My 2 cents on Bhakti

[Guest guest]

Namaste!

 

First of all, a minor point: Are we really supposed to write

'j~nAna' with a tilde (~)? That's what comes across in my browser

from Sri Gummuluru Murthy's initial article earlier today.

 

Anyhow, I would just like to make a brief comment from

personal experience. Bhakti is supposed to be easier that jnana, but

I have always found it impossible. Perhaps that is an indication of

my arrogance. Even when I went to a Christian church while growing

up, I could never feel devotion for Jesus. The feeling wasn't there

and I couldn't force it. I could admire his words, but there were no

sweet feelings in my heart. Perhaps my feelings are defective in

some way.

 

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; and (2) I've had some

moments of 'inspiration' that ARE meaningful to me, far more so than

devotion to any finite idea of God. Those moments of inspiration

were simply 'illuminated' feelings which seemed pure and beautiful.

There was no object of the feeling (as when we love someone), only

the feeling itself. These feelings came from nowhere and disappeared

rather quickly. They seem to occur less frequently as I get older.

Not a good sign! I consider those moments of inspiration to be at

least a taste of those higher states of consciousness, and that is

what I am striving for. Perhaps it is all very selfish and even

hedonistic. But those feelings are addictive, even if only a memory.

 

As for ego, I can indeed understand that the higher states of

consciousness will not manifest until the shell of ego is broken.

This makes psychological sense. So I am simply trying to eliminate

the sense of ego as an impurity and obscuration of my true nature as

Pure Consciousness. My approach is that of a doctor operating on

myself (or rather on my mind). I do not feel much guilt for the way

I am, and I am uncomfortable with the notion of a 'sinner' (essential

to Christianity). We are what we are because of past causes and we

should simply try to dispassionately cure whatever is wrong with our

outlook.

 

As for love and devotion... Those feelings did occur in me

but they were always directed towards an imaginary woman who never

existed. Sorry, if this sounds too confessional, but this may be the

source of the problem. But taking a knife and cutting those immature

dreams out of my heart seems monstrous to me. I never tried it and

never will. Fortunately, or unfortunately, they are disappearing as

I get older. Now it's just a slow, plodding attempt to try to

implement this Advaita wisdom as best I can. Better than doing

nothing, I suppose...

 

As for Indians, if bhakti really does occur naturally to them

in great numbers, then I am impressed. What's their secret?

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 1 May 2003, Benjamin Root wrote:

>

> Namaste!

>

> First of all, a minor point: Are we really supposed to write

> 'j~nAna' with a tilde (~)? That's what comes across in my browser

> from Sri Gummuluru Murthy's initial article earlier today.

>

 

namaste.

 

Sanskrit language recognizes three sounds of n. ITRANS,

the scheme that is followed in transliterating sanskrit

into romanized script follows the following convention.

 

The sound of n in jnAnam is written as ~n

The sound of n in shankara is written as .n

The sound of n in Ramana is written as N

 

If ~n is bothersome for members particularly in reading,

we can dispense away with it. shri sunder-ji has transliterated

many sanskrit texts at the sanskrit site and he is the authority

on this scheme and usefulness or otherwise of the usage of

the transliteration scheme.

 

> [...]

>

> As for Indians, if bhakti really does occur naturally to them

> in great numbers, then I am impressed. What's their secret?

>

> Om!

> Benjamin

>

 

The feelings are well and honestly expressed (I have deleted

most of shri Benjamin's text from this post, as per shri Ram

Chandran's repeated advice). shri ken Knight has presented a

very nice post yesterday on the relevance of bhakti.

 

In answer to the last paragraph quoted above:

In sanskrit there is a saying " premam pancavidham proktum...";

Prema (love), devotion exhibits itself in five ways;

this is devotion towards the child,

devotion towards the parents,

devotion towards spouse,

devotion towards friends,

and devotion towards the unknown (God).

 

 

We know the devotion of the first four types. The unknown, the

Unknowable is the Atman. Devotion towards this Unknowable,

the AtmattvAnusandhAnam is what is bhakti. shri Benjamin asked

if bhakti (towards this unknown) is natural in Indian culture

and if so why.

 

My answer to that would be: In other traditions and cultures, the

known is emphasized and the devotion to the known (towards

children, parents, spouse etc) is evident. In the Indian culture,

the unknown has been given equal prominence from the beginning of

life. My parents told me since my childhood to cultivate bhakti,

to think of God. What is God is undefined, but we were asked to

think of God. That is the advice I give to my children all the

time, to think of God. What that God is we cannot describe in

words. But there is God and we develop that love towards God

as part of love of the five types mentioned above. This God may

be the personal God shri lalitA, or Ishwara or it is nirguNa

brahman.

 

That love towards God the Unknown, I think, is there in all

cultures. But, because of the emphasis and realization of the

presence of the Unknown in the Indian culture, it may be a more

natural thing in that culture.

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

Namaste!

 

Thank you very much, Sri Gummuluru Murthy, for your kind

words and insightful comments. I am glad that you didn't mind that I

got a bit 'personal' when I expressed my feelings. After sending

that message in, I was wondering whether that was appropriate for

such distinguished and serious scholars!

 

Anyhow, I totally agree with your 'Indian' advice to think of

God as often as possible. And I believe that I can honestly say that

I do *think* of God quite often, though usually in philosophical

terms such as Consciousness, etc. I have always had a taste for

philosophy and a fascination with consciousness.

 

The problem for me is developing *feelings* for God. I find

it so easy to feel tenderness for a baby or for anyone who displays

gentleness and kindness. I find it less easy to feel tenderness for

people who are not so nice. And I find it quite difficult to feel

tenderness for something I cannot see.

 

But as I said before, I do believe very much in something I

call *inspiration* ... a luminous state of consciousness which

happens to all of us from time to time. I draw a distinction between

the light and luminous feeling called inspiration and the sweeter and

perhaps 'earthier' feelings called tenderness and devotion. The

feeling of inspiration does NOT require a visible object, as I see

it. It is simply a state of consciousness. I enjoy it when it

happens, and I wish it would happen more often. It seems to be

decreasing with age, although meditation does seem to be helping if

only slowly.

 

To sum up: I can't imagine feeling tenderness and devotion

except for other humans meeting certain qualifications, but I'll work

on it!

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

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

wrote:

>

> On Thu, 1 May 2003, Benjamin Root wrote:

> > First of all, a minor point: Are we really supposed to write

> > 'j~nAna' with a tilde (~)? That's what comes across in my

browser

> > from Sri Gummuluru Murthy's initial article earlier today.

> and usefulness or otherwise of the usage of

> the transliteration scheme.

 

 

###############

The ITRANS scheme of encoding, introduced by Avinash Chopde over a

decade ago, is used on the Sanskrit Documents site because it lends

itself to conversion to many different formats (gif, pdf, xdvng, ps,

html, in many different Indian scripts). There is no need to adopt

the scheme for this list, unless many readers wish to know the

closest approximation to the Sanskrit pronunciation.

###################

 

 

> > As for Indians, if bhakti really does occur naturally to them

> > in great numbers, then I am impressed. What's their secret?

> >

> My answer to that would be: In other traditions and cultures, the

> known is emphasized and the devotion to the known (towards

> children, parents, spouse etc) is evident. In the Indian culture,

> the unknown has been given equal prominence from the beginning of

> life.

 

 

 

#############

Even the Guiness Book of Records was impressed!! The Maha Kumbha Mela

at Haridwar 3yrs ago, for 2 weeks, drew a population exceeding the

combined one of London, New York, Mexico City, and Tokyo!!!!!

################

 

 

 

> In sanskrit there is a saying " premam pancavidham proktum...";

> Prema (love), devotion exhibits itself in five ways;

> this is devotion towards the child,

> devotion towards the parents,

> devotion towards spouse,

> devotion towards friends,

> and devotion towards the unknown (God).

>

> We know the devotion of the first four types. The unknown, the

> Unknowable is the Atman.

 

##################

In fact, Narada Bhakti Sutra, V:82, gives 11 types!!

 

guNamaahaatmyaasakti\-ruupaasakti\-puujaasakti\-smaraNaasakti\-

daasyaasakti\-sakhyaasakti\-

vaatsalyasakti\-kaantaasakti\-aatmanivedanaasakti\-

tanmayataasakti\-paramavirahaasakti\-ruupaa

ekadhaa api ekaadashadhaa bhavati .

 

"Bhakti or Divine Love, though in itself one only, manifests itself

in the following 11 different forms:

1. Love of the glorification of the Lord's blessed qualities.

2. Love of His enchanting beauty.

3. Love of worship.

4. Love of constant remembrance.

5. Love of service.

6. Love of Him as a friend.

7. Love of Him as a son.

8.Love for Him as that of a wife for her husband.

9. Love of self-surrender to Him.

10. Love of complete absorption in Him.

11. Love of the pain of separation from Him.

#####################

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Hello Benjamin,

 

I remember you asked this same question about "developing devotion

towards God" in one of the gita satsang sessions.

 

I have asked this same question myself and though I never found a

complete answer, I think I am beginning to understand what the final

answer would look like. In short, I believe that when we start

realizing the wonders of God's creation, when we start realizing how

compassionate and forgiving he has been towards us and when we start

realizing how small we are in front of his infinite presence, Then I

think Devotion will automatically spring forth from our hearts.

 

As much as we cannot force someone to love us, We cannot force

ourselves to love someone. Devotion is what happens when love is

directed towards the Lord. Devotion is the pure and higher form of

love. Thus, you cannot force yourself to have feelings of Devotion...

 

I dont think there is anything wrong with your lack of devotional

feelings towards the Lord. I think you are a perfectly normal human

being who is aware of his emotions and who has a heart that is

capable of loving.

 

If you can love an imaginary, non-existant person, then you

definitely have the emotions necessary to kindle devotion in your

heart. Just direct this feeling of love towards the ever existing,

ever real Lord..

 

Just my 2 cents as well :-)

 

Hari Om.

 

-Vinayak

 

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

> Namaste!

>

> First of all, a minor point: Are we really supposed to write

> 'j~nAna' with a tilde (~)? That's what comes across in my browser

> from Sri Gummuluru Murthy's initial article earlier today.

>

> Anyhow, I would just like to make a brief comment from

> personal experience. Bhakti is supposed to be easier that jnana,

but

> I have always found it impossible. Perhaps that is an indication

of

> my arrogance. Even when I went to a Christian church while growing

> up, I could never feel devotion for Jesus. The feeling wasn't

there

> and I couldn't force it. I could admire his words, but there were

no

> sweet feelings in my heart. Perhaps my feelings are defective in

> some way.

>

> 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; and (2) I've had some

> moments of 'inspiration' that ARE meaningful to me, far more so

than

> devotion to any finite idea of God. Those moments of inspiration

> were simply 'illuminated' feelings which seemed pure and beautiful.

> There was no object of the feeling (as when we love someone), only

> the feeling itself. These feelings came from nowhere and

disappeared

> rather quickly. They seem to occur less frequently as I get older.

> Not a good sign! I consider those moments of inspiration to be at

> least a taste of those higher states of consciousness, and that is

> what I am striving for. Perhaps it is all very selfish and even

> hedonistic. But those feelings are addictive, even if only a

memory.

>

> As for ego, I can indeed understand that the higher states of

> consciousness will not manifest until the shell of ego is broken.

> This makes psychological sense. So I am simply trying to eliminate

> the sense of ego as an impurity and obscuration of my true nature

as

> Pure Consciousness. My approach is that of a doctor operating on

> myself (or rather on my mind). I do not feel much guilt for the

way

> I am, and I am uncomfortable with the notion of a 'sinner'

(essential

> to Christianity). We are what we are because of past causes and we

> should simply try to dispassionately cure whatever is wrong with

our

> outlook.

>

> As for love and devotion... Those feelings did occur in me

> but they were always directed towards an imaginary woman who never

> existed. Sorry, if this sounds too confessional, but this may be

the

> source of the problem. But taking a knife and cutting those

immature

> dreams out of my heart seems monstrous to me. I never tried it and

> never will. Fortunately, or unfortunately, they are disappearing

as

> I get older. Now it's just a slow, plodding attempt to try to

> implement this Advaita wisdom as best I can. Better than doing

> nothing, I suppose...

>

> As for Indians, if bhakti really does occur naturally to them

> in great numbers, then I am impressed. What's their secret?

>

> Om!

> Benjamin

[Guest guest]

namaste.

 

shri Benjamin Root asked on May 2, 2003

> > [...]

> > As for Indians, if bhakti really does occur naturally to them

> > in great numbers, then I am impressed. What's their secret?

> >

> > Om!

> > Benjamin

> >

 

to which, in part, I replied

> [...]

>

> That love towards God the Unknown, I think, is there in all

> cultures. But, because of the emphasis and realization of the

> presence of the Unknown in the Indian culture, it may be a more

> natural thing in that culture.

>

>

 

I was reading yesterday the book "Indianism and The Indian

synthesis" by Suniti Kumar Chatterjee, being the Kamala Lectures

delivered at the University of Calcutta and Visva-Bharati University,

August 1959. I give below an excerpt of a few paragraphs from that

book (p. 53) which explains the answer to shri Benjamin's question

much better that what I did on May 2nd.

 

....

 

Indianism as a way of thought

a: Faith in or Conviction of an Unseen Reality

 

Indianism, in the first instance, is not confined to the

physical world alone. It acknowledges the existence of some

Basic Reality behind life and the universe which is not seen

as a physical phenomenon by eyes or felt by any of the other

senses, including the mind. The belief in the Unseen Reality

is arrived at either by intuitive faith, or by intellectual

ratiocination, or by reason and faith both. This Unseen Reality

cannot be pinned down to a particular description. It may be

some Force or Principle or Order or Personality, or even a

State, which is to be attained by man when he rises above his

material personality. There are religious denominations in

India which believe in a Personal Divinity, with whom man

is in a relationship which can be described in human terms.

Others think of an all-inclusive Spirit which embraces man

and everything else in it, a Spirit which is in the first

instance something which exists, something which has reason

and something which is full of bliss, and all of these qualities

are the natural inheritances of the spirit which is also in man.

In Jainism there is no personal God or spirit, but man by his own

exertions and by the betterment of his self can arrive at the

position of the Supreme Being, who is all wise and all bliss and

eternal. HInayAna buddhism believes in that Ultimate Reality to

be the state of nirvAna, which is a state of bliss (nibbANam

paramam sukham), and it is within the reach of every living

creature to attain to this state. MahAyAna buddhism has faith

in a supreme spirit, the Adi Buddha, which is pervading the

universe; and through the moral life, through the love of all

creatures and through active doing good, as well as through

cultivation of the self, it is possible for a living being to

realize this Buddha-nature in himself and so be liberated in

nievAna. There are other schools which define this Ultimate

Reality in various other ways. Indianism does not pin its faith

exclusively on any of these concepts, and a person who has in

him the true spirit of Indianism would normally seek to harmonise

all of them and find out a common basis for them in a higher

plane. But the main fact remains that, behind this life, there

is some Ultimate Reality; and the greatest and the utmost that

one can reasonably postulate about it, according to the philosophy

of the vedanta, is what has been mentioned before, that it is

Something Which Exists (sat), it is Something Which Has Knowledge

(cit), and it is Something Which is Joy Or Bliss (Ananda).

 

....

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

---

[Guest guest]

Another 2 cents.

 

Bhakti is cultivated from childhood on by the traditions followed at

home. From the very childhood - naming the child - Called samskaara-s

- the family - particularly mother raises the child with those values -

no child in India can step on piece of paper or book - or a coin or

rupee bill without feeling that he is stepping on - knowledge -

saraswati or goddess Lakshmi. These are inculcated from child hood and

a child in India absorbs by Osmosis. That is not true in this country -

particularly the second generation Indians. "Dad - Am I a Hindu?" asks

a child here - A book is written for these unfortunate children who

could not get proper parentage. I met last year a class mate of mine in

a conference - He was proudly stating that He is bringing his son free

from Hindu dogma-s and He was proud that he son replied to his teacher

when the teacher asked what religion he belongs- the child responded it

seams that he is Hindu Christian - I don’t think Child knows what is

Hinduism or what is Christianity. I had to feel sorry for that child

for having such a 'stupid' father! He does not realize how much we are

blessed with such an unparalleled culture and tradition and vast

knowledge of spirituality.

 

Bottom line- Bhakti has to be inculcated like any other emotion -

Dhyaayato vishayaan pumsaH …. In India this is done in the way of life

itself - every inauguration starts with prayer - building a house or

bridge or a road even a driving a new car- a new dress- Prayers are done

first- either out of fear or out of love. That is how it starts.

Naturality comes with practice!

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

 

--- Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy wrote:

>

>

> namaste.

>

> shri Benjamin Root asked on May 2, 2003

>

> > > [...]

>

> > > As for Indians, if bhakti really does occur naturally to them

> > > in great numbers, then I am impressed. What's their secret?

> > >

> > > Om!

> > > Benjamin

 

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

http://search.

[Guest guest]

Namaste!

 

Thank you Sri Gummuluru Murthy for your illuminating excerpt,

though your original reply was also quite helpful.

>I was reading yesterday the book "Indianism and The Indian

>synthesis" by Suniti Kumar Chatterjee, being the Kamala

>Lectures delivered at the University of Calcutta and

>Visva-Bharati University, August 1959. I give below an

>excerpt of a few paragraphs from that book (p. 53) which

>explains the answer to shri Benjamin's question much better

>that what I did on May 2nd.

 

I cannot resist making a few comments, however speculative

they might be. I believe that these comments are related to the

topic of Bhakti.

 

Although the word 'mysticism' may make some readers squirm a

bit - suggesting wide-eyed naive self-hypnosis of some kind - I think

it is correct to say that the long history of Indian spirituality has

a noticeable tendency towards this state of mind. What does it mean?

To me it simply means being sensitive to the *immanence* and

*presence* of the divine. It is this trait more that any other that

distinguishes the Indian tradition from others, in my opinion.

 

This state of consciousness [i know better than to say

'mind'!] implicitly assumes some degree of nondualism, even in

so-called Bhakti. What do I mean by nondualism? Well, the technical

philosophical meaning is that the distinction between subject and

object is ultimately unreal. But it has many practical implications.

Once we follow so-called common-sense [which simply means a total

surrender to the senses] then we inevitably think of 'everything

else', including 'God', as an object 'out there' somewhere.

 

This has many unfortunate consequences. Rational people will

fail to see a God out there and will lose faith. Religious people

may cling to a conceptual or emotional belief in God, but it can

become quite remote from daily life, with prejudices and

misconceptions filling the spiritual vaccuum.

 

However, the power of the senses is such that for the vast

majority of us it is not possible to relinquish all dualistic

thinking. Fortunately, there are *degrees* of dualism. One might

believe in 'objects out there', with the implied existence of the ego

or 'object in here', but yet we may still feel a divine presence

pervading and sanctifying all of nature. This powerful, beautiful

and uplifting feeling may mingle with the intellect to produce

manifestations of divinity to the mind such as God, Gods, Goddesses

and so forth. This is Bhakti. After all, if 'God' were to manifest

in a form, what form would be better than the human form? But then,

other forms could be quite valid too. (I do not laugh at Ganesha

though I do find him quite endearing. Was that the intention or am I

misunderstanding him?) The important thing is the religious feeling,

which is not a mere feeling but rather the sensitive inner awareness

of the spirit to the divinity that pervades and sustains everything.

 

Finally, Advaita and other such spiritual paths make this

feeling quite intellectually acceptable, in my opinion. We need only

realize two things: (1) that Consciousness is indeed all in a very

literal sense, as I and others have often tried to argue, and (2)

that Consciousness itself is inherently divine. The inevitable

logical consequence of these presuppositions is that everything is

divine.

 

Fortunately, some people can instinctively feel this without

the need for philosophical investigation. The Indians do seem

particularly inclined in this direction, at least from a historical

perspective. I hope this is not disappearing with the onslaught of

modernity.

 

This instinctive realization can be easily explained. It

arises from an intuitive (though often symbolic) realization of our

inner nature. This intuition cannot arise from the senses alone,

since these are preoccupied with particular objects (or what appear

to be particular object). It can only arise from an overall

synthetic and sensitive awareness of consciousness itself, which

includes the senses as well as thoughts, feelings and the simple pure

feeling 'I Am'.

 

Om!

Benjamin