Mahavakya and Abject surrender is there contradiction

[renuka]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Absolutely. I never claimed anywhere that Bhakti yoga by itself is the be-all and end-all of life.

But nor is Karma yoga.....Both Karma and Bhakti are dealt with in equal respect by Krishna in the Geetha...which fact you had so pointedly ignored in your assertion that bhakti yoga makes weaklings of us and that Krishna doesn't want bhakti.

If you want to find fault with or laugh at my comparison, I have no problem. I am more interested to see whether you have any rebuttals to the points I raised.

Oye..read what I wrote..I said Bhakti texts makes us weaklings.
Did I say Bhakti path?

There is a lot of difference between text and the actual path.

And I said Krishna advocated being equipoised in all situations and you decided to call it Karma yoga even though Krishna said that in the Sankhya Yoga chapter.
and NOT in the Karma yoga chapter.

So you see..also no where I said Krishna didnt want Bhakti..all I said is Krishna didnt ask anyone to wish for sorrow but instead He was giving advice how to handle polar opposites.

Its Kunti who was wishing for adversities...thats her state of mind..some individuals are afraid of happiness becos by claiming to be suffering and in sorrow they somehow get attention.

You have to remember Kunti had a messed up life..abandoned Karna..lived with that guilt.
Had no sex life cos her husband could not have sex due to a curse.

Then Madri.was the more attractive wife whom.Pandu had sex with and died..so surely Kunti wanted some attention..the best way to get attention is playing the sorrowful woman.

 

[Vaagmi]

What path? I am not on any path cos I dont set goals.

You were the one attributing lameness and blindness to Yogins.

May be its your PATHolgy! Lol

LOL

Renukaji,

Whether you realise it, admit it or not you are always on a path. You may think you just "are". But you are on the path. That is the "path"ology from which there is no escape.

As you travel or as you trundle along, you age, you know, you forget, you struggle, you suffer, you enjoy, you fight, you compromise, you make up, you love, you hate and Lo and behold you are at the end of the path and you just disappear to start it all over again somewhere else.

This is the "path"ology.

 

[renuka]

LOL

Renukaji,

Whether you realise it, admit it or not you are always on a path. You may think you just "are". But you are on the path. That is the "path"ology from which there is no escape.

As you travel or as you trundle along, you age, you know, you forget, you struggle, you suffer, you enjoy, you fight, you compromise, you make up, you love, you hate and Lo and behold you are at the end of the path and you just disappear to start it all over again somewhere else.

This is the "path"ology.

Actually Vaagmi ji...there is neither the presence nor the absence of a path.

There is only one point...one locus on the canvas of existence.

Its on this locus that everything else revolves and it may seem as if we walked down some path but in reality the point just experienced the changing of scenes in front of it.

It might take some contemplation to understand what I have written..with a little focus it would unfold eventually Ma Suchah!

 

[Vaagmi]

Actually Vaagmi ji...there is neither the presence nor the absence of a path.
There is only one point...one locus on the canvas of existence.

Renukaji,
Now, getting a little technical. The canvas of existence is the key. You are calling it a point or a locus. I am unable to agree with it. My view is that you can not ignore space or time. Your locus in the canvas in the space exists in time, the unique unidirectional vector which never takes a u turn or traverse back on its line either. So the inexorable march of time and your existence in it all along leaves a trail and that is the path you have travelled according to the "pathology" which you trashed.

Its on this locus that everything else revolves and it may seem as if we walked down some path but in reality the point just experienced the changing of scenes in front of it.

The point had all along been shifting besides experiencing.

It might take some contemplation to understand what I have written..with a little focus it would unfold eventually Ma Suchah!

Yes. Try to focus.

 

[a-TB]

I have heard that in Alcohol Anonymous meetings the first thing they teach the addicts is that they are addicts. Improvement will begin only then.

Similarly why not start saying I do not understand all this - that makes us keep an open mind to listen

There are several words whose meanings are used interchangeably.

Is Bhakthi word mean same as Bhakthi Yoga?
Is act of Bhakthi by doing puja etc is same as Bhakthi yoga?

What is the difference between doing Karma (say even a Puja) and Karma yoga?

What is the difference between learning (Jnanam) and Jnana yoga?
If you learn to do Puja correctly - is that learning Karma or Jnanam?

What is a 'Bhakthi cult' vs Bhakthi?

If anyone has concise and clean answers please share

 

[KRN]

Oye..read what I wrote..I said Bhakti texts makes us weaklings.
Did I say Bhakti path?
There is a lot of difference between text and the actual path.

Ok from your statement am I to understand, "Bhakti texts" makes us weaklings, but "Bhakti path" may not? So how is Bhakti path different from Bhakti texts?

Since you agree now that Krishna taught Bhakti too in the Gita, which is available to us as a text, I suppose, according to you, that God Krishna designed all readers of the Gita to be weaklings....?

And I said Krishna advocated being equipoised in all situations and you decided to call it Karma yoga even though Krishna said that in the Sankhya Yoga chapter.
and NOT in the Karma yoga chapter.

AFAIK Krishna didn't segregate his teaching into chapters like Sankhya yoga chapter and Karma yoga chapter
Many slokas like 'karmanyevadhikaraste....' are found in, what you call, 'Sankhya Yoga' chapter!
So you cannot say, Karma Yoga-related slokas cannot be found in your 'Sankhya Yoga' chapter!!

Anyway...you quoted the sloka "sukha dukhe same krtva.." and said "Krishna was logical..He never asked anyone to beg or act helpless or ask for adversities...all He said is to surrender to Him after telling Arjuna to get up and fight."

So according to you, is 'getting up and fighting'.... Karma yoga or Sankhya yoga?
Do you agree that Krishna promised in the Gita that he will support the Aarthas, Artharthis, Jijnasus and Jnaanis?
How do you differentiate between an "aartha", "artharthi", and someone who begs/someone who is helpless?

 

[KRN]

I do not know where you are going, I know which direction I should be going.
Let us say we need to reach Delhi from Chennai.

I have a car and I know the map and enough time and money, I can reach there eventually.

That's what I was asking from the beginning, because all I saw in this limited period is some messages you copy pasted from various websites. I couldn't figure out your 'path' from those messages and how you can be so sure of reaching your destination.

You start swimming Bay of Bengal, I can definitely tell you are that you are not reaching your destination.
But then again you might to going to Sri Lanka.

But what if I take a ship crossing the Bay of Bengal, meet someone in Sri Lanka or in the Andamans, who tells me that I got the wrong route and then teaches me the right way to Chennai and perhaps also provides me a free flight ticket to Chennai? I get to enjoy the whole sea journey to Lanka, and also I get to enjoy the beaches, jungles, historic monuments in Sri Lanka, before taking the flight to Chennai.

As a matter of fact, the Bhakta is not concerned about reaching any destination at all. He enjoys each and every moment of life in this world, because this is the God's world and the God his most beloved one, I repeat, more beloved to him/her than anything else. And in this aspect of not being concerned with the destination, he is in perfect alignment with the Vedanta-Jnani

Though I compared the Bhakta to a blind person, a more accurate comparison (no comparisons can be fully accurate) is to a person with cataract. As the Mahavakyas state, Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma, and if a person's Bhakti is sincere, in the course of time, that Brahma which alone exists in reality, itself assumes the role of Guru to the Bhakta, and gives him the divine knowledge that cures him of any remaining mental cataract and gives him clear Jnana or the truths of Vedanta, thus leading him to moksha. This is the promise of Krishna in the Gita.

 

[KRN]

What path? I am not on any path cos I dont set goals.

Oye, that message was not to you, but to 'prasad1' who gave me this advice some days ago

"Sir, You need to have strong convictions and follow your individual path.
I have respect for all teachers, but I follow my own path."

I wonder why you respond to a message I had for 'prasad1'? Or can it be that 'renuka' and 'prasad1' are the same person?

You were the one attributing lameness and blindness to Yogins.

Attributing lameness and blindness to Yogins??? Hello... that was a 'comparison' or 'simile'...not to be taken literally

If you, as someone who selectively quoted Krishna in the Gita as having asked Arjuna only to fight the battle "sukha dukhe same krtva", have the effrontery to call bhaktas 'weaklings', then in the same token you will have to call all these people who do 'sukha dukhe same krtva....' also as 'weaklings', ie, no better than the bhaktas.

Because your logical Krishna also says, "sareerayathrapi che tey na prasiddhyet akarmanah" (in your Sankhya Yoga chapter, by the way) and "prakritistvaam niyokshyasi" elsewhere. The person who does karma is driven by the need of sustenance. If you, Ms 'renuka' do some karma, it is because you cannot handle starvation beyond a limit and soon enough, your prakriti will drive you to find some means, maybe even cannibalism.

Compared to the Jnani who couldn't care less whether this body exists or not, the person who does karma "sukha dukhe same krtva" can be called a weakling. But strictly in comparison with the Jnani. The same way, for argument's sake, the bhakta can be considered a weakling, but only in comparison with the Jnani, who has gone beyond all bodily consideration.

But when you compare the Karmi with the bhakta, it is a little like the lame vs the blind in the forest. When there is a forest fire, they need each other's help to escape

 

[KRN]

Its Kunti who was wishing for adversities...thats her state of mind..some individuals are afraid of happiness becos by claiming to be suffering and in sorrow they somehow get attention.

You have to remember Kunti had a messed up life..abandoned Karna..lived with that guilt.
Had no sex life cos her husband could not have sex due to a curse.

What a fantastic analysis! So could we extrapolate and say that everyone who goes out of the way to seek adversities, like polar explorers, must have messed up lives, must have lived with guilty feelings, what not.

Then Madri.was the more attractive wife whom.Pandu had sex with and died..so surely Kunti wanted some attention..the best way to get attention is playing the sorrowful woman.

Actually I do agree with that last line

Though I never had an inkling till this moment that you consider your logical Krishna a fool who falls for petty womanly wiles

 

[renuka]

What a fantastic analysis! So could we extrapolate and say that everyone who goes out of the way to seek adversities, like polar explorers, must have messed up lives, must have lived with guilty feelings, what not.



Actually I do agree with that last line

Though I never had an inkling till this moment that you consider your logical Krishna a fool who falls for petty womanly wiles

See...again you are using all unwarrented words..you are calling Krishna a fool.
Haram to say such things!

Krishna didnt fall for petty womanly wiles..it was just Kunti who was hoping for some attention from some higher authority.

If Krishna was as you described He would have responded to Draupadi right away when she was being disrobed..He took.sometime to respond to make her realize that God is her heart.

Well Draupadi is no Puyal of Kaala movie fame who despite being partially stripped doesnt get up to wear her garments but gets up to take a stick to hit the police officer who partially stripped her...admirable character of Puyal in the movie..that a heroine is not expected to commit suicide after being partially stripped unlike like older movies where even a Dhavani being pulled warrants suicide!

Coming back to topic..so far you have said..

Bhakti Yogins..Lame.
Karma Yogins..Blind
Krishna..a fool.

So it seems you are being highly judgmental.

 

[KRN]

See...again you are using all unwarrented words..you are calling Krishna a fool.
Haram to say such things!

Krishna didnt fall for petty womanly wiles..it was just Kunti who was hoping for some attention from some higher authority.

It was your statement, not mine, that Kunti was just seeking attention, like a petty woman. By thus denigrating Kunti, you were basically calling Krishna who immediately responded to Kunti's so-called "attention-seeking", used his tapas Shakti to resuscitate the child, and then praised her for her true unselfish bhakti, a fool

I was merely showing up the fact that your denigration of Kunti's bhakti, is a denigration of Krishna himself!

If Krishna was as you described He would have responded to Draupadi right away when she was being disrobed..He took.sometime to respond to make her realize that God is her heart.

Well Draupadi is no Puyal of Kaala movie fame who despite being partially stripped doesnt get up to wear her garments but gets up to take a stick to hit the police officer who partially stripped her...admirable character of Puyal in the movie..that a heroine is not expected to commit suicide after being partially stripped unlike like older movies where even a Dhavani being pulled warrants suicide!

Irrelevant to the discussion...

Perhaps if you write your own version of the Mahabharata and Bhagavad Gita, you can add all your own touches to the characters Kunti, Krishna, Draupadi...as per your imagination

So it seems you are being highly judgmental.

Oh..so if we have no answers, then we start blaming others, twisting their words. Nice.

So far you have said....
Bhaktas are weaklings...
The saints of Advaita and Vishishtadvaita were hallucinators...
The sayujyam of Vaishnavas is God getting biwis/habibis...
bhaktas are worse than animals...
Kunti was just an attention seeking woman playing the part of a sorrowful woman...

So it seems YOU were/are being highly judgmental.

 

[KRN]

Back to the point, these are my queries to you...

Oye..read what I wrote..I said Bhakti texts makes us weaklings.
Did I say Bhakti path?
There is a lot of difference between text and the actual path.

Ok from your statement am I to understand, "Bhakti texts" makes us weaklings, but "Bhakti path" may not? So how is this Bhakti path different from what is told in the Bhakti texts?

Since you agree now that Krishna taught Bhakti too in the Gita, which is available to us as a text, I suppose, according to you, God Krishna designed all readers of the Gita to be weaklings....?

And I said Krishna advocated being equipoised in all situations and you decided to call it Karma yoga even though Krishna said that in the Sankhya Yoga chapter.
and NOT in the Karma yoga chapter.

AFAIK Krishna didn't segregate his teaching into chapters like Sankhya yoga chapter and Karma yoga chapter

Many slokas like 'karmanyevadhikaraste....' are found in, what you call, 'Sankhya Yoga' chapter!
So you cannot say, Karma Yoga-related slokas cannot be found in your 'Sankhya Yoga' chapter!!

Anyway...you quoted the sloka "sukha dukhe same krtva.." and said "Krishna was logical..He never asked anyone to beg or act helpless or ask for adversities...all He said is to surrender to Him after telling Arjuna to get up and fight."

So according to you, to 'get up and fight'....is it Karma yoga or Sankhya yoga?

Do you agree that Krishna promised in the Gita that he will support the Aarthas, Artharthis, Jijnasus and Jnaanis?

How do you differentiate between an "aartha", "artharthi", and someone who begs/someone who is helpless?

 

[KRN]

Well said.

But those who believe "my way is highway" may not understand. So it is better not to try to argue with them. They are not ready to think because they sincerely believe they are on the highway. They would rather look for similar highways and pick up ideas to throw at you in a flurry of C-ing and P-ing.

You are very right Sir....but I am still getting to know the regulars in this forum..their views...

 

[renuka]

It was your statement, not mine, that Kunti was just seeking attention, like a petty woman. By thus denigrating Kunti, you were basically calling Krishna who immediately responded to Kunti's so-called "attention-seeking", used his tapas Shakti to resuscitate the child, and then praised her for her true unselfish bhakti, a fool

I was merely showing up the fact that your denigration of Kunti's bhakti, is a denigration of Krishna himself!





Irrelevant to the discussion...

Perhaps if you write your own version of the Mahabharata and Bhagavad Gita, you can add all your own touches to the characters Kunti, Krishna, Draupadi...as per your imagination

Oh..so if we have no answers, then we start blaming others, twisting their words. Nice.

So far you have said....
Bhaktas are weaklings...
The saints of Advaita and Vishishtadvaita were hallucinators...
The sayujyam of Vaishnavas is God getting biwis/habibis...
bhaktas are worse than animals...
Kunti was just an attention seeking woman playing the part of a sorrowful woman...

So it seems YOU were/are being highly judgmental.

Again you are thinking that I denigrated Krishna when its you who is still again and again doing so.

I had written that animals carry on life without begging asking etc.

That does not mean that bhaktas are worse than animals becos i do not look down upon animals..in fact its an honor to be compared to an animal becos they are sincere and follow their Dharma something rarely found in humans.


My point on biwis and habibis is relevant becos why a female bhakta becomes a consort on sayujyam but a male bhakta does not become a consort?

That shows humans gave God partners..we project our mundane understanding of the need of heterosexual partners on God and eventually deconstruct our own religion by giving it a polytheist shade.

Btw an analysis of human behavior is not denigration.
So there was no denigration of Kunti.

Even if one reads Raghuvamsam an ancestor of Lord Rama had commited suicide becos of depression due to his wife leaving him to go back to her loka.

So we could feel the same depressive trait in Dasharatha too..after all he finally died of depression.

Not to mention Lord Rama who finally walked into the Sarayu preceeded by Lakshmana.

What was it?
Jalasamadhi? Isnt it Jalasamadhi just a form of Atmahatya?

Am I denigrating Rama?
No..i am not..its just observing behavioral pattern.

I guess you are viewing my words tru the lenses of emotions hence you mistakenly feel its denigrating hence you react with words like denigrating Kunti..Krishna etc but you end up calling Krishna names and attribute physical defects and visual defects to Karma Yogins and Bhakti Yogins respectively.

May be you should try a more technical approach to understand my posts..for eg like how Vaagmi ji did in his last post to me...he became technical and made a lot of sense.

Ma Suchah..eventually you would be able to.

 

[renuka]

Back to the point, these are my queries to you...




Ok from your statement am I to understand, "Bhakti texts" makes us weaklings, but "Bhakti path" may not? So how is this Bhakti path different from what is told in the Bhakti texts?

Since you agree now that Krishna taught Bhakti too in the Gita, which is available to us as a text, I suppose, according to you, God Krishna designed all readers of the Gita to be weaklings....?



AFAIK Krishna didn't segregate his teaching into chapters like Sankhya yoga chapter and Karma yoga chapter

Many slokas like 'karmanyevadhikaraste....' are found in, what you call, 'Sankhya Yoga' chapter!
So you cannot say, Karma Yoga-related slokas cannot be found in your 'Sankhya Yoga' chapter!!

Anyway...you quoted the sloka "sukha dukhe same krtva.." and said "Krishna was logical..He never asked anyone to beg or act helpless or ask for adversities...all He said is to surrender to Him after telling Arjuna to get up and fight."

So according to you, to 'get up and fight'....is it Karma yoga or Sankhya yoga?

Do you agree that Krishna promised in the Gita that he will support the Aarthas, Artharthis, Jijnasus and Jnaanis?

How do you differentiate between an "aartha", "artharthi", and someone who begs/someone who is helpless?

Will get back to you after I watch Argentina Vs Nigeria match which will be starting soon.

Hope Messi lives up to his name Messi means Messiah!

But the Nigerian boys have done well by beating Iceland.

This time in World cup..the teams without a star players are doing better.

Egypt was too dependent on Mohd Salah( star player) and didnt do well and lost to no star player team Saudi Arabia.

Nigeria has no star player doing well so far
Croatia..no star player..beat Argentina 3 0.

The teams sans a star player are playing as a team..but the teams who have a star player have " surrendered" to the star player in total bhakti to score goals but that is backfiring.

So Bhakti and surrender doesnt seem to work in football..from Salah ( meaning..prayer) to Messi ( meaning..Messiah)..Karma Yoga( team work) seems to be producing results.

 

[a-TB]

I have heard that in Alcohol Anonymous meetings the first thing they teach the addicts is that they are addicts. Improvement will begin only then.

Similarly why not start saying I do not understand all this - that makes us keep an open mind to listen

There are several words whose meanings are used interchangeably.

Is Bhakthi word mean same as Bhakthi Yoga?
Is act of Bhakthi by doing puja etc is same as Bhakthi yoga?

What is the difference between doing Karma (say even a Puja) and Karma yoga?

What is the difference between learning (Jnanam) and Jnana yoga?
If you learn to do Puja correctly - is that learning Karma or Jnanam?

What is a 'Bhakthi cult' vs Bhakthi?

If anyone has concise and clean answers please share

Dear Mr KRN:

Will you be able to make an attempt to answer these questions? You seem to be widely read.

They may seem trivial to some but I have sensed confusion in the usage of these terms here.

Thank you

 

[prasad1]

[FONT=q_serif]Bhakti yoga, in my opinion, is pure love.

The Bhakti, which embodies the idea of God as a judge or punisher or someone to be obeyed through fear, don't deserve to be called love.

So long as there is fear, it is not loving. Love banished all fear. love never asks, never begs.

Love loves for the sake of love itself. Even the idea of object vanishes.

Love is the only form in which love is loved. This is the highest abstraction & the same as the Absolute.[/FONT]

 

[prasad1]

[FONT=q_serif]Worship of the Impersonal God is through truth. And what is truth? That I am He. [/FONT]
[FONT=q_serif]
Unless one reaches this sublime state of oneness with the Divine Beloved, one may get entangled in the web of rituals, practices and dress codes and be still far from the destination of Para-bhakti. Can the infinite be caught in these finite things! Of course they play a role in nurturing the young plant but sometimes the fence itself may an obstacle in the growth of the plant. Hence one must not forget the goal of Bhakti which is Para-bhakti or Supreme Devotion to God without any expectations and conditions. Another caution that needs to be borne in mind about Bhakti, especially in its early stages of development, is the danger of fanaticism. While Nishtha, one-point loyalty to one’s chosen form of God is the bedrock of growth on the path of devotion, one should not develop it by hating or underrating or criticizing other forms of the Divine.

[/FONT]https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-bhakti-and-bhakti-yoga

 

[Janaki Jambunathan]

If you try to believe these 'Mahavakyas' as a non-dualist then we only see confused people, even more so with the idea of surrender.

Meena Kandasamy has raised this question ? How do "Non-Dualist " respond?


Non Dualism
Atman Self
Brahman God
Are Equal
And Same.
So I
Untouchable Outcast
Am God.
Will You
Ever Agree?

Advita by Meena Kandasamy

 

[KRN]

I had written that animals carry on life without begging asking etc.

Really..?AFAIK Animals do beg for food, whenever they entertain a hope that the begging works

That does not mean that bhaktas are worse than animals becos i do not look down upon animals..in fact its an honor to be compared to an animal becos they are sincere and follow their Dharma something rarely found in humans.

That's your personal opinion on animals. But others may not share your sentiments. So....I don't see how you could presume to call someone else or an entire group of people as worse than animals. That will be felt denigratory.

Try telling it to someone to their face...

And...are you saying now, that humans rarely are sincere and follow their 'dharma'? That's you again being Judgmental.

Btw an analysis of human behavior is not denigration.
So there was no denigration of Kunti.

A person loses his/her only child or grandchild. Or, the child/grandchild is a stillborn baby. The aggrieved grandmother (Kunti) prays to the lord for help. This, as I explained and as you can verify with the texts, is the background of the prayer of Kunti. The context determines everything.

I don't see how your "analysis of human behaviour" applies here....in your words, Kunti was attention seeking, claiming to be in sorrow at the death of her grandchild, so that she somehow gets attention of Krishna. That she had no sex life, her husband had another wife...she lived with a guilty feeling due to karna. She was playing the sorrowful woman with Krishna....

In my view, you were not merely Judgmental, but denigratory of Kunti...

Let's see...If a rape victim comes to you... will you do a similar analysis....like, call her attention-seeking, state that she got into trouble coz she had no sex life...will you then technically analyse her past and say, she is mentally unbalanced and playing the part of a sorrowful woman coz she had a fall from a tree in childhood...and so on..

I guess you are viewing my words tru the lenses of emotions

I was viewing how you evaded my queries on your statements on Bhagavad Gita, and then started accusing me as Judgmental whereas you were the one Judgmental of others, from the beginning of this thread. I merely showed you some of those instances. However I am focused on the key points of discussion ie what do you mean when you say things like, bhakti texts makes weaklings of people, or when you say, in the Gita Krishna does not want us to beg him, etc. Why don't you just respond to my queries, if you like, so that we can move ahead with that discussion without deviating to personal comments like "judgmental on this, that" and so on

May be you should try a more technical approach to understand my posts..

Maybe you first explain what this "technical approach" is and how you apply it to the title of this thread ie Mahavakyas and abject surrender, or to the Bhagavad Gita. Is it anything like what I mentioned earlier... in the example with the rape victim

Ma Suchah..eventually you would be able to.

Able to..what? Be Judgmental and denigrating of bhaktas? No chance...I hope

 

[KRN]

Dear Mr KRN:

Will you be able to make an attempt to answer these questions? You seem to be widely read.

They may seem trivial to some but I have sensed confusion in the usage of these terms here.

Thank you

Hi,

I was asking similar questions of "renuka" - and awaiting a response.

like what's the difference between 'bhakti texts' and 'bhakti path'?

So I'd leave it to her, if she so desires, to explain terms and clear your confusion.

 

[KRN]

[FONT=q_serif]Bhakti yoga, in my opinion, is pure love.

The Bhakti, which embodies the idea of God as a judge or punisher or someone to be obeyed through fear, don't deserve to be called love.

So long as there is fear, it is not loving. Love banished all fear. love never asks, never begs.

Love loves for the sake of love itself. Even the idea of object vanishes.

Love is the only form in which love is loved. This is the highest abstraction & the same as the Absolute.[/FONT]

That's great Sir. Nice explanation.

And by the way, guess you forgot to give the link this time

 

[a-TB]

Hi,

I was asking similar questions of "renuka" - and awaiting a response.

like what's the difference between 'bhakti texts' and 'bhakti path'?

So I'd leave it to her, if she so desires, to explain terms and clear your confusion.

Is it just my confusion or confusion across the board? If the answer is simple it would be easy to answer.
Chances are high that most do not understand the basic terms even remotely but are able to dabble in detailed arguments.

I would like to see if one member can give a simple and clear meaning to each of the terms.

 

[a-TB]

[FONT=q_serif]Bhakti yoga, in my opinion, is pure love.

The Bhakti, which embodies the idea of God as a judge or punisher or someone to be obeyed through fear, don't deserve to be called love.

So long as there is fear, it is not loving. Love banished all fear. love never asks, never begs.

Love loves for the sake of love itself. Even the idea of object vanishes.

Love is the only form in which love is loved. This is the highest abstraction & the same as the Absolute.[/FONT]

Thanks for making an attempt to define a few terms.

From this definition, I cannot see how Bhakthi is even related to Bhakthi Yoga !
It appears that Bhakthi as defined above is opposite of Bhakthi yoga.. mmmmm .. does that make sense?

 

[a-TB]

Meena Kandasamy has raised this question ? How do "Non-Dualist " respond?


Non Dualism
Atman Self
Brahman God
Are Equal
And Same.
So I
Untouchable Outcast
Am God.
Will You
Ever Agree?

Advita by Meena Kandasamy

Great point. Exposes hypocricy