Guest guest Posted April 22, 2006 Report Share Posted April 22, 2006 Perhaps, Ramana was a little different kind of Guru, Larry: Q: How can one know whether a particular individual is competent to be a Guru? Ramana: By peace of mind found in his presence and by the sense of respect you feel for him. [NNB] 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 > > > 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.