Bakthi and Vedantha

[Guest guest]

Bakthi and Vedantha

 

Thank you Tatwamasi for your msg on Ishta Devathas. You had said

 

"When we look at Bhakti aspects of sadhana with the eyes of a

vedantin, total confusion ensues unless one has learnt to bridge that

apparent gap. This may explain the typical "fights" between Bhaktas

who are "in love" and Vedantins who are attempting to put things into

a box with logical rules."

 

The teachings of Bagavan Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa is a synthesis

of Tantra, Bhakthi and Vedanta. If you look at Swami Vivekananda or

the saktha poet Ramprasad Sen you will see this in actual practice.

 

Swami Vivekananda the man who took Vedanta to the West has written

beautiful poems in Bengali about MAA KAALI. He also performed Kanya

Pooja in Kashmir.

He smeared his body with ashes and went to Amarnath as a Digambara

Sadhu.

 

Again Ramprasad Sen was a Vama marga Tantrik who performed Munda

Sadhana. He wrote beautiful poems about MAA KAALI. But his poems

indicate that he understood the concept of Brahman better than most

people.

 

But again in this synthesis some aspect gets predominance. Swami

Vivekananda was more of a Vedantin whereas Ramprasad Sen was more of

a Bhakta. That is why you will find among the immediate disciples of

Bagavan Ramakrishna Paramahamsa Vedantins, Bhakthas and yes-even Vama

marga Tantrik.

 

In modern times Swami Sathyananda Saraswathi is one person who

symbolizes this synthesis.

 

In India we find Vedantins who go regularly to temples and also

perform daily Pooja with all rituals. Then we have Bhakthas who are

scholars in Vedanta. There are no watertight compartments. Most of

the Hindus in India can never speak ill of either Vedanta or Bhakthi

because these two run in their blood. We may rile at Vedantins or

Bhakthas but not at Vedanta or Bhakthi.

 

Sankar

 

P.S. Some problem with . This is the third time I am posting

this msg. Please delete duolicate msgs.

[Guest guest]

Dear sankarrukku,

Really I enjoy your posts. Specially on this Bhakti and Vedanta.

Kali is all.

with regards.

 

joylopamudra

[Guest guest]

Jaya Sri Radhey! Namaste all.

Here is my favorite verse by the great Vedantist and Advaitaacarya,

the author of the treatise 'Bhakti Rasayana', Sri Madhusudana

Saraswati:

 

"dhyAnAbhyAsa vazIkRtena manasA

tannirguNaM niSkriyaM

jyotiH kiMcana yogino yadi paraM

pazyanti pazyantu te,

 

asmAkaM tu tadeva locana

camatkArAya bhUyAcciraM

kAlindI pulineSu yat kimapi

tannIlaM maho dhAvati!"

 

(Sri Mudhusudana Sarasvati- 'Gudhaartha Dipika')

 

Meaning:

 

If the yogis with their MINDS which have been brought UNDER CONTROL

through the practice of MEDITATION, SEE and REALIZE SOME such

TRANSCENDENTAL LIGHT that is WITHOUT DIVINE FORM, QUALITIES and

EXPLOITS, LET THEM SEE!!

 

BUT,

for FILLING OUR BLESSED EYES with STRANGE ASTONISHMENT and RAPTURE,

LET THERE BE FOREVER that INDESCRIBABLE BLUE FORM OF LIGHT ALONE,

WHICH RUNS about HITHER and THITHER on the SANDY BEACHES of the

KALINDI (YAMUNA) RIVER!!!

 

Jaya Sri Radhey!

[Guest guest]

It is evident when we read the words from various texts, that each

sadhak responds to a path that reflects their temperament. Even

Sankaracharya, who was the greatest proponent of Vedanta, was a in

practice a great bhakta himself. (Ref post 3497 by pyari)He was at a

level where he could experience Both as a lover responding to sesual

exp of uniting with Divine, or as a analytical student sadhak

merging into the formless light. And a sadhaks jounrney will surely

take him/her to space where they are able to experience both. Like a

student in a University, ALL the courses have to be completed for the

degree.

 

sankarrukku - I am hesitant about rejecting the theory that sadhaks

are attracted to paths reflecting their temperament, just because I

am unable to understand it as yet. Rajasic or even tamasic qualities

are not all "bad". In fact one needs rajasic qualities to move out of

tamas, and some degree of "laziness" is perhaps needed to get into a

contemplative mode. Attachment, which is a primary quality in Bhakti,

may be considered a tamasic quality, but in the cases of Bhakti it

certainly is not negative. If, however, one gets too attached for

instance to a Guru who turns out to be a fraud, (there are many many

cases here in the west) leading to blind following even to death;

then yes, attachments may be a negative quality. In the cases cited,

that of Ramakrishnadev and others like him, the attachment is a tool,

an anchor for the senses with which we have to live in our karma

sthan (karmic world) in our ego-based bodies.

 

A follow up question though - the examples you have cited reflect the

lives of these saints, who have lived a life of yoga, bhakti karma

and gyana, becoause they were saints. Did any of them help in

bridging the gap in explanations /understanding terminology (eg sagun

vs nirgun as applicable to Shakti, Krishna etc)?

 

Many have said to me, how does it matter anyway? What difference does

it make whether the terms are understood appropriately or not? To a

lover it really doesn't matter what and who and why. However an

equiring mind wants to know!

 

Thanks for your patience in helping me understand the topic.

 

_/\_ Tat twam asi

 

Uma

 

 

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

This is a reply to post 3543 by sankarrukku

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

[Guest guest]

Re: Bakthi and Vedantha

 

The classic texts in psychology divides people into two kinds,

introverts and extroverts. There are other texts which divide the

population into types - type A etc. But when it comes down to

practice you rarely find a total extrovert or a total introvert. In

facts many people criticize psychology because of these theories.

 

Even in life we try to place people in slots. The moment you are

introduced people find out where you are from. If you are a Hindu

they try to find out your caste. Then they place you in a slot. This

enables them to predict your behavior. But problem arises when you do

not behave according to the slot that people put you in. Nobody does.

I have faced this problem in travels all over India because I do not

fit into their idea of a South Indian Brahmin. One of my bosses who

is a Punjabi used to say "You should have been a Punjabi because you

are aggressive". According to him all South Indians are timid. Many

Americans and white men in general face problems in India because

they do not fit into the slot. Typecasting people is not correct. But

we all do it.

 

I believe the Guna theory is also falls in the same category. Like a

critic of Jung theory starts by saying that the theory of

introversion and extroversion is wrong, I also start by saying the

Guna theory has no relevance.

 

By the way many people have come out with a theory that Sankaracharya

who wrote Soundharya Lahari is a different person from the

Sankaracharya of Advaita fame. In a world where we have plenty of

claimants and theories about who Shakespeare really was this is not

surprising. This is so because they are able to explain the

contradiction of the author of Vedanta writing a Saktha text.

Fortunately Swami Vivekananda's life is recorded. Otherwise someone

would have written a research paper about how Swamiji was actually

five different persons.

 

No one is entirely Satwik, Rajasaik or Tamasik. We have all the three

Gunas. One of them may be predominant. Again the gunas you exhibit

depends also on the situation and your mood. When you are in the

process of trying to become a Satwik, you may react to different

situations in a different way. So your reactions become unpredictable

to others around you. Again your interpretation of Satwik may not be

the same as others. I can show how at first glance the definition of

Satwik seems to be different in the teachings of Swami Vivekananda

and Swami Sivananda. You will also find differences in the approach

of Bagavan Sri Ramakrishna and Swami Vivekananda. But as we begin to

understand (not merely read) then you find that there is no

difference between these great men. I am only beginning to understand

and have a long way to go.

 

I am totally in agreement that a person does need all the three Gunas

to succeed in his Sadhnaa. Unfortunately we also fail to understand

the real meaning of the terms used. For example Virakthi is not

Vairagya. Satwik is not lack of will power or cowardice. You need a

lot of will power and courage to succeed in Sadhana. I know people

who have approached the Ramakrishna Math to become Sannyasins out of

Virakthi. These people are turned away (most of the times ) because

they are not qualified to become Sannyasins.

 

Oh MAA did the above have any relevance to the subject in hand

namely Bhakthi and Vedanta.? I guess not.

 

But the paths I was referring to were either Bhakthi marga or Jnana

Marga. It depends on what rules you - the heart or the mind. Bhakthi

is from the heart and Jnana is from the mind. But again in most of

the people one predominates over the other. So depending upon the

predominant quality we choose Bhakthi Marga or Jnana Marga. What I

was trying to emphasize was that since every human being has both a

heart as well as a mind, and since no one can be free of emotions we

are all both Bhakthas as well as Jnanis. There can be pure Bhakthas

but pure Jnanis are very very rare. The paths are not dependant on

the Gunas. In fact the Bagavan Sri Ramakrishna has described three

types of Bhakthas - Satwik, rajasaik and Tamasik.

 

Great Saints normally do not give us FAQ. But the Gospel of Sri

Ramakrishna and the books of Bagavan Ramana Maharshi give us most of

the answers. Swami Sivananda has again written exhaustively on all

the margas of Hinduism including Tantra. But these people were all

renunciates and had achieved self/ god realization. Though their

teachings are general, they are mostly addressed to people who have

attained some level of Sadhana. Being a devotee of Bagavan Sri

Ramakrishna I find that the Gospel answers most of the questions.

 

About Saguna and Nirguna it is said from the form to the formless. In

Tantra also you progress from the form to the formless. The

progressive path from Bhakthi to Jnana, which I have emphasised in my

messages, is based on the teachings of the Gospel and the monks of

the Ramakrishna order. Mostly teachers of Vedanta.

 

Though this is not relevant, in India we no longer have Gurus. We

have only Godmen/Godwomen. When they turn out to be con men/women

(many of them are) people find that they have lost their wealth and

their God. This does shatter them. But being firm believers in Karma

they get over it by saying that it is their karma and then go to the

next godman/godwoman. That is why you do not find many shrinks in

India.

 

I am not at all sure whether I have even begun to answer your

questions. In spirituality we often do not even fully comprehend the

questions. So the answers are very often far from satisfactory. But

as seekers we all try to find answers to our questions. In the end we

can become really spiritual only when we understand ourselves.

 

 

Sankar

[Guest guest]

There is something to be said for diverse religion and we would be

ignorant to accept some lukewarm eclectic compromise. While all

teachings are the same on the final level of Absolute attainment, on

the provisional level of relative practice they're different. The

question is not which teaching is TRUE. The question is which

teaching is useful for you to understand the absolute..which inspire

you to action and more importantly, which practice will you actually

do?

 

Religious traditions only provide a framework for individual

experience. Therefore, Krsna manifested 108 bodies to dance

simultaneously with the 108 gopis-each of whom was absolutely

convinced she had the real krsna (correctly) all to herself!

 

>From the plurality of distinct paths may we reach the Unity beyond

distinctions.

 

om tat sat

 

>:*)