Vedanta (jnana-yoga) & yoga (samyama)

[Ekanta]

Ok here's some food for thought... read it and you understand...

Sivananda writes:
"Sravana, Manana and Nididhyasana of the Vedantic Sadhana correspond to Dharana, Dhyana and Samadhi of Raja Yoga of Patanjali Maharshi."
Source: Nirguna Meditation

I've thought about this quote for some time... and reading Shankara's comment to gita 18.52... it made me think a bit more:

“meditation [dhyāna] is thinking [cintana] of the real nature of the Self [ātma-svarūpa], and concentration [yoga] is making the mind one-pointed [ekāgrī-karaṇa] with regard to the Self itself [ātma-viṣaye].” "

yoga is defined as samādhi in yoga sutra comments, so it does fit.

To sum up (the word in parenthesis is just an example):

Vedanta............................Yoga
Sravana (listen)...................Dharana (concentration)
Manana (reflect)..................Dhyana (meditation)
Nididhyasana (assimilate).......Samadhi (absorbation)

But its not how we usually think about it, is it an alternative explanation, or?

Discuss!

 

[Maya3]

To be honest I'm a little confused by your question.
Do you mind clarifying it?

Maya

 

[Ekanta]

Hi Maya3 et.al.

I posted it since to me its like a great revealer. You can interpret it as you like and use it as you like. It might also be useless to you. But I simply posted it since to some it might be interesting. Now for a little more explanation...

In vedanta (I will use that word from an advaitic perspective) we are told that jnana-yoga involves three steps.

Shravana, to listen to the upanishadic message etc.
Manana, to reflect upon it and understand it so our doubts are cleared, at least intellectually, and then
Nididhyasana, to make it an experience of our own through the process of meditation etc.

So in vedanta the three last "steps" after purifying the mind through karma-yoga and upasana (worship etc) is the above process.

Now in patanjali yoga sutras there are eight limbs or methods and the last three are said to be interior. They are collectively called samyama and they are:

3.1. Dhāraṇā (concentration) is binding the mind to a place.
3.2. Continuity of the mind there (in dhāraṇ&#257 is dhyāna (meditation).
3.3. That same (meditation - dhyāna), when it comes to shine forth as the object alone, apparently empty of its own nature as knowledge, is called samādhi (the object empty of ideas).

---

Now, Nididhyasana [in its essence] is "obviously" same as samādhi, a way to get direct, true knowledge of things as they are without involving our own ideas about them.
But to compare shravana (listen) to dharana (concentration) is not an obvious one. Is it concentration on a single thing or concentration on a message.
To compare dhyana (meditation) to manana (reflecting), is not an obvious one either. Is it meditation on a single object or reflecting on it, etc.

I cant write more than this... perhaps its just different ways to look at the same thing. One is the yoga way and one is the vedantic way.

(Between, it would be nice if Shantoham wrote a few lines on it.)

 

[Maya3]

Hi Maya3 et.al.

I posted it since to me its like a great revealer. You can interpret it as you like and use it as you like. It might also be useless to you. But I simply posted it since to some it might be interesting. Now for a little more explanation...

In vedanta (I will use that word from an advaitic perspective) we are told that jnana-yoga involves three steps.

Shravana, to listen to the upanishadic message etc.
Manana, to reflect upon it and understand it so our doubts are cleared, at least intellectually, and then
Nididhyasana, to make it an experience of our own through the process of meditation etc.

So in vedanta the three last "steps" after purifying the mind through karma-yoga and upasana (worship etc) is the above process.

Now in patanjali yoga sutras there are eight limbs or methods and the last three are said to be interior. They are collectively called samyama and they are:

3.1. Dhāraṇā (concentration) is binding the mind to a place.
3.2. Continuity of the mind there (in dhāraṇ&#257 is dhyāna (meditation).
3.3. That same (meditation - dhyāna), when it comes to shine forth as the object alone, apparently empty of its own nature as knowledge, is called samādhi (the object empty of ideas).

---

Now, Nididhyasana [in its essence] is "obviously" same as samādhi, a way to get direct, true knowledge of things as they are without involving our own ideas about them.
But to compare shravana (listen) to dharana (concentration) is not an obvious one. Is it concentration on a single thing or concentration on a message.
To compare dhyana (meditation) to manana (reflecting), is not an obvious one either. Is it meditation on a single object or reflecting on it, etc.

I cant write more than this... perhaps its just different ways to look at the same thing. One is the yoga way and one is the vedantic way.

(Between, it would be nice if Shantoham wrote a few lines on it.)

Aw, now I understand more.

I think it's both. shravana listen, IS concentration on the sound of OM. And meditation IS listening AND concentration for me. Listening and concentrating on OM is meditation.

I don't find that contemplation is meditation. But I know that many do.

Maya

 

[Shântoham]

Namaskāram

If what Śivānanda writes is correct then Vedānta (Darśana) would be Yoga (Darśana). It isn’t.
As a Darśana, Yoga is a dualistic school and advocates eternal difference between Jīva, Īśvara, and Prakṛti. Śaṅkarācārya categorically says Yoga is a dualistic Darśana since it is not the proponent of Śruti Praṇīta Ātmaikava Darśana (Dvaitino hi te sāṁkhyā yogāśca nātmaikatvadarśinaḥ – those who follow Sāṁkhyā and Yoga are dualists and as such they cannot realize the non-dual nature of Ātmā (Brahmasūtra Bhāṣya 1.2.3).
But with regard to the Sādhana part of Advaita Darśana, Śaṅkarācārya accepts only the first five limbs of Aṣtāṅga Yoga of Patañjali – Yama, Niyama, Āsana, Praṇāyāma, and Pratyāhāra – for Cittaśuddhi (purification of the mind). But the last three limbs of Patañjali Yoga – Dhāraṇa, Dhyāna, and Samādhi – differ from Śaṅkarācārya’s usage of those terms in his Prasthānatrayi Bhāṣyas.
What Śaṅkarācārya teaches as Dhyāna Yoga is based on Śruti’s Adhyātma Yoga not Patañjali’s Dhyāna – Asaṁprajñāta Samādhi Yoga. Śaṅkarācārya’s Dhyāna leads to Svasvarūpānusaṅdhāna (investigation on the essential natura of I) and Ātma Svarūpa Cintanam (contemplation of the essential nature of I) – while Patañjali’s Dhyāna is aimed towards concentrating on external objects and ends in being one with that after losing own identity in Samādhi (Svarūpa Śūnyatva). Patañjali emphasizes the deliberate suppression of thoughts and the individual time-bound experience of non-duality to attain the ultimate state of the Yoga school (Asaṁprajñāta through Citta Vṛtti Nirodha and Īśvara Praṇidāna) whereas Śaṅkarācārya’s Advaita teaches us how to transcend these Vṛttis and realizing one’s true nature (Ātma Svarūpa – the essential nature of I) which is beyond the time and space reference.

Pranāms

 

[Ekanta]

Thanks for your comments. I have to agree with your post Shantoham... although saying vedanta is not yoga, is not really what I was after.

In Madhusudana's Gita commentery to verse 6.29, he goes into the difference bewteen patanjali-yoga and vedanta views as follows (this is partly a summary):

First he quotes Vasishta [Laghu-yoga-vasishta... long name so I stop here]:

"O Rama, Yoga and enlightenment (jnana) are the two processes for the eliminatjion of the mind. Yoga is indeed the restraint of modifications of the mind, (and) enlightenment (jnana) is the full visualization (of Reality)"
"To some Yoga is an impossibility; to someone else enlightenment (jnana) is an impossibility! Therefore the supreme Lord Shiva spoke of the two processes"

Then he continues:

"For the elimination of the mind" means "for becoming oblivious of its presence" as a result of separating from the Witness its limiting adjunct, the mind. There are two processes for that:

[In Patanjali-yoga:]
One process is asamprajnata-samadhi for in samprajnata-samadhi the Witness experiences the principle called mind, possessed (then) of the flow of modifications in the form of the Self alone. However, when it is bereft of all modifications it is not experienced, because it is (then) functionless.
This process was propounded by the followers of Hinanyagarbha (Patanjali-yoga), who hold that creation (i.e. prakriti) is real.

[In upanishadic vedānta:]
The thing witnessed, which is imagined on the Witness, does not exist at all, because its unreal. but the Witness, the absolute supreme Reality, alone exists.
But the followers of the upanishads, who depend on the views of ... Shankara and hold that creation is unreal, accept only the second process. For in their case, when the knowledge of the substratum becomes firm, the non-perception of the sublated mind imagined on that (substratum), and also of the things visualized by it (mind), becomes easily possible. It is for this very reason that Shankara did not expound anywhere the necessity of Yoga for the knowers of Brahman.
Hence indeed, for the realization of Brahman the... followers of the upanishads, engage only in vicāra (deliberation) on the vedantic sentences of the Vedas by approaching a teacher; but (they do) not (engage) in Yoga, because, since the defects of the mind are removed through vicāra (deliberation) alone, it (Yoga) becomes superfluos....

------
Now I cant really speculate more on why Sivananda wrote as he did... But I know he was so not totally strict in his writings (i.e. from an upanishadic tradition only). He liked to explain things a bit broader.
Anyway, the above is a bit interesting, so I decided to post that too. I think many people wonder about this and it might be a good explanation?

And I keep posting... since I want to figure this out myself