Namaste Murthyji,

" So, for discussing this question, we take jnAna-mArga as
one of investigation, vicAra, jignAsa, contemplation. We
take bhakti-mArga as one of devotion (at the highest,
devotion is to the SELF, but bhakti in a dualistic jagat
exhibits itself as devotion to personal God, saguNa brahman.).
With that understanding of jnAna and bhakti, my response to
shri Ranjit-ji's question

(a) jnAna without bhakti becomes intellectualism, cold, dry
and formal and does not lead to moksha.

(b) bhakti without jnAna becomes an aimless exercise of
emotion, and can become narrow and dogmatic and does
not lead to moksha.

(c) jnAna *with* bhakti or bhakti *with* jnAna still does
not lead to moksha, because there is still duality
(both in what is known as bhakti and also still seeing
difference between jnAna and bhakti)."


There are some things which I would like to mention.

a) What you said can be rephrased as "jnAna with bhakti wont help. jnAna and
*Advaitic* bhakti is the path."

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

Nairji is pursuing *Advaitic-jnAna* and *partial-advaitic-bhakti*.
*partial-advaitic-bhakti* means he sees *Devi* with all the attributes(saguna)
in everything (One in All - Advaitic).
I believe Nairji himself is best to comment on this. Nairji, sorry for dragging
you into this. But your explaination will be worth reading since I too have an
Ishta-devata.

b) Should we say that saguna bhakti is the first step in Advaitic bhakti? Or
maybe jnAna marga will ultimately lead one to advaitic bhakti where he worships
the nirguna-para-brahman who is behind all that is.

c) If seeing the difference between jnAna and bhakti is dualism, what about
differentiating karma and jnAna? Isnt that too dualism?

Om
ranjeet





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Namaste Shri Ranjeet,

I know your question is to Shri Nair and I am sure he will reply. But the
question reminded me of of one of the quotes of Ramana Maharshi and I simply had
to share it with all.

Questioner : What would you advise - should I worship God with form or God
without form?

Maharshi : As long as you think you are this body, worship God with form. When
you know that you are not this body as certainly and as constantly as you know
that you are not a cow, you can worship God without form.

I get a feeling from the Maharshi's reply that Bhakti is always needed - both
before and after the awakening to jnana. It is never either-or between Bhakti
and Jnana. But most unfortunately that is what seems to have happened in my own
case. In all this pursuit of Jnana, I somewhere seem to have lost my capacity
for Bhakti. And it is not a nice thing to happen. Helped by Shri Nair's ecstatic
outpourings on this list, I hope to reconnect to Bhakti sooner than later.

Regards,
Venkat

Ranjeet Sankar <thefinalsearch@...> wrote:

b) Should we say that saguna bhakti is the first step in Advaitic bhakti? Or
maybe jnAna marga will ultimately lead one to advaitic bhakti where he worships
the nirguna-para-brahman who is behind all that is.





---------------------------------
Yahoo! Plus - For a better Internet experience


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Namaste Venkatji,

"I get a feeling from the Maharshi's reply that Bhakti is always needed - both
before and after the awakening to jnana. It is never either-or between Bhakti
and Jnana. But most unfortunately that is what seems to have happened in my own
case. In all this pursuit of Jnana, I somewhere seem to have lost my capacity
for Bhakti."

You took the words out of my mouth ! I dont feel like sitting in front of a idol
and chanting bhajans. But I do feel a sort of respect for the *Universal mind*
who is behind all. And moreover I'm not able to equate my Ishta-Devata to the
*Universal mind*. Somehow I feel that my Ishta-devata is limited whereas
*Universal mind* (All-pervading Brahman) is unlimited.

Om
ranjeet



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Namaste Ranjeet-Ji.

Whether you are dragging me in or not, I feel I am dragged in and I
am already in. It doesn't matter.

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

First of all you have started from certain premises, i.e. Murthyji's
statements. I may or may no accept his views – that is another
thing. If your doubt emanates from his statements, you ought to have
it clarified by him and I am sure he will write to you in due course.

About my position, I would like to state as below since I am referred
to in your post:

I am not a stOtriya. I have never been comfortable with terminology,
particularly invented ones and in situations where life is easier
without them.

I don't accept that any duality really exists. There is only
Consciousness. Imagine you can see down to the level of atoms. You
are looking at a solution of pure common salt. What would you see?
Myriad number of atoms of Sodium, Chlorine, Hydrogen, Oxygen and
interatomic or intramolecular space. But, what you are looking at is
just a solution.

In a similar manner, in whichever way I look, I see only
Consciousness. When I say I see, the "I" doesn't exist because I
and my seeing are fused together in that "seen". When I recall that
I have seen, then again I and my "seeing the recall" are fused
together in that recall. When I get (feel) that "I"-ness, then
nothing else exists – I am merged in that "I"-ness. Thus, in my
opinion, at no time is there any duality. There is only Sodium
Chloride solution – Consciousness permeating `everything'. This is
beautifully summarized in Devi MAhAtmyA when Mother is
extolled: "citirUpENa yA kristnamEtad vyApya stitA jagat,
namastasyai namastasyai namastasyai namOnamaha" (Salutations to Her
again and again who pervades all this jagat as Consciousness").

But, yet the question pops up – isn't there a feeling of duality in
all our daily transactions? Yes. There is. And that is ignorance,
which advaita helps remove. You have a blackboard fully written with
errors. You have a duster. What is the point in lamenting "Oh, my
board is fully written, I can't write any more, Oh my board is fully
written, I can't write any more". Erase the writings with the
duster. The clean board remains.

In a similar manner, having learnt advaita, if I keep
lamenting: "Oh, there is duality, Oh, there is duality", then I am
to be blamed. Definitions and terminology help in acquiring
knowledge. (They help in trapping others too.) But, a stage comes
when we don't need them any more like a child leaves its props after
it has learnt walking. If, therefore, you want to look at the atoms
and invent duality saying this is Sodium, this is Oxygen etc. etc. –
it is your choice. Then you will have a Saguna Brahman, defining
which is not my business because I don't need it or see it. There is
only Brahman, Consciousness, my Mother. Even I don't exist there.
If I feel otherwise, I should know that that is ignorance and call
Her forthwith.

Now, you may say this is all big talk. Nair is claiming to be
liberated and enlightened. Sorry, Sir. I don't believe in any
liberation or enlightenment. The unbound is never unleashed. Light
need not carry a torch to find its way.

There are no two paths called bhakti marga and jnAna marga. (There
is a discussion about this in our archives with reference to BG. I
am not able to locate it straightaway.). There is also no partial-
advaitic bhakti – the invented term you have labeled my views under.
There is only jnAna, and bhakti goes with it. This, I believe, is
what Mruthy-ji said and I have no disagreement with him there.

In a nutshell, Devi is Consciousness and She is Me everywhere in
everything. I don't `see' Her in everything, I am Her in
everything. Please note the difference. And, if this awareness
brings about any feeling of happiness or, say, bliss – as people like
to call it - well then that bliss is verily me. In that bliss, a
separate "I" as an enjoyer doesn't exist. If I feel that separation,
then that is ignorance again and I will call Her name aloud to
remove that ignorance.

You know advaita but, sadly, haven't still stopped lamenting about
saguna Brahman. Isn't it a tragedy then that, on top of all that,
you want to ensure that others are also lamenting?

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair


--- In advaitin (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, "Ranjeet Sankar" > (a) jnAna and
also still seeing

> There are some things which I would like to mention.
>
> a) What you said can be rephrased as "jnAna with bhakti wont help.
jnAna and *Advaitic* bhakti is the path."
>
> ********* Nairji, are you hearing this?? *********
>
> Nairji is pursuing *Advaitic-jnAna* and *partial-advaitic-bhakti*.
*partial-advaitic-bhakti* means he sees *Devi* with all the attributes
(saguna) in everything (One in All - Advaitic).
> I believe Nairji himself is best to comment on this. Nairji, sorry
for dragging you into this. But your explaination will be worth
reading since I too have an Ishta-devata.
>
> b) Should we say that saguna bhakti is the first step in Advaitic
bhakti? Or maybe jnAna marga will ultimately lead one to advaitic
bhakti where he worships the nirguna-para-brahman who is behind all
that is.
>
> c) If seeing the difference between jnAna and bhakti is dualism,
what about differentiating karma and jnAna? Isnt that too dualism?

Namaste Nairji,

I think you got my intentions all wrong.

"The answer to your doubt is very simple, at least from my point of
view." - This is exactly what I needed and what I got.

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

First of all, I dont know Advaita very much..I'm just licking on its
surface..but I do have a desire to go deep. From my childhood days I was told
numerous stories of many Gods..I was told to pray to Rama, Krishna and 10,000
others Gods and semi-Gods. One fine day I read some books and find that all that
I thought to be true was indeed false..there is only one Brahman. I also met
people with similar thoughts. What will my poor mind do? It will be in a
confused state...But I sure have to reconcile both. So all this is not
*lamenting*..it is my poor mind and intellect trying to *reconcile*.

"Isn't it a tragedy then that, on top of all that,
you want to ensure that others are also lamenting?"

Nairji, I've never thought that others are lamenting over the same thing..What
good will it do to me if I think like that? I just wanted to learn the *trick*
from you. Please note that I didnt mean to target you. I apologize if my
language (*partial-advaitic-bhakti*) had offended you in any way.

Maybe I should learn a thing or two about communication. My language is leaving
ample room for (mis)interpretations. I just wonder what would have happened if
one of the Upanishad rishi had my kind of language. Instead of the 50
interpretations we have, we would have ended up with 15,000 translations and
interpretations to bury our heads in.

Om
ranjeet





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Namaste Sri Ranjeet!

>From my childhood days I was told numerous stories of many
>Gods..I was told to pray to Rama, Krishna and 10,000 others
>Gods and semi-Gods. One fine day I read some books and find
>that all that I thought to be true was indeed false..there
>is only one Brahman. I also met people with similar thoughts.
>What will my poor mind do? It will be in a confused state...
>But I sure have to reconcile both. So all this is not *lamenting*
>...it is my poor mindand intellect trying to *reconcile*.

This statement is quite fascinating to me as a 'ferengi', coming as
it does from an 'authentic' natural-born Indian Hindu ... and surely
you are this!. It seems that all of the books I've read about
Hinduism say things like, 'In their daily lives Hindus worship many
Gods, but they all know deep inside that those Gods are merely
symbols of the infinite, eternal, omnipresent, ineffable Brahman'.
It seems that such a simplistic description of Hindu faith is an
over-generalization.

What's particularly interesting to me is that the most abstract and
elevated thoughts about God ever thought by humans were first thought
thousands of years ago by the Rishis in the Upanishads. This is
hardly a recent discovery in Mother India! I guess Hinduism is a
vast quiltwork of different religious ideas and feelings, depending
on social background, education, etc.

But I don't think it matters that much. As I said before, it is the
'state of consciousness' that matters, not the ideas. I know
intuitively that this state can exist in a true devotee, regardless
of his or her ideas and conceptualizations. The so-called 'state of
consciousness' is like the blue sky encompassing all, and the
thoughts and feelings are mere clouds passing by. Perhaps jnana is
only necessary for so-called intelligent and educated people, trapped
as they are in their cobwebs of thought.

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

Om!
Benjamin

Namste Benjaminji,

"It seems that all of the books I've read about
Hinduism say things like, 'In their daily lives Hindus worship many
Gods, but they all know deep inside that those Gods are merely
symbols of the infinite, eternal, omnipresent, ineffable Brahman'.
It seems that such a simplistic description of Hindu faith is an
over-generalization."

That is absolutely wrong. In my experience, about 99% of the Hindus I know (that
includes my family members and relatives) do not belong to that class. I admit
that even the word *Brahman* was new to me 4 months ago !

"What's particularly interesting to me is that the most abstract and
elevated thoughts about God ever thought by humans were first thought
thousands of years ago by the Rishis in the Upanishads. This is
hardly a recent discovery in Mother India! I guess Hinduism is a
vast quiltwork of different religious ideas and feelings, depending
on social background, education, etc."

Swami Chinmayananda has explained the thought process of the upanishad rishis in
his translation of "IshAvAsya upanishad". It is really great. He says that the
rishis were trying to define *life* first. Then they found that *life* is a
continous experience. Having reached that conclusion they tried to define
*experience*. Then they found that *experience* involves 3 factors viz.
*experiencer* (subject), *experienced* (object), and *experiencing* (process).
After much efforts they found that the world which we experience is infact a
projection of our Self. Finally they concluded that inquiry into the Self is
what is required and it will explain everthing and so they started searching
answers to the Self.

Om
ranjeet



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Namaste Sri Ranjeet,

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

This is scandalous, absolutely scandalous !!!

It must be the fault of the pseudo-secularists! Oh well, maybe I'd
better not go there...

:-)

Om!
Benjamin

On Sun, 18 May 2003, Ranjeet Sankar wrote:

>
> There are some things which I would like to mention.
>
> a) What you said can be rephrased as "jnAna with bhakti wont help. jnAna and
*Advaitic* bhakti is the path."
>
> ********* Nairji, are you hearing this?? *********
>
> Nairji is pursuing *Advaitic-jnAna* and *partial-advaitic-bhakti*.
*partial-advaitic-bhakti* means he sees *Devi* with all the attributes(saguna)
in everything (One in All - Advaitic).
> I believe Nairji himself is best to comment on this. Nairji, sorry for
dragging you into this. But your explaination will be worth reading since I too
have an Ishta-devata.
>

namaste.

The only true statement is jnAna is bhakti.

"Partial advaita bhakti, partial advaita jnAna" these terms,
in my understanding, have no meaning really.

I saw shri Madathil-ji response to this post and I must say I agree
with him. However, I cannot say that my spirituality has matured to
the extent that I see only shri lalitA everywhere all the time but
I see Her constantly by my side.

> b) Should we say that saguna bhakti is the first step in Advaitic bhakti? Or
maybe jnAna marga will ultimately lead one to advaitic bhakti where he worships
the nirguna-para-brahman who is behind all that is.
>

nirguNa brahmopAsana is more difficult than sagunA brahmopAsana
(BG 12.5). SaguNa brahmopAsana leads to nirguNa brahmopAsana.
I say this based on the nine stages of bhakti discussed in
shrimadbhAgavatam; the last stage is Atmanivedana, the earlier
stages being where the worshipper and the worshipped are
separate.


> c) If seeing the difference between jnAna and bhakti is dualism, what about
differentiating karma and jnAna? Isnt that too dualism?
>

Wherever there is karma, there is the doer of karma which the
ego claims. shri shankara's logic in saying karma does not lead
to moksha is given in all the prakaraNa granthA-s.


> Om
> ranjeet
>



Regards
Gummuluru Murthy
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tell me, Murthyji, what is near or far, by my side or everywhere, for
an advaitin! Tadaijati tannaijati taddUrE tadantikE.... (Is. Up.)!

Madathil Nair
________________________


--- In advaitin (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...>
wrote:
>
> I saw shri Madathil-ji response to this post and I must say I agree
> with him. However, I cannot say that my spirituality has matured to
> the extent that I see only shri lalitA everywhere all the time but
> I see Her constantly by my side.

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

> Tell me, Murthyji, what is near or far, by my side or everywhere, for
> an advaitin! Tadaijati tannaijati taddUrE tadantikE.... (Is. Up.)!
>
> Madathil Nair
> ________________________
>
>
> --- In advaitin (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...>
> wrote:
> >
> > I saw shri Madathil-ji response to this post and I must say I agree
> > with him. However, I cannot say that my spirituality has matured to
> > the extent that I see only shri lalitA everywhere all the time but
> > I see Her constantly by my side.
>

namaste.

What I meant to say there was:

I see shri lalitA next to me all the time. I see Her when
I drive, I see Her when I lecture and I see Her when I sit
in my pUjA-room for meditation. I see Her directing every
step of my life. I always consider that, whatever I do,
whtever I think, whatever I write, whatever I talk, it is
all Her word.

I do not know if my devotion has matured to the extent that
I see the world as Her, instinctively. She is sarvaprapanca-
nirmAtrI, but yet, I think for me it seems that is still
intellectual knowledge only. If that knowledge were a fully
established knowledge, then, I shouldn't see any difference
between me and the next person.

I see the IshAvAsya upanishad mantra, but can I say that it
is fully an inherent part of me. I do not know.

Regards
Gummuluru Murthy
--------------------------------------------------------------------