Guest guest Posted April 21, 2006 Report Share Posted April 21, 2006 Scroll down to read the critique. n a message dated 4/20/2006 6:39:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time, adithya_comming writes: Question: Why does not Bhagavan go about and preach the truth to the people at large? Sri Ramana Maharshi: How do you know I am not doing it? Does preaching consist in mounting a platform and haranguing the people around? Preaching is simple communication of knowledge; it can really be done in silence only. What do you think of a man who listens to a sermon for an hour and goes away without having been impressed by it so as to change his life? Compare him with another, who sits in a holy presence and goes away after some time with his outlook on life totally changed. Which is the better, to preach loudly without effect or to sit silently sending out inner force? Again, how does speech arise? First there is abstract knowledge. Out of this arises the ego, which in turn gives rise to thought, and thought to the spoken word. So the word is the great grandson of the original source. If the word can produce an effect, judge for yourself how much more powerful must be the preaching through silence. L.E: Somehow, I do not savor the act of taking issue with a great teacher and person of knowledge, partly because of the negative response from those who love and respect the teacher like Krishnamurti. Of course this statement is immediately doubted and I’m accused of enjoying and savoring this process. He is lying they will say. The followers will always find the critic wrong is one way or another. Question: Why does not Bhagavan go about and preach the truth to the people at large? L.E: Some answers are immediately not acceptable, so here is the first division. Bhagavan did not go out to preach the truth to the people at large because he was afraid of crowds. Or, because he didn't like the fact that Indians show little respect for teachers and sit there and eat, chew beetle nut, and talk to their friends. Or, because the crowds would not turn off their radios and cell phones while he was talking. Oh no! You can't say that, that's not possible! In other words no negative reason can be given to followers because they will not accept it. Sri Ramana Maharshi (SRI): How do you know I am not doing it? Does preaching consist in mounting a platform and haranguing the people around? L.E: How do you know he is not doing it, I.e. preaching the truth to people? Notice, he didn’t how do you know I have never done it, but ‘How do you know I am not doing it? That means in the present, he is implying that he is doing something you are not aware of. So, how do you know? Well how do you know I am not bringing world peace right now? Or how do you know that my soul is on Mars exploring the planet? Actually, he cleverly asked his followers or whoever was there to answer a question they could not answer. You could say, because you are sitting here and not out in crowd talking to people, but who would have the nerve to say that? Then he asks, " does preaching consist in mounting a platform and haranguing the people around? Any simple fool could have said, yes, that is how preaching is usually done, but why call talking in public " haranguing? " Which is an immediate put-down of those who do speak in public. Do they all ‘harange? " Of course who will speak up and make this statement and ask this question? Nobody, especially followers who sit with eyes and mouth hanging open. SRM: Preaching is simple communication of knowledge; it can really be done in silence only. L.E: Does this statement seem true and accurate to you? We have all heard many preachers, talking, praying, explaining etc. In what way is preaching in general simple communication? Perhaps he means his preaching is simple communication but I doubt it. He is again criticizing all who teacher through preaching or public lectures. Now he defines " real preaching. " as done in silence. In saying that, he dismisses all the teachers and preachers who talk and explain things using words, and advocates silence as the only method to communicate simple knowledge or any higher principles or truth. So there he sits after talking, and saying silence is the only preaching and then perhaps, everybody sits together in silence, and he calls that " preaching. " Strange use of language. SRM: What do you think of a man who listens to a sermon for an hour and goes away without having been impressed by it so as to change his life? L.E: Now he continues to talk, which by his own definition is not preaching and what it is we cannot say. So the man listens and goes away unimpressed and doesn’t change. Maybe he is a stubborn man with fixed stubborn ideas or maybe the teacher/preacher is incompetent as some are, so he doesn’t change his life. So what? We have many experiences that don’t change our lives. SRM: Compare him with another, who sits in a holy presence and goes away after some time with his outlook on life totally changed. L.E: We are comparing a talking teacher/preacher with a non-talking teacher. Of course we can’t call the talking teacher a preacher because SRM says a real preacher doesn’t talk. In this case the silent preacher has a holy presence and the man is totally changed. But how about the other hundred people who are sitting in the room with the silent teacher with his holy presence and are not totally changed or not changed at all. Are we to assume that every person who sit in the silent holy presence is changed? Very unlikely. SRM: Which is the better, to preach loudly without effect or to sit silently sending out inner force? L.E: This is really an outrageously false argument. How about preaching loudly and convincingly WITH effect? There are teacher or preachers who talk who change some people. And there are those preachers who sit silently and send out inner force and change no one. And you may wonder if you are one of those sitting silently if there really is an inner force in the silent preacher or he is a lying fraud. SRM: Again, how does speech arise? L.E: Now we go on to another topic. How does speech arise? SRM: First there is abstract knowledge. Out of this arises the ego, which in turn gives rise to thought, and thought to the spoken word. So the word is the great grandson of the original source. L.E: Perhaps the word is the great grandson of the original source, but what is the original source? He says " abstract knowledge. Not true. The original source is the Absolute or Eternal or Infinite Life Awareness, but lets keep it simple. Life doesn’t work the way he describes, and to me, what he describes is ignorant and makes no sense. You read what he said, that the ego rises out of " abstract knowledge. " The way it seems to me is that the body carries the skull and spine, and inside the skull is the brain. It is the nerves in the brain that give rise to the mind, and an aspect of the mind is the ego or sense of self, and that’s it. In this view, the great grandson is the brain, not abstract knowledge. SMR: He says, if the word can produce an effect, judge for yourself how much more powerful must be the preaching through silence. L.E: Here at the end, he tries to bring it all together, but does he? Yes, a word or words can produce an effect as through ordinary preaching which he denies at the beginning when he condemns public preaching as " haranguing. " then he forces his conclusion on you without any proof. Why is preaching through silence more powerful that preaching using words? He doesn’t say, just depends on his flimsy example the person who listens to a lecture or teaching and doesn’t learn anything. If preaching through silence is to have an effect, the guru, teacher or preacher must actually have some real internal power and how many who teach in silence have that if it exists at all? After all, just because you can’t feel it, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist does it? Certainly you will agree that silence alone doesn’t guarantee any results because even a mute who doesn’t speak can sit there and have nothing of value. Even a cow doesn’t speak, but do you want to sit and meditate with a cow? I know, here come the abuse and nasty comments from followers and others who do not respect or like what I say and the way I say it. Well, too bad, that’s the way it is, the way I am and as the full expression of the One Life Being, the Absolute of Full Existence, and even using the term I, this is who I am, just as you are exactly the same, from the same source as the same Life. Larry Epston www.epston.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2006 Report Share Posted April 21, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > Scroll down to read the critique. > > n a message dated 4/20/2006 6:39:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > adithya_comming writes: > > Question: Why does not Bhagavan go about and preach the > truth to the people at large? > > Sri Ramana Maharshi: How do you know I am not doing it? Does > preaching consist in mounting a platform and haranguing the people > around? Preaching is simple communication of knowledge; it can really be > done in silence only. What do you think of a man who listens to a sermon > for an hour and goes away without having been impressed by it so as to change > his > life? > Compare him with another, who sits in a holy presence and goes away > after some time with his outlook on life totally changed. Which is the > better, to preach loudly without effect or to sit silently sending out inner force? > > Again, how does speech arise? > > First there is abstract knowledge. Out of this arises the ego, which > in turn gives rise to thought, and thought to the spoken word. So > the word is the great grandson of the original source. If the word can > produce an effect, judge for yourself how much more > powerful must be the preaching through silence. > > > L.E: Somehow, I do not savor the act of taking issue with a great teacher and > person of knowledge, partly because of the negative response from those who > love and respect the teacher like Krishnamurti. Of course this statement is > immediately doubted and I’m accused of enjoying and savoring this process. He is > lying they will say. > The followers will always find the critic wrong is one way or another. > > Question: Why does not Bhagavan go about and preach the > truth to the people at large? > > L.E: Some answers are immediately not acceptable, so here is the first > division. Bhagavan did not go out to preach the truth to the people at large because > he was afraid of crowds. Or, because he didn't like the fact that Indians > show little respect for teachers and sit there and eat, chew beetle nut, and > talk to their friends. Or, because the crowds would not turn off their radios > and cell phones while he was talking. Oh no! You can't say that, that's not > possible! In other words no negative reason can be given to followers because > they will not accept it. > > Sri Ramana Maharshi (SRI): How do you know I am not doing it? Does > preaching consist in mounting a platform and haranguing the people > around? > > L.E: How do you know he is not doing it, I.e. preaching the truth to people? > Notice, he didn’t how do you know I have never done it, but ‘How do you > know I am not doing it? That means in the present, he is implying that he is > doing something you are not aware of. So, how do you know? Well how do you know > I am not bringing world peace right now? Or how do you know that my soul is on > Mars exploring the planet? > Actually, he cleverly asked his followers or whoever was there to answer a > question they could not answer. You could say, because you are sitting here and > not out in crowd talking to people, but who would have the nerve to say that? > Then he asks, " does preaching consist in mounting a platform and > haranguing the people around? Any simple fool could have said, yes, that is how > preaching is usually done, but why call talking in public " haranguing? " Which is > an immediate put-down of those who do speak in public. Do they all ‘harange? " > Of course who will speak up and make this statement and ask this question? > Nobody, especially followers who sit with eyes and mouth hanging open. > > SRM: Preaching is simple communication of knowledge; it can really be done in > silence only. > > L.E: Does this statement seem true and accurate to you? We have all heard > many preachers, talking, praying, explaining etc. In what way is preaching in > general simple communication? Perhaps he means his preaching is simple > communication but I doubt it. He is again criticizing all who teacher through > preaching or public lectures. Now he defines " real preaching. " as done in silence. > In saying that, he dismisses all the teachers and preachers who talk and > explain things using words, and advocates silence as the only method to communicate > simple knowledge or any higher principles or truth. So there he sits after > talking, and saying silence is the only preaching and then perhaps, everybody > sits together in silence, and he calls that " preaching. " > Strange use of language. > > SRM: What do you think of a man who listens to a sermon for an hour and goes > away without having been impressed by it so as to change his > life? > > L.E: Now he continues to talk, which by his own definition is not preaching > and what it is we cannot say. So the man listens and goes away unimpressed and > doesn’t change. Maybe he is a stubborn man with fixed stubborn ideas or > maybe the teacher/preacher is incompetent as some are, so he doesn’t change his > life. So what? We have many experiences that don’t change our lives. > > SRM: Compare him with another, who sits in a holy presence and goes away > after some time with his outlook on life totally changed. > > L.E: We are comparing a talking teacher/preacher with a non-talking teacher. > Of course we can’t call the talking teacher a preacher because SRM says a real > preacher doesn’t talk. > In this case the silent preacher has a holy presence and the man is totally > changed. But how about the other hundred people who are sitting in the room > with the silent teacher with his holy presence and are not totally changed or > not changed at all. Are we to assume that every person who sit in the silent > holy presence is changed? Very unlikely. > > SRM: Which is the better, to preach loudly without effect or to sit silently > sending out inner force? > > L.E: This is really an outrageously false argument. How about preaching > loudly and convincingly WITH effect? There are teacher or preachers who talk who > change some people. And there are those preachers who sit silently and send > out inner force and change no one. And you may wonder if you are one of those > sitting silently if there really is an inner force in the silent preacher or > he is a lying fraud. > > SRM: Again, how does speech arise? > > L.E: Now we go on to another topic. How does speech arise? > > SRM: First there is abstract knowledge. Out of this arises the ego, which in > turn gives rise to thought, and thought to the spoken word. So the word is the > great grandson of the original source. > > L.E: Perhaps the word is the great grandson of the original source, but what > is the original source? He says " abstract knowledge. Not true. The original > source is the Absolute or Eternal or Infinite Life Awareness, but lets keep it > simple. Life doesn’t work the way he describes, and to me, what he describes > is ignorant and makes no sense. You read what he said, that the ego rises out > of " abstract knowledge. " The way it seems to me is that the body carries > the skull and spine, and inside the skull is the brain. It is the nerves in the > brain that give rise to the mind, and an aspect of the mind is the ego or > sense of self, and that’s it. In this view, the great grandson is the brain, not > abstract knowledge. > > SMR: He says, if the word can produce an effect, judge for yourself how much > more powerful must be the preaching through silence. > > L.E: Here at the end, he tries to bring it all together, but does he? Yes, a > word or words can produce an effect as through ordinary preaching which he > denies at the beginning when he condemns public preaching as " haranguing. " then > he forces his conclusion on you without any proof. Why is preaching through > silence more powerful that preaching using words? > He doesn’t say, just depends on his flimsy example the person who listens to > a lecture or teaching and doesn’t learn anything. > If preaching through silence is to have an effect, the guru, teacher or > preacher must actually have some real internal power and how many who teach in > silence have that if it exists at all? After all, just because you can’t feel > it, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist does it? Certainly you will agree that > silence alone doesn’t guarantee any results because even a mute who doesn’t > speak can sit there and have nothing of value. Even a cow doesn’t speak, but do > you want to sit and meditate with a cow? > > I know, here come the abuse and nasty comments from followers and others who > do not respect or like what I say and the way I say it. > Well, too bad, that’s the way it is, the way I am and as the full expression > of the One Life Being, the Absolute of Full Existence, and even using the term > I, this is who I am, just as you are exactly the same, from the same source > as the same Life. > > > Larry Epston > www.epston.com Yes, you cannot be different from what you are, neither you are supposed to be. om shanti Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.