Student: Dear James, does this statement work? I’m trying to address the yoga audience and clarify any erroneous belief that nirvikalpa samadhi and nididhyasana are an equal means of Self-knowledge. Also, is it safe to say that nirvikalpa samadhi is a refined experience of the Self (i.e. “free of division”)? I know this gets tricky because the Self is not an object that can be experienced, and it’s for this reason, I believe, most commentators prefer to gloss over these verses. ☺
One might believe nirvikalpa samadhi to be the same as nididhyasana, arguing that one is the use of indirect knowledge (via experience) while the other is the use of direct knowledge (via scripture). The problem with this argument is that with nirvikalpa samadhi the yogi will still associate the knower of the experience with the doer/enjoyer, thus the Gita is not equating experiential knowledge with scriptural knowledge. In order to know the Self, you still need direct knowledge (Vedanta).
James: Yes, it works for the reason you mention, nirvikalpa samadhi doesn’t objectify the doer.
The confusion about the relationship of moksa, freedom from the doer, and samadhi is basically due to the definition of samadhi. Because individuals think they are individuals, i.e. experiencing entities that are modified by their experiences, they interpret samadhi as another desirable discrete experience.
Samadhi is a compound word: “sama” and “dhi.” Dhi is a contraction of “buddhi,” intellect, and samameans “equal.” So samadhi means an intellect that values every thought, i.e. experience, equally. In other words, it is a statement of non-duality. So it is a word that refers to the Self, which is actually the only knower. There are not two knowers, the intellect and the Self. Why is there only one knower? Because the intellect is inert, a material process that only seems to know. It presents thoughts to existence/awareness, which “becomes” a knower when Maya is present. If there is only one principle then discriminating wisdom is not possible; the subject and object are non-separate.
There is one more subtle point to consider. If you say that moksa is gained by direct knowledge of scripture, you still have the same doer problem. Who gains it? So the way around this problem is to present moksa as the elimination of ignorance, i.e. there is no knower/doer. The logic is that there is only one Self that apparently thinks it is an experiencing entity courtesy of Maya, and that liberation is freeing the Self of a simple misconception, reducing the possibility of enlightenment sickness, an apparent doer claiming “I am the Self” without understanding the proper relationship between the apparent doer, who exists alright, but isn’t real, i.e. the Self. I, the Self, is a what, not a who.
Nididhyasana is for doers who are intellectually convinced they are the Self but don’t enjoy the constant bliss that the Self experiences when Maya adds an experiencing entity to it. So nididhyasana removes obstacles, samskaras, that make the experience of duality seem real. When the obstacles are removed, experiential duality collapses and the jiva, which is the Self (jivo brahmaiva na parah), steadily experiences the bliss (anandam) of existence/awareness as existence/awareness (which is it always experiencing even when it thinks it isn’t). The bliss of your existence doesn’t cease to exist when you experience suffering. Your attention is attracted to the suffering and bliss is ignored. Ignorance is not stupidity; it is just ignoring something that is always present.
Finally, here is a recent satsang on the topic of nirvikalpa samadhi.
A Suspended Sense of I
Questioner: Dearest Ramji, forgive me, as I see I am sending you what seems to be too many questions. I will completely be okay if you don’t reply, as I’m sure you must be inundated with emails. For now, I will formulate the question and leave it to you to decide.
The question is about nirvikalpa samadhi. I have been trying to figure this out for several years. Finally, it was yesterday when, while listening to your Trout Lake Panchadasi teachings, it hit me. You quoted Swami Paramarthananda as saying that it has the following characteristics:
1. It can be any object.
2. There is no thought “I am thinking of X…”
3. The “I-thought” is suspended.
4. You can later infer that you were there once the samadhi ends.
Based on these key characteristics, it seems to me then that nirvikalpa samadhi happens very often! I say this because I can go through periods where the mind is not “talking” with any running commentary on the action (e.g. while making beds, doing laundry, talking on the phone, texting with a friend, even listening to your Vedanta recordings). The actions flow without any agent. Is this experience in everyday life also the case for all jivas or only particular jivas? I would say that it occurs in all jivas, although the frequency may vary from jiva to jiva.
Also, because it can be any object, it can be absorption in something dharmic or adharmic. Therefore its value for purifying the mind and getting it more sattvic for inquiry depends on the object. If the object is dharmic, Vedanta scripture, for instance, then its impact on purifying the mind is vast. Yet, if the object is adharmic, absorption in stealing a wallet, for example, then it will reinforce a tamasic vasana. Is it correct to conclude that (a) nirvikalpa samadhi is “neutral” in value; (b) its “value” depends on whether the object of absorption is dharmic or adharmic; and (c) it cleans the “filter” of the mind so it is more qualified to assimilate Vedanta scripture?
I have pondered these questions since I studied with Mooji before I ran into ShiningWorld. I studied with Mooji online for a few months until I realized he had no teachings, only shakti, whose feel-good and sattvic effect only lasted so long and then I had to tune in online to get another “hit,” which was a big disappointment.
James: Yes, it happens to everyone often; a housewife doing her chores, a musician playing a guitar, a long-distance runner, a skier, etc. The “sense of I” is suspended when the mind is completely absorbed in some object or activity. It is a value-neutral state of mind, and, yes, its spiritual value depends on the nature of the object in which the mind is absorbed. Sattvic objects like Vedanta produce growth. Tamasicthoughts cause spiritual degeneration.
