[“nididhyAsana” is a very important and popular term in Advaita Vedanta.  Every teacher tends to give his or her own interpretation of what it means as per his/her understanding and/or the philosophical school s/he belongs to. A sincere seeker in Shankara tradition, however, would like to know what “nididhyAsana” stands for according to Shankara.

To answer this, Shri Michael Ji kindly collected Shri Prasanth Neti Ji’s comments from several separate posts on the subject and turned them into a single post at the FB SAV Group. I feel it provides an authentic picture of how Shankara himself explicates the term. Both Shri Prasanth Ji and Michael Ji have been very generous in letting me post the Article here. I trust the Readers will find this post interesting and useful – ramesam.]

***

Maitreyi asks her husband, Sage Yajnavalkya: 

यदेव भगवान्वेद तदेव मे ब्रूहीति —  2.4.3, BU.

“Tell me, Sir, of that alone which you know (to be the only means of immortality).”

Sage Yajnavalkya replies:

प्रिया बतारे नः सती प्रियं भाषसे, एहि, आस्स्व, व्याख्यास्यामि ते, व्याचक्षाणस्य तु मे निदिध्यासस्वेति …|  – 2.4.4, BU.

“My dear, you have been my beloved (even before), and you say what is after my heart. Come, take your seat, I will explain it to you. As I explain it, meditate (on its meaning).”

Shankara bhagavatpAda in his bhAShya at 2.4.4, BUB explains the word निदिध्यासस्व as:

निदिध्यासस्व वाक्यानि अर्थतो निश्चयेन ध्यातुमिच्छेति  — 2.4.4, BUB.

“Meditate; reflect steadfastly, on the meaning of my words.”

Yajnavalkya continues to explain Maitreyi in mantra 2.4.5 saying:

…..आत्मा वा अरे द्रष्टव्यः श्रोतव्यो मन्तव्यो निदिध्यासितव्यो….|  —  2.4.5, BU.

“….The Self, my dear Maitreyī, should be realized — should be heard of, reflected on and meditated upon…..”

bhagavatpAda in his bhAShya at 2.4.5 explains this as:

तस्मात् आत्मा वै अरे द्रष्टव्यः दर्शनार्हः, दर्शनविषयमापादयितव्यः ; श्रोतव्यः पूर्वम् आचार्यत आगमतश्च ; पश्चान्मन्तव्यः तर्कतः ; ततो निदिध्यासितव्यः निश्चयेन ध्यातव्यः ; एवं ह्यसौ दृष्टो भवति श्रवणमनननिदिध्यासनसाधनैर्निर्वर्तितैः ; यदा एकत्वमेतान्युपगतानि, तदा सम्यग्दर्शनं ब्रह्मैकत्वविषयं प्रसीदति, न अन्यथा श्रवणमात्रेण ।  —  2.4.5, BUB.

“Therefore, ‘the Self, my dear Maitreyī, should be realized’, is worthy of realization, or should be made the object of realization. It should first be heard of from a teacher and from the scriptures, then reflected on through reasoning, and then steadfastly meditated upon.’ Thus only is It realized —when these means, viz. hearing, reflection and meditation, have been gone through. When these three are combined, then only true realization of the unity of brahman is accomplished, not otherwise—by hearing alone” (Trans: Swami Madhavananda).

shravaNa, manana and nidhidhyAsana are not three separate steps carried out at three separate points in time. This is the fundamental mistake majority of the seekers commit i.e. to think that first step is hearing then (after sometime) reflection and then (after sometime) meditation. Please pay attention to what bhagavatpada says in 2.4.5 bhAShya:

यदा एकत्वमेतान्युपगतानि, तदा सम्यग्दर्शनं ब्रह्मैकत्वविषयं प्रसीदति, न अन्यथा श्रवणमात्रेण ।  — 2.4.5, BUB.

When these three are combined, then only true realization of the unity of brahman is accomplished, not otherwise — by hearing alone.”

Eventhough in his bhAShya he first of all puts shravaNa, manana and nidhidhyAsana in a sequence, he immediately asks to combine them for (immediate) realization. Moreover, he says it is also not by “mere hearing.” That means, such hearing which doesn’t culminate into a vastu tantra jñāna (Knowledge of object as it is) is being pointed out as useless. ‘Mere auditioning’ alone will not be true realization. That (‘mere hearing’) is not the brahma-avagati. Therefore, the conclusion is that mere hearing is not sufficient but it must be followed by manana and nididhyAsana.

Please take a step back and carefully look once again at what Yajnavalkya asked Maitreyi at mantra 2.4.4, BU, before he even started saying anything; he asked Maitreyi to contemplate on the meaning then and there as he speaks. Not that first listen and then go home and contemplate later. He asked Maitreyi:

व्याख्यास्यामि ते, व्याचक्षाणस्य तु मे निदिध्यासस्वेति |

Based on this we can understand what kind of meditation nidhidhyAsana refers to in the brihadaranyaka mantra. nididhyAsana spoken of here (Vedantic Meditation) is not that which is carried out in isolation as an event later to shravaNa (listening).

Interestingly in this mantra, Yajnavalkya only asked to meditate as she listens. We may ask what happened to manana? Why is it that Yajnavalkya didn’t ask to do manana and nididhyAsana simulatenously with shravaNa in this mantra 2.4.4 when he was about to say that AtmA has to be realized through shravaNa-manana-nididhyAsana in the next mantra, 2.4.5?

The answer is:

Because manana is a process of logical reflection on the shruti mantras to remove doubts and remove misunderstandings that one may come across during comprehension on the meaning of the vAkya-s. bhagavatpāda says at 2.4.5 bhAShya that “मन्तव्यः तर्कतः ” (reflected on through reasoning). Not every seeker needs to go through manana, if the seeker has no doubt whatsoever and the comprehension of vAkyArtha culminates in the avagati. These are uttama adhikAri-s (highly eligible and mature seekers).

For madhyama and manda adhikAri-s (middling and less qualified seekers), manana needs to be taken up to remove all hindrances i.e. doubts and misconceptions, so that the culmination of vakyArtha brings in the immediate avagati.

Whenever nidhidhyAsana is spoken of as an isolated event (i.e. not simultaneous with listening & reflection), it is given as a sAdhana not for an uttama adhikAri but it is a sAdhana for madhyama and manda adhikAri-s.

Now here, please don’t jump to a hasty conclusion that uttama adhikAri-s are rare, whereas madhyama and manda adhikAri-s form the majority. And, therefore, nidhidhyAsana as an isolated event (not simulataneous with shravaNa & manana) is a must for majority and it is, therefore, in turn correct to conclude that Knowledge alone is not sufficient (as it is just a theory) but what is really needed (for majority) is theory followed by practice. This is the biggest misconception and, as I understood, that is not Advaita as taught by bhagavatpAda.

Let us also ask does brahma avagati take place by hearing alone and that too in one sitting ?

The answer is “Yes.” bhagavatpāda does acknowledge that Knowledge can take place by ‘hearing alone’ and that too ‘in one hearing’. manana and nididhyAsana are secondary, let alone nididhyAsana becoming a mandatory step.

But, first of all we must understand what is the nature of that ‘hearing’ which bestows Knowledge instantly (and in one attempt).

That ‘hearing’ is nothing but ‘hearing+reflection+meditation’ (shravaNa-manana-nididhyAsana) carried together. It is like shravaNa with one pointed attention on the vAkyArtha (meaning of the sentence) and bringing it into intuitive experience, all at the same time. Refer to 2.4.5, BUB where he asks to combine the shravaNa-manana-nididhyAsana as one whole.

When bhagavatpāda says at 2.4.5, BU that it is not possible by “hearing alone,” it must be understood as ‘mere hearing’ and / or ‘hearing by a seeker who is not best qualified.’ It will not be sufficient enough for him/her. A mere hearing which doesnt culminate immediately into direct im-mediated (aparokSha) experience, is not enough. This happens always to one who is not well qualified (mature and ready after acquiring the Fourfold Aids of Seeking – sAdhana catuSTaya sampatti).

bhagavatpāda writes at 1.1.6, muNDaka that Knowledge takes place at the very instant when the meaning is properly intuited upon (वाक्यार्थज्ञानसमकाल).

However, if anyone argues that when bhagavatpāda says “takes place when meaning is intuited upon,” it does not mean hearing (shravaNa) alone will bestow Self-knowledge, then I would suggest that one should understand what is said in the bhAShya at 1.1.6, muNdaka along with what he says at 4.1.2, BSB. He asserts that repeated resort to hearing, reflecting and sustained meditation is useless in case of one who gained im-mediate experience of the fact that his true Self was the Absolute merely from hearing the text ‘That thou art’ spoken once.

(To Continue … Part – 2)