Bhakti as a concept in Hinduism is foreign influence.

[KRN]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

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".

You are very much mistaken. We do know for a fact, what was written by Adi Shankara. All scholars, Indian as well as Western, are in perfect agreement that the Bhashyams to the Bhagavad Gita, Brahma Sutram and the 10 Upanishads were written by Adi Shankara. These works reveal Adi Shankara as the colossus of Vedanta philosophy. The miracle of Krishna revealing his Vishwaroopam to Arjuna occurs in the eleventh chapter of the Bhagavad Gita only. And in my above message I referred to that Bhagavad Gita Bhashyam of Shankara. I was not talking about any other work like Vivekachudamani, Bhaja Govindam etc, whose authorship is disputed. Are you seriously contesting the authorship of Sankara Bhagavad Gita Bhashyam? Are you stating that it is not written by Adi Shankara? Then let's debate it!

The rest of your above message is irrelevant, as we are not concerned here about the later Sankaracharyas.

 

[KRN]

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

Bhakti is no more, nor less superstitious in content than some portions of the Upanishads, which form the basis of the Vedanta. I find that there is a lot of misconception about Bhakti in this forum, that makes people denigrate it! To tarnish something, without knowing what it really is, is also a kind of superstition or bigotry! Adi Sankaracharya who wrote that excellent Bhashyam to Brahma Sutram, is the perfect example of both Bhakti and Vedanta merging in one voice.

 

[KRN]

It is not possible for anyone to defy the laws of nature...........................
..............

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

Are you repudiating the entire Yoga sastra which claim that man can, by practising certain yogic techniques, overcome many of the limitations imposed by nature on his body/mind? Then are you saying, all the Yogis including Rishi Patanjali the author of Yoga sutra, were liars or charlatans?

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

Nobody can go against the true laws of nature. But there are many hidden depths to the laws of nature. What the common man knows and assumes to be the 'laws of nature' is just the tip of the iceberg. Whereas the Rishis of the Yoga sastra delved deep, and discovered hidden mysteries. With better awareness of nature's laws, they were/are able to perform things, well within the laws of nature, that the ignorant man assumes to be miracles.

Who really knows anything about nature, any way? To give an example, the latest cosmological discoveries reveal that 96% of nature is pervaded with what astronomers call 'dark energy' and 'dark matter'. What this 'dark energy' or 'dark matter' is, they are unable to clearly explain either. Here I am not even talking about black holes, which at least can be understood in a certain way. There is too much mystery out there, my friend.

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

Sir, my suggestion to you is to look directly into the Bhashyams written by Sankaracharya, on the Gita, Upanishads and Brahma Sutram, either in the original Sanskrit or in a good translation. Then see for yourself what Adi Sankaracharya really wrote, and afterwards share here what you learnt from the exercise. That will be a better value addition to the forum that merely stating your beliefs, assumptions, or what some secondary person told you.

For the record I am stating below - (this is based on my perusal in original Sanskrit, of those works, which all scholars accept in unison, as having been written by Adi Sankaracharya)

1) Adi Sankaracharya was an ardent Krishna Bhakta and Vyasa Bhakta.
2) He accepted the Mahabharata Stories as entirely true accounts
3) He accepted lord Krishna's Vishwaroopa Darsanam occurring in the Gita, which is a wonderful miracle in conventional understanding, as a very true incident happening in the battlefield, and definitely not in a "symbolically significant way"
4) He was a Siva bhakta who accepted the story of Arjuna's worship/meeting with lord Shiva as a true incident
5) He accepted Krishna as an incarnation of Lord Narayana or Vishnu

If anyone would like to contest these statements, by providing references to the original works by Adi Sankaracharya, I am ready for a debate.

 

[prasad1]

You are very much mistaken. We do know for a fact, what was written by Adi Shankara. All scholars, Indian as well as Western, are in perfect agreement that the Bhashyams to the Bhagavad Gita, Brahma Sutram and the 10 Upanishads were written by Adi Shankara. These works reveal Adi Shankara as the colossus of Vedanta philosophy. The miracle of Krishna revealing his Vishwaroopam to Arjuna occurs in the eleventh chapter of the Bhagavad Gita only. And in my above message I referred to that Bhagavad Gita Bhashyam of Shankara. I was not talking about any other work like Vivekachudamani, Bhaja Govindam etc, whose authorship is disputed. Are you seriously contesting the authorship of Sankara Bhagavad Gita Bhashyam? Are you stating that it is not written by Adi Shankara? Then let's debate it!

The rest of your above message is irrelevant, as we are not concerned here about the later Sankaracharyas.

Sir,
I do not want to be contentious, I will never call your message as "irrelevant", even if they do not make any sense.

I can not say for sure "anything" everything is relative. Depending on the perspective opinions change.
one may be stationary on Earth, but is moving because the earth is moving, and then again the who;e solar system is moving, and the whole galaxy is moving, etc.

None of us know for sure what was the exact timeline of Krishna.
Some of the sites:

Vaishnava teachers such as Ramanujacharya and Gaudiya Vaishnavas held the view that the body of Krishna is completely spiritual and never decays as this appears to be the perspective of the Bhagavata Purana. Krishna never appears to grow old or age at all in the historical depictions of the Puranas despite passing of several decades.

http://www.krishnajanmashtami.com/krishna-lifetime-chart.html

The story goes that while leaving for Mathura, Krishna promises to return. But he gets so caught up in worldly affairs in duties and responsibilities, in the politics of Mathura and Indraprastha, that he forgets his promise and moves on in life. The last time he meets Radha, he swears never to play the flute again. For she was the inspiration to his music. Radha waits for his return. For his music. But Krishna never comes back.

http://devdutt.com/articles/indian-mythology/mahabharata/by-the-banks-of-the-yamuna.html

 

[KRN]

Sir,
...........

I can not say for sure "anything" everything is relative..............

How about the below statement of yours, to which my reply was directed

"Unfortunately, we do not know for a fact, what was written by Adi Shankara"

Do you still stick to that statement, and refuse to accept that Adi Sankaracharya wrote the Bhagavad Gita Bhashyam wherein he supported the miracles of Krishna, like the Vishwaroopam, and the killing of several Asuras in his childhood? Do you still refuse to accept that Adi Sankaracharya consistently showed himself an ardent Krishna Bhakta in his Gita, Upanishads, Brahma Sutra Bhashyams?

 

[KRN]

Sir,
I do not want to be contentious...................

This is the "debates and discussions" section...

None of us know for sure what was the exact timeline of Krishna.
Some of the sites:

Sir, you keep copy/pasting random material from websites. Maybe you are not aware that many of these sites have no credibility whatsoever. To gain real understanding, you need to study the original works on Krishna, like the Srimad Bhagavatham, Harivamsam, Vishnu Puranam....or the original works written by Adi Sankaracharya...like the Bhashyams....Once you do that, you will not be making bigoted and dismissive/disparaging statements on Bhakti etc here...

The exact timeline of lord Krishna is very clear, and can be learnt by perusing the Mahabharatam, and Harivamsam. Maybe the owners of the websites you have been referring to, are ignorant of this.

 

[KRN]

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.

Our knowledge of Krishna is all based on the scriptural references to his life.

There's no scriptural reference that Krishna was aged 14, when he killed Kamsa.
Nor is there any scriptural reference that clearly state Krishna never returned to Gokulam, either.

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.

Whereas ALL scriptures like Vishnu Puranam, Bhagavatham clearly state that Gopis played with him as a lover!
So, one can never dismiss the rasalila as a poetic imagination. It might, or might not have happened.

it happens that all "your facts" are off

 

[prasad1]

Our knowledge of Krishna is all based on the scriptural references to his life.

There's no scriptural reference that Krishna was aged 14, when he killed Kamsa.
Nor is there any scriptural reference that clearly state Krishna never returned to Gokulam, either.



Whereas ALL scriptures like Vishnu Puranam, Bhagavatham clearly state that Gopis played with him as a lover!
So, one can never dismiss the rasalila as a poetic imagination. It might, or might not have happened.

it happens that all "your facts" are off

Your smugness is obvious.

Have you seen the definition of the word scripture?

• Scripture : the books of either the Old Testament or the New Testament or of both : the Bible
• scriptures : the sacred writings of a religion
  
  Is there any difference between scripture and Fiction?
  
  If scripture was what the LORD stated, then there should not be any contradictions.
  All scriptures must say the same thing.
  How come Ramayana by Tulsidas differs from Ramayana by Valmiki.
  
  It is because it is a story narrated by different people.

As I stated before there is no honest History in any of the "SCRIPTURES". They are parables at best.

But you have hijacked the thread from Bhakti to History.

 

[a-TB]

Bhakti is no more, nor less superstitious in content than some portions of the Upanishads, which form the basis of the Vedanta. I find that there is a lot of misconception about Bhakti in this forum, that makes people denigrate it! To tarnish something, without knowing what it really is, is also a kind of superstition or bigotry! Adi Sankaracharya who wrote that excellent Bhashyam to Brahma Sutram, is the perfect example of both Bhakti and Vedanta merging in one voice.

Not sure what your point is. Upanishads also have superstitious content therefore we must not put superstitions down??? I do not know enough to debate but I know something does not resonate right with your statements. There is some inconsistency. I think there is correct understanding of Bhakthi that is in our scriptures. But today's practice is far from that

 

[a-TB]

Your smugness is obvious.

Have you seen the definition of the word scripture?

• Scripture : the books of either the Old Testament or the New Testament or of both : the Bible
• scriptures : the sacred writings of a religion
  
  Is there any difference between scripture and Fiction?
  
  If scripture was what the LORD stated, then there should not be any contradictions.
  All scriptures must say the same thing.
  How come Ramayana by Tulsidas differs from Ramayana by Valmiki.
  
  It is because it is a story narrated by different people.

As I stated before there is no honest History in any of the "SCRIPTURES". They are parables at best.

But you have hijacked the thread from Bhakti to History.

The bolded part is an attack on a person and degenerates an otherwise good discussion

 

[a-TB]

Are you repudiating the entire Yoga sastra which claim that man can, by practising certain yogic techniques, overcome many of the limitations imposed by nature on his body/mind? Then are you saying, all the Yogis including Rishi Patanjali the author of Yoga sutra, were liars or charlatans?

I do not know their work. People claim they did magic by going against natural laws. That is not possible. If there is someone who has such powers let them come forward and be subjected to the probing of true scientists. I was told Sathya Sai Baba and his miracles are off limits for discussions here in this forum. Glory of Baba has to do with good things he did (hospitals, positive impact in the world) but there are enough people to refute the miracles with proof ( a low point in his career I think). With miracles and magic you are talking about your personal beliefs that cannot be debated here.

Nobody can go against the true laws of nature. But there are many hidden depths to the laws of nature. What the common man knows and assumes to be the 'laws of nature' is just the tip of the iceberg. Whereas the Rishis of the Yoga sastra delved deep, and discovered hidden mysteries. With better awareness of nature's laws, they were/are able to perform things, well within the laws of nature, that the ignorant man assumes to be miracles.

Just because there are unknowns does not mean there are not methods to prove rejection of miracles. Let someone with power come forward for scientific examination. The bolder part above is your belief only and not a fact

Who really knows anything about nature, any way? To give an example, the latest cosmological discoveries reveal that 96% of nature is pervaded with what astronomers call 'dark energy' and 'dark matter'. What this 'dark energy' or 'dark matter' is, they are unable to clearly explain either. Here I am not even talking about black holes, which at least can be understood in a certain way. There is too much mystery out there, my friend.

I agree the nature can never be fully understood. But we can know when there are absurdities and claims. Nature is unyielding to anyone. If there are other laws let there be a study and conclusion. Until then it is all folklore

Sir, my suggestion to you is to look directly into the Bhashyams written by Sankaracharya, on the Gita, Upanishads and Brahma Sutram, either in the original Sanskrit or in a good translation. Then see for yourself what Adi Sankaracharya really wrote, and afterwards share here what you learnt from the exercise. That will be a better value addition to the forum that merely stating your beliefs, assumptions, or what some secondary person told you.

I do not know many things but I am good at spotting inconsistencies and illogical statements. I have great respect for our teachings. I prefer to start out by asking people, questioning them like I am doing now for starters and then reaching out to experts. When I retire I will take up your suggestions.

For the record I am stating below - (this is based on my perusal in original Sanskrit, of those works, which all scholars accept in unison, as having been written by Adi Sankaracharya)

1) Adi Sankaracharya was an ardent Krishna Bhakta and Vyasa Bhakta.
2) He accepted the Mahabharata Stories as entirely true accounts
3) He accepted lord Krishna's Vishwaroopa Darsanam occurring in the Gita, which is a wonderful miracle in conventional understanding, as a very true incident happening in the battlefield, and definitely not in a "symbolically significant way"
4) He was a Siva bhakta who accepted the story of Arjuna's worship/meeting with lord Shiva as a true incident
5) He accepted Krishna as an incarnation of Lord Narayana or Vishnu

If anyone would like to contest these statements, by providing references to the original works by Adi Sankaracharya, I am ready for a debate.

My friend, it is the other way around. Since you are the most educated on such things why dont your provide detailed proof , actual citations. There is only one other member who is not active anymore who claimed to have studied Bhashyam etc in Sanskrit from teachers. Even if he does not respond, I will try to reach out to some experts. Please provide facts, not your beliefs or conclusions.

Please provide actual passages in Sanskrit and translations for item 3, and 4 and anything else relevant. I know someone who knows someone that will help further this debate. Like Ramana Maharishi, I think Sankaracharya never claimed to do miracles or believe in miracles. Symbolically significant way is the only way to reconcile the stories of Lord Krishna's Vishwaroopam. Please provide direct statements in Sanskrit of Sankaracharya of this miracle and his acceptance of this as a miracle.

I have regard for the number of things you have studied. You have lot to share here. Have provided my responses in blue.

 

[KRN]

............
Have you seen the definition of the word scripture?

• Scripture : the books of either the Old Testament or the New Testament or of both : the Bible
• scriptures : the sacred writings of a religion
• Is there any difference between scripture and Fiction?

• Then, from where did you get your "facts" that Krishna left Gokul at age 14, and never returned there afterwards, based on which you conclude that the rasalila is a poetical imagination? Do you think that is fact, or fiction?

 

[KRN]

Not sure what your point is. Upanishads also have superstitious content therefore we must not put superstitions down??? I do not know enough to debate but I know something does not resonate right with your statements. There is some inconsistency. I think there is correct understanding of Bhakthi that is in our scriptures. But today's practice is far from that

The point is, people who profess to follow Vedanta, have no right to throw stones at Bhaktas. Both philosophies in theory are fantastic, but in practice, can degenerate to superstition. Both philosophies have a clear place in our religion. The Brahma sutras talk about the nirguna brahman as well as saguna brahman. Acharya Sankara was one example of a person in whom Bhakti and Vedanta went hand in hand, and he never disparaged Bhakti in his Bhashyams (not sure whether I am repeating myself, but this bears repetition)

 

[KRN]

I do not know their work. People claim they did magic by going against natural laws. That is not possible. If there is someone who has such powers let them come forward and be subjected to the probing of true scientists. I was told Sathya Sai Baba and his miracles are off limits for discussions here in this forum. Glory of Baba has to do with good things he did (hospitals, positive impact in the world) but there are enough people to refute the miracles with proof ( a low point in his career I think). With miracles and magic you are talking about your personal beliefs that cannot be debated here.

I don't know whether Sathya Sai Baba claimed that his miracles were due to yoga or some other means. By yoga sastra I meant the Yoga Sampradaya that is one of the Six Darsanas of Sanatana Dharma.

I think you have misstated my words. What I stated is, yoga sastra claims that man can overcome the limitations imposed by nature on his body/mind. I didn't state that yoga sastra claims to have overcome natural laws. The point is, according to Yoga philosophy, our real nature exceeds far beyond this limited mind/body concept. By exploiting the laws of "our real nature that extends beyond", the yogis perform things that the ordinary man, conditioned to an understanding that he is only this mind/body, understands as 'miracles'. So the Yogis are still working within the laws of nature.

If you think that yoga sastra is only about miracles and magic as shown by Sathya Sai Baba, that again is a personal belief of yours. However since you admit to not knowing their work, I'd suggest you peruse the standard texts on Yoga and also try meeting up with a few Yogis, wherever they live

 

[KRN]

Just because there are unknowns does not mean there are not methods to prove rejection of miracles. Let someone with power come forward for scientific examination. The bolder part above is your belief only and not a fact.

I agree the nature can never be fully understood. But we can know when there are absurdities and claims. Nature is unyielding to anyone. If there are other laws let there be a study and conclusion. Until then it is all folklore

Who said that the Yogis are above scientific examination? But if you argue Sathya Sai Baba performed some miracles (which I am not sure whether he attibuted to Yoga), and then you or someone else proved him false, and as a result the entire Yoga philosophy must be absurdity and claims, then your logic is flawed. We are talking about a science that has been time honoured part of the Indian religions for millennia, with it's own texts and detailed practices as well as adherents.

By all means, let there be a thorough study and conclusion! Let doctoral students take up the Yoga sastra for their scientific research, approach the yogis and learn from them, try following their practices as prescribed in the texts, document their results! And then publish their claims and counter claims! Who is preventing them? Until that happens, a truly scientific mind will not dismiss it's claims!

Even in the mainstream, what is commonly understood as 'yogasanas for health' is just a negligible part of Yoga philosophy. Despite that, modern scientific terminology is unable to explain how it really works in boosting one's health or in eliminating diseases. But just because of that, if you dismiss Yoga as folklore, well I think that tells more about yourself than about Yoga

 

[KRN]

My friend, it is the other way around. Since you are the most educated on such things why dont your provide detailed proof , actual citations.......... When I retire I will take up your suggestions....

Even if he does not respond, I will try to reach out to some experts...

I know someone who knows someone that will help further this debate.

Not necessary at this point. You had stated that it is hard for you to believe that Sankara was talking in terms of individual Gods like Krishna and Siva etc, hard to believe that Sankara was talking about miracles like Vishwaroopam that nevertheless appear in the Bhagavad Gita. The surest way to confirm what Sankara wrote, is to peruse some of the books authored by him, specifically the Sankara Bhashyam to the Bhagavad Gita, either in Sanskrit or in translation. That was what I suggested. The Sankara Bhashyam is readily available for purchase. But it seems you don't want to take all that trouble until retirement, nor trust my words, and rather prefer to wait for what some 'experts' say. Fine then, if you can get them to visit this forum, let us see what your 'experts' have to say about these 'hard to believe' statements, so I will wait for that.

 

[KRN]

I have regard for the number of things you have studied. You have lot to share here. Have provided my responses in blue.

Your smugness is obvious.

Thank you Sirs, but obviously I am just a learner and have not stated anything original, as you can verify by perusing the Sankara Bhagavad Gita Bhashyam for yourself

My participation in this thread has been prompted only by certain pontifical and biased statements on Bhakti.

 

[KRN]

But you have hijacked the thread from Bhakti to History.

Sir,
The thread header is "Bhakti as a concept in Hinduism is foreign influence".

And in the very first message you have stated

"Historically speaking, Bhakti as a cult took root in India after the Muslim invasions...."

And when I offer counter examples from history to refute your statement, why do you accuse me of hijacking the thread from Bhakti to History?

 

[renuka]

Recently someone asked me how do I feel when I pray...do I feel a connectivity?

I told the person..well right now I dont pray but if I were to enter a temple or hear a bhajan now I dont feel anything.

The person asked me.." dont you feel that you are a child and God is either a mother or father?"

I said " i have parents..i dont need another set"

The person then asked again.." ok ok..do you take God as a friend at least..you mean to say you dont know Bhakti?"

Then the persons questions made me realize something...
" I said..hey guess what..I am the ultimate Bhaktiman becos your questions made me realize that I allow God to be God..I dont expect God to conform to my desires..I dont expect God to be a Father or Mother or Mama or Machans.

I just let God be God..OMG..i have more Bhakti than you"

The person was quiet!

 

[Vaagmi]

There is a lot of word-play here. Words without depth and words without any real meaning.

It is worth giving a reading to the following write up under "The Speaking Tree" that appeared in The Times of India, Chennai Edition today:

Though a deity is usually made of stone, it has presence. But, to draw divinity out of stone, a devotee’s intense prayer and supplication are needed. The Vedas declare that God pervades every atom of the universe. By that logic, nothing can be excluded.

In Hinduism, the deity plays an important role. Proponents of the Dvaita school of philosophy wittingly create a distinction between God and devotee. They want a visible form to adore and worship. Though Advaita is the ultimate goal, there are those who relish bhakti marg, which establishes a personal and loving relationship between the devotee and the divine. This relationship envisages a personal god with form, who can be invoked and adored. Thus multifarious deities are crafted to exact specifications as laid down in the Vedas. Secondly, when a deity is placed at a shrine, a ceremony called, ‘Prana Pratishta’ is duly performed, as per Vedic guidelines, by which the divine essence of the god or goddess is invited and infused into the image.

The shrine becomes a sacred spot for the devout to express their devotion. Though the Divine is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient, only enlightened beings can experience this. For simple, worldly souls, the hurly-burly of existence presents constant challenges and obstacles that call for daily attention. To ‘see’ the Divine everywhere through these daily struggles, is not always workable. Marked out consecrated spots, assist in marshalling faith and attention towards divinity. Just as a house has a living room, bedroom, and dining room, for specific associated activities, at different times, a marked out spot for God, at home or outside, becomes a sacred space to connect to the Divine.

Rituals always potentially facilitate direct communion with the divine. ‘God’ is ever immanent and all it takes is a heart brimming with devotion to draw Him out. The ardent belief that the deity is alive and responsive makes it so. This is not a fanciful fable to the community of the devout. They have and will go back again and again to their beloved shrine to repeat the experience and garner blessings.

Sri Sathya Sai Baba says of the many prevalent forms of gods and goddesses in Hinduism… “Each name and form is indicative of an aspect of divinity. Each one is a facet, a part, a ray of the Supreme… in fact, everywhere you look the attribute-less divine has taken on attributes. Without the help of name and form you cannot comprehend the formless divine. Even Shankara, the biggest proponent of non-dualism, worshipped images in childhood, and he realised the value of saguna-swarupa (worshipping gods with form)…therefore he advised saguna-aradhana to the large majority of people even later in his life.”

Places of worship provide structure and discipline for remembering the Supreme. This promotes humility, and nurtures the devotional instinct and desire for purifying impulses. Legion are stories of devotees visiting a shrine at a hallowed spot, and feeling overwhelmed with bliss. Tears streaming down their cheeks, with the devotees not knowing why or how. This is the power of the deity, and the faith resposed in the saguna version of the Supreme or whatever name you give it. The experience lies beyond the region of the mind -- so reason and logic flounder in the face of it.

My comments:

I beleive that human beings as they mature with time, due to accumulation of knowledge and experience, try to understand the God concept. But unlike the realities of the physical world which are measurable, definable and determinable by the different scales and equipments that are available to the humans, the God idea defies all the known equipments and scales. So every time someone tries to measure up or define that idea, the resultant finding remains woefully inadequate. So every generation contributes to the voluminous knowledge that is already available there about God. Vedas, upanishads, sutras, bhashyams etc., are all examples of this. The journey continues and the search also continues. Only this much can be said about the human endeavor to define God entity.

Good luck to everyone who has taken the path of searching for truth.

 

[a-TB]

There is a lot of word-play here. Words without depth and words without any real meaning.

It is worth giving a reading to the following write up under "The Speaking Tree" that appeared in The Times of India, Chennai Edition today:

Though a deity is usually made of stone, it has presence. But, to draw divinity out of stone, a devotee’s intense prayer and supplication are needed. The Vedas declare that God pervades every atom of the universe. By that logic, nothing can be excluded.

In Hinduism, the deity plays an important role. Proponents of the Dvaita school of philosophy wittingly create a distinction between God and devotee. They want a visible form to adore and worship. Though Advaita is the ultimate goal, there are those who relish bhakti marg, which establishes a personal and loving relationship between the devotee and the divine. This relationship envisages a personal god with form, who can be invoked and adored. Thus multifarious deities are crafted to exact specifications as laid down in the Vedas. Secondly, when a deity is placed at a shrine, a ceremony called, ‘Prana Pratishta’ is duly performed, as per Vedic guidelines, by which the divine essence of the god or goddess is invited and infused into the image.

The shrine becomes a sacred spot for the devout to express their devotion. Though the Divine is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient, only enlightened beings can experience this. For simple, worldly souls, the hurly-burly of existence presents constant challenges and obstacles that call for daily attention. To ‘see’ the Divine everywhere through these daily struggles, is not always workable. Marked out consecrated spots, assist in marshalling faith and attention towards divinity. Just as a house has a living room, bedroom, and dining room, for specific associated activities, at different times, a marked out spot for God, at home or outside, becomes a sacred space to connect to the Divine.

Rituals always potentially facilitate direct communion with the divine. ‘God’ is ever immanent and all it takes is a heart brimming with devotion to draw Him out. The ardent belief that the deity is alive and responsive makes it so. This is not a fanciful fable to the community of the devout. They have and will go back again and again to their beloved shrine to repeat the experience and garner blessings.

Sri Sathya Sai Baba says of the many prevalent forms of gods and goddesses in Hinduism… “Each name and form is indicative of an aspect of divinity. Each one is a facet, a part, a ray of the Supreme… in fact, everywhere you look the attribute-less divine has taken on attributes. Without the help of name and form you cannot comprehend the formless divine. Even Shankara, the biggest proponent of non-dualism, worshipped images in childhood, and he realised the value of saguna-swarupa (worshipping gods with form)…therefore he advised saguna-aradhana to the large majority of people even later in his life.”

Places of worship provide structure and discipline for remembering the Supreme. This promotes humility, and nurtures the devotional instinct and desire for purifying impulses. Legion are stories of devotees visiting a shrine at a hallowed spot, and feeling overwhelmed with bliss. Tears streaming down their cheeks, with the devotees not knowing why or how. This is the power of the deity, and the faith resposed in the saguna version of the Supreme or whatever name you give it. The experience lies beyond the region of the mind -- so reason and logic flounder in the face of it.

My comments:

I beleive that human beings as they mature with time, due to accumulation of knowledge and experience, try to understand the God concept. But unlike the realities of the physical world which are measurable, definable and determinable by the different scales and equipments that are available to the humans, the God idea defies all the known equipments and scales. So every time someone tries to measure up or define that idea, the resultant finding remains woefully inadequate. So every generation contributes to the voluminous knowledge that is already available there about God. Vedas, upanishads, sutras, bhashyams etc., are all examples of this. The journey continues and the search also continues. Only this much can be said about the human endeavor to define God entity.

Good luck to everyone who has taken the path of searching for truth.

Dear Mr Vaagmi (if you prefer to be called that way),

There you go again.

So long you believe God is a concept I know you are wrong. I dont claim to know the truth. But concept is a mental thing along with every other concepts you have about others including all your prejudices. You are projecting that 'concept' on deities and works of great poets. I am not sure you will ever get what I am saying ..

May Lord Narayana bless you to become a true Bhakta one day

 

[a-TB]

Recently someone asked me how do I feel when I pray...do I feel a connectivity?

I told the person..well right now I dont pray but if I were to enter a temple or hear a bhajan now I dont feel anything.

The person asked me.." dont you feel that you are a child and God is either a mother or father?"

I said " i have parents..i dont need another set"

The person then asked again.." ok ok..do you take God as a friend at least..you mean to say you dont know Bhakti?"

Then the persons questions made me realize something...
" I said..hey guess what..I am the ultimate Bhaktiman becos your questions made me realize that I allow God to be God..I dont expect God to conform to my desires..I dont expect God to be a Father or Mother or Mama or Machans.

I just let God be God..OMG..i have more Bhakti than you"

The person was quiet!

Somehow the above comments seem profound to me .. I think there is a lot of 'mis-conception' about Bhakthi

 

[a-TB]

The point is, people who profess to follow Vedanta, have no right to throw stones at Bhaktas. Both philosophies in theory are fantastic, but in practice, can degenerate to superstition. Both philosophies have a clear place in our religion. The Brahma sutras talk about the nirguna brahman as well as saguna brahman. Acharya Sankara was one example of a person in whom Bhakti and Vedanta went hand in hand, and he never disparaged Bhakti in his Bhashyams (not sure whether I am repeating myself, but this bears repetition)

No issues with what you have clarified. Bhakthi of Sankaracharya is NOT the same as practiced widely in Hinduism today. I think what is practiced today is largely superstition.

 

[a-TB]

I don't know whether Sathya Sai Baba claimed that his miracles were due to yoga or some other means. By yoga sastra I meant the Yoga Sampradaya that is one of the Six Darsanas of Sanatana Dharma.

I think you have misstated my words. What I stated is, yoga sastra claims that man can overcome the limitations imposed by nature on his body/mind. I didn't state that yoga sastra claims to have overcome natural laws. The point is, according to Yoga philosophy, our real nature exceeds far beyond this limited mind/body concept. By exploiting the laws of "our real nature that extends beyond", the yogis perform things that the ordinary man, conditioned to an understanding that he is only this mind/body, understands as 'miracles'. So the Yogis are still working within the laws of nature.

If you think that yoga sastra is only about miracles and magic as shown by Sathya Sai Baba, that again is a personal belief of yours. However since you admit to not knowing their work, I'd suggest you peruse the standard texts on Yoga and also try meeting up with a few Yogis, wherever they live

I did not say anything about practice of Yoga or if a Yogi is capable of even stopping his heart beat for a small time or be able to hold his breath for minutes.

You have to share clearly what you mean when you say 'man can overcome limitations imposed by nature on his body/mind' - can you give examples.

Somehow I thought body and mind is not outside of nature. So how does nature impose limitations on nature of body and what do yogis do to overcome. Is a yogi using power outside of nature? There is something about the claim that does not make sense. You can clarify by giving examples. Please give examples from your own experience or something you have actually seen (not hearsay or folklore or your beliefs). Thanks

 

[a-TB]

Who said that the Yogis are above scientific examination? But if you argue Sathya Sai Baba performed some miracles (which I am not sure whether he attibuted to Yoga), and then you or someone else proved him false, and as a result the entire Yoga philosophy must be absurdity and claims, then your logic is flawed. We are talking about a science that has been time honoured part of the Indian religions for millennia, with it's own texts and detailed practices as well as adherents.

By all means, let there be a thorough study and conclusion! Let doctoral students take up the Yoga sastra for their scientific research, approach the yogis and learn from them, try following their practices as prescribed in the texts, document their results! And then publish their claims and counter claims! Who is preventing them? Until that happens, a truly scientific mind will not dismiss it's claims!

Even in the mainstream, what is commonly understood as 'yogasanas for health' is just a negligible part of Yoga philosophy. Despite that, modern scientific terminology is unable to explain how it really works in boosting one's health or in eliminating diseases. But just because of that, if you dismiss Yoga as folklore, well I think that tells more about yourself than about Yoga

Dear Mr KRN,

You are well versed in our scriptures and seem to be smart. I am not sure why you misinterpret what I have said, create a position I did not take and argue against it. I wanted to just understand what you meant about going beyond body and mind with examples.

Sathya Sai baba did not create gold out of thin air, he performed what any magician would do. People had enormous belief in him and got cured by their own mind/beliefs (what they call placebo effect) . When 'cure' did not happen it was never reported. By the way, cancer going away on its own is documented. So I was challenging beliefs in such miracles.

You can clarify with real examples and stop us going in circles