Intellectual understanding vs direct realization?

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ramji,

 

I stand corrected. I should have been more specific in my last post.

The Yoga i referred to was Patanjali Yoga. This Yoga is defined in the

2nd sutra of the 1st chapter in the Yogasutras. If that is definition

of Yoga, then Advaita Vedanta is definitely not advocating this Yoga.

It would then mean that Karma can lead one to liberation.

 

 

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 17:01:12 -0000, Ram Chandran

<RamChandran wrote:

>

>

> Namaste Kathirasanji:

>

> The term, "Yoga" needs to be appropriately defined and understood

> before we can agree or disagree with any of the claims. Sanskrit

> terms such as "Dharma,Yoga,Samadhi," etc. can mean different

> things depending on the context where they are used. In the western

> countries, "Yoga institute" invariably means a fitness/exercise

> facility to fine tune the body. Even the meditation centers operate

> with the assumption that mind is like a machine and it can be

> controlled and fine tuned through training. This approach of "Yoga"

> is a materialistic approach to human life and it doesn't take account

> of the invisible "spirit" within. All Acharyas overwhelmingly agree

> that such practice of "Yoga" is not the means to Moksha. A similar

> statement can be also made with respect to "Nirvikalpa Samadhi."

>

> There is a definite difference between "spiritual"

> and "materialistic" progress of life. In the former, a person who

> reached a higher level of spiritual achievement will not go down, and

> he/she always moves up in the ladder. In contrast, the materialistic

> progress has ups and down - one day the king, the next day the

> begger! Yoga in the spiritual sense is very different from

> materialistic sense. For example, the entire Bhagavad Gita just

> focuses on the spiritual aspects of Yoga.

>

> warmest regards,

>

> Ram Chandran

>

> advaitin, K Kathirasan <brahmasatyam@g...>

> wrote:

> > Namaste

> >

> > In fact Bhaskarji is not alone in this crusade. Swami Dayananda (of

> > AVG), Swami Paramarthananda & even Swami Chinmayanda are all clear

> > that Yoga is not the means to Moksha. I would humbly request members

> > who still think that Nirvikalpa Samadhi is a means to moksha to

> study

> > the works of the above teachers.

> >

>

>

> Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

> Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

> To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

> Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

>

> Links

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste ji,

 

Crusade maybe a wrong choice of word. Sorry. But I believe my

intention has been conveyed . Here is my reply to your further

queries:

 

1. Tirade against Samadhi & Patanjala Yoga

 

We need this to bring out the tradition of Advaita Vedanta clearly to

the seekers so that the path is crystal clear and attainable for them.

What a delusion it is to think that the Samadhi experience is Moksha.

How many can and will attain it? And everyone is divided over how long

one should be in Samadhi to gain Moksha. To make it worse, we mix it

with Tantra Yoga. The actual method of Vedanta is so simple and clear.

No speculation is necessary as long as we know how the Vedanta and

Guru Vakyas are handled as pramanas.

 

2. Dhyana

 

There are two types of Dhyana. One is Vastu Tantra and the other

Purusha Tantra. The Dhyana that confers Mukti is Vastu Tanta (i.e.

Manana + Nididdhyasana). This type of Dhyana may not give chitta

shuddhi. But the second type (i.e. Purusha Tantra or Upasana) will

give us chitta shuddhi. Now with this understanding isn't it more

blissful to carry out Yoga Sadhana instead of waiting for some

experience to fall from the sky. I appreciate Yoga Sadhana but with

the right understanding.

 

3. Samadhi/Meditation

 

I experience Samadhi everyday in sleep :-). And I have learnt nothing

from it. If there is perception of a subtle kind involved in Samadhi,

then it cannot be a non-dual experience for it would imply the

presence of the 'experiencer' and the 'object of excperience'. It is

JUST another experience in Mithya Jagat. But if you take Samadhi

practices to be a factor in Chitta Shuddhi (or chitta ekegrata), then

we can admit it as a Upasana but not Jnana. With this understanding

again the seeker gains more clarity. Let's not throw Meditation out of

the window but rather let us appreciate it for what it's worth. This

is what I am trying to convey.

 

4. You mentioned Shankara's guiding words: One should accept the views

of even a child if it is in accordance with the scriptures and reject

the views of even a Great one if it is NOT in accordance with the

scriptures.

 

Now pls tell me how is my understanding not in accordance with the

shastras. And how is the Tantra Yoga and Patanjali Yoga in accordance

with the Shankara Bhashyas. The 2nd sutra of the 1st chapter (yoga

sutras) and the subsequent 3rd chapter is enough to show that Yoga

Darshana is in the category of Purusha Tantras.

 

5. Deviations in Post-Shankara Authors

 

We all know that there are two traditions, namely the Bhamati and the

Vivarana, which popularised Advaita Vedanta after Shankara. Both of

them do NOT ACCURATELY reflect the teachings of Shankara. But they

have created very accessible books for anyone to study Vedanta. We

seekers have to give credit to them for that.

 

6. Contemporary teachers

 

In fact I empathize the contemporary teachers who have to live with

the works produced by the Bhamati & Vivarana. What a task it would be

to deal with concepts like Samadhi, Videha Mukti & Kundalini awakening

found in Advaita Vedanta texts.

 

7. Jnanis & Methods of Teaching

 

The realization of the Self during shravana is entirely dependent upon

the qualification of the seeker. Therefore, Mukti can be 'gained' by

just listening to 'Tat Tvam Asi' mahavakya once if the seeker is a

Uttama Adhikari. But that would not imply that he would be able to

awaken another seeker who is not a uttama adhikari. Therefore, a

Jivanmukta may not necessarily be an effective teacher. We need not

doubt the realisation of a Jnani but we can doubt the method of

teaching if they are not kept with the RIGHT method of teaching which

is none other than the Adhyaropa Apavada method and its various

prakriyas. So I am NOT doubting the realization of the

authors/teachers in the Advaita Vedanta tradition. Because for all we

know they could have been uttama adhikaris who gained this Jnana with

minimal enquiry and effort due to purva janma satkarmas (good karmas

from previous births). They may be Jivanmuktas but we need not presume

that the method of teaching is perfect. Because teaching is a skill to

be acquired from the shastra but at the same time the lack of it will

NOT diminish the stature of a Jivanmukta for he/she is ever free.

 

With respects and love for every acharya of the Vedic Tradition,

Kathirasan

 

 

 

 

 

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 20:53:28 -0000, Sundar Rajan

<avsundarrajan wrote:

>

>

> Namaste Sri Kathirasan-ji,

>

> I would like to know what is this crusade for?

>

> During Christmas time, here in the US, consumer agencies recall toys

> that are found 'injurious to health'. Is this crusade like that -

> a 'recall' of Samadhi by the new-generation Advaitic seers because

> they somehow found Samadhi/Dhyana is injurious to your Spiritual

> health?.

>

> Sorry if I sound sarcastic but it really baffles me as to why there

> should be a tirade against Samadhi and Yoga!

>

> At the barest minimum, Dhyana (meditation) is accepted as having a

> purifying effect on the mind and develops ekagratha (one-

> pointedness). Such a one-pointed mind, even from a purely worldly

> sense, helps in learning.

>

> The great American Psychologist William James says

> "The faculty of voluntarily bringing

> back a wandering attention, over and

> over again, is the very root of judgment,

> character, and will. An education

> which should include this faculty

> would be the education par excellence."

>

> It is needless to say that a ekagratha mind is very helpful in

> Spiritual learning as well. So if your preferred Sadhana is removal

> of ignorance by understanding the proper import of the scriptures,

> surely meditation will help immensely.

>

> Samadhi is basically excellence in the plane of ekaGratha and so it

> is beyond doubt that a mind that can meditate deeply can only help

> in spiritual progress.

>

> As to the views of Swami Dayanandaji, IMHO the views were refuted

> during the discussions on Gita back in 2001

>

> http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m9159.html

> http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m9129.html

>

> Then Sri Harsha-ji expressed this opinion:

> >>

> One thing to keep in mind is that the overwhelming number of the

> Swamis (no matter how well known or well established) who speak

> about Nirvikalpa Samadhi do not have the actual experience or the

> fundamental Self-Knowledge that is needed to speak authoritatively

> or meaningfully on the topic. With such people one sees half truths

> which are given their own unique twist.

> These things cannot be picked up from scriptures haphazardly or from

> commentaries written by scholars.

> >>

>

> I deeply respect Swami Paramarthanandaji as a Vedantic Teacher and I

> have introduced numerous people to the yogamalika website and His

> great expositions of Gita. But the Swamiji also acknowledged the

> last time I met Him in Chennai about these differences of opinions

> in the Advaitic schools.

>

> >>

> > In fact Bhaskarji is not alone in this crusade. Swami Dayananda (of

> > AVG), Swami Paramarthananda & even Swami Chinmayanda are all clear

> > that Yoga is not the means to Moksha.

> >>

>

> Maybe. But there are a large number of other Great Advaitic Seers

> past and present who strongly advocate the path of Yoga.

>

> >

> > The deviations in the later day authors of the Shankara tradition

> are

> > nothing new to scholars and seekers of today.

> >

>

> What are the implications of the above statement?

>

> Does this imply that Sri Vidyarnya, Sri Madhusudana Saraswati, Sri

> Sadasiva Brahmendral (who wrote a commentary on Yoga Sutra), Sri

> Ramakrishna, Sri Ramana Maharishi were all

> mistaken and worse 'misleading people'?

>

> I am all for dispassionate and better understanding.

>

> But we should also take it into account what Shankara Himself said:

> One should accept the views of even a child if it is in accordance

> with the scriptures and reject the views of even a Great one if it

> is NOT in accordance with the scriptures.

>

> As Sri Harsha-ji mentions it is good to have conviction in one's

> belief and faith that one is on the right path. On the same token

> there is no need to crusade against other people's belief espacially

> if it is fully in accordance with the scriptures.

>

> regards

> Sundar Rajan

>

> advaitin, K Kathirasan <brahmasatyam@g...>

> wrote:

> > Namaste

> >

> > In fact Bhaskarji is not alone in this crusade. Swami Dayananda (of

> > AVG), Swami Paramarthananda & even Swami Chinmayanda are all clear

> > that Yoga is not the means to Moksha. I would humbly request

> members

> > who still think that Nirvikalpa Samadhi is a means to moksha to

> study

> > the works of the above teachers.

> >

> > Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati has written a fantastic book

> titled

> > 'Misconceptions in Shankara Vedanta' which I had the good fortune

> of

> > studying in the last month. I would recommend every member to study

> > this book dispassionately to better understand what Bhaskarji is

> > trying his level best to convince us.

> >

> > The deviations in the later day authors of the Shankara tradition

> are

> > nothing new to scholars and seekers of today. Perhaps it would be

> good

> > to study the books of the teachers mentioned above than to scale

> the

> > heights of the Himalayan Nirvikalpa Samadhi.

> >

> > Kathir

>

>

> Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

> Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

> To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

> Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

>

>

> Links

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Kathirasanji.

 

The reference is to Bhagawad GItA Chapter 8, Verses 10, 11 and 12

where certain 'practices' are mentioned and on which Sankara has

commented. I haven't read Sw. Dayanandaji or the other teachers

named by you on their understanding of Sankara's interpretation. I

have only seen Sw. Gambhiranandaji's and Sw. Shivanandaji's. Both

point in the direction that some 'practice' can be a means to self-

realization. Hence, my question if you can reword your rather

categorical statement.

 

I have read your long reply to Sundar Rajan-ji and, in that light,

assume you won't mind the rewording.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

_______________

 

advaitin, K Kathirasan <brahmasatyam@g...>

wrote:

>> Are you referring to the verses or the chapters (BG 8-10,11,12) of

the Gita?

[Guest guest]

Namaste all.

 

Before I get to the subject, I should offer thanks for the kind

words of introduction offered by Sundarji and Ramji, in announcing

my task from March 1 and for the kind sentiments expressed by the

others. Thanks a lot. Let me pray to God that I be able to keep up

the good traditions of the advaitin list and to attempt to rise up

to the standards of all the earlier Chief Moderators, who without

exception were stalwarts of excellence each in his own way.

 

Now let me come to the subject of `Yoga' and `advaita-siddhi', which

seems to have caught up the minds of the members very impressively.

While I was debating in my own mind what is right in this matter,

two observations came to my mind: namely, the Gita is called `yoga-

shAstra' in the colophons of the chapters, and secondly, the

statement `Ekam sAnkhyaM ca yogaM ca ...' in V – 5. as well as the

8th chapter shlokas which Nairji recalled. I was going to look into

the Bhashyas of the shlokas. But as I am preparing for my departure

to the U.S. (on 19th) I was not inclined to spend more time now on

this search (re-search?).

 

But at this point I suddenly remembered my father's GitAmRta-

mahodadhiH which I had earlier translated only upto about 20 per

cent. or so. And I remembered that of the five chapters of the

book, entitled BrahmAmRtaM, PraNavAmRtaM, advaitAmRtaM, jnAnAmRtaM

and yogAmRtaM, it is yoga that comes as the last chapter. So quickly

I opened the chapter called yogAmRtaM, which contains 435 shlokas

(and 100 pages of writing which includes his own prose commentary)

and browsed through it for 10 minutes. Lo and behold! the

discussion appears to parallel the discussion that is going on in

our list.

 

The bottomline is this. I would very much like to read this last

chapter of my father's book and present a synopsis to you all. But

right now I have no time. So, soon after March 1 I shall take the

earliest opportunity to come back to the topic in a more prepared

way. Thank you all for prompting me to do what I should have done

long ago, namely, read and assimilate my father's book!

 

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

[Guest guest]

Namaste Nairji,

 

I just checked Shankara's commentary and Swami Dayananda's

commentaries on Shankara Bhashya.The three verses indicate Krama

Mukti with Patanjali Yoga (verse 10) and Omkara Upasana (verses 12 &

13). The goal is indicated in Verse 10 as Brahma loka (tam paramam

purushamupaiti divyam). Both meditations (Upasana) are for Brahmaloka

alone.

 

Hope this clarifies.

 

 

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 07:31:08 -0000, Madathil Rajendran Nair

<madathilnair wrote:

>

>

> Namaste Kathirasanji.

>

> The reference is to Bhagawad GItA Chapter 8, Verses 10, 11 and 12

> where certain 'practices' are mentioned and on which Sankara has

> commented. I haven't read Sw. Dayanandaji or the other teachers

> named by you on their understanding of Sankara's interpretation. I

> have only seen Sw. Gambhiranandaji's and Sw. Shivanandaji's. Both

> point in the direction that some 'practice' can be a means to self-

> realization. Hence, my question if you can reword your rather

> categorical statement.

>

> I have read your long reply to Sundar Rajan-ji and, in that light,

> assume you won't mind the rewording.

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

> _______________

>

> advaitin, K Kathirasan <brahmasatyam@g...>

> wrote:

> >> Are you referring to the verses or the chapters (BG 8-10,11,12) of

> the Gita?

>

>

>

> Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

> Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

> To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

> Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

>

> Links

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ram-ji and Tony-ji

 

The second meaning of Yoga is Samadhi

 

http://www.advaitin.com/AdvaitaTerminology.html

 

'yoga' derived from the root yuj has two senses:

1. Samadhi or concentration of the mind

2. yoking or uniting (As Tony-ji mentioned below: ending the

imaginary separation of Jivatma and Brahman)

 

 

 

BKS Iyengar's website also clarifies that 'Yoga' means Samadhi :

 

http://www.iyoga.com.au/library/tranquil.html

 

The words Yoga and Samadhi- are synonymous terms conveying the same

meaning, namely peace. The means and the end of Yoga is Samadhi

which is the experience of Shanti (peace) within oneself.

 

 

It is interesting to note the resemblance between the meaning of the

words Yoga and Samadhi. Samadhi means union, bringing into harmony,

fixing the mind for attention on a single thought, intense

contemplation or meditation. Yoga is derived from the word, Yuj,

which means to join, to bind, to attach, to direct and concentrate

one's attention on, to use and apply. It is union of the Individual

Self with the Universal Self.

 

 

regards

Sundar Rajan

 

 

advaitin, "Tony OClery" <aoclery> wrote:

>

>

> advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <RamChandran@a...>

> wrote:

> >

> > Namaste Kathirasanji:

> >

> > The term, "Yoga" needs to be appropriately defined and

understood

> > before we can agree or disagree with any of the claims. Sanskrit

> > terms such as "Dharma,Yoga,Samadhi," etc. can mean

different

> > things depending on the context where they are used. In the

> western

> > countries, "Yoga institute" invariably means a fitness/exercise

> > facility to fine tune the body.

>

> Namaste,

>

> It seem superflous to go much beyond what the word is understood to

> mean. Yoga----Yuj--------Union. In other word the end of the

> imaginary separation of Jivatma and Brahman........ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Kathirasanji.

 

Thanks a lot.

 

That in fact confounds. End of even krama mukti being mukti, does

Patanjali then provide a *means*? How come tam paramam purhsah is

understood as Brahma loka? If someone else says that the term means

the Self, how can we refute him?

 

Don't ever think I am questioning Swamiji for whose clarity I have

great respect. I dare not do that. I believe we ought to seek more

clarifications from him in this context like I did about his stress

on intellectual understanding. That even Swamiji thinks BG 8.10

refers to Patanjali Yoga might come as a surprise to those who vows

the prastAnatraya has nothing to do with yogic practices.

 

Let us now await Prof. Krishnamurthyji's promised research results

early March.

 

As a word of caution, may I, Kathirasanji, point out that even those

who have voiced against yogic practices as a means to self-

realization have difference of opinion among themseleves about other

questions advaitic. This was evident from our pUrNamadah and

real/unreal discussions. Even if they don't have at their levels,

their followers certainly do have. That is all the more reason for

samanwaya (instead of self-righteous assertion) among those who at

least claim to derive inspiration from Sankara.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

________________________

 

advaitin, K Kathirasan <brahmasatyam@g...>

wrote:

>...

>

> I just checked Shankara's commentary and Swami Dayananda's

> commentaries on Shankara Bhashya.The three verses indicate Krama

> Mukti with Patanjali Yoga (verse 10) and Omkara Upasana (verses 12

&

> 13). The goal is indicated in Verse 10 as Brahma loka (tam paramam

> purushamupaiti divyam). Both meditations (Upasana) are for

Brahmaloka

> alone.

>

> Hope this clarifies.

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Nairji,

 

I respect your effort to find consistency in Yoga and Jnana. Wasn't

that already done in the Advaita Vedanta tradition by placing them

where they should be? Yoga prepares the individual while Jnana

liberates. With this understanding Yoga is not relegated to

nothingness. It has a value, isn't it?

 

Here is your saving grace with regards to your doubts on the

interpretation of purushamdivyam. Pls see verse 16 in the same

chapter where Krishna will cite Brahma Loka and of its value. Here is

the verse:

 

The dwellers of all the worlds up to and including the world of Brahma

are subject to repeated birth and death. But, after attaining Me, O

Arjuna, one does not take birth again. (8.16)

 

This verse shows the contrast of the previous verses which indeed

point towards Brahmaloka. The implication is that the previous

Sadhanas do not bring the seeker to him (Self). Hope this helps.

 

Kathir

 

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 16:45:57 -0000, Madathil Rajendran Nair

<madathilnair wrote:

>

>

> Namaste Kathirasanji.

>

> Thanks a lot.

>

> That in fact confounds. End of even krama mukti being mukti, does

> Patanjali then provide a *means*? How come tam paramam purhsah is

> understood as Brahma loka? If someone else says that the term means

> the Self, how can we refute him?

>

> Don't ever think I am questioning Swamiji for whose clarity I have

> great respect. I dare not do that. I believe we ought to seek more

> clarifications from him in this context like I did about his stress

> on intellectual understanding. That even Swamiji thinks BG 8.10

> refers to Patanjali Yoga might come as a surprise to those who vows

> the prastAnatraya has nothing to do with yogic practices.

>

> Let us now await Prof. Krishnamurthyji's promised research results

> early March.

>

> As a word of caution, may I, Kathirasanji, point out that even those

> who have voiced against yogic practices as a means to self-

> realization have difference of opinion among themseleves about other

> questions advaitic. This was evident from our pUrNamadah and

> real/unreal discussions. Even if they don't have at their levels,

> their followers certainly do have. That is all the more reason for

> samanwaya (instead of self-righteous assertion) among those who at

> least claim to derive inspiration from Sankara.

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

> ________________________

>

> advaitin, K Kathirasan <brahmasatyam@g...>

> wrote:

> >...

> >

> > I just checked Shankara's commentary and Swami Dayananda's

> > commentaries on Shankara Bhashya.The three verses indicate Krama

> > Mukti with Patanjali Yoga (verse 10) and Omkara Upasana (verses 12

> &

> > 13). The goal is indicated in Verse 10 as Brahma loka (tam paramam

> > purushamupaiti divyam). Both meditations (Upasana) are for

> Brahmaloka

> > alone.

> >

> > Hope this clarifies.

> >

>

>

> Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

> Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

> To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

> Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

>

> Links

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Kathirasan-ji

> Namaste Ramji,

>

> I stand corrected. I should have been more specific in my last

post.

> The Yoga i referred to was Patanjali Yoga. This Yoga is defined in

the

> 2nd sutra of the 1st chapter in the Yogasutras. If that is

definition

> of Yoga, then Advaita Vedanta is definitely not advocating this

Yoga.

> It would then mean that Karma can lead one to liberation.

>

>

If you are referring to the Yoga Sutra `Yogah Chitta Vritti

Nirodhah' this is fully endorsed by Advaitic Acharyas (please see my

post 'Sruti basis for Patanjali Yoga Sutra'

http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m25015.html)

 

The mantra that defines the Yoga of the Upanishads is also the basis

for this Yoga Sutra.

 

regards

Sundar Rajan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sundar avargale,

 

To start with, Yoga Darshana is an astika darshana. Therefore

naturally it would draw its authority from the Vedas alone. This also

applies to the other darshanas like Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Sankhya,

Vedanta & Mimamsa. So I am not surprised with the link to the

upanishads for the 2nd Sutra you have cited. Moreover, Upanishads have

many kinds of Vidyas which includes Yoga as an Upasana. There is a key

to understand the Upanishad vakyas. In fact what Shankara does is to

teach us the key to interpret them in a consistent manner by

commenting on the texts. Swami Brahmananda of the Sivananda Ashram has

written a brilliant book which deals with the 101 Vidyas contained in

the Principal Upanishads. It is called 'The Supreme Knowledge Revealed

Through Vidyas in the Upanishads'. We can separate these Vidyas into

the categories of Upasana & Jnana.

 

The best way to understand what is being is said is to define Chitta

Vrtti Nirodha. Isn't this sutra an injunction to DO an action i.e.

Karma? A person can (1) do it (2) not do it or (3) do it in many other

ways. Naturally this Action will accrue Punya for which we have to

take future births to exhaust. Or proceed to Brahmaloka and attain

Moksha there through Lord Brahma's instruction.

 

But Jnana is different. It is a means that reveals an already

accomplished goal. It reveals Atma that is already Satchitananda and

my 'real' self. One cannot perform an action to know Atma. An action

is used to only (1) gain, (2) remove, (3) modify or (4) purify a given

thing. Atma cannot be gained, removed, modified or purified. Atma is

always Purna or complete. It has to be known through a right means of

knowledge which is the Shruti unfolded by a qualified teacher. I would

recommend you this book : Accomplishing the Accomplished by Anantanand

Rambachan to understand this better.

 

In the case of Samadhi, it too has to be GAINED as it is an experience

in time. But if you claim that Samadhi is our very nature and not to

be gained by action, then we are are both in agreement. But the means

to it cannot be another action.

 

 

 

 

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 03:23:03 -0000, Sundar Rajan

<avsundarrajan wrote:

>

>

> Namaste Kathirasan-ji

> > Namaste Ramji,

> >

> > I stand corrected. I should have been more specific in my last

> post.

> > The Yoga i referred to was Patanjali Yoga. This Yoga is defined in

> the

> > 2nd sutra of the 1st chapter in the Yogasutras. If that is

> definition

> > of Yoga, then Advaita Vedanta is definitely not advocating this

> Yoga.

> > It would then mean that Karma can lead one to liberation.

> >

> >

> If you are referring to the Yoga Sutra `Yogah Chitta Vritti

> Nirodhah' this is fully endorsed by Advaitic Acharyas (please see my

> post 'Sruti basis for Patanjali Yoga Sutra'

> http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m25015.html)

>

> The mantra that defines the Yoga of the Upanishads is also the basis

> for this Yoga Sutra.

>

> regards

> Sundar Rajan

>

>

> Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

> Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

> To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

> Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

>

>

> Links

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

In the case of Samadhi, it too has to be GAINED as it is an experience

in time. But if you claim that Samadhi is our very nature and not to

be gained by action, then we are are both in agreement. But the means

to it cannot be another action.

 

praNAm Kathirasan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Thanks a lot for your valuable insights...I vaguely remeber, when we were

talking about the same subject in advaita-L list you had forwarded some

western writer's article on samAdhi & authorship of vivEkachUdAmaNi etc..If

available kindly forward the same to this list also prabhuji. It is really

funny to see, those who had vehemently fought against the place of samAdhi

& dhyAna in advaita earlier, now liberally started talking about

reconciliation of the same & trying to fit it in the frame work of

shankara siddhAnta.... kAlAya tasmai namaH

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskar-ji

 

I believe this may be the article you are looking for:

 

 

The Question of the Importance of Samadhi in Modern and Classical

Advaita Vedanta

By Michael Comans, Ph.D.

 

 

http://www.realization.org/page/doc2/doc200.html

 

See - even though you are my purva-pakshi (opponent), I will still

supply the information you are looking for :-)!

 

Seriously, it is great that we having these discussions in Advaitin

as the topic is an important one and possibly of importance to

Spiritual Seekers

 

 

regards

Sundar Rajan

> I vaguely remeber, when we were

> talking about the same subject in advaita-L list you had forwarded

some

> western writer's article on samAdhi & authorship of

vivEkachUdAmaNi etc..If

> available kindly forward the same to this list also prabhuji. It

is really

> funny to see, those who had vehemently fought against the place of

samAdhi

> & dhyAna in advaita earlier, now liberally started talking about

> reconciliation of the same & trying to fit it in the frame work of

> shankara siddhAnta.... kAlAya tasmai namaH

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskar-ji

 

praNAm Sri Sunder Rajan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

SR prabhuji:

 

I believe this may be the article you are looking for:

 

The Question of the Importance of Samadhi in Modern and Classical

Advaita Vedanta

By Michael Comans, Ph.D.

 

http://www.realization.org/page/doc2/doc200.html

 

bhaskar :

 

Oh!! thanks a lot for this link prabhuji...unfortunately I dont have

internet access in my system to read this article once again in

detail..Those who are interested kindly read this article in the web...As

far as I remember, here the author clearly presents why samAdhi is not

indispensable in shankara siddhAnta & some useful information about the

authorship of vivEkachUdAmaNI also.

 

SR prabhuji:

 

See - even though you are my purva-pakshi (opponent), I will still

supply the information you are looking for :-)!

 

bhaskar :

 

Thats very nice of you prabhuji..Lord says in gIta suhrunmitra udAsIna

madhyastha dvEshya banDhushu, sAdhu shvapicha pApEshu samabhudhir

vishishyate..you are an epitome of this quality prabhuji..BTW I am not an

opponent...I am a co-aspirant in advaita saMpradAya prabhuji..but with a

different perspective :-))

 

SR prabhuji:

 

Seriously, it is great that we having these discussions in Advaitin

as the topic is an important one and possibly of importance to

Spiritual Seekers

 

bhaskar :

 

Yes, discussions like this is very beneficial for the sAdhaka-s in advaita

sampradAya..it helps us enormously to understand shankara siddhAnta better

& better.

 

praNAms onceagain

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

advaitin, K Kathirasan <brahmasatyam@g...>

wrote:

> Namaste Nairji,

>

>

This verse shows the contrast of the previous verses which indeed

point towards Brahmaloka. The implication is that the previous

Sadhanas do not bring the seeker to him (Self). Hope this helps.

<<<

 

 

Namaste Kathir-Ji:

 

Could you please elaborate on this.

 

At face value to me this is "dvaita" position.

 

You/we/us are all part of the same brahman, one just need to realize

that through individual (vyavahaarikaa level) saadhanaa.

 

My apologies for not having read the complete thread or I am missing

something !!

 

Thank you,

 

Dr. Yadu

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dr-ji,

 

In that verse, Krishna is Ishwara and Ishwara is Self. In any case

Advaitins would not have a problem with duality either.

Here is a quote from Mandukya Karika by Shankara's Paramaguru Gaudapada:

 

"The dualists, firmly settled in their own doctrine which is arrived

at by their own conclusions, contradict one another. But this (view of

the non-dualist) is in no conflict with them. Non-duality is indeed

the supreme Reality, inasmuch as duality is said to be its product.

For them duality constitutes both (the Real and the unreal). Hence

this (our view) is not opposed (to theirs)."

 

This shows that the Adavitin's position is 'Non-duality in spite of

duality'. We don't dismiss duality. We say that in spite of the many

waves in the ocean there is 'only' water in it.

 

 

 

 

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 05:13:44 -0000, ymoharir <ymoharir wrote:

>

>

> advaitin, K Kathirasan <brahmasatyam@g...>

> wrote:

> > Namaste Nairji,

> >

> >

> This verse shows the contrast of the previous verses which indeed

> point towards Brahmaloka. The implication is that the previous

> Sadhanas do not bring the seeker to him (Self). Hope this helps.

> <<<

>

> Namaste Kathir-Ji:

>

> Could you please elaborate on this.

>

> At face value to me this is "dvaita" position.

>

> You/we/us are all part of the same brahman, one just need to realize

> that through individual (vyavahaarikaa level) saadhanaa.

>

> My apologies for not having read the complete thread or I am missing

> something !!

>

> Thank you,

>

> Dr. Yadu

>

>

> Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

> Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

> To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

> Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

>

> Links

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste All.

 

Thanks for the reference provided by Shree Sunder

Rajan Ji.

>The Question of the Importance of Samadhi in Modern

>and Classical Advaita Vedanta

>By Michael Comans, Ph.D.

 

http://www.realization.org/page/doc2/doc200.html

 

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

 

I read the conclusion part a little bit and

from what I read, it does not seem to offer much

from what was already discussed in this thread.

 

It says that during the early Upanishad days,

no one talked about Samadhi.

 

Well, no one talked about what was obvious

in those days.Most people in the satya-yuga

were with brahma-c and there was no need to

talk about what was self-evident.

 

Everyone knew it and samadhi was just a natural

extension. Later, this became a precious

commodity and what was natural started becoming

precious and hence we can see its reference in

Upanishads of later age as well as Gita.

 

By the way, karma-yoga principles are also not

present in the Upanishads as well as Bhakti(excluding

yagna and such physical aspects; bhakti like the kind

mentioned in narada-sutras missing in upanishads)...I

guess, for the same reason.

 

This is my guess anyway, and could be all wrong.

 

Love & Regards,

Raghava

 

______________________

India Matrimony: Find your partner online.

http://.shaadi.com/india-matrimony/

[Guest guest]

Namaste all,

 

who, other than Brahman get the benefit from deep

sleep...Samadhi....Meditation.....eating......breathing.....walking...

...working.....reading......talking........?

 

 

thank you all for all this great actions.....

 

much love

 

Marc

[Guest guest]

Namaste Raghava-ji

>>

> It says that during the early Upanishad days,

> no one talked about Samadhi.

>

> Well, no one talked about what was obvious

> in those days.Most people in the satya-yuga

> were with brahma-c and there was no need to

> talk about what was self-evident.

>

> Everyone knew it and samadhi was just a natural

> extension.

>>

You make a very good point, Sri Raghava-ji. I did read

the article about 2-3 years ago and my impression was it was a very

good article, well researched and excellent topic for a Academic

Thesis. (I understand this article is from the authors' thesis - I

could be wrong).

 

Just a cautionary note about Academic research..As we all know, in

academic research, one thesis or theory could be replaced by another

sooner or later. One day Wine drinking is deemed bad for your health

by a research report, next report will prove it is good for your

blood pressure and so on and so forth. Heaven forbid if a Sadhaka

should make any determination about Sadhana based on a thesis or

Academic research!.

 

Couple of observations from the article itself :

1.

>>

The first point to be noted is that the word samadhi does not occur

in the ten major Upanisads upon which Sankara has commented.

>>

I am not a Scholar and others in this forum can verify if this is

true or not. Assuming it is true, one important point to remember is

that the word Yoga itself means Samadhi. That being the case should

the Upanishads mention 'Samadhi' explicitly each time they refer to

Samadhi?

 

 

Here is an example: I quoted from the katha Up mantra 'yadaa

paJNchaavatishhThante GYaanaani manasaa saha' in this post

http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m25015.html

 

While the Upanishad does not explicitly say Samadhi here, it is

clear from Sankara's use of the word Avashtha (state or condition)

and the Upanishad's use of the term 'Highest Yoga' Samadhi is

clearly meant here.

 

Such being the case, the term Yoga (=Samadhi) is used in the major

upanishads in a large number of places. This will nullify Dr. Comans

argument

 

2.

>>Contemplation on the Self is obviously a part of Sankara's

teaching, but his contemplation is directed toward seeing the ever

present Self as free from all conditionings rather than toward the

attainment of nirvikalpasamadhi. This is in significant contrast to

many modem Advaitins for whom all of the Vedanta amounts to "theory"

which has its experimental counterpart in yoga "practice." I suggest

that their view of Vedanta is a departure from Sankara's own

position.

>>

If by later day advaitins, Dr. Comans is merely referring to

Scholars then the argument may be true. But self-realized Jnanis

like Sri Ramana Maharishi were speaking directly from their own

Anubhava. In many cases, Jnanis had never read any of the scriptures

or texts of Advaita before their own realization and only found out

later that the scriptural declarations were in full conformity with

their own anubhava.

 

And many such Jivanmuktas fully endorse the role of Nirvikalpa

Samadhi as we have seem from the previous posts. Once again, Dr.

Cowans argument doesn't hold water.

 

regards

Sundar Rajan

 

 

advaitin, Raghavarao Kaluri

<raghavakaluri> wrote:

> Namaste All.

>

> Thanks for the reference provided by Shree Sunder

> Rajan Ji.

> >The Question of the Importance of Samadhi in Modern

> >and Classical Advaita Vedanta

> >By Michael Comans, Ph.D.

>

> http://www.realization.org/page/doc2/doc200.html

>

> -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -

>

> I read the conclusion part a little bit and

> from what I read, it does not seem to offer much

> from what was already discussed in this thread.

>

> It says that during the early Upanishad days,

> no one talked about Samadhi.

>

> Well, no one talked about what was obvious

> in those days.Most people in the satya-yuga

> were with brahma-c and there was no need to

> talk about what was self-evident.

>

> Everyone knew it and samadhi was just a natural

> extension. Later, this became a precious

> commodity and what was natural started becoming

> precious and hence we can see its reference in

> Upanishads of later age as well as Gita.

>

> By the way, karma-yoga principles are also not

> present in the Upanishads as well as Bhakti(excluding

> yagna and such physical aspects; bhakti like the kind

> mentioned in narada-sutras missing in upanishads)...I

> guess, for the same reason.

>

> This is my guess anyway, and could be all wrong.

>

> Love & Regards,

> Raghava

>

>

___________________

___

> India Matrimony: Find your partner online.

http://.shaadi.com/india-matrimony/

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Raghavaji,

> Well, no one talked about what was obvious

> in those days.Most people in the satya-yuga

> were with brahma-c and there was no need to

> talk about what was self-evident.

>

> Everyone knew it and samadhi was just a natural

> extension. Later, this became a precious

> commodity and what was natural started becoming

> precious and hence we can see its reference in

> Upanishads of later age as well as Gita.

 

The Vedas (including the Upanishats) are not composed by any human being

(apourusheyam). The Vedas are eternal and hence have no beginning or end in

time. In other words, they where not composed in Satya-yuga, nor in any

other yuga for that matter. Accordingly, they do not express the standpoints

specific of earlier yugas.

 

Warmest regards

Stig Lundgren

[Guest guest]

Dear Sundarji,

> Just a cautionary note about Academic research..As we all know, in

> academic research, one thesis or theory could be replaced by another

> sooner or later. One day Wine drinking is deemed bad for your health

> by a research report, next report will prove it is good for your

> blood pressure and so on and so forth. Heaven forbid if a Sadhaka

> should make any determination about Sadhana based on a thesis or

> Academic research!.

 

The author of the article, PhD Michael Comans, is not only an academican but

also a disciple of Swami Dayananda Saraswati. He is very well versed in

Vedanta, Sanskrit and Hindu dharma. His views can not be dispersed of just

because he is an academican. And even if he was only an academican we could

not just vipe away his standpoints just because of that.

 

Warmest regards

Stig Lundgren

[Guest guest]

Dear Stig-ji,

> Dear Sundarji,

>

> > Just a cautionary note about Academic research..As we all know,

in

> > academic research, one thesis or theory could be replaced by

another

> > sooner or later. One day Wine drinking is deemed bad for your

health

> > by a research report, next report will prove it is good for your

> > blood pressure and so on and so forth. Heaven forbid if a Sadhaka

> > should make any determination about Sadhana based on a thesis or

> > Academic research!.

>

> The author of the article, PhD Michael Comans, is not only an

academican but

> also a disciple of Swami Dayananda Saraswati. He is very well

versed in

> Vedanta, Sanskrit and Hindu dharma. His views can not be dispersed

of just

> because he is an academican. And even if he was only an academican

we could

> not just vipe away his standpoints just because of that.

>

> Warmest regards

> Stig Lundgren

 

Thanks for the clarification and illuminating the context.

 

Please note that I was the one who posted the article (link) here :-

) and there was no attempt to vipe away his views or anything like

that.

 

The cautionary note was mainly about Academic research and Sadhana.

There was no attempt to disregard his view point as I did take up

couple of points from his article and responded to it briefly.

 

Since there is similarity between some of Bhaskar-ji's views and

Dr.Cowans article I will take them up further at a later time.

 

regards

Sundar Rajan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Stig-Ji:

 

The "KNOWLEDGE" in Veda is eternal and that is what makes them

eternal.

 

Vedavyaasa says manuSya kurute tattu yanna shakyaM suraasurai.

Menaing - What humans can do is not possible for Gods or asuraas

either.

 

Vedavyasa was a great proponent of self reliance that is why he had

proposed what is known as "paaNivaada"

 

By declaring that Veda as being "apauruSheya" one start accepting

them at face value. It is unfortunate that we fail to understand the

knowledge encompassed within those wonder "suktaas" composed by many-

many seers and often even refuse to evaluate their validity and thus

place emphasis on recitation rather than the meaning expressed within

those mantras.

 

In this regard patan~jala yoga shaastra tell us or rather warns us

not to do the mechanical recitations but to try and realize their

meaning. "tajjapastadarthabhaavanam" || samaadhi paada 1.28 ||

 

It is said naisha sthaaNoraraparaadho yadenmadho na paSya.nti sa

puruShaaparaadhaa sa bhavati.

 

Meaning - It is not the fault of the pillar that a blind man does not

see it.

 

Advaita has given us the most important tool to carry out such

evaluation, VIZ. "neti-neti" helps one realize the "TRUTH". That

is why advaita comes closest to science because science is always

challenging the existing knowledge to realize the truth. I like to

call it "A fishing expedition of truth."

 

IMHO -That is what is saadahnaa is all about and that has to be at

individual level.

 

The knowledge is eternal because it still applies even today only if

we try to understand the principles involved rather than

concentrating on the end point. saadhanaa can only become successful

when one realizes what something is said? Concentrating on what and

academic discussion from a biased perspective rarely revels the

truth. It just becomes the "jalpa".

 

With kind Regards,

 

Dr. Yadu

 

 

advaitin, "Stig Lundgren" <slu@b...> wrote:

> Dear Sri Raghavaji,

>

>

> The Vedas (including the Upanishats) are not composed by any human

being

> (apourusheyam). The Vedas are eternal and hence have no beginning

or end in

> time. In other words, they where not composed in Satya-yuga, nor in

any

> other yuga for that matter. Accordingly, they do not express the

standpoints

> specific of earlier yugas.

>

> Warmest regards

> Stig Lundgren

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shree Stig-Ji,

 

Thanks for giving an opportunity to clarify.

 

Shree Stig-Ji's reply

http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m25058.html

 

Dr. Yadu's reply

http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m25061.html

 

Raghava:-

> Well, no one talked about what was obvious

> in those days.Most people in the satya-yuga

> were with brahma-c and there was no need to

> talk about what was self-evident.

>

> Everyone knew it and samadhi was just a natural

> extension. Later, this became a precious

> commodity and what was natural started becoming

> precious and hence we can see its reference in

> Upanishads of later age as well as Gita.

 

Shree Stig-Ji:-

The Vedas (including the Upanishats) are not composed

by any human being(apourusheyam). The Vedas are

eternal and hence have no beginning or end in

time. In other words, they where not composed in

Satya-yuga, nor in any other yuga for that matter.

Accordingly, they do not express the standpoints

specific of earlier yugas.

 

 

Raghava:-

Firstly, we have to appreciate the insights provided

by

Dr.Michael Comans, which I forgot to mention in my

previous post.

 

While the essence of the vedas including the dhwani

are eternal, certain things are relative, for example,

the kingdoms, ashrams, those who acted as kings, those

who acted as Sages, etc etc.

Except for the eternity in the vedas,

none of them are present this day in the same form.

 

A simple test of eternity, borrowed from Swami

Vivekananda from another context is,

"it should remain in the same form in spite of

everything else". I hope I am applying it correctly

here.

 

The division of the eternal vedas was itself

done in dwapara-yuga by Krishna-dvaipayana (Veda

vyasa).

 

In my guess, during earlier times,

most people were themselves centres of the

entire eternal knowledge and there was no

need to write it down formally and

divide it so that people may

recite and remember smaller parts.

 

Veda-vyasa may have concluded that, slowly,

due to the inevitable collective influence of adharma

becoming dominant in the name of kali-purusha, the

light must nevertheless continue and hence may have

taken necessary steps to pass on from one generation

to the next by assigning specific veda to a specific

guru/family. Thereafter, learning a person's

svadharma-veda was mandatory and this continues

to this date somewhat.

 

Love & Regards,

Raghava

 

______________________

India Matrimony: Find your partner online.

http://.shaadi.com/india-matrimony/