Bhakthi yoga

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 15 May 2007, 01:03

First of all apologies if this doesnâ€™t seem coherent or comes off as irreverent. Both simply reflect my confusion

. Also, apologies for a bit long-winded post.

Also, I am not at all well versed in Hindu Philosophy. I wasnâ€™t that religiously (nor philosophically) inclined in my early years. All I knew was something which I think many of us must have felt "if I remained good in the sense avoided the big sins, prayed fervently that God should take care of me (which implied learnt and recited slokas), then God will take care of me and I should generally be ok - if we are good people, very bad things wont happen to is".

Now I am pretty sure I didnâ€™t follow these "instructions" to the tee - but I know many people who did better. And I find "bad things" bringing deep sorrow happening to people all over every day - many times. Unspeakable crimes happening to seemingly innocent victims. But as long as it didnâ€™t hit close to me, I was blissfully unaware or blissfully "didnâ€™t care as much" except for an occasional pang of sadness.

Then events later and perhaps bothersome dilemmas like above have made me a take a deeper look and even though I am very early in this, I understand things a tad better. I have been reading up some books on Hindu (and Buddhist) philosophy and I find that a lot of what is there makes a lot more sense. What the Gita says about someone who knows Him, I can see that someone who follows should be shielded from the ups/downs of life. There are many points in the Gita, Upanishads, as well as those by Buddha which make a whole lot of sense to me w.r.t what it takes to "be ok" vs. the my original uneducated, naive, blind approach.

My reading is not that deep in this subject but I see the paths to mukthi are karma (selfless service), Raja (knowledge) and Bhakthi (devotion to Lord). Pardon if these are naive interpretations. I have 2 questions:

What is mukthi really?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Maybe there are more, but I have read 2 interpretations.
I. One is when you realize the Lord in everything, in perpetual joy (which is perhaps a misleading word as it is probably not the joy we experience today), you are utmost compassionate, feeling others problems as your own, putting others needs in front of yours (which donâ€™t really exist as a self-serving one), and this supposedly etc.
2. The other one when you attain mukthi - your body perishes but you reach the Lord and you reside there permanently, and you are never born again. In other words, you are born because you have "outstanding karma debt", and that the purpose of our lives is to pay that debt. As long as you donâ€™t do that, you are born again etc.

But may be it is me, but the first one rings better with me. Maybe both are the same - but the way the first one is conveyed makes a lot of sense to me. The second asks for a bigger leap of faith. Of course the second is more open about how you pay the debt: i.e. the 3 forms of yoga. I think #2 is the classic interpretation?

Is mukthi attained here on earth as in #1, or somewhere else as in #2 - or both?

How does Bhakthi yoga really work?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Again to me karma yoga seems to make easier sense probably because #1 interpretation of mukthi fits to me. You have balanced mind, even-keeled, and you live for the need of others i.e. life as a whole - and not for your (ever-changing) needs. That seems the recipe for the perfect human being. I am *presuming* this part must be there in order to attain mukthi (???).

If so, then the question about other yogas is that, if e.g. as per Bhakthi yoga, I devote myself to Rama/Krishna/Ambal/Muruga/Ganesha and am forever thinking about them in humanlike forms (varying degrees), praising them - not just good qualities, but physical attributes, reading up mythological stories of how Lord vanquished this asura, or fought the side of good, then through that does helping others, spreading joy or easing pain etc. etc. come also? If so how? That is the most intriguing question I have. This form - i.e. reading about mythology and reflecting on events in it I believe is way way more common today than the selfless service. From real life, I donâ€™t see people correlating that to helping others. I see them having utmost love to the Lord - and not necessarily to others (beyond their immediate family and friends).

So what is the secret behind Bhakthi Yoga - that thinking of Lord in human forms, and praising and telling/reflecting on mythological events lead you to become a better person. I am unable to comprehend that. Similar question for Raja Yoga.

Unless my presumption is wrong and that i.e. helping others is orthogonal to attaining mukthi? But the sections of Gita where Sri Krishna explains the quality of someone who is devoted to Him, is someone who seems to have these qualities. So that canâ€™t be wrong can it?

If anybody could enlighten this part of Bhakthi Yoga, which I am finding hard to unravel as much as they can, I greatly appreciate this. I know these are pretty loaded questions.

Thanks
Arun

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 15 May 2007, 04:10

I noticed a lot of questions and a lot of rambling

The answer is inside you! You have to look deeper into yourself to realize and experience what 'life' and 'death' mean.

For example when you listen to great CM and lose yourself, that is 'death' since you are losing your identity. When you recover in a way you are 'reborn' and you carry the pleasant memories (vAsanA). You would love to get back the same experience of losing yourself i.e., death. In bhakti you are truly surrendering (saraNagati) to the Almighty to lose your 'self'. When it truly happens you attain 'mukti'. It can happen right here in this world and those lucky ones are the 'jIvanmuktas'. Gita and upanishads are indeed guidebooks for reaching that State. It will work only if you discover it inside 'you'. Of course a Guru can help! But you must be ready!

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 15 May 2007, 06:39

:). A unsteady mind wanders and does tend to ramble . Pl. be prepared for more

In bhakti you are truly surrendering (saraNagati) to the Almighty to lose your 'self'

i think i get the import - by losing your self, you no longer have attachments to wordly things, and thus become that person i mention in #1 (i.e. what gIta and other scriptures say). I dont know how it happens but I guess it is one of those things you have to experience yourselves and for that you have to be ready etc.).

But then the path to bhakthi yoga doesnt seem that much simpler than karma yoga. If any, it is very very deceptive. It is certainly easier to get started. I see lot of people - very pious, very religous, very devoted to the Lord. But whether they are a better person (i.e. in their behaviour towards other beings) as a result, i dont know. Also an average religious person, I believe is still asking for what could be deemed as "personal favors "when they pray to God as in doing archanas/poojas to get jobs, praying that sickness wont come, or the arrived sickness would go away etc. I certainly was in that category. IMO, the average pious person believes that being religious (as in with bhakthi) is an effective shield against bad things happening to them in the first place. The "those things wont happen to our family" feeling I believe is quite common.

Is this still under the umbrellla of bhakthi yoga? Or have they somehow gone a bit astray from that path - stuck in some detour? I mean isnt losing one self means you to be detached so that when bad things arrive you take it in stride - the exact same stride as good things? Not that bad things wont happen to you, but that even if they happen you have the strength and the calmness to deal with it. THAT is the eventual goal isnt? But is that important point somehow lost to most of us that we dont even think it?

Arun

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 15 May 2007, 07:51

VG talks from the nArada bhakti sUtra (?9) forms of bhakti. In my view it is not necessary to quantify in numbers the devotion. It can be any relationship since the deity is only an icon to concretely 'tie' yourself down. As you progress you will discover that He is indeed 'yourself' whence the bhakti becomes svabhakti! Again bhakti is not a barter or business deal with the deity where you are negotiating 'phalam' (rewards). That is 'apara' bhakti which most of us have recourse to to get our wishes fulfilled! I am talking about 'parA bhakti' which leads to salvation (mukti). It is necessary to sacrifice your Ego-Self to realize mukti.
Try the following exercise (it may take quite a while)

Sit quietly and let your mind wander but at the same time follow it as though you are just an observer. Don't try to pass any value judgements. As you continue to practise it you will start developing a sense of detachment. In due course you will be able to control the thought process itself! The ultimate goal is to blank out the mind totally! That is the state of 'samAdhi'. Others may call it 'death' or 'lunacy'. It requires extreme courage to enter that no-man's-land!

Are you ready

kjrao · Post by **kjrao** » 15 May 2007, 09:54

Arun,

Are you seeking mukthi for yourself and leaving all the problems behind for us to face ?

As long as one associates 'I' with the physical body and mind, Bhakthi helps to focus on THAT which animates the physical world and also helps to keep our balance when faced with calamity. Physical world operates on cause-effect basis - no exceptions. Deep sleep is the nearest to the state of mukthi - that is when the 'self' merges with 'Self' !!! - will you still be interested in mukthi ?

vgvindan · Post by **vgvindan** » 15 May 2007, 10:30

Arun,
IMHO, the aim of bhakti is to retrace the steps from where man has deviated from rhythm of Universe and re-aligning once again, but this time intelligently and not inertially, and perform one's role in the Universe as every other element of this Universe does without ever asking a question. Any and every action that we take in this direction (of re-aligning) is bhakti.
If you contemplate a little, you will find the answer as to why it is necessary.

Kabir sings 'AvE nahIn jAvE; marE nahin janmE' - there is no coming and going - there is no death or birth. The Universe is our home. We belong to this Universe, the Universe belongs to us.
The question 'why we are the way we are' is, in the words of Dr Radhakrishnan, 'an ultimate irrationality' for which there is no answer. Here 'we' does not refer to conceited ego of human being, but the whole universe as such.

Krishna says "Neither the hosts of Devas, nor the great RSis, know my origin, for in every way I am the source of all the Devas and the great RSis" (BG.X.2). And He further states "I seek refuge in that Primeal puruSha whence streamed forth the Eternal Activity" (BG.XV.4)
This is a contradiction, yet not quite a contradiction.This is bhakti.

Mukti is not a state to be attained. We are all indeed mukt - free. Once you shake off shackles the resulting state is mukti. It cannot be attained. It is already there - We have to feel it. But mukti does not mean we go 'somewhere' else where there is perpetual happiness. This concept of happiness is indeed the shackle. Contemplate a little - you will find the truth behind what I say.

jayaram · Post by **jayaram** » 15 May 2007, 12:43

Short answer: Mukthi itself is the biggest illusion

vgvindan · Post by **vgvindan** » 15 May 2007, 15:28

Jayaram,

We attained Independence In 1947. What happened then? Did any catastropic event occurred at the stroke of midnight of 15th August 1947 - one flag was downed and another flag was raised. We call this Independence.

What difference was there between 14th August 1947 and 15 August 1947?
Simply this, the British formally handed over power and ceremonially went away.

Similarly there is Bhoot of ego sitting in our head - when this Bhoot vacates its seat, it is Freedom - mukti. If you want to have this Bhoot on your head always, there is none in this World who can stop you. But if there are people who realise that it is a Bhoot which is source of all misery, then let them get rid of it.

As my advice is not going to have any effect on you - because you refuse to listen - so also your protestations will not have any effect on me (and others who see validity of Mukti or have inclination to verify the validity of mukti).

coolkarni · Post by **coolkarni** » 15 May 2007, 16:14

Once you shake off shackles the resulting state is mukti. It cannot be attained. It is already there - We have to feel it. But mukti does not mean we go 'somewhere' else where there is perpetual happiness.

Govindan.
Beautifuly said.
Very similar to what Chesterton says on this subject, too.

A MAN may look into the eyes of his lady-love to see that they are beautiful. But no normal lady will allow that young man to look into her eyes to see whether they are beautiful. The same variety and idiosyncrasy has been generally observed in Gods. Praise them or leave them alone; but do not look for them unless you know they are there. Do not look for them unless you want them.

'All Things Considered.

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 15 May 2007, 21:10

VGV, others â€“ thanks for your posts.

Much of what you guys say is something I have read. Doesnâ€™t mean I fully understand it though! But I guess I should have not highlighted "what is mukthi really?" as much as I did. The answers I see are those I am read, but to my naivetÃ© they get too much into the abstract territory and become less tangible to me. Not your fault of course!

What I was more after is "how does a person who is traveling this path" appear to the community both while he/she starts to make progress, and when he/she has reached the destination like Buddha, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Meera. My presumption is he/she will have a growing a positive influence on the community - because he/she starts to think less about himself and more about others. The interesting thing here is in many mythological episodes of Bhakthi yoga, the story ends when the person reaches mukthi (ANDAL, tyAgarAja etc.). That is probably why I felt I needed to ask â€œwhat is mukthi reallyâ€

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 15 May 2007, 21:19

Arun,
The average Joe that you profess to be--isn't bad at all since he seems to be aware of himself and of his limitations--many 'so called' bhakthAs you refer to, haven't evolved to that stage yet!

vgvindan · Post by **vgvindan** » 15 May 2007, 21:23

But are they making any progress in losing their ego that is evident to the community?

Well said. That is the central theme. No renunciation, no sanyAs - you may be in the midst of every amenity and attachment - yet aloof.

ghariharan · Post by **ghariharan** » 15 May 2007, 22:14

Sri Krishna has said in Srimad Bhagavatham that he would easily confer Gyana on anyone, but reserves Bhakthi for his very special persons. While gyana is a straight forward path, it is still supposed to lead to Bhakthi eventually.

Bhakthi is a rather difficult concept. Sri Krishna sent his friend-cum-devotee to Vrindavan to observe for himself what Bhakthi is. You may want to do the same thing. Go to Brindavan, or better still, Barsana (supposedly the birthplace of Rsdharani), stay put for a few days. You will learn about Bhakthi by observing the attitude and activities of the commonfolk in the area.

rshankar · Post by **rshankar** » 15 May 2007, 23:14

ghariharan wrote:Sri Krishna has said in Srimad Bhagavatham that he would easily confer Gyana on anyone, but reserves Bhakthi for his very special persons. While gyana is a straight forward path, it is still supposed to lead to Bhakthi eventually.

In the words of one of my favorite philosophers and authors:

rAjAjI wrote:The way of devotion is not different from the way of knowledge or gnyaana. When intelligence matures and lodges securely in the mind, it becomes wisdom. When wisdom is integrated with life and issues out in action, it becomes bhakthi. Knowledge, when it becomes fully mature, is bhakthi. If it does not get transformed into bhakthi, such knowledge is useless tinsel. To believe that gnyaana and bhakthi, knowledge and devotion are different from each other is ignorance.

This is from the introduction he gave for Smt. MSS's rendering of Adi SankarA's 'bhaja gOvindam'

knandago2001 · Post by **knandago2001** » 15 May 2007, 23:58

My favorite prayer:

sarve bhavantu sukhinaha
sarve santu niraamayaaha
sarve bhadraaNi pashyantu
maa kaschid dukkha bhaag bhaved

om shanti om shanti om shanti

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 16 May 2007, 01:48

(apologies for another ramble)

Ah! This then gets into "what is bhakthi really" which we have been discussing in other threads. These last few posts are pointing that it is something that is quite different from what the general public believes it to be, and something that is not very easy to practice/inculcate. Nothing wrong with it of course! But if we clarify (not redefine!) bhakthi to this - then how come this possibly doesnâ€™t match with what millions of people who throng to the temples are doing? Why aren't the general class of devotees already more inline their approach?

I mean from my personal experience, the real principles of Hinduism seem to have taken a vacation from the environment, which is dominated by rituals. In temples, you see archanas, poojas being done for personal and material benefit. You do have discourses which I presume would clarify these topics, clear misunderstandings, but the overwhelming population I am guessing is not affected. The first thoughts that occurred to me once I started reading all this philosophical stuff (which again happened only after some significant events) was: How come I was so wrong in my approach? But my approach seems similar to most of the people I see. Is it possible that most of us are pretty misguided? How come?

I am not 100% if the conclusions (particularly about general public) that lead to these questions are right. They look right but the sweeping nature of them is bothersome. At least I know for sure that my previous approach (praying fervently for miracles â€“ when the dire needs arises) was bogus, and simply â€œwishful thinkingâ€

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 16 May 2007, 01:50

sorry for duplicate post - got some error and refreshed

Double sorry for duplicate of lo..ng posts.

Mods please delete!

Arun

kjrao · Post by **kjrao** » 16 May 2007, 05:29

jayaram wrote:Short answer: Mukthi itself is the biggest illusion

Jayaram,

Any idea what is 'Real' ? - there is no point knowing only what is an illusion !!!

kki · Post by **kki** » 16 May 2007, 09:52

Friends/sister/brother members it is interesting to know/learn different viewpoints about 'bhakti' and 'mukti'.
I think the term'bhakti' is such an abstract one that it can be interpreted in different ways-other than devotion or the path of devotion to the Divine.Even it can vary from person to person and how one perceives God,devotion and bhakti.
The same Lord Mahavishnu 's avatArA of Rama and Krishna depicts different characteristics-as Uttamapurusha and leeladhari.
What I have understood is that to be true to one's conscience in daily life and perform the karma itself is understood as a disciplined life which will give salvation-the socalled'moksha' (if there is one?)
I wonder how many of us in this world know what is 'real'? and whether there is any definition of 'real'?

Music · Post by **Music** » 25 May 2007, 23:24

knandago2001 wrote:My favorite prayer:

sarve bhavantu sukhinaha
sarve santu niraamayaaha
sarve bhadraaNi pashyantu
maa kaschid dukkha bhaag bhaved

om shanti om shanti om shanti

Can anyone pls. explain the meaning of this prayer?

Music · Post by **Music** » 25 May 2007, 23:50

arunk wrote:(apologies for another ramble)
Accounts of mythology that we hear from parents, and we read in general books (i.e. not referring to philosophical discourses) either completely skip or pretty much not deal with the burning question "what was it so special about the bhakthi those gOpikAs and princesses that made them get this himalayan goal". The accounts also do not definitely deal with how their bhakthi made them (gopis) a better person to the community â€“ that part is completely absent. I must mention though that it is hard for to me believe that you will get salvation without being a bright star in your community â€“ i.e., to accept that the bhakthi of the gopis was special that it didnâ€™t have to be so. Just their unique love was enough.
Arun

This delink between bhakti and community service intrigues me too. Logically, we think they should be linked. Based on accounts of mythology that we hear, Bhakti/Mukti on one side require complete surrender to God and that does it all. On the other had, Hindu philosophy also tells us that God is everywhere and in everything. That means you really couldn't you get away without the community service aspect. If God is everywhere, then you have to serve everyone and be good to everyone around you. Coming to gOpikAs, I guess the highlight/intent of their story is to portray their Bhakti which is of a very unique form. They probably did all their duties as required of them and so their Bhakti helped them reach their goal.
I think kki put it very well in simple terms......"be true to one's conscience in daily life and perform the karma itself is understood as a disciplined life which will give salvation-the socalled'moksha' ". That is probably what the gOpIs did besides their Bhakti for Krishna.
Arunk, you did bring up good questions on this subject - questions that have been bothering me too, but I am not articulate enough to put them the way you did. Don't know if I got the above explanations right, but I personally find it easier to have this sort of explanation rather than leave it as an enigma.

jayaram · Post by **jayaram** » 28 May 2007, 16:36

Similarly there is Bhoot of ego sitting in our head

So you agree this is only a 'bhoot' or a ghost. Which is why I said mukthi is also an illusion. How can you get free from something that doesn't exist??

Of course, those in the spirituality business would love for people to believe they are not free, hence need help to get free.

Moksha - another concept invented by the spirituality con-artists. The game goes on...

vgvindan · Post by **vgvindan** » 28 May 2007, 20:50

jayaram,
Remember people like Hitler - they are also human beings like us - how their ego is different from your's and mine? They are deluded minds - that delusion is what I termed as 'bhoot' - would you call that delusion of Hitler as 'non-existent'?

jayaram · Post by **jayaram** » 28 May 2007, 22:34

I was not aware that mukthi is being touted only for the likes of Hitler?

The average Ram, Krish and Hari is constantly told that spirituality offers mukthi, and sets him free. If you are saying they have always been free, hence mukthi is irrelevant in their case, then we are in agreement.

vgvindan · Post by **vgvindan** » 29 May 2007, 00:13

The delusion is in everyone's mind - it is a question of degrees - we are no less than Hitlers in our hypocricy.

Average Ram and Krish are least bothered about mukti and anyone who preaches average Ram and Krish about mukti is a hypocrite himself.

The quest starts only when we get out of the 'averageness' of our living - it is no more than animal living - in fact worse than animals - because animals follow the rhythm of nature and do not 'think' what is right and what is wrong; they do not hoard for tomorrow; they do not steal; they do not murder.

It is more than ethical living that is aimed - Sri Ramakrishna Parama hamsa says "when I touch a coin my hand get twisted; my breathing stops..." (The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna pp 845).

If you would like to call persons like Sri Parama Hamsa as 'con-artists', then our argument ends here. Good Bye.

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 29 May 2007, 02:21

How many colors we as individuals bring to the slippery slopes of philosophy! Words mean not only different things to different people (our baggage, or lack of it too), word associations are different, and our understanding of them is different too!

Govindan, for instance, your word 'averageness', though I think you mean it in the sense of 'not rising above it all', can be understood as your being high brow about it by someone else!
The interesting thing is, whether they are called con artists or mad men, the greatness of a Ramakrishna or a Thyagaraja does not go away.

Jayaram,
Mukthi and Hitler? Well. The millions who perished by the immeasurable atrocities he meted out DID attain mukthi...

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 29 May 2007, 02:30

Well,
As I was typing, I did not know you were going to provide entertainment too.
To be a genial, likeable and a reasonable human being--that we would all like to be...

jayaram · Post by **jayaram** » 29 May 2007, 03:47

Arasi,
here's a famous quote attributed to Catherine the Great:
"I shall be a tyrant; that is my business. God will forgive me; that is His."

We can be sure she got moksha.

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 29 May 2007, 04:37

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 29 May 2007, 04:38

Who is this clown anyway?

ksrimech · Post by **ksrimech** » 29 May 2007, 08:00

arasi,

The clown is brahmAnandam, a frequent jester in telugu movies.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0103977/

That picture is from the akkinEni nAgarjunA's movie SrI rAmadAsu.

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 29 May 2007, 08:04

Jayaram, what is the context of the animated picture of the clown? It is a bit distracting at best but if you intend to make fun of the 'con-artists' as you portray the spiritualists, that goes against the general good natured tone of the discussion in this thread.

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 29 May 2007, 10:36

Jayaram, I am removing the picture of the clown which you put up. It may hurt others sensibilities, and this is a forum where we dont want to encourage levity in discussions.

Please dont put distracting pictures. You might have noted we dont have even avatars or animated smileys here. That is for a reason.

VK above has said the rest. Please understand that banning members is a last resort, so I dont want to exercise it often. Please keep discussions within limits. Certain kinds of discussions (like mocking any religious beliefs) are taboo here.

jayaram · Post by **jayaram** » 29 May 2007, 13:47

VK - the clown was not intended to make fun at anybody. I am surprised you made a connection to spiritualists!

srkris - didn't realize people could get offended by this clown. I can understand the distraction part, but not the offense. And frankly, I don't appreciate your talk about 'banning'.

Also, talking about offense, aren't statements such as the following offensive to most people here, myself included?

'averageness' of our living - it is no more than animal living - in fact worse than animals -

chalanata · Post by **chalanata** » 29 May 2007, 18:58

arunk,
i'm gleefully surprised that you have questions. usually whether it is tamil or cm you used to go deep in to the matter and post most authentic and deeply analysed articles here.
my reations are as follows; it is only loud thinking and my understanding:
1. the different yogas converge at the same point. please remember the first sloka of valmiki. it was actually a curse to a hunter. when valmiki was wondering at the beauty of the verse naradha came and explained that the incident and the verse were only prelude for ramayana.
2. kandekar has written a novel based only on the above sloka.
3. whether bhakthi yoga suits you or not ultimately depends on individual mentality. this is predominantly decided by vasana. you will have to choose what is best suited for you and as pointed out by JK it is a pathless land.
4. mukthi comes in anihilation of mind. anihilation comes after removing duality of the mind. duality is sin and good deed, fire and cold, good and evil etc. hence a punya need not necessarily take you to mukthi.
5. any of these either good or bad are called seeds. the process is to remove the bad seeds and replace them with good seeds and the good seeds are raosted so that they do not grow as plants.
6. rituals are part of karma and are necessary up to a stage. they are like the wheels in an aeroplane. the moment the plane takes off the wheels have to be drawn inside. this example is given not by me; but by puttaparthi saibaba.
7. please remember the argument between mandana misra a mimamsa and sankara. sankara struck a balance between vedantha and rituals and bhakthi too.
8. buddha never spoke about God. instead pointed his finger in a direction. his attitude was against rituals. his followers held his hand and stood wherever he stood and on the top of it made a ritual with his icon instead of a traditional god's image. this only proves that human mind is not free from rituals.
9. about helping fellow human beings yes there is a lacunae in hinduism; this is probably because of the karma theory which justifies the sufferings of human beings. christianity probably is better this way. there is also a sect in islam called 'ahmedia' whcih lays importance on helping fellow human beings than floowing the rituals.
10. again irrespective of the state of mind all self expressions converge on one point. hence the different yogas which you find in gita are not inferior to one another.
11. the suffering in bhakthi is more in my perception; this is because this leads to thamas because of over indulgence. any fine art thus is closely related to vices and that is why in india they were always associated with spirituality to keep a check on yourself.
12. CML has brought out a worthy point. we have to choicelessly keep watching our minds.

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 29 May 2007, 21:17

chalanata,
Appreciate your post. So much to think about--and learn a thing or two from...

kjrao · Post by **kjrao** » 30 May 2007, 06:58

chalanata wrote:9. about helping fellow human beings yes there is a lacunae in hinduism; this is probably because of the karma theory which justifies the sufferings of human beings. christianity probably is better this way. there is also a sect in islam called 'ahmedia' whcih lays importance on helping fellow human beings than floowing the rituals.

The law of karma does not imply that one should ignore other's suffering. Just like any other religion Hinduism prscribes compassion and consideres 'Danam' a meritorious act.It is true that Christian missoneries took interest in starting western type eductional institutions and Hospitals with the help of British/Portugese rulers. They sincerely beleived that Indians were savages and with the education will naturally appreciate (and convert) the superiority of Christianity . Conversion by any means was a meritorious act for them. If one reads the history of natives of America and Australia and Goa and other parts of India one can fully understand the nature of those acts.

Having said that, Hindus can not escape the fact that caste system has lead to great injustice to certain communities in India - and it is still continuing. If there are Hindus who still beleive that it is sanctioned by scriptures, they should first study the earliest Upanishads and that too with some guidance.

vgvindan · Post by **vgvindan** » 30 May 2007, 08:28

Mat. 28:19, 20--"Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptising them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you"--here the first duty is to make disciples, the second to baptize, the third to instruct in right Christian living.

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 30 May 2007, 09:34

To 'make more disciples' WAS and IS the way with many religious leaders. If the leaders don't seek it, their disciples do, no matter what the name of the religion is...

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 30 May 2007, 21:05

There is no need for conversion to Hinduism. The idea itself is repugnant. The ultimate 'nirguNa brahmam' manifests in innumerable forms which is what is meant by sarvam kalvidam brahmam . Unfortunately most other religions are autocratic and demand allegiance to a Unitary God. It is indeed they who ought to be converted. The ecstasy of discovering that you (self) indeed are the God (tattvamsi) is ineffable! Even for Shankara it took a long time to discover it himself. That is the hidden universal message in our Indian motto ( satyameva jayatE ) (which is an ungrammatical statement). Once the rest of the world wakes up to it then there will be no more religious strifes.

vasya10 · Post by **vasya10** » 30 May 2007, 21:36

Bhakti and community service: Before we ask how bhakti helps community, we should ask what is community service? is it 'upliftment' of whole community, part of it, or just one or two people? Swami Vivekananda said 'If I could transform just one person completely, I would be satisfied'.

In Christianty, this community service is direct -- like opening schools, hospitals etc. In Hinduism too it is there (dAna is a concept fully aligning to community service), not just to humans but to animals also. In Chidambaram, in every street around the temple, there used to be a small tank, in shape of a boat, filled with water for animals to come and drink.

On one end we have "paropakArAya idam SarIram", and on the other end, 'Atmaikya bodhEna vinApi mukti na siddhyate'. The 'community service' can go only as far as helping others to help themselves out. For eg, we may not have account of T directly helping the community, but he did (and does) help several livelihood by his songs. So in fact he has helped others help themselves.

[quote=""Arun""]In the anecdotes of Krishna, you hear many episodes of gopis and princesses who only wanted Krishna as their own - and they were given the ultimate gift - seemingly easily.[/quote]
Thats exactly the point. We know that hindu purANA-s are metaphors to many things. (Sidenote: I hate to call them mythology. A friend of mine once asked, why is every religious stories of the world called mythology, like Greek, Egyptian, Roman, but christian stories are called biblical? The very word purAna indicates that 'it happend long before', so im sticking to the word purANa). The gOpIs saw only krshNa everywhere. That was total unconditional surrender and that is Bhakti. Bhakti is like a quantum state. If one tries to shine light on it (ie rationalize) it gets deflected to another state

If you want to see if bhakti made a better person, the story of gopis may not be the best. Look at the stories of dhruva, hanuman etc.

We are told they were so involved in Bhakthi to Krishna that they â€œlost themselvesâ€

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 31 May 2007, 00:17

I am (i.e. my ego is

) glad to note that this thread still has life. I am intrigued by the different viewpoints. I am not able to find appropriate things to say to reply to all viewpoints - so just trying to digest them.

The gOpIs saw only krshNa everywhere

What exactly does this mean? From the stories, I have read variations of they forgot themselves, their household chores, husbands, families etc. and went in search of kRSna, and thinking of him always etc. But how exactly does this make someone a better person as in how they treat others? I do not know because stories as told for general consumption donâ€™t explain that part well - and the question is why donâ€™t they do it better? The answer could - a person who thinks of the Lord in such a way (or equivalently in other forms of bhakti) is bound to become a better person, and so you have to try it to know it. But that leads back to the other question - if that is so, do we see good, tangible evidence of this from the throngs of people at the temples?

Also, from what I have read (little) from the Gita is that "seeing God everywhere in everyone and everything" seems to be completely different from how it is portrayed in the stories. There are good interpretations to this - but only in philosophical discourses. Is it safe to presume that the average religious person who is not exposed to philosophical discourses may not know this?

If you want to see if bhakti made a better person, the story of gopis may not be the best.

But you see that is my question. If (so many) gopis were able to get the ultimate goal, then they must have been the better persons. If the stories do not convey it, then are they told right?

Let us also take the story of Dhruva. As a synopsis - he was mistreated; he did severe penance and eventually was granted his wish, and thus his true status restored, ruled for many years, and eventually had a permanent place in heaven. How does this story apply to most people - how does this help you and I become a better person in daily life? Does this imply that one must do severe penance to get out of severe strife? Does this match the presciption that Gita and Upanishads offer (?).

Anyway, my point is not that these stories are bogus, useless - itâ€™s that they seem to become more tangible only when additional/hidden/implied interpretations are explained in philosophical discourses. Hence I ask whether the stories themselves can be more informative. Again I ask so only because of my thinking (still a presumption) that the average religious person's interpretation of bhakti does not seem to match what Gita and other great works imply, and I wonder if the way the stories are portrayed have somehow given us a naive outlook? I could of course be completely wrong in this though.

Also, regarding "community services" etc., I was emphasizing more on the part of being a better person to others, and thus to the community. From what I have read, you (start to) lose your ego and thus your selfish motivations and desires etc., and that makes you a better person to the community, as you donâ€™t have ulterior motives, and you help others readily. This innately leads to the ultimate community service. However, I now also think that perhaps we should not exclusively take what is commonly accepted as community service as an authoritative measuring gauge for this - i.e. start hospitals, schools, donating money, doing service at temple etc. They are very good things of course, but I also wonder if they can also be unreliable indicator to see how much a person has progressed. There is a big difference between â€œnot doing serviceâ€

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 31 May 2007, 01:45

Arun,
Those who know more about these things will answer your questions. As for the gOpis story, if you look at it literally, what were they DOING, neglecting their families, daily chores (karma yOgA)? To me, this is not in the sense a home maker (!!) would neglect her duties and steep herself in watching endless hours of soap opera (serial)s. It is just one aspect of involvement with divinity, the gOpi's state--her being immersed in her love for krishnA without the external world beckoning her (me, my children, my worldly belongings). It is meditating upon the sublime, without being distracted by trivial things. This is one part of getting nearer to our aim in realizing our oneness with God. The 'gOpi's state best explains it to me, and I am waiting for answers from those who know...

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 31 May 2007, 03:05

arasi,

arasi wrote:It is just one aspect of involvement with divinity, the gOpi's state--her being immersed in her love for krishnA without the external world beckoning her (me, my children, my worldly belongings). It is meditating upon the sublime, without being distracted by trivial things. This is one part of getting nearer to our aim in realizing our oneness with God. The 'gOpi's state best explains it to me, and I am waiting for answers from those who know...

If one were to forget one's duty to not only one's kith and kin but to others in general because one is meditating on the Lord/Ultimate, then how does one benefit others? If one takes this to an extreme, then doesn't salvation become like a purely personal goal? How would it then be vastly different compared to purely personal worldly aspirations?

In other words, is there a contradiction of sorts here if we look at it differently: The eventual goal is a completely selfless person, one who has no ego, and thus no personal aspirations, ever-ready to help others etc. etc. But to do so, one travels a path where he/she not only forgets himself/herself but everything in the world including duty to serve others. Or, more simply, when one is closest to the Ultimate (as with Gopis), he forgets everything including helping others/community. Maybe it is me, but this doesnâ€™t seem like the ideal state.

This sort of ties back to my "what is mukthi" question. If mukthi is a permanent spot in "heaven" and thus no further re-entries back to this world (i.e. no more suffering), then those who attain mukthi cannot help who are "suffering here" anymore. But as per our philosophy, these rare ones would be the best qualified ones to do so, and our best hopes. Attaining mukthi then seems like one's own permanent, eternal enjoyment. So, to each his own, so that he can get away from others forever

;) (in jest).

I find the other interpretation more attractive. Sort of "heaven on earth" thing where mukthi is achieving the balanced state of mind that allows you to "enjoy" (misleading word) everything right here during this life, and to withstand everything even-keeled, AND be a benefit others like Bddha, Adi Sankara, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa. What happens ones this life ends - it seems it would be better if they are sent back

Arun

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 31 May 2007, 03:16

on the other hand - my post above was perhaps done without fully thinking this through.

Meditating on the Lord as in the Bhakthi way is one of the recipes of losing ego, AFTER which one could serve the community (being free of personal desires). It is again a technique towards stilling the mind as cmlover said way back on this thread. So even though *while* meditating say like Dhruva, one is all by himself/herself, after reaching the goal I would presume that one would be a beacon to the rest of us and thus not really a contradiction. Of course that one, simply were to go from severe penance to immediately a permanent passport out of here i.e. skip the "being a beacon for rest of us part", that seems not as ideal to me.

Arun

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 31 May 2007, 06:45

Bhakti is a magnet that draws one towards mukti. It never leads one towards 'community service'. Thyagaraja was a great bhakta but was never known for any community service. I don't think he ever advocates it either. On the otherhand Gandiji was a great Rama bhakta and was independantly committed to community and social sevice though they were not related. Can we name any 'bhaktas' who were also known for serving the community?

coolkarni · Post by **coolkarni** » 31 May 2007, 07:46

Mother Teresa , Sai Baba , All the monks in Ramakrishna Matt , Dr Badrinath , Veerendra Hegde of Dharmasthala ......
and so many more .
But it is a futile exercise to weigh these two on the same scale.Like Lbs vs Litres.
Forget about community service for an instance.And take the case of the disabled.
So many schools belonging to religious Institutions in India turned my son away from admission because he was "challenged".And the Principals / Administrators did not even care about the words they used , when they refused.
Surely the Western society , apparently with lesser number of Bhakthas , is more aware and has done more.

Times Change and so does our appreciation of the issues.
What would have passed off as a perfect marriage in Tyagaraja's time ( a docile , meek wife ..never daring to utter a word in front of her husband or against him) would not pass muster today - an age of emancipation.

coolkarni · Post by **coolkarni** » 31 May 2007, 08:42

Arun's questions do bring up some very interesting aspects.
Here is a case of a set of values / teachings that are supposed to be timeless . But the modern day man is confronted with a reality that is difficult to synthesise.
And that is why we have to depend on the so called Conmen to show those eternal principles in Current Contexts through discourses , analogies , preachings and
Their own work of a Lifetime.
I have received as much benefit from sitting in the Prayer Halls of the Ramakrishna Mutt , as I have found listening to Rajneesh's Discourses on tape, simply because he puts them all in context.
But this is a fascinating subject.To be dropped on this planet with no idea where came from and where we heading to ..
hurtling through space and "Jagath"gurus everywhere.

All of us desperately looking for a Trail ...to the source.

God Almighty - Ah !
The ultimtate Conman of all.
He makes sure that in trying to discover Him , We have to discover ourselves first.
I have a wife who goes round every pillar in Kapaleeswar Temple ,every saturday trying to do just that.
Never misses a Pillar.
But to her credit she allows me to sink on my feet the moment the Oduvars voice comes through the mike system-as though from Heavens - leaving me to think of this heady mixture of happiness and miseries.
Heaven and Utopia.. Must be a dull place indeed.

kjrao · Post by **kjrao** » 31 May 2007, 10:21

Forget about big names and institutions with big budgets. There are are so many inspiring individuals around us doing the job quietly - I don't know whether they are bhaktas or not. There are some interesting stories in the website
goodnewsindia.com

e.g http://goodnewsindia.com/index.php/Maga ... shor-singh

jayaram · Post by **jayaram** » 02 Jun 2007, 01:02

May I raise a few fundamental questions here:
The theory goes that we go thru the cycle of births and deaths until one day when we are spiritually 'advanced', we attain moksha/mukthi. Mukthi/moksha is supposedly a state where we are dissolved in God.
So far so good. Now comes the tricky part. What happens next?
A) Does this mukthi state go on into eternity? If so, what exactly is the point? Please, I am not ridiculing anyone's belief here, this is a genuine question.
[Also, this point of view seems to imply that life in this world is really bad compared to the 'dissolved' state. But this would in turn imply that God's creation (i.e. this world, our lives, etc.) is bad in some sense. Aren't we thus showing disrespect to the creator by condemning His creation? In other words, isn't shunning of samsara being irreligious?]
B) I have read some theories that also state that after a long while in the dissolved state, we come back to this earth to resume the cycle of birth and death again. If this is the case, why attain moksha in the first place?
C) Finally, if God wanted us to attain moksha, why even go thru this cycle of birth/death in the first place? I.e. Why leave the dissolved state at all?

Let me state upfront that I have read quite a bit of books on Hindu philosophy (in addition to other schools of thought), but haven't found most of the 'answers' that convincing. It all seems to come down to a leap of faith, finally. And this is where it becomes hard to distinguish between Hinduism and any other faith group.