Bhakti: A Contemporary Discussion

Only for my personal use.  Not an article.

Points were taken for Kotation. As the Italics of Sanskrit words are not uniformly followed in the book, I removed Italics of Sanskrit words completely. Similarly the diacritic fonts are not uniformly followed.  However I tried to follow as it is in the book.  Where it is missing I added.

Bhakti: A Contemporary Discussion (Philosophical Explorations In the Indian Bhakti Tradition), Edited by Daya Krishna, Mukund Lath & Francine E. Krishna, Indian Council of Philosophical Research 2000, New Delhi, 2000.

…vast movement in the Indian tradition, which tried to ‘sacralize’ the ‘secular’ and whose main representatives were the various sects in the country…–p. i

…There was an emphasis on intellectuality that generally seems to be missing in the anti-intellectual (p.i) emotionalism that is so often associated with Bhakti.  And hence it seemed worth exploring further to find whether there was really an intellectual dimension of the Bhakti tradition in India which had not been paid any attention to until now.—pp.i-ii.

            But to have a samvaada on Bhakti and that too on its philosophical dimensions at a place like Vrindavan which ostensibly rejects all intellectuality, seemed almost an impossible enterprise.—p.ii

…the unbelievably long, hard-core tradition of the ever-seeking, ever-doubting saattvika quest for the ultimate Truth by the buddhi in the Indian tradition, which has never been afraid of raising the most formidable puurvapaksas against one’s own position and attempting to answer them.—p.iii

“After all, Krsna had left Vrindavan much earlier to fight the battle of dharma, and if the Gopiis did not follow him, it was because they loved not Him, but their own emotions of loving Him.  It was not Krsna, they loved, but they were in love with the love they felt for him.  And that is why they stayed on, leaving him to fight his battle of dharma alone.  The reality of Krsna does not seem to interest the Gopiis. But it does interest Arjuna, who at least appears to share some of his concerns.  He is also supposed to be a Bhakta in the Indian tradition, the Bhakta of friendship.  Yet, when he is shown the Visvaruupa, the ‘real’ reality of Krsna, he trembles in fear and requests Him to assume (p.iii) his previous form so that he can love him and have a friendly, meaningful relationship with him.  Does it mean then that one cannot love the real reality of God, and that it is only his illusory, friendly aspect that can be the subject of his devotion.”—pp.iii-iv

…Was Bhakti the seeking of an ideal immanent in the life of feeling itself, which wanted to be ‘free’ of any object whatever in order to be completely independent of it?  Was it, in other words, the seeking of moksa in the realm of feeling?—p.iv

…All of us who have been trained and educated in institutions of formal learning in this country have developed a whole western-centred way of looking at the world.  To begin with, we have been trained in it from our childhood, from our school days, from our colleges, from our universities, which have bred deep in our psyche a feeling that the way of knowledge is the western way and that there is no other way.  To realize that this has been deeply implanted in us through a foreign system of education imposed in this country for historical reasons, is to become aware that what we take for granted can be questioned…–Chairperson: Prof. Daya Krishna, p.1

…with respect to all traditions of India’s past is that it is alive and that our relations with them have to be critical, appreciative and creative.—p.4

…Each one of us has to (p.4) establish a living relationship with the past traditions of this country and not only be critical towards them or try to interpret and understand them to the best of one’s ability but also carry them forward according to their own capabilities.  This, perhaps is a new way of looking at tradition.—pp.4-5

… सिद्धांत की स्थापना पूर्वपक्ष के खंडन के बिना नहीं होती है, यह भी परंपरा ही है।–p.10

[siddant ki sthapana puurvapaksa ke khandan ke bina nahin hootii hai, yah bhii paramparaa hii hai.—Without refuting the puurvapaksa siddhanta is not established.  This is also the tradition.]

…bhakti is feeling-centred, emotion-oriented.  It treats feelings and emotions as the basic instrument or means of grasping ultimate reality.  If this is so, then what is the place of reason in it?  Reason and a argument are the heart of philosophy, and this is so not just in the western tradition, but even in our own tradition, right from its very beginning.  As far as bhakti is concerned, it is supposed to be just the opposite.  Bhati is a cultivation of the emotional life of man in relation to the transcendent; it is also the underplaying of doubt, samsaya.  As they say, ‘samsayaatmaa vinasyati’[doubting aatman perishes].  But in darsana samsayaatmaa does not vinasyati.  Without samsaya or doubt one cannot make a movement in thought.  First there is doubt; then the doubt is tentatively settled by an argument.  And this goes on; doubt is the (p.10) eternal motive behind the movement of thought.— Prof. Daya Krishna, p.10

…each darsana has a doctrinal point to make.  The play of reasoning alone is to be found mainly in the Nyaaya-saastra.  In the Vedanta schools, reasoning is there only to the extent of introducing the puurvapaksa [former side]; it then gives the siddhaanta and answers each of the points raised by the puurvapaksa where the opponent has a counter-doctrinal point.— Prof. Shiv Kumar Sastry, p.11

…So there is always an element of feeling associated with reasoning.  In understanding doctrines we use reasoning, but for the attainment of mukti, it is bhakti that takes us forward.  Therefore, while dealing with the Vedaanta-saastra with which we are very much concerned so far as bhakti is concerned, it is to be remembered that it is not merely dry logic.— Prof. Shiv Kumar Sastry, p.12

…Through bhakti a devotee gains knowledge, and then through knowledge he attains mukti.  So, this is the path.  Therefore, so far as the Vedaanta schools are concerned, we have to set aside (p.12) the idea of dry reasoning.  It may be so in the case of logic, that is, in pure logic, in the Nyaaya-saastra, but it is not so in the case of the Vedaanta-saastra.— Prof. Shiv Kumar Sastry , pp.12-13

…Moreover, much analysis is needed with regard to the concept of feeling itself.  Feeling is not devoid of awareness.  We say ‘cognition’, the ‘feeling’, as if we separate feeling from cognition.  But, as a matter of fact, feeling cannot really be separated from cognition.  At this point we should to see whether bhakti is an element in feeling or whether feeling is an element in bhakti and whether they are two sides of the same thing.— Prof. Shiv Kumar Sastry ,  p.14

[Gita 11:54] There he [Krsna]speaks about bhakti.  This bhakti is not devoid of brahma-jnaana.  Nor is it devoid of jnaana itself.  At the end of the eighteenth chapter one finds the following sloka, “By means of devotion he will know what I really am.  And then knowing me, will become one with me.” [18:55].

            Here I would like to make another point.  As a matter of fact, it is later in the tradition of philosophical discussion that Bhakti-saastras have been composed.  In the Bhakti-rasaamrta-sindhu which has been written by Sri Ruupa Gosvaamii, it can be seen how different philosophical concepts and different emotive concepts have been minutely analyzed.  If aesthetics is a branch of philosophy, why cannot Bhakti-saastra be a branch of philosophy too?— Prof. Shiv Kumar Sastry , pp.15

…When we look at the darsanas, whether it is Advaita or Yoga, or Nyaaya, the puurvapaksa is very much concerned with refuting the theory of anaatma of the Buddhists.  Now, do we have anything like that in the bhakti tradition?  I have not come across it.  In such a perspective, that is, the perspective of puurvapaksa and siddhaanta, we do not have such a debate in bhakti.

            ….There is a tradition of bhakti-experience right from the beginning…. The attempts has been to compose texts in order to justify what is already there.  So, in that sense all the later literature, even the Gosvaamii literature which has been spoken of is to give reasons for, or justify, or evaluate an experience which is already there..[…]

            …But it is primarily about bhakti as an anubhava.  And, an entire school is built on that.— Dr. Rukmini, pp. 16-17

            As for Raamaanuja, I think he is only debating against Advaita.  He is trying to refute it, through his own commentary on the same text, the Brahma-suutra, giving a different interpretation.  He uses a different kind of argument to establish his position against the Advaitic position, but there is nothing philosophical per se in it.  There is no demolition of the puurvapaksa and the establishment of siddhaanta; it is just a way (p.16) of interpreting Upanisads.  He says that it is more appropriate to understand them in terms of his Visistaadvaita.— Dr. Rukmini , pp.16-17

            I think, everybody knows that the Bhagvad Gita is a commentary on it [Isa Upanisad 1].  And the Bhaagavata is a commentary on the Bhagavad Gita…– Dr. Rukmini, p.17 [This is a traditional view.  But Gita itself never says this.  I don’t know about Bhaagavata’s position.—DB].

… The Bhaagavata talks about bhakti being an end it itself.  Bhakti leads to bhakti.  God himself is identified with bhakti …. Even Sankaraacaarya had to bow down to bhakti because there was a tradition and that is why saguna brahma had to be incorporated by him, though, of course, the final end is nirguna brahma. Bhakti had to have the concept of ahaitukii bhakti which is a totally new contribution by the Bhaagavata;it had not been spoken of earlier, so far as I know.  This, I feel, is a totally different kind of bhakti, one that could be considered a philosophical innovation.– Dr. Rukmini, p.17

            The charge that bhakti is a blind tradition is not true.  Bhakti has a long history, since Vedic times.  In the Vedas, and the Upanisads we have many references to, bhakti.  For example in the Atharvaveda: tasya te bhaktih bhaktivaan sahaasyam, And in the Rgveda: mahaste visno sumatim bhajaamahe.  The Saamaveda says, upaasyataam sriyaam avyaktasaudyaam; bhaktyaa mrtyormucyate.  In the Kathopanisad: hiranmayena paatrena satyasyaapihitam mukham, tanme puusan apaavrnu.  It has also been said the Iisaavaasya, yamaisa vrnute tena labhyah.—Dr. K.V. Archak, p.19 [I have to refer Kathopanisad and Isa about this mantras—DB].

…You remember Sankara’s statement: Siva saktyaa yuktoo; yadi bhavati saktya prabhavitum…– Prof. Dwivedi, p.20

[I typed in Roman script from Devanagari without any diacritic mark.  But several scholars do not accept this Sowndaryalahari from which Prof. Dwivedi quotes as the authentic work of Sankara.  Olivelle says, “I will limit myself to the six works regarding whose authenticity there appears to be a scholarly consensus.  They are Samkara commentaries on the Vedaantasuutras, the Bhagavad Gita, and three Upanisads—Brhadaaranyaka, Chaandogya, and Taiitiriiya—and his independent treatise Upadesasaahasrii,.   See Paul Hacker’s (1978) contributions on Samkara: Nakamura 1983” (Patrick Olivelle, The Aasrama system: The History and Hermeneutics of a Religious Institution, New York, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1993, p. 224)

…Therefore sakti is divine grace, and not the independent intellectual power of man.  Of course, later on it converts itself into intellectual power.  But originally it is divine grace.— Prof. Dwivedi, p.21

            A very interesting point was also made that after all a philosophic reflection can be either on knowledge or on action and that philosophical problems can also arise from the context of feelings or emotions.  A philosophy of feelings is therefore as much justified as epistemology or ethics.  This is an interesting point.  If aesthetics can be a philosophical discipline, why not a philosophy of bhakti, that is, a philosophy which investigates the cognitive function of feelings and emotions.  Or, in other words, what is their epistemological, ontological and axiological status in the life of man—Prof. Daya Krishna, p.25

Prof. Daya Krishna: I think there are two points.  One, whether tattva-jnaana has to be necessarily added to bhakti.  If I have understood the discussion correctly up to this point, there are two issues which are being raised. One, whether in the definition of bhakti, tattva-jnaana is a necessary karana for the love of God. That is, if there were to be a very intense, developed, deep love of God, which has no conscious or rather self-conscious awareness of tattva-jnaana would it be called bhakti?  In other words, with respect to the deep emotional relationship that I can develop towards whatever is ultimately real, have I necessarily to assume that this real must have a personal form.  It may be so in some traditions, but it is not exactly necessary.—p.30

Purushotam Goswami: The difference between jnaana and bhakti is the difference between pride and humility.  Jnaana is pride.  Bhakti is humility.  And the solid foundation of all virtues is humility.  The first test of a truly great man is humility.  It was pride that turned angels into devils.  It is humility that makes man an angel.—p.33

Prof. Kedar Nath Misra: …we think that bhakti was present in the earliest text, the Rgveda.  It is in bhakti sense that we interpret the texts and quote from them.  But the basic point is that it is not the words that are significant, but it is the concept that is significant.  True, the words are found in the Samhitaas and in other texts also, but what is that concept which is being conveyed by the words?  Has that concept undergone a change over a period of time in subsequent texts?  The concept of bhakti that we are discussing, I presume, follows the way, which thinks that there was no bhakti in India and it is with Ramanuja that it began and so on.  But that is not the case.  There is a puurvapaksa to bhakti; but within bhakti there are many puurvapaksas also. In the Vedas, or in the Samhitas to be precise, we find many variations of thought, and from that variety of thought we pick up only one tradition, which has come to us through the Upanisads.  The authors of the Upanisads were well aware of the fact and they have reminded us of this.  They have reminded us that in the Vedas there are various traditions…–pp.34-5

This country had the great honour of giving the world three religions without any god, the first being the Miimaamsakas themselves. About the Miimaamsakas I used to say:yajamaan ka ghee pi pi kar miimamsakon ne Iswar ka khandan karne me jitana prishram kiya, Jainom aur Buddhom ne bhi nahin kiya.[I typed the Devanagari in Roman—DB]— Prof. Kedar Nath Misra, p.35

            …We forget the fact that there was a religion without a god even in the Vedic tradition (p.35).  There was also a religion without a god outside the Vedic tradition, namely, Buddhism.  And the same is true of Jainism.  But it is very difficult to say that there was no concept of bhakti in these religions.  I, on the other hand, contend that there is a concept of bhakti in these religions also and it was precisely against this concept of bhakti that the Vaisnava religion emerged.  This is the puurvapaksa, and against this puurvapaksa, the concept of Vaisnava bhakti really takes up cudgels.  The basic thing is that while the word remains the same, the concept changes… We think that there is only one tradition, and we identify ourselves with that tradition of bhakti where there is a god, where bhakta tries to visualize God, to live in His company.  This is the line of thought with which many of us identify ourselves and neglect other aspects of it.  But when we are engaged in philosophical thought, we should look at other views also.— Prof. Kedar Nath Misra, p.35-36

…I think one of the (p.36) greatest confusions arises when we quote, because sometimes we are only using their authority for our own purposes.  But how do we view these text?  Is the Bhagvad Gita a commentary on the Upanisads?  We have forgotten altogether that the Bhagvad Gita is a part of the Mahabharata and if it has to be understood properly, if its philosophy has to be appreciated, it has to be understood in the light of the total Mahabharata… the philosophy of Krsna has nothing to do with the Brahmasuutras.— Prof. Kedar Nath Misra , pp.37

…These days the Vaisnavas claim to be the direct carriers of the Vedic tradition of bhakti, but if we read the acaryas, we find that it started with the Alvaars.  It was here the Vaisnavism was born.  Real bhakti was born in Mathura, on the banks of the river Yamuna, and Krsna is really the father of this religion.  This journey led to the south in the second stage.  The second phase of bhakti is in the Alvaars.  The third phase is the Maharashtra and the Karnatak.  The fourth phase is in Gujarat, in Kathiawad with Vallabhaacarya.  Thus there are these different phases.  With Ramanuja bhakti began to be associated with the Vedic tradition.  We find that up to Vallabhaacaarya, the acaryas are not only aware, but they are careful to point out that in their philosophical position so much is from the Upanisads and so much is from the bhakti tradition, or the Vaisnava tradition.  They also utilized the Naarada, the Paancaraatra and other systems, for their own purposes.– Prof. Kedar Nath Misra, p.39

…the real puurvapaksa is the Vaidika dharma.  It is the puurvapaksa of the bhakti dharma, even though the Vaidika dharma also has a concept of bhakti of its own.  But that concept of bhakti is not from the Bhaagavata.– Prof. Kedar Nath Misra, p.39

…There is a tradition in Sanskrit of trying to understand the meaning of a word from its etymology, but it serves only one purpose.  That purpose is that where a certain new concept has been developed, that we want to derive that concept from a single word.  And that is the beauty, I understand, of the Sanskrit language, that we (p.39) can derive a whole concept from one word.  But etymology or derivation shows only this much that the author who is giving the etymology has a certain idea and that he derives that concept or idea from a certain word.  So, this etymology helps us in understanding the concept and in associating it with the word.  But it does not say anything about the origin of the word.  The word ‘bhakti’, for example, can be etymologically explained in two ways, and these explain very well the difference between the Vedic concept of bhakti and the Vaisnava concept of bhakti.

            The first, namely, the Vedic concept of bhakti is from bhaja vibhajate.  Understood thus we have the word ‘bhakti’ in the sense of ‘dividing’, parallel to words sch as ‘vibhaja’, ‘vibhajati’.  A derivation in terms of ‘bhajane’ gives us the concept of bhakti.— Prof. Kedar Nath Misra , pp.39-40

…Bhakti here [Miimaamsa] is a means to propitiate a god with a small ‘g’, and from this god we want many things.  So, this is the first stage of bhakti.  This is the puurvapaksa’s bhakti.  In bhakti, god expects from us, but he is not going to give us anything unless we propitiate him by offering whatever he demands.  The story of the second bhakti culminates here in Mathura where the worship of Indra is stopped forever.  So with this Indra-yaaga-bhanga all this begins and Krsna establishes a new order of bhakti… in the Miimaamsaa, karma reigns supreme, and the gods are subservient to it.

            Devataa is anga there, yajna is angi.  Devataa is angabhuuta.  If we proceed further the Miimaamsaka will say ‘mantramayaa devata’.  There is no god at all with a capital ‘G’ in Miimaamsaa.  The whole Miimaamsaa tradition , in fact, refutes God.— Prof. Kedar Nath Misra , p.41

            It is with the Bhagvad Gita, that the real bhakti tradition starts.  Karma is replaced by a theistic god, a personal god.  Karma is no longer supreme.  We are told it is not the sacrifice that will take care of your future or your wellbeing.  It is I (that is, Krsna) who will take care of your well being.  So in the Miimaamsaa tradition … Everything was being taken care of by sacrifice.  In the Gita tradition, on the other hand, it is Krsna who is responsible for yogaksema.  So, karma is replaced by a god.  Thus formal, heartless, verbal bhakti is replaced by an emotional bhakti where god does not accept anything from us nor does he expect anything from us.  We need nor give any offering to him.  It is not what is offered that is important, but it is the emotion with which it is offered that is important.  Hence, there are no more mantras prescribed for offering gifts to the God.  It is the language of the heart and emotion that is important in bhakti and not the language of the Vedas or the language of the scriptures..— Prof. Kedar Nath Misra p.42

            Another point is in regard to the Bhagvad Gita.  He [Prof. Kedar Nath Misra] said that it has nothing to do with the Upanisads; that we have to see the Bhagvad Gita in the context of the Mahabharata.  But in th entire Bhagvad Gita, in its different adhyaayas one finds reflections which resemble the reflections in the Upanisads themselves.  Many, slokas are common in te Katha Upanisad, and the Bhagvad Gita.  That is why it is said, ‘sarvopanisdo gaavah, and this traditional statement should not be taken so lightly.— Prof. Shiv Kumar Sastry, p.43

            According to the Advaitins up to his [Mandana Misra] time once we knew the Upanisadic mahaavaakyas such as ‘tat tvamasi’, we attained moksa or liberation.  But Mandana differed from this view.  According to him, knowledge of the mahaavaakyas was not enough.  It has to be followed by upaasanaa, abhyaasa and even the observance facilitates the grahana of vidyaa.(p.44)

So, karma is not to be completely left out.  This is another deviation from Sankara in the Advaita tradition itself.— Prof. Shiv Kumar Sastry , pp.44-45

…thought in Indian philosophy has followed two courses in its development.  One has been the tradition of saints, and the other the tradition of acaryas.  The acaryas had been the interpreters, commentators, scholars, indeed, great erudite scholars.  They developed the conceptual framework of thought in which bhakti or god could find a place.  The other tradition has been the tradition of saints.  They had nothing to do with logical argument.  Nor did they worry whether they were constitute or not.  Even today in contemporary India the way in which Indian philosophy has been revived is mainly and predominantly through the saint tradition and not through the acarya tradition.  If I am permitted to quote the thoughts of Ramatirtha, Raman Maharishi, Ramakrishna, Shri Aurobindo etc., it will be difficult to fit them in the way bhakti has been propounded by the great acaryas who have talked of navadhaa bhakti or grades of bhakti, kinds of bhakti or whether there is any qualitative difference or (p.46) quantitative difference in the different stages.— Prof. Pande, p.46

…Religion is possible without belief in a personal god.  There may be a religion without belief in a personal god, but it cannot be called atheism.  It is also theism; it is religion. But bhakti without faith, without belief in a personal god is not possible.– Prof. Pande, p.47

            What, then, is bhakti?  Two things are required.  Firstly, a belief in a personal god, and secondly, a belief that god has something to do very intimately, with oneself in particular.  It is not universal, it is not social.  It is a persona, intimate something…–p. Prof. Pande, p.47

..the Bhagvad Gita parva, one finds that it has 42 chapters, one of which only the last eighteen are called the Bhagvat Gita.  The Bhagvad Gita, as everybody knows, is a part of the Bhiismaparva which ends with it, then in the following parva, the verses in the beginning give the number of the chapters of the Bhagvad Gita, which does not tally with the number of the present chapters in the Bhagvad Gita… (p.48) In the statement of the great Sankara: Vyaasa summarised the words of Krsna in 700 slokas.  There are people in this country who are searching for the original Bhagvad Gita.  There may be Upanisadic elements in it, but non-Upanisadic elements are also there.  Also, the bhakti in the Samhitaas is totally different from the bhakti we find in the Bhagavad Gita..—Prof Misra, pp..48-49

…Firstly we may ask, how similar is similar and how different is different?  This problem always arises in the context of any culture or civilization, which has a continuity of thought and practice over a long period of time.  Surely there must be continuity, otherwise, we cannot call it the same civilization.  Surely there must also have been differences.  Otherwise, there will be no development, merely dull, plain repetition…– Prof. Daya Krishna, p.50

…in the Indian tradition, by and large, people have tried to emphasize continuity and underplay the change or novelty except in some fields of arts… Therefore, in the Indian context where novelty is underplayed, the task of the historian is … to show that it is a facade to say something new, though, ostensibly claiming that it is only an interpretation.  On the contrary, what happens in the west is that because novelty is valued very much, so, every new thing is claimed as novel.  So, what the(p.50) historians do there is to tell us that it is not really so new and they find the seeds of it or the sources of it in the past…– Prof. Daya Krishna pp.50-51

…We are not exactly interested in what somebody said at some time regarding what bhakti was.  We are interested in how we, as persons living in 1988, can make sense of this tradition in our life, in our times, in our own society, in our own history.  That is how we can establish a living relationship with this tradition.  But when we ask ourselves this question, I think, many of the points made in the course of the discussion seem to become irrelevant.  Bhakti is ultimately the development of a significant, fulfilling, rich life, centered in feeling and emotion, which is sought to be made permanent.  The life of emotion is a fluctuating life.  An emotional mood never lasts more than a second, more than a moment.  Now I want to build on make it stay, make it permanent, but it is like building on water.  How, then, to build a life of emotion with a constant tone, with a constant direction?  I think, bhakti should be seen as a (p.51) tremendous attempt of a culture to build what may be called a life of permanent and beautiful feeling.– Prof. Daya Krishna, pp.51-52

…when I was asking whether bhakti could be conceived of without a personal god, I was only suggesting that we start with the emotion, and not with the god.  We do not know whether there is a God or not.  But we do know that we have an emotional life.  And if we want to know how to build meaning and significance in it and on it, we have to start with it. One needs an infinite aalambana [support], an aalambana with an infinite being, then why not have nature or why not anything else?  Is it a relation of a finite being with something infinite?  I am not myself clear about this.— Prof. Daya Krishna , p.52

…are we honest with ourselves in underplaying large parts of our tradition?  I think, one of the very good scholars here referred to the Braahmanas, and said that, though bhakti is in the Samhitaas it is not so prominent in the Braahmanas.  But, then, should we forget the Braahmanas?  But how can we do that?  There is the Sabarabhaasya and the Miimaamsaa-Suutras.  People should read to realize what the Vedic tradition of sacrifice was.  It did play an important part in our tradition.  One can reject it but to reject it is an act of courage and honesty and conviction which, few Indians are prepared to do.  Krsna could criticize the Vedas.  But can we?  Do we dare do the same?  And, people refer to the Upanisads without even knowing what they are.  The Upanisads are a part of something else; they are not an independent work.  They are selections out of Aaranyakas, out of Samhitaas.  Isa Upanisad is not a separate text; it is an (p.52) integral part of the Yajurveda Samhitaa.  Why, then, do we call it an Upanisad?  Who made the selection?  What were the criteria of the selection?  Anyone who speaks of Upanisads as separate text independent from Aaranyakas, Braahmanas and Samhitaas is doing an injustice.  There are some Upanisads, which are independent, such as the Svetaasvatara.  In fact, the Upanisads continued to be written till almost the 13^th century.  But, if this is true, how can this be regarded as sruti.  For, it something, is a sruti, or if something is regarded as sruti, we cannot add to it. The whole idea of what is sruti, what is accepted an authority, is a vexed question.— Prof. Daya Krishna, p. 52-53

… Aitareya Aaranyaka which specifically proclaims itself to be an Upanisad, has not been included in the Aitareya Upanisad as a part of that Upanisad.  I repeat: why has the person who was selecting out of the Aitareya (p.53) Aaranyaka, that portion which he was to call the Aitareya Upanisad, not selected a portion which proclaims in a self-conscious manner that though everything is an Upanisad, this is a special Upanisad.  It is called the Vaak Upanisad.  It has not been included.  What was the criterion of selection?  Why did the person reject a portion which called itself the Upanisad?  I wonder why has no scholar raised this question.— Prof. Daya Krishna , p.53-54

…One of my friends here is a great scholar.  Let me ask him a question.  He said, the theory of yajna is based on the theory of karma.  But the theory of yajna is completely contradictory to the theory of karma because there is the yajamaana and the rtvika.  The rtvika performs the yajna, the yajamaana gets the phala because he gives him the daksinaa.  Now, in the theory of karma the person who does the action must reap the fruit of his action.  You cannot do an action on my behalf.  Just because I pay you to do something, will I get the fruit of your action?  This is not the theory of karma.  But the theory of yajna is different.  The theory of yajna is against the theory of karma…– Prof. Daya Krishna , p.54

…We have also explored the issue as to whether bhakti is primarily a matter of feelings and emotions, and what logical ratiocinative discussion we can have in regard to it.  I think, the conclusions, if there can be any conclusions in such a discussion, were that philosophical reflection can be done with respect to anything whatsoever.  So, when you are in the bhakti experience you are not philosophising or being philosophical about it.  But otherwise we can think rationally, critically about it, both about its relationship to, and implications for, other domains.– Prof. Daya Krishna, p.55

..the point I am making is that for purposes of thinking, for purposes of discussion, for purposes of carrying the intellectual debate forward, it is not necessary to find it someone gave a laksana or propounded a puurvapaksa, for it is the nature of the mind or the nature of the thought process that it provisionally creates a laksana, finds defects in it and rectifies them.— Prof. Daya Krishna, p. 56

…the later bhakti or Vaisnava turn might have been a response to the older and more austere Saivite tradition.  Individual feelings and emotions were brought more into play by bhakti.  Historically, it was the reverse of what happened in Europe.  But the point is that a religion also fulfills an emotional need; it corresponds to a style of life.  Rather than emotions or an emotive style being a result of a theology, it can also be that a theology or a dogma arises from an emotional style or need.–Dr. Francine E. Krishna, p.58

…we are dissatisfied with our emotional life because of a vague apprehension of certain emotional norms, and we want to seek a new kind of emotional life for which we build the cognitive structures as a support for this new kind of emotional life.  That emotion or the life of feeling is the central point, which leaves us dissatisfied or makes seek for a new emotional response.  But as for bhakti, it cannot be defined in any one particular way.  Many definitions are possible.– Prof. Daya Krishna, p.58

Prof. Shiv Kumar Sastry: Life of bhakti, in fact, as the search for a new life depends on the cultivation of feelings and emotions, has been divided into six stages called six sthalas, and at each stage bhakti is called by (p.58)a different name… The first stage is know as the bhaktasthala, the bhakta stage.  Here the name of the bhakti is sraddhaa bhakti; later on, when experience grows, the bhakta enters the next stage known as the maahesvara stage, called the maahesvara sthala, and the bhakti at this stage is known as nisthaa bhakti.  In nisthaa bhakti he concentrates and remembers god in his devotion and decides I am not going to worship any other god, other than the one I have chose to worship.  That kind of nisthaa is developed in him.

            …The prasaada sthala is one in which the bhakta begins to feel that everything that he attains in life, everything that he enjoys is given through the grace of god, the prasaada of god.  Bhakti at this stage, is known as avadhaana bhakti, because here one is always vigilant….(59)

            The next stage is known as the praanalinga stage, where the devotee begins to worship something in any form whatsoever.  It is worshipped through a bhaava-padaartha.  This is a remarkable stage of bhakti called anubhava where there is an element of mysticism. This is attained through yogic practice and is known as anubhava bhakti…. Sarana stage wherein there is a relationship between the god and the devotee in the form of husband and wife.  Sathii-apati-bhaava is present there and there is complete surrender to God.  This particular stage is marked by aananda bhakti and is the prasaada stage…. The last stage, which is known as the aikya stage… This stage of bhakti is known as samarasa bhakti where one leaves behind all ideas of (p.60) difference and merges with the supreme consciousness.—pp.58-61

…I feel, that in a saastra there are already laid down certain parameters under which we can look at the system.  For instance, when are talk about Vedaanta, what kind of a system one is talking about.  In this context, we have the notion of saadhanaa catustaya and adhikaarii-bheda.  I am more concerned with the prayojana.  The prayojana is already defined as moksa-prapati.  But if we stick to the dimensions of a particulassem,ereally do not have the freedom to think of bhakti as something other than not concted with the prayojana which is moksa-praapti.—Dr. Rukmini, p. 61

            But what troubled me as a student when I read the Bhagavata Purana was when Yudhisthira asks Narada in one context: ‘How is it that people like Sisupala, Kamsa, Jaraasandha, who are known haters of Sri Krsna, all got moksa, and that too quite quickly?’  And Narada has no answer.  His answer cannot satisfy anyone of us, I think.  He says that the Lord is only concerned with the constant thought of him and not with the context in which the thought occurs.—Dr. Rukmini, p.62

To Dr. Rukmini’s question about how to satisfy a modern mind about various tradition, (p.64) Prof. Daya Krishna says, “If one is doing a textual study or a historical study, then, one is bound by the text and can only try to be as honest to it as possible.  But there are many texts.  There are also texts claiming to interpret another text and we have a history of such interpretations.  But history raises problems, which are even more complex than the interpretation of a book or a series of books.  But … when one is establishing a living relationship with a tradition, then one is free in a different sense.  The problem of such a freedom is not a trouble for some.  This is one reason why it did not trouble the past acaryas.  It troubles only the modern ones…. (p.63) So, we should feel free.  If one doesn’t feel free, it is because one has not understood the tradition correctly…. Today what we are to discuss should open new avenues for thinking, not merely for us but for others, other cultures and civilizations which have as much right to our cultural heritage as ourselves.—pp.63-64

…But we get out of our individual prejudices, biases and try to reach an objective universality, which can be mutually corrected and jointly explored.  It is continuous with the whole of humanity, past and present, which man has built over time.  Now the question we are asking today is whether there is an analogous universality of feeling.  And, if there is universality of feeling.  And, if there is universality of feeling, does bhakti try to take hold of this truth in the sense that it sees that feeling has both a universal element in it like reason and also because feeling grasps the real, the ultimately real in a sense which reason can never do.  This is the issue, which we have to discuss.– Prof. Daya Krishna, p.65

…When reason grasps reality, it grasps it as a law, as a universal principle because it is the nature of reason to apprehend thing that way.  But when feeling tries to grasp the same reality, it grasps it as aalambana or as a support for itself.  Aalambana may be a person or anything else.– Prof. Daya Krishna, p.65

…Madhavaacaarya in his Gita Bhaasya makes the remark that in Sisupaala’s case the hatred was a personal choice because of intense love, and hence hatred in this case is a form of love.  What brought liberation to Sisupaala was subverted love.  It was therefore not hatred, which helped him to achieve the necessary concentration, but love.  Such passages should be treated as arthavaada.  So, the acceptance of dvesa bhakti, that is the hatred of God as a possible means of salvation, is quite inconsistent.  That is why Madhva strongly disapproves of dvesa bhakti.—Prof.Sastry, p. 67

…If bhakti is a saadhana for moksa, then bhakti is only a saadhna among other saadhanas.  If we are saying that bhakti is not a saadhana but a saadhya, then many of the things that have been said perhaps cannot be said.—Prof. Daya Krishna, p.69

…Even, when one is doing some intellectual work, one can transcend oneself.  So, in that sense bhakti is possible.  Then bhakti can be defined in different ways and if it is through a saadhana and a saadhya it is possible to look at it differently.—Dr. Rukmini, p.70

…But we have been told just now that bakti is an experience, which cannot be explained, and yet people write volume after volume explaining what bhakti is  So, what I want to know is: what kind of an emotion is bhakti?—Dr. Ashok Vohra, p.72

…Seekers generally think that philosophers are irrelevant and philosophers think that other are irrelevant.— Prof. Daya Krishna, p.74

…I find that the basic problem in philosophy as well as in religion and especially in bhakti is that of relations.  In Indian philosophy, somebody might say, the soul is the main problem or moksa is the main problem.  But if one looks at the history of philosophy, one finds the one problem that is being faced by all the philosophers is the problem of relation.  Is Brahman related to the world?  The issue emerges in Advaita and in other systems also.  Here we are presuming that in the case of bhakti there is a god and that bhakti consists in having one’s emotions directed towards this god.  We need not accept these(p.74) assumptions. But, given these assumptions, bhakti is also a sort of relationship.  And this is the traditional answer to the question whether dvesa can be a means to bhakti…–pp.74-75

            The bhakti thinkers have tackled the objection [to dvesa bhakti] in two ways.  One is that, whether one accepts it or not, there is a deterministic view right from the Rgveda, the Braahmanas and the Upanisad, which we agree with:

Ruudhiprahaarii purusha sahet katham qvdiiyaam vishamaavsthaam—p.75

[this is the problem with this book, now this point raised by Prof. Mishra can become sense to only those who can understand the meaning of this Sanskrit verse—DB]

…the difference is that where in philosophical thinking we are universalizing our feelings, our affection, the bhakta tries to minimize it, and to personalize it…–Prof. Mishra, p.76

…Bhakti is this process because in bhakti, emotion and love are directed towards a definite object, and therein the bhakta is trying to minimize the universal element in it.  So, in that process what bhaktas have done is to se that we follow a method which suits us…–Prof. Mishra, p. 76

…That which is not normally a saadhana of something, is turned into a saadhana by God.  Dvesa is not a saadhana of moksa, but it is tuned into one by God. Raaga is not a saadhana either, and yet it can be used in bhakti.That is why Krsna is said to be Kaama….—Prof. Mishra, p. 77

…Some say that there is a God, and that this God has determined everything, including whether he will accept us through the maarga of karma or through the maarga of jnaana or through the maarga of bhakti or through prapatti; it has all been pre-determined by Him.  That is the traditional answer.  But we cannot accept it only partly we have to accept it in toto…–Prof. Mishra, p. 77

…the Vrindavan Gosvaamis who were responsible for this.  That was the first time that bhakti was defined in terms of technique. (p.79)  The Vrindavan Gosvaamis did it in accordance with the rasa-siddhaant.The Sanskrit scholars here would bear with me that rasa-siddhaanta is as old as the Naatya-saastra. For long, bhakti was not accepted as a rasa by the rasa-siddhaantis.  It was only at a much later stage that it was accepted as a rasa.  But the rasa theory is based on the assumption that certain feelings are universal.  Yet in earlier thought bhakti was never accepted as a rasa.–Dr. Krishna Sharma, pp.79-80

…the Vaisnava bhaktas are trying to counter the challenge of Sankara in various ways at a philosophical level.  The Vaisnavas were first and foremost worshippers of Visnu and of avataaras or incarnations of Visnu.  Now if Advaita Vedanta or Sankara were to be taken literally and accepted totally, then there would be no scope for the worship of an avataara.  The concept of a personal deity would not have been there.  Although Sankara did not say it openly, he had to make compromises.  He only said, your Vishnu is also aatmaa, your Raama is also aatmaa.  But it is obvious that this did t help matters.  The path of the Vaisnava tradition of the worship of personal deity was bound to be affected adversely in some way or other.  The Vaisnavas prefer individuality while the Advaita Vedaanta prefers universality.  In Advaita there is a tendency to natural unity.  And, hence it preached a different kind of bhakti…–Dr. Krishna Sharma, p.80

…As far as I have studied, I do not find any definition of bhakti in the Bhaagavata or in the Bhagvad Gita.—Dr. Krishna Sharma, p.81

…A bhakta is a jnaani among other things as Krsna has said in the Bhagvad Gita.  It is perhaps a matter of emphasis.  But we should remember that Caitanya was against Advaita and against any talk of jnana.  He said that he only wanted Krsna and that Krsna was all.—Dr. Krishna Sharma, p.81

            When the Vaisnavas of Bengal say that their religion can be summed up in one word, ‘bhakti’, it is the first time that bhakti is seen as a religion.  Before that there was, of course, deva-bhakti and other such bhakti-s.  But the end result of the Caitanya movement was that bhakti got identified with Krsna bhakti.  The first Indian to propound this theory was R.G. Bhandarkar.  He was a contemporary of Swami Vivekaananda.  It was said that there was some influence of Christianity on Krsna bhakti.  Bhandarkar tried to answer this by saying that bhakti was more Asian than western.  But he did not realize that it was not real bhakti, that bhakti is not Krsna bhakti.  I, for example, could not find any reference to the three margas, the jnana (p.81) marga, the bhakti marga and the karma marga.  So I looked it up in Monier Williams’ Dictionary.  And, he did seem to corroborate what I thought.  In fact, to my surprise, I found that he refers to all the occurrences of bhakti.  But no Indian scholar ever questioned the writings of the western orientalists in the nineteenth century or their identification of bhakti with Krsna bhakti or their identification of bhakti as a religion by the Vaisnavas of Bengal.  Bhandarkar, in his works, did not touch on this.—Dr. Krishna Sharma, pp.81-82

…this seminar or this dialogue is a part of a series of dialogues where we are attempting to do something totally different.  We want not only to understand what someone else has said or what the tradition has said, we are trying to understand the intellectual process behind what was said.— Prof. Daya Krishna, p. 99

…a statement has been made in the book and in the presentation of Dr. Krishna Sharma that the non-Advaitic acaryas were not exactly against Advaita, but that they wanted to adapt Advaita to the Vaisnavatraditin.  But how can one make the Advaita thought of Sankara compatible with the Vaisnava tradition?– Prof. Daya Krishna, p.99

…Basically Sankara started with adhyaasa, and the refutation of adhyaasa was the first priority of all the theistic schools.  Therefore, the first task of Ramanujacarya was to refute adhyaasa before establishing the gunas as tattvas.  Only, after this refutation did he start the interpretation of the Vedaanta-suutras according t his doctrines. To say that Advaita was adopted to suit the needs of these people is a simplification and it shows the ignorance of the facts on the part of the scholar who has said this.—Mr. Rajamani, p.100

Prof. Daya Krishna: Agreed.—p.100

…Bhakti philosophy has a phenomenology of feeling.  It was not that they were structuring something beforehand and then imposing it on our experience.  Rather, it is a phenomenology in the true sense of the term.  The phenomenon was given to these people through poetry and experience and other things, and then as philosophers they tried to analyze it in a (p.113) meaningfully communicative, philosophical language.  That is how bhakti darsana got its substance.—Shri Shrivatsa, pp.113-4

…Can I have a feeling, which is not determined by any object at all?  This is perhaps the ultimate ideal of bhakti.  Ultimately there should be no God even in bhakti because the ideal of bhakti should be self-enclosed, self-justified, self-immersed in feeling.—Prof. Daya Krishna, p.117

…Thus, if it is conceptually impossible for us to think of emotions or feelings devoid of all reference to human beings, then how can we think of bhakti in any other way?  I would think that it is conceptually impossible.—Dr. Vohra, p.118

…When people engaged in the intellectual process are trying to verbalize or give an example of rasa as a kind of inexpressible feeling they talk about an experience which is called brahmaananda sahodara.  Actually, linguistic verbalization will always be short of that experience.  It is definitely a rahasyaanubhava.  But to talk of that anubhava, we must speak of a process and the process cannot be spoken without the duality of subject and object.—Sri Shrivatsa, p. 121

…When we say, ‘bhakti daksina uupajii’ or ‘utpannaa dravide caaham’, it really has a historical sense, because later on the passage adds: vrndaavanam punah praapya naviinavasvaruupinii.’ (p.126)

[Five out of six Gosvaamiss who founded the Gosvaamii tradition at Vrindavan are from South India]…Gopaala Bhatta from Srirangam, Raghunaatha Bhatta, a Tamil Brahmin from Varanasi and then the three Karnataka Brahmins, Ruua Sanaatana and Jiiva.  There was also one Bengali who was Raghunaatha Daasa, a kaayastha from North Bengal, a very rich man…– Sri Shrivatsa, pp.126-7

…personally, I really believe that dialogue is a useless exercise.  Also it is a very dangerous exercise.  If we are engaging in a dialogue from an imperialistic point of view, then, a dialogue is impossible.  If one thinks one is powerful, there will be no need for a dialogue. If one is weak, only then will one need a dialogue.  So, the only premise for a dialogue is Prof. Daya Krishna’s premise.  Yes, it is a dialogue.  But still there is a danger, and the basic premise of that for me is the ambivalence of one’s own position.  But unless you have some ambivalence and some sort of samsaya, dialogue will never take off.– Sri Shrivatsa, p.129

… Akbar issues another farmaan,  which not only gives permission for building the temple of Govinda Rai (he never used the term ‘Govindadeva’, he used the term ‘Govinda Rai’), at Vrindavan but also adds that the cost of all the material used in the temple will be given from the royal exchequer.  What a great man!— Sri Shrivatsa, p.131

…It has a particular architectural characteristic, where there is profuse ornamentation on the outside.  But so that the sensitivity of a benefactor, that is, Akbar, may not be hurt, the Gosvaamiis deliberately chose not to have a single picture or sculpture outside [of the temple].— Sri Shrivatsa ,p132

            When Puraana is being recited, silence is required…– Sri Shrivatsa, p.134

…When Shivaji escaped from Agra, he escaped through Vrindavan, Mathura and Banaras and onwards.

            What does Aurangzeb do?  Till that year he had built a temple, he was renewing all the grants given by his predecessors.  But why in 1667 does he damage these three cities?  Why only these three cities?  In 1662 he had given the land, he had given the money for building a Raama temple in Chatarpur.  But in 1667 what makes him destroy these particular temples, in particular these three cities?  Why does he not go back to Chatarpur and destroy his own creation?  Why does he not stop the grants (p.134) given to the temple in Gazipur?  Of course, it was political frustration and punishment to the Jaipur family because Ram Singh was involved in this game of Shivaji’s escape.  Varanasi was another place of the Jaipur rolya family.  Mathura was known as the home of the Jaipur family.  So, as a kind of punishment of retaliation to his own commander-in-chief, that is, to Ram Singh, he comes and destroys these temples.— Sri Shrivatsa, pp.134-5

[Ghouse a British Civil Service was appointed as the Magistrate of Mathura in 1865]…when he was mid-way in the resurrection of the temple, he was transferred.  But in seven years he did wonders in Mathura.  He was the founder of the Matua Museum.  He translated Tulasii Daasa’s Raamacaritamaanasa in his seven years stay in Mathura, into English, a beautiful translation.  Ghouse actually not only did something for Vrindavan and this temple but he did the same thing for all the temples.  He wrote a beautiful two volume work on the history of Mathura art which nobody knows, nobody reads.  But it is a wonderful work (p.136)…. Although he never became a Hindu, he died at the age of thirty-nine out of frustration and tuberculosis because then the Britishers started transferring him almost every month.… Then he resigned his job and went back to England, where within one year he died…. I put him in the category of the Seventh Gosvaamii of Braj, and he deserves that title.— Sri Shrivatsa ,pp.136-7

…Religiously speaking, Krsna never went to a temple in his whole life, and the only ritual, religious ritual, he did was the worship of nature, even in the religious sense…– Sri Shrivatsa, p.138

            But when Aurangzed invaded the place, Ram Singh collected all the images from Vrindavan, literally, took all of them, except one or two (p.138)… In the temple here is the pratibhuu.  The original deity, the original Vrindavan is in Jaipur.— Sri Shrivatsa, pp. 138-9

…On that day (Kaartika puurnimaa), the moon rises in the middle of this doorway, and the first ray falls on the sanctum sanctorum.— Sri Shrivatsa ,p. 141

…But intellectual, aesthetic and religious processes always stand on the two columns of money and power.  We cannot get away from these two pillars of reality.  And this temple is a symbol of that.  If Caitanya had not played a power game, this temple would have never come up.— Sri Shrivatsa , p.143

…feelings, though characterized in terms of the objects or the situations in the context of which they arise, may also be characterized in terms of their own intrinsic properties and qualities…– Prof. Daya Krishna, p.144

…the question as to what place any thought which considers bhakti as central, gives to knowledge or action on the one hand and to pure reason on the other…how the notion of impersonal obligation to institutions, ideas, norms and values is accommodated in bhakti thought.  Any thought about bhakti has to take into account these two problems.  That is, if you are a bhakta, you may not worry about it.  But, if you think of bhakti as an ideal which ought to be pursued by human beings, then you have to (p.144) relate it to the demands of reason on the one hand and of action on the other, and not merely to the demands that are made by reason and action, but also of the norms or the impersonal ideals which are involved in reason and action.  The norms in action are in the form of morality and norms in the field of reason are the cognitive demands for objectivity, universality, verifiability, etc. Now, for any comprehensive thinking about human life and situation which places bhakti as the central purusaartha, we will have to take into account its relation to these, and if we cannot relate it to these, then there will be a basic deficiency in it.  The bhakta may not care, but any thinking about bat which treats it to be the parama purusaartha has to take these into account.– Prof. Daya Krishna, pp.144-5

…Bhakti belongs to the paaralaukika level, not to the laukika level.  Though bhakti is considered a feeling, that feeling is not like other feelings, other mundane feelings.  It is not mundane.  It is a paaramarthika feeling, an attachment to the Paramaatma itself.  That is the highest goal, we can say…–Shri Shrivatsa, p.149

Dr. Vora:…Surely to say that it is alaukika is merely to make a distinction between two forms of laukika.  Anything, which is alaukika cannot be talked about or discussed, not even be known.  Therefore, the distinction between laukika and alaukika falls within what may be called the broad framework of laukika itself.

            …if laukika means that which is spatio-temporal, then anything where the spatial or temporal or snsuos or sensible characteristics do not apply, will necessarily be alaukika.  But that many other things will become alaukika besides the spiritual experience.  Take, for example, mathematics or reason, which is not sensuous or take the ideal forms, which are also not sensuous.

            The point I am making is that when we are thinking, there are compulsions of thought.  And one compulsion of thought is to be critical or self-critical about the dichotomies that have been made in the tradition itself.  And I will say that the distinction between laukika and alaukika which is usually made, is a defence mechanism against a cognitive difficulty.  Whenever a cognitive difficulty is pointed out, a refuge is taken in that.  One says this is alaukika, (p.150) but the person who says this argues against his opponent and makes use of laukika language all the time.  So far as laukika and alaukika are concerned, they are clear whether we write in Sanskrit or in Hindi or any other language.  But when we translate them into English or any other language, it carries us away from the concept.  That is what I feel.—pp.150-1

Prof. Sastry:…Even if we go by the tradition, alaukika is felt by laukika persons.  So, to what extent is it alaukika?  This difference between the laukika and alaukika cannot be insisted upon too rigidly.—p.152

…It has been very clearly brought out by the Lingaayatas that the difference is between ordinary and extraordinary.  That is with regard to the process.  The process in the context of bhakti will thus be an extraordinary rather than ordinary process.

            In Alankaara-saastra, they saw that the feelings of a human being are ordinarily directed towards other human beings.

            If they are directed towards God or divinity, then they are different.  That is why we can explain in the Bhaagvata context: priiti, (p.153) bhaya, kaama, krodha or any other feeling can be bhakti. There is no difference in feelings; these are actual, separate feelings, but directed towards the higher self… I would say that there is no distinction between laukika and alaukika, Vyaavahaarika or paaramaartika in the context of bhakti which is delineated in the Bhaagvata.  But there is uniqueness about it.  If one having a common headache, the common headache, it is not an alaukika headache.  What is alaukika?  An experience, which is ordinarily never there.  It comes as a flash on its own.  If the feeling called headache, for examples, is uncommon, it will be called alaukika.  Taantrics give different names to different stages.  All these may be hallucinations, but they are unique.  So, this distinction, I think, in a real distinction in the broader bhakti culture.  The difference is a more refined, subtle feeling which can give you real perception.  If this is so, all the perceptions beyond the ordinary perception may be regarded as alaukika.—pp.152-3

Prof. Daya Krishna: I think, there are three different senses of the terms, ‘laukika, alaukika’.  One is ordinary, the other, extraordinary… The third is a distinction between

the unreal and the real…–p.153-4

…Feelings are not felt to be one’s own feelings.  This is called ‘lokottara’….—Prof. Dwivedi, p. 155

Prof. Daya Krishna:….What is the distinction between the lokottara and alaukika?  Is the distinction being drawn in terms of the objects from which the feeling arises or in the context in which it arises?

Prof. Dwivedi:  Rasa experience is lokottara.  It is also called alaukika by the Alankaarikas. They use it in the same sense.  What they mean is that the elements that give rise to these situations presented in poetry or drama are alaukika in the sense that they are removed from individual associations.—p.156

            … The main difference between brahmaasvaada and rasaasvaada is, as pointed out by Abhinava-paadaacaarya himself, that the aasvaada or relish of rasa continues as long as a work of art is experienced. When that disappear, then the aasvaada also disappears.  But brahmaasvaada is not of this kind.  Brahmaasvaada is something which is permanent.  Once you get it, you can always come down from that level and then think of this world and go back again to it, revert back to that level.  Whatever it is, it is permanent and not something, which one can achieve one day and lose the next.-—.157

Prof. Daya Krishna:… In other words, do we have any criteria for determining and deciding the adequacy or inadequacy of the response to the transcendent in terms of feeling…–p.158

Prof. Pande:…It is like the concept of Iisvara in Sankaraacaarya.  We have the jagat, which is vyaavahaarika.  Then we have the paaramaarthika brahma and the link between them is provided by the guru or Iisvra or whatever.  So, in the realm of bhakti, two poles, vaidhii bhakti and raagaatmikaa bhakti and raagaanuga is the connecting link.—p.159

…Vivekananda once said that at one stage the Vedas themselves are also set aside.  Now, these are all works within the realm of prakrti.  But there is a realm above the prakrti.  That appears in the heart of the bhakta.—Shri Shrivatsa, p.161

…Unless we break the ego first, we can never imagine what bhakti is… When it is dissolved, then, it is not ‘my’ love towards something.  There is no ‘me’.  There is no ‘I’…. The love, which the Vaisnavas speak of, is the aahlaadinii sakti of Sri Krsna himself.I have no capacity to love him unless he bestows his grace on me.  He appears to me in the form of love…–Shri Shrivatsa, p. 161

Dr. Vohra:….why do they want to communicate these things to us?  They should just say, ‘look, this is something you have to experience yourself’.  That is all.  But they write; they try to convince us that this is a feeling, which is absolutely different from what anyone has had, and that once one has had this feeling, one will be a different person.  But if it is so, then ‘I’ and ‘that feeling’ will always be there.  At no stage there is the loss of ‘egoity’ or ‘merger’ because I remain.—p.165

Shri Shrivatsa:…As I have already said, the saastras are mundane affairs. But why is there this communication?  One answer I can suggest is that at least there is the continuity of the self.  The self that (p.165) enjoys that bhaava at the transcendental level, does not always stay there.  It comes down, so to say.  And so, we can say, it is because often the continuity of the same self at the two levels, that there is prapatti.  What is higher than prapatti?  It is said, this self continues, and that is why when it comes down there is an urge to communicate with others what one has realized in the higher state.  But, unfortunately, one fails, and therein lies the tragedy.  We try, we attempt to describe it.  We can’t really define.  Logic and all such things are inapplicable in the realm of the acintya.  But when  one returns to the everyday level one again becomes bound by this logic and everything else.  So, we create a saastra. We try to make some approach to communicate with others.

Prof. Basu: Then it is not non-egoistic.

Shri Shrivatsa: No.  A clear-cut distinction is to be made between the ego and the self.  The corresponding notion of ego is ahankaara.  Kartaahamiti manyate, that is ahankaara.  The self is a part of the Lord.  ‘Mamaivaamsah’ as the Lord said.  We have to make a distinction between ego on the one hand and the human self on the other and also make a distinction between the human self on the one hand and the ultimate on the other.  That is the way in which we should approach this saastra.—pp.165-6

Prof. Dwivedi:… we may say that what is more understandable or more describable is laukika, and alaukika is that which is not so well understandable or describable.  It transcends our understanding.—p.167

Prof. Daya Krishna:…Realized persons also want sisyas, they search for them.  When one (p.172) sees the life of Ramakrishna, one continuously finds that seekers want a person, that there is a need to communicate.  What does it presuppose and what happens to egoity?  Certainly there is a distinction between self and egoity.  The distinction perhaps is more of a moral distinction than an epistemological distinction, I mean an ontological distinction.  When I use the word ‘ego’, I want to communicate a negative sense.  When I say ‘self’, it is a more neutral thing.  So, we should not bring moral connotations of egoism into the discussion, if the discussion is primarily ontological or epistemological in nature.—pp.172-3

[for a good but too complicated discussion by Shrivatsa see pp. 170-3]

…The utter neglect in this country of not only our traditional thinkers but of our recent thinkers is appalling.  I cannot really find a word to express my indignation, anger and surprise at the fact that even the works that have been done in India since the 19^th century onwards have not been paid attention to by subsequent thinkers… Somehow, everyone goes on writing about Sankara; everybody goes on translating the bhaasyas and the vaartikas and the tiikaas; everybody goes on doing it as if nobody has done it before.  You have to build on what other people have done and carry it forward.  This is the only way a tradition is made.—Prof. Daya Krishna, p.175

Session VIII contains a good summary presentation by  Dr. K.L. Sharma on K.C. Bhattacharya (The Subject as Freedom)which is too complicate to understand.  Pp.175-184, followed by a discussion 184-191.  So I am not going to type all those points.—DB

…But in bhakti there is a collective community of bhaktas.  Bhakti is not an isolated individual thing.  Particularly in the Caitanya sampradaaya it is not an isolated seeking of the self in relation to the divine alone.  Even Krsna had to be surrounded by gopiis in the plural…–Prof. Daya Krishna, p.185

Pror. Dwivedi:  There is a common feeling that saccidaananda brahma is the Advaitin’s technical expression.  Such an expression never occurs in the Upanisads.  There is no sentence like saccidaananda brahma, though we have sentences where we have the word satyaani: satyaani jnaanam anantaani, and so forth.

Prof. Mishra: Yes, but in the Advaitic tradition saccidaananda does not occur.  Brahman in Advaitic tradition is anirvacaniiya.  Since it is anirvacaniiya, it cannot be defined.  If we are trying to define it, the first and perhaps the best definition may be to try to define it through silence.  So, mauna is the best possible definition.  So, this is the first possible definition, and naturally one is not satisfied with it.  So, the second possible definition is through negation: neti, neti.  But neti neti also does not satisfy us; we want something positive.  So, then Brahman is described as sat, cit and aananda.  But this is with the understanding that this sat, cit and aananda is an expression in the positive way of the negative definition.  That is, sat ultimately culminates in this, that it is not asat, cit culminates in this that it is not (p.190) acit and aananda culminates in this that it is not duhkha.  When one is not satisfied even with this, then there is the tatastha laksana: janmaadyasya yatah.  That is, it is that from which the world has arisen.  There, too, ‘janmaadyasya’ is not to be taken in the sense in which it is taken in Nyaaya.  It is not by inference that we are trying to prove Brahman, that there is a world and therefore there is the creator of the world and he is the Brahman.  It is an expression of the Vedic experience that Brahman is the source of creation.  But in what sense is it the source?  It is only in the sense of being the ground of the lokas.  Adhisthaana maatrena kartrtvam.  So, that is why sat, cit and aananda are not three qualities, gunas, that have Brahman for their aasraya. There is no aasraya-aasrayii-bhaava.  They are not even its constituents as the three gunas are in prakrti.  Rather, they are words with the help of which we try to have some understanding of Brahman, that it is not duhkha or asat or something like that.—pp.190-1

…What is the social, political and intellectual ideal projected by the protagonists of bhakti?  I think, this is a very important issue because any ideal which is put before man, particularly as an ultimate ideal, must show itself to be better in all directions of human endeavour and if it does not do so, then, it is partial.  This is something fundamental and essential—Prof. Daya Krishna, p.192

…If you take away Isvara, then materialism will deny that there can be a true fellow feeling or universal brotherhood, because an inner relationship between atmans, the individual selves cannot be derived unless there is a sense of spirituality amongst them.  In any case, Indian thought has believed that the overarching truth, which provides the ground for the possibility of a meaningful relationship is spirituality.  It is only within the great dimension of spirituality that one thinks of not only of oneself, one also thinks of others.  Otherwise, others may not matter for one at all.  It will only result in self-centeredness.  So, the word ‘Isvara’ is necessary in order to bring in the domain of spirituality…–Prof.Dwivedi, p. 195

…I remember Rabindra Nath Tagore’s statement in this connection, who said that all these religions are sectarian movements.  They start as liberating agencies, but later (p.196) on end up as a vast prison house.  Similarly, bhakti, which was started as a liberating agency, got reversed as a result of this conservative tendency.  But when we read our scriptures, the ideals are still there, but when it comes to actual practice, they are lost…. Social ideals have always existed in the bhakti movements.  But whether these bhakti movements have been able to carry out all these ideals, is a different question.—Prof. Shiv Kumar Sastry, pp.196-7

Prof. Daya Krishna: According to Prof. Shiv Kumar every religious reform started as a matter of protest against certain social evils, but ultimately they were bogged down in some kind of ritualistic practice alone.  I wonder if all of you agree with him.—p.197

… The original Vedas were actually for the three varnas alone.  But this was challenged by the tradition of the Mahabharata being regarded as the fifth Veda, or the Naatya-saastra, for that matter, being the pancama veda, and all these are meant to be saarvavarnika, which will translate in our cultural context by the word ‘secular’.—Prof. Daya Krishna, p.198

…Before the bhakti movement came into existence in India, there were many other movements which made dharma saarvavarnika and not merely a preserve for the three higher varnas.  This saarvavarnika concept is very important, in that it is for all the varnas…. It is a very important development of Raama-kathaa that they all participate in it and become very much a part of it.  So, various attempts had preceded the bhakti movement.  This was not a result of some counter-culture forcing it to adopt a certain form, but rather an internal evolution.  At one level, that is how I see the problem.  Many historians think otherwise.  According to them, it was as the result of a counter-cultural movement that these forms were evolved by the Hindus for their defence.–Prof. Daya Krishna, p.199

…how can a new vision permeate our society, our economy, our polity, and in a systematic manner both institutionally and in structures of thought, what should be the prime consideration of any thought about bhakti or any other ideal, which has been propounded in this culture and civilization?  The real vitality of bhakti will be tested in these fields.  Otherwise, it will be just a group of sectarian, self-enclosed, small islands where some individuals or groups of individuals may realize certain values, but which will remain irrelevant for contemporary civilization, even in India.—Prof. Drya Krishna, p.207

…The six Gosvaamis, the builders of a system, who provided a complete saastra for the tradition in all its aspects, gave a new Smrti; they gave a code of conduct…–Shri Shrivatsa, p.208

…The six Gosvaamis … were also involved in the game of power and politics, ‘real’ politics, and they played it very successfully.  In North India, if Hindu history took a different course after the 15^th century, the credit should go to two sets of Gosvaamis the Vallabhaites and the Caitanyaites who were very good at philosophy and literature, but even better in the game  of politics.  This pushed us through those dark periods.—Shri Shrivatsa, p. 209

…In the more than sixty [Six?] volumes composed by these Gosvaamis, not even once did they use the name of the sampradaaya, … except for one reference in a very remote, unknown place in the Sarvasamvaadini on Parmaatmasandarbha where the author says: “svamate tu acintyabhedaabheda eva.”  That is the only reference.  But there is no reference to itself as a movement, as a social movement, and as a historical phenomenon, as a structure.  They did not even say svamate svasampradaaye [one’s own mat/sampradaya] or even sampradaaye.  This is a very late nomenclature, very late, indeed. Of course, we all know that Vallabhadeva Vidyaabhuusana is the first man who spoke of the prasthaanatrayii.

            …When one acts with a sense of commitment to a living phenomenon, perhaps the very naming of the things makes it a little restricted.  And that had been the greatness or an element of greatness in the Indian tradition.  Of course, this whole rigmarole of naming is also our weakness.—Shri Shrivatsa, p. 209

…With my own background, I think that I can find some clue in the central philosophy of Buddhism.  Perhaps, bhakti as a concept, as a philosophic concept, was a contribution of the Buddhist thinkers.

            If one looks at the history of Caitanyanism, it would be a fruitless exercise to see it in isolation from Buddhism.  If one takes out the Buddhist element, probably Chaitanyaism would collapse intellectually, because in the fifteenth century in Bengal, thanks to the Islamic sword, people were left without any intellectual leadership.  Consequently, there was degeneration amongst those large numbers of people who were the leftover followers of Buddhism.  It was the role of Caitanya to literally redeem and accept these people en masse back into the main Hindu stream.  It is a fascinating story, where the naastika and the aastika extremes fuse once more.( p.211)

            …The Buddhist tradition was beautifully incorporated into their own work by the Caitanayites.  But that was also a kind of politics which was being played by this movement. —Shri Shrivatsa, pp.211-2

…Obviously I cannot speak for the whole Hindu tradition because I do not know what that is…–—Shri Shrivatsa, p.212

…Religious movements or bhakti movements at some particular time served their purpose to some extent.  But this does not mean that they are relevant all the time.—Dr. S.N. Pandey, p. 215

…In fact, in a country like India there are certain things, which belong to the social structure itself.  They have a long history.  There is also an intellectual legacy.  We have to consider all those factors.  All the practices related to bhakti cannot be justified.  They do not stand the test of time.  We want to be scientific.  We want to be one united family, to be one house, but the given norms stand in our way.  To what extent can bhakti help us in bringing society together?  To what extent are we able to translate theory into practice?  Adhering to a theory is relatively easier than practising it…–Dr. S.N. Pandey, p.215

…One want to worship something, one may change the object, one may change the deity, but by his very constitution, by his very nature, man wants to depend on something.  That dependence, that surrender is bhakti.  One cannot do everything himself.  There is need to depend on God.  What the bhakta can do is to pray to God, to invite God and to ask God for help.—Dr. S.N. Pandey, p.215

…If we can define bhakti or if we can describe bhakti as other-relatedness, then it should logically lead to tolerance.  But if one goes back to the 15^th century, one finds that the history of bhakti is full of inter as well as intra-sampradaayavaada; there was even violence.  So, there is not always tolerance.  In fact, I would say that bhakti essentially is self-centered, selfish in a way, because I want to achieve nirvaana or moksa for myself.  Therefore, there is no consideration for others.  Each one is for oneself.  That is one reason why there is no social dimension.—Dr. S.N. Pandey, p.216

…But, unfortunately, what India does, or at least what Indian social thought does is that it interprets adhikaara-bheda and avasthaa-bheda in terms of jativaada.  Or, what is called puurvajanma.  So, adhikaara-bheda and avasthaa bheda are crystallized into jaatis.  So, a braahmana is supposed to be different from other jaatis.  By being born in a certain jaati one becomes a better adhikaarii or one has a better avasthaa-bheda, and not by one’s own endeavour…–Shri Shrivatsa, p. 217

…Naanaka says that caste has to be rejected.  He does not stop like Kabira at worship or thought or feeling.  He says, those who follow me come and eat together.  If you are a disciple of Naanaka and if you are a Brahmin, you must sit with a suudra and eat with him…–Ms. Vinita Sharma, p.218 [but what about marriage?  It is easy to eat with any one and do little prayascita for that, but marriage is the real acid test to prove Naanaka’s saying.—DB]

Prof. Daya Krishna:  Is punarjanmavaada necessary for bhakti?—p.219 [never answered in this dialogue—DB]

…A man or a society which lacks an essentially directional movement towards the knowledge of the object as it is will certainly ultimately ruin itself…–Prof. Daya Krishna, p.221

            He Baasavesvara] decided to have a marriage celebrated between the daughter of a Brahmin who had become a Saiva,

            Lingaayata, with the son of a harijana who had also joined the faith; so, a marriage between a harijan boy and a brahmin girl was arranged.  When the marriage was celebrated in Karnataka, there was a great revolution which, I think, Baasavesvara could not control.  The Viira Saivas were at the forefront of that revolution, even though it was not successful.—Mr. S. Rajamani, p.224

            I do expect that spiritual equality was accepted in our tradition, in our holy tradition, not merely by the bhakti tradition but also by the knowledge tradition, and the karma tradition.  In all the traditions, spiritually, speaking, this equality of man was accepted.  But socially it was never confirmed; politically it was never thought of.  Who is responsible for this?  The philosophers do have to explain why this happened.  Equality was believed in by all the traditions including the bhakti tradition and the Taantric tradition.  Why were they not socially or politically concerned about it?  This is the problem,–Prof. Dwevedi, p.227

…Once the bhakti movement and the Taantric movement starts, one can see the tension, the tension they have with the karma doctrine, the tension with the varna doctrine.  Such tension exists in all the texts of these movements.  That is the difficulty.  They are ambivalent in the matter.  They feel that if they have sanctity, they must be able to establish some relationship of equality in the social realm.  Yet they are not quite willing to do it.  This tension is visible.  In the Bhaagvata it shows in the very first few pages.  The first thing that a sensitive person encounters is this tension. How to keep the varnaasrama vyavasthaa [order/arrangement/system] despite moves to the contrary?And, let us not forget, it is Brahmins who have written such texts.  How to keep it closed and yet, how to challenge the old system, yet retain it, is the problem.  This tension is still not resolved and continuous to exist in our minds.  Ultimately, the tension concerns reconciliation with the Vedic past which, after all, is nothing but our racial identity in terms of the knowledge tradition.—Prof. Dwevedi, p.228

…if you see the great acaryas, you will find them also to be great social reformers.  If we take the example of Sankara himself, when he took up the role of a reformer, an organizer, a rebel, a missionary, whatever you might call him, was he being (p.231) exclusively a jnani?  We cannot imagine, we cannot really imagine Sankara being exclusively a jnani and yet doing what he did.  He is not only engaged in karma, he is also a bhakta, and he is doing it with love, love towards his ideals.—Shri Srivatsa, pp.231-2 [where is the evidence?  And Sankara is a bhakta only to his ‘ideals’ and performed karma to implement it.—DB]

…The man who had the last laugh at India, at the Indian tradition must have been Warren Hastings.  We should be really grateful to him for providing us systems, which we see in India today, the great political system, the legal system, the economic system and, above all, the educational system.  He made laws to do away with our tradition, our heritage.  He said, if I try to handle India from the political angle, I will fail.  I will fail like the Mughals and all the others who have tried to do so.  I have to hit at the root.  I have to change the system.  He had the last laugh, as all the new formal systems in every field in our country have cut us away from the roots, which sustained our civilization for such a long time.—Shri Srivatsa, p.233

…Let us take our clue from Vaisnava and bhakti history, whether Basava or Caitanya and the Gosvaamis: (p.233) feeling is the core.  But the articulation and the intellectual exercise is a must as it holds everything together.  This is something, which cannot be ignored at any point.

            What has happened at this moment in our history is that we have intellectually mortgaged ourselves to the west.  We have accepted that ideas should come to us from a high seat of learning in the west, from Harvard or Columbia or X, Y, Z university, and then we rehash it in our language, in our jargon or in Indian English.  That is a major concern and that is why this whole samvaada has come up.—Shri Srivatsa, pp. 233-4

…unless we commit ourselves to a kind of liberation theology of bhakti at the threshold of 21^st century, things are not going to be easy.—Shri Srivatsa, p. 236

            Are we not committing a fundamental mistake in projecting the very terms of the debate in categories, problems and questions that have been given to us by a whole western tradition and thought with respect to things which are familiar to us and in which we have been trained?—Prof. Daya Krishna, p.237

            Each faculty of man has an eminent ideal which needs to be pursued by man.  This was said by K.C.Bhattacharya.  But while each faculty of man has a liberating aspect.  It has an inhibiting aspect as well.—Prof. Daya Krishna, p.248

            Everything, every faculty of man, whether it is reason or will or imagination or feelings, every faculty of man is both a liberating faculty and a binding faculty.—Prof. Daya Krishna, p.248

KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK

The following are my own translation of the Hindi as well as some of the Sanskrit quotes from Bhakti: A Contemporary Discussion.  Those Hindi and Sanskrit words which I cannot translate, left as it is in Hindi and Sanskrit typed in Roman Script.–DB

Bhakti had to have the concept of ahaitukii bhakti which is a totally new contribution by the Bhaagavata;

One, whether in the definition of bhakti, tattva-jnaana is a necessary karana for the love of God.

            Devataa is anga (limb) there, yajna is angi.)body)  Devataa is angabhuuta.(lord of the limb)  If we proceed further the Miimaamsaka will say ‘mantramayaa devata’.  There is no god at all with a capital ‘G’ in Miimaamsaa.  The whole Miimaamsaa tradition , in fact, refutes God.— Prof. Kedar Nath Misra , p.41

One needs an infinite aalambana, an aalambana with an infinite being,

..the point I am making is that for purposes of thinking, for purposes of discussion, for purposes of carrying the intellectual debate forward, it is not necessary to find it someone gave a laksana or propounded a puurvapaksa, for it is the nature of the mind or the nature of the thought process that it provisionally creates a laksana, finds defects in it and rectifies them.— Prof. Daya Krishna, p. 56

…If bhakti is a saadhana for moksa, then bhakti is only a saadhna among other saadhanas.  If we are saying that bhakti is not a saadhana but a saadhya (one who does the saadhana), then many of the things that have been said perhaps cannot be said.—Prof. Daya Krishna, p.69

Raaga (opposite to hatred) is not a saadhana either, and yet it can be used in bhakti.

…the Vrindavan Gosvaamis who were responsible for this.  That was the first time that bhakti was defined in terms of technique. (p.79)  The Vrindavan Gosvaamis did it in accordance with the rasa-siddhaant. (nice or pleasant)

…Basically Sankara started with adhyaasa, and the refutation of adhyaasa was the first priority of all the theistic schools.  Therefore, the first task of Ramanujacarya was to refute adhyaasa before establishing the gunas as tattvas.

…When people engaged in the intellectual process are trying to verbalize or give an example of rasa as a kind of inexpressible feeling they talk about an experience which is called brahmaananda sahodara (companion).

Akbar issues another farmaan (order),

…Feelings are not felt to be one’s own feelings.  This is called ‘lokottara’ (common Knowledge).—Prof. Dwivedi, p. 155

Prof. Dwivedi:  Rasa experience is lokottara.  It is also called alaukika by the Alankaarikas.

The main difference between brahmaasvaada and rasaasvaada is, as pointed out by Abhinava-paadaacaarya himself, that the aasvaada or relish of rasa continues as long as a work of art is experienced.

Prof. Pande:…It is like the concept of Iisvara in Sankaraacaarya.  We have the jagat, which is vyaavahaarika.  Then we have the paaramaarthika brahma and the link between them is provided by the guru or Iisvra or whatever.  So, in the realm of bhakti, two poles, vaidhii bhakti and raagaatmikaa bhakti and raagaanuga is the connecting link.—p.159

The love, which the Vaisnavas speak of, is the aahlaadinii sakti of Sri Krsna himself.

everybody goes on translating the bhaasyas (commentary)and the vaartikas (explanation) and the tiikaas (comments);

There is no aasraya (refuge/shelter)-aasrayii (-bhaava.  They are not even its constituents as the three gunas are in prakrti.

…But, unfortunately, what India does, or at least what Indian social thought does is that it interprets adhikaara (right)-bheda (different) and avasthaa (condition)-bheda in terms of jativaada.

How to keep the varnaasrama vyavasthaa [order/arrangement/system] despite moves to the contrary?

The following are my own translation of the Hindi as well as some of the Sanskrit quotes from Bhakti: A Contemporary Discussion.  Those Hindi and Sanskrit words which I cannot translate, left as it is in Hindi and Sanskrit typed in Roman Script.–DB

… सिद्धांत की स्थापना पूर्वपक्ष के खंडन के बिना नहीं होती है, यह भी परंपरा ही है।

–p.10

[siddant ki sthapana puurvapaksa ke khandan ke bina nahin hootii hai, yah bhii paramparaa hii hai.—Without refuting the puurvapaksa siddhanta is not established.  This is also the tradition.—my own translation.  I have typed in Roman script from Devanagari.—DB] 

Prof.Dwivedi …{É®ú ¦ÉÊHò BEò ¡Öò±É {±ÉèVb÷ Ê¡ò±ÉɺɡòÒ ¦ÉÒ xɽþÓ ½èþ*ù ´É½þ iÉÉä BEò ¨ÉÒxºÉ ½èþ, <Ç·É®ú iÉEò {ɽÖÄþSÉxÉä Eäò ʱÉB*ù +ÉMÉ®ú EòÉä<Ç +Éè®ú ¦ÉÉ®úiÉÒªÉ nù¶ÉÇxÉ ½þÉä iÉÉä =ºÉEòÉ BEò ʺɺ]õ¨É ½þÉäMÉÉ, =ºÉEòÒ BEò BÊ{Éκ]õ¨ÉÉä±ÉÉäVÉÒ ½þÉäMÉÒ*ù =ºÉEòÒ lªÉÉäÊ®úÊ]õEò±É ºÉÉ<Çb÷ ½þ¨É +SUôÒ iÉ®ú½þ ºÉä Êb÷ºÉEòºÉ Eò®ú ºÉEòiÉä ½éþ*ù ¦ÉÊHò iÉÉä Eäò´É±É ¨ÉÒxºÉ ½èþ ]Öõ ®úÒSÉ MÉÉb÷*ù <Ç·É®ú iÉEò {ɽÖÄþSÉxÉä Eäò ʱÉB BEò ºÉÉvÉxÉ Eäò °ü{É ¨Éå ½èþ*ù <ºÉEòÉä, Ê¡ò±ÉÉäºÉ¡òÒ EòÉä, +MÉ®ú ½þ¨É |ÉäC]õÒEò±É ºÉÉ<b÷ ºÉä +±ÉMÉ Eò®úEäò Êb÷ºÉEòºÉ Eò®åú iÉÉä

ÊVÉiÉxÉä {´ÉÉ<Æ]õ ½éþ =xÉEòÉä ½þ¨É VªÉÉnùÉ ¤ÉÉ®úÒEòÒ ºÉä Êb÷ºÉEòºÉ Eò®ú ºÉEòiÉä ½éþ*ù ´Éɼ]õ <VÉ nù ¨ÉälÉb÷ nèù]õ ¶ÉÖb÷ ¤ÉÒ ´Éè®úÒ C±ÉҪɮú*ù … näùJÉxÉÉ ªÉ½þ ½èþ ÊEò EòÉèxÉ ÊºÉrùÉxiÉ CªÉÉ Eò½þ ®ú½þÉ ½èþ, ªÉ½þ xɽþÓ näùJÉxÉÉ EòÉä<Ç CªÉÉ Eò®ú ®ú½þ ½èþ, ªÉ½þ xɽþÓ näùJÉxÉÉ*ù… ¦ÉÊHò +{ÉxÉÒ VÉMɽþ {É®ú ½èþ, ¨ÉMÉ®ú ªÉ½þÉÄ {É®ú ½þ¨É ±ÉÉäMÉ BEò Ê¡ò±ÉÉäºÉÊ¡òEò±É EòÉÄOÉºÉ EòÒ iÉ®ú¡ò ºÉä, <Eò]õ`äö ½ÖþB ½éþ*ù ¨Éä®úÒ ºÉ¤É ´ÉHòÉ+Éå(–{É.21) ºÉä ªÉ½þ |ÉÉlÉÇxÉÉ ½èþ ÊEò <ºÉ ¤ÉÉiÉ EòÉ ½þ¨Éä¶ÉÉ JªÉÉ±É ®úJÉäÆ*ù =ºÉEòÒ Ê¡ò±ÉÉäºÉÊ¡òEò±É ºÉÉ<b÷ EòÉä ¤Éb÷Ò ¤ÉÉ®úÒÊEò ºÉä |ÉäC]õÒEò±É ºÉÉ<b÷ ºÉä +±ÉMÉ ®úJÉå…–{É{É.21-22

But bhakti is not even a fullfledged philosophy.  It is only a means to reach God.  In other Indian darshan there will be a system, it will have a epistomology.  We can discuss its theorotical side very clearly.  But bhakti is only a means to reach God.  It is only a sadhana to reach god. If we can manage to separate the practical side of this philosophy we can manage to discuss it minutely.  What is the method that should be very clear….We have to see which philosophy says what and not that what a person is doing…. Let bhakti be in its own place.  But we have gathered here on behalf of a philosophical Congress.  It is my request with every speaker to keep this point in your mind.  Let us separate the philosophical side clearly from its (bhakti’s) practical side.—Prod. Dwivedi, pp. 21-22

Prof. Daya Krishna VÉ¤É ¶ÉÊHò ¨ÉxÉÖ¹ªÉ ¨Éå BEò ʦÉzÉ Ênù¶ÉÉ ±ÉäiÉÒ ½èþ iÉ¤É ªÉ½þ ¦ÉÊHò Eò½þ±ÉÉxÉä ±ÉMÉiÉÒ ½èþ*ù ½þ¨ÉÉ®äú ªÉ½þÉÄ iÉÉä |É´ÉÞÊkÉ +Éè®ú ÊxÉ´ÉÞÊkÉ EòÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ EòÒ VÉÉiÉÒ ½èþ*ù =ºÉÒ ºÉxnù¦ÉÇ ¨Éå <ºÉ ¤ÉÉiÉ EòÉä ±ÉÒÊVɪÉä ÊEò ºÉ¤É ¶ÉÊHò EòÉ ½þÒ °ü{É ½èþ*ù ´É½þÒ ¶ÉÊHò VÉ¤É ¤Éɽþ®ú EòÒ +Éè®ú |É´ÉÞkÉ ½þÉäiÉÒ ½èþ iÉ¤É Eò¨ÉÇ EòÉ °ü{É ±ÉäiÉÒ ½èþ*ù BàºÉÉ Eò½þxÉä EòÒ SÉä¹]õÉ EòÒ MɪÉÒ ½èþ*ù… ¦ÉÊHò EòÉ {ÉÚ´ÉÇ {ÉIÉ YÉÉxÉ ½èþ, Eò¨ÉÇ ½èþ, {É®ú¨{É®úÉ ¨Éå BàºÉÉ ¨ÉÉxÉÉ MɪÉÉ ½èþ*ù–{É.24

–When Shakti takes a difference course in man then it is called bhakti.  We always talk about pravrti (nature) and nrivrit (deliverance).  Then take this point in this context and every thing is the form of Shakti.  When the same Shakti takes an external course then it takes the form of Karma.  Some tried to say like this…. The tradition also says that knowledge and karma are the puurvapaksha for bhakti.—Prof. Daya Krishna, p. 24

…iÉÉä ºÉSÉ ªÉ½þ ½èþ ÊEò YÉÉxÉ iÉÉä ¦ÉÊHò ¨Éå ºÉ¤ÉºÉä ¤Éb÷Ò ¤ÉÉvÉÉ ½èþ*ù {É®ú BEò ¤ÉÉiÉ +Éè®ú vªÉÉxÉ ®úJÉxÉä EòÒ ½èþ ÊEò ºÉɨÉÉxªÉ ¦ÉÊHò +±ÉMÉ ´ÉºiÉÖ ½èþ +Éè®ú VɽþÉÄ ½þ¨É {É®ú¨ÉÉlÉÇ Eäò ºÉÆnù¦ÉÇ EòÉä ±ÉäEò®ú ªÉÉäMÉ YÉÉxÉ, Eò¨ÉÇ, ¦ÉÊHò EòÒ ¨ÉÒ¨ÉÉƺÉÉ Eò®úiÉä ½éþ ´É½þÉÄ ¦ÉÊHò nÚùºÉ®åú +lÉÇ ¨Éå OɽþhÉ EòÒ VÉÉiÉÒ ½èþ*ù–{ÉÖ¯û¹ÉÉäkÉ¨É MÉÉ亴ÉɨÉÒ, {É.26

–the truth is that knowledge is the greatest stumbling block in bhakti.  But it is important to note another point also that in ordinary sense bhakti is different from when we discuss the same in the context of metaphysical sense, where comparing with yoga, knowledge, karma there bhakti takes different meaning.—Purushotam Goswami, p. 26

ºÉɨÉÉxÉÉxªÉ ´ªÉɴɽþÉÊ®úúEò VÉMÉiÉ ¨Éå, ¨ÉxÉÖ¹ªÉ Eäò ºÉɨÉÉxªÉ VÉÒ´ÉxÉ ¨Éå ¦ÉÊHò +Éè®ú YÉÉxÉ EòÉä EòÉä<Ç +±ÉMÉ xɽþÓ Eò®ú ºÉEòiÉÉ*ù VɽþÉÄ ¦ÉÊHò ½èþ ´É½þÉÄ YÉÉxÉ ½èþ, VɽþÉÄ YÉÉxÉ ½èþ ´É½þÉÄ ¦ÉÊHò ½èþ*ù ªÉ½þ ¦ÉÊHò ¶É¤nù EòÉ ºÉɨÉÉxªÉ |ɪÉÉäMÉ ½èþ*ù ±ÉäÊEòxÉ VɽþÉÄ ½þ¨É ºÉÉvÉxÉÉ EòÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ Eò®úiÉä ½éþ ´É½þÉÄ ¦ÉÊHò EòÉ iÉÉi{ɪÉÇ Eäò´É±É =ºÉ ʴɶÉÖvnù ¦ÉÊHò ºÉä ½þÉäiÉÉ ½èþ ÊVɺɨÉå =ºÉEòÉ EòÉä<Ç ºlÉÉxÉ xɽþÓ ½èþ*ù <ºÉʱÉB ¦ÉÊHò EòÉä {É®ú¨É º´ÉiÉÆjÉÉ ¨ÉÉxÉÉ MɪÉÉ ½èþ*ù–{ÉÖ¯û¹ÉÉäkÉ¨É MÉÉ亴ÉɨÉÒ, {É.26

–in common practical world, in the ordinary life of man no one can separate bhakti and knowledge.  Where there is knowledge bhakti also is there.  This is the ordinary usage of bhakti.  But when we talk about sadhana there bhakti always means that in Pure Bhakti knowledge has no place.  That is why bhakti is accepted as the great freedom.—Purushotam Goswami, p. 26

…BEò ´ÉèvÉÒ ¦ÉÊHò Ê¦É ½þÉäiÉÒ ½èþ VÉÉä ¶ÉɺjÉ Eäò ¦ÉªÉ ºÉä EòÒ VÉÉiÉÒ ½èþ*ù xÉ®úEòÉÊnù EòÒ ÊxÉ´ÉÞÊkÉ Eäò ʱÉB EòÒ VÉÉiÉÒ ½èþ, ±ÉäÊEòxÉ =ºÉ ¦ÉÊHò EòÉ EòÉä<Ç +Énù®ú xɽþÓ ½èþ*ù Eäò´É±É |Éä¨ÉÉ ¦ÉÊHò ¦ÉÊHò ½èþ, ʴɶÉÖvnù |ÉÒÊiÉ EòÉ xÉÉ¨É ½èþ ¦ÉÊHò*ù{ÉÖ¯û¹ÉÉäkÉ¨É MÉÉ亴ÉɨÉÒ, {É.26

–there exists also a bhakti of rules and regulation because of the fear of saastras.  Such a bhakti is performed to get deliverance from hell, but such a bhakti never receives any respect.  But only pure love is bhakti.  Pure love alone called as bhakti.—Purushotam Goswami, p. 26

…ºÉɨÉÉxªÉ EòÉä<Ç ºÉÉvÉEò ½èþ =ºÉEòÉä EÖòUô vÉxÉ Ê¨É±É VÉÉB ªÉ½þ º´É-ºÉÖJÉ ´ÉɺÉxÉÉ ½èþ*ù EòÉä<Ç SÉɽþiÉÉ ½èþ ºÉxiÉÉxÉ Ê¨É±É VÉÉB, EòÉä<Ç SÉɽþiÉÉ ½èþ xÉ®úEò ºÉä ÊxÉ´ÉÞÊkÉ ½þÉä VÉÉBà, EòÉä<Ç SÉɽþiÉÉ ½èþ º´ÉMÉÇ Ê¨É±É VÉÉB EòÉä<Ç SÉɽþiÉÉ ½èþ ¥ÉÀ {Énù Ê¨É±É VÉÉB EòÉä<Ç SÉɽþiÉÉ ½èþ, ‘{ÉÖxÉ®úÊ{É VÉxÉxÉÆ, {ÉÖxÉ®úÊ{É ¨É®úhÉÆ <ÊiÉ ¨Éä xÉ ºªÉÉiÉÂ’ ªÉ½þ ¦ÉÒ º´É-ºÉÖJÉ ´ÉÉÆUôÉ ½þÒ ½èþ, <ºÉÒʱÉB <ºÉEòÉä ºÉ¤ÉºÉä ¤Éb÷É Eò{É]õ vɨÉÇ ¨ÉÉxÉÉ MɪÉÉ ½èþ*ù <ºÉºÉä ¤Éb÷É Eò{É]õ vɨÉÇ EòÉä<Ç xɽþÓ ½èþ*ù–{ÉÖ¯û¹ÉÉäkÉ¨É MÉÉ亴ÉɨÉÒ, {É.26

— for an ordinary saadak (one who practises sadhana) when he attains some wealth then it is selfish vaasana (desire). Some desires progeny, some wants deliverance from hell, some seeks heaven and some seeks the abode of Brahman.  Some wants deliverance from samsara.  But all these are selfish desires.  That’s why this is called the dharma of hypocrisy.  There is no greater deceptive dharma than this.—Purushotam Goswami, p. 26

…{É®ú VÉÉä ¦ÉÊHò EòÉä ¶ÉÖ¦É {ÉnùÉlÉÇ ¨ÉÉxÉiÉÉ ½þÒ xɽþÓ ½èþ ¨ÉÉäIÉ EòÉä +{ÉxÉÉ ¶ÉÖ¦É {ÉnùÉlÉÇ ¨ÉÉxÉiÉÉ ½èþ =ºÉEòÉ ¦ÉÊHò ºÉä CªÉÉ ºÉ¨¤ÉxvÉ ½èþ? ªÉÉäMÉÒ YÉÉxÉÒ Eò¨ÉÔ EòÉ ¦ÉÊHò ºÉä ºÉ¨¤ÉxvÉ ½þÒ xɽþÓ ½èþ*ù ʴɶÉÖvnù ºÉ¨¤ÉxvÉ ªÉÊnù ½èþ iÉÉä Eäò´É±É ¦ÉEòiÉ EòÉ ½þÒ ºÉ¨¤ÉxvÉ ½èþ ¦ÉÊHò ºÉä….–{ÉÖ¯û¹ÉÉäkÉ¨É MÉÉ亴ÉɨÉÒ, {É.26-27

one who does not consider bhakti as the best course but only moksha as the best one what does he has anything to do with bhakti.  Yogi, Jnani and Karmi has nothing to do with bhakti.  If there exist any pure relationship with bhakti then it is the relationship of a bhakta with bhakti.—Purushotam Goswami, pp. 26-27

ºÉÖ{É®ú±ÉäÊ]õ´É  MÉÒiÉÉ Eäò´É±É nùÉä ¶±ÉÉäEòÉå ¨Éå ½èþ*ù ‘¨Éx¨ÉxÉÉ ¦É´É ¨ÉnÂù¦ÉHòÉä ºÉiªÉÆ iÉä |ÉÊiÉVÉÉxÉä Ê|ɪÉÉs漃 ¨Éä’*ù +Éè®ú Ê¡ò®ú +ÆiÉ ¨Éå Eò½þ  ÊnùªÉÉ–‘ºÉ´ÉÇvɨÉÉÇx{ÉÊ®úiªÉVªÉ ¨ÉɨÉäEÆò ¶É®úhÉÆ µÉVÉ’*ù

               <ÊiÉ iÉÖ ¦ÉÊHò:*ù ´Éèʶɹ]õªÉÆ ´ÉiÉÇiÉä +jÉ*ù xÉ iÉÖ YÉÉxɺªÉ xÉ iÉÖ Eò¨ÉǺªÉ xÉ iÉÖ ªÉÉäMɺªÉ +jÉ ´ÉÉiÉÉÇ, <ÊiÉ iÉÖ Ê´É´ÉäSÉxɨÉÂ*ù

|ɺÉÆMÉ +ɪÉÉ: ‘iÉnäùEÆò ´Énù ÊxÉζSÉiªÉ’ iÉÉä ‘¨ÉɨÉäEò ¶É®úhÉÆ µÉVÉ’ +ÆiÉ ¨Éå Eò½þ ÊnùªÉÉ*ù +iÉ: ¦ÉÊHò {ÉnùÉlÉÇ iÉÉä ºÉÖ{É®ú±ÉäÊ]õ´É ½èþ, <ºÉEäò +ÉMÉä EÖòUô xɽþÓ ½èþ*ù ºÉÉ®äú {ÉÚ´ÉÇ{ÉIÉ <ºÉxÉä ¤ÉÆnù Eò®ú ÊnùªÉä*ù ªÉ½þ ʺÉvnùÉxiÉ ½èþ*ù

¦ÉÊHò ºÉÉvÉxÉ ¦ÉÒ ½èþ ºÉÉvªÉ ¦ÉÒ ½èþ CªÉÉåÊEò ÊVÉiÉxÉä ¦ÉHòÉå EòÉä ¦ÉMÉ´ÉiÉÂ-|ÉÉÎ{iÉ ½Öþ<Ç, VÉèºÉÉ ½þ¨Éå ¦ÉHòÉå Eäò SÉÊ®újÉ ªÉÉ näù´É SÉÊ®újÉ ¨Éå ʨɱÉiÉÉ ½èþ, =xɨÉå ºÉä ÊEòºÉÒ xÉä ¦ÉMÉ´ÉÉxÉ EòÉä xɽþÓ ¨ÉÉMÉÉÄ: ‘¨É¨É VÉx¨ÉÊxÉ VÉx¨ÉÊxÉ ¦É´ÉiÉÉnÂù ¦ÉÊHò®ú½äþiÉÖEòÒ i´ÉʪÉ*ù xÉ VÉxÉÆ xÉ vÉxÉÆ xÉ ºÉÖxnù®úÒ EòÊ´ÉiÉÉÆ ´ÉÉ VÉMÉnùÒ¶É EòɨɪÉä*ù–{ÉÖ¯û¹ÉÉäkÉ¨É MÉÉ亴ÉɨÉÒ, {É.27

Superlative Gita is only in two slokas, ‘my devotee becomes myself….I promise this because your are very dear to me. (18.65)  Again finally it was said, ‘renouncing all dharma take refuge in me’ (18:66).  This is bhakti. This is the greatest things.  It is not attained neither by knowledge, nor by work or by yoga.  This is vivechanam (contineous learning?).

When it was asked ‘tell me clearly’, it was finally said, ‘take refuge at me’.  This means bhakti is the superlative one, nothing is beyond this.  All the puurvapaksh is bind by this.  This is the doctrine.

Bhakti is both the saadhana and saadhy (the person who do the saadhna).  Because to all the bhaktas who has attained god himself, as we read in the history of bhaktas and devatas, never sought after god. O Lord birth after birth you only give me bhakti towards you. Neither I desire O Jagadesh people [progeny], nor wealth nor beautiful women.—Purushotam Goswami, p. 27

…ªÉÉäMÉ, YÉÉxÉ, Eò¨ÉÇ ªÉä VÉÉä {ÉÚ´ÉÇ{ÉIÉ ½éþ <xÉ ºÉ¤É¨Éå {ÉÖ¯û¹ÉÉlÉÇ º´ÉºÉÖJÉ ´ÉÉÆUôÉ ½èþ*ù Eäò´É±É ¦ÉÊHò ½þÒ {ÉnùÉlÉÇ BàºÉÉ ½èþ ÊVɺɨÉå º´É-ºÉÖJÉ-´ÉÉÆUôÉ xɽþÓ ½þÉäiÉÒ +Ê{ÉiÉÖ iÉiºÉÖJÉä ºÉÖÊJÉi´ÉÆ ½þÉäiÉÉ ½èþ*ù…–{ÉÖ¯û¹ÉÉäkÉ¨É MÉÉ亴ÉɨÉÒ, {É.28

Yoga, knowledge and karma are puurvapakash.  In all these purushart [four aim—dharma, artha, kama and moksha] is the main aim.  Bhakti is the only thing in which no one seeks any selfish desire but only think about others happiness.—Purushotam Goswami, p. 27

…¨Éé BàºÉÉ ºÉ¨ÉZÉiÉÉ ½ÚÄþ ÊEò ºÉɨÉÉxªÉ °ü{É ºÉä VÉÉä ¦ÉÊHò ¶É¤nù EòÉ +lÉÇ ½èþ, =ºÉ¨Éå YÉÉxÉ ¦ÉÒ ½èþ, ªÉÉäMÉ ¦ÉÒ ½èþ, Eò¨ÉÇ ¦ÉÒ ½èþ*ù ¦ÉÊHò ¨Éå YÉÉxÉ xɽþÓ ½þÉäiÉÉ ½èþ CªÉÉ? ºÉ¤É EÖòUô ½þÉäiÉÉ ½èþ*ù ±ÉäÊEòxÉ VɽþÉÄ {É®ú Ê´ÉuùVVÉxÉ <xÉ SÉÉ®ú ºÉÉvÉxÉÉå EòÉä ±ÉäEò®ú =xÉEäò ºÉxnù¦ÉÇ ¨Éå ¦ÉÊHò ¶É¤nù EòÉ |ɪÉÉäMÉ Eò®åú, ´É½þÉÄ iÉÉä ¦ÉÊHò Eäò =ºÉ ´Éèʶɹ]õSÉ EòÉä näùJÉxÉÉ ½þÉäMÉÉ, VÉÉä +Éè®úÉå ºÉä ʦÉzÉ ½èþ*ù ªÉ½þ ¦ÉÒ näùJÉxÉÉ ½þÉäMÉÉ ÊEò ¦ÉÊHò EòÉä ¦ÉHòÉå xÉä CªÉÉ ¨ÉÉxÉÉ*ù =ºÉä º´ÉºÉÖJÉ ´ÉÉÆUôÉ xɽþÓ ¨ÉÉxÉÉ ½èþ iÉiºÉÖJÉ ´ÉÉÆUôÉ, iÉiºÉÖJÉä ºÉÖÊJÉi´ÉÆ ¨ÉÉxÉÉ ½èþ*ù VɽþÉÄ xÉ +Éi¨É-Ê|ÉÊiÉ EòÒ <SUôÉ ½èþ xÉ +Éi¨É-ºÉÖJÉ ½èþ xÉ ¨ÉÉäIÉÉʦɱÉɹÉÉ ½èþ, +Éè®ú xÉ ÊxÉ´ÉÞÊkÉ ½èþ, VɽþÉÄ ºÉ¨{ÉÚhÉÇ ºÉ¨É{ÉÇhÉ ½èþ*ù ªÉ½þÒ =VVÉ´É±É º´É°ü{É ½èþ ¦ÉÊHò EòÉ*ù–{ÉÖ¯û¹ÉÉäkÉ¨É MÉÉ亴ÉɨÉÒ, {É.28

I think that in ordinary meaning of bhakti, there is jnan, yog and karma.  Is there no knowledge in bhakti?  Everything is there.  But when scholars takes all these four in the context of sadhana, then we have to note the speciality of bhakti which is different from rest of the things.  It is also important to note what bhaktas accepted as bhakti.  It is not considered personal happiness but always desired the happiness of others.  There is no desire for the happiness of soul, nor desire for moksha not even deliverance, but only total surrender.  This is the Purest form of bhakti.—Purushotam Goswami, p. 27

|ÉÉä. nùªÉÉEÞò¹hÉ–BEò |ɶxÉ ªÉÉå ®úJÉiÉÉ ½ÚÄþ ÊEò ªÉÊnù iÉkÉ´ÉYÉÉxÉ xÉ ½þÉä +Éè®ú <Ç·É®ú Eäò |ÉÊiÉ +MÉÉvÉ |Éä¨É ½þÉä iÉÉä ½þ¨É =ºÉEòÉä ¦ÉÊHò Eò½åþMÉä ªÉÉ xɽþÓ Eò½åþMÉä? nÚùºÉ®úÉ |ɶxÉ ªÉ½þ ½èþ ÊEò CªÉÉ ªÉ½þ ¨ÉÉxÉxÉÉ +ÊxÉ´ÉɪÉÇ ½èþ ÊEò ¦ÉÊHò ºÉä ¨ÉÉäIÉ ½þÉäiÉÉ ½þÒ ½èþ? CªÉÉåÊEò ªÉÊnù <ºÉä º´ÉÒEòÉ®ú ÊEòªÉÉ VÉɪÉä iÉÉä ¨ÉÉäIÉ EòÉä º´ÉiÉÆjÉ {ÉÖ¯û¹ÉÉlÉÇ ¨ÉÉxÉxÉÉ {Ébä÷MÉÉ*ù ¦ÉÊHò iÉÉä ºÉÉvÉxÉ ®ú½þ VÉɪÉäMÉÉ*ù iÉҺɮúÉ |ɶxÉ ªÉ½þ ½èþ ÊEò <Ç·É®ú EòÉä ¨ÉÉxÉÉ VÉÉªÉ ªÉÉ xɽþÓ? ªÉ½þ ¨Éé ¨É½þi´É EòÉ |ɶxÉ =`öÉxÉÉ SÉɽþiÉÉ ½ÚÄþ*ù EòÉèxÉ +É<Ç xÉÉä]õ ¤ÉÒ B ¦ÉHò BÄb÷ BxÉ BÊlÉ<º]õ? ªÉÉxÉÒ ¦ÉÊHò VÉÉä ¦ÉÒ ½èþ =ºÉä ¨ÉÉxÉxÉä Eäò ʱÉB CªÉÉ ªÉ½þ +ÊxÉ´ÉɪÉÇ ¶ÉiÉÇ ½èþ ÊEò ¨Éé <Ç·É®ú EòÉä ¦ÉÒ º´ÉÒEòÉ®ú Eò°Äü? <Ç·É®ú <xÉ nù ºÉåºÉ +É¡ò {ɺÉÇxÉ±É MÉÉèb÷*ù BEò {É®ú¨É ºÉiªÉ ½èþ, EòÉä<Ç ºÉiªÉ ½èþ, =ºÉEäò |ÉÊiÉ ¨Éä®úÉ VÉÉä <¨ÉÉä¶ÉxÉ±É Ê®ú±Éä¶ÉxÉʶÉ{É ½èþ, CªÉÉ ´É½þÒ ¦ÉÊHò xɽþÓ ½è?–29-30

I want to put one question—if there is no metaphysical knowledge but only deep love for God, then will we call it bhakti or not?  The next question is—is it necessary to believe that moksha is definitely possible through bhakti? Because if we accept this then we have to acknowledge moksha as an independent Purushart.  Then bhakti will remain only as a sadhana.  The third question is—can we accept the existence of God or not?  I want to raise this important question.  Can I not be a bhakta and an athiest?  Whatever may be bhakti in order to accept it, is it a unavoidable condition that I should accept God too?  God in the sense of a personal God.  There is a Great Truth, any Truth, and my emotional relationship with it is not considered as bhakti?—Prof. Daya Krishna, p. 29-30

+uèùiÉ nù¶ÉÇxÉ ¦ÉÊHò ºÉä ¨ÉÉäIÉ xɽþÓ ¨ÉÉxÉiÉÉ? =xÉEäò ʱɪÉä ¦ÉÊHò ºÉä ¨ÉÉäIÉ ½þÉäiÉÉ ½þÒ xɽþÓ ½èþ*ù ªÉ½þ ʺÉvnùÉxiÉ-ʴɯûvnù ¤ÉÉiÉ ½èþ*ù +uèùiÉ-oùι]õ ¨Éå ¦ÉÊHò ºÉä ¨ÉÉäIÉ EòÒ |ÉÉÎ{iÉ ½þÉä ½þÒ xɽþÓ ºÉEòiÉÒ*ù ÊVÉiÉxÉä ¦ÉÊHò OÉÆlÉ ½èþÆ |ÉɪÉ: ´Éä ¦ÉÒ ªÉ½þÒ Eò½þiÉä ½éþ…–{ÉÖ¯û¹ÉÉäkÉ¨É MÉÉ亴ÉɨÉÒ, {É.31

Advait philosophy never believes that moksha is possible through bhakti.  For them moksha is not at all possible through bhakti.  This is against the doctrine.  In the view of advaita moksha is not possible through bhakti.  All the bhakti literatures also say the same thing.—Purushotam Goswami, p. 31

…’ ¦ÉÊHò’ ¶É¤nù EòÒ ¶ÉÉä¦ÉÉ ½þÒ CªÉÉ ®ú½äþMÉÒ ªÉÊnù <Ç·É®ú EòÉä ¨ÉÉ<xÉºÉ Eò®ú ÊnùªÉÉ MɪÉÉ..–{ÉÖ¯û¹ÉÉäkÉ¨É MÉÉ亴ÉɨÉÒ, {É.32

What beauty will be left in the word bhakti if God is removed from it.—Purushotam Goswami, p. 32

…¦ÉÊHò ºÉä´ÉÉ ½èþ +Éè®ú uèùiÉ Ê¤ÉxÉÉ xɽþÓ ¤ÉxÉiÉÒ*ù ….ºÉä´ÉÉ ½èþ iÉÉä uèùiÉ ¦ÉÒ ½èþ*ù ´É½þÉÄ +uèùiÉ EòÉ EòÉä<Ç |É´Éä¶É xɽþÓ*ù ªÉÊnù ´Éè¹hÉ´É ®úÒÊiÉ ºÉä  +uèùiÉ EòÒ ´ªÉÉJªÉÉ EòÒ VÉÉB iÉÉä MÉÉäÊ{ÉEòÉ+Éå ¨Éä ÊVÉiÉxÉÉ Mɽþ®úÉ +uèùiÉ ½èþ =iÉxÉÉ Mɽþ®úÉ +uèùiÉ =ºÉ ¨É½þɪÉÉäMÉÒ YÉÉxÉÒ >ðvÉ´É EòÉä Eò½þÓ näùJÉxÉä EòÉä ½þÒ xɽþÓ Ê¨É±ÉÉ..–{ÉÖ¯û¹ÉÉäkÉ¨É MÉÉ亴ÉɨÉÒ, {É.32

Bhakti is service which is not possible without duality.  If service is there duality will be also there.  There is no entry for advait in it.  If we explain bhakti according to Vaishnavism, that great saint Uddave cannot see anywhere the advait in the way he could see the deepest way as found among the Gopis.—Purushotam Goswami, p. 32

EäònùÉ®ú xÉÉlÉ Ê¨É¸É: ªÉVɨÉÉxÉ EòÉ PÉÒ {ÉÒ {ÉÒ Eò®ú ¨ÉÒ¨ÉÉƺÉEòÉå xÉä <Ç·É®ú EòÉ JÉhb÷xÉ Eò®úxÉä ¨Éå ÊVÉiÉxÉÉ {ÉÊ®úú¸É¨É ÊEòªÉÉ, VÉèxÉÉå +Éè®ú ¤ÉèrùÉå xÉä Ê¦É xɽþÓ ÊEòªÉÉ*ù–{É.35

úThe way the Mimamsakas took hard effort to condemned God, after drinking the ghee of the sacrificier, not even Buddhist and Jains could do it.—Prof. Kedar Nath Misra, p. 35

…¨ÉxÉÖ¹ªÉ EòÉä VÉ¤É +{ÉxÉä ½þÉäxÉä EòÉ {ÉiÉÉ ±ÉMÉiÉÉ ½èþ iÉÉä iÉÒxÉ ¤ÉÉiÉå ºÉɨÉxÉä +ÉiÉÒ ½éþ, VÉÉxÉxÉä EòÒ, ¨ÉÉxÉxÉä EòÒ +Éè®ú Eò®úxÉä EòÒ*ù Eò¦ÉÒ ±ÉMÉiÉÉ ½èþ ÊEò iÉÒxÉÉå ºÉÉlÉ Ê¨É±ÉEò®ú ®ú½þiÉÒ ½éþ, {É®ú Eò¦ÉÒ ±ÉMÉiÉÉ ½èþ ÊEò BEò EòÉ nÚùºÉ®äú ºÉä EòÉä<Ç ºÉ¨¤ÉxvÉ xɽþÓ*ù

….¦ÉÊHò ¨Éå ÊEòºÉEòÒ |ÉvÉÉxÉiÉÉ ½èþ? YÉÉxÉ EòÒ ªÉÉ ¦ÉÉ´É EòÒ ªÉÉ Eò¨ÉÇ EòÒ? iÉÒxÉÉäÆ EòÉ ºÉ¨¤ÉxvÉ ½èþ iÉÉä EèòºÉÉ +Éè®ú ÊEòiÉxÉÉ? iÉÒxÉÉå ÊEòiÉxÉä ºÉÉlÉ ½éþ, ÊEòiÉxÉä +±ÉMÉ? ¦ÉÊHò ¨Éå <xÉEäò ºÉ¨¤ÉxvÉ EòÒ Ê´É±ÉIÉhÉiÉÉ CªÉÉ ½èþ?

VɽþÉÄ iÉEò ¨Éé ºÉ¨ÉZÉiÉÉ ½ÚÄþ ¦ÉÊHò EòÉ ºlÉÉxÉ YÉÉxÉ +Éè®ú +ɺlÉÉ Eäò ¤ÉÒSÉ ¨Éå ½èþ*ù <ÎxpùªÉ ºÉä <ºÉEòÉ YÉÉxÉ EòÒ oùι]õ ºÉä ºÉ¨¤ÉxvÉ xɽþÓ ½èþ*ù {É®ú Eò¨ÉÇ EòÒ oùι]õ ºÉä ½èþ*ù ºÉiªÉ EòÉ YÉÉxÉ ¦ÉÊHò xɽþÓ ½èþ, ºÉiªÉ EòÉä +xÉÖ¦É´É ¨Éå, VÉÒ´ÉxÉ ¨Éå VÉÒxÉÉ ¦ÉÊHò ½èþ*ù ªÉÉå <ºÉ¨Éå YÉÉxÉ, +ɺlÉÉ +Éè®ú Eò¨ÉÇ iÉÒxÉÉå EòÉ ºÉ½þªÉÉäMÉ ½èþþ*ù VÉÒxÉä EòÒ VÉÉä ¤ÉÉiÉ ½èþ =ºÉ¨Éå +ɺlÉÉ |ÉvÉÉxÉ ½èþ, {É®ú YÉÉxÉ +Éè®ú ÊGòªÉÉ EòÉ ¦ÉÒ ºlÉÉxÉ ½èþ*ù ªÉ½þ ¦ÉÊHò EòÉ ¨ÉÉèʱÉEò iÉkÉ´É ½èþ…– Prof. Shiv Kumar Sastry, p. 45

When man found his originality, the three things come in forfrent—to know, to accept and to do.  Sometimes it looks that all the three remains together and other times that there is no relationship among the three.

…which is prominent in bhakti—knowledge, or emotion or karma?  If there is relationship among the three then what is it and how much?  How far they are together and how far they are separated? What is the vilakshna (prominance) in bhakti about this relationship[among the three].

As far as I understand, bhakti is in between knowledge and aastha (faith). There is no relationship for knowledge in this view through senses [Indriyom].  But it is there in the view of karma.  Knowledge about Truth is not bhakti.  Bhakti is experiencing the Truth and living the life accordingly.  There is the co-operation of knowledge, faith and karma in this.  Faith is important in life, but knowledge and work also have place in it.  This is the basic fundamental principle of bhakti.—Prof. Shiv Kumar Sastry, p.45

…¨ÉxÉÖ¹ªÉ Eäò +xnù®ú BEò º´ÉiÉxjÉ |Éä®úhÉÉ ½èþ*ù VÉ¤É YÉÉxÉ +Éè®ú Eò¨ÉÇ nùÉäxÉÉå +{ÉxÉÉ EòÉ¨É {ÉÚ®úÉ Eò®ú ±ÉäiÉä ½éþ =ºÉEäò ¤ÉÉnù ÊVÉºÉ |ÉÊGòªÉÉ EòÉ +É®ú¨¦É ½þÉäiÉÉ ½èþ, ´É½þ ¦ÉÊHò ½èþ* |ÉÉä. Ê¶É´É EÖò¨ÉÉ®ú ºÉɺÉjÉÒ.–45ù

There is an independent inspiration within human being.  After both knowledge and karma have complete their work, whatever initiative begins, that is bhakti.—Prof. Shivakumar Sastri, p. 45

½þ¨É ¦ÉÊHò {É®ú ÊSÉxiÉxÉ Eò®ú ®ú½äþ ½éþ*ù <ºÉ Ê´É¹ÉªÉ ¨Éå BEò |ɶxÉ ªÉ½þ ½èþ ÊEò ¦ÉÉ®úiÉ EòÒ VÉÉä {É®ú¨{É®úÉBÆ ½éþ, =x½åþ ºÉ¨ÉZÉå*ù ªÉ½þ BEò {ÉIÉ ½èþ, nÚùºÉ®úÉ {ÉIÉ =iÉxÉÉ ½þÒ <¨{ÉÉä]æõx]õ ½èþ ÊEò VÉÉä ½þ¨ÉÉ®úÒ {É®ú¨{É®úÉ EòÒ vÉÉ®úÉ ½èþ =ºÉEòÉä ½þ¨É ÊEòºÉ Ênù¶ÉÉ ¨Éå ±Éä VÉÉxÉÉ SÉɽþiÉä ½éþ*ù =ºÉºÉä +{ÉxÉä VÉÒ´ÉxÉ ¨ÉäÆ ÊEòºÉ |ÉEòÉ®ú {ÉÊ®ú´ÉiÉÇxÉ Eò®úxÉÉ SÉɽþiÉä ½éþ, +{ÉxÉä Eò¨ÉÇ EòÉä, +{ÉxÉÒ ¦ÉÉ´ÉxÉÉ+Éå EòÉä, +{ÉxÉä Ê´ÉSÉÉ®úÉå EòÉä EèòºÉä ¤Énù±ÉxÉÉ SÉɽþiÉä ½éþ?–Prof. Daya Krishna, p. 99

We are contemplating on bhakti.  The question in this is that let us try to understand the tradition in India.  This is one view. Equally another important view is that which direction we want to take the current of our tradition.  And through which how far we want to change our lives—in our works, in our feelings, in our opinions.—Prof. Daya Krishna, p. 99

¥ÉÉÀhÉ Eäò´É±É <ºÉÒ näù¶É ¨Éå ®ú½äþ; ¶ÉÚpù VÉÒÊ´ÉEòÉ EòÒ iɱÉÉ¶É ¨Éå VɽþÉÄ SÉɽäþ ´É½þÉÄ ¦É]õEò ºÉEòiÉÉ ½èþ*ù ¤ÉÉEòÒ ºÉÉ¡ò ½èþ*ù +ÉvÉä ºÉä +ÊvÉEò näù¶É Eäò ¤ÉÉ®äú ¨Éå ªÉ½þ vÉÉ®úhÉÉ lÉÒ ¨ÉxÉÖº¨ÉÞÊiÉ EòÒ, VɽþÉÄ nÚùºÉ®äú |ÉEòÉ®ú Eäò ÊSÉÆiÉxÉ ={ÉVÉ ®ú½äþ lÉä, VɽþÉÄ ¤ÉÖrù ºÉÉäSÉ ®ú½äþ lÉä, VɽþÉÄ ¤ÉÖrù Eäò {ɽþ±Éä Eäò ÊSÉÆiÉEò ºÉÉäSÉ ®ú½äþ lÉä, VɽþÉÄ ¨É½þÉ´ÉÒ®ú ºÉÉäSÉ ®ú½äþlÉä*ù ´É½þÉÄ Eäò ¤ÉÉ®äú ¨Éå Eò½þ ÊnùªÉÉ ÊEò–

+ÉÆMɤÉÆMÉEò˱ÉÆMÉÉƶSÉ ºÉÉè®úɹ]Åõ¨ÉMÉvÉÉƺiÉlÉÉ*ù iÉÒlÉǪÉÉjÉÉÆ Ê¤ÉxÉÉ MÉi´ÉÉ {ÉÖxÉ: ºÉƺEòÉ®ú¨É½ÇþÊiÉ*ù*ù

–Ê¡ò®ú ºÉä VÉxÉä>ð Eò®úxÉÉ {Ébä÷MÉÉ +É{ÉEòÉä xɽþÓ iÉÉä VÉÉÊiÉSªÉÖiÉ ½þÉä VÉɪÉåMÉä*ù  {Énù¦ªÉÉÆ iÉÖ ºÉ EÖò¯ûiÉä {ÉÉ{ÉÆ ªÉ: EòʱÉRóÂMÉÉxÉ MÉÉʨɹªÉÊiÉ* {Éè®úÉå ºÉä {ÉÉ{É Eò®úiÉÉ ½èþ VÉÉä Eò˱ÉMÉ näù¶É EòÉä VÉÉiÉÉ ½èþ*ù näù¶É Eäò +ÊvÉEò ºÉä +ÊvÉEò ʽþººÉä Eäò |ÉÊiÉ ½þ¨ÉÉ®úÒ VÉÉä vÉÉ®úhÉÉ lÉÒ ´É½þ ªÉ½þ lÉÒ ÊEò ªÉ½þ +{ÉÊ´ÉjÉ ¦ÉÚ欃 ½èþ*ù näù¶É Eäò ±ÉÉäMÉÉå Eäò |ÉÊiÉ VÉÉä vÉÉ®úhÉÉ lÉÒ ´É½þ iÉÉä +É{É VÉÉxÉiÉä ½þÒ ½éþ*ù–b÷ÉÄ. Eäò. BxÉ. ʨɸÉÉ-{É.200

Let the Brahmin remain only in this country [of Aryavarta].  Shudras can go ashtray anywhere in the land in search of a living.  This is the view of Manusmrti about half of our country.  It was told about the other places, where different kinds of opinion was emerging, where the thinkers before Buddha were contemplating, where Mahaveer was contemplating:

 Angabangkalingascha sowraashtramaghadaamstata; tiirthayaatram bina gatva punah: sanskaaramarhati [if you go to pligrime to Angam, Vangam, Kalingam, Sowrashtrasm, Magadam, then you have to under go initiatory rite of thread [to take back in the caste].

–again you have to take holy thread.  Otherwise you will become an outcaste. By legs one do sin if he goes to Kalingam.  Whoever goes to Kalinga country is doing sin by legs.  More than half portion of our land was impure—this was the opinion held by us.  And what was the opinion of the people [living in those impure lands] that you all know.—Dr. K.N. Misra, p. 200

…´ÉèÊnùEò vɨÉÇ ¨Éå {É®úÉlÉÇ-¦ÉÉ´É Eäò ʱÉB ªÉÉ ¦ÉÉ´É Eäò ʱÉB ¦ÉÒ EòÉä<Ç ºlÉÉxÉ xɽþÓ lÉÉ*ù ´ªÉÊHò EòÉä +{ÉxÉä ʱÉB ¨ÉÉäIÉ SÉÉʽþB, +{ÉxÉä ʱÉB ºÉÆiÉÉxÉ SÉÉʽþB, +{ÉxÉÒ MÉÉªÉ JÉÆnùEò ¨Éå xÉ ÊMÉ®äú <ºÉEäò ʱÉB ´É¯ûhÉ ºÉä |ÉÉlÉÇxÉÉ, {ÉÚVÉÉ EòÒ VÉÉiÉÒ lÉÒ…–b÷ÉÄ. Eäò. BxÉ. ʨɸÉÉ, {Éä. 201

There was no place for other’s in the Vedic religion.  A person desired only moksh for himself, he wanted progeny for him.  Prayer was offered and puja was performed to Varun so that his cow won’t fall in any pit.—Dr. K.N. Misra, p. 201.

…MÉÉäÊ{ɪÉÉå Eäò ºÉÉlÉ =xÉEäò VÉÉä ºÉ¨¤ÉxvÉ ½éþ =ºÉä vÉĘ́ÉEò oùι]õ ºÉä näùJÉxÉÉ SÉÉʽþªÉä*ù +MÉ®ú ºÉɨÉÉÊVÉEò oùι]õ ºÉä +É{É näùJÉiÉä ½éþ iÉÉä EÞò¹hÉ EòÉ ºÉ¨¤ÉxvÉ =xÉ ±ÉÉäMÉÉå Eäò ºÉÉlÉ ½èþ ÊVÉxÉEòÉä +ɦÉÒ®ú Eò½þiÉä lÉä*ù EÞò¹hÉ ªÉÉnù´É lÉä*ù {É®ú xÉxnù xɽþÓ lÉä*ù xÉxnù +ɦÉÒ®ú lÉà*ù xÉxnù Eäò {ÉÊ®ú´ÉÉ®ú +Éè®ú ´ÉÆ¶É EòÉ ´ÉhÉÇxÉ Eò®úxÉÉ iÉÉä ¦ÉÉMÉ´ÉiÉEòÉ®ú EòÉ EòÉ¨É xɽþÓ lÉÉ, CªÉÉåÊEò {ÉÖ®úÉhÉ EòÉ ±ÉIÉhÉ {ÉÆÊb÷iÉÉå xÉä ¤ÉxÉÉ ÊnùªÉÉ lÉÉ ÊEò ®úÉVÉ´ÉÆ¶É EòÉ ½þÒ ´ÉhÉÇxÉ ½þÉäxÉÉ SÉÉʽþB*ù =ºÉºÉä EÖòUô ±ÉÉ¦É Ê¨É±ÉäMÉÉ*ù +ɦÉÒ®ú ´ÉÆ¶É Eäò ´ÉhÉÇxÉ ºÉä CªÉÉ Ê¨É±ÉäMÉÉ? <ºÉʱÉB ®úÉVÉ´ÉÆ¶É ´ÉhÉÇxÉ ½þÒ +É{ÉEòÉä ʨɱÉäMÉÉ {ÉÖ®úÉhɨÉå*ù EÞò¹hÉ Eäò ´ÉÆ¶É EòÉ ´ÉhÉÇxÉ Ê¨É±ÉäMÉÉ, ±ÉäÊEòxÉ xÉxnù Eäò ¨ÉÉiÉÉ-Ê{ÉiÉÉ EòÉ xÉÉ¨É ¦ÉÒ ¨ÉɱÉÚ¨É xɽþÓ CªÉÉ lÉÉ? iÉÉä ªÉ½þ VÉÉä +ɦÉÒ®ú lÉä, BEò VÉÉÊiÉ ¨ÉÉxÉÒ VÉÉiÉÒ lÉÒ*ù ´É½þ VÉÉÊiÉ =ºÉ ºÉ¨ÉªÉ ¤É½ÖþiÉ ½þÒxÉ ÎºlÉÊiÉ ¨Éå ¨ÉÉxÉÒ VÉÉiÉÒ lÉÒ, ±ÉäÊEòxÉ EÞò¹hÉ xÉä =ºÉ VÉÉÊiÉ Eäò ±ÉÉäMÉÉå Eäò ºÉÉlÉ ºÉ¨¤ÉxvÉ ºlÉÉÊ{ÉiÉ ÊEòªÉÉ +Éè®ú =xÉEäò Eò±ªÉÉhÉ EòÒ ËSÉiÉÉ EòÒ….–b÷ÉÄ. Eäò. BxÉ. ʨɸÉÉ, {Éä, 202

We have to see his [Krishna’s] relationship with Gopis in spiritual way.  If you view from the social view Krishna’s relationship also was with them, who were called as Aabhir.  Krishna was an Yadav.  But Nand was not an Yadav.  Nand was an Aabhir.  To describe the family tradition of Nand and his family is not the work of the composers of Purana.  Because the Purana composers [Pandits] have given an criteria for Purana that only Kings geneology will be described in Puranas.  There is some benefit in it.  By describing the geneology of Aabhir what they will get?  That’s why you will find only the description of Kings geniology in Puranas.  You will get information about Kirshna’s family tradition.  But do they not even know the name of Nand’s father and mother?  This Aabhir was considered as a caste.  In those time that caste was considered as very lowest one.  But Krishna established a relationship with them and had concern for the welfare of them—Dr. K.N. Misra, p. 202

…VÉÉä +ÉVÉ EòÉ +SUäô ºÉä +SUôÉ EòºÉÉ<Ç ½èþ ´É½þ ÊVÉiÉxÉÉ VÉÉxÉiÉÉ ½èþ +{ÉxÉä EòÉ¨É Eäò ¤ÉÉ®äú ¨Éå =ºÉºÉä Eò<Ç MÉÖhÉ VªÉÉnùÉ ¨ÉÒ¨ÉÉƺÉEò VÉÉxÉiÉÉ lÉÉ*ù {ɶÉÖ EòÉ BEò BEò ʽþººÉÉ +±ÉMÉ-+±ÉMÉ EòÉ]õ Eò®ú Eò½þiÉÉ lÉÉ: +lÉ ¾þnùªÉºªÉOÉä ´ÉvÉÇÊiÉ*ù +lÉ ÊVɼ´ÉªÉɨÉÂ*ù +lÉ ´ÉIɺÉ:*ù ÊVÉºÉ +ÆMÉ EòÒ ¤É汃 näùxÉÒ ½þÉäiÉÒ +ÉÆJÉ ¨ÉÚÆnùEò®ú ½þÉlÉ b÷ɱÉEò®ú JÉÓSÉ ±ÉäiÉÉ lÉÉ*ù–b÷ÉÄ. Eäò. BxÉ. ʨɸÉÉ, {Éä. 202

The Mimaamsakas were know about their job better than the present day butchers about their work.  While cutting each portion of the animal they were saying: now I am cutting heart, now tongue.  Now chest.  Whichever part was needed for the sacrifice they were pulling it closing there eyes.—Dr. K.N. Misra, p. 202

…ÊVÉºÉ ´Éè¹hÉ´É vɨÉÇ EòÉ |ÉÉ®Æú¦É ½Öþ+É lÉÉ VÉxɺÉÉvÉÉ®úhÉ Eäò =rùÉ®ú Eäò ʱÉB, =ºÉ ´Éè¹hÉ´É vɨÉÇ xÉä ʴɹhÉÖ {ÉÖ®úÉhÉ iÉEò +ÉiÉä +ÉiÉä +ÆvÉÉ{ÉxÉ +{ÉxÉÉ Ê±ÉªÉÉ*ù ʴɹhÉÖ {ÉÖ®úÉhÉ {Éfåø iÉÉä ʺɮú ZÉÖEò VÉɪÉäMÉÉ ÊEò BàºÉä ½þ¨ÉÉ®äú <ÊiɽþÉºÉ ±ÉäJÉEò ½éþ*ù…–b÷ÉÄ. Eäò. BxÉ. ʨɸÉÉ, {Éä, 203

The Vaishnavism which started for the salvation of common people, become blind as soon as it reaches Vishnu Puraan.  If you read Vishnu Puran you will bow your head with shame.  This was the condition of our writers.—Dr. K.N.Misra, p. 203

…{É®ú nùÊIÉhÉ VÉÉä ¨ÉVɤÉÚiÉÒ ºÉä ¤Éè`öÉ ½Öþ+É lÉÉ, ´É½þÉÄ ½þ®ú ¥ÉÉÀhÉ +ÉSÉɪÉÇ EòÒ ¨ÉÖºÉÒ¤ÉiÉ ªÉ½þ lÉÒ ÊEò ´É½þ º´ÉªÉÆ ¥ÉÉÀhÉ lÉÉ +Éè®ú ¤ÉÖÊ®ú iÉ®ú½þ ¥ÉÉÀhÉ lÉÉ*ù ´ÉèÊnùEò {É®Æú{É®úÉ ºÉä Ê{Éxb÷÷÷ xɽþÓ UÖôføÉ ºÉEòiÉÉ lÉÉ*ù +Éè®ú ¥ÉÀºÉÚjÉ Eäò JÉÚÆ]äõõ ºÉä +{ÉxÉä MɱÉä EòÉä ¤ÉÉÆvÉ Ê±ÉªÉÉ lÉÉ*ù ®úɨÉÉxÉÖVÉ VÉ¤É ¥ÉÀºÉÚjÉ {É®ú ¦ÉɹªÉ ʱÉJÉxÉä ¤Éè`öiÉÉ ½èþ iÉÉä ¦ÉÚ±É VÉÉiÉÉ ½èþ ÊEò ´Éè¹hÉ´É ½èþ*ù +{ɶÉÚpù +ÊvÉEò®úhÉ EòÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ ±ÉÒÊVÉB*ù ®úɨÉÉxÉÖVÉ ¶ÉÆEò®úÉSÉɪÉÇ ºÉä nùºÉ Eònù¨É +ÉMÉä SɱÉä VÉÉiÉä ½éþ*ù ¶ÉÚpùÉå ÊEò ÊEò±ÉÉ¡ò Eò½þiÉä ½éþ ÊEò +MÉ®ú YÉÉxÉ ºÉä ¨ÉÉäIÉ ¨ÉÉxÉÉ VÉɪÉä iÉÉä ¤Éb÷Ò ¨ÉÖζEò±É ½þÉäMÉÒ, κjɪÉÉå +Éè®ú ¶ÉÚpùÉå EòÉ ¦ÉÒ ¨ÉÉäIÉ ½þÉä VÉɪÉäMÉÉ*ù ¦ÉÊHò ºÉä ¨ÉÉäIÉ ¨ÉÉxÉxÉÉ ½þÒ `öÒEò ½èþ–iÉ¤É ºjÉÒ, ¶ÉÚpù {ÉÆMÉiÉ ¨Éå xɽþÓ +É ºÉEåòMÉå*ù ®úɨÉÉxÉÖVÉ ´ÉèÊnùEò {É®Æú{É®úÉ Eäò ʽþºÉÉ¤É ºÉä ¦ÉÊHò Eò®úxÉä EòÉ ={Énäù¶É näùiÉÉ ½èþ*ù iÉÉä +É{É {ɽþ±Éä ¥ÉÀ EòÉ º´É°ü{É VÉÉÊxɪÉä Ê¡ò®ú {ÉÚVÉÉ Eò®úxÉä EòÒ Ê´ÉÊvÉ VÉÉÊxÉB*ù iÉ¤É VÉÉEò®ú ¦ÉÊHò Eò®ú ºÉEåòMÉä*ù VÉ¤É iÉEò +É{ÉEòÉä ¨ÉÆjÉ ¤ÉÉä±ÉxÉä EòÉ +ÊvÉEòÉ®ú xɽþÓ +É{É ¦ÉÊHò xɽþÓ Eò®ú ºÉEòiÉä*ù ºjÉÒ ¶ÉÚpù +xÉÉÊvÉEòÉ®úÒ ½èþ*ù ÊVÉiÉxÉä +uèùiÉ ´ÉänùÉÆiÉÒ ½éþ, +ÆOÉäVÉÒ ¨Éå ʱÉJÉxÉä {ÉføxÉä ¤ÉɱÉä, ¶ÉÆEò®úÉSÉɪÉÇ Eäò +xÉÖºÉÉ®ú <xɨÉå ºÉä BEò EòÉä ¦ÉÒ {ÉføxÉä EòÉ +ÊvÉEòÉ®ú xɽþÓ ½èþ, xÉ ºÉ¨ÉZÉxÉä EòÉ +ÊvÉEòÉ®ú ½èþ*ù ®úɨÉÉxÉÖVÉÉSÉɪÉÇ ({Éä.204) ¶ÉÆEò®úÉSÉɪÉÇ ºÉä nùÉä Eònù¨É +ÉMÉä VÉÉiÉä ½éþ +Éè®ú Eò½þiÉä ½éþ ÊEò, VÉ¤É ¸ÉÖÊiÉ ½þÒ xɽþÓ +ÊvÉEòÉ®ú CªÉÉ ½þÉäMÉÉ*ù ¨ÉxÉÖ ¦ÉÒ Eò½þiÉÉ ½èþ:

ÊxɹÉäEòÉÊnù¶¨É¶ÉÉxÉÉxiÉÉä ¨ÉxjÉèªÉǺªÉÉäÊnùiÉÉä Ê´ÉÊvÉ:*ù iɺªÉ ¶ÉɺjÉäsÊvÉEòÉ®úÉäsκ¨ÉxÉ YÉäªÉÉä xÉÉxªÉºªÉ EòºªÉÊSÉiÉÂ*ù*ù

¨ÉxÉÖº¨ÉÞÊiÉ EòÉä xÉ ¨ÉxÉÖ xÉä ʱÉJÉÉ xÉ ¦ÉÞMÉÖ xÉä ʱÉJÉÉ ½èþ*ù ÊEòºÉÒ {ÉÆÊb÷iÉ xÉä ʱÉJÉÉ ½èþ, ¤É½ÖþiÉ ¤ÉÉnù ¨Éå*ù Eò½þiÉÉ ½èþ {ÉÖƺɴÉxÉ ºÉƺEòÉ®ú ºÉä ±ÉäEò®ú näù½þÉxiÉ ºÉƺEòÉ®ú iÉEò ÊVɺÉEäò ºÉƺEòÉ®ú ´ÉèÊnùEò ¨ÉxjÉÉå ºÉä ½þÉäÊiÉ ½éþ, ´É½þÒ <ºÉ ¶ÉɺjÉ EòÉä {ÉføxÉä EòÉ +ÊvÉEòÉ®úÒ ½èþ, nÚùºÉ®úÉ xɽþÓ*ù <ºÉ |ÉEòÉ®ú EòÒ {É®Æú{É®úÉ ¨Éå, ®úɨÉÉxÉÖVÉ Eò½þiÉä ½éþ ÊEò +É{É ¥ÉÀ EòÉä ºÉ¨ÉZÉå ÊEò CªÉÉ ½èþ iÉ¤É ½þÒ vɨÉÇ EòÉ ¤ÉÉävÉ ½þÉäMÉÉ*ù ¥ÉÀ ={ÉÊxɹÉnÂù |ÉÊiÉ{ÉÉt ½èþ, {É®ú ={ÉÊxɹÉnÂù {ÉføxÉä EòÉ +É{ÉEòÉä +ÊvÉEòÉ®ú xɽþÓ ½èþ, iÉÉä Ê¡ò®ú ¥ÉÀ EòÒ ={ÉɺÉxÉÉ ¨Éå +ÊvÉEòÉ®ú Eò½þÉÄ ºÉä ½þÉäMÉÉ? ªÉÉå ¦ÉÊHò ¨Éå ºÉ¤ÉEòÉ +ÊvÉEòÉ®ú xɽþÓ ½þÉä ºÉEòiÉÉ*ù–b÷ÉÄ. Eäò. BxÉ. ʨɸÉÉ, {Éä, 204-205

But in South India where they were established well the difficulty of every Brahmin acharya was that he was himself a Brahmin and Brahmin in a worst  [strong] way.  He cannot remove the pinda [rice ball offered in ancestral worship in sraddha] from the Vedic religion.  And tide his neck with the peg [Khunt] of Brahmasuutra. When Ramanuja sat to write commentary on Brahmasuutra, he forgot that he was a Vaishnav.  Take the rights of a Shudra.  Ramanuja goes ten steps ahead of Sankaracharya.  Against Shudras he says, ‘if moksha is possible through knowledge then it will be dangerous one, because both women and Shudras also can attain moksha.’  It is right to accept that mukti is possible only by bhakti.  Then Shudras and women cannot stand in that line.  [but] Ramanuja gives teaching to do bhakti according to the vedic tradition.  First you know the swarup [essence] of Brahman and then learn the rules and regulations to perform puja. Then alone you can do bhakti.  As long as you have no right to say mantras you also cannot do bhakti.  Women and Shudras are unqualified.  According to Sankaracarya, among all the advaitians who are reading and writing in English they have no right to read or understand [vedas].  Ramanujacharya goes two steps ahead of Sankaracharya and says that when there is no right to [read] sruti what will happen.  Manu also says:

Nishekaadishmashaanaananto mantraryaistooditoo vidhi; tasya shaastre’dhikaaroosmin jenyo naanyasya kasyacit.

            Manu Smirit was not written by Manu or Brugu.  Some Pandit has written much later.  He says that one who has the right to perform pumsaavan [putting the seed] sanskar to final rite with vedic mantras, he alone has the right to read the Sastras.  Others don’t have that right.  [Coming] in that tradition Ramanuja says that you understand what is Brahman, then alone you have right to perform religion.  Brahman is bound by Upanishads.  But if you do not have the right to read the Upanishads then how you will get the right to upasana [meditate] of Brahman?  In such a bhakti all are not qualified.—Dr. K.N. Misra, pp. 204-05

…´ÉɺiÉ´É ¨Éå ½þ¨ÉÉ®äú ËSÉiÉxÉ ¨Éå VÉÉä ºÉ¨ÉºªÉɪÉå ½þ¨É +{ÉxÉä ºÉɨÉxÉä ®úJÉiÉä ½éþ ´É½þ =ºÉ {ÉζSÉ¨É Eäò Ê´ÉSÉÉ®ú Eäò <ÊiɽþÉºÉ ºÉä |ɦÉÊ´ÉiÉ ½éþ VÉÉä =ºÉEòÒ +{ÉxÉÒ {É®ú¨{É®úÉ ¨Éå =i{ÉzÉ ½Öþ<Ç ½éþ*ù Eò¦ÉÒ-Eò¦ÉÒ ¨Éé ºÉÉäSÉiÉÉ ½ÚÄþ ÊEò <ºÉ κlÉÊiÉ ¨Éå ½þÒ EòÉä<Ç ¨ÉڱɦÉÚiÉ MɱÉiÉÒ iÉÉä xɽþÓ ½èþ*ù–|ÉÉä. nùªÉÉ EÞò¹hÉ, {Éä.236

in truth what all the problems in our mind which we present before you [in this dialogue], that is influenced by the history of western thought which has emerged from its own tradition.  Some times I also think that is there not some fundamental mistake has happened in this.—Prof. Daya Krishna, p. 236

…{É®ú¨{É®úÉ iɦÉÒ +´É¯ûrù ½þÉäiÉÒ ½èþ VÉ¤É (+{ÉxÉÒ {É®ú¨{É®úÉ Eäò ¤ÉÉ®äú ¨Éå)xÉB |ɶxÉ xɽþÓ =`öÉB VÉÉiÉä +Éè®ú Eäò´É±É {ÉÖ®úÉxÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉå nùÉä½þ®úÉ<Ç VÉÉiÉÒ ½éþ…–|ÉÉä. nùªÉÉ EÞò¹hÉ, {É.237

Tradition also becomes stagnant when [about one’s own tradition] new questions are not raised against one’s own tradition but old things are merely repeated.—Prof. Daya Krishna, p.237

¨Éé näùJÉiÉÉ ½ÚÄþ ÊEò ʴɶÉÖrù ´ªÉÊHòMÉiÉ Ê´ÉSÉÉ®ú ÊEòºÉÒ EòÉä ¦ÉÒ xɽþÓ ½éþ*ù ½þ®ú Ê´ÉSÉÉ®ú Eäò ¦ÉÒiÉ®ú =ºÉ vɨÉÇ EòÉ ¦ÉÒ |ɦÉÉ´É ½þÉäiÉÉ ½èþ ÊVÉºÉ vɨÉÇ EòÉ ´É½þ +xÉÖªÉɪÉÒ ½èþ, =ºÉEäò {ÉÊ®ú´ÉÉ®ú ´ÉɱÉÉå EòÉ |ɦÉÉ´É ½þÉäiÉÉ ½èþ iÉÉä =ºÉEäò ºÉ¨|ÉnùɪÉÉå ´ÉɱÉÉå EòÉ ¦ÉÒ |ɦÉÉ´É ½þÉäiÉÉ ½èþ*ù +vªÉªÉxÉ EòÉ ¦ÉÒ |ɦÉÉ´É ½þÉäiÉÉ ½èþ*ù Ê{ÉUô±Éä VÉx¨É Eäò Eò¨ÉÇ ¦ÉÒ =ºÉEäò {ÉÒUäô ®ú½þiÉä ½éþ*ù <ºÉʱÉB ´ªÉÊHòMÉiÉ Ê´ÉSÉÉ®ú ÊEòºÉ EòÉä Eò½þÉ VÉɪÉä? VÉÉä Ê´ÉSÉÉ®ú ¨ÉxÉ ¨Éå ½þÉå, SÉɽäþ OÉÆlÉÉå Eäò +ÉvÉÉ®ú {É®ú SÉɽäþ MÉÖ¯ûVÉxÉ ªÉÉ ºÉiºÉÆMÉ |ɦÉÉ´É ºÉä ªÉÉ Ê¶ÉIÉÉ ºÉä ʨɱÉä ½þÉå, ´É½þÒ ´ªÉÊHòEò Ê´ÉSÉÉ®ú ½éþ*ù…–¸ÉÒ {ÉÖ¯û¹ÉÉäkÉ¨É MÉÉ亴ÉɨÉÒ, {É.238

 I see that no one has a pure independent thought.  Every thought is influenced by that religion which is followed by one.  There is the influence of family and also of the sect.  Influence is also there because of studies.  The karma of past birth also stands behind it.  So which can be said as the independent thought? Whatever thought may be in mind, whether it is based on scriptures or by teachers or through the influence of fellowship[satsang] or through education—that is that individual’s thought—Sri Purushotam Goswamin, p. 238

…{ɽþ±Éä ºÉÉ®äú ¦ÉÉ®úiɴɹÉÇ Eäò Ê´ÉrùÉ´É (ªÉ½þÉÄ) +ÉiÉä lÉä*ù nùÉä {ÉÆÊHò ¨Éå ¤Éè`ö VÉÉiÉä lÉä*ù BàºÉä ½þÒ Ê´É¹ÉªÉ {É®ú Ê´ÉSÉÉ®ú ½þÉäiÉÉ lÉÉ VÉÉä +ÉVÉ ªÉ½þÉÄ ½þÉä ®ú½þÉ ½èþ*ù ±ÉäÊEòxÉ =ºÉEòÒ BEò ¨ÉªÉÉÇnùÉ lÉÒ*ù CªÉÉ ¨ÉªÉÉÇnùÉ lÉÒ? ¶Éɺjɺɨ¨ÉiÉ ´ÉÉhÉÒ ½þÉäMÉÒ iɦÉÒ |ɨÉÉhÉ ¨ÉÉxÉÒ VÉɪÉäMÉÒ*ù ªÉÊnù ¶Éɺjɺɨ¨ÉiÉ ´ÉÉhÉÒ xɽþÓ ½þÉä iÉÉä +|ɨÉÉÊhÉiÉ ½þÉäMÉÒ*ù +ÉVÉ ªÉ½þ xɽþÓ ½èþ*ù +ÉVÉ ½þ¨É ºÉ¤ÉEäò >ð{É®ú +Énäù¶É ½èþ ÊEò +É{É +{ÉxÉÒ ´ªÉÊHòMÉiÉ ¤ÉÉiÉ EòÊ®úªÉä*ù EòÉä] Eò®úEäò ¤ÉÉiÉ ¨ÉiÉ EòÊ®úªÉä*ù ¶Éè±ÉÒ ¤Énù±É MɪÉÒ ½éþ ¨ÉéxÉä ÊxÉ´ÉänùxÉ ÊEòªÉÉ lÉÉ ÊEò ÊEòºÉÒ EòÒ +{ÉxÉÒ EòÉä<Ç ¶Éè±ÉÒ xɽþÓ ½þÉäiÉÒ ½èþ*ù ºÉÆMÉ EòÉ, +vªÉªÉxÉ EòÉ |ɦÉÉ´É ½þÉäMÉÉ ½þÒ*ù BEònù¨É ºÉä ´ªÉÊHòMÉiÉ EòÉä<Ç Eò½þÉÆ ºÉä {ÉènùÉ Eò®ú ±ÉɪÉäMÉÉ*ù

½þ¨ÉÉ®äú ªÉ½þÉÆ VÉÉä ¶ÉɺjÉ-Ê´ÉSÉÉ®ú ½þÉäiÉÉ lÉÉ =ºÉ¨Éå Ê´ÉSÉÉ®úEò BEò nÚùºÉ®äú Eäò ºÉ¨ÉÒ{É +ÉiÉä lÉà*ù ÊEòºÉÒ |ÉEòÉ®ú EòÒ EòÉä<Ç ½þ`övĘ́ÉiÉÉ EòÉ |ɶxÉ xɽþÓ lÉÉ*ù CªÉÉåÊEò ¶ÉɺjÉÉå xÉä iÉÉä ¨ÉÉxÉ´É-¨ÉÉjÉ EòÉ Ê½þiÉ ËSÉiÉxÉ ÊEòªÉÉ ½èþ*ù ¶ÉɺjÉÉå ¨Éå Eò½þÓ EòÉä<Ç nùÉä¹É näùJÉxÉä EòÉä xɽþÓ Ê¨É±ÉiÉÉ*ù ¨ÉÉxÉ´É, ¶ÉɺjÉ EòÒ ¨ÉÚiÉÔ ¤ÉxÉ VÉÉiÉÉ ½éþ*ù–¸ÉÒ {ÉÖ¯û¹ÉÉäkÉ¨É MÉÉ亴ÉɨÉÒ, {Éä. 242

scholars from all over India came here.  They sat in two rows.  The same kind of discussions were held as we have today.  But there was a rule in those discussions.  Only those words were accepted as praman (evidence) which were based on sastras.  If it was not based on sastras, then they were rejected.  This is not the rule today.  There is a command [request by Prof. Daya Krishna particularly to Purushotam Goswami not to quote from written scripture but to share based on his own experience (p.238)] to day on all of us to share one’s own personal opinion. Don’t quote and say anything.  Method has changed.  Already I requested that no one has his own word.  There is the influence of fellowship (sangh) and study. How is it possible for any one to bring his own personal words.  In those discussion based on sastras here, in that the participants came close each to the other. There came no question of any kind of steburn.  Because sastras only thought about human beings welfare.  None could find any fault in sastras.  Man is the ideal in sastras.—Sri Purushotam Goswami, p. 242.

…¦ÉÊHò ¶É¤nù Eäò ¦ÉÒiÉ®ú <Ç·É®ú Eäò |ÉÊiÉ {ÉÚhÉÇ ¶É®úhÉÉMÉiÉ ½þÉäEò®ú <Ç·É®ú-|ÉÉÎ{iÉ +Éè®ú +Éi¨É¶ÉÉÆÊiÉ EòÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ ÊUô{ÉÒ ½Öþ<Ç ½èþ VÉÉä ¦ÉÊHò EòÉ ¨ÉÚ±É ½èþ*ù +ÉVÉ ½þ¨É Eäò´É±É ªÉ½þÒ {ÉÚUôiÉä ½éþ ÊEò ¦ÉÊHò ºÉä ºÉ¨ÉÉVÉ EòÒ ½þ¨É CªÉÉ ºÉä´ÉÉ Eò®ú ºÉEòiÉä ½éþ? näù¶É EòÒ CªÉÉ ºÉä´ÉÉ Eò®ú ºÉEòiÉä ½éþ? ¦ÉÊHò EòÉä ®úÉVÉxÉÒÊiÉ ºÉä, <EòÉäxÉÉÄ欃 ºÉä EèòºÉä VÉÉäb÷ ºÉEòiÉä ½éþ? ½þ®ú ¤ÉÖÊrùVÉÒ´ÉÒ ªÉ½þÒ {ÉÚUôiÉÉ ½èþ*ù ±ÉäÊEòxÉ +xÉ֦ɴÉÉi¨ÉEò VÉÉä YÉÉxÉ ½þÉäiÉÉ ½èþ <Ç·É®ú EòÉ ¦ÉVÉxÉ näùiÉÉ ½èþ*ù…—¸ÉÒ {ÉÖ¯û¹ÉÉäkÉ¨É MÉÉ亴ÉɨÉÒ, {Éä. 242

love towards god with total surrender to him with an aim to attain him and mental peace is hidden in the word of bhakti and this is central in bhakti.  But today we are only asking ‘through bhakti what kind of service we can render to the society?’  How Bhakti could be connected with politics and economics. Every scholar is asking this.  But practical knowledge teaches us only to worship god.—Purushotam Goswami, p. 242

…<Ç·É®ú ¨Éå iÉÒxÉ MÉÖhÉ ½þÉäiÉä ½éþ VÉÉä ¦ÉÚiÉ ¨Éå xɽþÓ ½èþ: <Ç·É®ú ºÉ´ÉÇjÉ ½èþ, <Ç·É®ú ¦ÉÒiÉ®ú +Éè®ú ¤Éɽþ®ú EòÉ ºÉÉIÉÒ ½èþ, <Ç·É®ú ÊEòB ½ÖþB Eò¨ÉÇ EòÉ ¡ò±É ÊnùªÉä ʤÉxÉÉ xɽþÓ ¨ÉÉxÉiÉÉ*ù ªÉ½þ iÉÒxÉ <Ç·É®úÒ MÉÖhÉ ½éþ VÉÉä ´Éè¹hÉ´É +ÉSÉɪÉÉç xÉä ¨ÉÉxÉä ½éþ…–¸ÉÒ {ÉÖ¯û¹ÉÉäkÉ¨É MÉÉ亴ÉɨÉÒ, {Éä, 243

three attributes [gun] which we can find only in god and not in devil are—he is omnipresent, he is the witness for all that is done both inside and out and he definitely gives fruit to the karma.  These three guns of god is accepted by Vaishnav acaryas.—Purushotam Goswami, p. 243

…vɨÉÇ EòÒ SÉSÉÉÇ vɨÉǺÉÆEò]õ EòÒ SÉSÉÉÇ ½è*ù vɨÉÇ ¨Éå ºÉnùÉ vɨÉǺÉÆEò]õ ½þÉäiÉÉ ½èþ*ù iÉ¤É EèòºÉä ÊxÉhÉÇªÉ Eò®åú, CªÉÉ ({Éä. 246) vɨÉÇ ½èþ, CªÉÉ +vɨÉÇ? ¨É½þɦÉÉ®úiÉ <ºÉEòÉ EòÉä<Ç =kÉ®ú xɽþÓ näù {ÉɪÉÉ… ¨É½þɦÉÉ®úiÉ EòÒ EòlÉÉ EòÉä ¸ÉÒ¨ÉnÂù¦ÉÉMÉ´ÉiÉ ¨Éå {ÉÚ´ÉÇ{ÉIÉ Eäò °ü{É ¨Éå |ɺiÉÖiÉ ÊEòªÉÉ MɪÉÉ ½èþ*ù ´É½þÉÆ ´ªÉÉºÉ Eò½þiÉä ½èþþ ÊEò ¨É½þɦÉÉ®úiÉ EòÒ ®úSÉxÉÉ ºÉä =xÉEòÉä ¶ÉÉÆÊiÉ |ÉÉ{iÉ xɽþÓ ½Öþ<Ç…. ºÉÉäÊSɪÉä,  ¸ÉÒ¨ÉnÂù¦ÉÉMÉ´ÉiÉ ¨Éå ¨É½þɦÉÉ®úiÉ EòÉä CªÉÉå {ÉÚ´ÉÇ{ÉIÉ ¤ÉxÉɪÉÉ MɪÉÉ*ù xÉÉ®únù ºÉä CªÉÉå Eò½þ±É´ÉɪÉÉ MɪÉÉ ½èþ ÊEò ½äþ ´ªÉÉºÉ iÉÖ¨ÉxÉä MɱÉiÉÒ EòÒ, vɨÉÇ EòÒ SÉSÉÉÇ EòÒ, ®úºÉ EòÒ +Éè®ú ¦ÉÊHò EòÒ SÉSÉÉÇ Eò®úxÉÒ SÉÉʽþªÉä lÉÒ–ªÉ½þÉÆ iÉEò Eò½þ ÊnùªÉÉ  ¸ÉÒ¨ÉnÂù¦ÉÉMÉ´ÉiÉ xÉä*ù–|ÉÉä. nùªÉÉ EÞò¹hÉ, {Éä. 247

any discussion about dharm is always trouble some.  There is always trouble in dharm.  Then how to decide which is dharm and which is adharm?  Mahabharata fail to give any kind of answer to this question…. Mahabharata story is presented as the purvapaksha in Srimad Bhagavata.  There Vyas says that by composing Mahabharata he didn’t receive peace….Just think why Srimadbhagavad made Mahabharata as purvapaksha?  It was told through Narad, ‘O Vyas you have done a mistake by discussing about dharma  but you should have discussed about  rasa and bhakti.  Srimadbhagavat told like this.—Prof. Daya Krishna, p. 247

ªÉÉÊxÉ ¤ÉÖÊrù ºÉä ¤Éb÷É +É{ÉEòÉä º´ÉiÉÆjÉiÉÉ näùxÉä ´ÉɱÉÉ EòÉèxÉ ½þÉä ºÉEòiÉÉ ½èþ*ù +É{É ½þ®ú SÉÒVÉ {É®ú ºÉÆ¶ÉªÉ Eò®ú ºÉEòiÉä ½éþ, ½þ®ú SÉÒVÉ EòÉ |ɨÉÉhÉ ¨ÉÉÆMÉ ºÉEòiÉä ½éþ +Éè®ú |ɨÉÉhÉ-|ɨÉäªÉ ´ªÉÉ{ÉÉ®ú Eäò ¶ÉɺjÉ EòÒ ¦ÉÒ ®úSÉxÉÉ Eò®ú ºÉEòiÉä ½éþ*ù ¤ÉÆvÉxÉ xɽþÓ ½èþ*ù ±ÉäÊEòxÉ ¤ÉÖÊrù ºÉä ¤Éb÷É ®úºÉʴɽþÒxÉ EòÉèxÉ ½þÉä ºÉEòiÉÉ ½èþ? ¤ÉÖÊrù ºÉä ¤Éb÷É, ±ÉÉèÊVÉEò ºÉä ¤Éb÷É ¤ÉÆvÉxÉ EòÉ EòÉ®úhÉ ¦ÉÒ EòÉèxÉ ½þÉä ºÉEòiÉÉ ½èþ?

®úÒVÉxÉ ºÉä ¤Éb÷É Ê±É¤É®äú]õ®ú ®úÒVÉxÉ ºÉä ¤Éb÷É ¤ÉÉÄbä÷VÉ näùxÉä ´ÉɱÉÉ EòÉèxÉ ½þÉä ºÉEòiÉÉ ½èþ? VÉÉä ¤É½ÖþiÉ ½þÒ ®èú¶ÉxÉ±É ½þÉäxÉä ±ÉMÉiÉÉ ½èþ, ½þ¨É EòÉä ±ÉMÉiÉÉ ½èþ EÖòUô +VÉÒ¤É ¤ÉÉiÉ ½èþ*ù ±ÉäÊEòxÉ <¨ÉèÊVÉxÉä¶ÉxÉ EòÉä näùÊJɪÉä, <¨ÉäÊVÉxÉä¶ÉxÉ ºÉä ¤Éb÷É EòÉèxÉ £òÒb÷¨É näùiÉÉ ½èþ…–|ÉÉä. nùªÉÉ EÞò¹hÉ, {Éä.248

which can give you greater freedom than bhudi [mind, intellect].  You can doubt everything. You can demand evidence for everything and even can write that kind of sastras which demands evidence [praman]. Mere intellect has great dryness. Which can be the cause for bondage more than budhi and logic?  Nothing can be a greater binder and deliverer than reason.  If someone becomes more rationalistic then it looks very strange to us.  But look at imagination, which can give more freedom than imagination.—Prof. Daya Krishna, p. 248

…+MÉ®ú +É{É EòÉä ¡òÒ˱ÉMÉ ºÉä ¤ÉÉÄbä÷VÉ ±ÉMÉä iÉÉä ®úÒVÉxÉ ¨Éå VÉÉ<ªÉä, ®úÒVÉxÉ ºÉä ¤ÉÉÆbä÷VÉ ±ÉMÉä iÉÉä ¡òÒ˱ÉMÉ ¨Éå VÉÉ<ǪÉä*ù <xÉ nùÉäxÉÉå ºÉä iÉÆMÉ +ɪÉÆ iÉÉä Eò¨ÉÇ EòÊ®úªÉä…. ({Éä.248)–|ÉÉä. nùªÉÉ EÞò¹hÉ,– p. 248

if you feel bound by feeling then go to reason, if you feel bound by reason then go to feeling.  If you were disturbed by both, then do karma—Prof. Daya Krishna, p. 248

®úÒVÉxÉ ºÉä ¡òÒ˱ÉMÉ Eäò  IÉäjÉ ¨Éå ¡òÒ˱ÉMÉ ºÉä Eò¨ÉÇ ¨Éå*ù <xÉ iÉÒxÉÉå EòÉä MÉÒiÉÉ xÉä ªÉÉäMÉ ¶É¤nù ºÉä Eò½þÉ ½èþ*ù Eò¨ÉÇ ªÉÉäMÉ Eò½þÉ, YÉÉxÉ ªÉÉäMÉ Eò½þÉ, ¦ÉÊHò ªÉÉäMÉ Eò½þÉ….—|ÉÉä. Êuù´ÉänùÒ, {Éä. 249

from reason to feeling, from feeling to karma.  Gita calls all these by the word of yoga—karma yog, jnana yog and bhakti yog—Prof. Dwivedi. P.249

¦ÉÊHò EòÉ nùÉxÉ ½èþ*ù ¦ÉÊHò ¨É½þÉ®úÉxÉÒ EòÒ EòÉä<Ç ºÉä´ÉÉ Eò®úiÉÉ ½èþ iÉÉä ¦ÉÊHò =ºÉEòÉä +{ÉxÉÉ |ɺÉÉnù näùxÉÒ ½èþ*ù ´É½þ |ɺÉÉnù CªÉ ½èþ–iÉÞhÉ ºÉä ¦ÉÒ +ÊvÉEò +{ÉxÉä EòÉä UôÉä]õÉ ¨ÉÉxÉxÉÉ, ´ÉÞIÉ ºÉä +ÉÊvÉEò ºÉ½þxɶÉÒ±É ½þÉäxÉÉ*ù ºÉ¨¨ÉÉxÉ EòÒ <SUôÉ EòÉä iªÉÉMÉ näùxÉÉ, ºÉ¤É EòÉä ºÉiÉiÉ ºÉx¨ÉÉxÉ näùxÉÉ*ù <ºÉºÉä ÊSÉkÉ ¶ÉÖrù ½þÉäiÉÉ ½èþ, +xiÉ:Eò®úhÉ {ÉÊ´ÉjÉ ½þÉäiÉÉ ½èþ <Ç·É®ú º¨É®úhÉ EòÒ ªÉÉäMªÉiÉÉ +É VÉÉiÉÒ ½èþ*ù–b÷ÉÄ. Eäò. BxÉ. ʨɸÉÉ, {É.250

There is reward in bhakti.  Who ever serves the Queen bhakti, she gives him her prasad.  What is that prasad—think one self humble than the dust, become patience more than a tree.  Giving up expecting respect, giving respect to all.  By this mind becomes pure, inner being becomes holy and become eligible to think about god.—Dr. K.N. Misra, p. 250