• Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Bhaja Govindam: Dukrunjkarane

Status
Not open for further replies.

tks

0
There was a discussion about Bhakthi a while ago, wherein I commented about the first stanza of Baja Govindam as follows.

Reference: http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/showthread.php?t=32805&p=352955&posted=1#post352955>


"Baja Govindam is a sloka whose real meaning is profoundly vedantic. It is attributed to Sri Sankara and it might be anyone else in his lineage.


Regardless, the meaning given to the first stanza is:

"Worship Govinda, worship Govinda, worship Govinda, Oh fool !
Rules of grammar will not save you at the time of your death."

Idea of this popular translation is about reciting the name Govinda . Not sure how it is supposed to help ward off death of a fool. There is even a seemingly concocted story that there was an old fellow studying grammar and Sri Sankara was addressing such people from getting caught up with grammar issues and instead say the name of the Lord - Govinda.

This is the common interpretation of 'Bhakthi for Mukthi' type people...

Govinda means one who is understood by Shabda (words) of Veda. It will make no sense to call anyone reading this as fools and then tell them to ignore grammar. How is that supposed to help one be saved from death. What does being saved mean anyway? Why pick on grammar of a language?

There are more profound and more fitting translation with particular emphasis of choice of words in the stanza including the use of डुकृञ्करणे"

The objective of this thread is to pick up where the above post left off, in order to examine if there is more to the meaning than a simple translation.

For someone given to a belief in Bhagavan, there is no need for further explanation.

The Go in Govinda can be taken as cow and one that protects the cows in general is Govinda which is another name for Sri Krishna. So asking people to worship Sri Krishna in order to have better after life, post death will make perfect sense for someone who is raised in a Hindu religious household. This is especially true if they equate the elusive Moksha with going to a place called Vaikunta after death in order to worship the Lord for eternity.

It is a beautiful Sloka (and one of my favorites) and if one is given to above set of beliefs, my suggestions is for one to continue reciting names of the Lord with the Bhava of Bhakthi.

On the other hand, if one wants to understand if there is a more profound meaning and message behind this popular sloka, the following posts in this thread may be of interest.

What I am sharing here is not from any particular source that can be Googled for. If there is a reference appropriate I will share it. Style of presentation is my own though my hope is that the meaning is what one would get when one studies Vedanta in a school devoted to proper sampradaya. One has to bear with what may appear to be my meanderings and shortcomings. I plan to open more questions than answers so as to generate interest in the topic area. I do not plan to respond to any comments (unless they are relevant or asking for clarifications) until the end of the thread.

The sloka starts with worship of Govinda.

So what is worship? Is that emotionalism one feels for a deity? Can someone who profess to study Vedanta capable of expression of Bhakthi? How does one worship Govinda?

Who does this Sloka address? In other words who is a fool (if that is the right translation).

What is the significance, if any, of the choice of the name of the Lord here?

Without doing deep dive into too much grammar, some comments are needed to understand the choice of this expression Dukrunjkarane. Is there a significance to using this phrase? If so what is being conveyed?

In what way worshiping Govinda connected to teachings of the Upanishad?

Why is the falling of the body, namely death emphasized here? If it is a Vedantic message, why is death even talked about since loosely speaking Atma is taught as immortal?

Time itself is an illusion as supported by today's science and of course Vedantic teaching. If so why call attention to time of death in this stanza,

If one were to look at each Stanza of this Bhaja Govindam verses one would find innumerable questions.

A religionist, given to a belief will say - "With all these questions, you are just doing what this stanza tell you not to do , oh fool - Like grammar rule, you are splitting hair asking all kinds of questions, Just get back to worship of Govinda"

I agree with such people and this thread is not for you,

I also agree that worship of Govinda is indeed a wonderful thing. Whenever I find time and ability to log into this site I will post (I am not able to login most often) . Until then let us enjoy this sloka as sung by MS Subbulakshmi whose expression of Bhakthi has no peers.

Bhaja Govindam song By MS Subbulakshmi
 
The story is not about finding fault with Paninis grammar.

The story goes that the Brahmana was memorizing one of the Sutras of Panini डुकृञ् which gives rules on how the root word कृ is derived by the rules that warrant the डु and the ञ् to be dropped to derive the words that denote the action of doing करणे.

Now that Brahmana was memorizing this rule to impress the King to secure a well paying job.

So here is where Adi Shankara points out that one should know which knowledge will take you to a state of realization and not dwell on worldy knowledge alone.

So the Bhajo Govindam here is not merely implicating blind bhakti ..the word Govinda is a combination of Go and Vindate/Vindati
Vindate/ Vindati means " to find".

Now its left to us to decipher the meaning of the word Go.
And Go has so many meanings eg.
Cow, sky,ray of light,diamond, the earth,water, the eye,a mother, speech, senses, the sky and at times even denoted by some as to mean Veda as in knowledge.

I guess we can put 2 and 2 together now
 
I have a few questions that can be answered whenever it is possible .
Why is 'Worship Govinda' repeated three times? Is that just for poem's meter? Or is it being addressed to a fool?
Are we all fools?

Good thread.
 
[FONT=q_serif]Shankara was the proponent of Advaita. Bhaja Govindam is the phrase telling to remember and worship Brahman, which is the eternal truth. It is neither referring to exclusively Shri Hari Vishnu or Shiva, it is to both, the distinction disappears into one Brahman at the consciousness level of Shankara.[/FONT]
 
I have a few questions that can be answered whenever it is possible .
Why is 'Worship Govinda' repeated three times? Is that just for poem's meter? Or is it being addressed to a fool?
Are we all fools?

Good thread.

Meter rules mostly and fool is a word that is used to denote ignorance as in not aware of " The Truth"

Its just how people use words...for eg the word disabled is not used in certain middle east countries instead the term " people of determination" is used which conveys the challenges faced without insulting the person.

Our Hindu religious texts were written in.an era where people with different needs like visually impaired were harshly called blind.
Those of a different IQ were at times called fools...the same is seen in other religious texr calling people blind and ignorant.

Over time we humans realized these harsh words has many shades of " ignorance"themselves and we evolved to be more polite.
 
Meter rules mostly and fool is a word that is used to denote ignorance as in not aware of " The Truth"

Its just how people use words...for eg the word disabled is not used in certain middle east countries instead the term " people of determination" is used which conveys the challenges faced without insulting the person.

Our Hindu religious texts were written in.an era where people with different needs like visually impaired were harshly called blind.
Those of a different IQ were at times called fools...the same is seen in other religious texr calling people blind and ignorant.

Over time we humans realized these harsh words has many shades of " ignorance"themselves and we evolved to be more polite.

"Meter rules mostly" - Is that an opinion or there is a basis? What does 'mostly' mean?
So meter is selected first and repetition is done asking one to worship three times in order to fit the meter? Does not seem logical to me.

I am not sure if this is a section to offer personal opinions like in the General Section. My opinion is that we cannot judge which words are harsh by today's standards of a poem written hundreds of years ago.
 
"Meter rules mostly" - Is that an opinion or there is a basis? What does 'mostly' mean?
So meter is selected first and repetition is done asking one to worship three times in order to fit the meter? Does not seem logical to me.

I am not sure if this is a section to offer personal opinions like in the General Section. My opinion is that we cannot judge which words are harsh by today's standards of a poem written hundreds of years ago.


Ok....let me explain in detail from what I know about Chandas.

The most common Chandas used in Anushtub which tehnically means "Following " and commonly used to mean "Following God " but interestingly the Kama Sutra is also Anusthub Chandas(so I guess its FOLLOW!)

Ok..coming back to Chandas story..there are 2 types of Chandas

1)Varna Chandas..meter based on syllables

2)Matra Chandas ..meter based on syllabic instants.

Bhajo Govindam comes under Matra Chandas that too a subtyped named Padakulakam in which each verse has 16 matras.

Matra chandas calculation rules:

1) One count for a short vowel and consonants with short vowels.

2) Two counts for long vowels,consonants with long vowels and conjunct consonants.

In Bhajo Govindam there is a peculiarity ..that is the first verse does not really entirely follow the Matra Chandas rules...hence I used the word "Mostly" in my earlier post.

Let me explain:

In the 1st verse of Bhajo Govindam.

Bhajagovindam Bhajagovindam
Govindam Bhaja Moodhamathe
Samprapte Sannihite Kaale
Nahi Nahi Rakshati Dukrinkarane

The mention of the word Bhajo Govindam 2x in the 1st line is to keep within the 16 matras.

You had mentioned in your post as why is Govindam mentioned 3x...nope we go line by line...so its only 2x Bhajo Govindam in the 1st line that adds up to 16 matras.

Now..the 2nd line does NOT follow the 16 matra rule...the 2nd line "Govindam Bhaja Moodhamathe "only has 14 matras

The 3rd and 4th line follow 16 matras too.


So I dont know why only the line which say "Fool" has 14 matras..no one explains why?

Who knows may be since we are calling another a fool the composer decided to play the fool around too and not follow 16 matra rule?

My explanation could be a bit technical but I had to explain detail as I feel it would be clearer then.
 
I am unable to edit my post as its showing internal error 500.

So i am making the corrections here :


I wrote this above:

Bhajo Govindam comes under Matra Chandas that too a subtyped named Padakulakam in which each verse has 16 matras.


It should be "Bhajo Govindam comes under Matra Chandas that too a subtype named Padakulakam in which each verse has 4 lines that has 16 matras each.
 
[FONT=q_serif]Shankara was the proponent of Advaita. Bhaja Govindam is the phrase telling to remember and worship Brahman, which is the eternal truth. It is neither referring to exclusively Shri Hari Vishnu or Shiva, it is to both, the distinction disappears into one Brahman at the consciousness level of Shankara.[/FONT]

If Sankara is teaching Advita (meaning 'not two'), it makes no sense for him to tell us to worship Govinda. In a worship there has to be two - one the worshiper and the other worshiped. That is two, not one. So the explanation has issues of logic
 
Ok....let me explain in detail from what I know about Chandas.

The most common Chandas used in Anushtub which tehnically means "Following " and commonly used to mean "Following God " but interestingly the Kama Sutra is also Anusthub Chandas(so I guess its FOLLOW!)

Ok..coming back to Chandas story..there are 2 types of Chandas

1)Varna Chandas..meter based on syllables

2)Matra Chandas ..meter based on syllabic instants.

Bhajo Govindam comes under Matra Chandas that too a subtyped named Padakulakam in which each verse has 16 matras.

Matra chandas calculation rules:

1) One count for a short vowel and consonants with short vowels.

2) Two counts for long vowels,consonants with long vowels and conjunct consonants.

In Bhajo Govindam there is a peculiarity ..that is the first verse does not really entirely follow the Matra Chandas rules...hence I used the word "Mostly" in my earlier post.

Let me explain:

In the 1st verse of Bhajo Govindam.

Bhajagovindam Bhajagovindam
Govindam Bhaja Moodhamathe
Samprapte Sannihite Kaale
Nahi Nahi Rakshati Dukrinkarane

The mention of the word Bhajo Govindam 2x in the 1st line is to keep within the 16 matras.

You had mentioned in your post as why is Govindam mentioned 3x...nope we go line by line...so its only 2x Bhajo Govindam in the 1st line that adds up to 16 matras.

Now..the 2nd line does NOT follow the 16 matra rule...the 2nd line "Govindam Bhaja Moodhamathe "only has 14 matras

The 3rd and 4th line follow 16 matras too.


So I dont know why only the line which say "Fool" has 14 matras..no one explains why?

Who knows may be since we are calling another a fool the composer decided to play the fool around too and not follow 16 matra rule?

My explanation could be a bit technical but I had to explain detail as I feel it would be clearer then.

Thank you.

What i said was not mention of Govinda but that the directive to worship Govinda is mentioned 3 times. If the directive is repeated three times, it now appears it is not for fitting into this meter because you say the second line does not follow the rule of 16 matras.

So the great Adi Sankara made a poem to not fit to a clean meter rules? Something is not adding up here.

Also in Post 2, it was said that this old guy was trying to impress a king by memorizing some rule. Why would Sankara interfere with his activities and tell him to worship Govinda? Somehow it is illogical to think some grammar convention (it is not even a rule it seems) is equated to worldly knowledge. If we live in the world, worldly knowledge alone will work. How come worship became a better knowledge? Again these stories defy basic reasonableness.
 
Idea of this popular translation is about reciting the name Govinda . Not sure how it is supposed to help ward off death of a fool. There is even a seemingly concocted story that there was an old fellow studying grammar and Sri Sankara was addressing such people from getting caught up with grammar issues and instead say the name of the Lord - Govinda.

This is the common interpretation of 'Bhakthi for Mukthi' type people...

Govinda means one who is understood by Shabda (words) of Veda. It will make no sense to call anyone reading this as fools and then tell them to ignore grammar. How is that supposed to help one be saved from death. What does being saved mean anyway? Why pick on grammar of a language?

In my understanding.....

In Adi Sankara's time there was a very ancient and influential group of grammarian-philosophers called Sphota-vadins. Like the mimamsakas, their philosophy also originated from attempts to interpret the powerful material results produced by the performance of Vedic rites (which must have been very common in that period).

Their philosophy is highly interesting in it's own way, but was rejected by Sankara in his Brahma-sutra Bhashyam. Just one thing I want to highlight here - that repetition is a very important aspect in Sphota siddhanta. For example, repetitive learning of Vyakarana sutras.

Grammar is important to all, but to a Sphota-vadi or a mimamsaka, grammar is all-important. In the Mahabhashya, Rishi Patanjali (presumably a Sphota-vadin) gives ten different reasons why Grammar must be learnt by all. He even gives reasons like, the use of grammatically correct language gives rise to 'Vira purushas' or heroic men. He also mentions a story to the effect that the Asuras used ungrammatical language and that is why they lost in battle with the Devas who used 'perfect' language. So the mimamsakas hold the opinion that, by following Vedic injunctions, reciting the Vedas perfectly etc and making statements as per precise grammatical rules, they will enjoy all happiness in the here and hereafter. Nothing else is required but to be precise in following the rules. Sankara is totally against this view.

Now although the mimamsakas and the grammarians were having a regular fight of their own, both groups were in alignment in accepting that the relation between words and meaning is eternal, without the need of a God or Brahman who is beyond all that, a stand which is anathema to Sankara.

So the issue that Sankaracharya has with the Sphotavadins is, they don't give due significance to the Upanishads or the 'Jnana marga' portion of the Vedas. In the Jnana marga, there is the story of Narada who approaches Sanatkumara saying "I know Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Sama Veda, etc etc...(a big list, which includes grammar too) but I am still sorrowful. With all this information, I am still unable to overcome my sorrow. I have heard that only a knower of the Atman will be able to overcome sorrow. So kindly teach me that which alone helps a person tide over sorrow".

Now the above (and subsequent passages in the Upanishad) outlines the Upanishadic stand clearly - that knowledge of Vedas, Grammar etc is just not enough. This is the perspective of Sankaracharya as well.

Now why is 'worship' suggested as an alternative to grammar, in Bhaja Govindam? Sankaracharya accepts that not everyone is capable enough to acquire knowledge of the Atman directly through meditation on the Mahavakyas. So he accepts that some relatively 'manda buddhis' might be more comfortable with a staged evolution, through worship of Omkaara or some forms of Saguna Brahman like Vishnu, Siva etc. In Sankaracharya's philosophy, even such devotees are on the right path, since at the end of life, they will reach the abode of their God, and basically will not have to return to this world. While at the abode of their God, they will need to wait till end of the kalpa, before merging with Nirguna Brahman, together with their God. So in Acharya's perspective, a worshipper of Saguna Brahman is definitely in a better way when compared to the mimamsaka who might be adept in Vedas, Yagas, Yajnas etc but all of which gives results that will ultimately be exhausted in higher lokas some day, and then the person will have to return to this world.

Now why the worship of Govinda in particular? I think, because Govinda was the preacher of the Bhagavad Gita, which removed the sorrow of Arjuna, while also outlining various upanishadic ideas related to the Nirguna and Saguna Brahman. In the Bhaja Govindam, Acharya asks the person to recite the Gita daily. Acharya definitely had a very high opinion on the Gita, as can be seen from his Gita Bhashyam. At one place in the Bhashyam he quotes the Anugita part of the Mahabharata wherein it is mentioned "Aside from the Bhagavad Gita, nothing is required. By itself the Bhagavad Gita is enough to lead one to the highest Purushartham". And it can be seen that in his other Bhashyas, whenever Acharya wanted to quote a Smriti for support, he would invariably turn to the Gita.

Another point here is, the Gita removed the sorrow of Arjuna who, somewhat similar to Narada in the Upanishad, initially tries to impress Krishna with his intellectual knowledge, until checked by Krishna once he starts replying, with the statement "You speak a lot, like a Pandit. But he is the true Pandit, who never feels sorrowful for anything". Sanatkumara also tackles Narada in a similar way in the Upanishad.

Another thing is, the Gita itself supports Acharya's view that following Vedic rites complacently, is just not enough. Slokas from Gita 2.42 onwards can be referred for this.

Now why the reference to death in the first sloka of Bhaja Govindam? As the Saguna Brahman, Krishna advises in Gita (8.5) and (8.12-13) on what one needs to do when death is approaching (of course, presuming that one has the memory and presence of mind at the time :eek:). So Sankaracharya who believes in the message of the Gita, warns the grammarian that his "Dukrunjkarane" or any other grammatical rule for that matter, will be of no avail at the time of death, rather he will be better off, following the instructions of Govinda in the Gita.

I have tried to respond above, not as a person who believes in bhakti (though I am one), but as someone who has tried to read Sankara's works and from that perspective, thought what might have led Sankara to author these verses (presuming, of course, that Bhaja Govindam was indeed fully or partially written by Sankara)
 
Last edited:
Shankara says in his advaitic vedantam that knowledge is the most important to liberation apart from Sadhana, etc.. So in this case, worship Govinda clearly means worship knowledge/ Veda and not the grammar.

For our Brahmins in ancient times, the quest to liberate was the most important goal, so he asks him to find knowledge else at the time of death, he will end up in repeated life death cycle of reincarnation.
 
Shankara says in his advaitic vedantam that knowledge is the most important to liberation apart from Sadhana, etc.. So in this case, worship Govinda clearly means worship knowledge/ Veda and not the grammar.

For our Brahmins in ancient times, the quest to liberate was the most important goal, so he asks him to find knowledge else at the time of death, he will end up in repeated life death cycle of reincarnation.

One can worship Goddess Saraswathi. But one cannot worship 'knowledge'. One can only learn and live by the learning
 
In my understanding.....

1. In Adi Sankara's time there was a very ancient and influential group of grammarian-philosophers called Sphota-vadins. Like the mimamsakas, their philosophy also originated from attempts to interpret the powerful material results produced by the performance of Vedic rites (which must have been very common in that period).

2. Their philosophy is highly interesting in it's own way, but was rejected by Sankara in his Brahma-sutra Bhashyam. Just one thing I want to highlight here - that repetition is a very important aspect in Sphota siddhanta. For example, repetitive learning of Vyakarana sutras.

3. Grammar is important to all, but to a Sphota-vadi or a mimamsaka, grammar is all-important. In the Mahabhashya, Rishi Patanjali (presumably a Sphota-vadin) gives ten different reasons why Grammar must be learnt by all. He even gives reasons like, the use of grammatically correct language gives rise to 'Vira purushas' or heroic men. He also mentions a story to the effect that the Asuras used ungrammatical language and that is why they lost in battle with the Devas who used 'perfect' language. So the mimamsakas hold the opinion that, by following Vedic injunctions, reciting the Vedas perfectly etc and making statements as per precise grammatical rules, they will enjoy all happiness in the here and hereafter. Nothing else is required but to be precise in following the rules. Sankara is totally against this view.

4. Now although the mimamsakas and the grammarians were having a regular fight of their own, both groups were in alignment in accepting that the relation between words and meaning is eternal, without the need of a God or Brahman who is beyond all that, a stand which is anathema to Sankara.

5. So the issue that Sankaracharya has with the Sphotavadins is, they don't give due significance to the Upanishads or the 'Jnana marga' portion of the Vedas. In the Jnana marga, there is the story of Narada who approaches Sanatkumara saying "I know Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Sama Veda, etc etc...(a big list, which includes grammar too) but I am still sorrowful. With all this information, I am still unable to overcome my sorrow. I have heard that only a knower of the Atman will be able to overcome sorrow. So kindly teach me that which alone helps a person tide over sorrow".

6. Now the above (and subsequent passages in the Upanishad) outlines the Upanishadic stand clearly - that knowledge of Vedas, Grammar etc is just not enough. This is the perspective of Sankaracharya as well.

7. Now why is 'worship' suggested as an alternative to grammar, in Bhaja Govindam? Sankaracharya accepts that not everyone is capable enough to acquire knowledge of the Atman directly through meditation on the Mahavakyas. So he accepts that some relatively 'manda buddhis' might be more comfortable with a staged evolution, through worship of Omkaara or some forms of Saguna Brahman like Vishnu, Siva etc. In Sankaracharya's philosophy, even such devotees are on the right path, since at the end of life, they will reach the abode of their God, and basically will not have to return to this world. While at the abode of their God, they will need to wait till end of the kalpa, before merging with Nirguna Brahman, together with their God. So in Acharya's perspective, a worshipper of Saguna Brahman is definitely in a better way when compared to the mimamsaka who might be adept in Vedas, Yagas, Yajnas etc but all of which gives results that will ultimately be exhausted in higher lokas some day, and then the person will have to return to this world.

8. Now why the worship of Govinda in particular? I think, because Govinda was the preacher of the Bhagavad Gita, which removed the sorrow of Arjuna, while also outlining various upanishadic ideas related to the Nirguna and Saguna Brahman. In the Bhaja Govindam, Acharya asks the person to recite the Gita daily. Acharya definitely had a very high opinion on the Gita, as can be seen from his Gita Bhashyam. At one place in the Bhashyam he quotes the Anugita part of the Mahabharata wherein it is mentioned "Aside from the Bhagavad Gita, nothing is required. By itself the Bhagavad Gita is enough to lead one to the highest Purushartham". And it can be seen that in his other Bhashyas, whenever Acharya wanted to quote a Smriti for support, he would invariably turn to the Gita.

9. Another point here is, the Gita removed the sorrow of Arjuna who, somewhat similar to Narada in the Upanishad, initially tries to impress Krishna with his intellectual knowledge, until checked by Krishna once he starts replying, with the statement "You speak a lot, like a Pandit. But he is the true Pandit, who never feels sorrowful for anything". Sanatkumara also tackles Narada in a similar way in the Upanishad.

10. Another thing is, the Gita itself supports Acharya's view that following Vedic rites complacently, is just not enough. Slokas from Gita 2.42 onwards can be referred for this.

11. Now why the reference to death in the first sloka of Bhaja Govindam? As the Saguna Brahman, Krishna advises in Gita (8.5) and (8.12-13) on what one needs to do when death is approaching (of course, presuming that one has the memory and presence of mind at the time :eek:). So Sankaracharya who believes in the message of the Gita, warns the grammarian that his "Dukrunjkarane" or any other grammatical rule for that matter, will be of no avail at the time of death, rather he will be better off, following the instructions of Govinda in the Gita.

12. I have tried to respond above, not as a person who believes in bhakti (though I am one), but as someone who has tried to read Sankara's works and from that perspective, thought what might have led Sankara to author these verses (presuming, of course, that Bhaja Govindam was indeed fully or partially written by Sankara)


Sri KRN,

Thank you for your comments. I enjoyed reading your post.

There are many things that are not in alignment with my understanding. I have shared some of the points only. I really do not want to debate further on what follows and you are welcome to have the last word on the issues I have raised. I marked paragraph numbers on your post for easy reference.

Regards,


==================================================


"Sankara is totally against this view" Paragraph 3 above-

In studying Bhashyam with proper teacher, I never got the impression about Sri Sankara being against any view. He was only for stating the truth as expounded in the Upanishads, B. Gita and Brahma Sutra. In the process, his presentation includes making a compelling case for various viewpoints including those of Mimansakas before refuting them systematically and presenting the Siddhanta.


"So the issue that Sankaracharya has with the Sphotavadins is, they don't give due significance to the Upanishads or the 'Jnana marga' portion of the Vedas" - Paragraph 5.

Same comment as above

"Now why is 'worship' suggested as an alternative to grammar, in Bhaja Govindam? Sankaracharya accepts that not everyone is capable enough to acquire knowledge of the Atman directly through meditation on the Mahavakyas. So he accepts that some relatively 'manda buddhis' might be more comfortable with a staged evolution, through worship of Omkaara or some forms of Saguna Brahman like Vishnu, Siva etc." - Paragraph 8

Based on studying the Bhashya one never gets any such impression about Sri Sankara thinking anyone to be a Manda Buddhi. That will be downright condescending for ordinary people and will go against everything Sri Sankara ever commented on. There are lots of incorrect books by authors that have never studied under proper setting and with a proper Guru, who may be propagating such views. Many stories in Sankara Vijayam and other such books portray a wrong view in my understanding.

Sri Sankara's approach to Purvapakshas is one of respect. In some instances, one is almost sold on the logic in certain cases based on how Sri Sankara presents the Purvapakshas. When he is dealing with Mimansakas and their objections, Sri Sankara uses their own methods to examine the meanings of a given construct. In other words it was one of utmost respect in which he presents their points of views.

When Sri Sankara did make a mistake he immediately corrected and accepted the so called Chandala as his Guru (Manishapanchakam).

In fact, intellect and intellectual accomplishments are one of the enemies of gaining true wisdom. When it comes to the language of the Hridayam where non-directional Love only emanates, as in the case of a Jnani such as Sri Sankara, categorizing others as Manda Budhi and prescribing a special method for them for staged evolution is not possible. All the teachings of Upanishads are against such thinking altogether. In fact, there is no such thing as a staged evolution when it comes to enlightenment. Ignorance and Mosksha are in the NOW. Timelessness is the essence of one's swarupa and it cannot be put in the flow of Time.

A true Jnani is indeed a true Bhakta as well.

======================================================================

Going forward, I am thinking of presenting what I had in mind in a different way.

The thought is to present as a discussion between several Imaginary persons (IP1, IP2, … etc. ). Responses are not full and complete in the discussion but only address what is relevant in a given context of the discussion (and denoted by R).

Here is a sample.

IP1 : Members have made effort to participate in the discussion. Will it not be respectful to continue with presenting points and counter points?

IP2: Even if it slows down whatever needs to be presented, it will be useful to argue one's point

R: I prefer to debate and not argue. In fact I am terrible at arguments when I get drawn into them. Any such forum is not really suited for a debate in my experience.

IP1: What do you see as the difference between debate and argument?

R: An argument progresses to prove WHO is right, often leading to clashes of ego. It is rarely ever settled. Dale Carnegie in his teachings declares a rule to never argue since there are never any winners in an argument. A debate is one to prove WHAT is right. It requires every participant to examine what is being presented with the single view to determine the (relative) truth in a given context. Science, with the scientific method attempts to do this though there are people who practice Science as a religion and argue.

IP2: That means you should be willing to examine what others say as well with the possibility that you may be wrong

R: That is correct, but the focus is not on WHO is wrong (it can be me or anyone else). The focus has to determine WHAT is the right thing.

IP3: How do you try to practice your focus on 'WHAT' in a discussion?

R: Though I may fail, I remind myself if what I am participating in a real world discussion or in a forum, from the view point if it is helping me in my quest. I have no issue learning from anyone if they are qualified (and that is a judgment). Similarly I have no issues to help by sharing whatever little I know. I also know my weakness to get drawn into unproductive arguments. If someone is serious to know the truth at all cost, it is refreshing even if their current state of knowledge in a given subject is not very much. In the end intellect is one's enemy normally but it can be our friend with the right training.

IP1: In what way intellect and mind can be a friend?

R: As we go through analyzing the first verse of Bhaja Govidam I hope to make this point. Tweezers of our intellect cannot be used to grasp the Truth but it can help us identify all that is false. More on this in the next post.

 
Sri KRN,

Thank you for your comments. I enjoyed reading your post.

There are many things that are not in alignment with my understanding. I have shared some of the points only. I really do not want to debate further on what follows and you are welcome to have the last word on the issues I have raised. I marked paragraph numbers on your post for easy reference.

Regards,


Sri TKS,
I merely shared my understanding, on why it is quite natural that Adi Sankara, an ardent Krishna Bhakta, could have written Bhaja Govindam. Also about the likely purpose of his authoring this work, in the context of his debates with the Sphotavadins, the mimamsakas etc. My purpose was not to argue with you in any manner. You had posed some queries in your introductory post, to which other members posted responses as per their understanding, and I too pitched in. As the subject is close to my heart, I enjoyed replying to your queries. So I am not after getting any "last word" here. Quite possibly we might learn from each other. Now let me respond to the issues raised.

"Sankara is totally against this view" Paragraph 3 above-

In studying Bhashyam with proper teacher, I never got the impression about Sri Sankara being against any view. He was only for stating the truth as expounded in the Upanishads, B. Gita and Brahma Sutra. In the process, his presentation includes making a compelling case for various viewpoints including those of Mimansakas before refuting them systematically and presenting the Siddhanta.

Please read the line before the line you quoted. What I stated is, according to the mimamsakas “Nothing else is required but to be precise in following the rules. Sankara is totally against this view”. Again in paragraph 5, I stated “So the issue that Sankaracharya has with the Sphotavadins is, they don't give due significance to the Upanishads or the 'Jnana marga' portion of the Vedas.”. In paragraph 6, I stated “Now the above (and subsequent passages in the Upanishad) outlines the Upanishadic stand clearly - that knowledge of Vedas, Grammar etc is just not enough. This is the perspective of Sankaracharya as well”. The point here is, Mimamsa or Sphotavada might be respectable or useful in many ways, but since they don't give 'due significance' to the Upanishadic concepts of the Brahman, insofar as the ultimate purpose of acquiring Purushartham is concerned, they are “not enough". For Sankara, the key to the attainment of Purushartham lies in the proper interpretation and application of Upanishadic concepts. So any philosophy that considers itself complete, without giving any/due significance to the concepts outlined in Upanishads, is to be refuted, and he has ruthlessly rejected such views in the Brahma Sutra Bhashyam and elsewhere.

"So the issue that Sankaracharya has with the Sphotavadins is, they don't give due significance to the Upanishads or the 'Jnana marga' portion of the Vedas" - Paragraph 5.

Same comment as above


Responded above

"Now why is 'worship' suggested as an alternative to grammar, in Bhaja Govindam? Sankaracharya accepts that not everyone is capable enough to acquire knowledge of the Atman directly through meditation on the Mahavakyas. So he accepts that some relatively 'manda buddhis' might be more comfortable with a staged evolution, through worship of Omkaara or some forms of Saguna Brahman like Vishnu, Siva etc." - Paragraph 8

Based on studying the Bhashya one never gets any such impression about Sri Sankara thinking anyone to be a Manda Buddhi. That will be downright condescending for ordinary people and will go against everything Sri Sankara ever commented on. There are lots of incorrect books by authors that have never studied under proper setting and with a proper Guru, who may be propagating such views. Many stories in Sankara Vijayam and other such books portray a wrong view in my understanding.

Sri Sankara's approach to Purvapakshas is one of respect. In some instances, one is almost sold on the logic in certain cases based on how Sri Sankara presents the Purvapakshas. When he is dealing with Mimansakas and their objections, Sri Sankara uses their own methods to examine the meanings of a given construct. In other words it was one of utmost respect in which he presents their points of views.

When Sri Sankara did make a mistake he immediately corrected and accepted the so called Chandala as his Guru (Manishapanchakam).

In fact, intellect and intellectual accomplishments are one of the enemies of gaining true wisdom. When it comes to the language of the Hridayam where non-directional Love only emanates, as in the case of a Jnani such as Sri Sankara, categorizing others as Manda Budhi and prescribing a special method for them for staged evolution is not possible. All the teachings of Upanishads are against such thinking altogether. In fact, there is no such thing as a staged evolution when it comes to enlightenment. Ignorance and Mosksha are in the NOW. Timelessness is the essence of one's swarupa and it cannot be put in the flow of Time.

A true Jnani is indeed a true Bhakta as well.

I think you have picked on a minor matter, without delving into any of the key points in my initial post. Anyway, though I agree with the sentiments you expressed, it is nevertheless true that Adi Sankara did use the word mandabuddhi, in several places. So firstly, here are some direct references, from Sankara’s works, in the same context that I mentioned.

Na hi avikaare anante brahmani sarvaih pumbhih sakyaam buddhih sthapayitum manda madhyottamabuddhitvaad pumsaamiti. (Brahma Sutra Bhashyam 3.2.33)

Meaning : For, as some men are of inferior, others middling, others again of superior intelligence, not all are capable of fixing their mind on the infinite Brahman devoid of any change or transformation.

Again see

Manda madhyama dhiyaam tu pratipannasadhakabhavanaam sanmargagaaminaam sanyasinaam matranaam padanaam cha kluptasamanyavidaam yadhavad upasyamaana Omkaaraka Brahmapratipattaye alambanibhavati. (Mandukya Bhashyam 12)

Meaning: For people of slow or middling intellect, but who are Sannyasins engaged in Sadhana and lead a virtuous life, a right meditation of Omkaara based on the correspondence between the padas of the Atman, and four parts of Omkaara becomes a prop to the mind in their effort to attain Brahman.

Secondly, I think there is nothing condescending or disrespectful in Sankara’s usage of the word ‘manda buddhi’. The word means one thing in Sanskrit, and another in a different language, like Malayalam, for example, where in common usage it is sometimes used in a derogatory way.

As I mentioned elsewhere, Sankara himself was an ardent Krishna Bhakta, so how is it possible for him to be disrespectful to other Bhaktas? Whenever he uses such words, one has to see the context, the entire passage, to appreciate the meaning intended.

Here is another example where Sankara has referred to people of inferior intellect.

Ye Srotriyaah Sthulabuddhitvaad Ajaativastuna sadaa Aatmanasham pashyati. Tesham Sraddhadhaanam Sanmargavalambinaam Jatyupalambhakritaam doshaam siddhim nopayasyanti.

Meaning : Some devotees of the Vedas, not being of sharp intellect, shrink back from the Nirguna, unborn Parabrahman. For such, the wise have conceded meditation with form. As these people are full of faith and of correct conduct, the harm done by meditation with form will be very little.

I have responded to the two issues you raised above.
I learnt Advaita Vedanta at the feet of a Sanyasin, a proper Guru, in a proper setting. My understanding is not based on Sankara Vijayams or any second hand books.

In my original post, except for a few statements where I clearly indicated that I was presuming something, everything else are based on Sankara Bhashyas.

Thanks for your insightful comments.
 
Last edited:
When Sri Sankara did make a mistake he immediately corrected and accepted the so called Chandala as his Guru (Manishapanchakam).

I beg to differ. The five verses of Manisha Panchakam does not mention anywhere that he made a mistake. Based on his other writings, I would rather presume that the stotra came first, and gave rise to the tale afterwards (found only in the mostly unreliable Sankara Vijayams) and not vice versa.

In fact, intellect and intellectual accomplishments are one of the enemies of gaining true wisdom. When it comes to the language of the Hridayam where non-directional Love only emanates, as in the case of a Jnani such as Sri Sankara, categorizing others as Manda Budhi and prescribing a special method for them for staged evolution is not possible. All the teachings of Upanishads are against such thinking altogether. In fact, there is no such thing as a staged evolution when it comes to enlightenment. Ignorance and Mosksha are in the NOW. Timelessness is the essence of one's swarupa and it cannot be put in the flow of Time.


Saguna Brahman as a staged evolution to Nirguna Brahman is well dealt with, in the Brahma Sutra Bhashyam.
 
Last edited:
Sri KRN,

What I meant by the usage of the Phrase 'last word' is that I was not going to further debate and just acknowledge your response if any , as is.

You have spent some time providing a detailed response. Hence I offer the following comments minimally, without intending to debate. I leave you to decide if my queries and comments to you are relevant. After this I want to go back to my next post following the opening post.

Sri Sankara is not a person and if he existed had merged with Hiranyagarbha. All we have are the words attributed to him. I study those words with the help of qualified teachers, to see if they offer me a chance for my quest for liberation. When you said these topics are close to your heart (I am paraphrasing) I assume that is what you meant as well. What I have found is that Sri Sankara is not teaching new things but has shown us a way to understand the truth - both relative and absolute- as applicable to all human being and as found in the Upanishads, Gita and Brahma Sutra. I do not view these merely as a Philosophy which is mostly a mental thing. The teaching and commentaries expound nothing but the truth. As a scientist by training I am not accepting any of the statements without challenges until the vision is clearer to me.

Having said this, my understanding is that Sri Sankara has provided perspectives and objections of not only Mimansakas but also Vaiseshikas, Sunyavadies, Sankyas, and Patanjali Yoga Darshana followers to name a few. These are provided as Purvapakshas most of which are still relevant today. Some of the models of the universe that today's Physicists hypothesize can be likened to ideas put forth by one of these schools of thoughts. Sidhhanta is then needed to unfold the truth as applicable in the context. It is not the purpose of these commentaries to correct anyone or ask anyone to focus on Jnana scriptures. When we project a personality on Sri Sankara we deprive ourselves from the focus on the message of the teaching itself. But expounding the truth may come across as challenging those other schools of thoughts but that is not the focus. In putting forth these refutations Sri Sankara's commentaries reveal utmost respect to all those other schools of thoughts.

In this subject matter, my conviction is that focus on history and psycho analysis of characters in Upanishads (or even the teachers) are fruitless and lead one to go away from learning the truth. In this context, if you say the Chandala story came after the verses, that is fine by me. The respectful way of treating everyone is all I pointed out and it is natural for a Jnani.

You offered examples from Brahma Sutra Bhashyam and from Mandukya Upanishad Bhashyam about Bhashyakara's usage of words translated as 'low intellect'. I applaud you for providing concrete example to make your point. The context of usage is very different and not applicable in the context of the discussion about Bajagovindam and its usage of the word 'Moodamathe'. Let me offer very brief comments since I do not want to get distracted with discussions about these verses of Mandukya Upanishad at this point.

The quote of Bhashyakara that you provided from Mandukya upanishad (verse 12) actually makes reference to verse 16 of his Parmaguru's (Gaudapada) Karika in the Advita Prakararanam. He has provided commentaries on the verses of the Karika as well as you know. I am mentioning this only to provide a more holistic context in interpreting the word in question.

Madhyama means middle implying there is higher and lower. The Karika verse provides clarification on what these three are.

Intellect is not uniform across all people. Obviously there are people with higher intellect, people with lower intellect and those that lie closer to the median in a Gaussian curve. In the vision of Upanishads, intellect is actually an impediment because one has to dismantle so many wrong notions to arrive at the truth, if they are so fortunate. Nevertheless, intellect has a role to help one know all that is not the truth and it is valuable in that sense. It is also helpful to understand the teachings of a teacher whose pointing fingers point to the truth with the help of the Sruthi. But some people may not have the intellect to go beyond staring at the pointing fingers instead of looking at what is pointed.

For example, second sloka of Sri Dhakshinamurthi stotram shines light on cosmogony of the universe in the vision of the Upanishads. But then one does not need all those discussions if one truly understood the essence of the teachings of Mandukya Upanishad which has powerful analysis of the states of our existence. To appreciate the whole picture, where the teaching method involves deliberate superimposition only to be negated later, requires superior intellect. Many can get stuck in the seeming contradictions.

A person may already be striving to lead a life of a Karma Yogi but not have the emotional fortitude for Upasana (Middle case) and also not have the vision to follow the teachings as in the example above (manda buddhi). The purpose of the teaching is to dismantle the Ahankara through Sravanam, Mananam and Nidhdhyasanam (Brihadaranya Upanishad). Now a person who is given to a life of Karma yoga and not quiet there in terms of following the teaching due to poor vision of the teachings, is offered to meditate on Omkara. This is to extoll the virtues of Omkara as all-pervading silence (and not just removal of noise) with its ability to destroy Ahankara. This is suggested to such people and is viewed as an approach of compassion by the Sruth (as per the Karika verse 16).

This is not the case with the verse of Bhaja Govindam which provides no context upfront and calls out the 'Moodamathe' to anyone listening to the verses.

Moving on, I am unable to understand your comment about staged evolution. Yes, the Brahma Sutra does address Saguna and Nirguna aspects of reality. But Sruthi also teaches that 'I am Brahman' and that Brahman is indivisible and whole with no parts. How do you square away these statements with your understanding of the 'staged evolution'? I want to stop with these questions. You don’t have to answer them here. I offered these comments and questions just to respond respectfully to a set of long posts with references.

I will now move on when I get a time and able to login to the site to the original topic of the thread.
 
Sri tks,

I have posted above all that I wished to convey on the topic. There won't be any more posts from me in this regard. Adieu! :)


KRN
 
Bhaj Dhathu

Continuing the conversations …..

IP1 : There is this story of Adi Sankara creating these verses just to help out an old man who was struggling to memorize grammar rules. He was told that at the time of death such worldly knowledge will not help and that he should instead worship Govinda. Is that how this poem came into existence?


R: Actually the story of who created is not relevant because all we want to know is if this sloka is useful for our quest for liberation. Given the profound teaching it conveys, Bhaja Govindam can serve to be a Prakarana Grantha , namely preparatory text. Having said this, reviewing the structure and usage of Sanskrit language many experts believe that Adi Sankara is unlikely to have composed this. Anyone that has spent time studying Bhashya (commentaries) of Sri Sankara knows that he was a natural expert in Vyakarana (Grammar) as well as Vakyartha (study of understanding sentences, a specialized expertise of Mimasakas). The language level is too elementary to have been composed by Adi Sankara. It might very well have been composed by another acharya in that lineage. For us, the history is really irrelevant

IP2: If Adi Sankara did not compose this, the story itself is likely to be made up

R: Indeed, that is possible. The story is used wrongly by many to shut people from thinking and ask them to mindlessly chant the name of the Lord. Chanting the name of Lord has its value to calm one's mind. But the reason used while referring to Bhaja Govindam is often wrong. Some use the term Dukrunjkarane as a pivot point to explain that worldly knowledge is not going to be helpful. That is not incorrect but it is a big extrapolation by taking an expression of Panini grammar to mean all worldly knowledge. There is another reason why the story is unlikely to be true. Telling an old man that he is nearing death is absurd. Death as dramatized by Yama resides in the heart of every person between the two beats of the heart. I have known people who are living to be 100 and some pass away very young abruptly. So the idea of saving oneself from death has nothing to do with age because it is poor to single out a older person to tell them they are closer to death. Somehow I cannot imagine any Jnani talking like that. But that is just my view.


IP3: Is there another explanation other than what the way the story is interpreted. Many great acharyas have used and continue to use the story as a basis to discuss about worldly knowledge.

R: That is correct and there are better explanation which will require a bit of deep dive into grammar itself. Without getting too technical we can make an interpretation as to what the term actually coveys.

Digression beging (one can omit reading)


Here is a bit of digression about basic things needed to interpret the whole verse. Spoken language of Sanskrit evolved significantly before the grammar rules came in. It is indeed the genius of Panini how he was able to reverse engineer the rules though expression in Vedas do not always fall within the rules. There are about 4000 rules spelled out in terms of Sutras out of which 2000 is considered more than adequate. The entire universe is seen as moving, and hence verbal roots dealing with action are considered the basic building block of the language. The verbal root themselves are not actual words used but a set of transformation (sutras) modify the verbal root to create either nominal stem or base word for verbs.

Verb in usage is created based on more transformations based on tenses like present, past, and future etc. In Sanskrit there are 6 tenses and 4 moods. The nominal stem is again modified via transformations to create nouns linked to verbs.

For example, a nominal stem is used to create subject, object, instrument, dative cases etc. etc. Anyone that has memorized Rama Shabdam will related to what I am saying. Nouns do not exist by themselves but expressed only in relation to other nouns or verbs. That is why the order of the words do not matter in most cases since sentence is understood. In English 'Man bites dog' is different from 'Dog bites man' because the meanings are different. Because the order is correctly understood in Sanskrit , the language has enabled one to create poems to a meter and it is not a surprise that the largest poem in the world in Mahabharatha with close to 100000 verses.

All words have their origin in a verbal root. There are 2200 or so such roots organized into groupings of 10.


There are three kinds of verbs in Sanskrit, परस्मैपद Parasmaipadam (P) and आत्मनेपद Atmanepadam (A) are the major categories out of the three. P is used when I do something for someone else. So when I cook for someone else it will be one kind of usage पचामि (P). However, if I cook for myself, it will be पचे (A). There are verbs that can be both P and A and these are called उभयपद Ubhayapada (U). The verb denoted by Dukrunjkarane happens to be Ubhayapada. One can only imagine the number of transformations in order to correctly determine the right kind of usage when we consider A, P, U. in the context of 6 tenses and 3 moods. Sometimes there could 15+ transformations to reach the right usage. That is why the language is more suited for computer implementation. There was an initiative and research at NASA that knowledge representation and human language comprehension can be completely done if one were to use Sanskrit. That effort did not go anywhere due to lack of expertise but there are papers that attest to how rich the language of Sanskrit is in communicating precise meanings that even a computer can comprehend.


End of digression

IP1: What is all the above background needed for?

R: Let us start with the first word Bhaja in the sloka. The root word of this action is Bhaj denoted as
[FONT=&quot]√[/FONT]भज्. This root word can give rise to usage via transformations and there are wide variety of meanings possible. The Sanskrit dictionary gives the basic meaning as serving or giving. If one were to use the meaning as serve then its extension becomes 'to worship'. It can also give rise to words via transformation in context to mean to cook , to accept, to resort to etc. These are from my class notes taken a long time ago.

There is one meaning that best fits here to interpret this verse. From one of my reference it states
भजत् bhajat (bhaj) [FONT=&quot]√[/FONT]भज् सेवायाम् seek - seeking.


So in Bhaja Govindam - means Seek Govinda.

As pointed earlier in Post #2, Govinda has many possible meanings. Govinda itself is a compound word (called Samasa)
गोविन्दम् = गां विन्दति इति गोविन्द:
Not planning on doing transliteration but will cover the meanings. Using my past notes taken many years ago let me share a meaning that fits the context well.

Govinda also means Bhagavan as known by the Vedas.
गोविन्दम् = गोभि: विद्यते (उपनिशद्वाक्यै: ज्ञायते) इति गोविन्द- this is a case of upa-pada samasa a particular rule governing formation of compound words.

Therefore Bhaja Govindam means 'Seek Bhagavan known through the Vedas'

To be continued.
 
IP1: What is Bhagavan or God known through Vedas and how it is different from the commonly understood definition that God is Omnipotent (limitless power), Omnipresent (pervades space and therefore everywhere), and Omniscient (limitless knowledge)

IP2: If God is considered Omnipotent, Omnipresent and Omniscient there is an established contradiction. If God knows what will happen, and decides to differently, he's not omniscient. If he knows and can't change it, he's not omnipotent.

R: The above definition of God is influenced by biblical religions. Bhagavan cannot be viewed through the lens of causality because causality implies God entity is bound by the fabric of space and time. Time itself is known to be an illusion even by the scientific research. For reference see the thread from this post onwards.

Reference: https://www.tamilbrahmins.com/showthread.php?t=19604&p=312582#post312582

The knowledge portion of Vedas teach, not preach, an understanding (not belief) of Bhagavan that does not have the above contradiction. Vedanta, teaches that Time is not real as well and science has finally come into alignment in such a way that this truth even touches our life almost on a daily basis.

IP3: What does it mean to say time is an illusion and how is it getting validated in my day today life?

R: Time seem to be universal and flows in one direction for all of us. It seems to be a concrete thing that affects all our life from our understanding of birth to death. Even a computer needs a clock for its precise actions. Yet the entire notion of time experienced by us is not real

IP1: How can you say that? If we did not have a common view of time, not a single thing can happen

R: We are all in the same 'reference' and have a common experience of time. But searching for truth via Science in modern times or by Vedantic revelations of Rishis, there are proofs that time is not needed to describe reality in Physics and that time itself is a myth (falsehood) as per Vedantic teaching. There was a discussion about examples from special relativity in this post below. There are Youtube links in that post that may be watched for more clarity.

Reference: https://www.tamilbrahmins.com/showthread.php?t=28768&page=2&p=323870#post323870

IP2: Is there an example that can be understood more easily?

R: The cited thread was describing how Time as an entity is NOT an absolute entity and is based on what is known as Special Relativity. There is an example from General Relativity that we can understand a bit more easily as to how it touches our lives. Time is known to go faster closer to earth than away from the earth due to the effect of the gravitational pull of earth. In other words an atomic clock will go faster on earth than on a satellite. This has nothing to do with the mechanism of how the atomic or any other clock is designed. It is just that time goes faster. So someone in a space station for 6 months would have aged less by few seconds than a person on earth. The GPS (Global Positioning System) in our phone that helps us to navigate through apps like Google Maps has to take into account the fact that time in the satellite is going slower compared to earth. By receiving signals from these satellites (3 or more) and by triangulation the exact location of a phone is determined that helps to navigate using Google Maps for example.

That is an example where if the correction were not applied the whole maps app cannot work properly.

R: Bottom line is that Time is not absolute and hence not real. Space is related to Time as an opposite according to Sri Sankara. Also in the Pancha Boothas that are defined we have space but not Time. If Time is an illusion, space-time is an illusion , then the whole discussion of causality is an illusion. And Bhagavan cannot be bound by causality since the concept of Causality, Time and Space arises by his/her power. All the more reason it is best not to go by definition of God in terms of biblical beliefs but learn Bhagavan through the teachings of the Sruthi (Vedas) which in this case are the Upanishads


IP3: Are these details based on your attending classes?

R: I did not attend any classes on the topic area such as Bhja Govindam. If one is studying Vedanta with Sri Sankara Bhashyam with qualified teachers for more than a decade and if one has formally studied Physics and Engineering, then it is easy to see the truth of a verse. I present this in my own style but obviously anything I describe as truth are not my own. If I had misinterpreted something despite the training then it will be my fault and I can be corrected. Knowingly I am not stating anything that is not the truth and can be independently verified by qualified experts.


Note: I plan to post once every one or two weeks and it may take several months for the thread to be complete. I have received feedback to keep these relatively short and will try to do so thereby increasing the number of posts. We will examine, misconceptions about seeking Govinda, the meaning of Moodamathe in depth, examine why Bhaja Govindam is described three times and its implications, the meaning of nihite kale, and Dukrunjkarane. I plan to discuss what it means to follow the teachings of this first verse and conclude. So that is the road map.
 
Dear Mr tks:

I have some questions at this point. We see many books and blogs taking Physics, Puranas, and our scriptures to see parallels. Some seem to want to prove our Puranas & scriptures (like upansishad) are right by trying to use Science to prove its correctness. Is that really a right thing to do? Is that what you are doing when you talk about Time experienced by us is not real?

I do enjoy reading the thread since it is logically progressing
 
Dear Mr tks:

I have some questions at this point. We see many books and blogs taking Physics, Puranas, and our scriptures to see parallels. Some seem to want to prove our Puranas & scriptures (like upansishad) are right by trying to use Science to prove its correctness. Is that really a right thing to do? Is that what you are doing when you talk about Time experienced by us is not real?

I do enjoy reading the thread since it is logically progressing




Human mind works by seeing parallels and opposites when such things do not exist, all the while missing the very truth, which is the only entity that is real and shines in the mind enabling cognition. It is not surprising that there are books and blogs seeing connection that do not exist and missing the real essence of both Science and Vedanta.

Some of the puranic stories still retain their significance in explaining the basic truths taught in the Upanishads but the content of those stories have nothing to do with Science. Human mind can imagine all kinds of connections which is both a blessing and a curse.

Upanishads are the knowledge sections of Vedas and Vedas as a whole are referred to as Sruthi (श्रुति) since it is heard and passed on. These are considered timelessly true and do not have known origins. The truths can be independently validated by anyone but the method of validation is not what one is used to. The Upanishads not only teach the truths but they include a methodology & process to learn. That is why proper learning with properly qualified teacher is essential,

Smruthi (स्मृति) scriptures are those that are products of human effort and as such as are remembered based on memory. They could be considered as particular application of Sruthi in a given space/time context. Smruthi has to be aligned with Sruthi for it to be considered valid. When contexts change a Smruthi scriptures may get deprecated meaning replaced with newer scriptures that are more fitting the context.

The knowledge portions of the Vedas, names Upanishads, deal with both relative and absolute truths. It is Shruthi.
Science including fundamental search for reality may be considered as Smruthi and as such it cannot be used to validate Sruthi. Besides it only deals with uncovering relative truths and falsehoods only. A group of scientists observe the world, hypothesize a theory, attempt to validate the relative truth with respect to an observer and continually refine the understanding based on results of validation.

The Shruthi deals with the absolute truth which does not have an opposite and it includes the truth of the observer, observed and the means of observation. As such it includes all the relative truths and relative falsehoods and all the pairs of opposites.

The absolute truths cannot be understood by human mind while Smrithis including Science is a product of human intellect and understood by human mind.

For all these reasons it will not make sense to try to explain the truths of Upanishads using science. Such an effort shows lack of comprehension of science or Upanishads or both.

Having said this one may have two questions.


  1. I have cited references of articles from Scientific American in my posts and does that mean I attempted to explain the correctness of Sruthi using latest theories of Science. The short answer is NO.

We live in a world of space, time and causality. Science is in search of truth - relative truth and while Vedanta is NOT science , it is about Science. There is an intersection in understanding by mind when it comes to knowing the nature of Time, Space and relative Reality. In this context, my posts have been to show that Science is getting caught up with some of the teachings of Sruthi at this fundamental level. Time as an appearance or illusion has been long known to ancient Rishis and today's Physics has finally proved it using the best of human intellect. There is a book ( The order of Time) published in 2018 by an Italian Theoretical Physicist by name Carlo Rovelli that is written for lay person. He asks questions such as 'Do we exist in Time or does Time exist in us' etc.

Wave particle duality, as a model of understanding in the study of Quantum mechanics, is but an example of how the reality at the most basic level ( as understood by mind via Science) is Anirvachaneeyam (that is it cannot be described).


  1. Are the teachings of the Upanishads of any use in advancing Science?

Anyone that has understood the truth as expounded by the Upanishads will go into silence. A few out of their Prarabdha may offer some clues but that is rare. There is but one example. For that see the post below

https://www.tamilbrahmins.com/showthread.php?t=22569&p=283995#post283995

The thoughts expressed in my posts are not my beliefs or opinions unless I preface it so. The levels of Physics may be advanced but the references cited and language used here primarily is at a lay person level. All one needs as a way of prerequisites is incessant curiosity to know, commitment to knowing the (relative) truth and attention span. These posts are not for flybys who will get bored quickly and lose interest.

One that satisfies the basic prerequisites regardless of their educational background can verify and validate what is written here.

Study of science is nothing but an expression of Maya. As one gets an understanding they discover thousand more things that they do not understand.
We have models after models and some contradict the earlier models. There are theories that say there is no blackholes or there was never a big bang. So the study will go on and it has its value.

One must not conclude that study of Sruthi is superior to study of Science. At one level all knowledge is nothing but expression of Isvara and there is nothing low or high about any of these. A given knowledge is correct for a given objective.

There are maps of the entire universe in the study of cosmic radiations pointing to a possible big-bang explosion some 13.5 billion years ago. That map is useless if I wanted to go visit a friend's place in Delhi for example. A map of Delhi is superior for that objective and map of the universe is useless. Similarly the purpose of Sruthi (knowledge section ) is to answer the question of liberation which comes to understanding "what is the knowledge by which every other knowledge is known"

Reference: See this post
https://www.tamilbrahmins.com/showthread.php?t=34594&page=4&p=371903#post371903

For all other studies and for our day today living, we need Science and Technology.

This post is kind of a digression from the original topic but I wanted to answer the reasons behind the questions fully.
 
IP1: All these discussions about seeking Govinda as revealed in the Vedas is getting complicated. A simple person, say a vendor in the street selling fruits cannot be expected to learn all these in order to worship Govinda.

IP2: Sri Krishna says to simply surrender onto him letting go of all Dharmas and that he will protect us from all the Papas. That is an easier message to understand.

IP3: Going to temple and doing a Puja or recite a sloka or sing a song about the Lord while facing the deity is so much easier.

R: The idea is not about what is easier but what is effective for a given goal. Going to temple and doing various rituals is a wonderful thing and is a great start. But it cannot be the end which will become clear later. As we grow in maturity and wisdom and our third eye of wisdom opens up, our relationships with temple/deities will change and we can still benefit by going to temples.

Surrender is not an emotion or a ritual though those are great first steps. Emotions are short lived, and surrender in its truest sense based on how Sri Krishna describes is timeless which therefore cannot be based on an emotion that is but transient.

Seeking Govinda is not just about an intellectual pursuit. In fact intellect is a major impediment though intellect can help in removing all wrong notions about truth which itself is an outgrowth of this intellect. There is a thread that tried to articulate some of the false notions of truth that are prevalent.

Reference: https://www.tamilbrahmins.com/showthread.php?t=34594&p=369263#post369263

The idea of helping a vendor who is selling fruits is presumptuous at best. One can help but one must be qualified to help. To be qualified one has to cured of ignorance. Also the same limitless divinity expresses in all beings and hence the vendor is capable of understanding Govinda without any special intellect. The language of understanding Govinda is all about the language of the Hrudayam which is all about 'Love without opposite'. Even Sri Krishna in B. Gita does not advocate emotional Bhakthi and in Chapter 2 itself he introduces the basics of Karma Yoga soon after Sankya yoga which is all about Jnana. Chapter 12 in B. Gita is not about emotional or intellectual Bhakthi.

Let me share a personal story that I may have shared earlier in another thread some years ago. I was waiting to meet someone near Kabali temple at Mylapore. There was a young lady who wanted to sell me flowers and I told her that I had already been to the temple. I told her I can buy some flowers but she has to offer to the lord since I will have no time. I was willing to give her some money and she would not take it since she will not have the ability to go the temple. Also she did not want a handout. She has had a tragic life with a husband who used to beat her and eventually died young due to drinking too much. She had two children to feed and send to school. Yet she was cheerful and explained that selling the flowers was fulfilling to her since it was making people happy. She did not complain about her life at all. She then opened some snack with nuts and she shared half of it with me. I took it and continued conversing as I was learning how she was viewing life. Here is a person who does not know the meaning of Karma yoga but was closer to living the teaching. She had a cheer and love overall even in the tough market of negotiations. She can possibly teach about seeking Govinda by the example of her life to many so called intellectuals who are the real Moodas. A Mooda is not a fool and let us delve into what the word actually conveys

IP1: These discussions require intellect. How can intellect be dismissed as not important

R: The more intellectual we are, more wrong notions we have about truth. All knowledge acquired by perception and conception teaches relative truths. When one has many ideas and have wrong notions of the only thing that matters which is the absolute truth, the best way to dispel wrong notions is by the use of intellect itself. Someone who has studied Science may feel as if there is no Bhagavan. For such a person Science has to be used to show what a right definition of Bhagavan can be and why seeking that Bhagavan is not a choice. In the end human beings lack the knowledge of the language of the heart which is LOVE (one without an opposite). No amount of intellect or lack of intellect can help with learning the language of the heart. Before further discussion along these lines it is important to understand the word Moodamathe in depth.

To be continued..
 
IP1: Why should one seek Govinda (Bhagavan as taught by the vedas)

IP2: The prescription of seeking / Serving Govinda is addressed to one who is described as Moodmate. So if such a person is not a fool who does it refer to

IP3: Can we all be considered Moddmate since it seem to be addressed to all of us

R: Yes, the word applied to all of us. Let us see the grammatical meaning of this word first

मूढमते (Moodathe) is a compund word (called Samasa). It is special case of भहुव्रीहि: (Bhahuvreehi) Samasa. Breaking the word yields
मूढा मति: यस्य स: मूढमति:. This word when used to address (Sambodhana case - सम्बोधन प्रथमाविभक्ति:) becomes मूढमते (Moodathe)


It describes one who is deluded. Here we are not talking about psychological delusion wherein help of a therapist is needed. Delusion in this context refers to the nature of mind that sees what is not there and does not see what is there as reality. That is but one simple definition.

Delusion may not be the best translation since the word Mooda cannot be properly translated in English. The English dictionary describes delusion as "an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder"

The dictionary definition will mean that a person with deluded mind will need the help of a therapist or a psychiatrist. We will soon see that the entire humanity falls into the definition of Moodamathe. So we are all delusionally normal people and those that are delusionally dilutional will need to see a psychiatrist.

IP1: How do I know I am deluded?

IP2: Are we all born deluded?

R: Yes, we are all born deluded. Sri Krishna explicitly says in Chapter 7, verse 27 as follows.

इच्छाद्वेषसमुत्थेन द्वन्द्वमोहेन भारत ।
सर्वभूतानि संमोहं सर्गे यान्ति परन्तप ॥ २७ ॥


(Not providing transliteration)

Essential Translation of the verse is as follows.

Oh Bharatha (referring to Arjuna ), all beings due to delusion (Moha) of the opposites (found in this universe), go into total delusion in this world.

In other words this delusion is there from the birth in this creation. The fact that the world appears with pairs of opposites is not the problem. It is indeed our mind that is deluded by having likes and dislikes to the pairs of opposites. Some may view life as a series of experience of success and failures leading to pleasure and pain.

Without properly understanding this delusion in detail it is not possible to correctly seek the Lord, Govinda.

Again Govinda is not necessarily the name of Sri Krishna but more generally as Bhagavan as understood with the help of the Vedas. As a starting point one can take Govinda as the Sri Krishna of Srimad Bhagavatham and begin the act of worship in whatever form that one can relate to. It is only a starting point and not the ending point. Many of us doing Sandhyavandhanam can relate to this part - (Providing English transliteration only since people reading this can relate to it)

"Akashath Pathitham Thoyam Yatha Gacchathi Sagaram|
Sarva Deva Namskaraha Sri Keshavam Prathi Gacchathi||"


The above was translated by Swami Vivekananda in his first ever Chicago Address - "As the different streams having their sources in different paths which men take through different tendencies, various though they appear, crooked or straight, all lead to Thee."

Prayer is a starting point to acknowledge that this delusion, which is also referred to as ignorance, is from the birth. In fact, we cannot take responsibility for this ignorance.

(Next several posts will be about this delusion in detail so that we can understand how we all are under its spell. In other words we do not have to just take the word of Sri Krishna in the verse quoted about but can indeed understand in depth how this ignorance rules our life)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top