Sri Shankaracharya on Sushupti and Moksha

August 22, 2006

Dear Advaitins,

While going thru book entitled God realisation thru reason I came

across a statement made by acharya. It is as under

Shanakra in his commentary on the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad has

insisted that deep sleep is the experience of moksha itself. (IV.iii

34)

In the book it is written that Samadhi and Sushupti are one and the

same and mere chitta vritti nirodha cannot give realisation without

the atma vichara on the mahavakya as there is no mind in the both

the states.

Swami Vivekananda has said on the same topic in his raja yoga

lectures which is as under

But it does not end here. There is a still higher plane upon which

the mind can work. It can go beyond consciousness. Just as

unconscious work is beneath consciousness, so there is another work

which is above consciousness, and which also is not accompanied with

the feeling of egoism. The feeling of egoism is only on the middle

plane. When the mind is above or below that line, there is no

feeling of "I", and yet the mind works. When the mind goes beyond

this line of self - consciousness, it is called Samadhi or

superconsciousness. How, for instance, do we know that a man in

Samadhi has not gone below consciousness, has not degenerated

instead of going higher? In both cases the works are unaccompanied

with egoism. The answer is, by the effects, by the results of the

work, we know that which is below, and that which is above. When a

man goes into deep sleep, he enters a plane beneath consciousness.

He works the body all the time, he breathes, he moves the body,

perhaps, in his sleep, without any accompanying feeling of ego; he

is unconscious, and when he returns from his sleep, he is the same

man who went into it. The sum total of the knowledge which he had

before he went into the sleep remains the same; it does not increase

at all. No enlightenment comes. But when a man goes into Samadhi, if

he goes into it a fool, he comes out a sage.

What makes the difference? From one state a man comes out

the very same man that he went in, and from another state the man

comes out enlightened, a sage, a prophet, a saint, his whole

character changed, his life changed, illumined. These are the two

effects. Now the effects being different, the causes must be

different. As this illumination with which a man comes back from

Samadhi is much higher than can be got from unconsciousness, or much

higher than can be got by reasoning in a conscious state, it must,

therefore, be superconsciousness, and Samadhi is called the

superconscious state.

(Unquote)

The question is Is it impossible for an yogi to get illumination in

samadhi without atma vichara. As in the case of ramana he did pure

self enquiry and nothing else. He did not meditate on the mahavakya

that i am brahman which also a kind of vritti. As he went on deeply

concentrating on the question who am i ultimately he went to the

very source of consciousness which is nothing but atman.

But in the book it is dogmatically and explicitly stated that

practice of concentration without atmavichara cannot yeild to

moksha. Why this rigidity i could not understand.

There are many enlightend beings who have come to the knowledge of

the self purely by deep concentration and meditation. In fact in

popular branch of buddhism The zen buddhism main emphasis is laid to

push the mind beyond reson. One zen master has told that when one

meditates contineously on koans, in the extreme effort the mind is

pushed beyond the limits of reason and immediatley the kowledge

dawns. D.T. Suzuki one of the most popular enlightened masters of

zen buddhism himself has said that between zen and advaita

philosophy there is no difference.

I request learned members of the list to throw some light on this

issue.

JAI JAI RAGHUVEER SAMARTHA

Yours in the lord,

Br. vinayaka

August 22, 2006

Vinayaka <vinayaka_ns > wrote:

Dear Advaitins,

While going thru book entitled God realisation thru reason I came

across a statement made by acharya. It is as under

Shanakra in his commentary on the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad has

insisted that deep sleep is the experience of moksha itself. (IV.iii

34)

In the book it is written that Samadhi and Sushupti are one and the

same and mere chitta vritti nirodha cannot give realisation without

the atma vichara on the mahavakya as there is no mind in the both

the states.

Dear Vinayaka,

This is how I understand the implication of Sushupti and Samadhi vis-à-vis the teachings of Bhaghavan emphasizing self-enquiry as against the objective meditations on the Mahavakyas. This is not my view, but is clearly discernible from the teachings of Bhaghavan. Bhaghavan says that the meditation on the mahavakya involves Bhavana ( conceptualization ) as against self-enquiry demanding the tracing of the source of I thought, the primary thought, “I am the body,” after the rising of which all the multitudes of thoughts arise. Only on the arising of the subject of the first person, the second and third persons arise, according to Bhaghavan. In the intense process of not paying attention to the objective thoughts, the I thought which connects itself with the other thoughts, for want of such connection, collapses into the real self. It is not as if there are two selves, the one contemplating the other; but it is the realization

of the one Self, which is the sole reality behind all illusory, objective phenomena. The atma-vichara taught by Bhghavan is not a concentration on something external involving the knower-known phenomenon, but presupposes the invoking of the awareness of the Self. The verse 32 of the work, “Ulladu Narpathu,” is as follows: “Although the scriptures proclaim 'Thou art That', it is only a sign of weakness of mind to meditate 'I am That, not this', because you are eternally That. What has to be done is to investigate what one really is and remain That.” Further the following verses ( 36 and 37 ) strengthen this idea. . “Only if the thought 'I am the body' occurs will the meditation 'I am not this, I am That', help one to abide as That. Why should we for ever be thinking, 'I am That'? Is it necessary for man to go on thinking 'I am a man'? Are we not always That? The contention, 'Dualism during practice, non-dualism on Attainment', is also false. While one is

anxiously searching, as well as when one has found one's Self, who else is one but the tenth man?” As regards Samadhi being the sine qua non for the realization of the Self, Bhaghavan does not mean by Samadhi the yogic state of extinguishing thoughts, but the abidance in the Self through self-enquiry. Bhaghavan has made the clear statement that only in Samadhi one can realize one’s true Being, the states of thought casting a veil over the Self. Further, Bhaghavan has clarified that neither the waking state involving thought-process nor the deep sleep in which self-effort is impossible-as one is in the natural state in deep sleep although one might say that it is one of unconsciousness, relatively-can be of help. Only the state between waking and the onset of sleep, similarly the state between waking up from the sleep and the arising of full objectivity- is conducive to self enquiry. But one cannot proceed in this manner unless one has done intense self-enquiry

in the waking state. Regarding the equation of the deep sleep state with Samadhi, very much talked about in the book mentioned, it is the transcendental view point. The description of these things by Swamiji as one of unconsciousness and superconsciousness, in between the self-consciousness of the ego manifesting, is a scientific way of conveying things. Realization of the Self is intensely subjective and cannot be assessed by these examples even though they are relative pointers.

With respectful regards

Sankarraman

Get on board. You're invited to try the new Mail.

August 22, 2006

Vinayaka <vinayaka_ns > wrote: But in the book it is dogmatically and explicitly stated that

practice of concentration without atmavichara cannot yeild to

moksha. Why this rigidity i could not understand.

Namaskar,

This is very well explained in Panchadasi.

Jnani is not necessarily Yogi

and Yogi is not necessarily Jnani.

Panchadasi has dealt in all the

subjects related to this topic ellaborately,

which also is the experience

When a Yogi becomes Atmajnani, saints

call him Siddha.

In my personal opinion

Buddha was Yogi but not a Atmajnani and

had no Atma Vichar. He would have

otherwise, not opposed to Vedas and

not defined "Atma" arbitrarily.

I have met many Yogi-s who had gained

astonishing Siddhis and used

to be in Samadhi for many hours. During

discussion I found that they

did not know much about

Oupanishadik knowledge.. Some of them

were popular miraculous saints.

Samadhi, though recommended for

stopping the "Udantah", is not necessary

for Atmajnani. because in any condition

he does not have different experience

than "self". Let him be found doing

anything in this world. But Atmajnani

does not understand the Bheda of

Prakriti, like the Yogi understands.

Aniljee

How low will we go? Check out Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates.

August 22, 2006

advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran

wrote:

Bhaghavan has made the clear statement that only in Samadhi one

can realize one's true Being, the states of thought casting a veil

over the Self. Further, Bhaghavan has clarified that neither the

waking state involving thought-process nor the deep sleep in which

self-effort is impossible-as one is in the natural state in deep

sleep although one might say that it is one of unconsciousness,

relatively-can be of help. Only the state between waking and the

onset of sleep, similarly the state between waking up from the

sleep and the arising of full objectivity- is conducive to self

enquiry. But one cannot proceed in this manner unless one has done

intense self-enquiry

> in the waking state.

Dear Sir,

This is what i am also asserting. In the book i had mentioned author

first says about brahmanubhava and tells that everybody is

brahmanubhavis as one experiences sushupti but not brahmajnanis. He

says that first one has to experience sushupti or samadhi which is

brahmanubhava then descend or ascend or whatever! to the waking

state then reason out and contemplate that i am brahman and become

brahmajnani. Why this round about route? Why one cannot one realise

atman by simple self enquiry? Another thing as maharshi says --

only in Samadhi one can realize one's true Being, the states of

thought casting a veil over the Self

It is so simple, samadhi is THE ONLY MEANS but why the author

stresses on waking state as the only means for attaining

brahmajnana? To be frank it is impossible.

JAI JAI RAGHUVEER SAMARTHA

Yours in the lord,

Br. Vinayaka

August 22, 2006

advaitin, Anil <selfanil wrote:

Dear Anilji,

> In my personal opinion

> Buddha was Yogi but not a Atmajnani and

> had no Atma Vichar. He would have

> otherwise, not opposed to Vedas and

> not defined "Atma" arbitrarily.

I do respect your personal opinion. May i ask you to read a small

booklet entitled Bhagavan Buddha and Our heritage(Sri Ramakrishna

Maht Chennai Publicaion). Its a talk given by Swami

Ranganathanandaji Maharaj in chennai if i am not worng in 1965, who

was the President of Sri Ramakrishna Math. In that book he gives

reasons for buddha rejecting the vedas and defining atma arbitarily.

We have to see great personalities like buddha from historical

perspective and considering the conditions prevailing in the time of

their advent on earth.

>

> I have met many Yogi-s who had gained

> astonishing Siddhis and used

> to be in Samadhi for many hours. During

> discussion I found that they

> did not know much about

> Oupanishadik knowledge.. Some of them

> were popular miraculous saints.

Realisation can be had without oupanishadik knowledge. At least i

know an authentic case, a sheppered and unlettered boy realising

atman by the grace of the guru. When he was hearing the exposition

of kathopanishad by a scholar who was telling that atman resides in

every heart in the size of the thumb (wordings may not be accurate)

immediately he exclaimed this pandit is telling right thing! They

are the salt of the earth their words are nothing less than

upanishads. Ofcourse i do agree these are rare cases.

JAI JAI RAGHUVEER SAMARTHA

Yours in the lord,

Br. Vinayaka

August 22, 2006

Vinayaka <vinayaka_ns > wrote: It is so simple, samadhi is THE ONLY MEANS but why the author

stresses on waking state as the only means for attaining

brahmajnana? To be frank it is impossible.

_,_._,___ Namaskar

In my humble opinion the cause of "Vyutthan" from

Samadhi is the "Ritambhara Pajnya" , not the Brahmajnan.

"Ritambhara Prajnya" is explained in Patanjal and is root

cause of the Siddhis. This knowledge could be gained

by human efforts.

Experience of Brahmajnan is Kripa of Parmatma.

.

Guru and literature can give Parokha Jnan.

A few fortunate Mahatmas

could get it at the time of birth or when they were Shishu,

even without Samadhi experience. The example is the

Gangapur saint Shri Guru Nrisimha Saraswati, who preached

Brahmins when he was six years old. They had come for his

thread ceremoney.

Aniljee

Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Small Business.

August 24, 2006

advaitin, "Vinayaka" <vinayaka_ns wrote:

>

> Dear Advaitins,

>

> While going thru book entitled God realisation thru reason I came

> across a statement made by acharya. It is as under

>

> Shanakra in his commentary on the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad has

> insisted that deep sleep is the experience of moksha itself.

(IV.iii

> 34)

>

> In the book it is written that Samadhi and Sushupti are one and the

> same and mere chitta vritti nirodha cannot give realisation without

> the atma vichara on the mahavakya as there is no mind in the both

> the states.

Srigurubhyo NamaH

Namaste Br. Vinayaka ji,

Srigurubhyo NamaH

The purport of the ` Deep Sleep' illustration:

In the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad Bhashya (IV.iii.34) there occurs this

sentence:

"It has also been stated that identity with all, which is its nature –

its transcendent form, in which it is free from all such relative

attributes as ignorance, desire and work (avidya, kama, karma) – is

directly experienced in the state of profound sleep." (unquote)

An attempt is made here to understand the above Bhashyam:

What is it that is being spoken of there? An illustration to the

true state of the j iva, Self, Atman, is being given there. It would

be essential to remember at the outset that an illustration, an

example, is not identical with what is being compared with. An

example is cited to teach certain aspect/s of similarity/ies.

We get a clear picture of the deep sleep example from the Mandukya

Upaishad bhashyam for the Kaarikaa I.2. The relevant portion for our

discussion is the last quarter of the kaarikaa which mentions about

the residing place of praajnaa. Praajna is the individual

consciousness obtaining in deep sleep:

Objection: Why should the Unmanifested be called praaNa (vital

force)?

Answer: Because of the Vedic text, `O good-looking one, (the

individual soul conditioned by) the mind is surely tethered to (that

is to say, has for its goal) the PraaNa' (Chandogya Upanishad

VI.viii.2)

Objection: In that text the word Praana means Brahman that was

introduced as Existence in the sentence, `….in the beginning this was

Existence alone'(Chandogya VI.ii.1)

Answer: This is no valid objection, for Existence was assumed there

to be the seed (of creation). Though in that sentence the Existence-

Brahman is denoted by the word Praana, still that Existence (-

Brahman) is called Prana as well as Existence without ruling out Its

being the source of the emergence of individual beings. Had the

seedless (non-causal) state of Brahman been meant, the text would

have declared, `Not this, Not this' (Brih. Up. 4.4.22), `From which

speech turns back' (Tai.Up. 2.9)….'It is called neither existence nor

non-existence' (Bh.Gita 13.12). If Brahman in Its seedless (non-

causal) state be meant there, then the individuals that merge in It

in deep sleep and dissolution (pralaya) cannot reasonably re-emerge.

And there will be the possibility of the freed souls returning to

take birth again.(the idea is that it is experienced that those who

go into deep sleep do emerge as the same beings and continue their

vyavahara. And from pralaya jives emerge with new bodies as per

their earlier karma and continue to carry on the samsara. If deep

sleep were to be understood as `experiencing Brahman directly', this

should give liberation from samsara to every one who goes to deep

sleep for the Vedic texts say that he who experiences Brahman becomes

immortal.) (now, the crucial part of the Bhashyam that is relevant to

our discussion:

Besides, in the absence of any seed (jeeva-prasava-beeja) (of the

worldly state) to be burnt by knowledge of Brahman, KNOWLEDGE ITSELF

BECOMES USELESS. (The words of the Bhashyam are: ~jnaana-dAhya-bIja-

abhAve cha ~jnAna-Anarthakya-prasangaH) Hence Existence is referred

to as PrANa (in the Chandogya Up.), and IN ALL THE UPANISHADS IT IS

SPOKEN OF AS THE CAUSE IN ALL THE UPANISHADS BY ASSUMING IT (for the

time being) TO BE THE SEED(OF SAMSARA, WORLD). And it is because of

this (that Existence is spoken of as with-seed) It is referred to –

by REFUTING ITS CAUSAL STATE – in such Vedic texts as, `Superior to

the (other) superior imperishable (Maya) (aksharaat parataH paraH)

Mundaka II.i.2, `From which speech turns back' Taittiriya, `Not this,

Not this', etc

That Supremely real state –free from causality, relation with body

etc., and modes of waking etc., - of that very entity that is

called `PRAAJNA', will be spoken separately in its aspect as the

Turiya. The causal state, too, is verily experienced in the body,

inasmuch as an awakened man is seen to have such a recollection

as, `I did not know anything (in my deep sleep)'. (unquote)

Now a question might arise: What is the use in consulting the

Mandukya Bhashya and through that the Chandogya Upanishad in order to

arrive at the meaning of the Brihadaranyaka Bhashya sentence that is

puzzling to us? The reply is this:

1. It is most helpful to be aware of various upanishadic

sentences and bhashyas as this Brahmavidya is a composite study. The

Acharya, like an ideal teacher, is talking through all his bhashyas.

There is an `Eka-vAkyatA' in his bhashyas. For example, a teacher

would have explained a concept in great detail in the first class and

in the fourth class might skip some of the details, quite justifiably

taking for granted that the first class is well-understood and

remembered by the one attending the fourth class.

2. There is a similarity between the Brihadaranyaka and

Chandogya contexts. This is that: In both these Upanishads, this

particular aspect of teaching the bound state viz-a-viz the liberated

state is undertaken in the respective sections. To be clear: In the

Brihardaranyaka: (IV.iii.17 onwards) the waking, dream and deep sleep

states are being discussed WITH A VIEW TO TEACH HOW THE LIBERATED,

FREED, STATE WILL BE. With a view to make the aspirant, Janaka,

understand the moksha state, Sage Yajnavalkya uses the triad of

states and especially the deep sleep state. The deep sleep state

offers many similarities like, absence of duality, absence of desire,

hatred, etc., absence of all relationships, presence of sukham, etc.

Coming to the Chandogya sruti: in VI.vii onwards Sage Uddaalaka is

instructing son Shvetaketu about the various states including the

deep sleep state. He is invoking the deep sleep state analysis so as

to teach the `Alone state' of moksha, that It alone existed before

and It is the cause of the world. (This goes well with the Taittiriya

teaching that `Know the Source of all this, that is Brahman) One can

see the striking similarity between the two Upanishads in this

respect, in the sections referred, about the kind of examples the

Upanishads take in order to drive home the point. In the bhashya for

this Ch.Up.VI.vii.3 the Acharya says: Thus (in the second mantra)

having shown, demonstrated, to Shvetaketu that the sleeper-jiva's

true nature, that is the cause of the world, Uddaalaka goes on to

demonstrate that Sat is the moolam, source, cause, of the world even

through the cause-effect relationship seen in the world. (unquote).

Thus we see that the purpose of the two Upanishads is the same. The

methodology adopted is the same. The conclusion we get is:

The deep sleep state is that where, although duality is not

experienced, there is the presence of duality in a seed form. The

jiva although experiencing Brahman in deep sleep, he is not free from

avidya. The beeja is decidedly present there then. We saw in the

Mandukya bhashya above that the Acharya alluding to the jiva's waking

experience of `I did not know anything then'. No doubt there is

sukha available there. But, Anandagiri, in his gloss to the

Brihadaranyaka bhashya under discussion says: The jiva gets up from

sleep and says `I experienced joy'. This is the meaning of saying

that sukha is present in deep sleep.

Certainly, the person who comes out of Samadhi will not say `I did

not know anything'. Maybe he did not know the goings on around him

while he was in samadhi. But certainly the Atman was experienced by

him without the hindrance of the five koshas. That is the reason why

the Upanishad prescribes the yoga (Kathopanishad, Mundaka) by freeing

oneself consciously from the senses, etc. and focus on the Innermost

Self, Pratyagaatman. One cannot say that this is akin to deep sleep.

We saw enough reasons that the Acharya gives in the Mandukya bhashyam.

In conclusion, one cannot be grateful enough to Acharya Shankara for

his immaculate Bhashyams. One cannot but wonder at the clarity he

provides, his care to see that no vital information is withheld, the

aspirant is not put under confusion, difficulty, etc. If in spite of

all this one encounters problems, it is due to improper study,

studying by oneself without the aid of a proper teacher, etc. The

Acharya and the Upanishads are absolutely faultless.

Pranams to Brahmavidya. A thousand pranams to Acharya Shankara.

Pranams again and again to the Great Teachers who have brought out

the greatness of the teachings of the Upanishads and our Acharya

without distorting them.

Pranams to all sadhakas

Subbu

Om Tat Sat

August 24, 2006

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v"

<subrahmanian_v wrote:

Dear Subbuji,

Pranams,

Thank you for your enlightening reply. Eventhough i am yet to study

the shakara bhashya on the upanishads i have spent considerable time

on study of Prakarana Granthas like Vivekachudamani,

Sarvavedantasiddhanta sara sangraha etc. and i am aware of the

points which you have mentioned. I only bought the opinion of the

author because he negates these very points and proves that sushupti

is also self and nirvikalpa samadhi cannot give knowledge. Pls note

that i am not challenging achryas teachings but only trying to

understand in which context it was used by the author to prove or

disprove the point which he intends to explain.

I would like to mention the couple of methodology used by the author

with the help of shankara to arrive at certain conclusions.

> The deep sleep state is that where, although duality is not

> experienced, there is the presence of duality in a seed form. The

> jiva although experiencing Brahman in deep sleep, he is not free

from

> avidya. The beeja is decidedly present there then. We saw in the

> Mandukya bhashya above that the Acharya alluding to the jiva's

waking

> experience of `I did not know anything then'. No doubt there is

> sukha available there. But, Anandagiri, in his gloss to the

> Brihadaranyaka bhashya under discussion says: The jiva gets up

from

> sleep and says `I experienced joy'. This is the meaning of

saying

> that sukha is present in deep sleep.

He says on the above point,

Thus, then, my consciousness that in deep sleep cannot be doubted.

It is that consciousness that is now bearing witness to the fact

that this world was not experience. What could be the reason for it?

shall we suppose that a screen of ignorance, avidya invaded my

consciousness and so the world of non-self was hidden from my

consciouness? That cannot be; for, if the xcreen of ignorance were

present, it should have been known to consciouness as present before

it as a second enntity other than itself. ( If i do not see an

object before me on account of a screen, I cannot avoid seeing the

screen itself.) But this is contradicted by our experience, of which

we say, 'I did not know anything'. If ignorance were present as an

object, our verdict would be, 'I knew ignorence in deep sleep', but

this nobody says. And if i knew a second entity, then i must have

been waking or dreaming. In these states we experiecne ignorence,

but certainly not in deep sleep in which no object, gross or subtle,

dark or white is experienced, as diferent from the self.

Where then was this world? was it remaining in some subtle state,

say like a tree in seed? If it were, then, it could have been

witnessed by the ever present consciousness. Whoever hath seen the

world-seed in dreamless sleep? We say, I know nothing in sleep.

Therefore the fact that nothing other than the self existed in

sushupti is an incontrovertible conclusion.

(End of Comment)

You have opined that,

> Certainly, the person who comes out of Samadhi will not say `I did

> not know anything'. Maybe he did not know the goings on around

him

> while he was in samadhi. But certainly the Atman was experienced

by

> him without the hindrance of the five koshas. That is the reason

why

> the Upanishad prescribes the yoga (Kathopanishad, Mundaka) by

freeing

> oneself consciously from the senses, etc. and focus on the

Innermost

> Self, Pratyagaatman. One cannot say that this is akin to deep

sleep.

> We saw enough reasons that the Acharya gives in the Mandukya

bhashyam.

He says,

Vrittivismarana is the essential condition of nirvikalpa; for this

is not brought about without forgetting the vrittis. and when all

vritis are forgotten, it is the same as sushupti; as sushupti is

total forgetfulness, total non-cognition. If no knowledge can arise

in sushupti, no knowledge an arise in nirvikalpa samdhi also.

Therefore jnanasamadhi knowledge of the form I am Brahman should

have risen EARLIER by reasoning on the experience of the

chitttavritti or sushupti. Therefore, vrittinirodha in itself is not

productive of jnana any more than vrittivismarana of sushupti as

both are identical in their content.

He continues by saying

For the above reason, that is to say as it is not

itself productive of jnana, suppression of the

modification of the mind or virttinirodha does not

lead to liberation. Even if it is said that jnana will

give rise to a contineous flowof mind-modification

reflecting the nature of the self and excludes other

vrittis, finally leading to virittinirodha or samadhi

there is no objection to that. It only proves that

janana is not the result of the virittinirodha. On the

other hand, it only proves that virttinirodha might be

the result of jnana.

Regarding this, says shankara, If it is contended that nirodha might

have some other purpose, and therefore might be the subject of an

injunction over and above the knowledge of the self gained through

an understanding of the meaning of the vedic texts, even then, it is

not known to be a means for the attainment of moksha, because in the

upanishads no other means than knowledge of the self as brahman is

declared to be the means for the attainment of the summum bonum of

life.

(Unquote)

Doesnt the author contradict himself? If jnana can

lead to vrittiniroda and samadhi he says it is all

right. But he will not accept that vrittiniroda can

produce knowledge. How is that? My understanding is if

the mind is pushed to its extreme by vedantic

meditaion or self enquiry or meditating on zen koans

ultimately when it is pushed to the extreme it should

collapse and there should be complete annihilation of

that. If that happens naturally self should shine

forth as it is only the substratum isnt it?

JAI JAI RAGHUVEER SAMARTHA,

Yours in the lord,

Br. Vinayaka

August 24, 2006

advaitin, "Vinayaka" <vinayaka_ns wrote:

"he will not accept that vrittiniroda can

> produce knowledge. How is that? My understanding is if

> the mind is pushed to its extreme by vedantic

> meditaion or self enquiry or meditating on zen koans

> ultimately when it is pushed to the extreme it should

> collapse and there should be complete annihilation of

> that. If that happens naturally self should shine

> forth as it is only the substratum isnt it?"

Namaste Vinayaka-ji

Thank you for your wonderful posts. I appreciate them a lot.

Both sushupti as well as samadhi are at the level of the anandamayakosa.

The I-notion is still existent in both the states.

In sushupti there is of course no awareness of the I being in that

state - you wake up and conclude that I was in deep sleep.

In samadhi there is awareness of course and so the person is aware

that "I am in samadhi".

Both are states of bliss as they are at the level of the anandamayakosa.

The knowledge of Brahman, while being described as bliss to describe

its desirability, is not to mistaken with this - that knowledge

consists of final and total dissolution of the I-sense itself.

As long as there is duality there is no enlightenment.

When you say the "But certainly the Atman was experienced

by him without the hindrance of the five koshas." - please remember

that the atman is experienced by us even now. There is nothing that we

experience separate from atman. The atman "experience" is not another

experience in that sense. Whatever is experienced is atman lone is

brahman alone - what needs to be resolved is our ignorance in viwewing

ourselves as separate from the whole. For this you do not need samadhi

at all. In fact it is precisely for this reason that stringent yogic

practices are generally shunned by seekers of selfknowledge.

Patanjali puts it masterfully

3.8

tad apibahirangam nirbijasya

But even these this is external to that enlightnement in which the

very seed of duality ceases to exist.

and

3.50

tad vairaagyaad api dosa beeja ksaye kaivalyam.

When there is dispassion or lack of craving even for such a state of

bliss (which suggests a persistent sense of duality) which is the seed

for impurity, then there is direct realization of the nondual state.

Why should chittavrttinirodha not give rise to enlightenment? after

all it is so close? Because there is no sankalpa - no intent. I at the

very beginning need to identify that there is one and only one thing

that is keeping me from selfrealization - my own false ego-sense. The

koshas are not necessarily obstructions to Brahman in the sense that

they do not have any reality to them - we only have to understand

their nonseparateness from brahman as well. Once i identify the

suspect then i can begin atmavichara and come to vedanta and so on.

BUt without having initially identified the root problem, if i

identify MY mind as the root cause of the problem and after heroic and

superhuman efforts succeed in taming MY mind and attain samadhi - then

of course no self-knowledge or enlightenement is possible.

Ishwara gives us what we ask for and make efforts towards -right?

Atmavichara is asking Him(in the form of Guru) - who am I? why I am

here? etc

WIthout this atmavichara no jnanam is ever possible - period.

If the wave wants to know it is the ocean, it can try to get smaller

and smaller in size till it has no characteristics of a wave but as

long as it preceives that it is a wave without its waveness it does

not the ocean become. As soon as it "becomes" the ocean it ceases to

be a wave. It knows it is only water. It is nonseparate from the ocean

at all times. Then it can build up to a towering wave or even a

tsunami - its identification with the ocean or with water is complete.

I hope this clarifies.

Pranams

Shri Gurubhyo namah

Shyam

August 24, 2006

shyam_md <shyam_md > wrote: ---

Namaste Vinayaka-ji

Thank you for your wonderful posts. I appreciate them a lot.

Both sushupti as well as samadhi are at the level of the anandamayakosa.

The I-notion is still existent in both the states.

In sushupti there is of course no awareness of the I being in that

state - you wake up and conclude that I was in deep sleep.

In samadhi there is awareness of course and so the person is aware

that "I am in samadhi".

From

Sankarraman

Dear sir,

The following question raised by a devotee and the clarification given by Bhaghavan shed much light on the subject of samadhi. It all depends only on what meaning we attach to the word samadhi. If we understand it to be only one of temporary stillness of thought, we are only in the anandamya kosa. But if samadhi is used only as a tool to realize the self, we cannot dismiss its superior value. You say, "

- please remember

that the atman is experienced by us even now. There is nothing that we

experience separate from atman. The atman "experience" is not another

experience in that sense. Whatever is experienced is atman lone is

brahman alone - what needs to be resolved is our ignorance in viwewing

ourselves as separate from the whole. For this you do not need samadhi

at all. In fact it is precisely for this reason that stringent yogic

practices are generally shunned by seekers of selfknowledge." How can we take this transcendental truth for granted without the experience of self-realization. Self-enquiry also involves some yogic practice. How can throgh mere intellection one can come to any conclusion?

What is the use of samadhi and does thought subsist then?

A: Samadhi alone can reveal the truth. Thoughts cast a veil over

reality, and so it is not realized as such in states other than samadhi.

In samadhi there is only the feeling `I am' and no thoughts. The

experience of `I am' is `being still'.

Q: How can I repeat the experience of samadhi or the stillness that

I obtain here in your presence?

A: Your present experience is due to the influence of the

atmosphere in which you find yourself. Can you have it outside this

atmosphere? The experience is spasmodic. Until it becomes

permanent, practice is necessary.

Q: Is samadhi an experience of calmness or peace?

A: The tranquil clarity, which is devoid of mental turmoil, alone is

the samadhi which is the firm base for liberation. By earnestly

230

trying to destroy the deceptive mental turmoil, experience that

samadhi as the peaceful consciousness which is inner clarity.

Q: What is the difference between internal and external samadhi?

A: External samadhi is holding on to the reality while witnessing

the world, without reacting to it from within. There is the stillness

of a waveless ocean. The internal samadhi involves loss of bodyconsciousness.

Q: The mind does not sink into that state even for a second.

A: A strong conviction is necessary that `I am the Self,

transcending the mind and the phenomena.'

Q: Nevertheless, the mind proves to be an unyielding obstacle

which thwarts any attempts to sink into the Self.

A: What does it matter if the mind is active? It is so only on the

substratum of the Self. Hold the Self even during mental activities.

with respectful regards

Sankarraman

__,_._w,___

Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.

August 24, 2006

advaitin, "shyam_md" <shyam_md wrote:

Dear Sir,

You have written that

> In sushupti there is of course no awareness of the I being in that

> state - you wake up and conclude that I was in deep sleep.

> In samadhi there is awareness of course and so the person is aware

> that "I am in samadhi".

This is not nirvikalpa samadhi according to none other than

bhagavadpada himself. In the Sarvavedantasiddhanta sara sangraha he

deifnes what you say as savikalpa samadhi

822. It is called samadhi because it is helpful in leading to the

transcendent reality. It is called savikalpa which means

modification, because there is still linger the three fold

modifications of the knower, knowing and the known.

(Un quote)

Here three entities I-Knower, Knowning-Perception of being in the

state of samadhi, Known-Samadhi is still there

He Defines nirvikalpa samadhi as under

823. That stage of awareness is known as the nirvikalpa samadhi, in

which after having cast off the idea that one is the knower, one

firmaly established in that on which one contemplates.

824. It is as though the salt that has been thrown into water has

lost its seperateness, and remains in the form of water only.

825. When our individuality merges in the absolute Brahman, from

which it has emerged, it looses its sense of seperateness, and all

that remains is the one non-dual Brahman.

If this is the case why nirvikalpa samdhi cannot confer knowledge of

Brahman? and definetly it doesnt come under anandamaya kosha also.

Here acharya himself accepts that it will lead an aspirant to

realisation.

With the example of salt bhagavadpada has said that the ego is

completely lost in superconsciouness. This perfectly tallies with

the experience of Sri Ramakrishna, Swami Vivekananda who came out

enlightened by samadhi to name a few recent masters. Sri Ramakrishna

used to use the same example. He compares a man who want to know god

as a salt doll and when plunged in to the ocean of sachidananda to

find out what is beneath in no time he dissolved and became

sachidananda alone :-)

JAI JAI RAGHUVEER SAMARTHA

Yours in the lord,

Br. Vinayaka

August 24, 2006

Namaste Br. Vinayakaji:

In several of your postings in this list, you seem to believe that

the discussions in this list are rather 'dogmatic.' Here is an

example of your recent post with the thread title - "Karma Yogam."

advaitin, "Vinayaka" <vinayaka_ns wrote:

Namaste

First of all let me extend my warmest welcome to the group. Honestly

speaking this is one of the best and most catholic group in hinduism

i have ever come across. Hope you will find the threads of the

groups very useful.

------------------------

As one of the moderators of this list, I want to clarify once again

that this list is not 'catholic' with respect to the discussions

conducted here. Members do enjoy freedom to state what they believe

as long as they follow the general guidelines of the list. The list's

does cover a wider range of advaitic philosophical thoughts though

its main focus is on Sankara's advaita philosophy. This is being

stated again to change your impression and help you and other members

with similar impression to participate with an open mind.

Now let me turn my attention to the question that you have raised

below. I am of the opinion that your statements below do not provide

sufficient evidence to indicate that the author contradicts himself.

advaitin, "Vinayaka" <vinayaka_ns wrote:

>

> Doesnt the author contradict himself? If jnana can

> lead to vrittiniroda and samadhi he says it is all

> right. But he will not accept that vrittiniroda can

> produce knowledge. How is that?

------------------------

Our perceptions do vary and our understanding of any concept or

notion depends on how we perceive. It is quite possible some could

perceive contradictions and others may not see any contradiction at

all? All that I can say that such statements can never be verifiable

using logic alone.

With my warmest regards,

Ram Chandran

August 24, 2006

Pranams Vinayaka-ji

Fist of all, the terms nirvikalpa and savikalpa

samadhi are not part of the primary shruti - none of

the major Upanishad even mentions the term nirvikalpa

samadhi to the best of my knowledge and recollection

-the ashtavakra samhita is historically probably one

of the first works the word nirvikalpa occurs in..as

such any discussion on it(nirvikalpa samadhi) is never

to be considered central to the understanding of

vedanta or to atmavichara.

However, certainly we can try and understand how

samadhi is different from jnanam.

I have tried to illustrate it for you in my previous

post as well.

The atman experience is not to be understood as a

separate experience which happens upon eradication on

all mental modifications. In and through all the

mental modifications it is the atman or brahman alone

that shines.

Now nirvikalpa samadhi is possible for both a yogi and

a jnani.

A yogi wants to gain a complete cessation of mental

modifications because he identifies the mental

modifications as the source of his problem. The

culmination of his efforts at mind control is the

attainment of a temporary state where all mental

modifications or vrrtis are resolved (but the

potential to form future vrrtis still exists).

Being a temporary state, only 2 possibilities exist

for someone in nirvikalpa samadhi - he breaks out of

it or he dies. If he breaks out of it, how does he

view himself? What is the first thought that comes to

his antahkarana? His first thought will begin with an

"I" and if this particular "I" is separate from

brahman then it has not conferred knowledge.

Why? Because avidya is still existent for him.

Avidya was dormant or unmanifest for the time that he

was in nirvikalpa samadhi.

Now different from this is nirvikalpa samadhi for

someone conducting atmavichara or brahmavichara

wherein after shravam mananam and nidhidhyasanam under

the guidance of a shrotriya brahmanishta he can

certainly attain self-realization in nirvikalpa

samadhi, because he has realized he indeed is all this

- there is no seer-seen-seeing bheda anymore. Note the

words "in which after having cast off the idea that

one is the knower one firmaly established in that on

which one contemplates."

2 things - "that on which one contemplates" and "cast

off the idea that one is the knower"

BUT note that even in this case it is not the

nirvikalpa samadhi that gets him selfrealization, it

is knowledge alone. The fact that he was in nirvikalpa

samadhi is only incidental. A jnani too will come out

of a state of nirvikalpa samadhi but his thoughts will

never have his egosense I as their locus - the

body/mind complex that is, as it were, housing him

exists only for the purpose of fructifying their

residual prarabdha - his dis-identification with them

(as being separate from the whole) is both complete

and final.

A yogic practice of nirvikalpa samadhi does not

involve contemplation on Brahman as a goal nor one

does it involve an attempt to get rid of duality in

the sense of a known-knower relationship.

If it does involve both of these then it is no longer

a yogic practice, it is atmavichara and I see no

contradicition here.

Pranams

Shri Gurubhyo namah

Shyam

--- Vinayaka <vinayaka_ns > wrote:

> advaitin, "shyam_md"

> <shyam_md wrote:

>

> Dear Sir,

>

> You have written that

>

> > In sushupti there is of course no awareness of the

> I being in that

> > state - you wake up and conclude that I was in

> deep sleep.

> > In samadhi there is awareness of course and so the

> person is aware

> > that "I am in samadhi".

>

> This is not nirvikalpa samadhi according to none

> other than

> bhagavadpada himself. In the Sarvavedantasiddhanta

> sara sangraha he

> deifnes what you say as savikalpa samadhi

>

> 822. It is called samadhi because it is helpful in

> leading to the

> transcendent reality. It is called savikalpa which

> means

> modification, because there is still linger the

> three fold

> modifications of the knower, knowing and the known.

>

> (Un quote)

>

> Here three entities I-Knower, Knowning-Perception of

> being in the

> state of samadhi, Known-Samadhi is still there

>

> He Defines nirvikalpa samadhi as under

>

> 823. That stage of awareness is known as the

> nirvikalpa samadhi, in

> which after having cast off the idea that one is the

> knower, one

> firmaly established in that on which one

> contemplates.

>

> 824. It is as though the salt that has been thrown

> into water has

> lost its seperateness, and remains in the form of

> water only.

>

> 825. When our individuality merges in the absolute

> Brahman, from

> which it has emerged, it looses its sense of

> seperateness, and all

> that remains is the one non-dual Brahman.

>

> If this is the case why nirvikalpa samdhi cannot

> confer knowledge of

> Brahman? and definetly it doesnt come under

> anandamaya kosha also.

> Here acharya himself accepts that it will lead an

> aspirant to

> realisation.

>

> With the example of salt bhagavadpada has said that

> the ego is

> completely lost in superconsciouness. This perfectly

> tallies with

> the experience of Sri Ramakrishna, Swami Vivekananda

> who came out

> enlightened by samadhi to name a few recent masters.

> Sri Ramakrishna

> used to use the same example. He compares a man who

> want to know god

> as a salt doll and when plunged in to the ocean of

> sachidananda to

> find out what is beneath in no time he dissolved and

> became

> sachidananda alone :-)

>

> JAI JAI RAGHUVEER SAMARTHA

>

> Yours in the lord,

>

> Br. Vinayaka

>

August 24, 2006

Pranams Sankarramanji

Thank you for all your wonderful and ready references

to Bhagwaan's teachings - my heartfelt thanks to you

for taking the time to enable us to read His views and

thoughts as we discuss various topics here! - they are

verily a treasurehouse of vedantic thought and

teaching!

You are absolutely right.

It all depends on what one means by the term samadhi.

The term itself is more a "modern" or "neo"advaitic

origin, and easily misunderstood as a consequence.

If samadhanam, ekagrata, samahitam or even dharana -

all fairly synonymous terms indicated a

singlepointedness of mind during nidhidhyasanam, is

what is "meant" by samadhi, then I agree that without

this there is no selfknowledge.

But the general use of the term samadhi or nirvikalpa

samadhi is I think at variance from this meaning for

most people.

As you quote Bhagwaan Ramana

"What does it matter if the mind is active? It is so

only on the substratum of the Self. Hold the Self even

during mental activities"

That is precisely what i am referring to.

To have the atman "experience" it is not necessary to

remain in nirvikalpa samadhi. Every experience is an

atman experience alone - ignorance about this needs to

go.

That indeed is the greatness of a jnani.

In my humble opinion, an exalted yogi may develop the

capability of attaining nirvikalpa samadhi repeatedly,

but he cannot have that attitude of absorption in the

Self in and through every plane of physical and mental

activity without attaining selfknowledge.

Pranams

Shri Gurubhyo namah

Shyam

--- Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran > wrote:

>

> shyam_md <shyam_md > wrote:

> ---

>

> Namaste Vinayaka-ji

> Thank you for your wonderful posts. I appreciate

> them a lot.

> Both sushupti as well as samadhi are at the level

> of the anandamayakosa.

> The I-notion is still existent in both the states.

>

> In sushupti there is of course no awareness of the

> I being in that

> state - you wake up and conclude that I was in

> deep sleep.

> In samadhi there is awareness of course and so the

> person is aware

> that "I am in samadhi".

>

> From

> Sankarraman

>

> Dear sir,

> The

> following question raised by a devotee and the

> clarification given by Bhaghavan shed much light on

> the subject of samadhi. It all depends only on what

> meaning we attach to the word samadhi. If we

> understand it to be only one of temporary stillness

> of thought, we are only in the anandamya kosa. But

> if samadhi is used only as a tool to realize the

> self, we cannot dismiss its superior value. You say,

> "

> - please remember

> that the atman is experienced by us even now.

> There is nothing that we

> experience separate from atman. The atman

> "experience" is not another

> experience in that sense. Whatever is

> experienced is atman lone is

> brahman alone - what needs to be resolved is our

> ignorance in viwewing

> ourselves as separate from the whole. For this

> you do not need samadhi

> at all. In fact it is precisely for this reason

> that stringent yogic

> practices are generally shunned by seekers of

> selfknowledge." How can we take this transcendental

> truth for granted without the experience of

> self-realization. Self-enquiry also involves some

> yogic practice. How can throgh mere intellection

> one can come to any conclusion?

>

> What is the use of samadhi and does thought

> subsist then?

> A: Samadhi alone can reveal the truth.

> Thoughts cast a veil over

> reality, and so it is not realized as such

> in states other than samadhi.

> In samadhi there is only the feeling `I am'

> and no thoughts. The

> experience of `I am' is `being still'.

> Q: How can I repeat the experience of

> samadhi or the stillness that

> I obtain here in your presence?

> A: Your present experience is due to the

> influence of the

> atmosphere in which you find yourself. Can

> you have it outside this

> atmosphere? The experience is spasmodic.

> Until it becomes

> permanent, practice is necessary.

> Q: Is samadhi an experience of calmness or

> peace?

> A: The tranquil clarity, which is devoid of

> mental turmoil, alone is

> the samadhi which is the firm base for

> liberation. By earnestly

> 230

> trying to destroy the deceptive mental

> turmoil, experience that

> samadhi as the peaceful consciousness which

> is inner clarity.

> Q: What is the difference between internal

> and external samadhi?

> A: External samadhi is holding on to the

> reality while witnessing

> the world, without reacting to it from

> within. There is the stillness

> of a waveless ocean. The internal samadhi

> involves loss of bodyconsciousness.

> Q: The mind does not sink into that state

> even for a second.

> A: A strong conviction is necessary that `I

> am the Self,

> transcending the mind and the phenomena.'

> Q: Nevertheless, the mind proves to be an

> unyielding obstacle

> which thwarts any attempts to sink into the

> Self.

> A: What does it matter if the mind is

> active? It is so only on the

> substratum of the Self. Hold the Self even

> during mental activities.

>

> with respectful regards

> Sankarraman

>

> __,_._w,___

>

> Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls

> to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

August 25, 2006

advaitin, Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

>

> As you quote Bhagwaan Ramana

> "What does it matter if the mind is active? It is so

> only on the substratum of the Self. Hold the Self even

> during mental activities"

>

> That is precisely what i am referring to.

> To have the atman "experience" it is not necessary to

> remain in nirvikalpa samadhi. Every experience is an

> atman experience alone - ignorance about this needs to

> go.

> That indeed is the greatness of a jnani.

>

> In my humble opinion, an exalted yogi may develop the

> capability of attaining nirvikalpa samadhi repeatedly,

> but he cannot have that attitude of absorption in the

> Self in and through every plane of physical and mental

> activity without attaining selfknowledge.

Shankarramanji wrote

How can we take

this transcendental truth for granted without the experience of

self-realization. Self-enquiry also involves some yogic practice.

How can

throgh mere intellection one can come to any conclusion?

Dear Sir,

When Sri Ramakrishna told to young Swami Vivekananad that all is

brahman he started laughing. He had theosophical bent of mind due to

the association with Brahmo samaj. He gave a sharp reply to Sri

Ramkrishna by saying- what a blasphemous statement this cup is god

and this plate is god i am god this wall is god etc. But in the

later period of life he became the torch bearer of advaita vedanta

and one of the greatest exponents of advaita philosophy in modern

times. But he gained this experience with personal effort and by the

grace of the lord.He has told in one place that i have told only

things which i have direct experience. Faith in the shastra and the

guru vakya is good. But i believe it is only indirect knowledge and

the disciple has to realise it, assimilate it and should tally the

truths he discovered through his realisation with the scripture and

the guruvakya.

One senior monk of a respected order told me that, Once Ramana

Maharshi was asked- What you preach is so simple and direct but why

did you do so much sadhana and meditation. Ramana Maharshi smiligly

replied it seems-I myself do not know why. How much sadhana maharshi

did to arrive at truth. The great masters of modern times Sri

Ramana, Sri Ramakrishna, Swami Vivekananada, Swami Rama Thirtha all

taught advaita vedanta only after realisation.

Ultimately what i mean to say in recent times especially study of

advaita vedanta is focussed much on the shastras and intellection

and nobody teaches the practical method to come to truth face to

face. The effort from the sadhakas is very less and i can say almost

nil. Pls do not take it as a personal remark it is a general

statemetn which includes me as a sadhaka also.

JAI JAI RAGHUVEER SAMARTHA

Yours in the lord,

Br. Vinayaka

August 25, 2006

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <ramvchandran

wrote:

>

> Namaste Br. Vinayakaji:

>

> In several of your postings in this list, you seem to believe that

> the discussions in this list are rather 'dogmatic.' Here is an

> example of your recent post with the thread title - "Karma Yogam."

>

> advaitin, "Vinayaka" <vinayaka_ns@> wrote:

>

> Namaste

>

> First of all let me extend my warmest welcome to the group.

Honestly

> speaking this is one of the best and most catholic group in

hinduism

> i have ever come across. Hope you will find the threads of the

> groups very useful.

> ------------------------

>

> As one of the moderators of this list, I want to clarify once

again

> that this list is not 'catholic' with respect to the discussions

> conducted here. Members do enjoy freedom to state what they

believe

> as long as they follow the general guidelines of the list. The

list's

> does cover a wider range of advaitic philosophical thoughts though

> its main focus is on Sankara's advaita philosophy. This is being

> stated again to change your impression and help you and other

members

> with similar impression to participate with an open mind.

Dear Sir,

Swami Vivekananda had said- We cannot see evil outside untill and

unless we have it in our own mind.

Due to my experience with some people and some instituions which was

very painful i had arrived at some genralised conclusions about

certain things. Which was unconsiously flowing in my posts. But by

the grace of the lord now i understand that it is not true. If i

felt like that it was exclusively my fault alone.

---------------------------

> Our perceptions do vary and our understanding of any concept or

> notion depends on how we perceive. It is quite possible some could

> perceive contradictions and others may not see any contradiction

at

> all? All that I can say that such statements can never be

verifiable

> using logic alone.

I am very much fond of this saying of Swami Vivekananda

"We must take up the study of the superconscious state just as any

other science. On reason we must have to lay our foundation, we must

follow reason as far as it leads, and when reason fails, reason

itself will show us the way to the highest plane. When you hear a

man say, "I am inspired," and then talk irrationally, reject it.

Why? Because these three states -- instinct, reason, and

superconsciousness, or the unconscious, conscious, and

superconscious states -- belong to one and the same mind. There are

not three minds in one man, but one state of it develops into the

others. Instinct develops into reason, and reason into the

transcendental consciousness; therefore, not one of the states

contradicts the others. Real inspiration never contradicts reason,

but fulfills it. Just as you find the great prophets saying, "I come

not to destroy but to fulfil," so inspiration always comes to fulfil

reason, and is in harmony with it.

But i do agree that this shuold be done without arrogance and with

utmost sincierity with giving highest reverence to the guru and the

vedanta vakyas.

JAI JAI RAGHUVEER SAMARTH

Yours in the lord,

Br. Vinayaka

August 25, 2006

Vinayaka <vinayaka_ns > wrote:

>Ultimately what i mean to say in recent times especially study of

>advaita vedanta is focussed much on the shastras and intellection

>and nobody teaches the practical method to come to truth face to

>face. The effort from the sadhakas is very less and i can say almost

>nil. Pls do not take it as a personal remark it is a general

>statemetn which includes me as a sadhaka also.

Recent Activity

7

New Members

Visit Your Group

Avatars

Face the World

Show your style &

mood in Messenger.

Photos

Share Your Photos

via email & mobile

Search Ads

Get new customers.

List your web site

in Search.

.

Vinayaka-ji,

It does seem that the study of vedanta is focussed much on shastra and intellect. But the reality is vedanta involves much larger practical side too.. It involves tantras (e.g- sri vidya upasana), mantras and yantras. All this culminates in nirvikalpa samadhi.

I dont think just by atma vichara one can attain that ultimate state of enlightenment (or moksha or release from birth-death cycle).

Nirvikalpa samadhi (or Asamprajnyat samadhi) is absolute must.

Even Nirvikalpa samadhi is not the end, it is just the begenning. There is lot more ahead of it. One can come back from Nirvikalpa samadhi, get siddhis, live in many different planes of existence etc. But all that is not comprehensible for us lesser mortals.

Only way to achieve it to find a competent guru. One has to be just patient and wait for the right time. That waiting period can be many years (often many lifetimes) . But one thing is sure - once one becomes ready (by good karmas through many lifetimes and ) , the guru himself will come to give diksha.

One has just to wait and keep doing good karmas and sadhana till one finds guru.

There is no other short-cut way.

All these intellection and tarka wont be of much help.

Hope I have not discouraged you, but that is the fact.

All the above views are my personal and I dont intend to challenge, hurt or disapprove other's views.

Om Tat Sat

- Vishal

How low will we go? Check out Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates.

August 25, 2006

I dont think just by atma vichara one can attain that ultimate state of

enlightenment (or moksha or release from birth-death cycle). Nirvikalpa

samadhi (or Asamprajnyat samadhi) is absolute must.

praNAms

Hare Krishna

Kindly note nowhere in shankara's prasthAna trayi bhashya you can find this

statement...nirvikalpa or asaMprajnaTha samAdhi pertains to ashtAnga yOga

of patanjali which shankara categorically called as *dvaita*

school...Perhaps, the *expereince* of nirvikalpa samAdhi is an absolute

must for the patanjala yOga sUtra followers...but I dont think it is

mandatory for truth seekers in jnAna mArga.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

August 25, 2006

In my humble opinion, an exalted yogi may develop the

capability of attaining nirvikalpa samadhi repeatedly,

but he cannot have that attitude of absorption in the

Self in and through every plane of physical and mental

activity without attaining selfknowledge.

praNAms Sri Shyam prabhuji

Hare Krishna

You are absolutely right!! The *experience* of nirvikalpa samAdhi is based

on purusha taNtra whereas Atma jnAna or brahma jnAna is vastu

taNtra...this jnAna does not annihilate the duality...it only *sublates*

(bhAdita) the duality. shankara very beautifully explains this in tattu

samanvat sUtra bhAshya.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

August 25, 2006

Vishal D <vishaldeshpande4 >

Vinayaka-ji,

It does seem that the study of vedanta is focussed much on shastra and intellect. But the reality is vedanta involves much larger practical side too. It involves tantras (e.g- sri vidya upasana), mantras and yantras. All this culminates in nirvikalpa samadhi.

I dont think just by atma vichara one can attain that ultimate state of enlightenment (or moksha or release from birth-death cycle).

Nirvikalpa samadhi (or Asamprajnyat samadhi) is absolute must.

-----------------

Shree Vishal - PraNAms.

I have no intension of getting into any arguments but would like to clarify from my understanding since your last statement is not what the scripture says. Shankara adhyAsa bhAShya is very clear. If ignorance is the root cause for the problem of samsaara, only knowledge is the antidote. Knowledge does not involve any thing other than knowing who I am. Hence it is not nirvikalpa samAdhi but nirvikalpa jnaanam which involves inquiry. Inquiry involves the mind - it is therefore not the absence of mind but mind that reached an understanding that one is beyond the thoughts in spite of thoughts present. Hence the amRita bindu Upanishad says: 'mana yeva manuShyAnAm kAraNam bandha moxayoH' - mind is the cause as well as means for the bondage and liberation.

Nirvikalpa jnaana is the requirement and that becomes samaadhi - not thoughtless state- it is a state of understanding where one is beyond the thoughts, even while the thoughts are present.

It is like seeing the water in and through the waves and not elimination of the wave to see the water.

Vishal:

Even Nirvikalpa samadhi is not the end, it is just the begenning. There is lot more ahead of it. One can come back from Nirvikalpa samadhi, get siddhis, live in many different planes of existence etc. But all that is not comprehensible for us lesser mortals.

------

KS:

If I may say so - nirvikalpa samaadhi is neither beginning nor end - nor the acquiring the saddhis too. And it is comprehensible either since any comprehension is only conceptualization. It is because of which all comprehensions are possible and also notions that it beyond comprehensions too. It is the ever present existent self that I am. Nothing to do - nothing to gain but ever aware of the existent presence that I am with or without samAdhi or siddhiis.

----------------------

Vishal:

Only way to achieve it to find a competent guru.

KS:

There is nothing to achieve it either - Those who are longing to achieve it will never get it since in the very longing one has missed what one is. Yes Guru is required to understand this correctly not to guide us to samAdhi.

------------------

Vishal:

One has to be just patient and wait for the right time. That waiting period can be many years (often many lifetimes).

KS:

Sorry my friend - The truth of the matter is it is ever present and in the very present tense. Any notions that one has to wait patiently many years are unfortunately a misunderstanding of the very nature of the truth. The problem only is we are not paying attention to the present. We get carried away with the past or future but do not live in the present - the past and future is where Ego has invested and it is not letting us go. Hence all the SAdhana is meant for neutralizing the ego that feeds itself in the notion of past and future. It cannot be done by fighting it since in the very fighting one has given the strength to it. Hence surrenderance is the emphasis. The very notion that I have to wait will only strengthen and confirm the waiting part.

What is required is to live with vigilance in the very present. Ego can be eliminated only by being aware of it - vigilantly. It cannot stand awareness.

----------------------------

Vishal:

But one thing is sure - once one becomes ready (by good karmas through many lifetimes and ) , the guru himself will come to give diksha.

KS:

Yes that part is true. One is blessed with right Guru required for ones evolution when one is ready. Hence the message should be, prepare oneself to be ready right now - the teachings will sink in. Guru will come in many ways if one is attentive.

Vishal:

All these intellection and tarka wont be of much help.

KS:

The above statement is incorrect. It is the intellect that needs to be convinced before any SAdhana takes deep root. Hence Shankara emphasizes Viveka as the very first requirement for sAdhaka. Lord Krishna spend 700 slokas to teach Arjuna until is completely convinced. He could have just given a magic touch and things could have been solved. No it is the inquiry with the intellect by the intellect for the intellect. There is no other way knowledge will take place.

-----------------------

Vishal:

Hope I have not discouraged you, but that is the fact.

KS:

Vishalji - please forgive me if I have come out strong. The teaching of the scripture is beyond the personal opinions. Hence the emphasis on the analysis of the scriptural understanding.

----

Vishal:

All the above views are my personal and I donâ€™t intend to challenge, hurt or disapprove other's views.

KS:

I like your honesty. I agree with you that what I have stated is only my understanding of the scriptures. It is nothing to do with my personal aspect either. I am sure we are blessed with several scholars in this list and they may be able to give us better guidance and correct us if we are wrong. That is the purpose of this list.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

Om Tat Sat

- Vishal

August 25, 2006

Namaste Sadananda-ji

> Ego can be eliminated only by being aware of it - vigilantly. It

> cannot stand awareness.

I don't believe it is that simple but I will try and address it

later.

This sentence of yours interests me:

> What is required is to live with vigilance in the very present.

Isn't this the basis of Vipassana and/or Mindfulness in Buddhism?

Regarding 'Living in the Present', I would like to draw readers

attentions to Eknath Easwaran's website. It has

several excellent articles and their Autumn 2003 edition answers

these

very interesting questions (very relevant in our context):

>>

All of us want to be completely alive, to

live one hundred percent in the present

moment. What prevents us? More urgently,

how can we bring such a state of mind

about?

>>

Readers can check out this link

http://www.easwaran.org/Contentfiles/BlueMountain/Autumn2003.pdf

for more details.

Delving a little further on 'living vigilently in the present': The

spiritual discipline (I believe) that enables one to live in the

present is called (interestingly enough) 'Meditation', the sanskrit

term used for the mind that is able to live in the present is

ekagrata and Samadhi (as far as I know) denotes excellence in the

plane of ekagrata.

So by this token Dhyana and Samadhi can only help (tremendously)

with 'living in the present'. Is it not? or am I missing something

here?

BTW this idea of meditation as something that helps live in the

present is not just my idea - it is widely acknowledged even in

Buddhist traditions as can be seen from authors like Jon Kabat-Zin

etc (http://www.beststeps.com/Beststep.cfm?bs=810)

>>Meditation practice is aimed at being in the present moment

regards

Sundar Rajan

August 26, 2006

>"Sundar Rajan" <avsundarrajan >

> > Ego can be eliminated only by being aware of it - vigilantly. It

> > cannot stand awareness.

>I don't believe it is that simple but I will try and address it

>later.

Shree Sundar Rajan - PraNAms.

Yes it is not simple. It requires certain detachment in order to be

consciously aware of it. You have to become a witnessing agent - not an ego

observing an ego.

'Any effort to eliminate ego becomes egotistical effort. That is why we

need to bring in Iswara in order accomplish the task. Hence the word

vigilant is also used in the statement above. Hope the intended meaning is

clear.

>

>This sentence of yours interests me:

> > What is required is to live with vigilance in the very present.

>Isn't this the basis of Vipassana and/or Mindfulness in Buddhism?

This is Hinduism too. The essence of meditation and also japa yoga rests on

this concept - watch your thoughts or watch the source of your thoughts -

most of the thoughts we are concerned with are associated with ahankaara and

mamakaara. Neti neti is rejection of all subject-object thought including

all notional thoughts which include 'aham vRitti'; I am with an

identification of I am this or that etc.

>

>Regarding 'Living in the Present', I would like to draw readers

>attentions to Eknath Easwaran's website. It has

>several excellent articles and their Autumn 2003 edition answers

>these

>very interesting questions (very relevant in our context):

It is said that sage lives only in the present, while ego has the roots in

the past and future. I am not familiar with Eknath Easwaran's teaching

other than glancing couple of articles published in Mananam series by

Chinmaya Mission. Thanks for the website reference.

>

>So by this token Dhyana and Samadhi can only help (tremendously)

>with 'living in the present'. Is it not? or am I missing something

>here?

Yes indeed - Japa yoga is also the same. Witnessing present is also means

the same. That is Vedantic teaching too.

Yes living in Present is sajaha samaadhi or true samaadhi. In the dynamic

present there is no concept of time - one transcends the time concept - what

is there is only your presence. KarmanyevAdhikaaraste maa phaleShu kadAcana

- also implies the same since you can only act in the present and only live

in the present. And the beauty is in the present there is no time concept -

what is there is 'I am' - a living present. The constant awareness of that

is the very awareness that I am. Ego will not have any place in it. It is

not a thought but a factual presence of oneself as oneself without any past

or future associated with it. Any association is an attachment that goes

with ego. The awareness of the very attachment makes one free from that

attachment.

Yes again it is not easy - but that is essentially what turiiyam in Mandukya

stands for. I am in all the states but I am different from all the states.

asangoham asangoham asangoham punaH punaH'

sacchidaananda rupoham ahamevaayamavyayaH|

Hari Om!

Sadananda

>regards

>Sundar Rajan

>

_______________

Search from any web page with powerful protection. Get the FREE Windows Live

Toolbar Today! http://get.live.com/toolbar/overview

August 26, 2006

advaitin, "Kuntimaddi Sadananda"

<k_sadananda wrote:

> "Sundar Rajan" <avsundarrajan

> >Isn't this the basis of Vipassana and/or Mindfulness in Buddhism?

>

> This is Hinduism too. The essence of meditation and also japa yoga

rests on this concept

Pranams Sadanandaji and Sunderji and other respected vedantins,

It never ceases to amaze me how centuries after centuries and possibly

yugas later no new idea, thought, philosophy, methodology, experience,

principle,etc worth talking about or exploring has even remotely

emerged in the spiritual world, which has not already been covered in

our shruti either in the Vedas or Upanishads, or other established sutras?

Just a humble thought.

Pranams to sanatana dharma

Hari Om

Shyam

August 26, 2006

Namaste,

Shri Shyam wrote (message no #32713 on 24th Aug 06):

"In sushupti there is of course no awareness of the I being in that

state - you wake up and conclude that I was in deep sleep.

"In samadhi there is awareness of course and so the person is aware

that 'I am in samadhi.'"

It strikes me that if there remains any personal awareness of being

'in samadhi', then the samadhi absorption is not fully complete.

This is not a nirvikalpa samadhi, where all thought or vikalpa is

completely absorbed into unmixed consciousness.

Of course a person may emerge from a nirvikalpa samadhi and then

superimpose the thought of being 'in samadhi' upon it. But such a

superimposition is only a deceptive trick of memory.

As with deep sleep, at the time when nirvikalpa samadhi is actually

experienced, there is of course no awareness of the I being in some

passing state. It's only afterwards that the deceptive supposition

of memory seems to enact a false make-believe, by superimposing the

thought of a passing state upon the unmixed consciousness which was

actually experienced at the time.

But, if it thus turns out that deep sleep and nirvikalpa samadhi

states are misremembered by the mind, then what about our states of

dream and waking?

Here too, in dreams and waking, we suppose the awareness of passing

states that are remembered at some later moment of time. In order to

experience any passing state at all, the passage of time is

logically essential.

In any present moment, as it actually occurs, no past moment is now

present here. No change of state is actually experienced here and

now, at any moment in itself. Any thought of a passing state

requires logically that a passed state has been recalled by memory.

And this recall requires logically a witness that stays present

through the change of states, as previous states are replaced by

later ones. It is that witness which actually experiences each

state, at the actual time when the state itself occurs.

But what is that actual experience of the witness? That actual

experience cannot ever be any changing act of sense or mind, because

each of these acts gets changed in course of time. These acts appear

and disappear, while the witness stays present, as it actually

experiences them all.

That actual experience stays on present, in each present moment,

while all acts of mind and body come and go.

In particular, the act of memory is not an actual experience. It’s

only a seeming act that occurs strictly and completely in the

present, while falsely pretending to have started acting in the

past. Through this false pretence, various changing acts appear to

have been added on to our experience, as remembered from the past or

anticipated in the future.

In actual fact, no addition has been made. The actual experience of

the witness is a consciousness that stays on present, while all

changes appear and disappear. Each seeming change is an appearance

of that consciousness, to which no change applies.

As any change of state is witnessed, it is taken into

consciousness -- where it is completely absorbed, as nothing else

but consciousness itself. Thus consciousness remains completely

unmixed and unchanged, knowing nothing but itself -- as our actual

experience of each present moment.

That actual experience is there always -- staying just the same --

in waking, dream and deep sleep or nirvikalpa samadhi. Just as in

deep sleep or in nirvikalpa samadhi, so also in dreams and the

waking world, there is in fact no awareness of the I being in any

changing state, at the time of actual experience. It’s only

afterwards that time and change and mixture are deceptively

superimposed, by the false make-believe of imagined memory.

In the discipline of raj yoga, a forceful concentration of the mind

is used to turn attention to the nirvikalpa state of complete

absorption in pure consciousness. In the reflective questioning of

advaita philosophy, a relaxing clarity of logical reasoning is used

to reflect attention back from the conflicting confusions of waking

world and dreams, towards the pure experience of peace and happiness

that shines unmixed in deep sleep.

In their inner content, nirvikalpa samadhi and deep sleep are of

course the same. The difference is only in the way these states are

approached. Nirvikalpa samadhi is approached in yogic meditation

through an extreme force of concentrated effort. Deep sleep is

approached in advaita reasoning through a discerning relaxation into

pure clarity.

Ananda

August 26, 2006

Srigurubhyo NamaH

Namaste,

Here an attempt is made to address several questions/opinions that

surfaced in the recent discussions on the above subject.

A look into the BrahmaSutra II.i.3 where the Yoga system is refuted,

gives a good amount of valuable information, clearing many

misconceptions about the terms `yoga' and `sankhya' found in the

Upanishads. The Acharya has given the clarifications so that there

will be confusion among sadhakas of Vedanta. Here is a relevant

portion from this bhashya:

(Quote)

In the passage quoted ('That cause which is to be apprehended by

Sânkhya and Yoga') the terms 'Sânkhya' and 'Yoga' denote Vedic

knowledge and meditation, as we infer from proximity . We willingly

allow room for those portions of the two systems which do not

contradict the Veda. In their description of the soul, for instance,

as free from all qualities the Sânkhyas are in harmony with the Veda

which teaches that the person (purusha) is essentially pure; cp. Bri.

Up. IV, 3, 16. 'For that person is not attached to anything.' The

Yoga again in giving rules for the condition of the wandering

religious mendicant admits that state of retirement from the concerns

of life which is known from scriptural passages such as the following

one, 'Then the parivrâgaka with discoloured (yellow) dress, shaven,

without any possessions,' &c. (Jâbâla Upan. IV).(unquote) Here is the

link to the entire bhashya on this sutra:

http://www.bharatadesam.com/spiritual/brahma_sutra/brahma_sutra_sankar

a_34142.php

The above clarification can put at rest the unpleasantness caused by

the term `yoga'. Often it is seen that those who take up cudgels

against yoga are doing it more out of frustration of not being able

to undertake the sadhana demanded by yoga, in my humble, considered,

observed, opinion, and not out of any genuine devotion to Upanishadic

system: Vedanta. Wherever the word `samadhi', `dhyana', `one-

pointedness', ` control of senses and mind', etc. occur in the

Upanishads, the Acharya's bhashyas and other minor texts, that

becomes a source of uncomfortable disposition. Often some other

meaning is sought to be given to these terms, just because the

Acharya happens to use these. Fortunately, the Acharya has given a

clarification in the above sutra bhashya so that at least after

knowing this, such misconceptions can be given up.

In the Chandogya Upanishat opening bhashya itself, the Acharya

engages in a discussion involving dhyana and Advaitajnana (that

dispels ignorance and liberates). He brings out the difference

between them on the basis of how in spite of both being mental

activity, yet there is a fundamental difference between them. He

goes on to justify the need for upasana (defined by Him here as:

taking up a scripture-based supportive object as the one on which

meditation has to be done, with a flow of series of similar

thought ). These upasanas, by bringing about sattva-shuddhi, mental

purity, result in the apprehending the Truth. Thereby THESE UPASANAS

ARE AIDS TO ADVAITAJNANA. (unquote).

Thus we see that dhyana is not rejected by the Upanishads and the

Acharya merely on grounds of its being `purusha tantra'. It does

have a seminal, indispensable role to play in bringing about Advaita

Jnanam which is vastu tantra.

In the Prasthana-traya bhashya of the Acharya, we come across these

terms:

Bhagavadgita: VI.19: For the word `yunjato yogam AtmanaH' occurring

in the verse: yunjato = yogam anutiShThatataH, AtmanaH = samAdhim anu-

tiShThataH ityarthaH.

The meaning is: For that yogi who has controlled his mind and engaged

in the yoga which is the practice of samaadhi of the Atman.

In the Gita verse VI.20 the bhashyam says: …by the mind purified by

samaadhi…. The Yogin seees the Self – by the self (mind).

In the bhashyam for the mantra (II.iii.3) of the Kathopanishat, for

the word `HridA manIShA, the Acharya says: avikalpayitryA manasA..

Thus we see the terms `samaadhi' and `avikalpayitryA (which means

free from vikalpas, in other words nirvikalpa)' being used by the

Acharya.

In the verse XVIII.50, the Lord commences the succinct delineation of

the method of apprehending the Self. In the 52 verse He says:

Resorting to a sequestered spot, eating but little, speech and body

and mind subdued always engaged in meditation and concentration,

endued with dispassion.

The bhashyam says: With all senses thus quieted, he should always

and devoutly practice dhyana or meditation upon the nature of the

Self, and Yoga or concentration of the mind on the Self. `Always'

implies that he has to do nothing else, no mantrajapa, etc.

There is no dearth of verses in the Vivekachudamani mentioning dhyana

and Nirvikalpa samadhi.:

357. Through the diversity of the supervening conditions (Upadhis), a

man is apt to think of himself as also full of diversity; but with

the removal of these he is again his own Self, the immutable.

Therefore the wise man should ever devote himself to the practice of

Nirvikalpa Samadhi, for the dissolution of the Upadhis.

358. The man who is attached to the Real becomes Real, through his

one-pointed devotion. Just as the cockroach thinking intently on the

Bhramara is transformed into a Bhramara.

359. Just as the cockroach, giving up the attachment to all other

actions, thinks intently on the Bhramara and becomes transformed into

that worm, exactly in the same manner the Yogi, meditating on the

truth of the Paramatman, attains to It through his one-pointed

devotion to that.

360. The truth of the Paramatman is extremely subtle, and cannot be

reached by the gross outgoing tendency of the mind. It is only

accessible to noble souls with perfectly pure minds, by means of

Samadhi brought on by an extraordinary fineness of the mental state.

361. As gold purified by thorough heating on the fire gives up its

impurities and attains to its own lustre, so the mind, through

meditation, gives up its impurities of Sattva, Rajas and Tamas, and

attains to the reality of Brahman.

362. When the mind, thus purified by constant practice, is merged in

Brahman, then Samadhi passes on from the Savikalpa to the Nirvikalpa

stage, and leads directly to the realisation of the Bliss of Brahman,

the One without a second.

363. By this Samadhi are destroyed all desires which are like knots,

all work is at an end, and inside and out there takes place

everywhere and always the spontaneous manifestation of one's real

nature.

364. Reflection should be considered a hundred times superior to

hearing, and meditation a hundred thousand times superior even to

reflection, but the Nirvikalpa Samadhi is infinite in its results.

365. By the Nirvikalpa Samadhi the truth of Brahman is clearly and

definitely realised, but not otherwise, for then the mind, being

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

366. Hence with the mind calm and the senses controlled always drown

the mind in the Supreme Self that is within, and through the

realisation of thy identity with that Reality destroy the darkness

created by Nescience, which is without beginning.

We find from the above that nirvikalpa samadhi of Vedanta is not

antagonistic with Advaita Jnana. All these show that Nirvikalpa

samadhi is not an experience in Anandamaya kosha and is decidedly not

akin to deep sleep experience. In a subsequent post a presentation

of the experience of Atman and various other aspects pertaining to

Nirvikalpa Samadhi will be made. This is in a dialogue form between

two Yogins/Advaita Jnanins who have had the experience of Nirvikalpa

Samadhi. Certainly what is said by these adepts in Yoga will be

authentic on these topics and will not come under the category of

speculation by those who have not had these experiences.

Ananda of Brahman/Atman, positively experiencable by the Aspirant:

The Joy/Bliss of Atman:

In the Gita verse VI.21 there is mentioned about the positive bliss

of the Atman that is directly experienced by the yogin:

The bhashyam says: That joy can be grasped by buddhi, independently

of the senses, It lies beyond the ken of the senses; it is not

produced by sense-objects.

In the Taittiriya Upanishad (II.vii.1) Bhashyam, the Acharya says in

connection with the vedic passage `raso vai saH….': Insasmuch as

those Brahmanas who have realized Brahman are seen to be as happy as

one is from obtaining an external source of joy, though in fact, they

do not take help of any external means of happiness, make no effort,

and cherish no desire, it follows, as a matter of course, that

Brahman is indeed the source of their joy. Hence there does exist

that Brahman which is full of joy and is the spring of their

happiness. (unquote)

Thus we see that the bliss of Brahman/Atman is positively a matter

for experience for the one who has the necessary condition of the

mind. There are truly great Yogins who have had the Advaitic

Realization like for example, Sri Sadaashiva Brahmendra Saraswati of

Nerur. He has composed a monumental work `AtmavidyA-vilAsam', an

outpouring of his Blissful Experience of the Atman. He was a sage

non-pareil, an avadhuta, reveling in the Bliss of the Atman. This

work, of sixty verses, is so full of the expression of the

indescribable bliss that the yogi experiences. Verse after verse we

find the bliss aspect being given expression to. A sample:

The noble lion of the great sage, having torn to pieces the ruttish

elephant of illusion and having driven away the tiger of sins, roams

in the vast wilderness of bliss. (32)

Leaving the sapless sandy desert of samsara (family life) the supreme

swan (Paramahamsa Sannyasin) plays unrestrained in the magnificent

lake of consciousness which is filled with the water of bliss. (30)

All the above show beyond doubt that Ananda of Brahman that is

mentioned in the Upanishads is not something to make the attainment

of Brahman a desirable endeavour. It is not eulogy. It is a fact of

experience. In fact the monumental work `Jivanmukti viveka' of Sage

Vidyaranya is all about making the Ananda manifest by increased

adherence to Yoga and other practices. Here we see how Yoga is an

indispensable tool in bringing out the Ananda for a Jnani. The book

can be studied beneficially with the aid of a teacher or at least

with a satsangh.

Pranams to all sadhakas

subbu

Om Tat Sat

Sri Shankaracharya on Sushupti and Moksha

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Popular Days

Popular Days

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation