[Advaita-l] Advaita Vedanta & Krsna Bhakti

[Sunil Bhattacharjya]

Dear friends,
 
/////    The very last Brahmasutra says, that for those sattvika ones who meditate constantly on saguna Brahman there is no return to samsara.  They abide in Vaikuntha, Kailasa, etc. until the pralaya when they attain the final mukti at the dissolution of all names and forms.  (This is called kramamukti.)  So their efforts are certainly not wasted just a little more roundabout than jivanmukti.   ///
 
This is compatible with the declaration in the Bhagavatam that at the end the Lord gives Jnana to his ardent devotee.  
 
Regards,
 
Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

--- On Fri, 4/30/10, Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com> wrote:


From: Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Advaita Vedanta & Krsna Bhakti
To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Date: Friday, April 30, 2010, 11:24 PM


On Fri, 30 Apr 2010, Krunal Makwana wrote:

> Jai Sri Krsna
> 
> I've created this new post as i would like to discuss the setoriological
> position of krsna bhakti within the boundries of advaita vedanta.
> 
> Before i begin i would like to lay the position of our bhagavatpada
> regarding liberation.
> 
> 1. Mukti can ONLY be realised by correct knowledge
> 2. All that we experience through our senses is temporary
> 3. There is no difference in reality between individual souls and brahman
> 
> Although acaryasri had created many hymns in the praise of various deities
> he staunchly only accepts that the path of knowledge or correct knowledge
> leads to ultimate realisation. He accepts that going to mandir, doing puja
> etc are only mediums for purification of mind but do not directly lead to
> realisation.
> 

This requires some clarification.  In the past I've quoted from the bhashya on the chaturvyuhadhikarana (specifically Brahma Sutra 2.2.44) but it bears repeating again.  For those that don't know, here the theory of the Vaishnava Pancharatra agamas that Ishvara has a fourfold form is discussed and ultimately rejected.  Shankaracharya says inter alia:

"Concerning this system we wish to remark that we do not intend to controvert the doctrine that Narayana, who is higher than the avyakta (pradhana or the prakriti of Samkhya in its unmanifest state) who is the highest Self and the Self of all, reveals Himself by dividing Himself in multiple ways; for various scriptural passages such as "He is onefold, He is threefold" (Chandogyopanishad 7.26.2) teaches us the highest Self appears in manifold forms.  Nor do we mean to object to the inculculation of unceasing concentration of mind on the Highest Being which appears in the Bhagavata doctrine under the forms of reverential approach etc.; for that we are to meditate on the Lord we know full well from Smrti and Shruti."

Earlier in that same section Shankaracharya described the methods by which
these Bhagavatas worshipped ("reverential approach" etc.)

"The believer after having worshipped Vasudeva for a hundred years [i.e.
all his life] by means of reverential approach to the Temple (abhigamana),
procuring of things to be offered (upadana), oblation (ijya), recitation
of prayers etc. (svadhyaya), and devout meditation (yoga) passes beyond
all affliction and reaches the Highest Being."

So you see bhakti versus jnana is not the issue; bheda versus abheda is. Insofar as bhakti practices postulate a difference between bhakta and bhagavan then they are criticised.  But then so for that matter are the jnana practices of the Samkhyas, Bauddhas etc.  When bhakti is "unceasing concentration of mind on the Highest Being" it _is_ jnana.

> How can one who does not and has no interest or inclined in following the
> path of knowledge but rather only pure devotional service to God achieve
> liberation?

As noted above by "unceasing concentration of mind on the Highest Being"

> (Please note: I have only used Krsna bhakti here as a matter of
> personal preference but for consistency could we stick to this form of
> bhakti) We have had so many saints within the bhakti movement and jnana
> movement e.g narsaiyo of gujarat, mirabai, kabir, tukaram, surdas, swami
> haridas, madhusudana saraswati etc. Would we still count them as
> non-realised? do they not realise liberation? or are they an exception to
> the rule?
> 

Your list includes followers of Ramananda, Nimbarka, and Pushti Marg sampradayas.  Insofar as these philosophies teach bheda they cannot lead to jnana.  Swami Madhusudana Saraswati may have been a Krshna bhakta but he was an Advaitin through and through so we definitely can rely on his teachings.  Even the others, do they have nothing to offer?  On the contrary if one believes that Brahman pervades all, there is always something that can be learned from saintly people even if they are not 100% correct.

> Also if be the case that they are not realised two things then unfold:
> 1. Krsna bhakti is inferior to jnana marg = no point of worshipping Krsna

Only bhakti that fosters bheda is inferior.

> 2. The saint discussed are born again into the cycle of birth and death and
> they wasted their time
> 

The very last Brahmasutra says, that for those sattvika ones who meditate constantly on saguna Brahman there is no return to samsara.  They abide in Vaikuntha, Kailasa, etc. until the pralaya when they attain the final mukti at the dissolution of all names and forms.  (This is called kramamukti.)  So their efforts are certainly not wasted just a little more roundabout than jivanmukti.

> Although i've started this discussion i don't know what i really want to
> achieve out of this discussion. Talking from a personal view, i've been
> reading our acaryas work and by all means something i admire and respect,
> his words have carried me through so many struggles in my life BUT there has
> come a point for me where i just want to solely devote myself to God within
> the confinements of our parampara without getting into the nitty gritty of
> scriptural interpretation etc.

What is the essence of bhakti?  Prem rasa am I right?  Think of those who you love in a laukika sense.  Do you not want to know everything about them.  Aren't you concerned that you are treating them right and don't you want to understand all the ways to make them happy and conversely the things that make them unhappy?  Is caring about these things a sign of obsession or due diligence?  Perhaps a little of both?  A bhakta feels the same way about bhagawan.  Learning these things is the purpose of shastras for him.  if you don't want to get into all the hairsplitting right now there is nothing wrong with that but I think you will find that you yourself want to do so as your vivek increases.

btw I am not just talking theoretically here.  My own interest in learning sanskrit and shastras originally came from a desire to increase my faith I feel that I am a better bhakta because of it.

-- Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org