PDA

View Full Version : Yogi Ramacharaka



Achanda
27 July 2007, 01:43 AM
A few months ago I bought The Philosophies and Religions of India by Yogi Ramacharaka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogi_Ramacharaka) (William Walker Atkinson) at a used bookstore. I haven't gotten around to reading until a few days ago. Has anyone heard of this author? Apparently he was an American (1862-1932) who helped popularize Eastern philosophy and religion in the West.

I've really enjoyed the book so far. The first chapter discusses basic Hindu philosophy and the "Three Axioms" of the Hindu sages.

From Nothing. Nothing can come; Something cannot be caused by or proceed from Nothing. Nothing Real can be Created, for it Is Not Now it never Can Be - If It Ever Was Not Now - if it Is Now, it Ever Has Been.
Something Real cannot be dissolved into Nothing; if It Is Now, it Always Will Be; Nothing That Is can ever Be Destroyed; Dissolution is merely the Changing of Form - the resolving of an Effect into its Preceeding Cause (real or relative).
What is Evolved, must have been Involved; the Cause (real or relative) must contain the Effect; the Effect must be the reproduction of the Cause (real or relative).

Agnideva
29 July 2007, 03:44 PM
Namaste Achanda,


the "Three Axioms" of the Hindu sages.
From Nothing. Nothing can come; Something cannot be caused by or proceed from Nothing. Nothing Real can be Created, for it Is Not Now it never Can Be - If It Ever Was Not Now - if it Is Now, it Ever Has Been.
Something Real cannot be dissolved into Nothing; if It Is Now, it Always Will Be; Nothing That Is can ever Be Destroyed; Dissolution is merely the Changing of Form - the resolving of an Effect into its Preceeding Cause (real or relative).
What is Evolved, must have been Involved; the Cause (real or relative) must contain the Effect; the Effect must be the reproduction of the Cause (real or relative).Thanks Achanda. That's a nice summary and I've never seen it summed up like this. I've never heard of this Yogi either. I wonder if he was inspired to write up the three axioms by reading about the three laws of thermodynamics :D.

Regards,
A.

yajvan
29 July 2007, 04:05 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~~

A few months ago I bought The Philosophies and Religions of India by Yogi Ramacharaka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogi_Ramacharaka) (William Walker Atkinson) at a used bookstore. I haven't gotten around to reading until a few days ..philosophy and the "Three Axioms" of the Hindu sages.

From Nothing. Nothing can come; Something cannot be caused by or proceed from Nothing. Nothing Real can be Created, for it Is Not Now it never Can Be - If It Ever Was Not Now - if it Is Now, it Ever Has Been.
Something Real cannot be dissolved into Nothing; if It Is Now, it Always Will Be; Nothing That Is can ever Be Destroyed; Dissolution is merely the Changing of Form - the resolving of an Effect into its Preceeding Cause (real or relative).
What is Evolved, must have been Involved; the Cause (real or relative) must contain the Effect; the Effect must be the reproduction of the Cause (real or relative).Namaste Achanda,
Did Yogi Ramacharaka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogi_Ramacharaka) give the details of the Upanishads they came from? If so, it is delightful to read this from there too...
just a thought.

pranams,

sarabhanga
15 August 2007, 06:47 AM
Namaste,



From nothing, nothing can come.
Something cannot be caused by or proceed from nothing.
Nothing real can be created, for it is not now it never can be.
If it is now, it ever has been.

Something real cannot be dissolved into nothing.
If it is now, it always will be.
Nothing that is can ever be destroyed.

This is straight from the Karikas of Shri Gaudapada:


What is not at the beginning and at the end, is so also in the present.

The immortal does not become mortal, nor likewise the mortal immortal.

The birth of the existent is indeed reasonable through Maya, but not in reality.
For one who considers that the existent is born in reality, he would have to admit that the already born is born!

The birth of the non-existent either through Maya or in reality is assuredly not reasonable.
The son of a barren woman is not born either in reality or even through Maya.

No existent whatever is originated; a non-existent is assuredly not originated.

The unreal has not the unreal as its cause, likewise the real the unreal as its cause.
The real as well has not the real as its cause; whence can the unreal have the real as its cause?


Dissolution is merely the changing of form ~ the resolving of an effect into its preceding cause (real or relative).
What is evolved, must have been involved.
The cause (real or relative) must contain the effect.
The effect must be the reproduction of the cause (real or relative).

But this part is not Gaudapada’s philosophy.

According to Shri Gaudapada:


For one who considers that the effect is originated from an unoriginated cause, for him there is assuredly no illustration to corroborate his theory; and in the case of the effect being originated from an originated cause, there would be the undesirable contingency of regressus ad infinitum.

The absence of full knowledge about the priority and posteriority of cause and effect is the full illuminator of non-origination.

Nothing whatever is originated either from itself or from something else.
Nothing whatever, whether existent, non-existent, or existent-nonexistent as well, is originated.

For which there is no beginning, there is indeed no cause for it.

Entities are not originated from the mind; the mind also for that matter is not originated from entities.
Thus the wise enter into the doctrine of non-origination of cause and effect.

As long as there is the obsession of cause and effect, so long the worldly existence is prolonged.
When the obsession with cause and effect ceases to exist, one does not attain to worldly existence.

Everything characterized by the nature of the existent is unoriginated, and therefore there is no annihilation.

atanu
15 August 2007, 10:24 AM
Shri Gaudapada amazes me. The stark pure crystall clear logic tears away the veil of cause and effect and veil of karma.


The birth of the existent is indeed reasonable through Maya, but not in reality.
For one who considers that the existent is born in reality, he would have to admit that the already born is born! The Real cannot have any cause and neither can it cause another real or unreal. Where is cause and effect?


It is however no wonder that these sound like the laws of thermodynamics, since many of the mathematically/experimentally derived scientific theorems are contained in pure thoughts of Upanishadic seers. A passage in Asiya Vamiya Sukta of Rig Veda asks: Who knows how the boneless gave rise to the bony?

Science will ever struggle with this.


Namah Namah Gurudeva of Gurudeva of Gurudeva.

Nuno Matos
15 August 2007, 06:58 PM
Namaste Atnu

The birth of the existent is indeed reasonable through Maya, but not in reality.
For one who considers that the existent is born in reality, he would have to admit that the already born is born! The Real cannot have any cause and neither can it cause another real or unreal. Where is cause and effect?


It is however no wonder that these sound like the laws of thermodynamics, since many of the mathematically/experimentally derived scientific theorems are contained in pure thoughts of Upanishadic seers. A passage in Asiya Vamiya Sukta of Rig Veda asks: Who knows how the boneless gave rise to the bony?


It's an uncaused cause for the sake of consciousness! As you should know karma it's a socio cultural construction and a nature law. And karma is cause and effect, it's objective, the real is subjective that's why sankhia postulates many puruchas struggling to be free from prakriti ( maya or the world) . Are we above nature laws? No because going against nature is a part of nature to.
So the bony is only a part of the boneless that defines him trough inversion and vice versa in a pure dualistic sense or psychologic like in an dialogue. In the same way you could say that Maya serves the Real for the sake of the Real ( consciousness ) and is a part of it not it's characteristic. How was Maya created? It's a mystery so big as the Real itself. It's imponderable. An uncaused cause.One mater the other anti-mater and both the same ( Nature). So the scientists say.
Sanyasa is destructing Karma in order to get to the permanent unity ( Nature ) out of cause and effect.To know how the boneless gave birth to the bony is not for me a pertinent question.

atanu
16 August 2007, 04:55 AM
Namaste Atnu

-----So the bony is only a part of the boneless that defines him trough inversion and vice versa in a pure dualistic sense or psychologic like in an dialogue. In the same way you could say that Maya serves the Real for the sake of the Real ( consciousness ) and is a part of it not it's characteristic. How was Maya created? It's a mystery so big as the Real itself. It's imponderable. An uncaused cause.One mater the other anti-mater and both the same ( Nature). So the scientists say.
Sanyasa is destructing Karma in order to get to the permanent unity ( Nature ) out of cause and effect.To know how the boneless gave birth to the bony is not for me a pertinent question.

Dear Nuno,

You say valuable things. The only problem crops up (may be only for me) is that scriptures ask us to known Brahman, which IS defined as 'saman' -- differenceless, divisionless, infinite. It is said that one who sees any difference goes down.

The question is not whether after knowing this Brahman one still sees bones (which as you say is in boneless) or how the boneless gives rise to the bony (you have mentioned this also). The question, to me atleast, is how one knows the divisionless Brahman, being a second to it?

Brahman has no second and hence the knower cannot be a second.

In rest of what you say I find great value.

Regards,

Om Namah Shivaya

Nuno Matos
17 August 2007, 08:40 AM
Namaste dear friend ( Atanu )

"Brahman has no second and hence the knower cannot be a second."

I do agree with you on this sentence, in fact the Knower cannot be a second. Time is.
You just need to [ignore the "machine"], not forgetting her. I think Sarabhanga can explain this better than anyone now that he and Yjavan have told us the meaning for the 3 types of samnyasas.


Om namah shivaya!

atanu
17 August 2007, 09:05 AM
Namaste dear friend ( Atanu )

"Brahman has no second and hence the knower cannot be a second."

I do agree with you on this sentence, in fact the Knower cannot be a second. Time is.
You just need to [ignore the "machine"], not forgetting her. I think Sarabhanga can explain this better than anyone now that he and Yjavan have told us the meaning for the 3 types of samnyasas.


Om namah shivaya!

And I am talking of the last kind, though I do not understand what you are saying.



Thanks.

Om Namah Shivaya

Nuno Matos
17 August 2007, 09:27 AM
Namaste Atanu


"The only problem crops up (may be only for me) is that scriptures ask us to known Brahman, which IS defined as 'saman' -- differenceless, divisionless, infinite. It is said that one who sees any difference goes down."

I am just saying that the ultimate self the truth (the absolute Brahman) is nothing that you may be aware of. And that it can be reached and so explained in a structural way (in time or number). You seem to tend to a more vertical approach or am i wrong?
And that thing of going down is for me a Christian concept.
As above so below it is not what the sages say?
Lol!

Time is = infinite

Thank you!



Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
17 August 2007, 11:48 AM
Namaste Atanu
---I am just saying that the ultimate self the truth (the absolute Brahman) is nothing that you may be aware of. And that it can be reached and so explained in a structural way (in time or number). You seem to tend to a more vertical approach or am i wrong?
And that thing of going down is for me a Christian concept.
As above so below it is not what the sages say?
Lol!

Time is = infinite



Thank you!

Haha Dear Nuno,

First, I wondered, which up-down you are speaking about?

Like you say: "explained in a structural way", I took liberty with shruti and used a loose phrase.

It is all my fault.

Shruti says "One who sees any difference here goes from death to death".


Om Namah Shivaya

Nuno Matos
17 August 2007, 01:27 PM
[quote=atanu;14950]Thank you!

Haha Dear Nuno,

First, I wondered, which up-down you are speaking about?

Like you say: "explained in a structural way", I took liberty with shruti and used a loose phrase.

It is all my fault.

.

Dear Atanu

It was you who mentioned the going down not me i have just answered according to what you have said in previous post's.
Structural means a dessicated supported view that every body could follow and get a clue of what we wore talking about.
After all you do follow a vertical approach. Are you against gurus and Varna? Do you think you can grasp God without existence, learning and Knowledge.
You talk about Shruti but this discussion of us is being laid on the philosophies section not in what comes from is grace section. I think the God section will be more in accordance to your way of putting things.
We can move there you seem a very interesting person to have discussions.
Now you said; "Shruti says "One who sees any difference here goes from death to death"; and i ask "difference here" were? If it is a place it must be subject to time and space.To know your self you must be beyond time and space.After all he is the one without a second. Time is.

Namaste!


Om Namah Shivaya:)

atanu
17 August 2007, 01:46 PM
[quote=atanu;14950]Thank you!

Haha Dear Nuno,

First, I wondered, which up-down you are speaking about?

Like you say: "explained in a structural way", I took liberty with shruti and used a loose phrase.

It is all my fault.

.

Dear Atanu

It was you who mentioned the going down not me i have just answered according to what you have said in previous post's.
Structural means a dessicated supported view that every body could follow and get a clue of what we wore talking about.
After all you do follow a vertical approach. Are you against gurus and Varna? Do you think you can grasp God without existence, learning and Knowledge.
You talk about Shruti but this discussion of us is being laid on the philosophies section not in what comes from is grace section. I think the God section will be more in accordance to your way of putting things.
We can move there you seem a very interesting person to have discussions.
Now you said; "Shruti says "One who sees any difference here goes from death to death"; and i ask "difference here" were? If it is a place it must be subject to time and space.To know your self you must be beyond time and space.After all he is the one without a second. Time is.

Namaste!


Om Namah Shivaya:)


Om Namah Shivaya,

Yes. I have already said that it was all my fault.

I think, the self can be known here and now as that which is beyond time and space. This is what my Guru teaches that I have come to believe.

Here and now. Since, can anyone say "I do not exist?"

Om Namah Shivaya