Jnana and Bhakti

[Chandran, Nanda (NBC)]

On the subject of the three paths, bhakthi, karma and jnana, Charles
Wikner once said something which made a lot of sense to me. He said
something to the effect that :

Man is made up of three charecteristics : emotional, physical and
intellectual. Generally in a man, one of these is dominant over the
other two. So the appeal of one of the three paths is with respect to
one's charecteristics. Forcing a rational person along the lines of
bhakthi (faith and belief) will only serve to increase disillusionment
resulting in him dropping out of the pursuit altogether!

Again in Advaitam where the subject and the object are one, Sadananda's
explanation where he points out Shankara's definition that Bhakti is
meditating on one's Self makes sense. But it may be that it's easier to
meditate on an Ishta Devata (personal God) than on One's Self. That
means a personal God only serves the purpose of Upasana, rather than
anything literal. But along the road one must evolve towards meditating
on the Self, which alone can lead to liberation (atleast from the
standpoint of Advaitam).

        Because e-mail can be altered electronically,
        the integrity of this communication cannot be guaranteed.

>From  Wed Apr 22 16:53:56 1998
Message-Id: <WED.22.APR.1998.165356.0500.>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 16:53:56 -0500
Reply-To: niche at ameritech.net
To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Parisi & Watson <niche at AMERITECH.NET>
Organization: Knitters Niche
Subject: Re: Reason and Experience
Comments: To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ravi Mayavaram wrote:
>
> I believe that one has to have proper balance between reading the
> right books, meditation, prayer and other activities. One of the
> important things one has to bear in mind is death can snatch one away
> anytime. Lord yama needs no invitation ;-). Think of the first verse
> of bhaja govindam ( you can get copy of this Giri's ftp site with
> translation, site address was posted few days back by giri). What will
> come to one's aid whe (s)he is in deathbed? And think of it, it can be
> even few minutes from now.  I think the solution is "bhaja govindam
> bhaja govindam" Pray to Ishvara and keep HER/HIM (based on your iShTa
> deivam) on your mind. For a beginner like me, I have to remind myself
> of this fact once in while. I hope in course of time, it will become
> natural. Bhakti plays a very important role. When you are in the
> clutches of mAyA, you need a support. God is that support and refuge.
> If at all someone is keen on your release, it is God. Good books are
> great aid to one's sAdhana. But they will not replace it. Mere reading
> without practice will lead to problems, it is like eating without
> digesting.  To practice correctly, one needs to read. For instance,
> for meditation, patanjali's yoga sUtras (with vyAsa's bhAShyam and
> shankara's vivaraNa on it) is a great aid. They are coupled and they
> help each other. When one is confused, best is to pray. SHE is
> avyAja karuNAmUrtI, karuNamR^ita sAgara, out of compassion and love
> SHE will show the right path.
>
> bhaja govindam bhaja govindam
>  govindam bhaja mUDhamate!
>
> Ravi
> bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam

I have attempted to follow this advice in the past, and have had
problems doing it. The reason is simple: A sense of a personal Deity
(Ishwara, Kali, whichever) that hears prayers and yet does not answer
them in any way I can recognize only provokes and intensifies my native
skepticism. I had the same problem with the Christian religion in my
early years. Most Christians can pray to God, get at least some vague
sense of release or comfort, and just go along with it their entire
lives. For some reason, I always expected something more tangible,
something that I could be sure that I was not providing to myself.

On the other hand, looking for one's own inner nature does not have this
characteristic, since our predicament of ignorance and confusion is
presumably self caused. Of course we can also say that our inability to
communicate with a Deity is also self caused, but the introduction of an
all-powerful 'other' agent into the situation makes this argument start
to sound like mere rationalization, like the traditional Christian
saying, "God answers all prayers, but sometimes the answer is No."

Sorry if my attitude seems presumptuous, but I'm just trying to be
totally honest.

Robert.

>From  Wed Apr 22 17:05:07 1998
Message-Id: <WED.22.APR.1998.170507.0500.>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 17:05:07 -0500
Reply-To: niche at ameritech.net
To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Parisi & Watson <niche at AMERITECH.NET>
Organization: Knitters Niche
Subject: Re: Meditation
Comments: To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Chandran, Nanda (NBC) wrote:
>
> For quite a while now I've been trying meditation. Initially I used to
> try concentrating on some particular object in my mind and try to not
> let me mind waver. Then as per Ramana Maharishi's advice I took a deep
> breath, got a good hold of my basic 'I' feeling and tried not to let my
> mind wander.
>
> Lately I've trying to concentrate on my "I" feeling, plumbing the depths
> of my being and trying to discern what it is. Then it struck me that if
> the basic "I" feeling is itself me and the true seer how can the "I"
> know itself? As Sage Yaganavalka questions in  Brhadaranyaka Upanishad,
> "How can the knower itself be known?". So  does it mean "I" can't know
> "I", but "I" should try concentrating on knowing what's not the "I"?
>
> Easier said than done! At present, I'm not even able to distinguish my
> body from my "I"! :-)
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Also can someone suggest some good books on meditation?
>
>         Because e-mail can be altered electronically,
>         the integrity of this communication cannot be guaranteed.

I should probably just keep quiet, but I'm responding because I have
been facing exactly the same issue. All I've come up with is that the
'I' is what experiences everything else - thoughts, feelings,
perceptions, and so on - but is never perceived. In other words, the 'I'
is subject only, and everything else is object. So in meditation I try
to stay centered on the sense of 'I-am,' while registering as not-I
everything else that arises, just as you said. But 'I-am' is not
something that we perceive, as in an object... it's the thing that we
_are_. We know it by being it, not by perceiving it. That's as close as
I've come so far to understanding what is meant by Atma Vichara.

I'm sure that others will have much more insight, but I thought my
contribution might have a little value as one novice to another.
Sometimes beginners can speak the same language, but be puzzled by the
thoughts of experts.

Robert.

>From  Wed Apr 22 17:27:18 1998
Message-Id: <WED.22.APR.1998.172718.0500.>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 17:27:18 -0500
Reply-To: niche at ameritech.net
To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Parisi & Watson <niche at AMERITECH.NET>
Organization: Knitters Niche
Subject: Re: Reason and Experience
Comments: To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

f. maiello wrote:
<snip>
> Also highly recommended:
> ERASE THE EGO
> TALKS WITH SRI RAMANA MAHARSHI
> TRIPURA RAHASYA

I have read the Talks, and they influenced me greatly. But I found
Ramana to frustratingly vague in some respects, and that's how I got off
onto Nisargadatta. He seemed to phrase things in more plain language,
and in more different ways than Ramana did. It's also possible that
Ramana communicated a great deal to his visitors in silence, which of
course can't be included in a book.

I often have similar problems with Shankara. His technical formulations,
written in a style appropriate to another culture in the 8th century,
often leave me indifferent and puzzled. I could say the same (except
more so) about much of the Buddhist canon. I know this is strictly my
own limitation, but I don't think it's an unusual one. Ramakrishna,
Tagore, and others from the 19th century onward spoke in terms that seem
more immediate to the ears of many alive today.

Robert.

>From  Wed Apr 22 19:28:28 1998
Message-Id: <WED.22.APR.1998.192828.0400.>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 19:28:28 -0400
Reply-To: ramakris at erols.com
To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <ramakris at EROLS.COM>
Subject: Re: Reason and Experience
Comments: To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Laura Weygandt wrote:

>   I don't think it is possible to practice j~naana-yoga or karma-yoga
> in order to obtain realization and mokSha without bhakti. It is essential
> in both paths, although j~naana with the help of a qualified guru/swaami
> will lead one to realize Brahman. And that qualified guru/swaami has
> already realized Brahman and certainly has bhakti.

The IshA upanishhat.h (verses 9-11) with shrI sha.nkara's commentary can
be referred to here. If one does not renounce, he has to both meditate
on the Gods and also do karma. For people who renounce worship of God is
not mandatory.

Rama.