[Advaita-l] Sri Ramana stressed importance of a Guru

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

Sri Aditya,
Sri Ramana accepting ArunachalaShiva as a Guru and receiving the knowledge
from Arunachala need not be merely a romantic motion ; it can be more
substantial than that. Also Shiva surely fulfills the stringent conditions
required of a genuine Guru, surely?

But first we can be very clear about the general need for explicit verbal
communication of Shastra for a decent length of time. I remember Pujya
Swami Dayananda  Saraswati ji used to say that the words of the upaniShads
unfolded by a teacher are like a 'word mirror' - you don't get lost in the
words , instead you use the words as a mirror to see yourself as you truly
are . The well-known invocatory verse from the Dakshinamurthy  stotram goes
"mauna- vyAkhyA-prakaTita-parabrahmatattvaM" which is sometimes translated
as "the Lord who taught brahmatattvaM in silence ". The word maunam is
translated as silence. But he (Swamiji) would say , maunam is mananam and
mauni or muni  means manana-shiilaH one who employs his analytical and
discriminatory powers to clear doubts and clarify the truth of what he is
learning. (tarkataH saMshaya nivRttiH) . He would say that "in that case we
should have 18th chapters of blank pages called the Bhagavad-Gita, if
maunam were just 'silence', so many words of teaching would have been
superfluous",  implying the importance of disciplined chiseled verbal
communication without any fluff, of Advaita.

Sri Venkata SriRam also pointed out the excellent detailed quote from shri
svayamprakAshayati about misunderstanding maunam to be just sitting like a
stone doing nothing.

With this background , we have to also note that the shAstra tradition is
*very* versatile  and can accommodate rare exceptions who are also taught
by a Guru all right , but not necessarily through so many commentaries etc.
Who decides who is an exception ? I would say only those who are
shrOtriyaas themselves are in a position to decide or suggest that. There
is, I do recognize,  a real problem of every half-baked wannabe Guru
claiming that they are exceptions and we are right to be wary of that . But
we have to in principle see that there are indeed different methods of
communication.


Most regular communication is at the vaikharI level. However , the other 3
levels of valid communication in the Vedic tradition viz., madhyamA,
paSyantI and parA are also possible in some rare cases and these are
mentioned in shruti as well (commentary of NageshabhaTTa  on Aasya vAmIya
sUktaM of RigVeda for example ) . And these levels of communication are not
externally voiced or articulated but nevertheless are expandable through
language. Its like someone giving you a potted plant with leaves and
flowers in a flowerpot (vaikharI communication) and another giving you a
seed which later sprouts (paSyantI communication) and grows into a plant. I
read one reference about possibly paSyantI level of communication being
employed or  alternatively through the use of mudrAs , for example in the
conversation between bAShkali and bAdhva where there is initially the use
of silence as a mudrA or nonverbal signifier with the  teacher remaining
silent and then saying "I have *already* taught...." (And then some words
are used  but..Note the past tense usage. )also see note at the end of this
message.

 If (for arguments' sake)Sri Dakshinamurthy too employed chinmudrA Or even
silence as a complete linguistic signifier to teach, so be it. Its a
possibility that does not militate against the tradition. That does not in
any way negate the need for regular shravaNam etc. Exceptions only prove
the rule. Allowing for such flexibility on how shAstra is communicated is
as i understand accepted in the tradition itself.

Om

A few Notes from Sri Subramanian ji and Sreenivasarao blog etc.

1. In His Brahma Sutra Bhashyam, Shankara has recounted an interesting
Vedic tale.  BAShkali was desirous of knowing Brahman.  So, he approached
the enlightened sage BAdhva and requested: ‘Please teach me about
Brahman.’  BAdhva remained silent.  BAShkali repreated his appeal but again
the sage did not respond.  Being earnest, BAShkali asked for the third
time, ‘Please teach me about Brahman.’ The sage said, ‘I have already
taught you but have failed to comprehend.  This Atma is quiescence.’


2. Sri Ramana says on the need for a Guru  - I have not said that a Guru is
not necessary. But a Guru need not always be in human form. First a
person thinks that he is inferior and that there is a superior,
all-knowing, all powerful God who controls his own and the world’s destiny
and worships him or does bhakti. When he reaches a certain stage and
becomes fit for enlightenment, the same God whom he was worshipping comes
as Guru and leads him onward.

3. On paSyantI vAc
*Pashyanti, which also suggests the visual image of the word, is
indivisible and without inner-sequence; in the sense, that the origin and
destination of speech are one. Here, **the latent word (Sabda) and its
intention or meaning (Artha) co-exist; and, is fused together without any
differentiation. That is to say; intention is instinctive and immediate;
and, it does not involve stages such as: analysis, speculation, drawing
inferences and so on. At the level of Pashyanti Vak, there is no
distinction between word and meaning. And, there is also no temporal
sequence. In other words; Pashyanti is the direct experience
of Vakya-sphota,   of the meaning as whole of what is intended.  *


4. The Asya-vamiya – sukta
<http://brahmanisone.blogspot.in/2007/12/translation-of-sayanacharyas-commentary.html>

<http://www.indiadivine.org/content/topic/1571016-asya-vamasya-sukta-of-rg-veda/>
(Rig
Veda: 1.140- 164) which is one the most philosophical , but  rather
enigmatic Suktas (hymns) of Rig Veda, ascribed to Rishi Dīrghatamas
Aucathya  (son of  Ucathya  ),  who was  also called as Mamateya (son of
Mamata) ,  mentions  about the levels of speech, among many other things.

According to Rishi Dīrghatamas, there are four levels of speech. Only the
wise who are well trained, endowed with intelligence and understanding know
them all. As for the rest; the three levels remain concealed and
motionless. Mortals know  only  the fourth.

Chatvaari vaak parimitaa padaani / taani vidur braahmaanaa ye manishinaah.
Guhaa trini nihita nengayanti / turiyam vaacho manushyaa vadanti. (Rigveda
Samhita – 1.164.45)

(The 4 types of vAc are in some commentaries  just nouns , verbs etc. But
other paNDitas also mention the vertical depth in vAk in the firm of 4
types of speech in