Respect for Ramana

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 8 Nov 2000 15:14:10 Wim Borsboom wrote:

> A FEW DAYS AGO, the editor of this website (see above) received a letter

>from a reader which said in part: Kindly ask your authors to learn proper

>conduct while writing about gurus ...

>The writer was upset because we had referred to Sri Ramana Maharshi, the

>great Indian saint, simply as "Ramana" without his usual honorific titles.

>...

>The writer thought we did this due to a lack of respect, but actually we did

>it because it's customary in American publications... to call religious

>figures by their first names alone after they have been introduced... This

>custom has nothing to do with respect or lack of it; it's just a convention.

>... the Bible, where Moses is plain old Moses and Peter is plain old Peter.

>... it got me wondering what Ramana himself would think about this question

>of showing respect to him.

>Wim:

>Ah, culture clashes.

 

 

Interesting.

 

Most large religious systems such as Christianity, Islam and also Hinduism,

operate with sometimes rather strict titles and honorifics, to indicate the

spiritual attainment and power of their practitioners and leaders, and as one

may suspect, to indicate the difference and apartness of the leaders / teachers

/ sages to the laymen. To overlook the usage of these titles, is a great breach

of conduct and may be viewed as an assault and offense on authority of both

tradition and teacher.

 

It's a question of how the religious system, its practitioners and advocates are

regarded, and it is also perhaps subtly signaling the intentions of the system

in question.

 

As Greg once mentioned, some lines of traditional Advaita teachers do not regard

Ramana as belonging to the tradition of Advaita, perhaps because he was not

taught by someone in an "official" line and had a teacher.

 

However, in a strict advaita perspective, the notion of honorifics and titles

becomes laughable. In non duality, how can there be separateness between the

sages and the "laymen" ?

 

I find that power systems intended to strike awe in those outside of the system

and to make those within the system desire to rise within its ranks, a great

obstacle to true oneness. The authority and awe simply gets in the way, dazzles

the mind too much for it to see clearly and makes it believe "that is too far

away from me to ever be attained".

 

The same goes with elaborate descriptions of the nature of enlightenment and

moksha. They signal that enlightenment is something only those holding positions

high in the religious hierarchies can attain, and that those high in these

hierarchies all have attained this "wisdom", simply because of their position

alone. Neither of which are necessarily correct.

 

Thus, some degree of spiritual anti-authoritarianism is not of the bad. I also

doubt Ramana would ever be very concerned if he was addressed Ramana or Sri

Bhagavan or other honorifics.

 

 

Love,

 

Amanda.

 

 

 

 

Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com