[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion about Samâdhi and Liberation
Perhaps I've misunderstood, perhaps you have, or perhaps Shankara is simply wrong. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote : Lawson sez: L: In order for perception to be perception, there must be a physical nervous system. This is contradicted by the Vedanta and Yoga darshana-s, which both assert the casual priority of the subtle body (sukhma sharira). That means there is preservation and continuity of a subtle nervous system of prana-nadis in a subtle body in the subtle realms. L: Even for universal consciousness to be aware of things (even of Itself), there must be structure -- some kind of physiology, even if it is made of Universal Consciousness with no defining characteristics besides being Universal Consciousness. L: aware of” things (even of itself) Shankara follows the Upanishads in defining the Self as self-luminous (svayamjyotish) (âtmâ svayam chaitanya jyotis.svabhâvatâ). “Seeing” is the very nature of the Self. It does not require another luminosity to manifest it - any more than the Sun requires another light to illuminate it. It is awareness itself and doesn’t require reflexivity to make it evident. L: … with no defining characteristics This means no structure whatsoever and therefore no possible distinction between perceiver, perception and perceived. That means there can be no functioning physiology which can produce any experience at all. L: Our appreciation of this wholeness without duality is Samadhi and Samadhi can occur *because* our nervous system has taken on a certain form (supporting PC or CC or GC or UC, depending). Shankara never says realization of Brahman (Brahmajñâna) or the Self (Atman) depends upon or is associated with the cultivation of nirvikalpa samâdhi (non-conceptual absorption) in meditative union. In fact, he denies that yogic cessation or suspension of mental activity (citta.vritti.nirodha) is or can be a means to liberation/moksha. (Brhadaranyaka Upanishad Bhasya 1.4.7)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion about Samâdhi and Liberation
On 10/5/2014 11:19 AM, lengli...@cox.net [FairfieldLife] wrote: Perhaps I've misunderstood, perhaps you have, or perhaps Shankara is simply wrong. /MMY points out that even samadhi, which is already the state of Yoga in the sense of transcendental consciousness, serves as a means to the ultimate state of Yoga which is cosmic consciousness. In the state of cosmic consciousness, transcendental consciousness has become permanently grounded in the nature of the mind - kshanika (momentary) samadhi has become nitya (perpetual) samadhi. / L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote : /Lawson sez:/ // /L: In order for perception to be perception, there must be a *physical*/**/nervous system./ // *This is contradicted by the Vedanta and Yoga darshana-s, which both assert the casual priority of the subtle body (sukhma sharira). That means there is preservation and continuity of a subtle nervous system of prana-nadis in a subtle body in the subtle realms. * // /L: Even for universal consciousness to be aware of things (even of Itself), *there must be structure* -- some kind of physiology, even if it is made of Universal Consciousness with no defining characteristics besides being Universal Consciousness. / // */L:/**//*/aware of” things (even of itself/*/)/**//* *//* *Shankara follows the Upanishads in defining the Self as self-luminous (svayamjyotish) (âtmâ svayam chaitanya jyotis.svabhâvatâ). “Seeing” is the very nature of the Self. It does not require another luminosity to manifest it - any more than the Sun requires another light to illuminate it. It is awareness /itself/ and doesn’t require reflexivity to make it evident. * ** /L:/… /with no defining characteristics/** ** *This means no structure whatsoever and therefore no possible distinction between perceiver, perception and perceived. That means there can be no functioning physiology which can produce any experience at all**. * // /L: Our appreciation of this wholeness without duality is Samadhi andSamadhi can occur *because* our nervous system has taken on a certain form (supporting PC or CC or GC or UC, depending)./// *Shankara never says realization of Brahman (Brahmajñâna) or the Self (Atman) depends upon or is associated with the cultivation of nirvikalpa samâdhi (non-conceptual absorption) in meditative union. In fact, he /denies/ that yogic cessation or suspension of mental activity (citta.vritti.nirodha) is or can be a means to liberation/moksha. /(Brhadaranyaka Upanishad Bhasya 1.4.7)/*
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion about Samâdhi and Liberation
Do you mean this? Brihadaranyaka Upanishad - Shankara Bhashya translated by Swami Madhavananda https://archive.org/stream/Brihadaranyaka.Upanishad.Shankara.Bhashya.by.Swami.Madhavananda#page/n137/mode/2up Brihadaranyaka Upanishad - Shankara Bhashya translated by Swami Madhavananda https://archive.org/stream/Brihadaranyaka.Upanishad.Shankara.Bhashya.by.Swami.Madhavananda#page/n137/mode/2up Internet Archive BookReader - Brihadaranyaka Upanishad - Shankara Bhashya translated by Swami Madhavananda The BookReader requires JavaScript to be enabled. View on archive.org https://archive.org/stream/Brihadaranyaka.Upanishad.Shankara.Bhashya.by.Swami.Madhavananda#page/n137/mode/2up Preview by Yahoo And the definition of physical in Shankara's time, and physical these days is radically different. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote : Lawson sez: L: In order for perception to be perception, there must be a physical nervous system. This is contradicted by the Vedanta and Yoga darshana-s, which both assert the casual priority of the subtle body (sukhma sharira). That means there is preservation and continuity of a subtle nervous system of prana-nadis in a subtle body in the subtle realms. L: Even for universal consciousness to be aware of things (even of Itself), there must be structure -- some kind of physiology, even if it is made of Universal Consciousness with no defining characteristics besides being Universal Consciousness. L: aware of” things (even of itself) Shankara follows the Upanishads in defining the Self as self-luminous (svayamjyotish) (âtmâ svayam chaitanya jyotis.svabhâvatâ). “Seeing” is the very nature of the Self. It does not require another luminosity to manifest it - any more than the Sun requires another light to illuminate it. It is awareness itself and doesn’t require reflexivity to make it evident. L: … with no defining characteristics This means no structure whatsoever and therefore no possible distinction between perceiver, perception and perceived. That means there can be no functioning physiology which can produce any experience at all. L: Our appreciation of this wholeness without duality is Samadhi and Samadhi can occur *because* our nervous system has taken on a certain form (supporting PC or CC or GC or UC, depending). Shankara never says realization of Brahman (Brahmajñâna) or the Self (Atman) depends upon or is associated with the cultivation of nirvikalpa samâdhi (non-conceptual absorption) in meditative union. In fact, he denies that yogic cessation or suspension of mental activity (citta.vritti.nirodha) is or can be a means to liberation/moksha. (Brhadaranyaka Upanishad Bhasya 1.4.7)
