Why

[atanu]

Namaste,
If “I am that” is taken (out of context) as “I am a particular that, which is distinguished from the whole”, then dvaitavAda is at work.

Namaste,

That much only was my objection, in addition to the fact that I have not read Ramana uttering "I am That", which Nirotu claimed.

Did the sage never say ahaMsa or so’ham?

As far as I know, He taught so by silence mostly and also through words in the role of the teacher. Yet, He never uttered such for himself. There was no need -- especially when silence is more powerful a language.


As said earlier different teachers may employ different modes and there is nothing wrong in that. The surprise was at the wrong way words were attributed to Masters and further "I am That" was given a Dvaita color. We all asked merely for the references.

And it still seems that (somewhere between AruNi and HDF) there has been some ommission.

Yes, there can be omissions at many places and at many levels. Which mortal is above mistake? Why not be direct and point out the omission?

Did Ramana say "I am that" for himself (not in a teaching role) and if He said so did He mean "I" and "That" are different? That was the main question and let us please stick to these.

Om

[sarabhanga]

Why not be direct and point out the omission?

The omission of the significant possibility of Ramana Rishi uttering the words “I am That” (or equivalent words in saMskRtam) in a context other than the explanation of Jesus’ sayings, has been well noted.

[atanu]

Namaste sarabhanga,

The omission of the significant possibility of Ramana Rishi uttering the words "I am That" (or equivalent words in saMskRtam) in a context other than the explanation of Jesus’ sayings, has been well noted.

It is well that it is omission now. It is well that you have noted the omission despite you being settled into "I am that", which is the highest realisation of Advaita Self, and which should be taintless.

I have not said that equivalent meanings of "I am That" have not been conveyed by Shri Ramana as absolute Advaitic knowledge and thus I asked full reference from Shri Nirotu on his dvaitic interpretation.

When Ramana finds nothing but "I-I" in His death experience, it is 'aham brahmasmi (I-I)' and also 'All this is Brahman' (Chandogya 3.14 1, 3). When, in the role of a teacher Shri Ramana asks "Find out Who You are?", the implication is not different from "You art That" (again Chandogya), which leads to silent realisation of "I am That" (Brihadarayanaka) in the student. The 'I' thought is the first to arise in the mind. When the enquiry 'Who am I?' is persistently pursued, finally the 'I' thought itself vanishes leaving the supreme non-dual Self alone.

"Find out Who You Are?", reflects the Chandogya as below:

8.7.1
The Self which is free from sin, free from old age, from death and from grief, from hunger and thirst, which desires nothing but what it ought to desire, and imagines nothing but what it ought to imagine, that it is which we must search out, that it is which we must try to understand. He who has searched out that Self and understands it, obtains all worlds and all desires.



"It is by ceaseless enquiry that the thoughts are destroyed and the Self realized - the plenary Reality in which there is not even the 'I' thought, the experience which is referred to as "Silence"" (shri Ramana).

So, frankly speaking, I see no omission. I see a living experience of Vedantic knowledge and Mahavakyas all together. Who can utter "I am That" while in Turya, in which the Universe disappears?



Om


PS: "The Universe disappears in Him", says Mandukya of the Turya. Who will utter "I am That" there?

[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

[ohmshivaya]

There appears to be two different arguments overlapping here. One is on what Nirotu claims that Sri Ramana actually uttered. And the other is about what Sri Ramana’s answers might have been to the self-inquiry ""Who am I.”


The debate in the last few posts was about whether or not Ramana actually uttered “I am THAT” at any stage in his life. The clarification was simple – he did not. To put words into someone’s mouth that were never uttered is wrong, and is taking undue liberties with the person and his works.


My rejoinder to Nirotu was to ask where Sri Ramana had actually uttered “I am THAT.’’ If Sri Ramana had ever said it explicitly, we would not be having this conversation at all, would we? Because then, everything would have been straightforward. I still stand to be corrected, of course, by asking Nirotu to submit a citation from where he has drawn this assertion about Sri Ramana stating emphatically “I am that.”


I’d also like to address another point while I am at it, even though it detracts from the main issue discussed here: Nirotu states emphatically and confidently (and in this, there is absolutely no question or doubt in his mind whatsoever) that Jesus understood and embodied perfectly the duality and non-duality nature of existence. This assertion I’d like to call into question. Firstly, I have never read in the new testament and the various gospels, Jesus clearly stating something along the lines of I am THAT, thus conveying his understanding of non-duality of nature. As far as I know, in the various gospels, the concept of non-duality was never clearly conveyed by Jesus; nor his “I am..,” as understood by Christian theologians, scholars, and laymen, implied non-duality. There has been numerous debates about what Jesus might have meant when he, according to the gospels, allegedly uttered “I am this...and I am that..” in various places throughout the bible– some of the scholars go on to even point out that “I am” itself is an erroneous English translation of the original Hebrew word which Jesus allegedly used. Yet despite the tremendous ambiguity in the “I am..” statement by Jesus in various places in the bible, Nirotu is convinced, without any doubt whatsoever in his mind, that Jesus is affirming his non-dual nature.


The bible which has produced more controversies because of its ambiguity, than any other religious text in the world, is very clear to Nirotu, but not the Vedas or any of the other Hindu philosophers’ discourses. That puzzles me greatly. Moreover, Nirotu goes on to talk about Mother Theresa’s statement “I am the instrument in the hands of God..” as an example of her imbibing the non-duality of existence. That again, astonishes me, as it would, I am sure, astonish her, were she alive today. Yet Jesus and mother Theresa are now suddenly relegated to good examples of enligthened beings that understood, acknowledged and affirmed their non-dual and dual states. This is not only blatantly stretching the truth on Christianity and its principal characters, but might come as a big shock to most Christian theologians in the west.


This new theory, on “Jesus’s” awareness , acknowledgement, and declaration of non-duality of nature, is being put forth by a selective, but growing, group of Christians, particularly in the west, who have had exposure to Vedanta and Advaita philosophies of the Sanatana Dharma. This group has started extrapolating the bible to enrich the text philosophically, and make it more attractive to the intellectuals in the west, by drawing inspiration from the Indian philosophies and incorporating some of these thoughts/views into christianity.

Nirotu: A good example I find is in Jesus Christ; While Jesus knew Himself to be of the same nature as Brahman (Advaita), yet, He was aware of the Father (Brahman), and therefore, aware of Himself as the Son (atman), purely Dvaita. This is an outstanding example to mankind that in the manifest creation, the singular awareness of both the unity (Advaita) and the duality (Dvaita) co-exist and is needed,

Noritu considers Jesus as a GOOD example of someone who understood both non-duality and duality nature of existence. This is surprising, first of all, because there is so much debate among historians over whether or not someone like Jesus actually even existed. And second, Jesus never wrote anything down and everything that we have of Jesus’s life and his utterances, was penned much after his time. And none of these writings suggest, remotely or otherwise, that Jesus had clear and explicit awareness of both the non-dual and dual states of existence. Oddly enough, while Nirotu is ever so sure about the existence of Jesus (even if scholars and historians believe otherwise) and his non-advaita leanings, as well as about mother Theresa's understandings (who most saw as a staunch dualist till her dying days, though no one quite knew what she privately believed and thought, although some say she even began to doubt the existence of God towards the end of her life, which might be construed as the dawning realization for her that perhaps there is NOTHING beyond THIS), he believes that many of Indian philosophers were contradictory, ambiguous, and the Gurus possibly faulty in their reasoning.

When we are discussing Sanatana Dharma philosophies and philosophers (some of them who, unlike Jesus, lived in the 20th century and whose works were documented in this life-time - OUR lifetime), why bring in a figure (who might or might not be real) from 2000 years ago, and who never wrote anything down, to the discussion, and refer to him as the "good example." If that isn’t blind faith, what is? Is this blind faith supposed to contribute to a rationale debate in some way? On the contrary, it is, in my opinion, a detraction from the otherwise meaningful discussion we are having on the commentaries of Hindu philosophers, Adi Sankara, Sri Ramana, Sri Ramanuja, Sri Ramakrishna etc.


One can only surmise that this constant reference to “Jesus’ when discussing any subject pertaining to Hindu philosophies and philosophers is intended to expound the Christian faith and promote “Jesus,” and nothing more. Drawing constant reference to Jesus is akin to a scientist A telling scientist B that B’s findings are unacceptable because his scientific methods are “flawed” (OK, there is no problem with that assertion as long as it is backed up by legitimate points), but insists that everyone accept, without question, his own findings even though they are based entirely on anecdotal evidences. After all, when discussing the works of Socrates, Plato, or Kant one would hardly think it fit to bring in "Jesus' and his views into the picture.


I accept (though not entirely comprehend) that practicing christians and some former Christians, despite having left christianity and sought spiritual refuge in other religions/philosophies, still have the overwhelming need to defend christianity and turn it into the religion that they want it to be – something that closely resembles Sanatana Dharma. It may be that 2000 years of conditioning refuses to allow someone to let go.

[atanu]

Namaste ohmshivaya,


I debated within, as to whether the following matter should be put in a different thread or not? It appears here, since it fits here, in this subject. Why? Why Shiva and Vishnu followers fight? Why people fight?

A Guru assumed two names and taught two groups of devotees. The devotees fought and butchered people of the other group, swearing to the respective name of the Guru known to them, although the Guru was one. God, the Guru, has such predicament.

Some discontentment and cynicism expressed in some of the posts whenever Shri Ramana's name appears is understandable, attributable simply to difference of opinions, also known as Da-Da-Da phenomenon. But why this happens at the cost of supporting a false assertion of Shri Nirotu, is not very clear?

The discontentment wrt to the opinion part, IMO, is due to the following reason.

Because self-enquiry often starts with the question ‘Who am I?’, many of the traditional followers of Advaita (who were yet to grasp the import of the indescribable and imperceptible) assumed that the answer to the question was ‘I am Brahman’. Sri Maharshi in response to a visitor's question about using the affirmation, "I am Brahman" as a method of meditation said:

Brahman is here taken as a word-symbol of Ultimate Reality or God. "'I am Brahman' is only a thought. Who says it? Brahman itself does not say so. What need is there for it to say it? Nor can the real 'I' say so. For 'I' always abides as Brahman. To be saying it is only a thought. Whose thought is it? All thoughts are from the unreal 'I.' Remain without thinking. So long as there is thought there will be fear. . . . 'I am Brahman' is an aid to concentration. It keeps off other thoughts, then one thought alone persists. See whose is that thought. It will be found to be from 'I.' Wherefrom is the 'I'-thought? Probe into it. The 'I'-thought will vanish. The Supreme Self will shine forth of itself. No further effort is needed."

Some perceive this as insult of their method, where actually it is a beautiful clarification as to what the meditating devotee has to do once the consciousness is stable in Pragnya (as highlighted with red fonts above. It is also a warner that beware of mental concepts of Brahman. In Sri Ramana Maharshi’s opinion, the solution to the question ‘Who am I?’ is not to be found in or by the mind or speech since the only real answer is the experience of the absence of mind and speech, in utter silence.

We may further study whether Maharshi was true to Advaita Vedanta or not?

Brihadarayanaka
I-iv-10: This (self) was indeed Brahman in the beginning. It knew only Itself as, ‘I am Brahman’. Therefore It became all. And whoever among the gods knew It also became That; and the same with sages and men. The sage Vamadeva, while realising this (self) as That, knew, ‘I was Manu, and the sun’. And to this day whoever in like manner knows It as, ‘I am Brahman’, becomes all this (universe). Even the gods cannot prevail against him, for he becomes their self. While he who worships another god thinking, ‘He is one, and I am another’, does not know. He is like an animal to the gods. As many animals serve a man, so does each man serve the gods. Even if one animal is taken away, it causes anguish, what should one say of many animals ? Therefore it is not liked by them that men should know this.

Does the above verse, which is of Vishista Advaita mode, wherein the world exists within the 'I' as Brahman consciousness, same as the verse below?

Mandukya
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.
-----------------

The Self that is to be known is unchanging and advaita in which the Universe comes to cessation. The two verses talk of two different levels. No doubt that the first verse has to be experienced, to be able to attain the goal of the seond verse.

Shri Ramana has taught both the levels:

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.

Since, the creative phase of Brahman (as arising from oneself) must be comprehended as arising in one's mind and then only the involution is possible to know the Self as the absolute unchanging and non-creative. The equivalent of the Mandukya verse in Brihadaranyaka is:

III-ix-26: On what do the body and the heart rest ?’ ‘On the Prana’. ‘On what does the Prana rest ?’ ‘On the Apana.’ ‘On what does the Apana rest ?’ ‘On the Vyana.’ ‘On what does the Vyana rest ?’ ‘On the Udana’. ‘On what does the Udana rest ?’ ‘On the Samana’. This self is That which has been described as ‘Not this, not this’. It is imperceptible, for it is never perceived; undecaying, for It never decays; unattached, for It is never attached; unfettered – It never feels pain, and never suffers injury.

It is true that "I am (Aham) Brahman" and thus Vishnu is the one who says: I am cipivista. OTOH, the Self, which is the goal, is never perceived and is indescribable. Thus Mahadeva is ever silent Seer. Both represent the same truth of shivo advaita atma.


Upamanyu said: (Mahadeva) Thou art he who imparts
instruction in utter silence. Thou art he that observes
the vow of taciturny (for Thou instructest in silence).

The excellent practice of Dvaita teachings can only ripen one to appreciate the silence of absolute Advaita.

Om

[saidevo]

Namaste ohmshivaya.

An excellent post with solid points that places in perspective, the neo-apologetics who seek to extrapolate Jesus, Christianity and its Bible, by borrowing Hindu concepts.

Some of us here know Nirotu to be a neo-Christian apologetic, though he has not explicitly stated his religion in his HDF profile, but he has not denied that he is a Christian. (I think Satay should make the Religion entry compulsory because that would help us know who are the non-Hindus in this Hindu Forum).

Nirotu is also active in (at least one) Christian Forum(s) where he gets clarifications. Let me add that there is nothing wrong for a Christian or a Hindu to be an active member of a Christian or Muslim or any other religious Forum. I also appreciate that Nirotu carries key Hindu concepts for discussion in the Christian Forums, though they have little support from the staunch Christians there. But his 'agenda'--I am constrained to use this word--, is clear from the following quote of a recent post of his (underlining by me):

Is Jesus the Christ?
by nirotu on Wed Mar 26, 2008 9:30 pm

Many times I come across folks of other faith to whom when I try my apologetic approach regarding Jesus Christ, I get same response and that is: "you believe because the Bible says so". Is there a way to prove Jesus is the Christ outside the Bible?

http://forum.bible.org/viewtopic.php...p=88601#p88601

When such things are pointed out, Nirotu conveniently goes into his shell, saying that he would rather sit in meditation for God's grace, instead of wasting further time trying to convince us with his arguments.

A Hindu or a member of another faith who appreciates Hinduism would try to understand the mind-set behind the vociferous differences between the followers of Shiva and Vishnu. In his OP, Ganeshprasad asks the question about this 'antagonism' in agony, not derisively. He is 'pained' by the denigration of Shiva.

He does not deride it as a 'great divide', 'great theological divide' and say (by implication) that where the three great Hindu Acharyas have failed to establish the Absolute Truth in perspective, 'a good example' of one who does is Jesus Christ (and Mother Teresa). I can understand even a Hindu atheist using such words, but I cannot help thinking that a Christian apologetic would only use them for his own agenda. This is the reason I said that I could see his usual 'subtleties' behind Nirotu's post (#21); and pointed out the implications of Nirotu's points and he has, not unexpectedly, tried to circumvent them.

In the manifest world of creation, there is a "poor man's equivalent" of everything. No one can deny the spiritual, metaphysical and philosophical richness of Hinduism vis-a-vis the other religions, mainly Christianity. In this context I can understand Nirotu placing Jesus Christ, Mother Teresa and other Christian religious personalities in juxtaposition with the Hindu rishis and sages, but when he seeks to extrapolate them, we need to take exception.

For example, he has equated Ramakrishna, Mother Teresa and Ramana Maharshi as having equally identified themselves with the higher-self, but this evokes only laughter in me. Ramakrishna and Mother Teresa have nothing in common except that they both lived in Calcutta. The comparision evokes laughter because Ramakrishna was never conscious of money! In a Hindu's view, Mother Teresa is nothing more than a Christian missionary and whatever charitable deeds she accomplished were only to that end; stories of her 'money mindedness' have also cropped up.

Nirotu has also persisted with his misquote of Ramana Maharshi. This shows that he either does not understand the sage and his teachings or has scarce respect for the sage.

I have nothing personal against Nirotu. I hope I have not made any personal remarks about him in this post. I have talked only about his forum activities. I find nothing wrong in Nirotu being a devout Christian or even a neo-apologetic. I would welcome any sort of debate from him, inter- or intra-religious, but as "a student of scripture" or a student of study of comparative religions, I expect Nirotu to present his views with understanding and appreciation, and where he has genuine differences or disgreements, to present them with dignity.

If Nirotu wants to discuss 'the place of Advaita in the manifest creation of Dvaita' that is a good topic, certainly involves discussions about the three great Hindu Acharyas, but not with the attitude Nirotu takes about them, about Ramana Maharshi and about our Vedas and Upanishads, specially when he is not a Hindu.

If Nirotu approaches Hindu concepts with an attitude of skepticism, derision and stark disapproval, then whatever beautiful expositions Atanu has given in this thread can hardly convince him to any extent.

As a Hindu, I view the vociferous differences in the teachings of the three great Hindu Acharyas as Ishvara's LIlA. When Shiva as Shambhu took birth as Sankara, he arranged with the devas to be born as characters (such as Mandana Misra) whose teachings would be starkly opposed to Advaita. Even Skanda was born as Kumarila Bhatta and debated with Sankara. In the same way, Ishvara intended Ramanuja and Madhva to play their roles scripted by Him, with a view to bring most Hindus under the banner of one of the sects of Hinduism, rather than stay as atheists and skeptics, who have the least spiritual progress in any Yuga.

In the ancient six system of Hindu Philosophy, the rishis who gave them had starkly opposing teachings. Does it mean one or more of them was less Self-Realized than the others? I don't think so. Gods and Rishis always have the welfare and spiritual progress of mankind as their aim, and play opposing roles in the great drama of manifest creation.

[atanu]

-
Nirotu has also persisted with his misquote of Ramana Maharshi. This shows that he either does not understand the sage and his teachings or has scarce respect for the sage.

Namaste saidevoji,

I am surprised with Shri Nirotu's mis-representations. In an earlier post, He ascribed to Shri Radhakrishnan certain VA concepts making it appear as if VA was his belief. Actually Nirotu was quoting an academic prose of Radhakrishnan where he factually states the positions of three philosophies. This has happened a few times. And this time, I expressed surprise since Shri Nirotu appeared heading for the same technique again.

I was surprised that someone could have missed the stark advaita teachings of Ramana, though surely in this case, similar as with Shri Ramakrishna, the dvaita, the VA, the bhakti, the karma, the jnana -- nothing was neglected. Yet, how can one miss the finality of Advaita teaching of these masters?

To say that these masters did not teach Advaita and that their experiences were less than complete union (as taught by Advaita and as taught by these masters to the devotees), is to point them as fakes. This is of concern. Shri Nirotu may please note this if he is genuine.

As a Hindu, I view the vociferous differences in the teachings of the three great Hindu Acharyas as Ishvara's LIlA. When Shiva as Shambhu took birth as Sankara, he arranged with the devas to be born as characters (such as Mandana Misra) whose teachings would be starkly opposed to Advaita. Even Skanda was born as Kumarila Bhatta and debated with Sankara. In the same way, Ishvara intended Ramanuja and Madhva to play their roles scripted by Him, with a view to bring most Hindus under the banner of one of the sects of Hinduism, rather than stay as atheists and skeptics, who have the least spiritual progress in any Yuga.

Very nicely said. Pranam.

Om

[TatTvamAsi]

Namaste Ohmshivaya,

A most splendid post!

Subham.

[sarabhanga]

Omission? I see no omission.

The point was simply that Shri Ramana never said “I am that”

As far As I know, he never uttered “I am That”, except when explaining “I am that I am” of The Bible.

The sentence was intended to convey: Ramana possibly never uttered “I am That”.

I have not read Ramana uttering “I am That”, which Nirotu claimed.

He never uttered so'ham for himself.

aham AtmA

aham ekam

aham AtmA paraM tattvam

aham eva tattvam

aham eva shivaH

so’haMso’ham

You need not be ashamed to say “I am the Self, the supreme Truth”

“I am That”.

The haMsau (“the individual jIva and the universal AtmA”) is ahaMsa (aham sa) or so’ham (saH aham), declaring “I am That”.

dakshiNAmUrti instructs in silence, but the expression of shrI dakshiNAmUrti may be heard in the three-fold communion of shiSya (nAra), guru (nArAyaNa), and shiva (nara).

And the inner teaching of dakshiNAmUrti whispers:

so’hamiti yAvadAsthitiH saniSThA bhavati

Devotion consists in firmly dwelling in the constant thought so’ham (“I am That”).

shrI ramaNa considered the tripurarahasya as one of the greatest expositions on advaita philosophy, and he often quoted from it, prompting svAmI rAmaNAnanda sarasvatI (shrI muNagala veNkATaramaya) to begin his english translation of the text, which was fully published in 1940. And the shrI ramaNAshramam has republished the translation numerous times since the samAdhi of shrI ramaNa in 1950.

There can be no doubt that shrI ramaNa agreed with translation, and those who knew him claim that he often quoted from the tripurarahasya, which was one of his favorite texts.

And thus, there can be no doubt that shrI ramaNa spoke the following words:

I will tell you the secret. The cycle of births and deaths is from time immemorial caused by ignorance which displays itself as pleasure and pain and yet is only a dream and unreal. Being so, the wise say that it can be ended by knowledge. By what kind of knowledge? Wisdom born of realisation: viz. “I am That”. [17: 24-26]

The inner self is realised in advanced contemplation and that state of realisation is called nirvikalpa samAdhi. Memory of that realisation enables one to identify the inner self with the universal Self (as “I am That”). [17: 69]

When the mind has completely resolved into the Self, that state is called nirvikalpa samAdhi. After waking up from it, the person is overpowered by the memory of his experience as the one, undivided, infinite, pure Self, and he knows “I am That”, as opposed to the puerile I-thought of the ignorant. That is the vijñAna (supreme Knowledge). [20: 56]

guru mahArAja shrI dattAtreya makes no omission.

shrI dakshiNAmUrti makes no omission.

shrI ramaNAshramam makes no omission.

But those who claim that shrI ramaNa never said “I am That” have omitted all of the above.