Sankaradeva’s Religion: Where Knowledge and Devotion Goes Hand in Hand

The primary impression in the popular mind of the word “devotee” is a highly sentimental one. It is no doubt of someone who has surrendered all his powers of intellect—discriminative etc.—at the feet of his Lord and has given primacy to the feelings of his heart. If not of total surrender, the picture is one of a definite subordination of the intellect.

It is pretty interesting to observe how the Eka Sarana religion of Sankaradeva demolishes this stereotype. It may be argued that every religion of love and devotion has some knowledge component built into it but, perhaps in no other religion is the entire apparatus of devotion designed to sharpen discrimination and foster an understanding of the nature of entities as in the Eka Sarana faith of Sankaradeva. This is without doubt because of its base in the Bhagavata which has a conception of pure devotion that demands not the subordination of one’s intellect but, rather, the purification of it. The bhakti that is recommended here is not blind faith but a kind of Vedantic bhakti that is not only rooted in a solid understanding of the tattvas, the ontological categories, but also one that continually reaffirms and reinforces this knowledge by incorporating chunks of this philosophy into the literature of devotion.

Due to this plan of the Bhagavatic authors, the various songs and prayers, verses and translations[H1]  which form the huge corpus of the literature of Sankaradeva’s religion, all incorporate passages that are philosophical in character and which surely call for application of mind on the part of the devotee and the utilization of his intellectual powers—thinking hard, reasoning, etc. Bhakti here becomes also a (congenial) atmosphere for reflection and pondering on knotty problems. For beginners, it provides new knowledge.

The epistemic ideal of the religion of Sankaradeva is the supremely conscious personality—Krsna, who is the supreme object of all knowledge. Therefore understanding his nature and also the nature of the entities subservient to him must necessarily be an integral part of the experience of devotion.

---

 [H1]the various means through which bhakti is operationalized have knowledge elements fed into them.

Q&A on the Philosophy of Sankaradeva

1.   What, in a nutshell, is the philosophy of Sankaradeva?

The embodied personality (jiva) is in the same ontological category as God who is the supreme spiritual personality (purusa). Primal matter (prakrti) is actuated for creation by the Lord.

2.   What is the name given to the philosophy of Sankaradeva?

The philosophy of Sankaradeva may be referred to as “Mahapurusism” due to its emphasis on the supreme purusa as the controller of both purusa and prakrti.

3.   On what book, primarily, is the philosophy of Sankaradeva based?

Sankaradeva’s philosophy is the same as the philosophy of Mahapurusism that is contained in the Bhagavata Purana.

4.   Is the creation unreal according to Sankaradeva?

If, by “unreal,” “figment of imagination” is meant, then it is not so in Sankaradeva. The creation (jagat) is very much real. It is unreal only in the sense of “unconscious.”

5.   What is the relationship between God and the world in the philosophy of Sankaradeva?

God (Krsna), in Sankaradeva’s philosophy, is completely spiritual and conscious (caitanya). The “world” or the “creation,” which is completely unconscious and insentient (jada), is evolved by God out of prakrti, the purely unconscious primordial material substance.

6.   What is the relationship between God and the individual soul in the philosophy of Sankaradeva?

The individual soul (purusa, jiva) is considered to be a minuscule portion (amsa) of God. But this does not mean literally an amsa. The meaning is that the individual souls fall into the same ontological—purely conscious, eternal, non-evolving—category as God; however, their consciousness is minuscule compared to God who is the supremely conscious spiritual personality.

7.   Is God formless in the philosophy of Sankaradeva?

God is of most beautiful and most captivating transcendental form in Sankaradeva. This form of God is immaterial (aprakrta) and not limited by adjuncts (upadhi) in any way.

8.   Is God both conscious and unconscious in the philosophy of Sankaradeva?

God is only of the essential characteristic of pure consciousness in Sankaradeva.

9.   Is the creation different from God in the philosophy of Sankaradeva?

The creation is, in reality, different from God in the philosophy of Sankaradeva. God is the conscious creator; he evolves the unconscious creation out of prakrti. And the distinction between God and prakrti, being of fundamental character, persists eternally.

Is Krsna Saguna or Nirguna?

Whether or not Krsna is saguna or nirguna would depend on what one means by the term guna. Does guna mean simply “attribute” or (the more specific) “evolute of primal matter (prakrti)?” On that would depend the answer. In the Bhagavata, the term nirguna, as applied to the Lord, seems to refer to the more specific sense of the word guna. Therefore, in this sense, Krsna is nirguna. He is beyond the influence of the three gunas of primal matter. His body is not gunamaya, composed out of matter; it is purely spiritual in its nature; it is often termed brahmamaya. Also, unlike the jiva—who is, by the way, of the same essential nature as the Lord—there can be no material limitations (upadhi) associated with the Lord.
However, if we speak of nirguna holding in mind the sense of guna as mere “attribute” or “property,” then Krsna is saguna. There is, in this sense, no end to the gunas of Krsna. The Lord is of infinite glories and attributes.

Why is Radha not Worshiped in the Eka Sarana Faith of Sankaradeva: A Critical Difference between the Philosophies of Sankaradeva and Sri Caitanya

[This short post was, originally, written as a comment on the lecture SrimantaSankardeva and Sri Chaitanyadeva in the perspective of Bhakti Movement uploaded on YouTube by the Department of Bengali, ADP College, Nagaon, Assam.]

I have a take on the question of the relationship between the personalities of Radha and Krsna and the Samkhya entities of purusa and prakrti, which I would now like to articulate with your permission.

In my opinion, Radha and Krsna are the same purusa and prakrti of the Samkhya. Not exactly the same though; Radha is the personified form of mula-prakrti (primal matter) and Krsna is not just any purusa, but the parama purusa (God). Radha and Krsna are not historical personalities (though it might appear so to the masses not knowing the philosophy) but are primal matter and God respectively.

The difference between the Sankaradeva-ite and the Caitanya-ite schools is that between the poles. In the Sankaradeva-ite philosophy, the distinction between parama purusa and mula-prakrti is fundamental and persists eternally. God is God and matter is matter and never the twain shall meet. In the ultimate scheme of things, prakrti remains an entity eternally subservient to God (parama purusa), maintaining its own separate ontological existence. The merging of prakrti in God, etc. given in the Puranic texts such as the Bhagavata (in the chapters on the creation and dissolution of the material world) is only to be taken poetically as no real merging takes place.

Krsna, the supreme purusa, is of the essential nature of consciousness while prakrti is unconscious substance. Purusa, says the Samkhya, is conscious personality and prakrti, unconscious matter. These two fundamental entities can never be one. Therefore the difference persists eternally.

In the Caitanya-ite school, on the other hand, the distinction between parama purusa (Krsna) and mula-prakrti (Radha) is not fundamental and does not persist eternally. God is, in reality, both matter and God. From a certain portion of the supremely conscious purusa (God) emerges literally the unconscious material creation. It is this portion of Krsna that is Radha and the Lord engages in sportive activity, as it were, with “her,” his own portion.
Therefore, God, in the Caitanya-ite philosophy, is both consciousness and unconsciousness.

These fundamental differences in philosophy translate into critical differences in the theological field. In the Sankaradeva-ite theology, there is, as a result of the eternal difference between purusa and prakrti, a lot of importance placed on cultivating discrimination between "jada" (matter) and "caitanya" (conscious personality). There are many verses in Madhavadeva's Nama Ghosa that assert this critical difference. Only Hari (Krsna) is said to be caitanya; all other deities—products of matter—are jada. And it is in consequence of this primary philosophical distinction that in Sankaradeva's Eka Sarana faith, only Krsna is worshiped; and not Radha because that would mean worshiping prakrti, unconscious (jada) matter.

But in the Caitanya-ite theology, Radha and Krsna are both worshiped. Here, the worshiper would naturally be not much inclined to cultivate discrimination between jada and caitanya because, after all (here), Radha is only Krsna! God is both matter as well as God; therefore, worshiping mula-prakrti (Radha) along with the supreme purusa (Krsna) would not pose much of a hindrance to the worshiper in Caitanya’s school because, in the ultimate analysis, the two are literally one!

Determination of the Supreme Brahman the Especial Contribution of Sankaradeva

The especial contribution of Sankaradeva was the determination of the supreme brahman. Mankind’s search for the ultimate fount of consciousness has been an illusory one. Dark matter and dark energy, despite all their massive, overwhelming nature, falls in the category of dead substance. There is one word in the philosophy of Sankaradeva which captures within itself all the implications of dead substance; it is thus extremely profound in its meaning. This word is “jada” which could stand for unconscious, unfeeling, non-sentient, substance.

Sankaradeva had said that the gods and goddesses fall in the category of “jada;” they are unfeeling, non-perceiving (material) “personalities;” they appear to be conscious only due to the conscious influence of the supreme spiritual personality (the supreme brahman). They cannot talk, do, feel, etc. They cannot do any of these things but appear to do these only because they are animated by the conscious power of the supreme brahman. In other words, their consciousness is only of a procedural nature; it is not true, subjective consciousness.