Real Worship By Swami Vivekananda

[prasad1]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Sorry present and past SV's please skip or substitute Narayana for Shiva.

Address at the Rameshwaram Temple
The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda Vol III
Published by Advaita Ashram, Mayavati, Himalayas.


It is in love that religion exists and not in ceremony, in the pure and sincere love in the heart. Unless a man is pure in body and mind, his coming into a temple and worshipping Shiva is useless. The prayers of those that are pure in the mind and body will be answered by Shiva, and those that are impure and yet try to teach religion to others will fail in the end. External worship is only a symbol of internal worship; but internal worship and purity are the real things. Without them, external worship would be of no avail. Therefore you must all try to remember this.


This is the gist of all worship – to be pure and to do good to others.


People have become so degraded in this Kali Yuga that they think they can do anything, and then they can go to a holy place, and their sins will be forgiven. If a man goes with an impure mind into a temple, he adds to the sins that he had already, and goes home a worse man than when he left it. Tirtha (place of pilgrimage) is a place which is full of holy things and holy men. But if holy people live in a certain place, and if there is no temple there, even that is a Tirtha. If unholy people live in a place where there may be a hundred temples, the Tirtha has vanished from that place. And it is most difficult to live in a Tirtha; for if sin is committed in an ordinary place it can easily be removed, but sin committed in a Tirtha cannot be removed. This is the gist of all worship – to be pure and to do good to others.


He who sees Shiva in the poor, in the weak, and in the diseased, really worships Shiva; and if he sees Shiva only in the image, his worship is but preliminary. He who has served and helped one poor man seeing Shiva in him, without thinking of his caste, or creed, or race, or anything, with him Shiva is more pleased than with the man who sees Him only in temples.
Unselfishness is the test of religion


This unselfishness is the test of religion. He who has more of this unselfishness is more spiritual and nearer to Shiva than anybody else, whether he knows it or not. And if a man is selfish, even though he has visited all the temples, seen all the places of pilgrimage, and painted himself like a leopard, he is still further off from Shiva.

Kabir Das sats:

Jaise Til Mein Tel Hai, Jyon Chakmak Mein Aag
Tera Sayeen Tujh Mein Hai, Tu Jaag Sake To Jaag

Translation
Like sesame contains the oil, fire in flint stone
Your temple seats the Divine, realize if you can

 

[renuka]

Unselfishness is the test of religion

I feel if one wants to be unselfish he/she needs to go beyond religion.

When we are born we are "pure" in the sense that we do not have desires but over the years religion shapes desires in us by the so called Punya and Papam system and this is where the whole problem starts.

True Selflessness can only be reached when one discards the concept of religion itself.

As long as there is religion..Punya Papam driven actions will remain and both are selfish in nature just that they are in opposite ends of the same spectrum.

So real worship is when there is actually no worship at all.

 

[sangom]

I feel if one wants to be unselfish he/she needs to go beyond religion.

When we are born we are "pure" in the sense that we do not have desires but over the years religion shapes desires in us by the so called Punya and Papam system and this is where the whole problem starts.

True Selflessness can only be reached when one discards the concept of religion itself.

As long as there is religion..Punya Papam driven actions will remain and both are selfish in nature just that they are in opposite ends of the same spectrum.

So real worship is when there is actually no worship at all.

I think our great Acharyas used the word "brahmajnAna" and this means, in simple terms "knowing brahman". On this kernel, the hindu religion with its diverse ways, put up so many different layers that practically anything and everything can today pass off as an exhibition of great religious fervour which is taken as "bhakti". The truth, however, seems to me to lie in the short adage, "those who know, don't tell; those who speak, don't see" (somewhat like - கண்டவர் விண்டிலர்; விண்டவர் கண்டிலர்).

The effort ought to be in getting brahmajnAnam by deep introspection or nididhyAsana as suggested by Adi Shankara in his advaita philosophy. But, here again, a precedent has somehow been created to prove that Shankara approved all the vaideeka and other rituals as also the worship of the saguNa Isvara and with that real advaita has been lost and we have only the mundane hinduism followed by even those who speak for hours on advaita. Perhaps that is the power of religion, or the mAyA.

 

[Vaagmi]

Sorry present and past SV's please skip or substitute Narayana for Shiva.
Address at the Rameshwaram Temple
The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda Vol III
Published by Advaita Ashram, Mayavati, Himalayas.
It is in love that religion exists and not in ceremony, in the pure and sincere love in the heart. Unless a man is pure in body and mind, his coming into a temple and worshipping Shiva is useless. The prayers of those that are pure in the mind and body will be answered by Shiva, and those that are impure and yet try to teach religion to others will fail in the end. External worship is only a symbol of internal worship; but internal worship and purity are the real things. Without them, external worship would be of no avail. Therefore you must all try to remember this.
This is the gist of all worship – to be pure and to do good to others.
People have become so degraded in this Kali Yuga that they think they can do anything, and then they can go to a holy place, and their sins will be forgiven. If a man goes with an impure mind into a temple, he adds to the sins that he had already, and goes home a worse man than when he left it. Tirtha (place of pilgrimage) is a place which is full of holy things and holy men. But if holy people live in a certain place, and if there is no temple there, even that is a Tirtha. If unholy people live in a place where there may be a hundred temples, the Tirtha has vanished from that place. And it is most difficult to live in a Tirtha; for if sin is committed in an ordinary place it can easily be removed, but sin committed in a Tirtha cannot be removed. This is the gist of all worship – to be pure and to do good to others.
He who sees Shiva in the poor, in the weak, and in the diseased, really worships Shiva; and if he sees Shiva only in the image, his worship is but preliminary. He who has served and helped one poor man seeing Shiva in him, without thinking of his caste, or creed, or race, or anything, with him Shiva is more pleased than with the man who sees Him only in temples.
Unselfishness is the test of religion
This unselfishness is the test of religion. He who has more of this unselfishness is more spiritual and nearer to Shiva than anybody else, whether he knows it or not. And if a man is selfish, even though he has visited all the temples, seen all the places of pilgrimage, and painted himself like a leopard, he is still further off from Shiva.

Dear Prasad,

My thoughts on this:

God realization can be different things to different people. For some it can be just raising the kundalini upward and when the raised kundalini results in the shower of amrit they say they are able to see themselves as well as the God in the true perspective. There are those who believe Atma jnana results in knowing brahman as atman is nothing but brahman. There are those who believe the ultimate for an atman should be to be always near the brahman and doing kainkaryam to it. So it is different to different people.

Coming to the next level, how do we visualise God can also be different to different people. For a human being the best option is to visualise God in anthropomorphic form. Just as a mirror image of a human being. This is done in many cases knowing fully well that God is an entity who can not be brought within the defining limits of any form. Yet people credit God with many attributes (all desirable ones) and celebrate it. This is brought out by the Tamil Thirumurai words ஒரு நாமம் ஓருருவம் ஒன்றுமில்லார்க்கு ஆயிரம் திருநாமம் பாடி நாம் தெள்ளேணம் கொட்டோமே....When a devout Muslim says God can never be defined with a form and any attempt to do that is blasphemous he is right in his own way just as the Machchakkaalai Thevar in my village who devoutly offers to his family deity Pandi a pot of freshly tapped toddy and a cigar. So each one is free to visualise God in a form which he easily understands and relate to. This is what the Tamil poet Pillai Lokacharya said in beautiful Tamil:

பூகத ஜலம் போலே அந்தர்யாமித்துவம் (Gods antharyaami state is like the water which is underground)ஆவரண ஜலம்போலே பரத்துவம் (In the parathva state God is like the water in the ocean) பாற்கடல் போலே வியூகம் (In the Vyuha state God is like the water in the legendary Milky ocean) பெருக்காறு போலே விபவம் (In the vibhava state He is like the water in a river in spate) அதிலே தேங்கின மடுக்கள் போலே அர்ச்சாவதாரம் (In the deities in temple which are also forms of God He is like the water in the numerous irrigation tanks.

If one spends some time thinking about the idea conveyed here, one would marvel at the simplicity with which a very complex idea has been made understandable to ordinary folks like me. Without water there is no life. Water is so essential. Water is available in different places. God is like this water. So what form you are going to worship is your choice. You can worship the antharyami, paramathman, Vyuha brahman (this is what is done by Yogis), vibhava avatars like Rama, Krishna etc., and Archavatar is simply worshipping the deity in your local temple (this is what Machakkalai Thevar does in my village with deep faith).

Now I come to the point where I differ with the OP. Intellectuals can trash the sincerity of my friend Machakkalai Thevar or the village temple archakar for whom doing his duty in the temple is a life time commitment. If you go and tell Machakalai that what he is doing is not right he may show you his well sharpened sickle. Same way if you go and tell the village archakar that he is wasting his time in the dilapidated house of a haunted agraharam while pleasure of every kind is waiting for him in his son's American villa he may just shrug his shoulder and keep quiet. So I think worship is different things for different people. While the idea that we should treat every human being with kindness and compassion, that we can not do a saudha with God in which we can exchange the Papa for bhakti, that we should be less selfish and share everything with those who are unfortunate etc are all morally good behavior as long as we live in the society they can not substitute our devotion and religion. It can be my friend Khurshid Ahmed's prayer towards Macca everyday to a formless great God, an old lady shedding tears when she hears in the bhajan the song "முதிர்ந்தவர் வைதாலும் மூடன் என்ன சொன்னாலும் மௌனமாய் இருப்பது எப்போ எப்போ?", or the temple archakar stoically putting up with the loneliness and deteriorating health just to stick on to his post to serve his Lord Krishna. So I think there is nothing to determine which method of worship is good and desirable and which is not.

It is an area which is beyond intellectual scrutiny/examination and reasoning. They are all at different levels and are purely personal choices.Nididhyasana, brahmajnanam, advaitam, nirgunabrahmam, sagunabrahmam, dwaitam, visishtadvaitam etc., are all not for everybody here.

Thanks.

 

[renuka]

Nididhyasana, brahmajnanam, advaitam, nirgunabrahmam, sagunabrahmam, dwaitam, visishtadvaitam etc., are all not for everybody here.

Thanks.

Dear Vaagmi Ji,

You have listed every possible school of thought and concept....so if none of these are for everyone here..then what else is there??

Can you be specific?

What do you recommend for those who do not qualify for Nididhyasana, brahmajnanam, advaitam, nirgunabrahmam, sagunabrahmam, dwaitam, visishtadvaitam?

 

[Vaagmi]

Dear Vaagmi Ji,
You have listed every possible school of thought and concept....so if none of these are for everyone here..then what else is there??
Can you be specific?
What do you recommend for those who do not qualify for Nididhyasana, brahmajnanam, advaitam, nirgunabrahmam, sagunabrahmam, dwaitam, visishtadvaitam?

Dear Renuka madam,

Where do you place the fierce loyalty of my school friend Machakalai, or the unswerving devotion of that poor lonely archakar in the remote village temple, or that old lady who sheds tears when she hears the bhajan? Can you place them anywhere in the nirguna, saguna,deen devotees? They do not even know what is saguna or nirguna. My point is that these are all faiths that can be readily owned by any one, readily identified with by many, while method of worship is personal. I do not have to recommend anything. Like water finds its level, those who do not bother about saguna, nirguna brahmam etc., and the hairsplitting interpretational depredation of a beautiful God idea, also find their God and worship him in their own way. Recommending to them to love their neighbour, humanity, or to share everything with the needy etc. are like taking coal to newcastle. Thanks.

To be specific: I am not saying that none of these are for every one here. I am just saying there can be many with none of these in their mind. My recommendation? Let me try. Have unswerving faith in your God and your method of worship, whatever it is. Do what will please God. Avoid doing that which will not please God. Be good to every one. That is enough.

 

[prasad1]

I feel if one wants to be unselfish he/she needs to go beyond religion.

When we are born we are "pure" in the sense that we do not have desires but over the years religion shapes desires in us by the so called Punya and Papam system and this is where the whole problem starts.

True Selflessness can only be reached when one discards the concept of religion itself.

As long as there is religion..Punya Papam driven actions will remain and both are selfish in nature just that they are in opposite ends of the same spectrum.

So real worship is when there is actually no worship at all.

Yes.

[video=youtube;dpeB-bOM74I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=dpeB-bOM74I[/video]

 

[renuka]

Have unswerving faith in your God and your method of worship, whatever it is.

Vaagmi Ji,

Enna Kodumai Idhu!

Your God?? My God??

Since when God has become Mine and Yours??

Why Why Tell Me Why??

 

[prasad1]

Good points raised in this thread.
I am against the Bhakti or devotion due to guilt, I am all for Bhakti or devotion due to knowledge. The last time I was on a temple tour I was less than happy that majority of the people were going to temple because of guilt, fear, greed, demand etc.

Even on this site there are some who want to heap guilt on us to pray to such and such God. If we understand the meaning like Swami Vivekananda says or like the opinions of members in this thread, we really do not wander around to see God.

"I will worship a whole mountain
If stone-worship begets God,
The Grist Mill is better than that
As it gives you food for thought."


("Pahan pooje Hari mile to main poojun pahar,
Tase ye chakee bhalee pees khaye sansar." Kabir)


I am not against worshipping Moorti, photo or other objects as long as we understand the significance. I am frustrated with the followers of a religion who do not strive to go beyond the mundane.

 

[prasad1]

Vaagmi Ji,

Enna Kodumai Idhu!

Your God?? My God??

Since when God has become Mine and Yours??

Why Why Tell Me Why??

Renukaji,

I do not have problem with that term 'my God" or "your God", as our perceptions of the term God itself is evolving. So what I perceive as devotion, love, etc towards the God, or His/Her creation, we may have different concepts.

 

[renuka]

I am frustrated with the followers of a religion who do not strive to go beyond the mundane.

Dear Prasad ji,

Not going beyond the mundane as long it is not doing harm to anyone is still fine.

It was disheartening to see a poor old woman( in India this time who sells flowers and sleeps by the road)...she was a having high blood pressure and was sold physicians sample not for sale medication by nearby pharmacists for the price of a normal non sample strip of medication"

I was wondering "all pharmacists there do daily pooja before starting work..all have picture of forms of divinity in their shops..yet cheating an old lady by selling her a physicians sample(not for sale medication)"

When reading religious text it does mention at times that cheating is the Dharma for Vaishyas or those in trade for a profit but not for other castes.

Those of us who run our own business know for a fact that we do NOT have to cheat to get profit.

Then people think they can donate to some temple and their 'sins' might be washed away and the cheating of the innocent continues.

No one nips the problem at the bud..falsehood is allowed to continue and then some feel that doing some rituals can help rid them of past sins.

There is one TB priest here in Msia who seems to be recommending all sorts of homas left right and center saying that it can help destroy Karma and enough people are believing him and spending lots of money in that process.

I remember my son asking me a few days ago "when being good is free why do people need to do rituals which comes with a fee to get rid of sins?"

 

[mkrishna100]

I remember my son asking me a few days ago "when being good is free why do people need to do rituals which comes with a fee to get rid of sins?"

Being good is definitely free but to be really good , you must be a very simple person - not ambitious , not competitive . The reason we become insensitive is that we are overtly ambitious and that means we have to think only about ourselves for our ambitions to succeed . A simple and non ambitious, non competitive person has more sensitivity but do parents / at school encourage the children to be like it .

Here kindly go through the words of J.Krishnamurti

If teachers were concerned, if education all over the world was
concerned, to bring about a new generation they could do it. But they
are not concerned. They want to stuff the children with mathematics,
biology, chemistry, to make them become good engineers. Society wants
good engineers—there's money in it.
Educators have enormous responsibility because they hold the future.
More than the parents. Educators must be concerned with the holistic
view of life. I've talked about it so much. We've got a school in
California, a school in England, and five schools in India, and I've
spent a great deal of time in all of them. But the parents want their
children to be like themselves—have a good job, get married, settle
down. Society around them wants that. So it's a tremendous battle
with the parents, with the teachers, with the society. It's a sick
world.

J.Krishnamurti

 

[Vaagmi]

Vaagmi Ji,
Enna Kodumai Idhu!
Your God?? My God??
Since when God has become Mine and Yours??
Why Why Tell Me Why??

Dear Renuka madam,

I am surprised that you take a word in isolation and hang by that missing the essence of what is said completely. I use the term your God with the meaning "the God idea as perceived by you". For my friend MCHAKALAI it was a fierce looking Pandi with a handlebar mush and a big club in one raised hand. For me it is Sri Krishna (with a மைவண்ண நறுங்குஞ்சி tuft and a flute in his hip and balls of butter in both his hands)in the form of a small beautiful idol(archaavatar) in my village. For me as well as my school-mate it is not just an idol. It is God. This is what I meant. I have carefully typed this in a word file checked it twice and then uploaded it to TB site for fear that there may still be a word which you may isolate and raise a question on that, இப்போ இப்போ இப்போ வேணும் அஞ்சலை.....kind of question. I hope that won't happen.

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka madam,

I am surprised that you take a word in isolation and hang by that missing the essence of what is said completely. I use the term your God with the meaning "the God idea as perceived by you". For my friend MCHAKALAI it was a fierce looking Pandi with a handlebar mush and a big club in one raised hand. For me it is Sri Krishna (with a மைவண்ண நறுங்குஞ்சி tuft and a flute in his hip and balls of butter in both his hands)in the form of a small beautiful idol(archaavatar) in my village. For me as well as my school-mate it is not just an idol. It is God. This is what I meant. I have carefully typed this in a word file checked it twice and then uploaded it to TB site for fear that there may still be a word which you may isolate and raise a question on that, இப்போ இப்போ இப்போ வேணும் அஞ்சலை.....kind of question. I hope that won't happen.

Dear Vaagmi Ji,

Actually that post of mine to you was just a fun filled post.

I was away from forum for 1 week and missed you yaar..so it is a friendly teasing you post.

 

[renuka]

Being good is definitely free but to be really good , you must be a very simple person - not ambitious , not competitive . The reason we become insensitive is that we are overtly ambitious and that means we have to think only about ourselves for our ambitions to succeed . A simple and non ambitious, non competitive person has more sensitivity but do parents / at school encourage the children to be like it .

Here kindly go through the words of J.Krishnamurti

Dear Sir,

I understand what you mean...but believe me competition has become the way of life for most people.

It is not healthy competition that is practiced these days but elimination of rivals in order to be the so called best.

But then again..even in Mahabharat days..eliminating the rival was practiced that too in an unjust manner..the famous Ekalavya episode..sometimes I wonder how on earth Arjuna did not feel remorseful that Ekalavya's thumb got cut off in order for Arjuna to be the best archer..deep down inside didn't Arjuna feel that he is only 2nd best?

So all those who practice eliminating rival tactic to reach to the top know very well deep down inside that they are only 2nd best.

There is no harm acknowledging another person being better than us and wish for his/her success too.

Actually in life there is no actual need to compete..one just has to life his/her life an nothing more..just be our personal best without the need for anyone else to be the yard stick for competition.

Children should be taught how to set personal goals and at the same time learn how to co exists with people better or lesser than us and also how to handle those who play the dirty game of eliminating the rival.

IQ is not much of a problem these days..even dogs can drive cars..EQ is what children should be taught:

1)Be strong and have human values in every endevaour.
2)Learn to face your greatest enemy without the need to destroy him/her.

 

[Vaagmi]

Dear Vaagmi Ji,

Actually that post of mine to you was just a fun filled post.

I was away from forum for 1 week and missed you yaar..so it is a friendly teasing you post.

Do you think I did not understand that?

 

[auh]

Vaagmi Ji,

Enna Kodumai Idhu!

Your God?? My God??

Since when God has become Mine and Yours??

Why Why Tell Me Why??

Why cant there be many Gods?

 

[sarang]

And all religions call hindus 'polytheist'!

Why cant there be many Gods?

 

[prasad1]

Why cant there be many Gods?

I do not know if your question is serious.
How do you define God?
My definition is:

The Isha Upanishad says:

Auṃ - That supreme Brahman is infinite, and this conditioned Brahman is infinite. The infinite proceeds from infinite. If you subtract the infinite from the infinite, the infinite remains alone.

Brahman is now considered to be the one Absolute Reality behind changing appearances. It is the universal substrate from which material things originate and to which they return after their dissolution.In Hinduism, Brahman refers to the supreme cosmic power, ontological ground of being, and the source, goal and purpose of all spiritual knowledge. Non-Hindus often translate Brahman as "God," but this is inaccurate. According to Hinduism, Brahman is said to be ineffable and higher than any description of God in personal form. Many philosophers agree that Brahman is ultimately indescribable in the context of unenlightened human experience. Nevertheless, Brahman is typically described as absolute truth, consciousness, and bliss (Sat Cit Ananda) as well as eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.
Not only is Brahman seen as the basis of all that exists in the universe and the fabric of all being, but also mysteriously described as permeating all of non-being as well. Even the human soul in Hinduism, or atman, is widely believed to be connected to, or identical with, Brahman by many followers of Vedanta.

On the basis of this definition there can not be multiple God. There can be multiple godheads representing different functions, for human understanding. I can understand that.

 

[palindrome]

An Absolute Reality called Brahman was a concept amongst people of a certain culture. Other cultures had their own belief systems. If culture defines a religion, there were many religions across the subcontinent.

Whatever is this "hinduism" is an utter mystery to me. Equally mysterious are some people who spout recently constructed sentences in sanskrit as these (as though anything in sanskrit should be considered ancient):

Aa sindho: sinduparyantham yasya bhaaratha bhoomikaa maathru bhoo: pithru bhoo (punya) schaiva sa vai Hindu iti smruthaa

Himaalayam samaarabhya yaavath hindu sarovaram tham deva nirmitham desam hindustaanam prachakshate

Ah well, if words can be put into the mouth of god, if even agamas can be interpolated, if dharmashastras can be created to safeguard birth-based positions, if infiltrators can make a caste system out of Buddhism even, then i suppose anything is possible.

 

[auh]

I do not know if your question is serious.
How do you define God?
My definition is:

Well, all our attempts to define the undefinable is only a best guess. Is it not? And when something cannot be known, it can be singular as well as plural. So your guess is only as good as mine.

I can very well say that a host of entities represent the Brahman, which may seem as an absolute whole to us. I could even say that this idea of an absolute (universal) master could very well be the result of the inability of humans, as they evolved, to accept/comprehend multiple masters.

The Isha Upanishad says:

For this you have to believe in the IU, which then makes it a belief system, as post #20 puts it so.

 

[sangom]

An Absolute Reality called Brahman was a concept amongst people of a certain culture. Other cultures had their own belief systems. If culture defines a religion, there were many religions across the subcontinent.

Whatever is this "hinduism" is an utter mystery to me. Equally mysterious are some people who spout recently constructed sentences in sanskrit as these (as though anything in sanskrit should be considered ancient):

Aa sindho: sinduparyantham yasya bhaaratha bhoomikaa maathru bhoo: pithru bhoo (punya) schaiva sa vai Hindu iti smruthaa

Himaalayam samaarabhya yaavath hindu sarovaram tham deva nirmitham desam hindustaanam prachakshate

Ah well, if words can be put into the mouth of god, if even agamas can be interpolated, if dharmashastras can be created to safeguard birth-based positions, if infiltrators can make a caste system out of Buddhism even, then i suppose anything is possible.

Palindrome,

Religions try to exploit human inability to grasp everything happening in this world/universe, by positing one or more godheads, installing a priestly class and ensuring absolute, unquestioning belief of whatever the priesthood says and absolute, unquestioning faith in the ability of the priestly class to mediate between the religion's god/s and the believer/s. All religions are similar in this. There is nothing more to it.

As the boundaries of human scientific knowledge expand, the gods shrink but, for them to completely vanish, science has to progress much more from the present level.

 

[ozone]

The Isha Upanishad says:

Auṃ - That supreme Brahman is infinite, and this conditioned Brahman is infinite. The infinite proceeds from infinite. If you subtract the infinite from the infinite, the infinite remains alone.

One can see this in brihadaranyaka upanishad also. So, where does it really belong?
To know where a upanishad starts and ends, one should really study it.

 

[prasad1]

One can see this in brihadaranyaka upanishad also. So, where does it really belong?
To know where a upanishad starts and ends, one should really study it.

This comment has been cut short, did you expect others to understand it or make up the rest?
If Isha upanished and Brihadaranyaka upanished says the same thing, IS IT WRONG?
What if one has read both and find similar thought in many other upanished and Geeta?
I for one did not understand your post.

 

[V.Balasubramani]

Prasad Ji,

Pranams,

IMHO, it is Bakti that matters: The pure and sincere love in the heart. Hope the following text will throw more light:

Extract of a portion of text in- A Bhakti-Yoga class delivered by Swami Vivekananda in New York, Monday morning January 20,1896 and recorded by Mr. Josiah J. Goodwin:

“There is a story of Hanuman, who was a great worshipper of Rama. Just as the Christians worship Christ as the incarnation of God, so the Hindus worship many incarnations of God. According to them, God came nine times in India and will come once more. When he came as Rama, this Hanuman was his great worshipper. Hanuman lived very long and was a great Yogi.

During his lifetime, Rama came again as Krishna; and Hanuman, being a great Yogi, knew that the same God had come back again as Krishna. He came and served Krishna, but he said to him, “I want to see that Rama form of yours”. Krishna said, “Is not this form enough? I am this Krishna: I am this Rama. All these forms are mine”. Hanuman said “I Know that, but the Rama form is for me. The Lord of Janaki and the Lord of Lakshmi are same. They are both the incarnations of the Supreme Self. Yet the lotus eyed Rama is my all in all. This is Nishtha – knowing that all these different forms of worship are right, yet sticking to one and rejecting the others. We must not worship the others at all: we must not hate or criticize them, but respect them.

Stick to your ideal of worship. When you worship, worship that ideal of God which is your own Ishta, your own chosen Ideal. If you do not, you will have nothing. Nothing will grow.

Simply hearing lectures and all this nonsense – making the Battle of Waterloo in the brain, simply unadjusted ideas – is no good. Devotion to one idea – those that have will become spiritual, will see the light. Take up one idea, your Ishta, and let the whole soul be devoted to it. Practice this from day to day until you see the result, until the soul grows. And if it is sincere and good, that very idea will spread till it covers the whole universe. Let it spread by itself; it will all come from the inside out. Then you will say that your Ishta is everywhere and that He is in everything.”

In Bakthi Margam, we can see God in weak, God in the diseased and God in poor and God in everything.

With regards

Source: – The Complete works of Swami Vivekananda-Vol.IX