• 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

sravna

Well-known member
Energy is insentient. Like energy in a big bang according to current theories. Scientist 'believe' sentience came from insentient. That seems to be not right. So Energy cannot be the ultimate reality

Also Energy means motion and change (I can be corrected) and then it means time is already assumed. Did Energy produce time - No .. so Energy is not the ultimate reality.

Most of these and other posts seem digression to me. Let me explain.

My comment initially was that theology based on beliefs cannot be included in any description of non-duality.

Some think beliefs and faith (blind beliefs really) based on stories and imagination is Bhakthi. In which case no discussion is possible.

Advita Jnanis talk about Bhakthi. Is that the same as dualistic Bhakthi? It cannot be so because dualistic Bhakthi promotes opposite of non-duality.

Pure dualistic belief is glorious in its own right. But these people who claim to study Advita and propagate dualistic Bhakthi are confused and do not want to know they are confused

These are the issues I have seen thus far.
Any bhakthi is dualistic. There is no such thing as non dualistic bhakthi. People seem to read too many Google articles and without proper understanding parrot them here.

Bhakthi and jnana are two different paths to moksha. The objective is the same. As long as you think you and God are different as in the case of bhakthi you are being dualistic though bhakthi will eventually lead to the state of non duality just as jnana

I request members not to present a hodgepodge of articles available on the internet and pass it off as arguments.

The lack of consistency is glaring and will be a disservice to other members.
 

a-TB

Well-known member
Any bhakthi is dualistic. There is no such thing as non dualistic bhakthi. People seem to read too many Google articles and without proper understanding parrot them here.

Bhakthi and jnana are two different paths to moksha. The objective is the same. As long as you think you and God are different as in the case of bhakthi you are being dualistic though bhakthi will eventually lead to the state of non duality just as jnana

I request members not to present a hodgepodge of articles available on the internet and pass it off as arguments.

The lack of consistency is glaring and will be a disservice to other members.
Sravana - I have not cited any article. Not claiming any super power. Just pointing out contradictions and wrong understanding. I did not want to engage with you since I empathize with some sufferings you have undergone recently as shared by you.

I am sure you never learnt Sanskrit or studied from source scriptures. You may have sudden idea and come here and share 'folks - let me give you a fresh perspective'. Many have put up with all that nonsense for a decade now. Occasionally I have pointed out the fallacy of your claims of spiritual power which is just an egoic movement of the mind.

From what I can tell you do not know and cannot know what Advita means unless there are major changes. I have given reasons in other posts. Anyone with prejudice against any group can never know what oneness means.

If you have something to counter them then you are welcome but you have to be rational and logical. Do you know what Moksha is? Not your imagination but as taught in Gita and other scriptures?

Googling is fine provided one is able to spot all kinds of wrong ideas as in many of your posts.
 

sravna

Well-known member
A-tb. Thank you sincerely for empathizing with what I have gone through.

I am not writing here to pass time or flaunt my capabilities. What I write comes out of a genuine desire to indeed give a fresh perspective to old problems. If you think members are just putting up with that I have no clue. A few people including yourself have been extremely critical of my views. That's fine. As long as there are a few who begin to think afresh and practice positivity that's really fine with me.

I try to be logical and not just present assertions. I try not to be spiteful or take attacks on my views personally. But I do use strong words to counter when I think people try to hide behind hypocrisy and project holier than thou attitude.

I will be happy to engage with anyone who just does not keep pointing fingers at others but who has a desire to truly understand different perspectives and really want to start a logical debate.
 

renuka

Gold Member
Gold Member
Coming from a person who knows Sanskrit having taught it too...I would like to state that jnaana from God does not need one to even be literate.

Jnaana actually by passes the intellect.
Intellectualization and critical analysis is NOT jnaana.

Jnaana is an experience of a revelation kind.
It flashes in one's mind totally cryptic mostly and the brain translates it to the default language of the brain( mother tongue or dominant language spoken)

Sanskrit or any other holy language is for the intellect and for specific frequencies for chanting and prayer and for a chain of transmission.

Beyond that its not needed.
One would be suprised that some who havent even formally had education by virtue of shraddha and bhakti are able to access lots of divine knowledge just because they managed to have a mind sans agitation and are able to see clearly because the rain of thoughts has gone.

Their jnaana is because the veils obscuring reality is getting lifted one after another and not because they know Sanskrit.

All my knowledge in Sanskrit is not my pride because I know thats for my intellect and not a ticket to jnaana.
For jnaana I would need to delete all worldy acquired knowledge yet the world acquired knowledge wont go to waste as it would unfold to us if and when its relevant..otherwise the url to those worldly knowledge files wont be found..like an 404 error.
 

renuka

Gold Member
Gold Member
One should read the story of Rumi and Shams of Tabriz.

Rumi initially had no jnaana.
He was totally an intellectual.
One day the unlettered Shams of Tabriz happened to pass by and asked Rumi what he was reading.

Rumi arrogantly replied that its beyond the capacity of Shams to understand.

Shams flung all Rumi's books into the river and Rumi thought all his books would get ruined but to his surprise the books were not wet though floating on water and it was not ruined.

Then Rumi became the disciple of Shams and his jnaana blossomed.
Shams lovingly always said no one can match Rumi's intellect and Rumi used to say it was Shams would taught him gnosis( the art of knowing)

Their story is somewhat like Swami Vivekananda and Ramakrishna Paramahansa.
One the intellectual but the other a mystic and together they were unstoppable.
 

sravna

Well-known member
The lower knowledge or the worldly knowledge is the patent knowledge. Understanding the nuances or the context around it and all worldly experiences is one good way to understand higher truths. It is difficult to directly teach that. I would say the best teaching is to teach the learner explore himself and find out the truths. The Guru ofcourse can act as a catalyst.
 
Last edited:

renuka

Gold Member
Gold Member
The lower knowledge or the wordly knowledge is the patent knowledge. Understanding the nuances or the context around it and all worldly experiences is one good way to understand higher truths. It is difficult to directly teach that. I would say the best teaching is to teach the learner explore himself and find out the truths. The Guru ofcourse can act as a catalyst.
I feel its better we dont lable anything as higher or lower.
Using the word worldly knowledge is fine.

Jnaana can be used to denote revelations.

Sikhs use the word Wahe Guru.
Wahe is derived from the Arabic word Wahy meaning revelation.
So Wahe Guru is denoting that what a Guru transmits is a revelation.
 

sravna

Well-known member
I feel its better we dont lable anything as higher or lower.
Using the word worldly knowledge is fine.

Jnaana can be used to denote revelations.

Sikhs use the word Wahe Guru.
Wahe is derived from the Arabic word Wahy meaning revelation.
So Wahe Guru is denoting that what a Guru transmits is a revelation.
Ok. Though there is logic behind the usage.
 

sravna

Well-known member
I feel its better we dont lable anything as higher or lower.
Using the word worldly knowledge is fine.

Jnaana can be used to denote revelations.

Sikhs use the word Wahe Guru.
Wahe is derived from the Arabic word Wahy meaning revelation.
So Wahe Guru is denoting that what a Guru transmits is a revelation.
Those who are open and have the right inclinations will benefit from a guru. My reference was for those who are cynical about spiritual truths.
 
OP
OP
T

thebigthinkg

Active member
Surrender to the lotus feet of lord, one suppose to give up everything to his will. One does not ask or decide for oneself. It is decided by the supremewill. One will get what is required for one self not more or less. One is taken care of in every aspect and is guided on to the right path. One does not question or complain and accept every thing for the good and understanding drawns on oneself that every thing happens according to the supreme will. One is simply is medium not the real actor and with the understanding one watchs with detachment.
With this approach, I think one develops that detached attachment. Perfect. That's what I learn from bhaja govindam.
 
OP
OP
T

thebigthinkg

Active member
Energy is insentient. Like energy in a big bang according to current theories. Scientist 'believe' sentience came from insentient. That seems to be not right. So Energy cannot be the ultimate reality

Also Energy means motion and change (I can be corrected) and then it means time is already assumed. Did Energy produce time - No .. so Energy is not the ultimate reality.

Most of these and other posts seem digression to me. Let me explain.

My comment initially was that theology based on beliefs cannot be included in any description of non-duality.

Some think beliefs and faith (blind beliefs really) based on stories and imagination is Bhakthi. In which case no discussion is possible.

Advita Jnanis talk about Bhakthi. Is that the same as dualistic Bhakthi? It cannot be so because dualistic Bhakthi promotes opposite of non-duality.

Pure dualistic belief is glorious in its own right. But these people who claim to study Advita and propagate dualistic Bhakthi are confused and do not want to know they are confused

These are the issues I have seen thus far.
For the 'matter' world whatever we define as property of energy is the ultimate reality (that one could fathom). All matter forms dissolve into energy and arise from energy.

For the biological world or world of beings with consciousness, whatever we define as property of consciousness is the ultimate reality. As energy is associated with momentum, our consciousness is associated with some 'signaling'. We define a biological being as one with consciousness because we observe some 'signaling' in it drives its metabolism or growth or evolution.

Chandogya upanishad has some analogies and example. Manas is like a butter that collects on top when curd (of consciousness) is stirred. As long as the stirring (of consciousness) goes on, the cream (manas) exists. Once stirring stops, the cream (manas) dissolves (back into the consciousness). Say a person is on death bed. Everyone surrounds him and asks do u recognize me..? do u recognize me..? etc etc.. As long as that stirring is on his manas floats separately on top of curd of consciousness and he responds yes yes. Once the stirring stops and the manas dissolves back into consciousness, he stops responding. We say he is dead.

So whatever we call as consciousness is the ultimate reality for biological beings.

Basically this detached observer /puruSa/sAksi - observed/prakRti/evolute is the model which drives Universe evolution in all domain. Hence inculcating this detached attachment drives our evolution too.

How do we drive it..? One way is bhaja govindam exactly as Mohan parasuram described (in my understanding).

Is there a difference between dvaita and advaita bhakti..? In my understanding dvaita/advaita/visishta-advaita are all just change of place of viewing. Any devotion, bhakti or which krishna calls sattvic bhakti (compared to rajasic or tamasic bhakti) is all about surrendering yet executing our actions taking all results in the same way.
 

prasad1

Gold Member
Gold Member
Ramakrishna Paramaham was an Indian Hindu mystic and religious leader in 19th-century Bengal. Ramakrishna experienced spiritual ecstasies from a young age, and drew from several religious approaches, including devotion toward the Goddess Kali and observance of elements from Tantra, Bhakti, Vaishnava, and Advaita Vedanta, as well as dalliances with Christianity and Islam. He held that the world’s various religious traditions represented “so many paths to reach one and the same goal." His followers came to regard him as an avatara, or divine incarnation, as did several prominent Hindu scholars of his day. He did not have any formal training.

Similarly, Kabir Das was a 15th-century Indian mystic poet and saint, whose writings influenced Hinduism's Bhakti movement and his verses are found in Sikhism's scripture Guru Granth Sahib. Kabir was born in the city of Varanasi in Uttar Pradesh.

Kabir is known for being critical of both organized religion and religions. He questioned meaningless and unethical practices of all religions primarily the wrong practices in Hindu and Muslim religions. During his lifetime, he was threatened by both Hindus and Muslims for his views.  When he died, both Hindus and Muslims he had inspired claimed him as theirs.

Kabir suggested that Truth is with the person who is on the path of righteousness, considered everything, living and non-living, as divine, and who is passively detached from the affairs of the world. To know the Truth, suggested Kabir, drop the "I" or the ego.

Formal training in any language or philosophy is not a requirement for enlightenment.
 

prasad1

Gold Member
Gold Member
Enlightenment: The first thing it might be helpful to know about enlightenment is that many of the great masters actually achieved enlightenment in a relatively short period of time. In fact, some of them even achieved this goal without any formal training. But if in spite of that enlightenment still seems impossibly remote, it’s valuable to know that the great masters observed that the more we understand this goal, the more focused we can be in our practice.

 

a-TB

Well-known member
A-tb. Thank you sincerely for empathizing with what I have gone through.

I am not writing here to pass time or flaunt my capabilities. What I write comes out of a genuine desire to indeed give a fresh perspective to old problems. If you think members are just putting up with that I have no clue. A few people including yourself have been extremely critical of my views. That's fine. As long as there are a few who begin to think afresh and practice positivity that's really fine with me.

I try to be logical and not just present assertions. I try not to be spiteful or take attacks on my views personally. But I do use strong words to counter when I think people try to hide behind hypocrisy and project holier than thou attitude.

I will be happy to engage with anyone who just does not keep pointing fingers at others but who has a desire to truly understand different perspectives and really want to start a logical debate.
Mr Sravana :

The reason I mentioned about you not having any knowledge of Sanskrit or studied source scriptures (like Upanishad, Bhashya, Tika etc) is in response to your rather condescending comment in your post

"I request members not to present a hodgepodge of articles available on the internet and pass it off as arguments.

The lack of consistency is glaring and will be a disservice to other members.
"

Yes, I Google for information and have found wealth of books such as those of Swami Vivekananda, writing on conversations with Ramana Maharishi etc

There are also excellent blogs but for most part they are useless for they lack accuracy.

Where do you get your information to support your self assumed authority in Advita? You imagine and invent things and have never cited any authentic sources. Have you ever thought that the blogs you are critical of are similar to what you write here?

One does not need Sanskrit or knowledge of source scriptures to be enlightened. Ramana Maharishi learnt Sanskrit much later and ran away from home as a child.

But if I have to consult someone who I think is truly a scholar and somewhat enlightened I find them to be experts in Sanskrit to interpret Bhashya and Tika etc. All others rely on some info we find here and there,

Alos, The quoted statement is your ego expression. Hence I had to respond a bit harshly to get you to come to the ground level.

You have given your opinion that all Bhakthi is dualistic only. Do you have any citations from authentic sources to support your claim?

I asked you a question as to what you think you understand by the word Moksha? What is your source for that answer (please dont say your intuition).
 

a-TB

Well-known member
For the 'matter' world whatever we define as property of energy is the ultimate reality (that one could fathom). All matter forms dissolve into energy and arise from energy.

For the biological world or world of beings with consciousness, whatever we define as property of consciousness is the ultimate reality. As energy is associated with momentum, our consciousness is associated with some 'signaling'. We define a biological being as one with consciousness because we observe some 'signaling' in it drives its metabolism or growth or evolution.

Chandogya upanishad has some analogies and example. Manas is like a butter that collects on top when curd (of consciousness) is stirred. As long as the stirring (of consciousness) goes on, the cream (manas) exists. Once stirring stops, the cream (manas) dissolves (back into the consciousness). Say a person is on death bed. Everyone surrounds him and asks do u recognize me..? do u recognize me..? etc etc.. As long as that stirring is on his manas floats separately on top of curd of consciousness and he responds yes yes. Once the stirring stops and the manas dissolves back into consciousness, he stops responding. We say he is dead.

So whatever we call as consciousness is the ultimate reality for biological beings.

Basically this detached observer /puruSa/sAksi - observed/prakRti/evolute is the model which drives Universe evolution in all domain. Hence inculcating this detached attachment drives our evolution too.

How do we drive it..? One way is bhaja govindam exactly as Mohan parasuram described (in my understanding).

Is there a difference between dvaita and advaita bhakti..? In my understanding dvaita/advaita/visishta-advaita are all just change of place of viewing. Any devotion, bhakti or which krishna calls sattvic bhakti (compared to rajasic or tamasic bhakti) is all about surrendering yet executing our actions taking all results in the same way.
Energy and matter are the same (from my simple understanding of Einsteins's equation). If you say there is a biological world and a physical world , ultimate reality is one from which all these worlds arise. It is certainly not energy as I understood from your earlier post.

Do you have any authentic reference to explain your understanding of the 'change of place of viewing'. Advita is opposite to Dvita.
 

sravna

Well-known member
Dear a-TB,

You can't find unanimity on most of the issues. People of equally great genius differ in their views. In most of the cases it is seeing the same thing in different ways . But you can't indiscriminately mix concepts.

Shankara talks about non dualism and ways to reach that state including bhakthi. Ramanuja does not agree with non dualism and advocates bhakthi as the main way for final emancipation.

Dualism implies you are separate from God. In bhakthi you maintain that distinction and totally surrender to God. I can't understand what non dual bhakthi means. That is the reason I made that comment that you were googling to find information.

If you can define non dual bhakthi I can better answer your question.
 

renuka

Gold Member
Gold Member
Dear a-TB,

You can't find unanimity on most of the issues. People of equally great genius differ in their views. In most of the cases it is seeing the same thing in different ways . But you can't indiscriminately mix concepts.

Shankara talks about non dualism and ways to reach that state including bhakthi. Ramanuja does not agree with non dualism and advocates bhakthi as the main way for final emancipation.

Dualism implies you are separate from God. In bhakthi you maintain that distinction and totally surrender to God. I can't understand what non dual bhakthi means. That is the reason I made that comment that you were googling to find information.

If you can define non dual bhakthi I can better answer your question.
Dear Sravna,

Non dual bhakti is possible through the
concept of Ishvara Pranidhana..that is its a commitment to Ishvara.

Advaita is all about Ishvara( Saguna Brahman) and the Ultimate Nirguna.

You already know that Ishvara ( Saguna Brahman) is a projection of Nirguna Brahman under the effect of Maya.

Firstly we have to define Bhakti.
Its from the root word bhaj.
It has a host of meanings ranging from selfless devotion, worship,to serve, natural inclination,fondness, to divide,partake of, participate.

But a sense of separateness is implied in the root word itself hence its dualistic beyond doubt.
But it could still be applied from the Advaitic point of view.

An Advaitin is aware everything is but a projection of Brahman.
Adi Shankara did install deities for worship and composed countless shlokas on deities too.
In other words his bhakti was on deified forms too a.k.a Saguna Brahman.

By fixing one's mind in selfless devotion to Saguna Brahman as a natural inclination one fully surrenders the " unreal" self to the real Self( Nirguna Brahman) and becomes established as in TAT( That) and an Advaitin experiences Tat Tvam Asi(Thou Art That)

In cases of dualuslitic schools of thought, though there is Sayujyam, one still has some tiny bit of separation from the idea of Tat Tvam Asi just to enjoy a little distance so that the Bhakta experiences the bliss of worshipping his Lord.

Its like this..the Advaitin is the wave in the ocean and has become the ocean.
The Dvaitin knows its a wave from the Ocean but he prefers to be the wave so he can always be together with the ocean and love its mahima.
 

sravna

Well-known member
Dear Sravna,

Non dual bhakti is possible through the
concept of Ishvara Pranidhana..that is its a commitment to Ishvara.

Advaita is all about Ishvara( Saguna Brahman) and the Ultimate Nirguna.

You already know that Ishvara ( Saguna Brahman) is a projection of Nirguna Brahman under the effect of Maya.

Firstly we have to define Bhakti.
Its from the root word bhaj.
It has a host of meanings ranging from selfless devotion, worship,to serve, natural inclination,fondness, to divide,partake of, participate.

But a sense of separateness is implied in the root word itself hence its dualistic beyond doubt.
But it could still be applied from the Advaitic point of view.

An Advaitin is aware everything is but a projection of Brahman.
Adi Shankara did install deities for worship and composed countless shlokas on deities too.
In other words his bhakti was on deified forms too a.k.a Saguna Brahman.

By fixing one's mind in selfless devotion to Saguna Brahman as a natural inclination one fully surrenders the " unreal" self to the real Self( Nirguna Brahman) and becomes established as in TAT( That) and an Advaitin experiences Tat Tvam Asi(Thou Art That)

In cases of dualuslitic schools of thought, though there is Sayujyam, one still has some tiny bit of separation from the idea of Tat Tvam Asi just to enjoy a little distance so that the Bhakta experiences the bliss of worshipping his Lord.

Its like this..the Advaitin is the wave in the ocean and has become the ocean.
The Dvaitin knows its a wave from the Ocean but he prefers to be the wave so he can always be together with the ocean and love its mahima.
But Renuka I think the relationship between unreal self and real self is different from the typical relationship between bhaktha and the lord. The unreal self eventually become one with the real though that is not the case of the latter.

I think the focus of Ramanuja was not on nirguna brahman as he felt that something like bhakthi would be better able to inculcate finer qualities by shedding the ego.
 
Top
Thank you for visiting TamilBrahmins.com

You seem to have an Ad Blocker on.

We depend on advertising to keep our content free for you. Please consider whitelisting us in your ad blocker so that we can continue to provide the content you have come here to enjoy.

Alternatively, consider upgrading your account to enjoy an ad-free experience along with numerous other benefits. To upgrade your account, please visit the account upgrades page

You can also donate financially if you can. Please Click Here on how you can do that.

I've Disabled AdBlock    No Thanks