Need for a teacher...questions again

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Dear Sastri-ji,

>

>

> Regarding your quotations about Dakshinamurti teaching gods etc.

through

> silence, I really having nothing constructive to say on this.

Clearly that

> is what is stated. I am bound to say that I do not accept that

any such

> material was ever intended to be taken literally and it does not

have any

> positive connotations for me as a teaching method. I treat it in

much the

> same way as the various creation stories that are given in the

shruti. But

> obviously I respect your views to regard it otherwise. Can I ask

how silence

> functions as a pramANa according to advaita epistemology, however?

Is it

> explicitly mentioned in the VP?

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

 

Dear Dennis-ji,

The question boils down to this. Is communication mentally, without

articulate sound possible? There is no doubt that it is not possible

among ordinary human beings. But is it not possible even for

Dakshinamurti or a jivanmukta like Ramana Maharshi? If we say it is

not possible, then the very basis for describing vedas as `shruti'

collapses. The Rishis are said to have `heard' the mantras. It is

not said that they heard articulate sounds. What is said is that

they `heard' them when they were in meditation, in which state they

would not have heard any external sounds. So they must have heard

them only mentally. This is what is stated in the first sentence of

Srimad Bhagavatam which I had referred to in my previous post. There

is no means of verifying this. It has to be either believed or

rejected.

As Shri Ramaksrishna Upadrashta has pointed out, according to

Rigveda sound has four forms, of which only the last, vaikhari, is

articulate sound. The other three, para, pasyanti, madhyama are

within the heart. Human beings can normally hear only the vaikhari

form. But when the Rishis are said to have heard the mantras

mentally, that must be only one of the other three forms.

I have seen the explanation of the Rigveda mantra in the Appendix

to `Lights on the Ancients' which Shri Ramakrishna has referred to.

I thank him for the reference.

The word `maunavyAkhya' means silent explanation. This means that

the instruction was mental and not by articulate sound. This aspect

has not been taken into account and attention has been concentrated

on the word mudrA.

We are only trying to understand the correct position and not in the

spirit of debate. So I think we have discussed this sufficiently and

I have no inclination to continue it further.

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

 

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Frank-ji,

 

 

 

I'm afraid I remain mystified as to the nature of this 'transmission of

experience' which is 'superior to any verbal teaching'. Why, then, do not

all teachers use it? It seems much simpler than all of that shravaNa, manana

and nididhyAsana.

 

 

 

I can't help thinking that all of the objectors to the claim that teaching

cannot be transmitted by silence are confusing paramArtha and vyavahAra. In

reality, there is only the Self; there is no one to become enlightened, no

teacher and nothing to be taught. In the world of seeming duality, however,

there are ignorant jIva-s. Their minds need to gain self-knowledge

(vRRitti-s). The source of this knowledge can only be via the acknowledged

pramANa-s, of which the only one that can convey the knowledge that

everything is brahman and 'I am That' is shabda pramANa. The accepted

vehicle for this is a skilled, enlightened shrotriya.

 

 

 

If anyone disagrees with this, can they please point me to an appropriate

reference for 'mauna pramANa' or alternatively to one for 'telepathy as a

(proven) means for communication'. (As I noted in my response to Shri

Sastri, I will accept for the sake of argument that gods can communicate

telepathically. But even if j~nAnI-s could do so, I do not accept that an

ordinary seeker can - in either direction.) Remember we are talking about

the mind of a person here; not the Self, which is non-dual and has no need

to communicate.

 

 

 

As it stands, I acknowledge that being in the presence of a Sage may no

doubt bring about a feeling of peace/stillness/love - whatever. But this

cannot provide self-knowledge. It seems that the most it could possibly

provide would be savikalpa samAdhi - an 'experience' with a beginning and an

end in time. Please let us not confuse reason with emotion.

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of frank maiello

28 February 2008 06:09

advaitin

Re: Need for a teacher...questions again

 

 

 

if, on the other hand, one witnesses the deliberate [silent] gaze of

a sage (also referred to as mouna diksha...i.e. the transmission of

the experience of their sahaja samadhi), it is recognized to be

immeasurably superior to any verbal teaching. if anything, verbal or

written teachings can only serve to prepare one for either such

silent transmission or, of course, the shift into the turiya sthithi

(moksha) itself. note: mouna diksha isn't a necessary prerequisite

for achieving moksha; however, it can prove to significantly

accelerate the process leading to it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hello Dennis,

 

Please let us not confuse reason with emotion

 

Yes, all through this thread I've seen constant

confusion among the members re those two SEPARATE

human traits. Reason and emotion are like fire and

water--they don't mix and it takes discrimination not

to try to combine them.

 

Also, many statements in the scriptures are

metaphoric, analogous and mythic.

 

Metaphorically a teacher can teach through silence. A

student hears a teacher, processes the information,

doesn't understand or relate to all of it. Later,

maybe that evening, pondering it in relative SILENCE,

the student suddenly gets it. The scriptures of all

religions are metaphoric and symbolic. Logic and

scriptures don't work well together. If you try to

take scriptures literally, you end up having to

sacrifice reason. Obviously, to me, anyway, all

creation myths are just that: myth. Stories about how

it all came to be. If you take them literally then you

have to sacrifice reason. If you take them

symbolically, mythologically then they work fine--on

that level. If you think you can have it both ways

then your mind is split down the middle and only by

rationalization and ignoring can you apply logic and

emotion to any scriptural reference.

 

On faith, some might say that a teacher can teach

through silence. But you're stuck with the

impossibility of that so you have to sacrifice your

reason because if there is silence then nothing is

being said, no information can come from silence. But

if you accept such a statement as metaphoric, then you

can ask what it might mean, symbolically, NOT

literally!...at least this is the way I deal with

scriptures of all religions. Trying to concretize what

cannot be concretized has and is causing many problems

in the world! It's known as fundamentalism.

 

Some fundamentalist Christians actually believe that

Jonah was really swallowed by a whale and lived there

for awhile!!! In all scriptures there are similar

impossible situations which would require the

sacrifice of reason to believe! There is

symbolic/metaphoric/mythological truth in such stories

but it requires ignorance/ignoring to take them

literally, concretely! It is up to reason to see how

they may be symbolically true.

 

 

______________________________\

____

Looking for last minute shopping deals?

Find them fast with Search.

http://tools.search./newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

[Guest guest]

--- snsastri <sn.sastri wrote:

 

>

> Dear Dennis-ji,

> The question boils down to this. Is communication mentally, without

> articulate sound possible? There is no doubt that it is not possible

> among ordinary human beings. But is it not possible even for

> Dakshinamurti or a jivanmukta like Ramana Maharshi? If we say it is

> not possible, then the very basis for describing vedas as `shruti'

> collapses. The Rishis are said to have `heard' the mantras.

 

Shree Sastriji and all others

 

PraNAms

 

I did not want to get into this discussion as it was going beyond my mind.

 

Personally I agree with Dennis for one thing - for knowledge pramANa has to

operate.

Silence or even nirvikalpa samaadhi or deep sleep etc - one can learn from them

by the

analysis of them but they do not form ACCEPTED MEANS of pramANa.

 

Next, the truth is aprameyam - since it cannot be known by any means of

knowledge -

including silence - if it is considered as a means - since it is ever present

and it is

pathless.

 

Vedas declare that shravaNa, manana and nidhidhyaasana - as the means - tavyaH

is added

to indicate the vidhi - that means one has to do it.

 

Now only caveat is there are exceptions to the rule - the exceptions arise if

the sadhaka

has gone through these in their past lives. As Krishna emphasizes in the sixth

chapter -

those ubhaya bhrashTas who could not make it in the last life will be taking a

birth in a

conducive environment and he will be taking a rapid path - but such mahatmas are

very

rare - says Krishna himself. Of course there is nothing wrong to consider that

one falls

in that rare case. He will fall down if he has prepared for that since as Sunder

just

pointed out the razer-edge path for the pathless path.

 

In terms of RiShiis gaining the knowledge - there was an article by Dr.

Chandrashekar in

the Scientific American many years back - He said 'all scientific discoveries

are also

revelations - made with intuition. They proceeded in the direction of truth with

full

faith - which they call as hypothesis. That is, the truth is revealed to them as

they are

contemplating on the truth. Hence all Vedas (knowledge)are apoursheyam.

 

Yes RiShiis are Veda draShTas but that is they saw in their deep meditation. If

one

contemplates in the direction of the truth - provided they have heard already in

what

direction they need to contemplate. ShravaNa -manana - prerequisite for

nidhidhyaasana.

 

If one can gain that knowledge without listening to the scriptures - We wish all

the best

for them. But Scripute alone forms pramaNa for adhyaatmavidhya. They must have

gained

that essence in the last life - let us hope so.

 

But to take this as general recipe for all, can back fire with frustrations. I

knew many

people returned back from Ramanaasrama getting bored sitting in silence, while

some

enjoyed the quietitude but returned back to the same samsaara. This can happen

even after

listening to the scriptures for years and years too. KrishNa's statement

provides

optimistic view that there is light at the end of the tunnel even if one does

not make it

this time.

 

I will end this with a note. Once Swami Chinmayanandaji was asked by an American

Lady -

This was the time we have lot of swamis getting arrested for some thing or other

and some

young bala swami marrying his secretary, and another swami with 14 Cadillac etc.

The lady

asked - sir why cannot India send only good and well certified swamis and those

that

would not exploit people. They are bringing lot of bad name for the religion.

 

Swamiji just laughed and said - when you go to supermarket it is your duty to

pick up

only what you need. You cannot complain why manager is selling all that

unnecessary or

undesirable stuff. Manager has to cater to everybody's needs. You have to use

your

intelligence to select what exactly you need. If you pick up the wrong one, now

you have

learned that you should be careful the next time - In that case the wrong one

gave you

the right education you need at that time.

 

Lord has to take care of everybody needs and everyone has to evolve at their own

pace. If

one picks up the wrong teacher, that teacher was the right teacher for him to

educate

that one has to be more discriminative next time. That education, from other's

point may

be costly, but he needs that for his evolution.

 

Lord provides the correct teacher for everyone!

 

If people can learn from silence – all the glory to them.

 

But Vedanta insists on considering a general student – shravaNan, mananam, and

nidhidhyAsanam as the beaten path for most. That is listening to the scriptures,

reflecting on them until one is doubt free and contemplating on the truth in the

direction specified. Dakshinamurthy selected his students, if I understand

correctly.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Steve Stoker <otnac6 wrote:

>Dear Friends,

I have been reading these messages relating to the concept of Shabda

Pramana , and whether it is possible to transmit 'Self-knowledge' from

one mind [that of a teacher] to another mind [that of a disciple]

through Silence, ie without words.This discussion has led to an

analysis of the methods of Bhagavan Ramana and other sages/swamis, and

also about Dakshinamurthy stotram of Adi Sankara.

To my limited knowledge,this can be understood as follows: Shabda

Brahman is revealed by Shabda Pramana...Shabda Brahman is equivalent

of " OM " .For all 'practical purposes' the symbol 'OM' or mantra, is

Brahman only.It is in this sense ,one approaches Shabda Pramana...But

Reality or Brahman can be attained by many other means as

well....Self-enquiry of Ramana is different though the goal may be the

same....We are trying to understand one method with the refrence to

another...For those wedded to Sabhda Pramana, the method of 'Silence'

or Atma Vichara will not make much sense.....

With best regards,

In Sai Smaran

N K Srinivasan

> Hello Dennis,

>

> Please let us not confuse reason with emotion

>

> Yes, all through this thread I've seen constant

> confusion among the members re those two SEPARATE

> human traits. Reason and emotion are like fire and

> water--they don't mix and it takes discrimination not

> to try to combine them.

>

> Also, many statements in the scriptures are

> metaphoric, analogous and mythic.

>

> Metaphorically a teacher can teach through silence. A

> student hears a teacher, processes the information,

> doesn't understand or relate to all of it. Later,

> maybe that evening, pondering it in relative SILENCE,

> the student suddenly gets it. The scriptures of all

> religions are metaphoric and symbolic. Logic and

> scriptures don't work well together. If you try to

> take scriptures literally, you end up having to

> sacrifice reason. Obviously, to me, anyway, all

> creation myths are just that: myth. Stories about how

> it all came to be. If you take them literally then you

> have to sacrifice reason. If you take them

> symbolically, mythologically then they work fine--on

> that level. If you think you can have it both ways

> then your mind is split down the middle and only by

> rationalization and ignoring can you apply logic and

> emotion to any scriptural reference.

>

> On faith, some might say that a teacher can teach

> through silence. But you're stuck with the

> impossibility of that so you have to sacrifice your

> reason because if there is silence then nothing is

> being said, no information can come from silence. But

> if you accept such a statement as metaphoric, then you

> can ask what it might mean, symbolically, NOT

> literally!...at least this is the way I deal with

> scriptures of all religions. Trying to concretize what

> cannot be concretized has and is causing many problems

> in the world! It's known as fundamentalism.

>

> Some fundamentalist Christians actually believe that

> Jonah was really swallowed by a whale and lived there

> for awhile!!! In all scriptures there are similar

> impossible situations which would require the

> sacrifice of reason to believe! There is

> symbolic/metaphoric/mythological truth in such stories

> but it requires ignorance/ignoring to take them

> literally, concretely! It is up to reason to see how

> they may be symbolically true.

>

>

>

______________________________\

____

> Looking for last minute shopping deals?

> Find them fast with Search.

http://tools.search./newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

>

[Guest guest]

Humble pranams.

 

With regards to the silence of Dakshinamurthy this is my understanding. The

silence of the Ultimate teacher or Ishwara neither indicates non-communication

nor is is it a mum speechlessness that we might understand " silence " to be.

 

Now we have the very opening lines of the dhyanastotra to Dakshinamurthy start

with " maunavakhyaprakatita " But in the stotra itself we are told that he utters

" tat tvam asi " ( " tat tvam asi iti veda vachasaat yo bodhayat ashritan " ) How do

we reconcile this. Was He silent or did He say tat tvam asi? If He " silently "

said " tat tvam asi " then is this really silence?

What is intended to be conveyed is that the silence indicates that the meaning

of the (liberating) words He utters " tat tvam asi " is not to be taken in its

direct sense(shabdavachyam) but in an implied sense (shabdalakshyam). Because

right now when someone says " thou " we take the " thou " to be something it is not,

and we take " that " to also be something else. Hence, it is not in the direct

sense that we are to understand " I am Brahman " but in an implied sense alone.

 

If staying mum could teach something effectively, Krishna could have saved

himself the effort of eighteen long chapters of almost uninterrupted speech,

isnt it? Narada was one of the greatest RIshis and still had to approach

Sanatkumara to learn - could he not have simply been given self-knowledge by

intuitive telepathy?or sparsha diksha by Lord Narayana Himself? Similarly Lord

Yama Himself, or Yajnavalkya - all of them imparted this teaching by speech

alone.Vak or speech is such a wonderful vibhuti of Ishwara - does brahmavidya

become any less esoteric simply because it is conveyed through speech? Even

after saying tat tvam asi unless the mind is prepared for the teaching it is

mere " words " and " sound " alone; one goes beyond the (literal) words to the

" silent " understanding of the truth that is conveyed.

 

One more thing - " A jIvanmukta is even greater that yogis. He is Brahman

himself and so his powers are unlimited. " - I would like to humbly and most

respectfully disagree with Shri Shastri-ji on the 2nd sentence.

A jivanmukta is Brahman primarily and ONLY with regards to his " real " nature of

sat-chit-ananda. Once we start talking about siddhis, and powers, etc we are

immediately referring to the mithya Upadhis, and in this there can be no

question of identity between a jivanmukta and Ishwara. Only He is all-knowing,

all-pervading, sarvashaktimAn, etc. A jivanmukta's abiding identity in/as

Brahman in no way improves his upadhi's prowess or powers - the latter is simply

rendered irrelevant, and hence alone is he greater than yogis, who (upadhi-wise)

may have attained wonderful siddhis and occult powers, but have yet to attain

that knowledge knowing which everything is (as good as) known.

 

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

 

 

 

 

Dennis Waite <dwaite

advaitin

Thursday, February 28, 2008 8:58:36 AM

RE: Re: Need for a teacher...questions again

 

Hi Frank-ji,

 

I'm afraid I remain mystified as to the nature of this 'transmission of

experience' which is 'superior to any verbal teaching'. Why, then, do not

all teachers use it? It seems much simpler than all of that shravaNa, manana

and nididhyAsana. Recent Activity

13New Members

Visit Your Group

Finance

It's Now Personal

Guides, news,

advice & more.

Y! Messenger

Want a quick chat?

Chat over IM with

group members.

Find helpful tips

for Moderators

on the

Groups team blog..

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Be a better friend, newshound, and

know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

http://mobile./;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dennis Waite wrote:

> Hi Frank-ji,

>

>

>

> I'm afraid I remain mystified as to the nature of this 'transmission of

> experience' which is 'superior to any verbal teaching'. Why, then, do not

> all teachers use it? It seems much simpler than all of that shravaNa, manana

> and nididhyAsana.

>

Dear Dennis-ji:

 

Based on the testimony of our sages such as Bhagavan Ramana, we can

easily accept the concept of " mouna diksha " . The distinctions you make

between shravaNa, manana, and nididhyAsana and the silent transmission

and grace of the Guru are all artificial and contrived. In reality, all

these things go together and prepare a person. When one is ready, the

grace works immediately.

 

Sri Sastri-ji has already explained clearly different levels of the

sound. Some times Mantras reveal themselves in deep meditation. If you

do not believe that, it is perfectly fine. That is the experience of the

great Rishis and Munis.

 

Carl Jung once said, speaking of Sri Ramana, that a mere glance from a

sage of that caliber purifies the way of the soul. To me this makes

perfect and clear sense. In fact, the mere thought of such a Sage or any

of the great Sages and meditating on their life or teaching or words or

behavior draws their grace. Some people get initiated in dreams as well.

It is all without spoken words in the ordinary sense.

 

Sri Ramana used to say that the grace is always there. We just have to

realize and accept that fully. When we are receptive to Bhagavan,

Bhagavan finds us. Then we see that even being receptive to Bhagavan was

all Bhagavan's doing.

 

Namaste and love to all

Harsha

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

In the communication between teacher and disciple, does it really

matter whether meaning is conveyed through articulated sounds or

through a silent look or a quiet gesture?

 

So far as I can tell, what matters more is a direct interaction, in

which the teacher responds to a particular disciple's enquiry and

interest in truth, as specifically required by the circumstances at

the time. And that response from the teacher has to work by taking a

disciple back from the outward form of communication, so as to

reflect into a subjective truth that is shared in common, beneath all

objective differences of personality and circumstance.

 

It's only by reflecting thus, to common truth, that a teacher's words

or looks or gestures can be rightly understood -- both when they are

made manifest to a disciple's ears or eyes, and when this active

manifestation gets dissolved into its silent background of

permanently shining peace.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

>If people can learn from silence – all the glory to them.

>

> But Vedanta insists on considering a general student – shravaNan,

mananam, and

> nidhidhyAsanam as the beaten path for most. That is listening to

the scriptures,

> reflecting on them until one is doubt free and contemplating on

the truth in the

> direction specified. Dakshinamurthy selected his students, if I

understand correctly.

>

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

 

Dear Sada-ji,

I have myself stated in my post #39829 that a human teacher can

normally teach a human student only through articulate sound. The

student learns only by sravana, manana, etc. There is no dispute

whatsoever about this. No teacher can explain the upanishads

mentally or through silence to a student. But the origin of the

present discussion was a post by Shri Baskaran, #39791 in which he

had quoted a Westerner disciple of Ramana Maharshi which said that

Ramana could convey instruction mentally, through silence. As is

well known, Ramana did not teach the upanishads by taking each

mantra and explaining it as other teachers do. His instructions were

based on his own advaitic experience. His works are also based on

his own experience, which, naturally, is the same as that of the

upanishadic sages. Shri Baskaran had, in his post mentioned above,

quoted extracts from the works of David Godman, one of the disciples

of Ramana. The following are some of the sentences in this extract:-

-

Although Sri Ramana Maharshi was happy to give his verbal teachings

to anyone who asked for them, he frequently pointed out that

his `silent teachings' were more direct and more powerful.

These `silent teachings' consisted of a spiritual force, which

seemed to emanate from his form, a force so powerful that he

considered it to be the most direct and important aspect of his

teachings.

Instead of giving out verbal instructions on how to control the

mind, he

effortlessly emitted a silent power, which automatically quietened

the minds of everyone in his vicinity. The people who were attuned

to this force report that they experienced it as a state of inner

peace and well being; in some advanced devotees it even precipitated

a direct experience of the Self.

This method of teaching has a long tradition in India, its most

famous

exponent being Dakshinamurti, a manifestation of Siva who brought

four learned sages to an experience of the Self through the power of

his silence. Sri Ramana frequently spoke of Dakshinamurti with great

approval and his name crops up in many of his conversations.

There are many more statements like this.

It is clear from the above that Ramana himself says that he teaches

mentally. If we assert that mental teaching is an absolute

impossibility, the corollary is that Ramana is making a false claim

about himself. If any one is prepared to accept this, I have nothing

to say. It could perhaps be said that this particular disciple has

mis-reported. But there are similar reports by other disciples, both

Western and Indian. It cannot be that all of them are wrong.

The above extract also shows that Ramana believed that Dakshinamurti

taught his four disciples through silence. As I had pointed out in

one of my earlier posts, Swami Vidyaranya had also accepted this.

These are not matters on which science can be of help. Science does

not accept a Brahman as the sole reality. So if we go by science,

all the upanishads have to be rejected. I am saying this with

reference to the view of science about the vedas being revealed

scripture, which you have mentioned in your note. I agree that some

of these things are difficult for us, with our scientific outlook,

to believe. I am totally ignorant of science, but I suppose there

are still matters which science cannot, at the present stage,

explain.

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

 

>

[Guest guest]

Dennisji, and others of the opinion that a jnAni cannot teach through silence:

 

Does this mean that if a mute person (one who by birth is unable to speak)

attains enlightenment, he wont be able to have a disciple? Isnt this

contradictory to saying that every enlightened person is at the same " level " ?

 

Also, about how exactly the realized teacher conveys the instruction without

spoken words - In his yogasutras, Patanjali rishi describes various powers a

yogi gets during sadhana. Most of them for common people would fall under

" miracles " without any 'logical' explanation. But people throughout history have

done such things. Of course, they are not required for Self-knowledge, not is a

person doing them necessarily realized. But that still doesnt mean it is

impossible to do such things for a teacher.

 

Lastly, I dont know if there is such a thing like 'mouna-pramANa', but I also

dont think there is any place in scriptures where it is stated that an

instruction to a student HAS to come as spoken word. If it is, please give a

reference.

 

Hari Om.

~Vaibhav.

 

 

 

Chat on a cool, new interface. No download required.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear All,

 

 

 

Harsha-ji says: " The distinctions you make between shravaNa, manana, and

nididhyAsana and the silent transmission and grace of the Guru are all

artificial and contrived. In reality, all these things go together and

prepare a person. When one is ready, the grace works immediately. "

 

 

 

Isn't this the key point? Namely that all of the verbal communication,

questioning, reflection etc. has to take place first in the usual way? Only

after this has occurred is it then possible that a chance event, perhaps

seeing the reflection in a dew drop on a leaf in the sunshine, or a

deliberate event, such as a meaningful glance from the teacher at a

particular moment, may provide the final 'trigger'.

 

 

 

He points out that: " Sri Sastri-ji has already explained clearly different

levels of the sound. "

 

 

 

We have discussed bhartRRihari's levels of sound on numerous occasions and

there are some excellent essays from Sri Ananda on the topic at my website.

In my understanding, these describe the process by which 'pure ideas' are

transformed until they emerge as manifested speech. At the level of

vyavahAra, speech is still the mechanism by which one person communicates

with another. I guess that, for the words to become the same idea in the

recipient, the process then takes place in reverse. But, in any case, as far

as I am aware, such ideas do not form a part of traditional advaita,

strictly speaking.

 

 

 

" Sri Ramana used to say that the grace is always there. We just have to

realize and accept that fully. When we are receptive to Bhagavan, Bhagavan

finds us. Then we see that even being receptive to Bhagavan was all

Bhagavan's doing. "

 

 

 

I think you are misunderstanding this. 'When we are receptive to Bhagavan'

cannot mean Bhagavan Ramana. It means that the non-dual reality is always

the case. When the mind becomes receptive to this possibility, the truth is

always there 'waiting', as it were. And the 'personification' of 'Bhagavans

doing' is a teaching ploy for those of a bhakti persuasion. It is nothing to

do with teaching through silence.

 

 

 

Sastri-ji says: " Although Sri Ramana Maharshi was happy to give his verbal

teachings to anyone who asked for them, he frequently pointed out that his

`silent teachings' were more direct and more powerful. "

 

 

 

I suspect that the particular problem with respect to Ramana comes about

through a misunderstanding of his teaching. (Note that I am not at all an

expert on this so anything I say may be taken with liberal helpings of salt

or ignored completely!) It seems that he effectively equated silence with

one's true nature: no ego = no mind = no thoughts = silence. Once the ego

has been eliminated, silence (i.e. one's true Self) remains. Thus, he says

in Guru Vachaka Kovai v.715: " Among all [the names of God] that are known,

only the [original, natural and true] name of God, [which is experienced] as

'I [am] I', will thunder [its sole supremacy] to those whose attention is

selfward-facing, shining forth as the mauna-para-vak [the supreme word,

which is absolute silence], filling the space of [their] heart, in which

[their] ego has been annihilated. "

 

 

 

This being the case, in a sense, silence IS the best communicator of one's

nature since it directly corresponds to it; thoughts and words only confuse

the issue. He says (Ekatama Panchakam v.5): " That which always exists is

only that ekatma vastu [the one reality or substance, which is our own true

self]. Since the adi-guru at that time made that vastu to be known [only by]

speaking without speaking, say, who can make it be known [by] speaking? "

 

 

 

Thus, (my understanding of) the correct interpretation of Ramana's teaching

is not that he communicated his teaching through the medium of silence but

that he said that silence itself is the best teacher.

 

 

 

Vaibhav-ji asks: " Does this mean that if a mute person (one who by birth is

unable to speak) attains enlightenment, he won't be able to have a

disciple? " Mute people can usually communicate by hand signals and/or

writing so that this would still be possible but clearly he wouldn't be able

to speak so it would be a slow process.

 

 

 

And: " Isn't this contradictory to saying that every enlightened person is at

the same 'level'? " What does this mean? Every enlightened person is

enlightened, certainly but their bodies remain just as different as they

were before. If they were mute before, they will still be mute. All (!) that

distinguishes an enlightened person from an unenlightened one is that they

now have self-knowledge.

 

 

 

He states: " Lastly, I don't know if there is such a thing like

'mouna-pramANa', but I also don't think there is any place in scriptures

where it is stated that an instruction to a student HAS to come as spoken

word. If it is, please give a reference. "

 

 

 

Why would the scriptures say anything specific about instruction to a

student having to come as a spoken word? 'Verbal testimony' is communicated

by 'verbs', spoken in the usual manner. When the scriptures talk about

walking from A to B, they don't specifically state that you have to use your

legs in the normal manner and not levitate. (This is not facetious - after

all, I understand that levitation is an accepted siddhi just as much as

telepathy.)

 

 

 

(The quotations from Ramana's works are taken from 'Happiness and the Art of

Being' by Michael James. See Recommended Books section of my website for

details.)

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dennis Waite wrote:

> Dear All,

>

> I think you are misunderstanding this. 'When we are receptive to Bhagavan'

> cannot mean Bhagavan Ramana. It means that the non-dual reality is always

> the case. When the mind becomes receptive to this possibility, the truth is

> always there 'waiting', as it were. And the 'personification' of 'Bhagavans

> doing' is a teaching ploy for those of a bhakti persuasion. It is nothing to

> do with teaching through silence.

>

Dear Dennis-Ji,

 

I think you are misunderstanding this. When we are receptive to

Bhagavan, it certainly can mean Bhagavan Ramana. It can mean Bhagavan

Krishna. It can mean Bhagavan Rama. It can mean any form of Bhagavan

that one has reverence for or affinity for. Underlying all forms is

nondual brahaman, nondual reality that is alway there. That is what Sri

Ramana meant when he said that Grace is always there and we just have to

be become aware of it.

 

When you say that the " personification of Bhagavan's doing " is a

teaching ploy for those of bhakti persuasion, it is hard to make a

comment. Jnana and Bhakti paths may appear different in the beginning

but merge in the same Self-Reality. Jnana and Bhakti go together.

 

Many of our ancient and modern sages spent much of their lives in

intense meditation. We have their testimony. We have their experiences.

We have the Upanishads and the ancient texts explained well by sages.

It is only natural that we are attracted to teachers who are able to

make the truth of the Self plain to us through their instructions.

 

Not only that, we have our own experiences. As Frank-ji has pointed out,

it is difficult to appreciate certain things unless one has some frame

of reference, perhaps a similar frame of reference. Even Frank-ji here

has talked about the time he spent in solitude and meditation in his

youth. So, if one has devoted one's life in such a way, their outlook

will be different. I understand what Frank-ji. However, no disrespect

intended, I am unable to grasp what you are saying. No problem. I accept

that we have different frames of references.

 

Words are, of course, important. Sound is important. Ultimately, all

merges in the Silent Self. The Silence of the Self is perpetually alive

and intense. It has no frame of reference but in order for the

discussion to take place we have to use construct and words in a

particular way to indicate the Self.

 

Namaste and love to all

Harsha

[Guest guest]

hariH OM! dennis-ji,

 

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

 

> can [anyone] please point me to an appropriate

> reference for 'mauna pramANa' or alternatively to one

for 'telepathy as a

> (proven) means for communication'.

 

rather than inordinately relying on scriptural references (which

really amounts to an act of faith if one thinks about it), i believe

we all possess a wealth of personal experience from which knowledge

can be drawn...if we pause to consider where and how we might look.

 

almost anyone can demonstrate for themselves that they're in fact

naturally telepathic.

 

for example, we might investigate what for most of us is a common

occurence, yet little or no thought regarding it is further

entertained. for instance, while riding in a car or at a social

function, did you ever have the feeling that someone was looking at

you...where, as a result, you were compelled to turn and

instantanously look *precisely* at the person whose eyes were indeed

trained on you? also, try to recall the times when the obverse has

also happened. realizing that such events can and do happen, you can

further experiment in the future and deliberately look at another

person and see if they turn in your direction. bear in mind that when

you're sending your mental energy, the more you can minimize your

thought waves, the more focused and therefore the more potent that

energy will be, and the greater the chance that they'll respond to

it.

 

another, and far more compelling, means of proof is if one has the

opportunity to look at a newborn baby while it's sleeping. unless

it's in a deep sleep state (sushupti), the mental energy transmitted

by virtue of the simple act of looking it, will almost invariably

cause the baby to stir and sometimes even wake up. this is especially

true if the infant is uncommonly sensitive (crying more than usual--

e.g. colic--is often a sign of hightened sensitivity). i've

unwittingly :-) conducted numerous experiments this way in the past 2

months, incidentally looking at my newborn son while he's

sleeping...in which case he'll almost always react in some way.. his

face will either contort or twitch or his head will move, eyes roll,

etc, where he was formerly asleep and unfazed. my wife said she also

noticed this same kind of thing happening on numerous occasions.

 

then there are the numerous studies that have been conducted on esp

and telepathy, most notably by russian researchers as well as

american, indian, and british, from the Theosophical Society to the

Psychical Research Society over the past century.

 

probably the most high profile example was a controlled experiment

conducted in the mid 90's by maharishi mahesh yogi's people in

washington, dc, where approx 4000 people went into meditation for x

number of hours for approx 50 consecutive days, which resulted in an

average 23% drop in the overall crime rate for that period of time in

comparison to previous years (for those who know statistics, the

likelihood that this was just a coincidence is almost as remote as

matching dna not belonging to the same individual), proving mental

telepathy can have a measurable communicative effect on the human

mind.

 

namaste,

frank

[Guest guest]

Dear Harsha-ji,

 

 

 

I said: " 'When we are receptive to Bhagavan' cannot mean Bhagavan Ramana. It

means that the non-dual reality is always the case. When the mind becomes

receptive to this possibility, the truth is always there 'waiting', as it

were. "

 

 

 

You said: " When we are receptive to Bhagavan, it certainly can mean Bhagavan

Ramana. It can mean Bhagavan Krishna. It can mean Bhagavan Rama. It can mean

any form of Bhagavan that one has reverence for or affinity for. Underlying

all forms is nondual brahaman, nondual reality that is always there. "

 

 

 

These statements seems to me be saying exactly the same thing. The " grace

that is always there " , that " we just have to become are of " is the grace of

the Self that is the essence of all. not the grace of Ramana the person or

Krishna the person.

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

_

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

....

> Isn't this the key point? Namely that all of the verbal

commmunication,questioning, reflection etc. has to take place first

in the usual way? Only after this has occurred is it then possible

that a chance event, perhaps seeing the reflection in a dew drop on a

leaf in the sunshine, or a deliberate event, such as a meaningful

glance from the teacher at a particular moment, may provide the

final 'trigger'.

>

> ......

>

> This being the case, in a sense, silence IS the best communicator

of one's nature since it directly corresponds to it; thoughts and

words only confuse the issue. .... Thus, (my understanding of) the

correct interpretation of Ramana's teaching is not that he

communicated his teaching through the medium of silence but that he

said that silence itself is the best teacher.

>

......

 

 

Dear All,

 

Reopening the above discusiion:

 

Speech (articulating it or auditioning it)requires " conscious "

focus. But many non-conscious pursuits can go on within our brain

without us being aware of them. When we are not consciously 'busy'

talking or listening (i.e. in silence on our part), the non-conscious

processes will be less hindered.

 

In this connection I would like to bring to the attention of our

esteemed members a recently published work re: The impact

of `unconscious' in achieving an objective.

 

In the present debate on silent communication, these results may not

go to prove or disprove a particular view. Being lab studies, they

will also have undoubtedly several experimental limitations.

 

" The experimental study finds that non-conscious goal pursuit can

help people achieve their goals, even in a new environment, in which

they have no prior experience. Hebrew University psychologists,

Baruch Eitam, Ran Hassin and Yaacov Schul, examined the benefit of

non-conscious goal pursuit (moving toward a desired goal without

being aware of doing so) in new environments. "

 

" The studies suggest that the powerful, unintentional, mechanism of

implicit learning is related to our non-conscious wanting and works

towards attaining our non-conscious goals, " the researchers write.

 

" These results, reveal an unconscious process that has both an

advantage over conscious processing and an ability to serve a

person's current goals. Such unconscious processes may be responsible

for far more of human ability than is yet recognized. "

 

Source: http://www.physorg. com/news12411496 3.html

 

regards,

ramesam

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Ramesam,

 

You quoted the following from the Hebrew University research findings:

 

___________

 

" The studies suggest that the powerful, unintentional, mechanism of

implicit learning is related to our non-conscious wanting and works

towards attaining our non-conscious goals. "

 

" These results, reveal an unconscious process that has both an

advantage over conscious processing and an ability to serve a

person's current goals. Such unconscious processes may be responsible

for far more of human ability than is yet recognized. "

 

___________

 

To me 'non-conscious wanting', whatever it is, sounds like an

oxymoron. Can we, therefore, have some examples for clarification?

Can we really want something without being conscious of our want?

 

Besides, aren't we accustomed to call the unknown that carries us

faster to our goals Providence? How do the research findings

mentioned above take us any forward towards better scientific

conclusions than such pious submission?

 

Regards.

 

Madathil Nair