What is the difference between a Baul, a Tantrika, a Bhakta, and a Sufi?

What really is the difference between a baul, a tantrika, a bhakta, and a sufi? Do they all belong to the path of love? They seem to be intermingled. Please enlighten.

THE boundaries are overlapping. They are all on the path of love, but still there are subtle distinctions. Even with overlapping boundaries they have something special: a Tantrika, a Baul, and a Bhakta. Sufi is not different from Bhakta. Sufi is the Bhakta on the Mohammedan path; Bhakta is the Sufi on the Hindu path. There is no difference between a Bhakta and a Sufi, so we will not discuss that The difference is only of terminology. The Sufis use the Mohammedan terminology, the Bhakta uses the Hindu terminology. The difference is not of any importance; it is just language. But these three: a Baul, a Tantrika and a Bhakta have to be understood. Love has three possibilities: sex, the lowest; love, higher than sex; and prayer, the highest. The Tantrika remains sex-oriented. The Tantrika in fact avoids love, because love will become an entanglement. He remains a pure technician…

Only a connoisseur of the flavours of love can comprehend the language of a lover's heart, others have no clue. The taste of lime rests in the core of the fruit, and even experts know of no easy way to reach it. Honey is hidden within the lotus bloom -- but the bee knows it. Dung-beetles nestle in dung, discounting honey. Submission is the secret of knowledge.

Bauls belong more to the Tantras than to the Vedas. There is only one improvement on Tantras; that is the only difference. Tantra is all-inclusive, more feminine than male. The Vedas are more male-oriented, the Tantras are more feminine. Of course, woman is more inclusive than man. Man is included in woman, but woman is not included in man. Man seems to be a sort of specialization. Woman seems to be more general, more fluid, more round. Tantra is the way of the feminine, just like Tao. But the Bauls have improved upon Tantra also. Tantra is too technical. The very word 'Tantra' means technique. It is a little harsh, more scientific. Bauls are more poetic; Bauls are more soft -- singers and dancers. Tantra uses sex to rise higher than it, but it uses it. Sex becomes instrumental. Bauls say that is not very respectful: "How can you USE…

Osho, "so-aham -- I am that," or "aham brahmasmi -- I am the brahman," or "anal-hak": all these statements seem to be that of a gyani (one who is on the path of knowledge). Last night's sutra says: "I am that -- so-aham -- is the salutation." the second part seems to be that of a bhakta (one who is on the path of devotion), whereas the first part seems to be that of a gyani. This is a rare combination. Please explain why the statements of gyana and bhakti have been put together?

(I) IN THIS REFERENCE, PLEASE EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A GYANI AND A BHAKTA. (II) HOW DO GYANIS LIKE RISHI KAPIL AND SHANKARA DIFFER FROM BHAKTAS SUCH AS CHAITANYA AND MEERA? (III) WHY HAVE GREAT BHAKTAS PREFERRED TO KEEP THEMSELVES SEPARATE FROM BHAGWAN (THE DIVINE) SUCH AS MEERA FROM LORD KRISHNA? (IV) DOES BHAKTI CULMINATE INTO GYANA OR GYANA CULMINATE INTO BHAKTI? THE Ultimate is one -- but it can be viewed from many angles; it can be looked at from various points of view. It is one, but when it is expressed the expression can take multi-shapes. It is one, but when one reaches toward it the paths differ. And whatsoever is said from a particular path is just one aspect of the reality: it is not the total reality. Experience of the Total is possible, but expression of the Total is not possible. Expression is always partial. You…

Who is a baul? Please tell us the definition.

IT should have been asked in the beginning; now this is going to be last. But in a way, it is good. If in the beginning you had asked about the definition of a Baul, it would have been almost impossible to say anything. Not that now I can define, but at least now I can say it is indefinable. The Baul is not a metaphysics, the Baul is a mystique. I can invite you to participate in that mystery, but definition is not possible. So I am not going to define. Instead, I will tell you a story. Maybe that will give you a definition; but you will have to find it yourself. I have heard.... Once upon a time, an angel came to earth to see man and his world, because he had heard so many stories of man's splendor that he could not resist his curiosity. The…

Is there any difference between the approaches of shiva and saraha towards tantra?

NOT REALLY, NOT ESSENTIALLY. But as far as the form is concerned, yes. Religions differ only in the form. Religions differ only in their methodology. Religions differ as far as the door into the Divine is concerned, but not existentially. And there are only two basic formal differences: that of the path of devotion, prayer, love, and the path of meditation, awareness. These two basic differences persist. Shiva's approach is that of devotion; it is that of prayer, of love. Saraha's approach is that of meditation, awareness. The distinction is still formal, because when the lover and the meditator reach they arrive at the same goal. Their arrows are released from different angles, but they reach the same target. Their arrows are released from different bows, but they reach the same target. The bow does not matter finally. What type of bow you have chosen does not matter if the…