tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post9066927630303795110..comments2024-03-20T13:24:11.422+05:30Comments on Arunachala and Ramana Maharshi: Bhagavan's Letter to Ganapati MuniDavid Godmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10354181925332694222noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-87873990916760691552012-05-18T20:02:11.550+05:302012-05-18T20:02:11.550+05:30Is there any original translation as it is of it.....Is there any original translation as it is of it...???<br />Be Happy and Keep smiling....DDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03446069451746165073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-46609918117792367392010-11-17T08:50:58.865+05:302010-11-17T08:50:58.865+05:30Dear David,This is truly mind blowing stuff. I am ...Dear David,<br><br>This is truly mind blowing stuff. I am particularly very grateful to you for this posting. Nothing clarifies more than your synthesis/commentary. I have been thinking on this question for sometime. Sri Bhagavan has granted us a soul like you amongst us to guide us.<br><br>Please accept my sincere pranams to you.<br><br>Best regards<br>Rama<br>BangaloreArunachala Ramahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07791420390845156418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-76244057080395482492010-06-01T12:00:40.033+05:302010-06-01T12:00:40.033+05:30Dear David, The articles and the comments were sim...Dear David, The articles and the comments were simply brilliant. Many believe Ganapati Muni was instrumental in breaking the silence of Bhagwan. and what followed later is something very special to all of us. Long live David for continuing this momentum,<br />reagrds <br />dvv prasad<br />bangloreAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-45618697996533950672010-04-11T15:29:14.229+05:302010-04-11T15:29:14.229+05:30Though I can accept that some of the followers of ...Though I can accept that some of the followers of Sri Ganapati Muni may have had vested interests in putting forward Sakta and non-Advaita views, the Muni himself was such a rare gem of shraddha, tapas and learning, that any “vested” interest in him is unthinkable.<br /><br />David has quoted from “Sri Ramana Reminiscences” that, “Sri Bhagavan also explained the difference between srishti-drishti vadam espoused by Sri Kavyakantha [Ganapati Muni] and drishti-srishti vadam supported by Sri K. Lakshmana Sarma and others …..’.<br /><br />With respect, this quote merely proves that Sri G.V. Subbaramayya, the author, held the view that Ganapati Muni supported sristi-dristi, and Sri Laksman Sarma, the other. Nowhere does G. V. Subbaramayya quote Sri Bhagavan Himself as saying so. (Though Sri Bhagavan is quoted later as saying that Ganapati Muni followed certain Yogic beliefs).<br /><br />And really, the point is, not whether he supported one theory or the other. We all know that Ganapati Muni worshipped the Divine Mother and such worshipful-devotion would necessarily tend towards sristi-dristi. But, the point is, can we cast an allegation on a person of as towering a spiritual advancement as he, that he would feel the need to surreptitiously try to substitute his own beliefs into his Guru’s, Sri Bhagavan’s slokas and writings ? Or, surreptitiously get his followers to do that on his behalf ?<br /><br />I think not. <br /><br />I believe that Ganapati Muni also followed his Guru’s ideals in following a “hands-off” policy on what his disciples were doing or practicing. His personal, initiated, disciples included such a varied lot as Sri Kapali Sastri, a staunch Shakta, and also Sri Viswanatha Swami, a staunch Vedantist. And both followed their own chosen paths. It is much more likely and logical that Sri Kapali Sastri brought in a Sakta view into the Bhasya of Sat-Darsanam on his own.<br /><br />Sri Bhagavan Himself related an interesting story about Ganapati Muni, which is recorded in “Day by Day” (Pg 202 in my edition). The story itself, on the face of it, concerns the Muni’s amazing memory and the writing of Sri Ramana Gita. But indirectly, Sri Bhagavan is also saying, in His own words, that Ganapati Muni at the very least, did not oppose and condemn Dristi-Srsti. And an inference can certainly be drawn from this story that if the Muni, actually, so strongly opposed Dristi-Sristi, (that he could even try and sneak in the opposing view into his Guru’s teachings), he would never have argued, even in an argument just for arguments sake, on the side of Dristi-Sristi as he did.<br /><br />----------------<br /><br />(From “Day-by-Day”, On 23-5-46)<br /><br />Bhagavan replied, “Remembering such talks was child’s play to him. He could listen to a long and learned lecture on some intricate subject and then at the end reproduce the gist of it accurately in the form of sutras, not omitting anything of importance that had been said. Once he and Arunachala Sastri, who was also a learned man, had a discussion. Ganapati Sastri took up the position of drishti srishti, that we create and then see, that is to say that the world has no objective reality apart from our minds, while Arunachala Sastri took up the opposite view of srishti drishti, that creation exists objectively before we see it. Arunachala Sastri argued first and upheld his standpoint with a great display of logic and learning and many quotations. Then Ganapati Sastri wrote down in the form of sutras all that he had maintained and asked him whether the sutras gave a faithful summary of everything he had said. He agreed that they did, so Ganapati Sastri said: “Then now you will have my criticism and condemnation of it”. He then expounded very ably the advaitic point of view, that the world is an illusion as world but real as Brahman, that it does not exist as world but exists and is real as Brahman. In the same way he could record any discussion he heard; so remarkable was his power of memory, that he must have reproduced the Ramana Gita in that way. It would have been mere child’s play for him.”<br /><br />Best wishes<br /><br />UVAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-5365450907118456752010-02-21T09:02:03.843+05:302010-02-21T09:02:03.843+05:30An article by G.N. Daley found in a 1967 copy of t...An article by G.N. Daley found in a 1967 copy of the Mountain Path.<br />" The following analogy may further explain the nature of his grace. Consider us all to be satellites in orbit around the centre, the heart; then suppose one of these, by Bhagavan's guidance slows down until a spiralling motion sets in. Then, by his grace, it stops dead in its tracks and plummets right into the centre. After having there absorbed his grace, it is free once more to return into orbit but in doing so no longer sees the heart as being exclusively in the centre but is itself also and in all the others who are orbiting the centre. In fact the heart is everywhere."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-66231784039358989722010-02-20T17:06:35.091+05:302010-02-20T17:06:35.091+05:30Anonymous
If you have forgotten your password, yo...Anonymous<br /><br />If you have forgotten your password, you should approach Google for a new one. It's nothing to do with me.<br /><br />Questions such as these should be asked in the most recent 'Open Thread'. The threads under the articles on Bhagavan's teachings are meant for replies on that specific post. If anyone wants to respond to the questions raised by Anonymous, please do so on the 'Open Thread'.David Godmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10354181925332694222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-26128659350026738702010-02-20T13:20:36.387+05:302010-02-20T13:20:36.387+05:30Hi,
I have been keenly following David's blog...Hi,<br /><br />I have been keenly following David's blogs and all the other posts that follow. And I find the blogs and the discussions that follow very insightful and rewarding. <br /><br />Some time back while I was reading one of the posts, I had some doubts. These are random thoughts and may well be called idle curiosity but I could not resist posting these. Any views on these would be most welcome. So here goes :<br /><br />1. We hear about identical twins having the same genetic structure and there are cases where such twins show astonishing ability to be in tune with each other. I read of a case in Reader's Digest where one twin was shot in the chest and the other twin who was a 100 miles away experienced a sharp pain in his chest.<br /><br />So, my question is if one of the twins becomes Self realized, would the other also follow suit ? Has there been any such instances ? Or even of siblings becoming Self realized ?<br /><br />2. Nowadays we hear read about animals being cloned. Apparently the cloned animal has the same genetic structure as the original.<br /><br />Not only that, it seems that the clone and the orginal would have the same personality traits.<br /><br />I do not know if human beings can be cloned but assuming that such a thing becomes possible, what would happen when a Self realized person is cloned ? Would the clone also be Self realized ?<br /><br />3. We read about people being in a coma and then miracoulsly waking up after a few years and resuming a normal life. While the person is in coma, he cannot be said to be in either of the three states - waking, sleep or dream sleep. And he obviously has not gone beyond these three states.<br /><br />So,what happens to the "I" thought of the person while he was in coma ? <br /><br />4. In my younger days, I used to read a lot of science fiction. Suppose there are sentient beings somewhere in some far off star. Will they have an "I" thought too ? Will they also have an Ego ? And do they also have to do spiritual practices ? In other words, just like the laws of physics (e.g E=MC squared), are spiritual laws/practices universal ? Is Self Enquiry universal ?<br /><br />As I mentioned in the beginning, these are idle thoughts and may well be classified as useless speculation of not much use in spiritual growth. But then, till we achieve the thought free state, thought do arise in spite of our best efforts.<br /><br />Thank you,<br />shiv<br /><br />P.S - Am posting under Anonymous because I forgot my password. David -is there any way of retrieving my password ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-48798086463992077132010-02-15T21:02:42.393+05:302010-02-15T21:02:42.393+05:30Dear David,
This is truly mind blowing stuff. I a...Dear David,<br /><br />This is truly mind blowing stuff. I am particularly very grateful to you for this posting. Nothing clarifies more than your synthesis/commentary. I have been thinking on this question for sometime. Sri Bhagavan has granted us a soul like you amongst us to guide us.<br /><br />Please accept my sincere pranams to you.<br /><br />Best regards<br />Rama<br />BangaloreRamahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07791420390845156418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-1713730091666066282010-02-09T14:55:09.334+05:302010-02-09T14:55:09.334+05:30Sri Sankara, undoubtedly supports
only "simul...Sri Sankara, undoubtedly supports<br />only "simultaneous creation" theory. This is evident from Sri<br />Dakshinamurty Stotram. The creation theory, is only to keep the seekers develop interest in <br />Brahman. It is like a mother telling a story to the child to make it eat the food. The story<br />goes: There were three children,<br />born to a barren woman, and the<br />children took the rainbow as their vehicle to fly in space, they plucked the flowers from the clouds and drank water from a mirage..... This was told by Brahmasri Nochur Venkataraman. The<br />purpose is to make the child eat the food, for which it shows reluctance. Once the food is eaten, that the Self is realized,<br />all the stories are forgotten.Subramanian. Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07503810836611357841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-8981204350164190632010-02-08T22:05:19.317+05:302010-02-08T22:05:19.317+05:30nice article.
yes i agree that bhagavan ramana al...nice article.<br /><br />yes i agree that bhagavan ramana always supported Simultaneous Creation(drishti-srishti vada).<br /><br />The man who looks only at the pictures on the screen and not the screen itself, is troubled by the pains and pleasures that occur in the story. But the man who views the screen, realises that the images are all shadows and not something apart and distinct from the screen. So also with the world. It is all a shadow play,” said Bhagavan Ramana. <br /><br />Suprisingly i think Guru Adi Shankara supported the otherway round.<br /><br />Adi Shankara assumes that Creation is a sport of Ishvara. It is His nature, just as it is man's nature to breathe.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_VedantaJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049809664724727115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-11180154399237502882010-02-08T15:59:36.057+05:302010-02-08T15:59:36.057+05:30Dear David,
One more misunderstanding in Bhagavan...Dear David,<br /><br />One more misunderstanding in Bhagavan's work is the mis- interpretation of Sri Arunachala <br />Pancharatnam, Verse 5. Readers<br />think that after realization, every<br />object/being is individually shining as Brahman, as a Brahman-cow and a Brahman-dog etc., etc.,<br />This is wrong. After the death of ego, there is no differential distribution of Brahmanhood but only Brahman, the One without a second. Bhagavan, has said this to one Guy Hay, if I remember correct. Lakshman Sarma has also said in Sri Ramana Paravidya Upanishad, that Awareness is one<br />and its unequal distribution is only an illusion. But, coming to my avatara theory, avatara can stay in different forms simulataneously, like Parasurama and Rama and Krishna and Balarama<br />and even as Tiru Jnana Sambandha and Kumarila Bhatta.<br /><br />Thanks for your detailed blog post.Subramanian. Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07503810836611357841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-47918703487455514302010-02-08T14:08:52.180+05:302010-02-08T14:08:52.180+05:30A friend has emailed me with his opinion on the tr...A friend has emailed me with his opinion on the translation of some of Ganapati Muni’s words in this post. The words in question are:<br /><br />‘By this, the party which says that Bhagavan’s Sat-Darshana gives room for the theory of simultaneous creation has also been replied to. A reply to that party is in Sat-Darshana also.’<br /><br />My friend then gave the following comments and said that I could post them anonymously, if I wished:<br /><br />‘I don’t know who has done this translation, but it is slanted so as lead to the conclusion that Ganapati Muni is refuting that Sri Bhagavan espoused Dristi-Sristi-vada. He is not. The translation given in the 2006 edition of “Epistles of Light” is far more accurate (though still not perfect). It says:<br /><br />‘“With this, the answer to the question is that Bhagavan’s instruction [there is a double-play on Sat-darsanam here which this translator has caught !!] gives scope to the Dristi-Sristi doctrine. Sat-Darsanam also contains the answer to this effect.”<br /><br />‘“With this” in the statement probably does not refer to Ganapati Muni’s statement just preceding, giving his own take on Sri Bhagavan’s reply. But, probably, directly, to Sri Bhagavan’s exact words in the reply.<br /><br />‘This is also supported by the Sat-Darsanam text itself wherein Ganapati Muni has done justice to Dristi-Sristi-vada in verse 28 (verse 26 of Ulladu Narpadu). Even the arguably biased translation of Sri Kapali Sastri of verse 28 goes as:<br /><br />‘With the ego-self rising, all appear.<br />On its setting, they disappear.<br />Hence is all this but the ego’s form.<br />The quest for it is the way to conquest.<br /><br />‘And this itself clearly brings out Dristi-Sristi and is a reasonable representation of verse 26 of Ulladu Narpadu.’<br /><br />_______________________<br /><br />Thanks for this clarification. I would say, in response, that I am certain that Ganapati Muni knew that Ulladu Narpadu taught drishti-srishti vada, and that Bhagavan espoused this teaching in his spoken teachings as well. He was far too intelligent and well educated in philosophy to believe otherwise. However, I think that it is also incontestable that Ganapati Muni personally subscribed to a srishti-drishti theory of creation. Bhagavan himself accepts this in the quotation I have given from ‘Sri Ramana Reminiscences’.<br /><br />The point at issue in this discussion on how this Sanskrit sentence should be translated is whether (a) Ganapati Muni accepted that Ulladu Narpadu taught drishti-srishti or (b) whether he thought that it didn’t. Irrespective of what he personally thought and believed on this topic, it is clear that in Sat-Darshan Bhashya he made an attempt (via Kapali Sastri) to persuade his readers that Bhagavan’s Ulladu Narpadu verses could be interpreted to mean that Bhagavan taught a srishti-drishti version of creation. None of the other published commentators (such as Sadhu Om and Lakshmana Sarma) have accepted this. Nor, so far as I am aware, did Bhagavan ever give any encouragement to this srishri-drishti interpretation of his verses.David Godmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10354181925332694222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-70944615750435537862010-02-08T12:36:15.263+05:302010-02-08T12:36:15.263+05:30I understand that aham sphurana is soundless vibra...I understand that aham sphurana is soundless vibration of the pure I sundered of its adjuncts, when once one succeeds in attending to the pure I unbrokenly. In that state there can be no subject-object relationship, this happening only when mind is used by the jnani for interacting with people, explaining the texts, when he is in the same breath anchored to the self. Such being the case, how can there be a question of sphurana being a sort of clinging to the heart which is still a thought. Or it might be that once the sphurana takes place, there is no time intervel between it and the realization of the Heart. I request Godman to be kind enough to clarify this subtle aspect.Sankarramanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01718256859263931847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-86400281071799461272010-02-08T12:04:29.222+05:302010-02-08T12:04:29.222+05:30Just thinking aloud. Was Bhagwan's method of s...Just thinking aloud. Was Bhagwan's method of self enquiry(or continuous self awareness) just a ruse to eliminate the rajasic and tamasic minds so that only the sattvic mind remains which too will ultimately collapse into the Heart? So simple and yet so profound. I am so thrilled that I have been blessed to read this post. Sorry, I can not help being effusive.kandhanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16538689621970133886noreply@blogger.com