Brahma-gayatri - Sridhara Maharaja's interpretation of it as pointing to Radha-dasy

Dear all,

I am wondering how Sridhara Deva Goswami's commentary on the Brahma-gayatri (found here), in which he explains that the mantra's deepest meaning points to Radha-dasya, is viewed by traditional Gaudiyas.

Also, Sridhara Deva Goswami mentions that he heard that Jiva Gosvamin had written about the Brahma-gayatri, showing how it leads to Krsna consciousness, but that he could not find that work. Does anyone know if such a work by Jiva Gosvamin exists? Does anyone know what Sridhara Deva Gosvamin's source for this might have been?

Sincerely,
Elpis

tat tvam asi - you are that, a maidservant of Radha. Because the maidservanthood of Sri Radha is the zenith of all divine attainments, a foundational statement such as the one commented upon can only refer to the greatest of identities. Therefore, tat tvam asi means that you are a maidservant of Radha. Indeed, so 'ham, that I truly am.

We can interpret like this. If you feel like you need to chant tat tvam asi over and over again daily, then better you figure out an interpretation conducive for the evolution of bhakti. On the other hand, you could also just be chanting something with a clear, direct meaning, too.

= = =

Jiva speaks of gAyatrI in his Tattva-sandarbha. Given the source of his citations on gAyatrI, I cannot think of any other gAyatrI that it would refer to than brahma-gAyatrI. This is in the context of gAyatri bhASya rUpo 'sau. The word dhImahi in the opening zloka of the Bhagavata is taken as an indication that Bhagavata is a commentary on the gAyatrI.

I take it that there is something besides this, though, since I'd expect Sridhar Maharaja to know Tattva-sandarbha.

The Gayatri-vyakhya of Jiva is available from the GGM.

Thanx Madhava. Not a trace here of Radha dasya, or any type of prema-boon in prospect. It is a very philosophical vyakhya, linking Surya (the sun, subject of the mantra) with Lord Narayan (Surya Narayan), which is also done in the 12th canto of the Bhagavat.

It's a longstanding tradition to interpret "up". Finding Mahaprabhu in the Upanishads, etc. The first verse of the Bhagavatam has all sorts of interpretations, including Mahaprabhu and Radha Krishna.

It's fun and no harm is done. Let's give credit to Sridhar Dev Goswami's ingenuity.

Well I retract my words in my first post - Brahma Gayatri does not bestow prema even on Cakravartis and Bhattacaryas. Jiva Gosvami can know it - he was a brahmin himself.

Srimad Bhagavatam 5.7.12-14 states that King Bharata attained bhava bhakti while practicing mantra japa of brahma gayatri.

paro-rajah savitur jata-vedo devasya bhargo manasedam jajana...

In Svetasvatara Upanishad, and of course in the Gita, the Lord is called Bhagavan, and the potency of this Bhagavan is Bhargo. "Bhargo Devasya". Svetasvatara Upanishad has a very extensive talk about the meaning of Gayatri, and it also discusses Devaatmasakti, the inherent power of Deva, the Lord. Devaatmasakti: "Bhargo Devasya". The power of the Deva. In other words, Laksmi-Narayan, Sita-Rama, Rukmini-Dwarakadisha, etc....

In brahma-gayatri, someone may trace the hint of the presence of that Lady who is a worshipper of the sun-god; while others will have an entirely different perception. Others might think of gayatri and think of the yajna-brahmins who refused to give lunch to Gopala and his friends (but the wives of the brahmins gave the boys food). Such things are happening in the dimension of spirit.

Something more about this topic is found here:
http://www.mandala.com.au/gaura/prema49.html
and here
http://www.mandala.com.au/gaura/prema48.html

Sorry friend, but there is no mentioning of the Brahma Gayatri in those verses. verse 13: suryarca bhagavantam hiranmayam purusam ujjihane surya mandale'bhyupatisthann etad u hovaca - "He waited upon the all-effulgent Lord Narayan, the Supreme Person, as manifested in the orb of the rising sun - with hymns addressed to the sun god and prayed as follows:

14. parorajah savitur jata vedo devasya bhargo manasedam jajana etc.

"The light of the sun-god, which lies beyond the material plane, dispenses the fruit of our actions, it is the same light which evolved this phenomenal universe by its mere thought and again, entering it [as its inner controller], protects the jiva, seeking its protection, with its power of consciousness. We resort to that light, which propels our intellect."

No mentioning there of him doing Brahma Gayatri here, and as far as him getting prema from doing so, is even further away from the truth. He had already gotten that before, in verse 11, by offering water, flowers and Tulasi, as well as bulbs roots and fruits: vividha kusuma kisalaya tulasikambubhih kanda mula phalopaharais ca samihamano bhagavata aradhanam.

Verse 12 opens with him already having prema: tadettham avirata purusa paricaryaya bhagavati pravardhamananuraga bhara.

So? Does that mean one gets prema from the brahma gayatri? We already have a brahma gayatri vyakhya by Jiva Gosvami, nothing special about that. This mantra is only for born brahmins and does not bestow prema. Otherwise crores of brahmins in India would be rolling around on the street now with tears in their eyes, and would have been doing so for millions of years.

No mention?

Verse 5.7.14 says


Are you saying the Bhagavatam is not referring to brahma gayatri here?

Then why crores of brahmins are not rolling on the streets of India in prema?

He had attained prema not by reciting brahma gayatri but by offering water, flowers, Tulasi etc. Why go through this again? Read the text of Bhag. 5.7 please.

For the same reasons that crores of non-brahmin people are not rolling on the streets even though they are chanting Harinama: Nama-aparadha, nama-abhasa, vaishnava-aparadha, etc...

Where in the Gosvamis books is Brahma Gayatri praised or recommended for attaining prema? Did Mahaprabhu or the Gosvamis say anywhere brahma gayatri brahma gayatri brahma gayatri eva kevalam? Jiva Gosvami's explaining it does not mean extolling or recommending it for getting prema (let alone it to be chanted by non brahmins).

Advaita,

respectfully,

That chapter of Bhagavatam describes that King Bharata attained ecstatic devotion and it ends up with him continuing with his sadhana, which included saying brahma gayatri. That is what we can find in this chapter of Bhagavatam. That is the clear and obvious meaning given there in that chapter.

Is Srimad Bhagavatam one of the Goswami's books. We got Srimad Bhagavatam from the Goswamis. Srimad Bhagavatam says that king Bharata chanted brahma-gayatri and meditated on Naarayana.

Honestly, which god do you think the word Deva refers to in brahma-gayatri?

Bhagavatam says it is Hari.

brahma-gayatri is a meditation on Narayana. Your yourself wrote:



is that right?

Someone who has attained bhava (king Bharata) is praying to the sun god and forgetting Narayana, and just thinking of the lesser light of the sun? Hmmm. He did forget Naarayana for a while, being infatuated with his pet deer. But I really doubt he lost his love for Naarayana; he only got distracted by superficial thoughts but he never lost his love for God who is in the hearts of all beings, even animals such as a deer.

The Bhagavat is composed by Vyasa and spoken by Suka. It is not composed by the Gosvamis. The Gosvamis took the essence from Shastra to establish the true religion - nana shastra vicaranaika nipunau sad dharma samsthapakau (Sad Gosvamyastakam 2). This resulted in their conclusions in Haribhakti Vilas and Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu, further summarised in Caitanya Caritamrita. There are many types of Sadhana prescribed in Bhagavat Purana that are not practised by Gaudiya Vaishnavas because the Gosvamis did not recommend them as essential. So where in Haribhakti Vilas, CC or BRS is the Brahma Gayatri?
Secondly, the offering of Tulasi, water etc and subsequent attainment of prema is mentioned in verse 12 and the worship of Surya Narayan in verse 14. The sequence is very clear. it is not that you first have prema and then chant hare krishna, or you first have a full belly and then you take prasad. First there is A and then there is B. Besides, speaking of verse 14, the word Bharga means Shiva or Surya and Deva means God, it is not a verbatim repetition of the Brahma Gayatri, the spelling of which you are probably familiar with, being an obvious Sarasvati follower. He just praised Surya Narayan, he could not chant the brahma gayatri because that is only for brahmins and Bharat was a ksatriya.

My reading is that he chanted gayatri and attained bhava, and then he kept on chanting gayatri and meditating on his istha Deva, the Lord Narayana.



I don't understand your point. Are you saying that after he attained bhava, king Bharata just engaged in chanting prayers to the sun and he did worship of Shiva or Surya or some generic "God", instead of doing worship of Narayana.

You are reading from the bottom to the top of the page perhaps, like an Arab..... 12 comes before 14.



The point is that there is no verbatim spelling out of Brahma Gayatri there and millions of Indians offer morning ablutions to the sun as being Narayan (without getting prema BTW). bhargah also means Shiva.

Bhagavatam gives mention to brahma-gayatri, in this section about king Bharata. Isn't Bhagavatam a valid scripture in the canon of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas?

Maybe the Six Goswami's didn't write much about brahma-gayatri. But you wouldn't say that EVERYTHING is given in the books of the Six Goswamis, would you? If you did, I might also ask you where is there any mention of the doctrine of siddha-pranali in the books of the Goswamis? There aren't any direct references, are there? This is a fact.

Alahu akbar!

Verse 12 says he attained ecstatic devotion.

Verse 14 says that after this he chanted the prayers to Surya Narayana.

This is off the point. Yes of course everything is in the Gosvamis books. sad dharma samsthapakau. They distilled the essence from shastra to establish the true religion. Otherwise Jayatirtha was right about LSD being a higher sadhana and Kirtanananda was right about keeping dogs, raping boys, smuggling heroin and murdering people as a 'sadhana'. That is also not mentioned in the Gosvamis books. Where is the end to it? Siddha pranali is a different topic, though I must say that Gopal Guru and Dhyana candra Gosvami, though they are not the 6 Gosvamis, did mention siddha pranali without recommending brahma gayatri for prema.

Here is what I found about Brahma Gayatri in the Gosvamis books.
Sanatana Gosvami says in Brhad Bhagavatamrta (2.2.57):

esam yajnaika nisthanam aikyenavasyake nije
jape ca sad guruddiste mandyam syad drsta sat phale

"Maharsis offered Gopa Kumara the status of a brahmana, but he thought to himself: "If I accept the position of a brahmana, I will surely slacken in my practise of the mantra that I received from the bonafide guru, and that is certainly not good. brahmanas are only engaged in yajnas and are not engaged in other matters."

The mantra from the sad guru is Gopal Mantra, as is mentioned earlier in the treatise.

Yes of course everything is in Prabhupada's books.

Thus it is conclusively proven due to a complete lack of evidence thereof that Brahma Gayatri is not a Gaudiya Vaishnava practise and it does not bestow prema.

Wow

brilliant logic

I dont know about jurisprudence in the Third Reich, but I think I presented ample evidence and all I got in return is silly side-tracks about Visvamitra. I will be more democratic even and ask you.
1. Prove that Visvamitra got Brahma Gayatri.
2. Prove that it granted him prem.
3. Prove that the Goswamis were bestowing Ramlila at all.

For the outsiders, I mentioned the 3rd Reich because Perumal just compared me to a fascist judge. He has now edited that post.

Weird,

I never suggested any of these three things you present me as saying.

I said, Visvamitra became a brahmin when he was born a kshatriya (Ramayana). This defeats your statement that one must be born a brahmin to be a brahmin. Yes Srila Visvanatha Chakravarti said what you quoted, but the Ramayana is also an authentic scripture and it's message is clear.

I said, the Bhagavata says king Bharata attained bhava, and chanted brahma-gayatri (the words are clear, savitur devasya, etc... any unbiased person would agree this is a reference to brahma-gayatri in Bhagavatam)

I never said anything vaguely suggestive of the idea that the Goswamis promoted Rama worship. Rupa and Sanatan tried to convert their brother to Krishna bhakti, even.

Ramayan is not a Gaudiya Vaishnava scripture. Bhag. 7.11.35 indeed says that if a person has qualities of a caste he should be judged so, but not that he is a brahmin, with thread et al. Sridhar Swami said so in his tika on that sloka, and Mahaprabhu called any GV who does not follow Sridhar Swami a prostitute (CC Antya 7).



I lost count how many times I told you this: first he got anuraga (verse 12) and then he meditated on Narayan as Surya, in verse 14 (which is not the same as chanting brahma gayatri, but even if that is the case, first he got anuraga and then came Surya Narayan). I trust I dont have to repeat this ad infinitum.



So you said it yourself. Where is the authority of Ramayan in the GV sampradaya? The Goswamis were ordered to distill the essence of shastra by Mahaprabhu (nana shastra vicaranaika nipunau saddarma samsthapakau), so that the path would be absolutely clear. The result of this distillation is no brahma gayatri for prema. You have already acknowledged this. Why hang on?

I beg your pardon? Jiva Goswami was the son of Ballabh or Anup, the brother of Rupa and Sanatan. Rup and Sanatan lost their caste, not Anup. If your brother gets convicted, you go to jail too or what?

Ha! Ha! Ha!

But Advaita Prakash is a genuine scripture, in your opinion, isn't it?

Even though there are a mass of errors in it that show it is either interpolated or totally bogus.

"deva" is a gauna name at best.

post deleted in response to Perumal's clarification below

The point of dispute as far as I can tell, is that Advaita says that Gaudiya Vaishnavas cannot or should not say brahma-gayatri mantra. The issue isn't about sacred threads. The issue is whether the name of God in brahma-gayatri "Deva" is a name of Bhagavan. Clearly, Bhagavatam says it is. But Advaita says nobody should bother with this mantra for brahma-gayatri is only a hymn to the sun. But my point I tried to make is that AFTER attaining bhava bhakti, king Bharata chanted brahma-gayatri and worshipped Naarayana using imagery of this Rg Veda mantra "om bhu bhuvah swah" etc...

Advaita wrote:


The quote says, "brahmanas are only engaged in yajnas and are not engaged in other matters."

Sarupa (Gopakumar) didn't want to get involved in doing yajnas. He wanted to engage in chanting his sacred mantra to his isthadeva. So, Srila Sridhar Maharaj said it is possible to see brahma-gayatri as a hymn that takes us to the feet of Sri Radha. A completely different issue, from Gopakumar's issue where he didn't want to get involved in doing yajnas.

1. I was quoting Sanatan Gosvami here, these are not my words.
2. I did not say it is merely a solar mantra, it is a mantra which the Bhagavat 12th canto equates with Narayan, Surya Narayan. Not with Radharani however.
3. Thread and mantra are inseparable. Only Bhaktisiddhanta's followers practise GV mantras like Gopalmantra and Kamagayatri on the thread. This too is not a Vedic practise.

Always remember that your opponent in debate is a friend: even though he disagrees with you, he knows what you're on about and he thus gives your frame of reference meaning.

For instance, if I am hallucinating a cat and I say, "The cat is smiling." If someone comes and says, "The cat is grimacing," he is at least confirming to me that there is a cat.

In this particular case, the cat is Radha-dasyam.

Yes, Murali should not think that I am hunting the head of Sridhar Maharaja. He actually said something really nice about my Gurudeva. It is not a personal thing against him.

There are a number of questions here.

(1) Is Brahma-gayatri a necessity for sadhana? I don't think so. Though as I already stated above, there is no real harm in interpreting the Gayatri mantra in a way that is conducive to one's own ideals, there may be a harm if one thinks that it is a necessity to attaining those ideals, or if it results in a new elitism.

(2) Is the establishment of a Vaishnava Varnashram system a social necessity? This is arguable. Do we need religious professionals? Do religious professionals need to be regulated? These are valid questions.

I have made a few comments on this issue in the following article : On Vipramukhya's Retirement

And if someone sees the words "tat savitur varenyam bhargo devasya dhimahi" and conceives of this as meaning that the light of illuminated consciousness sees the divine glory of Bhagavan's Devatmashakti, then when saying brahma gayatri one may be meditating on the feet of She who sometimes engages in the play of worshipping the Sunlight God. A matter of perception. Again, if king Bharata was seeing Naarayan within the sunlight, then this is different from the muttering of gayatri mantras of people such as are described by Bhaktivinode Thakur in the quotes Madhava gave. The advaita philosopher Swami Sivananda and his followers also chant Hare Krishna and they even talk about the Prema of Sri Radha, but what is their realization when the are chanting? They think mukti is the goal. So the mantra is one thing, and the manasa (?) or mind's conception, that is another thing.

Jagat


Srila Sridhar Maharaj


Jagat


It can be said that varnashrama social structures will create a hierachial social order that can lead to inequalities. But even classless societies such as communist china still produce hierachies. And then Krishna does say that he is the creator of varnashram. And also, by the way, the last time I visited the samadhi of Haridas Thakur in Puri, the babajis there nearly had a brawl and they were screaming and pushing each other, because the babajis in the front were blocking the view of the babajis in the back when the sandhya aroti was going on. A nice looking babaji right in the front, who was a handicapped man (dwarf) was looking back at the uproar behind him, with a perplexed look on his face. Babajis - and a dozen of them were yelling at each other while the pujari was doing aroti.

I think the above quote from Sridhar Maharaj confuses the diksha mantra with the Brahma Gayatri. Leaving aside the question of Pancharatrika initiation, which may or may not be necessary in certain special circumstances, the upanayana is not at all necessary in any circumstances. If someone feels it to be a help under conditions of proper interpretation, that makes it optional at best.

A point to consider: King Bharata performed bhajan in the holy place where the Shalagram Shilas are manifest. The Shalagram Shila is the form of Lord Narayana. He also received bhakti from his father, Lord Rsbhadeva. In his future incarnation as Jada Bharata he states that pure devotion is only obtained by coming in contact with the foot dust of a great soul.

Another point is that Krsna Das Kaviraja writes in Caitanya Caritamrta about the Kama gayatri mantra as being the body of Lord Krsna composed of moons. Visvanath Cakravarti Thakur also writes a commentary on the Kama Gayatri mantra. This is the only gayatri glorified by them. Worship of Sri Vrajendra Nandan Krsna is higher than the worship of Surya Narayana.

When I was in ISKCON it was always said that the gayatri and mantras recieved in the 'brahmana initiation' would only give liberation and that maha mantra would give prema. I personally heard one disciple of Bhaktivedanta Swami, Daivi Shakti Dasi from Vrndavan, say that when she asked him during her initiation if she should memorize the meaning of the mantras she has received Bhaktivedanta Swami answered, "It is not important, just chant 3 times a day. That's all." So if it is not so important then why should one stretch ones brains trying to interpret that the Brahma Gayatri means 'Radha Dasya' when there is not even a hint of such a meaning?

Having been engaged and absorbed in Gayatri-sadhana for a few years some time ago, I have the following observations to make:

- The first thing to remember about the (Brahma) Gayatri is that it is primarily the mantra of Gayatri-devi, which makes it more or less connected with the Sakta school or at least those whose ista-devata (devi, rather) is Gayatri-devi. It can also be addressed to Surya, on account of the word 'savitur'. I'll admit that I am unclear on the distinction between Gayatri-devi and Surya-devata here.

- The fact that it is primarily a Sakta-mantra should not be a bar. Many other sampradayas can and do offer their own unique interpretations and commentaries on this Brahma-gayatri mantra. The mantra can also be addressed to Narayana, or Surya-narayana. It all depends on which sampradaya you belong to, and you'll accept the sampradayic explanation/commentary of the mantra.

- Every Gayatri-mantra has its specific Rishi, who revealed the mantra to the world. Visvamitra is the Rishi for this Brahma-gayatri mantra. Its presiding Deity is Gayatri-devi herself.

- I am intrigued by the point about how it is only for born brahmins. If that is so, then where did the tradition of initiating Kshatriyas and Vaisyas into it first arise? I'll agree with Vamsidasji here, my understanding has always been that the upper-three castes are eligible for initiation into Brahma-gayatri and that such initiation makes them 'dvija.' So where did this concept originate if it is supposedly only for born brahmins. By the way, as per Sridhara Swami's commentary is it really possible to find a brahmin family in modern India who fulfills that criteria?

- The point about Vishvamitra being born a Kshatriya is a good one. And as I mentioned above, he is the Rishi of that mantra. But yes, I also fail to see how one can get prema from it. Believe me, I've heard just about every explanation of it that possibly exists, and to hear that Brahma-gayatri can bestow prema is a bit of a stretch.

- It is a matter of debate (or at least intrigue) as to whether Visvamitra was Rama's guru. A siksa-guru is more probably, considering that it was Vasistha Muni who was the family priest (kula-guru) of the Raghu dynasty.

- To answer Elpis' original query, since this and that swami has "revealed" a particular commentary/explanation of the Brahma-gayatri for this and that sampradaya and that multiple explanations already exist, there is no factual harm in the latter-days Sridhara Maharaja's doing so. If the explanation of Radha-dasyam was in fact revealed into the heart of Sridhara Maharaja, all glories to him. Advaitaji's concerns are also bonafide in that it is only those in the particular line of Sridhara Maharaja are obliged to accept it and not all Gaudiyias, since most of them do not seem to have much interest in the mantra anyway.

- Finally, this so-called Brahma-gayatri is not even the real Brahma-gayatri, but the Savitri. The actual Brahma-gayatri is so powerful that chanting of just two syllables will blow one's head off.

I'm a little perplexed that some of us object so strenuously to Srila Sridhar Maharaja's seeing Radha-dasyam even in brahma-gayatri, especially considering that those who object often complain that the rest of us aren't devoted enough to Radhika's service. Any excellent jewel expertly cut reveals different colors on examination of its various facets. Why would it be surprising that someone sold out to Srimati Radhika would see Her service everywhere, not to mention Brahma-gayatri? Heck, even omkara has different understandings, depending on one's perspective. Gopala-tapani Upanishad gives several ways of understanding omkara, all connected directly with Krishna, Krishna-Balarama, or Radha-Krishna. And Jiva gives yet a different understanding of omkara. And that's just the seed of Brahma-gayatri.

My experience with initiation is almost like Daivishakti's, but not identical. When I asked Srila Prabhupada about the meanings, he said, "Meaning will come; first chant every day, morning, noon, and evening."

Some of our members here from "orthodox" lines have written that they could perceive that their mantras are "alive." My own experience was that the first time I chanted, I appreciated Brahma-gayatri, took seriously the mantras for guru and Gauranga, but, and this was not something I expected at all, Gopal mantra seized my heart, lit it up. Kama-gayatri left open the promise of mysteries yet to be discovered. I wear the sacred thread only because my guru placed it on my body. I chanted brahma-gayatri for a long time because he asked me to. After reading Srila Sridhar Maharaja's perspective on that mantra, I chant it more even more happily.

My opinion of mantras is that too many mantras and too many devatas spoil the meditation. Mantras need to be used for puja, but when it comes to ekanta bhajan, you stick to one or two, max. Now that time is shorter, it is even more so.

I don't know about you, Subal, but our guru gave me only Gopal mantra and Kama Gayatri, plus an Gaura-Gadadhara Yugala-mantra. He said if we needed any other mantras for puja to get them from a book. These were the only ones that "counted."

I think you did not catch the whole point of this thread - even Bhaktivinod Thakur does not allot a spiritual role to the Brahma Gayatri, in Jaiva Dharma. None of the foundational acaryas have done this. They have not mentioned it, recommended it and have nowhere said it has anything to do with Radha dasya or bestowal of prema. Perhaps Sridhar Maharaja in his old age realised the folly of importing Hindu Ritual like Brahma Gayatri and sandhya into transcendental bhakti, and tried to give a spiritual twist to this blunder with his 'rasik vyakhya'?

I have to say that I am a little disappointed at the direction this thread took. The orignal question was what does everyone think of Sridhara Maharaja's commentary on Brahma gayatri. Very little has been said in this thread addressing this question.

In Jiva Goswami's tattva-sandarbha he explains that the Bhagavata Purana is a commentary on Brahma Gayatri and he cites references from other Purana's to prove that statement. If that is so, and our acharyas have drawn out of the Bhagavata Purana that the highest reach of divinity is Radha dasyam, then why would any reasonable person who fashions him/herself to be a Gaudiya have anything but heartfelt praise for the spiritual insight of Sridhara Maharaja?

How can anyone who identifies with Mahaprabhu and his teachings think that Brahma gayatri has nothing to do with our sampradaya? Please have a look at the words of my Guru Maharaja in this regard. I post a link to them here as they directly relate to the question which started this thread:

http://www.swami.org/sanga/archives/pages/vnn/ET02-3763.html

The question raised was not 'should a Gaudiya chant the Brahma gayatri as part of his/her practice?' The answer to which is obvious - if your Guru instructs you to, yes. The fact that most lineages don't chant this mantra as part of their sadhana is irrelevant. To suggest that a lineage that does so is creating something new and comparing such an 'innovation' to Jayatirtha's LSD experiments and Kirtanananda's deviations is ludicrous at best.

With all due respect to you, Jagat, what mantras your guru gave you and his instructions to you are personal and are not going to be accepted as universal. Neither should anyone who is in the lineage of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati expect others to universalize or internalize what they follow. How many mantras should I chant? I say, however many my guru tells me to.

If the Bhagaavatam is an elucidation of the inner meaning of Brahma gayatri, then why would one push the idea that it's farthest reach is worship of Surya Narayana?

Your servant,
Audarya-lila dasa

Out of curiosity, has any of our AcAryas ever specified the "gAyatrI bhASya rUpo 'sau" idea as referring particularly to brahma-gAyatrI? Jiva points out that the word dhImahi in the opening zloka of the Bhagavata indicates gAyatrI, but then the word dhImahi is found in so many different gAyatrIs.

I'm not saying it doesn't, but I'm just curious over the basis of this assumption.

Wow. My inquiry certainly sparked a lively debate! Jiva's GAyatrI-vyAkhyA might be what Sridhara Maharaja was searching for but never found. I have a feeling that he was looking for something else, though. Well, that is just a feeling and I may very well be wrong.

Another comment. In one of B.G. Narasingha's articles (found here), he mentions how he told "a learned scholar" (I assume that he is referring to Narayana Maharaja) about Sridhara Deva Goswami's interpretation of the gAyatrI-mantra, in which he asserts that it points to RAdhA-dasya. Upon hearing this, the scholar replied that, "That is found in many places." I wonder what these "many places" are. That is, if we are to take the scholar's (Narayana Maharaja?) statement seriously. Swami seems to be of the opinion that the statement was meant to slight Sridhara Deva Goswami. Still, we cannot rule out that the idea of the gAyatrI-mantra pointing to RAdhA-dasya was conceived by someone who predates Sridhara Deva Goswami.


The verse goes as follows: tat savitur vareNyaM bhargo devasya dhImahi dhiyo yo naH pracodayAt. The words savitur and devasya are both in the genitive case; obviously devasya is in apposition to savitur, "the god SavitR," or, since the word deva can be taken as an adjective in the Vedic context, "the divine SavitR." tat savitur vareNyaM bhargo devasya, "that excellent radiance of the god SavitR."

So the real question is what SavitR refers to. Normally SavitR is taken as a name of the solar deity.


Just to add a clarification here: yes, the word bharga (a masculine noun) can be used as a name of Ziva, but in the context of the gAyatrI-mantra, the word bhargo is from bhargas (a neuter noun), which means "radiance." I would have to check to see whether bharga or bhargas is used in the BhAgavata verse.


Actually, the vyAhRtis, bhUr bhuvaH svaH, is not included in the mantra as found in the Rgveda (3.62.10). I realize that the verse is found in other Vedic texts and it is possible that the vyAhRtis are included there, but they are not there in the Rgveda.


The gAyatrI-mantra is Rgveda 3.62.10. This particular hymn has 18 verses. With the exception of the last few verses, which are attributed to Jamadagni, the hymn is attributed to VizvAmitra, as you point out. The verses in the hymn are addressed to various deities, Indra and VaruNa, SavitR, BRhaspati, etc. However, none of them has gAyatrI-devI as its devatA, and certainly not verse 10, the devatA of which is SavitR, as should be obvious from the words in the verse. GAyatrI is the metre in which the verses of the hymn are composed (excepting the first two or three verses), not the devatA of any of the verses themselves.

Where did you get the idea that the verse is connected with the zAkta school, or with people whose iSTa-devatA is GAyatrI-devI? There is nothing in the Rgveda that points to that conclusion.


Actually, the three highest castes are all eligible for upanayana according to the texts on dharma. There are certain differences, such as at what age each respective caste has to undergo the ceremony. But they are all eligible to wear the thread and chant the gAyatrI-mantra, not just brAhmaNas.


And uttering just one syllable will create a tickling effect in one's feet, right?

Sincerely,
Elpis

I need that mantra big time.

Narayana Maharaj is the person Narasingha Maharaj is referring to here. Narayana Maharaj's comment was very sarcastic, "putting down" Srila Sridhar Maharaj. Narasingha Maharaj told me about this a few years ago when I met him in Vrindaban. Actually we were in Loi Bazaar.

Ah, I see. Thank you for clarifying this. I guess we do not have to look into his "many places" then.

Sincerely,
Elpis

Wow!

brahma-gayatri is a mantra from Visvamitra. Sri Rama's Guru. Visvamitra, who used to be a kshatriya but then became a brahmin.

That is right.

Oh, and also, I almost forgot...

Happy Ram-navami everyone.

Jaya Sree Ram!

A verse from Sri Sri Bhakti-Rasamrta-Sindhu, Eastern Division, Second Wave:)

This is exhausting. Cant you Sarasvataites read English or so? Page after paga I am making the same point. Brahma Gayatri is not prescribed, nor has prema been mentioned as a result of chanting it by:

Sanatan Gosvami
Rupa Gosvami
Raghunath das Gosvami (expert in Radha dasya)
Jiva Gosvami
Vrindavan das Thakur
Kavi Karnapur
Krishnadas Kaviraj Gosvami
Narottam das Thakur
Visvanath Cakravartipad (expert in Radha dasya)
and even Bhaktivinod Thakur (rejected it in Jaiva Dharma)

It is so simple.

Advaita, can't you read English?

Page after page I have been making the point that after king Bharata attained bhava he was joyfully chanting the savitur prayer to the Lord, who is seen in the orb of the sun. You know what prayer I mean, tat savitur varenyam bhargo

I think it is really weird that you don't accept that Bhagavatam mentions brahma-gayatri as a hymn to the Lord, a hymn which has the name of the Lord mentioned in it (you get prema from chanting the name of the Lord, you know!), and you say no-one can get prema from chanting the name of the Lord - Deva. Brahma gayatri is "not prescribed", you say. But I find your rejection of the Ramayana and even of this message in Bhagavatam fully bizarre. It is like the Iskcon people who reject everything besides "prabhupada's books". Anyway, if there is no name of the Lord in that mantra, why then does some exalted bhakta such as king Bharata bother with any chanting of this mantra at all? We know he chanted the words given in that Rg Veda mantra, and we know he was seeing Narayana in the heart of the sun rays. This is, indeed, so tiresome.

But I am happy I had this discussion, anyway. Because now I have learned that brahma-gayatri has come down to us from a Vaishnava rishi, Visvamitra; a rishi who started life as a kshatriya and then became a brahmana, and who later became the Guru of Sree Ram.

Dear Madhava,

Jiva Goswami not only quotes the Garuda Purana verse you mention, but he also mentions several from Agni Purana. It is quite clear from his writing that his intention was to show that gayatri has only to do with Bhagavan and that Srimad Bhagavatam is an explantion of the mantra - therefore they are synonymous.

Advaitadas - why are you so opposed to understanding the glories of the Brahma gayatri mantra? No one is asking you to chant it. But certainly you must acknowledge the arguments of Jiva Goswami in his Sat Sandarbhas where he clearly points out (with scriptural reference) that the Bhagavatam is an explantion of gayatri. His explanations make it clear that Brahma gayatri is what is being discussed. The Bhagavatam begins and ends by referencing it. Since gayatri is none other than Krsna himself, why do you insist that it cannot give prema? Krsna is the only one who can give prema. If you read Sridhara Swami's bhasya you will see that gayatri is all about Radha dasyam - it is about the highest worship and becoming that very worship.

From this explanation it should be clear that all the Goswami granthas and all the acharyas whose names you posted are engaged in elucidating the glories of gayatri in all their writings.

I ask a simple question yet again - can you not see the beauty in the commentary of Sridhara Swami?

Jagat, after I posted my comments about mantras and all to you I realized that I could have said the same thing with more taste. I apologize if I offended you. I realize that you were merely stating your opinion.

Your servant,
Audarya-lila dasa

The Bhagavata may or may not be a vyakhya of the brahma gayatri (as Madhava pointed out, dhimahi appears in each and every gayatri, including the kama gayatri). But even if it is a vyakhya of the Brahma Gayatri, none of the acaryas I mentioned above have prescribed initiation into this Brahma Gayatri for shudras or non-Hindus. I have already provided evidence for that earlier. The Brahma Gayatri is nowhere in the Gosvamis books spelled out as a diksa mantra.
Regarding Sridhar Maharaja's vyakhya, I have already made suggestions about his motives a few posts earlier.

Those so many places would probably be references to the idea of gAyatrI-muralIsta kIrtana danaM rAdhA-padaM dhimahe. That is not too original as far as I know. We all know that gAyatrI emanated from the fluteplay of Krishna, and that he always calls for Radha with his play.

The theme of gAyatrI coming forth from Krishna's flute is famous from Brahma-samhita (27): atha veNu-ninAdasya trayI-mUrti-mayI gatiH ... gAyatrIM gAyatas tasmAd. Jiva does not specify which gAyatrI is being discussed, merely mentioning trayI-mUrtir gAyatrI veda-mAtRtvAt, which could well hint at brahma-gAyatrI, the classical Vedic gAyatrI. Bhaktivinoda interprets this as referring to kAma-gAyatrI. In the context of the aSTadazAkSara-kRSNa-mantra having been just given, this also seems like a plausible interpretation.

Whether brahma-gAyatrI or kAma-gAyatrI, the origin is the same; we know the story of the zrutis who engaged in tapasya and became gopIs, and I recall reading also a story of brahma-gAyatrI "graduating" as kAma-gAyatrI, though I am uncertain of the origin without having done any further research.

As for the flute calling out for Radha, now that's everywhere.

Then, 1 + 1 = 2. The gAyatrI originally calls out for Radha. At least, we should be able to hear the echo there in the brahma-gAyatrI, if we are attentive enough. I would personally prefer to play the original recording, kAma-gAyatrI, instead of longing for echos. Perhaps that is exciting to some, too.

Exactly!

Face facts dear Sarasvatites!

The simple and obvious answer to the questions, 'Why not? What is the harm?' etc,

is that it is a slippery slope.

If we extrapolate from the words of the Gosvamis, instead of just taking the clear direct consensus of meaning from the foundational Acharyas of Gaudiyaism, then where do we stop?

What's more, it can also be seen as threatening to dilute the central message.

***
I personally don't mind if you follow Kirtananda's synthesis, or whatever. I was secretly supporting Kirtananda when he tried his new path. A synthesis of various ideas may actually be necessary so that various different peoples of the world can approach Krishna. Chinese may need to have devotion directed through Buddha. People who are attracted to Brahma Gayatri may certainly do as they wish. As far as I can see it is all good.

But radically re-interpreting the core of the tradition is a completely different matter, and obviously quite dangerous.

Happy Ramnavami, Perumal!

The general tendency historically has to pay lip service to the authorities of the past, and then go ahead and do one's thing.

These are basically legitimacy questions: one establishes the authority of what one is doing by appealing to the past--the Veda usually, or the previous acharyas. In the Gaudiya Vaishnava case, the Bhagavatam takes the place of the Veda.

But all this does not mean that Gaudiya Vaishnavism is Vedic, nor even that the Bhagavatam is accepted and followed 100%.

Everyone is selective in their sadhana and their philosophy. It would be impossible to do otherwise. Even those who claim to follow to the letter likely do not.

I think that for most of us, Chaitanya Charitamrita distills the essence of what we need to know or follow, and even there there is adjustment.

The Bhagavatam may be an explanation of Gayatri--I don't think anyone wants to refute Jiva Goswami--but this doesn't mean that we must chant it. The Hare Krishna mantra is not in the Bhagavatam, but we do.

Not that I don't think it is an approved act of devotional service to write such commentaries. I think that Sridhar Maharaj's commentary on Brahma Gayatri is ingenious and can be read for the pure pleasure of hearing Radha Dasya glorified.

Ah. I just read Swami's words again and you are right, Narayana Maharaja's comment was given when Swami cited gAyatrI-muralIsta-kIrtana-dhanaM rAdhA-padaM dhImahi. Thanks for the clarification and sorry about the confusion.

Sincerely,
Elpis

B.P.Puri Maharaj was a great admirer of Sridhar Maharaj and often refered to his Brahma Gayatri commentary as one of his most outstanding accomplishments and contributions.

It is rather sad to see anything he did being minimized. Sridhar Maharaj's prayers to Siddhanta Saraswati are probably the finest writings in Sanskrit produced by anyone in the Gaudiya Math.

Adiyen,

No one said that the reference to gayatri in Brahma samhita was a reference to Brahma gayatri, so I fail to see the significance of pointing out Bhaktivinoda Thakur's conclusion that it refers to Kama gayatri, which as Madhava points out is fairly obvious given the context.

Pancaratrika diksha mantras are chanted to elevate one to the postition of chanting suddha nama. Bhaktivinoda Thakur's comments in Jaiva Dharma are not different from Mahaprabhus comments through the pen of Krsnadasa Kaviraja regarding Krsna mantra and nama bhajana. I don't see any contradicion whatsoever.

The basic issue that is being brought up here is whether or not Brahma gayatri is a 'bona fide' diksha mantra for gaudiya vaishnavas. That is a big topic. But it is also not really a part of the discussion, which was really meant to be about Sridhara Maharaja's commentary on gayatri mantra. Maybe another thread on the topic of whether or not those born outside brahmana families can be given brahma gayatri could be started - but I am not really sure what purpose it would serve. There are plenty of references in our scriptures including the famous one in HBV that are used to justify such a practice. Besides, I really don't think that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was trying to establish a society of brahmanas. He was only concerned with establishing the teachings of Mahaprabhu and widely disseminating them. I don't see his incorporating the Brahama gayatri into diksha for his sisyas as some major deviation, especially in light of the fact that Jiva Goswami established irrefutably that the Bhagavata Purana is a commentary on it. If you simply read the commentary given by Sridhara Maharaja you will see that Brahma gayatri is a wonderful mantra which has everything to do with gaudiya vaishnavism.

That's all I really have to say on this subject at this time. I am happy that at least one person here has seen fit to acknowledge the brilliance of Sridhara Maharaja and appreciate this wonderful contribution to our literary heritage.

Your servant,
Audarya-lila dasa

Plenty? I have not seen a single one. Come up with 10-15 references please where a non-brahmin Gaudiya Vaishnava gets brahma gayatri as a diksa mantra? Considering the dvijatva in the Haribhakti Vilasa-verse, that says that "as bell metal is turned into gold through the process of alchemy, similarly a human being attains twice born status through the process of diksa" (yatha kancanatam yati kamsyah rasa vidhanatah; tatha diksa vidhanena dvijatvam jayate nrnam), in his tika Sanatana Gosvami confirms that dvijatva means viprata for everyone (sarvesam eva dvijatva viprata), and thus Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati seems justified in turning everyone into a brahmana. However, 1] In his Bhakti Sandarbha [298] Srila Jiva Gosvami has classified this statement under the heading atharcanadhikari nirnayah – ‘Now follows the designation of eligibility for deity worship.” Then he proceeds by quoting scripture on the eligibility of all castes and genders for deity worship, ending with yatha kancanatam. This is the context in which this verse is to be seen. 2] None of Mahaprabhu's nitya siddha associates, like Advaita or Nityananda, Gadadhara, Srinivasacarya, Narottama, Syamananda, nor any of Their disciples or granddisciples have ever put such a 'brahmana-initiation' into practise, nor have any of them ever involved the Brahma Gayatri in the process. mahajano yena gata sa pantha — One must follow in the footsteps of the mahajanas. All the mahajanas have considered such a practise to be an utpata, or social disturbance. Before 1918, 350 years after the compilation of Haribhakti Vilasa, no one has ever given 'brahmana-initiation'. Shall we assume that Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati knew it better than the Panca Tattva, Six Gosvamis, etc.? He also frequently knows it better than his father, considering Bhaktivinod's rejection of Brahmagayatri as a diksa mantra in Jaiva Dharma and BSS' rejection of BVT's siddha pranali in Harinama Cintamani. Some siksa parampara.....

Regarding Bhaktivinoda's rejecting chanting Brahma-gayatri and other "brahminical" practices: it looks to me in the passage Madhava quotes that Bhativinoda's character Vaishnava das is drawing a distinction between what this haughty brahmana considers his nitya-dharma and the real nitya-dharma--the jaiva dharma--he presents here, which is the chanting of the holy name.

I don't think anyone here would suggest that anything could ever supplant the holy name. And I think discussion of the purpose--or the legitimacy--of Bhaktisiddhanta's giving brahma-gayatri to his disciples as part of their sadhana belongs in another thread (but we've already done that, it seems). What I think saddens some of us here is the assertion that Sridhar Maharaja's perspective on that mantra is necessarily flawed, as well as the (mis)understanding that he meant anything more than to glorify meditation of the service of Sri Radhika. Where does the possiblity for new insights stop? With Baladeva? Visvanath? Narottama? Jiva? Rupa? And who here says that any appreciation for Sridhar Maharaja's essay implies that those who don't chant brahma-gayatri are deficient in their practice? I have a hard time understanding how anyone who chants the mahamantra along with the Gopal and kama-gayatri mantras they received from their guru could see any appreciation of Sridhar Maharaja's essay as a distrubance or threat.

I may have been reading with my eyes closed, but I can't recall having read posts which say that Sridhar Maharaja's perspective on the mantra is necessarily flawed.

Nor that it is a threat. This is hardly the point here.

What does "SavitR" refers to?

Since we know Vishvamitra as the author of this gayatri, and that Vishvamitra was the Guru of Sri Rama, then it is not a difficult jump to go to the conclusion that this verse below gives further information about the Deva who is found within the orb of the sun's rays:

Advaita,

if you only accept those things which were written by the sad-Goswamis as being genuine Gaudiya philosophy, then that means you must reject the doctrine of siddha-pranali as a fabrication, for the doctrine of siddha-pranali is not given in the writings of the six Goswamis. The references you gave, of Gopala Guru Goswami's etc., are not conclusive evidence that Gopala Guru Goswami taught this siddha-pranali doctrine as it is currently followed by some people in Vraja. Where in his writings does Gopala Guru Goswami say that a Guru who has not fully realized his swarup and cannot even see the trascendental world can then tell someone else, a new disciple, "you are LotusFlower Manjari". Indeed the doctrine of ekadasa bhava is not given in the writings of the Six Goswamis either. Nor is there any mention in the Six Goswami's writings of the practice practiced in Braja nowadays, where someone takes vesh from some other renunciate by accepting the kaupina and becoming a babaji. Indeed, the philosophic idea that when a soul attains swarup siddhi the soul accepts a body that is extrinsic to oneself is also a later day "innovation". In the Govinda Bhasya of Baladeva we find that the orthodox view given in the Vedanta sutra is repeated, that is, a soul attains its own inherent form when it becomes free from the coverings of maya. So if you want to claim that you are following only those things which are given in the writings of the Six Goswamis, then what about all these things?

All of these belong to a separate threads, Perumal, and many of them have been rather exhaustively discussed. If anyone wants to pursue any of these points any further, plase start new threads: 1) siddha-pranali, ekadasa-bhava and the writings of the Gosvamis, and 2) the inherent form of the soul according to Baladeva.

Madhava, and others...

before anyone starts freaking out about what I just wrote, please understand that I am not challenging your right to believe in these doctrines just mentioned, I am only challenging the assumption that these doctrines are presented in the writings of the Six Goswamis.

So, in essence the point you are making is that everything doesn't have to be in the writings of the Gosvamis?

Perhaps we should have yet another thread on 3) The evolution and discovery of doctrines. That would be interesting.

Yes that is exactly my point Madhava.

If you believe in something different from me, it is an offence on my part to try and harm your faith, simply for "points scoring" or for my ego-gratification.

So what exactly is the point? In fifteen words or less. All major contributors to this thread please resume what you see as the main issue here.

Please make it clear that you are answering this question.

Srila Sridhar Maharaj had a new vision of the meaning of brahma-gayatri mantra.

13 or 14 words (is brahma-gayatri one word, or two?)

Well, scholar's opine that ViSNu was originally a solar deity.

Just out curiosity, and since we are on the topic of Vedic verses: who was the first Gaudiya to cite Rgveda 1.22.20-21? Do the gosvamins cite these verses?

Sincerely,
Elpis

My reason for starting this thread was to learn about how Sridhara Deva Goswami's commentary on the gAyatrI-mantra was received among the traditional followers of Caitanya. Although the discussion took another turn, a glimpse of the answer did emerge.

Sincerely,
Elpis

Chandogya Upanishad III-xvii-1:

That he (who performs the Purusha sacrifice) feels hunger, that he feels thirst, that he does not rejoice –all these are the initiatory rites of this sacrifice (diksa).
III-xvii-2: And, that he eats that he drinks, that he rejoices – all these approach Upasadas.
III-xvii-3: And, that he laughs, that he eats, that he behaves as one of a couple – all these approach Stotra and Sastra.
III-xvii-4: And his austerity, gifts, uprightness, non-violence, and truthfulness – all these are the largesses of this sacrifice.
III-xvii-5: Therefore people say ‘sosyati’ (will procreate), and ‘asosta’ (has procreated). Again, that is the procreation of this, and death is the Avabhrita bath.
III-xvii-6:Ghora Angirasa expounded this well-known doctrine to Devaki’s son Krishna and said, ‘Such a knower should, at the time of death, repeat this triad – "Thou art the imperishable (akshita), Thou art unchangeable (acyuta), Thou art the subtle essence of Prana(prana samhita)". (On hearing the above) he became thirstless. There are these two Rik stanzas in regard to this.
III-xvii-7: (Those knowers of Brahman who have purified their mind through the withdrawal of the senses and other means like Brahmacharya) see everywhere (the day – like the supreme light) of the ancient One who is the seed of the universe, (the light that shines in the Effulgent Brahman). May we, too having perceived the highest light which dispels darkness, reach it. Having perceived the highest light in our own heart we have reached that highest light, which is the dispeller (of water, rays of light and the Pranas), shining in all gods – yea, we have reached that highest light.

------------------------------
The reason I posted the verses above it to point out that even in the time when the Upanishads were being written, the sages were re-assessing the meaning of ancient and traditional practices, such as the performance of yajna, in terms of the higher understanding that had been attained in subsequent periods by the brahma-realized rishis.

The short of it:

Why to chant this hymn
not distinctly pertinent
for our aspired goal?

17 syllables.

The long of it:

Humm .....
See we already have this hymn
resplendent with the desired moods;
where's the need for another one?

24½ syllables.

But he did not avoid confrontation with other groups, such as muslims, for example.

Sanatana in Hari-bhakti-vilasa 1.146.

Jiva in Bhagavat-sandarbha, Anuccheda 75.

Radhakrishna Das Gosvamin in Sadhana-dipika.

Prabodhananda and Jiva also shortly comment on this verse in their tikas on Gopalatapani (Purva 28).

I'm sure there are others, too. This is what I got out of the GGM archives.

I will update this document.

1.22.20 is just so all-pervading that it forms part of the discourse. If you just take the line tad viSNoH paramaM padam, it is everywhere.

Take for example the Gopala Tapani Upanishad 1.28 where it is quoted fully, (but also Rama Tapani, Narasingha Tapani and many other Upanishads).

tad viSNoH paramaM padaM sadA pazyanti sUrayaH | divIva cakSur Atatam | tasmAd enaM nityam abhyasen nityam abhyased iti ||

Bhagavat-sandarbha 97, Brahma-sutra 3.3.37, 4.1.12, 4.3.16,

But also,

etad dhi viSNoH paramaM padaM ye
nityodyuktAH saMyajante na kAmAn |
teSAm asau gopa-rUpaH prayatnAt
prakAzayed Atma-padaM tadaiva ||

These verses in this form are found quoted in numerous places, even Sadhana-dipika.

The words tad viSNoH paramaM padam are found in Bhagavatam 4.12.26, 5.23.1, The second of these is : "atha tasmAt paratas trayodaza-lakSa-yojanAntarato yat tad viSNoH paramaM padam abhivadanti" |

The Padma Purana has as a further description of the Bhagavat-dhama using the echoes of this phrase -- tad viSNoH paramaM dhAma [PadmaP 6.255.63, 6.256.10] quoted in LBhAg 1.5.251; BhagS 75 (p98). But there are numerous quotes in Haribhaktivilasa that contain these few words.

More distant paraphrases like "tad dhAma paramaM mama" extend the discussion even further.

This brief survey shows that this is a much underrated "maha-vakya".

The Rk verses mentioned in the Chandogya quote I gave above are
Rig-veda 6, 6, 30 and Rig-veda 1, 50, 10

Since you asked, Jagat - the point is that this thread is about -"what do devotees here think of Sridhara Maharaja's commentary on Brahma gayatri - oops, more than 17 words. Enough of the politics of who chants what mantras - what about the commentary already?

Your servant,
Audarya-lila dasa

P.S. If your guru has not given Brahma gayatri then don't chant it. No one says you should. My guru has given me Brahma gayatri and asked me to chant it, and I do so according to his direction.

The question of the relevance of the brahma-gAyatrI to the GauDIya tradition has probably been dealt with enough in this thread. However one may feel about it, chanting brahma-gAyatrI is part of the sAdhana of a great number of devotees around the world. Seen in that light, and since everybody agrees that RAdhA-dAsya is the prayojana, there is no fault in trying to interpret the mantra in a way that is conducive for one's aspiration. I understand Madhava's feeling that it is better to meditate on something with a clear, direct meaning rather than having to look for echoes in places that, at least formally, have little or no bearing on the sAdhana or sAdhya of the GauDIyas, but at the same time it is a fact that the human beings are attracted to finding "hidden truths" and uncovering "more esoteric meanings," and perhaps this has some power to help fix the mind on the higher goal.

Anyway, it would be interesting to have a discussion about the commentary proper.

Sincerely,
Elpis

Where did Bhaktisiddhanta get that Brahma Gayatri from? From his 'diksa Guru' Gaurakishor das Babaji, who was a vaishya?

I do not know where he got it from. I guess that he did not undergo an upanayana... or did he?

Sincerely,
Elpis

Good question. Perumal? Audarya?

Has Bhaktisiddhanta himself written anything about why he chose to give his disciples brahma-gAyatrI or how he interpreted the mantra? I imagine that his decision to give the mantra to his disciples was not taken because of the mantra's connection with RAdhA-dAsya, but rather with a view to giving them the status of brAhmaNas.

I realize that I know very little about what Bhaktisiddhanta himself wrote or did.

Sincerely,
Elpis

Why interpret a mantra, whose 'holy names' are far-off words like Deva and Bharga, that are not directly related to Vraja lila to say the least, while the Gopal mantra and Kamgayatri bring you right there without any need for a remoter than remote interpretation? It was Bhaktisiddhanta's obvious aversion to brahmins in his region that seems to have spread all over the world, not a hidden meaning of Radha Dasya that is nowhere to be found in any acarya's interpretations, including the Gosvamis. Sridhar Maharaja just gave the mantra a spiritual, rasik twist to explain away something that has nothing to do with raganuga bhakti whatsoever.

I would ask everyone to post any contributions directly related with varnashrama in general into this thread.

I would ask everyone to post any contributions directly related with brahminhood by birth into this thread.

I really don't understand you, Advaitadas. This thread was started to discuss a commentary and all you have contributed is your negativity toward Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and you keep going on and on about how Brahma gayatri has nothing to do with our tradition. Give it a rest already. We all know your personal feelings.

If, as was already shown to have been argued by Jiva Goswami, the Bhagavatam is a commentary and explantion of Brahma gayatri - how can you honestly argue that it has nothing to do with raganuga bhakti which our acharyas have all said is what it is really all about?

Why not lay your animosity aside and appreciate the commentary for what it is, an elucidation and explantion of how it is that the same conclusion shown to be given in the Bhagavatam is present within the gayatri mantra?

Your servant,
Audarya-lila dasa

1. It is not that all the Bhagavat is about raganuga bhakti:

madhurya bhagavatta sara, vraja koilo paracara, tahe suka vyasera nandan
sthane sthane bhagavate varniyachen nana mate
(C.C.)

"Sweetness is the essence of Godhead and it is manifest in Vraja. Suka, the son of Vyasa, described it in the Bhagavata at places (not at all places)."

2. Jiva Gosvami gave his tika to Brahma Gayatri without any Radha Dasya spice in it at all.

3. The Brahma Gayatri is nowhere prescribed in the Gosvamis books as a diksa mantra.

4. I think my posts are balanced and supported by shastra, history, tradition and common sense. You cannot blame me for Bhaktisiddhanta's attitude....

Yes, but communal politics get in the way. Communal politics, the great destroyer within Indian society.

If you acutally are interested in understanding the actual commentary itself, written by Srila Sridhar Maharaj himself, it is given here:
http://www.mandala.com.au/gaura/prema48.html
and the authentic comentary to the commentary, by his Successor-Acharya, is here
http://www.mandala.com.au/gaura/prema49.html

I don't know if this is communal politics. The adoption of Brahma Gayatri as part and parcel of the initiation process, the identification of upanayana with diksha, the identification of Vaishnava with Brahmin, these are all innovations of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati that are objected to by the traditional representatives of the Gaudiya Vaishnava school. As such they are controversial, and not purely for political reasons, but for substantive ones.

Nevertheless, I have said already twice that if someone sees Radha-dasya in the Brahma Gayatri, it is not only valid--as the test of a rational theology should be to have resonance with the realizations of previous generations, even if there are developments in that understanding--but laudable.

So, just as Radha is not mentioned in the Bhagavatam, but we are entirely devoted to her name while simultaneously accepting the Bhagavatam as our supreme authority, similarly we are quite willing to accept the vision of Radha in the Savitri.

And if your spiritual masters instruct you to chant this mantra, then far be it from me or anyone else to tell you to do otherwise.

from Vipramukhya's Retirement:

Sorry for the late reply. At the moment my computer is busted so I can't get a decent look-in at times.


In agreement with yours and Muralidhar's later statements (in this thread) about ViSNu being a solar deity, this would also be in in agreement with the ViSNu-saharanAma, in which the term appears twice.

884 - SavitA - One who brings forth (Prasava) all the worlds. ViSNu Dharmottara (1.3.10) says: 'prajAnAm tu prasavanAt savite'ti nigadyate - as He generates the worlds He is called SavitA.'

969 - SavitA - He who generates all the worlds.

If one argues that SavitA is not the same as SavitR, I may respond that many different sampradayas both take the term to mean the same even though the grammatical rules may be different. By the way, those "explanations" are from the commentary of Adi ZankarAchArya. I have MAdhvachArya's commentary somewhere but it is stuck in my busted computer.


As I stated in my last post, many different sampradayas elicit different meanings from the Brahma-gayatri. One of them interprets it as a sublime prayer for the illumination of one's intellect (in order to see/understand God).



To be honest with you, I'm not at all confident of the Rigvedic "origin" of this mantra. We have to remember that the Vedas were a longtime oral tradition until their written compilation, traditionally believed to have been carried out about 5000 years ago. There are also references to it in several places in the Manu-samhita, one of which is 2.76-77. By way of sheer interest, what is the Sanskrit of that Rigvedic hymn?


In just about the same way we can tell that the Gopal-mantra is meant to invoke Gopala, the Maha-mrityunjaya is meant to invoke Siva, and so the Gayatri is meant to invoke Gayatri. In any case, this is the whole point I was making; since various schools have interpreted/commentated/revealed the mantra according to their nuances, the mantra itself has acquired something of a culture of accumulation. Its quite possible that the source where I learnt how to practice this gayatri-sadhana was of Sakta leanings but I don't think so as I never saw any explicit representation. Also, it is common knowledge that the mantra itself is known as chhandasam mata, the mother of the Vedas, so as to where I got the idea of Gayatri-devi being the ista:

yA sandhyAmaNDalagatA yA trimUrti-svarUpiNI |
sarasvatI yA sAvitrI tAm vande veda-mAtaram ||
yA vizva-jananI devI yA trimUrti-svarUpiNI |
gAyatrI-rUpiNI yA hi tAm vande sapta-mAtRkAm ||

Don't ask where these can be found lol I got them in parampara!


Well, that's the trouble ji; the Rigveda cannot possibly contain the entire "siddhanta" about Gaytri. This is probably why there are so many interpretations of it flying around. However, I am personally confident of Gaytri-devi being the ista of that mantra since there are several references similarly flying around pointing to that conclusion.


Thanks for confirming that, as it confirmed what I thought too. At the risk of inviting ridicule,[] it is a tradition among Sindhi males to have the upanayana-saMskAra done for them before marriage. When it is time for me to be married, I am going to have to undergo this ceremony. I'll presumptuously estimate that 99.99999999999% of my peers do not take this responsibility seriously, but since I am like that (taking these things seriously) I am not so keen on having this ceremony done since I am aware of the great responsibility (read burden) that having an upavita entails.


Well, it is serious. I actually know of one particular incident where a disciple of my "guru" was insisting on learning of the real gayatri mantra after hearing from him the same story, that this is not the real gayatri but the Savitri. The guru was not willing to impart it to this disciple because he knew how the disciple would misuse it. Finally he gave in and imparted just two syllables of this real gayatri with very strict instructions on how to chant it under certain circumstances. True to his nature, this disciple did not listen and overdid it. He went insane and died. Poor guy, I was actually there in India at the time and I watched him go insane and attended his funeral.

I'll personally stick to my own assertion that the "brahma-gayatri" flying around nowadays is not the real Gayatri, but the Savitri. However for the purposes of this discussion and to avoid confusion, I'll continue to refer to it as brahma-gayatri.

Interestingly, what form does this mantra take in some orthodox schools?:

oM bhUH oM bhuvaH oM svaH oM mahaH oM janaH oM tapaH oM satyaM

oM tat savitur vareNyam
bhargo devasya dhImahi
dhiyo yo naH pracodayAt

oM Apo jyotiH

rasomritaM

brahma bhUr bhavaH svar oM

Something I just noticed: Why is this mantra referred to as the "brahma-gayatri" when Brahma has his own personal gayatri mantra?

Similarly, why is this "brahma-gayatri" chanted by brahmins all over India as part of their sandhya-vandana rituals to Surya when Surya also has his own personal gayatri mantra?

Mysteries, mysteries...

Who said that SavitA and SavitR is not the same? SavitR is the stem form, while SavitA is the nominative singular. Same word, same thing.

Sincerely,
Elpis

Brahma as from the neuter form of brahman, not the masucline form referring to the deity of that name.

Sincerely,
Elpis

The mantra occurs first in the Rgveda. I do not think that there is any doubt about that. It is subsequently cited many places and many other "gAyatrIs" are modelled on it.

I do not know the entire hymn by heart, but I can type it out for you later. Maybe it is online somewhere, too. I will check later.

Sincerely,
Elpis

The gAyatrI from the Rgveda is more original. All the later gAyatrIs are modelled on it. SavitR is a name of the Sun, so why is it mysterious that brAhmaNas chant it during their rituals to the Sun? The sUrya-gAyatrI probably has some other ritual use in some sects.

Sincerely,
Elpis

The dharma text of Manu is much later than the Rgveda. If not the Rgveda, then what is the origin of the mantra? The oldest text in which the mantra occurs is the Rgveda. The zAkta, etc. interpretations that you mention come much later.

An electronic edition of the Rgveda is available here. You will need maNDala 3, hymn 62.

Sincerely,
Elpis

Right, I forgot that you knew Sanskrit. That was actually a pre-emptive comment since in the past other people have presented a dichotomy in there because they did not know Sanskrit.

Also, something else occurred to me regarding the mantra-devatA. Who knows who it could be, it could even be some deity named SavitA/SavitR. After all, isn't it so that there are 330 million deities hanging around up there?


I suppose it would be easy to confuse the two.


Would you happen to know of those "other places"? If so, would you mind telling me please?
I'm not particularly sure about later gayatrIs being modelled on the Rigvedic gayatrI. In fact, the entire gamut of gayatrIs out there seem to be a mystery to me what to speak of their respective origins. I'm still wondering why this particular "brahma-gayatrI" was plucked out of the Rigveda and has subsequently become so popular, so much so that any spiritualist happens to write extensive commentaries on it. Why has the same not happened with any other mantra?


Well as I said, we will have to remember that the "Vedas" were transmitted orally for countless generations before being committed to text. It may be correct that the Rigveda is the oldest source of it, but if we acknowledge that this mantra was revealed to VizvAmitra then this means that its revelation took place in the time of Treta-yUga? Or possibly before that when one takes into account the legendary rivalry between VizvAmitra and VaziSTa. By the way I only mentioned the Manu-smriti in regards to your enquiry about the origin of the vyAhRtis. Would that be the origin of where the vyAhRtis can be found in text?

Just some food for thought: Getting back to the issue of mantra-devatA, I've just received info that claims that rather than being a worshipper of GAyatrI-devI VizvAmitra would likely have worshipped a solar deity and used the mantra to harness the solar energy. This would appear to be more coherent with the actual words found in the mantra. An interesting incident in this connection is his teaching of Aditya-hRdaya to Rama and Lakzmana.
It seems that interpretations abound. In this connection it is quite alright if Sridhara Maharaja interprets it in a way to point to Radha-dasya. If it is geunie revelation then it can be termed as "authentic" as far as his followers are concerned, though personally I cannot see the connection myself.

They differ in the nominative and accusative only; context will usually indicate what is meant.


I have not looked into the exact references, but the late Prof. Lanman states that the mantra occurs four times in VAjasaneyi-saMhitA, twice in the TaittirIya-saMhitA, and once in the SAma-veda.


No, it is not clear why this particular verse from the Rg-veda achieved the sanctity that it did, but I think that is clearly established that later gAyatrI-mantras were modelled in this one, made in imitation of it.


Well, I am not personally a believer in the truth of the yuga system, and I do believe that we ought to distinguish between the VizvAmitra of the Rg-veda and the VizvAmitra of the later texts such as the purANas, etc. Stories always get better with time...

I do not think that the Manu-smRti is the origin of the vyAhRtis. The three words are, for example, analyzed in the oldest upaniSads, and their origin must be Vedic.

Sincerely,
Elpis

Who would confuse Brahma with Brahman?
Nobody I know.
Hence it is called Brahm-gayatri (though spelled in English as Brahma).

Anyway, we have concluded here that upanaya was once given to all 3 upper classes in olden days though the custom died out and it's mostly Brahmins now who get it. Most Brahmins in India don't want it or end up taking it off. So, my question is, when the others besides Brahmins got the upanaya did they also get Brahm gayatri mantra or did they get other mantras (if any)?

Well, as I said above, the grammatical forms of BrahmA and brahman differ only in the nominative and accusative cases; otherwise the forms themselves do not reveal which one is meant. Usually the context will tell you.

In Sanskrit it is certainly brahma-gAyatrI, not "Brahm-gayatri." The modern vernaculars may omit the final a in brahma, but Sanskrit does not. And the compound form brahma does not in itself reveal whether BrahmA or brahman is meant.

I am thinking that the term brahma-gAyatrI is probably not really one we should use to designate the original mantra from the Rg-veda, though.

Sincerely,
Elpis

Where does that term come from, anyway?

The word brahma-gAyatrI is usually used with reference to the mantra

oM paramezvarAya vidmahe paratattvAya dhImahi tan no brahmA pracodayAt |

which, like the other gAyatrIs, is modelled on the gAyatrI-mantra of the Rg-veda.

The word is, however, also sometimes used to designate the mantra of the Rg-veda because according to some interpretations it refers ultimately to brahman (not BrahmA).

Sincerely,
Elpis

We could perhaps also call it the Manjari-gayatri, because according to some interpretations...

Yep, you're correct as always. I've recently been perusing through some of the prominent UpaniSads lately, and I've found the vyAhRtis mentioned in several places. Now I think I'll cross-reference those references (!) trying to find how they are connected to the Vedic gayatrI.

A few posts ago where I gave the full gayatrI (oM Apo jyotiH rasomritaM, etc), I've always wondered if this is an authentic line or subject to a "later interpolation" in a parampara. I'm happy to have found the place in the UpaniSads where this line is mentioned.

I think I have already mentioned somewhere that I myself will have to get the upavita and mantra when it is time for me to get married, despite the fact that I am not brahmin. I have several non-brahmin friends who have also been invested with it. This is still the situation and the custom has certainly not died out, although the importance of regular observance of it has. The point is that few these days take these "outdated" customs seriously.


Getting an upavita means getting the mantra. Other mantras received are to do with gayatrI-worship. However, not many people perform sandhya-vandana except those dedicated brahmins who have the time to sit down all day and do it.

While on mantras and "complete forms", while doing the Gopala-tapani, I came across asAv adom, which I believe is meant to be an explanation of the hamsa-mantra (so'ham). Has anybody ever seen that before?

asAv adom? Do you mean asAv ado mA prApad etc.?

Sincerely,
Elpis

The only thing I can think of is the passage asAv ado mA prApad iti in the BRhadAraNyakopaniSat (5.14.7). This occurs as part of a discussion of gAyatrI, but does not quite fit the context you outline. However, the phrase so 'ham occurs shotly afterwards in the text (5.15.1):

pUSann ekarSe yama sUrya prAjApatya vyUha razmIn samUha tejaH |
yat te rUpaM kalyANatamaM tat te pazyAmi yo 'sAv asau puruSaH so 'ham asmi ||

Sincerely,
Elpis

I was answering this yesterday, trying to cut and paste, converting diacritics, etc., from the GTU 2.38, where this idea came from. But there is something wrong, because I cannot find the reference in the original Sanskrit. So I have to go back and check all the printed texts I used. I suspect that I have made a vital error in translating.

It's taking too much time to post this. I just cut out the verse from my file and am uploading it here. If you are interested to compare, the commentaries are posted on GGM.

I also heard Audarya-lila das complimenting you on your translations of GTU. Where can I find a copy?

Audarya Bookstore.

(Seems they have a glitch as their shipping is calculating in pounds instead of ounces, thus GTU weighs in at 17 pounds. I've sent them a note on it. I think I actually gave them some software for shipping at one point but they have since upgraded and are using something else.)

I just found this on Madrasi Baba's site: