Sri Raman Maharshi and Advaita

[Guest guest]

Similar but different. It's clear to me that Ramana's approach was

not Advaitan. In the " Teaching of Ramana Maharshi " as well as " Talks

With Ramana " , questioners would say that they practice " I am Brahman "

and Ramana would reply, " No, find out who thinks and says 'I am

Brahman'. He didn't condemn any practice, accepted all of them,

whatever was the questioner's bent, whatever the questioner believed

to be an aid, or believed to be the best was for him/her. In one

place, paraphrasing now, he said " Aham (I)is known to everyone.

Brahman abides as Aham in everyone. Find out the " I " . The " I " is

already Brahman. You need not think so. Simply find out the " I " .

 

Q. Is it not better to say " I am the supreme being than ask " Who am

I " ?

A. Who affirms? There must be one to do it. Find that one.

 

The tone and words throughout these books is that of disidentifying

with all thoughts and images and concepts. Not rejecting them and not

fostering them, inquire who or what has them. This is the

disagreement--or misunderstanding-- I have with Advaita as I seem to

find it on these pages. To say, repeat over and over " I am Brahman "

is no differernt from my saying over and over " I am a man " . I AM a

man (relative concept)so what is gained by repeating it over and

over, making a meditation, or self-hypnosis situation out of it? Why

would I continuosly think something already known to be true? It is

true that all are Brahman. But...so what? Where do I go from there?

Is it Realization to go on repeating " I am Brahman " ?

 

Or, from another angle: if I DON'T repeat over and over " I am

Brahman " what is the difference between me and one who does practice

it? Am I any less Brahman because I DON'T repeat it over and over?

Maybe I don't use it as a mantra because I have the conviction that

it's true. In that case, no need for it!

 

None of the above is intended to offend anyone! Just trying to get to

a base line of understanding the apparent use of stating/thinking " I

am Brahman. "

[Guest guest]

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

advaitin , " otnac6 " <otnac6 wrote:

 

Dear otnac6,

In the quest to realize one's true nature, a seeker, treading

the path of Upanishads, is asked to cognize the truth as enunciated by

Sruti sentences. There is neither thinking nor repetition of the words

in the path of Jnana which is a VASTUTANTRA one,and is not a

KARTRUTANTRA one. There is no doing , only seeing in the direction

pointed out by Sruti and Acharya. Most of The points mentioned in the

posting, I fear, are due to the misconceptions that are circulating in

the world of spirituality/Vedanta.

You do not think that you are Brahman.

YOU SEE THAT YOU ARE BRAHMAN.

There is a vast differene between THINKING and SEEING.

 

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy

[Guest guest]

This reminds me of Sri Ramana's reference to a statement(Biblical)

 

BE STILL AND KNOW THAT IAM GOD

Then He cautioned- KNOW that I Am God and not THINK I Am God

 

This implies that to do any thing for knowing is thinking. Thus knowing is

simply being still.

WHO AM I is a simple technique to shift from thinking to knowing.

 

Ramana Sarma

 

 

On 6/30/07, narayana145 <narayana145 wrote:

>

> H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

> Pranams to all.

>

> advaitin <advaitin%40>, " otnac6 "

> <otnac6 wrote:

>

> Dear otnac6,

> In the quest to realize one's true nature, a seeker, treading

> the path of Upanishads, is asked to cognize the truth as enunciated by

> Sruti sentences. There is neither thinking nor repetition of the words

> in the path of Jnana which is a VASTUTANTRA one,and is not a

> KARTRUTANTRA one. There is no doing , only seeing in the direction

> pointed out by Sruti and Acharya. Most of The points mentioned in the

> posting, I fear, are due to the misconceptions that are circulating in

> the world of spirituality/Vedanta.

> You do not think that you are Brahman.

> YOU SEE THAT YOU ARE BRAHMAN.

> There is a vast differene between THINKING and SEEING.

>

> With warm and respectful regards,

> Sreenivasa Murthy

>

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Sriman Narayana writes

 

( You do not think that you are Brahman.

YOU SEE THAT YOU ARE BRAHMAN.

There is a vast differene between THINKING and SEEING.)

 

i would rephrase this

 

you neither 'think' nor 'see' that you are brahman ! you don't even

say 'you know Brahman'

 

Sreenivasa-ji - may i reccall these words from Kena Upanishads

 

The teacher said: If you think: " I know Brahman well, " then surely

you know but little of Its form; you know only Its form as

conditioned by man or by the gods. Therefore Brahman, even now, is

worthy of your inquiry.

 

 

The disciple said: I think I know Brahman. The disciple said: I do

not think I know It well, nor do I think I do not know It. He among

us who knows the meaning of " Neither do I not know, nor do I know " -

knows Brahman.

 

He by whom Brahman is not known, knows It; he by whom It is known,

knows It not. It is not known It is not known by those who know It;

It is known by those who do not know It.

 

 

WITH WARM REGARDS

[Guest guest]

Dear Steve,

 

According to Advaita Vedanta, self-knowledge alone is the means of

liberation. Self-Knowledge arrises through sravanam (hearing), mananam

(reflection) and nidhidhyasanam (contemplation). These three work

together to remove all ignorance and reveal the nature of the Self.

 

Nidhidhyasanam is sometimes incorrectly understood as a practice where

one repeatedly thinks " I am Brahman. " Since this is a common

misunderstanding, it is natural that Sri Ramana points out the

problemw ith such a practice.

 

Nidhidhyasanam is useless if I already know " I am Brahman " because in

that case, I do not take myself to be a karta (doer) and bhokta

(experiencer) so there is no possibility of doing further sadhana. If

one has no understanding whatsoever of Vedanta, then nidhidhyasanam is

not possible because the object of contemplation (the Supreme Self) is

entirely unknown.

 

So Nidhidhyasanam is only useful for someone with a partial

understanding of the fact that " I am Brahman. " In order to really

understand that " I am Brahman, " it is neccesary to understand in

relation to one's own experience what is meant by the words " I, "

" Brahman, " and " am. " Nidhidhyasanam is the process of ascertaining the

meaning of these words with respect to our own experience.

 

In the sentence " I am Brahman, " " I " refers to pure awareness which

appears as the Witness of all mental activity. " Brahman " means that

which is infinite by nature. In order to understand the identity

between " I " and " Brahman " (expressed by the word " am " ), one has to

first distinguish between " I " (pure awareness appearing as Witness)

and not-I (mind, etc...) and then understand the non-dual nature of

the " I " (which previously appeared as Witness).

 

In the text drig-drishya-viveka, six contemplations are given and

these give a good idea of nidhidhyasnam. The first contemplation

consists of ceasing to identify with the attributes of the mind. The

second contemplation consists of seeing the Self (which is by now

unmixed with the mind in one's understanding) as saccidananda with the

help of words. The third contemplation takes place when one sees

oneself as saccidananda without the use of words. In addition to these

meditations, which help in ascertaining correctly the relationship

between the Self and the mind, there are three other contemplations

which help us to correctly ascertain the relationship between the Self

and the external world. These contemplations together (supplemented by

continuous sravanam and mananam as well) remove all ignorance and

reveal the ever-liberated nature of the Self.

 

I ask learned members to correct my misunderstandings as this is a

somewhat abstruse topic.

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

Thanks much for the reply.

I'm always looking for the practice, the everyday,

right this minute means to practice. Much learning of

the scriptures is fine but I never want to get stuck

there with the endless ruminations the mind loves!

 

Best wishes,

Steve

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows.

Answers - Check it out.

http://answers./dir/?link=list & sid=396545433

[Guest guest]

H.N.Sreenivasa murthy

Pranams to all.

 

In advaitin , " dhyanasaraswati " <dhyanasaraswati

wrote:

 

Dear Smt.Dhyanasaraswati,

I thank you for your response to my posting.

Please permit me to convey to you in what sense the word

" SEE " has been used by me.

In mantra 1-2-14 of Kathopanishad Nachiketa asks Yama

" yattatpaSyasi tadvada " .Here the word " paSyasi' has been used.

In the mantra 2-1-4 of the same Upanishad Yama says : " mahantaM

viBumAtmAnaM matvA dhIrO na SOcati " . Here the word " matvA "

has been used. I am sure you know in Vedantic parlance there are two

meanings for the same word, one being " vAcyArtha' and the other being

" LakshyArtha " . Depending upon the context in which the word has been

used the meaning of the word has to be determined and understood.

 

I have used the word " SEE " to mean " Cognition " , " apprehend " ,

" comprehend " , " sAkshAt aparOkShAt " , " Abide " etc.In vedanta ,

TO KNOW IS TO BE,

TO SEE IS TO ABIDE,

KNOWING AS BEING,

SEEING AS BEING.

On a personal note, I would like to bring to your kind attention

that the writer has spent almost four decades on study and digesting

of Upanishads and commentaries of Sri Shankara at the sacred feet of

his Revered GURU.I am revealing this with a sense of humbleness and

humility, not with any sense of pride or arrogance.

 

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy

[Guest guest]

Sri Narayana-ji !

 

i bow to you ! may i kindly ask you who your revered Guru is - i

know who subbji's guru is - that is why i take whatever subbuji says

as the veda Vaak!

 

i know from your writings that you are very learned and accomplished

but just for one moment , i would also like you to contemplate on

what Brihadaranyaka upanishad says! Could you please narrate to this

audience what an eloquent speaker Balaki of Gargya family( a

brahmin) was and the mood in which he approached Kshatriya

Ajaatashatru? and how King Ajaatashatru taught him Brahma vidya ?

 

Narayanaji, please write to me off list who your Guru is , if you

don't mind.

 

thanks

 

love and regards

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin , " narayana145 " <narayana145

wrote:

>

> H.N.Sreenivasa murthy

> Pranams to all.

>

> In advaitin , " dhyanasaraswati " <dhyanasaraswati@>

> wrote:

>

> Dear Smt.Dhyanasaraswati,

> I thank you for your response to my posting.

>