[Advaita-l] 'Bhakti' in SrIvidyopAsanA

[D.V.N.Sarma డి.వి.ఎన్.శర్మ]

An interesting thing about LS.
The killing of Visukra and Vishanga by Mantrini and dandanatha are
exchanged in LS and Lalithopakhyana(Brahamanda Purana).
A curious circumstance.


-- 
regards,
Sarma.
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 1:20 AM, Ramakrishna Upadrasta <
uramakrishna at gmail.com> wrote:

> namaste,
>
> One initial difference of opinion in these threads, apparently as it
> turned out, seems to be whether upAsana is
> -- an art (in the sense of emotion driven and hence more similar to
> conventional understood form of bhakti)
> -- or whether it is a science (in the sense of having a concretized
> "standard form" using the shaastra relevant to it so that it can be
> practiced in a uniform way and transmitted from guru to a shiShya).
>
>
> The opposition of advaitins to both of these, as far as I understand
> is that "it does not matter whether it is an art or a science, it
> still comes under the broad category of puruSha-tantra" and hence is
> insufficient to reach the unmanifest, with the triumvirate
> sharavaNa-manana-nidhidhyAsana being the only means of doing so.
>
> As others mentioned previously in these threads, the words bhakti can
> mean different things in the vedantic context: from the intense love
> for Ishvara, to shraddha on the daily laukika routines and mantra
> prayoga, and many more things like respect to the words of guru and
> even to the process of Atma-vichaara.
>
> With the above context, conventional bhakti becomes a very important
> aspect of the sAdhaka's drive even in what is conventionally
> understood to be upAsana as well unless the sAdhaka is a
> machine/robot(!). So, it seems that merely equating bhakti to one of
> these varieties, primarily the emotional variety exemplified by some
> dvaitin schools, and thereby negating/belittling that aspect may not
> be productive to the discussion, when the fluidity of the differences
> of meanings has generally been understood and agreed upon.
>
>
> Here is an example from a similar context: advaita as a framework
> shows the limitations of any work, whether laukika or vaidka in
> reaching the infinite. In this broad context, the jaiminIya system
> which emphasizes on yaGYa as a formalized process, and which has the
> stated goal of reaching infinite has been criticized by the advaitins
> as well. Now, a jaiminIya-mImAMsaka can criticize the limitations of
> works done in the laukika-context, while at the same time showing how
> they should done (like preparing the rice) so that it is acceptable to
> him, but still loses the argument before the advaitin because of the
> particular classification "karma as a means of infinite" the advaitin
> puts him in. The mImAMsaka himself cannot deny that what he is doing
> is a karma of some category as well, because that is his driving force
> and means to his immortality!
>
> Similarly, it does not seem to me that the upaasaka can deny that the
> intense love part, gets carried over to the next levels eventually
> leading to the fructification of his upaasana.
>
> namaste
> Ramakrishna
>
>
> 2012/3/4 Satish Arigela <satisharigela at yahoo.com>:
> >>He seems to advocate the thought that bhakti, intense love for
> >>Ishwara, Brahman, is the means to Immortality/liberation.
> >
> > This is merely praise of bhakti and an exaggeration of that. If intense
> love for Ishvara did the trick and if bhAskararAya believed it completely,
> he would not have bothered himself with mastering the hundreds of mantra-s
> and spend lot of time and effort mastering the various mantra prayoga-s.
> Give it some thought
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>