story of the pet parrot

Originally posted by Taoman
The Bhakti way is not the reasoning way and some do not understand this. It has some similarities to Pentecostalism within Christianity, where personal relationship and expressive devotion are prior to doctrine and ritual. We see it also in the Sufi tradition.

One assumes or forms the idea initially from the beginning that there is that which is greater, " ...[text shortened]... They must find another way if they are so inclined. Plenty of ways.

Cheers rv.

God is not one or the other but both.

This is called (acintya bhada bhada tattva)

He is fixed and also everything in all places.

This is the meaning of God.

Mundane mind wants to pick one or the other but cannot conceive both.

Although the Bhaktas can certainly see this.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
A saint was,one day, listening to various problems of his devotees and solving them/guiding them. A person told him that he was feeling very sad. On being asked why,the person told him that his pet parrot had died that day. The saint asked him whether there were any cockroaches in his house and whether any of them had died recently. On being told that qui ...[text shortened]... indu Bhakti tradition allows one form of Bhakti,where you are 'friend' of God. Any comments?

I have mentioned this before but I will state it again since it seems
somewhat related to what you are saying. When I was 12 years old
I was baptized in the church. I believed Jesus loved me at that time
and my relationship has gradually grown over the years. At that time
I did not realize that He was God, however.

Originally posted by Taoman
The Bhakti way is not the reasoning way and some do not understand this. It has some similarities to Pentecostalism within Christianity, where personal relationship and expressive devotion are prior to doctrine and ritual. We see it also in the Sufi tradition.

One assumes or forms the idea initially from the beginning that there is that which is greater, " ...[text shortened]... They must find another way if they are so inclined. Plenty of ways.

Cheers rv.

Many thanks for a very cool and rational explanation! The saint in the story could not have not done it better.

Originally posted by Soothfast
Yoda always says Anakin's attachment to his mother was his foremost impediment of becoming a well-balanced Jedi.

You have given it a somewhat different interpretation. But I will be back.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have mentioned this before but I will state it again since it seems
somewhat related to what you are saying. When I was 12 years old
I was baptized in the church. I believed Jesus loved me at that time
and my relationship has gradually grown over the years. At that time
I did not realize that He was God, however.

At that time, you probably took him to be your friend! This was great. The relationship thereafter is bound to be closer and more meaningful.

Originally posted by Soothfast
Understanding oftentimes precedes attachment.

True,many a times we need to know a person before we can start to like him/her e.g.Indian spouses who are married in the traditional manner i.e. arranged marriages and are almost strangers on the day of marriage. But here we the would-be Sadhakas have no concepts of/about God at all. There is no knowledge of God with us. In this case,we need to have a working relationship with God first. We can call God by any name we like. Mother,Father, Friend,Confidant or Lover. Once we call God as 'our' God, things will move.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, it is not. I did not need to think of evolution as my pet parrot before I understood it.
If it was a well known truism, then why did the parrot owner need a saint to explain it to him?

I request you to please see my reply to Soothfast above. Also even in mundane/scientific matters you have to invest a part of yourself,no matter how small,in the object of your interest,before you can begin to understand it.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
I request you to please see my reply to Soothfast above. Also even in mundane/scientific matters you have to invest a part of yourself,no matter how small,in the object of your interest,before you can begin to understand it.

You don't actually answer any of my questions.

You seem to be saying at first that we cannot study God unless we first have a personal relationship with him. The implication being that scientific style studying will not work. Now you suggest that scientific style studying does involve a personal relationship, making the whole point null and void and the story worthless.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You don't actually answer any of my questions.

You seem to be saying at first that we cannot study God unless we first have a personal relationship with him. The implication being that scientific style studying will not work. Now you suggest that scientific style studying does involve a personal relationship, making the whole point null and void and the story worthless.

I will repeat : We do not have any concepts/knowledge about God. Hence,in order to realize God,we first build a working relationship by terming God as 'our' God. We call God as our friend, for instance. Once we do that,realization comes fast.This applies to a study of mundane subjects also. Unless our ego is first involved/unless we are interested initially,we do not make any progress. Even if one hates/rejects God,that person has built a connection which will work eventually.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
I will repeat : We do not have any concepts/knowledge about God. Hence,in order to realize God,we first build a working relationship by terming God as 'our' God.

Repeating, wont change the fact that you are not making any sense.
Either you are suggesting a particular method for study that should be applied to studying God, or you are not. At times it appears you are, but when questioned as to why that particular method is required, you state that it is the only method of study and is used for all study whether we realize it or not.

So how does one build a working relationship with some entity that they know nothing about but have, for some bizzare reason, named God?
Why would someone want to learn about or build a relationship with something they know nothing about?
How does one even know that the entity they are attempting to build a relationship with exists?
Will you build a relationship with the invisible pink unicorns that live in my fridge?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Repeating, wont change the fact that you are not making any sense.
Either you are suggesting a particular method for study that should be applied to studying God, or you are not. At times it appears you are, but when questioned as to why that particular method is required, you state that it is the only method of study and is used for all study whether we ...[text shortened]... exists?
Will you build a relationship with the invisible pink unicorns that live in my fridge?

The story was meant for believers who want to realize God by Bhakti but do not know how to approach God,not for scientists accustomed to reading peer reviewed articles in exclusive journals. Please ignore the failure of rvsakhadeo to be even clearer,because the moment you say rvsakhadeo does not make any sense,the discussion has come to an end.The usual missiles of tooth fairy et al need not come out of their silos.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
The story was meant for believers who want to realize God by Bhakti but do not know how to approach God,not for scientists accustomed to reading peer reviewed articles in exclusive journals. Please ignore the failure of rvsakhadeo to be even clearer,because the moment you say rvsakhadeo does not make any sense,the discussion has come to an end.The usual missiles of tooth fairy et al need not come out of their silos.

So you're saying to realise God you have to be a believer in the first place?!

also

What's an 'exclusive journal'?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
So you're saying to realise God you have to be a believer in the first place?!

also

What's an 'exclusive journal'?

Yes,a grain of belief is necessary at the starting point.Further progress will materialise thereafter. Exclusive journals are meant for experts and specialists,the very knowledgeable who have nothing in common with the believing hordes.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
The story was meant for believers who want to realize God by Bhakti but do not know how to approach God,not for scientists accustomed to reading peer reviewed articles in exclusive journals.

So there are people who 'believe' something, but have no knowledge or concepts about what they believe?

Please ignore the failure of rvsakhadeo to be even clearer,because the moment you say rvsakhadeo does not make any sense,the discussion has come to an end.The usual missiles of tooth fairy et al need not come out of their silos.
I am still not understanding you. Are you saying I must ignore you when you are talking nonsense? Why am I wrong to try to understand you? Must I establish a personal relationship first?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Yes,a grain of belief is necessary at the starting point.Further progress will materialise thereafter. Exclusive journals are meant for experts and specialists,the very knowledgeable who have nothing in common with the believing hordes.

Exclusive journals are meant for experts and specialists,the very knowledgeable who have nothing in common with the believing hordes.

And how exactly did you come to the conclusion that the experts and specialists have nothing in common with the believing hordes?!