[Advaita-l] Karma yoga: the kinder, softer preparation for self-inquiry and surrender

[Ven Balakrishnan]

Dear Chandramouli

On baalya and mouna, it is an interesting point you raise . . . both SSSS in his comments on BU3.5.1 and Swami Gambhirananda in his notes to his translation of BrahmaSutraBhasya, equate baalya to manana and mouna to nididhyasana; ie saying that you get scholarly knowledge from the sruti and guru, and then have to apply it (“live on the strength of that knowledge”).  Consequently your distinction of before / after Jnana for Ramana vs Sankara does not seem to apply.

Whilst sruti does teach a lot more, it ulitmately is sublated.  Sruti also says that Brahman cannot be defined; so not quite how you you can say that they declare what IS.  Indeed what sruti conveys is to REMOVE ignorance - the erroneous superimposition; not to add a new conceptual knowledge.

Hence why Sankara can write very unambiguously "“therefore the knowledge of this Self, by the process of neti, neti and the renunciation of everything are the only means of attaining immortality”.

Best wishes


> On 22 Mar 2021, at 09:34, H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Venkat,
> 
> Reg  << In Nan Yar (Who am I?) Ramana writes in his second para:
> 
> “I am not this physical body, nor the five organs of perception; not the five organs of activity, nor the five vital forces, nor even the thinking mind. Neither am I that unconscious state of nescience which retains merely the subtle vastness, while being free from functional activity of the sense organs and mind.
> 
> Therefore summarily rejecting all the above-mentioned as ’not I, not I’, that which then remains separate and alone by itself, that pure Awareness is what I am.” >>,
> 
> As I had mentioned earlier, there is no difference in the final conclusion of Advaita, Realization,  as between Sri Bhagavatpada and Sri Maharshi. What we are discussing is the differences in methodology advocated for achieving this Realization as between the two. 
> 
> Reg  << Scriptures bring a person who is caught in the ignorance to understand step by step - from creation to non-creation -  ’neti, neti’, the best that words can do to describe Brahman.  Ramana is saying that that neti, neti has then to be applied, each time a desire, a fear, an egoistic thought arises; until that I-thought no longer arises.  That is abidance in the Self, mouna.  Sankara says as much as set out in the first para above >>,
> 
> Oh no. Scriptures go well beyond just stating neti-neti. It is part of the process. They do not just stop at declaring what is NOT but also go on to declare what IS the conclusion. Sri Maharshi, according to you, prescribes the above mentioned procedure for Realization. That is not accepted in the Sidhanta advanced by Sri Bhagavtpada. I may also mention here that many of the Maharshis I had mentioned earlier also accept the first part but end up with different conclusions in the followup part.
> 
> Regarding  ‘baalya’ and ‘mouna’, you have yourself stated that both are AFTER gaining jnaana. What the Maharshi is advocating according to you is FOR gaining jnaana. That is the difference.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Chandramouli
> 
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 2:16 PM Ven Balakrishnan <ventzu at yahoo.co.uk <mailto:ventzu at yahoo.co.uk>> wrote:
> Dear H S Chandramouli
> 
> I made the observation that Sankara had written: “therefore the knowledge of this Self, by the process of neti, neti and the renunciation of everything are the only means of attaining immortality”, and SSSS’ comments on baalya and mouna as the total rejection with disdain of any perceptual or conceptual knowledge of the not-self).  There is a logic to why neti, neti and renunciation go together.
> 
> In Nan Yar (Who am I?) Ramana writes in his second para:
> 
> “I am not this physical body, nor the five organs of perception; not the five organs of activity, nor the five vital forces, nor even the thinking mind. Neither am I that unconscious state of nescience which retains merely the subtle vastness, while being free from functional activity of the sense organs and mind.
> Therefore summarily rejecting all the above-mentioned as ’not I, not I’, that which then remains separate and alone by itself, that pure Awareness is what I am.”
> 
> This teaching of Ramana is not something other than what Sankara has said.  Scriptures bring a person who is caught in the ignorance to understand step by step - from creation to non-creation -  ’neti, neti’, the best that words can do to describe Brahman.  Ramana is saying that that neti, neti has then to be applied, each time a desire, a fear, an egoistic thought arises; until that I-thought no longer arises.  That is abidance in the Self, mouna.  Sankara says as much as set out in the first para above.
> 
> Best wishes.
>