[Advaita-l] BGBh and yoga - yama-niyama - I

[Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian]

On 4/20/05, Amuthan Arunkumar R <aparyap at yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> namo nArAyaNAya !

> i'd like to point out that terms like tapas, mouna
> etc. can be defined both from the point of view of a
> jIvanmukta and a sAdhaka. for instance, mouna may in
> the beginning stages i.e. for a sAdhaka, be defined as
> not speaking, i.e. silence. in the next stage, this
> definition can be improved as eliminating thoughts
> from the minds and keeping it thougtless. but from the
> point of view of a jIvanmukta, mouna is abidance in
> the Self. of course, the true definition is that given
> by a jIvanmukta and all other definitions converge to
> the true definition as a sAdhaka advances.
> 
> similarly, the above mentioned definition of tapas by
> SrI ramaNa maharshi is from the point of view of a
> jIvan mukta.
> 
> from the point of view of a sAdhaka, tapas can be
> taken as "SarIraSoshaNam" (SANDilyopanishad) which is
> also in some sense the same as "dvandva sahanam" as
> SrI ravi pointed out earlier.

Excellent observation! There is really no point in trying to define
words independent of context. First the same word can be used in
different ways. See for example how Sankara uses vidyA to mean a)
brahmaGYAna and identical with brahman and b) upAsana, which are quite
different. Or for example avidyA to mean a) the mutual superimposition
of brahman with non-brahman or b) rituals.

Secondly, definitions of many sAdhana related words like tapas are
used in very different senses, and in particular depend on the ability
of the sAdhaka. The aporAkShAnubhUti turns the definitions of the
classical yoga and define it from the advaitic point of view. It's not
meant to to deride the classical definitions, which are certainly
useful for a beginner.  Both definitions are useful, depending on the
ability of the sAdhaka. No wonder a guru is held to be essential for
brahmaGYAna.

Rama