Devotee ...or Deity?

[Vimala]

Hi,

I have a question about bhakti yoga and tantric yoga.

The bhakta serves his deity and surrender his ego, he don't even try to merge with the deity: he just want to serve.
He accept austerities and all kind of things for the love of the  Deity.

In tantric yoga, there's the concept of Ishta devata, a personal deity and the tantrika meditate to actually become the deity.
Apparently, there's no ego-surrender, but some kind of ego-empowerment.

Probably, I'm too ignorant about this matter to understand on my own.
Please, clarify this matter friends
thank you[/\]

[kami]

Hi Vimala,

The Bhakti path starts in a dualistic way and ends up in Oneness. There is ardent devotion/Bhakti, which is nothing but love for the higher. We see our Ishta devata to be "out there" in the beginning, learning to surrender everything to him or her, to see him/her in all, to remember him/her at all times. As we delve deeper into it, our relationship to the Ishta devata changes. He/she goes from being "out there" to "in here" and then, "everywhere". The form of the deity also changes from a solid/clear one to a fuzzy, effulgent, all-pervading radiance.

What  happens when we love someone so much that any perceived separation is painful? We merge with them - knowingly or unknowingly.

Same thing in the Bhakti path - it is actually the same as the path of tantra. Tantra, as you know, is far from being about sex. It is the path of union, or rather of coming to see that we were never separate to begin with. If there is ego empowerment, be it in Bhakti, tantra, jnana or karma, we have strayed from the spirit of it. Seeing your partner as the god/goddess is simply the extension of seeing the god/goddess in everyone. Just that the form of worship differs - in tantra, you worship in the unique way of union through all faculties that includes the body in a specific way. With others, the worship leaves out the body. But the Ishta is seen in all, without any difference.

Hope this helps.

Love,
Kami

[Vimala]

Thank you kami ,[]

my "source" for bhakti yoga comes fundamentally from the bhakti-vedanta literature which seems quite questionable to me at the moment.
The hare Krishna philosophy says that the devotee is always separate from God and he keeps his individual nature.
Thus, the purpose is to serve forever an external Supreme Personality and Yoga isn't actually "union", but some sort of total surrender and total dependence in which one develops prema, or spiritual divine love.
It looks so... dis-empowering.

In tantric Ishta devata Yoga, one visualize himself as the deity (as in vajrayana buddhism) and worship himself, basically.

[kami]

Hi Vimala,

The Hare Krishna movement does not resonate with the Bhakta in me.

What I was describing is what is in, for example, the Bhagavatam, Narada Bhakti Sutras, the Bhagavad Gita, and even the Vivekachoodamani, and how it plays out in my own path. The dualistic theory holds no appeal for me, because that is far from my own experience.

Your Ishta devata tantra sounds exactly like the Bhakti Marga to me. Nothing egoic about it if we see that the Ishta that's in here is also equally there.

My two cents.

[Vimala]

Thank you

[Radharani]

quote:Originally posted by Vimala

Hi,

I have a question about bhakti yoga and tantric yoga.

The bhakta serves his deity and surrender his ego, he don't even try to merge with the deity: he just want to serve.
He accept austerities and all kind of things for the love of the  Deity.

In tantric yoga, there's the concept of Ishta devata, a personal deity and the tantrika meditate to actually become the deity.
Apparently, there's no ego-surrender, but some kind of ego-empowerment.

Probably, I'm too ignorant about this matter to understand on my own.
Please, clarify this matter friends
thank you[/\]

Dear Vimala,
I essentially agree with what Kami said.  I would describe my own path as "bhakti/tantrika" and to me there is no conflict; indeed, bhakti and tantra go together, and neither has anything to do with "ego empowerment."

Re: ISKCON, I studied with them in college, and will always appreciate them for their love of Krishna, BUT I disagree with them in some respects.  For one, they say that the highest spiritual experience is "longing" for the Lord - pining for Him as if He is absent.  This keeps you in the dualistic mode.  I objected, "but I would rather HAVE Him!" and was scolded, "you're not allowed to, only the gopis," etc.

As you said, the bhakta serves his Deity, accepting austerities, etc. to please the Deity.  But let us consider this possibility:  What if it pleases the Deity, to embrace the bhakta?  What if the Deity does not want to be kept at a distance?!

In tantra our entire existence, physical and spiritual, becomes a devotional practice.  It is utter surrender, not worship of oneself.  IMO you "become the Deity" only in relationship to sexual practice where you embody the Deity for your lover and vice versa.  In tantra you can become One with the Deity in so far as the Deity is Everything and you lose yourself in That, but it is not about the ego becoming a god.

People approach "merging" with God - Divine union - in different ways.  There is the union of lovers and the union of dissolution, neither of which is endorsed by ISKCON.

I hope that is helpful.

[Vimala]

Thank you Radharani

I totally agree with you and I just want to show a few points that may clarify the "hare krishna" thing.

First and foremost, they miss the Acarya. Hence, they're not legitimate to spread the complete tradition of the Gaudiya Sampradaya: they can share the most important things, like Love for God, etc... but initiations are off limits for them.
Obviously, they would not agree.

Acarya means "one who teach with his example", so they say that it's enough to follow the rules and teach the rules in this way.

This is a misunderstanding: Guru teaches "Love for God" with his example. This means that when guru chant for god, he awakens love for god in you. How could Srila Prabhupada attract so many people simply chanting? Because his mere presence teach on a sub-conscious level "how to love": this is explained in the field of psychology. We learn many things un-consciously.

Thus, the real purpose of bhakti-yoga isn't "longing for the divinity". This is just the pre-requisite to meet the Guru.
The real purpose is Krishna-Prema. Love for Krishna that is nothing else than ecstatic conductivity + Divine Love in my personal understanding.

Srila Prabhupada could not produce a disciple with outpouring divine love and the succession was broken.
There is money around Iskcon, and head-people act like Gurus, skillfully imitating Prabhupada. But they are not legitimate, in my opinion.

As for the tantric way to "become the deity", I always think about the great tibetan lamas (Dalai Lama, Karmapa, etc...) that learn since childhood that they are Deva, Gods.
I think about the great XVI karmapa who usually said "I am compassion".

Dont' know why, but I have the feeling that they empower their ego to certain extent. This video contributed to this feeling: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZB-4msQFkqw

[Radharani]

quote:Originally posted by Vimala

Thank you Radharani

I totally agree with you and I just want to show a few points that may clarify the "hare krishna" thing.

First and foremost, they miss the Acarya. Hence, they're not legitimate to spread the complete tradition of the Gaudiya Sampradaya: they can share the most important things, like Love for God, etc... but initiations are off limits for them.
Obviously, they would not agree.

Acarya means "one who teach with his example", so they say that it's enough to follow the rules and teach the rules in this way.

This is a misunderstanding: Guru teaches "Love for God" with his example. This means that when guru chant for god, he awakens love for god in you. How could Srila Prabhupada attract so many people simply chanting? Because his mere presence teach on a sub-conscious level "how to love": this is explained in the field of psychology. We learn many things un-consciously.

Thus, the real purpose of bhakti-yoga isn't "longing for the divinity". This is just the pre-requisite to meet the Guru.
The real purpose is Krishna-Prema. Love for Krishna that is nothing else than ecstatic conductivity + Divine Love in my personal understanding.

Srila Prabhupada could not produce a disciple with outpouring divine love and the succession was broken.
There is money around Iskcon, and head-people act like Gurus, skillfully imitating Prabhupada. But they are not legitimate, in my opinion.

As for the tantric way to "become the deity", I always think about the great tibetan lamas (Dalai Lama, Karmapa, etc...) that learn since childhood that they are Deva, Gods.
I think about the great XVI karmapa who usually said "I am compassion".

Dont' know why, but I have the feeling that they empower their ego to certain extent. This video contributed to this feeling: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZB-4msQFkqw

I agree with you about ISKCON and I think it is all too common among religious organizations.  But, I see the problem as essentially, "You can't get to God on your own, you need to follow our rules and obey our guru," etc.  This was the case when Prabhupada was still in charge, never mind the new guys.  I also disagree with his (and their) teachings regarding women and sexuality, but that is another issue.  In any case yes, a guru or acharya can inspire us, but Krishna-prema comes directly to the devotee by the grace of Krishna, not from some old guy claiming to be His sole representative.  That is why I really appreciate Yogani's TGIIY approach.

The Dalai Lama (with whom I have had the privilege of studying briefly and receiving an initiation from him) is pretty well known to be the incarnation of the Bodhisattva of Compassion, and therefore yes, technically a "deva."  But it has nothing to do with ego empowerment.  He is the most humble person you could ever want to meet.  He always says, "I am just a simple monk."  It is more like samyama - you literally become one with Compassion.

I cannot speak for the other Tibetan lamas, as I don't know them, but I have met practitioners who fell into the ego-empowerment trap, including the guy who taught me tantric sex in college, who studied in Tibet.  

IMO the concept "I am God" can all too easily be misunderstood as ego identification (and we see this a lot in the New Age movement), as opposed to the yogic understanding that there is only one Self which is manifesting as all beings, and this little ego is merely a function of that consciousness focused in and through the experience of "me" in space-time.  I am sure you understand that but I've met plenty of other people who don't.

[kami]

Hi Vimala,

Wholeheartedly second Radharani's opinion here.

To clarify at the outset, I have nothing against ISKCON - in fact, they have the most beautiful Krishna temples in modern times, the most beautiful Krishna art, and heart-moving rituals. However, there seems to be a fundamental difference in how they and I view Krishna/Divinity. Like Radharani, I strongly disagree with Prabhupada's writings about women, and a whole host of other 'do's' and 'don'ts'.

Bhakti yoga is seeing God in all, and hence loving all. Neem Karoli Baba, one of the greatest sages in recent times broke it down to "Love all, serve all." Beyond that, the actual nature of the relationship between God and the bhakta is deeply personal. Love cannot be subject to logic - it just is.  Compassion is also only love - it is only through the seeing of another as oneself that leads to perfect clarity, understanding and empathy for their predicament. There is no compassion without love.

It is not just "I am God", but "All is God". Humility is seeing that I am not greater/better than anyone else - we are all equally God.

[Vimala]

Thank you for your precious replies

I feel inspired and I want to explore the teachings of Neem Karoli Baba.

[Radharani]

I agree with what Kami said, above, about ISKCON and would just like to add:  Despite my disagreement with aspects of their doctrine, the Hare Krishnas with whom I studied/worshipped in college were absolutely sincere, deeply devoted, kind, generous people who obviously LOVED the Lord and were able to teach and impart that devotion to others.  I consider my time with them of the utmost importance in my yoga/spiritual life.  They enabled me to fall in love with the Lord.  I had rejected Christianity at age 12, began doing yoga at 13 and was more or less atheist until college, when I began to have some glimpse of the Divine, but it was vague and impersonal and out of reach.  The Hare Krishnas helped me to appreciate a personal God who not only loves us dearly, but enjoys our company and devotion.  (I understand that not everybody, even among yogis, is interested in a personal God, and bhakti can take a more abstract form, but for me personally it is essential.)  Getting to know Him as Krishna also healed my relationship with Jesus which had been ruined by fundie churches.  So I have a lot of love for ISKCON even though I disagree with them on key points re: women, sexuality, and very importantly, the dualistic "love Him at a distance" approach.

[Vimala]

I don't have a delineate idea of good/bad things in the movements and basically, I greatly respect all types of spirituality when followers consider them seriously (as the Iskcon).

But facts are that Prabhupada's greatest disciples fall in disgrace (the original GCB with all kind of scandals like pedophilia, etc). There are numbers of dedicated webpage that speak against Iskcon.
Prabhupada had at his side a strong devotion that can touch the heart of people around him
and the mahamantra of which I don't know the real powers: I'm a tantra-reader and I'm used to read wonders about any mantra... medieval tantrikas were a bit exaggerated, imho.

[SeySorciere]

quote:Originally posted by kami

Hi Vimala,

The Bhakti path starts in a dualistic way and ends up in Oneness. There is ardent devotion/Bhakti, which is nothing but love for the higher. We see our Ishta devata to be "out there" in the beginning, learning to surrender everything to him or her, to see him/her in all, to remember him/her at all times. As we delve deeper into it, our relationship to the Ishta devata changes. He/she goes from being "out there" to "in here" and then, "everywhere". The form of the deity also changes from a solid/clear one to a fuzzy, effulgent, all-pervading radiance.

What  happens when we love someone so much that any perceived separation is painful? We merge with them - knowingly or unknowingly.

Same thing in the Bhakti path - it is actually the same as the path of tantra. Tantra, as you know, is far from being about sex. It is the path of union, or rather of coming to see that we were never separate to begin with. If there is ego empowerment, be it in Bhakti, tantra, jnana or karma, we have strayed from the spirit of it. Seeing your partner as the god/goddess is simply the extension of seeing the god/goddess in everyone. Just that the form of worship differs - in tantra, you worship in the unique way of union through all faculties that includes the body in a specific way. With others, the worship leaves out the body. But the Ishta is seen in all, without any difference.

Hope this helps.

Love,
Kami

Brilliantly simple and beautiful explanation Kami - May I steal it?

Sey

[nookslist]

Hello  Robfrommi,

Yes, Alternate anterior naris respiration are often used as an alternate to SBP if you're obtaining too sturdy a reaction to SBP. simply remember that it's a far less powerful observe than SBP, thus once enough purification has occured to permit you to observe SBP once more, be able to switch back. it would not take as long as you're thinking that.