Some more on Samadhi, etc. (final)

[Guest guest]

That night, when it was time for Me to go to sleep, I readied Myself

to meditate. Even before a hue manifested, the notion, "I am Brahman"

became greatly intensified. Without any effort, I shot passed the

stages of deep meditation and savikalpa-samàdhi and entered

nirvikalpa-samàdhi. By divine grace, attaining nirvikalpa-samàdhi had

become very easy for Me. I remained in it for over three hours. Then,

though I felt fresh, I lay down and slept for a while. I got up at My

usual time of awakening.

 

My mind became extremely tranquil and suffused with bliss. The sense

of "I" rapidly faded away completely and nirvikalpa-samàdhi ensued.

Only non-dual, objectless consciousness remained. About an hour

passed before the mind descended from samàdhi.

 

I

 

Acharyal: There was no premeditation on My part in this regard. The

Lord had demonstrated nàda-anusandhàna to Me and it was His will that

I experience the culmination of this form of laya-yoga that day. I do

not have any other explanation.

 

{The Yogatattva Upanióad teaches:19)

O Brahma, with regard to practice, yoga is diverse; there is mantra-

yoga, laya-yoga, haìha-yoga and ràja-yoga.

(23ab)

Laya-yoga is characterised by the absorption of the mind. Myriad

forms of it are spoken of.

 

Bhagavatpàda says in His Yogatàràvali:

 

There are, in the world, a lakh and a quarter forms of laya

(absorptive) attentions that have been spoken of by Sadàëiva. We

regard only samàdhi stemming from contemplation on nàda to be the

worthiest among the laya-s.}

 

(Acharyal:) That afternoon itself, I once again attained nirvikalpa-

samàdhi on the Supreme, this time through kuõáalinä-centred laya-

yoga. I have told you about all My experiences related to the

kuõáalinä that took place earlier. You would have discerned that they

were unpremeditated and occurred with almost no effort of Mine. This

one too was like them. I believe that Ambà, who had Herself taught Me

about the kuõáalinä a few months after My Saænyàsa, straightaway

vouchsafed those experiences and, that afternoon, their culmination.

 

I had just apprehended a hue between My brows when, involuntarily, I

adopted the jàlandhara, uááiyàõa and mòla bandha-s and My attention

turned to the anàhata-cakra. I apprehended the kuõáalinä there. It

seemed that the elements earth, water and fire had become absorbed in

the kuõáalinä. As the divine Þaktä headed rapidly to the sahasràra,

leaping, as it were, from one cakra to the next higher one, air,

space and the organs too duly merged into her.

 

When the kuõáalinä reached the sahasràra, all duality, inclusive of

the sense of "I" and awareness of the distinction of the agent of

meditation, meditation and the object of meditation, thoroughly

vanished. Just objectless consciousness of the very nature of bliss

shone. This nirvikalpa-samàdhi lasted for about an hour. As the mind

lightly came out of nirvikalpa-samàdhi, the descent of the kuõáalinä

from the sahasràra, through the àjñà-cakra, to the vióuddha-cakra was

discernible. I regained mild awareness of the body without sensing

any further descent of the Þaktä and opened My eyes.

 

Though the approaches were different, there was no difference between

the state I attained then and those I attained on the previous

evening at the hill, at night and in the morning through nàda-

anusandhàna. On all these occasions just the non-dual Truth remained,

without any appearance of duality. It was now quite clear to Me that

consciousness does shine in all its glory without any object

whatsoever and that the Àtman is of the nature of consciousness.

 

Shortly after My nirvikalpa-samàdhi of that afternoon, I reflected on

the following lines. Suppose the Àtman were knowable like an object.

The question would then arise as to who can know the Àtman. The

answer cannot be that the Àtman is known objectively by Itself, for

it is impossible for any entity to be both the subject and the object

of a cognition. The Àtman cannot be known by the intellect, mind,

organs, body and objects, for they are all inert. Moreover, the Àtman

is the unchanging witness of the presence and the absence of

thoughts. When the intellect and mind are themselves just objects

witnessed by the Àtman, how could they be the perceivers of the

Àtman? The scripture declares that the Àtman is Brahman and there is

no knower other than the Àtman-Brahman. Thus, the Àtman is just not

knowable like some external object.

 

{The Kena Upanisad teaches:

(I.3)

It is surely different from the known.

It is said in the Béhadàraõyaka Upanióad:

(II.4.14)

Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known.

(III.4.2)

You cannot know that which is the knower of (mental) knowledge.

(III.8.11)

There is no other knower but This.}

 

Though not knowable like an inert object by any means of knowledge,

the Àtman, which is none other than Brahman, is not unknown either.

What is other than oneself and inert may be unknown. The Àtman,

however, is one's very self and is of the nature of consciousness.

Consciousness is what reveals objects and never needs to be revealed

by anything else. It is presupposed in every act of knowing and is

ever self-established.

 

The agent of even the act of knowing, which has a beginning and an

end, cannot but be subject to change. Further, only an entity subject

to change can experience pleasure and pain. As the Àtman is

changeless, It is neither the agent of any act, inclusive of that of

knowing, nor is it subject to pleasure and pain. Agency, suffering,

enjoyment of pleasure and the like belong to the changeful intellect.

However, owing to avidyà, one mistakenly superimposes these that

belong to the intellect on the Àtman. Also, though the intellect is

inert, the consciousness of the Àtman is wrongly ascribed to it and

the intellect-centred "I" passes off as a conscious agent and

experiencer.

 

The scripture advocates realisation of Brahman not in the sense of

knowing what is unknown but in the sense of getting rid of the avidyà-

based superimposition on It. Whether focused on the Àtman or

distracted, the mind is but an inert entity illumined by the Àtman.

However, the mental vétti of the form of Brahman destroys, as

declared by the scripture, avidyà that rests in and veils Brahman and

presents It wrongly.

 

{Bhagavatpàda writes in His bhàóya on verse (XVIII.50) of the

Bhagavad-Gätà:

 

What is to be undertaken is only the elimination of the

superimposition on Brahman through avidyà, but no effort is needed

for knowing Brahman, for It is quite self-evident. It is because the

intellect is distracted by particular appearances of name and form

imagined through avidyà that Brahman, even though self-evident,

easily realisable, nearer than all else and identical with oneself,

appears to be concealed, difficult to realise, very far and

different. But to those whose intellect has become freed from

external appearances and who have obtained the grace of the Guru and

serenity of the mind, there is nothing more blissful, manifest, well

known, easily realised and nearer than this.

 

In His bhàóya on Béhadàraõyaka Upanióad (III.5.10), Bhagavatpàda

writes:

All that one who has understood Brahman from the words of Guru and

the scripture needs to do is to eliminate all notions of the non-

Àtman. Having done so, he becomes a yogin who has accomplished his

task.}

 

(Acharyal:) I went on to reflect as follows. Suppose a person, who is

adept at yoga, feels he is established in the Àtman when he is in

samàdhi but that he deviates to some extent from the Reality when he

emerges from samàdhi and engages in activity. Such a person is not

free from avidyà.

 

Samàdhi and distraction are conditions of the mind and not of the

Àtman. The Àtman is ever changeless and of the nature of

consciousness. Samàdhi and distraction do not affect it in any way.

It is because this yogin is not free from identification with the

mind that he sees himself as influenced by changes in the state of

the mind. He who has fully realised that he is the changeless Reality

remains established in the Reality and unaffected regardless of

whether his mind is in a focused, agitated or dull condition.

(Bhagavad-Gätà XIV.22)(O son of Pàõáu, he (who has gone beyond the

three Gunas) neither dislikes illumination, activity and delusion

(the effects of sattva, rajas and tamas respectively) when they

appear, nor does he long for them when they disappear.)

 

I should conform to these words of the Lord and not become attached

to nirvikalpa-samàdhi under the delusion that for its duration I

become one with Brahman.

 

{Bhagavatpàda's bhàóya on the Gauáapàda-Kàrikà(II.38) runs, in part,

as follows:

He who has not realised the Reality accepts the mind as the Àtman and

thinks the Àtman to be changing in accordance with the states of the

mind, or, at times, accepts the body and the like to be the Àtman and

thinks, "I am now alienated from the reality that is the Àtman. When

at times the mind becomes concentrated, he thinks himself to be

united with the Reality and in peace under the belief, "I am now

identified with the Reality." The knower of the Àtman should not be

like that because the nature of the Àtman is ever the same and

because it is impossible for anything to change its nature. He should

for ever be unwavering from the Reality, with the conviction, "I am

Brahman."}

 

(Acharyal:) Perception of the world could affect the vision of the

Truth of one who ascribes reality to duality but not of one to whom

names and forms are illusory. He who firmly knows that what lies in

front of him is dry sand is not affected by the appearance or

disappearance of a mirage there. Likewise, he who knows that there is

nothing whatsoever apart from Brahman cannot be affected either by

the appearance of the mirage-like world of names and forms or its

disappearance during samàdhi or deep sleep.

(Pañcadaëä VI.12cd)

(ibid. VI.13)

(ibid.VI.14)

When the existence of the Jäva (individual self) and the existence of

the universe are negatived, one's Àtman alone remains. Their negation

is not their non-perception but only a firm conviction that they are

unreal. If it were not so, people would attain liberation without any

effort in the states such as of deep sleep and unconsciousness. The

realisation of the residuary nature of the Supreme Àtman is also only

the firm conviction about Its Reality. It is not forgetfulness of the

world. If this were not the case, jävanmukti (liberation from bondage

even while living) would not be possible.}

 

(Acharyal:) In support of My conviction about the illusory nature of

the world and that there exists nothing apart from the non-dual

Reality, I reflected on the similarity between the states of waking

and dream. I also thought of how the states of waking, dream and deep

sleep rule each other out and of the persistence in all of them of

consciousness, their witness.

 

In the evening, at about the same time as on the previous evening, I

went to My place of meditation on the hill. There, I entered

nirvikalpa-samàdhi exactly as on the previous night. After about an

hour, I opened My eyes. The falsity of names and forms was crystal

clear and so was the certainty that there was nothing that was other

than consciousness. Shortly, even without My shutting My eyes or

making any effort, I plunged once again into nirvikalpa-samàdhi. This

time too the samàdhi lasted for about an hour.

 

{The Sarasvatä-Rahasya Upanióad speaks of two kinds of nirvikalpa-

samàdhi, one related to the external and the other to the internal.

The verses concerned appear in identical form in the Dég-Déëya-Viveka..

 

(26)

Nirvikalpa-samàdhi is that in which the mind becomes steady like a

lamp kept in a windless place and in which one becomes indifferent to

(internal) objects and sounds on account of complete absorption in

bliss.

(ibid. 29ab)

The insensibility, on account of bliss, of the mind (to external

objects), akin to that in savikalpa-samàdhi, is designated as

nirvikalpa-samàdhi.}

 

(Acharyal:) Except for an hour, during which I slept, I spent the

rest of the night in nirvikalpa-samàdhi. It was not as though I was

particular about doing so, for, by then, there was essentially no

difference for Me between samàdhi and the perception of the world as

regards My abidance in Brahman. As I was feeling very fresh, instead

of lying down, I casually sat cross-legged. Suddenly, My mind plunged

into nirvikalpa-samàdhi.

 

The next day, I went into nirvikalpa-samàdhi in the morning and in

the afternoon for an hour each. The conviction about the falsity of

duality and of My being of the nature of changeless consciousness was

so strong and steady that almost no avidyà-based notions of the non-

Àtman cropped up. Those few that did were neutralised swiftly. The

knowledge that Brahman alone is all this had almost fully fructified.

This was the My state when I went in the evening to the summit of the

hill one and a half hours before sunset.

 

I directed My gaze to between the brows and, without any

premeditation, chanted, "u®Ð³ h"¢": <P""®A"" rather than just the

pràõava. Soon, I beheld a moon-like disc of light between My brows.

The mind became increasingly quiet, the sense of "I" faded away and,

effortlessly, nirvikalpa-samàdhi ensued. When I opened My eyes, the

sun was about to set. Two birds were seated on My shoulders.

 

That Brahman is all was as clear as a fruit in one's palm. My mind

automatically went into nirvikalpa-samàdhi once again a few minutes

later and remained in that state for nearly an hour. Shortly after I

regained awareness of the body and the surroundings, a big monkey

bounded up to Me and positioned itself on My lap. After being cuddled

for a while by Me, it left. I walked down the hill and found My

attendant waiting there with a lamp.

 

By the grace of Acharyal and God, the direct realisation of Brahman

and firm establishment in Brahman)", spoken of in the Vivekacòdàmaõi

(in verse 2) occurred at one stroke that evening. To this day, there

has been no deviation from the Reality.

 

{Bhagavatpàda has said in His Brahmasòtrabhàóya:

(IV.1.2)

"I am of the nature of consciousness, one and free from all

miseries" - such is the realisation of the Àtman. There is nothing

else that needs to be done by the one who realises the Àtman thus.

 

About svanubhavaã (realisation of Brahman) and brahmàtmanà saæsthitiã

(firm establishment in Brahman), which characterises jävanmukti

(liberation while living), occurring at one stroke for a renunciant,

it is said in the Vàsanàkóayaprakaraõa of the Jävanmukti-Viveka:

 

In the case of the person who has performed meditation to the extent

of realising the prescribed object of meditation [such as a form of

God] and thereafter strives for the knowledge of the Truth, by virtue

of his firm obliteration of mental tendencies and dissolution of the

mind, the renunciation of a knower and jävanmukti occur automatically

on the dawn of the realisation of the Truth. Such indeed is the

person who is pre-eminently fit for enlightenment and considered by

the scripture.

 

About jävanmukti being a fact, Bhagavatpàda has written in His

Brahmasòtrabhàsya on sòtra (IV.1.15):

 

Furthermore, no difference of opinion is possible here as to whether

or not the body is retained for some period (after enlightenment) by

the knowers of Brahman. For, when somebody has the conviction in his

heart that he has realised Brahman and yet retains the body, how can

this be denied by anybody else? This very fact is elaborated in the

Upanióad-s and Sméti-s in the course of determining the

characteristics of a sthitaã-prajña (the man of steady knowledge of

the Truth).

 

Bhagavatpàda has said in His Upadeëasàhasrä:

(Metrical part IV.4)

It is reasonable that, being the consequences of actions of past

births that have begun to fructify and yielded the present body,

knowledge of Brahman and the experience of pleasure and pain are not

incompatible. Other kinds of actions (of the past that have yet to

begin to yield results and those done after enlightenment) are

different (and are destroyed by knowledge).

 

Metrical part IV.5)

He who has the knowledge of the Àtman that negates the erroneous

notion that the body is the Àtman and is as firm as the erroneous

notion of the common folk that the body is the Àtman is liberated

even without his wishing for it.

 

The Lord has said in the Bhagavad-Gätà: (IV.26)

For the monks who have control over their mind, who are free from

desire and anger and who have realised the Àtman, there is absorption

in Brahman (liberation) whether they are living or dead.

In the Brhadàraõyaka Upanióad, the jävanmukta is eulogised

thus: (III.5.1)

How does that knower of Brahman behave? Howsoever he may behave, he

is just such.

 

Further, (IV.4.23)

This is the eternal glory of a knower of Brahman; it neither

increases nor decreases through (good or bad) action.}

 

Dates of the major events of the final phase of Acharyal's sàdhanà

YuvaMàrgaëira Þukla Daëamä 10.12.1935 Thursday

Vision and blessing of Þiva

Yuva Màrgaëira ÞuklaEkàdaëä 11.12.1935 Friday Commencement

of nirguõa-dhyàna after scripture-based reflection.

Yuva Màrgaëira ÞuklaDvàdaëä 12.12.1935 Saturday

Attainment of savikalpa-samàdhi on Brahman

Yuva Màrgaëira ÞuklaPourõamä 15.12.1935 Tuesday Attainment of

nirvikalpa-samàdhi on Brahman.

Yuva Màrgaëira ÞuklaDvitäyà 17.12.1935 Thursday Final

realisation of and establishment in Brahman.

 

Om Tat Sat