Guest guest Report post Posted May 1, 2003 namaste. I was asked to write the lead article on the topic "bhakti and j~nAna" and, in general, coordinate the discussion along with shri sunder hattangadi. Bhakti and j~nAna in the ultimate lead to the same reality. Their approaches are different. First let us understand what the terms mean. J~nAnam is the definite, unhesitating and continuous thinking that everything is Consciousness and I am the Consciousness. J~nAnam is knowledge of brahman or realization of brahman. The body-mind-intellect complex which falsely takes over as the I is not the real I but is simply an adhyAsa, a superimposition on the real I, the Consciousness. shri shankara, in His classic work VivekacUDAmaNi says in verse 424 "ahambhAvodayAbhAvo bodhasya paramAvadhiH" [the absence of the rise of the sense of i of the ego is the culmination of Knowledge.]. i.e., when the ego does not rise its ugly head anymore, that is the culmination of Knowledge. In the same VivekacUDAmaNi, verses 31 and 32, shri shankara describes bhakti. moksha-kAraNa sAmagryAm bhaktireva garIyasI sva-svarUpAnusandhAnam bhaktirityabhidhIyate 31 Among all means of liberation, devotion (bhakti) is the supreme. To seek earnestly to know one's real nature - this is said to be devotion. sv'Atma-tattv'AnusandhAnam bhaktirityapare jaguH ukta-sAdhana-saMpannaH tattva-jignAsurAtmanaH upasIded guruM prAjnaM yasmAd bandha-vimokshaNam.h 32 Others say that the continuous contemplation of the truth of one's Atman is bhakti. The seeker after the reality of the Atman, who possesses the above-mentioned qualifications (shri shankara is referring to sAdhana catuShTayam here as the requisite qualifications. Please see further below for a more complete discussion of these qualifications), should approach an illumined teacher from whom he can learn the way to liberation. In this devotion, the individual surrenders his/her highest, i.e. the ego. It merges with the SELF, the Atman or it (the ego) does not consider itself to be separate from the SELF. If we have this ultimate Knowledge, then, obviously, we have the highest understanding. bhakti As we strive for that ultimate understanding, we go through various gradations of understanding both of jnAnam and of bhakti. When we see duality all around us, we naturally ascribe the reason for the creation of the dualistic jagat to Ishwara, the personal God. Our spirituality, which is a result of our pUrvajanma-sukr^itam (good deeds done in the previous lives), exhibits itself as bhakti toward that personal God. The term bhakti comes from the root word bhaj which means to be attached to God. Bhakti is devotion for devotion's sake. The devotee wants God and God alone. NArada bhaktisUtrA-s describe bhakti as "sAtvasmin parama premaswarUpA" [bhakti is described as the supreme devotion towards God]. True bhakti comes out of the realization of the transitory nature of life. In the advanced stage of bhakti, the bhakta does not even seek moksha but wishes to be always immersed or drowned in the ocean of bhakti or God-intoxication. There are various gradations of bhakti. In shrImadbhAgavatam, sage vyAsa describes the nine stages of bhakti. shravaNaM kIrtanaM viShNoH smaraNaM pAdasevanam.h arcanaM vandanaM dAsyaM sakhyam Atmanivedanam.h 1. shravaNam (hearing God's stories) 2. kIrtana (singing His glories) 3. smaraNa (remembering His name and presence) 4. pAdasevana (service of His feet) 5. archana (worship of God) 6. vandana (prostration to the Lord) 7. dAsya (cultivating the bhAva of servant to the Lord) 8. sakhya (cultivation of the bhAva of friendship) 9. Atmanivedana (complete surrender of the self) Bhakti comes naturally to those who are predominantly emotional in temperament. It is the approach of pure devotion, which is poured on the personal God. With shraddha, worship and self-surrender, the devotee attains direct perception of the God. When merging takes place and oneness is attained, the ego is completely lost. The barrier between the individual and the paramAtman is the ego, which is an ever-present enemy. It manifests as a feeling of separateness. Bhakti destroys this feeling of separateness, because in the ecstasy of pure love and devotion, the consciousness of the individual self is lost. Ego will be surrendered. In bhagavadgItA (BG7.16), Lord Krishna describes people who turn to bhakti as with from one of the four motivations: (i) distress can be a powerful factor. When all else has failed, there is no recourse left but to turn to God, (ii) curiosity is another impetus. Looking beyond the external trappings of worship, the mind seeks to understand what lies behind the symbolism and rituals, (iii) the desire for gain, whether it be of love, knowledge or wealth, etc. God is petitioned who will grant favours if approached with faith and devotion, (iv) the highest bhakti is self-less. The motivation is the simple desire to devotion and visualization of God. The ego will disappear with this attitude. Another description of bhakti is given by shri shankara in shivAnandalaharI, in verse 61. The shivAnandalaharI verse says: a~nkolam nijabIjasantatiH ayaskAntopalaM sUcikA sAdhvI nijavibhuM latA kshitiruhaM sindhuH saridvallabham.h prApnotIha yathA tathA pashupateH pAdAravindadvayaM cetovr^ittirupetya tiShThati sadA sA bhaktirityucyate 61 Just like the seeds from the ankola tree fall in the night and gather around the tree, the iron filings get attracted to the magnet, the chaste woman's thoughts are always on her husband, the creeper gets entwined around the tree, the river waters when they reach the ocean, loose their identity; the thoughts of the mindhaving reached the lotus feet of pashupati stay there; that is called bhakti. This verse has been commented on by various scholars discussing bhakti, including our own profvk-ji earlier. Profvk-ji's commentary can be accessed at advaitin/message/5300 [There are excellent discussions on bhakti and j~nAna during the month of June 2000 on our List and I would request members to go through the archives for that month for some very pertinent material.] Because of the importance of this verse in understanding advaita bhakti, at the risk of repeating earlier versions, I would like to discuss this a bit further. This verse presents a picture of bhakti from the dualistic worshipping stage to the ultimate advaita bhakti where the worshipper and the worshipped become one. The seeds of the ankola tree fall in the night and gather around the trunk of the tree. There are forces which scatter these seeds over a period of time. This is time-dependent bhakti; equivalent to that we do pUjA in the morning and after pUjA, we go to do our worldly duties. The iron filings get attracted to the magnet when they are close to the magnet; if they are not close-by, they do not feel the force of the magnet. This is place-dependent bhakti; equivalent that we think of God when we drive by a temple and we go on our worldly duties. The chaste woman continuously thinks of her husband, yet there is still duality; the two forms are separate. Even without the husband, she will survive. The creeper entwines itself around the tree. There is still duality, yet, without the tree, the creeper cannot survive. The river waters joining the ocean; while they have their identity before joining the ocean, once they join, they loose their identity. These are the gradations of bhakti, the highest form being when the devotee looses his/her identity and completely merges with God. j~nAnam Unlike bhakti, j~nAnam is much harder to describe and is that much harder to follow that approach. The minimum qualifications required are stressed in every prakaraNa grantha by shri shankara. The repetition itself shows how important shri shankara considers these minimum prerequisites are. They are the sAdhana catuShTayam which are 1. viveka or discrimination between the real and the unreal. This is the intuitive and unshakable conviction of the mind that brahman alone is real and all other things are unreal 2. vairAgya or renunciation: the utter disregard of all pleasures, ranging from the enjoyment of the sensuous objects of this world to the experience of the happiness one expects in heaven after death 3. ShaTsampatti or the six treasures. shama, dama, uparati, titIksha, samAdhAna and shraddha 4. mumukshutvam or the burning desire for liberation It is extremely hard to have these qualities or to acquire them. The six great enemies of the human (the ariShaDvargA-s) are kAma (desire), krodha (anger), lobha (miserliness), moha (passion), mada (pride) and mAtsarya (jealousy). They are always in the wait to pounce and occupy on unsuspecting sAdhakA-s. To keep these six great enemies at bay, purity of the heart is required. Purity of the heart comes only through intense sAdhana. While the viveka (discrimination between what is real and what is unreal) is a prerequisite, that discriminating power rests in the intellect. The intellect plays a negative part in the following way. Atmaj~nAna is intuitive knowledge and not derivable by logic. Logic is the main forte of the intellect. Intellect, while helpful with viveka, is also a big hurdle because it continuously puts objections with its logic against intuitive knowledge. So, in order to have intuitive knowledge, one has to go beyond logic, with shraddha as the guiding light. Then there is the ego, which falsely takes over as the I every time and claims to be doing the action and enjoying the fruit of action. While in reality, there is no ego, no action and no fruit of action. What this means is, we have been thrown into an illusionary world of mirrors where the concepts of ego and action appear very real. VivekacUDAmaNi calls it ahamkAravyAghravyathitam (being tormented by the tiger of ego). We have to climb our way out of that illusionary world and see the reality. What is intuited is our Atma, i.e., the subject has to turn inward and investigate the subject itself, a subject that has no shape, no attributes and is all-pervading. The upanishads are full of statements how hard this SELF-investigation is. kaTha upanishad says this investigation is similar to walking on a razor's edge. Thus, SELF-investigation, following the j~nAna-mArga is not for everyone; or another way to say is: j~nAna-mArga is only after a certain stage of human spiritual growth. Yet, if the above-mentioned prerequisites are all met, with turning the sense organs inward, and investigating the attributeless, formless all-pervading SELF, we will be blessed with intuitive knowledge of the SELF. That SELF that was intuited by the upanishadic sages gave them infinite bliss, a bliss which is different from the joys of everyday, so the upanishadic sages say. That Knowledge is superior to all intellectual knowledge and includes all intellectual knowledge. That Knowledge cannot be described except in a neti, neti (not this, not this) way. That Knowledge is beyond words and beyond description. The j~nAnam, to know what we are, is the toughest task a man can ever attempt. J~nAna-mArga and bhakti-mArga can be compared this way. J~nAna, the tougher and harder route can be hazardous without proper purity. One can get stuck and not progress at all and may even regress. Bhakti-mArga, on the other hand, is always progressive in the sense one may not regress. It is less hazardous. While there are these distinctions in the two 'routes', it can be argued that these are not two different routes but every sAdhaka's spiritual 'journey' has to include journey through both these routes. Over the month-long discussions, it is hoped that members would present their understanding as also the understandings from other sources. BhagavadgItA is full of discussions of bhakti and j~nana in every chapter. shri Sai Baba, shri ramakrishna, swami shivananda-ji and many other modern day sages and also sages of earlier times have presented their insights of this important topic. It is hoped that the learned members will bring interesting insights into the discussion. Regards Gummuluru Murthy -- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 1, 2003 shri Krishna Prasad-ji wrote on tuesday Apr. 29 with the subject header "One Question regarding God's Grace" > Hari OM! Blessed Ones, To be realized, the GOD's grace is very > important, How great a Jnani may be still with out "HIS" grace > he won't be a realized person. The GOD mentioning here is the > ISWARA which is the total mind, or The Brahman? Please, like > to have the views from learned members > > With Love & OM! > Krishna Prasad namaste. The following is my understanding and other members may give a more precise and complete answer to your question. BhagavadkR^ipa (God's Grace) is a must everything and it is always there for everyone. God is most impartial. This bhagavadkr^ipa as well as God Ishwara is in vyavahArika. And the God's Grace necessarily means the Grace of Ishwara. Brahman (i.e. nirguNa brahman) does not have any attributes like Grace. Regards Gummuluru Murthy ----- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 1, 2003 Dear G. Murthy, NirguNa brahman may not have attributes such as Grace or prasAda. But the very fact that you have been able to conceive such an entity makes it distinct and different from all other entities that you have already conceived such as entities which have attributes such as Grace, etc. Any such entity that has been mentally conceived has to have attributes. It is because of those attributes that you are able to distinguish that conception from the rest of your conceptions. Therefore "attributelessness" is a very special attribute of your conceived entity called "NirguNa Brahman". Thus you have to either say, NirguNa Brahman can't be conceived at all or you have to say NirguNa Brahman has attributes ( such as attributelessness ). You can pick only one of these and not both. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 1, 2003 Namaste, Sri Ramakrishna and Sri Ramana both used identical anlogies to describe Grace: " The breeze of Grace is always blowing, just adjust your sails to catch it! " Gita has these beautiful verses: sarvakarmaaNyapi sadaa kurvaaNo mad.hvyapaashrayaH . matprasaadaadavaapnoti shaashvataM padamavyayam.h .. 18\-56.. machchittaH sarvadurgaaNi matprasaadaattarishhyasi . atha chettvamaha.nkaaraanna shroshhyasi vinaN^kShyasi .. 18\-58.. tameva sharaNaM gachchha sarvabhaavena bhaarata . tatprasaadaatparaaM shaantiM sthaanaM praapsyasi shaashvatam.h .. 18\- 62.. Regards, Sunder advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote: > > > shri Krishna Prasad-ji wrote on tuesday Apr. 29 with the subject > header "One Question regarding God's Grace" >> > BhagavadkR^ipa (God's Grace) is a must everything and it is always > there for everyone. God is most impartial. This bhagavadkr^ipa > as well as God Ishwara is in vyavahArika. And the God's Grace > necessarily means the Grace of Ishwara. > > Brahman (i.e. nirguNa brahman) does not have any attributes > like Grace. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 2, 2003 advaitin, "Jay Nelamangala" <jay@r...> wrote: > Dear G. Murthy, > > NirguNa brahman may not have attributes such as Grace or prasAda. > But the very fact that you have been able to conceive such an entity > makes it distinct and different from all other entities that you have already > conceived such as entities which have attributes such as Grace, etc. > > Any such entity that has been mentally conceived has to have attributes. > It is because of those attributes that you are able to distinguish that > conception from the rest of your conceptions. Therefore "attributelessness" > is a very special attribute of your conceived entity called "NirguNa Brahman". > > Thus you have to either say, NirguNa Brahman can't be conceived at all or > you have to say NirguNa Brahman has attributes ( such as attributelessness ). > > You can pick only one of these and not both. ..... or perhaps pick something else. Something beyond a simple linear logic where all the propositions must line up in a row holding each others hands, since this concerns something beyond duality. For instance a person with experience might explain it thus... "The First Sermon The dead came back from Jerusalem, where they did not find what they were seeking. They asked admittance and demanded to be taught, and thus I taught them: I begin with nothing. Nothing is the same as fullness. In the endless state fullness is the same as emptiness. The Nothing is both empty and full. One may just as well state some other thing about the Nothing, namely that it is white or that it is black or that it exists or that it exists not. That which is endless and eternal has no qualities, because it has all qualities.The Nothing, or fullness, is called by us the Pleroma. In it thinking and being cease, because the eternal is without qualities. In it there is no one, for if anyone were, he then would be differentiated from the Pleroma and would possess qualities which would distinguish him from the Pleroma. In the Pleroma there is nothing and everything: it is not profitable to think about the Pleroma, for to do that would mean one's dissolution. The created world is not in the Pleroma, but in itself. The Pleroma is the beginning and end of the created world. The Pleroma penetrates the created world as the sunlight penetrates the air everywhere. Although the Pleroma penetrates it completely, the created world has no part of it, just as an utterly transparent body does not become either dark or light in color as the result of the passage of the light through it. We ourselves, however, are the Pleroma, so it is that the Pleroma is present within us. Even in the smallest point the Pleroma is present without any bounds, eternally and completely, for small and great are the qualities which are alien to the Pleroma. The Pleroma is the nothingness which is everywhere complete and without end. It is because of this that I speak of the created world as a portion of the Pleroma, but only in an allegorical sense, - for the Pleroma is not divided into portions, for it is nothingness. We, also, are the total Pleroma; for figuratively the Pleroma is an exceedingly small, hypothetical, even nonexistent point within us, and also it is the limitless firmament of the cosmos about us. Why, however, do we discourse about the Pleroma, if it is the all, and also nothing? I speak of it, in order to begin somewhere, and also to remove from You the delusion that somewhere within or without there is something absolutely firm and definite. All things which are called definite and solid are but relative, for only that which is subject to change appears definite and solid. The created world is subject to change. It is the only thing that is solid and definite, since it has qualities. In fact, the created world is itself but a quality. We ask the question: how did creation originate? Creatures indeed originated but not the created world itself, for the created world is a quality of the Pleroma, in the same way as the uncreated, - eternal death is also a quality of the Pleroma. Creation is always and everywhere, and death is always and everywhere. The Pleroma possesses all: differentiation and nondifferentiation. Differentiation is creation. The created world is indeed differentiated. Differentiation is the essence of the created world and for this reason the created also causes further differentiation. That is why man himself is a divider, inasmuch as his essence is also differentiation. That is why he distinguishes the qualities of the Pleroma, yea, those qualities which do not exist. These divisions man draws from his own being. This then, is the reason for man discoursing about the qualities of the Pleroma, which do not exist. You say to me: What good is it then to talk about this, since it has been said that it is useless to think about the Pleroma? I say these things to you in order to free you from the illusion that it is possible to think about the Pleroma. When you speak of the divisions of the Pleroma, we are speaking from the position of our own divisions, and we speak about our own differentiated state, but while we do this, we have in reality said nothing about the Pleroma. However, it is necessary for us to talk about our own differentiation, for this enables us to discriminate sufficiently. Our essence is differentiation. For this reason we must distinguish individual qualities. You say: What harm does it not do to discriminate, for then we reach beyond the limits of our own being, we extend ourselves beyond the created world, and we fall into the undifferentiated state which is another quality of the pleroma? We submerge into the Pleroma itself, and we cease to be created beings. Thus we become subject to dissolution and nothingness. Such is the very death of the created being. We die to the extent that we fail to discriminate. For this reason the natural impulse of the created being is directed toward differentiation and toward the struggle against the ancient, pernicious state of sameness. The natural tendency is called Principium Individuationis (Principle of Individuation). This principle is indeed the essence of every created being. From these things you may readily recognize why the undifferentiated principle and lack of discrimination are all a great danger to created beings. For this reason we must be able to distinguish the qualities of the Pleroma. Its qualities are the pairs of opposites, such as the effective and the ineffective, fullness and emptiness, the living and the dead, difference and sameness, light and dark, hot and cold, energy and matter, time and space, good and evil, the beautiful and the ugly, the one and the many and so forth. The pairs of opposites are the qualities of the Pleroma: they are also in reality nonexistent because they cancel each other out. Since we ourselves are the Pleroma, we also have these qualities present within us; inasmuch as the foundation of our being is differentiation, we possess these qualities in the name and under the sign of differentiation, which means: First -that the qualities are in us differentiated from each other, and they are separated from each other, and thus they do not cancel each other out, rather they are in action. It is thus that we are the victims of the pairs of opposites. For in us the Pleroma is rent in two. Second -the qualities belong to the Pleroma, and we can and should partake of them only in the name and under the sign of differentiation. We must separate ourselves from these qualities. In the Pleroma they cancel each other out; in us they do not. But if we know how to know ourselves as being apart from the pairs of opposites, then we have attained to salvation. When we strive for the good and the beautiful, we thereby forget about our essential being, which is differentiation, and we are victimized by the qualities of the Pleroma which are the pairs of opposites. We strive to attain to the good and the beautiful, but at the same time we also attain to the evil and the ugly, because in the Pleroma these are identical with the good and the beautiful. However, if we remain faithful to our nature, which is differentiation, we then differentiate ourselves from the good and the beautiful, and thus we have immediately also differentiated ourselves from the evil and the ugly. It is only thus that we do not merge into the Pleroma, that is, into nothingness and dissolution. You will object and say to me: Ypu have said that differentiation and sameness are also qualities of the Pleroma. How is it then when we strive for differentiation? Are we not then true to our natures and must we then also eventually be in the state of sameness, while we strive for differentiation? What you should never forget is that the Pleroma has no qualities. We are the ones who create these qualities through our thinking. When you strive after differentiation or sameness or after other qualities, you strive after thoughts which flow to you from the Pleroma, namely thoughts about the nonexistent qualities of the Pleroma. While you run after these thoughts, you fall again into the Pleroma and arrive at differentiation and sameness at the same time. Not your thinking but your being is differentiation. That is why you should not strive after differentiation and discrimination as you know these, but strive after your true nature. If you would thus truly strive, you would not need to know anything about the Pleroma and its qualities, and still you would arrive at the true goal because of your nature. However, because thinking alienates us from our true nature, therefore I must teach knowledge to you, with which you can keep your thinking under control." -- from Seven Sermons to the Dead, by C G Jung, trans by Stephen Hoeller Dan eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeooooooooooooooooooooooooommmmmmmmm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 2, 2003 Namaste all, Sorry but there are many words being posted below but the sudden death of a long-term Indian friend, causing problems for his family, and my wife's operation last week to replace worn out knees are events occupying much time. This subject was the motivation for me to join this group and I have posted many random thoughts in the past as well as references. I have at home some excellent and insightful papers on the subject that I photocopied while in India some years back but the photocopies are too poor to scan. They are from a conference called 'Shankara and Shanmata' set up by HH Shankaracharya of Kanchi Peetham in about 1963. They include some of his teaching on the subject. If anyone is really keen, and sends me a stamped addressed envelope, I will send copies. (contact me at the above e-mail address away from the site.) Below are three extracts: 1) This comes from an article I wrote on the subject in which I quote Ramana Maharshi. 2) This is from recorded conversations of Papa Ramdas of Anandashram and introduces the teachings on para-bhakti and Shankara. 3.) This is from a book called 'Rambles in Vedanta' written in about 1907 and follows a discussion of bhakti with one on para-bhakti and jnana. I have not had time to correct all the mis-scannings...sorry. I hope that they are of use. Ken Knight 1) Devotion in Advaita The first question may be, 'Why is he (Shankara) writing hymns of praise when he teaches non-duality?' Advaita is welcomed in the West because it allows us to play with spirituality while remaining 'in the head'. That advaita is quite definite also when describing the need to open the heart to the flow of grace is an idea frequently overlooked. The following is a quotation from the introduction to Shankara's great hymn Sivanandalahari. 'For the destruction of nescience one should have wisdom. Wisdom dawns through the grace of God. It is wrong to think that there is no place for God or for devotion in advaita. As a well known verse puts it: It is by God's grace that an inclination towards advaita comes to men…to two or three…that will save them great fear.' Bhagavan Sri Ramana, the greatest advaitan of the last century at least, has given us a selection of ten verses from the Sivanandalahari and rearranged their order so as to define devotion: 61. Devotion is constant contemplation of God. 76. When devotion fills the mind, life becomes worth while and fruitful. 83. There is no point in being devoted to what is finite and limited; the object of true devotion is the Infinite Reality, God. 6. Logic cannot be a substitute for devotion. Skill in the art of argumentation will not yield happiness It will only result in the weariness of mind. 65 The devotee meets with no such bitterness. He gains the supreme happiness, conquering death. Even the gods adore him. 10. What is important is devotion. Other considerations and conditions of life are of no consequence. 12 One may live anywhere and follow any mode of discipline; true yoga is devotion to God. 9 Devotion does not consist in mere external offerings of flowers, etc to God; it is the heart-gift that is true devotion. 11. One may be a devotee at any stage in life; if one surrenders oneself to God, He is ready to take on all burdens. 91 The end of devotion is moksa. Devotion to God removes the darkness of ignorance by shedding the light of wisdom. 2) Papa Ramdas Sannyasi “Swamiji, why do you say so? What are we before you? We are but your children. Still the father likes to hear the children prattle.” Wifh this preface he talked for over half an hour on jnana. After the evening bhajan, Joshiji and other devotees were sitting before Papa in the bhajan-haIl. Joshiji had certain doubts. He asked Papa about renunciation. Joshiji had been a follower of the path of bhakti, trying his best to lead the life of a true householder. He was not at first assailed by doubts as to the efficacy of his path. But, after he came into contact with that sannyasi friend and heard his talks on jnana yoga he was beginning to feel disturbed. He wanted to get the matter cleared up, and requested Papa to remove his lingering doubts. Papa “Never think that you are the perishable body. Always identify yourself with the Spirit, the imperishable, changeless Atman. When you fully realise that you are the Atman and not the body—which you can do only after practising long dissociation from rhe body—you will not be bound by anything. You are then free. As a true householder, you are to consider that the whole of your property, your wife and children belong to God and that you are only His agent, entrusted by Him with the task of running the household. This is the right spirit in which a householder should carry on his duties. If you are able to adopt this attitude, why should you have to become a sannyasi? Is not every one in your household, verily, the manifestation of Brahman? You cannot easily give up the world as mere illusion. As long as the ego-sense is alive in you, the world is real to you. Having the body-idea you cannot say, ‘I am Brahman.’ And, after all, renunciation is only a means to an end. You have ultimately to realise the whole universe as the manifestation of the Lord, as a part of His lila. Through bhakti you attain jnana and after attaining jn~na, you have to go still beyond that to what is called para-bhakti. A mere jnani says the whole universe is an illusion. But one who has reached the plane of para-bhakti sees the whole universe as Brahman. Then he does not call it an illusion, but as the Lord’s lila, though at the same time, he knows the play to be impermanent and transitory and so does not get entangled in it. “So if a householder is able to lead a purely detached life, with the full consciousness that Brahman alone is real and that the whole universe, including his own family and possessions, are nothing but manifestations of God, he will realise Him. There is no need for such a one to renounce the family, as he is fully aware of the impermanence of the world and is not deceived by this passing show. He is absolutely detached and so is happy under all conditions. Whether his relations live or die, whether his business fails or flourishes, he ever remains happy and cheerful, being firmly established in the consciousness of the divine.” It was about 7 o’clock in the morning. Joshiji was sitting in front of Papa when S. entered the bhajan-haII. Joshiji was continuing yesterday’s di~cussion with Papa on jnana. Papa said “Jnana is born in the womb of bhakti and protected by bhakti. The jnanis say that the universe is an illusion. When Ramdas was once in Mount Abu, he was taken to a mahatma living there, known as Swami Kaivalyananda. Going near the mahatma, Ramdas prostrated before him. The latter sprang up and asked Ramdas, ‘To whom are you prostrating?’ Ramdas replied, ‘Ramdas is prostrating to Ram.’ He asked again, ‘Are you not the same Ram?’ Ramdas said, ‘Yes, Ram is in Ramdas also. He knows he is one with Ram, but at the same time, he wants to be His child and prostrate to Him as a child does to its mother.’ Swami Kaivalyananda said, ‘Oh, that is all false. The whole universe is an illusion. There is only one, no two’.” Papa resumed thread of his talk “To attain the highest realisation, one need not necessarily reject the world as an illusion. It may be that for some time when the mind is fully drawn within, the sadhaka feels that Brahman alone is real and the whole world is unreal. But, after this inner experience, he realises that what he once rejected as unreal is only an expression or manifestation of the Real. There were many bhaktas like Saint Tukaram, Eknath and others who had attained the highest realisation through the path of bhakti alone. They never had to reject the world as unreal. “A sadhaka on the path of jnana might be able to consider the world as illusion for some time by the withdrawal of the mind inwards, but the moment the mind is externalised, diversities are again observed and the inner conflict will rise up. But a sadhaka on the bhakti path goes on joyously singing the sweet name of the Lord, rejecting nothing and accepting everything as the very embodiment of his Beloved. So his sadhana itself is turned into a sadhya. That is, the means becomes the end. The bhakta finds so much joy in his sadhana that even after attaining his goal, he likes to continue his sadhana, if possible keeping up his individuality, just for the joy of it. “Sri Sankara was, no doubt, a great advaitin, who proclaimed that Brahman alone is real, but he admitted that the manifest and the unmanifest are both Brahman. He also established various temples and mutts, wrote many stotras glorifying the Divine Mother and also composed songs like Bhaja Govindam which lay stress on the value of bhakti. These show that he was not a mere jnani, but had attained the highest stage of para-bhakti. Sri Sankara is not properly understood nowadays. “The most natural and easy way of approach to God is through bhakti. Love begins to manifest itself in us from our very childhood. The child loves and is deeply devoted to its mother and father. As he grows up his circle of love is gradually widened and he becomes attached to friends and relations besides his family members. This love and devotion to mother, father, etc., has only to be purified and directed towards God. Thus we should look upon Him alone as mother, father, friend, etc. This is a natural and easy process. We start from duality and end in unity. “The easiest path is to take the name of God. Love Him and sing His sweet name. You need not know anything more. You need not study any philosophy. Ever remembering Him and with His sweet name on your tongue, you can walk on the path blissfully. It matters not whether the world is believed to be real or unreal. For the devotee, everything is but the form of his Beloved.” It was evening. Papa was sitting in the open, outside the bhajan-hall. Joshiji and a few members of his party were sitting in front of him. They were about to leave and asked Papa for a message. Papa said “You are all householders. The best sadhana for you is to repeat Ramnam constantly. Always do your work remembering God, who is dwelling within you. As Sri Ramakrishna puts it, engage one hand of yours in your work and by the other hold on to the feet of the Lord. After the work is over, place both the hands on the Lord’s feet. Your mind must always be fixed on God. The mind has a natural tendency to wander. But wherever the mind goes, try to see God there. It cannot go where God is not, because God is everywhere. By such practice the mind will gradually be purified and trained to stay always on God. We should view the world as a drama, as a lila of God. By being ever conscious of the Eternal, the all-pervading Reality, we should at the same time play our parts in the world-drama. We should be detached witnesses of our own actions and also of the world-play. We have to take care not to get attached to the world of diversity, to this passing show. Then only we can enjoy the play.” Joshiji and party, including the Rishikesh sannyasi, left the ashram after taking prasadojound 7 o’clock. 3. Rambles in Vedanta In Aparâ bhakti or Saguna worship the Deity is invoked (from the heart as the idea is ; avahana,) to a particular seat (Asana), His feet are then washed and the water is drunk. He is then bathed, dressed and after that, He is decorated with sacred thread, and sandal, and worshipped with flowers, rice and dhupa (incense), dipa (light), then some offering is made to Him, after that the worshipper goes round the Deity, falls at His feet and utters prayers. Lastly the Deity is taken up from the seat, restored in idea to the heart of the worshipper. This may appear to foreigners as somewhat strange but it embodies and concretely represents a very grand and beautiful truth—that God lives really in the heart and worshipping Him as external to us, be it as here in the shape of an inspiring image, or as the Father in Heaven, or in any other dualistic way, is really the objectification through our senses of the inconceivable Inner Self. In parâbhakti there is no such objectification and so says Sankara “ How could He be invoked one place to another who is everywhere? how give a seat to Him who is Himself the seat of all ?...how bathe Him who is Eterna1ly pure ?...how go round Him who is infinite ?.. . how bow to Him who_alone_really is—the one without a second ?~. how take inside (into the,.heart) who is __already inside and_everywhere? Pure puja, the supreme’ worship thereforè is the feeling at all times and in all places_of the oneness with Him and the realisation of the truth ‘I am He, I am not the body nor the senses nor the mind, …. nor Ahamkdra (the false individuality), nor am I the heart ,nor water, nor fire, nor air, nor ether, nor smell, nor sight, nor touch nor sound.’ I am He, the eternal witness, I am only one, the true, the Blissful Brahman.’” In the Yoga Vâsishta says “The ‘annihilation of all the mental conceptions constitutes the pure worship (puja). The avoidance of the identification of I with the body is the supreme Arâdhana. Sincere worshippers of the Self, should ever regard all forms and places as none other than Brahman and worship them as such. Enjoying with a sweet mind and a non-dual conception, whatever objects one comes by and not longing for things inaccessible is gnanâ.. archana, i.e., the sprinkling of flowers in the worship of the Atman.” In a beautiful passage peculiarly sweet, we are told to those engaged in active realisation, the Mandala Brâhmanopanishad says ‘The cessation from all action is the true A’vâhana (the real invocation to God), true gnâna or wisdom is the seat of the God of Self, a pure and blissful mind is tbe water by which that Deity’s feet (the Turiyapâda) are washed’ complete mental tranquillity is the water-offering, the uninterrupted feeling within the mind of light and bliss welling up as from a fountain of nectar is the bathing (sneha) of the Deity’. Seeing the Atman alone in all that one sees, and the knower knowing himself, form respectively sandal and .sacrifice (Akshata) in the worship. Serene contentment forms flower, the fire in the Chidcikás is the Dkñ’pa. The sun the Chiddkcia is the D~pa and union with the nectar-filled, like light is the food offering. Steadiness is the real Pradalol shisa (going round the Deity). The feeling of I am atman is the Namaaka~ra, the bowing at the feet of the Deity The highest praise is silence (Mauna). Parâbhakti is called Sâkshât Sâdhana or the direct and immediate means for attaining salvation while apa.râbhakti is ~d .paratnpara sâdhana or the indirect means. The one is rice ready for eating, while the other is like paddy. Religion in its highest or rather its truest sense, namely, realisation, begins with parâbhakti. Then, when the adorable guru initiates the eager disciple into the great mystery, Râja Guha and utters the memorial words ‘That art Thou,’ then and not before does religion begin. A parâbhakti, religious studies only clear the ground and prepare it for receiving the seed of wisdom ‘Tatwamasi ‘—‘ That art Thou’ In the beginning ‘of religion, and Ahamhrahmâsmi “I am brahma’is the end ; and parabhakti is the means whereby religion so well begun reaches its completion,’ whereby the mask of imperfect and struggling humanity is finally thrown ~ and the soul within stands revealed and realised in its fullest glory as the One blissful exisistence, the great Satchidananda, whose ineffable glory, the mighty Self-intoxicated sages of old, vainly struggle to render in the language of words. ‘. Parâbhakti is the highest flower of the human mind, the most beautiful that it can put forth, and its fruit is nothing other than waking once for all from the nightmare of life and realising that blissful existence, after realising which, nothing further will have to be known. Truth, only Truth is the reward ; and the highest Truth is highest freedom, the highest bliss. The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 2, 2003 Dear Dan, >I begin with nothing. Nothing is the same as fullness. In the >endless >state fullness is the same as emptiness. This sounds more like Buddhism, than advaita. In advaita, the state of realization of NirguNa-brahman is definitely not emptiness, it is fullness. Thanks for giving a detailed account of "Pleroma". It would be also helpful to all of us, if you can relate the two concepts "Pleroma" and "jnAna and bhakti" in someway. Regards, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 2, 2003 On Thu, 1 May 2003, Jay Nelamangala wrote: > Dear G. Murthy, > > NirguNa brahman may not have attributes such as Grace or prasAda. > But the very fact that you have been able to conceive such an entity > makes it distinct and different from all other entities that you have already > conceived such as entities which have attributes such as Grace, etc. > > Any such entity that has been mentally conceived has to have attributes. > It is because of those attributes that you are able to distinguish that > conception from the rest of your conceptions. Therefore "attributelessness" > is a very special attribute of your conceived entity called "NirguNa Brahman". > > Thus you have to either say, NirguNa Brahman can't be conceived at all or > you have to say NirguNa Brahman has attributes ( such as attributelessness ). > > You can pick only one of these and not both. > namaste shri Nelamangala-ji, Nice to hear from you again. This nirguNa brahman is not a mental conception. It is beyond mind and beyond words. I do not have to refer a learned person like you to where the upanishadic sages struggled to express in words. They said the words cannot describe THAT and the mind cannot conceive THAT. When I said IT is attributeless, it is only an expression of the struggle to express IT in words. The sages of the Kena upanishad and YAjnavalkya of the BrihadAraNyaka upanishad expressed what It is and still struggled to put It in words. In direct answer to your last paragraph, I can only say IT cannot be conceived by the mind [the mind is conceived by IT]. What I said is only an attempt to express the inexpressible. [in a different context, in answer to a different question, you answered that prema is of three types and you said vAtsalyam, etc. But I recall reading many years ago, premam pancavidham proktum... I used that in my response to shri Benjamin Root. I wonder if you, or some other sanskrit scholar on the List, fill in that verse for me, premam pancavidham proktum .....] Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 2, 2003 On Fri, 2 May 2003, ken knight wrote: > Namaste all, > Sorry but there are many words being posted below but > the sudden death of a long-term Indian friend, causing > problems for his family, and my wife's operation last > week to replace worn out knees are events occupying > much time. > > This subject was the motivation for me to join this > group .. > [...] namaste shri Ken-ji, My condolences on the struggles you are going through. I am heartened that, in spite of those difficulties, you have produced such a gem of a post which is very close to my heart. You have expressed beautifully what advaita bhakti is and how necessary it is. shri shankara is a great bhakta and a great jnAni. At that ultimate, jnAna and bhakti are one and the same. How relevant is bhakti in advaita? My feeling is, it is very, very relevant. People who studied shrimadbhAgavatam say that jnAnam takes us only so far and to have the final continuous realization of the SELF, bhakti alone is the way. They say that jnAnam allows us to have a glimpse of the SELF, but the final drop of the ego and the constant abidance in the SELF requires bhakti of the highest form. The bhAgavatists say that bhakti of PrahlAda is of the highest form where PrahlAda sees God (VishNu) everywhere. This PrahlAda bhakti is, in my understanding, is not different from the sva-svarUpAnusandhAnam of VivekacUDAmaNi. Without that bhakti, jnAnam may not lead fully to the complete and continuous surrenderance of the ego. Regards Gummuluru Murthy --- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 2, 2003 Hi Benjamin, It seems that we agree on yet another major topic - I too have never felt any affinity for bhakti. Having said that, however, a couple of comments on your following statement that might have implied the opposite. Benjamin: "My interest in Advaita springs from two sources: (1) I believe intellectually that the 'purpose' of life is spiritual education to reach higher levels of consciousness, and I want to get on with it without wasting further time..." Dennis: 'I want to get on with it' is a very egotistical statement (no disrespect here, I know exactly what you mean.) The justification for bhakti is that is so much easier to get rid of this ego (which, after all, is THE impediment to 'enlightenment') by surrendering ones thoughts, feelings, actions to a deity. Far easier, of course, than some imagined intellectual defeating of the ego or, even less likely, an 'ego-suicide'. Best wishes, Dennis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 2, 2003 Dear Dennis, You are right. When upanishads call it Brahman - it is not just a name like devadatta. Veda itself defines Brahman as "atha kasmAt uchyatE brahmEti?BrihantO hi asmin guNAha" Why is it called Braman?. All attributes are indeed complete in It" So, it is completeness of attributes that has been called as Brahman by vEda. Our calling it as "God", "He", "It", "That" etc should all point to the same "Completeness of attributes". >I don't think these language games move us forward. I agree with you. That is why the language of Veda is needed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 2, 2003 Dear Gurumurulu Murthy, >Nice to hear from you again. >This nirguNa brahman is not a mental conception. It is >beyond mind and beyond words. I do not have to refer a >learned person like you to where the upanishadic sages >struggled to express in words. Thank you for your kind words. Brahman is beyond mind and words no doubt, and it is also true that upanishadic sages struggled to express It in words. But what does it really mean? is the question. >The sages of the Kena >upanishad and YAjnavalkya of the BrihadAraNyaka upanishad >expressed what It is and still struggled to put It in words Does it mean that the sages of talavakAra and yAjnavalkya had no conception of what they were talking about?. Not at all. (in shAstra kEna is called talavakArOpanishat, people call it kEna because it starts with the question : " kEnEshitam patati prEshitam manaha kEna prANaha prathamaha praiti yuktaha kEnEshitAm vAcham imAm vadanti chakshushrOtram ka u dEvO unakti " ) What these sages are trying to say is that whatever is expressed about Brahman thro words and whatever this mind can grasp of Brahman can never be complete, it can only be partial. It does not mean Brahman can not be conceived by the mind at all. The same yAjnyavalkya tells MaitrEyi "atmA vAre drishTavyO shrOtavyO mantavyO nidhidhYasitavyO" Thus Brahman is conceivable, but not completely. "buddhigrAhyam ateendriyam" says Geetha. If it were totally inconceivable by anyone, then it would render the whole of shAstra and all the works on vEdanta that our Acharyas have written would be futile. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 2, 2003 advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@a...> wrote: > Is it true that Shankara said that all other 'paths' were only a prelude for > j~nAna, which was the only yoga for going 'all the way'? Is it not the case > that the bhakta can only 'realise' saguNa brahman? > > Dennis Namaste, Bhakti is worshipping one's own inner feeling or energy, which is universal. The Bhakti who drops the idea of individual energy becomes praneaswara, and as a jivanmukti realise that one is nirguna even though still in the body.........ONS....Tony.IMO Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 2, 2003 Tony O'Clery <aoclery wrote: The Bhakta who drops the idea of individual energy becomes praneaswara, and as a jivanmukti realise that one is nirguna even though still in the body.........ONS....Tony.IMO Dear Divine souls, I wonder how can finite ever grasp the infinite. I mean, how is Jeevanmukthi possible? Isn't that only the Atman can grasp the Atman ? How can the mind grasp the Atman ? Om! Pardha Saradhi. Sponsor Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ To Post a message send an email to : advaitin Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 2, 2003 Dear Gurumuluru Murthy, >you answered that prema is of three types and you said >vAtsalyam, etc. But I recall reading many years ago, premam >pancavidham proktum... I used that in my response to shri I was trying to stress the importance of the fact Bhakti and jnAna are not two different paths that one can pick and choose. Bhakti in shAstra is the mental preparation for appreciating the truth of Brahman. To appreciate it, we should know what that Truth of Brahman is. TO know that Truth, you need vEda. Thus the Bhakti in shAstra is not mooDa-bhakti but, instead it is both the cause-for-jnAna, love-for-the-object-of-jnAna, and the result-of jnAna. Thus Bhakti is simply another form of jnAna. This was the point I was trying to make, whether it is of 3 types or 5 types is immaterial. The five types that you are probably talking about ( correct me if I am wrong ) are the five kinds of feelings or bhAvas : Shanta, Dasya, Sakhya, Vatsalya and Madhurya. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 2, 2003 Hari OM! Dear Parthasarathiji, With finite we identify ourselves, that is why this thought comes, We are infinite, in Infinite, the finite occurs, "I am not in them, they are in Me" Srimad Bhagwad Geetha. Jeevanmukthi means, the identification with all these equipments given to us will go away really, Mind never grasp Atman, We have to negate the mind, once we negate the Mind, we are ATMAN. With Love & OM! Krishna Prasad Pardha Saradhi Uppala <pardhu_groups wrote:Tony O'Clery <aoclery wrote: The Bhakta who drops the idea of individual energy becomes praneaswara, and as a jivanmukti realise that one is nirguna even though still in the body.........ONS....Tony.IMO Dear Divine souls, I wonder how can finite ever grasp the infinite. I mean, how is Jeevanmukthi possible? Isn't that only the Atman can grasp the Atman ? How can the mind grasp the Atman ? Om! Pardha Saradhi. Sponsor Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ To Post a message send an email to : advaitin Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. Sponsor var lrec_target="_top"; var lrec_URL = new Array(); lrec_URL[1] = "http://rd./M=231971.3069703.4522067.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705075991:H\ M/A=1554463/R=0/id=flashurl/*http://shop.store./cgi-bin/clink?proflower\ s2+shopping:dmad/M=231971.3069703.4522067.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705075991:HM/A=\ 1554463/R=1/1051898563+http://us.rmi./rmi/http://www.proflowers.com/rmi\ -unframed-url/http://www.proflowers.com/freevase/index.cfm%3FREF=FGVEgroups\ LRECflash"; var link="javascript:LRECopenWindow(1)"; var lrec_flashfile = 'http://us.yimg.com/a/pr/proflowers2/proflowers_mom_300x250_30k.swf?clickTAG='+l\ ink+''; var lrec_altURL = "http://rd./M=231971.3069703.4522067.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705075991:H\ M/A=1554463/R=2/id=altimgurl/*http://shop.store./cgi-bin/clink?proflowe\ rs2+shopping:dmad/M=231971.3069703.4522067.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705075991:HM/A\ =1554463/R=3/1051898563+http://us.rmi./rmi/http://www.proflowers.com/rm\ i-unframed-url/http://www.proflowers.com/freevase/index.cfm%3FREF=FGVEgroup\ sLRECgif"; var lrec_altimg = " "; var lrec_width = 300; var lrec_height = 250; Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ To Post a message send an email to : advaitin Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 2, 2003 Namaste, Sri Ramana said: "Bhakti is JnAna-mAtA" (Bhakti is the Mother of Jnana. Gita: bhaktyaa tvananyayaa shakya ahameva.nvidho.arjuna . GYaatuM drashhTu.n cha tattvena praveshhTu.n cha parantapa .. 11\-54.. maa.n cha yo.avyabhichaareNa bhaktiyogena sevate . sa guNaansamatiityaitaanbrahmabhuuyaaya kalpate .. 14\-26.. brahmabhuutaH prasannaatmaa na shochati na kaaN^kShati . samaH sarveshhu bhuuteshhu madbhakti.n labhate paraam.h .. 18\-54.. Regards, Sunder advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote: > Without that bhakti, jnAnam may not lead fully > to the complete and continuous surrenderance of the ego. > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 2, 2003 Namaste, In Brahma Sutra Bhashya, III:3:59, Shankara says that "remain devoted to one vidya till it results in Realization." (To adopt several is a distration to the mind.). Regards, Sunder advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@a...> wrote: > Is it true that Shankara said that all other 'paths' were only a prelude for > j~nAna, which was the only yoga for going 'all the way'? Is it not the case > that the bhakta can only 'realise' saguNa brahman? > > Dennis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 2, 2003 advaitin, Pardha Saradhi Uppala <pardhu_groups> wrote: > Tony O'Clery <aoclery> wrote: > The Bhakta who drops the idea of individual energy becomes praneaswara, and as a jivanmukti realise that one is nirguna even though still in the body.........ONS....Tony.IMO > > Dear Divine souls, > > I wonder how can finite ever grasp the infinite. I mean, how is Jeevanmukthi possible? Isn't that only the Atman can grasp the Atman ? How can the mind grasp the Atman ? > > Om! > > Pardha Saradhi. Namaste, That is the point the mind is given up so there is no grasping to do. The Atman is unveiled. We are always jivanmukti........The higher mind reflects the Atman........ONS....IMO..Tony. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 2, 2003 Dear KrishnaPrasad, >With finite we identify ourselves, that is why this thought comes, We are infinite, in Infinite, >the finite occurs, "I am not in them, they are in Me" Srimad Bhagwad Geetha. Only God is infinite in every sense of the term. No one knows what that "infiniteness" is, in its complete sense. We all know only that much as God chooses to reveal it to us. "yamEvaisha vruNutE tEna labhyaha tasyaisha AtmA vivruNutE tanoom svAm" (God has to pick the person to whom He is going to reveal Himself) In other words, our idea of God's infiniteness is always partial, this is true not only at the human level of comprehension, but it is true at any other level of comprehension as well. If you say, "We are infinite" you should also specify in what sense you think we are infinite. If you are quoting Geetha 9.4, matsthani sarva bhootAni na cha aham tEshu avasthitaha" I am the Ground of all existence, but nothing is the Ground of Me. (9.4). Only SriKrishna can claim this. If we are infinite just like SriKrishna, at some point we should also be ready to show the same "vishwa-roopa-darshana" that SriKrishna showed Arjuna. Till then, it is all just a theory that we are infinite in every sense. SriKrishna himself says in the entire history of time, no one else had seen anything like vishwa-roopa-darshana, and that He is showing by His prasAda. (mayA prasannEna tavArjunEdam roopam param darshitam Atma yOgAt ..... yan mE tvad anyEna na drishTa poorvam) 11.47 Do you mean to say there were no realized souls before Arjuna? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 2, 2003 Hari OM! Blesses Jayji, Yes, Your email itself shows that you are comfortable to be a Dwaitin, You cannot accept that we are Infinite, and identified with our equipments, this is called as stuck in the Intellect. How can any one know what is infinite, the moment you say you know the infinite that will become objective, Infinite is Subjective. You mean to say that if you want to realize you have to see Viswaroopam, Viswaroopam is the picturaisation of Brahman to make you and I understand, it is only a pointer. For realisation, Jnana and Bhakti both are necessary, it is like the two wings of the Bird, a Bird cannot fly with only One wing. Think in terms of Advaita! With Love & OM! Krishna Prasad Jay Nelamangala <jay wrote:Dear KrishnaPrasad, >With finite we identify ourselves, that is why this thought comes, We are infinite, in Infinite, >the finite occurs, "I am not in them, they are in Me" Srimad Bhagwad Geetha. Only God is infinite in every sense of the term. No one knows what that "infiniteness" is, in its complete sense. We all know only that much as God chooses to reveal it to us. "yamEvaisha vruNutE tEna labhyaha tasyaisha AtmA vivruNutE tanoom svAm" (God has to pick the person to whom He is going to reveal Himself) In other words, our idea of God's infiniteness is always partial, this is true not only at the human level of comprehension, but it is true at any other level of comprehension as well. If you say, "We are infinite" you should also specify in what sense you think we are infinite. If you are quoting Geetha 9.4, matsthani sarva bhootAni na cha aham tEshu avasthitaha" I am the Ground of all existence, but nothing is the Ground of Me. (9.4). Only SriKrishna can claim this. If we are infinite just like SriKrishna, at some point we should also be ready to show the same "vishwa-roopa-darshana" that SriKrishna showed Arjuna. Till then, it is all just a theory that we are infinite in every sense. SriKrishna himself says in the entire history of time, no one else had seen anything like vishwa-roopa-darshana, and that He is showing by His prasAda. (mayA prasannEna tavArjunEdam roopam param darshitam Atma yOgAt ..... yan mE tvad anyEna na drishTa poorvam) 11.47 Do you mean to say there were no realized souls before Arjuna? Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ To Post a message send an email to : advaitin Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 3, 2003 Namaste all. I love only me naturally and spontaneously. My professed love for others is equivocal on final analysis because there is always some element of personal interest in my relationships. The jnAna of advaita is the realization that I am everything. If I am everything, then my natural and spontaneous love for myself extends to everything in a total embrace. Such love is Love (with capital `L") and that Love is Bhakti (with capital `B"). So, an advaitin who doesn't have an iStadevata is also a Bhakta or has Bhakti by default. Otherwise, he is not an advaitin. (All other versions of devotion are just bhaktis ridden with separateness, starting with primitive man's fear of natural forces to the self-proclaimed bhakta's `attachment' to his favourite deity. In the latter case, a competitor bhakta's claim to being closer to the deity will not be tolerated.) Thus, Bhakti goes hand in hand with jnAna or Bhakti and jnAna are the two sides of the same coin or, simply stated, Bhakti is jnAna without any separateness. I am Bhakti or Love or jnAna. I simply don't have to `love' anything because Love is my real nature and the `loved ones' are really me. Advaitins talk about Brahman or Consciousness beyond attributes. This talking is in the vyavahArika because it is after all talking, an attempt to explain. So, where is the harm in identifying Consciousness as one's own deity in the vyavahArika and seeing Her (feminine gender used because my iStadevata is the Devi) in everything as me. Everything is Consciousness. Let me go a step forward and see that Consciousness as my Devi. Thus, Consciousness is Devi and Devi is everything. When I switch off, everything goes into me (Her!) and when I awake the Devi unfolds Herself and dances all around me as everything. Can there be anything more beautiful? When I open my eyes, all that I see is Her only. When I close my eyes, the thoughts that flash across are also Her. There is nothing that She is not. This is saundaryalahari (intoxication with beauty – a literal translation). No wonder Sankara so named his great work of one hundred verses on Sri Maha Tripura Sundari! This is the best way for most to remain advaitin amidst vyavahArAs. If, therefore, Sankara wrote hymns, it is quite understandable. He has only made the path easy for us and granted us a universal access key. Let the deity be Christ, Krishna, Devi or Mary – it doesn't matter to an advaitin as long as what is 'conceived' is Consciousness. Even as Sankara extols deities, each and every word he sings speaks nothing but advaita. I am quoting just one striking example from his famous AnnapUrNA stOtram that bowls me over and over again each time I chant it: drishyAdrishya vibhUtivAhanakarI, brahmAndabhAndodarI, lIlAnAtakasUtrabhedanakarI, vijnAnadIpAnkurI, srIviSweSamanaprasAdanakarI, kASIpuradIswarI, bhikshAmdEhi kripAvalambanakarI mAtAnnapUrneSwarI This is what a devotee sings in sheer joy before he begins his frugal meal to express his thankfulness to the Mother of Everything who grants the food. If we try to understand the meaning of the verse, the floodgates of advaitic knowledge begin to open. (That is why I have not dared to write the meaning of the verse here. How can I ever accomplish that, Mother!?) The whole of advaita, the Knowledge knowing which all the knowledges are as well known, is packed in this verse. To one who has even an academic understanding of the verse, the lIlA of mAya (lIlAnAtakasUtrabhedanakarI!) gets unknotted. The food, each and every morsel of it, the one who serves it, the joyful tears of thankfulness that streaks down the cheek, the hunger in the stomach – everything becomes Her. The devotee is in Her eternal abundance with all his wants taken care of by none other than She Herself. He literally becomes the Fullness that AnnapUrNa Is! Any doubt now why Sankara wrote hymns? Any need for us any more to question the need for deities in advaita? Those who insist on doing without a deity can do so. But, in the vyAvahArika, we can only conceive Consciousness. With the nuances of advaitic logic understood, why can't we conceive Consciousness as the Devi and leave our vyAvahArAs at Her Lotus Feet? What happens next is Her business. I care two hoots. Let Her, the lIlAnAtakasUtrabhedanakarI and vijnAnadIpAnkurI, do the undoing of the vyAvahArika for me. I may then sing like Bhattathiripad in nArAyanIyam : "Agre paSyAmi.." (I see in front of me ….), but I would then know that my literal paSyAmi (seeing) has already ended in jnAna- Bhakti. This is Bhakti = Love = jnAna as I understand and endeavour to capture. Lastly, to reminisce Sw. Dayananda Saraswathiji's teaching, being a devotee helps an advaitin to integrate his roles. One plays several roles in life – father, son, husband, employee, competitor, performer etc. etc. Advaitically, there is a unity behind all these roles. How do we bring out this unity to the fore and identify with it? Devotion helps. As a devotee, one becomes a devotee-father, a devotee-son, a devotee-husband etc. etc. In devotee, the common denominator, the varying roles are integrated. The journey from many to one begins. Conflicts resolve and unity flowers paving way to advaitic realization. PranAms. Madathil Nair Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 3, 2003 Dear KrishnaPrasad-jI, >Yes, Your email itself shows that you are comfortable to be a Dwaitin, You cannot accept that we >are Infinite, and identified with our equipments, this is called as stuck in the Intellect. How >can any one know what is infinite, the moment you say you know the infinite that will become >objective, Infinite is Subjective. You bet I am comfortable to be a Dvaitin. You hit it right on the nail. Regarding what we accept and what we don't accept, there is one very important factor that we need to include in these discussions. It is called 'sAkshee-pramANa'. As you might have seen under the last month's discussions on "free-will and fate", some in this group accept there is free-will and yet there are others who don't, and both being devoted, learned advaitins. What does that tell us? It tells us that "sAkshee khalu sarva pramANa prAmANya nischAyakaha". The final pramANa on what is acceptable and what is not, is one's own sAkshee or 'conscience' ( the notion of sAkshee in vEdanta, is much broader than what the word conscince indicates, but for a lack of a better word in english, we will use the word conscience itself). In matters of right and wrong, just and unjust, truth and false, the final pramANa is one's own sAkshee for that person. This is why, what one is convinced about, others are not. There is lot more that is said to be about sAkshee. If the moderators' are interested, may be a month can be devoted just on that subject. >For realisation, Jnana and Bhakti both are necessary, it is like the two wings of the Bird, a Bird >cannot fly with only One wing. Think in terms of Advaita! With Love But jnAna is getting stuck in intellect, Bhakti is in SaguNa Brahman which is again considered mithyA. Let me explain why my conscience does not let me think ' I am Infinite' , ' I am God', and such other ideas that seem to freely float around in this forum. People have given different names to it : 'stuck in intellect', 'lack of understanding', 'not God realized', 'being in the wrong email list', ' dualistic thinking', 'not thinking in terms of Advaita', ' not learned enough', 'not able to rise above mind', "not realized Pleroma", "not able to comprehend advaita", etc etc. My understanding is that the highest discipline is Brahma-jignyAsA which comes in the form shravaNa-manana-dhyAna. Thus, meditation on a real thing, that leads to the realization of it and in this case the right understanding of the thing is obviously the presupposition of the meditation, because dhyAna is an aspect of memory, and efforless dhyAna is samAdhi. But in advaita, this object of dhyAna is mithyA and the meditation on it is somehow supposed to remove wrong notions and thereby help the correct understanding of Truth. My conscience does not let me accept this position because, firstly If the final Truth, that we have called God or Parabrahman is self-evident or sva-prakAsha, and with reference to it the distinction between right and wrong knowledge can not be justified because it is all notional and intellectual. My conscience does not let me accept the fact that meditation on a wrong thing, i.e, the thing that is arOpita, removes wrong notions about Truth and leads to the correct understanding of it. Consiously I can not accept such a position simply because, it is not very convincing. Further, dhyAna and samAdhi are lower forms of discipline, and discipline in the higher sense consists in application to shAstra, and this presupposes no meditation. I hope I have articulated it well enough. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 3, 2003 Namaste Sunderji, When you quote Sanskrit verses, would you be kind enough to include the english translations too? Om ranjeet - Sunder Hattangadi Gita: bhaktyaa tvananyayaa shakya ahameva.nvidho.arjuna . GYaatuM drashhTu.n cha tattvena praveshhTu.n cha parantapa .. 11\-54.. maa.n cha yo.avyabhichaareNa bhaktiyogena sevate . sa guNaansamatiityaitaanbrahmabhuuyaaya kalpate .. 14\-26.. brahmabhuutaH prasannaatmaa na shochati na kaaN^kShati . samaH sarveshhu bhuuteshhu madbhakti.n labhate paraam.h .. 18\-54.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 3, 2003 Namaste Jayji. Permit me to barge in. You have articulated your objections very well indeed. However, you have stopped short of explaining what you mean by "application to shAstra". Why don't we go our own separate ways till you successfully do that? Who knows you may also get 'intellectually stuck' when you get down to doing the explaining business, the subject being so ineffable. Best of luck. Madathil Nair _____________________________ advaitin, "Jay Nelamangala" <jay@r...> wrote: Further, dhyAna and samAdhi are lower forms of discipline, and discipline in the higher sense consists in application to shAstra, and this presupposes no meditation. > > I hope I have articulated it well enough. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
