In this essay I want to chart a space for understanding bhakti that moves between the two dominant, and in some ways mutually contradictory, modes of describing bhakti in modern scholarship. 1 These two positions are the idea, on the one hand, that bhakti forms a social movement and, on the other, that bhakti is an act of personal devotion. In between these poles of the broadly social and the strictly personal, I want to suggest that bhakti seeks to form publics of reception rather than communities that imply a single cohesive issue or idiom. I advance the thesis that all manifestations of bhakti are performances and, more to the point, public ones, that is, performances that are part of, or help form, publics of reception. While I would not argue that bhakti never describes a private affair of devotion, the sense in which bhakti enters the history of India is not through the private realm, but through the social world of caste, labor, media (both written and non-written), and markets outside the home and the heart of an individual.To Ça kara, around the ninth century CE, is attributed the argument for an individualized, monist vision of bhakti, which he is said to have expressed in the Çivånanda-lahir by his metaphor of the river, or self, joining the ocean, or Brahman. His broad influence had much to do with philosophical-religious understandings of bhakti in the direction of a personal pursuit. Yet the metaphor is telling-the river may be an individual stream on its way to the ocean, but it is also one of the central venues of collective, social Hindu religious practice (think of the Kumbha Melå or the Ga gå in Banaras) and also, universally, a key site for commerce, economics, travel, and urban development. The river is many things: a boundary, a threat, a source of sustenance, a channel of trade. The river is an apt metaphor for the public, as much as it is for bhakti and religious expression itself (for more on bhakti and rivers, see Feldhaus 1995). Indeed, despite Ça kara's usage, we also find in Sanskrit an impressive series of texts that associate bhakti with public performance. In treatises on aesthetics, and especially in texts attributed to Abhinavagupta in the early eleventh century, the nature of bhakti as affect is debated. Bhakti in this context is beyond rasa, beyond the "flavor" of a performance, but is one of those key "experiences," or bhåvas, that a rasa might explore; all roads, as it were, may lead to bhakti, and it cannot be limited to any particular kind of affect. 2 It is thus understood not only to be a shared experience, International Journal of Hindu Studies 11, 3 (2007): 255-72