Guest guest Posted December 3, 1999 Report Share Posted December 3, 1999 saa tasmin.h parama premaruupaa || 2 || The bhakti should be in the form of ultimate love (Universal). How does this much-talked about bhakti look like? Generally, we know that bhakti should be developed (whatever the form is). It is very difficult to define bhakti but not impossible. Bhakti is nothing but love, intense love. Besides being intense, it should be universal. We should be able to see the object of worship as all pervading. [contributed by Saraswathy] -- Please contribute your comments and corrections. I will try to post one verse per week, so that we have enough time to contemplate. Since I may not be checking my mail that often next week, I am posting it today instead on Monday. What is love or prema? Please do explain this context. Ravi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 1999 Report Share Posted December 4, 1999 The two different books I have on the bhakti sutras have this suutra as: saa tvasminparamapremaruupaa . [instead of tasmin.h] [Extracts from D. Deglurkar's Marathi commentary. If this translation approximates the author's intent, and the readers' approval, I shall deem it as a prasaada from aMbA and the author.] saa = that (bhakti) devotion tu = verily asmin = in this self-evident Supreme Divine Nature paramapremaruupaa = highest form of love The nature of bhakti is the highest form of love for the Supreme Divine. In many scriptures various forms of bhakti have been described, in which there is an emphasis on action. Life itself is sustained by action; but the Divine cannot be pleased by mere action. The underlying, inner sense of love in performing the action is paramount in bhakti. The word asmin(in THIS), rather than tasmin (in THAT), is significant of the fact that to experience intense love one has to feel the object as one's very own. The Divine is eternally self-evident (aparoksha); love for anything else fluctuates through separation and attachment. To love this inseparable Divinity is the hallmark of devotion. The word tu indicates, in a sense, the exclusion of objects other than the Divine. [sutra 2: to be contd.] ----Original Message Follows---- "Ravisankar S. Mayavaram" <msr shriimaataa NBS-2 Fri, 3 Dec 1999 17:16:45 -0600 saa tasmin.h parama premaruupaa || 2 || The bhakti should be in the form of ultimate love (Universal). How does this much-talked about bhakti look like? Generally, we know that bhakti should be developed (whatever the form is). It is very difficult to define bhakti but not impossible. Bhakti is nothing but love, intense love. Besides being intense, it should be universal. We should be able to see the object of worship as all pervading. [contributed by Saraswathy] -- Please contribute your comments and corrections. I will try to post one verse per week, so that we have enough time to contemplate. Since I may not be checking my mail that often next week, I am posting it today instead on Monday. What is love or prema? Please do explain this context. Ravi ------ AUM shrImAtre namaH Archives : / : http://www.geocities.com/kaamaakshi/ Contact : miinalochanii & lotus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 1999 Report Share Posted December 13, 1999 On Sun, 12 Dec 1999, Aravind Krishna wrote: > > > saa tasmin.h parama premaruupaa || 2 || > The bhakti should be in the form of ultimate love (Universal). > > (A straight translation would be 'Bakti is intense love for god', phrases > 'should be' & ' in the form of' are not in the sutra). > I think parama prema ruupa will mean "in the form of supreme/ultimate love". I would like to know how the saa tasmin is resolved here. I would think the suutra will mean "That (bhakti) in its nature (in that, tasmin), is of the form of ultimate/supreme love". ----- I am raising some issues about this suutra. I do this with an intention to understand it more. So please explain. I hope I do not offend any one by these objections. If so I apologize in advance. ---- This suutra is a statement of one immersed in bhakti and thus expressing its nature. But it has little practical value for an aspirant. I find shrI nArada tries to explain/define one unknown with another unknown. That way is not so much useful in application. It is like explaining a blind man who wants the description of rising sun, that it is red in color. How will he imagine red in the first place? What is love? It is a pretty subjective term, prone to different interpretations. In this context, I find shankara's definition of bhakti in shivAnandalaharI verse 61 more clean and clear. It is even better than his definition in vivekachuDaamaniH. In the latter he defines it as constant contemplation/enquiry into Self. In verse 61 AchArya illustrates it through wonderful examples. God' nature as love ( the basis of shaiva siddhanta "anbE shivam" - which means God is love, found in thirumular), or as in the verses of recent vaLLalaar that the love is best way to God (anbenum piDiyuL agappaDum malaiye ... ) all use a term love (tamil anbu) which is intuitive and subjective, to define another unknown God. Personally I find it quite confusing. What is love? Is it a feeling, or an emotion or a longing or a form of attachment? If it is said that it is one's true nature. We are back to square one in our quest to finding our true nature. If it is an emotion, then like any other emotion might cloud the clarity of thought, and undermine the voice of reason. In the light of this subjectivity and confusion, I think the light shown by shankara is verse 61 is a great gift to the seeker. Bhakti is a constant flow thoughts towards bhagavAn. When this occurs, mind will become one pointed and become quiet. When the turbid waters of mind settles, our inner nature will be revealed. Scriptures say that our inner nature is sat-chit-ananda, we may be able to verify it through direct contact. If it is of boundless love, then it will be self evident. AUM shrImAtre namaH Ravi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 1999 Report Share Posted December 14, 1999 Dear Bhakta-s, My objections/questions to suutraa 2 is raised only with the intention to understand more. I request you all feel free to comment and correct what I write. I certainly believe that God is love (anbe shivam). But that is a belief and not an first hand experience. So it lacks the power of experience. But many advanced sAdhaka-s has experienced God in HER form as premaruupaa. Few years back, I spent a week in a men only ashram (SRF) in CA. I met renunciant who worships God as Divine Mother. People in that ashram, meditate a lot*. He wanted to have an experience of Divine Mother for a long time. One day by HER grace, he went into a state of divine intoxication, he told me that for three days he could not do anything he was so overwhelmed with love, he perceived everything as God and was overflowing with love and joy. He could not even eat or sleep. SHE is indeed premaruupaa. Other living example to show "God is love" is mAtA amR^itaanandamayii. She does give me a glimpse of what love is. One thing that demonstrates love is the tears that naturally swell in one's eyes. VaLLuvar beautifully says that in "anbiRkuNDO aDaikkum thaazh aarvalar punkaNiir puusal tharum" I look forward to your thoughts on what prema/love/anbu is. Ravi * SRF celebrates Xmas through all day meditation. They meditate on a saturday before Xmas from morning 9 to 5. There will be beautiful chants every hours, so that people can stretch if they want. This was a tradition started by svami yogananda. Some of the chants are on ambaaL and so beautifully set in music. Simple lines repeated again and again. "Engrossed is the bee of my mind On the blue lotus feet of my divine mother" ... "Who tells me thou art dark O my Mother divine Thousands of suns and moons From thy body do shine" and so on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 1999 Report Share Posted December 14, 1999 This is in view of Sri Ravi's question, > > > > saa tasmin.h parama premaruupaa || 2 || > > The bhakti should be in the form of ultimate love (Universal). > > > > (A straight translation would be 'Bakti is intense love for god', >phrases > > 'should be' & ' in the form of' are not in the sutra). > > > >I think parama prema ruupa will mean "in the form of >supreme/ultimate love". I would like to know how the saa tasmin >is resolved here. > >I would think the suutra will mean "That (bhakti) in its nature >(in that, tasmin), is of the form of ultimate/supreme love". The phrase 'should be' is a compulsive one, which would sound 'bhakti should not be of any thing else expect prema', which the sutra does not directly convey. saa = that tu = verily asmin = (in) this parama premaruupaa = highest form of love As the next sutra defines it as ' Ananda', the phrase 'should be' becomes contradictory as one more object is being equated. 'Parama Prema' can be interpreted as 'nothing else other than love' the adjective parama can be well understood by the phrase 'paramAcharya'. rUpa can be interpreted as 'in the form of' nothing wrong in it, but its better to interpret it the form itself. In sahasranAma, the 730 nAma is premarUpA which is normally translated as 'She who is pure love', the phrase 'in the form of' is again a compulsive one. > ---- > >This suutra is a statement of one immersed in bhakti and thus >expressing its nature. But it has little practical value for an >aspirant. I find shrI nArada tries to explain/define one unknown >with another unknown. That way is not so much useful in >application. It is like explaining a blind man who wants the >description of rising sun, that it is red in color. How will he >imagine red in the first place? > > Love does not need any definition, a baby does not ask for a 'nutrition facts table' to suck its mother's milk. Its beyond intellectual debates. It's the inborn nature of any living being and human in particular. If you give a close comparison to the shivAnanda lahari verse and the sutra Thinking of the lord only in Trouble - seeds of the ankola tree.. is not bakti as there is no prema here. If the almighty is going to give him what he needs he is going to say you are karuNa jalade, if not he will say adverse things. First the approach as a need fulfillment is not bakthi. I sited mukunda Mala shloka to explain that. Like wise other examples can also be eliminated, if another powerful magnet is near the iron foil, it leaves the present one and gets to the new one. Bhakti is not a mind-occupying factor, as some thing else powerful will come and occupy due to vAsanAs. As the destination changes here, this is also not bhakti, Moral and social laws bind chaste women, she can not come and embrace her husband in a crowed. Until some thing else bounds you it is not bhakti. The bakti rasodaya shloka makes it clear that it is apart from loka veda niyamAs. A creeper clings in the view of support, If the supporting stick falls down it does in search of another, survival is the key there. That is also not bhakti. A bhakta cares little for hell or haven. PAtayA vA pAtAle sthApAyAvA sakalabhuvanasAmrAjye . mAtastava padayugala.m nAha.m muJNchAmi naiva munJNchAmi .. River flowing into the ocean because that is its nature. Not because it intentionally wants to do it like in other cases. The true nature of mankind is to love, its parama prema. Constant contemplation is not the one sited here. There is no contemplation, I have asked people who just like that embrace bhAva samAdhi during dhiyanAma bajan how do they lose consciousness. I have asked them, do you constantly think of the lord?. They would say we do some thing or the other but he comes and fills this deha patram, there is no we or he at that point. Nothing is seen nor does the witness to see exist. Sutras are not explanatory works. That is why we have people writing commentaries and sub commentaries on them. So criticizing that it does not explain or give in a form that dumb people like me can follow, is not a valid comment. Regards Aravind ____ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 1999 Report Share Posted December 14, 1999 "ravisankar s. mayavaram" <ms- wrote: original article:/?start=210 > > > On Sun, 12 Dec 1999, Aravind Krishna wrote: > > > > > This suutra is a statement of one immersed in bhakti and thus > expressing its nature. But it has little practical value for an > aspirant. I find shrI nArada tries to explain/define one unknown > with another unknown. That way is not so much useful in > application. It is like explaining a blind man who wants the > description of rising sun, that it is red in color. How will he > imagine red in the first place? The practical value for the aspirant is only if the aspirant accepts the statement as a 'pramaaNa', valid one due to the authority of Narada. As the Gita says: tadviddhi praNipaatena pariprashnena sevayaa . upadekshyanti te j~naana.n j~naninastattvadarshinaH .. The techniques for uncovering this nature of love are yet to be discussed. That love is always there as Truth; it is only our vasanas that are hiding it. If you are referring to a person born blind, that person will not know even what light is, let alone color. Our blindness is acquired in the sense that despite the sages' instructions, we continue to despise shastraic injunctions! > > What is love? It is a pretty subjective term, prone to different > interpretations. In this context, I find shankara's definition of > bhakti in shivAnandalaharI verse 61 more clean and clear. It is > even better than his definition in vivekachuDaamaniH. In the > latter he defines it as constant contemplation/enquiry into > Self. In verse 61 AchArya illustrates it through wonderful > examples. This is like comparing the enjoyment of one who likes no sugar in his cup of tea, with that of another who enjoys it only if 4 teaspoons of sugar are added!! > > God' nature as love ( the basis of shaiva siddhanta "anbE shivam" > - which means God is love, found in thirumular), or as in the > verses of recent vaLLalaar that the love is best way to God > (anbenum piDiyuL agappaDum malaiye ... ) all use a term love > (tamil anbu) which is intuitive and subjective, to define another > unknown God. Personally I find it quite confusing. Faith is dependent on the degree of saatvika quality; saatvika is dependent on the satkarmas of the individual; if the aspirant is unwilling to accept the validity of these equations, the time for ripening has not arrived yet, but the potential is never lost. > > What is love? Is it a feeling, or an emotion or a longing or a > form of attachment? If it is said that it is one's true nature. > We are back to square one in our quest to finding our true > nature. If it is an emotion, then like any other emotion might > cloud the clarity of thought, and undermine the voice of > reason. This is tantamount to asking definitions of time or space. They can only be be experienced. When sages tell us, just get rid of the upadhis by whatever means, reason--saatvika emotions--saatvika karmas, &c. the premasvaruupa will manifest itself. > > In the light of this subjectivity and confusion, I think the > light shown by shankara is verse 61 is a great gift to the > seeker. Bhakti is a constant flow thoughts towards bhagavAn. When > this occurs, mind will become one pointed and become quiet. When > the turbid waters of mind settles, our inner nature will be > revealed. Scriptures say that our inner nature is > sat-chit-ananda, we may be able to verify it through direct > contact. If it is of boundless love, then it will be self > evident. Back to suutra 2!! Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.