Disciples of Ramana Maharshi

[egodust]

Ken Stewart wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Oct 1996 01:54:59 GMT, egodust <egodust at DIGITAL.NET> wrote:
>
> >Ken wrote:
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> >And I replied with a specific answer.  To refresh your memory, it's
> reproduced
> >below.  The answer may be debatable, but you can't say it's not specific...
> >
> >namaste.
> >
> >***************
> >
> >
> >Bhagavan's teachings are so direct and simple (and in this sense effective),
> >that people who sincerely follow and absorb them to any appreciable degree,
> >can't help but come away at least egoistically fractured, if not shattered...
> >the Self automatically starts taking over; albeit awkwardly perhaps.
>
> Okay, but why would this cause them to think they had realized the
> Self, when in reality, they were still operating from the viewpoint of
> ego?
>

How have you determined this?  Can you site an example?--without implicating
anyone--, a generalization would suffice.

As Giri pointed out, one of the foremost criteria for assessing a jnani is the
peace one may derive being in his/her company.  I don't think we as individuals
can discount the efficacy of a given teaching because it doesn't resonate with
our level of understanding.  It should be common knowledge amongst vedantists
that darshan varies with the capacity of the chela.  (I believe Ramakrishnan
alluded to this.  But my argument is that this is an advaita list, which
precludes espousing dvaita or even visisthadvaita.)

Joshi makes an excellent point about the MokshGuru.  This should shed light
on the mistake being made by followers not only of vedanta but most major
spiritual doctrines.

namaskaaram.

>From  Sat Oct 26 18:25:02 1996
Message-Id: <SAT.26.OCT.1996.182502.GMT.>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 18:25:02 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.102696.115911.28 at ddi.digital.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Sat, 26 Oct 1996 15:59:11 GMT, egodust <egodust at DIGITAL.NET> wrote:

>Ken Stewart wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Oct 1996 01:54:59 GMT, egodust <egodust at DIGITAL.NET> wrote:
>>
>> >Ken wrote:
>> >> 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.
>> >>
>> >
>> >And I replied with a specific answer.  To refresh your memory, it's
>> reproduced
>> >below.  The answer may be debatable, but you can't say it's not specific...
>> >
>> >namaste.
>> >
>> >***************
>> >
>> >
>> >Bhagavan's teachings are so direct and simple (and in this sense effective),
>> >that people who sincerely follow and absorb them to any appreciable degree,
>> >can't help but come away at least egoistically fractured, if not
 shattered...
>> >the Self automatically starts taking over; albeit awkwardly perhaps.
>>
>> Okay, but why would this cause them to think they had realized the
>> Self, when in reality, they were still operating from the viewpoint of
>> ego?
>>
>
>How have you determined this?  Can you site an example?--without implicating
>anyone--, a generalization would suffice.

Okay, but this is an oversimplification, because a detailed discussion
of this case is not germane, and also because I don't have available
at the moment the exact quotes.

In one case, two disciples ended up getting into an argument, which,
amongst other things, involved them both making statements that
implied that the other was not enlightened, but instead was acting
from an egoic viewpoint.

Normally, this would allow the case that one was right and the other
was wrong, except that in this case, one was the designated
"successor" of the other.

PS  I agree that such examples should be made without reference to
specific names......


Namaskar,

Ken

kstuart at mail.telis.org