Shri Atmananda's teachings -- 1. Universal and individual

[Guest guest]

In the preface to Atma Darshan (page 2), Shri Atmananda says:

 

"Of the two lines of thought, namely those of bringing the individual under the

universal

and the universal under the individual, it is the latter that has been adopted

here."

 

A distinction is thus made between two approaches to realization, which Shri

Atmananda

called 'cosmological' and 'direct'.

 

In the 'cosmological' approach, an 'individual person' or 'jiva' is considered

as an

incomplete part of an encompassing universe. Hence that approach is described as

one 'of

bringing the individual under the universal'. It requires an expansion of

consideration to

a universal functioning -- which is ruled by an all-powerful 'God' called

'Ishvara', or

which expresses an all-comprehensive reality called 'brahman'.

 

Literally, 'brahman' means 'expanded' or 'great'. When what is considered gets

expanded,

beyond all limitations of our physical and mental seeing, then brahman is

realized. Such

expansion may be approached through various exercises that have been prescribed,

to purify

a sadhaka's character from ego's partialities. In particular, there are ethical

practices

that weaken egocentricism; there are devotional practices that cultivate

surrender to a

worshipped deity; and there are meditative practices that throw the mind into

special

samadhi states where usual limitations are dissolved into an intensely

comprehensive

absorption.

 

Through such prescribed practices, a sadhaka may get to be far more impartial,

and thus

get a far broader and more comprehensive understanding of the world. A teacher

may

accordingly prepare a sadhaka, through a greatly broadened understanding of the

world,

before directing an enquiry that reflects back into non-dual truth. That

cosmological path

involves a characteristic attitude of faith and obedience, towards the tradition

which has

prescribed its mind-expanding and character-purifying practices. Accordingly,

that path

has been given public prominence, in traditional societies which have been

organized on

the basis of obedient faith.

 

In the 'direct' approach, a teacher straightaway directs a reflective enquiry,

from a

disciple's current view of world and personality. On the disciple's part, the

enquiry

depends upon a genuine interest in truth, sufficient to go through with a deeply

skeptical

and unsettling questioning of habitual beliefs on which the disciple's sense of

self and

view of world depends. This calls for an independent attitude -- not taking

things on

trust, but rather asking questions and finding things out for oneself.

 

For traditional societies, such an independent attitude has been publicly

discouraged, for

fear of destabilizing the obedient faith that has been needed to maintain their

social

order. Accordingly, there has been a tendency to keep the direct approach

somewhat hidden,

away from ordinary public notice. As for example, the skeptical questioning of

the

Upanishads was kept somewhat hidden until its publication in the last century or

two.

 

In the modern world, we have developed a different kind of society -- where

education is

far more widespread, and independent questioning is encouraged from a much

earlier stage

of education. So it is only natural that the 'direct path' or the 'vicara marga'

should

have been made more public, most famously through Ramana Maharshi.

 

In Shri Atmananda's teachings, there is a continuation of this trend towards

independent

questioning, by the individual sadhaka. Here, each 'individual person' or 'jiva'

is

considered as a misleading appearance that confuses self and personality. The

questioning

is turned directly in, reflecting back from physical and mental appendages to

inmost truth

of self or 'atman'.

 

The questions turn upon their own assumed beliefs, which take for granted mind

and body's

mediation showing us an outside world. Reflecting back from mind and body's

outward

mediation, the questioning returns to direct self-knowledge at the inmost centre

of

experience, from where the enquiry has come.

 

As the enquiry turns in, all observation and interpretation of the universe is

brought

back in as well, to an inmost centre that is truly individual. All perceptions,

thoughts

and feelings must return back there, as they are interpreted and taken into

lasting

knowledge. Hence this approach is described as one 'of bringing the universal

under the

individual'.

 

In short, Shri Atmananda's teachings start out with a direct enquiry into the

'atman' side

of the traditional equation 'atman = brahman'. The enquiry is epistemological,

examining

the question of 'what is' by asking: 'How is it known?' Examining each object

from the

inmost standpoint of knowing self, the complete reality of world is reduced to

non-dual

consciousness, where self and reality (atman and brahman) are found identical.

 

And the examination is carried out without need of recourse to traditional

exercises of

bhakti worship or yogic meditation. In fact Shri Atmananda often discouraged

such

exercises, for many of his disciples, particularly for those whose samskaras

were not

already involved with them.

 

Clearly, this approach is not suited to everyone. For many in the modern world,

traditional practices of religion and meditation are of much-needed value. In

recent

times, roughly contemporary with Shri Atmananda, the traditional approach has

been taught

by great sages like Kanci-svami Candrashekharendra-sarasvati and Anandamayi-ma,

for whom

Shri Atmananda had great respect.

 

In fact, Shri Atmananda made it very clear that his teachings were living ones,

meant

specifically for his particular disciples. He was quite explicitly against the

institutionalization of such teachings, saying that the only proper

'institution' of

advaita must be the living teacher (if one insists on talking of an

'institution' at all).

 

So, as I go on to further postings about some prakriyas that Shri Atmananda

taught, it

should be understood that these are only the reports of a particular follower,

whose

reporting is inevitably fallible. Some published works by and on Shri Atmananda

are

indicated in the post script below.

 

Ananda

 

---

 

Shri Atmananda wrote and had published the following books:

 

1. 'Atma Darshan' and 'Atma Nirvriti' (each in Malayalam and English versions,

the English

versions translated by Shri Atmananda himself)

 

2. 'Atmaramam' (in Malayalam)

 

In addition, the following books were published after Shri Atmananda's passing:

 

3. 'Atmananda Tattwa Samhita' (tape-recorded talks between Shri Atmananda and

some

disciples -- the talks were mainly in English which has been directly

transcribed, and

there were also some Malyalam parts which are translated by Shri Atmananda's

eldest son,

Shri Adwayananda)

 

4. 'Notes on Spiritual Discourses of Sree Atmananda' (notes taken by a disciple,

Nitya

Tripta -- the notes were encouraged and approved by Shri Atmananda, during his

lifetime)

 

The English versions of 'Atma Darshan', 'Atma Nirvriti' and 'Atmananda Tattwa

Samhita' are

available for purchase on the net at

http://www.bluedove.com/Advaita_Atmananda.htm

 

All the books in 1 to 3 above (Malayalam and English) are available from Sri

Vidya Samiti,

Anandawadi, Malakara (near Chengannur), Kerala 689 532, India.

 

Item 4 is currently out of print, but should be republished in due course.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Ananda,

 

Thank you very much for your very lucid introduction to the teachings Sri.

Atmananda. I was introduced to the teachings of Shri Atmananda an year back

through the messages of Greg. Later as suggested by him I read 'Atma Darshan'.

Can I really say that I finished reading the 30 pages long book, when the

significance of a very important sentence in its preface, to which the whole of

your last post was devoted, totally missed my attention? I cannot adequately

convey to you, how eagerly I am awaiting your future messages on his teachings.

 

When I read 'Atma Darshan' what struck me the most was the close similarity of

Shri Atmananda's teaching and approach to that of Ramana Maharshi. Their lives

also overlapped to a considerable extent. Ramana lived from Dec 1879 to Apr 1950

and Shri Atmananda from Dec 1883 to May 1959. Tiruvannamalai in which Ramana

spent his entire lifetime after the age of 17 was probably a few hundred

kilometers away from the part of Kerala where shri Atmananda lived. Are there

more similarities? Also I have read (?) Ramana Literature a little more and have

not come across references to Shri Atmananda in them. Did Shri Atmananda refer

to Ramana Maharshi in his teachings? Did they meet each other ever in their

lifetimes? I will be extremely grateful to hear from you on these questions. In

fact not much is known (atleast by me) of the life of Shri Atmananda - A post on

his life from you will be very useful.

 

Many thanks and pranams,

Venkat - M

 

Ananda Wood <awood wrote:

In the preface to Atma Darshan (page 2), Shri Atmananda says:

 

"Of the two lines of thought, namely those of bringing the individual under the

universal

and the universal under the individual, it is the latter that has been adopted

here."

 

 

 

 

Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Messenger

 

 

[Guest guest]

> When I read 'Atma Darshan' what struck me the most was the close

similarity of Shri Atmananda's teaching and approach to that of

Ramana Maharshi. Their lives also overlapped to a considerable

extent. Ramana lived from Dec 1879 to Apr 1950 and Shri Atmananda

from Dec 1883 to May 1959. Tiruvannamalai in which Ramana spent his

entire lifetime after the age of 17 was probably a few hundred

kilometers away from the part of Kerala where shri Atmananda lived.

Are there more similarities? Also I have read (?) Ramana Literature a

little more and have not come across references to Shri Atmananda in

them. Did Shri Atmananda refer to Ramana Maharshi in his teachings?

Did they meet each other ever in their lifetimes? I will be extremely

grateful to hear from you on these questions. In fact not much is

known (atleast by me) of the life of Shri Atmananda - A post on his

life from you will be very useful.

>

> Many thanks and pranams,

> Venkat - M

 

Namaste,

Glad to know that Shri Atmananda's teachings is the topic for the

month, and the discussions are being led by Ananda Woodji.

The hallmark of Shri Atmananda's teachings is the crystal clear logic

that he uses in the analysis of the objective world, body, senses and

mind , to use them as pointers to arrive at the substratum of it all.

Not many list-members seem to know much about Shri. Atmananda.

A short biographical sketch of this great Teacher is available at

my father's web-site : http://www.geocities.com/skknair_tvm/philo.htm

I hope that will be useful.

Pranaams,

Raj.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Anandaji.

 

I have the following doubts:

 

It is now clear from your post that the `direct path' was so

christened by Shri Atmanandaji himself. I had always believed that

the term was a western fabrication by Klein or Lucille. You say that

the path is also known as vicAra mArga. Does that imply that the

traditional approaches have no vicAra at all? The fact is that most

of them give supreme importance to vicArA in the form of reflection

and contemplation on scriptural and teachers' statements. Shri

Atmanandaji perhaps advocated vicAra sans the other sAdhanAs

prescribed by the traditional. However, we should not forget the

fact that vicArA had, since times immemorial, been prescribed in

Indian thought.

 

You have stated that an independent attitude has been publicly

discouraged in traditional societies and skeptical questioning of the

Upanishads was kept somewhat hidden until the last century or two.

Does this imply that Direct Path approaches existed pre-Atmandaji and

Direct Path principles are extra-upanishidic?

 

Bh. Ramana Maharshi and Shri Atmandaji were contemporaries. Yet,

there is no evidence that there was any mutual contact or influence

between them. Bhagwan never questioned the traditional. He only gave

maximum stress to the vicAra element in the traditional. There is,

therefore, a danger that a statement like "direct path or the vicara

marga was made more public most famously thorugh Ramana Maharshi" may

be misunderstood to mean that Bhagwan was a co-propounder of the

Direct Path.

 

Bhagwan observed stringent austerities in the VirUpAksha cave at

Thiruvannamalai. One can safely assume that those travails bestowed

on him the required chittasuddhi for Knowledge to dawn. That again

goes to prove the traditional approach right in the sense that

vicAra should go hand in hand with other prescribed sAdhanA.

 

I have read a sketchy biography of Shri Atmanandaji at Shri S.K.

Nair's (Astrologer) site. If I remember right, it mentions a sort of

divine intervention in the life of Shri Atmanandaji which turned him

spiritual. The incident was something like an unknown yogi waiting

for him with a spiritual message. Subsequently, Shri Atmanandaji

took to the study of scriptures and led a life of austerity before he

embarked on giving spiritual advice to his audience. So, it looks

like there has been some preparation outside pure vicAra in the

making of Shri Atmanandaji although it may not be to the extent

undertaken by Bh. Ramana.

 

Now to come to the final doubt. A person called "A" has done vicAra

and acquired an academic understanding that everything is

Consciousness. He experiences (a) an insect bite, knows that it is

consciousness, impulsively kills the insect and applies some balm to

the site of the sting, (b) suffers from tightness of breath, again

knows that it is consciousness, yet panics and runs for the nearest

bronchial dilator, and © enjoys the pleasantest of all sensations,

knows that it too is consciousness, craves for more of it and is

ready to go to war with anybody who comes in the way. Now we

have "B" – a sage like Bh. Ramana `undergoing' the same experiences.

There sure is a difference and `A', with his academic understanding,

is able to perceive it. "A" understands that "B" is not moved by any

of the three. He is samadukhasukhakshamI – rooted in Consciousness,

and `being' in all (a), (b) and © as Consciousness. There is no

pleasantness or unpleasantness for him for he is verily a free spirit

pervading all that he `knows'.

 

There sure is a big gap between "A" and "B". How do we bridge the

gap? Can Direct Approach or VicAra Marga take us any farther

than "A"'s position? Is the `bringing of the universal under the

individual' farther than "A"'s intellectual appreciation of the Truth

and closer to "B"'s position? Can simple vicAra without the

prescriptions of the traditional make a "B"? Could there be a Bh.

Ramana without the VirUpAksha cave?

 

Above all and ultimately, like it was pointed out here

regarding `contradictions in advaita', from the paramArta point of

view, is there any difference between `bringing the individual under

the universal'and `the universal under the individual'? Whether the

salt doll jumps in the ocean or the ocean waves sweep it into their

bosom, it is all the same, isn't it?

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste Shri Anandaji.

>

> I have the following doubts:

>

> >

> Now to come to the final doubt. A person called "A" has done

vicAra

> and acquired an academic understanding that everything is

> Consciousness. He experiences (a) an insect bite, knows that it

is

> consciousness, impulsively kills the insect and applies some balm

to

> the site of the sting, (b) suffers from tightness of breath, again

> knows that it is consciousness, yet panics and runs for the

nearest

> bronchial dilator, and © enjoys the pleasantest of all

sensations,

> knows that it too is consciousness, craves for more of it and is

> ready to go to war with anybody who comes in the way. Now we

> have "B" – a sage like Bh. Ramana `undergoing' the same

experiences.

> There sure is a difference and `A', with his academic

understanding,

> is able to perceive it. "A" understands that "B" is not moved by

any

> of the three. He is samadukhasukhakshamI – rooted in

Consciousness,

> and `being' in all (a), (b) and © as Consciousness. There is no

> pleasantness or unpleasantness for him for he is verily a free

spirit

> pervading all that he `knows'.

>

> There sure is a big gap between "A" and "B". How do we bridge

the

> gap? Can Direct Approach or VicAra Marga take us any farther

> than "A"'s position? Is the `bringing of the universal under the

> individual' farther than "A"'s intellectual appreciation of the

Truth

> and closer to "B"'s position? Can simple vicAra without the

> prescriptions of the traditional make a "B"? Could there be a

Bh.

> Ramana without the VirUpAksha cave?

 

Namaste. Madathil Nairji, Yes, I have the same question: COULD THERE

BE A BHAGAVAN RAMANA WITHOUT THE VIRUPAKSHHA CAVE?

 

Incidentally, Madathilji, while visiting the site of Shri S.K.K.

Nair, I had the feeling that he is your father. Am I right? The

presentation there of Shri Atmananda's teachings is so lucid and

convincing that I would like to prescribe it as a must (because in

such short space it says everything that has to be said) for every

Seeker of Truth -- not only as a beginning lesson, but as the very

last leasson. It has both the first word and the last word!

 

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

[Guest guest]

Thanks to Ananda-ji for getting the ball rolling so competently, and to Venkat

and Raj and profvk for the provocative and illuminating questions/comments. I

don't know the biographical details enough to know whether Atmananda and

Ramana's paths crossed. Here in Tokyo I don't have any of Atmananda's writings

with me so can't double-check if there is a Ramana Maharshi mention anywhere.

 

A thought on Venkat comments on Atmananda's approach:

 

"Of the two lines of thought, namely those of

bringing the individual under the universal

and the universal under the individual, it is

the latter that has been adopted here."

 

Going in this direction makes the inquiry experiential and I daresay scientific,

since nothing needs to be taken on faith. At any point along the path, one can

check and verify the teaching against one's one experience.

 

With pranams to all,

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Venkatraman,

 

Thank you for your kind message 19245 of 1 Nov, asking about the relationship

between

Ramana Maharshi and Shri Atmananda. In reply, I would say that their teachings

are very

similar, but their lives in the world were rather different, and so they

instructed

different kinds of sadhakas.

 

Ramana Maharshi was a sannyasi, living since the age of seventeen in the sacred

environment of Tiruvannamalai. So those who came to him tended to have strong

samskaras

for traditional religion and yoga and sannyasa. As he taught such disciples, his

teaching

made use of such traditional samskaras, to guide his disciples into the direct

path.

 

Shri Atmananda was very much a householder, with a loving wife and three

children and an

active career as a prosecuting lawyer and a police officer in the Travancore

State

administration. As a boy, he showed strong spiritual samskaras up till the age

of sixteen,

when atheistic tendencies began to appear. He thus entered an atheistic period

which

continued till his early thirties, when spiritual questions engaged his

attention again,

with great intensity. At this time, he read many books and came to be convinced

that only

a living guru could take him to truth. He prayed to his personal God to help him

find the

right guru, and spent his nights in quite an agony of intense longing.

 

Then, one evening, as he walked back home from work, he came upon a sannyasi who

engaged

him in a conversation. The two walked side by side for a while, until they came

to a

deserted house, which they entered to continue talking. The conversation turned

to

spiritual enquiry, with quite some spirited and exacting questions raised by the

householder aspirant, who was after all a forceful officer of the police and a

highly

trained lawyer as well. But the sannyasi answered unperturbed, with a humility

that went

straight to the heart of the aspirant, till suddenly it dawned that here was the

guru he

had sought. He asked for instructions and received them, during the course of

the night.

Early in the morning, the sannyasi insisted on leaving straightaway, for his

return to

north India, from where he had come. This was in 1919, when Shri Atmananda was

36 years

old.

 

There followed some four years of intensive sadhana, including rigorous

exercises of

traditional yoga and of devotion to Lord Krishna. So Shri Atmananda came to be

trained in

both yoga and religious devotion, under the instructions of his guru. When asked

to

undertake this traditional training, Shri Atmananda had at first felt a bit

reluctant; and

his guru had sensed it, explaining that the training was indeed not necessary

for

realization, but had a purpose that would later on be understood. Evidently, the

purpose

was for Shri Atmananda's future role as a guru in his turn, when he would have

to explain

the traditional methods or to help out some aspirants or disciples who were

already

involved with the traditional ways.

 

Even this intensive sadhana was carried out while Shri Atmananda continued

active with his

career in the courts and the police. Somehow, he managed to do both sadhana and

career

work side by side, sometimes even doing sadhana in the premises of the police

station,

after hours or when needed duty had been done. His spiritual activities did not

result in

a neglect of duty.

 

Somewhere in 1923-24, he took on a few first disciples, and gradually the number

of

disciples grew. The disciples were at first Malayali and Indian, with the first

European

disciple coming in 1937. In 1939, Shri Atmananda retired from government

service, as a

District Superintendent of Police. After that, he devoted most of his time to

disciples,

including many European disciples who came in the 1940s and 50s.

>From this quick sketch of Shri Atmananda's life, you can see two things about

his

relationship with Ramana Maharshi. First, he came to intensive sadhana and

teaching rather

later than the Maharshi (some twenty-five years later). So I think it very

likely that

before Shri Atmananda met his guru, he may well have been influenced by the

Maharshi's

ideas and may have read some of the Maharshi's works (like 'Self-Enquiry'). And

second,

Shri Atmananda lived and taught in a householder's environment, which firmly put

the

emphasis on everyday experience, rather more so than the sacred environment of

Tiruvannamalai. In a way, this carried on the trend that the Maharshi had

started, of

turning more towards the direct method of self-reflective enquiry.

 

I don't think that Shri Atmananda ever went to Tiruvanamalai, but I do know that

he had

the greatest respect for the Maharshi and fully acknowledged the Maharshi's

introduction

of the direct method to the modern world. I seem to remember seeing the

Maharshi's picture

in a prominent place at Shri Atmananda's home, along with a picture of Shri

Ramakrishna

and perhaps Svami Vivekananda. I also know for sure that the Maharshi sometimes

sent

sadhakas to Shri Atmananda, whom he called the 'Trivandrum sage'. One of those

sadhakas

was Raja Rao, a novelist friend of my mother's, and it was through Raja Rao that

my mother

came to know of Shri Atmananda.

 

I'm afraid its only through such snippets that I can try to answer your

question. For more

on Shri Atmananda's life, Shri Rajkumar Nair has kindly given you the right

advice, to

access the web-page:

http://www.geocities.com/skknair_tvm/philo.htm

(You'll have to scroll down a bit. The web-page has three sections, of which

Shri

Atmananda's biography is the third.)

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Ananda,

 

I have a few questions regarding your characterization of the paths

into cosmological and direct. Also, I do not seem to quite grasp the

ensuing equation (in your article) of the cosmological path to

the 'traditional' and of the direct path to 'something other than

traditional'. This seems to imply that the Direct path is a more

recent development, and that the traditional paths do not have the

element of vichara in the same measure, which I seek to clarify.

 

One of the main features of the traditional path is surrender to the

scriptures. The attitude of taking the scripture as the Pramana. The

attitude that the scripture is the means of knowledge for knowing

myself, the attitude of faith in the scripture. The attitude that

the scriptural statement is true and if I know otherwise, it is my

lack of understanding. This faith does not imply a lack of vichara.

In fact, the scriptural statements form the basis for questioning

our contrary (to the scripture) experiences of myself, the world and

Iswara. The scriptural statements also form the basis of questioning

any contrary conclusions that I have of myself and the world. The

scripture says that I was never born and will never die. I think

otherwise. The scripture says that I am Ananda. I think that Ananda

is in objects of the world. The scripture says that I am not

anything I can percieve or conceive. I take myself to be always

something or the other that I objectify.

 

When understanding the scriptural statement Tat Tvam Asi as per the

traditional path, it involves both tat padartha shodhana and tvam

padartha shodhana. It involves an inquiry that culminates in the

understanding the Mithya nature of all of my upadhis and the Satyam

nature of Atman that I am. It involves understanding the Mithya

nature of the world and the satyam nature of bramhan. All of this

involves vichara and involves the removal of contrary understaning,

contrary deep rooted conclusions.

 

Hence, I am echoing Madathil Nariji's question that how does the

traditional path lack any element of vichara? Also why is the

traditional path any less direct?

 

Also, the Upanishads are considered complete, the Vedas are

considered complete in the sense that there is nothing original that

can be added to their fundamentals as far as the means and the goal

and the enunciation of the Truth is concerened. They are not of

human origin. There is no individual creator of these beginingless

teachings. Hence, did Sri Atmananda or Ramana Maharshi prescribe

anything original that the traditional paths did not already have?

Is it possible to prescribe anything original? Or did they lay

emphasis on some particular aspect of the apaurusheya anandi

teaching?

 

warm regards,

--Satyan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Prof. Krishnamurthyji.

 

Shri S.K.K. Nair, I understand, is the father of Shri Rajkumar Nair

of our Group.

 

The only thing common between us is that we both are astrologers - he

is well-known and I am least known. And, of course, then there is

the surname Nair.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

______________________

 

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk>

wrote:

> Incidentally, Madathilji, while visiting the site of Shri S.K.K.

> Nair, I had the feeling that he is your father. Am I right?

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

>

> Hence, I am echoing Madathil Nariji's question that how does the

> traditional path lack any element of vichara? Also why is the

> traditional path any less direct?

>

I don't think that Ananda Wood-ji or for that matter, Shri.

Atmananda himself suggested that traditional path lacks any element

of vichara. As we all know, traditional path puts forward stringent

conditions to be met before a seeker can even start his Self-enquiry.

I'm sure that many of us wouldn't even meet those conditions. So,

traditional path prescribes various sadhanas to purify the ego,

before or in parellel to the vichara aspect of the path.

But in the Direct Path, the seeker is encouraged to make use of

the vichara or higher reasoning itself as the sadhana.

It doesn't propose any ideal or any belief to cling on. It doesn't

tell the seeker to control or suppress his desires or emotions.

Rather, the seeker is encouraged to use his perceptions, thoughts and

feelings as pointers to the consciousness in which they arise.

Thus this path stresses more on vichara. And hence the name "vichara

marga".

Different paths suit different personalities. I hope this doesn't

become a "My path is better than yours" kind of debate.

 

Pranaams,

Raj.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Madathil Nair,

 

Thank you for your helpful message 19247 of 2 Oct, raising some objections that

need

clearing. I have no doubt that you are playing 'devil's advocate', to help avoid

incipient

confusions. And this you are doing quite effectively. So the following reply is

meant as a

counter, in the same sort of spirit, taking up your objections one by one. (The

paragraphs

in double quotes "..." are your objections, the other paragraphs are my

replies.)

 

"It is now clear from your post that the 'direct path' was so christened by Shri

Atmanandaji himself. I had always believed that the term was a western

fabrication by

Klein or Lucille."

 

According to Dennis Waite, who can be trusted to be accurate, the term 'direct

path' comes

from the teachings of Ramana Maharshi, and it is a translation of the Sanskrit

'Arjava

mArga'.

(See http://freespace.virgin.net/dennis.waite/advaita/bookextract6.htm)

 

So far as I know, the term 'vicara marga' is also from the Maharshi. In any

case, in

modern times, it is clearly the Maharshi who introduced this idea of

self-reflective

enquiry as a direct path to truth. Shri Atmananda's sadhana and teaching started

some

twenty-five years later than the Maharshi's. At that later time, he carried on

with the

idea, using the terms 'direct path' and 'vicara marga' to mean the same thing.

 

"You say that the path is also known as vicara marga. Does that imply that the

traditional approaches have no vicAra at all? The fact is that most of them

give supreme

importance to vicAra in the form of reflection and contemplation on scriptural

and

teachers' statements. Shri Atmanandaji perhaps advocated vicAra sans the other

sAdhanAs

prescribed by the traditional. However, we should not forget the fact that

vicArA had,

since times immemorial, been prescribed in Indian thought."

 

Yes indeed. Both the Maharshi and Shri Atmananda made it clear that what they

call the

'vicara marga' is nothing new. Vicara has always been essential to the search

for truth.

It's just that in the traditional approach, the skeptical questioning of vicara

was kept

away from public gaze and it was thus held in reserve for the later stages of

enquiry,

accessible only to a few advanced initiates.

 

"You have stated that an independent attitude has been publicly discouraged in

traditional

societies and skeptical questioning of the Upanishads was kept somewhat hidden

until the

last century or two. Does this imply that Direct Path approaches existed

pre-Atmandaji

and Direct Path principles are extra-upanishidic?"

 

According to Shri Atmananda, the earliest discovery of advaita started with the

direct

method, as immortalized in the Katha Upanishad 4.1:

 

parAnci khAni vyatriNat svayam-bhUs

tasmAt parAng pashyati n'AntarAtman

kash cid dhIrah pratyag-AtmAnam aikshad

avritta-cakshur amritatvam icchan

 

I would translate this (somewhat freely) as follows:

 

The world that happens of itself

has excavated outward holes,

through which perception looks outside

and does not see the self within.

 

But one brave person, seeking that

which does not die, turned sight back in

upon itself. And it is thus

that self was seen: returned to self,

to its own true reality.

 

This is nothing but the direct method, which the Upanishad is here describing as

the first

discovery of advaita. This is one of many passages in the Upanishads which show

the direct

method, plain and simple. Another passage is the Aitareya Upanishad, chapter 3

-- which

contains the mahavakya 'prajnyanam brahma', reducing 'brahman' or 'complete

reality' to

'prajnyanam' or 'consciousness'. So the direct method is most certainly not

extra-Upanishadic. Quite the contrary, the Upanishads were kept secret precisely

because

they contain such passages that state so boldly and plainly the skeptical

questioning of

the direct method.

 

"Bh. Ramana Maharshi and Shri Atmandaji were contemporaries. Yet, there is no

evidence

that there was any mutual contact or influence between them."

 

As said above, Shri Atmananda's sadhana and teaching came about twenty-five

years after

the Maharishi's. The former was quite open about his respect for the Maharshi,

and about

his use of ideas and language that the Maharshi had used. Moreover, as said in a

previous

message, the Maharshi did know of Shri Atmananda, whom he called the 'Trivandrum

sage'.

And he even sent some sadhakas to Shri Atmananda, for an instruction that he

judged would

be suited to their characters. So there was a sort of mutual interaction.

 

"Bhagwan never questioned the traditional. He only gave maximum stress to the

vicAra

element in the traditional."

 

The Maharshi recognized the value of traditional practices in their proper

context. And he

stressed vicara as a final enquiry that must leave all practices and contexts

behind. Just

the same was true of Shri Atmananda. He even went to the extent of modifying

verses and

kirtanams for chanting or singing when traditionalists were present, so as not

to offend

their faith in tradition. Verses and kirtanams that might seem to go against

tradition,

and thus could cause controversy, were only for use among fellow disciples.

 

"There is, therefore, a danger that a statement like 'the direct path or the

vicara marga

was made more public most famously through Ramana Maharshi' may be misunderstood

to mean

that Bhagwan was a co-propounder of the Direct Path."

 

That would indeed be a misunderstanding. The Maharshi was not a co-propounder,

but an

earlier propounder who introduced the direct method to the modern world. Both

the Maharshi

and Shri Atmananda were thoroughly against personal authorship; so if either of

them was

interested in staking some claim over the direct method, that would make them

frauds.

 

"Bhagwan observed stringent austerities in the VirUpAksha cave at

Thiruvannamalai. One

can safely assume that those travails bestowed on him the required chittasuddhi

for

Knowledge to dawn. That again goes to prove the traditional approach right in

the sense

that vicAra should go hand in hand with other prescribed sAdhanA."

 

The Maharshi did not observe stringent austerities because anyone had prescribed

them

traditionally. Instead, as he later on made very clear, he was simply engrossed

in truth,

so intently that his body and its sufferings were utterly ignored. It was that

overwhelming interest in truth that bestowed on him the required citta-shuddhi.

Had he

been punishing his mind and body for the sake of some traditional prescription,

that would

have been ego-inflating rather than ego-dissolving.

 

"I have read a sketchy biography of Shri Atmanandaji at Shri S.K. Nair's

(Astrologer)

site. If I remember right, it mentions a sort of divine intervention in the

life of Shri

Atmanandaji which turned him spiritual. The incident was something like an

unknown yogi

waiting for him with a spiritual message. Subsequently, Shri Atmanandaji took

to the

study of scriptures and led a life of austerity before he embarked on giving

spiritual

advice to his audience. So, it looks like there has been some preparation

outside pure

vicAra in the making of Shri Atmanandaji although it may not be to the extent

undertaken

by Bh. Ramana."

 

Shri Atmananda never took much to the study of traditional scriptures. He was a

Malayalam

poet and a keen enquirer, not a Sanskrit pandit. It was not his way to quote

scriptures

for authority. Instead he only used them to illustrate or to reflect upon a

point of

enquiry, to be investigated on the basis of direct experience.

 

His teacher did ask him to undertake some intense religious and yogic practices,

but the

teacher carefully explained that these practices were not needed for

realization. Instead,

they were for another purpose that would be understood later. It turned out that

the

purpose had to do with preparing Shri Atmananda to become a teacher in his turn,

able to

explain traditional practices and to guide those of his disciples who were

already

involved with them. The direct method is not meant to undermine traditional

practices in

which a useful investment is already coming to fruition. Instead, it is meant to

focus on

a genuine interest in truth, as the prime and essential value that needs no

further

investment in anything else.

 

"Now to come to the final doubt. A person called 'A' has done vicAra and

acquired an

academic understanding that everything is Consciousness. He experiences (a) an

insect

bite, knows that it is consciousness, impulsively kills the insect and applies

some balm

to the site of the sting, (b) suffers from tightness of breath, again knows that

it is

consciousness, yet panics and runs for the nearest bronchial dilator, and ©

enjoys the

pleasantest of all sensations, knows that it too is consciousness, craves for

more of it

and is ready to go to war with anybody who comes in the way. Now we have 'B' -

a sage

like Bh. Ramana 'undergoing' the same experiences. There sure is a difference

and 'A',

with his academic understanding, is able to perceive it. 'A' understands that

'B' is not

moved by any of the three. He is samadukhasukhakshamI - rooted in

Consciousness, and

'being' in all (a), (b) and © as Consciousness. There is no pleasantness or

unpleasantness for him for he is verily a free spirit pervading all that he

'knows'.

 

"There sure is a big gap between 'A' and 'B'. How do we bridge the gap? Can

Direct

Approach or VicAra Marga take us any farther than 'A's position? Is the

'bringing of the

universal under the individual' farther than 'A's intellectual appreciation of

the Truth

and closer to 'B's position? Can simple vicAra without the prescriptions of the

traditional make a 'B'? Could there be a Bh. Ramana without the VirUpAksha

cave?"

 

If 'A' has only acquired an 'academic understanding', that is no genuine

understanding,

but only a made-up pretence which is built up from mental tricks. No acquisition

of such

show can amount to vicara or enquiry. Vicara means investigating down beneath

the show of

make believe, not building it up further on some made-up basis. What 'A' has

done is not

'vicara', but the building of a made-up show from the likes of (a) and (b) and

©. When

vicara has been genuine, all conceived assumptions have been questioned through

to get

back down into plain truth, beneath all make-believe construction. Then there is

nothing

else but truth, which stands and shines all by itself.

 

'A' loves the show and is thus driven round and round, in shaky, noisy

flatulence. 'B'

loves the truth and thus returns to what is loved, beneath all seeming value.

The

difference between the two is only love for truth, not any name or form or

quality of

practised capability. Without that love, what is the cave or anything that's

done in it?

What is the Virupaksha cave or anything that's done in it, without the love of

that which

is called Bhagavan Ramana?

 

"Above all and ultimately, like it was pointed out here regarding

'contradictions in

advaita', from the paramArta point of view, is there any difference between

'bringing the

individual under the universal' and 'the universal under the individual'?

Whether the

salt doll jumps in the ocean or the ocean waves sweep it into their bosom, it is

all the

same, isn't it?"

 

Indeed, as has been pointed out, there can't be any difference in the goal of

advaita. All

contradictions are brought out in order to show up their falsities, so that they

fall away

and are dissolved in truth. But that is achieved by clarifying what has been

confused. In

particular, is it not worth a little trouble to discern what path one travels

on, so that

the direction does not get confused, by hankering for things that glitter at a

distance on

some other path? It's only when one follows one's own path, right to the end,

that

contradictions are in truth resolved.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste all,

Ananda Wood introduced this topic with reference to

Anandamayee-ma. Nearly 40 years ago, through grace, I

was taken to the feet of Dr Gopinath Kaviraj and Sri

Anandamayee-ma. No more than two hours was spent with

them but so much was given. I will not take up space

to detail it all here but the direction given was

quite specific for this ignorant Westerner who

appeared before them. It was not the direction to

submit to a series of practices but to enquire, I was

sent on my way to 'seek and find', 'learn and teach.'

 

Anandamayee-ma clearly saw what was needed and, I am

sure, has been subtly guiding since then as I now find

myself taking up Dr Kaviraj's work without knowing

what it was until quite recently. In fact, I had no

idea of the importance in India of both these

wonderful people until some ten years ago, such was my

foolishness.

As regards the 'direct path' there is a wonderful

RgVedic sukta:

VIII.102.22

22a agním índhaano mánasaa dhíyaM saceta mártyaH

c agním iidhe vivásvabhiH

which J.Gonda translates rather freely as:

'The man who in the early morning kindles his

sacrificial fire mentally should acquire, by way of a

'vision', a flash of insight, the knowledge of the

deeper sense of what he is doing:'"I have kindled the

fires with the rays of matutinal light". '

 

Every 'event' is a direct means to knowledge to the

intellect that awakes in 'I am' and stays awhile

before being enveiled in individual activity. I would

suggest that there is room in that for both the

'traditional' and 'direct'.

 

[strange thing here. Individual comes from 'in-' not

'dividuus' divisible. Weird that isn't it? Might

just as well call it advaita. Maybe we should use

vyashti and samashti in this study.]

 

To pick up on someone else's comment on avoiding the

worldly tendency to claim the supremacy of one path

over another, Rumi tells this beautiful tale in the

Mathnavi of a rap over the knuckles for Moses:

‘Moses saw a shepherd on the way, crying, “O Lord who

choosest as Thou wilt, where art Thou that I may serve

Thee and sew Thy shoes, comb Thy hair? That I may wash

Thy clothes and kill Thy lice and bring milk to Thee,

O worshipful One; that I may kiss Thy little hand and

rub Thy little feet and sweep Thy little room at

bed-time.”

On hearing these foolish words, Moses said, “Man, to

whom are you speaking? What babble! What blasphemy and

raving! Stuff some cotton into your mouth! Truly the

friendship of a fool is enmity; the High God is not in

want of such service.”

The shepherd rent his garments, heaved a sigh and took

his way into the wilderness.

Then came to Moses a revelation: “Thou hast parted My

servant from Me. Wert thou sent as a prophet to unite

or wert thou sent to sever?

I have given everyone a particular mode of worship. I

have given everyone a particular form of expression.

The idiom of Hindustan is excellent for Hindus, the

idiom of Sind is excellent for the people of Sind. I

look not at tongue and speech, I look at the spirit

and the inward feeling. I look into the heart to see

whether it be lowly, though the words uttered be not

lowly. Enough of phrases and conceits and metaphors! I

want burning, burning; become familiar with that

burning!

Light up the fire of love in thy souls, burn all

thought and expression away! O Moses, they that know

the conventions are of one sort, they whose souls burn

are another.”

The religion of love is apart from all religions. The

lovers of God have no religion but God alone.’

Mathnavi II 1720-1738

 

Thank you for guiding this topic and I hope that the

above is not too much of a distraction,

 

Ken Knight

 

 

 

> Namaste Shri Madathil Nair,

>

> Thank you for your helpful message 19247 of 2 Oct,

> raising some objections that need

> clearing. I have no doubt that you are playing

> 'devil's advocate', to help avoid incipient

> confusions. And this you are doing quite

> effectively. So the following reply is meant as a

> counter, in the same sort of spirit, taking up your

> objections one by one. (The paragraphs

> in double quotes "..." are your objections, the

> other paragraphs are my replies.)

>

> "It is now clear from your post that the 'direct

> path' was so christened by Shri

> Atmanandaji himself. I had always believed that the

> term was a western fabrication by

> Klein or Lucille."

>

> According to Dennis Waite, who can be trusted to be

> accurate, the term 'direct path' comes

> from the teachings of Ramana Maharshi, and it is a

> translation of the Sanskrit 'Arjava

> mArga'.

> (See

>

http://freespace.virgin.net/dennis.waite/advaita/bookextract6.htm)

>

> So far as I know, the term 'vicara marga' is also

> from the Maharshi. In any case, in

> modern times, it is clearly the Maharshi who

> introduced this idea of self-reflective

> enquiry as a direct path to truth. Shri Atmananda's

> sadhana and teaching started some

> twenty-five years later than the Maharshi's. At that

> later time, he carried on with the

> idea, using the terms 'direct path' and 'vicara

> marga' to mean the same thing.

>

> "You say that the path is also known as vicara

> marga. Does that imply that the

> traditional approaches have no vicAra at all? The

> fact is that most of them give supreme

> importance to vicAra in the form of reflection and

> contemplation on scriptural and

> teachers' statements. Shri Atmanandaji perhaps

> advocated vicAra sans the other sAdhanAs

> prescribed by the traditional. However, we should

> not forget the fact that vicArA had,

> since times immemorial, been prescribed in Indian

> thought."

>

> Yes indeed. Both the Maharshi and Shri Atmananda

> made it clear that what they call the

> 'vicara marga' is nothing new. Vicara has always

> been essential to the search for truth.

> It's just that in the traditional approach, the

> skeptical questioning of vicara was kept

> away from public gaze and it was thus held in

> reserve for the later stages of enquiry,

> accessible only to a few advanced initiates.

>

> "You have stated that an independent attitude has

> been publicly discouraged in traditional

> societies and skeptical questioning of the

> Upanishads was kept somewhat hidden until the

> last century or two. Does this imply that Direct

> Path approaches existed pre-Atmandaji

> and Direct Path principles are extra-upanishidic?"

>

> According to Shri Atmananda, the earliest discovery

> of advaita started with the direct

> method, as immortalized in the Katha Upanishad 4.1:

>

> parAnci khAni vyatriNat svayam-bhUs

> tasmAt parAng pashyati n'AntarAtman

> kash cid dhIrah pratyag-AtmAnam aikshad

> avritta-cakshur amritatvam icchan

>

> I would translate this (somewhat freely) as follows:

>

> The world that happens of itself

> has excavated outward holes,

> through which perception looks outside

> and does not see the self within.

>

> But one brave person, seeking that

> which does not die, turned sight back in

> upon itself. And it is thus

> that self was seen: returned to self,

> to its own true reality.

>

> This is nothing but the direct method, which the

> Upanishad is here describing as the first

> discovery of advaita. This is one of many passages

> in the Upanishads which show the direct

> method, plain and simple. Another passage is the

> Aitareya Upanishad, chapter 3 -- which

> contains the mahavakya 'prajnyanam brahma', reducing

> 'brahman' or 'complete reality' to

> 'prajnyanam' or 'consciousness'. So the direct

> method is most certainly not

> extra-Upanishadic. Quite the contrary, the

> Upanishads were kept secret precisely because

> they contain such passages that state so boldly and

> plainly the skeptical questioning of

> the direct method.

>

> "Bh. Ramana Maharshi and Shri Atmandaji were

> contemporaries. Yet, there is no evidence

> that there was any mutual contact or influence

> between them."

>

> As said above, Shri Atmananda's sadhana and teaching

> came about twenty-five years after

> the Maharishi's. The former was quite open about his

> respect for the Maharshi, and about

> his use of ideas and language that the Maharshi had

> used. Moreover, as said in a previous

> message, the Maharshi did know of Shri Atmananda,

> whom he called the 'Trivandrum sage'.

> And he even sent some sadhakas to Shri Atmananda,

> for an instruction that he judged would

> be suited to their characters. So there was a sort

> of mutual interaction.

>

> "Bhagwan never questioned the traditional. He only

> gave maximum stress to the vicAra

> element in the traditional."

>

> The Maharshi recognized the value of traditional

> practices in their proper context. And he

> stressed vicara as a final enquiry that must leave

> all practices and contexts behind. Just

> the same was true of Shri Atmananda. He even went to

> the extent of modifying verses and

> kirtanams for chanting or singing when

> traditionalists were present, so as not to offend

> their faith in tradition. Verses and kirtanams that

> might seem to go against tradition,

> and thus could cause controversy, were only for use

> among fellow disciples.

>

> "There is, therefore, a danger that a statement

> like 'the direct path or the vicara marga

> was made more public most famously through Ramana

> Maharshi' may be misunderstood to mean

> that Bhagwan was a co-propounder of the Direct

> Path."

>

> That would indeed be a misunderstanding. The

> Maharshi was not a co-propounder, but an

> earlier propounder who introduced the direct method

> to the modern world. Both the Maharshi

> and Shri Atmananda were thoroughly against personal

> authorship; so if either of them was

> interested in staking some claim over the direct

> method, that would make them frauds.

>

> "Bhagwan observed stringent austerities in the

> VirUpAksha cave at Thiruvannamalai. One

> can safely assume that those travails bestowed on

> him the required chittasuddhi for

> Knowledge to dawn. That again goes to prove the

> traditional approach right in the sense

> that vicAra should go hand in hand with other

> prescribed sAdhanA."

>

> The Maharshi did not observe stringent austerities

> because anyone had prescribed them

> traditionally. Instead, as he later on made very

> clear, he was simply engrossed in truth,

> so intently that his body and its sufferings were

> utterly ignored. It was that

> overwhelming interest in truth that bestowed on him

> the required citta-shuddhi. Had he

> been punishing his mind and body for the sake of

> some traditional prescription, that would

> have been ego-inflating rather than ego-dissolving.

>

> "I have read a sketchy biography of Shri Atmanandaji

> at Shri S.K. Nair's (Astrologer)

> site. If I remember right, it mentions a sort of

> divine intervention in the life of Shri

> Atmanandaji which turned him spiritual. The

> incident was something like an unknown yogi

> waiting for him with a spiritual message.

> Subsequently, Shri Atmanandaji took to the

> study of scriptures and led a life of austerity

> before he embarked on giving spiritual

> advice to his audience. So, it looks like there has

> been some preparation outside pure

> vicAra in the making of Shri Atmanandaji although it

> may not be to the extent undertaken

> by Bh. Ramana."

>

> Shri Atmananda never took much to the study of

> traditional scriptures. He was a Malayalam

> poet and a keen enquirer, not a Sanskrit pandit. It

> was not his way to quote scriptures

> for authority. Instead he only used them to

> illustrate or to reflect upon a point of

>

=== message truncated ===

 

 

 

 

Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears

http://launch./promos/britneyspears/

[Guest guest]

Namaste Raj-ji.

 

I didn't accuse either Atamandaji or Anandaji of saying that there

is no vicAra in the traditional.

 

I don't think the traditional imposes any stringent conditions. It

lists the qualifications for the one who can pursue an effective

quest into Truth – adhikAri. Such qualifications, e.g. the most

important mumukshwatam, are applicable to `vicAra marga' too. Not

all Tom, Dick and Harry can ride the vicAra horse. Besides, the

traditional does not advocate any suppression of desires or

emotions. It recommends only understanding of and dispassionate

passivity towards mental vrittis in order that they lose their hold

on the aspirant and vanish. This process itself is an essential part

of vicAra. I am sure if the steps of how vicAra is to be done in the

Direct Path are enumerated, we will end up with a list more or less

similar to the traditional.

 

If a very very ancient mahAvakya said `prajnAnam brahma' and that

substantiates the Direct Path, then we have to conclude that vicAra

mArga is very much there in the traditional. Anandaji has seen it in

Katha and other Upanishads. What Atmanandaji did was just to clarify

and crystallize the idea and separate it out from the

misinterpretations heaped on it. We must therefore look at

Atmanadaji in that light and rightly place him in the advaitic

mainstream in the lineage of Sankara and Ramana.

 

If you label something differently and call it a specific path, then

you cannot stop another pathwala from yelling that his path is

different and superior to yours. Why don't we better put an end

then to these naming ceremonies?

 

About paths, I strongly feel that we must stick to the Bhagwad GitA,

which prescribes just two ("DwividhA prOkta"): karma yOga and

sanyAsa (jnAna yoga). It is an indisputable fact that both have

vicAra as their main ingredient, i.e. whether the aspirant is a

grihasta or a renunciate. Then what is so new about the Direct Path?

If anything, it belongs to our Maitreyi who looked at her

perceptions, thoughts and feelings on her journey to `herself'

wherefrom all of them emanated!

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

_________________________________

 

advaitin, "rajkumarknair" <rajkumarknair>

wrote:

> >

> I don't think that Ananda Wood-ji or for that matter, Shri.

> Atmananda himself suggested that traditional path lacks any element

> of vichara. As we all know, traditional path puts forward stringent

> conditions to be met before a seeker can even start his Self-

enquiry. ...................................

> But in the Direct Path..............it doesn't

> tell the seeker to control or suppress his desires or emotions.

> Rather, the seeker is encouraged to use his perceptions, thoughts

and

> feelings as pointers to the consciousness in which they arise.

............................I hope this doesn't

> become a "My path is better than yours" kind of debate.

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Satyan Chidambaran,

 

In response to your clear and thoughtful posting (2 Nov, message 19256), I fully

agree

with you that the traditional path cannot be complete without vicara. Vicara or

enquiry is

essential to the completion of knowledge in any path. When the traditional path

is called

'cosmological', this does not imply a lack of vicara. It simply means that along

with

vicara there is also a considerable component of cosmology, which seeks to

describe the

world and to prescribe suitable actions for improving our personalities and the

world

around them.

 

Vicara must be there in both paths -- 'cosmological' and 'direct':

 

On the one hand, the 'cosmological' path gets its name from having a

cosmological

component that is lacking in the direct path.

 

On the other hand, the 'direct' path is so called because it looks directly for

underlying

truth. However bad or good the world is seen to be, however badly or how well it

is seen

through personality, there is in the direct path no concern to improve that

cosmic view.

The only concern is to reflect directly back into underlying truth, from the

superficial

and misleading show of all outward viewing.

 

The direct path is thus no recent development. It was there from the start,

before

traditions and civilizations developed. And it has continued through the growth

of

tradition, along with the personal and environmental improvements that

traditions have

prescribed. For these improvements are inevitably partial and compromised; so

that there

are always people who aren't satisfied with such improvement, but just long for

plain

truth that is not compromised with any falsity.

 

To find that truth, no cosmological improvement can itself be enough. At some

stage,

sooner or later, there has to be a jump entirely away from all improvement, into

a truth

where worse or better don't apply. The only difference between the cosmological

and direct

paths is when the jump is made. In the direct path, the jump is soon or even

now. In the

cosmological approach, the jump is put off till later on, in order to give time

for

improving preparations to be made for it.

 

As Shri Rajkumar Nair has sensibly pointed out (2 Nov, message 19262), it isn't

a question

of one path being better than another. There are pros and cons on both sides, so

that

different paths suit different personalities.

 

An early jump is harder to make, and it means that the sadhaka's character is

still

impure; so even having jumped into the truth, she or he keeps falling back

unsteadily,

overwhelmed by egotistical samskaras. Then work remains to keep returning back

to truth,

until the samskaras are eradicated and there is a final establishment in the

sahaja state.

 

A later jump can be easier, with a character so purified that little or no work

remains to

achieve establishment. But there are pitfalls of preparing personality for a

late jump,

because a sadhaka may get enamoured of the relative advances that have been

achieved, like

a prisoner who falls in love with golden chains and thus remains imprisoned.

 

So what's needed is to find the particular path that suits each particular

sadhaka,

instead of arguing for any path as best for everyone. I must apologize for

having come

across as arguing that way.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

Dear Anandaji,

 

I am replying to one of your earlier posts the number of which I

really don't care to quote because you are going at break-neck

speed. (Ramji, plese intervene and grant this man more time.)

 

My comments are in brackets as usual.

 

> According to Dennis Waite, who can be trusted to be accurate, the

term 'direct path' comes

> from the teachings of Ramana Maharshi, and it is a translation of

the Sanskrit 'Arjava

> mArga'.

> (See

http://freespace.virgin.net/dennis.waite/advaita/bookextract6.htm)

 

[Arjava means spontaneous although I don't find it listed in MW. We

are mostly impulsive. But, an advaitin (not all the the seven

hundred of them, including me, on this List) is spontaneous. He has

Arjava. So, Dennisji has committed the first mistake of calling

it 'direct' and the world has built a castle of cards on it.

 

 

> So far as I know, the term 'vicara marga' is also from the

Maharshi. In any case, in

> modern times, it is clearly the Maharshi who introduced this idea

of self-reflective

> enquiry as a direct path to truth.

 

[As I said in one of my earlier posts, in response to Raj-ji, I

believe, vichAra began long back with our Maitreyi. That Madathil

Nair also is doing vichAra is only incidental. The upanishads can't

be there withoiut vicAra preceding them.]

 

> It's just that in the traditional approach, the skeptical

questioning of vicara was kept

> away from public gaze and it was thus held in reserve for the later

stages of enquiry,

> accessible only to a few advanced initiates.

 

[but, nevertheless, Bh. Ramana and. Bh. Krishna Menon (don't worry,

he deserves the title Bhagwan abundandly) happened to be there

despite all the restrictions. Doesn't that give credit to those who

are accused of keeping vicAra privy?!]

 

> That would indeed be a misunderstanding. The Maharshi was not a co-

propounder, but an

> earlier propounder who introduced the direct method to the modern

world. Both the Maharshi

> and Shri Atmananda were thoroughly against personal authorship; so

if either of them was

> interested in staking some claim over the direct method, that would

make them frauds.

 

[That applies to Sister Maitreyi too!]

 

> The Maharshi (Bh. Ramana) did not observe stringent austerities

because anyone had prescribed them

> traditionally. Instead, as he later on made very clear, he was

simply engrossed in truth,

> so intently that his body and its sufferings were utterly ignored.

It was that

> overwhelming interest in truth that bestowed on him the required

citta-shuddhi. Had he

> been punishing his mind and body for the sake of some traditional

prescription, that would

> have been ego-inflating rather than ego-dissolving.

 

[You are quite right there. But, the point I want to drive home is

that the body doesn't matter after all and should be understood as

such as most serious aspirants do. But, there certainly were some

traditional sayings yet that infludenced Bh. Ramana. That cannot be

denied.]

 

> His teacher did ask him (Shri Atmanandaji) to undertake some

intense religious and yogic practices, but the

> teacher carefully explained that these practices were not needed

for realization. Instead,

> they were for another purpose that would be understood later. It

turned out that the

> purpose had to do with preparing Shri Atmananda to become a teacher

in his turn, able to

> explain traditional practices and to guide those of his disciples

who were already

> involved with them.

 

[i am afraid you have dangerously tread into marshland of predestiny

here!)

 

> 'A' loves the show and is thus driven round and round, in shaky,

noisy flatulence. 'B'

> loves the truth and thus returns to what is loved, beneath all

seeming value. The

> difference between the two is only love for truth, not any name or

form or quality of

> practised capability. Without that love, what is the cave or

anything that's done in it?

> What is the Virupaksha cave or anything that's done in it, without

the love of that which

> is called Bhagavan Ramana?

 

[beautifully stated but the flatulence stinks. But 'A' has the love

for Truth that Ramana had in his pre-Bhagwanhood days. How can you

then accuse him of going round and round. My question relates to the

gap between pre and post Bhgawnanhood and if that can be crossed

without what the traditoinal pescribes.]

 

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Nair,

 

You wrote (within brackets)

 

> His teacher did ask him (Shri Atmanandaji) to undertake some

intense religious and yogic practices, but the

> teacher carefully explained that these practices were not needed

for realization. Instead,

> they were for another purpose that would be understood later. It

turned out that the

> purpose had to do with preparing Shri Atmananda to become a teacher

in his turn, able to

> explain traditional practices and to guide those of his disciples

who were already

> involved with them.

 

[i am afraid you have dangerously tread into marshland of predestiny

here!)

 

Venkat - M writes

 

I commiserate with you; the very thought of spending time on such terrain should

seem extremely unpleasant even to 'the least known astrologer'

 

In jest,

 

Venkat - M

 

 

 

Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Messenger

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair" >

 

and it is a translation of

> the Sanskrit 'Arjava

> > mArga'.

>

> [Arjava means spontaneous although I don't find it listed in MW.

 

Namaste,

 

http://www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/indologie/tamil/mwd_search.html

 

Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon

----

Entry Arjava

 

Meaning mfn. (fr. %{Rju} g. %{pRthvAdi} Pa1n2. 5-1 , 122) ,

straight ; honest , sincere Katha1s. ; m. N. of a teacher VP. ; (%

{am}) n. straightness , straight direction Sa1h. ; rectitude ,

propriety of act or observance ; honesty , frankness , sincerity

ChUp. A1p. Gaut. MBh. R. Mn. &c.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder