Bhakti Yoga the only way?

[ajay00]

Karma Yoga or Bhakti Yoga prepare the foundation for chittashuddhi or purity of mind, and upon this foundation jnana yoga works.

Mere bhakti and Karma alone cannot bring about Jnana,and enlightenment.

Janaka attained chittashuddhi through karma yoga, and he eventually attained enlightenment through study of jnana yoga with Sage Ashtavakra, which enabled him to understand the nature of reality.

RAmakrishna similarly attained purity of mind through bhakti yoga, and was deeply attached to the form of Kali. It was Totapuri who brought him to Jnana Yoga and Advaita, and helped him to go beyond the form of Kali, and attain the formless Brahman.


Similarly it is very hard to bring about enlightenment through jnana yoga alone, unless there is corresponding work on the levels of Raja or Karma or Bhakti Yoga or a combination of them. However there are exceptions, especially if the Jnana Yogi is blessed with great powers of mental strength and application.

[Still_Waters]

Originally Posted by django

This was my experience really, I was naturally drawn to the jnani path, and followed it as far as I could, but I came to a point where to go any further I had to defer to a higher power. I feel my nature is still more jnani, but going forward requires me to go beyond my personality limitations, and to make this quest more about being receptive to 'God' (as Jesus or Krishna) than about my limited ability to comprehend 'ultimate truth' intellectually. It's a challenge still

Like yourself, I was naturally drawn to the jnani path. Also like yourself, I reached the point where one realizes that one must go beyond the intellect. Like yourself once again, I realized that one must indeed surrender to the "higher power". Surrender has become the cornerstone of my practice at this point.

Unlike yourself, however, I didn't personalize the "higher power" as Jesus or Krishna or anyone else. That may satisfy the emotional yearning but is it truly the Reality?

Our paths are very similar .... up to that point... but a key question remains regarding the nature of the "higher power" as well as the nature of the relationship between the manifestation and the Source. It's an easy cop-out to anthropomorphize the Source as Jesus or Krishna, but is that the Reality of the matter? Bhaktis will love you for saying that. What made you come to that conclusion?

If one really strives to "Know Yourself", as the time-worn but very valid adage indicates, then the revelations come that, as Jesus said, "I and the Father are one and the same ...(but) ...the Father is greater than I". What is the meaning of the term "Father" that Jesus used so frequently? The original Aramaic for the word commonly translated as "Father" indicates a non-gendered source of Unity. Therein lies the key.

Having said this, I love the anthropomorphized characteristics and representations of divine qualities such as Sarsavati for wisdom and so on. However, I would not consider that "bhakti" in the traditional sense.

I welcome your further comments on this subject.

[ajay00]

Here is Mata Amritanandamayi explaining the need to complement scriptural study with sadhana or spiritual practices....


“Along with sadhana (spiritual practices), study of the scriptures is also necessary. It will give you more clarity and understanding. It will also help you to discriminate properly when an obstacle arises.” ~ Mata Amritanandamayi


“You should learn the scriptures up to a point, but then do tapas (austerities). Only that will bring your learning to the plane of experience, bring peace to you, and enable you to do something good for the world.” ~ Mata Amritanandamayi

[django]

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

Like yourself, I was naturally drawn to the jnani path. Also like yourself, I reached the point where one realizes that one must go beyond the intellect. Like yourself once again, I realized that one must indeed surrender to the "higher power". Surrender has become the cornerstone of my practice at this point.

Unlike yourself, however, I didn't personalize the "higher power" as Jesus or Krishna or anyone else. That may satisfy the emotional yearning but is it truly the Reality?

Our paths are very similar .... up to that point... but a key question remains regarding the nature of the "higher power" as well as the nature of the relationship between the manifestation and the Source. It's an easy cop-out to anthropomorphize the Source as Jesus or Krishna, but is that the Reality of the matter? Bhaktis will love you for saying that. What made you come to that conclusion?

If one really strives to "Know Yourself", as the time-worn but very valid adage indicates, then the revelations come that, as Jesus said, "I and the Father are one and the same ...(but) ...the Father is greater than I". What is the meaning of the term "Father" that Jesus used so frequently? The original Aramaic for the word commonly translated as "Father" indicates a non-gendered source of Unity. Therein lies the key.

Having said this, I love the anthropomorphized characteristics and representations of divine qualities such as Sarsavati for wisdom and so on. However, I would not consider that "bhakti" in the traditional sense.

I welcome your further comments on this subject.

I came to a place which was completely dark, a dark chasm which I willingly descended into, which was at the deepest layer of my heart, and I had a task to complete there, but being pitch black I was unable to complete the task. After a few days of trying in the dark, I thought to myself 'what I need is light, and Jesus is the name associated with light par excellence.' In this moment a small light started to shine and I was able to see just enough to complete my task, and continue on.

I'll never be able to go back to that moment and try any other name, Jesus came to mind, and it worked. It's not definitive, but His name did work for me. Perhaps Krishna would have worked, from my current thinking it is likely, but I can only guess at what else might have worked, and I can never go back and test any other theory anyway.

The whole God and Son of God track is not what I would have chosen, but it seems to hold the keys to continue on my path - I have a similar situation at the moment, there is a curtain in front of a light source, and I am trying to figure out how to remove the curtain. Somehow it doesn't seem to be something I can do myself, but accepting that a higher power exists and is required is something I have to mull over, because I again find I can go no further.

[Still_Waters]

Originally Posted by ajay00

Karma Yoga or Bhakti Yoga prepare the foundation for chittashuddhi or purity of mind, and upon this foundation jnana yoga works.

Mere bhakti and Karma alone cannot bring about Jnana,and enlightenment.

Janaka attained chittashuddhi through karma yoga, and he eventually attained enlightenment through study of jnana yoga with Sage Ashtavakra, which enabled him to understand the nature of reality.

RAmakrishna similarly attained purity of mind through bhakti yoga, and was deeply attached to the form of Kali. It was Totapuri who brought him to Jnana Yoga and Advaita, and helped him to go beyond the form of Kali, and attain the formless Brahman.


Similarly it is very hard to bring about enlightenment through jnana yoga alone, unless there is corresponding work on the levels of Raja or Karma or Bhakti Yoga or a combination of them. However there are exceptions, especially if the Jnana Yogi is blessed with great powers of mental strength and application.

It seems as if Buddha's enlightenment was brought about via jnani and not particularly by bhakti and/or karma yoga. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Still_Waters]

Originally Posted by django

I came to a place which was completely dark, a dark chasm which I willingly descended into, which was at the deepest layer of my heart, and I had a task to complete there, but being pitch black I was unable to complete the task. After a few days of trying in the dark, I thought to myself 'what I need is light, and Jesus is the name associated with light par excellence.' In this moment a small light started to shine and I was able to see just enough to complete my task, and continue on.

I'll never be able to go back to that moment and try any other name, Jesus came to mind, and it worked. It's not definitive, but His name did work for me. Perhaps Krishna would have worked, from my current thinking it is likely, but I can only guess at what else might have worked, and I can never go back and test any other theory anyway.

The whole God and Son of God track is not what I would have chosen, but it seems to hold the keys to continue on my path - I have a similar situation at the moment, there is a curtain in front of a light source, and I am trying to figure out how to remove the curtain. Somehow it doesn't seem to be something I can do myself, but accepting that a higher power exists and is required is something I have to mull over, because I again find I can go no further.

Ideals do help, and Jesus is an excellent ideal. Remembrance of Him and/or others can most assuredly help in discovering the Light of Truth. In my developmental days (and even now out of force of habit at times), I remember the great ones especially when difficult situations arose and would visualize how each one of them might have handled the situation at hand. The one with the "best solution" for me was the one on whom I would dwell the most at that time to get over the hump. The being of focus would understandably change from time to time depending on the situation.

You were drawn to Jesus at that time of darkness. It works for you, and I can understand your devotion (bhakti) towards Jesus. As I mentioned before, I now surrender to a formless "higher power" but I agree with you that, in most cases, devotion (bhakti) to a personified ideal works best for the majority. Having said that, I must add that I do delight in remembrance of various beings of Light from time to time as well as the personification of divine virtues in some traditions such as the Hindu Sarasvati for Wisdom.

The Sufi Mystic, Hazrat Inayat Khan, once said something that permanently resonated with me: "The ideal is the means; breaking it is the goal". It is important to work towards an ideal, and the ideal may vary at different stages of spiritual unfolding.

One must be careful, however, not to become a rigid imitation of one's ideal as every situation is unique and one does not always know what was in the mind of the ideal in any given situation.

I like your posts and your sincerity. I plan to follow your posts more in the future.

[Shivani Devi]

Namaste.

Taking the time to notice the distinction between Para Bhakti and Apara Bhakti with examples from my own experiences.

My individual, conditioned personae associates with the Puranic form of Lord Shiva, in the expression of unconditional love or Bhakti and any association or limitation of awareness within a context or form is called Apara Bhakti, as the realisation is not yet transcendent.

From my discussions with Ajay in another thread, of course I understand and fully realise that Lord Shiva can appear as a point or pillar of Light...As an inert cylindrical stone, as a tree, as the sun and moon....in fact, there is nothing that is NOT Shiva and Shiva just exists as an expression of itself loving itself...this is Para Bhakti.

I vacillate between the two to arrive at the Non Dual awareness of both existing simultaneously AS one.

Yet, those who see Shiva as a point of light are just as confined and limited as those who see Shiva only as Shankar, the cobra dude or those who see Shiva as a cylindrical stone....When Shiva is ALL of that...and much, much more! Much more than the mind can even contemplate or consider....and yet, each of us needs an "entry point" or an intermediary between the world of matter and the world of pure spirit...for some, that comes in the form of a Deity with human characteristics...for others, that is sacrilegious and they will pay homage to a sound like AUM or to a pinpoint of Light in their Ajna Chakra or focus on the breath...for others, they will worship a rock, a tree or even a Mountain like Arunachala or Kailash, like Ramana Maharishi did.

I mean, one could even worship a chair...A cow...A dog...the one who eats the dog (as Sri Krishna so eloquently put it in the Bhagavad-Gita) and they will arrive at the same place eventually. It is all about Bhava which is like intention or conviction mixed with Faith. You could concentrate on your breath, a candle flame, a Mantra and you will reach a certain stage of spiritual development...A very noble and noteworthy stage...but until and unless the ego is dropped, until the very last attachment falls at the level of a full heart surrender TO that object of attachment, any subsequent realisation will be incomplete.

Aum Namah Shivaya