[Advaita-l] (no subject)

[Sundaresan, Vidyasankar (GE Infra, Water)]

Re: my comment on the usage of samAdhi in brahmasUtra 2.3.39

>I am not able to understand the line of your
>argument here..it is as good as asking why
>krishna used the word *sAnkhya* instead
>of jnAna in gIta when sAnkhya (as a system)
>has a long history.. 

Ah, read the bhAshya on gItA 18.19. If you keep an open mind, you
will understand why bhagavAn uses sAMkhya and how Sankara
bhagavatpAda views such usage. Apply a samAna-nyAya to yoga
system too.

guNasaMkhyAna-SAstraM guNa-bhoktR-vishaye pramANam eva |
paramArtha brahmaikatva-vishaye yadyapi virudhyate, tathApi te hi
kApilAH guNa-gauNa-vyApAra-nirUpaNe 'bhiyuktAH iti tac-chAstram
api vakshyamANArtha-stuty-arthatvena upAdIyata iti na virodhaH | 

As for the rest of the discussion, suffice it to say that the bhAshya
on the kartR-adhikaraNa and the taksha adhikaraNa (2.3.33-39,40)
needs to be studied carefully. You cannot argue that sUtra 2.3.39
has nothing to do with samAdhi experiences and also argue that
yogic samAdhi experiences are kartR-tantra. It is because samAdhi
and dhyAna are kartR-tantra that SAstra can instruct about it. THAT
is the thrust of the sUtra and bhAshya here. That the kartRtva itself
is superimposed and not an inherent property of the jIva is something
that has to be realized by the jIva through the vedAntic teaching.

I have also pointed out to you that Sankara bhagavatpAda himself
uses word "yoga" and cites "Srotavyo, mantavyo, nididhyAsitavyaH"
under sUtra 2.1.3. You cannot say this is like using sAMkhya for
jnAna, because the sUtra and bhAshya there are a refutation of
dualistic yoga. Yet, the bhAshyakAra specifically quotes the
upanishat sentence about SravaNa, manana and nididhyAsana here.

Without further prolonging this discussion needlessly, what I am
saying is this. Whenever a post-Sankaran author/teacher writes
or speaks using the words yoga, samAdhi, dhyAna etc. you and
some others are quick to talk of "unjustified influence of PY". Yet
whenever I point out to you that Sankara bhagavatpAda himself
does not hesitate to refer to and use pAtanjala yoga wherever
appropriate, you wish to construct a different interpretation on it.

I am not here to defend "dualistic PY" but I do wish to point out
that an almost allergic reaction that is exhibited to usage of yoga
based terminology and concepts, especially from post-Sankaran
authors/teachers is unwarranted. In an attempt to understand the
bhAshya-s in themselves, the criticisms heaped upon the later
vyAkhyAna-kAra-s is highly misplaced. So also with the criticisms
heaped upon advaitin teachers who do not subscribe to your views
about the later vyAkhyAna-kAra-s. They are also highly misplaced.

Vidyasankar

ps. The term nirvikalpa samAdhi keeps recurring in your posts. Note
that the texts of PY do not use this term at all. So much for seeing
"unjustified" influence of pAtanjala yoga in post-Sankaran advaitins.