|
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
  
Location: A Blue State | Well, then let me compliment you again! :-) Om nama Sivaya, ... bg |
|
| |
|
| where is the glossary for all these non-american english terms you be usin'?
avidya
no, really, i just wanna follow this thread
 |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | Here's an online glossary that has some of these terms in it: http://www.miraura.org/lit/skgl.html |
|
| |
|
| ty |
|
| |
|
| BG,
I am no expert yogi, but was raised a Hindu and often wondered about the multipilicity of dieties myself
It finally made sense to me, when I took a Gita class (the go-to book for hindus) and there is this chapter where Krsna explains to Arjuna, that it's OK to pray to God in any form or manifestation whatsoever, hence there are almost as many dieties as there are people in India.
To a simplistic, lay type person, not yet motivated to spiritual pursuits, that may be the only way available connection to the universe.
However, he does clarify that the most supreme form of worship/prayer is to God in the eternal, nonmanifest form, the form that exists within each one of us.
In that way Hinduism is actually nonjudgemental and actually accepts all other manifestations of God like Christ, Allah etc.
Pooja |
|
| |
|
| Hello,
I'm a non-dualist but in the interest of objectivity, I think its important to provide the other point of view on this.
From at least the around the 4th century onwards, people have always accepted that Patanjali was a dualist. People have started to interpret Patanjali in non-dual terms only in the late 19th and 20th centuries. Before then, everyone - including Shankara - clearly say that Patanjali was a dualist.
The earliest commentary on the Yoga Sutra is the Yoga Sutra Bhasya which interprets the Sutra as in a dualistic fashion and until fairly recently no one has questioned this. There are also people with fairly long lineages in Patanjali Yoga, for instance from the Kapila monastery. Swami Hariharananda Aranya of this monastery wrote highly reputed commentaries on Patanjali, based on the Yoga Bhasya in Sanskrit as well as a commentary in Bengali (which has been translated into English and is also very respected). This means that the only people who actually have a lineage of practicing according to the Yoga Sutra that goes back before the 19th century, while considering this text fully authoratative, are dualists. Advaita Vedantins also have been practicing according to the Yoga Sutra for several centuries but they clearly state that the Yoga Sutras are dualistic, but still an authority when it comes to the process of the meditation.
The other thing is that there are things in the Yoga Sutra that seem quite opposed to Advaita. The most famous is that Ishvara is a vishesa-purusha - ie: a specific purusha. For Advaita Vedanta, Ishvara is not another purusha but is the essence of all jivas as well as the ground of all being.
All this doesn't neccesarily mean that Patanjali is not an Advaitin - but keep in mind that this is a new position and is not accepted by many people and traditionally no one even thought of this position.
Another thing I would like to mention is that the dualistic Hindu schools are not as infantile as Advaitins usually potray them. All of them hold that Brahman is all-pervasive, formless, and present within everyone (same source texts - Upanishads, Gita, Brahma Sutra). In addition, other than Madhva, all Vedantic Acharyas believe that Brahman is manifest as the world as well as everything else. However, they do not accept that Brahman and the individual are the same entity - they usually consider the individual to be a part of Brahman. In some schools they are part of Brahman and of the same nature as Brahman, but still not Brahman itself. Pure Advaita schools are special in that the individual is not a part of the whole, but is the whole Itself,
Regards. |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | belovedofthegod - 2006-05-16 6:49 AM The other thing is that there are things in the Yoga Sutra that seem quite opposed to Advaita. The most famous is that Ishvara is a vishesa-purusha - ie: a specific purusha. For Advaita Vedanta, Ishvara is not another purusha but is the essence of all jivas as well as the ground of all being. All this doesn't neccesarily mean that Patanjali is not an Advaitin - but keep in mind that this is a new position and is not accepted by many people and traditionally no one even thought of this position. . 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 BG and BOG:
The points of BOG are well taken. However, what actually has happened is: the present version of Patanjali Yoga Sutras (and the corresponding Patanjali) is a classical Sutra text which is comprehension of previous knowledge by an incarnated Self Realized Yogi for the then current and future society. It has taken Sutras from all previous work and arranged them properly. It has also corrected the mistakes in Buddhism as Patanjali came after Buddha.
Now, there were another two texts before this Sutra. One is the Samkhya of Kapila, and then there was another YogaSutra text. I do not have that text, but I know few sutras from it. For example, the first sutra was: yoga manovrittinirodha.. (instead of chittavrittinirodhah) (I may be slightly wrong in the exact expression). The Vyasa (NOT that of Mahabharata) who commented on Patanjali (current) gave dualistic interpretation and so did Swami Hiranmayanandaji, etc.
Now, the Adi Shankara when he commented on Brahmasutras, he also quoted some yoga sutras. And, those are from the previous Yoga Sutras, not the current Patanjali.
Also, Shankara Vivarana which is a commentary on Patanjali (current) by Shankara, is NOT that of Adi Shankara.
But, BOG's point that dualists and Non Dualists in India do NOT have much problem with brahman acceptance. And, no matter which phiolosophy one follows in practice, they get merged in Brahman, which surprisingly both of them accept as NON-DUAL!
Now, coming to your point of vishesha - this purushavishesha is same as Purushottam in ShreemadBhagavadgita.
|
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | kulkarnn - 2006-05-16 8:28 AM Dear BG and BOG: Now, coming to your point of vishesha - this purushavishesha is same as Purushottam in ShreemadBhagavadgita. Dear Brother Neel, Can you provide more details on Purushottam? ... bg |
|
| |
|
| Dear BG: Just read ShreemadBhagavadGita and you will find it there. I need to get time to locate it. I might do it depending on time. But, I am sure you shall find it there. |
|
| |
|
| 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 Neel,
"One is the Samkhya of Kapila, and then there was another YogaSutra text. I do not have that text, but I know few sutras from it. For example, the first sutra was: yoga manovrittinirodha.. (instead of chittavrittinirodhah) (I may be slightly wrong in the exact expression)."
What is the source of information for this? I ask because in India there is a tradition of writing texts and projecting them to be thousands of years older than they really are. Sometimes people do this for fradulent purposes. So we cannot trust just anyone who says that such a text exists and predates Patanjali. No classical commentator has referred to such a text and neither have modern scholars - if such an old text existed, it would have clearly had a much bigger effect. Of course I'm not saying this is not possible, but I would personally need very good indications before accepting such an enormously significant claim.
"Now, the Adi Shankara when he commented on Brahmasutras, he also quoted some yoga sutras. And, those are from the previous Yoga Sutras, not the current Patanjali."
Not impossible but all the verses Shankara quotes from Yoga darshan are found in the current Yoga Sutra. For instance he quotes pramana viparyaya vikalpa nidra smrtayah, and svadhyayad ishTa-devata samprayogaH.
"And, no matter which phiolosophy one follows in practice, they get merged in Brahman, which surprisingly both of them accept as NON-DUAL!"
We have to be careful to not create too many divisions but we also have to be careful not to be imprecise and ignore divisions.
All accept the terminology "non-dual" but mean very different things by it. By non-dual, Madhva means that there is only one Brahman (so no second God). Ramanuja in addition to this says that there is no second entity outside Brahman. However, Shankara says that there is no second Brahman, no second entity outside Brahman, and no second entity within or existing as a part of Brahman either. Thus, clearly there is a difference in the meaning of non-dual here.
The other thing is that we have to be careful not to overexaggerate differences and not see similarities, but we also shouldn't become blunt and ignore differences. In Advaita Vedanta, a dualist who is very much devoted to Ishvara can take rebirth in heaven and if he/she has enough merit, remain in heaven until the end of the universe when he/she gets liberation (this is called krama mukti). However, a dualist cannot attain liberation while living, according to Shankara's Advaita, because duality is ignorance and without removing ignorance there is no liberation. So differences cannot be ignored.
Regarding Purusha-uttama, I think the Gita context and the Patanjali context are very, very different and the Gita is very clearly not suggesting Ishvara is another Purusha.
Chapter 15, Verse 16-17-18:
"The perishable and the imperishable too - these are the two kinds of Purushas in this world. Of these, the bodies of all beings are spoken of as the perishable; while the Jivatma, or the emobodied soul is called the imperishable."
"The Purushottama (Supreme Person) is yet other than these, who having entered all three worlds, upholds and maintains all, and has been spoken of as the imperishable Lord and the supreme Spirit".
"Since I am wholly beyond the perishable world of matter of Ksetra, and am superior even to the imperishable soul, hence I am known as Purushottama in the world as well as in the Vedas."
Here, Krishna is said to be beyond the body and the relative individual, the reflected conciousness (jivatama) however, he is the Supreme Self (paramatma). In any case, its clear that Purushottama is not just another kind of special Purusha but is a different category which is the essence of all things. However, I geuss it is possible to interpret Patanjali in this way as well:in this case, vishesha would mean that Ishvara is not another Purusha but an entirely different category that can still be called "Purusha". Its a quite a good reconcilation I must say, but the problem as I see it is that Patanjali would be using multiple senses for the word Purusha without defining it - this would be a very misleading thing to do,
Regards.
Edited by belovedofthegod 2006-05-17 9:54 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Dear BOG:
1. I liked your comments and responses above.
2. As for source of previous Yogasutras which Adi shankara mentioned in his commentaries, you can see Brahmasutra commentary of Shree Adi Shankara.. Look at etena yoga pratyutah.. or some such sutram. The pramana... you quoted exists in both the previous and Patanjali's sutra. But, the beginning of these two is different. Patanjali states chittavriti, whereas the previous manovritti... etc. I am not very keen on discussing the time frames at this stage. But, Yoga Darshan quoted by Adi Shankara in the Brahmasutra commentary is the one before Patanjali. Adi Shankara did NOT write the commentary on patanjali yoga sutras.
3. As for Purushottam.... Please refer to your last paragraph. Yes, that is the correct way to look at Patanjali. Purush-vishesha.... vishesha is special purusha , does not mean it is physically different. it is different in the qualitative way. it is the one which is klesh-karma-vipakashayah aparamrushtah.. no affected by klesha and karama, etc. It is known or expressed by letter OM. All this is same as in Bhagavadgita. Purushottam is yet third which is same as Vishesha. And, OM it aksharam..etc. in Shreemad Bhagavadgita.
SBG is more comprehensive and lucid text and it comprehends lots of other practices than Patanjali. However, Patanjali is a complete Yoga Science which is very brief and comprehends all essentials.
4. What I meant about Dual and Non Dual is: It is OK for anyone to take up whatever path they want. Even those who realize Non Dual at times enjoy dualism. Adi Shankara... yasya brahmani ramate chittam nandati nandati nandati ewa... Bhaja Govindam... a reconciliation of Dualism (Bhakti) with Non Dualism (Brahman). However, at the end, when the final liberration occurs, nonDual is the result. Also, a liberated soul may incarnate with Dualism for the benefit of others.
Alternatively, Dualism and NonDualism can be seen as two aspects of Brahman, because Prakriti and Parameshwara sprout from the same NonDual Brahman.
Peace
|
|
| |
|
| Hi Neel,
" But, the beginning of these two is different. Patanjali states chittavriti, whereas the previous manovritti... etc. "
How do you know that this "manovrittinirodha" version even exists? Shankara never says manovritti and no other classical commentator has mentioned this either. It is difficult to accept that this manovritti version of the Yoga Sutra is not just a modern invention because no major classical or for that matter, as far as I have read, modern scholar, has mentioned it...
Regards. |
|
| |
|
| Dear BOG: I do not know all that. But, I might have written version of the first 5 sutras from the previous Sutra version. I shall try to find it and post it soon. Then you can use them as you like. |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | 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. |
|
| |
|
| Hi BayGuy,
Shankara clearly rejects Yoga Darshan but finds some parts of it acceptable. I am pasting the relevant portion of Shankara's Brahma Sutra Bhasya where he explains his position with great clarity:
"3. Thereby the Yoga (Smriti) is refuted.
This Sûtra extends the application of the preceding argumentation, and remarks that by the refutation of the Sânkhya-smriti the Yoga-smriti also is to be considered as refuted; for the latter also assumes, in opposition to Scripture, a pradhâna as the independent cause of the world, and the 'great principle,' &c. as its effects, although neither the Veda nor common experience favour these views.--But, if the same reasoning applies to the Yoga also, the latter system is already disposed of by the previous arguments; of what use then is it formally to extend them to the Yoga? (as the Sûtra does.)--We reply that here an additional cause of doubt presents itself, the practice of Yoga being enjoined in the Veda as a means of obtaining perfect knowledge; so, for instance, Bri. Up. II, 4, 5, '(The Self) is to be heard, to be thought, to be meditated upon 1.' In the Svetâsvatara Upanishad, moreover, we find various injunctions of Yoga-practice connected with the assumption of different positions of the body; &c.; so, for instance, 'Holding his body with its three erect parts even,' &c. (II,  .
Further, we find very many passages in the Veda which (without expressly enjoining it) point to the Yoga, as, for instance, Ka. Up. II, 6, 11, 'This, the firm holding back of the senses, is what is called Yoga;' 'Having received this knowledge and the whole rule of Yoga' (Ka. Up. II, 6, 1; and so on. And in the Yoga-sâstra itself the passage, 'Now then Yoga, the means of the knowledge of truth,' &c. defines the Yoga as a means of reaching perfect knowledge. As thus one topic of the sâstra at least (viz. the practice of Yoga) is shown to be authoritative, the entire Yoga-smriti will have to be accepted as unobjectionable, just as the Smriti referring to the ashtakâs 2.--To this we reply that the formal extension (to the Yoga, of the arguments primarily directed against the Sânkhya) has the purpose of removing the additional doubt stated in the above lines; for in spite of a part of the Yoga-smriti being authoritative, the disagreement (between Smriti and Sruti) on other topics remains as shown above.--Although 3 there are many Smritis treating of the soul, we have singled out for refutation the Sânkhya and Yoga because they are widely known as offering the means for accomplishing the highest end of man and have found favour with many competent persons. Moreover, their position is strengthened by a Vedic passage referring to them, 'He who has known that cause which is to be apprehended by Sânkhya and Yoga he is freed from all fetters' (Sve. Up. VI, 13). (The claims which on the ground of this last passage might be set up for the Sânkhya and Yoga-smritis in their entirety) we refute by the remark that the highest beatitude (the highest aim of man) is not to be attained by the knowledge of the Sânkhya-smriti irrespective of the Veda, nor by the road of Yoga-practice. For Scripture itself declares that there is no other means of obtaining the highest beatitude but the knowledge of the unity of the Self which is conveyed by the Veda, 'Over death passes only the man who knows him; there is no other path to go' (Sve. Up. Ill, . And the Sânkhya and Yoga-systems maintain duality, do not discern the unity of the Self. In the passage quoted ('That cause which is to be apprehended by Sânkhya and Yoga') the terms 'Sânkhya' and 'Yoga' denote Vedic knowledge and meditation, as we infer from proximity 1. We willingly allow room for those portions of the two systems which do not contradict the Veda. In their description of the soul, for instance, as free from all qualities the Sânkhyas are in harmony with the Veda which teaches that the person (purusha) is essentially pure; cp. Bri. Up. IV, 3, 16. 'For that person is not attached to anything.' The Yoga again in giving rules for the condition of the wandering religious mendicant admits that state of retirement from the concerns of life which is known from scriptural passages such as the following one, 'Then the parivrâgaka with discoloured (yellow) dress, shaven, without any possessions,' &c. (Gâbâla Upan. IV).
The above remarks will serve as a reply to the claims of all argumentative Smritis. If it be said that those Smritis also assist, by argumentation and proof, the cognition of truth, we do not object to so much, but we maintain all the same that the truth can be known from the Vedânta-texts only; as is stated by scriptural passages such as 'None who does not know the Veda perceives that great one' (Taitt. Br. III, 12, 9, 7); 'I now ask thee that person taught in the Upanishads' (Bri. Up, III, 9, 26); and others."
http://sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe34/sbe34142.htm
Regards. |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | 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 |
|
| |
|
| Dear BOG and BG: When I find more time for it one day, I might jump back into this in detail. But, for now, I wish to make the following comments only:
Adi Shankara's commentary on Brahmasutra, when it quotes Yoga Darshan, it is NOT the present version of Patanjala Yoga Darshana. It is the previous Yoga Darsharshana which was dualistic. And that is the yoga darshan which is 'etana yogah pratyktah'. That Yoga Darshana did have some sutras which are also in Patanjali, because Patanjali has comprehended all relevant knowledge from Vedic Times into his most comprehensive, logically arranged, etc. Sutras. The previous Yoga Darshana which formed Yoga Philosophy (Yoga Darshana) out of 6 systems called Shatdarshanas was replaced by Patanjali version. I think the older version of Yoga Darshana was also called Tattvadarshana.
The older Yoga Darshana dealt with Manovritti that is vrittis in Mind, as against Chittam. This possibly can be found from Shankara's other comments in Brahmasutras.
Patanjali Yoga Darshana is a NON Dualistic Philosophy with Yoga as practice to attain that goal. And, all practice is always dualistic until the Non Dual end is reached. This Dualistic practice includes all limbs, IshwaraPranidhana externally and internally, etc. When the Non Dual Merger takes place, the real Ishwara is realized, and that is the one which is beyond
Klesha, Karma, Vipaka, etc. klsheshakarmavipakayashayar aparamrushtah purushavishesha Ishwarah.. etc.
Peace. |
|
| |
Dualism, Deities, and Ishwara
