Guest guest Posted December 15, 2001 Report Share Posted December 15, 2001 This is my first post and may not meet the minimum 'adhikari' requirements, so bear with me.If the topic is not 'non-trivial', can somebody explain why ? This article makes the point that the word 'Samadhi' rarely occurs in the classical texts to wit; "The first point to be noted is that the word samadhi does not occur in the ten major Upanisads upon which Sankara has commented.[11] This is not a matter to be lightly passed over, for if the attainment of samadhi is central to the experiential verification of the Vedanta, as we can gather it is, judging by the statements of some modern Vedantins such as those cited above, then one would legitimately expect the term to appear in the major Upanisads which are the very source of the Vedanta. Yet the word does not occur." Is this significant, and if not what is the explanation ? Kaushal http://pears2.lib.ohio-state.edu/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/comans.htm The question of the importance of Samadhi in modern and classical Advaita Vedanta. Comans, Michael Philosophy East & West Vol.43 No 1 Pp.19-38 Jan. 1993 Copyright by University of Hawaii Press Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2001 Report Share Posted December 15, 2001 Namaste, A sanskrit scholar will be able to clarify this observation: The stem/root for the word samaadhi [abstr. n.] is : sam + aa + dha The stem/root for the word samaahita [past participle] is also the same as above. The word samaahita occurs in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad IV:iv:23 - " iti tasmaad eva.nvit shaanto daanta uparataH titikshuH samaahito bhuutvaa aatmani eva aatmaanaM pashyati sarvam aatmaanaM pashyati | " "Therefore he who knows it as such having become calm,self-controlled, withdrawn, patient and collected sees the Self in his own self, sees all in the Self." In the Patanjali Yoga Sutras, the word samaahita can replace the word samaadhi everywhere it occurs. Shankara, in his Gita Bhashya, uses the word samaahita repeatedly with the same connotation as samaadhi. The Monier-Williams Dictionary gives some meanings [among others] as follows: [ http://www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/indologie/tamil/mwd_search.html ] Entry samAdhi Meaning intense application or fixing the mind on , intentness , attention (%{-dhiM-kR} , `" to attend "') MBh. R. &c. ; concentration of the thoughts , profound or abstract meditation , intense contemplation of any particular object (so as to identify the contemplator with the object meditated upon ; this is the eighth and last stage of Yoga [lW. 93] . Entry samAhita Meaning composed , collected , concentrated (as the thoughts upon , with loc.) ; one who has collected his thoughts or is fixed in abstract meditation, quite devoted to or intent upon (with loc.) , devout , steadfast , firm Up. MBh. &c.; n. great attention or intentness MW. ; %{-dhI} mfn. one who has concentrated his thoughts in devotion , Bhp. ; %{-mati} mfn. one who has an attentive mind Ya1jn5. Sch. ; %{-manas} mfn. having the mind absorbed in (anything) MW. ; %{-mano-buddhi} mfn. having the mind or thoughts collected or composed R. ; %{-tA7tman} (%{saMA4h-}) mfn. one whose spirit is united with (instr.) S3Br. It can therefore be contended that Brihad. Upan. has used the word samaahita with the same purport as samaadhi. The word samaadhi occurs in 'later' upanishads : Maitri [Maitrayani], Amritabindu, and Mukti. Gita has used both the words, samaadhi [2:44, 53, 54] and samaahita [6:7]; samaadhatum [12:9], samaadhinaa [4:24], and samaadhaaya [17:11]. Regards, Sunder advaitin, "kaushal42" <Kaushal42@a...> wrote: > This is my first post and may not meet the minimum 'adhikari' > requirements, so bear with me.If the topic is not 'non-trivial', can > somebody explain why ? > > This article makes the point that the word 'Samadhi' rarely occurs in > the classical texts to wit; > > "The first point to be noted is that the word samadhi does > not occur in the ten major Upanisads upon which Sankara has > commented.[11] This is not a matter to be lightly passed > over, for if the attainment of samadhi is central to the > experiential verification of the Vedanta, as we can gather it > is, judging by the statements of some modern Vedantins such > as those cited above, then one would legitimately expect the > term to appear in the major Upanisads which are the very > source of the Vedanta. Yet the word does not occur." > > Is this significant, and if not what is the explanation ? > > Kaushal > > http://pears2.lib.ohio-state.edu/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/comans.htm > > The question of the importance of Samadhi > in modern and classical Advaita Vedanta. > > > Comans, Michael > > Philosophy East & West > Vol.43 No 1 > > Pp.19-38 > > Jan. 1993 > > Copyright by University of Hawaii Press Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2001 Report Share Posted December 16, 2001 > The word samaahita occurs in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad IV:iv:23 - > > " iti tasmaad eva.nvit shaanto daanta uparataH titikshuH samaahito > bhuutvaa aatmani eva aatmaanaM pashyati sarvam aatmaanaM pashyati | " > > "Therefore he who knows it as such having become calm,self-controlled, > withdrawn, patient and collected sees the Self in his own self, sees > all in the Self." > This really only leads us to another question. How much of the later philosophies, especially that of Shankara, is really there in the Upanishads, and how much is their speculation, and often very free speculation? This is not an unimportant point and applies, in one form or another, to all the major religions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2001 Report Share Posted December 16, 2001 Namaste Martji: Let me speculate my answer to your question based on my understanding of philosophies and religion. A philosophy is the rational explanation of a religious faith and logically there can be more than one philosophy to explain a religion. For example, the Hindu religion is explained by many philosophies - Shankara's Advaita, Ramanuja's Visistadwaita and Madhwa's Dwaita and others. We the human beings perceive our understanding of a religion based on our faith and conviction and each of us are comfortable with one or other explanations. Those with deeper conviction may or may not seek any philosophical explanations. Those who have no conviction whatsoever are likely to assume every word spoken or written is a speculation. This is just human nature and it varies by individual and it can potentially vary with change in time. Most of the Indian Philosophies are explanations of Hindu Religion using the Hindu Scriptures - Vedas, Upanishads, Brahmasuutra and Gita. The authors of vedanta philosophies - Shankara (advaita), Ramanuja (Visistadwaita), and Madhwa (dwaita) truly believe that their interpretation of Hindu religion is consistent with the scriptures. All these three Vedantins scholarly saints with large amount of followers. Honestly the authors of these philosophies are more knowlegeable on Hindu Scriptures and consequently, we are the speculators and not they! Most important, Advaita philosophy is not Shankara's invention and he was the first synthesizer of the ancient explanation of Hindu religion. Let me also suggest that you go over the historical evolution of the Advaita philosophy by reading a biography of Shankara. Shankara has to debate in front of Hindu scholars and has to convince them on the authencity of the Advaita Philsophy before it was accepted. Please understand that Advaita Philosophy was not just a mere speculation like my present observation or your question. warmest regards, Ram Chandran advaitin, "Big_Mart_98" <big_mart_98> wrote: > > This really only leads us to another question. How much of the later > philosophies, especially that of Shankara, is really there in the > Upanishads, and how much is their speculation, and often very free > speculation? This is not an unimportant point and applies, in one > form or another, to all the major religions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2001 Report Share Posted December 16, 2001 Dear Kaushal42, Thank you for your thought provoking post. This topic is definately not "trivial", but of great significance to all those who are trying to grasp the teachings of Advaita Vedanta, especially as expounded by Sri Shankara. For, 'If the attainment of Samadhi is central to the experiential verification of Vedanta', then all sincere seekers should immediately begin the practices of Patanjalis''Ashtanga Yoga', or Kundalini Yoga, or any other type of so called 'Yoga' which claims to result in the of attainment of a state in which all distinctions subside, all duality vanishes, all subject and object phenomena merge,ie; The state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi. The seeker should also realize that the mere study of the Upanishads can only result in an'indirect knowledge' or 'intellectual conviction' about the nature of Reality, and without the 'Direct experience of Reality',which can only be had in the Nirvikalpa State, Liberation can never be attained. This also implies that 'the real Guru' is the one who has himself already attained Nirvikalpa Samadhi, for without that attainment, he too would only have a indirect knowledge of Reality. And that Guru should teach the seeker the means, the 'Yoga', by which he can too can atttain the Nirvikalpa Samadhi state, and thereby get the Direct experience of Reality, and thus attain Liberation. It should also be noted that almost every modern Advaita Vedantin,Ie; Paramahasa RamaKrishna, Swami Vivekananda (and all other Ramakrishna Monks), Swami Shivananda, Swami Chinmayananda, Ramana Maharshi, etc., etc., have all tought, without exception, the neccesity of Nirvikalpa Samadhi. And it is not only these modern Advaita Vedantins, for we see these same teachings being propogated by all 'post-Shankara' ancient Advaita Vedantins (with the sole exception of Sureswaracharya), starting with Vichaspati Mishra's Bhamiti School,where, when commenting on Brahma Sutra 2-3-39, he explains the word 'Drashtavya'(To be seen) as if it were a passage from Patanjali, and concludes that it means that "Atman is 'to be seen' by means of Samadhi". And the author of the Vivarana(the commentary on Padmapada's Panchapadika),and founder of the 'Vivarana School', Praksatman, offers an explanation for the apparent inconsistency that one who has already had the experience of the Non-Dual Atman still continues to percieve the manifold world. His explaination is that the Experience of the Non-Dual Atman is only in the Yogic trance of 'Asamprajnata Samadhi', while the perception of duality is due to the defect engendered by the Prarabdha-Karma,the Karma whose effects are still fructifing and can subside only after the body drops! All other writers on Vedanta,(Vimuktaman,Chitsuka,Sri Harsha,Anandabodha,Vidyarana,Sarvajnatma,etc.,upto our own times) also follow in the footsteps of these two 'way-showers', and seem to think that the experince of Vedantic truths are reserved for adepts in Patanjali Yoga. The truth of the matter, at least according to Sri Shankara,is quite different,for he clearly states that: 'THE ATTAINMENT OF SAMADHI IS OF NO MORE VALUE THAN THE ATTAINMENT OF DEEP SLEEP, YOU GO INTO IT IGNORANT AND YOU COME OUT OF IT IGNORANT' What this actually means is that it is not a matter of attaining a state in which all duality is merged, for everyone, without exception, has that experience without any effort at all in the state of deep sleep. What is required, however, is the Knowledge that 'how I was in Deep sleep , or Nirvikalpa Samadhi, is how I am right now', and this knowldege only arises from the teaching of the Upanishads and not from going to sleep or attaing Nirvikalpa Samahdi. The very best proof that Nirvikalpa Samadhi is utterly useless for the attainment of the Knowledge of the Non-Dual Self, is that Maharishi Patanjali himeself,having attained Nirvikalpa Samadhi, proclaimed THE TRUTH OF DUALITY not Non-Duality!! That ignorant person who thinks he has been passing through the states of walking ,dream and deep sleep,and then at a particular time 'attained' the new state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi,and then came out of it,is not a knower of the Self of the Upanishads, the Self which is unchanging,beyond time and spece,and eternally free from all 'states'. The subject of necessity of Nirvikalpa Samadhi, is one which evey serious student of Advaita Vedanta must come to terms with. My understading of Shankara Vedanta is that it is NOT dependant on the 'private, indivdual, mystical experience of Nirvikalpa Samadhi, A state which has been attained only by a few, but rather that, the Truths of Vedanta are based on Sarva Loka Anubava(the experience that is common to all people,at all times,and all places,and that by merely examining your own everyday experience,without reliance upon any mystical state of Nirvikalpa, one can come to realize that his true Self is Nitya-Shuda-Budha-Mukta Svabavah-( Having the Nature of being Eternally Pure, Eternally Concious and Eternally Free). That this topic deserves much more investigation than the brief presentation made above is obvious. Hoever, I would like to see what the other learned Vidvans have to say regarding this subject before pursueing it in further detail. Hari Om Atmachaitanya -- In advaitin, "kaushal42" <Kaushal42@a...> wrote: > This is my first post and may not meet the minimum 'adhikari' > requirements, so bear with me.If the topic is not 'non-trivial', can > somebody explain why ? > > This article makes the point that the word 'Samadhi' rarely occurs in > the classical texts to wit; > > "The first point to be noted is that the word samadhi does > not occur in the ten major Upanisads upon which Sankara has > commented.[11] This is not a matter to be lightly passed > over, for if the attainment of samadhi is central to the > experiential verification of the Vedanta, as we can gather it > is, judging by the statements of some modern Vedantins such > as those cited above, then one would legitimately expect the > term to appear in the major Upanisads which are the very > source of the Vedanta. Yet the word does not occur." > > Is this significant, and if not what is the explanation ? > > Kaushal > > http://pears2.lib.ohio-state.edu/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/comans.htm > > The question of the importance of Samadhi > in modern and classical Advaita Vedanta. > > > Comans, Michael > > Philosophy East & West > Vol.43 No 1 > > Pp.19-38 > > Jan. 1993 > > Copyright by University of Hawaii Press Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2001 Report Share Posted December 16, 2001 Namaste Atmachaitanyaji: Thanks for providing very compelling evidence on the distinction between eternal Self-Realization and momentary Nirvikalpa Samadhi. I agree that the Truths of Vedanta are indeed based on how the `Perfect Yogi' deals with the world around him. The entire dialog between Arjuna and Lord Krishna is also centered on the same theme. Interestingly in chapter 2, Verse 54, Arjuna asks the Lord to describe to him the nature of the Self-Realized Person. The Lord beautifully describes the characteristics of Stithaprajna in verses 55 to 72. The rest of the Gita is an elaboration of this theme in questions and answers. The first three of the nineteen verses along with their meaning are stated below for a quick grasp of the Truth of Vedanta. Your scholarly approach to the question under discussion is quite refreshing. May I request you to continue to share your wisdom with the list members. We are looking forward to read more of observations, warmest regards, Ram Chandran ======================================== Arjuna uvaacha . sthitapraGYasya kaa bhaashhaa samaadhisthasya keshava . sthitadhiiH kiM prabhaashheta kimaasiita vrajeta kim.h .. 2\.54.. Arjuna said: What, O Keshava, is the description of him who has steady Wisdom and who is merged in the Superconscious state? How does one of steady Wisdom speak, how does he sit, how does he walk? shriibhagavaanuvaacha . prajahaati yadaa kaamaansarvaanpaartha manogataan.h . aatmanyevaatmanaa tushhTaH sthitapraGYastadochyate .. 2\.55.. The Blessed Lord said: When a man completely casts off, O Partha, all the desires of the mind, and is satisfied in the Self by the Self, then is he said to be one of steady Wisdom. duHkheshhvanudvignamanaaH sukheshhu vigataspR^ihaH . viitaraagabhayakrodhaH sthitadhiirmuniruchyate .. 2\.56.. He whose mind is not shaken by adversity, and who in prosperity does not hanker after pleasures, who is free from attachment, fear and anger, is called a Sage-of-Steady-Wisdom. Note: A complete listings of Gita Satsang discussions can be accessed through the list archives atadvaitin/ and click months April and May of year 2000. ============================================ advaitin, "atmachaitanya108" <stadri@a...> wrote: > ......... > The subject of necessity of Nirvikalpa Samadhi, is one which evey > serious student of Advaita Vedanta must come to terms with. My > understading of Shankara Vedanta is that it is NOT dependant on the > 'private, indivdual, mystical experience of Nirvikalpa Samadhi, A > state which has been attained only by a few, but rather that, the > Truths of Vedanta are based on Sarva Loka Anubava(the experience > that is common to all people,at all times,and all places,and that by > merely examining your own everyday experience,without reliance upon > any mystical state of Nirvikalpa, one can come to realize that his > true Self is Nitya-Shuda-Budha-Mukta Svabavah-( Having the > Nature of being Eternally Pure, Eternally Concious and Eternally > Free). > That this topic deserves much more investigation than the brief > presentation made above is obvious. However, I would like to see > what the other learned Vidvans have to say regarding this subject > before pursueing it in further detail. > > Hari Om > Atmachaitanya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2001 Report Share Posted December 16, 2001 Thank you atmachaitanyaji for your response and thanks to others who have been kind enough to respond. I am still in the process of studying this , and I am fairly certain I will have questions. I have found this list to be a good reference site for diverse questions . Pl. keep up the good work. kaushal advaitin, "atmachaitanya108" <stadri@a...> wrote: > Dear Kaushal42, > Thank you for your thought provoking post. This topic is > definately not "trivial", but of great significance to all those who > are trying to grasp the teachings of Advaita Vedanta, especially as > expounded by Sri Shankara. For, 'If the attainment of Samadhi is > central to the experiential verification of Vedanta', then all sincere > seekers should immediately begin the practices of Patanjalis''Ashtanga > Yoga', or Kundalini Yoga, or any other type of so called > 'Yoga' which claims to result in the of attainment of a state in which > all distinctions subside, all duality vanishes, all subject and object > phenomena merge,ie; The state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi. The seeker should > also realize that the mere study of the Upanishads can only result in > an'indirect knowledge' or 'intellectual conviction' about the nature > of Reality, and without the 'Direct experience of Reality',which can > only be had in the Nirvikalpa State, Liberation can never be attained. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2001 Report Share Posted December 16, 2001 Sri Atmachaitanyaji, In whatever little I have chanced to read or listen on this subject, I have heard some of the teachers of Advaita, especially Swami Dayananda, and also Sri Jean Klein, repeatedly stress on the same point that you have made. Here is a pointer to an issue of 'What is Enlightenment' magazine that has an interview with Swami Dayananda Saraswati of Arsha Vidya Gurukulam that discusses the relevance of 'experience' in Advaita. Here is the URL: http://www.wie.org/j14/daya1.asp Please see the first four questions posed by Andrewji to Swami Dayananda in the section 'The Self is already present in all experience'. Warm Regards, --Satyan advaitin, "atmachaitanya108" <stadri@a...> wrote: > Dear Kaushal42, > Thank you for your thought provoking post. This topic is > definately not "trivial", but of great significance to all those who > are trying to grasp the teachings of Advaita Vedanta, especially as > expounded by Sri Shankara. For, 'If the attainment of Samadhi is > central to the experiential verification of Vedanta', then all sincere > seekers should immediately begin the practices of Patanjalis''Ashtanga > Yoga', or Kundalini Yoga, or any other type of so called > 'Yoga' which claims to result in the of attainment of a state in which > all distinctions subside, all duality vanishes, all subject and object > phenomena merge,ie; The state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi. The seeker should > also realize that the mere study of the Upanishads can only result in > an'indirect knowledge' or 'intellectual conviction' about the nature > of Reality, and without the 'Direct experience of Reality',which can > only be had in the Nirvikalpa State, Liberation can never be attained. > This also implies that 'the real Guru' is the one who has himself > already attained Nirvikalpa Samadhi, for without that attainment, he > too would only have a indirect knowledge of Reality. And that Guru > should teach the seeker the means, the 'Yoga', by which he can too can > atttain the Nirvikalpa Samadhi state, and thereby get the Direct > experience of Reality, and thus attain Liberation. > > It should also be noted that almost every modern Advaita > Vedantin,Ie; Paramahasa RamaKrishna, Swami Vivekananda (and all other > Ramakrishna Monks), Swami Shivananda, Swami Chinmayananda, Ramana > Maharshi, etc., etc., have all tought, without exception, the > neccesity of Nirvikalpa Samadhi. And it is not only these modern > Advaita Vedantins, for we see these same teachings being propogated by > all 'post-Shankara' ancient Advaita Vedantins (with the sole > exception of Sureswaracharya), starting with Vichaspati Mishra's > Bhamiti School,where, when commenting on Brahma Sutra 2-3-39, he > explains the word 'Drashtavya'(To be seen) as if it were a passage > from Patanjali, > and concludes that it means that "Atman is 'to be seen' by means of > Samadhi". And the author of the Vivarana(the commentary on Padmapada's > Panchapadika),and founder of the 'Vivarana School', Praksatman, offers > an explanation for the apparent inconsistency that one who has already > had the experience of the Non-Dual Atman still continues to percieve > the manifold world. His explaination is that the Experience of the > Non-Dual Atman is only in the Yogic trance of 'Asamprajnata Samadhi', > while the perception of duality is due to the defect engendered by the > Prarabdha-Karma,the Karma whose effects are still fructifing and can > subside only after the body drops! All other writers on > Vedanta,(Vimuktaman,Chitsuka,Sri > Harsha,Anandabodha,Vidyarana,Sarvajnatma,etc.,upto our own times) also > follow in the footsteps of these two 'way-showers', and seem to think > that the experince of Vedantic truths are reserved for adepts in > Patanjali Yoga. > > The truth of the matter, at least according to Sri Shankara,is > quite different,for he clearly states that: > > 'THE ATTAINMENT OF SAMADHI IS OF NO MORE VALUE THAN THE ATTAINMENT OF > DEEP SLEEP, YOU GO INTO IT IGNORANT AND YOU COME OUT OF IT IGNORANT' > > What this actually means is that it is not a matter of attaining a > state in which all duality is merged, for everyone, without exception, > has that experience without any effort at all in the state of deep > sleep. What is required, however, is the Knowledge that 'how I was in > Deep sleep , or Nirvikalpa Samadhi, is how I am right now', and this > knowldege only arises from the teaching of the Upanishads and not from > going to sleep or attaing Nirvikalpa Samahdi. > > The very best proof that Nirvikalpa Samadhi is utterly useless for > the attainment of the Knowledge of the Non-Dual Self, is that > Maharishi Patanjali himeself,having attained Nirvikalpa Samadhi, > proclaimed THE TRUTH OF DUALITY not Non-Duality!! > > That ignorant person who thinks he has been passing through the > states of walking ,dream and deep sleep,and then at a particular time > 'attained' the new state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi,and then came out of > it,is not a knower of the Self of the Upanishads, the Self which is > unchanging,beyond time and spece,and eternally free from all 'states'. > > The subject of necessity of Nirvikalpa Samadhi, is one which evey > serious student of Advaita Vedanta must come to terms with. My > understading of Shankara Vedanta is that it is NOT dependant on the > 'private, indivdual, mystical experience of Nirvikalpa Samadhi, A > state which has been attained only by a few, but rather that, the > Truths of Vedanta are based on Sarva Loka Anubava(the experience that > is common to all people,at all times,and all places,and that by > merely examining your own everyday experience,without reliance upon > any mystical state of Nirvikalpa, one can come to realize that his > true Self is Nitya-Shuda-Budha-Mukta Svabavah-( Having the > Nature of being Eternally Pure, Eternally Concious and Eternally > Free). > > That this topic deserves much more investigation than the brief > presentation made above is obvious. Hoever, I would like to see what > the other learned Vidvans have to say regarding this subject before > pursueing it in further detail. > > Hari Om > Atmachaitanya > > > > -- In advaitin, "kaushal42" > <Kaushal42@a...> wrote: > > This is my first post and may not meet the minimum 'adhikari' > > requirements, so bear with me.If the topic is not 'non-trivial', can > > somebody explain why ? > > > > This article makes the point that the word 'Samadhi' rarely occurs > in > > the classical texts to wit; > > > > "The first point to be noted is that the word samadhi does > > not occur in the ten major Upanisads upon which Sankara has > > commented.[11] This is not a matter to be lightly passed > > over, for if the attainment of samadhi is central to the > > experiential verification of the Vedanta, as we can gather it > > is, judging by the statements of some modern Vedantins such > > as those cited above, then one would legitimately expect the > > term to appear in the major Upanisads which are the very > > source of the Vedanta. Yet the word does not occur." > > > > Is this significant, and if not what is the explanation ? > > > > Kaushal > > > > http://pears2.lib.ohio-state.edu/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/comans.htm > > > > The question of the importance of Samadhi > > in modern and classical Advaita Vedanta. > > > > > > Comans, Michael > > > > Philosophy East & West > > Vol.43 No 1 > > > > Pp.19-38 > > > > Jan. 1993 > > > > Copyright by University of Hawaii Press Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2001 Report Share Posted December 16, 2001 Dear Satyan, You are correct, Swami Dayananda Saraswati is one of the few 'Traditional' exponents of Shankaras' Non-Dual Vedanta who ( unlike his nominal Guru Swami Chinmayanada,as well as all the other 'Post-Shankara' Vedantins of the Bhamati and Vivirana Schools) has totally rejected the necessity of Nirvikalpa Samadhi for the Knowledge of the Self. And, as is made clear from the interview that you cite,( although this is not directly relevant to the topic of Samadhi and Advaita Vedanta) Swami Dayanada is also the only modern day Vedantin of note ( there have been others) to have openly questioned the qualifications of Ramana Maharshi to be an Advaitic Guru, in that he lacked the 'Srotriyatva' (One who is learned in the Scriptures and the Traditional Method of teaching),in the Srotriya-Brahmanishta (One who is established in Brahman)description of a true Guru as found in the Upanishads. This is a rather bold claim, and one that many members of this thread would no doubt take issue with. But it is one that a jijnasu ( a seeker of knowledge ) should give some serious consideration. (Is it really the 'Method of Vedata' to ask the question 'Who am I'?)?? Hari Om Atmachaitanya advaitin, "satyan_c" <satyan_c> wrote: > Sri Atmachaitanyaji, > > In whatever little I have chanced to read or listen on this subject, I > have heard some of the teachers of Advaita, especially Swami > Dayananda, and also Sri Jean Klein, repeatedly stress on the same > point that you have made. Here is a pointer to an issue of 'What is > Enlightenment' magazine that has an interview with Swami Dayananda > Saraswati of Arsha Vidya Gurukulam that discusses the relevance of > 'experience' in Advaita. Here is the URL: > > http://www.wie.org/j14/daya1.asp > > Please see the first four questions posed by Andrewji to Swami > Dayananda in the section 'The Self is already present in all experience'. > > Warm Regards, > --Satyan > > advaitin, "atmachaitanya108" <stadri@a...> wrote: > > Dear Kaushal42, > > Thank you for your thought provoking post. This topic is > > definately not "trivial", but of great significance to all those who > > are trying to grasp the teachings of Advaita Vedanta, especially as > > expounded by Sri Shankara. For, 'If the attainment of Samadhi is > > central to the experiential verification of Vedanta', then all sincere > > seekers should immediately begin the practices of Patanjalis''Ashtanga > > Yoga', or Kundalini Yoga, or any other type of so called > > 'Yoga' which claims to result in the of attainment of a state in which > > all distinctions subside, all duality vanishes, all subject and object > > phenomena merge,ie; The state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi. The seeker should > > also realize that the mere study of the Upanishads can only result in > > an'indirect knowledge' or 'intellectual conviction' about the nature > > of Reality, and without the 'Direct experience of Reality',which can > > only be had in the Nirvikalpa State, Liberation can never be attained. > > This also implies that 'the real Guru' is the one who has himself > > already attained Nirvikalpa Samadhi, for without that attainment, he > > too would only have a indirect knowledge of Reality. And that Guru > > should teach the seeker the means, the 'Yoga', by which he can too can > > atttain the Nirvikalpa Samadhi state, and thereby get the Direct > > experience of Reality, and thus attain Liberation. > > > > It should also be noted that almost every modern Advaita > > Vedantin,Ie; Paramahasa RamaKrishna, Swami Vivekananda (and all other > > Ramakrishna Monks), Swami Shivananda, Swami Chinmayananda, Ramana > > Maharshi, etc., etc., have all tought, without exception, the > > neccesity of Nirvikalpa Samadhi. And it is not only these modern > > Advaita Vedantins, for we see these same teachings being propogated by > > all 'post-Shankara' ancient Advaita Vedantins (with the sole > > exception of Sureswaracharya), starting with Vichaspati Mishra's > > Bhamiti School,where, when commenting on Brahma Sutra 2-3-39, he > > explains the word 'Drashtavya'(To be seen) as if it were a passage > > from Patanjali, > > and concludes that it means that "Atman is 'to be seen' by means of > > Samadhi". And the author of the Vivarana(the commentary on Padmapada's > > Panchapadika),and founder of the 'Vivarana School', Praksatman, offers > > an explanation for the apparent inconsistency that one who has already > > had the experience of the Non-Dual Atman still continues to percieve > > the manifold world. His explaination is that the Experience of the > > Non-Dual Atman is only in the Yogic trance of 'Asamprajnata Samadhi', > > while the perception of duality is due to the defect engendered by the > > Prarabdha-Karma,the Karma whose effects are still fructifing and can > > subside only after the body drops! All other writers on > > Vedanta,(Vimuktaman,Chitsuka,Sri > > Harsha,Anandabodha,Vidyarana,Sarvajnatma,etc.,upto our own times) also > > follow in the footsteps of these two 'way-showers', and seem to think > > that the experince of Vedantic truths are reserved for adepts in > > Patanjali Yoga. > > > > The truth of the matter, at least according to Sri Shankara,is > > quite different,for he clearly states that: > > > > 'THE ATTAINMENT OF SAMADHI IS OF NO MORE VALUE THAN THE ATTAINMENT OF > > DEEP SLEEP, YOU GO INTO IT IGNORANT AND YOU COME OUT OF IT IGNORANT' > > > > What this actually means is that it is not a matter of attaining a > > state in which all duality is merged, for everyone, without exception, > > has that experience without any effort at all in the state of deep > > sleep. What is required, however, is the Knowledge that 'how I was in > > Deep sleep , or Nirvikalpa Samadhi, is how I am right now', and this > > knowldege only arises from the teaching of the Upanishads and not from > > going to sleep or attaing Nirvikalpa Samahdi. > > > > The very best proof that Nirvikalpa Samadhi is utterly useless for > > the attainment of the Knowledge of the Non-Dual Self, is that > > Maharishi Patanjali himeself,having attained Nirvikalpa Samadhi, > > proclaimed THE TRUTH OF DUALITY not Non-Duality!! > > > > That ignorant person who thinks he has been passing through the > > states of walking ,dream and deep sleep,and then at a particular time > > 'attained' the new state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi,and then came out of > > it,is not a knower of the Self of the Upanishads, the Self which is > > unchanging,beyond time and spece,and eternally free from all 'states'. > > > > The subject of necessity of Nirvikalpa Samadhi, is one which evey > > serious student of Advaita Vedanta must come to terms with. My > > understading of Shankara Vedanta is that it is NOT dependant on the > > 'private, indivdual, mystical experience of Nirvikalpa Samadhi, A > > state which has been attained only by a few, but rather that, the > > Truths of Vedanta are based on Sarva Loka Anubava(the experience that > > is common to all people,at all times,and all places,and that by > > merely examining your own everyday experience,without reliance upon > > any mystical state of Nirvikalpa, one can come to realize that his > > true Self is Nitya-Shuda-Budha-Mukta Svabavah-( Having the > > Nature of being Eternally Pure, Eternally Concious and Eternally > > Free). > > > > That this topic deserves much more investigation than the brief > > presentation made above is obvious. Hoever, I would like to see what > > the other learned Vidvans have to say regarding this subject before > > pursueing it in further detail. > > > > Hari Om > > Atmachaitanya > > > > > > > > -- In advaitin, "kaushal42" > > <Kaushal42@a...> wrote: > > > This is my first post and may not meet the minimum 'adhikari' > > > requirements, so bear with me.If the topic is not 'non-trivial', can > > > somebody explain why ? > > > > > > This article makes the point that the word 'Samadhi' rarely occurs > > in > > > the classical texts to wit; > > > > > > "The first point to be noted is that the word samadhi does > > > not occur in the ten major Upanisads upon which Sankara has > > > commented.[11] This is not a matter to be lightly passed > > > over, for if the attainment of samadhi is central to the > > > experiential verification of the Vedanta, as we can gather it > > > is, judging by the statements of some modern Vedantins such > > > as those cited above, then one would legitimately expect the > > > term to appear in the major Upanisads which are the very > > > source of the Vedanta. Yet the word does not occur." > > > > > > Is this significant, and if not what is the explanation ? > > > > > > Kaushal > > > > > > http://pears2.lib.ohio-state.edu/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/comans.htm > > > > > > The question of the importance of Samadhi > > > in modern and classical Advaita Vedanta. > > > > > > > > > Comans, Michael > > > > > > Philosophy East & West > > > Vol.43 No 1 > > > > > > Pp.19-38 > > > > > > Jan. 1993 > > > > > > Copyright by University of Hawaii Press Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 17, 2001 Report Share Posted December 17, 2001 Dear Atmachaitanya, I have some questions on your posting (see below). 1. Is the rejection based on intellectual understanding and acceptance, belief, or based on indescribable experience? Some can teach and lecture self-consistently and logically; some can experience, and some others can live it (the state of Samadhi or Self-knowledge). Who is better than who or who can judge who? 2. True Guru's methods need not follow the logic of the mind or minds. Some Gurus teach and explain to make sense; some other Gurus live and their living is the teaching. It is only the seeker of the knowledge who has the problem of preferences and judgments about who is better than who. When the seeking ends the judgments and preferences vanish. If two true Advaitins meet they will have nothing to communicate to each other in person or on paper and there will be no preferences and judgments that will be argued between themselves! -- Vis - Sunday, December 16, 2001 10:47 PM Re: Importance of Samadhi in Advaita Vedanta 1. > Swami Dayananda Saraswati is one of the few > 'Traditional' exponents of Shankaras' Non-Dual Vedanta who ( unlike > his nominal Guru Swami Chinmayanada,as well as all the other > 'Post-Shankara' Vedantins of the Bhamati and Vivirana Schools) has > totally rejected the necessity of Nirvikalpa Samadhi for the Knowledge > of the Self. 2. >Swami Dayanada is also the only modern day > Vedantin of note ( there have been others) to have openly questioned > the qualifications of Ramana Maharshi to be an Advaitic Guru, in that > he lacked the 'Srotriyatva' (One who is learned in the Scriptures and > the Traditional Method of teaching),in the Srotriya-Brahmanishta (One > who is established in Brahman)description of a true Guru as found in > the Upanishads. This is a rather bold claim, and one that many members > of this thread would no doubt take issue with. But it is one that a > jijnasu ( a seeker of knowledge ) should give some serious > consideration. (Is it really the 'Method of Vedata' to ask the > question 'Who am I'?)?? > > Hari Om > Atmachaitanya > > advaitin, "satyan_c" <satyan_c> wrote: > > Sri Atmachaitanyaji, > > > > In whatever little I have chanced to read or listen on this subject, > I > > have heard some of the teachers of Advaita, especially Swami > > Dayananda, and also Sri Jean Klein, repeatedly stress on the same > > point that you have made. Here is a pointer to an issue of 'What is > > Enlightenment' magazine that has an interview with Swami Dayananda > > Saraswati of Arsha Vidya Gurukulam that discusses the relevance of > > 'experience' in Advaita. Here is the URL: > > > > http://www.wie.org/j14/daya1.asp > > > > Please see the first four questions posed by Andrewji to Swami > > Dayananda in the section 'The Self is already present in all > experience'. > > > > Warm Regards, > > --Satyan > > > > advaitin, "atmachaitanya108" <stadri@a...> wrote: > > > Dear Kaushal42, > > > Thank you for your thought provoking post. This topic is > > > definately not "trivial", but of great significance to all those > who > > > are trying to grasp the teachings of Advaita Vedanta, especially > as > > > expounded by Sri Shankara. For, 'If the attainment of Samadhi is > > > central to the experiential verification of Vedanta', then all > sincere > > > seekers should immediately begin the practices of > Patanjalis''Ashtanga > > > Yoga', or Kundalini Yoga, or any other type of so called > > > 'Yoga' which claims to result in the of attainment of a state in > which > > > all distinctions subside, all duality vanishes, all subject and > object > > > phenomena merge,ie; The state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi. The seeker > should > > > also realize that the mere study of the Upanishads can only result > in > > > an'indirect knowledge' or 'intellectual conviction' about the > nature > > > of Reality, and without the 'Direct experience of Reality',which > can > > > only be had in the Nirvikalpa State, Liberation can never be > attained. > > > This also implies that 'the real Guru' is the one who has himself > > > already attained Nirvikalpa Samadhi, for without that attainment, > he > > > too would only have a indirect knowledge of Reality. And that Guru > > > should teach the seeker the means, the 'Yoga', by which he can too > can > > > atttain the Nirvikalpa Samadhi state, and thereby get the Direct > > > experience of Reality, and thus attain Liberation. > > > > > > It should also be noted that almost every modern Advaita > > > Vedantin,Ie; Paramahasa RamaKrishna, Swami Vivekananda (and all > other > > > Ramakrishna Monks), Swami Shivananda, Swami Chinmayananda, Ramana > > > Maharshi, etc., etc., have all tought, without exception, the > > > neccesity of Nirvikalpa Samadhi. And it is not only these modern > > > Advaita Vedantins, for we see these same teachings being > propogated by > > > all 'post-Shankara' ancient Advaita Vedantins (with the sole > > > exception of Sureswaracharya), starting with Vichaspati Mishra's > > > Bhamiti School,where, when commenting on Brahma Sutra 2-3-39, he > > > explains the word 'Drashtavya'(To be seen) as if it were a > passage > > > from Patanjali, > > > and concludes that it means that "Atman is 'to be seen' by means > of > > > Samadhi". And the author of the Vivarana(the commentary on > Padmapada's > > > Panchapadika),and founder of the 'Vivarana School', Praksatman, > offers > > > an explanation for the apparent inconsistency that one who has > already > > > had the experience of the Non-Dual Atman still continues to > percieve > > > the manifold world. His explaination is that the Experience of the > > > Non-Dual Atman is only in the Yogic trance of 'Asamprajnata > Samadhi', > > > while the perception of duality is due to the defect engendered by > the > > > Prarabdha-Karma,the Karma whose effects are still fructifing and > can > > > subside only after the body drops! All other writers on > > > Vedanta,(Vimuktaman,Chitsuka,Sri > > > Harsha,Anandabodha,Vidyarana,Sarvajnatma,etc.,upto our own times) > also > > > follow in the footsteps of these two 'way-showers', and seem to > think > > > that the experince of Vedantic truths are reserved for adepts in > > > Patanjali Yoga. > > > > > > The truth of the matter, at least according to Sri > Shankara,is > > > quite different,for he clearly states that: > > > > > > 'THE ATTAINMENT OF SAMADHI IS OF NO MORE VALUE THAN THE > ATTAINMENT OF > > > DEEP SLEEP, YOU GO INTO IT IGNORANT AND YOU COME OUT OF IT > IGNORANT' > > > > > > What this actually means is that it is not a matter of > attaining a > > > state in which all duality is merged, for everyone, without > exception, > > > has that experience without any effort at all in the state of deep > > > sleep. What is required, however, is the Knowledge that 'how I was > in > > > Deep sleep , or Nirvikalpa Samadhi, is how I am right now', and > this > > > knowldege only arises from the teaching of the Upanishads and not > from > > > going to sleep or attaing Nirvikalpa Samahdi. > > > > > > The very best proof that Nirvikalpa Samadhi is utterly useless > for > > > the attainment of the Knowledge of the Non-Dual Self, is that > > > Maharishi Patanjali himeself,having attained Nirvikalpa Samadhi, > > > proclaimed THE TRUTH OF DUALITY not Non-Duality!! > > > > > > That ignorant person who thinks he has been passing through > the > > > states of walking ,dream and deep sleep,and then at a particular > time > > > 'attained' the new state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi,and then came out > of > > > it,is not a knower of the Self of the Upanishads, the Self which > is > > > unchanging,beyond time and spece,and eternally free from all > 'states'. > > > > > > The subject of necessity of Nirvikalpa Samadhi, is one which evey > > > serious student of Advaita Vedanta must come to terms with. My > > > understading of Shankara Vedanta is that it is NOT dependant on > the > > > 'private, indivdual, mystical experience of Nirvikalpa Samadhi, A > > > state which has been attained only by a few, but rather that, the > > > Truths of Vedanta are based on Sarva Loka Anubava(the experience > that > > > is common to all people,at all times,and all places,and that by > > > merely examining your own everyday experience,without reliance > upon > > > any mystical state of Nirvikalpa, one can come to realize that his > > > true Self is Nitya-Shuda-Budha-Mukta Svabavah-( Having the > > > Nature of being Eternally Pure, Eternally Concious and Eternally > > > Free). > > > > > > That this topic deserves much more investigation than the brief > > > presentation made above is obvious. Hoever, I would like to see > what > > > the other learned Vidvans have to say regarding this subject > before > > > pursueing it in further detail. > > > > > > Hari Om > > > Atmachaitanya > > > > > > > > > > > > -- In advaitin, > "kaushal42" > > > <Kaushal42@a...> wrote: > > > > This is my first post and may not meet the minimum 'adhikari' > > > > requirements, so bear with me.If the topic is not 'non-trivial', > can > > > > somebody explain why ? > > > > > > > > This article makes the point that the word 'Samadhi' rarely > occurs > > > in > > > > the classical texts to wit; > > > > > > > > "The first point to be noted is that the word samadhi does > > > > not occur in the ten major Upanisads upon which Sankara has > > > > commented.[11] This is not a matter to be lightly passed > > > > over, for if the attainment of samadhi is central to the > > > > experiential verification of the Vedanta, as we can gather it > > > > is, judging by the statements of some modern Vedantins such > > > > as those cited above, then one would legitimately expect the > > > > term to appear in the major Upanisads which are the very > > > > source of the Vedanta. Yet the word does not occur." > > > > > > > > Is this significant, and if not what is the explanation ? > > > > > > > > Kaushal > > > > > > > > http://pears2.lib.ohio-state.edu/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/comans.htm > > > > > > > > The question of the importance of Samadhi > > > > in modern and classical Advaita Vedanta. > > > > > > > > > > > > Comans, Michael > > > > > > > > Philosophy East & West > > > > Vol.43 No 1 > > > > > > > > Pp.19-38 > > > > > > > > Jan. 1993 > > > > > > > > Copyright by University of Hawaii Press > > > > Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. > Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > To Post a message send an email to : advaitin > Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages > > > > Your use of is subject to > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 17, 2001 Report Share Posted December 17, 2001 Namaste Atmachaitanyaji: First the list had lengthy discussion on the relevance "Nirvikalpa Samadhi" during the Gita Satsangh in April-May 2001 (Specifically discussions focused on Chapter 6: verses 21-25). I strongly recommend that you review the discussions and Swami Dayananda's position is available at the URL (Advaitin List archives at escribe.com): http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m9100.html You should be able trace more discussions by looking into the following threads: "Nirvikalapa Samadhi" and 'Samaadhi' to read the member view points. (The above references will be useful all the members who want to understand the on going discussion) The statements that you have made regarding the qualifications of Ramana Maharishi are pure speculations. Someone or other at some point of time have questioned the qualifications and credentials of almost all sages and saints of this universe. Such criticisms alone do not bring validity of one viewpoint over other. None of us are qualified (ever) to discredit either the ancient or modern Vedantins. All that we want to do in this list is to clarify our understanding of Vedanta and pointout the pitfalls of jumping into conclusions. All scholarly statements always contain some unwritten caveats that needs to be considered and thoroughly examined. In conclusion, though I respect your viewpoints, I do disagree with most your 'bold' assertions because all such assertions contain inevitable caveats. warmest regards, Ram Chandran advaitin, "atmachaitanya108" <stadri@a...> wrote: > Dear Satyan, > You are correct, Swami Dayananda Saraswati is one of the few > 'Traditional' exponents of Shankaras' Non-Dual Vedanta who ( unlike > his nominal Guru Swami Chinmayanada,as well as all the other > 'Post-Shankara' Vedantins of the Bhamati and Vivirana Schools) has > totally rejected the necessity of Nirvikalpa Samadhi for the Knowledge > of the Self. And, as is made clear from the interview that you > cite,( although this is not directly relevant to the topic of Samadhi > and Advaita Vedanta) Swami Dayanada is also the only modern day > Vedantin of note ( there have been others) to have openly questioned > the qualifications of Ramana Maharshi to be an Advaitic Guru, in that > he lacked the 'Srotriyatva' (One who is learned in the Scriptures and > the Traditional Method of teaching),in the Srotriya-Brahmanishta (One > who is established in Brahman)description of a true Guru as found in > the Upanishads. This is a rather bold claim, and one that many members > of this thread would no doubt take issue with. But it is one that a > jijnasu ( a seeker of knowledge ) should give some serious > consideration. (Is it really the 'Method of Vedata' to ask the > question 'Who am I'?)?? > > Hari Om > Atmachaitanya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 17, 2001 Report Share Posted December 17, 2001 Namaste Atmachaitanyaji, Some points for clarification may help the discussion. I have added some comments also. Regards, Sunder advaitin, "atmachaitanya108" <stadri@a...> wrote: For, 'If the attainment of Samadhi is > central to the experiential verification of Vedanta', *********Even Shankara says so: Aparokshanubhuti : v. 124 nirvikaaratayaa vR^ittyaa brahmaakaaratayaa punaH . vR^ittivismaraNa.n samyak samaadhirj~naanasa.nj~nakaH .. "The complete forgetfuleness of all thought by first making it changeless and then identifying it with Brahman is called Samadhi known also as knowledge." [tr. Sw. Vimuktananda]. then all sincere > seekers should immediately begin the practices of Patanjalis''Ashtanga > Yoga', or Kundalini Yoga, or any other type of so called > 'Yoga' object > phenomena merge,ie; The state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi. The seeker should > also realize that the mere study of the Upanishads can only result in > an'indirect knowledge' or 'intellectual conviction' about the nature > of Reality, and without the 'Direct experience of Reality',which can > only be had in the Nirvikalpa State, Liberation can never be attained. *********Nirvikalpa samadhi can be achieved by any yoga, including 'asparsha yoga' of the upanishads. > > It should also be noted that almost every modern Advaita > Vedantin,Ie; Paramahasa RamaKrishna, Swami Vivekananda (and all other > Ramakrishna Monks), Swami Shivananda, Swami Chinmayananda, Ramana > Maharshi, etc., etc., have all tought, without exception, the > neccesity of Nirvikalpa Samadhi. And it is not only these modern > Advaita Vedantins, for we see these same teachings being propogated by > all 'post-Shankara' ancient Advaita Vedantins (with the sole > exception of Sureswaracharya), starting with Vichaspati Mishra's > Bhamiti School,where, when commenting on Brahma Sutra 2-3-39, he > explains the word 'Drashtavya'(To be seen) as if it were a passage > from Patanjali, > and concludes that it means that "Atman is 'to be seen' by means of > Samadhi". And the author of the Vivarana(the commentary on Padmapada's > Panchapadika),and founder of the 'Vivarana School', Praksatman, offers > an explanation for the apparent inconsistency that one who has already > had the experience of the Non-Dual Atman still continues to percieve > the manifold world. His explaination is that the Experience of the > Non-Dual Atman is only in the Yogic trance of 'Asamprajnata Samadhi', > while the perception of duality is due to the defect engendered by the > Prarabdha-Karma,the Karma whose effects are still fructifing and can > subside only after the body drops! All other writers on > Vedanta,(Vimuktaman,Chitsuka,Sri > Harsha,Anandabodha,Vidyarana,Sarvajnatma,etc.,upto our own times) also > follow in the footsteps of these two 'way-showers', and seem to think > that the experince of Vedantic truths are reserved for adepts in > Patanjali Yoga. **********Is this statement based on Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati's and/or your own work, or some other? METHOD OF THE VEDANTA: A Critical Account of the Advaita Tradition. Tr. by AJ Alston. 1997. xxxiv, 975 p. >when commenting on Brahma Sutra 2-3-39, he explains the word >'Drashtavya'(To be seen) as if it were a passage from Patanjali, and >concludes that it means that "Atman is 'to be seen' by means of >Samadhi". **********Brahma Sutra 2-3-39 is : samaadhi abhaavaat cha . Is there some other sutra with the word 'Drashtavya' in it? I could not find any. > > The truth of the matter, at least according to Sri Shankara,is > quite different,for he clearly states that: > > 'THE ATTAINMENT OF SAMADHI IS OF NO MORE VALUE THAN THE ATTAINMENT OF > DEEP SLEEP, YOU GO INTO IT IGNORANT AND YOU COME OUT OF IT IGNORANT' **********Would appreciate knowing the EXACT SOURCE for this statement. > > The very best proof that Nirvikalpa Samadhi is utterly useless for the attainment of the Knowledge of the Non-Dual Self, is that > Maharishi Patanjali himeself,having attained Nirvikalpa Samadhi, > proclaimed THE TRUTH OF DUALITY not Non-Duality!! *********Would appreciate the source for this statement. Yoga Sutras I:3 and IV:25 would prove beyond doubt that Patanjali knew what he was talking about. tadaa drashhTuH svaruupe.avasthaanam.h . I:3 visheshhadarshhina aatmabhaavabhaavanaavinivR^ittiH . IV:25 > > The subject of necessity of Nirvikalpa Samadhi, is one which evey > serious student of Advaita Vedanta must come to terms with. My > understading of Shankara Vedanta is that it is NOT dependant on the > 'private, indivdual, mystical experience of Nirvikalpa Samadhi, A > state which has been attained only by a few, but rather that, the > Truths of Vedanta are based on Sarva Loka Anubava(the experience that > is common to all people,at all times,and all places,and that by > merely examining your own everyday experience,without reliance upon > any mystical state of Nirvikalpa, one can come to realize that his > true Self is Nitya-Shuda-Budha-Mukta Svabavah-( Having the > Nature of being Eternally Pure, Eternally Concious and Eternally > Free). ********Shankara's Vedantic 'experience' is open to all, as well as Raja Yogic approach, provided they make the necessary effort to qualify for it. In addition to yama and niyama, all paths "require practice that is: 'chirakaala' [to the very end of our life; 'nairantarya' [without losing a single moment; and 'aadara' [fully devotional attitude], to bear the fruit of Realisation." [Ranade, Vedanta-Culmination of Indian Thought; p. 72; 1970, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 17, 2001 Report Share Posted December 17, 2001 --- atmachaitanya108 <stadri wrote: <...> > > The truth of the matter, at least according to > Sri Shankara,is > quite different,for he clearly states that: > > 'THE ATTAINMENT OF SAMADHI IS OF NO MORE VALUE THAN > THE ATTAINMENT OF > DEEP SLEEP, YOU GO INTO IT IGNORANT AND YOU COME OUT > OF IT IGNORANT' > Greetings Shree Atmachaitanya. I am curious and also have doubts as to where Shankara may said the above. Besides, there may more to a deep-sleep or Samadhi-state compared to day-to-day perception; for in a Upanishad, Ajatasatru explains about the same to Gargya. With Love, Raghava Check out Shopping and Auctions for all of your unique holiday gifts! Buy at or bid at http://auctions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 17, 2001 Report Share Posted December 17, 2001 (Is it really the 'Method of Vedata' to ask the > > question 'Who am I'?)?? It may not be the method of the Vedanta, but it was the method of the original sages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 17, 2001 Report Share Posted December 17, 2001 Dear Madhva Turumella, Of course, Swami Dayananda is entitled to his own opinion, and of course, his opinion may not be "necessarily' right. However, his reasons for thinking that Ramana was not a Srotriya (One learned in the Scriptures) nor a Sampradayavid ( One conversant with the Traditional Method of Teaching), I think, are at least worthy of consideration. After all, even his closest devotees would never make the claim that Ramana's 'Realization' was the outcome of great Shastric knowledge, or of ANY Shastric knowledge at all, for that matter. As to your response to my query "Is it really the 'Method of Vedanta', to ask the question 'Who am I?", where you make the following statement: "Each and every Advaitic teacher will choose his own way on how to teach his followers. And Ramana Maharshi had his own way that is 'Who am I?'." I would reply as follows: At the time of Sri Shankara there were a number of "Advaita Vedanta" teachers, in the sense that they all accepted that, a) Reality is Non-Dual,and b) That ultimately the Self and Brahman are identical.However these 'Advaita' teachers differed among themselves about the means to Liberation, The means of Knowledge, the function of the Shastra, wheather Jivanmukti(Liberation in life) or Videhamukti(Liberation after death) was the main Mukti, the necessity of the repitition of Knowledge, and a number of other issues. Anyone who has seriouly studied Shankaras Sutra Bhashya, as well as Sureswaras' Bridharanyaka Vartika, is aware of the fact that Shankara and Sureshwara represent merely one of a number of Sampradayas, all Advaitic, and that they were both trying to show how these other interpretors of the Upanishads were wrong, and that their Methodology alone should be accepted as the true interpretation of the Upanishadic teachings. As this is not the place to go into details of these different "Advaitic" schools that Shankara and Sureswara severly critizied,(there were at least nine!), I would like to quote one particularly revealing portion of Shankaras commentary on sloka 13-2 of the Bhagavad Gita, in that I think it best exemplifies Shankaras' opinion about the importance of knowing the correct 'Traditional Method of Teaching', and what he thought about those other 'Advaitic Gurus' who were outside the pale of the 'True Sampradaya'. "There is yet another type of interpretation demonstraded by other so-called Vedanta Scholars (pandityam). They affirm: "The 'Knower of the Field'(Kshetrajna) is God (Ishvara) alone. The 'Field' (kshetra) is entirely different Him, and is the object of His perception. But as for me, I am a Samsari, happy or unhappy. My duty is to withdraw from the sphere of transmigration by means of the knowledge of the 'Field'(Kshetra) and the 'Knower of the Field'(Kshetrajna). And then by means of meditation having realized the 'Field Knower'(Kshetrajna), I should merge into Him." He who knows thus,and he who teaches thus, is not a real 'Field Knower".He who thinks thus is the meanest type of the so-called 'Advaitic teachers' who egotistically assigns a new sense to the states of Bondage and Liberation,; He is also a Self-destroyer. Himself deluded, he confounds others: FOR, HE IS BEREFT OF THE 'TRADITIONAL METHOD OF TEACHING' AS TAUGHT BY THE SCRIPTURE. He is guilty of rejecting what is directly being taught, and dogmatically introducing somthing novel. Hence, one who is ignorant of the 'Traditional method of Teaching', though he be learned in all the Shastras, should be disregarded like a fool!" BG.Bh. 13-2 It should be noted that on Gita 13-13 Shankaras' commentary explicitly states what exactly this "Traditional Methodology is: " There is a saying amongst those who know the 'True Traditional Method of Teaching' " That which is devoid of all multiplicity is taught by the means of DELIBERATE SUPERIMPOSITION AND RESCISSION." What exactly is the nature of this Sampradayaic method of 'Deliberate Superimposition and Rescission, in all its' varied forms, need not be analyized here, other than to remark that this methodology has nothing to do with someone being encouraged to ask the question 'Who am I?' Or to seek the source of the 'I-I', or anything like that. Hari Om Atmachaitanya advaitin, "Madhava K. Turumella" <madhava@f...> wrote: > > -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- > > Von: atmachaitanya108 [stadri@a...] > > and Advaita Vedanta) Swami Dayanada is also the only modern day > > Vedantin of note ( there have been others) to have openly questioned > > the qualifications of Ramana Maharshi to be an Advaitic Guru, in that > > he lacked the 'Srotriyatva' (One who is learned in the Scriptures and > > the Traditional Method of teaching),in the Srotriya-Brahmanishta (One > > who is established in Brahman)description of a true Guru as found in > > the Upanishads. But it is one that a > > jijnasu ( a seeker of knowledge ) should give some serious > > consideration. (Is it really the 'Method of Vedata' to ask the > > question 'Who am I'?)?? > > > > Hari Om > > Atmachaitanya > > In my humble opinion, Swamy Dayanandaji is entitled to have his own opinion > about Ramana Maharshi, but that does not necessarily mean he is right! Now > to the question "(Is it really the 'Method of Vedata' to ask the question > 'Who am I'?)??"... > > Each and every advaitic teacher will chose his own way on how to teach his > followers. And Ramana Maharshi has his own way that is "Who am I". Is it > really the "Method of Vedanta"? --- I would say "Yes". It is not just > Ramana Maharshi who has questioned that way, there is this famous story in > Vishnu Purana where --- Lord Brahma after taking birth in the lotus which > came out of Lord Vishnu's nAbhi, started wondering "Who am I" and then > started searching for the answer. So Ramana Maharshi is not new, this kind > of/method of questioning started with Lord Brahma. > > Yours, > Madhava Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 17, 2001 Report Share Posted December 17, 2001 > the Scriptures) nor a Sampradayavid ( One conversant with the > Traditional Method of Teaching), I think, are at least worthy of > consideration. After all, even his closest devotees would never make > the claim that Ramana's 'Realization' was the outcome of great > Shastric knowledge, or of ANY Shastric knowledge at all, for that > matter. > Namsate Shri AtmaChaitanya-Ji, First of all I would like to mention that I do agree with your view that the goal of Vedanta is to help the seekers recognize that EACH one of us, in their wake-up state, in our day to day lives, often have fleeting experiences of a state that is the goal of very spiritual tradition in this world. Call it the state of Samadhi, or the state of Saguna Brahma, or realization of God or anything else .... In my view the practice of yoga, is targetted to help the sadhaka recognize this experience and enable him/her to prolong this experience. I gather that your view is something similar. Now coming to the point where I do not agree with you. This is the excessive dependence on traditional Shastras. In this regard I would like to cite an earlier posting of mine: advaitin/message/10318 There I argue that what we call as shastras in in fact a collection of experiences of sages of the past. By that logic, your experiences if recorded will be the shastra of tomorrow. So Ramana maharshi's experiece and teaching cannot be out of shastras, in fact they have to be considered to be a part of shastras. So what if Ramana Maharshi happens to be more recent than say Yajnavalakya. If he was as ancient as Yajnavalakya probably everyone would have celebrated his teachings as Shruti. If you would say, Yajnavalakya probably received the teachings from some guru. Then let us trace the tradition of knowledge backwards. We woudl either reach Hiranyagarbha or some sage who had no guru. What was the source of knowledge for these adi-gurus ? These adi-gurus have gained their knowledge directly from the Brahman, a source that is ever accessible to all including Ramana Maharshi. My point is, teachings of Ramana Maharshi, or Yajnavalakya or any one else are all equally valid views of the Truth. We just have to choose what appeals to us. In my view, in some sense everyone is right and in some sense every formal path is incomplete. Best regards Shrinivas Gadkari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 17, 2001 Report Share Posted December 17, 2001 Namaste Atamachaitanyaji, Your Traditional method of teaching was taught in the ancient times by Sages such as Sri Ramana Maharshi. The Adi Guru is considered by many as Sri Dakshinamurthy. Sri Shankaracharya is supposed to have composed the DakshinaMurthy Shlokam (you may say there is no proof). I would say Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi's teaching was like that of the Adi Guru Sri Dakshinamurthy, that is Be Still and Know You are God. His teaching was in silence, just like the Adi Guru, Lord Dakshinamurthy. But because we are incapable of being silent, but prefer to pass comments on great teachers, He taught us the way of finding the "I". Whether it is traditional or not, hunting the "I", keeps the mind quiet and humble which I think is very necessary for a sadhaka. Hari Om, Anand > FOR, HE IS BEREFT OF THE > 'TRADITIONAL METHOD OF > TEACHING' AS TAUGHT BY THE SCRIPTURE. He is guilty > of rejecting what > is directly being taught, and dogmatically > introducing somthing novel. > Hence, one who is ignorant of the 'Traditional > method of Teaching', > though he be learned in all the Shastras, should be > disregarded like a > fool!" BG.Bh. 13-2 > It should be noted that on Gita 13-13 > Shankaras' commentary > explicitly states what exactly this "Traditional > Methodology is: Check out Shopping and Auctions for all of your unique holiday gifts! Buy at or bid at http://auctions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 17, 2001 Report Share Posted December 17, 2001 advaitin, "ramvchandran" <rchandran@c...> wrote: > Namaste Atmachaitanyaji: > > very compelling evidence on the distinction > between eternal Self-Realization and momentary Nirvikalpa Samadhi. Namaste, I have seen similar statements attributed to Sri Dayanand Saraswati in His commentary on the Gita posted to this egroup earlier in may- june of this year. While the Nirvikalpa Samadhi experience may have a beginning and a end, there is a gross misunderstanding and underestimation of the whole experience in the commentary and in the statement above. Sri Harsha wrote then and I tend to agree with him now (advaitin/message/9247) : >> Beautifully put Sundarji! I had missed the earlier posts on this. One thing to keep in mind is that the overwhelming number of the Swamis (no matter how well known or well established) who speak about Nirvikalpa Samadhi do not have the actual experience or the fundamental Self- Knowledge that is needed to speak authoritatively or meaningfully on the topic. With such people one sees half truths which are given their own unique twist. These things cannot be picked up from scriptures haphazardly or from commentaries written by scholars. >> Sri Sankara has very clearly stated the importance of Nirvikalpa Samadhi in VivekaChudamani: ============ Quote from VivekaChudmani ============================== When thus purified by continuous practice, the mind merges in Brahman, then there is Nirvikalpa-samadhi, which brings about the effortless experience of non-dual bliss (363) Verse starting with Samadhinanana.. By this samadhi, there occurs the destruction of the know of impressions, the annihilation of all one's actions and the manifestation, without effort, of one's true nature, within and without, everywhere and for ever (364) (In the above verse Sankara clearly states that one's true nature is manifested (experienced) in Nirvikalpa-samadhi ) Reflection on the Truth is a hundred times superior to hearing. Meditation on the truth is a hundred thousand times greater than reflection. Nirvikalpa-samadhi is infinitely superior to that (365) ============ Quote from VivekaChudmani ============================== Adi Sankara clearly states that the Atma is directly perceived in Nirvikalpa-Samadhi in verse 364 of Vivekachudamani. Hence, though one may eventually come out of Nirvikalpa Samadhi and the world is seen, they are beheld as mere appearences having the atma for substratum. The difference between a Yogic sadhaka who experiences Samadhi and a Atma-Jnani (or JivanMukta) has been expressed in the following sloka: When identification with the body has gone and the Supreme Self has been realized, wherever the mind goes, it experiences Samadhi (or perception of the Self). regards Sundar Rajan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 17, 2001 Report Share Posted December 17, 2001 Dear Sunerhji, A reply: 1) The dangers of relying on the Prakarana Grantas(independent works attributed to Sri Shankara),(and there are hundreds upon hundreds of them)such as 'Aparokshanubhuti,' for determininig Shankaras views on any particular subject are many. Rather than going into all the reasons why one should reject these works as coming from the pen of Bhasyakara(The author of the commentaries on the Upanishads, the Gita, and the Brahma Sutras),in as much as this subect has been thoroughly investigated by Hacker,Mayadeya, Nakamura,Ingallis,Pandey and a host of other emminent Indologists and 'Shankara scholars', and their is universal agreement that most, if not all of these works were not authored by Adi Shankaracharya, I would like to suggest that a safer approach to understanding Shankaras exact views with regard to any particular subject would be to rely on his Brahma Sutra Bhasya, as that is universally accepted as Shankaras work, and since it is Nyaya Prastana ( a logical work) we can expect to find Shankaras views most clearly expressed there. Second in line would be his Commentaries of the Upanishads, and the Gita. All other works ascribed to Shankaracharya, should be judged as authentic only to the extent that they do not contradict the teachings as propounded in the PrastanaTrayaBhasya.In any event, this is the proceedure I have adopted for myself. 2)'Asparsha Yoga' is never mentioned in the Upanishads. It is mentioned by Guadapada in his Karika 3-39. It has nothing to do with Nirvikalpa Samadhi. Nor does it have anything to do with the "ManoNigraha Yoga in the next few Karikas, as an exaimination of Shankars commentary on these verses would make quite clear. 3) Yes, I am very familiar with Swami Satchidanandendrs'monumental work "How To Recognize The Method Of Vedanta". It has profoundly influenced my views with regard to Shankara and Advaita Vedanta. 4) I was refering to Vichaspati Mishras'sub-commentary on Sutra 2-3-39 in his Bhamati,where he explains the that word 'drashtavya'(to be seen)actually means Samadhi. 5) The exact quote is Brahma Sutra Bhasya 2-1-9: (It takes place in the context of of the Purvapakshin objecting that if all distinctions merge in Brahman at the time of final dissolution (pralaya) there would be no reason for the re-emergence of the world. Shankara replies that that is untenable because: "Just as in Deep Sleep and Samadhi, though there is a natural eradication of all distictions,still OWING TO THE PERSISTENCE OF IGNORANCE(Mityajnana), differences occur over again when one comes back to the wakeing.......Hereby is answered the objection that Freed Souls(Muktas) may be subjected to rebirth, for in their case Ignorance has been sublated by Knowldge." SB Bh. 2-1-9 6)It is an indisputable fact, universally acknowledged by all who have studied the subject,that the Yoga Darshana of Patanjali is Dvaita Darshana, Reality is Dual in naure. Prakriti is Real, The Purushas are Real (and they are many!) and Isvara is Real and Eternally different from the Purushas and Prakriti. This is the wisdom that Patanjali must have got from attaining Nirvikalpa Samadhi!! Hari Om Atmachaitanya. advaitin, "sunderh" <sunderh> wrote: > Namaste Atmachaitanyaji, > > Some points for clarification may help the discussion. I have > added some comments also. > > Regards, > > Sunder > > advaitin, "atmachaitanya108" <stadri@a...> wrote: > For, 'If the attainment of Samadhi is > > central to the experiential verification of Vedanta', > > *********Even Shankara says so: > > Aparokshanubhuti : v. 124 > > nirvikaaratayaa vR^ittyaa brahmaakaaratayaa punaH . > vR^ittivismaraNa.n samyak samaadhirj~naanasa.nj~nakaH .. > > "The complete forgetfuleness of all thought by first making > it changeless and then identifying it with Brahman is called > Samadhi known also as knowledge." [tr. Sw. Vimuktananda]. > > then all > sincere > > seekers should immediately begin the practices of > Patanjalis''Ashtanga > > Yoga', or Kundalini Yoga, or any other type of so called > > 'Yoga' > object > > phenomena merge,ie; The state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi. The seeker > should > > also realize that the mere study of the Upanishads can only result > in > > an'indirect knowledge' or 'intellectual conviction' about the nature > > of Reality, and without the 'Direct experience of Reality',which can > > only be had in the Nirvikalpa State, Liberation can never be > attained. > > *********Nirvikalpa samadhi can be achieved by any yoga, including > 'asparsha yoga' of the upanishads. > > > > > > It should also be noted that almost every modern Advaita > > Vedantin,Ie; Paramahasa RamaKrishna, Swami Vivekananda (and all > other > > Ramakrishna Monks), Swami Shivananda, Swami Chinmayananda, Ramana > > Maharshi, etc., etc., have all tought, without exception, the > > neccesity of Nirvikalpa Samadhi. And it is not only these modern > > Advaita Vedantins, for we see these same teachings being propogated > by > > all 'post-Shankara' ancient Advaita Vedantins (with the sole > > exception of Sureswaracharya), starting with Vichaspati Mishra's > > Bhamiti School,where, when commenting on Brahma Sutra 2-3-39, he > > explains the word 'Drashtavya'(To be seen) as if it were a passage > > from Patanjali, > > and concludes that it means that "Atman is 'to be seen' by means of > > Samadhi". And the author of the Vivarana(the commentary on > Padmapada's > > Panchapadika),and founder of the 'Vivarana School', Praksatman, > offers > > an explanation for the apparent inconsistency that one who has > already > > had the experience of the Non-Dual Atman still continues to percieve > > the manifold world. His explaination is that the Experience of the > > Non-Dual Atman is only in the Yogic trance of 'Asamprajnata > Samadhi', > > while the perception of duality is due to the defect engendered by > the > > Prarabdha-Karma,the Karma whose effects are still fructifing and can > > subside only after the body drops! All other writers on > > Vedanta,(Vimuktaman,Chitsuka,Sri > > Harsha,Anandabodha,Vidyarana,Sarvajnatma,etc.,upto our own times) > also > > follow in the footsteps of these two 'way-showers', and seem to > think > > that the experince of Vedantic truths are reserved for adepts in > > Patanjali Yoga. > > **********Is this statement based on Swami Satchidanandendra > Saraswati's and/or your own work, or some other? > METHOD OF THE VEDANTA: A Critical Account of the Advaita Tradition. > Tr. by AJ Alston. 1997. xxxiv, 975 p. > > > > >when commenting on Brahma Sutra 2-3-39, he explains the word > >'Drashtavya'(To be seen) as if it were a passage from Patanjali, and > >concludes that it means that "Atman is 'to be seen' by means of > >Samadhi". > > **********Brahma Sutra 2-3-39 is : samaadhi abhaavaat cha . Is > there some other sutra with the word 'Drashtavya' in it? I could not > find any. > > > > > > The truth of the matter, at least according to Sri Shankara,is > > quite different,for he clearly states that: > > > > 'THE ATTAINMENT OF SAMADHI IS OF NO MORE VALUE THAN THE ATTAINMENT > OF > > DEEP SLEEP, YOU GO INTO IT IGNORANT AND YOU COME OUT OF IT IGNORANT' > > **********Would appreciate knowing the EXACT SOURCE for this > statement. > > > > > The very best proof that Nirvikalpa Samadhi is utterly useless > for the attainment of the Knowledge of the Non-Dual Self, is that > > Maharishi Patanjali himeself,having attained Nirvikalpa Samadhi, > > proclaimed THE TRUTH OF DUALITY not Non-Duality!! > > *********Would appreciate the source for this statement. > > Yoga Sutras I:3 and IV:25 would prove beyond doubt that Patanjali knew > what he was talking about. > > tadaa drashhTuH svaruupe.avasthaanam.h . I:3 > > visheshhadarshhina aatmabhaavabhaavanaavinivR^ittiH . IV:25 > > > > > > > The subject of necessity of Nirvikalpa Samadhi, is one which evey > > serious student of Advaita Vedanta must come to terms with. My > > understading of Shankara Vedanta is that it is NOT dependant on the > > 'private, indivdual, mystical experience of Nirvikalpa Samadhi, A > > state which has been attained only by a few, but rather that, the > > Truths of Vedanta are based on Sarva Loka Anubava(the experience > that > > is common to all people,at all times,and all places,and that by > > merely examining your own everyday experience,without reliance upon > > any mystical state of Nirvikalpa, one can come to realize that his > > true Self is Nitya-Shuda-Budha-Mukta Svabavah-( Having the > > Nature of being Eternally Pure, Eternally Concious and Eternally > > Free). > > ********Shankara's Vedantic 'experience' is open to all, as well as > Raja Yogic approach, provided they make the necessary effort to > qualify for it. > > In addition to yama and niyama, all paths "require practice that is: > 'chirakaala' [to the very end of our life; 'nairantarya' [without > losing a single moment; and 'aadara' [fully devotional attitude], to > bear the fruit of Realisation." [Ranade, Vedanta-Culmination of Indian > Thought; p. 72; 1970, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 18, 2001 Report Share Posted December 18, 2001 Namaste, Thank you for the opportunity to practise Shankara's Upadesha Panchakam: 'budhajanaiH vaadaH parityajyataam.h .' and, 'dustarkaat suviramyataam.h .' Regards, Sunder advaitin, "atmachaitanya108" <stadri@a...> wrote: > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.