No Mind I Am The Self #2

[Guest guest]

The Guru.. continued from post #1

 

Before elaborating on this rather contentious theme it will be instructive to

read a brief exchange which took place between Ramana Maharshi and Yogi Ramaiah,

one of the most respected devotees. The conversation took place in the late

1940s.

 

Question: Some devotees of {Shirdi} Sai Baba* worship a picture of him an say

that it is their Guru. How could that be? They can worship it as God, but what

benefit could they get by worshipping it as their Guru?

Ramana Maharshi: They secure concentration by that....

Question: How can a lifeless picture help in developing deep concentration? It

requires a living Guru who could show it in practice. It is possible for

Bhagavan to attain perfection without a living Guru, but is it possible for

people like myself?

Ramana Maharshi: That is true. Even so by worshipping a lifeless portrait, the

mind gets concentrated to a certain extent. That concentration will not remain

constant unless one knows one's own Self by enquiring. For that enquiry, a

Guru's help is necessary.

* A Guru who died in 1918

 

Sri Ramana's second answer contains three interesting points:

1) Devotion to an image of a dead Guru is good for concentrating the mind, but

no more.

2) To know the Self, self-enquiry is required.

3) A Guru's help is required to do self-enquiry properly. Since Sri Ramana has

already stated in both answers that devotion to a dead Guru is only good for

enhancing one's ability to concentrate, one must assume that when he says "a

Guru's help is necessary" he means a living Guru. This inference is

substantiated by another part of the answer. When Yogi Ramaiah says, "It

requires a living Guru who could show it in practice". Sri Ramana replies "That

is true".

 

Sri Lakshmana endorses all of these three points and frequently mentions them in

his talks. Of the three items, he attaches most importance to the necessity of

having a living Guru. He talks about this so frequently that it is legitimate to

regard it as the central idea of his teachings.

Many of his questioners challenge his assertion that dead Gurus cannot bring

one to a realization of the Self. Because of this it will be helpful to explain

the reasoning behind his statements. The Guru, according to Sri Lakshmana, is

not a person, he is the impersonal Self; he is the power of the Self manifesting

through a human body, not the body itself of anything in it. While that body is

alive the grace of the Self is channeled through it to devotees. When the body

dies the Self can no longer use it to transmit grace. After death the Guru

remains as he always was, that is, the unmanifest and formless Self. Because the

Guru has no form after the death of the physical body, it is not then possible

for a devotee to get his grace by concentrating on a picture or mental image of

him. This is because the 'him' no longer exists. As Sri Raman says, such

practices are only good for concentration.

If one concentrate on, and has devotion towards, a dead Guru, then grace will

come from the unmanifest Self and not from the form of the Guru. Sri Lakshmana

says that this grace can take one to the effortless thought-free state, but it

cannot pull the mind into the Self and destroy it. He maintains that only the

living Guru can do this.

Some people would argue that the Guru {by which they usually mean his form

and the knowledge and power he has} still exists in some way after his death,

and that it is therefore possible for him to transmit grace to devotees who are

still alive. Sri Lakshmana denies that this is possible. He says that it is the

mind or the "I-thought that takes on a new form after death, and that if the "I"

thought has ceased to exist prior to physical death (as in the case in

Self-realized Gurus), then the Guru cannot assume any new form, or continue to

exist in any perceptible or contactable way, once the body had died. At the

moment of the Guru's physical death any form, power, knowledge and memories that

he might appear to have had during his life all cease to exist.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

These are interesting posts and I probably shouldn't engage in this discussion

because

they are endless. No matter what point of view one takes there are always

quotes

and

scriptural references to back it up. None the less.....

 

Before elaborating on this rather contentious theme it will be instructive to

read a

brief exchange which took place between Ramana Maharshi and Yogi Ramaiah, one of

the

most respected devotees. The conversation took place in the late 1940s.

 

Question: Some devotees of {Shirdi} Sai Baba* worship a picture of him an say

that

it is their Guru. How could that be? They can worship it as God, but what

benefit

could they get by worshipping it as their Guru?

Ramana Maharshi: They secure concentration by that....

Question: How can a lifeless picture help in developing deep concentration? It

requires a living Guru who could show it in practice. It is possible for

Bhagavan to

attain perfection without a living Guru, but is it possible for people like

myself?

Ramana Maharshi: That is true. Even so by worshipping a lifeless portrait, the

mind

gets concentrated to a certain extent. That concentration will not remain

constant

unless one knows one's own Self by enquiring. For that enquiry, a Guru's help is

necessary.

Sri Ramana's second answer contains three interesting points:

1) Devotion to an image of a dead Guru is good for concentrating the mind, but

no

more.

2) To know the Self, self-enquiry is required.

3) A Guru's help is required to do self-enquiry properly. Since Sri Ramana has

already stated in both answers that devotion to a dead Guru is only good for

enhancing one's ability to concentrate, one must assume that when he says "a

Guru's

help is necessary" he means a living Guru. This inference is substantiated by

another part of the answer. When Yogi Ramaiah says, "It requires a living Guru

who

could show it in practice". Sri Ramana replies "That is true".

 

Your comments and quotes still come from the point of view of embodied existence

and

the idea that Bhagavan "was"

a "guy in a body that died." Your premise is wrong so you interpret this quote

incorrectly. To practice Bhagavan's teaching you don't devote yourself to an

image

of Bhagavan, you practice inquiry and discover that the "I" that he

was, still is. You can never explain this or discuss it into existence, only

practice will validate it and any devotee who

truly studies Bhagavan's teaching and practices inquiry can attest to this fact.

Bhagavan isn't a dead guru. He was animated in the body of Ramana Maharshi for

a

time for the blessing of devotees

and now he is present in bodiless form.

 

Sri Lakshmana endorses all of these three points and frequently mentions them in

his

talks. Of the three items, he attaches most importance to the necessity of

having a

living Guru. He talks about this so frequently that it is legitimate to regard

it as

the central idea of his teachings.

Many of his questioners challenge his assertion that dead Gurus cannot bring

one

to a realization of the Self. Because of this it will be helpful to explain the

reasoning behind his statements. The Guru, according to Sri Lakshmana, is not a

person, he is the impersonal Self; he is the power of the Self manifesting

through a

human body, not the body itself of anything in it. While that body is alive the

grace of the Self is channeled through it to devotees. When the body dies the

Self

can no longer use it to transmit grace. After death the Guru remains as he

always

was, that is, the unmanifest and formless Self. Because the Guru has no form

after

the death of the physical body, it is not then possible for a devotee to get his

grace by concentrating on a picture or mental image of him. This is because the

'him' no longer exists. As Sri Raman says, such practices are only good for

concentration.

 

Once again, the body of the guru isn't the guru and Bhagavan told no one to

worship

a photo of him. Grace isn't dependent on embodyment and neither is the "I".

This

is still a body based comment that is actually quite irrelevant.

 

If one concentrate on, and has devotion towards, a dead Guru, then grace will

come

from the unmanifest Self and not from the form of the Guru. Sri Lakshmana says

that

this grace can take one to the effortless thought-free state, but it cannot pull

the

mind into the Self and destroy it. He maintains that only the living Guru can do

this.

Some people would argue that the Guru {by which they usually mean his form

and

the knowledge and power he has} still exists in some way after his death, and

that

it is therefore possible for him to transmit grace to devotees who are still

alive.

Sri Lakshmana denies that this is possible. He says that it is the mind or the

"I-thought that takes on a new form after death, and that if the "I" thought has

ceased to exist prior to physical death (as in the case in Self-realized Gurus),

then the Guru cannot assume any new form, or continue to exist in any

perceptible or

contactable way, once the body had died. At the moment of the Guru's physical

death

any form, power, knowledge and memories that he might appear to have had during

his

life all cease to exist.

 

The idea that the Guru cannot continue to exist in any way after the death of

the

physical form is nonsense. The Guru

was never the physical form in the first place. Regarding the guru's power,

since

it was never from his physical form, it

doesn't cease to exist. Bhagavan realized the state that ALREADY IS. As he

clearly

stated, he didn't bring anything new,

he simply uncovered the illusion covering what is always already the case. To

paraphrase Gautama Buddha just after his enlightenment, "Behold, wonder of

wonders,

all beings are already enlightened."

 

Mark