NididhyAsana and Self-Enquiry

[Guest guest]

Shyam-ji wrote:

For a Vedantin, who also takes up Ramana's teachings as part of his

manamam, they represent a simple and wonderfully authentic and inspiring

teachings of a Realized Master that may tremendously aid in ones

understanding of the subject matter. But for someone who is looking for a

" direct path " of self-enquiry, a meditative " who am I? who am I? ... " -

that does not involve the use of Scriptural study as the primary means for

self-knowledge, I think there is a serious scope of this being a misguided

exercise in futility.

 

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

 

Namaste Shyam-ji,

To think that the beacon of light which

brought seekers from all over the world during his lifetime and after it

might only be an ignis fatuus after all. Extraordinary.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

Pranama Michaelji

My response was to a specific question addressing the contrast, if any, between nididhyasana of Vedanta and the direct path of atmavichara of Bhagwan Ramana. So please do not read anything more into my post than what is stated.

 

I dont know what a ignus faatus is. There is certainly no doubt that the Sage of Arunachala is one of the most revered jivanmuktAs of our time. So was the Buddha in His time, as was Guru Nanak, Sant Kabir, and many others who have been similar beacons of light to all of humanity.

 

My obesciences to Bhagwan Ramana.

Hari OM

Shyam

 

 

 

 

 

--- On Tue, 3/31/09, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva NididhyAsana and Self-Enquiryadvaitin Date: Tuesday, March 31, 2009, 7:28 PM

 

 

Shyam-ji wrote:For a Vedantin, who also takes up Ramana's teachings as part of his manamam, they represent a simple and wonderfully authentic and inspiring teachings of a Realized Master that may tremendously aid in ones understanding of the subject matter. But for someone who is looking for a "direct path" of self-enquiry, a meditative "who am I? who am I? ..." - that does not involve the use of Scriptural study as the primary means for self-knowledge, I think there is a serious scope of this being a misguided exercise in futility.|||||||||||| ||||||||| ||||||||| ||||||||| |||||||Namaste Shyam-ji,To think that the beacon of light which brought seekers from all over the world during his lifetime and after it might only be an ignis fatuus after all. Extraordinary.Best Wishes,Michael.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shyamji,

 

It's like saying memorizing and studying Kama Sutra is the means to understand

Kama whereas actually experiencing kama can be misguided exercise in futility. I

once heard a quip about Vatsayana that he never slept with a woman.

 

WORD IS NOT THE THING and MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY is a well known adage.

 

Suren

 

 

advaitin , Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

>

 

>  

> For a Vedantin, who also takes up Ramana's teachings as part of his manamam,

they represent a simple and wonderfully authentic and inspiring teachings of a

Realized Master that may tremendously aid in ones understanding of the subject

matter. But for someone who is looking for a " direct path " of self-enquiry,  a

meditative " who am I? who am I? ... " - that does not involve the use of

Scriptural study as the primary means for self-knowledge, I think there is a

serious scope of this being a misguided exercise in futility. 

>  

> Hari OM

> Shri Gurubhyoh namah

> Shyam

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

wrote:

>

>

>

> --- On Tue, 3/31/09, Peter <not_2 wrote:

>

> Peter - PraNAms

>

> Thanks peter for the info. The Sat Darshanam, the sanskrit version is

attributed I think to Ganapati Sastri who was also disciple of Ramana and I

thought he is the one who called the sage as Bhagavaan Ramana Maharshi.

> I am not sure any other sanskrit translation of this tamil work of Ramana.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

 

Dear Sada-ji,

As you rightly say, Sad darsanam is the Skt translation by Kavyakanta Ganapati

Muni of the Tamil work Ulladu Narpadu by Ramana Maharshi. Ganapati Muni was one

of the earliest disciples of Ramana. His mother-tongue was Telugu and he did not

know any Tamil when he first met Ramana. But he learnt Tamil within a very short

period and translated Ulladu Narpadu into Sanskrit. There is no other Skt

translation. It was Ganapati Muni who gave the name 'Bhagavan' to Ramana.

Ganapati Muni composed Umasahasram, consisting of 1000 shlokas in different

metres within a very short period in the presence of Ramana Maharshi.

There are many astonishing episodes in the life of Ganapati Muni.

Regards,

S.N.Sastri

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

>> There is no other Skt translation.<<

 

Dear Sastri-ji,

 

Please see my previous post (no. 44394)to Sada-ji . I have a copy of the

Sanskrit version with English translation of Ulladu Narpadu written by

Lakshmana Sarma under Bhagavan's guidance. It was republished in its 3rd

edition in 1991 by Sri Ramanasraman under the title of " Revelation " . It is

still available from Sri Ramanasraman today (for Rs5) as is Ganapati Muni's

translation with commentary by Kapila Sastri (rs50).

 

With best wishes,

 

Peter

 

 

>

> Dear Sada-ji,

> As you rightly say, Sad darsanam is the Skt translation by

> Kavyakanta Ganapati Muni of the Tamil work Ulladu Narpadu by

> Ramana Maharshi. Ganapati Muni was one of the earliest

> disciples of Ramana. His mother-tongue was Telugu and he did

> not know any Tamil when he first met Ramana. But he learnt

> Tamil within a very short period and translated Ulladu

> Narpadu into Sanskrit. There is no other Skt translation. It

> was Ganapati Muni who gave the name 'Bhagavan' to Ramana.

> Ganapati Muni composed Umasahasram, consisting of 1000

> shlokas in different metres within a very short period in the

> presence of Ramana Maharshi.

> There are many astonishing episodes in the life of Ganapati Muni.

> Regards,

> S.N.Sastri

> S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Peter " <not_2 wrote:

> Dear Sastri-ji,

>

> Please see my previous post (no. 44394)to Sada-ji . I have a copy of the

> Sanskrit version with English translation of Ulladu Narpadu written by

> Lakshmana Sarma under Bhagavan's guidance. It was republished in its 3rd

> edition in 1991 by Sri Ramanasraman under the title of " Revelation " . It is

> still available from Sri Ramanasraman today (for Rs5) as is Ganapati Muni's

> translation with commentary by Kapila Sastri (rs50).

>

> With best wishes,

>

> Peter

 

Dear Peter-ji,

Thanks for the information.What I wrote was based on Kapali Sastri's

Introduction to his English translation of his own commentary in Sanskrit on

Ganapati Muni's Saddarsanam. He does not mention about Lakshmana Sarma's

translation. So it is not clear whether what he had commented on was Ganapati

Muni's version before it was modified in the light of Lakshmana Sarma's

translation, or whether he had, deliberately or otherwise, left out any

reference to Lakshmana Sarma's translation.

I saw your post No. 44394 only after I had sent my previous post, though it must

have arrived earlier. I was not aware of Lakshmana Sarma's translation.

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

--- On Tue, 3/31/09, Peter <not_2 wrote:

 

Ganapati's version caused a bit of controversy at the time. On being given

a copy of Lakshmana's Sanskrit version he had composed a poetic version

based on Lakshmana's translation but using a shorter metre. Lakshmana and

Bhagavan both noticed that the shorter metre of the verses had allowed

Ganapati to water down and eliminate many of Bhagavan's advaitic statements

to fit in with Ganapati's own tradition - the Sakta school.

 

Bhagavan asked Lakshmana to resume his revision of his own translation

employing a longer metre so as to convey accurately the whole meaning of the

Tamil original.

 

----------

Peter - PraNAms

 

You mentioned that in the Ganapati's version, the meter is short because of

which he could interject Sakta school philosophy into it. I find the upadesa

saara meter the Sanskrit version attributed to Bhagavan himself is short. The

meter in the Sat Darshanam does not seem to be that short. Besides, I do not

think meter by itself will have any bearing to interject or not any philosophy.

I think one can interject any philosophy using any meter, short or long.

Bhagavan must have found something compelling to encourage Shree Lakshmana to

compose again.

 

 

Did Shree Lakshmana use longer meters like Shaardulam - ma sa ja sa ta ta ga -

(visham darpaNa dRishayamaana nagarii tulyam nijaantargatam,.... )Is his version

available on internet with meaning - to see where Ganapati interjected Sakta

philosophy and where Lakshmana's version is more an authenticated version of

Bhagavaan Ramana's teaching. I am more interested in the last part. do you know

where the two versions differ?

 

Perhaps prf. VK can provide us the sanskrit version and the meaning along with

the tamil version of Shree Lakshmana. That will be a great contribution, if he

campares the Ganapati sastri's verion also along with it.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends in the Advaitin Sangha,

 

Sri Alan Jacobs, the President of the Ramana Maharshi Foundation, UK is the

moderator of . HarshaSatangh, to my knowledge, is the largest

Sri Ramana group on and probably on the web. Alan-ji had asked

that we put something about on the Luthar.com site so that

Ramana devotees and others are able to find it more easily. So I wrote up

the following with a brief history and summary of . I can fine

tune it if there are any errors.

 

-the-largest-sri-bhagavan-ramana-maharshi-gr

oup-on-the-web

 

I should make one comment. I believe I read something by Prof. VK a while

back that one of the sages has said (possibly Kanchi Shankracharya) that

even when a person has a spiritual teacher who is not Self-Realized, it does

not matter. If the aspirant has earnest and intense desire, then Bhagavan

Himself enters (or works through) that Teacher at the proper time and

blesses the devotee with grace and Self-Realization.

 

Being on the Advaitin list is always experience of growth and understanding.

We are all grateful for this wonderful forum and to the moderators and other

very knowledgeable members, who give their time and energy to clarify the

teachings of Advaita as found in the Upanishads and as commented on by Sri

Shankra and so many other teachers in that lineage.

 

Pranaams to all my Teachers here.

 

Namaste and love to all

 

Yours in Bhagavan

Harsha

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of surenirukulla

Wednesday, April 01, 2009 12:03 AM

advaitin

Re: NididhyAsana and Self-Enquiry

 

Namaste Shyamji,

 

It's like saying memorizing and studying Kama Sutra is the means to

understand Kama whereas actually experiencing kama can be misguided exercise

in futility. I once heard a quip about Vatsayana that he never slept with a

woman.

 

WORD IS NOT THE THING and MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY is a well known adage.

 

Suren

 

 

advaitin , Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

>

 

>  

> For a Vedantin, who also takes up Ramana's teachings as part of his

manamam, they represent a simple and wonderfully authentic and

inspiring teachings of a Realized Master that may tremendously aid in ones

understanding of the subject matter. But for someone who is looking for a

" direct path " of self-enquiry,  a meditative " who am I? who am I? ... " -

that does not involve the use of Scriptural study as the primary means for

self-knowledge, I think there is a serious scope of this being a misguided

exercise in futility. 

>  

> Hari OM

> Shri Gurubhyoh namah

> Shyam

 

 

 

 

---

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Sada-ji,

 

> You mentioned that in the Ganapati's version, the meter is

> short because of which he could interject Sakta school

> philosophy into it.

 

The source for this piece of history is " The Power of the Presence " by David

Godman.

 

This was both Lakshmana's and Bhagavan's observation according to Lakshmana.

The story told by Lakshmana is that while he was revising his Sanskrit

translation of Ulladu Narpadu titled " Sat Darshanam " and just starting on a

3rd revision, Sri Kapali Sastri visited Sri Ramanasraman. When he heard

about Lakshmana's Sanskrit translation he asked if he could see it. Kapali

Sastri then proposed it be sent to Gananpati Muni (Kapali's teacher) as

there was a question of whether the metre was correct. Instead of offering

revisions on Lakshmana's text Ganapati composed his own version and gave it

the same title, returning this to Bhagavan with a letter written in an

apologetic vein and thanking Lakshmana for showing him the way. Lakshmana

continues:

 

" I have to say that when I first saw this new version, I was greatly

enchanted with its polished style although I could clearly see that in a few

places the translator and failed to do justice to the original text.

" My fist reaction was that, on the whole, this new rendering was very

much better than any I could achieve myself. I told Bhagavan, 'This will do

for my parayana. Why should I bother and revise my own version?'

" Immediately a vigorous hunkara, a gesture of emphatic disapproval,

burst forth from Bhagavan, who followed it up immediately with an injunction

to resume my work of revision. He also asked me to employ a longer metre so

as to convey accurately the whole meaning of the original "

 

Shortly after this Ganapati's published his own translation with the

addition of a commentary upon it. Lakshmana wrote:

 

" All possible efforts had been made in this book to appear that Bhagavan did

not teach advaita. That standpoint was negated in every possible way. In

this work it was made to appear that Bhagavan did not teach the unreality of

the world. Bhagavan also taught, as all advaita teachers do, that the

individual soul is illusory. This teaching was deliberately ignored. In its

place their own teachings were conveyed, that the individuality survives in

the state of deliverance as an entity distinct from God, who is the one

supreme reality. That there is no place for this tenet is well know to the

great majority of the Master's disciples. "

 

In his biographical chapter on Lakshmana Sarma, David Godman adds a footnote

here that Lakshmana noted that the teachings espoused in the original

edition of Sat Darshanam (by Ganapati Muni) were more extreme than those

that appeared in more recent editions and that in the later editions the

differences between Ganapati Muni's teachings and Bhagavans were less

obvious.

 

(The above qoute and footnote from Lakshmana Sarma is in " The Power of the

Presence " , vol 3, p168, by Godman. More information about this is contained

therein.)

 

Sadaji - I'm not competent to compare the two sanskrit versions of

Lakshmana's and Ganapati Muni's. I have over ten translations of this work,

including Ganapati Muni's, and they all vary slightly. I value them all.

However, I always return to Lakshmana's version because he is one of the few

people, possibly only two, who had prolonged and individual tuition from

Bhagavan Ramana. This was something quite rare and included individual

teaching on the meaning of the Forty Verses.

 

I have not been able to find a version on Lakshmana Sarma's " Revelation " on

the Web. I believe it is available in USA for $3.00 from:

 

http://store.satramana.org/revelation.html

 

Best wishes,

 

Peter

[Guest guest]

Dear Suren-ji and Michael-ji,

Regarding your amusing (but slightly flippant) comments on

Shyam-ji’s statement, I think you are missing the point. I believe it was Swami

Chinmayananda who said that (without guidance from a qualified teacher), the

only likely answer to repeated asking of the question ‘Who am I?’ was “the same

old fool”.

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of surenirukulla

Wednesday, April 01, 2009 5:03 AM

advaitin

Re: NididhyAsana and Self-Enquiry

 

 

 

 

 

 

Namaste Shyamji,

 

It's like saying memorizing and studying Kama Sutra is the means to understand

Kama whereas actually experiencing kama can be misguided exercise in futility.

I once heard a quip about Vatsayana that he never slept with a woman.

 

WORD IS NOT THE THING and MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY is a well known adage.

 

Suren

[Guest guest]

Namaste Denis-ji,

Not flippant on my part. Bhagavan Ramana without a standing army of swamis and volunteers permeates the hearts of millions. His gaze evoked the mahavakya within many. Others may give it out with pomp and circumstance and it may be treasured therefore as a piece of spiritual capital. It's the innerview not the interview that counts.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Suren-ji and Michael-ji,

Regarding your amusing (but slightly flippant) comments on Shyam-ji’s statement, I think you are missing the point. I believe it was Swami Chinmayananda who said that (without guidance from a qualified teacher), the only likely answer to repeated asking of the question ‘Who am I?’ was “the same old fool”.

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of surenirukullaWednesday, April 01, 2009 5:03 AMadvaitin Subject: Re: NididhyAsana and Self-Enquiry

 

 

 

 

Namaste Shyamji,It's like saying memorizing and studying Kama Sutra is the means to understand Kama whereas actually experiencing kama can be misguided exercise in futility. I once heard a quip about Vatsayana that he never slept with a woman.WORD IS NOT THE THING and MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY is a well known adage.Suren

 

 

 

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.35/2034 - Release 04/01/09 06:06:00

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennis,

 

I didn't get the impression that Michael was being flippant, nor that he had missed the point. I did feel he was raising a good point himself which he amplified a little in his follow up post to you.

 

Swami Chinmayananda's statement is poignant as well as amusing. It's good to laugh at our selves. Might we just pause and reflect on the following?

 

Bhagavan Ramana is recognised as a Jnani by many great teachers. From what the records show, Sri Ramana was capable of answering from his own experience any scriptural question put to him and able to quote at will from scripture. Is it not possible that Bhagavan Ramana would have been aware of the issues underlying Swamiji's statement and also underlying the points you and Shyamji have made? And yet he chose to teach the path of self-inquiry with his method of "Who am I?" to many people whether they studied scripture or not or whether they had a guru or not? We also appreciate from the written testimony that Bhagavan also matched his response and teaching to meet the requirements and level of understanding of the questioner. So it wasn't just that he only had one thing to say and just repeated it over and over for the sake of it.

 

Sri Ramana's method of "Who am I?" is not a repetition of "who am I?.who am I?....." as Shyamji implied. Nor does it involve looking for an answer to the question as your quote from Swamiji implied. I'm sure you know this. I mention it just for those who might mistake the parody for the real thing.

 

Best wishes,

 

Peter

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Dennis Waite01 April 2009 16:13advaitin Subject: RE: Re: NididhyAsana and Self-Enquiry

 

 

Dear Suren-ji and Michael-ji,

Regarding your amusing (but slightly flippant) comments on Shyam-ji’s statement, I think you are missing the point. I believe it was Swami Chinmayananda who said that (without guidance from a qualified teacher), the only likely answer to repeated asking of the question ‘Who am I?’ was “the same old fool”.

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of surenirukullaWednesday, April 01, 2009 5:03 AMadvaitin Subject: Re: NididhyAsana and Self-Enquiry

 

 

 

 

Namaste Shyamji,It's like saying memorizing and studying Kama Sutra is the means to understand Kama whereas actually experiencing kama can be misguided exercise in futility. I once heard a quip about Vatsayana that he never slept with a woman.WORD IS NOT THE THING and MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY is a well known adage.Suren

[Guest guest]

Dear Peter,

It is good that you make these points, less anyone get the wrong

idea. I myself belong to the Ramana Maharshi Foundation in the UK (and maintain

their website – all one page of it!) so I would be amongst the first to

recognize him as one of the greatest ever teachers – no question about

it. But the fact remains that many seekers do not understand the method and think

that it will in itself lead to realization, whether as a mantra or as a

question with an answer. Without any actual contact with a qualified teacher to

monitor their ‘progress’ and answer their questions, they are very likely

to be frustrated. Many satsang teachers also teach ‘in his name’

without any authorization whatsoever, and maybe without true understanding

themselves. There is no paramparA here - *that* is the danger.

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Peter

Wednesday, April 01, 2009 6:31 PM

advaitin

RE: Re: NididhyAsana and Self-Enquiry

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Dennis,

 

I didn't get the impression that Michael was being flippant, nor

that he had missed the point. I did feel he was raising a good point

himself which he amplified a little in his follow up post to you.

 

Swami Chinmayananda's statement is poignant as well

as amusing. It's good to laugh at our selves. Might we

just pause and reflect on the following?

 

Bhagavan Ramana is recognised as a Jnani by many great

teachers. From what the records show, Sri Ramana was capable of

answering from his own experience any scriptural question put to him and

able to quote at will from scripture. Is it not possible that Bhagavan Ramana

would have been aware of the issues underlying Swamiji's

statement and also underlying the points you and Shyamji have

made? And yet he chose to teach the path of self-inquiry with his

method of " Who am I? " to many people whether they studied scripture

or not or whether they had a guru or not? We also appreciate from the written

testimony that Bhagavan also matched his response and teaching to meet the

requirements and level of understanding of the questioner. So it wasn't just

that he only had one thing to say and just repeated it over and over for the

sake of it.

 

Sri Ramana's method of " Who am I? " is not a repetition of

" who am I?.who am I?..... " as Shyamji implied. Nor does it

involve looking for an answer to the question as your quote from Swamiji

implied. I'm sure you know this. I mention it just for those who

might mistake the parody for the real thing.

 

Best wishes,

 

Peter

 

 

[Guest guest]

PraNAms to all

 

PraNAms to all.

 

First Dennis - The statement quoted came not from Swami Chinmayananda but from

Swami Dayanandaji -.

 

Second Peter, your points are well taken. Bhagavaan Ramana himself was well

aware of the scriptures and has provided selected 100 slokas from Bhagavad-Gita,

for people to study and also quoted profusely from VivekachuuDamani, if I

remember correctly.

 

It is true, who am I or Koham? is one of the questions asked by a student even

in VevekachuuDamani?

 

Understanding of who am I is the basis - in the Sat Darshanam - the enquiry

starts with examining the three divisions - jiiva, jagat and Iswara - in

principle inquiry of any one of the three should lead to the substantive

Satyam-jnaanam - emphasized in the very first sloka - without the existence

principle how can there be existence of anything - that include

jiiva-jagat-Iswara. Without the inquiry of the first person (I) how can there

be an inquiry of the existence of the second (world) and the third (Iswara)?

 

What is not that much emphasized is - the enquiry of the world and of course the

Iswara - with the assumption that enquiry of who am I should lead to the

substantive of the other two? Advaita Vedanta emphasizes - three -Brahma satyam,

jagat mithyaa and jiiva is the same as Brahman. The who am I inquiry by negating

I am not this will lead you to the understanding I am the

existence-consciousness principle. The question that once Durgaji posed is - how

is 'this is' included in I - as in the process of finding I, I have negated this

and also Iswara along with it.

 

Would the 'I am' lead automatically to the understanding that jagat is mithyaa

and I am that Brahman? If so then the analysis is complete. Actually that

requires a careful analysis of the jagat and Iswara too - what Upanishad does.

 

In the neti or not this, advaita emphasizes the panca kosha vilaxanatvam - that

is discarding or differentiating the five koshas that I am not - as emphasized

in the Taittiriiya Upanishad.

 

If that discriminative intellect is developed in the inquiry of who am I, then

it is only a Vedantic teaching. In my opinion, the sampradaaya and the

scriptural teaching is only to arrive the goal without getting de-railed. Means

is important to reach the goal - understanding of the Goal helps to have the

proper means. Ramana had the knowledge of the scriptures - following Ramana

requires following his example too. Otherwise there is a possibility of not

reaching the goal. But any claims that this is a direct path and other is not

will lead to only a shortsightedness since any proper inquiry requires the full

understanding of what that sustantive sat - darshanam involves.

 

Kshurasya dhaara duratyayaa durgam pathanaat kavayo vadanti - says Katha. It is

a razor-edge path and has to be careful not falling down.

The rest is only to establish the faith in the inquiry - which is most important

for jnaanam - shraddhaavan labhate jnaanam.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Dear Sadanandaji and others writing in this thread:

 

Dandavat pranams to you!

 

May I also interject to suggest that Grace is the most

important factor in the final result, whatever the approach?

If I had to choose between Grace and a living embodied

teacher, I will take Grace without a moment's hesitation.

We can negate Ishwara and consciousness and creation

all we want to until satisfied that we have somehow reached

some advaitic understanding. But permit me to also suggest

that there are mysteries far beyond our ability to conceptualize

and that it is always wise to remember this with head bowed

in humility.

 

In His Service,

 

Radhe

 

 

 

-

kuntimaddi sadananda

advaitin

Wednesday, April 01, 2009 2:19 PM

RE: Re: NididhyAsana and Self-Enquiry

 

 

 

Means is important to reach the goal - understanding of the Goal helps to

have the proper means. Ramana had the knowledge of the scriptures -

following Ramana requires following his example too. Otherwise there is a

possibility of not reaching the goal. But any claims that this is a direct

path and other is not will lead to only a shortsightedness since any proper

inquiry requires the full understanding of what that sustantive sat -

darshanam involves.

 

Kshurasya dhaara duratyayaa durgam pathanaat kavayo vadanti - says Katha. It

is a razor-edge path and has to be careful not falling down.

The rest is only to establish the faith in the inquiry - which is most

important for jnaanam - shraddhaavan labhate jnaanam.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

PranAms Michael-ji Peter-ji and others.

Once again let me attempt to clarify - my post was not in the least bit a criticism, much less a parody, of Bhagawan Ramana, nor of his "method".

 

In fact - I doubt Bhagwan Ramana ever outlined a methodology that he labeled "my method" or the "Ramana method" or a "direct" method - like any other Realized Master he provided answers to various visitors all of whom obviously came from different backgrounds and with different temparaments, and in addition composed some wonderful teachings that emphasized atma-anatma viveka very beautifully and poignantly. I doubt the Maharshi would have Himself liked his method to be called "new" or "direct" much less a substitute to a traditional learning of Vedanta.

 

Peter-ji - I have never implied that "who am I" is a mindless repetetion - please read through my post carefully. What I have outlined is a fact - that an intellect - itself a product of avidyA - cannot - without recourse to an independent and valid means of knowledge - ever by any amount of viveka - arrive at the transcendental truth that will ablate its own self-ignorance.

 

One needs to have a very careful understanding of the concepts of prama and pramana and what and how knowledge takes place and the knowledge series by Shri Sada-ji may be a great place to review this.

 

The land of Bharat has had hundreds and thousands of Realized Masters through the ages - even today the Himalayas have any number of Realized AchAryas, avadhutAs, and Saints - who the West has no access to, or interest in, and who themselves are highly selective in who they impart traiditional Brahmavidya to - for example can anyone tell me who Swami Tapovan - Swami Chinmayananda-ji's Guru obtained jnAna-dikshA from? - there are so so many such relatively unknown Masters even today. For the majority of them, such BrahmavidyA is obtained in a traditional sampradaya/ by use of traditional Vedantic methodology. That is the beauty of Vedanta - it is not personality driven - it is not authored by humans based on their personal experiences as I wiil talk about more - it is not about who is the most popular amongst the Realized persona nor who has the most organizational skills as Michael-ji alluded to - but it is only

about the teaching itself - Vedanta is verily the impersonal Truth. And precisely because it is not authored by a human it is considered to be a valid pramAna - a means of knowledge.

 

Now through the ages, especially in India, there have been so many vibhUtis of the Lord who seemingly dont have any exposure to this pramAna at least as far as we can tell, and who still were granted or acquired the advaitic vision. Gautam Buddha was one such Prince Siddhartha who obtained enlightenment. Guru Nanak obatined this vision it is recorded I think sometime in his thirties in the midst of a married life. And he was able to discern and preach that there is One formless God which is Sat and the root cause of samsara is the Ego or the i-sense which is a false sense of separation from that Truth. Sant Kabir is another such individual who clearly preached Advaita and the oneness of the jivatma and the paramatma.

 

One can, and in fact, one should harbor a devout reverence to these Divine personalities, such as Bhagwan Ramana, who represent the best of Ishwara's vibhutis and whose very presence sanctifies and purifies the land and blesses its peoples - their capacity to bless us is unquestionable.

 

But one should be careful in my opinion to not then extend that reverence into a belief in their words as being a substitute for the traditonal teaching methodology of the Vedas. Simply because the Buddha was a Realized Master does not make the Lotus Sutra a pramana nor does the Guru Granth contain an equally valid methodology to understand non-duality, nor can one of course hope to intensely study Kabir's dohas as some kind of a direct approach to Advaita.

 

On the other hand, a traditional Vedantin, i.e. can find immense beauty and discern the verisame truths that the eternal Vedas proclaim in each and every of these varied outpourings of different Masters. The beauty of it is that they will ever affirm the verisame truths that Vedanta as a pramana directly reveals which is "tat tvam asi" - they may of course be couched in any number of flavors. The Truth that the Eternal Vedas proclaim can never be improved upon.

 

In the tradition of Sanatana Dharma no individual proclamation or personal experience can ever be taken as an independent pramana - even if it be a avatara purushA Himself (let alone a Realized Master) - it is always the Vedas in general and Vedanta in particular, which is rightfully regarded as the ONLY impersonal representation of Eternal Truth of Advaita.

 

Trust this clarifies.

 

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

 

--- On Wed, 4/1/09, Peter <not_2 wrote:

Peter <not_2RE: Re: NididhyAsana and Self-Enquiryadvaitin Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2009, 1:30 PM

 

 

 

Dear Dennis,

 

Bhagavan Ramana is recognised as a Jnani by many great teachers. From what the records show, Sri Ramana was capable of answering from his own experience any scriptural question put to him and able to quote at will from scripture. Is it not possible that Bhagavan Ramana would have been aware of the issues underlying Swamiji's statement and also underlying the points you and Shyamji have made? And yet he chose to teach the path of self-inquiry with his method of "Who am I?" to many people whether they studied scripture or not or whether they had a guru or not?

Sri Ramana's method of "Who am I?" is not a repetition of "who am I?.who am I?....." as Shyamji implied. Nor does it involve looking for an answer to the question as your quote from Swamiji implied. I'm sure you know this. I mention it just for those who might mistake the parody for the real thing.

 

Best wishes,

 

Peter

 

 

 

Recent Activity

 

 

5

New Members

 

1

New FilesVisit Your Group

 

 

 

Give Back

for Good

Get inspired

by a good cause.

 

Y! Toolbar

Get it Free!

easy 1-click access

to your groups.

 

 

Start a group

in 3 easy steps.

Connect with others.

..

[Guest guest]

From :H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

advaitin , " Radhe " <shaantih wrote:

" If I had to choose between Grace and a living embodied

teacher, I will take Grace without a moment's hesitation. "

 

Dear Smt Radhe,

 

Are Grace and a living embodied teacher two different and

distinct entities? Is it not that Grace which is none other than

Self and which is one's own true nature appears as the living embodied teacher

as well as the living embodied mumukshu?

 

This is the beauty of the Divine Lila.

 

This is what mantra 1-4-10 of Bruhadaranyaka Upanishad and

Sri Shankara's commentary on that mantra teach.

 

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Refernece (1) below. Why this haste to label something a 'methodology' and then

discard certain things as external to it?

 

Traditional vedanta is a vast resource emanating from various sources. Although

the central idea is almost the same, the various upanishads are vastly different

in style and contents. When those authorless scriptures originated (I know

something authorless can't have 'originated' either!), no one around 'then' was

eager to call what they expressed a 'traditional methodlogy'.

 

The later teachers, including Shankara, have come out with different

interpretations of those same resources. Why then are we so reticent to take

Ramana and others too in the fold of the vedantic mainstream when we admit so

loudly that Bhagawan didn't teach anything different at all from what Shankara

did?

 

Refernece (2) below. May I know whether our impersonal resources proclaim

anywhere in their body that they are the only and absolute pramANa or is such a

view, including the significance we attach to prastAnatraya, a later personal

proclamation? If the upanishads do not call themselves pramANa, like the

well-known scriptures of other religions, then we have a problem whose

interpretation of them is pramANa. No advaitin proclaiming lineage to Shankara

would like that.

 

When we say the upanishads were not authored, we probably only mean that they

were spontaneous revelations of Consciousness which ancient sages could tap

into. While passing those revelations to posterity, those self-less souls very

well knew that their knowledge didn't belong to them and, thus, preferred to

remain in anonymity. We have every reason to conclude that it was this that

happened with Bh. Ramana too (and many others across continents!). Bhagawan

didn't attach his signature to what he spoke or wrote. It was his disciples who

did that. There is, therefore, no harm in accepting Bhagawan's words as pramANa

as much as the upanishads and incuding him in the hierarchy of vedantic teachers

beginning with Dakshinamurthi.

 

Madathil Nair

 

______________________

-- In advaitin , Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

>

(1) In fact - I doubt Bhagwan Ramana ever outlined a methodology that he labeled

" my method " or the " Ramana method " or a " direct " method - like any other

Realized Master he provided answers to various visitors all of whom obviously

came from different backgrounds and with different temparaments, and in addition

composed some wonderful teachings that emphasized atma-anatma viveka very

beautifully and poignantly. I doubt the Maharshi would have Himself liked his

method to be called " new " or " direct " much less a substitute to a traditional

learning of Vedanta.

>  

 

> (2)In the tradition of Sanatana Dharma no individual proclamation or personal

experience can ever be taken as an independent pramana - even if it be a avatara

purushA Himself (let alone a Realized Master) - it is always the Vedas in

general and Vedanta in particular, which is rightfully regarded as the ONLY

impersonal representation of Eternal Truth of Advaita.     

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Shyam-ji and readers of this thread,

 

A minor correction, if I may: I did not write that you implied "who am I?" is a mindless repetition. The word "mindless" is your addition to my words. Should I also ask you to read my post again, carefully?

 

I did state that the way you described the method as " 'a meditative "who am I? who am I? ... does imply the practice is a continued repetition of the question - which it is not. This coupled with the quote offered by Dennis whereby the answer to the question "Who am I?" is the "the same old fool" has the risk of creating a wrong impression and making a parody out of something that was/is a serious practice advocated by Bhagavan Ramana. We are, after all, still exploring Prof.VK-ji's serious question regarding Nididhyasana and Bhagavan Ramana's Self-Enquiry, are we not?

 

You say:

 

>> In fact - I doubt Bhagwan Ramana ever outlined a methodology that he labeled

>> "my method" or the "Ramana method" or a "direct" method. I doubt the Maharshi

>> would have Himself liked his method to be called "new" or "direct"...

 

The issue is not whether Bhagavan Ramana called the method of self-inquiry "my method" or the "Ramana method". The issue is that he did indeed teach a method, a practice of self-inquiry (atma-vichara, vichara-marga), which he called the investigation of "Who am I?".

 

Contrary to what you say, Bhagavan did refer to it as the "direct" method. I am surprised you are unaware of this. There are many references to this. Here are ust a few obvious examples from "Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi":-

 

"This is the direct method. Whereas all other methods are done, only retaining the ego. In those paths there arise so many doubts and the eternal question remains to be tackled finally. But in this method the final question is the only one and it is raised from the very beginning." (Talk 146)

 

""Seeking the ego, i.e., its source, ego disappears. What is left over is the Self. This method is the direct one." (Talk 174)

 

"It is the direct method. The other methods also will ultimately lead everyone to this method of the investigation of the Self." (Talk 266)

 

"This is the direct method for Self-Realisation." (Talk 616)

 

The context and method of practice for 'self-inquiry' can be found in Bhagavans book (booklet rather) "Who am I?" This was originally recorded in question and answer form by one of his first devotees and was later handed out to visitors at the ashram. It was the first recorded teaching. Bhagavan later rewrote it himself in essay form. This essay version can be found in "Words of Grace".

 

Shyam-ji, you clearly have a rich understanding of Advaita Vedanta as you have studied it under your teachers. With respect, your statement qouted above and your comments on the practice of "Who am I?" in your earlier post suggest you are far less familiar with the teachings of Bhagavan Ramana - yet about which you have such definite views. I am not suggesting you, or anyone else, should be familiar with these teachings.

 

You continue:

 

>> What I have outlined is a fact - that an intellect - itself a product of avidyA - cannot -

>> without recourse to an independent and valid means of knowledge - ever by any amount

>> of viveka - arrive at the transcendental truth that will ablate its own self-ignorance.

 

This is not "a fact" . This is a view. It is an advaitin view. Other spiritual traditions have quite different views about the transcendental truth and its attainment which they also call "facts".

 

I appreciate your explanation of traditional vedanta as a pramana. This is a view I very familiar with and heartily accept as a student of advaita. My point was that Bhagavan Ramana demonstrated through his knowledge of the scriptures and in his dialogues with advaitin scholars that he was also very aware of the traditional view and its requirements. And yet he taught atma-vichara to people who had not studied scripture and even to those who came from different traditions. Are we to believe that while he was considered a Jnani capable of explaining scriptural questions and points of practice to the learned and un-learned alike he was still ignorant of the points you are making here?

 

Best wishes,

 

Peter

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Shyam01 April 2009 21:28advaitin Subject: RE: Re: NididhyAsana and Self-Enquiry

 

 

 

 

 

 

PranAms Michael-ji Peter-ji and others.

Once again let me attempt to clarify - my post was not in the least bit a criticism, much less a parody, of Bhagawan Ramana, nor of his "method".

 

In fact - I doubt Bhagwan Ramana ever outlined a methodology that he labeled "my method" or the "Ramana method" or a "direct" method - like any other Realized Master he provided answers to various visitors all of whom obviously came from different backgrounds and with different temparaments, and in addition composed some wonderful teachings that emphasized atma-anatma viveka very beautifully and poignantly. I doubt the Maharshi would have Himself liked his method to be called "new" or "direct" much less a substitute to a traditional learning of Vedanta.

 

Peter-ji - I have never implied that "who am I" is a mindless repetetion - please read through my post carefully. What I have outlined is a fact - that an intellect - itself a product of avidyA - cannot - without recourse to an independent and valid means of knowledge - ever by any amount of viveka - arrive at the transcendental truth that will ablate its own self-ignorance. <snip>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Peter-ji.

 

By the word 'direct', Bhagawan could have meant 'easier' only. Definitely, he

was not labelling anything as different from the vedantic mainstream.

 

Otherwise, our teachers like Chinmayanandaji, Dayanandaji et al wouldn't have

spent so much time on his teachings. The latter has great admiration and

respect for Bhagawan. I had been fortunate once to sit right in front of him

and listen to his melodious rendering of Upadesasaram by-heart! His

preoccupation with Bhagawan, I have heard, once made a hardened Ramanite to

wonder in a western mag if Swamiji planned to 'own up' Bh. Ramana completely!

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

______________

 

advaitin , " Peter " <not_2 wrote:

>

> Contrary to what you say, Bhagavan did refer to it as the " direct " method.

> I am surprised you are unaware of this. There are many references to this.

> Here are ust a few obvious examples from " Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi " :-

>