Guest guest Posted October 12, 1999 Report Share Posted October 12, 1999 namaste. The following comments have evolved out of the recent discussion. Shri RamaNa says one does not get self-realization from books. And this statement has been quoted many many times on this List and in many discussions outside as well. This quote, usually taken out of context, has been mis-used and mis-handled many times. Firstly, Shri RamaNa did not make this comment referring to the vedAs. As I understand, what he said was: Self-realization is not bookish knowledge. Self-realization is when you see yourself to be Brahman; or more correctly, when you see yourself to be what you are not. At both extremes of thinking, these comments by Shri RamaNa, taken liberally out of context, caused lot of consternation. Luckily, our List does not have either extreme viewpoints. I will put this post in terms of the two extremes. At one extreme, people wrongly interpreted this as meaning Shri RamaNa said that you do not need any books, simple sitting and contemplating on "Who am I ?" will lead to SELF-realization. However, that would not be the case unless the mind is purified to start with. If the mind keeps on wandering and if the necessary ekAgrata was not there, and if the mind itself is impure, the solution to "Who am I?" contemplation will be less than satisfactory, and such contemplation itself will be unnecessary wastage of precious human life. At the other extreme, people (traditionalists who believed in the rigour of training) wrongly interpreted Shri RamaNa as denigrading the vedAs. Firstly, these traditionalists unfortunately are looking at vedAs as books. VedAs are not books. VedAs are knowledge. One would not become a veda-vit by by-hearting the vedAs backward and forward, but by digesting what is in the vedAs. Traditionalists who haven't got a grasp of the vedAs jealously guard the vedAs and the training in the vedAs as paramount. But what is paramount is understanding what is in the vedAs. Only by understanding that, one becomes vedA. Therefore, vedAs are not only in book-form, but also in human-form, and mostly in human-form. Although these comments have evolved from the recent discussion on thread, necessity of scriptures, please, let it be understood that I am not characterizing the recent discussion as between the two extremes that I portrayed above. My apologies if I have hurt anyone's feelings by the above comments. Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 1999 Report Share Posted October 13, 1999 Dear Murthyji, It may be helpful to keep in mind that Ramana spoke to individuals and did not address large audiences. This mode has the advantage of being able to reply at the same level of the questioner. His answers varied depending on the level of the concerned individual. The disadvantage is that we can erroneously generalize an answer and take it to be universal to be applied to everybody in the world. However, this does not mean His teachings does not have any absolutism. And at the absolute level he certainly had no use for books or any similar kind of knowledge. There were no exclusions made for vedas, bibles, etc. In some instances he said that the scriptures were incorrect. Some more of His teachings on the subject below. Each one of us has to determine what is applicable to himself. Affectionately, ---Viswanath "The srutis[scriptures] speak of the Self as being the size of one's thumb, the tip of the hair, an electric spark, vast, subtler than the subtlest, etc. They have no foundation in fact." "All other knowledges are only petty and trivial knowledges; the experience of silence alone is the real and perfect knowledge." "The intricate maze of philosophy of different schools is said to clarify matters and reveal the Truth. But in fact they create confusion where no confusion need exist." D: At what stage do they[scriptures] become useless? M: When their essence is realised. The scriptures are useful to indicate the existence of the Higher Power (the Self) and the way to gain it. Their essence is that much only. When that is assimilated the rest is useless. "What use is the learning of those who do not seek to wipe out the letters of destiny (from their brow) by enquiring: 'Whence is the birth of us who know the letters?' They have sunk to the level of a gramophone. What else are they, 0 Arunachala? " >Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy >advaitin >advaitin > Shri RamaNa Maharshi on usefulness of books >Tue, 12 Oct 1999 15:48:46 -0230 (NDT) > > >namaste. The following comments have evolved out of the recent >discussion. > >Shri RamaNa says one does not get self-realization from books. And >this statement has been quoted many many times on this List and in >many discussions outside as well. This quote, usually taken out of >context, has been mis-used and mis-handled many times. Firstly, >Shri RamaNa did not make this comment referring to the vedAs. As I >understand, what he said was: Self-realization is not bookish >knowledge. Self-realization is when you see yourself to be Brahman; >or more correctly, when you see yourself to be what you are not. > >At both extremes of thinking, these comments by Shri RamaNa, taken >liberally out of context, caused lot of consternation. Luckily, our >List does not have either extreme viewpoints. I will put this >post in terms of the two extremes. > >At one extreme, people wrongly interpreted this as meaning Shri >RamaNa said that you do not need any books, simple sitting and >contemplating on "Who am I ?" will lead to SELF-realization. >However, that would not be the case unless the mind is purified >to start with. If the mind keeps on wandering and if the necessary >ekAgrata was not there, and if the mind itself is impure, the >solution to "Who am I?" contemplation will be less than satisfactory, >and such contemplation itself will be unnecessary wastage of precious >human life. > >At the other extreme, people (traditionalists who believed in the >rigour of training) wrongly interpreted Shri RamaNa as denigrading >the vedAs. Firstly, these traditionalists unfortunately are looking >at vedAs as books. VedAs are not books. VedAs are knowledge. One would >not become a veda-vit by by-hearting the vedAs backward and forward, >but by digesting what is in the vedAs. Traditionalists who haven't >got a grasp of the vedAs jealously guard the vedAs and the training >in the vedAs as paramount. But what is paramount is understanding >what is in the vedAs. Only by understanding that, one becomes vedA. >Therefore, vedAs are not only in book-form, but also in human-form, >and mostly in human-form. > >Although these comments have evolved from the recent discussion on >thread, necessity of scriptures, please, let it be understood that >I am not characterizing the recent discussion as between the two >extremes that I portrayed above. > >My apologies if I have hurt anyone's feelings by the above comments. > >Regards >Gummuluru Murthy >------ > > > > >------ >Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy >focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. List Archives available >at: /viewarchive.cgi?listname=advaitin >Mirror Archive Site: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > ><< text3.html >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 1999 Report Share Posted October 13, 1999 "y viswanath" <yviswanath Dear Murthyji, It may be helpful to keep in mind that Ramana spoke to individuals and did not address large audiences. This mode has the advantage of being able to reply at the same level of the questioner. His answers varied depending on the level of the concerned individual. The disadvantage is that we can erroneously generalize an answer and take it to be universal to be applied to everybody in the world. However, this does not mean His teachings does not have any absolutism. And at the absolute level he certainly had no use for books or any similar kind of knowledge. There were no exclusions made for vedas, bibles, etc. In some instances he said that the scriptures were incorrect. Some more of His teachings on the subject below. Each one of us has to determine what is applicable to himself. Affectionately, ---Viswanath Beautifully put Viswanathji! Thank you for those lovely quotes. They go to the heart of the matter. There is no substitute for experience. No amount of reading and discussion or learning can substitute for the knowledge and experience of the Self. This is the simple Truth. Harsha Sri Ramana's quotes given below: "The srutis[scriptures] speak of the Self as being the size of one's thumb, the tip of the hair, an electric spark, vast, subtler than the subtlest, etc. They have no foundation in fact." "All other knowledges are only petty and trivial knowledges; the experience of silence alone is the real and perfect knowledge." "The intricate maze of philosophy of different schools is said to clarify matters and reveal the Truth. But in fact they create confusion where no confusion need exist." D: At what stage do they[scriptures] become useless? M: When their essence is realised. The scriptures are useful to indicate the existence of the Higher Power (the Self) and the way to gain it. Their essence is that much only. When that is assimilated the rest is useless. "What use is the learning of those who do not seek to wipe out the letters of destiny (from their brow) by enquiring: 'Whence is the birth of us who know the letters?' They have sunk to the level of a gramophone. What else are they, 0 Arunachala? " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 1999 Report Share Posted October 13, 1999 - Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar) <hluthar <advaitin > Wednesday, October 13, 1999 5:11 PM RE: Shri RamaNa Maharshi on usefulness of books namaste, I have been following this thread with great interest. The posting by y viswanath with quotes from shri Ramana was highly informative and useful. On more than one occasion the great teachers such as Shri Shankara and lord Krishna have voiced similar opinions : "Traigunya vishayaah vedaah nistraigunyo bhava Arjuna" - Bhagavadgeetha (vedas belong to the realm of gunas; arjuna you should go beyond the gunas.) " Avijnaate pare tatve shaastraadheetistu nishphalaa Vijnaate api pare tatve shaastraadheetistu nishphalaa" - Shri Shankara in Viveka Choodaamani (When the absolute is unknown what good are books? When the absolute is known, then again what good are books?) I would hezitate to turn up the heat in this already charged debate. It seems to me that for the seeker of self knowledge study of scriptures is not only necessary but essential. But on the other hand, to > realize< self, scriptural study is only one of many necessities. praNAms vijayakumar > "y viswanath" > D: At what stage do they[scriptures] become useless? > M: When their essence is realised. The scriptures are useful to indicate the > existence of the Higher Power (the Self) and the way to gain it. Their > essence is that much only. When that is assimilated the rest is useless. ( much of this posting has been deleted for brevity) > > > Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. List Archives available at: /viewarchive.cgi?listname=advaitin > Mirror Archive Site: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 14, 1999 Report Share Posted October 14, 1999 In a message dated 10/13/1999 9:58:03 PM Central Daylight Time, nandini writes: << I would hezitate to turn up the heat in this already charged debate. >> Oh, so now we have someone who wants to cook the elephant, just kidding. Actually I am wanting to respond that I very much enjoy the various postings of words of Ramana Maharshi. Sometimes when they are relevant to other discussions, I forward them to friends on another list where they are also very appreciated. Salutations, Jai Ma, Parvati Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.