Samadhi

When we talk of samadhi, people normally confuse that the yoga Samadhi with gnana Samadhi.

Is there a difference ? because, in the yoga too the oneness of the seer, seeing and the seen is what is experienced in the Samadhi. And this seems to be the case with the vedantic gnana Samadhi too. But, if it be said, in Vedanta Samadhi it is accepted that only the seer remains, it is old wine in new bottle.

This argument is taken to a next level by some vedantins themselves, by trying to show the Samadhi and deep sleep as one.

So, what is the difference ? this is, the yoga Samadhi no doubt speaks of the oneness in a way to speak. But, this oneness is attained by the control of the thought-functions (vritti). And , this thoughtless (!?!) state is the same state attained in the deep sleep, so we can easily conclude it is not what the Vedanta teaches. But is sleep not similar to Samadhi, no, it cannot be, because the sleep is a kind of avidya vritti. This is explained in the yoga sutra, “abhava alambana vritti nidra”.

Ok, it is understood the sleep is not Samadhi. But still the difference between the yoga and gnana Samadhi is not explained. It is this the yoga Samadhi as explained earlier is cessation of thought function. And the gnana Samadhi is the one which is gained through the pramanic knowledge. Through the pramanic knowledge a vritti which is akhandakara vritti is generated and this is the one which destroys all the ignorance. If the akandakara vritti is a vritti then how is it negated, because though it negates the other vrittis, it will remain unopposed ? the akandakara vritti is like the fire, when there is fuel the fire burns, and when the fuel is burnt, the fire gets extinguished itself. There is no new effort needed, in the same way, for negating this akhnandakara vritti too.

This is why the yoga Samadhi is termed, Jada Samadhi (Jada – inert) and vedantic Samadhi is called gnana Samadhi.

Some Q & A - 5

16. Can you kindly explain why BhagawAN Bhasyakara and Sureshwaracharyaji, in some places   identify deep sleep as  a statewhen Atman becomes one with Brahman
 answer: For this BS 3.2.8 adhikarana and B.S 3.2.9 should be seen concurrently. because, though on 8 he says it is sushptisthana, since it is in tadatmya with brahma, still, one wakesup as that onesellf  before sleep. otherwise, even sleep will make you realized, what is the need for all this mula, bhashya, tika, prakarana etc. etc.
people want to sometimes see what they want, like here in this point holenarsipur swamiji. let me explain, a two days ago i saw a lorry with a headplate or frontpanel writing, "MAA KI BUWA" i was stunned, that someone remembers a strange relation. but after a minute or two it struck me it is not BUWA but DUWA with a strange mark in the D. or, the otherday when i was travelling i saw a board where they claim to teach maths, and on the board was written AlZebra, and i was trying to get a meaning, with ref to Al-Jaseera or Al-hamid and other notorious
names, but later it struck me he is referring to Alzebra, a famous branch of maths.
17. Can you kindly explain why Acharya Gaudapada compares this world with sashasringa (which is asat)? (in the second chapter) It was in this context I asked you earlier that sometimes I get confused while reading the karika where the difference btween mithya and asat is not very clear as if.While in advaita-siddhi the difference is clearly stated.
answer: Iam not answering this --> But, I urge you to go thru the karika of chapter 2 once more. what is vaitatya first and is not there a mithya word very clearly used for jagat by bhagavan gaudapada in the karika?
18. what is the controversy between Prabhakara and Kumarila Bhatta regarding Swadhay vidhi
 answer: the diff is just namesake diff. like one accepts the svadyaya as the study of the vedas and the other (Guru - Prabakara) accepts it only with the complete knowledge of the meaning.
19.Is there any difference between Bhamati and Vivarana regarding the
defination of mithya?
answer: the first is from pancapadika, the second and third is from pancaadika-vivarana, fourth chitsukhi (pratyagtattvapradipika) and the final one is by anandabodacharya.
In bhashya and bhamati, i remember the statement "sad-asadbhyam anirvacaniyam" as the definition of mithya. which is like, the first one. So, there is practically no differrence. even if it s so, it has more to do with the logical language etc. and not in the
way mithya is accepted.
20.Is Sureshwaracharyaji considered within Vivarana school or is He separated out ?What is the traditional position regarding this?
answer:He is accepted by both the schools (but should add, to some extent. otherwise there is no  need to start a new school of thought)
But frankly, he had an idea of his own, though based on the advaita.

Some Q & A - 4

11.Firstly when Madhusudana Saraswatiji, starts HIs Advaita Siddhi, he states that mithatya of world is to proved first.Can you please explain what exactly Buddhists positon regarding falsity of the world(I am speaking of Vijanavadins and Shunyavadins) and its relation with the advaita position? 
answer: They both accept the world to be non-existant, and is just a projection of vijnana or on vijnana. they say, aadau antau yad nasti,madhye api tad tatha - that which didnt exist in the beg and in the end, in between too its position is the same.
12. Then what is the difference between Buddhism and Advaita? Moreover why does Bhagawan Bhasyakara criticise Vijanavadain view that objects are vijana in His Brahmasutra Bhasya.?
answer: They say that the world is vijnamatra and therefore it is false(asat). and we asy it is illusion (mitya, maya, avidya). though, some people think that the karika has also expressed similar views and not mitya view, (they say, before people were intelligent to understand the difference with just sat and asat) it is wrong, because, the very
alatashanti prakarana deals with this.
13.Regarding therelationship between karmayoga with Jnana what is the difference inBhamati and vivarana school regarding this? There was some difference between them(of a minor nature) regarding the role of Karmayoga.
answer: bhamati - karma -> chitta shuddhi -> desire for knowledge - >shastra -> knowledge - > moksha
    Vivarana - karma -> moksha
This they present with the statement, karmana eva samsiddhim astita janakadaya and yagnena daanena tapasaa anashakena, yagnan dhaanamtapaschaiva pavanaani maniishinaam etc. And this cannot be accepted as
minor differences.
14. How can an advaitin say that Karma leads to Moksha! Bhagawan Bhasyakara is clear on this point.
answer:Are you sure ? . because, bhagavan bhashyakara in BS.3.2.5 see the bhashya.he says, tato hi ishward heto jivasya bandhamokshau bhavata. after he says, the point it is possible for some "kaschideva avirbhavati".

15.Can non-brahmins take sannyasa? What is the traditional position regarding this?If any non brahmmin wants to renounce, does tradition accept them?
answer:  The discussion is where sureshwara bhagavan differs with acharya bhagavan. acharya says only brahman has right, but whereas, varthikakara says since they have right for karma, they should have the right for giving it up too. but, the yatidharmasangraha or for that matter naradaparivrajaka or other sanyasa upanishads say only about brahmins. for others, if at all, they should not wear ochre robe.
now, the traditional people, who ever, except the south indian pitas,
accept. probably, they themselves are not brahmins or they dont follow
the sannyasa dharma.

Some Q & A - 3

cont ...

7.THe term pratiyogin , I always get confused about it, it seems to mean multiple things.I have read two translations of the term "counter-positive" and "counter-correlate".Can you kindly explain what is the basic difference between "counter-positive" and "counter-correlate" and what is the precise meaning of pratiyogi?
 In discussing the viprapatti ,the text says
'' it is the counter -positive which is negated for all time(past etc) in the locus in which it appears."
" it is the counter-correlative of the said negation in its absolute form."
Can you kindly explain what is the precise meaning?
answer :My english and my intelligence is very poor. so, i dont get into these counters, major and minor terms etc.

Pratiyogin according to nyaya is "yasya abhava", that is the object you are talking about. it need not just be the abscent object. simply put it is the adjunct or embodiment. this is what is said in" it is the counter-correlative of the said negation in its absolute form."

And for any pratiyogin there should be an anuyogin "yasmin abhava " -adhara, adhikarana, the substratum, locus.... and this is explained here with ref to pratiyogin '' it is the counter -positive which is negated for all  time(past etc) in the locus in which it appears."  


8. In your Brahmasutra lectures you said that it is generally believed that Bhamati tradition is for the householders and Vivarana is for Sannyasins. In this context I would like to ask what is the traditional view of liberation, can householders attain it? (recently I went to Sringeri, and bought abook of His Holiness Chandrasekherendra Bharati, where it is mentioned that He re generally did not agree to teach Brahmasutra Bhasya to householders)If this is so then what for is the Bhamati tradition ascribed to them?
answer : Forget chandrashekara bharati swamijis statement, i have tons of respect for him.  But, it is his perception. bhamatikara himself is a counter example. and there are innumerable examples.In advaita, understand this, not many people understand this, therecan be many ideas but the self is one. since the jagat is mithya, the explanation to it need not be precise. and also, whatever, explanation you give is precise too.

9. In Bengal, there is a particular tradition among Gaudiya Vaishnavas who say that Madhusudana Saraswatiji, was basically a vaishnava and not a true advaitin. They give lot of irrelevant logics which it seems to me, are of a little interest .However there is only one point ,in some places of Gita Bhasya Madhusudana Saraswati seems to differ from Bhagavan Bhasyakara. For example in His bhasya on 18.66 , He respectfully differs from Bhagavan Bhasyakara. Why is this so? Or is the answer like the one you gave me in the previous mail, i.e. maya's  jagat can be explained in various ways . What is disturbing me, is actually Madhusudana Saraswati rather emphasises His difference with Bhasyakara, in the last example (18.66).
answer: Forget about it. they are just ideas. why just him, even bhagavan bhashyakaras direct disciple sureswara bhagavan has contradicted him in brahadaranyaka varthika. see madhusudana bhagavans commitment in the mangala sloka itself. and when he starts with, advaitasiddi dvaita mithyatvasiddhipoorvakatvat... bhagavan bhashyakara himself says, tasmat vyaktistu na pramanam. and 2 just forget it is just ideas, they dont really mean anything, i
mean all the explanation someone gave.just remember, dont give importance to ideas, even this 

10. In Agama Prakarana, what does the prajna mean exactly, If it is avidya, then why is it called Ishwara sometimes?
answer: Praajna is the word which is sometimes used in this way.. but it probably is taken as prajne bhava (existing in prajna) and not as prajna eva praajna. (prajna is praajna) so, sometimes this type of interpratation happens. this meaning is what is taken even in kshetragna, by some. But tasya prajna prathistha etc, speaks it as the Self / knowledfe principle.

Some Q & A - 2

Cont...

5.What is the exact difference between Shaktadvaita and Shivadvaita ? I was recently reading an article by MM Gopinath Kaviraj who claims these two are different, but the difference between them seems to me rather based on terminology(at least reading the article it seemed)
answer:both shakta and shivadavaita are very similar. the idea for shakta philosphy is derived by bhaskaracharya from kasmir shaivism only. all said, if you want to see differrence 1 and 2 are differrent, but they are both numerals. here shiva is accepted as great and shakti on the other side, there it is a HUGE difference 
6.I was grappling with Advaita Siddhi, the first part starts with a discussion on Vipratipatti. I you have time can you elucidiate the basic positions of the purvapakshi and Siddhatin here.What I am trying to say what is the exact relation of this discussion with the objective of the Acharya i.e. proving the world is Mithya  Instead of starting the discussion ith Mithatya why does He start with this discussion?
answer:The purvapakshi does not want to accept the doubt which arises due to the viprapatti vakya in accepting the pakshata (sandigdasadhyadharmavan - where there is a doubt about the sadhya,and that type of dharma exists in whichever place, that is called).this is what he refers to with - yadyapi viprapattijanyasamsayasya na
pakshatasampadakatayopayoga.

1. Therefore this viprapatti statement which is declared by somebody
cannot be accepted as a part of the vicara.
2. And also, those who are in dialogue are sure about their own
statements, therefore, even if somebody pronounces this vipratipatti,
still, both are not going to listen to it.
3. And that somebody can easily declare that, you are going to prove
this, and you are going to condemn this. for this reason also there
can be no viprapatti and in effect no doubt.
But, for us though it may not be diretly accepted through doubt, asfor the negation of doubt it becomes a part of the vicara.

Some Q & A

Iam posting the posts by Rajit ji, in the forum.

These are some questions which were put to Swamiji, and He kindly answered them. Though these are being posted   under the topic Vedanta, occasional references are made to other darshanas also.
1. Firstly as far as I understood, in Advaita there is a Sat, Asat and Mithya.Now theMandukya karikas does not seem to differentiate between the last two. In the Bhasya of the karika also it seems as if Bhagavan Bhasyakar is not differentiating between Asat and MithyaHowver later Advaitins were bent on proving that Mithya and asat are different.Almost 75% of advaita siddhi is dedicating to defending the mithya position against the dualists. Specifically does the karika believe that the world is asat or mithya?
answer: Iam not sure, are you sure ?  because if so, then how did the association of sat and asat happen. and how will it go. it will be very complicated to explain advaita. and alatashanti itself means this mitya.
2.What is the difference between Shivadvaitabada ,Shaktadvaitabada and Advaita.? Is avidya of advaita the shakti inthis sysytem?Then why on earth should one worship avidya(which is not Ishwara) as the Divine mother? If Saguna Brahman of Advaita is Shakti then who is Shiva ?
answer :even for argument sake, if we accept, shakti to be avidya, it is ofthe shiva, and the shakti and shaktiman (weilder of power) are notdifferrent. therefore, worshipint the power means worshipping the shiva. and, they accept anava, karma, maya malas too. and these malasare synonymous to our avidya.
3.What is the difference between Hiranygarbha and Saguna Brahman?As far as I have understood the former is aJiva.But Bhagavan Bhasykara does not seem to differentiate between them in some places of His Brahmasutra Bhasya
answer:hiranyagarbha and saguna brahman are not differrent. both are jiva,in the sense, they are both created. this is what is accepted in yogawhen it is said, vishesha purusha ishwara.
4.Can there be liberation (in advaita) for a person who has not done Shravana etc, by simple Bhakti and through the grace of Ishwara? Or is the highest phala of bhakti is lokprapti?
answer:ofcourse bhakti will lead one to moksha. but the culmination ofbhakti will be to see who is the bhakta and what is the one he/sheworships, and this knowledge will be invariably be given to him by the iswara, directly or mostly thro a guru. this is what is said bykrishna, ananyas chintayanto mam. and bhagavan bhashyakara also saysthe same thing in the bs bhashya, but he attaches a string saying, that it happens very rarely to only some. if it does not end in knowledge itwill be giving the result of lokaprapti.

Doshas of Hetu

What is the difference between sadhyavikalata and sadhanavikalata dosha ?

Before answering this, let us understand that these doshas are often used to point out to the logical fallacy. There are others like bhagasiddhi, vyabhichara etc. too.

To understand these doshas, we have to understand the avavaya – limbs, of the tarka – syllogory. Generally, the logicians accept five limbs in a tarka, we vedantins accept only three, either the first three or the last three of the five limbs.

Pratigna, hetu, udharana are the important limbs.

Pratigna is the aim, where the sadhya – the one we want to prove in the paksha – the place where it needs to be proved is specified. Ex. Parvato vahnimaan, the mountain has fire. Here the mountain is the  

Hetu is the reasoning we give to prove the aim.  Ex. Dhumaat / dhmavatvaat, since it has smoke. Smoke is the pointer which always co-exists when there is fire.

Udharana is the example to prove the reasoning is correct with respect to the aim. Ex. Mahanasavat, like the kitchen. The concomitance ‘where there is smoke there is fire is gained’ from different places, like, kitchen, sacricial fire etc.

In sadhya and sadhanavikalata doshas, vikalata means handicapped or absence (abhava).

If the hetu does not fit in with the sadhya then it is sadhyavikalata dosha.

If the hetu does not fit in with  the udhaharana it is sadhanavikalata dosha.

If the hetu fits only in a portion of the sadhya, it is bhagasiddhi. Bhaga – portion, assiddhi – is not proven. In a portion of the sadhya the reason does not fit.

If the hetu misses the sadhya completely, it is called vyabhicara dosha.