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

श्रीमल्ललितालालितः lalitaalaalitah at gmail.com
Fri Feb 3 22:01:46 CST 2012

*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <http://www.lalitaalaalitah.com/>
lalitAlAlitaH <http://about.me/lalitaalaalitah/bio>*

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.

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list