Advaita fruit of the Bhakti Tree:

Synthesis of Jñāna and Bhakti for achieving eternal peace

with special reference to the philosophy of Śrīmat Swāmī Nigamānanda Saraswatī

SUDIPTA MUNSI
M.A., Dip. in Sanskrit, B.Ed.
Independent Scholar of Sanskrit and Classical Indian Philosophy,
Kolkata – 700017, West Bengal, India.
Email: sudiptamunsi1987@gmail.com

ABSTRACT:

The present paper aims at discussing the need for combining the philosophical aim of Śrī Śaṅkarācārya
and the path of spiritual practice of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, as advocated by Anantaśrī Swāmī
Nigamānanda Saraswatī (1879-1935) and termed as ‘Sārasvata’, as a means of achieving eternal peace. In
the context of the 19th century Bengali renaissance, this synthesis of Jñāna and Bhakti is particularly
important, since it stresses the need for following a simple spiritual path of self-restraint, selflessness, a
constant focus on truthfulness, firm rejection of all notions of ego-centrism, dutifulness while serving a
Sadguru, for achieving the famous Advaita Vedānta ideal of non-duality, which tears asunder the knots of
transmigratory existence, and leads us to an undying abode of peace. The call given by Swāmī
Nigamānanda Saraswatī for a combination of the philosophical aim of Śrī Śaṅkarācārya and the path of
Bhakti of Śrī Caitanya, also suggests his advocacy of geo-cultural and politico-religious synthesis and
unity, so necessary for a harmonious functioning of a nation like India, which is fraught with a bewildering
range of contraries and variations of religious, cultural, political and social beliefs, practices and
preferences. This paper also claims to be the pioneering effort made to discover the near-exact śāstrīya or
scriptural basis of Swāmī Nigamānanda Saraswati’s view of Śaṅkarera mata o Gaurāṅgera patha (the goal
of Śaṅkara and the path of Gaurāṅga) in some verses of the Śāntigītā, which despite the towering scholarly
efforts of Swāmī Nigamānanda Saraswatī’s direct disciples like Swāmī Satyānanda Saraswatī or grand-
disciples like Swāmī Prajñānānanda Saraswatī, remained hitherto unknown.

Key Words:

Swāmī Nigamānanda Saraswatī, Swāmī Satyānanda Saraswatī, Śaṅkarācārya, Gaurāṅga, Caitānya

Mahāprabhu, Madhusūdana Saraswatī, Śikśāṣṭakam, Jñāna, Bhakti, Sārasvata, Śāntigītā, etc.

The present paper aims at discussing the need for combining the philosophical aim of Śrī
Śaṅkarācārya and the path of spiritual practice of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, as advocated by
Anantaśrī Swāmī Nigamānanda Saraswatī (1879-1935) and termed as ‘Sārasvata’, as a means of
achieving eternal peace.

Swamī Nigamānanda Saraswati is generally called as ‘catuḥsādhanasiddha-sadguru’, i.e.

a Sadguru, who attained perfection in the four sādhanā-s of Tantra, Jñāna, Yoga and Bhakti. His
philosophical ideas are to be found in the Bengali books written by him, viz. Tāntrikaguru,
Jñānīguru, Yogīguru, Premikaguru, Vedāntaviveka, and the innumerable letters written and
sermons delivered to his devotees and disciples. Reference will also be made to the works of his
foremost disciple and commentator, Swāmī Satyānanda Saraswatī, who gave a more coherent
and professional shape to the ideas of his Guru.

To begin with, Swāmī Nigamānanda expressed his idea in a terse but immensely significant
aphorism, namely, Śaṅkarera Mata o Gaurāṅgera Patha, i.e. The Goal of Śaṅkarācārya and the
Path of Gaurāṅga or Caitanya Mahāprabhu. He was emphatic in declaring that though the goal
of Śaṅkarācārya of knowing one’s own self was very great, yet his path of sannyāsa for
achieving it was very narrow in the sense that it is restricted to the Brāhmaṇas, who are gifted
with a superb intellect, only. At the same time, he asserted that the path of Caitanya is very wide
but his aim of an eternal servitude (nityadāsatva) is very narrow.

The path of Śaṅkarācārya is the path of Advaita Vedānta. The Advaita Vedānta
philosophers “generally accept a basic classification of existence into absolute or pāramārthika,
functional or vyavahārika and momentary or prātibhāsika. According to Advaita Vedānta
philosophers, no trace of duality is imaginable with regard to the absolute realm. This absolute
reality is also said to transcend time, whereas the second variety, viz. the functional, accounts for
all multiplicity pertaining to the phenomena. However, all this multiplicity is only illusory and
due to a beginningless and inexplicable nescience called avidyā, leading to a superimposition of
the unreal (i.e. the multiform world) on the real (the single Brahman). This superimposition is
sublated when the knowledge of the one absolute truth, Brahman, dawns. The last variety, viz.
momentary or prātibhāsika deals with dream-objects and erroneous perceptions such as the
perception of silver in a mother of pearl, a snake in a piece of rope, etc. which exist only as long
as they are perceived (pratītikālamātra sattā). The difference between the vyavahārika and
prātibhāsika levels consists in the fact that the knowledge of the former invalidates the latter, like
the correct knowledge of a rope invalidates the former illusion of a snake. By contrast, the
vyavahārika level ceases to exist only after the dawning of the knowledge of one’s essential
identity with Brahman and the liberation (mokṣa) of the individual soul or jīva consequent upon
it.

For Advaita Vedānta philosophers, the various means of knowledge play their proper
role only within the framework of the functional world, pervaded by multiplicity, but they cannot
reach out to the Brahman, which transcends all traces of duality. Thus, these various means of
knowledge or pramāṇas have relevance for the individual soul or jīva, which tries to discover its
identity with the Brahman, hidden and misrepresented due to the effect of the twin powers of
covering (āvaraṇa śakti) and distortion (vikṣepa śakti) of this beginningless nescience or avidyā,
but these cease to function for such an individual soul when the latter realises its identity with the
Brahman or the Absolute. …. Says Śaṅkarācārya in the Brahmasūtrabhāṣya (1.1.1):

Since a man without self-identification with the body, mind, sense, etc., cannot become a
cognizer, and as such, the means of knowledge cannot function for him; since perception
and other activities (of a man) are not possible without accepting the senses etc. (as his
own); since the senses cannot function without (the body as) a basis; since nobody
engages in an activity with a body that has not the idea of the Self superimposed on it;
since the unrelated Self cannot become a cognizer unless there are all these (mutual
superimposition); and since the means of knowledge cannot function unless there is a
cognizership; therefore it follows that the means of knowledge, such as direct perception
 as well as the scriptures, must have a man as their locus who is subject to nescience.
(Swami Gambhirananda’s translation)”1

Thus this phenomenal world called saṃsāra, Śaṅkarācārya says, is ephemeral in the
sense that it emerges and perishes2. Again, this saṃsāra, “marked by agency, experiences
pleasant or painful, etc., pertains only to the known object. It is superimposed on the cognizer
due to nescience. Still, the cognizer cannot be adversely affected in any way by superimposition
just as the sky is not through superimposition on it of impurities, etc., by the ignorant.”3

Now, a brief description of the path of Gaurāṅga is called for. The goal of Gaurāṅga, as
found in the works of his direct disciples, Sanātana and Rūpa Gosvāmī-s and grand-disciple, Jīva
Gosvāmī, is Acintyabhedābheda. It speaks of the simultaneous occurrence of difference (bheda)
and identity (identity) in the relation between the Brahman and the jīva and the world. Jīva is
aṇucaitanya or restricted consciousness, while Bhagavān is vibhucaitanya or unrestricted
consciousness. The world is true and the jīva can never become at par with Bhagavān and his
eternal nature is that of the servant of God. In this system, Bhagavān is saviśeṣa and saśaktika or
endowed with attributes and infinite number of powers. The nirguṇa Brahman is a step inferior
than Bhagavān, since there is no experience of the multitude of śakti of in it. And this Bhagavān,
who is alone pūrṇa or complete is none other than Śrī Kṛṣṇa, as per the dictum of
Śrīmadbhāgavata in the form of ‘kṛṣṇastu bhagavān svayam’. The summum bonum of a devotee
is to achieve the state of a gopī in transcendental or aprakṛta Vṛndāvana. Thus the jīva is a nitya
kṛṣṇadāsa or an eternal servant of Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa. By worshipping God one attains the
abode of Him and lives every in the company of God and his associates with the eternal fortune
of serving him. Thus the philosophical aim of Śrī Gaurāṅga is the achievement of an eternal
devotional servitude of Śrī Kṛṣṇa.

The path of Gaurāṅga is the path of ācaraṇa or exemplifying practice. We find in the
Ādilīla of Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja’s Caitanyacaritāmṛta that Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu says, “I shall
accept the state of a devotee and by putting into practice my ideals myself will teach others.”
Seeing the appalling condition of the jīvas, affected by the Kali Age, Bhagavān himself
suppressed his īśvaratva and assumed the role of a bhakta or devotee. This is because, the
manifestation of the bewildering powers (aiśvarya) of the Supreme Lord confuses the intellect of
the jīvas, who, being affected by the Kali age, suffers from congenial weakness of intellect,
which fails to arrive at the underlying unity of the manifold expressions of the One Reality. Thus
aiśvarya or the bewildering richness of the divine manifestation is replaced by mādhurya or the
soothing sweetness of the emotions of a bhakta, who is but Bhagavān Himself. As to how the
Supreme Lord (Parameśvara) achieves this end of His, can be best explained in the words of Śrī
Caitanya Mahāprabhu as found in the following verse of his Śikṣāṣṭakam:

tṛṇādapi sunīcena taroriva sahiṣṇunā/

1
Quoted from my paper entitled “Śrīharṣa Miśra’s critique of Trustworthiness”, awaiting publication in
the proceedings of the Coffee Break Conference 4 (2013) on the open-access journal Kervan, published by
the University of Turin.
2
utpattivināśalakṣaṇaḥ saṃsāra (Śaṅkarācārya’s commentary on verse no. 57 of the Alātaśāntiprakaraṇa
of the Gauḍapādakārikā on the Māṇḍūkyopaniṣad)
3
Dr. A. G. Krishna Warrier’s English translation of the following passage from the Śāṅkarabhāṣya on Gītā
(XIII/2): kartṛtvabhoktṛtvalakṣaṇaḥ saṃsāro jñeyastho jñataryavidyayā’dhyāropita iti, na tena jñātuḥ
kiñcid duṣyati, yathā bālairadhyāropiten ākāśasya talamalinatvādinā
 amāninā mānadena kīrtanīyaḥ sadā hariḥ//

“By becoming humbler than a blade of grass, tolerant as a tree, allowing highest respect to
others, and abhorring all notions of self-esteem, one should sing the glories of Śrī Hari.”

This verse alone, when subjected to threadbare analysis, suggests clearly the methods that are to
be followed by a spiritual aspirant, intent upon achieving spiritual realisation – we reproduce
very briefly the analysis done by Śrīmat Swāmī Satyānanda Saraswatī in his Bengali book,
Śaṅkarera Mata o Gaurāṅgera Patha (pp. 143-163):

a) Renunciation and Non-attachment – Without abhorring all material desires and

attachments to mundane entities, the mind cannot be exclusively fixed on the Supreme,
beyond which there is no higher goal to be achieved. This is also the view of the Gītā, as
is evident from the following verse from the 13th chapter of it:

indriyārtheṣu vairāgyamanahaṃkāra eva ca/

janmamṛtyujarāvyādhiduḥkhadoṣānudarśanam//
asaktiranabhiṣaṅgaḥ putradāragṛhādiṣu/
nityañca samacittatvamiṣṭāniṣṭopapattiṣu//
mayi cānanyayogena bhaktiravyabhicāriṇī//
viviktadeśasevitvamaratirjanasaṃs-adi//
adhyātmajñānanityatvaṃ tattvajñānārthadarśanam/
etajjñānamiti proktamajñānaṃ yadato’nyathā// (8-11)

b) Purification of the mind – Without a purified mind, a jīva is ultimately unable to

achieve either jñāna or premabhakti. Thus, the purification of the mind takes place when
a person performs all his actions without any notion of agency or craving for the fruits of
thereof. The mind becomes purged of the captivating effects of rajas and tamas and
there occurs a preponderance of unalloyed sattva, which ultimately becomes fit for
receiving the reflecting of the divine. Thus we find Sureśvarācārya saying in the
Naiṣkarmyasiddhi the following: nityakarmānuṣṭhānāt dharmotpattiḥ, dharmotpatteḥ
pāpahāniḥ, tataścittaśuddhiḥ, tataḥ svasaṃsārātmayāthātmyāvabodhaḥ, tato vairāgyaṃ,
tato mumukṣutvam, tataḥ tadupāyaparyeṣaṇam, tataḥ sarvakarmasannyāsaḥ, tataḥ
yogābhyāsaḥ, tataḥ cittasya pratyakpravaṇatā, tatastattvamasyādivākyārthaparijñānam,
tato’avidyocchedaḥ, tataḥ svātmanyavasthānam.” A somewhat similar idea is echoed by
Śrīman Madhusūdana Sarasvatī in his Bhaktirasāyana:

prathamaṃ mahatāṃ sevā taddayāpātratā tataḥ/

śraddhātha teṣāṃ dharmeṣu tato hariguṇaśrutiḥ//
tato ratyaṅkurotpattiḥ svarūpādhigatistataḥ/
premavṛddhiḥ parānande tasyātha sphuraṇaṃ tataḥ//
bhagavaddharmaniṣṭhātaḥ svasmiṃstadguṇaśālitā/

premṇo’tha paramā kāṣṭhetyudita bhaktibhūmikā//

c) Abhorring body-consciousness – So long as the consciousness and concerns for the
material body as also the material world remains awaken, there is no hope for achieving
real peace, because real peace is synonymous with the consciousness of the Great or
Unlimited. The concern for the body-mind complex is basically a deterrent in terms of
its being an agent of perpetuation of all notions of limitedness. To uproot it, one should
 resort to firm resolution of being sceptical of its apparent utilities. Thus Śrīman
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī says beautifully in the Bhaktirasāyana:

kāṭhinyaṃ viṣaye kuryād dravataṃ bhagavatpade/

upāyaiḥ śastranirdiṣṭairanukṣaṇamato budhāḥ//

Such episodes in Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu’s divine life as rebuking and banishing
Yavana Haridāsa for saving a half-piece of a gooseberry, his being discontent with Śrī
Sanātana Gosvāmī’s use of a Tibetan blanket, etc. are illustrations of the point under
consideration.

Given all this, the moot question that now rises is that how are we to synthesise the
philosophical aim of Śrī Śaṅkarācārya and the path of spiritual disciple of Śrī Caitanya
Mahāprabhu for arriving at eternal peace. The real nature of the Self being extremely subtle
and beyond the reach of the intellect is arrived at by deliberations on the mahāvākya-s or
through the grace of the Guru4. One, desirous of the Self, pure in mind, bereft of attachment
to empirical objects, knows the Self5. He should give up all desires and motives, perform
actions ordained by the Vedas in accordance with one’s caste and stage of life with the sole
object of pleasing Īśvara6. This in turn would lead to the purification of the mind, which
would thus become fit for discrimination between what is eternal and what is non-eternal, or
in other words, what is real (= Brahman) and what is the unreal (the entire saṃsāra)7.
Slowly, his conviction about the discrimination in the form of ‘Brahman is real and the world
is unreal’ dawns and he gives up all attachment to worldly objects, unreal as they are8.

As a result, the knower of the real nature of the Self realises this phenomenon as mere
mental construct without any absolute reality9. For a yogī, who has become reticent on knowing
for certain that everything is his own self, all imaginary ideas in the form of ‘I am this’ and ‘I am
not this’ wither away10. For him, who has attained tranquility, there is no distraction, no one-
pointedness, no concentration, no knowledge, no ignorance, no pleasure, no pain11. May he (i.e.

4
ātmātisūkṣmarūpatvād buddhyādīnāmagocaraḥ/
labhyate vedavākyena cācāryānugraheṇa vai//2//
mahāvākyavicāreṇa gurūpadiṣṭamārgataḥ/
śiṣyo guṇābhisampanno labheta śuddhamānasaḥ/3//
gurusevāṃ prakurvāṇo gurubhaktiparāyaṇaḥ/
guroḥ kṛpāvaśāt pārtha labhya ātmā na saṃśayaḥ//5// (Śāntigītā, ch. 3)
5
ātmavāsanayā yukto jijñāsuḥ śuddhamānasaḥ/
viṣayāsaktisaṃtyaktaḥ svātmānaṃ vetti śraddhayā//6// (Ibid.)
6
svavarṇāśramadharmeṇa vedoktena ca karmaṇā/
niṣkāmena sadācāra īśvaraṃ paritoṣayet//8//
7
pāpena malinā buddhiḥ karmaṇā śodhitā yadā/
tadā śuddhā bhavet saiva maladoṣavivarjanāt//11//
nirmalāyāṃ tatra pārtha viveka upajāyate/
kiṃ satyaṃ kimasatyaṃ vetyādyālocanatatparaḥ//12///
8
brahma satyaṃ jaganmithyā vivekāddṛḍhaniścayaḥ/
tato vairāgyamāsaktestyāgo mithyātmakeṣu ca//13// (Ibid.)
9
bhavo’yaṃ bhāvanāmātro na kiñcit paramārthataḥ/ (Aṣṭāvakra Saṃhitā, XVIII/4)
10
ayaṃ so’hamayaṃ nāhamiti kṣīṇā vikalpanāḥ/
Sarvamātmeti niścitya tuṣṇīmbhūtasya yoginaḥ// (Ibid. 9)
11
na vikṣepo na caikāgryaṃ nātibodho na mūḍhatā/
na sukhaṃ na ca vā duḥkhamupaśāntasya yoginaḥ// (Ibid. 10)
the ignorant one endowed with a vision of duality), who sees the multifarious universe, well try
to negate it; but what should one, who is free from desires, do? He does not see, although he
(apparently) sees12. A dhīra, though he resides like an ordinary man, is diametrically opposite to
him13, since just as Kālidāsa says, he is one, whose consciousness is not perturbed even in the
presence of causal factors of perturbation.14 He, who is devoid of all notions of truth and falsity,
who is free from desires; who is satisfied, performs no action at all in reality, although apparently
he does in the eyes of the world15. He is not intent upon either activity or abstention from
activity; but does whatever comes to him as duty and stays happily16. He being endowed with a
mind which is free (in the sense that it is free from desire and does not run after objects of desire
as such, since he has known the Self to be the non-doer, non-enjoyer17) and performs action as
they just come to him, has no sense of honour or dishonour, unlike the common man18. Without
any motive in action that he performs like, the wise, the pure, is not attached to the actions that
he so does19.

It is to be seen that “attachment to objects is born when one ponders on them. Of

attachment is born desire, and of desire, wrath. From wrath arises delusion; from delusion,
failure of memory. Due to this latter, intelligence perishes, and from its loss total destruction
ensues.”20 “Approaching objects with senses free from attachment and aversion, and controlled
by the mind, the man who has mastered his mind wins serenity. Serenity won, sufferings come
to an end; the reason of that man, whose mind is serene, soon becomes steadfast.”21 “The
unintegrated mind has no wisdom; nor can such a person have yearning (for Self-knowledge).
Without such yearning, no peace (is possible). For one lacking peace, how can there be
happiness? The mind that confirms to the roving senses robs (one) of perception, just as the
wind sweeps the boat off its course at sea.”22 So “his wisdom is stable whose senses have been

12
yena viśvamidaṃ dṛṣṭaṃ sa nāstīti karotu vai/
nirvāsanaḥ kiṃ kurute paśyannapi na paśyati// (Ibid. 15)
13
dhīro lokaviparyasto vartamāno’pi lokavat/ (Ibid. 18)
14
vikārahetau sati vikriyante yeṣāṃ na cetāṃsi ta eva dhīrāḥ (Kumārasambhava I/59)
15
bhāvābhāvavihīno yastṛpto nirvāsano budhaḥ/
naiva kiñcit kṛtaṃ tena lokadṛṣṭyā vikurvatā// (Aṣṭāvakra Saṃhitā, XVIII/19). This idea has been rather
beautifully illustrated through the activities of Śrī Kṛṣṇa and Sage Durvāsā in the Gopālatāpanī Upaniṣad.
16
pravṛttau va nivṛttau va naiva dhīrasya durgrahaḥ/
yadā yatkartumāyāti tatkṛtvā tiṣṭhataḥ sukham// (Ibid. 20)
17
akartṛtvamabhoktṛtvaṃ svātmano manyate yadā/
tadā kṣīṇā bhavantyeva samastāścittavṛttayaḥ// (Ibid. 51)
18
prakṛtyā śūnyacittasya kurvato’sya yadṛcchayā/
prākṛtasyeva dhīrasya na māno nāvamānatā// (Ibid. 24)
19
sarvārambheṣu niṣkāmo yaścaredbālavanmuniḥ/
na lepastasya śuddhasya kriyamāṇe’pi karmaṇi // (Ibid. 64)
20
Dr. A. G. Krishna Warrier’s translation of the following verses from the second chapter of the Gītā:
dhyāyato viṣayān puṁsaḥ saṅgasteṣūpajāyate/
saṅgātsañjāyate kāmaḥ kāmātkrodho’bhijāyate//
krodhādbhavati saṁmohaḥ saṁmohātsmṛtivibhramaḥ/
smṛtibhraṁśādbuddhināśo buddhināśātpraṇaśyati// (II/62-63)
21
Ibid. (64-65):
rāgadveṣaviyuktaistu viṣayānindriyaiścaran/
ātmavaśyairvidheyātmā prasādamadhigacchati//
prasāde sarvaduḥkhānāṃ hānirasyopajāyate/
prasannacetaso hyāśu buddhiḥ paryavatiṣṭhate//
22
Ibid (66-67):
nāsti buddhirayuktasya na cāyuktasya bhāvanā./
withdrawn on all sides from their (respective) objects.”23 Thus “the man who, giving up all
objects of desires, moves about seeking nothing, and rid of all sense of ‘mine’ and ‘I’, wins
peace.”24 “He hates no beings, is friendly and compassionate; he is rid of all sense of possession
and of egoism; he is the same in pleasure and pain and is long-suffering.”25

na cābhāvayataḥ śāntirśāntasya kutaḥ sukham//

indriyāṇāṃ hi caratāṁ yanmano’nuvidhīyate/
tadasya harati prajñāṁ vāyurnāvamivāmbhasi//
23
Ibid (68):
tasmādyasya mahābāho nigṛhītāni sarvaśaḥ/
indriyāṇīndriyārthebhyastasya prajñā pratiṣṭhitā//
24
Ibid (71):
vihāya kāmān yaḥ sarvāṇ pumāṁścarati niḥspṛhaḥ/
nirmamo nirahaṁkāraḥ sa śāntimadhigacchati//
25
Ibid. (XII/13):
adveṣṭā sarvabhūtānāṃ maitraḥ karuṇa eva ca/
nirmamo nirahaṁkāraḥ samaduḥkhasukhaḥ kṣamī//