Brahmacharya (& Ramana Maharshi)

[Guest guest]

List Moderator's Note: List wants to thank the members for their continued

support to list policies and guidelines. Please do not include the previous

posters' messages in the tail end (or in the beginning) of your message while

sending your replies. Both the new members and other members do seem to continue

to repeat doing this. The list appreciates your cooperation in keeping the

message crisp and clear by removing all unnecessary parts of previous messages.

(As it was done in this message!)

 

advaitin, "Sachin Chavan" <chavansachin@h...>

wrote:

> Please allow me to make two points with respect to your post.

>

> 1. 'Control' is an inappropriate word to use. When one understands

the

>

 

 

Namaste,

 

With regard to the function of the senses; On Moksha or dropping of

the Ego one still has to play out the last few turns of the wheel.

So the residual body/mind will continue to appear to 'enjoy' the

senses.

So the question at this point is moot.

 

The most amazing thing to me is not that there is only advaita, but

that people would think in dvaitic terms. To imagine that we are

somehow separate from our total environment and universe is patently

absurd. Even the animals with their 'group' minds don't event think

like this. It is only the insanity of the ego amongst unaware people

that can even imagine separteness...............ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Sachin Chavan" wrote:

 

 

"Its not easy to understand and walk on the path of 'Self enquiry' for

most. It is indeed a path for few. Here, one has to question every

thought, every emotion and every reaction generated by the

body-mind-ego-intellect phenomenon and ask who is generating it. This

questioning has to be incessant. Slowly one starts realising that

he/she is not the body-mind-ego-intellect, but is the "I" that

observes all this. This brings in a detachment with the phenomenon and

all the desires and aversions associated with it."

 

I am afraid this is not ramana's path of 'self-enquiry' though it may

appear so, if it has been picked up only through books and not through

the teaching tradition. Ramana's path is classical tri-angi

shravana-manana-nididhyasana route. Ramana has generally emphasized

the nididhyasana part only since it presumes that shravana and manana

have already been gone through. Ramana gita and upadesha-saram are

more explicit about this. Swami Dayanandaji has mentioned that he was

stuck up at this point for eleven years until ramana's disciple yogi

ramayya pointed this out. Nididhyasana can be practiced only after one

has gone through the earlier steps. In absence of shravana and manana,

it is at best a meditation technique.

 

 

"For those who find such a practice abstract, I would suggest learning

Vipassana (Buddha's technique, taught by Sri SN Goenka now). It gives

more tangible logic and practice to achieve the same goal."

 

Vipassana or any other meditation technique-- though important-- have

only limited utility of preparing the mind. Prepared mind is essential

for knowledge to occur, however, preparation of mind does not create

the knowledge out of vaccuum. Proper pramana is indispensable for

knowledge to occur.

 

pranAm

[Guest guest]

Those who have come to Vipassana know that following the "PanchSheel" (five

Yama/Niyamas) is compulsory for all Vipassana meditators.

 

Knowing a technique properly before commenting on it makes the comments more

useful.

 

Tat tvam asi

(You are that)

 

Sachin

 

----

 

vineetasaxena2002

06/17/05 00:48:42

advaitin

Re: Brahmacharya (& Ramana Maharshi)

 

advaitin, "Sachin Chavan" wrote:

 

 

"Its not easy to understand and walk on the path of 'Self enquiry' for

most. It is indeed a path for few. Here, one has to question every

thought, every emotion and every reaction generated by the

body-mind-ego-intellect phenomenon and ask who is generating it. This

questioning has to be incessant. Slowly one starts realising that

he/she is not the body-mind-ego-intellect, but is the "I" that

observes all this. This brings in a detachment with the phenomenon and

all the desires and aversions associated with it."

 

I am afraid this is not ramana's path of 'self-enquiry' though it may

appear so, if it has been picked up only through books and not through

the teaching tradition. Ramana's path is classical tri-angi

shravana-manana-nididhyasana route. Ramana has generally emphasized

the nididhyasana part only since it presumes that shravana and manana

have already been gone through. Ramana gita and upadesha-saram are

more explicit about this. Swami Dayanandaji has mentioned that he was

stuck up at this point for eleven years until ramana's disciple yogi

ramayya pointed this out. Nididhyasana can be practiced only after one

has gone through the earlier steps. In absence of shravana and manana,

it is at best a meditation technique.

 

 

"For those who find such a practice abstract, I would suggest learning

Vipassana (Buddha's technique, taught by Sri SN Goenka now). It gives

more tangible logic and practice to achieve the same goal."

 

Vipassana or any other meditation technique-- though important-- have

only limited utility of preparing the mind. Prepared mind is essential

for knowledge to occur, however, preparation of mind does not create

the knowledge out of vaccuum. Proper pramana is indispensable for

knowledge to occur.

 

pranAm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of

Atman and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe

com/culture/advaitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin/

 

 

advaitin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Sachin Chavan" wrote:

 

"Those who have come to Vipassana know that following the "PanchSheel"

(five Yama/Niyamas) is compulsory for all Vipassana meditators.Knowing

a technique properly before commenting on it makes the comments more

useful."

 

Nothing personal here. Just a restatement of opinion of advaitin sages.

 

The goal of vipassana with its five yamas/niyamas or yoga with its

eight yamas/niyamas is samadhi, where the mind temporarily dissolves.

However advaita is not a mystical experience. It is an understanding

of the nature of self that is brought about by removal of

beginningless avidya. Yamas/Niyamas/Samadhi are important as they lead

to maturity/ preparedness of mind, however understanding does not

occur in a prepared mind out of nothing. Bhagavan Ramana has pointed

out the inertness of actions as far as knowledge is concerned in

Upadesha Saram as "karm kim karam; karm tajjaDam". This does not mean

that yamas/niyamas/samadhi are useless; only thing is that by

themselves, they cannot give rise to understanding.

 

In this regard, it is like any other knowledge. If someone wants to

learn calculus, a prepared mind is essential. However, having a

prepared mind, by itself, does not give rise to the knowledge of

calculus. It is only when a teacher versed in calculus-shastra uses

the pramana on a prepared mind, that the knowledge occurs. This does

not mean that all the efforts taken to prepare the mind for the

teaching were vain. However once the mind is prepared to understand

the teaching, honing it further and further without exposure to

pramana will not give rise to the knowledge of calculus.

 

In advaita, the teaching method is adhyaropa-apavada, where the

teacher successively creates a concept in the disciples mind and then

negates it. Before coming to this point, the sadhaka has to gain a

maturity of mind through yama/niyama/samadhi so that it can handle the

teaching. However, the utility of these preparations ends at this

point, from where the teacher takes over with his pramana.

 

pranAm

[Guest guest]

Sachin wrote:

 

2. Its wrong to say Ramana Maharshi did not do sadhana. I would request you

to read his biography 'The Mind of Ramana Maharshi by Arthur Osborne' to

know more about him. Its true that he had a near-death experience at a very

young age through which he passed into Nirvikalpa Samadhi. But that was not

the end, but the beginning of his Sadhana. He immediately left for

Thirvanamalai and spend a number of years in almost silence deeply absorbed

in Dhyaana. The intensity of his Tapas was absolute.

-------------------------

 

With regards 'sadhana', Arthur Osborne says the opposite to the above, as

does Ramana Maharshi in a number of conversations with devotees.

 

"When he first came to Tiruvannamalai he sat immersed in the Bliss of Being,

utterly ignoring the world and the body. He would take food only if it was

brought to his hands or mouth and even then barely enough to sustain the

body. This has been described as tapas, but the word tapas cover a very

composite meaning. It implies concentration leading to austerity, normally

in penance for past indulgence and to root out all desire for its repetition

and restrain the outgoing energy which seeks a vehicle in the mind and

senses. That is to say that tapas normally means striving for realization by

means of penance and austerity. In the case of Sri Bhagavan the elements of

strife, penance and forcible restraint were completely lacking, since the

false identification of the 'I' with the body and the resultant attachment

to the body had already been broken. There was even no austerity from his

point of view, since he had utterly ceased to identify himself with the body

that underwent austerity.

He intimated this in later years by saying, "I did not eat, so they said I

was fasting; I did not speak, so they said I was mouni." To put it quite

simply, the seeming austerity was not in quest of Realization but as a

result of Realization. He has explicitly said that there was no more sadhana

(quest or striving) after the spiritual Awakening at

his uncle's house at Madura."

 

("The Mind of Ramana Maharshi", Arthur Osborne, p 37.)

 

Peter

[Guest guest]

vineetasaxena2002 writes:

>>>> I am afraid this is not ramana's path of 'self-enquiry' though it may

appear so, if it has been picked up only through books and not through

the teaching tradition. Ramana's path is classical tri-angi

shravana-manana-nididhyasana route. Ramana has generally emphasized

the nididhyasana part only since it presumes that shravana and manana

have already been gone through. Ramana gita and upadesha-saram are

more explicit about this. Swami Dayanandaji has mentioned that he was

stuck up at this point for eleven years until ramana's disciple yogi

ramayya pointed this out. Nididhyasana can be practiced only after one

has gone through the earlier steps. In absence of shravana and manana,

it is at best a meditation technique.<<<<

------------------

 

In "Padamalai" the following is recorded.

 

"Once when Ganapati Muni was present in the hall, a group of villagers

asked, 'How are we to control the mind?'

In reply Bhagavan asked them to look into the origin of the mind and

explained the path of self-enquiry. Soon they left and Bhagavan as usual

went out for a walk.

Remarking to the others [Ganapati] Muni said, 'The path of

Self-Knowledge which Bhagavan teaches is so difficult even for the learned,

and Bhagavan advocated it to the poor villagers. I doubt whether they

understood it and still less whether they can practise it. If Bhagavan had

advised them to practise some puja or japa, that would have been more

practical.

When this was conveyed to Bhagavan, he commented, 'What to do? This is

what I know. If a teaching is to be imparted according to the traditional

way, one must first see whether the recipient is qualified or not. Then

puja, japa or dhyana are prescribed step by step. Later the Guru says that

this is all only preliminary and one has to transcend all this. Finally,

the ultimate truth that "Brahman alone is real" is revealed and to realise

this, the direct path of self-enquiry is to be taught. Why this roundabout

process? Should we not state the ultimate truth and direct path at the

beginning itself rather than advocating many methods and rejecting them in

the end?"

 

("Padamail: Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi Recorded by Muruganar" page 5,

edited by David Godman.)

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Peter M." <not_2@b...> quoted bhagavan:

 

"If a teaching is to be imparted according to the traditional

way, one must first see whether the recipient is qualified or not.

Then puja, japa or dhyana are prescribed step by step. Later the Guru

says that this is all only preliminary and one has to transcend all

this. Finally, the ultimate truth that "Brahman alone is real" is

revealed and to realise this, the direct path of self-enquiry is to be

taught. Why this roundabout process? Should we not state the

ultimate truth and direct path at the beginning itself rather than

advocating many methods and rejecting them in the end?"

 

....However in Upadesha Manjari (Tamil) recorded by Sri Natananandar

when pressed on this point bhagvan says:

 

"Q. Can this path of enquiry be followed by all aspirants?

 

M. This is suitable only for the very ripe souls. The rest should

follow methods according to the state of their minds till they are ready."

 

Bhagvan did not recommend nididhyasana as the first step in the

enquiry. Since bhagvan did not officially take anyone as his disciple,

it is difficult to say how he thought of putting it into practice,

however the traditional way as quoted in your post was very much a

part of the ashrama schedule.

 

....Bhagvan has further elaborated how the method works:

 

"A person begins with dissatisfaction. Not content with the world he

seeks satisfaction of desires by prayers to God; his mind is purified;

he longs to know God more than to satisfy his carnal desires. Then

God's Grace begins to manifest. God takes the form of a Guru and

appears to the devotee; teaches him the Truth; purifies the mind by

his teachings and contact; the mind gains strength, is able to turn

inward; with meditation it is purified yet further, and eventually

remains still without the least ripple."

 

The process described above is not any different from traditional

"parikshya lokAn karm chitAn, brAhmaNo nirvedmayAn" (Mandukya)

 

pranAm

[Guest guest]

Dear Friend,

 

Yes, I think we have to acknowledge Sri Ramana made both kinds of statements

at different times and to different people. He also encouraged different

people in different ways with regards their sadhana.

 

David Godman offers one view as to why this was so in "Be As You Are: The

Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi.", which is in line with Bhagavan's

response about giving 'Atma VIchara' to the villagers mentioned in previous

post. Passage from David Godman below.

 

-----------------------------

Sri Ramana's insistence that awareness of the `I'-thought was a

prerequisite for Self-realization led him to the conclusion that all

spiritual practices which did not incorporate this feature were indirect and

inefficient:

 

[Quoting Bhagavan:] "This path [attention to the `I'] is the direct

path; all others are indirect ways. The first leads to the Self, the others

elsewhere. And even if the latter do arrive at the Self it is only because

they lead at the end to the first path which ultimately carries them to the

goal. So, in the end, the aspirants must adopt the first path. Why not do so

now? Why waste time?'

 

That is to say, other techniques may sometimes bring one to an inner

state of stillness in which self-attention or self-awareness inadvertently

takes place, but it is a very roundabout way of reaching the Self. Sri

Ramana maintained that other techniques could only take one to the place

where self-enquiry starts and so he never endorsed them unless he felt that

particular questioners were unable or unwilling to adopt self-enquiry. This

is illustrated , by a conversation in Sri Ramana Gita (an early collection

of his questions and answers) in which Sri Ramana explained in detail why

self-enquiry was the only way to realize the Self. After listening carefully

to Sri Ramana's explanation the questioner was still unwilling to accept

that self-enquiry was the only route to the Self and so he asked if there

were any other methods by which the Self could be realized. Sri Ramana

replied:

"The goal is the same for the one who meditates [on an object] and the

one who practises self-enquiry. One attains stillness through meditation,

the other through knowledge. One strives to attain something; the other

seeks the one who strives to attain. The former takes a longer time, but in

the end attains the Self."

 

Not wanting to shake the faith of a man who had a known predilection

for subject-object meditation and, having already ascertained that he was

unwilling to take up self-enquiry, Sri Ramana encouraged him to follow his

own chosen method by telling him that it would enable him to reach the Self.

In Sri Ramana's view any method is better than no method since there is

always the possibility that it will lead to self-enquiry.

 

He gave many other similar replies to other people for similar reasons.

These replies, which indicate that methods other than self-enquiry or

surrender could result in Self-realization, should not be taken at face

value since they were only given to people who were not attracted to

self-enquiry and who wanted to follow their own methods. When he spoke to

other devotees who were not attached to what he called `indirect methods',

he would usually reaffirm that self-attention was ultimately indispensable.

 

Although Sri Ramana vigorously defended his views on self-enquiry he

never insisted that anyone change their beliefs or practices and, if he was

unable to convince his followers to take up self-enquiry, he would happily

give advice on other methods. In the conversations in this chapter he is

mostly answering questions from devotees who wanted advice on conventional

forms of meditation (dbyana). In giving this advice he usually defined

meditation as concentration on one thought to the exclusion of all others,

but he sometimes gave it a higher definition by saying that keeping the mind

fixed in the Self was true meditation. This latter practice is really

another name for self-enquiry, for, as he explained in one of his early

written works, `Always keeping the mind fixed in Self alone is called

self-enquiry, whereas meditation is thinking oneself to be Brahman.

 

("Be As You Are: The Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi", David Godman,

pp116-117)

----------------------

 

Regards,

 

P.

 

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin] On Behalf

Of vineetasaxena2002

18 June 2005 19:57

advaitin

Re: Brahmacharya (& Ramana Maharshi)

 

advaitin, "Peter M." <not_2@b...> quoted bhagavan:

 

"If a teaching is to be imparted according to the traditional

way, one must first see whether the recipient is qualified or not.

Then puja, japa or dhyana are prescribed step by step. Later the Guru

says that this is all only preliminary and one has to transcend all

this. Finally, the ultimate truth that "Brahman alone is real" is

revealed and to realise this, the direct path of self-enquiry is to be

taught. Why this roundabout process? Should we not state the

ultimate truth and direct path at the beginning itself rather than

advocating many methods and rejecting them in the end?"

 

....However in Upadesha Manjari (Tamil) recorded by Sri Natananandar

when pressed on this point bhagvan says:

 

"Q. Can this path of enquiry be followed by all aspirants?

 

M. This is suitable only for the very ripe souls. The rest should

follow methods according to the state of their minds till they are ready."

 

Bhagvan did not recommend nididhyasana as the first step in the

enquiry. Since bhagvan did not officially take anyone as his disciple,

it is difficult to say how he thought of putting it into practice,

however the traditional way as quoted in your post was very much a

part of the ashrama schedule. . . .

<snip>

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Peter M." <not_2@b...> wrote:

 

"Yes, I think we have to acknowledge Sri Ramana made both kinds of

statements at different times and to different people. He also

encouraged different people in different ways with regards their sadhana."

 

I would say bhagavan made only one kind of statement that it is the

self-knowledge alone that liberates. It was only at the level of

practice that he gave different advice to different people depending

upon their personal development, readiness and maturity. It is here

that the role of teacher becomes important. It is the teacher who can

judge whether the disciple is ready to take over the nididhyasana part

directly or not. In the absence of a teacher, it is tempting to

believe about ourselves that we are already at the ripe stage to

practice nididhyasana. For a ripe soul, coming directly to this step

might work. For majority, this will be through traditional

shravana-manana-nididhyasana route. Simply picking up the teaching at

the last stage would not be the path of self-enquiry, unless directed

so by a competent teacher.

 

pranAm

[Guest guest]

David Godman: "Although Sri Ramana vigorously defended his views on

self-enquiry he never insisted that anyone change their beliefs or

practices."

 

NS: Of course, he (Ramana) would never insist. Would you? Wouldn't

it be pointless to go beyond mere advocacy? Seekers tend to fall in

love with `their' practices, `their' progress,' and won't be moved.

The ego in this is obvious, and ego means `mind.' Here we have a

true seeker, who is motivated Homeward by her spiritual heart, but

her mind resists in two ways. 1. In a mistaken notion that its

primacy is at risk, and 2. that it can aid the will to Spirit by

making effort.

 

1. The mind is not in any risk. It is entirely beside the point

(i.e. Self-realization). "Abiding in the Self, one need not worry

about the mind." (Ramana)

2."NO effort is needed to remain as the Self." (Ramana) "The ever-

present Self needs no efforts to be realised; Realisation is already

there."(Ramana)

 

David Godman: (quoting Ramana) "Should we not state the ultimate

truth and direct path at the beginning itself rather than advocating

many methods and rejecting them in the end?"

 

NS: One reifies the false self by `doing.' `Doing a practice' is

just as much a `doing,' as `doing the laundry.' Doing any sadhana is

not one more way to reach the goal, nor is it merely roundabout, or

preliminary. It is counterproductive, unless you argue for the

utility of frustration in failure.

 

"Let action complete itself. So long as there is the doer he must

reap the fruits of his action. If he does not think himself the

doer there is no action for him." (Ramana)

 

But then, "If he does not think himself the doer," he would never see

any purpose in `doing practice,' would he? To come out of

all `doing' (perhaps, especially "spiritual activities") IS realizing

one's Self. `Self' is the default position. It doesn't even require

aiming at it. Cease all efforts, and you fall helplessly into It.

 

"You are always in the Self and there is no reaching it." (Ramana)

NS (Never Strives)

 

 

advaitin, "Peter M." <not_2@b...> wrote:

> Dear Friend,

>

> Yes, I think we have to acknowledge Sri Ramana made both kinds of

statements

> at different times and to different people. He also encouraged

different

> people in different ways with regards their sadhana.

>

> David Godman offers one view as to why this was so in "Be As You

Are: The

> Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi.", which is in line with Bhagavan's

> response about giving 'Atma VIchara' to the villagers mentioned in

previous

> post. Passage from David Godman below.

>

> -----------------------------

> Sri Ramana's insistence that awareness of the `I'-thought was a

> prerequisite for Self-realization led him to the conclusion that all

> spiritual practices which did not incorporate this feature were

indirect and

> inefficient:

>

> [Quoting Bhagavan:] "This path [attention to the `I'] is the

direct

> path; all others are indirect ways. The first leads to the Self,

the others

> elsewhere. And even if the latter do arrive at the Self it is only

because

> they lead at the end to the first path which ultimately carries

them to the

> goal. So, in the end, the aspirants must adopt the first path. Why

not do so

> now? Why waste time?'

>

> That is to say, other techniques may sometimes bring one to an

inner

> state of stillness in which self-attention or self-awareness

inadvertently

> takes place, but it is a very roundabout way of reaching the Self.

Sri

> Ramana maintained that other techniques could only take one to the

place

> where self-enquiry starts and so he never endorsed them unless he

felt that

> particular questioners were unable or unwilling to adopt self-

enquiry. This

> is illustrated , by a conversation in Sri Ramana Gita (an early

collection

> of his questions and answers) in which Sri Ramana explained in

detail why

> self-enquiry was the only way to realize the Self. After listening

carefully

> to Sri Ramana's explanation the questioner was still unwilling to

accept

> that self-enquiry was the only route to the Self and so he asked if

there

> were any other methods by which the Self could be realized. Sri

Ramana

> replied:

> "The goal is the same for the one who meditates [on an

object] and the

> one who practises self-enquiry. One attains stillness through

meditation,

> the other through knowledge. One strives to attain something; the

other

> seeks the one who strives to attain. The former takes a longer

time, but in

> the end attains the Self."

>

> Not wanting to shake the faith of a man who had a known

predilection

> for subject-object meditation and, having already ascertained that

he was

> unwilling to take up self-enquiry, Sri Ramana encouraged him to

follow his

> own chosen method by telling him that it would enable him to reach

the Self.

> In Sri Ramana's view any method is better than no method since

there is

> always the possibility that it will lead to self-enquiry.

>

> He gave many other similar replies to other people for similar

reasons.

> These replies, which indicate that methods other than self-enquiry

or

> surrender could result in Self-realization, should not be taken at

face

> value since they were only given to people who were not attracted to

> self-enquiry and who wanted to follow their own methods. When he

spoke to

> other devotees who were not attached to what he called `indirect

methods',

> he would usually reaffirm that self-attention was ultimately

indispensable.

>

> Although Sri Ramana vigorously defended his views on self-

enquiry he

> never insisted that anyone change their beliefs or practices and,

if he was

> unable to convince his followers to take up self-enquiry, he would

happily

> give advice on other methods. In the conversations in this chapter

he is

> mostly answering questions from devotees who wanted advice on

conventional

> forms of meditation (dbyana). In giving this advice he usually

defined

> meditation as concentration on one thought to the exclusion of all

others,

> but he sometimes gave it a higher definition by saying that keeping

the mind

> fixed in the Self was true meditation. This latter practice is

really

> another name for self-enquiry, for, as he explained in one of his

early

> written works, `Always keeping the mind fixed in Self alone is

called

> self-enquiry, whereas meditation is thinking oneself to be Brahman.

>

> ("Be As You Are: The Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi", David

Godman,

> pp116-117)

> ----------------------

>

> Regards,

>

> P.

>

>

>

>

> advaitin [advaitin] On

Behalf

> Of vineetasaxena2002

> 18 June 2005 19:57

> advaitin

> Re: Brahmacharya (& Ramana Maharshi)

>

> advaitin, "Peter M." <not_2@b...> quoted

bhagavan:

>

> "If a teaching is to be imparted according to the traditional

> way, one must first see whether the recipient is qualified or not.

> Then puja, japa or dhyana are prescribed step by step. Later the

Guru

> says that this is all only preliminary and one has to transcend all

> this. Finally, the ultimate truth that "Brahman alone is real" is

> revealed and to realise this, the direct path of self-enquiry is to

be

> taught. Why this roundabout process? Should we not state the

> ultimate truth and direct path at the beginning itself rather than

> advocating many methods and rejecting them in the end?"

>

> ...However in Upadesha Manjari (Tamil) recorded by Sri Natananandar

> when pressed on this point bhagvan says:

>

> "Q. Can this path of enquiry be followed by all aspirants?

>

> M. This is suitable only for the very ripe souls. The rest should

> follow methods according to the state of their minds till they are

ready."

>

> Bhagvan did not recommend nididhyasana as the first step in the

> enquiry. Since bhagvan did not officially take anyone as his

disciple,

> it is difficult to say how he thought of putting it into practice,

> however the traditional way as quoted in your post was very much a

> part of the ashrama schedule. . . .

> <snip>

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "nonsums" <nonsums> wrote:

>

> David Godman: "Although Sri Ramana vigorously defended his views on

> self-enquiry he never insisted that anyone change their beliefs or

> practices."

>

 

Namaste,

 

Ramana said that ajata vada was the ultimate truth, or nothing has

happened at all. However he did qualify by mentioning the maturity of

people's mind, in understanding.

 

The 'Big I' is the Sakti, and as Jesus said the only way to the Father

is through me, speaking as the Son or Sakti. This is why Ramana

emphasises this.............ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

Some valuable thoughts.

 

Thanks.

 

Peter

 

 

advaitin [advaitin] On Behalf

Of vineetasaxena2002

19 June 2005 14:43

advaitin

Re: Brahmacharya (& Ramana Maharshi)

 

advaitin, "Peter M." <not_2@b...> wrote:

 

"Yes, I think we have to acknowledge Sri Ramana made both kinds of

statements at different times and to different people. He also

encouraged different people in different ways with regards their sadhana."

 

I would say bhagavan made only one kind of statement that it is the

self-knowledge alone that liberates. It was only at the level of

practice that he gave different advice to different people depending

upon their personal development, readiness and maturity. <snip>

[Guest guest]

Hi Tony,

I'm sorry to trouble you, but I'm unfamiliar with the term, "agata

vata"? Since this term is "the ultimate truth," you can easily

understand my keen desire for translation. ;-) I looked up "ajata,"

but one of the possible definitions was, "a herd of goats." With that

insightful clue, I went on to find "vata." One of the possible, of a

great many, definitions offered was, "flatulence." Am I to understand

that the "Ultimate Truth according to Ramana" has something to do with

the 'flatulence from a herd of goats'? Hey, is this Advaita stuff

mysterious or what! :-)

 

Tom: The 'Big I' is the Sakti

 

NS: As in 'serpent energy,' a la Kundalini? Or, "sakti" = "addiction

to worldly objects." Care to elaborate?

Appreciatively,

NS

 

P.S. "ONS"?

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri NS:

 

I believe that Tony is referring to ajAti vAda. The notion that mAyA

has no reality in itself, and that brahman is the only real, allows the

sRshTi-dRshTi vAdin to "graduate", so to speak, to ajAtivAda, the view

that no creation really occured ever. The list had earlier discussion

on this topic and you may be able to get them in list arhives.

 

Sometimes when Westerners (or those who are not familiar with Sanskrit

terms) refers to Vedantic concepts, they have potentials for errors

which can lead to misleading interpretations.

 

When someone is not able to understand a terminology, they should

request for help instead of using their own imagination and create

meaningless and misleading interpretations.

 

Thanks in advance for your cooperation and understanding,

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "nonsums" <nonsums> wrote:

> Hi Tony,

> I'm sorry to trouble you, but I'm unfamiliar with the term, "agata

> vata"? Since this term is "the ultimate truth," you can easily

> understand my keen desire for translation. ;-) I looked

[Guest guest]

Good morning Sri Ram Chandran,

Thank you, for troubling to explain Tony's Sanskrit terminology to

this sorry 'Sanskrit challenged' sod. I'm sure I'll require future

tutelage since the Sanskrit dictionary tends to be too comprehensive

(as per my (purposely) amusing example).

 

Ram: When someone is not able to understand a terminology, they

should request for help instead of using their own imagination and

create meaningless and misleading interpretations.

 

NS: I can assure you that I was Not "imagining, or creating,

meaningless interpretations." I was actually quoting from

the 'Cologne Digital Sanskrit Dictionary.' I seriously doubt that

any were in danger of being "misled," by my pitifully poor selection

of definitions. My intent was to 'rightly' lead readers into humor,

by making my linguistic ineptitude obvious and laughable. It is my

belief that the closest 'a jiva' can come to transcendence within

this world is via the device of humor.

 

If I may return the translative favor: the name 'Non Sum' means 'I am

not,' 'I am nothing' or 'I am no one.' Placing a respectful "Sri"

(Lord) before this empty name for an empty jiva, would IMO be either

inappropriate, or humorous as well. We can only hope that no one is

misled into believing me to be real by the name: 'Lord Nothing.' ;-)

 

Again, Thank you Ram, and best wishes that jivan you too are Non Sum.

Namaste, Lord Nobody