Summary of views on samadhi.... a request.

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

The discussions under the thread - "Summary of Views on Samadhi... a

request" illustrates the difficulty in summarizing a paradoxical

experience/understanding. Though the goal was to write a 'short-

story' the posters really exploring a unending novel.

 

When we wake up after a good/bad dream, we do recognize that we

experienced was indeed a dream. If someone declares that I was

in 'Samadhi' what does it really signify? I am of the openion that

the experiencer had just come out from very 'special dream'

designated as "Samadhi." Any such experience can never qualify as an

superimposition with the Brahman. Aren't we trying hard to explain

the unexplainable using specialized language skills, quotations from

the scriptures and Sages etc.,? Why can't we admit the fact that any

explanations that we provide will ultimately contradict the Truth

that "Brahman alone knows the Brahman"? Why don't we recognize the

fact that the subject matter can only be understood by contemplation

and not necessarily by discussion? Why can't we stop repeating what

we already know and stay focus on what we don't know?

 

Honestly I don't beleive that the answers to the above questions can

ever be found through debates and discussions. All that I see is that

the debates slowly move away from the subject matter and directed

more towards the authors of the discussions. This should be taken as

a clear signal from the Lord asking the debaters to take a pause! As

I have indicated before, this is just my personal opinion.

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Ram-ji,

 

Contrary to the opinions of many esteemed members that this discussion

has become stale, I have to say that for most part I have enjoyed and

learned from reading the views of others on these matters including our

new member Skanda-ji.. However, the wise moderators and learned members

engaged in this topic wish to move away from it (at least for now), and

perhaps for good reasons. I briefly mention one of the reasons which may

alone be justified in bringing this discussion to a conclusion.

 

But first:

 

When I read the best arguments on both sides, it is easy to see what

each person is sincerely trying to convey using the imperfect medium of

language.

 

For example, Shyam-ji states

 

---"With regards to the discussion about experience - i

would not equate selfrealization with selfexperience.

Selfrealization is the realization about - well -

myself - it is a realization that I am the very vastu,

the substratum. So there is no need to equate it with

any experience. Can "you" experience "yourself"? the

self is ever the subject, the witnesser - this has to

be realized. This self neither does anything nor

experiences anything - this has to be realized or

understood. this is what selfrealization is all about."---

 

Who can fundamentally disagree with that? At the Absolute level, Self Is

Self, One without a second, the complete and eternal ultimate subject.

No doing, no experiencing. Simply Being-Existence. Sada-ji also has

pointed out the difference between Atman Darshan and Atma Jnana.

Bhagavan Ramana has spoken about the difference between Kevala

Nirvikalpa Samadhi and Sahaj Samadhi. The nature of language requires we

use words and concepts at the level of relativity.

 

Subbu-ji points this out very well in stating:

 

----"Let me touch upon one point you made. You equated 'understanding'

with 'aparoksha anubhuti'in addressing Vishal ji's objection. Fine.

But if that is the meaning 'understanding'ultimately conveys, why is

there a meticulous, conscious, avoiding of the word 'experience'?

We have seen several instances where Acharya Shankara freely

uses 'anubhava' in the bhashyams. After all, 'experience' or 'direct

realization' are words that are the most naturally fit ones to

express the sense of 'anubhava'. Why feel shy of using that

expression, if that is what is meant by 'understanding' anyway ?"-----

 

My own feeling is that if people wish to use different labels, words,

and interpretations of Sri Shankra's commentaries, and even select which

works they feel are authentic, no problem. Each to their own.

 

However, what Shyam-ji stated below should be reflected on. Shyam-ji said:

 

----"The Upanishads many times mention knowledge as being

the only gateways to liberation. Anyone is welcome to

hold alternative views and I am not going to oppose

that at all. Just so those views are not thought of as

being "vedantic."-----

 

I don't think anyone objects to knowledge being the gateway to

liberation. Knowledge is Liberation. Atma Jnana is Liberation. The

questions raised have been how to see this knowledge which is

Self-Knowledge through our own Eye (I) and realize that We are this

Knowledge It Self. So the discussion has focused on different paths and

methodologies and interpretations of scriptures and commentaries. We all

agree that Self-Knowledge or Realization gives Liberation and is

Liberation. That is a non-issue.

 

I do believe that Shyam-ji's comment that---, "Anyone is welcome to hold

alternative views and I am not going to oppose that at all....Just so

those views are not thought of as being "vedantic."-----is highly

problematic. Not thought of "vedantic" by whom?

 

Love to all

Harsha

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ram Chandran wrote:

>

> Namaste:

>

> The discussions under the thread - "Summary of Views on Samadhi... a

> request" illustrates the difficulty in summarizing a paradoxical

> experience/understanding. Though the goal was to write a 'short-

> story' the posters really exploring a unending novel.

>

> When we wake up after a good/bad dream, we do recognize that we

> experienced was indeed a dream. If someone declares that I was

> in 'Samadhi' what does it really signify? I am of the openion that

> the experiencer had just come out from very 'special dream'

> designated as "Samadhi." Any such experience can never qualify as an

> superimposition with the Brahman.

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Harsha-ji

Pranams

Just a very quick clarification.

In this very forum, and that too very recently, such

views had been vociferously advocated that jnana is

not the ONLY path to liberation,

and that yoga is an independent path.

 

Such concepts are alien to vedanta, but those

entertaining these concepts are most welcome to do so

- let these people not harbor any misconceptions

however that these views have support in vedanta or

are in the realm of vedantic teaching.

 

Trust this clarifies.

Pranams

Hari OM

Shyam

--- Harsha <harsha (AT) (DOT) com> wrote:

 

> However, what Shyam-ji stated below should be

> reflected on. Shyam-ji said:

>

> ----"The Upanishads many times mention knowledge as

> being

> the only gateways to liberation. Anyone is welcome

> to

> hold alternative views and I am not going to oppose

> that at all. Just so those views are not thought of

> as

> being "vedantic."-----

>

> I don't think anyone objects to knowledge being the

> gateway to

> liberation. Knowledge is Liberation. Atma Jnana is

> Liberation. The

> questions raised have been how to see this knowledge

> which is

> Self-Knowledge through our own Eye (I) and realize

> that We are this

> Knowledge It Self. So the discussion has focused on

> different paths and

> methodologies and interpretations of scriptures and

> commentaries. We all

> agree that Self-Knowledge or Realization gives

> Liberation and is

> Liberation. That is a non-issue.

>

> I do believe that Shyam-ji's comment that---,

> "Anyone is welcome to hold

> alternative views and I am not going to oppose that

> at all....Just so

> those views are not thought of as being

> "vedantic."-----is highly

> problematic. Not thought of "vedantic" by whom?

>

> Love to all

> Harsha

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Ram Chandran wrote:

> >

> > Namaste:

> >

> > The discussions under the thread - "Summary of

> Views on Samadhi... a

> > request" illustrates the difficulty in summarizing

> a paradoxical

> > experience/understanding. Though the goal was to

> write a 'short-

> > story' the posters really exploring a unending

> novel.

> >

> > When we wake up after a good/bad dream, we do

> recognize that we

> > experienced was indeed a dream. If someone

> declares that I was

> > in 'Samadhi' what does it really signify? I am of

> the openion that

> > the experiencer had just come out from very

> 'special dream'

> > designated as "Samadhi." Any such experience can

> never qualify as an

> > superimposition with the Brahman.

> >

>

>

>

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shyam-ji and Harsha-ji,

advaitin, Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

>

> Dear Harsha-ji

> Pranams

> Just a very quick clarification.

> In this very forum, and that too very recently, such

> views had been vociferously advocated that jnana is

> not the ONLY path to liberation,

> and that yoga is an independent path.

>

> Such concepts are alien to vedanta, but those

> entertaining these concepts are most welcome to do so

> - let these people not harbor any misconceptions

> however that these views have support in vedanta or

> are in the realm of vedantic teaching.

>

> Trust this clarifies.

>

 

This may be in reference to my message where 'yoga and vichara' were

mentioned as two paths. And the confusion maybe because of Sri Shyam-

ji equating Jnana with Vichara.

 

// quote

"O Raghava(Rama), Yoga and Vichara are the two processes for the

elemination of the mind. Yoga is indeed the restraint of

modifications of the mind, (and) vichara is the full visualization

of Reality. To someone Yoga is an impossibility; to someone else

Vichara is an impossibility! Therefore the supreme Lord Siva spoke

of the two processes"

// end quote

 

This Yoga vasishta verse has been quoted by Sri Madhusudana

Saraswati, Swami Vidyaranya amongst others..

 

Normally manana and nidhidhdhyasana are taken to be

Vichara. What the above verse points out is that nidhidhyasana

can be *Dhyana/Yoga*

 

Jnana is still the *only* path to liberation, there are two

*possible* paths leading to Jnana :

shravana, manana and nidhidhyasana (= vichara) -> Jnana

shravana, manana and nidhidhyasana (= Yoga/Dhyana) -> Jnana

 

regards

Sundar Rajan

 

 

 

> --- Harsha wrote:

>

> > However, what Shyam-ji stated below should be

> > reflected on. Shyam-ji said:

> >

> > ----"The Upanishads many times mention knowledge as

> > being

> > the only gateways to liberation. Anyone is welcome

> > to

> > hold alternative views and I am not going to oppose

> > that at all. Just so those views are not thought of

> > as

> > being "vedantic."-----

> >