Talk:Bhakti yoga

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Radhakrishnan not a valid source for religion[edit]

Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan is not a valid source for religion. The very Wikipedia entry for Rashakrishnan reveals this, by presenting his quote, also published on "positive atheism". Radhakrishnan wanted to discard religion from Vedas and accept only the social and moral benefits. In other words, another Heaven without God, the Holy Grail of all atheists. Quoting him on Hindusim is like quoting Marxists on Christianity. Entry on Varuna is nonsense in the same fashion. Bhakti is the path of salvation. Varuna is a demi-god, category: jiva-tattva, and needs salvation himself. Bhakti is a relationship possible with God only, it is an emotion that can not be experienced with any other being, except God. In Hinduism category: God (as opposed to: demi-god) is classified as vishnu-tattva. Only with vishnu-tattva bhakti is possible, and only here we can search for the roots of bhakti.

I have recently re-worked this page, and am in agreement with much of the above. It was barely an article on 'bhakti' in it's former state. GourangaUK 11:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Bhakti and Bhakti yoga[edit]

What is the difference between bhakti and Bhakti yoga? Kkrystian 11:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Additional section to Bhakti yoga article[edit]

I would like to put the Sri Sampradayam description of Bhakti yoga. From the time of Ramanujacharya and before, Bhakti yoga was the practise of regular Ashtanga yoga...but, Lovenly meditate on Vishnu/Narayana. Doing dharana and dhyanam on Vishnu/Narayana is still a basic,every day part of the sadhana of a Sri Sampradayam Vaishnava. This was the standard and practise from Ramanujacharya and before. I think and feel that it should be included on this article. The conception of Bhakti yoga on this article is very tinged with a ISKON understanding and slant. I think it would be fair to add the original Sri Sampradayam standard to this article Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 07:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Bhakti?[edit]

No need to merge this article with Bhakti. There is enough here for it to stand alone.
It's customary to put a {{Merge from}} on the other article, and change both templates to direct the discussion to just one of the Talk pages. Lentower (talk) 11:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

so, what is there on this page that is not a WP:CFORK of the Bhakti article? In other words, what is the definition of "Bhakti Yoga" as opposed to the definition of "Bhakti"? If there is one, I am sure this article isn't aware of it. The introduction claims, without any basis, that "Bhakti Yoga is a type of yoga". This is a misconception. The tatpurusha compound bhaktiyoga is a Sanskrit term for "loving attachment". This doesn't make it "a type of yoga". After this "introduction", the article goes on to describe the concept of bhakti, the bhakti movement, and "notable proponents of bhakti". Not a single word more about an alleged "type of yoga" known as "bhakti yoga".

So if you think there is "enough here for it to stand alone", I would ask you what exactly you are talking about. After we remove the stuff discussing bhakti and the bhakti movement, this article will consist of a single, unreferenced sentence. --dab (𒁳) 12:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The reality is that Bhakti-Yoga: The Yoga of Love and Devotion is the title of a 1919 English language work by Vivekananda. In this, Vivekananda describes Bhakti as a "Yoga of Love and Devotion" (where, you will note, "Yoga" is now an English noun, not just a Sanskrit word for "attachment"). This means that the concept of Bhakti "has been described as a type of Yoga" since the early 20th century. Possibly the late 19th, there seem to be precursors to Vivekananda (1898, 1900, 1902). The two issues here are:

  1. the article is completely unaware of this. I had to figure this out for my self with literally zero help from the article as it stands. This is related to our recommendation of WP:CITE
  2. the fact that Bhakti "has been described as a type of Yoga" since the 1890s or so makes for a great addition to the Bhakti article, but it still establishes "Bhakti-Yoga" as identical with "Bhakti", which makes this article a (formerly unreferenced, now referenced) WP:CFORK of Bhakti.

It is still possible that the Bhagavat Purana uses "bhakti-yoga" in a sense that is inspired by Patanjali's Yoga, as it were juxtaposing bhakti as the "true yoga" which renders Patanjali's system superfluous (the prototypical claim that "Love is all you need"). Compare this to Christian metaphors like "Jesus Christ is the World's True Wealth". Does this mean that the Jesus Christ article should be categorized in Category:Macroeconomics? No, it means that "to followers of Christ, macroeconomics is without importance". On exactly the same grounds, "to bhakti devotees, Patanjali's Eight Limbs are without importance". This makes Bhakti as much not a style of Yoga as Jesus Christ is not a notable Wall Street indicator.

Also, this would still mean that "Bhakti is a type of Yoga", therefore redirect Bhakti Yoga to Bhakti, but it would push back the date of this idea to the 13th century or so. If this is indeed the case, I would be grateful for a pointer to at least one academic secondary work that makes this point for us. --dab (𒁳) 12:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you considered how, where, and if Bhakti_movement should be merged?
More comments when I have time. Lentower (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I now understand what is going on here: the terms Jnana Yoga, Karma Yoga and Bhakti Yoga are used when considering jnana, karma and bhakti as three paths to moksha. It is futile to discuss them on their own, as the discussion surrounds their relative natures and their interrelatedness. See Three Yogas. --dab (𒁳) 11:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, enough here to stand alone. -- ɑηsuмaη ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ 18:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose : No need for merge, as Bhakti by itself is very vague and means only notion of thing while Bhakti yoga is quite different. and has certain steps and a goal to be reached at the end. Shrikanthv (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The bhakti movement is eternal?[edit]

"The bhakti movement is eternal, but on Earth, in visible history, it began in [..]" - is this encyclopedic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpov (talkcontribs) 09:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

dualist definition in the Philosophy section/ monist definition in lead[edit]

Bhakti is not exclusively to a personal god. Nirguna Bhakti is as legitimate as Saguna Bhakti. And the idea that it is between an individual soul and a supersoul assumes bhakti to be only a dualist practice which it is not: Shuddhadvaita for example is a bhakti vaishnav group that believes the individual is a part of God.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bhakti yoga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)