Advaita : Is there a contradiction in Vivarna's views on the Realization of Self?

[The Crimson Universe]

Here's an excerpt from a book (title and author's name at the end of the post) which points out the differences in the views of the two sub-schools of advaita, namely bhamati and vivarna, whether scriptural knowledge is sufficient for the realization of Brahman or something more is needed.

While the Vivarna is of the view that the study of the scriptures is capable in itself of leading to the Realization of the true nature of Brahman, the Bhamati (on the other hand) holds that the study of the scriptures leads only to the intellectual comprehension of Brahman and not to the realization of Its true nature

It further says,

According to Bhamati there is no injunction for the realization of Brahman. Contrarily, the Vivarna views that sravana has been enjoined along with manana and nididhyasana for the intuition of Brahman.

Isn't there a contradiction in the views of Vivarna? In the first part of my quoted text, vivarna holds that scriptural knowledge is sufficient for the realization of Brahman and no other methods are necessary but in the latter part of my quoted text, vivarna holds onto the view that one has to go through all the 3 methods (sravana, manana and nididhyasana) for the realization of Brahman.

The last method which is nididhyasana isn't scriptural study. Instead (according to wiki) nididhyasana is the repetation of the mahavakyas, which is almost like chanting or japa.

So my question is, is there really a contradiction in the views of Vivarna?

Why would Vivarna first give importance only to scriptural knowledge (sravana) for Brahman realization and reject the last two (manana and nididhyasana) ... and later say that all 3 are necessary for the intuition of Brahman?

Your thoughts please.

*(Source: extracts taken from page 254 of the google sample preview of the book "Bhamati and Vivarna schools of Advaita Vedanta : A Critical Approach" by Pulasth Soobah Roodurmum.)

EDIT : Another thing i would like to know is that, what is actually meant in the latter part of my quoted text, where it says that according to Bhamati there is no injunction for the realization of Brahman?

 

[Martin]

Here's an excerpt from a book (title and author's name at the end of the post) which points out the differences in the views of the two sub-schools of advaita, namely bhamati and vivarna, whether scriptural knowledge is sufficient for the realization of Brahman or something more is needed.



It further says,



Isn't there a contradiction in the views of Vivarna? In the first part of my quoted text, vivarna holds that scriptural knowledge is sufficient for the realization of Brahman and no other methods are necessary but in the latter part of my quoted text, vivarna holds onto the view that one has to go through all the 3 methods (sravana, manana and nididhyasana) for the realization of Brahman.

The last method which is nididhyasana isn't scriptural study. Instead (according to wiki) nididhyasana is the repetation of the mahavakyas, which is almost like chanting or japa.

So my question is, is there really a contradiction in the views of Vivarna?

Why would Vivarna first give importance only to scriptural knowledge (sravana) for Brahman realization and reject the last two (manana and nididhyasana) ... and later say that all 3 are necessary for the intuition of Brahman?

Your thoughts please.

*(Source: extracts taken from page 254 of the google sample preview of the book "Bhamati and Vivarna schools of Advaita Vedanta : A Critical Approach" by Pulasth Soobah Roodurmum.)

EDIT : Another thing i would like to know is that, what is actually meant in the latter part of my quoted text, where it says that according to Bhamati there is no injunction for the realization of Brahman?

Manana (reflection)
and nididhyasana (repetition of mahavakyas) both appear to be cognitive processes. So this is an "intellectual" path, unlike the intuitive knowledge resulting from meditative samadhi.

Saying there is "no injunction" for Brahman presumably means that according to Bhamati, realisation is not something that can be directed or willed, rather it is a spontaneous and unpredictable occurrence.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

@Martin,
Yes.
Some advaitins though practice both the intellectual pondering/repetition and also the dhyana/meditation that leads to nirvikalpa samadhi.
Not sure whether these advaitins (who practice both the methods) follow the traditional Shankara's advaita.
As far as i know, traditional Shankara's advaita don't do any meditative practices.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

So this is an "intellectual" path, unlike the intuitive knowledge resulting from meditative samadhi.

In one advaita book, the author had to say that nididhyasana (repetition of mahavakyas) leads to intuitive knowledge or samadhi. I don't know if samadhi is even possible from mere repetition.

 

[Martin]

In one advaita book, the author had to say that nididhyasana (repetition of mahavakyas) leads to intuitive knowledge or samadhi. I don't know if samadhi is even possible from mere repetition.

From my experience, these are different types of knowledge. To put it crudely, it's like the difference between thinking and feeling your way towards a truth.
Personally I think both are necessary, ie, realisation cannot be a purely cognitive or theoretical exercise. The intellectual groundwork is important, but IMO it only goes so far.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

I hope others would also post their opinions on the OP. :=)

 

[Martin]

@Martin,
Yes.
Some advaitins though practice both the intellectual pondering/repetition and also the dhyana/meditation that leads to nirvikalpa samadhi.
Not sure whether these advaitins (who practice both the methods) follow the traditional Shankara's advaita, which i've come to know recently, don't do any meditative practices.

I was looking at Atma Bodha again, and it does read like a philosophical treatise.
Verse 39 is relevant here: "A wise person should dissolve the entire visible world in his soul, and should meditate through his intellect on the Self alone, which is like ever stainless space".

 

[Valjean]

The Samadhi/cosmic consciousness/enlightenment/unity state of consciousness that is the ultimate goal in Hinduism, appears to be a neurological phenomenon, or perhaps neurologically mediated; a sort of rewiring or short circuiting of neural pathways in the brain. This mystical experience is universal, and many different techniques have been used to induce it, in various cultures.

In my opinion, inducing a seizure -- which, properly, is what these alterations of consciousness are -- is not something easily achieved by thinking, intellectual understanding or reading scripture.
I think they're more usually induced by altering the normal sensory input or processing that anchors us into our qualia or perception of the material world, through various means.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

The Samadhi/cosmic consciousness/enlightenment/unity state of consciousness that is the ultimate goal in Hinduism, appears to be a neurological phenomenon, or perhaps neurologically mediated; a sort of rewiring or short circuiting of neural pathways in the brain. This mystical experience is universal, and many different techniques have been used to induce it, in various cultures.

In my opinion, inducing a seizure -- which, properly, is what these alterations of consciousness are -- is not something easily achieved by thinking, intellectual understanding or reading scripture.
I think they're more usually induced by altering the normal sensory input or processing that anchors us into our qualia or perception of the material world, through various means.

What i've come to know recently is that, for advaitins (who follow the path of knowledge) reading scriptures and reflecting on them intellectually is all that is needed to be done in their spiritual path.
To me, that's being halfway up the ladder. I think from here on, other paths like yoga, tantra and even buddhist practices takes over. In my opinion, telling oneself repeatedly that one is Brahman and not the body/mind, cannot possibly uproot all the negative imprints stored in our subconscious and ultimately make us break free from the cycle of samsara/rebirths.

In the quotes below, a comparison of Advaitic and Buddhist views are given, where the buddhists believe that mere intellectual comprehension or discriminative knowledge is not enough and if one stops right there, then such a jnani/scholar, can again go back to his old ways (of acting from the point of his ego), if the mind is not trained by meditation.

Most Buddhist schools teach the value of meditation practice as the only effective way to remove the poison arrow of dukkha, or suffering. By contrast, Advaita emphasizes not meditation, but (instead) jnana, discriminating wisdom, the capacity to identify our true nature directly and differentiate it from mere appearance. For Advaitins, the path to liberation lies in studying the teachings of the sages and, if possible, listening directly to the wisdom of a living master. Once jnana awakens through such contact, the approach is to nourish and sustain it by resting in our true nature from moment to moment.

Of course, Buddhism also teaches the crucial importance of discriminating wisdom, called prajna, but contends that it cannot be cultivated without the benefit of the mind training provided by meditation practice. Without such deliberate cultivation of awareness, Buddhists believe, the mind will continue to repeat the same negative patterns and the eye of wisdom will remain closed.

Source: Remove The Seeker, Remove The Sought

 

[Martin]

What i've come to know recently is that, for advaitins (who follow the path of knowledge) reading scriptures and reflecting on them intellectually is all that is needed to be done in their spiritual path.
To me, that's being halfway up the ladder. I think from here on, other paths like yoga, tantra and even buddhist practices takes over. In my opinion, telling oneself repeatedly that one is Brahman and not the body/mind, cannot possibly uproot all the negative imprints stored in our subconscious and ultimately make us break free from the cycle of samsara/rebirths.

According to the below article, the buddhists believe that mere intellectual comprehension or discriminative knowledge is not enough and if one stops right there, then such a jnani/scholar, can again go back to his old ways (of acting from the point of his ego), if the mind is not trained by meditation.





Remove The Seeker, Remove The Sought

An important aspect of Buddhist practice is direct observation, as in satipatthana (mindfulness). One observes aspects of experience (phenomena) in order to develop insight into their qualities, eg the transient nature of moods and feelings. This goes deeper than an intellectual understanding of impermanence.
I'm not sure if there is anything comparable in Advaita?

 

[The Crimson Universe]

An important aspect of Buddhist practice is direct observation, as in satipatthana (mindfulness). One observes aspects of experience (phenomena) in order to develop insight into their qualities, eg the transient nature of moods and feelings. This goes deeper than an intellectual understanding of impermanence.
I'm not sure if there is anything comparable in Advaita?

Does mindfulness or satipatthana involve any meditative practices, like sitting posture, certain types of breathing, mantras or concentrating on an object?

 

[Martin]

Does mindfulness or satipatthana involve any meditative practices, like sitting posture, certain types of breathing, mantras or concentrating on an object?

Traditionally there are four frames of reference for satipatthana, ie bodily sensations, feelings, mind states, and mental phenomena. The idea is to directly observe these as they arise, and to develop insight into their characteristics. The practice can be done both on and off the cushion, eg walking meditation. One variation (anapanasati) uses the breath as an "anchor".

 

[ajay0]

The last method which is nididhyasana isn't scriptural study. Instead (according to wiki) nididhyasana is the repetation of the mahavakyas, which is almost like chanting or japa.

Nidhidhyasana is application.

Sravana is reading or hearing of the scriptural teachings, Manana is contemplation of that which is learnt, and Nidhidhyasana is application of what is learnt as in japa, meditation , Self-inquiry .

This is the sequence to be followed in all learning activities.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

Nidhidhyasana is application.

Sravana is reading or hearing of the scriptural teachings, Manana is contemplation of that which is learnt, and Nidhidhyasana is application of what is learnt as in japa, meditation , Self-inquiry .

This is the sequence to be followed in all learning activities.

How is advaita meditation, different than Patanjali's meditation techniques or Lahiri Mahasaya's kriya/kundalini meditation techniques?

 

[Viswa]

I hope others would also post their opinions on the OP. :=)

Thanks for the invitation Greg. Happy to meet you.

So, you know about the three - Sravana and Manana and Nidhidhyasana.

About Knowledge, one can understand what the Guru or Scriptures said by Sravana and Manana. Yes, those two are enough. But, even though after understanding - Impressions of Sensual and Mental remains strong and is not eradicated totally by that Knowledge. That Knowledge itself is not Liberation, from sensual pleasures-fear-sufferings and end of Karma. It has to be brought into practice to get totally detached from desires/pleasures. At the start of practice itself, one can feel the BLISS. This practice is nothing but Yoga..

Yes. Sankhya/Knowledge itself not enough for Liberation, for the person who sought for Liberation. Yoga must be taken up, and the forms of Yoga is based on Action and Inaction. In case of Inaction, Patanjali Yoga sutras to remain like Stone and Pratyahara-Dharana-Dhyana-Samadhi by Mahavakhyas or some manthra given by Guru/God. In case of Action, two ways, By Bhakthi and Karma Yoga. In case of Jnana yoga, One don't seek for Liberation - but remain union with Brahman by doing whatever arise without any interest/passion, Liberated or not - Jnana yogis don't care as they know "Nothing is Bound to be liberated - I am ever free" - from the knowledge gained of Shravana-Manana. This abiding in Oneself/Atman by getting Knowledge about Ignorance and Knowledge of me/Atman, is also Yoga (Nidhidhyasana) - and puts an end to rebirth, but the thing is they don't care of Karmas or birth or death, if the world is there - no problem, also if the world/lifes is near to the hands of death - no problem again, also no world is there to be conscious/aware of - no problem then, also remaining with God in a form - no problem, also remaining with Devil/Asuras - no problem (like Sukracharya - Prahlada), also being in a big public - no problem, also being in a cave/mountain alone - no problem. Nothing affects, whatever the action or situation maybe - no attachment or aversion to anything, whatever Dharmic or Inhumane act may happen.

So, if one seek for Liberation, Yoga or Nidhidhyasana is a must. If one got the knowledge of Atman and not affected by anything by abiding in ONE by not thinking about "I have to liberate from sensual/physical things and attain Mukti" (even not thinking about "I am not the doer") ever satisfied and Peace and Bliss, is also Yoga - but without a desire for Liberation, and one day when all new Karmas fall away - Jivan Mukti and old Karmas are met in action - attains Videha Mukti, but they never care of those Muktis. They even become like a Child and seems like enjoying the world, but without any attachment/thought/desire of "My or Mine" - truly dwell in flow of Bliss.. Like Bhrigu said, "Atman is Blissful", just never seek any physical or psychological pleasures and experience the Innermost sheath - Actual Real happiness in oneself.

Thank you.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

@Viswa ... Thanks for the answer. My original post was about Bhamati and Vivarna sub-schools of advaita. I wanted to know whether there are any contradictions in the views of Vivarna (in the passages that i've quoted above).

In my OP, one of the passages says that as per vivarna, scriptural knowledge is enough for liberation but in the end it says that nididhyasana too is necessary as per vivarna. I'm a little confused here.

It would be nice to know the differences of both these schools, when it comes to their practices.

 

[Viswa]

@Viswa ... Thanks for the answer. My original post was about Bhamati and Vivarna sub-schools of advaita. I wanted to know whether there are any contradictions in the views of Vivarna (in the passages that i've quoted above).

In my OP, one of the passages says that as per vivarna, scriptural knowledge is enough for liberation but in the end it says that nididhyasana too is necessary as per vivarna. I'm a little confused here.

It would be nice to know the differences of both these schools, when it comes to their practices.

Oh.. Okay.

Sorry. I don't know about that. I don't know deeply about any schools.