Ramana and Bhakti

[Guest guest]

"At times Bhagvan's words and actions would make us wonder whether he

is a bhakta melting with love for Arunachala rather than a

dispassionate detached jnani. Once, during the Deepam festival, the

deity from the temple was being taken in a ceremonial procession around

the Hill. As the procession went past Ramanashramam, devotees of

Bhagavan offered coconuts, flowers and fruits to the Lord and performed

Aarati. Bhagavan was on his way to the cow shed at the time. Hearing

the temple drums, he came and sat on the small bridge near the water

tap. One of the devotees brought the Aarati plate with the glowing

camphor which had been offered to Arunachaleswara. Bhagavan took the

sacred ash from the plate, applied it to his forehead and remarked

softly: "The son is beholden to the Father". As he said this Bhagavan's

voice choked with emotion. His eyes glittered with unshed tears of

extacy. This incident seems to illustrate the saying, "absolute

Knowledge (Jnana) is no different from absolute Devotion (Bhakti).

 

Bhagavan's love for Arunachala was so deep that he never left it even

for a moment. He never tired of going around the Hill and visiting and

revisiting his favourite spots on and around the hill. He would sit for

hours silently gazing at the peak of the Hill, totally enraptured by

the sight. Every year on Kartigai Deepam day, Bhagavan would gaze at

the Hill through a pair of binocuars, his attention totally focused on

the spot at which the sacred Deepam would appear.

 

From "Cherished Memories" by T.R. Kanakammal

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Monsoonhouse Int.

Kovalam/Kerala

contact: christianecameron

[Guest guest]

advaitajnana, "Tony OClery" <aoclery>

wrote:

 

advaitajnana, christiane cameron

<christianecameron@m...> wrote:

>

> "At times Bhagvan's words and actions would make us wonder whether

he

> is a bhakta melting with love for Arunachala rather than a

> dispassionate detached jnani. Namaste All,IMO,

 

This is very beautiful but it points out the Prarabda karma that

Ramana is going through, realised or unrealised.

 

 

"Bhagavan took the

> sacred ash from the plate, applied it to his forehead and remarked

> softly: "The son is beholden to the Father". As he said this

Bhagavan's

> voice choked with emotion. His eyes glittered with unshed tears of

> extacy. This incident seems to illustrate the saying, "absolute

> Knowledge (Jnana) is no different from absolute Devotion (Bhakti)."

 

 

 

This is again Ramana talking with Prarabda, separating himself in Son

and Father. Speaking as the Son not the Absolute. (Of course absolute

anything is absolute.) However it shows his 'human prarabda side' and

bhakti teaching 'by example'.

However this is not his full teaching--'Who am I?' is.

This is a step on the way, for it is dualistic to a great extent,

even

his words Son and Father indicate

dualism. He is showing an example, and going through his prarabda.

 

Absolute Devotion is Moksha, with no Ego to enjoy bliss. I am not

knocking Bhakti but if one follows only this teaching or step on the

way then what happens to Ramana's ultimate teaching 'Who am I?'.

 

As I understand it the 'little I' realises it is the 'big I' only. At

this point Moksha and realisation of Nirguna occurr. At the end of

Prarabda when the body drops, everything connected with the illusion

of body, and very creation itself collapses, as never having happened

in the first place.....Bhakti is all very well and good but that type

of devotional path isn't what he teaches as such, only as a

step...........ONS.........Tony.

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

, "saktidasa" <saktidasa> wrote:

>

> advaitajnana, "Tony OClery" <aoclery>

> wrote:

> "Bhagavan took the

> > sacred ash from the plate, applied it to his forehead and remarked

> > softly: "The son is beholden to the Father". As he said this

> Bhagavan's

> > voice choked with emotion. His eyes glittered with unshed tears of

> > extacy. This incident seems to illustrate the saying, "absolute

> > Knowledge (Jnana) is no different from absolute Devotion (Bhakti)."

>

>

>

> This is again Ramana talking with Prarabda, separating himself in Son

> and Father. Speaking as the Son not the Absolute. (Of course absolute

> anything is absolute.) However it shows his 'human prarabda side' and

> bhakti teaching 'by example'.

> However this is not his full teaching--'Who am I?' is.

> This is a step on the way, for it is dualistic to a great extent,

> even

> his words Son and Father indicate

> dualism. He is showing an example, and going through his prarabda.

 

Dualisme, the father, the son, everything is manifestation of the

Self, as far i have understand it. So he is speaking here as the

Absolute. Not?

 

By the way, i'm new here, and English is not my motherlanguage, so i

can make some mistakes so now & than.

 

with love to all

gerda (from holland)

[Guest guest]

, "Gerda" <anaspe@S...> wrote:

>

> , "saktidasa"

<saktidasa> wrote:

> >

> > advaitajnana, "Tony OClery"

<aoclery>

> > wrote:

>

> > "Bhagavan took the

> > > sacred ash from the plate, applied it to his forehead and

remarked

> > > softly: "The son is beholden to the Father". As he said this

> > Bhagavan's

> > > voice choked with emotion. His eyes glittered with unshed

tears of

> > > extacy. This incident seems to illustrate the

saying, "absolute

> > > Knowledge (Jnana) is no different from absolute Devotion

(Bhakti)."

> >

> >

> >

> > This is again Ramana talking with Prarabda, separating himself

in Son

> > and Father. Speaking as the Son not the Absolute. (Of course

absolute

> > anything is absolute.) However it shows his 'human prarabda

side' and

> > bhakti teaching 'by example'.

> > However this is not his full teaching--'Who am I?' is.

> > This is a step on the way, for it is dualistic to a great

extent,

> > even

> > his words Son and Father indicate

> > dualism. He is showing an example, and going through his

prarabda.

>

> Dualisme, the father, the son, everything is manifestation of the

> Self, as far i have understand it. So he is speaking here as the

> Absolute. Not?

>

> By the way, i'm new here, and English is not my motherlanguage, so

i

> can make some mistakes so now & than.

>

> with love to all

> gerda (from holland)

 

Namaste Gerda,

 

Obviously not, relatively.......ONS..Tony.