Are yogis able to perceive perumal without His rUpam?

Are yogis able to perceive perumal without His rUpam?
____________

Posted by: "srinivasan_ramanujan32" srinivas_ramanujan32@yahoo.com   srinivasan_ramanujan32

Wed Feb 22, 2012 3:25 am (PST)

SrI:

SrimathE rAmAnujAya namaha.

Dear Swami,

The fact that the yOgi practicing nirAlambana yOga can visualise the  svarUpam without the thirumEni doesn't affect the concept of aprthak  siddhi at all. All it means is that the yOgi's dharma bhUta jnAnam is so  expanded that he only sees Brahma svarUpam everywhere to the exclusion  of everything else, including the thirumEni of perumAl.

In other words, he cognises only Brahman, who is inseparably attached to  his body, without cognising the body. He sees Brahman everywhere and in  everything. This is samAdhi as stated in passages such as yatra na  anyath pashyati, na anyath srunOti, etc. Though jivAs, jagath, suddha  sattvam, etc all constitute the sarIram of Brahman, he excludes all  these to focus on Brahman alone, qualified by innumerable auspicious  attributes.

The phalam of nirAlambana yOgam is the cognition of bhagavad svarUpam  characterised by satyatvam, jnAnatvam, anantatvam, anandatvam and  amalatvam. It should be noted that other kalyAna gunas such as  sousIlyam, etc. are a direct outcome of dharma bhUta jnAnam of Brahman,  so there is no virOdham in saying that the yOgi experiences the anandam  gained from these gunAs as well.

What the yOgi sees is very real and not imaginary. His vision is  advanced to such an extent that it excludes all objects external to  Brahma svarUpa. This is very similar to how SukachAryar in Bhagavata  purAna visualised only the atma dwelling in everything and could not see  the difference between man, woman, animal, plant, etc. This doesn't  imply those forms are unreal, only that the yOgi chooses to exclude them  and perceive the similar AtmA dwelling in all. Now, it may asked what is the benefit of leaving thirumEni and proceeding to brahma svarUpam in the course of dhyAnam. The answer is  very simple - some yOgis want to attain that state. On the contrary, there are some yOgIs who prefer thirumEni and do not want such a vision  - the chief examples are our very own Thondaradippodi Azhwar, Paan  PerumAl and Kaliyan. The degree of anandam arising from thirumEni  dhyAnam or nirAlambana yOgam is the same, its just the preference of the  yOgIs and the adhikAris.

  In Sri Vaikuntam, svarUpa-rUpa-guna-vibhUti all are included in the  experience of a muktan.          DAsan,

Srinivasan.

--- In ramanuja@yahoogroups.com, "ranan14" <ranan14@... wrote:

 Dear swAmin

 Thanks. Thank you for the explanation. I understand that the thirumeni, though not identical with the divyAtma svarUpam is inseparable from Him. In Vishnu purANam there is a chapter near the end where, the process of meditating on Perumal is described. There, it starts with meditating on the Lord's Thirumeni, divyAyudhams and gradually removing the avayavas one by one till one comes to only to Perumal without any avayavas, who is sarva-vyApaka, beyond kAlam etc. My  question is, is such a meditation on a satya vastu or is it only an imagination of the yogi. If it is meditation on a satya vastu, then perumAl will no more be called as inseparable as one is able to perceive Him as separate from His avayavas. But, i think it is considered a proper process in ashtAnga yogam called as nirbIja dhyAnam and some say it is even superior to meditating with avayavas though extremely difficult. In such case, is the dhyAna phalam sAvayava perumAl or niravayava perumAl? How to understand the apRthak-siddhi of the rUpam since the yogi is able to perceive perumal without His rUpam?  pardon me for my questions. I am asking them to clarify my understanding.

 dAsan                                                                                                                                                                      Anand

 --- In ramanuja@yahoogroups.com, "srinivasan_ramanujan32" srinivas_ramanujan32@ wrote:

 SrI: SrimathE rAmAnujAya namaha.

 Dear Swami,

 The jnAna, sakti, bala, aisvaryAdigal, saulabhyAdi gunangal are all the  nirUpita svarUpa viseshanangal and are the sareeram of perumal. No, nirupita svarupa viseshanas are gunas that become known once the svarupa nirupaka dharmas are known. Nothing to do with being the sarIram  of perumAl. Rather, they are gunams that are exhibited to the chetanas  using his thirumEni as a medium. The thirumEni itself is an attribute of  Brahman on account of being its body and inseparable association.

 Brahman simply is savisesha, one with infinite auspicious attributes. Out of these 5 are the svarupa nirupaka dharmas, others are nirupita svarupa viseshanas. Hence, both in the form of para-vAsudevan in parama padam or in the form of vyUha vAsudevan or the vibhavAdi rupam, the thirumeni, saulabhyam, saushIlyam etc are not part of perumal's svarUpam, but are His sareeram. Adiyen does not know what you mean by 'part of sarIram', not perumal's  'svarUpam'. As mentioned before, paramAtma is samastha kalyAna gunAtmakan and this has nothing to do with this sarIram. His thirumEni  is assumed only for the sake of expressing these gunas to the jivAtmA. These gunams are exhibited through the rupam and hence are called rupa gunas. However, the praise of the gunams and the thirumeni only culminate in the glorification of svarUpam, in so much as praise of sun-light is actually a praise of the sun itself. This point is noted by srI rangarAmAnuja mUni in his taittiriyOpanishad bhAshyam. It is only the greatness of brahma-svarUpa that allows him to cognise and assume such forms.

 My question was, if there is a difference, is perumAl arUpi in His svarUpam as His rUpam is not part of His svarUpam. When is paramAtma said to have form? When he is inseparably associated  to the body of his. Since he is always present in his body, he is always with rUpam. The definition of having a rUpam simply means dwelling in a  body.

 It is only that he is not *identical* to the rUpam, which is the paksham  of some schools ike sri ananda tirtha's dvaita and the gaudiya vaishnavas. The question of whether he has a form or not is unrelated towhether he is identical with the form. It is the very nature of a body to be different from the self. Hence rUpam, itself, implies a distinction from svarUpam. So, we cannot ask  'why' he is different from his body. The thirumEni is suddha sattvam without sentience, whereas the svarUpam is pratyagAnandam.  If he is not associated with his thirumEni at any time, then he is without form. The hArda rupam of antaryami is believed by some scholars  to be assumed only at the timeof meditation, so it is held by them that  the antaryAmi might be formless. Others do not accept this view.

 DAsan,                                                                                                                                                              Srinivasan.

 --- In ramanuja@yahoogroups.com, "ranan14" <ranan14@ wrote:

  Dear Swamin

   Thanks. I read the commentary. Thanks once again. My question is on the difference between the svarUpam and rUpam of perumal. My understanding is that, as you mentioned, the name "nArAyaNa" best describes the svarUpam of perumAl. In the name, "nAra" sabdam denotes all the ashrita tattvangal commencing from perumAl's suddha sattva thirumeni. thus a difference is drawn between the svarUpam and rUpam of perumal. the svarUpa nirUpaka dharmam of perumAl are satyam, jnanam, anantam, amalam and Anandam. The jnAna, sakti, bala, aisvaryAdigal, saulabhyAdi gunangal are all the nirUpita svarUpa viseshanangal and are the sareeram of perumal. Hence, both in the form of para-vAsudevan in parama padam or in the form of vyUha vAsudevan or the vibhavAdi rupam, the thirumeni, saulabhyam, saushIlyam etc are not part of perumal's svarUpam, but are His sareeram. When i said about nArAyaNan and paravAsudevan, I was mentioning about perumAls's svarUpam and perumAl's rUpam. My question was, if there is a difference, is perumAl arUpi in His svarUpam as His rUpam is not part of His svarUpam.                                                                                                                                             Dasan                                                                                                                                                                             Anand

 

   --- In ramanuja@yahoogroups.com, Thiruevvul nandapathangi thiruevvul@

  wrote:  Dear Anand swamy,,                                                                                                                                            First of all why you perceived that Narayanan is different than Paravasudevan. VASUDEVAN, VISHNU & Narayanan namas explain  the Vyapthy , the all pervasiveness character of Bagavan. Pl. approach youracharyas to get the meaning of all thees 3 .Among the 3 vyapaga manthrangal  Narayana, is hailed by all acharyas as it explains his all pervasine  nature fully.Sriman Narayanan in Vaikuntam is called PARAVASUDEVAN & in Vyuham he is called VYUHA VASUDEVAN. NOW REG YOUR SECOND QUESTION , the question itself has to rephrased as WHY PERUMAL SHOULD HAVE A RUPAM.

Probably that is what you want to know. Boothathazvar"s Irandam Thiruvanthathy pasuram 61

 ORURAVANALLI OLIYURAVAM NINNURUVAM, EERURUVAM ENBAR IRUNILATHOR... WILL  EXPLAIN many things. This pasuram will handle compactly you third question too. Pl. download Kanchi P.B.Annangarachars vyakyanam from ne for this pasuram. If you have any doubt still can mail me.

.