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.