Need for a teacher...questions again

[Guest guest]

Hello all,

 

I know this subject has come up before and endlesly, but it's one

that continues to surface in my thinking.

 

My inquiry into the need for a teacher has taken me into some

disturbing areas. Disturbing and in need of further inquiry.

 

I question first the definition of the student/teacher/guru

relationship regarding duration and time: how much time must one

spend near, or in the presence of, a teacher? If I read something by

a teacher or somehow gain knowledge of a teacher and then go where

the teacher is, hear talks by the teacher, talk to the teacher and

receive instruction or information--then do I have a teacher by

virtue of going for that one visit? Further, if I then leave but

continue to correspond with the teacher my mail, internet or

telephone, can I consider that I have a teacher without ever again

being in the presence of that teacher?

 

Or...I gain knowledge of a teacher and move to be near the teacher,

am in the presence of the teacher daily or several times a week...do

I then have a teacher? If I then leave the presence of the teacher,

go back home, do I then not have a teacher?

 

As you can see from the above, in my mind it's not at all clear what

the definition of having a teacher means. I could have much to do or

little to do with a teacher and, really, depending upon my

definitions of " having a teacher " , I could visit a teacher once,

he/she might not even know my name, and yet proclaim that I have a

teacher.

 

Do you see the problem? There doesn't seem to be a clear, objective

definition of " having a teacher " as far as duration in time. If one

has a teacher, how much time would have to be spent with that person

in order to call that person " teacher " ?

 

On the other hand, writings/information from a teacher might so

resonate that I learn from that teacher. Whereas I might actually

have a " living " teacher and yet not relate well to the teachings.

 

I suspect that the idea of having a teacher is a fluid idea and may

be interpreted depending on the individual. My main reason for saying

this is that there is no objective authority to which each person may

point that can give validation and say " Yes, you now have a teacher "

or " No, you do not have a teacher " .

 

At this point I can consider this matter definitional only and I see

no decisive defintion other than purely subjective.

[Guest guest]

From my experience, I consider myself to have a teacher in Yoga, a spiritual

guide. I got to know him very well, and asked him to be my teacher. I now live

away from where he lives but we meet by webcam, phone, etc. and he is still most

certainly my teacher and his teacher was someone who lives in India and thus he

did the same and saw him maybe once a year. Yes, it is a subjective thing, I

consider this man to be my teacher/guru. he knows this as I asked him to be

this for me. That is my experiemce.

 

 

otnac6 <otnac6

advaitin

Saturday, February 23, 2008 6:41:15 PM

Need for a teacher...questions again

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hello all,

 

 

 

I know this subject has come up before and endlesly, but it's one

 

that continues to surface in my thinking.

 

 

 

My inquiry into the need for a teacher has taken me into some

 

disturbing areas. Disturbing and in need of further inquiry.

 

 

 

I question first the definition of the student/teacher/ guru

 

relationship regarding duration and time: how much time must one

 

spend near, or in the presence of, a teacher? If I read something by

 

a teacher or somehow gain knowledge of a teacher and then go where

 

the teacher is, hear talks by the teacher, talk to the teacher and

 

receive instruction or information- -then do I have a teacher by

 

virtue of going for that one visit? Further, if I then leave but

 

continue to correspond with the teacher my mail, internet or

 

telephone, can I consider that I have a teacher without ever again

 

being in the presence of that teacher?

 

 

 

Or...I gain knowledge of a teacher and move to be near the teacher,

 

am in the presence of the teacher daily or several times a week...do

 

I then have a teacher? If I then leave the presence of the teacher,

 

go back home, do I then not have a teacher?

 

 

 

As you can see from the above, in my mind it's not at all clear what

 

the definition of having a teacher means. I could have much to do or

 

little to do with a teacher and, really, depending upon my

 

definitions of " having a teacher " , I could visit a teacher once,

 

he/she might not even know my name, and yet proclaim that I have a

 

teacher.

 

 

 

Do you see the problem? There doesn't seem to be a clear, objective

 

definition of " having a teacher " as far as duration in time. If one

 

has a teacher, how much time would have to be spent with that person

 

in order to call that person " teacher " ?

 

 

 

On the other hand, writings/informatio n from a teacher might so

 

resonate that I learn from that teacher. Whereas I might actually

 

have a " living " teacher and yet not relate well to the teachings.

 

 

 

I suspect that the idea of having a teacher is a fluid idea and may

 

be interpreted depending on the individual. My main reason for saying

 

this is that there is no objective authority to which each person may

 

point that can give validation and say " Yes, you now have a teacher "

 

or " No, you do not have a teacher " .

 

 

 

At this point I can consider this matter definitional only and I see

 

no decisive defintion other than purely subjective.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

<!--

 

#ygrp-mkp{

border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:14px 0px;padding:0px 14px;}

#ygrp-mkp hr{

border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}

#ygrp-mkp #hd{

color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:bold;line-height:122%;margin:10px 0px;}

#ygrp-mkp #ads{

margin-bottom:10px;}

#ygrp-mkp .ad{

padding:0 0;}

#ygrp-mkp .ad a{

color:#0000ff;text-decoration:none;}

-->

 

 

 

<!--

 

#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc{

font-family:Arial;}

#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc #hd{

margin:10px 0px;font-weight:bold;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}

#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc .ad{

margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}

-->

 

 

 

<!--

 

#ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;}

#ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}

#ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99% arial, helvetica, clean,

sans-serif;}

#ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;}

#ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;}

#ygrp-text{

font-family:Georgia;

}

#ygrp-text p{

margin:0 0 1em 0;}

#ygrp-tpmsgs{

font-family:Arial;

clear:both;}

#ygrp-vitnav{

padding-top:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;margin:0;}

#ygrp-vitnav a{

padding:0 1px;}

#ygrp-actbar{

clear:both;margin:25px 0;white-space:nowrap;color:#666;text-align:right;}

#ygrp-actbar .left{

float:left;white-space:nowrap;}

..bld{font-weight:bold;}

#ygrp-grft{

font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;padding:15px 0;}

#ygrp-ft{

font-family:verdana;font-size:77%;border-top:1px solid #666;

padding:5px 0;

}

#ygrp-mlmsg #logo{

padding-bottom:10px;}

 

#ygrp-vital{

background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:2px 0 8px 8px;}

#ygrp-vital #vithd{

font-size:77%;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:bold;color:#333;text-transform:upp\

ercase;}

#ygrp-vital ul{

padding:0;margin:2px 0;}

#ygrp-vital ul li{

list-style-type:none;clear:both;border:1px solid #e0ecee;

}

#ygrp-vital ul li .ct{

font-weight:bold;color:#ff7900;float:right;width:2em;text-align:right;padding-ri\

ght:.5em;}

#ygrp-vital ul li .cat{

font-weight:bold;}

#ygrp-vital a{

text-decoration:none;}

 

#ygrp-vital a:hover{

text-decoration:underline;}

 

#ygrp-sponsor #hd{

color:#999;font-size:77%;}

#ygrp-sponsor #ov{

padding:6px 13px;background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;}

#ygrp-sponsor #ov ul{

padding:0 0 0 8px;margin:0;}

#ygrp-sponsor #ov li{

list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;font-size:77%;}

#ygrp-sponsor #ov li a{

text-decoration:none;font-size:130%;}

#ygrp-sponsor #nc{

background-color:#eee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:0 8px;}

#ygrp-sponsor .ad{

padding:8px 0;}

#ygrp-sponsor .ad #hd1{

font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#628c2a;font-size:100%;line-height:122%\

;}

#ygrp-sponsor .ad a{

text-decoration:none;}

#ygrp-sponsor .ad a:hover{

text-decoration:underline;}

#ygrp-sponsor .ad p{

margin:0;}

o{font-size:0;}

..MsoNormal{

margin:0 0 0 0;}

#ygrp-text tt{

font-size:120%;}

blockquote{margin:0 0 0 4px;}

..replbq{margin:4;}

-->

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Be a better friend, newshound, and

know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

http://mobile./;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , John Miller <johnnyzmilleriii

wrote:

>

> From my experience, I consider myself to have a teacher in Yoga, a

spiritual guide.

 

Namaste,

 

A study of this essay will answer most of the questions.

If it does not, one will have to 'cry one's heart out' till the

Supreme Spirit showers Its compassion. ( In one Upanishad story,

Indra -the King of Gods - had to spend 96 years in cogitation, away

from the teacher, before he was granted the knowledge! In another

story, the teacher asked the students to spend a year with him ! )

 

http://www.dlshq.org/download/gurubhaktiyoga.htm

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Shree otnac6 - PraNAms

 

About the need for a teacher - his qualifications and the qualifications of the

student:

 

First since it is a science that deals with transcendental knowledge (that which

is

beyond human comprehension - apourusheyam) that cannot be gained through any

normal means

of knowledge - direct perceptual knowledge or logical deduction, One has to go

to

scriptures that deal with this knowledge - scriptures that considered as

apourusheyam -

that which is beyond human deductions - that which is revealed). Vedas are

considered as

apourusheyam.

 

One can not study Vedas and gain that knowledge by himself. Hence Vedas

themselves

insist on the need of a teacher to interpret the scriptures properly. The reason

is

Vedanta understands the mind that is conditioned in the past need to be

de-conditioned

and any process of de-conditioning reconditions it another way - a familiar

argument of

JKs. Hence Vedanta adopts what is known as adhyaaropa apavaada - it provides a

method of

conditioning- de-conditioning in stages. It recognizes that it is the only way

to arrive

at the solution to the mind with pre-conditionings. In order to have that proper

when and

how and when to go to next step etc, one needs a guidance. If we need a guide

to do just

simple a Ph.D. and without a guide no university will admit a student, the one

that is

most subtle of all -it is much easier to get lost in trivialities and fanatical

approaches. Hence Vedanta insists on a teacher.

 

Second what type of a teacher - It is also specified -He has to be a competent

teacher

and a competent teacher is the one who was a competent student before. That is

he must

have learned from his teacher who in turn must have learned from his teacher -

hence

there is lineage of teachers all the way - it is called sampradaaya teacher who

knows the

methodology of how to teach.

 

Further qualification is 1) he must know the scriptures - this is called

shotriam - to

teach. A right teacher is one who directs the disciples to the scriptures and

not to

himself as the authority. If fact Shankara says if he is not shotriya one

should put

namaskaaram and go away from him as fast as you can. The reason is the final

authority

in these matters is not personal experience but the scriptural declaration. In

fact we

accept all religious scriptures as long as they are in tune with Vedanta. If

there is any

deviation, Vedanta becomes pramaaNa, the source of authority. 2) The second

requirement

is he himself must have realized the truth. Here we have catch 22 situation. To

know if

the teacher is realized or not, I have to realize the truth. If I have already

realized

it, then I do not need a teacher. Hence it is said that it is only through God's

grace

one is lead to a proper teacher. Every student who discovered his teacher can

vouch for

it - either they say they are lucky that they found a right teacher or they say

it is due

to God's grace that they could find such a teacher. Hence for the second

requirement -

Leave it to Him. It is also said that first requirement is more important than

the

second. What it means is it is better to go to a teacher who has studied Vedanta

and not

yet realized, than who has realized but cannot teach Vedanta.

 

Question how to find a right teacher?

 

Normally as swami Chinmayanada used to tell us - do not go and hunt for a

teacher. A

proper teacher will come and you will find one when you are ready - like a bee

shall come

when the flower is ready, even if the flower is sitting in a remote Himalayas.

 

Best advise one can give - keep attending a study groups or attend sat sanghs

where there

are discussion on the Vedantic teachings and keep your mind open. You will one

day find

yourself who is your teacher. No teacher will come and tell that he is your

teacher -

you can go far away from those.

You in your mind will discover this one is my teacher since I am getting benefit

of the

teaching.

 

How along one has to study - Until one can study the scriptures without

guidance. How

long one has to study the scriptures - until one realizes and after that one has

to study

to make sure you can teach others - It is said the scriptures will protect you

until you

realize and you protect the scriptures after you realize.

 

Hence Vedanta says as Frankji recently mentioned - shravaNam, mananam and

nidhidhyaasanam.

ShravaNam means listening to the scriptures for a prolonged length of time under

a

competent teacher who was himself a competent student before.

Mananam is reflecting on the teaching until no more doubts are left in the mind.

You do

not touch a wire unless you are hundred percept sure that it is not live wire -

even

99.99 percent will not do. Mananam has to be doubt free. That is the purpose of

these

discussions too as some people keep asking whey do we need these intellectual

discussions

- until no more doubts left.

 

Nidhidhyaasanam - even after listening the teaching does not stay as real due to

habitual

notions - hence one has to contemplate on the teaching until it gets fully

assimilated.

The knowledge I am the totality has to sink in deeply. People always say I

understand but

I have not realized - whenever that but comes - it means the knowledge has not

taken deep

roots. Internalizing the teaching what Ramana calls as dRiDaiva niShTaa - firm

abidance

in the knowledge that I am - I am - aham aham tayaa - that rises spontaneously

in the

mind. Until then one need to keep thinking or meditating on the teaching via

inquiry.

 

Hence for Self realization a teacher is a must. There are always exceptions to

the rule

but as I said before we do not make rule out of exceptions. If one thinks that

are

exceptions, we say we wish him all the best.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--- otnac6 <otnac6 wrote:

 

> Hello all,

>

> I know this subject has come up before and endlesly, but it's one

> that continues to surface in my thinking.

>

> My inquiry into the need for a teacher has taken me into some

> disturbing areas. Disturbing and in need of further inquiry.

>

> I question first the definition of the student/teacher/guru

> relationship regarding duration and time: how much time must one

> spend near, or in the presence of, a teacher? If I read something by

> a teacher or somehow gain knowledge of a teacher and then go where

> the teacher is, hear talks by the teacher, talk to the teacher and

> receive instruction or information--then do I have a teacher by

> virtue of going for that one visit? Further, if I then leave but

> continue to correspond with the teacher my mail, internet or

> telephone, can I consider that I have a teacher without ever again

> being in the presence of that teacher?

>

> Or...I gain knowledge of a teacher and move to be near the teacher,

> am in the presence of the teacher daily or several times a week...do

> I then have a teacher? If I then leave the presence of the teacher,

> go back home, do I then not have a teacher?

>

> As you can see from the above, in my mind it's not at all clear what

> the definition of having a teacher means. I could have much to do or

> little to do with a teacher and, really, depending upon my

> definitions of " having a teacher " , I could visit a teacher once,

> he/she might not even know my name, and yet proclaim that I have a

> teacher.

>

> Do you see the problem? There doesn't seem to be a clear, objective

> definition of " having a teacher " as far as duration in time. If one

> has a teacher, how much time would have to be spent with that person

> in order to call that person " teacher " ?

>

> On the other hand, writings/information from a teacher might so

> resonate that I learn from that teacher. Whereas I might actually

> have a " living " teacher and yet not relate well to the teachings.

>

> I suspect that the idea of having a teacher is a fluid idea and may

> be interpreted depending on the individual. My main reason for saying

> this is that there is no objective authority to which each person may

> point that can give validation and say " Yes, you now have a teacher "

> or " No, you do not have a teacher " .

>

> At this point I can consider this matter definitional only and I see

> no decisive defintion other than purely subjective.

>

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " otnac6 " <otnac6 wrote:

>

> Hello all,

>

> I know this subject has come up before and endlesly, but it's one

> that continues to surface in my thinking.

>

Hare Krishna, Namaskarms,

 

how long you need a teacher/guru? It depends on the individual what he

is seeking and whether he got what he wanted. For all kinds of

knowledge you definitely need a teacher /guru and you need him until

you have learnt what you wanted. There is no end to learning in life

since what we have learnt is very small to what we can learn, for

knowledge is limitless . You need different teachers for different

subjects and at different levels

 

Hence as long as there is learning there is a teacher and it could be

in any form from,a human being, the nature ,animals, birds and the

latest internet sources etc. As for time it depends on your capacity

to assimilate the teaching and also how much you want to learn.

 

But when it comes to spirituality and self knowledge the guru is a

must who is not only qualified but an enlightened one.Such a guru can

teach you in person, even if you are away from him and not only that

he can even teach you in silence. In a truly enlightened person his

Aura can reach the disciples where ever they are. Here the guru takes

the disciple who is qualified to take the teaching through prescribed

austerities. In short you are always a student of life until you die

and the whole universe a teacher.

 

baskaran

[Guest guest]

Dear Baskaran-ji,

 

 

 

I seem to think this has been discussed before but, just for clarity for

those who might be confused: a guru *cannot* teach through silence and

certainly cannot teach remotely (except via telephone, internet etc).

Enlightenment cannot be transmitted by 'aura' (whatever that is).

Enlightenment equates to self-knowledge and a teacher uses words to convey

the pointers that bring this about. The word 'mudrA', according to Swami

Dayananda, should be interpreted as 'language' rather than 'silence'. He

said that, if it meant 'silence', the Upanishads would consist of blank

pages! A teacher *might* respond to a question with silence only in the

specific instance where any answer might mislead.

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of baskaran42

25 February 2008 09:40

advaitin

Re: Need for a teacher...questions again

 

 

 

But when it comes to spirituality and self knowledge the guru is a

must who is not only qualified but an enlightened one.Such a guru can

teach you in person, even if you are away from him and not only that

he can even teach you in silence. In a truly enlightened person his

Aura can reach the disciples where ever they are.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Dear Baskaran-ji,

>

>

>

> The word 'mudrA', according to Swami

> Dayananda, should be interpreted as 'language' rather

than 'silence'. He

> said that, if it meant 'silence', the Upanishads would consist of

blank

> pages! A teacher *might* respond to a question with silence only

in the

> specific instance where any answer might mislead.

>

>

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

 

Dear Shri Dennis,

Could you kindly let me know the context in which Swami Dayananda

has interpreted the word 'mudrA' as 'language'-- the particular

sentence and where it occurs, if this is available with you.

Normally mudrA means 'sign'. There are various mudrAs used in pUjAs.

Best wishes,

Sastri

>

>

>

>

 

[Guest guest]

--- snsastri <sn.sastri wrote:

 

> Dear Shri Dennis,

> Could you kindly let me know the context in which Swami Dayananda

> has interpreted the word 'mudrA' as 'language'-- the particular

> sentence and where it occurs, if this is available with you.

> Normally mudrA means 'sign'. There are various mudrAs used in pUjAs.

> Best wishes,

> Sastri

 

Sastriji - Dennis could provide an answer. I have listened to Swami

Dayanandaji's

disciple Swami Paramarthanandaji's talks on DakshiNamUrthy stotram. In the

introduction

he also echoes the same or similar statement - with reference to mouna vyaakyaa

prakatitaparabhrama ..Stating that teaching does not occur in silence but

silence is

required for teaching to sink in. From my perspective if the student can learn

from

silence - he does not need an external teacher. Shravana requires systematic,

consistent,

prolonged, study of the scriptures at the feet of a live teacher(IPODS

excluded). To use

the language of Shree Devanathanji (Looks like he is busy as he is silent!)the

adhikaaritvam of a student should be quite stringent in terms of chitta suddhi.

 

There was also some comment that self alone is final teacher. In Uddhava giita

Krishna

tells about a sadhu that comes and tells that he has learned from 24 teachers,

starting

from birds and bees. If one is qualified to learn from all these, the student

must have

been well prepared at least in the last life by learning from a live guru.

 

Someone asked Swami Chinmayanadaji - Why do I need to attend your talks, I can

go and

learn from the library? - Swamiji replied with a smile - Go and ask that

question to the

library.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna, Namaskarams

 

[Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

Dear Baskaran-ji,I seem to think this has been discussed before but, just for

clarity forthose who might be confused: a guru *cannot* teach through silence

andcertainly cannot teach remotely (except via telephone, internet etc).]

 

Please permit me to give the following article on silent teaching by David

Godman and the subsequent interview he had with Bhagavan Ramana. i am sure many

of you in this august group would have read also the book An Autobiography of

Swami Yogananda where in there are references on this dubject.

 

`From The Mahabharata, Anusasana Parva Section XVII

Upamanyu said: (Mahadeva) Thou art he who imparts instruction in utter

silence. Thou art he that observes the vow of taciturny (for Thou instructest in

silence).

 

 

Silent Teachings & Sat-sanga By Sri Ramana Maharshi

Preamble by David Godman

Although Sri Ramana Maharshi was happy to give his verbal teachings to anyone

who asked for them, he frequently pointed out that his ‘silent teachings’ were

more direct and more powerful. These ‘silent teachings’ consisted of a spiritual

force, which seemed to emanate from his form, a force so powerful that he

considered it to be the most direct and important aspect of his teachings.

Instead of giving out verbal instructions on how to control the mind, he

effortlessly emitted a silent power, which automatically quietened the minds of

everyone in his vicinity. The people who were attuned to this force report that

they experienced it as a state of inner peace and well being; in some advanced

devotees it even precipitated a direct experience of the Self.

This method of teaching has a long tradition in India, its most famous

exponent being Dakshinamurti, a manifestation of Siva who brought four learned

sages to an experience of the Self through the power of his silence. Sri Ramana

frequently spoke of Dakshinamurti with great approval and his name crops up in

many of his conversations.

This flow of power from the Guru can be received by anyone whose attention is

focused on the Self or on the form of the Guru; distance is no impediment to its

efficacy. This attention is often called Sat-sanga, which literally means

‘association with being’. Sri Ramana wholeheartedly encouraged this practice

and frequently said that it was the most efficient way of bringing about a

direct experience of the Self. Traditionally it involves being in the physical

presence of one who has realised the Self, but Sri Ramana gave it a much wider

definition. He said that the most important element in Sat-sang was the mental

connection with the Guru; Sat-sang takes place not only in his presence but

whenever and wherever one thinks of him.

Question: How can silence be so powerful?

Sri Ramana Maharshi: A realised one sends out waves of spiritual influence,

which draw many people towards him. Yet he may sit in a cave and maintain

complete silence. We may listen to lectures upon truth and come away with hardly

any grasp of the subject, but to come into contact with a realised one, though

he speaks nothing, will give much more grasp of the subject. He never needs to

go out among the public. If necessary he can use others as instruments.

The Guru is the bestower of silence who reveals the light of Self-knowledge

that shines as the residual reality. Spoken words are of no use whatsoever if

the eyes of the Guru meet the eyes of the disciple.

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.

Question: Does Bhagavan give diksha (initiation)?

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Mouna (silence) is the best and the most potent diksha.

That was practised by Sri Dakshinamurti. Initiation by touch, look, etc., are

all of a lower order. Silent initiation changes the hearts of all.

Dakshinamurti observed silence when the disciples approached him. That is the

highest form of initiation. It includes the other forms. There must be

subject-object relationship established in the other diksha. First the subject

must emanate and then the object. Unless these two are there how is the one to

look at the other or touch him? Mouna diksha (silent initiation) is the most

perfect; it comprises looking, touching. It will purify the individual in every

way and establish him in the reality.

Question: Is not grace the gift of the Guru?

Sri Ramana Maharshi: God, grace and Guru are all synonymous and also eternal

and immanent. Is not the Self already within? Sri Dakshinamurti. What did he do?

He was silent when the disciples appeared before him. He maintained silence and

the doubts of the disciples were dispelled, which means that they lost their

individual identities. That is jnana (knowledge) and not all the verbiage

usually associated with it.

Silence is the most potent form of work. However vast and emphatic the

sastras (scriptures) may be they fail in their effect. The Guru is quiet and

peace prevails in all. His silence is vaster and more emphatic than all the

sastras put together. These questions arise because of the feeling that, having

been here so long, heard so much, exerted so hard, one has not gained anything.

The work proceeding within is not apparent; In fact the guru is always within

you.

Question: Can the Guru’s silence really bring about advanced states of

spiritual awareness?

Sri Ramana Maharshi: There is an old story, which demonstrates the power of

the Guru’s silence. Tattvaraya composed a Bharani, a kind of poetic composition

in Tamil, in honour of his Guru Swarupananda, and convened an assembly of

learned Pandits (pundits) to hear the work and assess its value. The Pandits

raised the objection that a Bharani was only composed in honour of great heroes

capable of killing a thousand elephants in battle and that it was not in order

to compose such a work in honour of an ascetic. There upon the author said, " Let

us all go to my Guru and we

shall have this matter settled there. "

They went to the Guru and, after they had all taken their seats, the author

told his Guru the purpose of their visit. The Guru sat silent and all the others

also remained in mouna (silence). The whole day passed, the night came, and some

more days and nights, and yet all sat there silently, no thought at all

occurring to any of them and nobody thinking or asking why they had come there.

After three or four days like this, the Guru moved his mind a bit, and the

people assembled immediately regained their thought activity. They then

declared, ‘Conquering a thousand elephants is nothing beside this Guru’s power

to conquer the rutting elephants of all our egos put together. So certainly he

deserves the Bharani in his honour!

Question: How does this silent power work?

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Language is only a medium for communicating one’s

thoughts to another. It is called in only after thoughts arise. Other thoughts

arise after the " I " -thought

rises and so the " I " -thought is the root of all conversation. When one remains

without thinking one understands another by menas of the universal language of

silence.

Silence is ever speaking. It is a perennial flow of language, which is

interrupted by speaking. These words I am speaking obstruct that mute language.

For example, there is electricity flowing in a wire. With resistance to its

passage, it glows as a lamp or revolves as a fan. In the wire it remains as

electric energy. Similarly also, silence is the eternal flow of language,

obstructed by words. What one fails to know by conversation extending to several

years can be known instantly in silence, or in front of silence. Dakshinamurti

and his four disciples are a good example of this. This is the highest and most

effective language.

Questioner: Bhagavan says, ‘The influence of the jnani (self-realised) steals

into the devotee in silence.’ Bhagavan also says, ‘Contact with great men

(mahatmas) is one efficacious means of realising one’s true being’.

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Contact with them is good. They will work through

silence. By speaking their power is reduced. Silence is most powerful. Speech is

always less powerful than silence, so mental contact is the best.

Question: Does this hold good even after the dissolution of the physical body

of the jnani or is it true only so long as he is in flesh and blood?

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Guru is not the physical form. So the contact will remain

even after the physical form of the Guru vanishes. One can go to another Guru

after one’s Guru passes away, but all Gurus are one and none of them is the form

you see. Always mental contact is the best.

Question: Is the operation of grace the mind of the Guru acting on the mind of

the disciple or is it a different process?

Sri Ramana Maharshi: The highest form of grace is silence. It is also the

highest upadesa (teaching).

Questioner: Vivekananda has also said that silence is the loudest form of

prayer.

Sri Ramana Maharshi: It is so for the seeker’s silence. The Guru’s silence is

the loudest upadesa. It is also grace in its highest form. All other dikshas

(initiations) are derived from Mouna (silence), and are therefore secondary.

Mouna is the primary form. If the Guru is silent the seeker’s mind gets

purified by itself.

Questioner: Sri Bhagavan’s silence is itself a powerful force. It brings about

a certain peace of mind in us.

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Silence is never-ending speech. Vocal speech obstructs

the other speech of silence. In silence one is in intimate contact with the

surroundings. The silence of Dakshinamurti removed the doubts of the four sages.

Mouna Vyakhya Prakatita Tattvam means the truth expounded by silence. Silence is

said to be exposition. Silence is so potent.

For vocal speech, organs of speech are necessary and they precede speech. But

the other speech lies even beyond thought. It is in short transcendent speech

or unspoken words

(Para Vak).

Question: Can everyone benefit from this silence?

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Silence is the true Upadesa (teachings). It is the

perfect upadesa. It is suited only for the most advanced seeker. The others are

unable to draw full

inspiration from it. Therefore they require words to explain the truth. But

truth is beyond words. It does not admit of explanation. All that it is possible

to do is to indicate it.

Questioner: It is said that one look of a mahatma is enough, that idols,

pilgrimages, etc., are not so effective. I have been here for three months, but

I do not know how I have been benefited by the look of Maharshi.

Sri Ramana Maharshi: The look has a purifying effect. Purification cannot be

visualised. Just as a piece of coal takes a long time to be ignited, a piece of

charcoal takes a shorter time, and a mass of gunpowder is instantaneously

ignited, so it is with grades of men coming into contact with mahatmas. The fire

of wisdom consumes all actions. Wisdom is acquired by association with the wise

(Sat-sanga) or rather its mental atmosphere.

Question: Can the Guru’s silence bring about realisation if the disciple makes

no effort?

Sri Ramana Maharshi: In the proximity of a great master, the Vasanas (subtle

impressions that lead to desires) cease to be active, the mind becomes still and

Samadhi results. Thus the disciple gains true knowledge and right experience in

the presence of the master. To remain unshaken in it further efforts are

necessary. Eventually the disciple will know it to be his real being and will

thus be liberated even while alive.

Question: If the search has to be made within, is it necessary to be in the

physical proximity of the Master?

Sri Ramana Maharshi: It is necessary to be so until all doubts are at an end.

Questioner: I am not able to concentrate by myself. I am in search of a force

to help me.

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Yes, that is called grace. Individually we are incapable

because the mind is weak. Grace is necessary. Sadhu seva (serving a sadhu or a

mendicant) will bring it about. There is however nothing new to get. Just as a

weak man comes under the control of a stronger one, the weak mind of a man comes

under control easily in the presence of strong minded sadhus. That which is only

grace; there is nothing else.

baskaran

 

 

 

BASKARAN.C.S

 

 

 

Save all your chat conversations. Find them online.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear All, pranams:

 

Extract of The Mountain Path, Vol. 9 April 1972, page 144 of the

Section Ashram Bulletin discussing the different celebrations for Sri

Ramana Maharshi's Jayanthi (Birthday).

 

AT BOMBAY

The Jayanthi celebrations this year in Bombay on Sunday, March 5, was

attended by a very large number of Sri Bhagavan's devotees, under the

distinguished auspicies of Justice K. K. Desai, Judge of the High

Court, Bombay. H.H Sri Swami Chinmayananda delivered an instructive

address on Sri Bhagavan's life and teaching, delineating Sri

Bhagavan's state of 'sahaja samadhi' (in italics in the text) and His

message through 'Sience'. The function was a great success.

 

Yours in All,

Mouna

[Guest guest]

Dear Sastri-ji,

 

 

 

It is in the book 'Dialogues with Swami Dayananda', published by Sri

Gangadhareswar Trust, 2000 (2nd ed). On page 61, he says:

 

 

 

" Knowledge cannot take place without a pramANa, a valid means of knowledge.

There is no other way. A medium of communication is necessary and you must

have the discipline, the saMskAra of that language, because the

communication is in the form of words. The means of knowledge is in the form

of words. And that alone culminates into knowledge.

 

 

 

" It is said, Lord dakShiNAmUrti conveyed by silence. He taught by mudrA, a

sign made by position of fingers. mudrA here stands for language. In

reality, He taught through words. If He was silent, all our upaniShads would

have been in the form of blank pages! In fact silence is good for two

reasons: either it is inconvenient to answer and therefore you do not answer

or sometimes whichever way you answer is a problem, and so you do not

answer. You become mauni, silent. "

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of snsastri

26 February 2008 06:01

advaitin

Re: Need for a teacher...questions again

 

 

 

 

Dear Shri Dennis,

Could you kindly let me know the context in which Swami Dayananda

has interpreted the word 'mudrA' as 'language'-- the particular

sentence and where it occurs, if this is available with you.

Normally mudrA means 'sign'. There are various mudrAs used in pUjAs.

Best wishes,

Sastri

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Baskaran-ji,

 

 

 

Notwithstanding Ramana's unquestioned abilities and achievements, he was not

a sampradAya teacher and some of the things that he says are not in accord

with traditional teaching as per Shankara. You cannot therefore quote him to

substantiate this idea.

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of Baskaran

26 February 2008 08:22

advaitin

RE: Re: Need for a teacher...questions again

 

 

 

 

Silent Teachings & Sat-sanga By Sri Ramana Maharshi

Preamble by David Godman

Although Sri Ramana Maharshi was happy to give his verbal teachings to

anyone who asked for them, he frequently pointed out that his 'silent

teachings' were more direct and more powerful. These 'silent teachings'

consisted of a spiritual force, which seemed to emanate from his form, a

force so powerful that he considered it to be the most direct and important

aspect of his teachings. Instead of giving out verbal instructions on how to

control the mind, he effortlessly emitted a silent power, which

automatically quietened the minds of everyone in his vicinity. The people

who were attuned to this force report that they experienced it as a state of

inner peace and well being; in some advanced devotees it even precipitated a

direct experience of the Self.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

Dear Dennisji and Baskaranji,

It is a firmly held belief in Hindu spiritual path that a great saint

or sage or realized master can not only teach through 'silence' but

also through the dream experiences of devotees...

I agree that Bhagavan Ramana was a not a traditional or Sampradaya

teacher , moulded in the parampara of Adi Sankara....Ramana was

pioneering his own Sampradaya! Traditional path laid down by Sankara

has indeed got vitiated over the centuries, for various reasons.

Hence the advent of Ramana and His Sampradaya ,relevant to us.

---N K Srinivasan

 

 

 

 

 

> Dear Baskaran-ji,

>

>

>

> Notwithstanding Ramana's unquestioned abilities and achievements, he

was not

> a sampradAya teacher and some of the things that he says are not in

accord

> with traditional teaching as per Shankara. You cannot therefore

quote him to

> substantiate this idea.

>

>

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

>

>

>

> advaitin [advaitin ] On

Behalf

> Of Baskaran

> 26 February 2008 08:22

> advaitin

> RE: Re: Need for a teacher...questions again

>

>

>

>

> Silent Teachings & Sat-sanga By Sri Ramana Maharshi

> Preamble by David Godman

> Although Sri Ramana Maharshi was happy to give his verbal teachings to

> anyone who asked for them, he frequently pointed out that his 'silent

> teachings' were more direct and more powerful. These 'silent teachings'

> consisted of a spiritual force, which seemed to emanate from his form, a

> force so powerful that he considered it to be the most direct and

important

> aspect of his teachings. Instead of giving out verbal instructions

on how to

> control the mind, he effortlessly emitted a silent power, which

> automatically quietened the minds of everyone in his vicinity. The

people

> who were attuned to this force report that they experienced it as a

state of

> inner peace and well being; in some advanced devotees it even

precipitated a

> direct experience of the Self.

>

 

[Guest guest]

Greetings otnac6 Sir

 

Your question is crucial in the path.

 

At first one has to know his own teacher, his Guru or Master.

 

One might have access to many Well Known Approved Masters, but which

 

one is My Master. Who is the Master that will benefit me till

 

enlightenment and establishment.

 

Primarily, I have to be ready to accept a Master, before choosing

 

him. Many go to Masters, remain near them for years and never

 

become enlightened, Why? They were not ready, they offer resistance

 

to the Master. Others meet his Master only once -in his whole life-

 

and he becomes enlightened, Why? He was ready and offered no

 

resistance to his Master. That what happened to Atmananda, who met

 

his Master only once.

 

What is the meaning that the disciple is ready?

 

As I see it, the disciple would have come to an understanding

 

that HE IS IGNORANT AND ALL HIS KNOWLEDGE IS WRONG, and I NEED TO

 

DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS, this is the gateway to the path of

 

knowledge or understanding. The other gateway is when the disciple

 

knows fully well that he is a great sinner and the NEED TO REPENT

 

BECOMES IMMENANT FROM THE AGONY OF BEING A SINNER, this is the

 

gateway of love or Bahakti.

 

Now, one has to be either, otherwise he is not yet ready.

 

When one is ready in either way -way of knowledge or way of love-

 

the whole existence will direct him to a Master. A Master that

 

will accept him as his disciple.

 

When one is not yet ready, he has to prepare himself to become ready,

 

the preparation entails, reading, meditating, giving alms, visiting

 

Masters to keep the truth alive in his heart...etc.

 

hsin

[Guest guest]

--- Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

 

> Dear Baskaran-ji,

>

>

>

> Notwithstanding Ramana's unquestioned abilities and

> achievements, he was not

> a sampradAya teacher and some of the things that he

> says are not in accord

> with traditional teaching as per Shankara. You

> cannot therefore quote him to

> substantiate this idea.

>

>

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

 

 

Dennisji,

 

Like most issues concerning two realized souls, I feel

here also the problem is with the definitions of terms

and or understanding of them. Please see this

paragraph from Bhaskarji's post, where Ramana talks

about what silence actually is:

 

" Silence is ever speaking. It is a perennial flow of

language, which is interrupted by speaking. These

words I am speaking obstruct that mute language. For

example, there is electricity flowing in a wire. With

resistance to its passage, it glows as a lamp or

revolves as a fan. In the wire it remains as electric

energy. Similarly also, silence is the eternal flow of

language, obstructed by words. What one fails to know

by conversation extending to several years can be

known instantly in silence, or in front of silence. "

 

 

 

Traditional notion of silence as " keeping quiet " , or

" not speaking " is not referred to here, rather a much

higher state of mind is described, which is beyond the

normal comprehension.

 

If I understand both positions correctly, I think one

position is " I bathe in the river " , and other one is

saying " I bathe in the water " . Both are right in their

views, as long as one does not say other one is wrong.

 

Humble Pranam!

~Vaibhav.

 

 

Why delete messages? Unlimited storage is just a click away. Go to

http://help./l/in//mail/mail/tools/tools-08.html

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Dear Baskaran-ji,

>

>

>

> Notwithstanding Ramana's unquestioned abilities and achievements,

he was not

> a sampradAya teacher and some of the things that he says are not

in accord

> with traditional teaching as per Shankara. You cannot therefore

quote him to

> substantiate this idea.

>

>

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

 

Dear Shri Dennis,

I am afraid I cannot agree with you. Sri Ramana did not start a

separate school of Vedanta as Ramanuja and Madhva did. Moreover,

advaita is not a school or sampradAya at all. Sri Ramana has only

given expression to his advaitic experience in his works such as Sad-

darsanam. If any one says that his philosophy is different from

Sankara's let him give instances of such differences. Many post-

Sankara advaitins have written commentaries on Sankara's works and

also original works on advaita. Though they differ among themselves

on many points, they are not considered to be expounding a

philosophy different from Sankara's.

Unlike Ramanuja and Madhva, Ramana has never said that he does not

agree with Sankara on any point. On the other hand he has translated

into Tamil Vivekachudamani which is accepted by tradition as the

work of Sankara.

The one point on which all the posr-Sankara advaitins are agreed is

that of the identity of jiva and Brahman. Ramana also propounds

this. So there is no difference between his philosophy and that of

other post-Sankara advaitins. All of them differ in matters of

detail, but that does not mean that they are not followers of

Sankara.

In fact others with advaitic experience like Ramakrishna

Paramahamsa and Nisargadatta maharaj are also accepted as authentic

advaitins and their statements are also quoted as authority.

If on any particular point Ramana differs from Sankara, acceptance

of that may be a matter for consideration.

S.N.Sastri

 

>

>

>

> advaitin [advaitin ]

On Behalf

> Of Baskaran

> 26 February 2008 08:22

> advaitin

> RE: Re: Need for a teacher...questions again

>

>

>

>

> Silent Teachings & Sat-sanga By Sri Ramana Maharshi

> Preamble by David Godman

> Although Sri Ramana Maharshi was happy to give his verbal

teachings to

> anyone who asked for them, he frequently pointed out that

his 'silent

> teachings' were more direct and more powerful. These 'silent

teachings'

> consisted of a spiritual force, which seemed to emanate from his

form, a

> force so powerful that he considered it to be the most direct and

important

> aspect of his teachings. Instead of giving out verbal instructions

on how to

> control the mind, he effortlessly emitted a silent power, which

> automatically quietened the minds of everyone in his vicinity. The

people

> who were attuned to this force report that they experienced it as

a state of

> inner peace and well being; in some advanced devotees it even

precipitated a

> direct experience of the Self.

>

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennis-ji.

 

Yours 39773 and others in this thread.

 

Notwithstanding what Sw. Dayanandaji has said, whom I respect very

much, permit me to make the following observations:

 

Bhaskaran-ji has not referred to mudrAs. He was referring to aura.

I don't therefore understand how we ended up talking about mudrAs.

 

The mudrA in question with which Lord Dakshinamurti teaches is

cinmudrA. Please see the explanation our Subbuji (whose unfortunate

exit from the List I am held responsible for by some knowledgeable

sources!) has provided in his interpretation of Sri

Dakshinamurtistotram available in our files section:

 

QUOTE

 

The Chinmudraa is formed by drawing the right forefinger away from

the other three upright fingers and joining its tip with that of the

thumb. The three fingers held upright represent the three states

namely the waking, the dream and the deep sleep, each of them

composed of the three principles of the enjoyed, the enjoyer and the

enjoyment. The forefinger symbolizes the jiva. When it is one with

the group of the above three i.e., the world of experience, it is

separated from the thumb which stands for the Immovable, Unchanging

Truth, the Supreme Self. When, through discrimination, the jiva

knows that he is totally different from the three states, and

identifies himself with the Supreme Lord through the awareness `I am

the eternal Witness of all that is', then all ignorance and the

sorrows of samsara cease; the jiva attains liberation. This

awareness indicated by the Chinmudra is clearly described in the

Kaivalyopanishad (18). Because it indicates the Pure Consciousness,

Chinmaatra, it is called Chinmudraa. To impart this knowledge which

cannot be conveyed directly even by words, the Lord, out of His

unlimited Grace, has contrived this ingenious mystic device palpable

to the visual perception, just as the Pranava is to the auditory.

This auspicious symbol has been referred to variously as Bhadramudra,

Kalyaanakaarinimudra, Shobhanaamudra, Vidyamudra, Vyaakhyanamudra,

Tarakamudra, Jnanamudra, etc. indicating the various ways in which

this unique experience represented by it can be looked upon. The

symbol which brings into union the forefinger which is a pointer to

an individual with the thumb which is used to indicate Isvara in the

shastra, `angushThamaatraH purushaH (Kai. Up.)' demonstrates that

there is no longer any difference experienced between the two, tvam

and Tat i.e., the disciple is established in the Brahman-Atman

Svarupa indicated by the Mahavakya Tattvamasi, by the removal of

impediments. By this symbol the Guru is drawing attention of the

disciple to the plenary experience kindly conferred on him just as

the sage Yajnavalkya does in the case of Janaka, though by the use of

the words `O Janaka! verily hast though attained the Fearless'. This

is demonstrated by the mudraa wherein the forefinger has been

withdrawn from the association with the other three, symbolizing the

three gunas and made to abide in the thumb, indicating the .escape of

the jiva from the clutches of samsara and abiding in Atman with the

direct realization of his Brahmanhood.

 

UNQUOTE

 

Now, if I hold the cinmudrA in front of an ignoramus, he would

definitely think that I am about to sniff some snuff. That also is

knowledge conveyed by the mudra. An understanding, though very much

wrong, has taken place. The pity is that it is not the self-

knowledge Lord Dakshinamurthi conveys. There is a dance drama art

form called Kathakali in my native State of Kerala, where players

narrate whole mythological stories through facial expressions and

gesticulations supported by musical instruments and vocal singing in

the background. That is also knowledge conveyed where words are not

directly in the picture.

 

Then, don't we have the deaf and dumb communicating effectively with

one another. Is self-knowledge forbidden to them?

 

Of course, to understand the real import of cinmudrA, one needs to

have a thorough understanding of Vedanta acquired thorugh the use of

words. But, that understanding is not the final thing. If it were,

Vedanta wouldn't insist so much upon reflection and assimilation. It

is with the last, i.e. assimilation, that the symbolic mudra does its

job. For one who has understood the words, the mudra is just enough

to enable the final assimilation of knowledge. Cinmudra, thus, is

the whole of Vedanta. Perhaps, it could be effective on its own with

someone who has acquired enough through samskArAs in previous births.

 

Irrespective of when and where Bh. Ramana Maharshi self-realized, can

we logically explain the death experience that propelled Him to Mt.

Arunachalam? Definitely, he was not driven by words or sound. Then

there is the story of Shri Atmananda Krishna Menon, an erstwhile

police inspector. A sanyasin from thousands of miles away descended

on Him just to initiate Him into spirituality saying " It is for that

alone that I have come from Calcutta. I have no other interest here.

I knew of your yearnings from that distance. " (

http://www.geocities.com/skknair_tvm/philo.htm ). We also have Mata

Amritanandamayi Devi (although many among us would raise their

eyebrows) who has experienced the glowing form of the Universal

Mother descend and merge with Her being.

 

I am also reminded here of shakthipath (descent of Grace) in Kashmir

Shaivism, about which, perhaps, our Dr. Virendra Qasi might be able

to throw more light.

 

Lastly, why is it that one seeker gets JK, while another one Sw.

Dayanannda-ji and yet another one Sw. Paramarthananda-ji. There is

an inexplicable pre-destiny at work in all this and we are better

advised not to hold one aloft at the cost of the others.

 

If Vedanta is right, the guru, his words, the books we read, the

people we do satsangh with – all these are the Self (Lord

Dakshinamurthi) projecting. If there is an urge to self-realize, the

right things will appear at the right time and turn without any need

for us to custom-order. That is faith and it is this faith which

ultimately delivers. Gurus and pramanas are just incidental.

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennis-ji:

 

The highest Silence is the Self It Self. It is not contrary to language

nor does it depend on it. It gives force to words that lead back to It

Self. To equate this silence with the worldly silence of convenience

mixes up things. Words, language, symbols, etc. may be important

instruments of teaching, but they are so because of this underlying Silence.

 

Dennis-ji, " You also stated earlier, " Notwithstanding Ramana's

unquestioned abilities and achievements, he was not a sampradAya teacher

and some of the things that he says are not in accord with traditional

teaching as per Shankara. "

 

First, you need not talk about, " Sri Ramana's unquestioned abilities and

achievements " . Those terms are used for worldly accomplishments which

are transient and trivial. Bhagavan's devotees do not view Sri Ramana in

terms of a man with " unquestioned abilities and achievements. " Sri

Ramana spontaneously became aware of the Self and recognized his true

identity as a teen and lived in that identity from then on. Vedas are

eternal and revealed in all ages through Sages such as Sri Ramana.

Hearing, reading, and meditating on the words uttered by such sages

leads to Self-Realization. I do not see any essential difference between

the teachings of Sri Ramana and Sri Shankara at all. Sri Ramana has

stated that when he started reading the scriptures, he found that these

were describing his experiences.

 

Second, you say that Sri Ramana was not a sampradAya teacher, etc.

Certainly, I am not qualified to answer that and on that point you are

entitled to your opinion.

 

Namaste and love to all

Harsha

 

Dennis Waite wrote:

> " It is said, Lord dakShiNAmUrti conveyed by silence. He taught by mudrA, a

> sign made by position of fingers. mudrA here stands for language. In

> reality, He taught through words. If He was silent, all our upaniShads would

> have been in the form of blank pages! In fact silence is good for two

> reasons: either it is inconvenient to answer and therefore you do not answer

> or sometimes whichever way you answer is a problem, and so you do not

> answer. You become mauni, silent. "

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Dear Sastri-ji,

>

>

>

> It is in the book 'Dialogues with Swami Dayananda', published by

Sri

> Gangadhareswar Trust, 2000 (2nd ed). On page 61, he says:

>

>

>

> " Knowledge cannot take place without a pramANa, a valid means of

knowledge.

> There is no other way. A medium of communication is necessary and

you must

> have the discipline, the saMskAra of that language, because the

> communication is in the form of words. The means of knowledge is

in the form

> of words. And that alone culminates into knowledge.

>

>

>

> " It is said, Lord dakShiNAmUrti conveyed by silence. He taught by

mudrA, a

> sign made by position of fingers. mudrA here stands for language.

In

> reality, He taught through words. If He was silent, all our

upaniShads would

> have been in the form of blank pages! In fact silence is good for

two

> reasons: either it is inconvenient to answer and therefore you do

not answer

> or sometimes whichever way you answer is a problem, and so you do

not

> answer. You become mauni, silent. "

>

>

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

Dear Shri Dennis,

With all due respect I wish to state the following.

Dakshinamurti is Lord Shiva Himself and it is he who is said to have

transmitted his instructions through silence. The disciples were the

four sages who were the four mind-born sons of the Creator God

Brahma. So neither the teacher nor the students were ordinary human

beings and we cannot apply the same yard-stick as that applicable to

human beings and say that teaching through silence is not possible.

Moreover, this kind of transmission of instruction from one mind to

another is a common feature in our scriptures. I can cite two

instances straightaway.

In the very first sentence of the first chapter of Srimad BhAgavata

it is said that the supreme Brahman transmitted the entire vedas to

the Creator God Brahma mentally, i.e., through silence.

Another instance is in Vishnupuranam. It is said in the

Vishnupuranam (5.9.23) that Krishna mentally transmitted the

following message to Balarama who was at a distance:-- " O you who

are the self of all! Why have you, who are the most mysterious

indwelling self, assumed the attitude of an ordinary human being

(and become frightened)? " .

In all the three instances mentioned above both the teacher and the

disciples (or hearers) were Gods or superhuman being beings. So to

say that it was not possible for them to communicate by silence

through the mind is to say that God Himself has the same limitations

as human beings. No one who believes that God is omnipotent will put

such a limitation on His power.

Moreover, in a work known as `Sankara dig vijayam' the author

Swami Vidyaranya says that it was Dakshinamurti who incarnated as

Sankara. While doing so, Dakshinamurti, it is said, gave up his

silence (with which he taught the four sages)— " muktva maunam " .

Because Sankara had to teach human beings, he gave up silence which

humans do not have the capacity to understand. This shows that

according to Vidyaranya also, Dakshinamuri taught the four sages

through silence. So it is not necessary to put an unusual

interpretation on the word mudra on the assumption that

Dakshinamurti (who was Lord Shiva Himself) could not have taught

through silence.

What I have written above is only to show that it is a common

feature in our scriptures that instructions are said to be

transmitted without spoken words. The acceptance of this fact does

not lead to the conclusion that the vedas in written form are, in

that case, not necessary at all. The vedas were and are even now

transmitted by human teachers to human students only through the

spoken word and not by silence. This is the ordinary course

applicable to human beings.

But it cannot be said that transmission through the mind,

without the spoken word is impossible. There are many kinds of

Siddhi described in Patanjali's yoga sutras. There are even now

yogis who have acquired these siddhis. Some of them can read the

minds of others, It should certainly possible for such yogis to

transmit messages mentally to another person. A jIvanmukta is even

greater that yogis. He is Brahman himself and so his powers are

unlimited. We need not at all therefore consider it impossible that

Ramana Maharshi who was a jivanmukta had the capacity to transmit

his answers to a devotee's questions mentally without the spoken

word. Many devotees have actually written that they got answers to

their problems without the Maharshi speaking a word. We cannot

dismiss all these reports merely because it is not possible for

ordinary human beings to communicate except through the spoken word.

As regards the word `mudrA' the derivation is `mudam rAti iti

mudrA'. That means—mudrA is what gives joy. In pUjAs many mudrAs are

used, as people who have seen pUjAs in temples know. They are said

to please the gods. In Bharatanatyam, Kathakali, etc., mudrAs convey

the whole text. chinmudrA is actually chit mudrA, which means that

it is a symbol of chit or Brahman.

The prelude to the actual Dakshinamurti stotra says:- maunavyAkhyA

prakaTita—It is this word maunavyAkhyA—silent explanation-- that

brings out the fact that the instruction was through silence and not

the word `mudrA' which does not have the meaning `silence' at all.

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

 

>

>

>

>

>

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Sastri-ji,

 

 

 

<< I am afraid I cannot agree with you. Sri Ramana did not start a

separate school of Vedanta as Ramanuja and Madhva did.>>

 

 

 

Indeed not, although many of today's western satsang teachers act as if he

did!

 

 

 

<< Ramana has never said that he does not

agree with Sankara on any point. On the other hand he has translated

into Tamil Vivekachudamani which is accepted by tradition as the

work of Sankara.

The one point on which all the posr-Sankara advaitins are agreed is

that of the identity of jiva and Brahman.>>

 

 

 

 

 

I never suggested that this was otherwise. (Indeed, presumably all

non-dualists must agree on the 'bottom line'.) All that I was pointing out

is that he himself was not a 'good disciple' in order to be a 'good teacher'

to use the colloquial description of a true sampradAya teacher.

 

 

 

Regarding your quotations about Dakshinamurti teaching gods etc. through

silence, I really having nothing constructive to say on this. Clearly that

is what is stated. I am bound to say that I do not accept that any such

material was ever intended to be taken literally and it does not have any

positive connotations for me as a teaching method. I treat it in much the

same way as the various creation stories that are given in the shruti. But

obviously I respect your views to regard it otherwise. Can I ask how silence

functions as a pramANa according to advaita epistemology, however? Is it

explicitly mentioned in the VP?

 

 

 

Dear Nair-ji,

 

 

 

Your response seems to be substantiating what I was saying rather than

refuting it. What I had gathered from Swami Dayananda's comments was that

people had misinterpreted Dakshinamurti's use of the mudrA as being a

'teaching through silence'. From what you say, it seems that it must have

been intended to function as a reminder of what had previously been conveyed

through words; an abbreviation if you like. The use of this symbol on its

own would mean nothing at all to one who had not previously been taught

fully in the normal way (using language). But, for one who has been taught,

the symbol on its own is sufficient to remind one of its symbolic meaning.

 

 

 

Dear Vaibhav-ji,

 

 

 

You quote again from Ramana: " " Silence is ever speaking. It is a perennial

flow of

language, which is interrupted by speaking. These

words I am speaking obstruct that mute language. For

example, there is electricity flowing in a wire. With

resistance to its passage, it glows as a lamp or

revolves as a fan. In the wire it remains as electric

energy. Similarly also, silence is the eternal flow of

language, obstructed by words. What one fails to know

by conversation extending to several years can be

known instantly in silence, or in front of silence. "

 

 

 

I suggest that this is a 'mystical' teaching, rather than a recognized

sampradAya teaching. To my mind, silence is not language in any normally

accepted sense of the word. I do not dispute that there may be a profound

sense of aliveness/oneness or whatever when in the presence of someone like

Ramana but this is not the conveying of self-knowledge through teaching

which is, as I understand, what we are talking about.

 

 

 

Dear Harsha-ji,

 

 

 

You seem to be implying that I am in some way belittling or insulting

Ramana. Not at all. I have the highest respect for him and would not wish to

denigrate him in any way. The fact remains that he was 'self-realized' in

the literal sense, without the need for having a teacher as most of us do.

(Of course, some may say that he must have had all this teaching in previous

lives but this is another topic). Earlier threads have discussed sampradAya

teaching as being the 'safest' recourse for the seeker. There are many

teachers today who teach on their own authority and seekers need to be very

wary of them. It is rare indeed that one such as Ramana emerges. When I

referred to his 'unquestioned abilities and achievements', I was not

referring to any material achievements but to his stature as a teacher and

the legacy of his reported conversations - hardly transient or trivial! But

it is not 'my opinion' that he was not a sampradAya teacher; it is an

acknowledged fact.

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>Can I ask how silence

> functions as a pramANa according to advaita epistemology, however? Is it

> explicitly mentioned in the VP?

 

praNAms Shri Dennisji,

 

perhaps we need to delve deeper into what shabda means in the accepted

'shabda pramaaNa'. That is why aadaraneeya Shri Sastriji's posts on

shabda pramana are fundamental to our understanding.

 

Also, in message #39390, I asked a question about shabda pramana

and vak. Shri Anandaji referred to the post #24536, which explains a lot.

 

I would request members to read it again. That post, mixed with

Shri Sastriji's posts (some of which I assume are yet to come)

will help in our understanding of vak and shabda.

 

> I suggest that this is a 'mystical' teaching, rather than a recognized

> sampradAya teaching. To my mind, silence is not language in any normally

> accepted sense of the word. I do not dispute that there may be a profound

 

I do not think it is mystical teaching. It is a scientific method that we

do not understand yet. I feel there is lot of understanding yet to be done

before we start classifying " speech is this " and " silence is this " .

 

All in my humble opinion.

praNAms to all Advaitins who have helped me understand and learn

concepts that were way beyond me!

Ramakrishna

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

> according to Vidyaranya also, Dakshinamuri taught the four sages

> through silence. So it is not necessary to put an unusual

> interpretation on the word mudra on the assumption that

> Dakshinamurti (who was Lord Shiva Himself) could not have taught

> through silence.

 

sashtaang praNAms Shrimaan Sastriji,

 

I should have looked at your detailed post before replying to Dennisji.

I have a small request for you or other elders of the group.

 

Can someone kindly translate Sayanacharya's bhashya for mantra

1.164.45 of Rig Veda? This is the famous 'chatvaari-vaak' mantra,

where classification of speech into 4 levels is being talked about.

I think this mantra is relevant because of the following reasons:

 

1. Silence is the (perceived) absence of speech. Speech is the same

as vak, whose classification into 4 levels is being talked about in

this mantra.

 

2. I have seen Swami Tattvavidanandaji use it in his translation of

Shri Dakshinamurthy Stotram.

 

3. It also gels well with the shabda pramana translation you

(Shri Sastriji) are doing.

 

(The above (Shri Sayanacharya's commentary on RV. 1.164.45) is

also there in Shri Shri T V Kapali Sastry's book " Lights on the Ancients "

as an appendix.)

 

Please excuse me for any inappropriateness in making the above request.

 

praNAms again

Ramakrishna

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Ramakrishna,

 

 

 

The first sentence of the chapter on 'Verbal Testimony' in 'Methods of

Knowledge' (Swami Satprakashananda) states: " The Sanskrit term shabda, in

its widest sense, denotes sound. " and the second: " In the present context,

shabda means an articulate sound. " . What can this have to do with silence?

I'm bound to say that a verbal testimony communicated by silence sounds the

same to me as nutrition gained by starving.

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of Ramakrishna Upadrasta

27 February 2008 18:18

advaitin

Re: Need for a teacher...questions again

 

 

 

advaitin <advaitin%40> ,

" Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>Can I ask how silence

> functions as a pramANa according to advaita epistemology, however? Is it

> explicitly mentioned in the VP?

 

praNAms Shri Dennisji,

 

perhaps we need to delve deeper into what shabda means in the accepted

'shabda pramaaNa'. That is why aadaraneeya Shri Sastriji's posts on

shabda pramana are fundamental to our understanding.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dennis Waite wrote:

> Dear Harsha-ji,

>

> There are many teachers today who teach on their own authority and seekers

need to be very wary of them. It is rare indeed that one such as Ramana emerges.

When I referred to his 'unquestioned abilities and achievements', I was not

referring to any material achievements but to his stature as a teacher and the

legacy of his reported conversations - hardly transient or trivial! But it is

not 'my opinion' that he was not a sampradAya teacher; it is an acknowledged

fact.

Dear Dennis-ji:

 

I don't know much about SampraDaya. So whatever you feel is an acknowledged fact

about Sri Ramana and sampraDaya is fine. Although Sri Ramana did not have formal

training in Advaitic scriptures, he picked up most of the essential scholarly

knowledge and was quite well versed in the classical Advaitic traditions.

 

Being Self-Realized, Sri Ramana had the advantage of being able to know

instantly what any verse in any Shastra meant and being able to fully explain

it.

 

Many swamis and well known pundits and gurus and Shankracharyas of the time came

to have their doubts cleared about various scriptures from Bhagavan.

 

Namaste and love to all

Harsha

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> I'm bound to say that a verbal testimony communicated by silence

>sounds the same to me as nutrition gained by starving.

>

 

hariH OM! dennis-ji,

 

namaskaar.

 

it's difficult if not impossible to accept another's account of a

powerful experience unless they've had at least a degree of related

experience. unless one has experienced the darshan of a sage, they

have no idea, nor the capacity, to justifiably reject its

effectiveness...for their *own* edification! i.e. they'd be doing

themselves a great disservice.

 

if, on the other hand, one witnesses the deliberate [silent] gaze of

a sage (also referred to as mouna diksha...i.e. the transmission of

the experience of their sahaja samadhi), it is recognized to be

immeasurably superior to any verbal teaching. if anything, verbal or

written teachings can only serve to prepare one for either such

silent transmission or, of course, the shift into the turiya sthithi

(moksha) itself. note: mouna diksha isn't a necessary prerequisite

for achieving moksha; however, it can prove to significantly

accelerate the process leading to it.

 

i recently posted a link to view ramana's darshan (this video clip

shows only a about 5 seconds of the approx minute long version of

original footage seen on the video THE SAGE OF ARUNACHALA):

 

it would help enormously to do at least 20 mins meditation before

viewing..

 

(go to time: 6:26 for darshana.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvIlhN0frdY

 

namaste,

frank