Verses for contemplation on Janmashtami
putran M
Srini Nagul
Sundar Rajan
- If you spend a couple of minutes pondering over this and review what is discussed as Nidhidhyasana in this forum, hard to miss there is a possible disconnect.
- Shouldn't the 'bliss watchers' who cry foul over Vivekachudamani point out a problem here too (Bhagavan uses the word twice in 2 verses!)
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-r2_QB1o6yNk%2BUg%2BA6_KVwSbac3ey%3DNekGWFm1h88oDeQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Sundar Rajan
. - Demolish the ceiling, walls and floors
- Build new drywalls, ceilings and paint
- Install Cabinets, countertops, backsplash and appliances
- whose mind is already in their control
- whose mind can listen to and follow their commands
- who already knows how to direct the mind (stay put in a certain 'place')
putran M
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/625399191.397174.1661030484304%40mail.yahoo.com.
putran M
Bhaskar YR
We have to unteach our minds of dvaitic identifications of self and direct it towards advaitic processing of duality (as mithya, vikshepa of Self, as naught else but nama-rupa of Brahman - Aham, etc.). When we (the mind) are established in Self, the movie of mithya prapancha cannot confuse us of the immutable Self and we are at most sakshis of Ishvara's Order/maayic Play, or better yet, we are not even "thinking of anything [apart/separate] whatsoever". It is also by this advaitic mananam that ideally an advanced sadhaka would want to go past the level of "all desires arising from thoughts" etc.
praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji
Hare Krishna
Frankly I don’t want to get into this again to prove Advaita vedAnta’s sAdhana (direct or pratyaksha sAdhana-s like SMN of vedAnta) and resultant jnana is NOT in line with what has been propagated by dvaita yOga shAstra which is mainly based on pAtanjala yOga sUtra that too when bhAshyakAra clearly and categorically said that yOga shAstra is dvaita shAstra and THEY ARE NOT atmaikatva vAdins. Yes there is mention of yOga word in shruti-s and smruti-s, there is prescribed body posture, there is indriya nigraha, there is breath control, there is an effort to be made to dragging the outgoing indriya-s towards inside etc. making us to believe that what has been said by lord in 6th chapter is indeed dvaita yOga shAstra its relevant sAdhana and result like asaMprajnAta samAdhi, but that is not the case here. To know how PYS is quite different from what has been enshrined as adhyAtmika vaidika yOga in shruti & smruti, we should first know what is the stand of dvaita yOga shAstra its ultimate goal as per their authoritative source. Then only it would be possible to draw the line between dvaita yOga shAstra and shruti & smruti pratipAdya vaidika adhyAtma yOga. If we don’t do that and plainly accept dvaita yOga = Advaita jnana, it is as good as saying that P’s ashtanga yOga, shat chakra-s, mind inert state and in that some mystic / strange experiences which is time bound restricted within the boundaries of some particular avastha (state) gained through purusha taNtra sAdhana would be an alternative way to vedAntic jnana sAdhana which tradition saying at the top of its voice that ONLY the means to realize svarUpa jnana. And, I reckon this untoward conclusion and comparison is just due to some words / statements closely comparable between Yoga Shastra & Vedanta Shastra 😊 But no one would say and argue that just because nirvana manOnAsha etc. appearing in both buddhist works as well as kArika’s of Advaita and other vedAntic texts and conclude that shUnyavAda, vijnAnavAda & kshaNika vAda of Buddhists is nothing but advaita’s nirvishesha, nirAkAra, nirguNa brahman, if they do that it just shows their stubbornness and over zeal to see the similarities. And unfortunately same thing happening here when some propagators of “bliss experience”in particular state comparting this samAdhi experience with that of jnAni’s sahaja sthiti and sama darshana which he realized through vedAntic SMN.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
putran M
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6581BB12ED44B20E60FBB5B784709%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
putran M
Where it is a call for action, it is to be understood as having the goal of eliminating ajnana:
Sundar Rajan
Namaskaram Putran-ji,
>> Yes, "fix" has double meaning. Your example is more like repair, correct, set right; the translation of Krishna's usage is more like 'focus', "fasten (the mind) securely in a particular place or position." >>
Correct. I used the "fix = repair" example to show that certain skills, competencies and prowess are pre-requisites for both the type of 'fixes'.
Sri Vidyasankar Sundaresan who addressed a lot of similar questions in the past uses the example of a skill such as swimming:
"Practicing yogic dhyAna is like learning to swim or practicing music
or
painting. One can talk a lot about it, but without actually going
through it, one does not really know either its benefits or its
limitations.
>> For many people I know, this type of suggestion to strive as would a yogi would be outlandish, impractical, plain wrong; they will resent it, get even upset or angry at those who quote such things, and say it is not for us. >>
That is fine, there should be other avenues for those sadhakas, right? It is not like one size fits all.
Having said that one cannot deny or water down or explain away scriptural texts that describe the Yogic path just because one doesn’t prefer it.
Regards
Sundar Rajan
- Sankara's word's introducing this chapter: ৷৷5.26৷৷ atha idānīṅ dhyānayōgaṅ samyagdarśanasya antaraṅgaṅ vistarēṇa vakṣyāmi Thereafter, now, with the idea, 'I shall speak elaborately of the yoga of meditation which is the proximate discipline for full realization'
- Then Lord Krishna in 6.29 describing the result of this Sadhana: sarva-bhūta-stham ātmānaṁ sarva-bhūtāni chātmani One who has his mind Self-absorbed through Yoga, and who has the vision of sameness everywhere, sees his Self existing in everything, and everything in his Self.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji
Hare Krishna
I don't much think of dvaita yoga shastra when I say yoga, just like if I talk of bhakti, Ishvara or "Vedanta", it does not mean dvaita Vedanta, or that Shankara was a Vaishnavite because he refers to Narayana here or there. Yes, there are dvaitins of various kinds who use the same words; but when we use the terms it has to be in a vyavaharika or sadhaka context that is consistent with the final philosophy of advaita.
- That is fine prabhuji. But deliberation starts once there is conclusion that PYS’s ashtanga yOga, its doctrine and ultimate goal is same and on par with advaita’s Atmaikatva jnana. It does not anyway mean that advaitins are belittling the yOga sAdhana and pushing aside PYS & related sAdhana as useless. The words like yOga & samAdhi themselves do not have any problem as they have been used at multiple places in Advaita literature but problem starts when we try to interpret these words within Advaita tradition and taking PYS or dvaita YS as source.
The same has to be true when we refer to Nirvikalpa samadhi.
- I hope I don’t have to insist here that NS has been interpreted as YS’s asamprajnAtha samAdhi in the later works of Advaita.
As I understand, it is total Self-absorption where there is no room for the "other", whether as thought or object. But it is not deep sleep; it is merging in nirvikalpa awareness of Self whereupon the yogi/jnani "sees his Self in everything and everything in his Self."
- First of all when we are talking about advaita’s paramArtha we have to bear in mind jnAni’s samyak darshana or Atmaikatva darshana is time bound, restricted to one particular state to which we often travel (entering that state and coming back by external force) and come back to ‘normal state’. IMHO, jnAni’s sarvAtma bhAva or Atmaikatva jnana is not vyavahAra abhAva jnana in some trance state. It is quite natural to him through shravaNadi shAstra sAdhana, the mOksha is not going to happen or will be experienced in a particular state by suppressing the thoughts (chitta vrutti nirOdha) and there is no possibility of coming back from it as in NS, OTOH it is ‘vyavahAra bAdhita’ jnana as jnAni would not have even an iota of ‘dehAdhyAsa’. Since this dehAdhyAsa is not there in sushupti (deep sleep state) he is with brahman says bhAshyakAra. And elsewhere he also says both sushupti and samAdhi states are NOT free from avidyA.
- As per some Advaita Acharya-s those who are questioning the necessity of dragging PYS & samAdhi, say that with these backdrop we have to understand the words like yOga, samAdhi, atyantika abhAva of vyavahAra, maNOnAsha etc.
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji
Samadhi would be the final step following SMN that allows for the jiva to realize irrevocably the truth obtained in the first step of sravana.
- I am neither an Advaita jnAni nor experienced any samAdhi but whenever I see statements like this I started doubting my understanding of Advaita’s paramArtha jnana!! IMO, Advaita jnana and its (socalled) experience does not call for any action to suggest that there is a subsequent step after SMN in the form of experiencing samAdhi. UddAlaka after preaching shwetaketu you are that did not insist by saying see this is theory, now go and experience this truth i.e. tattvamasi in a practical laboratory called NS. Lord after his enlightening discourse on geeta heard that nashtO mOha smutir labhdhva from Arjuna and bhAshyakAra clarified that Arjuna became paramArtha jnAni without mentioned anything about mandatory further step of experiencing NS. And vAmadeva realized that he is manu and Aditya etc. and it was not an exclamation in a strange state called NS it is the realization in his mother’s womb. If the Advaita jnana calls for some experience at some place/state at some particular point of time even after shAstra vAkya SMN janita paramArtha jnAna then the 10th man story would have continued you are THE 10th man and now you retire to forest to experience this in NS. And the word samAdhi has been variously interpreted by bhAshyakAra to suit the particular contexts in which it occurs. Sometimes the samAdhi denotes Atman and some times as the mind itself. And to the Arjuna’s query with regard to sthita prajna : sthita prajnasya kA bhAshA, samAdhisthasya Keshava?? Etc. in sAnkhya yOga, bhAshyakAra clarifies what exactly is the characteristics of samAdhisthasya. He has nowhere ( as far as I know) stated there are two types of samAdhi-s like savikalpa and nirvikalpa in his PTB. Ofcourse I am not considering his popular work VC since its authorship is still in doubt.
Some think it is needed, some think it is highly useful, some think it is not centrally relevant to jnana and misleading to emphasize.
- Some would argue that shabda pramANa is just like operating and instruction manual first study it, understand it and get the direct experience of this theory in practical Lab called NS. The science of Being, according to them, to be experienced ONLY in scientific laboratory called NS. Without this experience you are just a data holder without any practical knowledge/experience.
putran M
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB65813025D1305FA0A1ECC08D84729%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji
Hare Krishna
The topic is not up front in my list of concerns regarding advaita except that I see yoga and dhyana as extension of sadhana for the mumukshu, so take whatever I say to be for the sake of discussion.
Ø As long as we know that adhyAtmika yOga and vaidika dhyAna (vastu tantra dhyAna) is something that is not based on dvaita yOga shAstra and prescribed for the jnana mArga mumukshu-s based on vedAnta mArga the there is absolutely no problem in accommodating yOga and dhyAna in Advaita sAdhana.
Let's keep in mind:
1. 6.24-25: By totally eschewing all desires which arise from thoughts, and restraining with the mind itself all the organs from every side; One should gradually withdraw with the intellect endowed with steadiness. Making the mind fixed in the Self, one should not think of anything whatsoever.
Shankara: "thus fixing the mind on the Self, one should not think of anything whatsoever. This is the highest instruction about Yoga."
2. Kathopanishad (2.3.10,11): "When the five organs of knowledge are at rest together with the mind, and when the intellect too does not function, that state they call the highest. The firm control of the indriyas they regard as 'Yoga'. Then the seeker becomes free of the vagaries of the mind; for 'Yoga' is subject to growth and decay."
The sruthi does not regard this state as inconsequential or irrelevant; it calls the state the highest. What is the purport of this assertion?
Ø I would like to say it is the highest yOga which is specifically to be treated as vedAntic adhyAtma yOga (the yOga of Atman, the yOga is intended for those who would realize the Atman AS TAUGHT in vedAnta. The details of this yOga is what explained in geeta and kaTa which you quoted above. For those that are extroverts who always identity with the BMI this Atman is hidden, covered by mAya wrongly projected due to avidyA. When the extroverts become introverts who always look within and concentrate the mind not thinking of anything whatsoever the Atman reveals himself without difficulty. And this process of looking within has elaborately been dealt in kAtaka shruti mantra 3-13 : the discriminating aspirant should merge speech and other organs in the mind, and that mind in the intellect. This intellect should be dissolved in the individual self and that again in the real Atman which is free from all specific features. And this adhyAtma yOga has been explained as dhyAna yOga in the BG 6-25 to 28. And the result or realization is explained in 6-29 : one who has attained the balanced mind through yOga sees the Atman in all and all in the Atman as he sees the reality (Atman) everywhere. This saMyak drushti well explained in 6-9 itself : sruhrunmitra upAseenamadhyasthadveshyabandhushu…….samabuddhirvishishyate. The real characteristic of yOgArUdha. And at this context it can be noted that this adhyAtmika process of inward journey happens during the mananaM and nidhidhyAsanam stage and NOT the subsequent stages AFTER SMN.
It appears to me that this state where the jnanendriyas and buddhi don't function, presumably due to our consciousness having completely merged with (or become "fixed in") pure self-awareness devoid of all dualistic thought, is the same as the asamprajnata samadhi of PYS.
- If the above process of vedAntic dhyAna and adhyAtmika yOga is suggested in PYS and asamprajnata samAdhi is Atmaikatva darshana or samadarshana of the jnAni in Advaita vedAnta mArga then it is fine. But unfortunately it_is_not_like_that!!
It gives knowledge for the jiva that the self is immutable, constant and independently existent from body-mind-world, because the yogi merges into an experience/insight where self alone shines as pure awareness and all else vanishes.
Ø Longtime back ( I think almost 2 decades back) when this subject was at its peak in Advaita-L I had written samAdhi in Advaita vedAnta, in that I tried to show how PY’s asaMprajnatha samAdhi is something different from vedAntic Atmaikatva darshana quoting yOga sUtra-s and parallelly shruti and shankara bhAshya. yOga being a dvaita shAstra in its ultimate goal can not teach non-duality it is simply because of the fact that they are not Atmaikatva darshinaH which you explained beautifully below :
However the yogic samadhi cannot by itself give knowledge of "tattvamasi", "aham brahmasmi" or the mithyatva of jagat, so the jiva that went into samadhi believing in duality of selves and not-self comes out without having that belief altered in a decisive manner. Prakriti remains a separate reality corresponding with purusha. As a consequence, the yogi following PYS even after NS, by the vice of affirming reality of the "other", is still subject to fear of the other and sense of limitation - as per sruthi. In other words, the fruit of the yogi's attainment via samadhi will continue to be obstructed by his ignorant positing of duality in Self - he will not have liberation.
Ø Completely agree with you.
On the other hand, the same NS state is "highest" when the experiencer is already a jnani and the experience re-affirms his jnana in a direct intimate unobstructed manner. An advaitin having attained jnana through SMN will be able to relate the experience of samadhi not only as revealing the self's immutability and independence but also its being the nondual reality of the "sarvam". He realizes samadhi as a merging of individual awareness in the first-person paramarthika standpoint of Self (pure Consciousness) where maya is absent/negated altogether. - and he comes out of samadhi, "seeing the universe contained within himself like a city seen in a mirror but appearing as if outside through maya".
Ø Now the question is after SMN, the paramArtha jnani has to experience the NS to re-affirm his jnana?? Is the NS experience is a subsequent step to practically confirm his realized jnana?? Or in other words, to get mOksha is there any other step required other than vAkya janita jnana?? I don’t think bhAshyakAra answers this in affirmation. His mundaka bhAshya is more relevant here 1-1-6 : vAkyArtha jnana sama kAle eva tu paryavasito bhavati. After SMN, paramArtha jnana there is no re-certification required in the form of sAkshAtkAra in NS.
Now we have to ask, when the jnani following SMN attains aparokshanubhuti or atmasakshatkara, why is that moment of realization not equivalent to this highest state referred to by Krishna and Sruti? Perhaps, that is equivalent to NS except it is enlivened by SMN, resulting in jnana. The yogi lacking SMN gets misguided and does not attain jnana from NS.
Ø Very interesting observation, but would like to know more about your observation with regard to first sentence of the above :
//quote//
when the jnani following SMN attains aparokshanubhuti or atmasakshatkara, why is that moment of realization not equivalent to this highest state referred to by Krishna and Sruti? Perhaps, that is equivalent to NS except it is enlivened by SMN, resulting in jnana.
//unquote//
- Where in the bhAshya it has been explained in this way i.e. vAkya janita jnana is not equivalent to the highest state referred in yOga ??? First of all we should know in Advaita, Atman is not an (external) object to “fix” the mind on it!! He is the very jnAtru. So, strictly speaking dhyAna / fixing the mind on nirvishesha brahman is not possible. He is self-effulgent, always shining and the very svarUpa of the jnAtru who is trying to ‘fix’ his mind on something !! the ONLY obstacle to know this is avidyA that is to be effaced through jnana and not to gain the Atman. jnApakam hi shAstram natu kArakaM. When the dirt is removed without trace the diamond shines on its own when the clouds move away from sun will be realized in its self-effulgent nature. So, our efforts is good at its work only removing these obstacles not to reach some new destination which is not there earlier. See bruhad bhAshya for example (3-3-1), na cha ajnAna vyatirekeNa mOkshasya vyavadhAnAntaraM kalpayituM shakyaM, nityatvAn mOkshasya, sAdhaka svarUpaH avyatirekAccha.
- jnana cannot show Atman, and literally we can not say that we can ‘focus’ on Atman as the jnana can remove only ajnAnam and Atman is not kriya kAraka phala.
Sundar Rajan
I am catching up on messages, so these may not be the latest in the chain.
>> And vAmadeva realized that he is manu and Aditya etc. and it was not an exclamation in a strange state called NS it is the realization in his mother’s womb. >>
True. Sankara quotes Vamadeva’s example BSBh (III.iv.51) as an example of someone whose knowledge was obstructed in a previous life.
Wait.
In the same passage Sankara gives the example of a Yoga Bhrashta and quotes the Gita passages “There he is united with the intelligence acquired in his former body” (6.43). Clearly pointing out the Yoga Bhrashta carries on his Yoga practices even though the SMN may have occurred in the past.
So the scriptures don’t negate the possibility Vamadeva might have done Yoga/Samadhi in his past life 😊
>>
If the Advaita jnana calls for some experience at some place/state at some particular point of time even after shAstra vAkya SMN janita paramArtha jnAna then the 10th man story would have continued you are THE 10th man and now you retire to forest to experience this in NS.
>>
Should they self-certify themselves as Jnanis because Shravana already occurred and they have done manana multiple times?
Considering the person for whom the 10th man story (or Shravana) did not produce the results (for whatever reasons – not fully prepared, obstructed etc), should they do nothing and wait for a Vamadeva like awakening in the next birth?
Or should they keep reading the same story till one day it dawns on them?
Or should they continue with SMN? If they are continuing SMN, why not the “N” described in the 6th chapter? So choosing to practice instructions like in the 6th chapter (and retiring to a forest etc) is not outside the realm of possibility!.
>> Samadhi would be the final step following SMN that allows for the jiva to realize irrevocably the truth obtained in the first step of sravana. >>
On this I do agree with Bhaskar-ji that the final step is not following SMN but within the framework of the SMN, maybe concluding steps of SMN
Lord after his enlightening discourse on geeta heard that nashtO mOha smutir labhdhva from Arjuna and bhAshyakAra clarified that Arjuna became paramArtha jnAni without mentioned anything about mandatory further step of experiencing NS.
>>
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
putran M
1. 6.24-25: By totally eschewing all desires which arise from thoughts, and restraining with the mind itself all the organs from every side; One should gradually withdraw with the intellect endowed with steadiness. Making the mind fixed in the Self, one should not think of anything whatsoever.
Shankara: "thus fixing the mind on the Self, one should not think of anything whatsoever. This is the highest instruction about Yoga."
2. Kathopanishad (2.3.10,11): "When the five organs of knowledge are at rest together with the mind, and when the intellect too does not function, that state they call the highest. The firm control of the indriyas they regard as 'Yoga'. Then the seeker becomes free of the vagaries of the mind; for 'Yoga' is subject to growth and decay."
The sruthi does not regard this state as inconsequential or irrelevant; it calls the state the highest. What is the purport of this assertion?
Ø I would like to say it is the highest yOga which is specifically to be treated as vedAntic adhyAtma yOga (the yOga of Atman, the yOga is intended for those who would realize the Atman AS TAUGHT in vedAnta. The details of this yOga is what explained in geeta and kaTa which you quoted above. For those that are extroverts who always identity with the BMI this Atman is hidden, covered by mAya wrongly projected due to avidyA. When the extroverts become introverts who always look within and concentrate the mind not thinking of anything whatsoever the Atman reveals himself without difficulty. And this process of looking within has elaborately been dealt in kAtaka shruti mantra 3-13 : the discriminating aspirant should merge speech and other organs in the mind, and that mind in the intellect. This intellect should be dissolved in the individual self and that again in the real Atman which is free from all specific features. And this adhyAtma yOga has been explained as dhyAna yOga in the BG 6-25 to 28. And the result or realization is explained in 6-29 : one who has attained the balanced mind through yOga sees the Atman in all and all in the Atman as he sees the reality (Atman) everywhere. This saMyak drushti well explained in 6-9 itself : sruhrunmitra upAseenamadhyasthadveshyabandhushu…….samabuddhirvishishyate. The real characteristic of yOgArUdha. And at this context it can be noted that this adhyAtmika process of inward journey happens during the mananaM and nidhidhyAsanam stage and NOT the subsequent stages AFTER SMN.
It appears to me that this state where the jnanendriyas and buddhi don't function, presumably due to our consciousness having completely merged with (or become "fixed in") pure self-awareness devoid of all dualistic thought, is the same as the asamprajnata samadhi of PYS.
- If the above process of vedAntic dhyAna and adhyAtmika yOga is suggested in PYS and asamprajnata samAdhi is Atmaikatva darshana or samadarshana of the jnAni in Advaita vedAnta mArga then it is fine. But unfortunately it_is_not_like_that!!
It gives knowledge for the jiva that the self is immutable, constant and independently existent from body-mind-world, because the yogi merges into an experience/insight where self alone shines as pure awareness and all else vanishes.
Ø Longtime back ( I think almost 2 decades back) when this subject was at its peak in Advaita-L I had written samAdhi in Advaita vedAnta, in that I tried to show how PY’s asaMprajnatha samAdhi is something different from vedAntic Atmaikatva darshana quoting yOga sUtra-s and parallelly shruti and shankara bhAshya. yOga being a dvaita shAstra in its ultimate goal can not teach non-duality it is simply because of the fact that they are not Atmaikatva darshinaH which you explained beautifully below :
However the yogic samadhi cannot by itself give knowledge of "tattvamasi", "aham brahmasmi" or the mithyatva of jagat, so the jiva that went into samadhi believing in duality of selves and not-self comes out without having that belief altered in a decisive manner. Prakriti remains a separate reality corresponding with purusha. As a consequence, the yogi following PYS even after NS, by the vice of affirming reality of the "other", is still subject to fear of the other and sense of limitation - as per sruthi. In other words, the fruit of the yogi's attainment via samadhi will continue to be obstructed by his ignorant positing of duality in Self - he will not have liberation.
Ø Completely agree with you.
On the other hand, the same NS state is "highest" when the experiencer is already a jnani and the experience re-affirms his jnana in a direct intimate unobstructed manner. An advaitin having attained jnana through SMN will be able to relate the experience of samadhi not only as revealing the self's immutability and independence but also its being the nondual reality of the "sarvam". He realizes samadhi as a merging of individual awareness in the first-person paramarthika standpoint of Self (pure Consciousness) where maya is absent/negated altogether. - and he comes out of samadhi, "seeing the universe contained within himself like a city seen in a mirror but appearing as if outside through maya".
Ø Now the question is after SMN, the paramArtha jnani has to experience the NS to re-affirm his jnana?? Is the NS experience is a subsequent step to practically confirm his realized jnana?? Or in other words, to get mOksha is there any other step required other than vAkya janita jnana?? I don’t think bhAshyakAra answers this in affirmation. His mundaka bhAshya is more relevant here 1-1-6 : vAkyArtha jnana sama kAle eva tu paryavasito bhavati. After SMN, paramArtha jnana there is no re-certification required in the form of sAkshAtkAra in NS.
Now we have to ask, when the jnani following SMN attains aparokshanubhuti or atmasakshatkara, why is that moment of realization not equivalent to this highest state referred to by Krishna and Sruti? Perhaps, that is equivalent to NS except it is enlivened by SMN, resulting in jnana. The yogi lacking SMN gets misguided and does not attain jnana from NS.
Ø Very interesting observation, but would like to know more about your observation with regard to first sentence of the above :
//quote//
when the jnani following SMN attains aparokshanubhuti or atmasakshatkara, why is that moment of realization not equivalent to this highest state referred to by Krishna and Sruti? Perhaps, that is equivalent to NS except it is enlivened by SMN, resulting in jnana.
//unquote//
- Where in the bhAshya it has been explained in this way i.e. vAkya janita jnana is not equivalent to the highest state referred in yOga ??? First of all we should know in Advaita, Atman is not an (external) object to “fix” the mind on it!! He is the very jnAtru. So, strictly speaking dhyAna / fixing the mind on nirvishesha brahman is not possible. He is self-effulgent, always shining and the very svarUpa of the jnAtru who is trying to ‘fix’ his mind on something !! the ONLY obstacle to know this is avidyA that is to be effaced through jnana and not to gain the Atman. jnApakam hi shAstram natu kArakaM. When the dirt is removed without trace the diamond shines on its own when the clouds move away from sun will be realized in its self-effulgent nature. So, our efforts is good at its work only removing these obstacles not to reach some new destination which is not there earlier. See bruhad bhAshya for example (3-3-1), na cha ajnAna vyatirekeNa mOkshasya vyavadhAnAntaraM kalpayituM shakyaM, nityatvAn mOkshasya, sAdhaka svarUpaH avyatirekAccha.
- jnana cannot show Atman, and literally we can not say that we can ‘focus’ on Atman as the jnana can remove only ajnAnam and Atman is not kriya kAraka phala.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB658124E87872DE2CEE4DC1DD84759%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
putran M
Now is samadhi necessary after SMN? No. Samadhi coincides (for many) with atmasakshatkara at the end of dhyana based on SMN. For others, atmasakshatkara/jnana can happen through SMN without samadhi.
putran M
Namaskaram Bhaskar-ji,Now is samadhi necessary after SMN? No. Samadhi coincides (for many) with atmasakshatkara at the end of dhyana based on SMN. For others, atmasakshatkara/jnana can happen through SMN without samadhi.I came across this small audio reference from a lecture by Swami Paramarthananda on Uddhava Gita 3.28.38. Between -36:53 to -35:55, he quotes this phrase "taḿ sa-prapañcam adhirūḍha-samādhi-yogaḥ" and says:
Sundar Rajan
Bhaskarji:
>> First of all we should know in Advaita, Atman is not an (external) object to “fix” the mind on it!! He is the very jnAtru. So, strictly speaking dhyAna / fixing the mind on nirvishesha brahman is not possible. >>
1. In Brahma Sutras (BS 3.2.22-23) there is a similar discussion that the real Self is only known as "not this, not this" (neti, neti).
Nevertheless, BS 3.2.24 says that the Self is indeed known, during perfect api ca (saM) worship (rAdhana).
BhagavatpAda explicitly describes those who grasp the Self in this manner as yogin-s (saMrAdhana kAle paSyanti yoginaH).
What are they (Yogi) pasyanti?
Not the highlights of the Asia Cup Match between India and Pakistan😊
2. Then in Gita 6.20 Consider this :
Atmana atmanam atmani paysan tusyati
It can’t be the Atma – As Atma is neither a bhokta nor a karta. It must be the mind purified by concentration and thoroughly restrained (Niruddham)
(6.20 yatrōparamatē cittaṅ niruddhaṅ yōgasēvayā.
yatra caivātmanā৷৷tmānaṅ paśyannātmani tuṣyati৷৷
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Sundar Rajan prabhuji
Hare Krishna
>> First of all we should know in Advaita, Atman is not an (external) object to “fix” the mind on it!! He is the very jnAtru. So, strictly speaking dhyAna / fixing the mind on nirvishesha brahman is not possible. >>
I was about to say this has been addressed before; Checked myself as there may be new members unaware of the past exchanges.
Here are couple of points to counter that:
Ø It is regret to note that just to push the yOga samAdhi in Advaita jnana sAdhana you are even ready to counter bhAshyakAra’s verdict. Shruti says yatO vAchO nivartante aprApya manasa saha, na tatra chakshurgacchati na vAgacchati nO manaH na viddhO na vijAneeyO yathatadanushishyAt etc. you are trying to counter these verdicts by trying to objectify the objectifiable Atman and trying to bring him within the realms of pramANa even though he is not ‘pramANa gOchara”. Yes, there is a need for the shrOtreeya brahma nishTa guru, there required shamadamAdi susamskruta mana, Acharyaupadesha etc. to have the “Atma darshana” If you interpret these instructions to argue that “yes, I can see the Atman and I can experience the Atman in samAdhi at some particular point of time by focusing the mind on it” etc. it is as good as saying “ Yes I can watch the highlights of the whole match whenever I want” 😊 But unfortunately that is not how Atma darshana prescribed in Advaita jnana mArga, do you want me to quote whole of bruhad bhAshya AtmAva are drashtavyaH, shrOtavyaH, maNtavya nidhidhyAsitavyaH to prove that what exactly is Atma darshana in jnana sAdhana and how Atma jnana is not vishesha jnana that can be experienced at only one particular state??
In Brahma Sutras (BS 3.2.22-23) there is a similar discussion that the real Self is only known as "not this, not this" (neti, neti). Nevertheless, BS 3.2.24 says that the Self is indeed known, during perfect api ca (saM) worship (rAdhana).
BhagavatpAda explicitly describes those who grasp the Self in this manner as yogin-s (saMrAdhana kAle paSyanti yoginaH).
- Again it is painful to see you are going against even bhAshyakAra’s verdict here. Neti neti is NOT the one of the means here IT IS THE HIGHEST MEANS TO ‘know’ that Atma jnana is aprameya. See for example geeta bhAshya on 18-50 siddhim prAptO yathA brahma. And see br.bhAshya 2-3-6 where bhAshyakAra categorically declares that THE ONLY MEANS to employ to point out Atman by NEGATION, i.e. by calling it ‘neti neti (not such, not such) thus denying all properties attributable.
- And your quote 3.2.24 to propagate yOgi would objectify and see the Atman in samAdhi I am afraid totally out of context quote. See the whole adhikaraNa prakrutaitAvatvAt adhikaraNa which is the next adhikaraNa to ‘ubhayalingAdhikaraNa (discussion about savishesha & nirvishesha brahma), the arguing point is to prove that though brahman is nirvishesha it is not like shUnya though it is said it is nirvishesha, nirguNa, niravayava etc. it exists and can be realized through proper means. See further details in 3-2-30 pratishedhAccha sUtra and bhAsya. In the previous ubhayalingaadhikaraNa also it is well explained how upAsya brahma is sOpAdhika and kArya brahma and why the nirupAdhika jneya brahma is highest and shruti’s parama siddhAnta. Please note this adhikaraNa is dealing with how brahman in its svarUpa exists as against shUnyavAda and not here to advocate that yOgi-s would see Atman by focusing their mind at particular time like watching the highlights of cricket match whenever they want it by tuning the TV channel at particular time 😊
- What are they (Yogi) pasyanti?
Not the highlights of the Asia Cup Match between India and Pakistan😊
- 😊 yesterday’s match was very exciting….last over excitement in T20 always thrilling is it not, yOgi-s in jnana mArga should not strive to have this excitement at one particular point of time they should be there in their sahaja sthiti which they gained through shravaNadi sAdhana janita viveka/paramArtha jnAna, says jnananishTa-s.
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Sundar Rajan prabhuji
Hare Krishna
True. Sankara quotes Vamadeva’s example BSBh (III.iv.51) as an example of someone whose knowledge was obstructed in a previous life.
Wait.
In the same passage Sankara gives the example of a Yoga Bhrashta and quotes the Gita passages “There he is united with the intelligence acquired in his former body” (6.43). Clearly pointing out the Yoga Bhrashta carries on his Yoga practices even though the SMN may have occurred in the past.
So the scriptures don’t negate the possibility Vamadeva might have done Yoga/Samadhi in his past life 😊
Ø What is the mOksha sAdhana or what is the paramArtha jnana sAdhana in Advaita vedAnta?? If we know the answer to this then we will come to know what sort of sAdhana has been done by Rishi vAmadeva, bhagavAn ramaNa maharshi etc. What are those sAdhana-s?? yagnaM dAnaM tapaH, shamAdi etc. and direct sAdhana-s like SMN. sUtra bhAshya 3.4.27 relevant here. tatrApyevamvidit vidyAsaMyOgAtpratyAsannAni vidyAsAdhanAni shamAdeeni, vividishA saMyOgaattu baahyatarANi yajnAdeeni and in 3-4-51 yajnAdeenyapi sharvaNAdi dvArEnaiva vidyAm Jayanti ( through shravaNAdi sAdhana ONLY look the emphasis here dvAreNaiva). So, if at all vAmadeva realized Atman his sAdha in his previous janma should have been like this NOT yOga / samAdhi of PYS or YS as you are assuming. One important thing here we are comfortably ignoring or deliberately ignoring just to bring-in indispensability of yOga samAdhi is Atma is NOT the subject matter of jnana to ‘focus’ on it!! See 1.4.10 in br.bhAshya : tasmAt ajnAnAdhyArOpaNanivruttirevAtmAnamevAveetyuktaM, “ nAtmanO vishayeekaraNam”. So trying to focus the mind on Atman, or making the Atman as the jnana vishaya not at all possible when you consider the paramArtha tattva of Atman as per Advaita vedAnta. But if we want to indulge in dvaita YS sAdhana like dhyAna, samAdhi etc. Atman is the vishya on which mind will be focused since YS is NOT Atmaikatva darshana shAstra.
True. The student who was taught the 10th man story became enlightened. What about the rest who were pointed out multiple times? Are they enlightened?
Should they self-certify themselves as Jnanis because Shravana already occurred and they have done manana multiple times?
Considering the person for whom the 10th man story (or Shravana) did not produce the results (for whatever reasons – not fully prepared, obstructed etc), should they do nothing and wait for a Vamadeva like awakening in the next birth?
- I am really surprised you are raising trifle or should I say silly questions like this. It is as good as asking till what time we should grind the sAmbar material to use it for making sAmbAr of making it as sAmbAr powder?? The answer is obviously till material became sAmbAr powder…shankara, infact gives the example of puddy which has to be pounded till it become rice, nobody would ask the silly questions like how long should I pound the puddy 😊 nidhidhyAsana needs to be done till the jnAnOdaya it has to be repeatedly practiced till one get paripUrNa jnana. It is not like OK I read shruti understood that but I did not get the jnana that I am brahman so now I will get this jnana’s practical experience in mind inert state called samAdhi so henceforth I have to practice NS!!. And this type of samAdhi is not recommended in Advaita, guru mukhena vedAnta vAkya shravaNa, shrutyanugraheeta tarka (mananaM) nidhidhyAsanaM based on pUrNanubhava is the direct (pratyaksha) sAdhana for the Atma darshana.
Or should they keep reading the same story till one day it dawns on them?
Or should they continue with SMN? If they are continuing SMN, why not the “N” described in the 6th chapter? So choosing to practice instructions like in the 6th chapter (and retiring to a forest etc) is not outside the realm of possibility!.
- Whether it is first time SMN, last time SMN or continuous SMN that which SMN gives him paramArtha jnana that is the jnana bOdhaka sAdhana. Shwetaketu heard this 9 times, ramaNa realized this by just introspecting about ‘death’, arjuna had to listen lord all through the geeta…depends on adhikAratvaM one would get this jnana. And yOga samAdhi is NOT the short cut to get instant jnana 😊
As to whether Arjuna became a Jnani is not a concern for me or pertinent to the discussions here. However, there were some messages in this group pointing otherwise: https://www.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2021-June/056871.html
- See the geeta bhAshyakAra’s conclusion on arjuna’s status after hearing geetaamruta and after declaring himself that he got rid of mOha and regained consciousness.
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji
Hare Krishna
The state described in KaU 2.3.10, 11 is not of the inward journey but a destination state that is the culmination of the journey. That is samadhi where "the intellect [is] dissolved in the individual self" and the Atman shines as pure awareness, without adhyasa or vikshepa, "free from all specific features" and "free from the vagaries of the mind". It is quite opposite to sleep and the best semblance/intuition of Turiya or the paramarthika standpoint of Self (sans maya). This latter reason is what makes it worthy of being called the highest state.
Samadhi does not itself confer jnana, as I said before. You still need SMN to know what that experience denotes, just like you need SMN to know what every other experience denotes: Brahman. However, unlike every other experience clouded by maya/adhyasa, the 'self-experience' in samadhi mirrors so closely the descriptions of Self found in Sruthi - as sakshi, chaitanyam, pure awareness, sat-chit-ananda, nirguna, satyam-jnanam-anantam, advaitam - that this experience becomes a separate indicator for the knowledge of Self, and SMN/vichara can happen quicker or immediately when also utilizing the knowledge of this experience (than for those without it). It is not like SMN is outside the realm of the experience of duality; you are poking at the duality with shastraic knowledge and vichara to see beyond it and realize advaitam. This insight is all the more possible when there is experience that most closely resembles turiya and (when matched with SMN) negates reality of maya.
Ø Since here we are talking about vedAntic adhyAtma yOga and neither kapila’s sAnkhya nor yOga of Patanjali, I don’t think I have anything to disagree here. sEshwara sAnkhya like yOga is not meant here. If that is OK we don’t have any disagreement here. When I was talking about the inward journey the process of adhyAtma yOga was there in my mind. Where it is said that one should restrain speech in the mind noting the evil effect of thinking on external objects and merge the mind in jnana (intellect) the faculty of determination and that intellect one should merge in mahat Atman, the vijnAnAtman ( or the experiencing self) and this mahat Atman should be finally settled in sAnta Atman ( the Atman devoid of all multiplicities) which is the final goal of adhyAtma yOga. IOW, this yOga is only the practice of retreating from and withdrawing one’s natural tendency of extrovertness ( the outgoing nature of indriya-s) and finally realizing one’s own svarUpa with the absolute Atman and more importantly it has nothing to do with the chitta vrutti nirOdha of PYS ( suppression of the mind thoughts) which bhAshyakAra himself refuted in sUtra bhAshya.
Now is samadhi necessary after SMN? No. Samadhi coincides (for many) with atmasakshatkara at the end of dhyana based on SMN. For others, atmasakshatkara/jnana can happen through SMN without samadhi.
- 2-3-39 samAdhyabhAvAccha and bhAshya on it worth referring here. Here bhAshyakAra unequivocally clarifies that all theses texts recommended samAdhi needed only for intuiting the Atman taught by the Upanishads. The very text of the texts quoted here contains direct practice i.e. shravaNa, manana and nididhyAsana as the means for the vision of Atman or getting rid of ajnAnam / avidyA.
putran M
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB65817D571893B7355D7B70FC84769%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
Sundar Rajan
Pranams
>> Bhaskar-ji:More importantly it has nothing to do with the chitta vrutti nirOdha of PYS ( suppression of the mind thoughts) which bhAshyakAra himself refuted in sUtra bhAshya. >>
Stepping back and looking from the start of the message thread, I don’t recall Putran-ji, myself or any one else mentioning Patanjali Yoga. We have been citing Gita passages and Sankara’s commentary on it. Looks like a knee-jerk reaction anytime Yoga is mentioned. It appears Bhaskar-ji is building his own strawman and beating it.
(Strawman argument according to Google: By exaggerating,
misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's position to
make it easier to attack).
Interestingly the same so called objections/arguments have been presented since
2008 or so and Sri Vidyasankar Sundaresan (Sri VS) painstakingly countered
(=opposed, did not agree) to every one of such arguments!
Here are a couple of links:
https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2008-May/020207.html
Sri VS: The distinction between yogic dhyAna and vedAntic dhyAna is more Academic than one of practice.
https://advaita-l.advaita-vedanta.narkive.com/lWPOFBC7/discussion-on-the-role-of-yoga-in-adwaita#
Sri VS: Therefore, it follows that yoga can lend
itself to vastu-tantra AtmadarSana also.
Sri VS: This is an important point
to be noted by those who instinctively reject any usage of the
words, yoga or dhyAna or samAdhi, in a generic sense by later advaitins!.
Does all this ring a bell or a Déjà vu when reading the so-called objections? 😊
Enough of that for now. Returning to the subject at hand:
>> You elaborate the "fixing the mind on the Self" by "one should restrain speech in the mind noting the evil effect of thinking on external objects and merge the mind in jnana (intellect) the faculty of determination and that intellect one should merge in mahat Atman, the vijnAnAtman ( or the experiencing self) and this mahat Atman should be finally settled in sAnta Atman ( the Atman devoid of all multiplicities)". >>
This is the Yacched-van-manasi.. mantra of the Ka., 1.3.5 describing the Adhyatma yoga.
As Praveen Bhat-ji posted in a different thread https://groups.google.com/g/advaitin/c/288-Sk3K_Nk/m/jLEYNtr_AQAJ, some argue that Advaita Vedanta's nididhyAsana and Yoga's samAdhi are completely different. And that Adhyatma yoga is somehow very different!
On the contrary, Sri Madhusudan Saraswati cites this Yacched-van-manasi mantra and explains in great detail in the context of Gita 6.25 Making the mind fixed in the Self, one should not think of anything whatsoever!
Regards
sreenivasa murthy
sunil bhattacharjya
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/467844519.1123504.1661896577415%40mail.yahoo.com.
Sundar Rajan
Marathil marainthathu mamatha yaanai
Parathai maraithathu paarmuthal bootham
Parathai marainthathu paarmuthal boothame
Regards
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/1072775267.1451791.1661906763970%40mail.yahoo.com.
sreenivasa murthy
sunil bhattacharjya
Sundar Rajan
Furthermore, in terms of yoga practice and
techniques, why does it
matter what the texts of yoga say about the
origin of the universe? I don't
sunil bhattacharjya
Dear Sunil-ji,I tried to read with your substitutions, still doesn't make sense to me since I am unfamiliar with the terminology.In any case I think the gist of the argument is that Patanjali is a Dwaita shastra/yoga, advocates Chitta-Vritti -nirodha and takes you in a different direction than the destination of Adhyatma Yoga.Let me try a simple example : Say the advaitic destination is Bangalore, while the non Advaitic Patanjali destination is Mysore.When a advaitic yogic sadhaka is about to board the Shatabdi express in Chennai, there are folks jumping up and down saying: Hey this train is going to Mysore, not Bangalore. You need a train that goes to Bangalore. Don't board this train!To this, an advaitin's response would be: Boss, we know that. But this train stops at Bangalore and we will get off.
<1661972409056blob.jpg>
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/721866435.1369383.1661972541538%40mail.yahoo.com.
<1661972409056blob.jpg>
Sundar Rajan
Regards,Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji
Hare Krishna
I don't know details of chitta vritti nirodha of PYS.
- If my understanding right according to PYS, chitta vrutti nirOdha is with effort dragging the indriya-s inside, suppressing all external thoughts and fixing the mind on ANY ONE external thing like lotus, star or concentrating the mind on shatchakra-s etc. and as a result losing one’s individuality and getting completely immersed in that ‘dhyeyavastu’.
From what I can tell, it has a considerable intersection/overlap with BG 6.24,26 and Ka.U. 2.3.10,11.
a. By totally eschewing all desires which arise from thoughts, and restraining with the mind itself all the organs from every side
b. by restraining it from all those causes whatever due to which the restless, unsteady mind wanders away.
c. When the five organs of knowledge are at rest together with the mind, and when the intellect too does not function
It is not in itself the highest state. Krishna adds "Making the mind fixed in the Self, one should not think of anything whatsoever." Shankara adds "thus fixing the mind on the Self, one should not think of anything whatsoever. This is the highest instruction of Yoga."
You elaborate the "fixing the mind on the Self" by "one should restrain speech in the mind noting the evil effect of thinking on external objects and merge the mind in jnana (intellect) the faculty of determination and that intellect one should merge in mahat Atman, the vijnAnAtman ( or the experiencing self) and this mahat Atman should be finally settled in sAnta Atman ( the Atman devoid of all multiplicities)".
But then you add "it has nothing to do with the chitta vrutti nirOdha of PYS ( suppression of the mind thoughts)".
Ø For that matter kArika too talks about manOnigraha yOga and Advaita too recommends shama damAdi sAdhana but for entirely different purpose and in a different way. If you are with me with this observation as you detailed below, then we don’t have to contrast anything here about advaitic vedAnta sAdhana against yOga sAdhana of Patanjali.
We are also doing chitta-vritti nirodha in a, b and c above. How it is to be achieved and what remains even after is where we may vary with other schools. PYS also would not mean you become dead to consciousness (like in sleep) when you do chitta-vritti nirodha. But the fact that PYS comes to different conclusions than SMN based yoga tells us that there are fundamental differences as well between the two conceptions of yoga, or how yoga fits within advaita sadhana.
Ø Chittavrutti nirOdha (as explained in YS) is not the sAdhana prescribed in advaita’s jnana sAdhana is not my word it is bhAshyakAra’s word. See br. bhAshya 1-4-7 for the further details where bhAshyakAra explicitly says chitta vrutti nirOdha is NOT mOksha sAdhana. Anyway that you have already agreed I don’t think we have to stretch this further.
Bhaskar YR
praNAms
Hare Krishna
>> Bhaskar-ji:More importantly it has nothing to do with the chitta vrutti nirOdha of PYS ( suppression of the mind thoughts) which bhAshyakAra himself refuted in sUtra bhAshya. >>
Stepping back and looking from the start of the message thread, I don’t recall Putran-ji, myself or any one else mentioning Patanjali Yoga. We have been citing Gita passages and Sankara’s commentary on it. Looks like a knee-jerk reaction anytime Yoga is mentioned. It appears Bhaskar-ji is building his own strawman and beating it.
- I think Sri Sundar prabhuji comfortably forgetting my observation that the words like yOga, samAdhi, indriya / manO nigraha etc. donot have any problem in themselves but when these words used just to uphold PYS and there is an attempt to smell PY in these words then it is a subject matter of deliberation. And I also told him that if the yOga what has been enshrined in geeta and katha shruti is NOT PYS but it is adhyAtma yOga of vedAnta, we don’t have to have much deliberation. So his observation that I am working up just by seeing the word yOga, is his own erection of strawman and happily beating it thinking that I am averse to the word called yOga 😊
(Strawman argument according to Google: By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's position to make it easier to attack).
- This is what exactly I am seeing in your socalled attack on my position 😊
Interestingly the same so called objections/arguments have been presented since 2008 or so and Sri Vidyasankar Sundaresan (Sri VS) painstakingly countered (=opposed, did not agree) to every one of such arguments!
Sri VS: The distinction between yogic dhyAna and vedAntic dhyAna is more Academic than one of practice.
Sri VS: Therefore, it follows that yoga can lend itself to vastu-tantra AtmadarSana also.
- With all due respects to Sri Vidya prabhuji, if I remember, I have raised the objection to these conclusions during that discussion and discussion during the authorship of VC. If the yOga is an ‘alternative’ way of having the Atmadarshana then shAstra’s untyapramANa for the brahma jnana goes for a toss !! yOga in itself (yOga can lend itself vastu tantra jnana being questioned here) is not the Atmaikatva darshana shAstra it is dvaita shAstra and yOgic dhyAna is purusha tantra in which you can focus your mind on any external object (like lotus, star etc.) and on anAhatAdi shatchakra-s and you will get the state called asamprajnAta samAdhi where in as if you lose your identity and completely immersed in that focused object (svarUpa shUnyamiva samAdhiH) and vedAntic shravaNAdi based jnAna is vastu taNtra which is elaborated in shankara’s samanvayAdhikaraNa bhAshya while clarifying about dhyAna (kartum, akartuM anyathAkartum shakyam) and vedAntic jnana.
Sri VS: This is an important point to be noted by those who instinctively reject any usage of the words, yoga or dhyAna or samAdhi, in a generic sense by later advaitins!.
Does all this ring a bell or a Déjà vu when reading the so-called objections? 😊
- You are just assuming that objections are based on mere usage of certain words, that is only your strawman arguments which is not the actual case when later vyAkhyAnakAra-s deliberately dragging the PYS and unnecessarily linking of Atmaikatva svarUpa sahaja jnana with that of mind inert state called NS and mandatory or obligatory experience of this samAdhi AFTER SMN to get the paripUrNa jnana of Atman in a particular state. And after seeing all these bhAshya bAhira declarations, those prakaraNa grantha-s like JMV, VC, PD etc. have been critically analyzed and observed that these prakaraNa-s are doing more harm than favour to advaita’s pAramArthika siddhAnta.
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Sunilbhattachariya prabhuji
Hare Krishna
Probably Bhaskarji has been trying to clarify that (combination of S with Advaita Jnana + MN with Seshwara-Yoga) is not the same as (combination of S with anicchara-Sankhya + MN with nireeshwara-Yoga). For Advaita mukti one will have to achieve Chitta-Vritti-shunya state, while Chitta-Vritti -nirodha is OK tor the others. May be Bhaskarji will like to clarify.
My 2 cents
Ø I have corrected as per your mail. As you know both sAnkhya and yOga are dvaita shAstra-s. sAnkhya is pradhAna malla in shankara’s pUrvapaksha while refuting dvaita shAstra. So both nireeshwara sAnkhya and seshwara yOga ( since they accept the existence of Ishwara it is called sEshwara sAnkhya yOga) pUrvapaxis for the Advaita which shankara clearly refuted by saying that they are not AtmaikatvavAdins (dvaitinO he tE sAnkhyAH yOgAscha nAtmaikatva darshinaH Sutra bhAshya 2-1-3). Though these schools are pUrvapaxis, shankara was liberal enough to accept certain concepts in these dvaita shAstra and said paramataM apratishiddham anumataM bhavet. In that sense, ashtanga yOga’s preliminary steps like yama, niyama, Asana, pranayama, pratyahara etc. are in line with Advaita jnana sAdhana and to be followed. But the method of vedAntic dhAraNa, dhyAna and samAdhi differ from that of PYS’s ashtanga yOga. These three steps will be the determining factors in both advaita’s paramArtha jnana and YS’s samAdhi experience hence the method of doing these sAdhana-s are NOT as per PYS’s last three steps. Elsewhere bhAshyakAra clarifies this how dhyAna and nidhidhyAsana are purely vedAntic in its nature. With this backdrop we have to approach the dhyAna yOga in the 6th chapter of geeta and certain portion of katha shruti (which are very passionately quotable to substantiate the influence of PYS in Advaita sAdhana). The dhyAna yOga elaborated here is sAdhana of nidhidhyAsana after getting the chitta shuddhi through karma yOga. yOgArUdha, Arurukshu etc. define these sAdhana in the light of vedAnta’s prescribed karma yOga, chitta shuddhi, dhyAna yOga etc.
Just my 2 naya paisa thoughts.
Sundar Rajan
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
sunil bhattacharjya
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/1677843998.2018065.1662162058426%40mail.yahoo.com.
Sundar Rajan
Ø Chittavrutti nirOdha (as explained in YS) is not the sAdhana prescribed in advaita’s jnana sAdhana is not my word it is bhAshyakAra’s word. See br. bhAshya 1-4-7 for the further details where bhAshyakAra explicitly says chitta vrutti nirOdha is NOT mOksha sAdhana. Anyway that you have already agreed I don’t think we have to stretch this further.
>>
Here we go again. I thought I was a bit harsh when I characterized your position as Strawman argument (exaggerating, misrepresenting) but that is what you are doing exactly by presenting one side of the argument and leaving out the other side! Instead of me saying anything, listen to your ‘Guruji’ (your words calling Sri VS as Guruji, not mine) explain:
Quote
In the course of the discussion, he also rejects the notion that this is an injunction to practice citta vRtti nirodha.
This statement in BUBh 1.4.7 has often been misunderstood. What Sankara bhagavatpAda rejects here is the notion that the upanishad contains an injunction. He does not reject citta vRtti nirodha itself. This is made amply clear when he says that in fact, the only means to achieve a halt to various mental transformations is the steady recollection of Self-knowledge.
In other words, it is not as if practicing yoga (separately from studying vedAnta) to achieve citta-vRtti-nirodha will lead to Self-knowledge and thereby to liberation. Rather, it is Self-knowledge, obtained through vedAnta, and its recollection that directly leads to what the yoga school describes as its goal, namely citta-vRtti-nirodha.
ananya sAdhanatvAc ca nirodhasya | na hy
Atma-vijnAna-tat-smRti-saMtAna-vyatirekeNa citta-vRtti-nirodhasya sAdhanam
asti | abhyupagamya idam uktam | na tu brahma-vijnAna-vyatirekeNa
anyan-moksha-sAdhanam avagamyate |
However, Sankara does not reject citta-vRtti-nirodha itself. Far from it, indeed, he explains that Self-knowledge itself leads to citta-vRtti-nirodha.
End Quote
And again in a later discussion Sri VS elaborates on the same subject (https://groups.google.com/g/bvparishat/c/LxTVbmvPYo8/m/PwfEAphfWroJ) :
Quote
A careful reading of the शाङ्करभाष्य under एतेन योगः प्रत्युक्तः shows that the rejection of Yoga within the seminal construction of advaita vedAnta as a दर्शन is only partial. He explicitly says, about both Samkhya and Yoga, येनांशेन न विरुध्येते तेनेष्टमेव. The rest of this passage lays down in what sense a virodha exists and in what sense there is no virodha between non-dualistic vedAnta (based on the prasthAna traya source texts) and the firmly dualistic Samkhya and Yoga trends of thought (based on smRti texts and the yukti of individual thinkers of these schools). At least as far as advaita is concerned, what is rejected is (a) a plurality of purusha-s and (b) an ultimately real and distinct existence of prakRti. All other aspects where common ground can be found are indeed acceptable, under the nyAya, परमतमप्रतिषिद्धमनुमतं भवति (cited just before quoting yogasUtra 1.6). Commenting on the gItA allows Sankara an opportunity to do a higher order synthesis, while the bRhadAraNyaka line आत्मेत्येवोपासीत allows a discussion on how निष्ठा in advaita jnAna is itself the only sure means to nirodha of citta-vRtti.
What comes across as a medley of concepts is the पूर्वपक्ष presented by the pre-Sankaran vedAntin, who proposes to apply the Purva Mimamsa conception of vidhi to the Yoga goal of cittavRtti nirodha and wants to read the Upanishads as if they enjoin cittavRtti nirodha as a means to moksha. This medley of disparate concepts is rejected in the discussion under आत्मेत्येवोपासीत, based on a core thesis from the same Upanishads, namely that the AtmA is already existent, is always present in any cognition (even by the one who calls himself an ajnAnI) and is not a result of any action. So, in the advaita vedAnta interpretation, there can be no vidhi to realize one's own self, except in a very figurative sense. The advaitin's rejection of Purva Mimamsa in these matters is much more striking than any rejection of Yoga under एतेन योगः प्रत्युक्तः. For non-advaita schools, which do not quite see the non-agency of the self in the same way, there can surely be other ways to acknowledge the concepts and practices of Yoga.
End Quote
This is a lengthy laborious post and I am posting this on this labor day weekend 😊 to make sure the audience here sees both sides of the story and not just a myopic opinion that has been rejected in the past!
Regards
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
Sundar Rajan
>>In that sense, ashtanga yOga’s preliminary steps like yama, niyama, Asana, pranayama, pratyahara etc. are in line with Advaita jnana sAdhana and to be followed. But the method of vedAntic dhAraNa, dhyAna and samAdhi differ from that of PYS’s ashtanga yOga. These three steps will be the determining factors in both advaita’s paramArtha jnana and YS’s samAdhi experience hence the method of doing these sAdhana-s are NOT as per PYS’s last three steps
Pranams Everyone!Can you let us know in detail where these differences lie and what they consist of, instead of just blurting out they are different?
or is this a case of armchair critic? I hope not. ( an armchair critic from Google: a person who knows about a subject only by reading or hearing about it and criticizes without active experience or first-hand knowledge)
Regards
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
sunil bhattacharjya
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/764712427.2412027.1662398218844%40mail.yahoo.com.
Venkatraghavan S
skbhattacharjya
Raman.M
[/quote]
Yoga and Advaita are ancient philosophies and played a significant role in the development of Indian spirituality. While Yoga can be aligned with any philosophy or religion, with minor modifications, Advaita is a Vedic philosophy which is traditionally associated with Hinduism and its sectarian traditions only. It is also difficult to align Advaita with other philosophical systems of Hinduism. However, it has its parallels in the Sunyavada school of Buddhism. It can also be associated with applied aspects of Yoga.
[/unquote]
Complete text available at:
From: 'Sundar Rajan' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 10:04 AM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Verses for contemplation on Janmashtami
>>
In that sense, ashtanga yOga’s preliminary steps like yama, niyama, Asana, pranayama, pratyahara etc. are in line with Advaita jnana sAdhana and to be followed. But the method of vedAntic dhAraNa, dhyAna and samAdhi differ from that of PYS’s ashtanga yOga. These three steps will be the determining factors in both advaita’s paramArtha jnana and YS’s samAdhi experience hence the method of doing these sAdhana-s are NOT as per PYS’s last three steps
>>
I didn't realize our resident expert on Sankara Bhasyas is also an expert Yogi Pranams Everyone!
>> not a reflection of maturity IMO
Patanjali Yoga Sutras are a practioners guide on mind control. As such the definition of dharana is generic and not tied to a 'system' - “binding” the mind to one place, idea, or object. I fail to see how the concept of dharana which is generic and object neutral can be different.
Every discussion that brings in the word dhyAna, you jump up and down and want to point out that this is "different" from dhyAna in pAtanjala yoga. This presumes that you know very well what is described as dhyAna in the yoga texts, and how that is different from dhyAna in vedAnta.
Can you let us know in detail where these differences lie and what they consist of, instead of just blurting out they are different?
or is this a case of armchair critic? I hope not. ( an armchair critic from Google: a person who knows about a subject only by reading or hearing about it and criticizes without active experience or first-hand knowledge)
unwanted and irrelevant accusation. As far as I can see, Shri Bhaskar-ji has not stepped out to make any name calling, nor has he displayed any lack of knowledge or awareness in the contents that he has put forth. Further, I don’t see any difference in how one gains knowledge and uses them as long as they show sincerity, continuity and consistency in what and how they express.On the contrary, sorry to say much of what you have written, given my limited read has been more of a self brag and ‘fishing for trouble’ message largely bordering on irrelavance to the core topic of this forum. I would be least concerned and completely accepting if your further posts are being moderated or withheld Regards
On Friday, September 2, 2022 at 03:43:09 AM PDT, 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
praNAms Sri Sunilbhattachariya prabhuji
Hare Krishna
Probably Bhaskarji has been trying to clarify that (combination of S with Advaita Jnana + MN with Seshwara-Yoga) is not the same as (combination of S with anicchara-Sankhya + MN with nireeshwara-Yoga). For Advaita mukti one will have to achieve Chitta-Vritti-shunya state, while Chitta-Vritti -nirodha is OK tor the others. May be Bhaskarji will like to clarify.
My 2 cents
Ø I have corrected as per your mail. As you know both sAnkhya and yOga are dvaita shAstra-s. sAnkhya is pradhAna malla in shankara’s pUrvapaksha while refuting dvaita shAstra. So both nireeshwara sAnkhya and seshwara yOga ( since they accept the existence of Ishwara it is called sEshwara sAnkhya yOga) pUrvapaxis for the Advaita which shankara clearly refuted by saying that they are not AtmaikatvavAdins (dvaitinO he tE sAnkhyAH yOgAscha nAtmaikatva darshinaH Sutra bhAshya 2-1-3). Though these schools are pUrvapaxis, shankara was liberal enough to accept certain concepts in these dvaita shAstra and said paramataM apratishiddham anumataM bhavet. In that sense, ashtanga yOga’s preliminary steps like yama, niyama, Asana, pranayama, pratyahara etc. are in line with Advaita jnana sAdhana and to be followed. But the method of vedAntic dhAraNa, dhyAna and samAdhi differ from that of PYS’s ashtanga yOga. These three steps will be the determining factors in both advaita’s paramArtha jnana and YS’s samAdhi experience hence the method of doing these sAdhana-s are NOT as per PYS’s last three steps. Elsewhere bhAshyakAra clarifies this how dhyAna and nidhidhyAsana are purely vedAntic in its nature. With this backdrop we have to approach the dhyAna yOga in the 6th chapter of geeta and certain portion of katha shruti (which are very passionately quotable to substantiate the influence of PYS in Advaita sAdhana). The dhyAna yOga elaborated here is sAdhana of nidhidhyAsana after getting the chitta shuddhi through karma yOga. yOgArUdha, Arurukshu etc. define these sAdhana in the light of vedAnta’s prescribed karma yOga, chitta shuddhi, dhyAna yOga etc.
Just my 2 naya paisa thoughts.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/260611018.2525530.1662438863746%40mail.yahoo.com.
Sundar Rajan
Pranams Bhaskar-ji and others,
I agree what was supposed to be a gentle jibe got rather personal and I apologize for that. This topic has grown long in the tooth (some of it since 2006), and one might say it’s getting old.
Venkatraghavan-ji now and many others in the past have established that PYS as a practical system is useful to traditional Vedanta even if its philosophy is dualistic.
To explain this further, something posted by Sri Vidyasankar caught my attention and is a good starting point for a discussion on 'Practical System':
After all (as Swami Sarvapriyananda puts it) Nidhidhyasana is answering the question : Is it real for me?
https://groups.google.com/g/advaitin/c/bFD60iPJTLA/m/3745BHXHAAAJ
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Venkataraghavan prabhuji
Hare Krishna
The refutation of yoga in advaita is with respect to those aspects that are in contradiction to Veda (vedanirapeksha). As the bhAShyakAra points out in the yoga-pratyukti-adhikaraNam - निराकरणं तु — न... वेदनिरपेक्षेण योगमार्गेण वा निःश्रेयसमधिगम्यत इति.
Ø Yes, this is what I have been telling, may be my articulation of my thoughts not upto the mark. But paramatam apratishiddhaM anumataM bhavati I quoted bhAshyakAra’s observation with regard to this. And we can also remember here shankara’s support to Kapila praNeeta sAnkhya with regard to ‘guNa gauNa vyApAra nirUpaNa’ in geeta 18 – 19 shloka bhAshya though sAnkhya going against veda paramArtha : brahAtmaikatvaM. And from this, it is also quite evident that bhAshyakAra intended to say that there is *something* in sAnkhya and yOga doctrines in contradiction to veda.
This adhikaraNam is what is known as an "atidesha adhikaraNam", meaning a topic which uses the reasoning provided in another adhikaraNam. Here, the reasoning used is the one from the previous adhikaraNam where sAnkhya smRti is refuted on the grounds that it is in contradiction with the Veda.
Whenever there is an atidesha adhikaraNam, there is a necessity to justify why such an adhikaraNam is needed in the first place. As the sUtra-s place a high degree of importance on brevity, if something can be achieved without introducing a new sUtra, the sUtrakAra would not have drafted a new sUtra for that purpose. Therefore, why was a separate adhikaraNam needed to refute the yoga system if the same reasoning to refute the sAnkhya system was sufficient to refute yoga too?
It is because there is an additional doubt - an adhikA shankA - that remains with yoga even after sAnkhya is refuted on the grounds of being contradictory to the Veda. That additional doubt is that in the Veda itself, the nididhyAsitavyah vidhi - instruction to meditate upon the Atma - appears to be enjoining the dhyAna of the yoga system. Therefore, the additional doubt is that as there are parts of the yoga that seem to be accepted by the Shruti, can the yoga system be falsified? If it cannot be falsified, perhaps the philosophical elements (such as pradhAna being the cause of the universe etc) also cannot be set aside.
If there was absolutely no possibility of the dhyAna of yoga being the nididhyAsa of vedAnta, no doubt would be possible. If no doubt was possible, there would be no need for another adhikaraNa to refute yoga. Therefore, the first thing that we can infer from the very fact that there is an adhikaraNa to refute the yoga system, is the possibility of the dhyAna of the yoga system being the nididhyAsa of vedAnta.
Ø And additionally I reckon that yOga refuted here is sEshwara sAnkhya which is different from kapila’s sAnkhya, so that sUtrakAra dedicated two different sUtra-s to refute these two dvaita schools ?
Secondly, the bhAShyakAra does not refute that dhyAna serves as an aid in the rise of jnAna, what he refutes is that being the basis for the acceptance of the philosophy of yoga, even where it happens to be in contradiction with the Veda.
As he says अतः सम्प्रतिपन्नार्थैकदेशत्वादष्टकादिस्मृतिवद्योगस्मृतिरप्यनपवदनीया भविष्यतीति — इयमभ्यधिका शङ्कातिदेशेन निवर्त्यते, अर्थैकदेशसम्प्रतिपत्तावप्यर्थैकदेशविप्रतिपत्तेः पूर्वोक्ताया दर्शनात् ।
Ø And in same adhikaraNa bhAshya : yattu darshanamuktaM…….vaidikameva tatra jnAnaM dhyAnaM cha……ityavagantavyaM ( which you quoted below)…here bhAshyakAra very clear as per context in veda what is vedAntic jnana and dhyAna. For attaining mOksha through the means of sAnkhya and yOga contextually these words to be understood that it is the vedic knowledge (of Atman) and the vedic meditation, since THAT ALONE would be a mere direct reference in the context. The katha shruti more emphatically says what this yOga is in 2-12 adhyAtmayOgaadhigamena devaM matvA dheerO ershashOkaU jahaati. So adhyAmayOga is what both shruti and shankara recommended and not dvaita yOga. The procedure further elaborated in 3-12 and 3-13 in katha shruti itself.
He is saying that even though one aspect of yoga is accepted (अर्थैकदेशसम्प्रतिपत्तावपि), as another aspect is not (अर्थैकदेशविप्रतिपत्तेः), the possibility of the yoga system being acceptable in totality is refuted, on the atidesha (the reasoning adopted previously). So what is the aspect of yoga that is accepted (arthaikadesha-sampratipatti)?
When the bhAShyakAra introduces the adhikA shankA in the beginning of the commentary, he says - अस्ति ह्यत्राभ्यधिकाशङ्का — सम्यग्दर्शनाभ्युपायो हि योगो वेदे विहितः — ‘ श्रोतव्यो मन्तव्यो निदिध्यासितव्यः’ (बृ. उ. २ । ४ । ५) इति. However, later on when he refutes the yoga system the basis for his refutation is:
a) the shruti itself says that the only means to moksha is the knowledge of the oneness of the Atma known through the upaniShads (there being no other means), whereas the yoga system is dvaita in nature, which does not accept that the Atma is one. श्रुतिर्हि वैदिकादात्मैकत्वविज्ञानादन्यन्निःश्रेयससाधनं वारयति — ‘ तमेव विदित्वाति मृत्युमेति नान्यः पन्था विद्यतेऽयनाय’ (श्वे. उ. ३ । ८) इति ; द्वैतिनो हि ते साङ्ख्या योगाश्च नात्मैकत्वदर्शिनः ।
b) when the veda refers to the word dhyAna, it is referring to a vedantic dhyAna - वैदिकमेव तत्र ज्ञानं ध्यानं च साङ्ख्ययोगशब्दाभ्यामभिलप्येते प्रत्यासत्तेरित्यवगन्तव्यम्
Ø Why especially in this adhikaraNa itself bhAshyakAra tried to contrast this vedic dhyAna with that of yOga?? That gives more clarity with regard to sAdhana through vedic dhyAna is something different from yOga dhyAna which prescribes to fix the mind on any objects or shat chakra-s.
Therefore, reading between the lines, Shankaracharya is not denying that yoga can be a means to samyag-darshana, what he is denying is the non-vedic aspects of the yoga being a means to samyag darsha.
- When it is clearly stated that meditation (yOga) here means vedic dhyAna obviously we don’t have anything to refute that dhyAna / yOga is not a means. And IMHO there is no need to again bring in here dvaita yOga to again clarify that non-vedic aspects being refuted here. In the first usage of the word yOga is vedic dhyAna that itself would suffice to show that yOga being quoted here is vedic dhyAna and nothing else. Or am I missing something here?? Please clarify.
Even when it comes to dhyAna, there is no explicit denial of yogic dhyAna, rather there is an affirmation of such a dhyAna being vedic.
- Any bhAshya reference for this prabhuji?? Please let me know.
Where there is an overlap between vedic dhyAna and yogic dhyAna, there is no denial. Where there is a divergence, there is denial.
Ø It is due to this divergence from vedic dhyAna, the yOgic dhyAna is being treated differently is it not?? In which aspects there is an overlap between vedic dhyAna and yOgic dhyAna to conclude that there is no denial!!?? Please excuse me not clear to me and elaboration requested.
In summary - it appears to me that in Shankaracharya's view, if there is any aspect of any system that leads to moksha, it is because in that aspect, there is an overlap between that system and the veda - in all cases, it is Vedantic sentences that are the ultimate source of the knowledge that confers liberation, samyag darshana. There is textual evidence for this conclusion. As Shankaracharya concludes the yoga-pratyukti-adhikaraNam, he raises the prospects of nyAya smRti being an aid to liberation (he is using the reasoning from the denial of yoga for the denial of nyAya). There, he concludes by saying, if the reasoning of nyAya helps in the rise of knowledge, so be it, but the source of samyag darshana is Vedantic sentences alone. तान्यपि तर्कोपपत्तिभ्यां तत्त्वज्ञानायोपकुर्वन्तीति चेत् , उपकुर्वन्तु नाम ; तत्त्वज्ञानं तु वेदान्तवाक्येभ्य एव भवति.
Ø Agree with you prabhuji.
Coming to the practice of vedAnta today, traditional maTha-s established by Shankaracharya do not deny the utility of aShTAnga yoga. The birudAvaLI of the AchArya-s of the Sringeri maTham for example, has the epithet यमनियमासनप्राणायामप्रत्याहारधारणाध्यानसमाध्यष्टाङ्गयोगानुष्ठाननिष्ठ in it amongst other ones, describing the AchArya-s of the AmnAya pITham as practitioners of the eight-limbed system (aShTAnga yoga anuShThAna niShTha).
Ø Do we really have to read more like this in birudAvaLi prabhuji!!?? though answer is big emphatic yes I don’t sincerely think this is pramANa vaakya to accommodate ashtanga yOga sAdhana as a means to Advaita paramArtha jnana rather I would go by bhAshyakara’s recommendation that SMN of vedAnta vAkya as direct means.
Thus, it appears that both from the words of Shankaracharya and their application in the practice of Vedanta by traditional followers of his teachings, the aShTAnga yoga system in total is not problematic to traditional Vedanta, it is when the philosophy deviates from the teaching of the Upanishads where there is a disagreement.
- Completely agreed prabhuji when the ultimate destination (siddhAnta) itself is wrong or wrongly placed how can we trust the map (sAdhana) !!??
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Sundar Rajan prabhuji
Hare Krishna
I didn't realize our resident expert on Sankara Bhasyas is also an expert Yogi Pranams
Everyone!
Ø No prabhuji in the beginning itself I have clarified I am neither a paramArtha jnAni nor have any experience in NS 😊
Can you let us know in detail where these differences lie and what they consist of, instead of just blurting out they are different?
or is this a case of armchair critic? I hope not. ( an armchair critic from Google: a person who knows about a subject only by reading or hearing about it and criticizes without active experience or first-hand knowledge)
Ø I am perfectly matching with the definition you provided for armchair critic rather revolving chair critic ( most of the mails I write from office sitting in AC room on revolving chair 😊 I am not a sAdhaka purely a loukika. In a way karma bhrashta as well spending official hours at office writing / discussing about vedAnta. You are always welcome to discontinue discussions with ajnAni-s / armchair philosopher like me.
Bhaskar YR
praNAms
Hare Krishna
However, it has its parallels in the Sunyavada school of Buddhism. It can also be associated with applied aspects of Yoga.
- shunyavAda, kshaNikavAda, vijnAnavAda offshoots of Buddhism are pUrvapaxis to advaitins and though certain aspects of yOga (sAdhana part) can be linked with Advaita sAdhana the doctrinal difference is quite huge. Interestingly vedAntins at the time of shankara were all advaitins ie. Atmaikatva vAdins or agreeing to the uniformity of shruti siddhAnta with regard to identity of the jeevaatma and paramAtma. If this same bhAshyakAra refutes sAnkhya or yOga means they are not AtmaikatvavAdins more importantly they are not the followers of shruti verdict.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
|
Bhaskar YR
|
Venkatraghavan S
Therefore, reading between the lines, Shankaracharya is not denying that yoga can be a means to samyag-darshana, what he is denying is the non-vedic aspects of the yoga being a means to samyag darsha.
- When it is clearly stated that meditation (yOga) here means vedic dhyAna obviously we don’t have anything to refute that dhyAna / yOga is not a means. And IMHO there is no need to again bring in here dvaita yOga to again clarify that non-vedic aspects being refuted here. In the first usage of the word yOga is vedic dhyAna that itself would suffice to show that yOga being quoted here is vedic dhyAna and nothing else. Or am I missing something here?? Please clarify.
Even when it comes to dhyAna, there is no explicit denial of yogic dhyAna, rather there is an affirmation of such a dhyAna being vedic.
- Any bhAshya reference for this prabhuji?? Please let me know.
Where there is an overlap between vedic dhyAna and yogic dhyAna, there is no denial. Where there is a divergence, there is denial.
Ø It is due to this divergence from vedic dhyAna, the yOgic dhyAna is being treated differently is it not??
In which aspects there is an overlap between vedic dhyAna and yOgic dhyAna to conclude that there is no denial!!??
Coming to the practice of vedAnta today, traditional maTha-s established by Shankaracharya do not deny the utility of aShTAnga yoga. The birudAvaLI of the AchArya-s of the Sringeri maTham for example, has the epithet यमनियमासनप्राणायामप्रत्याहारधारणाध्यानसमाध्यष्टाङ्गयोगानुष्ठाननिष्ठ in it amongst other ones, describing the AchArya-s of the AmnAya pITham as practitioners of the eight-limbed system (aShTAnga yoga anuShThAna niShTha).
Ø Do we really have to read more like this in birudAvaLi prabhuji!!?? though answer is big emphatic yes I don’t sincerely think this is pramANa vaakya to accommodate ashtanga yOga sAdhana as a means to Advaita paramArtha jnana rather I would go by bhAshyakara’s recommendation that SMN of vedAnta vAkya as direct means.
Thus, it appears that both from the words of Shankaracharya and their application in the practice of Vedanta by traditional followers of his teachings, the aShTAnga yoga system in total is not problematic to traditional Vedanta, it is when the philosophy deviates from the teaching of the Upanishads where there is a disagreement.
- Completely agreed prabhuji when the ultimate destination (siddhAnta) itself is wrong or wrongly placed how can we trust the map (sAdhana) !!??
Venkatraghavan S
In which aspects there is an overlap between vedic dhyAna and yOgic dhyAna to conclude that there is no denial!!??
Raghav Kumar
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
Raghav Kumar
On Wed, 7 Sep 2022 at 9:40 pm, Venkatraghavan S<agni...@gmail.com> wrote:
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
Venkatraghavan S
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/1978685551.793026.1662612248668%40mail.yahoo.com.
Bhaskar YR
In my view, he is denying that yoga is the kAraNa (direct means) of tattvajnAna, but he does not have a problem saying yoga is an abhyupAya (or a proximate cause / supporting cause) for the rise of tattvajnAna, with shruti being the direct means / main cause.
The bhAShya support for the second part of the statement "there is an affirmation of such a dhyAna being vedic" is more straight forward, ie वैदिकमेव तत्र ज्ञानं ध्यानं च साङ्ख्ययोगशब्दाभ्यामभिलप्येते
praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji
Hare Krishna
That is more of a balanced view point to accommodate and give an entry to PY’s ashtanga yOga sAdhana as this has been insisted by Advaita sampradaya Acharya-s and hence pramANa in the form of Apta Acharya vAkya. Sri Putran prabhuji also talked about it. The experience of yOga samAdhi aided by SMN. Coming back to 2-1-3 Su. Bh. Shankara is quite explicit on his take of both sAnkhya and yOga is it not?? When he is talking about popularity of both sAnkhya and yOga (sAnkhyayOgaU hi paramapurushArthasAdhanatvena lOke prakhyAtau) he wanted to take these schools for refutation and clearly said : neither through the knowledge of sAnkhya nor through the yOgamArga independent of veda can the highest Good be attained. The shruti rejects all other references as means except the intuition of the one truth as it says nAnyaH panthA vidyateyanaaya, there is no other path to attainment than this knowledge. Than comes his verdict the sAnkhyas and the yOgas are all dualists and not seers of the AtmaikatvaM. The practice of ashtanga yOga as upAya might be a reasonable and subsidiary step for the chitta shuddhi that can also be achieved through nishkAma karma (karma phala tyAga) which is more vedic in its practice. I think to draw this subtle difference between vedic dhyAna and yOga dhyAna bhAshyakAra has taken all the trouble to clarify that sAnkhya is referring to vedic intuition and NOT kapila’s discrimination of the prakruti & purusha and vedic contemplation on Atman as dhyAna which is NOT dhyAna leading to samAdhi ( some trance state in a mind inert state) as taught in PYS.
But as a matter of fact, prakaraNa grantha-s like VC, JMV, PD etc. and bhAmatikAra and vivaraNakAra in their vyAkhyAna-s not merely giving the secondary position to these yOga based practices but repeatedly insisted about the obligatory experience of NS (PY’s asamprajnata samAdhi of PYS) which has to be achieved through dhyAna hence as per their contention nidhidhyAsana is dhyAna and drashtavyaH means Atman is to be ‘seen’ by means of experience in samAdhi or mystic trance. And some other vyAkhyAnakAra goes to the extent and said, the literal experience of Atmaikatva darshana happens ONLY in yOgic trance asamprajnAtha samAdhi and when he wakes up from this samAdhi the perception of duality is due to the defect caused by the prArabdha karma phala and avidyA lesha and which can subside only after the mortal coil is given-up!!?? And as per these stands, at any stretch of imagination PYS’s ashtanga yOga is not mere upAya or subsidiary but OTOH it is indispensable to have atmaikatva darshana in the state of samAdhi.
Sundar Rajan
>> The experience of yOga samAdhi aided by SMN. >>
It is the opposite. Samadhi (samAdhy abhAvAc ca) is taught (samādhirupadiṣṭō vēdāntēṣu) as the means for the realization of the self (ātmapratipattiprayōjanaḥ) that is known from the Upanishads alone (BS 2.3.29). So Sankara considers Samadhi as an aid to the final stages of Nidhidhyasana in SMN (ātmā vā arē draṣṭavyaḥ śrōtavyō mantavyō nididhyāsitavyah) not the other way around. Not an independent means but an aid to Nidhidhyasana.
Also if Yoga is just for Chitta Suddhi , meaning to achieve ekagratha, then why would Gitacharya advocating Niruddham Yogasevaya (Gita 6.20) implying going beyond ekagratha to the Niriddha plane. And Sankara’s commentary on that verse samādhipariśuddhēna antaḥkaraṇēna clearly indicates going well beyond Chitta Suddhi.
>> But as a matter of fact, prakaraNa grantha-s like VC, JMV, PD etc. and bhAmatikAra and vivaraNakAra in their vyAkhyAna-s not merely giving the secondary position to these yOga based practices ..
And as per these stands, at any stretch of imagination PYS’s ashtanga yOga is not mere upAya or subsidiary but OTOH it is indispensable to have atmaikatva darshana in the state of samAdhi. >>
This particular link to PYS’s ashtanga yOga and the upadeSa of dhyAna/samAdhi is made not by later Acharayas who wrote JMV or not even by neo-Vedantins like Swami Vivekananda.
It is right there, in the sUtra-s (etena yogaH pratyuktaH) and the bhAshya.Sankara quotes 'tāṅ yōgamiti manyantē sthirāmindriyadhāraṇām' iti’ (Katha Up) widely recognized as the mantra that defines Samadhi and 'śrōtavyō mantavyō nididhyāsitavyaḥ' – again a mantra that Sankara Himself ties to Samadhi in BS 2.3.29!
Regards
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
sunil bhattacharjya
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/1094613379.603581.1662665771921%40mail.yahoo.com.
Sundar Rajan
>> The experience of yOga samAdhi aided by SMN. >>
I see it slightly different. Samadhi (samAdhy abhAvAc ca BS 2.3.39) is taught (samādhirupadiṣṭō vēdāntēṣu) as the means for the realization of the self (ātmapratipattiprayōjanaḥ) that is known from the Upanishads alone. So Sankara considers Samadhi as an aid to the final stages of Nidhidhyasana in SMN (ātmā vā arē draṣṭavyaḥ śrōtavyō mantavyō nididhyāsitavyah) not the other way around. Not an independent means but an aid to Nidhidhyasana.
>> Coming back to 2-1-3 Su. Bh. Shankara is quite explicit on his take of both sAnkhya and yOga is it not??..>>
>>The practice of ashtanga yOga as upAya might be a reasonable and subsidiary step for the chitta shuddhi that can also be achieved through nishkAma karma (karma phala tyAga) which is more vedic in its practice. >>
Also if Yoga is just for Chitta Shuddhi , meaning to achieve ekagratha, then why would Gitacharya advocate Niruddham Yogasevaya (Gita 6.20) implying going beyond ekagratha to the Niruddha plane. And Sankara’s commentary on that verse samādhipariśuddhēna antaḥkaraṇēna clearly indicates going well beyond Chitta Shuddhi.
To put it simply, Dhyana-Yoga is antaranga Sadhana while Karma Yoga is bahiranga Sadhana.
>> But as a matter of fact, prakaraNa grantha-s like VC, JMV, PD etc. and bhAmatikAra and vivaraNakAra in their vyAkhyAna-s not merely giving the secondary position to these yOga based practices ..And as per these stands, at any stretch of imagination PYS’s ashtanga yOga is not mere upAya or subsidiary but OTOH it is indispensable to have atmaikatva darshana in the state of samAdhi. >>
The link to PYS’s ashtanga yOga and the upadeSa of dhyAna/samAdhi is made not by later Acharayas who wrote JMV or not even by neo-Vedantins like Swami Vivekananda.
It is right there, in the sUtra-s (etena yogaH pratyuktaH) and the bhAshya.
Sankara quotes 'tāṅ yōgamiti manyantē sthirāmindriyadhāraṇām' iti’ (Katha Up) widely recognized as the mantra that defines Samadhi and 'śrōtavyō mantavyō nididhyāsitavyaḥ' – again a mantra that Sankara Himself ties to Samadhi in BS 2.3.39.
Regards
In my view, he is denying that yoga is the kAraNa (direct means) of tattvajnAna, but he does not have a problem saying yoga is an abhyupAya (or a proximate cause / supporting cause) for the rise of tattvajnAna, with shruti being the direct means / main cause.
The bhAShya support for the second part of the statement "there is an affirmation of such a dhyAna being vedic" is more straight forward, ie वैदिकमेव तत्र ज्ञानं ध्यानं च साङ्ख्ययोगशब्दाभ्यामभिलप्येते
praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji
Hare Krishna
That is more of a balanced view point to accommodate and give an entry to PY’s ashtanga yOga sAdhana as this has been insisted by Advaita sampradaya Acharya-s and hence pramANa in the form of Apta Acharya vAkya. Sri Putran prabhuji also talked about it. The experience of yOga samAdhi aided by SMN. Coming back to 2-1-3 Su. Bh. Shankara is quite explicit on his take of both sAnkhya and yOga is it not?? When he is talking about popularity of both sAnkhya and yOga (sAnkhyayOgaU hi paramapurushArthasAdhanatvena lOke prakhyAtau) he wanted to take these schools for refutation and clearly said : neither through the knowledge of sAnkhya nor through the yOgamArga independent of veda can the highest Good be attained. The shruti rejects all other references as means except the intuition of the one truth as it says nAnyaH panthA vidyateyanaaya, there is no other path to attainment than this knowledge. Than comes his verdict the sAnkhyas and the yOgas are all dualists and not seers of the AtmaikatvaM. The practice of ashtanga yOga as upAya might be a reasonable and subsidiary step for the chitta shuddhi that can also be achieved through nishkAma karma (karma phala tyAga) which is more vedic in its practice. I think to draw this subtle difference between vedic dhyAna and yOga dhyAna bhAshyakAra has taken all the trouble to clarify that sAnkhya is referring to vedic intuition and NOT kapila’s discrimination of the prakruti & purusha and vedic contemplation on Atman as dhyAna which is NOT dhyAna leading to samAdhi ( some trance state in a mind inert state) as taught in PYS.
But as a matter of fact, prakaraNa grantha-s like VC, JMV, PD etc. and bhAmatikAra and vivaraNakAra in their vyAkhyAna-s not merely giving the secondary position to these yOga based practices but repeatedly insisted about the obligatory experience of NS (PY’s asamprajnata samAdhi of PYS) which has to be achieved through dhyAna hence as per their contention nidhidhyAsana is dhyAna and drashtavyaH means Atman is to be ‘seen’ by means of experience in samAdhi or mystic trance. And some other vyAkhyAnakAra goes to the extent and said, the literal experience of Atmaikatva darshana happens ONLY in yOgic trance asamprajnAtha samAdhi and when he wakes up from this samAdhi the perception of duality is due to the defect caused by the prArabdha karma phala and avidyA lesha and which can subside only after the mortal coil is given-up!!?? And as per these stands, at any stretch of imagination PYS’s ashtanga yOga is not mere upAya or subsidiary but OTOH it is indispensable to have atmaikatva darshana in the state of samAdhi.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
|
Bhaskar YR
|
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit