Understanding Nirvikalpa Samadhi

[Guest guest]

Dear Advaitins,

 

The following is an article which appeared in the Vedanata Kesari,

monthly magazine of the Ramakrishna Order. Since the article is very

well written, I thought of sharing with other members who are

interested in this issue. The author is Swami Siddheswarananda, a

monastic disciple of Swami Brahmananda of the Ramakrishna Order, who

taught Vedanta in Europe in the 1940s and 1950s as the Minister-in-

Charge of Centre Vedantique Ramakrichna, Gretz, France. This series

of articles is based on the notes taken down by his students.

English translation and editing is done by Andre van den Brink.

 

Please note this is only for info. not for debate :-)

 

(Quote)

 

Nirvikalpa Samadhi

 

Language is unable to express the experience of nirvikalpa samadhi,

since it is unaccessible to the mind. That is why the Upanishads

declare that, with respect to Brahman, words fall back like arrows

that have missed their goal! But, from the relative point of view,

the value of the experience shines out in the character of those who

have realized it. Although they continue to live in the society of

men, they are `the salt of this earth'. They have succeeded in

liberating themselves for ever from fear, that primordial

instinctcause of dissension and quarrelwhich raises the

insurmountable barriers of personal property between men: `This is

mineThat is yours', and from which proceed all suffering and all sin.

 

The rishis (seers) who realized Brahman in his plenitude, did not

consider their role to be finished. They did not accept to be merged

in the state of non-manifestation (avyakta) for ever. They issued

rules of conduct for the other people, and it is these rules which

serve as the foundation of all ethics and all morality. The

Upanishads proclaim:

 

`Would there be suffering (shoka) and delusion (moha), where the One

without a second is realized?'

 

All the evils which the flesh is subject to, stem from the fact that

we are giving a wrong interpretation to the unity of That which is

manifesting itself in the creation, while we should love our

neighbour as our brother better even: as our own Self.

 

This intuition of the Self or Atman which extends to the whole

world, and which most particularly inspires human relationsthis is

the message dispensed by the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. The words

uttered by Yajnavalkya in this context may rightly be held as the

supreme counsel of the sages of olden times:

 

It is not, my dear, for the love of the husband

that the husband is lovedIt is for the love of Atman!

It is not, my dear, for the love of the wife

that the wife is lovedIt is for the love of Atman!

It is not, my dear, for the love of the child

that the child is lovedIt is for the love of Atman!

 

In a series of concrete examples through which the Upanishad is

drawing our attention, we see a new dawn breaking, the light of

which enlightens our whole social behaviour, for a moral teaching

such as this is based on considerations that justify practical

reason. Here morality and philosophy are in full agreement, because

both of them rest on a metaphysical basis which includes all and

which embraces all.

 

The greatest discovery of Hindu philosophy is to have established a

clear distinction between `mata' or `opinion' and `tattva'

or `truth'which is exactly what Shankara expounds. Religion and

theology take their point of support on mata: They follow the

subjective method (purushatantra), which only expresses the reaction

of an individual or a community which, after all, is limited. By

this way one can only arrive at a partial interpretation of the

Reality. None will be able to formulate the Truth as long as, in the

philosophical search, personal or collective prejudices are being

introduced. If, on the other hand, we adopt for our investigation

the objective method (vastutantra), the Reality will not fail to

reveal itself in its totality. We shall then discover the Truth and,

at the same time, by distinguishing the real from the unreal, be

able to apprehend the Reality in everything that is presented to

consciousness.

 

A study of the various states of consciousness leading to nirvikalpa

samadhi, is in complete harmony with the metaphysical background of

Hindu thought. Through nirvikalpa samadhi (total concentration with

no trace of duality), it is possible to have the experience of the

non-manifested (avyakta). This type of samadhi is its `narrow gate',

and Hindu mysticism is leading directly to it. This samadhi may

therefore be considered as an experimental method, since it brings

about the state of non-manifestation, permitting the aspirant to

gauge the full extent of such an experience.

 

How would the knowledge of that which we experience as real in this

world, be possible, if not through its opposite, in other words,

through an experience where all subject-object relation is

abolished? [The changes we perceive are only with respect to

something more changeless]. Well then, this opposite presents itself

to us at two moments of our existence, without our even noticing it:

 

- in the interval that separates two successive cognitions,

- and in the state of deep sleep.

 

Here Yoga comes to our rescue, for it provides us with the means to

study this fundamental fact: All subject-object relations are

dissolved in the homogeneity of pure Consciousness. This is by no

means the `vacuity' or the `nothingness' as declared by those who

are unable to stick to the philosophical point of view without being

hurt in their theological or religious prejudices.

 

Advaita Standpoint

 

Regarding the experience of nirvikalpa samadhi it will be

appropriate, first of all, to remove a misconception which tends to

find credence in Europe, when it is thus declared that, during

samadhi, the aspirant would become `united' with the Self!

In order to grasp the Vedantic position correctly, one should

understand that by such an experience is meant the realisation of

the ultimate Truth. Vedanta declares that the ultimate Reality

cannot be conceived in terms of relations: The Reality exists

always, It is for all timein the state of manifestation (vyakta) as

well as in the state of non-manifestation (avyakta). The idea that,

in the latter state, there could be some sort of relation, is due to

ignorance (avidya). In the experience of nirvikalpa samadhi all that

was `united' proves to be `undone'. The false notion of

relationshipa notion giving birth to the notion of causalityarises

as soon as the indivisible Reality is conceived in terms of names-

and-forms (nama-rupa), independent of the substratum (Atman or

Brahman) that is common to all of them. In their true nature,

however, the names-and-forms are no other than the Reality itself.

The individual soul (jiva), caught in the trap of ignorance

(avidya), is incapable of conceiving all the names or of perceiving

all the forms and, since the initial expression of names-and-forms

constitutes its own individuality, it imagines manifestation to be

an `autonomous reality'.

 

This, then, is what defines `evil', according to Vedanta, and this

evil creates a sense of distinction where, in fact, no distinction

exists. Again, the idea of multiplicity provoked by evil, begets

fear. In the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad the mantra ends with the

words: `It is from a second entity that fear proceeds!' In the same

Upanishad3 we also find the famous prayer:

 

From evil lead me to Good;

from darkness lead me to Light;

from death lead me to Immortality!

 

The realisation of immortality is not possible, unless the `evil',

superimposed by the distinctions proceeding from names-

and-forms, is abolished for good. And this is only achieved by

eradicating the sense of distinction proceeding from multiplicity.

This spiritual experience can only be realized in nirvikalpa

samadhi. There the ego is freed from all distinctions owing to names-

and-

forms. Such an experience, therefore, cannot be described as

a `union', because, for a union to take place, at least two factors

ought to be present. The Advaitic realisation consists in going

beyond all conception of a numerical order.

 

Reality exists, because its very nature is Existence (sat). Well

then, Existence is not something `to be acquired'. In his commentary

on the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad4 Shankara gives a brilliant

explanation on this point:

 

`Before knowing Brahman, every beinghimself being Brahmanis really

already identical with the Totality. But ignorance superimposes on

every being the idea that he is not Brahman, that he is not the

Totality!'

 

That is why it is ignorance, and ignorance alone, which is to be

removed! Again, a little further, we read:

 

`One has never found that, with respect to anything, this Knowledge,

by itself, removed or produced the least characteristic: On the

contrary, one has observed that, in all cases, it removed ignorance

itself. Here again, we should abandon the idea that we are not this

Brahman! Not to be the WholeThis is the idea which is due to

ignorance! This idea is removed by the Knowledge of Brahman. But the

Knowledge of Brahman cannot create nor annihilate a real entity!'

If, sometimes, the following expression is used, `To become merged

in Brahman', it is only a figure of speech. In the same Upanishad5

Shankara gives the following explanation:

 

`As a consequence, Atman, by himself, excludes all differences,

whether due to bondage or liberation, to knowledge or ignorance. For

it is admitted without any discussion that Atman is ever identical

with himself and that, in his essence, He is homogeneous and

indivisible. But those who consider the Reality of the Self as

distinct from themselves, and who reduce the scriptures to simple

assertions`probable', at the mostthose might as well discover in the

sky the imprints left there by the feet of birds, hold them captive

in the palm of their hands, or cover them with the skin of an

animal! As for us, we declare that all the Upanishads arrive at this

conclusion: We are nothing but Atmannothing but Brahman, who is

always the same, homogeneous, one and without a second, immutable,

unborn, free from decay, immortal, inaccessible to fear! Therefore

the expression, " He is merged in Brahman " , is only a figurative

expression, merely indicating the rupturewhich is the result of the

Knowledge of the uninterrupted chain of reincarnations for the man

who, until then, had maintained an opposite view.'

 

And in the same commentary we also find the passage:

 

`Moreover, the Knowledge of Brahman only signifies the cessation of

all identification with extraneous matters such as the body. So the

relation of identity with That need not be directly established,

because this identity is never missing. Each being is invariably

identical with That, but That appears to be related to something

else. Thus the scriptures enjoin usnot to establish our identity

with Brahmanbut to put an end to the false identifications with

things other than That. And when the identification with other

things has gone, the natural identity of That with our own Self is

revealed spontaneously. That in itselfis unknowable and That is

inapprehensible by any means whatsoever.'

 

So the ideal of jnana yoga (the Yoga of Knowledge) cannot be

regarded as a union (whatever the sense that is accorded to this

term) with a supreme Soul, for, wherever there is union, there is

also superimposition (adhyasa). This spiritual discipline permits

the elimination of all that is called `the conjunction of factors'.

Thus, when trying to determine the true meaning of the mantra, `Aham

Brahmasmi' (`I am Brahman'), by applying the method of

the `concomitant variations', what one seeks is the implicit meaning

of each of the two terms which appear to be opposed to one another.

For the jiva the natural identity with the Self involves but the

forgetting of that which is accidental and contingent in the two

terms considered. Then comes, first, the discovery of what

constitutes the essence of each term and, finally, the revelation of

their natural identity. This metaphysical method which, in the end,

leads to spiritual realisation, aims to go beyond all the

conceptions proceeding from the relations that we are used to

establish between subject and object. When that relation is

abolished, how can an experience such as a `union' yet be effected?

Nirvikalpa samadhi is a spiritual experience of the non-

manifestation, whereas all `union' necessarily takes place within

manifestation.

 

(to be continued. . .)