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

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

I: Would Acharyal please tell me about Acharyal’s first experience
of the kuṇḍalinī and the cakras?
Acharyal: This took place a few months after My being initiated
into saṁnyāsa (on May 22, 1931). I had just finished My morning āhnika
and was about to get up. Without premeditation, I joined My palms and
said,
“śrī śāradāyai namaḥ।
1
(Obeisance to the glorious Śāradā.)”
Abruptly, I felt an upsurge of joy and stopped being aware of My
surroundings. It began to seem that My body was becoming transparent
and that I was seeing My backbone from some vantage point in front
of My chest.
I: Did Acharyal apprehend the backbone together with the rib cage,
internal organs and so on?
Acharyal: No. It was the backbone that stood out, whitish in
colour, with the silhouette of the body appearing dark like a shadow.
The backbone then seemed to become translucent to reveal a canal in
its interior. In moments, the canal’s width became greatly magnified. I
could then see a tube, red and bright like fire, traversing the length of
the canal. A mellifluous female voice announced,
“iyaṁ suṣumnā nāḍī ।
2
(This is the suṣumnā-nāḍī.)”
I: Could Acharyal perceive the speaker of the words?
Acharyal: No. I just heard the words.


End of quote


On Sat 11 Aug, 2018, 6:30 PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula, <
raghavkumar00 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 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
>