samadhi
Abiding as SELF vs. being in a TRANCE STATE vs samadhi vs Deep Sleep | Advaita Vedanta
Tom Das speaking at Awake In Stillness Conference 9th November 2024
I’ll be speaking at the Awake in Stillness Conference on 9th November 2024. It’s FREE to register and watch live using this affiliate link, and if you buy a paid ticket to re-watch the event then I will receive some commission.
Please show your support by clicking on the above link – many thanks
Advaita Vedanta – all thoughts must go! (Manonasa) The need to still the mind and end all thinking according to the Upanishads and Shankara’s commentaries | Nirvikalpa Samadhi
There are so many verses both in the Upanishads and in Shankara’s commentaries which state that all thoughts must be extinguished for liberation to occur. This is known as Manonasa (Mano = mind; nasa = anihiliation or destruction or dissolution), which is a traditional synonym for liberation (Moksha) or Self-Knowledge (Atma-Jnana). Here are some of these verses (and there are many many more which I have not included!):
(Note I have not included the numerous verses from Shankara’s text called Vivekachudamani which repeatedly advocates the thoughtless state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi which can be found in a separate post here)
When the five organs of perception become still, together with the mind, and the intellect ceases to be active: that is called the Supreme State [Brahma-Vidya or Self Knowledge]
~Katha Upanishad 2.3.10
Shankara’s commentary on this above verse (Katha Upanishad, verse 2.3.10) states the following:
‘At the time when the five senses…, together with the mind…, which is now no longer functioning and thinking, are at rest in the Self alone, after turning away from objects, and with the intellect…no longer engaging with its functioning, that they call the highest state [Brahma-Vidya or Self-Knowledge].’
This is reminiscent of the Amritabindu Upanishad and also of the Adhyatma Upanishad, both of which are considered to be traditional Upanishads in the Advaita Vedanta/ Jnana tradition:
The mind severed from all connection with sensual objects, and prevented from functioning out, awakes into the light of the heart, and finds the highest condition. The mind should be prevented from functioning, until it dissolves itself in the heart. This is Jnana, this is Dhyana, the rest is all mere concoction of untruth.
~ Amritabindu Upanishad
Manonasa is also known as Nirvikalpa Samadhi, see here:
The knot of the ignorance in the heart is broken completely only when one sees his Self as secondless through Nirvikalpa Samadhi
~Adhyatama Upanishad 1.17
Gaudapada writes in verse 3.38 of his Mandukya Karika:
There can be no acceptance or rejection where all mentation stops. Then knowledge is established in the Self and is unborn, and it becomes homogenous [ie. all objects disappear]
Shankara’s commentary on this verse 3.38 is as follows:
…therefore there is no rejection or acceptance in It, where thought does not exist. That is to say, how can there be rejection or acceptance where no mentation is possible in the absence of the mind? As soon as there comes the realisation of the Truth that is the Self, then, in the absence of any object, knowledge (Jnanam) is established in the Self, like the heat of fire in fire. It is then birthless (ajati) and becomes homogenous.
‘…when the mind becomes quiescent and does not give rise to appearances, it verily becomes Brahman’
~ Gaudapada, Mandukya Upanishad Karika 3.46
Shankara clarifies this further in his commentary on Mandukya Karika 3.46:
‘When the mind brought under discipline by the above-mentioned methods, does not fall into the oblivion of deep sleep, nor is distracted by external objects, that is to say, when the mind becomes quiescent like the flame of a light kept in a windless place; or when the mind does not appear in the form of an object – when the mind is endowed with these characteristics, it verily becomes one with Brahman.’
Anandagiri, a 13th century commentator on Shankara’s works, confirms this in his comments on Karika 3.46:
‘The external objects are nothing but the activities of the mind itself.’
So we can see that mind activity and external objects are one and the same, and that samadhi is devoid of both
The knowers of Brahman say that absolute Jnanam, knowledge, which is akalpakam [devoid of thoughts], and is therefore ajam, birthless…
~ Shankara’s commentary on Gaudapada Karika 3.33
This duality as a whole, that is mano-drsyam, perceived by the mind; is nothing but the mind, which is itself imagined – this is the proposition [Tom: ie. meaning of the verse]. For duality endures so long as the mind does, and disappears with the disappearance of the mind.
~ Shankara’s commentary on Gaudapada Karika 3.31
It has been said that when the mind is divested of ideation by virtue of the realisation of Truth that is Brahman, and when there is an absence of external objects (of perception), it becomes tranquil, controlled, and withdrawn, like fire that has no fuel. And it has further been said that when the mind thus ceases to be mind, duality also disappears.
~ Shankara’s commentary on Gaudapada Karika 3.33
‘The controlled mind is verily the fearless Brahman’
~Gaudapada Karika 3.35
On p.149 of The Method of Vedanta by SSS, SSS quotes from Chapter 6 of the Bhagavad Gita to explain in more detail the method of Nididhyasana, as follows:
‘That yoga should certainly be practised with resolute mind. Giving up without exception all desires that come from individual, will, restraining the sense-organs on every side through the mind, one should gradually withdraw from all activity, with will and intellect firmly controlled; keeping the mind fixed on the Self, one should not think of anything. Wherever the fickle mind wanders, one should bring it back and fix it on the Self alone, under firm control. Supreme joy comes to such a yogi, whose mind is at perfect peace, whose lusts have subsided, who is sinless and who has become the Absolute.’
I thought I would end with Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi’s view of the scriptures and their purpose:
All the jnana scriptures that teach the way to redemption proclaim in unison that restraining and stilling the mind is the best means for liberation. This is also emphasised by jnanis. If, after a certain amount of study, one knows this to be the inner purport of the scriptures, one should then direct ones whole effort towards that [practice]. What is the use of continuously studying more and more scriptures without doing this?
~Sri Ramana Maharshi, Guru Vachaka Kovai verse 141
There are so many more quotes I could have included, such as quotes from Yoga Vasistha and Ribhu Gita too!
Also see:
How can the Jnani (sage) function with NO THOUGHTS? Sri Ramana Maharshi
Q. I don’t understand the obsession with stopping thought. Are not thoughts also part of the Absolute?
Questioner: Surely though we are all Ultimate Reality. Everything that exists is really Ultimate Reality – and that includes thoughts. I don’t understand the obsession with stopping thought rather than accepting that thought is also part of the Absolute. If thinking wasn’t meant to be happening, it wouldn’t occur. I find Nisargadatta’s teachings regarding thinking – let the thoughts flow and don’t identify with them to be more realistic and helpful.
Tom: Sri Nisargadatta also recommended the total cessation of thoughts as the means to liberation – although both he and Sri Ramana (and most sages) also advised other (lower) practices depending on the context of the conversations. Shankara also taught cessation of thoughts.
It is not something that is easy to understand, and most share your view, which is fine of course.
My experience is that without cessation of thoughts, the resultant liberation is not really liberation at all – the Eternal Immortal and Blissful nature of the Self is not really discovered at all, and so suffering and ego keeps on coming back.
This is why the scriptures are so insistent upon cessation of thoughts. This is why the scriptures state that Reality is without thoughts.
Otherwise the scriptures would be much shorter, no? They would just say – ‘nobody here, what is happening is what is happening, nobody doing any of it!’ – but we never see this in the traditional scriptures of Vedanta or Buddhism – did you ever wonder why!
That said, if you find the teaching of Sri Nisargadatta that you mentioned to be more helpful, I agree that it is best to go with that!
Irrespective of what we believe or practice, if we are truly earnest and long for liberation, and follow that genuine longing within us, and allow it to lead us, we all find our way to liberation eventually. As you say, it is our nature already!
🙏
How can the Jnani (sage) function with NO THOUGHTS? And why do ALL thoughts have to end? Sri Ramana Maharshi
Also see: Ramana Maharshi: The world should be considered like a dream
Question: I often read references in Ramana Maharshi’s writings of the need for ALL thought to be removed or extinguished. Is this a translation error? Perhaps he means that only egoic or self-referential thoughts need to be removed? If all thoughts are removed, how could he teach others and perform the activities of daily living, which requires some kind of thinking?
Tom: The need to remove all thoughts seems to be a very strange teaching indeed, and the objection you raise is a common-sense and valid one. However Sri Ramana was very clear that he meant ALL thoughts should be removed. Note this is also known as Samadhi, Manonasa, Turiya or Wakeful-Sleep (Jagrat-Susupti).
eg. In his short text ‘Who am I?’ Ramana writes:
‘The thought ‘Who am I?’, destroying all other thoughts, will itself finally be destroyed like the stick used for stirring the funeral pyre.’
‘As and when thoughts rise, one should annihilate all of them through enquiry then and there in their very place of origin.’
Nowhere in the vedanta teachings do we see any mention of only ‘self-referential thoughts’ needing to be removed, and with good reason too – only when all thoughts are removed will the Reality Shine. Otherwise ignorance will find a way to continue.
We see the same teaching in the Vedanta scriptures such as in the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita, the writings of Gaudapada and of Shankara. Eg: (nirvikalpa samadhi is a state in which no objective phenomena arise, including thoughts)
The knot of the ignorance in the heart is broken completely only when one sees his Self as secondless through Nirvikalpa Samadhi
~Adhyatama Upanishad 1.17
The mind severed from all connection with sensual objects, and prevented from functioning out, awakes into the light of the heart, and finds the highest condition. The mind should be prevented from functioning, until it dissolves itself in the heart. This is Jnana, this is Dhyana, the rest is all mere concoction of untruth.
~ Amritabindu Upanishad
Turiya is not that which is conscious of the inner (subjective) world, nor that which is conscious of the outer (objective) world, nor that which is conscious of both…It is the cessation of all phenomena…This is what is known as the Fourth (Turiya). This is Atman and this has to be realised. ~Mandukya Upanishad
In Shankara’s commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad, in his introduction to the text he writes:
Just as the normal state of a man, afflicted by disease, consists in his getting cured of the disease, similarly the normalcy of the Self, stricken with identification with misery, is regained through the cessation of the phenomenal universe of duality…since the phenomenal world of duality is a creation of ignorance, it can be eradicated through knowledge…
Gaudapada writes in verse 3.38 of his Mandukya Karika:
There can be no acceptance or rejection where all mentation stops. Then knowledge is established in the Self and is unborn, and it becomes homogenous
Shankara’s commentary on this verse 3.38 is as follows:
…therefore there is no rejection or acceptance in It, where thought does not exist. That is to say, how can there be rejection or acceptance where no mentation is possible in the absence of the mind? As soon as there comes the realisation of the Truth that is the Self, then, in the absence of any object, knowledge (Jnanam) is established in the Self, like the heat of fire in fire. It is then birthless (ajati) and becomes homogenous.
As to how can a Guru teach and function if he/she has no thoughts, the essential response is that from the point of view of ignorance it seems that Ramana is a body-mind entity (ie. a human being or person) that thinks, acts and suffers, but In Reality Sri Ramana is not a body mind at all – he is the Ultimate Reality – the Self, and it is only from the point of view of ignorance that he seems to move and act and think, etc.
Ramana sometimes said that he couldn’t think a single thought even if he tried! Oh, the paradox!
All thoughts must be removed (by Self-Enquiry)
The text Guru Vachaka Kovai is said to be the most authoritative recording of Sri Ramana’s verbal teachings. Here are some verses on the need to extinguish all thoughts:
- Unless the noise of thoughts subsides
One cannot know the ineffable bliss
Of mouna.
- True wealth is but the gracious silence
Of steady, unswerving Siva-awareness.
This bright, rare treasure can be gained
Only by those who earnestly
Strive for extinction of all thoughts.
(Tom: ie. for liberation, one must earnestly strive for the extinction of ALL thoughts)
- Siva, who is Pure Awareness
Transcending thought, is only known
To seers heroic who with minds
Extinct abide thought-free within
The heart, and not to those whose minds
Are still engaged in thought.
(Tom: ie. Liberation is not known to those who are still engaged in thought. One must abide with ‘minds extinct’ and ‘thought-free’)
- The mark of bhakti true, total
Self-surrender at Siva’s Feet,
Is perfect peace without a thought
Or word of prayer or plaint.
(Tom: ie. True Bhakti, which is the same as True Jnana, also has no thoughts within it)
Why do we need to remove ALL thoughts? Isn’t this too much? Why not just the self-referential thoughts?
Essentially the ego creates all thoughts – it will tell you that it only create certain thoughts, but actually ALL thoughts keep you identified with the mind, and identification with the mind is the same as identification with the body-mind. If you honestly examine your own direct experience you will see this to be the case.
Here are some articles where I explore this further:
HOW TO END EGO-SUFFERING (and why other spiritual paths tend not to ultimately work)
Turn Within? Really? Isn’t this dualistic and doesn’t this just strengthen the ego?
This is topic is also explored in the wonderful book The Most Direct Means To Eternal Bliss by Michael Langford, one of the best books ever written on liberation and which you can download for free on the link just given.
How does a sage function with no thoughts? The Jnani (Sage) does not act or think or perceive any differences (The Unfathomable nature of the Sage)
And here are some verses describing the unfathomable nature of Liberation/Jnana/The Jnani:
- “The mukta [liberated sage] like the rest of us perceives
The world in all its vast variety
And yet he sees non-difference in it”,
So people say. This is not true.
(Tom: ie. the idea that the liberated sage still perceives differences ‘like the rest of us’ but perceives an underlying unity despite various objects being seen is here being refuted.)
- Those who mistakenly perceive
The variegated universe believe
The mukta too is a perceiver like them
But he is not the perceiver.
(Tom: ie. Taking yourself, in ignorance, to be a perceiver and doer, one also, in ignorance, takes the sage to be a perceiver and doer. The notion that the sage is not a perceiver at all is one we find throughout the vedanta scriptures, but how can the mind understand this?)
- Ascribing individual being
To realised muktas is sheer folly.
Their being is universal Being.
The separateness seen in that pure
Sky is but the shadow cast
By the separateness of lookers-on
Still bound.
- In that great Silence there is no
Sense of difference. But is there then
A feeling of non-difference? No.
The non-duality extolled
By Seer’s is nothing but the absence
Of all sense of difference.
(Tom: here Sri Ramana states explicitly that the sage perceives no difference whatsoever, and feels no differences whatsoever. How can this be?! All difference is an effect of ignorance only!)
But do we not see the sage eating, doing things and suffering?
1135 & 1136. Even if the sense of doership
Is dead, “How could one call the sage
A mukta freed from all the bonds
Of karma? Do we not see him eating,
Engaged in work, bearing a body
Of flesh, accepting prarabdha [destiny],
And suffering pain?” If you ask this,
The answer is, “True, in your sight
He seems to suffer, you see him suffering,
But did he tell you that he suffered?”
1137 The sage enjoys as his own being
The bliss of all transcendent Being.
The error lies in these ignorant folk
Seeing him as a body that suffers
1152. Beyond the reach of words extends
The sage’s greatness. None but he
Can know his state of Being, vaster
Than the sky and than the mountain
Firmer. To experience it
Yourself, you should first shed your own
Body-consciousness.
(Tom: Oh the wonder and unfathomable nature of Self-Realisation! No matter how many times we hear the state of Moksha described, know it cannot be understood! It is truly beyond the mind! How lucky we are to have Sri Ramana’s Presence and Teachings to guide us!)
Blessings and Namaste
🙏
To understand this in greater detail, please read the PDF here
Swami Sarvapriyananda: Seeing the eternal in daily life not just in samadhi
Also see: Does Swami Sarvapriyananda teach the same as Swami Vivekananda and Sri Ramakrishna?
Above is a nice presentation from Swami Sarvapriyananda, but this in my view this is actually a distortion of genuine vedanta teachings. I do want to be respectful towards Swamiji as I think he is doing a great job sharing Vedanta teachings – he is raising awareness of and popularising Vedanta in a very accessible and approachable way – and he is also a gifted teacher who is benefitting many – so I hope I will not offend anyone by merely stating an alternative view that I also hope will be of benefit to those seeking liberation (see the link above for more on my view of these types of teachings).
Imho these ‘Vedanta’ teachings are predominantly on the intellectual plane only and the genuinely infinite and blissful nature of the Self is not revealed with this type of teaching. The Jnana (knowledge) of the scriptures is not mere intellectual knowledge, as suggested by Swami Sarvapriyananda, but a synonym for Self-Realisation which is beyond any intellectual comprehension and does not depend on the mind/thought. Jnana is not merely a change in a point of view, but something much more radical and fundamental than this.
eg. there is a direct contrast between Swami S’s teaching in the video and with that of Sri Ramana Maharshi, who I consider to teach the genuine Vedanta teaching, as taught in the Upanishads and by Sri Shankaracharya. The following is taken from Sri Ramana’s text Who Am I? – can the teachings be any clearer? See how it contrasts to the exposition given, eg at around 23:40 mins into the video above where Swami S states the world/’what is seen’ need not be removed:
Questioner. When will the realization of the Self be gained?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: When the world which is what-is-seen has been removed, there will be realization of the Self which is the seer.
Questioner: Will there not be realization of the Self even while the world is there?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: There will not be.
Questioner: When will the world which is the object seen be removed?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: When the mind, which is the cause of all cognition’s and of all actions, becomes quiescent, the world will disappear.
This teaching is given by Sri Ramana as ignorance is only removed when we turn away from Maya and towards the Subject-Self, and thus discover what we truly are beyond the mind and objective phenomena. Sri Ramana is also telling us that the entire world is in fact an illusory projection of the mind, something that he further explains in the text ‘Who am I?’.
Ironically, this teaching given by Swami Sarvapriyananda is also in direct contrast to Swami Vivekananda (the founder of the organisation Swami S is in) who again and again explained the need for Samadhi, eg:
‘The conclusion of the Vedanta is that when there is absolute [ie. nirvikalpa] samadhi and cessation of all modifications, there is no return from that state’
Or contrast this with Sri Shankara, the founder of ‘modern’ Advaita Vedanta, in his commentary on the Katha Upanishad 2.1.1:
‘…The group of sense organs, beginning with the ear, should be turned away from all sense-objects. Such a one, who is purified thus, sees the indwelling self. For it is not possible for the same person to be engaged in the thought of sense-objects and to have the vision of the Self as well‘
Guru Ramana gives a rather cutting teaching in Guru Vachaka Kovai verse 599:
599.
The innocent girl-bride thinking that
Betrothal is full conjugal union
Is filled with joy. Even so the learned
Who have yet to turn within and taste true bliss
Claim that the verbal wisdom which they prattle
Is advaita jnana.
See here for more many more quotes like this from Sages such as Sri Shankara and the Upanishads: Do we need to turn away from the world of objects to realise the Self? | Advaita Vedanta | Sri Ramana Maharshi | Upanishads | Shankara
Q. Why I don’t see Samadhi as a way to Liberation (Moksha) | Advaita Vedanta | Shankara | Ramana Maharshi
Question: Why I don’t see Samadhi as a way to know Aham Brahmasmi [I Am Brahman, ie. Self Knowledge or liberation]. First of all let me discuss what is Samadhi and the types of Samadhi which are possible. Samadhi simply means having your mind concentrated. So Samadhi is of the following types. Savikalpa Samadhi and Nirvikalpa Samadhi. Savikalpa Samadhi means that our mind has become one with the object on which we concentrate. Nirvikalpa Samadhi means that all thoughts are rejected. This means that even Sushupti [deep sleep] is not present in Nirvikalpa Samadhi. What remains is the Pure “I” unassociated with anything. Now both Samadhis do not give the knowledge of Aham Brahmasmi, reason is this. Savikalpa Samadhi mind is merged with object. There is no recognition of “I am the universal”. In Nirvikalpa Samadhi there remains Pure “I” but however the only interpretation possible post coming out of the Nirvikalpa Samadhi is that “I am different from body and mind” this is very much possible. But it does not give the knowledge of Aham Brahmasmi I am the whole, the objects are not merged into the subject. But however the Samadhi is useful in Brahma Vidya, so Gaudapada suggests that as long as your mind works you see the world, if your mind does not think you see no world. Hence the world is Mithya. Hence practice of Samadhi makes the conviction of Vedanta stronger. But Samadhi per se will not give us knowledge of Aham Brahmasmi. Then what gives knowledge of Aham Brahmasmi is the methodology of superimposition of the Shastra and then removal by it. This helps is gain the knowledge of Aham Brahmasmi.
Response from Tom: A key scriptural method for the attainment of Moksha is superimposition and removal – but what does it mean? It is a technical way of saying using a thorn to remove a thorn and then throwing both away. The first thorn is ignorance, ie. that which causes duality and suffering – the scriptures tell us that this same ignorance is also known as Maya. The teaching/scripture is also a thorn, ie. a form of ignorance/maya, which is a form of superimposition. The difference is that it is the one part of Maya that if followed leads out of Maya. The scripture tells us to remove all superimposition by attending to the Self. This total removal of superimposition (ie. all objective phenomena), which also means eventually discarding the scripture/teaching itself, eventually leads to ‘Jnana’ or ‘Knowledge’. This total removal of superimpositions (ie. objects) is also called Nirvikalpa Samadhi. It is also called ‘Silence’.
eg. from the Amritabindu Upanishad: ‘The mind severed from all connection with sensual objects, and prevented from functioning out, awakes into the light of the heart, and finds the highest condition [Brahman]. The mind should be prevented from functioning, until it dissolves itself in the heart. This is Jnana, this is Dhyana, the rest is all mere concoction of untruth.’
eg. from Gaudapada Karika: ‘When the mind…remains unshakable and does not give rise to appearances, it verily becomes Brahman.’
However the thinking mind cannot comprehend how such a ‘void-like’ state such as Nirvikalpa Samadhi can lead to ‘knowledge’, as all it knows is the subject-object knowledge of the thinking mind (ie. ego). ie. all the mind knows is duality, therefore it cannot understand how something like nirvikalpa samadhi can lead to realisation. The mind therefore creates a new version of the teaching that is non-scriptural and states there is no need for samadhi/total removal of objective phenomena from the mind, even though the scriptures clearly state time and time again this is needed. The mind’s new teaching, which doesn’t work, ie. it does not reveal the Self that we are, perhaps makes more sense to the mind but usually is more complex and has many more concepts than the simpler more direct original teaching that actually works.
The scripture/true teaching is like a treasure map. We have to have faith in it and follow it and it will lead us to the treasure. But the mind, if it is not able to see how the map works, creates a new version of the map that makes sense to it (ie. makes sense to the ego-mind), but this version of the map only leads to more Maya, so suffering does not end and liberation is not ‘perceived’. In following the ego-made treasure map, the ego feels more secure, but the treasure of the Self that we already are is not revealed.
From Katha Upanishad: ‘When the five organs of perception become still, together with the mind, and the intellect ceases to be active: that is called the Supreme State [Brahman]’
Shankara writes in his commentary on Katha Upanishad:
‘…One whose intellect has been withdrawn from all objects, gross and subtle, when this takes place, this is known as ‘inactivity of the sense organs’. Though this ‘inactivity of the sense organs’ one sees that glory of the Self. ‘Sees’ means he directly realises the Self as ‘I am the Self’ as thereby becomes free from suffering’
And again from Shankara’s commentary on Katha Upanishad:
‘…the perceiver sees the external objects which are not-Self/not the Atman, such as sound, etc., and not the Self within. Though this is the nature of the world, some (rare) discerning man, like turning back/ reversing the current of a river, sees the Self within…The group of sense organs, beginning with the ear, should be turned away from all sense-objects. Such a one, who is purified thus, sees the indwelling self. For it is not possible for the same person to be engaged in the thought of sense-objects and to have the vision of the Self as well.’
From Amritabindhu Upanishad:
‘As mind emptied of the objective leads to liberation, one desirous of liberation must always try to wipe off the objective from the plane of his mind.’
There are so many other quotes like this, but I hope you get the point. What is needed is faith in the scriptures and then to follow them. Only then, once the teaching is put into practice, is it realised how Nirvikalpa Samadhi can directly lead to Jnana or Realisation. Otherwise we are doing the equivalent just standing on the sidelines talking about playing tennis without ever picking up the racket!
‘Strenuously withdrawing all thoughts from sense objects, one should remain fixed in steady, non-objective [ie. subjective] enquiry. This, in brief, is the means of knowing one’s own real nature; this effort alone bring about the sublime inner vision.’
~Sri Ramana Maharshi
‘…the natural and changeless state of Nirvikalpa samadhi is produced by unswerving vigilant concentration on the Self, ceaseless like the unbroken flow of oil. This readily and spontaneously yields that direct, immediate, unobstructed, and Universal perception of Brahman, which is at once knowledge and experience and which transcends time and space. This perception is Self-realisation.’
~Sri Ramana Maharshi
Wishing you well
Namaste
🙏🕉
Samadhi and Meditation: Yoga vs Vedanta
Q. Would you say that samadhi is a mental state? If so would Self Realisation be possible while not in that state after experienced?
Tom: Samadhi is not a mental state. Mental states come and go and are part of maya (illusion). Samadhi is beyond this. Samadhi is abiding as Self.
Q. I’m not clear on this for myself. From my understanding there are many jivas the world considers Self Realized that did not constantly operate out of a state of absorbtion/samadhi but were able to access it at will. I think that if Realisation is confined to samadhi only one could be justified in forgoing the Advaita path and shravana (hearing the teachings) and manana (reflecting upon the teachings) aspects altogether and aspire straight to a more meditative or Raja yoga path.
Tom: Regarding your first point, the Jnani is not the body-mind, but the eternal Self Within. There is only one Jnani – the Self. This Self is also called ‘Samadhi’. It is non-dual. It cannot be understood properly by the mind. This is why the Self can only be attained by Samadhi. The various so-called ‘realised-jivas’ are just illusion, or maya, appearance.
See a quote from Sri Ramana Maharshi here:
A Swami asked: I feel toothache. Is it only a thought?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Yes.
~Talks 451
Questioner: Now there is the Sino-Japanese war. If it is only in imagination, can or will Sri Bhagavan imagine the contrary and put an end to the war?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: The Bhagavan of the questioner is as much a thought as the Sino-Japanese war. (Laughter.)
~Talks 451
Now regarding your second point about yoga and meditation vs vedanta and sravana (hearing the teachings) and manana (reflecting upon the teachings):
’Fools, not the learned, speak of Sankhya [the path of knowledge] as being different to Yoga. Anyone who properly resorts to even one of these obtains the results of both’
~Bhagavad Gita 5.4
’The State that is reached by Sankhya is also reached by Yoga. He truly sees who sees that Sankhya and Yoga are one’
~Bhagavad Gita 5.5
Krishna goes on to explain the path of yoga in the rest of chapter 5 and particularly in chapter 6 and how that leads directly to realisation.
So yoga is another way. Have not all the great sages proclaimed this? It seems to be only the modern teachers with an intellectual appraoch who say otherwise. Sri Ramana Maharshi has said this – see the text he wrote called Self-Enquiry (Vichara Sangraham) where he describes how Raja Yoga can lead to liberation. Sri Ramakrishna, who was initiated and was taught Advaita Vedanta in a traditional way, also said the same, as did his disciple Swami Vivekananada. The purpose of Sravana and Manana is just to teach Nididhyasana (meditation). The purpose of all teachings is to come to Silence (mouna). Silence is just another word for Samadhi, or the Self, and is represented by the sacred symbol ‘Om’ above.
’All the texts say that in order to gain release one should render the mind quiescent; therefore their conclusive teaching is that the mind should be rendered quiescent; once this has been understood there is no need for endless reading.’
~Who am I? by Sri Ramana Maharshi
See how much time Sri Ramana spends on Sravana and Manana in his teachings and writings – he always emphasised Nididhyasana, whereas the modern intellectual-type teachers of ‘Advaita Vedanta’ emphasise and spend most of the ri time on Sravana and Manana. Why do you think this is?
As I said above, this point is also explained in the Bhagavad Gita Chapters 5 and 6 where Krishna explains how yoga leads to Moksha.
It is also explained in a traditional text that Sri Ramana Maharshi recommended – Advaita Bodha Deepika – see Chapter 3 where this is also explained.
Please see these above texts if you wish to explore this further.
Advaita Vedanta: Is samadhi required for Self-Realisation according to Shankara and the Upanishads?
There are several views on this topic, but in this post we will see what the Advaita scriptures say and what Shankara has written on this in his commentaries.
In some texts that are attributed to Shankara, such as Vivekachudamani, the case is clearly presented – these texts clearly state that Samadhi is definitely required for Self-Realisation to occur. Whilst this is the most widely held view, and by far the dominant traditional view for at least the last one thousand years and more, and also the view of the four Shankara Mathas that have been entrusted with handing down Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta tradition to each generation, there are a minority who state that Vivekachudamani is not a genuine work of Shankara.
Therefore in this post we will look at what was written by Shankara in his commentaries, the authorship of which is not in doubt:
Please see this link here to read the discussion of this topic.
Tom Das 