[Advaita-l] Bhakti and Jnana

[Kalyan K]

Dear members,

It is said that being a great bhakta, Sri Ramakrishna found it very tough
to move from saguNa brahman (in his case, goddess Kali) to nirguNa brahman
because of his attachment to the mother goddess. But still, he made this
transition to achieve jivan mukti. On the other hand, most of us are light
years away from reaching this stage, so the discussion on bhakti vs. jNAna
is mostly of academic interest for the time being.

Now Sunilji, since you mention about Hanuman, I have the following to say -
In North India, Hanuman is considered to be an aMsa of Lord Siva. For
example, Tulsidas, in his hanuman chAleesA refers to hanuman as "Sankara
suvana". If Hanuman is an aMsa of Siva, then he is already a jNAni, though
he can also be considered as an ideal bhakta.

Regards
Kalyan


On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Sunil Bhattacharjya <
sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Dear friends,
>
> Bhakti is the driving force for mukti. It is like the yearning of the
> lover for the beloved. It is like a vehicle that takes you to the goal.
> Without that mukti is not possible. However when one reaches the home and
> enters it  one leaves the vehicle behind as it had served its purpose and
> recognizes the help. In sayujya mukti there is no place for Bhakti after
> the onenesss occurred as there is no second entity.  In that situation
> yearning does not exist any more. That is the situation in Advaita. However
> in Vishishtadvaita where the Mukti could be asriti or sarupya  and in
> Dvaita, where the Mukti could be  samipya and salokya, the Bhakti has to be
> there side by side as the individual does exist as separate form Brahman,
> however nearness there may be.
>
> As regards Shri Ramakrishna Paramhansa, to my knowledge, when he obtained
> permission from Mother Kali to get initiated to Advaita he was asked by
> Totapuri to kill (the thought of) the Mother in the sense that her
> existence as separate from him is to be removed for achieving Advaita. Does
> this not indicate the end of Bhakti in Advaita? Even in Buddhism (in Zen)
> the initiate is told to kill the Buddha if he ever appears. The meaning is
> similar.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Sunil KB
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: Gopal <gopal.gopinath at gmail.com>
> To: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com>; A discussion
> group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2012 5:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Bhakti and Jnana
>
>
> >May I request the learned readers to give their opinion on the origin of
> the word "Bhakti" and its marning in relation to Vedanta.
>
> I am not learned in the sense you mean but I could read and type. So I am
> typing a few sentences uttered by Sri Ramakrishna in the Gospel compiled by
> M.
>
> (pub. 2000: Gospel of RK, pg. 283)
>
> In the same state he said, addressing the devotees:"That which is Brahman
> is verily Shakti. I address That, again, as the Mother. I call it Brahman
> when It is inactive, and Shakti when It creates, preserves, and destroys.
> It is like water, sometimes still and sometimes covered with waves. The
> Incarnation of God is a part of the leelaa of Shakti. The purpose of the
> Divine Incarnation is to teach man ecstatic love for God. The Incarnation
> is like the udder of the cow, the only place milk is to be got. God
> incarnates Himself as man. There is a great accumulation of divinity in a
> Incarnation, like the accumulation of fish in a deep hollow in a lake".
>
> For the past week or two, I have been following the passionate arguments
> against bhakti in the world of advaitic jnAna.  For many great souls like
> Sri Ramakrishna, bhakti and jnAna have been like two slices of a mango. At
> any given time, they had found Ananda with just one of the slices.
> Obviously they did not waste time arguing about the merits of either of the
> slices.  Hopefully in the week of Sri Ramakrishna's Jayanthi, I sincerely
> pray we find peace before it is too late.
> It is also pertinent to note that Sri Ramakrishna did not decide who would
> and who would not get Sayujya mukti or other types of mukti.
>
> -gopal
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Sunil Bhattacharjya <
> sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Dear friends,
> >
> >May I request the learned readers to give their opinion on the origin of
> the word "Bhakti" and its marning in relation to Vedanta.
> >
> >
> >Bhakti, as I understand, comes from the root "Bhaj", which means to
> divide. Bhakta is the divided state. Bhakta recognizes the division from
> whom he has got divided and relish the division. Bhakta to me always wants
> to be near that from whom it got divided but not to lose the "Bhakta"
> identity. Hanuman being a Jnani, he alone among those present near Lord
> Ram, deserved  the grace of Lord Ram  in the form of Sayujya mukti. However
> Hanuman preferred to stay divided, ie. as a Bhakta and refused to accept
> the Sayujya Mukti from the Lord. The Jnanis alone are offered the Sayujya
> Mukti.
> >
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>