Bhakti & Jnana

[Guest guest]

The question of the efficacy of the paths of jnanam vs bhakti towards

moksham is a highly debated question in Indian philosophy.

 

Shankara as an Advaita Vedantin states that only the realization of the

non-dual identity of the Atman with Brahman will bring about liberation.

And he advocates jnanam or knowledge as the means to this realization.

 

The time between the 2nd century BC to the 5th century AD, represents a

great philosophical ferment in the history of India. The Buddha

revolutionized Indian thought by creating a religious system without God

and Soul! His system based on reason and logic and devoid of dogma,

attracted followers from all sections of the society - even from the

Brahmanas. Though the Buddha was outright against metaphysical

speculation, the Brahmana converts fed on Upanishadic metaphysics, with

no religious dogma restraining them, started speculating with great

boldness. The result was the four main schools : 1. Saravastivadins -

who claimed that everything, the world and the soul, was real . 2.

Differing with them were the Sautrantikas who stated that though the

world existed, our impressions of them are only based on inference and

true knowledge of the objects wasn't possible. 3. Opposing both these

realists were the Vijnanavadins who said that the empirical world

doesn't exist and is only a result of our ideas. For them only vijnana

or conciousness (of which the ideas are also a part) was the reality. 4.

Stating that if the world was false, so was the consciousness perceiving

it, was one of India's greatest thinkers - Nagarjuna of the Madhyamika

school. With fierce logic he advocated that everything was devoid of

essence and hence only shunya. For him the Buddha's true teaching was

that reality was beyond comprehension and hence all views should be

abandoned.

 

Buddhism often enjoying royal support had become very widespread in

Bharath. The negative philosophy of the Bouddhas can make even a strong

and intelligent soul nervous. One can only imagine the effect it had on

the masses.

 

In such a troubled environment came in Adi Shankara. The Vedanta Sutras

warn against the use of reason and logic to propound reality, for reason

can be overcome by greater reason. This was exactly the case with the

downfall of the Bouddhas. Shankara with an even greater intellect

overcame their theories proving the ultimate futility of logic and

reason to ascertain reality. The religious mood of the country then was

more favourable towards the intellect than faith. Hence Shankara's

emphasis on knowledge (I think!). Again one has to remember that he

composed Bhaja Govindam. With the passage of time, it was easier for

devotion to claim it's rightful place in religion.

 

With a powerful intellect one can analyze and realize oneself . Hence

Shankara's jnana marga which points towards self realization seems to be

the right way.

 

But Bhakti is more object oriented. We pray to our ishta deivata. So how

will we be able to realize our self if our attention is fixed on an

external object? Here we have to note that even non-dualism involves two

entities - Atman and Brahman. The way of the intellect is more geared

towards Atman. I think the way of bhakti more geared towards Brahman.

 

How so? Because the Atharva Veda states that "all this (the world) is

verily Brahman". So if one sincerely concentrates on an Ishta deivata,

even that will eventually result in revealing the singular identity of

the knower, known and knowledge. Ofcourse, by concentration, I mean

absolute self surrender.