What should one DO? (2)

April 24, 2001

(...Contd.) Those who ask Rameshji to give

them a practice (saadhanaa) to perform, he prescribes

a simple procedure. At the end of the day, sit for

fifteen minutes for this investigation. Take any of the

actions that you did during the day and about which you

are convinced it was your action. Now, analyse the

event from all its angles, and find out whether you

would have acted otherwise, whether there was any

volition involved. Chances are that you will find you

couldn't have acted otherwise. Here, he makes it

abundantly clear that he is not promising enlightenment. It

will only help the supposed seeker understand what

Rameshji calls his 'concept', more clearly. It does help,

in the sense the anxiety that the seeker

experiences, starts becoming less and less, and he is free to

lead a peaceful life. Now about the world being

unreal. According to advaita (as explained by Shri

Ramesh), the world is unreal in the sense it has no

independent reality. It depends upon the Absolute for its

existence. If you are standing in the sun you see your own

shadow beneath. Is it real? Of course it is real. Now

you come inside the house and the shadow disappears.

Where has it gone? Surely, if it was real it should be

present somewhere. So, the shadow had no independent

reality. The illusoriness of the world has to be

understood in this way. Advaita admits dualism of no

kind. Maya and God are forever united. They were never

separate. Upon enlightenment, the sage knows that he has no

reality apart from the unity of the illusory world

(Shakti) and God (Shiva). I will end this post with

a zen haiku: Sitting silently Doing

nothing, The spring comes, and the grass grows by

itself. Hare Krishna. Rajeev

April 24, 2001

Enjoyed very much reading your posts but can we

investigate the 'why' of needing to DO something? As you

clearly admit, all of it is an intellectual stand and

also that this can be the only most logical stand. My

question can be illustrated by a simple analogy, ; i

have never tasted a mango in my life, only heard of it

and its excellent taste. In my quest for that taste,

you say there is no point in DOING all sorts of silly

excercises of the tongue, meditating on my taste buds,

increasing my concentration power, chanting the name of the

mango, discussing various kinds of mangoes so on and so

forth... You tell me instead to believe that i have already

tasted the mango and behave in that manner , resigning

myself to fate for that actually to happen. In both

the stands i see only intellectual excercises, taste

of the mango(ah the sweet taste!) being something

totally alien to all this intellectualism. Maybe in

the first case by doing all those physical/mental

excercises i would enjoy the taste of the mango in a much

more thorough way? If nothing else

! You also say that resign yourself to fate which in

any case is inevitable or in other words,

predestined. All right then.. is it possible in some way to

come to know beforehand of what is predestined ?

Surely if mere fifteen minutes of daily analysis can

show us that whatever has happened had to happen, then

slightly more thought or a sharper mind should be able to

divine into what is going to happen ? Why does this not

happen with accuracy as it apparently should ? You

may avoid the question by going into our perception

of time as you hinted that cause and effect are in

reality simultaneous, but it is the ego(mind) working in

the framework of an idea of time that rushes to

arrange events on the coordinates of time for its own

understanding because it itself is constructed within the

confines of time(One good reason for dreams being so

unclear and 'forgotten' so soon). In that light the idea

so often given in remaining in NOW is construed as

sometime between the past and the present, while it is not

so. This NOW contains the whole of the past and

future. and so on for the 'oneness' of all form. Still

the question persists is it possible then to know now

this predestined future accurately

? Another seeming loophole is that if all is predestined,

then what difference does it make -either to DO

saadhanaa or to resign oneself to fate ? --to preach or

argue ? --to make others see my point ? The

saadhanaa(investigation) advised by Rameshji in finding out the

inevitability of my actions, my doing even this should be

predestined ! If so why worry ? It becomes too

confusing... Please clarify whether you originally meant that freedom

of choice is non-existent only as long the

personality(ego) making the choice has an inherent past tagged to

it. What about a fresh personality that has learned to

live in the pure present without any association with

the past, is there freedom of choice then? Is there a

personality? Doesn't meditation help in forming such a

personality(or non-personality) ? I seek so many

clarifications because i have high hopes in your capability to

give them.

April 25, 2001

Dear Rajeev, thankyou very much for the detailed

reply. It is not important here that we accept what you

say, as we may have a different set of thoughts, but

what is important here is that you are very clear and

straight in your faith....and this is what is required

for. I hope you are able to see the truth in other

faiths too, through your own truth. You wrote

<< Advaita admits dualism of no kind. Maya and God

are forever united. >>> Advaita says Maya is

non-existent. As per your statement Maya and God are same.

Hence if Maya is God....then how can she be false

or unreal her presence is real when she is

manifesting...can it be truer that Maya on a certain level is real

and manifesting but ceases to exist when Chetna

reaches another higher level...what do u think

? And Tulsi thanks for the poems and flowers....your

posts are like oasis in a hot desert. Hari Om

Tat Sat silentsoul

April 25, 2001

All night i danced round the house of my

Beloved In the morning he came out and offered me some

wine. I had no cup- 'Here is my empty skull' I

said 'Pour Your wine in here' (Rumi)

April 25, 2001

Sitting silently Doing nothing, The spring

comes, and the grass grows by itself. They are

incomplete in spirituality. I may like to add : sitting

silently doing nothing the spring comes, and the grass

grows WHEN KRISHNA KISSES

April 25, 2001

sushmaji, do you see that your addition is a

creation of your own mind, rest were true

facts. i feel, you may have missed the point of not

having any ego at all. or was it tongue in cheek(

that in the end) yours truly

April 25, 2001

<<is it possible in some way to come to

know beforehand of what is predestined ? Surely if

mere fifteen minutes of daily analysis can show us

that whatever has happened had to happen, then

slightly more thought or a sharper mind should be able to

divine into what is going to happen ? Why does this not

happen with accuracy as it apparently should

?>> It is possible to know beforehand what is going to

happen through such tools as astrology, etc.

Incidentally, I believe in astrology, but not in astrologers.

Are we digressing? The intellectual exercise

prescribed by Rameshji helps us in understanding that the

notion of doership is always an afterthought. Advaita,

as I said before, denies a one-to-one cause and

effect relationship between events. This means, each

event is preceded by *innumerable* causes, many of

which the human intellect cannot trace, however sharp.

That is why it is difficult to know the future

'accurately' though the future is predestined. The ability to

predict the future is a special faculty of mind, and it

need not be accompanied by sharp intellect.

<<Another seeming loophole is that if all is predestined,

then what difference does it make -either to DO

saadhanaa or to resign oneself to fate ? --to preach or

argue ? --to make others see my point ? The

saadhanaa(investigation) advised by Rameshji in finding out the

inevitability of my actions, my doing even this should be

predestined ! If so why worry ? It becomes too

confusing...>> Has it become confusing? You say if all is

predestined, what difference does it make to either do this or

that? You are absolutely right. It makes no difference

what you do. That, in fact, is the whole point. If you

like doing saadhanaa, do it. Remember I had written in

my earliest posts on this subject, 'You cannot

decide and meditate, but if the attempts happen, you

cannot stop them either!' Everything is

predestined. Even your queries and my replies. You say, why

worry then? Absolutely! Don't worry at all. I won't ask

anyone to worry. <<Please clarify whether

you originally meant that freedom of choice is

non-existent only as long the personality(ego) making the

choice has an inherent past tagged to

it.>> Freedom of choice is non-existent without exception. A

sage only has a clear understanding of this fact. The

illusion of freedom of choice is the basic characteristic

of the ego. In absence of this illusion, the ego is

powerless like a burnt rope. In case of a sage, the ego is

not absent. But it is limited to identification with

a particular body. If that was not the case, Buddha

won't respond when called by his

name. <<What about a fresh personality that has learned to

live in the pure present without any association with

the past, is there freedom of choice then? Is there a

personality?>> The personality is the past. There is no 'fresh

personality'. There is freshness when there is no personality.

Personality is a psychological entity made of a self-image

and accentuated by desires and fears. The sage

continues, apparently, making decisions and choices. But his

choices are purely a result of the conditioning that is

still there in the body. (Genes play an important role.

Genes can be said to be a kind of 'hard-coded'

conditioning. Nisargadatta Maharaj was said to be very

short-tempered. His anger would flare up at slightest

provocation. But, if after the incident someone asked,

'Maharaj, why were you angry?', he would say, 'Who was

angry?'. That meant, though the body mind mechanism

displayed anger, there was no 'one' who was

angry.) The sage experiences absolute freedom. But it is not

a freedom of choice. It is a freedom from having to

make a choice. More questions are welcome. It

has been such a great pleasure so far. Hare

krishna. Rajeev

April 25, 2001

Excellent as ever rajeev, i quote a page from my

diary where i got stuck at a point, but now you have

managed to simply solve it with your last

words... <<But it is not a freedom of choice. It is a freedom

from having to make a choice.>> here are

the excerpts(from about a couple of months

before): " The persistent push, no matter how much ever

one fights it. Is there a choice ? The illusion

of freedom, the illusion of choice ! So

pre-destined, as is the solidity of the past So long as

the personality with its inherent past life

exists there really is no choice no freedom... So where

is freedom ??? Now ! For whom ??? Ha ha ha

...." <<But it is not a freedom of choice. It is a freedom

from having to make a choice.>> that

finishes it. What do you have to say about

: In awakening nothing much happens, the eyes just

begin to really see. No big deal, no ego satisfaction.

Is the ego reason behind our need to imagine

enlightenment associated with so many siddhis, esp etc ?? To

chart out a (difficult)path towards self-realization??

Doesn't bhakti then help in effacing this very same ego

?? No ego means no false perceptions ?? The

questions come up because if your theory of

predestination(btw which cannot be proved) is totally believed in

even intellectually, creates such a void and

silence...

April 25, 2001

We all have ego, that is why we are in

human body if anybody says he/she does not have ego is a

hypocrite Can we have this body and mind without ego- it will

be pure fantasy if someone is happy with this

fantasy let him remain in dreams May be it is

another play of Maya to befool us in the name of "I am

God" May be i am too ignorant, but i am happy with it

because Krishna wants this and who am i disturb HIS plans

Love sushma

April 25, 2001

<< We all have ego, that is why we are

in human body >> Even animals and

other things have ego. Ego is a false sense of "I"

ness. << if anybody says he/she does not have ego is a

hypocrite >> When you are able to realise that this whole world is

a the lord in one form or the other and you are

able to recognise that there is no "I" as you are not

different from the the lord and you are the amsha of the

lord and cultivate the attitude of seeing god in

everything including yourself and follow the path of

satyadharma, ego will have no place and it will die. What this

means is that the false sense of "I" ness will

die. So its not hypocracy. Some people claim to be

free of ego for the sake of ego. Tht is sort of

hypocracy. << Can we have this body and mind without ego- it

will

be pure fantasy >> Yes. That is the

state gnanis and saints live in. During meditation and

after it. << if someone is happy with

this fantasy let him remain in

dreams >> Usually sathvik happiness relaxes the mind so its able to

get out of stereotyped

fixations. << May be it is another play of Maya to befool us in

the

name of "I am God" >> I am god is

completely true. But "I" am god is false where "I" is the

ego. Please let me know if you need any

clarifications. - Seshadri.

April 25, 2001

now sushmaji you have got hurt, Sitting

silently Doing nothing, The spring comes, and the grass grows

by itself. any haiku is any day better than a

bhajan if we think in terms of ego. in a bhajan, the

sense of i and you remains which is the root of all

evil. in a haiku such as this we try to transcend this

division of i and you indeed we all are hypocrites

if we claim to have no ego, but all saadhanaa may be

an attempt to transcend this very ego , is it not

? in your post, the 'i and you' very strongly manifest

and hence the sense of friction when there needn't be

any all i asked was, from where did krishna creep in

the growing of grass ? why do we HAVE TO objectify

parameshwara so much ? can we discuss the issue here ? or not?

April 25, 2001

I know you posted your message to Sushma, but as

it is a club and all are welcome to repond to

messages I would like to address your post. You

said: 'in a bhajan, the sense of i and you remains which is

the root of all evil.' According to

Bhagavad-gita the root of all evil is lust. I have never seen

any scripture which substantiates this claim that the

sense of you and I is the root of all evil. In fact, it

is quite the opposite. Krsna says that he always

exist and we also always existed and will continue to

do so as unique individuals. It is really the you

and I that facilitates beauty and love. Sri Chaitanya

Mahaprabhu propounded the philosophy of achintya beda adeda

tattva (which is based on the theology developed in the

Srimad Bhagavatam) that states briefly: that we are

inconceivable and simultaneously one with and different from

God. The oneness is the philosophy - aham brahmasmi -

we are spiritual by nature. The difference is is the

religion - that we have an eternal loving relationship

with Krsna in transcendence. You also

said: 'indeed we all are hypocrites if we claim to have no ego,

but all saadhanaa may be an attempt to transcend this

very ego , is it not ?' Ego means a sense of

identity. According to Bhagavad-gita we all have a real

ego. Those who are operating 'under the influence of

maya' also have a false ego - it is this false ego -

ahankara - which the practice of any sadhana is meant to

efface. God is always in the super subjective plane - beyond

the purview of our limited mind and senses. Of

course, we are informed about things through our mind and

senses - but this type of information gathering will not

lead to absolute knowledge. As Sadhaka's we accept the

scripture as a source of divine knowledge. We also accept

the fact that divinity shows itself to us through

those souls who have managed to gain some practical

experience of that plane of existence. The Srimad

Bhagavatam states that the absolute truth is known as advaya

jnana tattva - non dual conciousness - and that it is

realized by different seers as Brahman (undifferentiated

conciousness), Paramatma (localized oversoul of existence), and

Bhagavan (the Supreme Person). According to sastra, these

three are eternal aspects of divinity. We as sadhaka's

are striving for some actual experience of that plane

of existence. more later your

servant, Audarya lila dasa

April 25, 2001

You are very welcome to reply to any post and i

hope you will continue to reply to my replies

too <<absolute truth is known as advaya jnana tattva - non dual

conciousness>> isn't this quote of yours in line with the idea of

removal of you and i ? as to your quotes about

false and real ego, it is merely a question of what

words we use, of course when i said ego, i meant what

you call ahamkaara. as you claim the root of

all evil to be lust, that is true from the usual

point of view at a different level from what i claimed

'you and i' to be the source of sin. if the 'you

and i' do not arise, who will lust for whom, if there

is only one then where is maya ? it is this context

that this concept is to be understood. the concept of

lust arises only AFTER this first root 'sin' of

division of one. I have read your post careully

but i am unable to understand so many

contradictions <<God is always in the super subjective plane

>> <<Krsna says that he always exist and we also always

existed and will continue to do so as unique

individuals>> from the above quotes, either krsna is not the god

mentioned in the first quote or there is a difference in

'point of view' in both the statements. please

clarify. Inferring from your last paragraph where you clearly

state- <<known as non dual conciousness - and that it is

realized by different seers as Brahman (undifferentiated

conciousness), Paramatma (localized oversoul of existence), and

Bhagavan (the Supreme Person). According to sastra, these

three are eternal aspects of divinity>> it

becomes obvious from the above that i may have been

discussing Brahman and you may have been contradicting me

from the point of view of a sadhak approaching

Bhagavan or Paramatma. Shrimaan Audaryaji, let me

advise you that just for the sake of pure contradiction,

percepts cannot be conveniently picked up from different

approaches to divinity to contradict another approach. The

ultimate non-dual consciousness remaining the same in all

as you admitted. Being a true hindu (i

believe so) i refuse to give the right of proprietorship

to just one approach to that non-dual consciousness,

all approaches are different and sometimes

contradictory in nature. Especially the use of principles of

one approach CANNOT be used to contradict the

principles of another when the ultimate goal achieved is

same. <<It is really the you and I that facilitates beauty

and love>> agreed but there are different

approaches either you go for beauty and love as the goal which

may be a digression for people wanting to go straight

for the final goal which dissolves all the sense of

you and i, the ultimate expression of love and

beauty. I do not know if you have read all the sastras

relating to the advaitic theory of

"Ajaata-Vada"(Non-origination). This is a very old theory very well propounded

in

"Ashtavakra geeta" which is a dialogue between

sage-mystic-philosopher Ashtavakra and king Janaka. May be you do not

like to read non gaudiya literature then i would

advise you to read "MANDUKYA - KARIKA" by SHRI GAUDAPADA

who elaborated on this advaitic theory of Ajaata

vada. This i am sure will help you understand the concept of

origin of "you and i" being at the root of the whole

prapancha(drama) your friend(neither servant nor master) shankar

April 26, 2001

My dear naughty younger brother This is

unfortunate that you speak in terms of "hurt" or "got hurt",

contradictions and rejections only. There is another world of

Love, acceptance and compassion. What I meant by

my post was that I only understand Krishna and his

love- if i do not understand advaita do I cease to be a

Sadhika ? I know about the generation of

intellectuals reciting Haikus and zens or verses from gita or

telling vishnu sahasranaam, and spitting venom on others

in the name of love and religion and leading impure

life. It is better to be atheist than such intellectual

Jnanis. For me God is a very simple thing and i do not

want to complicate it with difficult

theories. Tell me if I am wrong ?

April 26, 2001

<<In awakening nothing much happens, the

eyes just begin to really see. No big deal, no ego

satisfaction. >> Yes. There is only a change of

perspective, and a sense of relief. As Rameshji says, 'Bulbs

are not going to flash in your head if awakening

happens. It is nothing of that kind.' <<Is

the ego reason behind our need to imagine

enlightenment associated with so many siddhis, esp etc ?? To

chart out a (difficult)path

towards self-realization??>> The human body has unimaginable

capabilities latent

within. Some of these spontaneously manifest in case of

an enlightened being, since there is an automatic

reintegration (Yoga) of the body. There can be a forced

reintegration as in case of Hatha Yoga (even there destiny

plays a role, nothing is guaranteed), and manifestation

of siddhis, but that won't be enlightenment. Human

mind has a natural inclination towards the miraculous.

That is a cause of much frustration among seekers. On

one hand they are naturally attracted to the

supernatural powers of the Masters, on the other hand, they

hear the Masters saying that siddhis are to be shunned

at all costs. So, even though enlightenment is

associated with so many siddhis, the opposite is not true.

<<Doesn't bhakti then help in effacing this very same ego

?? No ego means no false perceptions

??>> Bhakti of what kind? According to the Geeta, there are

four kinds of people who seek God: Aarta - those in

pain, Arthaarthee - those who seek material pleasures,

jijnaasu - the curious ones, and jnaani - the sages. Among

these, it is only the bhakti of the fourth kind that is

of real significance. In case of a jnaani, there is

no need of effacement of the ego - it has

already happened. So, it is the effacement of ego that gives birth

to bhakti, not the other way around. Another

difference is, in case of a sage, the bhakti is spontaneous,

yoga is spontaneous, knowledge (jnaana) too is

spontaneous. <<The questions come up because if

your theory of predestination(btw which cannot be

proved) is totally believed in even intellectually,

creates such a void and silence...>> The

questions will keep coming up till there isn't total

surrender. Surrender to God's will or acceptance of

'what-is', which is the same thing. The power responsible

for arising of the questions is also responsible for

their cessation. Trust that power and be

free. Hare krishna. Rajeev

April 26, 2001

Some more thoughts on bhakti. Bhakti, more

than anything, is a property of consciousness that has

turned upon itself. It is natural. Look at this

young man. In him the consciousness has evolved to a

stage and turned upon itself, as per its natural

evolution. What do I mean by consciousness turning upon

itself? It means it has begun to wonder about itself. The

young man finds himself asking questions like, 'What is

all this? Does anyone know?' He has become a seeker.

He experiences moods of bhakti, where there is a

consciousness of attraction towards God-principle. It is an

impersonal process. So far, so good. But the ego then

takes the charge. The man thinks, 'I must do something

about this.' He joins a sect. Now, he has to do

sankirtan at 12 noon, scriptural study at 3 pm, chanting at

6 pm and so on. Bhakti suddenly becomes a

compulsion! Outwardly no one is forcing him. It is his ego

which now forms a self-image about being an 'authorised

devotee' or some such thing. The ego forces him to study

the complicated philosophy and propagate it. Such

noble a thing as bhakti is reduced down to a

ritual. It's a pity. But it has to be accepted as God's will.

How else would the ratio of 1:999 even among seekers

(as hinted by Krishna in the Geeta),

maintained? By the way, this is not to condemn anyone in

particular. Organised bhakti, organised yoga and organised

jnaana, indeed the whole business of organised religion,

is far from what one would normally expect from

it. Hare krishna. Rajeev

April 26, 2001

<< if i do not understand advaita do I cease to be a Sadhika

?>> If you understand advaita, you are no more a saadhikaa.

Hare krishna. Rajeev

April 26, 2001

I would like to add... Understand and practice

advaitha as though its completely inherent in you. You

will not cease to be a sadhaka until you reach

samadhi, a state where your consciousness reaches and

unites with the divine super consciousness. I am

unsure if understanding and practicing advaitha makes

one cease to be a sadhaka. - Seshadri.

April 26, 2001

Dear Rajeev, Organizations that are

founded and developed to help raise the consiousness of

their members are good in and of themselves. The real

problem comes when those organizations loose their

inspired leadership (the realized soul) and they pursue

the form of the idea over the substance. If we want

to make real advancement in our spiritual life we

will have to become substance seekers and find that

wherever it manifests itself. If you want to

understand bhakti you will have to learn from one who has

it. Reading the appropriate books is a good start,

but ultimately - as Krsna has advised in

Bhagavad-gita - you will have to find a realized saint and

inquire from him submissively and render all kinds of

service unto him. Krsna says, "the self realized soul can

impart knowledge unto you because he has seen the

truth." Sadhu sanga is the principle by which bhakti is

implanted within the heart. Rupa Goswami has written

the definitive work on bhakti entitled Bhakti

Rasamrta Sindhu. A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami has rendered

this in english as 'The Nectar of Devotion'. The work

describes the veritable ocean (sindhu) of bhakti rasa -

flavors of bhakti - and it is divided into four waves -

given as eastern, southern, western and northern. The

southern division describes in detail what is sadhana

bhakti. Sadhana bhakti is divided into two basic

categories - vaidhi, or ritualistic/regulated bhakti (this

practice is governed by scriptural rules and regulations

and is characterized by worship in awe and reverance)

and raganuga, or spontaneous devotion (this is

characterized as 'lawless love' and is epotomized by Krsna's

maidservants in Vrndavana known as the gopis.) All devotion

(bhakti) in Vrndavana is characterized by the absence of

aisvarya (god's majesty) and their is no awe and reverence

spirit there. In Vrndavana Krsna's godhood is covered by

his internal potency known as yogamaya so that the

free flow of love will not be impeded. Bhakti

is the natural inherent nature of the self, however

in order to uncover that from within the dirt of

maya, the mirror of the mind and heart must be cleansed

by practice. So many analogies may be drawn from our

everyday experience here. Take for example speaking. A

child will have to learn first to pronounce a word and

associate it with it's meaning. Then there are so many

rules of grammer that make the speaking take proper

shape and give it the ability to convey ideas. All of

this must be learned before the free flow of ideas can

come and one learns to 'speak without thinking'. This

analogy is obviously flawed in many ways, but it does

make the point that by practice one does eventually

come to spontaneity. So vaidhi bhakti is important for

the sadhaka, but the goal should always be kept in

mind. We long for the day our heart naturally calls out

in love the name of our dear lord

Govinda. your servant, Audarya lila dasa

April 26, 2001

What is the nature of bhakti that is 'learned' to

be carried out ? Is it bhakti at all, that is the

question. Or is it just one of the many preparatory practices

to real bhakti, that may actually need no

preparation after all? What can anyone gain by bhakti

towards the 'path of bhakti' ? instead of the one

.. rajeev, your statement that real bhakti is possible only

to a jnani can be an eye-opener. there is a

tendency to term the various rituals etc(vaidhi bhakti) as

bhakti. vaidhi bhakti when translated itself means the "method

of bhakti" and this naturally cannot be

bhakti, this is akin to children playing the role of a doctor

and calling it 'medical practice'.

April 26, 2001

Dear Sushmaji, spoken almost like a true

blood bhakta. My seemingly complicated and

convoluted path that you call advaita is really too simple.

Not even a godhead such as krsna is in

between. Both our paths infact have much to do with

"unlearning" and transcending all the 'understanding' that has

been accumulated and is presently being carried all

the time in our minds. Glad to know that already

you have arrived at the fact that God is a very

simple thing.(wonder how the he cropped up in the

growing of grass!). I envy you in the fact that for me

god is still only intellectually the most simple

underlying reality, in reality i have many apparent

'complications' to work out. One advice from this chhota bhai

for you, if you can be capable to view god in his

simplicity and relate to him with love , then why do you

even have to contemplate <<about the generation

of intellectuals reciting Haikus and zens or verses

from gita or telling vishnu sahasranaam, and spitting

venom on others in the name of love and religion and

leading impure life. It is better to be atheist than such

intellectual Jnanis.>> I sincerely hope that you

disregard the judge's chair for the feet of krsna like a

true bhakta. (but again this would only be a part

of vaidhi bhakti, and not real bhakti, what to do ?)

April 26, 2001

Dear Saraswati Chandra, In Bhakti the

means and the end are essentially the same. One may be

likened to the caterpillar, the other to the

butterfly. There are different stages of bhakti. As I mentioned in

my last post on bhakti, Rupa Goswami has mentioned

two types of sadhana bhakti - vaidhi and raganuga.

These are stages of 'practice'. In the western wave of

Bhakti Rasamrta Sindha Rupa Goswami describes Bhava

Bhakti - the stage where love is dawning. The northern

and final wave describes prema bhakti - full blown

love of God. Here is a nice verse from the

Caitanya Charitamrta that will help clarify these issues

for you better. (C.C. Madya lila

23.9-13) kona bhagye kona jivera sraddha yadi hay tabe sei

jiva sadhu-sanga je karay sadhu-sanga haite hay

sravana-kirtan sadhana-bhaktye hay sarvanartha-nivartan anartha-nivritti

haile bhaktye nistha hay nistha haite sravanadye

ruci upajay ruci haite bhaktye hay asakti

pracur ]asakti haite citte janme krsne prity-ankur sei bhav

gadha haile dhare prema-nam sa prema pryojan

sravananda-dham "If by good fortune, a living entity develops faith

(sraddha) in Krsna, then he begins to associate with

devotees (sadhu-sanga). From the association of devotees,

one begins devotional service by hearing and chanting

about Krsna. This is called sadhana-bhakti and through

it one becomes free from all unwanted contamination

(anartha-nivrtti). When one is freed from all unwanted

contamination, he becomes steadfast in his devotional practices

(nistha). When fixed in devotional practice, a taste (ruci)

for hearing and chanting also awakens. After such

taste is awakened, a deep attachment (asakti) arises,

and from that attachment the seed of love for Krsna

grows in the heart. When that ecstatic emotional stage

intensifies, it is called love of Godhead. such love is life's

ultimate goal and the reservoir of all pleasure." I

hope this will help clarify the different stages in

development of the sadhaka in relation to bhakti. In another

post you asked me what the goal of the vaishnava is.

This post should clarify it a little bit for you. You

were essentially correct in your statement that we

remain eternally a servant of Krsna. As far as

your difficulty with my statement that God remains

forever in the super subjective plane and the subsequent

statement (see Bhag. gita 2.12) that Krsna eternally exists

as a person as we do. I guess I am not sure why you

see this as contradictory. You will have to clarify

this for me. At any rate, my statement that Krsna is

forever in the super subjective plane means that he

always remains beyond the purview of our mind and

intelligence. And it is only by his sweet will that we gain any

real understanding or experience of him. your

servant, Audarya lila dasa

What should one DO? (2)

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Support the Ashram

Join Groups

Top Downloads