[Advaita-l] Vikalpa, Savikalpa, and Nirvikalpa

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

These are two posts which are written in sanskrit following your reply.


   1.
   http://eng.lalitaalaalitah.com/2012/08/samAdhi-not-needed-for-brahma-bodha-1.html
   2.
   http://eng.lalitaalaalitah.com/2012/08/samAdhi-not-needed-for-brahma-bodha-2.html

*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <http://www.lalitaalaalitah.com>
lalitAlAlitaH <http://dooid.com/lalitaalaalitah>*



On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 1:51 AM, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <
svidyasankar at hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> Sri Lalitaalaalita wrote:
>
> >
> > > Furthermore, the mere usage of
> > > the term "nirvikalpa samAdhi" does not a neo-vedAntin make,
> >
> >
> > I didn't expect it from you at least.
>
> I said so deliberately, in order that a subtle point should not be missed.
>
> *> This is what I said :
> >
> *
> *> *I don't say that nirvikalpaka-samAdhi is never talked in
> vedAnta-books. It
> *
> *> is actually helpful means to control viparIta-bhAvanA and hence is
> > practiced by all.
> > I just mean to say that the knowledge which is termed nirvikalpaka and
> > means of moxa is not same as the nirvikalpaka-samAdhi or the Atman
> shining
> > in that state.
> > I'll also like to add that such nirvikalpaka-GYAnam of brahma actually
> *
> *> doesn't need nirvikalpaka-samAdhi to gain birth.**
> >
>
> The crux of the matter is the following. The vedAnta vAkya janita jnAna,
> "brahman
> is nirvikalpaka" takes place in the antaHkaraNa. It may not need a prior
> experience
> of nirvikalpa samAdhi via yogAbhyAsa in order to take birth, agreed.
> However, what
> needs to be understood is that when it is born in an antaHkaraNa that has
> not been
> trained in control through prior yogAbhyAsa, then it is still a jnAna that
> has brahman
> as vishaya and the jnAna-jneya-jnAtR distinction is not yet dissolved.
> Sure, one can
> argue that the mithyAtva of the distinction has been understood at this
> stage. But it
> is still possible for an antaHkaraNa to intellectually understand "brahma
> nirvikalpakam"
> and it is possible for that same antaHkaraNa to intellectually understand
> the vedAnta
> vAkya "ayam AtmA brahma", but the antaHkaraNa still remains, establishing
> its own
> subject-hood for itself and objectifying brahma vishaya jnAna. After such
> jnAna has
> taken birth, does the antaHkaraNa in which this jnAna was born vanish as
> it were, in
> an infinite ocean of non-duality? Or does it persist, trying to
> "finiticize" the infinite? If
> the former, then this is Atma-saMsthiti, which I submit, is really nothing
> other than
> what is called nirvikalpa samAdhi by those who take a more yogic flavour
> in their
> personal approach to sAdhana. If the latter, I submit that such a person
> in whose
> antaHkaraNa the jnAna has taken birth still only understands the
> nirvikalpatva of
> brahman as a vikalpa; s/he only understands the nirguNatva of brahman as a
> guNa;
> s/he has still not grasped that s/he IS brahman; it is not yet
> kara-tala-Amalaka-vat.
>
> It is for such cases that Sankara advises tyAga-vairAgyAdi-sAdhana
> balAvalambena
> Atma-vijnAna-smRti-saMtati in Br. Up bhAshya 1.4.7, immediately after the
> passage
> that you just quoted in another response. And please also note that the
> same Sankara
> also further goes on to say that this smRti-saMtati is ananya sAdhana
> towards citta
> vRtti nirodha. sureSvara adds in the vArttika, pratyag-jnAne nirudhyante
> cittas tad
> vRttayaH. Sure, one can say, this is only abhyupagama vAda, but note that
> this is not
> a provisional abhyupagamana that is later set aside in favor of an altered
> view in the
> siddhAnta. Rather, this is an abhyupagamana that is made AFTER the
> siddhAnta has
> been set forth, namely that citta vRtti nirodha in itself, divorced from
> vedAnta SravaNa-
> manana-nididhyAsana, is not moksha sAdhana and is not enjoined. I have
> made an
> extensive set of citations from numerous places in the prasthAna traya
> bhAshyas
> on this list in the past (see links below), discussing these issues in
> quite some detail.
>
> Suffice it to say that I do not think it is so easy to say that
> sureSvarAcArya's crucial
> positioning of yogAbhyAsa post-saMnyAsa has no connection whatsoever with
> what is
> traditionally understood as the practice of yoga and that it is nothing
> but the process
> of SravaNa_manana_nididhyAsana. Why, even the brahmasUtra has an adhikaraNa
> that begins, AsInas saMbhavAt, in the conclusion to which, Sankara
> bhagavatpAda
> unambiguously states that padmAsana and other postures are taught in the
> yoga
> SAstra as aids in the process of vicAra. And it is not just Asana there;
> dhyAna is also
> given its due place. In its own way, a large amount of teaching from the
> yogasUtra
> and its bhAshya are thereby eased away from dualistic sAMkhya and adopted
> into
> non-dualistic vedAnta, by the very hands of Sankara bhagavatpAda himself.
> I submit that the state of moksha that is desired by the jijnAsu is one
> that is beyond
> words, all words, even the words that constitute the vedAnta vAkya. As
> such, I
> find it amusingly surprising that many among those who say they understand
> this
> seem to have such an anathema for the terms samAdhi and nirvikalpa put
> together.
>