Disciples of Ramana

[Giri]

On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, Gummuluru Murthy wrote:

> Any "enlightened" person will not go around, saying he/she is enlightened.
> The purely "enlightened" person does not care what the world thinks of
> him/her.

        I agree, but my point was the four people (Sadhu Arunachala,
Balaram Reddy, Kunju Swami, Ganapati Muni) mentioned never claimed to be
enlightened or a guru etc, afaik. It is wrong, imo, to slander people like
Ganapati Muni without any facts and claim that they claimed to be
enlightened after Ramana died, which is impossible as Rama pointed out.

> But, in any case, why this pre-occupation with whether x is "enlightened"
> or not rather than looking at ourselves ?
> Regards
> Gummuluru Murthy

        I agree. However, I did not like to see people being accused of
things which they never said or did.
        As I mentioned sometime back on this guru issue, if we place
importance in the outer actions of "Guru" ONLY, then we have to consider
that some people normally considered "enlightened" smoked, ate fish etc
and we seem to only associate them with their body, which is against the
spirit of their teaching itself.
        I will refrain from posting on this thread anymore.

Giri

>From  Tue Oct 29 18:14:47 1996
Message-Id: <TUE.29.OCT.1996.181447.GMT.>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 18:14:47 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>
Comments: cc: rbalasub at ECN.PURDUE.EDU
In-Reply-To: <199610291624.LAA24178 at radian.ecn.purdue.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hello,

You have your attributions wrong.  (you have the same number of ">"
before statements that I did NOT write and before statements that I
wrote.)

You have pasted a statement from someone else, above a statement from
me from another thread saying "I agree".

This is like a cheesy political advertisement.

Please check back as to who wrote which statement and revise your
message.

I never wrote any statement in this group that had the names of any
persons other than:

- Ramana Maharshi
- Ramakrishna
- Shankara
- (possibly Yogananda in passing)

In other words, I've never posted a comment in this list about anyone
living, by name.

I've also never stated anywhere at any time "advaita strengthens the
ego".

If you are going to state "other such insinuations which he is fond
of" then you had better give quotes.

On Tue, 29 Oct 1996 11:24:01 -0500, Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian
<rbalasub at ECN.PURDUE.EDU> wrote:

>Ken wrote:
>
>>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.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>I think I owe an apology to egodust here. I failed to read into Ken's
>question like egodust quickly did.
>
>If I had known that this was another of Ken's "advaita strengthens the ego"
>and other such insinuations which he is fond of, I would have just kept quiet.
>Instead I misunderstood it as a concern (which I have) that many people are
>utilizing Ramana Maharshi's name and some of them in a seemingly dubious
>manner.
>
>He further wrote:
>
>>Though Ramana Maharshi may have denied any disciples, there are hosts of
>>people : Sadhu Arunachala, Balaram Reddy, Kunju Swami, Ganapati Muni etc
>>who claim Ramana to be their Guru and that includes Poonjaji.
>>-----------------------------
>>
>>While I agree with your main point, ( which was concisely stated by a
>>popular false guru as "dead gurus can't kick your a** " ), I have to
>
>Very nice to have cosy agreements here, but I must point out that none of the
>people mentioned above (I do not know anything about Poonaji) ever claimed to
>be enlightened or acted as a "guru" at anytime. It was claimed that all these
>people claimed to be enlightened after Ramana M's passing away. Please get your
>facts straight. Ganapati Muni died much before RM. Further all these devotees
>were known for the simplicity, humility and devotion to their guru. I find it
>extremely disgusting that some people are spreading false allegations against
>such people to give credence to their own pet theories and/or organizations.
>Enough said.
>
>Ramakrishnan.
>--
>Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant (May faulty logic
>undermine your entire philosophy)           -- strong Vulcan curse
>                  http://yake.ecn.purdue.edu/~rbalasub/
>