Digest bhakti.v004.n208

[Guest guest]

>

>"Balu" <balu

>About the Bhaktas and Bhakti

>Fri, 21 Jan 2000 01:44:05 +0100

>MIME-Version: 1.0

>Content-Type: text/plain;

> charset="iso-8859-1"

>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>

>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 ...).

 

Can u elaborate on how it is worthless?

 

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?

 

No question, no answer! what is your question?

>

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

>

>Yours truly,

>

>Balu

 

In my understanding, people like me who are neither bhaktas nor prapannas but

are only enthusiasts, do like kannan's pastime mentioned

above, for the following two reasons:

 

1. It is the pastime of the Loveliest Baby earth has ever seen.

 

2. That Baby happens to be the parabrahman and vice versa, according to all

valid Hindu texts like Vedas, (vedic) upanishats, brahma sutras, itihasas,

saattvic puranas and Aptatamas (very dear to the jeevas) like valmiki, parasara,

vyasa. It is the true nature of jeevas to love Him and glorify Him. Every

pastime of His is divine. to say those who praise Him are sychophants and

getting moved by His pastimes is worthless is rubbish.

 

Staement one and two are interlinked.

 

That baby showed universes in His mouth, only because He was parabrahman.

Everything is within Him ad He is within everything. It is not possible for

jeevas to do that. Thus the "I" here is purushottaman. we can never be Him.

 

sacchitasayi bhujagendrasayi nandanka sayi kamalanka sayi - sankaracharya

 

 

vishnu

 

 

 

 

LYCOShop. Thousands of products! One location!

http://shop.lycos.com/

[Guest guest]

Sri Raamajayam

Sri GopAla DEsika MahADEsikAya Namaha

 

Dear Sri.Balu,

Adiyen have always asked these kind of questions

to myself(out of realization these are important) and used to

ask such questions to my maternal grandfather when I was young

(since our PSBB school always encourage debates & and somehow I

tried to be oversmart instead of being humble enough as to how

to ask such questions from a learned person)

 

Regarding Bhakthi

'Bhakthi' is realization of the Ultimate goal(Sriman Naarayana), where we

are(Samsaara), where we are going(rebirth in Samsaara, Sivapadam,

Satyaloka,Paramapadam), where we should go, and having a resolve to attain the

same(Vairaghya and Jnaana). Having mentioned Bhakthi, Adiyen is tempted to say

something on 'Para Bhakthi'. 'Para Bhakthi' is unfaltering Bhakthi, like Thaila

Dharanam(Oil flow) flows inconsequential of the holes(surroundings, events).

 

Regarding specifics of "Vennai Unda Vaayan", "Maakan Chor" Sri Krishna,

 

Well beauty is in the eye that beholds. So there is no true or false about what

you perceive out of an event. Azhvaars displayed 'Para Bhakthi' in any

Bhaava(as a father, as a Nayaki, as a Mithra). In fact taking the Lord in our

responsibility as a father or Nayaki, the Azhvaars have been able to command the

Lord(of course they did it out of deep love without any ego), and the Lord is

"Sonna Vannam Seibhavan"('he does what he was told). This is demonstrated in

many Azhvaar Vaibhavam, like Thirumazhisai Azhvaar, Andaal etc. We are not

Azhvaars since our Bhakthi(if at all Adiyen have some) has not matured to 'Para

Bhakthi' and we are not able to see our children/other children as the Lord

being born to us.

 

My(Adiyen) two cents, based on what I have heard.

 

Sri Raamanuja Daasan,

 

Sudarsana Dasosmi

 

"Balu" <balu

About the Bhaktas and Bhakti

Fri, 21 Jan 2000 01:44:05 +0100

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: text/plain;

charset="iso-8859-1"

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

 

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