Sumary of views on samadhi.... a request.

September 16, 2006

Namaste,

Might it be possible for the very learned members who have expressed

different views on the subject of samadhi (and particularly nirvikalpa

samadhi) over the last few years and particularly recently to bring

together a *positive* summary of their own perspective as to the role of

samadhi in sadhana as related to Sankara's teaching on Advaita Vedanta?

Summaries that the moderators might agree to save to files area of the list?

It seems to me these summaries (from each 'side') would be a valuable

resource for the group and a reference for future discussions. It may also

help members, new and old, not to go over the same ground when the subject

comes up again.

I realize it is easier to ask than to do, so forgive me if this request

seems impertinent in any way.

best wishes to all advaitins.

Peter

September 17, 2006

Pranam!

We focus on techniques as per Vighanbhairav. Since it is path of "Ananda" - bliss - we do not advocate control, suppression of senses and forced moral values. Let Divinity work in you. Be as you are and focus on:

Param Shiva.

A clean body should follow clean mind. Nirvikalpa stage will be achieved by directing mind to something dearest to you. It can be Lord Krishna, Devi or Shiva.

Then through the vehicle of Prana we seek the path of bliss. Progress depends on Anugarh - Divine Grace in each individual.

Here in Delhi, we have regular programs - Trika Yoga Meditation.

Om Namah Shivaye!

Virendra.

Veena Nair <nairvee > wrote:

I would also like to second this request. If it is possible, then such a

compilation would be of great help to the members, especially novices like

me, who may have got confused and at times totally lost during the recent

discussions.

Pranams.

Veena.

On 9/16/06, Peter <not_2 (AT) btinternet (DOT) com> wrote:

>

> Namaste,

>

> Might it be possible for the very learned members who have expressed

> different views on the subject of samadhi (and particularly nirvikalpa

> samadhi) over the last few years and particularly recently to bring

> together a *positive* summary of their own perspective as to the role of

> samadhi in sadhana as related to Sankara's teaching on Advaita Vedanta?

> Summaries that the moderators might agree to save to files area of the

> list?

>

> It seems to me these summaries (from each 'side') would be a valuable

> resource for the group and a reference for future discussions. It may also

> help members, new and old, not to go over the same ground when the subject

> comes up again.

>

> I realize it is easier to ask than to do, so forgive me if this request

> seems impertinent in any way.

>

> best wishes to all advaitins.

>

> Peter

>

September 17, 2006

Pranams Peter-ji and Veena-ji and others,

I hesitate to write this post in light of a lot of

unnecessary heat this seems to have generated.

But as a request has been made, I thought of

presenting a very brief summary of the two sides to

this issue, and also including a list of the key posts

which will give a reader more detailed and scholarly

information.

I have tried to keep the comments brief and avoid

repeating the lenghty and labyrynthine discussions

which have already taken place.

__________

What is samsara? My sense of separateness from the

whole, arising out of my identification with a phantom

self called ego-sense.

What is the cause? - avidya leading to ignorance about

my true nature

What is opposed to avidya? - knowledge alone, about

both my self (tvam) and the vastu (tat) and their

aikyam (nondifference).

What is the only valid pramana vedanta accepts for

jnana - mother shruti, best exemplified with the

maha-vakya "tat tvam asi"

Who does this knowledge bless? - a uttama-adhikari, as

defined as an individual with viveka, vairagya,

shamaadi shatsampatti and mumukshutvam, who approaches

a shrotriya brahma nishta in an appropriate manner

with humility and a open, prepared mind.

Upto this point there is no difference of opinion.

_____________

The main point of discussion or debate is:

Does this jnanam occur only during a state called

nirvikalpa samadhi?

(A separate subtopic is does nirvikalpa samadhi help

in sadhana or preparation for atmajnana and in this

there can be no two opinions that - for the seeker who

finds this helpful it is helpful...it cannot be

insisted on being helpful to everyone nor can it be

negated as being helpful to no one.)

____________

One answer is "No".

why?

- nirvikalpa samadhi refers to a state where there is

a loss of the knower/known relationship and can be

arrived at by many paths - some being - at the peak of

yoga as practiced by followers of patanjali yoga

sadhana, or by methods adopted by followers of

kundalini yogashakti or even by methods described by

other eastern philosophies such as zen buddhism.

- a knower of brahman becomes brahman. if a so-called

"brahman experience" be obtained during this state

then it has to admitted that no matter which path one

chooses to enter this state in, the endresult will be

jnanam - as a corollary - atma vichara becomes

optional - this position is at odds with vedanta.

- Brahman or the self being the substratum of all our

experiences, no special experience is needed to

experience the self. In any experience, one needs to

understand the saakshi or witnesser alone to be the

substratum - by panchakosha viveka or by an analysis

of the experiences in the three states of experience

readily available to us - viz. wake, dream and sleep.

- None of the principal upanishads contain either of

the terms nirvikalpa or samadhi nor contain any

references to the students attaining a state which

could be construed to mean that they were in such a

transient state.

- Samadhi is a state limited by time - an experience

obtained in such a timebound state cannot be timeless

or eternal

_____________

Another answer would be "yes"

why?

- it serves as a useful signpost to a seeker and

serves as a marker or a litmus test to decide,

primarily for himself, that he has indeed achieved

jnana. In the absence of such a clearly defined goal,

the seeker is left with a vague "goal" and this may

prompt him to be lax in his pursuits

- texts by Sw.Vidyaranya as well the Vivekachudamani

as well as glosses written by many post-shankara

vedantic scholars stress on the absolute importance of

acieveing nirvikalpa samadhi as the sine qua non of

attainment of atma-jnana.

- In Sankara's works as well the word "samadhi" does

clearly and unambiguously feature on more than one

occasion.

- after attainment of jnanam too, again according to

the same scholars(Sw. Vidyaranya etc) the experience

of nirvikalpa samadhi can help the now liberated

jivanmukta to be free from samsaric worries.

- recent examples of divine personalities such as

Ramakrishna Paramahansa, Swami Vivekananda, Acharyal

of Sringeri, and others have clearly indictaed the

desirability (and descriptions) of the experience of

nirvikalpa samadhi as a wonderful method of attaining

atmajnana and after all the proof lies in the pudding.

- Persons frustrated by their lack of progress in yoga

will naturally tend to be vocal in their scepticism of

the importance of this experience - this also includes

many current "popular" Swamijis. Their words may be

heeded to with caution by a sincere seeker.

Which if the two answers is true is best left to the

discerning discriminating seeker to decide, hopefully

under the tutellage of a Guru who can guide him

appropriately.

I would recommend the following posts for further

reading to get a balanced perspective.

If there are other important ones I have ommitted, it

is not a reflection of the quality of the post but a

simple lapse in my own memory.

32923 - by Sadananda-ji explaining differences in

experience and knowledge, and nirvikalpa samadhi and

nirvikalpa vastu jnanam

33113 - Ramesh Krishnamurthy's 2 part summary of

advaita vedanta and patanjali yoga

32853 and 32782 - by Subbu-ji, giving the wondergul

real life accounts of His Holiness Sringeri Acharyal

33230 - Bhaskar-ji's 3 part summary of yoga, vedanta,

dhyana and nidhidhyasana

Warm regards and pranams to all advaitins.

May Ishwara bless us all with right understanding.

Asata ma sat gamaya.tamaso ma jyotir gamaya. mrtyor ma

amrtam gamaya. Om shanti shanti shanti.

OM tat sat

Shyam

--- Veena Nair <nairvee > wrote:

> I would also like to second this request. If it is

> possible, then such a

> compilation would be of great help to the members,

> especially novices like

> me, who may have got confused and at times totally

> lost during the recent

> discussions.

>

> Pranams.

> Veena.

>

> On 9/16/06, Peter <not_2 (AT) btinternet (DOT) com> wrote:

> >

> > Namaste,

> >

> > Might it be possible for the very learned members

> who have expressed

> > different views on the subject of samadhi (and

> particularly nirvikalpa

> > samadhi) over the last few years and particularly

> recently to bring

> > together a *positive* summary of their own

> perspective as to the role of

> > samadhi in sadhana as related to Sankara's

> teaching on Advaita Vedanta?

> > Summaries that the moderators might agree to save

> to files area of the

> > list?

September 17, 2006

Namaste

Today in Portland Oregon I joined in the Vedanta class that a group

has been going through for the past so many ears by listening to the

audio tapes of Swami Paramarthananda. It was the second lecture on

Taittiriyopanishad today. The Swami was talking about Shravana,

Manana and nididhyAsana. He said there are three obstacles to the

coming of right conclusions in manana. All the three constitute what

is called 'viparyaya' or 'viparIta-bhAvanA'.

One is the habitual thinking of the mind in terms of its own

individuality. This obstacle is because of the ego or dehAtmabuddhi.

Number two is the obstacle where the mind is, as it always has been,

thinking of relative solutions to relative problems. This is the

obstacle which provokes the mind to say to itself "Oh. If only this

problem is solved, then I will able to realise 'aham brahma asmi'"

and thus keeps on waiting for its problems to be 'solved' Vedanta

says, 'aham brahma asmi' in spite of our problems, solved or not.

It is Number three that I (=VK) want to write here. Number three,

Swamiji says, is the third aspect of ViparIta-bhAvanA that comes in

the way of our recognising our PUrNatvaM (Fullness or Infinitude).

The mind says to itself "Until I have experienced that I am Brahman,

how can I be convinced of it?'" This expectation of the 'experience'

of Infinitude is the obstacle. Infinitude is not an experience. The

moment you come to the field of experience, you have to become an

experiencer and the moment you have become an experiencer, you have

become an individual. Experience implies finiteness. There is no

such thing as infinite experience. If you remove all your (finite)

experiences then you are not there to experience the infinite. When

you work for infinite experience, the maximum you get out of it is

the experience of sushhupti. Therefore Infinity is something to be

understood, not to be experienced. It is name and form that makes

me the experiencer. The experiencer-hood is mithyA. When we see a

star in the sky, the smallness of the star is mithyA. But the star

is sathyaM. That I am the Reality is not mithyA. The experiencer

status is mithyA. Thus the expectation of experience is another

viparIta-bhAvanA.

I wanted to bring the above to the notice of the members of this

list because of the recent discussions on the 'experience' of

samAdhi.

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

September 17, 2006

Namaste shyam-ji,

Thank you for your thoughts. You are very generous with your understanding,

as always. I can understand your hesitancy. It was with this latter in mind

that my suggestion was more along the lines that members upload the summary

of their own position/understanding to a file on the web page - providing

moderators were agreeable. Then such views will be there for us to refer to

in the future and would spare members repeating these when the subject came

up again. I appreciate it is not for me to tell members should do, so...

just a thought.

best wishes,

Peter

________________________________

advaitin [advaitin] On Behalf

Of Shyam

17 September 2006 06:07

advaitin

Re: Sumary of views on samadhi.... a request.

Pranams Peter-ji and Veena-ji and others,

I hesitate to write this post in light of a lot of

unnecessary heat this seems to have generated.

<snip>

September 18, 2006

Prof Krishnamuthi Ji writes -

>Infinitude is not an experience. The

>moment you come to the field of experience, you have to become an

>experiencer and the moment you have become an experiencer, you have

>become an individual. Experience implies finiteness. There is no

>such thing as infinite experience. If you remove all your (finite)

>experiences then you are not there to experience the infinite. When

>you work for infinite experience, the maximum you get out of it is

>the experience of sushhupti. Therefore Infinity is something to be

>understood, not to be experienced.

Prof Krishnamuthi Ji PraNams,

The above of sentence Swami Paramarthanada "Infinity is something to be understood, not to be experienced" means Aparoksha Anubhuti is impossible.

In that case I do not have anything to say.

I thank all the members of this list who helped clarify my doubts (directly or indirectly).

PraNams

Om tat-sat

Vishal

Get on board. You're invited to try the new Mail.

September 18, 2006

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk

wrote:

>

> Namaste

> When you work for infinite experience, the maximum you get out of

it is the experience of sushhupti. Therefore Infinity is something

to be understood, not to be experienced. It is name and form that

makes me the experiencer. The experiencer-hood is mithyA. When we

see a star in the sky, the smallness of the star is mithyA. But the

star is sathyaM. That I am the Reality is not mithyA. The

experiencer status is mithyA. Thus the expectation of experience is

another viparIta-bhAvanA.

> PraNAms to all advaitins.

> profvk

Srigurubhyo NamaH

Namaste,

If the above view is true, why should the Upanishads teach the means

to gain the Realization of the Atman? They could have just described

the nature of Atman and ended up with that. That would be sufficient

to understand the Atman. On the other hand, we have, for example, in

the Kathopanishad:

He is hidden in all beings, and hence He does not appear as the Self

(of all). But by the seers of subtle things, He is seen through a

pointed and fine intellect. (I.iii.12)

After stating this, the Upanishad goes on: The Acharya introduces the

next mantra thus: tat-prApti-upAyamAha (The means for His attainment

is being stated):

The discriminating man should merge the organ of speech into the

mind, he should merge that mind into the intelligent self, he should

merge the intelligent self into the Great Soul, he should merge the

Great Soul into the peaceful Self. (I.iii.13)

It is to be deliberated if this mantra-teaching is meant to be a

sleep-inducer.

This above mantra is a useless one in case nothing need be done apart

from understanding about the Atma.

Again, in the Mundaka Upanishad also we find the above pattern:

mantras II.ii.3 and 4.

In the Mandukya kArikaa, in the third prakarana (III.39 onwards) we

find the method of attaining the Atman, the Turiya, that was taught

in the seventh mantra; 'sa Atmaa sa vijneyaH': 'He is the Atma, He is

to be realized' (note: vijneyaH is not the same as jneyaH, the former

connoting that a direct aparoksha realization is to be had to

constitute liberating knowledge).

There is a humourous episode in the Panchadashi:

A king announced that he would give a reward to the one who knows the

four vedas. One smart fellow claimed the reward. When asked to

demonstrate his knowledge, he said: 'I know that the vedas are four

in number'.

With warm regards,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

September 18, 2006

Namaste

The whole understanding process referred to is through Shravana,

Manana & Nididhyasana. Of course, for the perfect seeker (uttama

Adhikari) Shravana is sufficient. The Katha Upanishad mentions this

too :

The mortal who has HEARD this and comprehended it well, who has

separated that Atman, the very soul of dharma, from all physical

objects and has realised the subtle essence, rejoices because he has

obtained that which is the cause of rejoicing. 2.13

This understanding has to first come through listening from a teacher.

And what does the teacher teach? That has been quoted by you from the

same upanishad:

The discriminating man should merge the organ of speech into the mind,

he should merge that mind into the intelligent self, he should merge

the intelligent self into the Great Soul, he should merge the Great

Soul into the peaceful Self. 3.13

Is this is a physical merging? No. It is to be understood and this is

the understanding Swami Paramarthanandaji is refrring to. This is also

called as Adhyatma Yoga in the earlier verse in the same upanishad. In

fact during Shravana various methods (methods) can be used by the

teacher to convey the truth. To name a few:

1. Karana Karya Prakriya

2. Pancha Kosha Prakriya

3. Avastha Traya Prakriya

4. Anvaya Vyatireka Prakriya

All the above appear in the Upanishads in some form. There is no

physical reduction necessary. This negation (apavada) takes place in

the mind alone and therefore it has to be understood. Thinking that

nothing else needs to be done except understanding may give the idea

that understanding is trivial. This understanding is nothing but the

clear knowledge about the Self.

On 9/18/06, subrahmanian_v <subrahmanian_v > wrote:

> Srigurubhyo NamaH

> Namaste,

>

> If the above view is true, why should the Upanishads teach the means

> to gain the Realization of the Atman? They could have just described

> the nature of Atman and ended up with that. That would be sufficient

> to understand the Atman. On the other hand, we have, for example, in

> the Kathopanishad:

>

> He is hidden in all beings, and hence He does not appear as the Self

> (of all). But by the seers of subtle things, He is seen through a

> pointed and fine intellect. (I.iii.12)

>

> After stating this, the Upanishad goes on: The Acharya introduces the

> next mantra thus: tat-prApti-upAyamAha (The means for His attainment

> is being stated):

>

> The discriminating man should merge the organ of speech into the

> mind, he should merge that mind into the intelligent self, he should

> merge the intelligent self into the Great Soul, he should merge the

> Great Soul into the peaceful Self. (I.iii.13)

>

> It is to be deliberated if this mantra-teaching is meant to be a

> sleep-inducer.

>

> This above mantra is a useless one in case nothing need be done apart

> from understanding about the Atma.

>

> Again, in the Mundaka Upanishad also we find the above pattern:

> mantras II.ii.3 and 4.

>

> In the Mandukya kArikaa, in the third prakarana (III.39 onwards) we

> find the method of attaining the Atman, the Turiya, that was taught

> in the seventh mantra; 'sa Atmaa sa vijneyaH': 'He is the Atma, He is

> to be realized' (note: vijneyaH is not the same as jneyaH, the former

> connoting that a direct aparoksha realization is to be had to

> constitute liberating knowledge).

>

> There is a humourous episode in the Panchadashi:

> A king announced that he would give a reward to the one who knows the

> four vedas. One smart fellow claimed the reward. When asked to

> demonstrate his knowledge, he said: 'I know that the vedas are four

> in number'.

>

> With warm regards,

> subbu

> Om Tat Sat

>

September 18, 2006

There is no physical reduction necessary. This negation (apavada) takes

place in

the mind alone and therefore it has to be understood. Thinking that

nothing else needs to be done except understanding may give the idea

that understanding is trivial. This understanding is nothing but the

clear knowledge about the Self.

praNAms Sri Kathirasan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

That is really beautifully put prabhuji....adhyAtma yOga is not about the

process of *physical* merging of something with something & finally

establishing oneself with the SELF in a particular timebound state. If

realization is an *experience* of some mystic state what was the need for

bhrugu & vAruNi episode in taitirIya upanishad? what is the need for

uddAlaka-s repeated assertion to shvEtakEtu (infact it is nine times!!!)??

shastra would have simply said *you are brahman* and this reality you have

to experience in *such & such* a state & closed the issue...There is

absolutely no need for detailed notes on kArya-kArana (cause & effect)

prakriya (methodology), paNcha kOsha prakriya (the method of five sheaths)

, avasthA traya prakriya (methodology pertaining to our three states) etc.

etc. Aspirants in jnAna mArga should realize why shankara's

advaita/shurti's primary method of teaching is based on *vivEka*!!!!

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

September 18, 2006

Therefore Infinity is something to be understood, not to be experienced.

It is name and form that makes

me the experiencer. The experiencer-hood is mithyA.

praNAms Sri Prof. VK prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Thanks a lot for bringing this very important observation from Sri

paramArthAnanda Swamiji ( is he Swamy Krishnananda's disciple?? ) Yes, it

is our false identification with name & form will bring us the notion that

we are the experiencer & there is something called *brahman* that needs to

be experienced by me, the *experiencer*...This false identification is

called as adhyAsa by shankara in his preamble to sUtra bhAshya...In the

gIta bhAshya shankara says even the statements in shAstra-s which teaches

*how to know Atman*?? etc. is only the process of removing the very notion

of pramAtrutva (knowership) which is falsely imagined or conceived in HIM

and thereby falsifying the resultant transaction of pramANa & pramEya.

Since Atman is the real nature of this knower and He is self evident

(svayaM siddha) there is no need for any pramANa or means of knowledge or

aid to know him ( here the *aid* to be noted)..Since the svarUpa jnAna or

Atma jnAna is self established only it is necessary to dispel one's wrong

identification with not-selves (anAtma vastu) with the help of shAstra and

shrOtrIya & brahmaniShTa guru.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

September 18, 2006

advaitin, bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

> There is no physical reduction necessary. This negation (apavada)

takes

> place in

> the mind alone and therefore it has to be understood. Thinking that

> nothing else needs to be done except understanding may give the idea

> that understanding is trivial. This understanding is nothing but the

> clear knowledge about the Self.

>

> praNAms Sri Kathirasan prabhuji

> Hare Krishna

>

> That is really beautifully put prabhuji....adhyAtma yOga is not

about the

> process of *physical* merging of something with something & finally

> establishing oneself with the SELF in a particular timebound

state. If

> realization is an *experience* of some mystic state what was the

need for

> bhrugu & vAruNi episode in taitirIya upanishad? what is the need

for

> uddAlaka-s repeated assertion to shvEtakEtu (infact it is nine

times!!!)??

> shastra would have simply said *you are brahman* and this reality

you have

> to experience in *such & such* a state & closed the issue...There is

> absolutely no need for detailed notes on kArya-kArana (cause &

effect)

> prakriya (methodology), paNcha kOsha prakriya (the method of five

sheaths)

> , avasthA traya prakriya (methodology pertaining to our three

states) etc.

> etc. Aspirants in jnAna mArga should realize why shankara's

> advaita/shurti's primary method of teaching is based on

*vivEka*!!!!

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

>

Srigurubhyo NamaH

Namaste,

It is not difficult to grasp that the adhyaatma yoga of the Upanishad

does not mean a physical merger. If that is done, if at all

possible, then there would be no Guru with aproksha anubhava to teach

others from direct experience.

My attention is on the following sutrabhashya:

http://www.bharatadesam.com/spiritual/brahma_sutra/brahma_sutra_sankar

a_38127.php

api cha samrAdhane pratyakSha-anumAnAbhyAm (Br.Sutra III.ii.24)

24. And in the state of perfect conciliation also (the Yogins

apprehend the highest Brahman), according to Sruti and Smriti.

At the time of perfect conciliation the Yogins see the unevolved Self

free from all plurality. By 'perfect conciliation' we understand the

presentation before the mind (of the highest Self), which is effected

through meditation and devotion.--This is vouched for by Sruti as

well as Smriti. So, e.g. Ka. Up. IV, 1, 'The Self-existent pierced

the openings of the senses so that they turn outward; therefore man

looks without, not within himself. Some wise man, however, with his

eyes closed and wishing for immortality, saw the Self within.' And

Mu. Up. III, 1, 8, 'When a man's mind has become purified by the

serene light of knowledge then he sees him, meditating on him as

without parts.' Smriti-passages of the same tendency are the

following ones, 'He who is seen as light by the Yogins meditating on

him sleepless, with suspended breath, with contented minds, with

subdued senses; reverence be to him 1!' and 'The Yogins see him, the

august, eternal one.' (sanatsujAtIya V chapter).

But if in the state of perfect conciliation there is a being to be

conciliated and a being conciliating, does not this Involve the

distinction of a higher and a lower Self?--No, the next Sûtra

replies. (unquote)

The Words of the Bhashya are:

api cha enamAtmAnam nirasta-samasta-prapancham-avyaktam

samrAdhanakAle pashyanti yoginaH. SamrAdhanam cha bhakti, dhyAna,

praNidhAnaAdyanuShThAnam. Kataham punaH avagamyate samrAdhana-kAle

pashyanti iti ? pratyakSha-anumAnAbhyAm = shruti-smritibhyAm

ityarthaH. tathA hi shrutiH: paraanchi khAni vyatruNat…..kashchit

dhIraH pratyagAtmAnam aikShat…..amrutatvam icchan (Kathopanishad 4.1)

iti. `jnAnaprasAdena vishuddha-sattvaH …tam pashyate niShkalam

dhyAyamAnaH (Mundaka. 3.1.8) iti chaivamAdyA. Smritirapi : yam vi-

nidrA jitashvAsAH santunShTAH samyatendriyAH . jyotiH pashyanti

yunjAnaaH tasmai yogAtmane namaH. YoginaH tam prapashyanti

bhagavantam sanAtanam' (sanatsujAtiiya of Mahabharatha) iti

chaivamAdyAH. (unquote)

Is there not a specific experience spoken of above? If it were mere

understanding, why does the bhashya speak of a specific state, a time

in which that experience occurs? Why did the Acharya choose these

specific shruti and smriti passages to support the bhashya on that

sutra? There are a number of shruti passages that do not specify any

state, like for example, the 'ayamAtmA brahma sarvAnubhUH'. I think

that the above sutrabhashya is unique of its kind. Hence its

importance in clinching the issue. Its place in that adhikaraNa is

also to be noted by going through the earlier and subsequent sutra

bhashyas. If it is not an experience had at a particular state and

time, the Acharya could have said that in simple terms. One can see

how the adhyAtma Yoga of the upanishad clearly match this sutra

bhashya. Also one can easily see how the explanation of the adhyAtma

Yoga contained in the book 'Intuition of Reality' fits into this

bhashya:

6. .....The highest Truth can be known only by means of suggestion

of the Shruti or an Acharya by making use of one's own purified mind

alone. By this ONE INSTRUMENT (all emphasis is of the revered

author, not mine) the seeker can practise the ADHYATMA YOGA (the

graded contemplation leading to the inmost Atman). The process of

this Yoga demands that the seeker should gradually STILL the

activities of the senes, the mind, intellect as well as the ego,

trying to MERGE each preceding entity in the next succeeding one,

till at last he BECOMES ONE with the really real Tranquil Atman,

beyond all objects of the senses and the intellect. (unquote)

What is this stilling spoken of by the author? Again, in the Mandukya

Kaarika 'asparsha yoga' description, why are the torpor, rasa-

AsvAda and other impediments spoken of? Surely, there cannot be

these impediments in trying to obtain an understanding of the Atman

through viveka. In the Mundaka teaching of the means: praNava as the

bow, and finally tal-layaH are spoken of. These are not necessary

for an understanding of the ATman unless a specific exercise towards

this end is undertaken. In my understanding, the Gita VI chapter is

quite elaborate about the process right from specifying the posture

etc. Even in the Bhrugu-VAruNi teaching, the 'tapas' that is the

means in that upanishad, the Acharya defines it as: the one-

pointedness of the mind and the senses is the greatest tapas. What

is wrong in an experience if it is had at a specific time? Even in

getting the direct realization of the ATman through viveka, the

akhandaakAravritti that brings about this, is of the duration of only

one kshaNa. That is enough to destroy avidya and make the person

liberated. But its kshAnika nature does not render the realization

defective. It is not that the person thus liberated is always in

that vritti. The Panchadashi is quite clear about this. In the case

of an uttamAdhikaari, if the realization can arise just upon hearing

the seminal teaching, even that has to be at a certain moment alone.

It cannot be a prolonged event. This is quite logical. This does

not render his realization any defective.

Warm regards,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

September 18, 2006

Namaste Vishal-ji.

(This refers to your previous post too. I wanted to write before but

was a little diffident as I am armed only with common-sense.)

I don't know anything much about NS. As explained before, I have

always taken it to be a realized person's sleep (when there are no

apparent vikalpAs) as perceived by a non-realized person. Thus,

sahaja samAdhi is understood by me as a realized person's waking

from the point of view of a non-realized one. As far as the realized

person is concerned, both NS and SS are the same as he is truly awake

to his Fullness in both sleep and waking. He can't simply afford to

have two `types' of samAdhi as he is the one and only Brahman.

There isn't a moment he is not awake. It is the non-realized ones

who need a differentiation between NS and SS. A realized soul is

beyond avastAtraya. He wouldn't need to differentiate.

In Vedanta, the word Knowledge is normally used to denote AtmajnAna.

As in the case of ordinary knowledge, it doesn't involve a knower,

known and knowing. As you rightly said, the Self knowing the Self is

Knowledge. Based on my understanding in para 1 above, I would take

NS and SS to be the Self knowing the Self and, therefore,

fundamentally Knowledge. The distinctions made, such as NS, SS, NB

etc., are preoccupations for the non-realized.

Experience is quite different. As in ordinary knowing or

understanding, it involves an experiencer, experiencing and

experienced (a triad).

This world of objectifications consists of experiencing, knowing and

understanding, which are all made of triads.

Let us take two examples: 1. I understand my mistake. 2. I

enjoyed a mango. We take the first one as an understanding and the

second one as an experience. But, if we look at them closely, the

first one is understanding awareness (I know I understand my mistake)

and the second one is experience awareness (I know I enjoyed the

mango). Every transaction thus can be reduced to awareness. The

world of objectifications is thus an ocean of `awarenesses' like our

ocean is an ocean of waves. Ego, mind, intellect, body etc. are all

awareness because they are all known to us, are in our awareness. If

the waves are ocean, then all these individual objectifications are

essentially awareness alone. Let us name that `unity in apparent

diversity' as Awareness with a capital A.

I hear a sound. That is simply sound awareness. When I get down to

analyse that simple awareness, so many things immediately pop up.

First an experiencer (I), then the experiencing (hearing) and the

experienced (sound). Do we stop there? No. We bring in the ear,

then the mechanism of the ear and its parts like ear drum etc.,

auditory nerve, brain and what not. All these are basically

Awareness. The more we go out, the more is the diversity. The more

we centrifuge, closer are we to the Unity of Awareness. Thus, out we

go, we are richer in ignorance; in we look, wiser are we.

Vedanta's preoccupation is with Awareness, of which the whole

Universe is made. I don't therefore really understand why are we so

very much preoccupied with entities like mind, intellect etc. Our

strange preoccupation represents a centripetal thrust.

AtmajnAna means an unfaltering abidance in Awareness – Awareness

abiding in Awareness or the erstwhile `I', the understander /

experiencer / knower resolving and losing himself/herself without a

trace in Awareness - his/her real nature. That losing cannot be an

experience like our other experiences. It can't be an understanding

either, as any understanding presupposes the existence of an

intellect. A question like "What is it then?" has no validity

there. That is why sages like Bh. Ramana have simply described it

as "I am".

So, if any one says "Infinity is only to be understood", then I will

disagree. I would correct that statement as "Infinity as a concept

is only to be understood". There is no question of understanding

Infinity per se if that term is meant to convey the import of

advaitic fullness.

Then what about anubhUti? I would address this question from two

angles.

Let us take the case of a person in agony trying to commit suicide.

Is he killing himself? If he is one hundred percent sure that he is

going to put an end to himself, he will not commit suicide. In his

heart of heart, he knows that he is ending his life only to escape an

agonizing situation. There is a hidden awareness in him that he is

after all going to survive. What is that awareness like? It is

definitely no understanding. I would call it an `intuitive something'

although I am sure I would be laughed at. That intuitive awareness

of our immortality is always there inside us howsoever much immersed

and deluded are we in this samSAra. It is that awareness that

propels our self-enquiry. It is an unending call from inside us.

Now the second angle and it is rather personal. Before the vastu and

purushavAdins pounce on me, let me hasten to add that it can be a

sArvatrika anubhava (universal experience) too if we earnestly work

for it. I leave it to our Members to vouch for the validity of what

I am going to say. Before we all took to Vedanta, what was our sleep

like? To me, it was total darkness. A total blank. What we really

meant when we said "I slept like a hog". Has this changed in

subsequent years of spiritual sAdhana? I am sure most of us would

like to answer in the affirmative meaning that, through spiritual

reflection and contemplation, the erstwhile darkness of sleep has

acquired a lucidity – a vibrant shine and gloss – suggestive of an

underlying source of light that shines the darkness. A something that

renders the blankness positive. Words can't effectively convey what

I am trying to say. I have to bank on Members' empathy. Such

lustre and positiveness seeping into something hithertofore

considered black and negative is suggestive of our inherent awareness

of our unbroken continuity. It also suggests that, through spiritual

sAdhana, we are right on our way to NS if we can accept the meaning

I read into it in the opening section of this post.

The rudimentary intuitive awareness of our unbroken continuity is the

sat of sat-chit-ananda. It expresses itself as an anubhUti. In

AtmajnAna, it fully surfaces and consumes our mortality and

individuality which was responsible for the projection of a universe

of diversity other than and outside us. The erstwhile anubhUti

which expressed itself vaguely as our freedom and continuity (sense

of immortality) then fully shines forth. There is nothing other than

that anubhUti then. That is aparokshAnubhUti. The Ananda

implication in sat-chit-Ananda is, therefore, really meant and not

accidental. Agre paSyAmi is then understood. vedantavAkyeSu sadA

ramantaM then becomes a meaningful description.

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

___________________

advaitin, Vishal D <vishaldeshpande4

wrote:

>> The above of sentence Swami Paramarthanada "Infinity is

something to be understood, not to be experienced" means Aparoksha

Anubhuti is impossible.

>

> In that case I do not have anything to say.

>

> I thank all the members of this list who helped clarify my doubts

(directly or indirectly).

September 18, 2006

Namaskhar Sri Nair-ji!

You have stated some profound truths in a very simplistic way for

even a layman( shall i say , laywoman) like me to understand and

comprehend in an inimitable fashion . Thank you !

Mango is the King of fruits. but , it is also a seasonal fruit.

Depending on which time of the year one eats the mango , the taste

will differ Sweet or Sour ! So, eating a mango is one type of

experience but enjoying a mango that is sweet is another type of

experience ! That two cannot be equated ! Samadhi is 'something'

like that ! We can read , hear and talk about 'Samadhi' all we want

but to each spiritual aspirant , being in 'samadhi' is by itself a

new experience and only he/she can describe the Ananda accompanying

such an exerience! Sages like sri Ramakrishna when asked to describe

what a 'samadhi' is immediately went into 'samadhi' !(a state of

Bliss?)

Having said that may i say that i thoroughly enjoyed reading your

post sp[ecially the following lines

( In Vedanta, the word Knowledge is normally used to denote

AtmajnAna. As in the case of ordinary knowledge, it doesn't

involve a knower, known and knowing. As you rightly said, the Self

knowing the Self is Knowledge. Based on my understanding in para 1

above, I would take NS and SS to be the Self knowing the Self and,

therefore, fundamentally Knowledge. The distinctions made, such as

NS, SS, NB etc., are preoccupations for the non-realized.

Experience is quite different. As in ordinary knowing or

understanding, it involves an experiencer, experiencing and

experienced (a triad).)

May i quote the following verse 27 from Sri RAMANA bhagwan's UPADESA

Saram

jñana-varjitâ'jñâna-hîna-cit,

jñânam-asti kim jñâtum-antaram.

chit (Awareness) is jñanam which is unqualified knowledge.

When we are free from objective knowledge (jñana-varjitâ)

and when we also get rid of the notion "I am ignorant" (â'jñâna-

hîna)

through Self-enquiry, thereby gaining Self-knowledge,

there is no difference between the knower and the known.

There is one Awareness and that is yourself.

There is, then, nothing else to know. (asti kim jñâtum-antaram)

How come Sri Ramakrishna

Paramahamsa in the 1800 and Sri Ramana maharishi in the 1900 could

describe about 'sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi' something that is beyond

description ? Is IT BECAUSE IT IS THEIR NATURAL STATE ?

with warmest regards

Salutations to Sri Ramana BHAGWAN!

Salutations to manasika guru Sri RAMAKRISHNA PARAMAHAMSA !

SALUTATIONS to AdI GURU AND JAGADGURU AdI SHANKARA bhagvadapada !

September 18, 2006

Pranams Subbuji

Thank you for corrections of Swami

Paramarthananda-ji's teachings.

In the Kathopanisad we find these lines

"Atman, when taught by an inferior person, is not

easily comprehended, because It is diversely regarded

by disputants. But when It is taught by him who has

become one with Atman, there can remain no more doubt

about It. Atman is subtler than the subtlest and not

to be known through argument"

On a general note, whenever we hear words from a

Mahatma, esp if it happens to be our Guru, whose

teaching we freely utilize to help us in our own

selfunderstandinf, we should with humility try to

understand the import of their nectarine words,

instead of jumping to contradict them.

Only then can there be learning.

"tad viddhi pranipatena pariprasnena sevaya" is what

Bhagwan Krishna says in his teachings.

Even if we don't render service nor surrender, the

least we can do is try to understand their benevolent

and freely available advice. Water always flows from

above below, and so it is with knowledge.

Scholarship and learning are hence different entities

- scholarship is relatively easy to be had without the

right attitude, but for learning you require a mind

which accepts its current state of ignorance.

Now specifically addressing your corrections,

let us instead of using other references use the very

same references you provided.

"But by the seers of subtle things, He is seen through

a pointed and fine intellect."

"He" is "seen" through a pointed and fine "intellect"

First the word intellect - this itself shows that the

knowledge, like any knowledge, has to occur at the

level of the intellect. For the intellect to be

functional it needs to be available for transaction -

so any idea that this knowledge will "become

available" as an "experience" in a trance like state

of NS is false understanding.

Second the word "He"

"He" here refers to the vastu.

This vastu is you! the self!

Can you see your Self or objectify your Self?

No.

The intellect has to understand by

panchakosha/avasthatraya/drkdrsya discrimination that

I the self alone am the vastu I seek, already, right

now, at this very moment in time, - not at a future

date, and that too during a trance. If buddhi capable

of this discrimination is lacking, then even a hundred

trances will not help. When the word "see" is used it

is in the sense of understanding. I see for myself

that I am poornam, I am complete, I am nonseparate

from the whole - that "seeing" is atmajnana, (not

atmadarshanah.)

Now the second sentence you quote

The discriminating man should merge the organ of

speech into the mind, he should merge that mind into

the intelligent self, he should merge the intelligent

self into the Great Soul, he should merge the Great

Soul into the peaceful Self. (I.iii.13)

This "merger" is in the understanding. This mantra is

nothing but a recipe for appropriate discrimination of

the panchakoshas starting with the organ of speech as

one of the representatives of the gross body and

moving "inwards" and again inwards only in a matter of

understanding. The organ of speech is brahman - if it

were to be truly merged into something else you would

be left without any power of speech!

Everything right from the organ of speech down to the

mind to the Great soul etc is none other then me, the

everpeaceful self - this is the understanding. this

alone is the right understanding.

I the self am the saakshi the witnesser. I alone can

never be witnessed.

Thus it is that I alone am, and thus it is that I

alone am the substratum of everything I see, hear, etc

and that I can never be further objectified is what I

need to understand. This is self-"realization" or

aparoksha anubhuti to answer Vishal-ji's question.

In fact it is ONLY because I, the self, cannot be

experienced and I AM the very vastu, is aparoksha

anubhuti possible. If brahman, as a vastu, could be

experienced then I the experiencer of that experience

can never be brahman. then "I" have no hope of

"becoming the vastu"

Infinitude can not be experienced.

Can you say from 10am to 1020am I experienced the

infinite. It is a laughable preposition. It indicates

a lack of understanding of the very term infinite.

Infinite is "beyond time"

Any transaction occuring in time can never be

timeless.

What is the one and only one thing that indeed is

timeless - i.e. beyond time - the very witnesser of

time - the very vastu which while remaining unchanging

allows as it were time to change - and who or what is

that vastu or witnesser - it is I sat-chit-ananda. I

am. There is nothing for me to "be-come". What I am

NOT, I need to clearly understand. This does not

require intuition - it requires understanding. Hence

we need a teacher and we need a proper attitude to the

teaching. All the prakriyas are methods to develop

discrmimination, not intuition - intuition can never

be taught.

In the most important chapter in the Upadesa Sahasri,

Bhagwan Shankara uses the 10th man example repeatedly.

Why? Because that really is the most apt example for

tat tvam asi. The tenth man can never be an object of

experience, because the tenth man already is. He does

not have to "become" the tenth man. This is crucial to

understand. He needs a Guru who can tell him that he

already is who he has been searching for. And then he

knows. If he keeps waiting for a "10th" man experience

instead, it is with certitude going to be an unending

wait.

My pranams to all advaitins

Shri Gurubhyo namah

Shyam

--- subrahmanian_v <subrahmanian_v > wrote:

> advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy"

> <profvk

> wrote:

> >

> > Namaste

> > When you work for infinite experience, the maximum

> you get out of

> it is the experience of sushhupti. Therefore

> Infinity is something

> to be understood, not to be experienced. It is

> name and form that

> makes me the experiencer. The experiencer-hood is

> mithyA. When we

> see a star in the sky, the smallness of the star is

> mithyA. But the

> star is sathyaM. That I am the Reality is not

> mithyA. The

> experiencer status is mithyA. Thus the expectation

> of experience is

> another viparIta-bhAvanA.

> > PraNAms to all advaitins.

> > profvk

>

> Srigurubhyo NamaH

> Namaste,

>

> If the above view is true, why should the Upanishads

> teach the means

> to gain the Realization of the Atman? They could

> have just described

> the nature of Atman and ended up with that. That

> would be sufficient

> to understand the Atman. On the other hand, we

> have, for example, in

> the Kathopanishad:

>

> He is hidden in all beings, and hence He does not

> appear as the Self

> (of all). But by the seers of subtle things, He is

> seen through a

> pointed and fine intellect. (I.iii.12)

>

> After stating this, the Upanishad goes on: The

> Acharya introduces the

> next mantra thus: tat-prApti-upAyamAha (The means

> for His attainment

> is being stated):

>

> The discriminating man should merge the organ of

> speech into the

> mind, he should merge that mind into the intelligent

> self, he should

> merge the intelligent self into the Great Soul, he

> should merge the

> Great Soul into the peaceful Self. (I.iii.13)

>

> It is to be deliberated if this mantra-teaching is

> meant to be a

> sleep-inducer.

>

> This above mantra is a useless one in case nothing

> need be done apart

> from understanding about the Atma.

>

> Again, in the Mundaka Upanishad also we find the

> above pattern:

> mantras II.ii.3 and 4.

>

> In the Mandukya kArikaa, in the third prakarana

> (III.39 onwards) we

> find the method of attaining the Atman, the Turiya,

> that was taught

> in the seventh mantra; 'sa Atmaa sa vijneyaH': 'He

> is the Atma, He is

> to be realized' (note: vijneyaH is not the same as

> jneyaH, the former

> connoting that a direct aparoksha realization is to

> be had to

> constitute liberating knowledge).

>

> There is a humourous episode in the Panchadashi:

> A king announced that he would give a reward to the

> one who knows the

> four vedas. One smart fellow claimed the reward.

> When asked to

> demonstrate his knowledge, he said: 'I know that the

> vedas are four

> in number'.

>

> With warm regards,

> subbu

> Om Tat Sat

>

September 18, 2006

Pranams Bhaskar-ji

Pujya Guruji Swami Paramarthananda-ji, is one of the

foremost exponents of brahmavidya in bharatdesam

today.

He has been teaching vedanta at Chennai for over two

decades.

He received his teachings from Swami Chinmayananda-ji

as well as from Swami Dayananda-ji.

His students are actively teaching vedanta in

different parts of India.

His teaching style I would characterize as lucid,

simple, very systematic, very detailed and most

importantly steeped in tradition.

More information about his works, cassettes and mp3,

books, etc can be obtained for those interested at the

following websites.

www.yogamalika.org

www.vedantavidyarthisangha.org

www.sastraprakasika.org

A thousand pranams at the lotus feet of my Guru,

Shyam

--- bhaskar.yr (AT) in (DOT) abb.com wrote:

> Thanks a lot for bringing this very important

> observation from Sri

> paramArthAnanda Swamiji ( is he Swamy Krishnananda's

> disciple?? )

September 18, 2006

Namaste All,

This message contains replies to the recent post by Prof-VKji on

comments from Swami Paramarthananda's commentary (#33285) and

responses from Kathrasan-ji (on Adhyatma Yoga) and Shyam-ji (on

trance)

1. The very definition of Adhyatma Yoga in the Upanishads

points to a `transient state' - According to Sankara there is only

Pure awareness and NO thinking in that state

2. Sankara's bhasyas on the Upanishads clearly refute the

notion that the highest state of yoga is deep sleep (sushupti)

3. According to Sankara, Bhagavan's words in the sixth chapter

of the Gita point to the self cognizing the self with absolutely NO

thinking (therefore NO understanding???)

4. As Peter-ji and Raghava Kaluri-ji pointed out and as Shyam-

ji indicated in his summary there are two divergent views. These can

be easily reconciled if we understand the yoga vasistha quote: Yoga

and Vichara are two `path's. Some may find Yoga suitable, others

Vichara

5. Trying to focus on personalities instead of issues will lead

to unfortunate discussions on whether the views of revered Swami

Paramarthananda-ji are any more valid than those of Great

Jivanmuktas (and great Vedantic scholars) of the Advaita tradition

such as Swami Vidyaranya

I presented this summary above so members can choose to discard or

read further :-) as the rest of this message is only a elaboration

1. Definition of Adhyatma Yoga in the Upanishads

==================================================

Kathirasan-ji mentioned Adhyatma yoga in his message:

>>

Is this is a physical merging? No. It is to be understood and this is

the understanding Swami Paramarthanandaji is refrring to. This is

also called as Adhyatma Yoga in the earlier verse in the same

upanishad

>>

The Katha Upanishad booms forth "taaM yogamiti mandante" the Supreme

state of Yoga is defined as (the sruit can't be more explict than

this):

When the five instruments of knowledge stand still, together with

the mind and when the intellect does not move, that is called the

Supreme State.

Sankara explains that the the five senses are withdrawn from their

respective objects and remain still,

And here are the key points from Sankara's commentary:

//

Together with the antahkarana that has been turned away from

thinking and the Buddhi whose characteristic is determination does

not engage in its function.

//

Please tell me what understanding occurs in a mind and intellect

that are non-functioning and STILL!

Shyam-ji

> First the word intellect - this itself shows that the

> knowledge, like any knowledge, has to occur at the

> level of the intellect. For the intellect to be

> functional it needs to be available for transaction -

> so any idea that this knowledge will "become

> available" as an "experience" in a trance like state

> of NS is false understanding.

Commenting on the `'yadaa paJNchaavatishhThante GYaanaani manasaa

saha'' describing the supreme state of the Yogis, Shankara says

//

He (the practicing Yogi) indeed in this (Avastha) state is

established in his own true nature (Atma)

(Avidyaropavarjita) bereft of the superimposition of Avidya

//

So the supreme state of the Adhyatma Yoga (whose sole purpose is to

enable the `realization' of the self) is a transient state where the

mind, intellect DO NOT function and are completely STILL, where the

Atman shines forth WITHOUT ANY SUPERIMPOSITION OF AVIDYA.

If there is a doubt as to whether this could be the state of the

Jnani and not a transient state, the Upanishad immediately clarifies

in the same verse: Yoga is subject to growth and decay. So this can

be only a `transient' state. Also it is very clear from Sankara's

commentary "Avidyaropavarjita" (bereft of avidya) that this is NO

deep sleep.

2. Highest Instruction about Yoga:

'atma samstham manah krtva na kincidapi cintayet' (.25)

Making the mind fixed in the Self, one should not think of ANYTHING

WHATSOEVER.

Commenting on this verse, Sankara calls this the highest instruction

about Yoga. Note that the Gitacharya himself does not mention this

as the highest instruction. And a little later, Sankara says "the

fruit of Yoga (Samadhi) is the identity with Brahman which is the

cause of uprooting of Samsara in its entirety"

Kathrasan-ji says "This negation (apavada) takes place in the mind

alone and therefore it has to be understood" and Shyam-ji

says "knowledge, has to occur at the level of the intellect".

Please tell me what `understanding' takes place in a state WHERE

THERE IS NO THINKING WHATSOEVER. If you say that this state is not a

big deal for a vedantic seeker, Sankara of his own accord, draws our

attention to the importance of this state by saying this is the

Highest Instruction about Yoga!.

I deeply respect revered Swami Paramarthananda-ji and have used His

talks in a Satsang here in Sacramento that has been going on for

over 5 years. Also I have introduced Swamiji's cassettes and CDs to

a hold bunch of folks here who had no exposure and have noe become

avid followers. I have pointed out members of `Advaitin' to talks

posted on Yogamalika web site. However I have found His views on

Dhyana, Samadhi to be divergent from those of some others in the

Advaita tradition. During a visit few years back and in a private

meeting with the Swamiji, I did bring up my concerns. He

acknowledged the divergent views and the Swamiji humorously

mentioned that we could argue for ever and not come to an agreement.

Again we are drawn back to the famous lines from Yoga Vaishtha:

Yoga and Vichara are two `path's. Some may find Yoga suitable,

others Vichara

regards

Sundar Rajan

September 18, 2006

Greetings,

This is my first post on this list. I've been viewing

the archives of the Advaitin list for some time now but never

became a member because I was (and still am) always pressed

for time and never have the time to post. This will probably

be one of my few posts, but I hope to one day become more active

if time permits. Since I am pretty much late on the recent

Samadhi/Experience/Vivekachudamani discussions, I will try not to

open a new can of worms by contributing more to the discussions.

That said, given the recent post by Prof. VK, I would like to post s

ome information I believe would be valuable especially for those who

wish to know the views of the Acharyas of the sterling Advaita

parampara of the Sringeri Sarada Peetham.

Today, with many Swamis claiming to teach the "pure" teachings

of Sankara unadultered by later commentators, commentaries, schools

of thought, etc., the role and meaning of **Sampradaya** for

Vedanta **Sadhakas** cannot be overstated. Sampradaya, in the

full Indian sense of the word cannot be fully explained or described,

so I am not going to attempt an adequate explanation. One has to

witness or be part of a living Sampradaya to appreciate and understand

what it is. Now, what I just wrote may seem simple or basic to

everyone on this list here, i.e., what else is new.....But in my honest

opinion, many in the west including western educated Indians who

have not been sufficiently exposed to a Sampradaya may think

they know what it is, but unfortunately they don't. Indian Sampradayas,

especially that of Advaita Vedanta, have never remained static in their

teachings over the ages. The Advaita Sampradaya, since the time of

Sankara and even before him has come into contact with many other

schools of thought and commentators over the ages. Certain things

were rejected and certain things were accepted within its fold. Those

who do the accepting and rejecting are the giants and leaders within the

Sampradaya. Many commentators within the Advaita tradition itself

contributed works that **seem** to contradict Sankara based on

the prashtana trayi bhashyas. Now one may immediately start

wondering: Well, if the Sampradaya keeps accepting and adding

new things, won't the "pure" teachings be lost or perverted?, won't

the Sampradaya veer from the true path?, won't the Sampradaya

die out? This is where a lack of understanding of Sampradaya occurs.

Firstly, the Sampradaya will never die(In this age of Kali, the quantity

of the Sampradaya may decline considerably, but the quality ever remains

the same). Secondly, the true test of a Sampradaya is its capacity to

provide the goods, i.e. , to take one to the goal. The true test of the

Advaita Sampradaya is its capacity to produce jivanmuktas, not its

capacity to maintain the "pure" teachings of Sankara or any other

teacher for that matter. Sampradaya does not resort to textual and

historical analysis to determine what Sankara taught, what his "true"

works were, and what were not. Sampradaya depends only on

what has been passed down over the ages. In Sampradaya,

Sankara's Bhashyas are not taken as an independent authority,

Sampradaya is the authority. Sankara's Bhashyas have to be

viewed from the perspective of the vehicle that has transmitted

his Bhashyas down the ages, namely the living Sampradaya. This

is why looking at the Bhashyas independently and coming to conclusions

regarding other works attributed to Sankara that were also passed

down by the Sampradaya is an effort in futility. If the guru of a

parampara within the Sampradaya says that a work attributed to

Sankara would help one to achieve the goal based on what he

was told by his own guru, it is accepted. The guru-sishya relationship

in Sampradaya is at the core of everything. Sampradaya believes

that no one could have understood or known Sankara better than

his own disciples. So, with respect to the Sringeri parampara,

Sureshwara is the closest you will get to Sankara. In the same way,

no one could have understood or known Sureshwara better than his

own disciples. Sringeri has had the great fortune of having an unbroken

parampara since Sankara. The Sringeri parampara has also proved

beyond a doubt that it has the capacity to produce jivanmuktas, many

of them giants in learning and spirituality. By looking at the lives of the

recent acharyas in Sringeri, one can easily see how close the guru-shishya

relationship is. The guru-shishya relationship is not just one of words

where one lectures to the other teaching him the shastra and clearing

doubts like is done today at many lectures and classes by popular Swamis.

It is far more profound than that. For instance, Sri Abhinava Vidya Tirtha

has described how his guru, Sri Chandrasekhara Bharati , guided him

through his Sadhana, how he deftly removed obstacles, how he was

always aware of exactly where on the path Sri Abhinava Vidya Tirtha

was and what he was going through, and how towards the closing stages

of Sri Abhinava Vidya Tirtha's sadhana, Sri Chandrasekhara Bharati

exerted His own influence and grace to vouchsafe Sri Abhinava Vidya

Tirtha's dawning of Brahmajnana.

Based on what I have wrote above, I'd like to make the following comments:

The Sringeri acharyas to this day unequivocally endorse the

Vivekachudamani as a work that teaches Advaita Vedanta

according to Sampradaya and one that would greatly benefit

sadhakas.

Regarding the following post by Prof VK:

---------------

"V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk > wrote: