Guest guest Posted August 25, 2008 Report Share Posted August 25, 2008 The state we call realization is simply being oneself, not knowing anything or becoming anything. If one has realized, he is that which alone is, and which alone has always been. He cannot describe that state. He can only be That. Of course, we loosely talk of Self-realization for want of a better term. That which is, is peace. All that we need do is to keep quiet. Peace is our real nature. We spoil it. What is required is that we cease to spoil it. - Ramana Maharshi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2008 Report Share Posted August 28, 2008 Would anyone care to discuss these points on the basis of Vedanta? On Behalf Of Gloria Lee Sunday, August 24, 2008 11:25 PM Peace is our real nature The state we call realization is simply being oneself, not knowing anything or becoming anything. If one has realized, he is that which alone is, and which alone has always been. He cannot describe that state. He can only be That. Of course, we loosely talk of Self-realization for want of a better term. That which is, is peace. All that we need do is to keep quiet. Peace is our real nature. We spoil it. What is required is that we cease to spoil it. - Ramana Maharshi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2008 Report Share Posted August 28, 2008 Why discuss this? Why not simply "be" as Bhagavan directs? "...Peace is our real nature. We spoil it." - Pandu Wednesday, August 27, 2008 9:17 PM RE: Peace is our real nature Would anyone care to discuss these points on the basis of Vedanta? On Behalf Of Gloria LeeSunday, August 24, 2008 11:25 PM Subject: Peace is our real nature The state we call realization is simply being oneself, not knowing anything or becoming anything. If one has realized, he is that which alone is, and which alone has always been. He cannot describe that state. He can only be That. Of course, we loosely talk of Self-realization for want of a better term. That which is, is peace. All that we need do is to keep quiet. Peace is our real nature. We spoil it. What is required is that we cease to spoil it. - Ramana Maharshi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 29, 2008 Report Share Posted August 29, 2008 Does discussion, or any action, put an end to being? Does the Self cease to exist when the body acts? If so, then is it real? If not, then who forgets the Self? How is the one who forgets the Self different from the Self? On Behalf Of orva schrock Thursday, August 28, 2008 8:30 AM Re: Peace is our real nature Why discuss this? Why not simply " be " as Bhagavan directs? " ...Peace is our real nature. We spoil it. " ----- Original Message ----- Pandu Wednesday, August 27, 2008 9:17 PM RE: Peace is our real nature Would anyone care to discuss these points on the basis of Vedanta? On Behalf Of Gloria Lee Sunday, August 24, 2008 11:25 PM Peace is our real nature The state we call realization is simply being oneself, not knowing anything or becoming anything. If one has realized, he is that which alone is, and which alone has always been. He cannot describe that state. He can only be That. Of course, we loosely talk of Self-realization for want of a better term. That which is, is peace. All that we need do is to keep quiet. Peace is our real nature. We spoil it. What is required is that we cease to spoil it. - Ramana Maharshi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 29, 2008 Report Share Posted August 29, 2008 Of course discussion does not change our state of existence, but there are many reasons to be wary of it: it reinforces the ego of the "wise one who knows." it distracts from the natural silence which is the best teacher and true guru. it leads poor seekers to imagine that if only they can understand the "discussion", enlightenment comes. it is often the clash [however subtle] of egos vying for a gold star for their own intense wisdom. it is a way to toss out rhetorical questions to make the other poor sap look like, well, a poor sap. it is a way we talk ourselves into a frenzy of self-righteous "esoteric romanticism"; showy but hollow. it is so much more etc..... I have nothing against discussion as communication and the sharing of ideas and thoughts and all that jazz. It's just that the proposal to discuss the perfect, simple, self-contained, all-encompassing quote below seems like the most egregious gilding of the already perfect lily... Discuss all you want. I'll be quiet for a while and leave you the space to spin out your theories and concepts. May you always remember your true nature which is perfection. You may well shudder at the thought, but you and I are one in reality. Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Ramanaya. - Pandu Thursday, August 28, 2008 6:52 PM RE: Peace is our real nature Does discussion, or any action, put an end to being? Does the Self cease to exist when the body acts? If so, then is it real? If not, then who forgets the Self? How is the one who forgets the Self different from the Self? On Behalf Of orva schrockThursday, August 28, 2008 8:30 AM Subject: Re: Peace is our real nature Why discuss this? Why not simply "be" as Bhagavan directs? "...Peace is our real nature. We spoil it." - Pandu Wednesday, August 27, 2008 9:17 PM RE: Peace is our real nature Would anyone care to discuss these points on the basis of Vedanta? On Behalf Of Gloria LeeSunday, August 24, 2008 11:25 PM Subject: Peace is our real nature The state we call realization is simply being oneself, not knowing anything or becoming anything. If one has realized, he is that which alone is, and which alone has always been. He cannot describe that state. He can only be That. Of course, we loosely talk of Self-realization for want of a better term. That which is, is peace. All that we need do is to keep quiet. Peace is our real nature. We spoil it. What is required is that we cease to spoil it. - Ramana Maharshi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 29, 2008 Report Share Posted August 29, 2008 Dear Panduji, "Does the Self cease to exist when the body acts? How is the one who forgets the Self different from the Self? Where bhagawan did says like that?" While you say that to discuss on the basis of Vedanta, I am unable to understand what the "basis "is? Please clarify these points a little more so that I can understand. Thanks Vijay orva schrock [otsclu] Friday, August 29, 2008 6:43 PM To: Re: Peace is our real nature Of course discussion does not change our state of existence, but there are many reasons to be wary of it: it reinforces the ego of the " wise one who knows. " it distracts from the natural silence which is the best teacher and true guru. it leads poor seekers to imagine that if only they can understand the " discussion " , enlightenment comes. it is often the clash [however subtle] of egos vying for a gold star for their own intense wisdom. it is a way to toss out rhetorical questions to make the other poor sap look like, well, a poor sap. it is a way we talk ourselves into a frenzy of self-righteous " esoteric romanticism " ; showy but hollow. it is so much more etc..... I have nothing against discussion as communication and the sharing of ideas and thoughts and all that jazz. It's just that the proposal to discuss the perfect, simple, self-contained, all-encompassing quote below seems like the most egregious gilding of the already perfect lily... Discuss all you want. I'll be quiet for a while and leave you the space to spin out your theories and concepts. May you always remember your true nature which is perfection. You may well shudder at the thought, but you and I are one in reality. Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Ramanaya. - Pandu Thursday, August 28, 2008 6:52 PM RE: Peace is our real nature Does discussion, or any action, put an end to being? Does the Self cease to exist when the body acts? If so, then is it real? If not, then who forgets the Self? How is the one who forgets the Self different from the Self? On Behalf Of orva schrock Thursday, August 28, 2008 8:30 AM Re: Peace is our real nature Why discuss this? Why not simply " be " as Bhagavan directs? " ...Peace is our real nature. We spoil it. " ----- Original Message ----- Pandu Wednesday, August 27, 2008 9:17 PM RE: Peace is our real nature Would anyone care to discuss these points on the basis of Vedanta? On Behalf Of Gloria Lee Sunday, August 24, 2008 11:25 PM Peace is our real nature The state we call realization is simply being oneself, not knowing anything or becoming anything. If one has realized, he is that which alone is, and which alone has always been. He cannot describe that state. He can only be That. Of course, we loosely talk of Self-realization for want of a better term. That which is, is peace. All that we need do is to keep quiet. Peace is our real nature. We spoil it. What is required is that we cease to spoil it. - Ramana Maharshi This Message was sent from Indian Oil Messaging Gateway. The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 30, 2008 Report Share Posted August 30, 2008 One pandit or yogi makes one conclusion, and another proposes a different conclusion. Vedanta consists of the words spoken by the Supreme Personality of Godhead Narayana in the form of Vyasadev, and is the standard by which the various opinions have been judged since time immemorial. I am simply interested to find out if Ramana’s teachings are consistent with Vedanta or if they present a contrary view. Although I have studied Ramana’s teachings for years, I presume others here have a more complete understanding of them and could help me to see how they align with Vedanta. On Behalf Of VIJAY, S.K Friday, August 29, 2008 12:02 PM ' ' RE: Peace is our real nature Dear Panduji, " Does the Self cease to exist when the body acts? How is the one who forgets the Self different from the Self? Where bhagawan did says like that? " While you say that to discuss on the basis of Vedanta, I am unable to understand what the " basis " is? Please clarify these points a little more so that I can understand. Thanks Vijay orva schrock [otsclu] Friday, August 29, 2008 6:43 PM Re: Peace is our real nature Of course discussion does not change our state of existence, but there are many reasons to be wary of it: it reinforces the ego of the " wise one who knows. " it distracts from the natural silence which is the best teacher and true guru. it leads poor seekers to imagine that if only they can understand the " discussion " , enlightenment comes. it is often the clash [however subtle] of egos vying for a gold star for their own intense wisdom. it is a way to toss out rhetorical questions to make the other poor sap look like, well, a poor sap. it is a way we talk ourselves into a frenzy of self-righteous " esoteric romanticism " ; showy but hollow. it is so much more etc..... I have nothing against discussion as communication and the sharing of ideas and thoughts and all that jazz. It's just that the proposal to discuss the perfect, simple, self-contained, all-encompassing quote below seems like the most egregious gilding of the already perfect lily... Discuss all you want. I'll be quiet for a while and leave you the space to spin out your theories and concepts. May you always remember your true nature which is perfection. You may well shudder at the thought, but you and I are one in reality. Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Ramanaya. ----- Original Message ----- Pandu Thursday, August 28, 2008 6:52 PM RE: Peace is our real nature Does discussion, or any action, put an end to being? Does the Self cease to exist when the body acts? If so, then is it real? If not, then who forgets the Self? How is the one who forgets the Self different from the Self? On Behalf Of orva schrock Thursday, August 28, 2008 8:30 AM Re: Peace is our real nature Why discuss this? Why not simply " be " as Bhagavan directs? " ...Peace is our real nature. We spoil it. " - Pandu Wednesday, August 27, 2008 9:17 PM RE: Peace is our real nature Would anyone care to discuss these points on the basis of Vedanta? On Behalf Of Gloria Lee Sunday, August 24, 2008 11:25 PM Peace is our real nature The state we call realization is simply being oneself, not knowing anything or becoming anything. If one has realized, he is that which alone is, and which alone has always been. He cannot describe that state. He can only be That. Of course, we loosely talk of Self-realization for want of a better term. That which is, is peace. All that we need do is to keep quiet. Peace is our real nature. We spoil it. What is required is that we cease to spoil it. - Ramana Maharshi This Message was sent from Indian Oil Messaging Gateway. The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 30, 2008 Report Share Posted August 30, 2008 , Pandu <Pandu108.bms wrote: > > One pandit or yogi makes one conclusion, and another proposes a different > conclusion. Vedanta consists of the words spoken by the Supreme Personality > of Godhead Narayana in the form of Vyasadev, and is the standard by which > the various opinions have been judged since time immemorial. I am simply > interested to find out if Ramana's teachings are consistent with Vedanta or > if they present a contrary view. Although I have studied Ramana's teachings > for years, I presume others here have a more complete understanding of them > and could help me to see how they align with Vedanta. > > Dear Pandu-ji, If you are looking for scholars of Vedanta, may I suggest the Advaitin list here on . There are many learned people on that list who could more adequately answer your questions. Best wishes, Gloria Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 30, 2008 Report Share Posted August 30, 2008 Why discuss this? Why not simply " be " as Bhagavan directs? >>>Is not discussion also " being " ? It's like saying, Be in the present! But where else are all of us? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 30, 2008 Report Share Posted August 30, 2008 >> if they present a contrary view. Although I have studied Ramana's >teachings >> for years, I presume others here have a more complete understanding >of them >> and could help me to see how they align with Vedanta. >> >> >Dear Pandu-ji, >If you are looking for scholars of Vedanta, may I suggest the Advaitin >list here on . There are many learned people on that list who >could more adequately answer your questions. >Best wishes, >Gloria Thanks, but it's actually that I know Vedanta and am looking to see how Ramana's teachings fit in. In my training I've been taught that knowledge must be checked between guru, sadhu, and sastra. There's one's guru, there are other saintly persons, and there is the Veda. A person can be certain of some answer when there is agreement between the three. Take for example the fact that Ramana is given the title of Sri Bhagavan. Sri means Laksmi, the Goddess of Fortune, and Bhagavan means the possessor of all opulence. Bhagavan can sometimes indicate a ordinary, highly opulent person, and Sri can sometimes mean " wealth, " but " Sri " is placed together with " Bhagavan, " it means the Personality of Godhead and His consort, Laksmi. All avatars of God are named in the Vedik literatures. For example, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu is described in numerous places in the Veda giving His name, His parents names, His bodily appearance, His place of appearance, His activities, etc. (http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/Caitanya.html) I am interested to know if there is any similar reference to Ramana Maharsi. Then there is the question of whether his teachings are consistent with the Vedik conclusion. The Veda is given by Vyasadev. He has summarized the Veda in the Vedanta Sutra and given His purport to the Vedanta Sutra as the Bhagavat Purana. The Bhagavat-Purana makes a definite distinction between Brahman and Parambrahman, with the individual living souls as Brahman and the Personality of Godhead as Parambrahman. If I understand Ramana's teachings correctly, he makes no such distinction. This is problematic because in the Bhagavad-gita 18.66, for example, Krishna says, " sarva dharman parityajya mam ekam saranam vraja - Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. " If one proposes that there is no difference between the soul of the individual living entities and the Personality of Godhead, then Krishna would not have said " Me, " a personal pronoun indicating Himself. Those who comment on Bhagavad-gita but do not accept Krishna's supremacy say that Krishna is instructing to surrender to the " Self within " Krishna, thereby proposing a difference between Krishna and Himself, saying that one can surrender to a person other than Krishna for the same effect. In other words, they say that when He says " Me, " Krishna means Himself or someone else. The philosophy of nondualism appears self-contradictory by proposing that there is no difference between Krishna and the individual living entities, but that there is a difference between Krishna and Himself when He says " Me. " Ramana explicitly affirms this by saying, " Iswara has individuality in mind and body, which are perishable, but at the same time he has also the transcendental consciousness and liberation inwardly, " (http://www.hinduism.co.za/god.htm) while also indicating that Krishna's form is material ( " perishable " ). Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu responds to this philosophy by saying, " One who considers the transcendental body of Lord Visnu to be made of material nature is the greatest offender at the lotus feet of the Lord. There is no greater blasphemy against the Supreme Personality of Godhead. " He continues, " The Mayavada philosophy is so degraded that it has taken the insignificant living entities to be the Lord, the Supreme Truth, thus covering the glory and supremacy of the Absolute Truth with monism. " The philosophy of monism is known as mayavada because in taking the individual living entities as nondifferent from God, it suggests that illusion, maya, is greater than Brahman and capable of overpowering God; in other words, that maya is the supreme power. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's defeat of this misconception is described in Sri Caitanya Caritamrta, Adi-lila, Chapter 7: http://vedabase.net/cc/adi/7/en In Bhagavad-gita 10.10, Krishna says that He is known by Bhakti, devotional service; but the acceptance of the philosophy of nondualism destroys Bhakti. Therefore Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu has said, " Sankaracarya, who is an incarnation of Lord Siva, is faultless because he is a servant carrying out the orders of the Lord. But those who follow his Mayavadi philosophy are doomed. They will lose all their advancement in spiritual knowledge. " Even he, Sankaracarya, finally instructed his followers in Bhaja Govindam to give up the jugglery of words to justify the advaita conception and just worship Krishna. Ramana Maharshi teaches that the form of the Lord is maya, but Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu instructs that the teachings Ramana gives are maya. How would the folks here resolve this conflict? Sincerely, your servant, Pandu das Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 30, 2008 Report Share Posted August 30, 2008 > >Why discuss this? Why not simply " be " as Bhagavan directs? > Bhavavad-gita 3.4: Not by merely abstaining from work can one achieve freedom from reaction, nor by renunciation alone can one attain perfection. BG 3.5: Everyone is forced to act helplessly according to the qualities he has acquired from the modes of material nature; therefore no one can refrain from doing something, not even for a moment. http://vedabase.net/bg/3/en Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 1, 2008 Report Share Posted September 1, 2008 -- In , Pandu <Pandu108.bms wrote:>> >> if they present a contrary view. Although I have studied Ramana's> >teachings> >> for years, I presume others here have a more complete understanding> >of them> >> and could help me to see how they align with Vedanta. Dear Pandu-ji, While I cannot speak for all others here, this list has not been used previously for the purpose of debating or proving anything about Sri Ramana and his teachings. We gather as devotees who contemplate his words in the spirit with which they were given to us. People either do or don't feel the pull to become a devotee. I would not try to persuade anyone who did not. Each must follow whatever way he finds the best. Thank you for the link you gave to David Godman's article, it was quite good. ( http://www.hinduism.co.za/god.htm ) I have read your next three pending messages, and must say that I can appreciate the great amount of thought and time you have put into them. However, as a moderator, I have decided not to continue this particular discussion, as it does not serve the stated purpose of this group, which is an exclusive focus on Sri Ramana. If I may suggest to you (and all the list members) this excellent article from The Mountain Path; it deals mainly with the issues you raised about surrender and bhakti vs inquiry. http://nonduality.com/ramana5.pdf Best wishes to all, Gloria Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.