atanu
13 July 2008, 07:31 PM
Namaste All,
Om Shanti. This is continuation of the "Why" thread, which is now closed.
Admin Note
This thread is mixing up a lot of different issues.
I request the members to start a separate thread on each issue so that clear, civil, respectful and most of all high quality discussions can happen.
The three or four separate issues seem to be:
- Did Rsi Ramana utter the words "I am that" or Not
- "I am That" is an incomplete mahavakya or Not
- Jesus was following Vedic mahavakyas and Bible is a testimony to that
- Mother Teresa was a sage
This thread is under review and as usual all site rules apply to all members so any statements that break the rules of the HDF will be deleted.
Thanks,
Namaste Satay,
Let me point out that -""I am That" is an incomplete mahavakya or Not" is not an issue. The following statement of mine was a mistake:
Originally Posted by nirotu http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=23671#post23671)
Dear Atanu:
Thank you! I appreciate your input.
The way I understand is that Sri Ramana Maharishi in his ultimate state when he uttered, “I am that”, it could possibly have been said in reference to “Dvaita”.
Namaste Nirotu,
A question now. I am surprised. Can you show us where Shri Ramana uttered "I am that"? As far as I know, he never said such a partial mahavakya. You must give the full reference.
That it was a mistake was acknowledged as below:
From Atanu
Thanks to Sarabhanga that the potential trouble hidden above has been pointed out.
The sentence was not intended to indicate:
That sage Vamadeva's realisation was partial.
That as Vedic Mahavakya "I am Brahman" is partial
That those who are fit to receive this upadesha as "Soham" meditation, or equivalent, received a partial upadesha.The sentence, written in a bit of hurry, itself is partial. The sentence was intended to convey:
Ramana possibly never uttered "I am That", because Ramana repeatedly taught that the Self-Brahman is beyond the reach of speech.
Ramana possibly could not have uttered such a great sentence incompletely.If unknowingly any one has been hurt, I apologise profusely.
Om
Second, "Did Rsi Ramana utter the words "I am that" or Not?" is again not the main issue. It was incidental that atanu and most Ramana Rsi devotees have not heard/read Ramana saying (uttering) "I am That". That does not mean that he did not believe it or he did not teach it. In fact, silently, he emanated and emanates that knowledge continuously. Else, He would not be named Bhagwan.
The main issue was that Nirotu ascribed a dvaitic interpretation of alleged "I am That" utterance of Shri Ramana and later Nirotu replaced "I Am That" with "I- I" realisation of Shri Ramana during his enocounter with Death. Nirotu said that "I-I" meant two I's. To that the following was answered:
From Atanu
Dear Nirotu,
Namaste,
You said that "I-I" of Ramana's experience and teaching means presence of two I's. Please read below to see what the Master himself says:
"If the inquiry "Who am I?" were a mere mental questioning, it would not be of much value. The very purpose of Self-inquiry is to focus the entire mind at its Source. It is not, therefore, a case of one 'I' searching for another 'I'. Much less is Self-inquiry an empty formula, for it involves an intense activity of the entire mind to keep it steadily poised in pure Self-awareness.
Self-inquiry is the one infallible means; the only direct one, to realize the unconditioned, absolute Being that you really are."
-----------------
Please do not spread any mis-information that Shri Ramana believed anything other than purest Advaita. But I agree that he was very favourable to Bhakti aspect.
Om
That is the uncomplicated part of the discussion with Nirotu that got derailed due to several reasons. Blame game and finding omissions elsewhere will not help an advaitin, since all omissions are then ascribed to the self, which otherwise is taintless, as per shruti. The omission is in the guna based mental perception of ME, which is the whole Universe, the divine purusha, Narayana, Shivam, the pure. Narayana, the sacrifice has its stable and its source in the absolute atma (Brihadarayanaka) and the absolute is known as shivoadvaita (Mandukya).
So, I will request Nirotu, if he is willing, to continue only on the main subject as to how the "I-I" experience of Ramana is dvaita, when the master himself says: "to realize the unconditioned, absolute Being that you really are"
That is the clearest signal and needs no interpretation that Shri Ramana believed and taught identity of jivatma and paramatma. The perceived difference is a flaw of sensual superimposition of ego association with body etc on the pure infinite self. He never accepted Ego I as real; so question of two real I's does not arise. The false "i" has to die.
Though devotees acknowledged him as Bhagawan and he never felt the need to articulate "I am That", he on the other hand, taught his devotees "Find out Who you are?", all the time silently teaching: "You art That". This part of acknowledging that "All Is Brahman" is possibly lacking in Christian philosophy and thus we see "I am saved but you are damned" kind of attitude so often.
Regards to all,
Om Shanti
Om
Om Shanti. This is continuation of the "Why" thread, which is now closed.
Admin Note
This thread is mixing up a lot of different issues.
I request the members to start a separate thread on each issue so that clear, civil, respectful and most of all high quality discussions can happen.
The three or four separate issues seem to be:
- Did Rsi Ramana utter the words "I am that" or Not
- "I am That" is an incomplete mahavakya or Not
- Jesus was following Vedic mahavakyas and Bible is a testimony to that
- Mother Teresa was a sage
This thread is under review and as usual all site rules apply to all members so any statements that break the rules of the HDF will be deleted.
Thanks,
Namaste Satay,
Let me point out that -""I am That" is an incomplete mahavakya or Not" is not an issue. The following statement of mine was a mistake:
Originally Posted by nirotu http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=23671#post23671)
Dear Atanu:
Thank you! I appreciate your input.
The way I understand is that Sri Ramana Maharishi in his ultimate state when he uttered, “I am that”, it could possibly have been said in reference to “Dvaita”.
Namaste Nirotu,
A question now. I am surprised. Can you show us where Shri Ramana uttered "I am that"? As far as I know, he never said such a partial mahavakya. You must give the full reference.
That it was a mistake was acknowledged as below:
From Atanu
Thanks to Sarabhanga that the potential trouble hidden above has been pointed out.
The sentence was not intended to indicate:
That sage Vamadeva's realisation was partial.
That as Vedic Mahavakya "I am Brahman" is partial
That those who are fit to receive this upadesha as "Soham" meditation, or equivalent, received a partial upadesha.The sentence, written in a bit of hurry, itself is partial. The sentence was intended to convey:
Ramana possibly never uttered "I am That", because Ramana repeatedly taught that the Self-Brahman is beyond the reach of speech.
Ramana possibly could not have uttered such a great sentence incompletely.If unknowingly any one has been hurt, I apologise profusely.
Om
Second, "Did Rsi Ramana utter the words "I am that" or Not?" is again not the main issue. It was incidental that atanu and most Ramana Rsi devotees have not heard/read Ramana saying (uttering) "I am That". That does not mean that he did not believe it or he did not teach it. In fact, silently, he emanated and emanates that knowledge continuously. Else, He would not be named Bhagwan.
The main issue was that Nirotu ascribed a dvaitic interpretation of alleged "I am That" utterance of Shri Ramana and later Nirotu replaced "I Am That" with "I- I" realisation of Shri Ramana during his enocounter with Death. Nirotu said that "I-I" meant two I's. To that the following was answered:
From Atanu
Dear Nirotu,
Namaste,
You said that "I-I" of Ramana's experience and teaching means presence of two I's. Please read below to see what the Master himself says:
"If the inquiry "Who am I?" were a mere mental questioning, it would not be of much value. The very purpose of Self-inquiry is to focus the entire mind at its Source. It is not, therefore, a case of one 'I' searching for another 'I'. Much less is Self-inquiry an empty formula, for it involves an intense activity of the entire mind to keep it steadily poised in pure Self-awareness.
Self-inquiry is the one infallible means; the only direct one, to realize the unconditioned, absolute Being that you really are."
-----------------
Please do not spread any mis-information that Shri Ramana believed anything other than purest Advaita. But I agree that he was very favourable to Bhakti aspect.
Om
That is the uncomplicated part of the discussion with Nirotu that got derailed due to several reasons. Blame game and finding omissions elsewhere will not help an advaitin, since all omissions are then ascribed to the self, which otherwise is taintless, as per shruti. The omission is in the guna based mental perception of ME, which is the whole Universe, the divine purusha, Narayana, Shivam, the pure. Narayana, the sacrifice has its stable and its source in the absolute atma (Brihadarayanaka) and the absolute is known as shivoadvaita (Mandukya).
So, I will request Nirotu, if he is willing, to continue only on the main subject as to how the "I-I" experience of Ramana is dvaita, when the master himself says: "to realize the unconditioned, absolute Being that you really are"
That is the clearest signal and needs no interpretation that Shri Ramana believed and taught identity of jivatma and paramatma. The perceived difference is a flaw of sensual superimposition of ego association with body etc on the pure infinite self. He never accepted Ego I as real; so question of two real I's does not arise. The false "i" has to die.
Though devotees acknowledged him as Bhagawan and he never felt the need to articulate "I am That", he on the other hand, taught his devotees "Find out Who you are?", all the time silently teaching: "You art That". This part of acknowledging that "All Is Brahman" is possibly lacking in Christian philosophy and thus we see "I am saved but you are damned" kind of attitude so often.
Regards to all,
Om Shanti
Om