yOga-vEdAnta, dhyAna & nidhidhyAsana, etc. Part-II

[Guest guest]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

In this part we shall see what the term *dhyAna* means to patanjala yOga

shAstra and what is dhyAna according to vEdAnta/shankara. And why

nidhidhyAsana is not purusha tantra dhyAna but vastu tantra svarUpa jnAna.

And finally anubhava, what is this anubhava shankara speaking here??

whether it is unique experience of any individual or is it universal

experience?? why individual anubhava cannot be the pramANa for self

realization etc.

 

First we will look into the dhyAna..what is dhyAna according to patanjali??

patanjali says in yOga sUtra (3-2) that *tatra pratyaya yEkatAnatA dhyAnaM*

it is an uninterrupted flow of chitta vrutti (taila dhAravat... like

continuous flow of oil from one vessel to another) on an external

object...why it is external?? patanjali himself clears this doubt in his

previous sUtra on *dhAraNa* and says dhAraNa (concentration) is

*dEshabandhaM chittasya dhAraNa*..it is the process involved in ashtAnga

yOga. After pratyAhAra, yOga aspirant will concentrate on any of the

shadchakra-s (mulAdhAra, svAdhishtAna etc. etc.), or any external objects

like flower, idol, symbol etc.. The result of this dhAraNa & dhyAna,

patanjali says is *samAdhi*...He gives the description of samAdhi in sUtra

3-3 *tad yEva arthamAtranirbhAsaM *svarUpashUnyamiva samAdhiH*....it is

complete mergence of mind with the *dhyEya vastu* as if there is no mind at

all...words svarUpa shUnyamiva implies this...

 

Now what does the term dhyAna means to shankara?? Shankara describes this

dhyAna in two ways..i.e. kartru tantra dhyAna(meditation where human

effort/willingness involved), vastu tantra dhyAna (meditation to know the

thing as it is)..In the meditation where human effort is involved and this

meditation involves contemplation on an exclusive, solitary *pratyaya* i.e.

cognitive thought alone...(refer above patanjala sUtra : pratyaya

yEkatAnatA)..this can be called upAsanA also which can not be equatable

with that of vastu tantra dhyAna / jnAna. Why?? shankara himself clears

this doubt in sUtra *tattu samanvayAt* bhAshya , & says " dhyAnaM chintanaM

yadyapi mAnasaM, taThApi puruShENa kartum, akartuM anyaThA vA kartum

shakyaM!! puruShatantratvAt! Because purusha tantra jnAna is an

injuction...and this injuction cannot bring us brahma jnAna since brahma

jnAna is not the *product* of vidhi/injuction. Why this type of miditation

is vidhi?? coz. the knowledge of form of upAsana/dhyAna here is of the

nature of a practice (i.e. kind of spiritual or psychic discipline) and

this is within the control of the practitioner...and the kriya involved in

this process is at his discretion and he can do it, he may not do it & can

do it another way (kartum, akartum or anyathAkartum).

 

On the other hand jnAna/ or vastutantra dhyAna is not like purushatantra

dhyAna..coz. here practioner cannot modify the result of this dhyAna...it

is cognizing the object as it is...it is intuitive knowledge of an object

as it is...as it truly exists..so this is not an injuction..shankara in the

same sUtra continues and clarifies :jnAnaM tu pramANa janyaM! pramANam cha

yaThabhutavastu vishayaM! ataH jnAnaM kartum akartuM anyaTha

vA kartuM *aShakyaM*! kEvalaM vastu tantramEva tat, na chOdanAtaNtraM nApi

purusha tantraM, tasmAt mAnastvEpi jnAnasya mahat vailakshaNyaM!! In this

jnAna jnAtru cannot influence the end result coz. it is not

mAnasIkriya..shankara says " nanu jnAnaM nAma mAnasIkriyA! na!

vailakshNyAt! kriyA hi nAma sA yatra vastusvarUpanirapEkShaiva chOdyatE

purushachittavyApArAdhInA cha!!

 

The direct means prescribed in the form of shravaNa, manana & nidhidhyAsana

in shruti should be hence treated at vastu tantra sAdhana...coz. here

shravaNa on antya pramANa shAstra is recommended for brahma jnAna, sUtra

says shAstra yOnitvAt...shAstra is not mere operation & instruction manual

here...no wiseman says keep on studying vEda-s (vEdO nityamadhIyatAM)...if

it is ONLY manual book. Shankara's commentary on bruhadAraNyaka shruti &

shAstrayOnitvAdhikaraNa throws ample light on these issues. Due to space

constraints I cannot give full details of shankara bhAshya here...I request

members-s of this list to study in depth shankara bhAshya on these

maNtra-s. I hope after studying this through shrotrIya brahmanishTa guru,

they will come to know why Atma jnAna is NOT purushatantra like AS/NS of PY

but it is a *shAstra vAkya janita Atmaikatva svarUpa jnAna*...

 

 

I shall stop here next I'll take *anubhava* and its role in shankara's

advaita vEdAnta.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

advaitin, bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

> praNAms

> Hare Krishna

 

"this can be called upAsanA also which can not be equatable with

that of vastu tantra dhyAna / jnAna. Why?? shankara himself clears

this doubt in sUtra *tattu samanvayAt* bhAshya , & says " dhyAnaM

chintanaM yadyapi mAnasaM, taThApi puruShENa kartum, akartuM anyaThA

vA kartum shakyaM!! puruShatantratvAt! Because purusha tantra jnAna

is an injuction...and this injuction cannot bring us brahma jnAna

since brahmajnAna is not the *product* of vidhi/injuction.

On the other hand jnAna/ or vastutantra dhyAna is not like

purushatantra dhyAna..it is cognizing the object as it is...it is

intuitive knowledge of an object as it is...as it truly exists..so

this is not an injuction..shankara in the same sUtra continues and

clarifies :jnAnaM tu pramANa janyaM! pramANam cha yaThabhutavastu

vishayaM! ataH jnAnaM kartum akartuM anyaTha vA kartuM *aShakyaM*!

kEvalaM vastu tantramEva tat, na chOdanAtaNtraM nApi purusha

tantraM, tasmAt mAnastvEpi jnAnasya mahat vailakshaNyaM!!

The direct means prescribed in the form of shravaNa, manana &

nidhidhyAsana in shruti should be hence treated at vastu tantra

sAdhana.Atma jnAna is NOT purushatantra like AS/NS of PY but it is a

*shAstra vAkya janita Atmaikatva svarUpa jnAna*...

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

>

Dear Bhaskar-ji

Pranams.

That truly was a breathtakingly detailed and scholarly analysis of

the key differences between vedanta and patanjali yoga. Thank you so

much for taking the time and effort to help us all in our

understanding.

 

I have very little to add. That "tat tvam asi" is not a vedic

injunction for meditation, but is in actuality a statement of fact,

to be realized by the seeker, has been tirelessly stressed by

Bhagwan Sankara and you have brought this fact out in an

outstandingly scholarly effort.

 

A vedantic seeker engaged in dhyana (- nidhidhyasanam) is not doing

it to become something or gain something new, he is doing it to

remove the false misconceptions about who he mistakes himself to be

so as to understand who he ALREADY is, and to understand that he IS

the substratum of what he is seemingly experiencing in and through

every blessed moment, being the very substratum of that moment

itself.

 

Once again, pranams to you and sashtang pranams to your Guru. I

consider it our good fortune to be blessed with your association.

 

Hari OM

Shyam

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Namaste Bhaskar-ji

>

> Shankara's commentary on bruhadAraNyaka shruti &

> shAstrayOnitvAdhikaraNa throws ample light on these issues. Due

to space

> constraints I cannot give full details of shankara bhAshya here...

>I request

> members-s of this list to study in depth shankara bhAshya on these

> maNtra-s.

>

 

This is a good, fair suggestion and good advice. Everybody stands to

benefit from understanding Shankara's commentary. I have no problems

with your statement above but your next statement - there are some

issues with it

 

>

>I hope after studying this through shrotrIya brahmanishTa guru,

> they will come to know why Atma jnAna is NOT purushatantra like

AS/NS of PY

> but it is a *shAstra vAkya janita Atmaikatva svarUpa jnAna*...

>

 

I am curious - What are you implying with the above statement,

Bhaskar-ji. Are you implying that the esteemed members of this list

such as Sunder Hattangadi-ji, Harsha-ji, Subbu-ji, Nair-ji DO NOT

have a shrotrIya brahmanishTa guru and you ALONE have a shrotrIya

brahmanishTa guru?

 

or are you implying they have NOT studied Shankara properly and you

have a 'purer' understanding of advaita and Shankara?

 

Either way your statement reeks of pompousness and seems to be self

promoting. Please read the message posted by Sri Harsha-ji :

 

//

What is the proper sadhana? The answer to

that question is very simple. That sadhana is proper which will make

us fit for receiving the truth. We need not judge what sadhana is

proper for others but should be satisfied if the means we are

following lead to Self-Realization.

//

 

The blessed Lord who created the 'advaita' vasana in the Sadhakas

surely knows how to bring it to fruition. Let us not try

to 'convert' or dictate others.

 

regards

Sundar Rajan

P.S. my response may be considered 'harsh' but harsh statements

require harsh responses

[Guest guest]

praNAms Sri Sunder Rajan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

For a change this time you have come out with a different type of objection

to my mail :-))

 

>

> Shankara's commentary on bruhadAraNyaka shruti &

> shAstrayOnitvAdhikaraNa throws ample light on these issues. Due

to space

> constraints I cannot give full details of shankara bhAshya here...

>I request

> members-s of this list to study in depth shankara bhAshya on these

> maNtra-s.

>

 

SR prabhuji:

 

This is a good, fair suggestion and good advice. Everybody stands to

benefit from understanding Shankara's commentary. I have no problems

with your statement above but your next statement - there are some

issues with it

 

bhaskar :

 

I am not able to understand how can my above advice is a *fair & good*

suggestion when you are so picky in your comments !! you could have raised

your below objections with the same tone for my above advice as well....do

you think I am implying here members in this list have not studied shankara

bhAshya *in depth* & advicing them to do so??

 

>

>I hope after studying this through shrotrIya brahmanishTa guru,

> they will come to know why Atma jnAna is NOT purushatantra like

AS/NS of PY

> but it is a *shAstra vAkya janita Atmaikatva svarUpa jnAna*...

>

SR prabhuji:

 

I am curious - What are you implying with the above statement,

Bhaskar-ji. Are you implying that the esteemed members of this list

such as Sunder Hattangadi-ji, Harsha-ji, Subbu-ji, Nair-ji DO NOT

have a shrotrIya brahmanishTa guru and you ALONE have a shrotrIya

brahmanishTa guru?

 

bhaskar :

 

prabhuji, I can understand your frustration:-)) instead of coming out with

some concrete objections on my stand with appropriate bhAshya vAkya....you

are wasting your time unnecessarily in pickings!! you are reading too much

between the lines & eager to show me I am at fault :-)) If somebody

requesting some one to study bhAshya under the able guidance of a guru,

does this mean to you, he ONLY has the previlege of having great guru &

others not?? have I said anywhere that those names mentioned by you donot

have any shrOtrIya brahma nishTa guru?? Without knowing the true intent of

my mesg. how can you interpret my statements in such a stupid way

prabhuji?? I request moderators intervention here to stop allowing mails

with lack of commonsence & bringing some member's names unnecessarily in

the general discussions....

 

SR prabhuji:

 

or are you implying they have NOT studied Shankara properly and you have a

'purer' understanding of advaita and Shankara?

 

bhaskar :

 

do you expect any comments from me for these type of misreadings ?? there

is an idiom in Kannada "kumbaLakaayi kalla andare hegalu mutti

nOdikondaru*...this is appropriately applicable here :-))

 

SR prabhuji:

 

Either way your statement reeks of pompousness and seems to be self

promoting.

 

bhaskar :

 

that is your totally unwarranted immature interpretation of my general &

sincere request...I cannot help it...

 

SR prabhuji :

 

The blessed Lord who created the 'advaita' vasana in the Sadhakas surely

knows how to bring it to fruition. Let us not try to 'convert' or dictate

others.

 

bhaskar :

 

Again, not worthy for any comments...

 

regards

Sundar Rajan

 

P.S. my response may be considered 'harsh' but harsh statements require

harsh responses

 

bhaskar :

 

dont worry prabhuji, I am more used to this type of *harsh* responses from

my dvaita bandhu-s in vAdAvaLi list :-))...question is how long can you

withstand *counter* responses with the same tone...

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Humble praNAms Sri Shyam prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Thanks a lot for your kind words...I dont know whether I am really deserve

it...coz. there is nothing new in my mail, my parama gurji has spent more

than six decades in studying shankara vEdAnta to flush out shuddha

shankara prakriya. I've just reproduced his view points in which mine is

absolutely nothing!!!

 

Shyam prabhuji:

 

That "tat tvam asi" is not a vedic injunction for meditation, but is in

actuality a statement of fact, to be realized by the seeker, has been

tirelessly stressed by Bhagwan Sankara.

 

bhaskar :

 

Yes, this is what shankara stresses in all through his prasthAna trayI

bhAshya...brahma jnAna is not *karmAnga* nor vEdic mahAvAkhya-s asking us

to do some vidhi to know THAT truth!!! mahAvAkya-s prajnAnaM brahma, ahaM

brahmAsmi, ayamAtmA brahmA etc. etc. are not *vidhipara* (not advocating

any injuctions) sentences. These mahAvAkya-s are not meant for doing any

sort of japa nor any upAsana on it. (tatrApi na tattvamasi vAkyAt

prachyAvya Avruttau pravartayEt says shankara in sUtra bhAshya). A

uttamAdhikAri after hearing this itself will realize his true nature. It

is not anyway mere words in Instruction Manual & recommending the usage of

NS as a tool to realize brahma jnAna :-)) shruti declares *brahmavit

brahmaiva bhavati*(knower of brahman will become brahman)....but nowadays

this shruti statement has become brahmavit nirvikalpa samAdhyEva brahmaiva

bhavati :-))...and tattvamasi (you are that ) has become *you are that*

ONLY in nirvikalpa samAdhi....god only can save these shruti vAkya-s from

torturing & shapeless twistings.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sunderji,

 

The Gita not only teaches Brahmavidya but also Karma Yoga so that one can

prepare oneself for Brahmavidya. Therefore, Gita is complete as a Moksha

Shastra. The Yoga is not to be ONLY seen as a Dhyana Sadhana but an

attitude

towards Karma with a Yoga Buddhi. Karma normally binds us if not carried

out

with the attitude of Karma Yoga.

 

praNAms Sri Kathirasan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Yes, that is the reason why krishna says yogaH karma sukaushalaM..in gIta

both karma & dhyAna yOga recommended as bahiranga & antaranga sAdhana

respectively (reference shankara's concluding remarks on 5th chapter of

gIta). But it cannot be treated as *direct means* or an alternative means

to the ultimate knowledge of brahman. Krishna emphasizes jnAna & declare

nahi jnAnEna sadrushaM ( there is no match to jnAna)..coz. it fetch us the

knowledge that the Self can only reveals itself, since self as our true

nature is svayaM siddha/prakASa. Then how can Sruti here is antya pramANa??

coz. it tells us what the Self is not (nEti nEti) and that it is

self-revealing. (Shankara says even shruti cannot objectify brahman & teach

us as such & such a thing!!) That is why Sruti considered as antya pramANa

(ultimate means to realize brahman) and coz. of this reason shankara

refutes the theory of karma-jnAna samucchaya vAda in gIta bhAshya. karma

& dhyAna yOga are different paths meant for people of different

capabilities (adhikAra tAratamya), in order to prepare them for the Self

knowledge as taught in Sruti.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

namaskaram to moderators,

kindly go thru this and publish only if it wont hurt or casue a feeling of hurt to anyone...

 

Sundar Rajan <avsundarrajan > wrote:

namaskaram to all,

Seems the summer is still on...atleast as far as this great satsang is concerned.

Prof VKji had written in this site about our waiting for a minute before we write what we wish to write so that we have given enough time and thinking before we write what we wish to write.

Now, i also wonder, what is important? ' ADVAITA' or SANATANA DHARMA ?

can we totally ignore SANATANA DHARMA and focus on ADVAITA?

This thought came to my mind from the last statement of Shri Sunderji...

" harsh statments need harsh response"

Dear, Dear Sunderji...

we are all having a FREE WILL and using that or not using that is up to us. By our ignorance if we use it or not use it, only we- we alone - are responsible for that. meaning, we need to accept the result of that...we have no choice in the result.

And in moving forward , in climbing the steps of knowing or understanding the SELF all these are important first steps. When we have feeling of guilt, feelings of ommissions and commissions, when i feel some one is harsh to me or some one is not respecting me etc...we are all talking about " i" the me who feels always why me?, or who thinks I am a self made man ( or woman) etc.

Would it not be nice if we focus only on the issues and not on personalities? That will help this SATSANG to continue to be a great great place where we exchange our thoughts, views, limited knowledge- vidya and avidya- all to help us in improving our understanding???

please...only recently we had a few situations of " unsubscibing" and we need to avoid that as far as possible.

And by being harsh, one is not going to cause a hurt to any one ( if the one towards whom this is directed is a little more knowledgable ). So why even to try that?

Let us all enjoy....ananda ....

if I am wrong, pardon me....tell me why and how i am wrong.

if I am still wrong, I could be again told about that...

still if I continue to be wrong, then best is to leave me to live my number of births until it is time for me to know what is right...

let us all be nice....and let us not say that " first you be nice and only then will i be nice" ..Let us always be nice...

HARI OM

Namaste,

 

Namaste Bhaskar-ji

>

> Shankara's commentary on bruhadAraNyaka shruti &

> shAstrayOnitvAdhikaraNa throws ample light on these issues. Due

to space

> constraints I cannot give full details of shankara bhAshya here...

>I request

> members-s of this list to study in depth shankara bhAshya on these

> maNtra-s.

>

 

This is a good, fair suggestion and good advice. Everybody stands to

 

 

I am curious - What are you implying with the above statement,

Bhaskar-ji. Are you implying that the esteemed members of this list

such as Sunder Hattangadi-ji, Harsha-ji, Subbu-ji, Nair-ji DO NOT

have a shrotrIya brahmanishTa guru and you ALONE have a shrotrIya

brahmanishTa guru?

 

or are you implying they have NOT studied Shankara properly and you

have a 'purer' understanding of advaita and Shankara?

 

Either way your statement reeks of pompousness and seems to be self

promoting. Please read the message posted by Sri Harsha-ji :

 

The blessed Lord who created the 'advaita' vasana in the Sadhakas

surely knows how to bring it to fruition. Let us not try

to 'convert' or dictate others.

 

regards

Sundar Rajan

P.S. my response may be considered 'harsh' but harsh statements

require harsh responses

 

 

 

 

 

Find out what India is talking about on - Answers India

Send FREE SMS to your friend's mobile from Messenger Version 8. Get it NOW

[Guest guest]

Pranams Sunderji

Just a few small minor points.

 

Yoga in the Gita has numerous meanings and is always interpreted

with reference to context - karmayoga, etc. It bears no relationship

to the modern day terminology that "yoga" has come to connote.

 

Also, as Swami Dayananda-ji likes to point out - the "yogo-naamah"

at the end of each chapter does not refer to any "yoga discipline" -

it is just a way of indicating the title of that chapter - there is

after all no "yoga of arjuna's grief"

 

Also Sant Jnaneshwar, while undoubtedly a truly blessed divine

mahatma, was not a traditional vedantin - his philosophy has

primarily to do with mechanisms to use and harness "kundalini"

shakti to gain union with shiva, and this is in accordance with the

teachings of his Guru - nivrttinath, and their philosophy is

predominantly based on mystic and tantric elements of the Nath cult

with a lot of emphasis on posture, mudras etc (- as an aside

Patanjali curiously never talks about kundalini at all.)

Nevertheless for its simplicity and wonderful use of examples and

similes the Jnaneshwari has a lot to offer for seekers studying the

Gita, esp if there is a knowledge of Marathi to appreciate the

poetry.

Please excuse me if you feel I brought up too minor an issue.

 

 

Shri Gurubhyo namah

Shyam

 

> On 9/13/06, Sunder Hattangadi <sunderh wrote:

> > We need to remember also that the whole Gita is a YOGA-

> > Shastra,

> > every chapter ends with the sentence: brahmavidyaayaaM

yogashaastre

> > shriikRRiShNaarjunasaMvaade 'amuka-amuka' yogo naama 'amuka'

> > adhyaayaH |

> >

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "shyam_md" <shyam_md wrote:

 

> Just a few small minor points.

>

> Yoga in the Gita has numerous meanings and is always interpreted

> with reference to context - karmayoga, etc. It bears no

relationship

> to the modern day terminology that "yoga" has come to connote.

>

> Also, as Swami Dayananda-ji likes to point out - the "yogo-naamah"

> at the end of each chapter does not refer to any "yoga discipline" -

 

> it is just a way of indicating the title of that chapter - there is

> after all no "yoga of arjuna's grief"

>

> Also Sant Jnaneshwar, while undoubtedly a truly blessed divine

> mahatma, was not a traditional vedantin - his philosophy has

> primarily to do with mechanisms to use and harness "kundalini"

> shakti to gain union with shiva, and this is in accordance with the

> teachings of his Guru - nivrttinath, and their philosophy is

> predominantly based on mystic and tantric elements of the Nath cult

> with a lot of emphasis on posture, mudras etc (- as an aside

> Patanjali curiously never talks about kundalini at all.)

> Nevertheless for its simplicity and wonderful use of examples and

> similes the Jnaneshwari has a lot to offer for seekers studying the

> Gita, esp if there is a knowledge of Marathi to appreciate the

> poetry.

>

> Please excuse me if you feel I brought up too minor an issue.

>

 

Namaste,

 

Thank you for expressing your views. It only proves the

axiom of Sanatana Vedic Dharma : ekaM sad vipra bahudha vadanti |

[Truth is One; the Sages speak of It variously].

 

By the way, Nisarga Datta Maharaj also was from the Nath cult

(I prefer the respectful term Sampradaya).

 

Since the debate has raged over the phrase 'refutation of

yoga', can someone explain which yoga context in Gita does it refer

to?

 

It is a pity that Patanjali Sutras do not have a Bhashya

that would explain them in detail. So our speculations run wild on

the interpretations. [For example: PYS 3:34 - hRRidaye chittasaMvit -

does anyone have a clue?]

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste

 

Recently a Swami, whom I know, visited Sri Bharati Tirtha acharyaji

(Sringeri Shankaracharya) and while conversing with him clarified if

NS was indispensable. The revered Acharya's reply was that NS is not

necessary for mukti. It would be great if someone who knows the

revered acharya can confirm his views.

 

Kathirasan

 

On 9/14/06, Sunder Hattangadi <sunderh > wrote:

> advaitin, "shyam_md" <shyam_md wrote:

>

> > Just a few small minor points.

> >

> > Yoga in the Gita has numerous meanings and is always interpreted

> > with reference to context - karmayoga, etc. It bears no

> relationship

> > to the modern day terminology that "yoga" has come to connote.

> >

> > Also, as Swami Dayananda-ji likes to point out - the "yogo-naamah"

> > at the end of each chapter does not refer to any "yoga discipline" -

>

> > it is just a way of indicating the title of that chapter - there is

> > after all no "yoga of arjuna's grief"

> >

> > Also Sant Jnaneshwar, while undoubtedly a truly blessed divine

> > mahatma, was not a traditional vedantin - his philosophy has

> > primarily to do with mechanisms to use and harness "kundalini"

> > shakti to gain union with shiva, and this is in accordance with the

> > teachings of his Guru - nivrttinath, and their philosophy is

> > predominantly based on mystic and tantric elements of the Nath cult

> > with a lot of emphasis on posture, mudras etc (- as an aside

> > Patanjali curiously never talks about kundalini at all.)

> > Nevertheless for its simplicity and wonderful use of examples and

> > similes the Jnaneshwari has a lot to offer for seekers studying the

> > Gita, esp if there is a knowledge of Marathi to appreciate the

> > poetry.

> >

> > Please excuse me if you feel I brought up too minor an issue.

> >

>

> Namaste,

>

> Thank you for expressing your views. It only proves the

> axiom of Sanatana Vedic Dharma : ekaM sad vipra bahudha vadanti |

> [Truth is One; the Sages speak of It variously].

>

> By the way, Nisarga Datta Maharaj also was from the Nath cult

> (I prefer the respectful term Sampradaya).

>

> Since the debate has raged over the phrase 'refutation of

> yoga', can someone explain which yoga context in Gita does it refer

> to?

>

> It is a pity that Patanjali Sutras do not have a Bhashya

> that would explain them in detail. So our speculations run wild on

> the interpretations. [For example: PYS 3:34 - hRRidaye chittasaMvit -

> does anyone have a clue?]

>

>

> Regards,

>

> Sunder

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sundarji,

 

Thanks for sharing the words of the former Acharya. I believe you are

well acquainted with the teachings of the former Acharya. May I also

request you to enlighten me if the Acharya had anything to say about

Kundalini Yoga (sadhana dealing with the 7 chakras) and its efficacy

in Atmajnana. Thanks in advance.

 

Kathirasan

 

On 9/15/06, Sundar Rajan <avsundarrajan > wrote:

> Namaste Kathirasan-ji

> >>

> Recently a Swami, whom I know, visited Sri Bharati Tirtha acharyaji

> (Sringeri Shankaracharya) and while conversing with him clarified if

> NS was indispensable. The revered Acharya's reply was that NS is not

> necessary for mukti. It would be great if someone who knows the

> revered acharya can confirm his views.

> >>

> I understand Sri Subbu-ji is in Sringeri for the Aradhana of

> Acharyal's Guru (Sri Abhinava VidyaTheertha Mahaswamigal) and he

> *possibly* could have obtained the info if he saw this message.

>

> While we wait for this answer, the view of Acharya's Guru has been

> posted before.

> //

> D: Can one attain Jnana without experiencing nirvikalpa-samadhi?

> A: Jnana is nothing but the knowledge of one's True nature.

> Technically, it can be obtained even through just vichara (enquiry).

> Nirvikalpa-samadhi is a wonderful means but it is improper to say

> that it is the only means.

> //

>

> regards

> Sundar Rajan

>

>