Post by gerard on Jun 6, 2012 7:13:07 GMT -6
Even the sectarian vaisnava text, the Gopala Tapani Upanisad says:
tasmad devah paro rajaseti so ’ham
ity avadharyatmanam gopalo ’ham iti bhavayet |
sa moksam asnute sa brahmatvam adhigacchati sa brahmavid bhavati ||
Therefore, he should think: “I am the god beyond rajas”, and then meditating on the self, he should think: “I am Gopal.”
So he attains liberation, he attains Brahman and becomes a knower of Brahman. (2.49)
Just a (not very original) thought, could it be that the final goal of the bhaktas and the advaitins is actually the same?
The bhaktas use a symbology of emotions (wich arise from our vAsanAs) to achieve a passionate union with God.
The advaitins try to clean out the vAsanAs with yoga and thereby in the end reaching a non-passionate union with God.
When there is a union with God who or what is there to tell that the way to that liberation was passionate or non-passionate?
The bhaktas who quote Ramprasad about “tasting sugar, not becoming sugar” might not have attained to that union with God, and might not want that of course:
Shiva assures: Death at Kasi leads to salvation.
But devotion is the root of all;
O mind! Salvation is its maid.
Of what use is nirvana?
Water mingles in water.
O mind! becoming sugar is not desirable;
I am fond of eating sugar.
Even Prahlad, who knew a thing or two about bhakti, said:
sa yadānuvrataḥ puḿsāḿ
paśu-buddhir vibhidyate
anya eṣa tathānyo 'ham
iti bheda-gatāsatī
When He is pleased, men's minds are delivered from the animal-like lack of discrimination deriving from the illusion of difference which makes one think, 'he is not me; and I am not he; we are different'. (7.5.12)
But there are also many bhakti-verses in the Bhagavata which requires a subject and an object. How could one have a relationship with Krishna if individuality were given up?
So Sheridan concludes: "The Bhagavata describes Krsna from a difference-in-identity (bhedabheda) viewpoint. He is non-dual with qualifications (savivesadvaita)."
Then we're back at panentheism it seems.
tasmad devah paro rajaseti so ’ham
ity avadharyatmanam gopalo ’ham iti bhavayet |
sa moksam asnute sa brahmatvam adhigacchati sa brahmavid bhavati ||
Therefore, he should think: “I am the god beyond rajas”, and then meditating on the self, he should think: “I am Gopal.”
So he attains liberation, he attains Brahman and becomes a knower of Brahman. (2.49)
Just a (not very original) thought, could it be that the final goal of the bhaktas and the advaitins is actually the same?
The bhaktas use a symbology of emotions (wich arise from our vAsanAs) to achieve a passionate union with God.
The advaitins try to clean out the vAsanAs with yoga and thereby in the end reaching a non-passionate union with God.
When there is a union with God who or what is there to tell that the way to that liberation was passionate or non-passionate?
The bhaktas who quote Ramprasad about “tasting sugar, not becoming sugar” might not have attained to that union with God, and might not want that of course:
Shiva assures: Death at Kasi leads to salvation.
But devotion is the root of all;
O mind! Salvation is its maid.
Of what use is nirvana?
Water mingles in water.
O mind! becoming sugar is not desirable;
I am fond of eating sugar.
Even Prahlad, who knew a thing or two about bhakti, said:
sa yadānuvrataḥ puḿsāḿ
paśu-buddhir vibhidyate
anya eṣa tathānyo 'ham
iti bheda-gatāsatī
When He is pleased, men's minds are delivered from the animal-like lack of discrimination deriving from the illusion of difference which makes one think, 'he is not me; and I am not he; we are different'. (7.5.12)
But there are also many bhakti-verses in the Bhagavata which requires a subject and an object. How could one have a relationship with Krishna if individuality were given up?
So Sheridan concludes: "The Bhagavata describes Krsna from a difference-in-identity (bhedabheda) viewpoint. He is non-dual with qualifications (savivesadvaita)."
Then we're back at panentheism it seems.