Guest guest Posted September 8, 2006 Report Share Posted September 8, 2006 praNAms Sri Ramesh prabhuji Hare Krishna First of all, kindly accept my humble praNAms for your commendable effort to reconcile yOga shAstra with vEdAnta. I was just wondering how could you be able to sit quiet all these days when deliberations were going on at a rapid pace that too when you have such a grip on the subject, clarity in your thinking & enviable proficiency in articulation of the same...I wholeheartedly appreciate & admire your views prabhuji. Since appreciatory mesgs. pouring from all corners of the list, I am just worrying how to share my thoughts on your article...if I write anything against your thoughts, prabhuji-s here would think " this fellow is completely biased, nothing can convince him let us leave him aside & move on with what has been beautifully said here"...members here have already expressed their concurrence to the mesg. & even recommended for publication & permanent link for the reference....But being one of the shankara siddhAnta follower, if I dont write anything about this article, then definitely I would be cheating myself & to the extent I'll be doing *guru drOha* also coz. my paramaguruji has spilled much ink in proving that patanjala's yOga shAstra's ultimate goal i.e. asaMprajnAtha samAdhi / nirvikalpa samAdhi cannot be equated with that of shruti pratipAdita Atmaikatva jnAna...yOga shAstra as a shAstra of duality (dvaita), cannot be, at any stage of its doctrine, advocate the secondless reality of Atman...Hence, this shAstra is specifically linked with another dvaita darshana i.e. sAnkhya...If what yOga shAstra teaches is nothing but vEdAnta (vEdAnta=patanjala yOga), then there would have been only paNcha darshana-s instead of the shad darshana-s. Our Kathirasan prabhuji has already shown that why the term yOga cannot be interpreted always as patanjali's ashtAnga yOga & how it has different contextual meaning & significance in vEdAnta. If you could permit me, based on my limited understanding of vEdAnta I would put forward my humble thoughts for your kind perusal. Kindly dont think my counter views are in the spirit of debate...it is only my humble perspective based on my guruji's teaching. Here we go : RK prabhuji: Bhaskar prabhuji in one of his posts quoted Sankara saying that elements of other darSana-s that are not opposed to the Sruti are acceptable. bhaskar : shankara actually speaks here about his siddhAnta not explicitly about shruti...he says *paramataM* apratishiddham anu mataH bhavati....Here what shankara implies about *paramataM* is other darshana-s such as sAnkhya-Yoga, nyAya vaishEshika etc. Kindly note here that shankara considering yOga as *paramata* though some part/points of it acceptable & applicacable to vEdAnta, it is always in the compartment of *paramata* only it cannot be the *alternative* source for vEdAnt OR alternative means for brahmAtma jnAna. RK prabhuji: But do yogic practices have the same status in the Sruti as travel by train? No. They are explicitly mentioned in the Sruti. They are accepted not merely because they are not opposed to the Sruti, but because they are explicitly mentioned in the Sruti. bhaskar : Yes, you are right there are explicit quotes on yOga terminology such as, yOga, dhyAna, samAdhi etc. in shruti & smruti texts...but interpretation of certain terms drastically differs from standard meaning of these terms ...bhagavadpAda himself clarifies this in sUtra bhAshya which you have quoted in your mail. Sri Kathirasan prabhuji also beatifully explained this in his recent post. So, no problem with occurences of words of Yoga shAstra in shruti but problem lies at the interpretation of the same. RK prabhuji: This is very clearly brought out in the brahmasUtra-bhAShya 2.1.2, where the pUrvapaxin refers to statements in the SvetASvatara, kaTha and bRhadAraNyaka upaniShad-s that mention various yogic practices. Note that these are clear statements in the Sruti, so even Sankara cannot just deny them. Therefore, Sankara says that it is only the puruSha-prakRti dualism of sAMkhya/yoga that is not acceptable. But yogic practices in general are perfectly in tune with vedAnta. After all, they are taught by the Sruti itself. bhaskar : Kindly refer the shankara bhAshya for the very next sUtra (2.1.3) wherein shankara without any ambiguity gives the alternative vEdAntic meaning for the terms sAnkhya & yOga...But why shankara gives here alternative meaning & specifically mentioning that *alone* would be a mere direct reference in the context??!! if at all patanjala's yOga shAstra on par with vEdAnta, if at all dhyAna of patanjali on par with vEdAntic dhyAna, if at all shankara recommending patanjali's ashtAnga yOga's 7th limb *dhyAna* what was the need for him for the excessive emphasization of vEdAntic dhyAna?? It is evident from this that whenever shankara mentions yOga it would not be *always* patanjali's yOga. This view point you, yourself confirmed below : RK prabhuji: In fact, Sankara notes that Sruti references to sAMkhya & yoga (as in SvetASvatara 2.8) refer generally to vedic knowledge & meditation (rather than to the specific systems of the AcArya-s kapila & pata~njali). This is a very important point. It suggests that the words 'sAMkhya' & 'yoga' were initially used as generic terms for knowledge (i.e. theory) and practice (especially meditative practices) respectively. One comes across this idea in the bhagavadgItA also. bhaskar : Here exactly is the point..shankara expressly declares that this is not sAnkhya & yOga of kapila & patanjala..though the usage of certain terms in both vEdAnta & yOga/sAnkhya are one and the same. While on the subject, it would be interesting to recall the mantra from svetAshvatara upanishad (6.13) wherein saNkhya & yOga (sAnkhya yOgAbhipannaM) mentioned & suggested as a means for liberation from all the bonds (sarvapAshaH)...Further, as you mentioned in the same upanishad maNtra-s ( 2 - 8 to 10) talks about parnAyAma (control & regulation of breath) and Asana (posture). Advaita vEdanta does not have any problem in accepting that these practices are very much the same as that of patanjali's ashtAnga yOga. But problem comes when you equate the 2.8 maNtra with patanjala yOga coz. the result aimed in this maNtra is quite different here from that of patanjala yOga. If you study that maNtra carefully, you will come to know that it is not the mere suppression of the modification of the mind that is aimed in this maNtra nor are the means as enshrined in the popular 8 steps of patanjala yOga coz. here *brahman* is the *chief* means here. Because of this reason shankara warns us this is not standard yOga or sAnkhya in sUtra bhAshya 2.1.3 which we have already discussed above. RK prabhuji: Pl note that as yogAbhyAsa comes after sannyAsa, it cannot be karma. The phrase 'concentration of the citta' shows clearly that it is a reference to meditative practices. So there you have it from sureSvarAcArya, the foremost of Sankara's disciples. bhaskar : Sri Kathirasan prabhuji has already commented on this...Further as said above the term yOga has different connotation at different contexts..we cannot generalize its meaning & insist that it is patanjala yOga. For example, in gIta bhAshya, shankara says, yOyam yOgaH jnAnaniShTAlakshaNaH saNyAsaM, karmayOgOpAyascha..further he confirms in the entire gIta bhagavAn meant yOga as Atmaikatva jnAna & karmayOga as upAya only ( gItAsu cha sarvAsu ayamEva yOgO vivakshitaH bhagavatA)....But wherever he explicitly mentions yOga shAstra of patanjali, he clearly discard it as *dvaita shAstra* & confirms that chitta vrutti nirOdha is not the direct means for self realization. RK prabuji: So is dualistic bhakti absolutely essential? No. Is it helpul? Yes. In fact, not just helpful but very very helpful for most people. bhaskar : Yes, but what advaita/shankara teaches is parAbhakti which is not anyway equatable with the school of dualistics which hold the eternal difference & maintain safe distance between bhakta & bhagavAn. advaita bhakti something like Harsha prabhuji's sharmiLa tagore's Hindi song :-)) RK prabhuji: 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. bhaskar : Yes, these experiences may be useful but not indispensable for self realization...after all our self & its knowledge is not an adventitious thing that which can be obtained through some effort at some point of time!!...But if you carefully study texts like vivEka chUdAmaNi, vEdAnta sAra etc. they emphatically insist on the necessity of experience of NS & without it there is NOWAY you'll get self realization...this is IMHO quite contrary to shankara prakriya. RK prabhuji: "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! bhaskar : when shruti itself mentioning direct sAdhana-s are shrOtavyO, maNtavyO nidhidhyAsitavyaH...what is the need for one more step?? shankara while commenting on this bruhadAraNyaka maNtra quite clearly says these *three* are the direct means for annihilation of ajnAna & svarUpa jnAna. Kindly check shankara bhAshya on this maNtra. RK prabhuji : nirvikalpakastu jnAtR^ijnAnAdi vikalpalayApexayAdvitIya vastuni tadAkArAkAritAyAshcittavRtteratitarAmekIbhAvena avasthAnam Is not the above the same as advaita-siddhi? bhaskar : Yes, this is advaita siddhi or svarUpa jnAna only & only if you replace the laya with bhAdita...coz. shankara clearly says Atma jnAna is not a mind blank state but it is a state of sublated vyavahAra (vyavahAra bhAdita jnAna)...gItAchArya lord krishna defines this jnAna by saying *sarvabhUtasthamAtmAnaM, sarvabhUtAnicha Atmani, *Ekshate* yOga yuktAtma *sarvatra sama darshanaH*...Here punch words are *Ekshate* and *sarvatra*...If the Atma jnAna is sitting in a mind blank state with deliberate suppression of thoughts, where is the question of *Ekshate* & samadarshanaH?? It clearly shows that Atma jnAna is *nishchaya jnAna* of one's own svarUpa & it is not a state of *blankness*...shankara confirms this in his commentary on the same verse & says " brahma Atma yEkatva vishayaM darshanaM jnAnaM yasya saha sarvatra samadarshanaH " . Since this has become very lengthy mail, I shall stop here...prabhuji, finally, kindly note that advaitins/ followers of vaidika dharma donot have any aversion towards yOga shAstra & its efficacies but their only apprehension is about undue relation between dvaita shAstra such as yOga with vEdAnta & totally unwarranted slogans like the experience of advaita is possible ONLY in NS...etc. Kindly pardon me if I said anything wrong here... Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 Namaste, > > bhaskar : > > when shruti itself mentioning direct sAdhana-s are shrOtavyO, maNtavyO > nidhidhyAsitavyaH...what is the need for one more step?? shankara while > commenting on this bruhadAraNyaka maNtra quite clearly says these *three* > are the direct means for annihilation of ajnAna & svarUpa jnAna. Kindly > check shankara bhAshya on this maNtra. > There is quite a bit of activity today on these topics and I don't want to be caught in the cross-fire :-). However, I want to bring attention to a couple of quick points. 1. Fourth ? Ramesh-ji mentioned vedAnta-sAra of sadAnanda in his "advaita vedAnta & pAtanjala yoga - 2" and verse 181 from that book pointed out : >> 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! >> Bhaskarji asked what is the need for the extra step: > > bhaskar : > > when shruti itself mentioning direct sAdhana-s are shrOtavyO, maNtavyO > nidhidhyAsitavyaH...what is the need for one more step?? shankara while > commenting on this bruhadAraNyaka maNtra quite clearly says these *three* > are the direct means for annihilation of ajnAna & svarUpa jnAna. Kindly > check shankara bhAshya on this maNtra. > It is interesting that not only the Vedanta-sara but the Bhamati seems to indicate the same - Please see the explanation from Bhamati posted by Sri Subbu-ji today (#33183). Bhaskarji- you mentioned shrOtavyO, maNtavyO, nidhidhyAsitavyaH... as direct sadhana. But the drashTavyaH in the sruti mantra is the samAdhi! // Atma vaa arey drashTavyaH, shrotavyo, mantavyo, nididhyaasitavyaH For the sutrabhashya on `samAdhyabhAvAccha' (II.iii.39), the Bhamati says: SamAdhi connotes `samyama'. DhAraNa,dhyAna and samAdhi are known by the common term samyama. Here, in the Brihadaranyaka mantra that the Acharya quotes in the Bhashyam, `shrotavyo and mantavyo' are the upadesha of dhaarana. NididhyAsitavyaH is the upadesha of dhyAna. DrashTavyaH (the Atman has to be apprehended) is the samAdhi upadesha (in the Shruti). // 2. mistaken nomenclature >> I was just wondering where PY's NS individual experience fit into this sequence!!! ... here prabhuji-s have been consistently trying to prove individual experience of PY's NS >> In addition to all the other viparita bhavana's we already have, let us not superimpose another one :-) Nirvikalpa Samadhi is NOT a term used in Patanjali Yoga. NS is a term used by Advaita vedantins. The PY term is Asamprajnata Samadhi. regards Sundar Rajan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2006 Report Share Posted September 13, 2006 namaste Sundarji, You may want to reconsider the views of Vacaspati Mishra (VM), the author of Bhamati. His works are not faithful to the siddhanta of Shankara & Shruti. His works suggest that he may have been an ambitious pundit who wrote commentaries on even texts which are at variance with the teachings of Vedanta & Shankara. A casual glance at his accomplishments will settle doubts as to why one would find Samadhi practices introduced in his commentaries on Vedantic texts. For a short bio on VM pls visit here<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%25C4%2581caspati_Mi%25C5%259Bra> Om, Kathirasan On 9/13/06, Sundar Rajan <avsundarrajan > wrote: > Namaste, > > > > > bhaskar : > > > > when shruti itself mentioning direct sAdhana-s are shrOtavyO, > maNtavyO > > nidhidhyAsitavyaH...what is the need for one more step?? shankara > while > > commenting on this bruhadAraNyaka maNtra quite clearly says these > *three* > > are the direct means for annihilation of ajnAna & svarUpa jnAna. > Kindly > > check shankara bhAshya on this maNtra. > > > > There is quite a bit of activity today on these topics and I don't > want to be caught in the cross-fire :-). However, I want to bring > attention to a couple of quick points. > > 1. Fourth ? > > Ramesh-ji mentioned vedAnta-sAra of sadAnanda in his "advaita > vedAnta & pAtanjala yoga - 2" and verse 181 from that book pointed > out : > >> > 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! > >> > > Bhaskarji asked what is the need for the extra step: > > > > bhaskar : > > > > when shruti itself mentioning direct sAdhana-s are shrOtavyO, > maNtavyO > > nidhidhyAsitavyaH...what is the need for one more step?? shankara > while > > commenting on this bruhadAraNyaka maNtra quite clearly says these > *three* > > are the direct means for annihilation of ajnAna & svarUpa jnAna. > Kindly > > check shankara bhAshya on this maNtra. > > > > It is interesting that not only the Vedanta-sara but the Bhamati > seems to indicate the same - Please see the explanation from Bhamati > posted by Sri Subbu-ji today (#33183). > > Bhaskarji- you mentioned shrOtavyO, maNtavyO, nidhidhyAsitavyaH... > as direct sadhana. But the drashTavyaH in the sruti mantra is the > samAdhi! > > // > Atma vaa arey drashTavyaH, shrotavyo, mantavyo, nididhyaasitavyaH > > For the sutrabhashya on `samAdhyabhAvAccha' (II.iii.39), the Bhamati > says: SamAdhi connotes `samyama'. DhAraNa,dhyAna and samAdhi are > known by the common term samyama. Here, in the Brihadaranyaka mantra > that the Acharya quotes in the Bhashyam, `shrotavyo and mantavyo' > are the upadesha of dhaarana. NididhyAsitavyaH is the upadesha of > dhyAna. > > DrashTavyaH (the Atman has to be apprehended) is the samAdhi > upadesha (in the Shruti). > // > > 2. mistaken nomenclature > >> > I was just > wondering where PY's NS individual experience fit into this > sequence!!! > .. > here prabhuji-s have > been consistently trying to prove individual experience of PY's NS > >> > > In addition to all the other viparita bhavana's we already have, let > us not superimpose another one :-) Nirvikalpa Samadhi is NOT a term > used in Patanjali Yoga. NS is a term used by Advaita vedantins. The > PY term is Asamprajnata Samadhi. > > regards > Sundar Rajan > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2006 Report Share Posted September 14, 2006 Namaste Sundarji, I will not say that the Bhamati and Vivarana schools are in totality irrelevant. Texts that were written by the influence of both traditions are very helpful to understand Advaita Vedanta as a school of thought. Texts like Vivekachudamani, Sadhana Panchakam etc. have helped me. However, I am of the opinion that for mumukshus and jijnasus the works of Shankara (and teachers who strictly follow his commentaries) can definitely help to overcome difficulties while doing shravana, manana & nididhyasana. This has been my experience. I must confess that I am more of a seeker (mumukshu) than a scholar. Thanks and pranamas. Om, Kathirasan On 9/14/06, Sundar Rajan <avsundarrajan > wrote: > Namaste Kathirajan-ji, > advaitin, "K Kathirasan" <brahmasatyam > wrote: > > > > namaste Sundarji, > > > > You may want to reconsider the views of Vacaspati Mishra (VM), the > author of > > Bhamati. His works are not faithful to the siddhanta of Shankara & > Shruti. > > His works suggest that he may have been an ambitious pundit who > wrote > > commentaries on even texts which are at variance with the > teachings of > > Vedanta & Shankara. A casual glance at his accomplishments will > settle > > doubts as to why one would find Samadhi practices introduced in his > > commentaries on Vedantic texts. > > > > For a short bio on VM pls visit > > here<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%25C4%2581caspati_Mi%25C5% > 259Bra> > > > Thanks for alerting me to this possibility of a 'spurious' work. The > web link did not work but I searched and got some info on the > Bhamati. > > It is interesting that traditional 'samparadaya' do not seem to be > aware of this possiblity. I remember a brief discussion with Swami > Paramarthananda-ji (last time I visited Chennai)and the Swamiji > referred to Bhamati and Vivarana schools and briefly explained their > historical background. The impression I got was that both were valid > schools of thought. > > regards > Sundar Rajan > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.