[Advaita-l] Vedanta,Sankhya and the Yoga.
srikanta at nie.ac.in
Fri Nov 12 05:31:29 CST 2010
> Sri sunil Bhattacharya,
> You say that vedanta teaches at the ultimate level and Yoga teaches at the
> Vedanthic level.This is wrong.Yoga may teach at its own level,but it
> cannot replace vedanta which doesnot require kriya.You are wrong when you
> say that"cittavrttinirodha'is necessary for the manana.Shankara in his
> introduction to the Brahmasutrabhashya doesnot mention Yoga.Vedanta
> requires only discrimination of atma from the anatma.Yoga involves other
> kriyas which require Ashtangayoga marga.
> sincerely, N.Srikanta.
Dear Sri Srikanta,
I must admire your determination in this thread, but I think you are
one aspect of the vedAntic picture. With respect to yoga, sAMkhya and
the viveka of AtmA from anAtmA and manana-nididhyAsana, please see gItA verse
"dhyAneNAtmani paSyanti kecid AtmAnam AtmanA" and the bhAshya by the revered
bhagavatpAda on that verse.
May I also point out that to understand advaita vedAnta properly, one has
beyond the introduction to the sUtrabhAshya? I would like to point to the
sUtra 2.3.39-40 - samAdhy abhAvAc ca and yathA takshobhayathA. Yes, yoga
kriyA and the notion that the jIva is a kartA, but this is nevertheless
within vedAnta as an upAya to AtmadarSana. This point has been beautifully
out in these two bhAshya passages. In sUtrabhAshya 2.1.3, we have the same
expressed - yoga is indeed accepted as an upAya for samyag-darSana, if not
in its own
independent right. Under the sUtra, api ca samrAdhane
revered bhagavatpAda affirms that "yogins" see the Atman through bhakti,
praNidhAna - the two latter terms are loaded with yogic meaning. As for
nirodha, please see bhAshya-s on bRhadAraNyaka 1.4.7 (explicit reference
vRtti nirodha) and on kaTha verse, "parAnci khAni vyatRNat svayambhUH"
Yes, yoga cannot replace vedAnta, but I would think that a quiet yogin has
chance to remove avidyA and realize the Atman than those of us who engage in
vociferous disputations, full of words of learned length and thundering
Dear sri vidyashankar,
With reference to your above posting,you have quoted two sutras from the
brahmasutra bhashya.One is 2-3-39,"samadhyabhavacca",and the
These two sutras have come in the context of determining whether the
"katrtva"nature of the Jiva is by very nature or it has come on account of
its association with the 'Upadhi".
Sri.ShankaraBhagawathpada says:Due to the following reason also the
"kartrtva"(action orientation) is established.If the agency of the entity
called by the "Vijnana"sabdha,the intellect, is the "kartr"then there
comes the inability of the capacity.Then the capacity(karana sakthi) will
be absent for the Buddhi.Then the Buddhi itself will be the kartr.If
Buddhi gets the kartrtva sakthi then we must say that for the
"aham"pratyaya,the subject (vishaya) will be the Buddhi.Then
egoistically(ahampoorvaka),in the statement of the like,"aham gaccami,it
will have the pravrtti.If for that "Kartrtva"is imposed then we must posit
another as the "karana"(tool).If it is capable also it must work taking
"karana"(tool).Therefore,"Kartr" is different from the "karana".(sutra38)
continuing further,the sutra 39 says:
If the atman has no kartrtva then for the realisation of the fruit said in
the Upanishads(Aupanishadapratipat),the "samadhi"explained(Upadesha)will
not be realised."Atma va are
Atmanam"(Mu.2-2-6) for the Samadhi so explained,if the atman(jiva) has no
kartrtva the (samadhi)cannot happen.Therefore,the atman(jiva)has
Here, the "kartradhikarana is concluded.
In the above bhashya,Shankara says that kartrva is imposed on the jivatman.
The 'Samadhi' mentioned above is the samadhi obtained from the jnana of
the Upanishads,and not 'yogic"samadhi,as you understand.Otherwise he would
not have quoted the Upanishad sruthis from BU,and the MU.
In the bhashya to 40,of the Brahmasutrabhshya you have quoted,which states:
shankara in his bhashya asks:From the point of view of the sastras the
"kartrtva" said to the "jiva",is it to the "atma"(jiva)is by very
nature(svabhavika) or due to the adjuncts of the "upadhi"?
Purvapaksha(objection);since in the sastras it is not saidor
negated,"katrtva"is by nature(svabhavika).
Siddhanta:The "kartrva"cannot occur by nature.If the "kartrtva"is by
nature,just as the heat cannot be separated from the fire,in the same
manner moksha cannot come to the jiva from the "kartrtva".For one who is
not free from the "kartrtva",purushartha cannot come.'kartrtva'is
sorroful.further,by presenting the ever pure(nityashuddha),ever
knowing,free nature of the atman itself Moksha siddhi is implied.
If it be accepted that the atman is by nature has the kartrtva,then such a
presentation(pratipadana)cannot come.Therefore,only by the association of
the adjuncts(upadhis)the kartrtva is to the atma,not by nature.The sruthi
bhoktetyahumanishinah"(KU.3-4)from this only due to the association of the
upadhis,the atman has the "kartrtva,and bhoktrtva"(doership and
enjoyership).Therefore for who discriminate(vivekinah)there is no other
called jiva who is the doer and the enjoyer other than the
"Paramatman".Since the doership and the enjoyership has come due to
avidya,the dosha that the "samsaritva"will come to the "Paramatman",cannot
come."Yatrahi dwaitamiva bhavati,taditaraitaram pasyati"(Br.2-4-14),from
this sruthi,the doership and enjoyership is said,and later in the light of
getting knowledge(jnana)it is said,"yatratvasya
sarvamatmaivabhuttatkenakam pasyet",it is negated.In the same way,the
Aharya says,"Yathacatakshobhayatha".The particle,"tu"is used in the
meaning of "ca".It should not be understood that the
'kartrtva"(doership)is by nature to the atman.
Just as in the world a Carpenter when using his tools like "chisel"etc is
the doer,and sorowful (when working),and when he is resting he leaves his
tools,takes rest,in the same manner the atman,imposed by the
nescience(avidya)due to dwaita,becomes the doer in the waking state and in
the dream states,experiences sorrow,and while sleeping enters the
"ParaBhraman",becomes free from the karyakarana sanghata,in the state of
deepsleep becomes non-doer and happy.In the state of "Mukthi"by the light
of Vidya which destroys the vidya,becomes a mere pure atman,and non-doer
and happy.The sastras instruct the doership and the enjoyership from the
point of view of vidhi.Not in the absolute sense.
By his above explanation Sri.ShankaraBhagawathpada says that the doership
and the enjoyership is not by very nature to the Atman,but due to the
association with the upadhis.
Hereends the "Takshadhikarana".
In the sutra,"Mahadvacca-7,and "Etena yogah pratyuktah"-7the word "mahat'
used in the sankhya system is not used in the same meaning in the vedas.It
is used as the word,"atma",which is not mahat.
the same arguments holds in the case of Yogasystem also.No nishreys can be
atained either by the sankhya or the yoga.They are dwaitins.It is said in
the Br.u,"asangohiayam purushah"the Sankhyas accept the nirguna
purushah,so also in the Yoga also they accept.That which is not in
conflict with Vedanta daeshana is to be accepted.In these only the Vaidika
dhyana and jnana is said.Not independently.
>From the above it is clear that vedanta darshana doesnot require practice
of Sakhya and Yoga.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list