Disciples of Ramana Maharshi

[egodust]

Natha Bhaktyananda wrote:
> egodust wrote:
> >
> > This is true of nirvikalpa samadhi but, in my view, that you're implying
> > it's true of mukthi is misleading.  Although mukthi CAN encompass
> nirvikalpa,
> > it's not a prerequisite of mukthi.  As you probably know, this is true of
> ALL
> > siddhis.----------------------------
>
> Nevertheless, Paramahamsa Ramakrisna clearly states that mukti is attained by
>  one who
> spends at least 3 days and nights *at a stretch* in Nirvikalpa Samadhi -- he
>  himself
> spent 6 months! It is also a well-known thing about Ramana Maharishi that he
>  also spent
> days at a stretch meditating (in samadhi) oblivious to the outer world in the
>  basement
> of a temple, until bugs made wounds all over his body.
>
> Yes, I admit that mukti is not the same with nirvikalpa samadhi, in the
> meaning
>  that not
> all those who had *glimpses* of nirvikalpa have reached mukti. Also that
>  Liberation can
> sometimes imply an even higher form of samadhi, the famous "bhava samadhi",
> the
> samadhi-with-open-eyes, which is not even mentioned by most yoga texts (not
> even
>  in the
> Yoga-sutra), but which was clearly described by Ramakrisna. In this samadhi,
> the
> nirvikalpa is maintained somehow paradoxically even while the eyes may be open
>  and the
> outer activities unfold. But it must be quite clear that one cannot reach the
>  bhava
> without passing (be it for an instant) through the stage of *exclusive*
>  nirvikalpa
> (since bhava involves "nirvikalpa in action", "nirvana into samsara", "void
>  during
> action". And any person who has reached bhava can return *at will* into
>  nirvikalpa
> (which stays lower to him) and can anytime make the proof that I have spoken
>  about in my
> last message. One can study the Advaita Saiva techings of Abhinavagupta,
>  Ksemaraja, etc.
> and find there many, many more details on this topic.
> ------------------------------------

I hadn't heard the term 'bhava samadhi'...but based on your description, it
sounds identical to sahaja samadhi.

>
> > I regard Self-realization to be a very simple and ordinary affair.  It
> > throws one back onto incredibly familiar ground, with the distinction that
> > the Mind has been diffused and thereof no longer capable of interfering.
> > This is Bliss.
> >
> > Based on what I've said earlier, there appears a contradiction: viz.,
> > that everyone is already Self-realized, where I now imply that it
> > happens in time.  Actually, both and neither are true and false!  Simply
> > because the whole idea of 'Self-realization' is a Mind-game.  And this
> > is where some insight into the koan method of Zen can help shed light;
> > as well as some choice statements of Gaudapada, Sankara, and the Sage of
> > Arunachala, such as:
> >
> > "The ajatavada (pure advaita doctrine) is represented by no loss, no
> > creation, no-one bound, no sadhaka, no-one desirous of liberation, no
> > liberation.  This is the Supreme Truth." --Gaudapada in Mandukya Kareeka,
> > II--32.
> >
> > and
> >
> > "The feeling that I have not realized is the obstruction to realization.
> > In fact, it is already realized; there is nothing more to be realized."
> > --Bhagavan Sri RM in "Talks with Bhagavan" 1962 edition p192
> >
> > and
> >
> > "You are That, here and now......This is the master key for solving all
> > doubts." --ibid, p121-----------------------------------
>
> All the things said above are very beautiful but of no pedagogic use, because
>  they are
> true only from the standpoint of those who have already reached mukti. Jidu
>  Krishnamurti
> has spent a lifetime telling to the whole world that nothing should be done
> for
>  reaching
> mukti, that there is no method, no teacher, no school, and the outcome of this
>  wonderful
> pedagogic was that nobody indeed got enlightened by this "non-method". If you
>  take
> instead of him, Svami Sivananda (from Rishikesh) (who unlike Krishnamurti was
>  not
> spontaneously enlightened as a child but had to work hard his way up till that
>  -- and
> therefore knew infinitely more about the path and how does an ignorant person
>  actually
> feel in the beginning), you will find out that when he took his maha-samadhi,
>  Sivanada
> left behind him 43 (!) pupils who had reached the state of samadhi.
> Ramakrishna
>  left 12.
> Ramana apparently left none... The realisation may well be the same, but the
>  pedagogic
> and the talent to transmit it to others definitely differs from master to
>  master.
>

I agree with your last statement, except that it depends on what sadhakas'
inclinations are.  If one needs development in bhakti, Sri Ramakrishna is
suited.  If one is ripe for jnana (which implies that bhakti is *already*
in evidence in the [now] pakva), Sri Bhagavan RM is the best, in my opinion.
(And who's to say that He left none?  What about Nisargadatta and Poonjaji?
They took chainsaws to my chit-jada granthi! hahaha!)

peace.peace.peace

namaskaaram.