About the Bhaktas and Bhakti

[Guest guest]

Dear Fellow-travellers,

 

Avidly, and with great interest, have I been following our discussions. I

want to raise a question about which, I hope, you will do some thinking

before answering -- if at all. Is bhakti what the bhaktas do, or are people

bhaktas because they 'follow' (bad choice of words, but there is no other

way to put it) the 'bhakti marga', or is bhakti *neither* of the two? I mean

to ask you the following: is the bhakta moved because, for example, the

child who stole the butter happens to be the *Kannan*, or because the

*child*, who also happens to be the Lord, stole the butter? If it is the

first, it is *worthless*: it is the same as being a sycophant (as the

Americans would put it: one sucks up to ...). If the second, it is false:

surely, we are not moved to tears when our children steal and then lie about

it. When the mother gets to hear from a child: "'I' did not steal" and, as

proof, gets to see the 'vishwarupa' (in the mouth where the speech manifests

itself) and 'sees' the Cosmos (all that ever was, is and shall be) in an

'I' -- what is the question, and what the answer?

 

In the hope that bhakti will not become a show of sentimentality,

 

Yours truly,

 

Balu

[Guest guest]

--- Balu <balu wrote:

> Dear Fellow-travellers,

Is bhakti what the> bhaktas do, or are people

> bhaktas because they 'follow' (bad choice of words,

> but there is no other> way to put it) the 'bhakti

marga', or is bhakti> *neither* of the two?

> surely, we are not moved to tears when our children

> steal and then lie about> it. In the hope that

bhakti will not become a show of> sentimentality,

> Yours truly,

> > Balu

 

Dear bhakta,

 

AchAryA-s have been known to define "bhakti" simply as

"love"... love of God.

 

To understand the nature of "bhakti" in your own

terms, perhaps you should try asking yourself the

following questions:

 

What is "love"? Is it what "lovers" do? Or is it more?

Is it an "approach to life" or "mArga"?

 

Is love mere "emotion"? Or "sentimentality"? Or is

"love" the real bond that ties you and this world

together, you and your family together,you and your

fellow-beings too?

 

Is there a difference between "falling in love" with

someone and "being in love" with someone?

 

Have you by chance read Shakespeare or Valmiki? If you

have then please ask yourself: "When we love someone

do we always become his/her "sychophant" or "slave"?

Was the sublime "love" between Shakespeare's Romeo and

Juliet "slavish"? Was the "love" between Bharatha and

Rama in Valmiki's Ramayana,"sychophantic"? Does not

the love of Bharatha defy our attempts to easily

categorize it into either "this" or "that" sort of

love?

 

Surely, you are aware of the subtle difference in

various degrees of intensity of "love" there is...

such as, for example, in the relations between mother

and infant, father and son, between spouses, between

teeny-boppers, between two thick friends, between

siblings....? "Bhakti" is the highest degree of love

that exists... and it is between Man and his Maker.

 

As regards your questions on "Kannan" and

"butter-thief" you must understand that the stories of

"krishna-leelA-s" are not all to be taken in a

narrowly literal sense. The stories of Krishna

stealing butter etc. are all allegorical accounts of

Upanishadic truth... of how God "steals" individual

souls or "jeevA-s" and "feasts" on them in a

larger-than-human, cosmic sense.

 

The story of Krishna's many "leelA-s" in Gokulam are

not meant to appeal to the reader at a purely

intellectual level. They have deeper subliminal

messages to be absorbed and experienced within the

core of one's being....

 

It is very difficult to explain in plain language the

complex feelings of "bhakti" that the AzhwArs or our

AchAryA-s felt for God. I agree with you, in our weak

translations, their outpourings of great bhakti

sometimes do seem "mushy" and "sentimental". But to

really understand the AzhwArs and their bhakti you

have to get immersed in the "religion of Krishna", in

that kind of special language... that special

experience... in that special kind of Love!

 

In short, "bhakti" perhaps is not all what "bhaktA-s"

do; perhaps, strictly speaking, it is not even a

pre-defined way of life... a "mArgA", as you say. But

most certainly, "bhakti" is a rare state of rare

realization!

 

Trust adiyen has been able to answer your question

without any trace of "sentimentality".

 

dAsan,

Sampathkumaran

 

 

 

 

Talk to your friends online with Messenger.

http://im.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sampathkumaran,

 

Thank you for your kind response. Before anything else, perhaps, a

clarification. I get the impression, by your use of quotation marks, that my

note might have sounded polemical. Should this impression be correct, my

apologies. I do not want to be either sarcastic or aggressive. But I do want

to have a discussion -- not to prove any point, but to understand.

Understand what? you might ask. In the form of questions, here are some

answers.

 

1. Could we, that is, ordinary human beings that the most of us are,

experience (or achieve the state of) bhakti? Why is it that the more one

searches for it, the more distant and unreachable it becomes? (The analogy

with finding 'the true love' does not work here because one does not know

what 'true love' is, where to find it, and it uniquely varies from person to

person. Our traditions (a) teach us about Bhakti, tell us that (b) with the

help of a teacher, and © in the company of the dAsas, any person could

find or achieve bhakti.)

 

2. While a profoundly deep emotion appears to accompany Bhakti, the latter

is *not identical* to the former. Why do I say this? In their *search* for

Bhakti, and before they find it, most Bhaktas constantly lament -- with deep

anguish -- that 'the karunAmayi' does not appear to show 'karuna' to them.

Surely, during this phase, their emotions for the Lord (if this is what

Bhakti is) is not (a) any less (quantitatively speaking) or (b) inauthentic

or fake © or any different. If it was an emotional deficiency, why do

these teachers not state this very obvious and simple truth about their own

emotions (that both you and I seem to know)? The imagery of love is used to

describe an emotional state (mostly of those who are searching for bhakti),

but bhakti itself does not appear to fall together with a particular

emotion.

 

3. Here is yet another formulation of the above problem. One of the

impedements to Bhakti, the enlightened seem to say, are our *emotional*

attachments and entanglements in the world. They *do not* say that we are

merely attached to the wrong objects and people, and that shifting the locus

(or the focus) of these attachments is what bhakti is. However, they do say

that bhakti shifts these emotional bonds from the worldly things onto the

Lord. Does it not follow from this Bhakti cannot be an *emotion* but is

accompanied by one?

 

4. My questions might sound arid and, in the pejorative sense of the word,

'merely academic'. If they do, my apologies for the tone. My concern,

however, is neither. What amazes me (cognitively speaking) and drives me to

despair and beyond (existentially speaking) is the singular absence of an

issue of overriding importance. You see, our traditions tell us what it is

to be in a state of ignorance (where most of us find ourselves in), how one

is when one is searching, and what it is like when one has found it. (Call

the 'it', the truth, bhakti, enlightenment, or whatever else you feel like.)

What they do not tell us is also what all of us need to know: *how* did

those who were successful make the transition from one state to the other?

What helped them? Why do *none* of them speak about these, once they reach

whatever they reached? Why do they merely tell us that the truth is staring

us in our face, what that truth is, but not how they came to realise it? I

mean, all of us 'know' -- in some sense -- what they say. 'Knowing' this

does not help us; even 'believing' in this truth does not bring us closer to

whatever they were close to or united with. They too knew this truth while

they were searching, and it was not adequate for them either. At some stage

or another, they made the transition from a state of utter anguish to that

of total 'bliss'. What enabled them? Did they simply wake up one day with a

profound realisation, did a miracle occur, or is it something like the

lottery? If none of these, why are *all* of them so quiet on this utterly,

utterly crucial issue?

 

 

The more one reads, the more one thinks, the more one feels abandoned -- by

whom or by what, one does not know. My hope in posting to the group was (and

is) to find out how others think. It is my hope too to understand whatever

it is I do not.

 

Yours

 

Balu

[Guest guest]

Dear Balu

Its soo funny the way your question is, I may not

know so many things, but i guess i can share what

little i know !!! Well first off, Lord never stole

anything well I know we all hear that He stole the

butter, and lied about it and all that, but the key is

to understand one thing, that Lord Sri Krishna Blessed

the Gokulam with cow's and gave them a meaningful life

of his leelas and etc... We as his devotees, must

offer everything to God, even before we take anything,

well for that matter trust me, even ourselves, our

kids wife, grand kids, parents and everything and

anything that you know in life, must be offered to

God, before you accept it, coz it's his blessing and

his grace that what we are today, and even this life,

He is the one that blessed us for giving this Human

Life and just as how a claf who is saperated from the

mother will stive to go back to her, The Atma we have

in ourselves will exactly feel the same that We all

should Stive to go back to that GodHead, but anyway

comming back to your question, Lord Sri Krishna has

actually blessed the gopi's and other goppanas by

stealing their butter, coz even before they go and

sell it and make money or a living out of that butter,

its because of Lord Sri Krishna's blessing that they

have that, and by stealing it from them he has taken

the liberty to take it by Himself rather than them

giving it to them... Acutally in reality they all

Loved when Sri Krishna stole thier butter and milk,

but its just the maya loka in which we are in that we

see things little different, that how come He stole

butter and lied about it !!! No actually in reality,

it belongs to Him and its us who stole that from Him.

Well even this Life tooo for that matter it even

dosent belong to us, we have stolen it from him and

its our duty to give it back to Him !!!!! Thats why

the Bhakthi Marga and the Prapathi Marga which guides

us to attain salvation, and attain moksham in life...

Well to define Bhakthi marga we have to go back to

Gita, and refer what Sri Krishna told us, I believe

most you do know that so i dont wanna expand on that,

but the other eazy path of salvation which is Prapathi

Marga, through which we follow Sri Ramanuja who has

shown the path of Salvation to one and all in this

earth, well the principal behind that is, If one

couldnt attain perfection in Bhakthi then Prapathi is

the way to go to attain Moksham coz imagine and lets

analyze ourselves, None of us here are as great as the

King Jada Bharatha, who literally left even his

Kingdom to attain salvation, he then spent his life in

a forest and try to do thapasya on the Lord Govinda

to attain Moksham, but unfortunately he fell in love

with a bambi and he took care of that little dear in

his old age, and died thinking about the dear rather

than the Great Lord, well lets imagine how may dear

things we have in life, Family Friends, Car, Houses,

well the list goes on !!! But anyway in prapathi marga

one still follows the Bhakthi marga, but gets an

assurance of an enterence to Moksham by Lord in this

birth itself, by surrendering to through an Acharya.

The reason is once the lord gives His Word to us, he

will never go back, for instance, Lakshmana asks Rama

that Rama you have promised Vibhishana the kingdom

when he surrendered to you, what if tomarrow Ravana

himself comes and surrenders to you, then what would

be your answer. Rama then says " Sakru Deva

Prapanyaya, Thavas Mi Ithi Yachathi, Abhayam Sarva

Boothabyoo, Dhatham yaathat Vratham Mamaa" (please

pardon me if ther are any mistakes on this sloka ) but

the meaning is that Lord Rama says forget about Ravana

even to any jeevathma, for that instance comes to me

and surrenders completely to me, then I will give them

Salvation no matter what !!!! Well That is the Great

ness of our Lord, I dont know if i answerd your

question or not, to just recap about Bhathi and

Bhaktas, its like one cannot be without the other, Its

the Force Bhakti that drives the Bhaktas and i repeat

its the Force Bhakthi that gives a meaning to

everyone's life. Everyone in this earth certainly do

have that, and its just matter of time to realize to

what extent to it, it is !!!!!

 

Adiyen

Servent of my Acharya and Bhagavathas and to My Lord.

Krishna Kanumalla

 

--- Balu <balu wrote:

> Dear Fellow-travellers,

>

> Avidly, and with great interest, have I been

> following our discussions. I

> want to raise a question about which, I hope, you

> will do some thinking

> before answering -- if at all. Is bhakti what the

> bhaktas do, or are people

> bhaktas because they 'follow' (bad choice of words,

> but there is no other

> way to put it) the 'bhakti marga', or is bhakti

> *neither* of the two? I mean

> to ask you the following: is the bhakta moved

> because, for example, the

> child who stole the butter happens to be the

> *Kannan*, or because the

> *child*, who also happens to be the Lord, stole the

> butter? If it is the

> first, it is *worthless*: it is the same as being a

> sycophant (as the

> Americans would put it: one sucks up to ...). If the

> second, it is false:

> surely, we are not moved to tears when our children

> steal and then lie about

> it. When the mother gets to hear from a child: "'I'

> did not steal" and, as

> proof, gets to see the 'vishwarupa' (in the mouth

> where the speech manifests

> itself) and 'sees' the Cosmos (all that ever was, is

> and shall be) in an

> 'I' -- what is the question, and what the answer?

>

> In the hope that bhakti will not become a show of

> sentimentality,

>

> Yours truly,

>

> Balu

>

>

 

 

Talk to your friends online with Messenger.

http://im.

[Guest guest]

--- Balu <balu wrote:

> Dear Sampathkumaran,

But I do want> to have a discussion -- not to prove

any point, but> to understand.

 

Dear Sri.Balu,

You have actually raised a very good point and my

compliments to you for it. I am not being sarcastic at

all. I am sorry if my first response came across to

you as "aggressive". Sometmes the vigour of our

arguments comes across as "aggressive" but it is not

really so. Adiyen would love to have a discussion on

the subject of your choice.

 

--------------

> 1. Could we, that is, ordinary human beings that the

> most of us are,> experience (or achieve the state

of) bhakti? Why is> it that the more one> searches for

it, the more distant and unreachable it> becomes? (The

analogy> with finding 'the true love' does not work

here> because one does not know> what 'true love' is,

where to find it, and it> uniquely varies from person

to> person. Our traditions (a) teach us about Bhakti,

> tell us that (b) with the> help of a teacher, and

© in the company of the> dAsas, any person could>

find or achieve bhakti.)

 

A cow needs no "guru" nor any tutoring to love its

calf. A mother does not have to "search" and seize

"love" from anywhere in the world before gathering up

her new-born infant to put it to her breast.

 

Where does such love spring from? Does such love "vary

from person to person"? Is such love "distant and

unreachable"? Do we need to scout far and wide in this

world for such love? Or is it easily found within

ourselves?

 

----------------

> 2.In their *search* for> Bhakti, and before they

find it, most Bhaktas> constantly lament -- with deep>

anguish -- that 'the karunAmayi' does not appear to

> show 'karuna' to them.> If it was an emotional>

deficiency, why do> these teachers not state this very

obvious and> simple truth about their own

> emotions ? The> imagery of love is used to

> describe an emotional state (mostly of those who are

> searching for bhakti),> but bhakti itself does not

appear to fall together> with a particular> emotion.

 

I think the teachers you mention like the "AzhwArs"

and other "AchAryA-s" are actually very honest or

forthright about their emotional state of "deficiency"

as you call it. (Here, the Vaishnavaite orthodoxy will

however be quick to point out that the 'AzhwArs' etc.

were speaking for we ordinary souls and not on their

own behalf).

 

They make no secret of the fact that as long as they

experience a sense of spiritual/emotional separation

from their object of love i.e. God, they do feel

"deficient" ... their very life feels empty and they

feel "incomplete" as individuals. As far as I know,

nowhere do they equate their feelings of anguish with

"bhakti". In fact they ascribe their anguish and

emptiness to the "lack of bhakti". The burden of their

lamentations is that God is indifferent to them

probably because their present state of "bhakti" is

either insufficiently intense or genuine. A state of

"incomplete bhakti" (or ripening bhakti, if you

like)is often referred by them variously as "virakti",

"a-vivEkam", "nirvEdam" etc. If you read their poetry

you will see that in many heart-rending passages they

actually beseech Him to bestow true "bhakti" upon them

which will remove their blighted state of anguish and

unfulfilment.

 

----------------

> > 3. One of the> impedements to Bhakti, the

enlightened seem to say,> are our *emotional*>

attachments and entanglements in the world. They *do>

not* say that we are> merely attached to the wrong

objects and people, and> that shifting the locus> (or

the focus) of these attachments is what bhakti> is.

However, they do say> that bhakti shifts these

emotional bonds from the> worldly things onto the>

Lord. Does it not follow from this Bhakti cannot be>

an *emotion* but is> accompanied by one?>

 

In its highest sense, as adiyen mentioned in the

previous post, bhakti is more than emotion. It is rare

state of rare realization. I have never come across

any "AchAryA"... certainly not an "enlightened one"...

who encourages us to wallow and remain wallowing in

our negative states of "virakti", "nirvEdam" and

'a-vivEkam'. They all urge us to progress to a state

of realization called bhakti.... a state of pure bliss

in the undiminishing knowledge of God. But such an

exalted state of "bhakti" does not drop overnight from

the skies for most of us. One has to graduate to it in

life after undergoing many, many experiences some of

which may well include those of spiritual despair,

feelings of emptiness and ennui, emotional

"deficiency", "nirvEdam" or "virakti".

 

The 'enlightened ones' are advocates of 'bhakti' as a

supreme state of realization. They are not advocates

for the emotions that lead to Bhakti. Bhakti is the

ultimate destination. The "feelings" or "emotions"

leading to "bhakti" are transit lounges.

 

-------------------

> 4. What amazes me (cognitively> speaking) and drives

me to> despair and beyond (existentially speaking) is

..... What they (the enlightened ones) do not tell us

is also what all of us need> to know: *how* did> those

who were successful make the transition from> one

state to the other?> What helped them? Why do *none*

of them speak about> these, once they reach> whatever

they reached? Why do they merely tell us> that the

truth is staring> us in our face, what that truth is,

but not how they> came to realise it? I> mean, all of

us 'know' -- in some sense -- what they> say.

'Knowing' this

> does not help us; even 'believing' in this truth

> does not bring us closer to> whatever they were

close to or united with. They too> knew this truth

while

> they were searching, and it was not adequate for

> them either. At some stage> or another, they made

the transition from a state of> utter anguish to that

> of total 'bliss'. What enabled them? Did they simply

> wake up one day with a> profound realisation, did a

miracle occur, or is it> something like the> lottery?

If none of these, why are *all* of them so> quiet on

this utterly,> utterly crucial issue?

 

There was a Persian poet named Omar Khayyam who once

wrote:

 

"Strange, is it not? the myriads who

Before us passed the Door of Darkness thro';

Not one returns to tell us of the Road

Which to discover we must travel too!"

(The Rubbaiyat of Omar Khayyam)

 

St.NammAzhwAr wrote in one of his lines in the

"tiruvoimOzhi":

 

"vandAypolE vArAdAy, vArAdAy pOl varuvAnE!"

("I see Him come and I see Him go, I see Him here and

I see Him there! But where is He truly?".

 

Rejoice, dear Sri.Balu!! You are in the august company

of great souls here!

---------------------

> The more one reads, the more one thinks, the more

> one feels abandoned -- by> whom or by what, one does

not know.

> Yours

> Balu

 

Yours is a noble emotion, indeed, I tell you Sri.Balu!

"Spiritual confusion" is the first step towards

spiritual emancipation! Do not worry, carry on

reading, thinking....The Good God will certainly show

you the light of bhakti!

 

dAsan,

Sampathkumaran

 

 

Talk to your friends online with Messenger.

http://im.

[Guest guest]

Sri:

 

SrimatE Gopaladesika MahadesikAya Namaha,

 

Dear Bhaktas,

 

Adiyen normally does not write unless commanded by his Acharya or

by Bhagavatas. However, the question raised by Sri Balu is an

important one. Srimans Sampath Kumaran and Krishna Kanumalla

provided illuminating points of view on the subject. Therefore,

Adiyen will try to answer Sri Balu's question succinctly.

 

The concept of Bhakti can be best understood from the following

three relationships:

 

(1) The love of a mother for her child:

This relationship borders

on overbearing concern of the mother for her little one. As far as

the mother is concerned, the child represents the entire world to

her. At all times, she is immersed in thoughts of the child's progress

and welfare. Every need of the child is meticulously taken care of with

great attention to detail. The mother does not hesitate even for

a moment to even put her life at risk in order to avert danger to

her child. This unmitigated, spontaneous flow of love is called

Vatsalya. The term Vatsa means calf. A cow which has just given birth

to a calf is called Dhenu. The bonding between the Dhenu and Vatsa

is denoted by Vatsalya. In the Sri Stuthi, Swami Desikan extols

the Vatsalyam of Thayar as "Grama SeemAntha RekhAm", i.e., like a village

which has no boundaries.

 

(2)The love between a husband and wife:

This relationship borders on matters of the heart. The Sama Vedam

extols this relationship as "Etat Tava Hrudayam Hrudayam Mama

Etat Mama Hrudayam Hrudayam Tava". The innermost feelings of the

wife's heart are known to her husband and vice versa. It is this

unison which is responsible for a successful marriage.

 

(3)The relationship between two friends:

This relationship is based on all things common between two people.

Common interests, activites, tastes, companionship, support in times

of distress, and keen interest in each other's well being drive this

relationship.

 

Bhakti, which forms the bonding between a devotee and the Lord, is

the sum total of the above three relationships.

 

Sri Krishna Kanumalla made an excellent point on Lord Krishna stealing

butter from the Gopa Stris. The best description of this act is

contained in Swami Desikan's Gopala Vimshati. In particular the salutation

"Nathasya Nanda BhavanE Navaneeta Natyam" provides testimony to Swami

Desikan's superb Anubhavam. H.H. Srimad Poundarikapuram Andavan Swami has

elaborated on this salutation in

considerable depth in the Gopala Vimshati Upanyasam tapes. The set

of 12 tapes is now available. H.H. provided the following explanation

for Lord Krishna stealing the butter.

 

"In the Vamana Avataram, the Lord approached Mahabali who was an

emperor as a Brahmin boy. In keeping with his VarNAshrama Dharma

(begging for alms), the Lord begged for three paces of land from

Mahabali. In the Rama Avataram, the Lord took birth as Chakravarthi

Tirumagan. Therefore, he was born to rule. Therefore, he upheld

Kshatriya Dharma in each of his actions. In the Krishna Avataram,

the Lord wanted to demonstrate his easy accessibility (Soulabhyam).

Therefore, he freely mixed and mingled with the common folk of Gokul.

Since, the residents of Gokul were commoners, it was not appropriate

for Him to ask for alms. Since, he was not their king he could not

demand the butter of them. However, He is the emperor of the entire

universe and is the ruler of everything sentient and insentient

therein. Hence, it was merely a matter of exercising his right

as SarvEshwaran. Therefore, he stole the butter as well as the hearts

of the Gopa Stris!"

 

Namo Narayana,

 

SriMuralidhara Dasan

 

 

____

Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com