[Advaita-l] vajrOli yOga & shankara bhagavatpAda

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji
Hare Krishna

In the Yogasutra there is no requirement that one 'learns' the siddhis 
from
someone else.  The siddhis come to the yogi of their own at various
times/stages of his yoga sAdhana. 

>  Atleast to do this yOga sAdhana one should have the yOga guru is it 
not??  Though shishya directly & instantly learn 'siddhi-s', to achieve 
some yOga siddhi-s a systematic sAdhana of yOga under the guidance of the 
'guru' is required.  We all know how important the siddhi-s like parakAya 
pravesha, vajrOli, travelling in Aksha mArga etc. are important in these 
episodes of shankara biography.  But through these biographies we hardly 
come to know who is this yOga teacher who taught yOga sAdhana that fetched 
shankara yOga siddhi-s :-))  Anyway, if gOvinda bhagavatpAda, guru of 
shankara is a yOga pUrusha and ashTAnga yOga praveeNa & siddha purusha 
these doubts can be put to rest.  But for this inference, no dependable 
source material available in digvijaya-s :-))

It is also stated at the end of enumerating the various siddhis in the 
yogasutra that siddhis are obstacles
to the yogi in gaining his ultimate purushartha and therefore one should 
not crave for them. 

>  And it is also worth to be noted that these siddhi-s should not be used 
to boost one's own ego !!  If we go by digvijaya's it appears that 
shankara was so disparate to prove that he was the master of all sciences 
(including kAma shAstra) and he wanted to show the ubhaya bhArati that he 
is 'sarvajna' hence nothing can escape his sight..To have he practical 
knowledge of kAma shAstra (nAyaka-nAyaki kaLa shAstra) he was ready to go 
to any extant and did the parakAya pravesha, used the vajrOli yOga siddhi 
etc. just to quench the question of an orthodox housewife, who asked a 
totally unrelevant question to the 'para purusha' or an young saNyAsi, who 
had come to prove the supremacy of uttara mImAmsa over pUrva mImAmsa !!?? 
Has shankara started his debate claiming that he is sarvajnA and anyone 
can ask any irrelevant question??  I dont think so.

That said, there is no need to bring in the vajroli in this connection.

>  I am not able to understand this!!??  vajrOli Yoga siddhi helped 
shankara to maintain his celibacy though enjoying practical knowledge of 
kAma shAstra with king's queens (one hundred), So, dont you think we need 
to know from where he got this siddhi  atleast through these biographies 
?? 

When questioned by Saraswati at the time of sarvajna peeTha ArohaNa about
the 'defilement' caused if any by the mingling with the King's wives,
Shankara does not say that 'no sin has been caused'.  He only says that 
'no
sinful action was performed with his sharIra and for what was done in
another sharIra does not affect this sharIra'. 

>  My dear prabhuji please think, shareera, being an inert thing cannot 
act on its own, the antaHkaraNa that entered king's inert (dead) body is 
that of the yati, who enacted through king's body with the karaNa of the 
saNyAsi.  If you use a rifle to shoot someone to death and say I have not 
done this it was the rifle that shot him...do you think it is a sane 
answer at the court of law?? shankara's justification here is no better 
than this :-)) 

In other words, he does not seek any apology by invoking the vajroli or 
any such thing.

>  but you know one of the justifications that shankara provided to his 
shishya padmapAda before parakAya pravesh is vajrOli :-))

[In this verse Shankara says: 'This knowing the kAma kalA practicals
through this (king's) body will not be censurable since I will be 
following
only the ways of shiShTa-s by resorting to another's body.]

>  My dear prabhuji again a real shishtA cannot lost himself in kAma 
bhOga, forgetting his own yati - Atma svarUpa, a real shishta if at all he 
was mere witness to all these activities, very much aware of his parakAya 
pravesha purpose,  would have come back to his original body as per the 
previously agreed time, as you know he has not returned to his body as 
assured before :-)) There was no need for his shishyA-s to roam around in 
search of the yati-antaHkaraNa and bhOga deha to make an effort to WAKE 
him up !!!  Anyway, if one wants to give excuses as above, obviously 
further questions would arise to doubt the credentials of these episodes 
and rationality behind these justifications. 

>  If it is mere guru - leela and poetic imaginations at its best, then no 
need for all these diggings :-)) 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar