I’ve been interested in the role of viveka in Patanjali’s sutra’s. Discernment (viveka) seems to be the way out of Avidya, the false identification of seer and seen. It is also said that Yoga develops this discernment.
It is the process that interests me. Has anyone worked with this?
I’m new to this forum so if Mukunda answers these posts I am also wondering if he is available to work with me on the seven spheres and kosas with him, or can point me in the direction of someone who i can do this work with.
Thanks for this post. It made me read the Sutras, to gain that particular discernment perspective. The gravity and depth is staggering. I don’t know if you did recieve help through pms, I just assume you did. If not, pm Nichole.
rit,
You’ve really hit on the heart and soul of the Samkhya-Yoga doctrine. I think I can shed some light on this for you. Stay tuned.
Hi Rit,
Before we arrive at viveka I deem two other aspects namely ragadwesha and vairagya as the effort to reach and develop viveka, so also part of the process for me. Then, personally the process of developing viveka has been twofold:
Firstly it was a question of how do I handle my emotions (and my reaction and how to change my reaction to my emotions) and belief systems that come to the foreground as my consciousness moves away from my lower impulses and chakras through regular sadhana (of which yoga is part and parcel) into the higher chakras. Without viveka as Swami Niranjanananda pointed out, there is not very much to deal with except the force of your instincts. Viveka adds another dimension to your life and seeking.
Secondly, part of this process of developing viveka is expanding our awareness and this is something that no sutra or philosophy will be able to explain as it will develop according to your soul’s understanding and the depth of your inner wisdom. This is the most exciting part of viveka and its development, for me in any case.
Sorry that I cannot offer you an explanation from the sutras or other philosophies, but I trust that my own experience is just as valuable to you. 
I’m afraid I have to take issue with Pandara’s statement, as the explanation of the Samkhya on the subject will be crystal clear, but its going to take a few posts to get there. The first step in the process is to understand exactly what we’re talking about. Sanskrit is a precise language, and these terms are no exception. In fact I’d say they’re technical terms.
First, Avidya. A-vidya is usually translated as ignorance, but its technical meaning is mistaking one thing for another. The example of the snake and the rope is used to illustrate the concept. A man in a dark room sees what he believes is a snake. He believes the snake to be real, and reacts with fear. But when a lamp is lit in the room, the man sees that it is only a piece of rope. He realizes his mistake, and his fear subsides. Mistaking the rope for a snake is a-vidya, seeing that it is really only a rope is vidya, or right knowledge. The significance is that a-vidya causes us to act in certain ways, usually in ways that cause us lots of problems, and in ways that we would not act if we had right knowledge.
Viveka, or discernment, is translated in the Samkhya literature as discrimination. It is the opposite of a-viveka or non-discrimination. The two terms are used interchangably in the Yoga Sutras, but in context, a-viveka is a particular form of a-vidya. It is the non-discrimination of Purusa and Prakriti, or the mistaking of the material nature for the true self. Viveka is the ability to discern the true nature of the self.
As I have explained to the OP, mine is based on personal experience, the OP indicated specifically that he/she is interested in the process and I have shared my process, which was and still is a highly subjective and personal journey for me. And if someone has an issue with that, then it is their issue.
In short it is my Truth and my process and all I can do is to share it in the hope that the OP might take something from my process. I am not attempting to explain viveka, that I will leave to those who have knowledge of the Sutras and other related volumes of philosophies.
I am looking for the relating of direct experience. This implies no harsh judgement, but the academic approach to this work doesn’t fascinate me. Reading, forming thoughts and discussing this work is meant to deepen my practice.
This discussion of experience and erudition seems to come up often with deep resonance on all sides. It can mirror our inner dialogue and which hemisphere of the brain we encourage to dominate.
However, in terms of Viveka (विवेक) one mode brings us closer to Samyoga.
Since posting this I have been talking to students and others and am getting clearer in my use and understanding of the dynamics involved.
I am still looking to validate my experience, which is why I posted here. And to validate is more than confirming my understanding.
In my research I came across the Vivekachudamani. Anyone familiar with this work?
Also, I’m not familiar with “OP”, “pms” and the member (navashata) line used under the names. Any legend or key to this?
[QUOTE=Pandara;22224]
Secondly, part of this process of developing viveka is expanding our awareness and this is something that no sutra or philosophy will be able to explain…[/QUOTE]
Pandara,
I’m sorry that you feel offended by what I wrote. I suppose I should have been more clear about what I’m not in complete agreement with, as I feel there is information available that is not only helpful but necessary to understand. I suppose I should also make it clear that I have no problem with the process that you shared or anything else that you wrote. I’m not sure though, that we both understand viveka in the same way. That is why I think its important to provide some background, so that we’re all talking about the same thing.
It is really quite arrogant to presume that, since I talk in terms of what I know of the philosophy, that I don’t have personal experience, but in this case, you happen to be right. In the Samkhya-Yoga philosophy, the significance of aviveka or avidya is that it is the cause of the conjunction of Purusa and Prakriti, or birth in the material world. The significance of viveka, is that once it is achieved, there is no more birth in the material world. It is the pinnacle of yogic achievement, not simply the way out of avidya, but out of material existence altogether. And you are right, I do not claim to be jivan mukta. But since you assume that I don’t know what I’m talking about, I will leave you to find out on your own.
OP = Original Poster
PM = Private Message
The member lines under the names refer to how many times you have posted here, if is as far as I can remember either Sanskrit or hindi counting system.
Asuri, you haven’t offended me and apologies if you feel that I am arrogant, however in most of your posts (not just here but in other threads as well) you refer to either this philosophy or that one, or this sutra or that one and you tend to focus much on the academic side of an argument and once your are in a corner (my perception) you choose not to continue with it or to just brush it off as bickering. You have choosen yourself the way I perceive you on this Forum and that is that. Naturally from that flow my perceiception of you and what I have said.
However, again if I have offended you, then I apologise, it wasn’t my intention to offend you, but to answer the question of the OP directly without diverting the posts too far from what the OP asked us to give him.
Personally I think the OP has a good idea what viveka is, we don’t need to clarify that and again lets stick to what he asked and that is the process. And again, please read Rit’s follow-up post where he clearly states that the acadamic side doesn’t fascinates him.
Pandara,
My statement about arrogance was not directed at you, and you have not offended me in any way. And yes, I often refer to philosphies or sutras to support what I say, in order to show that there is some basis for what I say other than my own brain, which infrequently can be wrong. I don’t shy away from substantive disagreements, but I don’t engage in petty conflicts or arguments of a personal nature.
I’m a little confused about rit. On the one hand he or she isn’t interested in academics, but on the other hand he/she tries to impress with language and wants to talk about the vivekachudamani. There were some things communicated privately that lead me to believe that rit is engaging in stereotyping in order to stifle what he doesn’t want to hear. I feel that he/she is clearly not interested in my input, so I will bow out of the conversation.
I do not share your conviction that rit truly understands what viveka is. Otherwise I don’t think rit would be claiming to have direct experience or to be looking for others who claim to have direct experience. And as I stated before, I believe that part of the process is understanding exactly what we’re talking about. In my opinion, its a big problem that people use these terms without knowing what they really mean.
Asuri,
Thank you for clearing your pov on the academic side of things, I respect that very much and also your private conversations with rit, which is not reflected here. Again my apologies for misinterpreting that you directed it at me.
[QUOTE=rit;22118]I’ve been interested in the role of viveka in Patanjali’s sutra’s. Discernment (viveka) seems to be the way out of Avidya, the false identification of seer and seen. It is also said that Yoga develops this discernment.
It is the process that interests me. Has anyone worked with this?
[/QUOTE]
Yes.
It’s important to realize that the mistaking of the material nature for the self is the root cause of other types of non-discrimination. It is these other types of avidya that most of us have to deal with. The process involves developing the calmness, clarity of vision, and knowledge to recognize these in ourselves. Once we realize that the snake is not a snake but just a piece of rope, we can act accordingly.
Discernment is Jnana. Discernment can involve the practice of negation. As it says in the aphorism … we take the unreal for the real, the impermanent for the permanent, the not self for the self, the impure for the pure.
The process is to reverse these faulty assumptions through practice of discrimination.
It’s like this: The Unreal is the phenominal Universe the real is the almighty awesome. The unreal is the realms of existence including the heavens and hells and all stops in between. The Real is the Almighty Awesome. The unreal and impermanent is the bodies of the devas!!! The real is the Almighty Awesome. My body is unreal yet me, and you which is of the same kind is forever frollicking in the almighty Awesome.
Thoughts are not the self. Actions are not the self. Bodies are not the self. Ego is not the self. Mind is not the self. Sight, taste, touch, emotion, feelings are not the self. My hair do is not the self. My gender is not the self and so on.