Guest guest Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 6.18 yada viniyatam cittam atmany evavatisthate nisprhah sarva-kamebhyo yukta ity ucyate tada A yogi, who has become free from hankering (thirst) for all desirable objects, seen and unseen; is then said to be Self- absorbed; when the controlled mind, i.e. the mind that has been made fully one-pointed by giving up thought of external objects rests in the non-dual Self alone, i.e. he gets established in his own Self. An illustration in being given for the mind of that yogi which has become Self-absorbed: 6.19 yatha dipo nivata-stho nengate sopama smrta yogino yata-cittasya yunjato yogam atmanah As a lamp kept in a windless place does not flicker such is the simile - thought of, by the knowers of Yoga who understand the movements of the mind for the yogi whose mind is under control who is engaged in contemplation on the Self, i.e. who is practising Self- absorption (SS: nidhidhyasanam). By dint of practising Yoga thus, when the mind, comparable to a lamp in a windless place, becomes concentrated, then- 6.20 yatroparamate cittam niruddham yoga-sevaya yatra caivatmanatmanam pasyann atmani tusyati When the mind restrained, entirely prevented from wandering gets withdrawn through the practice of Yoga and just when by seeing, by realizing the Self which by nature is the supreme Consciousness by the self, by the mind purified by concentration one remains contented, finds delight in one's own Self alone. Further.. 6.21 sukham atyantikam yat tad buddhi-grahyam atindriyam vetti yatra na caivayam sthitas calati tattvatah This Bliss is that which knows no end, is everlasting, It may be grasped by the intellect only, independent of the senses; and which is beyond the senses, i.e. since it is not generated by objects; and being established in the nature of the Self; this person, the enlightened one surely; does not swerve; from that Reality-i.e. does not deviate from the nature of Reality. Further.. 6.22 yam labdhva caparam labham manyate nadhikam tatah yasmin sthito na duhkhena gurunapi vicalyate Obtaining which (Self-attainment) one does not think; that there is any other acquisition superior to that; and also, being established; in which Reality of the Self; one is not perturbed even by great sorrow, as may be caused by being struck with weapons, etc. _____________________ SS Bhagwan Shankara - crisp and crystal clear! Again please note what is being talked about here. Selfrealization. A controlled mind is not in reference to a "stilled" mind, in the sense of a mind made empty of all thoughts - It has been made clear refers to a mind that is not hankering after senseobjects, i.e.chittanaischalyam has been achieved - by means of what? - Yoga i.e. karmayoga..the mind is fully available to be soaked in atmavichara alone Such a mind or antahkarana has samadhana or ekagrata - onepointedness (one of the shatsampattis) With such a onepointed mind, if such a karmayogi, does nidhidhyasanam and dwells on the words of the teacher and the scriptures, the mahavakya upadesha, after already having done sharavanam and mananam, ere long he attains Selfrealization. How is this selfrealization grasped? - by the pure INTELLECT only! how so? Because it is in the nature of the understanding that I am the whole, I am limitless, I am nonseparate from the vastu, from Ishwara. How to make the intellect pure? By karmayoga - hence be a karmayogi says Krishna to Arjuna. This understanding is beyond the senses - it is not going to be a sensory experience. This sense of poornatvam is bliss - why? because once i know i am the whole, there is nothing left for me to seek. the search is over. The seeking me which was only a illusion has met with a *permanent* demise. Is this bliss temporary, maybe for 20-30minutes? or perhaps a few weeks? No way. It is eternal. WHy? Because I am eternal. Then even if the greatest perturbations (such as being struck with a weapon) afflict this body or mind, anytime in the future, it causes not an iota of loss for my sense of fullness - forever, this is the meaning. Once again, in and through all these slokas from the 6th chapter we find that "yoga" being referenced is clearly and definitely referring to nidhidhyasana of vedanta vichara or atmavichara and the fruit being described is selfrealization leading to a permanent (not a timebound experiential trance) and eternal fullness, which is my very nature alone. More in my next post, Hari OM Shri Gurubhyo namah Shyam > --- Sundar Rajan <avsundarrajan wrote: > > > I don't know what your reading of Sankara's words > > would be but to me > > it seems very clear that Sankara is clearly talking > > about a time- > > bound practice resulting in "the mind of the yogi > > merging in the > > Self Itself." > > > > So, if we apply the logic from your message, Sankara > > surely must > > have a grave misunderstanding of Vedanta :-) > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 Thank you Shyam-ji for this beautiful exposition. Bhagavan Krishna has laid out what a yogi has to do very clearly. Bhagavan says in the Gita that in whatever (deity and by implication path) one has faith, I make it firmer. Essentially all blessings, including understanding and Self-Realization flow from Bhagavan. Please rest assured that no Advaitin here has stated or even thinks that the bliss of Self is for 20-30 minutes or for a few weeks only. I do not believe this accurately portrays what people have said in the previous discussion about the role of and the use the term "experience". To quote from Prof VK's translation of "Kanchi Mahaswamigal's Discourses on Advaita Saadhanaa" [in the same manner the Jiva in the constant thought of Brahman, thinks of 'this' Jiva becoming 'that' Brahman, thinks that even now 'this' is only 'that' and such a nidhidhyAsana all the time ends up with the Jiva becoming Brahman - so says the Acharya in Viveka chudamani 358-359/359-360.] This has been pointed out before and I note that successor of Sri Shankracharya pay great reverence to works like Vivekachudamani. As Subbu-ji, Ramesh-ji, Sunder-ji, and Sundar-ji, and others have pointed out in their own way, these and similar works are part of the overall tradition which represents the accumulated wisdom of many great Rishis and Acharyas. Please know that in most of your writing and commentary I find very little to disagree with. Namste Love to all Harsha I shyam_md wrote: > > Is this bliss temporary, maybe for 20-30minutes? or perhaps a few > weeks? No way. It is eternal. WHy? Because I am eternal. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 Dr Shyam-ji: What can i say ? Another wonderful presentation ! in fact i have printed this out aso i can read these verses and their explanation during 'break' time at my job. Thanx ! however , may i be permitted to make one observation ? you write : ( How is this selfrealization grasped? - by the pure INTELLECT only!) Wow ! SHYAM-JI! That is indeed correct ! the key phrase is *pure* intellect ! Read these verses from chapter 18 - 51 to 53 buddhya visuddhaya yukto dhrtyatmanam niyamya ca sabdadin visayams tyaktva raga-dvesau vyudasya ca vivikta-sevi laghv-asi yata-vak-kaya-manasah dhyana-yoga-paro nityam vairagyam samupasritah ahankaram balam darpam kamam krodham parigraham vimucya nirmamah santo brahma-bhuyaya kalpate Being purified by his intelligence and controlling the mind with determination, giving up the objects of sense gratification, being freed from attachment and hatred, one who lives in a secluded place, who eats little and who controls the body and the tongue, and is always in trance and is detached, who is without false ego, false strength, false pride, lust, anger, and who does not accept material things, such a person is certainly elevated to the position of self- realization. SO, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT pure intellect ! not just intellect! Religion begins when *intellect* ends! smile! hari aum! > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 Harsha-ji writes: "Please rest assured that no Advaitin here has stated or even thinks that the bliss of Self is for 20-30 minutes or for a few weeks only. I do not believe this accurately portrays what people have said in the previous discussion about the role of and the use the term "experience". Yes, indeed, Harsha-ji, it does not in any way accurately represent what some very thoughtful people on this list have been saying and proposing about the use of the term "experience". While I mostly only read and reflect on both sides of this debate, and only very occasionally chip in, it pains me to see how some members views are regularly mis-understood or mis-represented and arguments are created to dismiss what the individual was not, in fact, proposing. Best wishes to all Advaitins, Peter ________________________________ advaitin [advaitin] On Behalf Of Harsha 09 October 2006 17:31 advaitin Re: Re: Ch 6. pt 2 Thank you Shyam-ji for this beautiful exposition. Bhagavan Krishna has laid out what a yogi has to do very clearly. Bhagavan says in the Gita that in whatever (deity and by implication path) one has faith, I make it firmer. Essentially all blessings, including understanding and Self-Realization flow from Bhagavan. Please rest assured that no Advaitin here has stated or even thinks that the bliss of Self is for 20-30 minutes or for a few weeks only. I do not believe this accurately portrays what people have said in the previous discussion about the role of and the use the term "experience". <snip> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 No problem, Sir. Whatever you said has been understood and accepted. But, one doubt remains. When you use the word 'eternal, are we not still time-bound? Eternal has an inescapable temporality that is really worrisome to someone who is still in the vyAvahArika. One's appreciation of fullness cannot go without anubhUti. Whether that anubhUti is time-bound or not doesn't matter. AnubhUti is anubhUti. It is enjoyed. That it is not enjoyed with the sense- organs,as you imply, doesn't make it a non-anubhUti. You are imposing a 20 to 30 minutes duration on NS. That duration is only with reference and from the point of view of one in vyAvahArika. But, with reference to NS, if it is really nirvikalpa, there is no duration. One in vyAvahArika is condemned to impose temporality even on the Absolute. That is not the fault of the really real nirvikalpa. The fault is in the eyes of the beholder! Sorry for this intrusion. PraNAms. Madathil Nair __________________________ advaitin, "shyam_md" <shyam_md wrote:> > SS > Bhagwan Shankara - crisp and crystal clear! > Again please note what is being talked about here. > Selfrealization. > > A controlled mind is not in reference to a "stilled" mind, in the > sense of a mind made empty of all thoughts - It has been made clear > refers to a mind that is not hankering after senseobjects, > i.e.chittanaischalyam has been achieved - by means of what? - Yoga > i.e. karmayoga..the mind is fully available to be soaked in > atmavichara alone > > Such a mind or antahkarana has samadhana or ekagrata - > onepointedness (one of the shatsampattis) > > With such a onepointed mind, if such a karmayogi, does > nidhidhyasanam and dwells on the words of the teacher and the > scriptures, the mahavakya upadesha, after already having done > sharavanam and mananam, ere long he attains Selfrealization. > > How is this selfrealization grasped? - by the pure INTELLECT only! > how so? Because it is in the nature of the understanding that I am > the whole, I am limitless, I am nonseparate from the vastu, from > Ishwara. How to make the intellect pure? By karmayoga - hence be a > karmayogi says Krishna to Arjuna. > > This understanding is beyond the senses - it is not going to be a > sensory experience. > > This sense of poornatvam is bliss - why? because once i know i am > the whole, there is nothing left for me to seek. the search is over. > The seeking me which was only a illusion has met with a *permanent* > demise. > Is this bliss temporary, maybe for 20-30minutes? or perhaps a few > weeks? No way. It is eternal. WHy? Because I am eternal. > Then even if the greatest perturbations (such as being struck with a > weapon) afflict this body or mind, anytime in the future, it causes > not an iota of loss for my sense of fullness - forever, this is the > meaning. > > Once again, in and through all these slokas from the 6th chapter we > find that "yoga" being referenced is clearly and definitely > referring to nidhidhyasana of vedanta vichara or atmavichara and the > fruit being described is selfrealization leading to a permanent (not > a timebound experiential trance) and eternal fullness, which is my > very nature alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 Namaste Shyam-ji, >> > Bhagwan Shankara - crisp and crystal clear! > Again please note what is being talked about here. > Selfrealization. > >> The ultimate fruit of Yoga of course is self-realization. This was also pointed out in my earlier message itself (33634). // "idanim yogasya phalan brahmaikatva darsanam sarvasamsara vicchedakaranam tat pradarsyate" (6.28) Now is being shown that result of Yoga which is the realization of identity with Brahman and which is the cause of the extinction of the whole mundane existence. // We are all in agreement with this. The question however is whether the Gita and the scriptures are only talking about the state of the Jnani or they are also talking about a "time bound" (from a vyavahric standpoint) Samadhi state of a Sadhaka during his Sadhana wherein there is realization of Atma. You had disputed this saying this represents a "grave misunderstanding of Vedanta" (33627). I had tried to show in my message (33634) that such a view is in opposition to that of Sri Sankara. >> My humble advice, in general, is to not treat individual sentences in the Gita as complete upadesha without understanding their context and place in the entire vedantic teaching, as many posts here have tried to do here. >> Thanks for your generous advice. If you follow through on this advice and look closely into Bhagavatpadal's commentary in detail you will come to the same conclusions as I presented in message 33634. Take for instance verse 6.22. Here is Bhagavatpadal's commentary // 6.22 Labdhva, obtaining; yam, which-by acquiring which Self- attainment; na manyate, one does not think; that there is aparam, any other; labham, acquisition; tatah adhikam, superior to that; and also, sthitah,being established; yasmin, in which Reality of the Self; na vicalyate, one is not perturbed; api, even; guruna, by great; duhkhena, sorrow, as may be caused by being struck with weapons, etc.-. The yoga that has been spoken of as a particular state of the Self, distinguished by its characterisics in the verses beginning with 'At the time when the mind gets withdrawn,' (20) etc.- // Note the reference in the last sentence to the particular state of the self (atmavasthavisesah) – a specific reference to the state of Samadhi of a Sadhaka during intense Nidhidhyasana or Atma Dhyana – not the permanent state of a Jnani. That Bhagavan is describing Samadhi here is also the view of Great Advaitic purvacharyas such as Sri Vidyaranya etc. who have referenced these verses in Panchadasi etc in the context of Samadhi. // Panchadasi Chapter I 54. And, when by sravana and manana the mind develops a firm and undoubted conviction, and dwells constantly on the thus ascertained Self alone, it is called unbroken meditation (nididhyasana). 55. When the mind gradually leaves off the ideas of the meditator and the act of meditation and is merged in the sole object of meditation. (viz., the Self), and is steady like the flame of a lamp in a breezeless spot, it is called the super-conscious state (samadhi). 56. Though in samadhi there is no subjective cognition of the mental function having the Self as its object, its continued existence in that state is inferred from the recollection after coming out of samadhi. 57. The mind continues to be fixed in Paramatman in the state of samadhi as a result of the effort of will made prior to its achievement and helped by the merits of previous births and the strong impression created through constant efforts (at getting into samadhi). 58. The same idea Sri Krishna pointed out to Arjuna in various ways e.g., when he compares the steady mind to the flame of a lamp in a breezeless spot. [Note: Refer to Gita 6.19] // There is no doubt that the sixth chapter of Gita the term Yoga refers to nidhidhyasana. But what is this Yoga? This is not atma- anatma vichara but the practice of `sitting down' meditation. If this was not so why would Bhagavan talk about sitting down in a clean place etc?. DO you need to sit down in one place and close your eyes for atma-anatma vichara? 6.11 sucau dese pratishtapya... Having firmly established in a clean place his seat, neither too high nor too low, and made of cloth, skin and kusa-grass, placed successively one below the other..). Clearly the sixth chapter is describing the practice of intense dhyana on the self, culminating in `Samadhi' state, leading to Sakshatkara or self-realization. Regards Sundar Rajan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 Note to Moderators: Please delete message #33681 Namaste Shyam-ji, The ultimate fruit of Yoga of course is self-realization. This was also pointed out in my earlier message (33634). // "idanim yogasya phalan brahmaikatva darsanam sarvasamsara vicchedakaranam tat pradarsyate" (6.28) Now is being shown that result of Yoga which is the realization of identity with Brahman and which is the cause of the extinction of the whole mundane existence. // We are all in agreement with this. The question however is whether the Gita and other scriptures are talking only about the state of the Jnani or they are also talking about a "time bound" (from a vyavahric standpoint) Samadhi state of a Sadhaka during his Sadhana wherein there is realization of Atma. You had disputed this saying this represents a "grave misunderstanding of Vedanta" (33627). I had tried to show in my message (33634) that such a view is in opposition to that of Sri Sankara. >> My humble advice, in general, is to not treat individual sentences in the Gita as complete upadesha without understanding their context and place in the entire vedantic teaching, as many posts here have tried to do here. >> Thanks for your generous advice. If you follow through on this advice and look closely into Bhagavatpadal's commentary you will come to the same conclusions as I presented in message 33634. Take for instance verse 6.22. Here is Bhagavatpadal's commentary // 6.22 Labdhva, obtaining; yam, which-by acquiring which Self- attainment; na manyate, one does not think; that there is aparam, any other; labham, acquisition; tatah adhikam, superior to that; and also, sthitah,being established; yasmin, in which Reality of the Self; na vicalyate, one is not perturbed; api, even; guruna, by great; duhkhena, sorrow, as may be caused by being struck with weapons, etc.-. The yoga that has been spoken of as a particular state of the Self, distinguished by its characterisics in the verses beginning with 'At the time when the mind gets withdrawn,' (20) etc.- // Note the reference in the last sentence to the particular state of the self (atmavasthavisesah) – a specific reference to the state of Samadhi of a Sadhaka during intense Nidhidhyasana or Atma Dhyana – not the permanent state of a Jnani. That Bhagavan is describing Samadhi here is also the view of Great Advaitic purvacharyas such as Sri Vidyaranya etc. who have referenced these verses in Panchadasi etc in the context of Samadhi. // Panchadasi Chapter I 54. And, when by sravana and manana the mind develops a firm and undoubted conviction, and dwells constantly on the thus ascertained Self alone, it is called unbroken meditation (nididhyasana). 55. When the mind gradually leaves off the ideas of the meditator and the act of meditation and is merged in the sole object of meditation. (viz., the Self), and is steady like the flame of a lamp in a breezeless spot, it is called the super-conscious state (samadhi). 56. Though in samadhi there is no subjective cognition of the mental function having the Self as its object, its continued existence in that state is inferred from the recollection after coming out of samadhi. 57. The mind continues to be fixed in Paramatman in the state of samadhi as a result of the effort of will made prior to its achievement and helped by the merits of previous births and the strong impression created through constant efforts (at getting into samadhi). 58. The same idea Sri Krishna pointed out to Arjuna in various ways e.g., when he compares the steady mind to the flame of a lamp in a breezeless spot. [Note: Refer to Gita 6.19] // >> > Bhagwan Shankara - crisp and crystal clear! > Again please note what is being talked about here. > Selfrealization. > >> I humbly disagree with you. The fruit of Yoga namely Self realization is spoken of from verse 6.29 onwards. Here in the verses you have quoted Bhagavan is talking about the practice of Samadhi by a Sadhaka, NOT the permanent state of the Jnani. This is also clear from Sri Vidyaranya's observations quoted above. There is no doubt that the sixth chapter of Gita the term Yoga refers to nidhidhyasana. But what is this Yoga? This is not atma- anatma vichara but the practice of `sitting down' meditation. If this was not so why would Bhagavan talk about sitting down in a clean place etc?. Do you need to sit down in one place and close your eyes for atma-anatma vichara? Here is a reference to 6.11 (which you conveniently left out :-)) // 6.11 sucau dese pratishtapya... Having firmly established in a clean place his seat, neither too high nor too low, and made of cloth, skin and kusa-grass, placed successively one below the other... // Clearly the sixth chapter is describing the practice of intense dhyana on the self by a disciplined Sadhaka, culminating in `Samadhi' state, leading ultimately to Sakshatkara or self- realization. Regards Sundar Rajan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 Note to Moderators: Please delete message #33681 Namaste Shyam-ji, The ultimate fruit of Yoga of course is self-realization. This was also pointed out in my earlier message (33634). // "idanim yogasya phalan brahmaikatva darsanam sarvasamsara vicchedakaranam tat pradarsyate" (6.28) Now is being shown that result of Yoga which is the realization of identity with Brahman and which is the cause of the extinction of the whole mundane existence. // We are all in agreement with this. The question however is whether the Gita and other scriptures are talking only about the state of the Jnani or they are also talking about a "time bound" (from a vyavahric standpoint) Samadhi state of a Sadhaka during his Sadhana wherein there is realization of Atma. You had disputed this saying this represents a "grave misunderstanding of Vedanta" (33627). I had tried to show in my message (33634) that such a view is in opposition to that of Sri Sankara. >> My humble advice, in general, is to not treat individual sentences in the Gita as complete upadesha without understanding their context and place in the entire vedantic teaching, as many posts here have tried to do here. >> Thanks for your generous advice. If you follow through on this advice and look closely into Bhagavatpadal's commentary you will come to the same conclusions as I presented in message 33634. Take for instance verse 6.22. Here is Bhagavatpadal's commentary // 6.22 Labdhva, obtaining; yam, which-by acquiring which Self- attainment; na manyate, one does not think; that there is aparam, any other; labham, acquisition; tatah adhikam, superior to that; and also, sthitah,being established; yasmin, in which Reality of the Self; na vicalyate, one is not perturbed; api, even; guruna, by great; duhkhena, sorrow, as may be caused by being struck with weapons, etc.-. The yoga that has been spoken of as a particular state of the Self, distinguished by its characterisics in the verses beginning with 'At the time when the mind gets withdrawn,' (20) etc.- // Note the reference in the last sentence to the particular state of the self (atmavasthavisesah) – a specific reference to the state of Samadhi of a Sadhaka during intense Nidhidhyasana or Atma Dhyana – not the permanent state of a Jnani. That Bhagavan is describing Samadhi here is also the view of Great Advaitic purvacharyas such as Sri Vidyaranya etc. who have referenced these verses in Panchadasi etc in the context of Samadhi. // Panchadasi Chapter I 54. And, when by sravana and manana the mind develops a firm and undoubted conviction, and dwells constantly on the thus ascertained Self alone, it is called unbroken meditation (nididhyasana). 55. When the mind gradually leaves off the ideas of the meditator and the act of meditation and is merged in the sole object of meditation. (viz., the Self), and is steady like the flame of a lamp in a breezeless spot, it is called the super-conscious state (samadhi). 56. Though in samadhi there is no subjective cognition of the mental function having the Self as its object, its continued existence in that state is inferred from the recollection after coming out of samadhi. 57. The mind continues to be fixed in Paramatman in the state of samadhi as a result of the effort of will made prior to its achievement and helped by the merits of previous births and the strong impression created through constant efforts (at getting into samadhi). 58. The same idea Sri Krishna pointed out to Arjuna in various ways e.g., when he compares the steady mind to the flame of a lamp in a breezeless spot. [Note: Refer to Gita 6.19] // >> > Bhagwan Shankara - crisp and crystal clear! > Again please note what is being talked about here. > Selfrealization. > >> I humbly disagree with you. The fruit of Yoga namely Self realization is spoken of from verse 6.29 onwards. Here in the verses you have quoted Bhagavan is talking about the practice of Samadhi by a Sadhaka, NOT the permanent state of the Jnani. This is also clear from Sri Vidyaranya's observations quoted above. There is no doubt that the sixth chapter of Gita the term Yoga refers to nidhidhyasana. But what is this Yoga? This is not atma- anatma vichara but the practice of `sitting down' meditation. If this was not so why would Bhagavan talk about sitting down in a clean place etc?. Do you need to sit down in one place and close your eyes for atma-anatma vichara? Here is a reference to 6.11 (which you conveniently left out :-)) // 6.11 sucau dese pratishtapya... Having firmly established in a clean place his seat, neither too high nor too low, and made of cloth, skin and kusa-grass, placed successively one below the other... // Clearly the sixth chapter is describing the practice of intense dhyana on the self by a disciplined Sadhaka, culminating in `Samadhi' state, leading ultimately to Sakshatkara or self- realization. Regards Sundar Rajan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 Namaste Nairji, All seekers are bound by space, time and the laws of causation. Mother Veda comes to our rescue in the form of words like Eternal, Pure, Infinite... etc which have capacity to free us. The Veda, Guru and Jiva are in vyavahara alone. What needs to be understood is the implied meaning (lakshyartha) of these words and not the literal. You were right on spot when you mentioned that "The fault is in the eyes of the beholder!". Cheers & Om,. Kathirasan On 10/10/06, Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair > wrote: > No problem, Sir. > > Whatever you said has been understood and accepted. But, one doubt > remains. > > When you use the word 'eternal, are we not still time-bound? > Eternal has an inescapable temporality that is really worrisome to > someone who is still in the vyAvahArika. > > One's appreciation of fullness cannot go without anubhUti. Whether > that anubhUti is time-bound or not doesn't matter. AnubhUti is > anubhUti. It is enjoyed. That it is not enjoyed with the sense- > organs,as you imply, doesn't make it a non-anubhUti. > > You are imposing a 20 to 30 minutes duration on NS. That duration > is only with reference and from the point of view of one in > vyAvahArika. But, with reference to NS, if it is really nirvikalpa, > there is no duration. One in vyAvahArika is condemned to impose > temporality even on the Absolute. That is not the fault of the > really real nirvikalpa. The fault is in the eyes of the beholder! > > Sorry for this intrusion. > > PraNAms. > > Madathil Nair > __________________________ > > > > advaitin, "shyam_md" <shyam_md wrote:> > > SS > > Bhagwan Shankara - crisp and crystal clear! > > Again please note what is being talked about here. > > Selfrealization. > > > > A controlled mind is not in reference to a "stilled" mind, in the > > sense of a mind made empty of all thoughts - It has been made > clear > > refers to a mind that is not hankering after senseobjects, > > i.e.chittanaischalyam has been achieved - by means of what? - Yoga > > i.e. karmayoga..the mind is fully available to be soaked in > > atmavichara alone > > > > Such a mind or antahkarana has samadhana or ekagrata - > > onepointedness (one of the shatsampattis) > > > > With such a onepointed mind, if such a karmayogi, does > > nidhidhyasanam and dwells on the words of the teacher and the > > scriptures, the mahavakya upadesha, after already having done > > sharavanam and mananam, ere long he attains Selfrealization. > > > > How is this selfrealization grasped? - by the pure INTELLECT only! > > how so? Because it is in the nature of the understanding that I am > > the whole, I am limitless, I am nonseparate from the vastu, from > > Ishwara. How to make the intellect pure? By karmayoga - hence be a > > karmayogi says Krishna to Arjuna. > > > > This understanding is beyond the senses - it is not going to be a > > sensory experience. > > > > This sense of poornatvam is bliss - why? because once i know i am > > the whole, there is nothing left for me to seek. the search is > over. > > The seeking me which was only a illusion has met with a > *permanent* > > demise. > > Is this bliss temporary, maybe for 20-30minutes? or perhaps a few > > weeks? No way. It is eternal. WHy? Because I am eternal. > > Then even if the greatest perturbations (such as being struck with > a > > weapon) afflict this body or mind, anytime in the future, it > causes > > not an iota of loss for my sense of fullness - forever, this is > the > > meaning. > > > > Once again, in and through all these slokas from the 6th chapter > we > > find that "yoga" being referenced is clearly and definitely > > referring to nidhidhyasana of vedanta vichara or atmavichara and > the > > fruit being described is selfrealization leading to a permanent > (not > > a timebound experiential trance) and eternal fullness, which is my > > very nature alone. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 Namaste Sundarji, Members have stated emphatically (& repeatedly) that the Vivarana school, to which Vidyaranya is allied to, and the Bhamati school have introduced teachings that are not consistent with Shankara's commentaries. Hence, it will be more fruitful of you refrain from quoting the works of Acharyas allied to the Bhamati and Vivarana schools. Instead, may I suggest to you that you quote from the works of Shankara's direct disciples: Sureshvara, Totaka & Padmapada to support your views on Samadhi. References from Sureshvara's Varttikas on the Shankara's Bhashya on Taittiriya & Brhadaranyaka Upanishads will be of immense help. For your consideration pls. Txs. Kathirasan On 10/10/06, Sundar Rajan <avsundarrajan > wrote: > Note to Moderators: Please delete message #33681 > > Namaste Shyam-ji, > > > The ultimate fruit of Yoga of course is self-realization. This was > also pointed out in my earlier message (33634). > // > "idanim yogasya phalan brahmaikatva darsanam sarvasamsara > vicchedakaranam tat pradarsyate" > > (6.28) Now is being shown that result of Yoga which is the > realization of identity with Brahman and which is the cause of the > extinction of the whole mundane existence. > // > > We are all in agreement with this. The question however is whether > the Gita and other scriptures are talking only about the state of the > Jnani or they are also talking about a "time bound" (from a > vyavahric standpoint) Samadhi state of a Sadhaka during his Sadhana > wherein there is realization of Atma. You had disputed this saying > this represents a "grave misunderstanding of Vedanta" (33627). I had > tried to show in my message (33634) that such a view is in > opposition to that of Sri Sankara. > > >> > My humble advice, in general, is to not treat > individual sentences in the Gita as complete upadesha > without understanding their context and place in the > entire vedantic teaching, as many posts here have > tried to do here. > >> > > Thanks for your generous advice. If you follow through on this > advice and look closely into Bhagavatpadal's commentary > you will come to the same conclusions as I presented in message > 33634. > > Take for instance verse 6.22. Here is Bhagavatpadal's commentary > > // > 6.22 Labdhva, obtaining; yam, which-by acquiring which Self- > attainment; na manyate, one does not think; that there is aparam, > any other; labham, acquisition; tatah adhikam, superior to that; and > also, sthitah,being established; yasmin, in which Reality of the > Self; na vicalyate, one is not perturbed; api, even; guruna, by > great; duhkhena, sorrow, as may be caused by being struck with > weapons, etc.-. The yoga that has been spoken of as a particular > state of the Self, distinguished by its characterisics in the verses > beginning with 'At the time when the mind gets withdrawn,' (20) etc.- > // > > Note the reference in the last sentence to the particular state of > the self (atmavasthavisesah) – a specific reference to the state of > Samadhi of a Sadhaka during intense Nidhidhyasana or Atma Dhyana – > not the permanent state of a Jnani. That Bhagavan is describing > Samadhi here is also the view of Great Advaitic purvacharyas such as > Sri Vidyaranya etc. who have referenced these verses in Panchadasi > etc in the context of Samadhi. > > // Panchadasi Chapter I > 54. And, when by sravana and manana the mind develops a firm and > undoubted conviction, and dwells constantly on the thus ascertained > Self alone, it is called unbroken meditation (nididhyasana). > > 55. When the mind gradually leaves off the ideas of the meditator > and the act of meditation and is merged in the sole object of > meditation. (viz., the Self), and is steady like the flame of a lamp > in a breezeless spot, it is called the super-conscious state > (samadhi). > > 56. Though in samadhi there is no subjective cognition of the mental > function having the Self as its object, its continued existence in > that state is inferred from the recollection after coming out of > samadhi. > > 57. The mind continues to be fixed in Paramatman in the state of > samadhi as a result of the effort of will made prior to its > achievement and helped by the merits of previous births and the > strong impression created through constant efforts (at getting into > samadhi). > > 58. The same idea Sri Krishna pointed out to Arjuna in various ways > e.g., when he compares the steady mind to the flame of a lamp in a > breezeless spot. [Note: Refer to Gita 6.19] > // > > >> > > Bhagwan Shankara - crisp and crystal clear! > > Again please note what is being talked about here. > > Selfrealization. > > > >> > > I humbly disagree with you. The fruit of Yoga namely Self > realization is spoken of from verse 6.29 onwards. Here in the verses > you have quoted Bhagavan is talking about the practice of Samadhi by > a Sadhaka, NOT the permanent state of the Jnani. This is also clear > from Sri Vidyaranya's observations quoted above. > > There is no doubt that the sixth chapter of Gita the term Yoga > refers to nidhidhyasana. But what is this Yoga? This is not atma- > anatma vichara but the practice of `sitting down' meditation. If > this was not so why would Bhagavan talk about sitting down in a > clean place etc?. Do you need to sit down in one place and close > your eyes for atma-anatma vichara? > > Here is a reference to 6.11 (which you conveniently left out :-)) > // > 6.11 sucau dese pratishtapya... > > Having firmly established in a clean > place his seat, neither too high nor too low, and made of cloth, > skin and kusa-grass, placed successively one below the other... > // > > Clearly the sixth chapter is describing the practice of intense > dhyana on the self by a disciplined Sadhaka, culminating in > `Samadhi' state, leading ultimately to Sakshatkara or self- > realization. > > > Regards > Sundar Rajan > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 Namaste Kathirasn-ji, advaitin, "K Kathirasan" <brahmasatyam wrote: > > Namaste Sundarji, > > Members have stated emphatically (& repeatedly) that the Vivarana > school, to which Vidyaranya is allied to, and the Bhamati school have > introduced teachings that are not consistent with Shankara's > commentaries. Hence, it will be more fruitful of you refrain from > quoting the works of Acharyas allied to the Bhamati and Vivarana > schools. Instead, may I suggest to you that you quote from the works > of Shankara's direct disciples: Sureshvara, Totaka & Padmapada to > support your views on Samadhi. References from Sureshvara's Varttikas > on the Shankara's Bhashya on Taittiriya & Brhadaranyaka Upanishads > will be of immense help. > > For your consideration pls. Txs. > I am not familiar with either of the schools and I am not sure whether Swami Vidyaranya knew that he belonged to a 'school'. Swami Vidyaranya is respected in the Sankara sampradaya as a Jivanmukta and a Stotriya and I didn't know that a Advaitic Guru had to be any more than that for His words to have importance for a Sadhaka!. In any case, I had already pointed out discrepancies with what was posted, just using Sankara's commentary. So if people find Panchadasi un-palatable because it mentions Samadhi, they can discard that and still the main point of my message stands. OK. Now I get it. So any text that remotely mentions Samadhi is out of syllabus - is this the new advaita? I am curious here - so VC was got rid of because VC uttered the dreaded 'S' word, now Panchadasi - where is this going to end?. With Quran as the most authentic Advaitic text because there is absolutely no mention of Samadhi in it? :-) regards Sundar Rajan > Kathirasan > > On 10/10/06, Sundar Rajan <avsundarrajan wrote: > > Note to Moderators: Please delete message #33681 > > > > Namaste Shyam-ji, > > > > > > The ultimate fruit of Yoga of course is self-realization. This was > > also pointed out in my earlier message (33634). > > // > > "idanim yogasya phalan brahmaikatva darsanam sarvasamsara > > vicchedakaranam tat pradarsyate" > > > > (6.28) Now is being shown that result of Yoga which is the > > realization of identity with Brahman and which is the cause of the > > extinction of the whole mundane existence. > > // > > > > We are all in agreement with this. The question however is whether > > the Gita and other scriptures are talking only about the state of the > > Jnani or they are also talking about a "time bound" (from a > > vyavahric standpoint) Samadhi state of a Sadhaka during his Sadhana > > wherein there is realization of Atma. You had disputed this saying > > this represents a "grave misunderstanding of Vedanta" (33627). I had > > tried to show in my message (33634) that such a view is in > > opposition to that of Sri Sankara. > > > > >> > > My humble advice, in general, is to not treat > > individual sentences in the Gita as complete upadesha > > without understanding their context and place in the > > entire vedantic teaching, as many posts here have > > tried to do here. > > >> > > > > Thanks for your generous advice. If you follow through on this > > advice and look closely into Bhagavatpadal's commentary > > you will come to the same conclusions as I presented in message > > 33634. > > > > Take for instance verse 6.22. Here is Bhagavatpadal's commentary > > > > // > > 6.22 Labdhva, obtaining; yam, which-by acquiring which Self- > > attainment; na manyate, one does not think; that there is aparam, > > any other; labham, acquisition; tatah adhikam, superior to that; and > > also, sthitah,being established; yasmin, in which Reality of the > > Self; na vicalyate, one is not perturbed; api, even; guruna, by > > great; duhkhena, sorrow, as may be caused by being struck with > > weapons, etc.-. The yoga that has been spoken of as a particular > > state of the Self, distinguished by its characterisics in the verses > > beginning with 'At the time when the mind gets withdrawn,' (20) etc.- > > // > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 With Quran as the most authentic Advaitic text because there is absolutely no mention of Samadhi in it? :-) praNAms Hare Krishna ONe more standard sarcasm of Camp-A who are all compassionate & catholic in their approach :-)) Sri RAghava Kaluri prabhuji, kindly note this is the mail from Camp-A member :-)) For those who who follow shankara siddhAnta meticulously, shankara's commentary on prasthAna traya (which are widely accepted as genuine bhagavadpAda's works) is the source study material....for those who want to follow patanjala yOga, those who want to have supernatural experience like NS & embrace brahman from morning 7.30 to 12.30 afternoon...they can leave aside shankara & his prasthAna trayi bhAshya (coz. it is a fact that very hardly they can get any sort of support from these works) & can happily approach some yOgAsana pundits, do some hatTha yOga practices & see that their kundalini rised from mUlAdhAra chakra & rushed to thousand petals sahasrAra through sushumnA nAdi:-)) But my humble request is let those not be labelled as *shankara's advaita vEdAnta*.... Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 > > ONe more standard sarcasm of Camp-A who are all compassionate & catholic in > their approach :-)) Sri RAghava Kaluri prabhuji, kindly note this is the > mail from Camp-A member :-)) [some utterly meaningless rant deleted...] > But my humble request is let > those not be labelled as *shankara's advaita vEdAnta*.... > And it is my humble request to Bhaskar-ji that he not consider himself the final arbiter on what constitutes "Sankara Siddhanta" Even after so much clarification that NS is a sadhana and not some final result, he still insists on strawman arguments. And let me add here, even Kundalini Yoga & the chakra-s are quite in tune with Advaita Vedanta *as taught by Sankara* and I will humbly label it as as such. Ramesh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 praNAms Sri Ramesh Krishna Murthy prabhuji Hare Krishna > ONe more standard sarcasm of Camp-A who are all compassionate & catholic in > their approach :-)) Sri RAghava Kaluri prabhuji, kindly note this is the > mail from Camp-A member :-)) RK prabhuji: [some utterly meaningless rant deleted...] bhaskar : pls. note your remark *meaningless rant* :-)) it is helpful to your subsequent comment below :-)) > But my humble request is let > those not be labelled as *shankara's advaita vEdAnta*.... > RK prabhuji: And it is my humble request to Bhaskar-ji that he not consider himself the final arbiter on what constitutes "Sankara Siddhanta" bhaskar : Please note the final arbiter is bhagavapAda himself on shankara siddhAnta...we, some of us, are just insisting for that..what to do that is not palatable for most of the members here & started guiding us to Quran & bible etc. :-)) RK prabhuji: Even after so much clarification that NS is a sadhana and not some final result, he still insists on strawman arguments. bhaskar : You can have your own grand imagination on what constitude NS...but before that you better know what is the difference between sAdhana & phala... RK prabhuji: And let me add here, even Kundalini Yoga & the chakra-s are quite in tune with Advaita Vedanta *as taught by Sankara* and I will humbly label it as as such. bhaskar : Here comes your above comment to show your common sense :-))...above what I've written & what you have deleted is all about chakra & kundalini...which you have called as *meaningless rant*...and now you are telling it is *as taught by sankara*..how funny it is prabhuji?? *meaningless rant* as taught by shankara, this is what your conclusion is it?? have fun :-)) Ramesh Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 Namaste Sundarji, Pls forgive me for not being clear. The list has seen many different definitions of Samadhi. So much that all of us are already confused about the definition of Samadhi that each one of us to. But I hope all of us are in agreement that we don't find the emphasis on Samadhi in Shankara's mula bhashyas. Hence, it will be more useful to our quest if we make an attempt to understand how Shankara's direct disciples taught Vedanta. This is reason behind my earlier request. This discussion should have ended with the quote from Madhusudana Saraswati's Gudhartha Dipika which Sastriji posted where Swamiji mentions that there were two schools during his time. One that followed Shankara and one that followed Yoga. Therefore if we wish to continue this discussion, let it reveal something more than what has already been discussed. Or else we have to concede that we are just being obstinate in our views. This is not going to take us anywhere except to create animosity. Dear sundarji, you have been quick to equate and gloat over any Vedantic text (or author) which mentions Yoga with Samadhi. Let's keep our loyalties aside and discern truth as it is. That's my sincere request. There was no other hidden agenda in my earlier mail. with respects to you, Kathirasan On 10/10/06, Sundar Rajan <avsundarrajan > wrote: > Namaste Kathirasn-ji, > > advaitin, "K Kathirasan" <brahmasatyam > wrote: > > > > Namaste Sundarji, > > > > Members have stated emphatically (& repeatedly) that the Vivarana > > school, to which Vidyaranya is allied to, and the Bhamati school > have > > introduced teachings that are not consistent with Shankara's > > commentaries. Hence, it will be more fruitful of you refrain from > > quoting the works of Acharyas allied to the Bhamati and Vivarana > > schools. Instead, may I suggest to you that you quote from the > works > > of Shankara's direct disciples: Sureshvara, Totaka & Padmapada to > > support your views on Samadhi. References from Sureshvara's > Varttikas > > on the Shankara's Bhashya on Taittiriya & Brhadaranyaka Upanishads > > will be of immense help. > > > > For your consideration pls. Txs. > > > > I am not familiar with either of the schools and I am not sure > whether Swami Vidyaranya knew that he belonged to a 'school'. Swami > Vidyaranya is respected in the Sankara sampradaya as a Jivanmukta > and a Stotriya and I didn't know that a Advaitic Guru had to be any > more than that for His words to have importance for a Sadhaka!. > > In any case, I had already pointed out discrepancies with what was > posted, just using Sankara's commentary. So if people find > Panchadasi un-palatable because it mentions Samadhi, they can > discard that and still the main point of my message stands. > > OK. Now I get it. So any text that remotely mentions Samadhi is out > of syllabus - is this the new advaita? > > I am curious here - so VC was got rid of because VC uttered the > dreaded 'S' word, now Panchadasi - where is this going to end?. > > With Quran as the most authentic Advaitic text because there is > absolutely no mention of Samadhi in it? :-) > > regards > Sundar Rajan > > > Kathirasan > > > > On 10/10/06, Sundar Rajan <avsundarrajan wrote: > > > Note to Moderators: Please delete message #33681 > > > > > > Namaste Shyam-ji, > > > > > > > > > The ultimate fruit of Yoga of course is self-realization. This > was > > > also pointed out in my earlier message (33634). > > > // > > > "idanim yogasya phalan brahmaikatva darsanam sarvasamsara > > > vicchedakaranam tat pradarsyate" > > > > > > (6.28) Now is being shown that result of Yoga which is the > > > realization of identity with Brahman and which is the cause of > the > > > extinction of the whole mundane existence. > > > // > > > > > > We are all in agreement with this. The question however is > whether > > > the Gita and other scriptures are talking only about the state > of the > > > Jnani or they are also talking about a "time bound" (from a > > > vyavahric standpoint) Samadhi state of a Sadhaka during his > Sadhana > > > wherein there is realization of Atma. You had disputed this > saying > > > this represents a "grave misunderstanding of Vedanta" (33627). I > had > > > tried to show in my message (33634) that such a view is in > > > opposition to that of Sri Sankara. > > > > > > >> > > > My humble advice, in general, is to not treat > > > individual sentences in the Gita as complete upadesha > > > without understanding their context and place in the > > > entire vedantic teaching, as many posts here have > > > tried to do here. > > > >> > > > > > > Thanks for your generous advice. If you follow through on this > > > advice and look closely into Bhagavatpadal's commentary > > > you will come to the same conclusions as I presented in message > > > 33634. > > > > > > Take for instance verse 6.22. Here is Bhagavatpadal's commentary > > > > > > // > > > 6.22 Labdhva, obtaining; yam, which-by acquiring which Self- > > > attainment; na manyate, one does not think; that there is aparam, > > > any other; labham, acquisition; tatah adhikam, superior to that; > and > > > also, sthitah,being established; yasmin, in which Reality of the > > > Self; na vicalyate, one is not perturbed; api, even; guruna, by > > > great; duhkhena, sorrow, as may be caused by being struck with > > > weapons, etc.-. The yoga that has been spoken of as a particular > > > state of the Self, distinguished by its characterisics in the > verses > > > beginning with 'At the time when the mind gets withdrawn,' (20) > etc.- > > > // > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 Dear Kathirasanji, It is not that I don't understand what you or Shyamji are/is saying. A couple of years ago, I would have gone full steam with both of you. However, now there is some difference. I would illustrate it this way: I am meditating - say in siddhasana. After a while, one of the legs becomes numb. It is really uncomfortable. Then, the advaitic thought that I am not the body occurs. There is a shift of focus. I become the body's witness. The numbness becomes an object of my awareness and then slowly it becomes awareness itself. The body disappears. The numbness-awareness just glows and I am that glow. There is no more any pain now because I am no more anchored on the body. What has happened now is that, as awareness, I have transcended to a land of no differentiation between pleasure and pain. Pain and pleasure is for the body. I am not that. Both the opposites are made of the same glow - awareness - which I am. Thus, there is no difference between an orgasm (I am sorry I can't help using that word) and a stabbing pain - both are made of the same glow. And, that could be the reason why Christ smiled on the Cross! This no doubt is an understanding. That understanding is ecstasy too. I am ecstasy. I am an ordinary man. If an unpleasant experience can undergo such a tremendous metamorphosis for me, then just imagine a case of NS. What kind of a great glow it would be when one is absorbed in oneself. Will he not be a supernova of ecstasy? Is that an understanding grasped by intellect alone? I would, therefore, throw terminologies like intellect, understanding etc. to the wind and lose myself in that ecstasy. For me living as an advaitin means living ecstasy (not in ecstasy). And that is the big difference between two years ago and now. Hope that clarifies. Best regards. Madathil Nair _______________ advaitin, "K Kathirasan" <brahmasatyam wrote: > > All seekers are bound by space, time and the laws of causation. Mother > Veda comes to our rescue in the form of words like Eternal, Pure, > Infinite... etc which have capacity to free us. The Veda, Guru and > Jiva are in vyavahara alone. What needs to be understood is the > implied meaning (lakshyartha) of these words and not the literal. You > were right on spot when you mentioned that "The fault is in the eyes > of the beholder!". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 Dear Sri Kathirasan-ji: Namaste: The recently posted discourses of the Kanchi Mahaswamigal's would not meet your standards. The views and commentaries of Sri Chandrasekhara Bharati Mahaswamigal cannot live up to your expectations. In my view, your argument is not with Sri Sundar Rajan-ji, but the whole living tradition of Advaita-Vedanta that has come down to us over a 1000 years. This tradition is enlivened by great yogis and sages in every generation who walked the path, understood it deeply from every angle, and became Self-Realized. You and other esteemed members have every right to believe that you have the very utmost pure interpretation of Sri Shankra. Having faith in that, you should feel deeply satisfied and rejoice. However, it is not fair to impose on other members that they limit themselves to only your interpretation of Shastras and Sri Shankra and even further limit themselves to not discussing certain works (attributed to Sri Shankra). Not only that, now you are asking that sages and scholars of certain schools of thought in the tradition of Advaita be left out of the discussion as well. The list has close to 1500 members and these are not realistic demands. I sense an insistence from you and a few other respected members that you have the right and the authority to decide (for everyone else) what constitutes the genuine spiritual path to Self-Realization and particularly what Sankara Siddhanta is all about. That insistence appears to be completely unnecessary. Love to all Harsha K Kathirasan wrote: > Namaste Sundarji, > > Members have stated emphatically (& repeatedly) that the Vivarana > school, to which Vidyaranya is allied to, and the Bhamati school have > introduced teachings that are not consistent with Shankara's > commentaries. Hence, it will be more fruitful of you refrain from > quoting the works of Acharyas allied to the Bhamati and Vivarana > schools. Instead, may I suggest to you that you quote from the works > of Shankara's direct disciples: Sureshvara, Totaka & Padmapada to > support your views on Samadhi. References from Sureshvara's Varttikas > on the Shankara's Bhashya on Taittiriya & Brhadaranyaka Upanishads > will be of immense help. > > For your consideration pls. Txs. > > Kathirasan > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 advaitin, "K Kathirasan" <brahmasatyam wrote: > > Namaste Sundarji, > > Members have stated emphatically (& repeatedly) that the Vivarana > school, to which Vidyaranya is allied to, and the Bhamati school have > introduced teachings that are not consistent with Shankara's > commentaries. Hence, it will be more fruitful of you refrain from > quoting the works of Acharyas allied to the Bhamati and Vivarana > schools. Instead, may I suggest to you that you quote from the works > of Shankara's direct disciples: Sureshvara, Totaka & Padmapada to > support your views on Samadhi. References from Sureshvara's Varttikas > on the Shankara's Bhashya on Taittiriya & Brhadaranyaka Upanishads > will be of immense help. > Namaste Kathirasan-ji (and others who assert that we should only look at certain designated texts and ignore others). I am puzzled by this post. Is it your opinion that after Shankara and His direct disciples (named above), His teachings have been pretty much eclipsed by the other schools? This begs several questions: Are these three the only direct disciples of Shankara? Did the sishya parampara end with them? On another note, since Shankara Himself was only a bhashyakar, perhaps we should go directly to the source text - the prasthanatraya (shri Aurobindo was of this opinion, btw). Unfortunately, the upanishads direct us to approach a suitable teacher ('uttishthatha jAgrata prApta varAn nibodhata'). So does the Gita ('tadviddhi praNipAtena ... etc.). Let us pray that we are blessed with the support of a sadguru. Let us agree that the guru knows what is best for each disciple. After all, our tradition does admit many paths. 'Ano bhadhrAh kratavo yantu vishvatah' 'ekam sad vipro bahudA vadanti' Harih Om. Neelakantan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy Pranams to all. advaitin, Harsha wrote: >Dear Sri Kathirasan-ji: Namaste: > Dear Sri Harsha, At the Top of every posting of this group, there is this heading: Advaitin: Shankara's Advaita Philosophy. These postings are read not only by the members but also by lakhs of non-members also all over the world. When ever they read and whatever they read in these postings, they take it for granted that whatever matter appears is Sri Sankara's doctrine of Advaita based on Upanishads. Unfortunately so many points that appear here in the name of Sri Sankara have been refuted by Sri Sankara himself in his commentaries. Such points have been taken and accepted by unvary readers as told by Sri Sankara. Many members gather information from the translations which lack the spirit and correct meaning of the original Commentaries. They may not be aware that mere knowledge of Sanskrit and the languageto which it is being translated does not make one a good and genuine translator. The translator should also get into the spirit of the writer completely and then only he can bring out an accurate translation. I would like to bring to your kind notice that a study in depth of the commentaries Of Sri Sankara and other texts on advaita has been made by many Vedantins . Even though on the whole such works are good and helpful to the seekers, yet they contain many thought positions which have been refuted by Sri Sankara in his commentaries and which have been pointed out and highlighted by such Vedantins.. . No doubt Sampradaya is essential. But that should be a sampradaya of the correct teaching and NOT A SAMPRADAYA MIXED WITH MISCONCEPTIONS. There are glaring instances of such following of the sampradaya of misconceptions.Hence it is essential that whenever a discussion takes place regarding the doctrine , the final judgement should be found in Sri Sankara's commentaries and nowhere else. Let us not forget that this a forum meant for discussing and understanding Sankara'S Advaita Philosophy. Let us humbly and reverently accept and assimilate the right and correct doctrines from the other Advaitic works and teachers and rejecting the incorrect ones. That is what Bhagavan Krihna has done, that is what Sri Gaudapada has done, that is what Sri Sankara has done. Let us also do the same instead of blindly accepting everything.Let us be true vedantins in the true sense. I may please be pardoned if I have transgressed the rules of the group. With warm and respectful regards, Sreenivasa Murthy > The recently posted discourses of the Kanchi Mahaswamigal's would not > meet your standards. The views and commentaries of Sri Chandrasekhara > Bharati Mahaswamigal cannot live up to your expectations. > > In my view, your argument is not with Sri Sundar Rajan-ji, but the whole > living tradition of Advaita-Vedanta that has come down to us over a 1000 > years. This tradition is enlivened by great yogis and sages in every > generation who walked the path, understood it deeply from every angle, > and became Self-Realized. > > You and other esteemed members have every right to believe that you have > the very utmost pure interpretation of Sri Shankra. Having faith in > that, you should feel deeply satisfied and rejoice. > > However, it is not fair to impose on other members that they limit > themselves to only your interpretation of Shastras and Sri Shankra and > even further limit themselves to not discussing certain works > (attributed to Sri Shankra). Not only that, now you are asking that > sages and scholars of certain schools of thought in the tradition of > Advaita be left out of the discussion as well. > > The list has close to 1500 members and these are not realistic demands. > > I sense an insistence from you and a few other respected members that > you have the right and the authority to decide (for everyone else) what > constitutes the genuine spiritual path to Self-Realization and > particularly what Sankara Siddhanta is all about. That insistence > appears to be completely unnecessary. > > Love to all > Harsha > > K Kathirasan wrote: > > Namaste Sundarji, > > > > Members have stated emphatically (& repeatedly) that the Vivarana > > school, to which Vidyaranya is allied to, and the Bhamati school have > > introduced teachings that are not consistent with Shankara's > > commentaries. Hence, it will be more fruitful of you refrain from > > quoting the works of Acharyas allied to the Bhamati and Vivarana > > schools. Instead, may I suggest to you that you quote from the works > > of Shankara's direct disciples: Sureshvara, Totaka & Padmapada to > > support your views on Samadhi. References from Sureshvara's Varttikas > > on the Shankara's Bhashya on Taittiriya & Brhadaranyaka Upanishads > > will be of immense help. > > > > For your consideration pls. Txs. > > > > Kathirasan > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 Dear Harsha-ji (and Peter-ji) Pranams What is the misconception? That Ch 6 of the Gita talks about a timebound state. If you dispassionately look at Bhagwan Shankara's commentary, which I have faithfully reproduced, there is nothing to remotely suggest anything about a timebound "state" either directly or indirectly in Ch 6. Nidhidhyasana --> Jnaana --> Everabiding fullness is the message of Bhagwan in this chapter. Introducing some intermediary timebound state in this process has never found a place in the overall schema of either Bhagwan Krishna's or Bhagwan Shankara's teachings. Please note - the issue of a timebound state was not raised by me. I had only pointed to the fact that an objective experience of Atman ("one has to make the ATman the object of one's experience") represents a misunderstanding of Vedanta, as espoused traditionally and by Bhagwan Shankara. In reply to this Sunderji started talking about NS and referenced some verses from this Ch which in his views were refs to this timebound state - and asked a loaded question. Such a misconceived view has been humbly refuted. Hari OM Shyam --- Harsha <harsha (AT) (DOT) com> wrote: > Please rest assured that no > Advaitin here has stated or even thinks that the > bliss of Self is for > 20-30 minutes or for a few weeks only. I do not > believe this accurately > portrays what people have said in the previous > discussion about the role > of and the use the term "experience". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 Pranams dear Sunder-ji, > The question however is whether > the Gita and other scriptures are talking only about > the state of the > Jnani or they are also talking about a "time bound" > (from a > vyavahric standpoint) Samadhi state of a Sadhaka > during his Sadhana > wherein there is realization of Atma. You had > disputed this saying > this represents a "grave misunderstanding of > Vedanta" (33627). ___________________ I had talked about having "an objective experience of Atman" as a grave misunderstanding - do you disagree?. __________________ > look closely into Bhagavatpadal's > commentary > you will come to the same conclusions as I presented > in message > 33634. > Take for instance verse 6.22. Here is > Bhagavatpadal's commentary > // > 6.22 Labdhva, obtaining; yam, which-by acquiring > which Self- > attainment; na manyate, one does not think; that > there is aparam, > any other; labham, acquisition; tatah adhikam, > superior to that; and > also, sthitah,being established; yasmin, in which > Reality of the > Self; na vicalyate, one is not perturbed; api, even; > guruna, by > great; duhkhena, sorrow, as may be caused by being > struck with > weapons, etc. > Note the reference in the last sentence to the > particular state of > the self (atmavasthavisesah) � a specific reference > to the state of > Samadhi of a Sadhaka during intense Nidhidhyasana or > Atma Dhyana � > not the permanent state of a Jnani. __________________________ Let me ask you Sunder-ji, in your understanding, one is not perturbed by great sorrow - when? - during a 20min trance?? - "as may be caused by being struck with weapons" - is Bhagwan envisaging a missile striking a person in a trance in saying these reassuring words?? "there is any acquisition superior to that" when will a person start to think about whether or not there is anything superior to be acquired? - in a trance where there is absence of knower/known/knowing" And a reading of this sloka based on Shankara's commentary indicates a timebound state of NS?? ____________________________ > There is no doubt that the sixth chapter of Gita the > term Yoga > refers to nidhidhyasana. But what is this Yoga? This > is not atma- > anatma vichara but the practice of `sitting down' > meditation. If > this was not so why would Bhagavan talk about > sitting down in a > clean place etc?. Do you need to sit down in one > place and close > your eyes for atma-anatma vichara? > > Here is a reference to 6.11 (which you conveniently > left out :-)) > // > 6.11 sucau dese pratishtapya... > > Having firmly established in a clean > place his seat, neither too high nor too low, and > made of cloth, > skin and kusa-grass, placed successively one below > the other... _______ So Bhagwan recommendation "be seated, get comfortable" means He is talking about a methodology for getting into a trance?? Is this what you call yukti? Is "being seated" a copyright posture reserved exclusively for practitioners interested in a trance?? "If one sits down, one is not doing atma-anatma vichara" - from where do you derive this inference?? everyone does nidhidhyasana in a "sitting down posture" (i.e. while sitting) and having your eyes closed and minimizing any input from the senseorgans can only help focus your mind for vichara. Also please note nidhidhyasana is contemplation - it follows shravanam and mananam. There is no inconvenience for me in any sloka in Ch.6, but as i made clear I was going to focus on the key verses in the interest of time, and a verse where Bhagwan asks the seeker to be seated comfortably, did not seem to me as one of the most vital verses in this chapter. > > Clearly the sixth chapter is describing the practice > of intense > dhyana on the self by a disciplined Sadhaka, > culminating in > `Samadhi' state, leading ultimately to Sakshatkara > or self- > realization. ____ My humble question to you Sunderji is - where in this chapter does Bhagwan Krishna talk about a timebound state? If we posit that the words nirvikalpa samadhi were not part of vedantic terminology at that time, there is still nothing preventing Vyasa from talking about a trance in some other way, or using other terms. Further, Bhagwan Shankara has written the most exhaustive commentary on each and every sloka of Bhagwan's Upadesha. Why do we find not one mention of the timebound state of NS in his entire commentary? That too esp. for a chapter in the BG, which by your own admission, so overwhelmingly evidently talks about nirvikalpa samadhi - certainly Patanjali's aphorisms where well known in Bhagwan Shankara's time as were the terms nirvikalpa (or asamprajnata) samadhi - could not Shankara have been as categorical as Swami Vidyaranya-ji in describing the purport of this chapter as it is?? Thank you for your thoughts. Humble pranams Hari OM Shri Gurubhyo namah Shyam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2006 Report Share Posted October 11, 2006 advaitin, Shyam <shyam_md wrote: > ___________ > > > > > Clearly the sixth chapter is describing the practice > > of intense > > dhyana on the self by a disciplined Sadhaka, > > culminating in > > `Samadhi' state, leading ultimately to Sakshatkara > > or self- > > realization. > ____ > > My humble question to you Sunderji is - where in this > chapter does Bhagwan Krishna talk about a timebound > state? > > If we posit that the words nirvikalpa samadhi were not > part of vedantic terminology at that time, there is > still nothing preventing Vyasa from talking about a > trance in some other way, or using other terms. > > Further, Bhagwan Shankara has written the most > exhaustive commentary on each and every sloka of > Bhagwan's Upadesha. Why do we find not one mention of > the timebound state of NS in his entire commentary? > That too esp. for a chapter in the BG, which by your > own admission, so overwhelmingly evidently talks about > nirvikalpa samadhi - certainly Patanjali's aphorisms > where well known in Bhagwan Shankara's time as were > the terms nirvikalpa (or asamprajnata) samadhi - could > not Shankara have been as categorical as Swami > Vidyaranya-ji in describing the purport of this > chapter as it is?? > > Thank you for your thoughts. > Humble pranams > > Hari OM > > Shri Gurubhyo namah > Shyam Namaste Shyam-ji. Please pardon my intervening in your debate with Sunder-ji, but I am curious about one thing. In the 6th chapter, Bhagavan gives exhaustive instructions about how to do dhyana yoga (or nidhidhyasana if you prefer - I was merely using the name of the chapter). Not only about the seat, but also about posture, eating/sleeping in moderation, focusing the gaze and so on. This is obviously of importance for any bodiliy discomfort will be a hindrance to dhyana. The result of this dhyana is also described beautifully. But the whole process involves effort on the part of the sadhaka and happens in time. bhagavan himself adds that the process is gradual (shanaih shanaih). Now, if the performance of the dhyana as prescribed is an action, the result will be finite. Is that the case here? If not, what is the difference? Harih Om Neelakantan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2006 Report Share Posted October 11, 2006 praNAms Sri Shyam prabhuji Hare Krishna My heartfelt thanks to you prabhuji for explaining the intricacies of 6th Chapter in such a lucid manner...It is really an *eye opener* for those who believe that adhyAtma yOga as enshrined in gIta is an upAsana/meditation to achieve some exalted timebound state such as NS...Strictly speaking, for those who follow bhAshya vAkya of bhagavadpAda on this chapter there is really little or no doubt about the adhyAtma yOga to suspect that it may be a kind of meditation (exercise of some mental volition) to gain some supernatural experience of state called samAdhi!! For that matter shruti itself says in somany words that it is an instance of concentrated attitude of buddhi for the purpose of visioning/realizing Atman. For example in kAtaka shruti it's been said that he is seen by one pointed buddhi by those who are habituated to look at subtle entities & subsequently it sets forth the process which we have already discussed earlier. shankara siddhAnta followers should realize that this same process has been explained in smruti text gIta as well in the chapter six...coz. here also we find that one who is engaged continuously in dhyAna sees the same Atman in all creatures (sarvabhUtastha AtmAnAM) and those creatures in that Atman (sarva bhUtANicha Atmani) & develops a cosmic vision (sarvatra samadarshanaH)...It is only misconception to interpret these verses to match the state of time bound nirvikalpa samAdhi...Anyway, as you know, enough said on this...let us rest this case :-)) Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2006 Report Share Posted October 11, 2006 Dear Neelakantan-ji Pranams With this question of piercing insight you have provided the exclamation point to this discussion! Thank you. The fruit of selfknowledge is not the result of the dhyana, as an action or karma - in that sense jnana is not a karmaphala. If a jiva were to become Brahman by doing this karma (dhyana or nidhidhyasana), only then this would be the case. But the truth of the matter no jiva can *become* Brahman - emphasis on the word "become" A jiva IS already Brahman to begin with. He has ignorance about this FACT due to beginingless ignorance. He needs to firmly know this preexisting fact. He needs to know he is then tenth man, to borrow from the Up.Sahasri. As Shankara says in the tattvabodha - just as you now have the firm conviction/knowledge that "i am the body", liberation consists in a firm conviction/knowledge that "i am not the body,etc; i am brahman" Then is no sadhana necessary? why do nidhidhyasana? Nidhidhyasana is absolutely necessary to gain a firm conviction, an "actualization" of this knowledge in ones intellect, so that the wrong notions I have about myself are (once and for all)destroyed. I then know the truth about mySelf, and the truth shall st me free. (The other day someone objected to my using the word "only" when i said "sadhana is useful only for attaining a prepared mind. The objection is very valid in the sense that this preparation of the mind can take years and quite likely even janmas, but the objection is also invalid if one understands that term "only" is meant to indicate that the sadhana itself does not "produce" liberation.) No amount of effort/sadhana done by this puny little jiva can ever even infinitesmally remotely "make" him Brahman. In that sense only, and please understand where i am coming from, selfknowledge is "effort"less - it is knowledge about something i already am. Fortunately for all of us the vastu is already our true self. It is never away from me. It alone IS me. Hence is liberation possible - because the only thing keeping me in bondage is ignorance - and because ignorance can go and ignorance does go -when? when enquired into. Avidya cannot stand enquiry - it disappears when enquired into. But that enquiry cannot be done by an unprepared antahkaranam. Hence the process (of preparing the anthakaranam) is gradual. Like all of us, Arjuna also feels overwhelmed by the preparation needed - who verily can control the mind he asks Krishna - aghast at the thought - most of us have asked the same or similair questions to our Gurus as well! - the Lord and our Gurus affirm that it is possible? really? - how? by practice and detachment!!...so easy to read and recite - so difficult to put into practice...!! It cannot happen overnight or even over"decade" - it happens little by very little.. When it is all said and done, with Ishwara's grace and Guru's grace, "liberation" is spontaneous, "effort"less. Take the mahamrtyunjaya mantra OM Tryambakam Yajamahe Sugandhim Pushtivardhanam Urvarukamiva Bandhanam Mrityor Mukshiya Mamritat We worship the three-eyed Lord (Siva) who is full of sweet fragrance and nourishes us human beings. May he deliver me from bondage into immortality, even as the cucumber is severed from the vine. What is beautiful in this example is that as the cucumber is ripened the creeper itself lets go of it -with no effort to break away from the cucumber..the cucumber (unlike other fruits) doesnt fall - it stays where it is!....maya or avidya lets go of you when with a supremely purified mind the words of the mahavakyas are understood by you - this is the meaning. And whose help does the cucumber need to grow and obtain nourishment so it matures - the gardener - "pushtivardanam" - Ishwara! How beautiful! So efforts or karmas(actions) for preparing the mind alone - by themselves will not yield infinity - but upadesha from the Guru when understood by this prepared mind - will grant you the infinite - which is nothing other than you! Humble pranams Hari OM Shri Gurubhyo namah Shyam > Namaste Shyam-ji. > > Please pardon my intervening in your debate with > Sunder-ji, but > I am curious about one thing. In the 6th chapter, > Bhagavan gives > exhaustive instructions about how to do dhyana yoga > (or > nidhidhyasana if you prefer - I was merely using the > name of the > chapter). Not only about the seat, but also about > posture, > eating/sleeping in moderation, focusing the gaze and > so on. This is > obviously of importance for any bodiliy discomfort > will be a > hindrance to dhyana. The result of this dhyana is > also described > beautifully. But the whole process involves effort > on the part of > the sadhaka and happens in time. bhagavan himself > adds that the > process is gradual (shanaih shanaih). > > Now, if the performance of the dhyana as prescribed > is an action, > the result will be finite. Is that the case here? If > not, what is > the difference? > > Harih Om > Neelakantan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2006 Report Share Posted October 11, 2006 Namaste, > > A controlled mind is not in reference to a "stilled" mind, in the > sense of a mind made empty of all thoughts - It has been made clear > refers to a mind that is not hankering after senseobjects, > i.e.chittanaischalyam has been achieved - by means of what? - Yoga > i.e. karmayoga..the mind is fully available to be soaked in > atmavichara alone > > Such a mind or antahkarana has samadhana or ekagrata - > onepointedness (one of the shatsampattis) > Sri Shyam-ji had raised some questions in his last response and I will respond to them shortly. However I have a quick question here (my knowledge of sanskit is pretty basic). >> chittanaischalyam has been achieved - by means of what? - Yoga >> i.e. karmayoga.. I have a doubt whether 'chittanaischalyam' is the result of Karma yoga. In 8.10, Sankara seems to point to chitta-sthairya as the result of samskaras resulting from the practice of Samadhi. Sri Sunder Hattangadi-ji had posted before (#26230) that Sankara had defined 'yoga-balam' (Gita 8:10) as 'samAdhija-saMskAra-prachaya-chitta-sthairya-lakShaNam' The translation is // yoga-balena, [Yoga means spiritual absorption, the fixing of the mind on Reality alone, to the exclusion of any other object.] with the strength of concentration-i.e; imbued with that (strength) also, consisting in steadfastness of the mind arising from accumulation of impressions resulting from spiritual absorption; // Can someone expand on 'chitta-sthairya' and 'chittanaischalyam' please?. regards Sundar Rajan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.