[Advaita-l] On Ramana

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Venkat Ji,

I agree. We just agree to disagree.

Regards

On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 7:11 PM Ven Balakrishnan via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Dear Chandramouli-ji
>
> I think we will probably have to agree to disagree.  The whole point of
> sruti is to point out what cannot be perceived through other means.  And
> that pointing is essentially to the fact that you are not what you think
> you are, that it is all an unreal superimposition.
>
> Ramanamaharishi says nothing different from that.
>
> Once you have learnt this from sruti, that does not make you a jnani - it
> still needs to be ‘assimilated’ until that level of disidentification with
> body-mind happens.  That is the panditya, baleya, mauna of Brhad 3.5.1, and
> what Brhad Up bhasya 4.4.20 says:
> "Therefore the scriptures do not enjoin that identity with Brahman should
> be established, but that the false identification with things other than
> That should stop. When the identification with other things is gone, that
> identity with one’s own Self which is natural, becomes isolated"
>
>
> That is what Ramanamaharishi’s teaching of ‘who am I’ - is getting at.
> There is no difference.
>
> Best wishes,
> venkat
>
> > On 25 Jun 2021, at 09:08, H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Namaste Venkat Ji,
> >
> > Reg  <<  In his bhasya to Brhad Up 4.5.15, Sankara writes:
> > "Therefore the knowledge of this Self by the process of ‘Not this, not
> this’ and the renunciation of everything are the only means of attaining
> immortality”
> >
> > And in Brhad 3.5.1, the Upanishad talks of living on the strength of
> that knowledge and abiding in it.
> >
> > In Nan Yar, Ramanamaharishi’s method is no different - find and hold on
> the the I-thought, discarding all else (the knower vs the known) until even
> the I-thought dies >>,
> >
> > My understanding is very different. There is a whole lot of difference
> between what Sri Bhagavatpada says and the Maharshi says. According to Sri
> Bhagavatpada, the process of ** Neti Neti ** should be by way of
> Shravana,Manana,Nididhyasana as enshrined in the Shruti whereas The
> Maharshi seems to suggest that the same Goal can be reached by the process
> of holding on to the I-thought discarding all else (the knower vs the
> known) be done all by oneself without reference to the Shruti. That is
> exactly what is rejected in the Sidhanta.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 12:59 PM Ven Balakrishnan via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org <mailto:
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>> wrote:
> > Exactly Subbu-ji.  That is a stunning ‘conversation’.  A similar
> paragraph is in BSB.
> >
> > In his bhasya to Brhad Up 4.5.15, Sankara writes:
> > "Therefore the knowledge of this Self by the process of ‘Not this, not
> this’ and the renunciation of everything are the only means of attaining
> immortality”
> >
> > And in Brhad 3.5.1, the Upanishad talks of living on the strength of
> that knowledge and abiding in it.
> >
> > In Nan Yar, Ramanamaharishi’s method is no different - find and hold on
> the the I-thought, discarding all else (the knower vs the known) until even
> the I-thought dies.  Ramana uses the simile of throwing away a banana leaf
> after the food has been consumed; Sankara uses the sloughing of the skin of
> a snake.
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 25 Jun 2021, at 05:51, V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org <mailto:
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>> wrote:
> > >
> > > Here is one, extremely clinching evidence for the close adherence of
> the
> > > 'Ramana way' to the 'Shankara way':   Bhagvan Ramana would,
> > > characteristically, pose a counter question to anyone who comes to him
> and
> > > articulates a problem he is facing, either mundane or spiritual:
> 'Find out
> > > to whom is this'.  In the Bh.Gita 13.2 bhashyam, Shankara, handles,
> rather
> > > settles, the most crucial problem of 'For whom is avidya?' thus:  In
> this
> > > deeply involved conversation Shankara leads the questioner to finally
> > > realize that avidya is not for the Atman, the observer-aspirant,  but
> for
> > > the anAtman:
> > >
> > > अत्र आह — सा अविद्या कस्य इति । यस्य दृश्यते तस्य एव । कस्य दृश्यते
> इति ।
> > > अत्र उच्यते — ‘अविद्या कस्य दृश्यते ? ’ इति प्रश्नः निरर्थकः । कथम् ?
> > > दृश्यते चेत् अविद्या, तद्वन्तमपि पश्यसि । न च तद्वति उपलभ्यमाने ‘सा
> कस्य ?
> > > ’ इति प्रश्नो युक्तः । न हि गोमति उपलभ्यमाने ‘गावः कस्य ? ’ इति प्रश्नः
> > > अर्थवान् भवति । ननु विषमो दृष्टान्तः । गवां तद्वतश्च प्रत्यक्षत्वात्
> > > तत्सम्बन्धोऽपि प्रत्यक्ष इति प्रश्नो निरर्थकः । न तथा अविद्या तद्वांश्च
> > > प्रत्यक्षौ, यतः प्रश्नः निरर्थकः स्यात् । अप्रत्यक्षेण अविद्यावता
> > > अविद्यासम्बन्धे ज्ञाते, किं तव स्यात् ? अविद्यायाः अनर्थहेतुत्वात्
> > > परिहर्तव्या स्यात् । यस्य अविद्या, सः तां परिहरिष्यति । ननु ममैव
> अविद्या ।
> > > जानासि तर्हि अविद्यां तद्वन्तं च आत्मानम् । जानामि, न तु प्रत्यक्षेण ।
> > > अनुमानेन चेत् जानासि, कथं सम्बन्धग्रहणम् ? न हि तव ज्ञातुः ज्ञेयभूतया
> > > अविद्यया तत्काले सम्बन्धः ग्रहीतुं शक्यते, अविद्याया विषयत्वेनैव
> ज्ञातुः
> > > उपयुक्तत्वात् । न च ज्ञातुः अविद्यायाश्च सम्बन्धस्य यः ग्रहीता, ज्ञानं
> च
> > > अन्यत् तद्विषयं सम्भवति ; अनवस्थाप्राप्तेः । यदि ज्ञात्रापि
> ज्ञेयसम्बन्धो
> > > ज्ञायते, अन्यः ज्ञाता कल्प्यः स्यात् , तस्यापि अन्यः, तस्यापि अन्यः इति
> > > अनवस्था अपरिहार्या । यदि पुनः अविद्या ज्ञेया, अन्यद्वा ज्ञेयं ज्ञेयमेव
> । तथा
> > > ज्ञातापि ज्ञातैव, न ज्ञेयं भवति । यदा च एवम् , अविद्यादुःखित्वाद्यैः न
> > > ज्ञातुः क्षेत्रज्ञस्य किञ्चित् दुष्यति ॥
> > >
> > > The close correspondence between Ramana and Shankara is exemplified by
> this
> > > all important aspect.  Even if there is deviation in the Ramana way
> from
> > > traditional Advaitic method, this one example is enough to set aside,
> nay
> > > dwarf, everything else.
> > >
> > > regards
> > > subbu
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 2:10 AM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
> > > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org <mailto:
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Namaste
> > >> For what it is worth, I have personally benefitted from Sri Ramana
> > >> Maharishi's observations and have found no discrepancy between the
> ultimate
> > >> object of his teaching and that of Shankara Bhagavatpada / the
> upaniShad-s.
> > >>
> > >> There are certainly many asampradAy-ic subschools, for the want of a
> better
> > >> word, that have formed around Sri Ramana Maharishi which are clearly
> > >> non-advaita despite proclaiming to be otherwise (ie claiming to be
> > >> advaita).
> > >>
> > >> His presentation and emphasis are also slightly different to
> traditional
> > >> advaita, but his observations on the nature of reality are
> unquestionably
> > >> advaita.
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >> Venkatraghavan
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, 24 Jun 2021, 06:40 Jaldhar H. Vyas via Advaita-l, <
> > >> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org <mailto:
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Every inch of punyabharata has been blessed by contact with the feet
> of
> > >>> saints from the mists of the ancient past to the present day.  Some
> of
> > >>> these have been great sages and scholars who poured their insights
> into
> > >>> works of both great beauty and great profundity.  They initiated
> > >> disciples
> > >>> and built institutions to keep the flame of dharma alive. Others
> also set
> > >>> forth from their homes inspired by nothing more than the longings of
> > >> their
> > >>> own souls and that was enough.  They did not form lineages, they did
> not
> > >>> write well-distributed books (if they wrote anything) at all and
> most of
> > >>> them never became known further than their own village or maybe a
> small
> > >>> region beyond.
> > >>>
> > >>> Venkataraman Iyer was born in a time and place where both these
> types of
> > >>> saint were still common.  So he would have been immersed in an
> atmosphere
> > >>> where someone of a naturally spiritual inclination (as by all
> evidence he
> > >>> had from childhood) would have received great nourishment even
> without
> > >>> formal education.  We know he was an able poet in Tamil.  We know
> that he
> > >>> had enough knowledge of Sanskrit to be able to read and discuss
> stotras
> > >>> and philosophical works and even translate some of them.  And he had
> > >>> association with many people who were classically educated and could
> > >>> remedy any lack in those areas.
> > >>>
> > >>> Because there was a lack as there would have been for any
> autodidact.  I
> > >>> compare him with another self-taught Tamil genius, his contemporary
> > >>> Srinivas Ramanujan.  Ramanujans insights into mathematics are still
> > >>> bearing fruit to advanced researchers to this day.  But as his
> biographer
> > >>> Hardy noted, he sometimes made simple mistakes or put things in
> > >>> unnecessarily hard to understand (for mathematicians) ways not due to
> > >> lack
> > >>> of intelligence but simply because he had not been "initiated" into
> the
> > >>> standard academic culture of mathematics.  I don't think Hardy meant
> to
> > >>> belittle him by saying this neither should we think less of him for
> it.
> > >>> It is just a fact. I feel we should look at Raman in the same way.
> He
> > >>> never tried to recruit followers or build himself up as a guru but he
> > >>> impressed people and they asked him questions so he answered them
> out of
> > >>> love.  But he was not a systematic thinker and it would be a mistake
> to
> > >>> treat him as such.  He can be a source of inspiration and that is
> enough.
> > >>> Ramanujans style did not replace the way Mathematics is done then or
> now
> > >>> rather it is through the lens of that way that his true brilliance
> could
> > >>> be discerned.  In the same way I suggest that if consider yourself
> > >>> inspired by Raman, if you think the most vital question is "Who am
> I?  It
> > >>> is even more incumbent upon you to learn the formal methods of
> Advaita
> > >>> Vedanta as no man is an island and noquestion comes out of a void.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com <mailto:
> jaldhar at braincells.com>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ <
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/>
> > >>> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita <
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita>
> > >>>
> > >>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > >>> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l <
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l>
> > >>>
> > >>> For assistance, contact:
> > >>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org <mailto:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org>
> > >>>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ <
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/>
> > >> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita <
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita>
> > >>
> > >> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > >> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l <
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l>
> > >>
> > >> For assistance, contact:
> > >> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org <mailto:listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >
> > >>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ <
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/>
> > > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita <
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita>
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l <
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l>
> > >
> > > For assistance, contact:
> > > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org <mailto:listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ <
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/>
> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita <
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita>
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l <
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l>
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org <mailto: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
>