05-19-2007, 10:08 AM
Hyagriv wrote:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The point there, as explained by Purva_Acharyas is as follows:
Man is supposed to live by the rules of Dharma.
However, at one stage of Spiritual progress, Dharma ceases to exist as cardinal, and the ultimate aim of Salvation becomes supreme.
For highly realised souls, very near to the object of realisation, Dharma becomes an impediment, they have to reject Dharma and TRANSCEND it, because Dharma belongs to this realm.
In Bhakthi tradition, at advanced stages of Bhakthi, one does not observe the rules of society, tradition or mundane dharma after reaching a stage of unpolluted, unrestrained love for God.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
..and SwamyG wrote
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->What is going to prevent people from kicking the stools that they stand on and proclaim whatever they do is because of their supreme love towards their gods. Suicide bombers of Islam are then blowing themselves and others, to show obedience to their god and reach him, discarding mundane dharma of the society we live in.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think these statements are mutually incompatible. It is indeed possible to use Bhakti in the manner that SwamyG says, but I don't think the rules of dharma can be kicked out altogether.
Yes, to attain the absolute, one must divest oneself of all attachments, and to that extent attachment to the compulsions of dharma must be removed. But bhakti too can only be a means to get near the absolute, but at the door, even bhakti must be discarded. "Love of God" itself is an attachment that has to go before one enters the domain of the absolute, where there is no love, and no hate.
However I don't think that the route to the absolute is ever recommended as being so devoid of dharma that one causes visible pain and misery to humans or animals. Devotion to dharma itself is what Yudisthira showed.
Islam takes you only so far as telling you that bhakti is all you need, but is unable to expand on the fact that dharma cannot be wholly rejected en route to the absolute and that the real "afterlife" is the absolute where everything is and isn't.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The point there, as explained by Purva_Acharyas is as follows:
Man is supposed to live by the rules of Dharma.
However, at one stage of Spiritual progress, Dharma ceases to exist as cardinal, and the ultimate aim of Salvation becomes supreme.
For highly realised souls, very near to the object of realisation, Dharma becomes an impediment, they have to reject Dharma and TRANSCEND it, because Dharma belongs to this realm.
In Bhakthi tradition, at advanced stages of Bhakthi, one does not observe the rules of society, tradition or mundane dharma after reaching a stage of unpolluted, unrestrained love for God.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
..and SwamyG wrote
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->What is going to prevent people from kicking the stools that they stand on and proclaim whatever they do is because of their supreme love towards their gods. Suicide bombers of Islam are then blowing themselves and others, to show obedience to their god and reach him, discarding mundane dharma of the society we live in.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think these statements are mutually incompatible. It is indeed possible to use Bhakti in the manner that SwamyG says, but I don't think the rules of dharma can be kicked out altogether.
Yes, to attain the absolute, one must divest oneself of all attachments, and to that extent attachment to the compulsions of dharma must be removed. But bhakti too can only be a means to get near the absolute, but at the door, even bhakti must be discarded. "Love of God" itself is an attachment that has to go before one enters the domain of the absolute, where there is no love, and no hate.
However I don't think that the route to the absolute is ever recommended as being so devoid of dharma that one causes visible pain and misery to humans or animals. Devotion to dharma itself is what Yudisthira showed.
Islam takes you only so far as telling you that bhakti is all you need, but is unable to expand on the fact that dharma cannot be wholly rejected en route to the absolute and that the real "afterlife" is the absolute where everything is and isn't.