Easier way to realize God

Aum Sairam

Let us make an assumption, that if it is popular it must be 'easier'.
In general, Bhakti is easier. Demonstrated by the fact that most saints
/ gurus are not scholarly persons. By "not scholarly" I mean that
knowledge was not their mainstay, but by no means do I imply that they
were ignorant. e.g. Sai Baba, Ramadas, Akkalkot Maharaj, Thyagaraja,
Avval, etc. These people were commoners. They had faith, faith and more
faith and a little more faith. And through faith, they elevated
themselves as Saints and Gurus.

Examples of Gnana path are demonstrated by Adi Shankaracharya, Ramana
Maharshi, Saraswati Swami [Kanchi], etc. These people read the Vedas,
Upanishads etc. day in and day out and analyzed it from various perspectives

Bhakti is solely in your mind, i.e. you can have faith or not. There
are by far no pre-requisites. It helps if you have a group, but it is
not a requirement. You could sit on a deserted island and have faith
[Bhakti] in Sri Sai. Bhakti implies Dhyana or Seva.

Gnana requires knowledge of language, access to other scholars, and
their interpretations, and the ability to analyze various perspectives.
If you sit on a deserted island, you will at a bare minimum need
written material or memories of what you have read earlier to ponder
upon. Gnana implies prasna.

An analogy Bhakti is like a candle, all you need is one lighted candle
[Guru] for just a second to light another candle [bhakta] and it
continues to provide light. Gnana is like Agnihotram, you need a bunch
of wood (scholars) put together, and they continue to provide light. In
modern world, there are no pure bhakti and pure gnana. They are
interspersed and yet, Bhakti is more popular. Must be easier. In the
end, both paths lead to the same destination.


Allah Malik