Advaitins have no understanding of real Vaisnavism

[theist]

They consider bhakti-yoga as a means to liberation. Then having obtained liberation the so-called bhakti ceases as the practioner and the practice merge into the brahman like a drop of water into the ocean.

 

But this is not Vaisnavism. The Vaisnava knows Bhakti to be eternal and actually begins in it's pure state after liberation from mis-identifying the self with matter and properly identifies the self as the eternal servant of the Supreme Person.

[sambya]

 

They consider bhakti-yoga as a means to liberation.

thats not always the case.todays advaitists agree on bhakti being a self sufficient path to realization.only they claim that at the end of both bhakti and advaita the ultimate realization remains the same.

 

 

But this is not Vaisnavism. The Vaisnava knows Bhakti to be eternal and actually begins in it's pure state after liberation from mis-identifying the self with matter and properly identifies the self as the eternal servant of the Supreme Person.

 

thats true , gaudiya vaishnavs would never admit that jyana and bhakti can converge.

[theist]

Sorry sambya. I don't think you yet understand. I was not clear enough. I will try again.

 

For the Vaisnava liberation is not the goal. Liberation is an adjunct attainment to the realizationof the goal. The goal of sadhana-bhakti is suddha-bhakti or pure bhakti. Bhakti is the means and the goal.

 

In Vaisnavism jyana and bhakti do indeed converge...into pure Bhakti.

 

Please understand that I am not speaking as a true Vaisnava but I am learning from the Gaudiya Vaisnava school and I don't find the animosity to jyana that you describe. Bhakti is stressed over jyana as being most pleasing to Krishna.

 

They (GV's) would use the example of the gopis of Vraja to illustrate their point. They were not great learned vedantists. They were simple village girls but they loved Krishna with an intensisty and intimacy that is inconvievable to us.

 

Some were said to be great vedantists from the time of Lord Ramachandra who were attracted to an intimacy with the Lord that did not fit His pastime as Rama and instead had that desire fulfilled with the advent of Krishna. IOW they merged their jyana into a subordinate position to fully taste madhuyra rasa.

 

Does a lover ever want to merge into the beloved and thereby lose the very object of their love? No it is unthinkable.

 

So when an impersonalist of any school describes that sort of liberation to the devotee, the devotee curls his lips as if he has just heard a description of hell....which he indeed has.

 

The moral of the story is to use your jyana to further your bhakti-rasa.

[Amlesh]

Theist is right.. for the fools.. liberation or bondage exits.

 

The meaning of Bhakti, very few understands.

 

It is attained only and only after being completely freed from all frailties and very rarely one gets that.

 

To be true, the real meaning of Bhakti can never be conveyed with words, that's why I'll refrain to do so.

[sambya]

 

Sorry sambya. I don't think you yet understand. I was not clear enough. I will try again.

 

For the Vaisnava liberation is not the goal. Liberation is an adjunct attainment to the realizationof the goal. The goal of sadhana-bhakti is suddha-bhakti or pure bhakti. Bhakti is the means and the goal.

i know that.the goal of a bhakta is always suddha nishkaam ahaituki prem.the raganuga bhakti.bhaktas dont care for liberation or astrology or materialism.thats how all ideal spiritual seekers should be.

 

 

In Vaisnavism jyana and bhakti do indeed converge...into pure Bhakti.

thats the only place advaitins differ in thought.yes,they both converge,true.they are not exactly divisable,but interlinked.thats also true.but advaitists dont say that one supercedes the other in the end.

 

 

Does a lover ever want to merge into the beloved and thereby lose the very object of their love? No it is unthinkable.

 

 

its perfectly true.most neo advaitists of modern age dont want to merge into brahman niether do they care for mukti.whereas vaishnavs dont believe advaitic anubhuti can ever come,advaitists think that it might come as a result of their sadhana sometime in distant future.but that doesnt make them crave to unite with god.

 

 

So when an impersonalist of any school describes that sort of liberation to the devotee, the devotee curls his lips as if he has just heard a description of hell....which he indeed has.

again i agree with you.its not without reason that bhaktas are advised to stay clear of advaitists.thats because building up unflinching faith is the key to realization.faith is stepping stone of religion.but if any bhakta constantly hears to opposite theories,he might develope doubts.that would harm his bhakti which is in a developing state.that is why they are advised to stay out of advaitic discussions.no harm in that.this principle should be followed by adherents of every faith in their initial stages.

 

why do you think advaitists dont know anything of bhakt?infact in modern age its difficult to find a pure advaitin.almost all advaitists have turned into what is called neo advaita by developing concepts traditionally ascribed to bhakti,such as,kirtan,singing,japa,observing festivals etc.

 

ive tried to read through as many bhakti scriptures as possible,like bhagavad gita(including your as it is version),madhurya kadambini,a few cantos of bhagavatam etc.and the list would increase in future.

 

only i dont draw a line and say that god can be only this and not anything more than that.he is infinite,ananta rup,ananta bhav ,ananta rasa.my cnception of god tells me(not made up by me,of course)that he is sakar,nirakar,saguna ,nirgauna all at the same time,he is everything and also in everything.i dont try to limit him even by a fragment.there is no cause to think that as because he is saakar he cannot be nirakaar at the same time or vice versa.if he is infinite,he can be what we can comprehend and also what we can never comprehend due to our conditioned nature and material bodies.

[kaisersose]

 

The meaning of Bhakti, very few understands.

 

And you know this, how?

 

 

To be true, the real meaning of Bhakti can never be conveyed with words, that's why I'll refrain to do so.

 

If the meaning cannot be conveyed by words, how did you understand the meaning?

 

Yes, I know, unlike yourself, most of us here are fools for trying to communicate through words, but please indulge us nonetheless and answer our simple questions.

 

Cheers

[Amlesh]

 

And you know this, how?

 

 

 

By Surrender.

I never really endeavoured for knowing anything but it came to me.

Surrender means you don't use this thinking of I'm the source of Intelligence.

You leave everything to the Sweet Lord. That word struggle becomes loose.

Are you fearless concerning death?

Do you care about honor and dishonor?

Do you fear losing your possessions and left struggling in the road or footpath?

 

None of you right?

So how can you expect Hari to care of you and reveal you Bhakti.

 

You all are here to seek Hapiness but Bhakti means something else as well as what you all might think.

 

 

If the meaning cannot be conveyed by words, how did you understand the meaning?

 

Yes, I know, unlike yourself, most of us here are fools for trying to communicate through words, but please indulge us nonetheless and answer our simple questions.

 

Cheers

unlike others, Krishna is not Theory for me... I live with him in practice.

 

Krishna says in the Gita, "I'll take care of you, just surrender."

 

It's the way Bhakti has been revealed to me.

 

Well asking me about Bhakti is not the orthodox or normal way of knowing something about Bhakti, you need to ask then one who really can explain something about it.

 

Just wait patiently and be a good boy till activation.

 

I'll stick to what I said earlier, "To be true, the real meaning of Bhakti can never be conveyed with words, that's why I'll refrain to do so."

[theist]

 

why do you think advaitists dont know anything of bhakt?infact in modern age its difficult to find a pure advaitin.almost all advaitists have turned into what is called neo advaita by developing concepts traditionally ascribed to bhakti,such as,kirtan,singing,japa,observing festivals etc.

 

Again. Because Pure Bhakti is active and takes place on the liberated platform, not preceeding it.. No Advaitin I have ever heard of will agree to their being any activity between separate individuals post liberation.

 

When they say bhakti and when a Vaisnava says bhakti they are not talking about the same thing as you indicate in your quote above they only speak of certain religious practices usually associated with bhakti i.e. kirtans festivals etc.

[srikanthdk71]

 

They consider bhakti-yoga as a means to liberation. Then having obtained liberation the so-called bhakti ceases as the practioner and the practice merge into the brahman like a drop of water into the ocean.

 

But this is not Vaisnavism. The Vaisnava knows Bhakti to be eternal and actually begins in it's pure state after liberation from mis-identifying the self with matter and properly identifies the self as the eternal servant of the Supreme Person.

 

Theist, that was too good indeed. Hope all Vaishnavas understand and follow this. And they do. People like Dark_Warrior has all regards in all circles coz of his beautiful standpoints and even Bija was extatic in his bhakti. Kudos to them. But the bottom line is you never get liberated unless you cease these ornaments called Karma/Bhakti/Gnana. They are the final bondings onto liberation.

 

Anyway this doesnt apply to Iskonites who are not Vaishnavaites at all.

[suchandra]

Man's desire to be deathless is realized only in the spiritual world. A desire for eternal life is a sign of dormant spiritual life. The aim of human civilization should be targeted to that end. It is possible for every human being to transfer himself to that spiritual realm by the process of bhakti-yoga. It is a great science and India has produced many scientific literatures by which the perfection of life may be realized.

[Amlesh]

 

Again. Because Pure Bhakti is active and takes place on the liberated platform, not preceeding it.. No Advaitin I have ever heard of will agree to their being any activity between separate individuals post liberation.

 

When they say bhakti and when a Vaisnava says bhakti they are not talking about the same thing as you indicate in your quote above they only speak of certain religious practices usually associated with bhakti i.e. kirtans festivals etc.

Perfectly said.

 

The difference between [Advaita and other thoughts and novice Vaishnavite] compared to Pure Vaishnavism is that the former are means to become pure or strive to become pure... whereas pure Vaishnavism means working for the Supreme cause AND the one who decides that particular work plan is the Supreme Brahman.. the one is beyond all errors.

 

Krishna is Brahman and he orders via the Gita... each and every individual if ever lucky enough to be able to serve him will see his instruction set out.

The politician might see his politics and the businessman might see his business.

Each work whatever the nature is delt in Svadharma, the selfless mood.

Any other person except God whatever good he might think is always with error. When we tune our mind with that of God we are no longer called separatist and any action done in accordance to him never yields fruit... neither positive nor negative viz AKarma.

 

It means even when so-called liberated, the heart of a Vaishnava is always longing to serve the poor and ignorant which is selfless unlike others who are definately selfish.

 

However, all the so-called Vaishnava that you see are infact aspirant Vaishnava... to be Vaishnava or can be Vaishnava.

 

You'll be fortunate kaisersose if you happen to meet the Chosen One.

[sambya]

 

Again. Because Pure Bhakti is active and takes place on the liberated platform, not preceeding it.. No Advaitin I have ever heard of will agree to their being any activity between separate individuals post liberation.

i think by pure bhakti you mean raganuga bhakti or krishna prema,the highest stage.i agree that advaitins can never understand this bhakti(for arguments sake).but thats also the case with you.as a bhaktiyoga practitioner even you cant know that, at this early stage.then whats the point in talking about that.im trying to focus on the other aspects of these two paths.

[Amlesh]

 

i think by pure bhakti you mean raganuga bhakti or krishna prema,the highest stage.i agree that advaitins can never understand this bhakti(for arguments sake).but thats also the case with you.as a bhaktiyoga practitioner even you cant know that, at this early stage.then whats the point in talking about that.im trying to focus on the other aspects of these two paths.

I don't know according to Theist.

 

But for me... it is as such.

 

Well, you are mistaking Bhava with Bhakti. Though both goes hand in hand.

 

The level of Mercy [bhakti] received by Sri Hari depends on the level of Bhava, i.e., Prema.

 

It is said by many, that material nature is to be forsaken to achieve liberation, but according to Sri Krishna in the Gita.. it is not so. The revelation of Truth will be made when the individual will make use both of Spiritual and material energies. Hence the Author of the Gita draws no line of demarcation between these 2 energies... however one should know that they are distinct from each other.

 

The concept of Svadharma [which I'm the only one who always make reference to that] is that state where action is seen in inaction and inaction in action.

It uses the Varnashram Dharma as its basis of work and we are the means AND HE the director.

In that Event, whatever is needed to see will be seen.. both material and spiritually.. I mean its separated entities and its integration.

 

It is indeed harmful to neglect anyone of them. Advaita and other theories deal with knowing those elements and after that becoming so-called self satisfied but Vaishnavism means acting for others satisfaction, which, hahahaha Isckonites hardly do. But I don't expect much either.

 

That's why I always say.. Vedas is the Thesis which encourages material endeavors and Upanishad is the Anti Thesis which discourages material means and which is cent per cent for Spiritual ends.

 

And Beautifully, the Gita is that Synthesis.. which acts as the mediator between these 2 ends.

 

The different level of Bhava deals with the level of Bhakti achieved.

 

The Prema Bhava has been achieved during recent times by very very few like Mira Maata and Srimati Andal.

 

They get to be the closest to God.

[theist]

 

By Surrender.

I never really endeavoured for knowing anything but it came to me.

Surrender means you don't use this thinking of I'm the source of Intelligence.

You leave everything to the Sweet Lord. That word struggle becomes loose.

Are you fearless concerning death?

Do you care about honor and dishonor?

Do you fear losing your possessions and left struggling in the road or footpath?

 

None of you right?

So how can you expect Hari to care of you and reveal you Bhakti.

 

You all are here to seek Hapiness but Bhakti means something else as well as what you all might think.

 

 

unlike others, Krishna is not Theory for me... I live with him in practice.

 

Krishna says in the Gita, "I'll take care of you, just surrender."

 

It's the way Bhakti has been revealed to me.

 

Well asking me about Bhakti is not the orthodox or normal way of knowing something about Bhakti, you need to ask then one who really can explain something about it.

 

Just wait patiently and be a good boy till activation.

 

I'll stick to what I said earlier, "To be true, the real meaning of Bhakti can never be conveyed with words, that's why I'll refrain to do so."

 

Answered perfectly. Any more words would bring a dimishing return. It's like when some is hiking up a sloop to a high peak to get a good view they stop taking any more steps because more walking would only start their descent off the top.

 

Instead they prefer to just throw up their arms and exclaim "Oh my Lord, what inconceivable beauty". Then they encourage their fellow hikers to hurry their pace so that true may see the indescribable.

 

Beautiful Amlesh

[theist]

 

That's why I always say.. Vedas is the Thesis which encourages material endeavors and Upanishad is the Anti Thesis which discourages material means and which is cent per cent for Spiritual ends.

 

And Beautifully, the Gita is that Synthesis.. which acts as the mediator between these 2 ends.

 

Yes we see Arjuna using his svadharma of this life (kysatriya) to please the Supreme Personality Krishna. PLeasing Krishna is the soul's eternal dharma and the real svadharma according to Bhaktivinode Thakur.

 

Some see Arjuna as having his sense of duty restored by Krishna and turned into detached Karma-yogi in the process.

 

Others see Arjuna gaining a firm attachment to pleasing Krishna which includes as a secondary consideration detachment from matter, iow Bhakti.

 

"......inaction in action...."

[kaisersose]

I asked "how do you know that very few people understand Bhakti" and here is the response.

 

 

By Surrender. I never really endeavoured for knowing anything but it came to me.

 

Here are the problems with this logic.

 

1. Whatever just came to you on its own, does not give you any idea on someone else's understanding of Bhakti. You can only speak for yourself. A statement like "very few people understand bhakti" cannot follow from a personal experience.

2. If you did not endeavor for anything, then why did you surrender? There was no reason to do so.

 

 

Surrender means you don't use this thinking of I'm the source of Intelligence.

You leave everything to the Sweet Lord. That word struggle becomes loose.

Are you fearless concerning death?

Do you care about honor and dishonor?

Do you fear losing your possessions and left struggling in the road or footpath?

 

None of you right?

So how can you expect Hari to care of you and reveal you Bhakti.

 

If people decided to drop everything they are doing and turn towards Hari to provide them with their needs, then the whole concept of "perform your duty" as painstakingly laid out in the Gita goes for a toss. So in effect, you are disagreeing with the entire chapter 3 of the Gita.

 

Any interpretation of a text that requires rejecting part of the text, is to be dismissed as an invalid interpretation. Since you dismiss chapter 3 as incorrect, it follows that your interpretation of the entire Gita is incorrect.

 

 

 

unlike others, Krishna is not Theory for me... I live with him in practice.

 

Again, you are in no position to say or know how others relate to Krishna. You have not met and studied all the others to make such a statement.

 

 

Krishna says in the Gita, "I'll take care of you, just surrender."

It's the way Bhakti has been revealed to me.

 

Bhakti itself is a word; But as you claim that it is "beyond words", how do you know whatever was revealed to you is Bhakti? It is impossible to relate your experience to a word when the experience is beyond words (your own claim). Do you see the flaw in your logic? I can explain in more detail if necessary.

 

To put things in perspective, if Bhakti was beyond words as you put it, there would be no chapter 12 (Bhakti Yoga) in the Gita. Or the author should have written

 

"Sorry folks; Bhakti is beyond words, so nothing to write here. Moving onto chapter 13... "

 

But the author did not do that. He believed Bhakti can be understood through words and wrote 20 verses in that chapter, which shows you are disagreeing with him (again).

 

Cheers

[skdas3739@yahoo.co.in]

Our scriptures say that when you gradually take a dip into the ocean of bhakti, you will reduce talking and finally resort to silence- only silence.

 

The bhakti of the Gopikas towards Krishna is the supreme form of Bhakti which emanates from the purest form of hearts.

 

Om Radha Krishnabhyam Namoh

And you know this, how?

 

 

 

If the meaning cannot be conveyed by words, how did you understand the meaning?

 

Yes, I know, unlike yourself, most of us here are fools for trying to communicate through words, but please indulge us nonetheless and answer our simple questions.

 

Cheers

[kaisersose]

 

Our scriptures say that when you gradually take a dip into the ocean of bhakti, you will reduce talking and finally resort to silence- only silence.

 

The bhakti of the Gopikas towards Krishna is the supreme form of Bhakti which emanates from the purest form of hearts.

 

Om Radha Krishnabhyam Namoh

 

I would have to disagree with your interpretation. Bhakti means one of these - devotion, faith, worship.

 

1) Anyone who accepts Krishna or any God as a superior is already placing faith in the existence and superior nature of a God and hence has Bhakti.

 

2) Anyone who worships a God in anyway is a Bhakta and has Bhakti - it may be as simple as visiting a nearby temple, singing Bhajans on weekends to chanting a mantra on a daily basis, full-blown complex forms of worship.

 

3) Fervent devotion as displayed by people like Gora, Meera, Chaitanya, et al., is Bhakti too.

 

It is possible that in some cases, Bhakti may be relatively more intense and purer in form, but it is completely illogical to pick out one of these sets and discard everything else as not Bhakti.

 

Anyone who is a theist is a Bhakta at some level. It would be bigotry and arrogant to say his faith and/or devotion has to reach a certain level for it to qualify as Bhakti. No one has the authority to make up such discriminatory rules not to mention the ability to evaluate one'e level of devotion. It is not something that can be measured.

 

Cheers

[sambya]

hello amalesh,

i admit that i was not aware of this swadharma concept as you explain it.could you elaborate it a bit further for my knowledge? and who was srimati andal.like to know more about her.

actually its a wrong statement that advaitins have no understanding of real vaishnavism.some really do.but yes,one thing is for sure.its not possible for a advaitin to know each and every details of bhaktiyoga in detail,for the simple fact that they are advaitins after all.can any vaishnava know shakta or advaitic doctrine in perfect detailing?never.

sad that i wont be there for next few days.i'll check the posts to my questions once i return.

[Amlesh]

 

I asked "how do you know that very few people understand Bhakti" and here is the response.

 

 

sorry buddy, I'm from a French speaking country.. English is not so much popular here.. so understand my situation.

 

Ok I'll answer you. It is said by Sri Hari himself in the Gita, "such a pious birth is indeed very very rare in this world."

 

 

Here are the problems with this logic.

 

1. Whatever just came to you on its own, does not give you any idea on someone else's understanding of Bhakti. You can only speak for yourself.

2. If you did not endeavor for anything, then why did you surrender? There was no reason to do so.

 

Haha.. really intelligent from your part.

In response I should say... When everything become loss to you, then there are several destinations that you can have.. some of them are

1. Become more miserable

2. Chose vice

3. Become harsh

4. et al

 

For my case, I never took any school of thought...

Hari is in my heart, he knows everything and which is which...

During my worst moments in my life, where the destination was unknown and the path unseen, I could have easily chosen any destination, whether good or bad.

But how the Gita came into my life is a very very interesting story which I'll keep for myself. Again why, because it is a secret amd it is told in the Gita as such, if I'll tell you that, you won't understand, cause you are still attach to material stuffs.

But remember, who become the object of circumstance and the seer of God, only Ram Jaane.

 

 

If people decided to drop everything they are doing and turn towards Hari to provide them with their needs, then the whole concept of "perform your duty" as painstakingly laid out in the Gita goes for a toss. So in effect, you are disagreeing with the entire chapter 3 of the Gita.

 

Any interpretation of a text that requires rejecting part of the text, is to be dismissed as an invalid interpretation. Since you dismiss chapter 3 as incorrect, your interpretation of the Gita is incorrect.

 

That's what is your misunderstanding.

 

understand this clearly, Krishna is not my servant.. I'm his servant.

 

A true devotee does not care for any personal material needs, understand the purport of Jada Bharata, Lord rsabhadeva, King Rantideva et al.

 

Boy, this thing is a fact.. depending on your degree of deviation to the Lotus feet of Hari, proportionately you are attracted to Maya.

 

Bhakti means working for God and to be chosen one means to be completely liberated and pure.. in the sense no fear at all...

Fear from hunger

Fear from miseries

Fear from death

Fear of Dishonor et al.

 

 

 

Again, you are in no position to say or know how others relate to Krishna. You have not met and studied all the others to make such a statement.

 

It's not me who says so.. the one who spoke was Krishna. arjuna spoke in the 1st Chapter exclusively.. the rest Krishna took over.

 

I listen to Gita and of course, whatever I say to you is said in the Gita.

For example "sa Mahatma sudulabaha" and "that knowledge is a supreme secret".

 

Where I did I judge personally?

 

See this is the funny thing about you all. When some quotes, people says, "Why are you quoting and relate your personal realisations" and when you relate your personal realisations, you people say "who are you to judge or say such thing". Suit yourself baby. Next time you tell me exactly what you like. I'll satisfy you.

 

 

Bhakti itself is a word; But as you claim that it is "beyond words", how do you know whatever was revealed to you is Bhakti? It is impossible to relate your experience to a word when the experience is beyond words (your claim). Do you see the flaw in your logic? I can explain in more detail if necessary.

 

 

 

'The higher knowledge is that by which the Indestructible is apprehended' (Mu. Up. I, 1, 5);

'By whom it is not thought, by him it is thought; he by whom it is thought knows it not. It is not known by those who know it, known by those who do not know it' (Kena . Upanishad II, 3);

'Thou mayest not see the seer of sight; thou mayest not think the thinker of thought' (Bri. Upanishad. III, 4, 2);

 

 

To put things in perspective, if Bhakti was beyond words as you put it, there would be no chapter 12 (Bhakti Yoga) in the Gita. Or the author should have written

 

"Sorry folks; Bhakti is beyond words, so nothing to write here. Moving onto chapter 13... "

 

Cheers

Nope you are wrong, Bhakti starts when Gita classes was over. It was Arjuna who displayed that accompanied by the Lord.

 

Gita lessons are the mean to achieve Bhakti, after hearing and surrendering and accepting to serve.. Bhakti was revealed to Arjuna.

 

This is the problem when you learrn like a parrot.

I was since a child known to have a particular dislike for mugging up.

I like the school of Experience.

 

The Bhagvata Dharma is not something really based on Books.. sure Books also has its importance.

 

But the best way to explain that Bhagvat dharma lies when all books are closed and you open your heart to let the Avadh Bihari/Kunja Bihari who is known to resides in our heart speak with you.

 

For that you need a minimum of purity and fearlessness.

 

continue with your path, till one day, that gate is also opened to you.

 

Who said that Vaishnavism is blinkered, our Krishna is the only one who always thinks us green. He waits impatiently for us to turn towards him, in the meantime you can continue asking foolish and pathetic questions as it has alwys been your Trade Mark.

[Amlesh]

 

hello amalesh,

i admit that i was not aware of this swadharma concept as you explain it.could you elaborate it a bit further for my knowledge? and who was srimati andal.like to know more about her.

actually its a wrong statement that advaitins have no understanding of real vaishnavism.some really do.but yes,one thing is for sure.its not possible for a advaitin to know each and every details of bhaktiyoga in detail,for the simple fact that they are advaitins after all.can any vaishnava know shakta or advaitic doctrine in perfect detailing?never.

sad that i wont be there for next few days.i'll check the posts to my questions once i return.

 

I'll tell you in deep detail about Svadharma but I'll need time from you, it is good that you are going to come after some days, I'll have all the time.

 

Srimati Andal is one of the Alwars who desired to marry only Sri Hari.

His father also was among the Alwars. You can make a google search on Alwars.. if you need more material on them.. I'll try provide.

 

No one knows really with perfection Vaishnavism except the 12 Mahajanas.

I understand my own position and the position of others.

 

You are always welcome, anytime.

[theist]

 

Theist, that was too good indeed. Hope all Vaishnavas understand and follow this. And they do. People like Dark_Warrior has all regards in all circles coz of his beautiful standpoints and even Bija was extatic in his bhakti. Kudos to them. But the bottom line is you never get liberated unless you cease these ornaments called Karma/Bhakti/Gnana. They are the final bondings onto liberation.

 

Anyway this doesnt apply to Iskonites who are not Vaishnavaites at all.

 

Nope.

 

Sorry srikanth but you also missed it. Liberation is not the goal of sadhana-bhakti, although of course all practioners desire freedom from birth and death in the beginning. Lord Caitanya prayed for unending devotional service birth after birth. Service to Krishna is the goal not liberation. Which is another way of Suddha-bhakti is the goal of sadhana-bhakti. To such a person liberation is already present but he doesn't really even notice it because he is absorbed in Loving Krishna i.e. Bhakti.

 

A Vaisnava will never accept sayuja. It is hell to them.

 

Until this point is grasped we have no idea what Vaisnavism is.

 

 

Also why the constant need to thrown stones at Iskcon members? I am aware of the deviations and some of the horrors the present leaders have inflicted on Iskcon.

 

On the other hand I am also aware of pious devotional lifestyle of the rank and file devotee in Iskcon. Matching my daily life and their daily lives one quickly sees what's what.

 

It is about 10:00am as I write this. I have not chanted one round on my mala whereas the devotees in the iskcon temple down the street have been up since 3:30 chanting japa, offering puja, dressing the Deities, cleaning the temple and have long since finished a group Bhagavatam class.

 

I am a clump of dirt compared to them. I don't have much good to say about the leadership but there is so much more to Iskcon then them.

[theist]

 

i think by pure bhakti you mean raganuga bhakti or krishna prema,the highest stage.i agree that advaitins can never understand this bhakti(for arguments sake).but thats also the case with you.as a bhaktiyoga practitioner even you cant know that, at this early stage.then whats the point in talking about that.im trying to focus on the other aspects of these two paths.

 

It's true from my position I can't understand the goal in actuality. Same with the aspiring Advaitin. But we both can understand that there is a major difference in our goals.

 

You may be trying to focus on other aspects but the purpose of this thread is to show the Advaitins here that they have no real understanding of Bhakti.

[kaisersose]

 

i think by pure bhakti you mean raganuga bhakti or krishna prema,the highest stage.i agree that advaitins can never understand this bhakti(for arguments sake).

 

Sorry, I disagree. The Advaitin is capable of the highest level of Bhakti possible.

 

The Shaiva or Vaishnava has no special "one-up" over the Advaitin wrt., Bhakti. One who takes the above position either does not understand Bhakti or Advaita or possibly both.

 

But if you are referring to some kind of Bhakti which ignores the concept of Moksha, then you are in violation of Krishna's diect message in the Gita. Such a concept is also peculiar to Gaudiya Vaishnavism and is rejected by mainstream Vaishnava groups. In which case, the thread should actually be renamed more appropriately as "Dvaita, V-Dvaita Advaita, etc., have no understanding of Gaudiya Vaishnavism".

 

But they do! Everyone knows the Gaudiya position and reject it as false because Gaudiya Vaishnavism is not based on mainstream scripture. ISKCON here means Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

 

http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/iskcon.shtml

 

Cheers

[bhaktajan]

"Bhakti starts when Gita classes was over. (amlesh)" --So Cool!