Advaita 101 - An interview with Swami Dayananda Saraswati

[Guest guest]

Hari OM!

I found the link for this interview from the article about Swamiji on

Wikipedia.

 

http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j14/dayananda.asp

 

The last sentence of the interview struck me like a bolt.

 

" But we can only say someone is a Vedantin as long as they teach

Vedanta! "

 

I thought Vedanta was more about living, not just teaching. And living

itself can be a greatest teaching. Like Gandhiji said, " my life is my

message " . I am surprised about such academic emphasis, valuing

scholarship and study, almost, to the exclusion of selfless service.

Some of the comments about Ramana and Shankara confused me.

 

I request Sadaji, Ramji et.al to share their insights. I am not sure

I read it right.

---------------

Hari OM!

-Srinivas

[Guest guest]

Dear Srinivas-ji:

 

Advaita Vedanta is about Self-Realization. Pure and Simple.

 

The truth is that the Upanishads and the Mahavakyas cannot be fully

understood prior to Self-Knowledge. Self-Knowledge happens by Grace. We

cannot say anything more than that. " Self reveals It Self to whom It

chooses " say our scriptures.

 

After Self-Knowledge, what the Mahavakyas say, makes perfect sense. When I

say perfect, I mean exactly that. Perfect.

 

Why was Sri Ramana attracted to the Advaitic scriptures? Because these

coincided with his experience and realization perfectly. Before someone

starts lecturing about how Self is not an experience, etc., please relax. We

know that.

 

I respect everyone but am never ever impressed with the so called " Gurus " .

Let them get Self-Realization first. Then they can go around proclaiming

that they know best.

 

After Self-Realization, one knows absolutely nothing. Not only does one know

absolutely nothing, even the possibility of knowing anything evaporates like

a dream that never was.

 

There is only the Self. One without a second. How could a Self-Realized

person know anything? Of course, everyone has to be saying something or the

other. That is the nature of things.

 

Namaste and love to all

Harsha

 

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of Srinivas Nagulapalli

Monday, December 15, 2008 2:18 PM

advaitin

Advaita 101 - An interview with Swami Dayananda

Saraswati

 

 

Hari OM!

I found the link for this interview from the article about Swamiji on

Wikipedia.

 

http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j14/dayananda.asp

 

The last sentence of the interview struck me like a bolt.

 

" But we can only say someone is a Vedantin as long as they teach

Vedanta! "

 

I thought Vedanta was more about living, not just teaching. And living

itself can be a greatest teaching. Like Gandhiji said, " my life is my

message " . I am surprised about such academic emphasis, valuing

scholarship and study, almost, to the exclusion of selfless service.

Some of the comments about Ramana and Shankara confused me.

 

I request Sadaji, Ramji et.al to share their insights. I am not sure

I read it right.

---------------

Hari OM!

-Srinivas

 

 

---

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- On Mon, 12/15/08, Srinivas Nagulapalli <srini_nagul wrote:

 

I found the link for this interview from the article about Swamiji on

Wikipedia.

 

http://www.enlighte nnext.org/ magazine/ j14/dayananda. asp

 

The last sentence of the interview struck me like a bolt.

 

" But we can only say someone is a Vedantin as long as they teach

Vedanta! "

 

I thought Vedanta was more about living, not just teaching. And living

itself can be a greatest teaching. Like Gandhiji said, " my life is my

message " . I am surprised about such academic emphasis, valuing

scholarship and study, almost, to the exclusion of selfless service.

Some of the comments about Ramana and Shankara confused me.

 

I request Sadaji, Ramji et.al to share their insights. I am not sure

I read it right.

 

------------

Srinivas - PraNAms

 

First thanks for the reference to the articles. I enjoyed reading both Swami

Dayanandaji's as well as Dr. Vijay's. Each provides a different perspective.

 

First I do not like venture into commenting on their articles. I can of course

share my understanding, as I normally do in this list serve.

 

In a recent note I did discuss about the difference between an experience and

knowledge. It looks like I could have referred to Swami Dayanandaji's article.

 

Fundamental human problem is not knowing self as it is; and that results in

taking non-self as self. This is the essence of advaita Vedanta. Self is

self-existing - self-conscious - eternal - and non-self depends on the self for

its existence - hence in the deep sleep state no cognition of non-self and

associated with it is lack of fear, sorrow and all the problems associated with

identification with non-self -that is identification with finite BMI taking

limitations of non-self as limitations of the self.

 

Solution to the problem is not doing something with non-self - that includes

self-less service or self-full service or any service etc, but recognize the

Self that ‘I am’, By negating that I am not the non-self - I ascertain the

self that I am - that requires vichaara to negate what I am not to ascertain

what I am - discrimination of self and non-self - based on subject-object

discrimination. It involves recognition that I am not even doer since doer-ship

involves indulging in non-self with the self. One can witness the self-less

service by the non-self in the presence of the self -without the notion of

doing-ness involved. Hence doing or not doing has nothing to with the self-that

I am. Hence Krishna's discussion of what is karma, akarma and not doing karma.

 

One can say that experience of the self - is understanding that I am the self

that is eternal-ever effulgent - self - existent entity free from all problems

of limitations that is one aspect of the inquiry of who I am. More important

aspect also involves recognition of the absolute nature of the Self. For that

Vedanta is required. –with the declaration of tat tvam asi – it is not just

declaration but supported by detailed explanation of why it is so.

 

Vedanta as pramaaNa says - Brahma satyam - jagat mithyaa - jiivo brahma eva na

aparaH. Scripture advises the student to approach a teacher who is 1) brahma

niShTaa and 2) shotriya - that is one who is firmly established in the knowledge

of his own self and second who has listened to the scriptures from his teacher

regarding the nature of the reality. Krishna advises also to approach a teacher

who is knower of the truth and learn from him by asking questions. tat viddhi

praNipaatena pariprasnena sevayaa...

 

Since Knowledge is the means of liberation and for knowledge to happen one has

to learn. A means is required for knowledge to take place- just as eyes are

required to see. Vedas are pramaaNa or means of knowledge since this truth that

is beyond pratyaksha (direct perception) and anumaana (logic) can only be gained

by Shaastra which requires an interpretation or explanation by those who

themselves studied. Here the teacher’s experience itself cannot form fully a

pramaaNa – unless I have the absolute faith in the words of the teacher. Vedas

are pramaaNa only because they are independent of any particular human being

involved – just like a physics text book independent of who wrote that book.

 

To learn quantum mechanics we go through a curriculum with lot of pre-requisites

and registering for a course hoping a competent teacher will come and teach. If

we need a teacher and a disciplined study for a materialistic subject, for that

which is subtlest of all, we need a full faith or shraddhaa in the scriptures

and the teacher who is teaching. People might have learned quantum mechanics but

not every body can teach and not every body is good teacher - is it not true.

Hence we follow a sampradaaya teacher who has learned how to teach also who can

comedown to our level to teach.

 

There may be many sages who have the knowledge of the experience of their true

nature or nature of the self - but their experience cannot form a basis for

learning for others - Vedanta teaches using a methodology called - adhyaaropa

apavaada - taking the student step by step negating previous step in going to

next step. Hence swamiji’s statement you quoted. That is the reason for

sampradaaya teacher - there is no other direct paths to self realization since

ever existence self luminous self that is eternal and infinite neither requires

a path nor an experience. It is self-evident. But to recognize the self-evident

self by oneself requires proper pointers to redirect the mind. Mind does not get

redirected unless it is purified - hence Gita is called as yoga shaastra besides

it contains brahma vidya. YoginaH karma kurvanti sangham tyaktvaa aatama

suddhaye - yogies perform actions with detachment to purify their minds - hence

all the self-less services

come at this stage at the purificatory stage until one realizes. Once he has

realized, he is not even a doer to do self-less service.

 

Hence the statement no one can declare what a sage should do or should not do -

he is never a doer any way to do, not to do, and to do some service. What even

is done in his presence will be for loka kalyaanam even if others do not see it

that way.

 

I am happy with my understanding of Bhagavaan Ramana as well as with

Nisargadatta Majaraj as they are great Vedantins. Ramana’s two books -

upadesa saara and Sat daraShaNam are gems as Vedanta PrakaraNa granthaas. I

would not study the questions and answers by Bhagavaan Ramana without studying

first His traditional books since the question-answers depend on the context and

to whom the answers are given. By the by I am planning to take Sat darshaN text

for the Memorial Day weekend camp in 2009.

 

 

Hope this helps.

 

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

" Srinivas Nagulapalli " <srini_nagul wrote:

 

> I thought Vedanta was more about living, not just teaching. And

living

> itself can be a greatest teaching. Like Gandhiji said, " my life is my

> message " . I am surprised about such academic emphasis, valuing

> scholarship and study, almost, to the exclusion of selfless service.

> Some of the comments about Ramana and Shankara confused me.

>

> I request Sadaji, Ramji et.al to share their insights. I am not sure

> I read it right.

 

 

Dera SrinivasJi, my Pranams

 

Although the question was directed to SriSadaji and Ramji, I would like

to comment on this isssue if you don't mind, specially Swami Dayananda's

reference to Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi. I read the article long time ago

and I respect enormously Swamiji's Being and Knowledge. Interesting to

remark that his position differs quite radically from his own teacher's

Swami Chinamayananda who in several occassions paid very highly homage

to Bhagavan Ramana. Maybe also, the article in question was edited, so

it will be hard to know what the real interview was like.

 

Anyhow, Bhagavan Ramana is one of those characters in a play that can be

deciphered from a multitude of different points of view, a little bit

like the Gita and many other scriptures, that offers a full spectrum of

possibilities of understanding according to the level of maturity of

mind that the person who encounters him has.

Many people like U.G. Krishnamurthy (not J.K.) went to see Bhagavan and

came out completely negative and angry, others didn't have a clue of

what he was talking about since their primary goal was to have darshan

of a saint to solve mondain problems, others would go and try to

challenge his knowledge on vedantic grounds...

One thing we have to understand is that Bhagavan Ramana didn't have the

type of personality of an Adi Shankaracharya. While the later had the

role to disseminate Advaita Vedanta and restructure the scrumbling and

decadent hindu world of his time, the former's role was being a light

for whoever feels to profit from its warmth and brillance, he didn't

feel the need to teach others, travel, build communities or give

lectures, everything was " happening " around him. People asked him

questions, he responded. People didn't ask, then it was silence, for

hours or days long.

Being a jnani, He will always be an enigma, an open question to oneself,

and eventually, the best of mirrors. He was simply a reflection of what

we are, so for one who encounters Bhagavan at the highest level of

preparation, that one will not see Ramana Maharshi, will see His/Her own

Substance, His/Her own Substratum, the all perdaving Self.

Otherwise, he will remain another Sage, another " Teacher " , another quiet

guy, loving Grandpa, a hindu Icon, a living murti, a mystic instead of a

" vedantin " , and the list can go on and on... depending on what one is

" seeing " or want to see.

It really doesn't matter how one defines what it means to be a " real "

Vedantin, what matters is how one is living one's life, FOR ONESELF, in

relation to Moksha, because there will always be " others " to define us

through their own perspective, in one way or another.

Bhagavan, as Jnani that He was, couldn't care less, not because he was

indiferent, but because there were no " others " .

 

My respects and thanks,

 

Yours in Bhagavan,

Mouna

[Guest guest]

PranAms

 

Since this subject seems to be coming up again and again, I would

like to take a moment to mention here that I have always found that

Swami Dayanada-ji has always talked about Ramana Maharshi in the

highest esteem and in fact one of the best commentaries I have read

on the Maharshi's famous work Upadesa Saram is by Pujya Swami

Dayananda-ji (Talks on Upadesa Saram; 1987) where notably Swamiji

has not restricted himself to the text alone but the 1st two

chapters are exclusively devoted to giving a very eelaborate,

respectful and I must add loving background about the Maharshi in

general and the background of how He came to compose this great work

in particular.

 

My humble advice would be to not read too much into random excerpts

from interviews liberally transcribed/translated into leisure

magazines and such and come to any kind of conclusions such as

these - may I suggest that is not becoming of us as serious and

sincere students of Vedanta. And with regards to the

term " vedantin " - there may be many " Vedantins " , only one in a

million is a " Jnani " and it takes One to know One.

 

Humble pranAms

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

 

advaitin , " Mouna " <maunna wrote:

>

> " Srinivas Nagulapalli " <srini_nagul@> wrote:

>

> Being a jnani, He will always be an enigma, an open question to

oneself,

> and eventually, the best of mirrors. He was simply a reflection of

what

> we are, so for one who encounters Bhagavan at the highest level of

> preparation, that one will not see Ramana Maharshi, will see

His/Her own

> Substance, His/Her own Substratum, the all perdaving Self.

> Otherwise, he will remain another Sage, another " Teacher " , another

quiet

> guy, loving Grandpa, a hindu Icon, a living murti, a mystic

instead of a

> " vedantin " , and the list can go on and on... depending on what one

is

> " seeing " or want to see.

> It really doesn't matter how one defines what it means to be

a " real "

> Vedantin, what matters is how one is living one's life, FOR

ONESELF, in

> relation to Moksha, because there will always be " others " to

define us

> through their own perspective, in one way or another.

> Bhagavan, as Jnani that He was, couldn't care less, not because he

was

> indiferent, but because there were no " others " .

>

> My respects and thanks,

>

> Yours in Bhagavan,

> Mouna

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " shyam_md " <shyam_md wrote:

 

>...where notably Swamiji

> has not restricted himself to the text alone but the 1st two

> chapters are exclusively devoted to giving a very eelaborate,

> respectful and I must add loving background about the Maharshi in

> general and the background of how He came to compose this great work

> in particular.

>

> only one in a

> million is a " Jnani " and it takes One to know One.

>

Pranams ShyamJi,

 

It is indeed very interesting because this is exactly what I was

refering in my recent posting in relation to the subjective element that

one always project on the world.

Where you see a loving background given by Swamiji in relation to

Bhagavan Ramana (in the 1st and 2nd chapters of Talks on Upadesa Saram)

I see only a brief biography and a polite introduction that demonstrates

what Swamiji felt about Ramana Maharshi. In the two chapters that you

mentioned there is not a single indication that Ramana was a Jnani or

even Self-Realized... interesting right?

He is described as:

" ..a free person. Generally he would sit in a hall in silence and talk

very little. People would come and sit; there was no much talk. He was a

simple person; he loved animals around - especially the cows of the

Asrama. He was a normal person, doing all forms of normal work. It was

easy for everybody to relate to him; there was no need for scholarship.

He had a great sense of humor; it was always a joy to be with him. He

died of sarcoma, a form of cancer. " (Chapter 2, page 5)

All this is evidently true and respectful but it would have taken a

different light if at any moment in the introduction Swamiji would have

acknowledge that Ramana was a Jnani, correct?... that would have given a

different dimensionality to be a " simple person " , wouldn't you agree?.

As I said before, (and believe me, Swamiji is one of my teachers too,

although I didn't have the Grace to meet him yet), Upadesa Saram was

taken (and is taken generally by traditional advaita) as another means

to reinforce the Vedantic approach, not Bhagavan's Ramana approach to

Moksha (that is Vedantic in the essence anyway).

 

To sum up, each one sees what one wants to see... and that includes

me!!... and you!!...

 

Thanks for the advice,

 

Yours in Bhagavan,

Mouna

[Guest guest]

Namaste Mounaji.

 

The insights below from your message - simply beautiful!

 

I have always wondered why our globe-trotter teachers and divinities

don't stay put where they are like Bh. Ramana Maharshi. The world

would definitely come to them if they did. Why the missionary zeal?

As you said, things will spontaneously *happen* in their presence if

they are really worthy of the words they speak. The world needs such

personages.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

_______________

 

advaitin , " Mouna " <maunna wrote:

 

 

(1) the former's (Bh. Ramana's) role was being a light

for whoever feels to profit from its warmth and brillance, he didn't

feel the need to teach others, travel, build communities or give

lectures, everything was " happening " around him. People asked him

questions, he responded. People didn't ask, then it was silence, for

hours or days long.

 

(2) Being a jnani, He will always be an enigma, an open question to

oneself, and eventually, the best of mirrors. He was simply a

reflection of what we are, so for one who encounters Bhagavan at the

highest level of preparation, that one will not see Ramana Maharshi,

will see His/Her own Substance, His/Her own Substratum, the all

perdaving Self.

 

(3) It really doesn't matter how one defines what it means to be

a " real " Vedantin, what matters is how one is living one's life, FOR

ONESELF, in relation to Moksha, because there will always be " others "

to define us through their own perspective, in one way or another.

Bhagavan, as Jnani that He was, couldn't care less, not because he was

indiferent, but because there were no " others " .

[Guest guest]

" Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair wrote:

>

> I have always wondered why our globe-trotter teachers and divinities

> don't stay put where they are like Bh. Ramana Maharshi. The world

> would definitely come to them if they did. Why the missionary zeal?

 

Namaskar NairJi,

 

Thank you for your kind words.

 

I believe is a question of resonance, some of us humans will need the

missionary type to finally get it, some others the silent gaze of the

beloved Jnani (even if he's not around anymore). Both are necessary,

they are the two aspects of the same leaf, one side towards the sun, the

other towards the earth.

 

All the best.

 

Yours in Bhagavan,

Mouna

[Guest guest]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Infact, last month I had posted the link to this article & asked for the opinions of prabhuji-s of this list & finally ended up with varied responses!! Since in this list itself we have somany direct disciples of Sri Swami Dayananda Saraswati,( who, I think, have been personally interacting with swamiji on regular basis)...why dont they directly ask Sri swamiji about the credibility of this article, his clarification about the assertions he has made in that interview & more importantly his conclusion (present view) about Sri RamaNa Maharshi...BTW, is there any official word about this article from Arsha vidya gurukulam?? Kindly let me know...

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Mounaji.

 

I have had the good fortune of attending a study class conducted by a

follower of Swamiji based on Swamiji's interpretation of

Upadesasaram. He was a very humble man and used to always remind us

that he was mouthing Swamiji's views verbatim parrot-like. Listening

to him was a very rewarding experience and a milestone in my

spiritual journey. I believe I wouldn't have realized the greatness

of Bh. Ramana had I not attended that class.

 

When Swamiji visited us later, I had the privilege to sit right in

front of him and listen to him chanting the entire Upadesasaram by

heart in his melodious voice. He had tuned it wondefully and, from

the singing, sounded sort of emotional about it.

 

He is a great personality for whom I have great respect. However, I

am compelled to think that his views have changed appreciably during

the period between those days in the middle of the eighties and his

Cohen interview. As I said before, that interview was referred to in

a question I handed him during a later visit. Although he made some

remarks about Cohen, he didn't refute the contents of the interview.

That gives ground to the supposition that he has grown more

traditional in recent days.

 

I recall that Durgaji had sometime back apprehended a similar change

in him with regard to the concept of Ishwara. Unlike his early days,

he now lays stronger stress on Ishwara.

 

Let us not bother about these changes. Any day, he is a great

teacher to be listened to and any time spent on his views are greatly

rewarding.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

______________

 

advaitin , " Mouna " <maunna wrote:

> Where you see a loving background given by Swamiji in relation to

> Bhagavan Ramana (in the 1st and 2nd chapters of Talks on Upadesa

Saram)

> I see only a brief biography and a polite introduction that

demonstrates

> what Swamiji felt about Ramana Maharshi. >

[Guest guest]

I have always wondered why our globe-trotter teachers and divinities

don't stay put where they are like Bh. Ramana Maharshi. The world

would definitely come to them if they did. Why the missionary zeal?

As you said, things will spontaneously *happen* in their presence if

they are really worthy of the words they speak. The world needs such

personages.

praNAms Sri MN prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Except ramaNa maharshi, including shankara (I dont know, but his biography says that :-)) all proponents of dharma have the wheels at their feet to do dharma/vedanta prachAra all over the country/world :-)) It is really astounding to see the time they spent on travelling!! :-)) I think it is because they thought that dharma prachAra is a part & parcel of their obligatory duty (kartavya)...

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

" Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair wrote:

 

> Anyway, he is a great

> teacher to be listened to and any time spent on his views are

greatly rewarding.

 

Namaste NairJi,

 

100 per cent... no, 200 per cent agree on this!!. Thank you for

putting things in context and perspective!

 

Yours in Bhagavan,

Mouna

[Guest guest]

mamaskarams

all those who take a moment to think of mahatmas are indeed blessed

as that moment in time purifies the mind period.

all reactions or reactive emails are indeed " maya " at play " reflect

on that " .go beyond that

what does it teach on atma gnanan?

all these emails should have been stopped move on humble request.

reflect on atma which is within this sharira called temple

glories to pujya swamiji ,all archayas who out of compassion (daya)

follow ADI SHANKARA who travelled length and breadth of a

geographical location in matru bumi to shower atma gnanam.

 

Any reaction is rajasic and tamasic in nature. Reflect in

that.Comparing mahatamas and asking why they dont stay is

indeed " papa " manifesting in an otherwise sattvika mind why ?

see the atma shining beyond nama rupa.Does the atma really travel

think?

 

koti koti pranams to PUJYA SWAMIJI DAYANANDA,swamji TV, swamiji

Viditatmajai, chennai swamiji Paramarthanandaji all the sanyasis

whose teachings allow one to indeed rise above all tamasic bikerings.

All bhaktas who take to sanyasa indeed give back are jeevas not

seeing the genorisity of cleansing the anthakaranam?

even this time of reacting to all emails will pass see the maya at

play !!

 

 

 

SRI GURUBHOY NAMAHA

 

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

>

> I have always wondered why our globe-trotter teachers and divinities

> don't stay put where they are like Bh. Ramana Maharshi. The world

> would definitely come to them if they did. Why the missionary zeal?

> As you said, things will spontaneously *happen* in their presence if

> they are really worthy of the words they speak. The world needs such

> personages.

>

>

> praNAms Sri MN prabhuji

>

>

> Hare Krishna

>

>

> Except ramaNa maharshi, including shankara (I dont know, but his

biography

> says that :-)) all proponents of dharma have the wheels at their

feet to do

> dharma/vedanta prachAra all over the country/world :-)) It is really

> astounding to see the time they spent on travelling!! :-)) I think

it is

> because they thought that dharma prachAra is a part & parcel of

their

> obligatory duty (kartavya)...

>

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

>

>

> bhaskar

>

[Guest guest]

Yes, indeed it is all play. Why ask others? Why do you react it?

 

Namaste and love to all

Harsha

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of shankar50aries

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 7:23 AM

advaitin

Re: Advaita 101 - An interview with Swami Dayananda

Saraswati

 

mamaskarams

all those who take a moment to think of mahatmas are indeed blessed

as that moment in time purifies the mind period.

all reactions or reactive emails are indeed " maya " at play " reflect

on that " .go beyond that

what does it teach on atma gnanan?

all these emails should have been stopped move on humble request.

reflect on atma which is within this sharira called temple

glories to pujya swamiji ,all archayas who out of compassion (daya)

follow ADI SHANKARA who travelled length and breadth of a

geographical location in matru bumi to shower atma gnanam.

 

Any reaction is rajasic and tamasic in nature. Reflect in

that.Comparing mahatamas and asking why they dont stay is

indeed " papa " manifesting in an otherwise sattvika mind why ?

see the atma shining beyond nama rupa.Does the atma really travel

think?

 

koti koti pranams to PUJYA SWAMIJI DAYANANDA,swamji TV, swamiji

Viditatmajai, chennai swamiji Paramarthanandaji all the sanyasis

whose teachings allow one to indeed rise above all tamasic bikerings.

All bhaktas who take to sanyasa indeed give back are jeevas not

seeing the genorisity of cleansing the anthakaranam?

even this time of reacting to all emails will pass see the maya at

play !!

 

 

 

SRI GURUBHOY NAMAHA

 

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

>

> I have always wondered why our globe-trotter teachers and divinities

> don't stay put where they are like Bh. Ramana Maharshi. The world

> would definitely come to them if they did. Why the missionary zeal?

> As you said, things will spontaneously *happen* in their presence if

> they are really worthy of the words they speak. The world needs such

> personages.

>

>

> praNAms Sri MN prabhuji

>

>

> Hare Krishna

>

>

> Except ramaNa maharshi, including shankara (I dont know, but his

biography

> says that :-)) all proponents of dharma have the wheels at their

feet to do

> dharma/vedanta prachAra all over the country/world :-)) It is really

> astounding to see the time they spent on travelling!! :-)) I think

it is

> because they thought that dharma prachAra is a part & parcel of

their

> obligatory duty (kartavya)...

>

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

>

>

> bhaskar

>

 

 

 

---

 

 

[Guest guest]

Well honestly i dont find any thing disrespectful about Bhagawan Ramana Maharshi that Pujya Swami Dayananda Saraswathi has mentioned. He is clear that tradition is something and "realisation" as understood is not the same.

 

What is wrong in it?Thanks & Regards,Venkat.Sadgurubhyo Namah.--- On Tue, 12/16/08, Harsha wrote:

Harsha RE: Advaita 101 - An interview with Swami Dayananda Saraswatiadvaitin Date: Tuesday, December 16, 2008, 7:22 AM

 

 

Dear Srinivas-ji:Advaita Vedanta is about Self-Realization. Pure and Simple.The truth is that the Upanishads and the Mahavakyas cannot be fullyunderstood prior to Self-Knowledge. Self-Knowledge happens by Grace. Wecannot say anything more than that. "Self reveals It Self to whom Itchooses" say our scriptures.After Self-Knowledge, what the Mahavakyas say, makes perfect sense. When Isay perfect, I mean exactly that. Perfect.Why was Sri Ramana attracted to the Advaitic scriptures? Because thesecoincided with his experience and realization perfectly. Before someonestarts lecturing about how Self is not an experience, etc., please relax. Weknow that. I respect everyone but am never ever impressed with the so called "Gurus".Let them get Self-Realization first. Then they can go around proclaimingthat they know best.After Self-Realization, one knows absolutely nothing. Not

only does one knowabsolutely nothing, even the possibility of knowing anything evaporates likea dream that never was.There is only the Self. One without a second. How could a Self-Realizedperson know anything? Of course, everyone has to be saying something or theother. That is the nature of things.Namaste and love to allHarshaadvaitin@ s.com [advaitin@ s.com] On BehalfOf Srinivas NagulapalliMonday, December 15, 2008 2:18 PMadvaitin@ s.com Advaita 101 - An interview with Swami DayanandaSaraswatiHari OM!I found the link for this interview from the article

about Swamiji onWikipedia.http://www.enlighte nnext.org/ magazine/ j14/dayananda. aspThe last sentence of the interview struck me like a bolt."But we can only say someone is a Vedantin as long as they teach Vedanta!"I thought Vedanta was more about living, not just teaching. And livingitself can be a greatest teaching. Like Gandhiji said, "my life is my message". I am surprised about such academic emphasis, valuing scholarship and study, almost, to the exclusion of selfless service. Some of the comments about Ramana and Shankara confused me. I request Sadaji, Ramji et.al to share their insights. I am not sureI read it right.------------ --------- --------- --------- ---------Hari OM!-Srinivas------------ --------- --------- ------

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Sri Sadanandaji wrote:

 

>>--- On Mon, 12/15/08, Srinivas Nagulapalli <srini_nagul wrote:

>> http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j14/dayananda.asp

>

 

> First I do not like venture into commenting on their articles. I

> can of course share my understanding, as I normally do in this

> list serve.

 

> I am happy with my understanding of Bhagavaan Ramana as well as

> with Nisargadatta Maharaj as they are great Vedantins. Ramana’s

> two books - upadesa saara and Sat daraShaNam are gems as Vedanta

> PrakaraNa granthaas.

 

Hari OM!

Thank you very much for writing it. It was helpful and needed.

I found that little confusing and even disturbing earlier.

 

Sincere thanks to everyone for sharing their understanding.

 

When will I learn, Lord, is my exasperation!

 

People I read and regard much like Sadaji, Ramji, Shyamji, Sundarji,

Harshaji et.al either wrote without getting ruffled, or chose to be

silent without saying a word about the comments.

 

And my mind goes ballistic hearing any one say, even if they are

considered God, words like

" Ramana was not dumb " or " That's how I would be, anyway, if I were

Shankara " !

 

But, if those who know much chose not to say much, why should I?

 

Direct influence of " yadyad aacarati SrEshTah " of Krishna's words.

I find such serene composure SrEshTah than some words in interview.

 

Also, instead of doubting the veracity of transcription, one can

always write back to correct them. We do it all the time. I don't

want to say any thing more.

-----------------------

Hari OM!

-Srinivas

[Guest guest]

Dear All,

 

Since this thread is going on for a while now I will clarify some

things. I was present at AVG, Anaikatti during the entire interview

that was taken by Cohen. Craig Hamilton in the Introduction to that

interview says that Swamiji expressed doubts about Ramana's

attainment. I don't recall Swamiji expressing any doubts during that

interview or in all the years I have attended his classes before and

till now.

 

Cohen was trying to ask a lot of questions on jnani's vyavahara and

what a jnani 'should' do etc. Swamiji was only trying to point out the

futility in analysing whether someone is jnani or not. Similarly it is

futile to categorise Ramana as a Vedantin or mystic etc. We have to

understand that Swamiji is answering questions from those who don't

want to accept Veda as a pramana and who want mumukshus to just

meditate and wait for some 'Experience'. They don't understand that

studying shastra, thinking about it all the time, talking about it,

quarreling about certain nuances etc. are also 'experiences' which

leads us to that knowledge.

 

Finally these 'experience seekers' keep quoting Ramana as an example

so Swamiji had to point out that there may be many jnanis in this

world and how are we to judge if someone is jnani or not? Unless

someone makes you a jnani you cannot be sure about them being a jnani.

Ramana was an inspiration for me and many others to start their

spiritual quest. I think it is utterly futile and irrelevant to

question his attainment and try to categorise him as someone or

something.

 

with love and prayers,

 

Jaishankar

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

>

> praNAms

> Hare Krishna

>

> Infact, last month I had posted the link to this article & asked

for the

> opinions of prabhuji-s of this list & finally ended up with varied

> responses!! Since in this list itself we have somany direct

disciples of

> Sri Swami Dayananda Saraswati,( who, I think, have been personally

> interacting with swamiji on regular basis)...why dont they directly

ask Sri

> swamiji about the credibility of this article, his clarification

about the

> assertions he has made in that interview & more importantly his

> conclusion (present view) about Sri RamaNa Maharshi...BTW, is there

any

> official word about this article from Arsha vidya gurukulam??

Kindly let

> me know...

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Jaishankarji and everyone else,

 

This clarification makes me want to question many things.

- Does it mean that when someone becomes 'self-realised' one just

'knows' somehow?

- Is there any way to know that someone that is one's teacher is a

'self-realised' one?

- Does a teacher/guru have to be self-realised to guide others toward

self-realisation (I know this one will get me brickbats but I will

still pose it)?

- I even a self-realised one is not able to recognise another

self-realised one, how can a mere dwaitin hope to recognise a teacher?

 

Please don't look upon these as impertinent questions - I am asking

these to clear some doubts in my head.

 

Sai

[Guest guest]

Sai - PraNAms

 

Here is my understanding to the questions you posed.

 

Self realization involves realization that I am that - that standing for what I

am seeking - eternal absolute happiness - which is limitless-ness and that is

Brahman. Self does not need to realize since it is what it is. ego cannot

realize since it is what it is. Realization is therefore recognition that I am

not what I think I am (ego) but I am that - satyam jnaanam anantam brahmna. that

realization is an understanding - understanding occurs in the mind only. I can

only know my mind and I cannot know other's minds - I can infer other's thinking

by the way they act. I can make a guess work of what they know based on how by

act or by their operation - as Arjuna posed and Krishna answered - sthita

prajnasya kaa bhaaShA .. How does he behave? - With that understanding you can

examine the your questions now.

 

 

--- On Fri, 12/19/08, Indian Rediff <indianrediff wrote:

 

 

- Does it mean that when someone becomes 'self-realised' one just

 

'knows' somehow?

------------

One can only infer based on their mind, speech and action which are straight

forward or arjavam.

 

----------------

- Is there any way to know that someone that is one's teacher is a

 

'self-realised' one?

 

It is important to assume that the teacher is realized so that there is shaddhaa

or faith in the teacher's words. Without that faith - the teaching will not sink

in and the student cannot realize- this is independent of whether the teacher

has realized or not- student can realize if he has full faith in the teaching.

 

---------------------

 

- Does a teacher/guru have to be self-realised to guide others toward

 

self-realisation (I know this one will get me brickbats but I will

 

still pose it)?

 

This is the same question as above - It is important for the student to have

faith in the teacher - which means the student should feel that his teacher has

realized.

From the teacher's point he will only know that he has realized.

 

--------------------------

 

- I even a self-realised one is not able to recognise another

 

self-realised one, how can a mere dwaitin hope to recognise a teacher?

 

Good question - Hence it is said that only by the grace of God that one is led

to appropriate teacher. There are no litmus tests to find out and giveout

certificates of realization. Every student feels his teacher is the avataara or

only by the grace of God he is blessed with the right teacher.

--------------

 

Please don't look upon these as impertinent questions - I am asking

 

these to clear some doubts in my head.

 

 

---------

Shankara says that it is better to approach a teacher who can teach even if he

has not realized than one who cannot teach but realized - since teaching

involves shravaNam - consistent and prolonged listening to the scriptures from a

competent teacher until there are no more doubts left.

 

-Hope this helps

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Dear Sai-saab,

 

I am not addressing you with the usual -ji. Saab rhymes better with

your name.

 

I can't afford to be illogical and sans common-sense in answering

the questions you have posed. My understanding is in below your

questions:

_____________________

 

> - Does it mean that when someone becomes 'self-realised' one just

> 'knows' somehow?

 

[if the words of the scriptures are to be believed, self-realization

implies the individual seeker's totally being the Self. He can't

therefore be expected to have anymore any 'individuality' so to say

post realization. Since the Self is Brahman and Brahman is Knowledge

knowing which everything else is as well known, the self-realized

should 'know' without the knower-known divide. This is a logical

surmise and please don't ask me to explain that 'knowing without

knower-known divide'. Not having had that privilege, I can't

describe it. Also, I can safely assume that it is indescribable. I

can perhaps request you to read the last stanza of Shankara's

Dakshinamurthi Stotram according to which realization holds out the

following promise in the translated words of Sw. Chinmayanandaji:

 

" The Knowledge " all-this-Atman (Sarvatmattvam) has been explained in

this Hymn and so, by hearing it, by reflecting and meditating upon

its meaning and by reciting it, one will attain that Divine State,

endued with the glory of the all-Self-hood, along with the permanent

eight-fold holy-powers of Godhood. " .

 

Scholars can interpret it in many different ways. Mind you, they

are scholars - not necessarily self-reaized ones who are already

that " all-Self-hood " .

_______________

 

> - Is there any way to know that someone that is one's teacher is a

> 'self-realised' one?

 

[No way. If you know, you are already self-realized and he can't be

other than you. It is a waste of time trying to realize another

guy's self-realization.]

___________________

 

> - Does a teacher/guru have to be self-realised to guide others

toward

> self-realisation (I know this one will get me brickbats but I will

> still pose it)?

 

[if I understand Advaita right, the realized one has no more anybody

to be taught and saved to the shores of self-realization because he

is already the 'outsideless all without division'. So, the question

of any residual suffering humanity remaining outside him crying for

salvation is an impossibility. I have answered it this way many

times before and happily received loads of brickbats. I can afford

more.]

________________________

 

> - I(f) even a self-realised one is not able to recognise another

> self-realised one, how can a mere dwaitin hope to recognise a

teacher?

 

[A self-realized one doesn't have to recognise another self-realised

one. Both are the same. Know that you are self-realized when you

know that there is none other to know. That perhaps sums up

the 'knowing without the knower-known divide I implied in my answer

to your first question.]

 

______________

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Sadanadaji and Nairji,

 

Your words have clarified many doubts - thank you so much for them.

 

One last question:

 

Is it possible for one to be self-realised despite the teacher not

being a self-realised?

 

This is a sort of corollary to the answer that Sadanandaji had given

that a student must have complete faith and that faith alone is

sufficient in attaining self-realisation.

 

Thank you all very much for many of the discussions that permeate this

group. One of these years, I might even understand some of the

writings.

 

As a background, I have been listening to the 'Tattva Bodha lectures

given by Swami Paramarthananda' as available on esnips

(www.esnips.com). I am also attending self-unfoldment classes every

week conducted by the local Chinmaya chapter in central NJ. Mmany

things seem obvious to me, while I stil struggle with other concepts.

 

Sai

[Guest guest]

Sai ji - PraNAms

 

 

Yes - From the student's point the teacher is already self-realized. And now

from his point also he also knows his true nature. He has also realized that

all are in Him and He is in everyone - including the teacher.

 

In VivekachuuDaamani in the end - there are slokas that shows the bhakti for the

teacher even after realization. These are wonderful slokas.

 

Even after realization, his reverence for his teacher is expressed so

beautifully - recognizing that only because of the grace of the teacher he was

able to cross the ocean of samsaar. That gratitude based reverence out pours his

bhakti towards his teacher.

 

The teacher, and the parents - mother and father are revered even by the

realized soul - just as Krishna did - Love mixed with gratitude outpours as

bhakti with no expectations in return.

 

His obligation to his teacher is to teach those who come to him for help - that

is called aachaarya RiNa.

 

Glad you are attending the study groups. That is the best way to learn.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

--- On Sat, 12/20/08, Indian Rediff <indianrediff wrote:

 

 

 

One last question:

 

 

 

Is it possible for one to be self-realised despite the teacher not

 

being a self-realised?

[Guest guest]

Dear Sai

Some of your questions have been discussed before and I have offered one perspective you may find useful at

http://poornamadam.blogspot.com/2008/02/self-realization-what-is-it.html

 

On the issue of can a student be self-realized without his Guru being so -you hit the proverbial nail on the head when you intuitively linked it with ShraddhA - this has been asserted by none other than the Sage of Kanchi Himself - read the following excerpt from Advaita Sadhana (translated by our own dear ProfVK-ji)

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

 

Is an enlightened guru available?

Guru is always depicted by shAstras as an *anubhavi* (one who has seen the Truth directly): ‘brahma-nishhTha’ in Upanishads, ‘tatva-darshinaH’ in the Gita. Such a person, who has truly realised Brahman – would such a person be available in modern times? Don’t worry about it. If you are crying in true anguish with sincere mumukshhutA (longing for Release) the Lord will not fail to show you such a one. Whether he is a brahma-nishhTa or not all the time, you will be shown the best available one and the Lord Himself will enter into him at the time when you are being givn the mahAvAkya-upadesha. That is how it happens. That is how. No doubt about it.

[Note by the Collator Shri R. Ganapathy:

Here the Mahaswamigal speaks with great conviction,

emotion and emphasis that he is passing on a great truth]

Just as the disciple is feeling the anguish whether an *anubhavi* guru will be available even these days, the Lord is also looking for, with the same anguish (!) whether a proper mumukshhu is going to come; so such a person would not be missed by Him. Maybe He will not appear in concrete form in the body of a human Guru, but it is possible that He manifests as a subtle guru in the very antar-AtmA of the disciple and grace him. But if I say it this way, it may turn out in this independent age where humility is wanting, people might go with the impression: “Even the Shankaracharya of the mutt has said so. A separate individual as a Guru is not necessary. The Lord will come into us directly and grace us from the inside”. It is really very rare for such a thing –without an external human guru, for the Lord Himself to come as an internal guru -- to happen. Rare top-ranking mumukshus will have that privilege. Or if there is an enormous amount of pUrva-samskAra from the earlier lives, even if one is not a mumukshhu but just an ordinary person, the Lord Himself on His own pulls him out and blesses him with all grace. To make this the general rule is totally wrong.

--- On Fri, 12/19/08, Indian Rediff <indianrediff wrote:

Indian Rediff <indianrediffRe: Re: Advaita 101 - An interview with Swami Dayananda Saraswatiadvaitin Date: Friday, December 19, 2008, 6:33 PM

 

 

Dear Jaishankarji and everyone else,This clarification makes me want to question many things.- Does it mean that when someone becomes 'self-realised' one just'knows' somehow?- Is there any way to know that someone that is one's teacher is a'self-realised' one?- Does a teacher/guru have to be self-realised to guide others towardself-realisation (I know this one will get me brickbats but I willstill pose it)?- I even a self-realised one is not able to recognise anotherself-realised one, how can a mere dwaitin hope to recognise a teacher?Please don't look upon these as impertinent questions - I am askingthese to clear some doubts in my head.Sai

[Guest guest]

Thank you to everyone for answering and clarifying. I wil search on.

 

Sincerely,

Sai

[Guest guest]

<<<Is there any way to know that someone that is one's teacher

is a

'self-realised' one?>>>

 

Is it appropriate for me to chime in here-? I am new here and new to

these scriptural teachings in general, although not new to neo-advaita

etc. I am here to learn, so please share your understanding with me.

My understanding is that one knows a teacher (valuable for one's own

development) by the silence and deepening of understanding/revealing

one experiences in their presence. Is more than that needed?

 

Susan