It seems that the previous Open Thread was getting too large. New comments were not appearing. Thanks to those who pointed this out to me. From now on, please continue your discussions here.
Sri Ramana Maharshi
Welcome
I propose to use this blog primarily to air my occasional musings on any matters relating to the life and teachings of Ramana Maharshi. There will also be occasional contributions about Arunachala, the sacred mountain where Sri Ramana spent all of his adult life.
Articles and interviews on these topics can also be found on my site: www.davidgodman.org.
Articles and interviews on these topics can also be found on my site: www.davidgodman.org.
674 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 674 of 674Friends,
Here is an excerpt from The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna that shows how childlike and utterly guileless the master is-this is what is so charming about him.
Childlike faith
"When a man has true knowledge he feels that everything is filled with Consciousness. At
Kamarpukur I used to talk to Shibu, who was then a lad four or five years old. When the
clouds rumbled and lightning flashed, Shibu would say to me: 'There, uncle! They are
striking matches again!' (All laugh.) One day I noticed him chasing grasshoppers by
himself. The leaves rustled in the near-by trees. 'Hush! Hush!' he said to the leaves. 'I want
to catch the grasshoppers.' He was a child and saw everything throbbing with
consciousness. One cannot realize God without the faith that knows no guile, the simple
faith of a child.
"Ah, what a state of mind I passed through! One day something bit me while I was sitting
in the grass. I was afraid it might have been a snake, and I didn't know what to do. I had
heard that if a snake bites you again immediately after its first bite, it takes back. its own
venom. At once I set out to discover the hole so that I might let the snake bite me again.
While I was searching, a man said to me, 'What are you doing?' After listening to my story,
he said, 'But the snake must bite in the very same place it has bitten before.' Thereupon I
went away. Perhaps I had been bitten by a scorpion or some other insect.
"I had heard from Ramlal that the autumn chill was good for one's health. Ramlal had
quoted a verse to support it. One day, as I was returning from Calcutta in a carriage, I stuck
my head out of the window so that I might get all the chill. Then I fell ill." (All laugh.)
continued....
Friends,
Sri Ramakrishna,the child of the Divine Mother,continued...
Sri Ramakrishna entered his room and sat down. His legs were a little swollen. He asked
the devotees to feel his legs and see whether or not the pressure of their fingers made
dimples. Dimples did appear with the pressure, but the devotees said that it was nothing.
MASTER (to Bhavanath): "Please ask Mahendra of Sinthi to see me. I shall feel better if he
reassures me."
BHAVANATH (with a smile): "You have great faith in medicine. But we haven't so
much."
MASTER: "It is God who, as the doctor, prescribes the medicine. It is He who, in one
form, has become the physician. Dr. Gangaprasad asked me not to drink water at night. I
regarded his statement as the words of the Vedas. I look upon him as the physician of
heaven."......
A sadhu was staying at the Panchavati. But he was a hot-tempered man; he scolded and
cursed everyone. He came to the Master's room wearing wooden sandals and asked the
Master, "Can I get fire here?" Sri Ramakrishna saluted him and stood with folded hands as
long as he remained in the room.
When he had left, Bhavanath said to the Master with a laugh, "What great respect you
showed the sadhu!"
MASTER (smiling): "You see, he too is Narayana, though full of tamas. This is the way
one should please people who have an excess of tamas. Besides, he is a sadhu."
The devotees were engaged in a game of golokdham.(A game of Snakes and Ladders where the Goal is to achieve paramapada) Hazra joined them. The Master stood
by, watching them play. M. and Kishori reached "heaven". Sri Ramakrishna bowed before
them and said, "Blessed are you two brothers." He said to M., aside, "Don't play any more."
Hazra fell into "hell". The Master said: "What's the matter with Hazra? Again!" No sooner
had Hazra got out of "hell" than he fell into it again. All burst into laughter. Latu, at the first
throw of the dice, went to "heaven" from "earth". He began to cut capers of joy. "See Latu's
joy!" said the Master. "He would have been terribly sad if he hadn't achieved this. (Aside to
the devotees) This too has a meaning. Hazra is so vain that he thinks he will triumph over
all even in this game. This is the law of God, that He never humiliates a righteous person.
Such a man is victorious everywhere."
continued....
Friends,
Sri Ramakrishna,the child of The Divine Mother continued...
Sri Ramakrishna was worrying, like a child, because he thought his legs were slightly
swollen. Mahendra Kaviraj of Sinthi entered the room and. saluted the Master.
MASTER (to the devotees): "Yesterday I said to Naran, 'Just press your leg and see if there
is any dimple.' He pressed it and there was one. Then I
gave a sigh of relief. (To Mukherji) Will you please press your leg? Is there any dimple?"
MUKHERJI: "Yes, sir."
MASTER: "Ah, what a relief!"
MANI MALLICK: "Why should you worry about it, sir? Please take your bath in the river.
Why should you take medicine?"
MASTER: "No, sir. You have strong blood. Your case is different. The Divine Mother has
placed me in the state of a child.
-----------------------------------
Once in a while ,this 'Child' will ask M,'What do you think of me!'-to see if he sees behind this outer simplicity that belies unfathomable depth!Like a child wearing the mask of a lion and asking others if they recognize him.Utterly charming!
Namaskar.
Ravi,
"it is amply clear what the 'Eternal Religion' that Swamiji referred to is.It may not be convenient for you,may be there is something that identifies secretly with 'abrahamic Tradition'that it finds hard to dislodge and yet wants to reach out for what appeals to the Intellect, that is refusing to accept this!"
I was under the impression that we were discussing Buddhism, not the Abrahmic traditions. Did I miss something? I can assure you I have very little personal attachment to Christianity, and have always found sanatana dharma far more appealing than any other tradition, including Buddhism. I just don't have any particular nationalistic sentiment about it, and can see the value of other religions without feeling any sense of rivalry or competition.
But yes, it would appear that Ramakrishna did indeed identify "the eternal religion" with sanatana dharma, if your quote is correct. Or, perhaps he was merely affirming that the sanatana dharma would always be alive and dominant in India, which is not inconsistent with a wider notion. But to be honest, I have never felt that Ramakrishna represented a full realization of the non-dual Self as we see in the case of Sri Ramana. Much as I have loved him and appreciated him, both he and Vivekananda are very much "Indians", and not genuine universalists. Nonetheless both of them helped open up India and the west to one another, and much good has come of that.
It remains the case that Sri Ramana simply did not share their chauvinism or triumphalism in regard to sanatana dharma. Which I find to be most refreshing and appealing.
Arvind,
You ask:
"As already mentioned, I would believe that when Sri Bhagavan talked about the Self, the “I”, the eternal Reality, Swatma, Brahman, That which Is, and so on, He was talking about “some real thing”. And contrarily, you seem to have arrived at quite an opposite conclusion. And so, grateful if you could quote Sri Bhagavan’s words from His writings/conversations or generally the source material which led you to form such a conclusion."
Virtually every description Ramana has given of the Self is that it is not a "thing" at all. It is not an object which can be seen. It is not a layer of consciousness to be differentiated from the whole. It is simply "who we are", which is why he calls it "Self". But because it is not a "thing", it is not a "real thing" at all. In fact, in Ramana's view all "real things" are not real at all, because reality is not composed of "things".
So there is no Self that is a "real thing" we can realize. And there is no "real substratum" in consciousness. There isn't even a "real being" that is a "real thing". These words and phrases are at best pointers to what can only be understood in silence.
You also ask about this sentence of mine":
“And that is of course where Ramana often differs with many traditional Advaitists, who insist that the mind is not destroyed in realization.”
How did you come to that extraordinary conclusion, that traditional Advaitists insist that the mind is not destroyed in realization?
I did not say that all traditional advaitists say so, only some, even many. (Traditional Advaita is far from possessing a universal catechism). I have personally encountered quite a few traditional advaitists who have that point of view. For example, Swami Chinmayananda strongly believes that the mind is not destroyed in realization. Opinions certainly differ, but I would say that in my limited experience most traditional Advaitists that I know of don't see that the mind needs to be destroyed, only awakened to the true light of jnana, and that such knowledge alters the nature of the mind from snake to rope, so to speak. They consider the continuation of the mind after self-realization to be fully consistent with the traditional teachings. I am no expert in this, but I would gather they must have some foundation for this view.
Q. As the Self is existence and consciousness, what is the reason for describing it as different from the existent and the non-existent, the sentient and the insentient?
Maharshi: Although the Self is real, as it comprises everything, it does not give room for the questions involving duality about its reality or unreality. Therefore it is said to be different from the real and the unreal. Similarly, even though it is consciousness, since there is nothing for it to know or make itself known to, it is said to be different from the sentient and the insentient.
Broken Yogi,
"I was under the impression that we were discussing Buddhism, not the Abrahmic traditions. Did I miss something?"
Yes,we were discussing Buddhism.Yet you veered off tangentially into writing off the persons(The Sage of Kanchi,Swami Vivekananda and now Sri Ramakrishna based on your beliefs after having read something about them that did not resonate with you)who have expressed themselves in a clear,logical and cogent fashion.I would have appreciated if you have countered their ideas ,rather than ticking them off as 'prejudiced'(reveals an astonishing insensitivity).It is clear that you do not have a single point to counter the following statements:
1.How is it that Buddhism or Jainism justify the Law of Karma?
2.How does it justify ahimsa and all the rest of the Dharma,when all that is in the universe is unreal?Is it only to maintain a 'Social order' or is it for something more than that?
3.What do you think about its maintaining one yardstick of Dharma for all,Mendicants or Laymen?Did it help?
4.What is the Motivation for the Dharma?If it is just escape from Suffering,any pain killer will do,or the various forms of escape like Drugs,Alcohol,etc?If it says that Rebirth cannot be avoided,then how come this order?who ordained this?
If we evaluate all this in a philosophical perspective,it looks like Buddhistic philosophy comes croppers.
Namaskar.
Dear Ravi,
I meant by "teachings" their core
element of Truth. Qualified Nondualism is the Truth as envisioned by Ramanuja. He could have stopped with that. Why should
he say that the goal, even aceepting that it is Saguna Brahman, is Narayna? I can be qualified non dualist and still have my saguna Brahman is Christ. This is where the mix up took place. Truth Itself is one without a second. To qualify that Truth - is okay because he wished it that way. But why should that qualification pinpoint Narayana is the Supreme God? This brought forth religious aspects. Sri Sankara delved into non dual teachings. But he never said that Brahman is Siva. Siva and Narayana are anthromorphic gods.
They are not Brahman. At best they are Saguna Brahman. This Saguna Brahman could be anything. Even Christ or Buddha. Sri Bhagavan has clearly said: What is Real is Atma Swarupam alone. The world, jiva and Iswara [Siva] are all imaginations.
Dear Ravi,
Crying is an indication of body consciousness. Though the other two are Jnanis, their body consciousness did not leave them fully, till the end. Sri Bhagavan groned and when the attendant asked: Swami, is it paining? Sri Bhagavan said: Yes. The body is paining. He did not say: My arm is paining. My throat is paining.
Ravi,
"The limitation is in us and not in these Great ones.Each had a role to play and some of these roles happen to embrace the Social,political,cultural dimensions as well.Neither Sri Bhagavan nor Sri Nisargadadatta Maharaj had to contend with this sort of a Role.
The likes of Swamiji and The Sage of Kanchi had to play these roles-just like Sri Krishna also had to play the Roles that lead to the glorious Bhagavad Gita to be expounded in the battlefield of Kurukshetra-Sri Krishna definitely appears to be taking sides,yet he does not!This is exactly all the Great ones do-they just play their part and appear to be taking sides-yet they are not.
To defend 'sanatana Dharma' against the onslaught of proselytization,is certainly one of the key roles-This is also for the welfare of Humanity at large-not just for the 'Hindus'-as the saying goes-'LokAs samasthAsukhinO bhavantu'-May all be Happy."
I am not a believer in "great ones". The only "Great One" is the Self, the Reality, and those we call "great ones" are no different from us. They seem great only because the Self shines through them, not because there is anything special about them. Without the Self, they are nothing, just "poor fakirs".
Everyone has a role to play, you and I as well, but we are all equally "great", because there are no great or small roles, and contrary to the saying, no great or small actors either. But the Self doesn't play a role. He is behind all roles and role-playing. We need not feel intimidated by those who seem to be playing leading roles. We all play the leading roles in our own play. We are all the eka-jiva. I don't feel it is a good idea to fall into a secondary role within our own play and see some great "other" as the leading player. That only perpetuates the illusion that we are something other than the One.
No one has to play a role that doesn't suit them. No one has to believe in things that aren't true. If one says things that aren't true, because one is supposed to play a particular role, that is part of one's own delusion. I for one don't have to accept such delusions. I have plenty of my own to deal with, I don't need someone else's as well. My pardons to the Sage of Kanchi and Vivekananda, but their particular karmic delusions are not something I feel any requirement to accept or even be impressed by, any more than they should feel required to accept mine.
R.Subramanian,
" Siva and Narayana are anthromorphic gods."
This is not true.In Sandhya vandana,we chant at the end-kAyena vAchA,manasendriAirva...Sriman NArAyanAyeti samarpayAmi-meaning 'we surrender all unto nArAyanan'.More later.
Namaskar.
Dear David,
Kindly make a new thread, since the present one has crossed 600, and people may start reporting that their messages have not been appearing.
Broken Yogi,
"But the Self doesn't play a role. He is behind all roles and role-playing."
What do you mean by 'Behind' all roles?Is the man playing a role in a film 'behind' or he is the one playing the Role?Roles are for 'others',not for himself.he is ever the same.
Namaskar.
Broken Yogi,
"The only "Great One" is the Self"
I think you are now admitting the presence of 'the only "Great One"as the Self.This is all that we have been discussing all along.
Namaskar.
Broken Yogi,
"Everyone has a role to play, you and I as well, but we are all equally "great", because there are no great or small roles, and contrary to the saying, no great or small actors either."
Is this a desperate attempt to salvage something out of a back to the wall situation?Are we saying that all are jnanis(who clearly know their identity as different than the role) and there are no ajnanis(who perhaps are confused although there is superficial clarity)?
Namaskar.
Broken yogi I think we all get your point and it's well thought out, if a little strident!
R.Subramanian,
"Crying is an indication of body consciousness."
You quoted the story where Lord Sri Rama was weeping for sita and how pArvathy wondered why?Sri Bhagavan has narrated this story.
If we have understood this,we may understand a little bit of this as well.
Sri Ramakrishna,as I have already said had to infuse some desire in order to retain the Body mind complex-as the natural tendency was for it to soar into the Beyond.He used to ask for 'water' to particiapte in the workaday world.This is something that cannot be easily grasped by us.
More on this later.
Namaskar.
R.Subramanian,
This is regarding the final painful(for us)days of Sri Ramakrishna on earth:
Pundit Shashadhar one day suggested to the Master that the latter could remove the illness
by concentrating his mind on the throat, the scriptures having declared that yogis had power
to cure themselves in that way. The Master rebuked the pundit. "For a scholar like you to
make such a proposal!" he said. "How can I withdraw the mind from the Lotus Feet of God
and turn it to this worthless cage of flesh and blood?" "For our sake at least", begged
Narendra and the other disciples. "But", replied Sri Ramakrishna, "do you think I enjoy this
suffering? I wish to recover, but that depends on the Mother."
NARENDRA: "Then please pray to Her. She must listen to you."
MASTER: "But I cannot pray for my body."
NARENDRA: "You must do it, for our sake at least."
MASTER: "Very well, I shall try."
A few hours later the Master said to Narendra: "I said to Her: 'Mother, I cannot swallow
food because of my pain. Make it possible for me to eat a little.' She pointed you all out to
me and said: 'What? You are eating enough through all these mouths. Isn't that so?' I was
ashamed and could not utter another word." This dashed all the hopes of the devotees for
the Master's recovery.
-----------------------------------
Again ,here is an excerpt from The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna:
Master about himself
A few minutes later he says to M., "If the body were to be preserved a few days more,
many people would have their spirituality awakened."
He pauses a few minutes.
"But this is not to be. This time the body will not be preserved."
The devotees eagerly await the Master's next words.
"Such is not the will of God. This time the body will not be preserved, lest, finding me
guileless and foolish, people should take advantage of me, and lest I, guileless and foolish
as I am, should give away everything to everybody. In this Kaliyuga, you see, people are
averse to meditation and japa."
RAKHAL (tenderly): "Please speak to God that He may preserve your body some time
more."
MASTER: "That depends on God's will."
NARENDRA: "Your will and God's will have become one."
Sri Ramakrisna remains silent. He appears to be thinking about something.
continued....
R.Subramanian,
The Final days of Sri Ramakrishna continued...
MASTER (to Narendra, Rakhal, and the others): "And nothing will happen if I speak to
God. Now I see that I and the Mother have become one. For fear of her sister-in-law, Radha
said to Krishna, 'Please dwell in my heart.' But when, later on, she became very eager for a
vision of Krishna-so eager that her heart pined and panted for her Beloved-He would not
come out."
RAKHAL (in a low voice, to the devotees): "He is referring to God's incarnation as
Gauranga."
The devotees sit silently in the room. Sri Ramakrishna looks at them tenderly. Then he
places his hand on his heart He is about to speak.
MASTER (to Narendra and the others): "There are two persons in this. One, the Divine
Mother-"
He pauses. The devotees eagerly look at him to hear what he will say next.
MASTER: "Yes, One is She. And the other is Her devotee. It is the devotee who broke his
arm, and it is the devotee who is now ill. Do you understand?"
The devotees sit without uttering a word.
MASTER: "Alas! To whom shall I say all this? Who will understand me?" Pausing a few
moments, he says:
"God becomes man, an Avatar, and comes to earth with His devotees. And the devotee
leave the world with Him."
RAKHAL: "Therefore we pray that you may not go away and leave us behind."
Sri Ramakrishna smiles and says:
"A band of minstrels suddenly appears, dances, and sings, and it departs in the same sudden
manner. They come and they return, but none recognizes them."
The Master and the devotees smile.
After a few minutes he says:
"Suffering is inevitable when one assumes a human body.
"Every now and then I say to myself, 'May I not have to come back to earth again!' But
there is something else. After enjoying sumptuous feasts outside, one does not relish cheap
home cooking.
"Besides, this assuming of a human body is for the sake of the devotees."
Sri Ramakrishna looks at Narendra very tenderly.
Continued...
R.Subramanian,
The last days of Sri Ramakrishna continued...
Do you know what I see now? I see my body as a frame made of bamboo strips and
covered with a cloth. The frame moves. And it moves because someone dwells inside it.
"Again, I see the body to be like a pumpkin with the seeds scooped out. Inside this body
there is no trace of passion or worldly attachment. It is all very clean inside, and- "
It became very painful for Sri Ramakrishna to talk further. He felt very weak. M. quickly
guessed what the Master wanted to tell the devotees, and said, "And you are seeing God
inside yourself."
MASTER: "Both inside and outside. The Indivisible Satchidananda-I see It both inside and
outside. It has merely assumed this sheath [meaning his body] for a support and exists both
inside and outside. I clearly perceive this."
M. and Hirananda listened intently to these words about his exalted state of God-
Consciousness. A few moments later Sri Ramakrishna looked at them and resumed the
conversation.
MASTER: "You all seem to me to be my kinsmen. I do not look on any of you as a
stranger.
"I see you all as so many sheaths, and the heads are moving.
"I notice that when my mind is united with God the suffering of the body is left aside.
"No I perceive only this: the Indivisible Satchidananda is covered with skin, and this sore in
the
throat is on one side of it."
The Master again fell silent. A few minutes later he said: "The attributes of matter are
superimposed on Spirit, and the attributes of Spirit are superimposed on matter. Therefore
when the body is ill a man says, 'I am ill.' "
Hirananda wanted to understand what the Master had just said; so M. told him, "Then hot
water scalds the hand, people say that the water scalds; but the truth is that it is the heat that
scalds."
Master and Hirananda
HIRANANDA (to the Master): "Please tell us why a devotee of God suffers."
MASTER: "It is the body that suffers."
Sri Ramakrishna seemed about to say something more. Hirananda and M. eagerly awaited
his words.
Sri Ramakrishna said, "Do you understand?"
M. said to Hirananda, in a whisper: "The body suffers for the purpose of teaching men. His
life is like a book of reference. In spite of so much physical suffering, his mind is one
hundred percent united with God."
-----------------------------------
Just like as you said,Sri Ramakrishna is saying the same as Sri Bhagavan said-It is the Body that suffers!He did not ever say 'I am suffering"
Namaskar.
Dear Broken Yogi,
Sri Bhagavan used the word ULLathu
in Ulladu Narpadu. He called the
Self as That Which is. Existence is
Its very nature. He also used ULLa
PoruL - the Existing Substance. That is all. Only in Sri Arunachala
Stuti Panchakam, He called it as
VeLi and OLi, the Space and Effulgence. Effulgence is concorporate with Existence. For those who have realized this ULLadhu, they experience limitless Bliss. Hence the name Sat Chit Anandam.
Dear Ravi,
Once some Westerner [I think it is
Aldous Huxley] asked Mahaswami: "Sri Vaishnavites pray to Narayana because their qualified non dualism goes with Narayana. But why Advaitis like you should adorn Vibhuti?"
Mahaswami replied: "Yes. Advaita is not a religion. Strictly speaking we should adorn only the ashes from out of sacrifices and not Vibhuti. Somehow it has come into practice, perhaps, to distinguish us from
Sri Vaishanvites/Qualified non dualists."
Dear Ravi,
All pujas and niyamas are dualistic.
We see Sun and worship him in Sandhya vandanam. Surya is representing Narayana. That is why the final chanting - kaayena vasa... In fact, in Sandya Vandanam, we also start with Ganapati worship, and also say
"Parameswara prityartam" [Sri Vaishnavites do not say these]. Because the sun worship is dual, keeping the Sun before.
The Sankara Math people [particularly Kanchi Math] always say Narayana, Narayana, because Narayana, among the trimuvarite is considered as the protector, while Brahma is the Creator, and Rudra is the Destroyer.
All these are dualistic. In practical life, we mostly follow this dualistic principle.
At the highest level of His teachings, Sri Ramana using the terms
'God' and 'Self' are synonyms for the immanent reality which is discovered by Self realization. Ths
realization of the Self is realization of God. It is not an experience of God, rather it is an understanding that one is God. Speaking from this ultimate level, Sri Bhagavan's statements can be summarised:
1. He is immanent and formless, he is pure being and pure consciousness.
2. Manifestation appears in him and through his power, but he is not its creator. God never acts, as he just is. He has neither will nor desire.
3. Individuality is the illusion that we are not identical with God. When the illusion is dispelled, what remains is God.
On a lower level, Sri Bhagavan spoke about Iswara, the Hindu name for the supreme personal god. He said that Iswara exists as a real entity only so long one imagines that one is an individual person. When individuality persists there is a God who supervises the activities of the universe; in the absence of individuality, Iswara is non existent.
Besides Iswara, Hinduism has got many deities which resemble gods and demons of Greek mythology. Such deities are a central feature of popular Hinduism and their reality is still widely accepted. Sri Ramana once surprised many people by saying that such being were as real as the people who believed in them. He admitted that after realization, they shared the same fate as Iswara, but prior to that, He seemed to regard them as senior officials in a cosmological hierarchy which looked after the affairs of the world.
The Self is God. 'I am' is God. The question that God is separate from the Self arises because one holds on to the ego self. It will not arise in one who hold onto the real Self. God who seems to be non-existent alone truly exists. Whereas the individual who seems to be existing is ever non existent. Sages say that the state in which one knows one's own nonexistence alone is the glorious supreme knowledge. Among many thousands of names of God, no name suits God, who abides in the Heart, devoid of thought, so truly, so aptly as "I am".
Q: Sri Bhagavan says often, that Maya
[illusion] and Reality are one and the same? How can that be?
Sri Bhagavan: Sankara was criticized for his views on Maya without fully being understood. He said that-
1. Brahman is real.
2. The universe is unreal.
3. The universe is Brahman.
He did not stop at the second, because the third explains the other two. It signifies that the universe is real if perceived as the Self and unreal if perceived apart from the Self. Hence Maya
and Reality are one and the same.
Q: So the world is not really illusory?
Sri Bhagavan: At the level of the spiritual seeker you have got to say that the world is an illusion.
There is no other way. When a man forgets that he is Brahman, who is real, permanent and omnipresent, and deludes himself into thinking that he is a body in the universe which is filled with bodies that are transitory, and labours under this delusion, you have got to remind him that the world is unreal and a delusion. Why? Because his vision which has forgotten its own Self is dwelling in the external, material universe. It will not turn inwards into introspection unless you impress on him that all this external, material universe is
unreal. When once he realizes his own Self, he will come to look upon the whole universe is Brahman. There is no universe without the Self.
Q: Is not affirmation of god more effective than the quest - 'Who am I?' Affimation is positive, where as
other is negation. Morever, it indicates separateness.
Sri Bhagavan: So long as you seek to know how to realize, this advice is given to find your Self. Your seeking the method denotes our separateness.
Q: Is it not better to say 'I am the Supreme Being' than to ask "Who am I?'
Sri Bhagavan: Who affirms? There must be one to do it., Find that one.
Q: Is not meditation better than investigation?
Sri Bhagavan: Meditation implies
mental imagery, whereas investigation is for the Reality.
The former is objective. The latter is subjective.
Q: There must be a scientific approach to this subject.
Sri Bhagavan; To eschew unreality and seek the reality is scientific!
Q: If I think 'I am the Real' will it do?
Sri Bhagavan: All thoughts are inconsistent with realization. The correct state is to exclude all thoughts of ourselves and all other thoughts. Thought is one thing and realization is quite another.
R.Subramanian,
"All pujas and niyamas are dualistic.
We see Sun and worship him in Sandhya vandanam."
There is nothing that is not dualistic-all Sadhana are dualistic only.
Dwelling on The GAyatri mantra is the same as Self Enquiry.
Sun is the Symbol of Light,Knowledge.The worship of the Sun is the worship of the Self,the Light of Consciousness-the self awareness.If one does Gayatri japa in a deep way,this can be appreciated.
It will also be clearly understood that all names of God refer to the Self only,beyond a shadow of doubt.
-----------------------------------
In day by day with Bhagavan,this is clearly brought out by Sri Bhagavan:
The next day a visitor asked Bhagavan, with reference
to the words dhimahi in the gayatri, “What is the idea meant?
I am not able rightly to grasp it.”
B: The words only mean fixing the aham in the Self,
though literally they mean, “We meditate”.
Namaskar.
R.Subramanian,
"Qualified Nondualism is the Truth as envisioned by Ramanuja. He could have stopped with that. Why should
he say that the goal, even aceepting that it is Saguna Brahman, is Narayna?"
nAraNan=nara+Anan,i.e it refers to God who is Close(aNan)to man(nara).This is like the aNan in BrAhmaNan.So,Narayana does not just refer to someone who sleeps on the ocean of Milk(this again is powerful symbolism-as in the vedAs).
It is quite clear that not just Sri RAmAnujA but also the Great AzhwArs refer to this Divine that is ever close to man-nArAyaNA.This indeed is a Dear name for not just the VisishtAdvaitist but to all-in as much as God who is close is dear to all.Why should Sri Ramanuja choose another name when this wonderful name with this significance is absolutely wholesome.
There is an article by Sri mahAperiyavA that clearly brings the glory of the NarAyana nAmA.
Namaskar.
Ravi,
"Is this a desperate attempt to salvage something out of a back to the wall situation?Are we saying that all are jnanis(who clearly know their identity as different than the role) and there are no ajnanis(who perhaps are confused although there is superficial clarity)?"
No, I am merely saying that we should not be arguing from the authority of "great ones" and substitute their views for our own under the assumption that whatever "great ones" say must be true. The fact is, many of these "great ones" are just as flawed as the rest of us, and find themselves advocating or defending things that simply aren't so, or that are only true from some narrow perspective, and don't represent true jnana. And when we use their flawed teachings to defend our own flawed views, we only compound our own errors.
I'm not saying that I'm right and you are wrong here. I could well be the guy who is most guilty of the error I describe above. I am merely saying that rather than arguing from authority, we should evaluate the wisdom of these things on their own merits, and not because they came from some "great one".
So Buddhism is not to be defined or denigrated because the Sage of Kanchi says this or that about it, or Vivekananda says something similar, but because a candid observation of Buddhism reveals clear errors. There have been over two thousand years of debates between Hindus and Buddhists about each tradition's various errors, and much good has come of that on both sides.
As mentioned before, the whole Advaitic tradition is the product of those debates, and would not have come about without the influence of Buddhism. Likewise, much of the Mahayana and Vajrayana traditions would not have come about without this debate and the influence of Hindu argument and criticism. So there is something good about the friction between the two that I don't wish to eliminate. But when old tropes such as the notion that Buddhism is a nihilistic religion are trotted out and treated with deference and respect, when these same tropes have long since been discarded by those who have given the matter any serious investigation, I fear that we are not seeing a serious debate, but merely a political effort to dominate through ideological power plays that denigrate one's perceived religious opposition (Buddhists) in order to glorify one's own religious identity (sanatana dharma). That kind of debate only serves the ego, and not real understanding. And so I wish to bow out of that kind of conflict.
As Guadapada said, non-dualism is not in conflict with any other path or teaching. This is not merely because non-dualism is a very peaceful approach, but because non-dualism is not identified with any path or religion or teaching. It is free of these, of all dualisms. The Buddha didn't teach "Buddhism", he taught a way beyond the bonds of all dualisms. And Ramana did not teach "Advaita", he taught liberation from all concepts, mind, and identification, including that of "Advaita". But many wish to turn these things, even Ramana himself, into something their minds can identify with and promote as "truth". Ironically, that has the opposite effect.
Ravi,
Broken Yogi,
"But the Self doesn't play a role. He is behind all roles and role-playing."
What do you mean by 'Behind' all roles?Is the man playing a role in a film 'behind' or he is the one playing the Role?Roles are for 'others',not for himself.he is ever the same.
Namaskar.
Do not mistake my own use of the term "Self" for some "real thing" out there. Like Ramana, I am using the term as a directional pointer within the dualistic mind and world to differentiate between what we identify with as egos, and what we are in reality.
As in your analogy, an actor is clearly "behind" the role he plays. In the original greek plays, for example, all the actors literally wore masks over their faces, and often the masks were those of Gods and Goddesses. And modern actors as well, put on a "face" and personae which they act on the stage, and when they are done, they put it away.
Similarly, the ego is a mask that we put on, and when we take it off, we are done with it. While we wear these masks, however, the Reality must also come to us wearing a mask and speaking the words that actors speak to try to get us to take off our masks and simple be our real Self. Whatever helps us remove the mask is a valid teaching, even if not literally true. It is a mistake to assume that the actual reality is the same as the mask of words we hear spoken through the masks the Self wears.
The Buddhists have a saying, "Don't mistake the finger that points to the moon for the moon itself". All these teachings about "the Self" only point to the Reality. The words and concepts used to make the sign are not present in the Reality Itself. Because the concept of "the Self" is a very good pointer to this Reality, it is useful and should be honored. But it is the Reality that is real, not the sign that points to Reality. We can of course use the term "Self" to mean "That Reality that is beyond all mind and language, even the term Self", and that is fine. That is how Ramana used the word, I feel. But it becomes a mistake when we reify such language and turn the Self into an icon we assume refers to a "real thing", and that all the language and concepts used to describe Reality are themselves "real things" rather than just useful fingers pointing to the Reality.
Ravi,
Broken Yogi,
"The only "Great One" is the Self"
I think you are now admitting the presence of 'the only "Great One"as the Self.This is all that we have been discussing all along.
Namaskar.
Again, I am not referring to the "Great One" or the "Self" as an existing "thing". It is just a reference in language for the Reality of who we truly are. The point being that all these forms and bodies, some of whom you call "great ones", and I suppose others who you see as "not great ones", are merely signposts for this singular Reality. What greatness one finds in any individual does not belong to that individual, making him a "great one". It all belongs only to God, or Self, or Reality, however you wish to designate that One. That same One is our own Reality.
One thing this conversation makes clear is why Buddha wished to avoid giving any name or form to the Reality, but rather only refer to it by negatives. The tendency of human beings to reify anything given a name or concept is simply immense. Of course, I'm reminded of Nisargadatta's frequent statement that Reality can only be referred to in negatives, because what it actually is, is simply unspeakable (another negative). And even Ramana's method of "who am I?" is also a negative approach, not an affirmative one. He doesn't tell us to say "I am the Self" or whatever name one gives to Reality. Instead, the process is one of tearing away the illusion of ego and revealing what is real. The Self revealed in this manner is entirely "negative" in relation to anything we might think or know or refer to by language and thought. What it is in the positive sense is likewise not meaningfully spoken of, except as a pointer to the Reality. It is beyond both of these. And that is the Buddha's "middle way".
Broken Yogi,
" we should evaluate the wisdom of these things on their own merits, and not because they came from some "great one"."
The following are my views on this:1.Great ones are not known by the theories they espouse but by the lives of renunciation and selflessness that they have lived.This is why The Buddha is loved and revered,although the Buddhist Philosophy is not spared.
2.They do not thrust their 'ideas' on others-and the Truth of what they have stated stand on their own merits,whether one is in a position to understand or not;whether one is receptive or not.
3.What one may view as a 'narrow' outlook,need not be so;it is simply a lack of understanding on our part.For instance,Sri Bhagavan considered Jnana Sambanda as the foremost among the saivaite saints.Yet,it was Jnana sambanda who debated with the Jaina Monks and reestablished the Saivam in the South.This is also about time that Sri Sankara debated the Buddhists and defeated them and rejuvenated the Vedic Dharma.Sri Bhagavan acknowledged the Greatness of Sri sankara as well.
Superficially,the vanquishing of the Buddhists and Jainas appear as a sort of spiritual hegemony,but it is not so.To understand the implication,one has to have a sound understanding of the Comprehensive Nature of Sanatana Dharma,and this is something that most westerners cannot understand-as it appears that they have never had the basic firmware to do so.
-----------------------------------
You say-"As Guadapada said, non-dualism is not in conflict with any other path or teaching."
All the Masters including the Sage of Kanchi have said this.This is how the sanatana Dharma is pluralistic in Nature-and this very complexity is perplexing to those not familiar to it either in theory or in practice.It is not easy for anyone not familiar, to understand how the socio,cultural,ethical,vocational,political,intellectual and spiritual aspects are interwoven to maximise individual freedom of thought and expression, balanced with collective collaborative living.
To say that 'Self Enquiry' will naturally bring about the above balance is erroneous,for the simple reason that the maturity(not intellectual!)level that is called for is something beyond the reach of the populace.Notwithstanding what we would like to think,it is the matured few who can truly practise this approach.For the rest,a more gross and concrete form of approach is certainly necessary.This is amply clear from the way the 'Rituals' got introduced in Buddhism.
Why to reinvent the wheel when sanAtana Dharma has all the repertoire at its disposal-This is the reason why the Great ones have to emphasize on this fundamental Truth-and this may look like a 'parochial' approach.Yet,if we have had the occassion to have atleast seen,even once,the likes of the Sage of Kanchi,we will immediately grasp that there is nothing that is narrow or sectarian in their outlook;quite the contrary,they have the most catholic and all embracing vision on Life-not just humans but all things animate and inanimate.
-----------------------------------
Now ,forget the authority,understand the logic and cogency in the Sage of Kanchi's take on buddhism.Refute it if you can.
Namaskar.
Broken Yogi,
The very crux of Sri Bhagavan's 'Self Enquiry' is in not requiring a 'pointer'.Sri Bhagavan seems to be emphasising the fact of one's existence;that no one doubts his existence.No Pointer is needed.A pointer is just a useful 'idea' and Sri Bhagavan's Self Enquiry does away with such a pointer.If you think otherwise,perhaps you are mistaken.
I do understand that certainly a fair degree of preparation by way of a purified and quiet mind is a prerequisite for effective practice of Self Enquiry.What i mean is that the mind should have been purged of gross attachments by viveka and Vairagya,and where it is prepared to journey back to the source-this is a prerequisite for Self Enquiry,as it is so in any other form of sAdhana.With this sort of preparation,the mind gives up its tendency to move outwards and becomes more and more centred towards the Source.The Eradication of this tendency to move outwards is what is called manO nAsa-it does not mean that the mind or the Intellect gets killed as is erroneously believed,but that the seeds of desire that make the mind move outwards are burnt and they no longer have the motile power.This does not mean that the jnani cannot use the mind to cut vegetables,or fight legal suite,etc.
Namaskar.
Broken Yogi,
For me,in emphasizing the fact of one's existence,Sri BhagavAn is referring to something fundamental.
Is the Feeling of 'I' continuous or continual?It seems to me that it is continual and the interval in-between is what is the Fundamental Truth of Existence.This does not require any pointer but it does require the space between thoughts that only a purified mind can yield.Just like the blades of a fan can be spotted only when the motion slows down and not when it is whirling.
Namaskar.
The fact that Vedic systems have degenerated even by Buddha's day means the word 'SanAtana Dharma'(eternal) is just empty rhetoric.World and civilizations are constantly changing and we always need that Old Wine(Truth) in a new bottle.Today and in the next decade or so a lot of Vedic ritual and caste and other systems will be almost wiped out from India.It is the internet age.Like in the west it will be the individual.I am not saying the society will be more happier.Infact in the new systems people are even more restless and unhappy.All running around constantly looking for what?But that is the way India, the East and the third world is moving.Nobody can stop this.So new bottles(systems) will come for the Old Wine.SanAtana Dharma and ritual Veda is history.The rise and fall of Buddhism and Jainism in India is part of this ever changing world.I do not see any core differences between Buddhism and Advaita.It is wrong to say they were condemned.I think the right words are they become out of fashion.Dualist Madhawa came, debated and condemned.So did Ramaanuja, Sankara and Chaitanya all successively condemning the previous.In Chaitanya's literature MayAvAdis and Advaitists are seen as if they are third rate criminals.Read Chaitanya Charitamrita or any such.Chaitanya Mahaprabhu went to Vaaranaasi specifically to win over the Sankaravaadis/Advaitists and in my opinion to denounce their corruption of Advaita. Just like Sankara reformed the Vedic ritual and culture so did Buddha reformed the degenerated Vedic culture.May be he might have felt a total re-orientaion was necessary or may be it ended up that way.The detail and his day to day talks are missing just like there are so many versions of Bible or sects of Islam or the myriad nonsense and inconsistencies in our Vedas, Puranas and Upanishads.
Bhagawan himself said even Dakshinamoorthy could not convey the so called 'Reality'.Anything said apart from this like 'Self', Substratum etc are only for the purpose of explaination.In my personal opinion such could be the case with 'Sunyata' or 'Anaatma' etc and should be seen in the light of the possible corruption of the words/concepts during the time of Buddha.So he may have used this language to correct that corruption and after a few centuries Buddha's words will get corrupted and it may have taken Sankara's turn.Surely by Chaitanya's time Sankara was corrupted otherwise Chaitanya would not have attempted a serious effort to win over so called MayAvAdis and remember Chaitanya was considered a rare bird of great intellect and devotion nay even incarnation of Krishna himself.Only when Vyasa,Buddha,Sankara,Raamaanuja,Madhawa and Chaitanya all sit together will we know who said what and why.If all of them were born at the same time I am sure they will all say the same.Truth has to be told in the language, culture and tradition and law of those lands and times targetting the current corruption of those times.There is no such things as eternal Sutras.Even the word 'Ultimate Reality' is only realtive; if not Dakshinamoorthy would have opened his mouth.If Sanaka brothers were here today they would condemn Bhagawan for opening his mouth and spreading heresy.In this light I respect all great teachers.Context is Reality.
-z
Broken Yogi,
" What greatness one finds in any individual does not belong to that individual, making him a "great one". It all belongs only to God, or Self, or Reality, however you wish to designate that One."
By your own admission,if God or self is something that is indescribable,then how shall one ascribe the perceived Greatness to the Unknowable!Is it not logical and appropriate to say that it is through this perception of Greatness in the Great ones that one can even approach that which is beyond all thought?What do we mean by Greatness-it is just this absence of petty consideration of the self,Love that is all embracing,Renunciation,Fearlessness,poise,etc.I do not think that we have to forsake dear common sense to blot this out of our view.If this is not so,then why do we require a Guru?
Namaskar.
z,
"Only when Vyasa,Buddha,Sankara,Raamaanuja,Madhawa and Chaitanya all sit together will we know who said what and why.If all of them were born at the same time I am sure they will all say the same."
This need not be.Although the essence of Truth is one,yet the expression of this can be varied. Although the Raga played by a Sitar and santoor or sarOd is a Behag or Yaman kalyAn,each instrument adds its own colour-and this way the expression is indeed varied.No single teacher can exhaust the whole of Truth and as Sri Ramakrishna used to say that even Sukadeva is at the most a bigger ant that can carry 3 grains of Sugar from the sugar hill of Brahman.
Namaskar.
Dear Ravi,
The goal is the same for the one
who meditates [on an object] and the one who practices self inquiry. One attains stillness through meditation, the other through knowledge. One strives to attain something, [therefore dual]; the other seeks the one who strives to attain. The former takes a longer time, but in the end attains the Self.
Many devotees who came to Sri
Bhagavan were more attuned to conventional meditations. In giving His advice, He usually defined meditation as concentration on one thought to the exclusion of all others, but He sometimes gave it higher definition by saying that keeping the mind fixed in the Self was true meditation. This latter practice is really another name for self-inquiry, for as He explained in Who am I?, "Always keeping the mind fixed in Self alone is called self inquiry, whereas meditation is thinking oneself to be Brahman."
Dear Ravi,
I normally choose not to speak against Maha Periyava. But NAranan
is Tamizh. In Sanskrit, he is called
Narayanan.
R.Subramanian,
"The goal is the same for the one
who meditates [on an object] and the one who practices self inquiry. One attains stillness through meditation, the other through knowledge."
Yes,this is indeed true.
Namaskar.
Dear Ravi, Broken Yogi, Anon [z],
We find from history of the three
great teachers, viz., Sri Sankara,
Sri Ramanuja and Sri Madhwa, that one debated and defeated the other schools. How come, when the Truth is one, how one can say something
and defeat another? In essence, all debates are intellectual and the one who won the debate was intellectually more sharp than the other. That is all. Truth if it has got a mouth, will be laughing at all these people. That is why, it is heartening to read Gaudpada, because he says that he has no opponents at all. Because he was telling the Truth of Ajata Vada and anyone if he can debate can only do so intellectually and Ajata Vada would remain unshakable, eternal Truth. When someone came to Sri Bhagavan to argue and debate, He was always keeping quiet. Silence was His answer. Many used to come and tell Him: "Sri Aurobindo said like this, Sri Ramanuja said like this..." He will choose not to answer such debaters. Self inquiry or Self surrender to the godhead was the only thing that He was insisting for 54 years, in Tiruvannamlai.
R.Subramanian,
The explanation for nAr +aNan in Tamil is from Master TGN and not from the mahAperiyava.
Here is the excerpt from the wikipedia regarding the sanskrit,that pretty much says the same thing:
Nara means humans and Ayana means shelter so Narayana means the shelter of all human beings. The Sama Veda reads: "'Om Namo Narayanayeti mantra upasaka Vaikuntha bhuvanam gamishyati', or "Whosoever chants the 'Om Namo Narayana' mantra reaches the ultimate goal Vaikuntha planet where one attains eternal blissful life." Vaikuntha is the supreme spiritual abode; there is nothing that exists beyond Vaikuntha, Vaikuntha means 'no desires'.
Actually, Lord Narayan is the supreme almighty, everything emnates from Him. In the Yajurveda it says, 'Om adha nitya Narayan ha, brahma narayanaha, shivasca narayana ha, shankarsca narayanaha and kalacha narayanaha, sarva bhutasca mekam via narayana Karan purusha makarana parabramahan' and ultimately it says 'Savo deve eko Narayana na dwitiyacha kaschit' ("There is only one God Narayana and no second"). He Himself expands as Brahma the creator, Vishnu the maintainer and Shiva as the annihilator. Whether you read Rig Veda or any other Vedas and Puranas it has said Lord Narayan is the supreme and there is absolutely nothing beyond Him, it says in Srimad Bhagavatam 'Yesha tu Narayanam devam adevam isham' ('Narayan is the lord of the lords beyond him there is nothing exists'). Whoever worships with love and devotion achieves the highest destination Vaikuntha.
-----------------------------------
It is clear that nArAyaNa nAmam is there from the VedAs.Sri RAmAnuja and the AzhwArs found this the most appealing-as it depicts the special relationship between man and God-that man is abiding in God.
Namaskar.
R.Subramanian,
"In essence, all debates are intellectual and the one who won the debate was intellectually more sharp than the other. That is all. Truth if it has got a mouth, will be laughing at all these people."
Do you think that these Great ones indulged in petty one upmanship!I do not think so.Each one was emphasizing on different aspect of the same Truth-as all these are required by people at various stages of maturity.The lives of these Great ones amply testifies to this fact.
We seem to be knowing more about GaudapAda and ajAtivAdA than even Sri Sankara!It is better to study th lives of these Great ones(mahAns)before passing schoolmasterly remarks.
Namaskar.
... Truth if it has got a mouth, will be laughing at all these people...
...Each one was emphasizing on different aspect of the same Truth...
You are both right, as always. Discussions are living from dividing the Undivided - necessarily there will be controversy sooner or later.
Ravi,
"By your own admission,if God or self is something that is indescribable,then how shall one ascribe the perceived Greatness to the Unknowable!Is it not logical and appropriate to say that it is through this perception of Greatness in the Great ones that one can even approach that which is beyond all thought?What do we mean by Greatness-it is just this absence of petty consideration of the self,Love that is all embracing,Renunciation,Fearlessness,poise,etc.I do not think that we have to forsake dear common sense to blot this out of our view.If this is not so,then why do we require a Guru?"
God is indescribable because he is not an object. We can describe objects, but we cannot describe God because he is not an object, but the subject of all experience. How does one describe the subject? The only verbal reference we can make to the subject is "Self". So that is what Advaita calls God. But even this can be confused with the sense of self that we know as ego. Our true Self is not like the ego. It is not just the feeling of "I". It is beyond all such feelings and sensations and experiences, because all such things are mere objects. Even the "I"-thought is an object. But the truth is not an object. Self is merely a pointer towards that Reality.
We see the "great ones" as objects. We can describe them, honor them, worship them, and be inspired by them. But they are not God, because as Ramana says, any God you can see is not God. So where does there holiness come from? It comes from us, from our own Self, manifesting as these seeming others. Even Ramana is only our Self, manifesting through a human form. If we see Ramana as a "great one", we have not recognized him as the Self, we see him as an object, and confuse his magnificent qualities with his human person. In reality, all his wonderful qualities are only those of the Self, just as it is with everything we see or experience.
Ramana used to say that every pleasure we experience is actually an experience of the Self, it is only that we mistakenly associate that pleasure with an object of one kind or another, and only allow ourselves to experience that bliss conditionally, when we have achieved the object, and even then only in a limited form. The same is true of "the great ones". They are just objects which we conditionally experience and worship, thinking they are someone else, when in reality they are only us, our very Self. They are signs of the Reality which we do not see as ourselves because we are addicted to objects.
We require a Guru to help us turn from objects towards our own Self. That is the only real purpose. The Guru's purpose is not to impress you with his own wonderful holiness, but to see that holiness is your very nature and being, and to turn you in that direction, not towards him. When you investigate your own nature and being, you find that there is no "it" there, just perfect freedom and unconditional happiness. Not a big "Self" like an infinite ego, but an absence of any such "thing". Then it is all done and over with, all this concern about things and traditions and Self and God and so on. Emptiness is perfect freedom. So long as there is an object, there is no freedom. So long as there is a definable subject, there is no freedom. One must pass beyond even oneself, and leave all the alleged great ones behind. That is not nihilism, it is unconditional freedom. And that is unconditional love.
Ravi,
"For me,in emphasizing the fact of one's existence,Sri BhagavAn is referring to something fundamental.
Is the Feeling of 'I' continuous or continual?It seems to me that it is continual and the interval in-between is what is the Fundamental Truth of Existence.This does not require any pointer but it does require the space between thoughts that only a purified mind can yield.Just like the blades of a fan can be spotted only when the motion slows down and not when it is whirling."
Yes, yes. But all that you have said is just a pointer towards something not only inexpressible, but without definition to begin with, you know?
Yes, we can point to a concept like "existence" and find that meaningful, even useful. I would agree. But it is still only a pointer. What is existence after all? We don't know. We have to find that out, and when we find it out, the concept "existence" won't be sufficient to describe it. We will ran and sing and fall over ourselves, but we wont' be able to say quite why. Maybe we will giggle and shout "existence!" But who will know what we mean? Again, it's just a pointer.
Yes, we can feel into our own "existence" or our "being". But what does that really mean? Again, these are just pointers. It is good to do such a thing, feeling into our being, our existence, because it's going in the right direction. But if we think the answer is "existence" or "being", and that there really are such things, well, we are letting our minds snooker us once again and substituting concepts for the reality.
To really go into our real being and existence, we have to let go of all concepts of being and existence. Because there are no such things in reality. Reality has no referents, it is simply Reality. That should stop our minds forever. But somehow it doesn't, so the mind goes to work turning these conceptual pointers into ends in themselves, and makes religion out of them rather than surrendering itself beyond concepts. It makes experience from those concepts, even "enlightened experience". And then people go around telling everyone, including themselves, that they are enlightened, because their experience matches up with their concept of enlightenment, but it is all in the mind.
The real jnani is silent, and when he speaks, he makes no effort to describe his experience, because he has none. He uses the words and concepts which are most helpful to those who need his help, because he has none of his own. And those words and concepts are merely pointers to something that can't be pointed to, because it is not an object. So it's a pretty frustrating task, virtually impossible. Somehow, there's power in these words that lays a seed in our minds that slowly sprouts and leads us in the right direction. That's grace for you. Even an intoxicated elephant can be led in this manner. I'm not sure how it happens, but I like the intoxicating power of these words nonetheless. Where does it come from?
Broken Yogi,
"The Guru's purpose is not to impress you with his own wonderful holiness, but to see that holiness is your very nature and being, and to turn you in that direction, not towards him."
You have given a long winding explanation.The Guru is simply like the Tiger that dragged the other tiger cub to a water pool and showed that it's face is quite like its own.It is now upto the Tiger cub to realize that it is actually a Tiger.Whenever it forgets,it has to recall the REAL Tiger and not its 'imagination' of what it is.
It is only by perceiving the possibility in the Guru that a disciple learns to develop the conviction that he can also do likewise.I am not giving any 'theoretical' explanation.I am stating a simple fact.
He who thinks that the Guru is just a man is ignorant.
Namaskar.
Ravi,
"The very crux of Sri Bhagavan's 'Self Enquiry' is in not requiring a 'pointer'.Sri Bhagavan seems to be emphasising the fact of one's existence;that no one doubts his existence.No Pointer is needed.A pointer is just a useful 'idea' and Sri Bhagavan's Self Enquiry does away with such a pointer.If you think otherwise,perhaps you are mistaken."
But of course self-enquiry is a pointer? What else is it, but a way of pointing us towards the Self? THere is nothing more to it than that. Our attention is going in all kinds of outer directions, so Ramana points us in the direction of the observer, the one who sees and experiences these things, these thoughts, these sensual experiences. So the practice of self-enquiry is to be constantly pointed in the selfward direction rather than in the outward direction.
If our existence didn't need to be pointed to, Ramana wouldn't have us do self-enquiry. But Ramana didn't give us the admonition "exist", he gave us the question "Who am I?". This question points us to our very existence and forces us to give it all our attention until we find it out, and in the process every "it" is destroyed until the whole mind dies and we go beyond all of that in Reality. So of course self-enquiry is a pointer. It has no other purpose. And when we reach what it has pointed to, self-enquiry itself is thrown away, burned up, and has no existence of its own. Like everything.
Broken Yogi,
"But all that you have said is just a pointer towards something not only inexpressible"
I do not think that what I have referred to is a pointer.I leave it here.
Namaskar.
Dear Ravi,
Very Yes. 'The Great Ones' when they mix up philosophy and religion, this is what happens. There is a mighty hurry in their minds to prove that their religion is superior, and others are inferior religions. Jains are noted for their ahimsa but when they thought that Tiru Jnana Sambandha was trying to uphold Saivism, they forgot about ahimsa and even tried to burn the choultry where he was staying. They also tried to punish Tiru
Navukkarasar by some four methods through the king. Mandana Misra who was a karma vadin, thought that he might lose the debate, so he wanted Sri Sankara to defeat his wife too. Sarasavani, his wife asked questions about man-woman relationships, to inconvenience Sri Sankara. Kumarila Bhattar was better. When he knew that Vedas telling only about karma marga was incorrect, he wanted to immolate himself, rather than finding wicked ways to defeat Sri Sankara. Sri Aurobindo told his devotees [Balaramiah] that what Sri Bhagavan said [self inquiry technique] would only give 'partial realization', and not complete realization! One Sri Vaishnavite, who was in Sri Rangam and who was an uncle to Padmapada mixed something in the food and gave it to Padmapada and made him go mad. Because that Sri Vaishnavite on reading Pancha Padiga, found that book would unsettle his philosophy of Sri Vaisnavism [not qualified non dualism because it came through Sri Ramanuja 6 centuries later]. Why? Why? all these happened. If one though convinced about the Truth revealed by the opponent should gracefully accept it. He should not harm him to establish his truth, which is not the Truth but falsity.
Dear Ravi,
Truth is one without a second. Call It Narayana or Siva. It is like a clear white crystal like peppermint.
Some one colored it yellow and says that his yellow peppermint is more delicious. Some other colors it red and says his red peppermint is more delicious. Some one colors it green... All these are happening when someone tries to mix up philosophy with religion.
Truth is ULLadu, that which alone exists. It is ULLa PoruL. It is realized when agandhai [ego] is destroyed. Agandhai uru azhithale mukti, this is the final verse of
ULLadu Narpadu. It is this Agandhai that causes all these confusion.
Dear Ravi,
Saint Tayumanavar said: Manam Irakka
katru tharum margame en margam.
Mano nasam is the finality.
Dear Clemens Vargas Ramos,
Yes. That is why Sri Bhagavan said:
Summa Iru. But we do not how to be summa iru. Because our ego jumps out at the first opportunity.
Broken Yogi,
"Our attention is going in all kinds of outer directions, so Ramana points us in the direction of the observer, the one who sees and experiences these things, these thoughts, these sensual experiences."
I do not think so,although what you say also is a valid approach.This is the Traditional advaitic approach of neti,neti where one successively feels his way into the core of his being,by eliminating identification with the Nonself.
Sri Bhagavan's approach is much more direct.It seems to me much more direct-more of an inside out.Just get to the core directly.In Tiruvachakam,Saint MAnikkavachakar calls this as 'chikk ena pidiththal'-getting hold of in a trice!Ofcourse,this does require a fairly purified mind(devoid of attachments).
Namaskar.
Dear Broken Yogi,
God or the Self is indescribable and attributeless. When a Jnani attains this, he finds his state as great, blissful, and the only substance worth experiencing. He says therefore that God or the Self is great, full of bliss and the only substance, one without a second. The Self does not say these things. The Self realized person says all these, because he has to spit out his experience when someone wants to know about it.
salutations to all:
recently there has been a number of references to sankarA, rAmAnujA, & madhvA (not 'mAdhavA' as some wrongly say so). if one truly wishes to understand these great AchAryAs of the vedAntic tradition, the only way is to read & understand their works (which primarily is their commentaries on the prasthAna-traya). well, this may take years of sustained study - on the other hand, if you 'dismiss' all this as 'intellectual', then in my opinion, it may be improper to comment 'sankarA/ madhvA said so & so...' (btw, all 'thinking' is mostly 'intellectual' and anyday this kind of 'thinking' (study of the AchAryas' works) is way better than the useless thinking that we anyhow otherwise do everyday!) :-))) and more importantly, in case you do read, then please don't read madhvA assuming sankarA was right! if one reads madhvA to know what he has to say, then one may see demonstrations of outstanding logical brilliance :-)
one can't argue, reason, ponder, debate etc., and yet maintain that one doesn't read any 'intellectual' stuff! - if throwing out this, then castaway that too, isn't it? hope our choice of words ('intellectual') is not based on what 'we' consider convenient :-)))
of course, (perhaps) self-realisation is easier than all this study but that is valid only for him/her who is convinced of the uselessness of all intellectual endeavour (neither out of indolence nor due to unwillingness - most of us don't study because of these twin reasons!) and has thus dismissed all other forms of intellection as well:-) hope we realise that the great AchAryAs didn't write their extraordinarily beautiful works for 'killing time'; they were written with the most genuine intention of defining the motive of the vedAnta while being most consistent with what they thought was the underlying theme of the whole shruti...
R.Subramanian,
"Truth is one without a second. Call It Narayana or Siva."
Yes Sir.Thanks very much.
Namaskar.
Ravi,
I have read your quotes from the Sage of Kanchi on Buddhism, and this is not really the place to refute them all one by one. As I have already said, I find them something of an embarrassment. I am sure that in person he is a wonderful and sage fellow of great holiness. His views on Buddhism, however, are very immature and heavily slanted. This is understandable, in that he likely knows very little about Buddhism other than what he has been told by other Hindus. At least I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he can't have come up with these very weak and insubstantial arguments on his own, but must simply be repeating some of the traditional pedantic responses.
Now, there are some very good and interesting debating points that can be brought to Buddhism by both Hindus and many others. I just find it disappointing that the Sage is unable to make them. He is more interested in denigrating Buddhism than actually engaging in any meaningful debate with a worthy opponent. But that is of course his perogative.
I assume you don't even really care about Buddhism per se, and have not really spent much time studying it. I take it the same goes for the Sage himself. He appears to take what is merely a political stance of the kind one finds so often in these kinds of disputes between sects these days, when all to often generally meaningful points of contention are ignored, and the whole purpose is to score points with nonsensical claims that amount to preaching to the choir, not actually engaging those who see the world differntly. As is seen in this partisan claim that Sankara defeated the Buddhists in debate. According to whom? I assume other Hindus, and not according to Buddhists.
Let's be clear, Buddhism in India was not defeated by Hinduism. It was defeated by Islam, when the Moguls invaded and chopped the heads off the Buddhists and converted the rest by the sword. That's the kind of debate it's very hard to win, especially if one practices ahimsa.
s,
" hope we realise that the great AchAryAs didn't write their extraordinarily beautiful works for 'killing time'; they were written with the most genuine intention of defining the motive of the vedAnta while being most consistent with what they thought was the underlying theme of the whole shruti... "
Well said s.
Namaskar.
Subramanian,
I just want you to know that I appreciate and enjoy everything you've been writing, but I don't often respond because I find so little to disagree with! A shame that disagreement is the lubricant for conversation here, but that's kind of how things work here. The squeaky wheel gets all the oil. Hope you don't take that as a lack of sympathy for your wise and wonderful words.
Broken Yogi
Coming to the Sage f Kanchi and your comments on Budhism-I leave you with your fancies.
Namaskar.
Ravi,
Ramana's self-enquiry is not neti-neti only because it does not examine and then reject the objects of awareness, but instead re-directs us to ask, when something arises to our attention, "To whom is this arising?" This naturally re-directs attention towards the Self, the subject of whatever our experience is, without actively rejecting those objects or trying to analyze or inspect them.
The practitioner of neti-neti actively goes around examining objects in order to reject them. In self-enquiry, there is no examination of objects. Instead, when objects arise (and they always do for the most part), attention is directed back upon the observing Self. In this manner the mind is trained to always be pointed towards its very Self, rather than becoming absorbed in objects.
That is why Ramana called it the direct approach. He felt that neti-neti never completed itself because it trained the mind to always inspect objects, meaning it would always be object-oriented, whereas self-enquiry was not concerned about the object, but only about the subject.
Talks with Sri Bhagavan:
Q: Why do religions speak of Gods,
heaven, hell, etc.,?
Sri B: Only to make the people realize that they are on par with this world and that the Self alone is Real. The religions are according to the viewpoints of the seeker.
Q: Do Vishnu, Siva etc., exist?
Sri B: Individual human beings are not the only beings known.
Q: And their sacred regions Kailasa and Vaikunta, are they real?
Sri B: As real as you are in this body.
Q: Do they possess a phenomenal existence, like my body? Or they fictions like the horn of a hare?
Sri B: They do exist.
Q: If so, they must be somewhere. Where are they?
Sri B: Persons who have seen them say that they exist somewhere. So we must accept their statement.
Q: Where do they exist?
Sri B: In You!
Q: Then it is only an idea which I can create and control?
Sri B: Everything is like that!
Q: But I can create pure fictions, for example, a hare's horn, or only partial truths, for example, a mirage, while there are also facts irrespective of my imagination. Do the Gods Iswara or Vishnu exist like that?
Sri B: Yes.
Q: Is God subject to pralaya?
Sri B: Why? Man becoming aware of the Self transcends cosmic dissolution, and becomes liberated. Why not Iswara who is infinitely wiser and abler?
Q: Do angles and devils exist similarly?
Sri B: Yes.
Q: These deities, what is their status relative to the Self?
Sri B: Siva, Ganapati and other deities like Brahma exist from a human standpoint; that is to say,
if you consider your personal self as real, they also exist. Just as a government has its high executive officers to carry on the government, so has the creator. But from the standpoint of the Self all these gods are illusory and must themselves merge into one Reality.
Q: Should I have any idea about
God?
Sri B: Only so long as there are other thoughts in the Heart can there be a thought of God conceived by one's mind. The destruction of even that thought of God due to the destruction of all other thoughts alone is the unthought thought, which is the true thought of God.
Ninaiyamal ninainthu thodakkai velvaam - Sri Dakshinamurty Prayer
in TiruviLaiyadal Puranam.
Ravi,
Yes, you are right. I am blowing a lot of wind here. Warm wind, I hope. I hope it lights a fire somewhere and keeps us all warm and snug. Please be assured that I much enjoy all our conversations and inevitable disagreements, for they have kept me warm through many a cold night here.
... That is why Sri Bhagavan said: Summa Iru. But we do not how to be summa iru. Because our ego jumps out at the first opportunity. ...
I mean it is not so difficult. 'Summa iru' simply means: Don't create new mental images, don't talk when there is no need to talk, resist the urge of the personal I to try to be impressive.
There is nothing new. All this was already said thousands of years before. We only need to re-enact in silence what the ancestors once said.
To resist the urge of the ego to act is an essential part of sadhana, isn't it?
Our european master Raphael says:
'6. If one morning waking up you proposed to do something that you ended up not doing, it means that you did not wake up.
7. You are taking too much delight in producing thoughts, in secreting ideas, in proposing images. Watch out! You are building for yourself a tight web that sooner or later will imprison you, will bind you, will abuse you.
«We become what we think, this is the eternal mystery», says the Upanishad.
If you do not understand and do not direct your nature, it will annihilate you.
The onanists take delight in manipulating thought. The assertive ones, on the contrary, think and are.
The idea must turn into flesh or expression.
Who has decided cannot wait, and cannot allow thought to wander in that under layer of incompleteness which is devoid of hope.
Immortality is seized by the assertive one.
8. At night, covered with dust and weariness, dare and recognize all the alibis that your ego has created in order to escape the resolving axe.
The ego thirsts for supports; at night ask yourself: how many supports had I to beg for?'
Broken Yogi,
"He felt that neti-neti never completed itself because it trained the mind to always inspect objects"
In practice,this(Neti,Neti) does not work like this-It is not as if one gets stuck in inspecting objects.It is more like a recapitulation,saying not this,not this,getting past everything else and quickly getting onto the core.This is on account of the conditioning that one is subjected to in dealing with the external world,and one tends to start from the external and quickly move towards the core.This also is useful practice and quite effective,provided one has already 'Booked' the 'room' before going on to see 'sightseeing'of the city, as the Villager in Sri Ramakrishna's parable does.
Namaskar.
Talks with Sri Bhagavan:
Q: People talk of Vaikunta, Kailasa,
Indraloka, Chandraloka, [the Hindu heavens]. Do they really exist?
Sri B: Certainly. You can rest assured that they all exist. There
will also be seated a Swami like me
on a couch and disciples will also be seated around him. They will ask something, and he will say something in reply. Everything will be more or less like this.
What of that? If one sees Chandraloka, one will ask for Indraloka, and after Vaikunta and after Vaikunta, Kailasa, and so on, and the mind goes on wandering. Where is shanti, [peace]? If shanti is required, the only correct method of securing it is by self inquiry. Through self inquiry, Self-realization is possible. If one realizes the Self, one can see see all these worlds within one's Self. The Source of everything is one's own Self, and if one realizes the Self, one will not find anything different from the Self. Then these questions will not arise. There may or may not be a Vaikunta or a Kailasa but it is a fact that you are here, isn't it? How are you here? Where are you? After you know about these things, you can think of all these worlds.
Dear Clemens Vargaa,
Excellent. What I meant by - we do not know how to be Summa Iru - is only to highlight that we do not put into practice what scriptures from Vedas, Buddhist Sutras, Bible and other books have said from time immemorial. The ego is an old rascal, diabolic and knows a million tricks and cannot be easily extinguished. God has given some sleep every night, other wise, entire humankind would have gone mad, by this time.
Broken Yogi,
"Please be assured that I much enjoy all our conversations and inevitable disagreements, for they have kept me warm through many a cold night here."
Yes Friend,there will always be disagreements and this does not matter.This is the way it will be.
Rest assured that the 'Storm' is all on the surface and does not touch the calm!
Wish you all warmth and God bless you.
Namaskar.
Dear Clemens Vargas Ramos,
There was one disciple and a guru.
The disciple was asking one doubt to the guru and the guru was postponing the answer. Many days passed. The disciple became restless. Finally the guru said that he would clarify the doubt in a day or two. That night, around 2 a.m. when the disciple was fast asleep, the guru pushed him from the bed and said: I shall answer your doubts now, please wake up.
The disciple said: Thanks Master,
Not now. I am sleeping. I shall have it tomorrow morning!
Sleep is a nectar. Without that one cannot even live with this ego for long. One can fast for 20 days, but cannot avoid sleep for 20 days continuously.
Friends,
I wish to share this wonderful Hymn of ThAyumAnavar,from his karuNakarak kadavuL(Gracious Divine):
உடல்குழைய என்பெலாம் நெக்குருக விழிநீர்கள்
ஊற்றென வெதும்பியூற்ற
ஊசிகாந் தத்தினைக் கண்டணுகல் போலவே
ஓருறவும் உன்னியுன்னிப்
படபடென நெஞ்சம் பதைத்துள் நடுக்குறப்
பாடியா டிக்குதித்துப்
பனிமதி முகத்திலே நிலவனைய புன்னகை
பரப்பியார்த் தார்த்தெழுந்து
மடலவிழு மலரனைய கைவிரித் துக்கூப்பி
வானேயவ் வானிலின்ப
மழையே மழைத்தாரை வெள்ளமே நீடூழி
வாழியென வாழ்த்தியேத்துங்
கடல்மடை திறந்தனைய அன்பரன் புக்கெளியை
கன்னெஞ்ச னுக்கெளியையோ
கருதரிய சிற்சபையி லானந்த நிர்த்தமிடு
கருணா கரக்கடவுளே.
The body drooping in tenderness,
The bones melting in love,
The eyes streaming fountains of joyous tears,
Thinking of the love
That like the magnet draws the needle,
The heart throbbing in anguish,
Singing, dancing and jumping,
Trembling within,
The bedewed moonlike face,
Overspread with joy, rising in endearment,
The palms spread flower-like in supplication
And the tongue singing in praise thus:
''Oh! The Heavens!
The delicious rains that descend from the heavens!
Long may Thou be'' -
Thus unto the surging waters of the sea
Whose floodgates are open
Is the love of Thine devotees.
And to such love art Thou easy of reach.
Wilt Thou be of access
To hardhearted persons like me?
Thou, the God of Compassion Fullness
That dances in rapture in the chit sabha
Defying description!
Namaskar.
Ravi,
"In practice,this(Neti,Neti) does not work like this-It is not as if one gets stuck in inspecting objects.It is more like a recapitulation,saying not this,not this,getting past everything else and quickly getting onto the core.This is on account of the conditioning that one is subjected to in dealing with the external world,and one tends to start from the external and quickly move towards the core.This also is useful practice and quite effective,provided one has already 'Booked' the 'room' before going on to see 'sightseeing'of the city, as the Villager in Sri Ramakrishna's parable does."
Yes, I am familiar with this view of neti-neti. Nevertheless, it is Sri Ramana who criticizes it, and who says that this practice creates its own vasana that subtly keeps alive attention to objects.
Q, I meditate neti-neti.
A. No, that is not meditation. Find the source. You must reach the source without fail. The false "I" will disappear and the real "I" will be realized. The former cannot exist without the latter.
There is wrong identification of the Self with the body, sense, etc. You proceed to discard these, and that is neti. This can be done only by holding to the one which cannot be discarded. That is iti (that which is).
According to David, Ramana felt that practicing neti-neti could lead to a fixation on the very things being rejected, and therefore he recommended self-enquiry instead, since self-enquiry did not reject the not-Self, but merely re-directed attention to the Self. That is why he calls it the "direct path", and refers to neti-neti as an indirect path. Eventually, even neti-neti must evolve into self-enquiry, so his reasoning is why not start with self-enquiry from the beginning and avoid the indirect means.
Regarding the claim that sanatana dharma never changes and is never in need of reform, doesn't that very idea go against sanatana dharma? From my understanding, sanatana dharma includes the dharma of the yugas, which states that the dharma itself is always in decay, and particularly now in the Kali yuga it is highly degenerate and that even its most lofty institutions and teachers are filled with corruption and misunderstanding of the truth. That is why avatars come, to restore the truth and reverse the decay and to give some hope of finding the true path even in the midst of the decay and corruption. Does not Krishna say that when the dharma is corrupt, I come?
So the sanatana dharma is always in need of reform and restoration. I take that to mean that even the most holy of institutional figures teach corrupted forms of dharma these days, and that it is all to often only the spontaneously appearing Gurus like Ramana, who appear outside the institutions and remain Atiashrama who represent the pure teachings. Likewise with Buddha, who also broke with the corruptions of the sanatana dharma. There seems to be a constant battle in every generation to find the true representatives of the "eternal dharma", many of whom do not appear in the traditional manner or teach according to that dharma.
Change is inherent in all appearances. Even dharma appears and disappears. And even while it survives, it also changes. This is because the truth is not a fixed "thing", it is empty of all content. So the content that appears is never itself truth, but will always change as conditions and culture and history change. Brahman is nirvanic in nature. The Self is not a fixed identity, but the inherent freedom of our nirvanic nature. That is always being corrupted by tradition and culture, even the most well-meaning of traditions and cultures. Buddhism itself becomes corrupt and has to be constantly on guard to return to its truth, like sanatana dharma.
So even our most cherished ideals must be surrendered, in order that we not corrupt them by holding on to them. They will spontaneously return in some new form if we let them go and not make them into idols.
Neti-neti: This in TALKS is more clear:
TALK 197
M.: How do you meditate?
D.: I begin to ask myself “Who am I?”, eliminate body as not ‘I’, the breath as not ‘I’, the mind as not ‘I’ and I am not able to proceed further.
[...]
M.: You see, the one who eliminates all the not I cannot eliminate the ‘I’. To say ‘I am not this’ or ‘I am that’ there must be the ‘I’. This ‘I’ is only the ego or the ‘I-thought’. [...]
-----
We see that the practice is to not get involved into the 'I'-bound activities of the mind. It is like "swimming against the current".
Post a Comment