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

[Akilesh Ayyar]

Namaste,

Thanks for pointing this out. I suspected as much, but I'm glad to have
confirmation.

Akilesh
ᐧ

On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 12:20 PM H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>