nirvikalpa samAdhi and brahma jnAna

September 2, 2006

nirvikalpasamAdhi and brahmajnAna.

SrI madhusUdana sarasvatI says in his commentary gUDhArthadIpikA on the

bhagavadgita, 6.29:--

There are two means of attaining realization. One is the

asamprajnAta-samAdhi; for in samprajnAta-samAdhi the Witness experiences the

principle called mind, possessed of the flow of modifications in the form of

the Self alone. However, when it is bereft of all modifications it is not

experienced, because then it is then functionless. This is the difference.

The second is the process of discrimination thus: 'The thing witnessed,

which is imagined on the Witness, does not exist at all, because it is

unreal. But the Witness, the absolute supreme Reality, alone exists'.

Between these two, the first process was propounded by the followers of

hiraNyagarbha, who hold that creation is real. For, in their case it is not

possible that there can be any method other than full restraint (nirodha)

for the visualization of the Witness by becoming oblivious of the mind,

which is a real entity.

But the followers of the upanishads, who depend on the views of the

illustrious, holy and venerable Sankara and hold that creation is unreal,

accept only the second process. For in their case, when the knowledge of the

substratum becomes firm, the non-perception of the sublated mind imagined on

that substratum, and also of the things visualized by it (mind), becomes

easily possible. It is for this very reason that SrI Sankara did not expound

anywhere the necessity of yoga for the knowers of brahman. Hence, for the

realization of brahman, the paramahamsas, who follow the upanishads, engage

only in *vichAra *on the vedantic sentences of the Vedas by approaching a

teacher; but they do not engage in yoga because, since the defects of the

mind are removed through vichAra alone, yoga becomes superfluous.

The mention of nirvikalpasamAdhi in vivekachUDAmaNi, verse 358 which

starts with 'upAdhiyogAt' may at first sight appear to be in conflict with

what madhusUdana sarasvatI has said above. But if we look at verses 255 to

264 which all end with 'brahma tattvamasi bhAvayaAtmani' , which means 'you

are that brahman; meditate on this in your mind', it is seen that SrI

Sankara is speaking of nididhyAsana which follows the hearing (sravaNa) of

the mahAvAkya 'tat tvam asi' and reflection (manana) thereon. The following

verses are also relevant in this context:

Verse 363-When the mind thus purified by continuous practice merges in

Brahman, then arises samAdhi free from vikalpa and in which there is the

experience of the nectar of non-dual bliss.

In this verse, instead of 'nirvikalpa samAdhi' SrI Sankara uses the

expression ' samAdhiH vikalpavarjitaH'. Swami Chandrasekhara Bharati, in his

commentary, gives the meaning of this expression as 'samAdhi which is the

cause of the elimination of all vAsanas such as the notion 'I'. It is clear

from this that nirvikalpasamAdhi here is only the perfection of nididhyAsana

and has nothing to do with Patanjali's yoga.

Verse 364- "By this samAdhi there arises the destruction of the knots of all

vAsanas and of all karmas. There will be the manifestation without effort of

one's nature inside and outside and for ever.

Verse 365- Reflection is a hundred times superior to hearing. Meditation is

a hundred thousand times superior to reflection. nirvikalpa samAdhi is

infinitely superior". In this verse he refers to SravaNa and manana which

are enjoined by vedAnta. The 'meditation' in this context is therefore

nididhyAsana which is the next step. nirvikalpasamAdhi is therefore the

culmination of nididhyAsana. He has not used the yoga term which is

asamprajnAta samAdhi.

Verse 366- The truth that is brahman is surely realized by nirvikalpa

samAdhi, not by any other means. Otherwise, due to the fickleness of the

mind, it will be mixed with other modifications.

Verse 367- Therefore remain in samAdhi with your sense organs under control,

with a tranquil mind ever turned inward, by realization of your identity

with Brahman, and destroy the darkness of beginningless avidya.

These verses also confirm the view that what SrI Sankara is advocating is

nididhyAsana.

This interpretation will be in accordance with madhusUdana sarasvatI's

statement quoted above, according to which SrI Sankara has not advocated the

use of yoga.

I find in my notes that SrI Chandrasekharendra Mahaswamigal of the Kanchi

mutt had stated that ' A jnAni is Brahman when he is in nirvikalpa samAdhi'.

This also supports what I have said above that nirvikalpa samAdhi is only

the perfection of nididhyAsana. I am not able to say where this statement of

swamigal appears, because I have not noted it.

S.N.Sastri

September 2, 2006

Sastri-ji

Pranams

First of all let me thank you for taking some of your

invaluable time in starting a wonderful thread on

narayaneeyam. With Prof VK continuing his invaluable

thread on Paramacharyal's Deivathin Kural and now with

this, our hearts are filled with blessed bliss.

Thank you also for your clarifications about the

verses in question.

In Subbu-ji's post describing the words of His Holines

Acharyal of Sringeri we have these words

"(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." [What Divine greatness and what Divine

humility!! - a hundred pranams to His Holiness!]

Your noble thoughts are fully in line with those of

the Acharyal.

My humble pranams to you.

Hari OM

Shyam

--- "S.N. Sastri" <sn.sastri > wrote:

> nirvikalpasamAdhi and brahmajnAna.

>

> SrI madhusUdana sarasvatI says in his commentary

> gUDhArthadIpikA on the

> bhagavadgita, 6.29:--

>

> There are two means of attaining realization. One is

> the

> asamprajnAta-samAdhi; for in samprajnAta-samAdhi the

> Witness experiences the

> principle called mind, possessed of the flow of

> modifications in the form of

> the Self alone. However, when it is bereft of all

> modifications it is not

> experienced, because then it is then functionless.

> This is the difference.

> The second is the process of discrimination thus:

> 'The thing witnessed,

> which is imagined on the Witness, does not exist at

> all, because it is

> unreal. But the Witness, the absolute supreme

> Reality, alone exists'.

> Between these two, the first process was propounded

> by the followers of

> hiraNyagarbha, who hold that creation is real. For,

> in their case it is not

> possible that there can be any method other than

> full restraint (nirodha)

> for the visualization of the Witness by becoming

> oblivious of the mind,

> which is a real entity.

>

> But the followers of the upanishads, who depend on

> the views of the

> illustrious, holy and venerable Sankara and hold

> that creation is unreal,

> accept only the second process. For in their case,

> when the knowledge of the

> substratum becomes firm, the non-perception of the

> sublated mind imagined on

> that substratum, and also of the things visualized

> by it (mind), becomes

> easily possible. It is for this very reason that SrI

> Sankara did not expound

> anywhere the necessity of yoga for the knowers of

> brahman. Hence, for the

> realization of brahman, the paramahamsas, who follow

> the upanishads, engage

> only in *vichAra *on the vedantic sentences of the

> Vedas by approaching a

> teacher; but they do not engage in yoga because,

> since the defects of the

> mind are removed through vichAra alone, yoga becomes

> superfluous.

>

> The mention of nirvikalpasamAdhi in

> vivekachUDAmaNi, verse 358 which

> starts with 'upAdhiyogAt' may at first sight appear

> to be in conflict with

> what madhusUdana sarasvatI has said above. But if we

> look at verses 255 to

> 264 which all end with 'brahma tattvamasi

> bhAvayaAtmani' , which means 'you

> are that brahman; meditate on this in your mind', it

> is seen that SrI

> Sankara is speaking of nididhyAsana which follows

> the hearing (sravaNa) of

> the mahAvAkya 'tat tvam asi' and reflection (manana)

> thereon. The following

> verses are also relevant in this context:

>

> Verse 363-When the mind thus purified by continuous

> practice merges in

> Brahman, then arises samAdhi free from vikalpa and

> in which there is the

> experience of the nectar of non-dual bliss.

>

> In this verse, instead of 'nirvikalpa samAdhi' SrI

> Sankara uses the

> expression ' samAdhiH vikalpavarjitaH'. Swami

> Chandrasekhara Bharati, in his

> commentary, gives the meaning of this expression as

> 'samAdhi which is the

> cause of the elimination of all vAsanas such as the

> notion 'I'. It is clear

> from this that nirvikalpasamAdhi here is only the

> perfection of nididhyAsana

> and has nothing to do with Patanjali's yoga.

>

> Verse 364- "By this samAdhi there arises the

> destruction of the knots of all

> vAsanas and of all karmas. There will be the

> manifestation without effort of

> one's nature inside and outside and for ever.

>

> Verse 365- Reflection is a hundred times superior to

> hearing. Meditation is

> a hundred thousand times superior to reflection.

> nirvikalpa samAdhi is

> infinitely superior". In this verse he refers to

> SravaNa and manana which

> are enjoined by vedAnta. The 'meditation' in this

> context is therefore

> nididhyAsana which is the next step.

> nirvikalpasamAdhi is therefore the

> culmination of nididhyAsana. He has not used the

> yoga term which is

> asamprajnAta samAdhi.

>

> Verse 366- The truth that is brahman is surely

> realized by nirvikalpa

> samAdhi, not by any other means. Otherwise, due to

> the fickleness of the

> mind, it will be mixed with other modifications.

>

> Verse 367- Therefore remain in samAdhi with your

> sense organs under control,

> with a tranquil mind ever turned inward, by

> realization of your identity

> with Brahman, and destroy the darkness of

> beginningless avidya.

>

> These verses also confirm the view that what SrI

> Sankara is advocating is

> nididhyAsana.

>

> This interpretation will be in accordance with

> madhusUdana sarasvatI's

> statement quoted above, according to which SrI

> Sankara has not advocated the

> use of yoga.

>

> I find in my notes that SrI Chandrasekharendra

> Mahaswamigal of the Kanchi

> mutt had stated that ' A jnAni is Brahman when he is

> in nirvikalpa samAdhi'.

> This also supports what I have said above that

> nirvikalpa samAdhi is only

> the perfection of nididhyAsana. I am not able to say

> where this statement of

> swamigal appears, because I have not noted it.

>

> S.N.Sastri

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

September 2, 2006

advaitin, "S.N. Sastri" <sn.sastri wrote:

>

> nirvikalpasamAdhi and brahmajnAna.

>

> SrI madhusUdana sarasvatI says in his commentary gUDhArthadIpikA on

the

> bhagavadgita, 6.29:--

> > These verses also confirm the view that what SrI Sankara is

advocating is

> nididhyAsana.

>

> This interpretation will be in accordance with madhusUdana sarasvatI's

> statement quoted above, according to which SrI Sankara has not

advocated the

> use of yoga.

>

Namaste Shastriji,

I would greatly appreciate your help in reconciling

this with the following excerpts from your home page on Panchadashi.

http://www.geocities.com/advaitavedant/panchadasi.htm

http://www.geocities.com/snsastri/panchadasi.html

Panchadasi

of Sri Vidyaranya Svami

A Summary

Chapter 1

When the mind gradually leaves off the ideas of the meditator and the

act of meditation and gets merged in the Self which is the object of

meditation, it is called the state of samadhi. In this state the mind

is steady like the flame of a lamp kept in a place where there is no

breeze at all. This has been mentioned in Bhagavadgita, ch. 6, verse

19. Though in this state there is no subjective cognition of the mental

function having the Self as object, its continued existence in this

state is inferred from the recollection after emergence from samadhi.

This shows that only the modifications of the mind cease in samadhi,

but the mind itself is not dissolved. By such a samadhi, known as

nirvikalpa samadhi, all the accumulated karma and all desires, which

are the seeds of transmigratory existence, are destroyed. Then the

mahavakya 'That thou art' gives rise to the direct realization of

Brahman.

Chapter 11

Yogananda—The Bliss Of Yoga

Chapters 11 to 15 expound the various aspects in which Bliss which

is Brahman manifests itself. In this chapter it is pointed out that the

bliss attained through the practice of Yoga is an aspect of the supreme

Bliss that is identical with Brahman.

Regards,

Sunder

September 3, 2006

advaitin, Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

Sastri-ji

Pranams

In Subbu-ji's post describing the words of His Holines Acharyal of

Sringeri we have these words

"(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."

[What Divine greatness and what Divine humility!! - a hundred

pranams to His Holiness!]

Your noble thoughts are fully in line with those of the Acharyal. My

humble pranams to you.

Hari OM

Shyam

Quote (from Swami Nikhilananda):

This is the warning given against pursuing the Yogic smadhi as the

state of the highest spiritual realisation. Te mind seeking Truth and

frightened at the immensity of efort necessary for its realisation

seeks relief in samadhi. The Acharya exhorts us to practice

discrimination

even when the mind passes into the passivity of Samadhi and to

extricate from that state by cultivating the spirit of non-attachment

to any pleasure experienced in the state of

samadhi. The object of life is not to enjoy any bliss arising out of

inactivity as one experinces in samadhi or deep sleep, but to know

the real nature of the Self. The yogic method may be followed with

certain advantage by the student of mediocre intellect who wants to

turn his

turbulent mind from the pursuit of external objects. The yogic method

gives him control over his mind But even in such a case Yoga serves

only a temporary or subordinate purpose.

In the state of samadhi, the yogi fails to see that the non-dual

brahman alone exists. He seeks samadhi because he believes in the

existence of the mind as separate from Atman, and therefore tries to

control it. By some mechanical means he brings the mind to a state of

inactivity and thus makes himself free from all worries. But this is

not the Vedantic goal of Truth. `na ca vikShipyate punaH': `not

dispersed again': This steadiness is quite different from the

condition of samadhi. In this steady condition the mind realizes the

non-dual brahman everywhere.

Unquote. (from message No.26206 of Advaitin List)

Srigurubhyo NamaH

Namaste Dear Shyam ji,

Thanks for highlighting that portion of my post. In fact while

putting it across a thought crossed my mind that this particular

piece would adequately address an observation made by Swami

Nikhilanandaji quoted above. (What a chasm of difference between that

opinion and practice !!) Apart from that, that piece shows

immaculately how a truly realized sage's advaitic realization is not

NS-dependent although for its arisal NS was instrumental. I also

remember Sri Shankara's words in the Gita Bhashyam (reference not

immediately traceable), to the effect that a man uses a boat to cross

the river and once this is accomplished he walks away leaving the

boat behind; he does not carry it along.

Now coming to the observation::

SrI madhusUdana sarasvatI says in his commentary gUDhArthadIpikA on

the bhagavadgita, 6.29:--

But the followers of the upanishads, who depend on the views of the

illustrious, holy and venerable Sankara and hold that creation is

unreal, accept only the second process. For in their case, when the

knowledge of the substratum becomes firm, the non-perception of the

sublated mind imagined on that substratum, and also of the things

visualized by it (mind), becomes easily possible. It is for this

very reason that SrI Sankara did not expound anywhere the necessity

of yoga for the knowers of brahman. Hence, for the realization of

brahman, the paramahamsas, who follow the upanishads, engage only

in *vichAra *on the vedantic sentences of the Vedas by approaching

a teacher; but they do not engage in yoga because, since the

defects of the mind are removed through vichAra alone, yoga becomes

superfluous. (unquote)

there are some very important points to be considered. In fact, more

than two years ago when I was reading his GUDhArthadIpikA, I came

across this above observation and was shocked. Even as I was

regaining from the effect, as providence would have it, my eyes,

without any premeditation, fell on a paragraph below. That happened

to be the gloss named: BhAshyotkarsha-dIpikA of Sri Dhanapati Suri.

He has severely and elaborately criticized the above view of Sri

Madhusudana Saraswati. While he gives several reasons, the most

noteworthy among them is: The entire tenor of Bhagavatpada's bhashya

on the Brahmasutra rejecting Yoga is on not rejecting yoga in toto

but only selective. He has retained as non-contradictory to Vedanta

those aspects of the Yoga system and rejected only the rest. (This

we recently saw). Sri Suri goes on to give other reasons like even

for the proper establishment of the four-fold qualifications and

especially the shatka-sampatti yogabhyasa is indispensable. He shows

the authority of the `atha' shabda of `atha ato Brahma jignaasaa' and

says this is well covered in the atha shabda as a prerequisite for

one to take up study of the Vedanta. He also cites the

Brihadaranyaka Mantra `shrotavyo, mantavyo, nididhyasitavyaH' which

prescribes yoga (ref. The sutra `samAdhyabhAvaacha' that we recently

saw) where the Acharya has said that samadhi is prescribed in the

Upanishads as a means to realization. After a detailed treatment of

this issue he concludes saying that the above view of Sri Madhusudana

Saraswati is to be rejected.

After this I had occasion to consult an immensely authoritative

source on this and got the reply that the subject view is indeed

incorrect.

In fact, Sri Madhusudana Saraswati's Gita commentary is so suffused

with very detailed explanations of the Yoga Sutras that one often

wonders whether it is Gita bhashya or Yogasutra bhashya. It is he

who categorized the aspirants into four: uttama, madhyama, etc. for

the Gita verse 13.24/25. He says: dhyaanena=vijAtIya-pratyaya-

anantaritena sajAtIya-pratyaya-pravAheNa sravaNa-manana-phalabhUtena-

Atma-chintanEna nididhyAsa-shabdoditena …(the meaning is directing

the mind on it with similar thought flow, uninterrupted by dissimilar

thoughts. Just compare this with what Acharya Shankara says in the

quote a little down below here.

Sri MS continues: the second type have come up to the level preceding

nididhyasanam and will get the realization eventually, through dhyana

alone (which he defined earlier). It would be of interest to note

what he says in the Gudarthadipika for the verse 6.29 at the

beginning: tadevam nirodha-samaadhinA tvampadalakshye tat-pada-

lakshye cha shuddhe sAkshAtkrite tadikya-gocharA tattvamasi iti

Vedanta-vaakya-janyaa nirvikalpaka-sAkshAtkAra-rUpaa vrittiH

brahmavidyA abhidAnaa jAyate. tatashcha kritsna-avidyaa-tat-dArya-

nivrittyaa brahma-sukham-atyantam ashnute…. I pointed out this for

two reasons: one: the use of nirodha-samadhi for the realization of

Atman and two, that this is called the akhandAkAravritti that ARISES

(jaayate) and destroys avidya in its entirety.

Sri SacchidAnanda ShivAbhinava Narasimha Bharati SwaminaH, the 33th

pontiff in the Sringeri Peetham was a great Yogi. His greatness

found manifestation even on the day of His taking Sannyasa. It was

rather late in the evening when the functions ended. The young boy

of eight years was naturally tired and so His Guru asked Him to

retire for the night. When the marvelous young Sannyasi went to

sleep, He uttered in sleep the grand Truth `Sarvoham' (I am all). It

is recorded that even when young, He used to often go into Nirvikalpa

Samadhi, the pinnacle of meditative experiences and had to be

literally barred by His Guru from entering that exalted state so that

the Math affairs may not be neglected. He will be ever remembered as

the rediscoverer of Kaladi, the birth place of Bhagavatpaada.

There was another preceptor, sage Vidyateertha, who spent His last

years in the state of Lambikaa Yoga in a sealed cave.

Then, we saw the instance of Sri SadAshivendra Saraswati, popularly

known as SadAshiva-brahmendraal, who authored several works and

hymns. The popular song `mAnasa sanchara re' (that featured in the

Telugu film `Shankaraabharanam') is his composition. He authored

the `Brahmasutra vritti and another work Yoga sutra vritti. He was a

paramahamsa sannyasin. Again, Sri Govindaananda the author of the

Ratna Prabha gloss on the Brahmasutra bhashya has authored a work on

the Yoga sutras known as `Yoga MaNi prabhaa'.

Then, coming to the question of Sri Shankara not having taught Yoga,

we have in the very beginning of the Chandogya Bhashya this teaching:

upAsanam tu yathaa-shaastra-samarpitam kinchit Alambanam upAdAya

tasmin samAna-chitta-vritti-santAnakaraNam tad-vilakshaNa-pratyaya-

anantaritam iti visheshaH. TAnyetAni upAsanAni sattva-

shuddikaratvena vastu-tattva-avabhAsakatvAt advaita-jnAna-upakArakANi…

(This means: meditation is defined as taking up a scripturally

prescribed object as support and directing the mind on it with

similar thought flow, uninterrupted by dissimilar thoughts. These

meditations, being helpful to obtain the Advaita Realization by

bringing about purity of the mind….)

In the `nididhyasitavyaH' mantra the bhashyam says: nishchayena

dhyaatavyaH meaning: The Atman has to be intensely meditated upon.

The Upanishad had just said: Atma vaa arey drashTavyaH = Atma is

worthy of realization, or should be made the object of realization.

To this end the means are sravana, manana and nididhyasana. We again

saw recently that this mantra is said by the Acharya to be

prescribing samadhi. We saw several other instances from the

Bhagavadgita bhashya where the Acharya implicitly of explicitly

taught yoga. In the Taittiriya Bhashyam, in Bhriguvalli, for the

word `sa tapo tapyata', the Acharya cites a smriti:

Manasashcha indriyANAm hi aikAgryam paramam tapaH = the supreme

tapas is that where the mind and the senses are directed one-

pointedly.

There is a work named `Yoga-tArAvaLI" of Acharya Shankara, a

translation in English was published by the Sringeri Mutt in the

1980's. It is no longer in print; i have a xerox copy. Sri Abhinava

Vidyateertha Swamigal, the then Jagadguru has given a Benedictory

foreword to this:

The glorious preceptor, Bhagavatpaadaal, has written many explanatory

works. In general, all of them, which enunciate the unity of the

inner Self with Brahman, primarily aim at expounding the means to

attain that realization. The book called Yogataaraavali, a

composition of Bhagavatpaadaal, propounds the acquisition of

knowledge of Brahman by the path of Yoga. Though this text is small,

it, having taught many things about Yoga, explains, at its climax,

only Samaadhi, characterized by the Jiva abiding as non-different

from the Supreme Self. It is known to the readers that the contents

of this book conform to the experiences of practitioners of spiritual

disciplines.

First, the text enunciates Hatha Yoga. While expounding Raja Yoga

it, having established the importance of the amanaska (mindless)

state, also expounds Samadhi wherein there is reflection on the

identity between Jiva and Brahman. (unquote)

In his introduction to the translation, the translator says this:

The Yoga Taaraavali of Shankara Bhagavatpada is a concise treatise on

Yoga. Various methods are expounded herein. The spiritual aspirant

will find it to be a most authoritative and useful manual of Yoga

techniques. In preparing exhaustive notes I have tried to bear the

following points in mind:

1. No word employed by Bhagavatpaadaal is without significance.

2. Being a Vedantin par excellence, He has based His teaching on

the authority of the Upanishads.

3. The teaching is not at variance with the experiences that

result from the actual practice of the methods taught.

To fathom Bhagavatpaadaal's heart is far beyond my limited capacity.

However, solely by the gace of my Guru, I have made a meagre effort

in that direction. I pray that my Guru my accept this imperfect work

written by His insignificant disciple. His benediction, penned in

His own sacred hand, gives the best possible summary of Yoga

Taaraavali.

20.5.1984

R.M. Umesh

In conclusion let me recall the words of Acharyal,

.. 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. (unquote)

The above words gain extreme significance when one remembers that

these are the words that were spoken AFTER having gained aparoksha

jnanam through the instrumentality of NS and not

before. There are cases where often the above words found in

different forms in various vedantic works are taken to heart by

people and an attitude of `I understand these words perfectly, there

is nothing for me to do' sets in and sadhana is totally or partially

neglected. At some late stage in life if one realizes the folly, it

will be too late.

With humble pranams at the Lotus Feet of the Guru,

Subbu

Om Tat Sat

September 4, 2006

SrI madhusUdana sarasvatI says in his commentary gUDhArthadIpikA on

the bhagavadgita, 6.29:-- These verses also confirm the view that what

SrI Sankara is

advocating is nididhyAsana. This interpretation will be in accordance

with madhusUdana sarasvatI's

statement quoted above, according to which SrI Sankara has not advocated

the use of yoga.

praNAms Sri Sastri prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Shankara does advocate patanjala yOga to some extent...The first five limbs

(yama, niyama, Asana, praNAyAma & pratyAhAra) of PY's ashtAnga yOga do find

a place in shankara's prasthAna trayi bhAshya as a *sAdhana* & in the

spirit of shankara's words *paramataM apratishiddhaM anumataH bhavati. But

from the philosophical point of view, shankara categorically rejects both

yOga &sAnkhya shAstra since both are dualistic schools (dvaita darshana-s)

& donot accept Atmaikatva.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

September 4, 2006

> praNAms Sri Sastri prabhuji

> Hare Krishna

>

> Shankara does advocate patanjala yOga to some extent...The first

five limbs

> (yama, niyama, Asana, praNAyAma & pratyAhAra) of PY's ashtAnga

yOga do find

> a place in shankara's prasthAna trayi bhAshya as a *sAdhana* & in

the

> spirit of shankara's words *paramataM apratishiddhaM anumataH

bhavati. But

> from the philosophical point of view, shankara categorically

rejects both

> yOga &sAnkhya shAstra since both are dualistic schools (dvaita

darshana-s)

> & donot accept Atmaikatva.

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

Dear Bhaskar Prabhuji,

>From the philosophical perspective shankara has rejected samkhya and

yoga no doubt. But pls consider that many people have got stabilised

in the advaita jnana using nirvikalpa samadhi as a tool with

advaitic manual as subbuji beautifully says it why cant we accept

it? Let us try to think from an open mind. Greatest jnanis of modern

times like sadashiva brahmendra, ramana maharshi, acharyas of

sringeri, samartha ramdas and his disciples all experiecned samadhi

and most of the people began teaching advaita only after the

dwelling in samadhi for considerable time.

An interested thing to note here is that after emerging from the

nirvikalpa state they reiterated advaita as propogated by shankara

and they have never said that they experienced duality as mentioned

in the samkhya or the yoga sutras.

Why cant we give importance to the seers of recent times and what

are scriptures? they are also revelation to the ancient sages isnt

it?

JAI JAI RAGHUVEER SAMARTHA

Yours in the lord,

Br. Vinayaka

September 4, 2006

Vinayaka <vinayaka_ns >

Why cant we give importance to the seers of recent times and what

are scriptures? they are also revelation to the ancient sages isnt

it?

JAI JAI RAGHUVEER SAMARTHA

Yours in the lord,

Br. Vinayaka

PraNAms Br. Vinayakaji

Here is my understanding. In the teaching of Upadesha Saara by Bhagavaan Ramana it is very clear that he does not endorse patanjali yoga - what is recommended is praNavIxaNa or praNAyAma as a means to quieten the mind for further inquiry into oneself.

In advaita, the problem is well defined - it is the ignorance of oneself as the root cause for delusion as exemplified in the adhyaasa BhAShya of Shankara.

I do not see why there is so much discussion on this if the problem is very clear and the mahaavaakyaas emphasize the identity of jiiva Brahman aikyatvam. That is the truth that needs to be understood and assimilated. The rest is related to saadhana part. What path one takes for the path less land is futile discussion â€“ is it not?

What is required is chitta suddhi - through karma yoga one prepares the mind and from then on shravaNa, manana and nidhidhyAsana is what is needed. It is a constant awareness of the awareness itself - self-consciousness. How one shifts from awareness of to awareness itself as I am - the self-existent and self conscious entity - one without a second - is the Saadhana required. How one achieves it is of no consequence - in fact it is not something to achieve but something to be. Achieving involves something to happen in future while being is something right now and right here. Dhyaanam is elimination of wrong understanding neti neti by which one establishes in oneself. Mind has to be there to reject what is not in order to ascertain what is. By rejection of false one ascertains that which is ever present but cannot be gained by any means (aprameyam).

Let us understand this basics - the rest is only a preparatory for this understanding.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

September 4, 2006

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

> Why cant we give importance to the seers of recent times and what

> are scriptures? they are also revelation to the ancient sages isnt

> it?

>

> Here is my understanding. In the teaching of Upadesha Saara by

Bhagavaan Ramana it is very clear that he does not endorse patanjali

yoga - what is recommended is praNavIxaNa or praNAyAma as a means to

quieten the mind for further inquiry into oneself.

Namaste,

A summary of my perspective is:

1. Badarayana Sutras predated Patanjali. If Yoga had been refuted

already, there was no reason for Patanjali to resurrect a dead issue.

If Shankara predated Patanjali, his refutation could have been

directed only to his predecessors.

2. Nowhere do the Yoga Sutras pointedly say that Jiva-Atmaikya is not

valid.

3. Nididhyasana of Upanishads is identical with Dhyana of Patanjali,

although the former is exclusively on Mahavakyas and the latter allows

other options. Shankara Gita Bhashya gives the definition of Dhyana in

12:12, 13:24, and 18:52.)

4. If they are identical, the end-result (samadhi) cannot be

different. The 'svarupa' of PYS 1:3 cannot be different from that of

advaita.

5. Ramana Maharshi's Upadesha Sara (10-15) is not against PYS. The

Dhyana of the Mahavakyas is the only recommendation for Atma-vichara.

(This is only practicable for the Uttama Adhikaris). This is in

conformity with Gita 12:12.

6. As Ramana Maharshi and Sw. Chandrashekhara Bharati found

Vivekachudamani important enough as representative of Shankara Advaita

Vedanta to translate and comment on it, regardless of authorship

issue, nobody need feel `misled' about following their

interpretations. Those who find other interpretations acceptable can

choose those, and avoid any debates. If we do not understand the

former, we can only pray for their anugraha (grace) to lead us.

7. Sanatana (Vedic) Dharma allows for worship of any deity (Gita

9:23, 25), as any and all will culminate in advaita only (Gita 10:20).

Regards,

Sunder

September 4, 2006

advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh wrote:

>

> 3. Nididhyasana of Upanishads is identical with Dhyana of Patanjali,

> although the former is exclusively on Mahavakyas and the latter allows

> other options. Shankara Gita Bhashya gives the definition of Dhyana in

> 12:12, 13:24, and 18:52.)

>

> 4. If they are identical, the end-result (samadhi) cannot be

> different. The 'svarupa' of PYS 1:3 cannot be different from that of

> advaita.

>

Pranams Sunder-ji

Please refer to Prof-ji's kind posting today of the Kanchi

Mahaswamigals discourses on Advaita Sadhana.

I reproduce an excerpt:

Another opinion is the ashhTAnga-yoga siddhas who speak of the goal of

samAdhi in the attributeless Absolute also obtain *Brahma-nirvANaM*

(advaita-mukti) . But the words of the Gita don't support this. There

is no

greater suthority than Lord Krishna Himself. That He calls only jnAnis as

'sAnkhyas' or 'sannyAsis' is well-known to scholars of all the different

traditions. Krishna says: Only those who go on the advaita path become

'brahma-bhUtas' while living in this world and reach 'Brahma-nirvANaM'

when

the body falls. (B.G. V -24). 'Brahma-bhUta' -becoming is also only

Brahma-nirvANaM' . Just to show the difference that one is in the

jIvan-mukti

stage even when being in the body, we use the term 'Brahma-bhUta' . To

clear

this , He himself says one or two shlokas later: (V-26): "abhito

brahma-nirvANaM vartate .": "In both situations, that is, both in this

world

and in the other world, jnAni gets the Brahma-nirvANaM' .

He also says what happens to those who go along the ashhTAmga-yoga (the

eight-component- yoga) path, what we ordinarily call the yoga-mArga.

But the

Yogi he refers to must have practised well his ashhTAnga-yoga, and

must have

perfected both the breath-discipline and the mind-control regimen. In

addition, as an added qualification he should have deep devotion and

must be

one who constantly and continuously thinks of God - not just one who

has to

think of God (*Ishvara-praNidhAn aM*), as per the prescriptions of the

yogashAstra, for the purpose of developing concentration . Krishna

says "mAM

anusmaran" (remembering Me continuously) "satataM yo mAM smarati

nityashaH"

(B.G. VIII - 13, 14) (he who remembers me always and every day) . Such a

yogi who has also devotion, even though he may leave the body in the

contemplation of praNava that has been equated to shabda-brahman, will

still not get the advaita-mukti. This is what the Lord says in the eighth

chapter called 'akshhara-brahma- yoga'. It has been described

that his soul goes only to Brahma-loka along the path of the

'uttarAyaNa- Sun'.

I trust this clarifies.

My best wishes and pranams,

Shyam

September 5, 2006

advaitin, "shyam_md" <shyam_md wrote:

>> Please refer to Prof-ji's kind posting today of the Kanchi

> Mahaswamigals discourses on Advaita Sadhana.

>

> I reproduce an excerpt:

Namaste Shyam-ji,

Thank you. I can only pray for His grace for me to

understand Gita 8:27-28.

Regards,

Sunder

September 5, 2006

Humble praNAms Sri Vinayaka prabhuji

Hare Krishna

V prabhuji:

Dear Bhaskar Prabhuji,

>From the philosophical perspective shankara has rejected samkhya and yoga

no doubt. But pls consider that many people have got stabilised in the

advaita jnana using nirvikalpa samadhi as a tool with advaitic manual as

subbuji beautifully says it why cant we accept it?

bhaskar :

prabhuji, kindly dont think I am belittling yOga & its efficacies ...I do

respect patanjala yOga as a *separate* dvaita shAstra which helps us to

purify our conditioned mind....But, if somebody says shAstra is the ONLY

operation & instruction manual & nirvikalpa samAdhi is the tool kit to

practically operate *brahma jnAna* machine:-)) then I would certainly have

my own reservations for those declarations...Kindly check shAstra yOnitvAt

sUtra bhAshya, shankara never ever hint us that shAstra is mere text book

or instructional manual book & its knowledge should be unlocked by the

tool of NS...Anyway, I respect *individual opinions* of prabhuji-s here.

V prabhuji:

Let us try to think from an open mind. Greatest jnanis of modern times like

sadashiva brahmendra, ramana maharshi, acharyas of sringeri, samartha

ramdas and his disciples all experiecned samadhi and most of the people

began teaching advaita only after the dwelling in samadhi for considerable

time. An interested thing to note here is that after emerging from the

nirvikalpa state they reiterated advaita as propogated by shankara and they

have never said that they experienced duality as mentioned in the samkhya

or the yoga sutras.

Why cant we give importance to the seers of recent times and what are

scriptures? they are also revelation to the ancient sages isnt it?

bhaskar :

With all due respects to those great noble souls & their teachings, I would

like to say brahma jnAna can not be determined by some supernatural

*individual experiences* of some exalted beings prabhuji. The role of

*anubhava/experience* has a wider scope in advaita vEdAnta & it is not

restricted to some supernatural experiences of some individuals. It is in

this respect Shankara gives great importance to *anubhava* which is

*universal* to all irrespective of their cast & creed. He categorically

states that *vaiyuktika anubhava* (individual experience) cannot be the

valid pramANa for the siddhAnta nirNaya of advaita. Though he has not

completely sidelined the result of individual sAdhana-s, like siddhis

(subtle powers), experience of NS, bhagavat sAkshAtkAra (vision of god with

specific names & forms) etc. etc. he clearly states these cannot be the

yard stick to determine shruti pradipAdita brahma tattva. Since the

experiences of these individuals varies from one person to another. And

here the *anubhava* can not be generalized here based on those experiences.

That is the reason why brama jignAsa is an independent quest & this cannot

be enjoined to purusha tantra pradhAna *dharma jignAsa*. This brahma

jignAsa should be done strictly in accordance with scriptural statements &

with the universal complete experience. What is this universal

experience?? here comes the avasthAtraya prakriya, the experience of which

is one and the same in all beings...based on this shruti (in mAndUkya)

gives the knowledge of our sAkshi chEtana.

As a matter of fact, PY's asaMprajnAtha samAdhi or NS is the point blank

mental state which is gained through deliberate suppression & oppression of

mental thoughts (chitta vrutti nirOdha). Hence the experience of NS cannot

be categorized as *samyagjnAna* where jnAni through *atmaikatva vivEka*

perceives one in all & all in one!! That is the reason why, in the book

Yoga Perfection & Elightenment, and in other talks, Sringeri Jagadguru has

clearly stated that this attainment of nirvikalpa samAdhi is itself only a

mental state and should not be equated with Atmaikatva jnAna/mOksha, nor

seen as necessary for moksha (refer his dialogues which is recently

posted). I think most people who read this book miss this reference,

perhaps this is because of their over affiliation & subjective attachment

to NS or the elaborated details given with respect to the chronological

yogic attainments in that book.

JAI JAI RAGHUVEER SAMARTHA

Yours in the lord,

Br. Vinayaka

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

September 5, 2006

Namaste Sunderji.

Your bulleted comments really hit like bullets. The insight provided

is incisive.

Let us embrace the middle path and listen to everyone. I would have

remained unconventional in the matter. But, your observations and

some of those previously made by Subbuji, Sunder Rajanji, Vinayakji

et al are most compelling.

Personally, I am one fully convinced of the veracity and message

of 'pure' advaita. However, I find myself spending most of my time

chanting Her names, which have only taken me closer to the advaitic

perspective. The anubhUti in the process is undeniable and, if my

experience is any indication, it is high time we had second thoughts

on the yoga sUtrAs, kundalini and such other prescribed methodology

for sAdhana.

Let us remember that it was Shankara who penned Saundaryalahari.

Apart from its advaitic import, the Lahari's relevance to ShrI Cakra,

Kundalini Tantra, mantrAs and yantrAs etc. cannot be overlooked. Why

did an Advaitin like him place all these different things together in

the literary marvel of a garland of exquisite verses?

Instead of adamantly sticking to certain views points, it is

therefore high time we all worked amicably for reconciliation.

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

____________________

In advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh wrote:

>

> advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

> <kuntimaddisada@> wrote:

> A summary of my perspective is:

>

> 1. Badarayana Sutras predated Patanjali. If Yoga had been refuted

> already, there was no reason for Patanjali to resurrect a dead

issue....

September 5, 2006

Namaste,

Humble praNAms Respected Sri Sunder prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Kindly allow me to share my (counter) perspectives...(anyway, I am ready to

get fired from you :-))

SH prabhuji:

2. Nowhere do the Yoga Sutras pointedly say that Jiva-Atmaikya is not

valid.

bhaskar :

but this sEshwara sAnkhya vAdins have repeatedly uphold the theory of

eternal difference among jIva (multiple jIva-s), prakruti & Ishwara...these

jIva-s can never ever become klEsha karma vipAka purusha vishEsha Ishwara

ever after attaining highest state asamprajnAtha samAdhi...Moreover, in the

whole of YS, it never even indirectly implies the vEdAntic Atmaikatva

jnAna.

SH Prabhuji :

3. Nididhyasana of Upanishads is identical with Dhyana of Patanjali,

although the former is exclusively on Mahavakyas and the latter allows

other options. Shankara Gita Bhashya gives the definition of Dhyana in

12:12, 13:24, and 18:52.)

bhaskar :

YS's *tatra pratyaikatAnatA dhyAnaM* cannot be compared with that of

vEdAntic dhyAna...YS's dhyAna is objective, becuase their definition of

*dhAraNa* confirms this...whereas vEdAntic dhyAna is svasvarupAnusandhAna

born out of vEdAnta vAkya shravaNa....

SH prabhuji :

4. If they are identical, the end-result (samadhi) cannot be different.

The 'svarupa' of PYS 1:3 cannot be different from that of advaita.

bhaskar :

point is *if they are identical*...but here it is not...PYS says two types

of end results (two types of samAdhi-s)..but shankara never ever offered

two different types of Atma jnAna.

Regards,

Sunder

Humble praNAms onceagain

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

September 5, 2006

Namaste Sunder-ji,

advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh

wrote:

>

> advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

> <kuntimaddisada@> wrote:

> > Here is my understanding. In the teaching of Upadesha Saara by

> Bhagavaan Ramana it is very clear that he does not endorse

patanjali

> yoga - what is recommended is praNavIxaNa or praNAyAma as a means

to

> quieten the mind for further inquiry into oneself.

>

If Ramana Maharshi did not endorse Patanjali Yoga why does He

say 'Yogas chitta vritti nirodhah is acceptable to all"?

// Talks with Sri Ramana, Page 417

M.: Yogas chitta vritti nirodhah - (Yoga is to check the mind from

changing) - which is acceptable to all. That is also the goal of all.

The method is chosen according to one's own fitness. The goal for

all is the same. Yet different names are given to the goal only to

suit the process preliminary to reaching the goal.

//

>

> 2. Nowhere do the Yoga Sutras pointedly say that Jiva-Atmaikya

is not

> valid.

>

> 3. Nididhyasana of Upanishads is identical with Dhyana of

Patanjali,

> although the former is exclusively on Mahavakyas and the latter

allows

> other options.

>

Thanks for bringing up this important point, Sunder-ji. Patanjali

describes a generic framework or methodology.

> 4. If they are identical, the end-result (samadhi) cannot be

> different. The 'svarupa' of PYS 1:3 cannot be different from that

of

> advaita.

>

Exactly. Sri Vidyaranya, Sri Madhusudana Saraswati, Sri Sadasiva

Brahmendra and other great Jivan-muktas and Advaitic acharyas have

pointed out the same in their commentaries.

I had brought this up in a message last year (#25952), the basis

for 'Yogas chitta vritti nirodhah' is the very mantra that defines

Samadhi in the upanishads.

//

Sri Madhusudana Saraswati cites in his commentary Gudharta Dipika of

the Gita, this mantra of the Katha Upanishad (yadaa

paJNchaavatishhThante..),

and categorically states

`Etam mulakha meva cha yogah chitta vritti nirodhah iti

sutram'

This mantra indeed is the source of the sutra `Yogah Chitta

Vritti Nirodhah'

//

regards

Sundar Rajan

September 5, 2006

Shree Sundarji and Sundar Rajan ji- PraNAms. - Both are sundars!

I donâ€™t fully remember the relevant sloka.

It starts with

laya vinaaShane ubharodhane, layagatam punar bhavati no mRitam (something to that effect) - Sundar can provide the correct sloka. .

The essence, of course, I remember - the prANAyAma takes the mind to laya or absorption while the vichaara takes the notional mind to its complete destruction. The mind that went into laya will come back with all its force when one is returns, while the mind that is destroyed by knowledge is gone for ever. Here the destruction of the mind is the destruction of the ego or egotistical mind that has notions about one self as I am this etc. Hope it answers your question. In the Nidhidhyaasana that involves absorption of the mind there is no knowledge that happens since the mind (objective) is needed for knowledge to take place.

Anyway this is my understanding of Ramana's teaching - this text I actually took couple of years ago as part of Washington D.C. Memorial day weekend camp. I was fortunate to revel in His teachings. We are trying to rejuvenate those recorded tapes in to MP3 format for those who are interested.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

Sundar Rajan <avsundarrajan >

If Ramana Maharshi did not endorse Patanjali Yoga why does He

say 'Yogas chitta vritti nirodhah is acceptable to all"?

/

September 5, 2006

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

the relevant sloka.

>

> It starts with

> laya vinaaShane ubharodhane, layagatam punar bhavati no mRitam

(something to that effect) - >

>

Namaste,

http://davidgodman.org/rteach/Upadesa_Undiyar.pdf (Tamil)

http://www.ramana-maharshi.org/music/upadesa.htm (Devanagari)

13.

laya vinashane ubhaya-rodhane |

laya-gataM punarbhavati no mRRitam ||

Absorption is of two sorts;

Submergence and destruction.

Mind submerged rises again;

Dead, it revives no more.

14.

prANa-bandhanAt lIna-mAnasam |

eka-cintanAt nAshametyadaaH ||

Breath controlled and thought restrained,

The mind turned one-way inward

Fades and dies.

September 5, 2006

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

> Shree Sundarji and Sundar Rajan ji- PraNAms. - Both are sundars!

>

> I donâ€™t fully remember the relevant sloka.

>

> It starts with

> laya vinaaShane ubharodhane, layagatam punar bhavati no mRitam

(something to that effect) - Sundar can provide the correct sloka. .

>

> The essence, of course, I remember - the prANAyAma takes the mind

to laya or absorption while the vichaara takes the notional mind to

its complete destruction. The mind that went into laya will come

back with all its force when one is returns, while the mind that is

destroyed by knowledge is gone for ever. Here the destruction of

the mind is the destruction of the ego or egotistical mind that has

notions about one self as I am this etc. Hope it answers your

question.

>

reply:

yes, all of the above makes sense. But Maharishi has stated several

times that the Sadhaka has to proceed beyond just the 'prANAyAma',

has He not? In fact, Sri Ramana draws our attention to the fact that

Patanjali himself emphasising steps beyond Pranayama:

// Quote

It is necessary to be aware while controlling thoughts. Otherwise

it will lead to sleep. That awareness, the chief factor, is indicated

by the fact of Patanjali emphasising pratyahara, dharana, dhyana,

samadhi even after pranayama. Pranayama makes the mind steady

and suppresses thoughts. Then why develop further? Because

awareness then is the one necessary factor.

// End Quote

>>

In the Nidhidhyaasana that involves absorption of the mind there is

no knowledge that happens since the mind (objective) is needed for

knowledge to take place.

>>

reply:

I presume this is to contrast with Vichara as you explain "vichaara

takes the notional mind to its complete destruction." , "while

the mind that is destroyed by knowledge is gone for ever."

I agree with what you said about Vichara but not the statement about

absorption.

I know what you said about absorbtion ("there is no knowledge") will

go down very nicely with the camp which insists 'Nirvikalpa Samadhi

is just another state of ignorance'. But I tend to disagree strongly

with this, Sri Sadanandji. Reasons are several:

(1) Maharishi himeself has referred to the fact that absorption is a

valid path (see item

(3) from the 'Talks' below ):

//

Concentrating upon one thought make all other thoughts

disappear. Finally that thought also disappears;

//

(2) Revered advaitins such as Sri Vidyaranya uniformly agree that

Bhagavan's words 'atma samstham manah krtva na kincidapi cintayet'

is Nidhidhyaasana that involves completes absorption of the mind

and they categorize it as Nirvikalpa Samadhi. Sankara calls it the

highest intruction about Yoga.

Shortly after this, Sankara explains the fruit of such 'absorption

of the mind'

//

"yogasya phalan brahmaikatva darsanam sarvasamsara vicchedakaranam"

(6.28) the fruit of Yoga (Meditation or specifically Nidhidhyasana)

is the identity with Brahman which is the cause of uprooting of

Samsara in its entirety

//

and the Gita verse following right after this

is "sarvabhutastamatmanam" wherein Bhagavan describes the "Sarvatma

bhava" , the knowledge of self-realization.

Given all this, Sri Sadanandji, how it is possible to say there is

no knowledge that happens in the Nidhidhyaasana "that involves

absorption of the mind", when both Sankara and Lord Krishna point

out that this absorption leads directly to self-realization?

Are they both (Lord Krishna and Sankara) saying that the state of

abroption that is akin to deep sleep, is full of ignorance and has

no knowledge will directly lead to self-knowledge and destroy avidya?

Doesn't make sense, does it? So the only alternative is to accept

absorption (or yoga or samadhi) is as valid a path as 'vichara' in

destruction of the mind. and this has been pointed out in scriptures

such as Yoga Vasishtha.

regards

Sundar Rajan

// Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi Talk 191, page 164

Mr. Cohen, a resident disciple, was speaking of yoga method.

Maharshi remarked: Patanjali's first sutra is applicable to all

systems of yoga. The aim is the cessation of mental activities. The

methods differ. So long as there is effort made towards that goal it

is called yoga. The effort is the yoga.

The cessation can be brought about in so many ways.

(1) By examining the mind itself. When the mind is examined, its

activities cease automatically. This is the method of jnana. The

pure mind is the Self.

(2) Looking for the source of the mind is another method. The

source may be said to be God or Self or consciousness.

(3) Concentrating upon one thought make all other thoughts

disappear. Finally that thought also disappears; and

(4) Hatha Yoga.

All methods are one and the same inasmuch as they all tend to the

same goal.

It is necessary to be aware while controlling thoughts. Otherwise

it will lead to sleep. That awareness, the chief factor, is indicated

by the fact of Patanjali emphasising pratyahara, dharana, dhyana,

samadhi even after pranayama. Pranayama makes the mind steady

and suppresses thoughts. Then why develop further? Because

awareness then is the one necessary factor. Such states can be

imitated by taking morphia, chloroform, etc. They do not lead to

Moksha because they lack awareness.

//

September 5, 2006

Sunder Hattangadi <sunderh >

14.

prANa-bandhanAt lIna-mAnasam |

eka-cintanAt nAshametyadaaH ||

Breath controlled and thought restrained,

The mind turned one-way inward

Fades and dies.

Thanks Sundar - Here is my understanding of the above sloka.

Bhagavaan Ramana is discussing two aspects - one is the prANAyAma and the other is the aatma vichaara - as eka chintanaat - since before these slokas he has talked about japa and dhyanaam where saH ayam iti abhidaa bhaavana - is the eka chintanaat - that is I am He - I an He are one and the same and that non-dual inquiry is what he calls self-inquiry and that is the highest inquiry. That eka chintanaat is the single pointed contemplation on the nature of one self leads to destruction of the notional mind or egotistical mind. Where as in the prANAyAma there is absorption of the mind to quietude but that silent mind is laya - similar to deep sleep state - It cames back as it was before it went to laya since there is no knowledge in the laya - just as there is no knowledge in the deep sleep state.

Any way this is my understanding and I think this agrees with Sankara's adhyaasa BhAshya.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

September 6, 2006

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

> > 14.

>

> prANa-bandhanAt lIna-mAnasam |

> eka-cintanAt nAshametyadaaH ||

>

> Breath controlled and thought restrained,

> The mind turned one-way inward

> Fades and dies.

>

> Thanks Sundar - Here is my understanding of the above sloka.

>

> Bhagavaan Ramana is discussing two aspects - one is the

prANAyAma and the other is the aatma vichaara - as eka chintanaat -

since before these slokas he has talked about japa and dhyanaam

where saH ayam iti abhidaa bhaavana - is the eka chintanaat - that

is I am He - I an He are one and the same and that non-dual inquiry

is what he calls self-inquiry and that is the highest inquiry. That

eka chintanaat is the single pointed contemplation on the nature of

one self leads to destruction of the notional mind or egotistical

mind. Where as in the prANAyAma there is absorption of the mind to

quietude but that silent mind is laya - similar to deep sleep state -

It cames back as it was before it went to laya since there is no

knowledge in the laya - just as there is no knowledge in the deep

sleep state.

> Any way this is my understanding and I think this agrees with

Sankara's adhyaasa BhAshya.

Namaste,

To supplement Sundar Rajanji's previous post # 33031 -

Patanjali Yoga Sutra 1:32:

http://www.rainbowbody.net/HeartMind/Yogasutra1.htm

Sutra I.32 tat-pratiShedhArtham eka-tattvAbhyAsaH |

Therefore (tat) the remedy (pratishedha) [for these obstacles

(viksepa)] is ever increasing our practice (abhyasa) of one pointed

dedication and devotion to the truth (eka-tattvabhyasa) -- the

continued focused practice of rooting out those obstacles of self

delusion, and letting go of falsehood.

Commentary: In this sutra Patanjali describes the practice of eka-

tattvabhyasah as removing the obstacles (viksepa) by bringing

together of one's focus in a one pointed dedication to the eternal

truth of the Great Integrity -- the Reality of the All in the One

and the One in the All (eka-tattva) as the practice (abhyasa) of

isvara pranidhana (surrender and dedication to our highest potential

as That). See I.23-26, Pada II.2 and II.45. There is but one

underlying intent or purpose here; i.e., to allow for the continuous

flow of Divine Grace or Consciousness uninterruptedly. This is

realized in a a non-dual transpersonal and continuous non-

interrupted flow throughout all the koshas, chakras, nadis, strota,

marmas, and multi-dimensional fields of infinite consciousness up

into to Hiranyagarbha kosha, not as a separate or personal

realization. Otherwise it would not be the Great Integrity/Yantra at

all. Tat Tvam Asi --

Regards,

Sunder

September 6, 2006

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

> Re: nirvikalpa samAdhi and brahma jnAna