It is needless to say that whenever we do anything pertaining with someone or something, either consciously or subconsciously, we fi...
ಇರವು ಸಂಪತ್ತಲ್ಲ, ಇರವಿನ ಅರಿವು ಸಂಪತ್ತು Lets look at it this through an example: Many a times it so happens that we go out to buy something...
अविज्ञ्नातम् विजानताम् विज्ञ्नातम् अविजानताम् ಅವಿಙ್ನಾತಮ್ ವಿಜಾನತಾಮ್ ವಿಙ್ನಾತಮ್ ಅವಿಜಾನತಾಮ್ avignAtam vijAnatam vijnAtam avijAnatAm <...
The Webster's NewWorld Thesaurus defines the words " Myth " as 'fable, folk tale, lore, etc', " Mythical &quo...
Well, this is one of those important and most fundamental questions which every single human being must and should encounter in his spir...
Why did shrI puraMdara dAsa introduce rAga mAyAmALavagowLa for the lessons and learning methodologies that he designed in karnATic classical music.This post is my humble attempt in trying to find out as to why dAsashrEShTa shrI puraMdara dAsa chose the rAga mAyAmALavagowLa for the...
Thursday, February 27, 2014
ಶಿವನೆ ಬಾರೊ ತಂದೆ ರುದ್ರನೆ ಬಾರೋ
ಈಶನೆ ಬಾರೊ ಪಾಂಚಮುಖನೆ ಬಾರೋ
ನಟೇಶನೆ ಬಾರೋ ಮಹೇಶ್ವರನೆ ಬಾರೋ
ಧ್ರುಡಭಕುತಿಯ ನೀಡೋ ನಿನ್ನಲಿ ಎನಗೆ
shivane bAro taMde rudrane bArO
Ishane bAro pAMchamukhane bArO
naTEshane bArO mahEshwarane bArO
dhruDabhakutiya nIDO ninnali enage
ರುದ್ರ ದೇವರು ನಿಮಗೆ ಮಂಗಳವನ್ನುಂಟುಮಾಡಲಿ
- sunil anandatheertha
Saturday, February 15, 2014
यॊ माम् पश्यति सर्वत्र सर्वं च मयि पश्यति
तस्याहं न प्रणश्यामि स च मॆ न प्रणश्यति
( yO maam pashyati sarvatra, sarvaM cha mayi pashyati, tasyAhaM na praNashyAmi sa ca mE na praNaShyati.. )
Well, its been quite some time that i keyed in a new post.. But before i write the core of the matter, let me describe you an incident that took place on a lonely yesterday morning, at about 8:AM.. There i was, seated alone in my lab at iisc, for a day and half straight, writing computer programs. At times like these, it is only my lingering technical and non-technical thoughts which accompany me. Then, on G+, i saw a beautiful post containing an image of krishNa with his divine message (BG.6.30). There are times when i feel so connected with the sarvAMtaryAmi, but this moment was quite different indeed. Somehow tears started rolling down. Those were tears of joy and misery as well. While the tears of joy had its roots in experiencing him, the joy of being fortunate enough to praise him in these humble words which i write, those tears of misery came from this unforgiving ties of attachment with the material world. Later, all my thoughts seemed to cling on to him and his divine moonlit face. I kept thinking can there be another face as beautiful as his. Oh, those divine all assuring and peaceful eyes, those lips at which even a blooming lotus would take refuge, those captivating looks and that all sustaining and all destroying smile, and what not.. No wonder warriors like hanuman and bhIma, saints like madhwAchArya have held my lord in their hearts so deeply. I only wish, that these three greats, (hanuma was vayuputra, bhIma was hanuma's avataara and madhwaachaarya was bhIma's avataara.) with the grace of vaayu dEva, install a permanent presence fof themselves in me, because, when they come, their lord automatically comes, is'nt it :)..
While reading this, please consider listening to this wonderful, divinely peaceful compositions:
यॊ माम् पश्यति सर्वत्र सर्वं च मयि पश्यति
तस्याहं न प्रणश्यामि स च मॆ न प्रणश्यति
Well, this is an extremely important shlOka for everybody.
At the outset, the meaning is: " He/she who sees me everywhere, he/she who sees everything in me; for such a person I am never lost, and nor is he lost to me. " . Seems fair enough.. He is the GOD after all right ?.. Who other than him can say this with authority ?.. :)..
On a slightly different spiritual level, this shlOka presents us with 17 names of viShNu.. These are:
1. यॊ (yO) - 'he who'. When i want to refer to the GOD, how do i call him.. I call him as "he who".. Why, because, "from whom, everything is". That is, "He whom, from everything is". Hence this word is a name of his, since it explains one of the inherent qualities of viShNu (krShNa).
2. माम् - (mAm). me, with a direct addressal to the I in 'me' (see point 9). Who other than paramAtma can say mAm by really meaning it ?.. None other than he. From his perspective it is "mAm". hence, "mAm" is also his name.
3. पश्यति (pashyati)- (he who "sees", with the stress on 'seeing') We are like robots with intelligence, emotions, and more importantly, a soul. When the aatma (soul) is a mere dependent reflection of the paramaatma (GOD), it is the paramaatma who directs the actions of the aatma. Without the paramaatma, aatma has no existence and no meaning. Without the soul, the mind and emotions of ours has no existence. Without the mind and emotions, our senses has no existence. When the senses has no existence, there is no vision, neither inner nor exterior.. So the only one who really sees is non other than paramaatma himself. We also see, but we don't see how we see, why we see and what we see, especially when 'that' we see is a product of the inner vision. Hence, 'he sees' (pashyati) is a characteristic of GOD. Thus, pashyati is another name of GOD.
4. सर्वत्र (sarvatra)- The only one to whom the characteristic of being omnipresent applies is none other than krShNa. Hence sarvatra is also his name.
5. सर्वं (sarvaM)- everything. Since without him there is nothing, everything is also his name.
6. च (cha)- and. taddure taddvaMtike. He is farther than the farthest and nearer than the nearest.. However near he might be to us, he is also farther than the farthest to us. How much ever we describe, there is still an infinite to be said about him. He has infinite characteristics. An infinite characteristics need an infinite 'and's. Hence, 'and' is also a characteristic of his. Thus, 'cha' is a beautiful name of GOD.
7. मयि (mayi)- 'in me'. When does 'in me' become a charecteristic of someone ?.. it does become, when the thing that is actually 'in me' is not being explicitly referred to. It is implicitly conveyed here that "everything is in me". A human may say that his heart is 'in me', but what about the rest of the material and the immaterial world, ?.. definitely not.. But for GOD, 'in me' applies correctly and unambiguously since there is no thing, neither material nor immaterial, which is outside him. Hence, 'mayi' is another name of GOD.
3. पश्यति (pashyati) - he sees. See point 3
8, 9, 10, 11, 12. तस्याहं - (tasya ahaM) :: tasya - he, his, him ; I. When we do not know a person, i address them as 'he/she', 'him/her', etc. But when we do "know" them, we address them by their names such as 'raama' 'mother', 'brother', etc. Thus, the word 'tasya' has an angle to it suggesting that the 'kou ?.' / 'kaH . ?', etc, being refeering to 'tasya' is not entirely known. Since, GOD cannot be known completely (even the akshare, lakshmi herself tells she has 'him' as superior to her in ambruNi sUkta as -- mama yOnirapsu aMtaH samudre). Thus, 'tasya' is also a name of his. ::
aham means I. When i refer to "I", i refer to my aatma. But my aatma has no independent existance and hence no independent reality, but has dependent reality and dependent existance. Hence, when i refer to "I", i refers not to me, but the paramaatma inside me as the reflection of his, which is aatma. Thus, "I" refers to not me and not even this aatma, but to paramaatma. But the dependent reality can never be independent reality, and when so is the case, the 'aatma' can never be the 'paramaatma' (you and me can never be "that", which some people say of !!) . Hence "i am not THAT". When i am not that, only that which can be "THAT", is the paramaatma, because, the independent alone can be independent, but the dependent is for ever dependent. Enough of this from our perspective. From GOD's perspective, when he tells "I", he is directly telling addressing the "independent reality", which is himself. Thus, in both the ways, the 'ahaM' points to him alone. (Superficially the "I" might refer to me and even this 'soul', but eventually, its vectored towards GOD).
aham - a + ha + M -- 'a' indicating 'parabrahma' swaroopa, which is vishNu, 'ha': 'hanu shabdhO jnaanavaachakaH', which again vectors towards vishNu, 'M' - stands for naada, i.e, saama vEda, which is an amalgamation of three basic types of expressions (poetry, prose and melody), the vEdAs are the characteristic of vishNu. Thus, ahaM word also has three more names of vishNu hidden inside it.
13. न - (na) - negation. GOD can be best described to us through the things that we think we know of. For example, objects. We can use negation here aas the best means toi exaplin him. -- imagine GOD saying "Know me as that, which is nothing like anything that you know of and can know of". Thus 'na' is also a name of GOD.
14. प्रणश्यामि - (pranashyaami) i will disappear. He is the "only" who can disappear completely to a person if he wishes to do so, by just granting that person deep blinding ignorance. Thus, 'praNashyaami' is also another name of his.
15. स - (sa). 'sa' is the flat note in saMgIta (music) the first swara of sapta swarAs. There are an infinite octaves in music, each octave beginning with 'sa'. 'ri' 'ga', 'ma', 'pa', 'dha' and 'ni' swarAs scaffold successively on the base 'sa'. All other swarAs, come after 'sa'. Just like the first of the seven 'kAMDas' of our history - rAmAyaNa, which is the 'bAla kAMDa', where lord shrI rAma appears in all his might to our eyes and displays his might (bala) to our eyes capacity, the GOD appears through the nAda of 'sa'. He also appears through all the infinite nAdAs in between a 'sa' of a lower ocatve and that of the immediatedly higher or lower octave, which all scaffold on the corresponding 'sa'. He is sarvanAdapratipAdya, sarvanAdapriya, sarvanAdOpasthita. Thus, the 'sa' is an other name of GOD.
16. मॆ - (me`) - my, to me. Who is he to whom everything belongs, who is he to whom everything directs to ?.. Its vishNu and vishNu alone. Hence, 'me`' also is his name.
17. प्रणश्यति - (pranashyati) he will disappear. This conveys the same meaning as done by pranashyaami in 14, but only that this time is is seen from our perspective.