Disciples of Ramana Maharshi

[egodust]

Ramakrishnan wrote:
> egodust <egodust at DIGITAL.NET> wrote:
>
> >The methods of devotion, pranayama, etc. neither have anything to do with
> >advaita.
>
> True enough. Let's get something clear here. Either
>
> 1. We are talking of advaita as a philosophical system, in which case it has
> to
> explain based on logic and/or vedas what the truth is and how the vyavahaarika
> and the world as we see it fits in
>                            or
> 2. We are talking of advaita in a broader sense as a "path" which leads to
> chitta shuddhi and finally to the "truth".
>
> What have we had till now? Neither, only assertions like "there is no
> birth/etc" or "everything is maya" or something like that when the context
> did not warrant such an answer. For eg, sha.nkara takes great pains to
> explain what gauDapaada really means by the "there is no birth" etc. In fact
> that verse has one of the longest explanations in the kaarikaa bhaashhya.

Ken launched this thread, questioning why so many followers of Bhagavan RM
seemed to be, in his view, "false teachers."  If this can be interpreted to
have a mundane connotation, I failed to see it.  Sue me.

>
> If you think the answer to any/every question on the list, even to those
> directed at the vyavahaarikaa level is "all is maya" and/or "mind is a
> deceiver" and so on, why discuss at all?
>

My webpage clarifies this.

> >I beg to differ.  Not only did Bhagavan *vigorously* adopt this method, He
> >rarely *didn't* apply it to the people who questioned Him.  And the few times
> >He didn't was when someone was, to site an example, in the Lecture Hall
> >enquiring from a dvaitic point of view, He wouldn't disturb their position;
> >and when they left He was sure to clarify His statements to the ashramites
> >and others.  It's well documented.
>
> Let's get things clear here. When bhagavan was asked how to control the
> mind, the answer was invariably praaNaayaama, bhakti and so on though it was
> also pointed out (usually) that mano naasha was more important. Of course
> bhagavan advised self-enquiry to every one. What I was talking about was the
> situation here. Viz, if some one asks a question at the vyavahaarikaa level
> the answer given is like that of the most eccentric, self-realized Zen master
> (namely the question and the answer have no connection). Ramana Maharshi did
> not indulge in such things. In fact Ramana Maharshi used to give _proper_
> answers to questions directed at the vyavahaarikaa level as long as the
> questioner was sincere or if the questioner was not sincere, kept quiet. This
> is also well documented. What Ken said about false masters and they not
> knowing when to philosophize and not to holds. This was what Ken and I were
> trying to point out.

Perhaps it would be better for those at the vyavaharika level to join the
dvaita list instead.  They're not ready for advaita.

If we expect to be able to help each other and inspire each other to assimilate
the way of non-duality, why would we go ahead and sanction the linear
interpretation of an *exclusive* world-appearance--technically, the triadic
sohamidam?

Also, Bhagavan employed the mownamdiksha to those questioners who were in fact,
the closest to achieving manonasa.  Rarely was He silent for reasons that the
questioner was insincere.  This is my perception of what tended to occur, but
I could be wrong.  Also, in my heart I consider Bhagavan to be Dakshinamurthi,
and since He is my guru, that means we have the same guru!  praNaam.

namaskaaram.















>

>From  Sat Oct 26 00:30:27 1996
Message-Id: <SAT.26.OCT.1996.003027.GMT.>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 00:30:27 GMT
Reply-To: kstuart at mail.telis.org
To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Ken Stuart <kstuart at MAIL.TELIS.ORG>
Subject: Re: Disciples of Ramana Maharshi
Comments: To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <M.102596.193022.73 at ddi.digital.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hello,

On Fri, 25 Oct 1996 23:30:22 GMT, egodust <egodust at digital.net> wrote:

>Ken launched this thread, questioning why so many followers of Bhagavan RM
>seemed to be, in his view, "false teachers."  If this can be interpreted to
>have a mundane connotation, I failed to see it.  Sue me.

If the question had been "why are there 'false teachers' in the
world", then some sort of "everything is maya" response might have
been warranted, because the question would refer to the nature of
reality in general.

However, the actual question was a specific one, ie what was the
connection between following Ramana and becoming a false teacher.

Thus, the question calls for a specific answer having to do with the
nature of Ramana's teachings and/or the nature of those who are
attracted to his teachings.


Namaskar,

Ken

kstuart at mail.telis.org