Sadhana vs. Yoga?

[Guest guest]

Since I've just raised the topic of Sadhana, and since we've only

recently finished a debate on whether Shaktism is Advaitic/ Monist

(i.e., all is One; all is God/dess, including you) or Dvaitic/ Dualist

(i.e., you are here, God/dess is somewhere out or up "there"), I

thought I'd share a passage from Sir John Woodroffe -- yes, another

one -- on the topic!

 

I'm not sure I agree with this passage, but it is very thought

provoking. So I figured I'd toss it out to the membership and see if

it yields any interesting discussion. If you're not familiar with the

terminology he's using, please read my posts #2191 and #2192 for a

quick primer. And now, heeeeeeeere's Sir Johnny! He begins by saying:

 

"Technically, Sadhana refers to Ritual Worship. A Sadhaka [i.e., one

who performs Sadhana] is always a dualist, whatever his theoretical

doctrine may be, because worship implies both worshiped and worshiper.

The highest aim of religious worship is attainment of the Abode of

Heaven of the Divinity worshiped. This Heaven is not Nirvana. The

latter is a formless state, whereas Heaven is a pleasurable abode of

forms -- a state intermediate between Death and Rebirth. According to

the ordinary view, Ritual Worship is a preparation for Yoga. When a

man is Siddha in Sadhana he becomes qualified for Yoga, and when he is

Siddha in Yoga he attains Perfect Experience."

 

A bit later in his lecture, Woodroffe elaborates, explaining that

Sadhana "keeps the mind of the Sadhaka occupied with the thought of

the Supreme Power and of his essential unity with It." Thereby, "his

Bhava, or disposition, becomes purified and divinized so far as that

can be in the world. At length, practice makes perfect in Sadhana, and

on the arising (in such a purified and illuminated mind) of knowledge

and detachment from the world, there is competency for Yoga. When in

turn practice in Yoga makes perfect, all limitations on experience are

shed, and Nirvana is attained."

 

Hokay? That's the quote. It confuses me a bit, because I had always

thought that both terms -- Yoga and Sadhana -- overlapped pretty

heavily; that Yoga is a part of Sadhana, and Sadhana is a part of

Yoga. Woodroffe seems to be saying that Sadhana is a *prerequisite*

for Yoga. Could that possibly be right? I'd be interested to hear

others' opinions. Thanks for your help.

 

(By the way, this quote is taken from a lecture delivered before the

India Society in Calcutta, on June 24, 1925, entitled, "The Psychology

of Hindu Ritual.")

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

Namaskar:

 

I am answering my own post (#2200) -- or trying to. In that message,

I'd quoted a passage that seemed to say that Sadhana was merely

preparation for Yoga, whereas I'd always thought Yoga was a part of

Sadhana and Sadhana a part of Yoga. I felt sure that OmPrem or Colin

or Menon, or one of the Group's other knowledgeable experts in the

field, would take up the challenge. They didn't -- so I kept reading,

and I've found some further information that might answer the

question (or at least clarify it to the point where useful discussion

is possible).

 

The original quotation came from an essay by Sir John Woodroffe (1865-

1936). Anyone who spends any time at all around the Group knows I'm

something of a Woodroffe junkie to start with. Sure, I admit it: He

was a card-carrying member of the British Raj -- Tagore Law Professor

at Calcutta University, Chief Justice of the High Court of India, and

later Reader in Indian Law to the University of Oxford. A smart

cookie, to say the least, and a wealthy, powerful member of Great

Britain's elite.

 

But he was also a great friend of India -- a champion of her native

ideals, religions and values. A true subversive in many ways, he

fought the system from within rather than without -- "to make some

small return to a land which, more than any other, has been my home,

and to which I am, in manifold ways, indebted."

 

Woodroffe's books (he also wrote under the pseudonym, Arthur Avalon,

when working with other contributors -- usually Indian professors and

spiritual gurus) are full of condemnations of the missionaries,

philistines, reformers and straight-out racists who tried to justify

British rule by attacking India's ancient culture, without ever

pausing for a moment to understand it. Woodroffe himself was drawn

deeper and deeper into that culture, and was eventually initiated

into Tantric Shaktism.

 

Here's a biographical excerpt that describes him well: "A man of

studious and retiring habits, Woodroffe devoted his leisure from

judicial duties in the main to Sanskrit and Hindu philosophy and

specialized in the Shakti system. … While the shyness of the absorbed

student made him slow to reveal his mind to a casual acquaintance or

to care for society, he could talk much and well in congenial

company. His books are a never-exhausting source of information as to

the deepest essentials of Indian philosophy. But his greatest

contribution, unsurpassed to this day by any scholar, Eastern or

Western, lies in his painstaking and thorough exploration of Tantric

literature and the subsequent publication of about 20 Tantric Texts

after careful and critical editing."

 

I've often found passages in Woodroffe that I'm sure are incorrect --

only to realize much later (as I became better informed) that he was

right all along. And so, when the Yoga vs. Sadhana quote confused me,

and I couldn't find knowledgeable friends to explain it, I searched

his oeuvre for further clarification, and eventually found this

passage in a 1918 essay entitled, "Shakta Sadhana":

 

"Sadhana includes not merely ritual worship in the sense of adoration

or prayer, but *every* form of spiritual discipline, such as

sacraments (samskara), austerities (tapas), the reading of Scripture

(svadhyaya), meditation (dhyana) and so forth. Yoga is a still higher

form of Sadhana; for the term 'Yoga' means, strictly, not the result

but the means whereby Siddhi (here, in the form of Samadhi) may be

had. Ordinarily, however, [the term] 'Sadhana' is used to express all

spiritual disciplines based on the notion of worshiper and worshiped -

- referring thus to Upasana, not Yoga.

 

"The latter, Yoga, passes beyond these and all other dualisms to

Monistic experience (that is, Samadhi). The first [sadhana] leads up

to the second [Yoga] by purifying the mind, character, and

disposition (Bhava) so as to render it capable of Jnana or Laya Yoga;

or becomes itself Parabhakti which, as the 'Devi Bhagavata' says, is

not different from Jnana."

 

So now, he seems to be saying that Yoga *is* Sadhana after all --

simply a higher, non-dualistic level of Sadhana. I'd still be

interested to hear from anyone who might be able to flesh out this

idea and explain it further. It seems to brush closely against

the "Shaktism vs. Advaita" debate we had here a few weeks ago, in

which we agreed that "duality" and "monism" are but different

perceptions of a single reality.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

 

, "devi_bhakta" <devi_bhakta> wrote:

> Since I've just raised the topic of Sadhana, and since we've only

> recently finished a debate on whether Shaktism is Advaitic/ Monist

> (i.e., all is One; all is God/dess, including you) or Dvaitic/

Dualist

> (i.e., you are here, God/dess is somewhere out or up "there"), I

> thought I'd share a passage from Sir John Woodroffe -- yes, another

> one -- on the topic!

>

> I'm not sure I agree with this passage, but it is very thought

> provoking. So I figured I'd toss it out to the membership and see

if

> it yields any interesting discussion. If you're not familiar with

the

> terminology he's using, please read my posts #2191 and #2192 for a

> quick primer. And now, heeeeeeeere's Sir Johnny! He begins by

saying:

>

> "Technically, Sadhana refers to Ritual Worship. A Sadhaka [i.e.,

one

> who performs Sadhana] is always a dualist, whatever his theoretical

> doctrine may be, because worship implies both worshiped and

worshiper.

> The highest aim of religious worship is attainment of the Abode of

> Heaven of the Divinity worshiped. This Heaven is not Nirvana. The

> latter is a formless state, whereas Heaven is a pleasurable abode

of

> forms -- a state intermediate between Death and Rebirth. According

to

> the ordinary view, Ritual Worship is a preparation for Yoga. When a

> man is Siddha in Sadhana he becomes qualified for Yoga, and when he

is

> Siddha in Yoga he attains Perfect Experience."

>

> A bit later in his lecture, Woodroffe elaborates, explaining that

> Sadhana "keeps the mind of the Sadhaka occupied with the thought of

> the Supreme Power and of his essential unity with It."

Thereby, "his

> Bhava, or disposition, becomes purified and divinized so far as

that

> can be in the world. At length, practice makes perfect in Sadhana,

and

> on the arising (in such a purified and illuminated mind) of

knowledge

> and detachment from the world, there is competency for Yoga. When

in

> turn practice in Yoga makes perfect, all limitations on experience

are

> shed, and Nirvana is attained."

>

> Hokay? That's the quote. It confuses me a bit, because I had always

> thought that both terms -- Yoga and Sadhana -- overlapped pretty

> heavily; that Yoga is a part of Sadhana, and Sadhana is a part of

> Yoga. Woodroffe seems to be saying that Sadhana is a *prerequisite*

> for Yoga. Could that possibly be right? I'd be interested to hear

> others' opinions. Thanks for your help.

>

> (By the way, this quote is taken from a lecture delivered before

the

> India Society in Calcutta, on June 24, 1925, entitled, "The

Psychology

> of Hindu Ritual.")

>

> Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

OM Devi Bhakta

 

Swami Sivananda views Yoga as both Sadhana and as

Nirvikalpa Samadhi, the means and the end.

 

He defines Yoga as "union of the individual soul with the

Supreme Soul; any course which makes for such union."

>From the Samadhi point of view, Swami Sivananda describes

Yoga as

* To live in God, to commune with God, is Yoga.

*Yoga is union with God. Yoga is union with all. God dwells in all.

*To be a Yogin means to abide continuously in God and to live at

peace with men.

>From the Sadhana point of view, Swami Sivananda frequently

refers to the "practice" of Yoga. He describes Yoga as

*Yoga shows you the way.

*Yoga is the art of right living.

*Yoga is not a religion but an aid to the practice of the basic

spiritual truths of all religions.

* Yoga shows you the marvellous method of rising from

badness to goodness, and from goodness to godliness, and

then to eternal divine splendour.

 

Most often, Swami Sivananda refers to Yoga as "complete life" or

"a way of life" or even "Yoga life". This would seem to imply no

distinction between the means and end. One is either in union

or one is not. But he also talks about "ascending the ladder of

Yoga step by step" and "attaining perfection in Yoga".

 

Swami Sivananda followed "the Yoga of Synthesis". He said, "In

the mind, there are three defects, viz., Mala or impurity, Vikshepa

or tossing, and Avarana or veil. The impurity [Mala] should be

removed by the practice of Karma Yoga. The tossing [vikshepa]

should be removed by worship or Upasana [bhakti Yoga]. The

veil should be torn down by practice of Jnana Yoga. Only then

Self-realisation is possible."

 

"Action, emotion and intelligence are the three horses that are

linked to this body-chariot. They should work in perfect harmony

or unison. Then only the chariot will run smoothly. There must be

integral development. You must have the head of Sankara, the

heart of Buddha, and the hand of Janaka."

 

"To behold the one Self in all beings is Jnana, wisdom; to love

the Self is Bhakti, devotion; to serve the Self is Karma, action.

When the Jnana Yogin attains wisdom, he is endowed with

devotion and selfless activity... When the devotee [bhakti Yogin]

attains perfection in devotion, he is possessed of wisdom and

activity... The Karma Yogin attains wisdom and devotion when

his actions are wholly selfless. The three paths are, in fact, one

in which the three different temperments emphasise one or the

other of its inseparable constituents. Yoga supplies the method

by which the Self can be seen, loved and served."

 

He adds, "It is within the power of everybody to attain success in

Yoga. What is wanted is sincere devotion, constant and steady

Abhyasa [practice]. The task is a stupendous one. You will have

to practice rigorous Tapas and meditation and wait patiently for

the results."

 

 

OM Namah Sivaya

 

Omprem

[Guest guest]

Namaskar OmPrem:

 

Thank you for an excellent and enlightening post. I think I've

finally got it.

 

You note that "Swami Sivananda views Yoga as both Sadhana and as

Nirvikalpa Samadhi, the means and the end." In other words, "Sadhana"

in the ordinary sense refers to the *practice* of the various forms

of Yoga. But "Yoga" is also Divine Union, the ultimate goal and

achievement of such practice.

 

That explains Woodroffe's hairsplitting. As a trained jurist as well

as a Sadhaka, he often appears loath to imprecisely mix terms and

definitions, even where the original texts he elucidates appear to do

so.

 

Woodroffe explains, "According to Shakta doctrine, Yoga -- the

identity of Jivaatma and Paramatma -- in fact always exists."

Therefore the term Yoga *cannot* refer to a goal or end, because it

is simply a fact of life. It can, to his mind, only refer to a

process -- "the means by which the Spirit pierces the veil of Maya,

which -- as mind and matter -- obscures this knowledge from itself."

 

Well, that's a lawyer for you! ;-)

 

Again, sincerest thanks for your post!

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

OM Devi Bhakta

 

In my post I said that Swami Sivananda sees Yoga as both

Sadhana and Samadhi, the means and the end.

 

I also said that "Swami Sivananda refers to Yoga as "complete

life" or "a way of life" or even "Yoga life". This would seem to

imply no distinction between the means and end."

 

We already are God or Goddess, and even Brahman. Sadhana

is only what we do to remove the conditionings that prevent us

from recognizing that divine fact. The divine fact of our True Self

is contained in the act of Sadhana as well as being the focus of

that act of Sadhana. For Swami Sivananda, Yoga is the alpha

and omega of God-realization or being who we are. That is the

true state of affairs but it is known in a direct way to only the few.

The rest of us, who are struggling to remove the obstacles to this

Self-realization, tend to focus on (or compartmentalize) the

process of the removal of the obstacles (Sadhana) and the

reason why we are intent on removing those obstacles

(Nirvikalpa Samadhi).

 

This view of Swami Sivananda parallels your assessment of

Woodroffe. You quote Woodroffe, "According to Shakta doctrine,

Yoga -- the identity of Jivaatma and Paramatma -- in fact always

exists." Then you conclude "Therefore the term Yoga *cannot*

refer to a goal or end, because it is simply a fact of life. It can, to

his mind, only refer to a process -- "the means by which the

Spirit pierces the veil of Maya, which -- as mind and matter --

obscures this knowledge from itself.

 

It is only a convenience to speak of means and ends. Yes, the

correct way is to simultaneously be aware of both the

individuated Jiva-atman and the transcendental Brahman or

Parama-atman from which the Jiva sprang. To think of one

without the other is to think in a limited way. But most of us are

limited in our direct experience of the Divine. If we were able to

experience Parama-atman directly, we would also experience

Jiva-atman directly, and vice versa. But, in reality, most of us are

incapable of experiencing either directly, fully and all the time, so

we tend to focus them individually.

 

I would question Woodroffe's assertion that "the identity of

Jivaatma and Paramatma -- in fact always exists." Is it not the

ultimate spiritual attainment for the Jiva-atman to merge into the

Param-atman, just as the wave merges into the ocean? When

the wave merges into the ocean, what sense does it make to

continue to consider that wave? It no longer exists. To dwell on it

is to live in the past and be bound by space and time.

 

 

OM Namah Sivaya

 

Omprem

 

 

 

, "devi_bhakta" <devi_bhakta>

wrote:

> Namaskar OmPrem:

>

> Thank you for an excellent and enlightening post. I think I've

> finally got it.

>

> You note that "Swami Sivananda views Yoga as both Sadhana

and as

> Nirvikalpa Samadhi, the means and the end." In other words,

"Sadhana"

> in the ordinary sense refers to the *practice* of the various

forms

> of Yoga. But "Yoga" is also Divine Union, the ultimate goal and

> achievement of such practice.

>

> That explains Woodroffe's hairsplitting. As a trained jurist as

well

> as a Sadhaka, he often appears loath to imprecisely mix terms

and

> definitions, even where the original texts he elucidates appear

to do

> so.

>

> Woodroffe explains, "According to Shakta doctrine, Yoga -- the

> identity of Jivaatma and Paramatma -- in fact always exists."

> Therefore the term Yoga *cannot* refer to a goal or end,

because it

> is simply a fact of life. It can, to his mind, only refer to a

> process -- "the means by which the Spirit pierces the veil of

Maya,

> which -- as mind and matter -- obscures this knowledge from

itself."

>

> Well, that's a lawyer for you! ;-)

>

> Again, sincerest thanks for your post!

>

> Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

Dear OmPrem:

 

Thank you for your clarification. I doubt my line of reasoning was as

clear as it couldhave been, had I not had a 3-and-a-half-year-old

trying to push the "Reset" button on my computer as I wrote! ;-)

 

I understand that we are talking about a slight difference of

semantics more than substance. I agree that with you that, "It is

only a convenience to speak of means and ends." I also agree with you

that this is a necessary convenience for those of us who "are limited

in our direct experience of the Divine," and that it "falls into the

realm of conceptualization."

 

It is always my assumption that there are more householders than

renunciates and Realized Souls haunting , and that is why

I always (though to the annoyance of many, I fear) focus on the level

of practical application of Shaktism, rather than on that lofty

summit where it blends with all other belief systems. Nonetheles, I

think these exchanges are of utmost value because perhaps the best

way to stay on track in one's Sadhana is to not lose sight of its

ultimate Goal.

 

Which brings me to your final point, where you say, "I would question

Woodroffe's assertion that 'the identity of Jivaatma and Paramatma in

fact always exists.' Is it not the ultimate spiritual attainment for

the Jiva-atman to merge into the Param-atman, just as the wave merges

into the ocean?"

 

I'd reply (and here we return, I guess, to semantics and

conceptualization) that it all depends on how how define "merge."

Woodroffe's point, as I understood it, was that one cannot very well

become what one already is. Whether or not a Jiva has experienced

her/his Oneness with the Divine, does not affect the fact that they

are -- just the same -- One with the Divine.

 

And in turn, the fact that the Jiva experientially realizes this fact

does not affect Brahman in the slightest degree -- any more than (to

use your example) a wave affects the sea as it rises and falls. What

changes is the wave, not the sea. "Yoga," in the absolute sense of

Unity, simply *IS.* Yoga, in the common usage, is the striving toward

the experiential realization.

 

Am I getting it, or am I still off track?

 

Thanks again for your time and attention in this matter.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

OM Devi Bhakta

 

I think that you are seldom "off track", but rather frame your

questions to benefit the householders "haunting ".

 

If it is Woodroffe's contention " that one cannot very well become

what one already is", then I agree with that completely. That is

the big lesson that we all have to learn. But the reason that we

have our bodies is that we neither understand nor experience

that state in any profound and lasting way. Sadhana is what we

do to recognize and identify with that state.

 

It probably is a case of semantics or emphasis, but I tend to

think that as long as we have any sense of our Self as

Jiva-atman, we probably have a little way to go to a complete

sense of our Self as Param-atman. To put it another way - as

long as there is content in one's meditation, the meditator still

has not reached Brahman.

 

OM Namah Sivaya

 

Omprem

 

 

, "devi_bhakta" <devi_bhakta>

wrote:

> Dear OmPrem:

>

> Thank you for your clarification. I doubt my line of reasoning

was as

> clear as it couldhave been, had I not had a

3-and-a-half-year-old

> trying to push the "Reset" button on my computer as I wrote! ;-)

>

> I understand that we are talking about a slight difference of

> semantics more than substance. I agree that with you that, "It

is

> only a convenience to speak of means and ends." I also agree

with you

> that this is a necessary convenience for those of us who "are

limited

> in our direct experience of the Divine," and that it "falls into the

> realm of conceptualization."

>

> It is always my assumption that there are more householders

than

> renunciates and Realized Souls haunting , and

that is why

> I always (though to the annoyance of many, I fear) focus on the

level

> of practical application of Shaktism, rather than on that lofty

> summit where it blends with all other belief systems.

Nonetheles, I

> think these exchanges are of utmost value because perhaps

the best

> way to stay on track in one's Sadhana is to not lose sight of its

> ultimate Goal.

>

> Which brings me to your final point, where you say, "I would

question

> Woodroffe's assertion that 'the identity of Jivaatma and

Paramatma in

> fact always exists.' Is it not the ultimate spiritual attainment for

> the Jiva-atman to merge into the Param-atman, just as the

wave merges

> into the ocean?"

>

> I'd reply (and here we return, I guess, to semantics and

> conceptualization) that it all depends on how how define

"merge."

> Woodroffe's point, as I understood it, was that one cannot very

well

> become what one already is. Whether or not a Jiva has

experienced

> her/his Oneness with the Divine, does not affect the fact that

they

> are -- just the same -- One with the Divine.

>

> And in turn, the fact that the Jiva experientially realizes this fact

> does not affect Brahman in the slightest degree -- any more

than (to

> use your example) a wave affects the sea as it rises and falls.

What

> changes is the wave, not the sea.

>

> Am I getting it, or am I still off track?

>

> Thanks again for your time and attention in this matter.

>

> Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

OM OmPrem:

 

And thanks for another most valuable post. As is always the case in

our discussions, I always come away wiser than when I began. What

more could one ask for in a forum like this?

 

I especially liked where you said, "the reason that we have our

bodies is that we neither understand nor experience that state in any

profound and lasting way." Yes, your phrasing "having our bodies"

underlines the physical sheath as itself a manifestation of desire.

 

Again, thank you.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

Namaskar ompremji, thank you for your prompt response.

 

ompremji, do you know what prompted me to ask that silly question?

the very last sentence in your wonderfully written post states...

> He adds, "It is within the power of everybody to attain success in

> Yoga. What is wanted is sincere devotion, constant and steady

> Abhyasa [practice]. The task is a stupendous one. You will have

> to practice rigorous Tapas and meditation and wait patiently for

> the results."

 

therfore i thought if success means attaining a 'state of nirvikalpa

samadhi' (the goal of yoga saadhana) and if we do not attain it in

this lifetime then that means i have failed big time in my yoga

sadhana. and then swamiji is also talking about waiting pateiently

for the 'results' - i guess i got confused!

 

but in your subsequent post you have very nicely explained that we

should do ' yoga sadhana' in a spirit of devotion and humility - in

fact, which is the basis of all yoga- (karma, jnana, bhakti and

raja) 'surrender' - mind, body and spirit totally!

 

here, i would like to share the gist from the devi-aparaadha-

kshamapana' stotram from 'durga saptashati.'

 

Here in twelve slokas, one admits to durga maa " one's inability to

worship maa inability to worship the infinite grace of Maa, lack of

knowledge of pooja, one's flippant attitude, absolute

inadequateness of one's pitiable penances, one's selfishness in

remembering Maa only when the need arises etc. so on and so

forth. At the end of most of the shlokas one insists

upon Maa's blessing despite one's serious

shortcomings, as an infant would of its own mother stating

'Kuputro jaayet kwachidapi kumaataa na bhavati' A bad

son is often possible but never a bad mother.

The last line of the whole sloka stated :Maa, there is

no greater sinner than me in the whole world, but at

the same time there is no sin-absolver(paapahaarini)

equal to you, knowing this just "do as you

please".

 

but seriously, how many of us really have faith in this phrase "do

as you please" but after we finish reading the verses and closing the

book the very next minute we worry about all sorts of silly things-

how we will pay our mortgage, our car loan, our job security, our

health, our sex-life, and of course the most important of all self-

realization or liberation... etc... so we are always worried about

one thing or the other... fame , fortune etc...

so, to arrive at that 'do as you please' desireless state also, we

are smitten by desire...

 

this is why most devotees are afraid to do kali puja because as a

poet says" olease do not invoke Kali if you want to live as you have

lived before." for our kali maa takes away everything including one's

ego , our most precious attachment! but in return, she gives you

liberation! our moksha-datri kalima!

 

so, there are so many kleshas (obstacles) to overcome and so many

vrittis to conquer ... so at least one can start the process of

sadhna in this lifetime and may be complete it in the next time !! as

sri krishna states in the srimad bhagvat gita, 'no sadhna' is ever

wasted !!!

 

love and thank you once again,