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

[Aupmanyav]

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

First let me correct myself about merger. There is no merger, it is already one, what is required is understanding of the fact. Secondly, forms do not matter to an advaitist. In all forms it is Brahman only.

One researcher posits that Gauḍapāda may himself have been a buddhist, subsequently adopting vedānta ..

Perhaps Buddhism was not as far distant from Hinduism as it is now, a different religion. After all, Nalanda was established and supported by Hindu kings and leity. And today, it has been re-established by Hindus.

 

[Stormcry]

@Amrut Your post is Worth to read. As an Advaitian you've answered ut very well

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

Perhaps Buddhism was not as far distant from Hinduism as it is now, a different religion. After all, Nalanda was established and supported by Hindu kings and leity. And today, it has been re-established by Hindus.

Yes, that's exactly my thinking as well, there has been a dialectical evolution of philosophies and it would be impossible to say that a particular dhārmik philosophy was "invented" by its propounders - rather they popularised it. I don't see why it would be a problem that māyāvāda and shūnyavāda are related or are even same constructs presented differently. Śri Rāmānuja's philosophy too existed before him, so did Śri Madhva's and in the latter you would find concepts from several schools of thought synthesised with vaidik purport and there is no dogma attached to saying that for instance, it accepts cārvāka philosophy's stand on accepting pratyakṣa as a pramāṇa though rejecting other constructs. For me it provides a synthesis of all other philosophies and clarifies consistently almost all aspects of vaidik-dharma, what better judge than one's sākṣi.

From religious perspective i am not sure if Buddha claimed to be a founder of a new religion, for afaik, He took no stand on concepts of god, ātman, etc. He simply rejected the idea of indulging in metaphysical debates. His followers though may have systematised his philosophy later.

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

 

[Aupmanyav]

IMHO, something similar can also be said of other two religions, Jainism and Sikhism. Neither Sri Guru Nanak was the first to say 'Ek Onkar', nor Mahavira was inventor of non-violence.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

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

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

Yes.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Do u mean Advaitians accept Advaita concepts are borrowed from Buddhism?

We can question what "borrowing" means. All Darsanas have so much in common that it is inevitable that certain elements were borrowed - both ways. There was a lot of cross-fertilization through active polemy, until the trend died out around the 15th century. For instance, epistemology was developed by Nyaya and then used by everyone, including Buddhists and Jains. Adavita borrowed its epistemology directly from Mimamsa, including other concepts like apaurusheyatva, etc. Buddhism borrowed from Sankhya and there is also a possibility of the inverse. None of these doctrines emerged in their full form, completely independently. I do not see a problem with that. The interaction helped each other to refine and stabilize their positions.

None of them claim they borrowed anything from anyone. These observations come from academic study. It should be noted that the crypto-Buddhist accusation against Advaita is pretty old. Bhaskara (9th Century CE) the proponent of the Bheda-Abheda school, criticized the doctrine of Maya claiming it was borrowed from Buddhism. Nagarjuna, the proponent of the Madhayamika (Mahayana) school, first clearly described the two realities - Samvrithi (relative) and Paramartha (absolute). The idea was already present in earlier Buddhist texts in some form, but was not fully developed until his time.

On Gaudapada, it is commonly accepted that his writings display intimate familiarity with Nagarjuna's works and some karikas are practically copied verbatim from the Madhayamika. Nagarjuna establishes that birth and death are not real and Shunyata is the only truth. Gaudapada's arguments and ideas are almost the same, except that he comes from a Vedanta position and differs from Nagarjuna replacing Shunyata with the one real entity that is never born. Therefore, borrowing does not mean that a doctrine is an exact copy of another. He does not quote Nagarjuna as an authority nor does Shankara have to turn to Buddhist scripture to establish Advaita.

If so all Upanishads and Purana must be Buddhist in origin.

This is assuming Buddhism is completely original, which is not the case. Like everyone else, they were inspired by prevailing doctrines too and borrowed from them. Some of the later Upanishads are possibly post-Buddhist or at the least, contemporary. And none of the Puranas (in their present form) can be dated to earlier than the 3rd century CE - which is several centuries after the Buddha. But this is a different topic. See The major Puranas | General Talk

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram तत्त्वप्रह्व, ji,

Namste Ratikala ji,


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

thank you I will enjoy a read later , ...


returning to the question of the two truths , this was taught by the Buddha , so without doubt there will be numerous discourses upon the teachings .

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 ।

equaly there is no getting away from the fact that the apperance of lord Buddha had a dramatic influence upon Indian thought , but the question is are we correct to continualy wish to fuel the devide between what is conscidered ot be Hindu and what is not , ....

after all if we take the question of ultimate reality over conventional reality , these sectarian philosopical divides are no more than conventional realities , therefore they are inconsequential , we are making mountains of mole hills and condemming ourselves to countless births where upon we will be traped in endless debating ...or at worst polemics ....
instead we should count our fortunes and follow the lead of any of so many acharyas , and break with this constant wrangling ...does it even realy mattter who said it , if it is 'truth' if it is 'Dharma' then it is eternaly present , it belongs to no one , and there for the realising by whom so ever should have tired suficently of conventional reality and the burdon of ego to surrender , whether this advice comes from Shankaracharya , from Ramanujacharya , Valabacharya or Chaitanya Mahaprabhu , ....it hardly matters , ...

one may just as equaly chant Sri Krsna sharanam mamah , ....the result will be the same , ...

 

[Chakra]

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'.




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.

Okay, I'm sorry. I admit that I was wrong about all this.

 

[Chakra]

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

In that case, wouldn't this disprove the theory that he followed 6 religions?

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.

From what I know, Sanskarashana is simply a manifestation of the Lord, who has two main gunas (he has limited gunas but the same perfection as the other forms, as one website put it.). Pancharatra is not preaching jivotpatti. You can read Sri Ramanuja's works in where he defends Pancharatra.

 

[Amrut]

Namaste,

I agree wtih @shivsomashekhar ji.

As I have said earlier, using a metaphor that is buddhist does not mean that you too are Buddhist. It means that you are using the same idiom, same metaphor, same example that Buddhists used to convince people of SUnya vAda and find faults with this interpretation or give alternate explanation.

An example is alAta chakra.

'alAta shAnti PrakaraNa' is the forth prakaraNa of kArikA. The word alAta is used by buddhists. alAtacakra is a peculiarly buddhist one. The alAtacakra is a burning firebrand that is waved in a circle, creating an impression of a continuous circle of fire. It is interesting to note here that gauDapAda characteristically inverts the use of the buddhist metaphor. The buddhist uses the metaphor to insist that the impression of a continuous circle is an illusion, there being nothing more than the momentary spatial positions of the burning brand. Hence, from the buddhist prespective, it is plainly an error to see the burning circle as having any svabhAva - "own-nature". gauDapAda on the other hand points out that the burning brand is itself the substratum of its momentary spatial positions and the illusion of a burning circle caused by waving the brand. Hence, according to him, even if the burning circle is an illusion, its svabhAva is nothing other than that of the burning brand. Source. Also note that the word 'alAta' circle is used in MaitraiNi Upanishad (4-24).

(Source: Swami Chinmayananda's commentary of Shri gauDapadAchArya's karika on MANdukya Upanishad, alAta SAnti prakaraNa)

Adi Sankara didnt refute worshipping all devatA-s, but the pancarAtric way of worshipping, specially the philosophical part, which says, that from viShNu, a person, everything is born. One knowledgeable advaitin had the above view. refer SrI Sankara's views on vyuha.

Adi Sankara's ISTa devatA was viShNu, but he never denigrated the status of Siva. I had given proofs to that author of Narayanastra on HDF, but he refused to accept. Anyways, this will derail this thread. So I have deleted what I had typed.

I think we should point to OP's question about what do you think about Adi Sankara's bhaja govindam

OM

 

[Stormcry]

From what I know, Sanskarashana is simply a manifestation of the Lord, who has two main gunas (he has limited gunas but the same perfection as the other forms, as one website put it.). Pancharatra is not preaching jivotpatti. You can read Sri Ramanuja's works in where he defends Pancharatra

'Sankarshana' is symbolic/imagined god. In sanksrit, 'sankarshan' means extracted from something. 'Pradyumna' means Intellect. 'Aniruddha' means self-will/ego. In Pancharatra doctrine, Jiva emerges from Vasudeva; Intellect from Jiva; Ego from intellect.

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

Namaste Ratikala ji

after all if we take the question of ultimate reality over conventional reality , these sectarian philosopical divides are no more than conventional realities , therefore they are inconsequential

There is nothing sectarian in the philosophies themselves, it is the emotional attachment of its followers that create the sects. Isn't the idea of ultimate reality and conventional reality itself another conventional reality? Or is it ultimate reality?

we will be traped in endless debating ...or at worst polemics ....

Why should one presume acrimony and hatred to be the basis of such inquiries? Can't it be plain pursuit of wisdom? How can amṛta arise without manthana? Such probing need not necessarily mean diatribe.

whether this advice comes from Shankaracharya , from Ramanujacharya , Valabacharya or Chaitanya Mahaprabhu , ....it hardly matters , ..

I feel that would make all of their teachings pointless. I believe that it was the dialectical tradition that gave us such rich philosophical systems; to criticise another philosophy inherently shows that the viewpoint is respected. Which is why there are barely any literature that dialectically engages with say, abrahamic theories directly. The pūrvapakṣa-siddhānta system wherein one studies the other viewpoint with great sincerity and earnest and then discusses the limitations before presenting his own siddhānta provides for appreciation of wide range of perspectives. Perhaps, who it comes from doesn't, but 'what' certainly matters. To presume all are right is just another way of saying all are wrong.

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

Yes.

Which makes such bi(tri)furcation of reality unnecessary. Because, if न हि दुःखप्रदं वस्तु सुखं दातुं समर्हति । किं विषं पिबतो जन्तोरमृतत्वं प्रयच्छति, then, vyāvahārika whose locus is in adhyāsa arising out of ajñāna leading to pāramārthika contradicts the theory.

In that case, wouldn't this disprove the theory that he followed 6 religions?

I'm not sure if you can say he 'followed' six, afaik, he made provisions for them within his sampradāya and placed nirguṇopāsana as the ultimate over and above those.

one may just as equaly chant Sri Krsna sharanam mamah , ....the result will be the same

It is said, Meera once visited Śri Rūpa and asked his disciples to seek his permission to meet him to which he responded saying that i only interact with men. Meera asked the disciple to submit her response saying that she only knows of one Puruṣa and none other, Śri Rūpa immediately allowed her to enter his āśram. Meera, could've continued chanting and gone away without humbly persisting or Śri Rūpa could've construed it as diatribe against his sampradāya.

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

 

[Stormcry]

Which makes such bi(tri)furcation of reality unnecessary. Because, if न हि दुःखप्रदं वस्तु सुखं दातुं समर्हति । किं विषं पिबतो जन्तोरमृतत्वं प्रयच्छति, then, vyāvahārika whose locus is in adhyāsa arising out of ajñāna leading to pāramārthika contradicts the theory.

Brahman is changeless and aloof from Knowledge and Ignorance. The supreme nature of Jiva, which is Brahman is not destroyed but it is covered. Bhagavan Krishna also says the same in Gita " Knowledge of Jiva is covered by Ignorance " Bhakti slowly leads oneself to desireless ness, which results in dawn of supreme knowledge of Brahman. Though this knowledge is Vyavarikata, as it is counter part of Ignorance, it annihilates the Ignorance. It doesn't matter the counter part of Ignorance is in Vyavaharikata or not, because the ignorance imagined by Jiva is itself in Vyavaharikata. Besides, In Vedanata, this has been stated that Knowledge and Ignorance are the products of Maya. "O Uddhava! Know that the liberating knowledge and the ignorance are my two bodies or potencies, specially brought into being by my Maya and have existed without begining , have no real existence ; they appeared as the cause of the bondage or release of the Jeeva (bearing body)." BP 11.11.3

In nutshell, to remove one thorn, another thorn is sufficient. In the same way, Ignorance can be removed by its counter part knowledge/Bhakti alone. In both Vidya/Bhakti/Knowledge and Avidya, Paramartha ie Brahman is always aloof. So there's no question of contradiction.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram तत्त्वप्रह्व, ji

Namaste Ratikala ji

There is nothing sectarian in the philosophies themselves, it is the emotional attachment of its followers that create the sects.

To me each sect and their philosopies are like the food that sustains and nourishes us , ...then comes the fine line between what nourishes and sustains and over indulgence , ..on one hand we eat to live and onthother we eat to enjoy ...there is no harm in enjoying but ultimatly it is not the purpouse . the same with philosopies as long as they nourish us they are fufilling their purpose , as you say as soon as we attach to them we cease to see them in their true light , ...we then run the risk of abusing their true purpose .

Isn't the idea of ultimate reality and conventional reality itself another conventional reality? Or is it ultimate reality?

the ultimate reality is beyond all conventional realities of sect and philosophy as the ultimate reality is the destination which lay beyond the path , ....

the Idea of ultimate and convenional realities is a truth which must eventualy be realised , ...therefore as soon as it becomes realised it ceases to be an idea , a philosopy , ...it ceases to be secondhand knowledge and becomes experiencial knowledge , therefore once realised it becomes ultimate reality .

Why should one presume acrimony and hatred to be the basis of such inquiries? Can't it be plain pursuit of wisdom? How can amṛta arise without manthana? Such probing need not necessarily mean diatribe.

the only problem comes from those to heavily attatched to the path , not from all , ...the acrimony and hatred is only the foolishness of the attatched egos , ....yes I agree fully such exploration and questioning is needed , ...

I feel that would make all of their teachings pointless. I believe that it was the dialectical tradition that gave us such rich philosophical systems; to criticise another philosophy inherently shows that the viewpoint is respected. Which is why there are barely any literature that dialectically engages with say, abrahamic theories directly. The pūrvapakṣa-siddhānta system wherein one studies the other viewpoint with great sincerity and earnest and then discusses the limitations before presenting his own siddhānta provides for appreciation of wide range of perspectives. Perhaps, who it comes from doesn't, but 'what' certainly matters. To presume all are right is just another way of saying all are wrong.

agreed , there are many valid methods , and if used wisely and respectfully debate is merly a method of refining understanding and establishing truth , it is when it is used to do battle that it becomes counterproductive , ..

It is said, Meera once visited Śri Rūpa and asked his disciples to seek his permission to meet him to which he responded saying that i only interact with men. Meera asked the disciple to submit her response saying that she only knows of one Puruṣa and none other, Śri Rūpa immediately allowed her to enter his āśram. Meera, could've continued chanting and gone away without humbly persisting or Śri Rūpa could've construed it as diatribe against his sampradāya.

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

.....meera bai ki jai ...sri rupa ki jai ....

 

[shivsomashekhar]

To presume all are right is just another way of saying all are wrong.

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

This is my position too. I mentioned this earlier - the idea of all paths somehow leading to the same goal is fairly new coming from Ramakrishna and later. No medieval tradition made such a claim. Every Darsana and every Vedanta tradition explicitly held its own doctrine to be the only correct one. Much time and effort was devoted to defending this claim.

But the world is changing. The general population appears to be leaning towards the "single goal; multiple correct paths" view. Nothing wrong with that, so long as people understand this is not the position of traditional Vedanta scholars - both then and now.

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

To me each sect and their philosopies are like the food that sustains and nourishes us

If philosophy is food, i'm always hungry

Brahman is changeless and aloof from Knowledge and Ignorance. The supreme nature of Jiva, which is Brahman is not destroyed but it is covered. Bhagavan Krishna also says the same in Gita " Knowledge of Jiva is covered by Ignorance " Bhakti slowly leads oneself to desireless ness, which results in dawn of supreme knowledge of Brahman. Though this knowledge is Vyavarikata, as it is counter part of Ignorance, it annihilates the Ignorance. It doesn't matter the counter part of Ignorance is in Vyavaharikata or not, because the ignorance imagined by Jiva is itself in Vyavaharikata. Besides, In Vedanata, this has been stated that Knowledge and Ignorance are the products of Maya. "O Uddhava! Know that the liberating knowledge and the ignorance are my two bodies or potencies, specially brought into being by my Maya and have existed without begining , have no real existence ; they appeared as the cause of the bondage or release of the Jeeva (bearing body)." BP 11.11.3

In nutshell, to remove one thorn, another thorn is sufficient. In the same way, Ignorance can be removed by its counter part knowledge/Bhakti alone. In both Vidya/Bhakti/Knowledge and Avidya, Paramartha ie Brahman is always aloof. So there's no question of contradiction.

the Idea of ultimate and convenional realities is a truth which must eventualy be realised , ...therefore as soon as it becomes realised it ceases to be an idea , a philosopy , ...it ceases to be secondhand knowledge and becomes experiencial knowledge , therefore once realised it becomes ultimate reality .

Can't help but admire the exact circular reasoning involved in both of the above!

This is my position too. I mentioned this earlier - the idea of all paths somehow leading to the same goal is fairly new coming from Ramakrishna and later. No medieval tradition made such a claim. Every Darsana and every Vedanta tradition explicitly held its own doctrine to be the only correct one. Much time and effort was devoted to defending this claim.
But the world is changing. The general population appears to be leaning towards the "single goal; multiple correct paths" view. Nothing wrong with that, so long as people understand this is not the position of traditional Vedanta scholars - both then and now.

Yes indeed, and to reiterate my understanding, a large section of the population that is really interested in Vedanta can only get acquainted with it thro' someone else's thought process. Many wouldn't even have read, forget studying, treatises that propound the siddhānta. Which is why i think there is a need to revive the dialectical approach - as far as i can see, if not anything else, it will certainly bring more awareness about the differences between various philosophies.

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

 

[Shantanu]

I'm specifically curious to hear what the Bhaja Govindam means to the practicing Advaitans here, but anyone is welcome to reply. In case you are unfamiliar with the poem, you can check out a wiki article here, as well as a pdf with English translation here.

The Wiki article says the following about the significance of the poem:



And here is perhaps the most popular verse in the poem (the first verse):

"Seek Govind, Seek Govind, Seek Govind, O Fool! When the
appointed times comes (death), grammar rules surely will not
save you."

The purpose of me making this thread is not to claim Advaita is invalid, but to challenge the way we interpret and understand the philosophy of "Advaita." I do not claim to understand Advaita, for I have not deeply studied it, but this poem gives me the feeling that it's a lot bigger than many people make it out to be. Short statements like "Advaita just means everything is literally one, that you are identical with God" do not do justice, IMO, in expressing the depth of it's philosophy and practice. Thoughts?

This poem indicates strongly that there is something that Sankaracharya realised which is beyond advaita. Advaita literally means non-duality and refers only to union of the Self/Atman with Brahman the universe. It does not have any sound basis for acquisition of knowledge about the universe because God has created Brahman and hides within Brahman through a process of self-transformation in which He is Brahman yet separated from it. God may even be infinite whereas Brahman is finite.

 

[Stormcry]

This poem indicates strongly that there is something that Sankaracharya realised which is beyond advaita. Advaita literally means non-duality and refers only to union of the Self/Atman with Brahman the universe. It does not have any sound basis for acquisition of knowledge about the universe because God has created Brahman and hides within Brahman through a process of self-transformation in which He is Brahman yet separated from it. God may even be infinite whereas Brahman is finite.

Brahman is not created. Shruti attributes 'Brahman' name to the one which can not be negated ie which has no cause. It is self illuminous. It is supreme and birth of all.

And Bhakti is an integral part of Advaita. In Advaita, through Bhakti World, Ishwara and Jiva are one, this is realized. In Upanishada Bhashya, Adi Shankara says " Thinking oneself as Vishnu, one should worship Vishnu" . You are VISHNU- this is to be realized first and then worship. This is quite clear. There is nothing beyond Advaita.

 

[Shantanu]

Brahman is not created. Shruti attributes 'Brahman' name to the one which can not be negated ie which has no cause. It is self illuminous. It is supreme and birth of all.

And Bhakti is an integral part of Advaita. In Advaita, through Bhakti World, Ishwara and Jiva are one, this is realized. In Upanishada Bhashya, Adi Shankara says " Thinking oneself as Vishnu, one should worship Vishnu" . You are VISHNU- this is to be realized first and then worship. This is quite clear. There is nothing beyond Advaita.

Does Brahman have a mind, intelligence and creative powers of its own?

 

[Stormcry]

Does Brahman have a mind, intelligence and creative powers of its own?

One can't say it has nor it doesn't have.