Samadhi etc...

[Guest guest]

Namaste friends,

 

This is how I understand it, at this moment in time...

 

Michael Coman's article is a very interesting and thoughtful one, as is his

book "The Method of Early Advaita Vedanta", which I would recommend to

others. However, I can't help feeling that in the effort to distance

Vedanta from Patanjali's Yoga that we risk throwing the baby out with the

bathwater.

 

In his article, Comans himself points out that in Upadesa Sahasri, Sankara

states that "the Self is nirvikalpa by nature".

 

In his book Comans points us to Sankara's commentary on Mandukya Upanishad

and Karika of Gaudapada where it is stated and affirmed by Sankara that:

 

"Brahman is samadhi" (3.37: 3.38)

 

and that...

 

"the Self is inherently nirvikalpa and as such is samadhi by nature" ( from

2.35)

 

Surely the above statements amount to nothing less than saying that our true

nature IS Nirvikapa Samadhi.

 

Sri Ramana Maharsi also says:

 

"Samadhi is our natural state." (Talk 136)

 

and...

 

"In yoga the term samadhi refers to some kind of trance and there are

various kinds of samadhi. But the samadhi I speak of is different. It is

sahaja samadhi. . . . The nirvikalpa samadhi of raja yoga may have its use.

But in jnana yoga this sahaja sthiti [natural state] or sahaja nishtha

[abidance in the natural state] itself is the nirvikalpa state." (Sat

Darshan Bashya)

 

Thus, just as for Gaudapada and Sankara, Ramana effectively says that

Nirvikalpa Samadhi (the Self) is our true nature, our natural state.

 

If we accept this description of Samadhi and Nirvikalpa of Gaudapada's,

Sankara's and Ramana Maharshi's, then we can also understand the statement

from Sri Ramana that:

 

"The True Being can be realised only in samadhi; what was then is also now.

Otherwise it cannot be Reality or Ever-present Being. What was in samadhi is

here and now too. Hold it and it is your natural condition of Being. Samadhi

practice must lead to it."

 

and likewise the statement in Vivekacudamani:

 

"By Nirvikalpa Samadhi the truth of Brahman is clearly and definitely

realized, but not otherwise.... " (365)

 

However, as pointed out in many places, while the veils of ignorance thin

due to the practice of discrimination / Self Inquiry , the establishment in

our Real Nature is not necessarily steady or abiding at first. Which is why

Sri Ramana distinguishes two 'kinds' of Nirvikalpa Samadhi. Before the

stage of steady abidance in the natural state it is referred to as:

 

1) Kevala Nirvikalpa Samadhi - This is the stage below Self-realization. In

this state there is a temporary but effortless Self-awareness, but the ego

has not been finally eliminated. It is characterised by an absence of

body-consciousness. Although one has a temporary awareness of the Self in

this state, one is not able to perceive sensory information or function in

the world. When body-consciousness returns, the ego reappears. Therefore,

though 'advanced' one is not yet a mukti at this stage.

 

When it is steady and the ego / ingnorance has been 'destroyed', it is

refered to as:

 

2) Sahaja Nirvikalpa Samadhi - This is the state of the jnani who has

finally and irrevocably eliminated his ego. Sahaja means `natural' and

nirvikalpa means `no differences'. A jnani in this state is able to function

naturally in the world, just as any ordinary person does. Knowing that he is

the Self, the sahaja jnani sees no difference between himself and others and

no difference between himself and the world. For such a person, everything

is a manifestation of the indivisible Self. [1 and 2 are adapted from

"Talks "]

 

It seems to me that if we can hold onto the definition of Nirvikalpa Samadhi

as the Natural State, and put aside the issue with Patanjali's Yoga for the

time being, then there need be no contradiction between verses mentioned in

Vivekacudamani and other statements by Sri Sankara.

 

May we each put as much effort into trying to understand the views of others

as we do in maintaining our own.

 

With kind regards to all Advaitins,

 

Peter