Early History of the Vaishnava Faith and Movement in Bengal, from Sanskrit and Bengali Sources c5.s1.5

c5.s1.5

The term Bhakti, used in contradistinction to the terms Jnana and Karman, is employed by many a sect of modern Hinduism, but in Bengal Vaisnavism it has its special connotation, which will be considered in its proper place. This special connotation is the result as much of historical development as of individual teaching and experience of particular saints and devotees; but it would take us far astray if we are to trace here, even briefly, the various influences which shaped the idea of Bhakti in the different stages of its growth and brought it to its present connotation. Its origins are lost in far-off antiquity, and its spread over centuries of obscure religious, cultural and literary influences has made the stages of its growth erratic and undefined. Stretching into the early Visnuism and Narayaniya worship of the Mahabharata.¹ it loses itself in a complex body of myth, legend, superstition, belief, sentiment and philosophy; but it emerges in a more or less definite form in the Bhagavatisin and Krsna-Vasudeva worship of the Bhagavad-gita. On this basis it was systematised and erected into a philosopheme in such late Bhakti-works as the Nārada-Śāṇḍilya-sūtras, and it continued as a doctrine till about the end of eighth century A.D., when the theory of spiritual non-dualism and world-illusion promulgated by the great Śaṃkarācārya and his followers appears to have imperilled its dualistic metaphysical foundation. This must have led to a vigorous revival of Vaiṣṇavism in the subsequent centuries; and about the 12th century A.D. we have four Sampradāyas or schools of thought, into which the Vaiṣṇava movement divided itself. These are the well-known Śrī-, Brahma-, Rudra-, and Sanakādi-Sampradāyas, associated respectively with the names of Rāmānuja, Madhva, Viṣṇusvāmin (Vallabhācārya)¹ and Nimbārka. Each of these schools developed its doctrines and religious practices, and wrote an extensive literature. As against the purely monistic teaching of non-duality (Advaita-vāda) of Śaṃkara, these schools expounded respectively what are conveniently known as theories of Qualified Non-duality (Viśiṣṭādvaita-vāda), Duality (Dvaita-vāda), Pure Non-duality (Śuddhādvaita-vāda) and Dualistic Non-duality (Dvaitādvaita-vāda). The details of these metaphysical theories must be sought elsewhere; but it is clear that the essential difference between these schools of thought consists in the attitude which they respectively assume towards the absolute non-dualistic position of Śaṃkara. Śaṃkara’s extreme idealistic monism, postulating the sole reality of an attributeless and unconditioned Brahman, devoid of all associations of personality, and permitting an illusive and provisional reality to the world and the individual, hardly leaves any scope for a dualistic conception of an individual soul’s longing devotion for a personal deity. Though admitting of various degrees, the essential dualism, involved in a religious atitude of Bhakti, in making a distinction between the devotee and the deity and implying an emotional realisation of a personal god in the individual consciousness, had to be reconciled with the absolute, impersonal and non-dualistic interpretation given of the Vedānta-sūtra by Śaṃkara. Each of these schools, therefore, wrote a fresh commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra, in which an attempt was made to establish a theory which would permit the individual exercise of love and piety in a world of reality, some of them maintaining a frankly dualistic position, and others expounding various degrees of qualified dualistic views.