Disciples of Ramana Maharshi

[egodust]

Ken wrote:
> 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
>

I don't think that would necessarily be grounds to cancel each of them
out as being less than genuine or effective teachers.  Differences of
opinion regarding relative-world philosophy or methodological strategy
doesn't need to have any bearing on their jnana.  Even if they attack
each other, claiming the other was 'unenlightened.'  The state of the
jivanmukta is ineffable and not amenable to the polarized intellect.

It's always best to discriminate for ourselves--re what's our *own* best
course--than to cast conclusive judgements on life conditions that really
defy any sort of categorization, by their very nature [which is actually
an unsolvable mystery].

namaskaar.
>From ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU Mon Oct 28 12:32:17 1996
Message-Id: <MON.28.OCT.1996.123217.0100.ADVAITAL at TAMU.EDU>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 12:32:17 +0100
Reply-To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Natha Bhaktyananda <natha at DK-ONLINE.DK>
Subject: Re: Pedagogic
Comments: To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Cameron has written:

When asked why he still performed bhajan daily, Maharaj apparently
replied: "Why not?"

It was a spontaneous functioning which gave him pleasure and was partly
tradition and habit. Maharaj saw no difference between performing
bhajan, smoking a cigarette and going for a walk. But he denied that he
performed bhajan in order to "achieve" anything.
---------------------------

IMHO it is not as simple as that; one could also answer to that
question: "Why yes?" If it was *only* a matter of pleasure, tickling the
armpits would have been even better (I can think about 500 other things
in that direction now, some of them quite "unorthodox" :-). And if it
was tradition, then why not also perform some agnihoma, ashvamedha,
puja, and a host of other Indian customs? There must be some *pedagogic*
in it. As about the story with the "cigarette smoking", it can be easily
extended to alcohol drinking, coffee, pot, horseriding, domestic
violence, holy war and God knows what more, but it still seems that the
great Masters have always had quite a clear limit to what was ok -- so
there must be *some* difference!

With blessing,

--
Natha Bhaktyananda <natha at dk-online.dk>
Kxbmagergade 28, 2., 1150 K
Denmark
Tf.: (45) 33930858, Fax: (45) 33930668