Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25

Thread: Is "I-I" experience of Ramana Dvaita?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    mrityuloka
    Age
    52
    Posts
    3,729
    Rep Power
    337

    Is "I-I" experience of Ramana Dvaita?

    namaste,

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


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

  2. #2

    Re: Is "I-I" experience of Ramana Dvaita?

    Quote Originally Posted by Atanu
    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,

  3. #3
    Join Date
    December 2007
    Age
    63
    Posts
    3,218
    Rep Power
    4728

    Re: Is "I-I" experience of Ramana Dvaita?

    Quote Originally Posted by nirotu View Post
    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
    "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"

  4. #4
    Join Date
    August 2006
    Age
    72
    Posts
    3,162
    Rep Power
    1915

    Re: Is "I-I" experience of Ramana Dvaita?

    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.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    71
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    223

    Re: Is "I-I" experience of Ramana Dvaita?

    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
    यतसà¥à¤¤à¥à¤µà¤‚ शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṠśivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  6. #6
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    mrityuloka
    Age
    52
    Posts
    3,729
    Rep Power
    337

    Re: Is "I-I" experience of Ramana Dvaita?

    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.
    satay

  7. #7

    Re: Is "I-I" experience of Ramana Dvaita?

    Quote Originally Posted by devotee

    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 “jnaniand 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.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,

  8. #8
    Join Date
    January 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    741
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Is "I-I" experience of Ramana Dvaita?

    Namaste,

    Quote Originally Posted by nirotu View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by nirotu View Post
    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, t
    Quote Originally Posted by nirotu View Post
    he 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."


    Quote Originally Posted by nirotu View Post
    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!


    Quote Originally Posted by nirotu View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by nirotu View Post
    Equally, many are wonderstruck by the fact that Ramana was supposedly a non-dual “jnaniand 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.


    Quote Originally Posted by nirotu View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by nirotu View Post
    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!

    Quote Originally Posted by nirotu View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by nirotu View Post
    Absolutely.

    Subham.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    December 2007
    Age
    63
    Posts
    3,218
    Rep Power
    4728

    Re: Is "I-I" experience of Ramana Dvaita?

    Quote Originally Posted by nirotu View Post
    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
    Last edited by devotee; 16 July 2008 at 03:46 AM. Reason: removing double post of quotation, spelling correction
    "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"

  10. #10
    Join Date
    August 2006
    Age
    72
    Posts
    3,162
    Rep Power
    1915

    Re: Is "I-I" experience of Ramana Dvaita?

    Namaste Nirotu.

    Quote Originally Posted by nirotu View Post
    "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.
    Quote Originally Posted by nirotu View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by nirotu View Post
    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.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •