[Advaita-l] Bhakti and Jnana

[Sivakumar,Kollam]

Many saints have defined and stated the relation of bhakti to Jnana.
Here also the difficulty comes when academic norm comes.Otherwise all are
quite right from the view of an Asthika.
One such statement is Bhakthi is the mother of Jnana.
Bhakthi sutras of Narada and Sandilya, a less referred work of course, give
very clear exposition.
sivakumarr.

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Gopal <gopal.gopinath at gmail.com> wrote:

> >May I request the learned readers to give their opinion on the origin of
> the word "Bhakti" and its marning in relation to Vedanta.
>
> I am not learned in the sense you mean but I could read and type. So I am
> typing a few sentences uttered by Sri Ramakrishna in the Gospel compiled by
> M.
>
> (pub. 2000: Gospel of RK, pg. 283)
>
> In the same state he said, addressing the devotees:"That which is Brahman
> is verily Shakti. I address That, again, as the Mother. I call it Brahman
> when It is inactive, and Shakti when It creates, preserves, and destroys.
> It is like water, sometimes still and sometimes covered with waves. The
> Incarnation of God is a part of the leelaa of Shakti. The purpose of the
> Divine Incarnation is to teach man ecstatic love for God. The Incarnation
> is like the udder of the cow, the only place milk is to be got. God
> incarnates Himself as man. There is a great accumulation of divinity in a
> Incarnation, like the accumulation of fish in a deep hollow in a lake".
>
> For the past week or two, I have been following the passionate arguments
> against bhakti in the world of advaitic jnAna.  For many great souls like
> Sri Ramakrishna, bhakti and jnAna have been like two slices of a mango. At
> any given time, they had found Ananda with just one of the slices.
> Obviously they did not waste time arguing about the merits of either of the
> slices.  Hopefully in the week of Sri Ramakrishna's Jayanthi, I sincerely
> pray we find peace before it is too late.
> It is also pertinent to note that Sri Ramakrishna did not decide who would
> and who would not get Sayujya mukti or other types of mukti.
>
> -gopal
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Sunil Bhattacharjya <
> sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear friends,
> >
> > May I request the learned readers to give their opinion on the origin of
> > the word "Bhakti" and its marning in relation to Vedanta.
> >
> >
> > Bhakti, as I understand, comes from the root "Bhaj", which means to
> > divide. Bhakta is the divided state. Bhakta recognizes the division from
> > whom he has got divided and relish the division. Bhakta to me always
> wants
> > to be near that from whom it got divided but not to lose the "Bhakta"
> > identity. Hanuman being a Jnani, he alone among those present near Lord
> > Ram, deserved  the grace of Lord Ram  in the form of Sayujya mukti.
> However
> > Hanuman preferred to stay divided, ie. as a Bhakta and refused to accept
> > the Sayujya Mukti from the Lord. The Jnanis alone are offered the Sayujya
> > Mukti.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>



-- 
*sivakumarr*