Bhamati and Vivarana - enlightenment

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Sastri,

 

Another example of sychronicity - this seems to happen so many times when I

am writing. I was thinking about bhAmatI versus vivaraNa this morning and

had actually drafted a post to the group which mentioned the book you quote.

I delayed sending it because I was unsure how to put it and how much detail

to go into.

 

Anyway, to respond to your question first, I am quite ignorant on the

subject you mention but just happen to be researching on a related topic

amongst the material I have. According to Swami Satchidanandendra, in his

Method of the Vedanta, Sureshvara states in his Sambandha Vartika (818):

" prasaMkhyAna is repetition. How can that enhance knowledge? Nothing new is

added to the object to be known by repeated application to ther means of

knowledge. " Swami Satchidanandenra also points out that authoritative means

of knowledge cannot be intensified by repetition to produce different

degrees of knowledge and repeated affirmation of wrong knowledge would not

produce right knowledge.

 

Perhaps you (or bhAskar-ji) could help with my query. (Of course, anyone

else, please join in too!) What I am trying to do is to categorize (very

simply!) the various possibilities regarding the relationship of direct

knowledge and enlightenment, according to cause and characteristics and,

ideally, relate them to the various schools and clearly identify the view of

Shankara.

 

It seems that there are several possibilities regarding cause, namely 1)

hearing the words (shravaNa); 2) later concentrated meditation upon what was

heard (nididhyAsana); 3) repetition as discussed above; 4) something else

altogether.

 

I wrote, so far, the following on this aspect:

 

67. In the vivaraNa school, hearing the great aphorisms, such as tat

tvam asi is regarded as the direct cause of enlightenment and the guru

lineage is extremely important throughout what they consider to be an

integral process of shravaNa, manana and nididhyAsana. This school is

considered to most nearly align with the views and intentions of Shankara

and thus best represents the 'traditional' approach.

 

Shankara states in the upadeSha sAhasrI (18.103): " The listening to the

teaching and the production of right knowledge are simultaneous, and the

result is the cessation of (the transmigratory existence consisting of)

hunger etc. There can be no doubt about the meaning of the sentences like

'Thou art That' in the past, present or future. " (Ref. 81) The 'tenth man'

story is given as an example of how this works - see 48.

 

68. The bhAmatI school believe that the process is a stepwise rather

than an integral one and they say that the guru is needed only for shravaNa;

it is the subsequent concentrated meditation by the student alone which

brings enlightenment. These views have gained prominence in recent times as

a result of the teaching of Vivekananda and are those expressed throughout

the Ramakrishna and Vivekananda organizations. Traditional advaitins have

called such teachings 'neo-Vedanta'

 

Are these statements correct?

 

The second aspect is the quality of the realization 'event'. There seem to

be several options here, namely:

 

1) direct knowledge is gained at the time of the teaching but is like a

succession of spotlights being turned on. As one bit of teaching is given,

understanding dawns and part of the overall 'landscape' of reality is

permanently illuminated. When all of the spotlights have finally been turned

on, all is clearly seen. Thus it could be said that enlightenment proceeds

by sudden jumps but could be considered to be gradual overall. (This is what

I think vivaraNa says.)

 

2) direct knowledge does not take place until after the teaching, as the

seeker meditates upon all that has been heard. Enlightenment comes slowly as

though a dense fog is clearing. (This is what I suggested bhAmatI says but I

suspect it is quite wrong!)

 

3) the seeker continues essentially in a state of ignorance until such time

as the akhaNDAkAri vRRitti occurs when enlightenment is like a light

suddenly being turned on in a dark room and all is seen instantly. (Or

alternatively, this vRRitti 'catapults' the seeker into complete

self-knowledge.) In a post at the beginning of the year, Subbu-ji seemed to

be saying that this was the position of Shankara: " It is this vritti, once

having come up, catapults the sadhaka to the state of a Jnani. It has been

said that even for the extremely advanced sadhaka the difference between the

bound state (just prior to his saakshAtkAra) and the liberated state is

something phenomenal; it is a quantum jump. "

 

Hoping that some knowledgeable members can clarify these aspects. My book is

due to go to the publisher very soon! I may leave all of this out as it is

getting too complicated but it would be very nice to have a succinct

summary.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

[Guest guest]

--- Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

 

 

> 68. The bhAmatI school believe that the process

> is a stepwise rather

> than an integral one and they say that the guru is

> needed only for shravaNa;

> it is the subsequent concentrated meditation by the

> student alone which

> brings enlightenment. These views have gained

> prominence in recent times as

> a result of the teaching of Vivekananda and are

> those expressed throughout

> the Ramakrishna and Vivekananda organizations.

> Traditional advaitins have

> called such teachings 'neo-Vedanta'

>

> Are these statements correct?

>

 

Sri Dennisji, I would highly suggest that you directly

contact Swamis of the Ramakrishna order and enquire

regarding these points. It is good here to get their

direct opinions in the matters of difference; perhaps

you can ask and put in your book their responses as

direct reference. (And not all may interpret SRK in

exactly one manner). There are some who would be

willing to answer questions via email; if you wish I

can suggest in personal email.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows.

Answers - Check it out.

http://answers./dir/?link=list & sid=396545433

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennis-ji,

 

I am quite unqualified to comment on this issue, so will not get into

any detail. However, I would just like to mention one small point, for

what it's worth.

 

Your post pertains primarily to different views on the process of

realization. It might be worthwhile to note here that such differing

views may not necessarily be mutually exclusive, if one accepts that

the process is non-linear. The human mind has a tendency to classify

things into neat frameworks. Such frameworks have a practical utility

but it is unlikely that any particular framework would be the " only

way " .

 

In other words, it might be possible for one person to get mukti in a

gradual way as though a fog is clearing, another person might get in

it in discrete steps and the third in a sudden flash.

 

Also, a factual point that might interest readers. The Bhamati

vyakhyana is used to teach the Brahmasutra-s in many traditional

matha-s. This, according to Sri Vidyasankar of the advaita-l list, is

primarily because the Bhamati is available for the entire

Brahmasutra-s, whereas the Panchapadika covers only the first 5

sutra-s, and not because the Bhamati interpretation is favoured. But

this is certainly an indication that associating the Bhamati with the

so-called " Neo-Vedanta " may not be entirely correct.

 

Ramesh

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennis,

 

As I have said in my previous post, sureSvara rejects the prasankhyAna

theory.

 

What you have said as paras 67 and 68 on the views of vivaraNa and bhAmatI

are quite correct. The difference between the two is based on two

contradictory views:

 

One is that a sentence can by itself produce immediate knowledge if the

object of the knowledge is immediate (aparoksha). Brahman being aparoksha,

the mahAvAkya by itself produces knowledge which is direct and immediate. So

an aspirant of the highest competence (uttama adhikArI) who has acquired the

four preliminary requisites (sAdhana catushTaya) perfectly gets realization

as soon as he hears the mahAvAkya from his Guru. Others have to perform

manana and nididhyAsana for removal of the obstacles in the form of contrary

notions about the reality of the world, etc (viparItabhAvanA). This is the

vivaraNa view.

 

The opposite view is that any sentence can give only indirect or mediate

knowledge, and the same is the case with the mahAvAkya also. Only repeated

meditation produces direct realization. On the basis of this view bhAmatI

says that the mind is the instrument through which realization arises.

bhAmatI follows maNDana's brahmasiddhi on this point.

 

In both these views meditation is essential. The only difference is, in

the first case the realization is the direct result of hearing the

mahAvAkya, and meditation is only an aid, while in the second it is the mind

that produces realization through meditation.

 

You can get a lot of light on the above points from Dr. R. Balasubramanian's

book on Naishkarmyasiddhi- section XIII of the Introduction and also the

elaborate notes on the relevant Slokas.

 

Your statement about the effect of akhaNDAkAra vRtti is also correct This

is testified by the ecstatic outpourings of the disciple in vivekacUDAmaNI

at the end of the work.

 

One word about Svami Sacchidanandendra Sarasvati. He accepts only the

bhAshyas and upadeSa sAhasrI as genuine works of Sankara and not even

vivekacUDAmaNi, not to speak of other works attributed by tradition to

Sankara. He rejects all post-Sankara Advaitins except sureSvara.He rejects

the vivaraNa view that ajnAna is bhAvarUpa and is the material cause of

adhyAsa. He accepts only superimposition of cognition (jnAnAdhyAsa) and does

not accept superimposition of object (arthAdhyAsa) which is a special

feature of only Advaita and is not recognized by the other schools of

vedAnta or by the other darSanas. He no doubt gives cogent reasons for his

views in excellent Sanskrit. It is for each one to decide whether he would

like to go the whole hog with him and reject all post-Sankara works except

those of sureSvara.

 

Regards,

 

S.N.Sastri

 

 

On 8/9/07, Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

>

>

>

> Dear Sri Sastri,

>

> Another example of sychronicity - this seems to happen so many times when

> I

> am writing. I was thinking about bhAmatI versus vivaraNa this morning and

> had actually drafted a post to the group which mentioned the book you

> quote.

> I delayed sending it because I was unsure how to put it and how much

> detail

> to go into.

>

> Anyway, to respond to your question first, I am quite ignorant on the

> subject you mention but just happen to be researching on a related topic

> amongst the material I have. According to Swami Satchidanandendra, in his

> Method of the Vedanta, Sureshvara states in his Sambandha Vartika (818):

> " prasaMkhyAna is repetition. How can that enhance knowledge? Nothing new

> is

> added to the object to be known by repeated application to ther means of

> knowledge. " Swami Satchidanandenra also points out that authoritative

> means

> of knowledge cannot be intensified by repetition to produce different

> degrees of knowledge and repeated affirmation of wrong knowledge would not

> produce right knowledge.

>

> Perhaps you (or bhAskar-ji) could help with my query. (Of course, anyone

> else, please join in too!) What I am trying to do is to categorize (very

> simply!) the various possibilities regarding the relationship of direct

> knowledge and enlightenment, according to cause and characteristics and,

> ideally, relate them to the various schools and clearly identify the view

> of

> Shankara.

>

> It seems that there are several possibilities regarding cause, namely 1)

> hearing the words (shravaNa); 2) later concentrated meditation upon what

> was

> heard (nididhyAsana); 3) repetition as discussed above; 4) something else

> altogether.

>

> I wrote, so far, the following on this aspect:

>

> 67. In the vivaraNa school, hearing the great aphorisms, such as tat

> tvam asi is regarded as the direct cause of enlightenment and the guru

> lineage is extremely important throughout what they consider to be an

> integral process of shravaNa, manana and nididhyAsana. This school is

> considered to most nearly align with the views and intentions of Shankara

> and thus best represents the 'traditional' approach.

>

> Shankara states in the upadeSha sAhasrI (18.103): " The listening to the

> teaching and the production of right knowledge are simultaneous, and the

> result is the cessation of (the transmigratory existence consisting of)

> hunger etc. There can be no doubt about the meaning of the sentences like

> 'Thou art That' in the past, present or future. " (Ref. 81) The 'tenth man'

> story is given as an example of how this works - see 48.

>

> 68. The bhAmatI school believe that the process is a stepwise rather

> than an integral one and they say that the guru is needed only for

> shravaNa;

> it is the subsequent concentrated meditation by the student alone which

> brings enlightenment. These views have gained prominence in recent times

> as

> a result of the teaching of Vivekananda and are those expressed throughout

> the Ramakrishna and Vivekananda organizations. Traditional advaitins have

> called such teachings 'neo-Vedanta'

>

> Are these statements correct?

>

> The second aspect is the quality of the realization 'event'. There seem to

> be several options here, namely:

>

> 1) direct knowledge is gained at the time of the teaching but is like a

> succession of spotlights being turned on. As one bit of teaching is given,

> understanding dawns and part of the overall 'landscape' of reality is

> permanently illuminated. When all of the spotlights have finally been

> turned

> on, all is clearly seen. Thus it could be said that enlightenment proceeds

> by sudden jumps but could be considered to be gradual overall. (This is

> what

> I think vivaraNa says.)

>

> 2) direct knowledge does not take place until after the teaching, as the

> seeker meditates upon all that has been heard. Enlightenment comes slowly

> as

> though a dense fog is clearing. (This is what I suggested bhAmatI says but

> I

> suspect it is quite wrong!)

>

> 3) the seeker continues essentially in a state of ignorance until such

> time

> as the akhaNDAkAri vRRitti occurs when enlightenment is like a light

> suddenly being turned on in a dark room and all is seen instantly. (Or

> alternatively, this vRRitti 'catapults' the seeker into complete

> self-knowledge.) In a post at the beginning of the year, Subbu-ji seemed

> to

> be saying that this was the position of Shankara: " It is this vritti, once

> having come up, catapults the sadhaka to the state of a Jnani. It has been

> said that even for the extremely advanced sadhaka the difference between

> the

> bound state (just prior to his saakshAtkAra) and the liberated state is

> something phenomenal; it is a quantum jump. "

>

> Hoping that some knowledgeable members can clarify these aspects. My book

> is

> due to go to the publisher very soon! I may leave all of this out as it is

> getting too complicated but it would be very nice to have a succinct

> summary.

>

> Best wishes,

> Dennis

>

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Bhamati is available for the entire Brahmasutra-s, whereas the Panchapadika

covers only the first 5

sutra-s, and not because the Bhamati interpretation is favoured.

 

> paNchapAdika, though appears to have commentary on 5 pAdA-s of vEdAnta

sUtra, what is available today in the name of paNchapAdika not even covers

even one pAda...The paNchapAdika commentary available only on first four

sUtra-s of bAdarAyaNa.

 

 

It might be worthwhile to note here that such differing views may not

necessarily be mutually exclusive, if one accepts that the process is

non-linear. The human mind has a tendency to classify things into neat

frameworks. Such frameworks have a practical utility but it is unlikely

that any particular framework would be the " only way " .

 

 

> this type of catholic attitude towards *truth* can be called

neo-vEdAntic method. I think we have already discussed a lot about

problems involved in *all roads lead to Rome* approach at various

places...Yes, shankara, in his non-dual philosophy, definitely set a

specific path/ a neat framework to jnAna mArga followers. Being shankara

siddhAnta followers, it is not great sin if we accept that what shankara

prescribed in his commentary is the ONLY path. Though other view points

may not be mutually exclusive for the people who stand outside the

traditional boundaries, it is a matter of fact they have to accept that

shankara bhagavadpAda himself treats different approachers towards the

*same* truth as his pUrvapakshin-s, & taken all the trouble to refute their

view points to propagate a specific path towards truth. Interestingly,

after shankara, vEdAntic stalwarts like Sri Ramanuja, Sri Madhva too did

not take that all-embracing stand & unhesitatingly declared what adviata

teaches about truth is absolute nonsense :-)) Anyway, we have had enough

discussion on this...is it not:-)) let us agree to disagree..

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

 

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

praNAms Sri Dennis Waite prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

DW prabhuji :

 

67. In the vivaraNa school, hearing the great aphorisms, such as tat

tvam asi is regarded as the direct cause of enlightenment and the guru

lineage is extremely important throughout what they consider to be an

integral process of shravaNa, manana and nididhyAsana. This school is

considered to most nearly align with the views and intentions of Shankara

and thus best represents the 'traditional' approach.

 

bhaskar :

 

Yes prabhuji what you said is right...vivarANa school says by means of

vEdAnta vAkya shravaNa (listening to the sentence of the upanishad) which

is stipulated by the scripture by way of an injuction (shAstravihita) the

vAkya jnAna (knowledge born out of the vEdAntic sentence) accrues. The

eligible adhikAri who seeks purushArtha ( the ultimate goal of human life

...i.e. self realization) should practice this jnAna over & over again.

vivaraNa further claims, as a result of these two (i.e. vAkya jnAna &

practice of jnAna) finally aparOksha jnAna accrues. So, prabhuji there is

a prescription of prasankhyAna (sustained effort to maintain the

*knowledge*) in the school of vivaraNa.

 

As a side note, Sri SSS, vehemently argues against the view point of

vivaraNa i.e. shAstra vAkya-s are vidhipara (not injuctive in nature)...Let

us not go into the details of Sri SSS's view points here.

 

DW prabhuji :

 

 

 

68. The bhAmatI school believe that the process is a stepwise rather

than an integral one and they say that the guru is needed only for

shravaNa;

it is the subsequent concentrated meditation by the student alone which

brings enlightenment. These views have gained prominence in recent times as

a result of the teaching of Vivekananda and are those expressed throughout

the Ramakrishna and Vivekananda organizations. Traditional advaitins have

called such teachings 'neo-Vedanta'

 

 

 

bhaskar :

 

 

As Sri Sastri prabhuji said, according to bhAmati, vidya is a peculiar

antaHkaraNa vrutti ( a mental concept) which is in the form of advitIya

(non-dual) brahmasAkshAtkAra. We can see the peculiar interpretation for

sravANa, manana & nidhidhyAsana in bhAmati school of thought. According to

them, shravaNa & manana mean dhAraNa, nidhidhyAsana means dhyAna & darshana

means samAdhi. It is clear that bhAmati's view points are closely related

to pataNjali's ashtAngayOga & experience of samAdhi is a must to have

brahmasAkshAtkAra. And interestingly bhAmti claims although this

brahmasAkshAtkAra removes anArabhdha karma (unbegun action) it cannot get

rid of prArabdha karma (karma which has already given its fruit)...Even an

absolute brahma jnAni, who has realized the ultimate also should suffer

from this karma phala.

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

 

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

One word about Svami Sacchidanandendra Sarasvati. He accepts only the

bhAshyas and upadeSa sAhasrI as genuine works of Sankara and not even

vivekacUDAmaNi, not to speak of other works attributed by tradition to

Sankara.

 

praNAms Sri Sastri prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Not only Sri SSS, Sri dayananda Saraswati's (Arsha Vidya gurukula) direct

disciple Sri Michel Comans too argued that why vivEkachUdAmaNi is not from

the pen of shankara bhagavadpAda...So, my parama guruji is not the ONLY

person who is objecting this tradtional attribution of authorship to

shankara. Just for your kind information prabhuji.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

might be worthwhile to note here that such differing

views may not

necessarily be mutually exclusive, if one accepts that

the process is

non-linear. The human mind has a tendency to classify

things into neat

frameworks. Such frameworks have a practical utility

but it is unlikely

that any particular framework would be the " only way " .

 

" The Catholic Church is the one true religion. " " The

Eastern Orthodox is the one true religion!! " ...and so

it goes. I guess that for some seekers it's necessary

to believe that they've found THE WAY. Maybe at some

point in their seeking there is a weakness and they

need the strength provided by such a belief. Of

course, religions are in competition with each other,

especially at the institutional, organizational level.

Institutional religion may contain truth but

ultimately the " one true religion " , the " one true

belief " is entirely subjective and no religion or

philosophy contains it. This is obviously so since

there are adherents in all religions who believe they

have " the way " .

 

There is no " third party " standing over and above that

can come in and say, " Yes, X church is the one true

religion. " That would be God speaking directly to us

and that doesn't happen at the collective level.

 

I may have the " one true religion " or " correct

belief " --for me! Wars start when people forget that it

is subjective, not objective, and try to impose their

" truth " on the world around them. Reading news,

newspapers and just looking at the world is enough to

convince me of this.

 

What is subjectively valuable to me is of no

consequence whatsoever in the outer world,

objectively. The world around me could care less about

my " inner truth " . But the inner truth does affect me

and how I deal with everything " outside " . But I'd

better not forget that and start trying to crusade for

" my truth " to be objectified in the world, on other

people. That way lies horror and, well...take a look

at the world!

 

My objective should never be to spread the " truth " but

maybe through such people as Ramana and others, there

are changes in the world simply by those people's

presence in the world. But none of those people

deliberately set out to do that.

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play

Sims Stories at Games.

http://sims./

[Guest guest]

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all readers.

 

advaitin , " S.N. Sastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

<One word about Svami Sacchidanandendra Sarasvati. He accepts only the

bhAshyas and upadeSa sAhasrI as genuine works of Sankara and not even

vivekacUDAmaNi, not to speak of other works attributed by tradition

to Sankara. He rejects all post-Sankara Advaitins except sureSvara.>

Dear Sri S.N.Sastri,

HH Swamiji does not reject all post-Sankara Advaitins Completely.On

the other hand in his various works he has acknowledged that he has

been benifitted by a study of their works also. He does not concurr

with their certain doctrines which he feels that they have deviated

from Sri Shankara's position regarding those points.He has very

clearly shown where and how they have deviated from Sri Shankara's

position.

That is all. He has not rejected them in toto. Your statement needs to

be modified.

 

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy.

 

 

 

>

> Dear Dennis,

>

> As I have said in my previous post, sureSvara rejects the prasankhyAna

> theory.

>

> What you have said as paras 67 and 68 on the views of vivaraNa and

bhAmatI

> are quite correct. The difference between the two is based on two

> contradictory views:

>

> One is that a sentence can by itself produce immediate knowledge if the

> object of the knowledge is immediate (aparoksha). Brahman being

aparoksha,

> the mahAvAkya by itself produces knowledge which is direct and

immediate. So

> an aspirant of the highest competence (uttama adhikArI) who has

acquired the

> four preliminary requisites (sAdhana catushTaya) perfectly gets

realization

> as soon as he hears the mahAvAkya from his Guru. Others have to perform

> manana and nididhyAsana for removal of the obstacles in the form of

contrary

> notions about the reality of the world, etc (viparItabhAvanA). This

is the

> vivaraNa view.

>

> The opposite view is that any sentence can give only indirect or

mediate

> knowledge, and the same is the case with the mahAvAkya also. Only

repeated

> meditation produces direct realization. On the basis of this view

bhAmatI

> says that the mind is the instrument through which realization arises.

> bhAmatI follows maNDana's brahmasiddhi on this point.

>

> In both these views meditation is essential. The only difference

is, in

> the first case the realization is the direct result of hearing the

> mahAvAkya, and meditation is only an aid, while in the second it is

the mind

> that produces realization through meditation.

>

> You can get a lot of light on the above points from Dr. R.

Balasubramanian's

> book on Naishkarmyasiddhi- section XIII of the Introduction and also the

> elaborate notes on the relevant Slokas.

>

> Your statement about the effect of akhaNDAkAra vRtti is also

correct This

> is testified by the ecstatic outpourings of the disciple in

vivekacUDAmaNI

> at the end of the work.

>

> He rejects

> the vivaraNa view that ajnAna is bhAvarUpa and is the material cause of

> adhyAsa. He accepts only superimposition of cognition (jnAnAdhyAsa)

and does

> not accept superimposition of object (arthAdhyAsa) which is a special

> feature of only Advaita and is not recognized by the other schools of

> vedAnta or by the other darSanas. He no doubt gives cogent reasons

for his

> views in excellent Sanskrit. It is for each one to decide whether he

would

> like to go the whole hog with him and reject all post-Sankara works

except

> those of sureSvara.

>

> Regards,

>

> S.N.Sastri

>

>

> On 8/9/07, Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Dear Sri Sastri,

> >

> > Another example of sychronicity - this seems to happen so many

times when

> > I

> > am writing. I was thinking about bhAmatI versus vivaraNa this

morning and

> > had actually drafted a post to the group which mentioned the book you

> > quote.

> > I delayed sending it because I was unsure how to put it and how much

> > detail

> > to go into.

> >

> > Anyway, to respond to your question first, I am quite ignorant on the

> > subject you mention but just happen to be researching on a related

topic

> > amongst the material I have. According to Swami Satchidanandendra,

in his

> > Method of the Vedanta, Sureshvara states in his Sambandha Vartika

(818):

> > " prasaMkhyAna is repetition. How can that enhance knowledge?

Nothing new

> > is

> > added to the object to be known by repeated application to ther

means of

> > knowledge. " Swami Satchidanandenra also points out that authoritative

> > means

> > of knowledge cannot be intensified by repetition to produce different

> > degrees of knowledge and repeated affirmation of wrong knowledge

would not

> > produce right knowledge.

> >

> > Perhaps you (or bhAskar-ji) could help with my query. (Of course,

anyone

> > else, please join in too!) What I am trying to do is to categorize

(very

> > simply!) the various possibilities regarding the relationship of

direct

> > knowledge and enlightenment, according to cause and

characteristics and,

> > ideally, relate them to the various schools and clearly identify

the view

> > of

> > Shankara.

> >

> > It seems that there are several possibilities regarding cause,

namely 1)

> > hearing the words (shravaNa); 2) later concentrated meditation

upon what

> > was

> > heard (nididhyAsana); 3) repetition as discussed above; 4)

something else

> > altogether.

> >

> > I wrote, so far, the following on this aspect:

> >

> > 67. In the vivaraNa school, hearing the great aphorisms, such as tat

> > tvam asi is regarded as the direct cause of enlightenment and the guru

> > lineage is extremely important throughout what they consider to be an

> > integral process of shravaNa, manana and nididhyAsana. This school is

> > considered to most nearly align with the views and intentions of

Shankara

> > and thus best represents the 'traditional' approach.

> >

> > Shankara states in the upadeSha sAhasrI (18.103): " The listening

to the

> > teaching and the production of right knowledge are simultaneous,

and the

> > result is the cessation of (the transmigratory existence

consisting of)

> > hunger etc. There can be no doubt about the meaning of the

sentences like

> > 'Thou art That' in the past, present or future. " (Ref. 81) The

'tenth man'

> > story is given as an example of how this works - see 48.

> >

> > 68. The bhAmatI school believe that the process is a stepwise rather

> > than an integral one and they say that the guru is needed only for

> > shravaNa;

> > it is the subsequent concentrated meditation by the student alone

which

> > brings enlightenment. These views have gained prominence in recent

times

> > as

> > a result of the teaching of Vivekananda and are those expressed

throughout

> > the Ramakrishna and Vivekananda organizations. Traditional

advaitins have

> > called such teachings 'neo-Vedanta'

> >

> > Are these statements correct?

> >

> > The second aspect is the quality of the realization 'event'. There

seem to

> > be several options here, namely:

> >

> > 1) direct knowledge is gained at the time of the teaching but is

like a

> > succession of spotlights being turned on. As one bit of teaching

is given,

> > understanding dawns and part of the overall 'landscape' of reality is

> > permanently illuminated. When all of the spotlights have finally been

> > turned

> > on, all is clearly seen. Thus it could be said that enlightenment

proceeds

> > by sudden jumps but could be considered to be gradual overall.

(This is

> > what

> > I think vivaraNa says.)

> >

> > 2) direct knowledge does not take place until after the teaching,

as the

> > seeker meditates upon all that has been heard. Enlightenment comes

slowly

> > as

> > though a dense fog is clearing. (This is what I suggested bhAmatI

says but

> > I

> > suspect it is quite wrong!)

> >

> > 3) the seeker continues essentially in a state of ignorance until such

> > time

> > as the akhaNDAkAri vRRitti occurs when enlightenment is like a light

> > suddenly being turned on in a dark room and all is seen instantly. (Or

> > alternatively, this vRRitti 'catapults' the seeker into complete

> > self-knowledge.) In a post at the beginning of the year, Subbu-ji

seemed

> > to

> > be saying that this was the position of Shankara: " It is this

vritti, once

> > having come up, catapults the sadhaka to the state of a Jnani. It

has been

> > said that even for the extremely advanced sadhaka the difference

between

> > the

> > bound state (just prior to his saakshAtkAra) and the liberated

state is

> > something phenomenal; it is a quantum jump. "

> >

> > Hoping that some knowledgeable members can clarify these aspects.

My book

> > is

> > due to go to the publisher very soon! I may leave all of this out

as it is

> > getting too complicated but it would be very nice to have a succinct

> > summary.

> >

> > Best wishes,

> > Dennis

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

On 10/08/07, bhaskar.yr <bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

> > this type of catholic attitude towards *truth* can be called

> neo-vEdAntic method. I think we have already discussed a lot about

> problems involved in *all roads lead to Rome* approach at various

> places...Yes, shankara, in his non-dual philosophy, definitely set a

> specific path/ a neat framework to jnAna mArga followers. Being shankara

> siddhAnta followers, it is not great sin if we accept that what shankara

> prescribed in his commentary is the ONLY path. Though other view points

> may not be mutually exclusive for the people who stand outside the

> traditional boundaries, it is a matter of fact they have to accept that

> shankara bhagavadpAda himself treats different approachers towards the

> *same* truth as his pUrvapakshin-s, & taken all the trouble to refute their

> view points to propagate a specific path towards truth. Interestingly,

> after shankara, vEdAntic stalwarts like Sri Ramanuja, Sri Madhva too did

> not take that all-embracing stand & unhesitatingly declared what adviata

> teaches about truth is absolute nonsense :-)) Anyway, we have had enough

> discussion on this...is it not:-)) let us agree to disagree..

>

 

Pranaam Bhaskar-ji,

 

As a matter of fact, I am *not* one of those who think that " all roads

lead to Rome " . The issues that you are raising are quite different

from what I have been saying.

 

The basic point is very simple. Mukti in Advaita-Vedanta is about

manonasha and vasanakshaya. As people have different notions,

different vasana-s and different abilities, there is bound to be some

difference in terms of path. Even more than the differing paths, there

are bound to be differences in the way language is used to express the

intricacies of these paths. In that context, I think both Bhamati and

Vivarana are valid in their own right. This is also the opinion of

many traditional sannyasi-s, not just neo-Vedantins.

 

In other words, I think there are several approaches to mukti *within*

Advaita-Vedanta and that many of these are well illustrated in the

tradition. Your references to Ramanuja or Madhva are simply out of

context.

 

Yes, I do think there is more than one road that leads to Rome. This

is far removed from saying that *all* roads to Rome. Some roads go to

Rome, others to Timbuktu, others to Guangzhou, and so forth. The fact

also is that not everybody wants to go to Rome.

 

Indeed, from the Advaitic perspective, the notion that we need to " go

somewhere " is the stumbling block :-)

 

Ramesh

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

>

>

>

> 3) the seeker continues essentially in a state of ignorance until

such time

> as the akhaNDAkAri vRRitti occurs when enlightenment is like a light

> suddenly being turned on in a dark room and all is seen instantly. (Or

> alternatively, this vRRitti 'catapults' the seeker into complete

> self-knowledge.) In a post at the beginning of the year, Subbu-ji

seemed to

> be saying that this was the position of Shankara: " It is this

vritti, once

> having come up, catapults the sadhaka to the state of a Jnani. It

has been

> said that even for the extremely advanced sadhaka the difference

between the

> bound state (just prior to his saakshAtkAra) and the liberated state is

> something phenomenal; it is a quantum jump. "

>

> Hoping that some knowledgeable members can clarify these aspects. My

book is

> due to go to the publisher very soon! I may leave all of this out as

it is

> getting too complicated but it would be very nice to have a succinct

> summary.

>

> Best wishes,

> Dennis

 

Namaste Dennisji,

 

While not knowledgeable myself, below is what my teacher recently told

me, when I was asking about this particular question. " It is, first

you see in broad strokes, (like a painting), and then later, all of

the detail gets filled in. "

 

Pranams,

Durga

 

 

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , bhaskar.yr wrote:

 

> praNAms Sri Sastri prabhuji

> Hare Krishna

>

> Not only Sri SSS, Sri dayananda Saraswati's (Arsha Vidya gurukula)

direct

> disciple Sri Michel Comans too argued that why vivEkachUdAmaNi is not

from

> the pen of shankara bhagavadpAda...So, my parama guruji is not the

ONLY

> person who is objecting this tradtional attribution of authorship to

> shankara. Just for your kind information prabhuji.

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

 

Dear Bhakar-ji,

 

Namaste,

 

One of the main contention of Michel Comans was that the

*yoga* was coined by the later advaitins starting with vidyAraNya,

sadAnanda and others. I am particulary interested to know the stand of

Sri SSS on the following mantras of the katha upanishad and bhashya of

AchArya.

 

11. They consider that keeping of the senses steady as yoga. Once

becomes vigilant at that time, for yoga is subject to growth and decay.

 

Here Acharya himself raises the question:

 

If brahman be an object of the activities fo the intellect etc., then

It should be specifically apprehended as 'This is such and such'; and

since it cannot be perceived on the cessation of the intellect etc.,

there being then no instrument for congnition, brahman should surely

have no existence (then). It is a well-known fact in the world that a

thing exists so long as it is within the range of an instrument of

cognition, and the contrary one is non-existent. Hence yoga is useless;

or brahman is to be perceived as non-existing inasmuch as it cannot be

cognized. This contingency having arisen, this is the reply:

 

12. It cannot be attained through speech, nor through mind, nor through

eye. How can it be known to anyone apart from him who speaks of it as

existing?

 

While commenting on this verse AchArya says that: *Even when the

intellect is being attenuated through the sublation of objects, the

intellect dissolves only as pregnant with a concept of existenct*

 

(Translation is taken from Swami Gambhiranandaji's book)

 

The following passage was quoted by Sri Subbu-ji, where in Sri SSS says

that the self can be comprehended with the help of AdhyAtma yoga.

 

//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.//

 

link for the full source of the excerpt:

 

advaitin/message/33976

 

Please note that for the time being I am looking for references from

the works of Sri SSS ***ONLY***, since I don't have access to his books

now.

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka

[Guest guest]

Sincere thanks to all members who responded so quickly to this request and

for the very useful comments that were made. It is an honor indeed to belong

to such a knowledgeable group! Apologies also for not looking into the

archives first - although of course it is not always obvious what to search

for. I searched my own archives (stretching back to Feb. 2000) for the

keywords 'bhAmatI vivaraNa' but did not find the answer. I should think I

would have found a few thousand had I searched for, say, 'enlightenment'!

 

Putran-ji's suggestion of contacting the RKF swamis is an interesting one

but not for this book, where it is only an incidental matter. Perhaps if I

write a future book on the topic of knowledge!

 

Thanks again,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dennis-ji :

 

Here is what Swami Krishnananda says on the subject of Bhamati and

vivarana !

 

 

Sankaracharya's commentary was commented on by Vachaspati Mishra in

his exposition called 'Bhamati'. One of the disciples of Sankara,

Padmapada, wrote another commentary. Another disciple of Sankara,

Sureshwaracharya, wrote a third commentary, in his own way. They

approached this subject from three viewpoints. Together they present

three angles of vision of Sankara's commentary. Of these

Sureshwaracharya treats the entire creation as a cosmic illusion,

whose nature cannot be described by a person involved in that

illusion. You cannot say Brahman creates the universe because

Brahman is eternity, complete, indefinable, infinite, perfect

existence par excellence. It has no necessity to create. The

appearance of something being created is the result of a peculiar

admixture of confusion cosmically called Maya, and individually

Avidya.

Vachaspati Mishra's position is that your mind which is

conditioned by what is known as Avidya or ignorance distorts correct

perception and the world does not exist as it is; it appears to be

existing according to the particular form of Avidya or ignorance in

which you are involved.

Padmapadacharya is more realistic in his nature. He has

written a commentary on the first four Sutras, called Panchapadika.

Generally people follow the trend of Panchapadika only, with its

great commentary called Vivarana.

Vedantacharyas and people who teach Vedanta generally do not

follow Bhamati's view or Sureshwaracharya's. Panchapadika's view is

taken usually, with its commentary known as Vivarana. The whole text

of Panchadasi written by Swami Vidyaranaya follows the line of

Panchapadika of Padmapada. What is its speciality? The objective

world must be existing. You cannot simply say your mind is creating

the world of trees and mountains and all that. Such fantastic

statements should not be made. Supposing it is accepted that your

mind is creating things by Avidya operation inside, then you have to

agree that the trees in the forest are created by your mind; the

cows and the pigs and the dogs that are moving in the streets - they

are created by you only; the mountains, the sun and the moon and the

stars are created by your mind. You cannot accept this view and you

will be repelled by the very idea that your mind is creating the sun

and the moon and the stars. You have to follow the dictum of the

Upanishads that originally the creation was effected by a Cosmic

Being and not by any individual human being. In the process of

creation, man is a latecomer. There were the space-time

manifestation, the five Mahabhutas - earth, water, fire, air and

ether; then the plants - trees etc. Man came later on. How can the

late-comer, man, be regarded as the originator of the universe? An

objective creator, Ishwara, is to be accepted and it is futile to

say that the human mind created the universe. This is Padmapada's

school of thought: 'Srishiti-Drishti' - creation first, seeing

afterwards.

 

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/brahma/brahma_01a.html

 

i am totaaly in love with Swmi Krishnananda's approach to

spirituality ! Although he is a Madhwa brahmin , he has such an

expanded vision of spirituality that he is able to accomadate in his

scheme of things different philosophies without compromising the

Truth - this is very close to my heart ! this is the reason why i am

also attracted towards Sri ATMANANDA'S spiritual discourses .

 

Love and regards

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " dhyanasaraswati "

<dhyanasaraswati wrote:

>

> Dennis-ji :

>

> Here is what Swami Krishnananda says on the subject of Bhamati and

> vivarana !

 

 

Dear Dhyanasaraswati-ji,

 

Namaste,

 

This is what Swami Krishnanandaji says ultimately about

creation,ishwara and his power mAyA, in his small but most

concentrated of his works, supposed to be written at the age of 26!

 

(Quote)

 

We cannot say how and why we seem to be caught up in ignorance. This

secret is super-logical. Our greatest intelligence lies in admitting

that we cannot understand anything, finally. Anirvachaniyatva or

inscrutability is our last resort; and this, after all, is the result

which the ***proud philosophical reason has achieved after countless

years of thinking***. But, some bolder geniuses had the marvellous

courage to mercilessly disregard all facts of relative experience

without paying any heed to their contradictions and staring hard

realities, all which are valid only to the realm of the individual,

and to resolutely assert with wisdom that there is nothing but the

One Brahman, the Absolute.

 

Dispassionately judging, they alone seem to be the greatest heroes in

human history. Nothing can be a better course than what they took.

The Upanishad declares

 

" Sarvam Khalu Idam Brahma " ; " All this, indeed, is Brahman. " - Chh.

Up., III. 14. 1.

 

Ultimately, there can be no illusion, unreality, Maya, error or any

objective concept or knowable principle but only Consciousness-

Absolute. Nothing else than Consciousness can ever be. This is the

Truth. Since even degrees in Reality would mean objectivity and

duality therein, they would reduce it to a phenomenal appearance.

Reality, as it is in itself, can only be the Absolute free from all

dividing elements, including the so-called degrees.** The Absolute is

ever Itself, never an object, never a subject, and so eternally

indivisible**.

 

(Unquote)

 

Sir William Hamilton says at the end of a philosophical work, " Here

philosophy ends, here religion begins " .

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

[Guest guest]

Sri Vinayaka writes :

 

" Ultimately, there can be no illusion, unreality, Maya, error or

any objective concept or knowable principle but only Consciousness-

Absolute. Nothing else than Consciousness can ever be. This is the

Truth. Since even degrees in Reality would mean objectivity and

duality therein, they would reduce it to a phenomenal appearance.

Reality, as it is in itself, can only be the Absolute free from all

dividing elements, including the so-called degrees.** The Absolute

is ever Itself, never an object, never a subject, and so eternally

indivisible**.

 

What Golden words , Vinayaka ! i salute you for reiterating this.

These days i am very much into reading Sri Atmananda's works and

pretty much he says the same thing " Consciousness is in greater

evidence in the absence of the object than in the presence of the

same. "

 

Thank you ,Vinayaka , for quoting this passage from Swami

Krishnananda's works. This is the best Birthday gift your 'adi ma'

got this week ! When you turn 64 , every day is a gift from God - to

celebrate and rejoice in the the Radiance and glory of Iswara's

Wonderful Creation!

 

You go on to write

 

" Sir William Hamilton says at the end of a philosophical

work, " Here philosophy ends, here religion begins " . "

 

i would paraphrase the above statement and make bold to say " Where

Relgion ends , there Spirituality begins. "

 

Yes ! In the realm of Spirituality, it is the 'heart' that rules

over the mind! Why , Vinayaka , why ? Heart is where 'Love' Has

taken a permanent residence! by heart , i mean the spiritual

heart , not the physical heart ! As sri Ramana bhagwan would put it

where the 'amrita nadi' flows - Yes , when your spiritual heart is

full of this 'prema' . you are 'nectar' itself! Yes! in that

spiritual heart where there is only Divine Love , you will also have

Sat-chit-Ananda - Truth. Consciousness and Bliss!

 

Yes! Cultivate such a soulful Heart - the heart of Divine love !

Love , thus means , not only Giving up the 'self' but giving of

the 'self' to others!

 

Vinayaka , this poem by Rumi is my reciprocal gift to you !

 

The Beauty of the Heart

 

is the lasting beauty:

 

its lips give to drink

 

of the water of life.

 

Truly it is the water,

 

that which pours,

 

and the one who drinks.

 

All three become one when

 

your talisman is shattered.

 

That oneness you can't know

 

by reasoning.

 

 

 

Mathnawi II, 716-718

 

 

- Rumi

 

 

my blessings to you , Vinayaka !

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " dhyanasaraswati " <dhyanasaraswati wrote:

>

> Sri Vinayaka writes :

>

> " Ultimately, there can be no illusion, unreality, Maya, error or

> any objective concept or knowable principle but only Consciousness-

> Absolute. Nothing else than Consciousness can ever be. This is the

> Truth. Since even degrees in Reality would mean objectivity and

> duality therein, they would reduce it to a phenomenal appearance.

> Reality, as it is in itself, can only be the Absolute free from all

> dividing elements, including the so-called degrees.** The Absolute

> is ever Itself, never an object, never a subject, and so eternally

> indivisible**.

>

 

> Thank you ,Vinayaka , for quoting this passage from Swami

> Krishnananda's works. This is the best Birthday gift your 'adi ma'

> got this week ! When you turn 64 , every day is a gift from God - to

> celebrate and rejoice in the the Radiance and glory of Iswara's

> Wonderful Creation!

 

Sri Dhyanasaraswathiji,

 

Your previous post on Swami Krishnananda's explanation is very clarifying to my

general

confusion: so there are three approaches that Advaitins flail around without

mentioning

which !

 

As for the above quote of Sri Vinayaka, I think this is " ajata vada " (?) (or the

paramaarthika

standpoint). The other part of his quote (in his post) refers to the

anirvachaniya

explanation. That accomodates for vyavahaarika (Ishvara, God's gift, Creation,

etc) as a

matter of " fact " for the jiva identifying to such experience. The ajata-vada has

no place for

relative talk, not of practice, goal, good-bad, etc. It seems a theory that is

rather a reading

of the jnana " no-mind " .

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

Namaste Putran-ji.

 

AjAtavAda is neither theory nor hypothesis. It is Advaita in all its

brilliance and as such Absolute Knowledge. Advaita does not brook a

second. It is One without a zero, two or more or even a mathematical

infinity to which we can unendingly 'tend'. Such scenario can only

be appreciated by negating (or rather sublating) the seeming

creation – the bewildering multiplicity. That is ajAtavAda and,

therefore, Advaita.

 

About anirvacanIya – well that is an answer for those who

persistently ask unending questions about creation. In AdhyAsya

BhASyA, Shankara has warned us against purusing useless

investigations into the roots of ignorance which erects a

multiplicity of creation apart from, aside of and outside the

enquirer. The answer of anirvacanIya is a sort of full stop upon

which the seeker rebounds back to the fullness of ajAtavAda. It is

not an alternative to ajAtavAda as Advaita has no alternative!

 

To the one who has thus rebound and seen the pure logic of ajAtavAda,

BhAmatI and VivaraNa are no more contradictory. They both and why

even the post and pre-Shankara gurus, who contradict between

themselves, the different advaitic models of koshas, avastAtraya

prakriya, divisions of manas (mind), reincarnation etc., which are

employed to eludicidate Advaita as the occasion suits and which impel

us to ask innumerable questions, all stand reconciled.

 

Advaita as ajAtavAda is where all questions have ended. Once we have

logically concluded that there is an error in our perception and that

our Oneness is inevitable, then we will do better without asking

questions.

 

I had happened to chance upon the following link (I don't know if any

one referred to it here), which sees in BhAmatI and VivaraNa `two

varying approaches towards the same basic problem'. That is a very

sensible conclusion although the essay seems to be rather academic.

 

http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~vs28/S.Vidyaraman/Advaita%

20Vedanta/avhp/bhavir.html

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

____________

 

 

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

 

..... The ajata-vada has no place for

> relative talk, not of practice, goal, good-bad, etc. It seems a

theory that is rather a reading

> of the jnana " no-mind " .

[Guest guest]

praNAms Sri Vinayaka prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

V prabhuji :

 

While commenting on this verse AchArya says that: *Even when the

intellect is being attenuated through the sublation of objects, the

intellect dissolves only as pregnant with a concept of existenct*

 

bhaskar :

 

I dont know, how far my monotonous replies would help you in this regard

:-)) As said earlier (some two years back !!??), issue is neither the usage

of the term* yOga* nor the role of mind/intellect. The issue Sri SSS

argued against sub-schools of advaita is mainly deals with their

unnecessary *linking of patanjala yOga* with adhyAtma yOga. For example,

Sri SSS seriously questions the interpretation of Sri vAchaspati mishra

(bhAmati school) on the vEdAnta sUtra, where the author very strangely

connects bruhadAraNyaka maNtra with patangali's yOga shAstra...This bhAmati

vyAkhyAnakAra interprets shrOtavyO, maNtavyaH with that of *dhAraNa* of

patanjali ( in his words : atra shrOtavyO maNtavyaH, iti dhAraNOpadEshaH),

nidhidhyAsana with meditation (nidhidhyAsitavyaH iti dhyAnOpadEshaH) and

*drushtavyaH* with samAdhi. The context is very clear in this original

upanishad maNtra, the whole dialogue between sage yAgnAvalkya & his wife

was there to show how the origination, resting & dissolution of universe in

Atman and to drive home the point that essential identity of universe with

Atman. At no stretch of imagination we can link these dialogues with that

of patanjala yOga, but this vyAkhyAnakAra was very anxious to interpret

this text as if this maNtra is there for the advocation of patanjali's yOga

shAstra.

 

Prabhuji, the process that you have mentioned above that is merging the

grosser in the more subtle explains how everything else to be seen one with

the real non-dual self which is hidden in all beings. And there is a

reference for this in shruti (kaTa) and smruti (gIta -dhyAna yOga) as well

but Sri SSS does not think this vEdAntic method has any relevance to

patanjali's dvaita yOga shAstra.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

praNAms Sri Ramesh Krishna Murthy prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

RK prabhuji :

 

As a matter of fact, I am *not* one of those who think that " all roads

lead to Rome " . The issues that you are raising are quite different

from what I have been saying.

 

bhaskar :

 

Kindly pardon me for mis-reading you prabhuji.

 

RK prabhuji :

 

The basic point is very simple. Mukti in Advaita-Vedanta is about

manonasha and vasanakshaya.

 

bhaskar :

 

Would you kindly elaborate the terms like manOnAsha & vAsanA kshaya

prabhuji.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

advaitin , bhaskar.yr wrote:

 

> I dont know, how far my monotonous replies would help you in this

regard

> :-)) As said earlier (some two years back !!??), issue is neither

the usage

> of the term* yOga* nor the role of mind/intellect.

 

Dear Bhaskar-ji,

 

Namaste,

 

Thanks much for your clarification. This is one of the most subtle

and controversial point prabhuji. Advaita AchArya's like Sri

Vachaspati, vidyAraNya, sadAnanda, vivEkananda and others have

*supposed* to have got confused on this matter, what to speak about a

kid like me, who is just opening his eyes! :-)) Hence, same questions

again and again.

 

> Prabhuji, the process that you have mentioned above that is merging

the

> grosser in the more subtle explains how everything else to be seen

one with

> the real non-dual self which is hidden in all beings. And there is

a

> reference for this in shruti (kaTa) and smruti (gIta -dhyAna yOga)

as well

> but Sri SSS does not think this vEdAntic method has any relevance

to

> patanjali's dvaita yOga shAstra.

 

Reply: The practice/terminologies seems to be similar, but the

meditation of the yoga system is not backed by the reasoning in

accordance with the shruti and AchAryopadesha. But as you have told,

there is a difference between the realizations of these two systems.

The following passage qutoted by Sri Subbu-ji attributed to Sri SSS

makes his stand clear on this.

 

" 77. The content of the abhyasa, practice, that is demanded for the

meditation directed at Realization: This `abhyasa', it is to be

remembered, is in endeavouring to make the Atman conducive to

become `realizable'. The abhyasa is taught in 6.35. After quoting

the Acharya's bhashyam, the Swami gives a note detailing the

correspondence between the terms used in Patanjali system with the

ones in the Gita. Mano-nigraha is synonymous with chitta-nirodha.

It is this abhyasa that is meant by the word `nididhyasana' in the

Shruti.

 

The Gita does not specify the distinction between sa-beeja and nir-

beeja Samadhi unlike the Yoga system. The ultimate result obtained

by the Yoga Samadhi is distinct from the one obtained by the Samadhi

of Adhyatma shastra. The chief distinction is: In Patanjali yoga

system, the `prajnaa' obtained in Samadhi constitutes of a

distinction between the knower and the known. This duality is

persistent there. On the other hand, in the Samahi of Vedanta, the

knower-knowing-known distinction stands eradicated, resulting in a

nirvikalpa jnanam. "

 

(Unquote)

 

Hope you agree with this understanding of mine. :-)

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka.