Bhakti Yoga
A book by Swami Vivekananda
© COPYRIGHTS
This book is copyrighted content of the concerned author as well as Matrubharti
Matrubharti has exclusive digital publishing rights of this book.
Any illegal copies in physical or digital format are strictly prohibited.
Matrubharti can challenge such illegal distribution / copies / usage in court.
THE MANTRA: OM: WORD AND WISDOM
But we are now considering not these Mahâ-purushas, the great Incarnations, but only the Siddha-Gurus (teachers who have attained the goal) ; they, as a rule, have to convey the germs of spiritual wisdom to the disciple by means of words (Mantra) to be meditated upon. What are these Mantras? The whole of this universe has, according to Indian philosophy, both name and form (uke:Ik) as its conditions of manifestation. In the human microcosm, there cannot be a single wave in the mind-stuff (fpÙkOOkfr) unconditioned by name and form. If it be true that nature is built throughout on the same plan, this kind of conditioning by nameand form must also be the plan of the building of the whole of the cosmos. ;kFk ,d¢u e`RkfijkMsUk eo± e`UEk;a fOkKkRka L;kRk~ “As one lump of clay being known, all things of clay are known,” so the knowledge of the microcosm must lead to the knowledge of the macrocosm. Now, form is the outer crust, of which the name or the idea is the inner essence or kernel. The body is the form, and the mind or the Antahkarana is the name ; and sound-symhols are universally associated with uke (name) in all beings having the power of speech. In the individual man the thought-waves rising in the limited egr~ (Mahat) or fPkŸk(mind-stuff) must manifest themselves, first as words, and then as the more concrete forms.
In the universe, Brahma or Hiranyagarbha or the Cosmic egr~ (Mahat) first manifested himself as name, and then as form, i.e. as this universe. All this expressed sensible universe is the form, behind which stands the eternal inexpressible LkQ®Vk (Sphota), the manifester as Logos or Word. This eternal Sphota, the essential eternal material of all ideas or names, is the power through which the Lord creates the universe; nay, the Lord first becomes conditioned; as the Sphota, and then evolves Himself out as the yet more concrete sensible universe. This Sphota has one word as its only possible symbol, , and this is the v¨a (Om). And as by no possible means of analysis can we separate the word from the idea, this Om and the eternal Sphota are inseparable; and therefore it is out of this holiest of all holy words, the mother of all names and forms, the eternal Om, that the whole universe may be supposed to have been created. But it may be said that, although thought and word are inseparable, yet as there may be various wordsymbols for the same thought, it is not necessary that this particular word Om should be the word representative of the thought, out of which the universe has become manifested. To this objection we reply, that this Om is the only possible symbol which covers the whole ground, and there is none other like it. The Sphota is the material of all words, yet it is not any definite word in its fully formed state. That is to say, if all the peculiarities which distinguish one word from another be removed, then what remains will be the Sphota; therefore this Sphota is called the Ukknczã (Nâda- Brahma), the Sound-Brahman. Now, as every word-symbol, intended to express the inexpressible Sphota will so particularise it that it will no longer be the Sphota, that symbol which particularises it the least and at the same time most approximately expresses its nature, will be the truest symbol thereof; and this is the Om, and the Om only; because these three letters, v m e (A, U, M), pronounced in combination as Om, may well be the generalised symbol of all possible sounds. The letter v ( A ) is the least differentiated of all sounds; therefore Krishna says in the Gita, vÙkjk.kkedkj®∙fLe “I am A among the letters.”1 Again, all articulate sounds are produced in the space within the mouth beginning 'With the root of the tongue and ending in the lips-the throat sound is A, and M is the last lip sound; and the U exactly represents the rolling forward of the impulse which begins at the root of the tongue till it ends in the lips. If properly pronounced, this Om will represent the whole phenomenon of soundproduction, and no other word can do this; and this, therefore, is the fittest symbol of the Sphota, which is the real meaning of the Om. And as the symbol can never be separated from the thing signified, the Om and the Sphota are one. And as the Sphota, being the finer side of the manifested universe, is nearer to God, and is indeed the first manifestation of Divine Wisdom, this Om is truly symbolic of God. Again, just as the “One only” Brahman, the Akhanda-Sachchidânanda, the undivided ExistenceKnowledge-Bliss, can be conceived. by imperfect human souls only from particular standpoints and associated with particular qualities, so this universe, His body, has also to be thought of along the line of the thinker’s mind.
This direction of the worshipper’s mind is guided by its prevailing elements or Tattvas. The result is, that the same God will be seen in various manifestations as the possessor of various predominant qualities, and the same universe win appear as full of manifold forms. Even as in the case of the least differentiated and the most universal symbol Om, thought and sound-symbol are seen to be inseparably asso- ciated with each other, so also this law of their inseparable association applies to the many differentiated views of God and the universe: each of them therefore must have a particular word-symbol to express it. These word-symbols, evolved out of the deepest spiritual perceptions of sages, symbolise and express, as nearly as possible, the particular view of God and the universe they stand for. And as the Om represents the Akhanda, the undifferentiated Brahman, the others represent the Khanda or the differentiated views of the same Being; and they are all helpful to divine meditation and the acquisition of true knowledge.
WORSHIP OF SUBSTITUTES AND IMAGES
The next points to be considered are the worship of Pratikas or of things more or less satisfactory as substitutes for God, and the worship of Pratimas or images. What is the worship of God through a Pratika? It is vOkczãf.k czãg"V;kuqlU?kkUke~ “Joining the mind with devotion to that which is not Brahman, taking it to be Brahman,” says Bhagavan Râmânuja. “Worship the mind as Brahman—this is internal; and the Âkâsha is Brahman—this is with regard to the Devas,” says Shankara. The mind is an internal Pratika, the Âkâsha is an external one; and both have to be worshipped as substitutes of God. He continues, “Similarly, ‘The Sun is Brahman—this is the command’... ‘He who worships name as Brahman’—in all such passages the doubt arises as to the worship of Pratikas...” The word Pratika means going towards; and worshipping a Pratika is worshipping something as a substitute which is, in some one or more respects, like the Brahman more and more, but is not the Brahman. Along with the Pratikas mentioned in the Shrutis there are various others to be found in the Puranas and the Tantras. In this kind of Pratika-worship may be included all the various forms of Pitri (manes)-worship and Deva (god)-worship.
Now, worshipping Ishwara and Him alone is Bhakti ; the worship of anything else, Deva or Pitri, or any other being cannot be Bhakti. The various kinds of worship of the various Devas are all to be included in ritualistic Karma which gives to the worshipper only a particular result in the form of some celestial enjoyment, but can neither give rise to Bhakti nor lead to Mukti. One thing, therefore, has to be carefully borne in mind. If, as it may happen in some cases, the highly philosophic ideal, the supreme Brahman, is dragged down by Pratika-worship to the level of the Pratika, and the Pratika itself is taken to be the Âtman (self) of the worshipper, or his Antaryâmin (God as Inner Ruler), the worshipper gets entirely misled, as no Pratika can really be the Âtman of the worshipper. But where Brahman Himself is the object of worship, and the Pratika stands only as a substitute or a suggestion thereof, that is to say, where, through the Pratika the omnipresent Brahman is worshipped —the Pratika itself being idealised into the cause of all, the Brahman—the worship is positively beneficial; nay, it is absolutely necessary for all mankind, until they have all got beyond the primary or preparatory state of the mind in regard to worship. When, the.refore, any gods or other beings are worshipped in and for themselves, such worship is only a ritualistic Karma and as a Vidya (science) it gives us only the fruit belonging to that particular Vidya; but when the Devas or any other beings are looked upon as Brahman and worshipped, the result obtained is the same as by the worshipping of Ishwara. This explains how, in many cases, both in the Shrutis and the Smritis, a god, or a sage, or some other extraordinary being is taken up and lifted, as it were, out of its own nature and idealised into Brahman, and is then worshipped. Says the Advaitin, “Is not everything Brahman when the name and the form have been removed from it ?”
“Is not He, the Lord, the innermost self of everyone?” says the Vishishtâdvaitin:dée~ vkfnR;k|q ikLkus"kq czãS Ok nkL;fr lOkkZ?;{kROkr~“The fruition of even the worship of Âdityas etc., Brahman Himself bestows, because He is the Ruler of all.” Says Shankara, in his Brahma-Sutra-Bhâshya: Ãg'k Pkk= czã.k% mikL;RPka ;Rk% izrhds"kq Rkê "Vk?;kjksi.ka izfrekfn"kq bo fo".kknhuke~ “Here in this way does Brahman become the object of worship, because He, as Brahman, is superimposed on the Pratikas, just as Vishnu etc., are superimposed upon images etc.”
The same ideas apply to the worship of the Pratimas as to that of the Pratikas; that is to say, if the image stands for a god or a saint, the worship is not the result of Bhakti, and does not lead to liberation; but if it stands for the one God, the worship thereof will bring both Bhakti and Mukti. Of the principal religions of the world we see Vedantism, Buddhism, and certain forms of Christianity freely using images; only two religions, Mohammedanism and Protestantism, refuse such help. Yet the Mohammedans use the graves of their saints and martyrs almost in the place of images; and the Protestants, in rejecting all concrete helps to religion, are drifting away every year farther and farther from spirituality, till at present there is scarcely any difference between the advanced Protestants and the followers of Auguste Comte, or the Agnostics who preach ethics alone. Again, in Christianity and Mohammedanism, whatever exists of image-worship is made to fall under that category in which the Pratika or the Pratima is worshipped in itself, but not as a “help to the vision” (æf"Vl©d;Ze~) of God; therefore it is at best only of the nature of ritualistic Karmas and cannot produce either Bhakti or Mukti. In this form of image-worship. the allegiance of the soul is given to other things than Ishwara, and therefore. such use of images, or graves, or temples, or tombs is real idolatry; it is in itself neither sinful nor wicked—it is a rite—a Karma, and worshippers must and will get the fruit thereof.
