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

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste.

Even among the traditionalists, there is a debate as to whether Sri
Bhagavatpada enjoins ashrama sanyasa as a prerequisite for Realization.
Swami Paramarthananda himself takes the view that it is not compulsory even
as per Sri Bhagavatpada.

Regards

On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 9:27 PM Akilesh Ayyar via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>