j~nAna and bhakti

[Guest guest]

namaste.

 

I was asked to write the lead article on the topic "bhakti

and j~nAna" and, in general, coordinate the discussion along

with shri sunder hattangadi.

 

Bhakti and j~nAna in the ultimate lead to the same reality.

Their approaches are different. First let us understand what

the terms mean.

 

J~nAnam is the definite, unhesitating and continuous thinking

that everything is Consciousness and I am the Consciousness.

J~nAnam is knowledge of brahman or realization of brahman.

The body-mind-intellect complex which falsely takes over as

the I is not the real I but is simply an adhyAsa, a

superimposition on the real I, the Consciousness. shri shankara,

in His classic work VivekacUDAmaNi says in verse 424

"ahambhAvodayAbhAvo bodhasya paramAvadhiH" [the absence of the

rise of the sense of i of the ego is the culmination of

Knowledge.]. i.e., when the ego does not rise its ugly head

anymore, that is the culmination of Knowledge.

 

In the same VivekacUDAmaNi, verses 31 and 32, shri shankara

describes bhakti.

 

moksha-kAraNa sAmagryAm bhaktireva garIyasI

sva-svarUpAnusandhAnam bhaktirityabhidhIyate 31

 

Among all means of liberation, devotion (bhakti) is the supreme.

To seek earnestly to know one's real nature - this is said to

be devotion.

 

sv'Atma-tattv'AnusandhAnam bhaktirityapare jaguH

ukta-sAdhana-saMpannaH tattva-jignAsurAtmanaH

upasIded guruM prAjnaM yasmAd bandha-vimokshaNam.h 32

 

Others say that the continuous contemplation of the truth

of one's Atman is bhakti. The seeker after the reality of

the Atman, who possesses the above-mentioned qualifications

(shri shankara is referring to sAdhana catuShTayam here as

the requisite qualifications. Please see further below for

a more complete discussion of these qualifications), should

approach an illumined teacher from whom he can learn the way

to liberation.

 

In this devotion, the individual surrenders his/her highest,

i.e. the ego. It merges with the SELF, the Atman or it (the

ego) does not consider itself to be separate from the SELF.

If we have this ultimate Knowledge, then, obviously, we have

the highest understanding.

 

bhakti

 

As we strive for that ultimate understanding, we go through

various gradations of understanding both of jnAnam and of

bhakti. When we see duality all around us, we naturally

ascribe the reason for the creation of the dualistic jagat

to Ishwara, the personal God. Our spirituality, which is

a result of our pUrvajanma-sukr^itam (good deeds done in

the previous lives), exhibits itself as bhakti toward that

personal God. The term bhakti comes from the root word bhaj

which means to be attached to God. Bhakti is devotion for

devotion's sake. The devotee wants God and God alone. NArada

bhaktisUtrA-s describe bhakti as "sAtvasmin parama premaswarUpA"

[bhakti is described as the supreme devotion towards God].

 

True bhakti comes out of the realization of the transitory

nature of life. In the advanced stage of bhakti, the bhakta

does not even seek moksha but wishes to be always immersed or

drowned in the ocean of bhakti or God-intoxication.

 

There are various gradations of bhakti. In shrImadbhAgavatam,

sage vyAsa describes the nine stages of bhakti.

 

shravaNaM kIrtanaM viShNoH smaraNaM pAdasevanam.h

arcanaM vandanaM dAsyaM sakhyam Atmanivedanam.h

 

1. shravaNam (hearing God's stories)

2. kIrtana (singing His glories)

3. smaraNa (remembering His name and presence)

4. pAdasevana (service of His feet)

5. archana (worship of God)

6. vandana (prostration to the Lord)

7. dAsya (cultivating the bhAva of servant to the Lord)

8. sakhya (cultivation of the bhAva of friendship)

9. Atmanivedana (complete surrender of the self)

 

Bhakti comes naturally to those who are predominantly emotional

in temperament. It is the approach of pure devotion, which is

poured on the personal God. With shraddha, worship and self-surrender,

the devotee attains direct perception of the God. When merging

takes place and oneness is attained, the ego is completely lost.

 

The barrier between the individual and the paramAtman is the

ego, which is an ever-present enemy. It manifests as a feeling

of separateness. Bhakti destroys this feeling of separateness,

because in the ecstasy of pure love and devotion, the consciousness

of the individual self is lost. Ego will be surrendered. In

bhagavadgItA (BG7.16), Lord Krishna describes people who turn to

bhakti as with from one of the four motivations: (i) distress can

be a powerful factor. When all else has failed, there is no

recourse left but to turn to God, (ii) curiosity is another

impetus. Looking beyond the external trappings of worship,

the mind seeks to understand what lies behind the symbolism

and rituals, (iii) the desire for gain, whether it be of love,

knowledge or wealth, etc. God is petitioned who will grant favours

if approached with faith and devotion, (iv) the highest bhakti is

self-less. The motivation is the simple desire to devotion and

visualization of God. The ego will disappear with this attitude.

 

Another description of bhakti is given by shri shankara in

shivAnandalaharI, in verse 61. The shivAnandalaharI verse says:

 

a~nkolam nijabIjasantatiH ayaskAntopalaM sUcikA

sAdhvI nijavibhuM latA kshitiruhaM sindhuH saridvallabham.h

prApnotIha yathA tathA pashupateH pAdAravindadvayaM

cetovr^ittirupetya tiShThati sadA sA bhaktirityucyate 61

 

Just like

the seeds from the ankola tree fall in the night and gather around

the tree,

the iron filings get attracted to the magnet,

the chaste woman's thoughts are always on her husband,

the creeper gets entwined around the tree,

the river waters when they reach the ocean, loose their identity;

the thoughts of the mindhaving reached the lotus feet of pashupati

stay there; that is called bhakti.

 

This verse has been commented on by various scholars discussing

bhakti, including our own profvk-ji earlier. Profvk-ji's

commentary can be accessed at

 

advaitin/message/5300

 

[There are excellent discussions on bhakti and j~nAna during

the month of June 2000 on our List and I would request members

to go through the archives for that month for some very pertinent

material.]

 

Because of the importance of this verse in understanding advaita

bhakti, at the risk of repeating earlier versions, I would like

to discuss this a bit further. This verse presents a picture of

bhakti from the dualistic worshipping stage to the ultimate

advaita bhakti where the worshipper and the worshipped become one.

 

The seeds of the ankola tree fall in the night and gather around

the trunk of the tree. There are forces which scatter these seeds

over a period of time. This is time-dependent bhakti; equivalent

to that we do pUjA in the morning and after pUjA, we go to do our

worldly duties.

 

The iron filings get attracted to the magnet when they are close

to the magnet; if they are not close-by, they do not feel the force

of the magnet. This is place-dependent bhakti; equivalent that we

think of God when we drive by a temple and we go on our worldly

duties.

 

The chaste woman continuously thinks of her husband, yet there

is still duality; the two forms are separate. Even without the

husband, she will survive.

 

The creeper entwines itself around the tree. There is still

duality, yet, without the tree, the creeper cannot survive.

 

The river waters joining the ocean; while they have their identity

before joining the ocean, once they join, they loose their identity.

 

These are the gradations of bhakti, the highest form being when

the devotee looses his/her identity and completely merges with

God.

 

 

j~nAnam

 

Unlike bhakti, j~nAnam is much harder to describe and is that

much harder to follow that approach. The minimum qualifications

required are stressed in every prakaraNa grantha by shri shankara.

The repetition itself shows how important shri shankara considers

these minimum prerequisites are. They are the sAdhana catuShTayam

which are

 

1. viveka or discrimination between the real and the unreal. This

is the intuitive and unshakable conviction of the mind that

brahman alone is real and all other things are unreal

 

2. vairAgya or renunciation: the utter disregard of all pleasures,

ranging from the enjoyment of the sensuous objects of this

world to the experience of the happiness one expects in

heaven after death

 

3. ShaTsampatti or the six treasures. shama, dama, uparati,

titIksha, samAdhAna and shraddha

 

4. mumukshutvam or the burning desire for liberation

 

It is extremely hard to have these qualities or to acquire

them.

 

The six great enemies of the human (the ariShaDvargA-s) are

kAma (desire), krodha (anger), lobha (miserliness), moha

(passion), mada (pride) and mAtsarya (jealousy). They are

always in the wait to pounce and occupy on unsuspecting

sAdhakA-s. To keep these six great enemies at bay, purity

of the heart is required. Purity of the heart comes only

through intense sAdhana.

 

While the viveka (discrimination between what is real and

what is unreal) is a prerequisite, that discriminating power

rests in the intellect. The intellect plays a negative part

in the following way. Atmaj~nAna is intuitive knowledge and

not derivable by logic. Logic is the main forte of the

intellect. Intellect, while helpful with viveka, is also

a big hurdle because it continuously puts objections with

its logic against intuitive knowledge. So, in order to have

intuitive knowledge, one has to go beyond logic, with shraddha

as the guiding light.

 

Then there is the ego, which falsely takes over as the I every

time and claims to be doing the action and enjoying the fruit

of action. While in reality, there is no ego, no action and no

fruit of action. What this means is, we have been thrown into

an illusionary world of mirrors where the concepts of ego and

action appear very real. VivekacUDAmaNi calls it

ahamkAravyAghravyathitam (being tormented by the tiger of ego).

We have to climb our way out of that illusionary world and see

the reality.

 

What is intuited is our Atma, i.e., the subject has to turn

inward and investigate the subject itself, a subject that has

no shape, no attributes and is all-pervading.

 

The upanishads are full of statements how hard this

SELF-investigation is. kaTha upanishad says this investigation

is similar to walking on a razor's edge.

 

Thus, SELF-investigation, following the j~nAna-mArga is not

for everyone; or another way to say is: j~nAna-mArga is only

after a certain stage of human spiritual growth. Yet, if the

above-mentioned prerequisites are all met, with turning

the sense organs inward, and investigating the attributeless,

formless all-pervading SELF, we will be blessed with intuitive

knowledge of the SELF. That SELF that was intuited by the

upanishadic sages gave them infinite bliss, a bliss which is

different from the joys of everyday, so the upanishadic sages

say.

 

That Knowledge is superior to all intellectual knowledge and

includes all intellectual knowledge. That Knowledge cannot be

described except in a neti, neti (not this, not this) way.

That Knowledge is beyond words and beyond description.

 

The j~nAnam, to know what we are, is the toughest task a man

can ever attempt. J~nAna-mArga and bhakti-mArga can be compared

this way. J~nAna, the tougher and harder route can be hazardous

without proper purity. One can get stuck and not progress at all

and may even regress. Bhakti-mArga, on the other hand, is always

progressive in the sense one may not regress. It is less

hazardous. While there are these distinctions in the two

'routes', it can be argued that these are not two different

routes but every sAdhaka's spiritual 'journey' has to include

journey through both these routes.

 

Over the month-long discussions, it is hoped that members

would present their understanding as also the understandings

from other sources. BhagavadgItA is full of discussions of

bhakti and j~nana in every chapter. shri Sai Baba, shri

ramakrishna, swami shivananda-ji and many other modern day

sages and also sages of earlier times have presented their

insights of this important topic. It is hoped that the learned

members will bring interesting insights into the discussion.

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

--

[Guest guest]

shri Krishna Prasad-ji wrote on tuesday Apr. 29 with the subject

header "One Question regarding God's Grace"

> Hari OM! Blessed Ones, To be realized, the GOD's grace is very

> important, How great a Jnani may be still with out "HIS" grace

> he won't be a realized person. The GOD mentioning here is the

> ISWARA which is the total mind, or The Brahman? Please, like

> to have the views from learned members

>

> With Love & OM!

> Krishna Prasad

 

 

namaste.

 

The following is my understanding and other members may give a more

precise and complete answer to your question.

 

BhagavadkR^ipa (God's Grace) is a must everything and it is always

there for everyone. God is most impartial. This bhagavadkr^ipa

as well as God Ishwara is in vyavahArika. And the God's Grace

necessarily means the Grace of Ishwara.

 

Brahman (i.e. nirguNa brahman) does not have any attributes

like Grace.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

-----

[Guest guest]

Dear G. Murthy,

 

NirguNa brahman may not have attributes such as Grace or prasAda.

But the very fact that you have been able to conceive such an entity

makes it distinct and different from all other entities that you have already

conceived such as entities which have attributes such as Grace, etc.

 

Any such entity that has been mentally conceived has to have attributes.

It is because of those attributes that you are able to distinguish that

conception from the rest of your conceptions. Therefore "attributelessness"

is a very special attribute of your conceived entity called "NirguNa Brahman".

 

Thus you have to either say, NirguNa Brahman can't be conceived at all or

you have to say NirguNa Brahman has attributes ( such as attributelessness ).

 

You can pick only one of these and not both.

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Sri Ramakrishna and Sri Ramana both used identical anlogies

to describe Grace: " The breeze of Grace is always blowing, just

adjust your sails to catch it! "

 

Gita has these beautiful verses:

 

sarvakarmaaNyapi sadaa kurvaaNo mad.hvyapaashrayaH .

matprasaadaadavaapnoti shaashvataM padamavyayam.h .. 18\-56..

 

machchittaH sarvadurgaaNi matprasaadaattarishhyasi .

atha chettvamaha.nkaaraanna shroshhyasi vinaN^kShyasi .. 18\-58..

 

tameva sharaNaM gachchha sarvabhaavena bhaarata .

tatprasaadaatparaaM shaantiM sthaanaM praapsyasi shaashvatam.h .. 18\-

62..

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

 

advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...>

wrote:

>

>

> shri Krishna Prasad-ji wrote on tuesday Apr. 29 with the subject

> header "One Question regarding God's Grace"

>>

> BhagavadkR^ipa (God's Grace) is a must everything and it is always

> there for everyone. God is most impartial. This bhagavadkr^ipa

> as well as God Ishwara is in vyavahArika. And the God's Grace

> necessarily means the Grace of Ishwara.

>

> Brahman (i.e. nirguNa brahman) does not have any attributes

> like Grace.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Jay Nelamangala" <jay@r...> wrote:

> Dear G. Murthy,

>

> NirguNa brahman may not have attributes such as Grace or prasAda.

> But the very fact that you have been able to conceive such an entity

> makes it distinct and different from all other entities that you

have already

> conceived such as entities which have attributes such as Grace,

etc.

>

> Any such entity that has been mentally conceived has to have

attributes.

> It is because of those attributes that you are able to distinguish

that

> conception from the rest of your conceptions. Therefore

"attributelessness"

> is a very special attribute of your conceived entity called

"NirguNa

Brahman".

>

> Thus you have to either say, NirguNa Brahman can't be conceived at

all or

> you have to say NirguNa Brahman has attributes ( such as

attributelessness ).

>

> You can pick only one of these and not both.

 

 

..... or perhaps pick something else. Something beyond a simple linear

logic where all the propositions must line up in a row holding each

others hands, since this concerns something beyond duality. For

instance a person with experience might explain it thus...

 

 

"The First Sermon

 

The dead came back from Jerusalem, where they did not find what they

were seeking. They asked admittance and demanded to be taught, and

thus I taught them:

 

I begin with nothing. Nothing is the same as fullness. In the

endless

state fullness is the same as emptiness. The Nothing is both empty

and full. One may just as well state some other thing about the

Nothing, namely that it is white or that it is black or that it

exists

or that it exists not. That which is endless and eternal has no

qualities, because it has all qualities.The Nothing, or fullness, is

called by us the Pleroma. In it thinking and being cease, because

the

eternal is without qualities. In it there is no one, for if anyone

were, he then would be differentiated from the Pleroma and would

possess qualities which would distinguish him from the Pleroma.

 

In the Pleroma there is nothing and everything: it is not profitable

to think about the Pleroma, for to do that would mean one's

dissolution.

 

The created world is not in the Pleroma, but in itself. The Pleroma

is the beginning and end of the created world. The Pleroma

penetrates

the created world as the sunlight penetrates the air everywhere.

Although the Pleroma penetrates it completely, the created world has

no part of it, just as an utterly transparent body does not become

either dark or light in color as the result of the passage of the

light through it. We ourselves, however, are the Pleroma, so it is

that the Pleroma is present within us. Even in the smallest point

the

Pleroma is present without any bounds, eternally and completely, for

small and great are the qualities which are alien to the Pleroma.

The

Pleroma is the nothingness which is everywhere complete and without

end. It is because of this that I speak of the created world as a

portion of the Pleroma, but only in an allegorical sense, - for the

Pleroma is not divided into portions, for it is nothingness. We,

also, are the total Pleroma; for figuratively the Pleroma is an

exceedingly small, hypothetical, even nonexistent point within us,

and

also it is the limitless firmament of the cosmos about us. Why,

however, do we discourse about the Pleroma, if it is the all, and

also

nothing?

 

I speak of it, in order to begin somewhere, and also to remove from

You the delusion that somewhere within or without there is something

absolutely firm and definite. All things which are called definite

and solid are but relative, for only that which is subject to change

appears definite and solid.

 

The created world is subject to change. It is the only thing that is

solid and definite, since it has qualities. In fact, the created

world is itself but a quality.

 

We ask the question: how did creation originate? Creatures indeed

originated but not the created world itself, for the created world is

a quality of the Pleroma, in the same way as the uncreated, - eternal

death is also a quality of the Pleroma. Creation is always and

everywhere, and death is always and everywhere. The Pleroma

possesses

all: differentiation and nondifferentiation.

 

Differentiation is creation. The created world is indeed

differentiated. Differentiation is the essence of the created world

and for this reason the created also causes further differentiation.

That is why man himself is a divider, inasmuch as his essence is also

differentiation. That is why he distinguishes the qualities of the

Pleroma, yea, those qualities which do not exist. These divisions

man

draws from his own being. This then, is the reason for man

discoursing about the qualities of the Pleroma, which do not exist.

 

You say to me: What good is it then to talk about this, since it has

been said that it is useless to think about the Pleroma?

 

I say these things to you in order to free you from the illusion that

it is possible to think about the Pleroma. When you speak of the

divisions of the Pleroma, we are speaking from the position of our

own

divisions, and we speak about our own differentiated state, but

while

we do this, we have in reality said nothing about the Pleroma.

However, it is necessary for us to talk about our own

differentiation,

for this enables us to discriminate sufficiently. Our essence is

differentiation. For this reason we must distinguish individual

qualities.

 

You say: What harm does it not do to discriminate, for then we reach

beyond the limits of our own being, we extend ourselves beyond the

created world, and we fall into the undifferentiated state which is

another quality of the pleroma? We submerge into the Pleroma itself,

and we cease to be created beings. Thus we become subject to

dissolution and nothingness.

 

Such is the very death of the created being. We die to the extent

that we fail to discriminate. For this reason the natural impulse of

the created being is directed toward differentiation and toward the

struggle against the ancient, pernicious state of sameness. The

natural tendency is called Principium Individuationis (Principle of

Individuation). This principle is indeed the essence of every

created

being. From these things you may readily recognize why the

undifferentiated principle and lack of discrimination are all a great

danger to created beings. For this reason we must be able to

distinguish the qualities of the Pleroma. Its qualities are the

pairs

of opposites, such as the effective and the ineffective, fullness and

emptiness, the living and the dead, difference and sameness, light

and

dark, hot and cold, energy and matter, time and space, good and evil,

the beautiful and the ugly, the one and the many and so forth.

 

The pairs of opposites are the qualities of the Pleroma: they are

also

in reality nonexistent because they cancel each other out.

 

Since we ourselves are the Pleroma, we also have these qualities

present within us; inasmuch as the foundation of our being is

differentiation, we possess these qualities in the name and under the

sign of differentiation, which means:

 

First -that the qualities are in us differentiated from each other,

and they are separated from each other, and thus they do not cancel

each other out, rather they are in action. It is thus that we are

the

victims of the pairs of opposites. For in us the Pleroma is rent in

two.

 

Second -the qualities belong to the Pleroma, and we can and should

partake of them only in the name and under the sign of

differentiation. We must separate ourselves from these qualities. In

the Pleroma they cancel each other out; in us they do not. But if we

know how to know ourselves as being apart from the pairs of

opposites,

then we have attained to salvation.

 

When we strive for the good and the beautiful, we thereby forget

about

our essential being, which is differentiation, and we are victimized

by the qualities of the Pleroma which are the pairs of opposites. We

strive to attain to the good and the beautiful, but at the same time

we also attain to the evil and the ugly, because in the Pleroma these

are identical with the good and the beautiful. However, if we remain

faithful to our nature, which is differentiation, we then

differentiate ourselves from the good and the beautiful, and thus we

have immediately also differentiated ourselves from the evil and the

ugly. It is only thus that we do not merge into the Pleroma, that

is,

into nothingness and dissolution.

 

You will object and say to me: Ypu have said that differentiation and

sameness are also qualities of the Pleroma. How is it then when we

strive for differentiation? Are we not then true to our natures and

must we then also eventually be in the state of sameness, while we

strive for differentiation?

 

What you should never forget is that the Pleroma has no qualities.

We

are the ones who create these qualities through our thinking. When

you strive after differentiation or sameness or after other

qualities,

you strive after thoughts which flow to you from the Pleroma, namely

thoughts about the nonexistent qualities of the Pleroma. While you

run after these thoughts, you fall again into the Pleroma and arrive

at differentiation and sameness at the same time. Not your thinking

but your being is differentiation. That is why you should not strive

after differentiation and discrimination as you know these, but

strive

after your true nature. If you would thus truly strive, you would

not

need to know anything about the Pleroma and its qualities, and still

you would arrive at the true goal because of your nature. However,

because thinking alienates us from our true nature, therefore I must

teach knowledge to you, with which you can keep your thinking under

control."

 

-- from Seven Sermons to the Dead, by C G Jung, trans by Stephen

Hoeller

 

 

Dan

 

 

 

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeooooooooooooooooooooooooommmmmmmmm

[Guest guest]

Namaste all,

Sorry but there are many words being posted below but

the sudden death of a long-term Indian friend, causing

problems for his family, and my wife's operation last

week to replace worn out knees are events occupying

much time.

 

This subject was the motivation for me to join this

group and I have posted many random thoughts in the

past as well as references.

I have at home some excellent and insightful papers on

the subject that I photocopied while in India some

years back but the photocopies are too poor to scan.

They are from a conference called 'Shankara and

Shanmata' set up by HH Shankaracharya of Kanchi

Peetham in about 1963. They include some of his

teaching on the subject.

If anyone is really keen, and sends me a stamped

addressed envelope, I will send copies. (contact me at

the above e-mail address away from the site.)

 

Below are three extracts:

1) This comes from an article I wrote on the subject

in which I quote Ramana Maharshi.

2) This is from recorded conversations of Papa Ramdas

of Anandashram and introduces the teachings on

para-bhakti and Shankara.

3.) This is from a book called 'Rambles in Vedanta'

written in about 1907 and follows a discussion of

bhakti with one on para-bhakti and jnana. I have not

had time to correct all the mis-scannings...sorry.

 

I hope that they are of use.

 

Ken Knight

 

1) Devotion in Advaita

 

The first question may be, 'Why is he (Shankara)

writing hymns of praise when he teaches non-duality?'

Advaita is welcomed in the West because it allows us

to play with spirituality while remaining 'in the

head'. That advaita is quite definite also when

describing the need to open the heart to the flow of

grace is an idea frequently overlooked. The following

is a quotation from the introduction to Shankara's

great hymn Sivanandalahari.

'For the destruction of nescience one should have

wisdom. Wisdom dawns through the grace of God. It is

wrong to think that there is no place for God or for

devotion in advaita. As a well known verse puts it: It

is by God's grace that an inclination towards advaita

comes to men…to two or three…that will save them great

fear.'

Bhagavan Sri Ramana, the greatest advaitan of the last

century at least, has given us a selection of ten

verses from the Sivanandalahari and rearranged their

order so as to define devotion:

 

61. Devotion is constant contemplation of God.

76. When devotion fills the mind, life becomes worth

while and fruitful.

83. There is no point in being devoted to what is

finite and limited; the object of true

devotion is the Infinite Reality, God.

6. Logic cannot be a substitute for devotion. Skill

in the art of argumentation will not yield happiness

It will only result in the weariness of mind.

65 The devotee meets with no such bitterness. He

gains the supreme happiness,

conquering death. Even the gods adore him.

10. What is important is devotion. Other

considerations and conditions of life are of no

consequence.

12 One may live anywhere and follow any mode of

discipline; true yoga is devotion to

God.

9 Devotion does not consist in mere external offerings

of flowers, etc to God; it is the heart-gift that is

true devotion.

11. One may be a devotee at any stage in life; if one

surrenders oneself to God, He is

ready to take on all burdens.

91 The end of devotion is moksa. Devotion to God

removes the darkness of ignorance

by shedding the light of wisdom.

 

 

2) Papa Ramdas

Sannyasi “Swamiji, why do you say so? What are we

before you? We are but your children. Still the father

likes to hear the children prattle.”

 

Wifh this preface he talked for over half an hour on

jnana.

 

After the evening bhajan, Joshiji and other devotees

were sitting before Papa in the bhajan-haIl. Joshiji

had certain doubts. He asked Papa about renunciation.

Joshiji had been a follower of the path of bhakti,

trying his best to lead the life of a true

householder. He was not at first assailed by doubts as

to the efficacy of his path. But, after he came into

contact with that sannyasi friend and heard his talks

on jnana yoga he was beginning to feel disturbed. He

wanted to get the matter cleared up, and requested

Papa to remove his lingering doubts.

 

Papa “Never think that you are the perishable body.

Always identify yourself with the Spirit, the

imperishable, changeless Atman. When you fully realise

that you are the Atman and not the body—which you can

do only after practising long dissociation from rhe

body—you will not be bound by anything. You are then

free. As a true householder, you are to consider that

the whole of your property, your wife and children

belong to God and that you are only His agent,

entrusted by Him with the task of running the

household. This is the right spirit in which a

householder should carry on his duties. If you are

able to adopt this attitude, why should you have to

become a sannyasi? Is not every one in your household,

verily, the manifestation of Brahman? You cannot

easily give up the world as mere illusion. As long as

the ego-sense is alive in you, the world is real to

you. Having the body-idea you cannot say, ‘I am

Brahman.’ And, after all, renunciation is only a means

to an end. You have ultimately to realise the whole

universe as the manifestation of the Lord, as a part

of His lila. Through bhakti you attain jnana and after

attaining jn~na, you have to go still beyond that to

what is called para-bhakti. A mere jnani says the

whole universe is an illusion. But one who has reached

the plane of para-bhakti sees the whole universe as

Brahman. Then he does not call it an illusion, but as

the Lord’s lila, though at the same time, he knows the

play to be impermanent and transitory and so does not

get entangled in it.

 

“So if a householder is able to lead a purely detached

life, with the full consciousness that Brahman alone

is real and that the whole universe, including his own

family and possessions, are nothing but manifestations

of God, he will realise Him. There is no need for such

a one to renounce the family, as he is fully aware of

the impermanence of the world and is not deceived by

this passing show. He is absolutely detached and so is

happy under all conditions. Whether his relations live

or die, whether his business fails or flourishes, he

ever remains happy and cheerful, being firmly

established in the consciousness of the divine.”

It was about 7 o’clock in the morning. Joshiji was

sitting in front of Papa when S. entered the

bhajan-haII. Joshiji was continuing yesterday’s

di~cussion with Papa on jnana.

Papa said “Jnana is born in the womb of bhakti and

protected by bhakti. The jnanis say that the universe

is an illusion. When Ramdas was once in Mount Abu, he

was taken to a mahatma living there, known as Swami

Kaivalyananda. Going near the mahatma, Ramdas

prostrated before him. The latter sprang up and

asked Ramdas, ‘To whom are you prostrating?’ Ramdas

replied, ‘Ramdas is prostrating to Ram.’ He asked

again, ‘Are you not the same Ram?’ Ramdas said, ‘Yes,

Ram is in Ramdas also. He knows he is one with Ram,

but at the same time, he wants to be His child and

prostrate to Him as a child does to its mother.’ Swami

Kaivalyananda said, ‘Oh, that is all false. The whole

universe is an illusion. There is only one, no two’.”

 

Papa resumed thread of his talk “To attain the highest

realisation, one need not necessarily reject the world

as an illusion. It may be that for some time when the

mind is fully drawn within, the sadhaka feels that

Brahman alone is real and the whole world is unreal.

But, after this inner experience, he realises that

what he once rejected as unreal is only an expression

or manifestation of the Real. There were many bhaktas

like Saint Tukaram, Eknath and others who had attained

the highest realisation through the path of bhakti

alone. They never had to reject the world as unreal.

 

“A sadhaka on the path of jnana might be able to

consider the world as illusion for some time by the

withdrawal of the mind inwards, but the moment the

mind is externalised, diversities are again observed

and the inner conflict will rise up. But a sadhaka on

the bhakti path goes on joyously singing the sweet

name of the Lord, rejecting nothing and accepting

everything as the very embodiment of his Beloved. So

his sadhana itself is turned into a sadhya. That is,

the means becomes the end. The bhakta finds so much

joy in his sadhana that even after attaining his goal,

he likes to continue his sadhana, if possible keeping

up his individuality, just for the joy of it.

 

“Sri Sankara was, no doubt, a great advaitin, who

proclaimed that Brahman alone is real, but he admitted

that the manifest and the unmanifest are both Brahman.

He also established various temples and mutts, wrote

many stotras glorifying the Divine Mother and also

composed songs like Bhaja Govindam which lay stress on

the value of bhakti. These show that he was not a mere

jnani, but had

attained the highest stage of para-bhakti. Sri Sankara

is not properly understood nowadays.

 

“The most natural and easy way of approach to God is

through bhakti. Love begins to manifest itself in us

from our very childhood. The child loves and is deeply

devoted to its mother and father. As he grows up his

circle of love is gradually widened and he becomes

attached to friends and relations besides his family

members. This love and devotion to mother, father,

etc., has only to be purified and directed towards

God. Thus we should look upon Him alone as mother,

father, friend, etc. This is a natural and easy

process. We start from duality and end in unity.

 

“The easiest path is to take the name of God. Love Him

and sing His sweet name. You need not know anything

more. You need not study any philosophy. Ever

remembering Him and with His sweet name on your

tongue, you can walk on the path blissfully. It

matters not whether the world is believed to be real

or unreal. For the devotee, everything is but the form

of his Beloved.”

 

It was evening. Papa was sitting in the open, outside

the bhajan-hall. Joshiji and a few members of his

party were sitting in front of him. They were about to

leave and asked Papa for a message.

 

Papa said “You are all householders. The best sadhana

for you is to repeat Ramnam constantly. Always do your

work remembering God, who is dwelling within you. As

Sri Ramakrishna puts it, engage one hand of yours in

your work and by the other hold on to the feet of the

Lord. After the work is over, place both the hands on

the Lord’s feet. Your mind must always be fixed on

God. The mind has a natural tendency to wander. But

wherever the mind goes, try to see God there. It

cannot go where God is not, because God is everywhere.

By such practice the mind will gradually be purified

and trained to stay always on God. We should view the

world as a drama, as a lila of God. By being ever

conscious of the Eternal, the all-pervading Reality,

we should at the same time play our parts in the

world-drama. We should be detached witnesses of our

own actions and also of the world-play. We have to

take care not to get attached to the world of

diversity, to this passing show. Then only we can

enjoy the play.”

 

Joshiji and party, including the Rishikesh sannyasi,

left the ashram after taking prasadojound 7 o’clock.

 

 

3. Rambles in Vedanta

 

In Aparâ bhakti or Saguna worship the Deity is invoked

(from the heart as the idea is ; avahana,) to a

particular seat (Asana), His feet are then washed and

the water is drunk. He is then bathed, dressed and

after that, He is decorated with sacred thread, and

sandal, and worshipped with flowers, rice and dhupa

(incense), dipa (light), then some offering is made to

Him, after that the worshipper goes round the Deity,

falls at His feet and utters prayers. Lastly the Deity

is taken up from the seat, restored in idea to the

heart of the worshipper. This may appear to foreigners

as somewhat strange but it embodies and concretely

represents a very grand and beautiful truth—that God

lives really in the heart and worshipping Him as

external to us, be it as here in the shape of an

inspiring image, or as the Father in Heaven, or in any

other dualistic way, is really the objectification

through our senses of the inconceivable Inner Self. In

parâbhakti there is no such objectification and so

says Sankara “ How could He be invoked one place to

another who is everywhere? how give a seat to Him who

is Himself the seat of all ?...how bathe Him who is

Eterna1ly pure ?...how go round Him who is infinite

?.. . how bow to Him who_alone_really is—the one

without a second ?~. how take inside (into

the,.heart) who is __already inside and_everywhere?

Pure puja, the supreme’ worship thereforè is the

feeling at all times and in all places_of the oneness

with Him and the realisation of the truth ‘I am He, I

am not the body nor the senses nor the mind, …. nor

Ahamkdra (the false individuality), nor am I the heart

,nor water, nor fire, nor air, nor ether, nor smell,

nor sight, nor touch nor sound.’ I am He, the eternal

witness, I am only one, the true, the Blissful

Brahman.’” In the Yoga Vâsishta says “The

‘annihilation of all the mental conceptions

constitutes the pure worship (puja). The avoidance of

the identification of I with the body is the supreme

Arâdhana. Sincere worshippers of the Self, should ever

regard all forms and places as none other than Brahman

and worship them as such. Enjoying with a sweet mind

and a non-dual conception, whatever objects one comes

by and not longing for things inaccessible is gnanâ..

archana, i.e., the sprinkling of flowers in the

worship of the Atman.” In a beautiful passage

peculiarly sweet, we are told to those engaged in

active realisation, the Mandala Brâhmanopanishad says

‘The cessation from all action is the true A’vâhana

(the real invocation to God), true gnâna or wisdom is

the seat of the God of Self, a pure and blissful mind

is tbe water by which that Deity’s feet (the

Turiyapâda) are washed’ complete mental tranquillity

is the water-offering, the uninterrupted feeling

within the mind of light and bliss welling up as from

a fountain of nectar is the bathing (sneha) of the

Deity’. Seeing the Atman alone in all that one sees,

and the knower knowing himself, form respectively

sandal and .sacrifice (Akshata) in the worship. Serene

contentment forms flower, the fire in the Chidcikás

is the Dkñ’pa. The sun the Chiddkcia is the D~pa and

union with the nectar-filled, like light is the food

offering. Steadiness is the real Pradalol shisa (going

round the Deity). The feeling of I am atman is the

Namaaka~ra, the bowing at the feet of the Deity The

highest praise is silence (Mauna).

Parâbhakti is called Sâkshât Sâdhana or the direct and

immediate means for attaining salvation while

apa.râbhakti is ~d .paratnpara sâdhana or the indirect

means. The one is rice ready for eating, while the

other is like paddy. Religion in its highest or rather

its truest sense, namely, realisation, begins with

parâbhakti. Then, when the adorable guru initiates the

eager disciple into the great mystery, Râja Guha and

utters the memorial words ‘That art Thou,’ then and

not before does religion begin. A parâbhakti,

religious studies only clear the ground and prepare it

for receiving the seed of wisdom ‘Tatwamasi ‘—‘ That

art Thou’ In the beginning ‘of religion, and

Ahamhrahmâsmi “I am brahma’is the end ; and parabhakti

is the means whereby

religion so well begun reaches its completion,’

whereby the mask of imperfect and struggling humanity

is finally thrown ~ and the soul within stands

revealed and realised in its fullest glory as the One

blissful exisistence, the great Satchidananda, whose

ineffable glory, the mighty Self-intoxicated sages of

old, vainly struggle to render in the language of

words.

‘. Parâbhakti is the highest flower of the human mind,

the most beautiful that it can put forth, and its

fruit is nothing other than waking once for all from

the nightmare of life and realising that blissful

existence, after realising which, nothing further will

have to be known. Truth, only Truth is the reward ;

and the highest Truth is highest freedom, the highest

bliss.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

http://search.

[Guest guest]

Dear Dan,

>I begin with nothing. Nothing is the same as fullness. In the

>endless

>state fullness is the same as emptiness.

 

This sounds more like Buddhism, than advaita.

In advaita, the state of realization of NirguNa-brahman

is definitely not emptiness, it is fullness.

 

Thanks for giving a detailed account of "Pleroma". It would be also

helpful to all of us, if you can relate the two concepts

"Pleroma" and "jnAna and bhakti" in someway.

 

Regards,

 

 

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 1 May 2003, Jay Nelamangala wrote:

> Dear G. Murthy,

>

> NirguNa brahman may not have attributes such as Grace or prasAda.

> But the very fact that you have been able to conceive such an entity

> makes it distinct and different from all other entities that you have already

> conceived such as entities which have attributes such as Grace, etc.

>

> Any such entity that has been mentally conceived has to have attributes.

> It is because of those attributes that you are able to distinguish that

> conception from the rest of your conceptions. Therefore "attributelessness"

> is a very special attribute of your conceived entity called "NirguNa Brahman".

>

> Thus you have to either say, NirguNa Brahman can't be conceived at all or

> you have to say NirguNa Brahman has attributes ( such as attributelessness ).

>

> You can pick only one of these and not both.

>

 

 

namaste shri Nelamangala-ji,

 

Nice to hear from you again.

 

This nirguNa brahman is not a mental conception. It is

beyond mind and beyond words. I do not have to refer a

learned person like you to where the upanishadic sages

struggled to express in words. They said the words cannot

describe THAT and the mind cannot conceive THAT. When I

said IT is attributeless, it is only an expression of the

struggle to express IT in words. The sages of the Kena

upanishad and YAjnavalkya of the BrihadAraNyaka upanishad

expressed what It is and still struggled to put It in words.

 

In direct answer to your last paragraph, I can only say IT

cannot be conceived by the mind [the mind is conceived by IT].

What I said is only an attempt to express the inexpressible.

 

[in a different context, in answer to a different question,

you answered that prema is of three types and you said

vAtsalyam, etc. But I recall reading many years ago, premam

pancavidham proktum... I used that in my response to shri

Benjamin Root. I wonder if you, or some other sanskrit

scholar on the List, fill in that verse for me, premam

pancavidham proktum .....]

 

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 2 May 2003, ken knight wrote:

> Namaste all,

> Sorry but there are many words being posted below but

> the sudden death of a long-term Indian friend, causing

> problems for his family, and my wife's operation last

> week to replace worn out knees are events occupying

> much time.

>

> This subject was the motivation for me to join this

> group ..

> [...]

 

namaste shri Ken-ji,

 

My condolences on the struggles you are going through.

I am heartened that, in spite of those difficulties,

you have produced such a gem of a post which is very

close to my heart.

 

You have expressed beautifully what advaita bhakti is and

how necessary it is. shri shankara is a great bhakta and

a great jnAni. At that ultimate, jnAna and bhakti are one

and the same.

 

How relevant is bhakti in advaita? My feeling is, it is very,

very relevant. People who studied shrimadbhAgavatam say that

jnAnam takes us only so far and to have the final continuous

realization of the SELF, bhakti alone is the way. They say

that jnAnam allows us to have a glimpse of the SELF, but the

final drop of the ego and the constant abidance in the SELF

requires bhakti of the highest form. The bhAgavatists say

that bhakti of PrahlAda is of the highest form where PrahlAda

sees God (VishNu) everywhere. This PrahlAda bhakti is, in my

understanding, is not different from the sva-svarUpAnusandhAnam

of VivekacUDAmaNi. Without that bhakti, jnAnam may not lead fully

to the complete and continuous surrenderance of the ego.

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

---

[Guest guest]

Hi Benjamin,

 

It seems that we agree on yet another major topic - I too have never felt

any affinity for bhakti. Having said that, however, a couple of comments on

your following statement that might have implied the opposite.

 

Benjamin:

"My interest in Advaita springs from two sources: (1) I

believe intellectually that the 'purpose' of life is spiritual

education to reach higher levels of consciousness, and I want to get

on with it without wasting further time..."

 

Dennis: 'I want to get on with it' is a very egotistical statement (no

disrespect here, I know exactly what you mean.) The justification for bhakti

is that is so much easier to get rid of this ego (which, after all, is THE

impediment to 'enlightenment') by surrendering ones thoughts, feelings,

actions to a deity. Far easier, of course, than some imagined intellectual

defeating of the ego or, even less likely, an 'ego-suicide'.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennis,

 

You are right. When upanishads call it Brahman - it is not just a name like

devadatta.

Veda itself defines Brahman as

"atha kasmAt uchyatE brahmEti?BrihantO hi asmin guNAha"

Why is it called Braman?. All attributes are indeed complete in It"

 

So, it is completeness of attributes that has been called as Brahman by vEda.

Our calling it as "God", "He", "It", "That" etc should all point to the same

"Completeness of attributes".

>I don't think these language games move us forward.

I agree with you. That is why the language of Veda is

needed.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Gurumurulu Murthy,

>Nice to hear from you again.

>This nirguNa brahman is not a mental conception. It is

>beyond mind and beyond words. I do not have to refer a

>learned person like you to where the upanishadic sages

>struggled to express in words.

 

Thank you for your kind words. Brahman is beyond mind and words

no doubt, and it is also true that upanishadic sages

struggled to express It in words.

But what does it really mean? is the question.

>The sages of the Kena

>upanishad and YAjnavalkya of the BrihadAraNyaka upanishad

>expressed what It is and still struggled to put It in words

 

Does it mean that the sages of talavakAra and yAjnavalkya had no

conception of what they were talking about?. Not at all.

 

 

(in shAstra kEna is called talavakArOpanishat, people call it kEna because it

starts with the question :

" kEnEshitam patati prEshitam manaha kEna prANaha prathamaha praiti yuktaha

kEnEshitAm vAcham imAm vadanti chakshushrOtram ka u dEvO unakti " )

 

What these sages are trying to say is that whatever is expressed

about Brahman thro words and whatever this mind can grasp of Brahman

can never be complete, it can only be partial.

It does not mean Brahman can not be conceived by the mind at all.

 

The same yAjnyavalkya tells MaitrEyi

"atmA vAre drishTavyO shrOtavyO mantavyO nidhidhYasitavyO"

 

Thus Brahman is conceivable, but not completely.

"buddhigrAhyam ateendriyam" says Geetha.

 

If it were totally inconceivable by anyone, then it would render

the whole of shAstra and all the works on vEdanta that our

Acharyas have written would be futile.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@a...> wrote:

> Is it true that Shankara said that all other 'paths' were only a

prelude for

> j~nAna, which was the only yoga for going 'all the way'? Is it not

the case

> that the bhakta can only 'realise' saguNa brahman?

>

> Dennis

 

Namaste,

 

Bhakti is worshipping one's own inner feeling or energy, which is

universal. The Bhakti who drops the idea of individual energy becomes

praneaswara, and as a jivanmukti realise that one is nirguna even

though still in the body.........ONS....Tony.IMO

[Guest guest]

Tony O'Clery <aoclery wrote:

The Bhakta who drops the idea of individual energy becomes praneaswara, and as a

jivanmukti realise that one is nirguna even though still in the

body.........ONS....Tony.IMO

 

Dear Divine souls,

 

I wonder how can finite ever grasp the infinite. I mean, how is Jeevanmukthi

possible? Isn't that only the Atman can grasp the Atman ? How can the mind grasp

the Atman ?

 

Om!

 

Pardha Saradhi.

 

 

 

 

Sponsor

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Gurumuluru Murthy,

>you answered that prema is of three types and you said

>vAtsalyam, etc. But I recall reading many years ago, premam

>pancavidham proktum... I used that in my response to shri

 

I was trying to stress the importance of the fact Bhakti and jnAna are not two

different

paths that one can pick and choose. Bhakti in shAstra is the mental

preparation for

appreciating the truth of Brahman. To appreciate it, we should know what that

Truth

of Brahman is. TO know that Truth, you need vEda. Thus the Bhakti in

shAstra is

not mooDa-bhakti but, instead it is both the cause-for-jnAna,

love-for-the-object-of-jnAna,

and the result-of jnAna. Thus Bhakti is simply another form of jnAna.

This was the point I was trying to make, whether it is of 3 types or 5 types is

immaterial.

 

The five types that you are probably talking about ( correct me if I am wrong )

are the

five kinds of feelings or bhAvas : Shanta, Dasya, Sakhya, Vatsalya and Madhurya.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hari OM! Dear Parthasarathiji, With finite we identify ourselves, that is why

this thought comes, We are infinite, in Infinite, the finite occurs, "I am not

in them, they are in Me" Srimad Bhagwad Geetha. Jeevanmukthi means, the

identification with all these equipments given to us will go away really, Mind

never grasp Atman, We have to negate the mind, once we negate the Mind, we are

ATMAN. With Love & OM! Krishna Prasad

 

Pardha Saradhi Uppala <pardhu_groups wrote:Tony O'Clery

<aoclery wrote:

The Bhakta who drops the idea of individual energy becomes praneaswara, and as a

jivanmukti realise that one is nirguna even though still in the

body.........ONS....Tony.IMO

 

Dear Divine souls,

 

I wonder how can finite ever grasp the infinite. I mean, how is Jeevanmukthi

possible? Isn't that only the Atman can grasp the Atman ? How can the mind grasp

the Atman ?

 

Om!

 

Pardha Saradhi.

 

 

 

 

Sponsor

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

 

 

 

 

 

Sponsor

var lrec_target="_top"; var lrec_URL = new Array(); lrec_URL[1] =

"http://rd./M=231971.3069703.4522067.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705075991:H\

M/A=1554463/R=0/id=flashurl/*http://shop.store./cgi-bin/clink?proflower\

s2+shopping:dmad/M=231971.3069703.4522067.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705075991:HM/A=\

1554463/R=1/1051898563+http://us.rmi./rmi/http://www.proflowers.com/rmi\

-unframed-url/http://www.proflowers.com/freevase/index.cfm%3FREF=FGVEgroups\

LRECflash"; var link="javascript:LRECopenWindow(1)"; var lrec_flashfile =

'http://us.yimg.com/a/pr/proflowers2/proflowers_mom_300x250_30k.swf?clickTAG='+l\

ink+''; var lrec_altURL =

"http://rd./M=231971.3069703.4522067.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705075991:H\

M/A=1554463/R=2/id=altimgurl/*http://shop.store./cgi-bin/clink?proflowe\

rs2+shopping:dmad/M=231971.3069703.4522067.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705075991:HM/A\

=1554463/R=3/1051898563+http://us.rmi./rmi/http://www.proflowers.com/rm\

i-unframed-url/http://www.proflowers.com/freevase/index.cfm%3FREF=FGVEgroup\

sLRECgif"; var lrec_altimg =

" "; var lrec_width

= 300; var lrec_height = 250;

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Sri Ramana said:

 

"Bhakti is JnAna-mAtA" (Bhakti is the Mother of Jnana.

 

Gita:

 

bhaktyaa tvananyayaa shakya ahameva.nvidho.arjuna .

GYaatuM drashhTu.n cha tattvena praveshhTu.n cha parantapa .. 11\-54..

 

maa.n cha yo.avyabhichaareNa bhaktiyogena sevate .

sa guNaansamatiityaitaanbrahmabhuuyaaya kalpate .. 14\-26..

 

brahmabhuutaH prasannaatmaa na shochati na kaaN^kShati .

samaH sarveshhu bhuuteshhu madbhakti.n labhate paraam.h .. 18\-54..

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...>

wrote:

> Without that bhakti, jnAnam may not lead fully

> to the complete and continuous surrenderance of the ego.

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

In Brahma Sutra Bhashya, III:3:59, Shankara says that "remain

devoted to one vidya till it results in Realization." (To adopt

several is a distration to the mind.).

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

 

 

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@a...> wrote:

> Is it true that Shankara said that all other 'paths' were only a

prelude for

> j~nAna, which was the only yoga for going 'all the way'? Is it not

the case

> that the bhakta can only 'realise' saguNa brahman?

>

> Dennis

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Pardha Saradhi Uppala

<pardhu_groups> wrote:

> Tony O'Clery <aoclery> wrote:

> The Bhakta who drops the idea of individual energy becomes

praneaswara, and as a jivanmukti realise that one is nirguna even

though still in the body.........ONS....Tony.IMO

>

> Dear Divine souls,

>

> I wonder how can finite ever grasp the infinite. I mean, how is

Jeevanmukthi possible? Isn't that only the Atman can grasp the

Atman ? How can the mind grasp the Atman ?

>

> Om!

>

> Pardha Saradhi.

 

Namaste,

 

That is the point the mind is given up so there is no grasping to do.

The Atman is unveiled. We are always jivanmukti........The higher

mind reflects the Atman........ONS....IMO..Tony.

[Guest guest]

Dear KrishnaPrasad,

>With finite we identify ourselves, that is why this thought comes, We are

infinite, in Infinite, >the finite occurs, "I am not in them, they are in Me"

Srimad Bhagwad Geetha.

 

Only God is infinite in every sense of the term.

 

No one knows what that "infiniteness" is, in its complete sense.

We all know only that much as God chooses to reveal it to us.

"yamEvaisha vruNutE tEna labhyaha tasyaisha AtmA vivruNutE tanoom svAm"

(God has to pick the person to whom He is going to reveal Himself)

 

In other words, our idea of God's infiniteness is always partial, this

is true not only at the human level of comprehension, but it is true

at any other level of comprehension as well.

 

If you say, "We are infinite" you should also specify

in what sense you think we are infinite.

 

If you are quoting Geetha 9.4,

 

matsthani sarva bhootAni na cha aham tEshu avasthitaha"

I am the Ground of all existence, but nothing is the Ground of Me. (9.4).

 

Only SriKrishna can claim this. If we are infinite just like SriKrishna, at

some point we should also be ready to show the same

"vishwa-roopa-darshana" that SriKrishna showed Arjuna. Till then, it is all

just a theory that we are infinite in every sense.

SriKrishna himself says in the entire history of time, no one else had seen

anything like vishwa-roopa-darshana, and that

He is showing by His prasAda.

(mayA prasannEna tavArjunEdam roopam param darshitam Atma yOgAt

..... yan mE tvad anyEna na drishTa poorvam) 11.47

 

Do you mean to say there were no realized souls before Arjuna?

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hari OM! Blesses Jayji, Yes, Your email itself shows that you are comfortable to

be a Dwaitin, You cannot accept that we are Infinite, and identified with our

equipments, this is called as stuck in the Intellect. How can any one know what

is infinite, the moment you say you know the infinite that will become

objective, Infinite is Subjective. You mean to say that if you want to realize

you have to see Viswaroopam, Viswaroopam is the picturaisation of Brahman to

make you and I understand, it is only a pointer. For realisation, Jnana and

Bhakti both are necessary, it is like the two wings of the Bird, a Bird cannot

fly with only One wing. Think in terms of Advaita! With Love & OM! Krishna

Prasad

 

Jay Nelamangala <jay wrote:Dear KrishnaPrasad,

>With finite we identify ourselves, that is why this thought comes, We are

infinite, in Infinite, >the finite occurs, "I am not in them, they are in Me"

Srimad Bhagwad Geetha.

 

Only God is infinite in every sense of the term.

 

No one knows what that "infiniteness" is, in its complete sense.

We all know only that much as God chooses to reveal it to us.

"yamEvaisha vruNutE tEna labhyaha tasyaisha AtmA vivruNutE tanoom svAm"

(God has to pick the person to whom He is going to reveal Himself)

 

In other words, our idea of God's infiniteness is always partial, this

is true not only at the human level of comprehension, but it is true

at any other level of comprehension as well.

 

If you say, "We are infinite" you should also specify

in what sense you think we are infinite.

 

If you are quoting Geetha 9.4,

 

matsthani sarva bhootAni na cha aham tEshu avasthitaha"

I am the Ground of all existence, but nothing is the Ground of Me. (9.4).

 

Only SriKrishna can claim this. If we are infinite just like SriKrishna, at

some point we should also be ready to show the same

"vishwa-roopa-darshana" that SriKrishna showed Arjuna. Till then, it is all

just a theory that we are infinite in every sense.

SriKrishna himself says in the entire history of time, no one else had seen

anything like vishwa-roopa-darshana, and that

He is showing by His prasAda.

(mayA prasannEna tavArjunEdam roopam param darshitam Atma yOgAt

..... yan mE tvad anyEna na drishTa poorvam) 11.47

 

Do you mean to say there were no realized souls before Arjuna?

 

 

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste all.

 

I love only me naturally and spontaneously. My professed love for

others is equivocal on final analysis because there is always some

element of personal interest in my relationships.

 

The jnAna of advaita is the realization that I am everything. If I

am everything, then my natural and spontaneous love for myself

extends to everything in a total embrace. Such love is Love (with

capital `L") and that Love is Bhakti (with capital `B"). So, an

advaitin who doesn't have an iStadevata is also a Bhakta or has

Bhakti by default. Otherwise, he is not an advaitin.

 

(All other versions of devotion are just bhaktis ridden with

separateness, starting with primitive man's fear of natural forces to

the self-proclaimed bhakta's `attachment' to his favourite deity. In

the latter case, a competitor bhakta's claim to being closer to the

deity will not be tolerated.)

 

Thus, Bhakti goes hand in hand with jnAna or Bhakti and jnAna are the

two sides of the same coin or, simply stated, Bhakti is jnAna without

any separateness. I am Bhakti or Love or jnAna. I simply don't

have to `love' anything because Love is my real nature and the `loved

ones' are really me.

 

Advaitins talk about Brahman or Consciousness beyond attributes.

This talking is in the vyavahArika because it is after all talking,

an attempt to explain. So, where is the harm in identifying

Consciousness as one's own deity in the vyavahArika and seeing Her

(feminine gender used because my iStadevata is the Devi) in

everything as me.

 

Everything is Consciousness. Let me go a step forward and see that

Consciousness as my Devi. Thus, Consciousness is Devi and Devi is

everything. When I switch off, everything goes into me (Her!) and

when I awake the Devi unfolds Herself and dances all around me as

everything. Can there be anything more beautiful? When I open my

eyes, all that I see is Her only. When I close my eyes, the thoughts

that flash across are also Her. There is nothing that She is not.

This is saundaryalahari (intoxication with beauty – a literal

translation). No wonder Sankara so named his great work of one

hundred verses on Sri Maha Tripura Sundari!

 

This is the best way for most to remain advaitin amidst vyavahArAs.

If, therefore, Sankara wrote hymns, it is quite understandable. He

has only made the path easy for us and granted us a universal access

key. Let the deity be Christ, Krishna, Devi or Mary – it doesn't

matter to an advaitin as long as what is 'conceived' is Consciousness.

 

Even as Sankara extols deities, each and every word he sings speaks

nothing but advaita. I am quoting just one striking example from his

famous AnnapUrNA stOtram that bowls me over and over again each time

I chant it:

 

drishyAdrishya vibhUtivAhanakarI, brahmAndabhAndodarI,

lIlAnAtakasUtrabhedanakarI, vijnAnadIpAnkurI,

srIviSweSamanaprasAdanakarI, kASIpuradIswarI,

bhikshAmdEhi kripAvalambanakarI mAtAnnapUrneSwarI

 

This is what a devotee sings in sheer joy before he begins his frugal

meal to express his thankfulness to the Mother of Everything who

grants the food. If we try to understand the meaning of the verse,

the floodgates of advaitic knowledge begin to open. (That is why I

have not dared to write the meaning of the verse here. How can I

ever accomplish that, Mother!?) The whole of advaita, the Knowledge

knowing which all the knowledges are as well known, is packed in this

verse. To one who has even an academic understanding of the verse,

the lIlA of mAya (lIlAnAtakasUtrabhedanakarI!) gets unknotted. The

food, each and every morsel of it, the one who serves it, the joyful

tears of thankfulness that streaks down the cheek, the hunger in the

stomach – everything becomes Her. The devotee is in Her eternal

abundance with all his wants taken care of by none other than She

Herself. He literally becomes the Fullness that AnnapUrNa Is!

 

Any doubt now why Sankara wrote hymns? Any need for us any more to

question the need for deities in advaita?

 

Those who insist on doing without a deity can do so. But, in the

vyAvahArika, we can only conceive Consciousness. With the nuances

of advaitic logic understood, why can't we conceive Consciousness as

the Devi and leave our vyAvahArAs at Her Lotus Feet?

 

What happens next is Her business. I care two hoots. Let Her, the

lIlAnAtakasUtrabhedanakarI and vijnAnadIpAnkurI, do the undoing of

the vyAvahArika for me. I may then sing like Bhattathiripad in

nArAyanIyam : "Agre paSyAmi.." (I see in front of me ….), but I would

then know that my literal paSyAmi (seeing) has already ended in jnAna-

Bhakti. This is Bhakti = Love = jnAna as I understand and

endeavour to capture.

 

Lastly, to reminisce Sw. Dayananda Saraswathiji's teaching, being a

devotee helps an advaitin to integrate his roles. One plays several

roles in life – father, son, husband, employee, competitor, performer

etc. etc. Advaitically, there is a unity behind all these roles.

How do we bring out this unity to the fore and identify with it?

Devotion helps. As a devotee, one becomes a devotee-father, a

devotee-son, a devotee-husband etc. etc. In devotee, the common

denominator, the varying roles are integrated. The journey from many

to one begins. Conflicts resolve and unity flowers paving way to

advaitic realization.

 

PranAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Dear KrishnaPrasad-jI,

>Yes, Your email itself shows that you are comfortable to be a Dwaitin, You

cannot accept that we >are Infinite, and identified with our equipments, this is

called as stuck in the Intellect. How >can any one know what is infinite, the

moment you say you know the infinite that will become >objective, Infinite is

Subjective.

 

You bet I am comfortable to be a Dvaitin. You hit it right on the nail.

 

Regarding what we accept and what we don't accept, there is one very important

factor that

we need to include in these discussions. It is called 'sAkshee-pramANa'.

 

As you might have seen under the last month's discussions on "free-will and

fate",

some in this group accept there is free-will and yet there are others who don't,

and both being devoted, learned advaitins. What does that tell us? It tells

us that

"sAkshee khalu sarva pramANa prAmANya nischAyakaha". The final pramANa on

what is acceptable and what is not, is one's own sAkshee or 'conscience' ( the

notion

of sAkshee in vEdanta, is much broader than what the word conscince indicates,

but for a

lack of a better word in english, we will use the word conscience itself).

 

In matters of right and wrong, just and unjust, truth and false, the final

pramANa is one's own sAkshee for that person. This is why, what one is

convinced about, others are not.

There is lot more that is said to be about sAkshee. If the moderators' are

interested, may be a month can be devoted just on that subject.

>For realisation, Jnana and Bhakti both are necessary, it is like the two wings

of the Bird, a Bird >cannot fly with only One wing. Think in terms of Advaita!

With Love

 

But jnAna is getting stuck in intellect, Bhakti is in SaguNa Brahman which is

again considered mithyA.

 

Let me explain why my conscience does not let me think ' I am Infinite' , ' I

am God', and such other ideas that seem to freely float around in this forum.

People have given different names to it : 'stuck in intellect', 'lack of

understanding', 'not God realized',

'being in the wrong email list', ' dualistic thinking', 'not thinking in terms

of Advaita', ' not learned enough', 'not able to rise above mind', "not

realized Pleroma", "not able to comprehend advaita", etc etc.

 

My understanding is that the highest discipline is Brahma-jignyAsA which comes

in the form shravaNa-manana-dhyAna.

Thus, meditation on a real thing, that leads to the realization of it and in

this case the right understanding of the thing is

obviously the presupposition of the meditation, because dhyAna is an aspect of

memory, and efforless dhyAna is samAdhi.

 

But in advaita, this object of dhyAna is mithyA and the meditation on it is

somehow supposed to remove wrong notions

and thereby help the correct understanding of Truth. My conscience does not

let me accept this position because, firstly

If the final Truth, that we have called God or Parabrahman is self-evident or

sva-prakAsha, and with reference to it the distinction between right and wrong

knowledge can not be justified because it is all notional and intellectual. My

conscience does not let

me accept the fact that meditation on a wrong thing, i.e, the thing that is

arOpita, removes wrong notions about Truth and leads to

the correct understanding of it. Consiously I can not accept such a position

simply because, it is not very convincing. Further, dhyAna and samAdhi are

lower forms of discipline, and discipline in the higher sense consists in

application to shAstra, and this presupposes no meditation.

 

I hope I have articulated it well enough.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sunderji,

When you quote Sanskrit verses, would you be kind enough to include the english

translations too?

 

Om

ranjeet

-

Sunder Hattangadi

Gita:

 

bhaktyaa tvananyayaa shakya ahameva.nvidho.arjuna .

GYaatuM drashhTu.n cha tattvena praveshhTu.n cha parantapa .. 11\-54..

 

maa.n cha yo.avyabhichaareNa bhaktiyogena sevate .

sa guNaansamatiityaitaanbrahmabhuuyaaya kalpate .. 14\-26..

 

brahmabhuutaH prasannaatmaa na shochati na kaaN^kShati .

samaH sarveshhu bhuuteshhu madbhakti.n labhate paraam.h .. 18\-54..

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Jayji.

 

Permit me to barge in.

 

You have articulated your objections very well indeed. However, you

have stopped short of explaining what you mean by "application to

shAstra". Why don't we go our own separate ways till you successfully

do that? Who knows you may also get 'intellectually stuck' when you

get down to doing the explaining business, the subject being so

ineffable.

 

Best of luck.

 

Madathil Nair

_____________________________

 

advaitin, "Jay Nelamangala" <jay@r...> wrote:

 

Further, dhyAna and samAdhi are lower forms of discipline, and

discipline in the higher sense consists in application to shAstra,

and this presupposes no meditation.

>

> I hope I have articulated it well enough.