• 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

OP
OP
T

thebigthinkg

Active member
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.
Yes. that's how we started right..? We see 'effects' of energy and can define energy only as an abstract concept, as we see the effects of energy transforming from one to another and we are able to mathematically measure these effects and mass is one 'effect' of energy.

Same way Energy is an abstract concept, consciousness is an abstract concept whose effects are 'signaling' which has evolved into more complex forms in biological beings.

Now these are 'models' in which there is an abstract concept or an 'observer' or a 'sAksi' behind who is the 'cause' which we cannot fully know, but whose effects are well known.

I look at it for what we learn, which is having a detached perspective or detached attachment is the universal way of evolution.

Regarding dvaita and advaita, that's my understanding.

Advaita looks at the Universe and all its beings from the 'cause' or 'puruSa' or observer side, which is the 'Brahman'. All effects are part of the cause itself. Brhadharanyaka and other upanishads say stri is part of puruSa and Universe is expansion (brahman) of the Stri. Shiva cannot even pulse without shakti. The iconography of Shiva's 'ardha-nareeswara' form reflects this concept. In other words, it's like saying from an 'infinite' perspective, every finite is a subset or part of infinite. Hence 'realization of the self' is the key here.

Dvaita looks at the Universe from our view-point. The cause is an observer or witness behind. It is detached and hence we the matter forms or human beings can never be the cause which is behind. The iconography of Lakshmi arising out of vishnu, but distinct from vishnu reflects this concept. Lakshmi is next to Hari. In other words, it's like saying from a finite perspective, it can never become infinite. Hence devotion or bhakti is the key here.

visishta-advaita looks at the Universe from a 'third' party view. The cause is an observer or witness behind. It is detached, but as advaita says the all effects are a part of the cause and as dvaita says all effects put together may not become the cause. The iconography of vishnu and lakshmi reflects this separation concept, but Lakshmi is as much a divinity equivalent to Hari (as in advaita). Hence it is Sri vaishnavism. It's like saying from a third party perspective, finite tends to become infinite but will remain separate but infinite engulfs all finite in it. Hence devotion or bhakti (in fact prapaati or surrender) to get the realization is the key here.

Bhaja govindam is asking for this detachment through devotion as Mohan explained very simply.
 
Last edited:

sravna

Well-known member
Well explained Sir. Detachment is the pervasive goal. But once that detachment is reached you are capable of anything. So best of both worlds is possible as you are in total self control.
 
OP
OP
T

thebigthinkg

Active member
At times Abrahamic religions tend to be simple.
Dualistic and just focus on God.

I am neither against any 'matas' nor for any 'matas'. (mata simply means an opinion or idea).

In any mata, if bhakti does not pave the way to jnAnA (in the way Mohan explained), then it tends to become another attachment that an individual develops, another addition to the ahamkAra.

When we get more and more attached, that 'mata' goes on strengthening and becomes 'madha' which is intoxication. With intoxicated ideas, we divide, fight and perish in the name of our ideas.
 

sravna

Well-known member
I am neither against any 'matas' nor for any 'matas'. (mata simply means an opinion or idea).

In any mata, if bhakti does not pave the way to jnAnA (in the way Mohan explained), then it tends to become another attachment that an individual develops, another addition to the ahamkAra.

When we get more and more attached, that 'mata' goes on strengthening and becomes 'madha' which is intoxication. With intoxicated ideas, we divide, fight and perish in the name of our ideas.
Intoxication of mind is permanent. When the stage of intoxication is reached, the person becomes devoid of reason and fear. Either the person has to perish which is the logical conclusion or something out of the world has to happen to bring him back to senses. I would say the former is the most likely scenario.
 

renuka

Gold Member
Gold Member
I am neither against any 'matas' nor for any 'matas'. (mata simply means an opinion or idea).

In any mata, if bhakti does not pave the way to jnAnA (in the way Mohan explained), then it tends to become another attachment that an individual develops, another addition to the ahamkAra.

When we get more and more attached, that 'mata' goes on strengthening and becomes 'madha' which is intoxication. With intoxicated ideas, we divide, fight and perish in the name of our ideas.
Agreed but the format of just God and none else and surrender to Him only seems simple and finally thats all one needs..surrender and let regular prayers inner engineer us.

I do understand philosophy is less in Abrahamic faiths and its quite point blank to the point.

Sufism has a good balance..it has surrender with lover and beloved concept of bhakta and God.
They dont dwell too much on philosophy but do dwell on inner dimensions of Quranic verses which all lead to inner engineering.

Seems simple..it works for some.
 

renuka

Gold Member
Gold Member
Intoxication of mind is permanent. When the stage of intoxication is reached, the person becomes devoid of reason and fear. Either the person has to perish which is the logical conclusion or something out of the world has to happen to bring him back to senses. I would say the former is the most likely scenario.
Jagat Mityam..how can intoxication of the mind be permenant?
Change is the only constant.
It can change if one tries.
 

sravna

Well-known member
Jagat Mityam..how can intoxication of the mind be permenant?
Change is the only constant.
It can change if one tries.
Intoxication means only self is right. Blind man cannot see, deaf cannot hear and the intoxicated cannot think. How can it change? Perhaps in future births.
 

renuka

Gold Member
Gold Member
Intoxication means only self is right. Blind man cannot see, deaf cannot hear and the intoxicated cannot think. How can it change? Perhaps in future births.
Sravna, you just quoted the Quran.

2:18
Deaf, dumb and blind, they shall not return.
 

sravna

Well-known member
Was doing some reading. Other religions such as Islam, Christianity, Buddhism have their versions of spirituality. Let me say inspite of the spiritual moorings of Hinduism there are fundamentalists in Hinduism also. So every religion has its share of fundamentalists, spiritualists and those in between. This is in accordance with the basic nature of humans to be prejudiced, unbiased or in between. The same can be said of science where some practitioners of science who interpret its philisophy in a strict way, some in a liberal way and some in between.

The right, left and center. While the right maintain their fundamentalist nature, the purity of the left and center have become more compromised and there is more a hidden agenda especially evident at the political level.
 

sravna

Well-known member
I believe a country should base it's constitution, policies and actions on preserving harmony. Anyone or anything detriment to it should be strictly dealt with be it from any religion, community or group.

Injustices of the past should not be corrected by again creating a new injustice. By this measure reservation system is not a proper idea. This will not foster any progress of mind. It will keep the wounds open and likely to worsen it. The best approach would be to foster progressive thoughts on both the oppressed and oppressor.

What would you do one of your two children who is malnourished while the other is healthy? You would try to make the malnourished child healthy but not try to reduce the health of the healthy child.

I agree resources are limited and I would be ok apportioning them on the basis of real and current needs. Equally important is to defuse ill will between groups through genuine efforts. It therefore has to really happen at the level of mind and spirit.

The above is what will promote and preserve harmony. That is focus as much on the inner needs as on physical needs and you will find the quality of life of people start improving exponentially. But sadly the exact reverse is happening.
 

sravna

Well-known member
Sorry for the digression. The above thoughts arose as I was trying to get more insights on spirituality
 

a-TB

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.
Just catching up and responding.. Truth and reality does not have many interpretations. Ramanuja was primarily teaching/preaching theology. So are all dualist acharyas.

Those who talk about Sankara and describe stories about him have never studied his commentaries. In my Googling I came across a book which was a translation of a Sanskrit book that was written 100 years ago or so. I do not have reference for it because the content is beyond my comprehension and most of the people I come in contact with including in this forum.

But the main gist was that using Sankara's Bhashya and the teachings the author had refuted every one of the stories spun about his life or his teaching. This includes stories of Sankara vijayam or stories he worshiped a form or that he composed many slokas etc. Bhaja Govidam may be an exception.

I have access to one person who is expert in Sanskrit and Vedanta. I do not like to bother him often and he shared the same views.

In this forum I came across only two persons who claimed to have studied from the original Bhashya. One with whom I sparred turned out to be just a name dropper. I am thankful to him because he suggested me to look at original translation of Bhashya and I did buy a book as a result. Not that it is very helpful but gave an idea of depth needed

The other person is not very active and I have not had opportunity to debate though he answered some of my questions well.

So as a sincere student I suggest you to let go what you think you know and try to learn. That is the first step to tackle the ego. There is no issue in saying 'I dont know' like I am saying here. It is the beginning of wisdom.
 

a-TB

Well-known member
Yes. that's how we started right..? We see 'effects' of energy and can define energy only as an abstract concept, as we see the effects of energy transforming from one to another and we are able to mathematically measure these effects and mass is one 'effect' of energy.

Same way Energy is an abstract concept, consciousness is an abstract concept whose effects are 'signaling' which has evolved into more complex forms in biological beings.

Now these are 'models' in which there is an abstract concept or an 'observer' or a 'sAksi' behind who is the 'cause' which we cannot fully know, but whose effects are well known.
++++ You can substitute word Sakshi with word God and that is how all religions describe without admitting they dont know anything . It becomes just a belief. Why did Sakshi create this with all these good and evil things. Please read Bertrand Russel's "Why I am not a christian' and he answers such issues well and refutes them It is hard to imagine how this Sakshi created all these - 100 million stars in a galaxy, billion galaxies. all these complext bio organisms etc. So net answer is we dont know after lots of words. The abstract concept called Sakshi which we do not know is called God in all religions. While I am learning and do not know much, this cannot be the teachings of Vedanta with what you have stated as interpretations because it is just the words of all dualistic religion, except for the use of the word Sakshi. Unless I am missing something in which case I can be corrected/
I look at it for what we learn, which is having a detached perspective or detached attachment is the universal way of evolution.

Regarding dvaita and advaita, that's my understanding.

Advaita looks at the Universe and all its beings from the 'cause' or 'puruSa' or observer side, which is the 'Brahman'. All effects are part of the cause itself. Brhadharanyaka and other upanishads say stri is part of puruSa and Universe is expansion (brahman) of the Stri. Shiva cannot even pulse without shakti. The iconography of Shiva's 'ardha-nareeswara' form reflects this concept. In other words, it's like saying from an 'infinite' perspective, every finite is a subset or part of infinite. Hence 'realization of the self' is the key here.

Dvaita looks at the Universe from our view-point. The cause is an observer or witness behind. It is detached and hence we the matter forms or human beings can never be the cause which is behind. The iconography of Lakshmi arising out of vishnu, but distinct from vishnu reflects this concept. Lakshmi is next to Hari. In other words, it's like saying from a finite perspective, it can never become infinite. Hence devotion or bhakti is the key here.

visishta-advaita looks at the Universe from a 'third' party view. The cause is an observer or witness behind. It is detached, but as advaita says the all effects are a part of the cause and as dvaita says all effects put together may not become the cause. The iconography of vishnu and lakshmi reflects this separation concept, but Lakshmi is as much a divinity equivalent to Hari (as in advaita). Hence it is Sri vaishnavism. It's like saying from a third party perspective, finite tends to become infinite but will remain separate but infinite engulfs all finite in it. Hence devotion or bhakti (in fact prapaati or surrender) to get the realization is the key here.

++++ The last line is fine.
If Observer side and observed sides are there, where is non-duality here? There are two realities - observed and observer. That is duality .. All three are some descriptions of duality, it seems
Bhaja govindam is asking for this detachment through devotion as Mohan explained very simply.

Thank you for your response. I have provided my reactions within the message itself. It was great exchanging views with you .. thank you
 

sravna

Well-known member
Just catching up and responding.. Truth and reality does not have many interpretations. Ramanuja was primarily teaching/preaching theology. So are all dualist acharyas.

Those who talk about Sankara and describe stories about him have never studied his commentaries. In my Googling I came across a book which was a translation of a Sanskrit book that was written 100 years ago or so. I do not have reference for it because the content is beyond my comprehension and most of the people I come in contact with including in this forum.

But the main gist was that using Sankara's Bhashya and the teachings the author had refuted every one of the stories spun about his life or his teaching. This includes stories of Sankara vijayam or stories he worshiped a form or that he composed many slokas etc. Bhaja Govidam may be an exception.

I have access to one person who is expert in Sanskrit and Vedanta. I do not like to bother him often and he shared the same views.

In this forum I came across only two persons who claimed to have studied from the original Bhashya. One with whom I sparred turned out to be just a name dropper. I am thankful to him because he suggested me to look at original translation of Bhashya and I did buy a book as a result. Not that it is very helpful but gave an idea of depth needed

The other person is not very active and I have not had opportunity to debate though he answered some of my questions well.

So as a sincere student I suggest you to let go what you think you know and try to learn. That is the first step to tackle the ego. There is no issue in saying 'I dont know' like I am saying here. It is the beginning of wisdom.
Just catching up and responding.. Truth and reality does not have many interpretations. Ramanuja was primarily teaching/preaching theology. So are all dualist acharyas.

Those who talk about Sankara and describe stories about him have never studied his commentaries. In my Googling I came across a book which was a translation of a Sanskrit book that was written 100 years ago or so. I do not have reference for it because the content is beyond my comprehension and most of the people I come in contact with including in this forum.

But the main gist was that using Sankara's Bhashya and the teachings the author had refuted every one of the stories spun about his life or his teaching. This includes stories of Sankara vijayam or stories he worshiped a form or that he composed many slokas etc. Bhaja Govidam may be an exception.

I have access to one person who is expert in Sanskrit and Vedanta. I do not like to bother him often and he shared the same views.

In this forum I came across only two persons who claimed to have studied from the original Bhashya. One with whom I sparred turned out to be just a name dropper. I am thankful to him because he suggested me to look at original translation of Bhashya and I did buy a book as a result. Not that it is very helpful but gave an idea of depth needed

The other person is not very active and I have not had opportunity to debate though he answered some of my questions well.

So as a sincere student I suggest you to let go what you think you know and try to learn. That is the first step to tackle the ego. There is no issue in saying 'I dont know' like I am saying here. It is the beginning of wisdom.
Your integrity is determined not only by self but also by the groups you belong to. I not surprised that people belonging to a certain nation talk only with veiled interests. That nation is a coward to the core and that reflects in its people. Good luck.
 
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