Discussion on the role of Yoga in Adwaita

[Sundaresan, Vidyasankar (GE Infra, Water)]

... Sankara bhagavatpAda did
speak a lot about dhyAna as well as samAdhi in all through his

prasthAna

trayi bhAshya (especially in geeta & sUtra bhAshya) from purely

vEdAntic

perspective without mixing it with pAtanjala yOga shAstra's dhyAna &
samAdhi ( last two steps of ashtAnga yOga)...yOga shAstra (which is

dvaita

shAstra in essence) advocates *purusha taNtra* dhyAna which is

dependent

on will & wish of the doer...He may do it, he may stop it or he may opt

for

some other ways to do it. It is *mAnasa kriya* of the doer where he can
modify its end result..(dhyAnaM chintanaM yadyapi mAnasaM taThApi

puruShENa

kartuM, akartuM anyaThA vA kartuM shkyaM purushatantratvAt says Sankara

in

sUtra bhAshya)..So, this type of dhyAna may lead one to *mindless*

state of

nirvikalpa or asamprajnAtha samAdhi (pAtanjala explains this as

*svarUpa

shUnya* state)..whereas vEdAntic effortless natural dhyAna leads one to
realize sarvabhUtasThaM AtmAnaM sarvabhUtAnicha Atmani....sarvatra
samadarshanaH...This is not svarUpa shUnya state, it is *svarUpa

sarvaM*

state...This is the subtle difference between pAtanjala's purusha

taNtra

dhyAna and vEdAntic *vastu taNtra* dhyAna.

I was planning on adding some detailed comments to the above, but don't
seem to
have found the time to do it. So here are a few short comments:

1. The distinction between yogic dhyAna and vedAntic dhyAna is more
academic
than one of practice.

2. Sankara bhagavatpAda himself accepts and subsumes yogic techniques
and
teachings inasmuch as they serve as a means to Atma-darSana. By his own
description, this is because the yoga darSana is close to the
upanishadic darSana
(pratyAsatteH - sUtrabhAshya 2.1.3). It is accepted where it is not in
direct conflict
in vedAnta (yena tv aMSena na virudhyete tena .... sAMkhya-yoga-smRtyoH
sAvakASatvam - sUtrabhAshya 2.1.3).

3. Therefore, it follows that yoga can lend itself to vastu-tantra
AtmadarSana also.
However, being an action, the doer cannot really modify its end result.
The choice
of the doer relates only to the action, not to its result. Having chosen
to act or not
act or to act otherwise, the doer cannot simply choose to modify the end
result at
a later stage.

4. From the perspective of the sincere mumukshu, the question of kartum
akartum anyathA kartuM resolves itself quite easily. Any intellectual
activity is a
mAnasa kriyA, including that of analyzing upanishad sentences. dhyAna is
not a
special mental action in this respect. There is therefore no need to
specially reject
yoga in this context. Throughout the gItAbhAshya, we are taught that the
qualities
of the sthitaprajna are to be emulated by the seeker. What is at first a
question
of practice and takes some will on the part of the mumukshu becomes a
natural
characteristic of the state of the sthitaprajna. A study of the bhAshya
on the verses
dealing with the sthitaprajna shows that bhagavatpAda describes *dhyAna*
and
*samAdhi* per se, without necessarily distinguishing between "yogic" and
"vedAntic" versions.

5. What bhagavatpAda's own attitude towards yoga was can be gauged from
the
words of his direct disciple, sureSvarAcArya, who puts yogAbhyAsa at an
intermediate stage between sarva-karma-tat-sAdhana-saMnyAsa and
tattvamasy
Adi vAkyArtha parijnAnam. As such, the sannyAsi in the advaita vedAnta
tradition,
from the earliest days in known history, has incorporated a vast amount
of yoga
practice and experience in his life.

This is an important point to be noted by those who instinctively reject
any usage
of the words, yoga or dhyAna or samAdhi, in a generic sense by later
advaitins. If
one has an open mind, one will realize that the traditional keepers of
the advaita
tradition have been quite true to Sankara bhagavatpAda's teachings.

Regards,
Vidyasankar

[Bhaskar YR]

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

[Sundaresan, Vidyasankar (GE Infra, Water)]

Post by Bhaskar YR
Here I think punch word is aMSena...shankara never ever rejects

siddhAnta

Post by Bhaskar YR
of other smruti texts that go in line with vEda-s...paramataM
apratishiddham anumataM bhavati..is the assurance of Sankara..yOga is

*para

Post by Bhaskar YR
mata* and cannot be on par with vEda, however, shankara says here eka

dEsha

Post by Bhaskar YR
of these smruti texts (like sAnkhya, yOga) etc. are pramANa-s if it

goes in

Post by Bhaskar YR
line with vEda-s..But prabhuji, importantly shankara in this sUtra

itself

Post by Bhaskar YR
(etEna yOgaH pratyuktaH) comments & declares that neither sAnkhya jnAna

nor

Post by Bhaskar YR
vEda viruddha yOga are the direct means to mOksha. As you know, in this
sUtra shankara elaborately discusses how sAnkhya & yOga smruti texts

goes

Post by Bhaskar YR
against vEda with regard to jagatkAraNa vAda. If I am right here only
shankara says *dvaitinO hi te sAnkhyAH yOgAscha na Atmaikatva

darshinaH*

Bhaskar, my post is not for the sake of argumentation, but for
clarification.
Indeed, you are right that the key word is aMSena and the ekadeSa.
Inspite
of the fact that the sAMkhya and yoga traditions are dvaitin in nature,
Sankara
bhagavatpAda does not hesitate to admit their closeness (pratyAsatti) to
the
advaita teaching of the upanishad-s. And inspite of the paramata nature
of
yoga, he does not hesitate to use it as an upAya towards Atma-darSana.
Nor
does he hesitate to commend it where appropriate. This attitude stands
in
sharp contrast to others in more recent times, whether they wish to
conflate
yoga with vedAnta or whether they wish to draw a sharper contrast
between
the two than necessary.

The question we must ask ourselves is this - whenever we see the word
yoga, used by say, some post-Sankaran vedAntin, should we come up with
an instinctive response of rejecting it and finding fault with that
author for
deviating from Sankara? Or should we investigate the context of the
reference
to yoga and ask ourselves if it is to that aMSa of the yoga darSana that
is
*not* veda-viruddha? I prefer the latter approach.

Furthermore, in terms of yoga practice and techniques, why does it
matter
what the texts of yoga say about the origin of the universe? I don't
have to
accept anything that a doctor says about anything outside of medicine. I
can
still take the medicine that he prescribes for a physical ailment. The
case with
yoga practice is similar. It is easy to harp upon the duality of
pAtanjala yoga
and the fact that its practice is dependent upon the individual -
purusha tantra.
Without actually practising it, it is much more difficult to see how
useful
it is in preparing the antaHkaraNa for understanding the vastu-tantra
jnAna.
Practising yogic dhyAna is like learning to swim or practising music or
painting. One can talk a lot about it, but without actually going
through it, one
does not really know either its benefits or its limitations.

Post by Bhaskar YR
But here the doer would have the control over the end result...he can

fix

Post by Bhaskar YR
the time to come back from nirvikalpa samAdhi (kindly refer recent

posting

Post by Bhaskar YR
on nirvikalpa samAdhi & its experience by HH Sri Sri Abhinava
vidyAtIrtha)..

I think you are missing the point of that reference. Has His Holiness
(or
for that matter, any other traditional vedAntin who has mastered yoga)
described the state of nirvikalpa samAdhi as the ultimate end result to
be
desired? Also, pre-determining the time for which one is in a yogic
state
is quite different from the result of abiding in that state? E.g. A man
can
pre-determine the number of times he is going to gAyatrI japa or the
hours
he is going to spend doing the japa, but does that mean he can modify
the end result of the japa?

Post by Bhaskar YR
Yes prabhuji, IMHO it requires some kind of open mindedness & courage

to

Post by Bhaskar YR
think out of the boundaries put by vyAkhyAnakAra-s to understand the

true

Post by Bhaskar YR
teachings of bhagavatpAda & to maintain that clarity & prestine purity

of

Post by Bhaskar YR
shankara's absolute non-dual advaita siddhAnta, there is noway for us

but

Post by Bhaskar YR
to *goback* to mUla bhAshya.

And it also takes a lot of open-mindedness and courage to go back to
the mUla bhAshya-s and discover that the later vyAkhyAna-kAra-s have
much more in common with Sankara bhagavatpAda than they are given
credit for by some! Personally, I have not paid attention to any of the
later vyAkhyAna-kAra-s. I have hardly any idea of the intricate details
in
the writings of prakASAtman or vimuktAtman or madhusUdana sarasvatI.
Every single statement I have made over the years, about the role and
place of yoga in advaita tradition, is based *only* on the SAnkara
bhAshya-s. Only, I choose to look also at the bhAshya-s on bhagavad
gItA and bRhadAraNyaka, chAndogya, muNDaka, kaTha upanishad-s etc,
in addition to brahmasUtra bhAshya.

What I find about Sankara bhagavatpAda's clear and pure teaching is
often
remarkably different from what is found by those who privilege the sUtra
bhAshya over all other texts. I find a lot more consistency across all
these
texts, rather than having to "explain away" some seeming difference as
something that does not harm the mUla siddhAnta. I also doubt if Sankara
bhagavatpAda thought in such terms in the first place. He did not go
about
saying, "this much is my mUla siddhAnta, as written down in my sUtra
bhAshya. In my other bhAshya-s, I will now say something that may not
directly follow from it, but also does not harm the mUla siddhAnta."
Rather,
I think he investigated all there was to investigate in the three
prasthAna-s
and then said, "this is the siddhAnta of all these scriptures. I will
now explain
them by writing bhAshya-s on them."

Best regards,
Vidyasankar