Bhakti and Jnana

[Guest guest]

Sankarraman wrote:

According to the transcendental position of Advaitha, the triplet of

jiva-iswara-jagat is only an unreal appearance of the Self. This is

logically supportable by the every day evidence that one gets through

deep-sleep, the deep sleep swallowing up all existence, that of the

individual as well as anything outside the indivdual, the Witness alone

being there, this being vouchsafed by the fact of one being able to

attest to the Self-supporting Consciousness, which has no rise or fall,

in spite of the lapse of memory, such a Consciousness persisting void

of phenomena. Of course, the empirical philosophers would say that

the world exists in the vision of the others; but Vedanta buts in to

point out that the so-called others and objects could exist only in

one's Being. The mistake we commit is to confound the individual jiva

with the Witness, making us beileve in the existence of objectivity.

Sankara's arguing for the existence of Iswara

is only for the medicore people like us who are very much used to

objectivity. To satisfy their needs, the creation by Iswara is

extensively talked about. Let us not confuse the transcendental

philosophy with the Vyavaharic, but attempt to be subjectice in our

quest, not being bothered about the existence or non-existence of

Iswara, which questions would surely persist till the domain of avidya

is transcended by the direct experience of the Sphurana.

 

Sankarraman

 

|||||||||||||||||||

 

Namaste Sankarramanji,

What you are saying is entirely true and in accordance

with the classic Advaita teaching yet it needs to be qualified lest it sink

into the ultimate fixed dualism of the Real and the Unreal. All the

terms that are used body, mind, intellect, jiva, upadhi etc. are

products of the intellect itself and in so far as they are, are lifeless like

the cyphers of mathematics, the ultimate intellectual creation. 'The

Heart has its reasons which the head does not understand'(Pascal) It

is in the actual contact with the world that we live the reality of which

the intellectual construct is the mummy. What is the reality that gives

rise to those fixities and definites, was it just for the saints and sages

who left us the sad relics to trade in the annals of pious discourse.

The Heart, I believe, is beyond the distinctions of Bhakti and Jnana

which may be as much character dispositions as paths.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

SriSankararaman observes

 

Sankara's arguing for the existence of Iswara

is only for the medicore people like us who are very much used to

objectivity. To satisfy their needs, the creation by Iswara is

extensively talked about. Let us not confuse the transcendental

philosophy with the Vyavaharic, but attempt to be subjectice in our

quest, not being bothered about the existence or non-existence of

Iswara, which questions would surely persist till the domain of avidya

is transcended by the direct experience of the Sphurana.

 

Sankarraman

 

************************************************************************

 

Periyavarkale! ananta koti namaskarams !

 

could you please explain if the 63 Nayanmars, Appaya Dikshitir,

Tukasidas, Surdas, Meera bhai, Avvaiyaar, Pattinathar , Appar,

Sundarar, Tirujnana sambandhar, Tirumular, Aandaal, Namaalazhwars,

Madhusudana , Sukadeva , Tukaram , Kabirdas, RUMI, etc etc etc etc

ARE 'MEDIOCRE' people ? i think they are the greatest that ever walked

on this planet .... Bhakti marga is not for the mediocre - it is for

those with a heart full of 'love and surrender' bhava!

 

As ACHARYA vINOBA BHAVE says :

 

In this chapter, Arjuna asks the question that there are two types of

devotees - one who worship the image to grasp and experience spiritual

thought and the other grasp the thought directly and act accordingly in

search of an experience. Which of the two is better? Vinobaji says that

question of Arjuna is similar to asking the mother - which of your two

sons are dearer to you? What can the poor mother reply? If at all a

reply is pressed for, she would say the younger son because he needs

the presence of mother more than the elder one. Similar answer is given

by Shri Krishna that if at all answer is needed, one with form is

closer to me.

 

Vinobaji has illustrated this answer by referring to the famous

epic 'Ramayana'. When Rama is going to the forest for fourteen years,

his younger brother Laxman pleads that he too wants to accompany him.

When Rama disuades him not to do so by an argument, Laxmana puts stop

to the argument like this 'O Rama I have grown up nourished by your

love. I am only a child. I cannot bear the burden of living here

without you.' He accompanies Rama for 14 years. This is worship with

form or image.

 

However, Tulsidasji describes that when Rama left for forest, Bharat

his other younger brother was not in Ayodhya. When he reached home, his

father had died and Royal Guru Vashishtha advises him to assume the

rule of the state. But Bharata answers that 'first I must see Rama

before I decide this question. He makes arrangements for running the

administration. His line of thinking is 'Kingdom belongs to Rama. To

arrange for the administration is like doing Rama's work. Devotion to

Rama means carrying out his work; else what good is the devotion? This

is the devotion without form.

 

This classical example of Formless Devotion ends with following

dialogue between the brothers Bharat says, 'Rama my Lord, I shall

humbly do your bidding. Whatever you say, r shall not doubt or

question. But as he prepares to leave, he turns to Rama and says, Sir,

my heart is yet unreconciled. I feel as if I have lost something. 'Rama

at once understood his yearning and gave him one of his personal

effects as symbol in place of Rama. Though Bharata was firm in his

loyalty to duty and principle, he too needed the living warmth of the

symbol. This is Devotion without Form.

 

The chapter ends with following words from Shree Krishna 'Arjuna, it

does not matter whether you are devotee with or without form. More

important is to become a devotee with all your heart. "

 

Sri Krishna bhagwan says in chapter 12, verse 20 i nSrimad Bhagwat Gita

 

 

ye tu dharmamrtam idam

yathoktam paryupasate

sraddadhana mat-parama

bhaktas te 'tiva me priyah

 

 

He who follows this imperishable path of devotional service and who

completely engages himself with faith, making Me the supreme goal, is

very, very dear to Me.

 

Another verse from Srimad Bhagvatam

 

sādhavo hṛdayaḿ mahyaḿ

 

sādhūnāḿ hṛdayaḿ tv aham

 

mad-anyat te na jānanti

 

nāhaḿ tebhyo manāg api

 

"The devotees are My heart,

and I am the heart of My devotees.

My devotees do not know anyone but Me;

similarly I do not know anyone

but My devotees."

 

Bhagavatham 9.4.68

 

So,dear friends , when Vir bhakth Hanuman broke the pearl necklace to

see 'rama nama' in the pearls, he was not demonstrating Vanara Bhuddhi

( monkeys do have a tendency to tear up everything)bUT lORD hANUMAN IS

NO ORDINARY MONKEY - OUR PAVAN PUTRA! Rather Sri Hanuman was

demonstrating 'divine madness' of a Uttama devotee ( superior) and by

tearing his chest open, he was declaring to the assembled people,

that 'lord Rama resides in the very heart of his devotees' !

 

another Hanuman story - the 'grandma' in me loves to tell stories !

 

One day, Hanuman noticed that Sitaji wore a red powder (sindoor) in

the parting of Her hair. Curious, Hanuman enquired, what it was that

She was wearing. " Dear Hanuman, it is sindoor that I am

wearing"" , . "What is sindoor and why was it so important?" asked

Hanuman. Sitaji Replied ' Sindoor is an auspicious symbol for a

Sumangali and it is worn by a married woma to show her love and

devotion to her husband and also by wearing this i am praying for my

lord's long life. '

 

On hearing this, Hanumanji smeared 'sindoor' all over his body -from

head to foot- Hanumanji was 'red' all over and then he approached Sita

mata and Sita mata was totally taken aback and she asked Hanumanji what

was this all about? Hanumanji replied 'Sitaji, i am sri rama's devoted

servant. by putting a little sindoor in the parting of your hair, you

are praying for your lord's well being. i want tp pray for my lord's

immortality ( chiranjeevi) by applying sindoor on my whole person;"

That is why , in north indian templ;es, you will always see Hanumanji's

vigraha decorated with 'sindoor' !

 

Our beloved adi shankara bhagvadapada sings in Hanuman Pancaratnam

 

taruïárvïa-mukhakamalam

karuïárasapüra - püritáñgam

samjèvanamaùáse maòjula-

mahimánam aòjanábhágyam.(2)

 

I desire to see Hanumán, te fortune of Aòjaná, whose lotus-face is red,

whose side-glances are filled with the waters of compassion, who

brought back to life all those who were dead in the battle, and whose

greatness in praiseworthy.

 

 

Folks, all these stories are told only to evoke the feelings of 'bhakti

bhava ! One needs to go beyond these stories ad meditate on

the 'real' ! say the samething about the 'metaphors' in sri shankara

bhasyas ... go beyond the ''rope and snake' aalogy - there is no

snake ; neither is there any rope ! But there is Hope for all of us (

no matter whether we are superior or mediocre ) if we have 'shraddha'

in Guru and Govinda!

 

Shraddavan labathe Jnanam.

 

Shradda is strong, permanent and unwavering faith and this faith leads

to Jnanam !

 

By Jnanam is meant' knowledge of the self' - not knowledge about

science, environment, mathematics, astronomy, scriptures , etc ete etc

etc ...

 

Rea Jnnanam is jnannam of the self ' all other jnnanam is 'ajnaanam'

only !

 

folks . there is a difference between 'wisdom' and 'knowlege'

 

wisdom is to know all the sciences , all the scriptures etc etc etc ...

 

But when we talk of 'jnannam' in vedanta - we are only talking of one

jnaanam or knowledge of the self ! - that is 'i am the self' - all

other knowledge including Grammar, literature, arts , sciences,

religiion is only jnana of the 'intellect'

 

SIV'O' HAM BECOMES 'SOHAM'

 

 

Hari aum Tat sat !

[Guest guest]

adi_shakthi16 <adi_shakthi16 wrote: SriSankararaman observes

 

Sankara's arguing for the existence of Iswara

is only for the medicore people like us who are very much used to

objectivity. To satisfy their needs, the creation by Iswara is

extensively talked about. Let us not confuse the transcendental

philosophy with the Vyavaharic, but attempt to be subjectice in our

quest, not being bothered about the existence or non-existence of

Iswara, which questions would surely persist till the domain of avidya

is transcended by the direct experience of the Sphurana.

 

Sankarraman

 

************************************************************************

 

Periyavarkale! ananta koti namaskarams !

 

Dear madam,

When we talk of Jnana we cannot mince matters, it

being a different thing that Bakthi is not inferior to Jnana, as has been

evidenced by the lives of the seers quoted by you. If you go to the

Visishtadvaithin and the Dvaitin, they will say that Jnana is dry. When we go

to the depths, there is bound to be no distinction between the two paths. I am

of opinion that Bakthi is not an emotion directed to an anthropomorphic deity,

but is something else, which is far above the emotional experiences relatable to

the little self.

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...>

wrote:

>

> Sankarraman wrote:

|||||||||||||||||||

>

> Namaste Sankarramanji,

> What you are saying is entirely true and in

accordance

> with the classic Advaita teaching yet it needs to be qualified

lest it sink

> into the ultimate fixed dualism of the Real and the Unreal. All

the

>

Namaste Michael-ji,

 

I think we can only have the above discussion if we are giving

validity to the 'Heart' or Saguna Self. Nirvikalpa Samadhi, Sahaja

and other terms indicate there are no products of the intellect for

the intellect ultimately doesn't exist, neither does Saguna Brahman.

So ultimately there are no reasons for the heart to

have.....ONS..Tony.

 

List Moderator's Note: Please state your points within the framework of

Sankara's advaita philosophy. What do you mean by 'intellect ultimately doesn't

exist?' Give reference to the works of Sankara where he says that intellect

doesn't exist? The discussion is on the philosophy of Sankara and pelase provide

appropriate logic behind the conclusions that you derive. Otherwise, your

statements could be misinterpreted or confusing to the members. thanks,

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Tony OClery" <aoclery> wrote:

>

> advaitin, ombhurbfor

> the intellect ultimately doesn't exist, neither does Saguna Brahman.

> So ultimately there are no reasons for the heart to

> have.....ONS..Tony.

>

> List Moderator's Note: Please state your points within the framework

of Sankara's advaita philosophy. What do you mean by 'intellect

ultimately doesn't exist?' Give reference to the works of Sankara

where he says that intellect doesn't exist? The discussion is on the

philosophy of Sankara and pelase provide appropriate logic behind the

conclusions that you derive. Otherwise, your statements could be

misinterpreted or confusing to the members. thanks,

>

Namaste,

 

Yes I should not have confused the issue.

Chapter Seven of his Upadesasahasri- (The Thousand Teachings),

entitled "Located In the Intellect." This chapter, which follows,

describes the error in the superimposition of the Atman on the

intellect.

 

1.Everything located in the intellect is always seen by Me in every

case [of cognition]. Therefore, I am the highest Brahman; I am all-

knowing and all-pervading.

 

He further addresses this concept in verse 2:

2.Just as am the Witness of the movements in My own intellect, so

am I [also the Witness of the movements] in others' [intellects]. I

can neither be rejected nor accepted. Therefore, I am indeed the

highest [Atman].

 

The object of knowledge in the intellect exists when the intellect

exists-, otherwise it does not exist. Since the Seer is always seer,

duality does not exist.

 

The same is covered in the Vivekacudamani. That some validity is given

to the intellect only as an adjunct or reflection of the Atman and

that ultimately it doesn't exist on Moksha...........ONS...Tony.