Guest guest Posted May 17, 2003 Report Share Posted May 17, 2003 Namaste Benjaminji, " Seen in this light, jnana and bhakti are just different means to this same goal. Jnana uses discrimination to directly see the error of the small self. Bhakti dissolves the small self through love of the divine in some form or another." In one mail we say only jnAna will lead to moksha. And in the next mail we say "jnana and bhakti are just different means to this same goal " !! Maybe we should rephrase it as "bhakti alone wont lead you to moksha..bhakti with jnAna is required". But what about jnAna without bhakti ? Is such a state possible ? Will it lead to moksha? Is Patanjali's path such a way? Om ranjeet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2003 Report Share Posted May 17, 2003 On Sat, 17 May 2003, Ranjeet Sankar wrote: > Namaste Benjaminji, > > " Seen in this light, jnana and bhakti are just different > means to this same goal. Jnana uses discrimination to directly see > the error of the small self. Bhakti dissolves the small self through > love of the divine in some form or another." > > > In one mail we say only jnAna will lead to moksha. And in the next mail we say "jnana and bhakti are just different > means to this same goal " !! > Maybe we should rephrase it as "bhakti alone wont lead you to moksha..bhakti with jnAna is required". > > But what about jnAna without bhakti ? Is such a state possible ? Will it lead to moksha? > Is Patanjali's path such a way? > > Om > ranjeet > namaste. The following is my understanding on this. 1. *True* jnAna is *true* bhakti. There is absolutely no difference between the two. I do not think that shri shankara ever differentiated between bhakti and jnAna. He differentiated between karma and jnAna, but not between bhakti and jnAna. Hence, there are no two different paths of bhakti-mArga and jnAna-mArga. 2. Now, we consider, in our avidyA and half-knowledge, that bhakti and jnAna are two different paths and we are trying to find out which is a better path to take (as if we have a choice in this). So, for discussing this question, we take jnAna-mArga as one of investigation, vicAra, jignAsa, contemplation. We take bhakti-mArga as one of devotion (at the highest, devotion is to the SELF, but bhakti in a dualistic jagat exhibits itself as devotion to personal God, saguNa brahman.). With that understanding of jnAna and bhakti, my response to shri Ranjit-ji's question (a) jnAna without bhakti becomes intellectualism, cold, dry and formal and does not lead to moksha. (b) bhakti without jnAna becomes an aimless exercise of emotion, and can become narrow and dogmatic and does not lead to moksha. © jnAna *with* bhakti or bhakti *with* jnAna still does not lead to moksha, because there is still duality (both in what is known as bhakti and also still seeing difference between jnAna and bhakti). Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2003 Report Share Posted May 17, 2003 Namaste Ranjeetji! You make some good points lately regarding the importance of consistency. >I am not against Sadanandaji's Advaita or Jayji's Dvaita or >Benjaminji's Buddhism nor do I have any strong inclination >towards them ... but I know that eventually I have to choose >any one of them. First of all, I would like to emphasize that I am not *just* a Buddhist. I also consider myself equally an Advaitin, and I see no inconsistency there. In fact, I do not much like labels, as they tend to produce preconceptions and misconceptions. My fundamental belief is that certain 'advanced' people have realized certain 'higher' states of consciousness that are far more satisfactory than my present one. The common theme seems to be 'nondualism' in one form or another, and hence my interest in Advaita and similar forms of Buddhism. I consider that similar if not identical states of consciousness have arisen in all times and places, even if the conceptual baggage associated with the verbal expression of these states of consciousness varies from time to time and place to place, as it must. Rather than worry about the variations, I prefer to emphasize what is common to the various expressions of this vision, as this serves to confirm that such a thing as 'realization' is indeed real! I don't think that the choice is as stark as you say. All that matters is that we become 'in tune' with life in such a way as to further the gradual purification of our consciousness. There are many ways to do this. As for Jayji, I am quite impressed by his learning. Surely, there is some merit in so much work. I merely suggest to him that wisdom has as at least as much to do with intuition and the heart, and that the problems of interpreting the scriptures are not as straightforward as he seems to think! >In one mail we say only jnAna will lead to moksha. And in the >next mail we say "jnana and bhakti are just different means to >this same goal " !! > >Maybe we should rephrase it as "bhakti alone wont lead you to >moksha. Bhakti with jnAna is required". > >But what about jnAna without bhakti ? Is such a state possible ? >Will it lead to moksha? Is Patanjali's path such a way? Now these points are well taken and illustrate how this list should proceed. Raising such intelligent questions is definitely debate at its best. First of all, I am no expert on anything ... that much must be taken for granted. Nevertheless, I do sometimes feel stubborn about certain ideas that seem quite clear and credible to me ... but don't we all! I think the solution is that true bhakti contains implicit jnAna, and vice versa. As I said before, both are aimed at dissolving the ego, in order to suppress the ego-induced distortions of our intellect that prevent the pure original nature of Consciousness from manifesting itself in its natural state. Those who have a pure and sincere love for God or others spontaneously acquire wisdom, and this is evident in their speech and behavior. It is not necessary to be able to verbally handle the words and theory of Advaita or any other jnAna approach. As I said above, the state of consciousness is what matters, and this arises naturally with either pure love or true wisdom. Love and wisdom only seem different or contradictory when we lack either! So you are quite correct to ask which we must choose, love or wisdom. This is a very reasonable question at the intellectual level. And my answer is 'either or both'! For in pursuing either, the other arises spontaneously and both ultimately converge to the blessed state of consciousness which is our birthright and inevitable destiny. (Yes, I do have a 'blind faith' in that last optimistic statement!) Om! Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.