The dvaita/advaita debate revisited!

[Giri]

>I might point out here that until "one has been both ..." is totally against
>the teachings of both shaMkara and ramaNa. ramaNa has time and again
>re-iterated that the jnaani alone is a bhakta and otherwise. Even the person
>who has adopted the path of bhakti (used in the usual sense) has to finally
>resort to enquiry. The definition of bhakti as given by shaMkara in the
>vivekachuuDaamaNi and that found by ramaNa matches exactly.

        But the definition of bhakti is different from the definition of
bhakti as used in dvaita (in vaishnavism), isn't it ?
        From a dvaita view, Shankara, Ramakrishna, Ramana, Mirabai were not
self-realized.
        Are certain modes of worship and sastras *absolutely* necessary for
worship ? As I understand (from SRV) that this is indeed necessary. However,
shaivities would readily accept kannappan as a supreme devotee (not
necessarily a jnani) even though he never adhered to prescribed modes of
worship. I would view worship on the inner feelings rather than outer modes
like offering flowers etc. [I don't devalue the outer action, but only
saying that it need not reflect the inner feelings].
        Regarding 'one has been both', is it ever possible to be partially
realized ? Either you are or you are not. Can one say 'I partially realize
that the fire is hot.' ? If the ignorance has been destroyed, then where is
the distinction to say 'I am a bhakta, not a jnani' ?
        Ramakrishna did say that 'One who attains nirvikalpa samadhi dies
in 21 days.' This has been rejected by some including Ramana. However, the
best way to deny this statement is to attain nirvikalpa samadhi ourselves
and see whether the body drops in 21 days or not. While Ramakrishna's
bhakti may not satisfy the advaita description of bhakti, he was indeed a
person who had enough Love for Her.
        In the Devi Gita, She says 'I am not in Kailas, not in
Vaikunta...but in the heart of the jnani, who is the supreme bhakta.'

Namaste.