Para bhakti and Jivanmukti
Today Swami discussed part of the 12th chapter, Bhakti Yoga. Here, there were a few questions by the brahmacaris. One asked, ‘what is the difference between para bhakti (supreme devotion) and jivanmukti (liberation while alive)? Because once para bhakti is attained, ignorance should be destroyed, isn’t that the same as jivanmukti?’
To this, Swami replied that we should understand that these are two separate things. The idea of ‘jivanmukti’ is only spoken of in the scriptures of Advaita. The idea of ‘para bhakti’ is something said in the scriptures of bhakti (bhakti shastra). We shouldn’t mix these two up. Jivanmukti is never mentioned in bhakti shastras. There, they only accept that the devotee attains ‘sayujyam,’ or oneness with the Lord after the destruction of the body. For that also, there are different progressions, such as ‘saloka, sarupya,’ etc.
In Advaita, it speaks about jivanmukti, but there are even differences of opinion there. Some say that mukti is only possible with the end of the body, while others say that the state reached by the Jnani while alive is mukti. Therefore, it isn’t possible to compare these two things. These are separate, for two kinds of sadhana.
Then the subject turned to whether a Jnani has omniscience, or ‘sarvajnata.’ To this, Swami said that such a thing is not possible for one in a human body. The word ‘all-knowing’ is used in reference to Jnanis like Shankara, but the meaning comes from the Upanishad statement, ‘sarvam khalvidam brahma’ – ‘all this is indeed Brahman.’ One who sees Brahman in all is ‘sarvajna,’ or ‘all-knowing.’ Otherwise, this never refers to having all material knowledge, or ‘sarva vishaya jnana.’
Then a brahmacarini raised a doubt; ‘what about the Upanishad statement, ‘that by which having known, all becomes known’? To this, Swami asked if they had read the context of where that is said in Chandogya Upanishad. Everyone was silent. Swami said that the context clearly shows the same meaning, as it gives examples of seeing clay in all forms of pots, and of seeing gold in all kinds of jewelry. The meaning is that once one knows that there is clay, or mud in all the different forms of pottery, one has known all of those different forms, and the same with the ornaments of gold. Similarly, one who knows Brahman sees That in everything. This doesn’t mean that one gains knowledge of all material things. That isn’t the goal of the Jnani. Instead, it is Atma Jnana, Self-Knowledge.
Piyush,
July 5, 2007
Join the conversation! 3 Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Aum Namah Shivayah,
So do these differences in Bhakti Shastra and Advaita imply that the end results of these different paths are different? Or does this difference come from the difference in perspective of these two paths?
Thanks
Vidhya
A couple of years ago Swami Chidananda Puri also had told a similar thing. That is, “Sarvajnatvam” does not mean knowledge of everything in the material realm, but it is Knowledge of the Self.
But Swami Kaivalyanandaji also told the other day, that there IS a difference between a Jnani and an Incarnation. An Incarnation is so much more than a mere Jnani.
So, could it be true that, while it may be true that a mere Jnani may not have “Sarvajnatvam” in the material realm, Isn’t it possible for an incarnation to have the “Sarvajnatvam” in the material realm as well, that is “Sarva Vishaya Jnanam”?
In other words, can we not believe that our Amma has the “Sarvajnatvam” in the material realm also? That, She can read our thoughts, that She can even know how to solve a complex Mathematical equation or talk in a foreign language, etc, If She Wills to?
Swami has explained the matter of the Avatar as well. He said that there is definitely a difference between a Jnani and an Avatar. However, for one with a human body, it is not possible to contain ‘sarva vishaya jnana,’ knowledge of everything material. That isn’t said in any shastra, even in Yoga shastra.
Instead, what is said about the Avatar? In Advaita, it says that the Avatar is the incarnation of an ‘amsha,’ or portion of the true nature of Ishvara, or God. (See Shankara bhashya of Gita, upodghata, ‘krishna kila amshena babhuva.’) For example, when we take a trip, we don’t bring all the items in our house. Instead, we only bring what we need for our journey. Similarly, each Avatar has a specific purpose to fulfill. The shakti and vibhutis that are necessary for that will be brought into the Incarnation, that’s all.
It isn’t possible to fit all the shakti and vibhuti of the Ishvara Svarupa into a human body, in its entirety. Also, when we say ‘sarva vishaya jnana,’ this means knowledge of each and every atom in the universe, at one time. This human body isn’t suitable to contain that knowledge. Instead, whatever shakti and glories are needed for the purpose of the Avatar are utilized.
This doesn’t refute an Incarnation like Amma being able to tell the future, or know different languages, etc. This only refutes that this entire knowledge of every minute particle in the universe at once can happen in a human body. That only exists in the Ishvara Svarupa. This is what I have understood from Swami’s explanation.
Piyush,
July 6, 2007