K Kathirasan NCS
kkathir at NCS.COM.SG
Tue Jun 11 00:58:15 CDT 2002
Firstly I think we have mixed up Bhakti bhava and Bhakti yoga. The latter is
a sadhana while the former is an attitude. Shankara wrote lots of stotrams
in Bhakti Bhava and that has got nothing to do with Bhakti Yoga. In both the
ajnani and the jnani, bhakti is a common denominator. The ajnani sees the
separation between himself and Iswhara but the jnani identifies with
Ishwara. Both are bhaktas. The jnani actually sees Ishwara in all forms
which is due to jnana alone. And that could be the reason why we see so
many stotrams composed by Shankara.
The whole tradition of Advaita Vedanta is very clear about the view that
Jnana ALONE can confer mukti. The point of Bhakti Yoga being another direct
means to mukti is not acceptable to the tradition. As Shankara makes this
very clear in most of his works. But many make a big mistake in considering
Bhakti Yoga as another valid means to moksha. This is definitely not
acceptable to the Advaita Vedanta tradition. But we can accept Bhakti Yoga
as an indirect means to moksha just like Karma Yoga (in fact Bhakti Yoga is
indeed Karma Yoga) for the sole sake of chitta shuddhi. The verse quoted
from the sutra bhashya refers to this alone as we all know that Karma, even
if it may be meditation on the Lord, cannot bestow us the paramapurushartha
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jaldhar H. Vyas [SMTP:jaldhar at BRAINCELLS.COM]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 11:38 AM
> To: ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG
> Subject: Re: Bhakti yoga
> On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, K Kathirasan NCS wrote:
> > That's the reason why the Vedanta tradition says that there are only two
> > paths, and they are Jnana Yoga(Sannyasa Yoga) and Karma Yoga. Bhakti
> Yoga is
> > indeed Karma Yoga 'cause there is still doership.
> Typically this is true but Advaita Vedanta says Bhakti can be the means of
> jnana too. In the Bhashya on Brahmasutra 2.2.44, Shankaracharya refutes
> the 4-vyuha theory of the Bhagavata (proto-Vaishnavas) but takes pains to
> note it is only that theory not the general idea of Bhakti. Here is a
> translation (G. Thibauts's actually) of the relevant passage:
> "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
> 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.")
> How can Bhakti become Jnana when there is duality there? Even in worldly
> love there is an element of selflessness. When two people are in love
> don't they think of nothing else but their beloved? Doesn't a slight or
> injury to one seem just as painful to the other? For the bhakta by
> recognizing the Lord as the ruler and creator of all and then ultimately
> as none other than his own self he can get Mukti.
> Swami Madhusudana Saraswati was the great thoretician of Bhakti in the
> Advaita tradition and he has explained the subject well in works like
> Gudarthadipika and Bhaktirasayana.
> Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
> It's a girl! See the pictures - http://www.braincells.com/shailaja/
>From Tue Jun 11 06:16:52 2002
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 06:16:52 -0400
Reply-To: samir.shukla at excite.com
To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
<ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG>
From: samir shukla <samir.shukla at EXCITE.COM>
Subject: Re: Bhakti yoga
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Prakruti & Purush, Brahma & maya are considered to be the different presentations of the same Poorna brahma,
What difference it makes if I worship maya or Brahma? (please don't misunderstand worship to maya, I don't mean to have all the worldly pleasures).
Shhraddha that I keep either in the maya - form of parabrahma, or the Purush- form of parabrahma are both ultimately going to take me to same destination.
Please guide me on this.
Regards to all
Samir--- On Tue 06/11, K Kathirasan NCS < kkathir at NCS.COM.SG > wrote:
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
<table cellpadding=10 cellspacing=0 border=0 width=100% bgcolor=white><tr height=200><td width=100%><font size=2 color=black>Prakruti & Purush, Brahma & maya are considered to be the different presentations of the same Poorna brahma, <br />
What difference it makes if I worship maya or Brahma? (please don't misunderstand worship to maya, I don't mean to have all the worldly pleasures). <br />
Shhraddha that I keep either in the maya - form of parabrahma, or the Purush- form of parabrahma are both ultimately going to take me to same destination. <br />
Please guide me on this. <br />
Regards to all <br />
Samir<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>--- On Tue 06/11, K Kathirasan NCS < kkathir at NCS.COM.SG > wrote:<BR></font></td></tr></table><p><hr><b>Join Excite! - <a href="http://www.excite.com/?PG=Email&SEC=Signature" target=_top>http://www.excite.com</a></b><br>The most personalized portal on the Web!
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list