Can Bhakti co-exist with advaita?

[Guest guest]

PraNAms to all advaitins

Shri Rajan wrote as follows in his concluding reply to Shri Gummuluru Murthyji

in the thread on Science and Spirituality.

“One unanswered question to my mind is why did Adi Sankara propose Advaitin as

the supreme spiritual theory as per which "I am Brahman" and then go about

making numerous temples for various Deities. Honestly I cannot reconcile these

two divergent trends between theory and practice. But he was an intellect par

supreme and must have had very good reasons. Or quite simply, he was

pragmatic, the hallmark of a genius. I will now give company to Shri Murthyji

in his silence on this subject”

 

Since both the seekers above have vowed to keep silent on this matter, I have

given this mail a new title ‘How can Bhakti coexist with advaita?’, so that

they can break their vow of silence if they choose and continue the discussion

under a new thread!

 

This topic about bhakti coexisting with advaita is the punchline of the advaita

path. And that is why it has to be consciously sorted out as a fundamental

issue in the understanding and practice of advaita.

 

Let us first concretise our dilemma properly. The question is:

 

If the Absolute is non-dual, then there can be no second entity there to

exhibit bhakti to it. Then how does the concept of bhakti arise in this

context?

 

The same question can also be paraphrased as follows:

 

The concept of bhakti by the very meaning of the term involves two entities:

one, the Almighty being worshipped, and the one who worships. Here, whatever be

the nature of the one who worships, the nature of the Almighty being

worshipped has to be the ultimate Truth for otherwise It cannot deserve to be

the Almighty. But in that case, we end up with Two Ultimate Truths, namely,

this Almighty

(with name and form) and the nameless and formless Absolute Truth of the Vedas

and Upanishads. How may we reconcile this with the statement repeatedly

proclaimed by the scriptures and saints that there is only one Absolute Turth?

 

The reconciliation comes in the very manner in which Sankara lived his life. A

Jnani is one who has ‘experienced’ the Oneness of the Absolute Truth. A Bhakta

is one who has ‘felt’ that Lord Vasudeva is everything. The jnani’s experience

is the bhakta’s feeling. The apex of jnana (called parA nishTA in Gita Ch.18 –

Sloka 50) is the intense ‘feeling’ of the Absolute Reality. This is the bhakti

of the jnani i.e., the Devotion of the Enlightened. The apex of bhakti is the

‘knowledge’ that the Absolute is everything. This is the jnana of the bhakta

i.e., the Enlightenment of the Devotee.

 

Mark you, I am not just punning with words. What I have said above

characterises the life of Sankara one hundred per cent. And it mostly

characterises the lives of almost every advaitin, though not in the same

measure as in the case of the Master.

 

So when Rajanji quotes ‘I am brahman’ as something that is contradictory to,

say, temple worship, we have to go back to our fundamentals and start

discussing what is referred to as ‘I’ in that mahA-vAkya. These discussions

have been done many times on this list and so I will not dare take the reader’s

time any more now, except to conclude with a summarizing statement.

 

The undercurrent of an attitude of identity as the ultimate goal and the

attitude of temporariness of a certain apparent duality for the purpose of

worship is the characteristic of a true follower of advaita. This is walking on

razor’s edge, of course. But that is what exactly Sankara did and taught us.

Jaya Jaya Sankara.

 

Pranams to all advaitins

profvk

 

 

=====

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

My website on Science and Spirituality is http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

You can access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and

Practice, and my father R. Visvanatha Sastri's manuscripts from the site.

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

The answer is also given in Gita 7:15-19, and 3:20-26.

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

 

 

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk> wrote:

> PraNAms to all advaitins

> Shri Rajan wrote as follows in his concluding reply to Shri

Gummuluru Murthyji

> in the thread on Science and Spirituality.

> "One unanswered question to my mind is why did Adi Sankara propose

Advaitin as

> the supreme spiritual theory as per which "I am Brahman" and then

go about

> making numerous temples for various Deities.

[Guest guest]

advaitin Prof V.K.wrote:

>This topic about bhakti coexisting with advaita is the punchline of the

advaita

>path. And that is why it has to be consciously sorted out as a fundamental

>issue in the understanding and practice of advaita.

>Let us first concretise our dilemma properly. The question is:

>If the Absolute is non-dual, then there can be no second entity there to

>exhibit bhakti to it. Then how does the concept of bhakti arise in this

>context? The same question can also be paraphrased as follows:....

>The reconciliation comes in the very manner in which Sankara lived his life.

 

 

Hari Om,.

 

 

Yes, I agree with the first part of your question but not the paraphrasing of

it. First I must accept and spell out my limitations. I am not an expert like

your good-self or Shri G Murthyji. I am capable of further study and will do it

but as of now, what I know is limited. I view the answer to it as follows:

 

 

Adi Sankara the great, lived at a certain period when Buddhism had marginalised

Hinduism. In recent times Gandhi fought with British, by civil disobedience

which became Satyagraha, because British accepted superiority of Law over men.

Perhaps Adi Sankara decided (in the same way - but 1200 years earlier) to use

Sheer Logic against Buddhist because they were open to it. So he set out with a

set of intellectual hypothesis which went to the ultimate extreme of Human

intellectual thought- afterall what is there left to say, after you claim " I am

Brahman, QED". The key issue is he just did not say it, he was able to prove it

to the satisfaction of his both Buddhist and Hindu peers in a surprisingly quick

period of time. He also dust-binned a number of ghastly Hindu rituals like human

sacrifice and Dog worship (associated with saiva practices). In this sense he

was an organzier and reformer.

 

 

The sheer logic of this position resulted (as per my thinking) in Bakhti

becoming a secondary requirement -like they used to have diplomas in Engineering

when you can't get into Degree course in present-day India. This over the next 3

centuries polarised the Hindu society, most of whom could not catch up with high

degree of intellectual sophistication required of Advaitin theory. Ramanuja

probably saw a Marketing opportunity here (for want of a better term) and

floated Vaishnavism with a heavy dose of Bakhti and symbolisms, with God being

treated like Human being. This along with the supporting promotional soap opera

of Ramayana and Mahabaratha and Ten avatars of Vishnu resulted in a Brand

preference of the masses for Vaishnavism. (Adi Sankara commented on Gita but

not on Mahabaratha). By this time the bulk of the Indian population whose basic

trait is to be effiminate and servile, opted enmasse for Vaishnavism. This was

also good as it reinforced human values but it certian!

ly gave back seat to Intellectual progress. The result (my opinion) Hindus could

not come up with any technical or scientifc breakthough for the whole of that

millinieum.

 

 

Now please do not get me wrong- I am brought up as a thengalai-Iyengar from

Kanchipuram, and I am not DMK or DK or Communist but this is my reading of the

history.

 

 

While I was in Tirupati last July with Shri Madhava (before he left for Germany)

I bought and read a book there on history of Tirumala (Tirupati) temple written

by the trustees. There was no mass following for this temple before 900 years.

So does that mean there was no Vishnu or Venkatesa before 900 years? It is now

so widely promoted that you can meet Lord Venkatesa, only at Tirupati after

paying Rs 1,000. This is the result of Bakhti cult which has been

over-commercialized. ( By the way no matter what I say, I still go and spend the

amount and have the Darshan at Tirumala - so I am a hypocrite in that sense).

 

 

Recently I was talking to a Muslim gentleman here in Saudi Arabia. He said most

(85%) of the population is stupid and Politicians decide policies with this

majority in mind and not for the small (15%) minority of intellectuals. The

religious leaders like Adi Sankara and Ramanuja also played some political roles

and they possibly accomodated Bakhti for the masses. Then there was backward

justification that it leads to the same thing- Brahman. By the way Islam has no

Bakhti concept, only mercy, and has strict rules on what to do and what not,

with punishments listed. It also has a huge following- 1.2 billion as per them-

twice the number of so called Hindus.

 

 

I have a book with me on Major Upanishads by Swami Sivananda and I am reading it

slowly and carefully. I could not locate in any of them that Bakhti leads to

self realization in the same way as intellectual realization.

 

 

I think Bajanais can get you a crowd and prasadams and time-pass but not self

-realization. The way it is done now, it inflates the ego, rather than subdue

it. It is like saying- "Watching TV improves IQ ( because there is a commercial

which I have placed there) . The better way is to go to a good University and do

thesis.

 

 

Pranams.

 

 

P.B.V.Rajan

 

 

 

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from Indiatimes at http://email.indiatimes.com

Buy Music, Video, CD-ROM, Audio-Books and Music Accessories from

http://www.planetm.co.in

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "pbvrajan" <pbvrajan@i...> wrote:

> I have a book with me on Major Upanishads by Swami Sivananda and I

am reading it slowly and carefully. I could not locate in any of them

that Bakhti leads to self realization in the same way as intellectual

realization.

_

 

Namaste Shri Rajan,

 

The problem here is the definition of bhakthi. Your criticism is

very valid if bhakti in its "commercial and popular" form is taken

into account. I am sure that was not what Sankara had in mind when

he wrote all the sthuthis and sthothras. For Sankara, bhakti was

complementary to jnana. This is the view of all true advaitins too.

Let us therefore ignore those who misinterpreted Sankara to

perpetuate themselves and spread the so-called bhakti cult. In fact,

there is nothing called a bhakti marga. The Bhagwat Geetha is very

specific about it - it talks about only karma yoga and sanyaasa.

Bhakthi is just jnaana - the love for the Lord arising from the

jnaana (intellectual realization, as you put it)that He is everything

and I am Him. Since I am Him and everything, I cannot but love Him

and everything just spontaneously and naturally, because I am priyam

to myself. When this knowledge dawns, then one just explodes in

ecstasy singing His/Her praise. Then, we have Saundaryalahari or

Sivanandalahari! That is bhakthi quite unlike mere physical queuing

up at Thiruppathi or Guruvayoor and paying a fat fee for the Lord's

darshan. I don't mean to decry the millions of devotees who flock to

temples and chant bhajans. I mean only to say that jnaana should

occur for true devotion to blossom in all its advaitic fragrance. In

the meanwhile, let the rush at the temples and the high pitch singing

of bhajans continue like the crowds at churches and the blaring

loudspeakers at mosques! Let us accept all that as the Lord's leela

and live in peace and equanimity like true advaitins.

 

Best regards and pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 9 May 2002, madathilnair wrote:

 

<snip>

> perpetuate themselves and spread the so-called bhakti cult. In fact,

> there is nothing called a bhakti marga. The Bhagwat Geetha is very

> specific about it - it talks about only karma yoga and sanyaasa.

<snip>

 

What do you think of verse 2 in Chapter 12, where Krishna says:

 

"Mayy avesya mano ye mAm nitya-yuktA upAsate / sraddhayA paray'opetAs te

me yuktatamA matAh" which in my translation means "Those I consider as the

most perfect in Yoga, who, with their minds fixed intently on Me in

steadfast love, worship Me with absolute faith."

 

Then later Krishna contrasts this path of devotion to the contemplation of

a formless Absolute, and also contrasts devotion with concentration,

service, and then the abandonment of the fruits of action.

 

Does this not show that devotion is indeed a distinct perspective from

which to view the road to truth?

> Bhakthi is just jnaana - the love for the Lord arising from the

> jnaana (intellectual realization, as you put it)that He is everything

> and I am Him. Since I am Him and everything, I cannot but love Him

> and everything just spontaneously and naturally, because I am priyam

> to myself. When this knowledge dawns, then one just explodes in

 

That may be true in the ultimate equation, but what about those for

whom ignorance has not yet been conquered? From the perspective of a

seeker Arjuna asks about the difference between those who contemplate the

personal vs. those who look to the impersonal, and Krishna seems to

respond as if the difference has some significance: in verse 5 he says

"the way of an unclear ideal is difficult for an embodied being (the

body-centred man) to understand or follow."

[Guest guest]

advaitin, <akilesh@a...> wrote:

> What do you think of verse 2 in Chapter 12, where Krishna says:

>

> "Mayy avesya mano ye mAm nitya-yuktA upAsate / sraddhayA

paray'opetAs te

> me yuktatamA matAh" which in my translation means "Those I consider

as the

> most perfect in Yoga, who, with their minds fixed intently on Me in

> steadfast love, worship Me with absolute faith."

________

 

I don't think I said anything at variance with the verse quoted above

or your translation of it. The point I was trying to make is that

there is no separate path of devotion divorced of jnaana. Both are

intercomplementary or, in other words, the two sides of the same coin.

 

________

 

> That may be true in the ultimate equation, but what about those for

> whom ignorance has not yet been conquered?

 

________

 

The issue under discussion here is the co-existence of bhakti with

advaita. Since advaita deals with the ultimate equation, I must

necessarily look at bhakti from the ultimate angle. It is for those

whom ignorance has not yet been conquered that Lord Krishna laboured

through the eighteen chapters of the Bhagwat Geetha. Otherwise, he

would have just closed shop after the second chapter and gone home.

 

________

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

>

> advaitin, <akilesh@a...> wrote:

>

> > What do you think of verse 2 in Chapter 12, where Krishna says:

> >

> > "Mayy avesya mano ye mAm nitya-yuktA upAsate / sraddhayA

> paray'opetAs te

> > me yuktatamA matAh" which in my translation means "Those I consider

> as the

> > most perfect in Yoga, who, with their minds fixed intently on Me in

> > steadfast love, worship Me with absolute faith."

> ________

>

> I don't think I said anything at variance with the verse quoted above

> or your translation of it. The point I was trying to make is that

> there is no separate path of devotion divorced of jnaana. Both are

> intercomplementary or, in other words, the two sides of the same coin.

>

> ________

>

>

> > That may be true in the ultimate equation, but what about those for

> > whom ignorance has not yet been conquered?

>

> ________

>

> The issue under discussion here is the co-existence of bhakti with

> advaita. Since advaita deals with the ultimate equation, I must

> necessarily look at bhakti from the ultimate angle.

 

 

As I read it the discussion was at first about how devotion, seemingly to a

second entity, could be held to be of truth and value when at the same time

a belief in non-dualism was espoused. In other words, at first the

discussion centered around the "ultimate angle." This didn't last, as

 

PBVRajan wrote:

 

"I have a book with me on Major Upanishads by Swami Sivananda and I am

reading it slowly and carefully. I could not locate in any of them that

Bakhti leads to self realization in the same way as intellectual

realization."

 

So in my opinion at this point things branched off into a discussion of

bhakti as regards the seeker, as only a seeker would seek "self

realization."

 

You responded to PBVRajan:

 

"Bhakthi is just jnaana - the love for the Lord arising from the

jnaana (intellectual realization, as you put it) that He is everything

and I am Him."

 

Now if you mean jnana here in the sense of self-realization, I cannot

disagree with your statement, but then you are not addressing the substance

of PBVRajan's allegation. In other words, merely because bhakti and jnana at

the highest levels are identical does not mean that they are the same from

the perspective of the seeker, and that is the perspective from which

PBVRajan wrote.

 

If, on the other hand, you mean jnana in a merely intellectual sense, i.e.

book knowledge, then there is a delineation between those who might put this

book knowledge in action by contemplating a formless Absolute and those

would would rather focus on a more personal God.

 

To further emphasize this let me repeat another statement you recently made:

"In fact, there is nothing called a bhakti marga." But self-realized people

don't need a path. The existence of paths of any sort is not relevant from

the ultimate perspective, as from that perspective, there are no seekers, no

seeking, no paths, etc. Margas are only relevant for seekers. Again, here,

then, bhakti may have a specific relevance. This does not mean that it is

singing bhajans. But I read it as having to do with devotion to a personal

God, one which has a form, a shape, and a name.

[Guest guest]

Mr. PBV Rajan wrote:

“I have a book with me on Major Upanishads by Swami Sivananda and I

am reading it slowly and carefully. I could not locate in any of them

that Bakhti leads to self realization in the same way as intellectual

realization”.

 

You have a point there, Rajanji. And I also marvel at (and

congratulate your for) your unusual and incisive analysis of the

politico-cultural scenery of the times that, according to you,

prompted Sankara to advocate bhakti ‘for the masses’.

 

I dare not enter into that analysis lest I exhibit my ignorance of a

historical perspective. But, for the purpose of clarifying the

advaita viewpoint on bhakti and jnana, I would like to quote below

some relevant passages from the speeches of the Paramacharya (also

known as Kanchi Maha-swamigal). These passages are extracts from my

translation of his speech in Tamil on the subject “Why Bhakti”.

Incidentally I had given this translation as part of an Appendix

‘Thus Spake the Seers’ in my book on Essentials of Hinduism (1989):

---

 

………….The Universal Agent which dispenses the effect for the cause is

called the Supreme Power (Maha Sakti), Iswara, Bhagawan, Swami, God.

As long as there is a mind, so long will it keep wavering. Along

with good it will also think of evil. …… People generally pray to

Him (God) for removal of their sorrows. They think this is Bhakti. If

Iswara wills, He may even waive the sorrows earned by us by our sins.

But we have no right to ask Him to do so. Even if sorrows come, let

Him grant us the attitude of mind which will keep us indifferent and

unperturbed by these sorrows -- that is the prayer which is

desirable. But even this prayer is not the full-fledged Bhakti.

Even telling God of our sorrows is tantamount to thinking that He is

not aware of them. In other words we are truncating His omniscience.

……….. Bhakti is not true bhakti as long as it underrates the

omniscience of God or His Grace. ………….. ‘O God, whichever way you

show me, that is acceptable to me’ This kind of surrender to God is

complete Bhakti. If there is nothing left for ourselves then all the

blemishes and dirt of the mind will disappear and the mind will

become pure and clear like crystal.

There is another reason why we should follow the path of Bhakti.

There is no pleasure in life if we cannot exhibit Love or Prema. It

is a common experience that there is no greater delight than Love.

But the fact is, in whatever object or person we place our love, one

day or other we get separated from the object of our love because

either something happens to us or something happens to the object of

our love. And from that moment what was once a source of happiness

becomes a source of sorrow. The only object which will never get

separated from us is God the Absolute. If only we can make Him the

object of our Love! Then there will be no end to the happiness we can

gain. That happiness will be everlasting. When this Love matures into

Supreme Love of God, we can see the entire world as Himself. Love

towards one object, and for the same reason, hate towards another

object – this pattern will give place to an Infinite Love which sees

no high and low, no distinction of duality. It is Bhakti that helps

us to avoid the pitfall of a wasteful, loveless human life.

By Bhakti one can eradicate one’s miseries step by step; …………….If we

surrender to that Ultimate Dispenser of Karmic Effects, He will lift

us above the level of the Karmic Universe and eventually carry us on

to the stage of Moksha. These are the many reasons why one should be

a Bhakta of God.

 

---

 

 

At another place the Paramacharya says: (Deivathin Kural: Vol.1 page

558)

 

‘ It is not necessary to leave off karma or bhakti voluntarily. They

will fall off, like a ripe fruit from a tree, when your karma or

bhakti are ripe enough for fulfillment. It is not necessary to make

efforts for moksha, at the cost of Bhakti. Just pursue your bhakti

marga. By itself it will lead you to moksha. In fact instead of

praying for moksha, keep praying for more and more bhakti. That is

enough!’.

-

 

praNAms to all advaitins,

Profvk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

=====

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

My website on Science and Spirituality is http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

You can access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and

Practice, and my father R. Visvanatha Sastri's manuscripts from the site.

 

 

 

Mother's Day is May 12th!

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk> wrote:

> PraNAms to all advaitins

> Shri Rajan wrote as follows in his concluding reply to Shri

Gummuluru Murthyji

> in the thread on Science and Spirituality.

> "One unanswered question to my mind is why did Adi Sankara propose

Advaitin as

> the supreme spiritual theory as per which "I am Brahman" and then

go about

> making numerous temples for various Deities. Honestly I cannot

reconcile these

> two divergent trends between theory and practice. But he was an

intellect par

> supreme and must have had very good reasons. Or quite simply, he

was

> pragmatic, the hallmark of a genius.

 

A true advaitin sees nothing but the self everywhere - he abides in

the self always.

 

I have read a scriptural assertion (learned members can post the

actual reference)

"Abiding in one's self is the highest Bhakti"

 

So at the highest level Bhakti and Advaita are one and the same.

Swami Paramarthananda in his discourses on Bhakti

(http://www.yogamalika.org/newweb/yogahome.html) gives the anology

of Newtonian Physics and Einsteinonian physics. A 'higher' physics

does not make the 'lower' wrong but both are valid in their own

sphere with the higher principle encompassing/including the lower

one.

 

regards

Sundar Rajan

[Guest guest]

Regarding Mr. Sundar Rajan's quote:

Abiding in one's own Self is called Bhakti.

 

The Sanskrit quotation is:

 

sva-svarUpa-anusandhAnaM bhakti-rit-yabhidhIyate

 

This is from Sankara's Viveka-chUDAmaNi. Sloka No.33

 

praNAms to all advaitins

profvk

 

=====

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

My website on Science and Spirituality is http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

You can access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and

Practice, and my father R. Visvanatha Sastri's manuscripts from the site.

 

 

 

Mother's Day is May 12th!

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Ramana Maharshi, in Upadesha-Sara (v #10), put it thus:

 

hR^itsthale manaH svasthataa kriyaa-

bhakti-yoga-bodhaashcha nishchitam.h .

 

"Absorption into the source (the core of Existence or the Heart) is

what Karma, Bhakti, Yoaga, and Jnana teach."

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk> wrote:

> Regarding Mr. Sundar Rajan's quote:

> Abiding in one's own Self is called Bhakti.

>

> The Sanskrit quotation is:

>

> sva-svarUpa-anusandhAnaM bhakti-rit-yabhidhIyate

>

> This is from Sankara's Viveka-chUDAmaNi. Sloka No.33

>

> praNAms to all advaitins

> profvk

>

> =====

> Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

> My website on Science and Spirituality is

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

> You can access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought

Vision and Practice, and my father R. Visvanatha Sastri's

manuscripts from the site.

>

>

>

> Mother's Day is May 12th!

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

My view is entirely based on Bhagwath Geetha 3 – 3:

 

"Loke Asmin Dvividaa Nishtaa Pura Prokthaaa Mayaa Anagha

Jnanayogena Samkhyaanaam Karmayogena Yoginaam"

 

Translation by Dr. Ram Anand Prasad at Geeta Supersite:

 

"A two-fold path of saadhana (spiritual practice) has been stated by

Me in the past – the path of self-knowledge (jnaana yoga) for the

contemplative and the path of unselfish work (karma yoga) for the

active. Jnaana yoga is also called Saamkhya yoga, samnyasa yoga, and

yoga of knowledge. A jnaana yogi does not consider himself the doer

of any action, but only as an instrument in the hands of the divine

for His use. The word Jnaana means metaphysical or transcendental

knowledge."

 

If Lord Krishna had a *separate and distinct* Bhakti Maaraga in mind,

he could have stated it here in this verse most unambiguously.

 

Let me elaborate my common-sense understanding:

 

1. The primitive man was terrified by the forces of nature. He

perceived a power beyond his control and thought that he should

surrender unto it for protection. The roots of what we call bhakthi

today can be tracked back to his primeval fears. The conclusions

arrived at by that primitive mind was jnaana relative to his point of

view.

 

2. He evolved further and reasoned out that he was delivered into a

world that was already existent before his birth. He inferred that

if the world existed before him, it had a creator who preceded him.

That creator was responsible for his being too. As that creator was

all-powerful, he concluded that he ought to appease that creator for

guidance and protection. Thus, the God of all our current theologies

came into existence. The conclusion that there is such an almighty

God is again jnaana relative to the theologian's point of view.

 

3. He took to Vedanta and further reasoned. If there was a God, the

creator, that creator ought to have another creator. He found that

his reasoning took him backwards on an unending regression. That was

an unacceptable situation to his reasoning mind. He realized that

this unacceptable situation occurred to him and, therefore, logically

surmised that the key to the riddle should be within him and not in

the external world. An inward search began and advaita was born

enabling him to conclude that he himself is the key to everything and

that there is no creator or created outside of him. This is the

advaitin's jnaana – the metaphysical transcendental knowledge

referred to in the above verse (and the gist of Chapter II too!).

Thus, the advaitin knows that he himself is everything and in love

with everything just spontaneously and naturally. This universal

love is the advaitin's bhakthi and ecstasy.

 

4. Thus, the fears of the primitive, the awe of the theologian and

the realization of the advaitin – all these are jnaana relative to

their situations. All these include a sense of surrender (arpana

manobhava). And that is bhakthi. So, bhakthi is integral to jnaana

and the two cannot remain independent of each other. There cannot,

therefore, be any bhakthi maarga existent like pure petroleum jelly.

Bhakthi is very much there in karma yoga and jnaana yoga (samnyaasa).

It occurs just spontaneously without any deliberate effort when an

awareness of the existence of the Lord dawns.

 

5. If the intention is to rechristen karma yoga or samnyaasa as

bhakthi maarga, then I have no comments, as long as a third (separate

and distinct!) Maarga that has no scriptural sanction is introduced.

 

I am at a loss to appreciate how one can "contemplate on the formless

Absolute". Contemplation demands an object - as an abstract concept

at least! Even the so-called "Neti Neti" can sustain only as long as

there are objects, ideas, concepts, thoughts etc. encountered. If I

can go beyond that, I would not be writing this in the first place. I

don't think I can or I need to go *there* either. So, Stage No. 3 is

my current ambition about which only I can sound reasonably

sensible. I am a devotee of the Devi. Her radiant beauty is the

light that lights up everything to me - even these very words that I

see myself expressing in! Thanks.

 

Pranaams to all advaitins.

 

Madathil Nair

 

_______________

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "Akilesh Ayyar" <akilesh@a...> wrote:

> As I read it the discussion was at first about how devotion,

seemingly to a

> second entity, could be held to be of truth and value when at the

same time

> a belief in non-dualism was espoused. In other words, at first the

> discussion centered around the "ultimate angle." This didn't last,

as

>

> PBVRajan wrote:

>

> "I have a book with me on Major Upanishads by Swami Sivananda and I

am

> reading it slowly and carefully. I could not locate in any of them

that

> Bakhti leads to self realization in the same way as intellectual

> realization."

>

> So in my opinion at this point things branched off into a

discussion of

> bhakti as regards the seeker, as only a seeker would seek "self

> realization."

>

> You responded to PBVRajan:

>

> "Bhakthi is just jnaana - the love for the Lord arising from the

> jnaana (intellectual realization, as you put it) that He is

everything

> and I am Him."

>

> Now if you mean jnana here in the sense of self-realization, I

cannot

> disagree with your statement, but then you are not addressing the

substance

> of PBVRajan's allegation. In other words, merely because bhakti and

jnana at

> the highest levels are identical does not mean that they are the

same from

> the perspective of the seeker, and that is the perspective from

which

> PBVRajan wrote.

>

> If, on the other hand, you mean jnana in a merely intellectual

sense, i.e.

> book knowledge, then there is a delineation between those who might

put this

> book knowledge in action by contemplating a formless Absolute and

those

> would would rather focus on a more personal God.

>

> To further emphasize this let me repeat another statement you

recently made:

> "In fact, there is nothing called a bhakti marga." But self-

realized people

> don't need a path. The existence of paths of any sort is not

relevant from

> the ultimate perspective, as from that perspective, there are no

seekers, no

> seeking, no paths, etc. Margas are only relevant for seekers.

Again, here,

> then, bhakti may have a specific relevance. This does not mean that

it is

> singing bhajans. But I read it as having to do with devotion to a

personal

> God, one which has a form, a shape, and a name.

[Guest guest]

> "A two-fold path of saadhana (spiritual practice) has been stated

by

> Me in the past – the path of self-knowledge (jnaana yoga) for the

> contemplative and the path of unselfish work (karma yoga) for the

> active. Jnaana yoga is also called Saamkhya yoga, samnyasa yoga,

and

> yoga of knowledge. A jnaana yogi does not consider himself the

doer

> of any action, but only as an instrument in the hands of the divine

> for His use. The word Jnaana means metaphysical or transcendental

> knowledge."

>

> If Lord Krishna had a *separate and distinct* Bhakti Maaraga in

mind,

> he could have stated it here in this verse most unambiguously.

>

Namaste Nairji,

 

Very good point about the two-fold path. Readers here would benefit

quite a bit by listening to Swami Paramarthananda's speeches

especially the ones on Bhakti and Karma yoga (www.yogamalika.org). He

clarifies how Bhakti is the common 'atmosphere' in which both Karma

Yoga and Jnana Yoga operate. Karma yoga is Bhakti Yoga level 1 and

Jnana Yoga is Bhakti Yoga level 2.

 

regards

Sundar Rajan

[Guest guest]

Dear Mr Rajan,

 

I could not resist! It is just hilarious!!

> a number of ghastly Hindu rituals like human sacrifice and Dog worship

(associated with saiva practices).

 

Human sacrifices associated with Saiva practices is news to me (I am not

that well read). Also Hindus worshipped several other animals, including the

(mind-like) Monkies, (the dumb) Cows, and the slippery Snakes. Why not poor

dogs!?

> The sheer logic of this position resulted (as per my thinking) in Bakhti

becoming a secondary requirement >-like they used to have diplomas in

Engineering when you can't get into Degree course in present-day >India.

This over the next 3 centuries polarised the Hindu society, most of whom

could not catch up with >high degree of intellectual sophistication required

of Advaitin theory.

 

Your conclusion seems to be that Bhakti is for intellectually deficient

people. With this logic, Ramakrishna falls into the category of

intellectually deficient personalities, since he practiced and preached

Bhakti. Then where does the Jnani Totapuri fall, who was ashamed of himself

trying to convert the "stupid" Ramakrishna into an intellectually vibrant

Jnani! Did not Vyasa go through the same process and found that inspite of

all his intellectual (one of the kind) work on categorizing the Vedas etc.,

found no peace within himself, only to be reminded that what he was missing

was Bhakti?

>This along with the supporting promotional soap opera of Ramayana and

Mahabaratha and Ten avatars of >Vishnu resulted in a Brand preference of

the masses for Vaishnavism. (Adi Sankara commented on Gita >but not on

Mahabaratha).

 

Just in case we forget, Krishna (from whom Gita emerged), being one of the

10 avatars, is part of the same soap opera! By the way, we are all part of

the same soap opera!!

> By this time the bulk of the Indian population whose basic trait is to be

effiminate and servile, opted >enmasse for Vaishnavism. This was also good

as it reinforced human values but it certian!

> ly gave back seat to Intellectual progress. The result (my opinion) Hindus

could not come up with any >technical or scientifc breakthough for the whole

of that millinieum.

 

Hindus did have problems always. They emphasized (and probably understood!)

the knowledge within and occasionally the knowledge outside! Even this

occasional interest produced medical and mathematical geniuses, long before

the Hindu's relearned them from the western societies! One of the foremost

discoveries in physics is Bose-Einstein statistics, valid even today, was

originated by a Bengali (Bose) in the midst of his overcrowded calcutta. To

date, no Intellectual has satisfactory scientific explanation for the

greatness of Ramanujan, the mathematical genius, who said all his knowledge

is due to Goddess Namagiri's writings on his tongue! His knowledge, acc. to

himself, is due to his Bhakti!!

> ----- This is the result of Bakhti cult which has been

over-commercialized. ( By the way no matter what >I say, I still go and

spend the amount and have the Darshan at Tirumala - so I am a hypocrite in

that >sense).

 

If Bhakti is a cult is Advaita also a cult? Let's be consistent!

>The religious leaders like Adi Sankara and Ramanuja also played some

political roles and they possibly >accomodated Bakhti for the masses. Then

there was backward justification that it leads to the same thing- >Brahman.

 

If the Bhaktas such as Aandal, the Nayanmars, Meera, Raghavendra Swamy,

Sadasiva Brahmendram, etc. represent dumb intellectually deficient fools, it

is time for most of us, the rattling intellectual Advaitins, to close the

shop and join the fools. Then we may really know whether Shankara and

Ramanuja used Bhakti for politics and Jnana for the chosen few!

>By the way Islam has no Bakhti concept, only mercy, and has strict rules on

what to do and what not, >with punishments listed. It also has a huge

following- 1.2 billion as per them- twice the number of so called >Hindus.

 

Interesting -- Islamic mercy and not the Hindu Bhakti produced violence

galore historically. It is implied that first comes the jnana (intellectual

prowess) for the chosen few, then comes the Bhakti for the dumb and

intellectually deficient, and finally comes the mercy with its associated

violence for the majority! The number of followers goes in the reverse

order.

> I think Bajanais can get you a crowd and prasadams and time-pass but not

self -realization. The way it is >done now, it inflates the ego, rather than

subdue it.

 

If Bhajans inflate the ego, I am yet to come across an intellect without

ego!

 

-- Vis

[Guest guest]

advaitin Prof. V.K.wrote:You have a point there, Rajan.

Hari Om,

 

 

Thank you for your kind sentiments. Emboldened by your remarks, I present

further some of my little ideas but if it disturbs the list, I will refrain from

furtther such postings.

 

The recent discussions have focused on Science, Spirituality and Bakhti.

 

 

Swami Ashokananda in his book on “The Soul’s journey to its Destiny” mentions in

his first chapter (pages 22 to 24) that there is a certain parallelism between

cosmic phenomenon and human systems. We are, as per him, a microcosm of the

macrocosm. I have been fascinated by this concept and felt that we could try and

relate some of the spiritual theories in this light. So what I present here, are

some hypothesis and subject to correction, improvement or outright rejection.

Please bear with me in the interim as you have the final vote.

 

One of the most regularly occurring phenomena in the universe is that of

circumbulation (going around in circular motion) of dependent variables on the

main element which remains constant and sustains those revolving around it.

 

In our day to day life we see it with sun at the seemingly stationery center,

where our 9 planets rotate around it in some fixed orbits. The sun itself, we

are told, rotates around milky-way, which in turn is supposed to be rotating

around the center of something else, possibly the center of Universe as we know

it now. This means each celestial body has two types of motion, one around its

own axis and another around a center in an orbit. Since that center itself is in

orbit, the relative positions of every celestial object is changing all the time

with respect to each other except to those with whom it is immediately in orbit.

This means that our earth, while may be in a seemingly stationery position with

respect to sun every year, would change its co-ordinates with respect to another

earth in another sun all the time- assuming there is another sun with its own

planetary system- which is not in doubt anymore.

(An astronomer or eminent scientist in our list can comment on it. I have also

sent this comment (relating to astronomy only) to MIT-Boston, for review).

 

At the level of microcosm, the atoms have also electrons orbiting around the

nucleus. This has already been observed and recorded by scientists.

 

So is it possible that “Atman” as we know it in Vedanta, is at the center and

those that are revolving around it are – First orbit “Intellect”, second orbit

“Mind” and third orbit “Body”. It is also possible that some of these planets

around “Atman” have their own moons orbiting them. For example, the “mind” may

have 6 senses as its moons by which it perceives the world. There may be other

planets beyond the body, which we do not perceive. The force creating these

planets around the center “Atman”, is MAYA which creates and sustains “the life”

of these planets. YAMA, a force opposite of creation (and phonetically reverse)

attempts to take these planets back to atman by terminating the life.

 

Several such “atmans” may be revolving around one “Brahman”, the center of the

universe.

 

In advaitin we shift the center of gravity from the body to the mind to the

intellect and finally to Atman when we have self-realization. If we get stuck at

body level we are “hedonistic” and reborn as another body. If we get stuck at

“mind level” due to overemphasis on Bakhti as the sole means, then we may end up

as set of impressions at the Cosmic Mind. If we get stuck at “Intellect” level,

we may end of as a set of “knowledge & power” in Deva Loga. Only when we

shift our entire center of gravity to “Atman” we will have self- liberalization.

 

As said earlier, I am open to correction, rejection or upgrades. The boot is on

your legs. Please feel free to kick me around.

 

Pranams

 

P.B.V.Rajan

 

 

 

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from Indiatimes at http://email.indiatimes.com

Buy Music, Video, CD-ROM, Audio-Books and Music Accessories from

http://www.planetm.co.in

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Rajan!

 

The boot is on my legs and heavy too. I don't want to kick you

around, however. I want go get rid of the boot!

 

Who wrote your post, Shri Rajan?! Who lighted up the parallelism

between cosmic phenomenon and human systems!? Forget about Swami

Ashokananada and his book. There are too many Swamis and books.

What lights them up for you?! That is the only thing that ultimately

remains. And that is You! If you understand this, then there is no

question of your getting "stuck" in any loka. You are absolutely

free, which you are right now if you relinquish your "relative

positions" in the experienced universe. Lest, the lokas are for

you. The choice is yours.

 

Before concluding, may I ask you a question? Did you order or want

this Swami Ashokananda to come for your rescue? I am sure he just

happened, or, in my terminology, "happened to be lighted up to you".

This applies to his book too which you hold close to your heart.

Don't forget there are many such books! Where do all this come from?

What makes you relate with them? You ought to ask these questions

and find answers. The quest is nothing but exhilarating. I am sure

you will conclude that there is something (some grace) lighting up

all this for you. And that thing that lights up is You. If you can

be content with this answer, then I am sure you are "done". You

don't have to seek any further. Leave the Sun, Moon, planets,

galaxies and universes to move about relatively. Watch their

synchronous dance and enjoy! There is something lighting up such

joys for you and that is You with a capital Y and you are the very

dancer, Nataraja!

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

__________________________

 

advaitin, "pbvrajan" <pbvrajan@i...> wrote:

> As said earlier, I am open to correction, rejection or upgrades.

The boot is on your legs. Please feel free to kick me around.

>

[Guest guest]

OM

GURUR BRAHMA GURUR VISNU GURUR DEVO MAHESHVARAH

GURUH SAKSHAT PARAM BRAHM TASMAI SRI GURVE NAMAH

OM NAMAH SIVAYA

OM NAMAH SIVANANDAYA

 

Blessed and Most revered Patrons,

This question has been answered by Sri Swami Sivanandaji in his book

Bhagavad Gita By Sri Swami Sivananda:

 

Reconciliation of the Paths

In the Vishnu Purana, Bhagavan Vishnu is highly eulogised and a

secondary place is given to Lord Shiva. In the Shiva Purana, Lord

Shiva is immensely praised whilst Lord Vishnu is secondary. In the

Devi Bhagavatam, the Divine Mother is given prominence above Lord

Shiva and Lord Vishnu. All this is done in order to create in the

aspirant intense and unswerving faith in his favourite Deity. All

Deities are one; they are different aspects of the Lord. It is

simply absurd to believe that Shiva is inferior to Vishnu, or vice

versa.

 

In the same manner, in one place in the Gita, Lord Krishna praises

Karma Yoga: "The Yoga of action is superior to the renunciation

of action"—V.2. In another place He praises Raja Yoga: "The

Yogi is thought to be superior to the ascetics and even superior to

men of knowledge; he is also superior to men of action. Therefore,

be thou a Yogi, O Arjuna!"—VI.46. In yet another place Lord

Krishna praises the path of Bhakti Yoga: "The highest Purusha, O

Arjuna, is attainable by unswerving devotion to Him alone within

whom all beings dwell and by whom all this is perv

aded!"—VIII.22. In one place He praises Jnana Yoga: "Noble

indeed are all these; but I deem the wise man as My very Self; for,

steadfast in mind, he is established in Me alone as the supreme

goal"—VII.18.

 

A beginner is confused when he comes across these seemingly

contradictory verses. But, if you think deeply, there is no room for

any confusion. Krishna praises each Yoga in order to create interest

in the aspirant in his particular path. The Gita is a book for the

people of the world at large. It was not meant for Arjuna alone.

Each Yoga is as efficacious as the other.

 

http://www.thedivinelifesociety.org/download/bgita.htm

 

Please see and participate:

http://www.dlsmd.org/japayajna.htm

 

Free Books are available at:

http://www.sivanandadlshq.org/download/download.htm

 

DLSMD Website

http://www.dlsmd.org/

DLSHQ Website

http://www.dlshq.org/home.html

Sivananda Daily Readings

dlsmd/join

Srimad Bhagavad Gita Online Course

http://courses./course/gita

 

Pranam

 

OM

[Guest guest]

advaitin Prof V.K. wrote:

 

 

>The concept of bhakti by the very meaning of the term involves two entities:

>one, the Almighty being worshipped, and the one who worships. How may we

>reconcile this with the statement repeatedly proclaimed by the scriptures

and saints >that there is only one Absolute Turth?

 

 

Hari Om,

 

 

I have re-read more material on Bakhti, and I must confess that my earlier

impressions were in-correct. However the dilemna of two entities or in some

cases more than 2, is not just limited to Bakhti but also applicable to Jnana

Marg as well as Karma Yoga. If there is some thing to be understood or some

thing to be done, then automatically we are creating duality. So the attempt is

then to create the unity irrepective of the way adopted.

 

 

There are also some differences. In Gnana Marg, the route-map to self-realizaion

is supposed to be clear. Dispassion is recommended as the state of mind.

Non-identification with fruits of action is recommneded in Karma Yoga as an

equivalent. However, it is assumed in Bakhti marg that, one can do anything as

long as one is declaring the approach to be of Bakhti. There appears to be no

ground rules. Here emotion overtakes reason.

 

 

So as was posted in recent Sivananda postings, Bakhti is "Emotional excitement

is not devotion to God. Devotion is pure love, Fanaticism is not devotion, but

frenzy, mere excitement. Bhakti is not mere emotionalism, but is the tuning of

the will as well as the intellect towards the divine. Bhakti is of two kinds -

apara bhakti (a lower type of devotion) and para bhakti (supreme love). Ringing

bells and waving lights is apara bhakti. A devotee who practises this has no

expanded heart. In para bhakti, there is no ritualistic worship, the devotee is

absorbed in God. Para bhakti and jnana are one. In the end the two become one."

 

 

These would have been mere euphisms to me sometime back but now I begin to see

the point. Infact one of my surprises was in one satsang, which I attended with

Shri Madhav. I was asked to elaborate that in Prayer you ask only for "Grace"

and not any material things and in this way I myself learnt the concept. This

was contrary to the view I held for more than 4 decades. I was then able to

change my prayer habits. I have found more peace internally- although it may not

be so obvious.

 

 

My questioning of others devotion is as unwarranted as others questioning mine.

Only God knows who is really devote and to waht degree. We need not judge. This

is a bit unlike Jnana where others can make some judgement as the scriptures lay

some guidelines. In Karma also it is possible to observe the attitude of

non-attachement. But in Bakhti, ones' self is the sole witness.

 

 

Pranams.

 

 

P.B.V.Rajan

 

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from Indiatimes at http://email.indiatimes.com

Buy Music, Video, CD-ROM, Audio-Books and Music Accessories from

http://www.planetm.co.in

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

OM

GURUR BRAHMA GURUR VISNU GURUR DEVO MAHESHVARAH

GURUH SAKSHAT PARAM BRAHM TASMAI SRI GURVE NAMAH

OM NAMAH SIVAYA

OM NAMAH SIVANANDAYA

 

Revered Patrons,

Sadar Pranam

 

BHAKTI YOGA

By SRI SWAMI SIVANANDA:

http://www.dlshq.org/teachings/bhaktiyoga.htm

 

PRAYER By SRI SWAMI CHIDANANDA :

http://www.dlsmd.org/teachings/chidananda/prayer.htm

 

 

WHAT IS BHAKTI ?

 

The term Bhakti comes from the root 'Bhaj', which means 'to be

attached to God'. Bhajan, worship, Bhakti, Anurag, Prem, Priti are

synonymous terms. Bhakti is love for love's sake. The devotee wants

God and God alone. There is no selfish expectation here. There is no

fear also. Therefore it is called 'Parama Prem Rupa'. The devotee

feels, believes, conceives and imagines that his Ishtam (tutelary

deity) is an Ocean of Love or Prem.

 

Bhakti is the slender thread of Prem or love that binds the heart of

a devotee with the lotus feet of the Lord. Bhakti is intense

devotion and supreme attachment to God. Bhakti is supreme love for

God. It is the spontaneous out-pouring of Prem towards the Beloved.

It is pure, unselfish, divine love or Suddha Prem. There is not a

bit of bargaining or expectation of anything here. This higher

feeling is indescribable in words. It has to be sincerely

experienced by the devotee. Bhakti is a sacred, higher emotion with

sublime sentiments that unites the devotees with the Lord.

 

Mark how love develops. First arises faith. Then follows attraction

and after that adoration. Adoration leads to suppression of mundane

desires. The result is single-mindedness and satisfaction. Then grow

attachment and supreme love towards God.

 

In this type of highest Bhakti all attraction and attachment which

one has for objects of enjoyment are transferred to the only dearest

object, viz., God. This leads the devotee to an eternal union with

his Beloved and culminates in oneness.

 

OM