I'm back to wondering about dualism and non-dualism, particularly as it applies to deities and Ishwara pranidhanani.

The non-dualist dualist outlook would place divinity in brahman -- the absolute reality, from which we are separated by avidya. As I understand it, however, advaita vedanta does not deny the pragmatic reality of the world we ordinarily experience. With the removal of avidya, we can attain the consciousness of our oneness with brahman.

In this sense, attachment to a deity is then an element of our ordinary experience, and something that may help us to remove avidya.  Patanjali's ashtanga yoga is a path to the removal of avidya. Ishwara pranidhanani can be a part of that path. The goal, Nirbija Samadhi, however, appears to be a non-dual state.

On the other hand, one could take the concept of Ishwara pranidhanani as evidence of dualism in Patanjali yoga. I've mentioned before the Taimni commentary, which is unambiguious dualistic in discussing this question.... I gather than Shankaracharya did not comment on the Yoga Sutras.

Any thoughts on this?

.... bg

Dear Neel,

Thanks for the reply.  So, with deities out of the way, the essence of my question remains: is Ishwara always separate, even after the final stages?  Or, to follow your quote from the ShrimadBhagavadgita, when one reaches spiritual liberation, is Krshna still distinct from oneself?

You mentioned that it was a mistake to approach Patanjali yoga from the perspective of non-dualism; but if one believes firmly in non-dualism -- and the practice of yoga -- then the question must be resolved.

I have read various commentaries on this point, and some take the non-dual stance on YS I:23 to I:29, while others take the dualist viewpoint. My sense is that there are several schools of thought, at least so far as modern commentaries are concerned.  That is why I wondered about Adi Shankaracharya's work, or that of other early exponents of advaita vedanta. 

 ... bg

PS: I agree with your sentiments about work interfering with more important thoughts.

 Thanks, Neel. This seems more to the point.

 BTW --- Vyasa's commentary on the Yoga Sutra was from a non-dual perspective?

 .... bg 

Brahman (the absolute self) qualified by Maya (Cosmic Illusion) is Ishwara (God - the Creator). Ishwara is the ruler of Maya, and not deluded by it. Jiva (individual soul) is Brahman qualified by avidya (ignorance) and is the creator of jiva-srishti (mental creation) in which it is trapped. Jiva is under the control of avidya. When freed, jiva becomes an enlightened soul (jivanmukta), and realizes, "I am Brahman."

Really enjoyed that passage, Cyndi. .... bg

When did the Yoga Sutra first acquire a non-dual interpretation  -- or was it always non-dual?

....bg

Dear Neel --

It is really quite interesting that dualism is simply a preliminary step toward non-dualism. This suggests to me that dualistic thinkers have gotten stuck along the way.

In fact, I have found concepts of dualism (Ishwara pranidhanani) much easier to accept after having adopted a non-dual understanding of the deities, and of Ishwara. For me, non-dualism has eliminated the barrier to belief, and devotion, that I always found in dualism.

... bg

I agree with you entirely.  I tried hard to adopted Xstianity as a child, but I could never reconcile the positions and claims with what I could observe every day. It's of course really great to be able to attribute every bad thing that happens to "It's g-d's will" or "the LAWD moves in mySTERious ways". But what really bugged me was the Xstian's god cruelty and unrelenting efforts subjugate the human spirit -- which he supposedly created. I can't buy the idea of a god who would create imperfect humans and then torment them for the shortcomings that he imparted. All explanations of this that I have ever heard failed on grounds of reason, even without consideration of compassion. An alternative explanation can actually be found in the Gnostic Gospels: this fellow is not in fact god, simply a somewhat powerful and desperately insecure deity who demands unquestioning subservience of those who accept his authority. There a higher, and more detatched, power above this guy...interesting that the Gnostic Gospels took a somewhat non-dual stance on the deity.

... bg

PS: apologies to any Xstian's that I annoyed with this...it's my view, and I respect your right to have your view.

Dear Brother Neel,

I did indeed observe the multiplicity of deities within a single temple in South India. One place I visited is said to have 33,000 statues in it. I could not name all the deities I saw, but, like at least some of the others there, I saw them as many faces of one. The argument you quote from Shankaracharya is excellent.

It's interesting that I saw a similarly large number of deities in a yoga studio that I visited in India, as well. Patanjali, of course, but also Hanuman, Garuda, and others, with "Om namo Narayana" above the entrance.

... bg

Well, then let me compliment you again! :-)

Om nama Sivaya,

... bg

Here's an online glossary that has some of these terms in it:

http://www.miraura.org/lit/skgl.html

Hi Beloved,

I have no problem reconciling the historical dualist interpretations of the Yoga Sutra with the more recent non-dual interpretations, but that word "vishesa" does seem to get in the way. I don't know enough Sanskrit to interpret the translations it receives: typically "special", but sometimes "realized" or "free" which carry very different impressions. 

Patanjali describes paths to Samadhi, but he never really gets into the details of the relationship between the individual and Brahman, so far as I am aware. This suggests that the text itself is silent on ultimate questions of duality (the early commentators were not). It seems unproblematical to think of the Purusha Vishesa in a nondual way in the absence of more structure to support a dualistic understanding of vishesa.

By the way, you mention that Shankaracharya referred to Patanjali as a dualist. Can you provide more information on this? 

 .... bg

 Dear Brother Neel,

 Can you provide more details on Purushottam?

 ... bg

Hi BayGuy,

Its not just Patanjali but his commentator also doesn't go on about dualism/nondualism too much and neither does Hariharananda. The focus is elsewhere for all these people. However, writing in prose and in some length unlike Patanjali's very aphoristic style, they of course touch on the topic whereas Patanjali doesn't clearly do so.

Shankara does not explicitly refer to Patanjali as a dualist but he clearly says that Yoga Darshan is dualistic and we know that by Yoga Darshan he means Patanjali (among others), because he quotes Patanjali with approval on some matters. Shankara says that whatever is not to be rejected in another system can be accepted and that Yoga Darshan is authoritative when it comes to meditation.

Hi Beloved, 

Your comment suggests that Shankaracharya takes no particular position on dualism in Yoga Darshan. So I am wondering whether Shankaracharya found dualism appropriate to Yoga Darshan whilst simultaneously propounding Advaita Vedata. And also, I wonder whether his approval of Patanjali on some matters implies a roaring silence on the matter of dualism in Patanjali Ashtanga Yoga--- or whether he simply regarded the apparent dualism of YS I:23 as something unproblematical or even nondualistic.

I guess that the question of whether Patanjali regarded dualism as the last word is difficult to answer in so far as Patanjali did not deal with the dual/nondual question in a substantive way. 

Here's another question -- how does the Patanjali Yoga Sutra connect with the Bhagavad Gita? I believe that the Gita predates the YS and that Patanjali should have been familiar with it (but it is late and I'm too tired to check the dates carefully).  I'm not sure that we've really discussed the question of whether the Gita itself is unambiguously nondual, although I can certainly manage to read it that way and others clearly have done so. But if Patanjali wrote with a knowledge of the Gita (and the Chhangodya Upanishad and related nondual foundational texts), one might wonder whether he wrote with a specific understanding such earlier literature.

... bg bedtime.

Thanks, BOG, this is helpful.  Interesting that Patanjali would clearly have been familiar with the same Vedic Scriptures that Shankaracharya is using to refute parts of yoga. Not certain what that implies, however.

... bg