GOD-PERSONAL OR IMPERSONAL????

Following is my correspondance with Mr.Shreedhar about which ways (bhakti or dnyan) are suitable for this Kaliyuga ,if God is personal or impersonal,views of different saints etc.

Dear Chinmay Kulkarni,

Thanks for your interest in my blog. In your comment you have written that `only chanting the name of God is the path for Kaliyug(harer nama harer nama harer nama iva kevalamkalau nasty eva nasty eva nasty eva gatir anyatha [Cc. Adi 17.21]
).
I would like to say following on this comment:This understanding of spiritual quest is too one dimensional andincorrect. How would you explain the existence of Bhagavan Sri RamanMaharshI, the great sages J. Krishnamurthy and Sri Nisargadaata Maharaj
with your philosophy? As they say in science, one single observation may call for acompletely new theory. Here are three obvious examples of great saintsin your kaliyug who never chanted name of God and realised the ultimate
goal. At best, you can say that taking name of God appeals to you.Can't say that it is the ONLY way. This fanatic way of adhering to one's own philosophy is for children. Grow up.Yours with regards,
Shreedhar

Dear Shreedhar
first of all it is not said by me but it was said by Lord Krishna in his avatara of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.if u want to say chaitanya mahaprabhu himself was childish n needed 2 grow up then u r makin biggest mistake n u r arrogant. first of all those Yogis who don't chant God's name ,generally call God nirgun ,niraakaar. we say God is nirgun -niraakaar as well as sagun saakaar. nirgun niraakaar feature of God is one aspect but if we go further,there is one more feature of God which is sagun saakaar.so attaining saguna saakaar is perfection which is attained only by bhakti.basically adwait feature of God is illumination from sagun saakaar form of god.it's like sun. sunrays is formless feature while sun star itself is saakaar feature.
if u don't agree with scriptural injunctions,how can u agree with somebody sayin 'i have attained perfection'??as far as my information J.Krishnamurty was a philosopher,a theosophist. if u don't agree with what Krishna says,how do u say that these people attained Supreme???why do u believe them n disbelieve Krishna???
chinmay here


Dear Chinmay,
Thanks for your mail. You see, every saint says things for his audience. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu no doubt proclaimed that chanting of God's name is the fastest way of attaining God. However, I have never read Him say that It is the ONLY way. Generally, it is said that it is the easiest way. The vaishnavaites have converted his saying into a fanatical following of the path itself.
Isn't the goal important than the path? We have to reach God somehow. Why keep saying my path is the only path?
If you do not believe J.Krishnamurthy was a realised soul, then look at Sri Ramakrishna Paramhans. Swami Vivekananda and others.
Al I was saying is that the rigidity of the attitude that chanting the God's name is the only way in Kaliyug is wrong. I have no intention in changing your personal path or raising doubts about it.
You also said that Sagun form of God is more deeper than Nirgun form. However, the vedanta says the other way. Ramakrishna Paramhansa says the other way. I think that you should try and read some of Swami Vivekananda's books to see the other point of view.
In life, we have to see the complete picture. Saying only side exists does not help in seeing the full picture. That is why I raised objection to your `the only way' thought.
yours,
Shreedhar


hi shridhar!!! this is what Chaitanya Mahaprabhu said -read this verse carefully. in first line he says 'KEVALAM'. it means 'only'.read second line carefully. he says in this 'in this age (KALAYU),there is 'no other way(nastu eva gatir anyatha)'. it is clearly written by Him.u have again writen arrogantly that 'Vaishnavas have converted his sayin into fanatical following'. what is so fanatical abt. Vaishnava philosophy???r all the saints fanatic???i have read Swami Vivekananda's books.vedanta doesn't say that nirguna or impersonalism is ultimate.Shankaracharya in his commentary on Vedanta says such thing. it is wrong if somebody says vedanta says that God is impersonal.as Shankaracharya has his commentary on Vedanta,similarly Shrimad Bhagavatam is also commentary on Vedanta. generally people read Shankaracharyas commentary n think that it is the only commentary on Vedanta.but it's not true. Shrimad Bhagavatam is also Vedanta commentary.u read whole Bhagavat fully n tell me afterwords that Vedanta says God is impersonal.according 2 my information, Madhvacharya has also written commentary on Vedanta.what we Vaishnavas believe in r God's instructions. of course Yogis r tryin 2 get the same goal. Krishna in Bhagavad Gita says 2 Arjuna 'Be a Yogi rather than becoming a Karmi'. we respect Yogis more than normal people.(still u call us fanatics).now u have given references of Ramakrishna Paramahans,Swami Vivekananda etc. that means even u r not a liberated soul. u r also having belief in Vivekanandas words. i believe Krishna's words. Shankaracharya is basically biggest imporsonalist. Vivekananda,Paramahansa n all impersonalists knowingly or unknowingly follow him.so shankaracharya should be believed as he was incarnation of shiva. but even he says that 'Narayana is not from this world'. i can forword u what he actually said. he clearly states that Krishna is superior than others.
waiting 4 reply
chinmay here

Dear Chinamy, First of all, it is not I but Sri Ramakrishna Paramhans said to M. (as reported in his `Gospel of Ramakrishna Paramahans) that `like you boys I also had doubts about the authencity of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu by looking at his followers who shave their heads and refuse to listen to any other paths. I went to Chaitnya's Village (I forgot the name of the village mentioned in the book -Shreedhar ) and there I could find no trace of divine presence. However when I was coming back to the river, my attention was caught by the river bed and there I could see clearly the presence of God. I actually saw two boys emerging from river and chanting the name of the God. Then I realised that Chaitanya is an incarnation.' So the word fanatic was used by Ramakrishna Paramahans. And he also agreed that Radhika's Bhava was fully manifested in Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Now, look at the verse you have quoted. Words are only pointers to the truth. One should try and read what they are trying to convey. You tell me, using Sanskrit Grammer rules why is following interpretation of these words is not correct? हरेर नाम हरेर नाम हरेर नाम केवलम कालायु नास्तु एव नास्तु एव नास्तु एव गतिर अन्यथा Hari's name is kevalam (meaning it has only subtle body, not any gross body, it is Sukshm) and when you repeatedly chant it, the effect of Kaliyug has to go, it has no other way. In effect the words `gatir anyathA' can be seen as used for the` vanishing of Kaliyug's effect'. They are not with reference to other paths of removing the kaliyug's effect. After all, why should other paths come into picture of this verse? It is only telling the effect of chanting the name of God on the influence of Kaliyug. The Kaliyug effects have no other way but to go is what it can mean. Now, Ramakrishna Paramahans has explicitely stated that the nirgun form of God is the ultimate and he was ordered by Kali Ma to remain in Bhavmukha to help others. Here is another example: Saint Namdev of Maharashtra had an intimate contact with Vitthal from his childhood. He heard of saint Dnyandev and his siblings and was ordered by Vitthal himself to go and visit them. Upon going there the girl child Muktabai made everyone to go through a game of checking whose `pot' is fully baked. The great saint Gora Kumbhar (who was a potter by caste) was entrusted this job. He went around hitting everyone's head with a wooden spatula (used for checking if a pot is properly baked or not) and announced that everyone's pot is fully baked except for Namdev's! This made Namdev furious and he went back to his home and bitterly complained to his God Vitthal. To his surprise, Vitthal agreed with Mukta and others and ordered him to go and make a guru and learn the Atmanand. Now this part itself is enough to explain that having intimate conversations and companionship of God is not enough to lift you from the misery of anger, sadness and ego. But it goes further! When Namdev went to the village mentioned by Vitthal, he found an old man sleeping in a temple with his new footwear dripping with oil kept of shivalinga. This incenced Namdev and he started shouting at tht man for showing disrespect. To which the man said `I am very old and weak so I can't even lift my feet of this linga. You look fit enough. Can you please lift them and keep them at a place where God is not there? Namdev lifted his feet and kept at a nearby place and suddenly a linga came up there. However much he tried, each time a linga used to come up under the feet of that man. At the end, the old man said `That is what I thought. God is everywhere. But since you knew better, I kept quiet!' Only then the ahankaar of Namdev went away and he realised that seeing God in a form is not the ultimate realisation. In that viilage of Maharashtra where there is Shiva temple with circular array of linga's even now. (So I was told by very reliable sources) Even Gondavalekar Maharaj used to say that `chanting of the Rama's name is the most effective in this Yug.' Not that it is the only path for this yug. yours,
Shreedhar


dear Shreedhar,about Ramakrishna Paramahans-according 2 me he didn't know english.so i don't know what exact word he used
abt.Vaishnavas. fanatic is a word in 2days world generally used 2 show terrorists n other extrimists.the word
fanatic also means that someone is extremely enthusiastic abt.something. if he used word fanatic in 2nd context
then it is normal. as Bhakti means love. n in love everyone is over enthusiastic.i know what Krishna says n that's
most important. as far as Ramakrishna is concerned,i disagree with him at many places.what we know is this- बहुनां जन्मनामन्ते ज्ञानवान्मां प्रपद्यते वासुदेवः सर्वमिती स महात्मा सुदुर्लभः bhagavad gita 7.19 translation-After many births and deaths, he who is actually in knowledge surrenders unto Me, knowing Me to be the
cause of all causes and all that is. Such a great soul is very rare.
this verse gives clear picture. it means that Yogis r very good. but when birth after birth they elevate
themselves,they will finally surrender 2 Me.
i didn't quite get what u want 2 say by calling Hari's name sukhshm???i will give other verses by Him if u doubt
that he had not meant that 'it's only way'. actually he had converted a lot of impersonalists in His lifetime.they
had became Vaishnavas.
now abt. Saguna n Nirguna. it's wrong 2 say nirguna form is supreme.what u have written abt.Sant Namadev is right
but it doesn't mean that Nirguna is supreme. there r 3 steps-first is deity which we see ,2nd is nirguna
form(sunrays as i had mensioned) n 3rd is Saguna again(sun as i wrote). this is clearly stated in Bhagavatam,Gita.
there is actually a clear Shloka in Shri Ishopanishad where God is asked to remove effulegence(Nirguna or sunrays
as i wrote) so that the sage would see God's transcedenatal form(Saguna again).Vaishnavas don't say that God is
not present in nirguna form. Madhwacharya says such. we r dwaita-adwaitawadis.we say both forms r present. what
experience Sant Namadev had is very similar to Lord Narasimhas appearance. Sant Namadev's experience shows that
God can manifest Himself anywhere in any form.Sant Namadeva didn't leave chanting n Form worship after that
incidence. read following-आता वंदू साधू सज्जन । रात्रंदिवस हरिचे ध्यान । विठ्ठल नाम उच्चारिती जन । त्यां माझे नमन दंडवत
waiting for reply
chinmay here

Dear Chinmay,
First about the word fanatic. It is used by me and by Ramakrishna Paramahans to indicate a complete one-sidedness
of character. Fanatic people will not only believe their views (which is fine) but say that theirs is the only
correct view (which is not fine). Anyone who says that theirs is the only way is by definition fanatic. You can be
fanatic and yet be a peaceful person.
Terrorists go one step further and try to eliminate people with other point of views. They are fanatic and much
more.
The name is keval or sukshm because it has no form. Gondavalekar Maharaj says that one should take God's name
because our problems are in mind. So the medicine also has to be subtle, sukshm. Name is like putting ointment
where you are hurt (in your mind/intellect).
Now, you quote Gita to further your point of view! In the entire Gita, not a single avatar is extolled. Further,
this Gita is supposed to have been identified by Sri Shankarachary as the epitome of Indian Philosophy and
obviously, you do not like Shankarachary. The trouble about quoting is that you tend to see only what you want
see. The whole Gita is supposed to be the basis of Advait Philosophy and one can quote from it to support Sagun
form as the ultimate!! Isn't it great?
This whole discussion is not to the point (according to me). It started because of your comment that chanting of
the name is the only way in kaliyug. How can you be sure? Have you tried all paths? Why not believe on great souls
who have tried other paths and are known to have realised the ultimate Truth? You can still chant God's name.
Namdev still loved God's name because it was his nature to love chanting of God's name. Not because it is the ONLY
way.
Look at Samarth Ramdas. He was the greatest advocate of chanting of Rama's name. But all his philosophy indicates
that the ultimate realisation is finding Atmanand, seeing the whole creation within yourself. Look at his
following abhang:
दृढ होता अनुसन्धान, मन झाले उन्मन १पाहो जाता माया नाशे, द्वैत गेले अनायासे २होता बोधाचा प्रबोध, झाला शब्दाचा निशब्द ३ज्ञान विज्ञान जाहले, व्रुत्ति निव्रुत्ति पाहिले ४ध्यानधारणेचि बुध्दि, जाली सहज समाधी ५रामीरामदासी वाच्य, पुढे झाले अनिर्वाच्य ६
There are many more abhangs of this nature by Samarth RAmadAs.Gondavalekar Maharaj also says the same thing. Dnyaneshwar says the same thing. Vedanta says the same thing. You
quote ishopanishad but it only says about removing effulgence and showing the real form. It is your interpretation
that effulgence is nirgun form. Why not effulgence being this world of maya? And why not real form is the
Atmarupa, so very liked by Dnyaneshwar.
Please do not mix up the effectiveness of chanting of God's name with it being the only way. If you are happy
with it, fine. But leave it at that.
yours,
shreedhar

dear shreedhar,
let us again come back to harer naam kevalam.in this verse sukhshm is out of context.to understand why,we must
look verses spoken by lord after that verse.harer naam kevalam is Adi Lilaa 17.21. now we will see next verse-
कलि-काले नाम-रुपे कृष्ण-अवतारनाम हैते हय सर्व-जगत-निस्तार
In this Age of Kali, the holy name of the Lord is the incarnation of Lord Krishna. Simply by chanting the holy
name, one associates with the Lord directly. Anyone who does this is certainly delivered.Adi Lilaa 17.22
दार्ध्य लागि’ ‘हरेर नाम’-उक्ति तिन-वारजड लोक बुझाइते पुनह ‘एव’-कार
This verse repeats the word ‘eva’ [‘certainly’] three times for emphasis, and it also three times repeats ‘harer
näma’ [‘the holy name of the Lord’], just to make common people understand.Adi Lilaa 17.23
‘केवल’-शब्दे पुनरपि निश्चय-करणज्ञान-योग-तप-कर्म-आदि निवारण
use of the word ‘kevala’ [‘only’] prohibits all other processes, such as the cultivation of knowledge, practice
of mystic yoga, or performance of austerities and fruitive activitieS.Adi Lilaa 17.24
So it's wrong to take kevala as sukhshma here.now it is very surprizing 4 me to here that Gita is basis of
Advaita.have u read Gita???may be u have read commentary on Gita but not Gita as it is.Yogis have fabricated Gita
hundreds of times 2 put their view n not Krishna's.Swami Chinmayananda once told his disciples that we should read
some verses of Gita n avoid some verses.this means Swami Chinmayananda will decide what to read n what to
neglect,means Swami is superior to Krishna!!this is funny.one had said abt Gita's first verse 'Dharmakshetre
Kurukshetre' that this kurukshetra has nothing 2 do with kurukshetra place.this kurukshetra means our body n
pandavas mean our 5 senses.What is this???if u want 2 put ur views then write ur own Gita,why r u fabricating
Krishna's Gita???read this-भक्त्या मामभिजानाति यावान्यश्चास्मी तत्त्वत:ततो मां तत्त्वतो ज्ञात्वा विशते तदनन्तरम One can understand Me as I am, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, only by devotional service. And when one is
in full consciousness of Me by such devotion, he can enter into the kingdom of God.मन्मना भव मद्भक्तो मद्याजी मां नमस्कुरु मामेवैष्यसि सत्यं ते प्रतिजाने प्रियोSसि मे Always think of Me, become My devotee, worship Me and offer your homage unto Me. Thus you will come to Me without
fail. I promise you this because you are My very dear friend.सर्वधर्मान्परित्यज्य मामेकं शरणं व्रज अहं त्वां सर्वपापेभ्यो मोक्षयिष्यामि मां श्रुच: Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do
not fear.यत: प्रवृत्तिर्भुतानां येन सर्वमिदं ततम स्वकर्मणा तमभ्यर्च्यसिद्धिं विन्दति मानव: By worship of the Lord, who is the source of all beings and who is all-pervading, a man can attain perfection
through performing his own work.BG18.46संजय उवाच-तच्च संस्मृत्य संस्मृत्य रुपमत्यद्भुतं हरे: विस्मयो मे महान्राजन्हृष्यामि च पुन: पुन: Sanjay says-O King, as I remember the wonderful form of Lord Kåñëa, I am struck with wonder more and more, and I
rejoice again and again.
there r so many verses in Bhagavad Gita where he tells to become a devotee.Arjuna himself is devotee.Arjuna is not
Yogi ,he is a devotee. if Gita was about Advaita,we would have known Arjuna as a Yogi but not as a devotee.
about Samarth Ramdas.God's all the forms r amazing.His Advaita form is also amazing so sometimes devotees have
praised it. we r not opposite of it.but it doesn't mean it is ultimate.the Saguna which Samarth Ramdas tells in
that verse is first form of deity.second about Ishopanishad i will tell u that effulgence is not of this
world.this world is darkness.look-hiranmayena paatreNa satyasyApihita mukham tat tvam püshann apävranu satya-dharmAya drushtayeO my Lord, sustainer of all that lives, Your real face is covered by Your dazzling effulgence. Kindly remove that
covering and exhibit Yourself to Your pure devotee.
the word Hiranyeya clearly mensions golden effulgence.it's not maayaa on the other hand it is Brahman(nirguna form
of Lord)
i repeat again that it's not Vedanta which says God is Nirguna.IT IS SHANKARACHARYAS COMMENTARY ON VEDANTA WHICH
SAYS SO.if u say Vedanta then u must read Bhakti commentary Shrimad Bhagavatam.even if Shankaracharya says so,In
the very beginning of his commentary on the Gita, he maintains that Narayanaa, the Supreme Lord, is transcendental
to the material creation.he also says that Narayana ,The son of Vasudeva.so u cann't say that Narayana is any
ordinary person.
Basically Shankaracharya is also a lila of Krishna.Shankaracharya is basically avatara of Lord Shiva.he took
avatara to convert those who had denied authority of Vedas by taking budhdism.Lord Budhdha wa avatara of Vishnu
who took birth to stop animal killing which was done behind the name of sacrifice.to stop evils done under the
name of Vedas,he told people to reject Vedas.to bring these people back in faith of Vedas,Shankaracharya avatara
was taken.Lord Shiva himself tells in Shiva Purana that he will delude the people in his avatara in Kaliyug.then
after people again started believing Vedas,Lord Krishna took birth as Lord Chaitanya to bring everyone to Bhakti
fold,to chanting of God's names.
even Ramkrishna Mission accepts that for Kaliyuga chanting is best method.they have printed booklet with mantras
where it is written.we don't say that other ways r wrong.for that purpose i had given verse in Gita last
time.Yogis come to God's bhakti when they elevate themselves birth after birth by Tapasya.so we say that why r u
doing Tapasya for so many births???just chant names n go to God.even if u do Tapasya,u will elevate urself,u will
go 2 some suitable planet then afterwords u will take Bhakti as a way.then u will go to God. then why not do it
now???more or less if u show interest in spirituality,u will go to God by Bhakti.then why to waste births???do it
now.
chinmay here

Dear Chinmay, You quote from Gita : यत: प्रवृत्तिर्भुतानां येन सर्वमिदं ततम स्वकर्मणा तमभ्यर्च्यसिद्धिं विन्दति मानव: By worship of the Lord, who is the source of all beings and who is all-pervading, a man can attain perfection
through performing his own work.BG18.46
So here is another way than chanting the name of God. Is it not? Then why say it is the ONLY way? Now, historically, the advaita philosophy is NOT formulated first by Shankaracharya. Shankaracharya's guru was
Govinda and his Guru was Gaudapada who wrote a wonderful commentary of Mandukyopanishad. This Mandukyopnishad is
one of those upanishads which only describes the word Oum. It is magnificant and definitely all of advaita
philosophy is present there and in Gaudapada's Karika on it.
Secondly, the 600 odd shlokas of Gita was first isolated from the mammoth one lac shlokas of Mahabharat by
Shankarachary. He used it as a basis to explain Hindu philosophy to everyone. The Vedantas were accessible only
from the word of mouth of a Guru and the Shishya has to memorize it (thats why they are called Smrutis) whereas
Gita was allowed to be heard by everyone (its called Shruti).
So it is reasonable to say that Gita is one of the basic ingrdients of supporting Shankaracharya's philosophy. BTW, I read Gita everyday and I have no doubt about what I am saying to you. Gita is a collection all possible
paths towards realisation and time and again, realising God in oneself is expounded as the ultimate aim of Human
birth. Of course, chanting the name of God is one of the ways. My objection was your saying it is the ONLY way for
supreme realisation.
yours,
shreedhar

dear shreedhar,worshipping includes chanting also.plus worshiping is for all the ways.
of course adwaita was not shankaracharyas invention.it was there before.i had to say that Shankaracharya was most
influencial in modern times(if it can be said modern) who propogated Adwaita.
Gita was formulated by Shankaracharya is unacceptable.Gita was spoken by Krishna which was told by Sanjaya.so it's
wrong if u say that it was Shankaracharya who did it.
if it was formulated by Shankaracharya ,then everyone should start chanting n leave other ways n take bhakti as
it's clearly written 'SARV DHARMAAN PARITYAJYA MAAM EKAM SHARANAM VRAJA'-leave every other thing and just
surrender unto Me.Lord Krishna tells very clearly to take Bhakti n Arjuna accepts it n takes Bhakti process.you can very easily find
it as in the beggining Arjuna asks Krishna that 'U r telling me some things when U were not born then how can i
believe U???'this means he has not surrendered unto Krishna.but when Krishna tells Gita ,shows Arjuna
'Vishwarupa',Arjuna accepts that Krishna is the Supreme God n he says that he made mistakes by showing disbelief
in Krishna n calling Him friend etc.so he takes Bhakti process,obeys order of Krishna n fights as he understands
that evrything happening around him is merely a small lila of Krishna.
i wrote u 2 times that 'only' doesn't mean other ways r wrong.it means that other ways will elevate u n when u
will get elevated after Tapasya 4 many births,u will take Bhakti finally n start chanting n go back 2 Godhead.so
we say why r u wasting time???take chanting now n go back to Godhead after this birth.
is it OK 4 u if i will put this conversation on my blog???if u don't want ur name then i will put it with some
other name.
chinmay here

Dear Chinmay, 0). If I quote correctly, this is what you said in your last mail:>>> i repeat again that it's not Vedanta which says God is Nirguna.IT IS SHANKARACHARYAS COMMENTARY ON VEDANTA
WHICH SAYS SO. Therefore, I said in my last mail that Vedana, without any benefit of Shankaracharya's commentary, is proclaiming
that Nirgun state as the ultimate. 1). I also never said that Gita was formulated by Shakaracharya. He `separated' it from the mass of one lac
shlokas of Mahabharat and gave prominence to it as the collection of paths towards God. Of course, any book can
list only main paths. It is for every individual to mix these paths in right proportion and find the one that
suits his/her taste. It really doesn't matter to me whether Gita was told by Krishna or anyone else. I would
rather look at those words and see if they are relevent or not. Isn't the main thing is to understand the meaning
of words, rather than bother about who uttered them? A beggar on the street may say something and I may get great
illumination from them. I should think of him as one of my Gurus. The avatar of Dattatreya had many gurus and amongst them some are animals. 2). You keep mixing up Bhakti with chanting the name of God. Do you think chanting the name of God is the only way for Bhakti? What is your definition of Bhakti? What does it mean by giving up everything and surrender unto me? Have you ever thought of that? Isn't surrender a mental state? Sukshm state? It can only be perceived by a similar state. Therefore, even for
complete surrender you must have to grant a sukshm state to your beloved God. Now, chanting the name is a gross
act. Chanting the name of God and thinking of your wife and children and friends and money as yours is like
playing a children's game. Hence if you want to surender everything to God, what you need is Vairagya. How do you
cultivate this vairagya? You think you chant the name of God and Vairagya gets cultivated is it? Well, there are
CD's available in the market which do nothing but say God's name over and over again. You put it on in your house
and then those machines or the people who listen to it become realised souls or what? There has to be something
more than chanting of God's name that works in a human being. That is why some sadhaks gets immersed in God after
chanting the name and most others do not. The great saints Samarth Ramadas and Gondavalekar Maharaj preached
chanting of God's name to everyone and yet they had only few shishyas who reached Godhead. So on what basis do you
say that chant the name of God and you are guaranteed to reach Godhead in this birth? If chanting God's name is so great then the sages that advocate this method should have had far more realised
shishyas than those who advise other means. What is the ground reality? Does it tally with your assumptions? Also, have you ever thought about what those fortunate shishyas had in them that most others did not have? Finding
a solution in their past birth's acts is like believeing in Santa Claus. Have you thought that there might be
something in them that you and I can cultivate and then reach Godhead easily? Try and understand the word Bhakti. Equating it chanting of God's name and negating its existence to a yogi is not
correct. yours,
shreedhar
PS: I have no problems in your publishing this correspondence in your blog.

Dear Shreedhar<>i didn't read it well . i thought u wrote vedanta
chanting the name of God with Bhakti is required.chanting is a way as is mediatation or chanting itself is a
meditation. we r not asking u 2 chant without Bhakti.it will become very mechanical then.what we ask is CHANT WITH
DEVOTION.once u follow Krishna's instructions, Vairagya will come automatically.everyone can get immersed in
chanting of God's name if evryone becomes sincere enough.as Krishna is sitting in everyone's heart,he knows who is
sincere n who's not.He is giving us whatever we sincerely ask.if we ask Him maya,He gives us maya n along with
maya suffering comes but if we ask Him way to go 2 Him,He provides us way. u r guaranteed to go back to Godhead
after this life if u chant God's names sincerely.
next question raised by u is r there more realised shishyas for the sages who asked to chant God's names. my
answer is surely YES!!!as far as i see Yoga(here by Yoga i mean meditation processes) nowadays has become limited
only for bodily purposes in most of the cases. we can see people doing Pranayama not for spiritual progress but
only to get rid of diseases or mental stress.this practice has become so popular that people think that these r
merely exercises n nothing else.i literally had debate with one person who was doing different meditation
processes for years.he said that these processes r just exercises n nothing else.there is nothing spiritual in
it(of course that man was atheist).everyone knows how much stress Swami Vivekananda gave on Brahmacharya.but
nowadays Yogis have left that clause n preaching without it.it has become a business nowadays.Yoga has become a
business.we should pay money to these so called realised gods to get Yoga training.they will not give u Yoga
training if u don't pay them money.is this what u call Vairagya??as far as chanting of names is concerned things r
better,i have personally seen many very common people with intence devotion towards God.have they become true
devotees r not is to be decided by God .we cann't decide it.real Bhakta doesn't mean that the perso will be having
some powers or something very uncommon.it is not at all required.a true Bhakta may be a very common man.
next question by u is is their something in these realised shishyas which others don't have??answer is SURELY
THEY HAVE!!!!they have sincere desire to serve God,they have true Bhakti. i never said their past lives made
it.what i said that may be in past life they tried path of spirituality but somehow they could not reach it,then
they got possibility to do it in this life n God gave them possibility by sending representatives who asked them
to chant.God gave them facility to come back to God by providing them his NAME!!!but if they will neglect it,they
may again fall down.that's why we say chant now,chant in this life.u can surely destroy ur past good deeds today
similarly u can surely undo ur past pious Karmas today.that's why we ask u to chant in this life.
a bhakta is already a Yogi.he doesn't need to do something special.
now ur first question.4 u it makes no difference if Gita was spoken by Krishna or somebody else.it's totally
wrong. A living being who lives in the mundane world has four defects: (1) he is certain to commit mistakes; (2)
he is subject to illusion; (3) he has a propensity to cheat others; and (4) his senses are imperfect. No one with
these four imperfections can deliver perfect knowledge.but Krishna is not one with these 4 defects.so His words r
perfect.so they r accepted.everyone has accepted that Krishna is God.that's why we believe in Gita.if Gita was
spoken by a gambler or drug addict we would have rejected it.as a gambler or a drug addict is subject to 4 defects
mensioned above.by following him,u r also gambling.even Swami Vivekananda tells same thing. this is from book Rajayoga patanjali yogsutras 7th shloka commentary-''Any madman may come into this room and say he sees angels around him; that would not be proof. In the first
place, it must be true knowledge, and secondly, it must not contradict past knowledge, and thirdly, it must depend
upon the character of the man who gives it out. I hear it said that the character of the man is not of so much
importance as what he may say; we must first hear what he says. This may be true in other things. A man may be
wicked, and yet make an astronomical discovery, but in religion it is different, because no impure man will ever
have the power to reach the truths of religion. Therefore we have first of all to see that the man who declares
himself to be an Âpta is a perfectly unselfish and holy person; secondly, that he has reached beyond the senses;
and thirdly, that what he says does not contradict the past knowledge of humanity. Any new discovery of truth does
not contradict the past truth, but fits into it. And fourthly, that truth must have a possibility of verification.
If a man says, "I have seen a vision," and tells me that I have no right to see it, I believe him not. Everyone
must have the power to see it for himself. No one who sells his knowledge is an Apta.''
that's why WHO SAYS is more important in religion n spirituality. it may be opposite in material world but in
religion it is like that.
chinmay here

Dear Chinmay,
This is in continuation with my earlier mail. I have stopped by saying that it is not correct to deny bhakti to
yogis. Let me explain it a bit more. Here is an example:Look at the concept of love. When thought abstractly, most people would attach only flowery images to the notion
of love. Love means giving up your ego for the person you are loving etc. etc. But does it match to actuality?
Everyone agrees that mother loves her son/daughter. For their sake, she undergoes lot of hardship and selflessly
gives her everything for their well-being. But then in this ex-pression of love, do we include the innumerable
times she scolds her child? Sometimes she even takes out her anger on other people (her husband perhaps?!!) on
them. Sometimes, even when she knows that what the child wants is reasonable, to teach them a certain lesson she
doesn't fulfill their desires. While she was doing this, does her love for them any less? No. In fact, it is
because of her love for them she thinks she can take these liberties with them. The moral of this example is: Love
takes all possible forms to express itself. Even the most darkest behaviour of a person might be his outward
ex-pression of love for something or someone.
The same thing is true about Bhakti. When thought abstractly, we only think about good things associated with it.
Like chanting of God's name, getting immersed in His thoughts, Worshipping Him with utmost vigour etc.etc. But in
bhakti you can even scold your chosen deity. You can get angry with Him and also try and bind Him only to you and
feel jealous if you observe someone else communing with Him. In particular, you can think of his abstract form and
meditate on it and see how the whole world is just small subatomic particle compared to His abstract, blissful
existence. This is what yogis do. Now who can say that it is not bhakti and only chanting of God's name is the
fastest way to show your bhakti. God loves all his children with equal intensity and all of us are trying to
reciprocate His love towards us in our own way.
Now, if one of the sons say that i only love my Father and other's don't would it be correct? My way of showing
love to Him is the fastest way is not at all the correct way of thinking. This shows a certain bias in our God's
mind (He likes one way more than other is the bias)!! How can the one who is infinitely merciful, one who is ocean
of love and one who is everything HImself can show bias towards His one type of children over others?
yours,
shreedhar

dear Shreedharu write ''In particular, you can think of his abstract form and meditate on it and see how the whole world is just
small subatomic particle compared to His abstract, blissful existence. This is what yogis do. Now who can say that
it is not bhakti and only chanting of God's name is the fastest way to show your bhakti.''
as far as i know very less Yogis think in this way.most of the Yogis want themselves to be called Krishna.what u
have written is true.it is written in Gita.this is called meditating on Paramatma feature of God.it is good.but
there is also Bhagavan feature of God which is attended by devotees who surrender unto Krishna's transcendental
form,His name,His fame,His pasttimes.it's not that God loves some of His children more n some of them less.He
loves evryone even atheist.He is situated in everybody's heart n He keeps on wittnessing what we do. if we
sincerely want something He provides it to us.if we want His impersonal form He gives us His impersonal form when
we want His transcendental form He gives us that to. it doesn't mean He is biased with Yogis.it's just different
processes yield different results.if u say God should give same results to Yogis n Bhaktas because both r His
children then what abt others???they r also His children.then he must give mukti to an atheist too!!!but it's not
like that.
as far as i see most of the Yogis call themselves God.some even think they r better God than Krishna.so this is
not Bhakti.this is Ahamkara.which servant is good?that one who accepts he is servant n will serve his master well
or that servant who himself wants to be a master????surely first servant is better.as we r eternal servants of
Krishna,we must serve Krishna n not try to be Krishna.
chinmay here