The importance of Samadhi in modern and classical Advaita Vedanta

[Guest guest]

Namaste

 

For all those who are interested in the recent discussions on the value of

Samadhi in Advaita Vedanta, please take a look at this article by Michael

Comans: http://pears2.lib.ohio-state.edu/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/comans.htm

[Guest guest]

Dear K Kathirasan NCS,

 

Thank you so much for your post. It is a fantastic article, and

you have truely done a great service to all those who are

sincerely trying to understand Shankaras views on Nirvikalpa Samadhi.

There are a few subtle points where I feel the author has missed the

mark, but the overall thrust is clear and irrefutalble.

 

Hari Om

Atmachaitanya

 

p.s. The comments on 'Aparokshaanubuti' and 'Vivekachudamani' are

extremely important.

 

 

 

 

advaitin, K Kathirasan NCS <kkathir@n...> wrote:

> Namaste

>

> For all those who are interested in the recent discussions on the

value of

> Samadhi in Advaita Vedanta, please take a look at this article by

Michael

> Comans:

http://pears2.lib.ohio-state.edu/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/comans.htm

[Guest guest]

Dear KK,

Great thesis and very well written. You can smell and feel the research and

how it flows smoothly and almost flawlessly. Thanks for posting it.

-- Vis

-

"K Kathirasan NCS" <kkathir

"Advaitin List" <advaitin>

Tuesday, January 15, 2002 8:26 PM

The importance of Samadhi in modern and classical

Advaita Vedanta

 

> Namaste

>

> For all those who are interested in the recent discussions on the value of

> Samadhi in Advaita Vedanta, please take a look at this article by Michael

> Comans: http://pears2.lib.ohio-state.edu/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/comans.htm

>

>

>

>

> 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

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

--- K Kathirasan NCS <kkathir wrote:

> Namaste

>

> For all those who are interested in the recent

> discussions on the value of

> Samadhi in Advaita Vedanta, please take a look at

> this article by Michael

> Comans:

>

http://pears2.lib.ohio-state.edu/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/comans.htm

 

 

Many thanks for this.

It may be of interest to members that Michael Comans

recently published an English translation of

Srutisaasasauddharanam of Totakacarya, main title

'Extracting the Essence of Sruti'.

This was published by Motilal (Delhi) in 1996

As it contains the Sanskrit text as well as commentary

it is a very valuable contribution of our libraries

 

Om sri ram

ken knight

 

 

 

Send FREE video emails in Mail!

http://promo./videomail/

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, K Kathirasan NCS wrote:

> Namaste

>

> For all those who are interested in the recent discussions on the value of

> Samadhi in Advaita Vedanta, please take a look at this article by Michael

> Comans: http://pears2.lib.ohio-state.edu/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/comans.htm

>

 

namaste.

 

My thanks to shri Kathirasan for giving reference to the

article by Michael Comans. Although Michael Comans is not

a member of this List and hence cannot respond to my comments,

nevertheless, I like to express my views on this article.

 

No doubt, this is a scholarly article and is well-researched.

However, there are some shortcomings in the paper.

 

1. The title of the article is "The question of importance of

samAdhi in modern and classical advaita vedanta".

 

With respect, I say there is only one advaita vedAnta. 'Modern'

and 'classical' are interpretations only.

 

2. Our aim on the List (at least, mine) is to know the SELF, what

I am. This knowing of the SELF is not on a scholarly basis,

but to be It. It may wrongly be called "experience", but the

words are not sufficient to describe That. This point will be

further discussed below.

 

3. While commenting on shri Ramakrishna and swami Vivekananda,

the article by Michael Comans says

 

"..From the above we should be able to see the importance that

the samadhi experience had in the life and teachings of Sri

Ramakrsna. Such an experience-oriented view of spirituality

was a legacy which passed from Ramakrsna to Vivekananda.

Vivekananda was receptive to this view, for it seemed to

agree with what he had studied of the British empiricist

philosophers and the positivist Auguste Comte, insofar as

they by University of Hawaii Press had stressed the

centrality of empirical experience. Vivekananda extended the

empiricist epistemology that all knowledge is derived from

sense experience into the domain of metaphysics, for he

thought that since experience is the basis of all knowledge,

then if a metaphysical Reality exists, it, too, ought to be

available for direct experience? And from his association

with Ramakrsna he gathered that samadhi was the experience

required in order to know God. In his writings he placed much

emphasis on the necessity of attaining samadhi. He loosely

translated samadhi as "super-consciousness,"[8] and he stated

in his work Raja-Yoga, a commentary in English on the

Yogasutras of Patanjali, that samadhi experience was the acme

of spiritual life:

 

Samadhi is the property of every human being--nay, every

animal. From the lowest animal to the highest angel, some

time or other, each one will have to come to that state,

and then, and then alone, will real religion begin for

him. Until then we only struggle towards that stage.

There is no difference now between us and those who have

no religion, because we have no experience. What is

concentration good for, save to bring us to that

experience? Each one of the steps to attain samadhi has

been reasoned out, properly adjusted, scientifically

organized, and, when faithfully practised, will surely

lead us to the desired end. Then all sorrows cease, all

miseries vanish; the seeds of actions will be burnt, and

the soul will be free for ever.[9] ...."

 

Michael Comans quotes Isherwood also in the following way:

"..Samadhi is said tobe a fourth kind of consciousness:it

is beyond the states of waking, dreaming and dreamless

sleep. Those who have witnessed it as an external

phenomenon report that the experience appeared to have

fallen into a kind of trance. The hair on the head and

body stood erect. The half-closed eyes became fixed.

Sometimes there was an astonishing loss of weight, or

even levitation of the body from the ground. But these

are mere symptoms, and tell us nothing. There is only one

way to find out what samadhi is like: you must have it

yourself?..."

 

GM's comments:

 

(a) Is the word "experience" the right word here when talking

of samAdhi? In the commonality of the english language,

an 'experience' has to have an 'experiencer'. You cannot

experience Atman because you are not there when Atman rises

and shines. As I understand, samAdhi is when the Atman

rises and the you of the body-mind-complex crumbles. Thus,

there is no experiencer of samAdhi.

 

(b) Let us take the upanishadic vAkya "Brahmavid brahmaiva

bhavati". The knower of brahman is brahman itself. We

cannot say, similar to the upanishadic vAkya "chemistryvid

chemistryeva bhavati". That is the difference between the

paravidyA and aparavidyA. In Atma(para)vidyA, there is no

difference between the knower and the knowledge. The

knower becomes the knowledge itself. In aparavidya, like

chemistry, physics or astronomy, etc, the knower and the

knowledge are separate and will be separate. Please refer

to MundAka upanishad (para and aparavidya classification)

and also SanatkumAra's teachings to sage Narada in the

Chandogya upanishad.

 

Coming back to paravidyA again, who is this brahmavid,

the knower of brahman? That knower is not the scholar of

vedAnta, but who is vedAnta itself. For lack of a better

word, the word 'experience' can be used here, but the

word 'experience' is a poor substitute for understanding

brahmavid.

 

I am not a follower of shri Ramakrishna or swami Viveka

nanda's teachings. But they deserve the benefit of doubt.

If swami Vivekananda said what was contended in Comans'

article, it is possible he might have been misunderstood

and mis-communicated on a matter on which very few people

have a grasp on and where the language fails utterly in

the communication.

 

© Let me give another example of this subtle but crucial

point of what is poorly referred as 'experience'.

 

In shrIlalitAtrishatI, pUrvapIThika, there is this verse:

 

"kevalaM nAmabuddhiste na kAryA tesShu kumbhaja

mantrAtmaka tvameteShAm nAmnAm nAmAtmatApi ca"

 

Sage HayagRiva is teaching shrIlalitAtrishatI to sage

Agastya. Rough translation of this verse is:

"It is not sufficient if you get these names (of shrIlalitA)

to the mind and intellectually understand them. You have to

get these mantrA-s as part of your heart, as part of yourself".

 

I think that is what is meant by the poorly substituted word

"experience" in this context.

 

 

4. On page 4 of Comans' article, there was a mention of the

lack of the word 'samAdhi' in the (Principal) upanishads.

Interestingly, shri Sunder Hattngadi and I are discussing

the same point on the List just a few short months ago and

we came exactly to the same conclusion about the word

samAhita used in the same way as samAdhi.

 

The absence or rare usage of the word 'samAdhi' in the early

upanishads does not invalidate this.

 

5. On page 4 etc, shri Comans refers to VivekacUDAmaNi and

AparokshAnubhUti positively as texts of vedAntic calibre,

but towards the end of the article (when discussing about

shri shankara's views on samAdhi), he dismisses them as

not worthy of consideration and probably are not shri

shankara's works.

 

6. Re shri shankara's observations on samAdhi: In BSB 2.1.9,

shri shankara says that coming out of samAdhi, just as

when coming out of deep sleep, the jIvA will be again

engulfed in avidyA. At the same time, in other contexts

(in the BrhamasUtrAbhAShya itself, for which Comans has

given reference but did not discuss fully) shri shankara

spoke highly of samAdhi. Further, VivekacUDAmaNi and

aparokshAnubhUti both contain highly praiseworthy statements

on samAdhi. There is no necessity to discount these two works

as not by shri shankara and hence find reason to denigrade

samAdhi.

 

7. A more plausible way of understanding this is to view

"experience" of samAdhi in conjunction with upanishadic

vAkya "brahmavid brahmaiva bhavati" in which case, we

will see it is not experience at all as we commonly

understand that word.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

 

[Guest guest]

--- Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

wrote:

>

>

> (a) Is the word "experience" the right word here

> when talking

> of samAdhi? In the commonality of the

> english language,

> an 'experience' has to have an

> 'experiencer'. You cannot

> experience Atman because you are not there

> when Atman rises

> and shines. As I understand, samAdhi is when

> the Atman

> rises and the you of the body-mind-complex

> crumbles. Thus,

> there is no experiencer of samAdhi.

 

Namaste,

 

I fully understand your point but I would request that

you 'keep the door open' on this one. We may be able

to find a better word than 'experience' or maybe

samadhi and its various stages may enter common

language as have many other words. I am presently

researching certain types of 'experience' in the light

of Bhatrihari, Shankara and some aspects of Kashmiri

Saivism. The so-called mystical experience has been

given different characteristics by various writers

from Otto onwards such as passivity, transience,

noeity and ineffability. It is the last characteristic

that I am focussing on becuase could it be that there

is a hint here of a touch when the experience and the

experiencer are one?

In my role with the Alister Hardy Society.......(you

can find out a little of this organisation from

alisterhardytrust.org.uk if you wish)

.......I have access to archives in which there are

thousands of accounts of religious/spiritual

experiences.

Very frequently the writers refer to the inability of

language to describe the 'experience'. Could this be

because they momentarily transcend the usual duality?

Certainly the 'noeity' aspect could imply this. At a

first glance it is easy to see how the account places

a culture based interpretation on the trigger

experience but careful analysis is needed before I can

confirm my suspicions.

In my opinion, and I must stress it is that only,

western thought and language is unable to penetrate

the finer levels of consciousness...even that phrase

is confusing...and we need to have the insights from

the East to penetrate what is actually happening .

I will be putting up a web site on this research in

due course but other matters are demanding time at the

moment. It is a PHD research programme so I will be

playing the academic game as required but the aim is

to bring the voices of the above into the ongoing

debate on consciousness in the UK.

So, please 'hold the door' open on the word experience

and I will be chasing you for your observations later

on when I have organised the research programme,

Om Sri Ram

 

 

 

Send FREE video emails in Mail!

http://promo./videomail/

[Guest guest]

Namaste Murthyji

 

Please see my comments below:

> 1. The title of the article is "The question of importance of

> samAdhi in modern and classical advaita vedanta".

>

> With respect, I say there is only one advaita vedAnta. 'Modern'

> and 'classical' are interpretations only.

>

KK: The difference between classical and modern Vedanta, as I understand, is

in the method of unfoldment employed to know the self. It is clearly

obvious from the past discussions, that the classical or traditional

vedantins use the shastra alone to unfold the knowledge. But the 'Modern'

vedantins do not accept shastra pramana as sufficient and necessitate a

Samadhi experience. Although I wholely agree that there is only one Vedanta

and many intepretations, but the need arises to distinguish the 2 different

methods by naming as such to avoid confusion.

 

<snipped>

> 3. While commenting on shri Ramakrishna and swami Vivekananda,

> the article by Michael Comans says

<snipped>

> GM's comments:

>

> (a) Is the word "experience" the right word here when talking

> of samAdhi? In the commonality of the english language,

> an 'experience' has to have an 'experiencer'. You cannot

> experience Atman because you are not there when Atman rises

> and shines. As I understand, samAdhi is when the Atman

> rises and the you of the body-mind-complex crumbles. Thus,

> there is no experiencer of samAdhi.

>

KK: 'You cannot experience Atman because you are not there when Atman rises

and shines.' This statement of yours is very misleading. Does the Atman rise

and shine ? If it rises and shines then we cannot call it the changeless

(nirvikara). The Atma alone is Satyam and the rest is Mithya. We know that

the Atman is present in all the three periods of time, therefore is there a

moment 'when the Atman rises and shines?'

 

I stop my comments here as this is a fundamental point which needs careful

study. Other arguments may rest on this point, therefore let's clarify this

point for now. Thanks.

 

Kathi

[Guest guest]

Thanks Gummuluru Murthy. Excellent comment. The

problem, as I seee, is that we attach a lot of

importance to samadhi experience. If it is an

"experience", it is only an experience with an

experiencer somewhere there. We are after the

experiencer. If bliss was enjoyed in samadhi, then

that bliis is not important. The experiencer is.

Because bliiss cannot be without the enjoyer. If Swami

Vivekananda attached importance to "experience" in

order to make Indian philosophy acceptable to the

empirical West, then that is a big mistake. We have

to call the bluff a bluff at whatever cost it entails.

I hope Members of this forum will agree with me.

Thanks and regards.

 

Madathil Nair

 

--- Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

wrote:

>

> On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, K Kathirasan NCS wrote:

>

> > Namaste

> >

> > For all those who are interested in the recent

> discussions on the value of

> > Samadhi in Advaita Vedanta, please take a look at

> this article by Michael

> > Comans:

>

http://pears2.lib.ohio-state.edu/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/comans.htm

> >

>

> namaste.

>

> My thanks to shri Kathirasan for giving reference to

> the

> article by Michael Comans. Although Michael Comans

> is not

> a member of this List and hence cannot respond to my

> comments,

> nevertheless, I like to express my views on this

> article.

>

> No doubt, this is a scholarly article and is

> well-researched.

> However, there are some shortcomings in the paper.

>

> 1. The title of the article is "The question of

> importance of

> samAdhi in modern and classical advaita vedanta".

>

> With respect, I say there is only one advaita

> vedAnta. 'Modern'

> and 'classical' are interpretations only.

>

> 2. Our aim on the List (at least, mine) is to know

> the SELF, what

> I am. This knowing of the SELF is not on a

> scholarly basis,

> but to be It. It may wrongly be called

> "experience", but the

> words are not sufficient to describe That. This

> point will be

> further discussed below.

>

> 3. While commenting on shri Ramakrishna and swami

> Vivekananda,

> the article by Michael Comans says

>

> "..From the above we should be able to see the

> importance that

> the samadhi experience had in the life and

> teachings of Sri

> Ramakrsna. Such an experience-oriented view of

> spirituality

> was a legacy which passed from Ramakrsna to

> Vivekananda.

> Vivekananda was receptive to this view, for

> it seemed to

> agree with what he had studied of the British

> empiricist

> philosophers and the positivist Auguste Comte,

> insofar as

> they by University of Hawaii Press had

> stressed the

> centrality of empirical experience. Vivekananda

> extended the

> empiricist epistemology that all knowledge is

> derived from

> sense experience into the domain of

> metaphysics, for he

> thought that since experience is the basis of

> all knowledge,

> then if a metaphysical Reality exists, it, too,

> ought to be

> available for direct experience? And from his

> association

> with Ramakrsna he gathered that samadhi was

> the experience

> required in order to know God. In his writings he

> placed much

> emphasis on the necessity of attaining samadhi.

> He loosely

> translated samadhi as "super-consciousness,"[8]

> and he stated

> in his work Raja-Yoga, a commentary in

> English on the

> Yogasutras of Patanjali, that samadhi experience

> was the acme

> of spiritual life:

>

> Samadhi is the property of every human

> being--nay, every

> animal. From the lowest animal to the highest

> angel, some

> time or other, each one will have to come to

> that state,

> and then, and then alone, will real religion

> begin for

> him. Until then we only struggle towards

> that stage.

> There is no difference now between us and those

> who have

> no religion, because we have no experience.

> What is

> concentration good for, save to bring us

> to that

> experience? Each one of the steps to attain

> samadhi has

> been reasoned out, properly adjusted,

> scientifically

> organized, and, when faithfully practised,

> will surely

> lead us to the desired end. Then all sorrows

> cease, all

> miseries vanish; the seeds of actions will be

> burnt, and

> the soul will be free for ever.[9] ...."

>

> Michael Comans quotes Isherwood also in the

> following way:

> "..Samadhi is said tobe a fourth kind of

> consciousness:it

> is beyond the states of waking, dreaming and

> dreamless

> sleep. Those who have witnessed it as an

> external

> phenomenon report that the experience appeared

> to have

> fallen into a kind of trance. The hair on the

> head and

> body stood erect. The half-closed eyes

> became fixed.

> Sometimes there was an astonishing loss of

> weight, or

> even levitation of the body from the ground.

> But these

> are mere symptoms, and tell us nothing. There is

> only one

> way to find out what samadhi is like: you must

> have it

> yourself?..."

>

> GM's comments:

>

> (a) Is the word "experience" the right word here

> when talking

> of samAdhi? In the commonality of the

> english language,

> an 'experience' has to have an

> 'experiencer'. You cannot

> experience Atman because you are not there

> when Atman rises

> and shines. As I understand, samAdhi is when

> the Atman

> rises and the you of the body-mind-complex

> crumbles. Thus,

> there is no experiencer of samAdhi.

>

> (b) Let us take the upanishadic vAkya "Brahmavid

> brahmaiva

> bhavati". The knower of brahman is brahman

> itself. We

> cannot say, similar to the upanishadic vAkya

> "chemistryvid

> chemistryeva bhavati". That is the

> difference between the

> paravidyA and aparavidyA. In

> Atma(para)vidyA, there is no

> difference between the knower and the

> knowledge. The

> knower becomes the knowledge itself. In

> aparavidya, like

> chemistry, physics or astronomy, etc, the

> knower and the

> knowledge are separate and will be separate.

> Please refer

> to MundAka upanishad (para and aparavidya

> classification)

> and also SanatkumAra's teachings to sage

> Narada in the

> Chandogya upanishad.

>

> Coming back to paravidyA again, who is this

> brahmavid,

> the knower of brahman? That knower is not

> the scholar of

> vedAnta, but who is vedAnta itself. For lack

> of a better

> word, the word 'experience' can be used

> here, but the

> word 'experience' is a poor substitute for

> understanding

> brahmavid.

>

> I am not a follower of shri Ramakrishna or swami

> Viveka

> nanda's teachings. But they deserve the

> benefit of doubt.

> If swami Vivekananda said what was contended

> in

=== message truncated ===

 

 

 

 

Send FREE video emails in Mail!

http://promo./videomail/

[Guest guest]

Dear friends,

 

Please see my comments below:

> 1. The title of the article is "The question of importance of

> samAdhi in modern and classical advaita vedanta".

>

> With respect, I say there is only one advaita vedAnta. 'Modern'

> and 'classical' are interpretations only.

>

KK: The difference between classical and modern Vedanta, as I understand, is

in the method of unfoldment employed to know the self. It is clearly

obvious from the past discussions, that the classical or traditional

vedantins use the shastra alone to unfold the knowledge. But the 'Modern'

vedantins do not accept shastra pramana as sufficient and necessitate a

Samadhi experience. Although I wholely agree that there is only one Vedanta

and many intepretations, but the need arises to distinguish the 2 different

methods by naming as such to avoid confusion.

 

Jai: I wholly agree with you on this.

 

<snipped>

> 3. While commenting on shri Ramakrishna and swami Vivekananda,

> the article by Michael Comans says

<snipped>

> GM's comments:

>

> (a) Is the word "experience" the right word here when talking

> of samAdhi? In the commonality of the english language,

> an 'experience' has to have an 'experiencer'. You cannot

> experience Atman because you are not there when Atman rises

> and shines. As I understand, samAdhi is when the Atman

> rises and the you of the body-mind-complex crumbles. Thus,

> there is no experiencer of samAdhi.

>

KK: 'You cannot experience Atman because you are not there when Atman rises

and shines.' This statement of yours is very misleading. Does the Atman rise

and shine ? If it rises and shines then we cannot call it the changeless

(nirvikara). The Atma alone is Satyam and the rest is Mithya. We know that

the Atman is present in all the three periods of time, therefore is there a

moment 'when the Atman rises and shines?'

 

I stop my comments here as this is a fundamental point which needs careful

study. Other arguments may rest on this point, therefore let's clarify this

point for now. Thanks.

 

Kathi

 

Jai: Atma can niether rise nor set. It is the invariable in every

experience. It is the very nature of experiencer. One does not need any

special experience to know Atma as it is available in all experiences.

(pratibodha viditam matam - kenopanishad). But one has to recognise this

fact that the subject-object division is unreal (Mithya - variable) and atma

is the real (satyam - invariable). This recognition comes from listening to

the teachings of the Upanishads from a qualified Guru. Experience by itself

is dumb because different people can interpret the same experience

differently. So what is required is the correct interpretation of the

experience which is available in the teachings of the upanishad.

 

with love and prayers,

 

Jaishankar

[Guest guest]

I have read some of the recent posts by Jaishankarji,

Sadaji, Krishnaji, Brianji, Murthyji, and others on

this topic and it leaves me smiling.

 

Perhaps I am a bit slow (or not reading carefully

enough), but I don't really see any big differences

here other than perhaps emphasis. For example, Sadaji

pointed out that Sat and chit aspect of the Self is

easier to grasp than the Ananda aspect. This seems

quite true to me at a practical level. Krishna ji

replied brilliantly that Sat-Chit-Ananda cannot be

separated as the Self is One Eternal Whole. Well, that

is true as well!

 

Jaishankarji has written eloquently about many fine

points and stated that Atma neither rises nor sets.

Who can disagree with that? On this point, the Samadhi

people are with you Sri Jainshankarji! :-).

 

My feeling is that the Mahavakyas are beautiful and

eloquent. Upanishads are straight forward and clear.

There is nothing intellectual in them but instead

these are eternal expressions of Truth that must be

directly recognized and known in one's own being.

 

Honestly, these dichotomies that some find attractive

(Realization of Truth through understanding Upanishads

or Realization of Truth through Samadhi) seem

completely contrived to me. Too much straining and

effort is being made to maintain some separation

between different perspectives instead of seeing that

these are the facets of the same diamond of the Self.

The Jewel that shines in the Heart and lights the mind

and the world as consciousness.

 

If we understand that the "Knower of Brahman become

Brahaman" in the depth of our Heart, that is the True

Samadhi. Or one can use some other term that one finds

more attractive. It makes little difference.

 

The central things is Self-Realization and not some

special word-realization or book realization, or

winning debate points on what is truly the correct

path, and which sage was truly realized, and whether

Samadhi is the right term to use, etc.

 

Upanishads reveal the Eternal Truth. The main thing is

to understand what they are saying and pointing to.

Vedas are like the flute. Scholars can discuss the

fine points of the instrument, but it is the music

that the flute makes which is important. A person of

Self-Knowledge can put the flute of the Upanishads to

his/her lips and play it with ease.

 

Self manifests through Grace of the Guru in an aware,

contented, and still mind. Self reveals itself to

those who long for it. Truth is Simplicity It Self.

 

Love to all

Harsha

 

 

 

 

 

=====

/join

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Send FREE video emails in Mail!

http://promo./videomail/