advaita vedAnta & pAtanjala yoga - 2

[Guest guest]

Namaste to all sAdhaka-s,

 

This is the second part of the post.

 

As I mentioned in the 1st part, a lot of disagreement occurs because

people focus on specific texts or teachers instead of looking at the

tradition as a whole.

 

There are only a few things that are absolutely indispensable as far

as advaita-vedAnta is concerned. IMO, these are:

 

1. Truth is non-dual, as represented by the equation: Atman = brahman

2. The upaniShad-s (and the texts & tradition based on the

upaniShad-s) show this truth and teach us how to realize it.

 

The first is the advaitic truth, the second is what defines the

saMpradAya.

 

Beyond this, the tradition allows for multiple approaches & diversity

of views. All sAdhanA occurs in the realm of vyavahAra, and this realm

is the realm of relativity. There is enough place here for multiple

approaches. In fact, multiple approaches are needed because sAdhaka-s

have differing abilities and temperaments. Of course, this does not

mean that anything is acceptable. Rather, multiple approaches are

accepted *as long as they are within the framework of the Sruti* and

are useful from the perspective of sAdhanA. And certain things are

more important or more useful than others.

 

For example, what is the status of dualistic bhakti towards ISvara?

Shyam_md, a strong proponent of bhakti, vehemently defended the idea

of ISvara in one of his previous posts. But the fact remains that

ISvara is sublated at the paramArtha level. Even at the vyavahAra

level, one can very well follow a model that has no role for ISvara.

dRShTi-sRShTi-vAda is one such model. There can be others. Ramana

Maharshi has said that there can be any number of creation theories

and Sruti itself gives many such theories. Can one say that only

sRShTi-dRShTi is correct, or only dRShTi-sRShTi is correct? Actually,

both of them are ultimately sublated, but both have their utility when

it comes to sAdhanA.

 

So is dualistic bhakti absolutely essential? No. Is it helpul? Yes. In

fact, not just helpful but very very helpful for most people.

 

IMO, nirvikalpa samAdhi must be taken in the same spirit. It may not

be necessary, but there is no doubt whatsoever that it is extremely

useful.

 

Here let us have a look at the vedAnta-sAra of sadAnanda (Sw.

Nikhilananda's translation):

 

Verse 181. evaMbhUtasva svarUpacaitanya sAxAtkAraparyantaM sravaNa

manana nididhyAsana samAdhi anuShThAnasyApexitatvAtepi pradarshyante

 

"Till such realization of the Consciousness which is one's own Self,

it is necessary to practise hearing, reflection, meditation and

absorption (samAdhi). Therefore these are also being explained."

 

Note that the text mentions samAdhi also along with sravaNa, manana &

nididhyAsana!

 

Verse 197 defines nirvikalpa samAdhi:

nirvikalpakastu jnAtR^ijnAnAdi vikalpalayApexayAdvitIya vastuni

tadAkArAkAritAyAshcittavRtteratitarAmekIbhAvena avasthAnam

 

"Absorption without self-consciousness (nirvikalpa samAdhi) is the

total mergence in brahman, the One without a second, of the mental

state which has assumed Its form, the distinction of the knower,

knowledge and the object of knowledge being in this case obliterated"

 

Is not the above the same as advaita-siddhi?

 

Verse 199 goes on to say:

tatashcAsya suShupteshcabhedasha.nkA na bhavati

 

"Therefore there is no apprehension of it (nirvikalpa samAdhi) being

identical with deep sleep"

 

verse 200 is the show-stopper:

 

asyA.ngAni yama niyama Asana prANAyAma pratyAhAra dhAraNA dhyAna

samAdhayaH

 

All the 8 limbs of aShTA.nga yoga!

 

>From verse 201 to 214, the text describes the 8 limbs

 

Now lets come to Verse 214

anena vighnacatuShTayena virahitaM cittaM nirvAtadIpavadacalaM

sadakhaNDacaitanyamAtramavatiShThate yadA tadA nirvikalpakaH

samAdhirityucyate

 

"When the mind, free from these four obstacles (defined earlier as

torpidity, distraction, attachment & enjoyment), rests unmoved, like

the flame of a lamp sheltered from the wind, *as one with the Absolute

Consciousness*, it is called the Nirvikalpa Samadhi"

 

Again, is not the above the same as advaita-siddhi?

 

If one still holds that it is not the same as advaita-siddhi, the only

alternative is to say that nirvikalpa samAdhi is a non-dual

'experience' that is not stable, and that the yogin comes out of it in

some time. The knowledge of Atman = brahman is required to make the

yogin 'abide' in the non-dual brahman, which would be advaita siddhi.

 

This is what Sri SN Sastri said in a recent post, and what many

advaitin AcArya-s have said. But that does not take away from the

utility of nirvikalpa samAdhi as a part of sAdhanA. It only means that

advaita-siddhi is a kind of permanent nirvikalpa samAdhi.

 

Last but not the least, the fact is that yogAbhyAsa is one of the

greatest spiritual "products" of Hinduism. bhakti et al are found in

many traditions worldwide. But how many traditions have the profound

sAdhanA that is yoga? maharShi pata~njali deserves our greatest

respect for having systematized the vedic meditational practices into

the magnificent discipline of aShTA~Nga yoga, which is entirely

compatible with vedAnta.

 

To dismiss pAtanjala yoga as a dvaita Sastra is to hopelessly miss its

point. It is silly to dismiss bhakti towards ISvara merely on the

grounds that it is dualistic. Equally, it is silly to dismiss

pAtanjala yoga on the grounds that it is a dvaita Sastra.

 

I am sure Sunder-ji and Subbu-ji will agree with me.

 

dhanyosmi

Ramesh

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Ramesh Krishnamurthy"

<rkmurthy wrote:

>

> Namaste to all sAdhaka-s,

>

> Last but not the least, the fact is that yogAbhyAsa is one of the

> greatest spiritual "products" of Hinduism. bhakti et al are found in

> many traditions worldwide. But how many traditions have the profound

> sAdhanA that is yoga? maharShi pata~njali deserves our greatest

> respect for having systematized the vedic meditational practices

into the magnificent discipline of aShTA~Nga yoga, which is entirely

> compatible with vedAnta.

> To dismiss pAtanjala yoga as a dvaita Sastra is to hopelessly miss

its point. It is silly to dismiss bhakti towards ISvara merely on the

> grounds that it is dualistic. Equally, it is silly to dismiss

> pAtanjala yoga on the grounds that it is a dvaita Sastra.

>

> I am sure Sunder-ji and Subbu-ji will agree with me.

>

> dhanyosmi

> Ramesh

 

Srigurubhyo NamaH

Humble Pranams, Ramesh ji,

 

dhanyo'si !!

 

Rarely does a post appear with so much clarity and content. Many

thanks for the very nicely referenced presentation. May i make an

humble suggestion-cum-request?

 

This article (in its combined form), with the deletions of the names

of some of us, is worth being published in:

1. The Wikipaedia Main

2. The newly formed Hindu wikipaedia of Sri Kanakaraju as part of his

Bharatadesam site.

3. The Harsha magazine or special number that Mr. Harsha is bringing

out shortly.

 

Needless to say that this very rare kind of article will find the

place of prominence that it richly deserves in the Advaitin.net Home

page.

 

I request honourable members Prof.VK ji and Shri S.N.Shastri ji to

give a link to this combined article in their personal web sites.

 

This article is worth referencing by anyone studying the ancient

Hindu scriptures and any sadhaka. By its content and presentation,

it assumes the status of an authoritative source manual on the

subject.

 

My humble pranams to you once again,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Ramesh Krishnamurthy"

<rkmurthy wrote:

>

 

Ramesh-ji

Pranams

Your viewpoints are articulated very lucidly and I eagerly look

forward to hearing more from you.

Thank you for singling me out as a strong proponent for bhakti! - in

actuality eminent scholars on this list such as Prof-ji, Sadananda-ji

as well as Subbu-ji have expressed their views on bhakti far better

than I could. :-)

 

Your points are well taken.

I am allowing myself to express some comments.

 

Point 1

 

> For example, what is the status of dualistic bhakti towards ISvara?

> Shyam_md, a strong proponent of bhakti, vehemently defended the idea

> of ISvara in one of his previous posts. But the fact remains that

> ISvara is sublated at the paramArtha level. Even at the vyavahAra

> level, one can very well follow a model that has no role for ISvara.

> dRShTi-sRShTi-vAda is one such model. There can be others. Ramana

> Maharshi has said that there can be any number of creation theories

> and Sruti itself gives many such theories. Can one say that only

> sRShTi-dRShTi is correct, or only dRShTi-sRShTi is correct?

Actually,both of them are ultimately sublated, but both have their

utility when it comes to sAdhanA. So is dualistic bhakti absolutely

essential? No. Is it helpul? Yes. In fact, not just helpful but very

very helpful for most people.IMO, nirvikalpa samAdhi must be taken in

the same spirit. It may not be necessary, but there is no doubt

whatsoever that it is extremely useful.

 

The bhakti that is talked about in a vedantic context is parabhakti -

devotion for the sake of devotion, a severe longing of seeking oneness

with Ishwara - not the bhakti which asks Ishwara to bless me with a

better job, etc.

This form of bhakti is not an option. Why? Any option is volitional.

I can choose to either take tea or coffee - it is an exercise of my

free will. Bhakti is not volitional. I cannot get up one fine day and

say "You know I am not happy with how my sadhana is progressing, let

me buy some camphor and incense sticks and start practicing bhakti

today" It does not work that way.

You cannot write a instruction manual of "How to practice bhakti"

or "How to develop bhakti." You dont find bhakti - if you are lucky

and God's and Guru's grace is smiling on you, bhakti finds you.

mukhyatas tu mahat-kṛpayaiva bhagavat-kṛpā-leśād vā - Primarily,

however, one develops bhakti by the mercy of great souls, or by a

small drop of the Lord's mercy!

 

Try as you might you cannot take bhakti out of the equation in

vedanta.

You can take a stance and say I am only seeking my true Self, not

Ishwara - well your true self is Ishwara, and in fact Lord Krishna

will say you are his favorite bhakta, because you are trying to be

one with Him who is your inner self alone.

The Ganges as it runs along at some point may get an idea that all

this running it is doing is perhaps ultimately going to lead it

somewhere - the closer it gets to its destination it may get a small

glimpse of the ocean and in that glimpse develops a reverential

attitude - to what? - to the very source it is going to lose its

identity in! This reverential attitude that spontaneously develops in

the heart of a seeker as he gets closer to the goal is what is

parabhakti. You cannot cultivate it, you cannot will it, it is not a

matter of choice!

 

The clouds on a really cloudy day mask the sun completely, but as

they start to clear even a little bit, you have an unmistakable

glimpse of the sun.

 

Similair is it in atmavichara. What blinds us from Ishwara, our own

self, is our own thick cloud of avidya in the form of this five

hundred pound Egosense.

Once this egosense starts to be cut at by means of shastra shravana

and mananam, automatically, a faint glimpse of the destination takes

effect in your antahkaranam, and this is the initial sprouting of

parabhakti. You cannot will it to happen. If it has not happened,

there is one and only one reason - the ego cloud cover is still very

dense, the destination is still likely very far away.

 

At no time in the search nor at any time after the search is this

parabhakti sublated, let alone sublation of Ishwara. If one sublates

or annihilates Ishwara then why should any jnani, even a single

jnani, be a devotee?? And yet you find each and every one of them to

be inspirations to us seekers for bhakti. Bhakti even to a jnani is

nonvolitional - it is inherent to his very corebeing. Our innermost

self is Ishwara. There is no getting away from this - no mater which

creation model you use. So a statement that "Ishwara is sublated" at

some advanced stage of my development has to be understood in the

context of "my egosense of being an entity separate from Ishwara is

sublated" - in other words "Shivoham Shivoham" not the other way

round - "that Ishwara is sublated because he is of "no more use" for

the still existent jiva since he now knows "he is Brahman" and so

doesnt "need" Ishwara" - a pretty absurd line of thought. The entire

Bhagwad Gita will become a absurdity in that case!

So bhakti and patanjali yoga sadhana cannot be taken in the same way -

the former is spontaneous, it is not a matter for doing anything, -

the latter is an action, there is a process, a instruction booklet,

with a predictable and reproducible result.

 

 

Point 2

> Last but not the least, the fact is that yogAbhyAsa is one of the

> greatest spiritual "products" of Hinduism. bhakti et al are found in

> many traditions worldwide. But how many traditions have the profound

> sAdhanA that is yoga? maharShi pata~njali deserves our greatest

> respect for having systematized the vedic meditational practices

into the magnificent discipline of aShTA~Nga yoga, which is entirely

> compatible with vedAnta.

 

 

We are dealing with a understanding who we are and the ONLY valid

pramana for that is the Mother shruti which is Sanatana - eternal -

Hinduism is after all a term given very very recently. What means i

should adopt towards that goal is not to be determined by the export

quality potential of the product - Bharatnatyam is also a wonderful

product of our culture, but does not get you any closer to knowing

yourself. As you yourself wrote,the shruti tells us that atma vichara

with the help of Guru and by means of shravan and manana and dhyana

with the grace of Ishwara when accomplished by a prepared intellect

will give you the fruit of selfknowledge and consequent mukti. How

that intellect is prepared and made ready can vary as again you very

nicely pointed out.

 

Bhakti as parabhakti is also not a "worldwide" tradition. Buddhism -

no mention, no role. Islam and Christianity - it is devotion to a

personal God to reserve a suite in the Kingdom of Heaven for

eternity, not to "become" God. So parabhakti is as much a so-

called "spiritual product of Hinduism", but that is no reason to say

that it is a valid means for knowledge, or should be encouraged for

that one reason.

 

 

> To dismiss pAtanjala yoga as a dvaita Sastra is to hopelessly miss

its

> point. It is silly to dismiss bhakti towards ISvara merely on the

> grounds that it is dualistic. Equally, it is silly to dismiss

> pAtanjala yoga on the grounds that it is a dvaita Sastra.

>

Nobody is dismissing patanjali yoga as far as i can tell - certainly

not anyone on this forum. If patanjali yoga sutras is interpreted in

vedantic light - the book by Swami Venkatesananda is my favorite -

then yes, it can be a wonderful manual to attain chittashuddhi. But

to pin ones hopes of attaining atmajnana by chittavrttinirodha alone,

assuming it to be a valiud and independednt means of attaining

selfknowledge, in the absence of shruti shravana/mananam AND bhakti

will meet with tragic consequences. Bhakti towards Iswara is

dualistic only in its immature stages - Prof VK-ji has recently

posted some wonderful translations of Kanchi MahaSwamigals Deivathin

Kural which talk about this advanced bhakti which I would strongly

encourage you and others to read [- what struck me was His Holiness'

assertion that its locus (of this bhakti) is not in the intellect or

the mind but directly in the egosense which is seeking its own

annihilation! Wonder of wonders!]

 

My best wishes to you

Once again, I look forward to more posts from you - you have both

tremendoous scholarship as well as a wonderful style of presentation,

and we will all be blessed by your wisdom.

 

Shri Gurubhyo namah

Hari OM

Shyam