On Nirvikalpa Samadhi in Yoga and Advaita

[Guest guest]

Namaste to all Advaitins,

 

 

ON THE TWO CONNOTATIONS OF THE WORD 'SAMADHI'

 

The on-going discussion on the status of samadhi in Advaita is quite

interesting, and it brings to the fore a certain misconception caused

by the use of the word 'samadhi' in different ways by two different

darshanas. We must remember that samadhi in Patanjali Yoga has a

different connotation than in Advaita Vedanta, and that when Advaita

belittles samadhi it does so targeting a Yoga conception of samadhi,

and that when it espouses samadhi, it does so from the perspective of

samadhi as seen in Advaita. Now, what are these two connotations of

samadhi.

 

"Yoga is the cessation of chitta-vrittis", thus begins the Patanjali

Yoga Sutras. In Yoga darshana, samadhi is the quiescence of the mind

when all vrittis have ceased. Yoga is closely allied to the darshana

of Samkhya. In the philosophy of Samkhya, which is dualistic,

prakriti entices purusha, and having performed her dance, she frees

him at the end of her dance so that the purusha may attain moksha.

The vrittis are nothing but prakriti, and the cessation of vrittis is

prakriti attaining quiescence in the undifferentiated state of

avyakta.

 

The key word for distinguishing the samadhi of Yoga from the samadhi

of Advaita is 'avyakta'. In Samkhya and Yoga, avyakta is the

undifferentiated state of prakriti. Yoga considers the purusha as

having attained moksha once he is free of prakriti's leela i.e., when

prakriti abides in its undifferentiated state of avyakta. Now,

according to Advaita, avyakta is nothing but deep-sleep. It is the

primordial slumber under which the soul transmigrates in samsara.

Therefore, according to Advaita, the samadhi of Yoga, which is a mere

cessation of vrittis, is nothing but a trance wherein the soul abides

in its primordial sleep.

 

Shankara speaks about it thus in the BSB (I.IV.i.3):

 

"Without that latent state, the absence of birth for the freed souls

cannot be explained. Why? Because liberation comes when the potential

power (of Maya) is burnt away by knowledge. The potential power,

constituted by nescience, is mentioned by the word avyakta

(unmanifest). It rests on God, and is comparable to magic. It is a

kind of deep slumber in which the transmigrating souls sleep without

any consciousness of their real nature. (Br.III.viii.11)."

 

 

It is in this context that both Gaudapada and Shankara warn against

the sadhaka merging into peace, which is a state they term

as 'sleep'. I quote here from the Karika (Advaita-Prakarana):

 

Verse 42: "With the help of that process one should bring under

discipline the mind that remains dispersed amidst objects of desire

and enjoyment; and one should bring it under control even when it is

in full peace in sleep, for sleep is as bad as desire."

 

Shankara explains: "Moreover, laya means that in which anything gets

merged, i.e., sleep. Though the mind be suprasannam, very peaceful,

i.e., free from effort; laye, in that sleep; still 'it should be

brought under discipline' – this much has to be supplied. Should it

be asked, 'If it is fully at peace, why should it be disciplined?'

the answer is: 'Since layah tatha, sleep, is as much a source of

evil; yatha kamah, as desire is.' So the idea implied is this: As the

mind engaged in objects is to be controlled, so also is the mind in

sleep to be disciplined."

 

 

Now what about samadhi in Advaita? In Advaita, samadhi is not a mere

contrivance to still the mind, but is a means for a sadhaka with

middling qualities to get established as a stitha prajnya. Before we

speak about nirvikalpa samadhi in Advaita, it is necessary to get the

context for it in the proper place.

 

 

THE SUPREME PATH OF ADVAITA IS ASPARSA

 

In Advaita, moksha is not the result of karma. It is not something

attained. It is what is. But what is, is not seen by the jiva limited

by avidya. When the jiva sees the Truth, it sees what is, and it sees

that its self is Brahman. That very seeing is the dissolution of the

non-seeingness of the jiva, and the dissolution of the jiva itself as

an individuated being. It is the waking up to the Truth. It is

pratyabhijna - the recognition of what always was, is, and will be. I

do not know the Sanskrit word that is used in Advaita

for 'realisation', but the word pratyabhijna - recognition - seems to

convey it quite admirably.

 

The Advaita realisation is effortless and natural. It is called

sahaja samadhi, the effortless eternal vision of non-duality. There

is nothing here to be rejected, no state to go into, and no state

that is different than another. It is not something that was

attained, it is not something that was ever lost, and not something

to be gained.

 

Why does every jiva not have this pratyabhijna? If we must attempt an

answer to this question, then it can only be something like this:

There is no pratyabhijna because the jiva is asleep. But sleep is

nothing but not being awake i.e., not recognising. I'm afraid the

answer cannot be anything other than a tautology because that very

lack of pratyabhijna is nothing but avidya, the primordial deep sleep

of the jiva. In the absence of this sleep, there is no jiva for It is

seeing its own Infinite Radiance.

 

The path of Advaita is not for everybody - it is for the jiva where

the scales over the eyes have almost dropped. This readiness of the

jiva for Advaita-jnyana shows up as certain characteristics in the

jiva. It is these characteristics that Shankara lays down as the four-

fold qualifications for a sadhaka on the asparsa path of Advaita.

 

 

THE CONTEXT OF SAMADHI IN ADVAITA

 

How many sadhakas are there in this Kali Yuga that have absolute

vairagya for everything here and hereafter including the highest

world of Brahmaloka? I'm afraid most of us are not even free of

attachments for things like increments and promotions in the

workplace! Most of us are attached to our families, we have our

desires for wealth and objects, we are not yet completely free of the

lure of feminine charm. There is nothing wrong with all this except

that we need to recognise that we are not yet ready for the supreme

path of Advaita. We are on the road somewhere, but we are not at that

junction where Advaita Vedanta is initiating us effortlessly into the

deeper mysteries. My pranams to those that are there, but I suspect

that the majority of us are somewhere else. But that somewhere else

is also a road that leads to the same goal. If I travel by train to

Delhi and then take a flight from Delhi to Simla, my journey by rail

is not leading to another destination even though the destination of

the train is Delhi and not Simla. I may be sitting in a slower

vehicle, my journey may be taking longer and may be more tedious, but

I am still moving along to the same destination. How shall I go

faster when my means are somewhat limited? You see, I have not the

money to take a flight all the way from Mumbai to Simla. Likewise,

without this supreme vairagya, I have not the means to take fully to

the supreme path of Advaita. Subtle desires surreptitiously rob my

understanding and often present even Shankara's words through the

weave of my own raga. How do I proceed from here with all my

limitations and attachments and desires? What use is it repeating

again and again about a means that I am not fit for?

 

What use is a boat to a man that is stranded on a mountaintop? What

shall he do with a guidebook that tells him how to build a raft or

set sail over the seas?

 

The question of samadhi in Advaita must be seen in the light of the

pre-qualification of the sadhaka. The highly qualified sadhaka is

already there - the Grace of Brahman effortlessly reveals for him the

Eternal Light. For him pratyabhijna - recognition of the Eternal

Truth - takes place merely by hearing (shravana) the mahavakhyas.

This is the asparsa Yoga of Advaita which is untraceable

and 'contactless'. It is not related to anything. But there are

sadhakas that are a little less pure, who still have traces of subtle

desires that rob their discrimination ever so slightly but surely. It

is for these sadhakas that Advaita prescribes a path where samadhi

becomes of relevance. We may refer to Gaudapada's Karika (Advaita-

Prakarana) to see that it is like this:

 

Verse 39: "The Yoga that is familiarly referred to as 'contactless'

is difficult to be comprehended by anyone of the Yogis. For those

Yogis, who apprehend fear where there is no fear, are afraid of it."

 

Verse 40: "For all these Yogis, fearlessness, the removal of misery,

knowledge (of the Self), and everlasting peace are dependent on the

control of the mind."

 

Verse 41: "Just as an ocean can be emptied with the help of the tip

of a blade of Kusa grass that can hold just a drop, so also can the

control of the mind be brought about by absence of (mental)

depression."

 

 

NIRVIKALPA SAMADHI IN ADVAITA IS NOT MERE MIND-CONTROL

 

How does Nirvikalpa Samadhi fit into the scheme of Advaita?

 

Actually, there is no such thing as mere mind-control in Advaita.

Mind-control arises in Advaita only as a subsidiary means for

attaining jnyana. Amongst the three steps of shravana, manana and

nidhidhyasana, it is only the first that is necessary if the sadhaka

truly has the two qualifications of supreme discrimination and

supreme vairagya. But if there is even a little dilution in these two

attributes, then the other two steps become necessary. For a sadhaka

that has done manana on the sruti and been convinced of its truth,

mind-control becomes necessary so that the natural proclivity of the

mind to go outward and be dispersed amongst objects is checked. Mind-

control becomes necessary as a condition to attain an insight into

the meaning of THAT which is the goal of 'neti, neti'.

 

What is the significance of 'neti, neti' in Advaita? It is to know

THAT by knowing which all this is known. It is to know the

Substratum, the Material Cause, from which all this is not different.

In this world that is projected by Brahman's vikshepa shakti, the

play of forms conceals the substratum. It is hidden by the avarana

shakti of the self-same Maya that projects the universe. Since the

Substratum lies hidden from the unseeing eye of the sadhaka, it is to

be known by negating the forms. This is achieved by nirvikalpa

samadhi. Thus, nirvikalpa samadhi has for its goal not merely the

stilling of the mind, or the cessation of vrittis, but Brahman that

is the Substratum of the universe. The stilling of the mind is here

not the goal, but is only a means to 'reach' THAT which the intellect

has already been convinced of, through shravana and manana, as the

Supreme Truth. The nirvikalpa samadhi of Advaita is not sleep, but is

the vision of the formless Substratum attained by negating all that

is seen as not being the Substratum. Nirvikalpa samadhi is the

culmination of the negation of 'not this, not this' employed by the

sruti. It is the wakeful directedness of nidhidhyasana to allow the

pratyabhijna of Brahman to shine through. It is in this context that

nirvikalpa samadhi must be seen in Advaita. I quote from Shankara's

Vivekachudamani to substantiate this view:

 

 

Verse 354: "Such imaginations as 'thou, 'I', or 'this' take place

through the defects of the buddhi. But when the Paramatman, the

Absolute, the One without a second manifests Itself in Samadhi, all

such imaginations are dissolved for the aspirant, through the

realisation of the Truth of Brahman."

 

Verse 365: "By the Nirvikalpa Samadhi the truth of Brahman is clearly

and definitely realized, but not otherwise, for then the mind, being

unstable by nature, is apt to be mixed up with other perceptions."

 

 

 

THERE IS ANOTHER CONTEXT OF MIND-CONTROL IN ADVAITA SADHANA

 

There is however another context in which mind-control may become

necessary in Advaita sadhana. One might have seen the Truth, even

beheld it, but may not be able to retain the spontaneous and unbroken

awareness of it due to strong vasanas persisting from the past. Such

sadhakas are sometimes called Ishvarakotis (reference: Sri

Ramakrishna Paramahamsa), those for whom the Truth shines but the

vasanas keep them away from abiding in It. It is in their context

that mind-control is advocated as the last stage of sadhana. The

Karika (Advaita-Prakarana) speaks of this stage of sadhana as follows:

 

 

Verse 44: "One should wake up the mind merged in deep sleep; one

should bring the dispersed mind into tranquillity again; one should

know when the mind is tinged with desire (and is in a state of

latency). One should not disturb the mind established in equipoise."

 

Verse 45: "One should not enjoy happiness in that state; but one

should become unattached through the use of discrimination. When the

mind, established in steadiness, wants to issue out, one should

concentrate it with diligence."

 

Vesre 46: "When the mind does not become lost nor is scattered, when

it is motionless and does not appear in the form of objects, then it

becomes Brahman."

 

 

Both Adi Shankara and Sri Ramana Maharshi speak about samadhi in

different contexts of instruction. It is futile to pick out any one

statement made by these great jnyanis and try to demonstrate a

particular thesis without considering the context of those statements.

 

 

With regards,

Chittaranjan

__________________

 

 

A postscript:

 

I shall restrain myself from being drawn into an argument about the

authorship of Vivekachudamani. For me, there is not the least doubt

that Adi Shankara is the author of this great work, and I remain

unaffected by the two reasons proffered by those that espouse the

view that Shankara is not the author of this book. Firstly, I see no

conflict between the perspectives of Vivekachudamani and the

prasthana traya bhashyas, and I see no reason why I should be

persuaded to follow the line of those that see contradictions between

them. As for the second argument - that the language of the

Vivekachudamani is at variance with some other works of Shankara – I

humbly submit that for me Adi Shankara is none other than the avatara

of Lord Shankara, the Supreme Being out of whose damaru has come out

all the arts and vidyas of the world, and I cannot find it in my

heart to restrict the Acharya's style within any set paradigm. I

accept the entire range of Shankara's writings including

Soundaryalahari, Daksinamurthy Stotra, Bhajagovindam, as also many

other works attributed to him. Indeed I accept even the following

erotic poem as having come from the pen of Shankara when he was for a

time inhabiting the body of King Amaruka to learn the art of kama

shastra:

 

My breasts at first

little buds

grew plump under your hands.

My speech

instructed by yours

lost its native simplicity.

What shall I do?

These arms

left my old nursemaid's neck

to creep around yours,

but you no longer

set foot in the neighbourhood.

 

(From the 'Amarushataka', translated by Schelling)

 

Such is the breadth and richness of Shankara's writings that I find

it somewhat presumptuous on the part of those that seek to put a

limited boundary on his style. Lastly, I hope I am not doing violence

to the sensibilities of Advaitins by quoting here an erotic poem.

 

Chittaranjan