Help with Bhakti

[Wagner]

Exactly. :P Also, from the Gita:

"Completely renouncing all desires arising from thoughts of the world, one should restrain the senses from all sides with the mind. Slowly and steadily, with conviction in the intellect, the mind will become fixed in God alone, and will think of nothing else"

Hopefully the OP doesn't mind this trite digression. :\

[Miss Hepburn]

Originally Posted by Wagner

"One who has found true devotion to God has found the rope to tie God with."
Ramakrishna Paramahamsa told that to his pupils.

Ha, reminds me of what I say -
''Love to God is like a flame to a moth - He has to come. There is no way He cannot"

[Wagner]

Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn

Ha, reminds me of what I say -
''Love to God is like a flame to a moth - He has to come. There is no way He cannot"

"Flame to a moth." Precisely. One needs to generate that with PRACTICE. :)

PS
Hi, Miss Hepburn! :)

[SilentDrum]

Originally Posted by Presence

I would like to practice Bhakti because the non-duality of Advaita feels so cold and impersonal to me. But because I believe Advaita, it is difficult because I know that in the ultimate reality, the Gods are not real.

Hey Presence, many advaita followers ignore this but Ramana himself was a devotee of Shiva so there is no reason why you couldn't be a bhakta

In my understanding, advaita doesn't really mean there isn't two, it rather means that there is two (or more) and they are one. If you think about it, the unity of the body and food doesn't change the fact that we eat to sustain the body, which implies that the body and food are two. In the same way, there is no contradiction in praying God as if there was two -- which, at some level, there is -- while knowing everything is one.

If you think about it further more, saying there is one and not two creates a duality between two different point of views. In my understanding, both points of views are true at the same time, there is unity of the point of view that there is one and of the point of view that there is two.

Originally Posted by SilentDrum

In my understanding, advaita doesn't really mean there isn't two...

Advaita does mean not two or without a second by definition, philosophy and ultimately experience.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Advaita does mean not two or without a second by definition, philosophy and ultimately experience.

This isn't an argument against Bhakti. Even traditional Advaita Vedanta states Bhakti (and Karma and Raja) is necessary, but Jnana is the key to Realization.

Neo-Vedanta, the form of Advaita practiced by the Ramakrishna Order, says any one path is enough in and of itself, however a mix of all four is highly recommended. All the monks are trained traditionally in all four paths.

So, Bhakta away.

[HITESH SHAH]

Originally Posted by Presence

I have read much on this and different teachers say different things. Swami Sarvapriyananda, on the other hand says there is no problem because we're pretending the whole world is real anyway, so why not Gods-- and that it's just different levels of reality. But that doesn't help since I believe that the Advaita level is the true one, I'm back in the same place. Do any of you struggle with this?

Bhakti is a road to realization of oneness. Bhakti restricted purely at mental intellectual level does not help in realization and does not take us far. Intense bhakti which results in realization n permeates also in active life really can take us far n enable our spiritual growth.

With conviction,right guidance,right efforts n right orientation you will achieve divine bliss n struggles will disapper.

[Unseeking Seeker]

If we look at any path or practice (spiritual habit), be it meditation or prayer (Bhakti) or service to others or a mindfulness continuum, what is happening is that we surrender this (ego doership) to That (God), manifest as love essence.

Thus cessation or emptiness being a dropping away of the noise or script we built around identity, when the noise ceases, we are in silence, in any path, the silence vivified by selfless, self-existent, self-renewing love, being, as mentioned, God’s attribute. The artificial thought constructed separation from source is diminished. Hence, no-thought, only animated attention, zeal, play, empathy, compassion, a melding with the current, if you will. Rooted in purity of being.

There’s a great thread in the channelling section where Buddha said all paths have their own validity, getting nourishment from the same single source, or words to that effect. When God alone is, the all there is, inevitably all paths or even no-path leads to Him, even as we be so gently breathed by His breath.

[Unseeking Seeker]

@ Viswa … the shifts we may discern are from separateness to interconnectedness to oneness. Depending upon where we are centred, we experience these as we do the Gunas or waking, dreaming and deep sleep states, each state, interpenetrating the other.

When yearning for God replaces objectified desire, when resonance with hues of love vibration replaces mind-body endeavour, prioritised, moment to moment, all moments entwined, we may be said to be a non-doer, self-aware, poised and animated, attention distilled and softened, receptive to offered surprise, yet unexpectant.

That that Gods alone is, is not an intellectual concept but rather, a recognition which dawns, when we, as He feel the singular consciousness in-dwelling all existence, when our consciousness expands to contain the universe within us, instead of the separateness state, where the boundaries of consciousness are limited to mind-body.

The concept of negation, neti-neti or emptiness, be it in any culture, simply signals surrender of conditioned limitation, so that we may be filled with vibrant bliss in fullness, when we no longer say ‘not this, not this’ but rather ‘all this, all this’. The affirmation however, is not in the domain of mind but spirit.

[kralaro]

Originally Posted by Presence

How do I devote my life to a God when I know that in the end, it is not real?

Like others here have said, the teaching goes "God alone is real".