We are used to thinking of bhakti as devotion to a personal God. This understanding of bhakti almost entirely determines how we discuss the concept today. That there are other ways as well in which the Indian tradition explores and discusses the concept does not occur to us. Hence, those accustomed to the contemporary associations of bhakti, are likely to be taken aback by a startlingly different understanding of bhakti in one of the central and most revered texts within the Advaita Vedanta tradition (Often referred to “non-dualistic” system of Vedanta in scholarship), Vivekachudamani, an 8th century text.
Vivekachudamani defines bhakti not in terms of one’s personal relationship to gods, but as Swaswaroopanusandhanam (attentively attending to one’s own form). In this definition of bhakti, there is no reference to devotion to a personal god at all. No doubt, we find references to devotion to a personal god in the latter part of the text and this dominant sense can be found in other texts by Shankara too. However, that a different way to understand bhakti exists during this period, is what I want to focus on.
When we compare the two definitions, some differences stand out. In Bhakti as devotion to a personal God (For instance, consider the lines सा त्वस्मिन् परप्रेमरूपा from Narada Bhakti Sutra Verse 2-3, or सा परानुरक्तिरीश्वरे from Shandilya Bhaktisutras), we see that bhakti is directed towards an object external to oneself, here Ishvara. ‘Bhakti’ is used here as a predicate to characterise “the mind” (devotion, prema) in its being directed towards an external, supreme being. We could formulate the form of the concept as x standing in a certain relation to y where x is a subject and y is an object, and x is not equal to y, i.e. y is in a superior/revered position. Bhakti here, is conceived as an emotional relationship/attachment to a revered, superior, personal god or an exemplar.
In contrast, take the definition of bhakti as Swaswaroopanusandhanam. Here, there is no external movement to an object outside oneself. The seeker and the sought (i.e what is being investigated/ attended to) are the same. Bhakti here, indicates a reflexive attitude towards oneself. The action in question is cognitive one and implies a state of realization of the nature of one’s being. In short, it is a knowledge concept in contrast to the concept in the first definition, which apparently refers to an emotional relation.
The above, brief account of a contrast shows that there is another understanding of bhakti available in the tradition than the dominant understanding that is prevalent today. While we are familiar with bhakti as devotion to a personal god, the other meaning of bhakti as Swaswaroopanusandhanam that is elaborated in Vivekachudamani, is obscured and almost inaccessible today. What does bhakti as Swaswaroopanusandhanam mean? What is it to attend to one’s own form and why should one attend to it? Is it possible to re-render the quest in more contemporary terms? Reconstructing bhakti as Swaswaroopanusandhanam will make another way of thinking about bhakti available to us.