Raman Maharshi (was Re: RES:[Advaita-l]Newmemberintroduction:AsadMustafa Rizvi)
srirudra at vsnl.com
Thu Feb 1 19:29:43 CST 2007
Iam thankful for your time...
kindly refer to vivekachudamani verse 31, 32 for the clarification about the
essence of Jnana and Bhakti Margas and the difference between self enquiry
and enquiry into the nature of Atman and also verse 570 of vivekachudamani
about the repose of Adi Sankara that srutih does not permit
duality...Advaita is a State and to attain it there are verily numerous
paths...Bhakti, Jnana and other paths to that state of advaita!
know that kaivalya or oneness is the requisite to Brahman according to
Vedanta and that many have embarked upon the paths, many paths themselves
and many are the levels at each path before the attainment of the final
this is a forum for discussing advaita, or non duality. and therefore i
thought it correct to present to you that while the essence of all Sages and
their teachings may be the Truth that is One, we cannot quote them out of
context nor can we allude their teachings in an interchangeable manner. one
may take any liberty to make Ramana an Advaitin or Adi Sankara himself as
merely an Jnana Margi, and one need not join issue on this save this forum
which exaltedly seeks to explore the nuances of non-duality. Else there
would be not the slightest discomfort if the form were to be subsituted with
----- Original Message -----
From: Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy at gmail.com>
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 1:23 AM
Subject: Re: Raman Maharshi (was Re:
> Namaste Sriram,
> Its good you sent this mail. It gives us some idea of why you said
> what you said.
> I am sure our list member Sri Ramakrishnan will respond to your post
> and clarify the whole matter. Indeed, I hope & pray he does, as it
> would benefit all of us.
> Anyway, beginner that I am, let me make a small attempt at responding
> to your post. As far as the tradition of Advaita-Vedanta is concerned,
> let us be clear that it is not a one-track tradition with fixed views
> on each & every issue. Rather, the tradition enunciates some broad
> principles, and then allows multiple approaches within the said
> These broad prinicples are:
> 1. The Self alone is real. The world with its objects, words,
> concepts, etc is only a set of conventions (mithya) and has no reality
> apart from the Self
> 2. Seeing through this mithya, the seeker realizes that the Self alone
> is, and this is moksha
> It is clear from the above that advaita is a pure jnana marga.
> Realization does not involve any action. It is not about creating
> something that did not exist before, neither is it about going to
> heaven or "merging" with some divine entity. It is about
> *understanding* (not merely intellectually but as a fact) the
> ever-existent truth that the Self alone is.
> >From your mail, it appears to me that that you have grossly
> misunderstood Advaita.
> Now your points one by one. My responses after **
> Sriram wrote: << this is news to me that advaita is pure jnana marga>>
> ** I am surprised that a member of this list is making such a
> statement. If advaita is not a jnana marga, then what is? Anyway, I
> have explained this briefly above.
> Sriram: <<to say that Ramana taught only advaita is again a play of
> ** Ramana taught that the Self alone is, that it has no 'other'. The
> word "advaita" (non-dual) has various implications in different
> contexts and can be a topic of debate in its own right. However, when
> it is said that the Self is non-dual, what is meant is that **the Self
> has no other**. This implies that the ego is not real (without the
> 'other' there is no ego). This is precisely what Ramana taught.
> Sriram wrote:
> <<Ramana wanted atma vicara.as much as it meant 'self' enquiry...he
> wanted awakening and no search was requistioned to perform this
> **AtmavicAra is precisely what advaita-vedAnta teaches. It is not an
> external search but an enquiry into one's own being - to ask "who am
> I". The result is indeed an awakening, as it is a realization that the
> Self alone is.
> Sriram wrote:
> <<advaita has a goal to realise whereas Ramana felt that there was no
> goal since seeker and sought where mere relatives that melted away
> when reality confronted them>>
> ** AcArya gauDapAda says in his kArika:
> na nirodhaH na ca utpattiH na baddhaH na ca sAdhakaH
> na mumukShuH na vai muktaH iti eSha paramArthatA
> "there is neither dissolution nor birth; neither is anyone in bondage,
> nor is anyone a seeker.
> There is nobody seeking liberation, nor is anybody liberated, this is
> the supreme truth"
> This is precisely what Ramana is saying. Seeker & sought have no
> reality per se. They are mithya. When the Self is realized, all such
> distinctions melt away. They never even existed in the first place, as
> the Self has no other!
> Sriram wrote: <<in fact Ramana used to say that the trinity of object,
> beholder and time seem to hang on something and that when searched for
> seems to come to naught is where in principle Ramana's truth differs
> from the objective of advaita>>
> ** There is no difference at all. The trinity of object, beholder
> (subject) and time hold on to the "I-thought" (the ego). Through
> Atma-vicAra, the ego is found to be false. This is in perfect
> agreement with advaita-vedAnta. This IS advaita-vedAnta.
> In fact, the epistemological implication of advaita is precisely that
> there is no real distinction between subject & object, i.e. subject &
> object are not-two (advaita). The Self alone is real, so any
> distinction between subject & object is also mithya.
> Sriram wrote: <<Chapter 13 verse 30 of the gita avers to the concept
> of oneness as one from the many and the many to the one...for the
> Maharishi there was no passage or journey for the universe or the
> unitary were together plays of one's mind force and through the source
> of one's 'I'ness the Bhagwan felt that all relative would convert to
> ** It is not clear what you mean by the above. Please write in simpler
> But let us be clear that Advaita Vedanta does not talk about any
> "journey" from the many to the one or vice versa. The gItA can be
> interpreted in many ways. The ego is the key to relative reality. By
> tracing the ego to its source, one realizes that it is has no reality
> apart from the Self. This is precisely what Ramana taught.
> Sriram wrote:
> > what Adi talked was in the context of atman, and that all atman was
> > embodiment of the Supramental Being and in a way espoused a unity in
> > diversity, whereas Ramana said that the truth if searched for gave no
> > for diversity and there being no diversity there was no need to conjure
> > unity!
> ** Again, it would be useful if you could write in simpler English. I
> suppose by "Adi" you mean Adi Sankara. The Atman is not some
> supramental being and neither did Sankara espouse any unity in
> diversity. The Atman is the truth that gives no cause for diversity.
> 'Atman' is the Sanskrit word for 'Self' (or should I say that 'Self'
> is the English word for 'Atman'! ). The Self alone is self-evident.
> The Atman alone is. This is what Ramana taught and this is what
> Advaita-Vedanta teaches.
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list