Bhakti And Advaitavedanta

D.S.SUBBARAMIAH

aÉ…¡ûÉmÉÔUmÉëcÉÍsÉiÉeÉOûÉxÉëxiÉpÉÉåaÉÏlSìpÉÏiÉÉ-
qÉÉÍsÉ…¡ÇûiÉÏqÉcÉsÉiÉlÉrÉÉÇ xÉÎxqÉiÉÇ uÉϤÉqÉÉhÉÈ |
sÉÏsÉÉmÉÉ…¡æûÈ mÉëhÉiÉeÉlÉiÉɳÉlSrÉǶÉlSìqÉÉæÍsÉÈ
qÉÉåWûkuÉÉliÉÇ WûUiÉÑ mÉUqÉÉlÉlSqÉÔÌiÉïÈ ÍzÉuÉÉå lÉÈ ||

rÉxqÉÉ̲µÉqÉÑSåÌiÉ rÉ§É ÌlÉuÉxÉirÉliÉå rÉSmrÉåÌiÉ rÉ-

ixÉirÉ¥ÉÉlÉxÉÑZÉxuÉÃmÉqÉuÉÍkɲæiÉmÉëhÉÉzÉÉåÎefÉiÉqÉç ||
rÉ‹ÉaÉëixuÉmÉlÉ mÉëxÉÑÎmiÉwÉÑ ÌuÉpÉÉirÉåMÇü ÌuÉzÉÉåMÇü mÉUÇ
mÉëirÉaoÉë¼ iÉSÎxqÉ rÉxrÉ M×ümÉrÉÉ iÉÇ SåÍzÉMåÇüSìÇ pÉeÉå ||

The term pÉÌ£ü baffles all attempt at precise definition. As in the case of a few other
terms such as ¥ÉÉlÉ, kÉqÉï, aÉÑÂ, xuÉÃmÉ it is difficult to find adequate expression enabling us
to put in verbal terms what is sought ot be conveyed by the term pÉÌ£ü. The term is used
to convey different shades of meaning such as fidelity, loyalty, service, attachment,
homage, reverence, worship, devotion, etc., as seen when one speaks of qÉÉiÉ×pÉÌ£ü,
ÌmÉiÉ×pÉÌ£ü, UÉeÉpÉÌ£ü, aÉÑÂpÉÌ£ü and pÉaÉuÉ°Ì£ü. Inspite of the difficulty of defining it precisely,
everyone seems to understand what is meant by the term pÉÌ£ü in some measure or the
other. Generally speaking, it may be said that pÉÌ£ü is devotion to something higher than
oneself. This devotion does not owe its origin to any extraneous circumstance such as
education, training or environment, though these may appear to have considerable
influence in determining its course, the object towards which it is to be directed. Thus
each human being is ‘involunatarily’ drawn into something higher than himself. As it is
put in the pÉÉaÉuÉiÉ when referring to Prahlada, “lÉæxÉaÉÏïrÉ qÉÌiÉÈ” i.e., it is quite natural to
man. It is not acquired, but is a spontaneous upsurge as is given expression to in the
ÍzÉuÉÉlÉlSsÉWûUÏ –
WÇûxÉÈ mÉ©uÉlÉÇ xÉÍqÉcNûÌiÉ rÉjÉÉ lÉÏsÉÉÇoÉÑSÇ cÉÉiÉMüÈ |
MüÉåMüÈ MüÉåMülÉSÌmÉërÉÇ mÉëÌiÉÌSlÉÇ cÉlSìÇ cÉMüÉåUxiÉjÉÉ ||
cÉåiÉÉå uÉÉgNûÌiÉ qÉÉqÉMÇü mÉzÉÑmÉiÉå ÍcÉlqÉÉaÉïqÉ×arÉÇ ÌuÉpÉÉå |
aÉÉæUÏlÉÉjÉ pÉuÉimÉSÉoeÉrÉÑaÉsÉÇ MüuÉsrÉxÉÉæZrÉmÉëSqÉç ||
 However, it requires long training and arduous self-discipline before this tendency
develops into a continuous desire towards God who is to be realised and worshipped
consciously as the object of our devotion as He is the embodiment of all the highest values.

The reference in the Gita (VII, 16) to the various types of pÉ£üÉ’s occuring in the Ślōka –

cÉiÉÑÌuÉïkÉÉ pÉeÉliÉå qÉÉÇ eÉlÉÉÈ xÉÑM×üÌiÉlÉÉåÅeÉÑïlÉ |

AÉiÉÉåï ÎeÉ¥ÉÉxÉÑUjÉÉïjÉÏï ¥ÉÉlÉÏ cÉ pÉUiÉwÉïpÉ ||
makes also a distinction between the first three and the last, because the first three
resort to the Lord as only a means to their ends and not as an end in itself. Even then it is better
to think of Him rather than the worldly means for seeking refuge. That is why the Lord refers to
all of them as ESÉUÉÈ xÉuÉåï LuÉæiÉå. Thus in the initial stages the longing takes the form of discontent
with what we have. In course of time, it gets transformed into a dissatisfaction with what we
are. Eventually, it takes a spiritual turn which makes us aspire for knowledge, wisdom, love,
truth, goodness, beauty, etc. Since God is the embodiment of all these, He becomes the object
of our devotion.

In accordance with the developments outlined, various definitions have been given in
respect of the term pÉÌ£ü as for example –

1. xuÉMüqÉïhÉÉ iÉqÉprÉcrÉï
2. mÉÔerÉåwuÉlÉÑUÉaÉÈ
3. xÉÉ mÉUÉÅlÉÑUÌ£üUϵÉUå
4. qÉÉWûÉiqrÉ¥ÉÉlÉmÉÔuÉïxiÉÑ xÉÑSØRûÈ xÉuÉïiÉÉåãÅÍkÉMüÈ xlÉåãWûÉå pÉÌ£üËUÌiÉ mÉëÉå£üÈ |
5. AlÉlrÉ qÉqÉiÉÉ ÌuÉwhÉÉæ qÉqÉiÉÉ mÉëåqÉxÉ…¡ûiÉÉ |
pÉÌ£üËUirÉÑcrÉiÉå pÉÏwqÉmÉë¿ûÉSÉå®uÉzɃ¡ûUÏ ||
6. qÉlÉÉåaÉÌiÉUÌuÉÎcNû³ÉÉ WûUÉæ mÉëåqÉmÉËUmsÉÑiÉÉ |
AÍpÉxÉÎlkÉÌuÉÌlÉqÉÑï£üÉ pÉÌ£üÌuÉïwhÉÑuÉzɃ¡ûUÏ ||
7. rÉÉ mÉëÏÌiÉUÎxiÉ ÌuÉwÉrÉåwuÉÌuÉuÉåMüpÉÉeÉÉqÉç |
xÉæuÉÉcrÉÑiÉå pÉuÉÌiÉ pÉÌ£ümÉSÉÍpÉkÉårÉÉ ||
8. pÉÌ£üxiÉÑ MüÉqÉ CuÉ iÉiMüqÉlÉÏrÉÃmÉå |
The stress here is on either doing all activities in the spirit of qÉiMüqÉïM×üiÉç as given in the Gītā, in
which case service, i.e. xÉåuÉÉ predominates, or emotional attachment through sublime love to
God, who is the abode of all excellences. If the problem is viewed from the psychological
standpoint, it will be readily seen that xÉåuÉÉ which is of the form of MüqÉï, in which the will aspect
of the mind is paramount, presupposes CcNûÉ or desire which is the emotional aspect of the
mind. Some of the definitions make this emotional aspect pre-eminent. However, every
emotion arises because of the knowledge of the excellences of the object which captures the
mind. This is seen for example, in the words mÉÔerÉåwÉÑ, qÉÉWûÉiqrÉ¥ÉÉlÉmÉÔuÉïxiÉÑ etc. Knowledge of God who
is regarded as the embodiment of all excellences, AlÉliÉMüsrÉÉhÉaÉÑhÉaÉhÉÌlÉÍkÉÈ as it is sometimes
expressed, is thus seen to be vital for the emergence of the appropriate emotion vis. pÉÌ£ü,
linking Him with the pÉ£ü. Bhagavan, though regarded different from pÉ£ü is thought of as the
Infinite and as existing not only outside him but also within him. This knowledge of God is
however said to be derived from the Upanishads. On closer examination of the concerned
Srutis such as lÉÉlrÉÉåÅiÉÉåÅÎxiÉ Sì¹É, oÉë¼æuÉ xÉlÉç oÉë¼ÉmrÉåÌiÉ and so on, as also the Mahavakyas like
iɨuÉqÉÍxÉ, AWÇû oÉë¼ÉÎxqÉ, it becomes clear that the Paramātman is no other than the xuÉÃmÉ of the
individual himself. Bhakti is therefore to be defined suitably on the basis of this knowledge.
Accordingly Śri Śankarabhagavatpādāchārya defines pÉÌ£ü as xuÉxÉëÔmÉÉlÉÑxÉÇkÉÉlÉÇ pÉÌ£üËUirÉÍpÉkÉÏrÉiÉå. Here
the term pÉÌ£ü stands for the ÌlÉÌS±ÉxÉlÉ which is to be undertaken after ´ÉuÉhÉ at the feet of a
competent Master followed by qÉlÉlÉ. AlÉÑxÉÇkÉÉlÉ would mean
ÌuÉeÉÉiÉÏrÉmÉëirÉrÉÌiÉUxM×üiÉiÉxÉeÉÉiÉÏrÉmÉëirÉrÉmÉëuÉÉWûÃmÉÉ pÉÉuÉlÉÉkÉÉUÉ. This is said to be the xÉɤÉÉixÉÉkÉlÉÉ for AmÉUÉå¤É
¥ÉÉlÉ or xÉɤÉÉiMüÉU of Brahman which is none other than the Ātman. This AmÉUÉå¤É ¥ÉÉlÉ spoken of as
AZÉÇQûÉMüÉUuÉ×̨ɥÉÉlÉ which is the xÉɤÉÉiMüÉUhÉ for qÉÑÌ£ü, is otherwise called xÉÉkrÉpÉÌ£ü or TüsÉpÉÌ£ü, the
previous ÌlÉÌSkrÉÉxÉlÉ leading to this being termed as the xÉÉkÉlÉpÉÌ£ü. It may be recalled in this
connection that the pÉÉaÉuÉiÉ speaks of these two kinds of pÉÌ£ü in the statement pÉYirÉÉ
xÉgeÉÉiÉrÉÉpÉYirÉÉ.

It may be recalled in this connection that sage Narada defines pÉÌ£ü as xÉÉiuÉÎxqÉlÉç mÉUqÉ
mÉëåqÉxuÉÃmÉÉ i.e., this pÉÌ£ü is of the nature of Supreme love. If one goes deeply into the
psychological considerations involved, one has to recognise that the love that any individual
bears to any entity other than himself is because of the fact that it would subserve one’s own
interests in some manner. This is what the sage Yājňavalkya points out in the instruction given
by him to Maitreyi which concludes by the summary statement lÉ uÉÉÅÅUå xÉuÉïxrÉ MüÉqÉÉrÉ xÉuÉïÇ ÌmÉërÉÇ
pÉuÉÌiÉ, AÉiqÉlÉxiÉÑ MüÉqÉÉrÉ xÉuÉïÇ ÌmÉërÉÇ pÉuÉÌiÉ. This supreme love never wanes in any situation and is not
inconstant. We see therefore that if God the abode of all excellences is to be the object of
supreme love, necessarily he has to be non-different from one’s own real self. It is futile to talk
of supreme love being directed to an object other than oneself which alone can claim to be
mÉUqÉmÉëåqÉÉxmÉS.
 It is thus clear that the supreme love or mÉUÉpÉÌ£ü is the same as AZÉÇQûÉMüÉU uÉ×̨ɥÉÉlÉ alluded
to previously. That the ¥ÉÉÌlÉ in the Vedāntic sense is ipso facto the mÉUqÉpÉ£ü is borne out by the
sɤÉhÉÉ’s of the mÉUqÉpÉ£ü viz. A²å¹É xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÉlÉÉÇ etc. given in the Gītā which are essentially the same
as the sɤÉhÉÉ’s of ÎxjÉiÉmÉë¥É, aÉÑhÉÉiÉÏiÉ, ÌuɲixÉÇlrÉÉxÉÏ etc. Also, the statements of Śri Bhagavān in the
Gīta (VII, 17) viz.

iÉåwÉÉÇ ¥ÉÉlÉÏ ÌlÉirÉrÉÑ£üÈ LMüpÉÌ£üÌuÉïÍzÉwrÉiÉå |

ÌmÉërÉÉå ÌWû ¥ÉÉÌlÉlÉÉåirÉjÉïqÉWÇû xÉ cÉ qÉqÉ ÌmÉërÉÈ ||
and ¥ÉÉlÉÏiuÉÉiqÉæuÉ qÉå qÉiÉÇ may be remembered. Commenting on the word pÉÌ£üqÉÉlÉç occuring in
connection with the characteristics of pÉ£ü referred to above, Śri Śankarānanda Saraswati Says,
pÉÌ£üqÉÉlÉç –

LMüÉliÉpÉÌ£üaÉÉåïÌuÉlSå rÉixÉuÉï§É iÉSϤÉhÉqÉç |

AWæûiÉÑYrÉurÉuÉÌWûiÉÉ rÉÉ pÉÌ£üÈ mÉÑÂwÉÉå¨ÉqÉå ||
sɤÉhÉÇ pÉÌ£ürÉÉåaÉxrÉ ÌlÉaÉÑïhÉxrÉ ESÉWØûiÉqÉç ||

AxrÉ AjÉïÈ – AWæûiÉÑMüÐ ÌlÉÍqɨÉUÌWûiÉÉ ÌuÉmÉUÏiÉmÉëirÉrÉÌlÉuÉרrÉÉÌS-mÉërÉÉåeÉlÉuÉÎeÉïiÉÉ, oÉë¼ÌuÉSÉÇ xuÉpÉÉuÉÍxÉ®É cÉ,

AurÉuÉÌWûiÉÉ AÌuÉÎcNû³ÉÉ cÉ uÉ×irÉliÉUuÉÎeÉïiÉÉ mÉÑÂwÉÉå¨ÉqÉå mÉëirÉaÉÍpɳÉå mÉUqÉÉiqÉÌlÉ rÉÉ pÉÌ£üÈ AZÉÇQûÉMüÉUuÉ×̨ÉÈ iÉSåuÉ
ÌlÉaÉÑïhÉxrÉ ÌlÉaÉÑïhÉÌuÉwÉrÉxrÉ pÉÌ£ürÉÉåaÉxrÉ pÉ£åüsÉï¤ÉhÉÇ xuÉÃmÉÇ qÉWûΰÂSÉWØûiÉÇ E£üÍqÉirÉjÉïÈ | ÌlÉ£üsɤÉhÉÉqÉÑZrÉÉ
pÉÌ£üUxrÉÉxiÉÏÌiÉ pÉÌ£üqÉÉlÉç oÉë¼ÌlɸÉå rÉÉå lÉUÈ oÉë¼ÌuɱÌiÉÈ xÉ qÉå ÌmÉërÉÈ |

Again in the Gītā ślōka (XV, 19)

rÉÉå qÉÉqÉåuÉqÉxÉqqÉÔRûÉå eÉÉlÉÉÌiÉ mÉÑÂwÉÉå¨ÉqÉqÉç |

xÉ xÉuÉïÌuÉ°eÉÌiÉ qÉÉÇ xÉuÉïpÉÉuÉålÉ pÉÉUiÉ ||

Wherein, as Śri Madhusudana Saraswati tells us xÉuÉïpÉÉuÉålÉ means mÉëåqÉsɤÉhÉålÉ pÉÌ£ü rÉÉåaÉålÉ and as
the commentary of Nīlakanţha lÉÏsÉMühPûÏûurÉÉZrÉÉ tells us, xÉuÉïpÉÉuÉålÉ is to be understood as xÉuÉÉïiqÉlÉÉ
i.e. xÉuÉåïÈ mÉëMüÉUæpÉïeÉÌiÉ, points out that it is the AmÉUÉå¤É¥ÉÉlÉÏ who is the Bhakta in every sense of it.
The characteristics of Bhakta or not being realised but revealed by him in that state. ----?
Surēśvaracharayapadah tells us –

EimɳÉÉiqÉmÉëoÉÉåkÉxrÉ iuɲå¹ØiuÉÉSrÉÉå aÉÑhÉÉÈ |

ArɦÉiÉÉå pÉuÉlirÉxrÉ lÉ iÉÑ xÉÉkÉlÉÃÌmÉhÉÈ ||
 Thus it is evident that AZÉÇQûÉMüÉUuÉ×̨ɥÉÉlÉ is the same as mÉUÉpÉÌ£ü. Śri Nilakanţha Dikshitar
beautifully says in the verse –
AÉiqÉÉ xÉqÉxiÉeÉaÉiÉÉÇ pÉuÉiÉÏÌiÉ xÉqrÉ-
ÎauÉ¥ÉÉrÉ rÉ̲iÉlÉÑiÉå iuÉÌrÉpÉÉuÉoÉlkÉqÉç |
xÉÉ pÉÌ£üËUirÉÍpÉqÉiÉÇ rÉÌS ÍxÉ®ÍqɹqÉç
urÉjÉïÇ ÌuÉzÉåwrÉqÉxiÉÑ ÌuÉzÉåwÉhÉÇ lÉÈ ||

It is also seen from the literature on the subject that people well known as eÉÏuÉlqÉÑ£ü’s are
also well known mÉUqÉpÉ£ü’s. Sri Śankarabhagavatpadacharya stands loftiest and unparalleled in
the field of Bhakti as well. The great stalwarts in A²æiÉ like qÉkÉÑxÉÔSlÉxÉUxuÉÌiÉ, the author of
A²æiÉÍxÉή as also pÉaÉuÉ°Ì£üUxÉÉrÉlÉ the well known eÉÏuÉlqÉÑ£ü and rÉÉåÌaÉUÉOèû ´ÉÏ xÉSÉÍzÉuÉoÉë¼ålSìrÉÌiÉ
whose songs revel in praise of Bhagavān and the great saints in our Jagadguruparamparā
adorning the Śringeri Pīţha also wll known for their works in xiÉÉå§É literature like pÉÌ£üxÉÑkÉÉiÉUçÇÌaÉhÉÏ,
xiÉÉå§ÉÉÍhÉ etc. confirm that the distinction often sought to be made between eÉÏuÉlqÉÑÌ£ü and
mÉUqÉpÉÌ£ü turns out to be a distinction without a difference. It may also be recalled that sage
uÉÍxɸ the greatest of luminaries in the galaxy of oÉë¼ÌwÉïs and who occupies the position next to
that of ÌWûUhrÉaÉpÉï in our Guruparamparā is spoken of as having been an ardent Bhakta as well,
who hastened along with other Riśis to meet Śri Rāmachandra on his return from exile at the
outskirts of Ayōdhya.

AÉiqÉÉUÉqÉÉ¶É qÉÑlÉrÉÈ ÌlÉaÉëïljÉÉ AmrÉÑ¢üqÉå |

MÑüuÉïlirÉWæûiÉÑMüÐÇ pÉÌ£üÍqÉijÉÇpÉÔiÉaÉÑhÉÉå WûËUÈ ||

Thus pÉÌ£ü and ¥ÉÉlÉ in ultimate sense i.e. in the ÌlÉÌuÉïMüsmÉMüÉlÉÑpÉuÉ pertaining to the
AZÉÇQûÉMüÉU uÉ×Ì¨É are one and the same. Depending upon what is sought to be emphasized i.e.,
A¥ÉÉlÉlÉÉzÉ or iÉimÉUiÉÉ in the AZÉÇQûÉMüÉUuÉ×Ì¨É the term ¥ÉÉlÉ or pÉÌ£ü is employed respectively. The
apparent differences that are associated with the two concepts of pÉÌ£ü and ¥ÉÉlÉ are because of
the manifestations of this AlÉÑpÉuÉ appearing different in association with the intellectual or
emotional aspect of the mind. Which of them predominates depends upon the mÉëÉUokÉMüqÉï of the
individual concerned.

In the lÉÉUSpÉÌ£üxÉÔ§És the xÉ賈 – “AqÉ×iÉxuÉÃmÉÉ cÉ” would be meaningless if pÉÌ£ü is regarded
as different from eÉÏuÉlqÉÑÌ£ü. Again, mÉë¿ûÉS the prince of devottes - pÉ£üÉaÉëåxÉU to whom the verse –
 rÉÉ mÉëÏÌiÉUÌuÉuÉåMüÉlÉÉÇ ÌuÉwÉrÉåwuÉlÉmÉÉÌrÉlÉÏ |
iuÉÉqÉlÉÑxqÉUiÉxxÉÉ qÉå WØûSrÉÉlqÉÉÅxÉmÉïiÉÑ ||
is ascribed, is also reported to have exclaimed giving vent to his A²æiÉÉlÉÑpÉuÉ as –

AWÇû iuÉÇ iuÉqÉWÇû SåuÉ ÌSwšÉ pÉåSÉåÎxiÉ lÉÉÅluÉrÉÉåÈ |

ÌSwšÉ qɨÉÉqÉÍxÉ mÉëÉmiÉÉå ÌSwšÉ iuɨÉÉqÉWÇû aÉiÉÈ ||

iÉÑprÉÇ qɽqÉlÉliÉÉrÉ qÉ½Ç iÉÑprÉÇ ÍzÉuÉÉiqÉlÉå |

lÉqÉÉå SåuÉÉÌSSåuÉÉrÉ mÉUÉrÉ mÉUqÉÉiqÉlÉå || -----------?

It is often said that the pÉ£ü desires to “taste” sugar but not be sugar itself. This is a
pointless view. As long as the Bhakta does not make the “sugar” a part and parcel of his being
he cannot have the intended UxÉÉxuÉÉS. In other words, the two must actually merge into one
another. But in the SعÉÇiÉ it is readily seen that if this union is brought about by Karma for
example it can never be enduring. So then the only way out is to recognise the Vedāntic
standpoint that in substance the two are essentially the same, but imagined erroneously to be
otherwise. When this illusion is dispelled by ¥ÉÉlÉ the resulting infinite AÉlÉlSÉlÉÑpÉuÉ ensues. If this
AlÉÑpÉuÉ is said to arise because of getting unified with Brahman the AÉlÉlSxuÉÃmÉ i.e., by the
iÉimÉUiÉÉ then it is said to be the result of pÉÌ£ü. But if it is regarded as the spontaneous expression
of the AÉlÉlS or the UxÉxuÉÃmÉ consequent on the destruction of A¥ÉÉlÉ by the AZÉÇQûÉMüÉUuÉ×Ì¨É it is
said to arise as a result of ¥ÉÉlÉ. Essentially these are two aspects from the standpoint of
parlance, of one and the same process. Emphasizing on the one aspect or the other, one is
spoken of as the cause of the other. This is how all apparent difference from the standpoint of
parlance, that are sought to be emphasized in distinguishing pÉÌ£ü from ¥ÉÉlÉ must be
understood. The differences appear because of the EmÉÉÍkÉ’s, sometimes stress being laid on the
xuÉrÉÇmÉëMüÉzÉiuÉ or the xTÑüUhÉ aspect of Brahman-Ātman and at other times on the AÉlÉlS or the
bliss aspect of the same. Depending upon the moods and other circumstances of the same
individual, one of these may be more manifest than the other. For example, when the
underlying unity, particularly in its AÉlÉlS aspect is manifest, the term pÉÌ£ü is used and
described as being synthetic in nature. When the same AÉiqÉlÉç is regarded as having been
extracted from the lÉÉlÉÉiuÉ or the multifarious aspects of the universe qÉÑgÉÉÌSwÉÏMüÉÍqÉÌuÉSØzrÉuÉaÉÉïiÉç
the word ¥ÉÉlÉ is used and the approach is said to be analytical in character. We see that these
are two different aspects of the same process and one cannot be without the other. Similarly it
might be seen that all other difference that are sometimes pointed out may be traced not to
the “content” signified by either of the terms ¥ÉÉlÉ or pÉÌ£ü but to the EmÉÉÍkÉ’s in association
with which there is a manifestation of the xuÉÃmÉÉlÉlSÉlÉÑpÉuÉ or the UxÉÉlÉÑpÉuÉ.

Again the argument that is sometimes advanced that for pÉÌ£üpÉÉuÉÉs to arise and become
fruitful, God must be regarded essentially as a person, lacks substance, since, attachment,
delight, fervour and similar other characteristics are in evidence in person devoted to
intellectual pursuits, abstract ideas etc. One other thing may also be pointed out. If it is insisted
that the object of devotion viz. God should only be a personal God different from the devotee,
there arises the contingency of that God becoming eÉQû as is beautifully expressed in the verse –

ÍzÉuÉ CirÉWûÍqÉirÉÑpÉÉæ lÉ ÍpɳÉÉæ ÍzÉuÉ LuÉÉWÇû AWÇû ÍzÉuÉxxÉ LuÉ |

rÉÌS lÉæuÉqÉlÉÉiqÉiÉÉ ÍzÉuÉxrÉ mÉëxÉUåSmrÉÍzÉuÉiuÉqÉÉiqÉlÉÉåÌmÉ ||
Thus such a situation would mean disaster for oneself as also AmÉcÉÉU towards Bhagavān,
which is the very opposite of what is intended.

From what has been said it is clear that the same situation is differently expressed
depending upon whether the emotional or the intellectual aspect is emphasized. On the
surface, however, they appear different and that is why in parlance ¥ÉÉlÉqÉÉaÉï and pÉÌ£üqÉÉaÉï are
spoken of as being different. In support of this, Bhagavān’s statement in Gīta.

iÉåwÉÉqÉWÇû xÉqÉÑ®iÉÉï qÉ×irÉÑxÉÇxÉÉUxÉÉaÉUÉiÉç |

pÉuÉÉÍqÉ lÉ ÍcÉUÉiÉç mÉÉjÉï qÉrrÉÉuÉåÍzÉiÉcÉåiÉxÉÉqÉç ||
is often quoted. It must however be remembered, the manner in which pÉaÉuÉÉlÉç operates
is given in His own words in the Gīta –

qÉΊ¨ÉÉ qɪiÉmÉëÉhÉÉ oÉÉåkÉrÉliÉÈ mÉUxmÉUqÉç |

MüjÉrÉÇiÉ¶É qÉÉÇ ÌlÉirÉÇ iÉÑwrÉÇÌiÉ cÉ UqÉÎliÉ cÉ ||

iÉåwÉÉÇ xÉiÉiÉrÉÑ£üÉlÉÉÇ pÉeÉiÉÉÇ mÉëÏÌiÉmÉÔuÉïMüqÉç |

SSÉÍqÉ oÉÑήrÉÉåaÉÇ iÉÇ rÉålÉ qÉÉqÉÑmÉrÉÉÎliÉ iÉå ||

iÉåwÉÉqÉåuÉÉlÉÑMüqmÉÉjÉïÇ AWûqÉ¥ÉÉlÉeÉÇ iÉqÉÈ |

lÉÉzÉrÉÉqrÉÉiqÉpÉÉuÉxjÉÉå ¥ÉÉlÉSÏmÉålÉ pÉÉxuÉiÉÉ ||
In other words pÉaÉuÉÉlÉç grants AZÉÇQûÉMüÉUuÉ×̨ɥÉÉlÉ to the pÉ£ü and thereby secures his release
which again points to the fact that AZÉÇQûÉMüÉUuÉ×̨ɥÉÉlÉ is itself the culmination of pÉÌ£ü.
Sometimes it is pointed out that in this qÉÉaÉï, pÉaÉuÉÉlÉç, in His infinite mercy takes hundred steps
towards the devotee before the latter takes one step towards Him. In substance, the same idea
is put in other words by Śri Surēśvarāchāryapādah in the ślōka –

rÉÉuɱÉuÉͳÉUxrÉÉrÉÇ SåWûÉSÏlmÉëirÉaÉgcÉÌiÉ |
iÉÉuɨÉuÉ iÉSjÉÉåïÅÌmÉ iuÉqÉjÉïÇ mÉëÌuÉÌuɤÉÌiÉ ||
Thus what the so-called various schools of Bhakti ‘emphasize’ each in tune with the
metaphysical set-up, is accomodated in entirety by dotting the ‘i’s and dashing the ‘t’s in each
of them, appropriately, in the Vedāntic scheme. The differences are traced to AÍkÉMüÉUpÉåS of the
individuals in respect of their intellectual and emotional equipment. AÌuÉuÉÉS and AÌuÉUÉåkÉ which
are characteristic of the Vedāntic set-up are again in evidence here as elsewhere.

Aƒ¡ûÉåsÉÇ ÌlÉeÉoÉÏeÉxÉÇiÉÌiÉUrÉxMüÉliÉÉåmÉsÉÇ xÉÔÍcÉMüÉ |

xÉÉkuÉÏ lÉæeÉÌuÉpÉÑÇ sÉiÉÉ Í¤ÉÌiÉÂWÇû ÍxÉlkÉÑÈ xÉËU²ssÉpÉqÉç ||
mÉëÉmlÉÉåiÉÏWû rÉjÉÉ iÉjÉÉ mÉzÉÑmÉiÉåÈ mÉÉSÉUÌuÉlS²rÉqÉç |
cÉåiÉÉåuÉ×̨ÉÃmÉåirÉ ÌiɸÌiÉ xÉSÉ xÉÉ pÉÌ£üËUirÉÑcrÉiÉå ||

The first example herein tells us that just as the seeds of the Ankōla tree which fall on
the ground around it by themselves seek the source, the qÉÑqÉѤÉÑ seeks to attain liberation by
firmly and lovingly taking refuge in the source viz. mÉUqÉÉiqÉlÉç. The second example which is that of
a magnet itself drawing the needle towards it after making the same a magnet, illustrates the
case of pÉaÉuÉÉlÉç Himself taking the initiative and clasping to Himself the devotee who has
surrendered solely at His feet. The first of these gives expression to the qÉMïüOûÌMüzÉÉåUlrÉÉrÉ and the
latter to the qÉÉeÉÉïsÉÌMüzÉÉåUlrÉÉrÉ. These two methods are referred to in the ´ÉÑÌiÉ “rÉqÉåuÉæwÉ uÉ×hÉÑiÉå iÉålÉ
sÉprÉÈ” interpreted in the pÉÉwrÉ in two different ways. Incidentally it may be mentioned that
complete surrender which would mean writing oneself off in urÉuÉWûÉU i.e., completely erasing
oneself as far as the world is concerned, is possible ony in the uÉåSÉliÉ sense and not in any other
system in which the modicum at least of the individual’s personality is in some sense sought to
be retained. Again the first three examples in the ślōka, illustrative of surrender to pÉaÉuÉÉlÉç on
the part of the devotee, bespeak of the ‘SÉxrÉpÉÉuÉ’. It may be mentioned in passing that this also
would end up in the realisation of identity as put in the following scintillating verse –
 SÉxÉÉåÅWûÍqÉÌiÉ rÉÉ oÉÑÎ®È mÉUqÉÉiqÉlrÉlÉÉqÉrÉå |
SÉMüÉUÉåÅmÉWØûiÉxiÉålÉ aÉÉåmÉÏuÉx§ÉÉmÉWûÉËUhÉÉ ||

The xÉZrÉ and the AÉiqÉÌlÉuÉåSlÉpÉÉuÉ mentioned in the ślōka which speaks of lÉuÉÌuÉkÉpÉÌ£ü viz.

´ÉuÉhÉÇ MüÐiÉïlÉÇ ÌuÉwhÉÉåÈ xqÉUhÉÇ mÉÉSxÉåuÉlÉqÉç |

AcÉïlÉÇ uÉlSlÉÇ SÉxrÉÇ xÉZrÉqÉÉiqÉÌlÉuÉåSlÉqÉç ||
have been illustrated by the examples of sÉiÉÉ and ÍxÉlkÉÑ.

Surrender to the supreme or pÉaÉuÉŠUhÉiuÉÇ has been expounded by Śri Madhusūdana

Saraswati in the following manner.

iÉxrÉæuÉÉWÇû qÉqÉæuÉÉxÉÉæ xÉLuÉÉWûÍqÉÌiÉ Ì§ÉkÉÉ |

pÉaÉuÉcNûUhÉiuÉÇ xrÉÉiÉç xÉÉkÉlÉÉprÉÉxÉmÉÉMüiÉÈ ||

The first of these viz. ‘iÉxrÉæuÉÉWÇû’ tells us that the pÉ£ü feels that he is a servant, nay a
slave of the Supreme Lord only and none else. The Lord alone is his Master. This implies
abandonment by the pÉ£ü of any thought whatsoever in respect of his own rÉÉåaɤÉåqÉ. This is
experessed in the ślōka –

xÉirÉÌmÉ pÉåSÉmÉaÉqÉålÉÉjÉ iÉuÉÉÅWÇû lÉ qÉÉqÉMüÉåãlÉxiuÉqÉç |

xÉÉqÉÑSìÉåÌWû iÉU…¡ûÈ YuÉcÉlÉxÉqÉÑSìÉå lÉ iÉÉU…¡ûÈ ||

The second one viz. ‘qÉqÉæuÉÉxÉÉæ’ brings home to us the pÉÉuÉ that in his intensity of love to
his Master the pÉ£ü feels that serving the Master is his sole monopoly, nay, he even feels that
none else exists other than the Master and himself. The ślōka bringing home to us this feeling is
–
WûxiÉqÉÑÎi¤ÉmrÉ rÉÉiÉÉåÅÍxÉ oÉsÉÉiM×üwhÉ ÌMüqÉ°ÒiÉqÉç |
WØûSrÉɱÌS ÌlÉrÉÉïÍxÉ mÉÉæÂwÉÇ aÉhÉrÉÉÍqÉ iÉå ||

In the third viz. xÉÉåWÇûpÉÉuÉ even the semblance of the duality pÉåS implied in the
xÉåurÉxÉåuÉMüpÉÉuÉ vanishes and the love culminates in the feeling of identity with the Master. The
ślōka revealing this pÉÉuÉ is –
 xÉMüsÉÍqÉSqÉWÇû cÉ uÉÉxÉÑSåuÉÈ
mÉUqÉmÉÑqÉÉlÉç mÉUqÉåµÉUÈ xÉ LMüÈ |
CÌiÉ qÉÌiÉUcÉsÉÉ pÉuÉirÉlÉliÉå
WØûSrÉaÉiÉå uÉëeÉ iÉÉÎluÉWûÉrÉSÕUÉiÉç || CÌiÉ SÕiÉÇ mÉëÌiÉ rÉqÉuÉcÉlÉÇ |

This tells us that such a pÉ£ü escapes the clutches of death. i.e., has attained AqÉ×iÉiuÉ. But
it is well-known that AqÉ×iÉiuÉ is the TüsÉ of AZÉÇQûÉMüÉU¥ÉÉlÉ as is evident from the uÉÉYrÉ’ ¥ÉÉlÉÉSåuÉiÉÑ
MæüuÉsrÉqÉç, iÉqÉåuÉ ÌuɲÉlÉç AqÉ×iÉ CWû pÉuÉÌiÉ, lÉÉlirÉÈmÉljÉÉÌuɱiÉåÅrÉlÉÉrÉ. In other words, this mÉUÉpÉÌ£ü is the
same as AZÉÇQûÉMüÉU¥ÉÉlÉ.

Deeper consideration reveals that there is an undercurrent of the xÉÉåÅWÇûpÉÉuÉ even when
the other two pÉÉuÉ’s predominate. This is because mÉUqÉmÉëåqÉÉxmÉSiuÉ is always in one’s own AÉiqÉlÉç. In
tune with this it is pointed out in the EmÉÉxÉlÉÉqÉÉaÉï that the EmÉÉxrÉ must be meditated upon as
one’s own self. ‘iuÉÇ uÉÉÅWûqÉÎxqÉ pÉaÉuÉÉå SåuÉiÉå, AWÇû uÉæ iuÉqÉÍxÉ”. The EmÉÉxÉMüÉ is said to be an ignorant
mÉzÉÑ if he does it otherwise. “rÉÉå AlrÉÉÇ SåuÉiÉÉ EmÉÉxiÉå AlrÉÉåÅxÉÉuÉlrÉÉåÅWûqÉxqÉÏÌiÉ lÉ xÉuÉåS rÉjÉÉ mÉzÉÑUåuÉ
SåuÉÉlÉÉÇ”. The Gīta ślōkas –

oÉë¼pÉÔiÉÈ mÉëxɳÉÉiqÉÉ lÉ zÉÉåcÉÌiÉ lÉ MüÉXç¤ÉÌiÉ |

xÉqÉÈ xÉuÉåïwÉÑ pÉÔiÉåwÉÑ qÉ°Ì£Çü sÉpÉiÉå mÉUÉqÉç ||
pÉYirÉÉ qÉÉqÉÍpÉeÉÉlÉÉÌiÉ rÉÉuÉÉlrɶÉÉÎxqÉ iɨuÉiÉÈ |
iÉiÉÉå qÉÉÇ iɨuÉiÉÉå ¥ÉÉiuÉÉ ÌuÉzÉiÉå iÉSlÉliÉUqÉç ||

and the pÉÉwrÉ there on –

xÉårÉÇ ¥ÉÉlÉÌlÉ¸É AÉiÉÉïÌSpÉÌ£ü§ÉrÉÉmÉå¤ÉrÉÉ mÉUÉ cÉiÉÑjÉÏï pÉÌ£ü CirÉÑ£üÉ | iÉjÉÉ mÉUrÉÉ pÉYirÉÉ pÉaÉuÉliÉÇ iɨuÉiÉÈ
AÍpÉeÉÉlÉÎliÉ | rÉSlÉliÉUqÉåuÉ DµÉU¤Éå§É¥ÉpÉåSoÉÑÎ®È AzÉåwÉiÉÉå ÌlÉuÉiÉïiÉå | ..... mÉëirÉaÉÉiqÉÌuÉwÉrÉ mÉëirÉrÉ
xÉliÉÉlÉMüUhÉÉÍpÉÌlÉuÉåzÉ¶É ¥ÉÉlÉÌlÉ¸É |
make it clear that the mÉUÉpÉÌ£ü or ¥ÉÉlÉÌlÉ¸É which is none other than AlÉÑxÉÇkÉÉlÉ or
ÌlÉÌSkrÉÉxÉlÉ which culminates in xÉɤÉÉiMüÉU leads to qÉÉå¤É. That is why the ÌuÉuÉåMücÉÔQûÉqÉÍhÉ tells us –

qÉÉå¤ÉxÉÉkÉlÉxÉÉqÉaêrÉÉÇ pÉÌ£üUåuÉ aÉUÏrÉxÉÏ |

xuÉxuÉÃmÉÉlÉÑxÉÇkÉÉlÉÇ pÉÌ£üËUirÉÍpÉkÉÏrÉiÉå ||
 It will be seen that the AÍpÉÌlÉuÉåzÉ or fÉÉlÉÌlÉ¸É spoken of in the pÉÉwrÉ which is the same as
iÉimÉUiÉÉ is natural and spontaneous in eÉÏuÉlqÉÑÌ£ü state. This, however, which is none other than
mÉUqÉmÉëåqÉ, or AZÉçÇQûÉMüÉUuÉ×̨É, though natural, is lying dormant in every xÉÉkÉMü.

AÉiqÉÉÅlÉÉiqÉÉMüÉUÇ xuÉpÉÉuÉiÉÉåÅuÉÎxjÉiÉÇ xÉSÉ ÍcɨÉqÉç |

AÉiqÉæMüÉMüÉUiÉrÉÉ ÌiÉUxM×üiÉÉÅlÉÉiqÉSØÌ¹È ÌuÉSkÉÏiÉ ||

This is in the process of being manifested in the ÌlÉÌSkrÉÉxÉlÉ stage. This is in accordance
with the well-known dictum in AkrÉÉiqÉzÉÉx§É.

xÉuÉï§ÉæuÉÌWû AkrÉÉiqÉzÉÉx§Éå M×üiÉÉjÉïsɤÉhÉÉÌlÉ rÉÉÌlÉ

iÉÉlrÉåuÉ xÉÉkÉlÉÉlrÉÑcrÉliÉå, rɦÉxÉÉkrÉiuÉÉiÉç |

This is also in accordance with the underlying principle iÉi¢üiÉÑlrÉÉrÉ , that in the case of
AWÇûaÉëWûÉåmÉÉxÉlÉ the EmÉÉxÉMü seeks to attain the xuÉÃmÉ of the EmÉÉxrÉ . As has already been
mentioned this mÉUÉpÉÌ£ü which is xÉÉkrÉpÉÌ£ü is the TüsÉ or fruit of xÉÉkÉlÉpÉÌ£ü . However, even for
the slender beginnings to be made the xÉÉkÉMü must be captivated by the beauty of what he is
seeking to attain, as the uÉÉÌiÉïMüxÉÉU tells us –

uÉÉYrÉɲåSlÉxÉÉælSrÉïoÉÉåkÉÉ̲ÌuÉÌSwÉÉeÉÌlÉÈ|
rɱmrÉjÉÉiqÉoÉÉåkÉå xÉqmÉÉ±É MüqÉïhÉÉÂÍcÉÈ ||
SÒakÉå ÌmɨÉuÉiÉÉåÅxiÉÏcNûÉ ÂÍcÉlÉÉïÎxiÉ iÉiÉÉåÅlÉrÉÉåÈ ||
ÂcÉÏcNûrÉÉåqÉïWûÉlpÉåSÉå ÂÍcÉÌuÉïÌuÉÌSwÉÉÅ§É ÌWû |
qÉWûÉmÉÉmÉuÉiÉÉÇ lÉÚhÉÉÇ ¥ÉÉlÉrÉ¥ÉÉå lÉ UÉåcÉiÉå ||
CÌiÉ mÉÉæUÉÍhÉMüÉÈ mÉëÉWÒûÈ mÉÑhrÉxÉÉ±É iÉiÉÉå ÂÍcÉÈ |
ÂÍcɲÉUÉåmÉMÑüuÉïÎliÉ MüqÉÉïhrÉÉiqÉÌuÉqÉÑ£ürÉå ||

Thus, initially, the MüqÉïrÉÉåaÉ in its twin aspect, TüsÉirÉÉaÉ and xÉ…¡ûirÉÉaÉ is seen to be of vital
importance. As is laid down at considerable length in the Gīta the zÉÉx§ÉÌuÉÌWûiÉMüqÉÉï’s are to be
done in the spirit of dedication to the Lord –

xuÉMüqÉïhÉÉ iÉqÉprÉcrÉï ÍxÉ먂 ÌuÉlSÌiÉ qÉÉlÉuÉÈ|

 All this and much more is signified by the stage of pÉÌ£ü corresponding to iÉxrÉæuÉÉWÇû.
Anything opposed to this should be shunned. As the great Āchārya points out – “lÉÌWû uÉUbÉÉiÉÉrÉ
MülrÉÉqÉѲÉWûrÉÎliÉ”. It must however, be remembered that at every stage of the xÉÉkÉlÉÉ what is laid
down by the zÉÉx§ÉÉ ‘s is in accordance with the recognition of the situation that mÉUqÉmÉëåqÉ or the
AZÉÇQûÉMüÉUuÉ×Ì¨É is fundamentally there although unmanifest and all xÉÉkÉlÉÉ is only to attain the
state in which it becomes manifest. The Śivānandalahari says –

MüÎgcÉiMüÉsÉqÉÑqÉÉqÉWåûzÉ pÉuÉiÉÈ mÉÉSÉUÌuÉlSÉcÉïlÉæÈ |

MüÎgcÉkrÉÉlÉxÉqÉÉÍkÉÍpÉ¶É lÉÌiÉÍpÉÈ MüÎgcÉiMüjÉÉMühÉïlÉæÈ ||
MüÎgcÉiMüÎgcÉSuÉå¤ÉhÉÉC¶ÉlÉÑÌiÉÍpÉÈ MüÎgcɬzÉÉqÉÏSØzÉÏÇ |
rÉÈ mÉëÉmlÉÉåÌiÉ qÉÑSÉ iuÉSÌmÉïiÉqÉlÉÉ eÉÏuÉlxÉqÉÑ£üÈ ZÉsÉÑ ||

The great Sri Śankarabhagavatpadacharyah in His infinite mercy has shown to the
xÉÉkÉMüÉ’s the easiest path of spiritual practice for attaining the goal, in the ślōka -

eÉlqÉÉlÉåMüzÉiÉæÈ xÉSÉSUrÉÑeÉÉ pÉYirÉÉ xÉqÉÉUÉÍkÉiÉÈ|

pÉ£æüuÉæïÌSMüsɤÉhÉålÉ ÌuÉÍkÉlÉÉ xÉliÉѹ DzÉÈ xuÉrÉqÉç ||
xÉɤÉÉiÉç ´ÉÏaÉÑÂÃmÉqÉåirÉ M×ümÉrÉÉ SØaaÉÉåcÉUxxÉlÉç mÉëpÉÑÈ |
iɨuÉÇ xÉÉkÉÑÌuÉzÉÉåkrÉ iÉÉUrÉÌiÉ iÉÉlÉç xÉÇxÉÉUSÒÈZÉÉhÉïuÉÉiÉç ||

The great Lord in his abundant mercy takes the easily accessible form of the Guru who
leads the xÉÉkÉMü step by step to the final deliverance. It follows that mÉUÉpÉÌ£ü towards DµÉU is the
same as mÉUÉpÉÌ£ü towards the Guru. In fact, the ´ÉÑÌiÉ says –

rÉxrÉ SåuÉå mÉUÉpÉÌ£üÈ rÉjÉÉ SåuÉå iÉjÉÉ aÉÑUÉæ |

iÉxrÉæiÉå(Å)MüÍjÉiÉɽjÉÉï mÉëMüÉzÉliÉå qÉWûÉiqÉlÉÈ ||

Before concluding, I must take this opportunity of expressing my deep sense of

gratitude and indebtedness to Panditaratnam, Panditarāja, Vidwān Ved. Br. Śri Jagadguru
Mahāsannidhānam and Śri Śri Jagadguru Sannidhānam of Śri Śringeri Śaradāpeetha. I offer my
most humber prostrations again and again at the Holy Feet of the Divine Guru.

xqÉÉUÇ xqÉÉUÇ eÉÌlÉqÉ×ÌiÉpÉrÉÇ eÉÉiÉ ÌlÉuÉåïS uÉ×̨ÉÈ

krÉÉrÉÇ krÉÉrÉçÇ mÉzÉÑmÉÌiÉqÉÑqÉÉMüÉÇiÉqÉliÉÌlÉïwÉhhÉqÉç |
mÉÉrÉÇ mÉÉrÉÇ xÉmÉÌiÉ mÉUqÉÉlÉlS mÉÏrÉÔwÉkÉÉUÉÇ
pÉÔrÉÉå pÉÔrÉÉå ÌlÉeÉaÉÑÂmÉSÉqpÉÉåeÉrÉÑaqÉÇ lÉqÉÉÍqÉ ||
NÇûSÈzÉÉÎZÉÍzÉZÉÉÎluÉiÉæ̲ïeÉuÉUæÈ xÉÇxÉåÌuÉiÉå zÉɵÉiÉå |
xÉÉæZrÉÉmÉÉÌSÌlÉ ZÉåSpÉãÌSÌlÉ xÉÑkÉÉxÉÉUæÈ TüsÉæSÏïÌmÉiÉå ||
cÉåiÉÈ mÉͤÉÍzÉZÉÉqÉhÉå rÉeÉ uÉ×jÉÉ xÉÇcÉÉUqÉlrÉæUsÉqÉç |
ÌlÉirÉÇ zÉÇMüUmÉÉSmÉ©rÉÑaÉsÉÏlÉÏQãû ÌuÉWûÉUÇ MÑü ||

|| ´ÉÏxɪÒÂcÉUhÉÉUÌuÉlSÉmÉïhÉqÉxiÉÑ ||