Why

[sarabhanga]

Sri Ramana Maharishi in his ultimate state when he uttered, “I am that” …

As far as I know, he never said such a partial mahavakya.

“I am That” is NOT a “partial mahavakya”.

It seems strange that the idea of ramaNa RSi saying the particular words (translated as) “I am That”, could cause such surprise. And it seems that (somewhere between AruNi and HDF) there has been some omission.

Did shrI rAmaNa never sing the avadhUta gItA or the vidyA gItA?

Arthur Osborne … does not quote Bhagavan Ramana as saying ‘I am That’ as his last words ~ as Nirotu says.

Putting words in Ramana’s mouth as his ‘last words’, is not only cruel and a travesty of truth, but adds greatly to the doer’s karma.

Has Nirotu actually said that “I am That” was spoken by shrI ramaNa as his “last words”? Or have words been forced into Nirotu’s mouth?

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.

If Ohmshivaya and Atanu had digested the tripurarahasya, as recommended and often quoted by shrI ramaNa, then everything would have been much more straightforward.

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.

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 …

It is true that “I am” is an insufficient translation of the Hebrew ehyeh asher ehyeh, Greek ego eimi ho on, Latin ego sum qui sum, English I am that I am. And the perfect ambiguity of the original saying has become only confusion through translation of the original texts into English and transmission via such translated texts rather than by the living word of a continuous guru paramparA.

[atanu]

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]

.

Namaste,



Great and Thank you. If Tripura Rahasya translation is the utterance of Shri Ramana, I agree that Ramana indeed uttered "I am That". No one has said that Ramana is not That. And no one has denied that Ramana not only quoted but He taught Soham from all sources.

shrI ramaNAshramam makes no omission.

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

That is excellent. 'shrI ramaNAshramam makes no omission', is sufficient grace from you.

The point was whether Ramana uttered "I am That" or not? If He uttered so for himself, then OK. If not then again OK. We would request Nirotu to explain how he read Dvaita in Ramana's assumed "I am That". It would have been simple.


Om

[atanu]

If Ohmshivaya and Atanu had digested the tripurarahasya, as recommended and often quoted by shrI ramaNa, then everything would have been much more straightforward.

Namaste sarabhanga,

I agree. If I had digested Tripura Rahasya then I would have agreed with Nirotu and said: "Yes, Nirotu, Ramana uttered "I am That" and he definitely implied Dvaita."And after that agreement everything would have been much more straightforward.

I agree that there is a digestion problem.

Om

[TatTvamAsi]

...Ramana uttered "I am That" and he definitely implied Dvaita."...

Namaste Atanu,

Can you please explain how "I am THAT", as stated by an Advaitin like Ramana Maharishi even remotely implies Dvaita? Perhaps I'm missing the point of your statement above.

Subham.

[nirotu]

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.”

Dear Omshivaya:

As I said before, Advaita and the Mahavakya “I am Brahman” go hand in hand. There is no meaning to the statement “I am Brahman” unless he is an Advaitin. Therefore, it should be intuitive to you what Sage Ramana said and meant. Perhaps, the following should clarify the point.

These are compilation of actual talks of Sage Ramana given over many years. “Thus Spake Ramana” 
Compiled by Lucy Cornelssen
 in Hunting the 'I', 1979. I have taken the liberty of selecting few quotes from Raman’s talks compiled by Lucy. Perhaps, it will shed some light on to what Ramana says regarding “I am that”. I may not have complete transcript on each talk but any avid Ramana followers will be able to provide you.

Please, pay attention to #3 (Talks 92) and let me know what you think. I stand corrected if it implies anything other!

1. Only the annihilation of ‘I’ is Liberation. But it can be gained only by keeping the ‘I...I’ always in view. So the need for the investigation of the 'I’-thought. There is only one ‘I’ all along; but what rises up from time to time is the mistaken ‘I’-thought; whereas the intuitive ‘I’ always remains Self-shining, i.e. even before it becomes manifest. (Talks 139).

2. Your duty is to be; and not to be this or that. ‘I AM THAT I AM’ sums up the whole truth. The method is, summed up in ‘BE STILL’. What does stillness mean? It means ‘destroy yourself’. (Talks 363)


3. The one infinite Unbroken Whole (plenum) becomes aware of Itself as ‘I’. This is the original name. All other names e.g. OM, are later growths. Liberation is only to remain aware of the Self. The Mahavakya ‘I am Brahman’ is its authority. Though the 'I' is always experienced, yet one’s attention has to be drawn to it. Then only knowledge dawns. Thus the need for the instruction of the Upanishads and of wise sages. (Talks 92) (underline/bold my emphasis)

4. Dvaita and Advaita are relative terms. They are based on the sense of duality. The Self is at It is. There is neither dvaita nor advaita. I AM THAT I AM. Simple Being is the Self. (Talks 433)

I have selected these in the hope that my points are taken in that context. Please, explain how you view each of these statements in light of our discussion. I would certainly welcome other interpretations of these to refute the sayings of Sage Ramana, “I am Brahman”.

Sarabhanga raised a very important point: “I am That” assumes “I am that 'I am' (post #38), to which, Atanu replied, "without understanding the 'assumption' it can be very incomplete". Perhaps, Atanu can shed some light on this “assumption”.

Secondly, why do I bring Bible quotes every now and then? Let us see what Sage Ramana has to say about it:

5. The Self is known to everyone but not clearly. You always exist. The Being is the Self. ‘I am’ is the name of God. Of all the definitions of God, none is indeed so well put as the Biblical statement ‘I am that I am’ in Exodus 3, Verse 14. None is so direct as the name JEHOVAH.. .I AM.. The Absolute Being is what is.. .It is the Self. It is God. Knowing the Self, God is known. In fact God is none other than the Self. (Talks 106)

6. The Bible says ‘Be still and know that I am God’. Stillness is the sole requisite for the realization of the Self as God. (Talks 338)


7. This is the Kingdom of Heaven. The Kingdom of Heaven mentioned in the Bible and this world are not two different regions. ‘The Kingdom is within you, says the Bible. So it is. The realized being sees this as the Kingdom of Heaven whereas others see it as ‘this world’. The difference lies only in the angle of vision. (Talks 609)

There is more but this should give you a glimpse of sage Ramana and his thoughts. What you have failed to see in one of my response was that the Sage Ramana’s affirmation of both modes as written by Sri Sadhu OM in “The Path of Ramana part 1” (post # 44) where he places emphasis on both "Jnana" as well as "devotion".

I have respected Atanu’s views and believed that he also affirms both views with a balance.

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.

Obviously, you have not paid attention!

John 10:30, “I and My Father are one.”

What could possibly mean by this statement of Jesus? I would like for you to tell me when Jesus refers to Himself with “I”, does it reflect his lower “I” or the higher “I“ from Ramana’s “I –I”?

There are many verses that clearly show the consciousness in Jesus is in union with the supreme Consciousness.

Equally valid, are the statements by Jesus that reflect duality in the way He operated on earth.

For example,

John 15:1, “I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.”

John 16:28, “I came forth from the Father and have come into the world. Again, I leave the world and go to the Father.”

My intention was not to be sidetracked by the question you raised but to see if there is a good explanation for the OP.

Blessings,

[satay]

Admin Note

This thread is mixing up a lot of different issues.

I request the members to start a separate thread on each issue so that clear, civil, respectful and most of all high quality discussions can happen.

The three or four separate issues seem to be:

- Did Rsi Ramana utter the words "I am that" or Not
- "I am That" is an incomplete mahavakya or Not
- Jesus was following Vedic mahavakyas and Bible is a testimony to that
- Mother Teresa was a sage

This thread is under review and as usual all site rules apply to all members so any statements that break the rules of the HDF will be deleted.

Thanks,