Fwd: RE: Brahmacharya (& Ramana Maharshi)

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Peter M. " <not_2@b...> wrote:

Dear Friend,

 

Yes, I think we have to acknowledge Sri Ramana made both kinds of

statements

at different times and to different people. He also encouraged

different

people in different ways with regards their sadhana.

 

David Godman offers one view as to why this was so in " Be As You

Are: The

Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi. " , which is in line with Bhagavan's

response about giving 'Atma VIchara' to the villagers mentioned in

previous

post. Passage from David Godman below.

 

-----------------------------

Sri Ramana's insistence that awareness of the `I'-thought was a

prerequisite for Self-realization led him to the conclusion that all

spiritual practices which did not incorporate this feature were

indirect and

inefficient:

 

[Quoting Bhagavan:] " This path [attention to the `I'] is the

direct

path; all others are indirect ways. The first leads to the Self, the

others

elsewhere. And even if the latter do arrive at the Self it is only

because

they lead at the end to the first path which ultimately carries them

to the

goal. So, in the end, the aspirants must adopt the first path. Why

not do so

now? Why waste time?'

 

That is to say, other techniques may sometimes bring one to an

inner

state of stillness in which self-attention or self-awareness

inadvertently

takes place, but it is a very roundabout way of reaching the Self.

Sri

Ramana maintained that other techniques could only take one to the

place

where self-enquiry starts and so he never endorsed them unless he

felt that

particular questioners were unable or unwilling to adopt self-

enquiry. This

is illustrated , by a conversation in Sri Ramana Gita (an early

collection

of his questions and answers) in which Sri Ramana explained in

detail why

self-enquiry was the only way to realize the Self. After listening

carefully

to Sri Ramana's explanation the questioner was still unwilling to

accept

that self-enquiry was the only route to the Self and so he asked if

there

were any other methods by which the Self could be realized. Sri

Ramana

replied:

" The goal is the same for the one who meditates [on an object]

and the

one who practises self-enquiry. One attains stillness through

meditation,

the other through knowledge. One strives to attain something; the

other

seeks the one who strives to attain. The former takes a longer time,

but in

the end attains the Self. "

 

Not wanting to shake the faith of a man who had a known

predilection

for subject-object meditation and, having already ascertained that

he was

unwilling to take up self-enquiry, Sri Ramana encouraged him to

follow his

own chosen method by telling him that it would enable him to reach

the Self.

In Sri Ramana's view any method is better than no method since there

is

always the possibility that it will lead to self-enquiry.

 

He gave many other similar replies to other people for similar

reasons.

These replies, which indicate that methods other than self-enquiry or

surrender could result in Self-realization, should not be taken at

face

value since they were only given to people who were not attracted to

self-enquiry and who wanted to follow their own methods. When he

spoke to

other devotees who were not attached to what he called `indirect

methods',

he would usually reaffirm that self-attention was ultimately

indispensable.

 

Although Sri Ramana vigorously defended his views on self-

enquiry he

never insisted that anyone change their beliefs or practices and, if

he was

unable to convince his followers to take up self-enquiry, he would

happily

give advice on other methods. In the conversations in this chapter

he is

mostly answering questions from devotees who wanted advice on

conventional

forms of meditation (dbyana). In giving this advice he usually

defined

meditation as concentration on one thought to the exclusion of all

others,

but he sometimes gave it a higher definition by saying that keeping

the mind

fixed in the Self was true meditation. This latter practice is really

another name for self-enquiry, for, as he explained in one of his

early

written works, `Always keeping the mind fixed in Self alone is called

self-enquiry, whereas meditation is thinking oneself to be Brahman.

 

( " Be As You Are: The Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi " , David

Godman,

pp116-117)

----------------------

 

Regards,

 

P.

 

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On

Behalf

Of vineetasaxena2002

18 June 2005 19:57

advaitin

Re: Brahmacharya ( & Ramana Maharshi)

 

advaitin , " Peter M. " <not_2@b...> quoted

bhagavan:

 

" If a teaching is to be imparted according to the traditional

way, one must first see whether the recipient is qualified or not.

Then puja, japa or dhyana are prescribed step by step. Later the

Guru

says that this is all only preliminary and one has to transcend all

this. Finally, the ultimate truth that " Brahman alone is real " is

revealed and to realise this, the direct path of self-enquiry is to

be

taught. Why this roundabout process? Should we not state the

ultimate truth and direct path at the beginning itself rather than

advocating many methods and rejecting them in the end? "

 

....However in Upadesha Manjari (Tamil) recorded by Sri Natananandar

when pressed on this point bhagvan says:

 

" Q. Can this path of enquiry be followed by all aspirants?

 

M. This is suitable only for the very ripe souls. The rest should

follow methods according to the state of their minds till they are

ready. "

 

Bhagvan did not recommend nididhyasana as the first step in the

enquiry. Since bhagvan did not officially take anyone as his

disciple,

it is difficult to say how he thought of putting it into practice,

however the traditional way as quoted in your post was very much a

part of the ashrama schedule. . . .

<snip>

--- End forwarded message ---