What does Adi Shankara's poem, "Bhaja Govindam" mean to you?

[ratikala]

namaskaram Shivosomashekhar ji ,

By "we", do you mean Advaitins? The Bhaja Govindam is a simple and short poem and I do not see how it can become the basis to challenge the interpretation and understanding of Advaita philosophy. The sutra Bhashya, the Upanishad bhashyas and Prakarana texts define the philosophy and go into a lot of depth. Poems like the Bhaja Govindam, Soundarya Lahari, etc., are not intended for proper philosophical understanding. The intended audience is different in both cases too.

am I to take it from your reply that you deem Bhaja Govindam to be in some way incomparable to Advaitin philosophy ?

prehaps you missunderstood the initial question , ''what does Bhaja Govindam mean to you ? ''....I do not think it was initialy intended to be a philosopical debate , simply a personal responce, ...

what is, or what do you mean by ''proper philosophy'' ?

Are you feeling that Baja Govindam was aimed at a differnt class of person ?

Short statements cannot do justice to any philosophy. Obviously, there is a lot more to it and that depth cannot be gleaned from poems like the Bhaja Govindam. I would recommend Atma Bodha or the Upadesha Sahasri. The authorship of both texts is attributed to Shankara.

we wre taught that Bhaja Govindam was Adi Shankaracharya's final synopsis , .....in other and simpler words, .... what realy matters , ....Bhaja Govindam , Bhaja Govindam

...Did he not intend this to encorage his devotees to abandon gramatical juggelry , ...?

and what does it say of this lofty aquired philosophy ?

he says nothing , he simply says ......

O deluded minded friend,
chant Govinda, worship Govinda,
love Govinda as there is no other way to cross the life's ocean except lovingly remembering the holy names of God.॥33॥

 

[shivsomashekhar]

namaskaram Shivosomashekhar ji ,

am I to take it from your reply that you deem Bhaja Govindam to be in some way incomparable to Advaitin philosophy ?

prehaps you missunderstood the initial question , ''what does Bhaja Govindam mean to you ? ''....I do not think it was initialy intended to be a philosopical debate , simply a personal responce, ...

what is, or what do you mean by ''proper philosophy'' ?

Are you feeling that Baja Govindam was aimed at a differnt class of person ?



we wre taught that Bhaja Govindam was Adi Shankaracharya's final synopsis , .....in other and simpler words, .... what realy matters , ....Bhaja Govindam , Bhaja Govindam

...Did he not intend this to encorage his devotees to abandon gramatical juggelry , ...?

and what does it say of this lofty aquired philosophy ?

he says nothing , he simply says ......

O deluded minded friend,
chant Govinda, worship Govinda,
love Govinda as there is no other way to cross the life's ocean except lovingly remembering the holy names of God.॥33॥

Hi Rati,

This is just me, but I would not call Bhaja Govindam "Advaitic philosophy" as its content is pretty much netural and not specific to Advaita. It is a very simple and short devotional text, which rouses one to not waste time and instead focus on higher truth through Bhakti. It is not a philosophical text covering Advaita concepts of Adhyasa, Dhrishti, Shrishti, Pramanas, etc. Also, it is just one of several poems attributed to Shankara and like his other popular poems (Soundarya Lahari, Kanakadhara stotram, etc.) it is not seen as a summary of Advaita Vedanta.

Context for this poem: Once Shankara and his disciples noticed an aged Brahmin memorizing grammar rules. Shankara felt pity on this person for wasting his time on a meaningless pursuit and composed the poem, extempore. His fourteen disciples added a verse each. It was not written during his death bed or to educate his disciples or to criticize his own philosophy.

Shankara has always been clear that knowledge (Jnana) alone liberates. Devotion is one of the paths that can lead one to Jnana and that in turn, leads to liberation. For philosophy, I would point people to his Prakarana texts such as the Atma Bodha, Upadesha Sahasri, Viveka Chudamani, etc. His Brahma-sutra bhashya is a large and complex text and is only suitable for very advanced students.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

namaskaram Achintya ji , ....

I find it interesting that Shankaracharya was credited with introducing two levels of truth to Hinduism , strangly enough this was no new concept to the Buddhists Who understand that there is infact both Ultimate and conventual truths , ....so one can understand that ultimatly we are Brahman but on a conventional level , there is sepperation , we lack the omnicience of the supreme therefore to even contemplate worshiping any other than the supreme as supreme is quite abhorent .

That is correct. Shankara's Guru's Guru was Gaudapada who authored the Mandukya Karika. From his work, it is commonly accepted that he had close association with Nagarjuna's Madhyamika school and borrowed several of their concepts (and vocabulary), which set the ground work for a good portion of Advaita Vedanta.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram shivsomashekhar ji,...

That is correct. Shankara's Guru's Guru was Gaudapada who authored the Mandukya Karika. From his work, it is commonly accepted that he had close association with Nagarjuna's Madhyamika school and borrowed several of their concepts (and vocabulary), which set the ground work for a good portion of Advaita Vedanta.

''Borrowed several of their concepts'' ???

this means either he realised them to be true , in which case he did not ''borrow'' he endorsed , ..or he had little realisation of his own so appropriated ? ....?

then the acusation of Crypto Buddhism is not without grounds ?

you can prehaps understand why I find the claims of Advaitin philosopical supremacy some what perplexing ?

how can Shankaracharya be famed for defeating Buddhists when an Advaitin openly admits that it was his gurus association with Buddhists that gave the foundations to their own philosopies ?

please understand this is not a debate I am simply curious ....

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

Devotion is one of the paths that can lead one to Jnana and that in turn, leads to liberation.

Would it then mean that vyāvahārika (devotion) can bestow/lead to pāramārthika (jñāna)?

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

 

[Chakra]

This was said by Shankara in his BSB (credit to Narayanastra)

[We do not intend to oppose the doctrine that nArAyaNa, who is superior the material universe, who is the supreme soul (paramAtmA), and the soul for all (sarvAtmA)... Nor do we mean to object to the inculcation of unceasing single-minded devotion on the Supreme Lord which appears in the Pancharatra doctrine under the forms of abhigamana (visiting Vishnu temples with utmost devotion in mind, with senses subdued) etc., for that we are to meditate on the Lord we know full well from shruti and smRti. - Brahma Sutra Bhashya, 2.2.42]

 

[Stormcry]

That is correct. Shankara's Guru's Guru was Gaudapada who authored the Mandukya Karika. From his work, it is commonly accepted that he had close association with Nagarjuna's Madhyamika school and borrowed several of their concepts (and vocabulary), which set the ground work for a good portion of Advaita Vedanta.

Do u mean Advaitians accept Advaita concepts are borrowed from Buddhism? If so all Upanishads and Purana must be Buddhist in origin.

 

[Stormcry]

This was said by Shankara in his BSB (credit to Narayanastra)

Narayanstra! Anti-advaita site.

 

[Chakra]

Narayanstra! Anti-advaita site.

They are not "anti-advaita", although they are Vishistadvaitins. They do not deal with the philosophical topics of Advaita, but mainly how Advaita was originally a Vaishnava darshana. They have excellent points and I myself have been convinced of their arguments. But I digress.

 

[Chakra]

Do u mean Advaitians accept Advaita concepts are borrowed from Buddhism? If so all Upanishads and Purana must be Buddhist in origin.

As far I as remember, Gaudapada did not talk about a Vyavahara and Parmarthika. It was invented by Shankara, although I am not sure.

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

As far I as remember, Gaudapada did not talk about a Vyavahara and Parmarthika. It was invented by Shankara, although I am not sure.

Actually, what Advaitins consider as kārika is accepted as part of mān. upaniṣat itself, afaik, by both Śri Rāmānuja (perhaps you can check with Śri Vaiṣṇavas with authoritative knowledge) and Śri Madhva. Though, there are other kārikas by Gauḍapāda where, even though presenting similar line of thought, he explicitly mentions them as not being buddhist. One researcher posits that Gauḍapāda may himself have been a buddhist, subsequently adopting vedānta (access to buddhist literature at that time was supposedly limited only to their followers and not freely available.)

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

 

[Stormcry]

As far I as remember, Gaudapada did not talk about a Vyavahara and Parmarthika..

Not true at all ! He talked about appeared duality and Paramarthika in his commentary on Mandukya Upanishada. " रूपकार्यसमाख्या च भिद्यन्ते तत्र तत्र वै आकाशस्य न भेदो अस्ति तद्वत् जीवेषु निर्णयः || " This is simile of sky. Just as by attributes of sky like the space enclosed in pot the space appears to be separated from the sky, in the same way 'Paramatma' appears to be divided in all Jivas. Paramatma is 'ekmeva' and 'advitiya', this is 'Paramarthata' and appearance of duality is 'Vyavaharikata'.

It was invented by Shankara, although I am not sure

With tongue in cheek, I wanna say this made me laugh.

First thing, Paramarthik and Vyavaharik concepts are not inventions. Such concepts are mentioned in many upanishadas and Vaishnawa Purana like Bhagavata and Vishnu. Those concepts are there since creation of Veda or Vedanta.

Even if you wanna believe it is invention, attribute it to LORD KRISHNA. Because he himself is the expounder of Vyavaharika and Paramarthika. He's explained Advaita Vedanta in Uddhava Gita.

Let me post one reference:
कृष्ण उवाच
यस्तु यस्यादिरन्तश्च स वै मध्यं च तस्य सन् ।
विकारो व्यवहारार्थो यथा तैजसपार्थिवाः ॥ भागवत पुराण ११.२४.१७ ॥

"That which is before the beginning and after the end is in the middle also and that is the only Reality [Paramarthik]. The modifications are said to be Vyavaharik"
Gaudapada says the same thing in his commentary.
And as I know, Lord krishna existed way before the period of Shankar's. So nothing wrong in calling Krishna as Inventor

This is my view.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Hee Hee, .....funny that , I often wonder if those that beleive that we merge with the formless Brahman , might not just get a little shock.

I am one of those who believe in merger and on top of that believe that 'nama-japa' can also achieve that. I ride on two boats.

 

[Stormcry]

We do not intend to oppose the doctrine that nArAyaNa, who is superior the material universe, who is the supreme soul (paramAtmA), and the soul for all (sarvAtmA)... Nor do we mean to object to the inculcation of unceasing single-minded devotion on the Supreme Lord which appears in the Pancharatra doctrine under the forms of abhigamana (visiting Vishnu temples with utmost devotion in mind, with senses subdued) etc., for that we are to meditate on the Lord we know full well from shruti and smRti. - Brahma Sutra Bhashya, 2.2.42]

What do you wanna say? Adi Shankara and Brahmasutra 2.2.42 refuted Pancharatra doctrine except worshiping Vasudeva as supreme by devotion.

From Vasudeva is born Sanskarshana, the Jiva; From Jiva, Pradyumna, the mind; from mind Aniruddha, the ego. These are fourfold form of Lord Vasudeva. The view that Vasudeva is the supreme lord and is to be worshiped, Vedantin accepts it, as it is not against shruti. But the creation of Jiva is objectionable, as such creation is impossible. Why? If soul be created then it would be subject to destruction and so no liberation can be predicted of it.

 

[Stormcry]

Krishna didn't ask Arjuna to consider himself as Vishnu but to Surrender unto him

He definitely said but you ignored. " the beginningless brahman called neither being nor non-being...without and within all beings ..impartible yet it exists as if divided in beings " (13-12.16) Krishna instructed him to realize brahman as distinction less and to see one Atmatatva everywhere.

Another, "Supremely dear to me is the wise man. He's my Atma itself" (7.18) The devotee having knowledge of Advitiya Brahman is established in Advaita Bhakti- Ekatva Bhakti and so he's the self of Vishnu, that is always without second. Such devotee can be the self of krishna. Bhedavadi himself thinks himself different from Vishnu. So he's not the self of Vishnu. That devotee who knows the meaning of 'So aham' alone is dearest to Bhagavan Krishna...Because he knows the real nature of Krishna. He's arrived at the conclusion that this real nature is none other than self

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Axlyz ji

As far I as remember, Gaudapada did not talk about a Vyavahara and Parmarthika. It was invented by Shankara, although I am not sure.

my piont exactly He did not invent it , ....but .....

Do u mean Advaitians accept Advaita concepts are borrowed from Buddhism? If so all Upanishads and Purana must be Buddhist in origin.

this made me smile , ....prehaps not , as I have allways held there was much comonality of thought , even of realisation , ...which means the Buddhists wernt so anti vedic as is often falsly accused , ...

With tongue in cheek, I wanna say this made me laugh.

it made me laugh too ...

First thing, Paramarthik and Vyavaharik concepts are not inventions. Such concepts are mentioned in many upanishadas and Vaishnawa Purana like Bhagavata and Vishnu. Those concepts are there since creation of Veda or Vedanta.

jai jai ...it is either , ...pure realisation therefore not invention , or is is divine revalation , ...therefore also not invention .....

Gaudapada says the same thing in his commentary.
And as I know, Lord krishna existed way before the period of Shankar's. So nothing wrong in calling Krishna as Inventor

jai jai ......but I think I like to call Sri Krsna the originator

and please dont they know that the Buddhists in Puri Dham worshiped lord Jaganatha...
there is a lot that is not comonly known about the Buddhists in India ....

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Aupu ji

I am one of those who believe in merger and on top of that believe that 'nama-japa' can also achieve that. I ride on two boats.

of course nama japa can result in merger , ...well I would preffer to say absorbtion , ....

but the shock you might get is that of form rather than formlessness

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram तत्त्वप्रह्व ji

Actually, what Advaitins consider as kārika is accepted as part of mān. upaniṣat itself, afaik, by both Śri Rāmānuja (perhaps you can check with Śri Vaiṣṇavas with authoritative knowledge) and Śri Madhva. Though, there are other kārikas by Gauḍapāda where, even though presenting similar line of thought, he explicitly mentions them as not being buddhist.

possibly interesting to read , ... any references ?

One researcher posits that Gauḍapāda may himself have been a buddhist, subsequently adopting vedānta (access to buddhist literature at that time was supposedly limited only to their followers and not freely available.)

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

I am not sure about this , ...for example institutions like Naylanda were open to many faiths and traditions symultaniously , both from within India and from further afeild and the exchange was quite open , ...at least that is what I have been told .

none the less it is an interesting question.

 

[Amrut]

Namaste,

The context in which bhaja Govindam was composed is not taken into consideration. Sri Adi SankarAcArya ji once saw an old man discussing tatva GYAna. He saw that this old man was merely satisfied in polemical debates with no need to meditate. After reading too much, eyes grow weak, but the 'inner eye' does not open. For them he said, instead of merely wasting time in useless polemical debates, which increases ego specially by those whose consciousness is deeply rooted in physical body (thats what we call as 'mUDha') should surrender to Govinda.

Two things are emphasized in Bhaja Govindam

1. (viveka yukta) vairAGYa
2. Surrender to Govinda / KruShNa / viShNu

One has strong ego, which is due to attachment towards one's own body. For this vairAGYa is necessary. This vairAGYa is viveka yukta and not smaSAna vairAGYa. Surrender to Govinda who is inside our heart will make one introvert and break bond with physical body.

vedAnta starts with jIva bhAva. All vedAntin-s agree that 'I' is not body' (none of the 5 koSa-s, sheaths). But a laymen is strongly attached with his physical body. Obsession with SAstra-s is also a vAsanA, SAstra vAsanA, quest to know all.

Mind with the help of 5 senses dwells in external objects and keeps hunting them, keeps longing for them.

So our journey starts with detaching ourselves from false notion that 'I am body'.

viveka yukta vairAGYa comes from doSha darSana (mithyA, translated as illusion , which is loved by all comes much later.)

As someone has quoted Shivasomasankar ji, prasthAntrayI talks about the philosophy and prakaraNa grantha-s teaches basics and give clarity, while compositions are for altogether different purpose.

Being neutral to external stimuli and internal (mental stimuli) is difficult, surrendering to ISvara, Rama, Siva, etc is easy, as though you consider any object or person to be 'yours' still you can surrender it to ISvara, while in GYAna, you are not that thing, so stay neutral - this is difficult to practice, specially by extrovert person whose consciousness is deeply embedded in physical body.

OM

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

Namste Ratikala ji,

namaskaram तत्त्वप्रह्व ji



possibly interesting to read , ... any references ?

The kārikās itself.
Gaudapada-Karika [Sanskrit-English] : Raghunath Damodar Karmarkar : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive
Refer 4/99

I am not sure about this , ...for example institutions like Naylanda were open to many faiths and traditions symultaniously , both from within India and from further afeild and the exchange was quite open , ...at least that is what I have been told .

none the less it is an interesting question.

I would agree,

access to buddhist literature at that time was supposedly limited only to their followers and not freely available.

Its only a theory that tries to explain the rise of Buddhist logic amidst other schools like nyāya-vaiśeṣika etc. Also the historical dating is quite inconsistent as i find from my study. There are only estimations available regarding when Śri Śaṅkara's and Gaudapāda's flourished. The latter being former's guru's guru, the extent of Nalanda at that time cannot be fully established. Nevertheless, influence of Buddha's system in the kārikās is significant.

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।