Samadhi

[Guest guest]

Hi group,

 

Is the state of samadhi beneficial? Why or why not?

 

Thanks,

Richard

[Guest guest]

Richar,

 

Not possible to answer this question once and for all

and forever. I don't need to be in samadhi when I'm

driving on expressway at 75 miles per hour.

 

Beneficial at times and not at others.

 

Also, I have to be in non-samadhi at times in order to

know I'm in samadhi at other times...one guy's

opinion.

 

Best,

Steve

--- Richard <richarkar wrote:

 

> Hi group,

>

> Is the state of samadhi beneficial? Why or why not?

>

> Thanks,

> Richard

>

>

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Be a better friend, newshound, and

know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

http://mobile./;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

[Guest guest]

Steve PraNams

 

You have knack of putting things brief and to the

point.

 

Richard - if you are referring to nirvikalpaka

samaadhi, where one has no more thoughts, then

according to advaita, it may be pleasurable state but

not permanent state involve knowledge. It is similar

to deep sleep state where there are no thoughts and no

dvaita and therefore enjoyable. But as Steve stated

one does not want to be in that deep sleep state and

when one gets up all the problems will come back,

compounded perhaps. Now if you ask is sleep helpful -

yes but not forever.

 

If ignorance is the problem, it can only go by

knowledge. Samaadhi is not a means of knowledge

(pramaaNa)to remove ignorance.

 

But if you split the world samadhi as sama and dhi -

samatvam involves equanimity - samatvam yogam uchyate

- The equanimity - that is indifference to the life's

ups and down can come only if you shift your gears

from ego to witnessing consciousness when you are

driving through life. dhii means buddhi or intellect-

That intellect that has equanimity is in samaadhi.

Then that is helpful and that comes not understanding

that you are not the ego but the witnessing

consciousness unperturbed by all the things happening

in life. In fact you may enjoy it as entertainment

like comedies and tragedies on TV screen.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

--- Steve Stoker <otnac6 wrote:

 

> Richar,

>

> Not possible to answer this question once and for

> all

> and forever. I don't need to be in samadhi when I'm

> driving on expressway at 75 miles per hour.

>

> Beneficial at times and not at others.

>

> Also, I have to be in non-samadhi at times in order

> to

> know I'm in samadhi at other times...one guy's

> opinion.

>

> Best,

> Steve

> --- Richard <richarkar wrote:

>

> > Hi group,

> >

> > Is the state of samadhi beneficial? Why or why

> not?

> >

> > Thanks,

> > Richard

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

>

______________________________\

____

> Be a better friend, newshound, and

> know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

>

http://mobile./;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Richard " <richarkar wrote:

 

> Is the state of samadhi beneficial? Why or why not?

>

> Thanks,

> Richard

>

 

Dear Richard:

 

My humble opinion in the matter is that Samadhi, first of all, is a

" personal " experience that transcends the personal, but is personal

nevertheless, so whatever other people may say about it will never

actually replace the " personal " experience of it and what we (you)

need to learn through this.

Assuming that you know the different " kinds " of samadhi, until it

becomes our natural state (sahaja nirvikalpa), all the others

" classifications " , from my point of view, serve to: awaken the quest

for the recognition of who we are, and then deepen the understanding

of who we are and why we are growing spiritually. These " experiences "

are windows, glimpses into the eternal that is unfolding every second

of our " lives " , transcending time.

Of course, nowadays, many of us use this term to denote just

pleasurable states of mind, a little bit like the New Age Yoga, where

the aim is, to my eyes at least, to ensure a different level of

pleasure. In this cases, people strive to " reach " samadhi (New Age

doesn't use drugs anymore).

Samadhi, to my eyes, is a gift from Self that fasten the process of

dissolution of our self when we learn its lessons.

 

Best to All,

Mouna.

[Guest guest]

*Dear Richard,

 

Samadhi can only be discussed from the perspective of the mind.

Therefore, to understand it fully, one has to have the experience.

Advaita is always indicated indirectly by saying neti, neti, neti (not

this, not this). What cannot be negated is one's own Self. To remain as

That is Samadhi.

 

What is Samadhi? Self-Awareness, Alone, Self-Watching,

Self-Watchfulness, Complete, Content, and Whole is Samadhi. It is

nondual (Advaita). Samadhi is mentioned in Bhagavad Gita and many other

yogic and Advaitic texts like Vivekachudamani.

 

There are many different types of Samadhis. The highest Samadhi is

simply the Self.

 

Although scholars debate on the merits of Samadhi according to this

school and that schools, essentially Samadhi implies the mind resting in

the Heart or Atman, its own nature. Then one does not see another, hear

another, touch another, smell another, feel another. The ancient sages

said that the Self is Realized as One without a second. That is what

they meant.

 

Namaste and love to all

Harsha

 

 

*

 

 

Richard wrote:

> Hi group,

>

> Is the state of samadhi beneficial? Why or why not?

>

> Thanks,

> Richard

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Richard,

 

Is it not that we can assess the benefit of something only after we have that

something? Before that its all theory and hitting arrows in the dark! All the

sages who have reached the state of Samadhi say it is the only thing worth

having! Would we have been able to see how beneficial quantum physics would have

been before it was formulated? How can a student of 1st grade understand the

grandeur of Quantum Physics, only he can appreciate who understands it. Same is

the case with Samadhi and all of us (not all of course) 1st graders

 

Warm Regards to all,

Ankush.

 

Richard <richarkar wrote: Hi group,

 

Is the state of samadhi beneficial? Why or why not?

 

Thanks,

Richard

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Search.

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- Ankush Garg <agarg_punjabi wrote:

How can a

> student of 1st grade understand the grandeur of

> Quantum Physics, only he can appreciate who

> understands it. Same is the case with Samadhi and

> all of us (not all of course) 1st graders

 

Shree Ankush - PraNAms

 

I see catch 22 situation in the way you addressed the

issue. If Richard is already established in Samadhi,

then Richard question has no validity. There is

beautiful sloka in VivekachuuDamaNi -

 

avijnaate pare tatve shaashtraadhiishu nishpala|

vijnaatepi pare tatve shaastraadhiishu nishpala|

 

If you have not realized, the study of shaastras is

useless. If you have realized, the study of shaastra

is useless.

 

Of course one has to be properly interpret the sloka.

 

 

That is the precisely the reason why adhyaatmika vidya

require a teacher. Shankara says, if a person is

realized but do not know shastras, you have to reject

him as a teacher, since he cannot teach properly.

Even if one has not realized but learned shaatras

correctly at the feet of his teacher, one can approach

him as a teacher and still learn and evolve. you do

not go wrong in that.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

namaste sadanandaji

 

" That is the precisely the reason why adhyaatmika vidya

require a teacher. Shankara says, if a person is

realized but do not know shastras, you have to reject

him as a teacher, since he cannot teach properly.

Even if one has not realized but learned shaatras

correctly at the feet of his teacher, one can approach

him as a teacher and still learn and evolve. you do

not go wrong in that "

 

then what in the case of sri ramakrishna, sri ramana, sai baba of shiradi

etc....?, as per my knowledge they have not studied shastra, but they were

all attained nirvikalpa samadhi

please clarify my doubt

thans in advance

 

 

 

 

 

On 12/18/07, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

>

> ---

> .

>

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Thanks to those who were kind enough to reply to my question.

 

Richard

[Guest guest]

--- Ramakrishna Upadrasta <ramakrsn

wrote:

 

>

> praNams Shri Sadaji,

>

> [For a long time I wanted to ask this question!]

>

> What exactly is the nirvikalpa samaadhi state? It

> seems to be so different from deep-sleep in terms

> of the bhaavana in our heart, when compared to the

> deepest sleep. In fact, it seems so different from

> any

> of the avastHa-traya of Mandukya. Is it the

> " pragyAna Ghana " of Mandukya?

>

> What do the other primary upanishads (I am

> in particular talking about Br. Up and Ch. Up)

> state about it?

 

Shree Ramakrishna - PraNAms.

 

First let me state up front that I am not expert in

nirvikalpaka samaadhi - Sampathji may be able to

answer your question more authoritatively.

 

About deep sleep state- yes I am good in that - I do

experience that very often some time even in the

class.

 

Nirvikalpaka samaadhi, as I understand, comes from

Yogashaastra. If that involves absence of thoughts

then it is similar to sleep. If it involves presence

of awareness of the absence of thoughts then one is

vigilant of oneself - Vedanta teaching then helps to

see the realty of the truth of that objectless

awareness as I am that Brahman (provided that

doubt-free knowedge is already there in the mind) -

the absolute consciousness that pervades everything -

even if thoughts come. Nirvikalpaka samaadhi should

lead to sahaja samaadhi where we have vikalpa or

thoughts or nirvikalpa, without thoughts, I am the

very substratum for both. Hence per Vedantic

meditation, thoughts are not the problem and one need

not go into nirvikalpa samaadhi and going there does

not necessarily help either- what is needed is shift

in the awareness from dRik (seer) dRisya (seen)to that

which is substantive for both. Hence it is not

elimination of the thoughts but understanding that I

am in the thoughts too. Thoughts are like waves on the

ocean. Do I have to suppress the waves to see the

ocean. I should learn to see the ocean in and through

the waves. antar bahischa tat sarvam vyaapya

naaraayaNa sthitaH - Narayana is inside and outside

too. Then only we have samatvam or equanimity in all

transactions - and that is real samaa dhi. Let us see

what Bhagavaan Ramana says in Upadesasaara:

 

laya vinaashane ubhaya rodhane

laya gatam punar bhavati nomRitam||

 

Laya is dissolution of the mind in nirvikalpa samaadhi

- that mind after the samaadhi is over comes back - in

the same form as it was before it went to samaadhi.

Swami Dayananda saraswati says - before samaadhi we

have agitated ignorant fellow and during samaadhi we

have quite ignorant fellow - ignorance remains since

samaadhi is not a means of knowledge (of the 6-means

of knowledge available samaadhi or even meditation is

not listed as one). Notional mind that got dissolved

in the wake of knowledge will not return back to the

same ignorant state - says Ramana in the above sloka.

 

Hence emphasis is on knowledge - tat tvam asi -

Uddalaka spends considerable amount of time to teach

his son - swetaketu giving many examples to remove all

possible doubts to make him understand that He is that

- As far as I know, there is no teaching of

nirvikalpaka samaadhi in the scripture - emphasis is -

shrotavyaH, mantavyaH, nidhidhyaasitavyaH - one has to

listen to the scripture, reflect on it until there are

no more doubts and contemplate on it until it is

assimilated. Ramana endorses praaNa viikshaNa -

observation of praaNa as means of bringing the mind to

the seat of meditation, after that one has to

contemplate on the nature of Brahman or nature of one

self.

 

There were lot of discussions on this topic sometime

back and subbu has written exhaustively on it. One

can refer to those posts.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Sri Ramakrishna-ji, pranam:

 

If you want to know what is samadhi and how is it useful, I would

suggest that you read the book " Yoga, Enlightenment & Perfection of

Sri Abhinava Vidyatirtha Mahaswamigal " , a book describing the

sadhana-s of Sri Abhinava Vidyatirtha, who was the acharya of Sringeri

from 1954 to 1989.

 

Nirvikalpa samadhi, like any another experience, is not tantamount to

realisation per se. However, the nature of the experience is such that

it produces a very strong conviction of the truth of advaita.

 

Sri Sadananda pointed out that samadhi in itself is not a pramaana.

This does not mean that samadhi is useless. Actually, like bhakti,

japa, etc, samadhi is a sadhana. All sadhana-s help to achieve the

conditions in which the Sruti pramana operates.

 

There is an excellent example in the above book in the context of

savikalpa samadhi. I don't remember it exactly but it goes somewhat

like this:

 

On a hot day, a man sees a pool of water in the distance and rushes

towards it to quench his thirst. Someone tells him it's a mirage but

he still thinks it is water. Now, if the sky were to turn cloudy

temporarily, the mirage would disappear and the man would be convinced

that there is no water. After this, even if the clouds go away and the

mirage re-appears, the man would not be fooled.

 

An experience of samadhi is somewhat like this. Just as the temporary

disappearance of the mirage convinces the man that the pool of water

is unreal, so also the *temporary* experience of samadhi is capable of

producing the conviction of the advaitic truth. Of course, shaastra

pramaana is needed to understand the samadhi experience correctly,

just as shaastra pramaana is needed to understand the avasthatraya

correctly.

 

The sequence of mantra-japa, meditation and successive savikalpa &

nirvikalpa samadhi-s , finally leading to mukti, as followed by Sri

Abhinava Vidyatirtha, is very well explained in the above book. The

book is also very well illustrated with quotes from various

authoritative shaastra-s including the major & minor Upanishad-s,

Sankara's works, Yogasutra-s, various Tantric texts, Bhagavad Gita,

Yogavasishtha, etc.

 

I might add that nirvikalpa samadhi is a term unique to Advaita

Vedanta. While it is a yogic sadhana, it is not meaningful within the

dualistic yogic framework of Patanjali.

 

dhanyavAdaH

Ramesh

 

>

> --- Ramakrishna Upadrasta <ramakrsn

> wrote:

>

> >

> > praNams Shri Sadaji,

> >

> > [For a long time I wanted to ask this question!]

> >

> > What exactly is the nirvikalpa samaadhi state? It

> > seems to be so different from deep-sleep in terms

> > of the bhaavana in our heart, when compared to the

> > deepest sleep. In fact, it seems so different from

> > any

> > of the avastHa-traya of Mandukya. Is it the

> > " pragyAna Ghana " of Mandukya?

> >

> > What do the other primary upanishads (I am

> > in particular talking about Br. Up and Ch. Up)

> > state about it?

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramesh-Ji:

 

Thanks for this addition. Long term members of the list know that

periodically this topic comes up and we have had exhaustive discussions

on it. Many learned members in the past have contributed to those

discussions which are available in the archives.

 

Five points to remember for sadhakas and scholars.

 

1. Nirvikalpa Samadhi is not an experience of an object. Therefore, it

is not like any other experience. It is knowledge of the nature of the

fullness of the subject. Self-Knowledge. So Ramesh-Ji, you are right to

say that the Self-Oneness, devoid of a second, produces a strong

conviction of the truth of advaita.

 

2. Nirvikalpa Samadhi is not the same as deep sleep. It is, in fact,

Deep Awake.

 

3. The Nirvikalpa Samadhi referred to by many yogis (Sri Ramakrishna,

Swami Vivekananda) refers to the merging of the Shakti with Siva in the

upper region of the brain center. It leads to experiences of merging of

energies of opposite polarities which, at least temporarily, obliterates

body consciousness.

 

4. Nirvikalpa Samadhi referred to by Advaitins such as Sri Ramana refers

to merging of the Mind/Shakti in to the Spiritual Heart. So the yogic

Nirvikalpa Samadhi can lead to the Advaitic Nirvikalpa Samadhi.

 

5. The methodology of the Jnana path does not necessarily include yogic

practices and such are peripheral to many other paths as well. Within

the framework of the mind, we distinguish between yogic path, jnana

path, etc. As a practical matter, these differences tend to disappear in

the Self.

 

Knowledge of the Self alone removes ignorance. However, when one is

ignorant, how is the Knowledge of the Self possible?

 

Nirvikalpa Samadhi may be viewed as one bridge that overcomes this catch

22.

 

Namaste and love to all

Harsha

 

Ramesh Krishnamurthy wrote:

> Sri Ramakrishna-ji, pranam:

>

> If you want to know what is samadhi and how is it useful, I would

> suggest that you read the book " Yoga, Enlightenment & Perfection of

> Sri Abhinava Vidyatirtha Mahaswamigal " , a book describing the

> sadhana-s of Sri Abhinava Vidyatirtha, who was the acharya of Sringeri

> from 1954 to 1989.

>

> Nirvikalpa samadhi, like any another experience, is not tantamount to

> realisation per se. However, the nature of the experience is such that

> it produces a very strong conviction of the truth of advaita.

>

> Sri Sadananda pointed out that samadhi in itself is not a pramaana.

> This does not mean that samadhi is useless. Actually, like bhakti,

> japa, etc, samadhi is a sadhana. All sadhana-s help to achieve the

> conditions in which the Sruti pramana operates.

>

> There is an excellent example in the above book in the context of

> savikalpa samadhi. I don't remember it exactly but it goes somewhat

> like this:

>

> On a hot day, a man sees a pool of water in the distance and rushes

> towards it to quench his thirst. Someone tells him it's a mirage but

> he still thinks it is water. Now, if the sky were to turn cloudy

> temporarily, the mirage would disappear and the man would be convinced

> that there is no water. After this, even if the clouds go away and the

> mirage re-appears, the man would not be fooled.

>

> An experience of samadhi is somewhat like this. Just as the temporary

> disappearance of the mirage convinces the man that the pool of water

> is unreal, so also the *temporary* experience of samadhi is capable of

> producing the conviction of the advaitic truth. Of course, shaastra

> pramaana is needed to understand the samadhi experience correctly,

> just as shaastra pramaana is needed to understand the avasthatraya

> correctly.

>

> The sequence of mantra-japa, meditation and successive savikalpa &

> nirvikalpa samadhi-s , finally leading to mukti, as followed by Sri

> Abhinava Vidyatirtha, is very well explained in the above book. The

> book is also very well illustrated with quotes from various

> authoritative shaastra-s including the major & minor Upanishad-s,

> Sankara's works, Yogasutra-s, various Tantric texts, Bhagavad Gita,

> Yogavasishtha, etc.

>

> I might add that nirvikalpa samadhi is a term unique to Advaita

> Vedanta. While it is a yogic sadhana, it is not meaningful within the

> dualistic yogic framework of Patanjali.

>

> dhanyavAdaH

> Ramesh

>

>

[Guest guest]

--- Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy wrote:

> Nirvikalpa samadhi, like any another experience, is

> not tantamount to

> realisation per se. However, the nature of the

> experience is such that

> it produces a very strong conviction of the truth of

> advaita.

 

Shree Rameshji - PraNAms

 

Interesting mail. But is it not deep sleep too an

advaitic experience. Ch. Up expounds on this saying

that sushupti is where svapiiti takes place -one

reaches ones own swaruupam.

 

We were told that our problem is not the lack of

advaitic experience it is the lack of knowledge of the

truth of that experience.

 

Then how does deep sleep differs from nirvikalpaka

samaadhi - if it just an adviatic experience. I can

get effortlessly deep sleep but if I have to sadhana

for nirvikalpaka samaadhi, to have the experience of

adviata, is it not lot of trouble for that which one

can get easily.

 

Knowledge has to take place in the mind and mind is

absent how the knowledge can take place. would be

interested to know what shree swamiji says regarding

this.

 

Hari Om!

sadananda

[Guest guest]

Knowledge has to take place in the mind and mind is

absent how the knowledge can take place. would be

interested to know what shree swamiji says regarding

this.

 

I always thought this was a way of saying that

knowledge and the mind are not-two when there is

knowledge and when it does not have knowledge. It is

the same mind which " has knowledge " as when it does

not have knowledge.(?) The only difference is that in

one instance there is knowledge and in the other there

is not.

 

The very statement, " the mind has knowledge " is

dualistic to the core--yet the mind is there, before

and after it " has knowledge " ...I think. Not sure about

the truth of what I've said above. Still, for me to

even doubt it implies that, true or not, mind still

must be present...I don't know...

 

 

______________________________\

____

Be a better friend, newshound, and

know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

http://mobile./;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

[Guest guest]

--- Steve Stoker <otnac6 wrote:

 

> I always thought this was a way of saying that

> knowledge and the mind are not-two when there is

> knowledge and when it does not have knowledge. It is

> the same mind which " has knowledge " as when it does

> not have knowledge.(?) The only difference is that

> in

> one instance there is knowledge and in the other

> there

> is not.

 

Steve - PraNAms

 

You made it more a puzzle! Mind is required to have

the knowledge - otherwise people can realize in the

deep sleep state itself. - But that knowledge is not -

'knowledg of ..' or objective knowledge where mind

'has knowledge'- type. It is a knowledge that is all

inclusive - 'I am' that totality - aham bhramaasmi -

that includes the mind that has knowledge. Hence

bhagavaan Ramana says - 'aham aham taya spurati hRit

swayam' - right now it is I am this I am that type of

knowledge - in the realization " I am .. I am .. I

am... " etc (with out any qualifications) raises

spontaneously in core of ones individuality - that is

the Mind/intellect or conscious mind as per western

psychology. This knowledge is of the nature paramam,

puurNam and sat swaruupam - of the nature of supreme,

complete and of the nature of existence itself -

knowing which there is nothing else to be known. Mind

is fulfiled. Hence it is not knowledge of but

knowledge itself. I am jnaana swaruupam of the nature

of knowledge.

 

> The very statement, " the mind has knowledge " is

> dualistic to the core--yet the mind is there,

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

A realized One is one established in Knowing - not one established in knowledge.

An elaborate discussion on the topic of NS is in the archives with a very

detailed analysis by Shri Bhaskarji, Subbuji and Sadaji among others.

PraNAms to all.

Hari Om

Shyam

 

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

[Guest guest]

Sadananda-ji, pranaam:

 

Since I haven't experienced nirvikalpa samadhi, I am not sure how it

differs from deep sleep. But as so many sages have spoken of NS in

glorifying terms, I would respect their intelligence and presume that

it is indeed something powerful and useful. The way it is described, I

think it is quite different from deep sleep, at least in terms of its

impact on the mind.

 

I referred to the mirage example quoted in the book " Yoga,

Enlightenment & Perfection of Sri Abhinava Vidyatirtha Mahaswamigal " .

Here is the exact language as used in the book, with my comments in

square brackets :

 

Quote

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

" A weary traveller may hear from a trustworthy person familiar with

the region that the water he is seeing in the desert is a mirage.

[Comment: This is equivalent to all of us hearing the advaitic truth

from the shaastra/guru]. He may then reason that such should be the

case. Yet his wanting to assuage his thirst may impede his firmly

realising that only desert sand stretches in front of him. Were he to

move on to a new position and the sun were to be temporarily blocked

by a thick layer of clouds, he might see just sand where he once saw

the mirage. He might begin to perceive the mirage again a little

later. Nonetheless, the temporary disappearance of the mirage would

highly facilitate his firmly realising the truth of what he had been

told and reflected upon [Comment: compare this with shravana-manana].

The thorough vanishing of duality during samadhi would, for Me, be

helpful, like the temporary disappearance of the mirage for this

hypothetical traveller. "

 

[Comment: The Acharya goes on to describe several instances of NS he

achieved over a period of 5 days in the year 1935. The first such

instance is described as follows:]

 

" Sitting in the siddhasana, I performed two cycles of pranayama

together with the jalandhara, uddiyana and mula bandha-s to promote

mental tranquility..........I felt myself expanding and becoming like

space. The sense of I nearly vanished and My mind entered savikalpa

samadhi.

 

The bliss was very great. However, with effort, I restrained Myself

from being overwhelmed by it and thought, " I am not the one

experiencing bliss but am bliss itself. " In a trice, a sharp change

occurred. Awareness of the distinction of the concentrator,

concentration and the object of concentration completely disappeared.

No more was there any sense of individuality or of space, time and

objects. Only Brahman, of the nature of absolute existence, pure

consciousness and ultimate bliss, shone bereft of the superimposition

of even a trace of duality............Though the bliss of savikalpa

samadhi was by far greater than the joy of any worldly enjoyment, it

was nothing compared to the absolute non-dual bliss of nirvikalpa

samadhi "

-

Unquote

 

There are several more instances of NS described in the book,

including one through the kundalini yoga method with a description of

the kundalini reaching the sahasrara.

 

A reader can make out the growing conviction in the Acharya's mind

regarding the advaitic truth through his successive experiences of NS.

At one stage he says " That Brahman is all was as clear as a fruit in

one's palm " . Of course, he also adds that " I should not become

attached to nirvikalpa samadhi under the delusion that for its

duration I become one with Brahman " .

 

Subsequently he talks about transcending the need for samadhi and

continuous abidance in truth irrespective of whether the mind is

focused, agitated or dull. But the power & utility of NS *as a

sadhana* should be evident to anyone who reads the book.

 

Subbu-ji of this list and Sri Vidyasankar of Advaita-l had referred to

this book many times and so I made it a point to read it. Not only is

the book extremely inspiring, it also provides a clear description of

the utility of yoga, mantra-shaastra, tantra, bhakti etc in the

advaitic tradition.

 

And it is available for just Rs.25/- !!

 

Coming to some specific points you raised

 

On 18/12/2007, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote:

> We were told that our problem is not the lack of

> advaitic experience it is the lack of knowledge of the

> truth of that experience.

 

Sure. All of us on this list have some level of theoretical knowledge

of advaita. But as you have often put it, we need to know the truth

" as a fact " and not just " as a thought " . In spite of the shaastra

pramaana, we don't know the truth " as a fact " because the mind is not

yet prepared. This is where all sadhana-s, including NS, help.

 

>

> Then how does deep sleep differs from nirvikalpaka

> samaadhi - if it just an adviatic experience. I can

> get effortlessly deep sleep but if I have to sadhana

> for nirvikalpaka samaadhi, to have the experience of

> adviata, is it not lot of trouble for that which one

> can get easily.

 

Let us leave aside the word " experience " for the time being. Whatever

NS is, it is evident that its impact on the mind is far greater than

that of deep sleep!

 

> Knowledge has to take place in the mind and mind is

> absent how the knowledge can take place. would be

> interested to know what shree swamiji says regarding

> this.

 

This point is not explicitly mentioned in the book. But my

understanding, developed after having read the book, is as follows:

 

When the sadhaka returns to " normalcy " from NS, he reflects on the NS

in the light of the shaastra pramaana with the aid of reason. When

this is done over a period of time, realization becomes stable and

abiding, irrespective of whatever activity the sadhaka is engaged in.

 

The sheer intensity of NS will necessarily have an impact on the mind.

The Acharya went through several instances of NS over a period of 5

days after which his realization became stable. In the book, there is

an occasion where Sri Chandrasekhara Bharati, the Acharya's guru,

tells him that he no longer needs samadhi.

 

dhanyavAdaH

Ramesh