bhaja govindam

[a-TB]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear a-TB,

No my ego has not been hurt. Why would it be? Do I see somebody's accomplishments as a threat or competition to me? Do I think that people cannot be more intelligent than me? Do I ensure that my selfish interests are tsken care of at any costs? Or in sum do I think I am exceptional and unique? None of these.

I was just mentioning as a matter of fact how people from a nation which thinks it is exceptional carry that attitude. When it has reached nothing more than the LKG of knowledge there is that delusion of omniscience.

If you have no clue to what I am talking about let that ignorance be bliss. People do understand who really needs help.

Who is the clown now, Mr Sravana
You dont know anything about me.

How do you know where I live now? I have shared some details some years ago. Things do not remain static.

You have a narrow mind - against groups (LGBTQ), subjects (science) and nations and people based on your past comments. Such a person can never know what oneness means.

I asked some questions, you came into conversation making flippant comment. Then wanted to talk about your spiritual powers. You talk about Moksha and then when asked about what it is you have no clue

Now the subject has nothing to do with any nation. Only a crude mind will digress from topic area to nation and cause caustic and divisive comments against nations.

Yes, you need help.

 

[a-TB]

There are ignorant and arrogant members and knowledgeable and humble people.
Others fall in the middle. We all know something, but may not be master of it, we are humble and accept our ignorance. But someone here thinks they are superior to others and dismisses them with contempt. It is laughable, but sad at the same time.
But I am digressing from the thread.

Are you making comments about me? I did not claim any knowledge.
I only asked questions to TBT who is a scholar in his own right. He had some views and I came here to exchange views. Now you come here and say something silly. Where do you fall ?

 

[a-TB]

One may ask why Shankara chose to use the Ashtadyayi sutra dukren karane?
Dukren karane is the sutra to derive the root word कृ( kR) ..which in turn gives rise to words meaning to do
eg karoti),doing( karanam) ,kriya, karma etc.

So why did he choose this sutra?
Is it merely to keep in tune with the meter?
Not really! Cos its in this stanza Adi Shankara actually does not keep in the rules of the meter but all other stanzas follow the rules of the meter.


the 1st verse of Bhajo Govindam.

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

Bhajo Govindam comes under Matra Chandas that too a subtype named Padakulakam in which each verse has 4 lines that has 16 matras each


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.


So why did Shankara choose the Dukren Karane sutra?

Is it just because the man he met was memorizing that sutra?
Or is there a hidden message?

I wrote earlier that the
root word कृ( kR) ...gives rise to words meaning to do
eg karoti),doing( karanam) ,kriya, karma etc.

So was Shankara hinting to us
" Hey guys! What ever you do( root word कृ) will not liberate you in the time of need ..only contemplating on the name of God will liberate you"

For those not too comfortable with the idea of God might actually prefer to understand the word Govinda.

What is Govinda?

Govinda is a combination of Go and Vindate/Vindati
Vindate/ Vindati means " to find".

The word Go has 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..surely for liberation one needs to gain divine knowledge and contemplate on that.

There is an entire thread on this topic in the Philosophy section

 

[renuka]

There is an entire thread on this topic in the Philosophy section

Thank you..i had written the same thing there before.

 

[renuka]

Who is the clown now, Mr Sravana
You dont know anything about me.

How do you know where I live now? I have shared some details some years ago. Things do not remain static.

You have a narrow mind - against groups (LGBTQ), subjects (science) and nations and people based on your past comments. Such a person can never know what oneness means.

I asked some questions, you came into conversation making flippant comment. Then wanted to talk about your spiritual powers. You talk about Moksha and then when asked about what it is you have no clue

Now the subject has nothing to do with any nation. Only a crude mind will digress from topic area to nation and cause caustic and divisive comments against nations.

Yes, you need help.

Really? Such a person can not know Oneness?

Even a former thief became an Alwar.
Two former highway robbers became revered sages ..Valmiki and Angulimala.

God guides whom He wills.
In fact those with rigid views are the ones who can instantly transform.

Oneness doesnt belong to anyone and neither does it bar anyone from it.
Everyone eventually goes to Oneness as Oneness is the built in software of the Atma.

Btw all of us need help in life.

 

[a-TB]

???
Well, I may not always agree with whatever Sravna writes but surprised to see the usage of the word ego.

I wonder how fast someone forgot that he used some form of intuition to arrive at the conclusion that a book he read but cant remember the title is supposed to be beyond the capacity of most of the forum members just because he could not understand it or remember the title.

What do we call that? Ego?

Every one of the human beings have ego . Are you without ego?? Sravana trumpets his imagined spiritual powers. You want to come here and claim you know Sanskrit with an air of knowing Sanskrit.. while all these others do not know. I read that everytime you go out of your way to make a point to show off an imagined expertise.

You have to meet real experts to know what expertise in Sanskrit actually means. Do you ever admit when you dont know something?

Mr TBT is a gentleman and his engagement was scholarly even if I do not fully understand his points and I was exchanging views.

Regarding a book I Googled couple of years ago:

The larger point and the only point is that the stories about Sankara which you quote do not have any basis. Two Matams put his time in this earth by 1000 years apart. So talking about his life history is mostly imagination. A book in Sanskrit exists by a scholar (not sure if it s Madhusudhana Saraswati) taking only the Bhashyas to refute the stories. It was translated but it contained lots of Bhashya sentences. Unless one is versatile in Bhashya studies it is not possible to make sense of the arguments made there. That is all the point I made. In this forum very few ever talked about Bhashya and you are not one of them. Most here have not referred to those works. Only two people I know that referred to them.


If you are interested you can google about Sri Sankara. It may take a while. I chanced upon it while looking for something.

 

[a-TB]

Really? Such a person can not know Oneness?

Even a former thief became an Alwar.
Two former highway robbers became revered sages ..Valmiki and Angulimala.

God guides whom He wills.
In fact those with rigid views are the ones who can instantly transform.

Oneness doesnt belong to anyone and neither does it bar anyone from it.
Everyone eventually goes to Oneness as Oneness is the built in software of the Atma.

Btw all of us need help in life.

A crude and divisive mind cannot fathom what oneness even means. The only question any of us can ask is if our mind is crude .. You can believe in God , that is your right. But first it is better to see Godliness in others. Ask if your mind is divisive or not. My reaction here is that I am not ready but if you think somehow you are above all, you are mistaken

Anyone can improve but first they must want to improve.. Where are you ?

 

[a-TB]

Thank you..i had written the same thing there before.

I remember engaging with you and not all your points were compelling since you said that the repetition of Bhaja Govindam is for meter.

 

[renuka]

Every one of the human beings have ego . Are you without ego?? Sravana trumpets his imagined spiritual powers. You want to come here and claim you know Sanskrit with an air of knowing Sanskrit.. while all these others do not know. I read that everytime you go out of your way to make a point to show off an imagined expertise.

You have to meet real experts to know what expertise in Sanskrit actually means. Do you ever admit when you dont know something?

Mr TBT is a gentleman and his engagement was scholarly even if I do not fully understand his points and I was exchanging views.

Regarding a book I Googled couple of years ago:

The larger point and the only point is that the stories about Sankara which you quote do not have any basis. Two Matams put his time in this earth by 1000 years apart. So talking about his life history is mostly imagination. A book in Sanskrit exists by a scholar (not sure if it s Madhusudhana Saraswati) taking only the Bhashyas to refute the stories. It was translated but it contained lots of Bhashya sentences. Unless one is versatile in Bhashya studies it is not possible to make sense of the arguments made there. That is all the point I made. In this forum very few ever talked about Bhashya and you are not one of them. Most here have not referred to those works. Only two people I know that referred to them.


If you are interested you can google about Sri Sankara. It may take a while. I chanced upon it while looking for something.

When someone knows Sanskrit you say they show off.

When someone doesnt know Sanskrit you say they have no knowledge.

Imagined expertise?
Did I claim I am a Vidhwan?

In the same philosophy thread you had asked a question and I answered you and your response there was a polite one not accusing me of imagined expertise.

I understand if you are upset.
So I would let you cool down.

Ok these are the things I dont know:

I dont know :

1) how to change my car engine oil
2) I dont know how to cook Biryani
3) I dont know how to fly a plane
4) I dont know how to repair a broken pipe on the road
5) I dont know how to be you( not that I want to)

 

[renuka]

I remember engaging with you and not all your points were compelling since you said that the repetition of Bhaja Govindam is for meter.

Its fine, you got the right to differ.
I have no issues with anyone disagreeing with me because some of us are not Vidhwans here but some are( not me).

We learn from each other.

 

[sravna]

Shri a-TB,

As a rule I never start what I see will be an unproductive argument. But I think I owe myself and all right thinking people the right to respond aptly if it is directed against me. The whole thing started if I remember right me not quoting authorities and having an original view. I pointed out the hypocrisy of that a few posts back. I think I responded to the extent and intensity required. I am quite content with my accomplishments and have to do nothing in this forum to prop up my ego. But I do write strongly sometimes and have nothing and no one to fear as my conscience is clear.

If you find such observations offensive you most likely have to look inward than trying to retaliate.

Any way good luck with your learning.

 

[thebigthinkg]

++++ 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/


++++ 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


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

"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/"

Few points here
1. Observer or witness or sAksi driving evolution of Universe is a 'model'. It happens in every stage of evolution of Universe. Like enzymes that drive biological reactions, catalysts that drive chemical reactions, neutrons that drive atomic reactions etc etc.

2. The biggest difference between Sankara and Buddhist thoughts is this sAkSi that Sankara collated from Sruti or vedic literature. Buddhists said there is nothing (it is Shunya) behind everything. So it stopped there. But Shankara said there is an observer (sAksi) which is detached, eternal, unchanging, which does not interfere with observed (in saMkhya's version union of blind and lame).

3. How does it matter to us..? It matters because Shankara brought out the concept of detached attachment or a detached self (as in brahma jnana vali mAla), having a detached observer from this model of sAksi driving evolution. His concept was this puruSa or the brahman manifests in us as the sAksi in all and hence inside us also and can evolve us. This learning of having a detached observer in us, which is the basis of our evolution is the key advaitic self-improvement concept. With such a detached observer in us, we realize that all this jagat is just a continuously evolving mAyA, this unchanging detached observer in us, evolves us, overcomes our fear of birth and death.

4. Regarding religions, this kind of concept does not exist at all. They have a 'god' who answers prayers (who is not detached and hence not sAksi), who gives heaven and hell (hence not a sAksi), who promotes a belief that this is the 'god' (not a model which we use to improve ourselves) and god answers prayers. While the bhakti or devotion of shankara looks like bhakti or devotion in religions, it's not the same. The difference again is brought out by what Mohan said. That progress of bhakti to jnAna or self-improvement is the aim of shankara.

 

[sravna]

Just a simple question to a-TB

How do you know I don't have spiritual powers? Is it because you think it is not possible? Then you are exhibiting the narrowmindedness you are accusing me of

Or

You should be knowing very well all about me. Do you?

 

[sravna]

"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/"

Few points here
1. Observer or witness or sAksi driving evolution of Universe is a 'model'. It happens in every stage of evolution of Universe. Like enzymes that drive biological reactions, catalysts that drive chemical reactions, neutrons that drive atomic reactions etc etc.

2. The biggest difference between Sankara and Buddhist thoughts is this sAkSi that Sankara collated from Sruti or vedic literature. Buddhists said there is nothing (it is Shunya) behind everything. So it stopped there. But Shankara said there is an observer (sAksi) which is detached, eternal, unchanging, which does not interfere with observed (in saMkhya's version union of blind and lame).

3. How does it matter to us..? It matters because Shankara brought out the concept of detached attachment or a detached self (as in brahma jnana vali mAla), having a detached observer from this model of sAksi driving evolution. His concept was this puruSa or the brahman manifests in us as the sAksi in all and hence inside us also and can evolve us. This learning of having a detached observer in us, which is the basis of our evolution is the key advaitic self-improvement concept. With such a detached observer in us, we realize that all this jagat is just a continuously evolving mAyA, this unchanging detached observer in us, evolves us, overcomes our fear of birth and death.

4. Regarding religions, this kind of concept does not exist at all. They have a 'god' who answers prayers (who is not detached and hence not sAksi), who gives heaven and hell (hence not a sAksi), who promotes a belief that this is the 'god' (not a model which we use to improve ourselves) and god answers prayers. While the bhakti or devotion of shankara looks like bhakti or devotion in religions, it's not the same. The difference again is brought out by what Mohan said. That progress of bhakti to jnAna or self-improvement is the aim of shankara.

Dear Sir,

I think whether it is the compassion taught by Jesus or the total faith in Allah taught by Mohammed or the bhakthi to narayana taught by Ramanuja or the knowledge of brahman taught by Sankara all of them play a role in someway somewhere in the whole process of evolution of the soul. Soul needs to be complete by assimilating different perspectives into a whole.

 

[renuka]

Dear Sir,

I think whether it is the compassion taught by Jesus or the total faith in Allah taught by Mohammed or the bhakthi to narayana taught by Ramanuja or the knowledge of brahman taught by Sankara all of them play a role in someway somewhere in the whole process of evolution of the soul. Soul needs to be complete by assimilating different perspectives into a whole.

Its the underlying bhakti to jnaana that all masters preached in various ways as you have rightly understood.

Even in cases of total faith to God as in blind bhakti, one is still aligning to the Universal Consciousness through a belief system.

A God who speaks, a God who answers..a God who bestows all are possible combinations.

Shankara himself was not just dry logic.
He lovingly set up the Mukambika temple and had a darshan with the Devi.

Swami Vivekananda himself had a conversational darshan with a Devi in a temple in Kashmir.

Some might not want to agree with all these..but isnt the world today totally connected online?
A person in USA can chat by video call with a person in India.

So why isnt it possible for a person to be able to have a darshan with a devi or devata from a subtle realm.

May be for starters some might need to see ghost/ pei/ pisasu and be convinced that its possible to see an entity from.a different realm.

May the pisasus help those who have a closed mind! Lol

 

[sravna]

Renuka,

I believe subtlety is best expressed by assertions which have the potential to move you. Whether you are moved or not depends on whether you are receptive to subtleties.

As you say Sankara understood the limitations of precise and dry logic and espoused different ways to different people.

 

[renuka]

Renuka,



As you say Sankara understood the limitations of precise and dry logic and espoused different ways to different people.

Again you quoted the Quran.

13:17
He sends down rain from the sky, causing the valleys to flow, each according to its capacity.


Esoteric meaning is
God sends down divine knowledge in accordance to the capacity of each person.
So each one of us is like different valleys with different capacity to hold the rain of knowledge.

 

[renuka]

Dear Sravna,

The concept of witness( Shakshi) is also there in the Quran.

Its not just only about a belief and faith in God.

17:78
So perform the regular prayers in the period from the time the sun is past its zenith till the darkness of the night, and [recite] the Quran at dawn- dawn recitation is always witnessed––


You can see above that it states that reciting the Quran at dawn is witnessed.
Witnessed by whom?

Also this
3:18



God ˹Himself˺ is a Witness that there is no god ˹worthy of worship˺ except Him—and so are the angels and people of knowledge. He is the Maintainer of justice. There is no god ˹worthy of worship˺ except Him—the Almighty, All-Wise.

Again very clear that God witnesses even Himself because none can be a witness to God besides God Himself..in addition angels and people of knowledge.
The stress is on Jnaana( people of knowledge) ..through Jnaana one can witness there is None worthy of worship besides God.

So the concept of Shakshi and Jnaana is found both in Advaita and also Islam..though in Islam it isnt really too much stressed by most followers.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

The concept of witness( Shakshi) is also there in the Quran.

Its not just only about a belief and faith in God.

17:78
So perform the regular prayers in the period from the time the sun is past its zenith till the darkness of the night, and [recite] the Quran at dawn- dawn recitation is always witnessed––


You can see above that it states that reciting the Quran at dawn is witnessed.
Witnessed by whom?

Also this
3:18



God ˹Himself˺ is a Witness that there is no god ˹worthy of worship˺ except Him—and so are the angels and people of knowledge. He is the Maintainer of justice. There is no god ˹worthy of worship˺ except Him—the Almighty, All-Wise.

Again very clear that God witnesses even Himself because none can be a witness to God besides God Himself.

So the concept of Shakshi is found both in Advaita and also Islam..though in Islam it isnt really too much stressed by most followers.

Ok

 

[renuka]

Ok

I had edited my post..added some info on jnaana.

 

[sravna]

I had edited my post..added some info on jnaana.

Actually I am looking for some general info on Islam. Your posts are very informative.

 

[renuka]

Actually I am looking for some general info on Islam. Your posts are very informative.

I need to tell you to proceed with caution.
Lots of translations are not accurate and just propaganda and highly hostile ..they add translations which are not even in the original text.

I am able to read Arabic( not to brag as someone in forum accused me of showing off my imaginary Sanskrit expertise)

Since I have studied Arabic I read up commentaries from Saints like Sheikh Qadir Jilani and Ibn Arabi.

You would find their works highly esoteric and almost Vedantic.

Also becareful of over dose of Sufism..some tend to go overboard.
But works of Innayat Khan of India is also good.
He had lots of interaction with Brahmin pandits too and he himself is a Musical vidhwan and uses his music knowledge to explain higher aspects.

Avoid wahabi school of thought which is very rigid and totally out of sync.

Online videos one can see videos of a current day scholar Sheikh Hamza Yusuf an American white man who is very deep into wisdom and fantastic linguistic skills in Arabic.

All my info I share with you on Islam is not meant to preach to anyone.
Its just out of academic interest.

 

[sravna]

I need to tell you to proceed with caution.
Lots of translations are not accurate and just propaganda and highly hostile ..they add translations which are not even in the original text.

I am able to read Arabic( not to brag as someone in forum accused me of showing off my imaginary Sanskrit expertise)

Since I have studied Arabic I read up commentaries from Saints like Sheikh Qadir Jilani and Ibn Arabi.

You would find their works highly esoteric and almost Vedantic.

Also becareful of over dose of Sufism..some tend to go overboard.
But works of Innayat Khan of India is also good.
He had lots of interaction with Brahmin pandits too and he himself is a Musical vidhwan and uses his music knowledge to explain higher aspects.

Avoid wahabi school of thought which is very rigid and totally out of sync.

Online videos one can see videos of a current day scholar Sheikh Hamza Yusuf an American white man who is very deep into wisdom and fantastic linguistic skills in Arabic.

All my info I share with you on Islam is not meant to preach to anyone.
Its just out of academic interest.

Ok. Got it

 

[a-TB]

"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/"

Few points here
1. Observer or witness or sAksi driving evolution of Universe is a 'model'. It happens in every stage of evolution of Universe. Like enzymes that drive biological reactions, catalysts that drive chemical reactions, neutrons that drive atomic reactions etc etc.

2. The biggest difference between Sankara and Buddhist thoughts is this sAkSi that Sankara collated from Sruti or vedic literature. Buddhists said there is nothing (it is Shunya) behind everything. So it stopped there. But Shankara said there is an observer (sAksi) which is detached, eternal, unchanging, which does not interfere with observed (in saMkhya's version union of blind and lame).

3. How does it matter to us..? It matters because Shankara brought out the concept of detached attachment or a detached self (as in brahma jnana vali mAla), having a detached observer from this model of sAksi driving evolution. His concept was this puruSa or the brahman manifests in us as the sAksi in all and hence inside us also and can evolve us. This learning of having a detached observer in us, which is the basis of our evolution is the key advaitic self-improvement concept. With such a detached observer in us, we realize that all this jagat is just a continuously evolving mAyA, this unchanging detached observer in us, evolves us, overcomes our fear of birth and death.

4. Regarding religions, this kind of concept does not exist at all. They have a 'god' who answers prayers (who is not detached and hence not sAksi), who gives heaven and hell (hence not a sAksi), who promotes a belief that this is the 'god' (not a model which we use to improve ourselves) and god answers prayers. While the bhakti or devotion of shankara looks like bhakti or devotion in religions, it's not the same. The difference again is brought out by what Mohan said. That progress of bhakti to jnAna or self-improvement is the aim of shankara.

Thank you, Mr TBT.

If Sakshi is something I experience, I cannot see how it is driving the evolution of this unfathomable universe. In the case of enzymes and catalysts I am sure appropriate researchers can explain the mechanisms involved, But that is not the case with Sakshi. So it is more of a belief than a model assuming that is what Sankara said.

Now there is this sakshi and it is supposed to help in self improvement only if I acknowledge it? If I dont acknowledge it , then it will not help in self improvement? And self improvement to what end? It is another belief it seems like. Also my will should not have anything to do with the role of Sakshi since it is uninvolved,

Religion acknowledges that it is based on faith. These models also seem like faith since there is no possible connection between cause (Sakshi) and effect (universe, people etc). In that sense it becomes another kind of religion

I have read that Bhakthi and Jnana are one and the same for a Jnani rather than one leading to the other.

 

[thebigthinkg]

Thank you, Mr TBT.

If Sakshi is something I experience, I cannot see how it is driving the evolution of this unfathomable universe. In the case of enzymes and catalysts I am sure appropriate researchers can explain the mechanisms involved, But that is not the case with Sakshi. So it is more of a belief than a model assuming that is what Sankara said.

Now there is this sakshi and it is supposed to help in self improvement only if I acknowledge it? If I dont acknowledge it , then it will not help in self improvement? And self improvement to what end? It is another belief it seems like. Also my will should not have anything to do with the role of Sakshi since it is uninvolved,

Religion acknowledges that it is based on faith. These models also seem like faith since there is no possible connection between cause (Sakshi) and effect (universe, people etc). In that sense it becomes another kind of religion

I have read that Bhakthi and Jnana are one and the same for a Jnani rather than one leading to the other.

1. While observer driving evolution in atomic, chemical and biological domains is science, a detached internal observer or sAksi in driving evolution is coming from saMkhya and all the sruti literature as in Rg veda, ashtavakra gita, chandogya upanishad etc etc. At some level, yes, this is a belief. I accept.

2. The whole strange point here is how a detached observer helps evolve..? But that's how it all functions. For eg. catalysts help influence the environment of chemical reactants triggering reactions. Dark matter bends space more than what matter could, creating more gravitational heating and evolution of newer elements, while not interacting with matter at all.

3. In the same way, a manas-sAksi which is detached, which help us see our actions as equal to other's actions (or able to think from other person's shoes) helps us see multiple perspective and take more informed decisions, thus evolving us in a better way. (is one way of looking at it)