Jump to content

User talk:Asteramellus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, Asteramellus, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! Ahunt (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aparokṣānubhūti

[edit]

Zoe Slatoff, Beyond the Body: Yoga and Advaita in the Aparokṣānubhūti:

In this thesis I translate the entire Dīpikā and look at key verses in some of the other, more recent commentaries to understand how and why Yoga and Advaita have been integrated together over time.

Plus another recommandation: Chip Hartranft. One article, one interview, and a translation of Patanjali's Yoga Sutras. Rarely read such a lucid explanation. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - will definitely read. Asteramellus (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been wondering: if Advaita Vedanta and Yoga were integrated - for compellingly good reasons, 'cause what's the difference between knowing that "you" are purusha, 'pure' awareness, and knowing that "you" are Atman-Brahman, self-luminous awareness - then why are they presented as different 'things'? Isn't this a western approach, neatly classifying each and everything? The basic is the same: preparing mind & soul by abstinence and good behaviour; stilling the mind; recognizng awaring-an-sich. And, maybe, Shankara's Advaita wasn't that u ique or special after all; Brahmins wedded to orthodoxy (textual exegesis, deviating from it was social suicide) but thrilled by the yogic-sramanic traditions, which they legitimized with their peculiar exegesis. Remember, it's yogic Advaita which became really popular. Thoughts, thoughts.... NB: Advaita Vedanta is ideologically relevant as representation of correct, orthodox, Vedic dharma, which also relativezes the importance of the liberative aspect. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I share your concern about neat categorizations. I also agree that there is something deeply similar in both traditions. But the disagreement between the two is hard to ignore - one is committed to a strong distinction between purusha and prakriti (Samkhya), and the other rejects this given its rejection of dvaita-ness. But I think you are thinking more from the "yogic advaita" "blend" (or synthesis) that helped bring the yoga practice into mainstream through efforts from many including RM and Vivekananda. It truly shows how flexible these various school of thoughts are...I like to dig deeper in them. Also, wanted your thoughts on what I am finding with my readings so far - Self-inquiry (Atma Vichara) appears to have been seen as more difficult a practice than Bhakti (sort of less "taxing" on one's mind).
Also, not sure if you have come across this, but I recently came across some youtube videos at Yamsox Lives - and their story (in faq on their personal page) - interesting thoughts there. Asteramellus talk) 23:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan what was personal attack in my last reply to Aster? My personal attacks are only reserved for rotten souls and Aster aint one. 2409:40C1:F:A708:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 05:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that you mention the "yogic advaita" "blend" (or synthesis) that helped bring the yoga practice into mainstream through efforts from many including RM and Vivekananda; I'd always seen it from the other pole, a 'watered down' version of AV that was popularized. But regarding this as a 'watered down version' has also been noted as a scholarly (western) bias from Hacker (if I recall correctly) and others, who regarded Shankara's Advaita as 'true Advaita'. They may actually have missed a couple of important points: that "philosophy" is a support of praxis and insight; that this praxis and insight can take many forms, but 'beneath' it is 'the same' 'stratum': calm and insight (and compassion); that contemporary Advaita is a 'mixture' of Advaita and Yoga; that Vivekananda c.s. were right with their perennialism. And (maybe, because this is something I've been thinking about the past few days) that this 'pure Advaita' never existed; Mandana Misra was regarded as more authoritative until late medieaval times; MM did argue for meditation, in contrast to Shankara, who argued for direct comprehension of the mahavakyas. Ironically, in neo-Advaita it is this direct comprehension which is emphasized again. The demarcations are not that clear at all...
Regarding Ramana and bhakti: that's a tooic I know very little about, but I do know that for Ramana 'his' 'essence', Shiva, and the mountain he lived on were the same, and that living there for him was a form of bhakti, as also expressed in his writings. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, some very interesting stuff, some of which I agree with. I don’t know much about Neo-Vedanta, but I give Mahavakyas more importance because, without them, I wouldn’t know my target. They are the first step, but certainly not the last or even the most critical.
Just like how a guitar in a mechanic’s hands is useless, tools like yoga and meditation are useless in the hands of the directionless. Mahavakyas provide the grounding and objective required to engage with the experiential realm. Even the comprehension of Mahavakyas can be expressed in many ways—Jnana, (Raja), Bhakti, Karma.
Raja is a useful tool to incorporate, but its path comes at its own cost. Isn't avoiding all karma actually easier? Isn't Karma Yoga the most difficult? Etc., etc. But who am I to judge which way is superior? I’m too lazy to follow any with discipline. 2409:40C1:4C:840E:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Asteramellus .
Unrelated, but just letting you know my thoughts: We should not pit Vedanta against Shaiva Siddhanta (or compare them directly). Vedanta is a school of philosophy, while Shaiva Siddhanta is a form of Shaivism within the Bhakti tradition of Shiva. It can be regarded as a Bhakti movement within the Vedanta tradition of philosophy, subscribing to the Shaivism sect.
Only Jnana Marga directly deals with sacred hymns. Jnana Marga is indeed the final requirement, which is gained through a disciplined approach towards Bhakti, Raja, or Karma. Only Jnana can lead to Moksha. But Jnana doesn’t represent the entire Vedanta.

Happy editing and have a great day! 2409:40C1:10DB:7A73:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Asteramellus&oldid=1273701235"