Sri Shankaracharya on Sushupti and Moksha

[Guest guest]

Namaste friends,

 

Forgive me for posting another passage from "Talks with Ramana Maharshi",

only I feel it is relevant to the current discussion, not only with regards

to the question of whether repeated experiences of Nirvikalpa Samadhi lead

to Sahaja Samadhi but also to the question of the place of "effort" at this

stage.

 

With regards to "effort", is it possible we need to take into account that

the sadhaka is never really working in isolation, even when s/he appears

outwardly to be alone. Is it not the grace (or proximity) of the Self

(Guru) which finally pulls in, so to speak, the mind of the Sadhaka, and

its sense of separateness is thus destroyed? Both 'effort' and 'grace' need

to be taken into account, in such discussions, in my humble opinion.

 

Anyway, more importantly - the passage from "Talks":

 

Disciple: Can jnana be lost after being once attained?

 

Maharshi.: Jnana, once revealed, takes time to steady itself. The Self is

certainly within the direct experience of everyone, but not as one imagines

it to be. It is only as it is. This Experience is samadhi. Just as fire

remains without scorching against incantations or other devices but scorches

otherwise, so also the Self remains veiled by vasanas and reveals itself

when there are no vasanas. Owing to the fluctuation of the vasanas, jnana

takes time to steady itself. Unsteady jnana is not enough to check rebirths.

Jnana cannot remain unshaken side by side with vasanas. True, that in the

proximity of a great master, the vasanas will cease to be active, the mind

becomes still and samadhi results, similar to fire not scorching because of

other devices. Thus the disciple gains true knowledge and right experience

in the presence of the master. To remain unshaken in it further efforts are

necessary. He will know it to be his real Being and thus be liberated even

while alive. Samadhi with closed eyes is certainly good, but one must go

further until it is realised that actionlessness and action are not hostile

to each other. Fear of loss of samadhi while one is active is the sign of

ignorance. Samadhi must be the natural life of everyone. There is a state

beyond our efforts or effortlessness. Until it is realised effort is

necessary. After tasting such Bliss, even once, one will repeatedly try to

regain it. Having once experienced the Bliss of Peace no one would like to

be out of it or engaged himself otherwise. It is as difficult for a Jnani to

engage in thoughts as it is for an ajnani to be free from thought. The

common man says that he does not know himself; he thinks many thoughts and

cannot remain without thinking. Any kind of activity does not affect a

Jnani; his mind remains ever in eternal Peace.

(Talk 141.)

 

Kind regards to all Advaitins, and may all differences of view be tolerated

in friendliness of spirit,

 

Peter

[Guest guest]

Pranams Vinayaka-ji,

Let me reproduce to you your original question which

started this thread.

 

"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.iii34)

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.

The question is Is it impossible for an yogi to get

illumination in samadhi without atma vichara.

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.

Br. vinayaka"

 

During the course of many of the discussions that have

ensued I am hopeful some answers to this question of

yours have crystallized in your mind.

 

If any clarifications from my posts have agitated you

or anyone else, then please dismiss them as the

prattles of an ignorant mind, just like a mother would

lovingly ignore her toddlers tantrums. :-)

 

My special thanks as well as pranams to Subbu-ji for

participating and helping us gain many beautiful

perspectives.

 

My very best wishes to you.

May Ishwara bless us with right knowledge.

 

"AtmA tvaM girijA matiH sahacarAH

prANAH sharIraM gRhaM

pUjA te vishhayopa-bhoga-racanA

nidrA samAdhi sthitiH

sancAraH padayoH pradakshhiNa-vidhiH

stotrANi sarvA giro

yad-yat karma karomi tat-tad-akhilaM

shambho tavA-rAdhanaM

 

You Lord Shiva are my AtmA; my mind is ambikA, the

daughter of the Mountain;

my five prANas are the GaNas that serve you; my body

is your temple;

all my involvement in sensual experience is your

pUjA; my sleep is the samAdhi state;

my wanderings on my feet constitute Your pradakshhiNa;

whatever I talk shall be your praises;

whatever I do O shambho, all that shall be a

propitiation of You."

 

 

Shyam

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Vinayakji:

 

 

 

I have been following the discussions as much as possible between

you, Subbuji, Shyamji, Bhaskarji and others. Discussions of similar

kind on this topic has happened before and over 1600 previous

postings in this list focus on the subject matter of Samadhi. There

are also several thousand of postings in this list cover the subject

matter of Jnanam. These intellectual discussions have taken into

account on almost all aspects of Samadhi and Jnanam. As a

knowledgeable person with a passion for this subject, you are well

aware that the view points expressed by the participants are based on

what they believe and how they perceive. We shouldn't be surprised

to read repetitions of the same view point expressed by those who

have strong convictions with what they believe and perceive. For

example, you often quote the writings and speeches of Swami

Vivekananda to express your love and respect for him and it is quite

understable.

 

 

 

Sri Shyam has provided an authoritative source for his comments

regarding Nivikalpa Samadhi and Jnanam. Just like all of us, he

should be aware that it is just his opinion and others may or may not

agree with that opinion. One of the fundamental courtesy that we all

need to adopt while conducting our discussions is to respect each

other's opinion and move on. We can exercise our right to express

respectfully our disagreements on the subject matter of discussion.

By all means, we should avoid making any comments on the personality

of the discussant. The question, whether Nivikalapa Samadhi can be

equated with Jnanam can never be answerable to the satisfaction of

everyone. What we are dealing here is a `subjective science' and

many assertions can never be empirically verifiable. Faith and

conviction do play an important role for the absorption and

acceptance of those philosophical assertions.

 

 

 

Those who participate in the list discussions should be aware that

the primary focus of this list is Sankara's Advaita Vedanta

philosophy. The philosophical assertions that we make have to be

substantiated with references from the works of Sankara (they mostly

consist of Sankara's commentaries of Gita, Upanishads, Brahmasuutra

and his other writings which include Atmabodh, Vivekachudamini and

others). Someone will naturally ask the question: why not discuss all

aspects of nonduality instead of just advaita? The answer is quite

simple that given the volume of emails pouring into the mailboxes, we

have to limit ourselves to Sankara as much as possible. We should

also note the fact that thousands of cyber lists facilitate

conducting discussions on specific subject area and or specific

acharya (teacher) specialized other aspects of non-duality

philosophy.

 

 

 

In many of your postings, you have quoted and referenced the writings

and speeches of Swami Vivekananda. I truly admire your love and

respect for our beloved Swami Vivekananda. All of us who possess

great passion for our culture and heritage will always respect and

admiration him for his unselfish service to the humanity as an

ambassador of Hinduism. He was the first missionary and visionary to

spread the message of Vedic culture and its ancient heritage to the

western civilization. His speeches and works fully reflect his deep

understanding of Hindu religion and philosophy. Most importantly,

his communicating skills were quite instrumental for the acceptance

of Hindu religious philosophy of international brotherhood by the

western world. At the same time, honestly speaking, I couldn't regard

him as an authority for the `advaita philosophy as put forward by

Sankara.' Please note that this is just my opinion. I also belive

that his focus was mostly on spreading basic Hindu Philosophy to the

skeptical westerners who showed reluctance and resistance.

 

 

 

In our Hindu philosophical systems which include advaita, the

scriptures play the central role as an authority to resolve issues

pertain to any religious assertions. Here again, the scriptural

authority is hierachical - for example 'Sruti' has higher authority

over Smriti. In a similar way for Advaita related philosophical

assertions attributable to Sankara will naturally enjoy higher

authority than the assertions from others. I am of the opinion that

some boundary as defined above are necessary, otherwise, we will be

left with more confusion and frustration.

 

 

 

Let me repeat once again that what I have stated here are just my

opinion and I welcome others feel free to share their thoughts.

 

 

 

With my warmest regards,

 

 

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

 

advaitin, "Vinayaka" <vinayaka_ns wrote:

 

>

 

> advaitin, Shyam <shyam_md@> wrote:

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > The following clearly emerge from the dialogue coming

 

> > from His Holiness.

 

> >

 

> > 1. Nirvikalpa samadhi is not equated with jnanam

 

> >

 

> > 2. Nirvikalpa samadhi is a temporally bound state into

 

> > which one enters and which one comes out of. It is

 

> > described as supremely blissful no doubt, but a ajnani

 

> > who enters it comes out a ajnani.

 

>

 

> Dear Sir,

 

>

 

> It is really sad thing and due to your intellectual arrogance you

 

> are again and again making such statements. Has not subbuji showed

 

> sufficient reasons the benifit given by this state? Sri Ramana

 

> Maharashi/Sri Ramakrishna has definetly said that nirvikalpa state

 

> is certainly inferior to the state of Sahaja samadhi where the mind

 

> is destroyed totally and one is firmly established in brahman

always

 

> which is true state of a jnani not otherwise. Jnanam is not the

book

 

> knowledge which can be got by reading scriptures say for 3-5 years.

 

> Jnani is a siddha a brahmajnani who knows beyond doubt that

 

> everything is brahman.

[Guest guest]

Namaste all

 

Our advaitin list is very active. I am very happy to note it. And

even there is a sense of 'pride' (!) that I belong to it.

 

But now and then in stead of shedding more Light, it also generates

some heat -- as in the present thread now.

 

I would like to recall my post "With Apologies" at #32334.

 

Regarding the subject itself, Samadhi and Atmaikya-jnAna, in

January, February, 2005 there was a lot of discussion on this in

which Bhaskar-prabhu-ji, contributed a lot.

 

My father's work entitled GitamRta-mahodadhi of which the fifth

chaptewr is YogAmRtam was being translated by me at that time --

though I have not yet completed it. But in the context of the

present discussion, I would like to recall the post #26206 of 25th

March 2005 on this. It has a great significance on this subject.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskar-ji,

>

> bhaskar :

>

> But I am not able to understanding this sustained *effort* to

> maintain jnAna...

 

Good to see you back on the forum :-)

 

Just a quick note on the above. The sustained *effort* is not to

maintain the jnana. The sustained effort (according to the

scriptures)

is to remove the viparita bhavana (wrongful identification) and this

is where Nirvikalpa Samadhi plays a pivotal role. Repeated abidance

in

N.S. helps eleminate the wrongful notion that one is the body, mind

etc. Questions such as the one you have posed resolve itself if

N.S's

role is understood correctly as a integral part of the Nidhidhyasana

process.

 

Please refer to a recent message I posted #32746 and an excellent

note posted by Sri Peter-ji #32820. Just as a side note, Sankara's

commentary on the Mandukya 7th mantra clearly explains that the

final transition is instantaneous (message #32589).

 

regards

Sundar Rajan

[Guest guest]

Vinayaka wrote:

>

>

> 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.

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is there a reference to that? To me, it is highly doubtful Sri Ramana

said that.

 

Harsha