Nirvikalpa samAdhi in shankara's advaita vEdAnta- PART-I

February 17, 2005

praNAms to all Shankara vEdAnta followers

Hare krishna

We've been witnessing all these days long deliberations on nirvikalpa

samAdhi's role in shankara's advaita. The sad thing is that despite these

prolonged discussions we are still not able to come to the common platform

with regard to shankara siddhAnta. It seems we advaitins, within ourselves

have more differences in understandning our own school:-)) Earlier, we

struggled a lot to understand what is pUrNamidam, what is real & what is

unreal etc. etc. Now, it is nirvikalpa samAdhi in shankara siddhAnta...In

the Part-I I'd like to share my understanding of the topic, (I repeat *my

understanding*) & in the Part-II, I'd like to quote shankara bhAshya

wherein bhagavad pAda dealt with different types of knowledge i.e. vastu

tantra jnAna, purusha tantra jnAna, shankara's contextual quotes of

standard terminologies of pAtanjala yOga such as dhAraNa, dhyAna, samAdhi,

manOnigraha etc.

What exactly is the role of patanjala yOga (PY) & its ultimate goal

nirvikalpa samAdhi (NS) in shankara's advaita?? First of all I'd like to

make it clear, we, those who say nirvikalpa samAdhi is NOT must for

realization, do not say whole patanjala yOga sUtra-s are useless in

advaita...We do accept its sAdhana part mainly yama, niyama, Asana,

praNAyAma, pratyAhAra for doing vEda vihita nidhidhyAsana...So, kindly be

sure that there is a place for PY in shankara advaita but it is strictly

restricted to antaranga sAdhana & helps us in mental purification (chitta

shuddhi). But here what I gathered from the discussion, it is rather

surprising that some learned prabhuji-s clearing saying that there is no

difference between shankara's & shruti's adhyAtma vidya and patanjala's

asamprajnatha samAdhi. Frankly speaking this new observation is really

news to me. What I have been thinking all these days was PY advocates

mainly deliberately suppressed some mystical mind state. Here aspirant of

yOga shAstra through his strong will attain mystic trance in an inert

physical condition which lasts only certain period of time depending upon

capability of the aspirant. It is more of a kartru tantra sAdhana & this

samAdhi state is just like visiting some foreign land, be there for some

time & come back. Let me tell you why I came to this understanding, first

figure comes to my mind is Sri rAmakrishna paramahamsa & his frequent

visits to nirvikalpa samAdhi..his willingness to have water or rasagullas

in an effort to come back from that state...His own effort to *cut* the

figure of his beloved devine mother to *achieve* the nirvikalpa samAdhi.

(details from his biographies)...But as per the *latest information*

(atleast for me:-)) pAtanjala did not speak about this *motionless* state

of NS at all & he did propagate *Atma vidyA* of jnAni & the same has been

reflected in shankara bhAshya too!!! To this effect we have already seen

plenty of quotes from minor upanishats, gIta, shankara's verbatim usage of

yOga sUtra-s etc. etc.

Well, it is really good to hear that PY is nothing but adhyAtma vidyA. If

PY is completely in line with shankara's advaita, if siddhAnta of PY is all

about vEdAnta vihita Atmaikatva jnAna nothing like that!! One more feather

to the crown of advaita:-)) We can wholeheartedly accept it as a valid

pramAna for advaita paramArtha jnAna.

But the problem comes when someone argues that this NS ( as generally

understood from the biographies of well known experiencers of this

motionless state ) is the must in realizing advaita jnAna & this NS is

indispensable after doing direct sAdhana-s like shravaNa, manana &

nidhidhyAsana then we have plenty to talk about the flaws in this argument.

Again, if we think PY talks about only Atma jnAna as prescribed in vEdAnta

& the same is in line with shankara philosophy, we are forced to accept

either one of the following :

(a) asaMprajnaTha samAdhi of PY is nothing but jnAni's paramArtha jnAna of

vEdanta & it has nothing to do with kartru tantra pradhAna *nirvikalpa

samAdhi* in which physical inertness is conspicuous.

(b) shankara asking us to follow PY for realization & shankara's

description of paramArtha jnAna is nothing but AsamprajnaTha samAdhi of

PY..

In the above, if (a) is true & proved by the pundits of yOga sUtra, we

advaitins, donot have any problem in accepting it. whereas if (b) is the

assertion of PY followers, before pushing aside (b) we have to first

understand what shankara exactly meant while describing advaita paramArTha

jnAna & analyse it to find out whether it matches with claims of (b)

followers.

First of all, as we all know, shankara talks about roles of pramANa-s &

anubhava for realization of our true nature. I donot want to go into the

details of shAstra pramAna, those who want to know about it kindly refer

sUtra bhAshya on shAstrayOnitvAdhikaraNa. But I would like to ask some

simple questions about acceptance of shAstra pramANa. Does pAtanjala

maharshi anywhere in yOga sUtra-s talks about the shAstra pramANa &

considers it as an antya pramANa in brahma jignAsa?? does he anywhere

accepts ONLY shravaNa of shAstra vAkyas is enough for shrutyukta jnAna??

Whether yOga sUtra-s tells us anything about direct means of advaita i.e.

sharvaNa, manana & nidhidhyAsana?? As you all know how shankara emphasizes

the efficacy of this direct means in his commentaries.

Next, on the other hand, shankara agrees 6 valid means of knowledge, out of

those, shankara categorically asserts that for brahma jignAsa both shabda &

anubhava equally valid. Now the question is whether shankara included

pAtanjala yOga shAstra also in the shAstra pramANa?? Those who know

advaita saMpradAya kindly clarify this basic question.

Further, if at all shankara considered PY & YS are the valid means &

asaMprajnaTha samAdhi is a must for advaita jnAna, why he has not mentioned

it atleast one time in his whole prathAna trayi bhAshya?? It is really

very strange to find that neither the name pAtanjala nor the term

asamprajnaTha samAdhi could find a place in shankara's vocabulary!! As

generally understood, shabda pramANa means shruti-s/upanishads, smruthi

texts like gIta, dharma shAstra, purANa. Under which category of shAstra

pramANa PY & YS can find place here to accept it as a source material for

shanakara's advaita siddhAnta?? Is YS is shruti?? is it smruthi?? is it

purANa?? No answer to this from YS followers.

Let us come back to the next part in pramANa i.e. *anubhava*...what is this

anubhava according to vEdAnta / shankara's advaita?? Is it individual

experience like samAdhi, aNimAdhi ashta siddhi-s, having visions of

celestial beings on the mental screen?? NO clearly says shankara in sUtra

bhAshya (references in next mail) This anubhava has been explained at

various places by shankara in sUtra bhAshya. The basic nature of this

anubhava is vijnAna the same can also be called as avagati (ascertainment),

adhyavasAya (final understanding or determination) & also anubhava

(intuition ...pls. note not experience). This vijnAnAnubhava is entirely

different from sensuous & the intellectual understanding. For example, if I

see an object with the help of the eye, if I feel sorrow/joy in my mind,

all these experiences are mere events in time & so they are all born &

cease to exist at some point of time. But how do we come to know the

presence or absence of the mind itself together with its multifarious

thought structure?? The senses cannot objectify & know themselves nor can

the mind know itself & near to impossible for the mind to became aware of

its own absence!! can we sit on our own shoulders?? asks shankara in

sUtra bhAshya:-)) Nevertheless, it is common knowledge that we donot know

when the mind or the senses function or when they cease to function in such

states..again for example suShupti (deep sleep). Now this faculty which

enables us to have this direct insight is what is called anubhava in

shankara's vEdAnta. This is what has been known as vEdAnta vijnAna for

saMpradAya vAdins. That which enables us to aware of temporal happening

without undergoing any modification (vikAra) in itself!!

Now, let us take this sArvatrika anubhAva & try to reconcile with PY &

NS...first, kindly tell me is this anubhava which has been explained above

vaiyuktika (individual) or sArvatrika (universal)?? I request the readers

to adjudge this with an open mind...should this anubhava achieved in

sitting motionless hours to gether like in NS ?? or is this *quite*

natural, self evident entity in everyone?? Is NS is indispensable to *gain*

this anubhava?? is this anubha time & space bound like sensuous /

intellectual experience??

Shankara categorizes this anubhava janya jnAna into two group..one is

kartru tantra jnAna another is vastu tantra jnAna. First one is kartru

tantra jnAna, all sensuous & mind experience where kartru can use his

senses & intellect to *gain* knowledge is called kartru tantra jnAna. This

type of jnAna basically depends on the *will* of the doer & this jnAna is

under the mercy of the doer!! All dhyAna, samAdhi, upAsana etc. etc. where

kartru involved & exercising his will come under kartru tantra. And

resultant knowledge gained from this effort is called kartru tantra janita

jnAna. Important thing here in kartru tantra jnAna is that the performer of

these sAdhana-s can *modify* the way of doing it, or can stop it according

to his will & wish...for example, we can continuously meditate on rAma &

his auspicious qualities for some time & if we want we can change it to

some other deity or we can completely stop it & start going to dargah or

church!! We have the standing example of this from paramahaMsa's

biography, first he started doing sAdhana on dEvi kAli mAta, after

proficiting her divine form, he cut that from from the sword of knowledge &

attained nirvikalpa, after sometime to see other religions faiths, he

switched over to muslim customs & traditions & christianity & its customs &

*realized* their goal!!! shankara gives here examples of our bhAvana of

viShNu form in sAligrama & shiva bhagavan in linga symbol!! (exact

references in Part-II), one day we can do shiva panchAyatana pUja other day

we can switch over to some other deity worship...( we know the theory of

god's grace in chosing his devotee...but let us speak practically!! &

accept the facts!!)

But brahma jnAna is not like that of kartru tantra jnAna as explained

above!! It is basically cognition of a thing *as it is* and importantly

NOT DEPENDENT on the will or wish of the cognizer...for example fire, we

cannot think & modify the attributes of fire & take it as ice..it has to be

realized strictly *as it is* & we cannot *influence* the result of this

jnAna.

adhyAtma yOga what has been explained in shankara bhAshya, gIta,

kaTOpanishad is purely vastu tantra & it does not belong to the category of

doing something & achieving the result afresh like NS. It is cognition of

the real nature of the self through a systamatic process of contemplative

observation by keeping in mind the purports of the shruti assertions!!

Shankara beautifully explains subtle intrecacies of this sAdhana while

commenting on the nidhidhyAsana part in bruhadAraNyaka & in commentary on

tattu samanvayAt in vEdAnta sUtra.

Without knowing this subtle difference between vastu tantra & purusha

tantra, unfortunately we are mixing these jnAna-s & calling one in the name

of other!! We've seen the discussions aimed on samAdhi, using

terminologies like adhyAtma yOga, samAdhi yOga, nidhidhyAsana, dhyAna etc.

without knowing the contextual appearance in shankara bhAshya. NO need to

mention we have been mercilessly treating these are mere kartru tantra

sAdhana & giving justification by quoting yOga vAshishTa etc. In short,

this is quite contradictory to shruti pradipAdhita Atmaikatva in general &

shankara siddhAnta in particular.

In the next part we will take shankara bhAshya on sUtra, gIta,

kaTopanishat, kArika where shankara explicitly deals with two types of

jnAna & his usage of terminologies like dhAraNa, dhyAna & samAdhi which are

giving the impression that shankara advocating PY & upholding siddhAnta of

YS.

sadguru pAdarENu

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

PS : Incidentally, I have to bring some names here in my above mail...But

I can assure you no offence is intended whatsoever on the accomplishments

of those noble souls....For the greater clarity of my understanding I had

to mention those names...Kindly pardon me if it is hurting the sentiments

of any one.

February 17, 2005

Namaste,

Thank you for undertaking this task. Disagreements are a sign

of health and not a cause to be sad about! But as Swami Ramdas (circa

1660AD) said - ' tuTe vAda saMvAda to hItakArI ' (that dialogue is

beneficial which ends a debate)

As Nair-ji said we shall await Prof. VK-ji's overview of the

subject as expounded by his late father.

Questions can be raised ad infinitum, sometimes or often

unintentionally distorting the purport of the original statement.

For example, please cite the message where it was asserted that

Nirvikalpa Samadhi was the ONLY requirement for Moksha.

Statements such as the following only trivialize one of the

sublimest sciences humanity has known:

"I experience Samadhi everyday in sleep :-). And I have learnt nothing

from it.........."

For those who would like to delve deeper into Patanjali's

contributions:

the six basic commentaries on the Yoga Sutra are:

• Yoga Bhashya by Vyasa,

• Tattva-Vaisharadi by Vachaspati Mishra,

• Yoga-Varttika by Vijnana Bhikshu,

• Raja-Martanda by Bhojaraja,

• Bhasvati by Hariharananda Aranya and

• Patanjala-Rahasya by Raghavananda Saraswati.

Regards,

Sunder

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

> praNAms to all Shankara vEdAnta followers

> Hare krishna

>

> We've been witnessing all these days long deliberations on nirvikalpa

> samAdhi's role in shankara's advaita. The sad thing is that despite

these

> prolonged discussions we are still not able to come to the common

platform

> with regard to shankara siddhAnta. It seems we advaitins, within

ourselves

> have more differences in understandning our own school:-)) Earlier, we

> struggled a lot to understand what is pUrNamidam, what is real & what is

> unreal etc. etc. Now, it is nirvikalpa samAdhi in shankara

siddhAnta...In

> the Part-I I'd like to share my understanding of the topic, (I

repeat *my

> understanding*) & in the Part-II,

February 17, 2005

Namaste,

Humble praNAms Sri Sunder Hattangadi prabhuji

Hare Krishna

SH prabhuji:

Thank you for undertaking this task. Disagreements are a sign

of health and not a cause to be sad about!

bhaskar :

I agree prabhuji, but dont you think it is regrettable to note that even

after centuries still we are struggling to understand AchAryOpadEsha??

(anyway, it is immaterial who is right, who is wrong here..but as far as

siddhAnta concerned still it is an open issue among ourselves!!

SH prabhuji:

But as Swami Ramdas (circa

1660AD) said - ' tuTe vAda saMvAda to hItakArI ' (that dialogue is

beneficial which ends a debate)

bhaskar :

Yes prabhuji, I am eagerly awaiting to have that friendly dialogue under

the healthy atmosphere of common understanding...but I am afraid those days

are too far!!

SH prabhuji:

As Nair-ji said we shall await Prof. VK-ji's overview of the

subject as expounded by his late father.

bhaskar :

Yes, we shall wait for Sri Prof. VK prabhuji's observation on this

topic..Kindly also allow me to post the Part-II in the meanwhile prabhuji.

SH prabhuji:

Questions can be raised ad infinitum, sometimes or often

unintentionally distorting the purport of the original statement.

For example, please cite the message where it was asserted that

Nirvikalpa Samadhi was the ONLY requirement for Moksha.

bhaskar :

shankara advocates jnAna is the ONLY means for mOkSha nothing else!! (vide

gItA bhAshya)..So, in that case those who want to see shankara siddhAnta in

YS must admit that ONLY in NS that mOkSha will happen..since the core

teaching of YS is attaining NS as an end goal!!..otherwise we will have to

admit there are somany means to realize our svarUpa & NS is also one of

them..in this process karma also may get an entry in the means!!.this is

again contradictory to shankara siddhAnta. prakaraNa grantha-s like vivEka

chUdAmaNi clearly advocating samAdhi is the MUST for mOksha.

SH prabhuji:

Statements such as the following only trivialize one of the

sublimest sciences humanity has known:

"I experience Samadhi everyday in sleep :-). And I have learnt nothing

from it.........."

bhaskar :

I am afraid, the deep sleep state is not what we think as a lethargic state

to degrade it & hesitate to compare with other divine states such as

samAdhi etc., shankara clearly says sushupti vivEka is itself enough for

advaita advitIya jnAna when it is witnessed from the sAkshi view

point....sushupti vivEka is one of the very important steps in avasthAtraya

prakriya....

..just my few thoughts....

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

February 17, 2005

Namaste Sunderji,

I saw you quote what I have written in an earlier mail. I sincerely

apologize for having been insensitive. I should have clarified that

statement. Here is a list of similarities between Nirvikalpa Samadhi

and Deep Sleep which made me make that statement. I could have stated

it in a better way, for which I regret:

1. Both have a beginning and end in time

2. In both cases, there is no subject-object division.

3. Because of point 2, there is no communication of knowledge (absence

of jnata & Jneya)

4. Both are mithya due to point 1

To support what I say, here is Shankara's Bhashya on Brahma Sutra

2:1:9 where he says:

"For the case is parallel to that of deep sleep and trance (samadhi).

In those states also the soul enters into an essential condition of

non-distinction; nevertheless, WRONG KNOWLEDGE being not yet finally

overcome, the old state of distinction re-establishes itself as soon

as the soul awakes from its sleep or trance (Samadhi)." Translation

by Thibaut.

You are increasingly giving me the feeling that I am not giving the

value Yoga Darshana deserves. Am I not saying it repeatedly that it

makes one an Uttama Adhikari if practised diligently? Doesn't the

first sutra of Brahma Sutra start with qualifications?

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 04:02:26 -0000, Sunder Hattangadi <sunderh wrote:

>

> Namaste,

>

> Thank you for undertaking this task. Disagreements are a sign

> of health and not a cause to be sad about! But as Swami Ramdas (circa

> 1660AD) said - ' tuTe vAda saMvAda to hItakArI ' (that dialogue is

> beneficial which ends a debate)

>

> As Nair-ji said we shall await Prof. VK-ji's overview of the

> subject as expounded by his late father.

>

> Questions can be raised ad infinitum, sometimes or often

> unintentionally distorting the purport of the original statement.

> For example, please cite the message where it was asserted that

> Nirvikalpa Samadhi was the ONLY requirement for Moksha.

>

> Statements such as the following only trivialize one of the

> sublimest sciences humanity has known:

>

> "I experience Samadhi everyday in sleep :-). And I have learnt nothing

> from it.........."

>

> For those who would like to delve deeper into Patanjali's

> contributions:

>

> the six basic commentaries on the Yoga Sutra are:

>

> â€¢ Yoga Bhashya by Vyasa,

> â€¢ Tattva-Vaisharadi by Vachaspati Mishra,

> â€¢ Yoga-Varttika by Vijnana Bhikshu,

> â€¢ Raja-Martanda by Bhojaraja,

> â€¢ Bhasvati by Hariharananda Aranya and

> â€¢ Patanjala-Rahasya by Raghavananda Saraswati.

>

> Regards,

>

> Sunder

>

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

> > praNAms to all Shankara vEdAnta followers

> > Hare krishna

> >

> > We've been witnessing all these days long deliberations on nirvikalpa

> > samAdhi's role in shankara's advaita. The sad thing is that despite

> these

> > prolonged discussions we are still not able to come to the common

> platform

> > with regard to shankara siddhAnta. It seems we advaitins, within

> ourselves

> > have more differences in understandning our own school:-)) Earlier, we

> > struggled a lot to understand what is pUrNamidam, what is real & what is

> > unreal etc. etc. Now, it is nirvikalpa samAdhi in shankara

> siddhAnta...In

> > the Part-I I'd like to share my understanding of the topic, (I

> repeat *my

> > understanding*) & in the Part-II,

>

> 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

>

> Links

>

February 18, 2005

Hari Om!

Adi Shankara's point as stated by you specifically clarify the

distinction between temporary 'samadhi' for few moments and the

real 'samadhi' that stays permanant. The present time Acharyas who

have understood Shankara's clarification on "Nivikalpa Samadhi" have

raised their objections to false claims made by neovedantins. I

honestly believe that their objections should not be taken out of

context and we shouldn't infer more than what they have referred to.

Vedantic understanding of the 'SELF' is multidimensional - the choice

of framework that each one chooses invariably varies and also the

tools that each one employs to reach the ultimate reality also

varies. Patanjalai's approach is certainly different from the

traditional vedantic approach. False claims of 'the realization of

SELF' can be made by the followers of both these approaches.

Fundamentally, any claim of "SELF realization" is unveriable! All

that the acharyas wanted to caution us that "Nirvikalpa Samadhi"

terminology of Yoga Sastra can potentially subject to more false

claims than the traditional understanding of 'Nirvikalpa Samadhi.'

The reason is quite simple: Eventhough Patanjali's approach with true

understanding can reach the same ultimate reality, it seems there is

greater likelihood for making false claims more often by more people

as witnessed by all of us in the modern time! The traditional

approach is relatively less subject to such false claims!! Even these

claims are subjective because there is no way we can verify the

distinction between 'false' and 'true' self-realization.

None of us have gone through the entire works of Patanjali's yoga

Sutra and I believe that his treatment is quite rigorous as for as I

know. None of us can claim to be authority on Shankara's advaita

philosophy and we can make only some general statement base on

infinitesimal understanding of his works. These are the facts whether

we accept them or not! This may explain why seem to disagree

on 'specific statements' even though we agree on 'nonduality1'

Our agreements and disagreements on "Sankara's Bhashya" on Brahma

Sutra or Bhagavad Gita or the Upanishads depend on our undestanding

of what he said. Everyone's understanding of what Sankara said is

subject to change from time to time and from person to person. This

is the Myth and the entire philosophy of Sankara is developed to

resolve this Myth! But the resolution of this Myth is the subtle

truth buried within the Truth.

Sri Bhasker Prabhuji in a recent post states: "I agree prabhuji, but

dont you think it is regrettable to note that even after centuries

still we are struggling to understand AchAryOpadEsha?? (anyway, it is

immaterial who is right, who is wrong here..but as far as siddhAnta

concerned still it is an open issue among ourselves!!)"

Bhaskerji, there is nothing regrettable about our struggling to

understand AchArya's Upadesha because we want to understand him on

our own terms! When our ego don't want us to accept the opinions of

others as feasible possibilities, we are likely to disagree. Honestly

the purpose of Vedanta is not to resolve who is right and who is

wrong. It is only goal is guide the seeker to recognize his/her own

Self! It is nothing more and nothing less!!

Warmest regards,

Ram Chandran

advaitin, K Kathirasan <brahmasatyam@g...>

wrote:

>

> To support what I say, here is Shankara's Bhashya on Brahma Sutra

> 2:1:9 where he says:

>

> "For the case is parallel to that of deep sleep and trance

(samadhi).

> In those states also the soul enters into an essential condition of

> non-distinction; nevertheless, WRONG KNOWLEDGE being not yet finally

> overcome, the old state of distinction re-establishes itself as soon

> as the soul awakes from its sleep or trance (Samadhi)." Translation

> by Thibaut.

>

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

>

> >

February 18, 2005

advaitin, K Kathirasan <brahmasatyam@g...> wrote:

> Namaste Sunderji,

>

> 1. Both have a beginning and end in time

> 2. In both cases, there is no subject-object division.

> 3. Because of point 2, there is no communication of knowledge (absence

> of jnata & Jneya)

> 4. Both are mithya due to point 1

>

Namaste,

This reminds me of a subhAShita:

Both the crow and nightingale are black, so their singing must be

equally musical!

Also please refer to Shankara's Gita Bhashya 8:10, where he defines

'yogabalam' as:

samAdhija-saMskAra-prachaya-janita-citta-sthairya-lakShaNam.

Regards,

Sunder

February 18, 2005

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

When our ego don't want us to accept the opinions of

> others as feasible possibilities, we are likely to disagree. Honestly

> the purpose of Vedanta is not to resolve who is right and who is

> wrong. It is only goal is guide the seeker to recognize his/her own

> Self! It is nothing more and nothing less!!

Namaste,

To borrow Jnaneshvara's metaphor, one will understand a Jnani or

one's Guru when the (Intellectual) Firefly finishes counting the

number of the Sun's rays!

Regards,

Sunder

February 18, 2005

Namaste all,

Shree Kathirasan Ji stated:-

> "I experience Samadhi everyday in sleep :-).

>And I have learnt nothing from it.........."

This is interesting and amusing.

Dear Shree Kathirasan-Ji -- some questions you need to

answer for yourself. Do you experience any aspects of

sat-chit-ananda in deep sleep, which, the learned say

belong to samadhi ?

If the answer is no, then, you have found the

difference between them.

Love & Regards,

Raghava

______________________

India Matrimony: Find your partner online.

http://.shaadi.com/india-matrimony/

February 18, 2005

Namaste Kathirasanji.

That is a good attempt, Kathirasanji.

Now, if I am not inconveniencing you, will you or any one of our

purusha tantra-ites or vastu tantra-ites tell us the dissimilarities

between sleep and samAdhi? If you can't, then will you permit me to

say that you are sitting in judgement of something that you know very

little about? If you agree, then I would say let us better listen to

Patanjali too. This doesn't mean that I am a PY adept or holding a

brief for him. I am just keeping an open mind.

I am happy you have admitted that yoga (as you explained it in an

earlier message) prepares the aspirant for jnAna or makes him an

uttamAdhikari. Yet, you would like to hold on to the view that it is

not a *means* for mOksha. I am afraid the soul of our seeming

disagreement lies in the linguistic nuance of your expression. You

seem to suggest that *jnAna* alone is the *means*. I would rather

say *jnAna* is the goal (as you said "accomplishment of the already

accomplished") and what bestows uttamAdhikAritwam is the *means*.

I want to see how my face looks. Someone offers me a mirror, which

is all covered with dirt and dust. What use is that mirror to me if

it is not cleaned? The mirror here is something like our 'already

accomplished'. I have it - yet it is useless. (I am THAT but I know

not.) Enabling it to reflect my face by cleaning it thoroughly is

the "accomplishment of the already accomplished". It involves some

effort or action.

In this example, however, the result produced is limited. So, we say

a limited action has produced a limited result.

For right understanding *jnAna* to occur, isn't there some action

required? People say shravana is enough. OK. Isn't shravana an

action? All actions are limited. Yet, the 'result' in Self-

realization is limitlessness. We have to accept this. However, we

seem to fight shy of doing so for fear that then advaita would be

proved wrong and are hiding behind certain words and expressions. To

my eyes, therefore, all actions, although they are limited, including

shravana, are *means* to mOksha.

Statements like samAdhi is sitting motionless for long hours and

seeing visions arise from wrong understanding. Our real nature is

samAdhi despite the avastAtraya. Thus, samAdhi is turIya. The

avastAtraya are because turIya is. Thus, samAdhi is the fibre that

pervades the chequered cloth of avastAtraya. Getting into samAdhi

opens up the floodgates of this understanding experientially and, in

that sense, it is absurd to condemn samAdhi as an experience limited

by time and reject it in toto. Why do we have this great antipathy

for things limited when all that we have to work with are all sadly

limited?

I see our advaitins making statements like all experiences are

essentially an experience of the Self; there is no moment the Self is

not experienced etc. Yet, it is a tragedy that they cannot accept the

most exalting educative experience in the world that reveals the

Truth in one shot just because the samAdhist comes out to the world.

Doesn't the one who performs the so-called vastu tantra of doing

analysis on his sAkshitwam vis a vis deep sleep also come out to the

world when the analysis is over. Then, why single out samAdhi.

SamAdhi rightly understood is vastutantra - more effective in fact.

We are perpetrating an outrage by equating it with hallucinations and

visions.

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

____________________

advaitin, K Kathirasan <brahmasatyam@g...>

wrote:

>

> .....Here is a list of similarities between Nirvikalpa Samadhi

> and Deep Sleep which made me make that statement. I could have

stated

> it in a better way, for which I regret:

>

> 1. Both have a beginning and end in time

> 2. In both cases, there is no subject-object division.

> 3. Because of point 2, there is no communication of knowledge

(absence

> of jnata & Jneya)

> 4. Both are mithya due to point 1

>

> To support what I say, here is Shankara's Bhashya on Brahma Sutra

> 2:1:9 where he says:

>

> "For the case is parallel to that of deep sleep and trance

(samadhi).

> In those states also the soul enters into an essential condition of

> non-distinction; nevertheless, WRONG KNOWLEDGE being not yet finally

> overcome, the old state of distinction re-establishes itself as soon

> as the soul awakes from its sleep or trance (Samadhi)." Translation

> by Thibaut.

>

February 19, 2005

Namaste Nairji,

Thank you for the cordial reply. You mentioned:

>Our real nature is samAdhi despite the avastAtraya. Thus, samAdhi is

turIya. The

> avastAtraya are because turIya is. Thus, samAdhi is the fibre that

> pervades the chequered cloth of avastAtraya. Getting into samAdhi

> opens up the floodgates of this understanding experientially and, in

> that sense, it is absurd to condemn samAdhi as an experience limited

> by time and reject it in toto.

I have no objections if Samadhi is interpreted as how you have done in

the above. This is exactly what i am saying. But why do you have to

get into Samadhi when you can know that 'I am Samadhi'? For example

why must a 'wave' get into 'water' to know that it is water? It is

already water.

Shravana is NOT an action. The functions of the Jnana Indriyas are not

Karmas. They bring you knowledge. In fact you have no choice over the

operation of the Jnana Indriyas. It just keeps on going for a

normal/average person even if you don't like it. This could be the

reason for the lack of appreciation for Vastu Tantra. I humbly request

you to spend a little more time on this subject to better understand

what Vastu Tantra is. If you had understood you would not have called

Shravana an action.

Dissimilarities between Sleep & Samadhi would be:

1. You get an unique experience in Samadhi nothing like what has been

experienced before.

2. You can get voluntarily into Samadhi by effort.

3. There is still a trace of Ahankara/mind (ego) in Samadhi to

describe the owned experience after coming out of it.

No further comments except that I am guilty of being a crow. :-)

February 19, 2005

Namaste Raghavaji,

I am satchitananda even right now. So are you and everyone else. You

and I don't have to go into any experience to know this. This is what

I am trying my best to convey. We are waves trying to experience

water. But we don't realize that we are already water. Tat Tvam Asi is

immediate knowledge (aparoksha Jnana).

Have we not discussed enough about this? Maybe it's time for all of us

to agree to disagree. I believe all has been said and done except our

own repeated contemplation on what has been discussed. I include

myself in this as well. I will also re-study the Patanjali Yoga Sutras

commentaries which I have.

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 04:26:03 +0000 (GMT), Raghavarao Kaluri

<raghavakaluri wrote:

>

> Namaste all,

>

> Shree Kathirasan Ji stated:-

>

> > "I experience Samadhi everyday in sleep :-).

> >And I have learnt nothing from it.........."

>

> This is interesting and amusing.

>

> Dear Shree Kathirasan-Ji -- some questions you need to

> answer for yourself. Do you experience any aspects of

> sat-chit-ananda in deep sleep, which, the learned say

> belong to samadhi ?

> If the answer is no, then, you have found the

> difference between them.

>

> Love & Regards,

> Raghava

>

> ______________________

> India Matrimony: Find your partner online.

http://.shaadi.com/india-matrimony/

>

> 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

>

> Links

>

February 19, 2005

> Shravana an action.

>

> Dissimilarities between Sleep & Samadhi would be:

>

> 1. You get an unique experience in Samadhi nothing like what has

been

> experienced before.

> 2. You can get voluntarily into Samadhi by effort.

> 3. There is still a trace of Ahankara/mind (ego) in Samadhi to

> describe the owned experience after coming out of it.

>

> No further comments except that I am guilty of being a crow. :-)

Namaste,

I have a problem with the word experience. Experiencing indicates

being in some kind of illusion, perhaps savikalpa samadhi at best.

Nirvikalpa Samadhi or Truth cannot be experienced.........ONS..Tony.

February 19, 2005

praNAms to all Shankara vEdAnta followers

Namaste Sri Bhaskar-ji

Appreciate your efforts in describing your understanding in a

detailed manner.

Due to time constraints, I can only respond in parts to your

message..

>>

What exactly is the role of patanjala yOga (PY) & its ultimate goal

nirvikalpa samAdhi (NS) in shankara's advaita??

>>

To start off, I think there is some confusion in terminology here.

Nirvikalpa Samadhi (NS) is NOT the ultimate goal of Patanjala yOga.

The terms Nirvikalpa Samadhi and Savikalpa Samadhi as far as I

know (I could be wrong) do not appear anywhere in the Yoga Sutras.

Nirvikalpa Samadhi (NS) and Savikalpa Samadhi are the terminology of

the Vedantins.

The Patanjala Yoga terminologies are:

Samprajnata Saamdhi and Asamprajnata Samadhi (AS) (also known as

Nirbija Samadhi, Nirodha Samadhi)

Sorry to be picky here but is good to get these straight before we

proceed further. A suggestion to the moderators : a list of the

terminology and their definitions or please point to such a list if

it already exists.

However, both (NS and AS) are used interchangeably by

Advaitic Acharyas..

>>

First of all I'd like to

make it clear, we, those who say nirvikalpa samAdhi is NOT must for

realization, do not say whole patanjala yOga sUtra-s are useless in

advaita...We do accept its sAdhana part mainly yama, niyama, Asana,

praNAyAma, pratyAhAra for doing vEda vihita nidhidhyAsana...So,

kindly be

sure that there is a place for PY in shankara advaita but it is

strictly

restricted to antaranga sAdhana & helps us in mental purification

(chitta

shuddhi).

But here what I gathered from the discussion, it is rather

surprising that some learned prabhuji-s clearing saying that there

is no

difference between shankara's & shruti's adhyAtma vidya and

patanjala's

asamprajnatha samAdhi. Frankly speaking this new observation is

really

news to me.

>>

no

difference between shankara's & shruti's adhyAtma vidya and

patanjala's

asamprajnatha samAdhi

>>

That is exactly correct. Not only is this

observation made by Prabhujis in this forum but by some of the

greatest Advaitic PutrvaAcharyas.

In the writings of a host of Great Advaitins such as Sri Vidyaranya,

Sri Madhusudana Saraswati etc the terms Asamprajnata Samadhi,

Nirbija Samadhi, Nirodha Samadhi that are found in the Yoga Shastras

are used as synonyms of Nirvikalpa Samadhi on the Atman.

An example:

Sri SureshvaraCharya has said in The Brihardaranyaka Upanishad

Bhasya Vartika :

>>

This (Nirvikalpa Samadhi/Asamprjanata Samadhi)is the means that is

enjoined with regard

everywhere in the Upanishads for the dawn of Realization of the

import of Mahavakyas such as TatvamAsi.

>>

My *understanding* on NS is this:

=====Quote========================================================

Nirvikalpa Samadhi is prescribed not as an independent pramana but

as an important means to know the import of the Mahavakyas and

thereby dawn of Realization

=====End Quote=======================================================

I believe a lot of questions you have asked might be clarified if we

approach NS from the perspective above.

more details to follow..

regards

Sundar Rajan

February 19, 2005

Namaste Kathirasanji.

Please see within .

_________________________

....> I have no objections if Samadhi is interpreted as how you have

done in

> the above. This is exactly what i am saying. But why do you have to

> get into Samadhi when you can know that 'I am Samadhi'? For example

> why must a 'wave' get into 'water' to know that it is water? It is

> already water.

[i never said samAdhi is a 'necessary' means. I only cautioned

against decrying 'samAdhi' as inconsequential experience. Thanks for

sharing my understanding of samAdhi. A wave by getting into water

can lose its separate identity and know that it is one with the ocean

as water. Then, 'I am the ocean' understanding takes over without

any iota of 'I am the wave' thought.]

______________________________

>

> Shravana is NOT an action. The functions of the Jnana Indriyas are

not

> Karmas. They bring you knowledge. In fact you have no choice over

the

> operation of the Jnana Indriyas. It just keeps on going for a

> normal/average person even if you don't like it. This could be the

> reason for the lack of appreciation for Vastu Tantra. I humbly

request

> you to spend a little more time on this subject to better understand

> what Vastu Tantra is. If you had understood you would not have

called

> Shravana an action.

[Thanks for the tip. I will certainly endeavour my best to improve

my understanding here. However, I believe it would not be out of

place for me to point out the following:

1. I have heard, if epiphany or revelation is meant by shravana, it

is not an action.

2. In the shravana of advaita, there is a deliberate preparation

before the listening and contemplation/reflection afterwards.

3. Shravana, in fact, is a compendium of all these processes. It is

not simply hearing per se.

4. It is the jijnAsu who listens and there is a desire to listen. To

my mind, it is therefore an action. May be I am wrong and misguided

in thinking so.

5. Besides, if hearing is not an action, then can't seeing (reading)

also be placed in the same category?

6. In this electronic age, the whole audio-visual media will then

stake a claim to this NON-ACTION realm of vastu tantra. Where do we

then draw a line between action and non-action. (I remember we

touched upon this topic some time back in reference to a post by our

Dennisji.)

I would request experts in our List to kindly give their views in

this regard (i.e. shravana being not an action).]

__________

>

> Dissimilarities between Sleep & Samadhi would be:

>

> 1. You get an unique experience in Samadhi nothing like what has

been

> experienced before.

> 2. You can get voluntarily into Samadhi by effort.

> 3. There is still a trace of Ahankara/mind (ego) in Samadhi to

> describe the owned experience after coming out of it.

[Kathirasanji, you are again looking at samAdhi as experienced by so-

called 'practioners'. Please consider samAdhi the way we both

understand. Our knowledge of it is purely academic. Are we then

qualified to list points 1, 2 and 3 mentioned by you above.

To my eyes, the samAdhi of PY or, for that matter, the ultimate

Kundalini 'experience' of tantra is the wave entering the ocean where

there is no more any scope for ego. That is an effortless merger.

The one who dwells on his sAkshitwam will also inescapably end up in

the same samAdhi. Calling it an experience, therefore, is

outrageous. If we can accept this, we have then reconciled the great

minds of Sankara and Patanjali.]

_____________________

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

February 20, 2005

Namaste,

A few thoughts that occurred on this thread:

The conventional and traditional stand, where the word

action = karma, is in

the sense of the Karma Kanda, which is waived for Sanyasis.

A broader stand is in the Gita sense:

na hi dehabhR^ita shakyaM tyaktuM karmANyasheShataH [18:11]

"Verily, it is not possible for an embodied being to abandon actions

completely..."

The very words Jnana Yoga [3:3], Jnana Yajna [18:70]

and Jnana Tapas [4:10] in the Gita indicate the broader context

because all

are actions, but not of the ‘nitya or naimittika’ kind.

Some call the latter Indirect Path, and the

former the Sanyasis'

Direct Path.

Ramana Maharshi's Upadeshasaram [#20] has

synthesized these in:

hR^itsthale manaH svasthatA kriyA |

bhakti yoga bodhAH cha nishchitam.h ||

Absorption in the heart of being,

Whence we sprang,

Is the path of action, of devotion,

Of union and of knowledge.

http://www.ramana-maharshi.org/music/upadesa.htm

which corresponds to Gita 6:25-28.

This site has the conventional teaching:

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/realis/realis_fore.html

till

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/realis/realis_7.html

I am not sure why Grihasthas should be quibbling about

sanyasis' path,

when Gita is available for all!

Regards,

Sunder

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

>

> [Thanks for the tip. I will certainly endeavour my best to improve

> my understanding here. However, I believe it would not be out of

> place for me to point out the following:

>

> 1. I have heard, if epiphany or revelation is meant by shravana, it

> is not an action.

>

> 2. In the shravana of advaita, there is a deliberate preparation

> before the listening and contemplation/reflection afterwards.

>

> 3. Shravana, in fact, is a compendium of all these processes. It is

> not simply hearing per se.

>

> 4. It is the jijnAsu who listens and there is a desire to listen. To

> my mind, it is therefore an action. May be I am wrong and misguided

> in thinking so.

>

> 5. Besides, if hearing is not an action, then can't seeing (reading)

> also be placed in the same category?

>

> 6. In this electronic age, the whole audio-visual media will then

> stake a claim to this NON-ACTION realm of vastu tantra. Where do we

> then draw a line between action and non-action. (I remember we

> touched upon this topic some time back in reference to a post by our

> Dennisji.)

>

February 20, 2005

Very well reasoned and explained by Nairji.

The difference between sleep and Nirvikalpa Samadhi and Sahaj Samadhi has

been explained many times on the list. I have stayed out of the discussion

recently but Sundar Rajan-ji did quote me from 4 years ago on the matter. I

have written about this topic a few times. Sri Ramana has spoken about

sleep, Nirvikalpa Samadhi, and Sahaj Samadhi and Sunderji has quoted Sri

Ramana and that has been discussed before as well.

The difference between sleep and Nirvikalpa Samadhi is as follows.

When sleep overtakes, one becomes unconscious. When one comes out, one feels

good but does not know what happened. There is an appearance of

discontinuity in consciousness although one can infer that one did exist in

the deep sleep state..

In Nirvikalpa Samadhi, the individual identity consciously merges with the

deep sleep state and realizes with immediacy its nature as Self as

Sat-Chit-Ananda-Nityam-Poornum. These are not mere words. These are sages'

way of referring to immediate and direct knowledge of the Self by and

through It Self. Existence without support, Self-Knowledge, Self-Bliss,

Eternal and Whole nature of Being as One without a second. Coming out

consciously into the ordinary state, a person sees that even in

individuality it is permeated with That! The Mahavakya, "Aham Brahamasmi"

and other Mahavakyas then make perfect sense whereas before they may have

been hazy.

Nirvikalpa Samadhi reveals the continuity of consciousness and in that way

it is different than deep sleep. Nirvikalpa Samadhi is really the Deep

Awake. The Deep Awake in Nirvikalpa is Self that exists in all states of

consciousness and in which all states of consciousness are resolved.

Now one can debate about the merits of NS etc., and call it experience only

or whatever. It actually reveals That which is the foundation of all

experiences at all times, the ground of pure Being. A great yogi can

actually understand what the scriptures mean and what the Mahavakyas are

directly pointing to. So we see that both help each other. Understanding the

scriptures fully with whatever means one has, helps to realize the Self.

Realizing the Self makes the essential meaning of scriptures clear and

transparent. That was the case with Sri RAmana.

Love to all

Harsha

_____

Madathil Rajendran Nair [madathilnair]

Saturday, February 19, 2005 1:44 AM

advaitin

Re: Nirvikalpa samAdhi in shankara's advaita vEdAnta-

PART-I