Fwd: advaita vedAnta & pAtanjala yoga - 1

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Ramesh Krishnamurthy "

<rkmurthy wrote:

 

Namaste to all sAdhaka-s,

 

The discussion on the utility or otherwise of nirvikalpa samAdhi has

been an interesting one, but I think most disagreements arise because

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

tradition as a whole. This is really unfortunate.

 

So here is my understanding, for what its worth.

 

As this is a long post, I am breaking it up into two parts. This is

the first part.

 

advaita-vedAnta is not merely a philosophy that points to the truth

but also a practical path to take us to the realization of that

truth.

It is here that the other darSana-s have a role. The path of

advaita-vedAnta has traditionally included the study of other

darSana-s like nyAya, mImAMsa and pAtanjala yoga, not to mention

disciplines like vyAkaraNa. Why is this so?

 

Bhaskar prabhuji in one of his posts quoted Sankara saying that

elements of other darSana-s that are not opposed to the Sruti are

acceptable. But what does it mean for something to be 'not opposed'

to

the Sruti? For example, is travel by train opposed to the Sruti? No.

But is it mentioned in the Sruti? No again. Travel by train is

orthogonal to the Sruti. It has nothing to do with the Sruti.

 

But do yogic practices have the same status in the Sruti as travel by

train? No. They are explicitly mentioned in the Sruti. They are

accepted not merely because they are not opposed to the Sruti, but

because they are explicitly mentioned in the Sruti.

 

This is very clearly brought out in the brahmasUtra-bhAShya 2.1.2,

where the pUrvapaxin refers to statements in the SvetASvatara, kaTha

and bRhadAraNyaka upaniShad-s that mention various yogic practices.

Note that these are clear statements in the Sruti, so even Sankara

cannot just deny them. Therefore, Sankara says that it is only the

puruSha-prakRti dualism of sAMkhya/yoga that is not acceptable. But

yogic practices in general are perfectly in tune with vedAnta. After

all, they are taught by the Sruti itself.

 

In fact, Sankara notes that Sruti references to sAMkhya & yoga (as in

SvetASvatara 2.8) refer generally to vedic knowledge & meditation

(rather than to the specific systems of the AcArya-s kapila &

pata~njali). This is a very important point. It suggests that the

words 'sAMkhya' & 'yoga' were initially used as generic terms for

knowledge (i.e. theory) and practice (especially meditative

practices)

respectively. One comes across this idea in the bhagavadgItA also.

 

The philosophy of maharShi kapila was the earliest systematic

philosophy in India, so that it was THE darSana for some time, and

came to known as the sAMKhya darSana. The yogasUtra-s expound on

vedic

practices on a theoretical base derived from the sAMkhya darSana. So

even though the sAMkhyan theory of puruSha-prakRti dualism is not

accepted by advaita-vedAnta, the yogic practices of the yogasUtra-s

are accepted, not just because they are not opposed to the Sruti, but

also because they are *explicitly taught* in the Sruti.

 

Also, from the perspective of sAdhanA, there are many things that are

accepted because they are useful. Thus, the nyAya darSana is studied

for its logic, even though the philosophy as a whole is not accepted.

Is the study of nyAya an absolute necessity? No. Is it studied merely

because some elements in it are 'acceptable'? No. Why is it studied

then? Because it is immensely useful.

 

Similarly, yogic practices are extremely useful, and also mentioned

in

the Sruti!

 

naiShkarmyasiddhi 1.52 describes the advaitic path:

 

nityakarmAnuShThAnAt dharma utpattiH

dharma utpatteH pApa hAniH

tataH citta SuddhiH

tatah saMsArayAthAtmi AvabodhaH

tataH vairAgyaM

tataH mumuxatvaM

tataH tat upAya paryeShaNam

tataH sarva karma tat sAdhana sannyAsaH

tataH yogAbhyAsaH

tataH cittasya pratyag pravaNatA

tataH `tat tvam asi' Adi vAkyArtha parijnAnam

tataH avidyA ucchedaH

tataH cha svAtmani eva avasthAnam

 

The performance of nityakarma yields dharma

dharma destroys pApa (sin)

then comes citta Suddhi

then the understanding of saMsAra

then vairAgya

then mumuxatvaM

then the search for the means (of liberation)

then the renunciation of karma through sannyAsa

then *yogAbhyAsa*

then concentration of the citta

then the understanding of statements like 'tat tvam asi'

then the destruction of avidyA

then being settled in the Self alone

 

Pl note that as yogAbhyAsa comes after sannyAsa, it cannot be karma.

The phrase 'concentration of the citta' shows clearly that it is a

reference to meditative practices. So there you have it from

sureSvarAcArya, the foremost of Sankara's disciples.

 

Part-2 of this post follows.

 

oM namaH SivAya

Ramesh

 

--- End forwarded message ---