Fwd: advaita vedAnta & pAtanjala yoga - 2

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Ramesh Krishnamurthy "

<rkmurthy wrote:

 

Namaste to all sAdhaka-s,

 

This is the second part of the post.

 

As I mentioned in the 1st part, a lot of disagreement occurs because

people focus on specific texts or teachers instead of looking at the

tradition as a whole.

 

There are only a few things that are absolutely indispensable as far

as advaita-vedAnta is concerned. IMO, these are:

 

1. Truth is non-dual, as represented by the equation: Atman = brahman

2. The upaniShad-s (and the texts & tradition based on the

upaniShad-s) show this truth and teach us how to realize it.

 

The first is the advaitic truth, the second is what defines the

saMpradAya.

 

Beyond this, the tradition allows for multiple approaches & diversity

of views. All sAdhanA occurs in the realm of vyavahAra, and this

realm

is the realm of relativity. There is enough place here for multiple

approaches. In fact, multiple approaches are needed because sAdhaka-s

have differing abilities and temperaments. Of course, this does not

mean that anything is acceptable. Rather, multiple approaches are

accepted *as long as they are within the framework of the Sruti* and

are useful from the perspective of sAdhanA. And certain things are

more important or more useful than others.

 

For example, what is the status of dualistic bhakti towards ISvara?

Shyam_md, a strong proponent of bhakti, vehemently defended the idea

of ISvara in one of his previous posts. But the fact remains that

ISvara is sublated at the paramArtha level. Even at the vyavahAra

level, one can very well follow a model that has no role for ISvara.

dRShTi-sRShTi-vAda is one such model. There can be others. Ramana

Maharshi has said that there can be any number of creation theories

and Sruti itself gives many such theories. Can one say that only

sRShTi-dRShTi is correct, or only dRShTi-sRShTi is correct? Actually,

both of them are ultimately sublated, but both have their utility

when

it comes to sAdhanA.

 

So is dualistic bhakti absolutely essential? No. Is it helpul? Yes.

In

fact, not just helpful but very very helpful for most people.

 

IMO, nirvikalpa samAdhi must be taken in the same spirit. It may not

be necessary, but there is no doubt whatsoever that it is extremely

useful.

 

Here let us have a look at the vedAnta-sAra of sadAnanda (Sw.

Nikhilananda's translation):

 

Verse 181. evaMbhUtasva svarUpacaitanya sAxAtkAraparyantaM sravaNa

manana nididhyAsana samAdhi anuShThAnasyApexitatvAtepi pradarshyante

 

" Till such realization of the Consciousness which is one's own Self,

it is necessary to practise hearing, reflection, meditation and

absorption (samAdhi). Therefore these are also being explained. "

 

Note that the text mentions samAdhi also along with sravaNa, manana &

nididhyAsana!

 

Verse 197 defines nirvikalpa samAdhi:

nirvikalpakastu jnAtR^ijnAnAdi vikalpalayApexayAdvitIya vastuni

tadAkArAkAritAyAshcittavRtteratitarAmekIbhAvena avasthAnam

 

" Absorption without self-consciousness (nirvikalpa samAdhi) is the

total mergence in brahman, the One without a second, of the mental

state which has assumed Its form, the distinction of the knower,

knowledge and the object of knowledge being in this case obliterated "

 

Is not the above the same as advaita-siddhi?

 

Verse 199 goes on to say:

tatashcAsya suShupteshcabhedasha.nkA na bhavati

 

" Therefore there is no apprehension of it (nirvikalpa samAdhi) being

identical with deep sleep "

 

verse 200 is the show-stopper:

 

asyA.ngAni yama niyama Asana prANAyAma pratyAhAra dhAraNA dhyAna

samAdhayaH

 

All the 8 limbs of aShTA.nga yoga!

 

From verse 201 to 214, the text describes the 8 limbs

 

Now lets come to Verse 214

anena vighnacatuShTayena virahitaM cittaM nirvAtadIpavadacalaM

sadakhaNDacaitanyamAtramavatiShThate yadA tadA nirvikalpakaH

samAdhirityucyate

 

" When the mind, free from these four obstacles (defined earlier as

torpidity, distraction, attachment & enjoyment), rests unmoved, like

the flame of a lamp sheltered from the wind, *as one with the

Absolute

Consciousness*, it is called the Nirvikalpa Samadhi "

 

Again, is not the above the same as advaita-siddhi?

 

If one still holds that it is not the same as advaita-siddhi, the

only

alternative is to say that nirvikalpa samAdhi is a non-dual

'experience' that is not stable, and that the yogin comes out of it

in

some time. The knowledge of Atman = brahman is required to make the

yogin 'abide' in the non-dual brahman, which would be advaita siddhi.

 

This is what Sri SN Sastri said in a recent post, and what many

advaitin AcArya-s have said. But that does not take away from the

utility of nirvikalpa samAdhi as a part of sAdhanA. It only means

that

advaita-siddhi is a kind of permanent nirvikalpa samAdhi.

 

Last but not the least, the fact is that yogAbhyAsa is one of the

greatest spiritual " products " of Hinduism. bhakti et al are found in

many traditions worldwide. But how many traditions have the profound

sAdhanA that is yoga? maharShi pata~njali deserves our greatest

respect for having systematized the vedic meditational practices into

the magnificent discipline of aShTA~Nga yoga, which is entirely

compatible with vedAnta.

 

To dismiss pAtanjala yoga as a dvaita Sastra is to hopelessly miss

its

point. It is silly to dismiss bhakti towards ISvara merely on the

grounds that it is dualistic. Equally, it is silly to dismiss

pAtanjala yoga on the grounds that it is a dvaita Sastra.

 

I am sure Sunder-ji and Subbu-ji will agree with me.

 

dhanyosmi

Ramesh

 

--- End forwarded message ---