PDA

View Full Version : Is "I-I" experience of Ramana Dvaita?



satay
13 July 2008, 11:37 PM
namaste,

Please continue to discuss this topic here. To new members joining the discussion, please see the 'Why' threads under Philosophy forum.



how the "I-I" experience of Ramana is dvaita, when the master himself says: "to realize the unconditioned, absolute Being that you really are"

nirotu
14 July 2008, 05:01 PM
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"

Dear Atanu:

Thank you for picking up yet another important point. Once again, let me repeat that there is no doubt that Sage Ramana lived in a purest Advaita state, although, somewhat different in some sense. Because, he allowed both modes “Jnana” and “Bhakti” in order to progress spiritually. What I am alluding to is that in the “moment of realization” there was a rejoining of two I’s. The need for such a union would not have been there if there was no Dvaita. Even to think “I am that” must have been because of under girding Dvaita.

If the ocean stands by itself, do you see any need for it to express through waves? Because, creation has occurred and Dvaita has come into being, the need to emerge in union has become necessary. That is the need for the wave to re-dissolve into its own being. If there was “Advaita” all along and no Dvaita at all, who will awaken and why or is there any need to awaken? Thus, in the manifest creation, that moment of realization what Ramana calls “I-I” would not have been needed if there was no Dvaita at all! In my opinion, Ramana’s realization of Advaita sprung from fact that Dvaita has come into being.

For a moment, consider things from Brahman’s perspective. Would there ever be a need for Brahman to say, “I am that”? Surely, not! Thus, obviously, something has occurred which creates the need for beings to utter “I am that”, thereby connoting the existence of Dvaita now becoming Advaita.

Atanu, I am making a simple point and let us not make it more complex than they actually are. The simple thing is “two-ness” has come into being, thus, created a need for returning to “one-ness”.

Blessings,

devotee
14 July 2008, 11:23 PM
Dear Atanu:

Thank you for picking up yet another important point. Once again, let me repeat that there is no doubt that Sage Ramana lived in a purest Advaita state, although, somewhat different in some sense. Because, he allowed both modes “Jnana” and “Bhakti” in order to progress spiritually. What I am alluding to is that in the “moment of realization” there was a rejoining of two I’s. The need for such a union would not have been there if there was no Dvaita. Even to think “I am that” must have been because of under girding Dvaita.

If the ocean stands by itself, do you see any need for it to express through waves? Because, creation has occurred and Dvaita has come into being, the need to emerge in union has become necessary. That is the need for the wave to re-dissolve into its own being. If there was “Advaita” all along and no Dvaita at all, who will awaken and why or is there any need to awaken? Thus, in the manifest creation, that moment of realization what Ramana calls “I-I” would not have been needed if there was no Dvaita at all! In my opinion, Ramana’s realization of Advaita sprung from fact that Dvaita has come into being.

For a moment, consider things from Brahman’s perspective. Would there ever be a need for Brahman to say, “I am that”? Surely, not! Thus, obviously, something has occurred which creates the need for beings to utter “I am that”, thereby connoting the existence of Dvaita now becoming Advaita.

Atanu, I am making a simple point and let us not make it more complex than they actually are. The simple thing is “two-ness” has come into being, thus, created a need for returning to “one-ness”.

Blessings,

Namaste,

We are playing in the hands of words. :) How can you express what cannolt be exporessed ?

Dear Nirotu, no word can express Non-duality. However, if we do not express how do we even allude to What Is ? How can we exchange our views ? How could Sri Raman Maharishi talk to his devotees ? Any talk is possible only in duality, right ? Does this make the actual exprience of the Teacher less Non-dual ?

OM

saidevo
15 July 2008, 12:02 AM
Was Sage ramaNA ever conscious of duality from his point of view?

RamaNa Maharshi's awakening to Advaita by Self-Realization happened when he was only sixteen years old, with "no quest, no striving, no conscious preparation", as Arthur Osborne, his biographer puts it.

First it was revelation about the sacred mountain Arunachala, then the tales of renunciation and devotion of the 63 Nayanmars who were Shiva's devotees, in the Tamil book periyapurAnam detailing their lives and finally the sudden, flooding revelation about Self in unity with the Absolute, Advaitic Truth.

Osborne describes RamaNa's state of spiritual progress immediately following the 'awakening' thus (underling by me):



It was quite different from the state of the mystic who is transported into ecstasy for a brief unaccountable while, after which the gloomy walls of the mind close round him again. Sri Bhagavan was already in constant, unbroken awareness of the Self and he has said explicitly that there was no more sadhana, no more spiritual effort, after this. There was no more striving towards abidance in the Self because the ego, whose opposition it is that causes strife, had been dissolved and there was none left with whom to strive.

Further progress towards continuous, fully conscious Identity with the Self, established in fully normal outer life and radiating Grace upon those who approached him, was henceforth natural and effortless; and yet that there was such progress is indicated by Sri Bhagavan’s saying that the soul was still seeking a fresh anchorage. Things such as emulation of the Saints and concern as to what his elders would think still show a remnant of practical acceptance of duality which was later to disappear.

There was also a physical sign of the continuing process. A constant burning sensation was felt in the body from the time of the Awakening until the moment when he entered the inner shrine of the temple at Tiruvannamalai.


The Self-Realization made ramaNA renounce his family and his personal belongings except for the necessary loin-cloth and drove him to Tiruvannamalai. The note ramaNA left when he renounced his home is a typical indication of how the 'duality' in him--the 'second I'--was also renounced (emphasis mine):

"I have set out in quest of my Father in accordance with his command. It is on a virtuous enterprise that this has embarked, therefore let none grieve over this act and let no money be spent in search of this. Your college fees have not been paid. Two rupees are enclosed herewith."

Osborne describes the significance of this note thus:



It begins with the duality of 'I' and 'my Father' and the statement of a command and a quest; but then in the second sentence it no longer refers to its writer as 'I' but as 'this'. And at the end when the time came to sign, he realized that there was no ego and therefore no name to sign and ended with a dash in place of a signature.

Never again did he write a letter and never again did he sign a name, though he twice wrote what his name had been. Once also, years later, a Chinese visitor to the Ashram was given a copy of Sri Bhagavan’s book Who Am I? and, in the courteous but persistent way of the Chinese, pressed Sri Bhagavan to sign it. Sri Bhagavan finally took it and wrote in it the Sanskrit symbol for OM, the sacred monosyllable representing the Primordial Sound underlying all creation.


The indication duality of the 'I' and 'my Father', with which the sentence opens is for his family and the outer world. It disappears immediately in the 'this' that takes charge, then and there.

Once there in Tiruvannamalai and having met his Father Lord Shiva in the temple, he sat in intense, incessant tapas in the pAtAla cave of the temple and later in the virUpaksha cave in the hill for weeks. Worms ate up the flesh of his thighs and spiders weaved their cobwebs over him, but he was totally unconscious to the outer world. Such intense tapas confirmed his nirvalka samAdhi, transformed it into sahaja samAdhi and made him a jIvan mukta who ever lived in Advaita with the shuddha manas (purest mind) of a jnAni that had only dreamy awareness of the worldly life of his own and others around him, not as manifestations in Dvaita, but only as the projected Maya, when the Self as Brahman plays its lIlA (sports) of life.

Although he stressed the importance of a Guru for a seeker, he never admitted 'in duality' that he was Guru to anyone or had any disciples. When an English disciple, Major Chadwick, sought an assurance that the sage would be a Guru to him, ramaNA said:

"The Guru or Jnani (Enlightened One) sees no difference between himself and others. For him all are Jnanis, all are one with himself, so how can a Jnani say that such and such is his disciple? But the unliberated one sees all as multiple, he sees all as different from himself, so to him the Guru-disciple relationship is a reality, and he needs the Grace of the Guru to waken him to reality. For him there are three ways of initiation, by touch, look and silence."

(Sri Bhagavan here gave me to understand that his way was by silence, as he has to many on other occasions--Osborne).

Karma and suffering had no reality for him; they existed only for the devotees who saw him 'suffering' during his last days. He told them, "I am only ill if you think I am; if you think I am well I shall be well."

Even the Ego--the Jiva or the second 'I'--was only maya for him. When a devotee asked him, "How did the ego arise?" he replied, "There is no ego. If there were, you would have to admit of two selves in you. Therefore there is no ignorance. If you enquire into the Self, ignorance, which is already non-existent, will be found not to exist and you will say that it has fled.

Here are some quotes from the sage denying the scope of duality even in the normal worldly life:



V(isitor): There are great men and public workers who cannot solve the problem of suffering in the world.

B(hagavan): That is because they are based on the ego. If they remained in the Self it would be different.

V.: Why don’t Mahatmas help?

B.: How do you know that they don’t? Public speeches, outer activity and material help are all outweighed by the silence of the Mahatmas. They accomplish more than others.

V.: Why did the Self manifest as this miserable world?

B.: In order that you might seek it. Your eyes cannot see themselves but if you hold a mirror in front of them they see themselves. Creation is the mirror. See yourself first and then see the whole world as the Self.

D.: At present there is a Sino-Japanese war going on. If it is only in the imagination, can or will Sri Bhagavan imagine it not to be going on and so put an end to it?

B.: (laughing) The Bhagavan of the questioner (whom the questioner sees as an external being) is as much a thought of his as the Sino-Japanese War!

D.: But why should there be suffering now?

B.: If there were no suffering, how could the desire to be happy arise? If that desire did not arise, how could the quest of the Self arise?

D.: Then is all suffering good?

B.: Yes. What is happiness? Is it a healthy and handsome body, regular meals and so on? Even an emperor has endless troubles although he may be in good health. So all suffering is due to the false notion ‘I am the body’. Getting rid of this is knowledge.


The above illustrations are convincing enough for me that sage RamaNA neither ever sought nor taught the duality of the 'I-I', the Self and the Ego as necessary in Self-Realization.

(Ref:
1. Ramana Maharshi and the Path of Self-Knowledge
2. The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi in His Own Words
both books by Arthur Osborne.

yajvan
15 July 2008, 12:32 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste nirotu (et al.)
I hope it's ok to join the conversation.

nirotu wrote:

If the ocean stands by itself, do you see any need for it to express through waves?
The need for waves is for the ocean to play. It is said The Supreme double-backs onto itSELF , a SELF embrace; from this embrace comes creation.
My teacher used to quote it this way, curving back onto mySELF I create again and again.

saidevo offered


.: Why don’t Mahatmas help?
B.: How do you know that they don’t? Public speeches, outer activity and material help are all outweighed by the silence of the Mahatmas. They accomplish more than others.
I cannot express how insightful this sentence is. While talking may help change, real (sustainable-meaningful) change comes on the level of Being, this infinite silence. This Being is what connects all of us (both moving and on-moving creatures and items); Operating and influencing on this level is holistic change at a societal level.
Much more can be said about this, but will be off-subject, so we can leave this for another time...
but the principle is quite profound - any-thing is every-thing. This infinite correlation with everything. This is the 'physics' at work in this silence that is mentioned.

pranams

satay
15 July 2008, 02:15 PM
namaskar,
Here are my 2 cents.

Vedanta doesn't deny that 'wave' is not real. It says there is higher reality still, i.e. the ocean and we ought to inquire into it.

So for all practical purposes could we not conclude that Ramana simply 'inquired into' the higher reality.

nirotu
15 July 2008, 02:44 PM
How could Sri Raman Maharishi talk to his devotees ? Any talk is possible only in duality, right ? Does this make the actual exprience of the Teacher less Non-dual?

Dear Devotee:

Interesting point. Thank you.

Consider this interesting thought. Let us agree that Sage Ramana was an enlightened soul. Now, tell me something. How can you equate “experience” with “enlightenment”, especially when the experience is always non-dual? Whenever there is experience there is always an “experiencer”, the one who experiences. As long as the effort is to make experience permanent, he would have to be a doer, an agent acting on the experience, maintaining or controlling or living with it, which is a dualistic state, not enlightenment. Don’t you think it is wrong to assume the experience as enlightenment because it is non-dual?

In creation, the body and mind came into existence. While “mind” is finite and limited (to the extent that the body is alive), the “self” is unlimited, infinite and is the attribute-less Brahman. As long as the realities of the mind and of the self are not the same, there is always this duality that exists. There is always a seeker (mind) and the sought (self). Someone said it the best, the whole of Vedanta can be reduced into a simple equation as described in the Upanishads: ‘Thou are that’ where ‘that’ is the self and ‘you’ is the self in the form of the experiencer and the verb ‘are’ is to indicate the identity between the two. Thus, non-duality does not exists even in experiencer and it is not a question of lesser or higher degree!

In the case of Ramana, the “mind” and the “self” became one right from the instant he became enlightened at an early age of 16. His transition from lower self (I) to the higher self “I” is what I call a union in to one. Even though many here think that Sage Ramana taught only pure Advaita to seekers, his own moment of awakening, as can be seen in his multiple Tamil poems he wrote to Ma Arunachala, demonstrates his transition from Dvaita to Advaita.

I think that many Advaitins affirm Advaita is all there is and nothing else!Technically, they are right but only in the ultimate sense. If you consider creation has occurred, the entire equation changes. Equally, many are wonderstruck by the fact that Ramana was supposedly a non-dual “jnani” and that he preached “religion” and “sadhana” which is dvaita, duality. I believe, Ramana considered Bhakti/devotion (religion) is a form of Jnana. Sage Ramana considered no difference between Bhakti and Jnana. To Ramana the Bhakti is Jnana Mata (devotion is the mother of knowledge). That is why I said, Sage Ramana conforms well to the Veda than the Vedanta. When you bring Vedanta you have this dichotomy, which was brought out well in the original post on "why there is antagonism . . . ".

At the same time, it should be clear to us that as long as my devotion to God exists, I cannot deny the presence of “me (I)” and the presence of “God (Brahman)”, which cannot be any different than Dvaita!

It is undeniably clear to me that Sage Ramana’s use of both modes; Bhakti marga and Jnana marga shows truly a balanced view towards Upanishad, thereby validates my original core point that because Dvaita has come into being, hence the need to become Advaita.

“In Soham (the affirmation of ‘I am He’) there is Dvaita (dualism). In surrender there is Advaita (non-dualism). In the Reality there is neither Dvaita nor Advaita, but that which is.” And that I believe is the essence of Veda because it is impossible to escape the “reality”. http://www.omshaantih.com/Ramana/Maharshi%20quotes1.htm (http://www.omshaantih.com/Ramana/Maharshi%20quotes1.htm)
http://www.shiningworld.com/Books%20Pages/HTML%20Books/Ramana's%20Teachings.htm (http://www.shiningworld.com/Books%20Pages/HTML%20Books/Ramana's%20Teachings.htm)


To all HDF members: I hope all these exchanges are being taken in the context of a healthy debate or discussion and that there is no intent on any one’s part to put down either Dvaita or Advaita.

Blessings,

TatTvamAsi
15 July 2008, 05:19 PM
Namaste,


How can you equate “experience” with “enlightenment”, especially when the experience is always non-dual? Whenever there is experience there is always an “experiencer”, the one who experiences. As long as the effort is to make experience permanent, he would have to be a doer, an agent acting on the experience, maintaining or controlling or living with it, which is a dualistic state, not enlightenment. Don’t you think it is wrong to assume the experience as enlightenment because it is non-dual?

The answer to your question of equating "experience" & "enlightenment" is easily answered by looking at the following. The experience of enlightenment or awakening is really the dissolution of the ego (ahamkara) and the illusion (Maya) of duality. Therefore, until and during that ultimate experience of enlightement, one operates in the apparent state of duality. Ultimately, as Ramana Maharishi stated, this apparent duality of nature is illusory; echoing what Adi Shankara has stated. Hence what this means is that the apparent nature of duality prior to the experience of enlightenment and even during it, is ultimately false. The experience that you talk about is the dissolution of experience, experiencing, and experiencer! Therefore, your notion that the "experience is non-dual" is incorrect.


In creation, the body and mind came into existence. While “mind” is finite and limited (to the extent that the body is alive), the “self” is unlimited, infinite and is the attribute-less Brahman. As long as the realities of the mind and of the self are not the same, there is always this duality that exists. There is always a seeker (mind) and the sought (self). Someone said it the best, the whole of Vedanta can be reduced into a simple equation as described in the Upanishads: ‘Thou are that’ where ‘that’ is the self and ‘you’ is the self in the form of the experiencer and the verb ‘are’ is to indicate the identity between the two. Thus, non-duality does not exists even in experiencer and it is not a question of lesser or higher degree!

First and foremost, the English language is quite limiting when describing or discussing principles such as mind, ego, Self, etc. Your initial point that the "mind is limited to the extent that the body is alive" is simply wrong. The "mind" or manas transcends the phenomenal world and "travels" with the Atma until that too is ultimately dissolved! When you state, "realities of the mind and of the self are not the same, there is always this duality that exists", you assume that the mind is real. Advaita states that this is ultimately false or has a temporal reality. When Advaitins, especially ones such as Ramana Maharishi, state that only the Self alone exists, there is no question of duality; as the mind and anything other than the Self is ultimately unreal.

Also, the three-fold principle of seeker, seeking, and (that which is) sought is Maya! This implies apparent reality/truth as long as one operates in the plane of duality/ignorance.

Again, your interpretation of the statement of Tat Tvam Asi ("Thou art that!") is erroneous in the sense, when a jnani, or an enlightened person "describes" the nature of reality, the description is bound by the apparent nature of duality! Since the ignorant (un-enlightened) people cannot relate to Tat, the "best" description and understanding are still limited by the predominant nature of ignorance (Maya) or 'state of existence' for most people.

The illusion of separation, Maya, has to be transcended and ultimately dissolved in order to realize that the Self alone is! From this state of existence the Rishis from pre-historic times in India have been attempting to describe to the ignorant the nature of reality through MahAvAkyAs such as "Tat Tvam Asi", "Ayam Atma Brahma", "Prajnanam Brahma", "Aham Brahmasmi" etc."



In the case of Ramana, the “mind” and the “self” became one right from the instant he became enlightened at an early age of 16. His transition from lower self (I) to the higher self “I” is what I call a union in to one. Even though many here think that Sage Ramana taught only pure Advaita to seekers, his own moment of awakening, as can be seen in his multiple Tamil poems he wrote to Ma Arunachala, demonstrates his transition from Dvaita to Advaita.

When one is enlightened, the mind or manas ceases to exist! Therefore, saying that the "mind and self become one" is ultimately incorrect! According to Ramana Maharishi, again, the Self alone is! Therefore, his experience of enlightenment dissolved the apparent state of duality for him and non-duality alone existed. He affirmed that this is the case always and that one must rise out of ignorance through Self-enquiry!

A good example is a dream. When one has a dream, all objects in it including oneself is experienced as real andseparate! However, when one awakens from the dream, one knows that the entire experience of the dream including apparent separation is ultimately false. This is akin to awakening to the true Self!



I think that many Advaitins affirm Advaita is all there is and nothing else!Technically, they are right but only in the ultimate sense. If you consider creation has occurred, the entire equation changes. Equally, many are wonderstruck by the fact that Ramana was supposedly a non-dual “jnani” and that he preached “religion” and “sadhana” which is dvaita, duality. I believe, Ramana considered Bhakti/devotion (religion) is a form of Jnana. Sage Ramana considered no difference between Bhakti and Jnana. To Ramana the Bhakti is Jnana Mata (devotion is the mother of knowledge). That is why I said, Sage Ramana conforms well to the Veda than the Vedanta. When you bring Vedanta you have this dichotomy, which was brought out well in the original post on "why there is antagonism . . . ".

I am afraid your understanding of Advaita is quite limited. Advaita states that Brahman alone is; all of creation started IN it, resides IN it and ceases IN it.

Secondly, Ramana Maharishi NEVER "preached" religion. Please don't bring him down to the level of the likes of jesus. Everyone came to Ramana with questions and he answered them without stepping on anyone's toes. He recommended Sadhana as a means to dissolve avidya (ignorance) and realize the Truth. I don't see how "Sadhana" & "Religion" are IN (?) duality. Everything is IN duality when one is ignorant as everything appears separate. When one transcends this state of ignorance, the nature of reality is perceived. He also suggested Bhakti Marga for those who sought it and felt most comfortable with it; meaning for those who are at that level. He however stated that the ultimate path to vidya is Self-Enquiry or Raja Yoga. This is truly the greatness of Hinduism. It recognizes everybody's level (evolution of the soul) and has a path for them to follow. This is the real plurality in Hinduism. Not everyone is ready or evolved enough to do Raja Yoga and tapasya in a cave, therefore at whatever level one may be, choose the most appropriate path and follow it ardently with shradda (implicit faith). Bhakti is the easiest as surrendering (like Islam: "surrender to the will of God") requires far less discipline and only a lack of ego, at least relatively speaking.

Finally, as Ramana Maharishi stated several times, ultimately everything that was learned has to be un-learned one day in order to experience the Self. I like Nithyananda's explanation of Dronacharya's symbolism of vijnanam has to also be crossed/dissolved. Ultimately, all the erudition, book knowledge, rationality, etc. have to be abandoned and dissolved to realize the Self! Using the mind to quell the mind is the true goal of Raja Yoga.



At the same time, it should be clear to us that as long as my devotion to God exists, I cannot deny the presence of “me (I)” and the presence of “God (Brahman)”, which cannot be any different than Dvaita!

One word: Maya.


It is undeniably clear to me that Sage Ramana’s use of both modes; Bhakti marga and Jnana marga shows truly a balanced view towards Upanishad, thereby validates my original core point that because Dvaita has come into being, hence the need to become Advaita.

This use of both modes, as you call it, had a very specific purpose for Ramana Maharishi. Since everybody is a different level of understanding, evolution, and progress, spiritually speaking, different modes were suggested to follow. This however does NOT imply that the different modes are ultimately real or true! He was also very careful not to answer any specific question definitively because that would lead to endless polemics between so-called scholars around the world. In his works that are recorded, he always came back to the point of Self-enquiry as answering specifics such as "is Vishnu greater than Shiva" and vice-versa only spells trouble for the ignorant masses of the world. Therefore, his apparent use of different modes, philosophies, religions, etc. was in awareness of each person's level, temperament, capability etc. He didn't step on anyone's toes!


To all HDF members: I hope all these exchanges are being taken in the context of a healthy debate or discussion and that there is no intent on any one’s part to put down either Dvaita or Advaita.


Absolutely.

Subham.

devotee
15 July 2008, 11:53 PM
Consider this interesting thought. Let us agree that Sage Ramana was an enlightened soul. Now, tell me something. How can you equate “experience” with “enlightenment”, especially when the experience is always non-dual? Whenever there is experience there is always an “experiencer”, the one who experiences. As long as the effort is to make experience permanent, he would have to be a doer, an agent acting on the experience, maintaining or controlling or living with it, which is a dualistic state, not enlightenment. Don’t you think it is wrong to assume the experience as enlightenment because it is non-dual?


Namaste Nirotu,

I have seen such discussions going on, in a few forums ad nauseam. This is not meaningless because it removes the logical dirt of the duality but after a point it loses its value. I would call this yet another entrapment in the maya of words. I have no desire to go in that direction.

We certainly cannot "attain" IT by logic or by using any combination of words. Better to meditate & get ready for the grace ....

OM

saidevo
16 July 2008, 12:15 AM
Namaste Nirotu.



"In Soham (the affirmation of 'I am He') there is Dvaita (dualism). In surrender there is Advaita (non-dualism). In the Reality there is neither Dvaita nor Advaita, but that which is."

And that I believe is the essence of Veda because it is impossible to escape the "reality".


Your partial quote only seems to serve your purpose: that sage RamaNA used the 'duality' modes of Bhakti and JnAna in his teachings.

The quote is from an entry dated "2-1-46 Afternoon" in the diary of A.Devaraja Mudaliar, which was published under the title Day by Day with Bhagavan. Mudaliar and Suri Nagamma were two devout souls who spent most of their life at the Ashram and were always with the sage as long as it was admissible and possible.

Here is the full quote for the actual perspective of what sage RamaNA actually meant by his words (underlining by me).



Mr. Joshi has submitted what Bhagavan calls a question paper, and Bhagavan answers the same.

Question 3: "I find surrender easier. I want to adopt that path."

Answer: "By whatever path you go, you will have to lose yourself in the One. Surrender is complete only when you reach the stage 'Thou art all' and 'Thy will be done'.''

"The state is not different from jnana. In soham there is dvaita. In surrender there is advaita. In the reality there is neither dvaita nor advaita, but That which is, is. Surrender appears easy because people imagine that, once they say with their lips, 'I surrender' and put their burdens on their Lord, they can be free and do what they like. But the fact is that you can have no likes or dislikes after your surrender and that your will should become completely non-existent, the Lord's Will taking its place. Such death of the ego is nothing different from jnana. So by whatever path you may go, you must come to jnana or oneness."


It is clear that RamaNA does not view the path of surrender through Bhakti and the path of Jnana in 'duality' but as one and the same Advaita. In his introductory talk to the song 'Bhaja Govindam' sung by Smt.M.S.Subbulakshmi, Rajaji (Sri RajagopalAcharya, last Governor-General of independent India) says, "Bhakti and Gyana ... are one and the same."

We can say that Bhakti is even superior to Jnana because it requires destruction of the Will (Buddhi), whereas in Jnana only the Mind (Manas) is destroyed so Buddhi can freely inquire. Thus, there is no question of recognition or retention of 'duality' as in the surrender concept of Christianity. (This comparison is only to highlight the nature of surrender in Hinduism; it does not in anyway undermine the Christian concept, though it is a lower level).

The finer point is what RamaNA says about the Reality: "In the reality there is neither dvaita nor advaita, but That which is, is." The only Absolute Truth Vedas talk of is Sat, That which exists; though this is the NirguNa Brahman, in order that we can understand its nature, it is explained as Sat-Chit-Ananda (Existence-Consciousness-Bliss).

This Reality is the Prajna, the AjAta-vAda, which rules out the happening or existence of Creation, even as Maya. This Reality is what the Mandukya Upanishad says as the characteristic of the Fourth State, Turiya, wherein sage RamaNA was ever rooted.



7. The Fourth is thought of as that which is not conscious of the internal world, nor conscious of the external world, nor conscious of both the worlds, nor dense with consciousness, nor simple consciousness, nor unconsciousness, which is unseen, actionless, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable, indescribable, whose proof consists in the identity of the Self (in all states), in which all phenomena come to a cessation, and which is unchanging, auspicious, and non-dual. That is the Self; that is to be known.
8. That same Self, from the point of view of the syllable, is Om, and viewed from the stand point of the letters, the quarters are the letters, and the letters are the quarters. The letters are a, u and m.




That is why I said, Sage Ramana conforms well to the Veda than the Vedanta. When you bring Vedanta you have this dichotomy, which was brought out well in the original post on "why there is antagonism . . . ".


Veda and Vedanta are not two different scriptures, only two divisions. Ramana conforms to both the divisions: in fact more to Vedanta (he is in all respects a Vedanti rather than a Vedic pundit!). Since the Vedanta comprising the Upanishads are teachings of Rishis to their students, and since the students could not be at the Advaitic level of the Rishis to start with, Rishis chose to express the Absolute Truth in dualistic terms, that's all. When the Absolute Truth is expressed in Speech, you cannot avoid the Duality that sets in.

I fully appreciate, Nirotu, your thoughts that Creation has happened; so Dvaita has come about; Advaita lurks as only the unseen substratum and thus even seems less important, except as the final goal; most of us cannot help but indulge in the duality of Dvaita, treating it as a relative reality and viewing God as our Lord or Master, whatever religion we belong to.

But don't try to color the teachings of sages like RamaNA whose only teaching was "Who Am I?" (all other aspects of his teachings are mostly answers he gave to questions from devotees, coming down to their level). Even this "Who Am I?" is not for expressing his real Self but only a question he wants everyone to inquire into, so it may lead us from the death-pangs of Dvaita to the immortality of Advaita.



Consider this interesting thought. Let us agree that Sage Ramana was an enlightened soul.


You 'agree' that 'Sage Ramana was an enlightened soul'! This line of yours sums up nicely, your Dvaidic, Christian personality which bears upon everything you say. I understand you can't help it and there is nothing wrong in it, though it might be a limitation.

atanu
16 July 2008, 02:59 AM
Namaste,

The answer to your question of equating "experience" & "enlightenment" is easily answered by looking at the following. The experience of enlightenment or awakening is really the dissolution of the ego (ahamkara) and the illusion (Maya) of duality. Therefore, until and during that ultimate experience of enlightement, one operates in the apparent state of duality. Ultimately, as Ramana Maharishi stated, this apparent duality of nature is illusory; echoing what Adi Shankara has stated. Hence what this means is that the apparent nature of duality prior to the experience of enlightenment and even during it, is ultimately false. The experience that you talk about is the dissolution of experience, experiencing, and experiencer! Therefore, your notion that the "experience is non-dual" is incorrect.

Subham.

Just excellent. Experience is of the One Eko. It is not just any experience. Any experience is simply not experience of EKO, if the experiencer still remains an entity different from the EKO.

Shri Nirotu is free to believe in Dvaita or VA or anything but trying to validate his belief by naming Ramana, is not an honest method, IMO.

Om

nirotu
16 July 2008, 04:24 PM
Shri Nirotu is free to believe in Dvaita or VA or anything but trying to validate his belief by naming Ramana, is not an honest method, IMO.

Dear Atanu:

I am sorry to see your sad assessment of me. I am sorry you perceive that way. Since our discussion was stemming from Advaita, I was quoting the master of Experiential Advaita – Sage Ramana. If the discussion is on Bhakti, surely I would have used Ramakrishna as an example or if it was centered on Jnana I would have used Aurobindo or Ramanuja or if it was centered on love/healing/forgiveness, I surely would have used Jesus Christ. One is not hiding behind Sage Ramana’s words but where the best metaphor suits, they are being used.

When Sage Ramana himself taught both “Sadhana” and “Devotion”, there is no question in my mind as to the value he placed on Dvaita and Advaita. To me, his moment of awakening demonstrates Dvaita re-becoming Advaita, which I have been using as an example. It is disingenuous to say that I have used it to validate by beliefs. IMHO.

I still cannot understand why there is such a vehement denial about Dvaita. A simple point was made where a balanced view of both is possible with examples of Sage Ramana and Jesus. I still cannot figure out what is there to misunderstand. We all agree that Advaita is the ultimate truth and the goal but the inescapable reality of creation has brought in Dvaita. Is there anything wrong here?

I strongly believe, no one, regardless of how closely he walks with God, can “experience” all the infiniteness of God as long as he is in this finite body. Even though we can experience the abundant life God has provided, while in this mortal flesh, we cannot experience it to its fullest, as we will be able to do when we are liberated. For this cause, every seeker, regardless of his level of victory, longs for that ultimate prize – liberation. In order to achieve that, he must keep his gaze above (that which is Advaita) and his feet firmly placed on ground (that which is Dvaita) as demonstrated in the lives mystics and sages.

Thanks for an interesting discussion.

Blessings,

atanu
18 July 2008, 03:10 AM
Dear Atanu:
I am sorry to see your sad assessment of me.==
--
I still cannot understand why there is such a vehement denial about Dvaita. A simple point was made where a balanced view of both is possible with examples of Sage Ramana and Jesus. I still cannot figure out what is there to misunderstand. We all agree that Advaita is the ultimate truth and the goal but the inescapable reality of creation has brought in Dvaita. Is there anything wrong here?
Thanks for an interesting discussion.
Blessings,

Dear Nirotu,

The assessment is not of you but of the method. OTOH, I regard highly your ability to maintain the tranquility in the face of opposition and that must be a reflection of your good nature and love of God.

Like in above case, most people also confound, the Advaita Atma with Advaita Vada. Dvaita vada, VA vada and Advaita Vada are all valid ways to know the Advaita Atma (Lord in your terminology).

Dvaita agrees that the Advaita Atma (Manukya Upanishad) is Param Atma and postulates that Param Atma is different from Ego Jivas and ego Jivas never touch the Lord. Does Advaita Vada oppose this? No. Similarly with VA. All agree on the all pervading one Sakshi -- the witness. But if a misguided Dvaitin insists that a man's cognition is independent from the cognition provided by the Atma, then it breaks the shruti pramana that there is no seer and no knower but him. Similarly, the VA insistence on Jiva as parts in Brahman is not about the unchangeable Brahman at all.

Now, with this this background, I will remind you the following two teachings of Ramana:

The universe was neither born, nor maintained, nor
dissolved; this is the plain truth. The basic screen of pure
Being-Awareness-Stillness devoid of all the moving shadow
pictures of name and form of the universe is the sole, eternal
Existence.

and yet...

In me, the pure Awareness-Self, the universe is
born, maintained and dissolved as the mind. Therefore, there
are no mind and thought forms of objects apart from me-
the Self. In this firm experience one should ever abide.
------------------

Shri Ramana has surely taught Dvaita and VA methods yet holding Ajativada as the highest. The creation that you talk about so often, is the creation of the primeval mind, and the highest has no role in it.

This understanding is the key to Advaita Vada. Why should Lord, whose all desires are fulfilled, create a world full of greedy animals? In this light the notion of "inescapable reality of creation" has to be overcome (and not deepened).

Your claim of "inescapable reality of creation", simply seeks to deepen the mis notion that God is a sadist who created the war mongers as leaders of this world. And towards this devilish goal, your methods seek to use the teaching of Ramana in a wrong way. Similar is your notion that Advaitins do not understand sadhana and devotion.

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

nirotu
18 July 2008, 03:37 PM
Dear Atanu:

Thank you. Your response could be made into a new post – “the purpose of creation”.

With all due respect, I vehemently disagree with the basic premise you are putting forth here. Let me touch upon one statement of yours that summarizes your entire response.



The creation that you talk about so often, is the creation of the primeval mind, and the highest has no role in it.
Your notion of desire-less, indifferent creator is not in sync with my thought that all creation has come into being as an “intent” of the creator, so that man has a vehicle of remembering, returning back to his true nature. Therefore, through this cycle, the light, the purity and the being-ness of the creator it can be manifested in the material world as matter or as creation.

Surely, along the way another cycle of hardened matter has come into being – Chitta, Maya, ego etc,. Those are the ones that create strife, misery that you are alluding to. Mind does have a role but mind also has created “mindstuff” that has alienated us from our true purpose. In a strange way, man has to rise above these in order to fulfill the purpose of creation.

Not for an instant does that take away the basis of “intent”, the purpose and the goal of creation.

I hope this can be an interesting discussion.

Blessings,

TatTvamAsi
18 July 2008, 10:22 PM
Namaste,


...not in sync with my thought that all creation has come into being as an “intent” of the creator, so that man has a vehicle of remembering, returning back to his true nature. Therefore, through this cycle, the light, the purity and the being-ness of the creator it can be manifested in the material world as matter or as creation.

Surely, along the way another cycle of hardened matter has come into being – Chitta, Maya, ego etc,. Those are the ones that create strife, misery that you are alluding to. Mind does have a role but mind also has created “mindstuff” that has alienated us from our true purpose. In a strange way, man has to rise above these in order to fulfill the purpose of creation.

Not for an instant does that take away the basis of “intent”, the purpose and the goal of creation.

I hope this can be an interesting discussion.

Blessings,

Your statement, emphasis added by me, alludes to separation of Tat, from its creation. Advaita clearly states that there is no separation whatsoever at any level; hence making 'mind', 'ego', 'intellect', etc. unreal/false.

However, what you state is originally from the Vedas; as they refer to 'creation', or all of manifestation as lila and as a result of the will (intent?) of Brahman (God). All of us seek "happiness" in different ways through different media because we truly want to be ONE WITH GOD and realize 'Aham Brahmasmi'. This constant externalization and satisfaction of the senses ends in ephemeral 'excitement/happiness', and hence we are told to turn "inward".

Getting back on topic, however, when you say through this creation, "mind has created 'mindstuff'", you are again assuming erroneously, if I may boldly say, that this 'mindstuff' etc. (EVIL ?) is separate from Brahman!

Also, isn't it rather presumptuous to claim you know or even talk about "the goal of creation"? What does that actually mean? When we try to comprehend something that is beyond space-time causality with an instrument rooted in space-time causality; MIND, it is a futile attempt to do so. The Vedas say that Brahman "willed" the world and this question of 'why' is un-answerable even by the Self-realized seers. All "intent/purpose, desire" etc. dissolve when the Self alone is; at least that is what Ramana Maharishi stated. The supposed transition from the "lower" I to the "higher" I, the only real 'realization' is that there is no 'lower' or 'higher', there is just the Self!

Trying to figure out what "God" desires or willed is akin to a cartoon character trying to figure out why and with what purpose the artist drew him/her! It is absolutely futile and frankly impossible.

Anyway, I think I've rambled enough.

Subham.

atanu
20 July 2008, 12:15 AM
Dear Atanu:

Thank you. Your response could be made into a new post – “the purpose of creation”.

With all due respect, I vehemently disagree with the basic premise you are putting forth here. Let me touch upon one statement of yours that summarizes your entire response.


Namaste Nirotu,

The basic premise pertained to whether Shri Ramana taught Dvaita, as originally hinted by you. My point was that you cannot use Ramana's sayings to establish your view point, which is just the reverse. Ramana taught that ultimately there is no creation.

It is not possible to know the reality/nature of Maya from within Maya. One beyond maya will only know. Your claim (and my claim also) is somewhat like claiming vehemently a dream bread to be real withinin the dream, whereas actually a man eating a dream bread was just eating consciousness.:D

Om

nirotu
21 July 2008, 04:27 PM
Your statement, emphasis added by me, alludes to separation of Tat, from its creation. Advaita clearly states that there is no separation whatsoever at any level; hence making 'mind', 'ego', 'intellect', etc. unreal/false.Dear TVA:

As to the illusion or falsehood of materiality, Advaita cannot deny the existence of material world. If there is no separation or clear distinction, there would not be any need to discuss mind, ego etc. I believe a proper interpretation would be to attribute a relative, not absolute, status or worth to it. Sage Shankara must have implied whatever worth material has is derived from the spiritual. Therefore, we must first accept that the illusion is not unreality but proper reality.


All of us seek "happiness" in different ways through different media because we truly want to be ONE WITH GOD and realize 'Aham Brahmasmi'. This constant externalization and satisfaction of the senses ends in ephemeral 'excitement/happiness', and hence we are told to turn "inward".With this statement you are answering your own question. Notice the choice of words here as I have underlined!!!!

Why do you want to be one with God, when you are already called realized through your affirmation “I am that”?

Does the realization happen at the moment you are born or is there a journey in man’s life to reach that stage of realization?


Getting back on topic, however, when you say through this creation, "mind has created 'mindstuff'", you are again assuming erroneously, if I may boldly say, that this 'mindstuff' etc. (EVIL ?) is separate from Brahman!Without “evil” how do you recognize that which is “good”? What standard of measure do you have in order to know what is moral and what is not? I cannot differentiate light unless there is darkness to measure up against. To me they (mindstuff) are inseparable and essential in knowing God.

God shares in the life of finite creatures by perpetually giving Himself. He bears in them and with them the whole burden of their finitude. A God who is indifferent to the fate of the world cannot be the God of Love. There cannot be any love without sorrow and suffering. In that sense, the “mindstuff” is the reason for our cry for the urgent intervention by God. The very conception of “avatara” or the descent of the Divine into the world is enough proof that God does not simply “will” this world into motion but cares for this world and people.

You can also not deny the fact that free will has come into man. That free will has created the other cycle clogging our “mind”.


. . . All "intent/purpose, desire" etc. dissolve when the Self alone is; at least that is what Ramana Maharishi stated. The supposed transition from the "lower" I to the "higher" I, the only real 'realization' is that there is no 'lower' or 'higher', there is just the Self!The fact that they all dissolve in to “self” itself renders the notion that they exist! There must be something existing for to dissolve!! At least to that degree it is real!

Trying to figure out what "God" desires or willed is akin to a cartoon character trying to figure out why and with what purpose the artist drew him/her! It is absolutely futile and frankly impossible.To summarize, you are presupposing that the only instrument of Cognition available is “MIND”. From ancient times Sages, seers and even many others have intuitively perceived, where the “soul” was functioning on its own, which is also valid in the context our discussion. Therefore, it is wrong to understand that is akin to saying, “the ultimate reality can never be known”. I am not saying I am right. But, I am saying that let us not exclude things that cannot be known. Therefore, your cartoon example when extrapolated shows Vedic seers were completely off-mark in trying to figure out the mind of the creator!

Blessings,

nirotu
21 July 2008, 04:32 PM
The basic premise pertained to whether Shri Ramana taught Dvaita, as originally hinted by you. My point was that you cannot use Ramana's sayings to establish your view point, which is just the reverse. Ramana taught that ultimately there is no creation.

It is not possible to know the reality/nature of Maya from within Maya. One beyond maya will only know. Your claim (and my claim also) is somewhat like claiming vehemently a dream bread to be real withinin the dream, whereas actually a man eating a dream bread was just eating consciousness.:D

Dear Atanu:

I respect your view, although, I do not necessarily agree on this one.

I am making a very simple point here. In creation, the very need of “Ramana Maharishis” of the world is to show the world that there indeed is a need for “Awakeing” from a SLUMBER. That slumber, I call the state of “Dvaita”. By denying “Dvaita” you are also denying the need for Awakening! If there is no need for awakening, we are all enlightened, including serial killers.

Please, explain to me, if you deny the existence of Dvaita, who would Awaken and for what purpose?

Blessings,

atanu
21 July 2008, 09:39 PM
--That slumber, I call the state of “Dvaita”


Dear Nirotu,

So, what we call ignorance you are calling creation which leads to slumber of Dvaita?

That is OK. We are probably just using different words for the same thing. The original topic "Is "I-I" experience of Ramana Dvaita?" can be now resolved as: The "I-I" experience of Ramana is removal of ignorance of Dvaita. (I know you will now not agree).:)


Om

saidevo
21 July 2008, 11:10 PM
Namaste Nirotu.



Sage Shankara must have implied whatever worth material has is derived from the spiritual. Therefore, we must first accept that the illusion is not unreality but proper reality.


The fundamental tenet of Vedanta given by Sankara that sums up the Upanishads' mahA vAkhyas is:

brahma satyam jagan mithyA
jivo brahmaiva napara

Brahman is the Reality, the Universe is an illusion,
The living being is Brahman alone, none else.

By stating that there is only Brahman, nothing else, Sankara clearly shows here that the jagat-world, with 'whatever material' it has, is 'derived from the spiritual' Brahman, but only as mithyA-illusion.

If Brahman is the only satyam-truth, is the jagat-world as mithyA-illusion is an asat-untruth? If so, what is the nature of that mithyA? Is it adyanta asat (complete, extreme, start-to-end unreality) something that never exists? Or is it a prAtibhAsika sattA (apparent, subjective existence), in other words a vyAvahArika sattA (practical, operational hence conditional existence)?

Mata Amritanandamayi Devi explains that Sankara initially maintained the mithyA as an adyanta asat but perhaps to accommodate people who may not understand its import, in his later works, like Brahmasutra Bhashya, calls mithyA vyAvahArika sattA (relative reality) or prAtibhAsika sattA (apparent reality). (http://archives.amritapuri.org/matruvani/vol-02/sep02/02mv09reality.php)

There are two extremes: sat-Reality and asat-Unreality. Rig Veda says ekam sat--Reality is One--so it is immanent in everything. We can understand Reality-sat as Existence, Being, but what is Unreality-asat? Even as a concept, we can't understand it.

If two entirely different things face each other, they are said to be in opposition. If there can be no two such things, then everything that seem to be opposites can only be complementary, remaining in juxtaposition.

Are the Universe and Brahman two entirely different things that stand in opposition to each other (dual-ity)? Or are they complementary, so either one is needed to complete the other?

Sankara admits that Brahman and the Universe are complementary, which is why he uses the term mithyA, rather than asat to describe the Universe. And this term, that he uses for the Universe, he later clarifies as to mean 'an apparent, practical, operational Reality'.

An apparent, practical, operational Reality can only be a conditioanl Reality: it is real, realtively, not absolutely, only so long as a condition holds. And the condition holds only in Time and Space, so the Universe as a conditional Reality is true only if we admit the reality of the concept of Time and Space, Time especially.

Why Time especially? Because, Space is infinite whereas the Universe is only finite. The Universe exists in Time, which is pseudo-infinitely cyclic.

Anything that exists primarily in Time undergoes change. And anything that changes cannot be Reality. Even the change is known only against the backdrop of changelessness. Without the screen there can be no moving pictures. Without Space there can be no Universe; and Time is the factor that constitutes the change. Thus Brahman as the screen is the substratum of Absolute (changeless) Reality behind the conditional Reality of the Universe.

Let us try to find an analogy. The Sun rises in the east, travels up the sky and sets down in the west. This is a practical, operational Reality apparent to everyone on Earth. When we are located in the outer space, we can 'realize' the mithyA-maya and find that it is only the Earth moving around the Sun creates the illusion of the ground reality.

When we are grounded, Reality exists for us in duality, in two polar states, that are not static but cyclic, constantly merging into each other, like day and night. Now, night is not a reality the way day is, because night is only an illusion created by what is perceived by us as the absence of light.

The duality of existence is true only in our walking and dreaming states. In deep sleep, we transcend the conditional reality of the Universe and realize the Absolute Reality of Brahman, because our consciousness, awareness finds its inner, hidden source.

Therefore, sat-Reality is one that exists unchanging in all states of existence, and thus can only be Brahman in Advaita, as the substratum of existence in all states. Duality seems to be a hard reality in our waking state, its polarity shaken in our dreaming state, and completely destroyed in our deep sleep state when the awareness resides in our Atma which is Brahman.

saidevo
22 July 2008, 10:23 PM
Namaste.

Nirotu seeks to perpetuate Dvaita through some of his points as an eternal Reality on par with its Advaitic substratum. The Reality of Dvaita is psueo-eternal, finite and cyclic. I have attempted to give the Advaitic perspective of the points he has raised in his last post addressed to TatTvamAsi.





All of us seek "happiness" in different ways through different media because we truly want to be ONE WITH GOD and realize 'Aham Brahmasmi'. This constant externalization and satisfaction of the senses ends in ephemeral 'excitement/happiness', and hence we are told to turn "inward".


Why do you want to be one with God, when you are already called realized through your affirmation 'I am that'?

Does the realization happen at the moment you are born or is there a journey in man’s life to reach that stage of realization?


There is no question of a 'journey' in Advaita in the sense that the Jiva travels through hills and vales and lands and seas in rain and shine to reach the safety, comfort and happiness of the 'haven/heaven' of God. This is the concept of western Dvaita, implying that Gods sits in heaven, the soul toils on earth and the goal of the soul is to seek its Master.

In Advaita, the 'path' is a 'niyama' of continuous purification and refinement of the 'material' of the ego and mind and body that has accrued on the Self, so the light of the self-shining Self steadily oozes out into the material of the inner and outer senses, giving sustained peace, happiness and the courage to face the destiny arising due to karma. This purification is of the Self, for the Self and done by the Self to realize it-Self as the only Self, in unity and identity with Brahman.

There is no movement in space or time in the Self-Realization of Advaita, only the endeavour to become aware of the deep sleep state in the other two states, thus eventually obtaining the Turiya of Nirvikalpa Samadhi.



Without "evil" how do you recognize that which is "good"? What standard of measure do you have in order to know what is moral and what is not? I cannot differentiate light unless there is darkness to measure up against. To me they (mindstuff) are inseparable and essential in knowing God.
...
You can also not deny the fact that free will has come into man. That free will has created the other cycle clogging our "mind".


In Metaphysics, 'evil' is the gross matter that increases the density of the sthUla (physical) and sUkShma sharIras (astro-mental bodies). 'Good' is the bright subtle matter accruing on the kAraNa sharIra (causal body) whose tejas (shine) of wisdom shows up on the other two bodies.

Freewill is dominated by past karmas; it is by letting humans use their freewill that God/Brahman automates the World-Process in the Dvadic sense, and plays his 'lIlA' in the Advaitic sense.





Trying to figure out what "God" desires or willed is akin to a cartoon character trying to figure out why and with what purpose the artist drew him/her! It is absolutely futile and frankly impossible.


...you are presupposing that the only instrument of Cognition available is "MIND". From ancient times Sages, seers and even many others have intuitively perceived, where the "soul" was functioning on its own, which is also valid in the context our discussion.


Human mind as the antaH karaNa (inner organ) has four functions, as SwamiJ explains: Buddhi, Chitta, AhamkAra, Manas. Buddhi is the component of intution/wisdom. The vAsanas (past karmic impressions) whose another name is Freewill, stored in Chitta clog the light of Buddhi from reaching the Manas, which is activated by Freewill. The light of Buddhi being thus materially clogged, AhamkAra gives an illusion of an individualistic self, the lower-I, ego that tries to perpetuate its individuality.

One difference between an artist animating a cartoon character, or a novelist creating fictional characters and Brahman creating us to play His roles is that, in the former case the communication is one way--from author to character--whereas in the latter it is both ways. Another is that the author creates his characters first in his/her mind and then transfers it to another media, whereas the roles Brahman plays through his characters are only in His mind.

nirotu
23 July 2008, 09:26 PM
So, what we call ignorance you are calling creation which leads to slumber of Dvaita?

That is OK. We are probably just using different words for the same thing. The original topic "Is "I-I" experience of Ramana Dvaita?" can be now resolved as: [B]The "I-I" experience of Ramana is removal of ignorance of Dvaita.(I know you will now not agree).:) Atanu, You got me there with your clever “Advaitic” intellectual trap!

Don’t you think the word “ignorance” is rather a strong word with negative implication? For example, what you say is true, (Dvaita = ignorance), it implies that many Sages like Ramakrishna Paramahansa, Chaitanya, Prabhavananda, Madhwa and many more all lived and departed in ignorance. How can that be?

No, Atanu. I disagree with that statement!! Dvaita is not ignorance. Dvaita is a vehicle of the Creator for manifesting His truth and returning to Him. It is an expression of the Creator and therefore, not ignorance.

Having said that, I will concede that along the way there appeared hardened matter (“mindstuff”), which was accompanied by free will of man, thus setting up a cycle of ignorance.

Basically, we have to be careful of falling into “either” “or” trap. You cannot have one without the other. One has the meaning because of the other. When seen together it gives meaning to the whole. By coming into creation, Dvaita makes known Advaita, and, Advaita by its sheer being-ness gives meaning and purpose to Dvaita. It is only when seen together the whole makes sense.

Whether you agree or not, I would like to think my point is beautifully illustrated by Sage Ramana Maharishis’s life. While symbolizing the highest form of Advaita, yet Sage Ramana wrote copious volumes of Tamil poetry to “Ma Arunachala”, which is nothing but beautiful Dvaita (Who is singing to who!)


It is not as clear as black or white! Dvaita is a beautiful expression of the Creator. There is more complexity here than you are giving credit to.

Blessings,

atanu
24 July 2008, 01:45 AM
Atanu, You got me there with your clever “Advaitic” intellectual trap!

Don’t you think the word “ignorance” is rather a strong word with negative implication?

Namaste Nirotu,

The negative implication is always a state of mind.





No, Atanu. I disagree with that statement!! Dvaita is not ignorance. Dvaita is a vehicle of the Creator for manifesting His truth and returning to Him. It is an expression of the Creator and therefore, not ignorance.


'Returning to him --' is again a thought. Ramana always taught devotees to be free of such thoughts and if necessary to find out the one who was thinking.


Having said that, I will concede that along the way there appeared hardened matter (“mindstuff”), which was accompanied by free will of man, thus setting up a cycle of ignorance.

That's fine and sums up everything, provided that you do not assume that hardened mindstuff is absent in your case.



Whether you agree or not, I would like to think my point is beautifully illustrated by Sage Ramana Maharishis’s life. While symbolizing the highest form of Advaita, yet Sage Ramana wrote copious volumes of Tamil poetry to “Ma Arunachala”, which is nothing but beautiful Dvaita (Who is singing to who!)

That is fine. No one opposed this. Yet "I-I" is not one "I" establishing another "I" as Ramana himself has explained. It is the dissolution of experience, experiencing, and experiencer!


Beyond this, we will go in cycles, so I withdraw here.

Om

nirotu
25 July 2008, 04:21 PM
Beyond this, we will go in cycles, so I withdraw here.



Dear Atanu:

Yes, we both should withdraw from this topic. As you have rightfully pointed out the circle we are traversing. Just so you know, regardless of my differences in opinions with you, I always have a great respect for you as a person of character and integrity. Like you I hope such discussions are taken by other fellow seekers of truth, in the spirit of healthy exchange, without condescending, between them.

To conclude, let me just say why I stress both modes are necessary as a vehicle for true spiritual progress. Again, this is just my opinion only.

I want to emphasize that Advaita and Dvaita are like two symphonies that make up the whole orchestra. One sound without the other is not complete. Each gets its true meaning and significance because of the other. It is only in seeing the whole; the parts can be appreciated and grasped IMO.

Advaita and Dvaita are linked as famous artist (creator) and His artwork (creation). If one is not talking about artwork (creation), then no more discussion left relating to the artist. Likewise, when we describe an artist, we use his artistic creation as a symbol of identification. While, Advaita looks for an artist, the Dvaita looks for his artwork (creation).

On that beautiful note we can end this lovely topic of the masterful artistry of the Creator.


My sincere apologies if I generated any ill-feeling amongst us.

Blessings,

atanu
26 July 2008, 01:36 AM
Dear Atanu:

Yes, we both should withdraw from this topic. As you have rightfully pointed out the circle we are traversing. Advaita and Dvaita are linked as famous artist (creator) and His artwork (creation). If one is not talking about artwork (creation), then no more discussion left relating to the artist. Likewise, when we describe an artist, we use his artistic creation as a symbol of identification. While, Advaita looks for an artist, the Dvaita looks for his artwork (creation).

On that beautiful note we can end this lovely topic of the masterful artistry of the Creator.


My sincere apologies if I generated any ill-feeling amongst us.

Blessings,

Namaste Nirotu,

Thanks for a nice post. Yet I am tempted to write a few more lines from the perspective of Advaita. It should be recorded as fact and not argument or debate.

I write this to say that your ideas mix and match things in such a way that the consistency and simplicity are lost -- at least it seems so to me and that complexity is often perceived as an agenda.

You say Advaita in the beginnining and Advaita in the end is true. So, what happens in the middle? Advaita is not true now? Realising this will make you say that Advaita is true here and now and it is the moment that exapnds into time, law, jiva, universe etc.

Then you endeavour to prove reality of creation of the Universe and egos by comparing with ocean and waves. A simple examination revealed that a wave, which is a transient form, cannot be a being that in this case was the ocean.

Moreover, consider the question: Does ocean create the waves or are the waves expression of joys (mostly) or fury (sometimes) of the ocean? A bit of further introspection will reveal that the waves are not just joys and furies but the very nature of the ocean. The absolute cannot be ruled by emotions. Then further, you will realise: Oh, there is no nature separate from the BEING. The ocean and the waves are That EKO. And without the waves also the ocean will remain ocean.

Universe is that divine purusha only. His saharsha sira hides the fact that He is EKO Shantam Shivam.


Dear Nirotu, Advaita Vada is simple. It has no conflict with egos worshipping or surrendering.

Om