Jnana vs. Bhakti (understanding bhakti)

[Guest guest]

Namaste Murthyji,

 

" 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)."

 

 

There are some things which I would like to mention.

 

a) What you said can be rephrased as "jnAna with bhakti wont help. jnAna and

*Advaitic* bhakti is the path."

 

********* Nairji, are you hearing this?? *********

 

Nairji is pursuing *Advaitic-jnAna* and *partial-advaitic-bhakti*.

*partial-advaitic-bhakti* means he sees *Devi* with all the attributes(saguna)

in everything (One in All - Advaitic).

I believe Nairji himself is best to comment on this. Nairji, sorry for dragging

you into this. But your explaination will be worth reading since I too have an

Ishta-devata.

 

b) Should we say that saguna bhakti is the first step in Advaitic bhakti? Or

maybe jnAna marga will ultimately lead one to advaitic bhakti where he worships

the nirguna-para-brahman who is behind all that is.

 

c) If seeing the difference between jnAna and bhakti is dualism, what about

differentiating karma and jnAna? Isnt that too dualism?

 

Om

ranjeet

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Ranjeet,

 

I know your question is to Shri Nair and I am sure he will reply. But the

question reminded me of of one of the quotes of Ramana Maharshi and I simply had

to share it with all.

 

Questioner : What would you advise - should I worship God with form or God

without form?

 

Maharshi : As long as you think you are this body, worship God with form. When

you know that you are not this body as certainly and as constantly as you know

that you are not a cow, you can worship God without form.

 

I get a feeling from the Maharshi's reply that Bhakti is always needed - both

before and after the awakening to jnana. It is never either-or between Bhakti

and Jnana. But most unfortunately that is what seems to have happened in my own

case. In all this pursuit of Jnana, I somewhere seem to have lost my capacity

for Bhakti. And it is not a nice thing to happen. Helped by Shri Nair's ecstatic

outpourings on this list, I hope to reconnect to Bhakti sooner than later.

 

Regards,

Venkat

 

Ranjeet Sankar <thefinalsearch wrote:

 

b) Should we say that saguna bhakti is the first step in Advaitic bhakti? Or

maybe jnAna marga will ultimately lead one to advaitic bhakti where he worships

the nirguna-para-brahman who is behind all that is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plus - For a better Internet experience

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Venkatji,

 

"I get a feeling from the Maharshi's reply that Bhakti is always needed - both

before and after the awakening to jnana. It is never either-or between Bhakti

and Jnana. But most unfortunately that is what seems to have happened in my own

case. In all this pursuit of Jnana, I somewhere seem to have lost my capacity

for Bhakti."

 

You took the words out of my mouth ! I dont feel like sitting in front of a idol

and chanting bhajans. But I do feel a sort of respect for the *Universal mind*

who is behind all. And moreover I'm not able to equate my Ishta-Devata to the

*Universal mind*. Somehow I feel that my Ishta-devata is limited whereas

*Universal mind* (All-pervading Brahman) is unlimited.

 

Om

ranjeet

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ranjeet-Ji.

 

Whether you are dragging me in or not, I feel I am dragged in and I

am already in. It doesn't matter.

 

The answer to your doubt is very simple, at least from my point of

view.

 

First of all you have started from certain premises, i.e. Murthyji's

statements. I may or may no accept his views – that is another

thing. If your doubt emanates from his statements, you ought to have

it clarified by him and I am sure he will write to you in due course.

 

About my position, I would like to state as below since I am referred

to in your post:

 

I am not a stOtriya. I have never been comfortable with terminology,

particularly invented ones and in situations where life is easier

without them.

 

I don't accept that any duality really exists. There is only

Consciousness. Imagine you can see down to the level of atoms. You

are looking at a solution of pure common salt. What would you see?

Myriad number of atoms of Sodium, Chlorine, Hydrogen, Oxygen and

interatomic or intramolecular space. But, what you are looking at is

just a solution.

 

In a similar manner, in whichever way I look, I see only

Consciousness. When I say I see, the "I" doesn't exist because I

and my seeing are fused together in that "seen". When I recall that

I have seen, then again I and my "seeing the recall" are fused

together in that recall. When I get (feel) that "I"-ness, then

nothing else exists – I am merged in that "I"-ness. Thus, in my

opinion, at no time is there any duality. There is only Sodium

Chloride solution – Consciousness permeating `everything'. This is

beautifully summarized in Devi MAhAtmyA when Mother is

extolled: "citirUpENa yA kristnamEtad vyApya stitA jagat,

namastasyai namastasyai namastasyai namOnamaha" (Salutations to Her

again and again who pervades all this jagat as Consciousness").

 

But, yet the question pops up – isn't there a feeling of duality in

all our daily transactions? Yes. There is. And that is ignorance,

which advaita helps remove. You have a blackboard fully written with

errors. You have a duster. What is the point in lamenting "Oh, my

board is fully written, I can't write any more, Oh my board is fully

written, I can't write any more". Erase the writings with the

duster. The clean board remains.

 

In a similar manner, having learnt advaita, if I keep

lamenting: "Oh, there is duality, Oh, there is duality", then I am

to be blamed. Definitions and terminology help in acquiring

knowledge. (They help in trapping others too.) But, a stage comes

when we don't need them any more like a child leaves its props after

it has learnt walking. If, therefore, you want to look at the atoms

and invent duality saying this is Sodium, this is Oxygen etc. etc. –

it is your choice. Then you will have a Saguna Brahman, defining

which is not my business because I don't need it or see it. There is

only Brahman, Consciousness, my Mother. Even I don't exist there.

If I feel otherwise, I should know that that is ignorance and call

Her forthwith.

 

Now, you may say this is all big talk. Nair is claiming to be

liberated and enlightened. Sorry, Sir. I don't believe in any

liberation or enlightenment. The unbound is never unleashed. Light

need not carry a torch to find its way.

 

There are no two paths called bhakti marga and jnAna marga. (There

is a discussion about this in our archives with reference to BG. I

am not able to locate it straightaway.). There is also no partial-

advaitic bhakti – the invented term you have labeled my views under.

There is only jnAna, and bhakti goes with it. This, I believe, is

what Mruthy-ji said and I have no disagreement with him there.

 

In a nutshell, Devi is Consciousness and She is Me everywhere in

everything. I don't `see' Her in everything, I am Her in

everything. Please note the difference. And, if this awareness

brings about any feeling of happiness or, say, bliss – as people like

to call it - well then that bliss is verily me. In that bliss, a

separate "I" as an enjoyer doesn't exist. If I feel that separation,

then that is ignorance again and I will call Her name aloud to

remove that ignorance.

 

You know advaita but, sadly, haven't still stopped lamenting about

saguna Brahman. Isn't it a tragedy then that, on top of all that,

you want to ensure that others are also lamenting?

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

 

advaitin, "Ranjeet Sankar" > (a) jnAna and

also still seeing

> There are some things which I would like to mention.

>

> a) What you said can be rephrased as "jnAna with bhakti wont help.

jnAna and *Advaitic* bhakti is the path."

>

> ********* Nairji, are you hearing this?? *********

>

> Nairji is pursuing *Advaitic-jnAna* and *partial-advaitic-bhakti*.

*partial-advaitic-bhakti* means he sees *Devi* with all the attributes

(saguna) in everything (One in All - Advaitic).

> I believe Nairji himself is best to comment on this. Nairji, sorry

for dragging you into this. But your explaination will be worth

reading since I too have an Ishta-devata.

>

> b) Should we say that saguna bhakti is the first step in Advaitic

bhakti? Or maybe jnAna marga will ultimately lead one to advaitic

bhakti where he worships the nirguna-para-brahman who is behind all

that is.

>

> c) If seeing the difference between jnAna and bhakti is dualism,

what about differentiating karma and jnAna? Isnt that too dualism?

[Guest guest]

Namaste Nairji,

 

I think you got my intentions all wrong.

 

"The answer to your doubt is very simple, at least from my point of

view." - This is exactly what I needed and what I got.

 

"You know advaita but, sadly, haven't still stopped lamenting about

saguna Brahman."

 

First of all, I dont know Advaita very much..I'm just licking on its

surface..but I do have a desire to go deep. From my childhood days I was told

numerous stories of many Gods..I was told to pray to Rama, Krishna and 10,000

others Gods and semi-Gods. One fine day I read some books and find that all that

I thought to be true was indeed false..there is only one Brahman. I also met

people with similar thoughts. What will my poor mind do? It will be in a

confused state...But I sure have to reconcile both. So all this is not

*lamenting*..it is my poor mind and intellect trying to *reconcile*.

 

"Isn't it a tragedy then that, on top of all that,

you want to ensure that others are also lamenting?"

 

Nairji, I've never thought that others are lamenting over the same thing..What

good will it do to me if I think like that? I just wanted to learn the *trick*

from you. Please note that I didnt mean to target you. I apologize if my

language (*partial-advaitic-bhakti*) had offended you in any way.

 

Maybe I should learn a thing or two about communication. My language is leaving

ample room for (mis)interpretations. I just wonder what would have happened if

one of the Upanishad rishi had my kind of language. Instead of the 50

interpretations we have, we would have ended up with 15,000 translations and

interpretations to bury our heads in.

 

Om

ranjeet

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Ranjeet!

>From my childhood days I was told numerous stories of many

>Gods..I was told to pray to Rama, Krishna and 10,000 others

>Gods and semi-Gods. One fine day I read some books and find

>that all that I thought to be true was indeed false..there

>is only one Brahman. I also met people with similar thoughts.

>What will my poor mind do? It will be in a confused state...

>But I sure have to reconcile both. So all this is not *lamenting*

>...it is my poor mindand intellect trying to *reconcile*.

 

This statement is quite fascinating to me as a 'ferengi', coming as

it does from an 'authentic' natural-born Indian Hindu ... and surely

you are this!. It seems that all of the books I've read about

Hinduism say things like, 'In their daily lives Hindus worship many

Gods, but they all know deep inside that those Gods are merely

symbols of the infinite, eternal, omnipresent, ineffable Brahman'.

It seems that such a simplistic description of Hindu faith is an

over-generalization.

 

What's particularly interesting to me is that the most abstract and

elevated thoughts about God ever thought by humans were first thought

thousands of years ago by the Rishis in the Upanishads. This is

hardly a recent discovery in Mother India! I guess Hinduism is a

vast quiltwork of different religious ideas and feelings, depending

on social background, education, etc.

 

But I don't think it matters that much. As I said before, it is the

'state of consciousness' that matters, not the ideas. I know

intuitively that this state can exist in a true devotee, regardless

of his or her ideas and conceptualizations. The so-called 'state of

consciousness' is like the blue sky encompassing all, and the

thoughts and feelings are mere clouds passing by. Perhaps jnana is

only necessary for so-called intelligent and educated people, trapped

as they are in their cobwebs of thought.

 

By the way, I would also like to know Sri Nair's 'trick'! :-)

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namste Benjaminji,

 

"It seems that all of the books I've read about

Hinduism say things like, 'In their daily lives Hindus worship many

Gods, but they all know deep inside that those Gods are merely

symbols of the infinite, eternal, omnipresent, ineffable Brahman'.

It seems that such a simplistic description of Hindu faith is an

over-generalization."

 

That is absolutely wrong. In my experience, about 99% of the Hindus I know (that

includes my family members and relatives) do not belong to that class. I admit

that even the word *Brahman* was new to me 4 months ago !

 

"What's particularly interesting to me is that the most abstract and

elevated thoughts about God ever thought by humans were first thought

thousands of years ago by the Rishis in the Upanishads. This is

hardly a recent discovery in Mother India! I guess Hinduism is a

vast quiltwork of different religious ideas and feelings, depending

on social background, education, etc."

 

Swami Chinmayananda has explained the thought process of the upanishad rishis in

his translation of "IshAvAsya upanishad". It is really great. He says that the

rishis were trying to define *life* first. Then they found that *life* is a

continous experience. Having reached that conclusion they tried to define

*experience*. Then they found that *experience* involves 3 factors viz.

*experiencer* (subject), *experienced* (object), and *experiencing* (process).

After much efforts they found that the world which we experience is infact a

projection of our Self. Finally they concluded that inquiry into the Self is

what is required and it will explain everthing and so they started searching

answers to the Self.

 

Om

ranjeet

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Ranjeet,

 

You said:

>I admit that even the word *Brahman* was new to me 4 months ago !

 

This is scandalous, absolutely scandalous !!!

 

It must be the fault of the pseudo-secularists! Oh well, maybe I'd

better not go there...

 

:-)

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

On Sun, 18 May 2003, Ranjeet Sankar wrote:

>

> There are some things which I would like to mention.

>

> a) What you said can be rephrased as "jnAna with bhakti wont help. jnAna and

*Advaitic* bhakti is the path."

>

> ********* Nairji, are you hearing this?? *********

>

> Nairji is pursuing *Advaitic-jnAna* and *partial-advaitic-bhakti*.

*partial-advaitic-bhakti* means he sees *Devi* with all the attributes(saguna)

in everything (One in All - Advaitic).

> I believe Nairji himself is best to comment on this. Nairji, sorry for

dragging you into this. But your explaination will be worth reading since I too

have an Ishta-devata.

>

 

namaste.

 

The only true statement is jnAna is bhakti.

 

"Partial advaita bhakti, partial advaita jnAna" these terms,

in my understanding, have no meaning really.

 

I saw shri Madathil-ji response to this post and I must say I agree

with him. However, I cannot say that my spirituality has matured to

the extent that I see only shri lalitA everywhere all the time but

I see Her constantly by my side.

> b) Should we say that saguna bhakti is the first step in Advaitic bhakti? Or

maybe jnAna marga will ultimately lead one to advaitic bhakti where he worships

the nirguna-para-brahman who is behind all that is.

>

 

nirguNa brahmopAsana is more difficult than sagunA brahmopAsana

(BG 12.5). SaguNa brahmopAsana leads to nirguNa brahmopAsana.

I say this based on the nine stages of bhakti discussed in

shrimadbhAgavatam; the last stage is Atmanivedana, the earlier

stages being where the worshipper and the worshipped are

separate.

 

> c) If seeing the difference between jnAna and bhakti is dualism, what about

differentiating karma and jnAna? Isnt that too dualism?

>

 

Wherever there is karma, there is the doer of karma which the

ego claims. shri shankara's logic in saying karma does not lead

to moksha is given in all the prakaraNa granthA-s.

 

> Om

> ranjeet

>

 

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

Tell me, Murthyji, what is near or far, by my side or everywhere, for

an advaitin! Tadaijati tannaijati taddUrE tadantikE.... (Is. Up.)!

 

Madathil Nair

________________________

 

 

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

wrote:

>

> I saw shri Madathil-ji response to this post and I must say I agree

> with him. However, I cannot say that my spirituality has matured to

> the extent that I see only shri lalitA everywhere all the time but

> I see Her constantly by my side.

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 19 May 2003, Madathil Rajendran Nair wrote:

> Tell me, Murthyji, what is near or far, by my side or everywhere, for

> an advaitin! Tadaijati tannaijati taddUrE tadantikE.... (Is. Up.)!

>

> Madathil Nair

> ________________________

>

>

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

> wrote:

> >

> > I saw shri Madathil-ji response to this post and I must say I agree

> > with him. However, I cannot say that my spirituality has matured to

> > the extent that I see only shri lalitA everywhere all the time but

> > I see Her constantly by my side.

>

 

namaste.

 

What I meant to say there was:

 

I see shri lalitA next to me all the time. I see Her when

I drive, I see Her when I lecture and I see Her when I sit

in my pUjA-room for meditation. I see Her directing every

step of my life. I always consider that, whatever I do,

whtever I think, whatever I write, whatever I talk, it is

all Her word.

 

I do not know if my devotion has matured to the extent that

I see the world as Her, instinctively. She is sarvaprapanca-

nirmAtrI, but yet, I think for me it seems that is still

intellectual knowledge only. If that knowledge were a fully

established knowledge, then, I shouldn't see any difference

between me and the next person.

 

I see the IshAvAsya upanishad mantra, but can I say that it

is fully an inherent part of me. I do not know.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

--