Bhakti as a concept in Hinduism is foreign influence.

[mskmoorthy]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

In Shiva Manasa Stotra , verse 4 also states this along these lines:
(in http://www.vignanam.org/veda/shiva-manasa-puja-english.html)

ātmā tvaṃ girijā matiḥ sahacarāḥ prāṇāḥ śarīraṃ gṛhaṃ
pūjā te viṣayopabhoga-racanā nidrā samādhisthitiḥ |
sañcāraḥ padayoḥ pradakṣiṇavidhiḥ stotrāṇi sarvā giro
yadyatkarma karomi tattadakhilaṃ śambho tavārādhanam || 4 ||

Rough meaning from http://www.hindupedia.com/en/Shiva_Manasa_Pooja


My soul is your temple,
My activities are thine attendants,
My body is thine home,
My acts to please my senses are thine worship,
My act of sleep is the deep meditation on thee,
All my walks with my feet are thine perambulations,
What ever falls from my mouth are thine prayers,
Everything I say and do are thine forms of worship.

My wife and I had a discussion about this a month while I was talking to my cousin. When I mentioned to him about Shiva Manasa Puja vers 4, my wife told me (and my cousin) about verse 27 in Soundarya Lahiri.

There is also some discussion about what Sankara meant by Bhakti and whether we are practicing superstition in the name of Bhakti and how far have we moved from Adi Sankara's notions of Bhakti.

Soundarya Lahari attributed to Adi Sankara by tradition (some dispute SL to be the work of Adi Sankara) but all Sankara MaThas are unanimous in their opinion that SL is the work of Adi Sankara.

Sloka 27 of SL reads:

Japo jalpah shilpam sakalam api mudra-virachana
Gatih pradakshinya-kramanam ashanadya-ahuti-vidhih |
Pranamah samveshah sukham akhilam atmarpana-drisha
Saparya-paryayastava bhavatu yan me vilasitam ||

Summarized it means that: Let any prattle by me be construed as your stuti; let any manual work being done by me be construed as "mudra", let my to and fro movements be construed as doing circumambulation or pradakshiNam, let my act of eating food to satisfy my hunger be construed as offering holy oblations in the ritual homam/havan fire; my lying down (for rest/sleep) be construed as performing namaskAram and attending to my body comforts be construed as my worship to you.

Going by this slOka, Adi Sankara was not too hard on Bhaktas doing Bhakti in any form they felt like.

No discussion on Bhakti in Hinduism will be complete without one going through Narada Bhakti Sutras and per those SutrAs just about anything goes under Bhakti so long as one is convinced in his mind that he is doing a particular thing or deed as an offering to his chosen Almighty.

 

[a-TB]

Sir,
Sorry to state that you have been mixing up things. You have voluntarily disqualified yourself from the debate, the day you stated that you will start reading the Gita bhashyam after retirement. Just to remind you - the debate has a pre-requisite, which is that the person should produce original references from this text, which will refute my statements. As yet, you have not taken a single step in this regard.



Sir, I have not assumed mastery, instead I claimed myself a learner only! But for the past one week it was you repeatedly claiming that you will bring some 'masters' or 'experts' to this debate! Where are they? My guess is that they have given up on you, having noticed that what I stated is the bare truth!



Sir,
That's a false statement. I clearly stated that I learnt Sankaracharya's works in Sanskrit, sitting at the feet of a teacher of Sanskrit. Kindly show me where I claimed that I " got all this by translations".

This is a General Section. I think Mr tbs, Madam Renuka and Mr Zebra, Mr Sangom, Mr tks are a few who have had no issues with some knowledge of Sanskrit. There may be few more. Let me ask them if they want to reply - do they think they can read Shankaracharya Bhashyam and get the profound meanings simply by reading them? You asked me to read it and get the meaning as if it is a simple thing. I cannot do so, do not have bandwidth to learn right now. If that is a disqualification to debate finer points, I agree. But I am only trying to pin down your positions seeking precision and consistency. So far that is missing even for a novice like me in such topics.

So for the last time - let us not confuse 'conclusions' which requires explanations and interpretations (subject to bias) with facts!
All I asked was for you to prove your conclusions that Shankaracharya actually said that Krishna's Vishvaroopam took place in reality. Please dont tell me that he commented on the verses. Or that he referred to characters in Mahabharatha. If I told a story of fox and crow and that they were talking to make a point, it does not mean I believe fox and crow could ever speak a language.

So I asked just for that - prove your conclusions. There is no need for photocopies of pages of Bhashyam pages. Professor Murthy has kindly furnished links to Bhashyam. I wanted your reasons for your conclusions. If it is obvious dont throw the entire Bhashyam on my face - just show the key lines where anyone with Sanskrit knowledge would get it readily reading it. If it requires explanations provide it. I know you are not going to do it. But thanks for responding. No need to get irritated. This is just a discussion, not even a debate.

No genuine experts are going to come here and debate. First, there is nothing that an expert can look at except a reference to two verses and Bhashyam. Second, people who are true vedantists and practitioners do not engage in debates. I only find them of utmost humility and ready to help.

I only offered an expert validation or rebuttal if you provided explanatory notes. Also what happened to the claim about Yogis going beyond nature posed limitations of body and mind. I said body and mind is nature. So nature is putting limitations on nature?? Is the Yogi has powers that is not part of nature? There are too many inconsistencies in the claim itself. So no 'expert' is needed to point these out - a novice like me is enough

When you asked me to read the bhashyam and get it, I assumed that is how you got your knowledge. If you meant to study Sanskrit and Bhashyam at the feet of a teacher I am not able to do so now until retirement. I will use your suggestions to learn more by reading works of English for now.

 

[a-TB]

Sir, by all means refer Anandagiri's tika also, confirming my statements



Sir,
What you state, is required if I were putting forward a new interpretation, a radical perspective on Acharya's work. But that is not the case here. I have done that elsewhere - In fact a book translated by me is presently in publication stage - by the Ramakrishna Mutt and independently by our own publishers. In this book I have translated and interpreted a work attributed to Acharya (but no-one knows for sure about the authorship) and in which I have presented a perspective on Parivrajyam and nishkama karma that is different from what is seen in some other works.

But that kind of scholarship is not required in the present instance. When some people are complaining of darkness unaware of the blazing midday Sun, simply because they have chosen to remain within closed doors and walls, all you need to do is to ask them to come out and see the Sun for themselves. There is no need to go into a description of the Sun's spectrum, infrared, ultraviolet, x rays etc and their composition details and so on so forth. So that's all I needed to do here.

There are some Gita slokas in which I have a interpretation different from other commentators. So if I am in the mood I might try posting slokas from the Gita, with my translation, interpretation, with references etc...but that also depends on how a discussion progresses, the kind of response that comes in. The way you responded gave me an impression that you were not serious, just trying to waste my time. So those things will have to wait.

First, it is great that you are able to write a book (assuming you are holding a full time job as well)

I may be in the dark but you have not shown any reflected light until now!
The reason why I asked you to prove that Shankaracharya actually believed in the magic of Vishvaroopam as a real event is that it goes to the heart of what Bhakthi is. There are many that believe and fear god for his power over nature. Nature is power itself. There is no power outside nature. I wanted to know if Shankaracharya was a believer like every other Bhaktha or not. You have not answered this.

Sir, Please do not engage with me if this is a waste of time. You may not have been held accountable to your statements in the past. Sometimes a novice can expose holes in our understanding. That is possible. I am sincere here but I do not accept statements that do not add up. As I said long ago I am ready to admit my ignorance and have no shame is doing so. I have humility to respect true knowledge. But I am good at seeing and sensing inconsistency and contradictory human behavior. That is the only basis for my discussion (not debate) with you here.

Please do share the name of your book - I would love to buy it online or when I go to India.

 

[a-TB]

In Shiva Manasa Stotra , verse 4 also states this along these lines:
(in http://www.vignanam.org/veda/shiva-manasa-puja-english.html)

ātmā tvaṃ girijā matiḥ sahacarāḥ prāṇāḥ śarīraṃ gṛhaṃ
pūjā te viṣayopabhoga-racanā nidrā samādhisthitiḥ |
sañcāraḥ padayoḥ pradakṣiṇavidhiḥ stotrāṇi sarvā giro
yadyatkarma karomi tattadakhilaṃ śambho tavārādhanam || 4 ||

Rough meaning from http://www.hindupedia.com/en/Shiva_Manasa_Pooja


My soul is your temple,
My activities are thine attendants,
My body is thine home,
My acts to please my senses are thine worship,
My act of sleep is the deep meditation on thee,
All my walks with my feet are thine perambulations,
What ever falls from my mouth are thine prayers,
Everything I say and do are thine forms of worship.

My wife and I had a discussion about this a month while I was talking to my cousin. When I mentioned to him about Shiva Manasa Puja vers 4, my wife told me (and my cousin) about verse 27 in Soundarya Lahiri.

Dear Professor Moorthy:

Thanks for sharing a very beautiful verse along with English translation. Shankaracaharya ( original or one the deciples) has shown his intense Bhakthi in this verse. In fact it teaches what true Bhakthi is

This kind of Bhakthi seems to be different from one that is tied to beliefs in God performing miracles.

 

[a-TB]

Lol...there was no affirmative post cos the rest of us are beyond Bhakti and Vibhakti! Lol

Its nice to see men mud wrestle!..so i am silent cos i want to see more! ha ha ha.

In all men-mud wrestling is it not curious that one party LOL is the same over all these years? LOL

 

[KRN]

In Shiva Manasa Stotra , verse 4 also states this along these lines:
(in http://www.vignanam.org/veda/shiva-manasa-puja-english.html)

ātmā tvaṃ girijā matiḥ sahacarāḥ prāṇāḥ śarīraṃ gṛhaṃ
pūjā te viṣayopabhoga-racanā nidrā samādhisthitiḥ |
sañcāraḥ padayoḥ pradakṣiṇavidhiḥ stotrāṇi sarvā giro
yadyatkarma karomi tattadakhilaṃ śambho tavārādhanam || 4 ||

Rough meaning from http://www.hindupedia.com/en/Shiva_Manasa_Pooja


My soul is your temple,
My activities are thine attendants,
My body is thine home,
My acts to please my senses are thine worship,
My act of sleep is the deep meditation on thee,
All my walks with my feet are thine perambulations,
What ever falls from my mouth are thine prayers,
Everything I say and do are thine forms of worship.

My wife and I had a discussion about this a month while I was talking to my cousin. When I mentioned to him about Shiva Manasa Puja vers 4, my wife told me (and my cousin) about verse 27 in Soundarya Lahiri.

A similar sentiment is expressed by Acharya in verse 116 of the work Tripurasundariivedapaadasthavah also known as Tripurasundarii-maanasapooja stotram.

https://sanskritdocuments.org/doc_devii/tripurasun.itx

chakShuH pashyatu neha ki.nchana para.n ghrANa.n na vA jighratu
shrotra.n hanta shruNotu na tvagapi na sparsha.n samAlambatAm.h .
jihvA vettu na vA rasaM mama para.n yuShmatsvarUpAmR^ite
nityAnandavighUrNamAnanayane nityaM mano majjatu .. 116.

 

[KRN]

Acharya has defined Bhakti in various ways in his prakarana works. The below one with similes from practical life is what I like the most...... the Sivanandalahari verse 61.

Ankolaṃ nijabeeja santati rayaskkantopalam soochikā,
Sādhvī naija vibhum latā kshithiruham sindhussaridvallabham,
Prapnothiha yatha thatha pasupateh pādāra sindhu dwaiyam,
Chetho vruthi roopetya thishtati sadā saa bhakthirithy uchyathe.

For meaning...

http://www.kamakoti.org/acall/29-nature-of-true-bhakti.html

 

[KRN]

To A-TB

Sir,
You are merely repeating your statements to which replies were given already

Now regarding the Yogis, I never said yogis claim to have overcome nature - as usual you have misquoted me - what I stated is, Yogis claim that our real nature is not limited to this simple body mind concept, but goes beyond that. Advanced practitioners of Yoga claim the ability to perform special things using Siddhis like Anima laghima etc. You can refer The below link and also Patanjalis Yoga Sutras for this. I have not personally seen a Yogi using these Siddhis but that doesn't necessarily mean they do not exist.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddhi

 

[KRN]

To a-TB

You have stated that Sri Sankaracharya has not considered the Vishwaroopam a true event, and must have dealt with it in a symbolically significant way only. For this, Please go ahead and provide citations in the form of original references from his works, with your own interpretations and conclusions.

 

[KRN]

In any case it was a pleasure to engage. Please do not join Mr Vaagmi or support him...

Sir,
I have not seen your past discussions...But from the way you have been responding to me, I am sure Sri Vaagmi must have good reason in expressing the sentiments he did

 

[KRN]

This is a General Section. I think Mr tbs, Madam Renuka and Mr Zebra, Mr Sangom, Mr tks are a few who have had no issues with some knowledge of Sanskrit. There may be few more. Let me ask them if they want to reply - do they think they can read Shankaracharya Bhashyam and get the profound meanings simply by reading them? You asked me to read it and get the meaning as if it is a simple thing. I cannot do so, do not have bandwidth to learn right now.

From your above message, all that I can make out is, you seem to hold a lot of unnecessary inhibitions about Sankaracharya's works. Acharya wrote his works, especially his commentaries, for ordinary people like you and me to read and understand them. And as for your issue with Sanskrit, Prof Moorthy has provided an online link to a translation in English too! If you don't want to take even a little step in trying to understand Acharya's works for yourself, then there is nothing to discuss with you on this topic.

If that is a disqualification to debate finer points, I agree.

In this context, lack of any initiative, means lack of seriousness, a disqualification to any discussion.

All I asked was for you to prove your conclusions that Shankaracharya actually said that Krishna's Vishvaroopam took place in reality. Please dont tell me that he commented on the verses. Or that he referred to characters in Mahabharatha. If I told a story of fox and crow and that they were talking to make a point, it does not mean I believe fox and crow could ever speak a language.

Acharya's commentary to the Bhagavad Gita is not a Jataka Tale or a Panchatantra. Your example is very funny and I enjoyed it but it again confirms that you are totally out of touch with the reality of the Gita.

So I asked just for that - prove your conclusions. There is no need for photocopies of pages of Bhashyam pages. Professor Murthy has kindly furnished links to Bhashyam. I wanted your reasons for your conclusions. If it is obvious dont throw the entire Bhashyam on my face - just show the key lines where anyone with Sanskrit knowledge would get it readily reading it. If it requires explanations provide it. I know you are not going to do it. But thanks for responding. No need to get irritated. This is just a discussion, not even a debate.

It is obvious because right at the very beginning, ie in the preface or the Upodghaatam to the Gita, Acharya has clearly explained his views on lord Krishna. As I mentioned earlier, this comes before he even starts the Gita slokas. I had stated this many times already. You don't have to read the entire Bhashyam - all you need to do is read once from the very beginning. The first few pages at least.

With your inhibitions to the Bhashyam, you are yet to show me that you have got the ability to understand Acharya's ideas, the commentary, in original or translation. Unless you throw away your inhibitions and comparisons of the Gita to Einstein's paper or to Jataka Tales, and get into real work by starting to read and understand the Gita Bhashyam, in original or translation, I don't think I can help you.

No genuine experts are going to come here and debate.

That's not what you have been saying here every day for the past one week.

First, there is nothing that an expert can look at except a reference to two verses and Bhashyam. Second, people who are true vedantists and practitioners do not engage in debates.

Really? Then are you saying that people like Adi Sankara himself, who engaged in debates all around, are not Vedantists?

I only find them of utmost humility and ready to help.

But you need to show a readiness to be helped!!

When you asked me to read the bhashyam and get it, I assumed that is how you got your knowledge. If you meant to study Sanskrit and Bhashyam at the feet of a teacher I am not able to do so now until retirement. I will use your suggestions to learn more by reading works of English for now.

Good luck!

 

[KRN]

First, it is great that you are able to write a book (assuming you are holding a full time job as well)

I may be in the dark but you have not shown any reflected light until now!

Have you considered this - that you aren't able to see the light because you have not moved an inch away from your darkness?

The reason why I asked you to prove that Shankaracharya actually believed in the magic of Vishvaroopam as a real event is that it goes to the heart of what Bhakthi is. There are many that believe and fear god for his power over nature. Nature is power itself. There is no power outside nature. I wanted to know if Shankaracharya was a believer like every other Bhaktha or not. You have not answered this.

Are you saying 'every other Bhakta' 'believe and fear god for his power over nature'? From where did you get that idea?

Sir, Please do not engage with me if this is a waste of time.

No Sir, it has been extremely entertaining.....

You may not have been held accountable to your statements in the past. Sometimes a novice can expose holes in our understanding. That is possible. I am sincere here but I do not accept statements that do not add up.

Sir, Kindly go ahead and expose holes in my statements or understanding, by quoting from Acharya's works, with citations, your interpretations. What or who is preventing you?

As I said long ago I am ready to admit my ignorance and have no shame is doing so.

Sir, there are people who are proud of their ignorance and parade it. Someone who wants to get rid of his ignorance will make use of the earliest opportunity to get out of it, since he realises the dangers lying in wallowing in ignorance.

 

[zebra16]

Second, people who are true vedantists and practitioners do not engage in debates. I only find them of utmost humility and ready to help.

Just for info, I would like to say that scholarly vedantists of all the three varieties, Advaitins, Dvaitins and VishishtAdvaitins do meet and debate once in a year during "Vidwat Sadas" which normally lasts for a week.

I have not attended such debate(s) but have been informed that such debates are illuminating for the wannabe vedantists.

 

[a-TB]

To A-TB

Sir,
You are merely repeating your statements to which replies were given already

Now regarding the Yogis, I never said yogis claim to have overcome nature - as usual you have misquoted me - what I stated is, Yogis claim that our real nature is not limited to this simple body mind concept, but goes beyond that. Advanced practitioners of Yoga claim the ability to perform special things using Siddhis like Anima laghima etc. You can refer The below link and also Patanjalis Yoga Sutras for this. I have not personally seen a Yogi using these Siddhis but that doesn't necessarily mean they do not exist.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddhi

This Siddhi is within the area of belief. I cannot debate your beliefs and such claims (even if it is shared by many). Thanks for providing clarification

 

[a-TB]

To a-TB

You have stated that Sri Sankaracharya has not considered the Vishwaroopam a true event, and must have dealt with it in a symbolically significant way only. For this, Please go ahead and provide citations in the form of original references from his works, with your own interpretations and conclusions.

Mine was a mere conjecture based on how Puranic stories are interpreted.
I read the story of Ganesha in the forum here (thread is in the Philosophy section). There are Muslim websites that make fun of such stories. When I got the significance of that story it made some sense to me as to the greatness of that story.

I do not take things literally with descriptions because literal understanding of such things is a sign of immature understanding.
So I have no further thing to add here though I may pursue this with some experts. Thanks for your comments that has made me look into such things

 

[a-TB]

Sir,
I have not seen your past discussions...But from the way you have been responding to me, I am sure Sri Vaagmi must have good reason in expressing the sentiments he did

Mr Vaagmi has said bye to this thread so I do not want to say anything other than that he does not know the difference between attacking a post and attacking the poster. He is my sparring partner though he may not think of me that way. He is amusing to me, I have no ill will. He has said he loves to watch bugs like cockroach to see what it may be thinking. LOL , may be he is doing something like that. I wish him well. May Lord Narayana bless him for peace of mind.

What I meant with my message to you is this: Let there be not personal attacks - I have not attacked you. Personal attacks degenerate a discussion. I have not asked or said anything outside the scope of topics discussed.

 

[a-TB]

From your above message, all that I can make out is, you seem to hold a lot of unnecessary inhibitions about Sankaracharya's works. Acharya wrote his works, especially his commentaries, for ordinary people like you and me to read and understand them. And as for your issue with Sanskrit, Prof Moorthy has provided an online link to a translation in English too! If you don't want to take even a little step in trying to understand Acharya's works for yourself, then there is nothing to discuss with you on this topic.

Sir, you are imagining. My question to you, after Prof Moorthy shared the link, was about your conclusions and how you arrived at them. After visiting Professor Moorthy's link actually I bought that book from Amazon/Kindle and have browsed the chapter 11. I now know that your conclusions are based on literally reading what Acharya wrote on chapter 11. To me that is unsatisfactory, there must be some significance of this Vishwaroopam that is not obvious while reading this literally. I will find our from others I know.

In this context, lack of any initiative, means lack of seriousness, a disqualification to any discussion.


Acharya's commentary to the Bhagavad Gita is not a Jataka Tale or a Panchatantra. Your example is very funny and I enjoyed it but it again confirms that you are totally out of touch with the reality of the Gita.

You seem to be like a person who has memorized parts of dictionary but cannot write a paragraph to communicate clear answers to the doubts I raised. I have not sensed what reality you have shared other than your beliefs and literally interpreted conclusions (like a duelist)

It is obvious because right at the very beginning, ie in the preface or the Upodghaatam to the Gita, Acharya has clearly explained his views on lord Krishna. As I mentioned earlier, this comes before he even starts the Gita slokas. I had stated this many times already. You don't have to read the entire Bhashyam - all you need to do is read once from the very beginning. The first few pages at least.

This was never a point of debate or discussion for me. Acharya is a Bhaktha but not in the sense people practice today ( I have given examples of what I see people practicing in this thread in the name of Bhakthi)

With your inhibitions to the Bhashyam, you are yet to show me that you have got the ability to understand Acharya's ideas, the commentary, in original or translation. Unless you throw away your inhibitions and comparisons of the Gita to Einstein's paper or to Jataka Tales, and get into real work by starting to read and understand the Gita Bhashyam, in original or translation, I don't think I can help you.


That's not what you have been saying here every day for the past one week.



Really? Then are you saying that people like Adi Sankara himself, who engaged in debates all around, are not Vedantists?

True experts rarely visit forums of this sort , that is the point I made.

But you need to show a readiness to be helped!!

Thank you for the engagement as always


Good luck!

Responses in blue

 

[a-TB]

Have you considered this - that you aren't able to see the light because you have not moved an inch away from your darkness?

I think you have been responding without understanding what the question is. If you think I am in the dark, you need to provide light in my context not while basking in the Sun outside. Truth to be told you are in the darkness too except your posts has an air of imagining being under the sun,

In your responses, you have confused between facts (what is actual translations), your own conclusions (based on your own bias such as seeing literal interpretations as truth) and pet beliefs (Siddhi etc. ).

Are you saying 'every other Bhakta' 'believe and fear god for his power over nature'? From where did you get that idea?


Most people of today's Bhathas even have pride in 'fear of god'. Some even advertise in matrimonial - "we are god fearing family". Children are told that if they dont do something swami will come prick their eyes

No Sir, it has been extremely entertaining.....



Sir, Kindly go ahead and expose holes in my statements or understanding, by quoting from Acharya's works, with citations, your interpretations. What or who is preventing you?

I am searching for truth - simple naked truth. I have no desire to expose holes. I have showed in the last few responses where I see the holes.

Sir, there are people who are proud of their ignorance and parade it. Someone who wants to get rid of his ignorance will make use of the earliest opportunity to get out of it, since he realises the dangers lying in wallowing in ignorance.

My responses in blue.

I made a statement in the beginning portion of this thread. Those that think they are non-dualists are a confused lot. Dualist are clear but misguided. This discussion has only amplified that position for me.

I have never engaged with anyone this much since joining the forum. This has made me buy a book, look for others for insights and find out more. For all that I thank you very much

 

[a-TB]

Just for info, I would like to say that scholarly vedantists of all the three varieties, Advaitins, Dvaitins and VishishtAdvaitins do meet and debate once in a year during "Vidwat Sadas" which normally lasts for a week.

I have not attended such debate(s) but have been informed that such debates are illuminating for the wannabe vedantists.

Dear Mr zebra16:

What I meant was in context. Mr KRN wanted me to bring other experts to debate here. I said true vedantists do not come to debate at such forums such as this one. They may meet elsewhere as experts and I have no knowledge or comments about those events

 

[sravna]

Most of the so called debates are about trying to put down the other person down and "put him in place" , many times cleverly camouflaging that purpose.

 

[renuka]

A debate about Bhakti can go one as long as the sun and moon exists.

Personally I fee what we think is Bhakti is a state of mind of feeling an emotional connectivity in the Master and Dasa
format.

Best example of pure Bhakti is a Dog and Human relationship.
What a dog has for his master is Bhakti..its built on loyality..trust and faithfulness that the master is everything..he is the provider..i survive becos of him..i would lay down my life for him.
Yes..we see this Bhakti in a dog.

Now lets compare it with Bhakti of Human and GOD.
Boy!..we are no DOGS!
Mostly Bhakti is based on fear hence God fearing..we fear to suffer from anything.
We desire punyam..not papam..we desire higher heavens not hell..we desire success not failure..we make transactions with God yet we claim to Love Him.

Do we give up our lives for God? Heck no! Some give up their lives for 72 virgins in heaven

Lets see heaven concept..in Hinduism Indraloka is like a bollywood movie..item numbers Apsaras and all..why?
Just to tempt the human mind to behave for a reward.

Thats just primitive..to be doing anything for a reward..can a human mind strive for a state sans fear..sans desire..sans attachment..sans identification? ( even of a genetic kind)


May be if we reach that state..that would be true Bhakti..what we call Bhakti now is just an over rated glorified emotional " affair" for personal gain.

 

[sravna]

Renuka,

You cannot do away with the personal gain angle. It is not wrong too. Only undue desire for personal gain is wrong. Balance has to be struck between the gain for self and selfless acts.

 

[renuka]

Renuka,

You cannot do away with the personal gain angle. It is not wrong too. Only undue desire for personal gain is wrong. Balance has to be struck between the gain for self and selfless acts.

Agreed..but then we should not call it Bhakti.

I have no problem if anyone calls themselves a materialist and seeks tremendous gain as long he knows that his desire and no rephrase is as Bhakti.

 

[renuka]

Dear Sravna...

Ok..lets get simple..
We all work..why do we work?
Cos we need money to lead a comfortable life.

Is that a desire?
Some might say so.

But it can also be called a reaction to the action called work.

Work is action..money is reaction.

If just say the work is not bringing in money..then what do we call it?

We can call it system malfunction..action reaction mechanism malfunction

So what do we next?

Repair the system...look for faulty parts and make the Action Reaction system work again.

Tell me..where is desire of a personal gain in this to ensure a system works?

If we get technical we get a clearer picture.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna...

Ok..lets get simple..
We all work..why do we work?
Cos we need money to lead a comfortable life.

Is that a desire?
Some might say so.

But it can also be called a reaction to the action called work.

Work is action..money is reaction.

If just say the work is not bringing in money..then what do we call it?

We can call it system malfunction..action reaction mechanism malfunction

So what do we next?

Repair the system...look for faulty parts and make the Action Reaction system work again.

Tell me..where is desire of a personal gain in this to ensure a system works?

If we get technical we get a clearer picture.

Dear Renuka,

I will get back to you on this