[FairfieldLife] Re: Now It Can Be Told - There Is No Shankara In MMY's Teachings

[emptyb...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Vivekananda extended the empiricist epistemology that all knowledge is derived 
from sense experience into the domain of metaphysics, for he thought that since 
experience is the basis of all knowledge, then if a metaphysical Reality 
exists, it, too, ought to be available for direct experience. And from his 
association with Ramakrsna he gathered that samâdhi was the experience required 
in order to know God. In his writings he placed much emphasis on the necessity 
of attaining samâdhi. 

 

 He loosely translated samâdhi as "super-consciousness," and he stated in his 
work Raja-Yoga, a commentary in English on the Yogasutras of Patanjali, that 
samâdhi experience was the acme of spiritual life:
 Samâdhi is the property of every human being — nay, every animal. From the 
lowest animal to the highest angel, some time or other, each one will have to 
come to that state, and then, and then alone, will real religion begin for him. 
Until then we only struggle towards that stage. There is no difference now 
between us and those who have no religion, because we have no experience. What 
is concentration good for, save to bring us to that experience? Each one of the 
steps to attain samâdhi has been reasoned out, properly adjusted, 
scientifically organized, and, when faithfully practiced, will surely lead us 
to the desired end. Then all sorrows cease, all miseries vanish; the seeds of 
actions will be burnt, and the soul will be free for ever.
 At this point the reader may wonder whether we are not stating the obvious, 
for is it not precisely because samâdhi is so important that modern Vedantins 
such as Vivekananda and Radhakrishnan gave it such emphasis? It is certainly 
important to modern Vedanta, but the question can be legitimately raised as to 
what importance it has in the Upanisads, the very source of the Vedanta, and in 
the classical Vedanta such as in the works of Sankara, the most famous of all 
the Vedanta teachers.
 

 The first point to be noted is that the word samâdhi does not occur in the ten 
major Upanisads upon which Sankara has commented.[11] This is not a matter to 
be lightly passed over, for if the attainment of samâdhi is central to the 
experiential verification of the Vedanta, as we can gather it is, judging by 
the statements of some modern Vedantins such as those cited above, then one 
would legitimately expect the term to appear in the major Upanisads which are 
the very source of the Vedanta. Yet the word does not occur. 
  
 The closest approximation to the word samâdhi in the early Upanisads is the 
past passive participle samahita in the Chandogya and Brhadaranyaka 
Upanisads.[12] In both texts the word samahita is not used in the technical 
meaning of samâdhi, that is, in the sense of a meditative absorption or 
enstasis, although the closest approximation to this sense occurs in the 
Brhadaranyaka. In the first reference (BU 4.2.1), Yajnavalkya tells Janaka: 
"You have fully equipped your mind (samahitatma) with so many secret names [of 
Brahman, that is, Upanisads]."[13] Here the word samahita should be translated 
as "concentrated, collected, brought together, or composed."
  
 In the second occurrence (BU 4.4.23), Yajnavalkya tells Janaka that a knower 
of Brahman becomes "calm (santa), controlled (danta), withdrawn from sense 
pleasures (uparati), forbearing (titiksu), and collected in mind (samahita). 
This reference to samahita is the closest approximation in the Upanisads to the 
term samâdhi, which is well known in the later yoga literature. However, the 
two terms are not synonyms, for in the Upanisad the word samahita means 
"collectedness of mind," and there is no reference to a meditation practice 
leading to the suspension of the faculties such as we find in the literature 
dealing with yoga. The five mental qualities mentioned in BU 4.4.3 later 
formed, with the addition of faith (sraddha), a list of six qualifications 
required of a Vedantic student, and they are frequently to be found at the 
beginning of Vedantic texts.[14] In these texts, the past participles used in 
the Upanisads are regularly changed into nominal forms: santa becomes sama, 
danta becomes dama, and samahita becomes samadhana, but not the cognate noun 
samâdhi. It would thus appear that, while Vedanta authors understood samahita 
and samadhana as equivalent terms, they did not wish to equate them with the 
word samâdhi; otherwise there would have been no reason why that term could not 
have been used instead of samadhana. But it seems to have been deliberately 
avoided, except in the case of the later Vedanta work Vedantasara, to which we 
shall have occasion to refer. Thus we would suggest that, in the Vedanta texts, 
samadhana does not have the same meaning that the word samâdhi has in yoga 
texts. 
  
 This is borne out when we look at how Vedanta authors describe the terms 
samahita and samadhana. Sankara, in BU 4.2.1, glosses samahitatma as 
samyuktama, "well equipped or 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Now It Can Be Told - There Is No Shankara In MMY's Teachings

[yifux...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Thanks Richard and E.B., very interesting discussion!
 

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Now It Can Be Told - There Is No Shankara In MMY's Teachings

[vox_9]

The term 'samadhi' is a Buddhist term, not an Upanishadic or Vedantic term at 
all. The term is used by the Shakya and Patanjali.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 What Shankara says is that duality, such as the fundamental distinction 
between subject and object, is obliterated in deep sleep and in samâdhi, as 
well as in other conditions such as fainting, but duality is only temporarily 
obliterated for it reappears when one awakes from sleep or regains 
consciousness after fainting, and it also reappears when the yogin arises from 
samâdhi. The reason why duality persists is because false knowledge 
(mithyâjana) has not been removed. It is evident from this brief statement that 
Shankara does not consider the attainment of samaâdhi to be a sufficient cause 
to eradicate false knowledge, and, according to Shankara, since false knowledge 
is the cause of bondage, samâdhi cannot therefore be the cause of liberation.

Shri Vasudevâcharya
Dr. Michael Comans, Ph.D


  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Now It Can Be Told - There Is No Shankara In MMY's Teachings

[emptyb...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

In his commentaries, when Shankara used the term “samâdhi”, he was using the 
term as it was used in the Yogasutra-s of Patanjali where it was called 
“asamprajnata-samâdhi ”. Later Vedantins used the word “nirvikalpa-samâdhi” to 
refer to this same state of consciousness (chitta). Nirvikalpa means “without 
concepts” and without subject-object opposition.
  
 There are two points which ought to be noted concerning Sankara's presentation 
of yoga which differ from the model we find in Patanjali's Yogasutra. The first 
concerns method. Sankara does not say that all thought activity should be 
dissolved and suspended in the manner of the cittavrttinirodha of the 
Yogasutras. While in other places, Shankara has mentioned that meditation 
involves the withdrawal of the mind from sense objects, he has also made it 
clear that the dissolution and suspension of thoughts in the mind 
(cittavrttinirodha) is "not known as a means of liberation." (Shankara’s 
commentary on Katha 1.2.12 and Bhagavadgita 16.1.)
  
 Thus, we can see that the perspective of Sankara is fundamentally different 
from that of the yoga tradition where, although the purusa is presented as not 
something to be acquired, liberation is nonetheless a real goal to be attained 
through a process of mental discipline, which necessitates the complete 
suspension and dissolving of all mental activity to allow the “Self” to stand 
out alone. 
  
 That there is a certain ambivalence toward yoga on the part of the followers 
of Vedanta can be seen in Brahmasutra 2.1.3, "Thereby the Yoga is refuted," 
which offers a rejection of yoga following upon the rejection of Sankhya 
philosophy. The problem, as Shankara sees it, is that yoga practices are found 
in the Upanishads themselves, so the question arises as to what it is about 
yoga that needs to be rejected. Shankara says that the refutation of yoga has 
to do with its claim to be a means of liberation independent from the Vedic 
revelation (shruti).
  
 Shankara says, "... the shruti rejects the view that there is another means 
for liberation apart from the knowledge of the oneness of the Self which is 
revealed in the Veda." (BSBh 2.1.3)
  
 He then makes the point that "the followers of Sankhya and Yoga are dualists, 
they do not see the oneness of the Self." (BSBh 2.1.3)  The point that "the 
followers of Yoga are dualists" is an interesting one, for if the yogins are 
dualists even while they are exponents of asamprajnata-samâdhi (nirvikalpa 
samâdhi),  then such samâdhi does not of itself give rise 
to the knowledge of oneness as the modem exponents of Vedanta would have us 
believe. For if it did, then it would not have been possible for the yogins to 
be considered dualists. Clearly the modem Vedantins, in their expectation that 
samâdhi is the key to liberating oneness, have revalued the word and have given 
it a meaning which it does not bear in the yoga texts. And, we suggest, they 
have given it an importance which it does not possess in the classical Vedanta, 
as we are able to discern it in the writings of Sankara. (quoted by Shri 
Vasudevacharya)
  
 At the beginning of his commentary upon the Gita, Shankara makes a significant 
statement concerning the relation of Sankhya to Yoga. He says that Sankhya 
means ascertaining the truth about the Self as it really is and that Krsna has 
done this in his teaching from verses 2.11 up until 2.31. He says that 
sankhyabuddhi is the understanding which arises from ascertaining the meaning 
in its context, and it consists in the understanding that the Self is not an 
agent of action because the Self is free from the sixfold modifications 
beginning with coming into being. He states that those people to whom such an 
understanding becomes natural are called Sankhyas. He then says that Yoga is 
prior to the rise of the understanding above. Yoga consists of performing 
disciplines (sadhana) that lead to liberation; it presupposes the 
discrimination between virtue and its opposite, and it depends upon the idea 
that the Self is other than the body and that it is an agent and an enjoyer. 
Such an understanding is yogabuddhi, and the people who have such an 
understanding are called Yogins. From this it is clear that Shankara relegates 
Yoga to the sphere of ignorance (avidya) because the Yogins are those who, 
unlike the Sankhyas, take the Self to be an agent and an enjoyer while it is 
really neither. They are, therefore, in Shankara's eyes, not yet knowers of the 
truth.
  
 Sankara again clearly demarcates Sankhya and Yoga in his comments on verse 
2.39, where Krsna says, "O Partha, this understanding about Sankhya has been 
imparted to you. Now listen to this understanding about Yoga" According to 
Shankara, 'Sankhya' means the "discrimination concerning ultimate truth," and 
the 'understanding' pertaining to Sankhya means a "knowledge which is the 
direct cause for the termination of the defect which brings about samsara 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Now It Can Be Told - There Is No Shankara In MMY's Teachings

[s3raph...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

since false knowledge is the cause of bondage, samâdhi cannot therefore be the 
cause of liberation.
 

 We get it, but re samâdhi : Shankara is simply saying that it's not a 
sufficient cause of liberation but it is surely a necessary cause. So MMY's 
attempt at a mass initiation via the TMO is justified, no?
 

 And MMY's "Science of Being and Art of Living" is acceptable Advaita-Vedanta 
for Dummies and a praiseworthy attempt to provide the knowledge that 
supplements our experience of transcendence. 
  
 


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 What Shankara says is that duality, such as the fundamental distinction 
between subject and object, is obliterated in deep sleep and in samâdhi, as 
well as in other conditions such as fainting, but duality is only temporarily 
obliterated for it reappears when one awakes from sleep or regains 
consciousness after fainting, and it also reappears when the yogin arises from 
samâdhi. The reason why duality persists is because false knowledge 
(mithyâjana) has not been removed. It is evident from this brief statement that 
Shankara does not consider the attainment of samaâdhi to be a sufficient cause 
to eradicate false knowledge, and, according to Shankara, since false knowledge 
is the cause of bondage, samâdhi cannot therefore be the cause of liberation.

Shri Vasudevâcharya
Dr. Michael Comans, Ph.D

[FairfieldLife] Re: Now It Can Be Told - There Is No Shankara In MMY's Teachings

[emptyb...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

What Shankara says is that duality, such as the fundamental distinction between 
subject and object, is obliterated in deep sleep and in samâdhi, as well as in 
other conditions such as fainting, but duality is only temporarily obliterated 
for it reappears when one awakes from sleep or regains consciousness after 
fainting, and it also reappears when the yogin arises from samâdhi. The reason 
why duality persists is because false knowledge (mithyâjana) has not been 
removed. It is evident from this brief statement that Shankara does not 
consider the attainment of samaâdhi to be a sufficient cause to eradicate false 
knowledge, and, according to Shankara, since false knowledge is the cause of 
bondage, samâdhi cannot therefore be the cause of liberation.

Shri Vasudevâcharya
Dr. Michael Comans, Ph.D

[FairfieldLife] Re: Now It Can Be Told - There Is No Shankara In MMY's Teachings

[emptyb...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

"You're this you are that - blah blah."

A typical insult because there is no answer for a TMO sycophant. Instead of 
examining the issue, yours is a display of your inability to evaluate 
Shankara's statement. 
Do you even own a copy of Shankara's Brahma Sutra Bhasya?
I think not.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Now It Can Be Told - There Is No Shankara In MMY's Teachings

[srijau]

Anyone who has seen your history posting here knows you are just pompous 
bombast, another know it all know nothing.