Jignasa Journal Of History Of Ideas And Culture Part 01

Author(s): Vibha Upadhyaya and Others
Publisher: University of Rajasthan

Page 102

64 / Jijñāsā
Bhakti and Saguna Bhakti becomes becomes significant. Their difference then gets sharpened to the extent of one cancelling out the other. Thus 'belief in a highly personalized image of God may not leave any room for nirguna-bhakti and a strict commitment to the belief in the impersonal nature of God may rule out saguna bhakti altogether'. Realising a feeling of oneness with One's personal God or with Brahman is the highest and the ultimate end of the both types of bhakti which has been conceptualized as Self-realisation (though more emphatically in the case of Nirguna-bhakti), but if a total devotionful surrender to one's personal God was considered as the only means for this altimate end in Saguna Bhakti, it was Sadhană and Jñāna which are regarded as the only means to that highest end in the Nirguna bhakti.? This basic difference between the two gave birth to a number of other differences that caused them both appear as poles apart in nature, form, rules, practices etc., which are not necessary to be discussed herein for the paper is aimed on Kabir's philosophy of Bhakti.
With these outlines of Bhakti and its schools, viz., saguna and nirguna, Kabir, appears before us as a champion of Nirguna bhaktiR with some other known personalities such as Nanak, Raidas and Dadu etc., but what makes Kabir different from these saints is his deep concern for important socialreligious issuses in his time despite his sense of detachment towards the world and worldly life as a Nirguna saint and this gives us a clue for tracing a sense of secular religiousity in his philosophy of Bhakti.
Without any doubt Kabir was a nirguna bhakta but his ‘nirguna' is not completely exclusive of saguna so far as his terminology is concerned wherein he, unhesitantly, used the words like 'Hari' and Rāma' etc., who as the personal Gods are the central figures in the saguna bhakti though the adjectives used by Kabir for them indicate very clearly about their abstract impersonifications, as he says in the following words:
"भारी कहाँ तो बहजु डरौं, हलका कहाँ तो झूठा।
मैं का जानूँ राम कू, नैD कबहुँ न दीठा।।
संतो धोखा काढूं कहिये। गुण में निरगुण, निरगुण में गुण ___बाट छाँडि क्यूँ बहिये।।
अजरा, अमर, कथै सब कोई, अलख न कथणाँ जाई। नाति सरूप वरण नहीं जाकै, घटि-घटि रहयो समाई । प्यंड ब्रांड कथै सब कोई, वाकै आदि अरू अन्त न होई। प्यंड ब्रांड छाँडि जे कथिये कहै कबीर हरि सोई ।।
These descriptions of Rama and Hari remind us about the Upanişadic descriptions of Nisprapanch and Saprapanca Brahman and it is not without reason that a number of scholars have seen the influence of Upanisadic Philosophy on Kabir's bhakti declaring the latter as the continuance of the former but then again Kabir comes before as a different and distinct personality when he defines his relationships with Rama and Hari as:
'कबीर कूता राम का मुतिया मेरा नाउँ। गले राम की जेबड़ी जित बैंचे तित जाँउ।।
also