Bhakti: A Contemporary Discussion (Philosophical Explorations In the Indian Bhakti Tradition), Edited by Daya Krishna, Mukund Lath & Francine E. Krishna, Indian Council of Philosophical Research 2000, New Delhi, 200.

Content, Conclusion and Comments by dayanand bharati.

Introduction

An interesting and an unique dialogue book, which at least starts a new tradition of not merely reading papers, ‘the type of seminar in which everyone reads the paper written before-hand to which nobody listens’(p.iv), but recording the actual dialogue, of course of the Philosophers, for the Philosopher and by the Philosophers.  The central theme of the Seminar is: ‘worth exploring further to find whether there was really an intellectual dimension of the Bhakti tradition in India which had not been paid any attention to until now.’(pp.i-ii.)  And the entire discussion by various scholars centres around this theme and the out come is this book.

            Following the typical tradition of philosophers, this seminar also starts with a purvapaksha introduction by Prof. Daya Krishan which followed by questions, answers , long discussion based on several points, of course centred around the theme.  But the way one point leading to another, several times takes the discussion away from the particular point focussed in any one discussion.  However thanks to the summary presentation of the Chairperson Prof. Daya Krishna, who most of the time steer the discussion, if not helping the participants to follow his guide lines, but for us try to understand what all the Philosophers discussed.

            This doesn’t mean that anyone can easily understand what all discussed in this book.  Unless one knows minimum elementary knowledge of two languages, apart from English, viz., Hindi and Sanskrit he has to keep the book away can say, ‘thanks for all the Sanskrit words without giving any meaning for them.’  The problem doesn’t ends here.  In between the discussion a participant will share in Hindi and again without giving any translation.  But the worst part of the book is the typing of some English talk in Devahagari Script.  To help you to understand this unique form of publishing a book let me quote from page 22:

|ÉÉä. nùªÉÉEÞò¹hÉ– +É<Ç ´ÉÉx]õ ]Öõ C±ÉÉäVÉ xÉÉ>ð ¡òÉ®ú ±ÉÆSÉ, ¤É]õ ʤɡòÉä®ú Ê´É C±ÉÉäVÉ, BxÉ <ǶÉÖ ´ÉÉVÉ ®äVb÷…”

(pro. Dayakrishn—ai vant to kloj now faar lanch, bat before we kloj, an issue waz raizd)

Prof. Daya Krishna—I want to close now for lunch, but before we close, an issue was raised… (also see p. 21 for a mixture of English words in Hindi talk which is typed using Devanagari script)

Of course I need not mention about using of several English words even while talking in Hindi but again those words are typed in Devanagari script.  Those who can read Hindi (not much fluently) has to struggle to understand the English word typed in Devanagari script in Hindi transcriptions.  While they took all the trouble to transcribe all the talk from cassettes, they could have typed those English talks in Roman Script which are typed in Devanagari.  Ordinary people like us are not going to understand what all they discussed, as they used lots of philosophical technical terms in Sanskrit without giving any meaning for them.  But those few isolated points which are useful could be understood by us, if they took some strain to give a glossary for important Sanskrit and Hindi words.  The problem not ends here.  Unless you keep an eye on the page numbers you will see suddenly the subject jumping without any continuity.  For example after page number 34 comes 83 and to read page 34-50 you have to go to 82 and come back to 51.  Naturally you have to come back to 34 to continue to read after 82.  Of course this is an one time error, may be the person who looked after the binding too was reading the book and carried away by the metaphysical talk, forget to concentrate in mundane affairs.

As some of us cannot read Devanagari script, I have typed them in Roman script.  And wherever possible, with my limited knowledge in Hindi, I gave my own translation.  Like wise all the translation of the Sanskrit words and slokas are limited by little knowledge in Sanskrit.

CONTENT:

Realizing the fact that no one can follow the theme in a coherent manner, thankfully at the end of the book they have given the summary of the issues raised in the discussion and I will try to give some points raised during the dialogue under each point.  But it is very difficult to bring all the points from the book and the summary in the Appendix is the gist of the whole book.

SOME ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION At The Dialogue of the Philosophical Dimensions of The Bhakti Tradition In India:

1. What are the puurva Paksas in the philosophical tradition of Bhakti?  What are the arguments given for their refutation?

Puurvapaksha is known as the former side in which the opponent’s view is first presented and then refuted to establish one’s own doctrine.  Some times a philosopher may even think about his opponents’ objection to his doctrine and will present his objection to such imagined Purvapaksha of his opponents.  And ‘Without refuting the purvapaksha, siddhanta is not established.  This is also the tradition [siddant ki sthapana puurvapaksa ke khandan ke bina nahin hootii hai, yah bhii paramparaa hii hai.]’ (Prof. Daya Krishna,p.10)  Such a form of intellectual inquiry is very familiar in Indian philosophical tradition:

…the unbelievably long, hard-core tradition of the ever-seeking, ever-doubting saattvika quest for the ultimate Truth by the buddhi in the Indian tradition, which has never been afraid of raising the most formidable purvapaksas against one’s own position and attempting to answer them. (Prof. Daya Krishna, p. iii)

And naturally every Philosophical dialogue, including this one, should raise such a genuine Purvapaksha if we have to keep an on going relationship with such a tradition.¹  Because, ‘with respect to all traditions of India’s past is that it is alive and that our relations with them have to be critical, appreciative and creative.( Prof. Daya Krishna, p.4).  Before going to the see the answer about the Purvapaksha to bhakti, what Prof. Daya Krishna says about the complex of tradition and our living relationship with it is important to note:

To Dr. Rukmini’s question about how to satisfy a modern mind about various tradition, (p.64) Prof. Daya Krishna says, “If one is doing a textual study or a historical study, then, one is bound by the text and can only try to be as honest to it as possible.  But there are many texts.  There are also texts claiming to interpret another text and we have a history of such interpretations.  But history raises problems, which are even more complex than the interpretation of a book or a series of books.  But … when one is establishing a living relationship with a tradition, then one is free in a different sense.  The problem of such a freedom is not a trouble for some.  This is one reason why it did not trouble the past acaryas.  It troubles only the modern ones…. (p.63) So, we should feel free.  If one doesn’t feel free, it is because one has not understood the tradition correctly…. Today what we are to discuss should open new avenues for thinking, not merely for us but for others, other cultures and civilizations which have as much right to our cultural heritage as ourselves.(pp.63-64)

Now regarding the Purvapaksha for bhakti is:

When we look at the darsanas, whether it is Advaita or Yoga, or Nyaaya, the puurvapaksa is very much concerned with refuting the theory of anaatma[non-soul or the existence of a soul] of the Buddhists.  Now, do we have anything like that in the bhakti tradition?  I have not come across it.  In such a perspective, that is, the perspective of puurvapaksa and siddhaanta, we do not have such a debate in bhakti.(Dr. Rukmini, p.16)

This point is important in considering the fact that several people think that Ramanuja as the champion of bhakti school of Vedanta, kept the Advaita of Sankara as the Purvapaksha to establish his Bhakti Siddhanta.  On the contrary, says Dr. Rukmini:

As for Raamaanuja, I think he is only debating against Advaita.  He is trying to refute it, through his own commentary on the same text, the Brahma-suutra, giving a different interpretation.  He uses a different kind of argument to establish his position against the Advaitic position, but there is nothing philosophical per se in it.  There is no demolition of the puurvapaksa and the establishment of siddhaanta; it is just a way of interpreting Upanisads.  He says that it is more appropriate to understand them in terms of his Visistaadvaita.(pp.16-17)

And the point presented by Dr. K.N. Misra on Ramanuja endorses this view.  According to Dr. Misra, Ramanuja’s philosophical system (though to refute Advaita of Sankara), also forms line with the Vedantic tradition that neither women nor Sudhra has any hope to attain salvation even in his bhakti marga. And regarding the real Purvapaksh for bhakti he says it, ‘is the Vaidika dharma.² It is the puurvapaksa of the bhakti dharma, even though the Vaidika dharma also has a concept of bhakti of its own.  But that concept of bhakti is not from the Bhaagavata.’(p.39)³

To understand this difference between the concept of bhakti found in Vaidika Dharma and Bhagavata, and also to understand the concept of Purvapaksha, we have to listen the full discussion of Dr. Misra:

…we think that bhakti was present in the earliest text, the Rgveda.  It is in bhakti sense that we interpret the texts and quote from them.  But the basic point is that it is not the words that are significant, but it is the concept that is significant.  True, the words are found in the Samhitaas and in other texts also, but what is that concept which is being conveyed by the words?  Has that concept undergone a change over a period of time in subsequent texts?  The concept of bhakti that we are discussing, I presume, follows the way, which thinks that there was no bhakti in India and it is with Ramanuja that it began and so on.  But that is not the case.⁴  There is a puurvapaksa to bhakti; but within bhakti there are many puurvapaksas also.  In the Vedas, or in the Samhitas to be precise, we find many variations of thought, and from that variety of thought we pick up only one tradition, which has come to us through the Upanisads.  The authors of the Upanisads were well aware of the fact and they have reminded us of this.  They have reminded us that in the Vedas there are various traditions… (pp.34-5)

And Dr. Misra skillfully demonstrates his point further stating that:

We forget the fact that there was a religion without a god even in the Vedic tradition.  There was also a religion without a god outside the Vedic tradition, namely, Buddhism.  And the same is true of Jainism.  But it is very difficult to say that there was no concept of bhakti in these religions.  I, on the other hand, contend that there is a concept of bhakti in these religions also and it was precisely against this concept of bhakti that the Vaisnava religion emerged.  This is the puurvapaksa, and against this puurvapaksa, the concept of Vaisnava bhakti really takes up cudgels.  The basic thing is that while the word remains the same, the concept changes… We think that there is only one tradition, and we identify ourselves with that tradition of bhakti where there is a god, where bhakta tries to visualize God, to live in His company.  This is the line of thought with which many of us identify ourselves and neglect other aspects of it.  But when we are engaged in philosophical thought, we should look at other views also.(Italics original, p.35-36)

In our country mere name carries with it its own authority—either it is with the Scripture or any acharyas. This is important for us to understand even the concept of Purvapaksha itself. Pointing out such a misconception Dr. Misra says:

I think one of the greatest confusions arises when we quote, because sometimes we are only using their authority for our own purposes.  But how do we view these text?  Is the Bhagvad Gita a commentary on the Upanisads?  We have forgotten altogether that the Bhagvad Gita is a part of the Mahabharata and if it has to be understood properly, if its philosophy has to be appreciated, it has to be understood in the light of the total Mahabharata… the philosophy of Krsna has nothing to do with the Brahmasuutras. (pp.36-7)

When Prof. Shiv Kumar Sastry points out that Gita not only quotes lots of Upanishadic slokas but it also reflects its thought,⁵Dr. Misra responded:

..the Bhagvad Gita parva, one finds that it has 42 chapters, one of which only the last eighteen are called the Bhagvat Gita.  The Bhagvad Gita, as everybody knows, is a part of the Bhiismaparva which ends with it, then in the following parva, the verses in the beginning give the number of the chapters of the Bhagvad Gita, which does not tally with the number of the present chapters in the Bhagvad Gita…In the statement of the great Sankara: Vyaasa summarised the words of Krsna in 700 slokas.  There are people in this country who are searching for the original Bhagvad Gita.  There may be Upanisadic elements in it, but non-Upanisadic elements are also there.  Also, the bhakti in the Samhitaas is totally different from the bhakti we find in the Bhagavad Gita.(Prof Misra, pp..48-49)

From the above discussion we can understand the main role Purvapaksha is to establish (one’s own) siddhanta.  In this light the question how far it is relevant even to ask for a ‘Purvapaksha for bhakti’?  Because according to Prof. Dwivedi, ‘But bhakti is not even a full fledged philosophy.  It is only a means to reach up to God.  In other Indian darshan there will be a system, it will have a epistemology.  We can discuss its theoretical side very clearly.  But bhakti is only a means to reach to God.  It is only a sadhana to reach god.’ (in Hindi, p.21)  And what further confusing is the statement by Prof. Dwivedi about the very purpose of this Philosophical Congress:

If we can manage to separate the practical side of this philosophy we can manage to discuss it minutely.  What is the method that should be very clear….We have to see which philosophy says what and not that what a person is doing…. Let bhakti be in its own place.  But we have gathered here on behalf of a philosophical Congress.  It is my request with every speaker to keep this point in your mind.  Let us separate the philosophical side clearly from its (bhakti’s) practical side.(in Hindi, Prof. Dwivedi, pp. 21-22)

But it is doubtful any further discussion in this book ever kept this goal in their mind while discussing all about bhakti.  Of course it is a philosophical Congress.  But the purpose of its gathering is to discuss about the ‘philosophy’ of bhakti.  So one can find in this statement of Prof. Dwivedi some contradiction.  Of course in such a dialogue where merely papers were not read but participants spoke spontaneously, one can dig out so many contradiction.  And with the limited understanding of this book (because of language viz., both Sanskrit and Hindi) I may be even wrong to point out any such assumed contradiction. 

Now back to the question of Purvapaksha to bhakti according to Prof. Daya Krishna, ‘The tradition also says that knowledge and karma are the puurvapaksha for bhakti.’(p. 24).  This is endorsed by Sri Purushotam Goswami who says, ‘Yoga, knowledge and karma are puurvapakash.  In all these purushart [four aim—dharma, artha, kama and moksha] is the main aim.  Bhakti is the only thing in which no one seeks any selfish desire but only think about others happiness.’(in Hindi, p. 27)⁶  And further explaining his point Swamiji says:

Superlative Gita is only in two slokas, ‘my devotee becomes myself….I promise this because your are very dear to me. (18.65)  Again finally it was said, ‘renouncing all dharma take refuge in me’ (18:66).  This is bhakti. This is the greatest things.  It is not attained neither by knowledge, nor by work or by yoga.  This is vivechanam (contineous learning?).

When it was asked ‘tell me clearly’, it was finally said, ‘take refuge at me’.  This means bhakti is the superlative one, nothing is beyond this.  All the puurvapaksh is bind by this.  This is the doctrine.

Bhakti is both the saadhana and saadhy (the person who do the saadhna).  Because to all the bhaktas who has attained god himself, as we read in the history of bhaktas and devatas, never sought after god. O Lord birth after birth you only give me bhakti towards you. Neither I desire O Jagadesh people [progeny], nor wealth nor beautiful women. (in Hindi, Purushotam Goswami, p. 27)

But such an outright rejection of jnana, karma and yoga is not that much easy, however the bhakti tradition tries to underplay the importance other means of salvation.⁷  The tension between bhakti school and other philosophical tradition—at least which give importance jnana, is to be consider for us to understand the Indian Philosophical tradition itself.  For example,

Any discussion about dharm is always trouble some.  There is always trouble in dharm.  Then how to decide which is dharm and which is adharm?  Mahabharata fail to give any kind of answer to this question…. Mahabharata story is presented as the purvapaksha in Srimad Bhagavata.  There Vyas says that by composing Mahabharata he didn’t receive peace….Just think why Srimadbhagavad made Mahabharata as purvapaksha?  It was told through Narad, ‘O Vyas you have done a mistake by discussing about dharma  but you should have discussed about  rasa and bhakti.  Srimadbhagavat told like this.—Prof. Daya Krishna, p. 247

And one encouraging thing in this dialogue is that such a bhakti tradition which rejects other means are rightly challenged because in the words of Prof. Daya Krishna, ‘Tradition also becomes meaningless when new questions are not raised against one’s own tradition but old things are merely repeated.’(in Hindi, p.237)

1. If Bhakti is primarily a matter of feeling, then what is the place of philosophical argument in it?

This question is important considering the fact that, ‘There was an emphasis on intellectuality that generally seems to be missing in the anti-intellectual emotionalism that is so often associated with Bhakti.  And hence it seemed worth exploring further to find whether there was really an intellectual dimension of the Bhakti tradition in India which had not been paid any attention to until now.’ (Prof. Daya Krishna, pp.i-ii.).  And though Prof. Krishnaji humerously says, ‘But to have a samvaada [dialogue]on Bhakti and that too on its philosophical dimensions at a place like Vrindavan which ostensibly rejects all intellectuality, seemed almost an impossible enterprise’(p.ii), yet  it is not the fact.  Because as we have seen above in words of Nirad C. Chowdhiri it was the Chaitanyites, that too at Vrindavan created a systematic philosophy on the emotional bhakti of Chaitanya.  In the words of Dr. Krishna Sharma, all the explanations about, ‘bhakti as feeling and how that is related to a higher goal … came from Caitanyites and the [Vrindavan] Gosvaamis … who were responsible for this.  That was the first time that bhakti was defined in terms of technique.’ (p.79)

            Though bhakti begins as a spiritual experience, it can never remain as mere emotion at the cost of jnana and philosophy (theology).  Because, ‘Individual feelings and emotions were brought more into play by bhakti.  Historically, it was the reverse of what happened in Europe.  But the point is that a religion also fulfills an emotional need; it corresponds to a style of life.  Rather than emotions or an emotive style being a result of a theology, it can also be that a theology or a dogma arises from an emotional style or need.” (Dr. Francine E. Krishna, p.58)⁸ Particularly in India life cannot be divided as spiritual, secular, religious etc. So bhakti cannot live independently outside religious philosophy (theology).  This is well stated by Prof. Shiv Kumar Sastry:

[Gita 11:54] There he [Krsna]speaks about bhakti.  This bhakti is not devoid of brahma-jnaana.  Nor is it devoid of jnaana itself.  At the end of the eighteenth chapter one finds the following sloka, ‘By means of devotion he will know what I really am.  And then knowing me, will become one with me.’ [18:55].

            Here I would like to make another point.  As a matter of fact, it is later in the tradition of philosophical discussion that Bhakti-saastras have been composed.  In the Bhakti-rasaamrta-sindhu which has been written by Sri Rupa Gosvaami, it can be seen how different philosophical concepts and different emotive concepts have been minutely analyzed.  If aesthetics is a branch of philosophy, why cannot Bhakti-saastra be a branch of philosophy too?(p.15)⁹ 

However though in bhakti philosophy (theology) attempts were made to explain it intellectually, ‘an entire school is built about bhakti as an anubhava.’¹⁰  But this anubhava is not mere blind tradition as we have several reference in Vedic Scripture about bhakti.¹¹ At the same time we should not forget to note that bhakti as a philosophy and as an anubhva created two courses in its development:

…thought in Indian philosophy has followed two courses in its development.  One has been the tradition of saints, and the other the tradition of acaryas.  The acaryas had been the interpreters, commentators, scholars, indeed, great erudite scholars.  They developed the conceptual framework of thought in which bhakti or god could find a place.  The other tradition has been the tradition of saints.  They had nothing to do with logical argument.  Nor did they worry whether they were constitute or not.  Even today in contemporary India the way in which Indian philosophy has been revived is mainly and predominantly through the saint tradition and not through the acarya tradition.  If I am permitted to quote the thoughts of Ramatirtha, Raman Maharishi, Ramakrishna, Shri Aurobindo etc., it will be difficult to fit them in the way bhakti has been propounded by the great acaryas who have talked of navadhaa bhakti or grades of bhakti, kinds of bhakti or whether there is any qualitative difference or quantitative difference in the different stages.( Prof. Pande, p.46-7)

But the overall picture that emerges out of even this seemingly two parallel tradition with there difference is that while, ‘in philosophical thinking we are universalizing our feelings, our affection, the bhakta tries to minimize it, and to personalize it.’(Prof. Mishra, p.76) And to his question, ‘If Bhakti is primarily a matter of feeling, then what is the place of philosophical argument in it?’ Prof. Krishnaji himself answers, ‘this seminar or this dialogue is a part of a series of dialogues where we are attempting to do something totally different.  We want not only to understand what someone else has said or what the tradition has said, we are trying to understand the intellectual process behind what was said.’(p. 99).

So bhakti can run smoothly only on the two parallel tracks of anubhava and philosophy.  If any one tries to uphold and promote the one at the cost of the other will loose the balance in his/her spiritual life.  Of course, ‘Seekers generally think that philosophers are irrelevant and philosophers think that other are irrelevant,’(Prof. Daya Krishna, p.74) but both cannot avoid each other as long as we remain both intellectual and emotional beings—which is the true mark of a human personality.

1. Does Bhakti postulate a basic emotion in all human beings towards what is ultimately real, and which because of this very emotion, cannot but be conceived in personal terms?

Conviction to any concept or ideology may create commitment to that ideal (which could even be a religious ideal).  And that Commitment though need intellectual understanding, some kind of emotional attachment to that Commitment cannot be called bhakti.  Because even, ‘…Religion is possible without belief in a personal god.  There may be a religion without belief in a personal god, but it cannot be called atheism.  It is also theism; it is religion. But bhakti without faith, without belief in a personal god is not possible.’(Prof. Pande, p.47) ¹²

Mere Ideal or any Ultimate Reality may demand intellectual understanding about it but need not necessarily create any kind of emotion towards it. However considering the fact that human beings cannot live without some basic emotion, even any commitment towards an ideal or Reality also can be called some kind of intellectual emotionalism—without which one cannot feel his commitment towards it.  Commitment towards the Reality/Ideology is possible without the need the very PRESENCE of A PERSON who might be the goal of that Reality—in our case God.  But that person always demands a Personal commitment to Him as well demonstrated by the Gopis themselves even in the absence of the Person Krishna:

After all, Krsna had left Vrindavan much earlier to fight the battle of dharma, and if the Gopiis did not follow him, it was because they loved not Him, but their own emotions of loving Him.  It was not Krsna, they loved, but they were in love with the love they felt for him.  And that is why they stayed on, leaving him to fight his battle of dharma alone.  The reality of Krsna does not seem to interest the Gopiis. But it does interest Arjuna, who at least appears to share some of his concerns.  He is also supposed to be a Bhakta in the Indian tradition, the Bhakta of friendship.  Yet, when he is shown the Visvaruupa, the ‘real’ reality of Krsna, he trembles in fear and requests Him to assume his previous form so that he can love him and have a friendly, meaningful relationship with him.  Does it mean then that one cannot love the real reality of God, and that it is only his illusory, friendly aspect that can be the subject of his devotion.(Prof. Daya Krishna, pp.iii-iv)

The ‘real’ reality of God is the Person in Him/Her and not necessarily His/Her Personality with our understanding of attribute (Saguna).  If we assume that the ‘personality’ in God(like love, righteous) is also an ideology  then it is possible to have bhakti (in the sense of devotion, commitment) to that personality with out the need of the Person whom we call as God (in the sense that we too love others, uphold righteousness as mere absolute ideals found in god).  But if God is the PERSON (even attribute-less =Nirgun) without any personal relationship,¹³ that too based on some kind of emotion or feeling cannot be termed as Bhakti as understood in our Indian tradition¹⁴:

What, then, is bhakti?  Two things are required.  Firstly, a belief in a personal god,¹⁵ and secondly, a belief that god has something to do very intimately, with oneself in particular.  It is not universal, it is not social.  It is a person, intimate something…(-p. Prof. Pande, p.47)

Of course bhakti¹⁶without some kind of knowledge about the ‘Person’ in God (even with or without any kind of understanding about His/Her personality or attributes) will remain a blind faith based on mere emotion depending upon the ‘personality’ (temperament) of the devotee.  Such kind of bhakti found among some sect who rejects jnana and treat it only as a Purvapaksha to bhakti will naturally lead to raise such a question as asked by Prof. Daya Krishnaji:

I want to put one question—if there is no metaphysical knowledge but only deep love for God, then will we call it bhakti or not?  The next question is—is it necessary to believe that moksha is definitely possible through bhakti? Because if we accept this then we have to acknowledge moksha as an independent Purusharta.  Then bhakti will remain only as a sadhana.  The third question is—can we accept God or not?¹⁷  I want to raise this important question.  Can I not be a bhakta and an athiest?  Whatever may be bhakti in order to accept it, is it an unavoidable condition that I should accepted God too?  God in the sense of a personal God.  There is a Great Truth, any Truth, and my emotional relationship with it is not considered as bhakti?¹⁸ (in Hindi, pp. 29-30)

And the response to these questions were presented by other participants.  But it is beyond our reach of understanding because of too much of objective and metaphysical discussion, particularly about feeling and emotion by these scholars—that too leading one point to another, which took most of the time in this dialogue does not help us to reach a clear conclusion on these questions. I am also not sure whether all these questions raised by Prof. Krishnaji were (systematically) answered or not. We may find some kind of response in point IV for these questions.  However as Dr. Vohra points out, ‘Thus, if it is conceptually impossible for us to think of emotions or feelings devoid of all reference to human beings, then how can we think of bhakti in any other way?  I would think that it is conceptually impossible’¹⁹(p.118) in bhakti without the reference of some personal terms.  This duality in relationship is further pointed out by Shri Shrivatsa Goswami:

When people engaged in the intellectual process are trying to verbalize or give an example of rasa [pleasant or nice] as a kind of inexpressible feeling they talk about an experience which is called brahmaananda sahodara.  Actually, linguistic verbalization will always be short of that experience.  It is definitely a rahasyaanubhava [secrete experience].  But to talk of that anubhava, we must speak of a process and the process cannot be spoken without the duality of subject and object.(p. 121)

This relationship with God and a bhakta in bhakti is important is proved by the fact even in dvesa bhakti [bhakti of hatred²⁰] what is counted by God is not the attitude of hatred towards Him but the constant relationship even in such feeling created in that person towards Him.  Thus, ‘bhakti is also a sort of relationship’, says Prof. Misra and continues, ‘And this is the traditional answer to the question whether dvesa can be a means to bhakti’²¹ (p.75)  Though Prof. Krishnaji has raised all these kinds of questions to stir up the discussion, we have to come to conclusion that he too accept that bhakti without a personal terms of relationship with God is impossible as he well said:

But in bhakti there is a collective community of bhaktas.  Bhakti is not an isolated individual thing.  Particularly in the Caitanya sampradaaya it is not an isolated seeking of the self in relation to the divine alone.  Even Krishna had to be surrounded by Gopis in the plural. (p.185)

1. If Bhakti is primarily a cultivation of feeling, then are its forms determined by the universal a priori forms of feeling on the one hand and by the socio-culturally determined pattern of feeling, on the other?

As we have pointed in question III, a major portion of this dialogue focused on this point of ‘feeling’.  It is a highly intellectual but lively subjective discussion.  To understand all that is discussed cannot be bring here in any form of summary.  So we will see only few important point that we can understand gleaned here and there from this dialogue.  So we request the reader to go through the whole book to understand this point whether feeling is universal or conditioned by ‘socio-culturally determined pattern of feeling’ and its relationship with Bhakti.

The first condition of feeling in bhakti could be the desire for moksha:

Was Bhakti the seeking of an ideal immanent in the life of feeling itself, which wanted to be ‘free’ of any object whatever in order to be completely independent of it?  Was it, in other words, the seeking of moksa in the realm of feeling? (Prof. Daya Krishna, p.iv) ²²

However the relationship between feeling and bhakti itself should be considered first to arrive any conclusion:

Moreover, much analysis is needed with regard to the concept of feeling itself.  Feeling is not devoid of awareness.  We say ‘cognition’, the ‘feeling’, as if we separate feeling from cognition.  But, as a matter of fact, feeling cannot really be separated from cognition.  At this point we should to see whether bhakti is an element in feeling or whether feeling is an element in bhakti and whether they are two sides of the same thing. (Prof. Shiv Kumar Sastry, p.14)

But this question cannot be easily answered considering various traditions in Bhakti itself.  That’s why Prof. Krishnaji calls us to give a new meaning to this tradition of bhakti:

…We are not exactly interested in what somebody said at some time regarding what bhakti was.  We are interested in how we, as persons living in 1988, can make sense of this tradition in our life, in our times, in our own society, in our own history.  That is how we can establish a living relationship with this tradition.  But when we ask ourselves this question, I think, many of the points made in the course of the discussion seem to become irrelevant.  Bhakti is ultimately the development of a significant, fulfilling, rich life, centered in feeling and emotion, which is sought to be made permanent.  The life of emotion is a fluctuating life.  An emotional mood never lasts more than a second, more than a moment.  Now I want to build on make it stay, make it permanent, but it is like building on water.  How, then, to build a life of emotion with a constant tone, with a constant direction?  I think, bhakti should be seen as a tremendous attempt of a culture to build what may be called a life of permanent and beautiful feeling.(pp.51-52)²³

Bhakti though has deep relationship with feeling and emotion, yet this anubhava of feeling and emotion cannot be universal.  And a thing (any concept, theology, ideology etc.) can be universalized by giving a systematic doctrine about it.  And for the first time in Bhakti tradition in India such a systamisation was attempted by the followers of Chaitanyas and:

…the Vrindavan Gosvaamis who were responsible for this.  That was the first time that bhakti was defined in terms of technique. The Vrindavan Gosvaamis did it in accordance with the rasa-siddhaant.  The Sanskrit scholars here would bear with me that rasa-siddhaanta is as old as the Naatya-saastra. For long, bhakti was not accepted as a rasa [pleasant or nice] by the rasa-siddhaantis.  It was only at a much later stage that it was accepted as a rasa.  But the rasa theory is based on the assumption that certain feelings are universal.  Yet in earlier thought bhakti was never accepted as a rasa [hence not universal].(Dr. Krishna Sharma, pp.79-80)

Bhakti needs a Person(al)—God.  So it is imperative that any feeling and emotion in bhakti is naturally has God as its object (though it was explored to find out ‘the possibility of understanding bhakti as the seeking of freedom, absolute freedom, in the realm of feeling from its dependence on any object whatsoever.’–Prof. Krishna, p.144).  But when it comes to feeling an independent entity has its own future because, ‘feelings, though characterized in terms of the objects or the situations in the context of which they arise, may also be characterized in terms of their own intrinsic properties and qualities…’( Prof. Daya Krishna, p.144).  And as per the request of Prof. Daya Krishnaji Dr. Mukund Lath talk on ‘feelings not in terms of objects but in terms of their own qualities’ (pp.145-8) based on the Alankaara-saastra (by Karnapuura) in which feeling was organized in different way.²⁴ However Karnapuura has not pointed ‘how his formulae are to be related to bhakti.’ (p.148)

But how this worldly formula on feeling was transferred in the paralaukika level of bhakti is further discussed:

…Bhakti belongs to the paaralaukika [transcendental]level, not to the laukika [mundane] level.  Though bhakti is considered a feeling, that feeling is not like other feelings, other mundane feelings.  It is not mundane.  It is a paaramarthika [spiritual or transcendental] feeling, an attachment to the Paramaatma itself.  That is the highest goal, we can say…–Shri Shrivatsa, p.149

Dr. Vora:…Surely to say that it is alaukika is merely to make a distinction between two forms of laukika.  Anything, which is alaukika cannot be talked about or discussed, not even be known.  Therefore, the distinction between laukika and alaukika falls within what may be called the broad framework of laukika itself.

            …if laukika means that which is spatio-temporal, then anything where the spatial or temporal or sensuous or sensible characteristics do not apply, will necessarily be alaukika.  But that many other things will become alaukika besides the spiritual experience.  Take, for example, mathematics or reason, which is not sensuous or take the ideal forms, which are also not sensuous.

            The point I am making is that when we are thinking, there are compulsions of thought.  And one compulsion of thought is to be critical or self-critical about the dichotomies that have been made in the tradition itself.  And I will say that the distinction between laukika and alaukika which is usually made, is a defence mechanism against a cognitive difficulty.  Whenever a cognitive difficulty is pointed out, a refuge is taken in that.  One says this is alaukika, (p.150) but the person who says this argues against his opponent and makes use of laukika language all the time.  So far as laukika and alaukika are concerned, they are clear whether we write in Sanskrit or in Hindi or any other language.  But when we translate them into English or any other language, it carries us away from the concept.  That is what I feel.—Dr. Vohra, pp.150-1

Prof. Sastry:…Even if we go by the tradition, alaukika is felt by laukika persons.  So, to what extent is it alaukika?  This difference between the laukika and alaukika cannot be insisted upon too rigidly.—p.152

…It has been very clearly brought out by the Lingaayatas that the difference is between ordinary and extraordinary.  That is with regard to the process.  The process in the context of bhakti will thus be an extraordinary rather than ordinary process.

            In Alankaara-saastra, they saw that the feelings of a human being are ordinarily directed towards other human beings.

            If they are directed towards God or divinity, then they are different.  That is why we can explain in the Bhaagvata context: priiti [affection], (p.153) bhaya [fear], kaama[desire], krdha [angry] or any other feeling can be bhakti. There is no difference in feelings; these are actual, separate feelings, but directed towards the higher self… I would say that there is no distinction between laukika and alaukika, Vyaavahaarika [practical]or paaramaartika [transcendental] in the context of bhakti which is delineated in the Bhaagvata.  But there is uniqueness about it.  If one having a common headache, the common headache, it is not an alaukika headache.  What is alaukika?  An experience, which is ordinarily never there.  It comes as a flash on its own.  If the feeling called headache, for examples, is uncommon, it will be called alaukika.  Taantrics give different names to different stages.  All these may be hallucinations, but they are unique.  So, this distinction, I think, in a real distinction in the broader bhakti culture.  The difference is a more refined, subtle feeling which can give you real perception.  If this is so, all the perceptions beyond the ordinary perception may be regarded as alaukika.—pp.152-4

Prof. Daya Krishna: I think, there are three different senses of the terms, ‘laukika, alaukika’.  One is ordinary, the other, extraordinary… The third is a distinction betweenthe unreal and the real…–p.153-4

But feeling even as an independent entity, while in its relationship with worldly experience there will be ups (udaya) and downs (parasama).  But when it is related to the transcendental anubhava of bhakti, in stead of building on the unstable water, it will become permanent one as it is based on the relationship with the PERMANENT Person called God:

…Feelings are not felt to be one’s own feelings.  This is called ‘lokottara [common?]’.  But this is not the lokottara of bhakti though they use this term.  What is the ‘lokottara’ of bhakti?  That is the question.  If it is not rasa, if it is not ordinary, is it the extraordinary connected with the ordinary?  What is meant by it?  Usually one thinks of a break.  But what kind of a break is it?  That is the question.—Prof. Dwivedi, p. 155

Prof. Daya Krishna:….What is the distinction between the lokottara and alaukika?  Is the distinction being drawn in terms of the objects from which the feeling arises or in the context in which it arises?—p.156

Prof. Dwivedi:  Rasa [pleasant, nice] experience is lokottara.  It is also called alaukika by the Alankaarikas [the composers of Alankara sastra].  They use it in the same sense.  What they mean is that the elements that give rise to these situations presented in poetry or drama are alaukika in the sense that they are removed from individual associations.(p.156) …The main difference between brahmaasvaada [lit. God taste?] and rasaasvaada [nice taste?] is, as pointed out by Abhinava-paadaacaarya himself, that the aasvaada or relish of rasa continues as long as a work of art is experienced.  When that disappear, then the aasvaada [taste] also disappears.  But brahmaasvaada is not of this kind.  Brahmaasvaada is something which is permanent.  Once you get it, you can always come down from that level and then think of this world and go back again to it, revert back to that level.  Whatever it is, it is permanent and not something, which one can achieve one day and lose the next. (p.157)

Though feeling in bhakti has a stable ground in God it has one disadvantage when compare to the laukika[mundane] feeling.  ‘There are relevant criteria for determining what is true and false or what is correct or incorrect in the realm both of the empirical and the rational.  But in the realm of the transcendental or the transcendent, no relevant criteria are there.  That is, we do not know how to determine whether one’s view about the transcendent is really correct or incorrect, true or false…. In other words, do we have any criteria for determining and deciding the adequacy or inadequacy of the response to the transcendent in terms of feeling.’((Prof. Daya Krishna, p.157-8)

To this Prof. Pande after pointing out bhakti itself as the criteria and bhakti as a discipline for that bhakti says raagaanuga²⁵ is the ‘crucial thing even for a philosophical enquiry.’ (p.160)  And explaining this raagaanuga he says, ‘It is like the concept of Iisvara in Sankaraacaarya.  We have the jagat [world], which is vyaavahaarika [practical].  Then we have the paaramaarthika[transcendental] brahma and the link between them is provided by the guru or Iisvra or whatever.  So, in the realm of bhakti, two poles, vaidhii bhakti and raagaatmikaa bhakti and raagaanuga is the connecting link.(p.159)

However changing the terms ‘laukika’ and alaukia’ to ‘para’[transcendental] and ‘apara’[non-transcendental], Sri Shrivatsa Goswami pointing out the role of Prakrti[nature] in which all these kinds of sastras falls, he shows how the ‘realm above the Prakrit that appears in the heart of the bhakta’(p.161):

Vivkananda once said that at one stage the Vedas themselves are also set aside.  Now, these are all works within the realm of prakrti.  But there is a realm above the prakrti.  That appears in the heart of the bhakta.… Unless we break the ego first, we can never imagine what bhakti is… When it is dissolved, then, it is not ‘my’ love towards something.  There is no ‘me’.  There is no ‘I’…. The love, which the Vaisnavas speak of, is the aahlaadinii sakti of Sri Krsna himself.  I have no capacity to love him unless he bestows his grace on me.  He appears to me in the form of love. (p. 161)

But this question of breaking of ego²⁶ further discussed to understand true bhakti as a gift of God:

Dr. Vohra:….why do they want to communicate these things to us?  They should just say, ‘look, this is something you have to experience yourself’.  That is all.  But they write; they try to convince us that this is a feeling, which is absolutely different from what anyone has had, and that once one has had this feeling, one will be a different person.  But if it is so, then ‘I’ and ‘that feeling’ will always be there.  At no stage there is the loss of ‘egoity’ or ‘merger’ because I remain.—p.165

Shri Shrivatsa:…As I have already said, the saastras are mundane affairs.  But why is there this communication?  One answer I can suggest is that at least there is the continuity of the self.  The self that (p.165) enjoys that bhaava [emotion/feeling] at the transcendental level, does not always stay there.  It comes down, so to say.  And so, we can say, it is because of the continuity of the same self at the two levels, that there is prapatti [total surrender, higher than saranagati].  What is higher than prapatti?  It is said, this self continues, and that is why when it comes down there is an urge to communicate with others what one has realized in the higher state.  But, unfortunately, one fails, and therein lies the tragedy.  We try, we attempt to describe it.  We can’t really define.  Logic and all such things are inapplicable in the realm of the acintya [a + cintya = unthinkable].  But when one returns to the everyday level one again becomes bound by this logic and everything else.  So, we create a saastra. We try to make some approach to communicate with others.

Prof. Basu: Then it is not non-egoistic.

Shri Shrivatsa: No.  A clear-cut distinction is to be made between the ego and the self.  The corresponding notion of ego is ahankaara [I am].  Kartaahamiti manyate [I am doing], that is ahankaara.  The self is a part of the Lord.  ‘Mamaivaamsah [a part of me]’ as the Lord said.  We have to make a distinction between ego on the one hand and the human self on the other and also make a distinction between the human self on the one hand and the ultimate on the other.  That is the way in which we should approach this saastra.—pp.165-6

Prof. Dwivedi:… we may say that what is more understandable or more describable is laukika, and alaukika is that which is not so well understandable or describable.  It transcends our understanding.—p.167

Prof. Daya Krishna:…Realized persons also want sisyas, they search for them.  When one (p.172) sees the life of Ramakrishna, one continuously finds that seekers want a person, that there is a need to communicate.  What does it presuppose and what happens to egoity?  Certainly there is a distinction between self and egoity.  The distinction perhaps is more of a moral distinction than an epistemological distinction, I mean an ontological distinction.  When I use the word ‘ego’, I want to communicate a negative sense.  When I say ‘self’, it is a more neutral thing.  So, we should not bring moral connotations of egoism into the discussion, if the discussion is primarily ontological or epistemological in nature.—pp.172-3

As long as we live as human beings we cannot avoid feeling in one form or the other.  But while in other human endeavor and relationship our feeling decides its role with other worldly activity (including our relationship with other human beings), in true bhakti the Grace of God in the form of bhakti will decide our feeling—to make it permanent in spite of our changing temperament.

• How does any thought which considers Bhakti as central, view knowledge or action on the one hand and Pure Reason, on the other?

The main difference between Reason and feeling is that, ‘When reason grasps reality, it grasps it as a law, as a universal principle because it is the nature of reason to apprehend thing that way.  But when feeling tries to grasp the same reality, it grasps it as aalambana or as a support for itself.  Aalambana [support] may be a person or anything else.’( Prof. Daya Krishna, p.65)

Thankfully bhakti can treat Karma, Jnana and Yoga as its Purvapaksha but never the Reason.  Of course Reason plays a central role particularly in Jnana and it is equally important in Karma and Yoga as none of these concepts reject Reason at any cost.  But when it comes to bhakti, though it is often claimed to stand beyond every human concept, yet it cannot attain this position at the cost of Reason.  Bhakti need not be rationalistic but it should be reasonable if not in its (personal) expression and (personal) understanding at least in its communication.  Of course, ‘bhakti is feeling-centred, emotion-oriented.  It treats feelings and emotions as the basic instrument or means of grasping ultimate reality.’ (Prof. Daya Krishna, p.10)But these very means will become an end in themselves, if bhakti rejects the reason altogether, paving the way, even for bhakti to become a blind faith.  Because if bhakti presupposes personal relations ship with God, then proper knowledge about God as the Person is important to attain mukti through bhakti. Bhakti is centred around relationship with a Personal God. If this relationship lacks proper knowledge about that God as a Person (not necessarily the Personality or gunas of that god), then any claim of emotion and feeling in that relationship will remain only as mere sentiment which will fluctuate based on the temperament of that devotee. Because salvation is possible only through knowledge and this knowledge is attained either by Karma, or Jnana or bhakti margas.²⁷ And no knowledge can be termed as knowledge if its reject reason.  Of course one can say that the aim of true bhakti is not even mukti but pure bhakti itself.  However even such a bhakti which stands beyond even mukti cannot be called true bhakti if reason is rejected. 

Similarly,  ‘Reason and a argument are the heart of philosophy, and this is so not just in the western tradition, but even in our own tradition, right from its very beginning.  As far as bhakti is concerned, it is supposed to be just the opposite.  Bhakti is a cultivation of the emotional life of man in relation to the transcendent; it is also the underplaying of doubt, samsaya.  As they say, ‘samsayaatmaa vinasyati’ [doubting aatman perishes].  But in darsana[philosophy] samsayaatmaa does not vinasyati.  Without samsaya or doubt one cannot make a movement in thought.  First there is doubt; then the doubt is tentatively settled by an argument.  And this goes on; doubt is the eternal motive behind the movement of thought.’(Prof. Daya Krishna, pp.10-11) ²⁸

The role of reason in philosophy is to establish the doctrine of that philosophy,²⁹ yet it is not achieved at the cost of reasonable feeling:

there is always an element of feeling associated with reasoning.  In understanding doctrines we use reasoning, but for the attainment of mukti, it is bhakti that takes us forward.  Therefore, while dealing with the Vedaanta-saastra with which we are very much concerned so far as bhakti is concerned, it is to be remembered that it is not merely dry logic.³⁰⁽ Prof. Shiv Kumar Sastry, p.12)

Though Bhakti is ‘feeling centred, emotion oriented’ and stood independently from any philosophy, yet it itself later developed a separate philosophy (as we have also noted above in point IV Vrindavan Goswamis formed a systematic philosophy on bhakti):

 The Bhaagavata talks about bhakti being an end it itself.  Bhakti leads to bhakti.  God himself is identified with bhakti …. Even Sankaraacaarya had to bow down to bhakti because there was a tradition and that is why saguna brahma had to be incorporated by him, though, of course, the final end is nirguma brahma. Bhakti had to have the concept of ahaitukii bhakti which is a totally new contribution by the Bhaagavata; it had not been spoken of earlier, so far as I know.  This, I feel, is a totally different kind of bhakti, one that could be considered a philosophical innovation.(Dr. Rukmini, p.17)³¹

Whatever philosophical (theological) form bhakti might took in the course of its development in our tradition, yet its relationship with Karma, Jnana and Yoga is crucial for us to understand the importance of Reason.  And what Sri Purushotam Goswamiji says regarding bhakti in its relationship with the other three concepts of Karma, Jnana and Yoga will help us further:

I think that in ordinary meaning of bhakti, there is jnana, yoga and karma.  Is there no knowledge in bhakti?  Everything is there.  But when scholars takes all these four in the context of sadhana, then we have to note the speciality of bhakti which is different from rest of the things. ³²  It is also important to note what bhaktas accepted as bhakti.  It is not considered personal happiness but always desired the happiness of others.  There is no desire for the happiness of soul, nor desire for moksha not even deliverance, but only total surrender.  This is the Purest form of bhakti.(in Hindi, Purushotam Goswami, p. 27)

And further explaining and giving his answer Prof. Shiv Kumar Sastry says:

When man found his originality, the three things come in forefront —to know, to accept and to do.  Sometimes it looks that all the three remains together and other times that there is no relationship among the three.

…which is prominent in bhakti—knowledge, or emotion or karma?  If there is relationship among the three then what is it and how much?  How far they are together and how far they are separated? What is the vilakshna (prominence) in bhakti about this relationship[among the three].

As far as I understand, bhakti is in between knowledge and aastha (faith). There is no relationship for knowledge in this view through senses [Indriyom].  But it is there in the view of karma.  Knowledge about Truth is not bhakti.  Bhakti is experiencing the Truth and living the life accordingly.  There is the co-operation of knowledge, faith and karma in this.  Faith is important in life, but knowledge and work also have place in it.  This is the basic fundamental principle of bhakti. (in Hindi, p.45)³³

Karma, Jnana and Yoga either regarded as Purvapaksha to bhakti or explained in different way (as we just saw above), it doesn’t meant that god has no place in them.  But the role of god in them is either conditional (in Karma of Mimamsa, see note two ) or secondary in nature  (both in Vedanta (jnana marga) and Yoga though god is not altogether rejected yet his importance is secondary or he could be only a means.  See below Bhakti and Advaita, point VII).  However such a ‘dry’ bhakti as a means become emotional and central because of Gita:

            It is with the Bhagvad Gita, that the real bhakti tradition starts.  Karma is replaced by a theistic god, a personal god.  Karma is no longer supreme.  We are told it is not the sacrifice that will take care of your future or your wellbeing.  It is I (that is, Krsna) who will take care of your well being.  So in the  Miimaamsaa tradition … Everything was being taken care of by sacrifice.  In the Gita tradition, on the other hand, it is Krsna who is responsible for yogaksema [welfare].  So, karma is replaced by a god.  Thus formal, heartless, verbal bhakti is replaced by an emotional bhakti where god does not accept anything from us nor does he expect anything from us.  We need nor give any offering to him.  It is not what is offered that is important, but it is the emotion with which it is offered that is important.  Hence, there are no more mantras prescribed for offering gifts to the God.  It is the language of the heart and emotion that is important in bhakti and not the language of the Vedas or the language of the scriptures..— Prof. Kedar Nath Misra p.42

Thus the conclusion derived based on these discussions is:

We have also explored the issue as to whether bhakti is primarily a matter of feelings and emotions, and what logical ratiocinative discussion we can have in regard to it.  I think, the conclusions, if there can be any conclusions in such a discussion, were that philosophical reflection can be done with respect to anything whatsoever.  So, when you are in the bhakti experience you are not philosophising or being philosophical about it.  But otherwise we can think rationally, critically about it, both about its relationship to, and implications for, other domains.– Prof. Daya Krishna, p.55

Though such rationalistic thinking in bhakti particularly in its relationship to other concepts (like Karma and Jana) though not new one, yet the present trend of ‘ratiocinative discussion’ is to be probed because of western influence:

Let us take our clue from Vaisnava and bhakti history, whether Basava or Caitanya and the Gosvaamis: (p.233) feeling is the core.  But the articulation and the intellectual exercise is a must as it holds everything together.  This is something, which cannot be ignored at any point.              What has happened at this moment in our history is that we have intellectually mortgaged ourselves to the west.  We have accepted that ideas should come to us from a high seat of learning in the west, from Harvard or Columbia or X, Y, Z university, and then we rehash it in our language, in our jargon or in Indian English.  That is a major concern and that is why this whole samvaada has come up.(Shri Srivatsa, pp. 233-4)³⁴

However, Western or Indian thought, Reason as a separate entity it has its own principle both to bind and liberate:

which can give you greater freedom than bhudi [mind, intellect].  You can doubt everything. You can demand evidence for everything and even can write that kind of sastras which demands evidence [pramana]. Mere intellect has great dryness. Which can be the cause for bondage more than budhi and logic?  Nothing can be a greater binder and deliverer than reason.  If someone becomes more rationalistic then it looks very strange to us.  But look at imagination, which can give more freedom than imagination.(in Hindi, Prof. Daya Krishna, p. 248)³⁵

At the same time we cannot set aside the danger of complete freedom given to Reason that too based on personal experience at the cost of tradition and scripture³⁶:

scholars from all over India came here.  They sat in two rows.  The same kind of discussions were held as we have today.  But there was a rule in those discussions.  Only those words were accepted as pramana (evidence) which were based on sastras.  If it was not based on sastras, then they were rejected.  This is not the rule today.  There is a command [request by Prof. Daya Krishna particularly to Purushotam Goswami not to quote from written scripture but to share based on his own experience (p.238)] to day on all of us to share one’s own personal opinion. Don’t quote and say anything.  Method has changed.  Already I requested that no one has his own word.  There is the influence of fellowship (sangh) and study. How is it possible for any one to bring his own personal words.  In those discussion based on sastras here, in that the participants came close each to the other. There came no question of any kind of stubborn.  Because sastras only thought about human beings welfare.  None could find any fault in sastras.  Man is the ideal in sastras.(in Hindi, Sri Purushotam Goswami, p. 242.) ³⁷

Reason is like a two edged sword.  When it takes one’s personal experience as the evidence (pramana) to arrive any conclusion, particularly in Philosophy (theology), then ‘as many souls so many views’ will become the norm.  Those who completely reject the authority of Scripture and tradition have their own freedom to do it.  But in the name of Reason, if they use their own experience as the evidence in interpreting Scripture, they not only violate tradition and do injustice to the text (of the Scripture), but their effort to establish a new tradition of ‘anubhav hi praman’ (experience is the evidence) will make each individual as his/her own authority.  And no Community can survive and thrive if each one becomes his/her own authority either in religion/spiritual and society.  Reason is like traffic rule or a Constitution.  We alone form it for the smooth function of the society.  Once we formed it, we ourselves have to obey it–as long as we remain rational beings.  In the name of individual’s right based on personal experience if we reject our own principles given by reason, then chaos and confusion alone will prevail.  As long as we respect Reason, it will remain as a faithful servant—allowing for adjustments and amendments.  On the other hand if we either reject it in the name of personal feeling and emotion (experience) then it will pave way for a tyrant to Control us.  And BLIND FAITH will be that tyrant in religious/spiritual life.

• Does the philosophic tradition relating to Bhakti believe that feelings or emotions are more appropriate means of apprehending what is real than reason or will?  What arguments do the Bhakti philosopher give for justifying this position.

Man will remain as mere social animal as long as s/he wishes to live as an emotional being.  But what makes him as a human being is not mere emotion but his reason and will.  But if we make emotion as the pivot of our social life the result is that,

…we are dissatisfied with our emotional life because of a vague apprehension of certain emotional norms, and we want to seek a new kind of emotional life for which we build the cognitive structures as a support for this new kind of emotional life.  That emotion or the life of feeling is the central point, which leaves us dissatisfied or makes seek for a new emotional response. (Prof. Daya Krishna, p.58)

‘But as for bhakti, it cannot be defined in any one particular way.  Many definitions are possible.’( Prof. Daya Krishna, p.58).  And in the above sections we saw such many definitions.  However still the question is that, ‘we have been told just now that bakti is an experience, which cannot be explained, and yet people write volume after volume explaining what bhakti is.  So, what I want to know is: what kind of an emotion is bhakti?’(Dr. Ashok Vohra, p.72).  And the convincing answer is, ‘There is an independent inspiration within human being.  After both knowledge and karma have complete their work, whatever initiative begins, that is bhakti.’(Prof. Shivakumar Sastri, p. 45)

But this initiative can never remain as an independent entity itself (even in the form of bhakti).  And if we want any growth and progress in it we continuously need knowledge and karma:

if you feel bound by feeling then go to reason, if you feel bound by reason then go to feeling.  If you were disturbed by both, the do karma.(Prof. Daya Krishna, p. 248)³⁸

• Is Advaita in the strict sense compatible with Bhakti?

Once non-duality or monism is the basic doctrine of advaita, realising one’s Self or Oneself as the eternal Brahman is considered mukti.  Though the existence of god is not denied in (Sankar’s) advaita, yet his role is only limited as an Iswara or Lord in his relationship with world.  In a strict sense God is not at all necessary in Sankara’s advaitic philosophy.  So in the ‘strict sense’ advaita is not compatible with bhakti.  However  because of the already existing tradition of bhakti, ‘Even Sankaraacaarya had to bow down to bhakti … and that is why saguna brahma had to be incorporated by him, though, of course, the final end is nirguna brahma.’ (Dr. Rukmini, p.17).  And advaita never remained as the monopoly of Sankara alone and even his own followers disagreeing with him, particularly in their attitude bhaki incorporated various thoughts related to bhakti:

According to the Advaitins up to his [Mandana Misra, who was converted to advaita by Sankara himself] time once we knew the Upanisadic mahaavaakyas [great sayings] such as ‘tat tvamasi’[Thou art that], we attained moksa or liberation.  But Mandana differed from this view.  According to him, knowledge of the mahaavaakyas was not enough.  It has to be followed by upaasanaa [  ], abhyaasa [practice] and even the observance facilitates the grahana [receiving] of vidyaa [education].(p.44)

So, karma is not to be completely left out.  This is another deviation from Sankara in the Advaita tradition itself.— Prof. Shiv Kumar Sastry , pp.44-45

            It is also important to note that (advaitic) tradition ascribes several devotional works to the credit of Sankara, though there was no scholarly consensus regarding the actual work of Sankara.³⁹  Even if we deny works like Sowndaryalahari, Aanandalaharai, Annapurnaashtaham etc., Bhajagovindam, at least the first 12 stanzas are generally accepted as the work of Sankara, in which he gives a call to worship the Lord.  But in spite of such place given to god in advaita yet considering the fact that while, ‘The Vaisnavas prefer individuality while the Advaita Vedaanta prefers universality.  In Advaita there is a tendency to natural unity.  And, hence it preached a different kind of bhakti.’(Dr. Krishna Sharma, p.80)⁴⁰

Knowledge (jnana) is prominent in advaita for mukti and not bhakti.⁴¹  But this knowledge in advaita is not the knowledge about god but based on sruti (veda).  That’s why though, ‘A bhakta is a jnaani among other things as Krsna has said in the Bhagvad Gita.  It is perhaps a matter of emphasis.  But we should remember that Caitanya was against Advaita and against any talk of jnana.  He said that he only wanted Krsna and that Krsna was all.’(Dr. Krishna Sharma, p.81).  That’s why though some scholars tried to reach a compromise by stating (because of jnana in one form or the other) that both advaita and Vaisnava tradition is not actually contradicting each other but only tries to complement is not accepted by all:

…a statement has been made in the book and in the presentation of Dr. Krishna Sharma that the non-Advaitic acaryas were not exactly against Advaita, but that they wanted to adapt Advaita to the Vaisnava tradition.  But how can one make the Advaita thought of Sankara compatible with the Vaisnava tradition?– Prof. Daya Krishna, p.99

…Basically Sankara started with adhyaasa, and the refutation of adhyaasa was the first priority of all the theistic schools.  Therefore, the first task of Ramanujacarya was to refute adhyaasa before establishing the gunas as tattvas.  Only, after this refutation did he start the interpretation of the Vedaanta-suutras according t his doctrines. To say that Advaita was adopted to suit the needs of these people is a simplification and it shows the ignorance of the facts on the part of the scholar who has said this.—Mr. Rajamani, p.100

Prof. Daya Krishna: Agreed.—p.100

Like wise the argument that the word ‘saccidaananda (sat = truth or existence; cit = conscience and ananda = bliss)’ as an attribute to that eternal Brahman in advaita indirectly point out the acceptance of God with attribute in a transcendental level is not exactly compatible with the true spirit of bhakti tradition:

Pror. Dwivedi:  There is a common feeling that saccidaananda brahma is the Advaitin’s technical expression.  Such an expression never occurs in the Upanisads.  There is no sentence like saccidaananda brahma, though we have sentences where we have the word satyaani: satyaani jnaanam anantaani, and so forth.

Prof. Mishra: Yes, but in the Advaitic tradition saccidaananda does not occur.  Brahman in Advaitic tradition is anirvacaniiya [beyond words  ].  Since it is anirvacaniiya, it cannot be defined.  If we are trying to define it, the first and perhaps the best definition may be to try to define it through silence.  So, mauna[silence] is the best possible definition.  So, this is the first possible definition, and naturally one is not satisfied with it.  So, the second possible definition is through negation: neti, neti [not this not that].  But neti neti also does not satisfy us; we want something positive.  So, then Brahman is described as sat[Truth/Existence], cit[Conscience/Knowledge] and aananda[bliss].  But this is with the understanding that this sat, cit and aananda is an expression in the positive way of the negative definition.  That is, sat ultimately culminates in this, that it is not asat, cit culminates in this that it is not acit and aananda culminates in this that it is not duhkha[sorrow].  When one is not satisfied even with this, then there is the tatastha laksana: janmaadyasya yatah.  That is, it is that from which the world has arisen.  There, too, ‘janmaadyasya’ is not to be taken in the sense in which it is taken in Nyaaya.  It is not by inference that we are trying to prove Brahman, that there is a world and therefore there is the creator of the world and he is the Brahman.  It is an expression of the Vedic experience that Brahman is the source of creation.  But in what sense is it the source?  It is only in the sense of being the ground of the lokas[world].  Adhisthaana maatrena kartrtvam.  So, that is why sat, cit and aananda are not three qualities, gunas, that have Brahman for their aasraya.  There is no aasraya-aasrayii-bhaava.  They are not even its constituents as the three gunas are in prakrti.  Rather, they are words with the help of which we try to have some understanding of Brahman, that it is not duhkha or asat or something like that.—pp.190-1

Thus in a strict sense advaita is not compatible with bhakti.  However not limiting the word advaita with monism of advaita philosophy, if it is interpreted as non-duality in the sense of a bhakta becomes one with his Lord, then advaitic bhakti is possible among the bhaktas:

Bhakti is service which is not possible without duality.  If service is there duality will be also there.  There is no entry for advait in it.  If we explain bhakti according to Vaishnavism, that great saint Uddave cannot see anywhere the advait in the way he could see the deepest way as found among the Gopis.(in Hindi, Purushotam Goswami, p. 32)

VIII.  How is the notion of impersonal obligation to institutions, ideals, norms and values accommodated in Bhakti thought?

…the question as to what place any thought which considers bhakti as central, gives to knowledge or action on the one hand and to pure reason on the other…how the notion of impersonal obligation to institutions, ideas, norms and values is accommodated in bhakti thought.  Any thought about bhakti has to take into account these two problems.  That is, if you are a bhakta, you may not worry about it.  But, if you think of bhakti as an ideal which ought to be pursued by human beings, then you have to (p.144) relate it to the demands of reason on the one hand and of action on the other, and not merely to the demands that are made by reason and action, but also of the norms or the impersonal ideals which are involved in reason and action.  The norms in action are in the form of morality and norms in the field of reason are the cognitive demands for objectivity, universality, verifiability, etc. Now, for any comprehensive thinking about human life and situation which places bhakti as the central purusaartha [aim of life], we will have to take into account its relation to these, and if we cannot relate it to these, then there will be a basic deficiency in it.  The bhakta may not care, but any thinking about bat which treats it to be the parama purusaartha[supreme aim of life] has to take these into account.– Prof. Daya Krishna, pp.144-5

1. How does Bhakti relate to the realization of other ideals-personal or social such as justice, freedom and equality.  How does the personality—ideal of the bhakti related to other personality—ideals such as that of the heroic dharma-centred personalities like Rama and Krishan on the one hand or Moska or Nirvana-centred personalities like Shankara or Buddha or any other personality-ideal centred in some other value and giving rise to personalities like Gandhi or Einstein?—pp.254-55

This point related with point VIII is the climax of this dialogue in my view (and we have to take both point VIII & IX) together).  Before look into the response given by the participants it is important to note that:

The bhakti movements, however, failed to effect widespread changes in the beliefs and institutions of orthodox Hinduism.  Many reasons explain this failure.  Equality was an ideal of the religious and not the secular sphere.   While criticizing certain social practices, the movements offered no alternative program of social and economic reorganization, never, in fact, building the organizations to carry out positive social programs….  Most of the sects fostered an otherworldly attitude toward life.  Heimsath sees this as a result of their emphasis on mysticism: But it was not the primacy of spiritual concerns alone that caused the bhakti movements to fail in the transformation of social life; religious movements have been known to overturn social structures.  Most bhakti sects, like other Hindu religious movements, leaned towards mysticism, as a method of spiritual revelation, and this often encouraged a drawing away from worldly concerns.  Individual salvation, not the salvation of society or the group, was the reason for and the result of the religious quest through mysticism. [the quote from C. H. Heimsath is from Indian Nationalism and Hindu Social Reform (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1964, p.37.), Anantanand Rambachan, The Limits of Scripture: Vivekananda’s Reinterpretation of the Vedas, Sri Satguru Publications, A Division of Indian Books Centre, Delhi, 1995, p. 12

A holistic approach towards life is very much lacking in Hinduism.  While metaphysics is considered as non-mundane affair, secular ideals are considered as non-spiritual.  But any ideal which claims as universal should give space both for spiritual and secular values in a balanced way:

What is the social, political and intellectual ideal projected by the protagonists of bhakti? ⁴² I think, this is a very important issue because any ideal which is put before man, particularly as an ultimate ideal, must show itself to be better in all directions of human endeavour and if it does not do so, then, it is partial.  This is something fundamental and essential. (Prof. Daya Krishna, p.192)

But in India it is always claimed that basic unity among human beings is possible only in and through spiritual level and not in social or material world:

If you take away Isvara, then materialism will deny that there can be a true fellow feeling or universal brotherhood, because an inner relationship between atmans, the individual selves cannot be derived unless there is a sense of spirituality amongst them.  In any case, Indian thought has believed that the overarching truth, which provides the ground for the possibility of a meaningful relationship is spirituality.  It is only within the great dimension of spirituality that one thinks of not only of oneself, one also thinks of others.  Otherwise, others may not matter for one at all.  It will only result in self-centeredness.  So, the word ‘Isvara’ is necessary in order to bring in the domain of spirituality. (Prof.Dwivedi, p. 195)

But however such a claim of spiritual unity is successful is still a question:

I remember Rabindra Nath Tagore’s statement in this connection, who said that all these religions are sectarian movements.  They start as liberating agencies, but later (p.196) on end up as a vast prison house.  Similarly, bhakti, which was started as a liberating agency, got reversed as a result of this conservative tendency.  But when we read our scriptures, the ideals are still there, but when it comes to actual practice, they are lost…. Social ideals have always existed in the bhakti movements.  But whether these bhakti movements have been able to carry out all these ideals, is a different question.(Prof. Shiv Kumar Sastry, pp.196-7)⁴³

The reason for such a failure is that while bhakit or religion (whichever it may be) started with spirit finally ended in flesh:

Prof. Daya Krishna: According to Prof. Shiv Kumar every religious reform started as a matter of protest against certain social evils, but ultimately they were bogged down in some kind of ritualistic practice alone.(p.197)

For example, ‘The original Vedas were actually for the three varnas alone.  But this was challenged by the tradition of the Mahabharata being regarded as the fifth Veda, or the Naatya-saastra, for that matter, being the pancama[fifth] veda, and all these are meant to be saarvavarnika[belongs to all varnas], which will translate in our cultural context by the word “secular”.’(Prof. Daya Krishna, p.198).  This point is further illustrated by the fact that:

Before the bhakti movement came into existence in India, there were many other movements which made dharma saarvavarnika and not merely a preserve for the three higher varnas.  This saarvavarnika concept is very important, in that it is for all the varnas…. It is a very important development of Raama-kathaa that they all participate in it and become very much a part of it.  So, various attempts had preceded the bhakti movement.  This was not a result of some counter-culture forcing it to adopt a certain form, but rather an internal evolution.  At one level, that is how I see the problem.  Many historians think otherwise.  According to them, it was as the result of a counter-cultural movement that these forms were evolved by the Hindus for their defence.(Prof. Daya Krishna, p.199)

Hinduism never divides life into strict watertight compartments as spiritual and secular.  The problem that we face at present to separate religion/spirituality from secular is an artificial and a modern western construct.  We have to note also that the word ‘secular’ in the sense of non-spiritual or non-religious is not in our previous worldview.  This term is used by the present politicians in the context of giving a call to separate religion from politics.  Where as our history shows how religious people were also actively participated in secular activities and use their influence to bring social equanimity or justice.  Remember Kautalya, the author of Artha sastra was a learned Brahmin well versed in Brahminical Scriptures:

…The six Gosvaamis … were also involved in the game of power and politics, ‘real’ politics, and they played it very successfully.  In North India, if Hindu history took a different course after the 15^th century, the credit should go to two sets of Gosvaamis the Vallabhaites and the Caitanyaites who were very good at philosophy and literature, but even better in the game of politics.  This pushed us through those dark periods.(Shri Shrivatsa, p. 209)

This role of Sanyasis (of Caitanyanism) is not limited with power politics, but also in assimilating other sects in order to accommodate their concepts within the fold of their own faith.  Particularly bhakti in its various roles united people who were doctrinally opposed each other:

With my own background, I think that I can find some clue in the central philosophy of Buddhism.  Perhaps, bhakti as a concept, as a philosophic concept, was a contribution of the Buddhist thinkers.  If one looks at the history of Caitanyanism, it would be a fruitless exercise to see it in isolation from Buddhism.  If one takes out the Buddhist element, probably Chaitanyaism would collapse intellectually, because in the fifteenth century in Bengal, thanks to the Islamic sword, people were left without any intellectual leadership.  Consequently, there was degeneration amongst those large numbers of people who were the leftover followers of Buddhism.  It was the role of Caitanya to literally redeem and accept these people en masse back into the main Hindu stream.  It is a fascinating story, where the naastika [atheist] and the aastika extremes fuse once more. (p.211)            …The Buddhist tradition was beautifully incorporated into their own work by the Caitanayites.  But that was also a kind of politics which was being played by this movement. —Shri Shrivatsa, pp.211-2

However whatever may be the role of bhakti in the past how far it is relevant at present again is questioned:

Religious movements or bhakti movements at some particular time served their purpose to some extent.  But this does not mean that they are relevant all the time.(Dr. S.N. Pandey, p. 215)

Because Hinduism being a dharma is more social oriented than religion oriented, though religious ideals were used to keep the varnashramadharma in tact:

In fact, in a country like India there are certain things, which belong to the social structure itself.  They have a long history.  There is also an intellectual legacy.  We have to consider all those factors.  All the practices related to bhakti cannot be justified.  They do not stand the test of time.  We want to be scientific.  We want to be one united family, to be one house, but the given norms stand in our way.  To what extent can bhakti help us in bringing society together?  To what extent are we able to translate theory into practice?  Adhering to a theory is relatively easier than practising it. (Dr. S.N. Pandey, p.215)

This fact is proved by the fact that bhakti instead of uniting people based on love for God and neighbour divided people based on sects and cults:

If we can define bhakti or if we can describe bhakti as other-relatedness, then it should logically lead to tolerance.  But if one goes back to the 15^th century, one finds that the history of bhakti is full of inter as well as intra-sampradaayavaada [intra-sectarian arguments/disputes]; there was even violence.  So, there is not always tolerance.  In fact, I would say that bhakti essentially is self-centered, selfish in a way, because I want to achieve nirvaana or moksa for myself.  Therefore, there is no consideration for others.  Each one is for oneself.  That is one reason why there is no social dimension.(Dr. S.N. Pandey, p.216) ⁴⁴

The main reason for the failure of bhakti is that even the right and ability to attain spirituality is decided on the level of right and condition of one’s own caste:

But, unfortunately, what India does, or at least what Indian social thought does is that it interprets adhikaara[right]-bheda[difference] and avasthaa[condition]-bheda in terms of jativaada[casteism].  Or, what is called puurvajanma[previous birth].  So, adhikaara-bheda and avasthaa bheda are crystallized into jaatis.  So, a braahmana is supposed to be different from other jaatis.  By being born in a certain jaati one becomes a better adhikaarii[one who has the right] or one has a better avasthaa-bheda, and not by one’s own endeavour…(Shri Shrivatsa, p. 217)⁴⁵

Of course some reformers and gurus tried to unite people together.  But what they attempted were limited to some external activity which could be corrected by due propitiation (prayaschita).  For example, ‘Naanaka says that caste has to be rejected.  He does not stop like Kabira at worship or thought or feeling.  He says, those who follow me come and eat together.  If you are a disciple of Naanaka and if you are a Brahmin, you must sit with a suudra and eat with him.’ (Ms. Vinita Sharma, p.218)  It is easy even for a Brahmin dine with a dalit and get purified for doing this by sipping some Ganga water or doing minor prayaschita.  That’s why such an artificial and outward efforts never united people as one family.  Realising the danger that, ‘A man or a society which lacks an essentially directional movement towards the knowledge of the object as it is will certainly ultimately ruin itself,’(Prof. Daya Krishna, p.221) some other reformers like Baasavesvara even tried to arrange inter-caste marriage to unite people on social level:

He [Baasavesvara] decided to have a marriage celebrated between the daughter of a Brahmin who had become a Saiva, Lingaayata, with the son of a Harijana who had also joined the faith; so, a marriage between a Harijan boy and a brahmin girl was arranged.  When the marriage was celebrated in Karnataka, there was a great revolution which, I think, Baasavesvara could not control.  The Viira Saivas were at the forefront of that revolution, even though it was not successful.(Mr. S. Rajamani, p.224).

But how far the Lingaayat movement at present carryout the same practice?  Because in general what the reformer started was not strictly followed by his followers.  The main reason for such a failure is that even those reforms were either considered as mere spiritual or only as a symbol to emphasis internal unity on metaphysical level alone:

I do expect that spiritual equality was accepted in our tradition, in our holy tradition, not merely by the bhakti tradition but also by the knowledge tradition, and the karma tradition.  In all the traditions, spiritually, speaking, this equality of man was accepted.  But socially it was never confirmed; politically it was never thought of.  Who is responsible for this?  The philosophers do have to explain why this happened.  Equality was believed in by all the traditions including the bhakti tradition and the Taantric tradition.  Why were they not socially or politically concerned about it?  This is the problem.(Prof. Dwevedi, p.227)

Thus the tension between ‘ideal’ and ‘real’ is always there, which need to be at least faced and accepted than explained away easily in the name of spirituality and bhakti as transcendental or non-mundane affairs:

Once the bhakti movement and the Taantric movement starts, one can see the tension, the tension they have with the karma doctrine, the tension with the varna doctrine.  Such tension exists in all the texts of these movements.  That is the difficulty.  They are ambivalent in the matter.  They feel that if they have sanctity, they must be able to establish some relationship of equality in the social realm.  Yet they are not quite willing to do it.  This tension is visible.  In the Bhaagvata it shows in the very first few pages.  The first thing that a sensitive person encounters is this tension.  How to keep the varnaasrama vyavasthaa [order/arrangement] despite moves to the contrary?  And, let us not forget, it is Brahmins who have written such texts.  How to keep it closed and yet, how to challenge the old system, yet retain it, is the problem.  This tension is still not resolved and continuous to exist in our minds.  Ultimately, the tension concerns reconciliation with the Vedic past which, after all, is nothing but our racial identity in terms of the knowledge tradition.(Prof. Dwevedi, p.228)

The real problem in our failure is not that we don’t know the problem, but we pretend that either we have salved it on transcendental level or explain away easily imposing our own interpretation on the life and teaching of some Gurus and Acharyas.  For example Sri Srivatsa Goswami says that:

…if you see the great acaryas, you will find them also to be great social reformers.  If we take the example of Sankara himself, when he took up the role of a reformer, an organizer, a rebel, a missionary, whatever you might call him, was he being (p.231) exclusively a jnani?  We cannot imagine, we cannot really imagine Sankara being exclusively a jnani and yet doing what he did.  He is not only engaged in karma, he is also a bhakta, and he is doing it with love, love towards his ideals.(pp.231-2)

But where is the evidence for any such reform of Sankara on social level?  And Sankara was not only remained as a jnani but also become a bhakta, but a bhakta only to his ‘ideals’ and performed karma to implement it.  In stead of referring past reformers, who though attempted with a sincere aim, but failed due to several sociological factors we must do some thing again and again to bring the need to the mind of people.  Otherwise, ‘unless we commit ourselves to a kind of liberation theology of bhakti at the threshold of 21^st century, things are not going to be easy.’(Shri Srivatsa, p. 236)

It is a sad fact that while one Goswami gives a call to liberate the theology of bhakti from its rigid tradition of sect and cult, yet another Goswami again tries to take it to the same old transcendental level:

Love towards god with total surrender to him with an aim to attain him and mental peace is hidden in the word of bhakti and this is central in bhakti.  But today we are only asking ‘through bhakti what kind of service we can render to the society?’  How Bhakti could be connected with politics and economics. Every scholar is asking this.  But practical knowledge teaches us only to worship god.(in Hindi, Purushotam Goswami, p. 242)

The concept of adhikaara[right]-bheda[difference] and avasthaa[condition]-bheda is central to (Sankara’s) advaitic Vedanta.  But Vaishnavism which claims to have started a new movement is in no way different from this concept of adhikaara and avastha bheda.  The following points raised by Prof. K.N. Misra illustrates this point clearly:

We have to see his [Krishna’s] relationship with Gopis in spiritual way.  If you view from the social view Krishna’s relationship also was with them, who were called as Aabhir.  Krishna was an Yadav.  But Nand was not an Yadav.  Nand was an Aabhir.  To describe the family tradition of Nand and his family is not the work of the composers of Purana.  Because the Purana composers [Pandits] have given criteria for Purana that only Kings genealogy will be described in Puranas.  There is some benefit in it.  By describing the genealogy of Aabhir what they will get?  That’s why you will find only the description of Kings genealogy in Puranas.  You will get information about Kirshna’s family tradition.  But do they not even know the name of Nand’s father and mother?  This Aabhir was considered as a caste.  In those time that caste was considered as very lowest one.  But Krishna established a relationship with them and had concern for the welfare of them. (in Hindi, p. 202)

Vaishnavism which started for the salvation of common people, become blind as soon as it reaches Vishnu Puraan.  If you read Vishnu Puran you will bow your head with shame.  This was the condition of our writers.(in Hindi, p. 203)

But in South India where they were established well the difficulty of every Brahmin acharya was that he was himself a Brahmin and Brahmin in a worst  [strong] way.  He cannot remove the pinda [rice ball offered in ancestral worship in sraddha] from the Vedic religion.  And tide his neck with the peg [Khunt] of Brahmasuutra.  When Ramanuja sat to write commentary on Brahmasuutra, he forgot that he was a Vaishnav.  Take the rights of a Shudra.  Ramanuja goes ten steps ahead of Sankaracharya.  Against Shudras he says, ‘if moksha is possible through knowledge then it will be dangerous one, because both women and Shudras also can attain moksha.’  It is right to accept that mukti is possible only by bhakti.  Then Shudras and women cannot stand in that line.  [but] Ramanuja gives teaching to do bhakti according to the vedic tradition.  First you know the swarup [essence] of Brahman and then learn the rules and regulations to perform puja. Then alone you can do bhakti.  As long as you have no right to say mantras you also cannot do bhakti.  Women and Shudras are unqualified.  According to Sankaracarya, among all the advaitians who are reading and writing in English they have no right to read or understand [vedas].  Ramanujacharya goes two steps ahead of Sankaracharya and says that when there is no right to [read] sruti what will happen.  Manu also says:

Nishekaadishmashaanaananto mantraryaistooditoo vidhi;

tasya shaastre’dhikaaroosmin jenyo naanyasya kasyacit.

            Manu Smirit was not written by Manu or Brugu.  Some Pandit has written much later.  He says that one who has the right to perform pumsaavan [putting the seed] sanskar to final rite with vedic mantras, he alone has the right to read the Sastras.  Others don’t have that right.  [Coming] in that tradition Ramanuja says that you understand what is Brahman, then alone you have right to perform religion.  Brahman is bound by Upanishads.  But if you do not have the right to read the Upanishads then how you will get the right to upasana [meditate] of Brahman?  In such a bhakti all are not qualified.(in Hindi, pp. 204-05)

Considering the last two points (VIII & IX) one feels that a clear cut guidance is not given by this Samvad on bhakti (to some extent also to the later section of the question).  Of course we have to also accept the fact that few intellectuals and scholars gathered to discuss on these issues cannot easily change the long established social values and traditions in India.  One encouraging point is that most of them accepted the existence of the problem which bhakti failed to resolve in spite of all its metaphysical claims. And we wish and hope that unlike the politicians who also raise and discuss (even stop Parliament proceedings) these issues only keeping an eye on vote bank and election, these Scholars will start a new beginning to influence the public opinion in a small level, at least in the beginning.  If that is achieved, in spite of the minute philosophical discussion on various points in this book, both this dialogue and this book will be considered as successful one.

Comments:

And in the following pages I will try to give some comments to few points which are discussed by various Philosophers in this seminar.  But before going for it is better to know the origin of the idea behind the seminar and Nirad C. Chaudhuri’s comments on Chaitanya followers:

The idea of the seminar took shape and when Shri Shrivatsa showed enthusiasm for it and promised all his support, it seemed worth pursuing.  Who could have even thought that there were ‘intellectual’ dimensions of the Bhakti tradition in India?  Wasn’t it a contradiction in terms?  But here was the Goswami himself belonging to the tradition of the great Caitanya willing to let the show be explored in all freedom at his own institution in Vrindavan, the mythical embodiment of all that Bhakti symbolizes in this country.—Prof. Daya Krishna, p.ii

–note the following comments by Nirad C. Chaudhuri:

But weakening of this Vaishnavism also began quickly, almost with the death of Chaitanya.  For one thing, passion of the type as seen in Chaitanya who had a very abnormal type of sensibility, and as preached by him with all the ardour of that abnormality, could never last indefinitely.  Human nature cannot tolerate such a thing for a long time.  But the dogmatic turn that the movement (p.288) took immediately after his death diluted the passion and made the love for Krishna as felt and preached by him still weaker.  This was a strange paradox, because his disciples took the very path in trying to create a philosophical dogma of Vaishnavism which the movement had vehemently denounced and totally rejected.  That was philosophizing about religion.

            …But when applied to a form of devotion like that of Chaitanya, which was wholly emotional, philosophizing made the message fall between two stools.  On the one hand, it froze the emotion and even ossified it, and, on the other, it could not create any valid intellectual system…– Hinduism a religion to live by

Delhi, Oxford University Press, (1979), 1996, p.289

            The next reason for the weakness of Vaishnavism was its institutionalization.  A whole hierarchy of the Vaishnava cult as preached by Chaitanya was established.  It has been briefly described in a previous chapter.  This was also accomplished by the kind of monasticism which Vaishnavism introduced.  The maths and akharas with their mohants (abbots) created a social order with vested material interests.  Furthermore, there appeared in Bengal a special Vashnava caste.  All that tended to make the living faith of Chaitanya a structural extension of the static Hindu societ.—ibid.  p290

            Considering the scholarship of the participants it is very difficult to give any personal comments on the subject that is discussed in this book.  Those who know Sanskrit well as well have some authority in Indian Philosophical tradition alone can asses this dialogue in true sense.  As I have pointed out in the Introduction with a basic knowledge on Sanskrit though we may attempt to understand the Sanskrit words in the context in which they were used in the book, yet in some places it is very difficult to understand the meaning.  For example:

The bhakti thinkers have tackled the objection [to dvesa bhakti] in two ways.  One is that, whether one accepts it or not, there is a deterministic view right from the Rgveda, the Braahmanas and the Upanisad, which we agree with:

Ruudhiprahaarii purusha sahet katham qvdiiyaam vishamaavsthaam—p.75

Such mantras without giving some basic translation of the meaning suddenly stops the flow of thought for those who cannot understand Sanskrit.  Similarly Session VIII contains a good summary presentation by  Dr. K.L. Sharma on K.C. Bhattacharya (The Subject as Freedom), pp.175-184, followed by a discussion 184-191, is too complicate to understand.   Like wise some questions raised by Prof. Daya Krishna is not at all discussed.  For example, ‘Is punarjanmavaada necessary for bhakti?’ (p.219) was never taken up for discussion. 

We all know the importance given to place of worship in India.  But in such a philosophical dialogue, where some importance is given to Reason along with emotion and feeling, the importance given to a mythical holy land looks very artificial.  Of course one can understand the emotional (devotional) attachment of a Caitanites towards Vrindavan.  But the way it was glorified even by the Philosophers equally, limiting God and His saving Grace to a particular place is beyond comprehension in the context of such a dialogue:

In his initial talk Prof. Daya Krishna said, ‘Vrindavan, the mythical embodiment of all that Bhakti symbolizes in this country.’(p.ii)  But when Sri Purushotam Goswamiji said that in Hindi, ‘you have come to that Vrindavan where bhakti dancing with unmukt’  And we pray at the feet of the same bhakti that you too go with the same spirit from here….Even one who claimed as the Chakrawarti (king of kings) of advaita when came here his very form is changed [into bhakti] by the Lord. May the Lord also do the same to you.’⁴⁶ Prof. Krishnaji responded by saying again in Hindi, ‘After coming to Vrindavan “I am” (sooham) becomes “slave to the Lord” (daasooham).  But go to Sringeri, the environment is different there.  Wherever you go in this holy land of Bharat you will find so many different places where you will get different new experiences’.  For this Goswamiji immediately says (in Hindi), ‘This (Vrindavan) is my land’.  And for this Krishnaji says (in Hindi), ‘This problem is always remains.  This point was also raised at the beginning that is it possible to discuss on bhavana (emotion).  There is truth in emotion and also in experience.  But is it possible to discuss on that experience or not…..There is vichar in tradition.  [There is] Sruti, Smrti, Sadaachar, Aatmatushti. There is question in tradition also.  Which is first and which is next?  What is Sruti?  What is Smrti?  What is Sadaachar?  What is Aatmatushti?  If there is contradiction in this how to resolve it?’—(p.246)  And according to  Prof. Dwivedi, ‘Whenever I get invitation to come to discuss in a place like Vrindavan, I feel that I get some kind of great shakti.  In other dialogues held in cities they too have their own influence.  But greater influences is exercised by special places.  Why it so happened to Dayaji that only after coming here he could feel that bondage and liberation, enjoyment and salvation can go hand in hand.  There is no contradiction in them?’ (in Hindi, p.249).

Now the point which I want to make is that Chaitanya maha prabhu resurrected Vrindavan because of his emotional attachment with the mythical Vrindavan in which a mythical Krishna performed his divine lila with equally mythical Gopis.⁴⁷ Though historicity is not at all important in our Indian tradition particularly in bhakti sects, yet the present Vrindavan (according to the historical sketch of its resurrection by Shri Srivatsa Goswamiji in pp.126-143  ) is not that original Vrindavan of Krishna.  Above all if I remember correctly fortunately or unfortunately Chaitanya maha prabhu who resurrected Vrindhavan neither born there nor attained samadhi there (it is good that his sammadhi was not there).  According to the tradition (if I remember correctly) he attained jal sammadhi or become one with Krishna at Puri sea itself.  So after all the intellectual discussion on some aspects on Bhakti in which lot is directed on emotion, finally some attachment with a mythical place that too invented later in the concluding section of this book brings back to the same point of emotional bhakti of Chaitanya as pointed by Nirad Chaudhuri quoted above.  Though this dialogue begins with some interesting and important question about bhakti particularly in its relation with knowledge and reason (point five in Appendix, p. 254), the way it is closed with mere emotional attachment with a place, thereby limiting the Lord Himself to a particular place may point to a kind of sectarian view than giving a broad scope to carry out such a dialogue in other places also.

            The main reason for me to say this is that even the present ‘murti’ of Krsna in Vrindavan is not the original one which, ‘after the Mahabharata War, Krsna’s great grandson, who became the ruler of Braj, commissioned images of Krsna to be made with the help of Uddhava because he was the only survivor who had seen Krsna in person.  That was the image of Govindadeva.  Rupa rediscovered it.’ (p.128)  But after Aurangzed invaded Vridavan and destroyed the original temple,  Ram Singh collected all the images from Vrindavan, literally, took all of them to Jaipur.  When Jai Singh came to the throne he ‘recreated the whole sacred geography of Braj (Vrindavan) in Jaipur’(139) and ‘institutionalized the whole thing in Jaipur and Karauli’. (p.139)  So while the ‘Pratibhuu Vigrahas’ are at present at Vrindavan, ‘The original deity, the original Vrindavan is in Jaipur.’ (139)

Of course a bhakti tradition is not going to question all historical evidence of Uddhava (I don’t know whether he is mentioned in Mahabharata or not), Braj etc.  But when Scholars of this kind gathered even at Vrindavan, to discuss intellectually about the Philosophy of Bhakti, mere emotional attachment with a mythical place again brings back to the point that bhakti in India is more an emotional attachment than intelelctual understanding based on God as a Person.

Conclusion:

The dialogue begins with a clear Puurvapaksha to find clear siddhanta for those points summarised in Appendix I at the end of the book, but ends without clearly giving any particular siddhanta on bhakti.  Of course one can glean some kind of siddhanta, particularly from the summary presentation of Chair Person Prof. Daya Krishna.  Yet to the true spirit of a dialogue it opens with a forum to share one’s view with complete freedom.  The only siddhanta given by the Chair Person is to go and conduct similar kind of dialogue with others in their respective places (ant me mai keval yeh kahumga ki aap sab loog jaham bhi jaayenge apne staan par isii hii prakriyaa ko jaarii rakhen—Finally I will say only this that wherever you may go continue the same ….. in your place also, p. 250).  But what should be the base or guidance to such dialogues?  Experience encountered at Vrindhavan during the dialogue (we have to also include special kind of experience based on feeling by Prof. Dwivedi in his final remark and we need not mention about the one sided sharing of  Purushotam Goswamiji about his attachment only with Vrindhavan—which is the only place to exercise bhakti, even to attain moksha) or intellectual discussions presented by various scholars?

What is important for me is that such a bhakti based on rasa (emotional feelings based on experience which is widely discussed than any other subject in the dialogue) is that it hangs on the thin thread of mythology of Krishna and Gopis.  Of course the call is given to have bhakti to any god or even on any siddhanta minus god!  But considering the importance given to intellectual inquiry on tradition in order to keep alive our relationship with it based on  “critical, appreciative and creative” (p.4) approach, we have to view the historical aspect of any god or concept.  Of course in India history is not important and mere obedience to the tradition based on the mere weight of the tradition itself is the criteria to have faith in any god.  However philosophy in India is a discipline of inquiry  questioning about the truth itself, the truth about historical criteria could not be left out in the name of obedience to tradition.

Though a clear cut siddhanta is not given for various puurvapaksha discussed in this dialogue, I assume that the uniqueness of such dialogue itself is the siddhanta as a guidance for any kind of dialogue to be held on Indian philosophy.  I hope the future dialogists won’t make this siddhanta (viz. having such an open and free discussion) again a puurvapaksa to refute such freedom of inquiry to re-establish the tradition of blind obedience to the tradition as the correct siddhanta!  A remarkable dialogue (book) only for a limited  participants (because of language) and audience (how many people can read and understand this book?)

In spite of all these limitation, this is an excellent book on Philsophical understanding of Bhakti.  Those who want to understand on such important subject should not expect some easy going presentation or discussion.  As these scholars worked hard, any reader refuse to do the same will be never benifited by such work.  As a well known saying points out: ayam aatma balahine na labyase—the atman cannot be comprehended by one who is weak or do not have the inner strength, those who wants to understand such a book also need strength and efforts to understand such a book.

Ranikhet, August , 2001.

                                    Notes

1. ‘Each one of us has to (p.4) establish a living relationship with the past traditions of this country and not only be critical towards them or try to interpret and understand them to the best of one’s ability but also carry them forward according to their own capabilities.  This, perhaps is a new way of looking at tradition.’—(Prof. Daya Krishna, pp.4-5)

2. Vaidika dharma though Prof. Misra does not clearly stated what it is.  But in general Vaidika dharma is that dharma which is centred around yajna centred around karmakanda of Veda.  Particularly in Mimamsika system which gave only importance to Yajna even despised god.  About this Dr. Misra says, ‘úThe way the Mimamsakas took hard effort to condemned God, after drinking the ghee of the sacrificier, not even Buddhist and Jains could do it.’(p. 35). …Bhakti here [Miimaamsa] is a means to propitiate a god with a small ‘g’, and from this god we want many things.  So, this is the first stage of bhakti.  This is the puurvapaksa’s bhakti.  In bhakti, god expects from us, but he is not going to give us anything unless we propitiate him by offering whatever he demands.  The story of the second bhakti culminates here in Mathura where the worship of Indra is stopped forever.  So with this Indra-yaaga-bhanga all this begins and Krsna establishes a new order of bhakti… in the Miimaamsaa, karma reigns supreme, and the gods are subservient to it.  Devataa is anga[limb] there, yajna is angi[body].  Devataa is angabhuuta. If we proceed further the Miimaamsaka will say‘mantramayaa devata’.  There is no god at all with a capital ‘G’ in Miimaamsaa.  The whole Miimaamsaa tradition , in fact, refutes God.(p.41)

Regarding the importance given by the Mimamsikas for Yajna he further says, ‘The Mimaamsakas were know about their job better than the present day butchers about their work.  While cutting each portion of the animal they were saying: now I am cutting heart, now tongue.  Now chest.  Whichever part was needed for the sacrifice they were pulling it closing there eyes.’(Prof.K.N. Misra, p. 202)

3. ‘As far as I have studied, I do not find any definition of bhakti in the Bhaagavata or in the Bhagvad Gita.  When the Vaisnavas of Bengal say that their religion can be summed up in one word, ‘bhakti’, it is the first time that bhakti is seen as a religion.  Before that there was, of course, deva-bhakti and other such bhakti-s.  But the end result of the Caitanya movement was that bhakti got identified with Krsna bhakti.  The first Indian to propound this theory was R.G. Bhandarkar.  He was a contemporary of Swami Vivekaananda.  It was said that there was some influence of Christianity on Krsna bhakti.  Bhandarkar tried to answer this by saying that bhakti was more Asian than western.  But he did not realize that it was not real bhakti, that bhakti is not Krsna bhakti.  I, for example, could not find any reference to the three margas, the jnana (p.81) marga, the bhakti marga and the karma marga.  So I looked it up in Monier Williams’ Dictionary.  And, he did seem to corroborate what I thought.  In fact, to my surprise, I found that he refers to all the occurrences of bhakti.  But no Indian scholar ever questioned the writings of the western orientalists in the nineteenth century or their identification of bhakti with Krsna bhakti or their identification of bhakti as a religion by the Vaisnavas of Bengal.  Bhandarkar, in his works, did not touch on this.’—Dr. Krishna Sharma, pp.81-82

4. ‘These days the Vaisnavas claim to be the direct carriers of the Vedic tradition of bhakti, but if we read the acaryas, we find that it started with the Alvaars.  It was here the Vaisnavism was born.  Real bhakti was born in Mathura, on the banks of the river Yamuna, and Krsna is really the father of this religion.  This journey led to the south in the second stage.  The second phase of bhakti is in the Alvaars.  The third phase is the Maharashtra and the Karnatak.  The fourth phase is in Gujarat, in Kathiawad with Vallabhaacarya.  Thus there are these different phases.  With Ramanuja bhakti began to be associated with the Vedic tradition.  We find that up to Vallabhaacaarya, the acaryas are not only aware, but they are careful to point out that in their philosophical position so much is from the Upanisads and so much is from the bhakti tradition, or the Vaisnava tradition.  They also utilized the Naarada, the Paancaraatra and other systems, for their own purposes.’– Prof. Kedar Nath Misra, p.39

5.‘Another point is in regard to the Bhagvad Gita.  He [Prof. Kedar Nath Misra] said that it has nothing to do with the Upanisads; that we have to see the Bhagvad Gita in the context of the Mahabharata.  But in the entire Bhagvad Gita, in its different adhyaayas [chapters]one finds reflections which resemble the reflections in the Upanisads themselves.  Many, slokas [verses]are common in te Katha Upanisad, and the Bhagvad Gita.  That is why it is said, ‘sarvopanisdo gaavah, and this traditional statement should not be taken so lightly.’— Prof. Shiv Kumar Sastry, p.43

6. ‘There exists also a bhakti of rules and regulation because of the fear of saastras.  Such a bhakti is performed to get deliverance from hell, but such a bhakti never receives any respect.  But only pure love is bhakti.  Pure love alone called as bhakti….For an ordinary saadak (one who practises sadhana) when he attains some wealth then it is selfish vaasana (desire). Some desires progeny, some wants deliverance from hell, some seeks heaven and some seeks the abode of Brahman.  Some wants deliverance from samsara.  But all these are selfish desires.  That’s why this is called the dharma of hypocrisy.  There is no greater deceptive dharma than this.’ (in Hindi, Purushotam Goswami, p. 26)

7. ‘one who does not consider bhakti as the best course but only moksha as the best one what does he has anything to do with bhakti.  Yogi, Jnani and Karmi has nothing to do with bhakti.  If there exist any pure relationship with bhakti then it is the relationship of a bhakta with bhakti.’—in Hindi, Purushotam Goswami, pp. 26-27

8. ‘Bhakti philosophy has a phenomenology of feeling.  It was not that they were structuring something beforehand and then imposing it on our experience.  Rather, it is a phenomenology in the true sense of the term.  The phenomenon was given to these people through poetry and experience and other things, and then as philosophers they tried to analyze it in a meaningfully communicative, philosophical language.  That is how bhakti darsana got its substance.’—Shri Shrivatsa, pp.113-4

9. ‘A very interesting point was also made that after all a philosophic reflection can be either on knowledge or on action and that philosophical problems can also arise from the context of feelings or emotions.  A philosophy of feelings is therefore as much justified as epistemology or ethics.  This is an interesting point.  If aesthetics can be a philosophical discipline, why not a philosophy of bhakti, that is, a philosophy which investigates the cognitive function of feelings and emotions.  Or, in other words, what is their epistemological, ontological and axiological status in the life of man.’—Prof. Daya Krishna, p.25

10. There is a tradition of bhakti-experience right from the beginning…. The attempts has been to compose texts in order to justify what is already there.  So, in that sense all the later literature, even the Gosvami literature which has been spoken of is to give reasons for, or justify, or evaluate an experience which is already there..[…]

            …But it is primarily about bhakti as an anubhava.  And, an entire school is built on that.— Dr. Rukmini,pp. 16-17

11. The charge that bhakti is a blind tradition is not true.  Bhakti has a long history, since Vedic times.  In the Vedas, and the Upanisads we have many references to, bhakti.  For example in the Atharvaveda: tasya te bhaktih bhaktivaan sahaasyam, And in the Rgveda: mahaste visno sumatim bhajaamahe.  The Saamaveda says, upaasyataam sriyaam avyaktasaudyaam; bhaktyaa mrtyormucyate.  In the Kathopanisad: hiranmayena paatrena satyasyaapihitam mukham, tanme puusan apaavrnu.  It has also been said the Iisaavaasya, yamaisa vrnute tena labhya.—Dr. K.V. Archak, p.19 [I have to refer Kathopanisad and Isa about this mantras—DB]. However the following response by Prof. Kedar Nath Misra regarding the development of various concepts bhakti itself is important for us to understand:

…we think that bhakti was present in the earliest text, the Rgveda.  It is in bhakti sense that we interpret the texts and quote from them.  But the basic point is that it is not the words that are significant, but it is the concept that is significant.  True, the words are found in the Samhitaas and in other texts also, but what is that concept which is being conveyed by the words?  Has that concept undergone a change over a period of time in subsequent texts?  The concept of bhakti that we are discussing, I presume, follows the way, which thinks that there was no bhakti in India and it is with Ramanuja that it began and so on.  But that is not the case. (pp.34-5)

12. ‘One want to worship something, one may change the object, one may change the deity, but by his very constitution, by his very nature, man wants to depend on something.  That dependence, that surrender is bhakti.  One cannot do everything himself.  There is need to depend on God.  What the bhakta can do is to pray to God, to invite God and to ask God for help.’—Dr. S.N. Pandey, p.215

13. ‘…I find that the basic problem in philosophy as well as in religion and especially in bhakti is that of relations.  In Indian philosophy, somebody might say, the soul is the main problem or moksa is the main problem.  But if one looks at the history of philosophy, one finds the one problem that is being faced by all the philosophers is the problem of relation.  Is Brahman related to the world?  The issue emerges in Advaita and in other systems also.  Here we are presuming that in the case of bhakti there is a god and that bhakti consists in having one’s emotions directed towards this god.  We need not accept these assumptions. But, given these assumptions, bhakti is also a sort of relationship.  And this is the traditional answer to the question whether dvesa can be a means to bhakti…–pp.74-75

…Bhakti is this process because in bhakti, emotion and love are directed towards a definite object, and therein the bhakta is trying to minimize the universal element in it.  So, in that process what bhaktas have done is to see that we follow a method which suits us…–Prof. Mishra, p. 76

14. Prof. Daya Krishna: I think there are two points.  One, whether tattva-jnaana has to be necessarily added to bhakti.  If I have understood the discussion correctly up to this point, there are two issues which are being raised.  One, whether in the definition of bhakti, tattva-jnaana is a necessary karana for the love of God.  That is, if there were to be a very intense, developed, deep love of God, which has no conscious or rather self-conscious awareness of tattva-jnaana would it be called bhakti?  In other words, with respect to the deep emotional relationship that I can develop towards whatever is ultimately real, have I necessarily to assume that this real must have a personal form.  It may be so in some traditions, but it is not exactly necessary.—p.30

 

15. ‘What beauty will be left in the word bhakti if God is removed from it.’—(in Hindi, Purushotam Goswami, p. 32

16. ‘There is a tradition in Sanskrit of trying to understand the meaning of a word from its etymology, but it serves only one purpose.  That purpose is that where a certain new concept has been developed, that we want to derive that concept from a single word.  And that is the beauty, I understand, of the Sanskrit language, that we (p.39) can derive a whole concept from one word.  But etymology or derivation shows only this much that the author who is giving the etymology has a certain idea and that he derives that concept or idea from a certain word.  So, this etymology helps us in understanding the concept and in associating it with the word.  But it does not say anything about the origin of the word.  The word “bhakti”, for example, can be etymologically explained in two ways, and these explain very well the difference between the Vedic concept of bhakti and the Vaisnava concept of bhakti.

            The first, namely, the Vedic concept of bhakti is from bhaja vibhajate.  Understood thus we have the word “bhakti” in the sense of “dividing”, parallel to words such as “vibhaja”, “vibhajati”.  A derivation in terms of “bhajane” gives us the concept of bhakti.’— Prof. Kedar Nath Misra , pp.39-40

17. ‘Can I have a feeling, which is not determined by any object at all?  This is perhaps the ultimate ideal of bhakti.  Ultimately there should be no God even in bhakti because the ideal of bhakti should be self-enclosed, self-justified, self-immersed in feeling.’—Prof. Daya Krishna, p.117

18. ‘…when I was asking whether bhakti could be conceived of without a personal god, I was only suggesting that we start with the emotion, and not with the god.  We do not know whether there is a God or not.  But we do know that we have an emotional life.  And if we want to know how to build meaning and significance in it and on it, we have to start with it. One needs an infinite aalambana, an aalambana with an infinite being, then why not have nature or why not anything else?  Is it a relation of a finite being with something infinite?  I am not myself clear about this.’— Prof. Daya Krishna , p.52

 

19. ‘But we have been told just now that bakti is an experience, which cannot be explained, and yet people write volume after volume explaining what bhakti is.  So, what I want to know is: what kind of an emotion is bhakti?’—Dr. Ashok Vohra, p.72

20. ‘But what troubled me as a student when I read the Bhagavata Purana was when Yudhisthira asks Narada in one context: “How is it that people like Sisupala, Kamsa, Jaraasandha, who are known haters of Sri Krsna, all got moksa, and that too quite quickly?”  And Narada has no answer.  His answer cannot satisfy anyone of us, I think.  He says that the Lord is only concerned with the constant thought of him and not with the context in which the thought occurs.’(Dr. Rukmini, p.62)

‘Madhavaacaarya in his Gita Bhaasya makes the remark that in Sisupaala’s case the hatred was a personal choice because of intense love, and hence hatred in this case is a form of love.  What brought liberation to Sisupaala was subverted love.  It was therefore not hatred, which helped him to achieve the necessary concentration, but love.  Such passages should be treated as arthavaada [laudatory].  So, the acceptance of dvesa[hatred] bhakti, that is the hatred of God as a possible means of salvation, is quite inconsistent.  That is why Madhva strongly disapproves of dvesa bhakti.’(Prof.Sastry, p. 67)

21. ‘That which is not normally a saadhana of something, is turned into a saadhana by God.  Dvesa is not a saadhana of moksa, but it is tuned into one by God.  Raaga is not a saadhana either, and yet it can be used in bhakti.  That is why Krsna is said to be Kaama.’(Prof. Mishra, p. 77)

22. ‘I feel, that in a saastra there are already laid down certain parameters under which we can look at the system.  For instance, when are talk about Vedaanta, what kind of a system one is talking about.  In this context, we have the notion of saadhanaa catustaya and adhikaarii-bheda. I am more concerned with the prayojana.  The prayojana is already defined as moksa-prapati.  But if we stick to the dimensions of a particular system, we really do not have the freedom to think of bhakti as something other than not connected with the prayojana which is moksa-praapti.’—Dr. Rukmini, p. 61

23. ‘But we get out of our individual prejudices, biases and try to reach an objective universality, which can be mutually corrected and jointly explored.  It is continuous with the whole of humanity, past and present, which man has built over time.  Now the question we are asking today is whether there is an analogous universality of feeling. And, if there is universality of feeling, does bhakti try to take hold of this truth in the sense that it sees that feeling has both a universal element in it like reason and also because feeling grasps the real, the ultimately real in a sense which reason can never do.  This is the issue, which we have to discuss.’– Prof. Daya Krishna, p.65

• ‘He (Kavikarnapuura) says that basically feelings have three avasthaas.  That is, ther is a avasthaa of udaya.  Feelings arise, and there is an avastha of parasama.  They subside.  We all feel it.  Feelings rise and fall.  There is an avasthaa in which they come together.  Kavikarnapuura thinks of it not only as sandhi, where they fuse, but also as sabala, where they don’t, although, I think, the difference between sandhi and sabala is not important.  Kavikarnapuura constructs sixteen formulae for the manner they may be combined.’—Dr. Mukund Lath, p. 146 Those who wants to read and understand this see pp;. 147-8)

• ‘Raagaatmika actually pertains to archetypes, the goals, the priiti or the rasa or the bhaava in itself, which a seeker cannot have.  But he can always try to follow them as patters…. Raagaatmikaa is the paradigm, and raagaanuga is the seeker’s way of approaching it.’ –Prof. Pande, p. 160
•  

26. For a good but too complicated discussion by Shrivatsa see pp. 170-3

27.‘Through bhakti a devotee gains knowledge, and then through knowledge he attains mukti.  So, this is the path.’– Prof. Shiv Kumar Sastry, p.12.  Though Purushotam Goswami relates jnana with pride, yet true jnani need not be a pride person.  The words of Swamiji is to be understood in the context of his emphasis on bhakti and treating jnana as the purvapaksha of bhakti.: ‘The difference between jnaana and bhakti is the difference between pride and humility.  Jnaana is pride.  Bhakti is humility.  And the solid foundation of all virtues is humility.  The first test of a truly great man is humility.  It was pride that turned angels into devils.  It is humility that makes man an angel.’—p.33

‘There is reward in bhakti.  Who ever serves the Queen bhakti, she gives him her prasad.  What is that prasad—think one self humble than the dust, become patience more than a tree.  Giving up expecting respect, giving respect to all.  By this mind becomes pure, inner being becomes holy and become eligible to think about god.—Prof. K.N. Misra, p. 250

28. ‘Personally, I really believe that dialogue is a useless exercise.  Also it is a very dangerous exercise.  If we are engaging in a dialogue from an imperialistic point of view, then, a dialogue is impossible.  If one thinks one is powerful, there will be no need for a dialogue.  If one is weak, only then will one need a dialogue.  So, the only premise for a dialogue is Prof. Daya Krishna’s premise.  Yes, it is a dialogue.  But still there is a danger, and the basic premise of that for me is the ambivalence of one’s own position.  But unless you have some ambivalence and some sort of samsaya, dialogue will never take off.’– Sri Shrivatsa, p.129

29. ‘…each darsana has a doctrinal point to make.  The play of reasoning alone is to be found mainly in the Nyaana-saastra.  In the Vedanta schools, reasoning is there only to the extent of introducing the puurvapaksa [former side]; it then gives the siddhaanta and answers each of the points raised by the puurvapaksa where the opponent has a counter-doctrinal point.— Prof. Shiv Kumar Sastry,p.11

30. ‘Therefore, so far as the Vedaanta schools are concerned, we have to set aside (p.12) the idea of dry reasoning.  It may be so in the case of logic, that is, in pure logic, in the Nyaaya-saastra, but it is not so in the case of the Vedaanta-saastra.’— Prof. Shiv Kumar Sastry , pp.12-13

31. ‘If bhakti is a saadhana for moksa, then bhakti is only a saadhna among other saadhanas.  If we are saying that bhakti is not a saadhana but a saadhya, then many of the things that have been said perhaps cannot be said.—Prof. Daya Krishna, p.69

…Even, when one is doing some intellectual work, one can transcend oneself.  So, in that sense bhakti is possible.  Then bhakti can be defined in different ways and if it is through a saadhana and a saadhya it is possible to look at it differently.’—Dr. Rukmini, p.70

32. ‘In common practical world, in the ordinary life of man no one can separate bhakti and knowledge.  Where there is knowledge bhakti also is there.  This is the ordinary usage of bhakti.  But when we talk about sadhana there bhakti always means that in Pure Bhakti knowledge has no place.  That is why bhakti is accepted as the great freedom….The truth is that knowledge is the greatest stumbling block in bhakti.  But it is important to note another point also that in ordinary sense bhakti is different from when we discuss the same in the context of metaphysical sense, where comparing with yoga, knowledge, karma there bhakti takes different meaning.’—in Hindi, Purushotam Goswami, p. 26

33.  See notes no. 12

34. ‘In truth what all the problems in our mind which we present before you [in this dialogue],  is influenced by the history of western thought which has emerged from its own tradition.  Some times I also think that is not some fundamental mistake has happened in this.’—Prof. Daya Krishna, p. 236

‘Are we not committing a fundamental mistake in projecting the very terms of the debate in categories, problems and questions that have been given to us by a whole western tradition and thought with respect to things which are familiar to us and in which we have been trained?’—Prof. Daya Krishna, p.237

35. ‘Everything, every faculty of man, whether it is reason or will or imagination or feelings, every faculty of man is both a liberating faculty and a binding faculty.’—Prof. Daya Krishna, p.248

36.  The following incident shared by Swamiji will illustrate his point more clearly:

Someone told me (in Mumbai) that don’t allow anyone to follow blindly.  Give him his freedom.  He has his own mind and allow him to decide/go according to his mind.  For this I told OK.  Then he continued, ‘but you also see that we have Gita, Bhagavat, Upanishads, Vedas and Vedantas.  And in order to support your view you quoted from them and gave evidence.  But these evidences are not your words.  These are others’ words.  You have your own independent intellect (prajna) but you didn’t used it.  Now listen what is the correct answer.’  Then he played a cassette of Bhagavan Rajanish.  In it Rananish says, ‘A Camel merchant went along with his camels. When evening came he removed the rope from the neck of the camel pretend as if he is erecting  a spike by making noise.  Then some one asked him what are you doing?  For this he responded, just pretend that you are erecting the spike and tying the camel with it.  Then it will think that it is actually tied with the spike.’  It actually happened in the same way and the camel thought that it is actually tide with the peg in a rope.’  You people are doing the same thing.  By giving evidence (from the scripture) you try to fix us falsely (artificially) [in the peg of evidence].  For this I said, ‘I like your words and from this day on wards I will never quote any scripture as the evidence for authority but only use my independent intellect.  But already you have come to my camp.  But how can you too quote the word of Bhagavan Rajanesh as the evidence.  What a kind of fun is this?  You changed the jaggery as cow-dung.  You have denied your own statement (of not quoting others but use one’s own personal intellect).—in Hindi, Sri Purushotam Goswami, p. 31

37. ‘I see that no one has a pure independent opinion.  Every opinion is influenced by that religion which is followed by one.  There is the influence of family and also of the sect.  Influence is also there because of studies.  The karma of past birth also stands behind it.  So which can be said as the independent opinion? Whatever opinion may be in mind, whether it is based on scriptures or by teachers or through the influence of fellowship[satsang] or through education—that is a person’s [or personal–I have to check the Hindi here properly—DB]opinion.’—Sri Purushotam Goswamin, p. 238

38. ‘From reason to feeling, from feeling to karma.  Gita calls all these by the word of yoga—karma yoga, jnana yoga and bhakti yoga.’—Prof. Dwivedi. P.249

39. ‘You remember Sankara’s statement: Siva saktyaa yuktoo; yadi bhavati saktya prabhavitum…– Prof. Dwivedi, p.20

[I typed in Roman script from Devanagari without any diacritic mark.  But several scholars do not accept this Sowndaryalahari from which Prof. Dwivedi quotes as the authentic work of Sankara.  Olivelle says, “I will limit myself to the six works regarding whose authenticity there appears to be a scholarly consensus.  They are Samkara commentaries on the Vedaantasuutras, the Bhagavad Gita, and three Upanisads—Brhadaaranyaka, Chaandogya, and Taiitiriiya—and his independent treatise Upadesasaahasrii,.   See Paul Hacker’s (1978) contributions on Samkara: Nakamura 1983” (Patrick Olivelle, The Aasrama system: The History and Hermeneutics of a Religious Institution, New York, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1993, p. 224)

40. ‘…the Vaishnava bhaktas are trying to counter the challenge of Sankara in various ways at a philosophical level.  The Vaishnavas were first and foremost worshippers of Vishnu and of avataaras or incarnations of ishnu.  Now if Advaita Vedanta or Sankara were to be taken literally and accepted totally, then there would be no scope for the worship of an avatara.  The concept of a personal deity would not have been there.  Although Sankara did not say it openly, he had to make compromises.  He only said, your Vishnu is also atma, your Rama is also atma.  But it is obvious that this did t help matters.  The path of the Vaishnava tradition of the worship of personal deity was bound to be affected adversely in some way or other…’—Dr. Krishna Sharma, p.80)

41. ‘Advait philosophy never believes that moksha is possible through bhakti.  For them moksha is not at all possible through bhakti.  This is against the doctrine.  In the view of advaita moksha is not possible through bhakti.  All the bhakti literatures also say the same thing.’—in Hindi, Purushotam Goswami, p. 31

42.  ‘We are contemplating on bhakti.  The question in this is that let us try to understand the tradition in India.  This is one view. Equally another important view is that which direction we want to take the current of our tradition.  And through which how far we want to change our lives—in our works, in our feelings, in our opinions.’—in Hindi, Prof. Daya Krishna, p. 99

43. ‘…how can a new vision permeate our society, our economy, our polity, and in a systematic manner both institutionally and in structures of thought, what should be the prime consideration of any thought about bhakti or any other ideal, which has been propounded in this culture and civilization?  The real vitality of bhakti will be tested in these fields.  Otherwise, it will be just a group of sectarian, self-enclosed, small islands where some individuals or groups of individuals may realize certain values, but which will remain irrelevant for contemporary civilization, even in India.’—Prof. Drya Krishna, p.207

44. ‘There was no place for other’s in the Vedic religion.  A person desired only moksh for himself, he wanted progeny for him.  Prayer was offered and puja was performed to Varun so that his cow won’t fall in any pit.’—in Hindi, Prof.K.N. Misra, p. 201.

• The following words by Prof. Misra will help us to understand this concept of adhikaara- bheda and avasthaa-bheda:

Let the Brahmin remain only in this country [of Aryavarta].  Shudras can go ashtray anywhere in the land in search of a living.  This is the view of Manusmrti about half of our country.  It was told about the other places, where different kinds of opinion was emerging, where the thinkers before Buddha were contemplating, where Mahaveer was contemplating:

 Angabangkalingascha sowraashtramaghadaamstata; tiirthayaatram bina gatva punah: sanskaaramarhati [if you go to pligrimate to Angam, Vangam, Kalingam, Sowrashtrasm, Magadam, then you have to under go initiatory rite of thread [to take back in the caste].

–again you have to take holy thread.  Otherwise you will become an outcaste. By legs one do sin if he goes to Kalingam.  Whoever goes to Kalinga country is doing sin by legs.  More than half portion of our land was impure—this was the opinion held by us.  And what was the opinion of the people [living in those impure lands] that you all know.—Prof. K.N. Misra, p. 200

46. While one Goswami Sri Srivatsava, ‘showed enthusiasm for it[this dialogue] and promised all his support, it seemed worth pursuing.  Who could have even thought that there were “intellectual” dimensions of the Bhakti tradition in India?  Wasn’t it a contradiction in terms?  But here was the Goswami himself belonging to the tradition of the great Caitanya willing to let the show be explored in all freedom at his own institution in Vrindavan, the mythical embodiment of all that Bhakti symbolizes in this country’ (Prof. Daya Krishna, p.ii),  another Goswamiji Sri Purushotam Swamiji talk, particularly in the concluding session is just opposite to it.  It is very difficult to translate what all he shared in Hindi (pp.238-246).  While he strongly supported the authority of tradition and scripture (of course his own Caitanyism I think) the way he rejected any intellectual discussion on bhakti (pp.243, 44-45), which is against his own tradition in which a systematic theology on bhakti was composed by Rupa Goswami is a contradiction to this dialogue.  For example he says after sharing about Dr. Bhavandaas of Varanasi, who also got Bharat Ratan award in his final days gave up all his philosophy and started to turn Rosary taking the name of Rama as he found some kind of emptyness in his heart and his atman is very much disturbed.  Then Swamiji says, ‘Even at the death of some Scholars, people arrange for kirthan and bhajan.  Why not talk intellectually that time?  Why don’t call for a (philosophical) Congress then?  He will get peace through it.  It is not attained and no one has attained shanti in such talk.’ (p.243)

• ‘It was a beautiful place where Sri Krsna had played.  But there is a big gap in the history of the physical Vrindavan and no one knows about it.  So, when the Indian Columbus comes in search of Vrindavan, he is struck in Mathura, as the real Columbus was stuck in the West Indies.  And this Columbus was, of course, Caitanya.  He came and entered in these woodlands which were completely uninhabited, and he recreated the sacred geography of Krsna liilaa….He identified a few ghaats[specific place in river where ritual baths are taken] … the Raasasliila spot and so on.  [He went back to Jagannath Puri.] But from there, he launched his project and started sending a very select group of persons to Vrindavan.’ –Sri Shrivatsa, p.126