Can Bhakti Give Liberation
The document consists of an essay in plum color from page 2 onwards which is a transcript of Swamiji talks on Bhagavatam.
Bhagavatam verses 11:12:6 to 9 are reproduced below from the following URL. http://vedabase.net/sb/11/12/3-6/en1. These verses will be analysed and discussed by Swamiji in order to determine if Bhakti can give liberation.
Bhagavatam 11:12:6 | |
sat-sangena hi daiteya yatudhana mrigah khagah gandharvapsaraso nagah siddhas carana-guhyakah vidyadhara manushyeshu vaisyah sudrah striyo 'ntya-jah rajas-tamah-prakritayas tasmims tasmin yuge yuge bahavo mat-padam praptas tvashtra-kayadhavadayah vrishaparva balir bano mayas catha vibhishanah sugrivo hanuman riksho gajo gridhro vanikpathah vyadhah kubja vraje gopyo yajna-patnyas tathapare | |
sat-sangena -- by association with My devotees; hi -- certainly; daiteyah -- the sons of Diti; yatudhanah -- demons; mrigah -- animals; khagah -- birds; gandharva -- Gandharvas; apsarasah -- the society girls of heaven; nagah -- snakes; siddhah -- residents of Siddhaloka; carana -- the Caranas; guhyakah -- the Guhyakas; vidyadharah -- the residents of Vidyadharaloka; manushyeshu -- among the human beings; vaisyah -- mercantile men; sudrah -- laborers; striyah -- women; antya-jah -- uncivilized men; rajah-tamah-prakritayah -- those bound in the modes of passion and ignorance; tasmin tasmin -- in each and every; yuge yuge -- age; bahavah -- many living entities; mat -- My; padam -- abode; praptah -- achieved; tvashtra -- Vritrasura; kayadhava -- Prahlada Maharaja; adayah -- and others like them; vrishaparva -- named Vrishaparva; balih -- Bali Maharaja; banah -- Banasura; mayah -- the demon Maya; ca -- also; atha -- thus; vibhishanah -- Vibhishana, the brother of Ravana; sugrivah -- the monkey king Sugriva; hanuman -- the great devotee Hanuman; rikshah -- Jambavan; gajah -- the devotee-elephant Gajendra; gridhrah -- Jatayu the vulture; vanikpathah -- the merchant Tuladhara; vyadhah -- Dharma-vyadha; kubja -- the former prostitute Kubja, saved by Lord Krishna; vraje -- in Vrindavana; gopyah -- the gopis; yajna-patnyah -- the wives of the brahmanas performing sacrifice; tatha -- similarly; apare -- others. | |
In every yuga many living entities entangled in the modes of passion and ignorance gained the association of My devotees. Thus, such living entities as the Daityas, Rakshasas, birds, beasts, Gandharvas, Apsaras, Nagas, Siddhas, Caranas, Guhyakas and Vidyadharas, as well as such lower-class human beings as the vaisyas, sudras, women and others, were able to achieve My supreme abode. Vritrasura, Prahlada Maharaja and others like them also achieved My abode by association with My devotees, as did personalities such as Vrishaparva, Bali Maharaja, Banasura, Maya, Vibhishana, Sugriva, Hanuman, Jambavan, Gajendra, Jatayu, Tuladhara, Dharma-vyadha, Kubja, the gopis in Vrindavana and the wives of the brahmanas who were performing sacrifice. | |
Bhagavatam 11:12:7 | |
te nadhita-sruti-gana nopasita-mahattamah avratatapta-tapasah mat-sangan mam upagatah | |
te -- they; na -- not; adhita -- having studied; sruti-ganah -- the Vedic literatures; na -- not; upasita -- having worshiped; mahat-tamah -- great saints; avrata -- without vows; atapta -- not having undergone; tapasah -- austerities; mat-sangat -- simply by association with Me and My devotees; mam -- Me; upagatah -- they achieved. | |
The persons I have mentioned did not undergo serious studies of the Vedic literature, nor did they worship great saintly persons, nor did they execute severe vows or austerities. Simply by association with Me and My devotees, they achieved Me. | |
Bhagavatam 11:12:8 | |
kevalena hi bhavena gopyo gavo naga mrigah ye 'nye mudha-dhiyo nagah siddha mam iyur anjasa | |
kevalena -- by unalloyed; hi -- indeed; bhavena -- by love; gopyah -- the gopis; gavah -- the Vrindavana cows; nagah -- the unmoving creatures of Vrindavana such as the twin arjuna trees; mrigah -- other animals; ye -- those; anye -- others; mudha-dhiyah -- with stunted intelligence; nagah -- Vrindavana snakes such as Kaliya; siddhah -- achieving the perfection of life; mam -- to Me; iyuh -- they went; anjasa -- quite easily. | |
The inhabitants of Vrindavana, including the gopis, cows, unmoving creatures such as the twin arjuna trees, animals, living entities with stunted consciousness such as bushes and thickets, and snakes such as Kaliya, all achieved the perfection of life by unalloyed love for Me and thus very easily achieved Me. | |
Bhagavatam 11:12:9 | |
yam na yogena sankhyena dana-vrata-tapo-'dhvaraih vyakhya-svadhyaya-sannyasaih prapnuyad yatnavan api | |
yam -- whom; na -- not; yogena -- by the mystic yoga systems; sankhyena -- by philosophical speculation; dana -- by charity; vrata -- vows; tapah -- austerities; adhvaraih -- or Vedic ritualistic sacrifices; vyakhya -- by explaining Vedic knowledge to others; svadhyaya -- personal study of the Veda; sannyasaih -- or by taking the renounced order of life; prapnuyat -- can one obtain; yatna-van -- with great endeavor; api -- even. | |
Even though one engages with great endeavor in the mystic yoga system, philosophical speculation, charity, vows, penances, ritualistic sacrifices, teaching of Vedic mantras to others, personal study of the Vedas, or the renounced order of life, still one cannot achieve Me. | |
The inhabitants of Vrndavana, including the gopis, cows, unmoving creatures such as the twin arjuna trees, animals, living entities with stunted consciousness such as bushes and thickets, and snakes such as Kaliya, all achieved the perfection of life by unalloyed love for me and thus very easily achieved me. However, even though one engages with great endeavor in the mystic yoga system, philosophical speculation, charity, vows, penances, ritualistic sacrifices, teaching of Vedic mantras to others, personal study of the Vedas, or the renounced order of life, still one is still not guaranteed to achieve Me. (Srimad Bhagavatam 11:12:8-9)
Swamiji’s commentary on Bhagavtam verses 11:12:6,7,8,9.
Lord Krishna is talking about Isvara Bhakti in the above verses and uses the word satsangah. Sat – Isvara; sangah – bhakti. Krishna says that there are many people who have attained liberation through bhakti. First he enumerated a list of bhaktas belonging to devas, manusyas, pakshis etc (11:12:6) and later concentrated on gopis as an ideal example for that. In these four verses (11:12:6, 7, 8 and 9) Krishna openly says that the great gopis attained liberation through bhakti.
And not only that Krishna says that they did not go to a guru for knowledge, they did not study any scriptures which means that without going through the process of jnanam. Gopis attained liberation without the sadhana of jnanam but mearly through the devotion or bhakti is very very clearly stated in these verses.
And naturally this will raise several questions in the minds of regular vedantic students. And therefore I said that we have to analyse this portion very clearly, very impartially, without any sentimentalism, without any prejudise and rationally we have to analyse and understand.
Normally we have been saying that jnanam alone give liberation. We have not been presenting jnanam as one among many means of liberation. We have been saying that jnanam alone gives liberation. And here we have got these four verses where Vyasacarya through the mouth of Lord Krishna clearly says that gopis attained liberation through bhakti without jnanam. So how are we to understand? When Vyasacarya says that gopis attained liberation through bhakti, can we say that it is a wrong statement? Naturally this question will come. Can Vyasacarya ever go wrong? Can Bhagavatam ever go wrong? Can Lord Krishna ever go wrong? They have clearly said that bhakti can give liberation. Then how do you say that jnanam alone gives liberation? If you are repeatedly asserting that jnanam alone gives liberation, it will indirectly mean that bhakti cannot give liberation. If you say that bhakti cannot give liberation it will mean that Vyasacarya, Bhagavatam and Lord Krishna are all wrong. So how do you reconcile this issue? Do you say that these pople are wrong?
This is a very difficult question to answer. If a person asks such a question whether Bhagavatam’s statement is right or wrong, our answer will be only in the form of a counter question. Whenever you corner me, I will only ask a counter question. Jnanam alone gives liberation is not my personal statement. Jnanam alone gives liberation is a vedic statement. It is not a particular Swami’s statement. It is not even Adi Sankaracarya’s statement. Jnanam alone gives liberation is a vedic statement.
तमेवं विद्वानमृत॑ इह भ॑वति। नान्यः पन्था अय॑नाय विद्यते।
tamevaṁ vidvānamṛta̍ iha bha̍vati | nānyaḥ panthā ayanāya vidyate |
Only the one who gains knowledge gets liberation - anyaha pantah ayanaya na vidyate – there is no other means of liberation. And veda thinks that we may not paid attention and again repeats it.
तमेवं विद्वानमृत॑ इह भ॑वति। नान्यः पन्था॑ विद्यतेय॑ऽनाय।
tamevaṁ vidvānamṛta iha bhavati | nānyaḥ panthā vidyateyanāya |
I am repeatedly declaring that other than jnanam there is no other means of liberation. There are hundereds of such vedic statements.
I have often quoted Svetasvatara Upanishad which you have to remember that in this context. Svetasvatara Upanishad declares that a person can get liberation without jnanam, provided he fulfils a particular condition. He has to roll the sky like a carpet. You have to go to the eastern or western end and start rolling the sky. And you have to bring the rolled sky. The day you complete that task, you will get liberation without jnanam. What does this mean? Sky cannot be rolled and liberation cannot be attained without jnanam.
That means what? Karma cannot give liberation. Bhakti cannot give liberation. Upasana cannot give liberation. Who says? Not Sankaracarya. Not me. Not any local Swami. Veda itself says that Bhakti cannot give liberation. By making the statement bhakti alone gives liberation, do you mean to say that veda is wrong? Do you have the courage to declare that the vedas are wrong? This means that you are also cornered.
You are asking me the question. Can Bhagavatam go wrong when it says that bhakti gives liberation? I ask a counter question - Can veda go wrong when it says that bhakti cannot give liberation?
So both are in a fix. That means that we have to analyse this issue a little bit seriously. It is not an easy question that can be tackled very easily. We require mimasa or analysis. That is how the mimamsa sastram itself is developed. One scripture says that bhakti gives liberation. Bhgavatam verses 11:12:6 to 9 say that Bhakti gives liberation. Another scripture says that bhakti cannot give liberation and jnanam alone gives liberation. There seems to be a contradiction between scriptural statements. Accepting one automatically invalidates the other. You cannot accept both the statements as valid and true.
Between these two scriptural statements which one is more valid?
Mimasa sastra prescribes rules on how to resolve this crisis or this problem. When we have constitutional crisis, we go to a constituitional expert to imterpret the constitition appropriately. Here the experts are called mimasakas.
There are two important norms or conditions given in mimasa sastras.
Mimamsa Rule #1: Independent Validity is the final authority
When there are two scriptural statements contradictinmg each other that scripture which has got independent validity that alone is more powerful. The scripture which has dependant validity is weaker. Traditionally scriptures are divided into two. The orginal scriptures which have got independent validity and the secondary scriptures which have got dependant validity. The original scriptures are called vedas - shrutis which are all svatah pramanam. Whereas all non vedic scriptures are called smritis. Smritis do not have independent validity. Their validity is dependant on the vedas. And does Bhagavatam come under shruti or smriti? We should not be emotionally arguing or attached. We should be very very clear that Bhagavatam comes under smriti. This is accepted by bhagavatam itself.
Bhagavatam 1:1:3 | |
nigama-kalpa-taror galitam phalam suka-mukhad amrita-drava-samyutam pibata bhagavatam rasam alayam muhur aho rasika bhuvi bhavukah | |
nigama -- the Vedic literatures; kalpa-taroh -- the desire tree; galitam -- fully matured; phalam -- fruit; suka -- Srila Sukadeva, the original speaker of Srimad-Bhagavatam; mukhat -- from the lips of; amrita -- nectar; drava -- semisolid and soft and therefore easily swallowable; samyutam -- perfect in all respects; pibata -- do relish it; bhagavatam -- the book dealing in the science of the eternal relation with the Lord; rasam -- juice (that which is relishable); alayam -- until liberation, or even in a liberated condition; muhuh -- always; aho -- O; rasikah -- those who are full in the knowledge of mellows; bhuvi -- on the earth; bhavukah -- expert and thoughtful. | |
O expert and thoughtful men, relish Srimad-Bhagavatam, the mature fruit of the desire tree of Vedic literatures. It emanated from the lips of Sri Sukadeva Gosvami. Therefore this fruit has become even more tasteful, although its nectarean juice was already relishable for all, including liberated souls. | |
It is clearly said that Bhagavatam is not an independent scripture and it is based on the vedas. That means that the veda is adhara – the basis for the Bhagavatam. Veda is the original and Bhagavatam is a borrowed scripture only. And that is why it is called smriti. And smritis are not independantly valid. Smritis are only valid, meaning factual only depenent on shruti.
If there is a contradition between shruti and smriti, the validity of vedas and vedas alone must be taken. Tradition has established this rule of interpretation.
Sruti smrityoh param vadeh shruti reva gariyasi.
Shruti is the final and ultimate auhtority in such conflicts.
Based on this norm number 1, our conclusion is that jnanam alone gives liberation and bhakti cannot give liberation. Bhakti can give purification of the mind.
Mimamsa Rule #2: One which has logical support is more valid
When there are two scriptural statements which are contradictory, that scriptural statement which has logical support is more valid than the scriptural statement which does not have a logical suppport. The scriptural statement which is reinforced by logic is more valid than the other one.
Shrutyoh parasparam vadeh nyaya pesa gariyasi.
Nyaya – logical; reasoning; rational. And this rule will knock of the other one.
When people say that bhakti gives liberation, even here in this portion no logical support is given. Whereas whenever we say that jnanam gives liberation we reinforce with logical support. Now the question is what is the logical support that we give?
The logical support given is that the problem of samsara is caused by ignorance. Ignorance is eliminated by knowledge. Not by love or devotion. Ignorance is eliminated by only knowledge. Knowledge is not one of the many means, but the only means. Just as darkness can be eliminated only by light alone. And this logical support is given by Lord Krishna himself.
The very same mischievous Krishna who says that liberation is achieved through bhakti in these four verses of Bhagavatam, says clearly with logical support in Bhagavad Gita that jnanam alone gives liberation.
5-16 | |
ज्ञानेन तु तदज्ञानं येषां नाशितमात्मनः। तेषामादित्यवज्ज्ञानं प्रकाशयति तत्परम्॥ | |
jñānena tu tadajñānaṁ yeṣāṁ nāśitamātmanaḥ | teṣāmādityavajjñānaṁ prakāśayati tatparam || | |
tu - whereas; atmanah - of the self; jnanena - by knowledge; yesam - whose; tat - that; ajnanam - ignorance; nasitam - is destroyed; tesam - for them; jnanam - knowledge; adityavat - like the sun; tat param - that (the self as) Brahman; prakasayati - reveals | |
Whereas for those whose ignorance of the self is destroyed by knowledge, the knowledge reveals (the self as) that Brahman, like the sun (reveals objects previously covered in darkness). | |
5-17 | |
तद्बुद्धयस्तदात्मानस्तन्निष्ठास्तत्परायणाः। गच्छन्त्यपुनरावृत्तिं ज्ञाननिर्धूतकल्मषाः॥ | |
tadbuddhayastadātmānastanniṣṭhāstatparāyaṇāḥ | gacchantyapunarāvṛttiṁ jñānanirdhūtakalmaṣāḥ || | |
tadbuddhayah - those whose intellect is awake to that (Brahman); tadatmanah - those for whom the self is that (Brahman);tannisthah - those who are committed only to that (Brahman); tatparayanah - those for whom the ultimate end is that (Brahman); jnana-nirdhuta-kalmasah - those whose impurities have been destroyed by knowledge; apunaravrttini - a state of no return; gacchanti - they attain | |
Those whose intellect is awake to that (Brahman), for whom the self is that (Brahman), who are committed only to that (Brahman), for whom the ultimate end is that (Brahman) which they have already accomplished), whose impurities have been destroyed by knowledge they attain a state from which there is no return. | |
5-18 | |
विद्याविनयसम्पन्ने ब्राह्मणे गवि हस्तिनि। शुनि चैव श्वपाके च पण्डिताः समदर्शिनः॥ | |
vidyāvinayasampanne brāhmaṇe gavi hastini | śuni caiva śvapāke ca paṇḍitāḥ samadarśinaḥ || | |
vidya-vinaya-sampanne - in one who is endowed with knowledge and humility; brahmane - in a brahmana; gavi - in a cow; hastini - in an elephant; suni ca - and in a dog; svapake eva ca - and indeed in a dog-eater; panditah - wise people; samadarsinah - (are) those who see the same (Brahman) | |
Wise people are indeed those who see the same (Brahman) in a brahmana who is endowed with knowledge and humility, in a cow, in an elephant, in a dog, and (even) in a dog-eater. | |
Jnanam gives liberation has the support of the logic. Bhakti gives liberation does not have the support of the logic. And therefore between these two statements we have to vote for jnanam alone. So our conclusion is that jnanam alone gives liberation. Bhakti can give purification. It is not useless. Bhakti will purify the mind. But it cannot give liberation. Suppose a person says by the word Bhakti that he means jnanam only. It is only a problem of semantics. We say Dhirgayusman Bhava. No problem.
The moment you say that Bhakti is a sadhana other than jnanam (for liberation) we will forcibly say that Bhakti cannot give liberation. This is one important point that we have to assimiliate.
We need to build a samadhi to the question and this question should never raise again.
Can Bhakti lead to Jnanam?
The next question will come. Swamiji, I have changed my mind. I am willing to accept that jnanam alone gives liberation. You have taken so much trouble and tried so hard to explain. So atleast out of sympathy for you, whether I am convinced or not, I will accept that jnanam alone gives liberation. As per your teaching, jnanam is attained by a tediuos and tortuous process. Because you say that the qualification for jnanam is attaining sadhana chatustaya sampatti. Which itself is a troublesome thing. And thereafer vedantic sravanam, mananam and systematic long scriptural study and all. I do not like this long and tedious process. Why I cannot say that Bhakti gives knowledge. Can you see the difference between the previous and the present discussion?
First discussion is bhakti gives liberation. We have established now that bhakti cannot give liberation. Jnanam alone can give liberation. Now I am entering into a second discussion.
For jnanam Swamiji is prescribing a tediuous process of attending Sunday classes. Why I cannot use bhakti as a means for getting knowledge? After all Bhagavan is omniscient. Bhagavan is omnipotent. There is nothing that he cannot do. Therefore instead of acquiring sadhana catustaya sampatti and studying scriptures etc why cant I use bhakti as a means of getting knowledge? So that I will go on crying and crying – crying with bhakti and one day suddenly jnanam dawns. Why cant we keep it this way?
Will you accept bhakti as a means of acquiring knowledge?
Bhakti cannot lead to knowledge
Swamiji says that he has to disappoint you again. This question also has to be clarified by proper thinking. It is all because of the assumption that thinking is not required in the spiritual field. The biggest problem that has come now is that we think that thinking is not required in the spiritual field. Whereas spiritual field requires more thinking.
There is no doubt that Bhagavan is omniscient. Bhagavan is omnipotent. We are not nastikas. We are not belittling the omnipotence and omniscience of the Lord. The omniscient and omnipotent Lord has created this universe and when you look at the universe we find that everything in this universe is such that whatever goal that we want to attain in life, Bhagavan has provided also the means within the universe.
The beauty of the creation is that whatever goal that we want to attain, Bhagavan has provided the method of attaining that goal within this world itself. We are born with hunger, and Bhagavan has provided food in the mother’s body itself. And later, mother’s milk alone is not enough. Bhagavan has provided all the infrastructure and the facility to produce food. Bhagavan has provided the means and the ends within the creation. In fact, the creation is sadhana sadhyatmakam.
And not only Bhagavan has created the means and the end, Bhagavan has given us a buddhi to find out what is the means for which end. Diseases are there; remedies are also there. And we have the skill of doing research to find out which means will produce which end. And not only Bhagavan has given us buddhi, Bhagavan has given us the hands and the legs to implement and follow the means. It is not enough that I know how to cultivate, Bhagavan has given us a body, hands and legs and the skill and the power to implement. And what is the intention of bhagavan in doing this?
Bhagavan has given us the end. Bhagavan has given us the desires. Bhagavan has given us the methods of fulfilling the desires. What does it mean? Bhagavan is indirectly declaring not to disturb him. “I have provided everything for you. Now let me take some rest in the milk sea – anantha sayanam. Let me relax and spend time with Lakshmi. Lakshmi has got a great grievance that I do not spend enough time with her. Let me relax”.
So you do not go to Bhagavan’s door and knock and say – Oh Lord give me some milk, give me some water or give me some food. Bhagavan expects you to use the appropriate means to accomplish the appropriate end.
There is no question if Bhagavan can fulfill your end or not. Because bhagavan does not want us to go to him for food, clothing, shelter etc. Because he has provided everything already.
You want to come to Astika Samajam in the early morning for the class. What are you supposed to do? You are a great bhakta. “O Lord. You are omniscient and omnipotent. Why can’t you take me to Astjkia Samajam”, if you asked, you will only get a slap. Bhagavan expects you to use the means that Bhagavan has given, use a bus, use an auto rikshaw or legs. Your bhakti is not meant for replacing appropriate means. You have to adopt the appropriate means to reach the appropriate end.
And when you want your children to get knowledge, you know that the knowledge is attained through the process of education, even though you are a great bhakta. You do not argue that nowadays education is very tough. Admission itself is very difficult. And why should my children go through the process of eductaion. I will teach them bhakti. I will teach them bhajans. So that through bhakti they will get knowledge. Why are we not doing this? Let the children go on doing bhajans for 20 years. They will get a BA degree jnanam. And another two years intense bhajans – MA. Another three years intense bhajans – PhD. Why don’t you use that method? We know how ridiculous this sounds.
Because we know that if jnanam is required the means is education. Bhakti does not replace the process of education. Bhakti can only smoothen the process of education. Worldly knowledge requires worldy education. You should not say that spiritual knowledge requires bhakti. Spiritual knowledge requires spiritual education. Not for a day or two. When the worldly knoweldge requires a long spell of worldly education, spiritual knowledge also requires long spiritual education.
Worldly education has guru. Worldly education is a systematic process. And there is a progressive syllabus. Spiritual knowledge also involves spiritual systematic education, spiritual guru and a spiritual syllabus.
Therefore bhakti cannot give jnanam. Spiritual education gives jnanam.
Who says? Not Swamiji. Some of you already might be angry with him. He knows that he is going to disturb some people. But if everybody is going to avoid this topic, somebody has to tell. Swamiji apologises for telling the facts.
The very same Lord Krishna says in Bhagavad Gita 4-34.
4-34 | |
तद्विद्धि प्रणिपातेन परिप्रश्नेन सेवया। उपदेक्ष्यन्ति ते ज्ञानं ज्ञानिनस्तत्त्वदर्शिनः॥ | |
tadviddhi praṇipātena paripraśnena sevayā | upadekṣyanti te jñānaṁ jñāninastattvadarśinaḥ || | |
pranipatena - by prostrating; pariprasnena - by asking proper questions; sevaya - by service; tat - that; viddhi - understand; jnaninah - the wise; tattva-darsinah - those who have the vision of the truth; te - for you; jnanam - knowledge; upadeksyanti - will teach | |
Understand that (which is to be known) by prostrating, by asking proper questions, (and) by service. Those who are wise, who have the vision of the truth, will teach you (this) knowledge. | |
Arjuna, If you want jnanam, you will not get it through bhakti. Go to a guru. Mundaka 1:2:12 says as follows.
Mundaka 1 | Khanda 2 | Mantra 12 | |
परीक्ष्य लोकान् कर्मचितान् ब्राह्मणः निर्वेदमायाद् नास्त्यकृतः कृतेन। तद्विज्ञानार्थं स गुरुमेवाभिगच्छेत् समित्पाणिः श्रोत्रियं ब्रह्मनिष्ठम्॥ | |||
parīkṣya lokān karmacitān brāhmaṇaḥ nirvedamāyād nāstyakṛtaḥ kṛtena | tadvijñānārthaṁ sa gurumevābhigacchet samitpāṇiḥ śrotriyaṁ brahmaniṣṭham || | |||
karmacitan - gained by doing actions (and meditation); lokan - the experiences; pariksya - examining; brahmanah - discriminative person; nirvedam ayat - may discover dispassion; akrtah - moksa which is not created; krtena -through the action or meditation; na asti - not there; tat -that; vijnanartham - to know; sah - he; gurum - to a teacher; eva - only; abhigacchet - must go; srotriyam - one who is well-versed in scriptures; brahmanistham - one who has clarity about Brahman; samitpanih - with sacrificial twigs in hand | |||
‘Examining the experiences gained by doing actions and meditation, may the discriminative person discover dispassion. Moksa, which is not created, cannot be gained through action. Therefore, to gain the knowledge of Brahman, he must go with sacrificial twigs in hand to a teacher who is well-versed in scriptures and who has clear knowledge about Brahman.’ | |||
If one wants jnanam, one has to go to guru.
Ofcourse, we are willing to accept that there are exceptional prodigies in every field. Ramanujan was a mathematical prodigy who might not have gone through the regular process of education. There are musical, cricket and such prodigies in every field. Prodigies are a minuscule percentage and should not be taken as a role model.
Normal process is that spiritual education alone gives jnanam and jnanam alone gives moksa. Bhakti smoothens this process. Bhakti cannot replace spiritual education or jnanam.
Krama Mukti
If this so clear, why should Vyacarya make such a statement? You might ask, “Swamiji, do you mean to say that whatever you discussed, Vyacaraya does not know? உங்களுக்கே தேறியறது என்று சொன்னா, if you yourself are able to know this, don’t you think that Vyacarya who is supposed to be Bhagavan’s avatara, he will not know?”
If Vyasacarya knows, then what is to be understood out of these statements?
For this also we have an answer in Bhagavad Gita. In the eightth chapter of Bhagavad Gita, Krishna talks about a group of bhaktas. And Krisha points out that they are great devotees of the Lord, and they are obsessed with the Lord alone. And they want to attain the Lord alone. And they never come to jnanam, scriptural study. Due to some reason or the other. They continue to be ajnanis. They do not go to a guru and gain knowledge. But they are bhaktas. They remember the Lord throughout the life. And at the time of the death also they remember the Lord and the Lord alone. And they also get liberation, it is said.
And the question is that, how do they get this liberation?
The sastra itself, Krishna himself answers. They do not get liberation immediately. Such bhaktas will travel through a special path called shukla gati. They do not get liberation in this janma. But they will travel through shukla gati. Krishna himslef explains in Bhagavad Gita 8:24.
8-24 | |
अग्निर्जोतिरहः शुक्लः षण्मासा उत्तरायणम्। तत्र प्रयाता गच्छन्ति ब्रह्म ब्रह्मविदो जनाः॥ | |
agnirjotirahaḥ śuklaḥ ṣaṇmāsā uttarāyaṇam | tatra prayātā gacchanti brahma brahmavido janāḥ || | |
yatra — where in which path; agnih — the god of fire or time; jyotih — the god of time; ahah. — the god of the day; suklah — the god of the fortnight of the waxing moon; sanmasa uttarayanam — the god of the six months of the sun’s northward travel; santi — are present; tatra prayatah — those who have departed through that path after death; brahma-vidah janah — the people who meditate on Brahman; brahma — to brahma-loka; gacchanti — go | |
Where, in, which path, the god of fire or time, the god of light or time, the god of the day, the god of the fortnight of the waxing moon, the god of the six months of the sun’s travel towards the north are present, departing there, through that path, meditators of Brahman go to brahma-loka. | |
And travelling through shukla gati, they will reach brahma loka. Who are they? Ajnani bhaktas. Great bhaktas. But they never attained jnanam. And what will happen in Brahma Loka? There they will have all the facilities for easy vedantic study. And there Lord Brahmaji himself will be the teacher, who has got four faces. And with four mouths, there will be continuous teachings. And there you will not have hunger or thirst, so you need not go for breakfast or lunch. And there you gain knowldege. And again one has not avoided jnanam.
Such intense bhaktas like gopis, or Meera or any bhakta you know but who did not come to jnanam at all, they died thinking of the Lord. All such great bhaktas will go to Brahma Loka.
Swamiji, you are telling as though you have seen – பார்த்த மாதிரி சொல்லறேளே ?
Swamiji has not seen. The scriptures point out. The very same Krishna who is the teacher of Uddhava Gita tells in BG Chapter 8 –5.
8-5 | |
अन्तकाले च मामेव स्मरन्मुक्त्वा कलेवरम्। यः प्रयाति स मद्भावं याति नास्त्यत्र संशयः॥ | |
antakāle ca māmeva smaranmuktvā kalevaram | yaḥ prayāti sa madbhāvaṁ yāti nāstyatra saṁśayaḥ || | |
anta-hale ca — and at the time of death; mam eva smaran— remembering Me alone; muktva — giving up; kalevaram — the body; yah prayati — the one who departs; sah — he; madbhavam yati — gains My nature, becomes one with Me; atra — here, with reference to this; na | |
And, at the time of death, the one who departs giving up the body, remembering Me alone, he gains My nature. Regarding this, there is no doubt. | |
Such bhaktas will go to mukti, Oh Arjuna, but they will take a different route. It is called krama mukti. All those bhaktas who do not study the scriptures in this janma, will certainly attain liberation, but not directly, but by going to Brahma Loka and by gaining knowledge.
So what Vyasacarya or Lord Krishna are talking about here is the krama mukti of these people. So there is no contradiction. Bhaktas who desire for liberation have not avoided jnanam totally. They avoided jnanam only here in Bhu Loka. But gained jnanam in Brahma Loka.
So the seventh chapter of Uddhava Gita is krama mukti chapter. Just as eighth chapter of Bhagavad Gita is krama mukti.
Interestingly in the eightth chapter of Uddhava Gita, Bhagavan talks about liberation here and now without going to Brahma Loka. He says that you need to gain knoweledge for that.
We do not know if Meera studied scriptures or not. But if you say that Meera was a great bhakta, but never studied scriptures or never gained knowledge, we say that Meera would have attained krama mukti.
BG Chapter 8 is krama mukti and chapter 9 is sadyo mukti.
Bhagavatam Skanda11:Chapter 7 to Chapter 29 is Uddava Gita, which is also called as Hamsa Gita. Bhagavatam 11:7 is krama mukti and Bhagavatam 11:8 deals with sadyo mukti. In that Lord Krishna says that it is better to gain knowledge here in Bhu Loka, instead of postponing to next birth or to Brahma Loka.
Swamiji’s commentary on Bhagavtam verses 11:12:10
Saguna bhakti as a means of krama mukti.
Bhagavatam 11:12:10 | |
ramena sardham mathuram pranite svaphalkina mayy anurakta-cittah vigadha-bhavena na me viyoga- tivradhayo 'nyam dadrisuh sukhaya | |
ramena -- with Balarama; sardham -- with; mathuram -- to the city of Mathura; pranite -- when brought; svaphalkina -- by Akrura; mayi -- Myself; anurakta -- constantly attached; cittah -- those whose consciousness was; vigadha -- extremely deep; bhavena -- by love; na -- not; me -- than Me; viyoga -- of separation; tivra -- intense; adhayah -- who were experiencing mental distress, anxiety; anyam -- other; dadrisuh -- they saw; sukhaya -- that could make them happy. | |
The residents of Vrindavana, headed by the gopis, were always completely attached to Me with deepest love. Therefore, when My uncle Akrura brought My brother Balarama and Me to the city of | |
In these verses Krishna talks about saguna Isvara bhakti. Gopis are the examples for saguna Isvara bhakti. Krishna bhakti typically. And they did not study the scriptures at all. And they attained liberation – krama muktih and not sadyo muktih.
Krishna says – mayi anurakta cittah – Gopis have a mind which is intensely attached to me as Krishna . This is liked by most of the people. They say that Upanisads are dry. It is talking about Brahman, nirgunam, nishkalam, nityam, nirakaram, niranjanam which is very dry. That is why in Bhagavatam also ekadasa skanda is not popular. Dasama skanda – Lord Krishna, his birth, his leelas, his exploits, beauties, adharam maduram, vadanam madhuram, nayanam madhuram, people love.
You remember the Lord until death. And at the time of death also remember God, you will get liberation, but the route taken will be krama mukti, shukla gati.
viyoga tivra adhayah – They want my presence all the time. They can never stand separation from me even for a second. That much intense attachment to Krishna, personal Krishna . Only when you talk about personal Krishna , you can discuss samyoga and viyoga. When you are talking about all pervading Krihsna, that is vedanta. When vedanta talks about all pervading Krishna , there is no question of union or association.
Those who understand this clearly will not have any problem. But if one does not study vedanta, Krishna is elsewhere and I will be elsewhere. Krishna comes, my face blooms, Krishna goes away, my face glooms.
And there is gopika geetam – viraha geetam. Oh Krishna , you have gone away. I am unable to stand that. கதறி மனமுருகி நான் அழைக்கவோ, இதர மாதரோடு நீ சுகிக்கவோ. Not only Krishna should be with me, Krishna should not be with another gopi- jealousy.
So if you like all these things, wish you all the best. These people who are intensely disturbed when there was viyoga. So viyoga tivra adhayah – adhi means mental affliction. Viraha dhukham. Viraha dhukham is eloborately described in Bhagavatam. One entire gopika geetham is their sorrow.
Swamiji’s commentary on Bhagavatam verses 10:32:1, 2
Bhagavatam 11:32:1 | |
sri-suka uvaca iti gopyah pragayantyah pralapantyas ca citradha ruruduh su-svaram rajan krishna-darsana-lalasah | |
sri-sukah uvaca -- Sri Sukadeva Gosvami said; iti -- thus, as related above; gopyah -- the gopis; pragayantyah -- singing forth; pralapantyah -- speaking forth; ca -- and; citradha -- in various charming ways; ruruduh -- they cried; su-svaram -- loudly; rajan -- O King; krishna-darsana -- for the sight of | |
Sukadeva Gosvami said: O King, having thus sung and spoken their hearts out in various charming ways, the gopis began to weep loudly. They were very eager to see Lord Krishna. | |
ruruduh – They cry. But with svaram. They cried with svaram beautifully. But whether you cry in mukhari raga or in any raga, sorrow is sorrow.
Bhagavatam 11:32:2 | |
tasam avirabhuc chaurih smayamana-mukhambujah pitambara-dharah sragvi sakshan manmatha-manmathah | |
tasam -- before them; avirabhut -- He appeared; saurih -- Lord Krishna; smayamana -- smiling; mukha -- His face; ambujah -- lotuslike; pita -- yellow; ambara -- a garment; dharah -- wearing; srak-vi -- wearing a flower garland; sakshat -- directly; man-matha -- of Cupid (who bewilders the mind); man -- of the mind; mathah -- the bewilderer. | |
Then Lord Krishna, a smile on His lotus face, appeared before the gopis. Wearing a garland and a yellow garment, He directly appeared as one who can bewilder the mind of Cupid, who himself bewilders the minds of ordinary people. | |
Then Krishna who likes to play hide and seek, he came and they all started smiling. This saguna bhakti is also OK if this is to your liking.