Reply to Praveen's questions on YogAmRRitam #s. 2 and 4.

[Guest guest]

Namaste

I try to answer here two of Praveen’s questions, one on

YogAmRRitaM -2 and the other on YogAmRRitaM – 4.

 

Praveen:

Sorry, I'm lagging in your classes. Could you pls clarify a

basic doubt of

mine on the above? In no.15, when you say ‘dependent

nature of samadhi’, what is it

meant to be dependent on... doer's characteristics, or

means followed, etc?

 

VK: #15 is quoted below.

 

samAdhipAratantryAchcha tripuTI vikalA hi dhIH .

parAgatisturyaturyA svamAtrasyAvasheShataH .. 15 ..

 

Because of the dependent nature of samAdhi, the three-fold

nature of the intellect (in terms of knower, known and

knowledge) is ineffective. The Absolute Goal that

‘transcends even the fourth’ ( = ‘turya-turyA’ ?) consists

of the Self alone.

 

Here the ‘dependence’ mentioned is on the ‘forced control

of the mind’ by the buddhi. There is an activity here in

terms of ‘holding the reins of the mind’ by the buddhi. And

thus the buddhi unifies itself in the thought of brahman

thus aiming at the unity of the knower, knowledge and the

known. But when the buddhi loses its reins, which it

would, because of the fact that any action started has to

end, the samadhi itself is disturbed. On the other hand,

being in brahman (brahma-bhAva), namely, the turya-turya,

is not something which starts and ends; it is always so.

Only we have to realise it by self-enquiry. This

realisation again is like finding ‘the tenth man’; it is

not an event that ‘happens’; you were and are and will be

always ‘the tenth man’.

 

Another way of seeing this is to recognise that in the

ordinary samAdhi, there is a distinction between the mind

which is forced to be still and the brahman which is

meditated on. In the Atmaikya-j~nAna-yoga, the mind is one

with brahman.

 

 

____

Praveen’s 2nd question is on shloka No.39:

pratyakShaH sarva-bhUteShu na tu tatra hyavasthitaH .

bhUtAni neshvarasthAni tasmAtteShAmasatyatA .. 39 ..

 

He is certainly present in all beings; but He is not

stationed in them. Nor are the Beings in the Lord and

hence their unreality.

 

Praveen: Explain the last words “and hence their

unreality”; particularly the word “hence”.

 

VK: Here we have to go back to a Gita shloka Ch.9: #4

(second line) and #5 (first line). These lines are:

 

matsthAni sarva-bhUtAni na chAhaM teshvavasthitaH //

na cha matsthAni bhUtAni pashya me yogamaishvaraM /

 

Meaning: All Beings are in Me. But I am not in them. Nor

are the Beings in Me. Know ye this divine magic of Mine!

 

The apparent contradiction in this sequence of statements,

saying “All Beings are in Me” and in the same breath

saying “Nor are the Beings in Me” is a point of great

importance in understanding the Lord and His divine words

in the Gita. Instead of taking time here to explain this I

shall only refer you to

 

http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m14700.html

 

Now you should be able to understand ‘their unreality’,

meaning ‘the unreality of the Beings’ and also the word

‘hence’. Taking the analogy of the movie screen and the

projected images of the above post (m14700) you will see

that the images are unreal, since they are there only by

the magic of the screen which is able to interrupt the rays

of the projection and show you fictitious (=untrue in the

absolute sense) pictures on the screen.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins on this list and to my father

profvk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

New on my website, particularly for beginners in Hindu philosophy:

 

Hinduism for the next generation:

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/gohitvip/contentsbeach10.html

 

Free will and Divine will - a dialogue:

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/HNG/FWDW.html

[Guest guest]

Namaste

 

In continuation of the above post, one may also see

 

http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m2349.html

 

in connection with the answer to Praveen's 2nd question.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins on this list and to my father.

profvk