Knowledge and Meditation

[Guest guest]

Dear friends,

 

There seems to be a fundamental distinction between

Knowledge and Meditation in Advaita Vedanta. Meditation is considered to be an

act of dwelling mentally on something, depending on human will. Meditation can

be done, not done, or done in a different way. Knowledge, on the other hand,

is the result of the application of a valid means of cognition, and bears on

the true nature of an already existent object. Knowledge, therefore, does not

fall within the province of what can be done, not done or done in a

different way. It is neither conditioned by a command nor by the human will, ,

but by the nature of an already-existent entity. Thus, when even knowledge is

mental, there is a very great difference between knowledge and a deliberate

mental act like meditation. Superimposing deliberately the idea of the Absolute

on Name is an enjoined act, dependent on the will of the man. So this is

evidently a meditation. However, the vision of the Self

is not a matter of meditation but of knowledge in accordance with the reality,

as the knowledge of the one results in the knowledge of the all. He who thinks

that liberation is something that has to be literally produced has the idea of

liberation that would depend on the action of the body, speech and mind, which

is also true of the idea that the soul has to undergo transformation to become

the Absolute. Liberation, viewed in this context, would be, surely,

impermanent, for we find in the world that nothing is permanent which can only

come into being through transformation. We cannot conceive of liberation as

dependent on action in the sense of something that needs to be obtained.

Liberation is only figuratively said to be a result produced by knowledge,

because knowledge puts an end to the obstructions caused by ignorance. But

ignorance cannot be brought to an end by any form of action. Nor can one

conceive of any other obstruction to liberation apart from ignorance,

of a kind that might be removed by action, for liberation is eternal, and is

nothing other than the true nature of the seeker himself. Awakening, through

cancellation of wrong knowledge, to the fact that one is not an individual able

to perform action, puts an end to action. The liberation that is brought by

enlightenment is called by the learned ' immediate liberation', because it

comes simultaneously with the metaphysical knowledge. It is also called

liberation while one is still alive, because from the empirical standpoint, it

appears to be acquired by someone still living, and to last as long as life

lasts. His remaining in the Absolute as the Absolute on the death of the body,

is referred to as videha- mukthi.

 

In the context of this radical thought

in Advaita on Knowledge as something beyond the categories of time, space and

causation, as something eternally existent, the stream of individual existence

being declared to be an unqualified delusion, what relevance does meditation

involving a volitional activity on the part of a psychosomatic apparatus,

passing for a jiva, have in the scheme of liberation? There is also this

somewhat confusing idea in the scriptures as regards the fact of someone

attaining metaphysical knowledge, renouncing all action taking to sanyasahood,

as action is incompatible with knowledge. When one attains the metaphysical

knowledge, where is the need to renounce action and taking to the life of a

renunciant, as in the light of knowledge all actions, though performed, are

not performed, like the actions performed in a dream. In the scriptures there

is very much the emphasis on the need to renounce action

as a prerequisite to the attainment of liberation, as action is antagonistic

to knowledge, the sanyasahood providing this opportunity. There is a tacit idea

inferable in the scriptures that sanyasahood is itself tantamount to

knowledge. Or, do the scriptures use the term knowledge to refer merely to the

path of knowledge as different from the transcendental Knowledge of the Self

beyond the pale of activity. Sanyasahood should at best refer to a convenient

mode of living being congenial to spiritual life as different from the life of

the world involving many distractions. In the scriptures there seems to be a

mixture of the concept of knowledge being relatable to the transcendental

Self, and knowledge as a path. Further, the term action seems to refer to

certain ceremonies that used to be performed in those days, as different from

action involving the idea of metaphysical ignorance of the one Self, which is

pure awareness. The term action should be viewed only

in the latter context to have a philosophical understanding of the ideas of

action and inaction etc. Swamy Nikhilananda, in his translation of the

Upanishads with the commentary of Sankara, says that the symbolic meditations

referred to in the Upanishads have no relevance in the modern context. Would

the knowledgeable members of this group be kind enough to expatiate upon this

subject offering their clarification?

 

With warm regards,

 

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran>

wrote:

>

> Dear friends,

>

> There seems to be a fundamental

distinction between Knowledge and Meditation in Advaita Vedanta.

Meditation is considered to be an act of dwelling mentally on

something, depending on human will. Meditation can be done, not

done, or done in a different way. Knowledge, on the other hand, is

the result of the application of a valid means of cognition, and

bears on the true nature of an already existent object. Knowledge,

therefore, does not fall within the province of what can be done,

not done or done in a different way. It is neither conditioned by a

command nor by the human will, , but by the nature of an already-

existent entity. Thus, when even knowledge is mental, there is a

very great difference between knowledge and a deliberate mental act

like meditation. Superimposing deliberately the idea of the Absolute

on Name is an enjoined act, dependent on the will of the man. So

this is evidently a meditation. However, the vision of the Self

> is not a matter of meditation but of knowledge in accordance with

the reality, as the knowledge of the one results in the knowledge of

the all. He who thinks that liberation is something that has to be

literally produced has the idea of liberation that would depend on

the action of the body, speech and mind, which is also true of the

idea that the soul has to undergo transformation to become the

Absolute. Liberation, viewed in this context, would be, surely,

impermanent, for we find in the world that nothing is permanent

which can only come into being through transformation. We cannot

conceive of liberation as dependent on action in the sense of

something that needs to be obtained. Liberation is only figuratively

said to be a result produced by knowledge, because knowledge puts an

end to the obstructions caused by ignorance. But ignorance cannot be

brought to an end by any form of action. Nor can one conceive of any

other obstruction to liberation apart from ignorance,

> of a kind that might be removed by action, for liberation is

eternal, and is nothing other than the true nature of the seeker

himself. Awakening, through cancellation of wrong knowledge, to the

fact that one is not an individual able to perform action, puts an

end to action. The liberation that is brought by enlightenment is

called by the learned ' immediate liberation', because it comes

simultaneously with the metaphysical knowledge. It is also called

liberation while one is still alive, because from the empirical

standpoint, it appears to be acquired by someone still living, and

to last as long as life lasts. His remaining in the Absolute as the

Absolute on the death of the body, is referred to as videha- mukthi.

>

> In the context of this

radical thought in Advaita on Knowledge as something beyond the

categories of time, space and causation, as something eternally

existent, the stream of individual existence being declared to be an

unqualified delusion, what relevance does meditation involving a

volitional activity on the part of a psychosomatic apparatus,

passing for a jiva, have in the scheme of liberation? There is also

this somewhat confusing idea in the scriptures as regards the fact

of someone attaining metaphysical knowledge, renouncing all action

taking to sanyasahood, as action is incompatible with knowledge.

When one attains the metaphysical knowledge, where is the need to

renounce action and taking to the life of a renunciant, as in the

light of knowledge all actions, though performed, are not

performed, like the actions performed in a dream. In the scriptures

there is very much the emphasis on the need to renounce action

> as a prerequisite to the attainment of liberation, as action is

antagonistic to knowledge, the sanyasahood providing this

opportunity. There is a tacit idea inferable in the scriptures that

sanyasahood is itself tantamount to knowledge. Or, do the scriptures

use the term knowledge to refer merely to the path of knowledge as

different from the transcendental Knowledge of the Self beyond the

pale of activity. Sanyasahood should at best refer to a convenient

mode of living being congenial to spiritual life as different from

the life of the world involving many distractions. In the

scriptures there seems to be a mixture of the concept of knowledge

being relatable to the transcendental Self, and knowledge as a path.

Further, the term action seems to refer to certain ceremonies that

used to be performed in those days, as different from action

involving the idea of metaphysical ignorance of the one Self, which

is pure awareness. The term action should be viewed only

> in the latter context to have a philosophical understanding of

the ideas of action and inaction etc. Swamy Nikhilananda, in his

translation of the Upanishads with the commentary of Sankara, says

that the symbolic meditations referred to in the Upanishads have no

relevance in the modern context. Would the knowledgeable members of

this group be kind enough to expatiate upon this subject offering

their clarification?

>

> With warm regards,

>

> Sankarraman

 

 

Namaste,

 

interesting message......

 

only few thoughts to this....

 

what is the "use" of knowledge or meditation....when one don't

even "know"....."who" is doing meditation....or "who" is

having.......or dreaming to have.....knowledge.....?

 

Regards and peace

 

Marc

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Shankarramanji,

 

Namaste,

 

I would like to express my views on this very

interesting mail.

 

--- Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran wrote:

> Dear friends,

>

> There seems to be a

> fundamental distinction between Knowledge and

> Meditation in Advaita Vedanta. Meditation is

> considered to be an act of dwelling mentally on

> something, depending on human will. Meditation can

> be done, not done, or done in a different way.

> Knowledge, on the other hand, is the result of the

> application of a valid means of cognition, and bears

> on the true nature of an already existent object.

> Knowledge, therefore, does not fall within the

> province of what can be done, not done or done in

> a different way.

 

Coment:

 

In the upanishads it is said that Atma eva are

dristavyaha Shrotavyo mantavyo nidhidhasitavyah

 

It is said that first one has to hear the truth, then

one has to assimilate in the mind and one should

meditate on the self to realise it. As far as my

exposure to advaita philosophy goes it says that

meditation is not mandatory for a jnana yogi to attain

liberation. But can we say that it is also one of the

path? because by deep meditation of the self one is

able to get rid of maya which obstructs the ever

shining reality in the seeker(figuratively as in case

of jnana)?

 

Superimposing

> deliberately the idea of the Absolute on Name is an

> enjoined act, dependent on the will of the man. So

> this is evidently a meditation.

 

Coment:

 

Even though superimposing of the idea of absolute on

the name it is a very efficacious method of getting

rid of ignorence. Like meditation on sacred syllabal

OM. Patanjali says in the yoga sutras tajjapa

tadarthasandhanam. One has to do the japa with the

conteplation of the meaning and ultimatley one can get

merged in the the absolute.

 

He who

> thinks that liberation is something that has to be

> literally produced has the idea of liberation that

> would depend on the action of the body, speech and

> mind, which is also true of the idea that the soul

> has to undergo transformation to become the

> Absolute.

 

Coment:

 

It is very clearly said in the scripture and the

master of advaita the liberation is not an effect

produced due to sadhana. Sri Bhagavan says in one of

his discourses that anything produced afresh is

transient. If we say that the liberation is the result

of meditation liberation will become an effect and

meditation becomes cause and again we will land up in

the net of cause and effect. Logicall any effect

cannot outlast its cause which is time bound. How can

we say the with the help of the sadhana of 10, 20 nay

an effort of lifetime will produce an eternal freedom

as its result?

 

 

Liberation is

> only figuratively said to be a result produced by

> knowledge, because knowledge puts an end to the

> obstructions caused by ignorance.

 

Coment.

 

We can accept the aforesaid view figuratively. But i

have one question to ask here. If we consider

superimposing a reality on a particular syllabal and

meditation on it a deliberate act of human will then

very self enquiry itself should be considered same.

Because unless one realises the self the sadhaka on

the jnana path has to affirm the reality and negate

the unreal and he does this with human will. How can

we differentiate meditation and the path of jnana

yoga?

 

But ignorance

> cannot be brought to an end by any form of action.

 

 

Coment:

 

Suppose if one is a follower of the janana path can't

we say that the right contemplation is a sadhana or

action which removes the ignorence?

>

> In the

> context of this radical thought in Advaita on

> Knowledge as something beyond the categories of

> time, space and causation, as something eternally

> existent, the stream of individual existence being

> declared to be an unqualified delusion, what

> relevance does meditation involving a volitional

> activity on the part of a psychosomatic apparatus,

> passing for a jiva, have in the scheme of

> liberation?

 

Coment:

 

In the process of meditation it is said that the mind

starts getting rid of various thougts produced by

different samskaras. It is said that when it become

very deep the mind will be purified in the process and

it leads to dwelling on a single thought called

savikalpa samadhi. Upto this all this takes place on

the part of psychosomatic apparatus. But then it is

said that mind itself is transcended and one attains

the nirvikalpa samadhi. Can't we take meditation as

one of the means if not a necessity for realisation?

 

 

> renouncing all action taking to sanyasahood, as

> action is incompatible with knowledge. When one

> attains the metaphysical knowledge, where is the

> need to renounce action and taking to the life of a

> renunciant, as in the light of knowledge all

> actions, though performed, are not performed, like

> the actions performed in a dream.

 

 

Coment:

 

If one attains the transcendental knowledge one need

not to take sanyasa at all. Examples are King Janaka,

Enlightened Vyadha in the Mahabharata, etc. neither

did they take formal monastic vows nor thy abandoned

their duties.

 

Or,

> do the scriptures use the term knowledge to refer

> merely to the path of knowledge as different from

> the transcendental Knowledge of the Self beyond

> the pale of activity.

Sanyasahood should at best

> refer to a convenient mode of living being congenial

> to spiritual life as different from the life of

> the world involving many distractions.

 

Coment:

 

It seems that it refer to the path of knowledge. It

semms true that Sanyasahood should at best

> refer to a convenient mode of living being congenial

> to spiritual life as different from the life of

> the world involving many distractions. But in the

scriptures emphasis is laid on the formal mostic vows

also we do not know why.

 

In the

> scriptures there seems to be a mixture of the

> concept of knowledge being relatable to the

> transcendental Self, and knowledge as a path.

 

Coment:

 

We can say that in the scriptures there is both cocept

of knowledge relatable to the self like a pharase in

mandukya karika which says -where is the bondage where

is the liberation where is the seekar etc.(not exact

reproduction) Sri Ramakrishna says that the true

knowledge of the self is beyond both the knowledge and

ignorence and at the same time there is path of

knowledge for the seekers.

> Further, the term action seems to refer to certain

> ceremonies that used to be performed in those

> days, as different from action involving the idea of

> metaphysical ignorance of the one Self, which is

> pure awareness. The term action should be viewed

> only

> in the latter context to have a philosophical

> understanding of the ideas of action and inaction

> etc.

 

Coment:

 

Can we take all the sakama karmas including the

ritualistic and mundance activites done with feeling

of the egotism the view to enjoy the fruit? as karma

which should be abandoned? In the scriptures nishkama

karma is heighly praised and even shankaracharya

advocates those to attain chitta shuddhi.

 

Comments are welcome,

 

HARI OM TAT SAT

 

Yours in the Lord,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran wrote:

 

 

> Dear friends,

>

> There seems to be a

> fundamental distinction between Knowledge and

> Meditation in Advaita Vedanta. Meditation is

> considered to be an act of dwelling mentally on

> something, depending on human will.

 

Dear Shankar Ramanji,

 

Namaste,

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi defines dhyana and self enquiry as

under:

 

Dhyana is continueous thinking on some object and the

nidhidhyasana is defined as self enquiry. As far as

the sadhaka is concerned both are same because

trinity is involved in it. Even maharshi says that

from the aspirants standpoint it is synonimus with

bhakti.

 

HARI OM TAT SAT

 

Yours in the lord,

 

Br. Vinayaka

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

br_vinayaka <vinayaka_ns wrote:

 

Dear Shankarramanji,

 

Namaste,

 

I would like to express my views on this very

interesting mail.

 

--- Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran wrote:

> Dear Vinayakaji,

Thank you for your nice response.

Perhaps, only in the light of the transcendental realm, the question of pure

apperception not involving the movement of the mind arises, till which it is

all the inevitable circus of the mind. For pure Knowledge to arise- the

question itself is a misnomer as knowledge does not admit of the concept of

arising and disappearing- a pure, choice less awareness talked about by Sri

J.Krihnamurthy seems to be necessary. This awareness does not exclude anything;

it is a state of awareness perceiving everything without distortion, the mind

not converting understanding into a goal to be attained by an individual, which

involves psychological time, an erroneous process. But our minds are very

trenchant in the dualistic way of thinking, achievement etc, involving a linear

process. We can only say, "I do not know", which does not mean that the mind is

waiting for the knowledge to happen. Maharaj asks like a

zen master: " What were you before your birth? Were you consulted in your

being born? Is there a volition to a psycho-somatic apparatus, which claims

subject hood vis-a -vis the various objects."

Yours ever in Bhaghavan

Sankarraman