[Advaita-l] Vikalpa, Savikalpa, and Nirvikalpa

V Subrahmanian v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Sat Aug 25 04:55:48 CDT 2012

On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:

> praNAms Sri vinAyaka prabhuji
> Hare Krishna
> I dont know what to say to all these quotes, in short I'd like to say
> dhyAna is purusha tantra it may not fetch us the same result as vastu
> tantra jnAna.  shankara in tattusamanvayAt sUtra bhAshya clarifies this
> very clearly.  jnAna or paramArtha jnAna is not 'karma janya' or adheena to
> purusha tantra.

It would help understanding that the shruti 'AtmA vA arey draShTavyaH,
shrotavyo, mantavyo nididhyAsitavyaH' and other passages is teaching the
'upAya' to attain / realize that 'vastu tantra jnAnam' that is otherwise
called Brahman, the jnAna svarUpam (jnaptiH).  This upAya is none other
than a kartRtantra one.  So, what Shankara is saying in the above
'tattusamanvayAt' quote you have cited is only the nature of Brahman and
that it is different from some sAdhya that is undertaken through karma.
When someone uses the method to attain something, that something is always
'different' from the one who used the methods.  But the upAya of shravaNAdi
samaDhi is something where the dhyAtaa realizes his identity with the
dhyeya.  That is the real difference between the 'vastu tantra' and 'kartR
tantra' that Shankara is talking about.

The shruti's upAya is an instruction/injunction on the part of the aspirant
to undertake the upAya for such Atmadarshana, more specifically, the
generation of AtmapratipattiH, in other words, as clarified by Shankara 'to
make Atman the object of such realization.'  'darshanaviShayatAm
ApAdayitavyaH.' By undertaking this upAya the vastu tantra nature of
Brahman will not be lost.

> And the next question that needs to be adressed is :  Is there multiple
> path-s to mOksha??  according to panchadashi, yes, if not multiple, atleast
> there are two ways, one is yOga (nirguNa brahma dhyAna) and another is
> enquiry !!  But as you know, shruti without any ambiguity clearly declaring
> there in only one mArga to the mOksha and that is jnAna, nAnyaH panthA
> ayanAya vidyate says taitireeya AraNyaka or purusha sUkta.

By saying this:
//‘The state of spiritual balance is obtainable by both the Sankhyas
(those whofollow the path of enquiry) and the Yogis (those who practise
meditation). He really knows the meaning of the scriptures who knows that
the paths of enquiry and meditation are the same’.//

the Panchadashi is only saying 'the same goal' is attainable by 'both' the
paths.  Since he also says that 'he really knows the meaning of the
scriptures....' the Panchadashi is only saying that the paths of enquiry
(which invariably requires the upAya of shravaNAdi and dhyana) and
meditation (which invariably requires the knowledge of 'what is to be
meditated upon  - here it is the AupaniShada Atman -) that there are not
really two paths.  But why does it make a mention of 'two' paths?  It is
because of the predominant nature among humans: some are 'vichAra para' and
some are 'dhyAnapara'.

>>shankara somewhere in sUtra bhAshya ( most probably in 2nd
adhyAya)clarifies that the term yOga should be used in vedAntik context not
in orthodox sAnkhya & yOga schools.  vedAntik dhyAna is something different
from chitta vrutti nirOdha ashtAnga yOga dhyAna.

In the chapter 22 'yogadarshanopasangrahaH' of the book
GitashAstraarthavivekaH Sri SSS says:

....tathaiva yogaprasthAnenaapi asya prasthAnasya sAlakShaNyavailakShaNye
sUchayitvA grAhyAmshAn upanyasyAmaH

//...in the same way we shall demonstrate the non-conflicting aspects
between the yoga darshana and this vedanta darshana to identity the aspects
that are fit to be taken by the vedanta darshana from the yoga system//

tatra sarvaprathamam yogasya cittavRuttinirodhalakShaNasya
svasvarUpeavasthAnaM phalamiti samamevAbhyupagatam. tadyathA
'yogashchittavRtti nirodhaH' 'tadA draShTRsvarUpe avasthAnam' (yoga sutra
1-2,3) iti hi sUtram.

//There, in the yogashAstra at the very beginning it is declared that by
the practice of chittavRtti nirodha one gets established in one's true
nature.  This aspect of the yogashastra is in agreement with the vedanta
shastra.  This agreement is on the lines of: The two yoga sutras 'yoga is
chittavRtti nirodhaH or restraint of the mind' 'by this practice one gets
established in the nature of being the seer.' yo.su.1.2,3.//

>> If the panchadashi recommending here sAdhana  yOga in the vedic sense or
in adhyAtma yOga sense as elaborated in katha upanishad and dhyAna yOga in
geeta, it is acceptable prabhuji.

Yes. That is how the teaching of the yogashastra gets absorbed/adapted in
the vedanta shastra.

Br.Sri Vinayaka ji's question is quite apt:

//>shankara says in both sushupti and samAdhi there exists avidyA :-))

This is a misleading statement. Does shankara/Swami SS accept avidyA in
samAdhi obtained by the dhyAna yOga/adhyAtma yOga? If yes, please give me
the references.//

One can read a reply on the above topic here:



More information about the Advaita-l mailing list