Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00672)

Tue, 28 Jan 2003 09:12:32 -0500 (EST)

Author: Gerald Schueler <gschueler@earthlink.net>

Subject: Re to BAG - Bhakti

First of all, I bow with respect to the knowledge of BAG regarding 
Hinduism. I am certainly not any kind of expert in Hinduism. His 
definitions are unique, but I won't argue with them. Yes, I have read 
much on Ramakrishna including his biography, and he did practice 
tantra and he did worship Kali. The man was a saint by any 
definition. And Tzongkhapa worshipped Manjruski and other gods. Is 
all worship considered Bhakti or not? If Ramakrishna was not Bhakti, 
then I guess the answer is not. Apparently BAG limits Bhakti to the 
worship of one supreme God, which is NOT how the word is used in most 
Western magic and occult schools. I still feel strongly that calling 
Buddhists atheists is nonsense, but BAG does not seem to understand 
polytheism. As I recall, KH mentions that because the Masters do not 
accept one supreme God, they are wrongly labeled atheists. So be it.

<<<Why would I want you to "worship a god..." ? I wish you to be 
fully loved and to fully love, that is all.>>>

This universe has only a few true laws, and love is one of them.


<<<God is not the same as a god or gods. There is only one Supreme 
Personality of Godhead, Who is infinite and has infinite 
relationships with the beings that He has manifest and created.>>>

There simply is no one "supreme" God anywhere. This is one of the 
teachings of Theosophy that I wholeheartedly agree with. The 
word "infinite" (and also "eternal") is a vague mental concept, and 
when used in occultism it is usually a blind. What it really means 
is "everywhere within our universe." Why? Because both "infinite" 
and "eternal" are limited to our manvantaric experiences during this 
one manvantara as Blavatsky rightly says.

As I have pointed out many times, there is no way to "prove" that God 
exists, nor to "prove" that He does not exist. The idea of a supreme 
God is an unprovable assumption that we are free to accept or reject. 
I believe in gods and goddesses because I have met with them. I have 
never met with any "supreme being" and so I must reject that idea 
until the experience of such a thing happens. But others are free to 
do as they will.

This entire Bhakti business, like most things, hinges on the self and 
not-self duality. Without the union of self and not-self, one can 
continue to worship all one wants to, but will remain in duality. 
This is, apparently, BAG's goal. In fact, the very belief that one is 
separate from God holds one in duality as long as that belief lasts. 
But after such a union one experiences nonduality where there is 
neither self nor not-self, neither worshpper nor worshipped can be 
found and Bhakti becomes meaningless. Nonduality is the ultimate goal 
of both Buddhism (dharmadhatu) and Theosophy (Beness), and my goal as 
well.

In short, I consider both Buddhism and Theosophy to be far superior 
Paths than Bhakti. I would place Bhakti somewhere between karma yoga 
and raja yoga, but of course this is my own opinion here. I do not 
consider any of these three yogas to be terribly effective in 
reaching enlightenment. BAG will doubtless see this differently. So 
be it.

Jerry S.