāmi śrī-agra sahacarī janaklalī kī | puṣp bāṭikā milan hetu priy bhānti bhalī kī ||
candrakalā priy nām śyām siy vas kari rākhī | pragaṭi svāmi pad lahī dhyān ras man man cakhī ||
granthkār śṛṅgār ras sāgar mañjari dhyān hīṃ | bhedī anbhedī paṛhai rasik rās path jān hīṃ || 15 ||

123
Agradās and Rām Rasik Bhakti Community

These verses from the Rasik-Prakāś-Bhaktamāl demonstrate the features that had
solidified into key elements of Agra’s hagiography by the early nineteenth century.
Like Nābhādās, Rāghavdās, and Priyādās before him, Yugalpriyā mentions Agra’s
garden, but unlike any of these, he describes Agradās as (1) the founder of the Rām
rasik tradition and “the greatest rasik,” (2) remembers him to have resided at
Raivāsā (near Sı̄kar, Rajasthan), (3) emphasizes his identity with Sı̄tā’s favorite
female companion, Candrakalā, and (4) makes it clear that his work, the Dhyān
Mañjarī, is a definitive, essential text of the Rām rasik tradition.23 None of these
elements were a part of Agradās’s earlier hagiography, yet all have become key
components of his memory today. Where did they come from, and why did they
emerge at this point in time? As we will see, each of these key elements in the
modern-day collective memory of Agradās is of questionable historical authenticity.
According to Rāmānandı̄ tradition, the rasik practice of Rām bhakti had existed
for centuries as a carefully guarded esoteric tradition, kept secret until Krsnadās
˙˙ ˙
Payahārı̄, himself a rasik, gave his disciple Agradās the task of popularizing and
making more public the rasik teachings (Singh 1957: 88). At the death of his guru
Payahārı̄, his senior disciple Kı̄lhadev took over the Galtā gaddī and Agradās is said
to have traveled approximately one hundred kilometers north/northwest to Raivāsā,
situated at the base of the Arāvalı̄ Mountains, near modern-day Sikar in Rajasthan,
where he founded the Rām rasik tradition.24 While both tradition and scholarship
today think of Agradās primarily as the founder and exemplar of the Rām rasik
tradition, the available evidence suggests that (i) this is a narrow and misleading
characterization of a significant figure in North India’s early modern “bhakti
movement” and (ii) that it was actually not until the nineteenth century, the heyday
of Rām rasik bhakti, that Agradās came to be described as the founder of the Rām
rasik tradition, was associated with Sı̄tā’s sakhī Candrakalā, was remembered to
have resided at Raivāsā, and that his work, the Dhyān Mañjarī, became celebrated
as a quintessential Rām rasik scripture. Before addressing these different features of

23
To reiterate, neither Nābhādās, Rāghavdās, nor Priyadās, our three earliest hagiographical sources on
Agradās, mentions any of the following in connection with him: the founding of the Rām rasik
sampradāy, the Dhyān Mañjarī, Sı̄tā’s handmaiden Candrakalā, or the location of Raivāsā. These key
features of Agra’s hagiography seem to first emerge in Jivārām Yugalpriyā’s Rasik-Prakāś-Bhaktamāl of
1839 CE.
24
Regarding Agradās’s departure from Galtā, according to one popular (and rather odd) Rām rasik story,
Kı̄lha and Agra were bathing together there and Agra accidentally put on Kı̄lha’s laṅgoṭī (loincloth).
Kı̄lha became extremely angry about this, to the point that Agra left Galtā, unable to understand why he
would get so angry about such a trivial thing. Agra’s name means “first,” and, in informal conversations
with Rāmānandı̄ rasiks and Indian scholars, I have heard several people speculate that he—not Kı̄lha—
was actually the first (senior) disciple of Krsnadās Payahārı̄ and the rightful successor to the seat at Galtā.
Some with this view maintain that Agra was ˙˙ ˙so virakt (passionless) that he had no interest in the prestige,
leadership, or administration of this position and declined it in order to focus on his practice and writing.
Others have suggested that Kı̄lha was elevated to the seat of Galtā because of his social status (his father
was the Governor of Gujarat), while Agra was not seen as the appropriate choice for the seat because he
was of low caste. (In this context, it is interesting to note that Nābhādās explicitly notes the caste status of
both Payahārı̄ and Kı̄lha, but never mentions the social status of his own guru, Agra. Tradition maintains
he was a Brāhmana.) These are fascinating claims, but I have found no evidence either to validate or
invalidate them. ˙

123
 Patton Burchett

Agradās’s memory, we must look to the historical developments and sociopolitical

dynamics that generated the conditions for the “making” of such a Rām rasik saint.

Historical Development of the Rām Rasik Tradition

The available evidence tells us that it was only in the eighteenth century that Rām
rasik bhakti gained traction outside of Rajasthan—spreading east and taking root
most especially in Ayodhyā but also in Citrakūt, Janakpur, and Vārānası̄, among
˙ ˙
other sites—while it was not until the nineteenth century that the Rām rasik tradition
achieved real popularity and influence and came to think of itself as a clearly
bounded sectarian community. In the early eighteenth century, Rām rasik practice
was flourishing at Galtā, in the hills just outside Jaipur, under the Rāmānandı̄
mahant Rāmprapanna (also known as, Madhurācārya); however, Savāı̄ Jaisingh II
(ruled 1700–43) was intent on making a number of reforms to the religious orders in
his domain and, among other demands, was forcing a number of celibate ascetics to
marry. Refusing to be married, Rāmprapanna left Galtā and went to Citrakūt (where
˙
Rām, Sı̄tā, and Laksman are said to have spent part of their period of exile from
˙ ˙
Ayodhyā) and there composed numerous works propagating Rām rasik bhakti
(Horstmann 2002: 158). At the same time, it seems that a number of other
Rāmānandı̄ rasik ascetics at Galtā also refused to give up their celibacy and left
Rajasthan. One of these was Sūr Kiśor, who traveled from Galtā to Janakpur (site of
Janak’s palace where Sı̄tā spent her childhood and was married to Rām), where he is
said to have written a text called the Śrī Mithilā Vilās that praises Sı̄tā as the
universal deity—not even mentioning Rām—in the first half of the text, then in the
second half describes the actual landmarks of Mithilā (many of them previously
Śaiva shrines) as sites of the līlā of Rām and Sı̄tā. Indeed, just as the physical sites of
Krsna’s sports in Braj were “re-discovered” in the sixteenth century and became
˙˙ ˙
important pilgrimage locations, in the eighteenth century, the various geographical
sites where events in the life of Rām and Sı̄tā occurred (such as Mithilā) also began
to be “re-discovered” and made into important Rāmaite devotional sites (Burghart
1983).
Another reason that the early eighteenth century saw the eastern expansion of the
Rām rasik sampradāy was the Rāmānandı̄s’ takeover of Ayodhyā from the Śaivas.
Probably in response to increasing threats and competition from the Śaiva
Daśnāmı̄s, in the early eighteenth century the Rāmānandı̄s organized themselves
into akhāṛās of Nāgās, warrior ascetics who were able to take control of Ayodhyā
(Pinch 1996: 27–28). Furthermore, the gradual breakdown of the Mughal Empire
had greatly altered the political landscape of North India by the second half of the
eighteenth century, allowing for “the rise of various regional kingdoms, thus
opening up new avenues of patronage across the Gangetic plain” (Paramasivan
2009: 104). It was the generous patronage of newly enfranchised rulers in the
eastern Ganges Valley (Banāras, Revā, Tı̄kamgarh, and Dumrāo), most especially
˙ ˙ ˙
that of the Nawābs, Shı̄‘a Muslim nobles who were the successors to Mughal power

123
Agradās and Rām Rasik Bhakti Community

in Avadh,25 that made possible the expansion of the Rāmānandı̄s and other Hindu
groups in Ayodhyā (Lutgendorf 1991b: 229).26 Indeed, it was one of the Nawābs
who granted Rāmānandı̄ Nāgās the land and financial support necessary to build the
Hanumāngarhı̄ temple, one of the earliest Rāmānandı̄ sites established and one that
˙
today—along with Kanak Bhavan (a representation of Rām and Sı̄tā’s “House of
Gold”)—dominates religious life in Ayodhyā. In taking control of Ayodhyā from
the Śaiva Daśnāmı̄s27 and securing the patronage of the Nawābs, Rāmānandı̄
warrior ascetics paved the way for the settlement of their Rāmānandı̄ brethren, the
rasiks. Vasudha Paramasivan explains that while the rasiks began “to establish their
presence in Ayodhyā in the eighteenth century, it was not until the nineteenth
century that the Sampradāya was able to secure its position firmly enough to emerge
as a dominant force in the religious life of the city” (2009: 105).
The popularity and influence of the Rām rasik tradition thus appears to have
peaked in the second half of the eighteenth and in the nineteenth century. The rise of
Rām rasik bhakti at this time was likely also related to a corresponding decline in
warrior asceticism among the Rāmānandı̄s due to the increasingly powerful
presence of the British. As William R. Pinch has suggested, “In retrospect, it can be
argued that with the gradual removal of armed monks from territories controlled by
the Company in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, North Indian
monasticism turned inward, away from worldly martial pursuits and toward more
aesthetic, devotional, and literary accomplishments” (1996: 31).
Another factor behind the increasing prominence of Rām rasik bhakti at this time
was the publication of the Ānand Lahirī, an influential commentary on Tulsı̄dās’s
Rāmcaritmānas authored by mahant Rāmcarandās (1760–1831).28 Rāmcarandās is
˙ ˙
recognized as perhaps “the key figure in the consolidation of the rasik sampradāy’s
authority in Ayodhya” (Paramasivan 2010: 93, 2009: 105; emphasis in original). His
commentary claimed to openly reveal the secrets of śṛṅgārī bhakti (erotic devotion)
and the rasik orientation that Tulsı̄dās had intentionally concealed in his text.
Paramasivan (2010) argues that Rāmānandı̄ rasiks such as Rāmcarandās and his
˙
disciples critically reshaped Rām bhakti in the nineteenth century by linking
Tulsı̄dās and his immensely popular vernacular devotional text, the Rāmcaritmānas,

25
The Nawābs’ liberal attitude toward Hindu participation in military and political arenas seems to have
been one major factor behind their success in shifting Avadh from a Mughal province to an economically
and politically powerful autonomous state (doubled in size) with its own cultural and historical identity
(van der Veer 1989: 144).
26
For a more detailed account of the Rāmānandı̄s entry into and development in Ayodhyā, see van der
Veer (1989: 144–51).
27
Local tradition tells how Rāmānandı̄s liberated the site of Hanumāngarhı̄ from Śaiva control, and then
built the temple. Apparently, even the Śaiva Daśnāmı̄s in Ayodhyā today ˙ admit that the Rāmānandı̄
akhāṛās pushed them out of Ayodhyā in the early eighteenth century, as van der Veer learned from a
conversation with the abbot of the Jūnā akhāṛā of Daśnāmı̄ Nāgās in Ayodhyā (van der Veer 1989: 146,
150).
28
The Ānand Lahirī was funded largely by the patronage of Rājā Viśvanāth Singh of Revā, himself an
initiated rasik practitioner and the writer of many rasik works. Paramasivan states that this work by
Rāmcarandās was indebted especially to three earlier works, the Agastyasaṃhitā, the Sadāśivasaṃhitā (a
no longer˙ extant text that seems to have been modeled on the Agastyasaṃhitā), and, notably, the Dhyān
Mañjarī of Agradās (Paramasivan 2010: 65, 103–4).

123
 Patton Burchett

to the theology and practice of their own tradition, thereby uniting the two principal
(but until then rather separate) facets of Rām devotion in North India. If
Rāmcarandās was crucial in connecting the Rāmcaritmānas to rasik theology, then
˙
his disciple, Jı̄vārām Yugalpriyā, was key in bringing Tulsı̄dās himself within the
Rām rasik community. Yugalpriyā’s important Rāmānandı̄ rasik hagiographical
work, the Rasik-Prakāś-Bhaktamāl (1839), whose two stanzas on Agradās we
translated above, claimed the revered, prestigious figure of Tulsı̄dās as, in fact, a
member of the Rām rasik sampradāy. This nineteenth-century work also described
(and seemingly reinvented) major figures of the Rāmānandı̄ past (such as Krsnadās
˙˙ ˙
Payahārı̄) as great rasiks and—as we have seen—presented Agradās as the greatest
rasik of all and the founder of the tradition.

Agradās (Part II)

We can now understand the basic historical and sociopolitical context in which the
memory of Agradās was (re-)constructed and some of the group interests driving
that process. As rasik forms of bhakti rose to new prominence in the nineteenth
century in an increasingly sectarian Indian religious environment, the growing Rām
rasik community felt a need to formulate its own sectarian credentials. A venerable
founder and a distinguished lineage were necessary to clothe the tradition with
authenticity and authority, and Agradās, an early member of the esteemed Galtā
paramparā and author of the Dhyān Mañjarī, was the clear choice. Agradās’s
Dhyān Mañjarī offered a detailed vision of Rām and Sı̄tā in Ayodhyā that probably
served as the foundational early manual of Rām rasik meditation; thus, it makes
good sense that it would come to be held in such high esteem by later sectarian
hagiographers. There seems no reason to doubt that Agradās is the author of the
text; yet, my research suggests (1) that the Dhyān Mañjarī was not widely popular
or particularly important (beyond, perhaps, a small number of practitioners in
Rajasthan) prior to the late eighteenth century and (2) that this text should not be
considered, as the tradition seems to understand it, as the definitive representation of
Agradās’s devotional perspective.
R. S. McGregor presents the Dhyān Mañjarī as Agradās’s only significant work
and describes it as “the Rāmānandı̄s’ main early vernacular text”; however, the
evidence tells a rather different story (2003: 936). Of the twenty-four manuscripts of
this text that I found in my research in the archives of North India (more than twice
as many as of any other work attributed to Agradās), the overwhelming majority
come from the nineteenth century; in fact, only a single one comes from before 1800
CE.29 While we have no shortage of works attributed to Agradās in manuscripts of
the seventeenth century and first half of the eighteenth century, the rasik-themed
Dhyān Mañjarī is not among them. In fact, when one examines the full body of
manuscripts and scattered verses attributed to him, Agradās seems to have been just

29
Of the twenty-four Dhyān Mañjarī manuscripts I have found, fourteen come from the nineteenth
century, nine are undated, and a single one comes from the eighteenth century (1761 CE).

123
Agradās and Rām Rasik Bhakti Community

as much a sant30 as a rasik. While an examination of his full literary output (most of
which is in unpublished manuscripts, some of which is published in Hindi, and none
of which has been translated into Western languages) is beyond the scope of this
paper,31 what is important to point out here is that many of Agradās’s works and
poetic verses do not have explicitly rasik themes, instead emphasizing renunciation
and asceticism, the power of reciting the Name, the value of the nirguṇ Divine (and
its compatibility with the saguṇ), and the importance of bhakti in a more general
sense.32 It is actually these (non-rasik, sant-oriented) compositions that we find in
all the earliest (seventeenth-century) manuscripts of works attributed to Agra. All of
this suggests that it was not until the late eighteenth or early nineteenth century,
when Rām rasik bhakti was rising to prominence, that the Dhyān Mañjarī grew in
popularity and practical importance. It was at this time that the community felt the
need to look back and establish a clear lineage with a distinguished past, and thus
Agradās was marked as the founder of the Rām rasik tradition and thereafter
increasingly came to be remembered almost exclusively as a rasik (his hagiography
even acquiring new elements), while the rest of his work and historical identity were
marginalized.
Other key components in the collective memory of Agradās also raise questions.
In his own rasik practice, Agradās is said to have taken on the persona of Sı̄tā’s
dearest female companion, Candrakalā, who is remembered to have artfully
arranged Rām and Sı̄tā’s initial meeting in the “Pusp Vātikā” (flower garden) of
˙ ˙
King Janak’s palace grounds in Mithilā. Many rasiks hold that Agradās was actually
an incarnation of this sakhī. Indeed, some of his poetry is signed “Agra-alı̄,” the
“-alı̄” being a colloquial term for a woman’s intimate female friend. Yet, the fact
that this signature (chāp), “Agra-alı̄,” does not occur in any of the seventeenth-
century manuscripts of his work and tends to occur only in sectarian Rām rasik
collections makes me skeptical that Agra ever identified himself in this way. It
seems more likely that the presence of this chāp is linked to hagiographical
accretions and new works attributed to Agradās that occurred in conjunction with
the rise of Rām rasik bhakti in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
Furthermore, while both tradition and existing scholarship maintain that Agradās
founded a Rām rasik community at Raivāsā after leaving Galtā in the mid-sixteenth
century, there may be good reason to believe that the Rāmānandı̄ community at
Raivāsā did not exist until the early eighteenth century and that Agradās never
actually went there and perhaps never left Galtā. It is noteworthy that Raivāsā is
mentioned neither in Nābhā’s Bhaktamāl, in Rāghavdās’s Bhaktamāl of 1660 CE,
nor in Priyādās’s Bhaktamāl commentary of 1712 CE. In my research, I have not
found Raivāsā mentioned by name or associated with Agradās in any sectarian

30
While the term sant can be simply translated as “saint,” in referring to Agradās as a sant here, I mean
to associate him with the popular group of predominantly low-caste, nirguṇ-focused North Indian bhakti
poet-saints (for example, Kabı̄r, Ravidās, Dādu, abnd Nānak) who have come to be known by many
scholars as the “Sants” (or sometimes the Sant movement, or paramparā).
31
For a more extensive treatment of Agradās, his literary output, and his historical contribution, see
Burchett (2019), especially Chapter Six.
32
Here I position the paradigmatic rasik as having generally saguṇ, śrṅgār, and refined aesthetic
sensibilities, in contrast to the generally more ascetic, nirguṇ outlook of the paradigmatic sant.

123
 Patton Burchett

document until Jı̄vārām Yugalpriyā’s Rasik-Prakāś-Bhaktamāl of 1839 CE. The first

mention of Raivāsā that I have found in connection with any Rāmānandı̄ is a
document from the Kapar Dvārā (Kapad Dwara) collection in the Jaipur City Palace
˙
that shows an agreement between Savāı̄ Jaisingh II and Rāmsevak, who had been
given the jāgīr of Raivāsā.33 In her research at the Rajasthan State Archives in
Bikaner, Monika Horstmann has discovered two additional documents that seem to
confirm that a Rāmānandı̄ community at Raivāsā did not exist—at least not in any
formal, institutional sense—until the early eighteenth century.34 The first document,
dated 1796 VS (about 1739 CE), states that custody of the deity Jānakı̄vallabha (at
Raivāsā) be transferred from Svāmı̄ Sukhrām, who had died, to Svāmı̄ Rāmsevak
and adds that Sukhrām had originally received it in 1767 VS (about 1710 CE) by
order of Vijaysingh (Savāı̄ Jaisingh’s rival brother who held power in Jaipur for a
very brief period).35 In addition, a genealogical table of the mahants of Raivāsā,
dated 1947 and claiming to have been put together on the basis of old records, lists a
line of mahants that begins with Sukhrām, mentioning no Raivāsā mahant before
him.36 While it is certainly possible that Agradās went to Raivāsā in the mid-
sixteenth century and started an informal community there that only later became
more formally institutionalized (in 1710 CE, under Sukhrām), until further evidence
of this surfaces (beyond the claims of oral tradition), it would seem there is good
cause for skepticism.37
In summary, there are good reasons to suspect that multiple key elements in the
collective memory of Agradās first emerged in the late eighteenth and early
nineteenth century in order to meet the needs of a growing Rām rasik community
interested in the legitimation and authority that such a bhakti saint could provide.
Historically, Agradās was in fact a real trailblazer in the rasik practice of Rām
bhakti; nevertheless, his associations with Raivāsā and Candrakalā seem specious,
and it is highly unlikely that he founded any formal Rām rasik community or that
his text the Dhyān Mañjarī had any widespread significance or influence until the
late eighteenth century. It was at this time that the collective memory of Agradās
33
Kapar Dvārā #1284 (Bahura and Singh 1988). Bahura and Singh’s description of this document
(which, ˙like all of the Kapar Dvārā collection, is presently not accessible to scholars) speaks to Savāı̄
˙
Jaisingh’s efforts to control religion in his domain and bring it in line with Brāhmanical orthodoxy: “As
the Maharaja had granted Ramsewak the jagir of Rewasa, he would stick to the rules ˙ laid down by the
shastras; and would abstain from branding on the body; in case of defiance he could be removed from the
place” (163–64).
34
The following information from the Rajasthan State Archives comes solely thanks to the hard work
and perspicacity of Monika Horstmann, who has generously allowed me to share her unpublished
findings.
35
Yāddāst, Kārttika b. 7, VS 1796, Rajasthan State Archives, Bikaner.
36
Saravarak Files, Daftar Waqaya, Raj Sawai Jaipur, File 807, Rajasthan State Archives, Bikaner. The
line of mahants listed in this document’s genealogical table is as follows: Mahant Sukhrām-jı̄, Mahant
Rāmsevak-jı̄, Mahant Keśodās-jı̄, Mahant Jānakı̄dās-jı̄, Mahant Sahajrām-jı̄, Mahant Baghı̄rathdās-jı̄,
Mahant Rāmānujdās-jı̄, Mahant Caturbhuj-jı̄.
37
It should be noted that there are a host of legends (oral traditions) surrounding Agradās’s arrival in
Raivāsā and specific locations there that are linked to these legends and that are still today carefully
maintained. One example of such a tradition is the garden (claimed to be Agradās’s) at Raivāsā, the
beauty of which I can attest to after a visit to Raivāsā where I witnessed a Rāmānandı̄ sādhu devotedly
attending to a clean and thriving garden of lush green plants.

123
Agradās and Rām Rasik Bhakti Community

gained in details and importance, but since this memory was molded in the service
of Rām rasik group interests, it became almost exclusively rasik in orientation,
occluding the far more multidimensional devotional and literary figure whose
historical contributions to North India’s early modern bhakti movement went well
beyond Rām rasik practice.

The Authority of the Saint

The saintly authority constructed for Agradās in the nineteenth century, as founding
father of the Rām rasiks, has been drawn upon in interesting ways in modern-day
debates within the Vaisnava community. In the early twentieth century, a major split
˙˙
occurred within the Rāmānandı̄ fold. Since at least 1600 CE (that is, in Nābhādās’s
Bhaktamāl), the Rāmānandı̄ community had understood its founder Rāmānand to be
importantly (if somewhat ambiguously) linked to the lineage of the great southern
Vaisnava ācārya Rāmānuja (eleventh century) and his orthodox Śrı̄ Vaisnava
˙˙ ˙˙
sampradāy.38 Succumbing to the pressures for Brāhmanical orthodoxy applied by
˙
Jaisingh II, in the early eighteenth century the Rāmānandı̄s began to maintain an
even closer and more explicit relationship with the Śrı̄vaisnavas than they
˙˙
previously had. However, in the years 1918–21, many Rāmānandı̄s, resentful of
elitist attitudes and caste/commensal practices that they associated with Rāmānuja
and his followers, completely renounced their ties with the Śrı̄ Vaisnava
˙˙
sampradāy.39 These Rāmānandı̄s, whose views eventually came to dominate the
community, argued that Rāmānand is in fact an avatār of Rām who singlehandedly
founded the Rāmānandı̄ order and had no links whatsoever with Rāmānuja or the
Śrı̄vaisnavas.
˙˙
For our purposes, the interesting fact is that it was none other than Agradās
whose authority was invoked—it was a guru-paramparā (lineage document)
supposedly composed by him that was “discovered”—to prove that Rāmānand had
no connection whatsoever with Rāmānuja. The principal figures behind this
movement were Rām rasiks based in Ayodhyā who traced their spiritual descent
back to Agradās. The leader of the Rāmānandı̄ separatist movement, Bhagvāddās,
had formed a research committee in order to find evidence that there was no link
between Rāmānand and Rāmānuja, and they “by chance” stumbled upon a lineage
document written by Agradās in the form of a dialogue, in which Agradās’s guru
(Krsnadās Payahārı̄) asks his guru (Anantānand, one of Rāmānand’s twelve
˙˙ ˙
immediate disciples) to identify the lineage through which the initiatory Rāma
mantra had passed. This “discovered” paramparā made it clear that Rāmānand was

38
According to Nābhādās, it was Rāghavānand who brought the Śrı̄ Vaisnava tradition from the south to
the north, settling in Banāras where he initiated Rāmānand (Bhaktamāl, stanza ˙˙ 34). Burghart (1978: 123–
24) and van der Veer (1989: 87–89) discuss various stories intended to explain how the Rāmānandı̄s are
linked to, yet separate from, the Śrı̄vaisnavas. In these, it is said that (depending on the version)
Rāmānand or his guru Rāghavānand either˙ ˙(i) left the Śrı̄ Vaisnava fold when denied commensality after
breaking caste rules or (ii) was excommunicated for following ˙ ˙ Tāntric practices and doctrines.
39
For full details on this historical episode, see Agrawal 2008: 135–70. See also Pinch 1996: 61–70.

123
 Patton Burchett

not in the spiritual lineage of Rāmānuja. Thus, Bhagvāddās presented it at a debate

with Rāmānujis at the Hanumāngarhı̄ temple in 1920, stating:
˙
None of the current Paramparas is composed by any of our own Acharyas. We
are duty bound to honour a Parampara composed by someone of our own fold.
Our committee has found a Parampara that is absolutely different from all
others. It is worthy of our special attention and respect as it is composed by
Agradasji, who was third in the lineage from Ramanandji himself. We, the
Ramanandis, must ponder it. After all, who amongst us dare say that Agradasji
was writing any falsehood. … This Parampara clearly tells us that Ramanandji
did not belong to lineage of Ramanujaji (Agrawal 2008: 163).
Here we have the memory of a saint (Agradās) invoked to authorize the reinvented
memory of another saint (Rāmānand); a constructed history drawn upon to discredit
another constructed history and to replace it with yet another more freshly
constructed history, the figure of the saint serving as both the site and the instrument
of a struggle to re-shape the present.
For scholars of religion, to see histories constructed and memories molded in the
service of projects of the present, as we have just done, will hardly be very
surprising. Yet I wonder if we have fully understood the role that the figure of the
saint has so often played in this process in South Asia. As we have said, saints do
not make themselves; they are made. What’s more, they are re-made (and re-
membered) constantly. The memory of the past is forever linked to the interests of
the present, and in the Hindu context, it seems that the authority of that past seldom
speaks louder than when it is in the voice of the saint, whose memory embodies and
evokes the sort of shared sentiments and ethos that bond religious communities
together in the first place.40 Indeed, the politics of making a saint are no other than
the politics of forging a religious community. Since shared emotions and values lie
at the heart of any religious community, we might consider the making (and re-
making) of a Hindu saint as the molding (and re-molding) of a vessel appropriate to
carry and awaken a Hindu community’s most dearly held collective sentiments, the
constructing of an emblem that—in the given historical circumstances—is capable
of binding together and mobilizing that community. In this sense, the saint functions
not unlike a Durkheimian totem, “a symbol, a tangible expression” “in which…[the]
intangible substance” of moral principles, spiritual ideals, and collective sentiments

40
On the power of remembrance to evoke shared sentiment and bind together communities, see
especially the work of Assman (2006) and Lincoln (1989). As Assman points out, “The simultaneously
collective and ‘connective,’ bonding nature of memory is expressed with particular clarity in the English-
language words re-membering and re-collecting, which evoke the idea of putting ‘members’ back together
(re-membering and dis-membering) and ‘re-collecting’ things that have been dispersed.” (2006: 11;
emphasis in the original). Lincoln shows that often when separate individuals (making up a community)
remember a specific moment or figure from a shared past, they not only recall their common links and
attachment to that moment/figure, they also “reawaken their (latent) feelings of affinity for, and
attachment to, one another. In that very moment and by that very act of memory, they (re-)define
themselves as kin” (1989: 20).

123
Agradās and Rām Rasik Bhakti Community

“is represented in the imagination,” with the community’s own identity intimately
tied to that of the saint (Durkheim 1995: 208, 191).41
From this angle, we can see that Bhagvāddās’s mention of Agradās, seemingly a
very minor element in the sectarian conflict described above, was in fact highly
significant. Had Agradās’s name been invoked prior to the nineteenth century, prior
to his positioning as founder and exemplar of Rām rasik bhakti, it almost certainly
could not have worked the sort of magic that it did in this instance. But as the rasik
saint par excellence, Agradās—the Agradās of collective memory, that is—had
acquired an undeniable authority for those who counted themselves Rām rasiks.
With the Rāmānandı̄s’ strategic “name drop” of Agradās, the Rāmānujı̄s (and
anyone who maintained Rāmānand’s links to Rāmānuja and the Śrı̄vaisnavas)
˙˙
suddenly found themselves facing far more than a spurious lineage document; they
were now pitted against a community of Rām rasiks mobilized by the powerful
collective emotions that the “totemic” figure of Agradās evoked among them. To
deny the independence of Rāmānand from Rāmānuja was now not simply to
disagree about a matter of history, but to reject Agradās, emblem of the Rām rasik
community. It is no wonder, then, that Bhagvāddās and his separatist movement
were so successful in overcoming a long established view and convincing the vast
majority of Rāmānandı̄s that their sampradāy was, in fact, completely independent
of the Śrı̄vaisnavas and that Rāmānand had nothing to do with the spiritual lineage
˙˙
of Rāmānuja (Agrawal 2008: 146, 164–65).

Conclusions

In the life of religious communities, saints like Agradās are less historical
figures than collective memories. As Maurice Halbwachs reminds us, such
collective memories “are not intact vertebra of fossil animals” from which we
can reconstruct a saint’s “actual” life and deeds; rather, these memories are
“continually reproduced” and change in form and appearance as they are
“successively engaged” in different circumstances and time periods (1992: 47).
For this reason, we will never know who the “real” Agradās was, but by sifting the
textual layers, we can demonstrate how his memory has been engaged and
reproduced, how it has been molded and why. To trace the memory of a saint
through time in this fashion is, as we have seen, to follow a specific trajectory of the
complete imbrication of “the religious” and “the political” in social life. Indeed, our
study of Agradās and the Rām rasik community has illustrated how the remembered
saint serves the changing purposes of real-world interests, with his or her authority
drawn upon to bolster a variety of agendas. In the Hindu context, this saintly
authority is rooted in the prestige of a re-imagined past but also derives from the fact

41
In referring to Durkheim’s totem, in no way do I mean to imply that Hindu devotional religiosity
resembles “totemism” as defined or discussed by Durkheim. I mean only to point out what I see as an
interesting similarity in function between the Hindu saint and the Durkheimian totem within their
respective religious communities, in that (i) both act as tangible (that is, real, substantial) forms/symbols
representing intangible ethical values and collective emotions and (ii) both are central to the identity/self-
understanding of their respective communities.

123
 Patton Burchett

that the saint is often a “totemic” figure—concentrating a religious community’s

shared ideals, values, and sentiments within the shifting but tangible form of his or
her memory—who serves to consolidate togetherness and stabilize a proud,
common identity.

References
Agrawal, Purushottam. 2008. “In Search of Ramanand: The Guru of Kabir and Others.” In Ishita
Banerjee-Dube and Saurabh Dube, eds., Ancient to Modern: Religion, Power, and Community in
India, 135–70. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Assman, Jan. 2006 [2000]. Religion and Cultural Memory: Ten Studies (trans. Rodney Livingstone).
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bahura, Gopal Narayan and Chandramani Singh. 1988. Catalogue of Historical Documents in Kapad
Dwara, Jaipur. Amber: Jaigarh Public Charitable Trust.
Burchett, Patton. 2019. A Genealogy of Devotion: Bhakti, Tantra, Yoga, and Sufism in North India. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Burghart, Richard. 1978. “The Founding of the Ramanandi Sect.” Ethnohistory 25, 2: 121–39.
Burghart, Richard. 1983. “The Discovery of an Object of Meditation: Sūr Kiśor and the Reappearance of
Janakpur.” In Monika Thiel-Horstmann, ed., Bhakti in Current Research, 1979–1982, 53–64. Berlin:
Dietrich Reimer Verlag.
Callewaert, Winand M., in collaboration with Swapna Sharma. 2000. The Hagiographies of Anantadās:
The Bhakti Poets of North India. London: RoutledgeCurzon.
Durkheim, Emile. 1995 [1912]. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (trans. Karen E. Fields). New
York: The Free Press.
Haberman, David L. 1988. Acting as a Way of Salvation: A Study of Rāgānugā Bhakti Sādhana. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Haberman, David L. 2003. The Bhaktirasāmṛtasindhu of Rūpa Gosvāmin. New Delhi: Indira Gandhi
National Centre for the Arts.
Halbwachs, Maurice. 1992 [1952, 1941]. On Collective Memory (ed. and trans. Lewis A. Coser). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Hare, James P. 2007. “A Contested Community: Priyādās and the Re-Imagining of Nābhādās’s
Bhaktamāl.” Sikh Formations: Religion, Culture, Theory 3, 2: 185–98.
Hare, James P. 2011. “Garland of Devotees: Nābhādās’ Bhaktamāl and Modern Hinduism.” Ph.D.
Dissertation, Columbia University, New York.
Horstmann, Monika. 2002. “The Rāmānandı̄s of Galtā (Jaipur, Rajasthan).” In Lawrence A. Babb, Varsha
Joshi, and Michael W. Meister, eds., Multiple Histories: Culture and Society in the Study of
Rajasthan, 141–97. Jaipur: Rawat Publications.
Jha, Narendra. 1978. “Pratham Khand (Vivecan).” In Nābhājı̄, Bhaktamāl: Pāṭhānuśīlan evam Vivecan
(ed. Narendra Jha), i–xv, 1–251.˙ ˙ Patna: Anupam Prakāśan.
Lincoln, Bruce. 1989. Discourse and the Construction of Society: Comparative Studies of Myth, Ritual,
and Classification. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lutgendorf, Philip. 1991a. The Life of a Text: Performing the Rāmcaritmānas of Tulsidas. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Lutgendorf, Philip. 1991b. “The Secret Life of Rāmchandra of Ayodhya.” In Paula Richman, ed., Many
Rāmāyaṇas: The Diversity of a Narrative Tradition in South Asia, 217–34. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
McGregor, Ronald Stuart. 1983. “The Dhyān-Mañjarı̄ of Agradās.” In Monika Thiel-Horstmann, ed.,
Bhakti in Current Research, 1979–1982, 237–44. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag.
McGregor, Ronald Stuart. 2003. “The Progress of Hindi, Part 1: The Development of a Transregional
Idiom.” In Sheldon Pollock, ed., Literary Cultures in History: Reconstructions from South Asia, 912–
57. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Mishra, Ratanlal. 1980. Miśrabandhu Vinod. Lucknow: Gaṅgā Pustak Mālā.

123
Agradās and Rām Rasik Bhakti Community

Mishra, Ratanlal. N.d. Śrī Agradevācārya Pīṭh, Raivāsā: Ek Saṃkṣipt Paricay. Sikar: Raivāsā Dhām.
[Pamphlet].
Nābhājı̄. 1978. Bhaktamāl: Pāṭhānuśīlan evam Vivecan (ed. Narendra Jha). Patna: Anupam Prakāśan.
Nābhājı̄. 2009 [1914]. Śrī Bhaktamāl (ed., with Hindi commentary, and trans. Sı̄taramsaran Bhagavan-
prasad Rupkala). Lucknow: Tejkumar Book Depot Limited.
Paramasivan, Vasudha. 2009. “Yah Ayodhyā Vah Ayodhyā: Earthly and Cosmic Journeys in the Ānand-
Laharī.” In Heidi Rika Maria Pauwels, Patronage and Popularisation, Pilgrimage and Procession:
Channels of Transcultural Translation and Transmission in Early Modern South Asia. Papers in
Honour of Monika Horstmann, 101–15. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
Paramasivan, Vasudha. 2010. “Between Text and Sect: Early Nineteenth Century Shifts in the Theology
of Ram.” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Pinch, William R. 1996. Peasants and Monks in British India. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Pinch, William R. 1999. “History, Devotion and the Search for Nabhadas of Galta.” In Daud Ali, ed.,
Invoking the Past: The Uses of History in South Asia, 367–99. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Rāghavdās. 1965. Bhaktamāl (Caturdās kṛt ṭīkā sahit) (ed. Agarchand Nahata). Jodhpur: Rajasthan
Oriental Research Institute.
Singh, Bhagavati Prasad. 1957. Rāmbhakti meṁ Rasik Sampradāy. Balarampur: Avadha Sahitya Mandir.
Stewart, Tony K. 2005. “Reading for Krishna’s Pleasure: Gaudı̄ya Vaishnava Meditation, Literary
Interiority, and the Phenomenology of Repetition.” Journal of˙ Vaishnava Studies 14, 1: 243–80.
van der Veer, Peter. 1989 [1988]. Gods on Earth: The Management of Religious Experience and Identity
in a North Indian Pilgrimage Centre. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Yugalpriyā-śaranjı̄. 1962 [Samvat 2018]. Śrī Rasik Prakāś Bhaktamāl. Laksmankila (Ayodhya): Ācārya
˙
Svāmı̄ Śrı̄sı̄tārāmśaran jı̄ ˙Mahārāj “Vyās.”
˙

123