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 401 – 600 of 674 Newer› Newest»Friends,
This is the central point in the making of Sister Nivedita(The Offered one),from the Book,The Master as I saw Him:
" My relation
to our Master at this time can only be described as one of clash and conflict. I can see
now how much there was to learn, and how
short was the time for learning to be, and
the first of lessons doubtless is the destroy-
ing of self-sufficiency in the mind of the
taught. But I had been little prepared for
that constant rebuke and attack upon all my
most cherished prepossessions which was
now my lot. Suffering is often illogical, and
I cannot attempt to justify by reason the de-
gree of unhappiness which I experienced at
this time, as I saw the dream of a friendly
and beloved leader falling away from me,
and the picture of one who would be at least
indifferent, and possibly, silently hostile, subs-
tituting itself instead.
Fortunately it never occurred to me to
retract my own proffered service, but I was
made to realise, as the days went by, that in
this there would be no personal sweetness.
And then a time came when one of the older
ladies of our party, thinking perhaps that
such intensity of pain inflicted might easily
go too far, interceded kindly and gravely
with the Swami. He listened silently and
went away. At evening, however, he return-
ed, and finding us together in the verandah,
he turned to her and said, with the simplicity
of a child, "You were right. There must be a
change. I am going away into the forests to
be alone, and when I come back I shall bring
peace." Then he turned and saw that above
.us the moon was new, and a sudden exalta-
tion came into his voice as he said, "See ! the
Mohammedans think much of the new moon.
Let us also with the new moon begin a new
life !" As the words ended, he lifted his hands
and blessed, with silent depths of blessing,
his most rebellious disciple, by this time
kneeling before him.... It was assuredly a
moment of wonderful sweetness of reconcilia-
tion. But such a moment may heal a wound.
It cannot restore an illusion that has been
broken into fragments. And I have told its
story, only that I may touch upon its sequel..
Long, long ago, Sri Ramakrishna had
told his disciples that the day would come
when his beloved "Noren" would manifest
his own great gift of bestowing knowledge
with a touch. That evening at Almora, I
proved the truth of his prophecy. For alone,
in meditation, I found myself gazing deep in-
to an Infinite Good, to the recognition of
which no egoistic reasoning had led me. I
learnt, too, on the physical plane, the simple
everyday reality of the experience related
in the Hindu books on religious psychology. And I understood, for the first time, that the greatest teachers may destroy in us a personal relation only in order to bestow the Impersonal Vision
in its place."
-----------------------------------
Swamiji was a multisided personality(Those who think that Self Realization will undermine personality may be baffled!)
Namaskar.
Hello all, after the fact i have realised i have misspoken and that my comment might have been misconstrued as a case of unintentional or intentional trolling.
Rather than douse the flames with petrol with a justification i would rather move the conversation on to something constructive.
I wish you all well with your own personal spiritual quests, so if i have any 'unenlightened' advice to give it would be that only truth lead you unto truth: read into that what you will.
SwamiVista
Hi SwamiVista,
Now I will tell you of what I remeber of his comments from 'The Complete Works'.I remember two citations:
1)He was not happy that Lord Budhdha denied the existence of spirit.
2)His main criticism was that 'the attitude' of Budhdhism was negative/dry
3)He said he was a great fan of Lord Budhdha despite the above opinions.
Again the above are not the exact words.Please refer to the Complete Works.First I do not understand point-1.What exactly is spirit?This is what I understand from his comments.
*Please feel free to correct me*
I think he is referring to the attitude of Dukkha.Buddhism is mainly:the glass is half empty where as the attitude of Vedanta is the glass is half full i.e the aim of Vedanta is Sat-chit-ananda and not the absence of Dukkha.Ofcourse technically speaking and in my personal opinion the attitude of Buddha is right but practically speaking the attitude of Vedanta scores.If you have to go to the same boring job for the rest of your life you better smile rather than winge everyday.There is whole difference with this attitude.This he said especially of Srilankan variety:Theravada?Moroever may be there is no devotion/Bhakti/personal God in Theravada??
Both use various terms like Nirvana and Vedanta, Sat-chit-ananda to describe the same according to Jnaanis like Robert Adams.So both are the same in every respect excepting the attitude.
Also Budhdhism ' Theoritically' is not supposed to have Bhakthi/Devotion but many variations of Budhism have rituals and temples to Gautama Budha(Bhakthi) along with Daana, Seela, Mindfullness,Meditation to 'Here and Now kind'(Zen);basically covering the whole range like in Hinduism.And ofcourse the priesthood with their blessings and tippings.So Budhdhism is old wine in a new bottle in my personal opinion with the Hindu Cultural bits taken out.That is probably why it has spread in other cultures more than Hinduism.
My main criticism against Buddhism and Jainism? is the introduction of Mindfullness to the Layman.This is where the original(we are probably talking about many centuries before Budhdha) caste system scored because the aim was balanced development(over many re-incarnations) and choices made for you.Over generations the caste system degenerated and Buddhism came. Over the years the huge Sanghas of thousands of monks in each centre and penetration of mindfulness to laymen meant the degeneration of the Indian totality into stupor.Good for neither 'This' nor 'That'.That is; a bit of Mindfullness with desires boiling underneath and eventually resigned to fate.From the 19th century the west moved on to 'Self-Effort'.The 'apparent' original plan of the original caste system was you exhausted a lot of so called undesirable desires during your births in non-Brahmin castes.But ofcourse this system degenerated into scare mongering, superstition and bullying for livelihood.
No system can be seen out of it's context(time, 'person/individual' and 'place/culture').
-z
Who is pHD Nome? A great jnani, worthy of reverence?
We cling to our own point of view, as though everything depended on it. Yet our
opinions have no permanence; like autumn and winter, they gradually pass away.
Chuang Tzu (c 369 BC-286 BC,
All friends who love dear Bhagavan,
I came across this site where I found some reminiscences of Him which I hadnt read elsewhere. Perhaps some of you might feel the same.
http://www.cosmicharmony.com/Sp/Ramana/Ramana.htm
I noticed that the link didnt display completely - the ".htm" at the end has only "h" displayed. Please add the "tm" manually.
Here is another attempt to get it displayed properly
http://cosmicharmony.com/Sp/Ramana/Ramana.htm
I am Krishna here:
Question to Ravi:
Hi Ravi
You have mentioned some posts before few of the teachings of Vivekanandha where it is said that the chain of events repeats itself, while the soul riding on the chain of events naturally will follow that chain and thereafter liberate. But the events themselves remain eternal, repeating but everytime the soul riding on that chain may be different.
This has some significance: There is a book called "What religion is in the words of SWAMI vivekananda". There in the chicago speech or some US speech, Swami mentions that he has been here many times before and he will be here many times before.
Jambavan the long living Rama devotee says that the Ramanaya event repeats itself in every yuga cycle with some difference in the details.
Sometimes we ecounter a split moment feeling that the events which we see, already took place, we suddenly get a flash of familiartiy of the events. This is called Dejavu.
Is it having possible link with the Swami's statements and also that of the puranic references?
Does it mean that in every Kali Yuga only more or less same events take place, Ramana appears again in earthly plane and so is Ravi & Krishna years later to discuss him?
I have this doubt esp. that if God just repeats same set of events and allow different souls to go thorugh, what taste it makes to his Universal drama?
Appreciate, if you throw some light or atleast your perspective but please dont give Ramana Maharishee Brahmasthraa that "to whom all this doubts arise"
Krishna,
Yes,Swamiji is a Great Jnani,Bhakta ,Yogi and what not besides!; whatever he has said,comes from his own experience and Knowledge.
To answer your question,it is interesting to note that the Yoga Vasishta which is a rare book that deals with not just jnana but also on rare occult truths says something exactly as swamiji has said.
Please refer to the story where Vasishta goes in search of the Crow Bhusunda and what Bhusunda tells him;Here is an excerpt:
"Bhusunda continued:
Of course I remember sages like you, goddesses like Gauri, demons like Hiranyaksa, kings like Sibi, of the recent past and of a bygone age.
O sage, this is the eighth time you have taken birth as sage Vasistha, and this is the eighth time we meet each other.
At one time, you were born of space, at another of water, at another of wind, at another of a mountain and then of fire.
Whatever is happening in the present creation has happened exactly in the same manner during three previous creations.
But I remember the events of ten such creations.
(Note: Then follows a list of major world-events all of which were not repeated all the time in every creation, accounting for the differences in the number of times Bhusunda witnessed them.
A few of them are reproduced here to illustrate this.
In every age, there have been sages who propounded the truth and revealed the Vedas.
There have been Vyasas who wrote down the legends (or prehistoric tales).
And, time and again, Valmiki composed the sacred Ramayana.
In addition to that, a sacred book of wisdom which contains your instructions to Rama has also been recorded by a sage known as Valmiki: originally it was of one hundred thousand verses.
In this age, too, it will again be recorded by Valmiki for the twelfth time.
There was an equally great scripture known as 'Bharata' which has been forgotten.
In order to destroy the demons, lord Visnu takes birth again and again as Rama: he will be born in this age for the eleventh time.
And lord Visnu will incarnate as Krsna for the sixteenth time.
However, all this is illusory appearance; the world as such is not a reality.
It seems to be real to the deluded mind.
It arises and it ceases in the twinkling of an eye like ripples on the ocean.
The three worlds were similar during some epochs and in other epochs they were utterly dissimilar. On account of all these differences, in every age I have new friends, new relatives, new servants and new dwellings.
Sometimes I dwell in the Himalayas, at other times in the Malaya mountains and at other times, on account of inherited tendencies, I take my abode here in this nest.
Even the directions change from age to age.
Because I alone have survived even the night of the creator Brahma, I know the truth about these changes.
Depending upon the position of the poles and the movements of the stars, the sun and the moon, the dirctions (north, east, etc.) are determined.
When these change, the directions change.
But I know that this world is neither real nor unreal.
The only reality is the movement of energy within the cosmic consciousness."
You may read the complete story from Swami Venkatesananda's translation of Yoga vasishta-Please refer this site:
http://www.venkatesaya.com/241_vasistha01_months_tags/index.vasistha01_months_tags.php?m=12&d=14
You may start reading from the Posts dated december 6 onwards to get to what Sage vasishta is telling Rama.
-----------------------------------
Namaskar.
Krishna,
Here is an excerpt from the Life of Swami Vivekananda:
At the age of fifteen he experienced his first spiritual ecstasy. The family was
journeying to Raipur in the Central Provinces, and part of the trip had to be made in a
bullock cart. On that particular day the air was crisp and clear; the trees and creepers
were covered with green leaves and many-coloured blossoms; birds of brilliant
plumage warbled in the woods. The cart was moving along a narrow pass where the
lofty peaks rising on the two sides almost touched each other. Narendra's eyes spied a
large bee-hive in the cleft of a giant cliff, and suddenly his mind was filled with awe
and reverence for the Divine Providence. He lost outer consciousness and lay thus in
the cart for a long time. Even after returning to the sense-perceived world he radiated
joy.
Another interesting mental phenomenon may be mentioned here; for it was one often
experienced by Narendranath. From boyhood, on first beholding certain people or
places, he would feel that he had known them before; but how long before he could
never remember. One day he and some of his companions were in a room in a friend's
house, where they were discussing various topics. Something was mentioned, and
Narendra felt at once that he had on a previous occasion talked about the same subject
with the selfsame friends in that very house. He even correctly described every nook
and corner of the building, which he had not seen before. He tried at first to explain
this singular phenomenon by the doctrine of reincarnation, thinking that perhaps he had
lived in that house in a previous life. But he dismissed the idea as improbable. Later he
concluded that before his birth he must have had previsions of the people, places, and
events that he was to experience in his present incarnation; that was why, he thought,
he could recognize them as soon as they presented themselves to him.
Namaskar.
Dear friends,
I was away to T'malai for 4 days
i.e up till this afternoon. It was
an excellent experience, my 12th visit since May 2008. The summer has started and the sun was scorching already. The Hill was
glowing red in the afternoons. On
26th being a holiday in India, there was quite a good crowd. On other days it was normal. Westerner-devotees were coming in big batches from last evening. Sri Chakra Puja was performed in Mother's Temple, on Friday evening. Sri Bhagavan welcomed all with a captivating smile. Book reading was on Jnanothara Patalam in Tamizh and David Godman's Be as You are in English. The Big Temple was also crowded particularly on last Friday.
Dear everyone,
The 8 volume books on Sri Bhagavan,
only a few sets I could see on the shelf. [English]. So also Tamizh version. I came to know that Swami Shantananda Puri has composed a
Sri Ramana Suprabhatam, and this new CD and the book [old one] were available. Swami's book Sadhanas from Devi Kalottaram was also available.
Dear Ravi,
I read your story of Subbaratnam Iyer. He must have attained liberation. Many great bhaktas, do
self inquiry within and no one could
guess their sadhana by looking at them. e.g. Mastan Swami.The fire of Jnana steals all actions including devotional actions from within.
Swami Vivekananda had mastered all the four yogas in practice. His Jnana Yoga talks [book] clearly reveal that he was a Jnani first.
In Asramam, one morning after puja,
a gentleman [an inmate] sang Muruganar's Tiruchuzhiyal Padigam.
It was so melodious and meaningful
and tears welled up from my eyes.
The meaning of the verses, in sum:
O Master, you are beyond four vedas, beyond this universe but living in this world, all gods are still trying to measure you up, you are beyond maya, you are the summer rains, giving immense pleasure to the people burnt in
the hot sun, you are available only to devotees, who are straight, without crooked intellect, even when I forget you, my tongue will be telling your name!
Hi Ravi, folks,
Interesting that you should quote the Yoga Vasistha. Because, outside of the Upanisads, this is the earliest wherein pure “eka-jiva” thoughts are found. And, in my humble opinion, a lot of stories in the YV will not make sense at all unless eka-jiva is understood, not just superficially even, but in great depth; as indeed will not the “Kaka (crow) Bhusandi” story that you related.
After all, how can a crow be more superior to even the Self-realised sages like Sri Vasistha or Sri Valmiki? Or even superior to the (Self-realised) Gods, Lord Visnu, Sri Ram and so on? At the most the Kaka (if he were really a great sage in disguise or something) could only achieve parity with them is it not? Who or what is higher than the Self-realised? But the venerable sages and Gods in the story perish with each cycle but our Kaka lives on, to meet them again and again in slightly different variants. How is that possible, pray? At the very least, the Kaka should perish too, is it not? And the story specifically puts such a mantle on a creature traditionally taken as the lowliest of them all bar none, the nasty, dirty, crap eating crow; the one who, besides, had the audacity to bite Mother Sita Herself and had to be chastised by Lord Ram!
Best wishes
Arvind,
"After all, how can a crow be more superior to even the Self-realised sages like Sri Vasistha or Sri Valmiki? Or even superior to the (Self-realised) Gods, Lord Visnu, Sri Ram and so on? "
I have not said this nor implied this.I have simply referred to the story which tallies with what Swamiji had said in one of his 'inspired Talks'.Please read what the crow tells vaishta when he asks how he survives the cycles.The Yoga vasishta has some deep occult Truths that are not seen elsewhere-this is what sri Aurobindo has said,and this is amply evident from the stories found here.
Namaskar.
salutations to all
ravi:
i don't think arvind was trying to say 'you said/implied it' but rather raised it in the spirit of questioning (such as one who ought to ponder at all the seemingly outrageous stories of yogavAsishTa). am yet to make a dedicated study of this great text but am inclined to say that all the 'stories' there are perhaps deliberately cast in an 'unbelievable' mould such that the kind of understanding, however refined it might be, to which we are unwittingly wedded, gets smashed to smithereens! am tempted to say - it's plausible that but for the one seriously engaged in vichAra, yogavAsishTa is unlikely to reveal itself :-))) no wonder, it had bhagavAn's highest recommendation!
['HH' below is sri abhinava vidyAtIrtha mahAsvAmigaL, the former jagadguru of the srngeri maTha - (D for devotee and HH for the svamigaL)]
D: Then what is creation?
HH: Perception alone is creation. There is no other creation other than the perception. The perception that a thing exists indeed is creation and nothing else.
D: Then is it not a waste to consider that other living beings also exist?
HH: Yes.
D: Then what about Ishvara?
HH: He too is a part of your "dream". In reality there is neither the cause nor the effect. One has bondage as long as one considers that one has bondage. One who feels that one is free is indeed free. That is why it has been said: 'muktAbhimAnI mukto hi baddho vaddhAbhimAnyapi' That is one who considers oneself as a mukta is a mukta. One who feels that he has bondage does have bondage. Therefore one should remove the wrong impression that one has bondage.
D: Is the removal of the wrong idea that one has bondage itself a quicker means of attaining moksha?
HH: Yes. So far I was speaking with dR^ishTi-sR^ishTi vAda in mind, but this will not be suitable for many people because their minds will not be pure enough to understand this philosophy. Everybody will accept that the dream state alone is unreal. If it is said that the waking state is also unreal, they will be frightened. For some people it may appear that the dream state is also real from the statement "The waking state is akin to the dream state". That is why the sAstra-s do not speak much of the dR^ishTi-sR^ishTi vAda. Seldom do they speak about it.
S/Friends,
Indeed The Yoga vasishta covers a vast ground and we may find whatever we are looking for-and with a little emphasis on this or that-we may take it to be emphasising this or that.
The whole story of Yoga vasishta is being narrated by Vasishta to Lord Rama,not just to impart the Knowledge of Brahman but also to emphasize that this need not lead to a 'retirement' from Living-that the Realized soul may fully participate in the workaday Living,whatever be his calling.(Kaka Bhusandi gives this as the reason for his longevity!)
I have to say,that although the various 'Vadaas' explain the metaphysical standpoints,none of them present a comprehensive,cohesive view of the Phenomenon of existence.They have to take recourse to statements like 'Maya' to explain the Phenomenal existence or deny the very existence of 'Phenomenal Existence' as the Ajativada does.
It is indeed true that the world does not exist apart from Brahman,yet it looks like no 'theory'(although it is based on definitive experience)is all that definitive to be considered as the 'Last word' on Truth.
for instance,the 'Perception' of something implies
-----------------------------------
For the spiritually hungry one,what is indispensable is Peace and Love-and whatever 'theory' helps him to get this in full measure,one may say that it is 'serviceable'-this is all there to it.
The 'eka jiva' vada also falls into this category only.
One may only say-'Lord,who is it that has understood you fully!I do not even try.Only grant me devotion to your Lotus feet' as Sri Ramakrishna said.This is what is immensely appealing to me.
Namaskar.
Pardon my ignorance of these wonderful traditions, I am just taking a stab in the dark, but isn't the crow in the YV an allegory for the Witness-Self, which is always present through every age while even sages come and go? Using the lowest of the low, who yet also flies high in the sky, as a stand-in seems like a symbol for the all-encompassing nature of the Witness-Self.
Perhaps there is some connection to the allegory of the "two birds" as well - one who is active in the world, the other sitting still and mute, symbolizing the nature of the Self.
... or deny the very existence of 'Phenomenal Existence' as the Ajativada does. ...
Dear Ravi, Ajativada does not deny phenomenal existence but denies that there exist something other then pure reality. Reality alone exists and what mind sees as objects is not what it seems to be. Only the mind sees 'reality' and 'unreality'.
'The immortal cannot become mortal, nor can the mortal become immortal. For it is never possible for a thing to change its nature.' Mandukya, Karika 7
'Immortal' is another word for 'reality' and in this reality all is included.
What happens in reality at a funeral? One need to meditate on this.
Certainly reality needs to be meditated on. 'Truth is hidden in caves. No rishi knows the whole truth. Therefore this (to look for the truth in caves) is the path of the great souls.' Words are useless but helpful. Some words are helpful, others not.
This is more clear:
27 What is ever existent appears to pass into birth through maya, yet from the standpoint of Reality it does not do so. But he who thinks this passing into birth is real asserts, as a matter of fact, that what is born passes into birth again.
28 The unreal cannot be born either really or through maya. For it is not possible for the son of a barren woman to be born either really or through maya.
Ramos,
According to Advaita Vedanta, the world of appearances is considered an illusion and to not actually exist. The idea that the illusory world was not created is called ajativada, or non-creation. The concept implies that searching for a source of the origin of the world in a creator is futile. Some Advaitins translate the concept of ajativada with the phrase: "nothing ever happened" or: "Not even the appearance of creation exists"(This is beyond the Drishti-Srishti vAdA). That is to say, not even the illusion of the world exists.
This is to say that Brahman alone is.The 'Knower of Brahman' does not see the 'world' and only sees 'Brahman'.
The 'Rope' alone exists,and when this is clearly seen(or experienced)the 'snake',even as an appearance,does not exist.
Namaskar.
the interesting thing is that it is not just a concept, but what actually exists, and who we are! and it is not just a philosophy, but Real!
Dear Broken Yogi,
Yes. The two birds story of Upanishad is somewhat similar to the crow story of Yoga Vasishta. One
poem of saint Tayumanavar says:
I am like the crow calling other crows to share my food,
But no one comes.
A Jnani wants to share his experience with others, so that they can also try to attain the same experience. But humans are not like crows. They go elsewhere. If one crow calls, the other crows rush to it to share the food. The humans are not of that type.
Dear Clemens,
Yes. Ajata Vada does not deny the phenomenal existence. The Jnani simply finds nothing but himself -
the one without a second.
Dear Ravi,
For an Ajata Vada Jnani, there is no drishti, because there is nothing else to see. Till the attainment of Jnana, the world appears only as one sees it. After Jnana experience, all appear as Brahma swarupam.
One song from Decad of Tiruchzhi,
Tiruchuzhiyal Padigam of Muruganar:
427:
Lord Ramana, Master high exalted,
By detachment trouble free,
Because I came to you, I've gained
With ease this life of ever mounting,
Bliss abounding, boundless, sweet.
Lord of ancient Pandyan Tiruchuzhi,
Where many chant the Vedas rare,
O best of men,
I may perhaps sometimes forget you,
But my tongue shall for ever your Name utter.
With someone singing musically in Sankarabharanam raga, this decad is a sweet sravanam.
Ramos,
"What happens in reality at a funeral? One need to meditate on this."
I will narrate this incident for you-on the 26th evening I had been to a friend's place-This man had been reduced to almost a vegetable like existence after being hospitalised for nearly a month.I had gone to see this man(in his eighties)and found him breathing laboriously with a gurgling sound-He was not even in a position to swallow saliva or spit as that portion of the brain was affected.He was lying on the bed on his left side.The nurse who was in attendance was away busily talking over her cellphone.The man's Grandchildren alone were there in the house.
As I called the nurse to attend to this man,who had quite an accumulation of saliva and phelgm,she came over and sponged out the same with cotton.She called him 'Appa'(Father)and he opened his closed eyes.She gently turned him over to lie on his other side and the man clutched the curtain rod with a firmgrip.Finding that there is still quite a mouthful of saliva ,she pulled him to sit.I just propped him up by offering my body for support behind his back,while she cleaned his mouth with cotton.Somewhere here,his breathing stopped and when we gently laid him back,his head did not stand on his neck!
The rest of the story of how we called an ambulance and he was pronounced as brought dead and after the medical certificate we brought the 'Body' back to his residence,How his son and other realtives took charge of the "body',took it to the cremation site and the whole thing burnt and reduced to ashes before 12:00 hrs next day-all this is incidental.
None of this explains whatLifeis that props up the body,without which it slumps like a gunny bag?Just what happens?Where did it withdraw?Where did it escape?
Obviously,this is tremendous Energy that animates the Body,and props it against the pull of Gravity.As long as it animates the body,there is this 'man',the moment it deserts,there is the 'Body' that has to be 'disposed'.
Where is the state when the 'man' who could not spit his saliva,yet was holding on to the railing with a firm 'grip',and the state of the 'Body' which could not even keep the 'Head' in its place once the life has fled!
-----------------------------------
Namaskar.
Dear Ravi,
we need to clarify the words 'reality', 'exist' and 'is'. Not the world is an illusion but the interpretation of it by the mind. This is in my understanding the essence of vedanta and of Ajativada.
In 'world is an illusion' the word ***'is'*** does not denote a real entity.
'Illusion' and 'world' are concepts of the mind and no concept can have reality.
The Mandukya is very clear here:
27 What is ever existent appears to pass into birth through maya, yet from the standpoint of Reality it does not do so. But he who thinks..........
Dear Ravi,
A moving story. Now the question is whether a man is afraid of death, or only the suffering? The answer is most of us are not afraid of death but only the suffering before that.
I met one lady in the Asramam dinner hall on one of the evenings. She is a foreigner - and foreigners are not used to talk to others unless introduced. But she started the dialogue and said: "I am from Germany. I came only last night. I am feeling a little giddy." Then she continued after a pause after listening to my assurance that I would take care of her, if necessary. She said:
"Thank you. See, I have been coming to Sri Bhagavan since 11 years. I own a small house in T'malai. And I have come alone. Sri Bhagavan will take care of me. Last year, I had a brain surgery, not one, but two, with in a few months. The doctors found tumors, which were fortunately benign. Now, half my skull is made of plastic!" Then she said that she was not afraid of death but only suffering associated with it. Sri Bhagavan takes care of me. I shall be here for 3 months..." She was quite old, but had come all by herself from Germany! Then, she wanted two plantains, non spicy koottu and rice and buttermilk. I was surprised at her courage. I told the servers to give those items to her. After finishing dinner, I again offered to help her if need be. She said: "No thank you, it is all because I have come only last night. She then said that she has got a permanently fixed autorickshaw and the driver will safely place her in her house. It is true that Sri Bhagavan helps all of us. People are given assistance if need be, by Him.
Another gem from Tiruchuzhiyal Padigam, Verse 428 of Sri Ramana Sannidhi MuRai:
Lord Ramana, rock of refuge wholly free,
From any taint or base desire,
Because I came to you, I've gained,
This bliss ineffable.
Lord of ancient Pandyan Tiruchuzhi
Of which saints desireless sing,
Master of penance,
I may perhaps sometimes forget you,
But my tongue shall for ever your Name attain.
[Tr. Prof. K. Swaminathan]
Dear Subramanian R. and Ravi,
thank you for your comments and especially for the narration of the dying man. Yes, this state is undescribable - that is what I wanted to express and what Ajativada wants to express as well.
It is very difficult and very easy at the same time to cross the ocean of words. One single word creates duality anew and indifference towards it prevents it.
Ramos,
I had narrated that incident of the passing away of that friend of mine with a purpose.None of the events that are gross in nature can give a clue to what is subtle.
This is what Sage Uddalaka said to his son Swetaketu.Here is the story:
Uddalaka then asked his son to bring a fig fruit. When he did so, Uddalaka asked him to break it. He broke it.
Uddalaka: "What do you see in it?"
Svetaketu "I see small seeds."
Uddalaka "Break one of the seeds and say what you see."
Svetaketu "Nothing Sir."
Uddalaka: "You are unable to see the minute particles of the seed after breaking it. Now, the big fig tree is born out of that essence of that particle. Like that, the True Being is the essence of all creation. "
This true being can be understood only by our identifying with it-by Being it.This Identity is already there,as the Sages say and affirm,so it is the wrong identity with 'other' gross things that has to be given up.
All sort of meditation on the Gross Events(including Death)can at the most develop dispassion,but does not give the Knowledge of the Self.
On the other hand a reverence towards the whole of manifest Life does inspire and may lead to the Truth unsought-as happened with Brother Lawrence when he watched a tree shorn of leaves or a Ramakrishna watching a flight of cranes against the backdrop of a dark cloud laden sky.
Dying is but momentary and Living is infintely more important.It is only in Living that one can exercise his choice of Identifying with the Self.
Even persons like ajAmila who chose to call the name of God,inadvertantly though(ajAmila called his son by name narayana)and who was saved,had accumulated merits in a past life as the story goes.
This is why the Sages are unanimous in proclaiming that rare indeed is Human Birth,and woe unto him who does not make hay while the sun shines and expects some 'miracle' to happen at the time of Death.
Namaskar.
'Reality' and 'unreality' are like everything else concepts of the mind. No one could ever say what 'reality' is or is not. No one could ever say what that is a word points to. Words (=conceptual thoughts) are practical but 'unreal'.
Everything mind thinks is sheer invention. Reality goes beyond it. We often forget this in the heat of the words although it is easy to grasp.
'God', 'guru', 'world', 'illusion', 'non illusion' and 'Bhagavan' are all concepts of the mind, ideas. No idea can have reality.
Another thing is to say that words or concepts may *point* to reality. But this is something completely different, it has nothing to do with books, teachings etc.
Vedanta/Ajativada says:
REALITY/UNREALITY
Within this Brahman reality nothing is unreal. What mind believes to see is simply a stream of mental images (the same mind says: 'unreality'). This stream of images is true but our (conceptual) interpretations of them are never true and will never be true.
Words are simply puppet shows within reality. Where reality truly shows up words and their meanings disappear.
Dear Clemens,
Yes. Sri Bhagavan has also said that even a single vasana can create a birth for you. Vsanas cannot be vanquished by fulfilling them, Because there is no end to them. Perhaps a small vasana like having a bottle of beer once, can be fulfilled and stop with that. The better method is self inquiry. Because the self inquiry also kills the vasanas imbedded deep in the mind. During His final years, Sri Bhagavan once asked the kitchen worker to serve him hot salted chilli powder, along with oil, along with iddlis. Since the doctors had advised against it, the server was hesitating. Sri Bhagavan said: Do not worry. Serve only today, and this vasana will go away. The powder with oil was served. Sri Bhagavan did not ask for it again at all!
Folks,
What is 'Spirit'?What is it that moves from body to body after death?Is the spirit a bundle of tendencies or a more fuller individual?Swami Vivekananda did not like Buddhism/Buddha denying the existence of 'Spirit'.What is this spirit and how is it related to Atma?How is the spirit related to the Five koshas(sheaths) of body.
-z
Once a visitor asked Sri Bhagavan as to what was the difference between the Bible and the Gita. Sri Bhagavan replied saying that both were same. All the religions of the world would have divine revelation as their common basis. They all testify to the Oneness of Being, the unity of God. Differences arise only in their external application to suit different people in different ages. Esoterically the message is the same. On scrutiny one may find that injunctions and prohibitions
motivated by sound therapy 'good for body, good for mind' and on a lower theistic level were likely
to be followed more strictly. Though in all religion is divine, as an institution, it is human and as such carries within itself the seeds of imperfection. Sri Bhagavan brought the unity of religions through His self inquiry, which is a direct path. However, He has on number of occasions clarified and guided on whatever path they follow from their own level of attainment. The guidance given to the disciple was ad hominem, intensely direct and adapted to each temparament. It still is. His guidance continues as He assured us and the teachings in the books are inspired living words of Sri Bhagavan. Everyone sincerely seeking finds what he needs. The theme of Self Inquiry or of surrender recurs like a refrain in varying stanzas or the cadence in a symphony, ending in Silence. Vichara is the process and the goal also. 'I AM' is the goal and final Reality. That which Is. All attempts resolve themselves finally into the all pervading Reality. That which Is. Devotion,
invocation, and Vichara are only different modes of our effort to keep out the unreality.
Dear Anon., [z]
Spirit according to Sri Bhagavan
means only the Jiva the individual soul - which is in turn only the ego and vasanas. When the ego and vasanas are destroyed, then the Jiva merges with the Self within. He did not use it as per the Christian theology of Holy Spirit. Buddha denied the existence of Spirit since he said that after mind becomes thoughtless and egoless, it enters the great Void - Sunya.
Z/Friends,
Here is an excerpt from Swami Vivekananda:
"My idea is that what you call a Personal God is the same as the Impersonal Being, a Personal and Impersonal God at the same time. We are personalised impersonal beings. If you use the word in the absolute sense, we are impersonal; but if you use it in a relative meaning, we are personal. Each one of you is a universal being, each one is omnipresent. It may seem staggering at first, but I am as sure of this as that I stand before you. How can the spirit help being omnipresent? It has neither length, nor breadth, nor thickness, nor any material attribute whatsoever; and if we are all spirits we cannot be limited by space. Space only limits space, matter matter. If we were limited to this body we would be a material something. Body and soul and everything would be material, and such words as "living in the body", "embodying the soul" would be only words used for convenience; beyond that they would have no meaning. Many of you remember the definition I gave of the soul; that each soul is a circle whose centre is in one point and circumference nowhere. The centre is where the body is, and the activity is manifested there. You are omnipresent; only you have the consciousness of being concentrated in one point. That point has taken up particles of matter, and formed them into a machine to express itself. That through which it expresses itself is called the body. So you are everywhere; when one body or machine fails, you, the centre, move on and take up other particles of matter, finer or grosser, and work through that. This is man. And what is God? God is a circle with its circumference nowhere and centre everywhere. Every point in that circle is living, conscious, active, and equally working; with us limited souls, only one point is conscious, and that point moves forward and backward. As the body has a very infinitesimal existence in comparison with that of the universe, so the whole universe, in comparison with God, is nothing. When we talk of God speaking, we say He speaks through His universe; and when we speak of Him beyond all limitations of time and space, we say He is an Impersonal Being. Yet He is the same Being.
To give an illustration: We stand here and see the sun. Suppose you want to go towards the sun. After you get a few thousand miles nearer, you will see another sun, much bigger. Supposing you proceed much closer, you will see a much bigger sun. At last you will see the real sun, millions and millions of miles big. Suppose you divide this journey into so many stages, and take photographs from each stage, and after you have taken the real sun, come back and compare them; they will all appear to be different, because the first view was a little red ball, and the real sun was millions of miles bigger; yet it was the same sun. It is the same with God: the Infinite Being we see from different standpoints, from different planes of mind. The lowest man sees Him as an ancestor; as his vision gets higher, as the Governor of the planet; still higher as the Governor of the universe, and the highest man sees Him as himself. It was the same God, and the different realisations were only degrees and differences of vision."
Namaskar.
Thanks Ravi for the post.Thanks also for the Venkatesa swami's Yoga vAsishtam link and also for the links of Sadasiva Brahmendra.I although I heard the Pibare song before I never knew Sadasiva.
Coming to the clipping I have read it before and and now when I read it there's more meaning.I guess I have to read it many more times for the next decade to fully undestand it.
The original question was to do with the confusion with various termi9nology.
This is what I understand from that article.By the term 'Spirit' Swami means 'personal self' which is the same as the 'Ego', 'Mind', 'Mind stuff', 'personal consciousness', Nisargadatta's consciouness as opposed to his 'Awareness'.
So is Vivekananda accusing Buddha that he denied there was the 'Personal Self' or in Ramana lingo 'Ego'?Ofcourse we know from Raman literature that 'Ego' exists but is only temporary or 'Unreal'.
So should we take it that it is only the difference in terminology that made Vivekananda disagree with Buddha? But something in me tells me there must be more than this as Vivekananda is not one of those fooled by terminology.Robert Adams also feels that similar is the misunderstanding with 'Nirvana' and 'Self-Realization'.
Have I got it right?Please feel free to correct me.
-z
z/Friends,
I recommend the talk given by Swamiji in New York-The Real and apparent man.This is how he begins:
"Here we stand, and our eyes look forward sometimes miles ahead. Man has been doing that since he began to think. He is always looking forward, looking ahead. He wants to know where he goes even after the dissolution of his body. Various theories have been propounded, system after system has been brought forward to suggest explanations. Some have been rejected, while others have been accepted, and thus it will go on, so long as man is here, so long as man thinks. There is some truth in each of these systems. There is a good deal of what is not truth in all of them. I shall try to place before you the sum and substance, the result, of the inquiries in this line that have been made in India. I shall try to harmonise the various thoughts on the subject, as they have come up from time to time among Indian philosophers. I shall try to harmonise the psychologists and the metaphysicians, and, if possible, I shall harmonise them with modern scientific thinkers also."
Swamiji had this rare gift of exploring all sides,all viewpoints of the Subtle Truth.He does not 'gag ' the listener but gently leads the listener from the pragmatic standpoint,neatly harmonizing the viewpoints.
Please visit:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Complete_Works_of_Swami_Vivekananda/Volume_2/Jnana-Yoga/The_Real_and_the_Apparent_Man
Namaskar.
Ravi,
Thanks very much for this link.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Complete_Works_of_Swami_Vivekananda/Volume_2/Jnana-Yoga/The_Real_and_the_Apparent_Man
I have read many parts of 'The Comple Works' but I have to say that this is the best Talk.It was simply superb.Quite comprehensive.Swamiji covered quite a ground with such lucidity and simplicity.
-z
You've got to laugh! You hear of so many teachers now on world tours. They've read a few books gathered abit of knowledge and off they go seeking world fame.
Ramana was in Tiruvannamalai for over a decade and could hardly speak such was the impact of his great awakening.
In 1907 his old school friend Rangan came to visit him. 'Do you recognize me?" I asked Bhagavan. With great difficulty he muttered the name "Rangan" in gutteral tones. On leaving, Rangan said "you have reached great heights" Bhagavan replied "The far off mountains look even and smooth"
Every exchange with Ramana Maharshi
was both extraordinary and profound.
Rumi 'My heart is so small
it's almost invisible.
How can You place
such big sorrows in it?
"Look," He answered,
"your eyes are even smaller,
yet they behold the world."
glow
Z/Friends,
In his talk 'Atman:Its Bondage and Freedom',Swamiji says(The Dice example) exactly what kaka Bhusundi says to Vasishta,as also what Sri Krishna tells Arjuna in the Gita:
"The going from birth to death, this travelling, is what is called Samsara in Sanskrit, the round of birth and death literally. All creation, passing through this round, will sooner or later become free. The question may be raised that if we all shall come to freedom, why should we struggle to attain it? If every one is going to be free, we will sit down and wait. It is true that every being will become free, sooner or later; no one can be lost. Nothing can come to destruction; everything must come up. If that is so, what is the use of our struggling? In the first place, the struggle is the only means that will bring us to the centre, and in the second place, we do not know why we struggle. We have to. "Of thousands of men some are awakened to the idea that they will become free." The vast masses of mankind are content with material things, but there are some who awake, and want to get back, who have had enough of this playing, down here. These struggle consciously, while the rest do it unconsciously.
The alpha and omega of Vedanta philosophy is to "give up the world," giving up the unreal and taking the real. Those who are enamoured of the world may ask, "Why should we attempt to get out of it, to go back to the centre? Suppose we have all come from God, but we find this world is pleasurable and nice; then why should we not rather try to get more and more of the world? Why should we try to get out of it?" They say, look at the wonderful improvements going on in the world every day, how much luxury is being manufactured for it. This is very enjoyable. Why should we go away, and strive for something which is not this? The answer is that the world is certain to die, to be broken into pieces and that many times we have had the same enjoyments. All the forms which we are seeing now have been manifested again and again, and the world in which we live has been here many times before. I have been here and talked to you many times before. You will know that it must be so, and the very words that you have been listening to now, you have heard many times before. And many times more it will be the same. Souls were never different, the bodies have been constantly dissolving and recurring. Secondly, these things periodically occur. Suppose here are three or four dice, and when we throw them, one comes up five, another four, another three, and another two. If you keep on throwing, there must come times when those very same numbers will recur. Go on throwing, and no matter how long may be the interval, those numbers must come again. It cannot be asserted in how many throws they will come again; this is the law of chance. So with souls and their associations. However distant may be the periods, the same combinations and dissolutions will happen again and again. The same birth, eating and drinking, and then death, come round again and again." -----------------------------------
In short,everything has happened before and will continue to happen over and over again-as long as we identify with the 'Body' or the 'World'.
Namaskar.
Z/Friends,
I warmly recommend the series of Talks-Practical Vedanta-by Swamiji,given in London.The Very opening is arresting,to say the least:
"PRACTICAL VEDANTA
PART I
(Delivered in London, 10th November 1896)
"Shvetaketu was the son of Âruni, a sage, most probably a recluse. He was brought up in the forest, but he went to the city of the Panchâlas and appeared at the court of the king, Pravâhana Jaivali. The king asked him, "Do you know how beings depart hence at death?" "No, sir." "Do you know how they return hither?" "No, sir." "Do you know the way of the fathers and the way of the gods?" "No, sir." Then the king asked other questions. Shvetaketu could not answer them. So the king told him that he knew nothing. The boy went back to his father, and the father admitted that he himself could not answer these questions. It was not that he was unwilling to answer these questions. It was not that he was unwilling to teach the boy, but he did not know these things. So he went to the king and asked to be taught these secrets. The king said that these things had been hitherto known only among kings; the priests never knew them. He, however, proceeded to teach him what he desired to know. In various Upanishads we find that this Vedanta philosophy is not the outcome of meditation in the forests only, but that the very best parts of it were thought out and expressed by brains which were busiest in the everyday affairs of life. We cannot conceive any man busier than an absolute monarch, a man who is ruling over millions of people, and yet, some of these rulers were deep thinkers.
Everything goes to show that this philosophy must be very practical; and later on, when we come to the Bhagavad-Gita — most of you, perhaps, have read it, it is the best commentary we have on the Vedanta philosophy — curiously enough the scene is laid on the battlefield, where Krishna teaches this philosophy to Arjuna; and the doctrine which stands out luminously in every page of the Gita is intense activity, but in the midst of it, eternal calmness. This is the secret of work, to attain which is the goal of the Vedanta. Inactivity, as we understand it in the sense of passivity, certainly cannot be the goal. Were it so, then the walls around us would be the most intelligent; they are inactive. Clods of earth, stumps of trees, would be the greatest sages in the world; they are inactive. Nor does inactivity become activity when it is combined with passion. Real activity, which is the goal of Vedanta, is combined with eternal calmness, the calmness which cannot be ruffled, the balance of mind which is never disturbed, whatever happens. And we all know from our experience in life that that is the best attitude for work."
-----------------------------------
The Keynote here is Balance and allround development-Not a world shunning or world Hugging Stance-A Right sense of Proportion-Rtagum Satyam ParabrahmA.
Namaskar.
Dear Ravi,
Most of us start from personal god to impersonal Being within. Even Jnanis who have realized the impersonal Being with in, have shown enormous respect for personal God. Sri Bhagavan after self realization in Madurai, continued to visit Meenakshi Temple and cry before Siva and 63 saints. As soon as He reached Tiruvannamalai, He went into Arunachaleswara Temple and told
Arunachala: Father, I have come to you as per your command. Later too, whenever devotees brought vibhti and kumkum from Madurai and local temple, He used to apply to His forehead and say that son is subservient to father.
VaLLalar started from worshipping Kanda Kottam Murugan, then Tiruttani Murugan, then Chidabaram Nataraja and finally got satisfied with AruL Perum Jothi, the Light
and the Effulgence within.
Dear Anon.,
Buddha's mistake was that after killing the ego, he found that there is Void, Soonya within. This happens to any sadhaka. Vivekachoodamni describes the void very vividly. Not satisfied with this Void, one should proceed further and find out the Self within. The Void is a small gap between the killing of ego and appearance of Swarupam, during which there is Void. Buddha preferred to call this Soonya, as Anatma.
Dear Ravi,
Sri Bhagavan calls it as Siddhamai ULLa PoruL and Thedaathu Utra TiruvaruL in Sri AAMM. The Self is ever within, eternally. All the struggle is only to give up the ego
and the world that is created by the ego and innumerable desires and anxieties.
Siddhamai ULLa PoruL - that is ever
present and ready.
Thedaathu Utra Tiru aruL - that which does not require any search.
The search or the struggle is only for finding out what is this ego, and to kill it.
Dear Anon., [z]
Swami's Jnana Yoga talks have come out as separate book in English and other languages. This is the best collection among the four yogas. It includes all his talks on Jnana, in India, London, America [Thousand Island Park]. Thousand Island Park discourses are also available as separate book.
Dear hey jude,
These are the days of bogus gurus.
When I had been to T'malai and found there the Asramam of Swami Nityananda, I became quite angry. Perhaps the police might have locked and sealed it. Still it was a standing symbol of fraud. I think the age of true Jnanis has ended with Sri Bhagavan for the time being at least.
Regarding Rangan, Sri Bhagavan moved with him very closely, went with him for swimming and even hit his back with His legs, while diving into the water in T'malai.,
Rangan was pleasantly surprised.
[Sparsa Diksha!].
And he said: "Venkatarama, ealier when you dived like this and hit
my back, I doubted whether your legs were made of steel. Now it
is like a touch of flower. Sri Bhagavan said: "Ranga, my entire body has been re-made." Rangan, after some time, picking up courage asked, "Venkatarama, can a Jnani even marry?" Sri Bhagavan merely said: "Hmm...Hmm."
Later, after several years, Rangan's son who had been told about this incident has written a small collection of poems titled
Sri Ramana Jnana Vivaham. [Tamizh]. I bought this booklet, in the Asramam during my recent visit.
This book is titled SRI RAMANAMRUTAM. Last printed in 1994. Rangan's son was R. Krishnaswami. He was a teacher in
Madurai Sethupathi High School!
The book says that when milky ocean was churned both nectar and halahala poison had come. Here, with Sri Ramana, it is only nectar.
And, it is given to both divinelike devotees and demonlike people!
... The Void is a small gap between the killing of ego and appearance of Swarupam, during which there is Void. ...
Yes, that is what I experience as 'death' and making friends with 'death'.
I don't believe Buddha to be atheistic. To be atheistic means to get desperate by this void but his life and teaching does not show any kind of desperation. I mean that the philosophy of buddhism is kind of incomplete.
Do you know that 'Tripura Rahasya' has an interesting appendix named 'Refutation of the Doctrine of Void'?
R.Subramanian,
Yes,there is no conflict between the personal and Impersonal God.
We do find in Sri Bhagavan how these two aspects are seamlessly blended.Devaraja Mudaliar called him 'ammai-appa'(Mother and Father)
Coming to Lord Buddha,he just did not speak about what is anyway indescribable.Swamiji had great Love and admiration for the Buddha and never doubted his Realization;he may have found some shortcomings in the Philosophy and its adaptation by the Buddhists,but he never questioned the Realization of The Buddha.
Namaskar.
Dear Clemens,
I agree with your view. But Nochur
Venkataraman says that Buddha was stuck in this Void and could not proceed further. He called it
Anatma. But I have not read he appendix of Tripura Rahasya. I shall be back on reading it this evening.
Dear Ravi,
Yes. Swami V. said that Buddha was a realized person. But this soonya vadham baffles me. I shall also read
the appendix of Tripura Rahasya and see whether there is any clue.
Hi Folks, Ravi,
Sorry that I am still stuck way back in the thread. Interesting to read all the comments relating to the Yoga Vasistha and esp the Kaka Bhusandi story. And quite astoundingly, all based on Sw. Venkatesananda’s rendering of the same.
I hate summaries folks, esp of the great texts. They represent another person’s take on what he considered important enough to include in his summary. And Sw. Venkatesananda’s is no exception, though a venerable Swami he may be. I know that, typically, people would consider that he has merely left out all the flowery descriptions of Nature and of the Gods and retained the essence of the teachings, and so on [I could write a book to explain how even these are not superfluous but integral to the text! How can anything be superfluous in a sacred text to be summarised out? If it were indeed superfluous, the Great Sage who wrote it would have kept it out in the first place, is it not?]. But I know from reading both, that he also collapsed crucial slokas into one-liners which then lose the sense of the original; and esp. so if you consider that, like many monks of the RK order, he did not really want to go where eka-jiva & drsti-srsti can take you.
The Kaka Bhusandi story is a huge one in the YV and it appears in at least (from what I remember) in 2 different places in the text. It is prefixed by an important hymn to Lord Siva as “Hara” (built into the story and narrative), which is a sort of preliminary hymn to be read & chanted to seek the blessings of the Lord so that one may understand the mysteries of the intricate story. (The Kaka himself is identified as being part of Lord Siva’s family).
And so folks, in my humble opinion, if you really do want to know what the YV is all about, put the relatively slim 2 vol. summary of Sw. Venkatesanandas’ to your forehead and store it at the back of your bookshelf. And pick up the fat 4 vol set (with alas, fine print and 2 columns to a page, but then who said that knowledge is easy?) of the complete YV, Sanskrit Text & English translation, by Vihari Lal Mitra (pub by Parimal Publications, New Delhi). The translation is irritatingly colonial (simply ignore the stretched cross-references to Western mythologies etc.), but the scholarship is still pretty good; and importantly, not a single sloka or line is missed out. And for the important verses and the crucial Sanskrit terms, one can always read up further.
Best wishes
This appendix does not appear in online versions of Tripura Rahasya but only in the download version on Sri Ramanasramam:
Refutation of the Doctrine of Void
The followers of this school of thought declare that illusion can and does arise even in the absence of any background (niradhishtana). In the case of a piece of shell appearing as silver, they say that the knowledge of silver is groundless (i.e., void); similarly with the knowledge of the Self. Their position is briefly put as follows: On the firm conviction that the jagat is nonexistent, by a prolonged contemplation on the void, the thought of jagat completely vanishing, void prevails and this is liberation.
Now to refute it — denial of the jagat is imperfect knowledge. Just as a pot is not altogether false, but real as clay, so also is jagat not altogether false but is real as intelligence. Therefore to deny the jagat as being nonexistent is only illusory knowledge. Its nonexistence cannot be established by any proofs. Because the jagat shines as knowledge from which the individual who proves the jagat to be real or unreal, is not distinct; also the jagat though denied yet persists. Though a pot may be denied, its material clay cannot be so denied. Similarly though the jagat may be denied, its existence as knowledge cannot be denied. The same relationship holds between the jagat and consciousness as between a pot and clay. However the adherents of the school of void stick to void and deny all that is perceptible as void. But he is also contained in the jagat which is denied by him. What is left of him beyond denial is knowledge; this cannot be denied They mean to say that the moded consciousness constitutes samsara, whereas unmoded consciousness void of all else including the pramanas (means of valid knowledge) to prove it, constitutes liberation. But our objection is that the one who denies the jagat cannot deny himself and the jagat does not cease to exist simply because one curses it. Our objection is valid because consciousness subsists unimpaired in the unmoded state after denying all else to exist.
Q.: (Granting your viewpoint) what is there to be eliminated and how is non-duality established?
A.: The Vedantists say that the Supreme Sat-Chit seems to be the asat (false) jagat, like the false reflection in a mirror; this is anirvachaniya, i.e., inexpressible; nonduality consists in removing this confusion and so this jagat is eliminated. But we say — the jagat appears like the images in a mirror. Just as these images are no other than the mirror, the jagat is no other than the Sat-Chit.
Q.: If so, what remains to be eliminated?
A.: The sense of duality.
Q.: Is this duality included in jagat? Or is it exclusive of it? If the former, it is real as jagat and cannot be negated; if the latter, it leads to anirvachaniya.
A.: It is included in jagat.
Q.: How then is it eliminated?
(to be continued)
A.: Listen! Duality is to believe that the illuminant and the illumined are different from each other. Since duality is nothing but illusion, denial of it puts an end to the illusion and thus to itself. Hence it was said, “As a matter of fact, unity is not different from diversity. One reality alone shines forth as both”.
Now let me turn round and question the Vedantists — Q.: Is negation indescribable or real?
If the former, jagat cannot be negated; if the latter, duality results. Nor can you maintain that negation of the phenomenon resolves itself as the substratum so that the negation of jagat results in its substratum, Brahman. Of course to admit the non-self-looking negation is simply included in the Self and the whole jagat is nothing but the Self, is not opposed to our view. But negation is negative in character and it cannot be said to resolve itself into its substratum — the Reality. The jagat can be established to exist according to the dictum — the non-self is also the Self. The point is only to gain purushartha by whatever means — negation or any other. It is useless to engage in disputes. ‘The mumukshu’ (one desirous of Liberation) and the ‘sadhakas’ (those on the path to Liberation) are warned not to enter into controversies with other systems or religions.
The jagat being of consciousness, like the images in a mirror not being different from a mirror, it is real. Simply because jagat is declared to be of the nature of consciousness, it should not be taken that jagat is consciousness itself. Such assumption will be the equivalent to saying that avidya ‘is’, because it is said to be inexpressible. Just as you cannot raise the question if avidya is, in order to be inexpressible, so also the question cannot arise if jagat is, in order to be indistinct from Consciousness. In this manner to know that all is sattamatra (Self alone) is perfect Vijnana.
Sri Ramanarpanamastu
Arvind,
I appreciate your penchant for thoroughness.I have quoted from Swami Venkatesananda's writings as I found that to be the only one available online.
Years back,I enjoyed reading Stories from Yogavasishta by Swami Sivananda;I still have it but am unable to locate it.
I have long since stopped reading Books.
The only book that I continue to read is The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna.I know I can never finish reading this;I hardly find the need to read anything else.
I do understand that many Sadhakas may require to read these great woks to have a clear understanding.I warmly recommend reading the Yoga Vasishta in its unabridged edition.
Thanks very much.
Namaskar.
salutations to all:
ravi/subramanian/arvind/folks:
on a seriously lighter vein :-), every description may be a 'summary', every narration may be 'incomplete' (a complete summary or summarily incomplete!) regardless of who wrote or what was written :-))).
only bhagavAn and the truth he 'is' seems complete (not that am excluding buddha or sankara etc., just that we either know little about them or what little is known isn't dependable... and in a few hundred years, there may be legions of unreliable stories on bhagavAn!) most thankfully we are in a time that isn't far from the wonderful times of bhagavAn - perhaps realising & abiding in the self is more easier than everything else :-))) let's find out :D
Dear Clemens,
Excellent.
Silver - illusion
Oyster shell - Real.
One cannot say both are illusion.
There is an adhishtanam for silver
to appear. This substratum is oyster
shell.
For a Jnani, oyster shell alone is there as Reality. He never sees the silver. In case of the world also, he sees them as Brahman. Sri
Arunachala Pancharatnam - 5th Verse.
So also with rope/snake, gold/golden ornaments examples.
In case of mirage, it is slightly
different. After knowing that it is mirage, Jnani never sees water there. But every time, it will appear as a mirage, but Jnani does refute it every time.
There has never been stage where
both oyster shell/silver, rope/snake and gold/ornaments disappear.
Buddha says that both do not appear. Sri Ramana says both are
shell/rope/gold.
In fact someone asked me in another blog, whether a Jnani as
per Verse 5, of Sri Arunachala Pancharatnam, sees everything as
Brahman or differently as Brahman-cow, Brahman-dog, Brahman-donkey, whenever he sees these
animals. The answer is, Brahman is ever a Brahman, no donkey appendix. But he knows that he should move away from a barking dog, with the power of Being operating within, though he has no mind/ego.
Dear Ravi,
I have got a copy of The Vision and
Way of Yoga Vasishta in Sanskrit-
English, by Samvid. However, I could not read it in full but only in patches. The book says that there 55 stories in it, to illustrate some truth or the other. As you have correctly said, I have also stopped reading books, magazines, [Tamizh and English], barring daily newspaper. My reading now consists of Sri Bhagavan and Sri Sankara's works.
I think, in a way as Sri Bhagavan said: All that one has read has to be forgotten one day. This process of unlearning has started in me.
Refutation of the Doctrine of Void (Tripura Rahasya)
A.: Listen! Duality is to believe that the illuminant and the illumined are different from each other. Since duality is nothing but illusion, denial of it puts an end to the illusion and thus to itself.
This is completely different from the frequent statement: 'World is an illusion', isn't it? The meaning is yet that 'world', 'me' and 'illusion' are all together illusions. Or as I put it: 'Not the world is an illusion but our interpretation of it.' And therefore:
Hence it was said, “As a matter of fact, unity is not different from diversity. One reality alone shines forth as both”.
This is in my understanding the same as: 'Reality alone exists and unreality does not exist.' Interesting is that here instead of 'unreality' is said 'diversity'.
Dear S.
Yes. The uniqueness of Sri Bhagavan is that He lived as per His own teachings. Another uniqueness is
His consistency. Whatever He wrote for M. Sivaprakasam Pillai, He was
teaching till the end of His life in this world. He did not try to give various teachings, as other gurus. Nor did He try His hand on a variety of paths like Sri Ramakrishna. Perhaps SRK wanted
devotees/disciples to take the path as to their liking among different paths. He has said:
Whether you call Pani, Jalam or Water - it is all the same. But
Sri Bhagavan maintained that even if one treads different paths, he has to come to the royal road of self inquiry finally.
Once a Vaishnavite came to Sri Bhagavan and said that he had been praying to Narayana. Sri Bhagavan said: Fine. Please do. Then he asked: What will happen to me? Sri Bhagavan said: You will go to Vaikunta. What will happen there? Sri Bhagavan said: You will be happy in the august company of Narayana and other devotees. Narayana will like you. Then what will happen. Sri Bhagavan said: If Narayana likes you so much, he will one day and call you near him and then whisper into your ears: Please inquire:
WHO AM I? The devotee then said:
I can do that here itself. Why go to Vaikunta? Sri Bhagavan smiled and said: I am also telling the
same to all of you!
Dear Clemens,
Yes. That is the Truth. There is one reality and illusion is our own creation. Once one is self realized, even the world is Brahma swarupam, because the ego calling it as illusion or real is no longer there.
This is also the case when Sri Bhagavan said: For a Jnani everything is dream-like. Maurice
Frydman [?] then asked: Bhagavan! How do you move out of the hall, and if there is a table
on your way? Sri Bhagavan said:
I move away from the table as I do in dream. Or the power within me tells me in that dreamlike state
of wakefulness, to avoid the table. Jnani sees everything including ianimate objects as Brahma Swarupam but the power
within him directs him to avoid the table which is also Brahma Swarupam. Like in SRK's story,
just because everything is Brahman, you cannot stay put when a rushing mad elephant comes before you. There is a Brahman on top of the elephant [mahoot] shouting - Step away, Step away!
A sample of Sri Ramana Jnana Vivaham: [written by R. Krishna swami son of Vilacheri Ranganatha Iyer]:
Jnaneswara sat near You and gave his daughter Jnana to You. O Ramana, you took her with both the hands. All are happy about this wedding.
The couple then wore new dresses
[though Ramana wanted only a coupina] and visitors kept their
gifts covering the full hall.
The trumpets and nadaswaram were playing. Ramana placed the mangalya sutram on Jnana's neck. The women were singing joyfully. Agni was burning gloriously. Ramana then took puffed rice from the brother of Jnana girl, [he is Vairagya or Nirasa] and placed it on the fire.
Ramana then placed the foot of Jnana-girl on the tough grinding stone [Ammi in Tamizh] and then took her three times around the fire. They both made seven steps around the fire,Saptapati. Jnaneswra, the father, then gave nice feast and dhana to all who had come.
The ladies then showed Arti [on a plate with turmeric and chunam and water which makes it a red water] and sang Arti song.
All blessed this divine wedding
of Ramana to Jnana girl, blessed them by throwing turmeric mixed rice and then went for the feast.
A car came then to take the Ramana and the Jnana girl for their home and honeymoon, to Tiruvannamalai. Ramana and Jnana bride lived happily there in a Cave! [Virupaksha Cave].
I think Sri Bhagavan has mentioned about the following 2 stories of
Yoga Vasishta, in His conversations:
1. Ahalya and Indra [Ahalya is the
name of a woman and not Ahalya who
was brought to activity by Rama.
Indra again, is not the chief of gods, but a person. They were in great love and king punished them.
2. Chudlai and King. Chudalai the queen was a Jnani, King wanted to attain Jnana.
Folks,
I agree with S in that a lot of texts of Hinduism and Buddhism are so myriad.We do not know what exactly the sAkhyamuni said and in what context.Most of the texts are written many centuries after his physical death.Yes there is the anAtma sutra which Swami Vivekananda did not like but there are also schools of Buddhism which see this sutra differently.Whole of Budhism is lost in myriad canons and philosophies covering the whole spectrum just like Hinduism.There is even Tantra in Tibetan Buddhism.
We can simply rely on Ramana because a lot of his work has been preserved and there is less confusion about his clarifications of Advaita,Self etc.Moreover Mr.David has clarified a lot of doubts and confusions in his research spanning decades all of which has been well recorded and documented. So I doubt if there will be as much confusion as Buddha if these works are well preserved.
At any given time only a very tiny portion do really care about Self and Sunyata though all will come to pass it.Again this Self some approach it becuase they are fed up with samsAra and some becuase they want permanent Bliss.Here again are the positive and negative approaches.But most are interested in the Life of Ramana which has been well preserved.Life of Ramana is what makes Bhakthi.
There is also less confusion about Sankara as most of his works have been well preserved.
-z
Glow,
"your eyes are even smaller,
yet they behold the world."
Great! :)
Buddha's teaching about “emptiness” or “void” is commonly misunderstood by both Buddhists and Vedantists. It is not trying to describe a state or condition of consciousness that is apart from the world or in some netherland between ego and Self. It is merely a factual description of the nature of every thing, including even the “thingless” Self. Buddha examined everything, including especially himself, and found no “there” there. Everything is empty of selfness, thingness, or permanence. He emphasized this finding because he found that so many Vedantists had turned the Self into an actual “thing” or substance and so made the goal into a reified state of permanence. He thought this put people on the wrong track and led them to conclude that some state or object of bliss that they had realized was the true Self. He made it clear that all such things were empty and void, and that there was no permanent “Self”.
So he criticized these analogies of gold or ropes and snakes, because they might lead people to think there was a real “there” there behind the names and forms. He tried to emphasize over and over again that there was no such thing, no gold, no rope, no “Brahman” there. All of that, was empty also. Mere concepts of the mind. The reality was emptiness. That was the “rope” behind the snake, the “gold” the ornament was made of, the “Brahman” of ultimate reality. And even emptiness was empty. It was not to be spoken of or referred to. Instead, when asked about what was realized in Nirvana, he always answered with “noble silence”.
Is this really any different from Ramana's teaching? Isn't Ramana's real answer to such inquiries nothing more than “noble silence”? We should remember that even when asked, Ramana makes it clear that his real teaching is silence, not words, not Vedanta either philosophically or descriptively, but the “emptiness” of pure silence.
Poonja Swami used to read Buddhist literature and very much fell in love with their use of the term “emptiness”. He felt it perfectly described the nature of realization and the Self. To Papaji, the Self was “emptiness”, or noble silence. There was no “there” there. This is not to be seen as a refutation or conflict with Advaita, but a confirmation of its deepest truths, the ones that go beyond all words and concepts. It's a helpful corrective to some of the illusions that can be fallen into. And of course even the Buddhist teachings on emptiness can lead to some illusions that have to be corrected. But there's a profound kernel of truth which cannot be denied or explained away as being inferior or incomplete. Our very sense of incompleteness in this life is due to the emptiness of our own existence. And that is what Buddha is pointing to here. Rather than resisting this emptiness, we need to surrender to it, in noble silence.
Abhishiktananda and the challenge of working through his Christian conditioning. I have a DVD on the life story of Abishiktananda and it's grueling watching his intense yearning and efforts but there is no doubt he was totally sincere.
"What gnaws away at my body as well as my mind is this: after having
found in advaita a peace and a bliss never experienced before, to
live with the dread that perhaps, that most probably, all that my
latent Christianity suggests to me is nonetheless true, and that
therefore advaita must be sacrificed to it... In committing myself
totally to advaita, if Christianity is true, I risk committing myself
to a false path for eternity. All my customary explanations of hell
and the rest are powerless against a reality that exists in a way
unknown to me.... Supposing in advaita I was only finding myself and
not God? And yet, it is only since I made the personal discovery of
advaita at Arunachala that I have recovered peace and a zest for
life."
~ Swami Abhishiktananda
Broken Yogi, I wonder what the Buddha himself would say to all of that. Thankfully we have a Mahatma such as you to interpret his teachings for us ;) (I'm imitating S.)
salutations to all:
LMM/Broken Yogi:
LMM said "...(I'm imitating S.)..." - in fact it was good to read BY's comment on 'emptiness' (& buddha who i love as much as i love bhagavAn & thAkur) :-))) i offer my view only if i have anything to say :-). on most occasions, either i do not know anything about the issues being said or have nothing really to say for/against! the more i read & think, the more am inclined to keeping quiet :-)))
(this is a very nice blog where i've got to listen to many wonderful people, and is the only blog i track regularly; otherwise, no blog, no facebook, no twitter, no linkedin etc.etc... oh yes, i do have a gmail address hahahaha)
Dear Broken Yogi,
In some aspects, I agree with you.
But the Self though empty, is the only Substance and It has produced
bliss, and It is in the form of Chit, All-Knowledge. It is called Sat Chit Anandam, because the Jnanis who have attained the self experience, have experienced enormous bliss and have felt that there is nothing else to know, because it is All-Knowledge. Buddha never said anything about his experiential bliss. Sri Bhagavan describes this state of realization, in Verses 30 and 31 of ULLadu Narpadu.
Dear Broken Yogi,
When Sri Bhagavan was asked about
His post-death experience in Madurai,
some years later, He has said: I
had a feeling that I was having a disease, but a very pleasant disease.
This very-pleasantness in Anandam.
Buddha never said anything about this
experience of Ananadam, Bliss.
Muruganar also speaks about the bliss of the Self in several verses
in Guru Vachaka Kovai:
Verse 582: In order to enable Indra
to attain Vairagya, Dadyangatharvana,
a Sage who was already enjoying the bliss of the Self that surpasses everything else,told him: 'Compared to this supreme bliss of the Self, the bliss attained by arduous effort,
which you imagine comes from your wife, Indrani, is as trivial as that which an infatuated dog effortlessly derives from a bitch.'
About bliss aspect of Sat,
Talks No. 208:
Sri Bhagavan: Some contend that the sugar cannot taste its own sweetness and that a taster must taste and enjoy it. Similarly, an individual cannot be the Supreme and enjoy the bliss of that state. Therefore, individuality must be maintained on the one hand and Godhead on the other so that enjoyment may result! Is God insentient like sugar? How can one surrender oneself and yet retain one's individuality for supreme enjoyment? Furthermore they say also that the soul, reaching the divine region and remaining there, serves the Supreme Being. Can the sound of the word 'service' deceive the Lord? Does he not know? Is he waiting for these people's service? Would not he, - the Pure
Consciousness - ask in turn: Who are you apart from me that presume to serve me?
GVK 978 also says:
Some people declare that if they
become one with that Supreme Brahman whose intrinsic nature is Sukam, the enjoyment of bliss will no longer exist for them. Their arguments are tantamount to insisting that Brahman, Suka Swarupam, is like the sugar, an inert object.
... Some people declare that if they become one with that Supreme Brahman whose intrinsic nature is Sukam, the enjoyment of bliss will no longer exist for them. ...
This is certainly wrong. Awareness experiences itself as awareness and this includes the natural attributes of it (ie., bliss etc.).
No personal 'I' is necessary to experience 'I am' or even 'am'.
It is simply not possible then to experience and to express it like an object.
salutations to all:
subramanian/folks:
from whatever we know about buddha, buddha was bliss :-) there may not have been any need for someone who was verily bliss itself to talk about it, isn't it? he roamed far & wide and the bliss he radiated through & through was simply enough for hundreds of hungry seekers to follow him. coming to our beloved bhagavAn, he too spoke only for those who weren't able/ready to be soaked by his blissful silence. but for those "in it", to say 'the self is all bliss' is meaningless verbiage, for we neither know the 'self' nor what 'bliss' is! (bliss isn't our trifling joys of the world multiplied a million times; it's not of this world, isn't it?) :-) even if we read or hear a thousand times about bliss, we will remain where we are - the only way we ever get a hint, or an intimation of what such a no-thing ever possibly could be, is when we get to meet a bhagavAn or a buddha :-))) to someone as me, sat-chit-Anandam can as well be ravi-arvind-subramanian!!!
[sorry to say, if nochur is saying that buddha wasn't complete, perhaps nochur doesn't have a clue on what he is talking - ability to give a learned discourse on uLLadhu nArpadhu, or anything else, doesn't make anyone remotely close to bhagavAn - there is a reason why in our times bhagavAn is said to have realised brahman without even having heard the word 'brahman'! :-)))]
Sri Ramana Sannidhi MuRai, Verse 1165:
One Sole Awareness, Lord Supreme,
Silent Space, the Vedas' import,
That You Are, O Venkata!
Yet, to Your eagerly thirsty devotees,
You utter without speech, the Blissful
Secret of their being That.
Dear S.,
I do not agree that Nochur Venkataraman did not know anything
much about Buddha. He has spent a good time in Gaya and Himalayas to learn about Buddhism, right from the masters. Secondly, to say that he is only giving intellectual exposition of ULLadu Narpadu is also incorrect, since Sri Ganesan eldest son of Sri T.N. Venkataraman [Sri Ramanananda] has told, after listening to his discourses, that Nochur is the living representation of Sri Bhagavan's teachings. Recently Nochur gave a discourse on Hrudaya Vidya, right in Samadhi Hall of Sri Bhagavan, for about 2 hours,
for which all three sons, including
Sri Ganesan who does not come to the Asramam regularly due to indisposition, have attnded, along with hundreds of others.
No earthly pleasure
No heavenly bliss
Equals one infinitesimal portion
Of the bliss of the cessation of craving.
-Gautama Buddha
This is one of my favorite sayings of the Buddha. I think it refutes the notion that Buddha never mentioned bliss as having anything to do with nirvana. It's just clear that he considers the bliss of nirvana to be of an entirely different order than either earthly or heavenly blisses, and immeasurably greater.
Note also that this is "the bliss of the cessation of craving". He does not make it an object of one's cravings, or even associate it with some concept like the Self or Brahman. It isn't the product of some action or meditation. It isn't the result of some contemplation of a God or Brahman or Self. It is the bliss which is inherent, which becomes known when craving ceases. It implies that our craving is all that keeps us from knowing it. So long as we seek it, we cannot find it. When we give up all seeking for objects to make us blissful, there it is.
Is this really any different from Ramana's core teaching?
salutations to all:
subramanian:
i don't think buddhism isn't the same as buddha; buddhism and vedAnta may be incomplete but that's not the case with bhagavAn or buddha, isn't it? :-)
my sincere respects to sri nochur venkataraman & no offence meant :-) the only person who can give a non-intellectual exposition of uLLadhu nArpadhu is bhagavAn(or a self-realised one)! if nochur is asked 'have you realised?', would he be able to say as simply as bhagavAn or thAkur said "yes"? if so, then i agree with what you say :-) has sri gaNesan realised? if not, the same thing applies here (being related to bhagavAn or being at the Asramam may not have much to do with self-realisation, or does it?) am reluctant to take everything even if bhagavAn says so! what to talk of nochur or anybody else...
coming to uLLadhu nArpadhu, for those who know tamizh, there is that most lucid commentary by lakshmaNa sarma who was taught every verse with its meaning by bhagavAn himself (also one of those rare occasions where bhagavAn interceded for its publication). beyond studying it several times, perhaps the only way to 'get it' is by practice of vichAra :-))) to be a 'living representation of bhagavAn's teachings' means to 'abide in the self', isn't it? could it be anything else? :-)
Dear Broken Yogi,
Nice quote from Buddha. This is what
Sri Sankara and Sri Bhagavan have told.
Sri M. Pillai asked Sri Bhagavan:
Q No.26:
What is the difference between Nirasa [desirelessness, cessation of craving as you have put] and Jnanam?
Sri Bhagavan: Nirasa alone is Jnanam. The two are not different.
They are the same. Nirasa is refraining from turning the mind towards any object. Jnanam means
appearance of no object. In other words, no seeking what is other than Self is Nirasa. Not leaving the Self at anytime is Jnanam.
Perhaps if Buddha had used 'cessation of thought' instead of
'cessation of craving', it would be identical with Sri Bhagavan.
Sri Sankara says that Vasana-kshayam Moksham. The destruction of vasanas is liberaton [Viveka Choodamani].
The big question still remains as to why Buddha called the Final Reality as Void?
Dear S.,
You have said Vedanta and Buddhism
are incomplete but not Sri Bhagavan
and Buddha. How can a person attain Jnana bodham and then discard the scriptures that have shown him the right path, as incomplete? Or if you take it the other way, that both Buddha and Sri Bhagavan attained Jnana bodham and then wrote/read the scriptures and sutras, then how can a Jnani read or write an incomplete philosophy?
You may have your own opinion
about Sri Nochur. I am not contesting that point. What we do normally to conclude that Mr. X is a Jnani is only from their teachings and from others who have gone in that path in quite a good measure, [whether they had reached the goal or not]. That way one has to take VaLLalar, Tayumanavar and Sri Bhagavan as Jnanis, because their teachings are living even today for many to pursue the path. That is the beauty of a Jivan Mukta. If everyone has attained Videha Kaivalaym and then immediately leave this world, then no teachings would be available to us. In cases of VaLLalar, Tayumanavar and Sri Bhagavan, they were Jivan Muktas to give their teachings to us AFTER THEIR JNANA
BODHAM.
In case of Lakshmana Sarma, he found that the translation of Kavyakanta was incorrect and he corrected such aspects in his Sat
Darsana Bhashyam. Whether he put into prayoham and attained mukti can never be concluded for sure.
Dear S.,
Perhaps we have to fall back again
to Sri Bhagavan's words:
There are no Jnanis in this world.
There is only Jnanam.
Dear Broken Yogi, S.,
Arthur Osborne writes in his essay on Buddha and Ramana:
There is, indeed an apparent contradiction, for Sri Bhagavan
proclaimed that there is only Atma, whereas, Buddha declared that there is no atma. But such contradiction between the two masters who point the way to the Absolute Truth can never be more than verbal. In this case, Sri Bhagavan used the word Atma to mean the Universal Self which is Nirvana, whereas Buddha used it to mean individual soul. And Sri Bhagavan taught also that there is no individual being, not only in the sense that it will not endure but that it is not now. He said:
"Never mind what you will be when you die, find out what you are now."
Buddha was very little concerned with theory. His purpose was not to erect either a theology or a social order but simply to show men the way from suffering to Peace. And yet theorists have descended upon his teachings and argued it out into patterns which help neither themselves nor others to escape from the wheel of suffering.
It is possible that they will fasten on the teachings of Sri Bhagavan also, but it will not be His real teaching that they expound, for His real teaching was to avoid the inessential and follow the way to Self Realization.
[Source: Be Still, It is the Wind that sings].
So, Summa Iru, at least on this topic!
Broken Yogi, folks,
Actually, in my humble opinion, doctrinal Buddhism is at the other end of the world from Sri Bhagavan’s teachings and Advaita, tho’ superficially they may appear similar. The problem is exactly with this core aspect of Buddhism of sheer ‘emptiness’ or ‘void’; i.e. of it not being a “positivity”, but just – that there is nothing there, nothing that is the Supreme Absolute. Thus the ‘void’ is not the description of any sort of substratum to our existence, or to the world, but that there is no substratum at all in the first place. You just are, and then you are not and there is nothing there. And thus all that there is, is the momentary triad of perception etc.
And, at least from my understanding of Sri Bhagavan’s teachings, He emphatically affirmed a Substratum (did Papaji deny a Substratum?). It could be described as “void” certainly depending on the temperament of the sadhaka, rather than the “Self” or “Sat-Chit-Ananda”, but a Substratum there most certainly is in Bhagavan’s system.
Thus the Buddhist ‘voidness’ & its derivative, ‘momentariness’, are fundamentally different. [Also, for what its worth, the underlying logic can easily be shot down by even simple homespun reasoning].
Despite popular belief, no one can really say what the Buddha specifically taught. He never wrote a word, and there is not any thing anywhere, not one alphabet in a sutra or text even, which can be attributed to him. We may remember, that for many centuries, not one sculpture of his was allowed to be made by his devoted followers as per his wishes. He was merely represented by a lotus flower. And even his popular images today are quite the imagination of the first lot of artists, who were commissioned to make his (imagined) likeness, many hundreds of years after his passing on. I suspect that if he were around today he would neither be recognised as, nor qualify as a “Buddhist”!
Best wishes
Hi Folks,
Having time on my hands today, thought to add to the last para in my post above.
For those who would like to understand more about early Buddhism let me recommend Chap 5 titled “Buddhist India” in the book, the “Masks of God – Oriental Mythology”, by Joseph Campbell. In fact, the 4 vol set of Joseph Campbell’s should probably be mandatory reading for sadhakas interested in formal religion and spirituality, just for the freshness of ideas and linkages, if not the history and insights.
Pg 252: “It is impossible to reconstruct the character, life and the actual teaching of the man who became the Buddha. He is supposed to have lived c. 563 – 483 B.C. However, his earliest biography, that of the Pali Canon, was set down in writing only c. 80 B.C. in Ceylon, five centuries and fifteen hundred miles removed from the actual historic scene. And the life, by then, had become mythology – according to a pattern characteristic of World Saviours of the period from c. 500 B.C. to c. 500 A.D., whether in India, as in the legends of the Jains, or in the Near East, as in the Gospel view of Christ.”
On this blog itself we have heard at times many a voice questioning the authenticity of “gospel” like works relating to Bhagavan, like the “Talks”. A work which was written during His lifetime. How much authenticity then should be placed on works which attribute words and teachings to the Buddha, works which were written AT LEAST 500 years after he had gone? And in an age when verbal transmission was the only means??
I would say, to each his own. And the foregoing is written just so as to make aware those who may not know the scholarly views on this subject.
Else, agree wholeheartedly with JC when he adds later, “ … The main point for the individual Buddhist, consequently, is not whether his legend of the Buddha corresponds to what happened actually and historically c. 563 – 483 B.C., but whether it serves to inspire and guide himself to enlightenment.”
Friends,
An excerpt from The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna:
Narendra entered the room and took a seat. Sashi, Rakhal, and one or two other devotees
came in. The Master asked Narendra to stroke his feet.He also asked him whether he had
taken his meal.
MASTER (smiling, to M.): "He went there [referring to Bodh-Gaya]."
Buddha's doctrines
M. (to Narendra): "What are the doctrines of Buddha?"
NARENDRA: "He could not express in words what he had realized by his tapasya. So
people say he was an atheist."
MASTER (by signs): "Why atheist? He was not an atheist. He simply could not express his
inner experiences in words.
The meaning of Buddha
Do you know what 'Buddha' means? It is to become one with Bodha, Pure Intelligence, by
meditating on That which is of the nature of Pure Intelligence; it is to become Pure
Intelligence Itself."
NARENDRA: "Yes, sir. There are three classes of Buddhas: Buddha, Arhat, and
Bodhisattva."
MASTER: "This too is a sport of God Himself, a new lila of God.
"Why should Buddha be called an atheist? When one realizes Svarupa, the true nature of
one's Self, one attains a state that is something between asti, is, and nasti, is-not."
NARENDRA (to M:): "It is a state in which contradictions meet. A combination of
hydrogen and oxygen produces cool water; and the same hydrogen and oxygen are used in
the oxy-hydrogen blowpipe.
"In that state both activity and non-activity are Possible; that is to say, one then performs
unselfish action.
"Worldly people, who are engrossed in sense-objects, say that everything exists-asti. But
the Mayavadis, the illusionists, say that nothing exists-nasti. The experience of a Buddha is
beyond both 'existence' and 'non-existence'. "
MASTER: "This 'existence' and 'non-existence' are attributes of Prakriti. The Reality is
beyond both."
The devotees remained silent a few moments.
Namaskar.
salutations to all:
shravaNAyApi bahubhir yona labhyaH
shrNvantopi bahavo yam na vidyuH
Ashcharyo vakthA kushalosya labdhA
Ashcharyo jnAthA kushalAnushiShtaH
['sh' is palatal as in shankara; 'Sh' is retroflex as in aShta; 'ch' is lower palatal; 'th' is lower dental]
this mysterious being of all beings is difficult to understand. many are the people who cannot understand it even when they hear about it. wonderful is the expounder of it & wonderful is the receiver. wonderful is that person who can understand it when taught by a competent one.
- kaTopanishad 1.2.7
are we the "wonderful receiver"? since we aren't (at least am not), hence do we see differences in the teachings of the realised :-)
"What Brahman is cannot be described. All things in the world — the Vedas, the Puranas, the Tantras, the six systems of philosophy — have been defiled, like food that has been touched by the tongue, for they have been read or uttered by the tongue. Only one thing has not been defiled in this way, and that is Brahman. No one has ever been able to say what Brahman is." - thAkur
I have to say that being around a jnani is the greatest thing in the entire world. It opens up everything. As to being a 'wonderful receiver'? One of the cool things I realize, at least in my own sadhana, and I've realized this recently being around Nome, and that powerful grace that emanates from him. The ways I've felt held back even in the manifest life, are the vasanas that the ego is made up. That part of me that just wanted to do it, and do it right, that is real sadhana. Instead I used a mental activity as an escapist tool, to not deal with myself. In Satsang that grace is so powerful. And I realize that in my manifest life, I should just live as bravely and as intensely as I can possibly. If I somehow lose it, Satsang will bring me back to happiness. In my own life, I've found myself taking social risks, because there I was held back.
Arvind,
I would agree to some extent that from a purely doctrinal point of view, Buddhism could be said to be "opposite" to Vedanta. But one of my favorite sayings is Heisenberg's "The opposite of a true statement is a false statement, but the opposite of a great truth is another great truth." So to me Buddhism and Vedanta's doctrinal opposition to one another represent two great truths, not one being true, and the other false.
Likewise, each great truth contains by inference the opposite great truth as well. So the Buddhist truth of anatta contains the Vedantic truth of the Self, and the Buddhist truth of emptiness and impermanence contains the Vedantic truth of the eternal substratum. And vice-versa. Each concept depends upon its opposite, and thus contains its opposite. This is how dualism works.
Thus, though Ramana talked about an unchanging and eternal substratum, he also made it clear that not such "thing" exists. It is the very nature of the eternal substratum that it has no "content" and thus no permanence in any sense that we think of. He used the analogy of a screen on which a movie is projected. However, the screen itself is also an "image" that we project in our minds. So that is not really "it" either. Thus, even the notion of a screen or a substratum is just a project image, and not the real screen or substratum. And thus it goes endlessly. So one cannot find a "Self" even in the Self. There is no "substratum" as an existent phenomena. It is non-dual, in other words, with no separation between subject and object, and no "thing" upon which objects are projected. All the analogies serve a temporary purpose, but fail in the end, because there is actual "content" to the screen of the Self.
Ramana affirmed this, but he used various images and analogies to help people come to grip with the reality of the Self, which is beyond these. Ramana simply accepted that people could only understand in a limited way, and so he accomodated these various teachings. Because he lived in a Hindu tradition, he taught using that language and conceptual system. If he'd lived in a Buddhist society, I'm sure he'd have taught in that manner. And in a Christian setting, he'd have tried to use those teachings, because he has no dogma or doctrine of his own, all such things were to him only for the purpose of serving devotees.
It's certainly true that there are doctrinaire, fundamentalist Buddhists who see things only one way, and the same I'm sure is true of some Hindus. But Ramana was neither, nor were his teachings directed at either group. It is not hard to see how the truth he was trying to lead devotees to realize is neither the property of Hindus or Buddhists, nor exclusively described by either. His teaching reconciles all apparent opposites into the non-dual reality that is beyond opposites.
On a side note, from what I've learned the Buddhist Pali Canon is actually a pretty reliable record of what the Buddha actually taught. It is not anything like the New Testament as a questionable source document, or many of the Hindu stories and myths about early Gurus.
It's true that neither the Buddha nor his disciples wrote anything down, but there was a hugely efficient system in place in those days of oral memorization and transmission of teachings from one generation to the next which was probably very close to a written system in its accuracy. It's hard for us to imagine this to be the case, but it actually was extremely accurate. People were trained over a lifetime in the skills of memorization to a degree that we can hardly imagine now. So the Buddha's teachings were very likely reliably memorized and passed on for generations. Undoubtedly some distortions occurred, but not a great deal. The essential truths were recorded and passed on with a good deal of faithfulness.
It's also important to recognize that Buddha taught for a very long time, and repeated his teachings over and over again over many decades. He himself was able to hone his teachings down to a very precise message that could be passed on without much distortion or confusion. Also, he was not like Ramana, who didn't talk much and didn't make much of an effort to systemitize his teachings. Buddha was clearly fashioning an actual set of doctrines and teachings meant to be adhered to by an organized society of monks and lay people, so real effort was made to accurately record and pass on those teachings as precisely as possible.
If there's anything troublesome about the Buddhist teachings, it comes from a tradition of ascribing later texts and sutras to the Buddha out of both devotion and the desire to make them seem more authentic. But that is not the case with the Pali Canon itself, and most of those questionable texts are rather easily identified and dated to a later period. Of course, many of them are still quite profound and meaningful, and clearly derive from the Buddha's teachings, but are later extrapolations and interpretations. For example, I don't think the Buddha ever used the word "void", but I could be wrong. I believe its a later concept and usage that clearly derives from Buddha's original teachings, but is not actually stated as such in them.
"Perhaps if Buddha had used 'cessation of thought' instead of
'cessation of craving', it would be identical with Sri Bhagavan."
It's important to understand that by "thought", Ramana isn't merely refering to inner, intellectual content, but to everything that arises in our consciousness, from the urge for sensual pleasures to the desire for heavenly bliss, to even the most ordinary of perceptions and images in the mind and body. So when Ramana talks about Jnanam being the extinction of thought, this means everything, including the desire and impulse for every kind of experience.
And this is what I think Buddha was referring to by "craving". It doesn't merely describe some extreme form of desiring, but the inner torment of seeking out objects of any kind at all. It includes all the vasanas and samskaras, and thus all "thoughts". The impulse toward "thought" in all its forms is what Buddha meant by craving. It's just that Buddha emphasized the inner impulse of desire that fuels it all, and taught about its cessation.
Both Ramana and Buddha, it's important to note, saw all these cravings as centered in the illusion of the ego. Which is why the Buddha taught the doctrine of annata, of "no self". He taught a practice of observing the self to see that no such entity actually existed. I wouldn't go quite so far as to say he was teaching a formal version of self-enquiry as Ramana taught it, but it's really not much different in many ways.
Buddha's method was to examine all the contents of the mind and see that no self actually existed, that we merely inferred the existence of an individual self from these contents. This approach is sometimes called "phenomenal realism", and it differs from the "idealistic" approach of much of vedanta. But it also leads to a similar stark examination of oneself to the point where the illusion of ego simply goes up in flames, or to use Buddhist language, is "quenched" as all cravings cease. The Buddha's final admonition is perhaps his most important, and most resembles self-enquiry in some basic sense: "Be a refuge unto yourself". This is commonly mistranslated as "Be a light unto yourself, and the meaning there is also appropriate, but the true sense of the phrase is found in the word "refuge", which of course means to go fully and completely into one's own true self and nature. Again, that is very much akin to Ramana's path.
How can we criticise the Buddha?. We surely cannot understand his great awakening! I don't believe that Ramana Maharshi was at odds with the Buddha's teaching. 'All obstructions of defilements
and karmas of worry and trouble,
are in origin, empty.
All causes and effects
are dreams and illusions.
The great Way is empty and vast.
It is beyond thought and deliberation.
You, at this instant, have this
Dharma and are without lack.'
Friends,
The Beauty of Buddha's teaching,to me,lies in his emphasis on the Factual rather than on some supposed 'Truth',whatever that be.
1.The first fact is that this Life is 'Dukkha'-that all the joys and sorrows in Life,are ephemeral,changing all the time-and as such are Petty .The subjection to this Flux is 'Suffering'.This is to be clearly felt and understood.
2.The clinging to this flux is the cause of 'Suffering'
3.There is a way out of this suffering and this is through the following of Noble Eight fold path.
Quite clearly no sadhaka has to know anything more than this.He needs to work out the ending of the suffering through Diligence.There is simply no need to have some idea of a 'Goal' or 'Truth',whether it is the 'substratum',etc,etc.
Namaskar.
Dear S.,
How to describe the indescribable?
What to say? What to explain?
It is like the bride coming out of the nuptial room, on the early morning after the nuptial night?
To whom shall she describe her experience? How to describe the experiential happiness? She will simply smile to her mother, who is anxiously waiting at the outer portal.
KaNdavar ViNdilar
ViNdavar KaNdilar
Dear Losing M. Mind,
To be with a Jnani as a true seeker,
one gets immense Peace. The emanating Peace is the true sign of a Jnani. That is true sat sangh. Paul Brunton says that his questions evaporated in his first meeting on seeing Sri Bhagavan. "We are creating imaginary problems and are trying to find out imaginary solutions in all our life.:, he says. With Sri Bhagavan, even the animals forgot their natural instincts and remained quiet. Chadwick says that the peace emanating from the deep silence, is so thick that you need a knife to cut it.
Dear Broken Yogi,
Talks No. 273:
Q: Buddha, when asked if there is the ego, was silent. When asked, if there is no ego, he was silent. Asked if there is a God, he was silent. Asked if there is no God, he still kept silent. Silence was his answer for all these. Mahayana and Hinayana schools have both misinterpreted his silence because they say that he was silent. If he was an atheist, why should he have spoken of Nirvana, of births and deaths, of karma, reincarnations and dharma? His interpreters are wrong. Is it not so?
Bhagavan: You are right.
Dear Broken Yogi,
Talks No. 238
Mr. Frydman: Krishnamurti says that man should find out the "I". Then "I" dissolves away being only a bundle of circumstances. There is nothing behind the "I". His teaching seems to be very much like
Buddha's.
Maharshi: Yes -- beyond expression.
Dear Broken Yogi,
Talks No. 20:
Devotee: What does Maharshi think of the theory of universal illusion
[Maya]?
Maharshi: What is Maya? It is only Reality.
Devotee: Is not Maya illusion?
Maharshi: Maya is used to signify the manifestations of the Reality.
Thus Maya is only Reality.
.......
Devotee: Buddha advises the eight
fold path as being the best so that none might be lost.
Maharshi: Yes. Such is called Raja Yoga by the Hindus.
Devotee: Is Yoga advised for a spiritual aspirant?
Maharshi: Yoga helps control of mind.
Devotee: But does it not lead to
occult powers which are said to be dangerous?
Maharshi: But you qualified your question by the words 'a spiritual aspirant'. You did not mean a seeker of siddhic powers.
... Maharshi: Maya is used to signify the manifestations of the Reality.
Thus Maya is only Reality. ...
Big smile
Dear Clemens,
Maya is described in Vedanta and also in Saiva Siddhanta as Mother Uma. She displays two forms, Suddha Maya and Asuddha Maya. Suddha Maya is Sakti concorporate with Siva. Since Siva is lazy achalam, it is she who brings around people to him, with
proper direction, if ego is subsided. If ego is not subsided, she gets into ego and makes the person to enjoy, suffer, be happy, be miserable, have six great enemies of anger, greed, lust, jealousy, pettiness etc., If said simply as Maya, she is Reality.
It is Maya, Narayani, in her masculine form takes all ten incarnations. Sri Bhagavatam describes this. Sri Devi Bhagavatam re-tells Bhagavatam, as if it is Sakti's own exploits.
In pure form Suddha Maya, is the manifesting power of Sivam or Brahman.
Dear Clemens,
Q: It is cruel of God's leela [play]
to make the knowledge of the Self so hard.
Bhagavan: Knowing the Self is being the Self. No one denies one's own existence any more than one denies one's eyes. The trouble lies with your desire to objectify the Self, in the same way you objectify your eyes when you place a mirror before them. ... All time you speak and think of your 'I', yet when questioned you deny knowledge of It. You are the Self yet you ask how to know the Self? Where then is God's cruelty and where is God's leela? Because of this denial of the Self by people, the sastras speak of maya, leela etc.,
[Guru Ramana. S.S. Cohen].
Bhagavan: Our real nature is mukti.
But we are imagining we are bound. And we are making strenuous efforts
to become free, while we are all the while free. This will be understood only when we reach that stage. We will be surprised that we were frantically trying to attain something, which we have always been and are. A man goes to sleep in the Hall, and dreams he has gone to a world tour...If asked why being free do we imagine that we are bound?, I answer, 'Why
being in the Hall, did you imagine you were on a world adventure, crossing deserts, seas, hills and dale. It is all mind or maya.
[Day by Day, Devaraja Mudaliar.]
Dear Clemens,
One Mr. Mahatani asked Sri Bhagavan:
"It is said in Advaita Bodha Deepika,
that the Supreme Self identifying Itself with the mind appears changeful. How can the mind coming from Maya which itself comes from the Self be able to alter or change
the changeless self?"
Sri Bhagavan: There is in Reality
no change, no creation. But for those who ask, "How has this creation come about?" the above
explanation is given.
[Day By Day, Devaraja Mudaliar]
Sri Bhagavan said: "We see many wonderful things done. The juggler
puts a girl, tied fast, into a gunny bag, and leaves it under a basket. And the girl comes up from somewhere, when he calls her. There is such a thing as magic.
By this time, it was time for our
Tamizh Parayana. We begin with the 29th stanza in Ramana Deva Maalai [of Sivaprakasam Pillai] and by an odd coincidence it says,
'Intellect or buddhi does not see
Reality on account of Maya." And
Bhagavan added in continuation of our discourse - All the work of Maya, quoting Sivapraksam Pillai.
[Day By Day, Devaraja Mudaliar]
According to schools which believe in three entities, Jagat, Jiva and Iswara, the Jagat is only one third of the reality whereas according to
Advaita the world as Brahman is Reality. The world and reality are
not different. Similarly, even to God or Brahman, the other schools give only one-third soverignty. The other two entities necessarily limit the reality of God. So, when Sankara is called Mayavadi, it may be retorted, "Sankara says maya does not exist. He who denies the existence of Maya and calls it mithya or non existent cannot be called Mayavadi......
[Day by Day, Devaraja Mudaliar]
Dear Subramanian. R,
thank you for your comments. I wrote a book named "Grave and Rose. Talks between Life and Death." about all this subjects. It is kind of a retelling of Yoga Vasistha with my own words and ideas. Unfortunately (or fortunately?) it is unlikely that there will be an English translation of it some day.
Grave and Rose. Talks between Life and Death
Broken Yogi, folks,
“Thus, though Ramana talked about an unchanging and eternal substratum, he also made it clear that not such "thing" exists. It is the very nature of the eternal substratum … ”
You have written and argued well BY and the time spent in writing your extensive posts is much appreciated. You seem to agree (?) from the above that there is a substratum ALWAYS, leave its nature be for the moment. If that is so, then you have simply yourself negated the Buddhist doctrine of nihilism. And then we have no argument, once an eternal Substratum is admitted.
Still, the topic is so important that I thought to write a bit more. A friend in fact mentioned to me yesterday that, how can you say that something exists (Brahman) and then say that it can also be called a ‘void’; that should be a contradiction in itself.
No it is not, and it is a subtle point worth understanding. And this fact of a substratum existing ALWAYS, as Brahman or Self, is the crucial lynchpin of Advaita and Sri Bhagavan’s teachings which distinguishes them from Buddhist doctrine.
Since Brahman is beyond causality and the duads & triads it cannot be really spoken about as this or that, though we may call it Sat or Ananda or Void or whatever. Bhagavan Himself made a marvellous comment, “Even though we usually describe the reality as Sat, Chit, Ananda, even that is not quite a correct description. It cannot really be described. By this description all that we endeavour to make plain is that it is not asat, that it is not jada and that is free from all pain.”
So, though it cannot be described, really speaking, not even as a ‘void’, what can certainly be said is that - IT ALWAYS IS (In fact ONLY IT IS, of course). That, it is a ‘POSITIVITY’ for sure. It is not as if there is a nullity once the triad of perception vanishes, as in Buddhist nihilism, wherein then, NOTHING IS.
Because, as a simple illustration, if we take up the Buddhist position, all the examples which Bhagavan gave of deep sleep etc in which we sink into the substratum as (say) Arvind and come out of it as Arvind will go for a six. In fact, if the Buddhist position was true, and that there was no substratum, Arvind could NOT go into deep sleep as Arvind and re-emerge as Arvind. The re-emergence as Arvind is possible every morning only because of an eternal & unchanging substratum.
Still, I would accept all of the foregoing as mere quibbling and hair-splitting over theory, if it were not for an alarming consequence of the Buddhist position in sadhana. Since, in their belief the Ultimate is a NOTHING, a NULLITY, that is exactly what they achieve when they achieve their “Ultimate”. There is no glorious Supreme Consciousness for them. They stop their sadhana and meditation when they reach the catatonic state of “manolaya”. After all, why should you then persist and carry on further beyond the “void”? In “laya” you have already achieved a complete nullity which can be maintained forever, and thus the Buddhist “Nirvana”. And so they remain in this zombie-like, mind induced “peaceful” catatonic state, that is, according to Bhagavan, so useless & even dangerous spiritually.
And that is why I say that the Buddha, a Jnani, could not have taught such a doctrine of voidness; that he could never be a “Buddhist” himself.
And contrarily, formal Hinduism, forced to accept due to tradition that the “Buddhist” texts are his true teachings, but knowing him as a Great Soul otherwise, accords him the position of one of the 10 Avatars of Visnu, but one who came to teach flawed doctrines to jivas of unfortunate karma.
Best wishes
Arvind/Friends,
Here is an excerpt from Swami Vivekananda's Raja Yoga:
"When a man goes into deep sleep, he enters a plane beneath consciousness. He works the body all the time, he breathes, he moves the body, perhaps, in his sleep, without any accompanying feeling of ego; he is unconscious, and when he returns from his sleep, he is the same man who went into it. The sum total of the knowledge which he had before he went into the sleep remains the same; it does not increase at all. No enlightenment comes. But when a man goes into Samadhi, if he goes into it a fool, he comes out a sage.
What makes the difference? From one state a man comes out the very same man that he went in, and from another state the man comes out enlightened, a sage, a prophet, a saint, his whole character changed, his life changed, illumined. These are the two effects. Now the effects being different, the causes must be different. As this illumination with which a man comes back from Samadhi is much higher than can be got from unconsciousness, or much higher than can be got by reasoning in a conscious state, it must, therefore, be superconsciousness, and Samadhi is called the superconscious state."
Namaskar.
please my dear friend, I found this blog on facebook under papaj facebook name, I am in need of a guru, do you know of any living guru like papaji? I trusted in the ones that I found online, bought the books and now they are gone from the body, is their anyone left? could you please help me..
Kindly and with much love,
~janice
Dear arvind,
Yes. Mano-laya is only the zombie
state. Whereas mano-nasa is the state of Conscious Laziness, where there is no karma and even batting
of eyelids is considered a karma!
Sri Ashtavakra Gita describes this state. But this so called lazy state
is full of Awarness. Sri Bhagavan used to call Himself as "paniledu vadu" in Telugu. It means a person
without any work! But he is not
dull but shining with Awareness and emitting grace upon others. He is more than a Chintamani. Chintamani like Philosopher's Stone would make a piece of iron into gold. But that piece of gold would not make other piece of iron into gold. But Sri Bhagavan makes his ardent devotees into another Chintmani, who can in turn make their devotees into a Chintamani!
Dear Ravi,
In deep dreamless sleep, a person
is in the lap of Anandam. But he does not attain Anandam permanently.
Permanent Anandam comes only upon
self realization. The subdued mind jumps out again in the morning for a person deep sleep.
One devotee asked: Sri Bhagavan!
Can we not remain always in deep sleep and attain Anandam?
Sri Bhagavan said: No. Your ego is only in suspended animation. It waits for the morning to jump out. You cannot remain ever in deep sleep.
Dear janice power,
Why should one look for a living guru? Even that guru, how long can he live in body? You please read
Sri Bhagavan's teachings and look at Him as an eternal guru. A living guru, we need, because we always identify a guru too in body as we are in body. An eternal guru is one
who is ever-living even after he had
thrown away the body.
Dear everyone,
Tiruchuzhial Padigam of Muruganar
has captivated me. I listened to
it sung by one inmate after the morning puja on one of the days in
T'malai during my recent visit. This decad is so melodious and even for normal reading, for persons knowing Tamizh, it moves the heart. Muruganar says that even if he forgets Him [due to fainting, sleep or even simple indifference or arrogance] His name will be chanted by his tongue. Nambane, unai naan maRakkinum, na chollum un namame!
The foot note says in the book that it is styled after the famous Tevaram starting as MaRRu paRRenakkinRi... With this one starting line, I searched my Tevaram, after not seeing it in Jnana Sambandhar's and Tiru Navukkarasar's, I could see it in Sundarmurty's. This was sung in Tiru Pandi Kodumudi, a Siva town near Coimbatore. Sundarmurty says, his tongue will keep on saying Namasivayam, even when he even forgets Siva.
I remembered in this connection
Echammal, who was serving food for Sri Bhagavan for more than 40 years. When she was in bed seriously ill, but not unconscious, she was asking whether food had been sent to Sri Bhagavan! She remained conscious till her merger with Arunachala. When Sri Bhagavan asked specifically about her last moments, devotees said this. He further asked: Whether she was conscious? The devotees said: Yes. Then He continued, if one remains conscious till one's leaving the body, then it is one of the sure ways to show that one might have attained liberation. If some goes into unconscious or in coma state, there is no possibility of thinking about god or guru and it might not confer liberation.
Sri Bhagavan made one more remark here: I am only afraid of two people, when they come near me to ask something. One is Echammal and the other is Ramanatha Brahmachari. Both are guileless people and if they ask something, I cannot but agree to them. When
Ramanatha Brahmachari asked His permission for going for Salt March, He persuaded not to go but could not compel him too far. Ramanatha Brahmachari went to Vedaranyam [Tiru MaRai Kaadu in
Tevaram] and came back beamingly holding a fistful of salt!
I loved Tiru Chuzhial Padigam that I took a xerox on my return from the book and added it to my daily
parayanam in the mornings.
Hi Subramanian,
Indeed these are wonderful stories, Ramana could not say no to any request put to him by Ramanathan Bramacharya and Mudaliar Patti as their love was so intense he could not refuse them.
Both Ramanathan and Mudalier Patti stand as amazing devotees.
Dear Anon.,
Echammal and Mudaliar Patti served him for long long years. Ramanatha
Brahmachari did tremendous amounts
of odd jobs for devotees like Chadwick and Mother Azhagamma and others. He used to wash the kal-chatti, a vessel made of pumice stones [used those days] for preparing sambhar etc., Eveyday, Mother Echammal used to give the impure kal-chatti to Ramanatha and he used to wash it for long time, to ensure its cleanliness. Mother Azhagamma will keep on calling Ramanatha, is it ready? Ramanatha is it ready?
Ramanatha Brahmachari used to reply: Here it is, one minute, here it is minute.... Once Sri Bhagavan said jokingly: I am listening to this morning Raga everyday. The way in which Ramanatha is cleaning the kal chatti, it will become thinner and thinner and one day it is going to disappear in thin air!
Once Chinnaswami scolded Ramanatha
for playing the charka for spinning khadi threads, since his were eyes already weak [due to high myopia and he was already wearing thick glasses]. Ramanatha did not leave the practice of spinning. One day, Chinnaswami shouted at him and was about to roll him down the steps. [He was of a puny structure, hardly 150 cms tall]. Then Chinnaswami roared: Do you know who am I?
Ramanatha replied: If you and I know who we are, then we would not be fighting like this! Self Inquiry during a fight!
R.Subramanian,
The Nature of Sleep depends on the person.Swamiji was unique even in his sleep as also Sri Bhagavan.This is what Naren said:
"I used to see all my life a wonderful point of light between my eyebrows, as soon as I shut my eyes in order to go to sleep, and I used to observe attentively its various changes. So that it might be convenient to see it, I used to lie on my bed in the way people bow down touching the ground with their foreheads. The extraordinary point kept changing its colours and increasing in size, became gradually converted into the form of a ball, and bursting at last, covered my body from head to foot with white liquid light. As soon as that happened, I lost consciousness and fell asleep. I believed that all people went to sleep that way. I was long under that impression. When I grew up and began to practise meditation, that point of light used to come before me, as soon as I closed my eyes, and then I concentrated my mind on it. In those days I daily practised meditation with a few friends according to the instruction of Maharshi Devendranath. We talked among ourselves about the nature of visions and experiences that each of us had. At that time I came to know from what they said that they never had the vision of such a light and that none of them went to sleep in that way."
Namaskar.
Dear Ravi,
Yes. Swami Vivekananda's sleep
was a different experience unlike
others sleep. I think, he has also told this strange phenomenon of sleep to Sri Ramakrishna.
Sri Bhagavan used to sleep by sliding
on the pillow. He never placed His
back ever on the bed, even during His last days. He has said that His sleep was like a dream and His dreams were like dream within a dream. [He has seen temples, tanks etc., in His dreams]. His sleep, He has described as Jagrat-sushupti. Saint Tayumanavar also calls it as Thoongamal Thoongi. In his pre-death-experience days, Sri Bhagavan used to sleep like a log without any knowledge about outside disturbances. His school friends, who were afraid to confront Him while awake, used to drag Him out of His bed, out of His house, and then beat Him nicely and then put Him back into His house. This sleep of Sri Bhagavan even during His early years was something very strange.
Once in Skandasramam, when an old villager came and told his sufferings in his life, Sri Bhagavan said: "For whom all these sufferings? Did you suffer while you were in deep sleep?" Whether the villager understood this or not, he went away prostrating before Sri Bhagavan. Kavyakanta Ganapati Muni told Sri Bhagavan: For this villager, you are telling the tenet of self inquiry. What will he understand? If he had come to me, I would have at least told him some mantra like Siva, Siva. And he might have gone happier! Sri Bhagavan replied: What to do Nayana? I can tell only what I know fully. Others if they want can tell him whatever they want!
Two or three days later, a conversation came up about deep sleep and dreams. Two were lying in the bed, side by side, and one was in deep sleep and the other was yet to sleep. The chap who was in sleep had a dream that he was owning large amount of gold and suddenly someone had come and after hitting him, had taken away all the gold. This man is crying O thief, thief. let us go and catch him.
Now the other man who was not sleeping, will he go to chase the thief and recover the gold? Or will he go to give a complaint to the police? He would only wake him and dreamer on awakening will know that all the gold and the loss thereof are only dreams. This is how Jnani deals with even householders.
To go to a Jnani and ask for wealth and a grandchild through his son is all only our prayers. Jnani is not there to confer all these. But this is what most of us are asking the pontiffs of the Maths and the so called Jnanis of today and they also bless, let it happen, let it happen! What a dichotomy between what they are for and what they confer to others!
Saint Manikkavachagar says in
Potri Tiru Ahaval: Let me get grace from you to disrobe this body and attain you, O Siva!
This is what one can ask God or
guru and it is what Siva also can
confer.
Only Pethan Samban a milk man who was serving milk everyday to Umapati Sivam, asked for mukti and he was given by him, by pouring water on his head, from his water bowl and he attained liberation.
[Chidambara Mahatmyam]
Judith,
Papaji himself always said, "Everyone gets the Guru they deserve". He also said that the Guru will appear to the devotee when the devotee needs him. So it is not necessary, in his view, to seek out the Guru. What is necessary is to be earnest and sincere in one's approach to truth, and if that is the case, the Guru will appear somehow. So probably the best advice is simply to practice self-enquiry, which is what Papaji taught, with as much strength and determination as you can, and simply surrender to the will of the Self, and allow the Self to bring you to whatever Guru you need. Have faith in the power of the Self, and that if you really need a Guru, one will appear, and if one does not, it is not yet needed. The true Guru is always and already present to you as your own Self. Inquire of that One, and the Guru will teach you directly. And if a human form for that Guru is needed, that will also appear. Have faith in your very Self. Don't spend your time seeking the Self outside you. In fact, doing so will only keep the Guru from truly opening your heart to his eternal presence within you.
Arvind et al,
Do I agree that a substratum exists? No, I don't. I think the concept of a substratum is a very useful teaching approach for many, but that's what it is – a teaching concept, a bridge to help us find reality. In reality, there is no such thing. If there is a bridge to Brahman, it does not mean there is a bridge in Brahman. Once one gets to Brahman, all bridges are left behind.
It's important to remember that Sri Ramana had no interest in philosophy. He didn't teach a philosophy, he taught a practice – self-enquiry. He made mention of various philosophical matters simply because people seemed to need some kind of conceptual understanding to practice self-enquiry consistently, and so he generally referred to the philosophical traditions of Advaita and sanathana dharma, since that was what was familiar to most of his devotees. So he talked about “substratums” and so on. It makes sense to most people familiar with vedanta. And it helps lead them to practice self-enquiry. Beyond that, it really makes no difference for anyone.
As for Buddhism, it's important to realize that Buddha taught 2500 years ago when there was no Sri Ramana, and not even any fully-developed non-dual traditions. No Guadapada, no Shankara. That all came more than a thousand years later. The Upanishadic rishis were still something of a secret tradition in India. The more basic practices and traditions of India were relatively primitive and filled with many misunderstandings. Buddha was criticizing many of those misunderstandings and fashioning a teaching which overcame them. And let's be honest – without Buddha and the whole tradition of Buddhism that followed, there never would have been any Advaita Vedanta. Most of the Advaitic tradition that was developed by Guadapada and Shankara was in response to that 1000 years of Buddhism and all its criticisms of Vedanta, and in fact it incorporated a large amount of esoteric Buddhist teachings and approaches.
I would go far as to say that if one were to point to the “best” purely philosophical non-dual tradition, it would be Nagarjuna's Madhyamkika philosophy. His four-fold negation is really the heart of all non-dual philosophy, and I'm sure that if Sri Ramana had been asked about it, he would have agreed heartily with Nagarjuna's approach.
Buddhism is not nihilistic. That criticism has long been rejected by those who are familiar with its approach. Nor does it advocate “voidism”. Nor does it simply falls short of true realization and get stuck in manolaya. I'm sure that may be true for some Buddhists, just as it is for some Hindus, but it's not a universal limitation. There are many, many examples of fully realized Buddhists. They are not dry and dull and loveless.
cont.
cont.
There is no philosophical need for the acceptance of an eternal substratum for anyone to realize the Nirvanic Self. That is just a conceptual bridge that some find useful. Other bridges are available, however, and the Buddhist bridges serve Buddhists quite well. But whatever bridge one takes to the Nirvanic Self, it is left behind. Even self-enquiry is left behind. In the Self, there is no substratum, there is only the One Self, which is nirvanic in nature. It is only outside of the Self that we can speak of substratums.
Now it's true that Buddhism tends to emphasize “negativity” while Sanatana dharma emphasized “positivity”. So in many respects this is just a characteriological matter, as to which emphasis serves as a useful bridge. But it should also be clear that each must contain some element of the other pole to be truly useful. Those who believe in an eternal substratum must acknowledge that it is both empty and void of all content. And those who speak of the emptiness of all things must also acknowledge that awareness is primordial. Many traditions of Buddhism do precisely that, just as many traditions of sanatana dharma have a more rounded view of these matters.
The key isn't philosophical purity or even accuracy, but providing sufficient grounds for a true and devoted practice that genuinely investigates the mind and gets to the root of it. Buddhism despite its somewhat alien approach from a Hindu perspective does indeed accomplish that for many.
Also, the reason Arvind goes into deep sleep and re-emerges as Arvind has nothing to do with there being an eternal substratum, but occurs only because there is a set of egoic vasanas and samskaras we call “Arvind”. The Buddhist approach makes this very clear, that there is no actual “Arvind”, but only a set of samskaras and vasanas that tend to repeat themselves endlessly, which we give a name and form to, but which never actually becomes “Arvind”. The Buddhist teaching on dependent origination is a fascinating way of describing how this works, not only in sleep and waking, but from life to life in reincarnation itself. What exists beyond that is not a substratum, it is much greater than that. Go look for that substratum in oneself, and see what one finds. That's Ramana's real teaching.
Writing about Ramanatha Brahmachari,
I remembered Akhilandamma. She is from Desur, and it was she who brought Mastan to Sri Bhagavan. Akhilandamma was serving both Seshadri Swamigal and Sri Bhagavan,
by offering food etc., When Mother
Azhagamma was in Skandasramam, she wanted a particular type of greens.
Akhilandamma used to bring them and
hide them near a bush lest Sri Bhagavan would chide Mother Azhagamma for asking such things.
Ramanatha was the go-between, he would pick up the greens from the bush and bring them stealthily to
Mother Azhagamma. Sri Bhagavan did know this and once or twice, He had kept quiet. Then one day He chided Amma, saying, 'See if you want such things hereafter, you better go to Madurai. We are ascetics and we should not voluntarily ask anything from anyone.' While describing the various qualities of a true guru,
Srimad Bhagavatam says such a guru should never ask for anything from others, nor should he accept gift. Sri Bhagavan kept up these qualities right upto His merger with Arunachala. He declined to accept sandalwood walking sticks, costly pens and many other things. Akhilandamma served hot rasam and hot rice to Pazhaniswami which was his last meal in this world. Akhilandamma [1871-1961] lived upto the ripe age of 90 years. It is she who established the first ever Math for Sri Bhagavan outside the Asramam, in Desur, called Sri Ramananda Matalayam. Her reminiscences have been recorded by Sri Sadhu Om and these have come out as a book - Sri Ramana Mathuranubhavam.
Mudaliar Patti, used to serve one
big lump of cooked rice with some
putrified ghee to Sri Bhagavan everyday. The ball of rice used to be served to Sri Bhagavan along with the lunch. For some years, devotees were eating on the same plate leaf of Sri Bhagavan, after He had finished His meal, as a mark of faith and love. However, the authorities, if such a devotee was a brahmin, had prevented him from taking food on the used plate leaf, since it had become 'impure'
due to non brahmin Mudaliar Patti's
ball of rice. One day Muruganar without knowing all these, wanted to eat on the same used plate leaf of Sri Bhagavan and was promptly prevented from doing so. On asking the reason, they mentioned
about Mudaliar Patti's rice. Muruganar felt very bad and he immediately wrote a poem, starting as Thacchariyatha chaturmaRai Paarppan.... It reads like this:
This Brahma who had made 4 Vedas,
does not know. He has made this body as a brahmin's body. If he had made my body as that of a dog, I would have eaten the Ucchishtam of Sri Bhagavan. What a tragedy due to Brahma's ignorance!
This song is included as the last verse in Sri Ramana Desika Padigam.
Muruganar came to Sri Bhagavan after
Mother Azhagamma's merger with Arunachala. He was a great Tamizh
authority with the knowledge of composing classical poetry. He was a member of Tamizh Lexicon Committee
which was formed during British times. He read Who am I? given by his father in law Dandapani Swami and came with a lot of curiosity to see Sri Bhagavan. On arrival to T'malai, he first went to Arunachaleswara Temple and there he wrote a decad on Sri Ramana, Desika Padigam and came with it to see Sri Bhagavan. When he stood before Him, he lost his speech and could not even read a few lines of his decad properly. Sri Bhagavan pulled the paper from him and then read it Himself. He then asked Muruganar: Oh, will you write like
Manikkavachagar? The words of
Sri Bhagavan became prophetic that Muruganar wrote 30,000 verses on
Sri Bhagavan. Desika Padigam was his first song. It is by singing before me the Desika Padigam, Sri
A.R. Natarajan, of Bangalore Ramana
Centre brought me to Ramana fold about 15 years back.
Dear Broken Yogi,
Three nice posts. Atma Sakshatkara
Patalam [Siva's teachings to Skands}
reads like this:
V. 29:-
Permeating the 'inner' and the 'outer',
Ever differentiated through [concepts of]
Across, above and below
Everywhere and at all times firmly established is
The Void, the self luminious Self
Ever meditate on it; and more and more.
Verse 30:
Not a void, not a non-void,
It is also a non-void and a void,
Pervasive everywhere, but without
predilections, --
Ever think of this Self.
Verse 31:
Afflictionless, and without any support for itself,
Bereft of caste, name and form --
That tainteless, attributeless Self
Unceasingly meditate upon It.
[Tr. into Tamizh by Sri Bhagavan. Eng. Tr. Dr. H. Ramamoorthy]
TURNING THE MIND INWARD:
Q: Why cannot the mind turned inward in spite of repeated attempts?
Sri Bhagavan: It is done by practice and dispassion and it succeeds only gradually. The mind,
having so long been a cow accustomed to graze stealthily on others' estates, is not easily confined to her stall. However much her keeper tempts her with luscious grass and fine fodder, she refuses for the first time. Then she takes a bit, but her innate tendency to stray away asserts itself and she slips away.
On being repeatedly tempted by the owner, she accustoms herself to the stall until finally, even if let loose, she does not stray away. Similarly with the mind. If once it finds its inner happiness it will not wander outward.
SAMADHI AND LIBERATION:
Q: It is said in the Mandukya Upanishad that samadhi must necessarily be experienced before attaining liberation.
Sri Bhagavan: And who says that it
is not so? It is stated not only in Mandukaya Upanishad but in all the ancient books. But it is true samadhi only if you know your Self.
What is the use of sitting still for sometime like a lifeless object. Suppose you get a boil on your hand and have it operated on under anaesthetic. You don't feel any pain at the time, but does that mean that you were in samadhi? It is the same with this too. One has to know what samadhi is. And how can you know it without knowledge of your Self? If the Self is known, samadhi will be known automatically. Samadhi is one's natural state. It is the undercurrent in all the three states of waking, dreaming, and dreamless sleeping. The Self is not in these states, but these states are the Self. If we get samadhi in our waking state, that will persist in deep sleep also.
The distinction between consciousness and unconsciousness belongs to the realm of mind, which is transcended by the state of the real Self.
Friends,
A Translation of Swami Vivekananda's Bengali poem,SamAdhi:
Lo! The sun is not, nor the comely moon,
All light extinct; in the great void of space
Floats shadow-like the image-universe.
In the void of mind involute, there floats
The fleeting universe, rises and floats,
Sinks again, ceaseless, in the current “I”.
Slowly, slowly, the shadow-multitude
Entered the primal womb, and flowed ceaseless,
The only current, the “I am”, “I am”.
Lo! ‘Tis stopped, ev’n that current flows no more,
Void merged into void–beyond speech and mind
Whose heart understands, he verily does.
Namaskar.
Friends,
The Poem Nirvana by Sri Aurobindo:
All is abolished but the mute Alone.
The mind from thought released, the heart from grief,
Grow inexistent now beyond belief;
There is no I, no Nature, known-unknown.
The city, a shadow picture without tone,
Floats, quivers unreal; forms without relief
Flow, a cinema's vacant shapes; like a reef
Foundering in shoreless gulfs the world is done.
Only the illimitable Permanent
Is here. A Peace stupendous, featureless, still.
Replaces all, - what once was I, in It
A silent unnamed emptiness content
Either to fade in the Unknowable
Or thrill with the luminous seas of the Infinite.
Namaskar.
Broken Yogi, folks,
Once again, BY, much appreciate the time spent in your extensive post.
So, if I understand from your write-up, you are saying that Sri Bhagavan spoke about the Self, about a Reality that always is, the Substratum, and so on, as just a teaching prop, conveniently using the language of Advaita because the common devotee otherwise could not understand His true intent and teachings? Whereas really what He meant was that there is nothing at all as the Self?
Please don’t get me wrong, nothing wrong with it really, if that’s your understanding and belief.
Though, let me just add that He Himself categorically denied using the language of formal Advaita. (From “Talks”: Talk No. 189)
He asked: “Is Maharshi’s teaching the same as Sankara’s?”
Bhagavan: “Maharshi’s teaching is only an expression of his own experience and realisation. Others find that it tallies with Sri Sankara’s.”
Devotee: “Quite so. Can it be put in other ways to express the same realisation?”
Bhagavan: “A realised person will use his own language.”
So, it would seem to me that Bhagavan was using words and expressions of His own experience and beliefs when He talked, day in and day out, about an eternal Reality, the Self, something that always IS, an Absolute, and so on. It just so happens that this stuff coincides with Advaita and NOT Buddhist doctrine.
Unless of course you believe that this Self-Absolute thing is actually what Buddhist doctrine intends to convey by saying what it does, and Advaita does not intend to convey when it says what it says!
Best wishes
Friends,
An excerpt from The gospel of Sri Ramakrishna:
Later in the afternoon several Marwari devotees entered the Master's room, where Rakhal and M. also were seated.
A MARWARI DEVOTEE: "Sir, what is the way?"
Two ways of God-realization
MASTER: "There are two ways. One is the path of discrimination, the other is that of love. Discrimination means to know the distinction between the Real and the unreal. God alone is the real and permanent Substance; all else is illusory and impermanent. The magician alone is real; his magic is illusory. This is discrimination.
"Discrimination and renunciation. Discrimination means to know the distinction between the Real and the unreal. Renunciation means to have dispassion for the things of the world. One cannot acquire them all of a sudden. They must be practised every day. One should renounce 'woman and gold' mentally at first. Then, by the will of God, one can renounce it both mentally and outwardly. It is impossible to ask the people of Calcutta to renounce all for the sake of God. One has to tell them to renounce mentally.
Constant practice urged
"Through the discipline of constant practice one is able to give up attachment to 'woman and gold'. That is what the Gita says. By practice one acquires uncommon power of mind. Then one doesn't find it difficult to subdue the sense-organs and to bring anger, lust, and the like under control. Such a man behaves like a tortoise, which, once it has tucked in its limbs, never puts them out. You cannot make the tortoise put its limbs out again, though you chop it to pieces with an axe."
MARWARI DEVOTEE: "Revered sir, you just mentioned two paths. What is the other path?"
MASTER: "The path of bhakti, or zealous love of God. Weep for God in solitude, with a restless soul, and ask Him to reveal Himself to you. Cry to your Mother Syama with a real cry, O mind! And how can She hold Herself from you? "
MARWARI DEVOTEE: "Sir, what is the meaning of the worship of the Personal God? And what is the meaning of God without form or attribute?"
MASTER: "As you recall your father by his photograph, so likewise the worship of the image reveals in a flash the nature of Reality.
"Do you know what God with form is like? Like bubbles rising on an expanse of water, various divine forms are seen to rise out of the Great Ākāśa of Consciousness. The Incarnation of God is one of these forms. The Primal Energy sports, as it were, through the activities of a Divine Incarnation.
"What is there in mere scholarship? God can be attained by crying to Him with a longing heart. There is no need to know many things.
"He who is an Āchārya has to know different things. One needs a sword and shield to kill others; but to kill oneself, a needle or a nail-knife suffices.
"One ultimately discovers God by trying to know who this 'I' is. Is this 'I' the flesh, the bones, the blood, or the marrow? Is it the mind or the buddhi? Analysing thus, you realize at last that you are none of these. This is called the process of 'Neti, neti', 'Not this, not this'. One can neither comprehend nor touch the Ātman. It is without qualities or attributes.
"But, according to the path of devotion, God has attributes. To a devotee Krishna is Spirit, His Abode is Spirit, and everything about Him is Spirit."
The Marwari devotees saluted the Master and took their leave.
At the approach of evening Sri Ramakrishna went out to look at the sacred river. The lamp was lighted in his room. The Master chanted the hallowed name of the Divine Mother and meditated on Her. Then the evening worship began in the various temples. The sound of gongs, floating on the air, mingled with the murmuring voice of the river. Peace and blessedness reigned everywhere.
Namaskar.
Being in the presence of a jnani. Is he (or was Maharshi) teaching a philosophy they agreed with, or engendering liberation in the devotee? I don't know. It seems to me, practically the latter is true. The words the jnani speaks cause the mind to introvert and dissolve in the Self, and it does not matter so much what the jnani says, or I should say, the fact that a jnani spoke this around you, it works it's magic, no matter what I do. On the other hand, it's odd that so many jnani's (including Maharshi) spoke the language of the Vedas and said that it tallied with their experience as well.
So the philosophy must be important as well. I do know that in the deeper experiences being in the presence of a jnani, my ideas, or intellectual understanding of the Self, or Brahman, it is not something that can be reduced to a concept, or a word. But saying it doesn't exist, seems really, really incorrect. I mean, I think that was one of the key points Maharshi, Shankara and Nome make is that Existence is the most intimately known thing. Our Existence itself, clearly exists, and no one doubts it. That Existence is the Self, is what is referred to as Brahman.
My idea of introversion of the mind, is very different than the introversion that I actually experience in the presence of a jnani. In fact, what I thought was "introversion" was more like a tamasic sleep state, or laya. This introversion is far more profound, and I would say supernatural. It's really cool.
As to finding a Guru, now that I'm in the Presence of one, and know how helpful it is. I would say, honestly, yeah, if you don't know where to find a jnani just practice on your own. But if I was confident someone was a jnani, and it wasn't too upsetting to my life to go there, I would. In my case, it followed the classic Vedic description of God manifests as Guru at a certain point in practice. I didn't do anything to find one. But I did at certain points, make the decision to move closer. For instance, moving to Santa Cruz.
Dear Ravi,
Nice quote from Swami.
The entry of Devaraja Mudaliar in
his Day by Day, dated, 21st July 46.
Q: When I meditate I reach a state, where there is a vacuum of void. How
should I proceed from there?
Sri Bhagavan: Never mind whether there are visions or sounds or anything else or whether there is a void. Are you present even during the void to be able to say
that you experienced a void. To be fixed in that 'you' is the quest for the 'I' from start to finish. In all books on Vedanta
you will find this question of a void or of nothing being left behind raised by the disciple and answered by the guru. It is the mind that sees objects and has experiences and that finds a void
when it ceases see and experience, but that is not 'you'. You are the constant illumination that lights up both the experience and void. It is like the theatre light that enables you to see the theatre, the actors, and the play while play is going on but also remains alight and enables you to say that there is no play on when it is all finished. Or there is another illustration. We see objects all around us, but in complete darkness, we do not see them and we say, "I see nothing"; even then the eyes are there to say that they see nothing! In the same way, you are there even in the void you mention.
contd.
Dear Ravi,
Sri Bhagavan continued: You are the witness of the three bodies, the gross, the subtle and the causal, and of the three states, waking, dream and deep sleep, and of the three times, past, present and future, and also of this void. In the story of the tenth man, [Dasaman], when each one of the ten counted and thought there were only nine, each one forgetting to count himself, there is a stage when they think one is missing and don't know who he is: and that corresponds to the Void. We are so accustomed to the notion that all that we see around us is permanent and that we are this body that when all this ceases to exist, we imagine and fear that we have ceased to exist.
Sri Bhagavan also quoted Verses 212 and 213 from Vivekachoodamani in which the disciple says: "After I eliminate the five sheaths etc., as not-Self, I find nothing at at all remains," and the Guru replied that the Self or that by which all modifications [including ego and its creations] and their absence [that is the Void] are perceived is always there.
Then Sri Bhagavan continued speaking on the subject and said, "The nature of the Self or "I" must be illumination. You perceive modifications and then absence. How? To say that you get the illumination from another would raise the question of how he got it and there would be no end to the chain of reasoning. So you yourself are the illumination.
to be contd.,
Sri Bhagavan continued:
The usual illustration of this is the following. You make all kinds of sweets of various ingredients and in various shapes and they all taste sweet because there is sugar in all of them and the sweetness if the nature of sugar. And in the same way in all experiences and the absence of them, contain the illumination which is the nature of the Self. Without the Self they cannot be experienced, just as without sugar not one of the articles that you make can taste sweet.
A little later Sri Bhagavan also said: "First one sees the Self as the objects, then one sees the Self as Void, then one sees the Self as Self, only in this last there is no seeing because seeing is Being.
Muruganar says in his own commentary for Verse 60 of GVK,
that deals with void:
In order to save the sadhaka from the danger of getting trapped in the vision of the void, Sri Bhagavan asks that he should destroy, through knowledge of
Self, that vision which sees the void as an object. Though the world subsides in the void, the void is not the ultimate truth. It is only the mistake of seeing consciousness as a Void.
Concluded.
Dear Ravi,
There are a few Guru Vachaka Kovai
verses which deal with void. Muruganar calls the SuttaRivu or
Objective consciousness and the mind
and the world that rise from the unmanifest Ajnanam [ignorance] as void.
GVK 1055: Brahma Swarupa, that in which another does not exist, is the Reality shining since time immemorial. Because there is no room in it for undifferentiated knowing, to SuttaRivu, it appears to be a void. In truth, however, that ancient Swarupa is not a void, but the fullness of being, the unique pure Being-Consciousness that exists and shines by itself.
GVK 1089: You aspire to live well, but do not know the way to live. Seeing daydreams in the delusion that sprouts from the void of ignorance, and thinking that your mean condition is true living, you display your pride and your arrogance. Go, penetrate the desolate void and grasp the true life!
GVK 1128: Those with mnds that disport in the savour of the enjoyment of Sivam, the true Jnana that exists and shines as the unique essence, will transform even the barren void [the mind] the mirage whose nature is delusion, into the abode of Jnana that even the gods long for.
GVK 1252: Like the clear water that shines in a mirage in the searing sunshine, the world is a deception that appears in the unmanifest void. Therefore, to the true Jnani who is not deluded into believing that a life of prosperity, which is under the control of prarabdha, is real, a life of adversity would also be a matter of great joy.
David Godman who has translated the verses, here quotes Swarupa Saram, Verse 89:
Only he is a Jnani whose mind does not get agitated, who does not identify with and desire objects before him, and whose state of purity never shakes whether he lives on alms in poverty or enjoys the illusory state of being Brahma.
Dear Losing M. Mind,
Yes. A true Brahma Jnani does not speak what is palatable to a devotee, but what would engender liberation for him. On many occasions, Sri Bhagavan said that Nammazhwar [ a Sri Vishnavite saint] was in fact, an advaiti and He quoted a number of verses from his Tiruvoimozhi. Many Sri Vaishnavites who were with Sri
Bhagavan could not stomach it, to start with, because they were so entrenched in what their Vaishnava saints had been telling, but in due course, understood Sri Bhagavan's words.
Vedas in many parts are imaginary stories, like the cases of various creation theories. But the essence was self inquiry and self realization. Sri Bhagavan explained, for example, the verse
Na Karmana.. in Taittriya Upanishad [Maha Narayana Valli] and told the devotees that such verses are the quintessence of
Vedas.
Sri Bhagavan Himself has sung in
Sri AAMM 99:
Give me the essence of the Vedas which shines as Vedanta as Pure
Awareness, O Arunachala!
Muruganar quoting Verse 19 of AAMM, along with this and gives
both interpretations: the Advaitic identity of Brahman and Atman to be realized through training by a competent guru and the Christian experience of the bliss of being transformed and saved by a Saviour as a result of karma and bhakti.
[Sri Arunachala Akshara Mana Maalai Virutthi Urai - Muruganar]
R.Subramanian,
"Ajnanam [ignorance] as void"
This is in the sense of saying that something is 'Null and void' but the Void that the jnanis refer to is something that is bereft of everything known.It is also called niRai soonyam-the Void that is Whole.
Please refer to the poems of Swamiji and sri Aurobindo that I have posted.The Void referred to by these Great ones and Lord Buddha is this niRai soonya'.
Also ajnanam is not ignorance-it just refers to the knowledge of aNmai+jnAnam(Other+Knowledge),implying knowledge of objective phenomena-this is the suttaRivu-the knowledge that is described by the mind.
Namaskar.
R.Subramanian,
Here is the second verse of paripooraNAnandam of Thayumanavar swamigal,where he speaks of niRai soonyam:
தெரிவாக ஊர்வன நடப்பன பறப்பன
செயற்கொண் டிருப்பனமுதல்
தேகங்க ளத்தனையும் மோகங்கொள் பெளதிகஞ்
சென்மித்த ஆங்கிறக்கும்
விரிவாய பூதங்கள் ஒன்றோடொன் றாயழியும்
மேற்கொண்ட சேடம் அதுவே
வெறுவெளி நிராலம்ப நிறைசூன்யம் உபசாந்த
வேதவே தாந்தஞானம்
பிரியாத பேரொளி பிறக்கின்ற வருள் அருட்
பெற்றோர்கள் பெற்றபெருமை
பிறவாமை யென்றைக்கும் இறவாமை யாய்வந்து
பேசாமை யாகுமெனவே
பரிவா யெனக்குநீ யறிவிக்க வந்ததே
பரிபாக காலமலவோ
பார்க்குமிட மெங்குமொரு நீக்கமற நிறைகின்ற
பரிபூர ணானந்தமே.
All visible life that is clothed in body vesture
All that crawl, walk, fly and have their being
All, all that nature in propagative urge created
Will perish.
The elements mighty will die away one after another.
What will remain is: the vast Empty Space,
Unsupported, the Void that is Whole,
The upasanta that is peace beyond understanding
The jnana of Veda-Vedanta,
The mighty Light that leaves not.
Of them that receive it
Are the souls blessed with Grace.
Great indeed are they;
Born they will never after be;
Nor dead be;
But in silentness steeped remain.
And this Thou came in compassion to tell me.
Is this not a sign that I am ripe for it?
Oh! Thou who filleth all visible space
In unbroken continuity!
Thou, the Bliss that is Perfect Full.
Namaskar.
Dear Ravi,
Yes. NiRai Soonaym is Void. It is like saying that water is drained out of the pot, it is not empty, it is full of Space.
But ANami + Jnanam = Ajnanam, I have
not heard about it. Sri Bhagavan
does not also seeem to use it.
NiRai Soonaym, I remember is used in some of Advaitic Texts of Tamizh, about 16 of them are there.
R.subramanian,
" A true Brahma Jnani does not speak what is palatable to a devotee, but what would engender liberation for him. On many occasions, Sri Bhagavan said that Nammazhwar [ a Sri Vishnavite saint] was in fact, an advaiti ..."
NammAzhwar or any other great one is not a advaiti-Like the passages in the vedas,these Great ones express themselves from different standpoints-representing the truth of the dvaita,visishtadvaita and advaita aspects of the Same Truth-according to the maturity level of the sadhaka.In another sense,they also express themselves in different ways-as Truth cannot be limited to any system or made to wear a straitjacket.
The experience of Truth is the same-expression of it is different.Just like the experience of 'Sleep' is more or less the same for most of us.some may say that the 'I' is obliterated;others may say that this is not so,as how else the person wakes up on being called by his name.Whatever be the theory behind this,all do enjoy this 'sleep' state,irrespective of whether they believe that the 'I' survives in sleep or not.
So,also the dualist,qualified dualist and the nondualist -all talk of 'Atma sAkshAtkAra'-experience self Realization,only the difference is wafer thin.All the Great ones,like sri mAdhwAchArya,sri RAmAnujAchArya or Sri sankarAchArya -all had this Atma sakshAtkAra;they just differed in the 'theory' of whether the 'I' is the same as 'Ishvara'-and if we see,they all have their validity and perspective.
-----------------------------------
Namaskar.
Dear Ravi,
Excellent. NiRai soonya upasanta jnanam is experienced. It is Being.
When some one says that I am seeing
emptiness, then it is only the void and not the Void. Only when spoken of, void is due to suttarivu.
Happy to note that Saint Tayumanavar has also used the NiRai Soonyam phrase. I found it in one of the advaitic Tamizh original texts published by Kovilur Math. They have so far brought forth four volumes. The fifth one is going to be Kaivalya Navaneetam Tamizh verses and the
last and sixth one would be Jnana Vasittam, Yoga Vasishtam in Tamizh verses.
Dear Ravi,
Sri Bhagavan used to say: Silence is the uninteurrupted speech. This sounds like Void is the void of words or speech.
In Tamizh poems, NiRai mozhi maandhar is used for saints or learned who keep silence. NiRai mozhi - actually denotes, a lot of words, but it means silence! NiRai mozhi also means the teaching that is complete in itself.
R.Subramanaian,
" Silence is the uninteurrupted speech."
Yes,we also need to remember that this Silence is not interrupted by speech.so,niRai Mozhi means the words that come from this 'fullness',loaded with this fullness-and does not imply just absence of speech.
tiruvaLLuvar says:
NiRai mozhi mAndar peRumai nilaththu maRai mozhi kAtti vidum.
The Wholesome speech of the Great ones would reveal the Hidden Speech (silence,in which Truth is revealed).
namaskar.
Friends, there is a very interesting, long and elaborated talk by Ramana (Talk 616, 23rd to 28th January 1939) dealing with sleep and 'darkness'. I mean that this talk reveals much of Ramanas understanding and experience of consciousness generally.
'Just as the eye sees the darkness which remains enveloping all objects, so also the Self sees the darkness of nescience which remained covering the phenomenal world.
This darkness was experienced when it (the Self) emerged in dots of supreme bliss, shone a trice and fleeted away in such fine subtlety as the rays of the moon which peer through the waving foliage. The experience was however not through any media (such as the senses of the mind), but bears out the fact that consciousness does exist in deep sleep. The unawareness is owing to the absence of relative knowledge, and the happiness to the absence of (seething) thoughts.'
My understanding of this is that experience belongs to the 'I' but not to the eternal Self/Awareness.
Dear Ravi,
Thanks for the Tiru KuraL. This verse was not coming to my mind readily, though I thought that Tiru
VaLLuvar had also used this phrase.
Dear Clemens Vargas Ramos,
Yes. Sri Bhagavan also says in Sri AAMM Verse 15:-
KaNNukku KaNNai KaNNinRi KaaN unaik
KaaNuvathu evar paar Arunachala!
This has got 3 meanings as per Prof. K. Swaminathan:
a. Eye of the eye You are and without eyes You see. Who can see You, O Arunachala!
b. You are the sight within the eye and without eyes You see. Who can see You but Yourself, O Arunachala!
c. You are the All-seeing Witness
seeing all sights and seen by none.
Who can see You. It is for You
to see me and give me Your Grace.
Jnanam or Atma or Arunachala can be only experiential. It cannot be seen by the normal sense of the term. Muruganar calls It as Jnana
KaN - Wisdom-insight.
Sri Bhagavan used to say that Atma
Darsanam is only Atmanubhavam, or
Atma Bodham.
Once when some devotee, seeing Sri
Bhagavan looking at Arunachala, asked Him: Bhagavan! Are you seeing Arunachala? Sri Bhagavan said: I am seeing Atma.
This is Sri Ramana Jnana Bodham.
Arvind,
"So, if I understand from your write-up, you are saying that Sri Bhagavan spoke about the Self, about a Reality that always is, the Substratum, and so on, as just a teaching prop, conveniently using the language of Advaita because the common devotee otherwise could not understand His true intent and teachings? Whereas really what He meant was that there is nothing at all as the Self?"
Yes, it is my understanding that there is "nothing at all" that can be spoken of or described as "the Self". It is my understanding that when asked why he used these terms, he explained that he used the verbal concept of "the Self" merely because it was a good directional pointer towards the ultimate reality - that it was in the direction of the self, meaning within, at least from the point of view of the unrealized jiva.
So this phrase "the Self" doesn't actually point to some real thing, a substratum or layer of things as we might like to believe. It merely gives us a clue as to where to turn out attention - back upon itself - in order to be liberated from any illusions we might have. He calls reality "the Self" merely because that is a useful directional pointer for those who wish to discover this reality.
And yes, Ramana spoke from his own experience and not from tradition. But his own experience was beyond all words and concepts, including the concept of "the Self". So he had no need to describe to himself what his experience was. The need arose from others who asked him to teach them. And so he responded according to their needs, not his own. And so he taught within the general language of the Advaitic tradition, because that is what most who came to him were familiar with and could make use of. He didn't do this because it was the only tradition that was in accord with his experience. He did it because it was the tradition that his devotees were familiar with.
And in fact he departed in many ways from the traditional views and teachings of Advaita, both in philosophy and in practice. His form of self-enquiry is not found in traditional advaita, for example, as David will readily tell you. Likewise, his teachings are often recognized by Buddhists as being very much in accord with their own tradition and viewpoint, and Ramana is regarded by many Buddhists as a living Buddha, and his description of realization and practice is in accord with what they find to be the true Buddhist tradition. So even if Ramana didn't try to accomodate Buddhists, he seems to have done so unwittingly. Probably because he is describing the same kind of realization as Buddhists have realized over the years, and regardless of the traditional language, the inner meanings are clear even to those of other traditions.
LMM,
The four-fold negation is one of the cornerstones of Buddhist philosophy. It is not a denial of the existence of anything, including "Brahman". In fact, the four-fold negation is literally a denial of both existence and non-existence. It states, in the baldeste terms:
Neither being nor non-being
Neither existence nor non-existence
In other words, the ultimate reality cannot be described either as a being, or a non-being, as something existing, nor as something non-existent. This is what brings Buddhism to the concept of the "middle way", the way that does not embrace any dualistic assertions, but forgoes even the negation of dualistic assertions. Reality is beyond all such assertions, distinctions, and even the negation of these. The "middle way" walks the line between all these views, and that is where "noble silence" comes from.
The Buddha taught using the four-cornered method, and this was passed on and finally perfected in the logical philosophy of Nagarjuna's Madhyamika. Sankara like many Vedantists was greatly impressed with this and made his own stab at it, using the negation of the negations to assert that there was a positive "being" to reality. But as Nagarjuna made clear, this is merely one avenue of logical language, and not a true description of reality itself.
The problem from the Buddhist perspective is that by giving a name and a description to reality, by calling it "being" and "existing", one has made it into a concept in the mind, and then the mind cannot be shaken and dissolved. Thus, it prevents realization, or at least greatly hampers that possibility by asserting and holding onto a concept of an "existent being" that is reality. Since the goal of Buddhism (as with Ramana's teaching, I might remind you) is the dissolution of the mind and all its concepts, the description of reality as an existent being is a hindrance, rather than an aid, when all is said and done. This concept must be surrendered at some point, or the mind will not be transcended and destroyed.
And that is of course where Ramana often differs with many traditional Advaitists, who insist that the mind is not destroyed in realization, but that the Advaitist's well-trained mind's understanding is simply affirmed by realization and made unmistakable, rather than dissolved or destroyed. Many Buddhists, on the other hand, are very comfortable with the notion that the mind must not only be stopped, but destroyed, and all concepts given up, even the most cherished concepts of Buddhism itself. So in that respect, Buddhism many be even more amenable to Ramana's teaching than much of Vedanta.
Friends,
Here is an excerpt from Conversations and dialogues with Swami Vivekananda:
Swamiji then had his dinner and went to take a short rest.
After the siesta, he came and sat in the hall of the upper storey. The disciple finding this opportunity asked, "Sir, how and whence came the ideas of virtue and vice?"
Swamiji: It is from the idea of the manifold that these have evolved. The more a man advances towards oneness, the more ideas of "I" and "you" subside, ideas from which all these pairs of opposites such as virtue and vice have originated. When the idea that So-and-so is different from me comes to the mind, all other ideas of distinction begin to manifest, while with the complete realisation of oneness, no more grief or illusion remains for man, "For him who sees oneness, where is there any grief or any delusion?" Sin may be said to be the feeling of every kind of weakness. From this weakness spring jealousy, malice, and so forth. Hence weakness is sin. The Self within is always shining forth resplendent. Turning away from that people say "I", "I", "I", with their attention held up by this material body, this queer cage of flesh and bones. This is the root of all weakness. From that habit only, the relative outlook on life has emerged in this world. The absolute Truth lies beyond that duality.
Disciple: Well, is then all this relative experience not true ?
Swamiji: As long as the idea of "I" remains, it is true. And the instant the realisation of "I" as the Atman comes, this world of relative existence becomes false. What people speak of as sin is the result of weakness — is but another form of the egoistic idea, "I am the body". When the mind gets steadfast in the truth, "I am the Self", then you go beyond merit and demerit, virtue and vice. Sri Ramakrishna used to say, "When the 'I' dies, all trouble is at an end."
Disciple: Sir, this "I" has a most tenacious life. It is very difficult to kill it.
continued...
Friends,
Conversations with Swamiji continued...
Swamiji: Yes, in one sense, it is very difficult, but in another sense, it is quite easy. Can you tell me where this "I" exists? How can you speak of anything being killed, which never exists at all? Man only remains hypnotised with the false idea of an ego. When this ghost is off from us, all dreams vanish, and then it is found that the one Self only exists from the highest Being to a blade of grass. This will have to be known, to be realised. All practice or worship is only for taking off this veil. When that will go, you will find that the Sun of Absolute Knowledge is shining in Its own lustre. For the Atman only is self-luminous and has to be realised by Itself. How can that, which can be experienced only by itself be known with the help of any other thing? Hence the Shruti says, says, " Well, through what means is that to be known which is the Knower?" Whatever you know, you know through the instrumentality of your mind. But mind is something material. It is active only because there is the pure Self behind it. So, how can you know that Self through your mind? But this only becomes known, after all, that the mind cannot reach the pure Self, no, nor even the intellect. Our relative knowledge ends just there. Then, when the mind is free from activity or functioning, it vanishes, and the Self is revealed. This state has been described by the commentator Shankara as supersensuous perception.
Disciple: But, sir, the mind itself is the "I". If that mind is gone, then the "I" also cannot remain.
Swamiji: Yes, the state that comes then is the real nature of the ego. The "I" that remains then is omnipresent, all-pervading, the Self of all. Just as the Ghatâkâsha(space within the pot), when the jar is broken, becomes the Mahâkâsha,[9]* for with the destruction of the jar the enclosed space is not destroyed. The puny "I" which you were thinking of as confined in the body, becomes spread out and is thus realised in the form of the all pervading "I" or the Self. Hence what matters it to the real "I" or the Self, whether the mind remains or is destroyed? What I say you will realise in course of time. It is realised within oneself in due time. As you go on with Shravana and Manana (proper hearing and proper thinking), you will fully understand it in due time and then you will go beyond mind. Then there will be no room for any such question.
Namaskar.
Dear everyone,
Once Sri Bhagavan was requested to
describe His state of Self Realization. Sri Bhagavan replied:
What to say about it? It is like
a thief who went into a dark room for stealing something but instead got stung by a scorpion. He can neither cry aloud, nor can he put up with the pain. A self realized person's state is also like that. For that matter, all that Jnanis have said outside are only very very diluted version of what they had experienced. Only in this version, the words like Self, Reality, Atman, Arunachala, Nirvana etc., are used. They say that the Vedas are only the spitted
saliva of what they had experienced. So also are the Jnanis' teachings. Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know.
Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know.
:)
By the way:
LIES
“I had to tell only one lie and that was when I came here.”
Devotee: “What was that?”
Bhagavan: “When my brother asked me where I was going, I told him that I was going to attend a special class in the school. After food, when I asked for the keys, I told my aunt the same thing. How could she know? She believed me when I said that.”
Devotee: “It means that for doing a great thing, sometimes a lie has to be told!”
Bhagavan: “Yes. When it is for the welfare of the world and when the exigencies of the situation demand it, it has to be done. It can’t be helped. Where is the question of telling a lie? Some force makes one say so. So long as there is a purpose, there is need of action. When there is no purpose, no action is needed.
Letters from Sri Ramanasramam, 8th March 1949
Dear Clemens Vargaa Ramos,
While speaking about "this lie"
Sri Bhagavan quoted on Tiru KuraL
of TiruvaLLuvar. He has said:
"Even the falsity is truth if it could produce blemishless good."
Parimelazhagar, one of the best commentators for Tiru KuraL says in his commentary the story of a Sage in a forest. The Sage saw a deer running past him and hiding in a far off bush. The hunter came after a few minutes and asked him: Have you seen a deer going this way. The Sage said: No. I did not see any animal.
Dear Subramaniam R., this is also a part of the talk:
(...) When there is no purpose, no action is needed. In this case, we can avoid action in the same way as was done by the sage in “The Sage and Hunter” story in the Yoga Vasishtam.”
Devotee: “What is that story?”
Bhagavan: “In a forest, a sage sat motionless and in silence. His eyes however were open. A hunter hit a deer and as it was running away, he began pursuing it and when he saw the sage, he stopped. The deer had run in front of the sage, and hidden itself in a bush nearby.
The hunter could not see it and so asked the sage: ‘Swami, my deer has come running this way. Please tell me where exactly it has gone.’
The sage said he did not know.
The hunter said, ‘It ran in front of you. Your eyes were open. How could you say you do not know?’
To that the sage replied, ‘Oh my friend! We are in the forest with universal equality. We do not have ahankara. Unless you have ahankara, you cannot do things in this world. That Ahankara is the mind. That mind does all things. It also makes all the sense organs work. We certainly have no mind; it disappeared long ago. We do not have the three states, the states of waking, dream and deep sleep. We are always in the fourth or Turiya state. In that state nothing is seen by us. That being so, what can we say about your deer?’
Unable to understand what sage was saying, the hunter went his way thinking they were all the words of a mad man.”
Under the sun there is nothing new. All this is because of the great forgetfulness. After birth we are playing here a little bit until we realize our own forgetfulness. Then we stop and go home.
Dear Clemens Vargas Ramos,
One Narayana Guru, from Kerala came to see Sri Bhagavan and he was thoroughly impressed by His attainement. He wrote two groups of verses on Him in Sanskrit. He or his disciple sent some lehayam [ a sweet fluid made of herbs that can do the work of a tonic] and asked Kunju Swami to give it to Sri Bhagavan stating that He should take it with a glass of milk. Sri Kunju Swami said the same thing to Sri Bhagavan. Sri
Bhagavan said: I can take it but where we sannyasis can go for milk and other luxuries. He took the lehyam with water. After a day or two, Kunju Swami asked Him: What shall I write to Sri Narayana Guru? Sri Bhagavan said: You thank him and mention him that Swami is taking the lehyam with payas. Payas in Sanskrit means both milk and water!
Broken Yogi,
"And that is of course where Ramana often differs with many traditional Advaitists, who insist that the mind is not destroyed in realization"
What do you mean by 'Destruction' of the Mind?Please answer based on your own understanding and experience.
Namaskar.
Friends,
An Excerpt from The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna:
"The anger and lust of a man who has realized God are only appearances. They are like a
burnt string. It looks like a string, but a mere puff blows it away.
"God is realized as soon as the mind becomes free from attachment. Whatever appears in
the Pure Mind is the voice of God. That which is Pure Mind is also Pure Buddhi; that,
again, is Pure Atman, because there is nothing pure but God. But in order to realize God
one must go beyond dharma and adharma."
Namaskar.
Arvind/Broken Yogi/Friends,
Here is an excerpt from the Talk of the Sage of Kanchi on The Life of Sankara-It does resemble what Arvind had said about Buddhistic philosophy of Nihilism.
"The Bauddha and Jaina matas are new avaidika matas--religions, that do not conform to the Vedas, which arose with a resolve not to accept the Veda pramANa--authority of the Vedas.
‣ adhyayanas--Vedic chanting, vaidika karmAnuShTas--Vedic sacrifices and rituals, UpaniShads, and varNAshramas--classes and stages of life,--these two religions rejected all of these as totally unnecessary.
‣ They also rejected Ishvara--personal God, and IshvaropAsana--worshipping a personal God.
‣ What was ordained as sAdhAraNa dharma--normal disciplines of life, for sakala-jana--entire populace, (namely) ahiMsa--non-violence, satyam--truth, asteya--not stealing, brahmacharya--continence, and aparigraham--non-acceptance beyond the necessaries of life--only these disciplines (of life) they taught, and yet, without having any flexibility according to the pakvam--maturity, of each person, they ordained them strictly as a must for everyone.
‣ Although in Jaina (matam), making a distinction between harsh and not so harsh niyamas, it is ordained that the BhikShus--mendicants, should have 'mahA-vratam'--great penances, and others can have 'aNu-vratam'--tiny penances, in the absence of varNAshrama vibhAgam--varNa and Ashrama classifications, even that aNu-vratam was-shrama-sAdhya--could not be accomplished by exertion, for the common anuShTAnas--observances, of the populace.
‣ Since that matam (Jaina) considered that only by giving shramam--exertion, can the karma be reduced, it has the very name shramaNa (chamaNa in Tamizh).
• Looking at siddhAnta--philosophy, as the end of the religion, in Buddha having left it saying only something (about the Truth), as if he thought, "Let us not say anything decisive; let everyone experience it and get to know it", it happened later that even that something got elaborated in many ways, and there arose in the Bauddham:
‣ VaipAshikam--followers of the unchanging reality philosophy,
‣ SautrAntikam--followers of the Buddhist sUtras,
‣ YogAchAram--followers of the 'mind only' philosophy, and
‣ MAdhyamikam--the middle way between the other two,
as many sampradAyas--traditions, as differing from each other.
‣ As two different sects opposing each other, in the name of that same religion two sects arose, as MahAyAna and HInayAna.
‣ The YogAchAram and MAdhyamikam came under the MahAyAna. The SautrAntikam and VaipAshikam came under the HInayAna.
‣ Although there appeared in each of these philosophies, experienced people who had contemplated deeply, under the many traditions that arose with contradictory principles, it all ended up in giving much scope to clash in vAda--debates, rather than in anubhavam--experience.
• When it comes to anubhavam--experience, what happened was that--did I not mention before that Buddha that said only something (of the Truth) and left the remaining (for the sAdhakas to find out in experience)?
And that was his taking only the amSham--share, that shows this lokam--world, as mAyA--illusion, in the UpaniShads, and his leaving out the fact that as AdhAram--support, for this mAyA, there is a satyam--Truth, behind. "
Continued...
Arvind/Broken Yogi/Friends,
The Sage of Kanchi continued...
"Therefore, the bauddha-siddhAntas--Buddhist philosophy, instead of teaching that the jIva's--soul's, lakShyam--goal, is to obtain the anubhUti--knowledge and perception, of the Brahman or Atman that remains as a satyam--Truth, characterised by nitya-shuddha-buddha--eternal and pure awareness, and sat-chit-Ananda--existence-consciousness-bliss, and become pUrNa-vastu--abiding in fullness, and only this is mokSham--liberation;
‣ came up with the teaching that getting released from the mAyA-pravAham--illusory currents, of this world that is changing restlessly without any AdhAram--support, and merging into the nothingness of the shUnya--vacuity, is the mokSham called nirvANam.
‣ How can the anubhavam--experience, obtained by doing dhyAnam--meditation, on the nishchayam--inquiry/conviction,
that there is no satya-vastu--Entity of Truth, (which is) shAshvata-vastu--Entity of Eternity, and everything is shUnyam--emptiness,
be the great state of bliss of brahmAnandam--bliss of Braman, a term known even in the spoken language of the people?
• "There is no lokam--world, no jIva--soul, no Atman, no Brahman, all that appears as happening are nothing but some kind of a bhrama--giddiness/dizziness. Since only those samAcharas--happenings, that appear and disappear then and there are going on continuously, the bhrama--dizziness, arises that there is in nijam--reality, a stream of life. Like blowing out (the flame of) a burning lamp, to blow out all these things is the mokSham of nirvANam."
Thus, in toto, Bauddham ends only in getting (a seeker) into a shUnya--emptiness.
• (On the other hand,) VedAnta speaks of the lokam--world, and jiva--soul, becoming false, when the jIvAtmA unites in aikyam--oneness, with the paramAtman who is the pUrNam--fullness, (not emptiness,) of Brahman.
‣ It also mentions that this worldly life of dvaitam--duality, that appears (as real), in the state where that aikyam--unity, has not happened, was caused to happen by Brahman itself, when it remains as Ishvara who is united with the mAyA shakti;
‣ and adds that Ishvara conducts the jagat--world, with a plan; which is why this jagat, although it becomes asatyam--untrue/false, in the end, moves on in a discipline with kAraNa-kArya-vidhis--rules of cause and effect.
• Bauddham, without accepting Ishvara and a tatkAla-satyavat--immediate/temporary reality, for the run of the world,
‣ saying on the one side that everything simply appears and disappears,
‣ and on the other accepting the principle of karma that (strictly) remains within the kAraNa-kArya-vidhi and the principle of reincarnation, do not match in each other."
continued...
Arvind/Broken Yogi/Friends,
The Sage of Kanchi continued...
"Jaina matam also does not speak that there is One known as Brahman which is satya-vastu, and it conducts the world becoming Ishvara by uniting with mAyA.
‣ It leaves out everything without coming to a conclusion, teaching that nohting can be considered as existing or non-existing. This has the name syAdvAdam--assertion of possibility or non-possibility. That is, to leave things in antaram--(Tamil) supportless state, saying, "it could be such:", and not "it is such" with a conclusion. That is, to say "may be"! In saying 'may be', 'may not be' is also hangs on it.
• That is, to be indecisive about the satyatvam--truth, of the vastu--entity, is syAdvAdam. This may-be-may-not-be doctrine, would branch out into sapta-bhangi--seven branches. It would be like a strange puzzle to listen to! What those seven are:
‣ one is syAd-asti--it may be there;
‣ two, syAd-nAsti--it may not be there;
‣ three, syAd-asti-nAsti--it may be there, or it may also not be there;
‣ four, syAd-avaktavya--it may be that it is indescribable;
‣ five, syAd-asti-cha-avaktavya-—it may be there and it may be indescribable;
‣ six, syAd-nAsti-cha-avaktavya-—it may not be there and its not being there may be indescribable;
‣ seven, syAd-asti-cha-nAsti-cha-avaktavya—-it may remain as being there and not being there and it may be indescribable.
If one keeps on going with these assertions, to what nishchayam--certainty, can one come to?
• Although it is mentioned in Jainam that AtmA--soul, is jnAna-mayam--full of knowledge, chaitanya-mayam--full of consciousness/intelligence,
Jainam also mentions that the AtmA becomes commensurate with whatever sharIram--body, (it takes); ant-size within the body of an ant; elephant-sized within the body of the elephant; if the ant reincarnates as elephant, the AtmA that was ant-sized earlier, now becomes elephant-sized!
‣ It says that karmas become paramANUs, enter the AtmA and shrinks and binds it; and if the ties are removed, the AtmA gets released and in that state of liberation flies to the apex of AkAsha--space, and remains there in saukhyam--welfare/comfort.
‣ To remove those ties, that is, to prevent the karma-paramANUs from entering the AtmA and spoil it with ties and shrinkage, it says that the strict vratas--religious observances, ordained in the religion must be in-anuShTAnam--practised.
• The Jaina matam would lay much stress on ahiMsA--non-injury, and dAna--charity. It would show much hatred on worldly life. Although these are uttama--lofty, principles, it would be shrama--difficult/requiring exertion, for the majority of people. And thereby, they would happen to violate the regulations of their own religion.
• If it is not arranged for them, as in our religion, giving respect as gRhastha-dharma--householders' dharma, to family life,
giving a raised status as puruShArthas--aims of life, to the artha-kAma--wealth and desire,
and encouraging the majority of people to lead their life in dharma with utsAham--happiness,
there would not be any saMtoSham--satisfaction/happiness, at all for them obtained in daily practical life.
‣ With not enough pakvam--maturity, to lead an Adharsha--ideal, life, would lead to deceptively have such disguise and then go astray, and the samUham--society, itself would deteriorate.
‣ Or, instead of maturing step by step and giving up desires, and (finally) becoming a ripe fruit, seeking to give up desires out of hatred (for worldly life) would result in riping prematurely and falling.
In both Jainam and Bauddham, this danger is there."
the word verification is "uncha"-means Lofty in Hindi!
Namaskar.
Arvind/Broken Yogi/Friends,
Continuing further on the Life of Sri Sankara,The Sage of Kanchi beautifully sums up the synthesis of Sri Sankara's Advaita:
• Since AchAryAL has also stated, "All these loka-vyApAram--transaction of worldly life, is mAyA; only Brahmam is the satyam", by this some people think that it was copied straight from Bauddham.
• These people should understand an important difference. When AchAryAL says that this lokam is mAyA, he does not say that it was some sort of a headless, tailless flow of many things coming together, as the Bauddhas say.
‣ AchAryAL has only established that an Ishvara, who has either this mAyA as his guNa--attribute, or has this mAyA-shakti--power of illusion, has created the appearence called this lokam--world, from Brahmam itself, and also conducts its affairs, and dispenses the karma-phala--fruits of karma.
‣ To put it in other words, he has said that the Brahmam which has no kAryam--action, or guNa--attribute, is NirguNa Brahman, and that the same Brahman, combining with mAyA-shakti becomes Ishvara the SaguNa Brahman, who has kAryam and guNam, and does the loka-vyApAram--transaction of worldly life.
‣ To escape from this, by attaining the NirguNam from the SaguNam, and to become aikyam--united, with it in abhedam--absence of distinction, is the lakShyam--goal, of his advaitam.
‣ For that he has organized (for us) a sAdhanA-mArgam--path of seeking, to progress in the advaita jnAna mArgam, which stipulates doing Ishvara-bhakti as a first step, since it requires the anugraham--divine favour, of mAyA-sahita-Ishvara--Ishvara conjoined with mAyA, and who is the SaguNa Brahman.
• There is another difference. If it is mAyA, it does not mean that it is totally false. AchAryAL would call that which is totally false as atyanta-asat--absolute unreality. Brahmam is that which is pUrNa satyam--absolute reality. That which is called prAtibhAsika satyaM--a temporary apperance as reality, is what is in between.
‣ That is, (this prAtibhAsika satyaM is) one that looks real in practical vyavAhAra--worldly life, but would disappear with the arrival of jnAnam.
‣ AchAryAL has only said that the mAyA-lokam--the world as it seems, is such a temporary appearance as reality called prAtibhAsika satyaM; and not as the atyanta-asat which is totally unreal.
‣ Thus the jagat--world, is not asatyam--unreality, but a tatkAla-satyam--temporary reality called mithyA.
continued...
Arvind/Broken Yogi/Friends,
The Sage of Kanchi continued...
• Thus, only when giving the jagat an intermediate reality, it becomes possible to classify (actions) as good and bad and say that Ishvara who is mAyi dispenses the phala--fruits.
‣ So it becomes possible to say that only by doing good, one can obtain chitta-shuddhi--purity of mind, through it by Ishvara anugraham, and then proceed in the nivRtti (jnAna) mArgam. What is doing good? To remain in self-control and act in dharma.
‣ In Bauddham, after saying, 'There is a mokSham which is shUnyam. Everything else is a stream of mAyA that is false', when controls such as ahiMsA--non-violence, and satyam--truth, are emphasized, it remains impossible to answer when questions are raised, such as, 'when it is said that everything is false, what for is hiMsA or ahiMsA? satyam or asatyam? why should there be dharma and self-control?'
‣ Whereas in AchAryAL's siddhAnta--doctrine, it is possible to reply (to such questions), by assigning an intermediary reality as mithyA to the mAyA-jagat, that only when a jIva--soul, acts in self-control and dharma, would Ishvara, who administers the world giving fruits according to karma, give it chitta-shuddhi and raise it to the jnAna-mArgam.
‣ As an upAyam--means, that helps this discipline of dharma, AchAryAL also accepted the vaidika-karmAnuShTAna that MImAMsA teaches.
• The very greatness of AchAryAL's matam--doctrine, lies in his approving of the karmAnuShTAnam of the MImAMsA, the mAyA doctrine of Bauddha, and the ahiMsA principle of Jaina, giving them a place at the appropriate stage!
In summary, what I came to tell you is to show that both the Bauddha and ShramaNa (Jaina), accepting the doctrine of karma alone (without an Ishvara), and ordaining as its angam--part, the disciplines of dharma, seems like raising a buiding without an astivAram--foundation.
Whether one dismisses as Bauddham does, that all this life are only the flow of falsity, or decides like Jainam does, that nothing can be said in certainty about anything, in both (these approaches) it is not possible to obtain an explanation, for the arrangement of running in continuity the samsAra-chakra--wheel of worldly life, by intertwining with such decisiveness/finality, the fruits of every karma.
In general, a matam--religion, that has no Ishvara, does not stick with the jana-samudhAyam--populace."
Now,as for Broken Yogi's fantastic(almost surreal!)assertion that Ramana was more a Buddhist!!??????
-suffice it recall that Ramana said in his very first verse in upadesa sAram -that karma bears fruit on account of the Ordainment of karta or Ishvara.
-----------------------------------
Do we have to go to this degree to
assert that what we think is the ultimate Truth!!!
Let me imagine that Mohammed was actually a staunch Brahmin!
Namaskar.
... Payas in Sanskrit means both milk and water! ...
Dear Subramaniam R, yes, perhaps water is more milk than milk itself. Let the day come where we don't need to make distinctions like that any longer. Milk nourishes the body and non discrimination nourishes the mind.
Ravi,
"Broken Yogi,
"And that is of course where Ramana often differs with many traditional Advaitists, who insist that the mind is not destroyed in realization"
What do you mean by 'Destruction' of the Mind?Please answer based on your own understanding and experience."
First, the statement is a reference to Ramana's own teaching, stated many times over the years - that the mind must be utterly destroyed, and never rise again. By this Ramana means the "I"-thought, and not primordial Awareness, of course, as he also taught many times.
My own personal experience is that the mind is simply delusional in every respect, and that true understanding is beyond the mind's capacity. The mind deals in concepts and sensations, experiences and their interpretation, not in truth. Identification with the mind - and thus the body - leads to a false understanding of who we are. So Ramana's teaching is that the root of the mind - the "I" thought, must be cut, thus killing the mind as a whole.
What is beyond the mind is not definable or nameable. We can call it "the Self" by inference, but that is only meaningful in reference to the mind. The Self as a name or definition is a dualism, the opposite of which is the "not-Self". But Ramana declares that in realization, there is no "Not-Self", that all is the Self. And thus, the term "Self" loses its meaning. It was useful as a pointer to reality, but once realized, it falls away.
Similarly with such concepts as "substratum". A substratum can only exist if there is a stratum to differentiate it from. The stratum is thus "the world of appearances", and the substratum is the underlying reality. This is useful again as a pointer, but once it is actually realized, the substratum disappears, as does the stratum. One sees that there never was a substratum, and no stratum either.
This is also found in the Ajata Vada and in Guadapada's teachings, which are closely related to Buddhism and clearly inspired by Buddhist sources.
Your quotes from the Sage of Kanchi are interesting, but they have the unfortunate effect of further diminishing my respect for his teachings. His understanding of Buddhism seems to derived entirely from efforts to diminish it and to promote Sanatana Dharma as a superior path. Buddhists themselves would not recognize or agree with his views on their teachings, and I think it is a mistake to define a religion or path by the views of its critics and rivals. If you want to know what Buddhism is about, refer to Buddhists themselves.
Ravi,
"Now,as for Broken Yogi's fantastic(almost surreal!)assertion that Ramana was more a Buddhist!!??????
-suffice it recall that Ramana said in his very first verse in upadesa sAram -that karma bears fruit on account of the Ordainment of karta or Ishvara."
I don't claim that Ramana was more a Buddhist than a Hindu, only that some aspects of Ramana's teaching are more in accord with Buddhism than they are with traditional Hinduism.
Also, be aware that Ramana himself repeatedly denied that he was a Hindu. So that is already out there in the open. Let me repeat: Ramana was not a Hindu, did not follow sanatana dharma, and did not oppose Buddhism. So it is hardly a stretch to suggest that there were aspects of his teaching which went against the sanatana tradition, and which may even be more in line with some Buddhist teachings.
Poonja Swami, one of Ramana's most prominent devotees, frequently quoted and cited Buddhist teachings, and found their teachings on emptiness to be wholy compatible with what Ramana had taught, and even more importantly, with what he had realized and shown to his devotees.
As for Ramana's references to Isvara, also recall that Ramana considered Isvara to be every bit as much an illusion as the separate ego-"I". He made reference to it only as a convention within the world-appearance, not as some confirmation that such a being exists in reality. He was willing to refer to such concepts because it helped his devotees see that self-enquiry must be practiced, not to affirm anything fundamental about the sanatana doctrine or its views on such things.
Now, there certainly are teachers, like the sage of Kanchi, who see their role as one of affirming and pointing to the sanatana dharma as the true path to realization, and criticizing other paths outside the fold, especially Buddhism which was guilty of rejecting many elements of sanatana dharma and thus a form of "heresy" rather than passive ignorance. But Ramana was simply not that sort of teacher or Guru, and he adamantly denied such a role when it was suggested to him. So it should not be surprising that some aspects of Ramana's teachings would actually be more in line with Buddhism than with Sanatana Dharma, where the two differ. And vice-versa.
Following is a link of the talk on Sunyata and Self by Swami Vivekananda delivered in London in 1896:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Complete_Works_of_Swami_Vivekananda/Volume_2/Practical_Vedanta_and_other_lectures/Practical_Vedanta:_Part_IV
-z
Broken Yogi,
"As for Ramana's references to Isvara, also recall that Ramana considered Isvara to be every bit as much an illusion as the separate ego-"I"."
This is to be properly understood in that Sri Bhagavan had only said that the division as the self,world and Ishwara(the Triputi jnana)is false.This is the same as the Traditional advaita position and has nothing to with the 'Buddhist' philosophy.Sri Bhagavan clearly said that as long as the 'I' is taken to be real,the other two are valid too and this is exactly the classical traditional(Traditional does not mean just belief!)position as well;and most importantly,this is not the Buddhist position.
The Traditional advaita further says that the Saguna and the Nirguna are the aspects of the same Truth.It says that the ever changing and the Changeless are one Indivisible Truth-that the phenomenon(vyavaharika) and the Noumenon(pramarthika) are aspects of the same Truth.
-----------------------------------
You seem to be thinking of a parochial use of the term 'Hindu'and insisting that Sri Ramana was not a Hindu!This is just laughable as much as to say that he was not a man!The very nature of advaita is such that it is not at loggerheads with any other religion or belief system-and if like the Sage of Kanchi, it throws a critical view on other belief systems,rest assured that it is unsparing in its view of the belief system that is supposed to be 'Hindu'.
Does it matter a bit whether you respect the sage of Kanchi or not?He or his devotees certainly does not require your testimony or approval to be what they are-as much as the Self does not depend on one's belief or disbelief.
-----------------------------------
Namaskar.
z,
Swamiji's talk that you have referred to is truly bold and refreshing!As Sri Ramakrishna used to say-'He is like a sword unsheathed!'.Here is an excerpt:
Two forces have been working side by side in parallel lines. The one says "I", the other says "not I". Their manifestation is not only in man but in animals, not only in animals but in the smallest worms. The tigress that plunges her fangs into the warm blood of a human being would give up her own life to protect her young. The most depraved man who thinks nothing of taking the lives of his brother men will, perhaps, sacrifice himself without any hesitation to save his starving wife and children. Thus throughout creation these two forces are working side by side; where you find the one, you find the other too. The one is selfishness, the other is unselfishness. The one is acquisition, the other is renunciation. The one takes, the other gives. From the lowest to the highest, the whole universe is the playground of these two forces. It does not require any demonstration; it is obvious to all.
What right has any section of the community to base the whole work and evolution of the universe upon one of these two factors alone, upon competition and struggle? What right has it to base the whole working of the universe upon passion and fight, upon competition and struggle? That these exist we do not deny; but what right has anyone to deny the working of the other force? Can any man deny that love, this "not I", this renunciation is the only positive power in the universe? That other is only the misguided employment of the power of love; the power of love brings competition, the real genesis of competition is in love. The real genesis of evil is in unselfishness. The creator of evil is good, and the end is also good. It is only misdirection of the power of good. A man who murders another is, perhaps, moved to do so by the love of his own child. His love has become limited to that one little baby, to the exclusion of the millions of other human beings in the universe. Yet, limited or unlimited, it is the same love.
Thus the motive power of the whole universe, in what ever way it manifests itself, is that one wonderful thing, unselfishness, renunciation, love, the real, the only living force in existence. Therefore the Vedantist insists upon that oneness. We insist upon this explanation because we cannot admit two causes of the universe. If we simply hold that by limitation the same beautiful, wonderful love appears to be evil or vile, we find the whole universe explained by the one force of love. If not, two causes of the universe have to be taken for granted, one good and the other evil, one love and the other hatred. Which is more logical? Certainly the one-force theory."
Namaskar.
z/Friends,
In the same talk referred to by z,Swamiji says exactly what the sage of Kanchi has said:
"If it be true that man is the evolution of a mollusc, the mollusc individual is the same as the man, only it has to become expanded a great deal. From mollusc to man it has been a continuous expansion towards infinity. Therefore the limited soul can be styled an individual which is continuously expanding towards the Infinite Individual. Perfect individuality will only be reached when it has reached the Infinite, but on this side of the Infinite it is a continuously changing, growing personality. One of the remarkable features of the Advaitist system of Vedanta is to harmonise the preceding systems. In many cases it helped the philosophy very much; in some cases it hurt it. Our ancient philosophers knew what you call the theory of evolution; that growth is gradual, step by step, and the recognition of this led them to harmonise all the preceding systems. Thus not one of these preceding ideas was rejected. The fault of the Buddhistic faith was that it had neither the faculty nor the perception of this continual, expansive growth, and for this reason it never even made an attempt to harmonise itself with the preexisting steps towards the ideal. They were rejected as useless and harmful.
This tendency in religion is most harmful. A man gets a new and better idea, and then he looks back on those he has given up, and forthwith decides that they were mischievous and unnecessary. He never thinks that, however crude they may appear from his present point of view, they were very useful to him, that they were necessary for him to reach his present state, and that everyone of us has to grow in a similar fashion, living first on crude ideas, taking benefit from them, and then arriving at a higher standard. With the oldest theories, therefore, the Advaita is friendly. Dualism and all systems that had preceded it are accepted by the Advaita not in a patronising way, but with the conviction that they are true manifestations of the same truth, and that they all lead to the same conclusions as the Advaita has reached.
With blessing, and not with cursing, should be preserved all these various steps through which humanity has to pass. Therefore all these dualistic systems have never been rejected or thrown out, but have been kept intact in the Vedanta; and the dualistic conception of an individual soul, limited yet complete in itself, finds its place in the Vedanta."
-----------------------------------
Lest a la Broken yogi thinks that Swamiji was a 'confirmed Hindu',it is interesting to mention that Swamiji helped the Buddhist speaker in his speech at the Parliament of Religions,Chicago!He knew more about Buddha and The Buddhist philosophy more than any other person there!
Namaskar.
Broken Yogi/Friends,
Interesting to compare this quote from Swami Vivekananda with what Sri Nisargadatta maharaj(was he a Hindu?Would like to hear from you!)said.
" Can any man deny that love, this "not I", this renunciation is the only positive power in the universe? "-Swami Vivekananda.
compare this to what Sri Nisargadatta maharaj says(I am That):
Q: In all the universe is there one single thing of value?
M: Yes, the power of love.
-----------------------------------
Namaskar.
Ravi,
"compare this to what Sri Nisargadatta maharaj says(I am That):
Q: In all the universe is there one single thing of value?
M: Yes, the power of love."
Perhaps this makes Nisargadatta a Christian?
(Unless you think this sentiment is reserved exclusively for Hindus)
Broken Yogi,
"Perhaps this makes Nisargadatta a Christian?"
Good.You seem to be getting it.A Hindu accepts Christ,Buddha ,Mohammed as manifestations of God-Was Sri Ramakrishna a 'Hindu'?Did he practise all these religions(not lip service,but genuine practice followed by Realization).In like manner,the Sage of Kanchi recognizes all the Great ones and advises christians to be better christians,muslims to be better muslims,insisting that whatever traditions they are born in be adhered to,as it is in no way in opposition to the Truth that Advaita proclaims.This is sanatana Dharma-the Eternal Religion,that accommodates all,without any exclusivity about it.
Namaskar.
Ravi,
Regarding Vivekananda's speech before the parliament and his criticism of Buddhism, we must remember that despite his spiritual accomplishments he was still young and sometimes given to relatively foolish statements, especially in his political pursuit of Hindu nationalist ideals. He was certainly not an enlightened individual yet who had completed his own sadhana and gone beyond his own dualisms and prejudices. He was a work in progress. And his criticism of Buddhism as somehow lacking in graduated or preliminary steps is simply absurd and betrays his own lack of familiarity with the Buddhist tradition. Fortunately we now have much knowledge of the Buddhist tradition to help dispel such foolish conclusions.
Vivekananda was given to many foolish ideals, including the ideal of idealism itself, that he later learned were illusory. He was often in pursuit of a unity of religion that was merely a self-serving Hindu ideal, and not a genuinely universal one, but geared towards establishing Hinduism as the only genuinely "highest" truth that all others must conform to somehow. So he had a hard time understanding other religions, like Buddhism, and appreciating them for their own value and meaning. He wanted to make them all into sects of Hinduism, rather than understand them on their own terms.
Over time, I think he came to recognize that other religions had their own unique contributions to make to spiritual truth. In particular, towards the end of his too short life he developed some interesting theories about the reconciliation of Advaita and Buddhist approaches, and came to regret his earlier ideas.
Broken Yogi,
Swamiji beautifully sums up Sri Ramakrishna,in his talk 'My Master':
"To proclaim and make clear the fundamental unity underlying all religions was the mission of my Master. Other teachers have taught special religions which bear their names, but this great teacher of the nineteenth century made no claim for himself. He left every religion undisturbed because he had realized that in reality they are all part and parcel of the one eternal religion. "
The 'Eternal Religion' that Swamiji mentions is 'sanatana Dharma',and all the sages and masters down the ages have exemplified the Truth stated by Swamiji.Nothing 'Hindu' about it.
Namaskar.
Ravi,
One thing I might mention in relation to your quotes from the Sage of Kanchi and Vivekananda is that there are certainly many Buddhists who have a similarly chauvinistic viewpoint about the superiority of the own religion and the inferiority of others, such as Hinduism especially.
I would put the Dalai Lama in that category. Despite his being a clearly mature individual with a great deal of spiritual wisdom, he also promotes his own faith with an admittedly exclusive approach. When directly asked, he has said that unless the Buddhist path is followed, one cannot achieve full enlightenment and liberation. He specifically has said that Hindus cannot become fully realized unless they take on the Buddhist point of view. They can go very far, he admits, but that last step is not available to them.
Now, I would consider that also to be foolish nonsense by a religious nationalist of a different stripe. I think it's important to be appreciative of such people, but also to be wary of their prejudices and delusions, which I think are the result of their own incomplete spiritual realization. I don't consider the Dalai Lama to be fully enlightened either, or he simply couldn't make such foolish statements. Likewise with Vivekananda (until his mahasamadhi) and the Sage of Kanchi. All are undoubtedly great men of deep spiritual understanding and wisdom, but nonetheless limited by their own cultural prejudices and incomplete realization.
I don't find a similar limitation in Sri Ramana's teachings, or Nisargadatta's, or numerous others. As mentioned, many Buddhists are able to recognize Ramana as fully enlightened, and likewise many Hindus are able to recognize great Buddhist realizers as fully enlightened. But there are always some who insist on claiming exclusivity for their own nationalist religion and are incapable of recognizing others as being capable of realizing ultimate truth. A shame, but common enough to be quite understandable and forgiveable.
Broken Yogi,
"Over time, I think he came to recognize that other religions had their own unique contributions to make to spiritual truth. "
I have quoted from 'My Master' that Swamiji gave in 1896.
Now to clear your doubt,Swamiji carried with him ,the book by Thomas A Kempis,'Imitation of Christ' as he wandered the length and breadth of India as a wandering monk,after the passing away of Sri Ramakrishna.
Even in the parliament of Religions,in 1893,this is what he spoke,in his concluding address:
"If the Parliament of Religions has shown anything to the world, it is this: It has proved to the world that holiness, purity and charity are not the exclusive possessions of any church in the world, and that every system has produced men and women of the most exalted character. In the face of this evidence, if anybody dreams of the exclusive survival of his own religion and the destruction of the others, I pity him from the bottom of my heart, and point out to him that upon the banner of every religion will soon be written in spite of resistance: "Help and not fight," "Assimilation and not Destruction," "Harmony and Peace and not Dissension."
-----------------------------------
I get the impression that I am trying to awaken a man who is pretending to be asleep and refusing to accept daylight!I will leave you amidst your daydreams.
Namaskar.
"The 'Eternal Religion' that Swamiji mentions is 'sanatana Dharma',and all the sages and masters down the ages have exemplified the Truth stated by Swamiji.Nothing 'Hindu' about it."
If that is the case, then Ramakrishna was not a genuine universalist, but merely another guy proclaiming the superiority of his own tradition.
There have been many sages and masters down the centuries who were not a part of "sanatana dharma".
I don't actually think this is what Ramakrishna meant, but if he did, we part ways there. I too believe there is "one eternal religion", but that it has many faces, and that sanatana dharma is only one of those faces. Buddhism is another, as are Christianity and so on. Truth is the only genuine religion, and no tradition owns the truth.
Ravi,
You are merely pointing out that Vivekananda constantly contradicted himself, and was simply working out issues on a public stage that he had not yet become clear about. It's rather obvious that sometimes he would say that all religions are great and wonderful, and then he would say that some are deficient and inferior to his own.
What are we to make of that? That Swamiji was all too human, and by no means an authoritative source of steady and reliable wisdom, but someone who was grappling with great issues and going back and forth within himself trying to grasp it all. I have no doubt of his sincerity, even when he contradicted himself. I'm sure he meant every word he spoke, when he spoke it, even if they don't always add up, even within the same speech.
But thank you for trying to awaken me from my slumber, even if the method of condescension is not likely to be effective. Like Vivekananda, I too am merely trying to find my way through difficult matters without resorting merely to authority, but to my own understanding. I have always found Vivekananda to be a kindred spirit in that respect, and thus also a flawed though often brilliant one. I only hope I can make as many glorious mistakes as he did.
Broken Yogi,
"I don't find a similar limitation in Sri Ramana's teachings, or Nisargadatta's, or numerous others"
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.
-----------------------------------Namsakar.
"Ramana did not belong to any sampradAya. He is someone who is acknowledged to have attained enlightenment without any of the usual prior teaching and is therefore held up as proof by many modern teachers that prolonged studies with a qualified guru are not necessary. Unfortunately a single example does not disprove the general rule, and history shows that most do need prolonged formal teaching. Papaji is generally regarded as having been a disciple of Ramana. He did not belong to any recognized sampradAya either. As far as I am aware, neither formally recognized anyone as their ‘successors’ either, although numerous teachers now claim that they were ‘authorized’ to teach by Papaji"
glow
Dear Ravi,
Sri Bhagavan has said Mano-nasam.
Here it might merely mean only
ahankara nasam or as it is, mano
nasam. Muruganar writes about both
in Guru Vachaka Kovai. There are
a few verses on Dead Mind. Classical advaitic texts do not speak about this. Another feature where Sri Bhagavan differed was the absence of even prarabdha. Classical texts say that prarabdha cannot be avoided even by a self realized jnani. Sri Bhagavan has said that the prarabdha is there, but it is only for the body. A self realized jnani has no body consciousness at all. Sri Bhagavan said, for the sake of onlookers, that the body was paining during cancer. Many Jnanis like Sivananda and Sri Ramakrishna had cried during their terminal illnesses. But Sri Bhagavan had
never cried.
Dear Ravi,
Sri Bhagavan has said that Jnani
is like a burnt rope. It has only
form but is of no use.
Dear Ravi,
Mahaswami's words are a crisp note
on Buddhism.
Broken Yogi,
"There have been many sages and masters down the centuries who were not a part of "sanatana dharma".
I don't actually think this is what Ramakrishna meant, but if he did, we part ways there."
I am afraid that sri Ramakrishna does seem to fit your bill.This is what he says in The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna:
MASTER: "Keshab now believes in Kali as the Embodiment of Spirit and Consciousness,
the Primal Energy. Besides, he repeats the holy name of the Mother and chants Her glories.
"Do you think the Brahmo Samaj will develop in the future into a sort of social-reform
organization?"
M: "The soil of this country is different. Only what is true survives here."
MASTER: "Yes, that is so. The Sanatana Dharma, the Eternal Religion declared by the
rishis, will alone endure. But there will also remain some sects like the Brahmo Samaj.
Everything appears and disappears through the will of God."
-----------------------------------
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!No such trapping is in 'sanatana dharma' that is ever fluid ,developing,absorbing and embracing all,ever new yet ancient.This is the secret of its longevity and resurgence,its vitality.
-----------------------------------Namaskar.
Dear Broken Yogi, Ravi,
Sri Bhagavan is Truth Finder and
Truth realizer. Truth does not require any religion. All religions have, in the name of finding the
Truth have destroyed Its form and content. Every religion is therefore incomplete. Perhaps
Hinduism and Buddhism are the two
blind guys who ALMOST knew the form of the elephant. Sri Bhagavan hardly spoke about religion. He has said to Western devotees that there was no need for them to change over to Hinduism to understand His teachings. Christians can be true Christians and Moslems can be true Moslems and Hindus can be true Hindus. He had also similar view on ascetism. Unlike Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism, He never prescribed external renunciation [by wearing ochre robes, having diksha mantra etc..] for doing self inquiry. He chided all the householders who came to Him for permission to embrace sannaysam.
Dear Broken Yogi,
Though Sri Bhagavan was only for Truth and beyond any religion, He was born a Hindu and He lived among the devotees who were predominantly Hindu and He had to respect certain features of traditional Hinduism. For example when Kavyakanta's son Mahadevan was visiting Asramam and was found to be having a long flowing hair, without any tuft, He told him: Are you not Nayana's son? Then why all this flowing hair? He came next day having a tuft with front portion of the hair cleanly shaven. He also told M.S. Pillai when he came with a tonsure, that you should not leave acharam. Pillai was having a tuft [those days, apart from Brahmins, even saivite Hindus had tuft of hair] and Pillai came with a tuft in a few days. So also with separate rows for brahmins and non brahmins during lunch and dinner. But He always used to say that one who is in chariayam [the only support] of Brahman is a Brahmin. He also insisted on Samadhi being constructed for Seshadri Swamigal and Mother Azhagamma which is a traditional Hindu practice for sannyasis who had left their bodies.
Hi Ravi, folks,
Yes, the Paramacharya’s words are always worth listening to. And he in his inimitable style has laid out the salient points of the Buddhist & Jain doctrines and their shortcomings. Thanks for putting up his discourse.
Best wishes
Broken Yogi, folks,
As usual I am stuck up way back up the thread.
Time being limited, I thought I should pick up just 2 points from your extensive posts:
“Yes, it is my understanding that there is "nothing at all" that can be spoken of or described as "the Self".”
“So this phrase "the Self" doesn't actually point to some real thing, a substratum or layer of things as we might like to believe.”
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.
----------------------
“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? Again, do quote me the Advaita text or the source material please. For, even offhand I can mention an Advaita text, “Advaita Bodh Deepika”, much loved by Sri Bhagavan, in which there is a whole chapter on “manonasa”!
Best wishes
Dear Broken Yogi,
1. Because the aim of Buddha and Mahavira was to teach the means by which we can attain the absolute reality, which is beyond all gunas,
attributes, they did not consider it necessary to talk about god, a term that is used for Saguna Brahman. But the fact that Buddha clearly acknowledged the Absolute Reality or Nirguna Brahman is evident from one of the important and well known teachings, which is recorded in Tiptiaka. See the verse in Michael James' book.
2. Another superficial difference between the teachings of Buddha and advaita vedanta, is that Buddha taught the truth of anatta, a Pali term for anatma, which means no-self. The sages of advaita vedanta talk about Atma or Self. When Buddha was talking about anatma, he must be referring only to our finite individual self. This false individual self evaporates when there is Nirvana.
3. The teachings appear to differ from one another, because of the terminology used. Words can never express perfectly, but can only indicate. Further their original teachings have been mixed up with the ideas of followers, many of whom had no direct experience of the truth that the Master taught.
4. When direct teachings are mixed up with theology, cosmology etc., they become religions. This is what Ramanuja also did. He must have stopped with his qualified non dualism, but went on to say that the non dual consciousness is Narayana. Saiva Siddhantis also made the mistake by calling the non dual consciousness as Siva.
Whether it is Buddha, Mahavira or
Sri Bhagavan, love and compassion was the impelling force behind their original teachings. The aim of life is to get rid of the sufferings through forsaking the ego. This ego less state is not a dry state, but is full of compassion and love.
Just as Ramanuja made the mistake of mixing up his teachings and religion, Hinayana also made the mistake of keeping a Buddha idol,
[who knows how he looked, whether he wore a long gown or koupina, had a flowing hair kept as a bun
atop the crown? at least we have got photographs of Sri Bhagavan],
and started worshipping him with garlands, sandal, incense and camphor. This is where the basic teachings became a religion and got confounded. Similarly who knows how Jesus Christ looked? Was he having a long conical beard? What sort of gown he was wearing? All these came much later through paintings. How did Mary and Magadalene look? No one knows. What remains with us is only their teachings and that too different versions of teachings from his followers. Even in the New Testament, the gospels of the four followers differ from each other in many places.
R.subramanaian,
" He(Sri Ramanuja) must have stopped with his qualified non dualism, but went on to say that the non dual consciousness is Narayana. Saiva Siddhantis also made the mistake by calling the non dual consciousness as Siva."
Narayana and siva are both personal and impersonal-saguna and Nirguna.
In fact as kanchi mahAswami so wonderfully says that the NArAyaNA nama was uttered by Sri Sankara as a form of greeting anyone who came to meet him,and this continues till today.The AchAryAs (mahAswAmi included)always greet anyone doing namaskar to them by chanting nArAyaNa,nArAyaNa.so,it is not Sri RAmAnujAcharya(if Sri sankara and Sri rAmAnuja happen to be living now,i will first go to pay obeisance to Sri rAmAnuja first and then on to Sri sankara!)alone who chants NArAyaNa namam.
Namaskar.
R.Subramanian,
"Just as Ramanuja made the mistake of mixing up his teachings and religion"
What is the mistake-what do you mean by 'Teachings' and what do you mean by 'Religion'.
Please note that distributing 'sundal prasadam' also is necessary to attract youngsters to the bhajans!In like fashion,all these Traditional forms of worship are necessary for the vast majority of Humanbeings,so that they get attracted by the 'package' before they are drawn to the contents.These Great AchAryAs had a role assigned by God and each one of them served that cause.We are not fit to even to utter their name;only by tapas we even develop an iota of reverence and devotion to the Great ones.Even the dust that their devotees left behind is sacred.To think that we have a measure of what is Truth that these Great ones messed up!Siva,Siva!
Namaskar.
R.Subramanian,
"Many Jnanis like Sivananda and Sri Ramakrishna had cried during their terminal illnesses. But Sri Bhagavan had
never cried."
What is wrong with crying?Crying and not crying are the same to the Jnani.Sri Bhagavan was groaning,that is all.Sri Ramakrishna was like a 'child' and the Child cries.Like swamiji said that if 'keeping Quiet' is a sign of wisdom,even walls qualify.
Namaskar.
Post a Comment