Raman Maharshi (was Re: RES: [Advaita-l] Newmemberintroduction:AsadMustafa Rizvi)

sriram srirudra at vsnl.com
Wed Jan 31 09:31:36 CST 2007

this is news to me that advaita is pure jnana marga...to say that Ramana
taught only advaita is again a play of words
Ramana wanted atma vicara.as much as it meant 'self' enquiry...he wanted
awakening and no search was
requistioned to perform this awakening.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.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. 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 reality.
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 cause
for diversity and there being no diversity there was no need to conjure an
Amanasya is salvation!
----- Original Message -----
From: Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy at gmail.com>
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: Raman Maharshi (was Re: RES: [Advaita-l]
Newmemberintroduction:AsadMustafa Rizvi)

> And what is advaita if not a jnana marga to Self-realisation. There is
> no need to see "shades" of advaita in Ramana - what he taught was
> Advaita and nothing else.
> Answering the question "who am I" i.e. Atma-vichara, is a fundamental
> teaching of advaita-vedAnta. Saying that Ramana taught advaita is no
> way tantamount to reducing the form to the shadow. Needless to say, I
> agree emphatically with Rama on this count.
> On 29/01/07, sriram <srirudra at vsnl.com> wrote:
> > ramana is a true master. he analysed the works and the world from the
> > formless to the formed from the stand point of Ego.
> > he wanted the mind to be annulled by the simple question"who Am I?"
> > that his words and work have been seen by scholars as an embodiment of
> > advaita is purely coincidental...
> > The maharishi's disciples used to take works of other saints for
> > interpretation and like a true master ever selfless Ramana used to
> > clearing their doubts on certain aspects. before we conclude that he was
> > mere translator or a pure crystal who has shed no instrinsic color i
> > caution you to merely read his upedesa saram and at best we can say that
> > was a form of Jnana Marga to self realisation. One can see shades of
> > in Ramana but to say that Ramana espoused advaita is to reduce the form
to a
> > shadow!
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rama.balasubramanian at gmail.com>
> > To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
> > <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 5:51 PM
> > Subject: Raman Maharshi (was Re: RES: [Advaita-l] New member
> > introduction:AsadMustafa Rizvi)
> >
> >
> > > I must say I disagree with calling RM a sphatika mani. It seems like
> > > saying that RM had no philosophical ideas of his own. The
> > > relation/common points that advaita (forget about RM) has with systems
> > > such as mystical Christian traditions, sufism, etc, had already been
> > > pointed out by Aldous Huxley, Schrodinger, etc., who had no idea of
> > > RM. At least Schrodinger did not.
> > >
> > > The best way to get an idea of what RM said is to read his works. He
> > > was not a Sanskrit scholar, but knew enough Sanskrit to compose some
> > > poetry. The bulk of his philosophical works are in Tamil verse and
> > > poetry. Probably about half of them are translations of Shankaras
> > > works such as VivekachUDAmaNI, etc. But the rest will show he was
> > > nothing other than a classical advaitin. Examing shankara from his
> > > works alone (we have no access to conversations), and comparing that
> > > with some recorded dialogs of RM, is not an apples to apples
> > > comparison.
> > >
> > > Rama
> > >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list