[Advaita-l] Fw: Did Madhusudana Saraswati Reconcile Bhakti and Advaita?

[Sunil Bhattacharjya]

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com>
To: श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <lalitaalaalitah at gmail.com> 
Sent: Friday, February 3, 2012 8:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Did Madhusudana Saraswati Reconcile Bhakti and Advaita?
 

Namaste,

Advaita's goal is to realize that there is nothing other than Brahman. Prajananam Brahma and in discussions Jnana, the bringing up Brahman does nopt appear to be irrelevant to me.  I am of the opinion that  referring to the goal "Brahman" cannot be dubbed as irrelevant and that goal is explicit or implicit in all Advaita discussions. 


As regards your contention that the realization of "I am that" is not Jnana, kindly permit to differ. Among the Bhaktas the Jnani bhakta is higher and dearer to Him and that is what the Lord said. Jnana is the supreme objective.

Regards,

Sunil KB



________________________________
 From: श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <lalitaalaalitah 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: Friday, February 3, 2012 8:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Did Madhusudana Saraswati Reconcile Bhakti and Advaita?
 



श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
lalitAlAlitaH



On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 09:01, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com> wrote:


>You said
>
>Quote
>This is just re-branding of GyAnam. We accept that such bhakti is same as GyAnam and not greater and better than that.
>
>Unquote
>Will you like to elaborate this?
>

There is type of bhakti which is called best of all. In that bhakti 'I'm that' is the mental state. As this is same in case of GYAnam, so I said like that.
See :
तेषां ज्ञानी नित्ययुक्त एकभक्तिर्विशिष्यते ।
in gItA.
And 
स्वस्वरूपानुसन्धानं भक्तिरित्यभिधीयते ।
in vivekachUDAmaNi.

Bhakti is a state of mind and is in Prakriti. 

Even "I'm that" is a state of mind in the sphere of world. This is the traditional view.
 
A jivanmukta transcends Prakriti and so also transcends Bhakti.

Even a jIvanmukta is not totally mukta, because he is jIvat, i.e. living. And living means holding body and mind. Having body is possible only if you have karma and hence avidyA left. So, he is not totally out of prakR^iti.
 
Brahman needs no Bhakti for Brahman. 

There is no talk of need. We are talking about possibilities. Is bhakti possible for a GYAnI ? If yes, then what type of bhakti ? 
And, we are talking about a GYAnI, not brahman. If you mean that GYAnI is brahman, then I'm sure that you don't mean his body and mind. In that case you are right, but we are not talking about this aspect. So, above sentence is useless here. If you collect body and mind with consciousness and call the chunk GYAnI, then he is, for sure, not brahman (in every aspect). And in that case 'kR^iShNs is mine' -vR^itti, i.e bhakti, is possible.

Brahman is awareness and that is Jnana / Prajnana and not Bhakti. 
>

You are mingling two things which are denoted by same word. GYAna is word and it means many things. Till now we were talking about 'I'm that' - vR^itti and calling it GYAna. And, you are suddenly bringing GYAna, i.e consciousness in debate. So, first try to understand difference of meanings and then again read your sentence. It will become clear to you that it's not correct.