bhaja govindam

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

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.

 

[renuka]

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]

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]

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.

 

[thebigthinkg]

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.

 

[thebigthinkg]

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]

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]

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.

Contact Support

 

[a-TB]

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]

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.

 

[prasad1]

 

[sravna]

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]

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]

Ok. You mean focussing on the real self is also bhakthi?

 

[sravna]

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.

 

[renuka]

Ok. You mean focussing on the real self is also bhakthi?

Yes...hopeless devoted to the real self.

 

[thebigthinkg]

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.

 

[sravna]

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.

 

[renuka]

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

 

[sravna]

Yes Renuka. Through bhakthi the non dual goal is automatically taken care of.

 

[sravna]

Personally I like the non dual philosophy of Sankara and the focus on bhakthi of Ramanuja

 

[thebigthinkg]

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]

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]

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]

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.