Shankara and Bhakti

[Guest guest]

greetings. i've simply reproduced the short section of << samkara on

enlightenment >> below. it's very brief, and the summary of saccidanandendra

svamin on shankara is interesting. at the end, i've placed the notes which

document the excerpt's citations. although many of his other works are

collected there, the university library, unfortunately for me, doesn't hold

shankara's bhagavadgita bhasya. what is reproduced below is from a six-volume

series published by the shanti sadan, london. the series documents shankara's

writings by subject and is a reference for finding topics in the works of

shankara. it's nearly an annotated concordance but more subjective and not as

extensive. i'll also find the other volume in which an earlier discussion of

bhakti contains more citations from shankara. i'm sorry not to have it nearby

today.

 

i'm unqualified to attempt any opinion about the following excerpt, except that

it's interesting to read and appears to reflect the helpful posting of ram

chandra about the inseperability of the yogas. my reading the list members'

insights and resposes has inspired me in hoping to understand more the advaita

vedantin, of which my insufficient comprehension regretfully has arisen mostly

from my books or the library.

 

at their service,

 

maxwell.

* * *

 

DEVOTION (BHAKTI)

 

The topic of devotion (bhakti) has already come up for discussion earlier at

several places in the present work. Broadly speaking, Samkara was capable of

taking two different lines of interpretation where the term "devotion" (bhakti)

occurred in the texts on which he was commenting. If the text considered

devotion in isolation from knowledge--for instance if it spoke of the path of

devotion or "bhakti yoga"--he made it a preparatory and subordinate phase of the

path leading to knowledge, or at best one which would lead to union with the

Lord in the "indirect" manner, after death. But his more typical course was to

appropriate texts on devotion to the Lord and *identify* them with the path of

knowledge. In fact he frequently refused to acknowledge any difference between

devotion and spiritual knowledge at all.

Saccidanandendra Svamin argued that Samkara is justified in taking the latter

course both by the ancient texts and by the facts of the spiritual path. (44)

Knowledge and devotion, he claims, are not two separate things, but one thing

viewed under different "aspects", as the power of the sun is one thing, though

it may be viewed as two separate things, heat and light. But knowledge and

devotion are entirely inter-dependent. There cannot be knowledge of the true

nature of the Lord through mere reasoning without the spirit of devotion. This

is because the Lord is "the Self seated in the heart of all creatures" (45) and

the Self is that which is dearer than a son, dearer than wealth, closer than

anything else. (46) And on the other side there cannot be devotion without

knowledge. Of the four kinds of devotee mentioned in the Gita, the man of

knowledge is the highest, (47) as devotion is spiritual sensibility and not mere

blind application of the will. When either knowledge or devotion are brought to

their highest pitch they transcend themselves: the knower becomes one with the

known, the lover one with the beloved.

. . .

It is proposed to end the present section with further Extracts which

illustrate the two attitudes in turn. In the first Samkara speaks of "Bhakti

Yoga" as a species of *indirect* path the Absolute. In the second he fuses

devotion with realization of the Absolute in the highest sense--that is to say

he *reduces* it to knowledge. The highest form of devotion is that "whereby

nothing other than Vasudeva is *perceived*."

 

TEXTS ON DEVOTION

 

1. Those who pursue action receive the fruits of action through Me, and those

who pursue knowledge receive the fruits of knowledge from Me. Hence even those

who serve Me through the Yoga of Devotion (bhakti yoga) pass through stages to

acquire spiritual knowledge and are eventually liberated through My grace. If

liberation come to those who perform the Yoga of Devotion, how much more

certainly does it come to those who acquire a correct intuitive knowledge of the

nature of the Self in this very life. (48)

 

2. How, then, can the Lord be seen? Through devotion (bhakti). But through

devotion to what? Devotion to nothing else. The phrase refers to that devotion

which never swerves from the Lord. Devotion-to-none-other is that devotion

whereby nothing other than Vasudeva is perceived by the senses or any organ of

cognition. Through such devotion, O Arjuna, can I be known in this form--that

is, in the form of the universe. I can be known from the traditional texts

(sastra), and not only known from the texts but directly known in My true nature

and can be "entered"--that is, there can be liberation

And now the whole teaching of the Gita-Sastra is epitomized and summed up and

stated for the sake of man's highest good. "O Son of Pandu, whoever acts for My

sake, has Me for his supreme goal, who is devoted to me, free from all

attachment, and who lives without enmity for any creature, he comes to Me." . .

.. A servant works for his master's sake, but he does not think of his master as

his supreme goal which he will attain after death. . . . "Devoted to Me" means

that the he worships Me in every way with his whole being and with all zeal.

"Without attachment" means without servile love or affection for wealth, sons,

friends, wife or relatives. "Without enmity for any creature" means without any

feeling of enmity even for those intent on inflicting grievous harm on him. (49)

 

NOTES

 

(44) Saccidanandendra, Gita-Sastrartha-Viveka

(45) Bhagavad Gita 10.20

(46) Brahd. I.iv.8

(47) B. Gita 7.18

(48) Shankara, Gita Bhasya XI.1

(49) Shankara, Gita Bhasya XI.51 and 55

[Guest guest]

mpw6678 wrote:

> Saccidanandendra Svamin argued that Samkara is justified in taking the

>latter course both by the ancient texts and by the facts of the spiritual

>path. (44) Knowledge and devotion, he claims, are not two separate things,

>but one thing viewed under different "aspects", as the power of the sun is

>one thing, though it may be viewed as two separate things, heat and light.

>But knowledge and devotion are entirely inter-dependent. There cannot be

>knowledge of the true nature of the Lord through mere reasoning without the

>spirit of devotion. This is because the Lord is "the Self seated in the

>heart of all creatures" (45) and the Self is that which is dearer than a

>son, dearer than wealth, closer than anything else. (46) And on the other

>side there cannot be devotion without knowledge. Of the four kinds of

>devotee mentioned in the Gita, the man of knowledge is the highest, (47) as

>devotion is spiritual sensibility and not mere blind application of the

>will. When either knowledge or devotion are brought to their highest pitch

>they transcend themselves: the knower becomes one with the known, the lover

>one with the beloved.

>

> TEXTS ON DEVOTION

> [...]

> And now the whole teaching of the Gita-Sastra is epitomized and summed up

and >stated for the sake of man's highest good. "O Son of Pandu, whoever acts

for My sake, >as Me for his supreme goal, who is devoted to me, free from all

attachment, and who >lives without enmity for any creature, he comes to Me." . .

.. A servant works for his >master's sake, but he does not think of his master as

his supreme goal which he will >attain after death. . . . "Devoted to Me" means

that the he worships Me in every way >with his whole being and with all zeal.

"Without attachment" means without servile >love or affection for wealth, sons,

friends, wife or relatives. "Without enmity for >any creature" means without

any feeling of enmity even for those intent on inflicting >grievous harm on him.

(49)

>

 

Excellent basic observation/commentary re bhakti

in jnana...something commonly missed.

> "Without attachment" means without servile

> love or affection for wealth, sons, friends,

> wife or relatives.

 

The stipulation "servile" in the above sentence

may be too subtle to catch for some. For it is

inherent to our nature and, moreover, abiding

within the way of the Self: to love and even have

a measure of attachment for others, since they

are also an expression/reflection of brahman.

As long as we're inhabiting the human body-mind

complex, to love and have other desires is natural.

The problems arise if/when the object of desire

or love over-rides one's natural state of Being

THAT IAM, which Being *is yet and always really*

that selfsame object's living Substratum.

 

This relates to a common misconception regarding

the maya factor with respect to the manifestation

of the triune isvara/jiva/jagat (God/ego/world).

If we bear in mind that the manifestation itself is

the outbreath [thus reflection] of nirguna brahman,

and referred to as saguna brahman, we would realize

its intrinsic brahmanic nature, and that the factor

of illusion enters the picture *only* if we regard

any particular aspect of saguna brahman to be *apart

and distinct from* its nirguna substratum.

 

This misconception has apparently largely grown out

of the evidently incomplete third axiom of Sankara's

advaitic formula, stating that jiva is non-different

from brahman. However, drishti-srishti vaada (which

is yet a life conception within vyavahara, to be

superceded later/finally by the ajati-vaada), reveals

that the jiva is actually the central cause of jagat

and Isvara as well, thus esoterically the 3rd axiom's

intent cannot be other than the sohamidam (God/ego/world)

being non-different from brahman. For the sohamidam

is, en toto, the saguna brahman, and not only Isvara.

 

Bhagavan Ramana loved and had attachments to the Hill,

his mother, his ashram. Ramakrishna loved and had

attachments to Kali, his wife Sarada--who he worshipped

as Kali, his friend Narendra, and his ashram as well.

 

Despite appearances to the contrary, [most philosophers

would see the possibility that] in reality we love

eachother more than our mind can conceive, yet we are

first the Self of all the selves. Incidentally, this

love of Self and eachother represents the two commandments

of Jesus: 1. Love God (nirguna brahman); 2. Love thy

neighbor (saguna brahman).

 

namaste

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/19/98 11:33:47 PM, you wrote:

 

<<Bhagavan Ramana loved and had attachments to the Hill,

his mother, his ashram. Ramakrishna loved and had

attachments to Kali, his wife Sarada--who he worshipped

as Kali, his friend Narendra, and his ashram as well.

 

Despite appearances to the contrary, [most philosophers

would see the possibility that] in reality we love

eachother more than our mind can conceive, yet we are

first the Self of all the selves. Incidentally, this

love of Self and eachother represents the two commandments

of Jesus: 1. Love God (nirguna brahman); 2. Love thy

neighbor (saguna brahman).

>>

 

It makes me very happy to read your post , Thank you very much for taking your

time to write this.

Namaste

Raju

[Guest guest]

Raju100 wrote:

>

> Raju100

>

> In a message dated 9/19/98 11:33:47 PM, you wrote:

>

> <<Bhagavan Ramana loved and had attachments to the Hill,

> his mother, his ashram. Ramakrishna loved and had

> attachments to Kali, his wife Sarada--who he worshipped

> as Kali, his friend Narendra, and his ashram as well.

>

> Despite appearances to the contrary, [most philosophers

> would see the possibility that] in reality we love

> eachother more than our mind can conceive, yet we are

> first the Self of all the selves. Incidentally, this

> love of Self and eachother represents the two commandments

> of Jesus: 1. Love God (nirguna brahman); 2. Love thy

> neighbor (saguna brahman).

> >>

>

> It makes me very happy to read your post , Thank you very much for taking your

> time to write this.

> Namaste

> Raju

>

 

namaskaar

 

yes, i believe also that we're *all* already

living those commandments utterly and completely,

bar no-one. it's just that were not yet aware

of what we're really doing! or so we *think*

we're not aware!! hahaha! (serious jokes are

not to be taken lightly......or are they? :-)

 

my estranged wife is also my guru, thus i grieve

her absence daily. nevertheless, she taught me the

way of suddha chit, causing one day the insight that

all humanity's words to eachother, if they were

replaced one by one with simply the word "love,"

would only then indicate nearer the truth what it

is we're ever *really* saying to eachother...

 

OM shaanthi

[Guest guest]

On Mon, Sep 21, 1998 at 05:13:04PM -0400, f. maiello wrote:

>

> my estranged wife is also my guru, thus i grieve

> her absence daily. nevertheless, she taught me the

> way of suddha chit, causing one day the insight that

> all humanity's words to eachother, if they were

> replaced one by one with simply the word "love,"

> would only then indicate nearer the truth what it

> is we're ever *really* saying to eachother...

 

Is she still your guru? This is a beautiful insight, pointing to the

Truth. That all that is being known is Knowledge, all that is being

expressed is Love.

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

>"f. maiello" <egodust wrote:

 

> it's just that were not yet aware

>of what we're really doing! or so we *think*

>we're not aware!! hahaha! (serious jokes are

>not to be taken lightly......or are they? :-)

 

 

Some one had said :

- it is only an ignorent who does not take life seriously.

It is only intelligent and worried who seriously takes life seriously.

It is only wise who seriously take life not seriously.

 

----

Where does that leave us.

 

Life of course has to be seriously taken an a grand joke! - A game to play,

to enjoy the play and to leave the play with a big laugh and with no

regrets.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the reminder. It is so true. To act as if everything matters

but to Be as if nothing matters should be the ideal. Sadly, conditioning

fosters the "acting" part even though an emphasis on the "Be" part would

serve us better. But apathy denies conviction. No conviction, no drive to

seek answer. Is spiritual search a phase of life, a role among many? Any

thoughts? TIA.

 

Regards.

 

Ragu

 

sadananda <sada

advaitin <advaitin >

Tuesday, September 22, 1998 1:49 PM

Re: Shankara and Bhakti

 

>sadananda <sada

>

>>"f. maiello" <egodust wrote:

>

>

>> it's just that were not yet aware

>>of what we're really doing! or so we *think*

>>we're not aware!! hahaha! (serious jokes are

>>not to be taken lightly......or are they? :-)

>

>

>Some one had said :

>- it is only an ignorent who does not take life seriously.

>It is only intelligent and worried who seriously takes life seriously.

>It is only wise who seriously take life not seriously.

>

>----

>Where does that leave us.

>

>Life of course has to be seriously taken an a grand joke! - A game to play,

>to enjoy the play and to leave the play with a big laugh and with no

>regrets.

>

>Hari Om!

>Sadananda

>

>

>

>K. Sadananda

>Code 6323

>Naval Research Laboratory

>Washington D.C. 20375

>Voice (202)767-2117

>Fax:(202)767-2623

>

>

>

>

>------

>To from this mailing list, or to change your subscription

>to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at and

>select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left.

>------

>Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning,

profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality between

mind and matter