Mahavakya and Abject surrender is there contradiction

[KRN]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Who made Guru a requirement? A GURU of course.

The same sources from where you quoted the mahavakyas, make Guru a requirement. (I am not referring to any websites here, but to the Upanishads)

 

[KRN]

Rāmānuja's guru was Yādava Prakāśa, a scholar who was a part of the more ancient Advaita Vedānta monastic tradition. Sri Vaishnava tradition holds that Rāmānuja disagreed with his guru and the non-dualistic Advaita Vedānta, and instead followed in the footsteps of Indian Alvārs tradition, the scholars Nāthamuni and Yamunāchārya.

So obviously Sri Ramanuja did not surrender to his Guru.

So your praise of Guru and Sri Ramanuja is a contradiction.

You have made some illogical conclusions in your message above. What I stated is the importance of the the Guru in Advaita tradition and then I went on to add a note that I highly respect Sri Ramanuja, while making it clear that I am not a follower of his path. Even accepting that Sri Ramanuja disagreed with his Advaita Guru and joined a different parampara, why should that make me respect him any less, given his other superlative contributions to Sanatana Dharma as a whole? I might also respect Guru Nanak, Kabir, Ramana Maharshi, Ramananda and many others. So where is the contradiction that you speak about? You are making a point that respect for another should be an open or shut case, which is how only a fanatic or a fundamentalist will think.

Now, surrender to a Guru does not mean that one should, for lifelong, agree with every single thing that the Guru had to say. Sri Ramanuja did not repudiate the Vedas, nor did he join the order of the nastikas like Buddhists or Jains or Charvakas. From an advaitin's perspective (and Advaita is a very broad category, there are many philosophical differences within Advaitins themselves) the Vedas, Upanishads, Brahma Sutras, and the Gita reign supreme - and Sri Ramanuja extolled the same, and considered them authoritative, eventhough he explained some of their concepts (but not all, and maybe surprisingly to some of you, the points where he agrees with the Advaitins vastly outnumber the points of disagreement, although they are major points of disagreement) in a different way from that of Sri Sankara or Sri Bhartrprapancha or Bhaskara.

And moreover, the path followed by Ramanujacharya predated Nathamuni and Yamunacharya by many many centuries. It had it's origin in the pancharatra school which was partially rejected by Sri Sankara in the Brahma sutra bhashyam.

 

[KRN]

Sir, if in life you just keep compromising so that you do not offend your friends, life is not well lived. You need to have strong convictions and follow your individual path.

When you see a discrepancy you need to call it, and not just sweep it under the rug.

And for the reference to Aurangjeb see my post#17.


I have respect for all teachers, but I follow my own path.

Now you have made me curious. What is your path, and how is it different from the path of other acharyas like Sri Sankara, Sri Ramanuja etc? Till now all I have seen in the limited period is the information you copypasted from some websites. Not that I mean there's anything wrong in it, but it doesn't per se indicate an individual, uncompromising path.

As for Aurangzeb, where's your point? His firmans and other evidence in history reveal his extremely discriminatory attitude against his Hindu subjects, trying to get them converted to Islam by hook or crook, while adopting a policy of leniency towards his muslim subjects. That he made one Abul Hasan Qutb Shah to surrender peacefully, doesn't prove anything at all.

 

[prasad1]

As for Aurangzeb, where's your point? His firmans and other evidence in history reveal his extremely discriminatory attitude against his Hindu subjects, trying to get them converted to Islam by hook or crook, while adopting a policy of leniency towards his muslim subjects. That he made one Abul Hasan Qutb Shah to surrender peacefully, doesn't prove anything at all.

Sir,
Again read my post #13. If you do not understand that there is no point in having a discussion.

My point with the dictator quote was that there is about .00000001% chance of your mercy plea being granted even by the worst person in power. There is NO chance of prayers for the gratification of material goods from "god" being granted.

I do not beg or Pray for material gains. Knowing fully well that is not what we are expected to do.
My GOD (Brahman) is NOT corrupt and is just. everything is in Brahman.
There is no knowledge outside of Brahman. Being not corrupt, that is not going to grant any special powers to people who BEG all their life.

That is my personal belief.

My religion is private to my self. I pick and choose as to what I follow.

I never praised Auragjeb or any other dictator. Why is it so difficult to understand.

 

[KRN]

Sir,
Again read my post #13. If you do not understand that there is no point in having a discussion.

My point with the dictator quote was that there is about .00000001% chance of your mercy plea being granted. There is NO chance of prayers for the gratification of material goods from "god" being granted.

I do not beg. Knowing fully well that is not what we are expected to do.

I never praised Auragjeb or any other dictator. Why is it so difficult to understand.

I understood what you were trying to say, but had you given an example of Aurangzeb dealing leniently with a Hindu king, it would have lent a lot more weight to your example in the context. Because that example works in many ways. Aurangzeb is a classic example of a dictator who tried to impose his own version of religion and surrender/submission to God on the subjects. Whereas the Hindu idea of surrender is vastly different.

In Hinduism, prayer to God has a lot more meaning than just asking for material goods, or seeking relief from calamities.

 

[prasad1]

You have made some illogical conclusions in your message above. What I stated is the importance of the the Guru in Advaita tradition and then I went on to add a note that I highly respect Sri Ramanuja, while making it clear that I am not a follower of his path. Even accepting that Sri Ramanuja disagreed with his Advaita Guru and joined a different parampara, why should that make me respect him any less, given his other superlative contributions to Sanatana Dharma as a whole? I might also respect Guru Nanak, Kabir, Ramana Maharshi, Ramananda and many others. So where is the contradiction that you speak about? You are making a point that respect for another should be an open or shut case, which is how only a fanatic or a fundamentalist will think.

Now, surrender to a Guru does not mean that one should, for lifelong, agree with every single thing that the Guru had to say. Sri Ramanuja did not repudiate the Vedas, nor did he join the order of the nastikas like Buddhists or Jains or Charvakas. From an advaitin's perspective (and Advaita is a very broad category, there are many philosophical differences within Advaitins themselves) the Vedas, Upanishads, Brahma Sutras, and the Gita reign supreme - and Sri Ramanuja extolled the same, and considered them authoritative, eventhough he explained some of their concepts (but not all, and maybe surprisingly to some of you, the points where he agrees with the Advaitins vastly outnumber the points of disagreement, although they are major points of disagreement) in a different way from that of Sri Sankara or Sri Bhartrprapancha or Bhaskara.

And moreover, the path followed by Ramanujacharya predated Nathamuni and Yamunacharya by many many centuries. It had it's origin in the pancharatra school which was partially rejected by Sri Sankara in the Brahma sutra bhashyam.

I know English may not be our language but your understanding of my post is completely wrong.


You said one must completely surrender to their Guru. If you surrender to a Guru, there is no room for disagreeing.

I respect a lot of people for their position on a given topic. I may not agree with them on all occations. I do not Surrender to anyone.

This is just an example, please do not wrongly jump to the conclusion that my equating Sri Ramanuja to Sharad Power.

Mr. Sharad Power did not get what he wanted, he broke away from INC and created NCP.
Nothing wrong in that, but it means Mr. Power did not surrender his individuality.

We are just arguing a POV not the person behind the POV.

 

[KRN]

You said one must completely surrender to their Guru. If you surrender to a Guru, there is no room for disagreeing.

Really? But not in Indian tradition!

Mr. Sharad Power did not get what he wanted, he broke away from INC and created NCP.
Nothing wrong in that, but it means Mr. Power did not surrender his individuality.

To give just one example that comes to mind, Krishna is considered a Guru of Arjuna, in so far as the key teaching of the Bhagavad Gita is concerned. So does that mean, afterwards Arjuna completely surrendered his individuality to Krishna, and was in full agreement with lord Krishna? Dronacharya was a Guru of Arjuna. Do you mean, Arjuna was in full agreement with all that Dronacharya did/said on usage of astra vidya? If you think so, then you haven't read the Mahabharata.

Sankaracharya was a disciple of Govindapada who was a disciple of Gaudapadacharya. Do you mean, Sankaracharya was in full agreement with Gaudapadacharya on everything he said?

In our tradition too, we don't ask any disciple to surrender his individuality to his Guru!

I know English may not be our language but your understanding of my post is completely wrong.
You said one must completely surrender to their Guru. If you surrender to a Guru, there is no room for disagreeing.
I respect a lot of people for their position on a given topic. I may not agree with them on all occations. I do not Surrender to anyone.

Sir, let me clarify. I stated that advaita tradition insists that the knowledge is learnt only from a Guru. And at the time of learning, an attitude of surrender to the Guru is most necessary. Now, I mentioned as a note at the end that, eventhough I am not a follower of his path, I respect Sri Ramanuja as a revered teacher, similar to other teachers of Hinduism. So I have no clue why you raised it up as a contradiction with my views on Guru.

 

[KRN]

The point I was trying to make is, spiritual knowledge like mahavakyas are learnt only through a competent Guru. The Guru knows how to teach, and it may not be verbal teaching at all. It may be through a touch, or through silence. And all that the disciple needs to do is to be in an attitude of complete surrender to the Guru. So that there is a smooth transition of spiritual knowledge.

However, there is no bar on the disciple charting his own course, or providing his own insights as uncovered through his sadhanas, as long as he doesn't contradict the basic tenets of the religion. Advaita is an interpretation to the truths of the Vedas and Upanishads. Sri Ramanuja, while interpreting the truths in Vishishtadvaita, fully accepted the authority of the Upanishads, the Sutras and the Gita all along. Hence he functioned well within Sanatana dharma, and his philosophy is included in the Asthika group. He did yeoman service in spreading the truths of our religion among the masses. That in itself makes him worthy of my highest respect.

Even before Sri Ramanuja, we could see many examples of Rishis who charted their own courses, different from and disagreeing with what was taught by their Gurus. Jaimini and Vyasa (Badarayana) being one more classic example that comes to my mind now.

 

[KRN]

Sir,
My point with the dictator quote was that there is about .00000001% chance of your mercy plea being granted even by the worst person in power. There is NO chance of prayers for the gratification of material goods from "god" being granted.

I do not beg or Pray for material gains. Knowing fully well that is not what we are expected to do.
My GOD (Brahman) is NOT corrupt and is just. everything is in Brahman.
There is no knowledge outside of Brahman. Being not corrupt, that is not going to grant any special powers to people who BEG all their life.

That is my personal belief.

My religion is private to my self. I pick and choose as to what I follow.

I never praised Auragjeb or any other dictator. Why is it so difficult to understand.

Sir,
My point is not that you praised Aurangzeb, but this. Precisely due to the Hindu Bhakti movements, you won't find examples of Hindu rulers surrendering easily to Aurangzeb, except under the very worst circumstances, or as a tactical measure.

When Shah Jehan and Aurangazeb were ruling, the Mughal empire was at it's strongest, with the mightiest military machine of that period. Yet, throughout their rule, they had to contend with rebellion all around the country. I hope I don't have to give more details. The Rajputs, Marathas, Sikhs, Jats, the Satnamis, everywhere, these uprising was motivated by the Hindu bhaktas. Shivaji was motivated by his Guru Sant Ramdas, and the marathas under him were a constant headache to Aurangzeb for over 26 years, until his death. Despite their disunity (caused due to other factors) they never allowed the mughals any peace.

Those who think that the Bhakti of Ramanuja or Ramananda or Chaitanya was akin to the abject surrender as taught by Abrahamic religions, dont know the history of this country.

In the Bhakti scripture Srimad Bhagavatham there's this prayer

विपदः सन्तु नः शश्वत्तत्र तत्र जगद्गुरो । भवतो दर्शनं यत्स्यादपुनर्भवदर्शनम् ॥
Oh God! let us be getting more and more troubles every day. Only then we will have a chance to remember you always. Only by remembering you can we get out of this eternal cycle of re-births.

We didn't get cowed down by even the worst tyrannical measures. That's why the majority of the population in the country remained Hindus all through these thousand years.

In the last letter written by the Rani of Jhansi to the British East India Company, when war was imminent, she quoted the Bhagavad Gita

hato vā prāpsyasi svargaḿ
jitvā vā bhokṣyase mahīm
tasmād uttiṣṭha kaunteya
yuddhāya kṛta-niścayaḥ

O son of Kunti, if you are killed on the battlefield you will attain heaven, but if you win the war, you will enjoy the earthly riches. Therefore get up and fight with determination.

The people may not have been well learned in the scriptures, but they were guided by saints and the puranic stories acted as effective media for the communication of spiritual truths.

 

[prasad1]

Sir,
My point is not that you praised Aurangzeb, but this. Precisely due to the Hindu Bhakti movements, you won't find examples of Hindu rulers surrendering easily to Aurangzeb, except under the very worst circumstances, or as a tactical measure.

When Shah Jehan and Aurangazeb were ruling, the Mughal empire was at it's strongest, with the mightiest military machine of that period. Yet, throughout their rule, they had to contend with rebellion all around the country. I hope I don't have to give more details. The Rajputs, Marathas, Sikhs, Jats, the Satnamis, everywhere, these uprising was motivated by the Hindu bhaktas. Shivaji was motivated by his Guru Sant Ramdas, and the marathas under him were a constant headache to Aurangzeb for over 26 years, until his death. Despite their disunity (caused due to other factors) they never allowed the mughals any peace.

Those who think that the Bhakti of Ramanuja or Ramananda or Chaitanya was akin to the abject surrender as taught by Abrahamic religions, dont know the history of this country.

In the Bhakti scripture Srimad Bhagavatham there's this prayer

विपदः सन्तु नः शश्वत्तत्र तत्र जगद्गुरो । भवतो दर्शनं यत्स्यादपुनर्भवदर्शनम् ॥
Oh God! let us be getting more and more troubles every day. Only then we will have a chance to remember you always. Only by remembering you can we get out of this eternal cycle of re-births.

We didn't get cowed down by even the worst tyrannical measures. That's why the majority of the population in the country remained Hindus all through these thousand years.

In the last letter written by the Rani of Jhansi to the British East India Company, when war was imminent, she quoted the Bhagavad Gita

hato vā prāpsyasi svargaḿ
jitvā vā bhokṣyase mahīm
tasmād uttiṣṭha kaunteya
yuddhāya kṛta-niścayaḥ

O son of Kunti, if you are killed on the battlefield you will attain heaven, but if you win the war, you will enjoy the earthly riches. Therefore get up and fight with determination.

The people may not have been well learned in the scriptures, but they were guided by saints and the puranic stories acted as effective media for the communication of spiritual truths.

There you go again!!!!!

Totally out of context. It is waste of time.

By the way you so famously criticised me for "copy paste", I suppose all your posts are ORIGINAL posts.
I forgot that you wrote the Vedas themselves. Wait Wait the Vedas were never Written.

 

[renuka]

Sir,
My point is not that you praised Aurangzeb, but this. Precisely due to the Hindu Bhakti movements, you won't find examples of Hindu rulers surrendering easily to Aurangzeb, except under the very worst circumstances, or as a tactical measure.

When Shah Jehan and Aurangazeb were ruling, the Mughal empire was at it's strongest, with the mightiest military machine of that period. Yet, throughout their rule, they had to contend with rebellion all around the country. I hope I don't have to give more details. The Rajputs, Marathas, Sikhs, Jats, the Satnamis, everywhere, these uprising was motivated by the Hindu bhaktas. Shivaji was motivated by his Guru Sant Ramdas, and the marathas under him were a constant headache to Aurangzeb for over 26 years, until his death. Despite their disunity (caused due to other factors) they never allowed the mughals any peace.

Those who think that the Bhakti of Ramanuja or Ramananda or Chaitanya was akin to the abject surrender as taught by Abrahamic religions, dont know the history of this country.

In the Bhakti scripture Srimad Bhagavatham there's this prayer

विपदः सन्तु नः शश्वत्तत्र तत्र जगद्गुरो । भवतो दर्शनं यत्स्यादपुनर्भवदर्शनम् ॥
Oh God! let us be getting more and more troubles every day. Only then we will have a chance to remember you always. Only by remembering you can we get out of this eternal cycle of re-births.

We didn't get cowed down by even the worst tyrannical measures. That's why the majority of the population in the country remained Hindus all through these thousand years.

In the last letter written by the Rani of Jhansi to the British East India Company, when war was imminent, she quoted the Bhagavad Gita

hato vā prāpsyasi svargaḿ
jitvā vā bhokṣyase mahīm
tasmād uttiṣṭha kaunteya
yuddhāya kṛta-niścayaḥ

O son of Kunti, if you are killed on the battlefield you will attain heaven, but if you win the war, you will enjoy the earthly riches. Therefore get up and fight with determination.

The people may not have been well learned in the scriptures, but they were guided by saints and the puranic stories acted as effective media for the communication of spiritual truths.

????

Srimad Bhagavatham advocates asking for adversities in order to remember God?

This shows that one doubts their ability to remember God in good times.

What is this yaar...doesnt Geeta say Sukha Dukhe Same Krtva...be alike in happiness and sorrow?

Krishna was logical..He never asked anyone to beg or act helpless or ask for adversities...all He said is to surrender to Him after telling Arjuna to get up and fight.


Somehow these Bhakti texts asking us to desire sorrow in order to think of God, makes us a bunch of weaklings.

I dont think God designed a human to be a weakling to beg and cry and be at his mercy.

Animals do not beg or cry or desire adversities in order to remember anyone or even their leader...they are so well designed to survive...so as humans with an intellect are we supposed to be so weak as to only wish adversity in the name of Bhakti?

 

[KRN]

There you go again!!!!!

Totally out of context. It is waste of time.

Sorry..."waste of whose time"? yours or mine?

By the way you so famously criticised me for "copy paste", I suppose all your posts are ORIGINAL posts.
I forgot that you wrote the Vedas themselves. Wait Wait the Vedas were never Written.

Sir, that's an unfair allegation. Can you show me where I criticised you for your "copy paste" messages!!

You advised me to "have strong convictions and follow an individual path" and then stated that you follow your own path, so naturally I expressed curiosity to know more about your path because to me, all those copy paste messages from websites, by themselves don't suggest an individual, uncompromising path. Maybe you can explain better.

 

[prasad1]

Sorry..."waste of whose time"? yours or mine?



Sir, that's an unfair allegation. Can you show me where I criticised you for your "copy paste" messages!!

Post#28


Let us forget that.

 

[KRN]

So...? I am still in the dark!.....I can see a huge number of messages that you copy pasted from various sources. Which among them indicate your individual, uncompromising path, that you advise me to follow?

 

[prasad1]

????

Srimad Bhagavatham advocates asking for adversities in order to remember God?

This shows that one doubts their ability to remember God in good times.

What is this yaar...doesnt Geeta say Sukha Dukhe Same Krtva...be alike in happiness and sorrow?

Krishna was logical..He never asked anyone to beg or act helpless or ask for adversities...all He said is to surrender to Him after telling Arjuna to get up and fight.


Somehow these Bhakti texts asking us to desire sorrow in order to think of God, makes us a bunch of weaklings.

I dont think God designed a human to be a weakling to beg and cry and be at his mercy.

Animals do not beg or cry or desire adversities in order to remember anyone or even their leader...they are so well designed to survive...so as humans with an intellect are we supposed to be so weak as to only wish adversity in the name of Bhakti?

Wow, well said.

 

[KRN]

Post#28


Let us forget that.

OK fine But if you advise me to follow your path, I would expect you to be a little more clearer

 

[KRN]

????

Srimad Bhagavatham advocates asking for adversities in order to remember God?

This shows that one doubts their ability to remember God in good times.

Srimad Bhagavatham advocates a lot of things in it's 18,000 slokas.

I quoted the above sloka as it expresses Kuntidevi's confidence in facing any number of difficulties and adversities in life, through faith in lord Krishna. It doesn't say that one should sit and cry for the mercy of the lord, without doing one's duty.

The context of the prayer is that Ashwattaman's Brahmastra was attacking the child in the womb of Uttara. This most powerful weapon was issued to destroy the Pandava's progeny. She gave birth to a stillborn child. However, as promised earlier, Krishna arrived at the scene and resuscitated the child with his tapas-sakti. It was in this context that Kunti devi offers her praise to Krishna.

In the Gita itself, Krishna says - Be it happiness or adversity, whatever we face in life is given by him - ie lord Krishna. So what Kunti states in the sloka in Bhagavatham is a plain acceptance of this fact. Kunti doesn't say "God, give us only adversities, no happiness". However it is well known that the Pandavas were dhaarmikas, and that Krshna was the lord's incarnation to support Dharma in the world and to punish the adhaarmikas. Hence the Pandavas were the beloved of Krishna. In the sloka the Kuntidevi goes on to express confidence that, the adversities they face, no matter how huge they be, Krishna will be there to protect the Pandavas.

What is this yaar...doesnt Geeta say Sukha Dukhe Same Krtva...be alike in happiness and sorrow?
Krishna was logical..He never asked anyone to beg or act helpless or ask for adversities...all He said is to surrender to Him after telling Arjuna to get up and fight.

The message of the logical Krishna in the Geetha, is not merely what you stated.

In Geetha Krishna also says that four kinds of devotees pray to him, the Aartha, Arthaarthi, Jignaasu and Jnaani, and that they all are udaaraah whom he supports. So if someone is an Aartha or Arthaarthi, Krishna is not going to give up on that supplicant. This is a promise made by Krishna in the Gita. Your implication that Krishna never asked anyone to pray to him, is wrong.

Adversities of various kinds are faced in life. Some can be managed by ourselves, some are beyond the ability of human beings. When we face adversities beyond our human abilities, to whom else can we turn to, except God?

And this surrender to lord Krishna that you mentioned, while courageously facing life's struggles, is what Srimad Bhagavatam also illustrates!

Somehow these Bhakti texts asking us to desire sorrow in order to think of God, makes us a bunch of weaklings.

Which Bhakti text? The Gita or the Bhagavatham or both?

I dont think God designed a human to be a weakling to beg and cry and be at his mercy.

I do think God designed a human with various limitations, and sometimes in life we might face situations beyond our control, as in the example of the stillborn child mentioned earlier. And as you can verify with the Gita, your logical krishna is quite fine with our prayers to him

Animals do not beg or cry or desire adversities in order to remember anyone or even their leader...they are so well designed to survive...so as humans with an intellect are we supposed to be so weak as to only wish adversity in the name of Bhakti?

Already answered....

 

[prasad1]

OK fine But if you advise me to follow your path, I would expect you to be a little more clearer

I would never advise anyone to follow my "path", my path is only for me and no one else.
I do not follow others path either.

 

[KRN]

Somehow these Bhakti texts asking us to desire sorrow in order to think of God, makes us a bunch of weaklings.


....

People who practise karma yoga (Sukha dukhe Same Krtva...) are themselves weaklings!
For them to mock at those who follow Bhakti, is like the lame mocking at the blind....

 

[renuka]

People who practise karma yoga (Sukha dukhe Same Krtva...) are themselves weaklings!
For them to mock at those who follow Bhakti, is like the lame mocking at the blind....

Ok..lets go by your logic..according to your equation above..Karma Yogin mocking Bhakti Yogin = the Lame mocking the Blind.

Therefore according to u Karma Yogins are Lame..and Bhakti Yogins are Blind! Lol

Ha ha ha..so much you have been defending Bhakti marg with Prasad ji only to call a Bhakti Yogin blind!

Lol lol lol..your original thoughts sans Copy and Paste!

 

[KRN]

Ok..lets go by your logic..according to your equation above..Karma Yogin mocking Bhakti Yogin = the Lame mocking the Blind.

Therefore according to u Karma Yogins are Lame..and Bhakti Yogins are Blind! Lol

Ha ha ha..so much you have been defending Bhakti marg with Prasad ji only to call a Bhakti Yogin blind!

Lol lol lol..your original thoughts sans Copy and Paste!

Absolutely. I never claimed anywhere that Bhakti yoga by itself is the be-all and end-all of life.

But nor is Karma yoga.....Both Karma and Bhakti are dealt with in equal respect by Krishna in the Geetha...which fact you had so pointedly ignored in your assertion that bhakti yoga makes weaklings of us and that Krishna doesn't want bhakti.

If you want to find fault with or laugh at my comparison, I have no problem. I am more interested to see whether you have any rebuttals to the points I raised.

 

[KRN]

I would never advise anyone to follow my "path", my path is only for me and no one else.
I do not follow others path either.

Good. The point is, as long as you are in a "path" and have not reached the "goal", if you criticise other "paths", especially well established ones like Bhakti, you must be ready to see your own "path" under scrutiny and criticism.

 

[prasad1]

Good. The point is, as long as you are in a "path" and have not reached the "goal", if you criticise other "paths", especially well established ones like Bhakti, you must be ready to see your own "path" under scrutiny and criticism.

I do not know where you are going, I know which direction I should be going.
Let us say we need to reach Delhi from Chennai.

I have a car and I know the map and enough time and money, I can reach there eventually.
You start swimming Bay of Bengal, I can definitely tell you are that you are not reaching your destination.
But then again you might to going to Sri Lanka.

 

[Vaagmi]

Good. The point is, as long as you are in a "path" and have not reached the "goal", if you criticise other "paths", especially well established ones like Bhakti, you must be ready to see your own "path" under scrutiny and criticism.

Well said.

But those who believe "my way is highway" may not understand. So it is better not to try to argue with them. They are not ready to think because they sincerely believe they are on the highway. They would rather look for similar highways and pick up ideas to throw at you in a flurry of C-ing and P-ing.

 

[renuka]

Good. The point is, as long as you are in a "path" and have not reached the "goal", if you criticise other "paths", especially well established ones like Bhakti, you must be ready to see your own "path" under scrutiny and criticism.

What path? I am not on any path cos I dont set goals.

You were the one attributing lameness and blindness to Yogins.

May be its your PATHolgy! Lol