my rejoinder...not to harm anyone

[Guest guest]

AUM NAMO BHAGAVATE SRI RAMANAYA!!

 

 

IT is absurd to enter into such discussions.

I recently heard a lecture on SRI RAMANA..It is said that Bhagavan never , never said against anybody/anyone .

People derived highest "freedom" sitting before HIM for He is God , '

When someone asked His views on reading Bhagavat Gita He said, " read it daily..It is good"

 

Sri Aurobindo who was initiated by Lord Krishna , himself told many times that it is rare to see a rishi like Ramana who is always in Sahaja Samadi ..Further He told that Raman had no Guru as He is Guru of all Gurus.

 

Why?Entertain vain argurments.

when a boy came and told Ramana abt lunch serving at Ashramam etc., Bhagavan told him :you came for taking lunch..Eat and be happy"

Like that we sh'd strive for attining that blissful state and not comparing others for Bhagavan Ramna , all are equal.

"He saw himself in everything and Everyghing in Himself." from a lecture on Sri Ramana.

He even admonished a person who spoke something abt Sri Ramakrishna telling, "Do u know how much tapas Sri Ramakrsihna had done..don't talk anything abt him except loving HIM"

Again to quote Swami Vivekananda, 'take any yoga..be it Bakti yoga, raja yoga, karma yoga or Jnana Yoga or all and be free"

And Bhagavan Ramana often told that Bakti is the mothr of Jnana.

If anyone correctly understand Ramana there one can find culmination of "isms", all religions, all systems of philosphy...This is the unmistakable truth.

with best wishes,

tgranganathan

--- On Sat, 8/30/08, Pandu <Pandu108.bms wrote:

Pandu <Pandu108.bmsRE: Re: Peace is our real nature Date: Saturday, August 30, 2008, 12:51 PM

 

 

>> 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,>GloriaThanks, but it's actually that I know Vedanta and am looking to see howRamana's teachings fit in. In my training I've been taught that knowledgemust be checked between guru, sadhu, and sastra. There's one's guru, thereare other saintly persons, and there is the Veda. A person can be certainof 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 possessorof all opulence. Bhagavan can sometimes indicate a ordinary, highly opulentperson, and Sri can sometimes mean "wealth," but "Sri" is placed togetherwith "Bhagavan," it means the Personality of Godhead and His consort,Laksmi.All avatars of God are named in the Vedik literatures. For example, SriCaitanya Mahaprabhu is described in numerous places in the Veda giving Hisname, His parents names, His bodily appearance, His place of appearance, Hisactivities, etc. (http://www.gosai. com/dvaita/ madhvacarya/ Caitanya. html) Iam interested to know if there is any similar reference to Ramana Maharsi. Then there is the question of whether his teachings are consistent with theVedik conclusion. The Veda is given by

Vyasadev. He has summarized theVeda in the Vedanta Sutra and given His purport to the Vedanta Sutra as theBhagavat Purana. The Bhagavat-Purana makes a definite distinction betweenBrahman and Parambrahman, with the individual living souls as Brahman andthe Personality of Godhead as Parambrahman. If I understand Ramana'steachings correctly, he makes no such distinction. This is problematic because in the Bhagavad-gita 18.66, for example, Krishnasays, "sarva dharman parityajya mam ekam saranam vraja - Abandon allvarieties of religion and just surrender unto Me." If one proposes thatthere is no difference between the soul of the individual living entitiesand the Personality of Godhead, then Krishna would not have said "Me," apersonal pronoun indicating Himself. Those who comment on Bhagavad-gita butdo not accept Krishna's supremacy say that Krishna is instructing tosurrender to the "Self within"

Krishna, thereby proposing a differencebetween Krishna and Himself, saying that one can surrender to a person otherthan Krishna for the same effect. In other words, they say that when Hesays "Me," Krishna means Himself or someone else. The philosophy ofnondualism appears self-contradictory by proposing that there is nodifference between Krishna and the individual living entities, but thatthere is a difference between Krishna and Himself when He says "Me."Ramana explicitly affirms this by saying, "Iswara has individuality in mindand body, which are perishable, but at the same time he has also thetranscendental consciousness and liberation inwardly,"(http://www.hinduism .co.za/god. htm) while also indicating that Krishna'sform is material ("perishable" ). Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu responds to thisphilosophy by saying, "One who

considers the transcendental body of LordVisnu to be made of material nature is the greatest offender at the lotusfeet of the Lord. There is no greater blasphemy against the SupremePersonality of Godhead." He continues, "The Mayavada philosophy is sodegraded that it has taken the insignificant living entities to be the Lord,the Supreme Truth, thus covering the glory and supremacy of the AbsoluteTruth with monism." The philosophy of monism is known as mayavada becausein taking the individual living entities as nondifferent from God, itsuggests that illusion, maya, is greater than Brahman and capable ofoverpowering God; in other words, that maya is the supreme power. SriCaitanya Mahaprabhu's defeat of this misconception is described in SriCaitanya 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, devotionalservice; but the acceptance of the philosophy of nondualism destroys Bhakti.Therefore Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu has said, "Sankaracarya, who is anincarnation of Lord Siva, is faultless because he is a servant carrying outthe orders of the Lord. But those who follow his Mayavadi philosophy aredoomed. They will lose all their advancement in spiritual knowledge." Evenhe, Sankaracarya, finally instructed his followers in Bhaja Govindam to giveup the jugglery of words to justify the advaita conception and just worshipKrishna. Ramana Maharshi teaches that the form of the Lord is maya, but SriCaitanya Mahaprabhu instructs that the teachings Ramana gives are maya. Howwould the folks here resolve this conflict?Sincerely, your servant,Pandu das