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

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

Namaste Akhilesh ji
Not so fast. The formal donning of saffron robes is not the main point of
discussion here. It is the role or importance of *external renunciation* in
Advaita Vedanta and in Sri Ramana's approach.


   We have all noted how Sri Ramana's closest disciples like Murugunar,
Annamalai Swami, Vishwanath Swami, Balaram Reddy, were austere sAdhus with
a lifestyle embodying external renunciation though not saffron clad
sannyAsis. Even Ganapati Muni never took sannyAsa, but the lifestyles of
all these "non-sannyasis" was anything but the usual pursuit of artha and
kAma. If you agree that, among such disciples who (arguably) best embodied
Sri Ramana's teachings,  such a sAdhu lifestyle was the norm rather than a
rAjarshi lifestyle (i.e., just practise or claim to practise GYAnamayam
tapas).

The important point is that when avidyA is destroyed kAma and karma too
wither away. If they don't significantly get destroyed, such GYAnam is only
a helpful glimpse or semblance of self-knowledge. And it would not be wise
to account for all of the remaining kAmas and karmas as just harmless
prArabdha which need not be examined for whether they are originating from
avidyA. Many modern advaitins and gurus make that mistake of assuming that
their kAmas and karmas are all just prArabdha.

In Advaita,  avidyA is the cause of kAma which in turn is the cause of
karma. Then the question is, if a person is striving for avidyA
destruction, will kAma and karma continue as before (both as he journeys
towards clearer understanding and upon reaching its culmination of GYAna
niShThA) - with a justification that since all karma is only prArabdha and
since avidyA is only inner change, everything else including the outer life
of pursuing wealth and pleasure remains the same as before. Only doership
is no longer there. This "external business-as-usual" idea is opposed to
traditional Advaita vedAnta.

Bhagavan and Sri Ramakrishna guided their "full-time" disciples like
Vishwanatha Swami and Vivekananda along different lines than "part-time"
grihasthas who asked "is outer renunciation so important?", "Can a
grihastha realise etc?". Sri Ramana never claimed that all manner of
desires viz., kAma and all initiatives viz.,  karma continue as before and
only doership goes away. On the contrary he said a GYAnI has no sankalpas
or "resolve." It is highly unconvincing if someone claims to lead a regular
grihastha life dedicated to his personal family, wealth and career and
asserts that he is free of saMkalpas.

Like I said, in Sri Ramana's works, its a matter of personal predilection
as to which quote overrides which one as can be seen in posts in this
thread.

But the overall Advaita vedAnta tradition unequivocally emphasises external
renunciation as a concomittant to the pursuit of self-knowledge.


Om
Raghav






On Sun, 20 Jun, 2021, 1:49 am Akilesh Ayyar via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>