intro

January 5, 2006

Greetings. I just signed up for this e-mail group a few days ago, and I

thought it would be polite to say hello and give a little introduction.

I started studying Ramana Maharshi's teachings via the various books

about 13 years ago, in my spare time in college. As I recall, I failed

my chemistry 102 lab because I stopped caring what the results of a

reaction were, and just wanted to know if the stuff everything was made

of was real or not. (I'm still not sure.) Anyway, extracurricular

studies focused on Ramana's teachings and Vasistha's Yoga. Shortly

after I graduated, I decided that I wanted to be a hermit, so I packed

my few things and set out to drive about 2000 miles to Washington State,

where I wanted to find some hidden place to live on the Olympic

Peninsula.

On the way, I realized it would take a little more preparation as I

could see that my knowledge of wild edibles was becoming relatively

useless as I traveled. I got situated in a place in Olympia, and the

first day found a copy of Bhagavad-gita As It Is (by Srila Prabhupada of

the Hare Krishna movement), and bought it. After a week of studying

that, Krishna caught hold of my mind, and so I went out in search of the

Hare Krishnas instead of a cave in the forest.

Until a few months ago, I was with the Hare Krishnas for ten years. (I

didn't become a hermit. I'm happily married and have three kids, soon

to be four.) Then this summer I confronted some ethical contradictions

that I could not tolerate, and I left. It was quite traumatic,

emotionally, and I turned again to Vasistha's Yoga and Ramana Maharshi's

teachings to help me to shed the ideological cage that bound me.

A significant point with this is that it wasn't the philosophy that

turned me away from the Hare Krishnas, but yet I also like Ramana

Maharshi's teachings. On the surface they seem quite different; but

somewhat deeper, the difference seems to be more of a style of

expression. Yet the Hare Krishna teachings, at least in ISKCON, say

that the teachings of sages like Ramana Maharshi are only good for

bewildering the spiritual aspirants and sending them to hell. It's not

hard to see, however, that the average ISKCON devotee has an incredibly

elementary understanding of Ramana's teachings, which they call

"mayavadi," but I doubt that the past Vaishnava acaryas had that

deficiency.

Presently I'm about halfway through the 'Talks with Ramana' three-part

series, and I'm finding it very nice to read, but I've also seen that

his portrayal of Bhakti Yoga is sometimes not what the Vaishnava acaryas

have taught. So I have some questions. I haven't been taking notes,

although that would probably be a good idea.

One thing that comes to mind is the Brahman conception portrayed by the

different groups. According to Srila Prabhupada's translation and

purports of Bhagavad-gita, Brahman is subordinate to Krishna. It is His

bodily effulgence, and we, the innumerable jiva souls are spiritual

sparks of this effulgence. The teaching says that we are of the same

quality, but opposite in quantity. In other words, He is infinite but

we are infinitesimal. According to that perspective, it is true when

Ramana says that our nature is of eternal knowledge and bliss, but the

difference is that according to the Vaishnava teaching our capacity for

bliss, for instance, is infinitesimal as long as we are not dovetailed

in devotional service to Krishna. They say the practical result of that

is that Brahman realization is not satisfying unless it is coupled with

devotional service, and so one who attains Brahman realization would

again take to material activities because of the natural desire for some

kind of activity and association.

I want to make it clear that I'm not coming into this in any

confrontational or preaching way. My personal feeling is that there is

a meeting point of these perspectives, and I want to understand it. I

think that being a part of this group can be of much help, as I've had

several questions arise as I've been reading Ramana's teachings. I hope

that I may also be of service to you.

Sincerely,

Pandu das

or Paul, as you prefer.

January 7, 2006

Dear Pandu,

Welcome!

Just one comment: Ramana's view of Brahman, and the view of Advaita

Vendanta is that there is only One, and you are That.

This is the BIG a view of Brahman, and one that is consistant with

the vedas, and the Mahavakyas (as well as the Upanishads and the

Gita):

Sanskrit: English:

1. Brahma satyam jagan mithya Brahman is real; the world is unreal

2. Ekam evadvitiyam brahma Brahman is one, without a second

3. Prajnanam brahman Brahman is the supreme knowledge

4. Tat tvam asi That is what you are (Thou are That)

5. Ayam atma brahma Atman and brahman are the same

6. Aham brahmasmi I am brahman

7. Sarvam khalvidam brahma All of this is brahman

Again, welcome. I hope this group can contribute to your spiritual

deepening.

Not two,

Richard

RamanaMaharshi, Pandu das <Pandu108.bms@g...>

wrote:

>

> Greetings. I just signed up for this e-mail group a few days ago,

and I

> thought it would be polite to say hello and give a little

introduction.

January 7, 2006

Dear Richard,

Thanks for the welcome. I'm very pleased to be here. I do find

Ramana's teachings very comforting and natural, and it's quite nice to

have others with whom I can discuss them.

One curious thing I feel about the word "Brahman" is that sometimes the

word seems like a noun and sometimes like an adjective. In other words,

to say we are one can mean that we are one in identity or one in

quality. The Vaishnavas say one in quality, that we are distinct

spiritual persons, but those who proclaim that Vedanta is Advaita would

say that there is no we at all, that all is one Self. The fact that it

is a topic of discussion obviously favors the former understanding (as

it implies duality), except for the fact that I sometimes speak to

myself in my mind.

Put another way, if I am a molecule of water, I can say, "I am water,"

but it does not necessarily mean that I am the whole ocean or all the

water that exists. Or putting it mathematically, if I am the space on

the number line from 1 to 2, I am infinite (within my boundaries);

however my infinity is an infinitesimal subset of the infinity that is

all numbers whatsoever. Or maybe it's just that the question is absurd,

like wondering whether there are twice as many numbers divisible by two

as there are divisible by four, when both sets are infinite. How much

does it matter that x/4 lacks 2,6,10, etc.?

Also, you mentioned the Gita, Bhagavad-gita, I presume, and that led me

to an interesting personal discovery tonight. As I had learned it, in

B.g. 13.13, Krishna said that Brahman is beginningless and subordinate

to Him ("anadi mat-param brahma"), which, as Srila Prabhupada explained

elsewhere, indicates that that the impersonal Brahman is His bodily

effulgence. What he does say in the purport to this verse is that "the

description of Brahman mentioned in this verse is in relation to the

individual soul, and when the word Brahman is applied to the living

entity , it is to be understood taht he is vijnana-brahma as opposed to

ananda-brahma. Ananda-brahma is the Supreme Brahman Personality of

Godhead."

Sometimes when I want to double-check translations, I use those given by

Winthrop Sargeant, who also makes a very scholarly presentation of

Bhagavad-gita. In his translation, which he listed as 13.12 (the first

verse of the chapter not numbered), he writes it, "the beginningless

supreme Brahman." Actually the difference is in the Devanagari script

itself, as in his version the words are grouped as "anadimat param

brahma." Of course the verses were originally spoken, not written, and

I do not know nearly enough Sanskrit to say whether the "mat" is

properly grouped after "anadi" or before "param." Yet it is of immense

importance in that it distinguishes whether the living entities are

equal to God or subordinate to Him. Clearly in the phenomenal world we

are subordinate, but I am presently unable to discern, without resting

on some outside authority, whether that hierarchy exists outside of

material nature.

Undoubtedly Ramana would advise to find out who has the doubt, which

would lead to the doubter and the doubt ultimately vanishing together.

However it would seem a better solution that the doubt be resolved

leaving one with certainty, able to proceed from there. For if I do not

find certainty while conscious in this body, then it seems that the

disappearance of doubt and doubter would be no better than what occurs

in sleep, with both arising again at a later time.

Speaking of sleep, it calls.

Sincerely,

Pandu das

RamanaMaharshi

[RamanaMaharshi] On Behalf Of Richard Clarke

Saturday, January 07, 2006 11:52 AM

RamanaMaharshi

[RamanaMaharshi] Re: intro

Dear Pandu,

Welcome!

Just one comment: Ramana's view of Brahman, and the view of Advaita

Vendanta is that there is only One, and you are That.

This is the BIG a view of Brahman, and one that is consistant with

the vedas, and the Mahavakyas (as well as the Upanishads and the

Gita):

Sanskrit: English:

1. Brahma satyam jagan mithya Brahman is real; the world is unreal

2. Ekam evadvitiyam brahma Brahman is one, without a second

3. Prajnanam brahman Brahman is the supreme knowledge

4. Tat tvam asi That is what you are (Thou are That)

5. Ayam atma brahma Atman and brahman are the same

6. Aham brahmasmi I am brahman

7. Sarvam khalvidam brahma All of this is brahman

Again, welcome. I hope this group can contribute to your spiritual

deepening.

Not two,

Richard

RamanaMaharshi, Pandu das <Pandu108.bms@g...>

wrote:

>

> Greetings. I just signed up for this e-mail group a few days ago,

and I

> thought it would be polite to say hello and give a little

introduction.

Religion

</gads?t=ms&k=Religion+and+spirituality&w1=Religi

on+and+spirituality&w2=Ramana+maharshi&c=2&s=52&.sig=rtlFzYIesn1W1Y-8Lu6

puA> and spirituality

Ramana

</gads?t=ms&k=Ramana+maharshi&w1=Religion+and+spi

rituality&w2=Ramana+maharshi&c=2&s=52&.sig=nYv8FTa_UKL2pGJmm-ZmYQ>

maharshi

_____

* Visit your group "RamanaMaharshi

<RamanaMaharshi> " on the web.

*

RamanaMaharshi

<RamanaMaharshi?subject=Un>

* Terms of

<> Service.

_____

January 8, 2006

Dear Pandu das,

I also am new to this group and have been intrigued by your entries.

Primarily, I can hear the sound of one who is open and inquiring and

I am very happy to welcome that!

I don't know if this will help, in the discussion of "Brahman," but

let's see.

We can speak of the waves of the ocean, but we cannot speak of the

ocean of the waves. But most importantly, the ocean at all points is

water, the same throughout. When the wave crashes and [infinitesimal]

droplets of water spray into the air, they are nevertheless as fully

water as the ocean. We are not speaking of size, but essence. And we

can never explain what water is by trying to describe the droplets in

terms of size, shape, etc. These attributes are aspects of the

appearance, but not the essence. The droplets are 100% water before

they emerge from the ocean, during their lifetime as droplets

(seeming to be separate) and after they re-merge back into the ocean.

And so it is with everyTHING - like US! as individual persons. What

we are is Brahman, seemingly as separate little pieces of the whole,

but in our deepest essence - that which is not changed by the

appearance - we remain ever the same. There is never actually any

separation between Atman and Brahman. The part IS the whole!

I'm afraid I have not studied and do not know the terminology of

Vaishnava philosophy to put it in such terms, or maybe it would not

be possible, since the viewpoint might be somewhat different.

Having said all the above, my sense (from my own experience) is that

all viewpoints, even seemingly absolute and final viewpoints, will

still have a hole somewhere that someone else will notice and be able

to use to seemingly discount the entire viewpoint. I offer the above

only as an aid to further insight of the Advaita viewpoint. However,

my own strongest connection to Ramana is his simple master

question "Who am I?" - and even deeper, his Silence. After all my

study of Advaita, as beautiful as I do find it, this Silence,

seemingly brought about by this question, is the fulfillment of

Advaita.

blessings -

Martin

RamanaMaharshi, Pandu das <Pandu108.bms@g...>

wrote:

>

> Dear Richard,

>

> Thanks for the welcome. I'm very pleased to be here. I do find

> Ramana's teachings very comforting and natural, and it's quite nice

to

> have others with whom I can discuss them.

>

> One curious thing I feel about the word "Brahman" is that sometimes

the

> word seems like a noun and sometimes like an adjective. In other

words,

> to say we are one can mean that we are one in identity or one in

> quality. The Vaishnavas say one in quality, that we are distinct

> spiritual persons, but those who proclaim that Vedanta is Advaita

would

> say that there is no we at all, that all is one Self. The fact

that it

> is a topic of discussion obviously favors the former understanding

(as

> it implies duality), except for the fact that I sometimes speak to

> myself in my mind.

>

> Put another way, if I am a molecule of water, I can say, "I am

water,"

> but it does not necessarily mean that I am the whole ocean or all

the

> water that exists. Or putting it mathematically, if I am the space

on

> the number line from 1 to 2, I am infinite (within my boundaries);

> however my infinity is an infinitesimal subset of the infinity that

is

> all numbers whatsoever. Or maybe it's just that the question is

absurd,

> like wondering whether there are twice as many numbers divisible by

two

> as there are divisible by four, when both sets are infinite. How

much

> does it matter that x/4 lacks 2,6,10, etc.?

>

> Also, you mentioned the Gita, Bhagavad-gita, I presume, and that

led me

> to an interesting personal discovery tonight. As I had learned it,

in

> B.g. 13.13, Krishna said that Brahman is beginningless and

subordinate

> to Him ("anadi mat-param brahma"), which, as Srila Prabhupada

explained

> elsewhere, indicates that that the impersonal Brahman is His bodily

> effulgence. What he does say in the purport to this verse is

that "the

> description of Brahman mentioned in this verse is in relation to the

> individual soul, and when the word Brahman is applied to the living

> entity , it is to be understood taht he is vijnana-brahma as

opposed to

> ananda-brahma. Ananda-brahma is the Supreme Brahman Personality of

> Godhead."

>

> Sometimes when I want to double-check translations, I use those

given by

> Winthrop Sargeant, who also makes a very scholarly presentation of

> Bhagavad-gita. In his translation, which he listed as 13.12 (the

first

> verse of the chapter not numbered), he writes it, "the beginningless

> supreme Brahman." Actually the difference is in the Devanagari

script

> itself, as in his version the words are grouped as "anadimat param

> brahma." Of course the verses were originally spoken, not written,

and

> I do not know nearly enough Sanskrit to say whether the "mat" is

> properly grouped after "anadi" or before "param." Yet it is of

immense

> importance in that it distinguishes whether the living entities are

> equal to God or subordinate to Him. Clearly in the phenomenal

world we

> are subordinate, but I am presently unable to discern, without

resting

> on some outside authority, whether that hierarchy exists outside of

> material nature.

>

> Undoubtedly Ramana would advise to find out who has the doubt, which

> would lead to the doubter and the doubt ultimately vanishing

together.

> However it would seem a better solution that the doubt be resolved

> leaving one with certainty, able to proceed from there. For if I

do not

> find certainty while conscious in this body, then it seems that the

> disappearance of doubt and doubter would be no better than what

occurs

> in sleep, with both arising again at a later time.

>

> Speaking of sleep, it calls.

>

> Sincerely,

>

> Pandu das

>

> RamanaMaharshi

> [RamanaMaharshi] On Behalf Of Richard Clarke

> Saturday, January 07, 2006 11:52 AM

> RamanaMaharshi

> [RamanaMaharshi] Re: intro

>

> Dear Pandu,

>

> Welcome!

>

> Just one comment: Ramana's view of Brahman, and the view of Advaita

> Vendanta is that there is only One, and you are That.

>

> This is the BIG a view of Brahman, and one that is consistant with

> the vedas, and the Mahavakyas (as well as the Upanishads and the

> Gita):

>

> Sanskrit: English:

> 1. Brahma satyam jagan mithya Brahman is real; the world is unreal

> 2. Ekam evadvitiyam brahma Brahman is one, without a second

> 3. Prajnanam brahman Brahman is the supreme knowledge

> 4. Tat tvam asi That is what you are (Thou are That)

> 5. Ayam atma brahma Atman and brahman are the same

> 6. Aham brahmasmi I am brahman

> 7. Sarvam khalvidam brahma All of this is brahman

>

> Again, welcome. I hope this group can contribute to your spiritual

> deepening.

>

> Not two,

> Richard

>

> RamanaMaharshi, Pandu das

<Pandu108.bms@g...>

> wrote:

> >

> > Greetings. I just signed up for this e-mail group a few days

ago,

> and I

> > thought it would be polite to say hello and give a little

> introduction.

>

> Religion

> </gads?

t=ms&k=Religion+and+spirituality&w1=Religi

> on+and+spirituality&w2=Ramana+maharshi&c=2&s=52&.sig=rtlFzYIesn1W1Y-

8Lu6

> puA> and spirituality

>

> Ramana

> </gads?

t=ms&k=Ramana+maharshi&w1=Religion+and+spi

> rituality&w2=Ramana+maharshi&c=2&s=52&.sig=nYv8FTa_UKL2pGJmm-ZmYQ>

> maharshi

>

> _____

>

> * Visit your group "RamanaMaharshi

> <RamanaMaharshi> " on the web.

>

> *

> RamanaMaharshi

> <RamanaMaharshi?

subject=Un>

>

> * Terms of

> <> Service.

>

> _____

>

January 8, 2006

Dear pandu das,

When we start believing gurus words and follow his advice,then these

intellectual doubts stand nowhere is it not?On the other hand,all

understanding and interpretation of the scriptures if helps in realising

oneself is definitely an aid.So bothway it is okay.

vijay

RamanaMaharshi

[RamanaMaharshi]On Behalf Of Pandu das

Saturday, January 07, 2006 11:27 PM

RamanaMaharshi

RE: [RamanaMaharshi] Re: intro