3. of Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. A. K. Coomaraswamy (1938, p. 426) made
this argument long ago and, unfortunately, it has never been taken to heart by
translators into English.
“Meditation” derives from an Indo-European root, *med, cognate with
Sanskrit √m¡ , meaning to measure or mete out. The Latin word meditor,
cognate with the Greek meleato, is the historical predecessor of the word
“meditation” and originally denoted exercise and eventually specified
mental or spiritual exercise.
In Christian monastic practice, meditation often has come to denote a
thought process that is generally bound to words and thereby became understood
to be largely intellectual in nature. This cut off access to both sub-conscious and
super-conscious depths/heights of discovery of meaning and experience which
are supra-rational. The word ‘meditation’, then, is complemented by the other
term, ‘contemplation.’
“Contemplation” is from the Latin templum the earliest meaning of which
was a place marked off for the purpose of divination. By extension this
came to denote a place sacred to the gods and thus became cognate with
Greek temenos. Both of these terms derive from the Indo-European root
*tem, “to cut.” Rather than indicating a space which is “cut off,” Bader
argues that it is simply a sacred space marked out within a greater space.
The ritual of divination of celestial omens that occurred within this space
usually involved gazing towards a star, hence the connotation of gazing
with an open mind and heart (Bader, 25-9). The word contemplatio was
held by the Scholastics to be cognate with Greek theoria. He then quotes
3
4. Plato to argue that theoria involves a particular kind of mental gaze
which results in intuitive understanding.1 (Parker, 1999, p. X)
What is important about our understaning of these terms as they apply to
meditation in Ved¡nta is that there are components of both “contemplation” and
“meditation” as they are meant here. Bader (1990), after examining these
notions in the writing of an array of Western theologians and mystics from
Aquinas to St. John of the Cross, argues that the terms are best understood to be
complementary:
Although ‘meditation’ and ‘contemplation’ derive from roots which imply
a sense of ‘measurement,’ the two terms have certainly developed their
own distinctive connotations. Meditation implies a deliberate practice.
Contemplation, on the other hand, is not an activity. It is a receiving, a
beholding, or an intuitive perception, of the truth which was sought in
meditation. Nevertheless, the interrelationship of the two should not be
overlooked. Contemplation is the corollary of meditation. They are
inseparable links in the contemplative process. Hence, ‘meditation’ and
‘contemplation’ are best understood as complementary terms. (Bader,30)
Further on (p. 42) Bader cites Commaraswamy’s argument that the Christian
mystical process of consideratio, contemplatio and excessis are essentially
equalivalent to the components of the yogic continuum of concentration,
(saµyama): dh¡ran¡, dhy¡na and sam¡dhi.
1
The particular passage cited from Plato describes the process of contemplation upon heavenly beauty. Bader
states that, “By a gradual process of abstraction, the physical aspects of beauty are left aside so that the soul’s
supramundane beauty may be considered. . . Ultimately there is direct perception of the highest order which
reveals the very Form of beauty itself.” (Bader, 1990, p. 28). A better general description in Western terms of
S´r• Vidy¡ could hardly be hoped for! In a discussion of his reading of Western literature, Swami Veda Bh¡rati
once remarked that in his opinion it is Tripurasundar• herself under the name Beatrice who conducts Dante
through Il Paradiso.
4
6. dwelling in that paradox becomes a springboard into a new and deeper level of
knowing how one knows, the reaching of which is what is meant by the term
sam-¡-dh¡na, resolution of apparent oppositions. For a further discussion of the
issue, see Shaw,1988 and Keeney, 1983.) The paradoxical nature of this
relationship will become clearer as we examine the similar derivations of the
terms up¡sana and upanißad.
Up¡sana shares a similar etymology to the word upanißad since both
include a verb root for sitting with the prefix upa- meaning “close.” In the case
of up¡sana, the root is √¡s which indicates sitting in the sense of establishing a
seat and becoming settled and stable: sthira-sukham ¡sanam says Yoga-sutra
II.46. Mockery of the passivity of the act of sitting (and a corollary assertion of
stupidity) is the likely cognate source of the English pejorative “ass” for one’s
posterior anatomy. The verb root for upanißad, on the other hand, is the slightly
more active √sad, indicating settling down. The addition of the intensive prefix
ni- intensifies the sense of nearness in the term, so that upanißad literally
denotes “sitting very close,” capturing the sense of deep relationship that
facilitates the mental and oral transmission of spiritual experience in the texts
that bear this name. One sits very close not only in physical proximity, learning
from every encounter (dar≈ana) with one’s preceptor, but also, and even more
importantly, close in mental and spiritual connection so that the transmission of
direct experience can occur as grace, pra-s¡da, “that which settles down and
clarifies.”
The more active sense of the verb √sad, in addition to the sense of sitting,
also denotes a process of getting to the bottom of one’s psychological self in the
process of settling one’s mind. This opens the gates of the mind to the sub-
conscious and super-conscious domains and to the associative and symbolic deep
structure of language. It allows for enrichment of the meaning of a given word
6
8. subject and object disappears and the meditator’s mind beholds the “thing in
itself.” her mind having taken the shape of the object itself rather than the
category of the object or any linguistic formulation which would be an
abstraction from the “thing in itself.” Some authors have used the occurrence of
this collapse of the distinction between observer and object to distinguish
between the lower sam¡dhi (in Ved¡nta, savikalpa) and the ultimate sam¡dhi
(nirvikalpa or, in the Yoga system, asaµprajñ¡ta). (e.g. Cenkner, 1983.) This is
incorrect whether we refer to sam¡dhi in the context of Yoga or Ved¡nta. In his
annotation to Vy¡sa’s commentary on YS III.3 (p.252) Ara∆ya clarifies:
when meditation becomes so intense that nothing but the object meditated
on is present therein, it is called sam¡dhi or concentration. As the mind is
then full of the nature of the object meditated upon, the reflective
knowledge is lost sight of. In other words, the nature of the process of
meditating (e.g. I am meditating.) is lost in the nature of the object.
Meditation losing consciousness of self, is Sam¡dhi. In plain language,
when in the process of meditating, consciousess of self seems to disappear
and only the object meditated upon appears to exist, when the self is
forgotten and the difference between the self and the object is effaced,
such concentration of the mind on the object is called Sam¡dhi.
Similarly, Bangali Baba (1976, 67) translates Vy¡sa on the same s¶tra: “When
the Meditation itself having the manifestation of designed form, becomes as if
devoid of its cognitional character, due to the coming in of the real nature of
the designed object, then it is called Spiritual Absorption.” For the moment we
will sidestep the question of the relationship between categories of sam¡dhi in
Yoga and Ved¡nta. These are discussed in detail from a scholarly perspective in
8
13. This initial grammatical level of analysis of the Mah¡v¡kya is the most
superficial layer of thought in the process of vic¡ra, mentioned by Swami R¡ma
above. The Pañcada≈• of Vidy¡ra∆ya says, “Direct realization of Brahman is
never possible only from the instructions of a competent teacher, without the
practice of enquiry (vic¡ra).” (IX,30 in Swahananda, p.386). Vic¡ra, from vi- +
√car, “to go,” meaning “progressive movement” or “movement of the mind
from gross objects to subtler objects of concentration.” (Arya, 1986, p. 229.)
This vic¡ra has different meanings in the Yoga and Ved¡nta systems. From the
perspective of Yoga, Arya (1986) clarifies:
The philosophical analysis of the relationship of prakƒti with ¡tman and
Brahman finally leads to the realization that “I am none of these prakƒti
evolutes with which I have identified the self.” But such an analytical
process is part of the practice of intense vic¡ra contemplations on the path
of jñ¡na-yoga as taught in the Ved¡nta lineage. For the purose of yoga
practice according to Patañjali and Vy¡sa, it will fall within (a) the
anum¡na-pram¡∆a, inference as valid proof, a vƒtti to be brought under
control, or (b) sv¡dhy¡ya, the study of scriptural sentences leading to
liberation, the fourth of the niyamas . . .Both of these . . .are left behind
when one begin to enter sam¡dhi. Therefore vic¡ra here [in the Yoga-
s¶tras] does not denote an analytical thought process. It is a technical
term . . . for a particular concentration on certain evolutes in order to
master their nature and then to negate their influence on the ego. (p. 230)
In Yoga, the sa-vic¡ra-sam¡dhi denotes specifically the practice of sa≥yama on
the six a-vi≈eßas, the subtle elements (tanm¡tra), and aha≥k¡ra. In Ved¡nta,
the vic¡ra contemplation proceeds through the logical and grammatical analysis
described above, into a deepening mindfulness (smƒti) which begins, at the
deepest levels of manana, to take the aspirant beyond the words.
13
14. Part of this process of deepening one’s mentation involves entering into
an inner dialogue with one’s mind. Sw¡mi R¡ma goes on that,
Such dialogues strengthen the faculty of decisiveness and sharpen the
buddhi (higher intellect), which can penetrate into the subtleties of the
inner levels. Mental dialogue is very healthy for resolving mental
conflicts that arise in the mind of the aspirant as it remains habitually
travelling to the grooves of his past habits (p. 102).
In a method that much resembles the cognitive-behavior therapy of modern
psychotherpeutic practice, the aspirant begins to observe these habits rather than
simply perform them. This opens more choice about whether to respond
according to the emotional momentum of the habit, or to do something
different.
As the practice of sitting meditation, dhy¡na, and of vic¡ra in this sense
of mindfulness, smƒti, and self-study, sv¡dhy¡ya, become the means of
14
15. establishing the witnessing awareness of ⁄tman, s¡kß•, from the waking state2 ,
the practices of yoga-nidr¡ establish s¡kß• from states of relaxation and sleep.
This involves, initially, the use of relaxation techniques (≈ava-y¡tra, ≈•thali-
kara∆a) (V. Bh¡rat•, 2001, pp. 774-777.), which are deepened by increasing the
complexity of points of concentration and then by learning to rest the mind
without an object of concentration in the An¡hata-cakra. (For a practical
description of the lementary practice of this skill, see Rama, p. 64-5.)
As the aspirant continues to discriminate and observe, his witnessing
awareness progressing to greater acuity and subtlety, sooner or later he reaches
an epistemological limit and finds himself in a paradoxical situation. Far from
being simply a logical error, paradox signals reaching the end of what we know
altogether (Keeney, 1983). We are confronted by a set of facts, all of which are
both true and inconsistent with each other. Here the assistance of a preceptor
becomes essential. As we dwell in the tension of the paradox, suddenly the
teacher gives us a word, or a kick, or a slap or puts us in a situation that raises
us to a higher order of epistemology and a deeper order of Knowing. These
expreiences, of course, comprise many of the great teaching stories of the
tradition. They range from relatively minor deepenings of the depth of our
knowledge all the way to the granting of the highest knowledge by shakti-p¡ta.
By way of this progressive deepening of awareness of pure consciousness, the
entire mind of the aspirant is transformed and the superimposition (adhy¡sa) of
the illusory upon the Real is gradually undone. At each moment of such
realization, the illusory “horns” of every paradox are pared away as the
aspirant realizes that the real is “neither this nor that”, neti-neti in the well
known Ved¡nta formula or, as the 14th Century Christian mystic Meister
Eckhart might say, a negation of the negation. (Deussen, 1906, 1966, p. 149.)
2
For a beautiful exposition of vic¡ra, see Yoga-v¡si߆ha II.14, translated in Venkatashananda, 1993, pp. 32-3.
15
16. At this point, there occurs even the dismissal of the mind. This phase of s¡dhana
is described in great narrative and philosophical detail in the Yoga-v¡si߆ha
(Atreya, 1936; Venkateshananda, 1983 & 1993; Pansikar, 1984; Shastri, 1969).
Eventually, the mental acuity of the aspirant begins to dwell in what is
essentially a state of sam¡dhi or sam¡dhi-like concentration (Swami R¡ma
maintains that sam¡dhi and Self-realization are distinct, 1986, p. 115) that
brings the aspirant very close to the direct experience of Brahman. Then, in the
midst of intense vic¡ra, our aspirant reaches a moment when they must realize
or die altogether. If the aspirant has done their homework well there then
dawns s¡kß¡t-k¡ra, direct experience, the highest valid proof in the Ved¡nta
system. Far from a moment of rarified intellectual pursuit, the stories of those
reaching this height and depth are full of passion. We have only to read the
stories of Rama Tirtha (Shastri, undated), Ramakrishna (Saradananda, 1978)
and our own Swami Rama (Rama, 1978) to see this clearly.
Implications for Empirical Study
In 1976 the renowned comparative religion and tantric studies scholar,
Ageh¡nanda Bh¡rati, made the following startling prediction:
I think that religious, revivialist, mystical and kindred religious
movements will survive the century and will grow, to the degree that they
are viable substitutes for psychotherapy and psychoanalysis. . . Yoga is
therapy. (Bh¡rati, 1976, p.225).
At the time it was a very odd prediction, but it may be some measure of
Bh¡rati’s accomplishment and foresight that it has come true to so large an
extent in psychotherapy and behavioral medicine. Researchers are catching up
with clinicians’ use for decades of relaxation techniques, meditation and other
16
18. The second approach is to perform intensive studies of masters of
meditation. How one assesses mastery is an obvious difficulty and probably has
to be left to qualitative methods culturally appropriate to the specific tradition.
These definitions may not be empirical in the usual sense. Assuming that some
way can be found to assess mastery, the hypothesis for this method, at least
from the perspective of Ved¡nta, would be that masters would essentially
resemble each other across traditions, regardless of method. They would tend to
point toward the commonalities across across methods and traditions.
This is particularly difficult for the Ved¡nta method as it presupposes the
accomplishments of preparation and skill acquisition through the yoga system of
practice. Presumably, then, all the phenomenal signs of accomplishment in yoga
would be present even though the practitioner may not have reached the
ultimate goal of nirvikalpa-sam¡dhi. When one obtains that mastery, it stands to
reason that the results would resemble the experiments conducted with Swami
Rama by the Menninger Foundation in the 1970’s in producing results which are
inconsistent with what we know of neurological fucntioning (or even physics),
like remaining in stage IV, delta wave sleep and recounting verbatim
conversations that transpired in the room at that time or carefully controlled
demonstrations of psychokinesis or carcinogenisis (Green & Green, 1977). The
demonstration of mastery of sleep in particular fits both a physiological criterion
of evidence and a traditional description of mastery from the M¡∆∂ukya-
upanißad. Any suitable research methodology must meet both empirical and
culturally specific criteria.
One very interesting empirical result is the emerging distinction between
“closed-focus” and “open-focus” methods of meditation. (Burke, 2002; see also
Murphy and Donovan, 1997.) Closed focus methods are typified by
concentration on an object and open-focus methods typically try to cultivate an
18
19. intensified general awareness in observing mental activity as in vipassana
practice. There are several ways in which this empirical distinction parallels
distinctions in the linguistic discussion above. For example, the closed-focus
resembles the activity connoted by the term “meditation” and the open-focus
resembles “contemplation” in its most precise sense. The closed-focus methods
typify the preparatory work of Yoga and the open-focus typifies Ved¡nta-
s¡dhan¡. Continuous closed-focus is a reasonable definition of dhy¡na; the
transition to the higher practices of sam¡dhi through manana, vic¡ra and
nididhy¡sana would seem to describe development of the ultimate open-focus.
It appears that it is not impossible for the languages of empiricists and s¡dhakas
to provide grounds for collaboration rather than conflict.
Promising theories of transpersonal psychology are beginning to emerge
(Wilber, 1996, 1998, 1999) that have some potential for bridging the gap
between the empirical and the subjective domains of experience. One might
think of this as a subset of the gap between science and practice in the larger
field of psychology. Since clinical applications often develop in the domain of
experience and the “oral tradition” of clinical supervision, it is reasonable to
argue that such development can parallel the sort of training that occurs in the
oral tradition of “sitting very close” in meditation. With the advent of
increasingly powerful forms of qualitative research to complement quantitative
methods, there is hope for a richer knowledge base about the experience of the
transpersonal and transcultural in meditation. To the extent that qualitative and
quantitative approaches collaborate, and to the extent that the empiricists and
the s¡dhakas validate each other’s work, we will know that we are headed in
the direction of truth.
References
19