Yoga

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhagavatas,

 

I have been researching the connections between Yoga (especially Classical

Yoga, Raja Yoga) in relation to Sri Vaishnavism.

 

I have a copy of Lester's book "Ramanuja on Yoga" which I found to be

insightful and clearly written. A point that I have not found reference to

is one I found on the Ahobila Mutt homepage (excuse me if this is the

incorrect source).

 

One such source made the statement that there were two forms of approach to

Sri Narayana:

1) bhakti yoga--which was none other than the ashtangha system with a

distinct theistic orientation

 

and the other

2)prapatti yoga, prescribed for our circumstances

 

I have a few questions. Kindly respond if you have any information or

thoughts you would share:

 

1) in Lester's book Ramanuja is quoted as (more or less) not regarding

Patanjali's formulation as a valid approach to Bhagavan. Meditation has as

its true fruit, bhakti. Are than any other references which support this and

is this a generally accepted view?

 

2) Also, is the above distinction of bhakti yoga (as astangha Yoga) a common

one?

 

3) Does anyone know of any syncretisms between Sri Vaishnavism or

Vaishnavism and Yoga?

 

4) What were supposedly the contents of Nathamuni's Yoga Rahasya? Is Sri T.

Krishnamacharya's manuscript of the Yoga Rahasya considered authentic

amongst Sri Vaishnavas?

 

 

I hope this message meets you well by the grace of Bhagavan.

 

Ys,

Jagadish Dasa

 

_______________

Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

[Guest guest]

Dear Jagadish,

 

The concept of bhaktiyoga and prapatti (the latter not always referred to

as a yoga) as two distinct paths to moksha is highly characteristic of

post-Ramanuja Sri Vaishnavism. Despite the claims of the tradition that

prapatti (in this sense) was an esoteric teaching of Ramanuja and his

predecessors, however, most scholars approaching the tradition from without

agree that there is no such teaching to be found in the writings of the

acaryas up to and including Ramanuja. I personally agree with them.

 

Lester's book, though containing much that is useful, is perhaps too much

influenced by one particular informant with some rather unusual ideas of

his own. I recommend that you compare it with the writings of Carman and

Lott, among others.

 

In the view of Yamuna and Ramanuja, bhaktiyoga is 'to dwell in meditation

on the Supreme with exclusive love' (cf. Gitarthasamgraha). Thus, it is a

form of meditative yoga, similar *in that respect* to Patanjali's system.

Ramanuja rejects the ontology implicit in that system, however, as it has

no conception of God as the indwelling Self of the self. The first goal of

bhaktiyoga, as of any yoga, is realization of the individual self

(atmavalokana); but a further goal is the higher bhakti whereby one attains

God.

 

As for 'syncretisms between (Sri) Vaishnavism and yoga', yoga ideally isn't

an external element to Vaishnavism at all, though with time it has become

so in practice. Some acaryas, however, still give importance to the yoga

element.

 

Krishnamacharya's 'channelled' version of the lost Yogarahasya is not

generally considered authentic by Sri Vaishnavas (nor, of course, by

academic scholars). It is very clearly a post-Ramanuja work, and in some

places, as I recall, quite modern in its approach.

 

Ramanuja Dasa,

MG

[Guest guest]

Dear Yogadarshana researchers,

 

I am well-acquainted with one peculiar Vaishnava

system based in Gujarat, through a SAurashtrian

brahmin friend of mine, though I have not taken their

diksha, I own some important texts of their

literature.

 

Its is "Bhagwan Swaminarayan [considered an amshavatar

of ShriHari] and His vishishtadvaitham" having its

main literature - 1. Shikshapatri 2. Vachanamritam

based on three main acharyas, viz. Ramanujacharya -

for Gita and Vishishtadvaitham, MAdhvacharya - for

Krishna-mahatyam and mainly Sri Vallabhacharya and his

son Sri Vitthalesh for The Shikshapatri. In

Shikshapatri there are many verses which refer to yoga

that means dhyana on SriKrishna. It directs one and

all, high or low, noble or fallen, to SriKrishna. It

has instances which refer to what exactly "yoga"

means. Ofcourse, for a layman, it must mean - "yoga:

karmasu kaushalm" ie. expertise in doing one's work.

 

I give below some verses which I consider most

significant:-

||Prastaavana|| Vaame yasya sthitaa Radha Sri:cha

yasyaasti vakshasi|

Vrindaavanaviharam tam SriKrishnam

hridi chintaye||P||

||1|| Aikyaatmam eve vigneyam NaaraayanaMaheshayoho|

Ubhayor Brahmaroopena vedeshu pratipaadanat||1||

||2|| SriKrishna Krishna-avataaraanam khandanam yatra

yuktibhihi|

Kritam syaat taani shaastraani na maanyaani

kadaachana||2||

||3|| Krishnah: tadavataaraashcha dhyeyaa: tat pratima

api cha|

Na tu jeeva nridevaadya bhaktaha: brahmavido

api cha||3||

||4|| Nijaatmaanam brahmaroopam deha traya

vilakshanam|

Vibhaavya tena kartavyaaha: bhakti:

Krishnasya sarvada||4||

*||5|| Vairaagyam Gneyam a-preetihi SriKrishna-itara

vastushu|

Jiva-Maya-Ishwara-Rupam iti avagamyataam||5||

 

Yours sincerely,

Venkatesh C.A.

 

______________________

For live cricket scores download Score Tracker

at: http://in.sports./cricket/tracker.html

[Guest guest]

bhakti-list, "Shruti Dhara" <shruti_dhara@h...> wrote:

> One such source made the statement that there were two forms of

approach to

> Sri Narayana:

> 1) bhakti yoga--which was none other than the ashtangha system with

a

> distinct theistic orientation

>

> and the other

> 2)prapatti yoga, prescribed for our circumstances

 

Jagadisha Dasa,

 

The views of Ramanuja on this issue are indeed very difficult

to discern, especially when viewed through the filters of the

later tradition. One of the key ideas that motivates the later

acharyas, beginning a few generations after Ramanuja, is that

that there are two separate and *mutually exclusive* lifestyles

of sAdhana, one difficult, the other easy. The former is the

Vedantic upAsana known as bhakti-yoga, and the other is

prapatti, total self-surrender, which as Martin pointed out

is sometimes not even mentioned as a yoga. Some other

post-Ramanuja interpreters twist the issue further and go

to the extent of declaring bhakti-yoga a path to an inferior moksha

because it is tinged with self-effort and egotistical action.

This latter view considers prapatti as not a way in any

traditional sense but purely a recognition of svarUpa on

the part of the jIva. It technically is not a sAdhana for

them.

 

If we impartially look at all the works of Ramanuja and

approach them with 'samanvaya' (unity of teaching) in mind,

it is my opinion that none of these later conclusions

are sustainable as they stand. In particular, the idea that

bhakti-yoga and self-surrender are mutually exclusive is

totally without foundation and has absolutely no basis in

Ramanuja's teachings. Even if we turn to the writings of

Ramanuja's immediate successors, or, looking earlier, to

the writings of Yamunacharya and the Alvars, we cannot find

a solid basis for this theory. Furthermore, the denigration

of bhakti-yoga as either a non-path to full brahmAnubhava,

or as a difficult path impossible for people of this day

and age to practice, is also totally without foundation in

Ramanuja's writings (or the writings of pre-Ramanuja

Vaishnavas in the tradition) and indicates, in my opinion,

a fundamental misunderstanding of how Ramanuja viewed

yoga as a whole.

 

What is clear, however, is that there are many varieties

of bhakti-yoga or upAsana. Some were more reliant on the

ashTanga method and others not. The mumukshu chooses one depending

on purva-samskAra and mindset. Self-surrender is part and parcel

of bhakti-yoga and must motivate every element of the devotional

process. It is in this regard that the idea of

the prapatti-yoga finds its full force in

Ramanuja's writings, and not in a "choose one or the other

and the two paths are totally divorced from one another"

philosophy which is so often preached these days.

 

If we take Yamuna and Ramanuja at face value, I find it hard

to believe that they were equivocating when they each wrote:

 

sva-dharma-jnAna-vairAgya-sAdhya-bhakty-eka-gocaraH |

 

[Narayana] is attained *only* by bhakti, which is

brought about by dispassion, self-knowledge, and

the performance of one's duties.

 

-- Yamuna's Gitarthasangraha, v.1

 

... parama-kAruNika-puruSa-uttama-prasAda-vidhvasta-sva-anta-

dhvAntasya+ananya-prayojana-anavarata-niratiZaya-priya-viZadatama-

pratyakSatA-Apanna-anudhyAna-rUpa-bhakty-eka-labhyaH |

 

[The Lord] is *solely* attainable by bhakti, of the form

of meditation which is as clear as vision itself, which

is inexpressibly dear, which is without break, which has

no other goal other than the Lord, and which itself is

accomplished by the destruction of one's inner darkness

by the grace of the Supreme Person who is eminently

merciful.

 

-- Ramanuja's Vedarthasangraha, para 91

 

These statements, I believe, are the keystones to understanding

the Yamuna's and Ramanuja's philosophy, and all their works

should be understood together without destroying their primary

meaning.

 

> I have a few questions. Kindly respond if you have any information

or

> thoughts you would share:

>

> 1) in Lester's book Ramanuja is quoted as (more or less) not

regarding

> Patanjali's formulation as a valid approach to Bhagavan. Meditation

has as

> its true fruit, bhakti. Are than any other references which support

this and

> is this a generally accepted view?

 

Ramanuja himself does not quote Patanjali. This is probably

because the SutrakAra has rejected the Patanjalian system in

the 2nd adhyAya of the Vedanta Sutras (etena yoga-pratyuktaH).

Perhaps to avoid confusion, and to avoid being even thought

of in the same breath with anyone who considered the individual

self as a worthy goal of realization, Ramanuja has chosen not

to cite the Yoga Sutra in support of his idea of sAdhana.

However, his works are replete with terminology taken from

the Yoga system. The subcommentator Vedanta Desika brings out

many of these ideas in his elaborations on Ramanuja's original

words, citing the Yoga Sutras where appropriate.

 

In short, the conclusion is correct. Applying the Patanjalian

method with some modifications supports the upAsana of the

Gita and the Upanishads and leads eventually to brahma-sAkshAtkAra

and brahma-prApti.

> 3) Does anyone know of any syncretisms between Sri Vaishnavism or

> Vaishnavism and Yoga?

 

The only person to my knowledge who views Ramanuja

primarily in the yogic mold in this day is Sri Rangapriya Swami

of Sri Ashtanga Yoga Vijnana Mandira, Bangalore. He repeatedly

emphasizes that even prapatti should also be considered a yoga

and is never divorced from it, with the idea that yoga is

defined as by the Yajnavalkya Smrti (cited by Desika in his

gloss on Ramanuja's Gitabhashya):

 

ijyAchAra-dama-ahimsa-dAna-svAdhyAya karmaNAm

ayam vah paramo dharmo yad yOgEna AtmadarSanam

 

Of all religious activity -- worshipful sacrifice,

good conduct, self-control, non-violence, charity,

and study -- this is the highest dharma: to perceive

the Highest Self through yoga.

 

Since yoga is the uniting of the individual self with

the Highest Self, prapatti should also be thought of

as a yoga, with its accompanying spiritual discipline.

While prapatti-yogin does not rely on an intense a meditative

practice as the ashTAnga-yogin, the prapatti-yoga is

enjoined to nonetheless keep his mind at all times

centered on the Highest Self and meditate on Him.

 

By the way, Sri Rangapriya Swami will be giving a lecture

entitled 'Ramanuja and Yoga' this Saturday, and many of

these questions may be answered. Please see

http://ramanuja.org/svss/rangapriya.shtml or send me

email for more information.

> 4) What were supposedly the contents of Nathamuni's Yoga Rahasya?

Is Sri T.

> Krishnamacharya's manuscript of the Yoga Rahasya considered

authentic

> amongst Sri Vaishnavas?

 

The Yoga Rahasya is considered lost, and there is an

episode in Yamuna's life which documents this to an extent.

Sri T. Krishnamacharya is said to have visualized the

Yoga Rahasya in a yogic state, so whether or not you

accept this as the work of Nathamuni's depends on how

much faith you have in T. Krishnamacharya's siddhi as

a yogi.

 

Generally Sri Vaishnavas do not accept this work to be

the authentic yoga-rahasya.

 

Hope this helps -- I have been brief but I'll be happy

to elaborate further.

 

aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

Mani

[Guest guest]

Respected All,

 

I am writing in continuation to Sri. Mani's comments.

If we analyze Gita Bhasya, It is clear that Swami

Ramanuja did not talk about ‘Surrendar’ as a path

towards salvation.He clearly talks only about

'Bhakthi' as a tool for salvation.

 

As Sri Mani clearly pointed out, , Swami Alavandar

also in his Gitartha Samraham, states that

‘sva-dharma-jnAna-vairAgya-sAdhya-bhakty-eka-gocaraH'

 

 

A question might comes to a reader, then why all our

elders talk about 'Prapatti' or 'surrender'

This doubt occurred to me when I was in India and

consulted elders.

 

They say that When Sri Ramanuja wrote Gita Bhasya, he

had in his mind his contemporaries clearely

established Gita in line with Visishtadwaita. Since

Sri. Bhagavat Gita was an universal property any

person can go over and write on ‘Commentaries’ on

Gita, he preferred to teach the sacred sastra of

Saranagathi only at Srirangam to his disciples. Hence

he did not dwell much in to saragathi in Gita Bhasya.

 

This is the explanation I got from elders.

I am not sure If this topic is already closed for

discussion. Since I came back to the US recently, I

took some time to read Bhakthi mails.

 

Dasan

 

KM Narayanan

 

 

 

 

 

 

Health - your guide to health and wellness

http://health.