[Advaita-l] MOKSHA or MUKTI

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Raghav Ji,



Reg  << Can samAdhi practice *as described in vivekachUDAmaNih or JMV* be
termed
  'inert'  and 'like suShupti' (in so far as its utility for
  advaita-sAdhana)? >>,



VC and JMV are big texts and could have used theterm samAdhi in different
contexts. If at all they have used the terms ‘inert’ and ‘like suShupti’ in
respect of samAdhi, proper references need to be given as to where exactly
this equation is done to understand the context. It would not be proper to
just generalize and then start discussing the issue.



Reg << What is missed is that the vRtti of brahmAtmaikyam does
  indeed accomplish vRtti nirodhah which is the essence of samadhi . This is
  the view of bhAshyakAra (in fact I remember him saying that vedAntic
vRttis
  alone accomplish vRtti nirodhah) >>,



Perhaps some caution is needed in using the term vRitti nirodhah. The term
has different meaning in advaita as compared to Yoga darshana. MandUkya
kArika 3-35.



If any specific aspect of samAdhi is takenup for discussion instead of
samAdhi in general, it may be useful. Just my personal view.



Regards

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:12 AM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> > Namaste Subbuji and Chandramouli ji and Bhaskar ji
> > Thank you for the responses. My further question is -
> >  Can samAdhi practice *as described in vivekachUDAmaNih or JMV* be termed
> > 'inert'  and 'like suShupti' (in so far as its utility for
> > advaita-sAdhana)?
> >
> > I understand it is not, but wish to further clarify this matter.
> >
> > The following paras are not so much a question but more in the nature of
> > observation.
> >
> > JMV and VC unambiguously commend the practice of vedAntic samAdhi. (in
> > which the vRttis which lead up to samAdhi are pramANa-prApta i.e., of the
> > nature of seeing things as they are, as advaitam-brahma. ).
> >
> > Its funny that most of the 'samAdhi-bashing' is a more recent phenomenon
> > and coming from some modern Advaita students and teachers  who haven't
> the
> > faintest clue from personal sAdhana what it's about. They do this by
> > presenting a straw man argument - that samAdhi has no connexion with
> > shravaNa manana, pramAna-vyApAra etc., and that's it's only mentioned in
> > yoga sUtras which posit duality as absolute and so samAdhi cannot
> > accomplish avidyA-nivRtti etc etc. Ergo - it is jaDa and no better than
> > suShupti.
> >
> > Such a view, in my understanding, misrepresents what samAdhyabhyAsa is
> *as
> > per VC and JMV*. What is missed is that the vRtti of brahmAtmaikyam does
> > indeed accomplish vRtti nirodhah which is the essence of samadhi . This
> is
> > the view of bhAshyakAra (in fact I remember him saying that vedAntic
> vRttis
> > alone accomplish vRtti nirodhah). VC and JMV don't equate the word
> samadhi
> > as necessarily constrained by the dualistic sAMkhyA framework.
> >
> > Also I am tempted to insinuate ;) that in most cases, an extroverted
> mind,
> > insufficient vairAgya and sattva guNa are the causes of samAdhi-bashing
> (a
> > sort of sour grapes syndrome to diss the importance of the practice of
> > samAdhi for most madhyama adhikArIs!). Also it's not as if there are
> > thousands of vedAntic sAdhakas lost in this wrong practice of samAdhi.
> And
> > therefore , presumably, beware of VC and JMV samAdhi practice....! Its
> > not as if the main obstacle to brahmAtma-GYAnam for many advaitic
> sAdhakas
> > is the tendency to 'fall' in to samAdhi !!
> >
> >  The real situation today is that the moment a student gets some
> > understanding and inspiration from bhAShya, he wants to start preaching
> > whatever little he knows to others. And so samAdhi-bashing becomes a way
> of
> > justifying or rationalising the lack of the required vixepa-rAhityam.
> >
> > When a great Acharya like shrI gauDapAdAcArya or shrI vidyAraNya/bhAratI
> > tirtha who was himself accomplished  in samAdhi practices, makes fun of
> > 'samAdhi independent of any GYAnam' as being fragile and prone to be
> > disturbed by even a buzzing mosquito, it rings true.
> >
> > Otherwise it's amusing to see the practice of samAdhi being dissed.
> >
> > Om
> > Raghav
>
>
>