[Advaita-l] Commentary on Ramana's Forty Verses

[Akilesh Ayyar]

Namaste Raghavji,

This is the crux of the matter:

*Now, to draw a *doctrinal* conclusion about what exactly was Sri Ramana's
categorical position on external renunciation, is not possible by merely
quoting what he said to specific aspirants. We will find verses supporting
both views about the inevitability of external renunciation or its
orthogonality w.r.t GYAnam from the works. But if we choose to regard Sri
Ramana as part of the Advaita vedAnta tradition, then the views of all the
advaita Acharya's taken as a whole, have to be considered as final. Any
seeming divergence between Shankara and RM would in such a scheme be a
result of misunderstanding either of them.*

What's happening here is that a certain *interpretation* of the tradition
as emphasizing the importance of physical sannyasa is being *imposed* on
Ramana, when it simply is not there to be observed in his texts.

We can look at both what Ramana said to *many* different specific
aspirants, plus what he said in his authoritative written works, and come
to a very clear conclusion: Ramana did not think physical sannyasa was a
requirement, inevitable, or even necessarily heavily recommended for all
genuine seekers -- though it might be natural and helpful to some. Neither
does it necessarily follow for a jnani upon attainment.

Dharma is not comparable: you will not find Ramana anywhere telling people
that whether one is dharmic or not is unimportant as a seeker. Not to speak
to seekers "at their level" or otherwise. Whereas he consistently asserted
that physical sannyasa was merely a subsidiary thing to the real sannyasa,
which was mental.

Ramana doesn't mention physical sannyasa in the major works that are from
his pen -- Nan Yar, Upadesa Saram, and Ulladu Narpadu.

And as far as GVK, again, his real point can be seen in GVK 840:

"Know that, rather than one’s thinking in the heart ‘I have renounced
everything’, one’s not thinking ‘I am limited to the measure of the body,
and I am caught in the mean bondage of family life’, is a superior
renunciation."...

If the tradition does indeed put such an emphasis on physical sannyasa,
then Sri Ramana and the tradition put different emphases on these things.

Akilesh

On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 2:10 AM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> namaste
> thank you all for an interesting discussion.
>
> it is clear that Sri Ramana in GVK of Muruganar indicates external
> renunciation (a la Murugunar himself who though not a sannyasi still
> adhered to an austere life of a sadhu) is the *default occurrence* in the
> life journey towards self-knowledge in as much as a ripe fruit falls.
> Unripe fruits hang on. The exception of a black swan event of some rare
> over ripe fruits hanging on to the tree, cannot be used to claim a
> principle that external renunciation I.e., withdrawal from money and
> pleasure pursuits does not occur or is inconsequential for GYAnam.
>
> We can as well say that leading an ethical dharmic life is also not
> enjoined. Because Ravana and Sisupala and other demons were granted
> liberation (be it even kramamukti).  So can we say dharma too is orthogonal
> to GYAnam. No we cannot.
>
> Why do we even need to purify the mind? After all, RM taught that we are
> not the mind. Such can be the incorrect logic.
>
> That's a misunderstanding of Advaita Vedanta to suggest that because Janaka
> was a king etc, so external renunciation is unimportant. External
> renunciation is the default course which naturally occurs upon maturity.
> Its such a no-brainer.
>
> Also regarding the loka saMgraha idea, its in fact sannyAsa thats more
> helpful for loka saMgraha than doing let's say some corporate job while
> claiming or silently presuming non-doership to rationalize one's pursuit of
> desires of artha and kAma.
>
> Sri Ramakrishna's words in a conversation come to mind-
> "a man cannot act as an Āchārya without renouncing the world. People won't
> respect
> him. They will say: 'Oh, he is a worldly man. He secretly enjoys "lust and
> lucre" himself but tells us that God alone is real and the world
> unsubstantial, like a dream. Unless a man renounces everything, his
> teachings cannot be accepted by all. Only some worldly people may follow
> him (if there is no external renunciation). Keshab (a well known grihastha
> spiritual teacher) led the life of a householder; hence his mind was
> directed to the world also. He had to safeguard his family interests. That
> is why he left his affairs in such good order though he delivered so many
> religious lectures. What an aristocratic man he married his daughter to!
> Inside Keshab's inner apartments I saw many big bedsteads. All these things
> gradually come to one who leads a householder's life. The world is indeed a
> place for enjoyment.
>
> Chaitanyadeva renounced the world *to set an example to mankind*. The
> sannyasi is a *world teacher*. "The sannyasi must renounce 'lust and lucre'
> for his own welfare. Even if he is unattached, and consequently not in
> danger, still, *in order to set an example to others*, he must not keep
> 'kAminI and kAnchana' near him. The sannyasi, the man of renunciation, is a
> world teacher. It is his example that awakens the spiritual consciousness
> of men."  (So much for people wanting to continue other pursuits for loka
> saMgraha).
>
>
> One last point is that as Sri Ven Balakrishnan ji pointed out ,
> desirelessness is a concomittant of GYAnam. If avidyA is destroyed, desires
> for artha kAma drop away. The sequence of avidyA --> kAma -> karma is
> fundamental. And external renunciation naturally follows.
>
> What about a GYAnI eating etc? The Advaita tradition makes a clear
> distinction between those actions that are for bare minimum protection of
> sharIra-mAtra such as eating of alms etc. by a sannyasi, particularly when
> food is available upon making efforts for it in a limited way.
>
> To generalize from that austere maintenance of the body by a GYAnI to draw
> equivalence with another person actively outwardly pursuing wealth and
> pleasure is inappropriate.
>
> Sri Ramana lived for years on frugal food, with just boiled rice with no
> salt on innumerable occasions. In later years, he would be offered coffee
> every day, regarded as a minor indulgence in those times. (1920s). He would
> say that people offered him coffee, so that they could themselves indulge
> in their coffee addiction by saying that after all, even the swami drinks
> coffee!
>
> The modern mind loves the idea that nothing  changes externally
> lifestyle-wise. Its a purely mental thing. And many modern Gurus
> particularly of neo-advaita leanings, are saying what the audience wants to
> hear. In the case of Sri Ramana, he himself lived like a mendicant and told
> people not to put the cart before the horse by a forced renunciation before
> maturity. Thats authentic. RM endorsed his nephew's decision to lead a
> nivRtti lifestyle.
>
> Now, to draw a *doctrinal* conclusion about what exactly was Sri Ramana's
> categorical position on external renunciation, is not possible by merely
> quoting what he said to specific aspirants. We will find verses supporting
> both views about the inevitability of external renunciation or its
> orthogonality w.r.t GYAnam from the works. But if we choose to regard Sri
> Ramana as part of the Advaita vedAnta tradition, then the views of all the
> advaita Acharya's taken as a whole, have to be considered as final. Any
> seeming divergence between Shankara and RM would in such a scheme be a
> result of misunderstanding either of them.
>
>
> Om
> Raghav
>
ᐧ
ᐧ