Intellectual understanding vs direct realization?

February 3, 2005

praNAms

Hare Krishna

Sri Sunder Rajan prabhuji had quoted :

This clearly shows that a study of these commentaries is not

indispensable for a genuine aspirant for Self-realization. Further

we are seeing every day very many persons who are very proficient in

their exposition of these commentaries and other allied literature.

Can we say with any truth that they are in any way nearer to Self-

realisation than others? Catch hold of a single truth enunciated by

the Vedas and stressed by our ancients and try hard to make it your

own. God will certainly regard your honest efforts and guide you

aright.

bhaskar :

I am often perplexed to see statements like this!!! If shankara's

commentary is not indispensable then what for shankara himself written

elaborated commentaries on shruti-s?? whether he has just tried to pacify

the intellectual minds of academic scholars at his time?? or he has the

genuine interest to convey the *single* truth embedded in shruti-s to his

followers through his commentaries?? Yes, for the likes of gOvindapAda,

gaudapAda, Suka, vyAsa etc. shankara's commentary was not required but how

many people amongst us being the follower of vaidika dharma can fit into

the shoes of that caliber?? Can we, on our own able to understand the

*single* truth of vEda without the aid of bhagavadpAda's commentary?? How

many of us ready to take this risk?? Yes, ofcourse I agree that

bhagavadpAda's commentaries itself can not give us self realisation even

bhagavadpAda himself does not claim that!! For that matter even shAstra-s

cannot fetch us the paramArtha jnAna (jnApakam hi ShAstram na kArakaM).

But atleast to catch hold of this *single* truth should be done through our

Acharya's commentary is it not?? With this point of view in mind shankar

pave the way of his spiritual aspirants with his prasanna, gambhIra

commentary...with this point of view in mind somany later vyAkhyAnakAra-s

have commented on shankara bhAshya not just to appease the inquisitive

minds in academic circle...

IMHO Sri ChandrashEkhara bhArati might have had different opinion while

asserting "shankara's commentary is not indispensable for self

realization"....Let us look into the context & understand swamiji's

upadESham in its true spirit.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

February 3, 2005

Namaste Bhaskarji,

I will reply to your reply to my post regarding *perceiving the

Atman like a fruit* later on..

Meanwhile this message got my attention

>>

bhaskar :

Yes prabhuji, I agree with you, most of us are manda &

madhyamAdhikAri-s

only...holding upAsanAmArga in pravrutti mArga...but it cannot be

sidelined

that there is a remotest possibility of uttamAdhikAri-s of shAstra

who can

realise samyag jnAna through shruti vAkya shravaNa.

>>

I admire the above admission from both of you and as for myself I am

less than manda because I dont have the depth of scriptural

knowledge that both of you have!.

By all accounts, whether you are a follower of Raja Yoga or not, few

will dispute that Nirvikalpa Samadhi represents the Acme of Yoga and

is within reach of only very, very few advanced (uttama) adhikarins.

That being the case, it strikes me as ironical that we all (by our

own admittance manda/madhyama adhikaris) are arguing vehemently

about Nirvikalpa Samadhi.

An analogy came to my mind:

This is a bit like a village person in Tumkur or Thanjavur without

the money or visa to go to USA arguing about whether the view of the

Grand Canyon is better from the North Rim or South Rim. Once he

(Sadhaka) has acquired the money (spiritual wealth) and the visa

(Guru/Ishwara's Grace) he can experience it for himself!.

regards

Sundar Rajan

P.S. posted in a lighter vein, not meant to offend anyone

February 4, 2005

praNAm Sri Sunder Rajan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

SR prabhuji:

I admire the above admission from both of you and as for myself I am

less than manda because I dont have the depth of scriptural

knowledge that both of you have!.

bhaskar :

Yes, in your case & Sri Sunder prabhuji's case admission shows your

humility..but in my case its a fact!!!

SR prabhuji:

By all accounts, whether you are a follower of Raja Yoga or not, few

will dispute that Nirvikalpa Samadhi represents the Acme of Yoga and

is within reach of only very, very few advanced (uttama) adhikarins.

bhaskar :

May be I am not denying it...for rAja yOga followers their apex achievement

may end in sitting in motionless posture hours/days together in nirvikalpa

samAdhi...& they have every right to say that only supreme category of

aspirants can pursue this path & sit like that..For that matter Hare

Krishna followers say that kaliyuga is not meant for these type of astute

practices moreover their ultimate goal is to enjoy krishna sAyujya in

gOlOka vrundAvana...& they do say that only *true bhaktha-s* can realise

this truth others will have to be in ditch of samsAra forever!! you see

prabhuji, that is not the issue here..what we are trying to find out here

is yOga's_role_in shankara advaita..not yOga schools & its goals per

se..Hope you got the point here.

SR prabhuji:

That being the case, it strikes me as ironical that we all (by our

own admittance manda/madhyama adhikaris) are arguing vehemently

about Nirvikalpa Samadhi.

bhaskar :

pls. continue the sentence by saying * from shankara's advaita siddhAnta

perspective*..after all you know that thats what we have been doing here in

the course of our discussion about yOga Vs advaita :-))

SR prabhuji:

An analogy came to my mind: This is a bit like a village person in Tumkur

or Thanjavur without the money or visa to go to USA arguing about whether

the view of the

Grand Canyon is better from the North Rim or South Rim. Once he (Sadhaka)

has acquired the money (spiritual wealth) and the visa (Guru/Ishwara's

Grace) he can experience it for himself!.

bhaskar :

Ofcourse, that villager may not have enough capability, zeal & money to go

to USA..but he has a very good friend who has thorough knowledge, power,

visa, money etc. etc. to comment on USA...from the shraddhA of this Apta

vAkya from this rich friend our poor villager can comment/argue that which

view can give him the better sight!!

Coming back to drashtrAntika, what you have in mind to say this

analogy...here we have shankara bhAshya to ascertain what would be the role

of patanjala yOga in our advaita quest...shankara plays a role of rich

friend here who is capable enough ( I hope you agree!!!) to comment on

foreign land ( rAja yOga & nirvikalpa samAdhi etc.) & he is telling his

close friend/pupil about the *limited* utility of this foreign land & its

different views!!! With the help of this knowledge our poor villager

talking to his another villager about the views in USA...I dont think this

poor villager doing any crime here :-)))

Humble praNAms onceagain

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

February 4, 2005

Namaste Sri Bhaskar Prabhuji:

First, let me admire your guts in upholding your viewpoints without

willing to relax an iota of what you say! However, I also believe

that as advaitins, we should learn to listen to what others say

before injecting our understanding again and again. You have been an

active participant in almost all the major monthly discussion topics

and almost all of us know your position, I value your scholarly

contributions. Please note that others who participate in the

discussions do cherish their point of view on the basis of their

understanding of Shankara Bhagawatpada and other scholarly works on

advaita philosophy. None of us can ever claim to be the sole

authority on Shankara Bhagawatpada's works or commentaries. Each of

us have read at the most an iota of Shankara's theology and

commentaries. More importantly, our understanding of Shankara's

theology changes day by day (hopefully in the positive direction).

We are responsible for any change in our understanding of Shankara's

works and commentaries (His works and commentaries will always remain

the same).

Academic and scholarly discussions on the `precise statements or

facts of Shankara's works and commentaries' are quite useful but it

is only a mean and not an end. Historically speaking, Shankara was

asked to defend the `advaita philosophy' by the scholars of his time

and he skillfully articulated his philosophy to the intellectual

minds of academic vedic scholars of his time. His genuine efforts to

defend what he believed in later became useful to his faithful

followers to understand and appreciate the truth embedded in shruti.

Shankara provided substantial documents to please both the academic

scholars and ordinary followers. His composition of `Bhjagovindam' is

a true master piece that forcefully insist on the importance of

devotion instead of pure scholarship. Please understand that each of

us look for different parts of Bhagavadpada's works and commentaries

and what we look for depends on our spiritual and scholarly outlook.

In all your discussions, you seem to demonstrate that you are looking

for `precise words and phrases' focusing mostly on the scholarly

point of view of Shankara's works and commentaries. Please note that

others may not necessarily agree with what you say or declare because

they may perceive Shankara's works and commentaries from a different

dimension. I have seen during the past six years of this list's

existence that debates based on `academic and scholarly points of

view of advaita philosophy' always continue without an ending

resolution! In general Vedantic discussions in this list mostly fall

into two types – Vada and Jalpa. The other two vedantic

discussions – Samvdad (discussion between the teacher and the

student) and Vitanda (aggressive discussion with the sole purpose to

defeat others) do not appear in this list.

I believe that the way that you carry the discussions, they fall into

Jalpa. Jalpa is employed by scholars like you who are highly

specialized and who are never tired to bring more materials in

support of their contentions. They are great masters of Sanskrit and

they apply their skills to split the Sanskrit words in the scriptures

that bring new interpretations in support for their arguments. In

many situations, multiple meanings do exist for important Sanskrit

words and the interpreter can appropriately choose the meaning that

suits his/her viewpoint. For example, the meaning of the Sanskrit

word Dharma can easily fill in several pages and the scholars have

plenty of latitude to choose the meaning that fits well in support of

their position. Interestingly, jalpa may not be of use to those who

apply jalpa because they are unlikely to change their deep rooted

conviction.

Most of the list members who carefully follow arguments with an open

mind usually get most of the benefits of Jalpa category discussions.

To a limited extent Jalpa discussions do benefit the list mebers. But

discussants who follow the Jalpa tradition do have the tendency to

move toward Vitanda after certain time and we should take all

precautions to stop Vitanda. When discussion reach this stage, the

list is obligated to stop the thread.

The sole purpose of vitanda is only to defeat the opponent. In

contrast to Jalpa, those who employ Vitanda do not have any

conviction and only purpose of the discussion is to invalidate any

established position. Those who engage in Vitanda often use `Kutarka –

applying irrational logic or twisting the logic.' There is no

leaning experience for the discussant and the bystanders

when one engages in vitanda. I am glad to see that you are not

engaged in Vitanda. In discussions groups such as `advaitin list' we

will not permit any one to engage in vitanda. Vitanda is a virus or

infection that the list

will not permit this virus to destruct the minds of youngsters who

sincerely want to use this forum in enhancing the spiritual

knowledge.

In conclusion, dear Bhaskar Prabhuji, please do not insist on others

to agree with everything what you say and declare. I do admire and

appreciate your passion and love of Bhagavadpada's works but at the

same time I request you to consider to accept and listen to other

viewpoints with an open mind. This does not mean that you or I

should agree with everyone. We can always express our disagreements

politely without insisting on others to agree with everything what we

say!

Warmest regards,

Ram Chandran

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

>

> I am often perplexed to see statements like this!!! If shankara's

> commentary is not indispensable then what for shankara himself

written

> elaborated commentaries on shruti-s?? whether he has just tried to

pacify

> the intellectual minds of academic scholars at his time?? or he has

the

> genuine interest to convey the *single* truth embedded in shruti-s

to his

> followers through his commentaries?? Yes, for the likes of

gOvindapAda,

> gaudapAda, Suka, vyAsa etc. shankara's commentary was not required

but how

> many people amongst us being the follower of vaidika dharma can fit

into

> the shoes of that caliber?? Can we, on our own able to understand

the

> *single* truth of vEda without the aid of bhagavadpAda's

commentary?? How

> many of us ready to take this risk?? Yes, ofcourse I agree that

> bhagavadpAda's commentaries itself can not give us self realisation

even

> bhagavadpAda himself does not claim that!! For that matter even

shAstra-s

> cannot fetch us the paramArtha jnAna (jnApakam hi ShAstram na

kArakaM).

> But atleast to catch hold of this *single* truth should be done

through our

> Acharya's commentary is it not?? With this point of view in mind

shankar

> pave the way of his spiritual aspirants with his prasanna, gambhIra

> commentary...with this point of view in mind somany later

vyAkhyAnakAra-s

> have commented on shankara bhAshya not just to appease the

inquisitive

> minds in academic circle...

February 4, 2005

Thank you Ramchandran-Ji:

I totally agree with your views pertaining to Jalpa.

ManusmR^iti also echos similar thoughts when it comes to

vedaabhyaasa -

aj~nebhyo granthinaH shreShThaa\, granthibhyo dhaariNo varaaH |

dhaaribhyo j~naaninaH shreShThaa\, j~naanibhyo vyavasaayinaH ||

manusmR^iti 12-103||

Meaning - Someone who has studied a little is better than totally

ignorant. Someone who has memorized them are better than someone who

knows a little. One who knows the meaning is superior to those who

memories. However, one who practices it definitely the most

superior.

IMHO - It is up to us to realize and then practice what we have

understood. Otherwise whatever that is understood has no

significance but to gain a false pride from such knowledge.

j~nnaaeshvara maharaj expressis his concerns in the following words

(red flag warning for the yogi's) -

jayaate.n abhyaasaacii gharaTii . yamaniyamaa.ncii taaTii ||

dnyaaneshvarii 2.311 ||

Meaning (liberal) - A yogi needs to avoid crating a house of the

pride of his yogaabhyaasa as well.

Thank you Bhaskar-Ji for the scholarly posts.

Regards,

Dr. Yadu

February 4, 2005

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <RamChandran@a...>

wrote:

>

> Namaste Sri Bhaskar Prabhuji:

>

> First, let me admire your guts in upholding your viewpoints

without

> willing to relax an iota of what you say! However, I also believe

> that as advaitins, we should learn to listen to what others say

> before injecting our understanding again and again. You have been

an

> active participant in almost all the major monthly discussion

topics

> and almost all of us know your position, I value your scholarly

> contributions. Please note that others who participate in the

> discussions do cherish their point of view on the basis of their

> understanding of Shankara Bhagawatpada and other scholarly works

on

> advaita philosophy. None of us can ever claim to be the sole

> authority on Shankara Bhagawatpada's works or commentaries. Each

of

> us have read at the most an iota of Shankara's theology and

> commentaries. More importantly, our understanding of Shankara's

> theology changes day by day (hopefully in the positive

direction).

> We are responsible for any change in our understanding of

Shankara's

> works and commentaries (His works and commentaries will always

remain

> the same).

>

> Academic and scholarly discussions on the `precise statements or

> facts of Shankara's works and commentaries' are quite useful but

it

> is only a mean and not an end. Historically speaking, Shankara was

> asked to defend the `advaita philosophy' by the scholars of his

time

> and he skillfully articulated his philosophy to the intellectual

> minds of academic vedic scholars of his time. His genuine efforts

to

> defend what he believed in later became useful to his faithful

> followers to understand and appreciate the truth embedded in

shruti.

> Shankara provided substantial documents to please both the

academic

> scholars and ordinary followers. His composition of `Bhjagovindam'

is

> a true master piece that forcefully insist on the importance of

> devotion instead of pure scholarship. Please understand that each

of

> us look for different parts of Bhagavadpada's works and

commentaries

> and what we look for depends on our spiritual and scholarly

outlook.

Namaste, Ram Chandran-ji

Thank you for an admirable presentation of what I had in mind during

the past few weeks but could not vocalise. Thank you on behalf of

all the list members. And we should all give a standing ovation to

Bhaskar-ji to his unmutilated conviction, understanding,

presentation and defence of the writings of Shankara Bhagavatpada,

particularly the Prasthana-traya-Bhashya. Jaya Jaya Shankara.

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

February 7, 2005

In conclusion, dear Bhaskar Prabhuji, please do not insist on others

to agree with everything what you say and declare. I do admire and

appreciate your passion and love of Bhagavadpada's works but at the

same time I request you to consider to accept and listen to other

viewpoints with an open mind. This does not mean that you or I

should agree with everyone. We can always express our disagreements

politely without insisting on others to agree with everything what we

say!

Humble praNAms Sri Ramachandra prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Thanks a lot for your kind & timely guidance...This mails reminds me your

mail to me in advaita-L list 3-4 years back....when I was over enthusiastic

in ISKCON phil....you said something similar to above lines...But one thing

I'd like to make it clear to the prabhuji-s of this list is that I am the

last man to impose my views on anybody & I never try to instigate anyone to

approach shankara advaita from my perspective. I do agree I've become more

talkative & argumentative when it comes to shankara siddhAnta....but I do

so with an appropriate support from bhagavadpAda's works...this is because

the very purpose of this august group is to learn vEdOkta siddhAnta *as

taught* by shankara....If I find anything contradicting my understanding,

I'd be more eager to correct my stand rather than finding fault with

others....This eagerness in a intensified form may sound harsh & dictating

in my mails...But that shows only my language limitation prabhuji...I

donot have an iota of intention to throw others view in a poor light!! If

anyone feels like that & thinks that my mails are derogatory & offending

any one's understanding I'd offer my unconditional apologies prabhuji. If

moderators insist I shall stop posting mails to the list also.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

February 9, 2005

Namaste Sri Bhaskar-ji

I felt that my previous post was incomplete and a few things were

left unclear. Reading through your post I find that your questions

are valid and perhaps are of interest not only to you but other

spiritual aspirants.

First some clarifications regarding the dualistic Yoga-sutras and

the practice of Yoga. I agree with you that Advaitins do not accept

the dualistic Yoga Shastra. The Yoga of the Patanjala Yoga-sutras is

dualistic, in as much as it accepts the reality of the world as also

an actual multiplicity of Purusa's of the nature of

consciousness,

while the Upanishads teach Yoga as a means to realize the non-dual

Reality. Nonetheless, the practices taught in the Yoga-sutras are

largely in consonance with the Yoga of the Upanishads.

I am reading a recently published book "Exalting Elucidations" of

H.H. Sri Abhinava VidyaTheertha Mahaswamigal, 35th Pontiff

(Sankaracharya) of Sringeri Sarada Peetam. This book has several

chapters of questions and answers with Acharyal. I selected a few

questions that are similar to the ones that have seen posted to this

eGroup. (Note that these are translated and any mistakes in these

posts are mine)

======================== Q & A from book ============================

D: What is the characteristic of nirvikalpa-samadhi?

A: The absence of awareness of the distinctions of the seer, the

seen and the act of seeing is indeed its special characteristic. The

Atman is clearly perceived. Further, supreme bliss is experienced.

D: Can one attain Jnana without experiencing nirvikalpa-samadhi?

A: Jnana is nothing but the knowledge of one's True nature.

Technically, it can be obtained even through just vichara (enquiry).

Nirvikalpa-samadhi is a wonderful means but it is improper to say

that it is the only means.

D: Will a single experience of nirvikalpa-samadhi be sufficient to

attain brahma-jnana?

A: Normally, it is not sufficient. During nirvikalpa-samadhi the

Atman is experienced. After emergence from that state, the

experience gradually begins to fade. However, just after coming from

it, everything is perceived as Atman. Nothing distinct from the

Atman is discerned. To cite an example, one feels "I am a big

ocean. It is in me that the bubbles constituted by the world are

produced."

The experience of nirvikalpa-samadhi must be had to be understood.

Verbal descriptions are woefully inadequate. If one gets the

experience of nirvikalpa-samadhi repeatedly, one's jnana becomes

stable. After the realization becomes stable, the mind is destroyed

and one becomes a jivanmukta.

======================== Q &A from book Ends=========================

Moving on to the questions you asked

>

> bhaskar :

>

> I dont know in what context this statement has been made & the >

implied

> meaning of this *perceiving the Atman like a fruit* statement. >

So, the objectification of Atman & perceiving it like a fruit in

> nirvikalpa samAdhi is not advaita's paramArtha jnAna IMHO.

>

Saying that Atman is being perceived by your mind is

not 'objectifying' Atman. As Acharyal says above "Verbal

descriptions are woefully inadequate".

After all the realization or Atma Sakshatkara only happens in the

mind, correct?

We see similar descriptions even in Gita. Bhagavan says 'yam labdhva

chaparam labham' (having obtained which..). How can you 'obtain'

or 'acquire' Atma?

*perceiving the Atman like a fruit*

statement is from The Adhyatma Upanishad. This passage explains how

Samadhi leads to Atma Sakshatkara:

amunaa vaasanaajaale niHsheshhaM pravilaapite .

samuulonmuulite puNyapaapaakhye karmasa.nchaye .. 39..

vaakyamapratibaddha.n satpraakparokshaavabhaasite .

karaamalakamavadbodhaparokshaM prasuuyate .. 40..

When by this Samadhi, the host of tendencies are completely

dissolved and the accumulated actions, named virtue and vice, are

totally uprooted, the Upanishadic utterance (that one is the

Supreme) becomes unobstructed and what once was indirect now yields

direct knowledge which is like a myrobalan in an open palm.

>>bhaskar :

> realises that *sarvabhUtastha AtmAnam..sarvabhutAnicha

> Atmani..Ikshate yOgayuktAtma sarvatra samadarShanaH...this seeing &

> perception of samabhAva cannot fit into the bill of deliberately

suppressed

> mind activity wherein sAdhaka though experiencing paramAnanda in

mystic

> trance...

>>

I quoted Anu Gita before but here is Sankara's Sata Shloki

explaining the same idea:

sloka starting with Aadhya dehanu..

The first (form of realization) is linked with the body while the

second is born of unity with all. First the experience "I am

Brahman" arises and then "Brahman indeed is all this".

(commentary

from the book "Perfection through Yoga")

In the first place one realizes that one is the self but mild

delimitation by the body is there. This is experienced for sometime

even after the first experience of nirvikalpa-samadhi. Next, with

progress, it is clearly realized that there is naught but Brahman.

This represents the steady realization of Jivanmuktas.

regards

Sundar Rajan

February 10, 2005

Namaste Sri Bhaskar-ji

praNAms Sri Sundar Rajan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

SR prabhuji:

First some clarifications regarding the dualistic Yoga-sutras and

the practice of Yoga. I agree with you that Advaitins do not accept

the dualistic Yoga Shastra. The Yoga of the Patanjala Yoga-sutras is

dualistic, in as much as it accepts the reality of the world as also

an actual multiplicity of Purusa's of the nature of

consciousness, while the Upanishads teach Yoga as a means to realize the

non-dual

Reality.

bhaskar :

Thanks for the clarification prabhuji. This is what I've been trying to

convey in my previous mails...The philosophical stand of yOga shAstra is

dualistic which endorses the view of multiplicity of jIva-s, Ishwara,

prakruti etc...which is drastically different from that of advaita stand.

SR prabhuji:

Nonetheless, the practices taught in the Yoga-sutras are largely in

consonance with the Yoga of the Upanishads.

bhaskar :

Yes prabhuji, the shishtAchAra or dharmAcharaNa based practices like yama,

niyama etc. have definitely found place in sAdhana part of the advaita..But

there is definitely some differences in the interpretation of dhAraNa,

dhyAna & samAdhi terminologies in the classic yOga system & vEdAntic

tradition. Kindly wait for sometime prabhuji, I am preparing a notes on

this topic with appropriate quotes from shankara bhAshya..I'll try to

present it for the kind perusal of list members shortly.

SR prabhuji:

I am reading a recently published book "Exalting Elucidations" of

H.H. Sri Abhinava VidyaTheertha Mahaswamigal, 35th Pontiff

(Sankaracharya) of Sringeri Sarada Peetam. This book has several

chapters of questions and answers with Acharyal. I selected a few

questions that are similar to the ones that have seen posted to this

eGroup. (Note that these are translated and any mistakes in these

posts are mine)

bhaskar :

Thanks a lot for sharing the information from Swamiji's book prabhuji.

SR prabhuji:

After all the realization or Atma Sakshatkara only happens in the

mind, correct?

bhaskar :

prabhuji realization is our svarUpa & more importantly it is not

bhAvanAtmaka to happen in the mind at the particular point of

time...Ofcourse, shAstra, gurUpadEsha, antahkaraNa are the required

instruments to get rid of our avidyA...but for realization mind can not be

the Ashraya (locus) coz..the very notion of chitta gets sublated after the

dawn of true knowledge!!!

SR prabhuji:

We see similar descriptions even in Gita. Bhagavan says 'yam labdhva

chaparam labham' (having obtained which..). How can you 'obtain'

or 'acquire' Atma?

bhaskar :

Lord himself clarifies elsewhere that Atman can see everything & nobody can

see Atman is it not?? Objectification of apramEya vastu is not the purpose

of shAstra-s, we have to understand shAstra vAkya keeping this basic rule

in mind. Ofcourse, all of us know brahma tattva is beyond the scope of

thought & speech!!

SR prabhuji:

When by this Samadhi, the host of tendencies are completely

dissolved and the accumulated actions, named virtue and vice, are

totally uprooted, the Upanishadic utterance (that one is the

Supreme) becomes unobstructed and what once was indirect now yields

direct knowledge which is like a myrobalan in an open palm.

bhaskar :

There is a subtle difference between yOgi's kEvala nirvikalpa samAdhi &

jnAni's sahaja nirvikalpa samAdhi (kindly refer Sri Sridhar prabhuji-s

mail)..what vEdanta talks is jnAni's sahaja state, the state which is vastu

tantra pradhAna jnAna...whereas a yOgi's nirvikalpa samAdhi is gained

through human effort by deliberately suppressing the thoughts in the mind

some time & is very much restricted to yOgi's individual effort & lasts

only for some time!!! There is very interesting reading for mumukshu-s in

shankara's sUtra bhAshya on the 4th sUtra tattusamanvayAt..regarding vastu

& kartru tantra jnAna... More of this later in my forthcoming mail.

SR prabhuji:

I quoted Anu Gita before but here is Sankara's Sata Shloki

explaining the same idea:

sloka starting with Aadhya dehanu..

The first (form of realization) is linked with the body while the

second is born of unity with all. First the experience "I am

Brahman" arises and then "Brahman indeed is all this".

(commentary

from the book "Perfection through Yoga")

In the first place one realizes that one is the self but mild

delimitation by the body is there. This is experienced for sometime

even after the first experience of nirvikalpa-samadhi. Next, with

progress, it is clearly realized that there is naught but Brahman.

This represents the steady realization of Jivanmuktas.

bhaskar :

prabhuji frankly speaking I donot know how to comment on all these

observations...IMHO first of all brahma jnAna as taught by shankara is not

in pecking order & it is not a gradual process that First I should realize

that I am brahman & then turn my head towards world & declare all else is

brahman etc..realization like what you mentioned above clearly presupposes

the influence of time & space which have hardly any validity in our dEsha &

kAlAthIta paramArtha jnAna.

regards

Sundar Rajan

Humble praNAms onceagain

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

February 10, 2005

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

>

> SR prabhuji:

>

> After all the realization or Atma Sakshatkara only happens in the

> mind, correct?

>

> bhaskar :

>

> prabhuji realization is our svarUpa & more importantly it is not

> bhAvanAtmaka to happen in the mind at the particular point of

> time...Ofcourse, shAstra, gurUpadEsha, antahkaraNa are the required

> instruments to get rid of our avidyA...but for realization mind

can not be

> the Ashraya (locus) coz..the very notion of chitta gets sublated

after the

> dawn of true knowledge!!!

>

> SR prabhuji:

>

> We see similar descriptions even in Gita. Bhagavan says 'yam

labdhva

> chaparam labham' (having obtained which..). How can you 'obtain'

> or 'acquire' Atma?

>

Namaste all

My comments are on this last statement attributed to Sundar Rajan

Prabhuji. There is no 'obtaining' or 'reaching' the Brahman. Because

You are always IT. It is like you realise that you are the tenth

man whom you were searching all this time since you thought you have

missed him among your companions. And finally you realise that you

are yourself the tenth man, the mistake being that you have not

counted yourself! So what you have to do is only to dispel your

ignorance. No other effort is necessary. Sri Shankara says this very

often in his Bhashyas. I like particularly his Bhashya of Gita XVIII-

50, where he says this forcefully. I have long time ago written

about it on this list. I quote below the reference to my posting:

http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m1074.html

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

February 10, 2005

> > SR prabhuji:

> >

> > We see similar descriptions even in Gita. Bhagavan says 'yam

> labdhva

> > chaparam labham' (having obtained which..). How can you 'obtain'

> > or 'acquire' Atma?

> >

> Namaste all

>

> My comments are on this last statement attributed to Sundar Rajan

> Prabhuji. There is no 'obtaining' or 'reaching' the Brahman.

Because

> You are always IT.

>

Namaste Prof VK-ji

I am afraid you caught us in the middle of a cross-talk:-). Above

statement in my post to Sri Bhaskar-ji was not a statement but a

rhetorical question. To emphasise that words are inadequate.. Please

read related posts fully to understand the context.

> It is like you realise that you are the tenth

> man whom you were searching all this time since you thought you

have

> missed him among your companions. And finally you realise that you

> are yourself the tenth man, the mistake being that you have not

> counted yourself! So what you have to do is only to dispel your

> ignorance. No other effort is necessary. >

Most of us who peruse Advaitic books even casually are familar with

the above story and its moral.. thanks

PraNAms to all advaitins

Sundar Rajan

February 10, 2005

I like particularly his Bhashya of Gita XVIII-

50, where he says this forcefully. I have long time ago written

about it on this list. I quote below the reference to my posting:

praNAm Sri Prof.VK prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Thanks for shankara's quote....on the same lines, prabhuji, I think

shankara's comments on samanvayAdhikaraNa in sUtra bhAshya also equally

important to determine what exactly the role of shAstra-s which are

considered as *antya pramANa* in brahma jignAsa. While answering to

pUrvapakshi's objection that if brahman is not a vishaya of any karma, then

it is absurd to hold shAstra is the means of knowing it.... Shankara

categorically asserts his stand on shAstra-s with no ambiguous terms that *

shAstra-s role ends in wiping off our ignorance & it does not teach brahman

as an object (pramEya vastu) at all. It only helps us to remove all

distinctions created by avidyA such as the jnAtru, jnEya & jnAna etc.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

February 11, 2005

Namaste Sri Bhaskar-ji

>

> bhaskar :

>

> Yes prabhuji, the shishtAchAra or dharmAcharaNa based practices

like yama,

> niyama etc. have definitely found place in sAdhana part of the

advaita..But

> there is definitely some differences in the interpretation of

dhAraNa,

> dhyAna & samAdhi terminologies in the classic yOga system &

vEdAntic

> tradition. Kindly wait for sometime prabhuji, I am preparing a

notes on

> this topic with appropriate quotes from shankara bhAshya..

In fact, similarity between the Yoga of Upanishads and Patanjali's

Yoga exists not only in the initial stages (Yama, Niyama etc) but

all the way up to the highest Samadhi. While the Yoga of Upanishads

focusses on Sadhana for Self-Realization purpose ONLY, Patanjali's

Yoga Sutras are a much broader framework and deal with several other

dharanas, dhyanas and samadhis. Sri Madhusudana Saraswati's

monumental Gita commentary 'Gudharta Dipika' has extensive

discussion on this. I don't want to type all the info from His

commentary and I am exploring if there are online resources..

The advaitic purvAcharyals such as Sri Vidyaranya, Sri Madhusudana

Saraswati, Sri Sadasiva Bramendral ONLY followed that part of

Patanjali Yoga that are relevant for Self-realization and caution

Sadhakas against following yoga for siddhis etc.

>

> bhaskar :

>

> There is a subtle difference between yOgi's kEvala nirvikalpa

samAdhi &

> jnAni's sahaja nirvikalpa samAdhi (kindly refer Sri Sridhar

prabhuji-s

> mail)..

Actually, there is not a 'subtle' difference but a HUGE, HUGE

difference between Yogi's nirvikalpa samAdhi and jnAni's sahaja

nirvikalpa samAdhi. One is in the realm of Sadhana, Yogi is a

Sadhaka and the other is a Sthitha Prajna, Siddha Purusha.

In fact, Shankara calls the Yogi's condition during the highest

state of Yoga as a special Avastha (state or condition) in the

famous Katha Upanishad mantra (yadaa paJNchaavatishhThante 2.3.10)

As we all know, Jagrat, Svapna and Sushupti avasthas are temporary

and so is the highest state of Yoga, the Samadhi Avastha.

On the otehr hand, The jnani's experience of the Self is distinct

and permanent.

I quoted Sringeri MahaSannidhanam in this post

http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m24979.html

=====================================================================

D: Will a single experience of nirvikalpa-samadhi be sufficient to

attain brahma-jnana?

A: Normally, it is not sufficient. During nirvikalpa-samadhi the

Atman is experienced. After emergence from that state, the

experience gradually begins to fade.

=====================================================================

Acharyal clearly explains nirvikalpa samAdhi is NOT (repeat NOT)

realization but is a powerful aid to realization.

One may get a doubt here : if nirvikalpa samAdhi is only temporary,

why should a Sadhaka bother at all?

The answer to this question is provided by Sri Ramana Maharishi

below.

================== Quote from (Talks with Sri Ramana Maharishi)======

Talk 562. (Talks with Sri Ramana Maharishi)

There is a statement in the book Vichara Sangraha that though a

person realizes the Self once, he cannot for that simple reason

alone, become a mukta. He continues to remain a victim of vasanas

(latencies). Sri Bhagavan was asked whether the realization referred

to was the same as the jnani's, and if so why there should be a

difference in their effects.

M (Maharishi): The experience is the same. Every person experiences

the Self consciously or unconsciously. The ajnani's experience is

clouded by his latencies whereas the jnani's is not so. The jnani's

experience of the Self is therefore distinct and permanent.

A practiser (Sadhaka) may by long practice gain a glimpse of the

Reality. This experience may be vivid for the time being. And yet he

will be distracted by the old vasanas and so his experience will not

avail him. Such a man must continue his manana and niddidhyasana so

that all the obstacles may be destroyed. He will then be able to

remain permanently in the Real State.

D (Devotee): What is the difference between a man who makes no

attempts and remains an ajnani, and another who gains a glimpse and

returns to ajnana?

M: In the latter case a stimulus is always present to goad him on to

further efforts until the realization is perfect.

================== Quote from (Talks with Sri Ramana Maharishi)======

> what vEdanta talks is jnAni's sahaja state, the state which is

vastu

> tantra pradhAna jnAna...

>

This is not correct!. vEdanta NOT only talks about Jnani's permanent

state and as I quoted from Adhyatma Upanishad there are plenty of

references to the Yogi's samadhi state. I will post more details

later.

> whereas a yOgi's nirvikalpa samAdhi is gained

> through human effort by deliberately suppressing the thoughts in

the mind

> some time & is very much restricted to yOgi's individual effort &

lasts

> only for some time!!!

Yoga Vashista says that anything and everything worthwhile in life

is always attained through Human effort (of course with the Grace of

Ishwara/Guru)!

>

> I quoted Anu Gita before but here is Sankara's Sata Shloki

> explaining the same idea:

> sloka starting with Aadhya dehanu..

> The first (form of realization) is linked with the body while the

> second is born of unity with all. First the experience "I am

> Brahman" arises and then "Brahman indeed is all this".

>

> bhaskar :

>

> prabhuji frankly speaking I donot know how to comment on all these

> observations...

These are NOT my observations as but are direct quotes from (1)

Sruti - Adhyatma Upanishad and (2) Satasloki

>

> IMHO first of all brahma jnAna as taught by shankara is not

> in pecking order &

>

I will respond to these later and you will find that brahma jnana

taught by Shankara is not at all at variance with the Yoga of

Upanishads or Patanjali as adopted by Advaitic Gurus.

regards

Sundar Rajan

February 14, 2005

Namaste Sri Bhaskar-ji

praNAms Sri Sunder Rajan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

SR prabhuji:

In fact, similarity between the Yoga of Upanishads and Patanjali's

Yoga exists not only in the initial stages (Yama, Niyama etc) but

all the way up to the highest Samadhi.

bhaskar :

Yes prabhuji similarity can be granted to shankara's advaita only in usage

of words such as dhAraNa, dhyAna & samAdhi which are popularly known in

aShtAnga yOga of patanjali. But interpretation of these words in the

various context of his prasthAna trayi bhAshya differs drastically from

patanjala's. Whereas the first five limbs of aStAnga yOga i.e. yama,

niyama, Asana, praNAyAma & pratyAhAra are prescribed for vEdAnta vihita

nidhidhyAsana to gain shruti vAkya jnAna.

SR prabhuji:

While the Yoga of Upanishads focusses on Sadhana for Self-Realization

purpose ONLY, Patanjali's Yoga Sutras are a much broader framework and deal

with several other

dharanas, dhyanas and samadhis.

bhaskar :

May be prabhuji, since patanjala yOga shAstra is ultimately

dualistic...they might have multiple ways of doing dhAraNa & dhyAna & even

in their ultimate goal..samAdhi also they can have different

varieties...But shankara praNIta advaita jnAna should be realised only

through shravaNAdi direct means it cannot be done in multiple

ways...shankara gives certain guidelines with regard to shravaNa, manana &

nidhidhyAsana..as far as my limited knowledge goes shankara nowhere

advocates *multiple* ways for realizing the self-evident brahman. As you

said above, patanjala yOga may have wide scope & broad network with regard

to philosophical frame work..but it does not anyway mean its purports are

strictly in line with shankara's non-dual philosophy.

SR prabhuji:

Sri Madhusudana Saraswati's monumental Gita commentary 'Gudharta Dipika'

has extensive

discussion on this. I don't want to type all the info from His commentary

and I am exploring if there are online resources..

bhaskar :

prabhuji, kindly allow me to onceagain clarify my stand that my endeavour

is to learn yOga's role in advaita from the perspective of our paramAchArya

Sri shankara bhagavadpAda...Fortunately his monumental commentaries on

prasthAna trayi are still available with us & let us understand his view

points on yOga shAstra from it. Having said this, I do admit that I have

my wholehearted respect for later advaita sampradAya Acharya-s..but when

it comes to siddhAnta nirNaya..I'd like to get it from the ultimate

authority on the subject..i.e. Adi shankara..I repeat, siddhAnta nirNaya

*as taught* by shankara.

SR prabhuji:

The advaitic purvAcharyals such as Sri Vidyaranya, Sri Madhusudana

Saraswati, Sri Sadasiva Bramendral ONLY followed that part of

Patanjali Yoga that are relevant for Self-realization and caution

Sadhakas against following yoga for siddhis etc.

bhaskar :

shankara also accepts these siddhis & lOkAntara jnAna prabhuji...but he is

more particular about sadyO mukti..The realization of our true nature in

this very life without the barriers of time & space!!!

> bhaskar :

>

> There is a subtle difference between yOgi's kEvala nirvikalpa

samAdhi &

> jnAni's sahaja nirvikalpa samAdhi (kindly refer Sri Sridhar

prabhuji-s

> mail)..

SR prabhuji:

Actually, there is not a 'subtle' difference but a HUGE, HUGE

difference between Yogi's nirvikalpa samAdhi and jnAni's sahaja

nirvikalpa samAdhi.

bhaskar :

Oh!! thast very nice to hear prabhuji...infact, this is what I've been

trying to convey in my mails...sahaja is the natural state realized through

shruti vAkya janita jnAna & yOgi's nirvikalpa is time bound mystic trance

which lasts only certain period of time..jnAni's realization is reveals the

fact that he is one without the second & this realization is permanent &

never ever get affected by vAsana-s, whereas nirvikalpa samAdhi holder can

be in that deliberately suppressed nirvikalpa state only for certain period

of time & vAsana-s & prArabhda-s waiting for him to attack once he comes

back from that *attained state*. This HUGE difference in realization!!

(can it be??!!) onceagain proves that nirvikalpa of patanjala is a foreign

thing to shankara's advaita siddhAnta. Why I said the difference is

*subtle* above is the absence of *egoness* in both the states...that you

yourself confirmed below by quoting Sri ramaNa maharshi's words....more of

this later ...

SR prabhuji:

One is in the realm of Sadhana, Yogi is a Sadhaka and the other is a

Sthitha Prajna, Siddha Purusha.

bhaskar :

Whether the experiencer of NS (nirvikalpa samAdhi) is a sAdhaka or a jnAni

prabhuji?? jnAni can realize his svarUpa without the aid of patanjala's

NS...IN short, patanjala's NS is NOT a MUST in advaita paramArtha jnAna as

this jnAna purely based on vastu tantra.

SR prabhuji:

In fact, Shankara calls the Yogi's condition during the highest

state of Yoga as a special Avastha (state or condition) in the

famous Katha Upanishad mantra (yadaa paJNchaavatishhThante 2.3.10)

bhaskar :

But prabhuji kindly clarify whether shankara here talks about NS of

patanjala or vEdOkta adhyAtma yOga??

SR prabhuji:

As we all know, Jagrat, Svapna and Sushupti avasthas are temporary

and so is the highest state of Yoga, the Samadhi Avastha.

bhaskar :

Yes prabhuji you are right, Atman is turIya irrespective of avidyA nirmita

avasthA-s coz. Atman is not in avasthA-s & avasthA-s are in Atman. Due to

our ignorance we say Atman can be attained ONLY in turIya But Atma svarUpa

is ONE & the SAME always!!! Kindly see gaudapAda's kArika wherein

gaudapAdAchArya clearly says turIya is not a particular state exclusive of

other three avasthA-s it is nothing but our svarUpa which is uniform is all

the three avastha-s. So, here brahma jignAsa should be done on sarvatrika

anubhava (universal experience) & not based on vaiyuktika anubhava (

individual experience) of bhAva samAdhi, siddhi-s & darshana-s

etc...shankara explicitly mentions this in sUtra bhAshya.

SR Prabhuji:

On the otehr hand, The jnani's experience of the Self is distinct

and permanent.

I quoted Sringeri MahaSannidhanam in this post

http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m24979.html

=====================================================================

D: Will a single experience of nirvikalpa-samadhi be sufficient to

attain brahma-jnana?

A: Normally, it is not sufficient. During nirvikalpa-samadhi the

Atman is experienced. After emergence from that state, the

experience gradually begins to fade.

=====================================================================

Acharyal clearly explains nirvikalpa samAdhi is NOT (repeat NOT)

realization but is a powerful aid to realization.

bhaskar :

Then prabhuji what about prakaraNa grantha-s which categorically say

*nirvikalpa samAdhi* is a MUST for advaita aspirant & ONLY in NS jnAni can

have the *true* knowledge of advaita?? As far as I remember you also said

in your previous mail that *first* jnAni *should* have the experience of NS

to realize that he is brahman & after coming out from it, as a subsequent

step, he has to realize that this universe also nothing but HIM...etc...

The sustained effort to maintain that jnAni state (in the above

experiencing NS again & again to firmly establish in jnAnihood) is called

prasankhyAna in shankara's sUtra bhAshya...which has been vehemently

refuted by shankara.

bhaskar :

> what vEdanta talks is jnAni's sahaja state, the state which is

vastu

> tantra pradhAna jnAna...

>

SR prabhuji:

This is not correct!. vEdanta NOT only talks about Jnani's permanent

state and as I quoted from Adhyatma Upanishad there are plenty of

references to the Yogi's samadhi state. I will post more details

later.

bhaskar :

May be prabhuji, I am not denying it...for that matter I lately heard that

there is a mention about kundalini yOga, shad chakra-s (mulAdhAra,

svAdhisTAna, maNipura etc. etc.), haTha yOga, kriyA yOga & rAja yOga in

minor upanishads...but as you know the main purpose behind this discussion

is to ascertain the role of patanjala's yOga in shankara's advaita.

bhaskar :

> whereas a yOgi's nirvikalpa samAdhi is gained

> through human effort by deliberately suppressing the thoughts in

the mind

> some time & is very much restricted to yOgi's individual effort &

lasts

> only for some time!!!

SR prabhuji:

Yoga Vashista says that anything and everything worthwhile in life

is always attained through Human effort (of course with the Grace of

Ishwara/Guru)!

bhaskar :

but our svarUpa is not an objective attainment/achievement...it is only

realization of already existing pUrNa svarUpa by getting rid of

avidyA...Kindly see samanvayAdhikaraNa bhAshya to know why brahma jnAna is

not purusha tantra & it is vastu tantra..Sri K. Sadananda prabhuji in his

sUtra bhAshya commentary discusses this in length...Kindly check the files

section for the exact reference.

SR prabhuji:

I will respond to these later and you will find that brahma jnana

taught by Shankara is not at all at variance with the Yoga of

Upanishads or Patanjali as adopted by Advaitic Gurus.

bhaskar :

Kindly do so prabhuji, it would help us to enrich our knowledge in

shankara's advaita siddhAnta...Nowadays, we have somany versions of advaita

in the name of shankara...Let us not stray coz. of this diversified

views....Let us get back to the *source* to understand what advaita is *as

taught* by shankara.

regards

Sundar Rajan

praNAms onceagain

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

February 14, 2005

Dear Sundarji and Bhaskarji and learned members:

This topic among others comes up periodically on the list. While we all

enjoy such discussions a couple of things can be kept in mind.

1. It is good to have conviction in one's belief and faith that one is

on the right path. Sri Krishna has said in the Gita that in whatever people

have faith, the Lord makes it stronger.

2. A strong and pure faith is complete in itself and has no need to

defend or attack.

3. A strong and pure faith resolves it self in the Self and sees no

differences anywhere.

The wise do not hold on to any point of view (inwardly) but only for the

appearance sake for the practical purpose of teaching and indicating the

highest reality. This is so because it has become their nature. There are

many scriptures and many streams of knowledge and many learned sages to

guide us. When one has grasped the essence of the truth then one can remain

in the light of the truth realizing that it is one's own light that is the

truth and that radiates the truth in every direction.

Reflecting, being at ease, being natural, being devoted, leaving aside all

judgments and transcending the mind itself which is a bundle of conflicts,

one sees one Self-Nature as one's Own Being.

Love to all

Harsha