90.1 – Sri Sankara Charitham by Maha Periyava – Greatness of Govindar

Greatness of Govindar

Govinda Bhagavatpada, the sanyasi, was leading his life by wandering as a religious mendicant (Parivrajakara-परिव्राजक) sometimes, and at other times sitting in one place in meditation totally absorbed, forgetting his own self.

It is not clearly known which books he has written.  There is an opinion that ‘Yoga Taravali’ (योग तारावली) and ‘Advaitanubhuti’ (अद्वैतानुभूति) which are ascribed to Acharya [Sri Adi Sankara], were actually written by Govinda Bhagavatpada.  Since there is an opinion like this, even if Acharya has written these books, it can be said that he must have got the inspiration only from Govinda Bhagavatpada.  Beginning with describing the nuances of the Yoga Sastra like Ashtanga Yoga, ‘Yoga Taravali’ talks about proceeding on the same path, getting soaked in a state of total meditation (समाधि) of Advaitanubhuti and shine in the permanent state of Purnasthiti, (पूर्णस्थिति). Here, we remember that Govinda Bhagavatpada is the same Patanjali, who had written the Yoga Sutra (योगसूत्र). ‘Advaitanubhuti’ is complete Jnana. Advaitanubhuti talks in terms of the path of Supreme Knowledge, about being immersed in Self without being engaged even in actions such as Yoga, which is diligent practice (Sadhana- साधना). Going by the very fact that these two treatises (प्रकरण) have links to Govinda Bhagavatpada, we can understand what a fine Yogic Master (योगीश्वर) and matured Jnani, he was.

Among those who are endowed with academic erudition and supreme knowledge, some people can write very well.  For some others, it may not be possible to put things down in writing.  However, by the strength of their experiences, they may be adept at creating outstanding disciples who will also have similar great experiences and through them, spread their teachings.

We can perhaps, include Govinda Bhagavatpada in this group.  First, he achieved mastery over Mahabhashyam [महाभाष्यम्].  We had seen that Gowda had taught him those Sastras, only because there was no one else better than him to spread the teachings.  It is evident that after him, Mahabhashyam has spread very well in the world and many books on grammar have been written.  However, he had not written any grammar book on his own. Notwithstanding that, if he had ensured that the Sastra has spread far and wide, is it not that he should have got it done only through his great disciples?

I have heard that in music some accomplished artists do not know much about ‘theory’, ‘research’, etc.  But they have moulded more disciples into great artists, compared to those who are good at doing research in the Sastras related to music.  This is applicable to all fields.  This only shows that the strength of one’s own experiences (स्वानुभूति) is superior to the strength of knowledge. It also shows the capability of the person to transform the other human by being with him, mentoring, encouraging and disciplining him.

Teaching and creating superior disciples is a unique art. Even people who are intelligent, experienced and capable of writing well may not be competent enough to accept a living person as a disciple and mould him into an intelligent and experienced human being

Govinda Bhagavatpada had this exceptional ability to mould great disciples.

Because of this unique distinction, it was destined that our Acharya chose him [Govinda Bhagavatpada] as his Guru, became his disciple and received initiation from him.

Of course, he would not have had the necessity to ‘mould’ our Acharya.  Did a Guru have to labour or dispense the strength of his kindness (अनुग्रह) to make him [Acharya] an intelligent or learned person [अनुभूतिमान् – Anubhutimaan] afresh?  Still, when Parameswara himself had to incarnate and submit to a human being, and if He had chosen him as His Guru, it is only to show to the world that such a person was very experienced and had rare abilities to create intelligent disciples.

Acharya – the one who is hailed by the entire world as the Master of the Universe (Jagadguru – जगद्गुरु) – used to, as a student, sing praises of the Guru tradition with great humility. He has composed ‘Gurvashtakam’ (गुर्वष्टकम्) only to convey the greatness of a Guru.  ‘Viveka Choodamani’ (विवेकचूडामणि) remains the most exceptional one among the treatises he has written (other than the commentaries for books on Jnana written by others prior to him).  In the beginning of this book, he has sung praises on Govinda Bhagavatpada, as ‘Mangalaacharanam’ [मङ्गलाचरणम्].  We can understand his (Govinda Bhagavatpada’s) greatness from this.

Let me say the verse:

sarva-vedaanta-siddhaanta-gocharam tam agocharam I

govindam paramaanandam sadgurum pranatosmyaham II

[सर्व-वेदान्त-सिद्धान्त-गोचरं तम् अगोचरम्। गोविन्दं परमानन्दं सद्गुरुं प्रणतोस्म्यहम् ।। ]

“sadgurum govindam aham pranatosmi” means, I bow to the Sadguru Govinda.

There is a version, where, in the place of sadguru, it is mentioned as ‘matguru’ [मद्गुरु].   Matguru means ‘my Guru’. This is more beautiful than ‘Sadguru’, since Acharya takes pride in calling him as his own, by saying ‘My Guru’.

How was that Guru?

‘Paramaanandam’ (परमानन्दम्) – All the joys of this world are inferior.  Most superior joy is the rapturous absorption into the Brahmam (Brahmaanandam). That is the supreme bliss (Paramaanandam).  He is a personification of that.

How else is he?

He cannot be described and bracketed as being in this category or that.  He is unattainable by us – ‘Agocharam’ (अगोचरम्).

Although he is inaccessible like this, he is also accessible to us owing to his compassion.  How?  By providing us Sastras for the Self and ways to practice in the form of Vedanta, Siddhanta etc.; through them, he has enabled us reach him.  It [the sloka] has begun by saying this: sarva-vedaanta-siddhaanta-gocharam’ (सर्ववेदान्त सिद्धान्त गोचरम्).

The statement in the verse is more like praising the Paramatma himself and not a human Guru.

If the perspective is right, indeed, there is nothing like a ‘human’ guru!  As per Sastras, it is Paramatma who has come in that form.  However, in worldly life, doubt may arise in that.  The doubt, “Leave alone the matter of keeping him on a high pedestal and assuming him to be the Paramatma; Has he the experience of Paramatma?” may arise.  However if a person like our Acharya has stated so, then that Guru should have indeed been like that.