Guest guest Posted October 11, 2006 Report Share Posted October 11, 2006 Pranams Dhyanasaraswati-ji, Thank you for your kind words. I agree with where you are coming from with regards to the intellect. But a purified intellect is still a intellect. And the intellect is what has to grasp the teaching. The human intellect is Ishwara's greatest vibhuti, the pinnacle of manifest srshti, so let us not be coy of stressing its importance. Religion certainly starts where the intellect ends for religions that have not an underlying spiritual construct of enquiry that requires understanding and logic within a framework based on shraddha, and whose sustenance is secured by blind and fanatic degrees of "faith" in the "everafter", at least for the vast majority of their followers and proponents. Vedanta is different. :-) Regards, Hari OM Shyam --- dhyanasaraswati <dhyanasaraswati > wrote: > 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 12, 2006 Report Share Posted October 12, 2006 shyamji: Thank you for your response ! You know Shyam-ji , more than i do, there are intellectuals and intellectuals and then there are pseudo intellectuals ! Then there are vedantins and vedantins and pseudo vedantins ! Far be it for me to suggest or hint who is pseudo or who real ! Smile - a big smile! Not too long ago, we had a discussion on Atman and Brahman! may i please bring to your kind attention verse 6 of upadesha sahasri of shrimaan Adi Shankara Bhagvadapada ? ( Chapter Seven of his Upadesasahasri- (The Thousand Teachings), entitled "Located In the Intellect." ) "Just as the intellect, from absence of discriminating knowledge, holds that the highest [Atman] does not exist, just so when there is discriminating knowledge, nothing but the highest [Atman] exists, not even [the intellect] itself " shyam-ji, please explain to a lay(wo)man like me what this means ! Let the intellect explain the 'atman' which is beyond the intellect of the senses or the understanding! Thank you ! Now coming to 'Shraddha ' - shraddha is not a 'weasel' word ! in fact, there is no synonym for it in Queen's English ! The closest word we get is 'faith' or vishwas! there can be 'andha vishwas' or blind faith the CLOSEST WE CAN GET IS 'VISHWAS' - we hear of 'andha vishwas ' or blind faith but never of 'andha shraddha' ! there are vishwas drohis ( those who betray your faith)) but never shraddha drohis ? would you not agree ? Recently we had a discussion on the word 'kamalajadayite' which our beloved subbuji explained beautifully (post number 33333) by saying The meaning is Kamala-ja is 'born from the Lotus (Navel of Lord VishNu)= Lord Chaturmukha Brahma. His consort, dayitA, is Saraswati. NOW , IT IS MY PLEASURE TO REPRODUCE BELOW VERSE 4 OF THIS FAMOUS OCTAD OF VERSES ON DEVI SHARADA OF SRINGERI! POST NUMBER 6437 IN THE ARCHIVES! SRI ARAVIND KRISHNA IS A GREAT DEVI BHAKTA - i have learned a lot from him. vidyAmudrAxamAlAmR^itaghaTa vilasatpANipAthojajAle vidyAdAnapravINe jaDabadhiramukhebhyopi shIghra.m natebhyaH . kAmAdInAntarAn matsahajaripuvarAn devi nirmUlyavegAt vidyA.m shuddhA.mcha buddhi.m kamalajadayite satvara.m dehimahyam ..4.. EXPLANATION 'vidyAmudrA axamAlA amR^itaghaTa vilasat pANi pAtha oja jAle' In the lotus cluster like arms, you bear the sacred rosary, nectar pot and the symbol of knowledge. shAradAmbA is brahma vidhyA svarUpiNi. She is an offspring of the eternal in its pure form of knowledge. She holds amrUta gaTa and axamAlA in the upperarms and bears cinmudrA and pustaka in the lower two. They represent the four stages in realization. vedAnta vachana shravaNa is denoted by the pustaka in her lower left palm. axamAlA in the upper left arm denotes manana, nididhyAsanam, jIveshvara abheda dyAnam or realization of non duality is represented by vidyA mudra or cinmudra and the nectar pot represents samAdi, the eternal state of pure bliss. `shivAnujA' is one of the 108 names of sarasvati, hence dakxiNAmUrti is also seen with similar hand gestures. 'natebhyaH jaDabadhiramukhebhyo api shIghra.m vidyA dAna pravINe' You are adept in bestowing knowledge even if the seeker is a dumb idiot. Even when a distilled idiot approaches her, with her grace he realizes the eternal spontaneously. If she starts with rAma shabdha in vyAkaraNa and finally teach Vedanta with mImAmsa, nyAya and other essentials in between, it would be a prolong study for decades to come. To practice vichAra with the essential qualities, it may need several births. `shIgra.m vidyA dAna pravINe' is the phrase used to indicate her potential. Even if an earnest seeker approaches her with a single prostration, She blesses him with allthat is needed in no time and opens the door of realization for him.) SHYAMJI - THIS IS SHRADDHA ! SUCH SHRADDHA IS ALSO POSSIBLE ONLY BY GURU'S GRACE AND DEVI KATAKSHAM! tHE POINT IS IN 'SADHANA SOME OF US MAY BE LIKE RABBITS AND OTHER ARE LIKE TORTOISES - THE GOAL IS THE SAME ! for some of us , the process has begun this janma and the results may be reaped in next janma! Shri KRISHNA BHAGWAN SAYS in one of the verses in Srimad bhagwat gita 'no sadhana' ever goes in vain ( i cannot readily recall at this moment) with warmest regards ( advaitin, Shyam <shyam_md wrote: > > Pranams Dhyanasaraswati-ji, > Thank you for your kind words. > > I agree with where you are coming from with regards to > the intellect. > > But a purified intellect is still a intellect. > And the intellect is what has to grasp the teaching. > > The human intellect is Ishwara's greatest vibhuti, the > pinnacle of manifest srshti, so let us not be coy of > stressing its importance. > > Religion certainly starts where the intellect ends for > religions that have not an underlying spiritual > construct of enquiry that requires understanding and > logic within a framework based on shraddha, and whose > sustenance is secured by blind and fanatic degrees of > "faith" in the "everafter", at least for the vast > majority of their followers and proponents. > > Vedanta is different. :-) > > Regards, > > Hari OM > Shyam > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 12, 2006 Report Share Posted October 12, 2006 >> 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. praNAms Hare Krishna Perhaps Shyam prabhuji referring to mayAripta manObhuddhirmAmEvaidhyasyasamshayaH in the same chapter...Even doing karma yOga, if we constantly remember god we can achieve the ultimate...However, shankara bhagavadpAda confirmed that Karma yOga is bahiranga sAdhana (external spiritual practice) & dhyAna is antaranga sAdhana (internal spiritual practice) for chitta shuddhi.....In 8.10 bhagavan in the beginning itself says prayANa kAle (during the death time)....so the result cannot be equated to regular coming & going state of samAdhi...sorry, this verse does not come to your help prabhuji :-)) Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 12, 2006 Report Share Posted October 12, 2006 Namaste Shyam-ji. Thank you for your kindness and patience in answering my question. I understand that self-knowledge is not the fruit of any action. Your explanation is most appreciated. Sadhana, then is necessary to prepare the mind so that one's own nature is recognized clearly. From your post, I understand that nidhidhyasana is: "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. Dhyana, on the other hand, seems to be a process of stilling the mind. I remember you made the distinction between controlled mind and stilled mind. The instructions in Ch. 6 seem to describe the process of entering dhyana. I guess differing interpretations of the verses are possible as also differing interpretations of acharya's bhashya on the same. After all, vastly different darshanas have emerged from the same Upanishads and the Gita. :-) One additional point: in nidhidhyasana, there is a positive effort of establishing the conviction of one's true nature as opposed to dhyana where the effort is to eliminate all thoughts. Once again, thank you for your reply. And, please feel free to point out any errors in my understanding. Harih Om. Neelkantan advaitin, Shyam <shyam_md wrote: > > 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! > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2006 Report Share Posted October 13, 2006 Shyam wrote: Pranams Dhyanasaraswati-ji, Thank you for your kind words. I agree with where you are coming from with regards to the intellect. But a purified intellect is still a intellect. And the intellect is what has to grasp the teaching. The human intellect is Ishwara's greatest vibhuti, the pinnacle of manifest srshti, so let us not be coy of stressing its importance. Religion certainly starts where the intellect ends for religions that have not an underlying spiritual construct of enquiry that requires understanding and logic within a framework based on shraddha, and whose sustenance is secured by blind and fanatic degrees of "faith" in the "everafter", at least for the vast majority of their followers and proponents. Vedanta is different. :-) Regards, Hari OM Shyam ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Namaste Shyamji, I am a bit puzzled by this 'shraddha'. If the component of rational demonstration is high in Vedanta then where does it come in? We don't for instance speak of having faith or belief or 'shraddha' in the theorems of Euclid. We either get them or do not get them, it's a matter of following the logic. Are you speaking of people who accept the conclusions of Vedanta without having the interest or the ability to follow the reasoning involved? Is shraddha ever tested? If it is a rational matter then it would be like testing Boyle's Law. Perhaps it is a mixed thing with both common faith and reasoning mixed. Faith with go-faster stripes then.:-) Best Wishes, Michael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2006 Report Share Posted October 13, 2006 Dear Bhaskar-ji and Sunder-ji Pranams. I had in my first post stated that individual slokas in the Gita should not and cannot be taken independently and the context has to be understood. Subsequently I had started to post "key" verse from the 6th verse in order to bring out the intrinsic message it contained. I wish to thank Sunder-ji for pointing out the error on my part even in this approach. I now realize not one sloka can ever be *ommitted* from our reading and analysis when we are trying to understand even a single chapter! Every verse is a "key" verse (- even verses which talk about sitting down! :-)) The answer to Sunder-ji's poser "does karmayoga help in attainment of chittashuddhi?" lies in the commentary to the very first sloka in this chapter - Bhagwan Shankara uses the technical term chittasamadhanam which means the exact same thing. This is what I had referred to in giving the reference to context of karmayoga in the discussions in the prior post..(.i havent actually done this exercise but if we look at all the occasions in the Gita where the term "yoga" is used, chances are, it is referring to karmayoga most of the time - after all Arjuna has a war to fight and Krishna's primary "agenda" is that dharma to be upheld!) Let us take the 1st 3 slokas 6.1 sri-bhagavan uvaca anasritah karma-phalam karyam karma karoti yah sa sannyasi ca yogi ca na niragnir na cakriyah Bhagwan Shankara: Not depending on;-on what?- on that which is karma-phalam, the result of action- i.e. without craving for the result of action-. He who craves for the results of actions becomes dependent on the results of actions. But this person is the opposite of such a one. Hence (it is said), 'wihtout depending on the result of action. As such he performs his duty - obligatory rites the nityakarmas such as Agnihotra etc. which are opposed to the desireprompted actions(kamya-karmas). Whoever is a man of action of this kind is distinguished from the other men of action. He is a renouncer and a yogi. Renunciation consists of giving up; one who gives up is a renouncer. And he is also a yogi. Yoga means concentration of mind (chittasamadhanam is the technical word Bhagwan Shankara uses here). He who has that is a yogi. This man possessed of these qualities is to be considered a sannyasi ot a Yogi,not that person who does not keep a fire (niragnih) and who is actionless (akriyah). Niragnih is one from whom the fires [viz Garhapatya, Ahavaniya, Anvaharya-pacana, etc.], which are the accessories of rites, have bocome dissociated. By kriya are meant austerity, charity, etc. which are performed wityout fire. Akriyah, actionless, is he who does not have even such kriyas. Objection: Is it not only with regard to one who does not keep a fire and is acitonless that monasticsm and meditativeness are well known in the Vedas, Smrtis and scriptures dealing with meditation? Why are monasticism and meditativeness spoken of here with regard to one who keeps a fire and is a man of action-which is not accepted as a fact? Reply: This defect does not arise, because both are sought to be asserted in some secondary sense. Objection: How is that? Reply: His being monk is by virtue of his having given up hankering for the results of actions; and his being a man of meditation is from the fact of his doing actions as accesories to meditation or from his rejection of thoughts for the results of actions which cause disturbances in the mind. Thus both are used in a figurative sense. On the contrary, it is not that monasticism and meditativeness are meant in the primary sense. With a veiw to pointing out this idea, the Lord says: _________________________________ As always Shankara is meticulously detailed and very plain in his commentary. Every little point is painstakingly clarified. Why is it difficult for anyone to focus his mind?? to maintain equanimity of mind?? Because of ragadveshas. We are ever in a state of metal agitation because of our attachment to the fruits of our actions. Our entire lifetime is spent trying to set things(and people) to the way we want them to be and prevent or correct things from the way we dont want them to be. And this is an exercise in futility because of my severe limitations of capacity and control. Yet foolishly we pant to examine the results of our actions and like a rollercoaster suffer moment to moment ups and downs depending on which way the chips fall. How can a mind that is in the midst of this seemingly permanent turbulence be brought "under control" in a relative sense - by karmayoga. We stop identifying ourselves as a "do-er" independent of Ishwara, or the Cosmic order. We look upon ourselves merely as "an instrument of His creation, His will" - "Thy will be dones" is the attitude. Then whatever be the result is not "my" result but his "prasada", his "gift" to me - whether good or bad - i know with certitude 2 things - a. that this result was exactly as it should have been based on Ishwaras perfect laws and b. that this result is for my own ultimate benefit. So this releases my mind from its turbulent ups and downs and enables it to develop sameness, equipoise, onepointedness, focus, integrity. This is chittanaischalyam. And this is possible initially ONLY by karmayoga. Not my sannyasa. Why? Becase there has not been adequate inner development. I may physically retire to quietitude but internally there is a storm brewing. And will never lead to my upliftment but without a doubt will lead to my destruction. What is better instead is to play my roles, understand these are only "roles", understand that this is all the preparatory ground for a definite purpose, and in a nonjudgemental and dispassionate AND *cheerful* way guage my progress. I need my antahkaranam to burn in the forest fire of vyavahara in order that with years of training of karmayoga what is produced is a mind which has the wonderful qualities of chittashuddhi and chittanaischalyam. Such a mind can then be set forth into contemplation, meditation and nidhidhyasanam as this chapter will soon unfold.. 6.2 yam sannyasam iti prahur yogam tam viddhi pandava na hy asannyasta-sankalpo yogi bhavati kascana Bhagwan Sankara: That which is characterized by the giving up of all actions and their results; which the knowers of the Vedas and the Smrtis, call sannyasam monasticism, in the real sense; know that monasticism in the real sense to be Yoga (karmayoga), consisting in the performance of actions, O Pandava. Accepting what kind of similarity between Karma-yoga, which is characterized by engagement (in actions), and its opposite, renunciation in the real sense, which is characterized by cessation from work, has their equation been stated? When such an apprehension arises, the answer is this; From the point of view of the agent, there does exist a simialrity of Karma-yoga with real renunciation. For he who is a monk in the real sense, from the very fact of his having given up all the means needed for accomplishing actions, gives up the thought of all actions and their results-the source of desire that leads to engagement in work. He also, even while performing actions, gives up the thought for results. Pointing out this idea, the Lord says: For nobody, no man of action whosoever; who has not given up expactaions-one by whom has not been renounced expectation, anticipation, of results can become yogi, a yogi, a man of concentration, because thought of results is the cause of the disturbance of mind. Therefore, any man of action who gives up the thought of results would become a yogi, a man of concentration with an unperturbed mind, because of his having given up thought of results which is the cause of mental distractions. This is the purport. Thus, because of the similarity of real monasticism with Karma-yoga from the point of veiw of giving up by the agent, Karma-yoga is extolled as monasticism in, 'That which they call monasticism, know that to be Yoga, O Pandava.' Since Karma-yoga, which is independent of results, is the remote help to Dhyana-yoga, therefore it has been praised as monasticism. Thereafter, now the Lord shows how Karma-yoga is helpful to Dhyana-yoga: _______________________ SS Same idea is being expanded upon. Karmayoga is the only cure for preparing the inner equipments for nidhidhyasana. ____________________________ 6.3 aruruksor muner yogam karma karanam ucyate yogarudhasya tasyaiva samah karanam ucyate For one who wishes to ascend, who has not ascended,i.e. for that very person who is unable to remain established in Dhyana-yoga;for the sage, i.e. for one who has renounced the results of actions;-trying to ascend to what?- to yoga; action is said to be the means. For that person, again; when he has ascended to (Dhyana-) yoga; inaction, withdrawl from all actions; alone; is said to be; the means for remaining poised in the state of meditation. This is the meaning. To the extent that one withdraws from actions, the mind of that man who is at cease and self-controlled becomes concentrated. When this occurs, he at once becomes established in Yoga. And accordingly has it been said by Vyasa: 'For a Brahmana there is no wealth conparable to (the knowledge of) oneness, sameness, truthfulness, character, equipoise, harmlessness, straightforwardness and withdrawal from various actions' (Mbh. Sa. 175.37). ___________________ SS Once chittanaischalyam has been attained - do not stop there...the journey has only just begun! Once one has develop some steadiness of the mind, then that has to be put to use, by engaing the mind in acharya-upadesha shravan mananam(which hopefully have already taken place) and of course nidhidhyasanam. Now the mind has an ability to flow in the direction of atmavichara without distractions, uninterruptedly. It will be folly to think that the promary purpose of developing mental focus would be to subsequently "still" the mind into a "stoned" condition. The mind has been brought under relative control for what?? for it to be used - towards vichara. The mind alone can be your worst enemy when uncontrolled, but like a thoroughbred horse, it alone can help you reach your destination when controlled and put to use.. How? will then be discussed in the step by step description of nidhidhyasana which the benevolent Bhagwan will unfold... More in my next post Hari OM Shri Gurubhyo namah Shyam --- bhaskar.yr (AT) in (DOT) abb.com wrote: > > >> 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. > > praNAms > Hare Krishna > > Perhaps Shyam prabhuji referring to mayAripta > manObhuddhirmAmEvaidhyasyasamshayaH in the same > chapter...Even doing karma > yOga, if we constantly remember god we can achieve > the ultimate...However, > shankara bhagavadpAda confirmed that Karma yOga is > bahiranga sAdhana > (external spiritual practice) & dhyAna is antaranga > sAdhana (internal > spiritual practice) for chitta shuddhi....> bhaskar > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 14, 2006 Report Share Posted October 14, 2006 Pranams Shyam-ji, Parts of this message also are in reply to Neelakantan-ji and Bhaskar-ji >> I now realize not one sloka can ever be *ommitted* from our reading and analysis when we are trying to understand even a single chapter! Every verse is a "key" verse (- even verses which talk about sitting down! :-)) >> Thanks for your detailed message. It is great that you took the initiative to present a detailed exposition of chapter 6. Also I am glad you are going over all the verses instead of a few – as you rightly point "not one sloka can ever be *omitted* ". And if I might add, for each verse, the entire commentary of Bhagavatpadal also needs to be read to get the full meaning. Looking forward to your further posts. Just as a general FYI, the Gita supersite http://www.gitasupersite.iitk.ac.in/ has all the Gita slokas in different languages plus complete Sanskrit commentary of Shankara along with English translation by Swami Gambhirananda. I printed the sixth chapter bhasya a few days back for my own reading. For those of you who dont have the book, this on-line resource may be very useful. Coming back to your message ( I seperated out the main points in my reply by **): ** Some of the key ideas of the sixth chapter actually start earlier, at the end of the fifth chapter, where Sankara states (5.26) // atha idanim dhyanayogam samyagdarsanasya antarangam.. Thereafter, now, with the idea, 'I shall speak elaborately of the (dhyana yoga) yoga of meditation which is the (antaranga) proximate discipline for (samyagdarsana) full realization. // Just a quick note on what Bhaskar-ji had mentioned >> Bhaskar-ji However,shankara bhagavadpAda confirmed that Karma yOga is bahiranga sAdhana (external spiritual practice) & dhyAna is antaranga sAdhana (internal spiritual practice) for chitta shuddhi // Based on 5.26, Dhyana is the antaranga sadhana not just for chitta suddhi but samyagdarsana (realization)itself. ** Transition from Karma Yoga to Dhyana >> Shyam-ji This is what I had referred to in giving the reference to context of karmayoga in the discussions in the prior post..(.i havent actually done this exercise but if we look at all the occasions in the Gita where the term "yoga" is used, chances are, it is referring to karmayoga most of the time - after all Arjuna has a war to fight and Krishna's primary "agenda" is that dharma to be upheld!) >> your surmise sounds plausible - yoga means karmayoga most of the time in the Gita; However in the sixth chapter the `baton' seems to pass on from Karma yoga to dhyana yoga from 6.3 onwards. // Arurukshor muner yogaM karma kAraNam ucyate | yogArUDhasya tasyaiva SamaH kAraNam ucyate || Aruruksoh, for one who wishes to ascend, who has not ascended, i.e. for that very person who is unable to remain established in Dhyana- yoga;-for which person who is desirous to ascend?-muneh, for the sage, i.e. for one who has renounced the results of actions;-trying to ascend to what?-yogam, to (Dhyana-) yoga; karma, action; ucyate, is said to be; the karanam, means. Tasya, for that (same) person, again; yoga-arudhasya, when he has ascended to (Dhyana-) yoga; samah, inaction, withdrawal from all actions; eva, alone; ucyate, is said to be; karanam, the means for remaining poised in the state of meditation. // ** Internal Purification >> Shyam-ji Once chittanaischalyam has been attained - do not stop there...the journey has only just begun! >> While I agree that karma yoga results in `some' steadiness and purification of the mind, the practice of dhyana yoga is taught as a means for further concentration and purification (internal purification). That is my reading of "Yoga means concentration of mind." And Sankara's commentary on 6.12 "tatraikagram manah kritva" confirms that // Upavisya, sitting; tatra, on that; asane, seat; yogam yunjyat, he should concentrate his mind. To what purpose should he concentrate his mind? In answer the Lord says: atma-visuddhaye, for the purification of the internal organ. How? Krtva, making; manah, the mind; ekagram, one-pointed,by withdrawing it from all objects; and yata-citta-indriya-kriyah, keeping the actions (kriyah) of the mind (citta) and senses (indriya) under control (yata). // ** Dhyana Yoga in the sixth chapter is not 'Vichara' >> Shyam-ji Once one has develop some steadiness of the mind, then that has to be put to use, by engaging the mind in acharya-upadesha shravan mananam(which hopefully have already taken place) and of course nidhidhyasanam. Now the mind has an ability to flow in the direction of atmavichara without distractions, uninterruptedly. It will be folly to think that the primary purpose of developing mental focus would be to subsequently "still" the mind into a "stoned" condition. The mind has been brought under relative control for what?? for it to be used - towards vichara. The mind alone can be your worst enemy when uncontrolled, but like a thoroughbred horse, it alone can help you reach your destination when controlled and put to use.. >> I agree with most of your explanation, Shyam-ji, except for a small quibble regarding `vichara'. If by nidhidhyasana you mean vichara = thinking about acharya upadesha, contemplating on vedantic truths etc, I am afraid that is NOT the reading I get from chapter 6. Yes – niddhidhyasana takes place after shravana and manana (atma vichara) and all those may have occured prior but in this chapter I don't see references to atma-anatma vichara etc (may be I am mistaken). I see lots of references in the 6th chapter to dhyana yoga specific 'practices' and 'terms' like withdrawing of the mind from objects (pratyahara ), making the mind one-pointed ('ekagram'), 'samyamya' (= dharana, dhyana, samadhi), self- absorption (samadhi), purification by Samadhi (samadhi parisuddhena 6.20), the state of yoga (yoga avastha) etc etc.. but no references to atma-anatma vichara. Am I mistaken here? [Note: I have made no references to Patanjali etc here] In the `seat of meditation' as is described in this chapter, the instruction according to Sankara is // 'atma samstham manah krtva na kincidapi cintayet' (6.25) Making the mind fixed in the Self, one should not think of anything whatsoever. // Sankara says this is `yogasya paramo vidhih', the highest instruction about yoga. My understanding is that this is the practice of intense meditation (in the seat of meditation) holding the body, head and neck erect, withdrawing the mind from all objects and `making the mind fixed in the self' i.e. concentrating the mind verily on the Self. This is not (IMHO) sitting down comfortably, thinking, contemplating or dwelling on the teachings of the shastras or acharya-upadesha but an intense focus on the self with the exclusion of everything else. According to this instruction, there is no scope for words, thoughts, mantras or any other props. The resultant 'state' that is pointed to by this instruction is 'total absorption in the self' - the self seeing (abiding) in the self. So, any contemplation, acharya-upadesha shravan mananam, vichara etc will naturally involve thoughts and will not satisfy the 'stringent' requirements of 'na kincadapi cintayet'. The assumption seems to be that the practicing Yogi already has gone through shravana and manana and therefore his mind has the necessary samskara about the 'self'- to be able to fix his mind on the self BTW, 6.25 is very similar to the description Sankara provides in Gita verse 13.25 (Subbu-ji referred to this as `no use of words' in message #33603) // DhyAnena Atmani pashyanti kechid AtmAnam AtmanA | Anye sAnkhyena yogena, karma yogena cha apare || 13.25|| Dhyanena, through meditation: Meditation means contemplation (on the Self) after withdrawing into the mind with concentration the organs of hearing etc. from the objects like sound etc., and then withdrawing the mind into the indwelling conscious Self. Thus, from the citation of such illustrations as, 'the crane meditates, as it were, 'the earth meditates, as it were; the mountains meditate, as it were' (Ch. 7.6.1), it follows that ** meditation is a constant and uninterrupted current of thought like a line of pouring oil **. Through that meditation, kecit, some yogis; pasyanti, realize; the indwelling conscious atmanam, Self; atmani, in (their) intellect; atmana, with the help of the internal organ (antahkaranena )that has been purified by meditation. // Of course this is a very advanced teaching but even at the practice `abhyasa' level, dhyana is always taught as a focus on a single thought Here are examples 1. Sankara's commentary from Gita 12.9 // Abhyasa yoga: abhyasa-yogena, through the Yoga of Practice. Practice consists in repeatedly fixing the mind on a single object by withdrawing it from everything else. The yoga following from this, and consisting in concentration of the mind, is abhyasa-yoga. // 2. Sri Ramana: D.: What is dhyana? M.: Dhyana is holding on to a single thought and putting off all other thoughts. 3. taila-dhArAvat saMtata avicchinna-pratyayo dhyAnam – Sankara's commentary from 13.25 meditation is a constant and uninterrupted current of thought like a line of pouring oil ** Finally a point Neelakantan-ji had mentioned >> One additional point: in nidhidhyasana, there is a positive effort of establishing the conviction of one's true nature as opposed to dhyana where the effort is to eliminate all thoughts. >> Is there a difference between Nidhidhyasana and Dhyana as presented in the sixth chapter?. Dhyana on the self is nidhidhyasana, isn't it? 'atma samstham manah krtva na kincidapi cintayet' Regards Sundar Rajan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 14, 2006 Report Share Posted October 14, 2006 advaitin, "Sundar Rajan" <avsundarrajan wrote: > > Pranams Shyam-ji, > > Parts of this message also are in reply to Neelakantan-ji and > Bhaskar-ji > > ** Finally a point Neelakantan-ji had mentioned > >> > One additional point: in nidhidhyasana, there is a positive effort > of establishing the conviction of one's true nature as opposed to > dhyana where the effort is to eliminate all thoughts. > >> > > Is there a difference between Nidhidhyasana and Dhyana as presented > in the sixth chapter?. Dhyana on the self is nidhidhyasana, isn't > it? 'atma samstham manah krtva na kincidapi cintayet' > > > Regards > Sundar Rajan > Namaste Sundar-ji, If we consider dhyana to be a mental activity, then I think it differs from nidhidhyasana. From what I can understand, nidhidhyasana seems to be a higher order meditation where in a firm conviction that 'I am brahman' is developed. Call it a flow of conviction than a single-pointed thought. Dhyana on the Self implies that the formless Self can be an object of thought. Maybe, I am quibbling, but I thought this distinction is worth remembering. In the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, there is the famous statement "atma is to be seen, heard of, to be though of, and to be made meditated upon (nidhidhyasitavyah). Everything is known when the Self is seen through hearing, thinking and realization (vijnana)" I was reading Swami Gambhirananda's article on Upanishadic Meditation that is included as the Introduction in his Translation of Sankaracharya's commentary on Chandogya Upanishad. Here he discusses the above briefly, quoting Sureshvara. Here is an excerpt: "Commenting on this, Suresvara says that the use of the word vijnana in the second sentence in place of nidhidhyasana in the first, shows that nidhidhyasana is not ordinary meditation, but a meditation of a higher order in which there is no sense of exertion of will, no conscious employment of the thinking process, and no intellection whatsoever. It is the constant presence of the conviction of the form 'I am Brahman', and yet falls short of aparokshanubhuti or the direct realisation of the Self." Shravana is listening, manana is thinking about or reflecting on what is heard. I think nidhidhysana is the process of internalizing it or developing a firm conviction (I guess any word used will tend to distort the meanig a little). This can also be seen in Sankaracharya's explanation of jnana-vijnana-trptatma (ch 6.8) where he explains vijnana as 'vijnAnam tu jnAtanAm tathaiva svAnubhavakaraNam' or 'the exact realisation of what has been learned from sastras'. (Note the use of the word anubhava - can this be translated as experience?) Hope this helps. Harih Om. Neelakantan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 14, 2006 Report Share Posted October 14, 2006 advaitin, "Neelakantan" <pneelaka wrote: > > advaitin, "Sundar Rajan" <avsundarrajan@> > wrote: > > > > > > Is there a difference between Nidhidhyasana and Dhyana as > presented > > in the sixth chapter?. Dhyana on the self is nidhidhyasana, isn't > > it? > > If we consider dhyana to be a mental activity, then I think it > differs from nidhidhyasana. From what I can understand, > nidhidhyasana seems to be a higher order meditation where in a firm > conviction that 'I am brahman' is developed. Call it a flow of > conviction than a single-pointed thought. Dhyana on the Self implies > that the formless Self can be an object of thought. Maybe, I am > quibbling, but I thought this distinction is worth remembering. > Namaste, Would it not even be tantamount to 'semantic sophistry'? Madhusudana Sarasvati has no hesitation in equating nididhyasana with dhyana. Kanchi Mahasvamigal's Advaita Sadhana posts include this: ".......So what the mind can do is only this: In the total agony of anticipation of its own death, it has to keep thinking all the time about the Jiva-Brahma-Aikyam that would happen after its (mind's) death. This is what 'nididhyasana' means. It has to be done with great persistence. The essence of advaita-sAdhanA is this kind of persistent thinking. Of course this is also 'action'. Walking is the action of the legs. Eating is the action of the mouth. Thinking is action of the mind........" Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 14, 2006 Report Share Posted October 14, 2006 Dear Neelakantan-ji: One can over intellectualize in parsing the meaning of words like Dhyana and Nidhidhysana. All of this is trivial. In the highest stages, both Dhyana and Nidhidhysana mean the same thing. All these are mere concepts themselves. The highest meditation is meditation on the Self. However, it is clear that Self cannot be the object of meditation, being the ultimate subject. We are only using words and bumping against the limits of language in trying to convey meaning of the process of Self-Inquiry or Self-focus or bringing awareness to its source which it self is Awareness-Existence-Bliss. One has to understand by inference. That is the secret behind Neti, Neti, Neti....and the eloquent silence of Bhagavan Dakshinamurthi and Bhagavan Ramana. There is saying that an ounce of practice is worth a ton of theory. Practice is the main thing. Bhagavan Krishna emphasizes effort and practice to Arjuna. When Arjuna says that mind is difficult to control, Bhagavan says that we have to bring it back when it strays. When we actually practice with faith and determination and understanding, whether we call it Dhyana or Nidhidhysana is not critical. Sincere longing and effort evokes divine grace that allows the mind to merge in its source and for the Self-Revealing nature of the Self to be seen as crystal clear. Do you see the difficulty with language? In Self-Knowledge, it is only the Self Seeing It Self by It Self and through It Self. One without a second. Self is Nirvikalpa, beyond thought, form, and imagination. "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is." - Jan L.A. van de Snepscheut Love to all Harsha In Bhagavad Gita, Neelakantan wrote: > > Shravana is listening, manana is thinking about or reflecting on > what is heard. I think nidhidhysana is the process of internalizing > it or developing a firm conviction (I guess any word used will tend > to distort the meanig a little). This can also be seen in > Sankaracharya's explanation of jnana-vijnana-trptatma (ch 6.8) where > he explains vijnana as 'vijnAnam tu jnAtanAm tathaiva > svAnubhavakaraNam' or 'the exact realisation of what has been > learned from sastras'. (Note the use of the word anubhava - can this > be translated as experience?) > > Hope this helps. > Harih Om. > Neelakantan > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 15, 2006 Report Share Posted October 15, 2006 advaitin, Harsha wrote: > > Dear Neelakantan-ji: > > One can over intellectualize in parsing the meaning of words like Dhyana > and Nidhidhysana. All of this is trivial. In the highest stages, both > Dhyana and Nidhidhysana mean the same thing. All these are mere concepts > themselves. The highest meditation is meditation on the Self. However, > it is clear that Self cannot be the object of meditation, being the > ultimate subject. > > We are only using words and bumping against the limits of language in > trying to convey meaning of the process of Self-Inquiry or Self- focus or > bringing awareness to its source which it self is > Awareness-Existence-Bliss. One has to understand by inference. That is > the secret behind Neti, Neti, Neti....and the eloquent silence of > Bhagavan Dakshinamurthi and Bhagavan Ramana. > > There is saying that an ounce of practice is worth a ton of theory. > Practice is the main thing. Bhagavan Krishna emphasizes effort and > practice to Arjuna. When Arjuna says that mind is difficult to control, > Bhagavan says that we have to bring it back when it strays. > > When we actually practice with faith and determination and > understanding, whether we call it Dhyana or Nidhidhysana is not > critical. Sincere longing and effort evokes divine grace that allows the > mind to merge in its source and for the Self-Revealing nature of the > Self to be seen as crystal clear. Do you see the difficulty with > language? In Self-Knowledge, it is only the Self Seeing It Self by It > Self and through It Self. One without a second. Self is Nirvikalpa, > beyond thought, form, and imagination. > > "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in > practice, there is." > - Jan L.A. van de Snepscheut > > Love to all > Harsha > > Namaste Harsha-ji. Thank you. Yes, we are struggling with words to describe what is beyond them. And, practice is the most important thing. When we are moving in darkness with a little lamp, we have to keep moving in the light of that lamp. It may not light our path all the way but it lights enough of it for the next step. As you have pointed out, ultimately, we need the grace of the Self to clear all the darkness. Sunder-ji, I guess I am guilty of 'mental sophistry'. Thanks for the gentle reminder. Harih Om. Neelakantan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 15, 2006 Report Share Posted October 15, 2006 Dear Michael-ji Pranams Thank you for your comments. In my humble opinion,shraddha is the very basis for the understanding. The reason selfknowledge and knowledge of theorems or Boyle's laws, etc are different is because the latter come under the realm of science while Vedanta is perhaps "scientific" (as in rational) in its approach but by no means constitutes "science" [spend 30minutes with a Professor of say neuroscience from Johns Hopkins and he can systematically tear apart our logic - it is a different matter that what he would have to offer as his understanding would also be theories based on a small amount of deductive reasoning sprinkled on a main course of unabashed conjecture] Sefenquiry and scientific enquiry differ because the means employed are different. Any knowledge (pramaa) needs a valid means of knowledge. You are surely more wellversed than me with the six accepted pramanas - Pratyaksha (perception), Anumana (inference), Upamana (comparison), Arthapatti (assumed postulated inference), Anupalabdhi (non-apprehension), and Sabda (authoritative word). Of them anupalabdhi and upamana, of course, do not apply to knowledge of something that is existence itself, and, nondual respectively. Similairly arthapatti and anumana(which of course includes invariable concomitance) would also not be valid means of universal knowledge of the vastu for obvious reasons. That leaves pratyaksha and sabda. Cognition of Brahman as an object is of course never possible (and without sabda cognizing it as our own self is similairly not possible.) That leaves sabda or agama - the authoritative word - which word - of Ma shruti alone. Without shraddha in the shruti as a valid independent and indeed benevolent means of knowledge one cannot attain selfknowledge. If i have shraddha in my eyes as a pramana, and see a flower in my hands, I "know" it is a flower, even if a hundred others tell me i picked up a fruit not a flower. That is shraddha in the pramana. For a student of physics to understand e=mc2 requires him to make his intellect fully available for the enquiry, but he can choose to fully keep his ego safely intact, raise all manners of objections, and if possible, try his hardest to disprove the teaching based on accepted rules and laws of mathematics and physics. Not so with an enquiry into the self. The foremost requirement of shraddha is sharanaagati or surrender - my Ego(or ahankara) is surrendered at the doorstep of the Guru - I come to Guru and shruti with a complete acknowledgement of my helplessness in having any other valid means of knowledge and hence a full and resounding "faith" in the teachings that will ensure forth. I may leave ego at the doorstep but certainly need to bring my intellect to the table and hear the teachings in a logical framework. I still should issue forth doubts and counterquestions - but - the difference is - these are in no way intended to disprove the teachings themselves or question their validity - but these are to help me gain clarity about the teaching - the validity of which i have already fully accepted. My only reassurance, if you will, is my Guru (and other realized Seers both present and in the past) whom this teaching has, as surely as the Sun shines, blessed and continues to bless. "If it worked for them, it will work for me" So doubt I must, and frequently, but within the overall construct of faith, so the very clearing of the doubts serves to enhance the clarity of what my faith knows to be true. Your doubt isn't the opposite of your faith; it is an element of faith. As Gibran puts it - "Doubt is a pain too lonely to know that faith is his twin brother." Hence shraddha. Is shraddha ever tested? Only in the sense that no person without this key ingredient has ever attained selfknowledge "shraddhavaan labhate jnanam - the man of faith attains knowledge" and the doubter never attains peace, neither here nor in the hereafter. Reasoning, without shraddha is philosophy, and will ever be at best a wonderful passtime with no end in sight. Shraddha, without reasoning is blind faith, with no possibility of transformation into understanding and release. Reasoning and shradhha without devotion is dry enquiry and will not transform understanding into realization. Best wishes, Hari OM Shyam --- ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva (AT) eircom (DOT) net> wrote: > Namaste Shyamji, > I am a bit puzzled by > this 'shraddha'. If the > component of rational demonstration is high in > Vedanta then > where does it come in? We don't for instance speak > of having > faith or belief or 'shraddha' in the theorems of > Euclid. We either > get them or do not get them, it's a matter of > following the logic. > Are you speaking of people who accept the > conclusions of > Vedanta without having the interest or the ability > to follow > the reasoning involved? > > Is shraddha ever tested? If it is a rational matter > then it would > be like testing Boyle's Law. Perhaps it is a mixed > thing with > both common faith and reasoning mixed. Faith with > go-faster > stripes then.:-) > > Best Wishes, > Michael. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2006 Report Share Posted October 16, 2006 advaitin, Shyam <shyam_md wrote: > > Dear Michael-ji > Pranams > Reasoning, without shraddha is philosophy, and will > ever be at best a wonderful passtime with no end in > sight. > Shraddha, without reasoning is blind faith, with no > possibility of transformation into understanding and > release. > Reasoning and shradhha without devotion is dry enquiry > and will not transform understanding into realization. > Namaste Shyam ji, The above is very well said. They are vitally important statements to be remembered. Along the way it is quite possible that one or sometimes all of them (reasoning, shraddhaa and devotion) could appear to have dried up. As a result, true progress never happens. To maintain all of them till the end is quite a task. Thanks for those fine words. Warm regards, subbu Om Tat Sat 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.