The previous Open Thread is now reaching the point where new comments may start to disappear. I will pre-empt that moment by starting a new one . Please continue all 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.
748 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 748 Newer› Newest»Hi S,
You seem to be practising Vichara.Could you please tell us about your techinques, experiences and pitfalls of Vichara.Please try to be objective like the Dutch Swami Ramanagiri Swami( http://sriramanagiriswamigal.com/).I have read Mr.David's chapters on Vichara in the book BAYR.In the end I got a feeling that: just try it; you would know it kind of message; although I have to admit I have to read those chapters a couple more times to really get a grasp and Maharshi has said nothing more than: Find out the root/I and added that it is not an empty formula.Mr.David also mentions that he fiddled with this for years but does not go into his personal techniques or experiences anywhere.From whatever I read this Dutch Swami is the clearest and objective.Practise wise I did very little. I know, in the past you said unless one has practised for a few months it is not advisable to talk on Vichara.But still curios.
Whatever very little I did I endep with endless loop of observing the observer or when I say 'I' 'I' or 'naan' naan' I end up following the source of voice in the head or at the Solar chakra.
Also I find that I agree with UG's statement that: how can a thought observe another thought.At any given time there is only one thought.He also says that the observer cannot be seperated from the thought(Not exact words of UG)
I find it true that I observe a memory of the previous thought the observer is already a thought and at any given time there is only one thought.
Thanks.
-z
salutations to all:
Anonymous(Z.):
hahahahaha... i know precious little to say anything on vichAra (no modesty intended or implied) :-)
briefly:
(i)techniques - no techniques, the only technique i know is that outlined by bhagavAn in verses 27-29 in the uLLadhu nArpadhu (& will have to read it again & again) - trying to bring the attention back to the fundamental i-thought & trying to find from where it arises - perhaps, no analogy will ever fit but i tend to view it as a sort-of something like this: you know about the prowling thief & want to catch him red-handed; so, you switch off everything, and wait & watch with complete attention;, not a sound, for the slightest movement shall alert the thief thereby changing his plans... hahahaha
(ii)experiences - nothing to say; my mind is very much there & seems to be the only thing alive & kicking :-). yes, most things which used to bother me hitherto a great deal either trouble me much less or worry me no more; in short - happy :-))) almost all my time nowadays is getting spent in doing mathematics/ reciting tevAram/ teaching at school/ viewing this blog/ talking to a couple of good friends about bhagavAn/ reading vedAnta (currently madhvA)/ learning sanskrit/ sleeping well etc. :-)))
(iii)pitfalls - just begun to 'walk' - nonetheless, to get contented (complacency), to confuse what one reads about the 'self' with what it is (what it 'is', obviously have no clue!), to worry about one's eligibility/ preparedness for vichAra, to wail on karmA and wallow in self-pity, to get lost in all the other questions/doubts (such as the examples you gave, i empathise though) that take us away from vichAra etc. etc... as an 'aside' - read, explore, discuss 'if & only if' it doesn't interfere with your vichAra; if they do, drop it asap :-)))
Thanks S.My observations of your techique:
1)Dont you think you will never find the thief because you yourself are the thief.
2)What do you look for?You must have an idea of the thief i.e 'I'?Do you have an idea/memory of the 'I' to look for it or do you simply look/observe in that calmness.Sorry can you be more specific about the process?
3)Do you think it is better to wait for a stage where one can achieve relatively complete stillness for say more than 10 minutes and then look for the I?
4)Do you think stillness of the mind is a pre-requisite to Atma Vichara?I tend to think so.Suppose you are at the top branches of a big Bodhi tree. Dont you think it is a waste of time looking for the root of the tree in the Summer when the tree is lush with leaves.Surely it is easier to find the root of a tree in Autumn when there are less leaves.
5)And most important after a few weeks dont people experience PrAnottana(precursor to Kundalini) playing about?Do we just ignore it and continue Atma Vichara because I read the famous Gopi Krishna's book on Kundalini and how not to mess about with it.I also read a famous Ramana devotee V.V.Brahmam(http://www.brahmam.net/) advise to consciously direct any PrAnottana to the Hrudaya(not Heart Chakra) centre instead of letting it go it's natural way to the Bindu point in the Brain.How do you deal with any PrAnottana intrusions?
Subramanian & Clemens, We've had a menagerie of animals over the years and they can be delightful companions. To be realistic, animals I've noticed can also be jealous and tease/torment each other as well.
A herbivorous Giraffe may not be a saint and a long fanged Tiger may be an outstanding mother to her cubs.
Each animal is an individual as we see it yet it adheres to its instinctual nature.
We as yet do not have the penetrating insight to see living things as they really are.
"during vichAra even if bhagavAn himself were to appear, i may fail but i would try to banish that as well :-)))"
Man, I wouldn't. The Guru is my only hope.
Subramanaian,
1. Arunachula was present long before Hindus came and began calling it the incarnation of Shiva. The name is not important, the presence is, and it is that presence and power that was Ramana's Guru. You can call it Shiva, you can call it Jesus if you like, it is not the name that matters.
2. Moslems destroyed more Hindu temples because the Buddhists who dominated in the land that was later invaded and occupied did not destroy Hindu temples and replace them with their own. They were not much into temple making. The Muslims destroyed the leftover Hindu temples in Buddhist areas, as well as many Hindu temples in Hindu areas. Once they had wiped out or converted all the Buddhists by the sword, the Muslims went after Hindus, so the main conflict over the centuries became muslim/hindu rather than muslim/buddhist.
3. China's Buddhist population is estimated by Wikipedia at between 8-21%, or 100-275 million. Japan's Buddhist population is estimated at 45-71%, or 57-91 million people. They must have some very large libraries and universities to fit all those people in. One wonders how they do it.
4. There is virtually no controversy among scholars as to the fact that Nagarjuna preceded Guadapada. Nikhilananda simply has no idea what he's talking about. There are issues as to which of Nagarjuna's works were written by him, and which were merely attributed to him by others writing at a later time. There's uncertainty as to his exact lifetime, but the accepted range is 150-250 CE, possibly extended to 50-300. There's simply no doubt that his first and major works in Madhyamika were written and published during this period, for there are many references in other writings to them soon thereafter.
Likewise, there is little doubt as to Sankara's dating of 788-820 CE or thereabouts (and certainly not in any range that would be him anywhere near Nagarjuna). Gaudapada's exact birth and death are unknown, but since he was Sankara's Guru their lives must overlap and he's certainly within the 8th centurty CE. So there is simply no doubt among scholars that Nagarjuna's Madhyamika preceded Gaudapada's Advaita. This is about as final as most history can be.
Broken Yogi/Friends,
ArunAchala is not an incarnation of siva-not born in Flesh and Blood.It is Siva Kshetra.Please note that Siva is the Self and existed even before the world came into existence.Here is an excerpt from David's website on Arunachala:
The Unique Sanctity of Arunachala
In India there are countless holy places (kshetras) that are sacred to Lord Siva or to some other name and form of God, and many of them are more well-known and popular than Arunachala. Yet there is a verse in the Arunachala Mahatmyam, which has been selected and translated into Tamil by Sri Bhagavan, that says:
Arunachala is truly the holy place. Of all holy places it is the most sacred! Know that it is the heart of the world. It is truly Siva himself! It is his heart-abode, a secret kshetra. In that place the Lord ever abides the hill of light named Arunachala.
Whenever Sri Bhagavan asked about the special sanctity of Arunachala, he used to explain that other holy places such as Kailas, Kasi and Chidambaram are sacred because they are the abodes of Lord Siva whereas Arunachala is Lord Siva himself.(5) However, as the above verse of Arunachala Mahatmyam says, Arunachala is a secret kshetra. Because it is this place that bestows jnana and because most people have so many other desires and do not truly want jnana, Arunachala has always remained comparatively little known. But to those few who seek jnana, Arunachala always makes itself known through some means or other.
The unique sanctity and power of Arunachala-kshetra was once confirmed by an incident that happened in the life of Sri Bhagavan. Because of his great love for Sri Bhagavan, a certain devotee wanted to take him to his native place, Chidambaram. But rather than directly ask Sri Bhagavan to come to Chidambaram, he began to ask him if he had ever been to see Lord Nataraja in Chidambaram Temple. When Sri Bhagavan replied that he had not, the devotee began to describe the greatness of Chidambaram, saying that it was the most sacred Siva-kshetra in South India, that so many saints and sages had lived there and had sung in praise of Lord Nataraja, and so on and so forth. Sri Bhagavan listened to all he said with patient interest, but showed no signs of wanting to visit Chidambaram.
Seeing this, the devotee at last said, 'Chidambaram is even greater than Arunachala, because among the panchabuta lingams [the lingams representing the five elements] Chidambaram is the space-lingam while Arunachala is only the fire-lingam.(6) Since the four elements, earth, water, air and fire, finally have to merge in space, space is the principal element.'
Hearing this, Sri Bhagavan smiled and said, 'All the five elements come into existence only when Sakti seemingly forsakes her identify with Lord Siva, the Supreme Self (Paramatman). Since the five elements are thus only the creations of Sakti, she is superior to all of them. Therefore, more important than the place where the elements merge, is the place where Sakti herself merges. Because Sakti is dancing in Chidambaram, Lord Siva has to dance before her and thereby make her become motionless. But in Arunachala Lord Siva remains ever motionless (achala), and hence Sakti automatically and effortlessly merges in him through great love. Therefore, Arunachala shines as the foremost and most powerful kshetra, because here Sakti, who has seemingly created all this manifold appearance, herself merges into the Lord. So for those mature aspirants who seek to put an end to the false appearance of duality, the most powerful help is to be found only in Arunachala-kshetra.'
Namaskar
Dear Clemens Vargas Ramos and S.,
I think, Vichara is basically to know the aham-vrittis, thoughts that come in too many like army of men and find out what is the birth place of these thoughts. One can never attain the Source keeping some grandiose ideas about it. All ideas about the Self are untrue. Since this mind, these thoughts are bothering us more often, when we want some peace, we go into investigation of the birth place of these thoughts.
In the ultimate scheme of things, to realize God or the Self is left to the choice of God/the Self. This choice is called Grace.
Christ said: According to thy faith, be it done under unto thee. Upanishads also say that
he knows the Atman whom the Atman
chooses.
If you ask why should Atman choose only some and not others, Sri Bhagavan says: "Why should only
some buds of lotuses alone blossom and not all? [Maharshi's Gospel].
Dear S.,
Q: How can any inquiry initiated by the ego reveal its own unreality?
Sri B: The ego's phenomenal existence is transcended when you dive into the source, where from arises aham vritti.
Q: Is not the aham vritti only one of the three forms in which the ego manifests itself? Yoga Vasishta and other ancient texts describe the ego as having a three fold form.
Sri B: It is so. The ego is described as having three bodies, the gross, the subtle and the causal, but that is only for the purposes of analytical exposition. If the method of inquiry were to depend on the ego's form, you may take it that any inquiry would become altogether impossible, because the forms of ego may assume a legion. Therefore, for purposes of jnana vichara, you have to proceed on the basis that the ego has but one form, namely that of aham vritti.
Q: But it may prove inadequate for realizing jnana..
Sri B: Self inquiry by following the clue of aham vritti is just like the dog tracing its master by his scent. The master may be at
some distant, unknown place, but that does not at all stand in the way of the dog tracing him. The master's scent in an infallible clue for the animal, and nothing else, such as dress he wears, or his build and stature etc., counts. The dog holds on to that scent undistractedly while searching for him, and finally it succeeds in tracing him.
Dear R. Subramanian, I have no grandiose ideas about it (if I put you right). We all have the experience of the so called self and one of the best conceptual descriptions of it is something like 'infinite space of consciousness' or 'vast stillness'. It is the experience of all beings (certainly animals or plants included) that in the beginning there is 'nothing', and within that appears the 'world'.
It's an experience and no idea.
Worlds may change or even vanish - infinite space of consciousness is everlasting.
---
'Grace':
He whom the Self chooses, by him alone is It attained. To him the Self reveals Its true nature.
Katha 2-23
Talks No. 14
[The previous comment is from Maharshi's Gospel]
An old man came and sat in the Hall.
Maharshi was reading Sarma's Sanskrit recension of Arunachala Akshara Mana Maalai. The man asked softly, "It is said that realization is beyond expression. And expression always fails to describe the realization. How is it?"
Maharshi: The point has been mentioned in Sri Arunachala Ashtakam, Verse 3, where it is admitted that, although the expression of realization is impossible, still its existence is indicated.
Soon after there were visible signs of emotion in the man. His breath was deep and hard and he fell on the floor prostrating humbly and got up only after one or two minutes. Remaining calm a brief while, he left the place. Evidently the man had some illumination. He sought confirmation from Maharshi, who responded fittingly. He found confirmation, and humbly and feelingly acknowledged the divine intercession on his behalf.
Dear Clemens Vargas Ramos,
I agree with you. Adhuvanal, adhuve sollum... says one Tamizh verse. If one becomes That, That will tell you [what It is]. Sri Bhagavan while narrating about His death experience in Madurai later, said: I thought I had a disease. But it was a pleasant disease.
Once, a mischievous and overactive squirrel bit Bhagavan's finger. This particular squirrel would not take his nuts from the tin but would insist on Bhagavan feeding him.
One day it so happened that when he came for food, Bhagavan was reading or otherwise occupied. So there was a slight delay in giving him food. Perhaps because of his anger at the delay, he abruptly bit Bhagavan's finger, but Bhagavan still did not offer him food. Bhagavan was amused and said: "You are a naughty creature! You have bitten my finger! I will no longer feed you. Go away! Saying so, He stopped feeding the squirrel for a few days. That was how Bhagavan punished the squirrel for his impatience and naughtiness.
A regular tussle then followed between Bhagavan and the squirrel. The squirrel did not stay quiet. He began begging Bhagavan for forgiveness by crawling hither and thither. Bhagavan put the nuts on the window sill and on sofa and told him to help himself. But he would not even touch them. Bhagavan pretended to be indifferent and not to notice. But the squirrel would crawl up to Bhagavan's leg, jump on His body, climb on the shoulders and do ever so many things, to attract His attention. Bhagavan turned to his devotees and said, "Look! This fellow is begging me to forgive him for his mischief in biting my finger and to give up my refusal to feed him with my own hands."
Bhagavan pushed the squirrel for some days saying, "Naughty creature! Why did you bite my finger? I won't feed you now. That is your punishment. Look, the nuts are there. Eat them all." But the squirrel would not leave its obstinacy either. Some days passed and Bhagavan who is always kind and merciful to His devotees, had to admit His defeat, and He fed the squirrel with His own hands.
Suri Nagamma said, "It occurred to me, that it was through perseverance that devotees attained salvation."
[Bhagavan, A Friend of All].
... An old man came and sat in the Hall. ...
I know this story well. I find important here the right understanding of description and experience. Some people (especially in 'non dual' discussions) seem to believe that there is no description possible of the undescribable. Next they deny the descriptions born of experience. And next they don't search it out. This seems to be a kind of 'maya'.
Dear Clemens Vargas Ramos,
Yes. The indescribable can never be described before attaining It. After
attainment, there will be [at least in some cases], visible expressions that point out the attainment of the extraordinary. In Sri Bhagavan's
case too, He kept quiet and looked as if nothing had happened. But He
cried before the deity of Meenakshi
Temple. He became a sadhu [literally one who is harmless],
and the friends were wondering about the change in His boisterous attitude. He could not attend to even school lessons and homework.
And was always having a vacant look.
Anon,
Though you didn't ask me, I can offer one very simple bit of advice on the practice of self-enquiry taken from Ramana's comments in GVK:
"That trustworthy vichara exists neither in book learning not in learning from others but only in one's own sense of 'I'."
I take from this that Ramana intentionally left his instructions on the techniques or formal practice of self-enquiry deliberately vague, and essentially includes only the instruction to be attentive to the feeling-sense of 'I'. The reason seems to be that the 'I' is the true Guru, who gives one direct instruction if one is quietly attentive. So the best way to learn self-enquiry is simply to be attentive to the 'I' sense, and if one is diligent in that, all instruction in self-enquiry and all its finer elements will be given directly and intuitively by the Self.
Ramana did not intend even his own words and teachings and books to stand in the way or act as a substitute for that direct instruction from the Self. So it is not only futile to look elsewhere for tips and techniques on how to practice self-enquiry, it actually goes against his own instruction. Simply be attentive to your own sense of 'I', as he instructs, and let that power and intelligence be your guide.
... Simply be attentive to your own sense of 'I', as he instructs, and let that power and intelligence be your guide. ...
That's true. Consciousness heals itself. Because pure consciousness is pure seeing it is able to understand everything. Only the consequent dismissing of all 'impurities' (ideas born of craving and anxiety) is necessary.
Dear Broken Yogi,
Then how can one explain the versess 28 to 30 of Sad Darsanam? The point is He has given the technqiue, i.e forsaking all the non-Self with the attention & persevrance equal to a diver diving into the well [the well example is there only in Sanskrit version, but Bhagavan in His original Tamizh version, says as one dives to search for an article that has fallen in to water] to re-attain the lost thing.
salutations to all:
z./folks:
this is a 'blog', so anyone who wishes to can contribute irrespective of whether he/she has been specifically queried or not (am sure z. wouldn't mind) :-)
thanks to subramanian/clemens/broken yogi for sharing their views. here is my attempt at answering your points:
1. that was only an analogy, and thus not to be stretched too far :-)
2. one doesn't need either a memory or an idea of one's basic existence! there has to be a one to whom the memory/ idea occurs (or is bothered by such memories/ ideas!), isn't it? 'WHO?'
3. why should this 10 (or 10,000) minutes be an issue? please go through the story of janaka and aShTAvakra...
4. if you think you are prepared for vichAra, you very well are; if you think you aren't eligible, then you very well aren't :-)
5. neither do i know 'PrAnottana' nor have i heard of 'V.V.Brahmam' :-)
z. - just do it; i may not know 'PrAnottana' (nor i wish to :-)) but this much i know that if we keep getting enmeshed in doubts/ queries, then someday the 'prANa' will definitely 'leave' & we wouldn't have done 'self-enquiry' yet (no bhagavAn's will here, entirely our's & our blunder alone) :-)
salutations to all:
Clemens:
you said "...We all have the experience of the so called self and one of the best conceptual descriptions of it is something like 'infinite space of consciousness' or 'vast stillness'. It is the experience of all beings (certainly animals or plants included) that in the beginning there is 'nothing', and within that appears the 'world'..."
really??? sorry for asking but is it so unambiguously clear to you? it may be self-evident(!) for a one as bhagavAn or thAkur, otherwise you are certainly 'imagining' stuff (in fact day-dreaming!). for now, if anything it's the workings of the mind & the individual self that's so obvious to me. :-)
'infinite space of consciousness' or 'vast stillness'???: - hahahahaha - don't have the faintest idea on any of the words used above! :-) [one could have as well mentioned finite-dimensional vector spaces or hilbert/ banach spaces! - would have definitely been beautiful & meaningful] :-)
sorry clemens - sincerely no offence meant...
salutations to all:
Broken Yogi:
you said "...Ramana intentionally left his instructions on the techniques or formal practice of self-enquiry deliberately vague..."
bhagavAn's instructions are very very very clear & there is nothing vague about it (bhagavAn doesn't write in the way you or i write, hope that's clear!) :-). obviously, beyond that if you find it 'vague', that's because nobody can 'describe' the self which can't be described! those who find bhagavAn's writings 'vague' should learn tamizh and read his works a dozen times - it will be 'clear' enough to 'define' clarity :-)))
salutations to all:
Subramanian: thanks for reproducing those wonderful words of bhagavAn (your 9.55 am comment)
Ravi: thanks for the beautiful description of aruNAchalA ["...'All the five elements come into existence only when Sakti seemingly forsakes her identify with Lord Siva, the Supreme Self (Paramatman)..."]
hadn't read this earlier though :-)
Devotee: If 'I' am also an illusion,
who casts off the illusion?
Sri B: The 'I' casts off the illusion of 'I' and yet remains "I".
Such is the paradox of Self Realization. The Realized do not see any contradiction in it. [Talks]
It is surprising how many philosophers and theologians have failed to understand what is implied by Self-realization and have misrepresented and even attacked or belittled it. All that it means, as Bhagavan explains in the passage quoted, is
realizing the Reality, realizing what it is. And Reality remains the same, eternal and unchanging, whether one realizes it or not. One can, of course, understand the annoyance and frustration of philosophers who wish to grasp everything with the mind on being told that Reality lies beyond and behind the triad of knower-knowledge-known, which is like a mirage over it. For obviously the mirage cannot penetrate to that which underlies it. That is why no easy answer can be given to them. Indeed, Bhagavan did not on the whole approve of questions about the meaning and nature of Realization, because His purpose was to help the questioner and not satisfy mental curiosity. He usually reminded people that what is needed is effort to attain Self Knowledge and when that is attained, the questions will not arise.
[Arthur Osborne, The Teachings of Ramana Maharshi in His Own Words.]
When asked by an aspirant whether,
his Realization, if attained, would help others. Bhagavan has been known to reply: Yes, and it is the best help you possibly can give them. But then He added: 'But in fact, there are no others to help.
[Maharshi's Gospel]
The same paradox is proclaimed in Buddhism where, for instance in the
Diamond Sutra, after speaking of compassion, Buddha explains that in reality there are no others to be compassionate to. Buddha continued: Do not think, Subhuti, that the Tathagata would consider within himself: I will deliver human beings. That would be a degrading thought. Why? Because there are really no sentient beings to be delivered by the Tathagata. Should there be any sentient beings to be delivered by the Tathagata, it would mean that the Tathagata was cherishing within his mind arbitrary conceptions of phenomena such as one's own self, other selves, living beings and a universal self. Even when the Tathagata refers to himself, he is not holding within his mind any such arbitrary thought. Only terrestrial human beings think of selfhood as being a personal possession. Subhuti, even the expression 'terrestrial beings' as used by the Tathagata does not mean that there are any such beings. It is only used as a figure of speech!
People often say that a Realized Man should go about preaching his message. They ask how a man can remain quiet in Realization when there is misery also existing. But what is a Realized Man? Does he see misery outside himself? [One devotee wanted to take Sri Bhagavan in a special train to tour India and teach people!]
They want to determine his state without themselves realizing it. It is like a man searching for a police station, when the man next to him was sleeping and in his dreams, he saw that his gold had been stolen and he has been crying
in the sleep, 'Where is police station? Police, Police.' That man [who is wide awake] will only wake up the dreaming man.
A saying of Laotse from the Tao Te Ching was read out in the Hall. "By his non action, the Sage governs all.". Sri Bhagavan remarked: "Non action is the unceasing activity. The Sage ois characterized by eternal and incessant activity. His stillness is like the apparent stillness of a fast rotating top. It is moving too fast for the eyes to see, so it appears to be still.
[Arthur Osborne, The Teachings of Ramana Maharshi in His Own Words.]
Once I found this in TALKS 196. somewhat 'illuminating':
D.: On enquiry into the origin of thoughts there is a perception of ‘I’. But it does not satisfy me.
M.: Quite right. The perception of ‘I’ is associated with a form, maybe the body. There should be nothing associated with the pure Self.
----
It helps to understand that it is the inner stream of mental images which disturbes the realization of the 'self'. A careful analysis of mental activities shows that within microseconds the space of pure consciousness is full of annoying images (=forms). Mind cannot live without forms. There is no problems with form as such. Problems arise when we separate them (from the 'self') und let them 'fight' against each other.
... means: Don't follow the rabbit but the dissatisfaction. It leads to the origin of all mind activities.
Dear Broken Yogi,
It is like census that Wikepedia gives. I am talking about people who are earnestly practicing Buddhist teachings. In Hongkong, my son says that the Buddhist temple, is like a museum where people come and go watching various murals and paintings as exhibition items. A couple of monks are sitting and meditating. Outside the temple, there is a shop selling all sorts of meat items, and there is more crowd there. I do not know about Japan.
The same is the case with Asramam too. How many visitors are really practicing self inquiry or self surrender? You can count their number in the Old Hall and a small Meditation Hall which has now been made available for want of space,
in the Old Hall. Otherwise, we see more people for pujas and parayanas and in the dining hall. Symbols are essential for a philosophy to thrive. Rituals should go hand in hand so that some people after developing ardent devotion would spend time in Old Hall for meditation/self inquiry. I think this matter came up in my comment only I was talking about the symbols and symbolism for a pure philosophical teaching.
Dear Clemens Vargas Ramos,
Yes. Name and Forms should be transcended. Once some devotee asked Sri Bhagavan whether it is okay that he could continue Rama Japa? Sri Bhagavan said: It is fine, absolutely fine, why are you asking this? The devotee said: I want to know whether I should chant Sita Rama or Dasrata Rama or Kalyana Rama?
Sri Bhagavan said: Meditate on Rama, the mantra, the sound of it and not even name and form of Rama.
He also told another gentleman who was chanting Gayatri mantra, meditate on the sound and do not imagine anything else, not even Gayatri mantra's meaning.
salutations to all:
Subramanian:
you said "...He also told another gentleman who was chanting Gayatri mantra, meditate on the sound and do not imagine anything else, not even Gayatri mantra's meaning..."
sir, don't get me wrong - is this what bhagavAn said? when it comes to bhagavAn's words, request you once again to either give the 'exact' quote, or indicate you are saying from memory in your words what bhagavAn had said - appreciate your enthusiasm, but bhagavAn's words mean a lot, so please remember... thanks
Sri Bhagavan: In a sense, speaking of Self Realization is a delusion. It is only because of people have been under the delusion that the non-Self is the Self and the unreal the Real, that they have to be weaned out of it by other delusion called Self Realization, because actually the Self always is the Self and there is no such thing as realizing it. Who is to realize what, and how, when all that exists is the Self and nothing but the Self. [D By
D]
One thing which impedes understanding, especially in theologians, is the contrast between Self Realizaton and sainthood and the mistaken idea that it may represent a difference between various religious traditions, one striving for sainthood and another for Realization. This idea is quite ungrounded. There have been saints in every religion. Hinduism as well as others. They differ very much among themselves, both in individual characteristics, from the rapturous to the serene, from the austere to the benign, from the subtle philosopher to the simple minded, and also in degree of attainment, some of them possess supernatural powers, some are swept away in ecstatic bliss, some consume themselves in loving service to mankind. All have a purity beyond that of ordinary man. Their state may be called heavenly even while on earth. And yet all this falls short of Self realization. All this is in the state of duality, where God, Self is the Other, where prayer is necessary, and revelation possible. In strict theory they are as far removed as the ordinary man from Self Realization, since there is no common measure between the Absolute and the conditioned, the Infinite and the limited. A million is no nearer to Infinity than a hundred. This complete gulf is illustrated by Buddhist story of a man who wanders about the earth seeking for a lost jewel which all the time is on his neck. When at last it is pointed out to him, all his years of search and wandering have done nothing to bring him nearer to it. And yet,
in actual fact, if he had not gone searching he would not have found it. And in actual fact, the saint can be considered to be nearer to Realization, than ordinary man,just as it is easier for an ordinary man to attain Realization than a dog, although both alike are limited to the illusion of an individual being.
There are stages of attainment of the saints, just there is hierarchy of heavens. And both of these correspond to the degrees of initiation in indirect spiritual paths. Bhagavan would answer questions about when this specifically asked, but did not dwell about it usually, since His purpose was not to raise His followers from grade to grade of apparent reality but to direct them towards one eternal, universal, Reality.
[From Arthur Osborne's The Teachings of Ramana Maharshi in His Own Words.]
Ofcourse yes yes S.Always I meant everyone to jump in.That is the whole point of a blog.Thanks BY.I tend to agree with you that the Maharshi *may have* deliberately not expanded on the one liner:Find the Root.This makes me believe that he did not intend it as a concrete techinque OR MAY BE it is so simple that a lot of us fail to see it and unnecessarily imagine all sorts of things and even further *may be* it will become so simple only when the mind has achieved a degree of Stillness???I dont know.But one thing is clear this word 'Atma Vichara' is said a lot around the world in the Advaita cirlces but little information about the technique or the perosnal adoptation of this technique and ofcourse results are not ciming forth.Surely the Maharshi is supremely intelligent and wise and absolutely pithy and exacting with words.Surely there must be great wisdom on why he did not expand on it.
Folks please dont tell me:'Just Do It'.That is not a technique but a Hype(Nike).
BYogi and S; you both constantly recommend 'Atma Vichara' and all you are telling me is 'Just do it' or 'You would know it'.There is joke in India about a Village Idiot asking his granny as to what to do on a 'First Night'.As she keeps telling him he persters what next and what next.In the end the granny, unable to go into the detail gives up and says 'Turn East and throw a Namaskar'.
Folks Can you please go back to your Adaptation of the Maharshi's one liner; dissect it and can you write down step by step like what the Ramangiri Swami did.Sorry that link is down but if you google you will get a cache of the page.
Thanks.
Sorry I forgot about it:there is already a post on Ramanagiri Swami on this blog itself by Mr.David:
http://sri-ramana-maharshi.blogspot.com/2009/01/swami-ramanagiri.html
Folks I have to say there were so many times I found the answers in the posts on this Blog itself.So this blog is the best reference for Ramana literature.Just the juice pure juice extracted in concise, objective and pithy fashion like the Maharshi trademark.This blog on it's own can make an excellent e-book.
I also wish somehow the best comments,queries and answers are somehow preserved.Especially so, for milleneums it is the same questions again and again and if there is a collection of them at one places it can work like a genie.
Once again Thanks very much for all the effort Mr.David.
-z
Dear S.,
You are correct. The conversation on Gayatri was not as I wrote. The exact reading is as under:
Day by Day: [11.9.1945]
The next day a visitor asked Bhagavan, with reference to the words dhimahi in the Gaytari. 'What is the idea meant? I am not able to rightly grasp it?
Bhagavan: The words only mean fixing the Aham in the Self, though
literally they may mean, 'We meditate'.
Visitor: I am not able to form a conception of the Tat or the Self.
Then, how am I to fix the Aham in the Tat.
Bhagavan: Why should you bother to conceive the Tat which you don't know? Try to find out the 'I' that you know, what it is and whence it arises. That is enough.
salutations to all:
anonymous(z.):
z. said "...you both constantly recommend 'Atma Vichara'..." - No, am not 'recommending' vichAra, it's bhagavAn who recommends it :-)
z. said "...little information about the technique or the perosnal adoptation of this technique..." - there is enough information in bhagavAn's works on the method & its practice :-). let me give an example from mathematics - it so happens that there is a substantial difference between 'applied maths' and 'abstract maths'. but for a few exceptions, everybody else pursuing the 'abstract' take lots of time getting used to abstract-thinking & proof-writing, i.e., the transition from the computational applied to the theoretical pure is anything but easy! now, if one goes and asks any good mathematician 'how best to bridge the gulf?', he would say - work hard, be perseverant, study repeatedly! that's all :-) in time, things will begin to get clearer, to some a bit faster & to some may take a little longer. hope you got my answer. :-)))
z. said "...ofcourse results are not ciming forth..." - hahahaha - don't know how long have you been trying self-enquiry, but i can tell you this much - i too "may" complain saying "results are not coming" but that will be perhaps 'after' i have engaged myself in vichAra for a substantial portion of my waking hours everyday for at least a hundred years :-))) am i exaggerating? NO, i meant what i said, and for now, i have 'absolutely' no reason whatsoever to complain :-)
while writing this reply, this verse came to my mind:
verse 2-40 of the bhagavad gItA:
nehAbhikramanAshosti pratyavAyo na vidyate |
svalpamapyasya dharmasya trAyate mahato bhayAt ||
[no effort is wasted here, nor is there any harm. even a little practice of 'this' protects one from great fear]
Friends,
A whisper from Eternity-By sri Paramahansa Yogananda:
"O Divine Hart, I ran after Thee, equipped with spears of selfish desires. Thou didst fly! I raced after Thee in the plane of loud prayer. It crashed to the earth of my restlessness, and the noise frightened Thee away from me! Stealthily I crept upon Thee with the dart of my concentration. But my hand shook with unsteadiness, and Thou didst bound from me, and Thy feet echoed—“Without devotion thou art a poor, poor marksman!” With firmness of devotion, as I held the dart of meditation, I heard Thy divine steps resound again—“I am beyond thy mental dart; I am beyond!” At last in despair, I entered the cave of celestial love and, lo! Thou, the Divine Hart, camest willingly within."
Namaskar.
... Why should you bother to conceive the Tat which you don't know? Try to find out the 'I' that you know, what it is and whence it arises. That is enough. ...
Yes, the whole process is like someone being with the back to the unknown whereas he withdraws himself from all mental objects before him. He goes 'backwards'.
This 'withdraw' into the Unknown - which needs confidence - is difficult for people looking for something to hold on.
Friends,
The Essence of gayatri mantra-'That which Illumines'-That shining ,everything shines.To fix the attention on this source of everything-everything arises out of the primeval I.This is devotion.
Namaskar.
Fiends, What is the date of Karthagai Deepam in 2011? I'm getting conflicting information on line.
Friends,
An Excerpt from 'Guru Ramana':
MEDITATION
Meditation means many things to many individuals and
ranges from quiet brooding on a concept or an ideal to the
beatitude of the highest spiritual contemplation. But in the
sadhana propounded by the Maharshi it strictly means,
whatever the method, the attempt to still the thinking faculty,
the perpetually-surging waves of the mind, in order that the
calm ocean of pure awareness, from which they rise and on
which they move, may be experienced.
To beginners this mind control appears to be a
formidable feat, yet the Master encourages them to go ahead
and practise – at all events to make a beginning. He constantly
dins into us the inspiring notion that we are already Selfrealised
and that, if we are not aware of it, the obstruction to
that awareness should be removed by investigation – vichara
– which is as logical as it is simple.
To hear it direct from him this “Self-knowledge”,
rather the way to Self-knowledge, is “the easiest thing there
is” (Atma Vidya); but, judging from the questions
constantly asked of him, and later of his disciples, there
appears to be the need for much spade work before its
central idea takes a firm hold on the seeker. The Master’s
obvious meaning seems to be that, even apart from the
psychological efficacy of the vichara proper, preoccupying
the mind with a single theme to the exclusion of all others,
if doggedly practised, will not fail to produce beneficial
67
results. It will tend to reduce the oscillations of the thinking
processes, and thus render the mind amenable to
concentration on the supremely important work which is
to follow, which by itself is a splendid achievement. Finding
the answer to the query “Who am I?” is not the immediate
burden of the practice in the beginning. Stability and fixity
of the restless, mercurial mind is the first aim, and this
can be achieved by constant practice and by frequently
pulling oneself back to the subject of the meditation
whenever the mind strays away."
Continued...
Friends,
....Guru Ramana contined....
When the mind has attained an appreciable degree of
concentration, which means of depth, it will be time to think
of the answer. Some sadhakas are fortunate enough to begin
with a mind already accustomed to concentration, either
“naturally”, or by training, or through intense fervour, so that
they are able to go straight to the application of the vichara,
and thus make a more or less rapid progress, according to the
intensity of their determination, without much strain. For
the Master tells us that mental calmness, that is, controlled
mind, is essential for a successful meditation (vide p. 94).
The next idea in the vichara seems to be that wherever,
and for however long, one may search for the answer in
meditation, one will certainly not find it in the physical body;
for no part of it is intelligent enough to stand the test of
analysis or answer the call. Even if the meditator takes his
body as a whole and confers on it his name, say, Krishna or
Peter, sooner or later he will discover that it is only his mind
which is responsible for this as well as all other thoughts and
sensations. Thus diligent search and keen observation
eventually lead to the mind as the perceiver, desirer and enjoyer
of a world which is entirely its own thoughts; for the mind
cognises naught but its own ideas.
68
The final idea, one gathers, refers to the most vital stage
of the vichara, when the foregoing fact has become a settled
conviction and the seeker unabatingly continues his inquiry,
this time no longer into the insentient body, but into the
very nature of the mind, from which he has discovered the
‘I’ thought to have arisen. Meditation has by then taken a
firm grip and has turned from an erstwhile painful and
apparently fruitless effort to a joyful, eagerly-lookedforward-
to performance, which can no longer be abandoned
or even slackened. The thinking processes have by now
considerably slowed down and with it, naturally, the
restlessness of the mind. Profound peace and inner joy impel
more frequent and longer meditation, which in turn reduces
thinking still further, till the moment of full maturity is
reached, when all of a sudden all thoughts completely cease,
and the meditator, the ‘I’, having nothing to disturb or
preoccupy him, spontaneously finds himself in his pure
Being, which is the Absolute State or Substratum.
Continued....
Friends,
....'Guru Ramana' continued...
This is
what the second and third sutras of Patanjali’s yoga mean
by saying:
“Yoga is the suppression of the vritti (modifications of
the thinking principle). Then the seer abides in himself.”
And what is that Self in actual experience? Sri Bhagavan
tells us that it is the Light which ever shines in the Cave of
the Heart as the flame of the Consciousness ‘I’ ‘I’ – the eternal
and blissful Sat-chit-ananda. This is the answer to the vichara
and its fulfilment. The ‘I’, which has carried out a determined
and protracted search into its own nature, has at long last
found itself to be not other than the Pure Mind, the
immaculate Being, which is eternally wrapped in blissful
stillness. This is Turiya, the Fourth, or Samadhi. There remains
nothing more for one to achieve but to consolidate this state
69
into the permanent experience of Sahaja Nirvikalpa, which
is the Great Liberation.
Sadhakas take courage from the personal assurance of
Sri Maharshi and the testimony of those who have found
the Ultimate Peace, and relentlessly continue their efforts
however sterile these may at first appear to be, strong in the
belief of the descent of the Divine Grace on their endeavour
to crown them with the greatest of all crowns, that of
Supreme Enlightenment.
Namaskar
Dear Anon.,
Karthigai Deepam or Maha Deepam in 2011 falls on 9th December 2011
Dear Ravi,
Yes. That is why Sri Bhagavan recommended mantra japa for some
devotees in the beginning, so that
the mercurial mind will be confined to one name. Annamalai Swami, Muruganar and one unknown Harijan
were asked by Sri Bhagavan to chant
Siva, Siva.
Mosquitoes were a perpeutal problem for devotees. Sri Bhagavan did not
criticize devotees if they swatted mosquitoes which were biting them. In the 1940s, He even permitted the cowshed to be sprayed with pesticides, so that the cows would not be troubled by the biting mosquitoes or insects. However, if He was questioned about the moral aspect of killing mosquitoes, He would usually answer by saying that one should not identify with the body that is being bitten. A devotee who asked Him got the reply:
"If you were to take your complaint against the mosquitoes to the court of laws, the mosquitoes would win the case. Their dharma i.e the rule they must live by, is to bite and sting. They live on the blood sucked after biting. They are teaching you that you are not the body. Your object to their strings only because you identify yourself with the body."
Once Krishna Jivrajani asked Bhagavan, "Suppose there is some disturbance during meditating like mosquito bites, should one persist in meditation and try to bear the bites and ignore the interruption or drive the mosquitoes away and then continue meditation?"
Sri Bhagavan, after inter alia explaining, finally said:
If you are completely absorbed in your meditation, you will not know that the mosquitoes are biting you.
Dear Ravi,
In my case, I find the Who am I?
question becomes an endless question
-answer session. I use Arunachala Siva, Arunachala Siva,...japa within my lips and I find the mind gets quelled somewhat easily.
... an endless question -answer session ...
Dear R. Subramanian,
yes, it depends on the disposition of the seeker.
As you certainly know 'Who am I' is no question but a quest. It is a diving into the mind and a dismantling of the mind from all objects. There is no answer. Space free of objects remains.
The famous case of Sönam Namgyal, 1952, Tibet:
He was a very simple, humble person who made his way as an itinerant stone carver, carving mantras and sacred texts. Some say he had been a hunter in his youth, and had received teaching from a great master. No one really knew he was a practitioner; he was truly what is called "a hidden yogin." Some time before his death, he would be seen going up into the mountains and just sit, silhouetted against the skyline, gazing up into space. He composed his own songs and chants and sang them instead of the traditional ones. No one had any idea what he was doing. He then fell ill, or seemed to, but he became, strangely, increasingly happy. When the illness got worse, his family called in masters and doctors. His son told him he should remember all the teachings he had heard, and he smiled and said, "I've forgotten them all and anyway, there's nothing to remember. Everything is illusion, but I am confident that all is well."
SOGYAL RINPOCHE, The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying
Anon, S., Subramanian, others,
I probably shouldn't have said "vague". What I mean is that Anon's consternation is understandable in that Ramana's instructions on self-enquiry are very general and not terribly specific. One might well get the impression that there is something more to it than his simple descriptions indicate, and so Anon is understandably asking people who have practiced it for a while what that might be.
For me, it still comes back to what I said before: that the true instruction on the practice of self-enquiry is given by the Self, not by others, even by the bodily person of Ramana himself or his books. I would suggest that Ramana knew this and openly said numerous times that the true Guru was the Self for a very good reason. Not just because it's true, but because there is simply not substitute for the Self's instruction.
This is why Ramana says the practice of self-enquiry is direct, rather than indirect. The true Guru is the self, and practicing self-enquiry enables us to recieve direct instruction from the Self without any intermediary. The practice of self-enquiry is not merely a question we ask ourselves, it is a listening to the Self for the answer. Persistence in this practice reveals the Self to be a living Presence, an intelligence far beyond anything we might examine, and this living Presence instructs us directly in self-enquiry. Not in words, not in signs or symbols, but through direct consciousness. This is what makes it impossible to describe in words or direct others to practice by outer forms of instruction.
Anon, I hope you understand that I am not trying to be disingenuous here or avoid answering your question. The reason is that any answers we might give you are indirect answers, and simply won't mean very much. The real answers to your question are given by the Self, by the sense of "I am" that you find through self-enquiry. Self-enquiry can only be learned by doing self-enquiry. It is its own instruction, its own Guru. That is why the initial instruction to meditate on the felt sense of "I" is the only way to point you towards the answers you are looking for. That is why the instructions you will find in Ramana's teaching are so simple and general. The rest is found in the silence by which the Self teaches us directly. You really must develop listening skills that allow you to grasp this instruction given by the Self in self-enquiry.
One could certainly so more about it than that, but nothing said would in any way substitute for the direct instruction you could get by merely listening to one's sense of "I". I could only advise you to be patient, earnest, and persistent. I you cultivate those qualities, the instruction will flow and you will receive the proper instruction you need to grow and understand what self-enquiry is about. If you don't, you will never understand, no matter how detailed anyone's description of the practice might be. So this is really all up to you, and no one else.
... this is a fine site with spiritual ebooks:
Holy Books.com
Subramanian, Thanks for the Deepam
information. I always enjoy your comments and contribution to the blog.
Dear Clemens Vargas Ramos,
That is a nice story about the Tibetian hunter cum jnani. It appears that most of the sutras were
written on wooden or stone by etching complex chinese letters.
These huge tablets might have taken
a long long time. Perseverance.
Sheer perseverance. Even in Hindu sculptures it is said that the sculptor will first test the stone
and see whether it is fit for making an image. The last item that he does is opening the eyes of deity. In the olden days, in
South India while entering into an agreement with the king for temples construction would say that they would do anything but for three exceptions. 1. Tiruvalanchuzhi stone window. 2.
Avudaiyar Kovil kodungai, a long beam with a horizontal S bent at the end. 3. Rameswaram outer portal. These three are said to be most difficult items to sculpt. I have seen the first one. The window with more than three hundred nicely carved circular holes are at the entrance of Ganesa Temple. This door is rarely opened. The devotees have to see the God through this window or door as you may call it. The Ganesa Image is made of sea foam! Strong wind will disturb the image so the arrangement. There is no abulations at all for the idol. Once in a while the priest would open the door carefully and apply some herbal paste on the idol!
Dear Broken Yogi,
Though Sri Bhagavan gave a method in Sad Darsanam, in verses 28-30, it is very difficult to put into practice. That is why even some of His direct devotees got mantras. I am told even Kavyakanta, though he carefully listened to Sri Bhagavan's first upadesa, could not proceed and he was given a mantra by Sri Bhagavan.
This is not said in any book, so don't ask me the source.
The purpose behind inquiry is to quell the mind and push it back into its Source. So long as it is achieved, mantra is also equally okay. As you said, it is the Atma which should guide a person and
such a guidance varies from person to person. It is like one hand clapping.
Q: I have faith in murti dhyana [worship of form]. Will it not help me to gain Jnana?
Sri B: Surely it will. Upasana [meditation] helps in concentration of mind. Then the mind is free from thoughts and is full of meditated form. The mind then becomes one with the object of meditation and this makes it quite pure. Then think who is the worshipper. The answer is 'I', that is, the Self. In this way the Self is ultimately gained. Worshipping the formless reality by unthought thought is the best kind of worship. But when one is not fit for such formless worship of God, worship of form alone is suitable. Formless worship is possible only for people who are devoid of the ego-form.....
Sri Ramana Lahari is a 52 verse
composition by one sadhu named
Sri Narendra Kesari Sarma, who came
from Nepal to have darshan of Sri
Bhagavan. He composed it in his first visit itself.
A few verses:-
40. Poverty is where I stay. Prosperity grows under your feet.
A great idiot am I, You are the rest house of Wisdom. Exhausted
with thirst am I. You are the high wave of Bliss. Ramana Bhagavan, you are the Guru. I am
thy disciple. Be thy merciful grace save me.
42. Whatever class one belongs to, however despicable it may be,
it matters not. If my merit of his past, he turns a seeker into himself or becomes a person of knowledge, Ramana. By the nectar of upadesa [grace] that flows from Your looks, such a one will cross the shore of death and will merge with You.
44. When Bhagavan Ramana, the Bliss of the Self shines supreme, where is the question of the cycle of births and deaths, the darkness of ignorance, the difference between Jeeva and Iswara or the validity of Advaita? In the state of Self Realization how can one talk of Guru and Sishya?
Devotee: For men like me, who have neither the direct experience of the Heart, nor the consequent recollection, the matter seems to be somewhat difficult to grasp About the position of the Heart itself, perhaps, we must depend on some sort of guess work.
Sri B: If the determination of the position of the Heart depended on guesswork, even for the ignorant, the question would be scarcely worth consideration. No, it is not on guess work that you have to depend but on an unerring intuition.
D: Who has this intuition?
Sri B: Everybody.
D: Does Sri Bhagavan credit me with an intuitive knowledge of thee Heart?
Sri B: Not of the Heart but the position of the Heart in relation to your idenity.
D: Did Sri Bhagavan say that I intuitively know the position of the Heart in the physical body?
Sri B: Why not?
D: [pointing to himself] Is it to me personally that Sri Bhagavan is referring?
Sri B: Yes. That is the intuition. How did you refer to yourself by gesture just now? Did you not point your finger to the right side of your chest? That is exactly the place of the Heart-Centre.
D: So then, in the absence of direct knowledge of the Heart Centre, I have to depend on this intuition?
Sri B: What is wrong with it? When a school boy says 'It is I that did the sum right' or when he asks you, 'Shall I run and get the book for you?' does he point to the head that did the sum right or to the legs that will carry him to the bookshelf to get the book? No, in both the cases his finger is pointed quite naturally towards the right side of the chest, thus giving innocent expression to the profound truth that the Source of I-ness in him there. The act is quite involuntary and universal, that is to say, it is the same in the case of every individual. What stronger proof than this do you require about the position of the Heart-Centre in the physical body?...{Maharshi's Gospel]
*
I and my wife casually met one Israeli lady in her late twenties, in the Asramam. When she was a baby, the family lost many members in Yom Kippur War. The whole house was drowned in tragedy. She continued her school and one day, she found a book on Sri Bhagavan and she saw His photograph and read the book completely. She started then to meditate on Sri Bhagavan and soon, she said: "I felt an effervescence on the right side of her chest, as if a soda bottle had been opened within. She became after that, quite peaceful, forgetting all her family worries. After 20 years, finishing her college, she collected all her savings and obtained permission from home to visit Tiruvannamlai. She said that she had plants to stay for 3 to 6 months. She spoke good English and she was looking for someone who could speak to her in English. So I and my wife were preferred. It was a horripilating experience and affirmation of Sri Bhagavan's teachings.
salutations to all:
in the tEvAram i happened to recite today, the very first verse was such that i just couldn't help but look at bhagavAn! :-)
(composed by jnAnasambandhar)
போகமார்த்த பூண்முலையாள் தன்னோடும் பொன்னகலம்
பாகமார்த்த பைங்கண்வெள் ளேற்றண்ணல் பரமேட்டி
ஆகமார்த்த தோலுடையன் கோவண ஆடையின்மேல்
நாகமார்த்த நம்பெருமான் மேயது நள்ளாறே
[the third line is something like this: he who is the very essence of the AgamAs/vedAs, he who is clad in tiger/elephant skin, he who is adorned by a loin-cloth...] :-)
request ravi/subramanian to give a nice translation for the whole verse :-) thanks.
... The Ganesa Image is made of sea foam! Strong wind will disturb the image so the arrangement. There is no abulations at all for the idol. ...
That's really astonishing. Truly reality shows signs over signs of divine grace to the one being open and alert.
-----
To end this exciting day here follows now one of my most liked quotes of Advaita Bodha Deepika:
D.: What does Vedanta teach?
M.: The Vedanta teaches a man to know that all but the non-dual Brahman is laden with misery, therefore to leave off all desires for enjoyment, to be free from love or hate, thoroughly to cut the knot of the ego appearing as ‘I’, you, he, this, that, mine and yours, to rid himself of the notion of ‘I’ and ‘mine’, to live unconcerned with the pairs of opposites as heat and cold, pain and pleasure, etc., to remain fixed in the perfect knowledge of the equality of all and making no distinction of any kind, never to be aware of anything but Brahman, and always to be experiencing the Bliss of the nondual Self.
Dear S.,
This is on TirunaLLar Temple in Karaikal. Here Siva is called Siva
Surya Narayana Swami. However, today people go there only when there is a transit of saturn, because it is here, that Saturn, Saniswarar also has got a separate shrine.
Bogamartha poon muLaiyaL - The goddess adorned by golden chains,
and other ornaments on her breasts.
Bhagamartha Ponna kalam - She has taken the golden body of Siva, i.e
half of his body.
Agmartha thol udai aniNatha - His upper cloth and lower cloth are made from elephant skin and tiger skin. However, the saint poet says it is Agamas/Vedas have formed his cloth.
Nagamartha kovanam - The codpiece is made of serpent i.e he is tying a serpent as his codpiece!
NaLLaru - Tiru Nallar today.
Here I remember one similar poem of Saint Manikkavahchagar which is more estoeric. [Tiru Chazhal Verse 2]
One girl asks:
My father, my master, my lord, who is also the lord of all;
Why should he wear a codpiece which is full of holes?
[We remember Sri Bhagavan once wearing a towel with a lot of holes]
Another girl replies:
O it is not so. He is wearing Vedas which contain all arts and sciences, four of them, keeping the Space as the cross thread on the waist.
And he is wearing the Self as codpiece, don't you know?
The Self - what can it wear?
It is One without a second.
So the Self [Than] is wearing the Self as codpiece!
One Chengalvaraya Pillai [a noted
authority on Tirupugazh, Tevaram and he was also a good friend of
Muruganar. Muruganar asked him
what he thinks in having darshan of Sri Bhagavan. Immediately
Pillai answered with this song!
And he shed tears uncontrollably and prostrated before Sri Bhagavan.
Dear S.,
This is on TirunaLLar Temple in Karaikal. Here Siva is called Siva
Surya Narayana Swami. However, today people go there only when there is a transit of saturn, because it is here, that Saturn, Saniswarar also has got a separate shrine.
Bogamartha poon muLaiyaL - The goddess adorned by golden chains,
and other ornaments on her breasts.
Bhagamartha Ponna kalam - She has taken the golden body of Siva, i.e
half of his body.
Agmartha thol udai aniNatha - His upper cloth and lower cloth are made from elephant skin and tiger skin. However, the saint poet says it is Agamas/Vedas have formed his cloth.
Nagamartha kovanam - The codpiece is made of serpent i.e he is tying a serpent as his codpiece!
NaLLaru - Tiru Nallar today.
Here I remember one similar poem of Saint Manikkavahchagar which is more estoeric. [Tiru Chazhal Verse 2]
One girl asks:
My father, my master, my lord, who is also the lord of all;
Why should he wear a codpiece which is full of holes?
[We remember Sri Bhagavan once wearing a towel with a lot of holes]
Another girl replies:
O it is not so. He is wearing Vedas which contain all arts and sciences, four of them, keeping the Space as the cross thread on the waist.
And he is wearing the Self as codpiece, don't you know?
The Self - what can it wear?
It is One without a second.
So the Self [Than] is wearing the Self as codpiece!
One Chengalvaraya Pillai [a noted
authority on Tirupugazh, Tevaram and he was also a good friend of
Muruganar. Muruganar asked him
what he thinks in having darshan of Sri Bhagavan. Immediately
Pillai answered with this song!
And he shed tears uncontrollably and prostrated before Sri Bhagavan.
Ramana Puranam, lines 447-50, allude to the loincloth, to Chengalvaraya Pillai's experience with Bhagavan, and to the Tiruvachakam verse:
You are the one, devoid of the dualistic division that knows oneself as an object. Because you are wearing your Self - in which objective knowledge is not possible - as your loincloth, you,
the nature of pure consciousness,
do not know what the beautiful colour of the loincloth is.
The ashram edition of this translation contains the following note:
Muruganar had a friend, V. S. Chengalvaraya Pillai, who was a distinguished commentator on Tamil devotional literature. At some point Chengalvaraya Pillai had a dream in which he visited Bhagavan in Tiruvannamalai and had his darshan. The contents of the dream, which he noted in his diary in the 1930s, were recorded in a biography that was written by his children:
I went to Tiruvannamalai, where a multitude of bhaktas was assembled. Everyone was worshipping by performing pradakshina of Swami. When my turn came, a devotee of Sri Ramana called Muruganar instructed me to pay homage to Swami, and to ask him what the colour of the loincloth he was wearing was.
I, in my turn, fell at the feet of Swami, weeping, and cried out: ‘Swami, what is the colour of your exalted loincloth, the one spoken of in the phrase, “He wears Himself as a loincloth”? May you show your compassion and clarify this matter!’
Immediately, he replied ‘That is not known even to me,’ and asked me to repeat the line again twice.
He listened to me and then asked, ‘Where is that wonderful line found?’ and I replied, ‘It is in the ‘Tiruchazhal’ [line four of verse two], in the Tiruvachakam’.
‘That is good. You must remain mindful of that,’ he said.
(Dr V. S. Chengalvaraya Pillai Varalaru, by Jnanapoorani and others, pub. Tirunelveli Saiva Siddhanta Publishing House, 1972, p. 34.)
Subramanian,
If you are talking about numbers of serious, devoted practitioners of the inner path, then yes, you are right about Buddhism. But the same applies to Hinduism, Christianity, and every other religions as well. That has always been the case, but it is perhaps even more so with the rise of modern secular and westernized culture. That is particularly the case in places like Hong Kong, and probably a similar phenomena is found in Bangalore and Chennai among the rising modernist elites. But this does not mean that there are no genuine Buddhists (or Hindus for that matter) practicing diligently even in these venues, much less outside these kinds of environments.
Buddhism is simply not a thing of the past, especially on the esoteric level, and even in the west. All things, including spiritual culture, come and go, but even as they decline in one place, they rise up in another. I do not think that rituals are the key, however. The key is the heart-impulse to find truth, reality, God, Self, whatever one calls it. I have nothing against puja, mind you. I've performed and attended hundreds, even thousands of pujas in my day. They are valuable indeed. But what makes them valuable is the impulse of the heart, not the ritual itself.
S/Friends,
It is said that Jnana Sambandar defeated the Jainas with this song. When the
Jains at madurai challenged him to prove the holiness of the Lord's
fame by putting a palm-leaf in flame and taking it out without charred,
the young saint worshipped the Lord and took out the leaf written with
this song. To the shock of the rival extremists, the leaf put by
sambandhar was not charred whereas the one put by them was charred.
The Translation:
"He who Shares the golden body with the Blissful(Bhoga-means Siva bhogam) Goddess of ornated breast , the Rider of the
gentle-eyed white bull !the supremely desired one(Parama+Ishti)!He who Wears the Vedas as upper
clothing and the cod piece wrapped by the snake; Our
Lord abides at thirunaLLARu."
It is also said that this padhikam is sung to mitigate the ill-effects of the movements
of the planet saturn.Jnana Sambandar also composed kOLaRu Pathikam to offset the malefic effects of the Planets.
Namaskar.
David/Friends,
Here is that verse from TiruChAzhal of ManivAchakar:
என்னப்பன் எம்பிரான் எல்லார்க்குந் தானீசன்
துன்னம்பெய் கோவணமாக் கொள்ளுமது என்னேடீ?
மன்னுகலை துன்னுபொருள் மறைநான்கே வான்சரடாத்
தன்னையே கோவணமாச் சாத்தினன்காண் சாழலோ.
ennappan embirAn ellArkkun^ thAneesan
thunnambey kOvaNamAk koLLumadhu ennEDI?
mannugalai thunnuboruL maRain^AngE vAncharaDAth
thannaiyE kOvaNamAch chAththinangAN chAzhalO.
G.U Pope's translation:
'My Father, Embiran, to all indeed is Ruler Supreme;
Yet He wears a clouted kovanam;' and why should this be so, MY DEAR?
The Vedas four, the meaning with which all lore is fraught, as the great thread
Himself alone as kovanam He spreads; behold, CARALO!
He alone as Kovanam(cod piece)spreads-We may recall the ishAvAsya upanishad,where it is said that IshAvAsyam idam sarvam-'all this(manifest world) is Vestiture'- that covers the Self.
I think that Sri ChengalvarAya would have asked Sri Bhagavan the True Nature(colour) of the kovanam-and Sri Bhagavan asking him not to forget that this manifest world is verily this codpiece!
Namaskar.
Dear David,
Thanks for the detailed information
on Tiruchazhal and Chengtalvaraya Pillai. I mentioned the dream as a his visit to the Asramam. Tiru
Chazhal [Holy Scolding?] is a beautiful composition. Two groups of girls are said to indulge in ninda and stuthi on Siva. The first two lines are from ninda group. The other two lines are from stuthi group. The Verse 10 is the change of scenario. Here ninda group girls also start extolling Siva because he had drowned them in the flood of Ananda.
Dear S.,
This Tiru NallaRu Padigam is also connected with an important incident in the life of Tiru Jnana Sambandhar. When he had debates with Jains, there were inter alia, two special types, called Anal Vadam and Punal Vadam.
In the first one, Sambandha and other group, placed their palm-leaves where verses on their philosophy were written, on fire. The palm leaf that had the mantra of Jains got burnt in the fire. The palm leaf of Samabandha remained fresh without being charred. The Punal Vadam is where the two groups placed their palm leaves on running water. They did it in Vaigai. The leaf having the mantra of Jains got dragged and by and drowned in Vaigai river. Sambandha's palm leaf CONTAINING THIS TIRUNALLARU VERSE [Bhogamartha poon mulaiyaL], floated on the river and reached the bank on its own in a village. This village is even now called Tiru Edagam, near Madurai. The name means - the house of the palm leaf!
Dear Broken Yogi,
I agree with you. In every religion,
the serious practitioners, as per the tenets of that religion are a
small minority. But in case of rituals, it attracts most of them -
at least for the sake of rituals if not for serious practice of the underlying truth.
Dear S., Ravi,
Tiruchazhal of Saint Manikkavachagar
is also connected with an important incident in his life. Of course, his life and history is still a mystery, because he is not one among the 63 saints and his date as per MaRaimalai Adigal is very much earlier than 63 saints. No one knows the correct position.
However the story goes that one Sri Lankan King brought his mute daughter to India to somehow make her speak either through medicine or mantra. I believe this song made her get back her speaking ability. The two groups are actually the girl and the saint.
Dear everyone,
Today is Punarvasu asterism. Sri
Bhagavan's birth star. This month
is Kumba though Sri Bhagavan was
born on a Punarvasu day, in the month of Dhanur. Kumba or Masi in
Tamizh is famous for Masi Magam,
which asterism comes after a few days, the day on which Saint Manikkavachagar merged as a flame in Thillai with Nataraja. Sri Bhagavan has told the saint's story in one of His conversations with tearful eyes.
Coming back to Punarvasu, today in the Asramam, they adorn Ramaneswara Maha Lingam with a golden gasket [spelling?]. Special pujas take place. Muruganar has composed 11 verses on Punarvasu, titled Punarvasu VaNNam in Sri Ramana Sannidhi MuRai. Punarvasu is a gold coloured star.
The verse 3 of Punarvasu VaNNam reads:
The joyful devotees speak to each other only about their Master. And it is the food for them for living. With glory in all eight directions, clothing Him,
Ramana's words are the endless joy on this great Punarvasu day.
Kulavum thoNdar koodi thammil
kondaadum,
Thalaivan pecche tham uNavaha thazaipparam,
Ilagum pugazhal eNdisai portha Ramanan pecchu,
Alahil kaLippam punarvasu nannaL adhu vaNNam.
RAMANA PURANAM:
David Godman mentioned about Ramana
Puranam while telling the story of
Chengalvaraya Pillai's dream. Ramana Puranam has been rendered
in English by Robert Butler, Dr.
Venkatasubramanian and David Godman in English.
Smt.T.R. KanakammaL says:
There is a story about genesis of Ramana Puranam. Muruganar did not write it first and the book came
as the first edition without it.
Since the work was patterned on
Tiruvachakam, it seemed incompelete
to that extent because Tiruvachakam contains Siva Puranam, as the first poem. So
Muruganar started composing a poem on the same lines. His inspired pen quickly wrote two hundred lines. At this stage, he had a doubt as to what should be the title of the poem. Tossed by doubt as to how to name it, Muruganar left the place, leaving the incomplete work at Sri Bhagavan's feet. When he returned in the evening, to his great surprise, he found the work completed and on top of the first page, it was written Ramana Puranam. Sri Bhagavan Himself had composed the lines 233 to 540 and had given a title also to it!
[KanakammaL & David Godman]
There is a nice story about Bharata and the king, mentioned in the introduction of 'The Song of Ribhu', translated by Ramamoorthy & Nome. One of the nice important points of the story is:
When there is a single Self enshrined in all bodies, it is meaningless to ask who you are and who I am. The body of a person, with hands, feet, and other limbs is composed of various parts. To which part shall we apply the word, 'I'? If another being quite different from me exists in that body, it may be said that this is 'I' and that is `another.' Since one Self abides in all, such question as `Who are you? Who am I?' are meaningless.
Bharata and the King (PDF)
Dear Clemens Vargas Ramos,
Nice story. Sri Bhagavan recommended Ribhu Gita to many serious devotee-seekers. When one of the kitchen workers, [Sampooranamma?] said that she did not understand anything in that book, Sri Bhagavan said: It does not matter. Please read it whether you understand or not. It will do a lot of good. N.R. Krishnamurty Iyer, has rendered the important verses in a small book.
Bharata is a name that comes many times in the Indian history. There is a Bharata who is Jada Bharata, who loved a deer and took birth as a deer due to this vasana [Srimad Bhagavatam]. There is Bharata who brought the Ganga from heavens to the earth and Siva had to bear Ganga on his matted locks to control her ferocity and left only a small stream down. There is also a Bharata who is Sri Rama's younger brother and Kaikeyi's son. In Ribhu Gita it is a dialogue between Ribhu and Nidagha. Perhaps one of them is also called Bharata, I am not sure.
... . N.R. Krishnamurty Iyer, has rendered the important verses in a small book. ...
I have the 'The Song of Ribhu' translated from the original Tamil (verses). I heard that a prosa rendering of 'The Song of Ribhu' exists. Do you know something about this?
Dear Clemens Vargas Ramos,
I have not come across any prose version of Ribhu Gita either in Tamizh or in English. I have not seen such book in the Asramam. Perhaps someone might have done it in Chennai. I am not sure.
Friends, The story of Swami Chinmayananda is an interesting one. Originally Chinmayananda was with his Guru Tapovan; the Guru saw that Chinmayananda was gifted and asked him not to go down to the plains and preach prematurely.
Chinmayananda was impatient and did so despite his teachers wishes. Tapovan said when you are ripe and ready the seekers will come to you. He did not heed his teachers advice.... and the rest is history.
glow
BY,
>>Although there's certainly some truth to this,
Exactly which part is untrue in this?
>>Sri Ramana certainly managed to criticize some aspects of Advaita even.
This is a mighty big statement to make, considering that Bhagavan was the foremost & supreme Advaitin, nay, Advaita itself in bodily form.
Can you please quote any of his criticisms?
>>He had critical things to say about neti-neti, for example, as has been quoted here recently.
>>He said that it could not get rid of the "I" that practiced neti-neti.
If you are trying to say that neti-neti is an 'aspect' of Advaita, I am sorry to say, you are totally off the mark.
Neti-neti is only one of the many tools/methods in the Jnana-marga that is supposed to eventually lead to the state of Advaita.
Same goes for Soham.
Portraying Bhagavan's comments on neti-neti as a criticism of Advaita is twisting things too much to justify your own prejudices
& statements against Advaita.
Through the method of atma-vichara, Bhagavan has only made it easier to for all of us to practise Neti-Neti.
Instead of asking us to turn away from sense objects by saying Neti-Neti, Bhagavan asks us to turn towards & attend to the 'I', thereby turning away from all not-I.
Instead of saying, "Do not think of the monkey while taking this medicine.", the doctor is saying, "Think of the elephant while taking this medicine."
In the former case, we tend to keep thinking of the very monkey that should be avoided. In the latter we have the elephant to focus on automatically preventing us from thinking of the monkey.
>>So it's not unlikely that he would have criticized Buddhism if he felt it had similar limitations in being able to transcend the ego. Of course, perhaps not many
>>people presented Buddhist ideas to him in the first place for comment.
Bhagavan has clearly stated that It is not shunya, in the Verse 12 of uLLAdhu nARpadhu (Reality in Forty Verses):
aRivu aRiyAmaiyum aRRadhu aRivAmE;
aRiyum adhu uNmai aRivu AgAdhu; aRidhaRku
aRiviththaRku anniyam inRAi avirvadhAl, thAn
aRivu aagum; pAzh anRu; aRi.
Please refer to the Commentary on Ulladhu Narpadhu by Lakshmana Sharma, which was fully read and authenticated by Bhagavan including its printing!
In this verse, after talking about the self-revealing nature of the self that doesn't require any other to acknowledge it or to comprehend it, Bhagavan concludes by saying 'this aRivu is not emptiness'
Dear Ramprax.
Michael James deals with Muppazh [three voids], while commenting on
Verse 12 of ULLadu NaRpadu:
{The Happiness and Art of Being}
...Though our real self, our essential adjunct-free consciousness, 'I am' is completely devoid of knowledge and ignorance about anything other than itself, it is not merely an empty void, because it is the fullness of Being -- the fullness of perfectly clear self-conscious being, which is the fullness of true Self-Knowledge. Therefore, the term sunya or void, which is used to describe the absolute reality not only in Buddhism, but also in some texts of Advaita Vedanta, is in fact indeed to be understood only as a relative description of it - a fact intended to be understood only as a relative description of it - a description of it relative to the multiplicity of relative knowledge that our mind now experiences. Though the absolute reality, which is our essential self conscious being, is devoid of all relative knowledge -- all knowledge of duality or otherness - it is not an absolute void, because it is not devoid of true knowledge, which is an absolute clarity of perfectly non dual consciousness. Therefore, rather than describing the absolute reality as a state of sunya, emptiness, or void, it is more accurate to describe it as as the state of Purna, fullness, wholeness, or completeness, because it is the absolute fullness of true knowledge. The same truth is expressed by Sri Ramana in Verse 12 of ULLadu NaRpadu and also in Verse 27 of Upadesa Undiyar. " The knowledge which is devoid of both knowledge and ignorance [about objects], alone is true Knowledge. This is the only reality, because there is nothing to know other than ourself.
Dear Ramprax and others,
Talks No. 312:
Devotee: What is Muppazh [three voids]?
Sri B: Tat - Iswara Turiya
Tvam - jiva turiya
Asi - asi turiya
Turiya is the substratum of the waking, dream and deep sleep states.
D: The first two is alright. But what is the third?
Sri B: All pervasiveness is said to be waking. All shiningness is said to be the dream. Perfection [ananda] is said to be the sleep.
That which underlies these is asi-turiya. [Satyamangalam Venkaramana Iyer says, that He is the form of Asi-padam, in his song].
D: It is so strange!
Sri B: Is that all? There is no limit to polemics. Listen, they say mahavakya Tat Tvam Asi is common. Another containing five terms Tat Tvam Asi Ati Nijam is the most secret one taught by Sri Dakshinamurty in Silence. Corresponding to the five terms, they formulate five states. Again look at Vichara Sagara. The author distinguishes adhara from adhishtana. According to him, the rope is always adhara both when it looks like a snake and otherwise. The rope is adhishtana because it looks different from whart is really is; that is [samanya adhishtana]. Again its appearance as the snake itself is Visesha Adhishtana. Then the question is raised. The adhishtana of Jiva is one; that of Iswara is another. How can these be two adhishtanas become one. He replies, that there are the same adhara for both the adhishtanas. Furthermore, he mentions several khyatis....Why waste time in such polemics? Only turn your mind inward and spend the time usefully!
... Talks No. 312: ...
Dear R. Subramanian,
I cannot find this in TALKS. Talk 312 in my edition is very short and starts with:
Talk 312.
Mr. V. K. Cholkar, of Poona: It is said “Know thyself” or see who
the “I” in you is. What is the way to do it? Is it by simply repeating
the mantra mechanically all along or have you to do it, remembering
every moment why you are repeating the mantra?
Do you have another edition?
Dear Clemens Vargas Ramos,
I am profoundly sorry. It is TALK
No. 332, dated 18th Jan 1937. Other
members may also kindly note this correction.,
Dear Clemens, Very sorry. Perhaps,
this might have happened due to
my typing mistake or carelessness.
In Tamizh version [Done by Viswanatha Swami, the Talks are in many places condensed. They may not get full details as in Munagala's English version.
Sri Bhagavan has dealt with this
three voids in a more simple manner in Day by Day entry dated 21st July
1946.
He says:
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 the void.
Sri Bhagavan then mentions the Verses 212 and 213 of Vivekachudamani, where the disciple complains of the void state. The Guru replied that the Self or That by which all modifications including the ego and its creatures, and their absence [that is the void] are perceived is always there.
A little later, Sri Bhagavan also added: "First one sees the Self as the objects; then one sees the Self as void; then one sees the Self as Self; only in the last there is no seeing because seeing is Being.
Dear Broken Yogi,
You have explained about wobbling of the earth once in 26000 years, during which time the axis of the earth, [like a top's nail underneath] wobbles a bit. Surprisingly, this phenomenon is explained in Srimad Bhagavata,..
Duruva of Uddhanapada lineage, rules the kingdom for 26000 years and when the earth wobbled, he handed over the kingdom to his son and left for Bhadrikasramam, for penance and leaving the body. The
book says that once in 26000 years the earth wobbles, and looks at Pole Star and then continues its rotation and revolution.
Incidentally Duruva is the Pole Star.
[Srimad Bhagavatam 4.12.13-16]
Thank you, no problem, dear Subramanian R. I found it.
salutations to all:
subramanian/ravi:
isn't the 'palm-leaf cast into the fire remaining unaffected by the flames' episode the thirunaLLARu thiruvirAkam padhigam starting with this verse?
தளிரிள வளரொளி தனதெழில் தருதிகழ் மலைமகள்
குளிரிள வளரொளி வனமுலை யிணையவை குலவலின்
நளிரிள வளரொளி மருவுநள் ளாறர்தம் நாமமே
மிளிரிள வளரொளி யிடிலிவை பழுதிலை மெய்ம்மையே
folks:
that the self is "not" emptiness is quite clearly brought out by the 12th verse of uLLadhu nArpadhu that ramprax (ram) quoted. last evening, ram and i were going through verse 27 whose commentary happened to refer to the words "pAzh andRu". at first we weren't much sure on what these words meant and continued reading the rest of the commentary to verse 27. but we did remember to check its meaning in the tamizh dictionary. also, as the verse 27-commentary spoke about the occurrence of these words in an earlier verse, we began looking and ram traced it to the 12th verse!
saying this to illustrate how bhagavAn led us to this verse, which not only had we forgotten but also went incidentally unobserved by the rest of us in this blog! :-) am more & more convinced that for anyone wishing to get a good grasp of bhagavAn's teachings, uLLadhu nArpadhu could unarguably be the most comprehensive treasure-trove :-)
S & Subramaniam:
Both verses are involved.
The palm-leaf manuscript that was cast into fire was the one on which Jnanasambandar had written the verse starting with 'PogamArtha..'.
The verses he sang to protect/prevent the palm leaf from getting burnt is the verse starting with 'ThaLiriLa'.
s,
Looks like sambandar sang the song when challenged by the camanArs to put his manuscript into fire.He affirms here that they will not be burnt:
"thaLiriLa vaLaroLi thanathezil tharu thikaz malaimakaL
kuLiriLa vaLaroLi vanamulai iNaiyavai kulavalin
n^aLiriLa vaLaroLi maruvu n^aLLARar tham n^AmamE
miLiriLa vaLar eriyiDil ivai pazuthilai meymmaiyE"
He is believed to have put to test the paccaip pathikam starting with BogamArtha pooN mulaiyAL-this work survived the fire.Please read 1.49 here:
http://www.shaivam.org/siddhanta/thiru01u_1.htm#dt149
Namaskar.
salutations to all:
ravi/ramprax:
thanks for the clarification. got it :-)
Subramanian,
Yes, the precession of the equinoxes has been observed and even calculated by many ancient cultures, including Vedic culture. There's a marvelous book called "Hamlet's Mill" which describes all the ancient cultures around the world which observed this astrological phenomena and made great myths and stories about it, and how these stories formed the basis of many religious traditions about the changing of eras and the idea of there being an "end of the world". The original norse story of Hamlet, he shows, was actually derived from these astrological observations.
Much of the original Vedas, one might add, are filled with all kinds of coded astrological observations using symbolism and myth. The story of Jesus in the Bible, even contains much astrological symbolism.
Rampax,
Exactly which part is untrue in this?
That Ramana didn't ever criticize religion its practices paths. He was immensely tolerant and supportive, but that didn't stop him from making remarks now and then.
Can you please quote any of his criticisms?
As you yourself mention, he was critical of some aspects of the traditional Advaitic approach, such as the neti-neti practice. Since you are aware of this, I'm not sure why you claim he didn't criticize Advaita. I am not suggesting he rejected Advaita or considered it inadequate. He merely made occasional criticisms.
I recall a story that I think is in “Living By The Words of Bhagavan”, Annamalai's biography, in which it is related that one of Ramana's young devotees (I don't think it was Annamalai) was directed by Bhagavan to address a group of traditional Advaitins. He was nervous about this due to his lack of training and experience in traditional Advaita, but Ramana assured him that he should not worry and simply rely on his relationship with him. He performed adequately, and Ramana kept sending him as something of his representative to these Advaitins. At one point the devotee mentioned to Ramana that he still felt that he didn't know enough of Advaita, and that perhaps he should undergo the intensive training and study of the scriptures they went through in order to speak intelligently of Advaita, and Ramana strongly admonished him not to do that. He was clearly against the traditional Advaitic approach of intensive training and study, and instructed his devotee merely to rely on his experience with Ramana. So this would be another example of how Ramana differed from the traditional Advaitic approach.
If you are trying to say that neti-neti is an 'aspect' of Advaita, I am sorry to say, you are totally off the mark.
If you are trying to say that neti-neti is NOT an aspect of the Advaitic tradition, I am not sure how you come to that conclusion.
Portraying Bhagavan's comments on neti-neti as a criticism of Advaita is twisting things too much to justify your own prejudices & statements against Advaita.
Criticism of Advaita is not a rejection of Advaita. I have nothing against Advaita. I simply don't consider it above criticism. Neither did Ramana it would appear.
Your description of how self-enquiry differs from neti-neti seems well informed. You seem to understand that neti-neti is not something Ramana recommends, because it reinforces the very thing we are trying to be rid of. That is a criticism of neti-neti, is it not?
Bhagavan has clearly stated that It is not shunya, in the Verse 12 of uLLAdhu nARpadhu (Reality in Forty Verses):
That which is completely devoid of knowledge and ignorance [about objects] is [true] knowledge. That which knows [objects] cannot be true knowledge. Since Self shines without another to know or to be known by, It is the [true] knowledge; It is not a void [though devoid of both objective knowledge and ignorance]. Know thus.
Buddhism doesn't consider the Ultimate Reality to be a Void either. Like Ramana, it only uses concepts like “void” and “emptiness” as relative descriptors to help people move beyond their limited concepts. Turning that into another limited concept is a mistake – one Buddhists themselves are aware of. As I mentioned before, Nagarjuna's fourfold negation handles this quite well, by making it clear that Ultimate Reality is neither existent, nor non-existent, neither being, nor non-being. It is the “middle way” that transcends all such dualisms. So most Buddhists are well aware that there is no “void” in the Void, nor any “emptiness” in Emptiness. The meaning of those words is precisely what Ramana says in the first sentence above, “That which is completely devoid of knowledge and ignorance [about objects] is [true] knowledge.”
Most devotees of Ramana are aware that there is no Deity in “Brahman” and no person in "the Self". This is also in agreement with Buddhism.
Ulladu-narpadu, verse 3:
‘The world is real’, ‘No, it is an unreal appearance’; ‘The world is sentient’, ‘It is not’; ‘The world is happiness’, ‘It is not’ [in other words, ‘The world is sat-chit-ananda’, ‘No, it is not’] – what is the use of arguing thus in vain? That state in which, by giving up [knowing] the world and by knowing oneself, ‘I’ [the ego] is lost and thereby [the notions of] oneness and duality themselves are lost, is loved by all.
Broken Yogi, This particular story is not about Annamalai Swami but Kunju Swami who thought further studies would help his debating skills.
glow
Anon,
Thanks. I thought it might be Kunju Swami, but all my books are packed for a coming move, so I couldn't check.
Friends,
In the whole of Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi,the Neti-Neti is discussed in just 3 places:
1.Talk 41:
D.: I meditate neti-neti (not this - not this).
M.: No - that is not meditation. Find the source. You must reach the
source without fail. The false ‘I’ will disappear and the real ‘I’ will
be realised. The former cannot exist apart from the latter.
2.Talk 130.
Lakshman Brahmachari from Sri Ramakrishna Mission asked:
Enquiry of ‘Who am I?’ or of the ‘I-thought’ being itself a thought,
how can it be destroyed in the process?
M.: When Sita was asked who was her husband among the rishis
(Rama himself being present there as a rishi) in the forest by the
wives of the rishis, she denied each one as he was pointed out to
her, but simply hung down her head when Rama was pointed out.
Her silence was eloquent.
Similarly, the Vedas also are eloquent in ‘neti’ - ‘neti’ (not this - not
this) and then remain silent. Their silence is the Real State. This is
the meaning of exposition by silence. When the source of the ‘Ithought’
is reached it vanishes and what remains over is the Self.
D.: Patanjali Yoga Sutras speak of identification.
M.: Identification with the Supreme is only the other name for the
destruction of the ego.
3.Talk 366.
Before leaving at 3-30 p.m., Mrs. Dodwell raised a second question,
asking what is meant by neti-neti.
M.: There is now wrong identification of the Self with the body,
senses, etc. You proceed to discard these, and this is neti. This
can be done only by holding to the one which cannot be discarded.
That is iti alone.
In none of these places Sri Bhagavan is saying that Neti-Neti will not lead to the Truth or that it is wrong Practice.He is just emphasising on how to practice this correctly.
Neither Traditional Advaita sadhana nor Sri Bhagavan is saying-Just keep chanting or meditating neti-Neti.
Anyone with some Practice will Reject the non selfwith discernment.This discernment is what is called Neti-neti and is a useful preliminary practice to disassociate from habitual attachment of the externalized mind.It is simply a process of gathering the scattered mind by freeing it from temporal identification and turning the attention to Self or God.
In Practice,there is no such thing like Traditional Advaita or any other Advaita-The mind has to fall Silent and the Intuitive antenna has to be brought into play.
Namaskar.
Friends,
The Following are the References in The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna regarding Neti-Neti:
1.Saturday, September 22, 1883
MASTER (to Ishan): "Why do you waste your time simply repeating 'Neti, neti'? Nothing
whatsoever can be specified about Brahman, except that It exists.
2.Saturday, May 9, 1885
MASTER: "A man attains Brahmajnana as soon as his mind is annihilated. With the
annihilation of the mind dies the ego, which says 'I', 'I'. One also attains the knowledge of
Brahman by following the path of devotion. One also attains it by following the path of
knowledge, that is to say, discrimination. The jnanis discriminate, saying, 'Neti, neti', that
is, 'All this is illusory, like a dream.' They analyse the world through the process of 'Not
this, not this'; it is maya. When the world vanishes, only the jivas, that is to say, so many
egos, remain.
"Each ego may be likened to a pot. Suppose there are ten pots filled with water, and the sun
is reflected in them. How many suns do you see?"
A DEVOTEE: "Ten reflections. Besides, there certainly exists the real Sun."
MASTER: "Suppose you break one pot. How many suns do you see now?"
DEVOTEE: "Nine reflected suns. But there certainly exists the real sun."
MASTER: "All right. Suppose you break nine pots. How many suns do you see now?"
DEVOTEE: "One reflected sun. But there certainly exists the real sun."
MASTER (to Girish): "What remains when the last pot is broken?"
GIRISH: "That real sun, sir."
MASTER: "No. What remains cannot be described. What is remains. How will you know
there is a real sun unless there is a reflected sun? 'I-consciousness' is destroyed in samadhi.
A man climbing down from samadhi to the lower plane cannot describe what he has seen
there."
3.Monday, August 20, 1883
"Suppose the husband of a young girl has come to his father-in-law's house and is seated in
the drawing-room with other young men of his age. The girl and her friends are looking at
them through the window. Her friends do not know her husband and ask her, pointing to
one young man, 'Is that your husband?' 'No', she answers, smiling. They point to another
young man and ask if he is her husband. Again she answers no. They repeat the question,
referring to a third, and she gives the same answer. At last they point to her husband and
ask, 'Is he the one?' She says neither yes nor no, but only smiles and keeps quiet. Her
friends realize that he is her husband.
One becomes silent on realizing the true nature of Brahman."
Namaskar.
Dear S.,
The book says that it is Tiru NallaRRu Padigam. But from the meaning of the verse, that you indicated, that it should be this
specific verse, for Anal Vadam.
The verse that came without getting drowned in Vaigai river and which reached the bank at Tiru Edagam is the verse for Punal Vadam.
Regarding Verse 12 of ULLadu NaRpadu specifically indicates the term Paazh. And verses 26-27-28 of ULLadu Narpadu are the Heart of the whole treatise. Verse 26 says that the ego is the prime cause for all 'appearances'. Verse 27 says, that without this ego, in the form 'I' rising, one cannot attain the real nature of one, 'I-I'. Verse 28 speaks about the technique i.e koorntha madhiyal -
with focused attention, one should dive deep within as if one
retrieves the an article that has gone into the water.
Dear Ramprax,
Thank you. I thought I have committed one more mistake today.
Yesterday, I quoted Talk 332 as 312
to Anon. [z]. The verse you have mentioned was on the palm leaf in
Punal Vadam. The verse that S mentioned was on the palm leaf in
Anal Vadam.
Incidentally Tiru Edagam, near Madurai is famous for general and Nadi astrologers. My illustrious father in law, made sure to catch me for my wife, with the advice of
one Nadi astrologer in Tiru Edagam, who had said my name would also be Subramanian. My father in law's name is also R. Subrahmanya Iyer! He was an advocate and he was the brother's son of Congress Vaidyanatha Iyer, who led the group of Harijans for temple entry in Meenakshi Temple and thereby went to jail for 2 years.
Dear Broken Yogi,
Thanks for astrology comments.
Regarding the other one, it is the story of Kunju Swami. Kunju Swami once went to Peraiyur Math, near Coimbatore for attending a Kumbhabhishekam functions of Siva temple as per the approval of Sri Bhagavan. There, after food, the gathering, wanted Kunju Swami to speak about Akhandakara Vritti. Kunju Swami replied suitably with his knowledge of Ribhu Gita and Sri
Bhagavan's teachings. It was not a discourse. But a conversation amongst sadhus. However, there, he came to know that there are 16 Advaitic Tamil Texts, [not Saiva Siddhanta, which are plenty] which one should master before one could speak elaborately on Advaita. They also said that it would take a few years. Kunju Swami said that he did not want elaborate teaching but for his own reading and understanding. They said that such an effort would take about a couple of months.
On his return, after a few days, Kunju Swami asked Sri Bhagavan whether he could go for such
a study. Sri Bhagavan smiled and said: "Now you want Vedanta. Then
you would like to do Siddhanta. Then you would develop interest in Sanskrit. Then kandana mandanam - ie. objections and replies, logics. There is no end. If you learn to be your Self, then it means that all is learnt. The Heart's echo itself will answer all your doubts and it will be according to Srutis, i.e Vedas!"
Kunju Swami then kept silent and did not proceed further in this matter. The 16 Vedanta books [Tamizh verses] are now being published by Kovilur Math. It's
branch in T'malai has got 4 volumes covering about 13 books. Two more volumes on Vasittam [Yoga Vasishtam] and Kaivalyam are yet come out.
Enlightenment: "As I looked round and up and down, the whole universe...appeared quite different, whatever was loathsome before...was seen to be nothing else but the outflow of my inmost nature, which in itself remained bright, true and transparent"
Dear Ravi,
When the seeker [the girl] realizes/
sees the Self [the husband], the seeker does no longer talk but remain in deep silence. This is
Jnana Bodham, the Silence of the immortals.
Sri Bhagavan also says this in Verse 5 of Sri Arunachala Padigam.
Thalaiva ne ennakik kaLavinir koNarnthun thaaLil in naaL varai vaithai,
Thalaiva nin thanmai enna enbarkut thalai kuni silai yena vaithai....
Master, You brought me here by stealth and have till this day kept me at Your Feet. And Master,
when people ask me 'What is Your
nature?' You make me stand with head hung down, a speechless statue....
In the olden days, at least in villages, wives will not mention their husbands' names. They, if asked, will say in roundabout way, rather confusingly! For the name of Rama, they would say Sita's husband or Lakshmana's brother!
Saint Manikkavachagar says in Annai Pathu, Decad on Mother, verses the same bhava. The girl is asked by mother: Who is he? The girl could not answer in full details, she would explain his greatness and simply say, Anne, Anne...[Mother, Mother...] There will be only total Silence.
Verse 9:
Thaiyalor panginar....
He is having the lady as a part of Him,
He is ever in the guise of a tapasvi,
He came to take bhiksha, mother....
After bhiksha he left, but my heart,
Is wrenched, oh, mother...
Dear hey jude,
Yes. After enlightenment, everything appears as Brahma Swarupam, full of effulgence and bliss. He beholds the Self; Sees the Self; loves and serves the Self.
Sri Bhagavan says in Sri Arunachala Pancharatnam, Verse 5:
He who, with Heart to You surrendered,
Beholds for ever You alone,
Sees all things as forms of You
And loves and serves them as none other
Than the Self, O Aruna Hill,
Triumphs because he is immersed
In You whose being is pure bliss.
Sri Bhagavan's devotee Mastan was from Desur. Mastan was in Skandasramam, when the gold hued mongoose came on Ardra Darshan day.
It was Sri Bhagavan's Jayanti. Mastan was afraid that the mongoose
would hurt the two peacocks which were in Skandasramam. But the mongoose did not hurt anybody. He told this to Perumal, another devotee of Sri Bhagavan. Perumal told Mastan: You should have caught it. If you had managed to catch it, we could have kept it as a pet.
Sri Bhagavan who was listening to this conversation, said to Mastan, 'Whom do you think he was? Do you think that you could have caught him, and do you think that this mother man could have domesticated him? The mongoose was a Sage of Arunachala who took on this form and visit me. He wanted to pay his respects to me. The Sages come in various forms.
Suri Nagamma asked Sri Bhagavan: "Is it true that Siddha Purushas
come in various forms?" Sri Bhagavan replied: "Yes, it is true." Another devotee asked Sri
Bhagavan:"Arunagiri Yogi came in the form of a mongoose. Is it true?" Sri Bhagavan said: "Yes, that is also true."
[Sri Bhagavan, THE FRIEND OF ALL]
Dear Ravi,
Another gem from Annai Pathu, Decad on Mother, Verse 10, of Tiruvachakam,
in regard to the silent nature of the lady regarding her lover:
The konRai, the moon, the koovilam*,
umattham,**
Are adorned by him on his head, mother....
That unmattham** on his head, has
brought about madness**
In me today, mother.....
* konRai and koovilam are two flowers worn by Siva. I do not know their botanical name.,
** unmattham - another flower that would cause madness, if consumed.
Siva is mad. The girl seeing him has also become mad [after him]!
Here again, I do not know the botanical name.
KonRai is Cassia fistula.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassia_fistula
************************
Koovilam seems to be another name for vilvam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bael
The article says: The Tamil Siddhars call the plant koovilam (கூவிளம்) and use the fragrant leaves for medicinal purposes...
It is used in the worship of Shiva, who is said to favor the leaves.
************************
Unmattham or Oomatham
I am unable to retrieve info about unmattham or oomatham poo.
Though, came across an interesting story related to it:
http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/vedic_wisdom/message/2741
Well! One may call himself a Siva Bhakta but should not Lord Siva accept him as His Bhakta? Does not the real glory lie in Siva accepting him as His Bhakta? One may claim to be a Bhakta or the whole world might declare so but if the Lord does not accept it, the Bhakti goes in vain. Let the whole world be indifferent to him or abuse or ignore him, but if the Lord accepts him then he is, indeed, the fortunate, the blessed. The world accepting or rejecting you is irrelevant. God should accept you. Many people lead a religious/spiritual life not for the sake of the Lord but for earning the appreciation of the world. We should test ourselves to know if we really possess Bhakti deep within us.
You must have all heard of the flower Oomattham-poo. The name is actually 'unmattham-poo'. In Sanskrit 'unmattham' means madness. It is said that by eating the unripe fruit of this tree one turns insane. Appayya Deekshitar, who had decided to test the genuineness of his Bhakti, called his disciples and said to them, 'I am going to grind the unripe fruit of this tree and eat. I would turn insane. Note down all that I blabber in that state. Then, get the help of a doctor to cure me. Once I regain my sense of balance I wish to know what I had blabbered in this state of insanity.'
Appayya Deekshitar ate the unripe fruit of this tree and he became insane. The disciples wrote down all that he uttered in that state of insanity. He was then cured of this state through medicines. He regained his sense of balance. It was found that in that state of insanity he had written wonderful stotras on Lord Siva! Appayya Deekshitar had written many stotras earlier. The play of words in these stotras is simply fascinating. The most surprising fact was that the stotra that came out of him in his state of insanity was unique! It was much more wonderful that those composed earlier, in his normal state.It was only after this 'Atma pariksha' did he feel joyful. He was pleased that he had come out successfully in this 'Atma pariksha'. This incident of ‘Atma pariksha’ of Appayya Deekshitar took place in the precincts of Lord Siva Temple inside the Chennai I.I.T. campus. Thus, Chennai is a great Kshetra.
*************************
S,
The Lord Siva Temple @ Chennai IIT campus must ring a bell!! :)
*************************
Subramaniam's mention about konRai and other flowers evoked fond memories of one trip to Tiruvannamalai
when we spent time at children's park some distance from Ramanasramam on the main road.
Behind the children's park is a sort of plant nursery where different plant species are kept with name plates giving Tamizh & Botanical names.
Some vareity of konRai was also there.
The children's park was nice quiet place to spend an idle Sunday morning.
Oh! How I wish to go again to Tiruvannamalai. Eager for the next trip. :)
This is nice as well (Introduction to 'The Song of Ribhu', translated by Nome and Ramamorthy). The dismantling of names and forms is uncomprising and breathtaking. It takes this course:
KING -> ELEPHANT -> ABOVE -> BELOW -> I -> YOU.
After the passage of another thousand celestial years, Ribhu again went to the place where Nidagha dwelled. On that occasion, Ribhu, who had put on the disguise of a village rustic, found Nidagha intently watching a royal procession. Unrecognized by the town-dweller, Nidagha, the village rustic inquired as to what the bustle was all about and was told that the king was going in procession.
"Oh! It is the king. He goes in procession! But where is he?" asked the rustic.
"There, on the elephant," said Nidagha.
"You say that the king is on the elephant. Yes, I see the two," said the rustic, "but which is the king and which is the elephant?"
"What!" exclaimed Nidagha. "You see the two, but do not know that the man above is the king and the animal below is the elephant? What is the use of talking to a man like you? "
"Pray, be not impatient with an ignorant man like me," begged the rustic, "but you said `above' and `below.' What do they mean?"
Nidagha could stand it no more. "You see the king and the elephant, the one above and the other below. Yet you want to know what is meant by `above' and `below'?" burst out Nidagha. "If things seen and words spoken can convey so little to you, action alone can teach you. Bend forward, and you will know it all too well."
The rustic did as he was told. Nidagha got on his shoulders and said, "Know it now. I am above as the king, and you are below as the elephant. Is that clear enough?"
"No, not yet," was the rustic's quiet reply. "You say that you are above like the king, and I am below like the elephant. The `king,' the `elephant,' above,' and `below'—so far it is clear. But pray teil me what you mean by 'I' and `you'?"
When Nidagha was thus confronted all of a sudden with the mighty problem of defining the "you" apart from the "I," light dawned on his mind.
Dear Ramprax,
Thanks for the information. I had a doubt that KooviLam might mean Bhilwa, but I was not sure. Appayya Diskhitar's story is quite moving. I think in his mad-state, he composed Unmatha Panchasat, a composition extolling Siva's greatness.
KooviLam is one name along with other three names, used for Tamil poetic grammar. They used to teach me: Thema - Ner Ner. PuLima - Nirai ner. KooviLam -
Ner nirai, KaruviLam - Nirai Nirai.
Themangai - Ner Ner Ner. PuLimangai - Nirai Ner Ner. Koovilangai - Ner nirai Ner. Karuvilangai - Nirai Nirai Ner.
The details of these must be confusing for many members.
I do not want to dwell upon these more.
There is also a story about how
Appayya Dishitar made the idol of
Sastha [Ayyappan] to remove his finger from his noes, which he was keeping and no one knew the reason as to why Sastha should keep the
finger on his nose [while wondering at something]. As usual the king spent sleepless nights.
And announced that whosoever finds the correct reason, then Sasta would take away his finger from the nose. Appayya and another Vaishnavite debated and wrote each one sloka. For Appayya's verse, Sasta removed his finger from the nose. Details of these slokas later....
Appayya Dikshitar and Sasta:
The Vaishnavite saint started first.
He said in a verse: O Sastha, your mother is Hari, who is beauty personified. But how did you get such a father? He is in cremation grounds, wearing the ashes from the burnt corpses, adorning with all sorts of serpents, and wearing a codpiece, and he goes for bhiksha
everyday. He dances only with ghosts and demons. He has got a blood-oozing skull on his hand.
What sort of dad is he for you? Sastha did not remove his finger from the nose.
Appayya then said: Your mother is Hari, you will call him, Amma. Your father is Haran, you will call him as Appa. But you must be wondering how to call Lakshmi. Because she is your mother's wife!
Sasta immediatley removed his finger from his nose, and sat in Yogasana!
Dear Ravi,
The verse about koel, mayil [peacock]
are coming under Verse 99 of Abhirami Andati. It is the last but one verse.
Mother, as Meenakshi is like a koel. She sings beautifully and expects the arrival of Siva [Sundareswara]. Earlier, she, as the princess of Pandya kingdom, went to North India, upto Kailasa. She had taken a vow, that she would marry only a person who defeats her in battle. She had right from birth three breasts. The royal astrologers had said that when she sees a person, and if she one breast disappears, such a person would only marry her. So when she went to Kailasa, her third breasts disappeared, and she instead of making war with Siva bent her head in shame and chastity. So in
Madurai, [Kadamabadavi], she is like a koel singing nice songs with her friends expecting arrival of Sundaresa.
Kuyilai irukkum kadambadaviyinil....
After marriage with Sundareswara, which was celebrated in grand scale [for which only Gundothara came along with Siva and he ate all the food!], she went to Himachalam. Here, all her songs stopped and she is like a peacock [male] and does all service to Siva.
Kola ayil mayilariukkum imayachalathidai.....
Then the dance competition comes.
In Chidambaram, she dances with Siva in a contest. Siva wins. So she is very angry. She becomes like a blistering sun with her red face.
Vandhutitha veyyilai irukkum visumbil....
Veyyil means both sun and sunshine.
Visumbu is Akasa, Chidambaram is an Akasa Kshetram.
In Tiruvarur, she is quiet like
a Swan. Here, Siva walks not once but twice to Sundarmurty's first wife [Paravaiyar] to console her and to make amends between her and Sundarmurty. Sivakamai likes it. This fellow, he defeated me in dance competition, now let him run errands for Sundarmurty. I like it.
Kamalathin meethu annamam...
Kamalam - Kamalalayam, another name for Tiruvarur.
Annam - Swan.
AnRu kayilarukku imavaan aLitha kanang kuzhiye.
Himavan gave her daughter. He by giving her, in fact, gave one kuzhai [an ear ring worn by males; what women wear are thodu]
So Siva is having kuzhi [male ear rings or drops] on his right ear and thodu on his left ear, because the left part of the body is Uma's!
Now Meenakshi had three breasts. One was lost while seeing Siva. The second one was lost when she took Siva's half form. Now she has got only one breast. She is keeping it safe. Why? Let us see....
I would guess that intellectualizing these teachings, which I've done plenty of on this site, is tamas guna. Being in a state of dullness, inertia, and using spiritual concepts to entertain myself. At the same time, the interest in Maharshi's teachings comes from a deeper source. I realize more and more that Self-Realization transcends the three states. And that it is important to be awake and diligent. Even though I may have sort of understood. I didn't realize how free of indolence (laziness) one has to be to become realized. And even though action doesn't in itself lead to liberation. Being lax about actions that are necessary will not remove the veil either. Giving up on one's worldly goals, is not surrender, is something I've learned. If a sage seems to be in a state where they aren't holding down a job, it's not because they are in a state where they can't work, like someone so dogged down by vasanas that they are considered "mentally ill". The sage can work, but has no desires, and so may have no desires to pursue, would I suppose be more the explanation. An egoic jiva has desires to pursue, and inaction, or passivity, does not make them go away. The mentally ill, or escapist person, even if living at a cave, is still plagued with desires, but repressing, or avoiding the actions. Ramana sitting at Virupaksha, this was not the case, I guess.
Hi BrokenYogi,
Packed for a move??Can I ask where to? Dont tell me you are relocating to T'malai?Is this your first time to India??
-z
Dear Scott,
Sri Bhagavan has once called Himself as "Pani ledhu vadu" - meaning that He was a work-less person. Once David Godman has written an article in Mountain Path: In praise of laziness! This laziness is not to be understood as one not desiring to any work. On the contrary, enjoying the divine bliss within, a Sage has not inclination to do anything at all in this world, for his own benefit.
Sri Bhagavan says in Akshara Mana
Maalai, Verse 37:
If I slumber in quiet repose enjoying the bliss of being, what other moksha is there, tell me, O
Arunachala.
All the same, Sri Bhagavan used
to get up at 3.00 am. and cut vegetables and sometimes even grind chutney for breakfast!
In spirit, I am always moving to Arunachula. In body, not quite. Still staying in California, but into the Sierras near Lake Tahoe. Brother mountains, you might say.
If he wishes for true happiness, let him look upon reason as a monarch sitting on the throne of his heart, imagination as its ambassador, memory as treasurer, speech as interpreter, the limbs as clerks, and the senses as spies in the realms of colour, sound, smell, etc. If all these properly discharge the duties allotted to them, if every faculty does that for which it was created - and such service is the real meaning of thanksgiving to God - the ultimate object of his sojourn in his transitory world is realised.
Al-Ghazzali, The Nature of Man
Dear Clemens Vargas Ramos,
Once Alexander the Great came after
conquest of Asia back to Macedonia and wanted to meet his guru. Dionysus. It was a sunny morning. Dionysus was looking east and worshipping Sun. The emperor came and told him: "Master, I have brought priceless treasures from India and other places. I want to give you something to show my respect to you. What shall I do to you?" Dionysus told him: "Please keep away from the Sun without hiding my view. That is more than sufficient. You may go!"
There were and there are such great Masters who were content with inner peace and bliss. Nothing else mattered to them. There are also such stories about Zen Masters.
Once an old granny was making kolam
[designs and drawings on the cleaned up mud floor or cement floor] in front of the Old Hall. Sri Bhagavan asked her: "Look here granny, you are taking so much trouble in decorating the floor with the powder. Is it rice powder?"
The granny replied that it was from lime powder, Sri Bhagavan said:
"What a pity! It will not be useful even for ants. The paste that is made from rice powder and used in kolams will be useful for the ants so that they can it. The correct dharma is decorating the floor with kolams with rice powder or paste so that ants will eat it.
The powdered lime, if used, cannot be eaten by ants and on the contrary some of them would die also, if taken by mistake. Why all this then? What is the use?
Use rice powder in future."
[Bhagavan Ramana - The Friend of All]
The Prophet's companion Abuzar says: "I was quarrelling with someone in the presence of the Prophet when suddenly in a fit of rage I abused the man; 'Thou son of a negrees.'" On this the Prophet coaxingly said to me: 'Abuzar, both the scales are equal. The white has no preferonce over the black.' Hearing this I fell and said to the person: Brother come and trample on my face and then forgive me."
Al-Ghazzali, Pride and Vanity
I believe it was Diogenes who was Alexander's teacher. Dionysus is a Greek God.
Folks, Broken Yogi,
Well, I thought one more post on Nagarjuna’s philosophy etc. might be in order.
Firstly, the so called Nagarjuna’s four-fold negation is not Nagarjuna’s at all. It is as old as philosophy is in India, going back thousands of years. But it was first aggressively used by a philosopher called Sanjaya who lived in 6th Century BC even before the Buddha probably, and who probably gave it its name “Chatuskoti” which has stuck ever since. Sanjaya used it to systematically destroy every other philosophical system that existed then, and his followers used it to attack preliminary Buddhist thought. The cornerstone of Buddhism, the Buddha’s four fold path itself (“there is suffering in the world” etc.) was shown by them to be neither proved nor disproved. In fact Nagarjuna himself used the Chatuskoti to disprove the Buddha’s four fold path, and build an alternate view of the metaphysics from even what the Buddha had probably envisaged.
So destructive were Sanjaya’s arguments on every philosophical system that every other system that later arose has had to contend with the Chatuskoti and incorporate it, with additions and deletions, within itself. As did Nagarjuna, by adapting the same four-fold negation and applying it not only to the seen-world but to the Ultimate as well; Jainism, which added 3 more negations and made it the seven-fold negation (BY, you will love their 7 fold negation, please do read about it); and Advaita, which added a fifth category to it, which in essence, cancels out the last 3 and the negative in the first, leaving the proposition as ‘the noumenon is “Being”’.
As far back as 600 BC, Sanjaya’s logic showed that Chatuskoti represents the truth of EVERYTHING in the seen world, and both Buddhism and Advaita accept that in some form or the other. The difference comes in that, can it also represent the nature of the Ultimate?
Prof. P.T. Raju of the University of Rajputana explains the subtle difference in positions succinctly and well [from a Course Handout, Dept of Philosophy, University of California, Sacramento]:
[Note: Nagarjuna’s four-fold negation is: “Ultimate Reality is neither Being, nor Non-Being, nor both, nor neither”].
“Sankara, the founder of the Non-dualistic school of the Vedanta, and his followers made a different use of this principle of four-fold negation. Neither Sankara nor Nagarjuna would call himself a skeptic or an agnostic, because both of them say that they are certain of ultimate truth and give an expression for its nature. But while Nagarjuna says that this four-fold negation expresses the nature of every existent thing and therefore the nature of ultimate Reality, Sankara would contend that this four-fold negation is still a negation and therefore cannot be ultimate, for every negation must have a positive basis without which it would be insignificant. My judgment, "the pen is not red," is based on my judgment, "the pen is black." Had I not seen the black-nesses or some other positive quality of the pen, I could not have said, "it is not red." Then, if the four-fold negation is true of everything in the worlds, what does it indicate? It indicates the phenomenology of every entity. Substance, Quality, cause, Effect, Activity, Relation, etc., are phenomena, and in terms of Being and Non-Being, the four-fold negation is expressive of their nature. But since every negative involves a positive as its basis, the phenomenal involves the noumenal, which is Being or the Brahman.” [Italics mine]
Cont …
Thus the infinite regress of “Negatives” has to come to rest in a “Positive” at some point. For the “Ultimate”, a definite expression of existence is needed as “Being”. You cannot stop at “neither Being nor not-Being etc”.
Is the difference too subtle for some folks? But on this subtle but critical difference rests the foundations of the divergent schools of modern Buddhism and Vedanta-Advaita.
And doesn’t really matter folks which one each one of you go with. To each his own.
But cut to Sri Bhagavan’s Ulladu Narpadu. I believe, verse 3, quoted by Broken Yogi, simply says, throw all the traditional “Chatuskoti” arguments, like “Is” or “Is not” with respect to the world, and all the dialectics thereof, into the dustbin, and just do your vichara.
And verse 12 simply says (one of a series of explanatory verses; because we fools do not accept Bhagavan’s words in toto and still want clarifications), that the Ultimate is beyond the duad of subject and object, but is not “emptiness” or a “nothing” or a “negativity”. It is a “POSITIVITY”, a “Being”.
And lest it be said that if Bhagavan wanted to affirm a “Positivity”, He would have gone about it directly rather than saying it in a roundabout way, He did, in many Ulladu Narpadu verses, starting with the TITLE itself and the invocatory verse by referring to the Ultimate as “Ulladu” – “That which is”, or “Being”, or “Existence”.
Best wishes
Arvind,
I would generally agree that on a philosophical level, Buddhism and Advaita diverge on the issue of positivity and negativity in regard to how one describes the Ultimate. I also agree that on the practical level, this matters very little, and that Bhagavan didn't much care how one approached the matter, as long as one practiced self-enquiry.
It's certainly true that in Ulladu Narpadu Ramana affirms that one can describe the Ultimate in positive terms, so long as one does not ascribe any content to the Ultimate. Which is kind of strange, but we can let it pass. Ramana's “Being” is not a being, however, and it lacks all qualities and content. So what exactly is present? It's not really possible to say. Ramana just wants to make it clear that he's not a nihilist and that Ultimate Reality in his view is not itself merely a negation, even if that's how its lack of content might make it seem.
The Buddhists were concerned about associating the Ultimate with content of one kind or another, not with describing the Ultimate as a “void”. Their term “emptiness” is meant to refer to the lack of content in the Ultimate, as well as the lack of “selfness” or “thingness” in all objects and individuality. So the Buddhists have no real stake in clinging to any “void” or emptiness. They also have formulations which affirm that “perfect emptiness is also perfect fullness”, and also of course that in realization “nirvana and samsara are the same”. So they are not exactly rigid in describing the Ultimate in negative terms. As mentioned in earlier discussions, Buddha describes the Ultimate Reality as infinitely blissful:
No earthly pleasure
No heavenly bliss
Equals one infinitesmal portion
Of the bliss of the cessation of craving
As mentioned before, Buddha's view of sadhana is similar to Ramana's, in that he considers Ultimate Reality to be already the case, and is merely obscured by our cravings, and that sadhana is simply a matter of ceasing to obscure what is already true. Our cravings create and superimpose “content” on the Ultimate, and surrendering all that doesn't accomplish anything at all, it merely allows Reality to become obvious to us. That is what true bliss is, in his view. The method is not the same as self-enquiry, but it bears some resemblance to in that it involves an intense concentration within oneself to see that the ego does not actually exist.
It's simply that Buddha did not want to say positively what is found when the ego and its cravings are seen through and surrendered, probably because he felt that might interfere with the method he recommended to be free of all craving and content. He didn't want to describe it as “Self”, particularly in his day and age when that term was generally synonymous with an eternal individual jivatman rather than a realization beyond all individuated egoity. And he didn't want to turn it into a goal or destination, because he felt that would only encourage more craving, thus undermining the whole project of bringing an end to craving.
So Buddha didn't give Ultimate Reality a name, and when asked only replied with “noble silence”. Ramana didn't mind giving it a name, or referring to it as “the Self”, because he was only concerned that it not be conceived of as a goal rather than a present reality, and that it be understood to be free of all content and desire and individual selfness. Also, one has to understand that Ramana had the benefit of 2500 years of developmental understanding in both Buddhism and Vedanta, which both helped each other develop a better language for speaking of these matters. Because of its historical origins, Buddhism is limited in its ability to speak positively of the Ultimate Reality, but it hasn't stopped it from trying and succeeding in many of its schools.
cont.
As for Nagarjuna his logic does stem from classical “four-cornered” methods that long preceded him. Buddha, for example, used many instances of “four-cornered” logic. That's why Nagarjuna used that method. He simply made a more thorough exegis of it and applied it more thoroughly than the texts of the Pali Canon. He had no intention of being “original”. He merely tried to explain the Buddha's dharma in a way that could be applied by anyone, and he is equally popular in Theravadin and Mahayana schools. But it is a huge mistake to see him as affirming a kind of “void' as the ultimate, or mistaking the term “empty” for designating some sort of nothingness. He is in complete agreement with Ramana on that issue.
On the question of “Being”, Nagarjuna and Buddhism in general doesn't suggest that there is no “Ultimate Being” in the nominal sense. They merely don't like calling Ultimate Reality that, because it seems to affirm a kind of spiritual craving for the mind to fix itself upon, when the goal is to free the mind from all fixations and cravings. They are critical of Vedanta for that very reason. Ramana had similar concerns, though he saw the value in concentration (as Buddhists do also) as a temporary compromise, but he too felt it was something that had to be gone beyond eventually also, or the mind would remain fixated and unable to transcend objects, even holy ones.
I do agree that it doesn't much matter how one transcends the mind and ego, so long as one does so. My point was that the Buddhist approach, while different from Vedanta, does succeed in accomplishing that goal in its most mature and advanced adepts. The same with Vedanta. Each have their advantages and limitations, and each can use their advantages to transcend their limitations. I am not in any position to say which is “better”. It really depends on the individual. I think it's totally fine to be one or the other, or even to simply make use of the advantages of both and leave the limitations behind. Ramana is an excellent example of that approach, of using the advantages of the Advaitic and Vedantic schools and gently leaving behind most of their limitations.
Undoubtedly I have somehow said things that will offend someone out there. My apologies in advance.
Arvind.
Regarding Sankara's argument in favor of a "positive" outcome to the four-fold negation, the Buddhist argument against it, I think, is that it presumes the phenomenal existence of some "thing" in the first place. In the Buddhist doctrine of dependent origination, "things" only come into apparent existence after ignorance and craving arise. Hence when we see a "red pen", what we are seeing is merely our own mind, our cravings projected before us. Hence, both "pen" and "red" have no real existence.
Sankara's error in their view is to presume that objects exist outside the craving mind, and that therefore there must be a substance to them which the four-fold negation addresses, hence a "positive" presumption underlying the negations. I have to say that I think Gaudapada would agree with the Buddhist here.
Not to say that there is nothing "positive" one can say about Ultimate Reality, but I don't think Sankara hit on the right approach. I think one merely has to accept that all speech and all concepts can be negated by their own logic, and that what is truly positive about Ultimate Reality is essential silent and speechless, and Real in a way that no words, even that word "Real" can hope to approach.
Why do we set the bar so high? Suppose I am quite content with wordly life but just want to meditate so that I can be a bit happier or a bit more peaceful - whats wrong with that? From the Buddhist point of view everything. "He did not mince words: people living in samsara are blind, deluded and fettered"
People are not aware of their predicament - if they were they really wouldn't even know what to do or how to escape.
Jude,
Nothing wrong with that approach, except that it doesn't yet realize the first noble truth - that conditional life is suffering. As long as you think it's not, that a little meditation or whatever will make it okay, then Buddhism has little to say to you. It really is just fine to go along until life's vissicitudes begin to drive home the first noble truth. And who knows, maybe life really is just a bowl of cherries, with no great pains to suffer or resolve. You be the judge. The whole of Buddhism is for those who have come to see - and most importantly, feel deeply - the simple truth of conditional suffering.
This isn't about setting a high bar, it's about accepting conditional reality for what it actually is - suffering. Tanha. Unsatisfying. Trying to satisfy yourself here is the best way to find out that it isn't satisfying. If you find satisfaction somehow, more power to you. But one thing is for certain - all things pass, including one's moments of satisfaction.
Broken Yogi, Please don't presume and note I used the word suppose. I am well aware of suffering and the suffering of those around me. I don't even for a minute entertain the thought that 'life is just a bowl of cherries'
The law of karma ordains that you reap what you sow - but not necessarily immediately. It's not like a vendetta, or 'tit-for-tat'
It's an imponderable and essentially a mystery.
Dear Broken Yogi,
Thank you for the correct information.
The paradoxes inherent in theistic
theories have engaged the minds of
western theologians and philosophers
for centuries. For example, if God is perfect, why is there evil in the world? Why does an omnipotent God allow suffering when he has the power to abolish it at a stroke?
Sri Bhagavan side steps such conundrums by stating that the world, god and the individual [jiva] who suffers are all imaginations of the mind. He says this in ULLadu NaRpadu, Verse 2 of the main text.
Instead of attributing suffering, to the consequence of wrong actions or will of God, Sri Bhagavan taught that it it only arises because we imagine that we are separate individuals interacting with each other and with the world. He said that wrong actions compound the suffering, and are therefore to be avoided, but they are not its original cause. It is the mind that creates the illusion of separateness and it is the mind that suffers the consequences of its illusory inventions. Suffering is thus a product and consequence of the discriminative mind; when the mind is eliminated, suffering is found to be non existent.
contd.
Suffering and God:
Many questioners could relate to this idea on an individual level, but they found it hard to accept that all the suffering in the world
existed only in the mind of the person, who perceived it. Sri Bhagavan was quite adamant about this and repeatedly said that if one realizes the Self, one will know that all suffering, not just one's own, is non existent. Taking this idea to its logical conclusion, Sri Bhagavan often said that the most effective way of eliminating other people's suffering was to realize the Self.
This standpoint should not be interpreted to mean that Sri Bhagavan encouraged His followers to ignore the suffering of other people. On a more pragmatic level, He said that prior to Self realization one should accept the reality of other people's suffering and take steps to relieve it, whenever one comes across it. However, He also pointed out that such remedial actions would be spiritually beneficial if they were done without the feeling that 'other people less fortunate than me are being helped', and without feeling that 'I am performing these actions.'
On the whole, the question of what one should or should not do in the world was of little interest to Sri Bhagavan. He maintained that all conventional ideas about the right and wrong were value judgments mad by the mind and that when the mind ceases to exist, ideas about right and wrong also cease. Because of this He rarely spoke about conventional canons of morality, and whenever He was pressed to offer an opinion on them, He would usually side-step the issue by saying that the only 'right action' was discovering the
Self.
[David Godman, BAYA]
SUFFERING AND GOD;
Q: If God is all why does the individual suffer for his actions?
Are not the actions for which the individual is made to suffer prompted by him?
Sri B: He who thinks he is the doer is also sufferer.
Q: But the actions prompted by God and the individual is only his tool.
Sri B: The logic is applied only when one suffers, but not when one rejoices. If the conviction prevails always, there will be no suffering either.
Q: When will the suffering cease?
Sri B: Not until individuality is lost. If both good and bad actions are his, why should you think that the enjoyment and sufferings are yours alone? He who does good or bad, also enjoys pleasure or suffers pain. Leave it there and do not superimpose
suffering on yourself.
[Talks]
Jude, I wasn't making any presumptions about you, just responding to your suppositions, and addressing a suppositional "you".
... Sri B: He who thinks he is the doer is also sufferer. ...
One should not think of suffer and joy longer than 5 seconds.
(The biographer of a former german chancellor once said in an interview: 'Of course (!!) it's not worth it to think longer than 5 seconds of what he says.' I found this statement astonishing not because it won't be true perhaps but to hear this from his biographer.)
(... I mean what is the worth of a biography then about a man saying things being not worth to think of it longer than 5 seconds?)
SUFFERING AND GOD:
Q: How can you say that suffering is non-existent? I see it everywhere.
Sri B: One's own reality, which shines within everyone as the Heart,
is itself the ocean of unalloyed bliss. Therefore,like the unreal blueness of the sky, misery does not exist in reality but only in mere imagination. Since one's own reality, which is the sun of Jnana that cannot be approached by the dark delusion of ignorance, itself
shines as happiness, misery, is nothing but an illusion caused by the unreal sense of individuality. In truth, no one has ever experienced any such thing other than that unreal illusion. If one scrutinizes one's own Self, which is bliss, there will be no misery at all in one's life. One suffers of the idea that the body, which is never oneself, is 'I'; suffering is all due to this delusion.
[Guru Vachaka Kovai 952-954]
MISERY, HAPPINESS AND THE WORLD:
Q: Is the world created for happiness or misery?
Sri B: Creation is neither good nor bad. It is as it is. It is the human mind which puts all sorts of c constructions on it, seeing tings from its own angle and interpreting them to suit its own interests. A woman is just a woman, but one mind calls her mother, another sister, and still another aunt and so on. Men love women, hate snakes, and are indifferent to the grass and stones by the roadside. These value-judgments are the cause of all the misery in the world. Creation is like a peepul tree. Birds come to eat its fruit, or take shelter under its branches, men cool themselves in its shade, but some may hang themselves on it. Yet the tree continues to lead its quiet life, unconcerned with and unaware of all the uses it is put to. It is the human mind that creates its own difficulties and then cries for help. Is God so partial as to give peace to one person and sorrow to another? In creation there is room for everything, but man refuses to see the good, the healthy and beautiful. Instead, he goes on whining like the hungry man who sits beside the tasty dish and who, instead of stretching out his hand to satisfy his hunger, goes on lamenting, 'Whose fault is, God's or man's?
[S.S. COHEN, GURU RAMANA]
MISERY, WORLD AND THE EGO:
Q: In this life beset with limitations, can I ever realize the bliss of the Self?
Sri B: That bliss of the Self is always with you, and you will find it for yourself, if you would seek it earnestly. The cause of your misery is not in the life outside you, it is in you as the ego. You impose limitations on yourself and then make a vain struggle to transcend them. What does it avail you to attribute to the happenings in life, while the cause of misery is really within you? What happiness can you get from things extraneous to yourself? When you get it, how long will it last?
If you would deny the ego, and scorch it by ignoring it, you would be free. If you accept it, it will impose limitations on you and throw you into a vain struggle to transcend them. To be Self that you really are is the only means to realize the bliss that is ever yours.
{Maharshi's Gospel}
WORLD, MISERY AND THE SELF:
Q: There are widespread disasters spreading havoc in he world, for example, famine and pestilence. What is the cause of this state of affairs?
Sri B: To whom does all this appear?
Q: That won't do. I see misery everywhere.
Sri B: You were not aware of the world and its sufferings in your sleep but you are conscious of them now in your waking state. Continue in that state in which you were not afflicted by them. That is to say, when you are not aware of the world, its sufferings do not affect you. When you remain as the Self, as in sleep, the world and its sufferings will not affect you. Therefore, look within. See the Self! Then there will be an end of the world and its miseries.
Q: But that is selfishness.
Sri B: The world is not external. Because you identify wrongly with the body, you see the world outside, and its pain becomes apparent to you. But they are not real. Seek the Reality and get rid of this unreal feeling.
Q: There are great men, public workers, who cannot solve the problem of misery in the world.
Sri B: They are ego centered and that accounts for their inability. If they remained in the Self they would be different.
Q: Why do not Mahatmas help?
Sri B: How do you know that they do not help? Public speeches, physical activity and material help are all outweighed by the silence of mahatmas. They accomplish more than others.
Q: What is to be done by us for ameliorating the condition of the world?
Sri B: If you remain free from pain, there will be no pain anywhere. The trouble is now due to your seeing the world externally and also thinking that there is pain there. But both the world and the pain are within you. If you look within, there will be no pain.
Q: Why did the Self manifest as this miserable world?
Sri B: In order that you may seek it. Your eyes cannot see themselves. Place a mirror before them and they see themselves. Similarly with creation. 'See yourself first, and then see the whole world as the Self.'
Q: So it amounts to this -- that I should always look within.
Sri B: Yes.
Q: Should I not see the world at all?
Sri B: You are not instructed to shut your eyes to the world. You are only to 'see yourself first and then see the whole world as the Self.' If you consider yourself as the body, the world appears to be external. If you are the Self, the world appears as Brahman.
[Talks]
Q: What about motives? Are the motives for performing actions not important?
Sri B: Whatever is done lovingly, with righteous purity and with peace of mind, is a good action. Everything which is done with the stain of desire and with agitation filling the mind is classified as bad action. Do not perform an good action [karma] through a bad means, thinking "It is sufficient it bears good fruit." Because, if the means are bad, even a good action will turn out to be bad one. Therefore, even the means of doing actions should be pure.
[Guru Vachaka Kovai, Verses 574 and 573]
Folks, Broken Yogi,
Do excuse my not entering into further debate as to Sri Sankara vs. Sri Nagarjuna. There is plenty of material already around on that. Point really is, could Sri Bhagavan’s teachings even slightly coincide with Buddhist Sunyata-vada and related doctrines?
BY said: “I also agree that on the practical level, this matters very little, and that Bhagavan didn't much care how one approached the matter, as long as one practiced self-enquiry.”
“The method [Buddha’s] is not the same as self-enquiry, but it bears some resemblance to in that it involves an intense concentration within oneself to see that the ego does not actually exist.”
Again, in my humble opinion, I believe that the implications of Nagarjuna’s four-fold negation are not fully being understood. I had mentioned earlier that “desire for the Self, the Ultimate” (leaving aside the specifics of what BY and I had held earlier in our discussion a few years ago) is an impossibility as a sadhana in Nagarjuna’s system. Actually, and for the same reason, Self-enquiry itself is an impossibility as a sadhana in the system. That is why so few Buddhists practice or recommend Self-enquiry.
This is because, in Nagarjuna’s system, there can be no link between the Ultimate and any thing of the world, and critically, not even with your own ego - the small “i”. The four-fold negation ensures that everything that is seen or experienced is negated out equally and completely leaving “emptiness”, “nothing”. The world phenomena does not arise from the Ultimate but is a continuity of cause and effect in an endless chain. “From emptiness only emptiness can come, not anything of the world”, says Nagarjuna [paraphrased]. So concentrating on your own self, the small “i”, is exactly the same as concentrating on any object in the world, be it an apple or a candle flame. In effect, Nagarjuna’s system cannot recognize anything special about Bhagavan’s “Aham vritti” as described in “Maharshi’s Gospel”. Aham-vritti, is like any other vritti and of no particular value. So, in essence, all that you can really do is “meditate” in this system, i.e. concentrate on an “object”; and thus even in the practice of “mindfulness”, you essentially try to be aware of, not your own self as in Advaita, but of the “act” itself.
Whereas, the cornerstone of Bhagavan’s Self-enquiry is actually the fact that the ego - the small “i”, and “I” (the Self, the Ultimate) are intrinsically linked. The ego and the world, arise from the Self - the Ultimate, and sink back into It. And when the ego has arisen, then experience of your own existence, or the experience of your own ego, is actually this Supreme Self Itself (again, a core teaching of Advaita as well). Hence the Ulladu Narpadu invocatory verse: “Other than Ulladu (‘That which is’ or ‘Being’) is there consciousness of being?” [M. James]; also translated as, “Is there existent awareness other than Existence?” [TMP Mahadevan]. Thus, Bhagavan’s “Aham vritti” - the experience of the small “i”, is a very special vritti unlike any other vritti, which if caught and traced back to the source will lead to the Supreme Self. And hence Bhagavan’s Self enquiry, to dive within and trace back to the Source of the i-thought, which thus leads to Self-realisation.
Apologies folks for a somewhat complicated write-up. But the bottom line is that in Nagarjuna’s system, a spiritual practice such as Bhagavan’s Self enquiry itself becomes, ab initio, invalid. And thus, Nagarjuna’s philosophy of four-fold negation and the sunyatavada system is quite out of sync with Bhagavan’s teachings, though superficially it might appear that Nagarjuna’s “description” of the Ultimate and that of Bhagavan’s have similar characteristics.
Best wishes
Arvind,
I might ask you as well.Can you please tell us how you go about doing 'Self-Enquiry' and your experiences and observations of it; and any progress so far?
-z
Arvind,
Arvind,
Nice exposition. However, I think you are looking at these matters narrowly, from the point of view of technical doctrine, rather than openly, looking for complementary approaches.
One has to recognize that Buddhism and Ramana's Advaita approach these matters from different angles, and yet also realize that they converge at many points, including the final disposition.
As to the “desire for the Self”, of course Nagarjuna and Buddhism don't allow for that, because they don't posit a “Self” in the first place. Their goal is not some presumed Being they hope to realize, but the release of all illusions superimposed on reality by the mind, which leaves only Reality. So their equivalent of “desire for the Self” is “desire for liberation from illusion”. Again, we have the “positive” approach of Advaita and the “negative” approach of Buddhism. Is one superior to the other? I think not. The impulse is merely framed differently, but in reality it is the same impulse springing from the heart. One can see in Ramana's teaching that the actual practice isn't really about realizing the Self, but about dissolving the illusions we have of the mind and ego – getting rid of illusory suffering and realizing That which is already the case. So one can see right off that Ramana's approach also takes a negative tack – the elimination of illusions – rather the classical Advaitic mahavakya approach of affirming the positive.
This also goes to your claim that self-enquiry is an impossibility within Nagarjuna's system. Again, this doesn't take account of the angle of approach. Advaita is an “noumenal idealism” approach to Ultimate Reality, and Ramana's approach seems to conform to that in that he is aimed at finding the source of the ego. Buddhism takes a “ phenomenal realism” approach that instead of originally being aimed at self or ego, looks at all phenomenal arising and sees that there is no “thingness” to them. But look at what actually happens in Ramana's practice of self-enquiry. One is not actually directed to the Self, one is directed to the feeling of ego, the small self. One examines this felt sense of self, of ego, until one sees that it is an illusion, a ghost, not there at all, not a thing, not an “I”, but merely an “I”-thought.
What is the source of this illusion? That's where it gets tricky in Ramana's approach. On the one hand, the source of the “I”-thought is simply ignorance, and thus the approach involves the destruction of ignorance, the destruction of the mind. The mind is not made Divine by this enquiry, it is destroyed and left for dead. The aham vritti dies. It falls into the heart and dies.
And what is this “heart”? It's not a place on the right side of the chest. It's not a phenomenal or even noumenal object. It has no content, no “vritti” to it. One finds it by letting the vritti die, not by affirming this vritti as Real. So Ramana's source is not itself conditional. It doesn't give birth to the conditional. In reality, there is no conditional “I”, and it is never born. Only an illusion whose source is ignorance is born or seems to come into being. The heart is never born, and is, in Buddhist parlance “unborn”.
So what of Buddhism's approach? Phenomenal realism begins from the opposite side of the spectrum, but it converges on the same heart that noumenal idealism does. The Buddhist begins by merely observing all phenomena, and nothing more. He inspects his own mind to see that all objective notions he has of things, including his own body and mind, are self-created illusions that impose a sense of “self” upon us, and upon each thing we observe. Observing this, the Buddha lets all that go, lets every illusion collapse under its own absence of support.
cont.
cont.
This is what Nagarjuna's fourfold negation brings about – the collapse of the illusory mind and world. This is not dissimilar to either neti-neti or the forms of self-enquiry, or Sankara's first step of “the world is an illusion”. The basic approach is to turn attention from objects and let it fall into the heart. This is what occurs through the fourfold negation and the teaching on emptiness. The world is seen to be empty. And then one falls into self. As Buddha said, “Be a refuge unto yourself”. The negative approach leads to a profound falling into oneself, taking refuge in oneself, and penetrating the deep illusion of self itself. When that is done, one awakens as the Unborn, the Ultimate Reality, or Nirvana.
Is this precisely the same as self-enquiry? No, of course not. At then end, yes, I think it is, in the final stage of “taking refuge in oneself”. As Ramana said, all paths lead to self-enquiry in the end. And in the broader sense, all paths that reach the end also are similar to self-enquiry in general, even if in particular they are not. Bhakti Yoga, for example, is quite different from self-enquiry in its particulars, but in the general approach, those who take that path all the way do indeed approach it in a manner that is consistent with self-enquiry. That approach being one of surrendering into the heart beyond the mind and world. Buddhism, I am suggesting, takes a different theoretical approach, but in reality the approach is very much akin to self-enquiry. At least among the most serious Buddhists.
It's certainly true that many Buddhists don't do it this way. But neither do many Advaitists take it all the way either. In fact, many of Ramana's devotees don't do it his way either. That is one reason why Ramana didn't emphasize philosophy or doctrine. To him, the technical disputes that can arise when one focuses on such matters distract from the practical path of actually moving beyond the mind. The point being that one's religious philosophy shouldn't be seen as an obstacle. If one is a Bhakti, or a Buddhist, one shouldn't imagine that this will prevent one from fulfilling the essential needs and requirements that the path of self-enquiry exemplifies.
Nor should one see self-enquiry as some exclusive path, the only way to self-realization. A broader view must be taken that understands that many paths lead to the same final implosion of the mind into the heart. And within Buddhism itself there are many different approaches as well, many that even borrow from the Vedantic tradition of noumenal idealism. And likewise, there is much in Vedanta that borrows from the Buddhist tradition of phenomenal realism. Rather than seeing these as opponents with no possibility of compromise, I think it is best to see them as complementary pairs within the dualistic world of spiritual teachings.
No teaching can be entirely free of dualism because that is the nature of this world, and of the mind that makes words. This should not be taken as a bug, but as a feature. Each dualistic pair is able serve the non-dual reality by pointing to That which transcends it dualism. Advaita and Buddhism are two historical bookends seemingly at opposite ends of the spectrum but they are still on the same shelf. Their own opposition to one another points to the Ultimate Reality which lies between them.
I recall attending a lecture by a Vajrayana Buddhist Master in the early 1980s, and he was asked "What is anatta (the doctrine of no-self), and what is tantra?"
He replied, "That is a very big and complicated question, but I will give you a very simple answer. Anatta is the remembrance of who you are, and tantra is the continuity of that remembrance."
Arvind/Broken Yogi/friends,
I do not wish to divert from your discussions.However I will translate and examine some of the lofty ideas into something more tangible for my understanding:
1.“desire for the Self” is “desire for liberation from illusion”.
I will make use of the example of the baby lion that grew among the sheep and examine the above.
The 'Baby lion' is thinking itself as a sheep and 'bleating' along with the rest -by sheer association.The sheep go to the forest for grazing and our baby Lion 'sheep' does it no differently.The sheep are afraid of the dangers that lurk in the forest and so does the baby lion.
A real sheep would like to be free from fear-"If only I am free from Fear and am able to graze happily.Oh!"
The Baby Lion also thinks-"If only I am free from Fear I can GrazeHappily.Oh!"
Now as part of our story,let us say that a Grownup lion comes along,and drags our baby lion to a water hole and says-"You are a lion.See out there".The Grownup lion then leaves the baby lion and disappears into the Forest.The baby Lion returns with the rest of the sheep(My story!This is how it is!)-a sheep Lion that now desires -"I need to be a Lion and be Free".
We know anologies can take us upto a certain level only-yet we may be able to appreciate that Desire for freedom from 'Fear' is not the same as Desire for Freedom'.The former is a product of Thought and cannot take one Beyond.The later is also a 'thought' but is not its 'second' derivative.
Just what is the difference?I will leave this out for your consideration.
2.one of the Key things that The Buddha has categorically said is 'There is a way out of this sorrow.'.The implication of this is that if the way or path is a certitude,then the goal or Destination has to be a Certitude.No degree of Negations is going to alter this Fact-Neither 4 negations or 7 Negations or 'n' Negations will serve any purpose.All negations simply say that this goal is not a Product of thought.
The Advaita Vedanta says this simply that Truth or one's Real nature'is not a product of thought-and is a state of Being where the fractionalizing thought subsides.Most importantly it says to all baby lions You are a Lion and not a sheep and one may see how this adds a vitality and a ring of truth than merely saying 'You are not a sheep'.
One may argue that what if the baby lion imagines it is a lion;well if it just imagines that it is a lion,it will soon be beset by fear and will come to know that it has to not just imagine but realizethat it is a lion.This it can do only if it is truly a Lion to start with and not a sheep.This again is a plus for Vedanta that it affirms that one is a Lion to start with,whether one knows it or not.
Namaskar.
Friends,
An excerpt from The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna:
MASTER: "How did you like what I said about renunciation a little while ago?"
M: "Very much, sir."
MASTER: "Tell me, what is the meaning of renunciation?"
M: "Renunciation does not mean simply dispassion for the world. It means dispassion for
the world and also longing for God."
Namaskar.
Friends,
What is the 'middle path' that the Buddha refers to-Lord Buddha had in his premonastic days enjoyed the world and had come to Realize that it does not lead to unalloyed happiness.He renounced the world and took to a life of intense asceticism by mortification of the senses and found out that it does not lead anywhere.He thus found that neither the Life in the senses nor abstention of it leads one anywhere.
The Middle path was never practised by Buddha but was only advocated by him after his attaining Illumination under the Bodhi Tree after he sat under it resolutely -"Never from this seat will I stir until I have attained the supreme and absolute wisdom".This by no stretch of Imagination can be deemed as the Middle path.
The Middle path was advocated by Lord Buddha later on to others-the implication of this is that Ignorance being a product of the mind has to be resolved at its origination-and it will not do to flog the Body and the senses.It will not do to either indulge or suppress the Physical needs of Life.
This ofcourse is the way of Yoga as well,although like Buddha himself had done ,many a time Truth is Realized only when one throws caution to the winds and puts one's life at stake,for no sacrifice is great enough to realize Truth.
The Middle path does not mean that Buddha meant a 'Goal' that is between Being and non-Being-that is just an invention of an ingenious mind!
Namaskar.
Two small anecdotes:
1. Sri Bhagavan said: Desiring the
Self is only desire that one can have. About a year or so, there were comments about this Desiring the
Self. After protracted comments and counter comments, it was agreed that one should have desire for the Self.
2. Paul Brunton asked: Bhagavan! Them, should I leave all possessions?
Sri Bhagavan replied: Leave the possessor too!
Friends,
Someone mailed a few interesting thoughts of Famous ones:
1."The world suffers a lot;not because of the violence of the bad people,but because of the silence of good people"(We know that silence here has a different connotation that what Sri Bhagavan means by that word.Yet there is some Truth in this statement.)-Napoleon Bonaparte
2."if friendship is your weakest point,then you are the strongest person in the world"-Abraham Lincoln(R.Subramanaian has been posting from 'Bhagavan,Friend of all')
3."When you are in the Light,everything follows you;but when you enter into the Dark,Even your own shadow doesn't follow you"-Hitler(With all the infamy and ruthlessness,Hitler does seem to have a Positive side-He was a Great painter and here reveals himself as a introspective person,although he may be meaning only 'Success' by what he calls 'Light' or may be he really meant wisdom!)
4."Laughing faces do not mean that there is absence of sorrow!But it means that they have the ability to Deal with it!"-Shakespeare.
Do not truly know whether these quotes belong to the persons attributed,but they do sound true.
Namaskar.
... The world suffers a lot;not because of the violence of the bad people,but because of the silence of good people"(We know that silence here has a different connotation...
... a dangerous statement.
Buddha's "Middle Way" was more than just a compromise between ascetism and self-indulgence. It was a direct and non-dual approach to reality beyond all dualisms, all concept, and mind itself.
After engaging in both ascetism and self-indulgence, he renounced them as futile and did indeed embark on the "Middle Way". This led him to sit under the Bodhi tree and engage in his contemplation of reality, which led him to a series of observations and conclusions that led him to a direct contemplation of his own self, which he found to be an illusion. This led to his nirvanic Enlightenment, the "great quenching" in silence.
His teaching was based upon that contemplative approach and the Enlightenment it brought him to. He taught on the basis of that non-dual "Middle Way" that is, indeed, beyond all dualities and concepts, such as "Being" and "non-Being". To suggest otherwise is to betray an astonishing ignorance of the original Buddhist tradition.
Ravi,
Your lion and sheep story is a nice metaphor, but if one takes it too literally it falls into error. To identify with being either a lion or a sheep is to fall into the error of identification itself. Likewise, to identify as the Self is to fall into the error of identification with the Self.
Who is to identify with the Self? Only an "other" could do that - an ego. Hence, identification with the "true Self" is an egoic error that only increases the power and strength of the ego. Hence, it is a false realization that does not transcend the "I" that identifies with the Self.
Therefore, one cannot merely identify with the Self and see that as one's real identity. One most let go of the whole illusion of having an identity at all. Otherwise, the ego remains intact. Therefore one does not realize the Self by seeing oneself as the Self. All lions and sheep are therefore "empty". The realizer is empty of identification. His knowledge of himself is not a form of identification with some "real Self" as opposed to a false Self. It is not knowledge at all in any sense we can equate to lions and sheep. These are forms, whereas the Self is beyond all forms, and yet not apart either.
The Buddhist approach recognizes the fallacy of identification even with a "true Self". It sees that as merely more concepts of the mind.
Papaji used to teach in this manner also. He would tell them that the notion that they were unenlightened was just a concept. So some would say they were enlightened, and he would tell them that this too was just a concept. Real enlightenment is not a concept. It is not something one identifies oneself as. It is free of even this.
The radical desire for freedom does not merely say "I wish to be free of this or that", because even "this or that" is a concept. One merely desires radical freedom itself, without any qualification. This is what Buddha refers to as the great quenching, Nirvana. It is simply unqualified freedom, not identifying with anything, even freedom. It does not react to or flee from anything, because it knows that concepts are unreal and cannot qualify our freedom. The desire for liberation may begin as a desire to be free from some "thing" or even the world, but Buddhist contemplation reveals all such things one might oppose, even the ego itself at last, to be empty and bereft of the power to either satisfy one's desire or qualify one's inherent liberation.
This was just forwarded to me...
China Bans Reincarnation Without Government Permission
MSNBC:
In one of history's more absurd acts of totalitarianism, China has banned Buddhist monks in Tibet from reincarnating without government permission. According to a statement issued by the State Administration for Religious Affairs, the law, which goes into effect next month and strictly stipulates the procedures by which one is to reincarnate, is "an important move to institutionalize management of reincarnation." But beyond the irony lies China's true motive: to cut off the influence of the Dalai Lama, Tibet's exiled spiritual and political leader, and to quell the region's Buddhist religious establishment more than 50 years after China invaded the small Himalayan country. By barring any Buddhist monk living outside China from seeking reincarnation, the law effectively gives Chinese authorities the power to choose the next Dalai Lama, whose soul, by tradition, is reborn as a new human to continue the work of relieving suffering.
At 72, the Dalai Lama, who has lived in India since 1959, is beginning to plan his succession, saying that he refuses to be reborn in Tibet so long as it's under Chinese control. Assuming he's able to master the feat of controlling his rebirth, as Dalai Lamas supposedly have for the last 600 years, the situation is shaping up in which there could be two Dalai Lamas: one picked by the Chinese government, the other by Buddhist monks. "It will be a very hot issue," says Paul Harrison, a Buddhism scholar at Stanford. "The Dalai Lama has been the prime symbol of unity and national identity in Tibet, and so it's quite likely the battle for his incarnation will be a lot more important than the others."
... "The world suffers a lot; not because of the violence of the bad people, but because of the silence of good people." -Napoleon Bonaparte ...
Bonaparte was himself a criminal, one of this people infatuated with maya, thinking that politics and war lead to freedom.
The political history of mankind is a history of mass murderers, of criminals and fools.
Maya makes that all this people looking aggressively for political freedom will end one day as violent criminals.
32
When the holy scriptures proclaim, ‘Thou art That, which is declared to be the Supreme’, instead of one’s knowing and being oneself [through the enquiry] ‘What am I?’, to meditate ‘I am That [the Supreme] and not this [the body, etc.]’ is due to lack of strength [i.e. due to lack of maturity of mind]. For That indeed always shines as oneself.
33
Besides that, it is a matter of ridicule to say either, ‘I have not realised myself’, or, ‘I have realised myself’. Why? Are there two selves, one self to become an object known [by the other]? For ‘I am one’ is the truth which is the experience of everyone.
34
Instead of knowing – with the mind merging within – the Reality, which ever exists as the nature of everyone and which is devoid of even a single thought, and instead of firmly abiding [as that Reality], to dispute thus, ‘It exists’, ‘It does not exist’, ‘It has form’, ‘It is formless’, ‘It is one’, ‘It is two’, ‘It is neither [one nor two]’, is ignorance born of illusion [maya]. Give up [all such disputes]!
Broken Yogi,
We will discuss later on whether 'enlightenment' is a result of Effort at all.All approaches are dualistic only-just to cutoff what one thinks is 'object' does not qualify as nondual.As long as there is the seeker with an Objective,there is duality.
The Ultimate is reached(so to say) only when all striving falls away(along with the seeker).It is more of a 'Ripening' that leads to this and not following any 'middle path' or any other approach.
One always thinks of what one did last and claims that this 'last' thing is the ultimate!Reminds me of a Hungry man who ate 9 bananas and still felt hungry.He ate one more, the 'Tenth' and was fully satisfied and wondered why at all he did not eat that 'tenth' one in the first place.The fallacy of this can be readily seen.
The above example may look silly but that is how spiritual growth takes place-it is through an intelligent satisfaction of desires that one may arrive at desirelessness.This is why not just Lord Buddha but Sanatana Dharma had recommended the way of Dharma.Buddhism laid the same Dharma for all,whereas sanAtana Dharma recognized the need for variance according to temperament and position in Life.
Namaskar.
Broken Yogi,
To say that Meditation on 'Aham Brahmasmi' will not lead to Truth is fallacious.It all depends on the earnestness of the seeker-how ripe he is;If he is not ripe then 'Who am I' would also not be effective.We cannot be comparing paths forgetting the 'traveller' on the path.
Here is an Excerpt from Nisargadatta maharaj ,from 'I am That':
Q: Please tell me which road to self-realisation is the shortest.
M: No way is short or long, but some people are more in earnest and some are less. I can tell you about myself. I was a simple man, but I trusted my Guru. What he told me to do, I did. He told me to concentrate on 'I am' -- I did. He told me that I am beyond all perceivables and conceivables -- I believed. I gave him my heart and soul, my entire attention and the whole of my spare time (I had to work to keep my family alive). As a result of faith and earnest application, I realised my self (swarupa) within three years."
Maharaj's realization is proof enough of the effectiveness of the Traditional method.
Namaskar.
Broken Yogi,
"To identify with being either a lion or a sheep is to fall into the error of identification itself. Likewise, to identify as the Self is to fall into the error of identification with the Self."
To identify with the sheep i.e ego consciousness with its desires,fears,frustrations is obviously the cause of Bondage.
To identify with the Lion and not imagining it means to reclaim the knowledge of Self,what one truly is all the time.It is not that the lion is another 'Object' out there stronger than the 'sheep' and it involves crossing over to the other side.
The story is simple enough and it is intended to be kept that way and to intellectualize it will lead us nowhere.
Namaskar.
Arthur Koestler:
I think most historians will agree that the part played by impulses of selfish, individual aggression in the holocausts of history was small; first and foremost, the slaughter was meant as an offering to the gods, to king and country, or the future happiness of mankind. The crimes of Caligula shrink to insignificance compared to the havoc wrought by Torquemada. The number of victims of robbers, highwaymen, rapists, gangsters and other criminals at any period of history is negligible compared to the massive numbers of those cheerfully slain in the name of the true religion, just policy, or correct ideology.
...the crimes of violence committed for selfish, personal motives are historically insignificant compared to those committed ad majorem gloriam Dei, out of a self-sacrificing devotion to the flag, a leader, a religious faith or political conviction.
David,
"China Bans Reincarnation Without Government Permission"
What a grotesque story and what a way to prevent succession of Dalai lama!Anyway,Truth alone will triumph and not falsehood.It is likely that in banning this sort of a succession in a small country like Tibet,it may pave the way for an uprisal in the mainland itself-however unlikely it looks like at the moment.Who might have thought about the breaking up of the Soviet union in the 60s or 70s?Yet it did happen.
Namaskar.
The lion and the sheep are both bodies. Nothing intellectual about that. Identify with a body of any kind, you are in bondage.
The Self is not a body or form. You can't identify with it.
As Ramana says:
"36
It is only if we think, having illusion, that we are the body, that meditating ‘No [we are not the body], we are That [the Supreme]’ may be a good aid for [reminding] us to abide as That. [However] since we are That, why should we for ever be meditating that we are That? Does [a man need to] meditate ‘I am a man?’"
If meditation on Aham Brahamasmi can lead to realization, why not meditation on emptiness? You like to pick your particular heritage and give it the benefit of the doubt, but take it away from other traditions. Not fair.
Btw, if you read more of Nisargadatta's account, he only practiced that meditation for a few weeks. He was led into other forms of meditation in due course, but never really explained what they were. He only said that he trusted his Guru and that his entire realization was brought about by his faith in his Guru. It had little to do with following some traditional path of affirmation or using mahavakyas.
And even the meditation on "I am" is not the same as meditating "I am Brahman". It does not presume to know Brahman, it only investigates the "I", as in self-enquiry.
Ramana recommended self-enquiry for all, regardless of their temperament or position in life. Like Buddha, he did not discriminate based on background or character. And like the Buddha, he did not expect all would be able to do so, so they both made allowances for different forms of approach. Ramana had more in common with Buddha in this respect than with the Hindu varnas or jatis.
Broken Yogi,
"The lion and the sheep are both bodies. Nothing intellectual about that. Identify with a body of any kind, you are in bondage."
!!!?Here is an excerpt from the Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna:
"Analogy is one-sided. You are a pundit; haven't you read logic? Suppose you say that a
man is as terrible as a tiger. That doesn't mean that he has a fearful tail or a tiger's pot-face!
(All laugh.)"
I understand that all your arguements are stemmimg from the thought that we are trying to run down Buddhism,as I see from your next post.All I am saying is that all the 'ideas' in Buddhism are just a subset of Hinduism-and in its elimination of some of the 'ideas' and customs,it has eliminated some useful ones as well.To justify this 'elimination' of useful ideas and customs,Buddhism had to revert to 'extremes'(forgetting the Middle path!)-Truly one cannot say that this was the intention of Buddha.
You ask 'why not meditate on Nothingness'?What is the motive for being nothing?does it not go against the natural instinct of every living thing-to grow and be 'whole'.This seeking of 'Wholeness'(poornam) is the unconscious motive behind the desire for self preservation and self perpetuation of all things born.It is only logical to see the ultimate destination as a 'Whole' and not as an insubstantial void(that Buddhism invented to be 'different').
Namaskar.
Folks,
BY, just a few points from your post to me.
In Nagarjuna’s system, since all seen & experienced things are only phenomenal, “desire for the Self”, or “desire for Liberation” is like any other “desire” in the system (i.e. same as the desire for gold, or power, or sex etc) and equally an anathema. That is why NOT ONE of Nagarjuna’s texts anywhere mentions “desire for Liberation” or its equivalent as a requirement for sadhana, though the lists of requirements in the sadhaka are long and many. In fact, in certain texts, the requirements of a sadhaka go on and on for tens of verses, and they cover every possible virtue which can also be found in the texts of any other system. Except, for one conspicuous omission; there is no “desire for Liberation” anywhere!
We all know that the Ultimate is, after all, the same whether you be a Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Jain, Christian or from any other faith, following any particular doctrinal system. The systems only describe the Ultimate differently, and sure, sometimes these differences can seem to be, superficially only, very small. Obviously then, when you say:
“One has to recognize that Buddhism and Ramana's Advaita approach these matters from different angles, and yet also realize that they converge at many points, including the final disposition.”
- that my friend is true not only of “Buddhism and Ramana’s Advaita”, but virtually of every other system and Bhagavan’s Advaita. I could quote you a whole set of arguments from Jaina doctrines and I assure you, the 7 point negation is a significant technological advancement over Nagarjuna’s 4 fold one, and there are as many convergences from that system with Bhagavan’s Advaita! The whole point is where do you start from and what the path is. Because one path could be shorter and quicker, whereas the other will keep you going around in circles for the proverbial 1000 years. So for the sadhaka it is really the “angle of approach” which matters the most, not that there is going to be convergence at the end of it or at points in between. Sure, Nagarjuna’s negation too may bring about “a collapse of the illusory mind and world”, I agree; “and as Ramana said, all paths lead to Self-enquiry in the end”, they do; but which is the most direct path?
Subjective that, I know. For you, it seems the most direct path is based on the negative approach of Nagarjuna and Buddhism. Though there are superficial similarities at points in between, you yourself seem to agree that there is fundamental difference with Bhagavan in the “angle of approach” (do I dare to call it - a fundamental difference in the “Path”?).
I have nothing at all against Nagarjuna’s angle of approach in terms of a valid sadhana for some people. It absolutely is. The angle of approach may even be better and faster than Bhagavan’s angle of approach, for such people. But really, the point is, it is not even remotely close to Bhagavan’s Advaita and angle of approach. And if it is that someone prefers Nagarjuna’s angle of approach, but would still like to practice Bhagavan’s Self-enquiry, that is absolutely fine too! What is NOT fine is that it be suggested that Bhagavan’s teachings coincide with Nagarjuna’s, and Self-enquiry is consistent with Nagarjuna’s four-fold negation. That, in my humble opinion, is patently INCORRECT, and all my posts on this topic are to try to set the record straight on this.
Best wishes
... What is NOT fine is that it be suggested that Bhagavan’s teachings coincide with Nagarjuna’s, and Self-enquiry is consistent with Nagarjuna’s four-fold negation. ...
So what?
All the sages we are talking of were SAGES - they all had the experience of reality, and this experience is one and the same. What does it matter how they liked to describe it, or what aspect they found more important than others?
Broken Yogi,
"You like to pick your particular heritage and give it the benefit of the doubt, but take it away from other traditions. Not fair."
Do not let your arguements be deviated by my 'unfairness'-This way it will become unsustainable as it already has become(Sheep and lion story!Is it the Body that makes this difference!!!?).
Please remember that it is not possible to recognize one by the 'comments' that one makes here.To do so will be to get caught in one's imagination.
'Orthodoxy' has as much strong points in its favour (and perhaps more so!)than 'Unorthodoxy'.To recognize this and stand by this, requires tremendous courage and conviction,especially in modern times when every person would like to be seen as a cosmopolitan-I have come across few such courageous people,genuinely sincere and I respect this and understand the spirit behind their 'Orthodoxy' that just does not have any of the so called 'trappings' of superiority complex.
The Sage of kanchi(I understand that you do not appreciate him)is one such Great one and even if the whole world says 'He is a Bigot'-it does not affect my perception of the Truth that he stood for.I will not hesitate to quote his sayings born of First hand experience.
Hope this will help you to espouse your thoughts in a neutral and rational manner,born out of your genuine feeling and not deflected by a Reactionary ,missionary zeal.
Namaskar.
Z, folks,
Always happy to make my small, humble contributions towards discussions regarding vichara. Forgive me but, for not writing about personal experiences.
For me, the most useful exposition of vichara in practical terms, from Bhagavan Himself in 1902 approx, is contained in Sri Sivaprakasam Pillai’s poem Anugraha Ahaval. This version is from the Mountain Path Jayanti Issue 1993, pg 145; it is also available in David’s “Power of the Presence”, Vol I, pg 43. Here is the relevant extract:
“One reality (vastu), which abides within this fleshy body as the true meaning of the word ‘I’, exists as distinct [from this body], as indestructible, as jnanamaya [of the nature of jnana or pure Self-consciousness], and as abundant bliss; if you wish to know that supreme reality, the exalted path is only to enquire ‘Then who am I?’, having banished [from your mind] the attachment (abhimana) of thinking the body, which is not that reality, to be ‘I’; when enquiring [thus], though vasanas [inherent tastes of the mind to attend to sense-objects] obstruct by rising and coming out without limit, just as without succumbing to fear a mighty warrior intent on capturing a fortress, as and when they [the enemies] come incessantly, kills by sword the enemy who rise and surge forth from within the fortress and having [thus] destroyed that army which was coming out, {throws the weapon away, and} enters that fortress, so if, without liking even to the least extent to complete the thought which rises, one asks ‘To whom does it appear?’ [one will be reminded] ‘It appears to me’, whereupon if one asks ‘Who am I?’, that thought will be destroyed; if in this manner one destroys all thoughts as and when they rise, finally even that [first] thought ‘I [am the body]’ will perish [being deprived of any other thoughts to feed upon] and the unsurpassed and unequalled supreme reality, which is called Self, alone will shine; just as a person who, wishing to obtain the pearl lying at the bottom of the ocean, has entered that [ocean], plunges and dives deep, deep into it again and again, and, even though the ocean-water obstructs and causes him much trouble, raising him to the outer surface, [finally] brings up [the pearl], so when one seeks that beautiful pearl [the real Self] by scrutinizing who one is, countless crores of thoughts about outer things will obstruct and drag one, casting one out towards the world, and yet in spite of their casting one out [thus], if, like a simple woman who will not cease going after something she has set her heart upon, one plunges and dives, dives, dives deep within oneself, one can know oneself; that knowledge alone is the rare and precious state of liberation.”
Have marked in bold Bhagavan’s simile of the pearl-diver & the simple-woman. Most of the ideas in the above poem were incorporated in “Who am I?”; but the detailed pearl-diver simile herein is striking and worth noting. I think it perfectly describes the process, the intensity required, the single-minded approach, the necessity of endlessly sticking to it howsoever hopeless it may seem, and the ferocious alertness of mind towards the job at hand. It also conveys the sense of continuously “seeking” the “I”, i.e. a sense of dynamic and continuous diving-within, rather than a static “holding-on” to the “I”.
Also, in my humble opinion folks, in the beginning an absolute minimum of 2 hours needs to be set aside for a vichara session. Nothing will happen for most of us in the first one hour at all.
Best wishes
Thanks Aravind; although I was looking for a detailed and stepwise practice.I have read once again the relevant chapter in BAYR.I am happy with the Ramanagiri swami's practical adaptation.It is a good balance and adresses all the practical issues/difficulties atleast from me, a beginner's point of view.
Although I have done very little AV I have decided to stop all as I have troubles with potential Kundalini and the thought that I will finsih off without achieving my desires.With only 5 mins into Meditation/Vichara it is up ready to blast with huge pressure building up in the heart and head.Last year same time I had Pranottana rise up and break into Bindu.Since then I have only done any Meditation/AV only 4 or 5times in the whole year.Last night I could not sleep and had to consciously let it down.So I have decided to stop all and pursue the world.I better take a step back and stick with the modern equivalent of Nitya Karma or similar for this life and rebalance my unbalanced development.This coupled(like two wings of a bird) with working out desires is a good balanced development.
In truth, these two [desirelessness and knowledge] are one and the same.-BAYR
In my opinion AV is easy and only possible for relatively ripe souls(i.e simple desires and simple life style).If you want it sooner then the ONLY sure shot way is to ask for more shit from God like Lord Krishna blessed his best devotee with the death of his Cow which was the last and only means of livelihood for the devotee.No Gain/Knowledge without Pain and no shortcuts and no such thing as free lunch.Sometimes if you hurry things it might end up taking more time in the end.
My experience need not be yours but Hope this helps any beginners in similar predicament.
-z
salutations to all:
Arvind:
the 'anugraha Ahaval' extract on vichAra was simply superb :-))), not to talk of its immense value to my current reading of the uLLadhu nArpadhu :-)
Clemens:
the point arvind has been trying to highlight, though of little consequence to the state of realisation, may be of importance to those to whom such a clarity, albeit intellectual, is necessary to further his/her sAdhanA in the path he/she has been walking along without slipping into confusions arising out of 'doubt'. take for instance, the mAdhva school and the rAmAnujA school in vedAnta - both are 'bhakti' schools and both will gladly agree on the 'essence' of all vedAnta to be nArAyaNA or saguNa brahman. yet, in philosophical conceptions, ontological & epistemological, the schools vary widely on issues of significance. thus, a person desiring to be philosophical 'clear' has to imperatively spend long hours of study to understand & appreciate these two schools of thought...
if someone is convinced totally about bhagavAn and seeks nothing but realisation will perhaps not even be reading or writing in this or any other blog :-) such a one, i strongly suppose, will be "doing" vichAra at every feasible moment and secure abiding abidance ASAP :-)
Friends,
Here is an Excerpt from 'the Voice of Divinity' Volume 4(The complete Talks of The Sage of Kanchi):
"That Easwara gives the Adwaita Anubhuti and that Jeeva receives it, does not have to be displayed as though in hoarding! Without making a show of it, as the Jeeva matures, his ripe mind can be made to soak itself in Aatma Vichara at the end of which there can be a flash of lightning erasing his mind and self consciousness, with Aatma the only shining effulgence in balance! Many great Mahatmas have thus meditated on Gnaana Vichaara and ruminated on the Maha Vaakyaas of the Vedas (which essentially talk of the oneness of Jeeva and Brhma and the World), from which they have obtained the experience beyond the mind and expression. Easwara has not only hidden His role in the world affairs, but also in finally granting the relief of Mukti to the Jeeva.
443. When I say that He hides His role playing, what I mean is that He hides His SaguNa role playing, mostly. We have seen earlier that the SaguNa Easwara is not His real self but underneath, He is the NirguNa Aatma. So, the Atma Anubhava comes over a Jeeva and slowly but surely encompasses this Jeeva into itself irrevocably, that there is no more separate Jeeva left! How does it matter whether what is left is SaguNa Brhmam or NirguNa, Niraakaara, Nishkriya Parabrhmam or whatever! As reiterated often, so as to avoid the idea of duality in Gnaana Marga, the emphatic role of Easwara is not mentioned but hidden. As the disguise of Jeeva is removed, Easwara also removes His and sanctions the dissolution of otherness into oneness."
Continued....
Friends,
The sage of Kanchi Continued....
"So, many such realised souls when asked to explain as to how they got the Adwaita Anubhava tell us, “We did put in our effort in the Gnaana Marga as instructed by our Guru. One day this mind just blanked out and we had the Swanubhuthi, that is the realisation of the Self!” If you now ask me as to why I am talking about Easwara’s role in sanctioning the Anubhuti, when none of those who have had that unique experience have mentioned it, then my answer is only this. “It never happens that one day Easwara comes before you in all his dress up and paraphernalia with a name plate on his chest declaring Him to be Mr. Easwara Esquire. Then if you expect that He will give you a packet of gift, saying ‘here is Gnaanam for you’; you are sadly mistaken!” Easwara underplaying His SaguNa role, simply sanctions the Anubhava after which they are seen to be completely devoid of any sense of ego or pride without an iota of being different. We will find plenty of uniqueness in them as they are unlike any of the millions of other characters that we come across in our lifetimes!
In the case of certain others He has come into their lives as the Guru who gave them the Gnaana Upadesa and led them holding their hands in theirs to Gnaana as friend, guide and philosopher. To certain other devotees deeply merged in Bhakti, He has whisked them in a flood of Aatma Aananda Anubhuti! AruNagiri Nathar who has written the Thiruppugazh has expressed this experience in Kandar Anubhuti very clearly, repeatedly!
“That thief told me to ‘keep quiet and do not talk!’ Immediately everything just disappeared! Vow! What is this miracle?” “summaa iru sol – ara enralume Amma poruL onrum arindilane!” That same thief, who whisked away VaLLi, also took away his Jeevatvam, of being a separate human being and everything of Dwaitam and gave him the Adwaita Anubhuti! In another place AruNagiri Nathar says more clearly “yaan aagiya ennai vizhungi, verum taanaai nilai ninradu tarparame”. He says, “That Param devoured me and stood all by itself!” In yet another place, he says, “tannan tani ninradu taan ariya innam oruvarku isaivippaduo?” This means that, “having stood all alone as the very existence who can ever be considered as the other and who can be told about it?”
continued....
Friends,
The Sage of Kanchi continued...
MaNikka Vaachagar similarly says that Easwara converted him into Sivam and absorbed him unto Himself! He says, “sivam aakki enai aanda”. There is a subtle difference in the meaning in saying, ‘sivan and sivam’. You cannot become ‘sivan’ as He is the Easwara, the ‘SaguNa Brhmam’, which nobody can become. But we can be absorbed in the ‘NirguNa Brhmam of Sivam’! This we have seen and understood before. In Thiru Vaachagam, in another place MaNikka Vaachagar causes Parameswara to stand before him and questions Him, “Who amongst the two of us is smarter? You gave your eternal form of everlasting bliss to me and in turn You got me, this good for nothing character! What a bargain I say!” He is talking about Easwara giving him indivisible, eternal bliss of Adwaita Anubhuti and with his tongue in cheek, in jest says that in return, Siva got this MaNikka Vaachagar! AruNagiri Nathar calls Him a thief and MaNikka Vaachagar says that He is not being very clever! This is poetic licence with God!
Nammaazhvaar similarly says that the Paramaatma having become the Jeevaatma gives Himself to the Jeevaatma and later makes the latter become His own self: “yaane neeyaagi ennai aLiththaane”! At the end of ‘Thiru Vaay Mozhi’, in talking completely in the Adwaitic vein says, the speed with which a drop of water falling on a red hot iron will be sucked up in no time, you have forcefully swallowed me! He says, “theera irumbunda neeradu pola ennaaruyirai aarapparuga”!
449. Similarly Mookar who had written the Kamaakshi Panchasati says that, “with SaguNa Upaasana, Ambal has serially step by step formed the order in which the NirguNa Upaasana has to be done to reach the pinnacle of Moksham!” His words I Quote: “sat kruta desika charaNaa: sabhija – nirbhija – yoga – nishreNyaa I apavarga – souda – valabheem aarohant – yamba ke(a) pi tava krupayaa II” Elsewhere in the same sloka he says that, “once you get Her sidelong glance, what miracle is in store for you! For such people, home and forest are one; friend and foe are one; a sliver of a piece of mud pot and the lips of a young lass are one; their perspective becomes uniformly equitable!” Let me Quote: “siva siva pasyanti samam Sri Kamakshi katatchitaa: purushaa: I vipinam bhavanam amitram mitram loshtam cha yuvati bimbhoshtam II”
continued....
Friends,
" We had seen earlier as to how Sekkizhaar talks of the devotees of Siva having such equitable perspective, did not wish to have even Adwaita Moksham as they ‘loved to love Siva’! (Refer ibid para 404 of Deivathin Kural # 145 of 11 Feb 2011.) On the other end of the spectrum is Appayya Deekshidar who was of the opinion that the very concept of Adwaitam is Moksham, as there is nothing more to be obtained or realized! While singing the praise of Parameswara he says that He is so easily pleased that, we need not have to go in for very detailed procedures and costly arrangements. He tells Siva, “the devotee can get the Empire of Moksha just by plucking a few road side flowers such as ‘Erukkan and Thumbai’ and offering them to You that is enough!”
Samarta Ramdas says that Sri Ramachandra Murthy grants Adwaita Moksha! Thus these Adwaitins have all claimed uniformly that their own Ishta Devata, whosoever that may be, had the power to grant Adwaita Anubhava Siddhi! Our AachaaryaaL who adored every Devata with the vision that they were all representing one and the same idea of Adwaita, while singing their praise would not have left it unmentioned somewhere or the other in any of those slokas, about their granting the Adwaita Moksha!
Now let us say that your question is on the following lines, as given hereinafter! “OK. Swamiji! You talked about those Adwitins who followed the path of Karma and Bhakti initially. You also insisted that after having done all the Karma required to be done and after having progressed far in the Path of Devotion; then and then only one can go to the Gnaana Marga and do Adwaita Vichaara! But when we look at the life history of many of the Gnaanis, it is seen that many of them have not done much in the Paths of Karma and Bhakti and seem to have gone directly to the Path of Gnaana! Some others have been deeply involved in world affairs as house holders or as kings or administrators or business people and seem to have suddenly turned a corner and pronto, they have suddenly advanced far on the Path of Gnaana! How is that?”
-----------------------------------
Friends,I have quoted from the excellent labour of love by Lt col sharma in translating the vast treasure Trove-the Talks of The sage of kanchi.We need to await the next post in his excellent Blog devoted exclusively for this:
http://advaitham.blogspot.com/
Namaskar.
Friends,
Came across this interesting story:
Samarth Ramdas Swami and Ranganath Swami were Saints of an equal spiritual level. However, the lifestyle and prārabdha of both was vastly different. Samarth Ramdas Swami used to wear only a langotī (small loincloth), used to ask for alms in five homes, then show Naivēdya (Food offered to the Deity as a part of ritualistic worship) at 12 noon to the Deity and only then have lunch. Ranganath Swami, on the other hand, used to wear rich clothes and wristbands. He had rings on all his fingers. He would travel on horseback. All this was arranged by his devotees.
Once, Ramdas Swami’s disciple Kalyan Swami asked Him, “Maharaj, why is there so much difference in your style of living and that of Ranganath Swami, when both of you are Saints?” Ramdas Swami said, “Come, let us visit Ranganath Swami”, and they set out to meet Ranganath Swami. Coincidentally, Ranganath Swami had also set out to meet Ramdas Swami. Both met on a hilltop. Ramdas Swami asked Ranganath Swami to sit on a rock and he, along with Kalyan Swami, went to ask for alms. After some time, Ramachandra, a minister of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, passed by the same hill. He saw Ranganath Swami sitting on a rock in the hot sun. Watching Swami, who generally travelled on horseback, sitting on a rock in the hot sun, he immediately set up a tent around the Swami and put up a shade. His group then set up tents all around and camped there. He instructed his people to prepare a feast with five delicacies.
Samarth Ramdas Swami and Kalyan Swami returned after asking for alms. They saw huts everywhere on the hilltop. For a moment, Kalyan Swami thought that they had lost their way. On seeing Samarth Ramdas Swami, the minister respectfully greeted Him and took Him to Ranganath Swami’s tent. There, all of them had their meal and then returned to their respective abodes.
Samarth Ramdas Swami said to Kalyan Swami, “We made Ranganath Swami sit on a rock and went to ask for alms. But a tent was erected around Him and He got a feast with five delicacies. Ranganath’s prārabdha has materialistic comforts. Asking for alms and the lifestyle of a fakīr are in my prārabdha. There is no difference in the knowledge that we have.”
Please visit:
http://upanishadtattva.blogspot.com/
You may like to explore a few other blogs of this person-please see his profile and explore his posts.The one on atma Bodha is quite good,witha transliteration and commentary.
Namaskar.
Arvind,
I appreciate your acknowledgement that Nagarjuna and the whole of Buddhism's approach is sufficient for many. As to your continued opinion that Nagarjuna and Buddhism's philosophy are incompatible with Sri Ramana's approach, I will continue to disagree.
First, Sri Bhagavan did not have a philosophical approach to realization, so no philosophical approach could get in the way. Second, what philosophical statements he did make were of a practical nature, providing devotees with only enough information to orient them towards realization. Buddhism also has a very practical orientation towards realization, and its philosophical systems, such as Nagarjuna's, are merely ways of orienting people towards the practice and realization, not some final authoritative view one should assume is true. Nagarjuna's philosophy itself acknowledges that in its fundamentals, by negating all positive statements, and by even negating the negations.
As mentioned before, Sri Ramana's teachings are not based on the Advaitic tradition, they are based on his own spontaneous realization. And his realization was not based on any knowledge of Advaita, or even any knowledge of “the Self”. He had no “desire for the Self” evident in his life of practice. His realization occurred spontaneously as he lay down, like the Buddha, to examine himself directly. He did not lie down to “realize the Self”. He simply let everything die in order to find out who he was. When that was done, he did not think or say to himself “Now I have realized the Self”. He had no such conception. For years he had no such ideas about what he had realized. It was only over many years of familiarity with Advaita and trying to describe his realization in ways that others could understand that he came to use such concepts.
Buddha likewise found himself in a similar situation. He too simply sat down one day and tried to understand himself. He put aside all his conceptions of himself, which was a more involved process because he had absorbed so many conceptions in his life to be free of. When he was done, however, he was also done with all concepts. He had none left. He had no ideas about “what” he had realized, and he assumed for a while that it would be impossible to teach or describe to others. Because of his compassion, however, he began to try, and the result over time became the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold path.
My assertion here is that this path of the Buddha's is consistent in its essentials with Sri Ramana's path because they come from the same unqualified realization of one's true nature. There are surface differences, and philosophical differences, but these are not to be seen as incompatibilities, but as complementary truths. Buddhism created its own parallel tradition to Vedanta, and Sri Ramana adapted his teaching to the tradition of Vedanta, not of Buddhism, but the truth he adapted for the purposes of teaching others is the same truth. It is interesting to me to see how that truth can find expression through each of these traditions, creating many parallels as well as divergences. Such an approach increases one's understanding not merely of each tradition, but of the essential truth they are trying to communicate.
cont.
It is for this reason that I find an understanding of Buddhism to be very helpful in appreciating Sri Ramana's realization and truth, and even the particular ways in which he makes use of traditional Vedantic concepts and teachings. The opposite is true of Buddhism. As I've said several times and you for some reason continue to ignore (perhaps you could explain why) I am not a Buddhist, nor a Hindu, I follow Sri Ramana's teachings and practice self-enquiry, and not Buddhism. But like Poonja Swami I feel a deep connection to Buddhism's approach, and find it highly consistent with Sri Ramana's teaching, realization, and truth. Nagarjuna's contextual understanding of Buddhism through the four-fold negation provides an excellent way to understand Sri Ramana's own teachings and to step beyond the limitations of the Vedantic concepts that his teachings were often expressed through. They are not without their own limitations – as all teachings are – but they do help create balance and harmony, in my experience, rather than discord and opposition.
As for Nagarjuna not mentioning the requirement for “the desire for liberation”, he does not use that phrase, for the obvious reason that Buddhism does not equate the concept of desire with a spiritual motive, but he does talk extensively about the Four Noble Truths, the heart of which is the motive to bring an end to all cravings and all sufferings. That motive is not itself a craving or desire, but the motive to be done with cravings and desire. It is the very heart of the whole Buddhist “project”, and all of Buddhism is based on these Four Noble Truths which motivate the practitioner to seek an end to suffering from the root. It is the presence of that motive and the heart-dedication to that which is exemplified in Nagarjuna and all Buddhists who are devoted to these teachings. Not being able to recognize that motive in Nagarjuna because of semantic problems is extremely short-sighted.
As for the “angle of approach”, and what path is most direct, Ramana does make the claim that self-enquiry is the “most direct path”. Taken in narrow sense, however, this would mean that not just Buddhism but the whole of sanatana dharma and Vedanta is also an indirect path, since virtually no one in either tradition actually used atma vichara as Ramana taught it. Even the advaitic use of vichara differs from Sri Ramana's. And who knows, perhaps that is true. I'm certainly not one to assert it, however, since I don't know it to be true. And neither I suspect do you. When we both realize through self-enquiry, I suppose we may have something to say about it. Until then we are just speculating.
However, it's also virtually self-evident that many in both the Buddhist and sanatana dharma traditions have realized the Ultimate Reality before Ramana, without using his explicit path of self-enquiry. So it must be the case that whatever paths they took, there must be some basic compatibility with self-enquiry, or they could not have realized. We could argue all day which path or approach had a better angle and thus represented a more direct path without coming to any resolution. As you acknowledge, what matters is not some theoretical assessment of a path's exact “angle”, but its suitability for the individual practitioner. And clearly so many paths exist because there are so many differing needs on the individual and collective level.
cont.
For every positive, there is a negative. The positive approach of noumenal idealism virtually guarantees that a negative approach of phenomenal realism will come into being to balance it out. Such is the nature of the dualistic world. In order to realize the non-dual, one must go beyond all such dualisms. Thus, I think it is evident even within Sri Ramana's teachings that he has balanced the “positive” dualism of sanatana dharma with many “negative” approaches as well. It is those negative approaches within his teaching that create a complimentary relationship with Buddhism's more openly negative approach. And likewise, because Buddhism has itself adopted many “positive” elements within its own teaching to transcend its negative approach, there are many “positive” parallels to Sri Ramana approach within it as well. And because of their shared non-dual understanding, both Buddhism and Advaita cannot help but have many parallel teachings and philosophical schools and so forth, because they are oriented towards the same non-dual realization.
There are countless approaches within the dualistic world of spiritual teachings to realize the non-dual. What is “most direct” depends on the individual. Muthra Sri Sarada never practiced self-enquiry, but took a very direct path in any case, realizing by the time she was twenty. Not as quickly as Ramana, but much more quickly than many of those who have practiced self-enquiry, which includes all of us here of course. Hui Neng realized very quickly, others in Buddhism very slowly. How much more quickly could Hui Neng have realized if he'd used self-enquiry? We can hardly know, and it's useless to speculate. Grace moves in its own mysterious way, and manifests in countless teachings and traditions. If self-enquiry is the core truth of all paths, it must also be present in them in some manner, so it is not misleading to look for compatibility in other paths, including sanatana dharma itself. There is much to learn by looking to more than one tradition for the signs of this compatibility. It broadens one's perspective on the true nature of self-enquiry as being more than a parochial path limited to the sanatana dharma tradition.
Anonymous,
I am just speculating, but it appears to me that your experiences of disturbing kundalini and other energetic imbalances are indicative of a health problem of some kind. Rather than attribute these negative effects to atma-vichara, I think you ought to see atma-vichara as helping bring these problems to the surface for you to deal with. Rather than just opting for a worldly path, it might be better to address these imbalances first, because they will not disappear merely by ignoring them, but will surface even in your worldly life eventually, though in an unconscious manner that may prove even more difficult to deal with. You might try seeing an ayurvedic physician with some experience in this sort of condition. You might find that in the long run using atma-vichara has helped purify and balance you in ways you had not intended but will ultimately find beneficial.
Ravi,
Please understand that my criticism of the lion and sheep analogy is largely for the purpose of demonstrating that one can find fault in any argument or approach if one objectifies it. That is equally the case if one misunderstands a teaching such as Buddhism on "emptiness" (not "nothingness as you keep trying to frame it). If you take a literal approach to the concept of emptiness, as with a literal approach to your analogy of sheep and lions, one will of course find it limited and easily criticized. But that misses the point.
So your complaint that my logic is missing the point about your analogy applies equally well to your logical criticism of "emptiness". You are taking the use of the term literally, rather than allowing its real point to come across. And you are not realizing this.
Now, I know the sheep and lion story quite well, and I understand the point it is making. It is not trying to suggest that the Self is a name or form or thing like a sheep or lion. Neither, for that matter, is the famous snake and rope analogy meant to suggest that the Self is like a rope, a thing that is obscured. Even Ramana's "movie screen" analogy is not meant to mean that there is actually a "screen" anywhere, since even a movie screen is an object.
Well, the same applies to the teaching devices and arguments of Buddhism. There is no "void" in Buddhism, it is merely a teaching tool, a conceptual form of what they call "skillful means". If one works hard not to understand these means, but applies false logic to interpret them in a manner not intended, well of course one can then argue that the tradition is somehow wrong and in error. One can do that with anything, including sanatana dharma. What does it prove other than an underlying bias at work?
Ravi,
As for seeing Buddhism as just a "subset of sanatana dharma", well then, what is all the ruckus about? If it is a subset, it must not be in genuine conflict with it either. Or, if by sanatana dharma one means the idealized "Eternal Religion", how could it possibly be in conflict with it, or with Sri Ramana's teachigns?
My suspicion is that if the Buddha were born today and went off to his Bodhi tree to meditate and realize, when he came out he would not likely have any serious problems teaching like Ramana, in general accord with Advaita Vedanta. But that is largely because of the influence the Hindu-Buddhist debates have had on the development of sanatana dharma and the emergence of Advaita. Without that long developmental history, not even Ramana would be able to make much headway with the original vedists that were dominant in Buddha's day.
Which is why I don't see the exclusionary approach that you and Arvind seem to be taking towards Buddhism, separating it entirely from Advaita and Ramana, as having any real basis any more. It's more an historical artifact of centuries of ritualized opposition than anything that has genuine practical importance any more. I think it's time to let those old hostilities die away and recognize that the commonalities and complementary principles and practices are much more valuable and important than the distinctions.
BY,
Thanks.I have no health problems.Please find below references to Kundalini in the book : BAYA by Mr.David
--------------------------------
Q: How to churn up the nadis [psychic nerves] so that the kundalini may go up the sushumna?
A: Though the yogi may have his methods of breath control for this object, the jnani’s method is only that of enquiry.
When by this method the mind is merged in the Self, the sakti or kundalini, which is not apart from the Self, rises
automatically.
Q: How can one direct the prana or life-force into the sushumna nadi [a psychic nerve in the spine] so that the chitjada-
granthi [the identification of consciousness with the body] can be severed in the manner stated in Sri Ramana
Gita?
A: By enquiring ‘Who am I?’ The yogi may be definitely aiming at rousing the kundalini and sending it up the
sushumna. The jnani may not be having this as his object. But both achieve the same results, that of sending the lifeforce
up the sushumna and severing the chit-jada-granthi.
Kundalini is only another name for atma or Self or sakti. We talk of it as being inside the body, because we conceive
ourselves as limited by this body. But it is in reality both inside and outside, being not different from Self or the sakti
of Self.
Q: Is the manifestation of kundalini sakti [kundalini power] possible only for those who follow the yogic path of
acquiring sakti [power], or is it possible also for those who follow the path of devotion [bhakti] or love [prema]?
A: Who does not have kundalini sakti? When the real nature of that sakti is known, it is called akhandakara vritti
[unbroken consciousness] or aham sphurana [effulgence of ‘I’]. Kundalini sakti is there for all people whatever path
they follow. It is only a difference in name.
Hi BY,
Had a funny dream last night.You and I were part of dream looking for lost pets:A very white horse with flowing mane and a dog.Dont know what that meant but I just mention it.
-z
Buddha: Giving is the noble expression of the benevolence of the mighty.
Even dust, given in childish innocence, is a good gift. No gift that is
given in good faith to a worthy recipient can be called small; its
effect is so great."
glow
Broken Yogi,
"As for seeing Buddhism as just a "subset of sanatana dharma", well then, what is all the ruckus about? If it is a subset, it must not be in genuine conflict with it either. Or, if by sanatana dharma one means the idealized "Eternal Religion", how could it possibly be in conflict with it, or with Sri Ramana's teachigns?"
If you examine whatever has been posted ,you may perceive this,that there is no conflict.Why do you think that Sri Ramana translated Sri sankara's Atma Bodha,especially with that gracious and spectacular opening sentence!
Please note(as is evident in my latest post from the Sage of Kanchi)Advaita is primarily an experience-all the Great ones did not work for it-It happened.The Establishing of a philosophical basis is only a way to rationalize this experience.
Sadhana has nothing at all to do with such Rationalizations and is more an intensely personal approach-Every Religion has the same basic ingredients for this purpose.If sincerely pursued and put into practice,these would lead the seeker to the same Goal.
Some seekers are more 'cerebral' and may require the crutches of Philosophical dissertation but all in the end have to lean on the flash of intuitive experience only.
coming to Emptiness,the limitation in this approach is that it does not reconcile the empirical and the Eternal in the way that Brahman with its inherent power of mAyA does-Life as manifested in all its glory is dismissed as an inexplainable Nothing,without sense-Here it does coincide with the initial 'Neti','Neti' of Advaita Vedanta,but it stops short of the final reconciliation.
Hence it never admitted an Iswara and the manifest world as an expression of Brahman.
This is quite important for the development of Arts and Sciences and all the Cultural Riches that become avenues not just for the Richness of the spirit but as paths of ascent to the Divine for the common man.This is what sanAtana Dharma had fostered-by way of Ayur veda ,GAndharva Veda(Music) and all the other upa vedAs.
Buddhism is so much the poorer in divorcing itself and seeking a seperate 'identity' outside the Vedic Fold,while retaining the aspects of Dharma,law of Karma,Reincarnation,etc.Essentially it was a religion for the 'Monks' only.The Common man had little to identify with its character,and later on it added 'elements' which were worse than what it had hoped to 'eliminate'.
-----------------------------------
Please note SanAtana Dharma cannot be equated to advaita Vedanta;it encompasses all the other varied systems of philosophy that owe allegiance to the VedAs as the supreme revelation.None of the other systems sought a seperate 'identity' for itself as Buddhism did.Sikhism that came later also sought a seperate identity for itself-by having the Guru Granth sahib-but if one goes through this book,it has the collection of sayings from the mainstream Hindu Saints as well.
The simple way of understanding is to view sanAtana dharma as a Super set of all these and the super set has elements that are not there in the sub sets.This is not a prejudiced view but a factual statement.
Namaskar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IboB5-L0xA&feature=related
I love this video of Nome, my Guru. But also... in this video, there is my favorite picture of Maharshi, grinning and holding a black umbrella. His smile in that picture, says in a profound way to me, how great His enlightenment really is.
Dear Ravi,
Yes. Sivoham or Aham Brahmsmi
is only an intense meditation. Nevertheless, it is better than
Aham Virtti. Like a larva within
the cocoon, constantly, hitting the wall contemplating, I shall break open this barrier and then finally
becoming an insect, this dhyana ends in Aham Sphurna.
Dear Ravi,
Yes. Kandar Anubuhti was the last work of Arunagiri Natha. After some 18,000 songs, [only about 1300 are said to be available now], Muruga told him: Enough. Summa Iru. Kandar Anbhuti does not mention
any Muruga temple, except Tiruchengode. Nakasala velu...
Summa Iru appears to be the only mantra known to Arunachaleswara!
Dear Ravi,
Manikkavchagar's song comes as the last verse, in Kovil Tirupadigam
[Kovil means only Chidambaram for
Saivites]. The Tamizh commentators
say that the union of the saint with
Sivam is complete with this verse.
Sankara, you have taken me,
And got this poor me,
Who is cleverer among the two?
I received limitless bliss,
What have you got from me?
You, Siva, have taken the Heart as Your abode,
O Lord of Tiruperundurai, Siva!
O My Father, Isa,
This body is Yours,
What recompense can I pay for this?
Dear Ravi,
Yes. Brahma Jnanis outward adornments can vary. All the same,
all have attained Brahma Jnana.
Paramahamsa Yogananda who came to
see Sri Bhagavan was wearing a long silken gown, and had flowing hair. KaduveLi Siddhar was even married. Janaka was not only married, but also ruled a kingdom. Sri Bhagavan lived wearing a codpiece and walked without sandals. Vivekananda had a long gown and a turban too. He smoked cigars.
Sri Bhagavan one day, became reminiscent of His Skandasramam days.
He said: When I was in Skandasramam, a peacock would come to me daily from the town and stay with me for prolonged periods. The owner used to come and take him home. The peacock persisted in coming often and staying with me. One day, he refused to go back with the owner.
The owner, perhaps, lost his patience and suddenly burst out rather humorously: "Swami, give
me money and take this peacock. Of what use is it to me, when it does not stay with me but is always found in your presence?
I told him: Why should I do so?
Where am I go for the money? I am a penniless swamiyar [ascetic], with a piece of codpiece. You can take your peacock away, I did nto call him here.
But the peacock continued to come as usual and none succeeded in stopping him from coming to me.
[Bhagavan Ramana, The Friend of All]
Ravi,
I understand your love and appreciation for your own religion, but why do you have to run down other religions to make yours seem better? Isn't it good enough on its own? A certain insecurity seems evident here.
Yes, Buddhism has its limitations like anything else (including sanatana dharma), but I don't think it is lacking the social and cultural factors you cite. Everywhere it has appeared a rich cultural tradition developed, and one that has never been in conflict with the people and culture around it. It has merged with the cultures of India, Ceylon, Nepal, Tibet, China, Mongolia, Thailand, Burma,Vietnam, Japan, Korea, and now many parts of the west. It hasn't seemed to lack for cultural richness or popular appeal. It has never been confined to the monastic class, but has been embraced by the laity from its inception. It has never promoted “nothingness” or been opposed to human happiness and intelligent living. This may strike you as “impossible”, because you don't understand how this can be, but the facts are there. It has survived and thrived in much of the world for 2500 years. That's just a fact.
And let's be clear, sanatana dharma just means the many teachings that at one point can be traced back to the vedic tradition. There has never been a unified religion in all those variants. There's never been a single dharma one could point to and call it “sanatana”. It's more accurate to say that there are hundreds of different religions that were spawned from that tree, and many of them don't have a lot in common with one another. Some, like Shaivism, aren't even particularly rooted in the Vedas, but likely preceded the Vedas and were incorporated into them after the fact. Others, like Buddhism and Sikhism, split off, because they no longer accepted the Vedas as authoritative. It is misleading to suggest that sanatana dharma is the “superset” and each of these other religions occurs within it. It is more like a complex Venn diagram with many overlapping boundaries, but also many that are outside the “sanatana dharma” fold.
Buddhism does indeed reconcile the empirical and the transcendental, just not in the same way that sanatana dharma does (and even sanatana dharma has many different ways of doing so, not just one). It incorporates all of life and consciousness within its many systematic views and practices. It is held in the highest regard by a great many people. No, it does not admit or make use of literal Gods, but it also demonstrates that Gods are not necessary to have a full and complete religious experience that results in complete enlightenment. Perhaps that is what you and others down the ages have felt threatened by.
I am not suggesting that there's anything wrong with worshiping Gods, only that nothing is necessarily missed if one does not. There are a great many ways to skin the great cat of Reality. Even sanatana dharma demonstrates that with all its many variants and contradictory views. Buddhism itself has a great many variations and schools and its own internal arguments and debates over all these issues. It does not feel itself to be in any way poorer for having developed outside the fold of sanatana dharma. It seems quite happy to have made that split. 2500 years seems sufficient time to have demonstrated that.
cont.
One reason Buddhism has had much more success spreading outside of India than sanatana dharma is that it is not wedded to vedic culture, but can adapt to all kinds of cultural traditions. Even in the west, Buddhism is much more popular and widely accepted than sanatana dharma, and I think that is actually a shame, in that in many respects I actually prefer sanatana dharma to Buddhism, and think it isn't as well appreciated because of the strict cultural identity it enforces on its members. Westerners who take up with Hindu Gurus and teachings, for example, seldom become actual Hindus, because it seems to require not just a religious conversion, but a cultural one. Whereas Buddhism is much more adaptable and able to meet other cultures more than halfway.
There are many things sanatana dharma could learn from Buddhism if so many of its adherents weren't so stubbornly disdainful and condescendingly certain of the superiority of their religion. That is always a sign of insecurity in my experience (I encounter that a lot here among Christians, for example, and it always betrays an inner sense of doubt and inferiority they are trying to combat through external projections). But I never seem to encounter these kinds of attitudes among Buddhists, surprisingly enough. They seem quite content and indifferent to the whole issue, and are quite happy to let Hindus practice and believe what they will. I don't see any serious signs of insecurity on their part or a need to put down Hindus. Perhaps that was once the case, but it seems like they let go of that long ago.
So I'm not sure where this constant need to put Buddhism in its place, in some subordinate position, comes from. Why all this insecurity and the need to dominate other religions, or to claim that they are all subsets of one's own master religion? Haven't we gotten over that psychological cultural-political complex yet? It seems archaic, and I don't see how it has any place in Sri Ramana's dharma.
Anon,
That's a funny dream. I have a habit of adopting lost animals. No horses yet. Perhaps a dawn horse?
Broken Yogi,
"Perhaps that is what you and others down the ages have felt threatened by. "
You have got me wrong Friend.I do not want to go further into aspect of SanAtana Dharma,as based on our earlier discussions we do not seem to lead to any common meeting point.One Reason may be on account of lack of experiential ,first hand exposure of these matters.
I do not know how you speak about Saivism as not belonging to the Vedic Fold.No on has upheld the Role of Vedas as the Great ones in Saivism.I will recommend that you read the works that are presented in English,if you want to in the Shaivam.org website.
Anyway,I will leave you with your ideas as before.
Wish you all the Very Best.
Namaskar.
salutations to all:
subramanian said it so beautifully: "...Summa Iru appears to be the only mantra known to Arunachaleswara!..."
:-)))))))))))))))))))))))
laughed a lot... aruNAchalA is smart enough to say "this" so as to 'free' himself from the unceasing importunity of those who seek him! but alas (for aruNAchalA)! who is going to let him 'relax'? :-))) the bargain here is - free us & we will 'free' you!!! or, if you want us to obey your dictum 'summa iru', then you better be 'summa irukkAdhe' (i.e., don't be 'summa iru')... hahahahahahahahahaha
Commission of Inquiry in 1936 on account of Perumal Swami's case:
Advocate: Swami, what is your name?
Sri B: There are many names for me.
People call me with many names. What can I say about my name?
A: But people call you as Sri Ramana Maharshi, is it not?
Sri B: Yes.
A: As per Hindu sastras, there
are four asramas, celibate, householder, forest dweller and ascetic. Are you, in which Asrama?
Sri B: For me, it is transcendent of all the four asramas. I am in ati-varnasramam.
A: Then, is there no niyamas [rules] for this asramam?
Sri B: Ati varnasramam is without any niyamas [rules].
A: Many people are coming to see you. Why?
Sri B: They come on their own. I never ask them to come or go or stay.
A: Are there enemies for you?
Sri B: There are no enemies, nor or they friends or relatives.
A: Who is your guru?
Sri B: I have neiter guru nor disciple.
A: But without a guru, one cannot achieve anything, is it not?
Sri B: Yes. One cannot.
A: Then, who is your guru?
Sri B: For me, Atma is guru.
A: For Atma, who is guru?
Sri B: For Atma, Atma is guru.
A: Do you touch money?
Sri B: No.
A: People say that you are an avatara of Subrahmanya.
Sri B: Yes. I am. I am also everyone else! [laugher]
A: You said that you are an ati-varnasrami. Are there anyone in that asrama?
Sri B: No. I am only there.
A: Were there any one before?
Sri B: Yes. There were.
A: Who are they?
Sri B: Sukar, Jadabharata etc.,
A: But people are telling in many ways about your Asramam.
Sri B: It all depends on one's mind.
[Sri Ramana NinaivugaL, Annamalai Swami's diary notes]
Saint Manikkavachagar has written
a decad titled Tiru Dasangam, [in
Tiruvachakam], where he mentions ten features of Siva, his name, country, town, mountain, flag, river, drum, garlands etc.,
One K.V. Ramachandra Iyer has also written a Tiru Dasangam, in Venba metre, like Manikkavachagar's. The printed paper of these songs, was accidentally discovered by Annamalai Swami while he was going in the middle route of the Hill, one evening.
1. Name: Ramanan, or any name!
2. His country - His country
is only Grace. What else could
it be?
3. His town - the Cave of Atma
bodham.
4. His river - The river of
Anandam, bliss.
5. His nature - Eternal calmness;
Upasantam.
6. His horse: The horse of pure
Space.
7. His weapon - The all conquering
Jnana Sakti which kills are
karmas.
8. His drum: The drum that
reverberates and makes the body
and mind wither.
9. His garland - The garland of
poems of his devotees.
10. His flag: The flag of silence
that passeth understanding.
[Sri Ramana NinaivugaL, Annamalai
Swami, diary notes.]
Annamalai Swami has noted five examples given by Sri Bhagavan for
the nature of prarabdha.
1. The arrow sent killing a tiger, may kill a harmless cow. No point in blaming the arrow.
2. The electric fan even if switched off, will revolve for sometime, before finally stopping.
3. Like the burnt rope, which is of no use, but has got a charred form.
4. Even the tree that is axed appears like a green tree, but it is not a living tree.
5. The roasted dhal appears like
the usual dhal. But it will not
sprout.
A Jnani's prarabdha is like these.
There is no prarabdha from Jnani's
point of view. But onlookers would feel that Jnani has also got prarabdha.
[Sri Ramana NinaivugaL, Annamalai
Swami, diary notes.]
Annamalai Swami asked Sri Bhagavan on 5th May 1939:
A: Sri Bhagavan, you are telling that silence is uninterrupted speech. I do not understand.
Sri B: [while walking with A]: Do
you see that "I am" ?
A: Yes. I see.
Sri B: How?
A: But I do not know how it is seen.
Sri B: Yes. In the same way, to be silent is to be every working. Working does not mean, taking an axe and digging the earth. That which is ever shining is working.
Silence is ever speaking. Both are same. That is why, great
people have said: I am thinking without thinking you.... I am remembering without remembering you...I am listening without listening you...etc., If you do not talk, Iswara will talk to you.,
[Sri Ramana NinaivugaL, Annamalai Swami, diary notes.}
Today I have found one beautiful
giri pradakshina. This is to circumabulate Sri Ramanasramam. There are roads on all four sides of
Sri Ramanasramam. One can circumambulate this Hill is the inner meaning of giri pradakshina.
I have started doing this during nights. This is to me, is the real meaning of giri pradakshina. There is deity inside. Mother is there.
What else one needs?
[Sri Ramana NinaivuaL, Annamalai Swami, diary notes. 4.6.1939]
Post a Comment