WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CONCEPT OF SAMSARA & SAMARASA ?
THE CONCEPT OF SAMSARA;- Samsara is a Sanskrit word for the repetitive cycle of death and rebirth. It encompasses the concept of reincarnation and the fact that what an individual does in their current life will be reflected, through karma, in their future lives.
This term is used in a number of religions, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism and others. All of these sects believe that an individual's current existence is just one of many lives they have lived in the past and will live in the future.
The concept of samsara appears in yogic philosophy as well. Practicing yoga can help an individual come closer to moksha (freedom through enlightenment), which can liberate him/her from the cycle of samsara The literal translation of samsara would be “a wandering through." This refers to the way in which everyone passes through a number of lives and states.
The goal of nearly all religions that believe in samsara is to end its cycle of reincarnation by reaching nirvana, or moksha. This can be done by perceiving reality and the eternal Truth.
By understanding what samsara is, a yogi can use their meditation sessions to even greater effect. Focusing on samsara can not only help the practitioner keep the ultimate goal of liberation in mind, but it can also help them let go of current troubles and traumas as they remember that this life is just one of many, and everything is transient. ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; Samsara (Hinduism) Samsara is the continuous cycle of life, death, and reincarnation envisioned in Hinduism and other Indian religions. In Hindu and Buddhist practice, samsara is the endless cycle of life and death from which adherents seek liberation. In Hinduism, the prominent belief is that samsara is a feature of a life based on illusion (maya). Illusion enables a person to think s/he is an autonomous being instead of recognizing the connection between one's self and the rest of reality. Believing in the illusion of separateness that persists throughout samsara leads one to act in ways that generate karma and thus perpetuate the cycle of action and rebirth. By fully grasping the unity or oneness of all things, the believer has the potential to break the illusion upon which samsara is based and achieve moksha—liberation from samsara.
Whereas moksha (liberation) acts as the positive motivation for Hindu religious practice, samsara is the negative motivation from which Hindus seek liberation. The undesirable nature of samsara comes from its unpredictability—people are unaware of how the actions or karma in their present life will affect their future. Because past lives affect future ones, a person is never sure about their reincarnation and the suffering that might accompany it because of past actions. As the Indian conception of human existence (prior to one’s enlightenment), samsara is a central component of all religions originating in India. Buddhists and Sikhs view samsara in much the same way as Hindus, and Buddhists particularly stress the concept that life is a form of suffering that is encountered and perpetuated through samsara. Jainism sees samsara as a base and mundane form of existence that one ought to renounce. ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; Saṃsāra or Sangsāra within Hinduism, Buddhism, Bön, Jainism, Yoga and Taoism. In Sikhism this concept is slightly different and looks at our actions in the present and consequences in the present. According to the view of these Asian religions our current life is only one of many—stretching back before birth into past existences and reaching forward beyond death into future incarnations. During the course of each life the quality of the actions (karma) performed determine the future destiny of each person. The Buddha taught that there is no beginning or end to this cycle. The goal of Asian religions is to escape this process, the achievement of which is called moksha. In popular use, Samsara [a westernized spelling] may refer to the world (in the sense of the various worldly activities which occupy ordinary human beings), the various sufferings thereof; or the unsettled and agitated mind through which reality is perceived. Etymology and origin Saṃsāra means "he flows into himself," to perpetually wander, to pass through states of existence.
THE CONCEPT OF SAMARASA:- Samarasa ( समरास ) is literally "one-taste" "one-flavour" or "same-taste" and means equipoise in feelings, non-discriminating or the mind at rest. The yogic practices and visualization exercises of Buddhist tantra are extremely complex, but underlying them is a single experience of things as they are. This realization or state of mind is sometimes called equal taste, meaning that all extremes of good and bad, awake and sleep, and so on have the same fundamental nature of emptiness and mind itself."
This unique word, completely absent from Vedic texts, is found again and again in Tantra, Upanishads, and all the best of non-Vedic literature. In one short chapter of the Avadhuta Gita, it occurs more than forty times. This whole Gita would be impossible to read and understand without the knowledge of this word.
Going higher, it means the essential unity of all things—of all existence, the equipoise of equanimity, the supreme bliss of harmony, that which is aesthetically balanced, undifferentiated unity, absolute assimilation, the most perfect unification, and the highest consummation of Oneness.
To Dattatreya, it meant a stage of realization of the Absolute Truth, where there was no longer any distinction to be felt, seen or experienced between the seeker and the sought. Gorakshanath, who wrote the first texts of the Nathas, explains Samarasa as a state of absolute freedom, peace, and attainment in the realization of the Absolute Truth. He placed it on a higher level than samadhi.
Samarasa implied the joy and happiness with perfect equanimity and tranquility, maintained after samadhi had finished, and continued in the waking or conscious state. In this sense, it is a form of permanent ecstasy and contemplation which the saint maintains at all times." ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; Samarasa This unique word, completely absent from Vedic texts, is found again and again in Tantra, Upanishads and all the best of non-Vedic literature. In one short chapter of the Avadhut Gita it occurs more than 40 times. This whole Gita would be impossible to read and understand without knowledge of this word.
One of the unique but mysterious features of the Sanskrit language is how many words can be used at three separate and distinct levels of thought. Even whole verses have this remarkable feature. It is one of the factors which have made translation into other languages so difficult. The difference presupposes three groups of people. First there is the literal meaning intended for the householder or worldly man, and a guide to better thought and action. The second is the meaning on a higher level intended for the mumukshi or hungry seeker for God. Here the same words take the reader from the mundane level to the higher level, and the implications. The third is the meaning intended for the soul who has attained or is nearly ready to attain liberation.
This play of words is not unknown in other languages 'A dog's life' would have a different meaning to Diogenes of Sinope, a harassed householder, or to a dog itself. There is little wonder that the sages warned against public reading of many scriptures and confined them only to disciples or near relatives. It is also one of the features which has made the Sadguru indispensable to the sincere disciple.
The Tantrik or non-Vedic teachers used the word samarasa in its mundane meaning to suggest higher truth. Samarasa can mean the ecstasy attained in sexual intercourse at the moment of orgasm. Using this, as many other worldly things, to draw an analogy between the moment of sexual bliss and the spiritual bliss of realisation, it was thought men and women would better understand absolute concepts from the examples of relative life.
Going higher, it means the essential unity of all things -- of all existence, the equipoise of equanimity, the supreme bliss of harmony, that which is aesthetically balanced, undifferentiated unity, absolute assimilation, the most perfect unification and the highest consummation of Oneness.
To Dattatreya it meant a stage of realisation of the Absolute Truth where there was no longer any distinction to be felt, seen or experienced between the seeker and the Sought. Gorakhnath, who wrote the first texts of the Nathas, explains samarasa as a state of absolute freedom, peace and attainment in the realisation of the Absolute Truth. He placed it on a higher level than samadhi.
Samarasa implied the joy and happiness with perfect equanimity and tranquility, maintained after samadhi had finished, and continued in the waking or conscious state. In this sense it is a form of permanent ecstasy and contemplation which the saint maintains at all times. Zen maintains the same concepts, but nothing comparable with pratibha, sahaja or samarasa are found in any of the Black Dharmas of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
In the Tantrik-Buddhist school which existed for about 300 years between the 7th and 10th centuries AD, samaras and sahaja hold a prominent place, and were also adopted by Tibetan Lamaism. The Siddha and Natha sects used samaras instead of the word moksha. In this way the word became used to express the highest ideal of human life. It is much elucidated in the Agamas of the Shiva-Shakti tradition.
Samarasa is not just a matter of outlook or adjustment of ourselves with the world and its innumerable divisions, or to try and adjust the world to ourselves. One ends in greater conditioning, and the other in frustration. Samarasa must be regarded only as the culminating point of real yoga. The true yogi does as Dattatreya did -- seeing himself in the world and the world in himself, the most perfect harmony of man and nature.
Pagan India was never a world of universal spirituality. Although it was the cradle of the highest spiritual concepts, the spiritual truth seekers were always, as even now, only a minority. Its great saints and sages were even fewer. Most people sought the world and worldly things, but did, at the same time, accept the authority of teachers and gums. How many, then, could possibly understand ideas of samarasa, and moksha, and who was truly competent to be regarded as authorities on the difficult way to understand concepts of realisation and liberation?
Tae answer was their acceptance of the wise authority of those liberated souls who had won the goal. It was not mere blind faith, but the faith born of confidence in those those who had undertaken the yoga and attained the goal. There have always been these great souls and there will be in the future. Most of them live and die in obscurity. The true seekers will always find them even if the worldly public never hears of them.
Side by side with these great yogis hidden from the world are the wisdom texts and traditions of great yogis who have gone before. This is the medium by which the real seeker develops the enthusiasm to find the living. Of the ancient past, Dattatreya rises above them all.
But this, the greatest of men, the public have consigned to the inferior position of an object to worship and the resort of those who seek favours.
Students of Tao and Zen will see deeper into these these lines. Speaking of the Absolute Reality, Dattatreya says:
"It is not pervading, or that which could be less pervading: there can be no place for it to rest nor can there be the absence of such a place. It is something as well as being nothing. How can it be explained?"
Then the play of words, but still leaving the problem defying intellectual answering:
"Break that distinction between broken and unbroken: Do not cling to the distinction of clinging or non-clinging."
The level of conception is far beyond ordinary conventional thought. They are like koans used in Zen monasteries. Thus Dattatreya becomes the boat which carries us beyond, beyond.
Dattatreya aimed at the negation of the thought behind things and ideas because conflict exists, not so much in the things and ideas (such as words), but those meanings with which we associate them. Even a correct meaning becomes devoid of value if it is not apprehended. The simple naturalness of sahaja and the supreme ideal of samarasa, must never be lost in meaningless and petty wrangles between philosophies, concepts and mere human ideas.
Onto the great platform of the greatest of all controversies, and which still rages today -- the Dvaita and Advaita and Non-Duality concepts -- he declares both are true and both are wrong. Since the Absolute is beyond all classification or expressions, neither term can be applied to it. What proceeds from the Absolute as creation or manifestation cannot be entirely a delusion, but must have a relative reality. Creator and creation imply duality, so in this sense it is correct. But also if there is perfect unity, even identity between creator and created, then to speak of non-duality is also correct. It is not actually so important to solve these problems as to be able to stand aside from them completely. When one truly realises oneness then duality and non-duality are only meaningless words and the symbols of delusion. This, for the moment, must suffice.