Jnana 'versus' Bhakti

[Guest guest]

Swami Chinmayanandaji suggests the following simple attitude toward life:

"What you have is all His Gift to you.

What you do with what you have is your Gift to Him."

 

Swami Dayananda Saraswati during his recent lectures (yesterday)in

Washington Metropolitan points out the distinction of awareness between

"ONLY GOD," and "ONE GOD." With one God, there can be potential conflict

between Jnana and Bhakti. But with the right attitude of "ONLY GOD," there

are no conflicts. Attitude truly reflects our awareness and complete

awareness of nonduality is essential (and sufficient) for the merging Jnana

and Bhakti and Karma will become spontaneous with the disappearance of the

"doer attitude."

 

Ram Chandran

 

Note: Ramana Maharishi's Upadesasaram discusses beautifully describes how

'action' gets dissolved.

 

>"Parisi & Watson" <niche

 

>I don't doubt that great teachers and seers eventually experience a

>synthesis of the two that knows no further separation. But my question is

>on

>behalf of those of us who are still blindly groping our way. It's a

>question

>that's difficult to put clearly into words, but I hope the main point will

>come across.

>

>Robert.

[Guest guest]

I know that great teachers agree that jnana and bhakti are ultimately one,

and I would not dream of questioning this concept. But in the conduct of our

everyday life, the balance between the two can be confusing and elusive.

>From the jnana perspective, we think of discrimination between the Self and

the non-Self, facilitated by assuming the role of witness to our own

thoughts, actions, and so forth, so that we don't think of ourselves as the

doer, and can break the habit of identifying ourselves with our thoughts,

fears, and desires. So far, so good. But how is this practice balanced

against at attitude of devotion toward the Ultimate, of seeing Brahman in

everything? Jnana is dispassionate by nature, but devotion requires passion

and love, does it not? And are not devotion and love inherently dualistic?

Of course I understand that the Self which we attempt to discriminate by

eliminating the non-Self is the very same Brahman, but at a low level of

realization, the two ways of thinking and conducting oneself seem at odds in

ordinary human terms. Although Ramana Maharshi certainly affirmed that jnana

and bhakti are one, he also drew a sharp distinction between the path of

discrimination (atma vichara) and the path of surrender and devotion. Does

this mean that those of us who are still far from the truth must choose to

stress one approach over the other, at least in the early stages? As I say,

I don't doubt that great teachers and seers eventually experience a

synthesis of the two that knows no further separation. But my question is on

behalf of those of us who are still blindly groping our way. It's a question

that's difficult to put clearly into words, but I hope the main point will

come across.

 

Robert.

[Guest guest]

At 03:38 PM 10/4/99 , Ram Chandran wrote:

 

>Swami Dayananda Saraswati during his recent lectures (yesterday)in

>Washington Metropolitan points out the distinction of awareness between

>"ONLY GOD," and "ONE GOD." With one God, there can be potential conflict

>between Jnana and Bhakti. But with the right attitude of "ONLY GOD," there

>are no conflicts. Attitude truly reflects our awareness and complete

>awareness of nonduality is essential (and sufficient) for the merging Jnana

>and Bhakti and Karma will become spontaneous with the disappearance of the

>"doer attitude."

 

Ram,

 

Swami Dayananda is indeed a great teacher, and I appreciate your note

here. Thank you! It is a very distinction between Only God and One

God. Funny thing about one-something -- a friend of mine once

said: "Where there's one-ness, there's two-ness."

 

Hari Om!

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

>"Ram Chandran" <chandranram

>

>Swami Dayananda Saraswati during his recent lectures (yesterday)in

>Washington Metropolitan points out the distinction of awareness between

>"ONLY GOD," and "ONE GOD." With one God, there can be potential conflict

>between Jnana and Bhakti. But with the right attitude of "ONLY GOD," there

>are no conflicts. Attitude truly reflects our awareness and complete

>awareness of nonduality is essential (and sufficient) for the merging Jnana

>and Bhakti and Karma will become spontaneous with the disappearance of the

>"doer attitude."

 

 

No doubt. But my question was about the stage prior to the disappearance of

the doer attitude. Is the emphasis on discerning the Self within by

witnessing and excluding other factors, or on devotion toward a Deity larger

than 'ourselves'? I realize that the question itself is fraught with

paradox, but it seems to be unavoidable. I'm asking for a pragmatic answer

for daily living, more than for any elucidation of general principles or

eventual outcomes.

 

Thanks again,

Robert.

[Guest guest]

Surrender and devotion do not necessarily go together. It is

possible to become so dissatisfied with worldy life as to

abandon everything (giving up the "will to live and enjoy"),

yet keep functioning. One reason for doing so is that at a

certain moment, one will be forced to surrender anyway, when

dying. As recognition of "who one is" will be automatic when

all conditioning has left, this type of surrender is rather

powerful.

 

In fact, this is the process Ramana also went through as a 17

year old boy, although going consciously through the process

could be called neti-neti as well. Recognition of "who one is"

isn't an end; it could be called a kind of new start. I would

say that going after the "discovery of who one is" with all

means, giving the impression of suddenly having become an

ascetic to onlookers, could be called passionate behavior. Yet

Ramana taught self-inquiry.

 

Immediately sharing the "discovery of who one is" instead of

meditating until nirvana/moksha could be called dispassionate

behavior; yet the Buddha starting to teach the origin and end

to suffering. Not to forget Sankara himself, wandering

through the country teaching, bringing back Advaita to purity.

The differences in methods aren't important, but being a

consequent follower of a method (living up to its

consequences). In Self-enquiry, the consequences aren't

spelled out; they are "homework" so the path seems simple. In

Buddhism, hardly anything is left uncovered so the path seems

complicated (except Zen and Dzogchen). In Bhakti however, the

consequences are rather obvious.

 

Jan

[Guest guest]

Hari Om:

 

The great saints and seers have explained the distinction between Bhakti

and Jnana approaches to life beautifully using monkey and cat theories.

According to Markata-nyaya (monkey theory), the human effort is an essential

factor in obtaining salvation. The young monkey has to exert itself and

cling to its mother while being carried to its destination. According to

the Maarjaara-nyaya (cat theory), we don't have to try, just surrender

our-self to God as the baby cat that totally surrender to its mother. The

baby cat and baby monkey begin their life differently, but ultimately they

both learn their way to cope up with their adult life on their own without

outside HELP!

 

The bottom line is that people with different environmental conditions

(tradition, culture, natural instinct,knowledge, etc.) perceive differently

and follow different paths of life. But the ultimate goal of their life

remain the same and different methods work differently for different people.

Most of the problems arise due to "pretension" and those pretend to be what

they are not suffer the most. For example, the baby cat can't pretend to be

a monkey and also monkey can't pretend to be a cat.

 

Problems do exist in defining Bhakti and many seem to believe that devotion

to God should be always reciprocated with favors back from God. The

expression, "I am a great devotee of Narayana, and why me to face this

tragedy?" is an example. The true Bhakti Yogi expresses Bhakti to the Lord

through service to the humanity and adopt to a life full of compassion for

the fellow citizens of the world. The Jnana Yogi expresses the wisdom by

seeing, hearing and experiencing "only God." For the Jnana Yogi, Bhakti and

Karma become subtle. For the Bhakti Yogi, Jnana and Karma are subtle.

Similarly, the dedicated Karma Yogi attains Jnana through his services to

the humanity (Bhakti).

 

The entire discourse of Gita, the perennial philosophy of human life

contains the essential details on how to get rid off the doer attitude.

Arjuna, the representative from the human side asks all the questions that

you and I afraid to ask and Krishna answers those questions. All the

answers that we are looking for hidden somewhere in those eighteen chapters

and those answers can help us to awaken our True Divine Nature.

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

 

>"Parisi & Watson" <niche

>No doubt. But my question was about the stage prior to the disappearance of

>the doer attitude. Is the emphasis on discerning the Self within by

>witnessing and excluding other factors, or on devotion toward a Deity

>larger

>than 'ourselves'? I realize that the question itself is fraught with

>paradox, but it seems to be unavoidable. I'm asking for a pragmatic answer

>for daily living, more than for any elucidation of general principles or

>eventual outcomes.

>

>Thanks again,

>Robert.