The role of samAdhi in vedAnta

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sundar Rajan ji, Bhaskar ji,

I have changed the subject line in case people in the future search this topic. If it is technically feasible, the moderators may want to do that for prior messages with the old subject line.

My understanding of the word samAdhi in sUtra 2.3.39, samAdhyabhAvAcca, is as an upalakshaNa for jnAna sAdhana for shravaNa, manana, nididhyAsana. However there are differences of opinion in this regard.

That is how ratnaprabhA / nyAyanirNaya/ bhAShyabhAvaprakAshikA treat it (as jnAna sAdhana).

bhAmatI, interestingly, says that the word samAdhi is an upalakshaNa for the yogic samyama comprising dhAraNA, dhyAna and samAdhi. It goes on to say that the upaniShad statements shrotavyah and mantavyah refer to the dhAraNA limb and nididhyAsitavyah refers to dhyAna limb, with draShTavyah referring to samAdhi. 

The prakaTArthavivaraNam interprets the word samAdhi to chittasamyamanam in general (restraining the mind) and not to the specific samyama mentioned in the yogasUtras.

That being said, I think the application of yoga is both helpful for chittashuddhi (preparation for jnAnasAdhana) and during jnAnasAdhana. The gItAbhAshya of the verse 6.20 is particularly illuminating in this regard.

यत्रोपरमते चित्तं निरुद्धं योगसेवया ।

यत्र चैवात्मनात्मानं पश्यन्नात्मनि तुष्यति ॥ २० ॥

In the above verse, the one word, Atma is used in the instrumental case as AtmanA, in the object case as AtmAnam and in the locative case as Atmani.

In the commentary to the verse by the bhAShyakAra, he says:

यत्र यस्मिन् काले उपरमते चित्तम् उपरतिं गच्छति निरुद्धं सर्वतो निवारितप्रचारं योगसेवया योगानुष्ठानेन, यत्र चैव यस्मिंश्च काले आत्मना समाधिपरिशुद्धेन अन्तःकरणेन आत्मानं परं चैतन्यं ज्योतिःस्वरूपं पश्यन् उपलभमानः स्वे एव आत्मनि तुष्यति तुष्टिं भजते ॥ २० ॥

The instrumental case usage of the Atma (AtmanA) refers to a mind that is both quietened by yoga and purified by samAdhi. Then the supreme Atma is seen (AtmAnam), referring to aparoksha sAkshAtkAra. The paramAtma is the one that is denoted by the usage of Atma in the objective case ending. When that happens, the seer remains contented within himself (Atmani), here the word Atma is used in the locative sense.

Anandagiri interprets AtmAnam to be the tatpadArtha and Atmani to be the tvampadArthaviShaya:

 

कर्मकारकत्वेन निर्दिष्टम्  आत्मानं तत्पदार्थत्वेन व्याचष्टे - परमिति । आत्मनि इत्यस्य त्वम्पदार्थविषयत्वमाह - एवेति । परमात्मानं प्रतीच्येव तद्भावेन अपरोक्षीकुर्वन् अतुष्टिहेत्वभावात् तुष्यत्येव इत्यर्थः । तस्मिन् काले योगसिद्धिः भवति इति शेषः

॥ २० ॥

This is not a samAdhi abhyAsa that is independent of vAkyArtha vichAra. As seen above, Anandagiri brings this within the framework of vAkyArtha jnAna through the reference to tatpadArthaviShaya, tvampadArthaviShaya and aparokshasAkshAtkAra. 

As can be seen in the bhAShya, Shankaracharya differentiates between the quietude of the mind (uparati) that is attained through the practice of yoga, and the purification of the mind that is attained through samAdhi. 

He says that the attainment of the sAdhanacatuShTaya sampatti (uparati) is through yoga (यत्र यस्मिन् काले उपरमते चित्तम् उपरतिं गच्छति निरुद्धं सर्वतो निवारितप्रचारं योगसेवया योगानुष्ठानेन) and the purification / concentration of the mind that happens during samAdhi enables the direct perception of the Atma (यस्मिंश्च काले आत्मना समाधिपरिशुद्धेन अन्तःकरणेन आत्मानं परं चैतन्यं ज्योतिःस्वरूपं पश्यन् उपलभमानः स्वे एव आत्मनि तुष्यति तुष्टिं भजते)

I think the former refers to chitta shuddhi and the latter can be extended to refer to jnAna sAdhana. 

How? To explain - Anandagiri adds the words तस्मिन् काले योगसिद्धिः भवति इति शेषः, to complete the bhAshya sentence that began with यस्मिंश्च काले आत्मना समाधिपरिशुद्धेन अन्तःकरणेन आत्मानं परं चैतन्यं ज्योतिःस्वरूपं पश्यन् उपलभमानः स्वे एव आत्मनि तुष्यति तुष्टिं भजते - meaning when AtmasAkshAtkAra happens, yogasiddhi is attained. 

Now, if yoga siddhi is attained when AtmasAkshAtkAra happens, it follows that yogasAdhana is happening during jnAnasAdhana also. As we all agree AtmasAkshAtkAra happens only during jnAnasAdhana. 

If yogasAdhana had ended when the conditions necessary of the commencement of jnAnasAdhana had been achieved (ie if the purpose of yoga was limited to the attainment of sAdhanacatuShTaya sampatti), then yogasiddhi would have been attained much before jnAnaprApti - ie, when jnAnasAdhana was commenced. However, yogasiddhi is attained only when there is jnAnasiddhi. Therefore, it follows that yogAbhyAsa has continued to occur during jnAnasAdhana too. 

Now, I am not saying that yogAbhyAsa is needed in every case of jnAnaprApti (ie wherever there is jnAnasiddhi, there is yogasiddhi), I'm merely saying that where there is yogasiddhi, there is jnAnasiddhi. That is, the practice of yoga and jnAnasAdhana can occur together. 

This is not jnAnakarma-samuccaya either - because we are not saying jnAna and yogAbhyAsa need to be simultaneous for moksha. We are saying that jnAna sAdhana and yogAbhyAsa can (but need not) be underaken together, for the rise of jnAna.

Thus, in my view, it is reasonable to conclude that yoga can play role both in chittashuddhi and as part of jnAnasAdhana (but never independent of mahAvAkya vichAra).

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan 

On Fri, 9 Sept 2022, 01:54 'Sundar Rajan' via advaitin, <adva...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

(corrected references to texts)

Pranams Shri Bhaskar-ji, Shri Venkataraghavan-ji and others,

I am sure Sri Venkataraghavan-ji will respond in due course.

Meanwhile a couple of points that caught my attention.

>> 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??..>>

Agreed.

>>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.  >>

Even while setting aside the dualistic pAtanjala yoga, Sankara quotes the same bRhadAraNyaka Sravanadi Sruti vAkya-s with the statement, "yogo hi vede vihitaH". So not sure why the Yoga will be considered any less Vedic than Karma.

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

[S Venkatraman]

Venkatraghavanji,

Namaste. Wonderful analysis. I agree with your conclusion. Thank you. 

Venkatraman

Sent from my iPhone

On 09-Sep-2022, at 3:45 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 https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aE%3Dfub-e3Ds51zoNjDd9LyWyB0exOk9-SL5nmvw6_7Jcjw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Akilesh Ayyar]

In order for there to be Self-realization, there has to be a least a split second of samadhi. The transcendental intuition, the akhandakara vritti or brahmakara vritti that Sankara speaks of and that alone liberates, can arise only under that condition. That intuition cannot happen when the mind operates under normal conditions because the movement of mind obscures the intuition, drowns it out. 

The mind must attain absolute quiet — samadhi — for a moment. Samadhi must happen, but though  it is necessary, it is not sufficient. It must occur under a context where it will be ‘recognized’ for what it is, and that recognition is what ‘destroys’ avidya, or more accurately, reveals it never to have been the case.

Samadhi does not need to happen for more than that one split second, though usually it is had in the process of sadhana many times before that final realization. When it is, depending on the circumstances surrounding its attainment, it may have a purifying effect on the mind. 

Akilesh Ayyar

Spiritual guidance - http://www.siftingtothetruth.com/

[sreenivasa murthy]

Dear Sri Akilesh Ayyar,

The contents of your posting go against the very spirit of the mantra 2-4

of Kena Upanishad and Sri Shankara's commentary to it.

It is very unfortunate and tragic.

With respectful namaskars,

Sreenivasa Murthy

--

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/CAJbmbsE%2BrAJhNn%3DXy1gq5pKczUiZ6w03hXWApWO9%3D-bHwRx0TA%40mail.gmail.com

.

[Sundar Rajan]

Pranams,

>>

In order for there to be Self-realization, there has to be a least a split second of samadhi. The transcendental intuition, the akhandakara vritti or brahmakara vritti that Sankara speaks of and that alone liberates, can arise only under that condition.

>>

1. Interestingly, Sri Vidyaranya in Jivanmukti Viveka refers to this split second samadhi even for one who realizes following the vichara (atma anatma viveka) marga (not the Yoga Marga).
2. Commenting on the 'Advaitic' mantra of the Mandukya Upanishad (7th Mantra) Sankara points out the split second (Kshana) at the point of realization and that anything else would result in regressus ad infinitum. I don't have access to the Sanskrit texts for either references, maybe those who have access can post it here.

I am attaching a message (many years ago) regarding the time question quoting Sri Ramana as well (see attached).

Regards

--

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/CAJbmbsE%2BrAJhNn%3DXy1gq5pKczUiZ6w03hXWApWO9%3D-bHwRx0TA%40mail.gmail.com

.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste

In your view, are Swami VidyAraNya and Shankaracharya making a distinction between this 'split second' samAdhi and the akhaNDAkAra vRtti itself? If so, would be good to see the textual references for this.

Would also be good to see the textual reference for the claim that such a transcendental intuition is a necessary precondition for the rise of akhaNDAkAra vRtti.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/1849251388.884615.1662752139130%40mail.yahoo.com.

[dwa...@advaita.org.uk]

I have written some 20+ pages on samAdhi in ‘Confusions in Advaita Vedanta: Knowledge, Experience and Enlightenment’, in which I address the topics of Neo-Vedanta, VivekachUDAmaNi, Translation of Sanskrit, Yoga Philosophy, Ramana Maharshi, and Shankara’s Real View. Below is how I concluded this:

 

<<< 

One of the first points made by Michael Comans in Ref. 58 is that the word ‘samādhi’ does not occur in any of the ten major upaniṣads (the ones on which Shankara commented), which would be very surprising indeed if the traditional understanding of the term were as key as modern teachers suggest. The one place in which it would definitely be expected to occur would be in the list of shamādi ṣaṭka sampatti where that is referenced. Instead, the word samādhāna is used as noted in section 2.c.ii above; the corresponding Yoga stage is avoided. Shankara does use the word in his bhāṣya on the brahmasūtra as noted above in the sentence: “As in natural slumber and samādhi…” This emphasizes the fact that he views it as only an experience in time, which by his own definition in pañchikaraņam cannot be mokṣa. When we wake up or come out of the trance, the experience ends and subject-object duality recommences. Neither deep-sleep nor samādhi can remove the ignorance that obscures Self-knowledge.

 

Gaudapada does use the word. In his māņḍūkya kārikā 3.45, he says that the mind should not be allowed to enjoy the bliss of samādhi. We should exercise discrimination and free it from such attachment. Shankara adds: “The seeker should not taste that happiness that is experienced by the Yogis seeking after samādhi… He should be unattached to such happiness by gaining knowledge through discrimination and think that whatever happiness is experienced is false and conjured up by ignorance. The mind should be turned back from such happiness.” (Ref. 149)

 

I think enough has been said now on this topic. To summarize, samādhi is a concept in Yoga philosophy, and has no place in Advaita Vedanta. When Shankara uses this term, he does not mean the same thing (unless he is talking about Yoga).

>>> 

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

.

[Sundar Rajan]

Namaskar Dennis-ji,

>>

One of the first points made by Michael Comans in Ref. 58 is that the word ‘samādhi’ does not occur in any of the ten major upaniṣads 

>>

How many times the word ‘Maya’ appears in the ten Upanishads?

In fact, it is said other schools of Vedanta such as Vishishtadvaita object to Advaita because the ten Upanishads do not contain the word Maya!

Should be conclude Maya should have no place in Advaita Vedanta? 

Regards 

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

--

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/001201d8c4ef%24227dd790%24677986b0%24%40advaita.org.uk

.

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Dennisji,

 

Gaudapada does use the word. In his māņḍūkya kārikā 3.45, he says that the mind should not be allowed to enjoy the bliss of samādhi. We should exercise discrimination and free it from such attachment. Shankara adds: “The seeker should not taste that happiness that is experienced by the Yogis seeking after samādhi… He should be unattached to such happiness by gaining knowledge through discrimination and think that whatever happiness is experienced is false and conjured up by ignorance. The mind should be turned back from such happiness.” (Ref. 149)

First of all, I am sure you know that an instruction to not rejoice happiness of samAdhi is not an instruction to not have samAdhi itself! The reason one should not enjoy this happiness is because it limits the person from going to asamprajnAta samAdhi from samprajnAta. Yes, these are Yoga text words, which people want to (forcibly) differentiate by using savikalpa-nirvakalpa pair of words instead. Bhagavan Anandagiri however doesn't seem to have any such issues with these words as he says there itself so:
समाधित्सायां यत्सुखमुत्पद्यते तद्विषयाभिलाषादपि मनो निरोद्धव्यमित्याह – नाऽऽस्वादयेदिति । तत्रेति समाध्यवस्थोच्यते। किं तु तस्यामवस्थायां सुखं यदुपलभ्यते तदज्ञानविजृम्भितं मिथ्यैवेति प्रज्ञया विवेकज्ञानेन निःस्पृहः सन् भावयेदित्याह – निस्सङ्ग इति । किं च यच्चित्तं प्राचीनवैराग्याद्युपायेन निश्चलं प्रत्यगात्मप्रवणं प्रसाधितं तद्यदि स्वभावानुसारेण बहिर्निर्गन्तुमिच्छेत् तदा सम्प्रज्ञातसमाधेरसम्प्रज्ञातसमाधिपर्यन्तात्प्रयत्नात् तदात्मन्येवैकीकृत्य तन्मात्रमापाद्य परिशुद्धपरिपूर्णब्रह्मात्मकः स्वयं तिष्ठेदित्याह – निश्चरदिति । प्रथमपादाक्षराणि योजयति – समाधित्सत इति ।

 

I think enough has been said now on this topic. To summarize, samādhi is a concept in Yoga philosophy, and has no place in Advaita Vedanta. When Shankara uses this term, he does not mean the same thing (unless he is talking about Yoga).

>>> 

Not true as shown with above TIkA quote. For more information, refer Gudarthadipika of Bhagavan Madhusudhana Sarasvati under Gita 6th chapter. He says that although a Vedantin may not need samAdhi as jnAna itself is sufficient for mukti, for some samAdhi is also a way out for gaining niShThA in brahma.


(PS: The topic caught my attention only after the subject line was thankfully changed by Venkatji; the context was missed by me when another member mailed me recently on this topic as I had no idea where it was coming from!)

gurupAdukAbhyAm
--praveen

[V Subrahmanian]

The Brahma Sutra itself uses  the word 'samadhi' in 2.3.39:

The gist of the Bhashya is that since samadhi is enjoined by the Upanishad for the attainment of the Upanishadic knowledge/realisation, it implies that the jeevatma has doership. No doubt this doership  is only incidental. Yet this is evidence that the jivatma is endowed with  doership that is kartrutvam.

The logic that Shankara is conveying here is: if the jivatma did not have doership, the Upanishad enjoining samadhi would be illogical (unreasonable).

समाध्यभावाच्च ॥ ३९ ॥

योऽप्ययमौपनिषदात्मप्रतिपत्तिप्रयोजनः समाधिरुपदिष्टो वेदान्तेषु — ‘ आत्मा वा अरे द्रष्टव्यः श्रोतव्यो मन्तव्यो निदिध्यासितव्यः’ (बृ. उ. २ । ४ । ५) ‘ सोऽन्वेष्टव्यः स विजिज्ञासितव्यः’ ‘ ओमित्येवं ध्यायथ आत्मानम्’ (मु. उ. २ । २ । ६) इत्येवंलक्षणः, सोऽप्यसत्यात्मनः कर्तृत्वे नोपपद्येत । तस्मादप्यस्य कर्तृत्वसिद्धिः ॥ ३९ ॥

The Bhashyakara is clear that the Upanishadic truth is to be realised through this means of samadhi which the upanishads themselves teach through the medium of the terminology 'nididhyasana' etc. 

 

Regards

Subbu 

--
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/CACT7j-EJwup6_tpAaA6oDV5%2BwTXqpWpb3mA%2BEZ%3Do6nz2-yQvzg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Akilesh Ayyar]

Pranams,

Interesting. Thank you for these references! Your message about Sri Ramana is quite clear. He elsewhere often cited samadhi as critical to realization, though he sharply distinguished between a sitting samadhi which merely temporarily shuts out differences and the Knowledge-brightened samadhi that is revealed to be one’s natural, sahaja  being at all times.

Verses from Guru Vachaka Kovai:

893 - “Merely being unaware of the differences in the outside world is not the sign of the real nirvikalpa samadhi. The non-existence of differences in the mind which is dead is the supreme nirvikalpa samadhi.”

898 - "The well-established state in which the quiet mind has the unbroken experience is samadhi. Such a settled mind, which has the attainment of the unlimited supreme Self, is the essence of Godhood.”

919 - "The tranquil clarity devoid of mental turmoil is the samadhi which is essential for Liberation. [Therefore] try earnestly to experience the peaceful consciousness, the clarity of heart, by destroying the deceptive turmoil [of mind].”

And so on. 

Akilesh Ayyar

Spiritual guidance - http://www.siftingtothetruth.com/

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/1849251388.884615.1662752139130%40mail.yahoo.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 6:15 AM Venkatraghavan S <agni...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Sundar Rajan ji, Bhaskar ji,

I have changed the subject line in case people in the future search this topic. If it is technically feasible, the moderators may want to do that for prior messages with the old subject line.

I don't think this is doable. For reference, let us note that this thread had its starting point in the thread titled "Verses for contemplation on Janmashtami". Readers can search that subject-line for the earlier part of this discussion here.

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

[Sundar Rajan]

Pranams,

Here are the references :

1. Sri Vidyaranya's reference to the 'momentary' Samadhi. 

https://estudantedavedanta.net/Jivan_Mukti_Viveka_Moksadananda.pdf

Page 245

2.  Sankara Bhasya on Mandukya Mantra 7

Sankara does not call it Akhandakara Vritti here, I guess it is implied. He says the 'vritti' that destroys Avidya does not  remain for a ksana after that, meaning it disappears as well. 

ज्ञानस्य द्वैतनिवृत्तिक्षणव्यतिरेकेण क्षणान्तरानवस्थानात्

Jnanasya dvaitanivrittiksanavyatirekana ksanantaranavasthanat

Liberating Knowledge or the Vritti that destroys Ajnana does not remain even for a (KSANA) instant beyond the (KSANA) instant at which there is cessation of Duality (dvaitanivrirtti)

Regards

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aE%3D88zBcVx4_JeiVefXb75d1pzNcWx-S7QvP37W2XU4bMA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sundar Rajan ji,

Thank you for these.

The JMV reference provides support for the cognition of the self (akhaNDAkAra vRtti) itself being of the nature of kshaNika samprajnAta samAdhi. 

This seems to me to be in line with the Anandagiri quote from the sixth chapter of the BhagavatGita, that when jnAna arises, yogasiddhi occurs तस्मिन् काले योगसिद्धिः भवति इति शेषः. VidyAraNya svAmi says something similar विवेकोऽपि योगे पर्यवस्यति. Both are saying that the fulfilment of yoga occurs upon the dawn of knowledge.

The mANDUkya bhAShya quote states that the akhaNDAkAra vRtti is momentary. That was never in doubt.

What we are looking for is some basis for the statement that "for there to be Self-realization, there has to be a least a split second of samadhi. The transcendental intuition, the akhandakara vritti or brahmakara vritti that Sankara speaks of and that alone liberates, can arise only under that condition."

This implies that the akhaNDAkAra vRtti occurs either:

1) during samAdhi - ie the samAdhi and vRtti occur simultaneously, or

2) following samAdhi - ie that the samAdhi precedes the vRtti.

Both of which imply that the two are different. 

Whereas what vidyAraNya svAminah appears to be arguing for is that the akhaNDAkAra vRtti is the samAdhi itself - ekAgravRtteh kshaNikasamprajnAtarUpatvAt.

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/1660229037.1093389.1662866652148%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Akilesh Ayyar]

Sri Vidyaranya in JMV has plenty more to say on the connection between samadhi and jnana, and how the one is required for the other, though the samadhi may be achieved in different ways (either through a more Patanjali-style concentration, or through a more jnana yoga style intense inward self-inquiry).

Akilesh Ayyar

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste 

This is a translation of the same section that was posted earlier.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan 

--
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/CAJbmbsHBMFRDRsRHJgsn_f8D6eJu%3D0LaHsG9-CxRfJBY1jC9ZA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Akilesh Ayyar]

Namaste,

It’s roughly the same section, but it quotes a wider context, and it’s very clear that samadhi is differentiator from the brahmakara vritti but is nevertheless a facet of realization required for liberation. Two paths are given: 1) nirodha samadhi + mahavakya induces Brahma vidya or 2) jnana yoga/atma vichara when brought to “one pointed” concentration — “momentary” samadhi — eventuates in realization. 

In one case samadhi is first obtained then the mahavakya is added, so to say. In the second case one is starting with jnana but must end in supreme concentration if that jnana is to fully shine. 

The point is that ignorance cannot be destroyed except in an utterly still kind. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEmgCPOwLOKKhyEpphec9Ef8-Ph1BeNLeEd33EpAAbiY6Q%40mail.gmail.com.

--

[Akilesh Ayyar]

Sorry, — last sentence should read “an utterly still *mind*.”

[Venkatraghavan S]

Understood. Will review the original and revert.

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAJbmbsFfGG6RwyBDk8BmrWw4d-caoOdEP6bYyncG6Fs7UiAv6A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste,

I took a look at this. It is one paragraph above the section quoted earlier. This section does not make a differentiation between samAdhi and brahmAkAra vRtti.

In the previous paragraph, AchArya says that the tvampadArtha that is cleansed through nirodha samAdhi requires the mahAvAkya for its identity with Brahman to be cognised. He then goes on to say that the direct cognition of the cleansed tvampadArtha need not necessarily occur through nirodha samAdhi, if can occur through chit-jaDa viveka.

Then comes the section that was quoted earlier which references the verses from Yoga Vashishtha differentiate between those that employ the nirodha samAdhi + mahAvAkya method with those that use viveka+mahAvAkya method.

To this an objection is raised that the viveka also culminates in a momentary samprajnAta samAdhi, which is accepted by the AchArya, but he then goes on to say that samprajnAta and asamprajnAta are still different because of their nature and because of the means by which they arise. He says that samprajnAta samAdhi is antaranga sAdhana and asamprajnAta samAdhi is bahiranga sAdhana. By asamrajnAta samAdhi, he is referring to the samAdhi which prevents the rise of anAtma thoughts.

This still does not prove that as rule there is the necessity of samAdhi ahead of akhaNDAkAra vRtti, because in answer to the charge that the viveka culminates in samprajnAta samAdhi, AchArya says that they culminate in identity between the two, and not a difference. 

Regards,

Venkatraghavan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAJbmbsH5zLahDYfdbF0bu-LX%3DZ%2BoDgOJtZ7LtcZGPBJOoGLwNQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear friends,

May I add add what Apte's Sanskrit-English dictionary says:

समाधिः samādhiḥ (p. 1634)

समाधिः samādhiḥ 1 Collecting, composing, concentrating (as mind). -2 Profound or abstract meditation, concentration of mind on one object, perfect absorption of thought into the one object of meditation, i. e. the Supreme Spirit, (the 8th and last stage of Yoga); व्यवसायात्मिका बुद्धिः समाधौ न विधीयते Bg...

Kind regards,

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aE%3DiYJ3FFPRaFsSvr%3DzzvkYumHv%2BV-2H5s8t%2BhaA-jp5cg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Akilesh Ayyar]

This section does not make a differentiation between samAdhi and brahmAkAra vRtti.

In the previous paragraph, AchArya says that the tvampadArtha that is cleansed through nirodha samAdhi requires the mahAvAkya for its identity with Brahman to be cognised. 

Ok, first of all, that is right there a differentiation between samadhi and brahmakara vritti. Nirodha samadhi by itself does not lead to the brahmakara vritti. This shows that the highest samadhi is not exactly the same as the brahmakara vritti.

He then goes on to say that the direct cognition of the cleansed tvampadArtha need not necessarily occur through nirodha samAdhi, if can occur through chit-jaDa viveka.

Yes, but that viveka also leads to samadhi. He calls it “a kind of momentary Trance of the Conscious variety”…

And indeed elsewhere in JMV he writes:

"The conscious variety of Trance (Samprajnata samadhi) directed towards the Self, leads to Obliteration of Vasana and Absolute Interception (Nirodha-samadhi). Hence due importance has to be attached to it.”

So conscious trance “directed towards the Self” leads to nirodha samadhi! Though again, as we have seen, this fact is by itself insufficient to lead to total liberation.

This still does not prove that as rule there is the necessity of samAdhi ahead of akhaNDAkAra vRtti, because in answer to the charge that the viveka culminates in samprajnAta samAdhi, AchArya says that they culminate in identity between the two, and not a difference. 

Whether it’s “ahead of” or at exactly the same time is not the point. The point, again, is that the trance-like nature of mind must exist at the moment of the brahmakara vritti. 

Indeed, you wrote this very thing in a previous email:

This implies that the akhaNDAkAra vRtti occurs either:

1) during samAdhi - ie the samAdhi and vRtti occur simultaneously, or

2) following samAdhi - ie that the samAdhi precedes the vRtti.

Both of which imply that the two are different. 

So during samadhi suggests the two are different, per your words. And SV says that chit-jada viveka leads to samadhi at the moment of realization. And again, though, we know that samadhi is not sufficient by itself. 

Whereas what vidyAraNya svAminah appears to be arguing for is that the akhaNDAkAra vRtti is the samAdhi itself - ekAgravRtteh kshaNikasamprajnAtarUpatvAt.

SV is not arguing that. The supreme samadhi — nirodha samadhi — must be had at some point for jnana to shine, but can be attained through two different means. One means is a systematic stilling of the mind. The other is systematic discernment. 

But this nirodha samadhi is insufficient. There must be some kind of Knowledge-based pointer (like a mahavakya) that nudges the mind in samadhi to recognize the Truth.

The point is that samadhi is required for at least a moment, even if that moment is essentially simultaneous with the rise of the brahmakara vritti. If samadhi were irrelevant, Vidyaranya would not say that viveka does culminate in a moment of trance. If samadhi were merely the same as the brahmakara vritti, Vidyaranya would not note that even nirodha samadhi is not the same as brahma vidya, that something more is required.

If there is any remaining doubt, let’s look at two other quotes from JMV:

-Patanjali thus defines Dhyana and Samadhi: “ The unity of the Mind with it (the object) is Dhyana; the same, when conscious only of the object, as if unconscious of itself, is Samadhi.” (Ill, 2, 3.) After getting confirmed in such Ecstasy with long continuous and arduous application, he should give up even the effort which has to be put forth, for escaping the said co-ordination of agent and instrument. You may still argue : If so, the effort to give up this must be given up and soon, leading to a regressus in infinitum. We say no. For, the last effort we have just mentioned, not only puts down what is desired to be put down, but also itself, like pulverized Kataka. As pulverized Kataka, when added to turbid water, loses itself by settling down along with the mud in the water, so would the effort (for doing away with the co-ordination of agent and instrument) put down, not only the consciousness of the agent and the instrument, but also itself. This being accomplished, the Mind stands empties of all Vasana whatever, as pure Vasanas also would cease to exist, like the impure ones. Vasistha says, with this very thing in view:

"The Mind, therefore, experiences bondage through\ Vasana; void of Vasana it is liberated…

So here there is again the notion of samadhi, and then a transcending of samadhi leading to liberation. 

And elsewhere in JMV SV writes:

-Thence, by the Mind, intercepted from all transformations by the Trance, known as “ Interception ” ; rendered sufficiently subtle, in consequence of being devoid of all but impressions whatever; one-pointed, because of being turned towards Consciousness alone;—by such a Mind is realized the Atman, without any impediment whatsoever. 

By such a mind indeed.

Akilesh Ayyar

Spiritual guidance - http://www.siftingtothetruth.com/

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aE%3DTdNhWgg6yVh-MoJF9QNOh7qYn-WY3zG9TRsJz0j3mGg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste,

To clarify, when we are talking of a difference between samAdhi and brahmAkAra vRtti, we are talking of the samAdhi that you said was a necessary precondition for the rise of jnAna that confers liberation.

Only you can say which samAdhi you were referring to - is it samprajnAta/asamprajnAta / nirodha/ something else?

When I said that this section is not making a distinction between the two, I was referring to samprajnAta samAdhi and brahmAkAra vRtti - as AchArya clearly says darshanavelAyAm AtmamAtmamAtragocarAyA  ekAgravRtteh kshaNikasamprajnAtarUpatvAt.

What is this ekAgravRtti - is it not brahmAkAravRtti, in your opinion? I think it has to be - because of the qualifier darshanavelAyAm - at the time of Atma-mAtra-darshana. If it is brahmAkAra vRtti, how is it argued that it is different from samAdhi, when AchArya himself is saying such a vRtti is samprajnAtarUpa?

So during samadhi suggests the two are different, per your words. And SV says that chit-jada viveka leads to samadhi at the moment of realization. And again, though, we know that samadhi is not sufficient by itself. 

I am not suggesting that the brahmAkAravRtti occurs during samAdhi - you are. I was merely saying that for your statement to be true, brahmAkAravRtti would have to arise during samAdhi, but I cannot see how that is the case, as AchArya is saying ekAgravRtteh kshaNikasamprajnAtarUpatvAt - the vRtti itself is of the nature of samprajnAta.

Whereas what vidyAraNya svAminah appears to be arguing for is that the akhaNDAkAra vRtti is the samAdhi itself - ekAgravRtteh kshaNikasamprajnAtarUpatvAt.

SV is not arguing that. The supreme samadhi — nirodha samadhi — must be had at some point for jnana to shine, but can be attained through two different means. One means is a systematic stilling of the mind. The other is systematic discernment. 

But this nirodha samadhi is insufficient. There must be some kind of Knowledge-based pointer (like a mahavakya) that nudges the mind in samadhi to recognize the Truth.

The point is that samadhi is required for at least a moment, even if that moment is essentially simultaneous with the rise of the brahmakara vritti.

I am saying that the cause effect relationship between samAdhi and the rise of brahmAkAravRtti has not been proven. I am saying that all the text is saying is that when the brahmAkAravRtti arises, the mind is in samAdhi. That does not imply that for the brahmAkAravRtti to arise, the mind has to be in samAdhi.

If samadhi were irrelevant, Vidyaranya would not say that viveka does culminate in a moment of trance. If samadhi were merely the same as the brahmakara vritti, Vidyaranya would not note that even nirodha samadhi is not the same as brahma vidya, that something more is required.

I never claimed samAdhi's irrelevance. I am questioning its causal effect on the rise of brahmAkAravRtti.  Separately, VidyAraNya is talking of the cleansing of tvampadArtha by nirodha samAdhi being insufficient, and what provides sufficiency is a pramANa, ie mahAvAkya. How does this lead to the postulation that only in a mind which has undergone samAdhi can brahmavidyA arise?

And elsewhere in JMV SV writes:

-Thence, by the Mind, intercepted from all transformations by the Trance, known as “ Interception ” ; rendered sufficiently subtle, in consequence of being devoid of all but impressions whatever; one-pointed, because of being turned towards Consciousness alone;—by such a Mind is realized the Atman, without any impediment whatsoever. 

By such a mind indeed.

If you can point me to where in the text this occurs, I can review and respond. But even this quote doesn't prove that only in such a mind can realisation arise.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan

[Venkatraghavan S]

I wanted to clarify something. These two statements appear to be contradictory:

1) "I am not suggesting that the brahmAkAravRtti occurs during samAdhi - you are. I was merely saying that for your statement to be true, brahmAkAravRtti would have to arise during samAdhi, but I cannot see how that is the case,"

2) "I am saying that all the text is saying is that when the brahmAkAravRtti arises, the mind is in samAdhi."

I want to clarify why they are not - for samAdhi to be a precondition for the rise of brahmAkAravRtti (when both are admitted to be simultaneous), the mind would have to be in samAdhi because of something other than the brahmAkAravRtti itself. I do not agree with that.

My contention is that all the text is saying is that the mind is in samAdhi because of the brahmAkAravRtti - ie because brahmAkAravRtti is of the nature of samprajnAta samAdhi. So one cannot use their simultaneity to argue for samAdhi being a necessary precondition for the rise of such a vRtti.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan 

[Akilesh Ayyar]

Akilesh Ayyar

Spiritual guidance - http://www.siftingtothetruth.com/

On Sep 11, 2022 at 4:15:44 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agni...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste,

To clarify, when we are talking of a difference between samAdhi and brahmAkAra vRtti, we are talking of the samAdhi that you said was a necessary precondition for the rise of jnAna that confers liberation.

Only you can say which samAdhi you were referring to - is it samprajnAta/asamprajnAta / nirodha/ something else?

It could be any of them… all the samadhis lead to the same place in the end, like rivers emptying into the ocean.

When I said that this section is not making a distinction between the two, I was referring to samprajnAta samAdhi and brahmAkAra vRtti - as AchArya clearly says darshanavelAyAm AtmamAtmamAtragocarAyA  ekAgravRtteh kshaNikasamprajnAtarUpatvAt.

What is this ekAgravRtti - is it not brahmAkAravRtti, in your opinion? I think it has to be - because of the qualifier darshanavelAyAm - at the time of Atma-mAtra-darshana. If it is brahmAkAra vRtti, how is it argued that it is different from samAdhi, when AchArya himself is saying such a vRtti is samprajnAtarUpa?

The brahmakara vritti itself cannot be of the form of samprajnatasamadhi… that would be strange, since brahmakaravritti is also akhandakaravritti (per BSB), and samprajnata samadhi bears the marks of a form. It would also be very strange indeed if nirodha samadhi, which is asamprajnata, would have to stoop to admit a more concrete form of samadhi when Self-realization came, as if Realization were a grosser thought than nirodha samadhi.

Of course, what makes it tricky is that samadhi — any samadhi — is in some sense a reflection of atman. So the brahmakara vritti could in a sense be said to be in a one-pointed form… even while it takes place in a mind that is also one-pointed. And these are in fact tightly and necessarily linked. One sees the reflection of one’s original face and then recognizes it as such, and these may be simultaneous. But brahmakara vritti is no ordinary vritti, not even a samadhi vritti. It is a vritti only in the sense that “formless form” is a kind of shape, i.e. not at all.

Which is also why SV writes immediately after that:

“As to the means employed, Concentration and the rest being similar in nature to the Conscious variety of Trance, they are the kindred means of inducing it, whereas, being dissimilar by nature to the “Unconscious variety of Trance”, which implies absence of all transformations whatever, they are only the extraneous means of inducing that Trance.”

So the chit-jada differentiation is viewed as an “extraneous means” of inducing samadhi… and of which he writes "This extraneous means, though ‘foreign' to the 'Unconscious' variety, being of use, in that it wards off transformations of the Mind into things which are Not-self, is therefore not opposed to its interest. To render its utility in this direction clear, it is laid down in the aphorism : 'In others [Realization] is preceded by Faith, Energy, Memory and Discrimination.’”

So the “interests” of asamprajnata samadhi are served by the chit-jada differentiation which “wards off transformations of the mind” into anatma, thereby ensuring faith, energy, memory, and discrimination and laying the groundwork, in a different way than classical Patanjali yoga, for the shining of ultimate jnana.

Finally, in your other email you write: 

My contention is that all the text is saying is that the mind is in samAdhi because of the brahmAkAravRtti - ie because brahmAkAravRtti is of the nature of samprajnAta samAdhi. So one cannot use their simultaneity to argue for samAdhi being a necessary precondition for the rise of such a vRtti.

Which I addressed above.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan

--
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/CAL34aE%3DPUh3gVmdpBeiaYJs1A1O%3Dnh%3DXmgfot%3DrUcdDwtW7P%2Bw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste

So the “interests” of asamprajnata samadhi are served by the chit-jada differentiation which “wards off transformations of the mind” into anatma, thereby ensuring faith, energy, memory, and discrimination and laying the groundwork, in a different way than classical Patanjali yoga, for the shining of ultimate jnana.

If as you say, that ekAgravRtti has the chit-jaDa differentiation as its object, there would be the need for two vRtti-s at the time of darshana - one, the ekAgravRtti which is of the nature of samprajnAta samAdhi and the second, the brahmAkAravRtti. This makes no sense to me, because at any instant, there can only be one vRtti.

Despite your comment that the akhaNDAkAra vRtti has no form as its object, that it is a vRtti is not in doubt. It is not of the nature of absence. It is a bhAvarUpa manopariNAma - an existent, thought modification of the mind. That being the case, your interpretation would necessitate the presence of two vRttis at the time of realisation, which cannot be correct. 

However, even if what you say is true and the ekAgravRtti is the chit-jaDa differentiation, how does it prove the necessity of samAdhi for the rise of akhaNDAkAra vRtti? I keep coming back to the same point, the only thing that has been said by the AchArya is that at the time of darshana, the ekAgravRtti is of the form of a momentary samprajnAta samAdhi. The causal necessity of such a samAdhi as a precondition for brahmAkAravRtti to arise has not been proven - this was the original claim made by you.

I think I have repeated myself a few times on this point. If you have anything specific to address this point, let us discuss, otherwise let us agree to disagree.

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan 

[Bhaskar YR]

I think enough has been said now on this topic. To summarize, samādhi is a concept in Yoga philosophy, and has no place in Advaita Vedanta. When Shankara uses this term, he does not mean the same thing (unless he is talking about Yoga).

 

praNAms Sri Dennis Waite prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

This is exactly the point I have been reiterating.  The words like samAdhi, yOga, manOnigraHa, dhyAna etc. and it’s usage in Advaita literature donot have any problem but problem starts when we are trying to see the yOga and related sAdhana-s in advaita’s jnana sAdhana mArga.  The word samAdhi has been used by bhAshyakAra himself at somany places, sUtra too uses this word and geeta as well.  But contextually we have different meaning / interpretation which is obviously other than PYS’s samAdhi, but no need to mention prakaraNa-s like VC, PD & JMV directly pointing their fingers to PYS’s yOga samAdhi experience which is restricted to one particular state (avastha) and at one particular time (kAla).  The desha-kAla parichinna jnana is NOT paripUrNa sahaja jnana which jnAni would enjoy after the dawn of paramArtha jnana which he realized through direct means i.e. SMN. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

[Bhaskar YR]

1. In order for there to be Self-realization, there has to be a least a split second of samadhi. The transcendental intuition, the akhandakara vritti or brahmakara vritti that Sankara speaks of and that alone liberates, can arise only under that condition

1. Samadhi does not need to happen for more than that one split second,

 

praNAms Sri Akilesh Iyer prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

May I have references from PTB of bhagavatpaada please for the above.  If these conclusions are based on some prakaraNa-s then I don’t have anything to add/debate. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

Bhaskar YR

 

[Bhaskar YR]

 

Thus, in my view, it is reasonable to conclude that yoga can play role both in chittashuddhi and as part of jnAnasAdhana (but never independent of mahAvAkya vichAra).

 

praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

This is a genuine attempt of reconciliation of the advaitic stand which “somehow” accommodates the yOga sAdhana for the chitta shuddhi and during the process of jnAnasAdhana as well.  And emphasis on never independent of shAstra vAkya vichAra would throw more weight behind what is strictly recommended as Advaita jnana mArga sAdhana i.e. SMN which taught as direct means to darshana or vision of Atman.  The real goal of this SMN is to turn the seeker back from the natural  outgoing tendency to urge one to set up a stream of thoughts towards Atman within.  IMHO to define this tendency the sUtra which uses the word samAdhi in the context of intuiting the Atman as taught in the shruti-s.  Why it is purely vedAntic in its nature?? As we know in this sUtra bhAshya, bhAshyakAra meticulously brought in the upanishadic teaching of Atma darshana.  The very first of the texts quoted here contains yAjnAvalkya’s prescription of SMN as the means for the vision of Atman.  Followed by sOnveshtitavyaH sa vijignAsitavyaH (chAndOgya) Om ityevaM dhyAyAt AtmAnaM (mundaka).  Here there is absolutely not even an iota of links with that of eight steps of Patanjali yOga it is purely vedic in nature.  Anyway as you have clarified those who have uncompromising passion to see PYS sAdhana in this sUtra can do so as chitta shuddhi prior to jnana sAdhana and adopt it during jnAnasAdhana as well by keeping in mind that this is not at all mandatory in advaita’s jnana mArga sAdhana. 

[Akilesh Ayyar]

The brahmakara vritti is no ordinary vritti. It may not be “not a vritti,” but it is very, very special vritti and does not necessarily follow the ordinary rules. After all, its purpose is to destroy avidya, which is anadi and also does not follow the ordinary rules. To destroy something whose very existence is a kind of misconception requires something whose own existence cannot be easily defined.

However, even if what you say is true and the ekAgravRtti is the chit-jaDa differentiation, how does it prove the necessity of samAdhi for the rise of akhaNDAkAra vRtti? 

Well, because then, per JMV at least, there are only two conditions under which the akhandakara vritti can manifest:

1 - nirodha samadhi + mahavakya

2 - chit-jada differentiation leading to samprajnata samadhi

In each case there is one samadhi component and one jnana component, so to say.

So samadhi of some sort is then a necessity. There is no other route given. 

--
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/CAL34aEnaiU160rozmyrEDmGT2shW2PPNoiiFcOyFL53sA7nbnA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Akilesh Ayyar]

Namaste,

Bhagavad Gita Bhashya 2.53:

"śruti-vipratipannā te

yadā sthāsyati niścalā

samādhāv acalā buddhis

tadā yogam avāpsyasi”

"When your mind that has become bewildered by hearing [S. takes the word sruti in the sense of the Vedas.-Tr.] will become unshakable and steadfast in the Self, then you will attain Yoga that arises from discrimination.”

Of which Bhagavatpada says: 

"If it be asked, 'By becoming possessed of the wisdom arising from the discrimination about the Self after overcoming the turbidity of delusion, when shall I attain the yoga of the supreme Reality which is the fruit that results from Karma-yoga?', then listen to that; Yada, when at the time when; te, your; buddhih, mind; that has become sruti-vi- pratipanna, bewildered, tossed about, by hearing (the Vedas) that reveal the diverse ends, means, and (their) relationship, i.e. are filled with divergent ideas; sthasyati, will become; niscala, unshakable, free from the turbulence in the form of distractions; and acala, steadfast, that is to say, free from doubt even in that (unshakable) state; samadhau, in samadhi, that is to say, in the Self -- samadhi being derived in the sense of that in which the mind is fixed; tada, then, at that time; avapsyasi, you will attain; yogam, Yoga, the enlightenment, Self-absorption, that arises from discrimination.”

Akilesh Ayyar

Spiritual guidance - http://www.siftingtothetruth.com/

--

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/AM7PR06MB6581A4BF97717889F43A8ADB84449%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Sundar Rajan]

Pranams,

>> The very first of the texts quoted here contains yAjnAvalkya’s prescription of SMN as the means for the vision of Atman.  Followed by sOnveshtitavyaH sa vijignAsitavyaH (chAndOgya) Om ityevaM dhyAyAt AtmAnaM (mundaka).  Here there is absolutely not even an iota of links with that of eight steps of Patanjali yOga it is purely vedic in nature.  >>

As Sunil Bhattacharjya-ji pointed out “nobody should call Yoga as unvedic”. In BS 2.1.3 I also pointed out Sankara quotes the same bRhadAraNyaka Sravanadi Sruti vAkya-s with the statement, "yogo hi vede vihitaH", so Sankara does not consider Yoga to be any less Vedic.

Having settled the Vedic question, let us take the statement below for a test drive:

>> Om ityevaM dhyAyAt AtmAnaM (mundaka).  Here there is absolutely not even an iota of links with that of eight steps of Patanjali yOga >>

Om ityevaM is not in isolation. There are preparatory steps mentioned in MU 2.2.4  praNavo dhanuS Saro hy AtmA This teaches a meditation on the Om-kAra (praNava), comparing the process to archery (dhanuH - bow, SaraH - arrow, lakshya - target). The key part is the word apramattena. Discarding the simple dictionary meaning of the word apramatta  "careful, attentive, vigilant.", the commentary expands upon this, saying,  bAhya-vishaya-upalabdhi-tRshNA-pramAda-varjitena (without committing the error of thirsting after external objects), sarvato viraktena (with perfect dispassion towards all things), jitendriyeNa (having conquered the senses),  ekAgra-cittena (with one-pointed concentration). Only with these qualifications in the background, one should meditate on the praNava as the Self (Om ity evaM dhyAyatha AtmAnam)

With this background from the Bhasya, let us look at the question:  Is there an iota of connection to Patanjali yOga ?

1.     What is ekAgra-citta? Ekagra is one of the five Citta bhoomis in Patajnali Yoga. This is a direct connection to PY.

 2.    Then consider the vairagyam emphasised in the word apramattena. In Katha Upanishad introduction, ये मुमुक्षवो दृष्टानुश्रविकविषयवितृष्णाः सन्तः  //ye mumukshavaH drishtanushravika-Vishaya-VithrushnaaH santaH.....// 

Sankara directly adapts the Patanjali Yoga sutra wordings Drishtanushravika Vishaya Vithrushnayaa Vashikara Sangya Vairagyam (PYS 1.15)

3.     In "AtmetyevopAsIta" BUBh 1.4.7 Sankara explains how Self-knowledge leads to citta-vRtti-nirodha (PYS 1.2)  na hy Atma-vijnAna-tat-smRti-saMtAna-vyatirekeNa citta-vRtti-nirodhasya sAdhanam asti. This niyama vidhi taught in विज्ञाय प्रज्ञां कुर्वीत  “vijnAya prajnAM kurvIta” BUBh 4.4.21 quotes the same MU 2.2.6 om ity evaM dhyAyatha AtmAnam

4.     Since PYS is not prescriptive यथाअभिमतध्यानाद्वा ॥३९॥ yathā-abhimata-dhyānād-vā ॥PYS 1.39॥, why is the connection prohibited?

Just by rudimentary look at the Bhasyas shows three or so links directly to Patanjali yOga. So the statement “there is absolutely not even an iota of links Patanjali yOga” has no validity. The situation is not cut and dry, black and white to be able to make any such statement. If anything, the actual situation is much more nuanced and subtle.

Regards 

--

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/AM7PR06MB65818C24536B078D5961DD3084449%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com

.

[Sundar Rajan]

Namaskar Dennis-ji and all others,

>> I have written some 20+ pages on samAdhi in ‘Confusions in Advaita Vedanta: Knowledge, Experience and Enlightenment’ >> 

I am awaiting the book shipment, looking forward to how you address these topics.

 >> To summarize, samādhi is a concept in Yoga philosophy, and has no place in Advaita Vedanta. When Shankara uses this term, he does not mean the same thing (unless he is talking about Yoga). >>

That is a pretty bold statement. Unfortunately the logical start presented, namely, Michael  Coman’s research finding that the word ‘Samadhi does not occur in the major upanishads’ does not quite back up the grand entrance .

It doesn’t take much even for a rookie without much knowledge of Upanishads like myself to point out the word ‘Maya’ also does not occur in the major Upanishads.

So, for that reason, should we knock out Maya as well, one of the key concepts and differentiators of Advaita?

Come to think of it, this might actually work out. Advaitins may be willing to sacrifice the Queen (Samadhi) to knock out the King (Maya) and thereby checkmate. Game over and without the shroud of Maya everybody is instantly liberated! 😊

Ok, jokes apart, your summary (= Samadhi has no place in Advaita) and other comments seem to be the purvapakshin’s position in the document on Yoga and Advaita Sri Vidyasankar Sundaresan posted in the Advaita-L forum about 15 years ago. I am attaching it here. Question for Moderator:  Is there a folder in the group to store this document? This document is worthy of sharing and is a great reference.

Next, let me share a little experiment to show how textual analysis focusing on occurrence of words may be misleading:

• Do  not open any of the Upanishads or its Bhasyas (forget that you know any Upanishads or Bhasyas)
• Do not open Brahma Sutra or its Bhasya (forget that you know it)
• Do not open Bhagavad Gita and its Bhasya (forget that you know it)

Just open Sankara’s introduction to Bhagavad Gita. You have knowledge of nothing else.

Scroll to the section where Anu Gita is cited. You will see this stunning statement out of nowhere:

Sankara here describes Moksha in terms of a still, unmoving yogin: “He is

without merit, without sin, and without good or evil-who is sitting

in one posture, absorbed, silent, and thinking nothing (kinchid acintayan)”

(Anugita).

 If that is not the description of Samadhi, I don’t know what else is!

Does Sankara even have to use the word ‘Samadhi’ here? Will this ever show up in a search for the word ‘Samadhi’ by a research scholar?

Regards

Sundar Rajan

 

 

On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 01:27:23 AM PDT, <dwa...@advaita.org.uk> wrote:

I have written some 20+ pages on samAdhi in ‘Confusions in Advaita Vedanta: Knowledge, Experience and Enlightenment’, in which I address the topics of Neo-Vedanta, VivekachUDAmaNi, Translation of Sanskrit, Yoga Philosophy, Ramana Maharshi, and Shankara’s Real View. Below is how I concluded this:

 

<<<  

One of the first points made by Michael Comans in Ref. 58 is that the word ‘samādhi’ does not occur in any of the ten major upaniṣads (the ones on which Shankara commented), which would be very surprising indeed if the traditional understanding of the term were as key as modern teachers suggest. The one place in which it would definitely be expected to occur would be in the list of shamādi ṣaṭka sampatti where that is referenced. Instead, the word samādhāna is used as noted in section 2.c.ii above; the corresponding Yoga stage is avoided. Shankara does use the word in his bhāṣya on the brahmasūtra as noted above in the sentence: “As in natural slumber and samādhi…” This emphasizes the fact that he views it as only an experience in time, which by his own definition in pañchikaraņam cannot be mokṣa. When we wake up or come out of the trance, the experience ends and subject-object duality recommences. Neither deep-sleep nor samādhi can remove the ignorance that obscures Self-knowledge.

 

Gaudapada does use the word. In his māņḍūkya kārikā 3.45, he says that the mind should not be allowed to enjoy the bliss of samādhi. We should exercise discrimination and free it from such attachment. Shankara adds: “The seeker should not taste that happiness that is experienced by the Yogis seeking after samādhi… He should be unattached to such happiness by gaining knowledge through discrimination and think that whatever happiness is experienced is false and conjured up by ignorance. The mind should be turned back from such happiness.” (Ref. 149)

 

I think enough has been said now on this topic. To summarize, samādhi is a concept in Yoga philosophy, and has no place in Advaita Vedanta. When Shankara uses this term, he does not mean the same thing (unless he is talking about Yoga).

>>>  

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

.

--
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/001201d8c4ef%24227dd790%24677986b0%24%40advaita.org.uk

.

[putran M]

Namaskaram, 

The basic question is why must vichara (in the form of SMN) culminate in such a mental state of self-absorption in order for it to destroy ajnana and generate jnana. Why cannot vichara even with a mind still going outward be able to obtain insight into Reality of Self, non-duality of Self and mithyatva of duality, without having to reach the state of samadhi? It is like saying that in order to know that a movie is a movie, one must at some point stop the movie and see the blank screen in order to realize beyond doubt the knowledge taught in the movie that it is only a movie and the Screen alone is reality. The counter-argument is that this samadhi experiential "seeing the screen" is only seeing a different image in the movie, so why cannot the same realization happen even when seeing the different figures? Vichara should obtain the same realization without having to go to the extent of shutting off the movie and seeing the Screen.

Going by Akhilesh-ji's quote of BG 2.53 and Shankara bhashya, it seems one can make a strong case that indeed SMN has to culminate in samadhi and in that highest state of samadhi only, jnana is realized.

Samadhi here is said to arise from discrimination (SMN); the "highest state" mentioned in Ka.U. 2.3.10,11; and as per Krishna/Shankara in BG 2.53, the yoga of enlightenment occurs when the mind ("possessed of the wisdom arising from the discrimination about the Self after overcoming the turbidity of delusion") reaches the state of samadhi. That is, when one attains samadhi, SMN bears fruit in the form of enlightenment/jnana. The jiva has to eliminate the outward mind and become the pure witness, in some sense, that the wisdom arising from discrimination takes root once and for all, and the jiva knows itself as Brahman (without doubt or confusion) from then on.

Now the larger process by which the advaitin reaches samadhi (based on SMN, vichara) will not be the same as how a yogi or a bhakta reaches parallel states, which can explain why post-samadhi their realizations vary. For the advaitin, the seed of jnana that he planted through SMN germinates in samadhi where there is total Self-absorption - for SMN informs the truth which becomes self-evident and obtains atmasakshatkara when SMN culminates in samadhi; but if we had planted instead seeds of ignorance, then it is possible that such can thwart realization and we come back still holding to dvaitic conception of self. 

It is not clear to me however whether the samadhi being referred to is samprajnata or asamprajnata, since the import of "fixing on the Self" is not obvious.

thollmelukaalkizhu

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAJbmbsGn%3DC%2BQ871ibPZfESc4SN7vx0XG9DjGF_gRJ_dBRaGw%3DA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Akilesh Ayyer prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Thanks for quoting the geeta bhAshya.  I am just curious with regard to your stand which I mentioned below.  The punch line (if I permit to say like that) is mandatory experience of split second samAdhi.  For this I am asking for bhAshya reference not exactly on the mere usage of the word ‘samAdhi’ in shankara bhAshya.

 

 

 

Bhaskar YR

 

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Akilesh Ayyar
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2022 3:18 AM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [advaitin] The role of samAdhi in vedAnta

 

Warning

This email comes from outside of Hitachi Energy. Make sure you verify the sender before clicking any links or downloading/opening attachments. If this email looks suspicious, report it by clicking 'Report Phishing' button in Outlook. See the SecureWay group in Yammer for more security information.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAJbmbsGn%3DC%2BQ871ibPZfESc4SN7vx0XG9DjGF_gRJ_dBRaGw%3DA%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

[See Sundar-ji's email below my reply]

Namaskaram Sundar-ji,

There is no opposition to a yogi who is also in the advaitic path. His samadhi conforms with what Krishna/Shankara mentions of in BG 2.53, where the mind is fixed in the Self and obtains the enlightenment that arises from discrimination (vichara, SMN).

Either we have to say that the yogi following the dualistic philosophy of PYS 

a. (if samadhi automatically equates to attainment of jnana) Does not acquire samadhi in its real sense, since he retains ignorance even after samadhi; OR

b. (if samadhi does not ... jnana) Obtains samadhi but does not later recognize the "form of Self" correctly due to false-seeds already planted within that do not get eliminated in samadhi. In this viewpoint, just because the mind obtains the form of Self during non-perception of not-Self does not mean jnana is realized and will be known post-samadhi; there needs to be SMN before or after to fully eliminate residual ignorance and affirm the import of samadhi correctly.

Since samadhi is a primary concept of Yoga, we have to assume that a. is not true and hence what differentiates Yogic samadhi of PYS and Yogic samadhi in advaita is the addition or foundation of SMN. It is a mind that is prepared with SMN that not only takes the "form of Self" during samadhi but also realizes that the samadhi-experience is revealing clearly the nature of atma and the mithyatva of anatma. From what I understand, the "form of Self" that the mind assumes has to be some sort of imitation that resembles the nature of Self as pure awareness, sakshi, anantam, purnam, etc. - for what otherwise does it mean to say the mind assumes the form of non-dual Self? It is only an indicator for the nature of Brahman that would strongly suggest/compel the knowledge "Aha, such am I !!" However, there needs to be the SMN nudge to establish in that jnana. 

So, by this logic, it is not appropriate to assume KU verse talks of Yogic samadhi separate of vichara/SMN. Yes, let it be avastha but what enables the avastha to confer jnana is that the mind is already pre-prepared through SMN to rightly realize the Knowledge of Self in the "form of Self" revealed in samadhi. 

---------

But the question of contention imo is more about whether the advaitic path necessarily culminates in yogic samadhi when there is atmasakshatkara (self-realization). Or whether vichara/SMN can lead to realization without actually "seeing the form of Self in yogic-samadhi".

thollmelukaalkizhu

On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 5:01 PM Sundar Rajan <avsund...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Namaskaram Putran-ji,

Actually the KU you quoted yada panchava.. is the description of Yogic Samadhi not thru Vichara. Look at the commentary and Shankara's use of avastha (state) three times - avastha means state - state of samadhi. It is the same process as in na kincidapi cintayet in BG and the Anu Gita example I quoted in Dennis's reply. See the JVM reference below, when the non-self forms are stopped thru Yoga (na kincidapi cintayet), the mind takes on the form of the self. or as in naishkarmyasiddhi verse 1.88 anAtmA-adarSanenaiva

parAtmAnam upAsmahe.

Also even a Yogi in the advaitic path is planted the seed of Jnana by a Yogic Guru. Otherwise no one will be to "sa tu dhirgha kala" - stayon the long haul. Lot of the conversations I see on the list is as if Yogi is a dumb guy :-)

The key difference to Vichara is there is a daily (almost) feedback of peace and tranquility. Even at beginning stages of Dharana, not even Dhyana or above. That sustains the Yogi in the path. Here is a whatsapp text from a friend who is on that path: "When one gets good Dhyanam, those days  pass in a wonderful way"

BTW there may be very little Sastra reading or Vichara during his entire journey. He operates on the seed planted by the Guru and His instructions. Also the sadhaka understands the goal very well from the interactions with the Guru and knows not to stop at intermediary experiences.

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

Yes/No questions I am seeing on this, following another private email from Sundar-ji:

1. Is samadhi necessary for jnana? 

2. Does samadhi necessarily occur at atmasakshatkara?

3. Is samadhi (without N or with partial vichara N) sufficient for jnana?

4. After SM, is N necessary for jnana? Can N be less for those who have higher chitta shuddhi or for those pursuing yoga sadhana, dhyana, samadhi? (Here, N based on vichara is partially or wholly replaced by the path of yoga, with samadhi facilitating the realization of truths imbibed in SM.)

5. After SM, is N (without samadhi) sufficient for jnana? (~ same as 1)

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Yes/No questions I am seeing on this, following another private email from Sundar-ji:

 

Ø     Hope you are asking these questions to the group keeping yogic samAdhi in mind.  Being a group member (though ajnAni to the core without firsthand experience of anything) would like to share my thoughts :

 

1. Is samadhi necessary for jnana? 

>  Yes, paramArtha jnana itself is samAdhi.  But PYS’s sAdhana janita samAdhi (time bound) is not obligatory.

 

2. Does samadhi necessarily occur at atmasakshatkara?

>  depends upon how do we interpret AtmasAkshAtkAra.  If it is bhUma jnana or samyak darshana then paramArtha jnana (samAdhi) is necessary to have AtmasAkshAtkAra.  But if the word  samAdhi used here to get the “darshana” of Atman (sAkshAtkAra) like any upAsya devata darshana (deva sAkshAtkAra) in chittaikaagrata upAsana then it is not ultimate jnana. 

 

3. Is samadhi (without N or with partial vichara N) sufficient for jnana?

>  depends on the mumukshu’s adhikAra/samskAra bala (see below your words higher chitta shuddhi) jnana dawns after practicing SMN under the able guidance of shrotreeya brahmanishTa guru.  samAdhi=samyak jnana or Atmaikatva jnana.  

 

4. After SM, is N necessary for jnana? Can N be less for those who have higher chitta shuddhi or for those pursuing yoga sadhana, dhyana, samadhi? (Here, N based on vichara is partially or wholly replaced by the path of yoga, with samadhi facilitating the realization of truths imbibed in SM.)

>  Are we searching the alternative here for the samyak jnana / self realization??  I don’t think there is any other alternative.  vedAnta vAkya janita jnana through SMN is what the only means atlease as per shruti / shankara.  nAnyaH paNthA vidyateyanAya. 

 

5. After SM, is N (without samadhi) sufficient for jnana? (~ same as 1)

• nidhidhyAsana (contemplation on shrutivAkya janita jnana through manana) is enough but needs to be done till we get the svarUpa jnana intuitively.  And SMN are the ‘direct’ and only means to get the jnana. 

[Bhaskar YR]

But the question of contention imo is more about whether the advaitic path necessarily culminates in yogic samadhi when there is atmasakshatkara (self-realization). Or whether vichara/SMN can lead to realization without actually "seeing the form of Self in yogic-samadhi".

 

praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Shankara in 2-1-9 says just as in deep sleep (sushupti) and samAdhi (trance state like asaMprajnAtha ) there is attained the intrinsic state of absence of distinction (avibhAgaprAptau) and YET distinction reappears in waking as before on account of mithyAjnAna not being removed (mithyAjnAnasyAnapOditatvAt pUrvavat punaH prabhOdhe vibhAgO bhavati) So it is quite evident that both in sushupti and samAdhi the mithyAjnAna is not removed through viveka even though both are vikAra-rahita states.  So, AtmasAkshAtkAra what we are talking here would take place only through viveka vichAra based on SMN.  I reckon all these problems that we are facing is due to wrong perception that all duality due to ignorance and its absence can happen ONLY in the state of samAdhi.  But shankara is very particular here jnAni’s paramArtha jnana is NOT any vyavahAra abhAva jnana but it is ONLY vyavahAra bAdhita jnana which is the result of shAstra vAkya janita samyak jnana or eka tattva darshana.  yOgic samAdhi is just like svarUpa shUnya state in which mind would completely immersed in the concentrated object whereas shAstra janita vaidika samAdhi / jnana is paripUrNa svarUpa jnana or Atmaikatva darshana. 

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

The basic question is why must vichara (in the form of SMN) culminate in such a mental state of self-absorption in order for it to destroy ajnana and generate jnana. Why cannot vichara even with a mind still going outward be able to obtain insight into Reality of Self, non-duality of Self and mithyatva of duality, without having to reach the state of samadhi? It is like saying that in order to know that a movie is a movie, one must at some point stop the movie and see the blank screen in order to realize beyond doubt the knowledge taught in the movie that it is only a movie and the Screen alone is reality. The counter-argument is that this samadhi experiential "seeing the screen" is only seeing a different image in the movie, so why cannot the same realization happen even when seeing the different figures? Vichara should obtain the same realization without having to go to the extent of shutting off the movie and seeing the Screen.

 

• A good example and good explanation but I am afraid falling short of the desire result of paramArtha jnana in dArshtAntika.  Shutting off the movie (or stop seeing the duality forcefully through chitta vrutti nirOdha) is not necessary because it is the natural tendency of indriya-s to go out and even after samyak jnana the samyak jnAni would get the natural vrutti-s through the indriya-s.  Shankara gives the example of a shepherd who is ajnAni gets the lamb vrutti by seeing the lamb likewise a samyakjnAni too.  But the jnAni will not get influenced by the aja vikAra it is bAdhitAnuvrutti through which he will continue to see duality that will not be a problem to him and not an obstacle to his non-dual jnana so he does not have to  often go into dark room by deliberately avoiding seeing this duality.  Seeing the ekatvam behind nAnAtvaM is quite natural to him as the result of paramArtha jnana.  That is the reason why jnAni’s paramArtha jnana of ekatvam not restricted to only during the time of deliberate projector off and staring at the blank screen.  Even he is watching sun rise and sun set he knows the truth behind it.  Coming back to the subject, shankara never ever advised there is a subsequent step after SMN to see the culmination of jnana in a particular state called samAdhi.  When the Atma vijnAna dawns at that time only mukti / mOksha happens to him as mukti is not kAlAntara / avasthAntara sthiti.  Atmavishaya vijnAnaM tatkAlam tatkAla eva tadvishaya jnAnatirObhAvaH syAt clarifies bhAshyakAra in br.bhAshya.  and it also to be noted mukti is not a state which can be achieved afresh through jnana here jnana is not kAraka nor vidhi to gain mOksha.  Through jnana avidyA nivrutti happens in that sense only there is a statement that mOksha is jnana kArya.  See br. bhAshya 1-4-10 for more details.  So IMHO samAdhi state like where there is an effort to switch off the projector to literally witness blankness is not required as at the time of jnAnOtpatti itself his katrutva, bhOktrutva and jnAtrutva buddhi would get sublated. 

 

Going by Akhilesh-ji's quote of BG 2.53 and Shankara bhashya, it seems one can make a strong case that indeed SMN has to culminate in samadhi and in that highest state of samadhi only, jnana is realized.

 

• I am still wondering how this sthithaprajna-s state would advocate the split second samAdhi sthiti of the jnAni and how it can be interpreted that in this state mind is literally still (numb) and there is absolutely no movement of the jnAni’s body!!??  If that is the case and if samAdhista jnAni is in absolute motionless state how pertinent Arjuna’s next query to Lord??  Sthitaprajnasya kA bhAshA?? How he sits, how he walks his life etc. See the geeta shloka bhAshya prior to this 2.53, yOgasthaH kuru karmANi, saMgaM taktvA, samatvaM yOga uchyate etc. in this light of yOga we have to understand the yOga samAdhi sthiti in 2.53. 

[dwa...@advaita.org.uk]

Dear Sundar-ji,

 

As you noted, the passage I quoted was the summary of the previous 20 pages of discussion on the topic of samAdhi, so it is not a “logical start” as you put it, but rather noting that Michael Comans reaches the same conclusion in his analysis.

 

The topic of ‘Ignorance’ (and mAyA) will occupy many thousands of words in Vol. 2 of ‘Confusions’, irrespective of the fact that the word mAyA does not appear in any of the major Upanishads.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

From: 'Sundar Rajan' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: 13 September 2022 03:28
To: adva...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [advaitin] The role of samAdhi in vedAnta

 

Namaskar Dennis-ji and all others,

 

>> I have written some 20+ pages on samAdhi in ‘Confusions in Advaita Vedanta: Knowledge, Experience and Enlightenment’ >> 

I am awaiting the book shipment, looking forward to how you address these topics.

 >> To summarize, samādhi is a concept in Yoga philosophy, and has no place in Advaita Vedanta. When Shankara uses this term, he does not mean the same thing (unless he is talking about Yoga). >>

That is a pretty bold statement. Unfortunately the logical start presented, namely, Michael  Coman’s research finding that the word ‘Samadhi does not occur in the major upanishads’ does not quite back up the grand entrance .

It doesn’t take much even for a rookie without much knowledge of Upanishads like myself to point out the word ‘Maya’ also does not occur in the major Upanishads.

So, for that reason, should we knock out Maya as well, one of the key concepts and differentiators of Advaita?

.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Bhaskar-ji,

Ø     Hope you are asking these questions to the group keeping yogic samAdhi in mind. 

Yes, what I think of as yogic samadhi as understood from verses already quoted. The red below indicate yogic samadhi and the blue indicate that how this state is achieved by the yogi in the advaitic path. The mind has no room to move about but is not jada, shunya, asleep: it is fixed in the Self. That state of unmoving fixation is yogic samadhi as per sruthi and BG.

1. BG 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."

3. BG 2.53. "When your mind that has become bewildered by hearing [S. takes the word sruti in the sense of the Vedas.-Tr.] will become unshakable and steadfast in the Self, then you will attain Yoga that arises from discrimination.”

Of which Bhagavatpada says: 

"If it be asked, 'By becoming possessed of the wisdom arising from the discrimination about the Self after overcoming the turbidity of delusion, when shall I attain the yoga of the supreme Reality which is the fruit that results from Karma-yoga?', then listen to that; Yada, when at the time when; te, your; buddhih, mind; that has become sruti-vi- pratipanna, bewildered, tossed about, by hearing (the Vedas) that reveal the diverse ends, means, and (their) relationship, i.e. are filled with divergent ideas; sthasyati, will become; niscala, unshakable, free from the turbulence in the form of distractions; and acala, steadfast, that is to say, free from doubt even in that (unshakable) state; samadhau, in samadhi, that is to say, in the Self -- samadhi being derived in the sense of that in which the mind is fixed; tada, then, at that time; avapsyasi, you will attain; yogam, Yoga, the enlightenment, Self-absorption, that arises from discrimination.”

(Aside: The one curious part of this bhashya is that Shankara says the yoga of Supreme Reality is fruit that results from Karma Yoga. I don't know if this somehow implies a different understanding than what the rest of the passage suggests.)

 

 

2. Does samadhi necessarily occur at atmasakshatkara?

>  depends upon how do we interpret AtmasAkshAtkAra.  If it is bhUma jnana or samyak darshana then paramArtha jnana (samAdhi) is necessary to have AtmasAkshAtkAra.  But if the word  samAdhi used here to get the “darshana” of Atman (sAkshAtkAra) like any upAsya devata darshana (deva sAkshAtkAra) in chittaikaagrata upAsana then it is not ultimate jnana. 

 

So, in your opinion all the above quotations are referring to bhuma jnana? I don't know about the correct translation, but when one says "one should not think of anything whatsoever" after "making the mind fixed", it suggests the possibility that one can think of other things and it is a matter of effort to reach and maintain a certain state. The purpose of reaching that time-bound state is also stated: When such a steadfast nischala state of samadhi, mind being fixed in Self, is attained, then (at that time) the sadhaka attains Yoga, enlightenment, self-absorption. 

This samadhi state is a pre-condition for enlightenment to happen. As per 2.53 bhashya. 

 

3. Is samadhi (without N or with partial vichara N) sufficient for jnana?

>  depends on the mumukshu’s adhikAra/samskAra bala (see below your words higher chitta shuddhi) jnana dawns after practicing SMN under the able guidance of shrotreeya brahmanishTa guru.  samAdhi=samyak jnana or Atmaikatva jnana.  

 

Again, you are not being consistent with Krishna or Shankara in above verses when you suggest samadhi only means samyak jnana - i.e. only a jnani is ever in samadhi. 

What Krishna clarifies is that yogic samadhi in order to result in jnana must be of a specific type: the nischala mind must be fixed steadfast in the Self. We can debate on whether this unmoving-fixing is equivalent to (or consequence of) Nidhidyasana or to Yogic samadhi, or could be either. But it does not seem to be samyak-jnana already.

 

4. After SM, is N necessary for jnana? Can N be less for those who have higher chitta shuddhi or for those pursuing yoga sadhana, dhyana, samadhi? (Here, N based on vichara is partially or wholly replaced by the path of yoga, with samadhi facilitating the realization of truths imbibed in SM.)

>  Are we searching the alternative here for the samyak jnana / self realization??  I don’t think there is any other alternative.  vedAnta vAkya janita jnana through SMN is what the only means atlease as per shruti / shankara.  nAnyaH paNthA vidyateyanAya. 

 

I think the answer is yes in terms of those who hold the opposing viewpoint. They believe Nidhidyasana based on vichara can be (at least partly) replaced by the process of yoga, where vichara is less involved and dhyana, samadhi become more central. That does not mean sravana and mananam are absent; they constitute the seed for jnana to sprout. But the method of preparing the soil is different. When the mind is fixed in the Self through yoga-samadhi, one attains the yoga of the supreme Reality.

I understand (?) there is this debate on the role of nidhidyasana between bhamati and vivarana, where sravanam of mahavakya is the real key and the rest of the process is getting the mind to align with the Knowledge - which is why we accept need for N can vary according to chitta-shuddhi etc. It is similar here where sravanam is already there and yoga withdraws the mind from external thoughts etc. and allows it to become Self-absorbed (fixed) in the Knowledge pointed to by the mahavakya. 

(When the mind "takes the form of the Self" in samadhi, there is realization (due to perfect alignment) of the knowledge revealed in the mahavakya.)

 

5. After SM, is N (without samadhi) sufficient for jnana? (~ same as 1)

• nidhidhyAsana (contemplation on shrutivAkya janita jnana through manana) is enough but needs to be done till we get the svarUpa jnana intuitively.  And SMN are the ‘direct’ and only means to get the jnana. 

I don't see a problem with this position myself. It is standard position of sampradaya, that SMN/vichara obtains jnana. Your answer however is going back to necessity of N and insufficiency of SM+yoga which I replied to earlier. 

(Will later see and respond if needed to your posts.)

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

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/AM7PR06MB65810D7F7B783DCEE77E061E84469%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Bhaskar-ji,

Shankara in 2-1-9 says just as in deep sleep (sushupti) and samAdhi (trance state like asaMprajnAtha ) there is attained the intrinsic state of absence of distinction (avibhAgaprAptau) and YET distinction reappears in waking as before on account of mithyAjnAna not being removed (mithyAjnAnasyAnapOditatvAt pUrvavat punaH prabhOdhe vibhAgO bhavati) So it is quite evident that both in sushupti and samAdhi the mithyAjnAna is not removed through viveka even though both are vikAra-rahita states.  So, AtmasAkshAtkAra what we are talking here would take place only through viveka vichAra based on SMN.  I reckon all these problems that we are facing is due to wrong perception that all duality due to ignorance and its absence can happen ONLY in the state of samAdhi.  But shankara is very particular here jnAni’s paramArtha jnana is NOT any vyavahAra abhAva jnana but it is ONLY vyavahAra bAdhita jnana which is the result of shAstra vAkya janita samyak jnana or eka tattva darshana.  yOgic samAdhi is just like svarUpa shUnya state in which mind would completely immersed in the concentrated object whereas shAstra janita vaidika samAdhi / jnana is paripUrNa svarUpa jnana or Atmaikatva darshana. 

As I said in the last mail, yogic samadhi is like a perfect preparation of the soil (mind) in which the seed of jnana laid through SM(N) can germinate. If you remove the SM and "fixing mind in Self, leading to Self-absorption" part, then the samadhi is like body without 'soul': it will not enliven jnana. You can see God in a trance-like state and still think He is a ghost. That is the kind of samadhi that Shankara is criticizing.

But with right preparation, the mind that goes into samadhi and takes the "svarupa of Self" (~ unobstructed awareness minus dualistic identifications) comes out of samadhi having 'personally' realized the Knowledge of Self pointed to by the Mahavakyas and thereafter that jiva has svarupa jnana. The mahavakya jnana acts from within as the Key that unlocks svarupa jnana when the mind in samadhi reflects atma-svarupa and jiva has atmaikatva darshana. Point is that this darshana is also attained in samadhi based on SM(N).

[Though you don't consider JMV as pramana, for reference I am linking a file sent by Sundar-ji that mentions this "mind taking form of Self". Also, like you said you were talking without firsthand experience, I am like a third-person on this topic since as of now, it is not something I am in the trenches of either camp for. More for logical discussion based on sources and general knowledge purpose. ]

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

 

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/AM7PR06MB6581C32471D6D57C97DED2F484469%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Bhaskar-ji,

Let's look at your sun rise/set example.

How do you and I know it is truth? Generally, it is shabda pramana since pratyaksha contradicts the fact that sun is still and earth alone is spinning. We have knowledge through shabda (via shraddha in science, videos from outer space, etc.).

The scientist or astronomer like Galileo and Newton were convinced of this truth (that went against shabda of their times) through their vichara. Whereas the scientists of today can invoke their vichara standing on the shabda pramana of Science. However even that vichara will involve recourse to various astronomical data and mathematical calculations.

But for a few others, the space travelers, they go into outer space in rockets and actually see the earth spinning. In their case, they will come to the same conclusion that sun is not moving around Earth each day and rather it is an illusion due to our relative fixed position on the moving earth. But their vichara will be much simpler since their vision is able to overcome the obstructions that created the original illusion. They don't do the mathematical calculations: from what they see, it is self evident that earth is spinning once each day even as sun is stable.

All three have the same Knowledge of reality because they each align their minds with the truth only, no matter how much one thinks he has more confirmation or less. The truth does not change and so long as their conviction is total, they are one with the truth. But if one does not obtain total conviction through shraddha in shabda and not intellectual enough to learn the physics, but rich enough to jump on a space ship, yes that is also a possible way to obtaining the same conviction/knowledge.

Similarly, samadhi is said to offer a 'vision' that makes easier (simplifying the vichara needed) to obtain knowledge of Self.

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

--

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/AM7PR06MB65812203A729CB448566755C84469%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Sundar Rajan]

Namaskarams All,

This topic continues to generate a lot of responses and Putran-ji, I don’t want to get in the middle of your replies.

 Below message pertains to the equivalence of Sushupti and Samidhi pointed out by both Bhaskar-ji 

>>  Shankara in 2-1-9 says just as in deep sleep (sushupti) and samAdhi (trance state like asaMprajnAtha ) there is attained the intrinsic state of absence of distinction (avibhAgaprAptau) and YET distinction reappears in waking as before on account of mithyAjnAna not being removed

.. yOgic samAdhi is just like svarUpa shUnya state in which mind would completely immersed in the concentrated object whereas shAstra janita vaidika samAdhi / jnana is paripUrNa svarUpa jnana or Atmaikatva darshana.  >> 

and Dennis-ji: >>  

>> “As in natural slumber and samādhi…” This emphasizes the fact that he views it as only an experience in time, which by his own definition in pañchikaraņam cannot be mokṣa. When we wake up or come out of the trance, the experience ends and subject-object duality recommences. Neither deep-sleep nor samādhi can remove the ignorance that obscures Self-knowledge. >>

Both have stated the same point that Sushupti and Samidhi are equivalent and person coming out of either is still ignorant.

However in Gaudapada Karika III.34 points out that  Sushupti and Samadhi are in fact different and asks the practicing Yogi to note the difference carefully  निगृहीतस्य मनसो निर्विकल्पस्य धीमतः । प्रचारः स तु विज्ञेयः सुषुप्तेऽन्यो न तत्समः ॥ ३४ ॥

 In the commentary, Shankara emphasizes they are different by stating an objection that the mind in control ( Samadhi) behaves the same as the mind in sleep:
    ननु सर्वप्रत्ययाभावे यादृशः सुषुप्तिस्थस्य मनसः प्रचारः, तादृश एव निरुद्धस्यापि, प्रत्ययाभावाविशेषात् ; किं तत्र विज्ञेयमिति ।

And then answers: No – The objecton is untenable since the behaviors are different and goes on to explain further अत्रोच्यते — नैवम् , यस्मात्सुषुप्ते अन्यः 

Did Sri Sankara mistakenly take both (sushupti and samAdhi ) to be the same in BSBh 2-1-9 and then after reading His Paramaguru’s commentary change his mind ? 😊 

That doesn’t make any sense. We all know that cannot be the case. Obviously there needs to be a samanvaya between these seemingly contractionary statements.

What about ignorance in (during or after) Samadhi? For this let us look at the defining mantra of Samadhi in the Upansihads: तां योगमिति मन्यन्ते स्थिरामिन्द्रियधारणाम् । tAM yogam iti manyante sthirAm indriya-dhAraNAm - kaTha 6.11

Here , Sankara extols Samadhi to such an extent even the most ardent Patanjai Yogi will be proud of 😊  

एतस्यां ह्यवस्थायाम् अविद्याध्यारोपणवर्जितस्वरूपप्रतिष्ठ आत्मा स्थिरामिन्द्रियधारणां

In this state (avastha) - Sankara is assigning Samadhi a special avastha, which even the Upanishad did not do.

In this state (Samadhi Avastha), indeed, the self is established in its own nature, free from all the superimposition of ignorance. 

The exact opposite of what Dennis-ji and Bhaskar-ji stated.

Not stopping with that Sankara on His own accord ties this Katha Mantra सर्वानर्थसंयोगवियोगलक्षणा हीयमवस्था योगिनः to the Gita teachings in sixth chapter  by stating this Yoga is actually Viyogam from all evils ( taṅ vidyād duḥkhasaṅyōgaviyōgaṅ.. Gita 6.23).

As it is well known, Sankara introduces the sixth chapter stating Dhyana-Yoga is antaranga Sadhana for Samyag Darsana or Atmaikatva darshana

अतीतानन्तराध्यायान्ते ध्यानयोगस्य सम्यग्दर्शनं प्रति अन्तरङ्गस्य सूत्रभूताः श्लोकाः Thereby pointing out Samadhi eventually leads to Atmaikatva darshana. Again a very different taken by Bhasyakara compared to the positions taken by the members quoted above.

Doesn’t Sankara know Samadhi is a time bound state?. Absolutely, in fact the Katha Up states that योगो हि प्रभवाप्ययौ Yoga is subject to both growth and decay.

All the Advaitic Acharyas who are yoga inclined such as Sri Vidyaranya and Sri Madhusudan Sarawathi also know it is time bound without any doubts.

Why, even those who are budding dharana/dhyana yoga practioners know that.  It is a characteristic of any yoga anushtana be it dharana, dhyana etc. The Sadhaka will experience tranquility, peace, joy etc during the anushtana and the effect slowly fades away. Even Gayathri Japa – Sri Nochur Venkatramanji refers to how the japa has an effect but the effect fades away.

Just because a one time or even a few occurrences of Samadhi do not result in the permanent state, there is no reason to discard or downplay it. We all know from the previous posts and the scriptures the massive purification and samskaras created by it. Just as a sadhaka doing vichara, where they are willing to pound the paddy to obtain the rice, why not a Yogic sadhaka practice something multiple times?. Especially if it is as Bhagavan says “sukhēna”..

BTW we are all speaking in this list as if Samadhi is a simple choice, like a place to visit or an item to acquire, and discussing whether we should do it or not. As Putran-ji pointed out in an earlier post, it is an arduous practice requiring commitment over an extended period of time. Maybe because of that intermediary milestones such as Dharana and Dhyana are mentioned..

Regards

--

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/AM7PR06MB6581C32471D6D57C97DED2F484469%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com

.

[Akilesh Ayyar]

Namaste Sundarji,

Just wanted to thank you for these excellent and well-chosen exegeses. 

Akilesh Ayyar

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/965472778.2097931.1663190536852%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Dennis Waite prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

As you noted, the passage I quoted was the summary of the previous 20 pages of discussion on the topic of samAdhi, so it is not a “logical start” as you put it, but rather noting that Michael Comans reaches the same conclusion in his analysis.

 

Ø     And it is not only mere academic scholars like Michael Comans ( who I believe an ardent followers of Sri Dayananda Saraswati of Arsha vidya and later took sannyasa also in AVG) who arrived this conclusion but somany traditional Acharya-s too have expressed their opinion in the same way and it is not only Sri SSS.  BTW, what would be the take of Sri DS & his disciple Sri paramArthAnanda  with regard to this issue??  The institute and its teaching which most of the list members here would believe more authentic and traditional !!??   

 

The topic of ‘Ignorance’ (and mAyA) will occupy many thousands of words in Vol. 2 of ‘Confusions’, irrespective of the fact that the word mAyA does not appear in any of the major Upanishads.

 

Ø     I don’t think so, the word mAya indeed appear in shvetaashwatara up. ( which shankara quotes in bhAsya)  mAyAntu prakrutim vidyAn mAyinantu maheshwaraM.  And at smruti pramAna grantha like bhagavadgeeta.  However equating mAya with avidyA is the grand contribution of later commentators who have clandestine agenda like propagating the theories like mUlAvidyA. 

[Bhaskar YR]

[Sundar Rajan]

Namaskar,

>>

Ø     I don’t think so, the word mAya indeed appear in shvetaashwatara up

>>

shvetaashwatara is not one of the ten major Upanishads referred by Sri Comans. 

So my statement still stands. Maya does not occur in the ten major Upanishads. 

Here is the actual quote from Sri Michael Comans;

The first point to be noted is that the word samādhidoes not occur in the ten major Upaniṣads upon which Śaṅkara has commented

https://realization.org/p/misc/comans.samadhi-advaita.html#tn11 

Regards 

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

--

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/AM7PR06MB6581E2F5A78D8DD8C2E16BA384499%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com

.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

I have avoided replying to Sri Sundar prabhuji as I thought only first hand experiencer should address his queries.  Now, atleast from his recent mails it is confirmed that he too, like me depending on bhAshya and some other works to share his opinion without talking from his own experience 😊 So I again dared to reply him.  Hope he wont mind hearing this blabbering from a revolving chair philosopher 😊

 Below message pertains to the equivalence of Sushupti and Samidhi pointed out by both Bhaskar-ji 

>>  Shankara in 2-1-9 says just as in deep sleep (sushupti) and samAdhi (trance state like asaMprajnAtha ) there is attained the intrinsic state of absence of distinction (avibhAgaprAptau) and YET distinction reappears in waking as before on account of mithyAjnAna not being removed

.. yOgic samAdhi is just like svarUpa shUnya state in which mind would completely immersed in the concentrated object whereas shAstra janita vaidika samAdhi / jnana is paripUrNa svarUpa jnana or Atmaikatva darshana.  >> 

and Dennis-ji: >>  

>> “As in natural slumber and samādhi…” This emphasizes the fact that he views it as only an experience in time, which by his own definition in pañchikaraņam cannot be mokṣa. When we wake up or come out of the trance, the experience ends and subject-object duality recommences. Neither deep-sleep nor samādhi can remove the ignorance that obscures Self-knowledge. >>

Both have stated the same point that Sushupti and Samidhi are equivalent and person coming out of either is still ignorant.

 

Ø     Both have said that just because bhagavatpAda saying that so it is better to keep that it is not mere concoction on our own. 

However in Gaudapada Karika III.34 points out that  Sushupti and Samadhi are in fact different and asks the practicing Yogi to note the difference carefully  निगृहीतस्य मनसो निर्विकल्पस्य धीमतः । प्रचारः स तु विज्ञेयः सुषुप्तेऽन्यो न तत्समः ॥ ३४ ॥

 In the commentary, Shankara emphasizes they are different by stating an objection that the mind in control ( Samadhi) behaves the same as the mind in sleep:
    ननु सर्वप्रत्ययाभावे यादृशः सुषुप्तिस्थस्य मनसः प्रचारः, तादृश एव निरुद्धस्यापि, प्रत्ययाभावाविशेषात् ; किं तत्र विज्ञेयमिति ।

And then answers: No – The objecton is untenable since the behaviors are different and goes on to explain further अत्रोच्यते — नैवम् , यस्मात्सुषुप्ते अन्यः 

• Here point may be noted no one here claiming that both sushupti (absence of mind in a relaxed state) and samAdhi ( a mind restrained trance state) are one and the same and because of that  reason only bhAshyakAra too used sushupti AND samAdhi ( denoting these two are different states).  What is similar between these two states are ‘the absence of ‘distinction’ (which already said in the bhAshya vAkya itself) and return of the same on waking.  Though one is (sushupti) a naturally attained state and another one is (samAdhi) a forceful suppression of mind and making it merge in meditated object, the return of the both states and status of the experiencer of both states is same since while entering into the both states the experiencer do so as ajnAni and comes back as ajnAni only due to absence of shAstra janita viveka. And it is also to be noted that we are not deliberating the efficacious soothing effect of samAdhi experience which has been achieved by Yogi by means of disciplined practices since it has its own benefits in its own realm like in saguNOpAsana the upAsaka gets this peace by doing the upAsana of his upAsya devata. 

Did Sri Sankara mistakenly take both (sushupti and samAdhi ) to be the same in BSBh 2-1-9 and then after reading His Paramaguru’s commentary change his mind ? 😊 That doesn’t make any sense. We all know that cannot be the case. Obviously there needs to be a samanvaya between these seemingly contractionary statements.

 

Ø     No he is just clarifying that how yogic trance state is though appears  as superior state not a mOksha state or the experiencer is not a Atmaikatva jnAni at both the places.  Why we should interpret like this ??  it is just because chitta vrutti nirOdha and resultant samAdhi is NOT mOksha sAdhana as per bhAshyakAra himself.   Samanvaya needs to be done keeping the parama siddhAnta of shruti and samanvaya should not be done keeping parama sidhAnta of dvaita yOga shAstra. The premise should be shabda pramANa not dvaita yOga shAstra pramANa.  Do I have to again say it is because both sAnkhya and yOga are not Atmaikatva darshins!!?? 

 

What about ignorance in (during or after) Samadhi? For this let us look at the defining mantra of Samadhi in the Upansihads: तां योगमिति मन्यन्ते स्थिरामिन्द्रियधारणाम् । tAM yogam iti manyante sthirAm indriya-dhAraNAm - kaTha 6.11

Here , Sankara extols Samadhi to such an extent even the most ardent Patanjai Yogi will be proud of 😊  

•  Again no need to ‘smell’ the yOga samAdhi of patanjali here due to our over obsession to it.  What has been taught here and geeta is adhyAtma yOga which is purely vedic in its nature and that is the reason why bhAshyakAra clarifies in 2-1-3 that it is the vedic knowledge and vedic meditation that are denoted by the words sAnkhya and yOga.  So IMO, deliberately reading between the lines of bhAshya just to bring-in the dvaita theory of yOga and patanjala praNeeta samAdhi totally unwarranted here.  Having said this no one is saying indriya nigraha, manO nigraha, chitta ekagrata or sthira chitta etc. exclusive to ONLY PYS and it  is not necessary in Advaita jnana mArga. Hope atlease here you are with me 😊   

 

एतस्यां ह्यवस्थायाम् अविद्याध्यारोपणवर्जितस्वरूपप्रतिष्ठ आत्मा स्थिरामिन्द्रियधारणां

In this state (avastha) - Sankara is assigning Samadhi a special avastha, which even the Upanishad did not do.

• Where is PYS sponsored samAdhi here and its exaltation!!??  Do you think avidyAdhyArOpaNavarjita svarUpa pratishTa Atma is what PYS saying in definition of asaMprajnAtha samAdhi??  Patanjali talking about svarUpashUnyamiva avastha whereas vedAnta / shruti / bhAshyakAra talking about svarUpa pratishTa.  It is really amazing how one even think of dvaita yOga even in these straight forward cases of shruti siddhAnta and shrutyukta paramArtha jnAna !!?? 

In this state (Samadhi Avastha), indeed, the self is established in its own nature, free from all the superimposition of ignorance. 

The exact opposite of what Dennis-ji and Bhaskar-ji stated.

 

Ø     You are under the delusion due to you are as usual comparing vedAntic paramArtha jnana with that of samAdhi experience of yOga and erecting your own strawman argument we are saying that yOga samAdhi is avidyA state!!  Just for the clarity  I am still ( don’t know what Sri Dennis Waite prabhuji thinks here) saying as per bhAshyakAra though both sushupti AND samAdhi free from distinctions after waking mithyAjnAna reappears because mithyAjnAna not yet removed.  For that matter in sushupti also self if established in its own nature and there is no adhyAsa since mind is not there.  Atra veda aveda says shruti too about sushupti.  And again shruti about sushupti says :  salila ekaH drashtA advaitO bhavati, eshAsya paramAgatiH etc.  but no one argue like you that go to sleep and get mOksha…or go to Patanjali sponsored samAdhi and mukti/mOksha guaranteed 😊

Not stopping with that Sankara on His own accord ties this Katha Mantra सर्वानर्थसंयोगवियोगलक्षणा हीयमवस्था योगिनः to the Gita teachings in sixth chapter  by stating this Yoga is actually Viyogam from all evils ( taṅ vidyād duḥkhasaṅyōgaviyōgaṅ.. Gita 6.23)

• adhyAtma yOga, vaidika dhyAna sAnkhya keep these things in mind to avoid sensing PYS in this vedAntic state.   

As it is well known, Sankara introduces the sixth chapter stating Dhyana-Yoga is antaranga Sadhana for Samyag Darsana or Atmaikatva darshana

अतीतानन्तराध्यायान्ते ध्यानयोगस्य सम्यग्दर्शनं प्रति अन्तरङ्गस्य सूत्रभूताः श्लोकाः Thereby pointing out Samadhi eventually leads to Atmaikatva darshana. Again a very different taken by Bhasyakara compared to the positions taken by the members quoted above.

Ø       Anyone anywhere ever said Advaita jnana mArga is not antaranga sAdhana??  Again you are simply trying to put some words in our mouth 😊 dhyAna yOgasya samyak darshanaM  anyone objected here in this discussion??  Without knowing the difference between what is kartru tantra dhyAna and what is vastu tantra dhyAna and what is the difference between yOgic object based dhyAna (kartuM, akartuM or anyathAkartum shakyaM) and vedAntic svarUpa dhyAna where man made manipulation not possible..you are making your assumptions on members’ position 😊 And just again for your kind attention, nidhidhyAsana too no doubt is mental too and it is also kind of steady flow of thought enjoined by the shruti just as in any upAsana or purusha tantra dhyAna is.  But nidhdhyAsana is a mental process of focusing one’s attention in order to realize the nature of shAstra vAkya.  May I have your attention please, dhyAnse suno etc. explains come, sit here, listen to me carefully I shall explain it to you,  you better try to assimilate it by close attention, this process is called nidhidhyAsana or doing nidhidhyAsana ( nidhidhyAsasva)…is this not the instruction given by yAjnAvalkya to maitreyi in br.up.??  

Doesn’t Sankara know Samadhi is a time bound state?. Absolutely, in fact the Katha Up states that योगो हि प्रभवाप्ययौ Yoga is subject to both growth and decay.

• So thanks for pointing it and accepting it, the above self-explanatory that samAdhi is just a temporary state whereas paramArtha jnana is nityaM and ekarUpam. 

Why, even those who are budding dharana/dhyana yoga practioners know that.  It is a characteristic of any yoga anushtana be it dharana, dhyana etc. The Sadhaka will experience tranquility, peace, joy etc during the anushtana and the effect slowly fades away. Even Gayathri Japa – Sri Nochur Venkatramanji refers to how the japa has an effect but the effect fades away.

 

Ø    Digression, no one questioning or doubting the benefits of yOga samAdhi, upAsana, dhyAna etc. here.  The contended issue is something different which does not have any problem in eulogizing the other sAdhana mArga-s and its results. So you can be assured it is acceptable to all of us 😊  

 

Just because a one time or even a few occurrences of Samadhi do not result in the permanent state, there is no reason to discard or downplay it.

 

• Again no one belittling the efficacy of dvaita based yOga practice.  The show is allowed to run in its own theatres. 

 

We all know from the previous posts and the scriptures the massive purification and samskaras created by it. Just as a sadhaka doing vichara, where they are willing to pound the paddy to obtain the rice, why not a Yogic sadhaka practice something multiple times?. Especially if it is as Bhagavan says “sukhēna”..

 

Ø     They are welcome to do that.  Who are we to question that !!??  Like mumukshu / jignAsu in advaita jnana mArga doing the Avrutti of SMN till the jnana let them also practice the dhyAna and samAdhi, let them drive the kundalini to sahasrAra through sushumnaa naadi, let them concentrate on shat chakra-s etc. who will come in their way?? 

BTW we are all speaking in this list as if Samadhi is a simple choice, like a place to visit or an item to acquire, and discussing whether we should do it or not. As Putran-ji pointed out in an earlier post, it is an arduous practice requiring commitment over an extended period of time. Maybe because of that intermediary milestones such as Dharana and Dhyana are mentioned..

• No not at all at any stretch of imagination no one would argue that samAdhi is just like a walk on the rose bed anyone anytime get samAdhi on the tip of his finger!! no one would make stupid statements like that, no not at all…parama yOgi-s, paramahaMsa-s attained this state attained  after doing decades of one pointed relentless sAdhana.  My humble prostrations to all of them.  endarO mahAnubhAvulu andariki vandanamulu.

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

Members can read (Pg 158 to 169) the Sringeri Acharya's account of his experiencing Nirvikalpa Samadhi, followed by discerning SMN based Vichara, and then further NS.  Several texts are also quoted. https://svfonline.net/yoga-enlightenment-and-perfection/.

His words convey that NS here is same as in PYS and it does obtain a direct clarity of advaita jnana, however one needs SMN based vichara to understand its import correctly and not get misled. 

1. "When I opened My eyes, ...So clear was the realisation that I was of the very nature of absolute existence that I apprehended nothing whatsoever as existing apart from Me. Everything was like bubbles on the ocean that was Myself... After about an hour the apprehension, “I am the Supreme Brahman other than which there is nothing” started to slowly weaken from being on par with perceiving a fruit in one’s open palm. However, even when its attenuation stopped, it was much stronger than it had been when I had sat down to meditate."

2. "I went on to reflect as follows. Suppose a person, who is adept at yoga, feels he is established in the Ātman when he is in samādhi but that he deviates to some extent from the Reality when he emerges from samādhi and engages in activity. Such a person is not free from avidyā.

Samādhi and distraction are conditions of the mind and not of the Ātman. The Ātman is ever changeless and of the nature of consciousness. Samādhi and distraction do not affect it in any way. It is because this yogin is not free from identification with the mind that he sees himself as influenced by changes in the state of the mind. He who has fully realised that he is the changeless Reality remains established in the Reality and unaffected regardless of whether his mind is in a focused, agitated or dull condition... I should .. not become attached to nirvikalpa-samādhi under the delusion that for its duration I become one with Brahman.

"...he who knows that there is nothing whatsoever apart from Brahman cannot be affected either by the appearance of the mirage-like world of names and forms or its disappearance during samādhi or deep sleep."

3. " I entered nirvikalpa- samādhi exactly as on the previous night. After about an hour, I opened My eyes. The falsity of names and forms was crystal clear and so was the certainty that there was nothing that was other than consciousness."

It doesn't prove necessity of NS but at the least shows that NS can play a natural complementary role of moksha sadhana. 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Bhaskar YR]

It doesn't prove necessity of NS but at the least shows that NS can play a natural complementary role of moksha sadhana. 

praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Yes for those who opts for the ‘materialization’ of the Atma jnana in a particular state.  Bottom line always remains that this experience is not must for the Atmaikatva jnana atleast as per PTB by bhagavatpAda.  Stalwarts in Advaita tradition like madhusudana saraswati, vidyAraNya, HH Sri Chandrashekhara bhArati ( commentary on VC) wrote a lot about it.  And since very long time PYS & samAdhi significance very sensitively blend with jnana sAdhana in Advaita tradition.  So very difficult to exclude it in sAdhanAnubhava.  But unfortunately if you see the prakaraNa-s like VC, PD etc. they categorically declare that experience of samAdhi is must lest no mOksha / mukti.  Deliberation starts if anyone holds this view point against PTB. 

[putran M]

Namaskaram Bhaskar-ji,

I understand your disagreement with asserting that NS is a prerequisite for jnana, but your first sentence appears to misrepresent those who claim to have actually experienced this Samadhi. It is not a question of "opting" alone; their words express that the NS experience hastens, highlights, stabilizes or clarifies the knowledge obtained from SM(N). They obtain insights that enable them to cross ajnana through easier vichara (like the space-traveler in my example), whereas those who only do SMN may have to work harder for the same purpose. (But to get to NS will involve its own yogic sadhana, not easy for most.) Their eulogizing (arthaavada?) of NS has to be explained in terms of the benefit they have obtained from it for the purpose of attaining jnana. The opting is with regard to the yogic sadhana that will be needed to obtain this highest yogic-state.

Can you point to any acharya who says that he personally experienced NS and it has nothing special to offer the advaitin en route to realization? (Note PTB negative comments on samadhi are not sufficient or obvious for this purpose. That NS by itself without proper vichara can mislead is explained by the Sringeri acharya as well; so one can criticize it from that angle. We also have PTB, Sruti, BG quotes that seem to indicate NS in favourable light, even though you can interpret them differently.)

thollmelukaalkizhu

--

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/AM7PR06MB6581846BB4AC11D173EBD38484489%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Sundar Rajan]

Namaskaram  Putran-ji,

>>

Can you point to any acharya who says that he personally experienced NS and it has nothing special to offer the advaitin en route to realization? 

>>

You bring up a very interesting point. 

Invariably those teachers who downplay the Yogic path are those who are not sufficiently adept in it or do not have sufficient prowess in it. Sorry if this comes across as blunt but this is my observation from listening to various expositions and narratives. 

They will downplay intense meditation and use terms like it is ok for mind to wander during meditation (even for an experienced meditator) or you can have lots of thoughts so long they are of the same kind etc. They won’t mention the bliss aspect and explain it away by saying it is ‘understanding ananda not experiencing ananda’. Sorry that’s not how it works. 

From a practioners standpoint even at Dharana level when the mind focuses there is the experience of joy/bliss. It is unavoidable and the sadhaka knows it is the grace that is responsible for it and not their own making.

Once we understand this it is easy to see why VC has so much mention of the bliss aspect.

I have an idea for a more in-depth post on this , hopefully soon.

Regards 

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-ogX5r7SmrvkAitbyuTy0688ih3BpXZEjh1O_nq%3DPPuSQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

• Just for academics would like to share my thoughts :

 

Yes, what I think of as yogic samadhi as understood from verses already quoted.

 

• Before going further, kindly tell me some particular body posture / position (sitting straight, closing eyes, focused mind, concentration level etc.) would determine the nature of jnana that person is having or striving for ??  I don’t think so. 

 

The red below indicate yogic samadhi and the blue indicate that how this state is achieved by the yogi in the advaitic path.

 

• If at all what has been explained in shruti and smruti is advaitic jnana mArga the jnana phala of that jnana sAdhana is purely advaitic in nature not yOgic.  IMO studying and practicing MBBS syllabus would not fetch us Engineering degree.  For attaining yOgic samAdhi there are some prescribed methods ( yama, niyama, Asana, pranayama, pratyahara, dhAraNa, dhyAna and finally samAdhi) in yOga shAstra.  Likewise to realize the samyak jnana or brahma vidyA there are traditionally prescribed (sAdhana chatushtaya i.e. nityAnitya vastu viveka, ehAmutrArthaphala bhOga virAga, shamAdi 6 guNa-s and mumukshatva) methods for the direct “darshana’ through vedAnta vAkya SMN.  Let us not mix it as the result of two different sAdhana would  vary.  Advaita sAdhana leads to Advaita jnana AND yOga sAdhana leads to yOga samAdhi.  That would be more appropriate approach I think. 

 

The mind has no room to move about but is not jada, shunya, asleep: it is fixed in the Self. That state of unmoving fixation is yogic samadhi as per sruthi and BG.

 

• With regard to quotes from geeta & katha I would like to say it has to be interpreted/understood from vedic adhyAtmika yOga point of view not from PY point of view since shankara himself said how sAnkhya & yOga needs to be understood from vedAntic perspective and not from its popular (lOka prasiddha) meaning .  Coming back to no-mind state, shruti talks about no-body (disembodiedness – ashareeratvaM) of the jnAni as well.  See Br. Up. Mantra (4-4-7) for example, it says when all the desires in one’s heart have been got rid of, then the mortal being becomes immortal and attains brahman here in this life.  “just as the cast-off slough of a snake would lie lifeless in an ant-hill, so also does the body of the enlightened person lie there and he is now bodiless, the prAna, brahman alone, the light of pure consciousness alone”.  What does it mean??  Is he become all of a sudden bodiless, is he going to leave his body like snake cast-off its skin??  Contextually we have to understand these terms that these mantra-s teaching us the effacement of the idea of one’s identity with body as the result of realization of brahman.  For the possession of a body, mind, intellect, ahamkara etc. was only through ignorance while the intrinsic nature of Atman is revealed here.  No-mind, no body, becoming Atman without anything etc. should be taken in this way, if not jnAni would immediately meet death or mind dead after Atma jnana 😊

 

(Aside: The one curious part of this bhashya is that Shankara says the yoga of Supreme Reality is fruit that results from Karma Yoga. I don't know if this somehow implies a different understanding than what the rest of the passage suggests.)

 

Ø     If we see previous shloka-s and shankara bhAshya we will come to know how the ultimate state of yOga needs to be understand from vedAntic perspective.  And 2.54 is enough that that state of sthita prajna is not mind dead or mind inert state. 

 

 

3. Is samadhi (without N or with partial vichara N) sufficient for jnana?

>  depends on the mumukshu’s adhikAra/samskAra bala (see below your words higher chitta shuddhi) jnana dawns after practicing SMN under the able guidance of shrotreeya brahmanishTa guru.  samAdhi=samyak jnana or Atmaikatva jnana.  

 

 

Again, you are not being consistent with Krishna or Shankara in above verses when you suggest samadhi only means samyak jnana - i.e. only a jnani is ever in samadhi. 

 

Ø     I believe I am consistent with addressing these issues from adhyAtma yOga perspective.  samAdhi is the status of sthitha prajna.  And samAdhi is the natural state of sthitha prajna who is dvandvaateeta and jnAni.  How he looks, how he takes and treats dvandva (sukha-duHkha, jaya apajaya etc.) is what is explained in subsequent verses.  If the mind is literally absolute no-mind state where is the question of dvandva and treating it with equanimity etc.  Since you are seeing temporary yogic samAdhi in this particular verse you are seeing lack of consistency whereas I am looking at the whole adhyAya which is exclusively dedicated to sAnkhya ( jnana) which is the result of adhyAtmika yOga sAdhana.   BTW anywhere lord krishna said what is achieved in 2.53 by sthitha prajna is something inferior to brahma vidya / bhUma vidyA and there is superior state awaiting for sthithaprajna at a later stage to conclude that it is mere yOgic samAdhi and not vedAntic jnana?? 

 

4. After SM, is N necessary for jnana? Can N be less for those who have higher chitta shuddhi or for those pursuing yoga sadhana, dhyana, samadhi? (Here, N based on vichara is partially or wholly replaced by the path of yoga, with samadhi facilitating the realization of truths imbibed in SM.)

>  Are we searching the alternative here for the samyak jnana / self realization??  I don’t think there is any other alternative.  vedAnta vAkya janita jnana through SMN is what the only means atlease as per shruti / shankara.  nAnyaH paNthA vidyateyanAya. 

 

 

I think the answer is yes in terms of those who hold the opposing viewpoint.

 

• If the answer is then the subsequent question is, is there only one alternative or many alternatives for the self realization.  And where bhAshyakAra talks about alternatives to jnana mArga??  mOksha mArga ( the path of realization) is one or so many??  Or only two yOga & jnana??  If we look at geeta lord says there are two types of nishTa-s, jnana yOgena sAnkhyAnaM karma yOgena yoginAM, and karma does not fetch of jnana well established fact in advaita tradition.  So what remains is sAnkhya yOga  which is nothing but jnana mArga which is the ONLY path for self realization.  Na anya patha vidyateyanAya clarifies shruti. 

 

They believe Nidhidyasana based on vichara can be (at least partly) replaced by the process of yoga, where vichara is less involved and dhyana, samadhi become more central. That does not mean sravana and mananam are absent; they constitute the seed for jnana to sprout. But the method of preparing the soil is different. When the mind is fixed in the Self through yoga-samadhi, one attains the yoga of the supreme Reality.

 

Ø     Those sAdhaka-s can do 101 assumptions like this, what we need to know is what is suggested as jnana sAdhana in shruti and Acharya vAkya.  I would like to quote here with regard to sAdhana’s ultimate verdict which needs to be remembered whenever we confront the advocators special attachment to other schools of thought.  In sUtra bhAshya 4-1-18 he says : therefore this is the final conclusion obligatory karma such as agnihOtra whether combined with vidyA or not combined with vidyA practiced either this or previous janma, by any one longing for release before the dawn of knowledge with a view to reach the goal of realization, becomes in proportion to its efficacy, the cause of the destruction of accumulated sins which obstruct the knowledge of brahman, and through indirectly co-operating with the PROXIMATE AIDS ( emphasis is mine) such as shravaNa, manana, faith and intent devotion culminates in bringing about the one effect namely brahma vidyA leading to release.  If one wants to smell patanjala yOga based sAdhana as against this simple straight forward ‘final conclusion’ of bhAshyakAra, then I really don’t have to say anything further. 

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I understand your disagreement with asserting that NS is a prerequisite for jnana, but your first sentence appears to misrepresent those who claim to have actually experienced this Samadhi.

 

• I said that it is only their option because they themselves clarified it is not must.  See what HH says about the necessity of NS :

//quote//

Samādhi and distraction are conditions of the mind and not of the Ātman. The Ātman is ever changeless and of the nature of consciousness. Samādhi and distraction do not affect it in any way. It is because this yogin is not free from identification with the mind that he sees himself as influenced by changes in the state of the mind. He who has fully realised that he is the changeless Reality remains established in the Reality and unaffected regardless of whether his mind is in a focused, agitated or dull condition... I should .. not become attached to nirvikalpa-samādhi under the delusion that for its duration I become one with Brahman.

"...he who knows that there is nothing whatsoever apart from Brahman cannot be affected either by the appearance of the mirage-like world of names and forms or its disappearance during samādhi or deep sleep."

//unquote//

 

• It is quite evident for the paramArtha jnAni the experience of NS is hardly a matter of need.  Whether he is in NS or out of it his jnana would remain intact and he does not need certification of this jnana in a particular state called NS and he will not be under the delusion that during the duration of this state only he is one with brahman.  Hence I said having the experience of NS is optional not mandatory.  While on the subject it is interesting to see HH observation that disappearance of duality in SAMAADHI ‘OR’ DEEP SLEEP.  Any other explanation with regard to this elsewhere in this book??  

 

 

It is not a question of "opting" alone; their words express that the NS experience hastens, highlights, stabilizes or clarifies the knowledge obtained from SM(N). They obtain insights that enable them to cross ajnana through easier vichara (like the space-traveler in my example), whereas those who only do SMN may have to work harder for the same purpose. (But to get to NS will involve its own yogic sadhana, not easy for most.) Their eulogizing (arthaavada?) of NS has to be explained in terms of the benefit they have obtained from it for the purpose of attaining jnana. The opting is with regard to the yogic sadhana that will be needed to obtain this highest yogic-state.

 

 

• I beg to disagree with this, as a matter of fact,  if the jnana sAdhaka mumuksu still needs some clarification about knowledge even after SMN means still he has to do the krushi (sAdhana) to get the result. Doing the Avrutti of SMN till all his doubts cleared.  Pounding the puddy till he should get rice.  The jnana phala through SMN is complete annihilation of sarva saMshaya.  If NS is the short-cut to achieve it bhAshyakAra would have suggested : hear mahAvAkya ,  do meditate in the yOgic way and get jnana in samAdhi.  But that is not the suggestion.  If not in this janma,  in subsequent janma-s do Avrutti till you intuitively realize you are one without second is the advice.   

 

Can you point to any acharya who says that he personally experienced NS and it has nothing special to offer the advaitin en route to realization? (Note PTB negative comments on samadhi are not sufficient or obvious for this purpose. That NS by itself without proper vichara can mislead is explained by the Sringeri acharya as well; so one can criticize it from that angle. We also have PTB, Sruti, BG quotes that seem to indicate NS in favourable light, even though you can interpret them differently.)

 

• No, frankly, really I don’t know whether those who are questioning the necessity of NS experience in Advaita sAdhana have the first hand experience of NS and saying so.  Even if they say so, how do we adjudicate whether it is genuine NS experience or some other drug induced trance state?? After all like brahma jnana it is their ‘sva-hrudaya pratyaya’ nobody should dare to question its credentials.  And interestingly nobody would assert  : see I have experience of this NS on such and such day and from 9AM to 10AM and it is an absolute waste of time and hence don’t follow, especially  when they are talking about these issues from the vedAnta prakriya (methodology) perspective.  And if he says he knows it shruti says he does not know it 😊 that glitch also there to openly claim anything 😊 More importantly “ verdicts based on individual experience (vaiyuktika anubhava) is not pramANa, even if it is from the desk of siddha purusha-s like Kapila kANAda,  cautions bhAshyakAra.  So asking for their personal first hand experience to comment anything about siddhAnta prakriya is quite mute and un-necessary here, either way we are not in a position to sit in jury seat here.   

[Bhaskar YR]

All three have the same Knowledge of reality because they each align their minds with the truth only, no matter how much one thinks he has more confirmation or less. The truth does not change and so long as their conviction is total, they are one with the truth. But if one does not obtain total conviction through shraddha in shabda and not intellectual enough to learn the physics, but rich enough to jump on a space ship, yes that is also a possible way to obtaining the same conviction/knowledge.

 

Similarly, samadhi is said to offer a 'vision' that makes easier (simplifying the vichara needed) to obtain knowledge of Self.

 

praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I am sorry if I am troubling you and this group with my continuous mails.  But would like to share my thoughts lest issue would go in some other direction.  First of all as we all know Atma jnana is not vishaya jnana it is svarUpa jnana, so we cannot objectify the Atma jnana or Atman keeping it aloof and travel through samAdhi to have Atma darshana.  Atma darshana is establishing oneself with it here materialization of Atma jnana does not happen it is only realization of a thing / concept which is the very svarUpa of vijnAnamaya Atman or jnAtru who is trying to objectify the Atman is trying to have darshana of it.  Now the question is OK to realize this Atman is there any super-sonic flight method like directly experiencing this truth in samAdhi or much easier way to have the vision of Atman??  I definitely don’t think so and I don’t recall any bhAshya support for this easier method i.e. fast travelling towards Atman through the chartered  flight  like samAdhi.  Why on the earth, shankara, who is compassionate to his followers, not asked them hasten the process of sAdhana for easier and fast result and why he insisted  to repeatedly do the laborious Avrutti of SMN till the dawn of complete (paripUrNa jnana) knowledge!!??  I really failed to see this easy alternative method anywhere in PTB.  OTOH in the sUtra bhAshya (4^th adhyAya AvruttyadhikaraNa) bhAshyakAra explains the need of ‘Avrutti’ and its various benefits.  Nowhere here he suggested the short-cut or easier method like having the darshana of Atman in NS.  I am really sorry if I am repeated bringing this point.  I have to do this as conspicuously bhAshyakAra suggesting something else.  See again 4^th AdhyAya, darshanaparyavasAnAni hi shravaNAdeeni AtvartyamAnAni drushtArthAni bhavanti.  yathAvabhAtAdeeni taNdulAdinishpattiparyavasAnAni, tadvat.  Why shankara missed the easy way here?? 

[putran M]

Namaskaram Bhaskar-ji,

 

Yes, what I think of as yogic samadhi as understood from verses already quoted.

 

• Before going further, kindly tell me some particular body posture / position (sitting straight, closing eyes, focused mind, concentration level etc.) would determine the nature of jnana that person is having or striving for ??  I don’t think so. 

 

I don't see the relevance. For the ajnani, it matters. All preparatory methods involve guiding the body-mind in suitable directions that facilitate removal of obstructions and consequently the assimilation of jnana.

 

• If at all what has been explained in shruti and smruti is advaitic jnana mArga the jnana phala of that jnana sAdhana is purely advaitic in nature not yOgic.  IMO studying and practicing MBBS syllabus would not fetch us Engineering degree.  For attaining yOgic samAdhi there are some prescribed methods ( yama, niyama, Asana, pranayama, pratyahara, dhAraNa, dhyAna and finally samAdhi) in yOga shAstra.  Likewise to realize the samyak jnana or brahma vidyA there are traditionally prescribed (sAdhana chatushtaya i.e. nityAnitya vastu viveka, ehAmutrArthaphala bhOga virAga, shamAdi 6 guNa-s and mumukshatva) methods for the direct “darshana’ through vedAnta vAkya SMN.  Let us not mix it as the result of two different sAdhana would  vary.  Advaita sAdhana leads to Advaita jnana AND yOga sAdhana leads to yOga samAdhi.  That would be more appropriate approach I think. 

The fact is your thought is not objectively fool-proof cut and dry. I had specifically quoted the Sringeri acharya who attained yoga samadhi and found it to be complementary with and for advaita jnana, when backed by SMN vichara. So he is an advaitin who fully understands advaita and he is fine (based on his own experience) with the mixed approach, doesn't think it contradicts PTB either. 

The yogic phala is stated in yoga sutras 1.2 and 1.3 (quoting Swami Vivekananda's translation for these)

Yoga sutra 1.2: yogaś-citta-vr̥tti-nirodhaḥ Yoga is restraining the mind-stuff (Chitta) from taking various forms (Vrttis) (https://www.yogapradipika.com/yoga-sutra-samadhi-pada)

Yoga sutra 1.3: tadā draṣṭuḥ svarūpe-‘vasthānam At that time (the time of concentration) the seer (the Purasa) rests in his own (unmodified) state.

//As soon as the waves have stopped, and the lake has become quiet, we see the ground below the lake. So with the mind; when it is calm, we see what our own nature is; we do not mix ourselves but remain our own selves//

Yoga sutra 1.4: vr̥tti sārūpyam-itaratra Otherwise, the seer takes the form of the modifications of the mind.

The Sringeri acharya having attained the yoga phala of 1.3 found that it highlights or reinforces the jnana phala of the advaita marga, once the potential ignorance with regard to NS are removed by vichara. "The falsity of names and forms was crystal clear and so was the certainty that there was nothing that was other than consciousness."

What makes the yoga phala non-advaitic is not itself but again a case of superimposition due to ajnana. Samadhi does not remove ajnana altogether; one still needs SMN vichara to understand its import and align properly the experience with right knowledge. But one can deduce that the jnana phala is much easier to realize in or after samadhi because the belief in the maya-chala of mind and its apparent hold on self goes away in samadhi where "the self rests in its own state" (as pure consciousness, awareness, without taking the form of the modifications of the mind). Those who experience it or talk of NS also don't think it is equivalent to deep sleep; samadhi obtains some deeper insight that when aligned with sruthi aids in assimilation of jnana.

 

 

The mind has no room to move about but is not jada, shunya, asleep: it is fixed in the Self. That state of unmoving fixation is yogic samadhi as per sruthi and BG.

 

• With regard to quotes from geeta & katha I would like to say it has to be interpreted/understood from vedic adhyAtmika yOga point of view not from PY point of view since shankara himself said how sAnkhya & yOga needs to be understood from vedAntic perspective and not from its popular (lOka prasiddha) meaning .  Coming back to no-mind state, shruti talks about no-body (disembodiedness – ashareeratvaM) of the jnAni as well.  See Br. Up. Mantra (4-4-7) for example, it says when all the desires in one’s heart have been got rid of, then the mortal being becomes immortal and attains brahman here in this life.  “just as the cast-off slough of a snake would lie lifeless in an ant-hill, so also does the body of the enlightened person lie there and he is now bodiless, the prAna, brahman alone, the light of pure consciousness alone”.  What does it mean??  Is he become all of a sudden bodiless, is he going to leave his body like snake cast-off its skin??  Contextually we have to understand these terms that these mantra-s teaching us the effacement of the idea of one’s identity with body as the result of realization of brahman.  For the possession of a body, mind, intellect, ahamkara etc. was only through ignorance while the intrinsic nature of Atman is revealed here.  No-mind, no body, becoming Atman without anything etc. should be taken in this way, if not jnAni would immediately meet death or mind dead after Atma jnana 😊

No, not the verses. The verses themselves are aligned with yoga samadhi imo but that should not be mistaken as saying aligned to the dvaita conclusions. The yoga phala of the yogic path needs to be understood in Vedantic point of view, which is what the Sringeri Acharya does.

No-Mind state is not understood in your sense. The yogi is stopping the duality-identifying restless activity of the mind just like someone sitting "still" is stopping the active movements of the limbs of the body. In that calm state, the self shines unto itself, constant, limitless, complete. 

Read: ""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'."

This is not a negation of mind in the sense of paramartha jnana. It is stating that the mind is nischala; not non-existent in a fundamental sense. 

 

 

(Aside: The one curious part of this bhashya is that Shankara says the yoga of Supreme Reality is fruit that results from Karma Yoga. I don't know if this somehow implies a different understanding than what the rest of the passage suggests.)

 

Ø     If we see previous shloka-s and shankara bhAshya we will come to know how the ultimate state of yOga needs to be understand from vedAntic perspective.  And 2.54 is enough that that state of sthita prajna is not mind dead or mind inert state. 

 

You are confusing two things. The question is when will you attain the yoga of supreme Reality (i.e. jnana). The answer is "when the mind will become; niscala, unshakable, free from the turbulence in the form of distractions; and acala, steadfast, that is to say, free from doubt even in that (unshakable) state; samadhau, in samadhi, that is to say, in the Self -- samadhi being derived in the sense of that in which the mind is fixed; tada, then, at that time; avapsyasi, you will attain; yogam, Yoga, the enlightenment, Self-absorption, that arises from discrimination.”

1. Mind becomes nischala. Yoga sutra 1.2 corresponds to this.

2. Mind is fixed in the Self. Yoga sutra 1.3 corresponds to this.

That is path and goal of Yoga-path, understood in Vedantic perspective. At most (for this verse) we can say that adhyatma yoga takes the PY system and fine-tunes its end-components with Vedantic perspective. One specific aspect is what follows from the right fixing of mind in Self: it becomes "free from doubt" in that nischala state of samadhi. This indicates generation of and stabilizing in Knowledge. The Vedantic perspective allows us to broaden the scope of Samadhi (for example, as something attainable through SMN also) but does not negate 1. the possibility of yogic-samadhi also being a valid practical component of adhyatma yoga, or 2. that SMN-based "moment of realization" merges with yogic-samadhi.

When Yoga-samadhi happens, at that time, the (ultimate) Yoga of Enlightenment follows in the mind already supported by "discrimination" (SMN-vichara). 

After that, as far as Vedantins like yourself is concerned, the jnani may be said to be ever in samadhi (yoga of supreme reality), because his mind at all times henceforth is nischala and steadfast in the Self. For others, the mind can (and does) become achala and possibly also lose its steadfastness in Self, in the midst of vyavaharika chaos, but the knowledge once attained is just below the surface always. The "freedom from doubt" is in general retained even after samadhi. 

2.54 is talking about such a jnani.

Ø     I believe I am consistent with addressing these issues from adhyAtma yOga perspective.  samAdhi is the status of sthitha prajna.  And samAdhi is the natural state of sthitha prajna who is dvandvaateeta and jnAni.  How he looks, how he takes and treats dvandva (sukha-duHkha, jaya apajaya etc.) is what is explained in subsequent verses.  If the mind is literally absolute no-mind state where is the question of dvandva and treating it with equanimity etc.  Since you are seeing temporary yogic samAdhi in this particular verse you are seeing lack of consistency whereas I am looking at the whole adhyAya which is exclusively dedicated to sAnkhya ( jnana) which is the result of adhyAtmika yOga sAdhana.   BTW anywhere lord krishna said what is achieved in 2.53 by sthitha prajna is something inferior to brahma vidya / bhUma vidyA and there is superior state awaiting for sthithaprajna at a later stage to conclude that it is mere yOgic samAdhi and not vedAntic jnana?? 

 

You are simply insisting a new definition of Samadhi to fit your theory of non-complementarity of PYS and adhyatma. That word Samadhi denotes a state involving two components: as delineated by Yoga sutra 1.2 and 1.3. The mind must be a. unmoving and b. fixed in Self. If the jnani's mind has to deal with dvandva and choosing this or that (i.e. is achala), then that mind is not in state of samadhi. That is all there is to it. If you are talking from the standpoint of his jnana, then yes: sarvam kalu idam brahma. No question of separate mind either, not to mention its achala and nischala. You want to affirm the jnani's mind, the jnani's mind moving here and there, and then negate it just enough using the standpoint of jnana so that you can morph the intended vyavaharika meaning of samadhi to fit your idea of adhyatma yoga. If you treat the jnani as a realized individual with a mind, then samadhi has a time-bound meaning as given by PYS.

 

I think the answer is yes in terms of those who hold the opposing viewpoint.

 

• If the answer is then the subsequent question is, is there only one alternative or many alternatives for the self realization.  And where bhAshyakAra talks about alternatives to jnana mArga??  mOksha mArga ( the path of realization) is one or so many??  Or only two yOga & jnana??  If we look at geeta lord says there are two types of nishTa-s, jnana yOgena sAnkhyAnaM karma yOgena yoginAM, and karma does not fetch of jnana well established fact in advaita tradition.  So what remains is sAnkhya yOga  which is nothing but jnana mArga which is the ONLY path for self realization.  Na anya patha vidyateyanAya clarifies shruti. 

There is no alternative. You have experiential insight from a state where the interference of the mind has been eliminated and there is a natural reposing/fixing in Self without dualistic identifications. This makes for easier vichara. See how the Sringeri Acharya describes. 

Ø     Those sAdhaka-s can do 101 assumptions like this, what we need to know is what is suggested as jnana sAdhana in shruti and Acharya vAkya.  I would like to quote here with regard to sAdhana’s ultimate verdict which needs to be remembered whenever we confront the advocators special attachment to other schools of thought.  In sUtra bhAshya 4-1-18 he says : therefore this is the final conclusion obligatory karma such as agnihOtra whether combined with vidyA or not combined with vidyA practiced either this or previous janma, by any one longing for release before the dawn of knowledge with a view to reach the goal of realization, becomes in proportion to its efficacy, the cause of the destruction of accumulated sins which obstruct the knowledge of brahman, and through indirectly co-operating with the PROXIMATE AIDS ( emphasis is mine) such as shravaNa, manana, faith and intent devotion culminates in bringing about the one effect namely brahma vidyA leading to release.  If one wants to smell patanjala yOga based sAdhana as against this simple straight forward ‘final conclusion’ of bhAshyakAra, then I really don’t have to say anything further. 

Yes, that is pretty much it. You can put Patanjali's Yoga samadhi in one of the two categories, perhaps the first one since its role is removal of obstruction and obtaining a right state (nischala mind fixed in Self) where the seed of jnana (laid by the proximate aids) will germinate quickly. An equally sufficient state for this purpose may be attained without NS as well, that is not the main argument. (There may be others who argue for Yoga-samadhi being a proximate aid as well.)

Note this is not to say that we replace all other parts of advaita sadhana (karma yoga, bhakti yoga, SMN) with Patanjali yoga sadhana as an independent alternate way. That is not how the Sringeri Acharya approached it either. 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

[putran M]

Namaskaram Bhaskar-ji,

Spent too much time in the previous response. Just answering one point here.

Can you point to any acharya who says that he personally experienced NS and it has nothing special to offer the advaitin en route to realization? (Note PTB negative comments on samadhi are not sufficient or obvious for this purpose. That NS by itself without proper vichara can mislead is explained by the Sringeri acharya as well; so one can criticize it from that angle. We also have PTB, Sruti, BG quotes that seem to indicate NS in favourable light, even though you can interpret them differently.)

 

• No, frankly, really I don’t know whether those who are questioning the necessity of NS experience in Advaita sAdhana have the first hand experience of NS and saying so.  Even if they say so, how do we adjudicate whether it is genuine NS experience or some other drug induced trance state?? After all like brahma jnana it is their ‘sva-hrudaya pratyaya’ nobody should dare to question its credentials.  And interestingly nobody would assert  : see I have experience of this NS on such and such day and from 9AM to 10AM and it is an absolute waste of time and hence don’t follow, especially  when they are talking about these issues from the vedAnta prakriya (methodology) perspective.  And if he says he knows it shruti says he does not know it 😊 that glitch also there to openly claim anything 😊 More importantly “ verdicts based on individual experience (vaiyuktika anubhava) is not pramANa, even if it is from the desk of siddha purusha-s like Kapila kANAda,  cautions bhAshyakAra.  So asking for their personal first hand experience to comment anything about siddhAnta prakriya is quite mute and un-necessary here, either way we are not in a position to sit in jury seat here.   

 

Well, we are not talking of people in our list. If a reputed acharya of a matha or a Sri Ramakrishna comments on their experience, there is some reason to listen for they could be aptas or jnanis in our opinion. If bhashyakara gives an interpretation, we take heed, accept because we trust his knowledge/wisdom in some sense. Logically otherwise, we must reject implicit acceptance of him as well. 

Sringeri Acharya cannot become a paramartha jnani when he questions certain misconceptions of NS but an unverifiable anonymous when he speaks of advaitic affirmation based on NS. NS is said to be a time-bound experience. We have saints in advaita tradition who claim to have experienced it and who support its inclusion in advaitin's sadhana, and who do not find it opposed to PTB fundamentally. Trust or not, they are there in the open. So, if there are saints in the tradition vehemently opposed to NS being included as a valid part of adhyatma yoga but who never confirm their own experience of NS and why it does not fulfill the mark, then it does bring suspicion that they are negating something they have no clue about.

thollmelukaalkizhu

[putran M]

You are simply insisting a new definition of Samadhi to fit your theory of non-complementarity of PYS and adhyatma. That word Samadhi denotes a state involving two components: as delineated by Yoga sutra 1.2 and 1.3. The mind must be a. unmoving and b. fixed in Self. If the jnani's mind has to deal with dvandva and choosing this or that (i.e. is achala), then that mind is not in state of samadhi. That is all there is to it. If you are talking from the standpoint of his jnana, then yes: sarvam kalu idam brahma. No question of separate mind either, not to mention its achala and nischala.

Not 'achala'. Meant in a state of chalanam, opposite of nischala.

[Sundar Rajan]

Namaskar,

>> I am sorry if I am troubling you and this group with my continuous mails.  >>

You should be. Lot of them do seem like vithanda vada  

>>  I definitely don’t think so and I don’t recall any bhAshya support for this easier method i.e. fast travelling towards Atman through the chartered  flight  like samAdhi.  >>

Here we go again. Didn't you just reply to my post  the other day offering humble prostrations to all those because they attained this state after doing decades of one pointed relentless sAdhana? Now you are claiming it is a chartered flight? :

[ No not at all at any stretch of imagination no one would argue that samAdhi is just like a walk on the rose bed anyone anytime get samAdhi on the tip of his finger!! no one would make stupid statements like that, no not at all…parama yOgi-s, paramahaMsa-s attained this state attained  after doing decades of one pointed relentless sAdhana.  My humble prostrations to all of them ]

Next:

>> Why on the earth, shankara, who is compassionate to his followers.. why he insisted  to repeatedly do the laborious Avrutti of SMN till the dawn of complete (paripUrNa jnana) knowledge!!? >>

He (Shankara) did not. He did not insist only on laborious Avrutti. Again you present half baked understanding leaving other pertinent things out. He clearly presents Yoga (Dhyana..) as the alternative. Yoga and Vichara are two fold approaches in Nidhidhysana (per JVM and Gudharta Dipika) , as we saw multiple times in this thread. 

Here is my post a few weeks ago, the same very compassionate Shankara is clearly insisting on the other path here:

Sankara's commenting on the Mundaka Upanishad mantra Dwa Suparna Sayuja Sakhaya Samanam Vriksam Pariswajate on the word  muhyamanah (Paraphrasing)

That soul born among beasts, men and others, perchance shown the path of Yoga, as a result of his past good deeds, by some very compassionate person and then becoming  endowed with yama..dharana..dhyana etc, pasyati, sees, yada, when, while engaged in Meditation.

If Sankara only insisted on Avrutti, what about the teachings in the 6th chapter of Gita, Katha Up (Tam Yogamiti..) etc we just went over yesterday?

Regards

--

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/AM7PR06MB658109BE706C62618E1CD41084489%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com

.

[sreenivasa murthy]

Dear Sri Putran M,

(1) Do you agree with the teaching of the following Sruti Mantras?

The following Sruti mantras  declare ;

SatyaM  jnAnaM  anantam  brahma || TaittarIya 2-1

sarvagM  hyEtadbrahma  ayamAtmA  brahma || ManDukya Mantra 2

brahmaivEdagM  viSvaM  variShTham || muMDaka

ahamEvEdagam   sarvam || Chandogya 7-25-1

AtmaivEdagaM   sarvam  || Chandogya 7-25-2

Atmata EvEdagM  sarvam || Chandogya 7-26-1

prapaMcOpaSamam   Sivam   advaitam  caturtham  manyantE

       sa  AtmA  sa  VijnEyaH || Mandukya mantra 7

 

(2) Do you agree with the conclusions drawn from these mantras?

From the above quoted mantras it follows that

Aham which is myself and which is HERE and NOW is Atman, Brahman.

And also I am anantam and advaitam.

A response from you is requested so that there could be

further discussions on the subject matter.

Thanking you,

with pranams,

Sreenivasa Murthy.

--

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-qVyf5wCMedvXE6jcR8XXbzs3Ncd2yRSs-Wvi7XW1VMnw%40mail.gmail.com

.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Sreenivasa Murthy-ji,

I definitely agree with this. Do you?

Let me ask you something: Do you believe that your agreement with these statements is contingent on the present shape/motion of your body-mind-chitta and its activities therein? Does it involve thinking of any kind whatsoever? When you write to me, do you in some sense believe that you are writing to another self in another body-mind and some thinking process has to reiterate the substance of these mantras and negate that feeling of multiple selves or separation from the sarvam? If not, who is writing and requesting response from whom? If you believe there is thinking going on in a mind to bring duality back into advaitic understanding, then what is the locus of this Knowledge that you are agreeing to? Is it the mind that produces such thoughts or holds memory? Can that thinking be correlated with neural pathways in the brain? If yes, then being a physical entity, one can presumably obstruct the pathways of the brain selectively and prevent the possibility of the advaitic-thinking that seems seamless now. Then you begin with a thought-gap between aham and sarvam and the thought that ties them together via the sruthi mantra, that thought is obstructed or stalled. What happens to the simple agreement? Does it then become a struggle, a battle, a confusion, a hard task, to go from you asking and me responding, through the mantra, to you and me are the nondual Self alone - because your ability to think the needed thoughts is stopped? Or is such a problem not for the jnani?

Just some thoughts/questions prompted from yours.

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Satyan Chidambaran]

Namaste Bhaskar-ji, Putranji,

Since Bhaskar-ji asked about the teaching of Pujya Swami Dayananda Saraswati-ji and Swami Paramarthanandaji (my Parama Guru and Guru respectively) on this topic, and I did not see an answer to this question, I am providing you and Putranji to the following references that are very pertinent. I request you both to take some time and study and reflect on these (especially the two transcripts) fully, even though I have provided some extracts below. There are more references I can provide, but I decide to stop with these as they seem to serve the purpose.

1) Please read the transcript of the talk titled “Advaita and Mysticism” here by Swami Paramarthanandaji:

https://arshaavinash.in/index.php/download/advaita-and-mysticism-by-swami-paramarthananda/

Quotes from above:

‘Then the non-mystic advaitin says, when I talk about negation or elimination of the

world, you should understand it is not the negation of the experience of the world but, it is the negation of the satyatvam, the reality which my intellect has imposed because of ignorance and error’. The attribution of the reality to drusya prapancha is an intellectual confusion problem, and this attributed satyetvam the

scriptures negate. So, drusya nisheda is not ‘drusya prateeti nisheda’ but, it is ‘drusya satyetva nisheda’.

‘Sruti does not negate the experience of the world but it negates the satyetvam that is my intellectual conclusion’. 

2) Please see Points 13 and 14 here extracted from a Talk on the Topic "Lessons from Pujya Swami Dayanandaji's teachings" by Swami Paramarthanandaji:

https://arshavidyacenter.org/swami-talks/swami-paramathananda/

More on the same with some context here:

https://practicalphilosophy.in/2013/11/30/what-my-teacher-learnt-from-his-teacher/

3) Please read the transcript of the talk titled “Knowledge and Experience” here by Swami Paramarthanandaji:

https://arshaavinash.in/index.php/download/knowledge-and-experience-by-swami-paramarthananda/

Quotes from the above:

"if a person says - I have got Brahma Gnyanam by the study of scriptures, but I am

interested in Brahma Anubhava, it means they have not studied the scriptures properly. The Brahma Gnyanam itself is not there. The book knowledge which they claim to have itself is not there.”

"Brahma Anubhava is one thing which no one need seek at all. If there is one Anubhava which we need

not work for at all, which doesn’t require any special blessing at all, which doesn’t require any Sadhana at all, if there is one such Anubhava, it happens to be Brahma Anubhava because Brahman happens to be the

consciousness which is self-evidently experienced all the time.”

"Therefore, Brahma Anubhava is already there, but what a person is lacking is, Brahman Gnyanam for which alone we are studying the scriptures.”

"So, the words destroyed his desire for Anubhava. How did it destroy the

desire for Anubhava? - By giving the Gnyanam. The words did not give

the Anubhava alright, but words gave the Gnyanam that the Anubhava

is already there. Therefore, I need not separately work for a Anubhava.”

4) Please see pUjya Swami Dayanandaji's interview here that touches on this topic:

https://www.arshavidya.in/Newsletter/Mar20/6.pdf

Especially with regards to the question: 

AC: It has been my experience as a teacher that for most human beings, generally speaking, simply hearing the teaching is not enough. Usually they do need to have some kind of experience that makes the meaning of the words obvious in a very direct, experiential way. And then the person says, “oh, my goodness, now I understand I’ve heard this for so many years, but now I recognize the truth of it.” 

SD: "Yes, but even that experience is useless without the correct interpretation. Suppose your sense of being a separate individual falls away for a moment or ten minutes or even an hour, and then suddenly that apparent duality seems to come back again. Does that mean the one true Self gets displaced? Of course not! Then why should enlightenment require an experience? Enlightenment doesn’t depend upon experiences; it depends upon my shedding my error and ignorance – that is what it depends upon, and nothing else. 

People say that advaita is eternal, that it is timeless, and at the same time they say that they are going through an experience of it at a particular time and under certain conditions. That’s not traditional! But that is what we hear everywhere. The tradition says: “What you see right now is advaita.”

Suppose a fellow has an experience and then he comes out and says, “I was one hour eternal, that it is timeless means eternity. Whether it is one hour eternal or one moment eternal, it is always the same. So confidence in truth cannot depend upon a state of experience. Confidence in truth is in your clarity of what is. Otherwise what will happen is, “I was non dual Brahman for one hour and then I came back and now it’s gone.” Then every thought becomes a nightmare because when I am not in nirvikalpa Samadhi [ecstatic absorption in nondual consciousness], then I cannot even relate to the world; I have to be stoned forever, you know? Whereas enlightenment is just knowing what is. That is called sahaja, which means “natural” ; it means just seeing clearly. If people insist on having a particular experience, that simply means that they have not understood the teaching."

My own words below that summarize my understanding of what I have learnt from my Guru and Parama Guru on this topic:

1) NS experience is neither necessary nor sufficient for MokSha

2) Knowledge and Liberation is not related to absence of experience of duality, it is inspite of experience of duality. Seeing the duality, I need to be able to know and assert that “I am the only non dual reality”.

3) The aim of Vedanta is not a new experience. It is to provide a new understanding of my normal experiences based on shAstra pramAna. My old understanding of those experiences based on ignorance and laukika pramAnas bound me. My new understanding based on knowledge from shAstra pramaNa shows that I was never bound, and I don’t even need to be liberated.

4) aparokSha GYANam arising from mahAvAkya shravaNam is both necessary and sufficient

5) There is no denying that someone who has had NS experience may also be a GYAnI due to SMN, but his GYAnam and liberation should be primarily attributed not to NS experience but because of the aparokSha GYAnam

6) On the other hand, one who is reasonably qualified may and can very well arrive at aparokSha GYAnam without any NS pursuit at all just through mahAvAkya vichAra under a shrotriya/brahmaniShTha Guru

7) Swami Paramarthanandaji puts it thus. A student needs to have two-fold clarity of understanding: (1) a clear understanding of the message of the mahAvAkya and (b) a clear understanding that other than the clear understanding of the mahAvAkya, nothing else is required. If mahAvAkya shravaNam doesn’t give rise to knowledge, and/or the student feels something else is required over and above the knowledge gained from mahAvAkya shravaNam, there is some obstacle or lack of qualification that needs addressing.

8)  We reject Yoga as a Philosophy (as it is dvaita). However, Yoga as a sAdhana can be no doubt helpful in gaining qualifications. But qualifications can also be gained through numerous other means, and what works for one may not necessarily work for another.

9) The nididhyAsanam practiced after ShravaNam, Mananam is only for viparita bhAvana nivRRtti (for removing habitual tendencies) and not for gaining GYAnam because GYAnam has to be gained through ShravaNam. Nidi. is not for MokSha, because the GYAnam that rises through ShravaNam is that As Brahman, I don’t even need to gain MokSha because it is my very nature. Nidi. is not for any special mystic experience either. There is meditation involved, but it is repeatedly dwelling on what one already knows through ShravaNam, Mananam (“aham satyam jagat mithyA aham brahmaiva nAparaH”)  to weaken habitual thinking that may obstruct GYAnaphala anubhava in vyavahara (as described in the "Knowledge and Experience transcript).

Regards,

—Satyan

-- 
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/AM7PR06MB65812472238C078217A1844C84499%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[sreenivasa murthy]

Dear Sri Putran,

  Thank you for your kind response.

The person  who revealed those mantras to the world and

the person who wrote the commentaries to those mantras,

the same person is  writing this posting.

With pranams,

     ?

--
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-q2QrBm%3DTxrNSjXXS0SFJ-hveq%3D7nqVg2Cf691KYOdrmw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Satyan Chidambaran]

Namaste Bhaskarji, Putranji,

I wanted to add two clarifications to my original note below:

A) In the 2nd reference I provided below from a Talk on the Topic "Lessons from Pujya Swami Dayanandaji's teachings" by Swami Paramarthanandaji located at 

https://arshavidyacenter.org/swami-talks/swami-paramathananda/

I did not copy the relevant points from the talk and paste them to my email.

In my message, I had said points 12, 13 are relevant, but there are other points (2,3,8,9,10,11) that are relevant as well. I am copying them below with key points in bold:

2. Attempting to validate Vedas through scientific analysis or mystic experience is a misguided approach. By this, we are reducing Vedas to a secondary means of knowledge, like inference.

3. Treating a primary means of knowledge like a secondary means is worse than rejecting it. Once we fall into this trap, there will be endless problems.

8. “Transcending the intellect – in the name of spiritual pursuit – will not lead us anywhere.

9. Samadhi, as a state of stillness or concentration, cannot lead us to any new knowledge, material or spiritual.

10. Any knowledge – material or spiritual – has to take place in the intellect only.

11. Any knowledge – material or spiritual – has to arise by the employment of a relevant means of knowledge.

13. Self-realization is not a mystic experience. Self-realization is nothing but Self-knowledge. And, Self-knowledge is nothing but the clear understanding of the fact that the ever-experienced Self i.e. the “ever-evident I” is the non-dual brahman.

14. To grasp the message of Vedanta, we do not require any new experience. Whatever experiences a normal human being undergoes are more than enough to grasp the message of Vedanta.

B) In my summary points at the end of my original note, the first points says: 

“1) NS experience is neither necessary nor sufficient for MokSha”.

Please Correct to (addition in bold):

  “1) NS experience is neither necessary nor sufficient for GYAnam or MokSha”.

Regards,

—Satyan

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Namaste Satyanji, 

Well said,

However, things like Lord Krishna told Arjuna that Arjuna did not remember his past births but the Lord remembered his past incarnations, do help us realize the vedantic goal of the futitlity of  dehabhimana, and thereby to become jivanmukta and eventually videhamukta.

Lord Buddha too exclaimed that he realized the spiritual truth when he remembered his past births.ths

But, it would have been helpful, if the respectable swamiji of the Shringeri math would have said that he had the spiritual experience of remembering his past births.

My 2 cents,

Sunil KB

Sent from my iPhone

--
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/364BA08B-0E55-4F2A-AF3E-793B8E8F1E9A%40yahoo.com.

[sreenivasa murthy]

Dear Sri Satyan Chidambaran,

Words fail to express my gratitude for your excellent posting containing the wonderful

teachings of HH Swami Dayananda and HH Swami Paramarthananda'

I only wish that every one will study the teachings with an open mind , not to study

through the screen of their accumulated knowledge.

Once again I thank you.

With warm regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/33F0000D-0770-486B-8BB1-AA9E1D3BA463%40yahoo.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram, 

Members can read carefully the verses 31 to 48 and bhashya in Mandukya karika Advaita Prakarana for focused exposition on this very topic. I first read Swami Gambhirananda's translation but also see Swami Nikhilananda's online: https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/mandukya-upanishad-karika-bhashya/d/doc143670.html

I will add that I am more comfortable with Swami Gambhirananda's translation because it seems to follow more closely the bhashya line by line (albeit people can argue he translated in a biased way the words; I wouldn't know). However if Anandagiri is essential to you, the above link gives that.

Some of Bhaskar-ji's arguments are greatly supported in these passages especially when considered along with Anandagiri's tika. Anandagiri (going by the Swami's translation and assuming he does not paraphrase too much for "clarification") makes it a point to emphasize criticism of Yogic-samadhi as found in PYS. 

In 3.37,

the bhashya states: "The Ātman is denoted by the word Samādhi 1 as it can be realised only by the knowledge arising out of the deepest concentration (on its essence) or, the Ātman is denoted by Samādhi because the Jīva concentrates his mind on Ātman. It is immovable, i.e., beyond change."

The tika clarifies: "Samādhi—This state of complete identity with non-dual Brahman, arrived at as a result of discrimination and negation of phenomena, is the Vedāntic conception of Samādhi (which is quite different from any mystical or mechanical state described as Samādhi in the Yogasystem)." 

So, this is a reference (from a commentator) for alternate definition of samadhi. The bracketed part may be Sw. N's addition however. 

That said, I see that when taken as a whole (karika and bhashya), there is also recognition starting 3.40 for the (inferior) yogis who think the way is to control the mind and there is guidance specifically for them towards attaining the nischala achala (samadhi) state via Vedantic approach. The culmination described in 3.46 would be samadhi in a mind guided by SMN based vichara. This is not necessary but for the yogis seeking such a route, the way is shown and accepted as leading to knowledge (again, in the mind having sufficient SMN-vichara). That's my take on the second part of this set of verses and bhashya.

3.46: When the mind does not become lost nor is scattered, when it is motionless and does not appear in the form of objects, then it becomes [identified with] Brahman. 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Sundar Rajan]

Namaskarams,

My Pranams to both Swami Dayanand Saraswathi-ji and Swami Paramarthananda-ji. They have done yeoman service. I have several close friends who are ardent followers of Swami Paramarthananda-ji and have study groups listening regularly to His teachings. I myself have introduced several to His teachings as well.

That being said,  let us get to this specific topic at hand.  

"Brahma Anubhava is one thing which no one need seek at all. If there is one Anubhava which we need not work for at all, which doesn’t require any special blessing at all, which doesn’t require any Sadhana at all, if there is one such Anubhava, it happens to be Brahma Anubhava because Brahman happens to be the consciousness which is self-evidently experienced all the time.”

"Therefore, Brahma Anubhava is already there, but what a person is lacking is, Brahman Gnyanam for which alone we are studying the scriptures.”

 "So, the words destroyed his desire for Anubhava. How did it destroy the desire for Anubhava? - By giving the Gnyanam. The words did not give the Anubhava alright, but words gave the Gnyanam that the Anubhava is already there. Therefore, I need not separately work for a Anubhava.”

The phala (fruit) of Avidya removal is Sarvatma Bhava (identity with all). Gitacharya explains that in the sixth chapter sarva-bhūta-stham ātmānaṁ.

And Sankara elaborates in Brihadaranyaka upanishad  4.3.20 citing the progress of a Sadhaka towards Gnyanam:

यत्तु सर्वात्मभावादर्वाक् वालाग्रमात्रमपि अन्यत्वेन दृश्यते — नाहमस्मीति, तदवस्था अविद्या ;

When, prior to this realization of Sarvatma bhava (identity with all), he views the latter as other than himself even by a hair’s breadth, thinking, “This is not myself”, that is still the state of avidya (ignorance).

So the question is, is this Sarvatma bhava which Sankara considers as the litmus test of Gnyanam and which is the Brahman Anubhava, already there in everybody?. Then why does Gitacharya call it out separately and glorifies it as the fruit of Sadhana?

Seriously, which person goes around saying, I am identifying with all (other than a Jnani)!

More later..

Regards,

Sundar Rajan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/33F0000D-0770-486B-8BB1-AA9E1D3BA463%40yahoo.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

A synopsis of this topic and debate that I wrote and sent earlier (before today MK mail) to my family-friends group; sorry if the casual word "faction" is inappropriate:

Quote

... within advaita sampradaya, there are different factions that vary in how they regard the yoga system and its end state of samadhi. I think most agree that samadhi via yoga is not sufficient by itself to lead to atma jnana or destroy ajnana. SMN/vichara is considered essential since the goal is knowledge of realtity. However the question is whether yogic-samadhi can/should be a part of advaita sadhana, is it beneficial, or even necessary; or is it misleading to a different knowledge and not to be included?

Some highly regarded texts like the Vivekachudamani extol yogic-samadhi (possibly adjusted with Vedantic perspective) as a necessary prerequisite for and coeval with self-realization. Important saints of the tradition such as Swami Vidyaranya and Madhusudana Saraswathi also considered Samadhi as an end-point of advaita sadhana. The Sringeri Acharya we see practiced yoga and attained samadhi, mentioning of clarity and certainty in jnana after his second NS. We also read Ramakrishna Math literature where NS is often highlighted as the goal of sadhana for jnana/realization to happen.

But there are others who are vehement that Adi Shankara in his main bhashyas did not ever point to Patanjali's yoga-samadhi as a component of advaita sadhana. For them the secondary advaita texts (like VC) that carry the name of Shankaracharya were written by later acharyas. Favourable references to yoga and samadhi in primary texts must be interpreted differently and it is misleading and wrong to suggest the sameness of such references with the samadhi in Patanjali's yoga sutras. Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati of recent times strongly forwarded this position. Swami Dayananda Saraswathi of Arsha Vidya gurukulam also de-emphasized any special attribution or prominence given to samadhi; it is another experience, to be known as Brahman just like all else. According to him, there is no need to reach a state where the experience of world is absent and only some mystic "self experience" remains.

There can also be the 'middle' way where samadhi is a practically significant state that efficiently ushers in jnana provided other prerequisites (SMN/vichara) are fulfilled, but is not a necessary end-point or pre-requisite for Self-realization. When the interference/obstruction of mind is removed and it is unmoving and fixed in the Self without any outward thinking whatsoever, as per the yoga sutras 1.2, 1.3 and the BG quotations I cited, there is obtained an extra insight that when supported by "discrimination" makes for easier SMN based vichara, hence aids in generation and stabilization of jnana. Because the belief in the maya-chala of mind and its apparent hold on self goes away in samadhi where "the self rests in its own state" (as pure consciousness, without taking the form of the modifications of the mind; and yet a state of awareness that is opposite of the darkness of deep sleep). When one comes out of samadhi, one sees the world but knows its unreality and the reality of the Consciousness/Self that appears as world. Again, provided one already has Sravanam, etc. We can corroborate this with the testimony of the Sringeri Acharya. (From what I can tell, camp 2 will reject this line of compromise as well, that would give any special jnana-conducive status to yogic samadhi.)

Unquote

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste,

I spent the last few days reading the Jivanmuktiviveka fully so that I can understand Swami Vidyaranya's position with respect to the necessity of samAdhi as a fundamental requirement for yoga. 

First of all, this thread has proven to be a true blessing, because this has been the push for me to study the text. I can say that Jivanmuktiviveka is truly an invaluable / indispensable primer to any student of vedAnta, containing a lot of practical tips and pointers which are very helpful in one's sAdhana. I wish I had studied it earlier, but better late than never.

I have only read the text in its original in Sanskrit, because I didn't want to allow the possibility of translations mischaracterising the true intent of AchArya.

First of all, my view is that the work is completely in sync with the prasthAna traya bhAShya in my opinion. There is certainly information contained in here which is not there in the prasthAnatrayabhAShya, and vice versa, but in my view, there is no instance of contradiction between the views of vidyAraNya svAminah and Sankara bhagavatpAda.

Secondly, I didn't find a basis to conclude that the practice of samAdhi was a necessity for the rise of tattvajnAna. On the contrary, I found several passages where tattvajnAna was said to be the basis for further sAdhana for the attainment of jIvanmukti. However, yoga does play an important role in jIvanmukti. 

Some examples from the text are below. Page numbers below refer to the electronic page numbers in the pdf provided earlier in the thread by Sundar Rajan ji. There may be some typos in the Sanskrit text - I had to type it out, and sometimes my phone tends to autocorrect, thinking it is Hindi.

Page 20: सम्यगनुष्ठितैः श्रवणमनननिदिध्यासनैः परं तत्त्वं विदितवद्भिः संपाद्यमानो विद्वत्संन्यासः 

vidvatsannyAsa is to be taken up by those who have attained the supreme truth by means of shravaNa manana nididhyAsana undertaken properly.

Page 23:   वेदनस्यैव विविदिषासंन्यासफलत्वात्

The result of vividiShA sannyAsa is knowledge alone.

Page 24: यथा विविदिषासंन्यासिना तत्त्वज्ञानाय श्रवणादीनि संपादनीयानि, तथा विद्वत्संन्यासिनापि जीवन्मुक्तये मनोनाशवासनाक्षयौ संपादनीयौ ।

Just like for the purpose of gaining tattvajnAna through vividiShA sannyAsa, one must achieve shravaNa manana nididhyAsana, in the same way, for the purpose of gaining jIvanmukti through vidvat sannyAsa, one must achieve manonAsha and vAsanAkshaya.

From the above, it is clear that  vidyAraNya svAminah holds that tattvajnAna is through shravaNa manana nididhyAsana, whereas jIvanmukti requires the achievement of manonAsha and vAsanAkshaya.

What is this manonAsha and vAsanAkshaya?

manonAsha - Page 90 - तस्य (मनस्य) नाशो नाम‌ वृत्तिरूपपरिणामं परित्यज्य निरुद्धत्वाकारेण परिणामः

manonAsha means the renunciation of the modification of the mind into vRtti-s and to take on the modification of the form of nirodha, cessation.

Page 91 पूर्वापरपरामर्शान्तरेण सहसोत्पद्यमानस्य क्रोधादिवृत्तिविशेषस्य हेतुश्चित्तगतः संस्कारो वासना पूर्वापूर्वाभ्यासेन चित्ते वास्यमानत्वात् 

The cause of different types of vRttis in the mind, such as anger etc, which arise automatically without any consideration of what has happened before or after, are latent impressions called vAsana, called so because they reside (vAsyamAnah) in the mind due to prior occurrences (of that type of vRttis).

vAsanAkshaya - तस्याश्च वासनायाः क्षयो नाम विवेकजन्यायां शान्तिदान्त्यादिशुद्धवासनायां दृढायां सत्यपि बाह्यनिमित्ते क्रोधाद्यनुत्पत्तिः ।

The destruction of that latent impression means the prevention of anger etc even when there are external factors to cause it, as a result of strong favourable latent impression such as calmness, control etc that are born from discrimination.

Page 95 - तत्त्वज्ञानस्य श्रवणादिकं साधनम्, मनोनाशस्य योगः, वासनाक्षयस्य प्रतिकूलवासनोत्पादनमिति ।

The means to tattvajnAna is shravaNa etc, the means to manonAsha is yoga, and the means to vAsanakshaya is the rise of opposing vAsana-s.

The text goes on to say each of tattvajnAna, manonAsha and vAsanAkshaya are mutually reinforcing. He takes each pair and proves how they mutually reinforce each other. Therefore, he says that efforts to attain all three must be conducted simultaneously.

This raises a question - if vividiShA sannyAsa is to be first taken up for tattvajnAna and then one ought to take vidvatsannyAsa for jIvanmukti, how is it being now said that one should seek tattvajnAna, manonAsha and vAsanAkshaya simultaneously? The reply given is

Page 97 

नायं दोषः, प्रधानोपसर्जनभावेन व्यवस्थोपपत्तेः - विविदिषासंन्यासिनस्तत्त्वज्ञानं प्रधानम्, मनोनाशवासनाक्षयावोपसर्जनीभूतौ, विद्वत्संन्यासिनस्तु तद्वैपरीत्यम्

This is not a defect - because this arrangement is tenable on the basis of primary and supporting aim. For vividiShA sannyAsis, tattvajnAna is the primary aim, manonAsha and vAsanAkshaya are supporting aims, whereas for vidvatsannyAsis it is the opposite.

Page 104 - तदेवं जीवन्मुक्तिं प्रति वासनाक्षयमनोनाशयोः साक्षात्साधनत्वात्प्राधान्यम् । तत्त्वज्ञानं तूभयोत्पादनेन व्यवहितवादुपसर्जनम् ।

vAsanAkshaya and manonAsha being the direct means to jIvanmunti, they are the primary aim. tattvajnAna though, being a necessity for the achievement of both (vAsanAkshaya and manonAsha), is said to be secondary because it is not a direct means for jIvanmukti.

Thus, contrary to the view that manonAsha as manifesting in samAdhi being a necessary precondition for tattvajnAna, tattvajnAna is said to be the necessary for the achievement of manonAsha.

Page 120 - विद्याधिकारी द्विविधः,‌‌कृतोपास्तिरकृतोपास्तिश्चेति । तत्रोपास्यसाक्षात्कारपर्यन्तमुपास्तिं कृत्वा यदि ज्ञाने प्रवर्तेत, तदा वासनाक्षयमनोनाशयोर्दृढतर‌त्वेन ज्ञानादूर्ध्वं विद्वत्संन्यासजीवन्मुक्ती स्वत एव सिध्यतः । तादृश एव‌ शास्त्राभिमतो मुख्यो विद्याधिकारी। ततस्तं प्रति शास्त्रेषु सहोपन्यासात् स्वरूपेण विविक्तावपि विद्वत्संन्यासविविदिषासंन्यासौ संकीर्णाविव प्रतिभासेते । 

There are two kinds of candidates for knowledge. Those who have performed upAsana and those who have not. When a candidate has performed upAsana to such an extent that he has had a direct vision of the object of his upAsana (the upAsya devatA darshana) attempts to gain jnAna, as manonAsha and vAsanakshaya are firmly established, upon the rise of knowledge, vidvat sannyAsa and jIvanmukti are automatically obtained. It is such a candidate that shAstra has in mind as the main candidate for knowledge. As the shAstra addresses such a candidate, vividiShA and vidvat sannyAsa, despite being different, are spoken of together in the same place, and it may appear, as a result, that they are one and the same.

He continues, and this is quite funny, because he makes a comment on the type of candidates for jnAna during his time, which could apply to today's times too (if he was saying that about people then, what would he say of us all?) -

इदानींतनास्तु प्रायेणाकृतोपास्तय एवौत्सुक्यमात्रात्सहसा विद्यायां प्रवर्तन्ते । वासनाक्षयमनोनाशौ च तात्कालिकौ संपादयन्ति । तावता श्रवणमनननिदिध्यासनानि निष्पाद्यन्ते । तैश्चदृढाभ्यास्तैरज्ञानसंशयविपर्ययनिरासात् तत्त्वज्ञानं सम्यगुदेति । उदितस्य ज्ञानस्य‌ बाधकप्रमाणाभावान्निवृत्ताया अविद्यायाः पुनरुत्पत्तिकारणाभावाच्च‌ नास्ति तस्य शैथिल्यम् । वासनाक्षयमनोनाशौ तु दृढाभ्यासाभावात् भोगप्रदेन प्रारब्धेन तदा तदाबाध्यमानत्वाच्च सवातप्रदेशदीपवत्सहसा निवर्तेते ।... तस्मादिदानीन्तनानाम् विद्वत्संन्यासिनाम् ज्ञानस्यानुवृत्तिमात्रम् । वासनाक्षयमनोनाशौ तु प्रयत्न‌सिद्धाविति स्थितम् ।

However, the candidates these days, not having performed upAsana beforehand, seek knowledge merely out of curiosity. They somehow obtain a (basic) level of vasanAkshaya and manonAsha for the time being. With that much they undertake shravaNa, manana, nididhyAsana. Having performed these well, as ignorance, doubt and wrong knowledge are overcome, valid knowledge rises. As there is no cognition that contradicts the arisen knowledge, there being no reason for the subsequent rise of ignorance, there is no wavering in the knowledge. However, in the absence of the rigorous practice of vAsanAkshaya and manonAsha, they are quelled in the face of experiences arising due to prArabdha, and like a lamp located in a windy place, they are extinguished. Therefore, the reinvocation of knowledge is necessary for vidvat sannyAsi-s of current times. vAsanAkshaya and manonAsha however must be attained with practice.

Very interesting passage above, establishing that jnAna is a result of shravaNAdi sAdhana in the presence of a certain level of vAsanAkshaya / manonAsha even if temporary and easily extinguished. Because they are extinguished, they both are to be acquired in right earnest once again during vidvat sannyAsa, ie after the rise of jnAna.

How should manonAsha be attained? He says:

Page 199 (मनस्य) क्रमनिग्रहः एव योग्यः । क्रमनिग्रहे अध्यात्मविद्याप्राप्त्यादय एवोपायाः । सा च विद्या दृश्यमिथ्यात्वं दृग्वस्तुनः स्वप्रकाशत्वं च बोधयति । तथा च सत्येतन्मनः स्वगोचरेषु विषयेषु प्रयोजनाभावं दृग्वस्तुन्यगोचरत्वं च बुद्ध्वा निरिन्धनाग्निवत्स्वयमेवोपशाम्यति ।

The step by step control of the mind is alone appropriate. The means for the stepwise control of the mind is self knowledge etc. That knowledge reveals that the objective world is mithyA and the witness is self-effulgent. That being the case, knowing that there is no benefit from this mind going towards objects, and there being no possibility for the mind to objectify the witness, the mind automatically extinguishes itself, like fire in the absence of fuel.

Thus - AtmajnAna is the means for manonAsha.

Page 200 यस्तु बोधितमपि तत्त्वं न समयग्बुध्यते, यश्च विस्मरति, तयोरुभयोः साधुसंगम एवोपायः । साधवो हि पुनः पुनः बोधयन्ति, स्मारयन्ति च । यस्तुविद्यामदादिदुर्वासनया पीड्यमानो न साधूननुवर्तितुमुत्सहते तस्य पूर्वोक्तविवेकेन वासनापरित्याग उपायः ।  वासनानां प्राबल्येन त्यक्तुमशक्यत्वे प्राणस्पन्दनिरोधनमुपायः ।

Those who despite being taught, either fail to understand this truth, or forget it -  in either case, the only solution is to seek the refuge of sages, for it is sages who repeatedly teach and remind one of the truth. However, in the case of those who suffer from pride associated with learning, and are not disposed to seek the company of sages, their means (for manonAsha) is renouncing vAsana-s with the help of the aforesaid viveka. If vAsanas are very strong and cannot be given up, the means is control over the movement of the breath.

Thus, depending on the nature of the candidate, various means are postulated for manonAsha and attenuation of vAsana-s. samAdhi is one such path. As he says: 

Page 219 तदेवमध्यात्मविद्यासाधुसंगमवासनाक्षयप्राणनिरोधाश्चित्तनाशोपाया दर्शिताः । अथ तदुपायभूतं समाधिं वक्ष्यामः ।

In this manner, various means for chittanAsha, being self knowledge, company of sages, attenuation of vAsanas, breath control, were shown. Now (another) means being samAdhi will be described.

So what is the purpose of samAdhi? He says:

Page 255 आत्मदर्शनस्य स्वतःसिद्धत्वेऽप्यनात्मदर्शनवारणाय निरोधाभ्यासः।

Even though self perception is self accomplished, the practice of control is undertaken for the purpose of avoiding thoughts of the non-self.

Page 264 तस्मात्तत्त्वविदोऽपि क्लेशक्षयायास्त्येवासंप्रज्ञातसमाध्यपेक्षा ।

Therefore, even for the knower of truth, there is a requirement for asamprajnAta samAdhi for the purpose of destroying mental afflictions.

Page 288 ननु प्रमाणोत्पन्नस्य तत्त्वज्ञानस्य को नाम बाधप्रसंगः येन रक्षा अपेक्ष्यत इति चेदुच्यते - चित्तविश्रान्त्यभावे संशयविपर्ययौ प्रसज्येयाताम् ।

If it is said - how can there be possibility of invalidation of the right knowledge born from a valid pramANa, for one to argue that such a knowledge must be protected? 

The reply is - if the mind is not tranquil, doubts and incorrect cognitions may arise.

vidyAraNya svAminah follows this (pages 288-290) with a beautiful anecdote involving Shuka and Janaka, wherein, Shuka despite being born a jnAni, and despite being taught the truth once again by his father, Vedavyasa, was doubtful if the knowledge he possessed was the ultimate knowledge and if anything else was needed.  He goes to King Janaka who tells him that there is nothing else needed to be done. The knowledge he possesses is complete. Reassured thus, Shuka immediately becomes tranquil and enters nirvikalpa samAdhi for many years.

Page 291 तस्माद्विदितेऽपि तत्त्वे विश्रान्तिरहितस्य‌ शुकराघवयोरिव संशय उत्पद्यते । स च अज्ञानमिव मोक्षस्य प्रतिबन्धकः ।

vidyAraNya svAminah concludes by saying - therefore, despite knowing the truth, Shuka and Rama, who were not tranquil, had doubts. Those doubts, like ignorance, are obstacles to liberation.

This ultimately is the purpose of yoga - prior to knowledge, to prepare the mind for knowledge, and after the rise of knowledge, to preserve it.

In summary, my reading of the text has convinced me of a few things

1) JMV is totally in line with the bhAShya and the teachings of the samanvayAdhikaraNa. I don't agree with the view that it is contrary to the teaching of Shankara .

2) The means to knowledge is very clear - shravaNa, manana, nididhyAsana.

3) The means to jIvanmukti is vAsanAkshaya and manonAsha.

4) yoga serves as one of the means of manonAsha. It plays a subsidiary role, as a supporting cause, for the rise of jnAna.

5) jnAna in turn also serves as a means for manonAsha.

6) However, I haven't found any evidence of the practice of samAdhi postulated as a mandatory means to be performed for knowledge to arise. While manonAsha and tattvajnAna are said to be mutually reinforcing, there is no invariable requirement stated for the achievement of samAdhi for the rise of jnAna.

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan

[putran M]

Namaskaram Venkataraghavan-ji,

Although it seems logical, there is something that feels revolutionary/sacrilegious about this construction, to say something (manonasha via samadhi) other than atmajnana is required for jivanmukti. I can see why the opposition goes beserk at this assertion. <smiley face>! I will have to stay with the position that atmajnana is the final goal of advaita sadhana which itself (direct, necessary, sufficient) confers jivanmukti. The rest of the discussion about where to place manonasha or samadhi cannot compromise this in my present assimilation of advaita. 

thollmelukaalkizhu

--

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/CAL34aEmDjz0zQJmfbBuKS_quhj-%2Bfr-V%3D54g1hMqf5HJMQA2kg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sundar Rajan]

Namaskaram Putran-ji,

Your synopsis is great, I would take a slight variant :

I think there are two sampradayas (not factions):  I would consider Nididhyasana to have two parallel paths -  Vichara centric (light Yoga) and Yoga centric  (light Vichara).

One sampradaya is predominantly Vichara oriented, the other giving importance to Yoga as well. In both (N) takes place after Shravana and Manana. The Yoga is not Patanjali Yoga, however the progress of the Sadhaka maps to Patanjali milestones such as Dharana, Dhyana etc and the states of mind (Chitta Bhoomis)  - Vikshepa, Ekagratha and Niruddha etc. 

In fact the progress of Upasana or other meditations also map to PY. The Samadhi is the Vedantic Samadhi described in the Upanishads. As shown by Sri Vidyaranya and others fits in with a variant of Patanjali Samadhis even though PY covers other types of Samadhis.

The special case of a Yoga Bhrasta with purvabhyasa shows (I think) the need for Yoga Abhyasa as a parallel path as the scriptures indicate they continue where they left off in prior life. Such a person is unlikely to sign up for a Atma Bodha class or pursue Vedantic studies or Vichara. As much of the Shravana and Manana has already taken place.

I would also suggest this points to the need for a Yogic Guru but that is a subject for another discussion.

Regards

On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 11:57:48 AM PDT, putran M <putr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaskaram,

A synopsis of this topic and debate that I wrote and sent earlier (before today MK mail) to my family-friends group; sorry if the casual word "faction" is inappropriate:

Quote

... within advaita sampradaya, there are different factions that vary in how they regard the yoga system and its end state of samadhi. I think most agree that samadhi via yoga is not sufficient by itself to lead to atma jnana or destroy ajnana. SMN/vichara is considered essential since the goal is knowledge of realtity. However the question is whether yogic-samadhi can/should be a part of advaita sadhana, is it beneficial, or even necessary; or is it misleading to a different knowledge and not to be included?

Some highly regarded texts like the Vivekachudamani extol yogic-samadhi (possibly adjusted with Vedantic perspective) as a necessary prerequisite for and coeval with self-realization. Important saints of the tradition such as Swami Vidyaranya and Madhusudana Saraswathi also considered Samadhi as an end-point of advaita sadhana. The Sringeri Acharya we see practiced yoga and attained samadhi, mentioning of clarity and certainty in jnana after his second NS. We also read Ramakrishna Math literature where NS is often highlighted as the goal of sadhana for jnana/realization to happen.

But there are others who are vehement that Adi Shankara in his main bhashyas did not ever point to Patanjali's yoga-samadhi as a component of advaita sadhana. For them the secondary advaita texts (like VC) that carry the name of Shankaracharya were written by later acharyas. Favourable references to yoga and samadhi in primary texts must be interpreted differently and it is misleading and wrong to suggest the sameness of such references with the samadhi in Patanjali's yoga sutras. Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati of recent times strongly forwarded this position. Swami Dayananda Saraswathi of Arsha Vidya gurukulam also de-emphasized any special attribution or prominence given to samadhi; it is another experience, to be known as Brahman just like all else. According to him, there is no need to reach a state where the experience of world is absent and only some mystic "self experience" remains.

There can also be the 'middle' way where samadhi is a practically significant state that efficiently ushers in jnana provided other prerequisites (SMN/vichara) are fulfilled, but is not a necessary end-point or pre-requisite for Self-realization. When the interference/obstruction of mind is removed and it is unmoving and fixed in the Self without any outward thinking whatsoever, as per the yoga sutras 1.2, 1.3 and the BG quotations I cited, there is obtained an extra insight that when supported by "discrimination" makes for easier SMN based vichara, hence aids in generation and stabilization of jnana. Because the belief in the maya-chala of mind and its apparent hold on self goes away in samadhi where "the self rests in its own state" (as pure consciousness, without taking the form of the modifications of the mind; and yet a state of awareness that is opposite of the darkness of deep sleep). When one comes out of samadhi, one sees the world but knows its unreality and the reality of the Consciousness/Self that appears as world. Again, provided one already has Sravanam, etc. We can corroborate this with the testimony of the Sringeri Acharya. (From what I can tell, camp 2 will reject this line of compromise as well, that would give any special jnana-conducive status to yogic samadhi.)

Unquote

thollmelukaalkizhu

On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 12:20 PM putran M <putr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaskaram, 

Members can read carefully the verses 31 to 48 and bhashya in Mandukya karika Advaita Prakarana for focused exposition on this very topic. I first read Swami Gambhirananda's translation but also see Swami Nikhilananda's online: https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/mandukya-upanishad-karika-bhashya/d/doc143670.html

I will add that I am more comfortable with Swami Gambhirananda's translation because it seems to follow more closely the bhashya line by line (albeit people can argue he translated in a biased way the words; I wouldn't know). However if Anandagiri is essential to you, the above link gives that.

Some of Bhaskar-ji's arguments are greatly supported in these passages especially when considered along with Anandagiri's tika. Anandagiri (going by the Swami's translation and assuming he does not paraphrase too much for "clarification") makes it a point to emphasize criticism of Yogic-samadhi as found in PYS. 

In 3.37,

the bhashya states: "The Ātman is denoted by the word Samādhi 1 as it can be realised only by the knowledge arising out of the deepest concentration (on its essence) or, the Ātman is denoted by Samādhi because the Jīva concentrates his mind on Ātman. It is immovable, i.e., beyond change."

The tika clarifies: "Samādhi—This state of complete identity with non-dual Brahman, arrived at as a result of discrimination and negation of phenomena, is the Vedāntic conception of Samādhi (which is quite different from any mystical or mechanical state described as Samādhi in the Yogasystem)." 

So, this is a reference (from a commentator) for alternate definition of samadhi. The bracketed part may be Sw. N's addition however. 

That said, I see that when taken as a whole (karika and bhashya), there is also recognition starting 3.40 for the (inferior) yogis who think the way is to control the mind and there is guidance specifically for them towards attaining the nischala achala (samadhi) state via Vedantic approach. The culmination described in 3.46 would be samadhi in a mind guided by SMN based vichara. This is not necessary but for the yogis seeking such a route, the way is shown and accepted as leading to knowledge (again, in the mind having sufficient SMN-vichara). That's my take on the second part of this set of verses and bhashya.

3.46: When the mind does not become lost nor is scattered, when it is motionless and does not appear in the form of objects, then it becomes [identified with] Brahman. 

thollmelukaalkizhu

--
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-oWZJTUo75%2Bv_AN5W_VNivwgX6g4TgiajxQHHxtarhuyw%40mail.gmail.com

.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Sundar-ji,

That is fine. I think of two perspectives possible: 

1. Yogic samadhi that when understood through SM(N) vichara facilitates jnana. Here yogic samadhi does obtain insight of Self in some distinct sense, but by itself it would be partial, incomplete and hence erroneous knowledge. However with proper SM preceding, the experience brings out from within the right discrimination based on Sruthi vakya and hence jnana follows. In this case, samadhi is like preparation of the soil and the seeds of jnana that germinate on it are provided by SM. 

2. The samadhi because it is generated not through Patanjali's yoga sadhana but through a vedantic process should be regarded as fundamentally different from yogic samadhi, as being a nischala-achala self-experience/insight empowered by SM(N) that is inherently capable of generating right knowledge. Hence it can be called Vedantic samadhi.

thollmelukaalkizhu 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/1740163206.2966067.1663546073535%40mail.yahoo.com.

[sreenivasa murthy]

Dear Sri Venkataraghavan,

I request you kindly to verify whether what has been stated / quoted in your posting is in tune with these sruti mantras or not :

The following Sruti mantras  declare ;

SatyaM  jnAnaM  anantam  brahma || TaittarIya 2-1

sarvagM  hyEtadbrahma  ayamAtmA  brahma || ManDukya Mantra 2

brahmaivEdagM  viSvaM  variShTham || muMDaka

ahamEvEdagam   sarvam || Chandogya 7-25-1

AtmaivEdagaM   sarvam  || Chandogya 7-25-2

Atmata EvEdagM  sarvam || Chandogya 7-26-1

prapaMcOpaSamam   Sivam   advaitam  caturtham  manyantE

       sa  AtmA  sa  VijnEyaH || Mandukya mantra 7

 yatra nAnyat paSyati nAnyat SRuNOti nAnyat vijAnAti  sa BUmA || Chandogya 7-24-1

tadantarasya sarvasya

     sarvasyAsya bAhyataH ||

             [IsAvasya ; mantra 5]

 Sa  vA ayaM puruShaH sarvAsu pUrShu puriSayO

nainEna kiMcanAvRutam nainEna kiMcanAsamvRutam \\

[Bruhadaranyaka; 2-5-18]

From the above quoted mantras it follows that

Aham which is myself and which is HERE and NOW is Atman, Brahman.

And also I am anantam and advaitam.

THIS IS WHAT IS HERE AND NOW.

Sri Shankara says :

(1)tasmAt parabrahmavyatirEkENa saMsArInAma nAnyadvastvantaramasti|| Commentary to mantra 2-1-20 of Bruhadaranyaka upanishad.

kiMtu naivAbrahma avidyAkartA cEtanO BrAnta anya iShyatE || Commentary to mantra 1-4-10 of BruhadaraNyaka Upanishad.

na hi AtmavyatirEkENa anyat kiMcit asti ||

[Commentary : BruhadaraNyaka Mantra 2-4-6]

 sadEva tu sarvam aBidhAnam aBidhIyatE ca yadanyabudhyA ||

[Commentary : Chandogya 6-3-3]

 rajjvAM   sarpAdivat   Atmani   dvaitasya   avidyAdhyastatvAt ||

[Commentaray : Mandukya Karika 3-32]

(1) "ayamahamasmi"  iti sAkShAdvijAnAti tatO  vIgatataSOkOBavati ||

                        [commentary Katha : 1-2-20]

 (2) taM  mahAntaM  viBum  AtmAnaM matvA  avagamya  AtmaBAvEna    

   sAkShAt  "ahamasmi paramAtmA " iti dhIraH na SOcati ||

                            [commentaryKatha: 2-1-4]

 (3) "vijnAnaikarasaM  nairantaryENa AkASavat paripUrNaM brahmaivAhamasmi" iti

      paSyEt ||

                                       [ commentary Katha : 2-1-10]

 

(4)  sa viSEShENa jnAtumEShTavyO vijijnAsitavyaH |

      svasaMvEdyatAm  ApAdayitavyaH ||

                  [commentary Chandogya : 8-7-1]

In the light of the above facts who has to do what?

All my study of Vedanta was centred around these mantras and Sri Shankara's commentaries only. I have not even opened any of the prakaranagranthas.

Please enlighten me.

With respectful pranams,

Sreenivasa Murthy.

 

--

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/CAL34aEmDjz0zQJmfbBuKS_quhj-%2Bfr-V%3D54g1hMqf5HJMQA2kg%40mail.gmail.com

.

[Satyan Chidambaran]

Namaste Sundar Rajan-ji,

Firstly, I am happy to note your association and familiarity with these two great mahAtmA GYAnIs of our time. Indeed, about 2 decades ago, I was tormented by the same doubts being discussed here about the role of a special experience in Advaita. In fact, I was more or less convinced about the need for something similar to NS and was quite clearly headed down a path where I might have committed myself to try and gain some special experience of AtmA/Brahman. That is when these two great AchAryas came into my life and turned my thinking on this issue upside down literally and shook the very foundations on which my sAdhana was based. I had a clear change of direction then in my approach towards Vedanta based on a radical change of understanding of what VedAnta is and what the goal of VedAnta is. There has been no looking back since. 

The answer to your question is not that difficult. However, it can take a while to assimilate because of the reorientation (that involves shedding past baggage) that is needed to understand this.

Firstly, let me paraphrase your question, which is not just a question, it as three parts to it. It has an observation, and an implicit conclusion based on the observation, and finally the question itself. I will state the three things separately below:

Observation: “I am experiencing so many limitations” 

(Experience of limitations such as  paricChinatvam (not being all pervading) as you point out, but there are others: alpaGYatvam, alpashaktimatvam, vikarivattvam (janma, mRtyu etc), karmAdhInatvam (in the grip of karma) etc) 

 

Conclusion from the above observation: "Therefore, I am clearly limited.” 

Question arising from the conclusion: "How then, can this I with all these limitations be Brahman that is limitless?. Therefore my experience cannot be BrahmAnubhava"

The answer to this is as follows: 

A GYAni's observation doesn’t change and need not change. His observation of the limitations is exactly the same as yours. However, he knows (i.e his conclusion is) that the experience of being limited is only an appearance, not the reality. Due to aparokSha GYAnam that arose from S, M with His Guru, that destroyed his ignorance, his conclusion from the experience now is entirely different. His conclusion is “I am Brahman, the limitless reality irrespective of experiencing those limitations”. Hence, he doesn’t have the same question!

An aGYAnI says: “because I experience limitation, I am limited”

A    GYAnI, on the other hand says: “Inspite of me experiencing limitations, I still am limitless Brahman. Whatever I experience is only an appearance and not the reality!"

Therefore, my Guru and Parama Guru say that you don’t need to alter your experience of being limited. Instead, you just need to alter the FALSE conclusion that “I am limited jIva” that you have erroneously concluded (due to ignorance) from this experience. Vedanta, the shabda pramaNa, the only means of Atma GYAnam, helps revise my FALSE conclusion that “I am a limited jIva” and replaces it with the new knowledge/conclusion that “I am limitless Brahman”, no matter what my experience is.

And a GYAnI who is a product of this teaching will say exactly what you quoted Shankara as saying: “I don’t view any being or anything as being different from myself by even the breadth of a hair. When there is no second thing at all other than Me (Brahman), how can even a question of anything else arise at all?”! 

Regards,

—Satyan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/518344456.2901207.1663519382227%40mail.yahoo.com.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear friends,

Why not we take the simplest route? Now that we know that Mayin had created us from Himself through Maya (Yogamaya) and we started thinking ourselves to be separate individuals, with separate bodies, which are changing every moment, we pray to the Mayin to take us back to HIm , or pray to Yogamaya (Mother Uma / Mother Kamakshi. Mother Lalita) to help us be one with the Mayin. Lord Krishna's advice is to pray to Mother Yogamaya / Mother Uma / Mother Lalita, for liberation, from our Dehabhimana. Adi Shankaracharya  also wrote the Latita Trishati Bhashya, to guide us. The Mother is always kind to her children. Isn't that so? Any comment ?

My 2 cents

Sunil KB

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/550DDF67-E924-42DE-BC40-75BDFF06647C%40yahoo.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Dear sir,

If you have understood those mantras correctly nothing else is needed.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/441600163.3906921.1663555383749%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Putran ji,

Firstly there are no opponents here.

Secondly, AtmajnAna is definitely sufficient for moksha, but if one, like Shuka, continues to be plagued by viparIta bhAvanA even after the rise of jnAna, there are various ways to manage the mind. samAdhi is one, but by no means the only.

If prArabdha is causing havoc for someone engaging in jnAna sAdhana,

1) either one knows that one does not have jnAna and continues to engage in sAdhana the manage the mind so that jnAna can arise, or 

2) one knows that one has jnAna and continues to practice the various methods to manage the mind to deal with prArabdha and live out the rest of the days enjoying the benefit of jnAna, or

3) if one does not know whether what they have is jnAna or not, one seeks some way to verify it, so that your mind is set at ease and repeat step 1 or 2. 

Whether you call this process post jnAna to manage the mind vidvatsannyAsa, yoga or jnAna niShThA is only academic. 

In either case, it doesn't affect the truth one way or the other that there is no birth or death for anything. 

Regards,

Venkatraghavan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-pNgNnc8tpEpaQJp%3DiKnYdxW6OPmhHsu5eb2HB2Zw1m7A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Satyan Chidambaran]

Namaste Putranji,

I am happy that you and others are zeroing in on the right idea here.

When the problem has been diagnosed properly, the solution becomes very obvious.

When the lady with the necklace on her neck is looking for the necklace, thinking that it is lost, her very seeking for the necklace elsewhere is taking her away from the solution. The same holds for the tenth man’s search for the tenth man. They both were not lacking experience of what they were seeking. The lady with the necklace was already experiencing the lady with the necklace she was seeking. So also, the tenth man was already experiencing the tenth man that he was seeking. They both just lacked some specific knowledge that what they were seeking was already accomplished!

The only solution in such cases where the solution is already accomplished is to rightly know that which already is (using an appropriate pramaNa), not to try to alter the experience of what already is. The lady has to be shown/told that the necklace is already on her neck. She just needs to know that she is already the lady with the necklace she is seeking. So also, the tenth man has to just know that he indeed is the tenth man he is seeking. Nothing else works.

Similarly, we are all already Brahman, full and complete, pUrNaH. That is the truth. Some know it. The majority don’t. Thus, everyone’s Brahmanhood, fullness, completeness, pUrNatvam is already accomplished. Only the knowledge of me being Brahman is not accomplished, exactly like the lady with the necklace or the tenth man. The solution is thus, Self Knowledge, alone, not an altered experience. Once one has this clear background of the problem, any suggestion that something else other than Atma GYanam will fix the problem of self-inadequacy is, more bluntly speaking, just wrong :-)

Thus, the position that Atma GYAnam is the only means for MokSha is an airtight position philosophically, given the nature of the problem. This is no other alternative. A lack of the clear diagnosis of the problem, on the other hand, can bring in a lot of confusion about the solution.

I have presented this in more detail in my talk titled “The Nature of MokSha and its Means”. Those interested can view it on Advaita Academy using the link below:

https://youtu.be/gmhimXo-794

Regards,

—Satyan

[Bhaskar YR]

 

 

praNAms Sri Satyan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I am really happy you have made  shankara’s position very clear in just 2-3 paragraphs with very simple examples whereas I am still struggling with 101 mails 😊   My praNAms to you.  But still for some, mere jnana is NOT enough they need the literal experience of this jnana and to gain that jnana practically they need some other state other than jAgrat, svapna & sushupti.  And as per them Atma sAkshAtkAra is a subsequent effortful step AFTER Atma jnana.  Why because as per them shankara says Atma jnana should culminate in AtmAnubhava or Atma darshana !!

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

Bhaskar

 

PS :  Rest of the putran’s mails later in the day 😊

[Bhaskar YR]

[Bhaskar YR]

The Mother is always kind to her children. Isn't that so? Any comment ?

 

praNAms Sri Sunil prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Oh yes, her mAtru vAtsalya is quite abundant and she is kshipra prasAdini.  When we pray her with all earnestness she will definitely bestow supreme bliss to her sons/daughters.  sharaNAgata deenArta paritrANa parAyaNe sarvasyArti hare devi nArAyaNi namOstute.  She is vishNu mAya, bhrAnti rUpeNa saMsthita but she is dayAmayi jaganmAta. 

[Bhaskar YR]

[putran M]

Namaskaram Venkataraghavan-ji,

Ok. One need not think opponents; but let us say Satyan-ji and Bhaskar-ji have views that oppose yours.

I misunderstood "jivanmukti" as also referring to "moksha" in your mail, hence became confused by the statement that atmajnana follows from SMN but Jivanmukti requires in addition manonasha etc. Given your clarification that atmajnana is itself sufficient for moksha, I think the rest of this argument has been debated by those who don't think the jnani's mukta status should be questioned even in the midst of body-mind afflictions. Some plainly would disagree that doubts can resurface or re-obstruct jnana once attained: (example argument) no matter how much a movie brings 'fear' or 'sorrow' to my mind, the knowledge that it is movie only never goes away.

But a slightly different point, my understanding: one cannot be said to have atmajnana unless doubts regarding the knowledge have been destroyed altogether. So it cannot rightly be said that Shuka had knowledge first and then later doubts were removed. Even I have a lot of "knowledge" and am waiting for doubts about what is right and wrong to be resolved. So when doubts were removed, Shuka attained atmajnana/atmasakshatkara/moksha and in his case also merged into NS. So, if we say that removal of doubts constituted manonasha for him, then that happened simultaneously with or preceding his attainment of atmajnana, not after timewise. 

The point of debate only is whether after jnana is established, the doubts and ignorance can arise once more because the body-mind which is a material entity can be subjected to stress and harassment by external forces - and therefore his jivanmukti goes away in a body-mind superficial sense due to forgetting temporarily. I will leave that for now; but if indeed such doubts can be created even in a jnani by skewing the body-mind, then yes, there should be effort to counter and re-normalize their functioning so that the jnana already realized can shine in awareness. Call it by samadhi or whatever other efforts.

(Anyway I don't want to redirect to another topic.)

thollmelukaalkizhu

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aE%3D%2B-EjpXENytowBBXDd91im_z9b%2BkRw%2BkmtOt6SOwiohQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Satyan-ji,

Your advaitic message is correct. However, Venkataraghavan-ji has also clarified that atmajnana is (necessary and) sufficient for moksha. One can disagree on this point if JMV says otherwise; I presented my understanding in my reply to him. 

The issue of samadhi has been discussed with regard to scriptural/bhashya statements (in earlier mails) and testimony of 'aptas', its potential to remove obstructions that hinder assimilation of jnana and hence by removing them facilitates jnana, and whether it potentially obtains a distinct insight regarding Self that again will aid in vichara based on SMN, thereby resulting in clarity and certainty (if such not already attained from vichara). 

thollmelukaalkizhu 

--
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/E3BBCE71-C0BB-453B-867E-D27FDDF59B81%40yahoo.com.

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Venkatji,

That is a beautiful summary of JMV. I too am glad that you were able to spend time on it.

Kind rgds,
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know That, owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Yes, if we dig deep into this topic it will definitely guide to another complex topic i.e. jnAni’s individual  BMI which we have discussed earlier. 

 

Ok. One need not think opponents; but let us say Satyan-ji and Bhaskar-ji have views that oppose yours.

 

I misunderstood "jivanmukti" as also referring to "moksha" in your mail, hence became confused by the statement that atmajnana follows from SMN but Jivanmukti requires in addition manonasha etc. Given your clarification that atmajnana is itself sufficient for moksha,

 

• I have read Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji’s mail on JMV and conclusion that it’s absolute synchronization with shankara’s PTB.  Which to be frank with you I really doubt.  Some of the issues like different gradations in jnAnanishTa (vareeya, varishTa etc.), there varied method of coming back from samAdhi etc. and many other issues as well ( later will be detailed if required) which are very difficult to find support in PTB. Anyway, that is not the topic on hand now.    Sri venkataraghavan prabhuji could, if interested clarify if jnana itself mOksha and if there is no subsequent steps/efforts that is required, then what is the Jeevan mukti state happens in (additional) manOnAsha.  These things not clear to me. 

 

 

I think the rest of this argument has been debated by those who don't think the jnani's mukta status should be questioned even in the midst of body-mind afflictions. Some plainly would disagree that doubts can resurface or re-obstruct jnana once attained: (example argument) no matter how much a movie brings 'fear' or 'sorrow' to my mind, the knowledge that it is movie only never goes away.

 

Ø     Yes there is a provision for this ( jnAni’s suffering or experiencing duality) in the form of jnAni’s avidyA lesha which is due to his prArabdha karma phala which cannot be avoided till the death of his physical body.  This conclusion is based on jnAni is embodied one and his sashareeratvam even after samyak jnana cannot be avoided as it is his prArabdha and avidyA chaaye.

 

But a slightly different point, my understanding: one cannot be said to have atmajnana unless doubts regarding the knowledge have been destroyed altogether. So it cannot rightly be said that Shuka had knowledge first and then later doubts were removed. Even I have a lot of "knowledge" and am waiting for doubts about what is right and wrong to be resolved. So when doubts were removed, Shuka attained atmajnana/atmasakshatkara/moksha and in his case also merged into NS. So, if we say that removal of doubts constituted manonasha for him, then that happened simultaneously with or preceding his attainment of atmajnana, not after timewise. 

 

Ø     Though nAsha, laya, bAdha contextually giving different meaning when we find manOnAsha or laya ( like in sushupti) we have to understand it as bAdha only (sublation).  The result of brahma jnana is bhidyate hrudaya granthiM chidhyate sarma saMsyahAH says shruti.  That which that removes or annihilates the avidyA / ajnAna (tracelessly / nisshesha) that is jnana in the absolute sense. 

 

The point of debate only is whether after jnana is established, the doubts and ignorance can arise once more because the body-mind which is a material entity can be subjected to stress and harassment by external forces - and therefore his jivanmukti goes away in a body-mind superficial sense due to forgetting temporarily.

 

• Yes, it will go away as per some and to maintain the intensity of brahmajnAna he has to do prasaMkhyAna.  vijnAya prajnAm kurveeta…is the supporting they find in bhAshya. 

 

I will leave that for now; but if indeed such doubts can be created even in a jnani by skewing the body-mind, then yes, there should be effort to counter and re-normalize their functioning so that the jnana already realized can shine in awareness. Call it by samadhi or whatever other efforts.

 

Ø     This is called prasamkhyAna vAda which bhAshyakAra refuted and it is because of the simple fact jnAni’s ultimate realization fetch him the knowledge that he was/is/will ever be brahman and he was / is / will always be akartru, abhOktru.  Through shAstra janita vAkya jnana, jnani’s pramAtrutvam itself get sublated says bhAshyakaara in geeta.

[Satyan Chidambaran]

Namaste Venkataraghavan-ji,

Swami Paramarthanandaji gave a talk on Sapta BhUmikA  some time back. I am sending a link to the transcript PDF below. 

https://arshaavinash.in/index.php/download/sapta-bhumika-by-swami-paramarthananda/

My Summary of Swamiji’s talk:

0) This topic was discussed in YV, JMV and VichAra SAgara Chapter 7

1) Upto level 4 is SMN which leads to aparokSha GYAnam and GYAnaniShThA. He is a Jivan MuktaH/nitya muktaH. 

2) After this, what GYAnI does depends on GYAnIs prArabdha/inclination. There cannot be vidhi niShedha for a GYAnI

A) Some GYAnIs have prArabdha/inclination to do loka sangraha. They engage in vyavaharaH for loka sangraha. Such GYAnIs don’t have the inclination to pursue jIvan mukti sukha anubhava in dhyAna.

B) Other GYAnIs have prArabdha for jIvan mukti sukha anubhava in dhyAna. If a GYAnI is interested in that, JVM suggests levels 5,6,7. They may take it up as an optional project.

3) Irrespective of whether GYAnI does (2A) or (2B), there is no difference in their GYAnam or MokSha. Both are equally liberated. There is only a difference in sukha anubhava in Atma dhyAnam…which is experiential happiness at mental level that has no bearing on GYAnam or MokSha.

4) Thus, level 5, 6, 7 are an optional project for a GYAnI who wants to take it up. It has no bearing on GYAnam or MokSha whether one takes it up or not.

Regards,

—Satyan

--
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/CAL34aEmDjz0zQJmfbBuKS_quhj-%2Bfr-V%3D54g1hMqf5HJMQA2kg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Putran ji,

On Mon, 19 Sept 2022, 07:53 putran M, <putr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaskaram Venkataraghavan-ji,

Ok. One need not think opponents; but let us say Satyan-ji and Bhaskar-ji have views that oppose yours.

Do they? Only they can say so. I don't think their views are opposed to mine.

I misunderstood "jivanmukti" as also referring to "moksha" in your mail, hence became confused by the statement that atmajnana follows from SMN but Jivanmukti requires in addition manonasha etc. Given your clarification that atmajnana is itself sufficient for moksha, I think the rest of this argument has been debated by those who don't think the jnani's mukta status should be questioned even in the midst of body-mind afflictions. Some plainly would disagree that doubts can resurface or re-obstruct jnana once attained: (example argument) no matter how much a movie brings 'fear' or 'sorrow' to my mind, the knowledge that it is movie only never goes away.

Yes, if it never goes away, that is totally fine.

But a slightly different point, my understanding: one cannot be said to have atmajnana unless doubts regarding the knowledge have been destroyed altogether. So it cannot rightly be said that Shuka had knowledge first and then later doubts were removed. Even I have a lot of "knowledge" and am waiting for doubts about what is right and wrong to be resolved. So when doubts were removed, Shuka attained atmajnana/atmasakshatkara/moksha and in his case also merged into NS. So, if we say that removal of doubts constituted manonasha for him, then that happened simultaneously with or preceding his attainment of atmajnana, not after timewise. 

Yes, doubts are destroyed by jnAna, their existence has been negated. That does not mean that one cannot be temporarily forgetful of the truth. If one possesses a mind that is tranquil and automatically abides in the self without raising questions or reacting to the world, well and good - in fact that is the outcome that one is striving for in vidvatsannyAsa. If one does not, there is nothing to say that jnAna can never arise in such an imperfect mind or that their jnAna is somehow insufficient. In fact, that contradicts common experience. 

The very fact that the mind is non-existent does not deny it taking on different modifications. That is as true in jnAna as in ajnAna - the purpose of manonAsha and vAsanAkshaya is to minimise these modifications. 

Moksha is not an event. It is not the attainment of an unattained thing. The appearance of samsAra does not cause the ajnAni to lose his mukti, so what to talk of the jnAni? 

Nor does siddhAnta hold that an unreal thing is real merely because it appears.  If vAsana-s are strong, as long as prArabdha lasts, appearances continue, even when they are known to be real. That is as true for the appearance of the world as is for the appearance of momentary anger, etc. In the case of Shuka, it was the presence of doubt. To clarify, Shuka did not have a doubt about the nature of reality and the self. Rather his doubt was whether what he knew was all there was to know. 

This is the point that Sri Satya Chidambaram ji also mentioned earlier - one needs to have jnAna, and that jnAna alone is needed. Shuka had the former, not the latter. That was addressed by Janaka.

Similarly if there is a momentary forgetfulness / anger / fear etc because the mind is not particularly tranquil, the  question is how the jnAni deals with it. The question is not, in my opinion, if he is a jnAni in the first place.

Kind regards

Venkatraghavan 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-p%3Dg_rrrmzMpzoz3TB39m8kzTSZB7WDKcuX6gRn86FgoQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Please note the correction to this sentence - "If vAsana-s are strong, as long as prArabdha lasts, appearances continue, even when they are known to be unreal."

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Sundar Rajan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

>> I am sorry if I am troubling you and this group with my continuous mails.  >>

You should be. Lot of them do seem like vithanda vada  

 

Ø     I was not expecting any better observation from you than this 😊

 

>>  I definitely don’t think so and I don’t recall any bhAshya support for this easier method i.e. fast travelling towards Atman through the chartered  flight  like samAdhi.  >>

 

Here we go again. Didn't you just reply to my post  the other day offering humble prostrations to all those because they attained this state after doing decades of one pointed relentless sAdhana? Now you are claiming it is a chartered flight?

 

• Do you think chartered flight is so cheap and very easy to get!!??  Perhaps yes as per your budget but not in mine it is very very expensive and common man like me only can dream of it 😊 Jokes apart, I said chartered flight because Sri Putran prabhuji was giving direct travelling to space example to have pratyaksha ‘darshana’ of sun’s stillness and pruthvi’s roaming nature 😊 Infact you have to ask him why he is telling experience of NS is comparatively a swift method of realization 😊

 

 

 :

[ No not at all at any stretch of imagination no one would argue that samAdhi is just like a walk on the rose bed anyone anytime get samAdhi on the tip of his finger!! no one would make stupid statements like that, no not at all…parama yOgi-s, paramahaMsa-s attained this state attained  after doing decades of one pointed relentless sAdhana.  My humble prostrations to all of them ]

 

Next:

>> Why on the earth, shankara, who is compassionate to his followers.. why he insisted  to repeatedly do the laborious Avrutti of SMN till the dawn of complete (paripUrNa jnana) knowledge!!? >>

 

He (Shankara) did not. He did not insist only on laborious Avrutti.

 

• In this adhikaraNa that is the main contention, you are not able to understand that I cannot help it.  Goback and look at it once again.  If jnana does not happen in one attempt what is next?? Or only one time sMN is enough to get jnana that is pUrvapaxi stand for the siddhAnti answers like above by giving the example pounding the puddy till you get the rice.  If at all shankara wants to tell us an alternative method that which you are passionately holding close to your chest i.e. PYS & samadhi experience, he would have definitely mentioned it here by saying why you are wasting your time in repetition go and purchase it instantly at some other place. 

 

Again you present half baked understanding leaving other pertinent things out. He clearly presents Yoga (Dhyana..) as the alternative. Yoga and Vichara are two fold approaches in Nidhidhysana (per JVM and Gudharta Dipika) , as we saw multiple times in this thread. 

 

Ø     What is that yOga and what is that dhyAna bhAshyakAra himself clarified in accordance in vedic perspective.  And mind you we are not talking about what other prakaraNa-s and vyAkhyAnakAra-s interpreted these terms it is strictly as per PTB.  nidhidhyAsana as per bhAshyakAra is vastu taNtra and what you are trying fabricate with shankara bhAshya holding PYS flag high is purusha taNtra or kartru taNtra.  If you are still blind to these glaring differences due to your prejudices I cannot help it.  That is your problem. 

 

Here is my post a few weeks ago, the same very compassionate Shankara is clearly insisting on the other path here:

 

Ø     The mentioning of other path in shankara bhAshya itself shows how ignorant you are about shankara bhAshya and how misguided  preconceived notions you have on advaitic path.  If there are multiple paths or other paths in Advaita, shruti is not the ultimate means (antya pramANa), jnana mAtra sAdhana in the form of SMN was not at all prescribed in PTB as direct sAdhana or more proximate sAdhana and shruti would have not said : nAnyaH paNtha vidyateyanaaya. 

 

Sankara's commenting on the Mundaka Upanishad mantra Dwa Suparna Sayuja Sakhaya Samanam Vriksam Pariswajate on the word  muhyamanah (Paraphrasing)

That soul born among beasts, men and others, perchance shown the path of Yoga, as a result of his past good deeds, by some very compassionate person and then becoming  endowed with yama..dharana..dhyana etc, pasyati, sees, yada, when, while engaged in Meditation.

 

Ø     Do I have to everytime wake you up that what has been said as yOga in geeta & Upanishads are adhyAtma yOga which is purely vastu tantra in nature and yOga what has been taught in PY and which you want to smell in PTB is purusha taNtra which bhAshyakAra categorically refuted by saying that people are under the delution that popular sAnkhya and yOga are mOksha sAdhana hence we are taking these schools for refutation??  If you are still not sure what bhAshyakAra said about sAnkhya and yOga refer 1-4-28 sUtra where he says that with the lengthy refutation of the sAnkhya all other systems including the yOga of Patanjali may be deemed to have been refuted.  And 2-1-3 also don’t forget. 

 

• And finally a request when we are addressing these issues as a bystanders to both yOgic samAdhi and advaitic jnana we must re-think about the style and tone of our mails.  You can always expect same tone from other end since we both are operating at avidyA realm 😊 Hope you won’t mind my jab.

[Satyan Chidambaran]

Namaste Bhaskar-ji,

PraNAms and thanks for your email. Indeed, the nature of the human mind/conditioning is such that it is skeptical towards the possibility of spiritual accomplishments like aparokSha GYAnam and MokSha unless they are accompanied by a generous dose of mystical experience 🙂 This is where shravaNam/consistent and systematic study under a sampradAyavit Shrotriya/BrahmaniShTha Guru for a length of time becomes very important to neutralize such expectations.

Regards,

—Satyan

-- 
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/AM7PR06MB6581B36A7A88634EBFA7E5A0844D9%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

So, this is a reference (from a commentator) for alternate definition of samadhi. The bracketed part may be Sw. N's addition however

 

praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I had written three part mail about the role of nirvikalpa samAdhi in Advaita Vedanta when VC work and in its samAdhi indispensability for the jnana was debating.  I don’t know how to search that thread in Advaita-L.  During that time, Sri Vidya prabhuji, Krishna ghadiyaaram, Sri Jayaraman etc. were participated.  At that time only I have shared Sri SSS’s observation with regard to VC’s authorship which he clarifies in his kannada translation of VC.  In short, samAdhi has different meaning in different contexts in PTB, one of the meaning of samAdhi is samAdhi as per PYS but not everywhere samAdhi=PYS’s NS or asamprajnAtha samAdhi.  I am thankful to you to let me know one more scholar is thinking that way in kArika bhAshya and commentary. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! 

Bhaskar YR

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Satyan ji,

Thank you for sharing this, I will take a look. I remember a Guru Purnima talk by Swami Paramarthananda ji on the Jivan Mukti Viveka a few years ago. Not sure if the link below is referring to the same talk or not.

JMV also talks about the seven bhUmikA-s in almost the same way to what you have written below - levels 1-3 are means for the knowledge of Brahman and correspond to shravaNa manana nididhyAsana (atra bhUmikAtritayam brahmavidyAyAh sAdhanameva, natu vidyAkoTAvantarbhavati) , the fourth bhUmikA is attained by the brahmavit, referring to the tattvajnAni (tato vedAntavAkyAnnirvikalpako brahmAtmaikyasAkshAtkArashcaturthI bhUmikA phalarUpA sattvApattih...soyam caturthIm bhUmikAm prApto yogi brahmavidityucyate). bhUmika-s 5-7 are considered gradations within jIvanmukti (pancamyAdayastisro bhUmayo jIvanmukteravAntarabhedAh. te ca nirvikalpasamAdhyabhyAsakRtena vishrAntitAratamyena sampadyante). bhUmikA numbers five to seven are because of differences in the refinement of the upAdhi leading to differences such as brahmavitvarah, brahmavitvarIyAn and brahmavitvariShThah.

There is no difference in either the jnAna or the moksha for any of the four - differences are only in the refinement of the mind. 

Regards,

Venkatraghavan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/99F10F62-5631-4908-AA46-443E7913D57C%40yahoo.com.

[Akilesh Ayyar]

3.46: When the mind does not become lost nor is scattered, when it is motionless and does not appear in the form of objects, then it becomes [identified with] Brahman. 

This is practically a definition of asamprajnata samadhi. 

Btw, Bhaskarji, would you consider using the “quote” function in your email program? In Gmail all you have to do is comment beneath the relevant sections of the original email after you click reply. It is often difficult often to tell who is writing and who you are quoting in your very interesting emails to the list, because the way you present the emails is nonstandard, unfortunately.

Akilesh Ayyar

Spiritual guidance - http://www.siftingtothetruth.com/

--

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/AM7PR06MB65818929E349F8B1F4937826844D9%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Venkataraghavan-ji,

 

Do they? Only they can say so. I don't think their views are opposed to mine.

Bhaskar-ji: 

• I have read Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji’s mail on JMV and conclusion that it’s absolute synchronization with shankara’s PTB.  Which to be frank with you I really doubt.  Some of the issues like different gradations in jnAnanishTa (vareeya, varishTa etc.), there varied method of coming back from samAdhi etc. and many other issues as well ( later will be detailed if required) which are very difficult to find support in PTB. Anyway, that is not the topic on hand now.    Sri venkataraghavan prabhuji could, if interested clarify if jnana itself mOksha and if there is no subsequent steps/efforts that is required, then what is the Jeevan mukti state happens in (additional) manOnAsha.  These things not clear to me. 

Yes, that is how I understood the debate. That one group thinks texts like JMV are consistent with Shankara PTB and the other thinks they are not, in certain topics at least like samadhi. 

 

Yes, doubts are destroyed by jnAna, their existence has been negated. That does not mean that one cannot be temporarily forgetful of the truth. If one possesses a mind that is tranquil and automatically abides in the self without raising questions or reacting to the world, well and good - in fact that is the outcome that one is striving for in vidvatsannyAsa. If one does not, there is nothing to say that jnAna can never arise in such an imperfect mind or that their jnAna is somehow insufficient. In fact, that contradicts common experience. 

The very fact that the mind is non-existent does not deny it taking on different modifications. That is as true in jnAna as in ajnAna - the purpose of manonAsha and vAsanAkshaya is to minimise these modifications. 

Moksha is not an event. It is not the attainment of an unattained thing. The appearance of samsAra does not cause the ajnAni to lose his mukti, so what to talk of the jnAni? 

I will just state my understanding on this final point.

For the jiva, self-realization/moksha is a specific body-mind event because the identification of self with upadhis goes away at that time. This knowledge-realization changes its subtle body in a fundamental way that is permanent for the rest of that body-mind's existence. That is why when the gross body falls, the subtle body also disintegrates and the cycle of birth and rebirth ceases. Ajnani is not a mukti in vyavaharika; jnani is.

Shuka's initial doubts regarding the completeness/sufficiency of his jnana indicates he was still not a jnani. Self-knowledge is knowledge of purnatvam; there is no second to wonder about. One cannot have it and yet doubt that there is something more, for that very doubt indicates lack of proper sravanam, assimilation or realization. So before Janaka gave him that final sravanam, Shuka was still under the grip of ajnana though in the last stage before final realization/liberation.

Once the doubt is removed (and 'in his case', he went into NS), as said above, his subtle-body is changed fundamentally, burnt to ash-semblance. There is no turning back. He is a jnani who will henceforth know through the filter of this knowledge that is one with him.

Or at least under normal circumstance in the waking state. 

We know that jnani's body-mind is kept intact in a basic operational sense by the momentum of prarabdha-karma, that the mind does assume the form of objects, the intellect does determine as needed, and the body acts accordingly. The jnani's BMI is not the same as for an ajnani and yet it appears the same to an ajnani. 

Generally therefore, the jnana is not lost in his awareness even during such body-mind activity because as said before, that mind has lost its ajnana-root permanently and the subtle body cannot operate in the old way.

However, if this Knowledge-burnt body-mind gets impacted by external forces according to prarabdha karma, the question is whether the jnani's mind taking the form of objects and thoughts under duress or abnormal conditions,

1. can lead to doubts regarding Self-knowledge - "Am I not BMI?" 

2. can lead to belief in the projections of ignorance - "I am body-mind. I am father, son only...."

That is, can the jnani's awareness become lost back into ajnana (albeit temporarily and superficially)? (I want to state that no matter this "doubt", it is not equivalent to the doubt in the ajnani for whom the subtle body carries the belief and needs jnana-surgery.)

Basically, the JMV position is that the answer is YES, and hence even though the jnani becoming-deceived is superficial and contingent on the external forces acting on the jnani's body-mind shell and skewing its natural operation (rather than an intrinsic ajnana error in that subtle-body requiring correction), the jnani would want to avoid the possible slipping into confusion and hence practice methods of mind-control, including meditation, samadhi.

An analogy perhaps: There is an error in the eye and we do surgery. The eye is fixed and now we can see correctly. Suppose then, we are forced or deceived to wear a distorting lens and hence see incorrectly. We already know what is correct vision after the eye surgery. But the present continuous seeing of distortion, can it lead to doubt at some point of forgetfulness (is this correct vision? is there a problem still with my eye? etc.) or at least the need to have to "fight" the mind from slipping into its further identifying with the distortion? However we argue for it, there is a case to be made that even though the eye is perfectly fine, there is benefit in somehow correcting or removing that lens so we can "experience" the liberated state of our perfect eyes. In that sense, JMV can mean that to have jivanmukti, one must also have manonasha etc. even after atmajnana.

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Sundar Rajan]

Namaste Venkatraman-ji, Putran-ji,

I believe Putran-Ji’s analogy aptly captures the JVM Position. Basically JVM is elaborating upon Sankara Bhasya to Br Up 1.4.7.

There are certain Jnani’s (no doubt there is no more rebirth for them). Nevertheless their Jnana could be shaken due to the ‘new ness of their Jnana’ that Sruti ‘suggests’ they resort to Tyaga etc and this steady remembering leads to Chitta Vritti Nirodha..

yady apy evaM SarIrAbdhakasya karmaNo niyata-phalatvAt
samyag-jnAna-prAptAv apy avaSyaM-bhAvinI-pravRttir
vA.n-manaH-kAyAnAm. labdha-vRtter karmaNo balIyastvAt, mukteShvAdi
pravRttivat. tena pakShe prAptaM jnAna-pravRtti-daurbalyaM. tasmAd
tyAga-vairAgyAdi-sAdhana-balAvalambena Atma-vijnAna-smRti-saMtatir
niyantavyA bhavati ...

The gist of the above quotation is, "even after the rise of right
knowledge (samyag-jnAna), due to the strong effect of prior karmA
(balIyastva), whose momentum is like that of a released arrow (mukta
iShu), and the relatively weakness of the newly acquired tendency
towards jnAna, it is necessary (niyantavyA) to maintain a steady
recollection of Self-knowledge (Atma-vijnAna-smRti-saMtati), assisted
by sAdhana-s like renunciation (tyAga), dispassion (vairAgya) and the
like.

There were lots of chats on this many years ago. You can unearth more links from these: 

https://advaita-l.advaita-vedanta.narkive.com/viivMpb5/sankara-on-after-gyana-was-re-brahmagyana-and-jivanmukti-1

https://advaita-l.advaita-vedanta.narkive.com/BYQEzXQe/brahmagyana-and-jivanmukti-3-non-contradiction-with-other-vedantic-texts

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

--
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-oc7XxTe_eaKFiSNMtgcHP_HOEBRoop-xGoOsEsoYuBLg%40mail.gmail.com

.

[Satyan Chidambaran]

Namaste Venkatraghavan-ji,

This talk is from Guru PUrNimA 2020.

There is no difference in either the jnAna or the moksha for any of the four - differences are only in the refinement of the mind. 

Thanks for your notes, and good to know that we are on the same page on this key point.

Regards,

—Satyan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEkBgrMvgW1wyS5VtYAHTr8%2B4bEeYgXCwGKO6n-3ZwLWqw%40mail.gmail.com.