Saturday, January 3, 2009

Swami Ramanagiri

I recently received the following email from a Sri Kannadasan:

There is a samadhi of one European devotee of Bhagavan near Vadippatti village, which is about 25 km from Madurai. His name is Ramana Giri. There is a Shiva Lingam installed over his samadhi and a small temple built around it. I used to visit this place on my way to Madurai, which is located in quiet spot, at the foot of a small mountain range. The manager of the place gave the following information about Sri Ramana Giri:

His original name was Per Westin. He belonged to the royal family in his native Sweden. He came to India to study Sanskrit at Banaras Hindu University. He met Bhagavan and did not return to his native place. Bhagavan gave him a small begging bowl made by Himself, out of coconut shell. In the following days, he could not get sufficient quantity of food as bhiksha, and complained to Bhagavan about it. Bhagavan told him that thereafter he need not go in search of food as it would come to him. From that time he did not have to bother about his food. He then moved to different places and settled at this place, which is near a jungle stream. The coconut shell begging bowl, made by Bhagavan, is kept safely in a jewel box, along with other belongings of Sri Ramana Giri. They gave it to me see it. It has been made by cutting the coconut vertically. Though small in size, it is in perfect oval shape, and nicely polished. Holding it in my hands, I was overwhelmed by emotion. As a souvenir, I was given an old visiting card of Sri Ramana Giri with his original name. The card has his old name and address as ‘Djursholm’. I have not come across Sri Ramana Giri in Bhagavan’s literature so far. If you have any info on him, kindly share with me.

A few hours before I received this email I had been going through one of my old trunks, looking for a document I hadn’t seen for years. As I was searching, I found an article on Swami Ramanagiri I had written many years ago. I put it to one side, thinking that I could post it here. I took the subsequent email on the same topic to be a sign that I should take up the work immediately.

In the last couple of days I have been doing some research on this article, and on Swami Ramanagiri in general, and I discovered that it was published in The Mountain Path in 1994 (pp. 144-8), although my name did not appear on it there. A little more research revealed that I had taken most of the information in the article from one that had been written by Prof. K. C. Sashi and published in The Mountain Path in 1986, pages 71-4. Prof. Sashi knew Swami Ramanagiri personally. His account has the most biographical details of any I have so far come across.

I decided to update and expand my original article by adding to it all the other information on Swami Ramanagiri that I have been able to locate elsewhere. In addition to the articles I have already cited, the following sources have been utilised:

(a) An article entitled ‘Guru’, written anonymously by ‘A Chela’, and published in The Mountain Path, 1980, p. 229. This was written by a disciple of Swami Ramanagiri.

(b) About twenty years ago I was given a seventeen-page manuscript about Swami Ramanagiri by Michael James, who had received it from a devotee of Swami Ramanagiri. Much of the material in this manuscript appears in the other sources I have cited, but there is an interesting section after the biographical details that contains Swami Ramanagiri’s thoughts on a variety of spiritual topics. It is entitled ‘Cold Fire’, which seems to be a reference to the way he perceived the Divine Mother’s grace working on him. In one of his notebook entries he wrote: ‘Your steps are so gentle, Your voice so sweet, and Your touch so tender. Mother’s nature is that of a cooling fire.’

(c) Dancing with the Void, by Sunyata. Bhagavan once described the Danish devotee Sunyata as a ‘natural born mystic’. In chapter ten (pp. 59-63) of this book he gives a brief description of his association with Swami Ramanagiri.

(d) I went to the Ramanasramam Archives two days ago to see what material might be available. I was pleasantly surprised to discover that John Maynard, who works there, had visited the samadhi shrine of Swami Ramanagiri and taken some photos. I have included a few of them in this post.

(e) There is a site about Swami Ramanagiri (http://sriramanagiriswamigal.com) that contains, almost verbatim, the 1994 article I wrote, with little extra information. However, it does have photos of Swami Ramanagiri and his samadhi shrine that do not appear in this post. There is also some information on how to reach the village that contains Swami Ramanagiri’s samadhi shrine, and how to contact the people who are in charge of it.

In his email Sri Kannadasan mentioned that he had not come across any information on Swami Ramanagiri in the Ramana literature. There have been a few articles in The Mountain Path, but Sri Kannadasan is right in suggesting that Swami Ramanagiri has been completely ignored by those who have written books on Bhagavan. You will find no mention of him in any of the biographies, nor will you find his story in any of the books about devotees. He failed to make the editorial cut for the 160 devotees who appeared in Face to Face with Bhagavan; his story did not appear in the eight volumes of Arunachala’s Ramana; I did not select him as a subject for the three volumes of The Power of the Presence; V. Ganesan didn’t mention him in Moments Remembered, his collection of devotees’ stories; and he didn’t even make an appearance in A. R. Natarajan’s book on western devotees. Cumulatively, these omissions seem to be perverse and inexplicable since Swami’s Ramanagiri’s story is astounding and unique: it is a great personal odyssey combined with a vivid demonstration of Bhagavan’s power and grace. I hope today’s post will go some way towards bringing a knowledge and an appreciation of Swami Ramanagiri to those devotees who have not so far encountered his story.

* * *

Swami Ramanagiri was born into an aristocratic Swedish family in June 1921. Though he was related to the king of Sweden, it was the ‘royal’ yoga of Patanjali that finally claimed him. In his youth he came across Swami Vivekananda’s Raja Yoga and found he had an immediate affinity with the subject matter, so much so that he began to develop yogic siddhis soon after beginning the practices.

The earliest available photo of Peer Wertin

He came to India in 1945 on a two-year scholarship to study philosophy at Banaras Hindu University, but the principal aim of his journey was to find a competent teacher who could help him to make progress with his yogic practices. The Danish devotee Sunyata recalls meeting him soon after his arrival:

It was on a sunny, winter day in holy Benares, in the 1940s, that I met Peer A. Wertin. He came gliding along by the shore where the washermen were busy splashing the dirty linen of respectable egojis [Sunyata’s affectionate name for all embodied jivas]. I was sharing my leftover food with donkey friends, as human friends would always give me too much to eat. Peer seemed touched by my donkey friendship. Birds of a feather and kindred asses flock together! Peer was in a body of some twenty-five summers – tall, dark and slim. He was studious looking, civilised, respectable and balanced. His upper lip had been slightly damaged by some explosion [he had received] during military duty. I detected a slight stoop… We went together to see some sadhus, gurus and learned pandits in the holy Benares. One Guru fastened on Peer the name ‘Sri Hanuman’. I was not much impressed by the competence of that guru nor with the name he gave to Peer. Since Peer had been in holy Bharat only a short while then, I felt he would eventually find his due path. ‘Step by step as thou goest, the Way will open unto three.’

The two soon became friends. When summer came Sunyata invited Peer to stay with him in Almora:

Peer came to my Himalayan retreat in the spring when the heat came upon the plains. He stayed in my upper Sunya cave on the hill’s crest. It had vast scenic views and a vaster expanse of silence. He imbibed the gracious solitude in the pure, Krishna-blue azure realm, while Paramahamsa wings grew and unfurled. He had the psychological urge towards stark openness and nudeness. It was the need of being natural, without the rags of ego deceit, artificial respectability or artistic hiding. In this purity, the mental fig leaves become positively indecent or a kind of vulgar prudery.

Peer felt right in that Himalayan setting with nature, with books and a rich inner life. In the outer play there was the ringing self-radiant Silence, the winds in the pines below, and the crescending of Aums. I left Peer alone except for an occasional service and chat. Sometimes we played naturally, nakedly together, raking pine needles, or cutting grass or wood – all part of our Himalayan contemplation.

Peer Wertin had been awarded a two-year scholarship in India to study religious and philosophical lore, but he renounced it all when he took to yoga and intensive self-enquiry. I later introduced him to Maharshi Ramana in Tiruvannamalai. In and through Maharshi, he eventually came to full ‘awakening’, conscious ‘Self-awareness’, or ‘advaita experiencing’. Hanuman, the name given to him in Varanasi dropped off and ‘Ramanagiri’, conferred on him by Ramana Maharshi, emerged. Comparisons are odious, yet Maharshi Ramana is Himalayan to many current molehills and tinpot, claptrap gurus.

Peer was blessed in Maharshi’s grace and sahaja recognition. When I met him first I asserted nothing. Himalaya and Sunyata have no need to assert. I could sense in him a certain Swedish occultism and an intense longing to realise the truth. Ramanagiri later came through an ancient road, a homeward way, frequented by the wholly awakened ones. Here all mental concepts and ideals vanish. Only awareness remains, bereft of all theories and ideal abstractions. It is the serene state of exalted calm in absolute Silence. It has been called nirvana, or turiya or sunya.

Ramanagiri was in this state of ‘advaita experiencing’. I did pranam to Ramanagiri in glad homage, in karuna love and in Himalayan ananda gratitude. Upon leaving my place he went on a pilgrimage. His Jiva Yatra [soul’s pilgrimage] was lived mostly in South India, by seashores, in jungles and at the grail-glowing holy mountain, Arunachala.

At some point, when he was still living in Benares, Peer took sannyasa via a formal initiation. I don’t know the name of his diksha guru; he is simply referred to as a ‘holy man of Benares’. On taking sannyasa Peer renounced both his academic studies and his personal fortune, which apparently amounted to over eight million dollars.

At the time of his initiation his diksha guru stipulated that he should never ask for anything, and only accept what was offered to him. On the day following his initiation he passed by a friend’s house, but his friend failed to recognise him because of his shaved head and orange robes.

When he saw the sannyasin, he shouted to his wife, ‘A mendicant is going by! Give him the rotten bananas!’ This was his first bhiksha.

On the following day he was walking in front of the palace of the Raja of Benares when a soldier accosted him and asked him to step inside.

‘Why?’ asked the swami.

The soldier replied that it was the practice of the raja to offer food daily to the first sannyasin he saw walking in front of the palace gates. So, on that day, he was taken in, accorded a royal reception, and given a feast, personally served by the raja himself.

When he later narrated both of these incidents to his diksha guru, he was told that both should be treated with equal indifference, as food is only for physical sustenance. For the rest of his brief life he never asked for anything and never handled money.

In early 1949 he came to Tiruvannamalai to meet Bhagavan for the first time. Though he had a natural inclination for raja yoga, having practised it for years, Swami Ramanagiri felt an immediate attraction to atma-vichara, the path of Sri Ramana. Since this was a departure from the practical teachings he had been taught by his diksha guru, Swami Ramanagiri felt that he should consult him about this change of direction. The diksha guru let him know that Bhagavan was his true Guru, and he encouraged him to follow the teachings he was being given at Ramanasramam.

Swami Ramanagiri did self-enquiry intensively for forty days in Bhagavan’s presence and was rewarded, on Sivaratri day 1949, with a direct experience of the Self. When asked later about what had happened on that momentous day, he would usually say, ‘On that day I became a fool’. For the rest of his life he referred to himself in the third person as ‘this fool’.

Speaking of the effect this experience had had on him, he wrote in one of his notebooks:

I don’t know anything,
and that ‘I’ which knows is nothing but an ignorant fool.
I think, when I don’t think,
that I have no end and no beginning.
That which thinks has to take thousands of births.
When there is ‘I’ He is not; when He is, I am not.

How did he practise atma vichara? Certainly not in the way prescribed by Bhagavan. It was his own idiosyncratic method, combining classical vichara, pranayama, a little neti-neti, and some imaginative visualisations. Some interesting insights into his method can be gleaned from the following long letter that he wrote to Prof. K. S. Sashi. He began by saying:

In the course of sadhana, maya first comes to the sincere soul in the form of worldly troubles; second in the form of desires, and third in the form of dear friends who keep him away from the quest.

He had had his own experiences of ‘dear friends’ who kept him away from the quest. In one of his notebooks he wrote: ‘Three years ago I found that letters from my previous family became an obstacle on the spiritual quest, so whenever any letter came, I never opened it or read it. I experienced that the divine was on my side in spite of my improper action.’

He continued with his spiritual advice with the following words:

Our own mind is the greatest cheater in the world. It will make thousands of different reasons to go its own way. There are three ways of handling this cheat, who is nothing but a bundle of thoughts creeping into the conscious mind.

First, to treat him as a friend and give him full satisfaction. This is a very long and tiresome way because he is never satisfied.

Second, to treat him as an enemy and with all force try to get rid of him. This is only possible by the grace of the divine because the mind has got two very powerful weapons – the discriminating intellect and the imaginative faculty. These two fellows can convince even God himself that black is white.

The third way is the way taught by Sri Ramana in the days of silence at the foot of sacred Arunachala. This way, which has been adopted by this fool, is to treat the mind as a patient, or rather several patients who are coming to a doctor to complain about their various ailments.

Just as a doctor sits in his room receiving different kinds of patients, this fool imagines himself sitting in the sacred cave of the Heart and receiving the different thought-patients. You know that a sick person likes to babble for hours about his complaint. In the same way a thought likes to multiply itself, but the doctor always cuts it short, saying, ‘Very good. Take this medicine. Thank you very much.’ And then he calls for another patient. This is how this fool decided to meditate.

First the fool slows down his breath as much as possible, but only to the point where there is no discomfort. To this fool, two breaths per minute is the proper speed, but that may not be possible for you because this fool has practised for a long time. You may be able to decrease your breathing to 8-10 per minute in the beginning. Don’t get to a level where you are uncomfortable, because that discomfort will give rise to thoughts.

This fool decided to receive twenty patients before closing the dispensary of the Heart. He calls out ‘Number one!’ and he waits for thought patient number one to come. The thought patient may say, ‘Smt such-and-such is not well. Sri so-and-so is worried.’

Then this foolish doctor says, ‘Oh, you are number one. Very good. The name of Lord Murugan will cure you. Thank you very much.’

Then he calls for number two, and he waits till the second patient is entering the room. ‘Mr so-and-so may get mukti this life,’ he says.

Very good. You are number two. The whole world is benefited if one soul gets liberated. Thank you very much.’

Numbers three, four, five, and so on are dealt with in the same way. When all the twenty thought patients have come and gone, the doctor closes the room to the Heart, and no one else is allowed to come inside. Now he is alone. Now there is time for atma-vichara.

He asks himself, ‘To whom have all these thoughts come?’

Three times he slowly repeats the same question, along with the outgoing breaths.

Then he, in that same slow manner, answers, ‘To me, to me, to me’.

Then who am I? Then who am I? Then who am I?’

All questions and answers are repeated three times, very slowly.

‘This “I” is not a thought. This “I” is not a thought. This “I” is not a thought.’

‘Then who is the receiver of the thought? Then who is the receiver of the thought? Then who is the receiver of the thought?’

‘”I” – “I” – “I”’ Now the mind is centralised in the source itself. ‘

Then who am I? Then who am I? Then who am I?’

Now the breath comes to an end and the attention is concentrated 100% on the sound caused by the palpitation of the heart, as if the sound would give the answer to our questions. This is nothing but the pranava itself. If, during this time, the sakti which was static is converted to movements or becomes dynamic, trance will occur. If the primal energy reaches the space between the eyebrows, savikalpa samadhi will occur. If the energy rises up to the top of the head, nirvikalpa samadhi will occur, which is nothing but the Self itself.

However, you should also know that even if the doctor has closed the dispensary door, some patients may come and peep in through the window to complain about their ailments. At the beginning of atma-vichara, the patients at the window are many. In the same way, although the door to the cave of the Heart is closed, some thoughts may occur at the time of dhyana.

For example, a thought may come: ‘Mr Iyer’s sushumna nadi has opened up.’

Since the patient has not come at the proper time, the doctor doesn’t attend to him.

Instead, he continues the quest: ‘To whom has the thought of Mr Iyer come?’ ‘To me, to me, to me.’

‘Then who am I? Then who am I? Then who am I?’

Dearest ‘S’. In all humility this fool has babbled something about how he tries to establish himself in the experience of ananda, which is no different from the Self itself.

With all my love to you.

Ramanagiri in Him

Om.

I don’t know how long Swami Ramanagiri stayed with Bhagavan. At some point he returned to Almora, for it was there, in March 1950 that he had a premonition that Bhagavan was about to pass away. The narrative is now taken up by an anonymous writer (the ‘A. Chela’ I referred to in my introduction) who later became a devotee of Swami Ramanagiri:

At the time Bhagavan Ramana’s nirvana was approaching, Swamiji was staying in Almora in the Himalayas. About two weeks before the event Swamiji had a psychic message from Bhagavan, his Guru, about his impending nirvana. Swamiji made haste to reach Tiruvannamalai and the ashram.

Swami Ramanagiri made it to Ramanasramam in time. On the black-and-white film that was taken around the time of Bhagavan’s passing away he can be seen paying his respects to the body of Bhagavan shortly before it was interred. There is a line of people filing past the body; he is the tall, thin foreigner with long hair.

A photo of Swami Ramanagiri that hangs in his samadhi shrine


A. Chela continues with his story:

After the Mahasamadhi of Bhagavan he [Swami Ramanagiri] wanted to go back to the Himalayas. En route he was persuaded by a friend to spend a few days at Madras with him.

One day, as he was walking along the beach, he had a vision of Bhagavan who, signalling with his hand, directed him to proceed further south and stay there. This led him to Tiruvanmiyur, then a fishing village, but nowadays [this was written in 1977] a part of the fast-growing city of Madras.

Here he sat on the beach immersed in samadhi. His host, not knowing where his revered guest had gone, grew anxious. A search was organised and Swamiji was at last located sitting on the beach under the scorching sun, deep in samadhi.

When he came back to the physical plane, he was requested to return to his host’s residence. However, Swamiji said that Bhagavan had directed him to stay there at the seaside, and so stay there he would. So, his host decided to put up a hut of coconut palm leaves for him on the beach. Arrangements were made by his host for food to be sent to him daily.

Often, when the fishermen would swarm around Swamiji, he would give the food meant for himself to them. On other occasions he would be in samadhi, totally unaware of the needs of his body. It was this continued neglect which brought on the tuberculosis which ultimately consumed his body. At first he refused treatment but was persuaded by his host, whom he treated as his father, to go back to the city for treatment.

During his time on the beach he began to attract devotees. He always refused to play the role of the Guru, saying that this was not a mission that Bhagavan had given to him, but nevertheless, he did attract disciples and he did end up advising them on spiritual matters. In the next story A. Chela describes how he ended up becoming a devotee:

At this time in 1950, I was stationed in Delhi. One day in September or October my immediate superior paid a visit to Delhi and stayed with me as my guest. On the first morning of his visit, he finished his ablutions early and took out from his bag a photograph of Swamiji, placed it on the table, lighted a few incense sticks and sat down for meditation. One look at the photograph and my heart seemed to stand still. I was absolutely captivated by the radiant personality in the photograph, and I wanted to know all about him.

My guest, after completing his meditation, told me the story of Swami Ramanagiri.

I then asked him eagerly: ‘Will you take me to him?’ To this, he replied: ‘Yes, when you next come to Madras.’

Most unexpectedly, and to my great good fortune, I was transferred to Madras in January, 1951. On reporting for duty there, almost the first thing I asked my superior was when he would take me to the Swamiji. He said he was going to him that very evening, and that I could come with him.

Hardly able to contain my excitement, I went through the work of the day and immediately rushed to the officer’s chamber. Imagine my consternation when I found it empty. And imagine too my feelings when the watchman told me that my superior officer had left early. Feeling sullen and angry, I waited around restlessly, not knowing what to do in this predicament. And then, slowly, a question formed in my mind. Why should I not go and see the Swamiji by myself? After all, to meet a sannyasi, no formal introduction is necessary. Having convinced myself of the rightness of my proposed action, I started off. Fortunately, my destination was within walking distance.

I came to know later that when my superior reached the Swamiji, the latter, who was observing a vow of silence at that time, wrote on a slate: ‘Someone wanted to come with you. Why did you not bring him?’

My superior, also an ardent devotee of the Swamiji, then realised that in his eagerness to meet Swamiji he had forgotten all about poor me.

He therefore offered to fetch me, but the Swamiji wrote on the slate: ‘Don’t worry. He will come by himself.’

A little later I walked in. When I saw Swamiji, I felt so thrilled that my head began to reel, and I became confused. ‘My God, I am in the presence of Christ!’ were the words that formed in my mind (Swamiji had a really remarkable resemblance to Jesus in all aspects). This lasted for some minutes. I do not remember if I even made a namaskar.

I saw Swamiji write on the slate: ‘This is the person’ and show it to my boss. I didn’t know what all this writing was about and, frankly, I was not even interested. I just sat there in awe and reverence for some time and, after a time, I made a pranam and left. It was only during the next few days that I realised I had said or done nothing during my first visit to the Swamiji. What had I achieved? Nothing. I had to speak to him and be accepted as a disciple. This was imperative. So, a few days later, I went to see Swamiji again. This time I found he was not observing silence and that I could talk to him. However, there were already two other people there, and he was talking to them. But, strangely I found I was not feeling impatient, only indescribably happy to be in his presence.

As time passed and it grew dark, a sudden fear assailed me. Would this meeting also prove fruitless? I looked towards the Swamiji. He had suddenly become serious and was looking out of the window. Then I saw him close his eyes. I also closed my eyes. Everything became very still. I had not known such deep silence and calm before. Then, abruptly, I felt jolted by what I can only call a shock in my heart which shook me and, simultaneously, a tremendous pull from Swamiji like that of a jet engine sucking air. My whole being seemed to go totally still but I felt no panic, only a great peace enveloping me. My Guru had pierced my heart and taken my mind in very deep into it.

Mentally I asked Swamiji: ‘Will you please take me as your disciple?’ The answer ‘Yes’ was also an unspoken one. But it was a very firm and unhesitating ‘Yes’.

After this experience, it seemed as if Swamiji and I both opened our eyes simultaneously and looked at each other. Swamiji bent towards me with a bewitching smile and peered into my eyes, as if enquiring if I had received his message, and if I was happy and satisfied with it. What joy and relief that look gave me! I knew I had been accepted as a disciple. That was enough. I offered a pranam and left.

How he led me from then on is, of course, another story!

A painting of Swami Ramanagiri that hangs in his samadhi shrine


At the beginning of his account A. Chela described how Bhagavan had somehow commanded Swami Ramanagiri to stay on the beach. This ‘command’ followed a major experience that took place in the Theosophical Society in southern Madras. Swami Ramanagiri described the experience and its aftermath in a letter he wrote to Sunyata:

Dearest Sunya,

In this letter I must tell you that I have sailed away. I have sailed to a far-off place, a place which cannot be described by words. To describe it is to pollute it. The steamer on which I sailed is a very powerful one, but it rolls hard in the sea if the weather is stormy. The place is called by many names, but still no name can cover its reality.

Some used to call the place nirvikalpa, others satchitananda or nirguna Brahman – some call it God or Self, others call it pure consciousness or the egoless state. To describe it, I have to put up a big wall before it.

The name of the steamer is ‘mind’. With the help of prana one reaches the place that for the jiva seems so far away; but really speaking, is nearer than one’s own breath. If the sense-weather is stormy, the steamer will roll badly on the samsaric ocean. By now, you must understand the art of my sailing, and why I have been so silent. Let me tell you what happened and why I have been so silent.

The same day as I was going back to North India I visited the Theosophical Library at Adyar. And while walking in the garden, Sri Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi appeared before me. He asked me to follow him. I went along the seacoast to a little place where I sat down for meditation. There Sri Bhagavan’s voice told me that my only duty (dharma) from now onwards was the Self. Further, he gave me some upadesa which I followed for some days.

One night, between 12 and 2, kundalini was aroused to sahasrara and the jiva merged into the Self. On account on the sound Om from the waves of the sea, I was brought back to body awareness; otherwise I would have left my body because in that state there is no one to come back, and no one to make any effort. After having regained body-consciousness, I discovered that I had lost all my memory. All events before the time of Sri Bhagavan’s appearance in the garden had gone out of my mind. Friends who had been very close to me looked like strangers. People whom I thought I had never met before came and told me that we had met in Madras only a few days before. Everyone and everything looked so new and strange and unreal.

Now I am getting back my memory, but mostly recollections connected with spiritual experiences and deep love. That is why I am writing to you, because those who are near my heart turn up again in this mind, which is so different from the previous one.

The village people have built a little hut for me, but there is no post office in this little fishing village, the name of which I do not even know, so I cannot give you any address yet. I don’t think any postman will take the trouble to come down to the sandy beach, but I shall let you know later.

With all my love

Ramanagiri in Him

The stay in Madras proved to be a short one. A few months later Swami Ramanagiri received another message from Bhagavan, telling him to go to Madurai. While he was there, wandering around in the countryside, Bhagavan appeared before him in a vision and directed him to go and stay in the Sirumulai Hills, about twenty miles from Madurai. He spent the rest of his short life there, continuing his practice of yoga and enquiry.

He frequently became absorbed in ecstatic or blissful states, so much so that he had little awareness of his body or its needs. Of one experience he wrote:

The whole night Nothing but fire, light, bliss and pranava.
O Father! O Father! What happiness!
No thought, only the enjoyment and the enjoyer
O Father! How near I was to losing myself completely in your embrace.
O Father, why do you turn me back to the state of the mind
where I suffer from thoughts and where I am tormented by an ego?

In a more sober and reflective mood he made the following assessment of the blissful states he was experiencing through his pranayama and atma-vichara:

Bliss is not a product of fantasy, but the most convincing experience we are capable of. If this experience would be a product of the imagination, the hair would not stand on end, nor would tears of happiness come in streams from the eyes, nor would the nose start flowing, nor would there be any shivering of the body, the skin would not turn red-hot, and there would be no levitation of the body. How many times have I found the body at another place in the room after having enjoyed Mother’s bliss. In padmasana the body is not capable of moving.

Swami Ramanagiri eventually contracted tuberculosis, a disease which claimed him at the young age of thirty-four, in 1955. He spent his final days in the Perunderai Sanitorium.

Though his body was lean and emaciated, his spirits were high.

‘It is the body which suffers,’ he told his visitors. ‘I am all right. Sakti is now stronger than ever before, and it is here [indicating a spot between the eyebrows].

It was summer and mangoes were just beginning to appear. Accepting some as an offering, he alluded to his forthcoming death by saying, ‘I will eat a nice mango now, but it will become garbage tomorrow morning’.

For more than an hour before his death he was completely withdrawn in a deep meditative state, with his hair standing on end. At his last moment he whispered
Let us go,’ and he left his body in true yogic fashion, through the fontanelle in the top of his head. Blood was seen to ooze out of a hole there.

His body was interred at the foot of the Sirumulai Hills, at a place he had named ‘Ramana Padam’, and a Siva lingam was installed over his samadhi. Twice a year there are gatherings at the shrine to commemorate the day of his great experience with Bhagavan, and the date of his final passing away. A poor feeding is conducted and crowds of over 2,000 assemble to pay homage to this foreign son of India.

The lingam installed over the body of Swami Ramangiri


The roof of the samadhi shrine


During his stay in the Sirmulai Hills a devotee called Ramachandran persuaded Swami Ramanagiri to write down a few words every day. Though he had little interest in writing or in recording his thoughts and experiences, Swami Ramanagiri agreed. This is how he began his notebook, which he entitled ‘Cold Fire’:

Beloved Ramachandran has asked this fool, at least for his sake, to write a word every day, and my dearest Ramu is deluded by maya, so he has given this big book.

The ‘Cold Fire’ manuscript that I was given contains statements and advice that other devotees say was sent to them by Swami Ramanagiri in letters. It is probably a mixture of advice given out through the post and stray thoughts written down in the privacy of his room. Here are some of the comments:

His Name, taken once with wholehearted love and a one-pointed mind, is worth more than the knowledge collected from every book all over the world.

Learning is learned ignorance. Unlearning is learning.

What you speak about others doesn’t reveal anything about them, but about you.

The power of listening attracts more than the power of speaking.

Jnana and bhakti are not separate from each other. One cannot know Him without loving Him, and one cannot love Him without knowing Him.

Non-attachment does not mean indifference; love does not mean attachment; attachment is that which takes; love is that which gives.

Shut the doors and the door will be opened.

Religion is experience. It should be practised, not studied or discussed, and at the very least not preached. Those who preach don’t know; those who know don’t preach.

About your worldly troubles: you must do as you think best yourself, but it is good policy to keep away from other’s plates, however sweet and inviting they look. Both sugar and arsenic are white.

When a soul turns his mind towards the divine, the following two things will happen. First, he will get some joyful experience, which shows that he is on the right path, and that he is progressing. Second, when the asuric forces see that he is progressing, they will put every possible obstacle before the sadhaka in the form of worldly troubles, mental botherations and sex urges. I think you have reached that second stage and will get further troubles. But don’t mind. They are good in so far as they make us fed up with the world.

If the ego is allowed to play with our emotions, it is capable of causing havoc. Only by drawing the ego to its source can the saddest feeling be converted into ananda.

Perfection in any form is the manifestation of the divine. The greatest service to humanity is self-enquiry, and the greatest remedy for this world is Self-realisation, but that does not mean that we should not do anything for others. As long as we have not got the power to withdraw the mind from the objects of sense perceptions, we should do, and must do, whatever we can for others. Selfless activity will soon give the power of introversion, but when the mind has become introverted, we should not spoil what we have gained by outward activity.

The main thing with worship is not what we worship, but that we worship, and if we have got love, we can easily surrender the feeling of ‘I’ which is the wall between ourselves and God.

The disciple’s love for the Guru is more important than the Guru’s power.

The behaviour of a fool and a wise man is the same. The only difference is that a fool goes from life to lives while a wise man goes from lives to Life. One leaves the ocean behind; the other returns.

To speak or write about Him is pollution. The only truth which becomes falsehood when expressed is aham Brahmasmi or Sivoham.

The best weapon of defence is ahimsa. The best weapon of offence is love.

The ego will cry like a mad man when he sees that he is going to be killed.

The human body is the greatest hindrance in realising the Self, but it is also the only means.

O Mother! What a painful bliss you gave this child! Mother is always the same, but we are different, depending on the purity of the body, mind and heart. That is why Mother’s bliss sometimes gives extreme pain, sometimes extreme joy.

Renunciation of that which renounces is renunciation.

In my father’s lap, Mother, Father and I are one; or there is none; but IT is.

To become bliss is very different from enjoying it. Last evening I could not get to sleep on account of some noisy music going on nearby. So, I was lying and mentally repeating the pranava. Suddenly everything became so quiet, so quiet that it gave me a surprise that it could ever be so quiet. Then I found myself floating on a most beautiful silvery ocean. Then the body started to move backwards on the surface as if taken away by some stream. I did not do anything to or for as I enjoyed the effortless moving like a little leaf in a big, big river. Then I regained the waking consciousness on account of a terrible shaking as if an earthquake had broken out and Mother started to climb the dreadful back of Mount Meru. My first thought was: ‘I had better be in a sitting position if samadhi occurs.’ Along with that thought I contracted the anus so that Mother might not return. That made the upper portion of the body swing up like a spring without the help of any muscular effort except for the contraction of the anus. The result was that the whole body [rose] into the air… As long as I was contracting the anus, the body was hanging self-suspended in the air. When I released the contraction, the body came down again in the bed. I felt very sad, and was on the point of weeping, because Mother returned and I did not get samadhi. Again I felt I was a prey to these rubbish powers, which do not make a person more spiritual. On the contrary it gives ego, and that too a very bad and strong one, which is very, very difficult to overcome.

[While this is clearly a description of a levitation experience, the cryptic language makes it hard to make out whether it is something that he indulged in (by ‘closing the anus’ to keep Mother away) and later regretted, or something that just happened spontaneously.]

We are imprisoned within the walls of our thoughts.

Out of all human beings, 108 are chosen. Out of these 108, nine are selected. Out of these nine, seven go mad. One goes knowingly back to maya, and one goes to the Supreme.

O Father, why have you taken me to this place? It must be the hall. I suffer badly here. Even the worst torture loses its grip in sleep, but here there is no sleep. I weep without tears, and I have lost even the last power: the power to pray. I feel like a dog running after its own tail, without getting tired. After an endless time of darkness, a little squirrel came and sat before me. I asked the little squirrel, ‘Have you also come to run after your tail? Or are you a messenger from my father?’ The little squirrel smiled and ran away. The appearance of the squirrel caused a thrilling sensation of joy and two tears came into the right eye. The first tear gave me back my faith; the other gave me the strength to pray.

O Father, let every human being be happy. Let every creature have peace and blessings. Help the parents who once gave me a gross form to realise You. Help every dear and near one. Father, father, do not give me ego or mind. Make me simple and humble and let me always speak the truth. Father, may I always shun money, and do not give me any sexual thought, desire or dream… OM SHANTI OM SHANTI OM SHANTI.

After days and nights in prayer, the little squirrel again came and sat before me and asked: ‘Who is suffering? Who is praying?’

There are no secret doctrines, no secret masters, no secret teaching, and no secret India, only secret authors. Their secret is fame and money. What is the use of giving food if it is not to be eaten? Would you call food not offered ‘secret’?

One doesn’t take to sadhana out of miseries, but on account of happiness. Only a happy person can become a good yogi. Nor does one take to sannyasa because one has lost something, but because one has gained something.

It’s a play with toys, but not a play for children. It is a mad play, and when one doesn’t know it’s a play, one suffers badly. Meditation is for the strong, not the weak.

I feel a boiling pressure in the region of the navel and a kind of nervousness as if I was going to appear in an important examination. I cannot sleep any more. As soon as I lie down I get electric shocks in different parts of the body, and when it occurs in the head, I go mad. As long as we try to balance on the razor’s edge, we are bound to fall and cut ourselves to pieces, but we have to try till we give up trying. It is not a question of balancing, but balancing without effort.

By the help of the intellect we get discrimination; by experience we get knowledge.

Mother’s bliss is just like a thrilling screw of boundless joy inserted into every cell of the body.

Discrimination is our destiny.

Lord Ramana, Lord Subramania, Lord Siva, my Father and the Self are one and the same. Mother is His tool, Arunagiri their child, and Ramanagiri this fool.

425 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 400 of 425   Newer›   Newest»
Ravi said...

David,
Thanks very much for the references.
Namaskar.

Anonymous said...

.

Robert Butler, T. V. Venkatasubramanian und David Godman - Ramana Maharshi und Thayumanavar

.

Anonymous said...

salutations to all:

david: thank you for the tevaram references for the 'Day 1 parayana'

ravi: thank you too...
found these songs to be delightful, particularly 1-69...please do listen

ஆனைக் காவில் அரனே பரனே அண்ணா மலையானே
ஊனைக் காவில் கைவிட்டுன்னை உகப்பார் உணர்வாரே

Ravi said...

S,.
Happen to come across this website featuring mp3 files of the Pathigams.The KoLarau Pathigam sung by Seergahzi govindarajan Is very good.Please visit this site:
http://www.skandagurunatha.org/deities/siva/audio/index.asp
Best Regards.

Anonymous said...

Hello.

Was K. Lakshmana Sarma witten
'Speaking of Nature Cure: Regain, Retain and Improve Health the Drugless Way' ?

I was searching 'Maha Yoga' and happened to know the book in amazon.com

I am interested in the book, because my father have a serious disease.

Is it useful book? I want to know
the content of the book.

David Godman said...

Shiba

Question one:

Bhagavan spoke English very well, but he usually insisted on having an interpreter. However, he would listen carefully to what the interpreter was saying and occasionally make corrections if he felt that his message was not being conveyed accurately.

I have seen manuscripts in the ashram archives of English books. Bhagavan made stylistic changes to some of them which indicates to me that his English was of a high standard.

Question two:

Yes, this is the same Lakshmana Sarma who wrote books on Bhagavan's teachings. He ran a nature cure centre for many years. I haven't read the book myself, not do I know much about nature cure, so I can't comment on how useful the book might be.

Ravi said...

Ramos,
You were asking about Narada Bhakti Sutras.Just found that the issues of the Prabuddha Bharata(Advaita Ashrama Publication) is featuring a Detailed exposition on the Narada Bhakti Sutras .There are any number of other fine articles that may interest you-The story of Nachiketas,The Story of Yagnyavalkya(I think it is the september 2008 issue-A Vedic Special).The Back issues are available as Free downloads.You may start downloading from the August 2008 issue,where the Bhakti Sutras begin.Please visit:
http://www.advaitaashrama.org/pb_archive.php

Salutations.

Anonymous said...

.

... Ravi; http://www.advaitaashrama.org/pb_archive.php ...

Thank you, Ravi. I will have a look on this.

Another question: In "Tripura Rahasya" in appendix II we found the "refutation of the doctrine of void" - apparently a refutation of the buddhist philosophy.

There this term appears: niradhishtana.

The full sentence says:

"The followers of this school of thought declare that illusion can and does arise even in the absence of any background (niradhishtana)".

In the internet I found nothing about "niradhishtana".

Does any of our friends here knows more about it?

.

Anonymous said...

The notion of adhisthana does not mean ”background”, but in the present context rather ”base, basis, ground or support”. Nir- is a prefix meaning “non-“, “without”, etc.
The critique addressed, watered down until unrecognizability in the course of time, originally concerned the Madhyamaka (Mahayana Buddhist) notion of “unoriginatedness” (anutpada), by which they described reality on the ultimate level of truth (paramartha-satya), in strict contrast to their non-denial of conventional patterns of reality.
Their critics opined, if the Madhyamikas did not admit any ground/basis at all (niradhisthana) on the ultimate level, how then would it be possible for illusion to arise, and be it only at the conventional level?
Well, this is of course the well-known and almost ubiquitous demand (also in the the various Hindu traditions) for some sort of “sub-stance”. Almost, that is, since there are exceptions, to name only Sri Harsha (and his treatise Khandana-khanda-khadya) in the Advaita tradition.
Given the thematic framework of this blog, we may be reminded here of an anecdote, the one finding Ramana Maharshi surrounded by lots of people celebrating his birthday, to which he coolly remarked that it would be better for them to find out whether anyone apt to have birthdays would exist at all. The implication being that, for Shri Ramana, no ego possibly existed in the first place. – And in this respect his understanding was fundamentally different from those around him, those spiritual practicians, for whom it was psychologically utterly absurd to doubt the fairly substantial existence of their own ego, this ego being the very ground and reason of their practices, while they engaged in all kinds of practices with the very intention to finally get rid of “it” . . . . pitiful fools, who didn’t realize that all of their cherished practices merely reconfirmed and strengthened their mistaken basic assumption concerning the real existence of an ego.
Hence, many of these “followers” of Ramana …. were they in fact not also, like so many others, somewhat self-importantly engaged in cults of worshipping fetishized metaphors? – and alas, could it be that not much has changed even today?

Anonymous said...

Mr.David Godman

Thank you for your comment.

Well,aside from the book 'nature cure...' , is 'Maha Yoga' useful to learn bhagavan's teaching?I am reading it right now.

Did he write about his experience about realzing SELF?Did bhagavan check the content of the book?

I think if maha yoga is good book,other book will be valuable to read.

Anonymous said...

'Bhagavan made stylistic changes to some of them which indicates to me that his English was of a high standard.' Examples?
A new post to your blog please. I come to the blog everyday hoping for a new post. It's been a looong time..

David Godman said...

Shiba

Maha Yoga is a very reliable presentation of Bhagavan's teachings. 'Who' had personal lessons on the meaning of Ulladu Narpadu from Bhagavan himself, and this book reflects the understanding he attained as a result of these lessons.

Anonymous

Apologies for my continuing inactivity.

I remember some interesting corrections by Bhagavan to a proof copy of Maharshi's Gospel. The original is in the ashram archives. I haven't seen it for twenty years, and my memory isn't good enough to remember which word or phrase was replaced by which other phrase, but I do remember thinking at the time that the substitution was a stylistic improvement that could only come from someone whose knowledge of English was well above average.

Anonymous said...

Looking forward to a spirited discussion on the comments of "unknownidiot"- unknown he may claim to be, but certainly not an idiot- in fact, too smart.

Anonymous said...

.

... UnknownIdiot; The critique addressed, watered down until unrecognizability in the course of time, originally concerned the Madhyamaka (Mahayana Buddhist) notion of “unoriginatedness” (anutpada), ...

Thank you explaining this in detail, UI.

...baskar; Looking forward to a spirited discussion ...

Why discussing the supposed defects of some spiritual paths, baskar? This was already discussed in thousands of statements in history.

18th June, 1935
Talk 55.
D.: Can advaita be realised by japa of holy names; say Rama, Krishna, etc.?
M.: Yes.
D.: Is it not a means of an inferior order?
M.: Have you been told to make japa or to discuss its order in the scheme of things?
Silence.

.

Bookworm said...

Uknown Idiot

You say:
'very intention to finally get rid of “it” . . . . pitiful fools, who didn’t realize that all of their cherished practices merely reconfirmed and strengthened their mistaken basic assumption concerning the real existence of an ego.
Hence, many of these “followers” of Ramana …. were they in fact not also, like so many others, somewhat self-importantly engaged in cults of worshipping fetishized metaphors? – and alas, could it be that not much has changed even today?'

........

Alas...who knows?

If only Ramana was wise enough to Know that Ramana was surrounded by pitiful fools?

But maybe...the only pitiful fool is ...the one who 'sees' pitiful fools?

Maybe, prehaps Ramana was wise enough to 'see' there are no pitiful fools?

Who knows, alas.

Bookworm said...

Anonymous

Ramans is not 'his' and not a he or a male...nor for that matter a she or a female.

Ramanas Body at the Hill was male and so one and called Ramana He.

But it is probably decayed and rotted away now...eaten by worms.
It is most likly just bones...a skeleton with a grin on its face.

Ramana IS 'where Ramana was then
and IS Who/What Ramana was then...
Heart or Self.

Bookworm said...

Anonymous

P.S.

What we in the west call Spirit
which is only what You in Truth Are.

Ravi said...

Baskar,
"Looking forward to a spirited discussion on the comments of "unknownidiot"- unknown he may claim to be, but certainly not an idiot- in fact, too smart."

This has already been discussed.Please visit the thread:
http://sri-ramana-maharshi.blogspot.com/2008/09/relations-with-guru.html

Some of these 'thoughts' as expressed by 'unknownidiot' make their appearance now and then.In that incident referred to,Sri Bhagavan did get across the point that birth of the body should not be focussed upon.All the same,he did accept devotion to the Guru as a valid path.He also was categorical in prescribing devotion to Arunachala as a Great aid to Sadhana.
Proof of the pudding lies in eating,not in 'thinking'.
Best Regards.

Bookworm said...

Clemens
You ask:

'Another question: In "Tripura Rahasya" in appendix II we found the "refutation of the doctrine of void" - apparently a refutation of the buddhist philosophy'

...

To know that a 'void' exists there must be 'one' to know.
That 'one' is as unreal as the 'void'

Anonymous said...

.

... Bookworm; refutation of void ...

Thank you, Bookworm. My idea was to find something about the philosophical background of this term niradhishtana I never heard of before.

.

Anonymous said...

"If only Ramana was wise enough to Know that Ramana was surrounded by pitiful fools?

But maybe...the only pitiful fool is ...the one who 'sees' pitiful fools?

Maybe, prehaps Ramana was wise enough to 'see' there are no pitiful fools?

Who knows, alas.」"

I have never read of Ramana ever calling someone or using the term pitiful fool, or anything indicating that he was busy looking down on anyone. When I'm judging others, feeling, thinking negatively of others, which does occur sometimes, I try to inquire or dissolve the individual, the vasana that is unhappy and judging, because it usually is an unhappy mode, fear-based mode, and thus not blissful, not related to the Heart, or the Self. Also my ideas of "others" rooted in the ego, being vasanas, are usually incorrect even in the "world". If I realized the Self, I would only see the Self, even in those individuals, not as two different selves, but there would only be the Self, and I wouldn't mistakenly misperceive the rope as a snake. Not to play Jnani, but that my angry, negative thoughts about others, usually are a sign to deepen the Inquiry, to realize who I am, to more proactively dissolve vasanas.

Bookworm said...

Ravi

You say:

'to,Sri Bhagavan did get across the point that birth of the body should not be focussed upon.All the same,he did accept devotion to the Guru as a valid path.He also was categorical in prescribing devotion to Arunachala as a Great aid to Sadhana.
Proof of the pudding lies in eating,not in 'thinking'

.........

You are kind of right in as much as All is the Guru.

In another sense you are wrong.
The Guru is not the body whether it be the body of a man or the body of a hill.

Ramana and Arunachala are no different but only Guru, Self, Heart or Spirit... which may wear and radiate through various bodies... but Guru is not any kind of body.

Anonymous said...

This about What Sri Clemens wrote:

It is good that someone comes in with hard questions- it could demand of us some new approach to what we thought we knew...

It was in that sense that I welcomed the comments of UnknownIdiot.


Other than that, I too find no merit is derogatory remarks directed against any teaching...

And thanks to Sri Ravi for the link.

Regards,

Ravi said...

Bookworm,
"Ramana and Arunachala are no different but only Guru, Self, Heart or Spirit... which may wear and radiate through various bodies... but Guru is not any kind of body."

It is clear from what you express that Reference to Name and Form is inevitable.
'Spirit radiating through bodies' -Making such distinctions as Spirit,Body,etc are pointless.The Intellect likes to make such fine disinctions and think itself as 'discerning'.

Does this mean that the 'Radiation' obeys inverse square law of Physics?All the more reason that you need to be near the Body that radiates!(Yes,one can be 'near'by being devoted to the form of 'Ramana' or 'Arunachala' than some nebulous 'spirit' or 'Self',which are just ideas,however grandiose)

The Saying goes in Tamil-Kallai Kandaal Nayai KanOm,Nayai Kandal Kallai KanOm-Meaning if you see the Dog ,you do not see the Stone;If you see the Stone ,you do not see the Dog!
Sri Ramakrishna used to say-No one worships Idols,they only worship the Spirit;They worship the Spirit through whatever form that appeals to them.
This is a very simple truth.

Best Regards.

David Godman said...

Ravi and Bookworm

The following sequence of verses is from Guru Vachaka Kovai:

656 Those who have not realised the truth declare that reality does not have any form. You should know that the form of the one who has enquired into and realised the truth as it really is, and who abides as truth – the true space of consciousness – is indeed the form of truth.

Muruganar: Bhagavan here denies the fact that truth has no form. How? One who is in the natural state, having known the truth as it really is, and who abides as That, will not differ from that truth, and hence he is indeed the form of truth. This verse is an elucidation of the statement that ‘the jnani is himself the Self’.

Bhagavan: That which dwells within as the supreme Self is indeed that which sports before [you] as the very visible form of the Guru. (Padamalai, p. 112, v. 4)

657 Worship of the formless [reality] will be possible only for those in whose minds the ego that identifies with a form has perished. You should know that all the worship performed by those with a mind which has an ego that identifies with a form will be worship of form alone.

658 To worship the formless being through unthought thought is alone excellent. For someone who does not have the capacity for formless worship of the foremost being, worship of form alone is proper.

Anonymous said...

.

Friends:

Vichara - explained by our unrivalled european master Raphael (with courtesy of Ashram Vidya Order):

THE PATHWAY OF FIRE - CONTEMPLATION OF ACTION

1. When you experience an emotion (fear, anxiety, pleasure, pain etc.) become aware of who is making the experience of the event. Ask yourself: who is enjoying the fruit of perception?

2. If you are observing some thing or other, like a tree, a table, a house, etc., ask yourself: who is doing the observing?

3. If you are thinking of something, stop the thoughts from flowing and ask yourself: who is doing the thinking? What relationship is there between me who is thinking and the thought-image? Which one of the two is the constant, the invariant?

4. If your gross-physical body got hurt, ask yourself: who is feeling the pain? Do you consider yourself exclusively as physical body? Then why do you feel sorrow? Don't you
see that this heap of flesh and bones when hardly born is already rotting? Why do you abuse your nature, which consists in the pleasure-pain experience? If you believe you are physical body, give yourself up to its nature, which is your nature, and follow the rhythms of its being. But if you believe that Who experiences is beyond the experienced and the experiencing itself, then what have you to do with conflicting dualism, with this gross-physical body and its modifications? If you are immortal then what have you to do with that which immortal is not? Tear that reflection of consciousness (which causes you to feel you are what you are not) off the perishable and fleeting world of maya, rectify the belief that you are this or that, and fly to embrace That.

5. Waking up one morning you said to yourself: today I shall carry out this plan, this project. By evening, though, you were obliged to recognize that the intent had vanished. Why? If you are a single consciousness, a sole will without a second, if you are one intelligence it can absolutely not be that your decision be thwarted or diverted by something or someone that does not exist. If your intention has been distracted it must mean that you are not alone, that you are not unity; it means that there is a second in
you in opposition. It means that there are two of you. Which one of these two then is the decision maker the assertor? Which one truly deliberates and proposes? If you are two, three or four there cannot be unity of purpose in you. When many discordant voices devour your consciousness you are in state of deep conflict, you are torn by the monster of a thousand heads.

Have you thought of how to solve the problem of your duality, of your conflicts, of your fragmentation? You can read the Vedas, the Puranas, all the philosophies and the most
learned essays of this world, but if you do not try and solve your own constraining and samsaric problems for yourself there is no essay that can grant you the solution and the Realization.

6. If one morning waking up you proposed to do something that you ended up not doing,it means that you did not wake up.

7. You are taking too much delight in producing thoughts, in secreting ideas, in proposing images. Watch out! You are building for yourself a tight web that sooner or later will imprison you, will bind you, will abuse you.
«We become what we think, this is the eternal mystery», says the Upanishad.

If you do not understand and do not direct your nature, it will annihilate you. The onanists take delight in manipulating thought. The assertive ones, on the contrary,think and are.

The idea must turn into flesh or expression.

Who has decided cannot wait, and cannot allow thought to wander in that under layer of incompleteness which is devoid of hope.

Immortality is seized by the assertive one.

8. At night, covered with dust and weariness, dare and recognize all the alibis that your ego has created in order to escape the resolving axe.

The ego thirsts for supports; at night ask yourself: how many supports had I to beg for?

9. Not to die the ego instinctively exploits your sentimentalism and even some
ideologies. The ego makes you believe that you must donate yourself, that you belong to others, that you must work for the unfortunate ones, that isolation is against altruism, and more of this kind of things. I must tell you: beware, the ego is trapping you, is postponing its departure; the ego is caressing your ears with a music that may sound
sublime.

10. The ego makes use of pleasantness, of vanity, of velvety pride. One of the many
pleasurable things is to feel useful, indispensable, essential. All egos feel they are missionaries of one kind or another: at a political, economic, cultural or spiritual level.
There is not even one ego that does not speak in the name of an ideal, of an ethic code, of a philosophy; however, strangely enough, these things are always for others, never for oneself.

11. Let us be serious: whoever intends to dig one's own grave with his/her own hands has no time to think of him/herself as being either this or that, nor to go here and there begging for useless and inappropriate supports, or to look for compensating alibis.

12. If you feel the impulse "to act ", ask yourself the reason for this motion. If you feel an incentive and a will to speak, ask yourself the reason of your words.

13. Whoever is busy throwing off the nightmares of an upsetting dream has no time to play around with beliefs, with morals and with social philosophies.

14. Tell me, my friend: are you learned in the Kabbalah, in Sufism, in Pythagorism, in Magic, the Vedas, and matters of this kind?

Are you now, perhaps, in the process of trapping someone with your erudition?

Are you, maybe, feeling safe from pitfalls and unforeseen events?
Are you, perhaps, looking for an opponent in order to knock him out with your sophisticated rhetoric?

Are you, maybe, planning to play yet another role upon the great stage of life?

My friend, listen to me: put all this verbal ability aside and nail down your mind to silence, nail your vanity to the cross of Realization.

15. If you are really on the road to vidya write on the wall of your room: Here we are intent on dying not on offending.

16. Perhaps someone pushes you to live with others, at close contact with others, side by side, trying to convince you that this is what it means to love humanity. This is the usual advice given by the usual friends! Recognize the fact that one can live in a cave at
the top of the Himalayas and still be deeply linked with humanity, feeling for humankind and in contact with humankind.

Whoever believes that loving a human being is touching their elbow or their hand, is deceiving him/herself. And is also deceiving him/herself who believes to be giving them the opportunity of satisfying their desires.

17. Perhaps you have been an extreme leftist, then an extreme rightist, then, in the end, disillusioned, you have opted for the center, to be just as disappointed as ever. I comprehend! You are confused.
Which way to turn? Are you, perhaps, forcing yourself into isolation and skepticism?

This one is also a way, but it is not the right one.

Whoever chooses the horizontal line will always meet the two ends and the mean point.

This is the snake biting its own tail. Why not try and abandon the horizontal line to follow
the vertical one?

The point at the center is the apex of the triangle, not the base where, in fact, you meet the two extremes and the mean point . «Two extremes consist in affirming that it is and it is not. These two extremes avoided, the sage does not dwell in the mean point
either».

18. «The mean way is where there are no sides and no mean point; when your mind is disturbed you are on one side, when it is not disturbed you are on the other end. When nothing of all this exists, there is no mean way, and this is the mean way».

19. If you live in simplicity there are no desires or cravings, and if there are no desires you are in peace because you have transcended the cause of restlessness and of conflict. Be simple, innocent, poor; reveal divine Indifference, and when you walk do not leave any footprint.

20. To struggle desperately to acquire something which vanishes like magic is what the alienated do. And yet how much energy, how much violence is used to possess things,and as soon as we have them in our hands they disappear!

Oh miserable thirst for illusions! oh Enchantment of seductive mirages! you who compel millions of beings to live in fleetingness and oblivion; you who deride the weak and the avid, you willingly yield to the ones who dare rending your deceitful veil.

21.
«Without going out of the home
the world can be known.
Without looking out the window
the ways of the Heaven can be learned.
The farther one goes
the less one knows.
For this the Sage though not walking arrives,
though not looking knows the names (of things)
though not acting acts».
(Lao-Tze)

22. With studying something is gained every day
with Tao something is lost every day,
something is lost ever more
till one comes to non-action...».
(Lao-Tze)

Translated from:
Raphael, Alle Fonti della Vita (At the source of life)
Edizioni Ashram Vidya, Roma
pages 95-101

.

Ravi said...

David,
"Bhagavan: That which dwells within as the supreme Self is indeed that which sports before [you] as the very visible form of the Guru."
Thanks very much.This is simple self evident Truth.
As Sri Bhagavan said in his Akshara Mana Maalai-"Giri uruvagiya Kirupai Kadale,Kripai Koornthu aruluvai Arunachala!"meaning:
Ocean of Grace in the form of a hill! Mercifully bestow Thy Grace on me, O Arunachala!

This aspect comes up for discussion over and over again.Just to clarify-What is regarded as a mere 'Object'by a critic is 'Subject'(self) for the Devotee.The act of seeing is also very different.

Namaskar.

Bookworm said...

Thank you, Bookworm. My idea was to find something about the philosophical background of this term niradhishtana I never heard of before.

Sorry Clemens..I should have read your comment with a bit more care.
Good luck with your wordsearch.

Ravi said...

Friends,
I wish to share this wonderful conversation from the Opening Chapter in The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna:

"God with and without form"
MASTER: "Well, do you believe in God with form or without form?"
M., rather surprised, said to himself: "How can one believe in God without form when one
believes in God with form? And if one believes in God without form, how can one believe
that God has a form? Can these two contradictory ideas be true at the same time? Can a
white liquid like milk be black?"
M: "Sir, I like to think of God as formless."
MASTER: "Very good. It is enough to have faith in either aspect. You believe in God
without form; that is quite all right. But never for a moment think that this alone is true and
all else false. Remember that God with form is just as true as God without form. But hold
fast to your own conviction."
The assertion that both are equally true amazed M.; he had never learnt this from his books.
Thus his ego received a third blow; but since it was not yet completely crushed, he came
forward to argue with the Master a little more.
"God and the clay image"
M: "Sir, suppose one believes in God with form. Certainly He is not the clay image!"
MASTER (interrupting): "But why clay? It is an image of Spirit."
M. could not quite understand the significance of this "image of Spirit". "But, sir," he said
to the Master, "one should explain to those who worship the clay image that it is not God,
and that, while worshipping it, they should have God in view and not the clay image. One
should not worship clay."
God the only real teacher
MASTER (sharply): "That's the one hobby of you Calcutta people - giving lectures and
bringing others to the light! Nobody ever stops to consider how to get the light himself.
Who are you to teach others?
"He who is the Lord of the Universe will teach everyone. He alone teaches us, who has
created this universe; who has made the sun and moon, men and beasts, and all other
beings; who has provided means for their sustenance; who has given children parents and
endowed them with love to bring them up. The Lord has done so many things - will He not
show people the way to worship Him? If they need teaching, then He will be the Teacher.
He is our Inner Guide.
"Suppose there is an error in worshipping the clay image; doesn't God know that through it
He alone is being invoked? He will he pleased with that very worship. Why should you get
a headache over it? You had better try for knowledge and devotion yourself."
This time M. felt that his ego was completely crushed. He now said to himself: "Yes, he has
spoken the truth. What need is there for me to teach others? Have I known God? Do I really
love Him? 'I haven't room enough for myself in my bed, and I am inviting my friend to
share it with me!' I know nothing about God, yet I am trying to teach others. What a shame!
How foolish I am! This is not mathematics or history or literature, that one can teach it to
others. No, this is the deep mystery of God. What he says appeals to me."
This was M.'s first argument with the Master, and happily his last.
----------------------------------


One of the fascinating aspects of the Gospel is that it does not simply present it as a collection of Teachings-It is alive with contextual insights,ever fresh,full of good humour,Deep compassion,intensely Human and yet sweepingly profound in wisdom.A rare Treasure.
Salutations.

Bookworm said...

I wish to share this wonderful conversation from the Opening Chapter of some book I once read.

"God with and without form"

MASTER: "Well, do you believe in God with form or without form?"

B replied 'I do not believe in God
with form or God without form.

MASTER: "Very good. It is only the
ego or mind that lives in the cul-de-sac of belief.

Print this David..have a sense of humour for once in your life.

Anonymous said...

This is about the comment by Sri Anonymous, where he writes, "Not to play Jnani, but that my angry, negative thoughts about others, usually are a sign to deepen the Inquiry, to realize who I am, to more proactively dissolve vasanas."

I am really grateful for this- it is a truth that is common enough, but it is worth repeating again and again. And when it comes from someone who practices, and pops up unexpectedly, its impact is great.

Thanks a lot.

This is just another way of saying, "ask for whom the thought arises," but still, it seems to come from practice.

Wish you well.

Ravi said...

Bookworm,
"Print this David..have a sense of humour for once in your life."

you may like this Reader's Digest Joke-Advaita in Practice!
"It is so cold",a customer complained."Turn down the air conditioner".
"Yes,sir",said the Waiter.
A few minutes later,he called the server again."Now I'm too warm".
"All Right",said the waiter.But soon the customer was cold again.
Finally another patron said to the waiter,"I commend you for your patience.That guy is really keeping you busy".
"No,he is not",smiled the waiter."We don't even have an AC".

You may suitably paraphrase it into another B and Master dialogue as you deem fit-and post it in another Blog!


Best Regards.

Anonymous said...

I would like to say this: participants like Sri Ravi are indispensible to any blog- because when the interest flags, his comments start a discussion. Such indefatigable effort has to be appreciated.

But if everyone is like Sri Ravi, then it would look like a clique of people approving one another, repeating one another. In that way, persons like Sri IgnorantIdiot and Sri Bookworm are necessary- because they stir up the discussion, force us to look at hard questions.

But I suppose, as people who are interested in the teachings of Bhagavan, we want to know the Self. I think we accept that individuality is not for real. And I think everyone who has ever made a comment here believes that.

Now, it should not be difficult for us to keep out our emotions from the discussion- if the I is something to be transcended, how much truth or reality has our beliefs? They help us, but they are not something to fight about, or force upon another.

In my view, Sri Ravi and Sri AnonymousIdiot and Sri Bookworm are all passionate about the ultimate reality- it is only that they have their different ways of expression. I think we have to respect them.



I can make my comment and spend endless hours explaining it, but who cares? It is not about what I believe or what I take to be the truth, this place gives us an opportunity for us to discuss life in the light of the teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi.

I think, sometimes we forget that in our discussions here. I enjoy the blunt words, though. Sometimes strong language or an inane comment makes me conscious that we have real people talking here, not politically-correct people repeating the accepted jargon.

So, I request that Sri Bookworm and Sri AnonymousIdiot continue to contribute in their own inimitable style, but a somewhat more tempered and considerate language might be helpful. What is the necessity to cultivate rancour? Is it not true that we are all brothers under the skin? No matter what we believe in or how we express it, we are united in our acceptance of Bhagavan. Is it not so?

And my sympathies to Sri Ravi. I would not feel happy if someone tells me "Go away, Baskar, I am tired of your long-winded lectures". But I think I should try not to alienate others of different viewpoint- it is possible that with some acceptance and empathy, we can build a fruitful relationship.

The worst of all fights is the fight over dogma- especially in the name of Bhagavan.

Just today, a friend called me and told me that Bhagavan, on being presented with the manuscript of a biography replete with factual errors such as that Bhagavan was married etc., went through every word of it and corrected all the grammatical errors and returned it to the author.

So much for the value of facts.

What we need is compassion and understanding, not Truth. And if in the defence of Truth we disregard Love, our action, however noble, would be in mockery of Faith.

I know I sound pompous, but I feel that in the present atmosphere which is increasingly being vitiated with personality clashes, a pompous fool should be an entertaining diversion.

Regards,

Ravi said...

Friends,
I wish to share this excerpt from Guru Ramana:
Three years, I said, had passed since that griha-pravesham
day, years of great soul-searching, of incessant attempts to
penetrate the Master’s mind, of reflection, study, meditation,
and what not; years of extreme efforts to adjust myself to the
entirely new conditions of life, of physical and psychical strain.
They were admittedly intense years, in fact so intense, that I
then felt that I must quit immediately, and informed the
Master accordingly.
“Bhagavan,” I said on a day then near my hut, “I feel a
strong urge to go on a yatra (pilgrimage) to the South –
Chidambaram, Srirangam, Rameshwaram ...,” but lo! a look
on Bhagavan’s face struck me forcibly with the thought “Yatra!
what for? Are you still in doubt?” I instantly remembered his
words of long ago: “Where is the room for doubt?” and, as if
in reply to a verbal question from him, I continued: “No,
Bhagavan, now I feel that I need a change for some months,
which I intend spending in Hindu holy places.” He smiled
approval and enquired about the date and time of my starting,
and whether I had made arrangements for my stay in the
various places I was to visit. Extremely touched by his
solicitude, I answered that I was going as a sadhu, trusting to
chance for accommodation.
For three months thereafter I lay on a mat in Cape
Comorin, immensely relieved of the mental tension which
the Master’s physical form had caused me. In solitude I
22
plunged in reflections on his blissful silence and calm repose.
The stillness of his mind haunted me everywhere I went – in
the beautiful, gem-like temple of the youthful Virgin Goddess,
on the shores of the vast blue ocean around me and the sand
dunes, in the fishing villages and the endless stretches of
coconut groves, which ran along the seashore and the interior
of the Cape. I felt his influence in the depths of my soul and
cried: “O Bhagavan, how mighty you are and how sublime
and all-pervasive is the immaculate purity of your mind! With
what tender emotions do we, your disciples, think of your
incomparable qualities, your gentleness; your serene, adorable
countenance; your cool, refreshing smiles; the sweetness of
the words that come out of your mouth; the radiance of your
all-embracing love; your equal vision towards one and all,
even towards diseased stray animals!”

For the Genuine devotee what is regarded as 'object' becomes the 'subject'.Whatever be the approach,be it Self Enquiry or any other,if it helps one to plunge into the depths of Being-This is what counts.All the rest are clueless gropings of the mind.

Nandu Narasimhan said...

This is in response to Baskar's comment on discussions on this blog.

I come here to get my own doubts clarified - it works like this. Whenever there is a question in my head regarding the understanding of something Bhagavan said, I come here. And always (not almost always), the answer is there, or a definite pointer to where the answer may be found.

In my head, I treat this blog as Bhagavan's Old Hall. Just come and sit quietly, and someone is bound to ask the question that is in your head, and Bhagavan is sure to answer it.

Nandu Narasimhan

Nandu

Ravi said...

Baskar,
"And my sympathies to Sri Ravi. "
Friend,I think you have got it amiss.The joke I have quoted is from the March 2009 issue of Reader's Digest(India)-I had a Hearty laugh and shared it with my wife as well. Like the AC that was not there,yet the customer was feeling all sorts of things!(This is like the Agnani ); like the waiter who appeared to be busy,yet did not have to do anything(This is like the Gnani)-
Probably my suggestion to Bookworm to post it in another Blog(after paraphrasing it) gave you the impression that I am 'done' with Bookworm!
'Mind' has a tendency to read more into any situation than what is there.
I also wish to add that 'Ravi' or his 'comments' is not indispensable or even 'interesting' to any Blog;It does give me immense joy to post the Lives and Teachings of The Great Souls(Not just Sri Bhagavan)and share it with others.This is all there to it.
I have deliberately taken some 'stands' to balance out 'intellectual preponderance'.This is not specific to this Blog but to other avenues of personal interactions,elsewhere.
I find that 'simple Faith' is in short supply in most places;even where it is ,it is on stilts and has to be propped up with 'intellectual justifications'.
The result of this is that 'claims' are tall,but achievement is infinitesimal.One aspires for Self Realization(The word 'god' is allergy!)without wanting to be human!Any vestige of 'Humanity' is a 'limitation'that needs to be Transcended!Emotions ,Feelings are pointless-all products of the 'ego'and need to be left behind.'Truth'(whatever that be!)is what matters.
Reading the lives of Great souls is essential to drop all this 'pseudo stuff' and correct these aberrations.

Best Regards.

Ravi said...

Baskar/Friends,
"I think we accept that individuality is not for real"
I feel that this needs to be explored further.Did Sri Bhagavan retain his individuality?Did other Great souls retain their individuality?Did it lend a variety and a Richness?
Does Self Abidance lead to loss of individuality?Does it lead to loss of personality or enhance it?
I will reserve my comments on this.I am interested to see how others perceive this.
Salutations

baskar said...

This is about what Sri Ravi posted:

I am happy that he took no offence at what Sri Bookworm or Sri AnonymousIdiot wrote; and also that he is not yet 'done' with Sri Bookworm. It is likely that I projected my own feelings, and as Sri Ravi writes, it is possible that I read more into the situation than what is there.

It is sad of course, that people who speak of Advaita are not realised, and wallow in aberrant thought and wallow in 'pseudo-stuff'.

But does it contribute to a honest discourse if we deliberately take some 'stands' to balance out 'intellectual preponderance'- should we correct others and train them to do right thinking? Should we say what we feel about something, or should we take a stand that would be a bulwark against undesirable elements? I am not sure about this.

And also, what is simple faith? Is it in such short supply? I find it everywhere- in the lakhs of people who do Giripradakshinam every full moon day every month, in the milling crowds at Sivalayams on Pradosham- you can see it even in the clumps of people who crowd the street-corner Pillayars on Chaturdasi days: simple faith is well and thriving.

And if I may say so, even more simpler faith is on the rise-the Fundamentalists of Hinduism, Islam and Christianity are more aggressively confident today- sure about what is faith in its barest essentials- their simplicity lies firm in the trust they repose on their sacred texts, their sacred Gods and their holy Masters.

The simplicity of faith is absolutely reason-bound. It is to do with words and images, and the numerous rituals and taboos that protect the faith.

When Bhagavan gave assent to the construction of the Matrubhuteswara Temple, it is the people of simple faith who objected to it on the grounds of scriptural authority. And even now, many of those who claim adherence to Sankara Vedanta and Sankara Parambara, who repose simple faith in their Gurus and their Mutts, they do not cite Bhagavan with approval anywhere in their works.

A heavy number of people who speak of realisation or advaita or transcending the limitations of body and mind have not had the slightest of realizations. And this is the same with the case of people who claim simple faith in devotion- they haven't had any experience of God either.

It does not do to claim superiority on the basis of simplicity, there is such a thing as simple prejudice.

Ravi said...

Baskar,
I will clarify what i mean by 'simple Faith'-This is not to be mistaken for belief.Faith implies discipline.Belief is mental,and corresponding regimentation which is not discipline.
It is surely not my business to 'correct'others nor am I competent to do so.All the same,I Feel a responsibility to play 'Mahout Narayana';I know there is a thin line between 'involvement' and 'interference'.I cry halt when it is perceived as the later!

Wish you the very Best.

baskar said...

On Individuality:

(Verses selected from "The Collected Works of Ramana Maharshi" by Arthur Osborne)

56: Unite with me to destroy (our separate identities as) Thou and me, and bless me with the state of ever vibrant joy, Oh Arunachala!

95. The moment Thou didst welcome me, didst enter into me and grant me Thy divine life, I lost my individuality, Oh Arunachala!
-The Marital Garland of Letters.

11. How many are there who have been ruined like me for thinking this Hill to be the Supreme? (Alternatively: How many are there who have lost (their ego) for having thought this Hill to be the Supreme?). Oh men who, disgusted with this life of intense misery, seek a means of giving up the body, there is on earth a rare drug which, without actually killing him, will annihilate anyone who so much as thinks of It. Know that It is none other than this Arunachala!
- Eleven Verses to Sri Arunachala


3. When I approach regarding Thee as having form, Thou standest as a Hill on earth. If (with the mind the seeker) looks for Thy (essential) form as formless, he is like one who travels the earth to see the (ever-present) ether. To dwell without thought upon Thy (boundless) nature is to lose one's (separate) identity like a doll of sugar when it comes in contact with the ocean (of nectar; and) when I come to realize who I am, what else is this identity of mine (but Thee), Oh Thou who standest as the towering Aruna Hill?
- Eight Stanzas to Sri Arunachala

17. When the mind unceasingly investiages its own nature, it transpires that there is no such thing as mind. This is the direct path for all.

18. The mind is merely thoughts. Of all thoughts, the thought "I" is the root. (Therefore) the mind is only the thought "I".

19. "Whence does this "I" arise?" Seek for it within; it then vanishes. This is the pursuit of wisdom.

20. Where the "I" vanishes there appears an "I-I" by itself. This is the Infinite (Purnam).

25. When the creature sees and knows himself without attributes, that is knowledge of the Creator, for the Creator appears as no other than the Self.

26. To know the Self is to be the Self- as there are not two separate selves. This (state) is thanmaya nishta (abiding as That).

29. Remaining in this state of Supreme Bliss, past all thoughts of bondage and release, is abiding in the service of the Supreme.

30. The Realization of That which subsists when all trace of "I" is gone, is good tapas. So sings Ramana the Self of all.
- The Essence of Instruction

(And earlier in this work,

8. The lofty attitude "He am I" is preferable to the attitude "He is not me."

9. Remaining in the Real Being, transcending all thought, through intense devotion, is the very essence of Supreme Bhakti.)

Hope this gives a clear picture on the nature of Individuality, and Gnana and Bhakti are not as different as they are made out to be.

Regards,

baskar said...

Since this issue seems to crop up again and again,it would be helpful if someone were to discuss what Bhagavan taught about Bhakti and Gnana, what are they in actuality, and how similar or different they are from one another. There seems to be considerable difference of opinion about this...

Regards,

Ravi said...

Baskar,
There is no dispute that Gnana and Bhakti are different.The initial starting point or approach is different-The Bhakta employs the natural Feeling of Attraction to the 'personal Deity' and seeks to attain closeness(Sameepya),oneness(Sayujya)so that the feeling of seperateness is lost.Often the Route is Emotions----->Feelings--->
-------> Pure Awareness.
The Path of Gnana is Primarily through Thought rejecting objects and itself-a sort of folding back on itself -annulling itself in pure awareness.
The path of Gnana has to reject the World (as seperate from Self)to reach the source of awareness.

The path of Bhakti on the other hand does not have to reject the world of names and forms but encourages to see the Beloved in everything and everywhere(Please see Cohen's Excerpt from Guru Ramana that I had posted earlier).

Depending the disposition and maturity of the sadhaka,a combination of these paths is normally pusued.

Self Enquiry requires a fair degree of preparation to be effective-One should be able to Just Be, and not struggling with thoughts at a gross level.(This does not mean that it will be effortless,effort by way of watchfulness will be called for until the mind sinks into quietude).
Whatever the path one pursues,with Viveka and Vairagya,the mind is gradually divested of its usual penchant for roaming out and learns to stay within limits and return within when called to do so).

Wishing you the very Best.

Ravi said...

Friends,
The following excerpt from Cohen's 'Guru Ramana'has a humourous side:
"2. THE BUSINESS MAN
Sometime afterwards Dr. H. came alone again to the
Ashram for a few days’ stay. He had heard of the sanctity of
the hill and of the number of disembodied siddhas (saints
with psychic powers) who dwell in it in their astral bodies,
and who at times were said to appear physically to some
privileged persons. On the last night of his stay, he took it
into his head to have his fill of the hill with, as he confided
later to a friend, the secret hope of coming face to face with
one of them. Being ignorant of the difficulty of the ground
at night, he continued to roam among the boulders long
after dark.
Sri Bhagavan, who in those days kept a watchful eye
over newcomers, particularly foreigners, missed him, and,
having been told that he had been seen going up late in the
evening, he immediately despatched devotees with gas lamps
in search of him. At last the American friend was found
and brought down.
He entered the Hall jaded and with clothes wet from
the drizzle that had fallen during his jaunt. There was a cane
chair – the only one in the Hall – opposite Sri Bhagavan’s
sofa. On that chair he sat, and started telling his adventure
on the hill. After finishing his story, he turned to Sri Bhagavan
and naively said:-
American. Oh, Maharishi, if you give me Self Realisation,
how grateful I’ll be to you!
Bhagavan. Eum! Eum!
Am. Indeed I’ll be very happy. Tomorrow I am leaving this
place and shall always think of you.
Bh. (gently chuckling) You will never go.
Am. (thinking that Maharshi was going to use siddhis to
31
prevent him from going, he was very scared indeed.)
How? I am certainly going. I have urgent work in the
United States. My passport is ready, and my passage
booked. I made all the necessary arrangements for my
return journey. How do you mean I am not going?
Bh. (still chuckling) You will never go, because you never
came. It was only the car, the ship, the train, etc., that
moved. You did absolutely nothing but sit all the time,
till you found yourself here.
Am. (with a sigh of relief) Oh that!"
------------------------------
Once a man approached Sri Ramakrishna and asked him-"Sir,Can you quickly teach me this thing called Samadhi".He was rushing to catch the Boat!

Salutations.

S. said...

salutations to all:
it was quite interesting to read baskar's and ravi's recent comments... my understanding is pretty meagre but would like to say a couple of things (request neither of you to mistake me):

(i) though devaraja mudaliar had spent several years in close proximity to bhagavan, yet in 1947, he was seized by a terrible despondency... in that state of
hopelessness, he recited 3 stanzas composed by sivaprakasam pillai, supplications that were clearly 'complaining' in spirit!

in the words of devarajar, "bhagavan kept quiet for 1 or 2 minutes after i had finished this earnest prayer and then, out of his boundless grace, was pleased to tell me - "whether i do or don't do anything, you have simply to surrender and keep quiet" " ...(again) devarajar continues in the next paragraph, "bhagavan's teaching, the last i ever got from him before the mahasamadhi, was just this - "your business is simply to surrender and leave everything to me. if one really surrenders completely, there is no room for him to complain that the guru has not done this or that"
{page 49 - Arunachala Ramana - vol. 5}

in my humble opinion, this is what i understand to be 'simple faith' :-)

[point (ii) will soon follow] :-)

Anonymous said...

.

... baskar: difference of bhakti and jnana ...


GEMS FROM BHAGAVAN

What is bhakti? To think of God. That means only one thought prevails to the exclusion of all other thoughts. That thought is of God, which is the Self, or it is the self surrendered unto God. When He has taken you up, nothing else will assail you.

The absence of thought is bhakti. It is also mukti.

Bhakti is Jnana Mata, i.e., the mother of jnana.

.

David Godman said...

Ravi

Bhagavan made the following unambiguous statement on individuality in Guru Vachaka Kovai, verse 119:

The jivanmukta has attained the state of reality that shines, transcending individuality and non-individuality. If one insists that, in this experience, he still has a distinct individuality, such an assertion arises only through the limited knowledge of pandits who are bound to the false. The form of jivanmuktas is the space of consciousness which is the clean mirror that reflects whatever is placed before it. The individuality that seems to exist for these [jivanmuktas] is only the reflection of the individuality of those who love individuality.

Ravi said...

S.,
Interestingly you have brought out this moving facet about sri Devaraja Mudaliar-The last few days,I have been thinking about what I read a long while ago when Sri Baraneedharan wrote a series of articles in a Tamil Magazine -The article was titled Arunachala Mahimai.I remember how Baraneedharan was sent back by Sri Mudaliar's Grand Daughter saying that -'Today Grandpa is in a depressed mood,please come tommorrow".The Next day Baraneedharan meets Mudaliar who joyfully recounts his experiences with Sri Bhagavan.This is the ebb and flow experienced by the Bhakta-This looks like weakness,yet this is more potent than any other contrived sedateness!(Recall Girish Gosh meeting with Rakhal,Swami Brahmananda)
Yes, what you have expressed is quite to the point-simple means 'true to what one feels'-without any assumptions,complexes,postures,etc-What Sri Ramakrishna calls 'childlike'.How he beautifully puts it-"Mother tells the child-There is a bogey man out there and the child is convinced that it is so;Again she points to a boy and tells the child -Look this is your Brother-and the child simply accepts it."
Coming to Faith-He used to give this example about the Traditional Farmer-How even if it had not rained for Years,the Traditional farmer will not give up his effort,but would set about tilling his land,sowing the seeds and await the rains.He knows no other profession and would not give up his efforts.
He also used to give the example of a thief-how when he comes to know that there is a treasure lying in a room locked up-will not rest until he breaks open the lock and has his hands on the treasure.

Simple Faith implies all this.Surrender will follow(just a way of putting it.They coexist)
---------------------------------
Like Nandu had expressed a few posts back-how he visits this Blog like Sri Bhagavan's old Hall-how Sri Bhagavan responds-This is simple Faith.Like how David puts up any problem before Sri Bhagavan and leaves it up to the Guru-This is simple Faith.There is no INSISTENCE that the Problem has to solved in the way one EXPECTS.Just put it up and leave it at that.What is most satisfying is that one has CONNECTED.
----------------------------------
Yes, I am very eager to see your other points!
Best Regards.

Ravi said...

David,
Thanks very much.I know this position.I had something else in mind when I raised that point-I will come back to it a little later.
We are essentially discussing-Is Truth Personal,or Impersonal-or Neither-or Both at the same time?Not from a philosophical perspective but from a Sadhana Perspective.

Please recall your post- what Sri Bhagavan said-That the form of the Guru is the form of Truth visible to the Naked eye-(in response to Sri Muruganar ).If we admit the Form,then can we attribute Qualities to it?

I will leave it here for the moment.

Namaskar.

Anonymous said...

.

For german readers a new translation of the biography of a contemporary saint (www.jagadgurus.org):

Lebensbeschreibung und Lehren Seiner Heiligkeit Jagadguru Sri Chandrasekhara Bharathi Mahaswamigal

.

Anonymous said...

.

...If one insists that, in this experience, he still has a distinct individuality, such an assertion arises only through the limited knowledge of pandits who are bound to the false. ...

But how to interpret this? Bhagavan knew what he meant with this. Can we know what he meant solely by reading his words?

Ramakrishna insisted to have his individuality or personality only to "play with God" ("being two we can enjoy each other").

Does this justify the speculation of some people that Ramakrishna could not have been a jnani?

Obviously only the jnani is able to cross the dark forest of words.

(In this connection I remember this famous statement made by Bhagavan dismissing the idea of "not to be sugar but to taste sugar" = not to be the One but Two - namely to be able to taste the One)

.

Ravi said...

Ramos,
Interesting observation!
"Ramakrishna insisted to have his individuality or personality only to "play with God" ("being two we can enjoy each other")."
CORRECTION!Sri Ramakrishna did not insist on retaing his 'individuality'.He said that the Divine Mother has left this 'I' for lila.Here lies the paradox!
As for other's claims that he was not a Gnani!These classifications are usually done by super Gnanis!Does it matter a bit?
More later!

David Godman said...

Clemens Vargas Ramos

Bhagavan mentioned the ‘sugar and sweetness’ example in the following reply in which he rejects the idea that individuality has to be retained to enjoy the supreme:

Bhagavan: Some contend that the sugar cannot taste its own sweetness and that a taster must taste and enjoy it. Similarly, an individual cannot be the Supreme and enjoy the bliss of that state; therefore the individuality must be maintained on the one hand and Godhead on the other so that enjoyment may result! Is God insentient like sugar? How can one surrender oneself and yet retain one’s individuality for supreme enjoyment? Furthermore they say also that the soul, reaching the divine region and remaining there, serves the Supreme Being. Can the sound of the word ‘service’ deceive the Lord? Does he not know? Is he waiting for these people’s service? Would not he – the pure consciousness – ask in turn: ‘Who are you apart from me that presume to serve me?’ (Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, talk no. 208)

In the next two quotations Bhagavan again confirms that individuality cannot exist along with the full and definitive experience of the Self:

Bhagavan: The gods and the sages experience the infinite continuously and eternally, without their vision being obscured at any moment. Their minds are surmised by the spectators to function; but in fact they do not. Such surmise is due to the sense of individuality in those who draw inferences. There is no mental function in the absence of individuality. Individuality and mind functions are co-existent. The one cannot remain without the other. (Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, talk no. 204)

Unless one’s connection with individuality is destroyed at its root, one will not become a true jnani, free of the sense of doership [kartrutva]. Even if one attains a supreme and eminent state of tapas that can be marvelled at, one is still only a sadhaka who is qualified to realise the truth. (Guru Vachaka Kovai verse 122)

The next quotation comes from the same reply I gave earlier (Talks 208). Throughout this lengthy reply Bhagavan is ridiculing certain tenets of the visishtadvaita philosophy, particularly those which posit the necessity of individuality being necessary to enjoy the supreme. He first quotes his favourite verse from the Gita, and then comments on it:

‘I, O Arjuna! am the Self, seated in the heart of all beings ...’ (Bhagavad Gita, X-20)

The stanza shows that the Lord is the Atma of all beings. Does it say, ‘the Self of the selves’? If, on the other hand, you merge in the Self, there will be no individuality left. You will become the source itself. In that case what is surrender? Who is to surrender what and to whom? This constitutes devotion, wisdom, and investigation. (Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, talk no. 208)

This reply by Bhagavan can also be taken to be a response to the poster who enquired about the difference between jnana and bhakti in Bhagavan’s teachings. Bhagavan taught that true devotion, true surrender, is to offer up one’s sense of individuality, the ‘I’-thought, to one’s inner being; it is not to project loving thoughts and feelings towards an external deity. This, of course, is what tales place in the process of self-enquiry.

Bhagavan: It is enough that one surrenders oneself. Surrender is to give oneself up to the original cause of one’s being. Do not delude yourself by imagining such a source to be some God outside you. Your source is within yourself. Give yourself up to it. That means that you should seek the source and merge in it. (Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, talk no. 208)

Sankar said...

Alfred Emmanuel Sorenson ( Shunyata) who has spoken about swami ramana giri, too is a great and matured spiritual soul.Ramana himself had once remarked about him as a 'rare born mystic'.

I found the book on him 'Dancing with the void' to be really useful. Also what i found is he is not a formal 'devotee' of ramana but directly acknowledges his greatness.

Enough of my observation! David can post some interesting accounts on him too.

Ravi said...

Ramos/David/Friends,
Let us examine two incidents from Sri Bhagavan's Life.The following is from Suri Nagamma's 'Letters from Sri Ramansramam':
"The day before yesterday being full moon, the usual Deepotsava was
celebrated on a grand scale. This morning Sri Arunachaleswarar
started for giri pradakshina (going round the Hill) with the usual
retinue and devotees and accompaniment of music. By the time the
procession reached the Asramam Gate, Sri Niranjanananda Swami came
out with Asramam devotees, offered coconuts and camphor to Sri
Arunachaleswarar, and paid homage when the procession was stopped
and the priests performed Arati to the God. Just then Sri Bhagavan
happened to be going towards the Goshala (cowshed) and seeing the
grandeur he sat down on the pial near the tap by the side of the
book depot. The Arati plate offered to the Lord was brought to
Bhagavan by Asramam devotees and Sri Bhagavan took a little Vibhuti
(holy ashes) and applied it to his forehead, saying in an
undertone "Appaavukku Pillai Adakkam" = The son is beholden to the
father. His voice seemed choked with emotion as he spoke. The
expression on
his face proved the ancient saying "bhakti poornathayaa Janam"= the
culmination of Devotion is Knowledge). Sri Bhagavan is Lord Siva's
son. Sri Ganapathi Muni's saying that he is Skanda incarnate was
confirmed. It struck us that Bhagavan was teaching us that since
all creatures are children of Iswara, even a Jnani should be
beholden to Iswara."

What does Sri Bhagavan mean by'son' and what does he mean by 'Father'?

The Other incident will be kept in reserve!

Salutations.

baskar said...

Thanks for the thoughtful responses.

In respect of this comment, "Bhagavan taught that true devotion, true surrender, is to offer up one’s sense of individuality, the ‘I’-thought, to one’s inner being; it is not to project loving thoughts and feelings towards an external
deity. This, of course, is what takes place in the process of self-enquiry.
", I recall something that Bhagavan said from his own life.

After the death experience, Bhagavan used to visit the temple and weep in front of the idols of Nayanmars. About this period, I think he states that the ego which had been reduced to the state of the burnt ashes of a rope was trying to hold on to individuality. I am not sure what the exact words are, but I think this is the general idea.

And also there is a verse where Bhagavan states that surrendering everything to God is like taking a pinch from the Jaggery Pillayar and offering it back to Pillayar as naivedhyam. Because everything is His, and we are not giving Him anything through our worship. Ultimately, everything belongs to the source from which they come from.

When I pray to God, I get the feeling that I am doing something; but when I just sit silently and try to find out the I, nothing
happens, and I get the feeling that I am not doing anything, just wasting my time.

The I is hard to find, the inner being is just a word, and the kind of offering that is demanded seems an act of impossibility. But to go to a temple, or chant the Name, is something we can do, and depending on the state of mind, we might even feel genuine emotion during worship. This is how it is with me. I think it has something to do with the thought that I can do something about it.

But still, rightly or wrongly, I repeat whatever I have understood to be true, though there has been no realisation of its import, just because it appeals to me, it sounds right to me, and of course out of some trust in what I have read.

I wish to thank Sri Ravi and others for their responses. I feel better for having taken part in the discussions here and have learnt a great deal. Thank you.

Ravi said...

Friends,
once in a while,it will be a good idea to go back to basics and see what we have digested(or as our friend S.says-indigested!).Here is a wonderful excerpt from 'Alice in wonderland'-no not by lewis carol-but by swami Krishnananda:
"Religion is living reality and not merely thinking reality or academic analysing. All this is over already in our earlier lessons. We have thought enough philosophically, academically and hope we shall not touch this subject again. We shall enter into true religion which is God-consciousness itself in some proportion, in some measure, in a modicum.

To face God and to encounter Him in our actual life is to live religion. So, religion is not ringing a bell, waving a light, or chanting a Mantra. It is encountering God face to face. So, religion is superior to philosophy, if you understand religion in the true sense of the term. Religion is not Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism. It is the art of envisaging God-being.

Man melting, like ice vanishing before the blaze of the sun. That is religion. When the sun of God-consciousness rises, this substance called body-consciousness evaporates into an ethereal nothing. Gradually, we begin to approximate God-being. The life of religion is the way of gradual approximation to God-consciousness. Here, true love begins to preponderate in our lives. We do not merely think of God as philosophers or academicians or professors. We love God; and we cannot love a thing which is not really there. We cannot love a thing which is only an idea or a concept in our mind.

All love is an urge of the soul to contact that which it feels as a hard reality in front of itself. Every love is God-love finally and the final stuff of the universe may be said to be love.

I have been telling you sometimes that there is some secret meaning behind the last words in the Eleventh Chapter of the Gita where we are told that Bhakti is supreme. The Bhakti that Sri Krishna speaks of here is not ordinary obeisance to an idol. It is not a mass that you perform in the church. It is a melting of your being before the Absolute. Therefore Bhagavan Sri Krishna says, "Not charity, not philanthropy, not study, not austerity, is capable of bringing about this great vision that you had, Arjuna! ààà Only by devotion can I be seen, contacted. Only by devotion am I capable of being known, seen and entered into". These three words are used in the Bhagavad Gita at the end of the Eleventh Chapter-knowing, seeing, and entering. Arjuna knew and saw, but never entered into It. Therefore, he was the same Arjuna after the Bhagavad Gita also. He never merged into the Supreme Being.

Now, religion is knowing, seeing and entering into. Knowing is considered by such thinkers like Ramanuja, the great propounder of the Visishtadvaita philosophy, as inferior to devotion. I am now digressing a little bit from the point, into another thing altogether, which is also interesting.

Knowledge or Jnana is not equal to Bhakti, says Ramanuja, the great propounder of the doctrine and philosophy called Visishtadvaita. And Acharya Sankara says that Jnana is superior to Bhakti. It may appear that they are quarrelling. They have some emphasis laid on different aspects of the same question. Why does Bhagavan Sri Krishna say that nothing can make you fit to see the vision of God, to behold Him, except Bhakti? It would seem that He speaks like Ramanuja and not like Sankara. But they are only speaking in different languages à the same thing. There is no contradiction between them. "Knowing, seeing and entering into" signifies the process of contacting God by degrees. There is, in the parlance of Vedanta, two types of knowledge-Paroksha Jnana and Aporkasha Jnana. Paroksha Jnana is direct knowledge. "God exists" is indirect knowledge. Now, we do not feel that we are inseparable from God's being. That knowledge has not come to us. So we have not entered such a height of religious consciousness as to be convinced that we are inseparable from God's existence. But we are convinced enough to feel that God exists.

At least the people seated here are perhaps convinced that God must be. He is. Circumstances compel us to feel confidently that God must be, that God is. But we have not gone to such an extent to feel that we are inseparable from Him. That is a little higher stage. We have known in an indirect way. Jnana has come, but darshana or vision of God has not come. We have not seen Virat in front of us, notwithstanding the fact that we are seeing Virat. This whole cosmos is that, but somehow we have segregated our personality from Virat consciousness. A cell in the body is seeing the body as if it is outside it.

The way in which we are seeing the universe now is something like the possibility of a particular organism, called the cell in the body, separating itself in motion-not really of course-from the bodily organism and looking at the body. What would be the condition or the experience of a cell in our own body notionally isolating itself from the organism to which it belongs and considering the body as a world outside it? You can imagine the stupidity of it. This is exactly what we are doing. We think that the world is outside us. We can fly into space, drive in a motor car on a road, because a peculiar notion has become a reality in our mind, that the world is outside us though we are a part of the world. So, the idea that the Virat is an of perception, that the world is external to us, is notional and not realistic. All our difficulties are notional in the end. They have no reality or substance in themselves. We are bound by our minds, our thoughts, our feelings and our willings. So when Acharya Sankara says that Jnana is superior and Ramanuja says that Bhakti is superior, they are saying the same thing.

By Bhakti, Ramanuja means that love of God which supersedes intellectual activity or a mere knowing that God exists. And when Sankara says that Jnana or knowledge is superior, he means knowledge which is identical with being and which is same as Para Bhakti or the love of God where the soul is in communion with the Being of God.

The highest devotion is the same as the highest knowledge. Jnana and Para Bhakti are the same. The Gauna Bhakti or secondary love of God, which is more ritualistic and more formal, is inferior. But Ramanuja's Bhakti is the surging of the soul and the melting of personality in God-experience. It is to become mad with God-love as we hear in the case of Spinoza, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Mirabai and Tukaram. Their Bhakti was not simply love of God as that of churchmen or templemen. It is a kind of ecstasy in which the personality has lost itself in God-love and God-being. That is Jnana and that is Bhakti. So, there is no difference between Ramanuja and Sankara in the ultimate reaches. And Bhagavan Sri Krishna's dictum is also of a similar character.

So now, when we are discussing the final point in our studies, we are gradually losing attachments to his obsessional notion that we are this little Mr. and Mrs. Body and that we are located in a part of the physical world called India or America, Japan or Russia. And we are slowly trying to become citizens of a larger dimension which is wider than this earth, perhaps larger than even the solar system and this physical cosmos.

When we enter into the true religious life, we become real children of God. Hari Om Tat Sat. "
--------------------------------
Please read the complete article featured here:
http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/disc/disc_65b.html

Salutations.

Ravi said...

Friends,
Back to Akshara Mana Malai!If we have to understand Sri Bhagavan's Teachings on Devotion,we need to come here.
"Kân/tami/rumbu/pôl
Kavarn/denai/vidâ/mal
Kalan/denô/dirup/pây
Arunâ/chalâ.

Like a lodestone attracting iron, draw me to Thee and, holding me fast, do Thou unite me to Thee, O Arunachala!"

This attraction is felt by the devotee.This is likely to begin as a subject-Object relatonship only.As it deepens,what appears as 'external' is felt as part of oneself-more accurately,one feels oneself as part of the divine presence.The culmination of this is the complete annihilation of the distinction of 'I' and 'Thou'.
The 'Gnani'will call this 'I'or Self and the Bhakta will call this as 'Thou'or God.
'Projecting one's love'is a mental form and is called Vaidiha Bhakti-This also has not been ruled out by Sri Bhagavan.This will help to develop the 'raga Bhakti'where one feels the irresistible attraction to the Deity.(This is not mental Projection).
Sri Bhagavan included all and recognised all approaches as appropriate depending on the maturity of the aspirant.In upadesa Undiyar-he says:
"4.. (Such desireless actions) Pooja, Japa and meditation performed by the body, voice and mind, respectively excel each other in the above order.

5. Regarding and worshipping the eight-fold universe as the manifestation of God, is an excellent form of worship of God.

6. Loud repetition of His name is better than praise. Better still is its faint muttering. But the best is its mental repetition. It is meditation as aforesaid.

7. Better than interrupted meditation is its steady and continuous flow like that of oil or of a perrenial stream.

8. Meditation of God as in no way distinct from him who meditates, is the best out of all the ways of meditating upon Him as an other.

9. Transcending meditation (ceasing to meditate) by the strength of such aforesaid meditation and remaining in one's own Real Beingness, is the very essence of Supreme Devotion.

10. The absorption of the mind into that source from which it rises (to do such desireless actions as aforesaid) is Karma and Bhakti. This is Yoga and Jnana also."

Now what do we have to do?Just because Sri Bhagavan has said that to abide in the source of one's being is the Highest-Do we have to rush to attempt and climb 'Mount Everest'?This is something that Sri Bhagavan never meant or intended.
If Puja is what attracts us,that is enough.If we put our whole being into it-who knows-it may well be Everest Scaled.There have been umpteen examples of Saints who have done this.

Baskar,
Friend,your Humility leaves me moved.Please go ahead with what inspires you,in whatever way.No sincere aspiration goes in vain.
Wish you the very Best.

Ravi said...

Ramos/Friends,
In connection with 'I do not want to be sugar',here is the complement to this 'idea'where Sri Ramakrisna is advocating 'dissolution of the Ego in Satchidananda'.He also beautifully explains how all paths lead to the same Goal. This is from chapter 24,Wednesday June 25,1884:
Master exhorts the pundit to cultivate divine love

"Therefore I say to you, dive deep in God-Consciousness."

Saying this, the Master began to sing in an ecstasy of love for God:

Dive deep, O mind, dive deep in the Ocean of God's Beauty;
If you descend to the uttermost depths,
There you will find the gem of Love. . . .

The Master continued: "One does not die if one sinks in this Ocean. This is the Ocean of Immortality. Once I said to Narendra: 'God is the Ocean of Bliss. Tell me if you want to plunge into It. Just imagine there is some syrup in a cup and that you have become a fly. Now tell me where you will sit to sip the syrup.' Narendra answered: 'I will, sit on the edge of the cup and stretch out my neck to drink, because I am sure to die if I go far into the cup.' Then I said to him: 'But my child, this is the Ocean of Satchidananda. There is no fear of death in it. This is the Ocean of Immortality. Only ignorant people say that one should not have an excess of devotion and divine love. How foolish! Can there be any excess of divine love?'

(To the pundit) "Therefore I say to you, dive into the Ocean of Satchidananda. Nothing will ever worry you if you but realize God. Then you will get His commission to teach people.

Many paths to realize God
"There are innumerable pathways leading to the Ocean of Immortality. The essential thing is to reach the Ocean. It doesn't matter which path you follow. Imagine that there is a reservoir containing the Elixir of Immortality. You will be immortal if a few drops of the Elixir somehow get into your mouth. You may get into the reservoir either by jumping into it, or by being pushed into it from behind, or by slowly walking down the steps. The effect is one and the same. You will become immortal by tasting a drop of that Elixir.


Three yogas explained by Master
"Innumerable are the ways that lead to God. There are the paths of jnāna, of karma, and of bhakti. If you are sincere, you will attain God in the end, whichever path you follow. Roughly speaking, there are three kinds of yoga: jnanayoga, karma yoga, and bhaktiyoga.

"What is jnanayoga? The Jnāni seeks to realize Brahman. He discriminates, saying, 'Not this, not this'. He discriminates, saying, 'Brahman is real and the universe illusory.' He discriminates between the Real and the unreal. As he comes to the end of discrimination, he goes into samādhi and attains the Knowledge of Brahman.

"What is karmayoga? Its aim is to fix one's mind on God by means of work. That is what you are teaching. It consists of breath-control, concentration, meditation, and so on, done in a spirit of detachment. If a householder performs his duties in the world in a spirit of detachment, surrendering the results to God and with devotion to God in his heart, he too may be said to practise karmayoga. Further, if a person performs worship, japa, and other forms of devotion, surrendering the results to God, he may be said to practise karmayoga. Attainment of God alone is the aim of karmayoga.

"What is bhaktiyoga? It is to keep the mind on God by chanting His name and glories. For the Kaliyuga the path of devotion is easiest. This is indeed the path for this age.

Difficulties of the paths of jnāna and karma
"The path of karma is very difficult. First of all, as I have just said, where will one find the time for it nowadays? Where is the time for a man to perform his duties as enjoined in the scriptures? Man's life is short in this age. Further, it is extremely difficult to perform one's duties in a spirit of detachment, without craving the result. One cannot work in such a spirit without first having realized God. Attachment to the result somehow enters the mind, though you may not be aware of it.

"To follow jnanayoga in this age is also very difficult. First, a man's life depends entirely on food. Second, he has a short span of life. Third, he can by no means get rid of body-consciousness; and the Knowledge of Brahman is impossible without the destruction of body-consciousness. The Jnāni says: 'I am Brahman; I am not the body. I am beyond hunger and thirst, disease and grief, birth and death, pleasure and pain.' How can you be a Jnāni if you are conscious of disease, grief, pain, pleasure, and the like? A thorn enters your flesh, blood flow from the wound, and you suffer very badly from the pain; but nevertheless, if you are a Jnāni you must be able to say: 'Why, there is no thorn in my flesh at all. Nothing is the matter with me'

"Therefore bhaktiyoga is prescribed for this age. By following this path one comes to God more easily than by following the others. One can undoubtedly, reach God by following the paths of jnāna and karma, but they are very difficult paths.

God fulfils all desires of His devotees
"Bhaktiyoga is the religion for this age. But that does not mean that the lover of God will reach one goal and the philosopher and worker another. It means that if a person seeks the Knowledge of Brahman he can attain It by following the path of bhakti, too. God, who loves His devotee, can give him the Knowledge of Brahman if He so desires.

"But the bhakta wants to realize the Personal God endowed with form and talk to Him. He seldom seeks the Knowledge of Brahman. But God, who does everything at His pleasure, can make His devotee the heir to His infinite glories if it pleases Him. He gives His devotee both the Love of God and the Knowledge of Brahman. If one is able somehow to reach Calcutta, one can see the Maidan and the museum and other places too. The thing is how to reach Calcutta."

I will take up seperately what David has quoted Sri Bhagavan- regarding 'Individuality and Sugar'-There is just no contradiction here with what Sri Ramakrishna had said.

Salutations.

Nandu Narasimhan said...

Thank you, Ravi.

Your post brought back many beautiful things.

And David, is it possible to start a separate thread for 'Aksharamanamalai'?

Nandu Narasimhan

Anonymous said...

.

... Bhagavan taught that true devotion, true surrender, is to offer up one’s sense of individuality, the ‘I’-thought, to one’s inner being; it is not to project loving thoughts and feelings towards an external deity. ...

I understand and accept this. I don't wanted to say that the sense of individuality is retained by the jnani. What I tried to express was that this question of individuality and sense of doer-ship is bound to interpretation and speculation by the ajnani, i.e., that it is difficult or impossible to treat this as a subject of sheer discussion.

What is "individuality" or "sense of doer-ship"? This has to be meditated, it is not a question of words.

Ramakrishna surrendered completely and yet said: "... being two we can enjoy each other". Wasn't he a jnani? And could Bhagavan have meant him by saing: "Some contend that the sugar cannot taste its own sweetness."? I can't believe that.

Does a jnani bothers about individuality or sense of doer-ship? He eats, drinks und enjoys his atman und the world equally. To whom who is not concerned with the results of his actions it is useless to question who is the one living and working in his body.

Unfortunately I'm unable to continue this interesting conversation here because of my language problems.

Besides: There is an interesting, lenghty explanation by Bhagavan related to awareness in deep sleep:

23rd to 28th January, 1939
Talk 617.

(...) This darkness (of deep sleep) was experienced when it (the Self) emerged in dots of supreme bliss, shone a trice and fleeted away in such fine subtlety as the rays of the moon which peer through the waving foliage. The experience was however not through any media (such as the senses of
the mind), (...)
-------------------

What I find interesting here is this meaningful description of mindless awareness.

===================

... What does Sri Bhagavan mean by 'son' and what does he mean by 'Father'? ...

"Son" is a name given to the personal aspect of Brahman. "Father" is a name given to the impersonal aspect of Brahman. Both names are names of Brahman. Who is giving this names? The impersonal or the personal aspect? No one knows - it is mysterious, supreme reality giving this names to itself. This is my understanding.

.

Anonymous said...

.

This in my eyes is not so far away from our discussion here about jnana/bhakti and individuality/impersonality:

www.Jagadgurus.org

Teachings by H. H. Sri Chandrasekhara Bharathi Mahaswamigal

The Lord has declared in the Gita that even the Knower of Brahman must engage punctiliously in action in order to guide other devotees. His Holiness was such an epitome of this that persons who had the good fortune of seeing Him thought that he was an uncompromising ritualist.

Once a gentleman from Bengal who had heard of His greatness came to Sringeri. He had expected that His Holiness would be engaged in Samadhi for most of the time, completely oblivious of the world. Consequently, he was astonished and disappointed when he saw His Holiness performing His morning Anushtana and worshipping the Divine Mother later on.

However, he did not doubt the greatness of His Holiness but found it hard to accept that a Knower would engage Himself in ritualistic worship of images. He desired reconciliation and at an appropriate occasion mentioned this to His Holiness Himself in an indirect manner, "If a person has Atmic realisation as propounded in the Advaita Vedanta, can he properly engage himself in rituals or in image worship?"

His Holiness asked in answer, "What else do you except him to do?" Had the gentleman answered this question with any other alternative then that would have been equally inconsistent with the state of the realized soul.

He therefore replied by saying, "I do not mean to say that he should do anything else. My difficulty arises this way. Doing anything, be it rituals or image worship or even study of scriptures implies the sense of doership. Are not these two attitudes inconsistent with each other and, if so, how can they exist at the same time in the same individual?"

His Holiness said, "Quite true. Two things which are mutually contradictory cannot exist at the same time in the same entity. Can you tell me, who the non-doer is?"

"Of course, the Self."

"Quite right. You have studied our system well. Will you now tell me, who the doer is?"

"Certainly, it is the body, the senses, the mind and the intellect."

"Quite right again. The Self is the non-doer; and the doer is the non-Self. Is it not so?"

"Yes."

"Where is the inconsistency now? Doership and non-doership do not inhere in the same entity."

This line of simple reasoning made the gentleman realize the absurdity of the question in the first place and when he parted from His Holiness he was more devoted to Him than ever before.

.

Ravi said...

Ramos,
Wonderful comments-Deep and insightful.
Yes,Sri Ramakrishna's "I" and Sri Bhagavan's NO "I" mean the same thing!Like Buddha's Shunyata(void)and Vedanta's Brahman mean the same thing.
Just to Add that the term 'Paramahamsa' in the Hindu Tradition is a Honorific for a person of Supreme Knowledge-Tradition holds that a Swan has a special ability to drink only the milk and set aside the water-The Paramahamsa likewise discerns only The Truth even while living in the world.
In the Gospel-one of the most fascinating recurrence is where the Master asks 'M'-What do you think of 'me'?Deep Question!This should not be mistaken for a situation like 'Ravi' asking 'Bookworm' -What do you think of me?(Joking!Yes,I do enjoy good humour).
This topic is fascinating and my sincere thanks to you for expressing beautifully and with deep understanding,whatever you have in your latest post.
More Later.
Namaskar.

Anonymous said...

David,
I wonder what Bhagavan thought about the idea of evolution? I guess humans assume that we are the most evolved but I think I've read some comments of Bhagavan's which indicate that he thinks it may not necessarily be the case.

Ravi said...

Ramos,
"This in my eyes is not so far away from our discussion here about jnana/bhakti and individuality/impersonality:

www.Jagadgurus.org

Teachings by H. H. Sri Chandrasekhara Bharathi Mahaswamigal"
Superb and insightful!The Acharya was a Jivanmukta.Quite interesting that his contemporary Sri Chandrasekharendra saraswati (later The Sage Of Kanchi)was another such jivanmukta who lead Paul Brunton to Sri Bhagavan!
Salutations.

nandu Narasimhan said...

Dear All,

Please pardon me for my tardiness in response.

On Bhagavan's view about bhakti and jnana, one incident comes to mind - the one concerning Dilip KUmar Roy.

Apparently, Dilip Kumar Roy sat through an entire spiritual discussion. As the discussion ended and Bhagavan was leaving for lunch, Mr. Roy told Bhagavan something to the effect that he knew nothing about jnana, and that the only thing he knew was to sing with devotion.

On hearing which Bhagavan replied in a voice choked with emotion, "Bhakti is the mother of jnana".

I do not remember the verbatim. But Mr, Roy, when he recounts this, does not mention Bhagavan's emotion when He replied.

David, would you know the exact incident?

Anonymous said...

.

... I wonder what Bhagavan thought about the idea of evolution? ...

It's easy to find it out:

D.: Does Sri Bhagavan believe in evolution?
M.: Evolution must be from one state to another. When no differences are admitted, how can evolution arise?
D.: Why does Sri Krishna say, “After several rebirths the seeker gains knowledge and thus knows Me.” There must be evolution from
stage to stage.
M.: How does Bhagavad Gita begin? ”Neither I was not nor you nor these chiefs, etc.” “Neither it is born, nor does it die, etc.” So there is no birth, no death, no present as you look at it. Reality was, is, and will be. It is changeless.

TALKS

.

Ravi said...

Ramos/Friends,
This is What Sri Ramakrishna has to say on the Nature of the 'I' After God Realisation.
"When the dry branch of a coconut palm drops to the ground, it leaves only a mark on the
trunk indicating that once there was a branch at that place. In like manner, he who has
attained God keeps only an appearance of ego; there remains in him only a semblance of
anger and lust. He becomes like a child. A child has no attachment to the three gunas sattva,
rajas, and tamas. He becomes as quickly detached from a thing as he becomes
attached to it. You can cajole him out of a cloth worth five rupees with a doll worth an
anna, though at first he may say with great determination: 'No, I won't give it to you. My
daddy bought it for me.' Again, all persons are the same to a child. He has no feeling of
high and low in regard to persons. So he doesn't discriminate about caste. If his mother tells
him that a particular man should be regarded as an elder brother, the child will eat from the
same plate with him, though the man may belong to the low caste of a blacksmith. The
child doesn't know hate, or what is holy or unholy.
"Even after attaining samadhi, some retain the 'servant ego' or the 'devotee ego'. The bhakta
keeps this 'I-consciousness'. He says, 'O God, Thou art the Master and I am Thy servant;
Thou art the Lord and I am Thy devotee.' He feels that way even after the realization of
God. His 'I' is not completely effaced."
-----------------------------------
He is saying that he continues to paticpate in the world Process as a Normal Human Being.This "I" is like a Burnt Seed that cannot Sprout as opposed to what he calls 'Unripe I' that is the cause of Bondage and Sorrow.
Elsewhere He gives the Example of a 'Burnt Rope'-It has the appearance of a Rope but it cannot bind.
He gives the Example of a Clerk Released from prison-How after release ,he will not cut capers in the Streets,but would return to work in his office as a Clerk and lead a normal life.
----------------------------------
Thus Identity is one thing and Role is another-To the God Realised there is no confusion rgarding these two aspects.To the Ignorant,The Role is mistaken for the Identity.
The Doership is related to Role Play-and there is an 'I' associated with this.This is very 'Real' to the ignorant;It is as 'real' or 'unreal' to the Gnani.The Gnani may refer to himself as -'This' or 'we' or 'I','son',etc.
Sri Bhagavan's Reference in that particular incident ,'son' meant that he is the 'devotee'-He is the child of 'Arunachaleswara'.This in no way contradicts that HE IS THE SELF.If he can be the cook(like Sri Bhagavan often was),he can be the devotee as well and shed a few tears!These certainly are not 'crocodile tears'but are very 'Real'.
-----------------------------------
The most wonderful point brought out by Ramos in that incident with Sri Chandrasekhara Bharati Mahaswamiji-That a God Realised person is ever free and can afford to be 'Bound'as well!Pushing this further,it does not matter whether such a one is 'not born again' or be reborn over and over again!
-----------------------------------
The Essence of these discussions is -From the Sadhana perspective-To set priorities clear-From the Gnana Perspective ,pursue Self Enquiry;not 'Ego Extinction'.From The Bhakti Perspective-put the 'I' into relationship with the 'Beloved'-as a Friend,as Mother,as Father,etc.
-----------------------------------
Salutations.

Unknownidiot said...

Baskar,

addressing your recent post (above: March 26 2009 8:38) -- my present response being a considerably abbreviated repost of reflections already sent some days ago (but which seem to have been rejected by David for reasons that obviously cannot be commented upon here) -- let me merely rectify a couple of misunderstandings with regard to (a) the selfreferential designation itself, and (b) the intended and non-intended issue raised by the post of “Unknownidiot” (above: 23 March 2009 9:00 pm).

(a) Despite your apparent uneasiness with the selfreferential designation “Unknownidiot”, it should actually not be all that difficult (for you, as for every other reader visiting this blog) to understand -- or to have understood, by now -- that whatever one turns into an object, into something known, that, if anything is sure, is certainly not one’s Self.
Hence, however disconcerting it may sound for you, it is not only me, but also you, who is de facto completely unknown.
That is, unless your mind starts professing to know.
That is, unless your mind is so very much afraid that is has to compulsively compensate (and repress) this fear with narrative structures of knowledge to constantly mirror itself in meaningful orientations.

Whether you like it or not, that which -- altogether unlike the constantly professing mind (= the professor) -- is non-dual, due to its non-referential nature, that cannot, from a convinced conventional point of view, appear but rather unusual, quite much like an “idiot”, in various senses, given that conventional mind additionally is hardly able not to assume personality structures also on the non-dual level.
Since Unknownidiot’s response was to a query by Mr Vargas Ramos, who, as vaguely remembered, previously once had referred to Cusanus -- a Western 15th century thinker who in interesting ways had contrasted the “idiota” ([lat.] often transl. as “layman”) to professors and priests -- it seemed, even from a logical mind’s point of view, not unreasonable to make some unstressed implicit references to that “idiot”. We can further be convinced that Mr Vargas Ramos is also, as many others on this blog may be, familiar with Dostoyevsky's wonderful “Idiot”.
Moreover, that the “idiot” (again in various senses) is likewise almost a commonplace in classical Indian literature -- even to the extent of being a directly normative prescription, concerning features of his conduct, for the Paramahamsa -- does not need to be specially emphasized; just to recall names like Shuka (son of Vyasa), Dattatreya, or the very notion of Avadhuta, may suffice.
If you, Baskar, or anybody else, are/is not yet very much in tune with this “inner idiot”, this is honest enough, but may possibly be rectified one day.

(b) As to the possible accusation of having uttered “derogatory remarks”, perhaps when speaking of “pitiful fools” (above: 23 March 2009 9:00 pm), let it be clarified that what was taken up then was merely the common disadvantageous self-comparision of disciples/followers with Shri Ramana, typically consolidating mental frameworks such as: “You are the great realized Rishi, but we are just ordinary fellows, folks ....”, the implication of “fools” as a notion of self-depreciation being certainly not distant.
Naturally, it was by no means Ramana Maharshi’s notion with regard to them. How could it be?
On the other hand, how could anybody with only a slightly personal distance (so as to perceive the whole set-up as such) not feel a sense of compassion for those folks -- and perhaps tenderly just call a fool a fool.
That a “professor” may run into the conflict of somehow recognizing himself under the category of a “fool” and being, at the same time, deeply annoyed with his self-awareness, wouldn’t be unusual, but was not of any concern to me.
Nor has it been, being fully aware of so many different levels of possible practice, to criticize anybody’s particular preference of engagement, be it with japa or jnana, yoga or bhoga, bhakti or shakti.

The real issue addressed was that there is a very long tradition -- starting with Mahayana Buddhism, running through the whole of Advaita Vedanta, and being evident also in connection with Ramana Maharshi -- of contrasting two radically different levels of truth: that of conventional/narrative interpretation and that of ultimate reality.

Ignoring (may be unwisely) all those to whom it may NOT concern, what the concluding question simply wished to put into question was the following:
Given the thematic quest of this blog is somewhat also concerned with ultimate reality -- this being the obviously envisaged horizon/telos of the mature (neo-)advaitic Sadhaka --, would it not be legitimate to point to this model of “two truths”, constantly subverting all strategies of realization, unless its (psychological, epistemological, ontological, etc.) implications are courageously faced and thoroughly understood?

Perhaps some feeling vaguely dawned in Bhaskar’s mind, when he originally felt there was indeed something legitimate about what Unknownidiot addressed, but was immediately disfigured with misunderstandings and then (“back to business”) quickly removed from the scope of what seems legitimately worthy of being attended to in this forum.
To be sure, misunderstandings are natural and very human.
Now, my question is:
rather than all too quickly grasping for a suitable quotation in defense of a particular judgment/prejudice subscribed to, it would be necessary, at least for a worthy Sadhaka, to observe this grasping itself, this “grasping qua justification”, in the first place?
Is it not the case that only such an adequate observation can enable one to eventually suspend otherwise habitual identifications with one’s mind’s “professorship”?

Understanding these perspectives, Bhaskar, probably you’ll sooner or later likewise come to smilingly accept being an “idiot”, that is, in the fuller awareness of what it would entail being it not.

There is no need for being only an “idiot”, yet having a good connection to that state, or being essentially an “idiot”, makes it likewise much easier also to accept, with a greater sense of humor, one’s own and others’ mind’s being a self-deceptive professor of usually enormous success. Only an idiot, you will admit, can doubt mind’s logical reason heavily guarded by the protecting walls of quotable tradition.

In the meantime, a really excellent statement appeared in the form of Guru Vachaka Kovai 119 (see above March 29 2009 8:19 am) by Shri Ramana directly addressing the two levels of truths:

“The jivanmukta has attained the state of reality that shines, transcending individuality and non-individuality. If one insists that, in this experience, he still has a distinct individuality, such an assertion arises only through the limited knowledge of pandits who are bound to the false.”

Agreeing with Clemens Vargas Ramos (“But how to interpret this? Bhagavan knew what he meant with this. Can we know what he meant solely by reading his words?”; March 29 2:07 pm), such statements are extremely challenging – after all, Bhagavan was referring to something to be realized by everyone, certainly not by drowning oneself and letting others drown in heaps of favorite stories, but, one has to assume, especially and more directly, if properly applied, by the “method” that has become the very “trademark” of the Silent Sage Ramana Maharshi.

Perhaps there exist a few further statements by Bhagavan crisply contrasting the two fundamentally distinct levels of reality such as the one above did.

KnownIdiot said...

Dear Sri UnknownIdiot,

Your explanation on the term "UnknownIdiot" is so wonderful, I feel I should take that name too. But since you have already taken it, and you explain it better than me, and more importantly I am not such a great idiot that I am content to rest unknown, I think "KnownIdiot" would be more appropriate for me. Hope it does not get to be "WellknownIdiot"!

Thanks for explaining your position with patience and in great detail. And of course, with moderate language.

Wish you well.

Regards,

- Baskar

Online Money Maker said...

If 'I' am the source how can 'I' merge into 'I' ? It doesn't make a lot of sense.

Anonymous said...

Scott Fraundorf:

"But I suppose, as people who are interested in the teachings of Bhagavan, we want to know the Self. I think we accept that individuality is not for real. And I think everyone who has ever made a comment here believes that."

Theoretically, but the sense of being an individual is so quick to reassert itself, and then it sprouts a thousand heads, and suddenly I'm a person with a past, a future, a personality that I use in response to other posters. I've been focusing lately on noticing the manifestations of the ego in different senses of individuality that arise in consciousness, and dissoluting them when noticed, including the one who is doing the practice, the only thing I can say is that there has been some success at getting deep that way, but as soon as I leave off, one of those I's becomes a person, and they and the world they live in become so tangibly solid, that I then have to re-engage an intense investigation. There seems to be the more intense, repressive attempt at meditation, and then sometimes, the flow of oil meditation, that teacher I've been corresponding with, advised me to hunt down and destroy vasanas with Inquiry proactively. We'll see how it goes. I guess if Ravi's role, and Bookworm, and UI's roles are what you said they are. My role is for eccentric insights into my own Inquiry that have little or nothing to do with present discussions. But I enjoy making them, as well as everyone else.

Unknownidiot said...

Baskar,

in the case you know some Sanskrit, you probably know that one of the terms employed in pertinent contexts (epics, Upanishads, Puranas, etc.) is “unmatta”; remarkably displayed exterior features of unmatta conduct are certainly not dominant in the case of Shri Bhagavan -- here silent serenity dominated --, but are known, to remain in the proximity of his contemporaries in Tiru, for example in the case of Shri Seshadri Swamigal.
Nothing against irony (although it shouldn’t be self-defeating), but didn’t get the reason for your resentfulness; nothing narrowly personal was implied (least of all, anything “against” you) -- unfortunately the attention is drawn again into superficiality, instead of remaining discriminatively focussed on the real issue offered by the challenge of authentically acquainting oneself with what the fundamental difference of the two levels of reality implies.

Ravi said...

Friends,
Baskar had brought out this pertinent observation after David had commented on what 'True'devotion is:

"In respect of this comment, "Bhagavan taught that true devotion, true surrender, is to offer up one’s sense of individuality, the ‘I’-thought, to one’s inner being; it is not to project loving thoughts and feelings towards an external
deity. This, of course, is what takes place in the process of self-enquiry. ", I recall something that Bhagavan said from his own life.

After the death experience, Bhagavan used to visit the temple and weep in front of the idols of Nayanmars. About this period, I think he states that the ego which had been reduced to the state of the burnt ashes of a rope was trying to hold on to individuality. I am not sure what the exact words are, but I think this is the general idea.

And also there is a verse where Bhagavan states that surrendering everything to God is like taking a pinch from the Jaggery Pillayar and offering it back to Pillayar as naivedhyam. Because everything is His, and we are not giving Him anything through our worship. Ultimately, everything belongs to the source from which they come from. "
-------------------------------
Practically,how does this work out?Here is the excerpt from The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna(for applying any teaching-contextual understanding is essential-This is where The Gospel is invaluable).This is from chapter 27,'At Dakshineswar'-The situation is IDENTICAL to what we were discussing:
"Hazra entered the room and sat with the devotees on the floor. Hazra repeated now and then, "Soham! Soham!" "I am He! I am He!"

To Lātu and other devotees he often said: "What does one gain by worshipping God with offerings? That is merely giving Him things that are His already." He had said this once to Narendra.

The Master spoke to him.

MASTER: "I explained to Lātu who the object of the devotee's worship is."

HAZRA: "The devotee really prays to his own Self."

MASTER: "What you say is a very lofty thought. The aim of spiritual discipline, of chanting God's name and glories, is to realize just that. A man attains everything when he discovers his true Self in himself. The object of sādhanā is to realize that. That also is the purpose of assuming a human body. One needs the clay mould as long as the gold image has not been cast; but when the image is made, the mould is thrown away. The body may be given up after the realization of God.

"God is not only inside us; He is both inside and outside. The Divine Mother showed me in the Kāli temple that everything is Chinmaya, the Embodiment of Spirit; that it is She who has become all this―the image, myself, the utensils of worship, the door-sill, the marble floor. Everything is indeed Chinmaya.

"The aim of prayer, of spiritual discipline, of chanting the name and glories of God, is to realize just that. For that alone a devotee loves God. These youngsters are on a lower level; they haven't yet reached a high spiritual state. They are following the path of bhakti. Please don't tell them such things as 'I am He'."

Like the mother bird brooding over her chicks, Sri Ramakrishna was alert to protect his devotees."
-----------------------------------
""God is not only inside us; He is both inside and outside."-So it is valid to start with external worship-Sri Bhagavan has also said this.We encounter DEFINITIONS and adjectives like 'True', 'real'-These are mental classifications,measures.A little examination will reveal how 'external' and 'internal' are just flimsy classifications.
-----------------------------------
Salutations.

Ravi said...

Unknownidiot/Haramurthy/Friends,
"in the case you know some Sanskrit, you probably know that one of the terms employed in pertinent contexts (epics, Upanishads, Puranas, etc.) is “unmatta”; remarkably displayed exterior features of unmatta conduct are certainly not dominant in the case of Shri Bhagavan -- here silent serenity dominated --, but are known, to remain in the proximity of his contemporaries in Tiru, for example in the case of Shri Seshadri Swamigal."

Thanks very much for bringing out this aspect-So Sages do have a certain 'individuality','personality' associated-Yes,it is the others that make such associations;All qualities imply subject-object relationship.This is quite valid;It is on account of this aspect that different seekers are drawn towards different Teachings.
At the same time,the Gnani is Gunatita-beyond all Gunas-Hence he may behave like a 'madcap',like an 'inert Being'(Sri Bhagavan did display a little bit of this aspect),Like a 'Bala'(Child)(Sri Ramakrishna displayed this aspect),Like a 'Ghoul'.
Lord Siva is described by Sundaramurthy Nayanar as 'Pittha'-madcap!Sure he is...prefering the burial ground,wearing garland of Human Skulls,etc!For the Gnani,there is no difference between beauty and Ugliness-Between Holy and Unholy,Between Auspicious and Inauspicious,etc-This is the state of a 'Paramahamsa'-beyond all human comprehension!
---------------------------------
Salutations.

baskar said...

Scott Fraundorf writes, " My role is for eccentric insights into my own Inquiry that have little or nothing to do with present discussions. But I enjoy making them, as well as everyone else." In reading his comments I get the idea that real religion is something that happens, not something that is thought-through to a conclusion. His comments are not at all eccentric, in fact, they relate to the core of Bhagavan's teachings.

Dear Sri Ui, I am sorry if I gave the impression that I resent your comments; it is only that where people of different temperaments and approaches come to read something, it comes as a shock to find something aggressive in its directness. So, I felt that this would needlessly antogonise some of us. As for me, I am really an idiot in the conventional, dictionary sense, and I know it.

I agree with Sri Ravi that it is valid to worship Gods, but it is equally valid not to do so. And in the same way as it is not right to convert people who offer Prasad to God and chant his name, it is not right to try to convert people who think they can offer themselves as Prasad to the Self, and chant, "Soham! Soham!". There is such a thing as vasanas, and we should not devalue and discourage each of us in our efforts, what I say may be right or wrong.

Regards,

Ravi said...

Baskar,
No conversion or discouragement intended.
Wishing you the very Best.
Namaskar.

Anonymous said...

Scott Fraundorf:

"pitiful fools, who didn’t realize that all of their cherished practices merely reconfirmed and strengthened their mistaken basic assumption concerning the real existence of an ego.
Hence, many of these “followers” of Ramana …. were they in fact not also, like so many others, somewhat self-importantly engaged in cults of worshipping fetishized metaphors? – and alas, could it be that not much has changed even today?"

The big problem I can see with being a devotee, but not focused on getting rid of the ego, and I can only speak from a personal level, is that salvation for me, is so clearly in dissolution of "me". As ramana seemed to point out, either devotion or Inquiry leads to the dissolution of the "I". But isn't real bhakti, bhakti where the surrender is so total that one merges with God so that there is not a seperate individual. And then if through Inquiry, the "I" is investigated and seen not to exist, the ego (the perceived "I") basically focusing on dissoluting itself, that leads to the same end, Realization of God, the Self. Certainly, "I"-notions engaged in judging fellow devotees, as UI notes Ramana couldn't, because Ramana was the Self, and from Ramana's point of view, there wasn't really a point of view, there was the dissolution of all points of view, including judgemental ones. For myself, religion that is not directly focused on the destruction of the sense of being an individual has not had really the pull, because in the destruction of the individual, the highest state of love, truth, grace is realized experientially, and I don't have to maintain a suffering ego, but at the same time, ritual can be really helpful it seems in the dissolution of the ego, and infact the life becomes so much more religious, ritualistic, reverential, the more the ego is out of the picture, subsumed in bliss. So on a personal level, I can say that I am a pitiful fool for allowing the ego to run rampant, and am sometimes, but would also be a pitiful fool for focusing on illusory others, which are just mere percepts, thoughts that arise in Consciousness. Ramana's message, as well as the Upanishads, Shankara, etc., was that there is only Consciousness, and the paticularization of consciousness, tied up in a sense of being an individual is the root of suffering, Who am I?, dissolution of that me, that obscures the Self-Effulgent blissful one, to use Muruganar-esque wording. I think what UI said on Unknown Idiot made sense to me, that seems very "in line" lol with ramana's teachings. The "known" self, is just a selfish sufferer, who would want it? So to really be an Unknown Idiot, i.e. the Self, would be ideal, instead of a known idiot, which can never be realized? Right?

Ravi said...

Scott,
"The big problem I can see with being a devotee, but not focused on getting rid of the ego, and I can only speak from a personal level, is that salvation for me, is so clearly in dissolution of "me". "
Your posts are engaging and reflects 'Practice'.What you have mentioned is indeed one of the pitfalls in engaging in mere emotionalism-This is what I feel Unknownidiot has also referred to.

I recall in your previous post,you have referred to your Teacher recommending tackling 'vasanas' proactively.This indeed is part of Viveka-Vairagya Practice.
One of the Key Pointer that Sri Bhagavan brings to the Practice of Self Enquiry is- to approach it in the SIMPLEST possible way-not to 'Enquire' with the mind and identify the 'I'-not to think that 'I' is something unknown and hence to be 'Discovered'.
Sri Bhagavan is asking-Are you other than 'Self' anytime,anywhere.Just shift the 'attention' and BE the Self.In Practice,this is as simple as this-provided the active mind Falls Quiet.All attempts of an Active mind to DO self Enquiry is futile;instead of struggling here,better to complement this practice through Devotion(conventional),Selfless work,Breath control,whatever other approaches that one is prompted to and finds inspiring.I recall in your previous posts that you have referred to most of these.
The Key point in Self Enquiry-is to naturally attend to oneself in a spontaneous way-Be in this state of awareness ,irrespective of what we may be engaged in.It is easy enough to actualise this ,when we are engaged in Physical activity-The same awareness continues as a Backdrop when we are engaged in activities demanding 'Thinking'.

Best Regards.

ArunachalaHeart said...

Hi Ravi,

reading your posts which give a lot of references from the Gospel I vaguely remembered a few things I had read about Thakur.

First the Gospel is a collection of incidents and upadesa by Thakur only when M was present.

Alltogether it forms perhaps only 1 % of the Master's philosophy. I am awed to think what huge storehouse of knowledge this Kali-Swaroopa must have had.

Secondly the Master too makes a reference to the said point where he states that He was discouraged to impart all the Knowledge he had by the Divine Mother lest the people in Kali yuga finding him guileless attain high spiritual treasures without proper sadhana.

I am grateful to you for reminding me about Thakur continously.

The man who had captured my heart when I was a child and then proceeded to show me that he had come again as Ramana, and was also famous throughout the cosmos as Mountain Arunachala...the doll of my soul...I offer my Love.

God Bless you Ravi

Anonymous said...

Scott fraundorf:

"So Ramana was/is an idiot? Right'"

Me answering now, without poor choice of words, umm, no. Really, it only matters realizing it, I can use advaitic language, say the Self, use any word I want for it, even call it an idiot, or even smart, I still have to realize it.
If only the words were stand ins for the actual experience of experiencing without an experiencer at the core of experience. But even were i to come up with a clever retort that would in no way help me, have nothing to do with Truth. And really until those tendencies never come back, what I'm saying is always going to be words, wherease when Ramana responded to questioners that was pure Truth, because there is only Truth, any notion of Scott Fraundorf being me, and all it's manifestations, or Bookworm being a real character, clever, or a jerk, or the opposite, all that has to go, all that are extensions of as ramana would say, the "primal I-thought", until that is gone, if what I'm saying is still an I am saying it, it's as unreal as the person saying it. So most of what I'm writing here is unreal, and the person who is writing it is unreal, because it still arrogantly presupposes that I am a seperate individual from the Reality, instead of that there is only the Reality, if I was only the Reality would I care about semantics?

baskar said...

This in reference to idiocy:

Who can forget Hastamalaka?-
Advaita Vedanta Anusandhana Kendra, where I find:

" hastAmalaka is known mainly through a poem called the hastAmalakIya Sloka. According to the mAdhavIya Sankaravijayam, hastAmalaka's parents lived in a village called SrIbali, near gokarNa (Karnataka). He was born already Self-realized. His behavior as a child caused his parents a lot of concern, because the young boy would remain dumb and completely unaffected by happenings around him. The troubled parents brought him to Sankara, who asked him who he was. The boy replied in verse, describing his essential nature as the non-dual Atman. Sankara realized that this seemingly dumb boy was actually like the vedic Rshi vAmadeva, and asked the parents to leave the boy with him as a sannyAsin, who was then called hastAmalaka. This name comes from a well-known metaphor. The words hastAmalaka and karatala-Amalaka are often used in advaita writings, when the immediate knowledge of the Atman is said to be grasped as if it were the gooseberry (Amalaka) fruit in one's hand (hasta). As such, the name hastAmalaka denotes this disciple's depth of AtmajnAna. His dialogue with Sankara came to be known as the hastAmalakIya Sloka. Some of Sankara's disciples felt that such an accomplished master as hastAmalaka would be the ideal candidate to write sub-commentaries to Sankara's bhAshyas. However, Sankara did not want to ask him to descend from his height of non-dualistic brahmAnubhava, even to write commentaries to his own works, and asked sureSvara and padmapAda to write them instead. Another work called vivekamanjarI is attributed to hastAmalaka, who is said to have been appointed at the western advaita maTha at Dvaraka, under the guardianship of sureSvara."

And then, Bhagavan himself has translated this Sloka with an introduction:

"When Shankara, the Guru of the world, was travelling in
the western parts of India and overcoming in debate the
expounders of the various schools of thought, he once came
to a village known as Srivali. When a brahmin inhabitant of
the village named Prabhakara heard about his arrival he went
to him with his thirteen year old son. He prostrated before
Sankara and made his son also prostrate. He then explained
that the boy had been dumb from his childhood, that he had
no likes and dislikes, nor a sense of honour and dishonour,
and that he was completely inactive. The Guru then raised the
boy up and asked him as follows in a cheerful tone:..."

-Bhagavan Ramana.ord

What more can one say in praise of idiocy?

Ravi said...

ArunachalaHeart,
Thanks vey much for your kind words and Blessings.I take it as coming from Thakur himself-as all devotees are He.
Yes,indeed,Sri Ramakrishna is unfathomable behind his apparent childlike Nature.A Gnani like Vivekananda felt hesitant to write about him.
I agree with you that The Gospel contains Teachings that were given when 'M' was present-It is sufficient for us.How Thakur used to give the example of an Oyster-How it just takes one drop of rain and proceeds to fashion a pearl!

It is always a joy to come across devotees who love Great Souls without drawing mental boundaries.

Namaskar.

Satyameva said...

Ravi wrote:

“It is always a joy to come across devotees who love Great Souls without drawing mental boundaries.”

This is true, and it is nice seeing you are suggesting that your previously somewhat complicated relationship to such Great Souls as U. G. Krishnamurti, in short: UG, and Osho (also known as Bhagvan Rajneesh), has been transformed. Now seated on places of honour in your heart, it will be interesting to hear which among their utterances have become your favorite ones.

Yonisthita said...

Shri Ravi:

“Yes,indeed,Sri Ramakrishna is unfathomable behind his apparent childlike Nature.”

As some of you are ravished so much by the thought of the Bengali ecstatic Ramakrishna, this may be a good occasion to ask a question on an interesting point of spiritual physiology. It is well-known that Ramakrishna could hardly rest silent for a day and had to constantly enter into the one or other psychological drama (apparently understanding these as spiritual practices). Most of you will remember especially this big scene, where he totally flipped out, running to the temple statue and grasping with suicidal intentions for the sword of Kali, only to be saved from mutilating himself by a sudden nervous breakdown. It was thus, highly idiosyncratically to say the least, that he engaged with different traditions (some say, at one point he even hallucinated seeing Jesus on the street). Whatever we may think of his partially somewhat weird behaviour (perhaps likewise instances of what Unknownidiot called “unmatta”), some of these may probably be associated with so-called Shaktipat experiences, which are quite popular in Tantric circles. And Ramakrishna definitely also was a Tantric. I remember that Muktananda spoke of having immense genital erections in connection with shaktipat/kundalini experiences.
Is anything similar known to have happened with Ramakrishna (though perhaps not published in English)?

It is perhaps not necessary to justify such a query on a blog, the very name of which is unavoidably reminding us of a most fiery Lingam, and such a big one that even Brahma, the creator, got jealous, yet failed in his attempt to prove that it was no match for him. And although Ramana and Ramakrishna have nothing directly to do with each other (and are of very different temperament indeed), it is furthermore known from mythology that their respective father (Shiva) and mother (Kali) had a rather hot affair.

Subramanian. R said...

Dear David,

A few simple things:

1. I asked for Guru Ramana Prasadam, Eng, as soon as you had announced it in the blog. The book came from Asramam, after 2 months. As soon as I opened the parcel, the cover page was different, from orange. It contained Bhagavan and Muruganar photos too. There was
a mild, very mild sense of disappointment, why?

2. I was in Asramam on 17th-19th March. On 19th morning, Venkatesh in the book shop suddenly told me about Living by
Word of Bhagavan, new edition.
Even though I grabbed it, there was again a mild, very mild sense
of disappointement, why?

3. Why many people in the blog are having fancy pen-names, what happened to their real names?

Ravi said...

Satyameva,
Friend,Interesting that you are keeping track of what has been expressed here.
I am keen to listen to what you have to say on UG .I have not been able to understand him or find his life inspirational.
As for Osho,I could not understand the Cult and the Hierarchy that surrounded him.I know he was quite intelligent and was vastly learned.I have enjoyed reading his Mullah Nasrudeen Stories.I have also read his book'Sex to Superconsciousness'.I do know that he has a deep understanding of The Tantra.I am also Aware that he developed 'Dynamic Meditation Techniques' and other forms of Therapy.I also know that He Loved The Buddha and expounded his Teachings.I also enjoyed reading his Talk on Kabir-How He said that Love is a Narrow Path where there is no space for two!I did feel sad to learn how it all turned out the way it did in his last days.
Sri Ramakrishna used to say-Observe a sadhu during the Night time as well,not just during the day time!Great Masters are Totally Transparent.
I am keen to learn from you any aspect/Teaching that you have found inspirational in UG/Osho.
Best Regards.

David Godman said...

Subramanian. R

Nice to see you back here again.

The edition of Guru Ramana Prasadam with the orange cover is the one that is published by Lulu, the self-publishing site. The edition that recently went on sale in the Ramanasramam bookstore is the same text, but with a different cover. It was recently published and printed by Robert in Pondicherry to provide cheaper copies to devotees in India.

There has recently been a new printing of Living by the Words of Bhagavan, not a new edition. It is identical in all respects to the previous edition.

I also would like more people to post under their own names.

Anonymous said...

.

... U.G.: I have not been able to understand him or find his life inspirational. ...

But does this really matter, Ravi? What is the use in watching the body and the actions of (wise) men and trying to make sense of it?

Viveka Chudamani:

541. Sometimes a fool, sometimes a sage, sometimes possessed of regal splendour; sometimes wandering, sometimes behaving like a motionless python, sometimes wearing a benignant expression; sometimes honoured, sometimes insulted, sometimes unknown – thus lives the man of realisation, ever happy with Supreme Bliss.

---------------------

The most important criterion is whether such a person was a prey of Maya. And this is what we definitely can say related to Osho.

Related to U.G there is just no comparision.

U.G. in my eyes lived the uneventful life of a sage being rude sometimes in destroying all this false concepts of deluded disciples trying to make sense of their lifes. He only responds to his disciples - but was never interested in money, fame and something like that.

I found him lovely, and that also was the impression of the people having the good fortune to know him personally.

U. G., Mystique of Enlightenment:

"This state is a physical condition of your being. It is not some kind of psychological mutation. It is not a state of mind into which you can fall one day, and out of it the next day. You can't imagine the extent to which, as you are now, thought pervades and interferes with the functioning of every cell in your body. Coming into your natural state will blast every cell, every gland, every nerve. It is a chemical change. An alchemy of some sort takes place. But this state has nothing to do with the experiences of chemical drugs such as LSD. Those are experiences; this is not."

.

Ravi said...

Yonisthita,
I understand that you are interested in Tantra.This is a deep subject and I will only confine myself to What Sri Ramakrishna had disclosed in the Gospel.Indeed,there is hardly any path that Sri Ramakrishna had not explored-He was a master of the Tantra as he was of Vedanta.Here goes the First one-This is from the Chapter,4,Advice to Householders,Thursday,August 24,1882:
"M: "Sir, what is the meaning of the realization of God? What do you mean by God-vision? How does one attain it?"

MASTER: "According to the Vaishnavas the aspirants and the seers of God may be divided into different groups. These are the pravartaka, the sadhaka, the siddha, and the siddha of the siddha. He who has just set foot on the path may be called a pravartaka. He may be called a sadhaka who has for some time been practising spiritual disciplines, such as worship, japa, meditation, and the chanting of God's name and glories. He may be called a siddha who has known from his inner experience that God exists. An analogy is given in the Vedanta to explain this. The master of the house is asleep in a dark room. Someone is groping in the darkness to find him. He touches the couch and says, 'No, it is not he.' He touches the window and says, 'No, it is not he.' He touches the door and says, 'No, it is not he.' This is known in the Vedanta as the process of 'Neti, neti', 'Not this, not this'. At last his hand touches the master's body and he exclaims, 'Here he is!' In other words, he is now conscious of the 'existence' of the master. He has found him, but he doesn't yet know him intimately.

"There is another type, known as the siddha of the siddha, the 'supremely perfect'. It is quite a different thing when one talks to the master intimately, when one knows God very intimately through love and devotion. A siddha has undoubtedly attained God, but the 'supremely perfect' has known God very intimately.

"Different moods of aspirants"

"But in order to realize God, one must assume one of these attitudes: Śānta, Dāsya, sakhya, Vātsalya, or Madhur.

"Śānta, the serene attitude. The rishis of olden times had this attitude toward God. They did not desire any worldly enjoyment. It is like the single-minded devotion of a wife to her husband. She knows that her husband is the embodiment of beauty and love, a veritable Madan.

"Dāsya, the attitude of a servant toward his master. Hanuman had this attitude toward Rama. He felt the strength of a lion when he worked for Rama. A wife feels this mood also. She serves her husband with all her heart and soul. A mother also has a little of this attitude, as Yaśoda had toward Krishna.

"Sakhya, the attitude of friendship. Friends say to one another, 'Come here and sit near me.' Sridāmā and other friends sometimes fed Krishna with fruit, part of which they had already eaten, and sometimes climbed on His shoulders.

"Vātsalya, the attitude of a mother toward her child. This was Yaśoda's attitude toward Krishna. The wife, too, has a little of this. She feeds her husband with her very life-blood, as it were. The mother feels happy only when the child has eaten to his heart's content. Yaśoda would roam about with butter in her hand, in order to feed Krishna.

"Madhur, the attitude of a woman toward her paramour. Radha had this attitude toward Krishna. The wife also feels it for her husband. This attitude includes all the other four."

M: "When one sees God does one see Him with these eyes?"

MASTER: "God cannot be seen with these physical eyes. In the course of spiritual discipline one gets a 'love body', endowed with 'love eyes', 'love ears', and so on. One sees God with those 'love eyes'. One hears the voice of God with those 'love ears'. One even gets a sexual organ made of love."

At these words M. burst out laughing. The Master continued, unannoyed, "With this 'love body' the soul communes with God."

M. again became serious.

"Seeing God everywhere"

MASTER: "But this is not possible without intense love of God. One sees nothing but God everywhere when one loves Him with great intensity. It is like a person with jaundice, who sees everything yellow. Then one feels, 'I am verily He'.

"A drunkard, deeply intoxicated, says, 'Verily I am Kāli!' The gopis, intoxicated with love, exclaimed, 'Verily I am Krishna!'

"One who thinks of God, day and night, beholds Him everywhere. It is like a man's seeing flames on all sides after he has gazed fixedly at one flame for some time."

"But that isn't the real flame", flashed through M.'s mind.

Sri Ramakrishna, who could read a man's inmost thought, said: "One doesn't lose consciousness by thinking of Him who is all Spirit, all Consciousness. Shivanath once remarked that too much thinking about God confounds the brain. Thereupon I said to him, 'How can one become unconscious by thinking of Consciousness?' "

M: "Yes, sir, I realize that. It isn't like thinking of an unreal object. How can a man lose his intelligence if he always fixes his mind on Him whose very nature is eternal Intelligence?"

MASTER (with pleasure): "It is through God's grace that you understand that. The doubts of the mind will not disappear without His grace. Doubts do not disappear without Self-realization.

"But one need not fear anything if one has received the grace of God. It is rather easy for a child to stumble if he holds his father's hand; but there can be no such fear if the father holds the child's hand. A man does not have to suffer any more if God, in His grace, removes his doubts and reveals Himself to him. But this grace descends upon him only after he has prayed to God with intense yearning of heart and practised spiritual discipline. The mother feels compassion for her child when she sees him running about breathlessly. She has been hiding herself; now she appears before the child."

"But why should God make us run about?" thought M

Immediately Sri Ramakrishna said: "It is His will that we should run about a little. Then it is great fun. God has created the world in play, as it were. This is called Mahamaya, the Great Illusion. Therefore one must take refuge in the Divine Mother, the Cosmic Power Itself. It is She who has bound us with the shackles of illusion. The realization of God is possible only when those shackles are severed."

"Worship of the Divine Mother"

The Master continued: "One must propitiate the Divine Mother, the Primal Energy, in order to obtain God's grace. God Himself is Mahamaya, who deludes the world with Her illusion and conjures up the magic of creation, preservation, and destruction. She has spread this veil of ignorance before our eyes. We can go into the inner chamber only when She lets us pass through the door. Living outside, we see only outer objects, but not that Eternal Being, Existence-Knowledge-Bliss Absolute. Therefore it is stated in the purna that deities like Brahma praised Mahamaya for the destruction of the demons Madhu and Kaitabha.

"Śakti alone is the root of the universe. That Primal Energy has two aspects: vidyā and avidyā. Avidyā deludes. Avidyā conjures up 'woman and gold', which casts the spell. Vidyā begets devotion, kindness, wisdom, and love, which lead one to God. This avidyā must be propitiated, and that is the purpose of the rites of Śakti worship.

"The devotee assumes various attitudes toward Śakti in order to propitiate Her: the attitude of a handmaid, a 'hero', or a child. A hero's attitude is to please Her even as a man pleases a woman through intercourse.

"The worship of Śakti is extremely difficult. It is no joke. I passed two years as the handmaid and companion of the Divine Mother. But my natural attitude has always been that of a child toward its mother. I regard the breasts of any woman as those of my own mother.

Master's attitude toward women
"Women are, all of them, the veritable images of Śakti. In northwest India the bride holds a knife in her hand at the time of marriage; in Bengal, a nut-cutter. The meaning is that the bridegroom, with the help of the bride, who is the embodiment of the Divine Power, will sever the bondage of illusion. This is the 'heroic' attitude. I never worshipped the Divine Mother that way. My attitude toward Her is that of a child toward its mother."
---------------------------------
It is not possible to do adequate justice to the subject through a few posts.
----------------------------------
Now,I wish to bring in a passage,where the Master clearly explains the Nature of the 'I'.This is from Chapter 39,The Master's Reminiscences:

"The Incarnations of God belong to the class of the Isvarakotis. They roam about in the open spaces. They are never imprisoned in the world, never entangled by it. Their ego is not the 'thick ego' of worldly people. The ego, the 'I-consciousness', of worldly people is like four walls and a roof: the man inside them cannot see anything outside. The ego of the Incarnations and other Isvarakotis is a 'thin ego': through it they have an uninterrupted vision of God. Take the case of a man who stands by a wall on both sides of which there are meadows stretching to infinity. If there is a hole in the wall, through it he can see everything on the other side. If the hole is a big one, he can even pass through it. The ego of the Incarnations and other Isvarakotis is like the wall with a hole. Though they remain on this side of the wall, still they can see the endless meadow on the other side. That is to say, though they have a human body, they are always united with God. Again, if they will, they can pass through the big hole to the other side and remain in samādhi. And if the hole is big enough, they can go through it and come back again. That is to say, though established in samādhi, they can again descend to the worldly plane."

The devotees listened breathlessly to these words about the mystery of Divine Incarnation.
-----------------------------------
In case you are interested-I will recommend that you Read'The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna'.It is available for browsing here:
http://www.belurmath.org/gospel/

Best Wishes.

Ravi said...

Ramos,
"But does this really matter, Ravi? What is the use in watching the body and the actions of (wise) men and trying to make sense of it?"
I will take up this subject a little later-At the moment,I am not sufficiently motivated!
You may try to find out the meaning of the word 'Acharya'.Every 'Mystic' cannot be a Master-The 'Mystics' may help a few like minded,to a limited degree.A Master is someone who can address issues at a Physical,Social,psychological,Intellectual and Spiritual Level.More later.
Salutations.

Bookworm said...

Ravi, you say:

As for Osho,I could not understand the Cult and the Hierarchy that surrounded him.

......

So it it fair for me to say:

As for Ramakhrishna,I could not understand the Cult and the Hierarchy that surrounded him.

Kshanikanama said...

Someone admitting getting easily harrassed by disappointments with regard to even trivial things, yet apparently claiming Subramanian {= “Well (su-)[established] in ultimate truth (brahman)”} to be his “real name”, said:

“3. Why many people in the blog are having fancy pen-names, what happened to their real names?”

It may be understandable that someone, who gets confused and feels uneasy if the cover of an otherwise identical book looks different, feels even more troubled by the sight of names he cannot identify with respect to nationality, gotra, varna, etc. This may not necessarily be due to psychological problems requiring therapeutic treatment, but be simply due to old age, personal background, security demands in terms of predictable continuity and so on. And, of course, the enforced compulsion of applying single identity markers to single bio-organisms is a means of strict political and other control. Especially younger generations of internet users rightfully do not conform to such silly (if not dangerous) habits.
Furthermore, philosophically speaking, for many (also) classical Indian traditions, a “real name” is a contradiction in terms (contradictio in adjecto).
Not to speak of the illusion of personal continuity that is supported by the repetitive choice of always the same name as personal identity marker.
And who is interested in names and personality cults? -- it is the matter addressed that matters!
Hence it would be much more honest to provide each new contribution (or thread of contributions) with a new momentary label just for the sake of the possibility of clear references for those momentary thoughts, waves in other streams, that are triggered in reply to previous ones.
Rather than pretending to be a Name, creative freedom with labelling thoughts addressing issues that really matter -- while arising somewhere in the ocean of consciousness (that we all are) -- should prevail!

Ravi said...

Bookworm,
"So it it fair for me to say:

As for Ramakhrishna,I could not understand the Cult and the Hierarchy that surrounded him."

You need to examine why you are asking for my approval.It is clear that you are in 'doubt'.
You may say anything-'Fair' or 'Unfair'.It is your prerogative and I respect that.
Best Regards.

Ravi said...

Friends,
Interesting to read the pros and cons of assumed names.It is easy enough to assume new names-not so easy to change the psyche-which leaves its 'Thumb Impression'.

Just to add that 'M' in the Gospel had adopted a similiar approach;as also Raphael Hurst -Paul Brunton;Also cannot forget -Charles Lamb's -Wonderful 'Essays of Elia'!

Bookworm said...

Ravi

You quote me:
"So it it fair for me to say:

'As for Ramakhrishna,I could not understand the Cult and the Hierarchy that surrounded him."

and you reply:

You need to examine why you are asking for my approval.It is clear that you are in 'doubt'.
You may say anything-'Fair' or 'Unfair'.It is your prerogative and I respect that.
...........



No Ravi..If you look closely you will notice there is no question mark. It was a statement.
In my own search for Truth Ramakhrishna was one of many side roads travelled
until I realised it was wisest to keep to the main road of Ramana.

Ravi said...

Bookworm,
"it was wisest to keep to the main road of Ramana."
Good.Please do walk the Talk.I wish to add for your benefit what the 'Guru' told me the other day!:"Attend to what you have come here for"-Just this one advice of Sri Bhagavan will do.

We need to see whether we are walking the Main Road of Ramana-or getting waylaid and sidetracked into labrynthine bylanes by an unruly mind.

Best Wishes.May Sri Bhagavan's Grace be with us.

Yonisthita said...

Shri Ravi,

thanks for your response to my question concerning this particular issue of ”spiritual physiology”, viz. the more or less automatic shaktipat/kundalini induced erection in males.
Both that Ramakrishna had no aspirations in the field of female oriented sexuality (he never consummated his marriage, it seems), and that male erections (being likewise automatically induced in dream states without sexual content) are not necessarily related to contexts of virtual/concrete sexual performance, is clear.
Unfortunately, somehow you have bypassed the issue, even in your excuse (“It is not possible to do adequate justice to the subject through a few posts.”), because it is the skill of focus that is crucial.
Nevertheless, your reference to Ramakrishna’s notion of a “love body” was interesting indeed and new to me. And there is a probability that his statement: “One even gets a sexual organ made of love” may be taken to actually suggest his own experiences of a strong flow of Shakti through his male organ, delightfully lifted toward the sky without even the slightest impression of a desire in his consciousness.
Yet, if one is to trust your knowledge of the Ramakrishna corpus, this seems to have been the only fleeting elaboration of the “love body” to be encountered in the sources available to you (apparently restricted to the popular English materials). Short as it is, thank you once more.
One cannot, however, quite agree with you if you consider Ramakrishna as a “Master of the Tantra”. You surely know exactly that he cowardly (or for whatsoever other psychological reasons) backed out when he was actually supposed to honor the Goddess in the shape of his female teacher at a Tantric initiation (where he thus hopelessly failed). Furthermore, in the very quotation you have provided, Ramakrishna explicitly says that only the Madhura comprises all four attitudes, while he himself felt restricted to the Vatsalya attitude.

baksar said...

I take strong objection to the use of "pen-names". They don't belong to the virtual world, but however, I would like to praise the use of the word, "Avatar", in its place:

Wikipedia gives this definition: "Avatar or Avatara (Sanskrit: अवतार, IAST Avatāra), often translated into English as incarnation, literally means descent (avatarati) and usually implies a deliberate descent from higher spiritual realms to lower realms of existence for special purposes."

And elsewhere, here,, Wikipedia gives this definition under the sub-head "On Internet Forums": "Avatars on Internet forums serve the purpose of representing users and their actions, personalizing their contributions to the forum, and may represent different parts of their persona, beliefs, interests or social status in the forum."

So, in view of the fact that many of us (this includes me) descend from the higher planes to enlighten fellow commentators/ posters, and at different times present different persona and beliefs, may I suggest that the use of Avatars is valid, and in fact, more appropriate than any certified name?

Regards,

ArunachalaHeart said...

Yonisthita,

"You surely know exactly that he cowardly (or for whatsoever other psychological reasons) backed out when he was actually supposed to honor the Goddess in the shape of his female teacher at a Tantric initiation (where he thus hopelessly failed). "

Please quote you source

Ravi said...

Yonisthita,
I understand your earnestness-It will help to get the Facts on Sri Ramakrishna's Life correctly-Sri Ramakrishna underwent Tantra Sadhana under the Guidance of Bhairavi Brahmani.I will suggest reading the Book-Sri Ramakrishna ,The Great Master-by Swami Saradananda;I am not sure if this is available as a pdf download.

Sri Ramakrishna never recommended the way of Tantra-He cleared the Deck for Householders but warned most seekers to steer clear!

Coming to 'Madhura Bhava',Sri Ramakrishna Pracised(Not the correct word) all the 5 Forms of Devotion,including Madura Bhava.

He Practised Vedanta Advaitic Sadhana under the Guidance of totapuri.

-----------------------------------
Wish you the very Best.

Ravi said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Scott Fraundorf:

"So, in view of the fact that many of us (this includes me) descend from the higher planes to enlighten fellow commentators/ posters, and at different times present different persona and beliefs, may I suggest that the use of Avatars is valid, and in fact, more appropriate than any certified name?"

Not a criticism, I have no idea what context this was meant, but reading it, I had to say whoa! There is no descent from higher spiritual states to enlighten less enlightened commentators. When I realize myself to be the Self, and never having been born as a person, then there will be only Truth, but besides that there are no higher and lesser states. There are moments where the I's are trimmed closer to the root, and then what I say or do is perhaps not as delusional as otherwise, but still delusional. But as long as I subscribe to the notion, as long as my consciousness is believed to be tied up, particularized as a person a body, even an avatari-ish one, that is still the delusion. What I say from that perspective is untrue, not being the Self, which is the only Avatar, Jnani, Jivanmukta, etc. If I have to "come down" disidentify with Being-Consciousness-Bliss to enlighten my less enlightened commentators, I would not be identified with Truth, there would still be this illusion of two. Me, and the Self. An avatarish ego, a more "enlightened" ego, may be way more egotistical then a person who has no spiritual interest at all.

Anonymous said...

Scott Fraundorf:

"It was a statement.
In my own search for Truth Ramakhrishna was one of many side roads travelled
until I realised it was wisest to keep to the main road of Ramana."

The one thing that strikes me wrong about this, is that Ramana didn't set up his truth as in opposition to all other truths, it was nondual, the Self, which is "supposedly" self-evident if you investigate or inquire to find out the unreality of the individual. Communism, for instance might say it's right and everyone else is wrong, or certain organized religions. One really refreshing thing about nondual Truth, Ramana's teachings, is that they don't need anyone to stick up for them, it doesn't matter if any one proselytizes for them, gets the word out, (or conversely if people pretend to be enlightened in Ramana's name) because they are the Absolute, evident Truth. Yes, someone can take Ramana statements and make a doctrine at opposition with other doctrines, and it happens. But Ramana's Truth wasn't words, it was silence in which no "I" arises, which anyone can discover by dissolving the I, and I believe he said repeatedly only this will suffice. If Ramakrishna abided in the I-less state (which generally he was believed to have) then he was Truth, because that is according to Ramana all that exists. But if you want to go to war with all non-Ramana denominations, by all means...Good luck.

Anonymous said...

SCott Fraundorf:

"All attempts of an Active mind to DO self Enquiry is futile;instead of struggling here,better to complement this practice through Devotion(conventional),Selfless work,Breath control,whatever other approaches that one is prompted to and finds inspiring."

The more I do Self-Inquiry, and the more I correspond with that teacher, the gist I get in my own words, my learning process, is that as long as it is not known that I am Brahman, the Self, and this is intuitive, and not intellectual, practice has to be engaged in intensely. One of the thing I've gotten from that teacher, is that the desire for Liberation of the false I, me, is a necessity, and the intensity of practice that comes from that, just like in Who am I? The ego's job is to dissolve manifestations of itself, and then subtler levels of ego, and then just be the Self. Who am I? is the individual, the false I, jiva, or soul (lol) dissolving any manifestation of an individual self that is noticed. Because of that I would say, it is perhaps an intensely active mind that engages in Inquiry. I've noticed that the Inquiry can only be more easily engaged in when happiness is realized to be within, and in not a circumstance, person, object. That happiness, to me I equate with devotion, because it is is intensely devotional, overwhelming love, not to mention it seems to be closer to a Oneness with God. And when happiness is established to be within, then there isn't a mind constantly looking for happiness exeternally. And then it is easy (or I should say easier) to go within, forget the world, dissolve illusory manifestations of the ego, and then go deeper and deeper until the Self is realized. Although I haven't realized the Self yet, this is my current understanding.

"The Key point in Self Enquiry-is to naturally attend to oneself in a spontaneous way-Be in this state of awareness ,irrespective of what we may be engaged in.It is easy enough to actualise this ,when we are engaged in Physical activity-The same awareness continues as a Backdrop when we are engaged in activities demanding 'Thinking'."

In my own experience this is not as trivial as you make it sound, and infact, there was a good letter written by my teacher that I found instructive on this about Inquiry not being a letting go, it has to be actively contemplated that I am not the individual, I am not the body, the world is an illusory appearance, the practice must be intense, and inward, the other tendencies must be actively dissolved, yes, as much as possible (I'm still learning) while activities go on, including thinking involved in performing school work for instance. My teacher says, they go on "light as a feather". And I have gotten the gist that Inquiry, ane the Self have nothing to do with thinking, bodily activities either for or against. It's the identification as an individual, the ego, that Inquiry is focused on dissolving in the midst of activities, infact the more I do that, the less lazy I am to do those things that need to get done, and I'm not worried about the result, which is also waht was talked about in Bhagavad Gita.

Anonymous said...

Scott Fraundorf:

Shankara:
I am, indeed, this Supreme Brahman. Let this be contemplated with a mind of certainty, Being of the nature of Consciousness, being without attachment, Being unaffected, [and] by perservering effort.

Free of all limitations
And with uninterrupted Awareness,
Having known thus that I am Brahman, How can one become one who observes castes, and orders of life?

"This one is different; I am different," He who thus contemplates upon (worships, is devoted) to other gods, That man does not know Brahman.
He is like a beast (one in bondage) among the gods.

I am the SElf; I am not anyone different.
I am, indeed, Brahman, not having any portion of sorrow. I am the nature of Being-Consciousness-Bliss. I am of the innate nature that is ever liberated.

He who does contemplation for a moment On the Self thus as, "I am Brahman," Having the conviction that oneself is always Brahman, Should move about happily.

Yonisthita said...

ArunachalaHeart asked me to quote the source for my statement that Ramakrishna “backed out when he was actually supposed to honor the Goddess in the shape of his female teacher at a Tantric initiation” -- implied was the following:
although Ramakrishna, under the guidance of a female Tantric teacher, participated in some practices pertaining to the “left hand path”, he did not properly accomplish all the requirements of that path; in particular, he did not honor Bhairavi in the form of his female teacher by sexually uniting with her in an act of ritual culmination.
While I do not have access to the sources originally providing me with that information, the instance as such is well-known enough to be mentioned even in the popular Wiki entry on Ramakrishna (see there under: Bhairavi Brahmani and Tantra):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramakrishna
(from here you can scroll down and access various external links in the case you wish to make further investigations -- and also Ravi might help)

Ravi said...

Scott,
Whatever seeming difference there is ,is on account of 'Expression'-For instance the word 'Active' mind-I have used it in the sense of an Externalised mind -You are using 'Active' for a mind centred,which is more valid,and more accurate.

When I mean 'spontaneous',it is when the 'Externalised mind' is turned back and stays as just awareness.This remains as an undercurrent whenever one is engaged in any 'activity'.This is still 'Duality' and one is a Sadhaka only.Sadhana has to continue-Self Enquiry or Self Surrender to reach the 'core' of the Being -or in other words to dissolve the 'core' of Being.


Best Regards.

Ravi said...

Yonisthita,
Your response to ArunachalaHeart...It seems clear that you do not have access to more Authentic sources of information...I do not know how to set aright whatever 'perceptions' that you may have gathered.I will list out a few 'pointers':
1.The Bhairavi Brahmani considered ramakrishna as her son and disciple-so no question of any incident that you are referring to.
2.Sri Ramakrishna is not the only 'person' to 'backout in a cowardly' fashion when it came to 'Physical act' as part of Sadhana.Adi Sankara faced an 'identical' situation when after vanquishing Mandana Misra,he was Questioned by Mandana Misra's Wife on the intricasies of 'Sex'-I will mention here that Sankara was also a Master of 'Tantra' and his 'Soundarya Lahari' is a Classic.
Intersting to see how Sankara and Sri Ramakrishna Tackled this!
Sankara using 'Lambika Yoga' (Fellow posters,Please excuse-I have to bank on my Master for this missing link)Transferred his Life Energy to that of a King Amaraka and got the Answer for the 'Query'.

Sri Ramakrishna 'Observed' the 'act of Sex' By a Man and a Woman(What may be called 'vicarious')and Perceived in that only Divine Bliss-This is the Heart of Tantra-That all Pleasure/pain is only a distorted version of Supreme Bliss.

If you read the Gospel-you may be interested in other treasures that are there-not just with reference to this 'Context'-You will find Sri Ramakrishna Telling 'M'-I observed The Intercourse of a 'Dog' and a 'Bitch'(This is another incident!He is not referring to the previous incident that I have Quoted).I found that all this is 'Satchidananda' only-He adds-"This is a very Profound Truth".
There are certainly more references in The Gospel-Only that I am not motivated enough to get you the references!

Human beings are so engrossed and enamoured of the gross aspects of Life-that the subtlety and sublime Nature of Truth may get deformed into something totally misleading.

This is the Great Danger in this 'Left Handed ' vamachara path.
Sri Ramakrishna advised all sincere aspirants to steer clear of this path.
Once Naren Took off on this "vamachara"and derided it for an hour or so.At the end of it Sri Ramakrishna cooly said-'Who Knows;May be there is a Back door Entry'to God.THERE IS A GREAT LESSON in this-That no approach can be written off!This is the Beauty of Sri Ramakrishna's Life and message.
----------------------------------
I understand your Earnestness in exploring the way of the Tantra-I will only mention that all the Shaktipad 'initiation' and the 'enlargement of any Physical Organ',etc are only infant beginnings-Most people are caught up in this-Practising Vajroli,etc -all these are for the 'Novices' only-May be okay for Householders.I do not want to go any further into this,not only that other posters here may consider this as a distraction on this Blog,and rightfully so;also my interest in this is only academic.
-----------------------------------
Here,I appreciate Bookworm's Statement-Stick to the Broadroad of Ramana-Just to add that this Broad road-is the Road of Vedanta-All the Great Masters advocated this path.

Best Regards.

baskar said...

Travel Between Planes:

It was a joke. Sorry. It did not address anyone in particular.

Regards,

Mohini said...

dear baskar,

reading lines like these in yr 2 recent posts:

“As for me, I am really an idiot in the conventional, dictionary sense, and I know it.”
“So, in view of the fact that many of us (this includes me) descend from the higher planes [....], may I suggest that the use of Avatars is valid,”

kindly tell us, whose avatar u r

Lalita said...

Subramanian/David,

the very idea of being imprisoned by a single name for life-time is a typically western (abominable) idea, devised by people unable to see and experience life as a divine play (lila), lila being one of the Hindu conceptions of creation. The most noble beings, according to the Hindu mode of understanding, have at least 1000 names (sahasranama) to designate all the different aspects of how they may manifest on different occasions. Engaging on various world-stages in the theatre of life, the bhavas enacted very much influence my choice of dress-code, name, communicative partners, kind of language spoken and the like. This simply feels most natural.

Unknownidiot said...

Baskar,

the notion of “Avatara” seems to be less related to single ideas, rather than to at least temporarily enacted embodiments of, more or less integral, archetypal patterns or iconographical representations. Thus contemporary forms of a corresponding display of avataric features include, perhaps most prominently, those of Amma Mata Amritananda, when she assumes Devi Bhava.
The most distinctly iconographic display of avataric features by Shri Ramana Maharshi are probably those, where he assumed the posture of Dakshinamurti.

Satyameva said...

Ravi/Ramos,

to me both UG and Osho cannot be easily categorised -- this is the beauty of a long Indian tradition of “producing” extraordinary beings: quite of few of them defy being placed into any of the highly dualistic “black-white” moral (and other) categories. Some arise in support of reviving the one or other tradition, others, emphasising the need of going beyond (or breaking loose from) traditions as conservators of too much crap, arise in conflicting opposition to them. UG and Osho quite much did the latter, while it cannot be denied that, to make things particularly clear, they sometimes exaggerated certain points -- a phenomenon also known from artists.

While there were many others (almost at every stage of the Indian cultural history) with similar agendas, both can be said to have stressed tiredlessly exposing the fact that, to an enormous degree, society and its traditions, values, “saints”, and so on, are manifested in terms of institutionally and collectively manipulated forms of hypocrisy.
And who can deny the truth of their insights and the absolutely important validity of realising them for oneself.

This does certainly not mean that, in venerable respect of their profound wisdom, one has to identify with all of their expressed views, especially when assuming the more exaggerated shapes. But at least, if at all one dared to allow one’s inner pettiness to get touched, one may then appreciate having been shaken out of the slumber of naively identifying with dogmatic forms of understanding previously not realised as such, because few alternative views existed in one’s mind perhaps more generally apt in its mediocrity to conform to conventional views in one’s surroundings.

Ravi said...

Yonisthita,
You may visit this site in case you are interested in Tantra Practice-Also on Yoga.
http://www.aypsite.org/67.html
I find the description of 'Bhakti'in this site, close to what I have posted earlier.Interestingly,I find a reference to Sri Ramakrishna as an Exemplar of this.
I find that the articles have a very Practical emphasis and seem to have been presented by someone with First hand Experience in these matters.
You may be interested in the Tantra lessons.
Wishing you The Very Best.

Bookworm said...

Scott
You say:
'Ramana's Truth wasn't words, it was silence in which no "I" arises, which anyone can discover by dissolving the I, and I believe'

........

Who is it who sees/knows that no 'i' arises?

Surely the answer must be 'I' do

Ramana taught that the 'i' of the head or ego surrenders into ones True 'I' or Beingness as the
Heart..I Am that I Am.. or Self.

Ravi said...

Satyameva,
Thanks very much.I understand what you have expressed.
Wish you the Very Best.

Anonymous said...

SCott Fraundorf:

"Who is it who sees/knows that no 'i' arises?

Surely the answer must be 'I' do

Ramana taught that the 'i' of the head or ego surrenders into ones True 'I' or Beingness as the
Heart..I Am that I Am.. or Self."

Sounds good, still working on it. There have been states of relative quiescence, where there isn't an obvious I, and then who knows that? Go deeper, subtler. That is the method as far as I can tell

Anonymous said...

Scott Fraundorf:

"Whatever seeming difference there is ,is on account of 'Expression'-For instance the word 'Active' mind-I have used it in the sense of an Externalised mind -You are using 'Active' for a mind centred,which is more valid,and more accurate."

Cool, we agree. I was saying I think that it seems to me that an externalized mind requires what you call an 'active mind' to transcend it. My original practice, the problem wasn't that it was too effortful, too active, but that it wasn't direct. Nome advised me to hunt out vasanas and destroy them by the light of Inquiry, what he meant was, how I took it, was that instead of waiting for the ego to sprout a billion branches and then Inquire, dive into consciousness, and hunt out manifestations of the I-thought, the individual, and destroy them, by seeing them as illusions. So even now, writing this, I make a point to do that everytime it dawns on me to do it. As I've said earlier, I've learned that it helps to establish happiness within, see that the source of happiness is within, because otherwise I'm wanting Self-Realization and something else. So I've been saying to myself, gee, the object of my desires, what is the source of happiness within me that is so much more fulfilling then all of my desires, until that utterly eradicates the desire to go outward, then, in that state of bliss where I'm contentedly myself, I dive in, and dissolve any subject i notice, including me looking for subjects, any subjects. This seems much closer, and more effective as to what ramana meant by Who am I? Because when I stick with it, it seem to work, like Realization is possible. Occassionally overwhelming bliss, and relatively silent I-less states, when I rest in that state, that will be Realization which is according to Ramana the substratum, so it's there, but I'm letting I's go un-inquired into, and that's the only reason that this pure silence is obscured. I do notice that events in the world sometimes happen so magically the closer I am to that silence, because it is Absolute One-ness with God. I'm not a Jnani, I'm just being honest about my understanding and experience so far, and my earnest attempt to be earnest.

"When I mean 'spontaneous',it is when the 'Externalised mind' is turned back and stays as just awareness.This remains as an undercurrent whenever one is engaged in any 'activity'.This is still 'Duality' and one is a Sadhaka only.Sadhana has to continue-Self Enquiry or Self Surrender to reach the 'core' of the Being -or in other words to dissolve the 'core' of Being."

Of course, I imagine there will no longer be the sense that these activities are mine, the silent, I-less, blissful Reality will be the only real thing.

baskar said...

Dear sri Ui, i feel sri ramana maharshi could well be represented by the icon of Arunachala, and hope this opens up a line of discussion about whether our idea of Bhagavan is closer to Dakshinamurti or Arunachala. I vote for Arunachala.

As for the query of Sri Mohini (what a name!), in Tamil, mothers of an earlier generation used to refer to the multitude of their children with these words, "Each one is an Avatar!". I feel I am one such, for, though past forty, I am a retard in many ways.

Regards,

Ravi said...

Yonisthita,
I wish to share some information on "Bhairavi Brahmani'-the Tantra guru of Sri Ramakrishna:(From Sri Ramakrishna and His Divine Play-Translated from 'Sri Sri Ramakrishna Lilaprasanga by Swami Saradananda,a direct Disciple of the Master)
1."We(Saradananda)Heard that after helping the master during the period of his sadhana,she remained in Dakshineswar for almost six years and was respected by all...The Holy Mother(Sri Sarada Ma)respected the Brahmanai as her mother-in-law and addressed her as "Mother".

2."The Brahmani possessed extraordinary beauty along with her noble qualities.The Master told us that Mathur(son-in- law of the person who built the temple of Dakshineswar)at first doubted her character upon seeing her grace and beauty and hearing that she travelled freely without companions.One day Mathur sarcastically remarked,"O Bhairavi,where is your Bhairava?".The Brahmani was then leaving the Kali temple after saluting the Deity.She was neither embarrassed nor angered by this rude question.She calmly looked at Mathur and pointed to the image of shiva in the shrine,lying prostrate beneath the feet of Kali.The worldly,suspicious Mathur would not let this go easily.He said,"But that Bhairava is motionless". The Bhairavi then gravely replied,"Why should I have become a Bhairavi if I could not move the immovable?". Hearing this answer and noting the calm and majestic demeanour ,Mathur remained speechless,ashamed and embarrassed."
----------------------------------
I have quoted from page 523,of the above referred book,which is the latest translation directly from the Original Bengali-by Swami Chetanananda and published by Vedanta society of Saint Lois,USA.

Best Regards.

Ravi said...

Friends,
"i feel sri ramana maharshi could well be represented by the icon of Arunachala, and hope this opens up a line of discussion about whether our idea of Bhagavan is closer to Dakshinamurti or Arunachala"
The scales are evenly poised.I recall how once Sri Bhagavan once came across a Giant Banyan Leaf-How he was stung by the Hornets when he tried to proceed in the direction of the Legendary Banyan Tree under which Arunagiri Yogi(Dakshinamoorthy)is believed to be seated under the Huge Banyan tree.
we also recall that wonderful incident narrated by sri T K Sundaresa Iyer -How Sri Bhagavan expounded the meaning of Dakshinamoorthy Stotra on a Sivaratri day.
I will share one incident-do not know whether this is mentioned in 'Living by the words of Bhagavan'!-Sri Annamalai Swami saw a photograph of sri Bhagavan with Arunachala in the Background-Sri Bhagavan was seated on a Rock.This brought to the Swami's Mind the Tirukkural couplet-'Nilayir Tiriyadhu Adangiyan thoRRam malaiyinum maaNapperidhu'-Meaning 'One whose mind abides in Self without roaming,His appearance is more majestic than the Mountain'.Sri Annamalai swami obtained a copy of that photograph and approached Sri Bhagavan and requested him to write that Tirukkural couplet on that photograph.Sri Bhagavan complied and this photograph was with Sri Annamalai swami.
A person known to me chanced to see this photograph with the swami-He requested the Swami for this photograph and the Swami gave it to him!He made some copies and distributed it.I happen to see this.The Photograph received from the Swami was handed over to my maternal cousin(a Photographer)for more copies-It is safely in his custody!Too safe that he is unable to locate it in his house.I keep needling him and he will come up with his assurance-"It is very safe.Do Not worry.It will surface at the right time"!
Readers will remember the fate of my copy of 'Living by the words of Bhagvan'!I still have not lost hopes in getting it back.It is also safe somewhere in an accessible loft in that friend's house.
We do not know for sure whether the copy handed over by Sri Annamalai Swami was the original and only copy or a copy of the original.(This happened a little before the Swami's passing away.So I did not have a chance to ask the swami about it)
-----------------------------------
Salutations.

Unknownidiot said...

Baskar (and now also Ravi),

there is a complete misunderstanding here: there was no talk of any iconic representation at all, but, on my part, only an attempt to clarify the notion of “avatara”, which you, already beset with confusion, have brought in. In the meantime, it became clear, in your response to Mohini’s funny way of putting a question (to which you didn’t really answer), how your understanding of that concept has been influenced by your mother’s concealed hyperbolic self-praise (“geneatrix of avatars”).

To my knowledge, there is no need for for another descent (avatara) of Mount Arunachala, since it has already taken very well taken care of its manifestation quite some time ago. On the other hand, it feels altogether awkward when you say:

“i feel sri ramana maharshi could well be represented by the icon of Arunachala”

-- sorry, but how could you ever wish to replace Bhagavan’s serenely beautiful facial expression, the very icon of the possibility of the ultimately divine to appear in a human expression? How can you wish to replace it with an insentient (jada) mountain view?
If on my part there was a reference to Dakshinamurti, whose iconographical posture Ramana Maharshi demonstrably assumed (there being also other instances, apart from his daily conduct of hardly speaking, where Shri Ramana explicitly demonstrated the power of Dakshinamurti’s technique of teaching in silence), thereby, naturally, not the slightest dogmatic attitude with regard to interpreting these instances as proving “avataraship” was involved.
Merely an appreciative recognition of what Ramana Maharshi suggestively tried to communicate.

Ravi said...

Unknownidiot,
" How can you wish to replace it with an insentient (jada) mountain view?"
I have simply brought out some incidents that link Sri Bhagavan with Dakshinamoorthy as well as Arunachala.

How do you know that Arunachala is insentient(Jada)?That is what your senses tell you.Do you think that testimony is final?

Here is what Sri Bhagavan says in the conversation(I have posted it earlier):
Devotee: I have been reading the Five Hymns. I find that the hymns are addressed to Arunachala by you. You are an advaitin. How do you then address God as a separate Being?


Maharshi: The devotee, God and the Hymns are all the Self.


Devotee: But you are addressing God. You are specifying this Arunachala Hill as God.


Maharshi: You can identify the Self with the body. Should not the devotee identify the Self with Arunachala?


Devotee: If Arunachala be the Self why should it be specially picked out among so many other hills? God is everywhere. Why do you specify Him as Arunachala?



Maharshi: What has attracted you here to this place? What has attracted all these people around?

Devotee: Sri Bhagavan.

Maharshi: How was I attracted here? By Arunachala. The Power cannot be denied. Again Arunachala is within and not without. The Self is Arunachala.
-----------------------------------

In ten verses on Arunachala,Sri Bhagavan says:
"I have discovered a new Thing! This Hill, the lodestone of lives, arrests the movements of any one who so much as thinks of it, draws him face to face with it, and fixes him motionless like Itself, to feed upon his soul thus ripened. What (a wonder) is this? O souls beware of It and live![4] Such a destroyer of lives is this Arunachala, which shines within the Heart!"
-----------------------------------
Salutations.

ArunachalaHeart said...

Yonisthita,

I quote from Sri Ramakrishna- The Great Master by Saradananda

Please do go though and eschew any wrong impression created by people about Sri Ramakrishna

Chapter IX

"Why did the Brahamani, it may be asked, engage herself in making Sri Ramakrishan practise these disciplines though she knew he was an Avatar of God?...the answer is that it would be true if the Brahmani was concious of the Master's transcendental nature at all times...but that was not the case. The Brahmani felt from the very first meeting a strong maternal relationship with the Master...

Similarly, the Brahmani amazed though she was at the frequent manifestations of power in the Master forgot their import immediately being blinded by maternal love.

(I think the best example one can give to expalin the statement is that of Yashoda who too saw many miracles of Sri Krishna but was not affected by them due to a strong maternal affection for Him, also we read in the Bhagavatham that gopis used to surround Sri Krishna and tried to protect Him from Wild animals)

Here I come to a paragraph which may have been distorted in the internet and made you post your views of Sri Ramakrishna.

" On one occasion I saw that the Brahmani had brought at night from somwhere a beautiful woman in the prime of her youth and said to me ' My child worship her as the Devi." When the worship was finished, she said " Sit on her lap my child and perform Japa."

( At this instant the Master was seized with fear and wept piteously

The mind of the Master did hesitate but...)

He prayed to the Divine Mother

"Oh Mother of the universe! What is this command thou givest to someone who has taken refuge in Thee? Has thy weak child the impudence to be so daring!"

( We understand from this hesitation that it was fear of losing the ideal...of seeing the Mother in all...that worried him...We find from his life a similar story later when in a vision the Divine Mother places a child in his lap and says that He is your son. The Master gets perturbed at this when the Mother smiles and assues him that he would be his spiritaul child)

But no sooner did he say this than he felt possesed by an unknown power and merged into samadhi sitting on the woman's lap.

When he regained conciousness the Brahmani said " The rite is finished my child. Others restrain themselves with great difficulty and do some nominal japa, whereas you were merged into deep samadhi"

The Master on hearing this felt elated and thanked the Divine Mother for making him finish a difficult ordeal unscathed.

...

The Master Himself says

"My mental attitude towards all woman namely, that of a child towards its mother, remained intact during the long period of the Tantra Sadhana."

To illustrate this mood, the Master gave the example of Ganesha, the son of Parvathi.

One day Lord Ganesha in a playful mood scratched the eye of a cat. On returning to Kailasa he saw that His Mother had a wound on her eye which was bleeding. He was perturbed at this and asked His mother who had hurt Her.

She replied that it was he for when he injured the cat he had injured her...for all forms in the world were Shiva and Shakthi alone.

This was so firmly engrained in Ganesha's mind that he never married for he felt everyone to be his mother and did not want to marry his mother.

Yonisthita,

there is a thin line between what we take as 'fear' and what we take as 'swerving from concentration on the ideal'

Sri Ramakrishna showed it...even Ganesha did.

I hope you understand

Anonymous said...

Scott Fraundorf:

My best guess on this would be that no icon could represent Bhagavan, being the Self, "where words and thoughts turn back unable to grasp". I would assume that perhaps, that also includes iconocgraphy. I just can't imagine Bhagavan being represented by anything that could be possibly conceived by a mind, or perceived by the senses. Bhagavan is Bhagavan, the Self.

David Godman said...

Bhagavan began Arunachala Ashtakam with the words, 'Look, there it [Arunachala] stands, as if insentient.' Meaning, of course, that it was not insentient.

From Bhagavan's perspective Arunachala was not a symbol or a representation or an icon of anything; it was his own Self, a point brought out in his famous 'Arunachala Ramana' verse (Collected Works, current edition p. 142).

Though he did not identify himself with Dakshinamurti, despite the obvious similarities of teaching style, he did say once that he had had a dream or vision in which he had gone inside Arunachala and witnessed a world that was full of saints, yogis, gods, and so on. He said that he felt drawn to an empty plinth. In this dream-vision he sat on the plinth and spontaneously assumed the Dakshinamurti position. I forget the exact wording he used, but I recollect that he said that it felt natural and normal to be in this place in this position.

Ravi said...

ArunachalaHeart,
Wonderful post by you!Human mind is so fragile that it cannot even distinguish Strength from Weakness!What it thinks as weakness is Strength and what it thinks as Strength is weakness;ofcourse there is nothing absolute in all this.
Sri Bhagavan has exactly said this-I hope to dig it out and post it-I think it is in connection with that wonderful devotee,Eleanor Pauline Noye that he said this and somewhere else also when Devaraja Mudaliar brought out the topic on Sri Ramakrishna.
-----------------------------------

Best Regards.

Nandu Narasimhan said...

Dear All,

On the question of whether Bhagavan was a manifestation of Arunachala or Dakshinamurti.

I remember listening to Nochur Sri Venkataraman recounting an episode.

It went like this - one day, Bhagavan was looking at Arunachala when a devotee asked him what He was looking at.

Bhagavan's reply was that he was looking at Himself (Ennaiye paarthindirukken oi.) This seems to suggest that Bhagavan and Arunachala are indeed one.

And there is that other instance of a group of sadhus asking for a discourse of sorts from Bhagavan, on the occasion of Sivarathri. Bhagavan apparently went into samadhi and the entire group sat in silence till the morning. This seems to coincide with the Dakshinamurti story.

David might be able to verify these instances.

As a cheap aside, in the last three months, whenever I think of Bhagavan, I can no longer see His face. All that comes to mind is a clear image of the Hill. Of course, this is nothing to do with the discussion. Just felt like mentioning it.

Nandu

Ravi said...

ArunachalaHeart/Friends,
I wish to share this excerpt from 'Letters from Sri Ramanasramam'-Interesting to see what Sri Bhagavan tells that Youth towards the end!
This is a longish post!
"4th April, 1948
(171) KAILASA
This morning a devotee brought an old copy of the Peria
Puranam and gave it to Bhagavan. Reading the story about
Sundaramurti going to Kailasa, Bhagavan said, “It seems that
Sundaramurti found that after his own arrival, the Chera Raja
had arrived on horseback almost immediately. The Raja asked
him, ‘How did you come here without my calling’?” So saying
Bhagavan read a verse from it. A Tamil youth, who was
present, said, “Where is that Kailasa, Swami?” “Kailasa! It is
at the very place where we are. First of all, tell me where we
are?” said Bhagavan.
“That’s not it, Swami. The Kailasa of which you have
just read, that Sundaramurti had gone to; does it really exist?
If so, where is it? Please favour me with a proper reply,” said
the young man.
“I have told you already,” said Bhagavan. “We have come
here now. From here we will go to some other place. If all
this is true, then that also is true. There, also, a Swami will
be found seated on a raised pedestal. Just like this there will
be devotees around. They ask something; he replies
something. That will also be like this. If you look at the thing
from the point of view of the body, that is how it is. If, however,
you look at it from the point of view of truth, wherever we
are, it is Kailasa. There is no question of its being born or
growing or dying. When we realize that there is nothing
real in this world, Kailasa is everywhere.”
“How will that be known?” the young man asked.
“Everyone knows that he is in existence. You were in
existence when you were born, when you were a year old,
when you were in middle age and when you were old. YOU
have not changed; it is only the body that has changed. To
know that your SELF has not changed, this illustration itself
is enough,” said Bhagavan.
Giving up that line of questioning, the youth again
asked, “It is said that a Jnani does not have happiness or
sorrows, bodily ailments, or the like. Sundarar and Appar
are reported to have jumped with joy when they had a vision
of God. Even Ramakrishna Paramahamsa is reported to have
grieved terribly when he did not get a vision of the Holy
Mother and to have gone into ecstasies when he did get a
vision. Not only that, when Ramakrishna Paramahamsa had
some bodily ailment, he used to cry out for Mother. What
does it mean? Do Jnanis have happiness and sorrow?”
Bhagavan answered him, “You say all that in relation
to the body, don’t you? It is not possible to judge a Jnani by
his bodily ailments. Manikkavachakar sang a hymn the
purport of which is, ‘O Ishwara you have showered on me
your blessings even before I asked for them. How kind of
you! Even so, why is it I do not feel grieved? Is my heart
made of stone? My eyes do not get wet. Are they made of
wood? Not only with these two eyes, but I wish that my
whole body were full of eyes so that I could weep with them.
I would then be very happy. I wish my heart would melt
and become watery so that it could be integrated with you.’
That is the purport. But then is that grief real grief? Some
people give vent to their happiness by loudly expressing it
when they get a vision of God, and some shed tears of joy.
It was the same with Ramakrishna Paramahamsa. ‘Mother,
how kind of you; how merciful!’ he used to say and weep,
and sometimes he used to laugh. Anyway, if we want to
know about his real state, we should first know about our
own state,” said Bhagavan.
Instead of stopping at that, the young man again asked,
“Swami, when he was in an ecstasy of happiness, he did not
know the pain of the disease he was suffering from, but when
that ecstasy was over he used to realise the pain and groan
under it. Does a Realized Soul really know what pain or
pleasure is?”
“I see, that is your doubt. First find out about your own
affairs. What does it concern you how a Paramahamsa was?
He need not become a Jnani only after obtaining your
certificate. He has become something. Boyhood has passed
with boyhood; sleeping has gone with sleep. In this wakeful
state at least find out what you are, where you are. Is it
Kailasa* or Bhooloka or, Vaikunta? Why not find out all that
for yourself and become a Jnani?” said Bhagavan. The
questioning then stopped.
-----------------------------------
Salutations.

Yonisthita said...

ArunachalaHeart,

there can hardly be any doubt that, in complete contrast to Shri Ramana Maharshi, the Bengali ecstatic Ramakrishna was emotionally rather inconstant And certainly he had this capacity of attaching his emotional energy to various sorts of religious symbols from different traditions, thus turning himself into a kind of specialist employing a given imaginary symbol as a channel to subsequently energize it by pumping an enormous amount of psychic energy into it, until the whole burst and he himself into ecstasy. Rather than being all too fixated, as is much more ordinarily the case, his psychological libido and kundalini were so flexible that he couldn’t avoid being aware of that fact and enjoyed experimenting with it.

Naturally, somebody may be regarded as a master of something only if he has accomplished that discipline within the framework of its own parameters.
If somebody is very good at moving very fast on his bicycle, he may be called a “master biker”. But if he never participates in an automobile racing of the Formula One (F1) class, it would be a bit absurd if his admirers claimed him as a champion also in that discipline on the basis of an overheard assertion that, especially when he bikes down a hill at high speed, he can imagine how fast F1 cars are racing.

In the same way, Ramakrishna may have been an excellent practitioner within the framework of the Gaudiya Vaishnava Bhakti tradition, one who even dabbled a bit into vamacara, but he never perfected the practices according to vamacara parameters, hence cannot be called a Master of Tantra.
If you now say:
“there is a thin line between what we take as 'fear' and what we take as 'swerving from concentration on the ideal' “
then this consideration might be generally correct in many cases, but it is not valid in the case of somebody who accepted the parameters of a certain tradition and then refuses to fulfil them when their purpose most crucially demands it (vamacara, after all, is an antinomian tradition).
Of course, retrospectively one may always adduce some reason for rationalising Ramakrishna’s conduct; but to deny the failure of one’s practice within a tradition (& according to its parameters) by way of excusing one’s conduct with the parameters of belief stemming from another tradition is unacceptable.

Also your other illustration displays the same logical mistake. When speaking about Tantric paradigms, it is utterly invalid to adduce support from the mythological world of the Puranas in order to refute the valid existence of Tantric images for certain groups of practioners. In the Puranas the image of Ganesha is quite different from the Tantric Ganesha, indeed.
The Tantric Ganapati performed exactly that what you wish to deny with your reference to puranic mythology --: he had sex:

http://www.aztecartandmore.com/product/B-147

http://www.shivashakti.com/ganesh.htm

I leave it to yourself, whether you consider this category mistake your own fault, or feel yourself to have been misled by Ramakrishna.

Also the resolve of another contradiction I leave to yourself (and for yourself): on the one hand it is repeated that Ramakrishna always preserved his Vatsalya attitude, on the other hand, he is (probably rightfully) supposed to have absolved the whole of the Gaudiya Bhakta programme, which includes MadhuraBhava practices. Even the MadhuraBhava practices, despite of their differences to Tantric practices, entail strongly erotic imaginations -- hardly suitable for one, whose Vatsalya attitude binds him to imagining himself as a little boy and all the woman around him as his mothers.

Yonisthita said...

Ravi,

responding, in addition to what has just been explained to ArunachalaHeart, to some of what you said above:
naturally, Bhairavi is the divine female/mother when it comes to Hindu Tantra, while the fact that Ramakrishna was unable to ritually conceive himself as Bhairava, and to perform the necessary, simply proves his incompetence, not that he was a “Master of Tantra”, as you proposed.
(-- your point 1 is pointless; in fact, I expected you to know the sources a little bit better).
As to your point 2, claiming to have an academic interest in the subject discussed (“also my interest in this is only academic.”), you should indeed be able to keep mythology and history apart, to say the least, and especially if you deem yourself so knowledgeable about strength and weakness of mind as you do (“Human mind is so fragile that it cannot even distinguish Strength from Weakness! What it thinks as weakness is Strength and what it thinks as Strength is weakness;”). Whatever you said in connection with Shankara’s sexual encounter and authorship of the Saundaryalahari is altogether unfounded from the point of international research -- traditional popularity does not make those legendary stories more true. They were invented many centuries later; the Mandana Mishra fable concocting his wife’s losing a contest against Shankara, clearly by certain apologists, who couldn’t stomach that Mandana’s Brahmasiddhi was a great success and a much more consistent form of Advaita Vedanta than Shankara can be said to have accomplished.

As to the nature of Ramakrishna’s KrishnaBhakti involvement, it was no doubt heavily conditioned by Gaudiya Vaishnava conceptions. Still the best source on their literature, by the way, is Sushil Kumar De’s excellent “Early History of the Vaishnava Faith and Movement in Bengal”, Calcutta 1942 -- living in Chennai, you might try to get it at the Adyar Library & Research Centre.

Ravi said...

Yonisthita,
I respect your views.International Research may not reflect these things.I will only add this small tale of Sri Ramakrishna:
A man was walking down a street and heard a thundering noise.Looking behind he found that a Building had come down crashing.
The next day he happened to narrate this to a visitor.That man said-"Wait a second.Let me look up the newspaper".He scanned the pages and not finding any reference to that incident ,smiled and said:"I think you were just imagining these things;It has not happened".
-----------------------------------
In all these matters,there are different views.You are certainly entitled to your views.I have expressed mine.As for your suggestion to go to Adyar Library,Thanks very much.

In discussing these matters,one only understands oneself,whether one has any doubts,whether there is any lack of understanding,any deficiency of Faith,etc.That is all there to it.
----------------------------------
Salutations.

Ravi said...

Friends,
Here is the excerpt from 'Surpassing Love and Grace',page 38-a conversation between Sri Bhagavan and Sri Sundararama Reddi dated 23/02/30.

"B: Chaitanya and Ramakrishna wept before God and
achieved success.
M: Yes. They had a powerful shakti drawing them through
those experiences. Entrust yourself to that power to take you
on to your goal. Tears are often referred to as a sign of weakness.
We cannot attribute weakness to these great ones.
These
symptoms are passing manifestations while the great current is
carrying them on. Let us look to the end achieved.

Unknownidiot said...

David,

Thanks both for correcting me, regarding the evidence that Arunachala was not insentient in the eyes of Bhagavan, and for supporting the close affinity between Dakshinamurti (as an iconographical representation of the southern face of the supreme) and Shri Ramana Maharshi as a manifestation of that ultimate reality in a human body.
However, it seems that with regard to Arunachala various layers of perception are possible. There is, of course, this metaphysical conception of Arunachala as the “Self”; then there is the mythological conception of Arunachala as a Lingam of fire; and there are other notions such as that the mountain, perhaps on a subtle level, is actually the abode of many Rishis abiding within it (thus providing, if only supplementarily, another reason for doing pradakshina around it).
Yet, and happily so, there are also more naturalistic versions of envisioning Arunachala.
Thus, while thanksworthily advertising the “reforestation project” on your website (http://davidgodman.org/Arunachala_reforest.shtml), you hardly mean the self of Ramana when starting with the following words:
“The mountain of Arunachala has been mostly bare for the last few decades. The forests that once clung to its slopes were felled and sold during Ramana Maharshi’s lifetime, and only small pockets of newly planted trees have replaced them. Attempts to reforest the mountain in the last few years have been sporadic, limited, and in many places unsuccessful.”

Likewise, when people walk around on the mountain itself, nobody ever has the imagination of trampling on the self of Ramana; in fact, Bhagavan himself is known to have extensively explored the mountain on foot.
Again, the very fact that Arunachala has so many faces has always invited, and ever again invites, a great diversity of aesthetic appreciation. Admittedly, one of the most beautiful face (at least for me, and even more impressive with the rare rainwater-filled lake in the foreground) is the one perceived each time on opening this blog. Perceiving Arunachala from this side, some, supposedly artists familiar with aesthetic conventions (dhvani, rasa, etc.), have given to this aspect the poetic description: “Reclining Shiva dreaming of Parvati”.

Anonymous said...

.

... Let us look to the end achieved ...

That is really true. Having the vision of the end to be to achieve we cannot go wrong.

.

Unknownidiot said...

Yonisthita,

Let it rest now – we all have understood what you meant and agree with your reasoning.
When Ravi spoke of his “academic” interest, he merely wanted to express that his knowledge of Tantra is only from books, armchair knowledge not based on practical first hand knowledge; and this did also not mean that he is actually acquainted with academic standards.
Despite of certain similarities in attitude, probably his views do ideologically neither represent Hindutva positions, but are merely those of an old pious man living in a universe of euphemistic metaphors – and, considering his advanced age with so little time left for any essential changes, that is altogether fair enough!
We can simply accept Ravi’s views in this sense, we do not need to share them, and we do not need to challenge them according to sober standards of academic and logical accuracy.

ArunachalaHeart said...

Yonisthita,

"Naturally, somebody may be regarded as a master of something only if he has accomplished that discipline within the framework of its own parameters"

I deduce you feel it necessary for everyone to follow tradition to achieve the desired result.

It is not so.

A master is one who can transcend tradition and still achieve the desired result.

Buddha is an example

In my response I highlighted how Ramakrishna achieved the desired goal of all tantric practises without swerving from the ideal he held.

Hence he is the 'Master' for he could achieve the goal WITHOUT going through the regular tradition.

I am a doctor. If there is a 'Master' doctor who is required to save a patient or achieve a medical result it need not necesarily mean that he follows tradition.

Tradition and Knowledge change.

A junior doctor may feel that following such and such remedy would be beneficial to the patient as given in the book. But a senior doctor may dispense with that and enlighten the junior about other better ways of achieving the goal.

The best example is Sri Ramakrishna's visit to Varanasi.

On it he saw Shiva walking on the funeral ground, rousing up the souls of the dead and whispering the mantra of Liberation in their ears.

He saw Maha Kali unwrapping the bonds of karma of that soul.

When he narrated the same, the people were surprised and exclaimed that they knew that a person who dies in Kashi achieves liberation but they did not know how. The vision of Sri Ramakrishna they maintained transcended known knowledge.

About Ganesha's celibacy, I feel it all depends upon what ideal one chooses and looks at Him. And so it is with all mythological, puranic or tantric gods and deities.

baskar said...

Sir, this is about Bhagavan, Arunachalam and Dakshinamurthi:

The third verse of Arunachala Ashtakam is worthy of notice:

"When I approach regarding Thee as having form, Thou standest as a Hill on earth. If (with the mind the seeker) looks for Thy (essential) form as formless, he is like one who travels the earth to see the (ever-present) ether. To dwell without thought upon Thy (boundless) nature is to lose one's (separate) identity like a doll of sugar when it comes in contact with the ocean (of nectar; and) when I come to realize who I am, what else is this identity of mine (but Thee), Oh Thou who standest as the towering Aruna Hill?"

I understand this to mean that people who are looking for a mountain will find a mountain; people who look for a face will find a face; and people who try to find formlessness in the Hill, need not bother (because the mind has a form, and it cannot find formlessness, which is everywhere present, but never in the wandering mind). What matters is that thought should come to rest, and when that happens there is no real distinction as this and that.

So people are welcome to see Bhagavan's body (face, eyes, smile etc) as representative of him; and when you consider the life-story, the Hill has a special place, and I don't see anything wrong in identifying Bhagavan with the Hill- especially when it is the case that there can be no real representation of Bhagavan as such. The real representation, if there is any, will happen only when thought comes to end.

Considering the fact that the mere mention of the word, Thiruvannamalai, was a turning point in Bhagavan's life, and that he ended up there, the Hill is iconic of Bhagavan in my mind.

Of course, if his physical frame is more resonant with you, there is nothing to argue about that.

I think somewhere Bhagavan states that Sri Dakshinamurthi assumed silence only after the Rishis failed to understand the import of the verbal teaching. Bhagavan is questioned as to where this is mentioned, but Bhagavan fimly answers, "It is so," without troubling to cite any authority. From this, the narrator of that particular incident finds evidence that Bhagavan is Sri Dakshinamurthi Himself, or otherwise he could not have been so sure about it.

This is not about who Bhagavan is, it is what he is to us- there is nothing to get worked up about in this.

Regards,

Ravi said...

Friends,
"but are merely those of an old pious man living in a universe of euphemistic metaphors – and, considering his advanced age with so little time left for any essential changes, that is altogether fair enough!"
Thanks very much unknownidiot-You have meant it in the best sense;this is also the guru's message that whatever time is left needs to be utilised in the best possible way.
Yesterday,I had a pleasant surprise waiting for me;I had to attend my Maternal cousin's(Photographer!)Daughter's wedding;and who did i find?Vayalamur Ramanan,the person who got that photograph of Sri Bhagavnan from Sri Annamalai Swami!
This is how it happened-Ramanan found the photograph with Sri Annamalai Swami and asked if swami could give it to him.Swami said-"If it is in your home ,you alone will be able to see it;If it is here,more people will get to see it".So it stayed with Swami.During his next visit,Sundaram handed over a copy of the same to him!So it means that the Original must be out there somewhere after Swami's Mahasamadhi.
Ramanan is now 70+ and is blessed in being petted by Sri Bhagavan;He also had the ood fortune of having moved closely with Sri Muruganar,Sri Viswanatha Swami,Sri Kunju Swami,Sri Ramasami Pillai,Sri Ganesan and many others.He and his mother now 95 years old are staying in Tiruvannamalai in a rented house.
I had the good fortune of bringing them home yesterday for the Night stay-Ramanan regaled me with his reminiscences of Sri Bhagavan and his devotees.
Quite Fascinating was how sri Ganesan narrated his visiting Mataji Krishnabai of Anandashram ,and how she guided him at a cruicial moment -How he brought back all the Old Devotees of Sri Bhagavan(After Sri Bhagavan's Mahasamadhi,they were asked to leave the asramam by the Sarvadhikari;only Chadwick was allowed to continue in Asramam)-How Sri Ganesan brought back Sri Muruganar,Viswanatha Swami,Ramasami Pillai,Sri Kunju Swami and others back to the Asramam and took care of them is a interesting narration.
Sri Ramanan had a copy of the DVD that Sri Chandramouli of Ramanasramam had taken interviewing him and his Mother,regarding their experiences with Sri Bhagavan.
David may be interested in this.The asramam may be contacted to get the contact details of these old devotees of Sri Bhagavan.
-----------------------------------
I will wind up narrating just this one unforgettable incident in Ramanan's life-When he was a child of 3+,his father had taken him for Sri Bhagavan's Darshan-When asked to prostrate before Sri Bhagavan-Ramanan refused saying-I am also Ramana!Sri Bhagavan was very pleased with the child's reply and hugged him with his left arm;with his right arm he reached out and picked up the cashew nut,Badam,pista,Kismis and gave it to the child-Ramanan recalls-"As a child,i can vividly remember the eatables which were an attraction".He wonders how deftly sri Bhagavan's fingers picked up one item after another without dropping any item that was picked up earlier.
-----------------------------------
Ramanan is quite fond of nayana,Kavyakanta Ganapathi muni-and sri viswantha swami.He was instrumental in getting renuka gitam of the muni inscribed on the walls of the Renuka temple at padai veedu,a place where Sri Nayana Stayed and composed this work.
-----------------------------------
Salutations.

Ravi said...

Baskar,
Wonderful post by you.Thanks very much.
Namaskar.

Ravi said...

Unknownidiot,
"Likewise, when people walk around on the mountain itself, nobody ever has the imagination of trampling on the self of Ramana; in fact, Bhagavan himself is known to have extensively explored the mountain on foot."
I will request you to read your post.You may like to explore:
1.what you mean by 'Self of Ramana'
2.what is 'Imagination of trampling on the Self'?
3.what is significance of Bhagavan extensively exploring the mountain on Foot?Does it mean 'trampling' in the way you perceive it?
-----------------------------------
What is the significance you are attaching to 'Feet'?Every devotee will deem it a privilege to take the dust of the feet of another devotee.Where is the problem in all this?
-----------------------------------
Please understand that you are only 'conditioned' in a different way;and this 'conditoning' is preventing you from perceiving other's point of view.
-----------------------------------
Namaskar.

baskar said...

"Likewise, when people walk around on the mountain itself, nobody ever has the imagination of trampling on the self of Ramana; in fact, Bhagavan himself is known to have extensively explored the mountain on foot."

A friend of mine would never walk on the Mountain, he thinks it is like walking on Lord Siva himself. I told him why don't you imagine you are playing on him like a small child on the lap of his father... He replied that he does not think himself that way, and it would be a deluding thought if he held it for the mere purpose of trampling on Arunachalam.

And when I told him some other time that I intended to bring a small stone from the Hill to keep upon my office desk to remind myself of Arunachalam (What is the difference? Small stone, big hill- same stuff. Having a stone from the hill is like having the hill itself on hand, I thought.), my friend was aghast. It would be a sacrilege, he insisted.

There are real people like that (people of simple faith, ha ha).

Regards,

Ravi said...

Unknownidiot,
Sorry for misunderstanding what you have expressed.Please ignore my earlier post concerning what you have said about Arunachala to David.I read and reread your mail.I understand that you are trying to bring out the various perspectives,how they can coexist-While venerating Arunachala as the Self,the devotee does not mind his feet touching it.
In this connection,I will just add that I have always felt it comfortable and beneficial to wear shoes during circumambulation;this way,there is less of a physical distraction.Some devotees feel that they should not be wearing shoes while going round the Hill.Ofcourse,they are equally comfortable after some initial period of discomfort.
-----------------------------------
Best Regards.

Unknownidiot said...

Ravi,

replying your question: “1.what you mean by 'Self of Ramana'?”
let me recall that the metaphor “Self of Ramana” was merely respecting David’s correction of a view previously asserted by me. David said:

“From Bhagavan's perspective Arunachala was not a symbol or a representation or an icon of anything; it was his own Self, a point brought out in his famous 'Arunachala Ramana' verse (Collected Works, current edition p. 142).”[April 6, 9:02]

As to your questions 2. and 3., you must have noticed that a positive instance of what you now request me to detail has been denied (“nobody ever has the imagination of trampling on the self”) -- so, myself pleading incompetence, in the case you find that image fascinating, you might explore it for yourself.

Further, Ravi, you must be somehow aware that you are living, as said, in a very special “universe of euphemistic metaphors” of your own. Hence when you suggest:
“Every devotee will deem it a privilege to take the dust of the feet of another devotee. Where is the problem in all this?”
it has to be pointed out that your attitude is not necessarily the one of everybody else -- and certainly not mine, being very much able to do without the dust of anybody’s feet (including that of mine, preferring to wash them), least of all that of someone claiming to be the devotee of somebody else.

There is no problem with understanding the general fact that structures of psyche and mind necessarily are conditioned (including mine), which often may lead to instances of misunderstanding; but often enough also experiences occur where another conditioned psychological system feels itself better understood in the light of elucidations received from mine than previously without them.

Unknownidiot said...

Ravi,

what you indicated here:

“Ramanan is quite fond of nayana,Kavyakanta Ganapathi muni-and sri viswantha swami.He was instrumental in getting renuka gitam of the muni inscribed on the walls of the Renuka temple at padai veedu,a place where Sri Nayana Stayed and composed this work.”

is very interesting, indeed! Where is this “Renuka temple at padai veedu”? How best to reach there, from Chennai or Tiru?

Unknownidiot said...

Baskar,

as to your remark:
“Considering the fact that the mere mention of the word, Thiruvannamalai, was a turning point in Bhagavan's life, and that he ended up there, the Hill is iconic of Bhagavan in my mind.”
-- saying so could be based on a confusion of “icon” with “vasana”; since hearing the mere mention of the word “Arunachala”, after his uncle’s return from Tiru, did not stir up a clear vision of that mountain in the boy Venkataraman’s mind; but perhaps some vasanas induced a vague sense akin to a “deja-vu” feeling, strong enough to lead to a resolution with the well-known consequences.

As to your:
“Of course, if his physical frame is more resonant with you, there is nothing to argue about that.”

As a marginal zone related to the windows through which communicating embodied consciousnesses provide important messages, and (as such one) where even abysmal absolute Being may intervene with ordinary temporality and its schemes, face and eyes are something quite different from a mere “physical frame” -- as you may perhaps discover for yourself when looking “Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: The Archival Films”, DVD, at around the 52nd minute (incl. a bit before and a bit afterwards).

Anyway, it is certainly not my interest to divide between Bhagavan and Arunachala at a level where they are indivisible, even less to place them in comparative contrast with an option of an “either/or” choice, or the like. For me, neither of them can represent the other. If that is different for somebody else, let it be so.

Ravi said...

ArunachalaHeart/Yonisthita/Friends,
We had a similiar discussion some time back on Sri Bhagavan-How Swami D. did not consider Sri Bhagavan a 'Master'!Why?Because Sri Bhagavan is not schooled in vedantic tradition!

I never attended class I,started my schooling joining class II and went on to do my graduation which was not invalidated by my not attending Class I.

Certainly Great Masters like Sri Ramakrishna and Sri Bhagavan do not require our acquiescence to be termed so;If we appreciate them and their wonderful teachngs,it is good for us.If not,it is all right.This is the reason that the guru,Satchidananda comes in the form of various Teachers appealing to persons with different mindset, with seemingly different paths.This is the very message of Sri Ramakrishna

-----------------------------------
Salutations.

Anonymous said...

scott fraundorf:

I would have assumed that walking around on arunachala was good. Either as a mountain, or as the Self, either way, Arunachala would be unaffected. Lots of devotees walked around with Ramana on the mountain, as seen in the archival footage. Speaking of which have you guys seen the hour long archival footage, it's enough to infect one with wondrous bliss. I like that there isn't any narration, or talking, and even the "damaged" nature of the film, I think gives it an extra flavor, kind of like listening to something on vinyl. I wouldn't want it to be repared too much. There is that one part with the british broadcaster, fast talking, thinking his ideas of Hindu holymen, Ramana is such a caricature, and the SILENCE! The mysterious silence of the Maharshi. There is that intriguing sense of staring into the void, or as N. Krishnamurti Ayer put it, being on the edge of 3000 foot precipice. It was really clear there, the contrast.

Ravi said...

unknownidiot,
I am given to understand by Sri Ramanan that this place is about 63 kms from Tiruvannamalai on the Vellore(Bangalore?)route.Looks like Sri Bhagavan warned Nayana that police will be after him for his 'nationalistic' activities.Nayana who was in vellore at that time retreated to Padaiveedu for sometime.
This is what I found on the net,may help you:
"Padavedu

Padavedu is a Pilgrimage centre with many ancient temples and will need at least 2 days to cover all of them. It is situated in the Vellore- Polur route, centrally among Vellore, Polur and Arani at 20-25 km from all these three places. All that is there in this village are beautiful ancient temples and lush green fields.

During 12-14th Centuries the Sambuvarayar chieftains ruled this area under the patronage of the Pandyas. For a short time they became independent of Pandyas and subsequently they came under the rule of Kempagowda. During their reign, Sambuvarayas rendered great service to art and religion. These temples were built at various points of time, but most of the improvements and decorations appear to have been done when the Sambuvarayar came under the sway of the Vijayanagar empire. Most of these temples excepting the hill temples were submerged in sand due to the sandstorm and they were discovered in 1993. The Renukambal trust (owned by TVS) maintains these temples in a clean and beautiful fashion.

Main Temple:

Sri Renuka Parameswari Temple

Sub Temples:

* Sri Yoga Ramachandrasamy temple

* Ammayappa Eswarar Temple

* Sri Subramanya swamy Temple

Other Important Temples:

* Sri Venugopala Swamy temple

* Sri Lakshmi Narasimhaswamy temple

* Sri Velmurugan Temple

* Sri Uma maheswarar Temple

* Sri Kailasa Vinayagar Temple

* Sri Veera Anjaneyar Temple

* Sri Varadharaja Perumal Temple

Sri Renuka Parameswari Temple

Padavedu is one of the most important Sakthi Sthalas in Thondainadu. Goddess Renugambal is self-manifested in this place and offering her blessings along with Brahma, Vishnu and Lord Siva. In this place a number of sages performed penance and attained salvation. The existence of Banalingam and Nanakarshna Chakra consecrated by Adi Sankara is the specialty of this place. This is the most popular temple of Padavedu and is usually crowded on holidays.

Legend: Padavedu is the place where Sage Jamadagni, an incarnation of Lord Shiva, lived with his wife Renuka, an Incarnation of Parvathi and son Parasurama, the avatar of Vishnu. Sage Jamadagni and Sage Vishwamitra grew together. The Sage used to perform Yagna daily to which mother Renuka used to bring water in a pot just made that day. One day the Mother saw a Gandharva flying and lost her mind on that due to the maya or the play of the great Shakti. She was late for the yagna and felt ashamed. The Sage, knowing this, asked his sons to chop off mother's head but none came forward. Only Parasurama, to abide his father, came forward and did it and also cut his hand. Nearby Dobis (Cloth washers) came to rescue the mother but Parasurama killed all of them. The sage was pleased and asked Parasurama's wish and he rightly wanted his mother back. Sage agreed and asked Parasurama to join the head and the body and sprinkle holy water over them. Parasurama did so and his mother came to life and also the dobis who died in the fight. But, alas, his mother's head was attached to a dobi woman's body and vice versa while doing it in an anxiety. But then Universal mother might have wanted this way only and She then made that dobi woman, her close maiden. She is also worshipped here.

All these happened in Padavedu. There is a river nearby where dobis washed the clothes. The Holy ash given in the temple is the one from the sage Jamadagni's yaga gonda which still exists."

Namaskar.

Anonymous said...

Scott Fraundorf:

Just wanted to disagree with the "euphemistic metaphors" thing. Ravi's devotion is clearly sincere, and a valuable contribution, for me educational.

"That in which there are no disputations, in which there are no victories or defeats. In which there are no texts or there meanings. In which there are no words with which to give expression, in which there is no differentiation of individual (jiva) and the Supreme, and which there are no conditionings--
Ever abide in bliss, without a trace of a concept (sankalpa), In That itself as That itself.

Anonymous said...

.

Friends, I would like to read (and perhaps to translate) the complete version of Ribhu Gita translated by Dr. H. Ramamoorthy and Master Nome. But I don't have the 40 Dollars to buy it.

Is anyone out there having a digital version of this book? To lend it to me?

Thanks and best regards.

.

Nandu Narasimhan said...

Clemens,

There is no .pdf of Ribhu Gita available, as far as I know. But I can ask someone to buy the book in English from Ramanasramam, and have it sent to you.

But it might take some time. Is that okay?

Nandu

Unknownidiot said...

Ravi,

thanks for providing clarifications on the place called Padavedu; your earlier reference to Padai Veedu was unclear due to the fact that there exists a “multitude of temples dedicated to Skanda, the 6 most important ones are the Aaru Padai Veedu shrines”, see:
http://www.templenet.com/Tamilnadu/aarupadai.html

And now I can see you visited Raju’s site.
However, since you originally associated the place Padavedu with Nayana (Ganapathi Muni), let me ask: are there any other traces reminding one that Nayana has been there beyond finding the “renuka gitam of the muni inscribed on the walls of the Renuka temple”?
My basic query expressed in other words, does there actually exist any particular place at all, where the memory of Nayana has been somewhat elaborately preserved and which therefore, for anybody interested in Nayana, is worthy of being visited?

baskar said...

Sir,

Does this help?

-Scribd

Regards,

Ravi said...

Unknownidiot,
I do not know beyond what I heard from Sri Ramanan.The way Tamil is spoken and written-There is a difference.I too thought about arupadai veedu, but found it is pada vedu,when I searched the web.
Best Regards.

Anonymous said...

.

...baskar; scribd ...

Thank you, baskar, this also helps a lot. Apparently it is an abridged version of two of the original editions (there are three editions by Dr. H. Ramamoorthy as far as I know: the sanskrit edition ("The Ribhu Gita") with more than 300 p., an abridged version ("The Essence of Ribhu Gita"; this already is translated into German), the tamil edition ("The Song of Ribhu") with more than 700 p.


...Nandu Narasimhan; I can ask someone to buy the book in English from Ramanasramam, and have it sent to you ...

Thank you warmly, that is really great, Nandu Narasimhan, and time is not a problem. Do you think that there is someone so kind doing me this big favour?

It needs to be this edition: "The Song of Ribhu", 768 p., not the "Essence".

This as a reminder for me (and all of us):

"The Tamil version is a free translation of the original Sanskrit text, consisting of 1,924 verses of such scintillating brilliance that Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi recommended its recital as a strong support for spiritual sadhana. He used to say that the recital itself leads to spontaneous abidance in the Self."
Foreword of "Essence of Ribhu Gita"

.

Anonymous said...

Scott Fraundorf;

the abridged version, the Essence of Ribhu Gita, is I believe a Tamil Translation by N. Krishnamurti Ayer who is also featured in Power of Presence Part I with the wonderful story about Ramana staring at him, and him feeling like a bomb went off beneath him. He tells the same story for video on the Who am I? documentary I believe part 4. Type in Ramana Maharshi Who am I? on Youtube, it is an amazing documentary with interviews with him, Annamalai Swami, some women who saw Maharshi, it's the only footage I have seen really of interviews with Ramana devotees who knew him, in a documentary, and not just ones who Realized the Self, obviously Annamalai Swami did, and others left me with the impression that if they hadn't, they probably were pretty close, swooning in and out of samadhi when they talked, the rest had had pretty profound experiences of loss of body consciousness, etc. in Ramana's presence. It's on Youtube "Ramana Maharshi Who am I?". Dr. H. Ramamoorthy and Nome's translation of both the Sanskrit and Tamil versions of the Ribhu Gita, so far I've only read the Tamil one, but it is the best spiritual book I have ever read by far, every word dispels illusion, and takes me further into the depths, and my interepretation, sorry, if it's not agreed upon, is it is by virtue of atleast one of it's translators being a Jnani,inclusive of it's original authors, and the impression I get from the introduction is that the Tamil translator in the 1800s, if I remember correctly at a Shankacharya Mathe was also a Jnani.

Nandu Narasimhan said...

Dear Clemens Vargas Ramos,

You wrote - Do you think that there is someone so kind doing me this big favour?

Bhagavan is there. Let us see how He guides us.

Nandu

Anonymous said...

... anonymous; I know that Nome helped out in the past other people doing translations of the Ribhu Gita into other languages ...

Thank you, anonymous, this is an important information for me.

... anonymous; every word dispels illusion, and takes me further into the depths ...

Really this is the effect of true spiritual literature and true sadhana.

... Nandu Narasimhan; Bhagavan is there. Let us see how He guides us.

This is absolutely true, Nandu. It's up to Him to do what is necessary.

.

David Godman said...

The version of Ribhu Gita that Bhagavan spoke so highly of is the Tamil one. The original Sanskrit text forms part of the Siva Rahasya, a little-known text. The full Sanskrit text of the Siva Rahasya has been published by the Saraswati Library in Tanjore, but I don't think a published version existed anywhere in Bhagavan's day.

I gave the Englsih translation of the Tamil text to Papaji around 1994, and he read out, in daily installments, the whole book in satsang. These daily readings proved to be so popular, he read out the whole book again a couple of years later. I believe that audio tapes of his readings can be purchased from the Avadhuta Foundation in Colorado. I had a set of these tapes in Lucknow and I used to play then at night when I went to sleep in the hope that the message,and the truth being pointed at, would somehow seep into my unconscious.

Losing M. Mind said...

Baskar asked me to post on my blog the complete Chapter 26 tamil song of ribhu, so here it is...The rest is just as good though.

Chapter 26 Tamil version of Ribhu Gita, as translated by Dr. H. Ramamoorthy and Nome.

Nidagha! in this explanation,
I shall tell you about being established in the Undivided,
Which has nothing apart from itself, which is full of itself.
May you be in the Bliss of being That itself, as being proclaimed
to you.
This teaching is highly secret and rare to come by
In the Veda-s and the scriptures.
Moreover, this is rare to come by for even the gods and yogins
And is dear to their hearts.

Son! it has been said by those who know fully
That being at one with the perfectly full nondual Brahman
The mass of Existence-Consciousness-Bliss, the immutable
The Self of all, the serene,
With the vikalpa-s (imaginations, notions) of the fickle
mind ended.
And thought dissolved wholly and indistinguishibly herein,
like a solute such as cumin seed dissolved in water,
Is the abidance in That itself.

When inquired into deeply, all the multitude of differences
Will be seen to be never existent.
All is the undivided Supreme Brahman, which is not different
from the Self,
And That am I.
By always correctly practicing In this exalted certitude
And relinquishing all else,
Be in the Bliss of being ever That itself.

That in which all these apparent differences of duality
Cease to exist when inquired into,
In which all cause and effect--
Even a trace thereof--cease to exist,
And in which not a trace of this fear of duality exists
When the mind is merged therein--
Being that itself,
Ever abide in unwavering Bliss.

That in which there is neither a sankalpa (concept, fixed idea)
nor vikalpa (imagination, doubt, notion),
In which there is neither peace, nor perterbance,
In which there is neither mind nor intellect,
In which there is no confusion or conviction,
In which there is no bhava (conviction, feeling) or absence of bhava
(conviction or feeling),
And in which there is no cognition of duality at all---
Being as That itself, without the least fear of duality,
Ever abide in unwavering Bliss.

6.That in which there is nothing bad or good,In which there is neither sorrow nor pleasure,In which there is neither silence nor speech,In which there are no pairs of opposites,In which there is no distinction of "I" or "body,"(Alternative translation: in which there is no notion "the body is myself,")And in which there is not the least thing to perceive--Ever abide in Bliss, without a trace of a concept (sankalpa),In That itself as That itself.

7.That in which there is no activity of body,In which there is no activity of speech,In which there is no activity of the mind,In which there is no activity of any other kind,In which there is nothing sinful or meritorious,And in which there is no trace of desire or its consequences--Ever abide in Bliss, without a trace of a concept (sankalpa),In That itself as That itself.

8.That in which there is never any imagination,In which there is no one who imagines,In which the universe has not arisen,In which the universe does not exist,In which the universe does not get dissolved,And in which nothing exists at any time--Ever abide in Bliss, without a trace of a concept (sankalpa),In That itself as That itself.


9.That in which there is no appearance of maya (illusion),In which there are no effects of maya (delusion),In which there is neither knowledge nor ignorance,In which there is neither Lord (Isvara) nor individual (jiva),In which thre is neither reality nor unreality,And in which there is not the least appearance of the world--Ever abide in Bliss, without a trace of a concept (sankalpa),In That itself as That itself.


10.That in which there are no manifold gods,In which there is no worship of or service to these,In which there is no differentiation as the triad of forms (Brahma, Vishnu, Siva),In which there is no meditation on the triad of forms,In which there is no form of the Supreme Siva,And in which there is no meditation on the Supreme Siva--Ever abide in Bliss, without a trace of a concept (sankalpa),In That itself as That itself.


11.That in which there is no action suggesting differentiation,In which there is neither devotion nor knowledge,In which there is no result to be obtained,Bereft of which there is no supreme abode (or supreme state),In which there is nothing of means [for attainment],In which there is nothing to be attained--Ever abide in Bliss, without a trace of a concept (sankalpa),In That itself as That itself.


12.That in which there is nothing of body or senses or life,In which there is nothing of mind or intellect or thought,In which there is no experiencer of these,In which there is no macrocosm or microcosm,And in which there is not a trace of samsara (cycle of birth and death)--Ever abide in Bliss, without a trace of a concept (sankalpa),In That itself as That itself.


13.That in which there is no desire and no anger,In which there is no covetousness and deluded infatuation,In which there is no arrogance and envious malice,In which there are no other impurities of the mind,And in which there is no delusive notion of bondage,And in which there is no delusive notion of liberation--Ever abide in Bliss, without a trace of a concept (sankalpa),In That itself as That itself.


14.That in which there is neither beginning nor end,In which there is no bottom or middle or top,In which there is neither shrine nor deity,In which there is neither charity nor righteous conduct,In which there is neither time nor space,And in which there is no object to be perceived--Ever abide in Bliss, without a trace of a concept (sankalpa),In That itself as That itself.


15.That in which the fourfold means for realization of Brahman (sadhana chatushtaya) do not exist,In which there is neither sadguru (true guru) nor diligent disciple,In which there is no immutable knowledge,In which there is no illustrious jnani (knower, sage),In which there is neither of the two kinds of liberation (jivan-mukti, liberation while alive and vedehamukti, disembodied liberation),And in which there is nothing at any time--Ever abide in Bliss, without a trace of a concept (sankalpa),In That itself as That itself.


16.That in which there are no scriptures like the Veda-s and such,In which there is no inquiring indivudual,In which there is no confusion and clarification,In which there is no position to be established,In which there is no position to be rejected,In which there is nothing at all except oneself--Ever abide in Bliss, without a trace of a concept (sankalpa),In That itself as That itself.


17.That in which there is no disputation,In which there are no victories or defeats,In which there is no text or its meaning,In which there are no words with which to give expression,In which there is no differentiation of individual (jiva) and the Supreme,And in which there are no conditionings--Ever abide in Bliss, without a trace of a concept (sankalpa),In That itself as That itself.


That in which there is no listening (sravana) or connected practices (reflection and profound contemplation),
In which there is no exalted samadhi (state of absorption),
In which there is no differentiation between objects of the same particular group,
In whic there is no differentiation between objects belonging to different groups,
In which there is no differentiation as affording pleasure of otherwise,
And in which there are no words or their meanings---
Ever abide in Bliss, without a trace of a concept (sankalpa),
In That itself as That itself.


That in which there is no trace of the fear of hell,
In which there is no pleasure of heaven, either,
In which tehre are no worlds of the Creator (Brahma) or others,

In which there are no fruits to be enjoyed there,
In which there are no other worlds,
And in which there exists no universe----
Ever abide in Bliss, without a trace of a concept (sankalpa)
In That itself as That itself.


That in which there are no elements,
In which there is not even a trace of any derivatives of the elements,
In which there is no egoity or sense of possession,
In which there is no trace of the kingdom of the mind,
In which there is no defect of attachment,
And in which there is not the slightest trace of vikalpa
(difference, imagination, doubt, notion)--
Ever abide in Bliss, without a trace of a conccept (sankalpa)
In That itself as That itself.


That in which there is no triad of bodies (gross, subtle, causal),
In which there is no triad of states of existence (waking, dream,
and deep sleep),
In which there is no triad of souls (ever free, having attained freedom, bound),
In which there is no triad of afflictions (caused by bodily and mental factors,
caused by external factors, caused by supernatural and cosmic factors),
In which there is no pentad of sheaths (physical, vital energy,
mental, intellectual, blissful),
And in which there is no experiencer of any of these---
Ever abide in Bliss, without a trace of a concept (sankalpa),
In That itself as That itself.
That in which there is no sentient being,
In which there is no power of veiling,
In which there is no array of differences,
In which there is no power of false projection,
In which there is no other power of any kind,
And in which there is no delusion of a manifest world---
Ever abide in Bliss, without a trace of a concept (sankalpa),
In That itself as That itself.


That in which there is nothing of action,
In which there is no performer of action,
In which arises unsurpassed Bliss,
Which is, indeed, the changeless state,
Knowing and realizing which none returns [to mortality
or illusion],
And becoming which one is freed from the bondage of worldly
existence---
Ever abide in Bliss, without a trace of a concept (sankalpa),
In That itself as That itself.


That by realizing which and in the Bliss of which
All other joys appear to be the joys of That,
That after realizing which with very firm certitude as oneself
Nothing else will in the least be something apart,
That by realizing which with very firm certitude as oneself
All kinds of Jiva-s (individuals, beings, lives) will attain
Liberation---
Ever abide in Bliss, without a trace of a concept (sankalpa),
In That itself as That itself.


That which by knowing firmly as oneself
One has no need to know anything else in the least,
By knowing which with full conviction as oneself
All is known forever,
And by knowing which as oneself in complete certitude
All actions are completed in their entirety---
Ever abide in Bliss, without a trace of a concept (sankalpa)
In That itself as That itself.




That which can be easily attained in an unimpeded manner
By the certitude that I am Brahman,
In which, by quiescence after such certitude,
One completely full, ineffable Bliss will reveal itself,
And by merger of the mind in which
One will be joined with unsurpassed, incomparable
contentment---
Ever abide in Bliss, without a trace of a concept (sankalpa)
In That itself as That itself.


That by merger of the mind in which
All sorrows will cease to exist in the least,
By merger of the mind in which
Neither you nor I nor anything else will exist,
And by merger of the mind in which
All these differences will disappear---
Ever abide in Bliss, without a trace of a concept (sankalpa),
In That itself as That itself.
That by merger of the mind in which
One abides as oneself with no sense of duality,
By merger of the mind in which
Not a trace of anything seperate will remain,
And by merger of the mind in which
Incomparable Bliss alone will reveal itself--
Ever abide in Bliss, without a trace of a concept (sankalpa_
In That itself as That itself.


That which is, indeed, of the nature of undifferentiated Existence,
Which is, indeed, of the nature of undifferentiated Consciousness,
Which is, indeed, of the nature of undifferentiated Bliss,
Which is, indeed, of the nature of nonduality,
Which is, indeed, not different from the Self,
And which, indeed, is the undivided Supreme Brahman---
In the firm certitude that "I am That,"
Abide in the Bliss of ever being That itself.


That which, indeed, is "I" and "you",
Which, indeed, is everyone else,
Which, indeed, is the substratum of all,
Which, indeed, is One without a trace of anything else,
Which, indeed, is utmost purity,
And which, indeed, is the undivided, complete, perfect fullness---
By the conviction that "I am That,"
Be in the Bliss of ever being that itself.


That in which there are no varying modes,
In which there is not the least thing different,
In which all egoity is extinguished,
In which all desires (or imaginings) get destroyed,
In which mind and such perish,
And in which all delusion is destroyed---
By the firm conviction that "I am That",
Be in the Bliss of ever being That itself.
That in which the body and others can not be discerned,
In which there is no perception of manifestation whatsoever,
In which thought itself is destroyed,
In which merges the individuality (jiva),
In which all imaginings get dissolved,
And in which even certitude disappears---
By the deep conviction that "I am That,"
Be in the Bliss of ever being That itself.
That in which all meditation is merged,
In which all yoga is obliterated,
In which all ignorance is dead,
In which all knowledge is nullified,
In which there are no interactions involved,
And which is the state of Absolute Truth---
By the very firm conviction of "I am That,"
Be in the Bliss of ever being That itself.
Merging in which one attains happiness always,
Merging in which one never experiences sorrow,
Merging in which one perceives nothing,
Merging in which one never takes birth at all,
Merging in which one never experiences a sense of being seperate,
Merging in which one abides as the Supreme (Para) itself---
By the deep conviction of "I am That,"
Be in the Bliss of ever being That itself.
That which is verily of the nature of the Supreme Brahman,
Which verily is of the nature of the Supreme Siva,
Which verily is of the nature of the immaculate,
Which verily is of the nature of the Supreme State,
Which verily is of the nature of the Knowledge of Reailty,
And which verily is of the nature of the Supreme Truth---
That, indeed, am I.
By such conviction, be in the Bliss of ever being that itself.
That which is of the nature of the pure Absolute,
Which verily is of the nature of a mass of Bliss,
Which verily is of the nature of the subtle Supreme,
Which verily is of the nature of the self-luminous,
Which verily is of the nature of the nondual,
And which verily is of the nature of the meanings of
the undifferentiated.---
That, indeed, am I.
By such conviction, be in the Bliss of ever being That itself.
That which verily is of the nature of Truth,
Which is verily of the nature of the peaceful Absolute,
Which verily is of the nature of the eternal,
Which verily is of the nature of the attributeless,
Which verily is of the nature of the Self,
Which verily is of the nature of the undivided Absolute---
That, indeed, am I.
By such conviction, be in the Bliss of ever being That itself.
That, indeed, which constitutes the entirety of interactions,
That even the least of which cannot, indeed, be conveyed by
"the highest truth,"
Which, indeed, is the Existence-Consciousness-Bliss,
Which, indeed, is ever peaceful,
From which, indeed, there is nothing apart,
And which, indeed, abides self-existent, all by itself,
That, indeed, am I.
By such conviction, be in the Bliss of ever being That itself.
Thus, have I explained to you, Nidagha!
The state of being established as That itself without any duality.
You shall enjoy perpetual Bliss
By attaining this state by constant,
Continuous, changeless certitude
Of the undifferentiated Absolute.
There are no more miseries of mundane existence at
all at any time in the future
For you who are Brahman alone.
Casting aside all impure tendencies (vasana-s)
By the pristine tendency (vasana) left by the practice of
"The Absolute, Existence-Consciousness-Bliss, is all,
And That I ever am,"
And subsequently effacing even that tendency (vasana)
Son! you will be established in the perfect, full absorption
In and as the nondual Supreme Brahman itself
And attain the Liberation of being the undifferentiated,
undivided One.
All impure tendencies (vasana-s) are of a state of the mind
The tendencies (vasana-s) about the pure Absolute are also
of a state of the mind.
The Supreme has no such changing tendencies (vasana-s).
Hence, be established in this state,
Without any tendencies (vasana-s) of the mind,
Whether considered pure or considered impure,
Like a motionless piece of stone or wood
And, without any strain, be in Bliss.
Having disassociated from the imaginings of all other thoughts,
By the conviction (bhava) of being the undivided Absolute,
And forgetting even the said conviction (bhava) of being the
Absolute,
Your yourself abide as the perfectly full Supreme Brahman.
Even if a great sinner in this world
Hears this explanation now proclaimed
And understands it, he shall, rid of all the great sins of his ego,
Abide as the nature of the undivided, undifferentiated Absolute.
The endless Veda-s,
In revealing here and there
The means of meditation for mental purification,
Have indicated only rock-like, motionless mergere with and
absorption in
The unaffected mass of Bliss,
The undivided, complete, perfectly full Siva,
As the means for the happy Liberation
Of those who are mentally purified.
Therefore, one can here attain
The undifferentiated Liberation by abiding as just That itself
And with a purified mind arising out of the practice of
the meditation
That whatever is known is Siva
And that Siva am I.
Whatever is stated here is the Truth.
Thus, the sage Ribhu explained in full to Nidagha
The abidance in the True State.
It is the undivided form of our Supreme Lord in a state
of sublime, joyous dance that says:
By the conviction that I am ever the Reality, which is
Existence-Consciousness-Bliss,
And by the state of abiding at one with That, being That itself,
The empty bondage of the world can be cut asunder and pure
Liberation attained.

Losing M. Mind said...

Scott Fraundorf:

Not that you need any help coming up with topics (and I'm sure you'll write when you feel inspired), but as a brainstorming suggestion, what about Ramana, and the Ribhu Gita as a post?

Ravi said...

David/Ramos/Scott/Nandu,
"I believe that audio tapes of his readings can be purchased from the Avadhuta Foundation in Colorado. I had a set of these tapes in Lucknow and I used to play then at night when I went to sleep in the hope that the message,and the truth being pointed at, would somehow seep into my unconscious."
This is Satsangha and I enjoyed reading your posts.
Sri Bhagavan is already at work!Ramos,please send your contact details to my email id:niveditahr@rediffmail.com.

Scott/Nandu,
caring for others is a Great asset.it is service to God.May Sri Bhagavan's blessings be ever with you and lead you onward.

Ramos,
you are truly blessed in having this deep thirst.

Namaskar.

Anonymous said...

"I had a set of these tapes in Lucknow and I used to play then at night when I went to sleep in the hope that the message,and the truth being pointed at, would somehow seep into my unconscious.". Was it successful? If it was, I'd like to try the ribhu gita lullaby too. Why is self-realization, the destruction of individuality so difficult? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why?

Anonymous said...

.

... ribhu gita lullaby ...

I use all spiritual literature as lullabies (or as we say in Germany: thumb-sucker) and (for me) it seems to work. I have almost no methodical knowledge of none of this books, but I know the specific taste of every single piece.

There is a saying of Zen master Huang Po:

"Hearing of the supreme truth think of the wind stroking your ears."

.

Bookworm said...

Anonymous

Who, Who, Who, Who, Who wants to Know?...and Who Are You?

Ravi said...

Friends,
Sri Bhagavan emphasised Self Enquiry-He also had this rare capacity of understanding the particular need of the devotee and did vary his response accordingly.
The Following excerpt from Guru Ramana is quite illustrative:

KARMA
15th August, 1948
A visitor from the North seemed to be extremely agitated.
With much emotion he asked several searching questions,
one of which, was why there was so much evil in the world,
and why should evil-doers be more successful than gooddoers?
If it were due to Karma, who made that Karma, and
why should it be so arbitrarily dispensed – various karma to
various individuals, which become the cause of so much
misery and turmoil? Sri Bhagavan, realising the agony of the
questioner’s heart, was infinitely gracious to him. He answered
all his questions pithily and with amazing clarity. About karma
he said: “Whose karma is it? There are two creations, one
God’s and the other man’s. The former is single and free from
karma. The latter is varied and has varied karmas. If man
removes his own creation, there will be no varied individuals
and no varied karmas; misery will thus disappear. He who
kills man’s creation sees heaven only, the others see only hell.
“It is every intelligent man’s experience that evil-doing
recoils on the doer sooner or later. Why is this so? Because
the Self is one in all. When seeing others you are only seeing
yourself in their shapes. ‘Love thy neighbour as thyself ’ means
that you should love him, because he is your Self.”

Namaskar.

Ravi said...

Friends,
In this excerpt from 'Guru Ramana',Sri Bhagavan explains the Nature of Difficulty:

16th February, 1937
A visitor remarks that it is cruel of God’s leela to make
the knowledge of the Self so hard.
Bh. (laughing) - Knowing the Self is being the Self, and being
means existence – one’s own existence, which no one
denies, any more than one denies one’s eyes, although
one cannot see them. The trouble lies with your desire
to objectify the Self, in the same way as you objectify
your eyes when you place a mirror before them. You have
been so accustomed to objectivity that you lost the
knowledge of yourself, simply because the Self cannot
be objectified. Who is to know the self? Can the
insentient body know it? All the time you speak and
think of your ‘I’, ‘I’, ‘I’, yet when questioned you deny
knowledge of it. You are the Self, yet you ask how to
know the Self. Where then is God’s leela and where its
cruelty? It is because of this denial of the Self by people
that the Shastras speak of maya, leela, etc.
-----------------------------------
As long as there is desire for the 'Non Self' ,thoughts kidnap one from perceiving what is.Whatever method one follows-The Path of Self Enquiry or the Path of Devotion-it will help to truly examine and understand what is it that one wants.As Viveka and Vairagya grows,the mind dispenses its fascination and attachment to the Non Self and gravitates towards its source and to this extent,Peace and Bliss is Experienced.
Besides,Viveka Vairagya-Satsangha is one of the strongest aids in the path.
There is no easy shortcut or trick in this.
It is 'difficult' for the mind caught up in desires;
It is 'Easy' for the mind that is relatively free of attachment to the 'non self'.
-----------------------------------
Namaskar.

Nandu Narasimhan said...

Dear Clemens,

With Bhagavan's Grace, your copy of the Ribhu Gita in English should reach me towards the end of this week. Once that happens, it shall be couriered to you. I shall require your mail address, and your telephone number fo that purpose.

Been wanting to share something with everyone here.

Does everyone here feel the lack of physical proximity to Arunachala?

I try to tell myself that I should remember Arunachala and Bhagavan in the Heart. But it simply does not work.

Throughout the day at work, or on weekends between watching cricket or Formula One, or helping my daughter out with schoolwork or chatting with my wife, there is this desperate longing.

This longing is not of leaving everything and running away. It is one of intensely missing someone.

I need to look out of my apartment in the morning, and something about the quality of light will remind me of being there. Just the way a tree looks is enough.

In the evening, when I am not engaged in lots of work, I will invariably be texting a message to one of my friends, saying that the parayana at the Ashram must be on at that moment.

Orlike on Saturday, when I was walking in the bright and hot Gurgaon sun, I was reminded of Annamalai Swami standing in the ashram many years ago, supervising construction work.

Whenever one of my friends goes to the Ashram, I pester them to call and tell me what it is like right now, in the ashram, and also ask genuinely silly questions like how is the hill looking etc.

I don't think this is bhakti. It just seems to be an intense longing for Arunachala. It does not make sense at any logical level. And I don't want to make sense of it either.

It does seem stupid, but the way one rationalises it, it is better to feel stupid this way than to go through a lifetime without Bhagavan / Arunachala.

Sorry about this, but I just wanted to get it out.

Nandu

Ravi said...

Nandu,
"I don't think this is bhakti. It just seems to be an intense longing for Arunachala. It does not make sense at any logical level. And I don't want to make sense of it either."

Your post is wonderful.Please do not discount this longing,however irrational it may look like.
I recall how that great Saint Nandanar(TirunaLai POvar)used to feel this way -It is wonderfully captured in Nandanar Charitra Keertanai-by Sri Gopalakrishna Bharatiyar.Nanda,The pariah saint had this longing to visit Chidambaram.The very word Chidambaram will strike a chord deep within and fill him with longing to visit that place.However,being a bonded labourer,he could never bring himself to seeking permission from his Master to grant him leave-to visit the haloed Place , the abode of Lord Nataraja-The dancing Siva.Every day,he would think to approach his Master to seek permission to go to Chidambaram;When evening came,he would defer it to the next day!What if the Master refused permission and dash his hopes,once for all.
I think you know the story of this Great Saint.Few people develop this sort of deep longing;This is the precursor to 'Raga' Bhakti.
You are Blessed.Do not put it out by resorting to some 'Rational' approach;Not that you will succeed!After some time,when allowed play,it will develop into some definitive inner presence which is with you as a Backdrop-What was far will become 'near'.These states will alternate and this is the Ebb and Flow of Bhakti.
In general,it is better to be 'private' about this matter and discuss it only with the Guru or Likeminded devotees.
You have 'simple Faith' and you have this 'Longing'-Please go along and let the Grace lead you onward.
-----------------------------------Namaskar.

Bookworm said...

Nandu Narasimhan

Can that in you which longs... Be Who You Truly Are?

Does the Self or Heart or Who You Truly Are NEED to long for itself?

What is True In You?

baskar said...

This is about Nandu Narasimhan's longing for Arunachalam:

I find that there are live webcams that stream images of Arunachalam-

-Webcam GaloreArunachala LiveWorldcam.plHope this is of some consolation.

Regards,

Ravi said...

Friends,
Coming to Nanda,The Pariah Saint,I wish to share an Excerpt from 'Rambles in Vedanta'.
Prabuddha Bharata,the spiritual magazine brought out by the Ramakrishna Order was founded in 1896 by B R Rajam Iyer,at the age of 24!This Jivanmukta lived only 26 years on this worldly stage!(1872-1898).Within this short life,This Great soul contributed a flurry of Articles on all aspects of Vedanta-These are compiled and issued as a Book called 'Rambles in Vedanta' by Motilal Banrsidass.The Following introduction about Rajam Iyer is revealing:
"In 1896,at the young age of 24,Rajam Iyer,inspired by the "cyclonic monk" Swami Vivekananda,started the renowned journal Prabuddha Bharata(Awakened India)devoted to religion and philosophy and was its editor till his death in 1898.
one who reads through these rambles in vedanta will not fail to see vividly the personality of Rajam iyer,the mellowed one,a Jivanmukta who,having freed himself,felt in all compassion ,that he should share with others that knowledge...by which such a blessed state could be achieved here and now....This is a great tribute to a man who was not "rich" in money or high up in social life,but was certainly "rich" in ethical and spiritual values and high in the world of the "voluntary poor".

It is truly amazing the range of subjects covered by this inspired soul:
A cursory look at the chapters is revealing-Ideals of Vedanta,Elements of vedanta,Thoughts on the Bhagavad-Gita,Symbology(Nataraja,Seshasayanam of Vishnu),Imitations of Vyasa,Pitfalls in the Vedanta,Seekers After God(Nanda the Pariah Saint,Alawandar,Buddha,Sri Ramakrishna,jayadeva,etc)Miscellaneous Stories.
-----------------------------------
Now Here is the excerpt about Nanda,The Pariah Saint:
"Even in his early boyhood,he was,as we may easily understand,unlike the other boys of the Parachery(The Segregated place where the untouchables,the Pariahs lived-ravi)his very play consisted in making figures of God in Clay,i.e.,as he at that age wanted Him to be-A stout,black man with Bold whiskers,a huge lace turban,high-heeled native shoes,and an axe or a scythe in his hand and at the same time very trustworthy,and kind and merciful to those that sought his protection.To make such clay gods,to sing and dance around them,to carry them along in procession,to organise an infant band of Bhaktas and make festivals for his gods were his chief juvenile sports.The small circular Gopuram(tower)of the Saivite temple in the Brahmin part of Adhanur had a strange fascination for his boyish imagination for there were beauty,grandeur and ,as he could not approach it,mystery enough to set them forth in relief,it was this love of the grand ,the beautiful and the Mysterious that was remarkable in Nanda and chiefly contributed to his salvation.He would often wistfully gaze at that tower wondering at its shape,size and grandeur and busily form guesses about the treasure underneath concealed to his view,which it was meant to glorify.(The Pariahs were not allowed to enter these temples-Ravi).Often as the village God passed in procession with Torchlight,music,drums and Vedic chant,Nanda,followed by other pariah boys would run forth to obtain a view,however distant of the Festival and return deeply impressed with the procession and its poetic associations.He had an inborn respect for all Holy things-temples,Festivals,Brahmins and The Vedas,which his low birth tended greatly to develop.
As he grew into manhood,his imaginative fervour and piety also grew with him and deepened and he became more and more eager to contribute what he could,however humble it might be,to the service of the Lord.It is the tendency of true love to grow till it overflows the heart,and then it can no longer be shut up within,but must necessarily show itself out in action.Nanda long thought over what he could do to please the lord:he was not rich:he was of low birth:no kind of charity readily suggested itself to him.One day while seriously thinking over the matter,it struck him,all of a sudden that he might supply temples with leather for Drums.To him,there was something almost miraculous in the very suddenness of the thought and he rose up with joyand exclaimed:"the Lord has spoken to me.He has commanded me to supply His Drums with leather"'and he immediately set about preparing it.The Lord,indeed,does always keep conversing with us,only,we do not hear Him:and of the things we offer to him He Chooses,not by their value(for He is Himself the Lord of all things)but by the love and piety with which they are offered.The labour of procuring leather,of wetting and tanning it and cutting it into proper sizes,henceforth became to Nanda a sacred pastime and the very smell of leather roused in his imaginative mind a group of holy associations.
He had a few friends in the parachery(it is a pity that their names have not been handed down to posterity- By sriRajam Iyer,not an addition by Ravi!)who shared his enthusiasm and sympathised with him in his labours.Every now and then he would speak to them of God's glory and grace,smear himself and them with sacred ashes,and one day,while there was no work to be done in the Fields,he stole away with them(we must remember that these pariahs were slaves under the village landlords)to a famous temple a few miles off,called Tirupunkoor now known as old Vaitheeswaran Koil.They went round the village three times,repeatedly besmeared themselves with sacred ashes and shouted forth the names of Siva.nanda was beside himself with pious enthusiasm and danced and wept,and after sunset,when the temple doors were opened,sent forth to the priest his offerings of coconuts,Plantain Fruits and loads of Leather.He and his companions stood outside the temple at a little distance from the Flag Staff,and from there obtained occassional glimpses of the Image within.Their joy,particularly that of nanda,knew no bounds when they beheld for the first time,though from a distance,the Mysterious Sanctum Sanctorum of The Great Temple all Radiant with Light.The Ringing of the Bells,the crowds of neat looking pious devotees,the recitation of sacred verses,the puja,the burning of camphor,the worshipping with Light and other imposing rituals of the temple,and above all the LINGAM(image of Siva )itself,which by its form filled the whole place with a peculiar solemnity and the sacredness,far exceeded his grandest expectations and impressed his imagination much more deeply(here his low birth was an advantage to him)than they did that of the Brahmin worshippers inside,who were familiarised to them.
There was to him there a Mystery only half cleared and a solemnity he had never known before;he eagerly drank in the spectacle which to him was new and fascinating;tears flowed in torrents from his eyes and his emotional communion with God became every moment closer and closer,till at last he became completely absorbed in meditation and all thought expired in the Enjoyment.(This is the Bhakti way to Awareness-Ravi)Those that saw him were filled with wonder at the steadiness of his devotion,his self-absorption and the serenity that shone in his face in spite of his low caste,and before he woke from his devotional trance a large and admiring crowd had gathered around him.The sensation created at the time was so great that his visit to Tirupunkoor had made a distinct epoch in its history and richly added to the Glory of its temple,for tradition asserts that while he was standing behind the Flag-staff and struggling to get a view of the Lingam inside,Siva took pity on him and ordered Nandi(The Image of a Bull placed opposite to the Lingam in all Saivaite temples)to move a little to one side,that his Low caste devotee might get a view of Him;and accordingly unto this day the Huge figure of NANDI at Tirupunkoor is placed not exactly opposite to the image of Siva but leaning to one side.
As soon as Nanda awoke from his Holy Trance,he prostrated himself before the Brahmin crowd,that had gathered about him and began with his friends to go round the village once again.It so happened that while thus going round,a certain Brahmin Punditwas reciting before a large audience chidambarapuranam(the story of chidambaram)from the pial of one of the cornermost houses of the Brahmin quarters.As nanda passed along,he heard the Brahmin say:"Chidambaram is the Holiest place in all the World;he that once visits the Temple there,be he a Chandala(outcaste),crosses once and for ever the ocean of births and deaths":and then followed an eloquent description of the temple and the inner meaning of its grand Symbolism.
Indeed in point of Tradition,Chidambaram is one of the Richest cities in the World.What palestine was for the Christians,what Mecca is to the Muhammadans,what Sreerangam is to the Vaisnavites(the Worshippers of Vishnu),That Chidambaram is to the Saivaite portion of the Hindu community.It is one of the five great places of worship in Southern India,in each of which,God is represented as one of the Five Elements....In a Higher sense,the Akas(Ether) worshipped at Chidambaram is not the Ether of the Scientists,but the Spaceless,Timeless,unconditioned sphere of the Self.The Very Name Chidambaram means the Akas of Wisdom and the Temple is called Koil-the Temple par excellence.....Nataraja(the image that is on the cover of Ribhu gita-Ravi)is one of the very bestand the Image at Chidambaram,which is the prototype of all similiar images elsewhere,is certainly one of the most inspiring figures that I have known.(Sri Rajam Iyer).Even considered as purely a work of art,there are few images more faultless,more life-like and more charming.That soft curly haid tufted like that of a dikshitar(a priest of that temple),the long prominent nose,those eyes so full of Life and expression,that face in which dignity,bliss and mercy speak out and dance,the natural bendof the arms and their ornaments,that beautiful attitude of the dancer,seeing which one fancies that the figure is really dancing,and lastly,that raised foot(Kunjidapada)so eminently inspiring,are before me as I write(Sri B R Rajam Iyer)and when to the artistic appreciation of the image is joined a full understanding of its idea,its inner poetry-that from the noise of Damaruka(a little drum)held in one of the Right hands,innumerable worlds are represented as rushing forthinto life as sparks from fire,as bubbles from a spring(sabda Nishtam jagat-The world sprang out of and stands by sound or vibration)that the other right hand expressive of the idea "be it so",represents the power which maintains those worlds under a great unerring and faultless law;that the fire in one of the Left hands,represents the Mighty and Mysterious power of Destruction,which makes the stars,mountains and oceans "the perfume and suppliance of a minute";that the Firmly planted right leg indicates the power of the mystery that refuses to clear up,the thick manifold veil of illusive panorama which hides the Truth from us for Ages together;and that lastly,the raised foot symbolises the grace of god,which shelters and saves those that seek it,from the eternal infinite,and terribly deceiving drama of creation,existence and destruction-it is no wonder that men like Appar,Manikkar,Pattinathar and Thayumanavar forgot in that presence the petty commercial prose of our daily life,and broke forth in the Highest,the most philosophical,and the most impassioned poetry,that the Tamil language has known....
Nanda paused and heard the whole story of Chidambaram from the eloquent lips of the Brahmin Reciter.It acted on him like magic.The words ,chidambaram and Nataraja,obtained a strange mastery over him.He became eager to visit Chidambaram,which was not very far off,that very night,and was with great difficulty dissuaded from his object by his companions."The Temple at Chidambaram would be closed",they said,"before you reach it and besides,you are a slave to your Brahmin Master,you should not forget your position so easily.We have already stayed away too long and it will be dangerous to do so longer".A lesser man in that situation might have been provoked to reply:"Is that Brahmin greater than God?I care not for him.I shall have my own way",but Nanda meekly replied :"Yes,you are right.It has pleased god to place me in the situation of a bondsman.He knows what is good for me,infinitely better than i do.To resign myself to His Will,is even a higher worship than visit his temple.I shall fall at the feet of my Brahmin Master,please him in all honest ways and I am sure,he will sooner or later allow me to go to Chidambaram".so saying,he returned home with his companions,but not before he had dug out with their assistance a tank,still pointed out as his,for the use of the people at Tirupunkoor.The Feat was regarded as wonderful ,and the idea of a few pariahs joining together and creating a tank,was an altogether novel one,and so much so,that popular tradition attributes this work to Lord Ganesa,who did it in order to please his father siva's devotee.The Truth is,love works wonders and nanda's love was of a very high order;it was not like that of some people who go into the temple with plenty of offerings to God-but would not give a pie to the beggar at the Temple gate.In nanda's eyes all men were God's Children and to serve them,was itself a kind of worship,higher even than supplying temple-drums with leather or making offerings to God..After digging and completing the tank he and his companions returned home.
-----------------------------------
How nanda reached Chidambaram and was absorbed in the Lord is an inspiring story,which I hope to continue in a future post.
-----------------------------------
Salutations.

Nandu Narasimhan said...

Thank you Ravi and Baskar for your encouraging and kind words.

Baskar, the longing is not just mine. I am sure yours is as intense if not more!

Baskar, the 'Arunachala Live' window is open almost throughout the day on my machine.

I had this mad idea of putting a live webcam in the ashram (ideally located just outside the bookshop, and looking diagonally inwards). It was the closest that I felt one could (from a remote location) go to standing outside the bookshop and looking in towards the ashram.

But David's advice is that it might not work because of the slow and unreliable net in Tiru.

But till then, the existing webcam works just fine! Right now, it looks like it is blazing hot there.

But maybe all of us can ask for permission from the ashram to put up a webcam there. Just to stream images every minute. And then contribute to buy the necessary equipment and install it. Let us pray so that it can happen.

Thanks again, Ravi and Baskar.

Nandu

Bookworm said...

Ravi
You say:
'24,Rajam Iyer,inspired by the "cyclonic monk" Swami Vivekananda'

.....
From Talks with Ramana Maharshi:

D.: Swami Vivekananda says that a spiritual Guru can transfer spirituality to the disciple.
M.: Is there a substance to be transferred? Transfer means eradication of the sense of being the disciple. The master does it. Not that the man was something at one time and metamorphosed later into another.

Bookworm said...

Nandu Narasimhan

What is all this with webcams etc?

If you want to see Arunachala all you have to do is look in your own
Heart.

baskar said...

Sri Nandu Narasimhan, even making comments in the face of such devotion and commitment is a sort of profanity, I feel.

To be honest, I am humbled.

Wish you well.

Regards,

Ravi said...

Bookworm/Friends,
Here is an Excerpt from Swamiji(Vivekananda):(From 'Inspired Talks')
"No law can make ,you free, you are free.
Nothing can give you freedom, if you have it not
already. The Atman is self-illumined. Cause
and effect do not reach there, and this disembodiedness
is freedom. Beyond what was, or is, or is
to be is Brahman. As an effect, freedom would
have no value ; it would be a compound , and
as such would contain the seeds of bondage.
It is the one real factor, not to be attained, but
the real nature of the soul.
Work and worship, however, are necessary
to take away the veil, to lift off the bondage and illusion. They do not give us freedom,
but all the same, without effort on our own
part we do not open our eyes and see what we
are. Sankara says further that Advaita-Veddnta
is the crowning glory of the Vedas ; but the
lower Vedas are also necessary, because they
teach work and worship and through these many
come to the Lord. Others may come without
any help but Advaita. Work and worship lead
to the same result as Advaita.
Books cannot teach God, but they can destroy
ignorance ; their action is negative. To
hold to the books and at the Same time open
the way to freedom, is Sankara's great achievement.
But after all, it is a kind of hair-splitting.
Give man first the concrete, then raise
him to the highest by slow degrees. This is
the effort of the various religions and explains
their existence and why each is suited to some
stage of development. The very books are
part of the ignorance they help to dispel. Their
duty is to drive out the ignorance that has come
upon knowledge. "Truth shall drive out untruth."
You are free and cannot be made so."
For Every statement that is valid there is an Opposite statement that is Equally valid.
"Spirituality can be given"-simply means that Great souls by their being established in Truth,can help the seeker in a 'tangible' way,whereas a learned pundit who parrots the Highest Philosophy will not make 'any sense'.
What Vivekananda said is as valid as what Ramana said.
----------------------------------
Salutations.

Nandu Narasimhan said...

Bookworm,

I know. But till the time I can constantly feel Arunachala and Bhagavan in the Heart, I need help.

That's why the webcam. Am not a very evolved devotee, even after so many years.

Baskar, I did not understand your post. The webcam is just a personal thing.

Nandu

Ravi said...

Friends,
Nanda,the Pariah saint (continued):
"Henceforth it became the one passion of nanda's Life - to visit the great temple of Nataraja....Every day he would think of begging his master to let him go to chidambaram,but day after day passed without his venturing to do so for fear of a refusal.He would tell his friends everyday:"I go to Chidambaram tomorrow",but a great many tomorrows became todays and he had not gone:he became a veritable "dupe of tomorrow" and his very friends began to nickname him "one that goes to-morrow"(Tirunalaipovar).
The Pariah community of Adhanur,among whom true Bhakti was a thing altogether unknown,observed first with curiosity and then with alarm,the change that was coming over Nanda.The constant repetition of the holy name of Siva,the Frequent smearing of the body with sacred ashes,the meditation in which he was often engaged,and more even than these,the thorough change that had come over the inner man,his extreme meekness and Humility,his constant and involuntary references to god,his inability to talk of anything but Him and His glory,his self-absorption even in the midst of work,caused real uneasiness in the minds of his ignorant kinsmen,to whom any kind of deviation from the accustomed run of life was a source of fear.He would seldom mix in the cruel and barbarous sports of his community;meat and toddy lost their sway over him.Butchery was an act of abomination in his eyes,and he discouraged it whenever he had occasion.Often while the rest of the community was engaged in quarrel or gossip,he would unconcernedly repose under some tree and meditate:he would look at the wonderful creation around him,admire the unceasing miracles of the universe-plants,rivers,mountains,trees,etc., and say:"Ah,all this deceptive phenomenal wealth is the glory of that one foot of Nataraja so firmly planted down.Beautiful as all this is,let me O God cross over to you and see you not as you seem,but as you are".Then he would fix his mind on the raised foot of Nataraja and pray with eyes filled with tears to be sheltered under its blissful shade of wisdom.one day Nanda had long sat meditating in this way till his eyes were suffused with tears of joy and himself passed into a state of ecstatic trance,when a curious neighbour went near him,and finding him unconscious and his body wet with tears,gave the alarm to the whole community that something was wrong with Nanda...Soon our poor friend was rudely shaken and disturbed and was at once demanded an explanation;but all that he could say was:"Knowing that there is a God,who can help worshipping Him?" which of course was not found satisfactory.The result was that a council was at once formed on the spot,and it was unanimously resolved by the wise of the community,that nanda's malady was due to the fault of not having held feasts for their gods more frequently,and therefore one should be celebrated the very next day....
A Valluva priest of oracular fame was called in,and grotesque clay figures of the mighty gods of wonderful names-Veeran,Irulan,Katteri,Veryan,Nondi,Chamundi,Nellakarupan,pettannan,pavadai and a multitude of others too numerous to be mentioned here,were made.The next morning ,the whole village gathered together under the pandal.The clay gods were arranged in order of importance;fowls and sheep and pots of toddy were ready for the feast.nanda was held by Force,for which however there was no need,in the centre of assembly,and the high priest Valluvanar shook his damarukam(a little drum);and at once there was a wild blowing of Horns and a reckless beating of "drums and timbrels loud" and as soon as they stopped,the holy priest got "inspired"...and he rose making all sorts of hideous cries;about ten people held him down,perhaps to prevent his escape to heaven.Thus held down and shaking forth his damarukam,he delivered with appropriate gestures the following oracular utterances."nandan",he said,"nandan-Nandan-Nandan is possessed with the big long-haired devil which resides in the market tamarind tree;it will make him laugh and weep and run and talk and sleep"(many people do these things without the help of the devil)and he asked:"Does he not do all these?"to which there was a tumultous reply of "aye,aye,how true the oracle,how right!" Nanda said nothing but thought within himself :"O Lord,how wonderful is thy dance!Here is a wonderful scene being played in thy endless drama!".
"kill a hundred sheep",continued the Oracle,"and two hundred fowls and offer them with pots of toddy to god Karuppan and his brothers,and they say Nanda will at once be cured .The Great gods are extremely angry with you for having neglected them so long".The Oracle ceased and immediately a large dancing group of middle aged pariahs was arranged and they sang:
Pedari great,the guardian dev
of all our fields,poor nanda save!

nanda added,
"None but Natesan(nataraja)has that power,
For he's my chosen lord and lover."

They sang,
"O viru dark with turban huge
Beneath thy feet we seek refuge"

Nanda said:
No turban could you make for one
who filleth all the worlds alone.

They sang(admiringly)
Irula fat with aspect brave
Thy belly is of goats the grave.

Nanda said,
Trust not ye fools!to demons base,
But Him who is all love and Grace.

The Enthusisatic dancers heard not Nanda,or at any rate heeded him not;but the dance was followed by a more serious affair-the butchering of innocent fowls and sheep.Nanda rose and vehemently protested against,but in vain;he eloquently preached to them about the grace and glory of the creator,invited them to throw away their wicked gods and barbarous sacrifices and exhorted them to join with him in the worship of the Beautiful,Eternal Nataraja,but all his words were as pearls cast before the swine:nay worse than that,they tended to strengthen the current notions about his madness.

Nanda turned away from that ignorant multitude in sorrow,and filled with pity for them prayed to God that they might be saved.With every moment of prayer,the longing to visit chidambaram gained new strength,till it grew irrepressible and forced him to apply to his master for leave.After considerable hesitation,the Brahmin landlord was approached;but in the meantime,the pious devotees of pedari(demigod-Ravi)and company,finding that their gods had no power over nanda,had carried their appeal to the more powerful of their visible agricultural god-the said Brahmin landlord.Nanda approached his landlord a little after the above deputation had gone from there and made his application.The landlord was greatly enraged at the silly and impertinent request as he took it,and exclaimed:"Eh,you want to visit Chidambaram,you pariah fool,you want to become a Brahmin,I suppose,you rogue,you deserve to be whipped for this impertinence.You-vi-sit-chi-dam-baram!!".poor Nanda was thunderstruck,he felt himself undone and returned without speaking a word.....He went to the shade of his favourite tree and wept in torrents."O God","how cruel art thou!i have no right to blame the Brahmin,he ofcourse spoke under Thy Prompting,for not an atom moves save of Thy Bidding.".....but Hope,that most wonderful of all things again asserted itself...he thought:"God knows what is Best for me,infinitely better than I do.I shall resign myself to his will in all things great and small.I am a rebellious spoilt child,and till I learn obedience and cheerful resignation,how can I obtain His Grace?The Brahmin Master might relent;and I am sure,when I am fit to enter His presence,I shall be allowed to do so".
----------------------------------
to be continued.
Namaskar.

Bookworm said...

Ravi

You say:
'What Vivekananda said is as valid as what Ramana said'

......
In my humble opinion it is most certainly
and absolutly not.

Vivekanandas comment is just his imterpretation of advaita and also what Sankara taught.

In my opinion his interpretations are rather religion'isy' and not the clearest interpretations I have come across.

Ravi said...

Friends,
Nanda,The Pariah Saint(continued):

A few daysafter,a second application was made for leave with a similiar result of refusal combined with rebuke;but the disappointment this time had a different effect on him;he consoled himself with the idea that he was not yet fit for the Holy presence,and that therefore he should strive to be more pious and god-loving and purer in heart.He redoubled his meditation that there might not be in his waking state a single moment in which God was forgotten,curtailed his hours of sleep,and danced in a wild and ecstatic way both morning and evening,and at other times wept for God's grace or rejoiced over his illimitable glory.In the stream,in the bird,in the tree,in man,in short wherever he saw life,there he felt the presence of Nataraja;and under the sway of this strange fancy,often played with the stream,embraced the tree,ran after the bird and did a thousand wild things which positively confirmed his kinsmen in the idea of his lunacy.They,poor folk,tried all sorts of remedies,even bound him by fetters and tortured him,but all in vain....To him everything in the world was divine,and his love and tenderness to living creatures was simply boundless:he would feed the ants with sugar,would take up the worms from the roadside lest they be crushed under the feet of the passers-by,play with children and enjoy the music of the birds as if he were himself one of them.
In the meanwhile however,the harvest time had come and,his kinsmen being desperately engaged with him,work in the fields really suffered.The Landlord got enraged and sent for his slaves.all of them came except nanda,and related everything that happened.The Brahmin angrily dismissed them and sent for nanda.Nanda came,bowed to his master and stood.The Brahmin was greatly surprised at the remarkable degree of joy,calmness and humility that shone in hisface.It clearly struck him that nanda was no ordinary man,and that what was misconstrued by the ignorant pariahs as madness was nothing but an extravagance of piety and fervour;but he did not want to encourage him,and got really angry when the request to go to Chidambaram was put forward;yet he was moved at the extremely piteous,sincere and imploring way in which it was urged and the quivering and suspense with which his reply was awaited,as if a soul's destiny hung upon his one word;and so he gently replied: "Nanda,you are a really good fellow,but have fallen into wild ways;you have not been doing your work properly of late.This is the Harvest season,the corn has to be reaped,after all the harvest is gathered in,I shall give you leave to go to chidambaram.No sooner was this said than Nanda sprang into the fields dancing and leaping like a wild deer,and a few hours later,again called at the Landlord's backyard.When the Brahmin asked why he was wanted,nanda replied:'Do me the Favour sire,to go with me into the fields',and led the way followed by his master;and what was the later's wonder when he found that the whole of his vast paddy fields had been reaped and the harvest gathered in like a mountain of gold-all the work of a single man,and that in the space of a few hours!He could hardly believe his eyes,and struggled to know if he was not dreaming;what he saw was,however no vision but a concrete and thorough reality,and when convinced of this,he could only say: "nanda,you could not have done this work,nor all your kinsmen together,what a miracle that God worked in my fields through you.This is the reward of your devotion-the proof to us,fools,of your greatness.Nanda,You are a Holy man,God's dearest Bhakta,Ah!What a sin I have committed!-from this moment,I am Thy slave-Bless me and recommend me to that High God who is so near and dear and kind to you."
Nanda's feat was at the same time a miracle and not a miracle-not a miracle in the superstitious sense generally attached to the word,but a genuine miracle in that it was beyond the power and comprehension of ordinary men.Most of us are ignorant of the resources of Love.It's intensity,it's abundance,and it's wonderful possibilities are foreign to our mediocrity and when measured by our leaden standard,appear legendary.Love rolls the hills,leaps over the seas,annihilates the elements and shakes the universe.what can it not do and what has it not done?It is the energy of the soul,nay it is the soul itself,and when nanda threw his whole soul into the work on which hung the fulfillment of his life's ambition,result was miraculous,Divine.The astounded Brahmin fell at his feet;and here by the way,it may be said to the credit of the caste system,that however rigourous it may be on the social plane,it has ever been liberal on the religious one.Many of the saints worshipped in the temples are men of the lower castes,some of them being of the lowest.
nada ran to his master,and raised him up,repeatedly fell at his feet and with tears in his eyes said:"My Lord,what a sin you have committed by bowing to your pariah slave";to which the Brahmin replied:"You are no longer a pariah or a slave,you are the Holiest of men.Go to Chidambaram,but bless me before you go,forgive me and recommend me to God's High Grace".And saying this he took Nanda's hands and placed them on his head,implored him to give some parting advice.
'This is all that your humble slave can say,My lord',said Nanda,'love God as well as you love your wife,children,lands and wealth.What more,O lord,does this uncultured slave know?' The Brahmin looked up at the Radiant face of nanda and with great many kindly expressions they parted;but hardly had Nanda gone a few yards,when the Brahmin ran up to him and asked:"Nanda,O my Guru,when may I see you again?when will you return?".
Nanda replied:"now,O my Master,we part once for all.Who really goes to Chidambaram,and comes back?I loathe again to enter into this mortal coil.My master,I hope no longer to return".
The Brahmin did not understand what nanda said,but we may perhaps do from the sequel of the Narrative.
-----------------------------------
To be Continued.

Salutations.

Bookworm said...

Ravi...if I want to read a book I will go to a library

Bookworm said...

Ravi

In my opinion this is the best thing you have ever posted that I have read.

Ravi said...

Friends,
Thanks Bookworm. Recounting the story of Nanda,the Pariah Saint is inspirational for me and sharing this gives me joy.My internet connection played truant for the last couple of days and got restored a few hours back!We join Nanda where we left off.
-----------------------------------
No Deer that newly escaped from the hunter's toils,no barren woman just blessed with a child,no blind man that newly received the gift of light,was more joyous than Nanda the pariah who was relieved from the work which stood between him and God.Lovers alone know the bliss of love.Nanda danced and wept;he walked from Adhanur to the banks of River colladam.The River was in full flood.The waves were rolling forth one after another for very joy as it were.There was a weird majesty about the waters as they flowed on.Nanda looked at the river,saw the deep water yet clear,saw the living flood and claimed eternal kinship with it."It danced and leapt",he said,"singing anthems to my beloved ,and so I shall do" and he danced and jumped singing :
"Nataraja’s dance is dance,
And all our dance is ignorance;”

A boat came ;a black boatman steered it,with a sun-burnt face,with his sweat covered all over the body,but bearing traces of the white ashes it wore and smelling of sweet camphor.Nanda saw him and worshipped him,for he was Nataraja in his eyes;and getting into the boat,for hire sang to a surprised audience about the unfading glory of the prince of dancers.He sang:

The Drug which made me Him,the dancing drug
That dances in Wisdom’s sphere,The Silent Drug
The Poor man’s friend,the rarest drug,the drug
Both first and last,the drug that seeks out those
That search for it,the drug all rare to those
That seek it not,that which my hunger soothes,
The loneliest drug,the pure man’s help,the light,
The pride of love,the drug that drives out grief,
The drug that cures false loves and avarice kills,
That which Earth-hunger soothes ,the drug which plays
Hide-and-seek,the drug that which is all within
The heart that loves,that is my strength and joy.

The boat danced on the waters.Nanda danced on the boat.The people in the boat danced with Nanda.The sun-burnt boatman forgot his oar and danced with the people.It was a dance universal,an ecstatic festival,but a dance of ten minutes.The boat dancing this way and that,dragged itself to the shore.Nanda leapt on the ground-sacred it was,it was the territory of Nataraja,put his hand into his lap searching for a few coins,the fruit of his toil,but the boatman would not take the hire.

The tower of Chidambaram ,grand,majestic,loomed from a distance and seemed to say to Nanda:-
O come and dance,the joyous dance,
O come and dance,the Dancer’s dance
O dance and shun the ignorance.

Nanda looked at it-the tower of Nataraja,bowed before it and worshipping it,exclaimed :”O Lord,at whose bidding the spheres do their daily work,and the invisible sky like Thyself keeps on in Space and envelops all,amidst thy starry wealth and mountains and rivers where Am I?Grant Oh God of gods ,that rising from the earth I stand firm like this tower of Thine,fixedly gazing towards heaven,turning a deaf ear and a bold front to all the winds that might blow”
-----------------------------------
to be continued.
Namaskar.

Nandu Narasimhan said...

Dear Ravi,

I posted a 'thank you' note yesterday, but it does not figure here.

Heartfelt thanks. Somehow, the final journey to Chidambaram reminds me of Bhagavan's journey to Arunachala, with things happening through Divine Will.

Please keep posting.

Much love,

Nandu

Ravi said...

Nandu,
"Somehow, the final journey to Chidambaram reminds me of Bhagavan's journey to Arunachala, with things happening through Divine Will."
Thanks for your kind words.Yes,indeed it does remind us about Sri Bhagavan's journey to Tiruvannamalai.
Likewise,We may also feel our kinship to Nanda in the sense that we are 'slaves to the senses five 'and bonded to 'Intellect-The Brahmin'-We also feel the 'Void'-the Longing for 'We know not What'-The void that neither Pleasure,Wealth,Position or Power can fill.We also long to be freed from the 'Clutches of Drudgery'.We also will not be freed until we fulfill our 'allotted Role'invoking the power of Grace.

My Home PC is down and is expected to be up in the next coupe of Days.I will continue the story of NANDA.

Thanks very much for your encouragement.

Namaskar.

Ravi said...

Friends,
The concluding part of Nanda,the Pariah saint:
"The man of business forgot it.The ploughman threw aside his plough.A dancing group formed itself.They danced,danced for very joy;danced around Nanda,the centre of the group.
A few yards more they went,the base of the tower was visible.The temple gate was in view.Nanda sang:'Here is the gate of the Kailas,the gate that opens to the good alone,the gate from which no good man ever returns,that through which Mannikar(A great saint)entered and sang to the echo of these high walls his divine anthems of ecstasy,the gate through which that poet of poets Appar entered and sang his majestic Vedas,the gate through which Sundara entered and enjoyed the secret nuptials with the prince of Lovers.My friends and kinsmen,here God is and is not.Here he is both with form and without.Here he dances and is quiet.here it is that the ignorant are blessed with wisdom and the wise lose their senses.Here he is space and light.Here he is both creator and destroyer'.
Nanda continued:
In space his dance is held,my maids
his dance is love,his dance is love.
The foot that dances so I love
I pine with Love,I die,my maids

All(in chorus):
Nataraja's dance is dance;the scene
where he dances lies all within.

Nanda:
A joyous form,a joyous form
I love his dance,my maids,I love
He dances there,my maids with love
He is my maids,a joyous form.

All:
Mahasiva,Sadasiva
The crown of kings,the help of all
Siva,siva,sadasiva,
siva that dances in the Hall.

Nanda:
This wretched world I scorn,my maids,
I am one with the Lord,my maids.
He passeth all my words,my maids.
How could I speak,how oh!my maids.

Thus singing they reached the sacred precincts of Chidambaram,danced around the village,as if they were bees humming around the lotus that has not yet bared its bosom to the skies.The Dikshitars(priests)of Chidambaram ,saw Nanda and his associates who,though of higher caste,would not go into the town regarding themselves as lower than Nanda the Pariah.They observed the radiant face of nanda,the remarkable expression that marked him out as one of the chosen.They heard with delight though from a distance his Holy songs.
Nanda resumed:
He ruined me,my maids,will he
My maids,now give me up alone?
The god of love with fiery eye
He burnt,seeth He not my moan?
I love to see Him once,my maids,
From my love-stricken sight he hides.
Once,once,to see his raised foot,
My evils all will fly from sight,
The foot that stretched down Yama's (God of Death)height
Our family God to be will suit.

All:
Rich kalpa's shade,that Shade's own sweet,
Well watered field,its harvest meet.
Beauty's form,the Life within.
The dancer that doth ever shine.
Full beamed moon,that beam's nectar,
The Light of Space,Ether within,
The loving Lord,His joy is mine,The Dancer doth ever shine,
Life's light,that life's effulgent might,
The Saving ray,that ray's firm light,
Thy Lordly grace that rains like rain.

They proceeded,and Nanda grew more enthusisatic as he approached the shrine.tradition rich in legends and folklore asserts ,that all Dikshitars,on one and the same remarkable night,dreamt that Nataraja appeared to them in their vision,and directed them to take into their Brahmin fold,the purest of his Bhaktas,Nanda the Pariah Saint.It was a beautiful morning,when the sun had just risen,and the Dikshitars had returned from their bath with sacred ashes besmeared all over their bodies and Rudrakshas(wreath of beads made from the seeds of a particular tree)hanging loosely round their necks,assembled a miscellaneous council in the devasabha,their general meeting place within the temple.
Appiah Dikshitar,the eldest of the group,rose and told his wonderful dream-how Nataraja appeared before him,and related the possibility of purifying Nanda by means of a fire-bath.Kuppanna Dikshitar,confirmed the dream by his own experience.Subbiah Dikshitar saluted the two previous speakers,and expressed his surprise at the coincidence of his dream with those related.Nataraja Dikshitar did the same;and all the Dikshitars simultaneously rose,and expressed the uniformity of their dreams.At once,when the wind was blowing fiercely and the sun was burning hot,arrangements were made for a sacred fire being reared.

Meanwhile Nanda had just risen from a long trance and was singing:
My maid,go tell my lovely lord that I
bow to his golden feet that dance on high.

All shouted-Nataraja,Nataraja!

The Dikshitars approached Nanda and bowing to him,to his great surprise,related to him their wonderful dream and took him over to the corner of the South Mada Street where the fire had been prepared.The pious devotee at once sprang into the fire joyfully singing:'my Father Isa's feet are cool like the effulgent evening moon,the faultless Vina(Lute),the Breeze that unceasingly blows,the spring that swells,or a tank round which bees hum and swarm".
The Dikshitars chanted:
"O pious Nanda,frantic with Holy enthusiasm!Leap into the Fire:the Fire scorcheth not,water wetteth thee not,sword pierceth thee not,winds wither thee not,Thou art a Brahmin,the pariah part of thee is burnt away;All the vedas declare Thee to be one ,higher than the mountains,vaster than the Horizon;and in the sight of the wise enjoying the abandon of wisdom,thou art neither he ,nor she,nor it,but beautiful simply;no one can know Thee'.Nanda !purified thou art by the fire of wisdom,which burns away all past,present,and future Karmas".

nanda passed through the crucible unhurt,nay,rose purer for the bath;what was burning and seething was now cool and refreshing.he was lead by the admiring Dikshitars from the South mada street through the Eastern tower gate broad like the Vedas and speedily led on by the side of Kambattadi mantapa(Lord Subrahmanya's shrine)and the square tank,and across the devasabha,into the common platform,midway between Sri Govindaraja perumal and the Dancing Nataraja.No damsel richly laden with jewels and decorated for marriage with her favourite lover,ever went with greater joy to her nuptial bed fragrant with sandal and flowers,no humming bee ever went near the honey-filled flower "that captive makes the surrounding winds",with greater eagerness than did Nanda ,chanting forth his extempore hymns,the Vedas that sprang from his mouth,to the great Presence:where once stood Appar,singing his famous song meaning-
'Here is my Lord.He who is rare,He who lives in the bosom of the Gracious,He who resides in the temple of the Vedas and in the atom,the true God yet unknown,who is sweet like Honey and Milk,the abounding light of heaven,the God of gods,Brahma and Vishnu,the great invisible spirit that pervades the rolling sea and the mountain chains.The days on which i forgot to sing His praise are days in which I did not live',and similiar songs;where stood manikkar fainting with love and pouring forth his remarkable upanishads.There now Nanda stood,and on both sides of the kanakasabha(The Golden Mantapa)huge ocean-voiced bells poured forth their joyous chimes.Appiah Dikshitar entered into the shrine,and waved the Lights before Nataraja-holding up in one hand the Eternal atmic Jyoti to attest the Truth of His silent teaching,with His Right leg planted over the illusion of suffering,and His left leg raised aloft,as if in search of lovers,serving as the highest Banyan tree,the richest shade that could shelter against the scorching Samsara(worldly existence).
Nanda ,the Pariah disappeared into nanda the Brahmin,and Nanda the Brahmin ,disappeared ,once and for ever,into the eternal invisible Nataraja -disappeared, singing his swan song:
Nataraja my Lord,Nataraja my love,
My Lord,I come,I come,my love,
We both are only one;
Thou art I,and myself art thou.
-----------------------------------
Rightly understood Nanda's story is an illustration of the Great teaching:
"whosoever will save his life shall lose it;and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it".(Sri Rajam Iyer).
-----------------------------------
Namakar.

Nandu Narasimhan said...

Attn: Clemens Vargas Ramos


Dear Clemens,

Your copy of 'Ribhu Gita' should reach you by Monday or Tuesday.

Let us both thank Bhagavan.

Nandu

Anonymous said...

.

... Nandu; Your copy of 'Ribhu Gita' should reach you by Monday or Tuesday.

Let us both thank Bhagavan. ...
Thank you, Nandu, and may Bhagavan bless you and all of us.

This book is one of the holiest and I can hardly wait to hold it in my hands.

.

Kannan said...

Hi David,

Thank you for sharing this inspiring story of Sri Ramanagiri. You are a great inspirition to all sadhakas in the world by sharing stories of great souls who walked on this earth.

thank you,
Kannan

Gosta said...

In Arthur Osborne's biography 'Ramana Maharshi and the Path of Self-Knowledge' it says:

'A Swedish sadhu had a dream in which the afflicted arm [of Bhagavan] opened and he saw there the head of a woman with grey hair
dishevelled. This was interpreted to mean that it was the
karma of his mother that he assumed when he gave her
Moksha, but others saw the woman to signify all mankind or
Maya itself.
On Thursday, April 13th, a doctor brought Sri Bhagavan a
palliative to relieve the congestion in the lungs but he refused it.
“It is not necessary; everything will come right within two days.”'

Maybe Swami Ramanagiri is, or was, the 'Swedish sadhu'?

Gosta, who happen to be a Swede myself

Ravi said...

Nandu,
"Somehow, the final journey to Chidambaram reminds me of Bhagavan's journey to Arunachala, with things happening through Divine Will."
Thanks for your kind words.Yes,indeed it does remind us about Sri Bhagavan's journey to Tiruvannamalai.
Likewise,We may also feel our kinship to Nanda in the sense that we are 'slaves to the senses five 'and bonded to 'Intellect-The Brahmin'-We also feel the 'Void'-the Longing for 'We know not What'-The void that neither Pleasure,Wealth,Position or Power can fill.We also long to be freed from the 'Clutches of Drudgery'.We also will not be freed until we fulfill our 'allotted Role'invoking the power of Grace.

My Home PC is down and is expected to be up in the next coupe of Days.I will continue the story of NANDA.

Thanks very much for your encouragement.

Namaskar.

Kannan said...

Hi David,

Thank you for sharing this inspiring story of Sri Ramanagiri. You are a great inspirition to all sadhakas in the world by sharing stories of great souls who walked on this earth.

thank you,
Kannan

Ravi said...

Bookworm/Friends,
Here is an Excerpt from Swamiji(Vivekananda):(From 'Inspired Talks')
"No law can make ,you free, you are free.
Nothing can give you freedom, if you have it not
already. The Atman is self-illumined. Cause
and effect do not reach there, and this disembodiedness
is freedom. Beyond what was, or is, or is
to be is Brahman. As an effect, freedom would
have no value ; it would be a compound , and
as such would contain the seeds of bondage.
It is the one real factor, not to be attained, but
the real nature of the soul.
Work and worship, however, are necessary
to take away the veil, to lift off the bondage and illusion. They do not give us freedom,
but all the same, without effort on our own
part we do not open our eyes and see what we
are. Sankara says further that Advaita-Veddnta
is the crowning glory of the Vedas ; but the
lower Vedas are also necessary, because they
teach work and worship and through these many
come to the Lord. Others may come without
any help but Advaita. Work and worship lead
to the same result as Advaita.
Books cannot teach God, but they can destroy
ignorance ; their action is negative. To
hold to the books and at the Same time open
the way to freedom, is Sankara's great achievement.
But after all, it is a kind of hair-splitting.
Give man first the concrete, then raise
him to the highest by slow degrees. This is
the effort of the various religions and explains
their existence and why each is suited to some
stage of development. The very books are
part of the ignorance they help to dispel. Their
duty is to drive out the ignorance that has come
upon knowledge. "Truth shall drive out untruth."
You are free and cannot be made so."
For Every statement that is valid there is an Opposite statement that is Equally valid.
"Spirituality can be given"-simply means that Great souls by their being established in Truth,can help the seeker in a 'tangible' way,whereas a learned pundit who parrots the Highest Philosophy will not make 'any sense'.
What Vivekananda said is as valid as what Ramana said.
----------------------------------
Salutations.

baskar said...

This is about Nandu Narasimhan's longing for Arunachalam:

I find that there are live webcams that stream images of Arunachalam-

-Webcam GaloreArunachala LiveWorldcam.plHope this is of some consolation.

Regards,

Ravi said...

Friends,
In this excerpt from 'Guru Ramana',Sri Bhagavan explains the Nature of Difficulty:

16th February, 1937
A visitor remarks that it is cruel of God’s leela to make
the knowledge of the Self so hard.
Bh. (laughing) - Knowing the Self is being the Self, and being
means existence – one’s own existence, which no one
denies, any more than one denies one’s eyes, although
one cannot see them. The trouble lies with your desire
to objectify the Self, in the same way as you objectify
your eyes when you place a mirror before them. You have
been so accustomed to objectivity that you lost the
knowledge of yourself, simply because the Self cannot
be objectified. Who is to know the self? Can the
insentient body know it? All the time you speak and
think of your ‘I’, ‘I’, ‘I’, yet when questioned you deny
knowledge of it. You are the Self, yet you ask how to
know the Self. Where then is God’s leela and where its
cruelty? It is because of this denial of the Self by people
that the Shastras speak of maya, leela, etc.
-----------------------------------
As long as there is desire for the 'Non Self' ,thoughts kidnap one from perceiving what is.Whatever method one follows-The Path of Self Enquiry or the Path of Devotion-it will help to truly examine and understand what is it that one wants.As Viveka and Vairagya grows,the mind dispenses its fascination and attachment to the Non Self and gravitates towards its source and to this extent,Peace and Bliss is Experienced.
Besides,Viveka Vairagya-Satsangha is one of the strongest aids in the path.
There is no easy shortcut or trick in this.
It is 'difficult' for the mind caught up in desires;
It is 'Easy' for the mind that is relatively free of attachment to the 'non self'.
-----------------------------------
Namaskar.

David Godman said...

The version of Ribhu Gita that Bhagavan spoke so highly of is the Tamil one. The original Sanskrit text forms part of the Siva Rahasya, a little-known text. The full Sanskrit text of the Siva Rahasya has been published by the Saraswati Library in Tanjore, but I don't think a published version existed anywhere in Bhagavan's day.

I gave the Englsih translation of the Tamil text to Papaji around 1994, and he read out, in daily installments, the whole book in satsang. These daily readings proved to be so popular, he read out the whole book again a couple of years later. I believe that audio tapes of his readings can be purchased from the Avadhuta Foundation in Colorado. I had a set of these tapes in Lucknow and I used to play then at night when I went to sleep in the hope that the message,and the truth being pointed at, would somehow seep into my unconscious.

Anonymous said...

Scott Fraundorf;

the abridged version, the Essence of Ribhu Gita, is I believe a Tamil Translation by N. Krishnamurti Ayer who is also featured in Power of Presence Part I with the wonderful story about Ramana staring at him, and him feeling like a bomb went off beneath him. He tells the same story for video on the Who am I? documentary I believe part 4. Type in Ramana Maharshi Who am I? on Youtube, it is an amazing documentary with interviews with him, Annamalai Swami, some women who saw Maharshi, it's the only footage I have seen really of interviews with Ramana devotees who knew him, in a documentary, and not just ones who Realized the Self, obviously Annamalai Swami did, and others left me with the impression that if they hadn't, they probably were pretty close, swooning in and out of samadhi when they talked, the rest had had pretty profound experiences of loss of body consciousness, etc. in Ramana's presence. It's on Youtube "Ramana Maharshi Who am I?". Dr. H. Ramamoorthy and Nome's translation of both the Sanskrit and Tamil versions of the Ribhu Gita, so far I've only read the Tamil one, but it is the best spiritual book I have ever read by far, every word dispels illusion, and takes me further into the depths, and my interepretation, sorry, if it's not agreed upon, is it is by virtue of atleast one of it's translators being a Jnani,inclusive of it's original authors, and the impression I get from the introduction is that the Tamil translator in the 1800s, if I remember correctly at a Shankacharya Mathe was also a Jnani.

baskar said...

Sir,

Does this help?

-Scribd

Regards,

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 425   Newer› Newest»