Intellectual understanding vs direct realization?

January 20, 2005

Humble praNAms Sri Sunder Hattangadi prabhuji

Hare Krishna

It always gives me great pleasure whenever I hear from your goodself

prabhuji.

SH prabhuji:

It would be desirable to study these statements in the context

of other verses in the Gita also: for example:

dhyaanenaatmani pashyanti kechidaatmaanamaatmanaa .

anye saaN^khyena yogena karmayogena chaapare .. 13\-25..

[by meditation some perceive the Self in the self by the self; others

by the path of knowledge, and still others by the path of works.]

(Anandagiri comments that the first is the uttama-adhikari, the second

madhyama, and third manda)

bhaskar :

Thanks a lot for this very important quote prabhuji. Kindly allow me to

check shankara bhAshya on the same. I vaguely remember that I've discussed

this verse with my guruji particularly the word sAnkhya coz. I remember

shankara defines here what exactly the term *sAnkhya* mean here...I think

shankara says here sAnkhya yOgi see all the three gUNa-s as *viShaya* by

considering him as sAkshi without identifying himself with prakruti janita

guNa-s...Anyway I'll check up & come back prabhuji.

SH prabhuji:

It should also be pointed out that Badarayana sutras were

written several centuries before Patanjali, and the refutation of yoga

referred to therein does not obviously refer to Patanjali Yoga Sutras.

bhaskar :

What type of yOga shAstra has been refuted in bAdarAyaNa sUtra prabhuji??

Anyway, as you know both sAnkhya & yOga (patanjali or otherwise) schools

are dvaita darshna schools (not precisely mAdhva's school of dvaita)

shankara clearly says this in sUtra bhAshya that *dvaitinO hi tE sAnkhya

yOgAscha na Atma yEkatva darshinaH* etc. (dont know the exact

reference)..prabhuji do you think philosophy of pAtanjala yOga sUtra is

shankara's advaita darshana of yEkAtma pratyaya sAra??

SH prabhuji:

Even there, Shankara categorically states (Brahma Sutra Bhashya 2:1:3)

that he accepts all of Sankhya and Yoga that are in accord with the

Shrutis. His refutation is strictly limited to that which is not in

accord.

bhaskar :

Yes you are absolutely right prabhuji, I've also pointed out this in one of

my mails to Sri CN prabhuji...*paramataM apratiShiddhaM anumataM bhavati*

says shankara...But this does not anyway mean dvaita shAstra-s like sAnkya

& yOga are shankara's advaita on 1:1 basis..

SH prabhuji:

(There is a Marathi book, Patanjala Yoga Darshana, by Shri. K.

Kolhatkar, of 700 pages. The Introduction (270 pages) is a masterly

analysis of the confusion caused by the neglect of historical data,

and how in fact Patanjali's approach is in full accord with Shankara

advaita.)

bhaskar :

Oh!! thats very interesting prabhuji...if your precious time permits kindly

do write something about it prabhuji..that would be of great help to

reconcile dvaita yOga with shankara's advaita.

SH prabhuji:

With reference to other messages, the assertion that

Vivekachudamani has 'diluted' the 'pure Shankara vedanta' would have

been palatable if Sw. Chandrashekhara Bharati (Sringeri Mathadhipati

1912-1954) himself had abstained from writing a commentary on it!

bhaskar :

prabhuji, I am afraid it is not quite necessary to accept that VC is

shankara's genuine work just because H.H. Sri ChandrashEkhara bhArati

written commentary on it...so is the case with Sri mahAperiyAr's ( H.H. Sri

ChandrashekharEndra Saraswathi) commentary on Saundarya lahari...These two

great Acharyas have the intention of teaching some practical sAdhana-s to

saMpradAya followers...I earnestly think they have not given greater care

to determine the authorship of these two prakaraNa grantha-s. For that

matter prabhuji, my parama guruji HH Sri SatchidAnandEndra Saraswati too

has written an elaborated commentary on VC, but while doing so, he took the

authoship issue in detail & openly discussed it.

In anyway, it was not the intention of my swamiji to belittle the efficacy

of VC.

At the very beginning in introduction as said earlier my swamiji clearly

says VC is a

*must read* grantha for any sincere advaita vedanta follower. What swamiji

has tried to convey to his readers here is *blind acceptance* of authorship

of these

granthas. No need to mention, subjective attachment to authorship of these

prakaraNa granthas prevents us from doing objective investigation.

I had roughly translated my swamiji's observation on authorship of VC in

advaita-L list when this issue was discussing..Unfortunately I could not

able to trace it out from the archieves...

Sri Stig Lundgren prabhuji had written some valuable information on this

issue...with his kind permission I am reproducing the same here below :

// quote //

Although one of the very popular books within the Advaita tradition,

Vivekachudamani was most likely not composed by Adi Shankara. There are

numerous facts that indicate this. Dr. A. J. Alston says the following in

the notes to his translation of the work:

"On grounds of style and terminology, it is thought today to have been

composed by some outstanding Advaitic author who lived some centuries after

the great Shankara of the commentaries. The last verse [of

Vivekachudamani], which attributes the work to "Shankara", can hardly have

been composed by Shankara himself, as it was not his practice elsewhere to

name himself at the conclusion of a work. Amongst the considerable number

of terms used in the work that are not found in Shankara´s commentaries, we

might refer to the "powers of concealment and projection" attributed to

Ignorance (verses 110 to 117), the latter conceived as a kind of entity

wielding them, a conception found in Shankara´s contemporary Mandana

Mishra, but not found in his own commentaries.

In Shankara´s one independent work of known authenticity, the Upadesha

Sahasri, the terminology does not stray beyond that found in the

commentaries. The tone is fully as lofty as that of the Viveka-Chudamani,

but cooler: references to the "bliss" of the Absolute, which occur in

nearly a fifth of the verses of the Viveka-Chudamani, are sparse [...] The

proliferation of different metres in which the Vivieka-Chudamani is

composed is uncharacteristic of Shankara and his contemporaries, recalling

rather Sarvajnatma Muni or the logican Udayana, who belonged to a later

age. The date and authorship of the Viveka-Chudamani are in fact not known,

but the style and flavour of the work often recall the Yoga Vashistha.

Verse 431 is manifestly a quotation of verse 3.9.12 of that work. The Yoga

Vasishta is known from its references to kings of Kashmir to have been

composed towards the end of the tenth century." (The Crest Jewel of Wisdom

attributed to Shri Shankaracharya, commentary by Hari Prasad Shastri,

translated by A J Alston, p.297).

Natalia Isayeva apparently came to the same conclusions. In her book

Shankara and Indian Philosophy she claims that while Shankara´s authorship

of Upadesha Sahasri is firmly established, this is not the case regarding

some other works. Isayeva writes: "Far less probable is Sankara´s

authorship of other short treatises: Viveka-cudamani, Atma-bodha [...]".

(p.98)

Moreover, in the introduction to his book on Vivekacudamani, Swami

Dayananda Saraswati says: "Even though the modern scholars have difficulty

in accepting the authorship of Sankara for this book, in the teaching

tradition of Sankara the book is used as a text for initial study. I don´t

think we lose anything even if the authorship is attributed to any other

Sankaracarya of one of the various Sankara-mathas." (Swami Dayananda,

Vivekacudamani: Talks on 108 selected verses, p.1.) Swami Dayananda´s

doubts regarding the authorship are shared and emphazised by his disciple,

Dr Michael Comans. In The Method of Early Advaita Vedanta, Comans says the

follwing regarding his book: "I have not relied at all on any works where

there is considerable uncertainity concerning authorship, such as the

popular, but post-Sankara, Vivekacudamani." (p.xii)

The authorship of Vivekachudamani is discussed also by Swami

Satchidanandendra Saraswati in his monumental work The Method of Vedanta.

Swami Satchidanandendra clearly refutes the idea that Vivekachudamani is a

work of Sankara, and he even have made an attempt to identify the actual

author. Swami Satchidanandendra writes: "It [Vivekachudamani] follows a

different poetical style from that of the revered Commentator [sankara]. It

frequently uses technical expressions not found in the Upanishads, Brahma

Sutras and Gita, expressions which only became common in post-Sankara

works. It quotes as authoritative works such as the Yoga Vasistha and Suta

Samhita, which are nowhere quoted by the revered Commentator [sankara]. All

this shows that it was not a work of Bhagavatpada / .../ it follows the

Gita Tatparyabodhini in style and all other points, and is a work of Sri

Sankarananda." (p.22)

Some further information: Sankarananda lived sometime in the 13th-14th

centuries and was not, by the way, a Sankaracarya of any of the four

mathas.

// unquote //

prabhuji, kindly pardon me if I am unnecessarily stretching this issue.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

January 20, 2005

praNAms Sri Raghava prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Raghava prabhuji:

While negation is an act, as stated, revealation is not.

Now, concentrate on negating the anAtma vastu.

What is important here is the negation of anAtma and not how.

bhaskar :

But this *how to do anAtma (anitya) vastu vivEka* also explained by

shankara while commenting on the very firt sUtra of vEdAnta sUtra...Kindly

refer his comment on the word *aTha* & his suggestion about sAdhana

chatushtaya..

Raghava prabhuji:

As long as negation is done in a dharmic way, it does

not matter how it is negated because of (point#a)

having no bearing on Atma-JnAna.

This negation, the Gita says, can be done in 4 ways

and dhyAna yOga is one of them.

If you had concluded on (a) yourself, why would you

reject something that comes under the purview of (a),

prabhuji, while this neti-neti method of dhyAna yOga

is used to negate anAtma vastu thereby facilitating

Atma jnAna.

bhaskar :

prabhuji kindly note I am not rejecting anything that has been prescribed

for mental purification (antaHkaraNa shuddhi)..what I am saying here is the

means are not an end in itself but helps us to purify our mind & prepares

us to realise the highest truth intuitively...And this intuition should be

based on sArvatrika anubhava (universal experience) and definitely not the

product of some individual's unique experience of some mystic trance

(asaMprajnata or nirvikalpa samAdhi)..karma yOga is bahiranga sAdhana &

dhyanAdi yOgAnusandhAna mostly aimed towards antaranga sAdhana

With Love,Regards,

Raghava

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

January 21, 2005

Namaste All.

Raghava:-

While negation is an act, as stated, revealation is

not.

Now, concentrate on negating the anAtma vastu.

What is important here is the negation of anAtma and

not how.

Shree Bhaskar:-

But this *how to do anAtma (anitya) vastu vivEka* also

explained by shankara while commenting on the very

firt sUtra of vEdAnta sUtra...Kindly refer his comment

on the word *aTha* & his suggestion about sAdhana

chatushtaya..

Raghava's reply:-

You had missed the most important aspect in my reply,

prabhuji by neglecting the 'dharma' aspect in the

above part, which I had mentioned in my reply.

sAdhana chatushtaya automatically becomes a part and

parcel for one who follows dharma. When Lord Rama was

about to go to the forests, the only advice his mother

Kausalya gave was', 'dharmo rakshati rakshitaha',

meaning 'protect dharma and dharma will protect you'.

Following of dharma ensures that one goes on the

correct path always.

All other yogas and life-styles and methods,sadhana,

etc all depened on this one single thing, prabhuji.

- - - - - - - - - - -

Shree Bhaskar-ji :

prabhuji kindly note I am not rejecting anything that

has been prescribed

for mental purification (antaHkaraNa shuddhi)..what I

am saying here is the

means are not an end in itself but helps us to purify

our mind & prepares

us to realise the highest truth intuitively...And this

intuition should be

based on sArvatrika anubhava (universal experience)

and definitely not the

product of some individual's unique experience of some

mystic trance

(asaMprajnata or nirvikalpa samAdhi)..karma yOga is

bahiranga sAdhana &

dhyanAdi yOgAnusandhAna mostly aimed towards antaranga

sAdhana

Raghava's reply:-

Why do you say that dhyana-yoga conveyed by the Lord

in the gita is a product of some individual's unique

experience and not sArvatrika anubhava (universal

experience), prabhuji.

Best regards,

Raghava

______________________

India Matrimony: Find your partner online.

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

January 21, 2005

praNAm Sri Raghava prabhuji

Hare Krishna

I am afraid, I've become garrulous nowadays...pardon me for taking this

farther ...my final attempt anyway...

Raghava's prabhuji's reply:-

You had missed the most important aspect in my reply,

prabhuji by neglecting the 'dharma' aspect in the

above part, which I had mentioned in my reply.

sAdhana chatushtaya automatically becomes a part and

parcel for one who follows dharma. When Lord Rama was

about to go to the forests, the only advice his mother

Kausalya gave was', 'dharmo rakshati rakshitaha',

meaning 'protect dharma and dharma will protect you'.

Following of dharma ensures that one goes on the

correct path always.

All other yogas and life-styles and methods,sadhana,

etc all depened on this one single thing, prabhuji.

bhaskar :

All are fine & fit in dharma jignAsa...but there is a difference between

dharma jignAsa & brahman jignAsa prabhuji...dharma is according to shankara

based on agnihOtrAdi karma pradhAna anga...not necessarily required &

indispensable when one doing brahma jignAsa. After qualifying in sAdhana

chatushtaya one can do brahma jignAsa directly...dharma is vEda vihita

karmAnushtAna which is purusha tantra..alpamAtrasya dharmasya trAyatE

mahatObhayAn, svadharmE nidhanaM shrEyaH etc. are aimed towards

dharmAnushTAna..shankara in the very first sUtra *aThAtho brahma jignAsa*

clearly classified what is dharma jignAsa & what is brahma jignAsa & what

will be the fruits of these two & its differences etc. He says

dharmabrahma jignAsayOH phalajignAsya bhEdAccha etc. etc.

Shree Bhaskar-ji :

prabhuji kindly note I am not rejecting anything that

has been prescribed

for mental purification (antaHkaraNa shuddhi)..what I

am saying here is the

means are not an end in itself but helps us to purify

our mind & prepares

us to realise the highest truth intuitively...And this

intuition should be

based on sArvatrika anubhava (universal experience)

and definitely not the

product of some individual's unique experience of some

mystic trance

(asaMprajnata or nirvikalpa samAdhi)..karma yOga is

bahiranga sAdhana &

dhyanAdi yOgAnusandhAna mostly aimed towards antaranga

sAdhana

Raghava prabhuji's reply:-

Lord

in the gita is a product of some individual's unique

experience and not sArvatrika anubhava (universal

experience), prabhuji.

bhaskar :

prabhuji I've not said dhyAna yOga perse an unique thing..I said the dhyAna

yOga's resultant asamprajnathA samAdhi & subtle powers (gupta siddhi-s like

aNima, garima, laghima, prApti, prAkAmya etc.) as one can find in yOga

sUtra-s are unique & purely based on individual's experience... dhyAna

yOga, svasvarUpAnusaNdhAna, ahaMgrahOpAsana etc. as sAdhana part are very

much required as a antaranga sAdhana for purification of the mind...

prabhuji, I shall stop here & I'd agree whatever you are going to say on

this...

Best regards,

Raghava

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

January 21, 2005

Namaste All.

Shree BhaskarJi stated:-

All are fine & fit in dharma jignAsa...but there is a

difference between

dharma jignAsa & brahman jignAsa prabhuji...dharma is

according to shankara

based on agnihOtrAdi karma pradhAna anga...not

necessarily required &

indispensable when one doing brahma jignAsa. After

qualifying in sAdhana

chatushtaya one can do brahma jignAsa

directly...dharma is vEda vihita

karmAnushtAna which is purusha tantra..alpamAtrasya

dharmasya trAyatE

mahatObhayAn, svadharmE nidhanaM shrEyaH etc. are

aimed towards

dharmAnushTAna..shankara in the very first sUtra

*aThAtho brahma jignAsa*

clearly classified what is dharma jignAsa & what is

brahma jignAsa & what

will be the fruits of these two & its differences etc.

He says

dharmabrahma jignAsayOH phalajignAsya bhEdAccha etc.

etc.

Raghava's reply:-

dharma jignAsa does not have an independent existence,

prabhuji.

brahma jignAsa dictates dharma jignAsa. Always.

Otherwise, it would degenerate into adharma.

-----------

Raghava:-

Why do you say that dhyana-yoga conveyed by the Lord

in the gita is a product of some individual's unique

experience and not sArvatrika anubhava (universal

experience), prabhuji.

Shree BhaskarJi:-

prabhuji I've not said dhyAna yOga perse an unique

thing..I said the dhyAna

yOga's resultant asamprajnathA samAdhi & subtle powers

(gupta siddhi-s like

aNima, garima, laghima, prApti, prAkAmya etc.) as one

can find in yOga

sUtra-s are unique & purely based on individual's

experience... dhyAna

yOga, svasvarUpAnusaNdhAna, ahaMgrahOpAsana etc. as

sAdhana part are very

much required as a antaranga sAdhana for purification

of the mind...

Raghava's reply:-

The Lord states in gita 6:15 that dhyana-yoga is for

nirvana and not just for mind purification, prabhuji.

When the Lord himself states so, certainly what

he stated it not based on an individual's experience

but based on universal experience, prabhuji.

-------

Shree Bhaskarji:-

prabhuji, I shall stop here & I'd agree whatever you

are going to say on this...

Raghava's reply:-

Your posts are wonderful, your knowledge is vast and

you are a very nice person, prabhuji and thanks for

the wonderful posts.

Love and regards,

Raghava

______________________

India Matrimony: Find your partner online.

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

January 21, 2005

Namaste Bhaskarji,

Badarayana sutras refuted the Sankhya and Yoga as

existent at his time. Some other points may be considered:

It would be presumptuous to assert that Patanjali

knowingly re-introduced a refuted darshana.

Patanjali Yoga Sutra 1:1:3 [ tadA draShTuH

svarUpe.avasthAnam ] does not convey duality.

In the invocation prayer to Advaita Sampradaya,

Shankara's teacher, Sri Govindapada, is addressed as 'yogIndra'; in

what sense can this be construed?

I doubt if I shall be able to do justice to Sri

Kolhatkar's point by point, cogent arguments showing Patanjali's

adherence to the Advaita Sampradaya.

Re: Vivekachudamani, the point at issue was not of

authorship! The statement that it has 'diluted' Shankara advaita would

be a misrepresentation, if Sw. Chandrashekhara Bharati thought it

important enough to write a commentary on it.

Regards,

Sunder

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

>

> bhaskar :

>

> What type of yOga shAstra has been refuted in bAdarAyaNa sUtra

prabhuji??

> Anyway, as you know both sAnkhya & yOga (patanjali or otherwise) schools

> are dvaita darshna schools (not precisely mAdhva's school of dvaita)

> shankara clearly says this in sUtra bhAshya that *dvaitinO hi tE sAnkhya

> yOgAscha na Atma yEkatva darshinaH* etc. (dont know the exact

> reference)..prabhuji do you think philosophy of pAtanjala yOga sUtra is

> shankara's advaita darshana of yEkAtma pratyaya sAra??

>

> (There is a Marathi book, Patanjala Yoga Darshana, by Shri. K.

> Kolhatkar, of 700 pages. The Introduction (270 pages) is a masterly

> analysis of the confusion caused by the neglect of historical data,

> and how in fact Patanjali's approach is in full accord with Shankara

> advaita.)

>

> bhaskar :

>

> Oh!! thats very interesting prabhuji...if your precious time permits

kindly

> do write something about it prabhuji..that would be of great help to

> reconcile dvaita yOga with shankara's advaita.

>

> SH prabhuji:

>

> With reference to other messages, the assertion that

> Vivekachudamani has 'diluted' the 'pure Shankara vedanta' would have

> been palatable if Sw. Chandrashekhara Bharati (Sringeri Mathadhipati

> 1912-1954) himself had abstained from writing a commentary on it!

>

> bhaskar :

>

> prabhuji, I am afraid it is not quite necessary to accept that VC is

> shankara's genuine work just because H.H. Sri ChandrashEkhara bhArati

> written commentary on it...

January 22, 2005

Namaste Advaitins

> bhaskar :

>

> I am not devaluating the nirvikAla samAdhi nor vivEka chudAmaNi

prabhuji,

> Just I am trying to convey *nirvikalpa samAdhi* is not the pre-

requisite

> for attaining advaita paramArtha jnAna as you can find in vivEka

> chudAmaNI..

>

I am re-visiting this group after a long time and spotted this

thread that looked like 'deja vu' all over again. There are

arguments in traditional Advaita that *nirvikalpa samAdhi* IS the

pre-requisite. There was a active thread regarding Gita commentaries

for verses 6.21 - 6.25 that discussed this in detail.

Pl see http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m9235.html

Here is another response from the archives :

advaitin, "venkata subramanian" <venkat_advaita@r...>

wrote:

> I read an interesting discussion on Nirvikalpa Samadhi

experience.

>

> Can anyone show me as to where the revered Commentator has

advocated in his Prasthana Treya Bhashya, that such a

> N.Samadhi is essential for one to realize his true nature

>

> venkat_advaita@r...

Namaste

For an aspirant pursuing the path of Raja Yoga (Meditation),

Nirvikalpa Samadhi is definitely pointed as the final target to aim

for. As discussed in msg# 9277, the practicing yogi for the first

time perceives the atma like "a fruit in one's open palm" during

Nirvikalpa Samadhi. A bit like a mountain climber getting his first

real sight of Mt.Everest from the last and final base camp. Repeated

practice is enjoined till the experience becomes 'sahaja' or natural.

A fully realized person (Jnani) on the other hand is ever in his

true

nature, immersed in a ocean of bliss and doesn't need the experience

of Nirvikalpa Samadhi to remind him of his true nature.

Even though they don't need to, I have read that Jnanis may continue

(atleast from an outsiders point of view) to prefer and practice

whatever path that brought them to the goal. So a Jnani who had

practiced meditation before realization may continue to show a

liking

for Samadhi over vichara.

Sundar Rajan

January 22, 2005

Namaste Sunder-ji and Bhaskar-ji

I feel deja-vu all over again as the topic in this thread has been

discussed before, back in 2001 when I just joined this eGroup.

That Nirvikalpa Samadhi is a pre-requisite for perceiving the "Atman

like a fruit in one's palm" comes from both scriptural declarations

and practical experience of Great Yogis.

Commenting on the Gita verse starting with 'sukham atyantikam'

(6.21) , Sri Madhusudana Saraswati writes the following in His

commentary

=== Quote from Gudharta Deepika ==================

It is not possible to describe orally that bliss which arises in

the mind that is totally freed from defects through samadhi and is

absorbed in the Self. This Bliss that is such is then intuited by

the internal organ (Maitryani Upanishad 6.34)

'By the internal organ' means 'by the mind in which all the

modifications have been totally restrained'.

>> labdhva, obtaining; yam, which-by acquiring which Self-

attainment;

>> na > manyate, one does not think; that there is aparam, any

other;

>> laabham, acquisition; tatah adhikam, superior to that;

When the Self is realized whatever has to be accomplished stands

accomplished, and whatever has to be acquired stands acquired. Hence

there is nothing higher than the relization of the Self

(Apastamba Dharma Sutras, 1.22.2)

=== Quote from Gudharta Deepika ends ==================

Here are relevant verses describing Nirvikalpa Samadhi from

Sankara :

============ Quote from VivekaChudmani ==============================

When thus purified by continuous practice, the mind merges in

Brahman, then there is Nirvikalpa-samadhi, which brings about the

effortless experience of non-dual bliss (363)

Verse starting with Samadhinanana..

By this samadhi, there occurs the destruction of the know of

impressions, the annihilation of all one's actions and the

manifestation, without effort, of one's true nature, within and

without, everywhere and for ever (364)

(In the above verse Sankara clearly states that one's true nature is

manifested (experienced) in Nirvikalpa-samadhi )

Reflection on the Truth is a hundred times superior to hearing.

Meditation on the truth is a hundred thousand times greater than

reflection. Nirvikalpa-samadhi is infinitely superior to that (365)

============ Quote from VivekaChudmani ==============================

Adi Sankara clearly stated that the Atma is perceived in Nirvikalpa-

Samadhi in verse 364 of Vivekachudamani.

Next I would like to quote the following from the book "Yoga,

Enlightenment and Perfection" detailing the spiritual disciplines

practised by Sri Abhinava Vidyatheertha Mahaswamigal, 35th Pontiff

(Sankaracharya) of Sringeri Sarada Peetam. This narrative contains

His first experience of Nirvikalpa Samadhi (happened in 1935 when

the

Acharyal was about 18 years of age)

============ Quote from book =====================================

I reached My place of meditation on the hill around one and half

hours before sunset. Sitting in the siddhasana, I performed two

cycles of pranayama..(Acharyal then describes his meditation

technique on page 173. For sake of brevity I have continued the

narrative from page 174) 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.

After about two hours, the mind descended to the level of savikalpa-

samadhi and mild awareness of the distinction of the

concentrator ,concentration and the object of concentration

reappeared. 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. Gradually, I became

lightly aware of the body and of the build up of breathing that must

have almost totally stopped earlier.

When I opened My eyes, I could see the scene in front of Me and yet

did not see it, for I was quite indifferent to the apparent

diversity

rooted in names and forms. So clear was the realization that I was

of

the very nature of absolute existence that I apprehended nothing

whatsoever as existing apart from Me. Everything was like bubbles on

the ocean that was Myself. When I rose after some time, My body felt

light like cotton wool and as I walked down the hill, it seemed as

if

I were on a moving canoe.

After about an hour the apprehension, "I am the Supreme Brahman

other

than which there is nothing" stared to slowly weaken from being on

par with perceiving a fruit in one's open palm. However, even when

its attenuation stopped, it was much stronger than it had been when

I

had sat down to meditate.

=========== Quote ends ===========================================

Quoted from pages 173-176 of the book "Yoga, Enlightenment and

Perfection" detailing the spiritual disciplines practised by Sri

Abhinava Vidyatheertha Mahaswamigal, 35th Pontiff (Sankaracharya) of

Sringeri Sarada Peetam.

January 23, 2005

Namaste Bhaskarji,

HUmble praNAms Sri Sunder prabhuji

Hare Krishna

SH prabhuji:

Badarayana sutras refuted the Sankhya and Yoga as

existent at his time. Some other points may be considered:

It would be presumptuous to assert that Patanjali

knowingly re-introduced a refuted darshana.

bhaskar :

prabhuji you mean to say here pAtanjali has introduced an entirely new

stream of thoughts in yOga sUtra-s which are completely in line with

shankara's advaita siddhAnta as against yOga refuted by sUtrakAra &

bhAshyakAra prabhuji??

SH prabhuji:

Patanjali Yoga Sutra 1:1:3 [ tadA draShTuH

svarUpe.avasthAnam ] does not convey duality.

bhaskar :

As said earlier I am not very familiar with yOga sUtra-s..But as far as my

limited knowledge goes yOga of patanjali gives special emphasis on

vaiyuktika anubhava (individual experience) such as asaMprajnatha or

nirbIja samAdhi gained through forceful suppression of thoughts (chitta

vrutti nirOdha..I think this is the very first yOga sUtra)..whereas

shankara's philosophy endorses ONLY sarvatrika anubhava gained through

avasthA traya vivEka as enshrined in shruti vAkya-s. prabhuji, no need to

mention how shankara refutes this individual experience of kapila, kaNAda

in sUtra bhAshya for determining paramArtha jnAna.

SH prabhuji:

In the invocation prayer to Advaita Sampradaya,

Shankara's teacher, Sri Govindapada, is addressed as 'yogIndra'; in

what sense can this be construed?

bhaskar :

the word yOga has been described by shankara himself in his commentary on

gIta (IV chapter??? not sure) According to him yOga means jnAna niShTha

saNyAsa & sAdhana in kArma yOga..I humbly think it does not have anything

to do with ashtAnga yOga of patanjali!! kindly clarify ..

SH prabhuji:

I doubt if I shall be able to do justice to Sri

Kolhatkar's point by point, cogent arguments showing Patanjali's

adherence to the Advaita Sampradaya.

bhaskar :

Kindly let me know if there is any english / kannada translation available

of this work..prabhuji

SH prabhuji:

Re: Vivekachudamani, the point at issue was not of

authorship! The statement that it has 'diluted' Shankara advaita would

be a misrepresentation, if Sw. Chandrashekhara Bharati thought it

important enough to write a commentary on it.

bhaskar :

For advaita sAdhaka-s, yes VC is the good reference book as this contains

lot of practical suggestions for mental purification....But when compared

to shankara's prasthAna traya bhAshya, VC takes a drastic deviation from

shankara's mUla siddhAnta.

Regards,

Sunder

Humble praNAms onceagain

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

January 24, 2005

I am re-visiting this group after a long time and spotted this

thread that looked like 'deja vu' all over again. There are

arguments in traditional Advaita that *nirvikalpa samAdhi* IS the

pre-requisite. There was a active thread regarding Gita commentaries

for verses 6.21 - 6.25 that discussed this in detail.

praNAms Sunderrajan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

First clarify what is this *deja vu*

Since recently I had a relook into the bhAshya of Sri shankara on the same

chapter I can say the quoted verses donot justify the stand of pAtanjala's

nirvikalpa samAdhi yOga...It is more of jnAna based adhyAtma yOga as one

can find in kaTOpanishat..the yOga intended for those who would realise the

Atman as taught in vEdAnta. For those who identify themselves with external

anAtma vastu such as body, senses, mind intellect etc. the paramArtha jnAna

is a *hidden* secret covered up with the mAya which in turn projected by

avidyA. Those who naturally look within and concentrate the mind after

discriminating the nityAnitya vastu the *tattva* reveals itself without

much difficulty. The process of looking within and concentrating the mind

is what detailed in the dhyAna yOga in gIta..Some days back Sri Vaidhyanath

prabhuji had quoted the merging of grosser in the subtle like mering of

senses in the mind, mind in intellect etc. till with the *real* self.once

this merging process is over through nityAnitya vastu vivEka, when all

these apparent selves are realized to be merely appearances and finally

dissolved into the tattva of paramArtha which is the essence of all....The

jnAni realises that *sarvabhUtastha AtmAnam..sarvabhutAnicha

Atmani..Ikshate yOgayuktAtma sarvatra samadarShanaH...this seeing &

perception of samabhAva cannot fit into the bill of deliberately suppressed

mind activity wherein sAdhaka though experiencing paramAnanda in mystic

trance...krishna appreciates this yOgi as parama shrEShTa..by saying sa

yOgi paramOmataH...

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

January 24, 2005

Namaste All.

Shree Sundar Rajan Ji wrote:-

I am re-visiting this group after a long time and

spotted this thread that looked like 'deja vu' all

over again. There are arguments in traditional Advaita

that *nirvikalpa samAdhi* IS the pre-requisite. There

was a active thread regarding Gita commentaries for

verses 6.21 - 6.25 that discussed this in detail.

Pl see

http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m9235.html

Here is another response from the archives :

advaitin, "venkata subramanian"

<venkat_advaita@r...> wrote:

----

Raghava:-

Please see for an excellent observation by Shree Frank

Ji:-

http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m24311.html

Shree Frank Ji states,

"the past few years i've been periodically reading

various posts and generally the same classic questions

and doubts are predictably raised."

Among other things, it has 'Predictability' as well.

Best Regards,

Raghava

______________________

India Matrimony: Find your partner online.

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

January 24, 2005

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

>

> prabhuji you mean to say here pAtanjali has introduced an entirely new

> stream of thoughts in yOga sUtra-s which are completely in line with

> shankara's advaita siddhAnta as against yOga refuted by sUtrakAra &

> bhAshyakAra prabhuji??

*****************

Namaste Bhaskarji,

How could Badarayana have refuted Patanjali when the Yoga

Sutras did not exist then?

Why would Patanjali resurrect a system centuries later if the

Yoga had been refuted earlier?

**************

>

> SH prabhuji:

>

> Patanjali Yoga Sutra 1:1:3 [ tadA draShTuH

> svarUpe.avasthAnam ] does not convey duality.

>

> bhaskar :

>

> As said earlier I am not very familiar with yOga sUtra-s..But as far

as my

> limited knowledge goes yOga of patanjali gives special emphasis on

> vaiyuktika anubhava (individual experience) such as asaMprajnatha or

> nirbIja samAdhi gained through forceful suppression of thoughts (chitta

> vrutti nirOdha..I think this is the very first yOga sUtra)..whereas

> shankara's philosophy endorses ONLY sarvatrika anubhava gained through

> avasthA traya vivEka as enshrined in shruti vAkya-s. prabhuji, no

need to

> mention how shankara refutes this individual experience of kapila,

kaNAda

> in sUtra bhAshya for determining paramArtha jnAna.

>

> SH prabhuji:

>

> In the invocation prayer to Advaita Sampradaya,

> Shankara's teacher, Sri Govindapada, is addressed as 'yogIndra'; in

> what sense can this be construed?

>

> bhaskar :

>

> the word yOga has been described by shankara himself in his

commentary on

> gIta (IV chapter??? not sure) According to him yOga means jnAna niShTha

> saNyAsa & sAdhana in kArma yOga..I humbly think it does not have

anything

> to do with ashtAnga yOga of patanjali!! kindly clarify ..

*************

Gita Ch. 6, has enough verses to justify ashtanga yoga as a legitimate

approach.

The definitions for Yoga in the Gita are in verses : 2:48 and 50, and

6:23. Nowhere does Shankara bhashya mention your definition.

************************

>

> SH prabhuji:

>

> I doubt if I shall be able to do justice to Sri

> Kolhatkar's point by point, cogent arguments showing Patanjali's

> adherence to the Advaita Sampradaya.

>

> bhaskar :

>

> Kindly let me know if there is any english / kannada translation

available

> of this work..prabhuji

**************

As far as I know, neither has been done.

**************************

>

> SH prabhuji:

>

> Re: Vivekachudamani, the point at issue was not of

> authorship! The statement that it has 'diluted' Shankara advaita would

> be a misrepresentation, if Sw. Chandrashekhara Bharati thought it

> important enough to write a commentary on it.

>

> bhaskar :

>

> For advaita sAdhaka-s, yes VC is the good reference book as this

contains

> lot of practical suggestions for mental purification....But when

compared

> to shankara's prasthAna traya bhAshya, VC takes a drastic deviation from

> shankara's mUla siddhAnta.

>

*************

Not worth commenting on, or pursuing the argument.

***********

Regards,

Sunder

January 24, 2005

>

> Since recently I had a relook into the bhAshya of Sri shankara on

> the same

> chapter I can say the quoted verses donot justify the stand of

>pAtanjala's

>nirvikalpa samAdhi yOga...It is more of jnAna based adhyAtma yOga

> as one can find in kaTOpanishat..

......

Dear Bhaskar-ji

I am not a expert on Sankara Bhasya and do not want to speculate on

why Sankara did not make reference to Patanjali Yoga in His Bhasya.

But Great Advaitins like Sri Madhusudana Saraswati clearly make the

connection to Patanjali Yoga while commenting on the very same Gita

verses.

On verse 6.25 Gudharta Dipika says:

e.g.

'atma-samstham-manah krtva na kincidapi cintayet'

Krtva, making, with one's discriminating intelligence

dhrtigrhitaya, which is kept steady through perseverance

manah, the mind

atma-samstham, fixed in the self , (i.e) free from all kinds of

modifications, imbued only with the naturally existing form of the

self; (and oneself) remaining poised in asamprajnata-samadhi

na cintayet, one should not think

kincit api, of anything whatsoever, either of the non-slef or of the

self; he should not objectify it through a mental modification.

> realises that *sarvabhUtastha AtmAnam..sarvabhutAnicha

> Atmani..Ikshate yOgayuktAtma sarvatra samadarShanaH...this seeing &

> perception of samabhAva cannot fit into the bill of deliberately

suppressed

> mind activity wherein sAdhaka though experiencing paramAnanda in

mystic

> trance...krishna appreciates this yOgi as parama shrEShTa..by

> saying sa

> yOgi paramOmataH...

>

In commenting on the verse you mention above (6.29) Sri Madhusudana

Saraswati quotes Laghu Yoga Vasishta "

"O Raghava(Rama), Yoga and Vichara are the two processes for the

elemination of the mind. Yoga is indeed the restraint of

modifications of the mind, (and) vichara is the full visualization

of Reality. To someone Yoga is an impossibility; to someone else

Vichara is an impossibility! Therefore the supreme Lord Siva spoke

of the two processes"

So you can see that Sri Madhusudana Saraswati's commentary

contradicts your assessment:

> this seeing &

> perception of samabhAva cannot fit into the

> bill of deliberately suppressed

> mind activity

In 'Talks with Sri Ramana Maharishi', Maharishi says

"Yogas chitta vritti nirodhah - (Yoga is to check the mind from

changing) - which is acceptable to all. That is also the goal of

all. The method is chosen according to one's own fitness..." (page

418)

Sri Chandrasekhara Bharati Swamigal from the Great Sankara Lineage

of Sringeri says

"The mind becomes completely still(i.e., free from all thoughts)

only during deep sleep. But we cannot sleep always. We seek such

mental peace even while awake; and this is the aim of spirituality--

to still the mind completely so that we experience everlasting

peace, day and night, in all circumstances." (from the book Golden

Words)

The reference to Patanjali Yoga should be clear in the above quotes.

regards

Sundar Rajan

January 25, 2005

Humble praNAms Sri Sunder Hattangadi prabhuji

Hare Krishna

bhaskar :

>

> prabhuji you mean to say here pAtanjali has introduced an entirely new

> stream of thoughts in yOga sUtra-s which are completely in line with

> shankara's advaita siddhAnta as against yOga refuted by sUtrakAra &

> bhAshyakAra prabhuji??

SH prabhuji:

How could Badarayana have refuted Patanjali when the Yoga

Sutras did not exist then?

Why would Patanjali resurrect a system centuries later if the

Yoga had been refuted earlier?

bhaskar :

Kindly pardon my ignorance, still I am not clear whether pAtanjala yOga is

not one of the shaddarshana-s (sAnkhya, yOga, nyAya, vaiShEshika, pUrva &

uttara mImAmsa)..prabhuji, pAtanjala yOga darshna comes under which

category ?? Kindly clarify is it in uttara mImAmsa or vEdAnta & completely

in order with shankara philosophy??

SH prabhuji:

Gita Ch. 6, has enough verses to justify ashtanga yoga as a legitimate

approach.

bhaskar :

But shankara at the concluding portion of 5th Chapter of gIta bhAshya

clarifies how this yOga described in 6th chapter can be used as *antaranga

sAdhana* after karma yOga.

SH prabhuji:

The definitions for Yoga in the Gita are in verses : 2:48 and 50, and

6:23. Nowhere does Shankara bhashya mention your definition.

bhaskar :

It is really surprising to hear this from your goodself !!! prabhuji, I

said the term yOga has been described as *jnAna niShTa* saNyAsa by shankara

in the introduction to IV chapter..Kindly clarify what shankara meant by

saying the following :

yOyaM yOgaH adhyAya dvayEna ( Chapter 2 & 3 -sAnkhya & karma) uktaH

*jnAnaniShTa lakShNaH sanyAsaH*, karmayOgOpAyascha....gItAsu cha sarvAsu

*ayamEva* *yOgO* vivakShitaH bhagavatA...

prabhuji I would like to ask you why our AchArya saying here *jnAnaniSTa

lakShNa sanyAsa* is the ONLY (ayamEva) implied meaning when krishna says

the word yOga in the gIta..

>

> bhaskar :

>

> For advaita sAdhaka-s, yes VC is the good reference book as this

contains

> lot of practical suggestions for mental purification....But when

compared

> to shankara's prasthAna traya bhAshya, VC takes a drastic deviation from

> shankara's mUla siddhAnta.

>

SH prabhuji:

Not worth commenting on, or pursuing the argument.

bhaskar :

Its OK prabhuji...as you wish...but the point has been already conveyed

that VC's purports are not in line with shankara siddhAnta & authorship of

the same cannot categorically be ascribed to shankarabhagavadpAda when the

issue is still open in the traditional circle!!

Regards,

Sunder

Humble praNAms onceagain

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

January 25, 2005

Humble praNAms Sri Sunder Rajan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

SR prabhuji:

Dear Bhaskar-ji

I am not a expert on Sankara Bhasya and do not want to speculate on

why Sankara did not make reference to Patanjali Yoga in His Bhasya.

But Great Advaitins like Sri Madhusudana Saraswati clearly make the

connection to Patanjali Yoga while commenting on the very same Gita

verses.

bhaskar :

With all due respects to all great Acharya-s of post shankara period, I

would like to study advaita *as taught* by Shankara prabhuji...For me

shankara is the ultimate authority when it comes to any clarification with

regard to advaita siddhAnta...Since shankara bhAshya is very much available

for our ready reference why should we look for some other alternatives??

Before checking the other commentaries I'd like to get my doubts clarified

from the *ultimate authority* on the subject..

SR prabhuji:

On verse 6.25 Gudharta Dipika says:

bhaskar :

Thanks a lot for sharing this information with me prabhuji. If you see

shankara bhAshya on 6.25 to 28 it does not anyway talk about ashtAnga yOga

& inert state of nirvikalpa samAdhi (kindly note I dont see any valid

reason to mix this nirvikalpa samAdhi of patanjali with shankara's vikalpa

rahita manaH)..As said earlier it is more of adhyAtma yOga which is

strictly vEda vihita...*the merging* process in Atman is summarized here.

Here the yOgin is said to wash off all dross of foreign thoughts and come

into contact with brahman ( kindly refer brahma saMsparShamatyaNtaM

sukhamaSnute etc.) by way of constant practice. And the ultimate result of

this concentrated yOga practice (antaranga sAdhana)is the realisation of

the Atman as described in the shruti-s. What is that realisation bhagavan

says sarvabhutastha mAtmAnam etc...where is the question of sarva bhUta &

its perception with sama bhAva...when a yOgi sitting motionless in

nirvikalpa samAdhi??

bhaskar :

> realises that *sarvabhUtastha AtmAnam..sarvabhutAnicha

> Atmani..Ikshate yOgayuktAtma sarvatra samadarShanaH...this seeing &

> perception of samabhAva cannot fit into the bill of deliberately

suppressed

> mind activity wherein sAdhaka though experiencing paramAnanda in

mystic

> trance...krishna appreciates this yOgi as parama shrEShTa..by

> saying sa

> yOgi paramOmataH...

>

SR prabhuji:

In commenting on the verse you mention above (6.29) Sri Madhusudana

Saraswati quotes Laghu Yoga Vasishta "

"O Raghava(Rama), Yoga and Vichara are the two processes for the

elemination of the mind. Yoga is indeed the restraint of

modifications of the mind, (and) vichara is the full visualization

of Reality. To someone Yoga is an impossibility; to someone else

Vichara is an impossibility! Therefore the supreme Lord Siva spoke

of the two processes"

So you can see that Sri Madhusudana Saraswati's commentary

contradicts your assessment:

bhaskar :

My assessment is triggered from shankara bhAshya his clarification at the

end of 5th Chapter wherein he says yOga is antaranga sAdhana after karma

yOga & what yOga means jnAnaniShTa saNyAsa ..shankara did endorse

manOnigraha in mAndukya bhAshya for those who believe separate existence of

mana apart from Atman but the result of this nigraha is again not patanjala

yOga's nirvikalpa samAdhi it is again Atmaikatva vidya as advocated in

shrutis...Since yOga shAstra is a dvaita shAstra it has prakruti & purusha

bhEdha whereas advaita says prakrutE abhAvagamanaM ..there is no prakruti

as such & the ONLY reality is brahman..

prabhuji, I may be contradicting Sri madhusUdana saraswati...but I would be

more grateful if you point out if anywhere I am contradicting bhagavadpAda

himself....

bhaskar :

> this seeing &

> perception of samabhAva cannot fit into the

> bill of deliberately suppressed

> mind activity

SR prabhuji:

In 'Talks with Sri Ramana Maharishi', Maharishi says

"Yogas chitta vritti nirodhah - (Yoga is to check the mind from

changing) - which is acceptable to all. That is also the goal of

all. The method is chosen according to one's own fitness..." (page

418)

bhaskar :

I request any reference from shruti-s with regard to the quote that *chitta

vrutti nirOdha is the direct means to mOksha*..

SR prabhuji:

Sri Chandrasekhara Bharati Swamigal from the Great Sankara Lineage

of Sringeri says

"The mind becomes completely still(i.e., free from all thoughts)

only during deep sleep. But we cannot sleep always. We seek such

mental peace even while awake; and this is the aim of spirituality--

to still the mind completely so that we experience everlasting

peace, day and night, in all circumstances." (from the book Golden

Words) The reference to Patanjali Yoga should be clear in the above quotes.

bhaskar :

What does the last statement in the above para mean?? * in all

circumstances* not in a particular state of samAdhi..it is quite natural to

a jnAni ..that is because his realisation is that his svarUpa transcends

chitta vrutti-s & he is the tattva without the dirt of chitta vikshEpa...I

dont see patanjala yOga & *nirvikalpa samAdhi* here...

Anyway I know that Sri Chandrashekhara bhArati swamiji has written

commentary on VC & VC is the greatest source of study material for

*nirvikalpa samAdhi* followers.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

January 25, 2005

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

> Kindly pardon my ignorance, still I am not clear whether pAtanjala

yOga is

> not one of the shaddarshana-s (sAnkhya, yOga, nyAya, vaiShEshika,

pUrva &

> uttara mImAmsa)..prabhuji, pAtanjala yOga darshna comes under which

> category ?? Kindly clarify is it in uttara mImAmsa or vEdAnta &

completely

> in order with shankara philosophy??

*************

Namaste Bhaskarji,

According to R.D.Ranade (A Constructive Survey of Upanishadic

Philosophy), the separation of Sankhya, Yoga, and Vedanta began to

occur around the time of Shvetashvatara Upanishad. K. Kolhatkar makes

a strong case that Samkhya split into Nirishvara and Seshvara Samkhya,

and it is the latter which began to be known as Yoga. It was this Yoga

that Badarayana sutras referred to.

Patanjali, though not interested in metaphysical speculations,

(S. Radhakrishnan - A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy), compiled the

Yoga Sutras in conformity with the Upanishadic philosophy, according

to Kolhatkar. At this time Buddhism was also the dominant on the scene.

Thus strictly speaking Patanjala Yoga Sutras, even if

considered as one of the shad-darshanas, is only a practical aspect of

advaitic Vedantic teaching, bridging Seshvara Samkhya and Vedanta,

over-reaching the former.

Shankara refers to seven of his predecessors who had written

commentaries on the Brahma Sutras. If he wanted to refute Patanjala

Yoga he would have had no hesitation in mentioning him by name.

********************

>

> SH prabhuji:

>

> Gita Ch. 6, has enough verses to justify ashtanga yoga as a legitimate

> approach.

>

> bhaskar :

>

> But shankara at the concluding portion of 5th Chapter of gIta bhAshya

> clarifies how this yOga described in 6th chapter can be used as

*antaranga

> sAdhana* after karma yOga.

***************

This is no different tha what he also says in Gita 18:52 -

dhyAnayogaparaH dhyAnam AtmasvarUpachintanam, yogaH AtmaviShaye

ekAgrIkaraNam, exactly what Patanjali says!

******************

>

> SH prabhuji:

>

> The definitions for Yoga in the Gita are in verses : 2:48 and 50, and

> 6:23. Nowhere does Shankara bhashya mention your definition.

>

> bhaskar :

>

> It is really surprising to hear this from your goodself !!! prabhuji, I

> said the term yOga has been described as *jnAna niShTa* saNyAsa by

shankara

> in the introduction to IV chapter..Kindly clarify what shankara meant by

> saying the following :

>

> yOyaM yOgaH adhyAya dvayEna ( Chapter 2 & 3 -sAnkhya & karma) uktaH

> *jnAnaniShTa lakShNaH sanyAsaH*, karmayOgOpAyascha....gItAsu cha sarvAsu

> *ayamEva* *yOgO* vivakShitaH bhagavatA...

>

*************

Please read the Bhashya on Gita 5:4 also.

*********************************************

> prabhuji I would like to ask you why our AchArya saying here *jnAnaniSTa

> lakShNa sanyAsa* is the ONLY (ayamEva) implied meaning when krishna says

> the word yOga in the gIta..

>

****************

Gitacharya and Shankaracharya also say that nishkama karma /

sarvakarmaphalatyAga is equivalent to sanyasa.

*************************

Regards,

Sunder

January 27, 2005

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

>

> Humble praNAms Sri Sunder Rajan prabhuji

> Hare Krishna

>

> bhaskar :

>

> With all due respects to all great Acharya-s of post shankara

period, I

> would like to study advaita *as taught* by Shankara prabhuji...For

me

> shankara is the ultimate authority when it comes to any

clarification with

> regard to advaita siddhAnta...Since shankara bhAshya is very much

available

> for our ready reference why should we look for some other

alternatives??

> Before checking the other commentaries I'd like to get my doubts

clarified

> from the *ultimate authority* on the subject..

>

Namaste Bhaskar-ji,

I respect your viewpoint. Like yourself I also have great regard for

Sankara but differ from you in your opinion about the role of Yoga.

That there are two points of view that exist in this regard is

clear. Some of the great advaitins like Sri Madhusudana Saraswati

not only fully understood Sankara's position on Yoga but also were

able to illuminate the differences in their works.

Many consider Sri Madhusudana Saraswati's `Gudharta

Dipika' to be

second only to Sankara's commentary on the Gita in terms of

clarity, depth and originality. He expresses profound regard for

Sankara and discusses the two viewpoints as follows:

"O Raghava(Rama), Yoga and Vichara are the two processes for the

elemination of the mind. Yoga is indeed the restraint of

modifications of the mind, (and) vichara is the full visualization

of Reality. To someone Yoga is an impossibility; to someone else

Vichara is an impossibility! Therefore the supreme Lord Siva spoke

of the two processes"

'For the elemination of the mind' means 'for becoming oblivious of

its presence' as a result of separating from the Witness its

limiting adjunct, the mind. There are the two processes for that.

One is the asamprajnata-samadhi..

The second is the process of discrimination thus: 'The thing

witnessed, which is imagined on the Witness, does not exist at all,

because it is unreal. But the Witness, the absolute supreme Reality,

alone exists.'

Between these two, the first process was propounded by the followers

of Hiranyagarbha, who hold that creation is real. For in their case

it is not possible that there can be any method other than full

restraint (nirodha) for the visualization of the Witness by becoming

oblivious of the mind, which is a real entity.

But the followers of the Upanishads, who depend on the views of the

illustrious, holy and venerable Sankara and hold that creation is

unreal, accept only the second process. For in their case, when the

knowledge of the substratum becomes firm, the non-perception of the

sublated mind imagined on that (substratum) and also of the things

visualized by it (mind), becomes easily possible.

It is for this very reason that His Holiness the Venerable One

(Sankara) did not expound anywhere the necessity of Yoga for the

knowers of Brahman. Hence, indeed, for the realization of Brahman

the paramahansas (the highest type of sannyasins), who follow the

Upanishads, engage only in deliberating (vicara) on the Vedantic

sentences of the Vedas by approaching a teacher; but (they do) not

(engage in) Yoga, because, since the defects of the mind are removed

through vicara alone, it (Yoga) becomes superfluous. So it is

useless expatiating further on this.

- Gudharta Dipika v6.29 commentary (translated by Swami

Gambhirananda, Advaita Ashrama)

I posted this more as an insight into the two points of view than as

a direct response to Sri Bhaskar-ji.

regards

Sundar Rajan

February 1, 2005

Namaste Bhaskarji,

Humble praNAms Sri Sunder Hattangadi prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Kindly pardon me for the delay in response.

SH prabhuji:

According to R.D.Ranade (A Constructive Survey of Upanishadic

Philosophy), the separation of Sankhya, Yoga, and Vedanta began to

occur around the time of Shvetashvatara Upanishad. K. Kolhatkar makes

a strong case that Samkhya split into Nirishvara and Seshvara Samkhya,

and it is the latter which began to be known as Yoga. It was this Yoga

that Badarayana sutras referred to.

bhaskar :

I've couple of doubts here :

(a) Sri R.D. Ranade's observation that * At the time of Shvetashvatara

Upanishad*..is this upanishad not apauruShEya, anAdi shruti prabhuji??

shankara did very often quote famous maNtra from this *yEkO dEvaH sarva

bhUtEshu gUdAH* etc. So prabhuji, by the time of shankara's commentary this

separation was very much there.

(b) sEShvara sAnkhya is what to be known as pAtanjala yOga I believe!!

Because as far as I know pAtanjala does advocates the Ishvara & his adhIna

prakruti & existence of multiple jIva-s & their individual effort to attain

kartru tantra asamprajnata samAdhi.

SH prabhuji:

Patanjali, though not interested in metaphysical speculations, (S.

Radhakrishnan - A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy), compiled the

Yoga Sutras in conformity with the Upanishadic philosophy, according

to Kolhatkar. At this time Buddhism was also the dominant on the scene.

bhaskar :

Does it not talk about shad chakra-s, associated bIja mantra-s, adhi

dEvatas (presiding deities in every chakra & kundalini yOga etc. prabhuji??

SH prabhuji:

Thus strictly speaking Patanjala Yoga Sutras, even if

considered as one of the shad-darshanas, is only a practical aspect of

advaitic Vedantic teaching, bridging Seshvara Samkhya and Vedanta,

over-reaching the former.

bhaskar :

what exactly is the philosophical stand of pAtanjala yOga?? does it also

say brahman is yEkamEva advitIya satya prabhuji?? whats their stand on

prakruti & purusha rather Ishwara & prakruti?? prabhuji...pls. clarify...(

I kept my yOga sUtra book somewhere...Hence asking for your clarification).

SH prabhuji:

Shankara refers to seven of his predecessors who had written

commentaries on the Brahma Sutras. If he wanted to refute Patanjala

Yoga he would have had no hesitation in mentioning him by name.

bhaskar :

But as you might have noticed there is no mention of asamprajnatha or

prajnatha samAdhi in whole of prasthAna trayi bhAshya of shankara...Even in

kArika's asparSha yOga / manOnigraha yOga shankara hardly utters this word

in his commentary...

********************

>

> SH prabhuji:

>

> Gita Ch. 6, has enough verses to justify ashtanga yoga as a legitimate

> approach.

>

> bhaskar :

>

> But shankara at the concluding portion of 5th Chapter of gIta bhAshya

> clarifies how this yOga described in 6th chapter can be used as

*antaranga

> sAdhana* after karma yOga.

SH prabhuji:

***************

This is no different tha what he also says in Gita 18:52 -

dhyAnayogaparaH dhyAnam AtmasvarUpachintanam, yogaH AtmaviShaye

ekAgrIkaraNam, exactly what Patanjali says!

******************

bhaskar :

Thats very interesting observation prabhuji...which sUtra of patanjali

talks about it?? does pAtanjala speaks about vastu tantra & purusha tantra

jnAna also which shankara precisely bifurcate in bhAshya??

>

> SH prabhuji:

>

> The definitions for Yoga in the Gita are in verses : 2:48 and 50, and

> 6:23. Nowhere does Shankara bhashya mention your definition.

>

> bhaskar :

>

> It is really surprising to hear this from your goodself !!! prabhuji, I

> said the term yOga has been described as *jnAna niShTa* saNyAsa by

shankara

> in the introduction to IV chapter..Kindly clarify what shankara meant by

> saying the following :

>

> yOyaM yOgaH adhyAya dvayEna ( Chapter 2 & 3 -sAnkhya & karma) uktaH

> *jnAnaniShTa lakShNaH sanyAsaH*, karmayOgOpAyascha....gItAsu cha sarvAsu

> *ayamEva* *yOgO* vivakShitaH bhagavatA...

>

SH prabhuji:

*************

Please read the Bhashya on Gita 5:4 also.

*********************************************

bhaskar :

I'll check it out prabhuji...but kindly clarify what shankara exactly

conveying in the above bhAshya vAkya i.e. *jnAnaniShTa lakShNaH sanyAsaH*,

karmayOgOpAyascha....gItAsu cha sarvAsu *ayamEva* *yOgO* vivakShitaH

bhagavatA...I was bit worried when you said it is *nowhere* appearing in

shankara bhAshya!!!

> prabhuji I would like to ask you why our AchArya saying here *jnAnaniSTa

> lakShNa sanyAsa* is the ONLY (ayamEva) implied meaning when krishna says

> the word yOga in the gIta..

>

SH prabhuji:

****************

Gitacharya and Shankaracharya also say that nishkama karma /

sarvakarmaphalatyAga is equivalent to sanyasa.

*************************

bhaskar :

In shankara bhAshya as you know we can find 5 types of saNyAsa...niShkAma

or sarvakarmaphalatyAga is one of them...But does this anyway connected to

*yOga of pAtanjali* prabhuji?? kindly clarify.

Regards,

Sunder

Humble praNAms onceagain

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

February 1, 2005

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

>

Namaste Bhaskarji,

I shall bow out of this thread after this reply.

Being a 'mandatama adhikari', I can follow only the 'pipIlikA

mArga' of krama mukti through 'pravRitti mArga'. I still find it hard

to concede that the Holnarsipur School of Shuddha Shankara Advaita in

any way supercedes the Sringeri Sampradaya of 'Diluted' (or Deviant)

Shankara Advaita.

Patanjala Yoga Sutras form a 'prakriya shastra', not a 'prameya

shastra'. The prakriya is for the realization of the Self, the

jiva-ishvara or atma-brahma- aikya. It is futile to 'prove' that it is

a dualistic philosophy, for that is not its purpose. It is more

beneficial to know if the sutras can even intimate an advaitic

perspective. For this many sutras can be held up as examples. Just as

the 'prasthana-trayi' lends itself to different approaches, yoga

sutras may appear to do so too. However, one has to look into it for

its highest teaching. Even Shankara chose the ten Mukhya Upanishads to

prove the advaitic vision, though many other shrutis must have been

extant even in his time.

[For an advaitic vision in the Yoga Sutras one can cite:

I :3,7,8,16, 25-30, 35-40,, 47, 49

II : 5,6, 26, 28, 41, 45

III: 12,17, 55

IV : 18, 19, 26, 29, 31, 34.

In reponse to the points raised :

bhaskar :

I've couple of doubts here :

(a) Sri R.D. Ranade's observation that * At the time of Shvetashvatara

Upanishad*..is this upanishad not apauruShEya, anAdi shruti prabhuji??

shankara did very often quote famous maNtra from this *yEkO dEvaH sarva

bhUtEshu gUdAH* etc. So prabhuji, by the time of shankara's commentary

this

separation was very much there.

SH

>>>>>>>>>Vedas are infinite; many have been lost; many are revealed

over periods of time in the phenomenal world.

(b) sEShvara sAnkhya is what to be known as pAtanjala yOga I believe!!

Because as far as I know pAtanjala does advocates the Ishvara & his

adhIna prakruti & existence of multiple jIva-s & their individual

effort to attain kartru tantra asamprajnata samAdhi.

SH

>>>>>>>>>>>Your belief is slightly off the mark! (IMHO)

bhaskar :

Does it not talk about shad chakra-s, associated bIja mantra-s, adhi

dEvatas (presiding deities in every chakra & kundalini yOga etc.

prabhuji??

>>>>>>>>No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

bhaskar :

what exactly is the philosophical stand of pAtanjala yOga?? does it also

say brahman is yEkamEva advitIya satya prabhuji?? whats their stand on

prakruti & purusha rather Ishwara & prakruti?? prabhuji...pls. clarify...(

I kept my yOga sUtra book somewhere...Hence asking for your

clarification).

SH

>>>>>>>>>Patanjali Yoga Sutras are a prakriya shastra , not a prameya

shastra. The prakriya is for the jiva-ishvara-aikya.

bhaskar :

But as you might have noticed there is no mention of asamprajnatha or

prajnatha samAdhi in whole of prasthAna trayi bhAshya of

shankara...Even in

kArika's asparSha yOga / manOnigraha yOga shankara hardly utters this word

in his commentary...

SH

>>>>>>>>There is no mention of samAdhi in the 10 mukhya upanishads;

there is no mention of Ananda in Bhagavadgita; does that prove anything?!

bhaskar :

Thats very interesting observation prabhuji...which sUtra of patanjali

talks about it?? does pAtanjala speaks about vastu tantra & purusha

tantra jnAna also which shankara precisely bifurcate in bhAshya??

SH

>>>>>>>>Patanjali refers to avidya, mithya-jnana, adhyasa, svarupa.

> bhaskar :

>

> It is really surprising to hear this from your goodself !!! prabhuji, I

> said the term yOga has been described as *jnAna niShTa* saNyAsa by

shankara

> in the introduction to IV chapter..Kindly clarify what shankara meant by

> saying the following :

>

> yOyaM yOgaH adhyAya dvayEna ( Chapter 2 & 3 -sAnkhya & karma) uktaH

> *jnAnaniShTa lakShNaH sanyAsaH*, karmayOgOpAyascha....gItAsu cha sarvAsu

> *ayamEva* *yOgO* vivakShitaH bhagavatA...

>

bhaskar :

I'll check it out prabhuji...but kindly clarify what shankara exactly

conveying in the above bhAshya vAkya i.e. *jnAnaniShTa lakShNaH sanyAsaH*,

karmayOgOpAyascha....gItAsu cha sarvAsu *ayamEva* *yOgO* vivakShitaH

bhagavatA...I was bit worried when you said it is *nowhere* appearing in

shankara bhAshya!!!

> prabhuji I would like to ask you why our AchArya saying here *jnAnaniSTa

> lakShNa sanyAsa* is the ONLY (ayamEva) implied meaning when krishna says

> the word yOga in the gIta..

>

SH

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Gita bhashya on 5:26 clearly speaks of sadyo- and krama-

mukti,the latter includes dhyAna yoga.

bhaskar :

In shankara bhAshya as you know we can find 5 types of saNyAsa...niShkAma

or sarvakarmaphalatyAga is one of them...But does this anyway connected to

*yOga of pAtanjali* prabhuji?? kindly clarify.

SH

>>>>>>>>>>>Ishvara-praNidhAnAd-vA implies the same, I think.

Regards,

Sunder

February 2, 2005

Namaste Bhaskarji,

praNAm Sri Sunder Hattangadi prabhuji

Hare Krishna

First of all my humble apologies if I am causing you trouble by stretching

this issue too long..

SH prabhuji

I shall bow out of this thread after this reply.

Being a 'mandatama adhikari', I can follow only the 'pipIlikA

mArga' of krama mukti through 'pravRitti mArga'.

bhaskar :

Yes prabhuji, I agree with you, most of us are manda & madhyamAdhikAri-s

only...holding upAsanAmArga in pravrutti mArga...but it cannot be sidelined

that there is a remotest possibility of uttamAdhikAri-s of shAstra who can

realise samyag jnAna through shruti vAkya shravaNa.

SH prabhuji:

I still find it hard

to concede that the Holnarsipur School of Shuddha Shankara Advaita in

any way supercedes the Sringeri Sampradaya of 'Diluted' (or Deviant)

Shankara Advaita.

bhaskar :

I dont know prabhuji what makes you to compare sringeri sampradAya with

that of Holenarsipur etc. prabhuji have I anywhere said our swamiji

maintaining a separate sampradAya which supercedes other popularly known as

shankara sampradAya...As far as I remember I only said shankara's mUla

siddhAnta has been diluted in the later prakaraNa grantha-s & not

completely in line with prasthAna traya bhAshya purports, I never said that

this is because of sringeri sampradAya...prabhuji how can I say that when I

am also closely associated with mutt!!

SH prabhuji:

[For an advaitic vision in the Yoga Sutras one can cite:

I :3,7,8,16, 25-30, 35-40,, 47, 49

II : 5,6, 26, 28, 41, 45

III: 12,17, 55

IV : 18, 19, 26, 29, 31, 34.

bhaskar :

Thanks a lot for your kind references prabhuji, I shall look into it once I

get hold of yOga sUtra book.

bhaskar :

(b) sEShvara sAnkhya is what to be known as pAtanjala yOga I believe!!

Because as far as I know pAtanjala does advocates the Ishvara & his

adhIna prakruti & existence of multiple jIva-s & their individual

effort to attain kartru tantra asamprajnata samAdhi.

SH prabhuji:

>>>>>>>>>>>Your belief is slightly off the mark! (IMHO)

bhaskar :

Then kindly clarify what would be the philosophical stand of patanjala yOga

sUtra...though it is a prakriya, without pramANAdhArita siddhAnta they

cannot adopt any prakriya, is it not prabhuji??

bhaskar :

Does it not talk about shad chakra-s, associated bIja mantra-s, adhi

dEvatas (presiding deities in every chakra & kundalini yOga etc.

prabhuji??

SH prabhuji:

>>>>>>>>No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

bhaskar :

prabhuji, you mean to say there is no haTa yOgic instructions in yOga

sUtra-s?? what I understood is kundalini yOga & realisation of kundalini

shakti in sahasrAra chakra from the mulAdhAra chakra is the part of

patanjali's yOga...yes, I might have mistaken..kindly clarify in which

shAstra all these details can be found apart from yOga shAstra...

bhaskar :

what exactly is the philosophical stand of pAtanjala yOga?? does it also

say brahman is yEkamEva advitIya satya prabhuji?? whats their stand on

prakruti & purusha rather Ishwara & prakruti?? prabhuji...pls. clarify...(

I kept my yOga sUtra book somewhere...Hence asking for your

clarification).

SH prabhuji:

>>>>>>>>>Patanjali Yoga Sutras are a prakriya shastra , not a prameya

shastra. The prakriya is for the jiva-ishvara-aikya.

bhaskar :

Again, prabhuji kindly clarify what is the nature of jIva & Ishwara here

according to yOga?? what is the role of prakruti here in jIva's

realisation?? how can it be proved chitta has the separate existence apart

from Atman?? KIndly dont think I am simply asking you questions..these are

all genuine queries to understand yOga in a better way. But as said above

prakriya without pramANAdhArita siddhAnta is of no use!!..Even in advaita

we find different prakriya-s such as kArya-kAraNa prakriya, vidya-avidyA

prakriya, pancha kOsha prakriya, avastha-traya prakriya etc...but all these

prakriya-s have been pramANAdhArita (with substatial support from

pramANa-s) & drive us to shruti pratipAdita siddhAnta of yEkAtma pratyaya

sAra...

bhaskar :

But as you might have noticed there is no mention of asamprajnatha or

prajnatha samAdhi in whole of prasthAna trayi bhAshya of

shankara...Even in

kArika's asparSha yOga / manOnigraha yOga shankara hardly utters this word

in his commentary...

SH prabhuji:

>>>>>>>>There is no mention of samAdhi in the 10 mukhya upanishads;

there is no mention of Ananda in Bhagavadgita; does that prove anything?!

bhaskar :

nothing...but shankara clarifies his stand on samAdhi in bruhadAraNyaka &

sUtra bhAshya is it not prabhuji?? what we understand from that is

shankara not propagating patanjali's yOga samAdhi..is this not enough to

track the method of shankara philosophy prabhuji?? So prabhuji the absence

of the name *patanjala* in the sUtra bhAshya where shankara refutes his

predecessors also proves nothing!! correct prabhuji..

bhaskar :

Thats very interesting observation prabhuji...which sUtra of patanjali

talks about it?? does pAtanjala speaks about vastu tantra & purusha

tantra jnAna also which shankara precisely bifurcate in bhAshya??

SH prabhuji:

>>>>>>>>Patanjali refers to avidya, mithya-jnana, adhyasa, svarupa.

bhaskar :

thanks prabhuji...but I am more particular about shankara's gIta commentary

on 18.52 & corresponding reference in yOga sUtra.

SH prabhuji:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Gita bhashya on 5:26 clearly speaks of sadyo- and krama-

mukti,the latter includes dhyAna yoga.

bhaskar :

but do you think shankara's advaita paramArtha jnAna is lokAntara /

janmAntara jnAna prabhuji?? Yes, shankara talks about krama mukti attained

through archrAdi, upAsana mArga & it relates to realisation of

hiraNyagarbha but never ever talks about asaMprajnatha samAdhi which is the

core teaching of yOga sUtra.

Regards,

Sunder

Humble praNAms onceagain

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

February 2, 2005

Namaste Bhaskar-ji

> What is that realisation bhagavan

> says sarvabhutastha mAtmAnam etc...where is the question of sarva

bhUta &

> its perception with sama bhAva...when a yOgi sitting motionless in

> nirvikalpa samAdhi??

>

It is true that sarvabhuta & sama bhAva does not occur DURING

nirvikalpa samAdhi. But as I quoted from the book ("Yoga,

Enlightenment and

Perfection") in my earlier message

http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m24846.html, first the Atma

is perceived like a fruit in one's open palm during nirvikalpa

samAdhi.

Anu Gita then clarifies how the sarvabhutastha mAtmAnam occurs.

The advanced Yogi perceives/recognizes the same Brahman on coming

out from Samadhi in the universe - akin to a man who sees a person

in a dream and when after seeing the same person in the waking state

recognizes the person.

So the process is one perceives Brahman in nirvikalpa samAdhi and

THEN recognizes the same Brahman in the universe upon exiting.

I am not able to quote the actual verse from Anu Gita here but this

verse is in the same section Shankara quotes twice in His Gita

Bhasya introduction, so its importance cannot be understated.

Appreciate if any of the esteemed scholars can quote the exact Anu

Gita verse..

regards

Sundar Rajan

February 2, 2005

Namaste Sundar Rajan-ji.

That is a lot of food for thought this evening although I may not be

able to rise to the occasion by bringing in any quotes in support!

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

_______________

advaitin, "Sundar Rajan" <avsundarrajan>

wrote:

.......

> Anu Gita then clarifies how the sarvabhutastha mAtmAnam occurs.

> The advanced Yogi perceives/recognizes the same Brahman on coming

> out from Samadhi in the universe - akin to a man who sees a person

> in a dream and when after seeing the same person in the waking

state

> recognizes the person.

>

> So the process is one perceives Brahman in nirvikalpa samAdhi and

> THEN recognizes the same Brahman in the universe upon exiting.

>

> I am not able to quote the actual verse from Anu Gita here but

this

> verse is in the same section Shankara quotes twice in His Gita

> Bhasya introduction, so its importance cannot be understated.

>

> Appreciate if any of the esteemed scholars can quote the exact

Anu

> Gita verse..

February 2, 2005

advaitin, "Sundar Rajan" <avsundarrajan>

wrote:

> Anu Gita then clarifies how the sarvabhutastha mAtmAnam occurs.

> The advanced Yogi perceives/recognizes the same Brahman on coming

> out from Samadhi in the universe - akin to a man who sees a person

> in a dream and when after seeing the same person in the waking state

> recognizes the person.

>

> So the process is one perceives Brahman in nirvikalpa samAdhi and

> THEN recognizes the same Brahman in the universe upon exiting.

>

> I am not able to quote the actual verse from Anu Gita here but this

> verse is in the same section Shankara quotes twice in His Gita

> Bhasya introduction, so its importance cannot be understated.

>

> Appreciate if any of the esteemed scholars can quote the exact Anu

> Gita verse..

These may be the ones referred to:

http://sanskrit.gde.to/mirrors/mahabharata/txt/14.txt

yathA hi puruShaH svapne dR^iShTvA pashyatyasAviti .

tathArUpamivAtmAna.n sAdhu yuktaH prapashyati .. 19:20..\\

sa hi dharmaH suparyApto brahmaNaH padavedane .

………………………………………………………... .. 16: 11..\\

jAtI maraNatattvaGYa.n kovidaM puNyapApayoH .

draShTAramuchchanIchAnA.n karmabhirdehinAM gatim .. 16:20..\\

chitta.n chittAdupAgamya munirAsIta sa.nyataH .

yachchittastanmanA bhUtvA guhyametatsanAtanam .. 50:27..\\

Peace!

February 3, 2005

Namaste Bhaskar-ji

praNAms Sri Sunder Rajan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

bhaskar :

> What is that realisation bhagavan

> says sarvabhutastha mAtmAnam etc...where is the question of sarva

bhUta &

> its perception with sama bhAva...when a yOgi sitting motionless in

> nirvikalpa samAdhi??

>

SR prabhuji:

It is true that sarvabhuta & sama bhAva does not occur DURING

nirvikalpa samAdhi. But as I quoted from the book ("Yoga,

Enlightenment and

Perfection") in my earlier message

http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m24846.html, first the Atma

is perceived like a fruit in one's open palm during nirvikalpa

samAdhi.

bhaskar :

I dont know in what context this statement has been made & the implied

meaning of this *perceiving the Atman like a fruit* statement. First of

all, it is a shruti assertion that Atman cannot be a pramEya vastu

(achintyaM, agrAhyaM, apramEyaM, atUlaM, anaNu etc.) as our svarUpa is not

an adventitious thing!! shankara makes it very clear in sUtra bhAshya that

even shAstras cannot define Atman as such & such a thing!!! Anyway, the

implied meaning here I think a jnAni's realisation intuitively reveals him

the fact that *the satya* is devoid of any nAma, rUpa upAdhi saMbandhA

whatever he is perceiving is avidyA kalpita mAya!! with this sublated

knowledge of jagat he finds *himself* in all since there is nothing but

*HIM*...So, the objectification of Atman & perceiving it like a fruit in

nirvikalpa samAdhi is not advaita's paramArtha jnAna IMHO.

SR prabhuji:

Anu Gita then clarifies how the sarvabhutastha mAtmAnam occurs.

The advanced Yogi perceives/recognizes the same Brahman on coming

out from Samadhi in the universe - akin to a man who sees a person

in a dream and when after seeing the same person in the waking state

recognizes the person.

bhaskar :

Again, paramArtha jnAna is not a state where you can visit, stay there for

sometime & come back like nirvikalpa samAdhi. It is our own svarUpa & it

is self evident & more importantly not restricted to dEsha & kAla

paricchinna jnAna like nirvikalpa samAdhi...So to realise ever existing

nature of Atman, aspirant does not need dEsha, kAla paricchinna mystic

trance like nirvikalpa samAdhi, what is required is anubhUti gained through

shruti vAkya received from shrOtrIya brahmanishTa guru which is

substantiated with sArvatrika pUrNAnubhava.

SR prabhuji:

So the process is one perceives Brahman in nirvikalpa samAdhi and

THEN recognizes the same Brahman in the universe upon exiting.

bhaskar :

So prabhuji *to see* brahman in the universe *the objectified knowledge of

brahman in nirvikalpa samAdhi* is the must!! But shankara never say like

that, he says for a uttama adhikAri *within no time*/spontaneously (jnAna

samakAle) realises his true nature once he hear the shruti vAkya!! If the

nirvikalpa samAdhi is indispensable for paramArtha jnAna, shankara would

have explicitly mentioned it in bhAshya..is it not??

SR prabhuji:

I am not able to quote the actual verse from Anu Gita here but this

verse is in the same section Shankara quotes twice in His Gita

Bhasya introduction, so its importance cannot be understated.

Appreciate if any of the esteemed scholars can quote the exact Anu

Gita verse..

bhaskar :

Our Sunder prabhuji ( I hope so...) has already provided the relevant

verses in sanskrit, but I failed to see the influence of patanjali's

nirvikalpa samAdhi in those verses.

regards

Sundar Rajan

Humble praNAms onceagain

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

February 3, 2005

Namaste Sri Sunder Hattangadi-ji

>>

I shall bow out of this thread after this reply.

Being a 'mandatama adhikari', I can follow only the 'pipIlikA

mArga' of krama mukti through 'pravRitti mArga'.

>>

I bow down to your deep humility!

> Patanjala Yoga Sutras form a 'prakriya shastra', not

a 'prameya

> shastra'. The prakriya is for the realization of the Self, the

> jiva-ishvara or atma-brahma- aikya. It is futile to 'prove' that

it is

> a dualistic philosophy, for that is not its purpose. It is more

> beneficial to know if the sutras can even intimate an advaitic

> perspective. For this many sutras can be held up as examples. Just

as

> the 'prasthana-trayi' lends itself to different approaches, yoga

> sutras may appear to do so too. However, one has to look into it

for

> its highest teaching. Even Shankara chose the ten Mukhya

Upanishads to

> prove the advaitic vision, though many other shrutis must have been

> extant even in his time.

>

Excellent point Sri Sunder Hattangadi-ji

Fixation on Shankara's Bhasya ALONE with the EXCLUSION of everything

else is questioned by none other than the ParameshtiGuru of

Shankara's Greatest Lineage!

=====================Quote

It is now ordinarily thought that for a modern Advaitin it is

indispensable that he just studies the commentaries of our great

master Sri Sankaracharya. He was certainly a seer. Did He become one

after writing them and cogitating over the thoughts contained

therein? What about His predecessors Govindapada, Goudapada, Suka

and Vyasa Himself? Did they study the commentaries of Sankara to

become seers?

This clearly shows that a study of these commentaries is not

indispensable for a genuine aspirant for Self-realization. Further

we are seeing every day very many persons who are very proficient in

their exposition of these commentaries and other allied literature.

Can we say with any truth that they are in any way nearer to Self-

realisation than others? Catch hold of a single truth enunciated by

the Vedas and stressed by our ancients and try hard to make it your

own. God will certainly regard your honest efforts and guide you

aright.

========================End Quote

http://www.jagadgurus.org/home.asp?acharyalcode=NB

Sri Chandrasekhara Bharathi Mahaswamigal

Sign In

Intellectual understanding vs direct realization?

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest