• Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Bhagawan Ramana Maharishi

a-TB

Well-known member
Srimathi Dr. Renuka Ji,

Bhagawan is not talking about a body and mind that is deceased. He is talking about suicide, where a ‘healthy’ mind decides to end the life of a body.
Dear KRS Sir,

I came across an interesting point of view in the Upanishad.

Atma Hatya means false identifications of Atma with body. That is the real suicide from sciptural view.

Here is but one reference. Do not know the authenticity of the source.


Maharishi's entire discussion must be taken into account what point he is making. Since the body is not yours, ego cannot cause deliberate harm to the body. That is what he means.

Eating bad food and lack of discipline are incidental harm done and should not be confused with ego's need to deprive the body of life.

Again like you say I am no expert but want to make common sense meaning out of what is said by Maharishi
 
OP
OP
K

KRS

Well-known member
Dear KRS Sir,

I came across an interesting point of view in the Upanishad.

Atma Hatya means false identifications of Atma with body. That is the real suicide from sciptural view.

Here is but one reference. Do not know the authenticity of the source.


Maharishi's entire discussion must be taken into account what point he is making. Since the body is not yours, ego cannot cause deliberate harm to the body. That is what he means.

Eating bad food and lack of discipline are incidental harm done and should not be confused with ego's need to deprive the body of life.

Again like you say I am no expert but want to make common sense meaning out of what is said by Maharishi
Dear Sri a-TB Sir,

Unique thing about the Bhagwan is that he first Realized and then found out that Vedanta and Advaitha etc. aligned with his experience later.

Thank you for clarifying. I thank you and Sri Iyest Sir for throwing light on this subject. Even though I intuitively understood what the Bhagawan was saying, I do not possess the necessary prowess to explain properly.

Thank you again.
 

Iyest

Active member
Ego makes the enquiry:

Dr Srinivasa Rao asked Bhagavan, "When we enquire within "Who am I?" what is that?"

Bhagavan: It is the ego. It is only that which makes the vichara also. The Self has no vichara. That which makes the enquiry is the ego. The 'I' about which the enquiry is made is also the ego. As a result of the enquiry the ego ceases to exist and only the Self is found to exist.


---Day by day with Bhagavan
 
OP
OP
K

KRS

Well-known member
IMMEDIATE INITIATION

One morning a European man came in a horse carriage to the ashram and went straight to Bhagavan. He wrote something on a piece of paper and showed it to Bhagavan, but Bhagavan made no reply.

Instead, he gazed at the stranger with unwinking eyes while the stranger gazed back at him. Then, after Bhagavan had closed his eyes and the stranger had also closed his, they both remained motionless for a long time.

When it was time to eat, the meals were served but Bhagavan would not open his eyes. Madhava Swami the attendant, got Bhagavan's water pot and stood ready to lead Bhagavan out of the hall, but Bhagavan did not stir. We all felt afraid to go near him, such was the intensity of power around him. His face was glowing with a strange light.

The guests in the dining hall were waiting and the food before them was getting cold. Chinnaswami was talking loudly to attract Bhagavan's attention. Even vessels were banged about, but all to no avail. It was only when the clock struck twelve that Bhagavan opened his eyes. We all noticed that they were glowing very brightly.

Madhava Swami took up the water pot, while the European got into his carriage and went away. It was the last we ever saw of him. We did not even get his name. Everybody was wonder-struck at the great, good fortune of the man who had received such an intense and immediate initiation from Bhagavan.

- Shantammal, The Power of the Presence III
 
OP
OP
K

KRS

Well-known member
ALL THESE [DOCTRINES] ARE ONLY TO SUIT THE CAPACITY OF THE LEARNER. THE ABSOLUTE CAN ONLY BE ONE.

The letter went on to say, “Ramana Maharshi is an exponent of ajata doctrine of Advaita Vedanta. Of course it is a bit difficult.”

Bhagavan remarked on this, “Somebody has told him so. I do not teach only the ajata doctrine. I approve of all schools. The same truth has to be expressed in different ways to suit the capacity of the hearer. The ajata doctrine says, ‘Nothing exists except the one reality. There is no birth or death, no projection or drawing in, no sadhaka, no mumukshu, no mukta, no bondage, no liberation. The one unity alone exists ever.’ To such as find it difficult to grasp this truth and who ask, ‘How can we ignore this solid world we see all around us?’, the dream experience is pointed out and they are told, ‘All that you see depends on the seer. Apart from the seer, there is no seen.’ This is called the drishti-srishti vada or the argument that one first creates out of his mind and then sees what his mind itself has created.

To such as cannot grasp even this and who further argue, ‘The dream experience is so short, while the world always exists. The dream experience was limited to me. But the world is felt and seen not only by me, but by so many, and we cannot call such a world non-existent’,the argument called srishti-drishti vada is addressed and they are told, ‘God first created such and such a thing, out of such and such an element, and then something else, and so forth.’ That alone will satisfy this class.

Their mind is otherwise not satisfied and they ask themselves, ‘How can all geography, all maps, all sciences, stars, planets and the rules governing or relating to them and all knowledge be totally untrue?’ To such it is best to say, ‘Yes. God created all this and so you see it.’” Dr.M. said, “But all these cannot be true; only one doctrine can be true.” Bhagavan said, “All these are only to suit the capacity of the learner. The absolute can only be one.”

Day by Day with Bhagavan 15.3.1946
 

renuka

Well-known member
ALL THESE [DOCTRINES] ARE ONLY TO SUIT THE CAPACITY OF THE LEARNER. THE ABSOLUTE CAN ONLY BE ONE.

The letter went on to say, “Ramana Maharshi is an exponent of ajata doctrine of Advaita Vedanta. Of course it is a bit difficult.”

Bhagavan remarked on this, “Somebody has told him so. I do not teach only the ajata doctrine. I approve of all schools. The same truth has to be expressed in different ways to suit the capacity of the hearer. The ajata doctrine says, ‘Nothing exists except the one reality. There is no birth or death, no projection or drawing in, no sadhaka, no mumukshu, no mukta, no bondage, no liberation. The one unity alone exists ever.’ To such as find it difficult to grasp this truth and who ask, ‘How can we ignore this solid world we see all around us?’, the dream experience is pointed out and they are told, ‘All that you see depends on the seer. Apart from the seer, there is no seen.’ This is called the drishti-srishti vada or the argument that one first creates out of his mind and then sees what his mind itself has created.

To such as cannot grasp even this and who further argue, ‘The dream experience is so short, while the world always exists. The dream experience was limited to me. But the world is felt and seen not only by me, but by so many, and we cannot call such a world non-existent’,the argument called srishti-drishti vada is addressed and they are told, ‘God first created such and such a thing, out of such and such an element, and then something else, and so forth.’ That alone will satisfy this class.

Their mind is otherwise not satisfied and they ask themselves, ‘How can all geography, all maps, all sciences, stars, planets and the rules governing or relating to them and all knowledge be totally untrue?’ To such it is best to say, ‘Yes. God created all this and so you see it.’” Dr.M. said, “But all these cannot be true; only one doctrine can be true.” Bhagavan said, “All these are only to suit the capacity of the learner. The absolute can only be one.”

Day by Day with Bhagavan 15.3.194
Bhagawan is saying that there is no such thing as " my way or the highway"

As much as Abrahamics practitioner think that its " my way or the highway", there is a verse from the Qura'n that clearly states that there are many WAYS to attain peace and finally to the straight path.

QURAN 5:16

Whereby God guides whoever who seeks His contentment unto the WAYS of peace and brings them out of darkness into light by His leave and guides them unto a straight path.
 
OP
OP
K

KRS

Well-known member
Bhagawan is saying that there is no such thing as " my way or the highway"

As much as Abrahamics practitioner think that its " my way or the highway", there is a verse from the Qura'n that clearly states that there are many WAYS to attain peace and finally to the straight path.

QURAN 5:16

Whereby God guides whoever who seeks His contentment unto the WAYS of peace and brings them out of darkness into light by His leave and guides them unto a straight path.
Srimathi Dr. Renuka Ji,

Yes, your conclusion may be correct.

But, when we quote texts from all religions, that are translated in to English, from Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, Hebrew, Sanskrit, Literary Tamil, etc. we need to be very careful.

In my opinion, lots of times, the translations lack the deep meaning of the original text, often because of English language’s lack of adequate words to exactly replicate. As an aside, there is a book by one Prof. Armstrong, listing hundreds of words in Sanskrit that should not be translated in to English, because the original meaning can not be captured.

On top of it, because ‘authority committees’ in lots of religions ‘interpreted’ and adopted those interpretations as ‘official’, in my humble opinion, many ideas expressed in the original texts are twisted or misinterpreted, leaving the generations of followers to adopt thoughts very different from the original.

I can cite two very prominent examples of this:

1. Christ said in the gospel of John, I am paraphrasing, ‘the only way to my father is through me’. Based on this translation alone, the dogma of Christian conversion of ‘heathens’ out of love to ‘save’ them came about, with some harmful results, including inquisitions and forced conversions. Yet, if you read a few Christian theological scholars, they would point out that the context of this statement by Christ was specifically made as an answer to a particular question by Doubting Thomas, about his salvation, so can not be generalized.

2. Another example is the idea of ‘Jihad’ and the fruits that awaits one in the heavens in Islam. There various interpretations are offered for the meaning of the word ‘Jihad’ itself, whether it is inside the person or outside. Not to mention all different questions about the correct translation of the expression ‘72 virgins‘.

This is why, for me, it would be a waste of time to see whether there is unity of ideas expressed in different religions. I take it as true that all religions lead to God, and I leave it at that, knowing even that the definition of ‘God’ can vary.

Comparative Religion is a new academic field and one Professor Clooney at Harvard Religion school is considered actually the father of the discipline. It is very interesting to listen to him on YouTube, as he is well versed in Hinduism, both in Sanskrit and Tamil scriptures. If you have time, I would highly recommend his lecture on Ramanuja.

Anyways, this long post to say that your analysis may be or may not be correct🙏
 

Iyest

Active member
Srimathi Dr. Renuka Ji,

Yes, your conclusion may be correct.

But, when we quote texts from all religions, that are translated in to English, from Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, Hebrew, Sanskrit, Literary Tamil, etc. we need to be very careful.

In my opinion, lots of times, the translations lack the deep meaning of the original text, often because of English language’s lack of adequate words to exactly replicate. As an aside, there is a book by one Prof. Armstrong, listing hundreds of words in Sanskrit that should not be translated in to English, because the original meaning can not be captured.

On top of it, because ‘authority committees’ in lots of religions ‘interpreted’ and adopted those interpretations as ‘official’, in my humble opinion, many ideas expressed in the original texts are twisted or misinterpreted, leaving the generations of followers to adopt thoughts very different from the original.

I can cite two very prominent examples of this:

1. Christ said in the gospel of John, I am paraphrasing, ‘the only way to my father is through me’. Based on this translation alone, the dogma of Christian conversion of ‘heathens’ out of love to ‘save’ them came about, with some harmful results, including inquisitions and forced conversions. Yet, if you read a few Christian theological scholars, they would point out that the context of this statement by Christ was specifically made as an answer to a particular question by Doubting Thomas, about his salvation, so can not be generalized.

2. Another example is the idea of ‘Jihad’ and the fruits that awaits one in the heavens in Islam. There various interpretations are offered for the meaning of the word ‘Jihad’ itself, whether it is inside the person or outside. Not to mention all different questions about the correct translation of the expression ‘72 virgins‘.

This is why, for me, it would be a waste of time to see whether there is unity of ideas expressed in different religions. I take it as true that all religions lead to God, and I leave it at that, knowing even that the definition of ‘God’ can vary.

Comparative Religion is a new academic field and one Professor Clooney at Harvard Religion school is considered actually the father of the discipline. It is very interesting to listen to him on YouTube, as he is well versed in Hinduism, both in Sanskrit and Tamil scriptures. If you have time, I would highly recommend his lecture on Ramanuja.

Anyways, this long post to say that your analysis may be or may not be correct🙏

Yes sir. It is better to go the source directly instead of various 'expert' interpreters who may only be spreading their misunderstanding to others. Bhagavan's passage is interesting because one can easily come to the understanding that all schools are false in the absolute sense. He says he approves of all schools but with the important qualification "To such as find it difficult to grasp this truth...". So he is clearly making concessions to people with different levels of maturity. In many different places he has said that self enquiry is the only direct method. Jesus would have certainly realized that he was not the body. But the church never had that understanding and universal mischief and bloodshed have been the result.
 
OP
OP
K

KRS

Well-known member
Yes sir. It is better to go the source directly instead of various 'expert' interpreters who may only be spreading their misunderstanding to others. Bhagavan's passage is interesting because one can easily come to the understanding that all schools are false in the absolute sense. He says he approves of all schools but with the important qualification "To such as find it difficult to grasp this truth...". So he is clearly making concessions to people with different levels of maturity. In many different places he has said that self enquiry is the only direct method. Jesus would have certainly realized that he was not the body. But the church never had that understanding and universal mischief and bloodshed have been the result.
Dear Sri Iyest Sir,

Yes sir.

I would like to ask your opinion on my following thoughts:

You know, some of us here are fully devoted to the Bhagwan’s teachings and we understand them very well, because they make sense to us.

But followers of other Sambradhayams, Creeds and Teachings, I am sure think each of their paths is the supreme and the only way to find ‘God’.

Since Religion and Spirituality intimately and deeply contribute to a person’s identity and dignity, along with other factors in this world, I think I should be careful not to hurt anyone’s sentiments, thoughts, beliefs and experiences, with thoughts and words based on my own beliefs.

Yes, bad things happened in the past in all religions (to my limited knowledge). But, I do not think it started with malice. All religions and their resulting practices start with full idealism, like our own Varna system, for the benefit of our society, but over time Entropy ensues and things are misused.

So, I would like to propose that from my viewpoint, Bhagawan’s words about the Truth apply only to his followers.

Just an interesting aside:
I am sure you know about one ‘Papa Ji’, who followed the Bhagawan and in turn had many Sishyas from the west, who took his teachings and started the Ramana movement in the west. He came from a family who were ardent Lord Krishna Bhakthas and he himself experienced the Lord‘s vision numerous times. Still he felt dissatisfied and on hearing the Bhagwan, he was completely ’hooked’.

A few years ago, I had a chance to correspond with one Sri David Godman, who became Ramana Bhaktha after Bhagawan left his body, who lives in Thiruvannamalai till today. He spent quite a bit of time with both Papaji and Nisargadatta Maharaj Ji and have written books on them. I had questions about each of them and he answered my queries in such a way to my satisfaction, but also created a feeling in me that I can completely trust his words on the Bhagawan.

I am mentioning the above, because our discussion reminded me of my correspondence with Sri Godman.

Thank you for listening.
 

renuka

Well-known member
Srimathi Dr. Renuka Ji,

Yes, your conclusion may be correct.

But, when we quote texts from all religions, that are translated in to English, from Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, Hebrew, Sanskrit, Literary Tamil, etc. we need to be very careful.

In my opinion, lots of times, the translations lack the deep meaning of the original text, often because of English language’s lack of adequate words to exactly replicate. As an aside, there is a book by one Prof. Armstrong, listing hundreds of words in Sanskrit that should not be translated in to English, because the original meaning can not be captured.

On top of it, because ‘authority committees’ in lots of religions ‘interpreted’ and adopted those interpretations as ‘official’, in my humble opinion, many ideas expressed in the original texts are twisted or misinterpreted, leaving the generations of followers to adopt thoughts very different from the original.

I can cite two very prominent examples of this:

1. Christ said in the gospel of John, I am paraphrasing, ‘the only way to my father is through me’. Based on this translation alone, the dogma of Christian conversion of ‘heathens’ out of love to ‘save’ them came about, with some harmful results, including inquisitions and forced conversions. Yet, if you read a few Christian theological scholars, they would point out that the context of this statement by Christ was specifically made as an answer to a particular question by Doubting Thomas, about his salvation, so can not be generalized.

2. Another example is the idea of ‘Jihad’ and the fruits that awaits one in the heavens in Islam. There various interpretations are offered for the meaning of the word ‘Jihad’ itself, whether it is inside the person or outside. Not to mention all different questions about the correct translation of the expression ‘72 virgins‘.

This is why, for me, it would be a waste of time to see whether there is unity of ideas expressed in different religions. I take it as true that all religions lead to God, and I leave it at that, knowing even that the definition of ‘God’ can vary.

Comparative Religion is a new academic field and one Professor Clooney at Harvard Religion school is considered actually the father of the discipline. It is very interesting to listen to him on YouTube, as he is well versed in Hinduism, both in Sanskrit and Tamil scriptures. If you have time, I would highly recommend his lecture on Ramanuja.

Anyways, this long post to say that your analysis may be or may not be correct🙏
Dear KRS ji,
Thanks for the reply.
I am not well versed in Christianity cos I havent studied Hebrew yet.
I usually study the languages of each religion before I venture into its understanding to make sure I read original text and NOT a translation..hence one would be aware where translators give their personal opinions.

Right now my classical language knowledge and formal qualification is only Sanskrit and Arabic so I only venture into Sanathana Dharma and Islamic text.

Since Hebrew is also a semetic language like Arabic may be some day if God permits it I could study Hebrew too and then read up on Christianity.

Regarding words that are not translatable..there are tons of them in Sanskrit ranging from Dharma to Karma to Svara.

These words themselves are not actually words but rather terminologies.
For eg we always translated svara in grammar as a vowel.
Even though it is a vowel but it misses the whole story behind a svara.
Svara is svayam eva rAjate iti svara
Translation : a svara is that which is self established.

Reason? Cos a svara does NOT need any other sound to articulate itself.

So if you ask me is svara just a vowel?
Well if we say yes..its only half right cos we failed to grasp the story behind it.

Jihad has 2 meanings..internal battle of senses and external war.
72 virgins is a concept which has an external meaning and internal meaning in Hadiths.
Its either they are like Apsaras in Indra loka or some Sufis says its the illumination of the 72 meridien points in the body when one surrenders to God.

Coming to waste of time ,you do have a point..I totally agree and at the same time the Gita says there isn't loss or diminution.

 
Last edited:

Iyest

Active member
Dear Sri Iyest Sir,

Yes sir.

I would like to ask your opinion on my following thoughts:

Dear KRS sir, I do know David Godman, other 'experts' on Bhagavan. But I do not wish to comment on them in a public forum. Personally, I encourage people to go directly to Bhagavan's teachings and avoid all second hand interpretations however popular some of these experts may be.

If you don't mind, I will only comment on one statement.

>> So, I would like to propose that from my viewpoint, Bhagawan’s words about the Truth apply only to his followers.

If Truth applies to only to some people of a certain 'sampradhayam' and not all, then it is very limited and not Truth. It is not even worth investigating. The essence of the teaching is to understand (and possibly dissolve) the ego self. It applies to the whole of humanity. During this process of enquiry or investigation, one can also see the hundreds of ways our self acts in the world. Ideas and concepts are an important aspect of the ego self. But the self will not let go of ideals because it can preserve itself by holding on to them. Comparison, evaluation, judgement are the means used by the self. It is not easy to see or acknowledge them as obstacles to dissolving the ego. 'People are suffering', 'I want to help and do good', etc etc are all common creations of thought and therefore the self. They must all be dissolved to end the self. But do we even understand that? I know that you are knowledgable and know this already. Satva guna is good at the beginning of a person's religious search but it is not the end goal. Probably why the Self or ultimate reality is described as 'nirguna' or beyond all qualities (of the ego).

If you have not done so, you may want to read 'Living by the words of Bhagavan' by David Godman. It is about Annamalai Swamy and his experiences with Bhagavan that reveal a different side of Bhagavan that we don't find elsewhere.

You are welcome to send a personal message and we can continue there if you want to discuss individuals and any other matter freely.
 

renuka

Well-known member
Dear Iyest ji,
If I may add some info..
I feel I understand why KRS ji said "Bhagawan’s words about the Truth apply only to his followers"

I feel its like this...when we follow a Guru , the Guru establishes a bond with his shisyas ..the bond is unseen but its certainly felt.

Sufis call this Rabitah where there is a personalized connection between Guru and Shisya.

The Guru would " know" the need of the Shisya and the upadesha the Shisya gets would be a personalized format.
Its like how we go to our own Doctor and he having all our case history knows our prognosis and medication needs better then another doctor who isnt following up our case.

Likewise the Guru is the personal " physician" to the Shisya and knows the Shisya's case history better.

But this does NOT mean that the words of the Guru does not stand the test of Time and is not Universal.

And another question could arise.." if its only for a Guru's shisyas..what about others who havent become his shisya?"

Well..just like how Yama has a noose to put around our necks upon death..Guru's too have a noose to put around the neck of the shisya he chooses.
Who and how he chooses is not something anyone of us can decipher BUT when there is a sincere seeker a Guru will appear.

I know this might sound a little weird..but a sincere seeker is like a person using the Grab app to get a ride..the seeker's sincere plea is sensed by potential Gurus and one or more could reach out to guide him.
 
Last edited:

Iyest

Active member
Dear Iyest ji,
If I may add some info..
I feel I understand why KRS ji said "Bhagawan’s words about the Truth apply only to his followers"

I feel its like this...when we follow a Guru , the Guru establishes a bond with his shisyas ..the bond is unseen but its certainly felt.

Sufis call this Rabitah where there is a personalized connection between Guru and Shisya.

The Guru would " know" the need of the Shisya and the upadesha the Shisya gets would be a personalized format.
Its like how we go to our own Doctor and he having all our case history knows our prognosis and medication needs better then another doctor who isnt following up our case.

Likewise the Guru is the personal " physician" to the Shisya and knows the Shisya's case history better.

But this does NOT mean that the words of the Guru does not stand the test of Time and is not Universal.

Dear Renuka ji, not disagreeing with you but we must be clear whether we are discussing from the absolute level or the relative level. May be I was not making myself clear.

1. A true Guru (jnani) like Bhagavan will know the minds and misery of all. He knows the human mind and what he teaches is to be free of the mind and its misery that plagues humanity. So I don't think the example of one doctor knowing one patient better can apply here. Further Ramana himself has asked how could a true jnani treat his 'sishyas' differently when all he sees is the Self. In fact, a true jnani has no sishyas or disciples. That may be so only from the standpoint of others.

2. At the relative level, yes there are thousands of gurus (not jnanis) who serve their 'sishyas', establish their own 'sampradhayam', 'parampara' etc etc. Some are sincere, some deluded, and some are downright frauds. The sincere ones often propagate their own version of the 'saatvic' lifestyle - food habits, yoga, bhajans, social service, pujas and rituals being the most common in Hinduism. The fundamental difference here cannot be missed. It is all about an 'improved' self or a 'polished' self or a 'pious' self or a 'respectable' self. It is never about dissolution of the ego self. In other words there is no focus on who is the 'doer' of all these activities. That central issue is never addressed and it is probably because these gurus have not addressed it themselves.

Until 50 or 60 years ago, it was common for parents and grandparents to tell puranic stories and teach basic bhajans and even mantras to small children in many households. I don't see that happening any more. May be that is the reason for mushrooming self styled gurus in every street corner and multiple tv channels offering these services.
 

renuka

Well-known member
Dear Renuka ji, not disagreeing with you but we must be clear whether we are discussing from the absolute level or the relative level. May be I was not making myself clear.

1. A true Guru (jnani) like Bhagavan will know the minds and misery of all. He knows the human mind and what he teaches is to be free of the mind and its misery that plagues humanity. So I don't think the example of one doctor knowing one patient better can apply here. Further Ramana himself has asked how could a true jnani treat his 'sishyas' differently when all he sees is the Self. In fact, a true jnani has no sishyas or disciples. That may be so only from the standpoint of others.

2. At the relative level, yes there are thousands of gurus (not jnanis) who serve their 'sishyas', establish their own 'sampradhayam', 'parampara' etc etc. Some are sincere, some deluded, and some are downright frauds. The sincere ones often propagate their own version of the 'saatvic' lifestyle - food habits, yoga, bhajans, social service, pujas and rituals being the most common in Hinduism. The fundamental difference here cannot be missed. It is all about an 'improved' self or a 'polished' self or a 'pious' self or a 'respectable' self. It is never about dissolution of the ego self. In other words there is no focus on who is the 'doer' of all these activities. That central issue is never addressed and it is probably because these gurus have not addressed it themselves.

Until 50 or 60 years ago, it was common for parents and grandparents to tell puranic stories and teach basic bhajans and even mantras to small children in many households. I don't see that happening any more. May be that is the reason for mushrooming self styled gurus in every street corner and multiple tv channels offering these services.
Dear Sir,

Remember the story where Ramakrishna Paramahamsa once scolded a shisya who was timid in nature and told him to stand up and be brave and fight with a person who was bullying him.

But at the same time Ramakrishna Paramahamsa had scolded a Swami Vivekanda( was young then) for slapping a man

So Swami Vivekananda questioned Ramakrishna Paramahamsa asking him why the advice differed?

The reply was " he needs to gain courage and you need to tone down"

Coming to your question as why there is lack of emphasis on removing " I am the doer feeling"..this is because time frame differs and it might happen in an instant for some and it might take a longer time or may be in another birth and for actual dissolution of ego personally I feel that is where the role of the Guru ends.

The Guru is meant to remove the cataract of ignorance..he tells us how to improve ourselves..how to polish the mirror of our heart by sadhana/shraddha/bhakti ..but a Guru cant teach us Surrender.

Only when one surrenders like how Arjuna did..only then the mirror of our heart after all the polishing would actually be able to reflect the Bha( Effulgence) of the Divine..its only after that one experiences Nimitta Bhavana as this verse from the Gita explains

"tasmāt tvam uttiṣhṭha yaśho labhasva
jitvā śhatrūn bhuṅkṣhva rājyaṁ samṛiddham
mayaivaite nihatāḥ pūrvam eva
nimitta-mātraṁ bhava savya-sāchin"

"Therefore get up and prepare to fight. After conquering your enemies you will enjoy a flourishing kingdom. They are already put to death by My arrangement, and you, O Savyasacin, be but an instrument in the fight"

This verse can be seen in 2 different ways
1) Actual external war,where Arjuna fights and conquers his enemies and wins the Kingdom all by proxy because the actual doer here is Lord Krishna and Arjuna is merely an instrument.

2) Internal war..internal battle where Arjuna has to fight and conquer his own senses/ego which has already been exterminated by Lord Krishna and its just as an instrument Arjuna preforms his own battle and inherits the Kingdom of the Divine.


The question is "Why did Arjuna attain the state of being a Nimitta( instrument)?"
It's because he surrendered lock,stock and barrel to Lord Krishna.

So if we see that many of us are not proceeding to dissolving the ego its purely because we havent had an Arjuna moment as to surrender fully to God.

So why think its the fault of the Guru?
Guru is like a mother who guides her child to walk by holding his hand till he can walk on his own..so we only truly walk as an instrument of God the day we decide to walk away from " i am the doership"

Let me quote Yahya Suhrawardi here

" You are the traveller; you are the path; you are the destination.Be careful never to lose the way to yourself"
 
Last edited:

Iyest

Active member
Dear Renuka ji, I think we are still not communicating and talking about different levels.

Dear Sir,

Remember the story where Ramakrishna Paramahamsa once scolded a shisya who was timid in nature and told him to stand up and be brave and fight with a person who was bullying him.

But at the same time Ramakrishna Paramahamsa had scolded a Swami Vivekanda( was young then) for slapping a man

So Swami Vivekananda questioned Ramakrishna Paramahamsa asking him why the advice differed?

The reply was " he needs to gain courage and you need to tone down"

This story is about courage and is addressing the relative level.


Coming to your question as why there is lack of emphasis on removing " I am the doer feeling"..this is because time frame differs and it might happen in an instant for some and it might take a longer time or may be in another birth and for actual dissolution of ego personally I feel that is where the role of the Guru ends.

Not only lacking emphasis but never coming to the central issue at all even after the 'followers' have been around for decades. So stories are told, time is invented, the theory of rebirth is given etc etc often in order to keep the flock from asking uncomfortable questions.

The Guru is meant to remove the cataract of ignorance..he tells us how to improve ourselves..how to polish the mirror of our heart by sadhana/shraddha/bhakti ..but a Guru cant teach us Surrender.

Nobody can remove a person's ignorance and any true Guru has emphasized this basic fact. The issue is ending the self, not creating a new and improved version which is at a relative level.

Only when one surrenders like how Arjuna did..only then the mirror of our heart after all the polishing would actually be able to reflect the Bha( Effulgence) of the Divine..its only after that one experiences Nimitta Bhavana as this verse from the Gita explains

Arjuna's story (assuming the divine was reflected in him) only shows that polishing does not lead to reflect the divine. There were a lot more 'polished' people around him in the Mahabhartha in whom the divine was not reflected.

So why think its the fault of the Guru?

Not Guru, but guru.

Guru is like a mother who guides her child to walk by holding his hand till he can walk on his own..so we only truly walk as an instrument of God the day we decide to walk away from " i am the doership"

It is the mind that says 'I am unfit, I must become more qualified, more polished etc etc' and thereby creates obstacles for itself. This weakness is easily exploited by sly gurus who give such examples and then take over all decision making. They will decide when a disciple becomes 'suitable' to walk alone.

The answer below given by Bhagavan illustrates everything clearly.

Annamalai Swamy: Scientists have invented and produced aircraft which can travel at great speeds in the sky. Why do you not make and give us a spiritual aircraft in which we can quickly and easily cross the sea of samsara?

Bhagavan: The path of self enquiry is the aircraft you need. It is direct, fast, and easy to use. You are already travelling very quickly towards realization. It is only because of your mind that it seems there is no movement. In the old days when people first rode on trains, some of them believed that the trees and the countryside were moving and that the train was standing still. It is the same with you now. Your mind is making you believe that you are not moving towards Self-realization.

Bhagavan never said that polishing or preparation is necessary for anyone to do self enquiry unless people themselves told him that they found it difficult and asked his approval for some sadhana or preparation. He never made decisions for others, had no 'sishyas', and followed no sampradhayam.

I have tried to explain to the best of my limited capacity. No more from me about this.

Thank you for your posts.
 

Iyest

Active member
Dear Sri Iyest Sir,

Yes sir.

I would like to ask your opinion on my following thoughts:

So, I would like to propose that from my viewpoint, Bhagawan’s words about the Truth apply only to his followers.

Dear KRS sir, I think Bhagavan's own statement will help you.

Bhagavan: If one jnani exists in the world, his influence will be felt by or benefits all people in the world and not simply his immediate disciples. All the people in the world are divided into his disciples, bhaktas; those who are indifferent to him and those who are even hostile to him and it is said in a verse from Vedanta Chudamani that all these classes will be benefitted by the existence of the jnani.
 
OP
OP
K

KRS

Well-known member
Dear KRS sir, I think Bhagavan's own statement will help you.

Bhagavan: If one jnani exists in the world, his influence will be felt by or benefits all people in the world and not simply his immediate disciples. All the people in the world are divided into his disciples, bhaktas; those who are indifferent to him and those who are even hostile to him and it is said in a verse from Vedanta Chudamani that all these classes will be benefitted by the existence of the jnani.
Dear Sri Iyest Sir,

I am so sorry, I was so busy, could not reply earlier.

Again, I managed to miscommunicate my thoughts.

No Sir, I was not asking you to comment on Sri Godman or Papaji. I cited them mainly for the readers to understand how a follower of a different Sampradhayam came to Bhagawan. That’s all. Also if I have doubts go directly to Bhagawan’s teachings. As I mentioned before, I have read anything and everything about the Bhagawan long while ago, but have not done so for quite a while.

I do agree with all you posted about the Bhagawan’s teachings. But again, that was not I was asking you to comment, which I somehow managed to confuse.

Because Srimathi Dr. Renuka Ji posted about Islam, a thought occurred to me how to address followers of other Sampradhayams without hurting their sentiments. Of course we should clearly put forth the underpinnings of the teachings.

However, in the past, exactly in this forum, endless discussions, sometimes heated were held without any resolutions.

To avoid such lengthy useless discussions, I thought we can say that the Bhagawan’s teachings apply only to his followers, knowing full well that as his Bhaktha, I know his teachings are universal.

Funny thing is, what I thought was a trivial issue and I need not have involved you in it. Because I confused, the result is a great effort on your part explaining. I apologize for that. But actually, as a blessing in disguise, I did enjoy reading all the related posts.

Hope this explains.
 
Last edited:

renuka

Well-known member
Because Srimathi Dr. Renuka Ji posted about Islam, a thought occurred to me how to address followers of other Sampradhayams without hurting their sentiments. Of course we should clearly put forth the underpinnings of the teachings.

However, in the past, exactly in this forum, endless discussions, sometimes heated were held without any resolutions.

To avoid such lengthy useless discussions, I thought we can say that the Bhagawan’s teachings apply only to his followers, knowing full well that as his Bhaktha, I know his teachings are universal.
Dear KRS ji,
Thanks for stating that Bhagawan's teachings are Universal and admiting you did not relay the actual scenario.
Satyam Eva Jayate.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
K

KRS

Well-known member
Dear KRS ji,
Thanks for stating that Bhagawan's teachings are Universal and admiting you did not relay the actual scenario.
Satyam Eva Jayate.
Srimathi Dr. Renuka Ji,

There is nothing to ‘admit’😀. I did not lie, nor to my knowledge hid something intentionally. I did not clearly present my thoughts and I clarified it.

By the way, I do not know any follower of any spiritual path who thinks that the teachings apply only to the respective group And not Universal.

If you still think, I should ‘admit it’, then Ido unconditionally and double down on it, offering my apologies in addition.

Also, I was going to respond to your earlier post. It is so impressive that you can pick up languages at will, learn and apply. God has blessEd you with unusual talents. I am barely proficient in Tamil and as you can see, I can not express myself clearly in English either!

Do you understand ‘Ilakkia’ Tamil? Do you read Tamil scriptures as well?

Going back to Islam, then, do you think then, Muslims understand and appreciate the ‘different ways’ of worship, in the creed and outside the creed? Just curious. Thanks.
 

Iyest

Active member
Dear Sri Iyest Sir,

I am so sorry, I was so busy, could not reply earlier.

Again, I managed to miscommunicate my thoughts.

I do agree with all you posted about the Bhagawan’s teachings. But again, that was not I was asking you to comment, which I somehow managed to confuse.



Funny thing is, what I thought was a trivial issue and I need not have involved you in it. Because I confused, the result is a great effort on your part explaining. I apologize for that. But actually, as a blessing in disguise, I did enjoy reading all the related posts.

Hope this explains.

Dear KRS sir, no worries, Your post gave us the opportunity to revisit Bhagavan's teachings. Another opportunity to put them into practice. 'Whatever is destined to happen will happen.' Even if a post from person A creates a problem (confusion), it really has nothing to do with A. Because it was my prarabdha to face that problem on that day. Person A was only the messenger. No point in personalizing the problem and thinking 'A has caused this problem for me'. It is my prarabdha to experience that problem and if not A then another person B would have created it on that day. At least with this bit of understanding we can avoid blame, anger etc at particular individuals. I find these to be small, preliminary steps in implementing the teachings. Even this can be difficult at times. And nowhere near enquiring deeply the fundamental question 'who is the me?' to begin with.
 
Top
Thank you for visiting TamilBrahmins.com

You seem to have an Ad Blocker on.

We depend on advertising to keep our content free for you. Please consider whitelisting us in your ad blocker so that we can continue to provide the content you have come here to enjoy.

Alternatively, consider upgrading your account to enjoy an ad-free experience along with numerous other benefits. To upgrade your account, please visit the account upgrades page

You can also donate financially if you can. Please Click Here on how you can do that.

I've Disabled AdBlock    No Thanks