Bhakti as a concept in Hinduism is foreign influence.

“Bhakti” in common parlance is generally taken to mean a sort of Master – slave relationship of a seeker towards a superior Guru/Master/Lord/God, an attitude that in a way does reinforce duality.
Historically speaking, Bhakti as a cult took root in India after the Muslim invasions. The Abrahamic monotheistic religions with their proselytizing spirit attracted the masses offering the promises of a personal God who would fulfill their wants. Perhaps to counter this, indigenous Bhakti cults developed and continue to do so today.

http://www.advaita-vision.org/bhakti-in-advaita/

There are two aspects of Bhakti:

(i) The path of devotion based on service to God by the devotee or Bhakta throwing himself completely on the mercy of God or Prapatti.

(ii) The path of bond based on pure love based on equality rather than service and the ideal being participation in the life divine.

We notice the currency of these two aspects of Bhakti in early medieval period in South India and in the later medieval period in northen India. There is a controversy regarding the origin and relationship between the Bhakti movement of the Nayanars and Alvars of South India and the popular Bhakti movement of northern India.

One view is that the new situation created by the coming of the Turks, the defeat of Rajput states, the wanton destruction of the temples and trampling of images, lowering of the image of Brahmins and the failure of the Rajput and the Brahman alliance to stem the tide of Turks led to the popular Bhakti movement in many parts of northern India. Max Weber, a well-known sociologist suggested that an apocalyptic movement such as Bhakti was often the ideology of a defeated ruling class with aspects of quietism and suffering being emphasized.

Satish Chandra disagrees with the view of Max Weber as the Bhakti movement was a mass-based popular movement but not an ideology of a defeated ruling class with a vested interest. There is also another view that the movement grew in the north as a kind a defence mechanism to safeguard the Hindu social organization from the threat of Turkish onslaughts of and the challenge faced from the Islamic ideology, which was based on ideas of brotherhood and equality.

K. Damodaran writes that the Bhakti movements in India have many points of resemblance to the Reformation movement led by Wycliff and Thomas More — it was not a purely religious movement, it expressed itself in the cultural field as a national renaissance; in its social content, it represented a revolt of great significance against domination and injustices of the caste system.

It gave a new impetus to the growth of diverse nationalities in India, to the development of national languages and their literature. The doctrine that all men high and low were equal before God became the central idea, which pulled wide sections of the masses to fight caste tyranny. Thus, this great movement of the middle ages not only helped the development of a composite Indian culture embracing different linguistic and religious communities, but also paved the way for united struggle, against feudal oppression. J.T.F. Jordans observes: “During medieval times (13th through 17th century) Hinduism underwent a transformation as great as that of Christianity by the Reformation. The focus of religious activities moved from the great gods and the liturgies connected with polytheism to one god, and his avatars, especially Krishna and Rama.

A new attitude to God, emotional, passionate Bhakti replaced the old approaches of sacrificial rites and monoistic meditation, just a new mysticism, practical yet ecstatic, replaced the former philosophical type. Forms of religious expression changed: love songs to the Lord were sung, and group singing created a new popular cultural form, the Kirtan. Finally, the Bhakti movement without destroying the Hindu social frame work fostered ideas of brotherhood and equality before the loving God and its saints drawn from all levels of society proclaimed that in Bhakti, caste had no meaning”.

http://www.historydiscussion.net/history-of-india/impact-of-islam-on-indian-culture-bhakti-and-sufi-movements/2022

I fully agree..Bhakti concept is Alien to us Hindus.
Vedanta is so technical...it doesnt talk about a Wish fulfilling Personal God high and mighty sitting up in heaven.

I feel the concept of a personal God or Guru for the matter helps a depressed mind cope better..


If we note Abrahamic religions...it started with war and conflict.. Moses/Jesus/Mohammad( peace be upon all of them) had faced a lot of trials and tribulations..their lives were not easy..so its a natural tendency for any living being to want to be protected by a higher being and surrender unto Him for an anti depressant effect.

Now..lets go Vedanta..it did not start of as trials and tribulation or war..it started off after the human was well settled in life physically and financially and then the mind started searching for finer details.

So it was different.
Then India faced a new era..invadors ...so when ones mind is broken..you start to search for a Savior..you cant be Vedantic anymore cos that requires a steady state environment..
A depressed mind wants a shoulder to cry on..hence easiest is Bhakti.

As harsh as it sounds this is a point we have to consider...is Bhakti really as we think it is or its just us unable to cope?

One can also argue that Bhagavad Geeta does talk about surrender finally and ma suchah( dont worry)..but is Krishna talking about Bhakti?

He didnt state so..He says " Ma Suchah"..dont worry..He is asking us to surrender our worries and anxiety...He is asking us to come out of depression and stand up and face challenges...when we do that we realize we do not need a Savior or a Personal God.

So it seems to me even the Geeta finally isnt about Bhakti at all.

Bhakti? To Be or Not To Be!

Why is Bhakthi alien to Hindus? I thought Gita has a whole chapter 'devoted' to Bhakthi.

Gita I think predates foreign influence into India.

Where is my holy and sparing friend - he may have a more detailed reply with Tamil poet's quotes

Bhathi as practiced may have changed over centuries but Bhakthi has always been a Hindu way of life

Bhakti is as old as the Vedas itself. The whole article is "balderdash".

Alwars and Nayanmas were not doing anything new! The worship of Vaasudeva was well recorded by Patanjali. Even Megasthenes Circa 4th BCE records the prevalent worship of Krishna "who lifted the mountain".

Bhagavan Ramanuja clearly states in his Sri-Bhashyam that he was not at all charting a new path but merely following the path of lots of purvacharyas including Bodhayana.

Even idol worship is as old as the earliest redaction of the Mahabharata. There's this episode in the Mahabharata of Arjuna undertaking Tapas to please lord Shiva. Shiva appears before him in the guise of a Kiraata. After his fight and defeat at the hands of the kiraata, Arjuna makes a sand-lingam of lord Shiva and offers worship (Archana), and immediately perceives the garland offered to the lingam adorning the Kiraata himself. This episode is integral to the epic and can never be treated an interpolation without interfering with the flow of the story. It was also a very popular episode and hence recreated by poet Bhaaravi (6th CE) in his drama Kiraatarjuniyam.

Adi Sankaracharya in his Upanishad Bhashyas mention the salagrama-worship of lord Vishnu, and other means like offering Pushpanjali, stuthi, dhyanam etc.

Many such examples like the Swetaswatara Upanishad can be cited to illustrate the prevalence of Bhakti in India long before the Christian era.

In the scheme of nature, there is a free will for an individual to do something or not to do something or do differently. This is the free space available to us.

Destiny, on the other hand, plays its trick starting with the birth of a child. Why one is born poor and another rich ? Why one is healthy and another has serious birth defects? One loses the mother the moment it is born? One is born dead? The questions are too many.

But what is the force which causes such disparities ? Whether God is to be blamed for this partiality?
The only logical answer could be the Karma Theory which explains that the human being takes birth to exhaust his PrArabdha Karma. This gets extinguished only by experiencing in the world, going through the vicious cycles of pleasures and pains. In the process there is always a little scope to do some action within a limited domain. Just like a Cow which is tied by a long rope has the freedom to move within the space determined based on the length of the rope, human beings have some free will to exercise. Beyond that limited area the tied cow cannot roam about. This represents the force of destiny. The reason why some selected people lose their precious life suddenly due to accidents, diseases, natural calamities like Tsunami , earthquake, floods, fire and so on cannot be otherwise explained.

Self- effort is absolutely essential for any one without taking shelter under the guise of destiny. Therefore one has to do his Svadharma in a given environment without any attachment to the fruits of action. If destiny decides otherwise, one should have the will power to take it in his stride in a positive manner without losing heart. For this meditation techniques help a lot to make one develop equanimity towards the dualities.

One should take caution not to abuse the little free will that is available to him.
Despite one's best intentions and efforts, the effect of PrArabdha Karma embedded as VAsanAs may suddenly manifest and impact one any time. But that is the embedded secret of life .

http://vedvikas.blogspot.com/2017/07/karma-phala-and-role-of-god.html



If Bhakti can change the Karmas then Karma theory fails.

'Karma' is a concept from Hinduism in contradiction to 'faith' promoted by Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), which view all human life events as the Will of God as opposed to present and past life actions and consequences.

If life and events are God’s will then that means God is either random and he punishes people or rewards them at his sweet will. This implies that God is NOT fair and has no idea of what is happening in this universe because everything works as per his random will, wish and fancy. Remember that God is neither partial nor unjust.

Remember that God is not responsible for the wealth of one man or the poverty of another. You suffer on account of your own wicked actions. There is nothing chaotic or capricious in this world. Things do not happen in this universe by accident or chance in a disorderly manner. They happen in regular succession and events follow each other in a regular order. There is a kind of definite connection between what is being done now by you and what will happen in the future. Sow always the seeds which will bring pleasant fruits and which will make you happy herein and hereafter.”

Yogi does his karmas without ego or the feeling of "I am the doer". Since he is not the "doer" karma can not bind him. He works without expectation of any fruits for his actions. Since he is "not the doer" he does not have to enjoy the fruits of his actions. He has reached state of perfection. He works for the upliftment of humanity. For worldly persons actions are virtuous or vicious (a mixture of good and evil actions). Yogis do not acquire impressions from their actions.


Bhakti, on the other hand, says that you can change your destiny just by GOD's grace. If this partial God sitting in judgment and dolling out favors like 'XXXXXX' then that God is not Brahman. That god is no better than a politician or a King.

Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism, India’s contribution to the world, teach that our thoughts and actions have consequences, namely rewards or punishments. Goodness leads to rewards and bad thoughts, words and actions lead to pain and suffering. This, in a nutshell, is Karma.


On the other end of the religious spectrum is Historic Christianity that teaches the virtual opposite – Grace. The dictionary definition of grace is mercy, clemency or pardon. The idea of Bhakti in Later day Hinduism borrows heavily from Christianity and Islam.


A brief study of Grace and Karma is invaluable to those on either side as well as the honest seeker. Karma and Grace gain utmost significance because they are two fundamental and uncompromising doctrines within their respective worldviews. Christians and Hindus would never compromise the doctrines of Grace and Karma, respectively.

In the Hindu worldview, there is an inexorable connection between man’s actions and consequences, not even death can break this connection, for the law of karma carries over into the next incarnation.


However, in the Christian worldview, the sin-punishment sequence can be interrupted by repentance and confession of sins, with consequent forgiveness, and death brings a release from the temporal effects of sin. God’s love and grace offer this privilege to the repentant man.

Grace means God’s goodness towards those who deserve only punishment. God supplies manwith underserved or unmerited favors i.e. HIS favor is toward those who deserve no favor but only punishment.


In other words, salvation is a [free] gift from God to man (Romans 6: 23; Ephesians 2: 8-9). Salvation, according to Historic Christianity, is by the grace of God (Ephesians 1: 5-8).The Bible also mentions God’s grace as an extravagant gift (Cf. Titus 2: 11, 3: 3-7).


Christianity Every sin merits death and no amount of good works can override our bad thoughts, deeds or words, for man, is innately sinful. Hence, the man ought to receive God’s grace through repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Outside of God’s love and forgiveness, there is no hope for man. Because God loves the sinful man, HE has offered a provision for him to repent and turn to Christ, so that everyone who repents of his sins, declares that Christ is Lord and believes in his heart that God raised HIM from the dead will be saved.

In the Bhakti we just change the name say, Allah, Krishna, Balajee, Vishnu, Ganesh, Shakti etc.


Inspired by:
http://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.com/2017/02/grace-vs-karma.html

Hindus have GOD which is Brahman, rest of the so-called 33million gods were assimilated from "natives", or are borrowed from Aliens.
Brahman is not partial and is not swayed by Praise. You can not beg for favors not does that entity show any biases.

So Bhakti alone will eventually fail.

A lot of so-called ancient scriptures in Hinduism cannot be dated correctly.
People have embellished old scriptures, and have poetic licenses.

a-TB said:

Why is Bhakthi alien to Hindus? I thought Gita has a whole chapter 'devoted' to Bhakthi.

Gita I think predates foreign influence into India.

Where is my holy and sparing friend - he may have a more detailed reply with Tamil poet's quotes

Bhathi as practiced may have changed over centuries but Bhakthi has always been a Hindu way of life

Click to expand...

I have been greatly influenced by Sangomji's thinking.
He said he did not believe in 'gods', he conceded the concept of Brahman.

prasad1 said:

Hindus have GOD which is Brahman, rest of the so-called 33million gods were assimilated from "natives", or are borrowed from Aliens.
Brahman is not partial and is not swayed by Praise. You can not beg for favors not does that entity show any biases.

So Bhakti alone will eventually fail.

A lot of so-called ancient scriptures in Hinduism cannot be dated correctly.
People have embellished old scriptures, and have poetic licenses.

Click to expand...

There is a lot of misunderstanding about the term Bhakti. Without knowing it well, people pour blame or scorn over it.

Bhakti as practised in India is far far far greater than Vedanta or any other ideology.

The two characteristics of Bhakti are "ahaituki" and 'Apratihata".

There is a sloka in Bhagavatham

Atmaramascha Munayah Nigranthopi Urukrame
Kurvantyahaitukeem Bhaktim Iththambhoothaguno Harih

Each word of the above slokam is pregnant with meaning and worth pondering for days and months together.

There was a friend of Krishna by name Uddhava who was the incarnation of lord Brihaspati himself, and a Vedantin par excellence, who prided himself a great devotee of Krishna. One day lord Krishna asks Uddhava to visit the Gopis in Gokulam and inquire about their welfare and to console them if they continued to feel the separation from Krishna. Uddhava visits Gokulam and spends a month there. At the end he realises that he has been actually sent by lord Krishna to learn what true Bhakti is, from the Gopis. He feels humbled by the experience and exclaims.
Vande Nandavrajastrinam padarenum abhikshnashah
yasaam harikathodgeetam Punaati bhuvanatrayam

I suggest that those who haven't yet read this chapter in the Bhagavatham, may read it at least once, to know the essence of Bhakti as it is conceived in India.

prasad1 said:

I have been greatly influenced by Sangomji's thinking.
He said he did not believe in 'gods', he conceded the concept of Brahman.

Click to expand...

I remember having had some great discussions with Sangomji in the past. He is not coming to this forum nowadays, is he?

KRN said:

There is a lot of misunderstanding about the term Bhakti. Without knowing it well, people pour blame or scorn over it.

Bhakti as practised in India is far far far greater than Vedanta or any other ideology.

The two characteristics of Bhakti are "ahaituki" and 'Apratihata".

There is a sloka in Bhagavatham

Atmaramascha Munayah Nigranthopi Urukrame
Kurvantyahaitukeem Bhaktim Iththambhoothaguno Harih

Each word of the above slokam is pregnant with meaning and worth pondering for days and months together.

There was a friend of Krishna by name Uddhava who was the incarnation of lord Brihaspati himself, and a Vedantin par excellence, who prided himself a great devotee of Krishna. One day lord Krishna asks Uddhava to visit the Gopis in Gokulam and inquire about their welfare and to console them if they continued to feel the separation from Krishna. Uddhava visits Gokulam and spends a month there. At the end he realises that he has been actually sent by lord Krishna to learn what true Bhakti is, from the Gopis. He feels humbled by the experience and exclaims.
Vande Nandavrajastrinam padarenum abhikshnashah
yasaam harikathodgeetam Punaati bhuvanatrayam

I suggest that those who haven't yet read this chapter in the Bhagavatham, may read it at least once, to know the essence of Bhakti as it is conceived in India.

Click to expand...

Sir,
I do not want to argue with you, but your "facts" are off.

Do you know at what age Krishna left Gokul?
He was 14 when he defeated Kansa, in Mathura. He never returned to Gokul.

The Krishna of Gokul who played with Gopies was a mere child, Gopies played with him as a child and not as a lover.

The Gopies doing the raslila with adult Krishna is a pure poetic imagination.

Bhagavatam is a story and not a Historical document.

prasad1 said:

Sir,
I do not want to argue with you, but your "facts" are off.

Do you know at what age Krishna left Gokul?
He was 14 when he defeated Kansa, in Mathura. He never returned to Gokul.

The Krishna of Gokul who played with Gopies was a mere child, Gopies played with him as a child and not as a lover.

The Gopies doing the raslila with adult Krishna is a pure poetic imagination.

Bhagavatam is a story and not a Historical document.

Click to expand...

True..dont know why poets do injustice and tarnish the name of Krishna.

prasad1 said:

Sir,
I do not want to argue with you, but your "facts" are off.

Do you know at what age Krishna left Gokul?
He was 14 when he defeated Kansa, in Mathura. He never returned to Gokul.

The Krishna of Gokul who played with Gopies was a mere child, Gopies played with him as a child and not as a lover.

The Gopies doing the raslila with adult Krishna is a pure poetic imagination.

Bhagavatam is a story and not a Historical document.

Click to expand...

Sir,
You are confusing between my last two posts.

In my last post I mentioned the story of the Gopis and Uddhava to highlight the greatness, the selflessness of Bhakti as practised in India. There I mentioned the essence of Bhakti, but didn't state anything like whether the Gopis played with krishna as a lover, nor did I project any "facts". I never projected Bhagavatham as a historical document. I quoted Bhagavatham, as a text that inspired millions of Bhaktas. I didn't go into the historicity of the Bhagavatham.

You need to think from the perspective of a bhakta. Bhaktas don't have to see the scriptures as historical manuals. For history, you have the epics, the itihaasas. Whereas Bhagavatham is a Puraanam. For a Bhakta who has studied Bhagavatham, if tomorrow the entire set of stories in the Srimad Bhagavatham is disproved, it doesn't matter at all, since Bhagavatham is a scripture that deals with Krishna as the Supreme Parabrahman all along. It is the spritual percepts that is always emphasized and repeated all through the Bhagavatham.

Bhagavatham talks about kings who ruled for ten thousand years, and so on. But to its credit, the Bhagavatham itself states that the stories are not to be taken literally.

Now, coming to facts, yes I did state some historical facts, in my message previous to the last one. That message was regarding the "historicity of Bhakti" practised in India. There I mentioned some names, like Patanjali, Megasthenes, Sankaracharya etc who have recorded the worship of Krishna, Shiva etc etc in their works. These authors existed long before the beginning of the Christian Era. Thereby I refuted your argument that Bhakti in India is indebted to foreign influence. What I gave in that post are facts. If you think that those facts are off, and you have any proof refuting those facts, let us debate that.

Perhaps you might be thinking that the worship of Krishna in India is all about the Srimad Bhagavatham. Then you are totally wrong. There are other, much older texts like Vishnu Puraanam, Harivamsam, Brahma Puraanam, Yuga Puraanam where the story of Krishna is mentioned in detail. This was taken up by the later works like Srimad Bhagavatham, Garga Bhagavatham etc. There might be some embellishments here and there in these later texts.

Srimad Bhagavatham is much revered, because in it the story of Krishna is taught, but more importantly, the concept of Bhakti is dealt with, at the very highest level.

prasad1 said:

Sir,
I do not want to argue with you, but your "facts" are off.

Do you know at what age Krishna left Gokul?
He was 14 when he defeated Kansa, in Mathura. He never returned to Gokul.

The Krishna of Gokul who played with Gopies was a mere child, Gopies played with him as a child and not as a lover.

The Gopies doing the raslila with adult Krishna is a pure poetic imagination.

Bhagavatam is a story and not a Historical document.

Click to expand...

Now, coming to your own point. It seems you have no issue with admitting that at the age of 14, Krishna defeated and killed Kamsa. Now per all these Puraanas, the day before killing Kamsa, Krishna encounters a violent elephant Kuvalayapida. He kills it. He encounters the chief wrestler of Mathura, Chanoora and kills him as well. At the age of 14, still a juvenile, he has done some miraculous stuff.And he kills many asuras before that, and lifts up the Govardhana mountain for seven days and nights together.

You say the Krishna of Gokul who played with Gopies was a mere child, and yet that child did all these things!

We can accept a child killing the powerful ruler Kamsa and many terrible asuras at a tender age, thereby releasing the entire Yadava clan from subjugation, but when it comes to the rasa lila, we cannot accept that???!!!!

Bhagavatham and other puranas clearly state that the Gopis played with Krishna as a lover. I think it is a puritanical attitude, a Victorian mindset, that can accept other miracles by Krishna at the juvenile age, but draws a line at rasalila alone.

KRN said:

Now, coming to your own point. It seems you have no issue with admitting that at the age of 14, Krishna defeated and killed Kamsa. Now per all these Puraanas, the day before killing Kamsa, Krishna encounters a violent elephant Kuvalayapida. He kills it. He encounters the chief wrestler of Mathura, Chanoora and kills him as well. At the age of 14, still a juvenile, he has done some miraculous stuff.And he kills many asuras before that, and lifts up the Govardhana mountain for seven days and nights together.

You say the Krishna of Gokul who played with Gopies was a mere child, and yet that child did all these things!

We can accept a child killing the powerful ruler Kamsa and many terrible asuras at a tender age, thereby releasing the entire Yadava clan from subjugation, but when it comes to the rasa lila, we cannot accept that???!!!!

Bhagavatham and other puranas clearly state that the Gopis played with Krishna as a lover. I think it is a puritanical attitude, a Victorian mindset, that can accept other miracles by Krishna at the juvenile age, but draws a line at rasalila alone.

Click to expand...

It is your word that Krishna did all that, I did not.

To me, Krishna is a teacher an enlightened person. There are many who will be in that category.
According to Vedanta view Krishna/ God is present everywhere at every time as all pervading Brahman pervasive in every thing animate and inanimate enabling us to experience things and life as we see it.

Krishna is present as Paramatman constantly creating and directing our thoughts via our mind.



The synonyms of Krishna have been traced to 1st millennium BCE literature. In some sub-traditions, Krishna is worshipped as Svayam Bhagavan, and this is sometimes referred to as Krishnaism. These sub-traditions arose in the context of the medieval era Bhakti movement. Krishna-related literature has inspired numerous performance arts such as Bharatnatyam, Kathakali, Kuchipudi, Odissi, and Manipuri dance. He is a pan-Hindu god, but is particularly revered in some locations such as Vrindavan in Uttar Pradesh, Jagannatha in Odisha, Mayapur in West Bengal, Dwarka and Junagadh in Gujarat, Pandharpur in Maharashtra, Udupi in Karnataka, Nathdwara in Rajasthan and Guruvayur in Kerala. Since the 1960s the worship of Krishna has also spread to the Western world and to Africa, largely due to the work of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishna

prasad1 said:

It is your word that Krishna did all that, I did not.

Click to expand...

I have no issue if you don't believe all these stories about Krishna. But you state that he killed Kamsa at the age of 14. That is selectively choosing what you like and rejecting what don't like, from the stories appearing in the same scripture.

To me, Krishna is a teacher an enlightened person. There are many who will be in that category.
According to Vedanta view Krishna/ God is present everywhere at every time as all pervading Brahman pervasive in every thing animate and inanimate enabling us to experience things and life as we see it.

Krishna is present as Paramatman constantly creating and directing our thoughts via our mind.

Click to expand...

That is fantastic and I bow down to you for stating this view. But this Vedantic viewpoint doesn't negate the possibility of Krishna living a worldly life performing miracles, doing rasalila at a juvenile age etc. One can believe in these stories, and still see Krishna as the Paramatman, as per the dictum "brahmavit brahmaiva bhavati".

I have sources other than wikipedia but I see that the material you quoted from there confirms the facts I stated earlier, ie Krishna/Siva worship, and in general Bhakti in India, dates long back in antiquity.

Maybe Gods mature quickly? (In all respects).

prasad1 said:

I have been greatly influenced by Sangomji's thinking.
He said he did not believe in 'gods', he conceded the concept of Brahman.

Click to expand...

Mr Sangom had radical views and always challenged the orthodoxy.

He once told me to read up and learn from teachings of Ramana Maharishi. I tried but my understanding is superficial.

Since being active in this forum I have been trying to learn about such topic areas.

Here is my current thinking written in a radical style LOL.

Dualists and special case of dualism (like that of my sparring friend) - Bhakthi is emotionalism to them. Their bhakthi is mostly superficial and think that if they just surrender and then everything is OK. They want to reach the lap of Lord Narayana after death. Poor Lord. They think they are in love with an idol and talk about love while having a toxic tongue towards other people. They have clarity about their emotional Bhakthi but are misguided I think. They do not represent what is taught in our sacred books

Self describing non-dualists: Mostly they are a confused lot. They pick up a few words and expressions and parrot that around as if those words make them very scholarly. At the core they are unable to explain anything. I am sure exceptions are there but the blogs and posts that I have read (even in TB forum), their posts show confusion.

In our forum there are few good posts in the area of non-dualism (scholarly section) but I cannot say I understand them . I think Mr tks has good grasp though his writing style can be exhaustive and can test one's patience. Most people may not be reading his posts.

Bottom line;
Dualist posts/blogs: Emotionalism, misguided and today's Bhakthi influenced by west to be irresponsible in the name of surrender

non-dualist blogs : Mostly a confused lot

biswa said:

Maybe Gods mature quickly? (In all respects).

Click to expand...

We have Gods as in devas, Gods as in avataras, Gods as in Brahmajnaanis.....

Some modern Advaitins express disbelief in avataras like Krishna performing miracles. Fact is, advaitic tradition wholeheartedly admitted Krishna as an incarnation of Lord Narayana. The Bhagavad Gita in its 11th Chapter describes Lord Krishna manifesting the Vishwaroopam, which "exceeds a thousand Suns" in effulgence. All advaitic philosophers, including Adi Sankaracharya, admits this miracle of lord Krishna as absolute truth, and commented on the slokas accordingly. The Gita Bhashyam of Adi Sankara reveals him an ardent Krishna/Siva Bhakta.

Even in the Brahma sutra bhashyam, Acharya Sankara takes up the case of extraordinary events in the lives of sages and avataras, and emphatically states, just because we aren't able to manifest such powers in our personal lives, we cannot disregard the possibility of the sages doing so, and in fact their brahmajnanam imbued them with the power to perform miracles at will.

a-TB said:

Mr Sangom had radical views and always challenged the orthodoxy.

Click to expand...

Depends on what you mean by orthodoxy! I clearly remember a debate I had with him where he shared about the circumstances in which he grew up, when the people studied the Vedas and Upanishads only. Works like the Gita, Bhagavatham etc were not studied at all. According to him, people started reading these books only in recent times when Gurujis/Saptahams popularised these devotional works. Now, the Vedas and Upanishads are more orthodox than these devotional works....

KRN said:

Some modern Advaitins express disbelief in avataras like Krishna performing miracles. Fact is, advaitic tradition wholeheartedly admitted Krishna as an incarnation of Lord Narayana. The Bhagavad Gita in its 11th Chapter describes Lord Krishna manifesting the Vishwaroopam, which "exceeds a thousand Suns" in effulgence. All advaitic philosophers, including Adi Sankaracharya, admits this miracle of lord Krishna as absolute truth, and commented on the slokas accordingly. The Gita Bhashyam of Adi Sankara reveals him an ardent Krishna/Siva Bhakta.

Even in the Brahma sutra bhashyam, Acharya Sankara takes up the case of extraordinary events in the lives of sages and avataras, and emphatically states, just because we aren't able to manifest such powers in our personal lives, we cannot disregard the possibility of the sages doing so, and in fact their brahmajnanam imbued them with the power to perform miracles at will.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, we do not know for a fact, what was written by Adi Shankara, and what was embellished later on. The later Shankaracharyas were not as accomplished as Adi Shankaracharya, but they are still called "Shankaracharya".

KRN said:

Depends on what you mean by orthodoxy! I clearly remember a debate I had with him where he shared about the circumstances in which he grew up, when the people studied the Vedas and Upanishads only. Works like the Gita, Bhagavatham etc were not studied at all. According to him, people started reading these books only in recent times when Gurujis/Saptahams popularised these devotional works. Now, the Vedas and Upanishads are more orthodox than these devotional works....

Click to expand...

Mr Sangom used to challenge the beliefs of emotional-Bhakthas and their superstitions. That is what I remember.

KRN said:

Some modern Advaitins express disbelief in avataras like Krishna performing miracles. Fact is, advaitic tradition wholeheartedly admitted Krishna as an incarnation of Lord Narayana. The Bhagavad Gita in its 11th Chapter describes Lord Krishna manifesting the Vishwaroopam, which "exceeds a thousand Suns" in effulgence. All advaitic philosophers, including Adi Sankaracharya, admits this miracle of lord Krishna as absolute truth, and commented on the slokas accordingly. The Gita Bhashyam of Adi Sankara reveals him an ardent Krishna/Siva Bhakta.

Even in the Brahma sutra bhashyam, Acharya Sankara takes up the case of extraordinary events in the lives of sages and avataras, and emphatically states, just because we aren't able to manifest such powers in our personal lives, we cannot disregard the possibility of the sages doing so, and in fact their brahmajnanam imbued them with the power to perform miracles at will.

Click to expand...

It is not possible for anyone to defy the laws of nature. When a magician does a magic no one takes him as God. I once saw magician effortlessly produce birds from his hand at a party. Later at night he was found cleaning the bird droppings in the cage and everywhere. Then he was doing no magic.

In the west people think you have to perform miracles and defy nature to be a god or a saint. We also have all kinds of mythological stories of gods doing some magic.

I believe nature itself is a form of God, so God will not go against himself/herself.

Therefore it is hard for me to believe that Sankaracharya talked about miracles. It is also hard for me to believe that he was talking in terms of individual Gods like Krishna and Siva etc. He may have been describing in a symbolically significant way only. I will ask a learned person I know about this and if I understand the answer I will share that here