Post by Reefs on Jan 20, 2024 11:36:15 GMT -5
This is an interesting article...
I kinda have to agree, while Ramana and Niz are exceptional in terms of clarity (that is, if you know what specific Sanskrit terms they are actually referring to), as teachers they are only average and so they caused a lot of unnecessary confusion with some of their statements.
Analysis of Quotes by Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj
By Andre Vas
Most Westerners first learn of non-duality through exposure to the “teachings” of Ramana Maharshi and/or Nisargadatta Maharaj — either directly through reading various books that contain collections of their conversations with seekers… Or indirectly through hearing their statements expounded upon by others who have understood – or, as is often the case, misunderstood – the words of the two spiritual titans.
Unintentional Flaws in Their Attempts to Help Seekers…
While both of these men were undoubtedly brahma-nisthas, or liberated beings — they were not shrotriyas, or qualified teachers versed in the methodology of the sampradaya, or Vedantic teaching lineage.
In other words, though they knew who they were — they did not know how to effectively deliver the systematic, step-by-step, means of knowledge called Vedanta — that leads the qualified student to understanding one's true identity.
For example a qualified teacher would first educate you about A, then B, then C, only then D. No skipping. There is a deliberate, sequential, logical and well-thought-out order how non-dual understanding of Reality is to be unfolded. Exactly as expounded in Upanishads, the source of all non-dual wisdom — from which even Ramana and Nisargadatta drew.
For instance, anyone learning a new language to fluency will unmistakably agree — a structure is crucial. First the absolute basics. Then put two words together. Then three. Then basic grammar. Etc. Without an order, you'll only intellectually grasp the language, but never to spontaneous fluency — thinking, complaining, day-dreaming and joking in your new language.
Mastery of any subject matter is like this. Be it mathematics, negotiation, analysis, or understanding nature of Self.
This is what 99.99% of Ramana's and Nisargadatta's learners don't take into account. Thus end up reading their materials for years — unable to concretely grasp, nor embody the vision as one's own, let alone sustain the understanding amidst day-to-day challenges.
Furthermore, the whole thing their followers have is “I am Awareness”. In truth, this is only 1/10th of the teaching of full Advaita tradition. Meaning no matter how many questions you ask about Awareness, it's only 1/10th of the full picture. But this is for the seekers to discover on their own eventually.
Nevertheless, both Ramana and Nisargadatta left in their wake a large compilation of recorded dialogues that have been thrown together by various devotees. They provide little more than a disjointed series of responses tailored to meet the level of spiritual readiness and aptitude of specific aspirants.
But neither unfolded a coherent and comprehensive, step-by-step system of self-inquiry and related practices that provided a practical map out of samsara, the repetitive cycle rebirth.
What we are left with is essentially an array of sometimes provocative and sometimes inspiring chunks concerning the nature of self that entice us with their promise of permanent fulfillment. Yet offer no practical means of achieving it, no sound teaching methodology by means of which one can clearly “see” the true nature of reality and, thereby, assimilate self-knowledge.
And neither clarified the fact that knowledge rather than experience constitutes the essential character of “enlightenment.”
Their Statements May Plunge Aspirants into Experience-Seeking…
Having only the limited tool of language with which to express their understanding of non-dual reality — both were constrained to describe self-realization in experiential terms.
For example, Ramana says that one must “reach the self” and, having apparently done so, Nisargadatta tells us that he is “in that state where there is total absence of any concept of presence or absence.”
At one point, Ramana describes the self as being located at a specific internal spot on the right side of the chest.
While Ramana must have intended this portrayal to be understood and utilized as an upasana, or focal point, that would help tame a meditator’s wandering mind — because he never properly unfolded the underlying meaning of his statement — many aspirants have expended a great deal of time and energy attempting to locate and somehow enter, merge with, or otherwise experience the ecstasy of this spiritual G-spot.
Some Statements are Loaded with Logical Inconsistencies…
Moreover, the dialogues of Ramana and Nisargadatta run amok with logical inconsistencies.
Ramana’s depiction of the self residing on the right side of the chest, for instance, fails to account for how limitless, attributeless awareness (Brahman) could somehow be confined by or contained within such a discrete locus.
Two more examples…
Illogical statement 1:
Time and again, both Ramana and Nisargadatta urge us to give up thought or to destroy the mind in order to obtain liberation.
As with the previous statement, however, such advice does not withstand the test of reason.
First, thought is not under the control of the person, but is the spontaneous offspring of the vasanas, or impression-based likes and dislikes, desires and fears — born of the macrocosmic causal body (maya).
Second, given that the nature of reality is non-dual, there can be no experiential solution to existential angst.
Since all objects/experiences are inherently transitory, no object – including the experience of a thought-free state – can offer one complete fulfillment.
Moreover, since the fundamental cause of suffering is ignorance of one’s true nature, the only solution is knowledge.
But since the instrument of knowledge is the mind, no knowledge can be gained by the seeker if the mind is destroyed or thought eradicated.
Finally, because silence, which is the state implied by a thought-free mind, is not opposed to ignorance — no experience of silence will remove one’s ignorance and magically replace it with the self-knowledge that sets one free.
Illogical statement 2:
Hands down, the most notoriously puzzling of the statements concerning the nature of reality, is Nisargadatta’s assertion that the self is prior to consciousness.
Though he must have meant that pure awareness (Brahman) exists prior to the subtle body or mind — this utterance has confused countless spiritual aspirants because it wasn't elaborated as a proper Vedanta teacher would.
Firstly, self is consciousness. They are synonymous words. Who is conscious right now? I am. The conscious “I” in Sanskrit is literally called, self (atman).
Secondly, existence and consciousness are one and the same, for nothing can be determined existent unless it appears in consciousness.
Thirdly, the only way one could know that the self was prior to consciousness is if I was “there” or consciously present to “see” it. In other words, something cannot exist prior to its own existence.
Reason Why Some Truth Admirers are Getting Nowhere…
In conclusion, we are not saying the utterances of these two great souls are invalid or worthless — but the fact of the matter is that they are in want of coherent and systematic elaboration.
They did not unfold the implied meaning of their statements. Thus many quotes were and continue to be taken literally and incorrectly.
Nor did they establish a logically consistent method of inquiry which emphasized that knowledge alone is the key to self-realization.
But because so many seekers are nevertheless greatly influenced by the words of Ramana and Nisargadatta — let us perform an analysis of their quotes that reflect the most essential “teachings” of non-duality…
www.yesvedanta.com/analysis-of-quotes-by-ramana-maharshi-and-nisargadatta-maharaj/
By Andre Vas
Most Westerners first learn of non-duality through exposure to the “teachings” of Ramana Maharshi and/or Nisargadatta Maharaj — either directly through reading various books that contain collections of their conversations with seekers… Or indirectly through hearing their statements expounded upon by others who have understood – or, as is often the case, misunderstood – the words of the two spiritual titans.
Unintentional Flaws in Their Attempts to Help Seekers…
While both of these men were undoubtedly brahma-nisthas, or liberated beings — they were not shrotriyas, or qualified teachers versed in the methodology of the sampradaya, or Vedantic teaching lineage.
In other words, though they knew who they were — they did not know how to effectively deliver the systematic, step-by-step, means of knowledge called Vedanta — that leads the qualified student to understanding one's true identity.
For example a qualified teacher would first educate you about A, then B, then C, only then D. No skipping. There is a deliberate, sequential, logical and well-thought-out order how non-dual understanding of Reality is to be unfolded. Exactly as expounded in Upanishads, the source of all non-dual wisdom — from which even Ramana and Nisargadatta drew.
For instance, anyone learning a new language to fluency will unmistakably agree — a structure is crucial. First the absolute basics. Then put two words together. Then three. Then basic grammar. Etc. Without an order, you'll only intellectually grasp the language, but never to spontaneous fluency — thinking, complaining, day-dreaming and joking in your new language.
Mastery of any subject matter is like this. Be it mathematics, negotiation, analysis, or understanding nature of Self.
This is what 99.99% of Ramana's and Nisargadatta's learners don't take into account. Thus end up reading their materials for years — unable to concretely grasp, nor embody the vision as one's own, let alone sustain the understanding amidst day-to-day challenges.
Furthermore, the whole thing their followers have is “I am Awareness”. In truth, this is only 1/10th of the teaching of full Advaita tradition. Meaning no matter how many questions you ask about Awareness, it's only 1/10th of the full picture. But this is for the seekers to discover on their own eventually.
Nevertheless, both Ramana and Nisargadatta left in their wake a large compilation of recorded dialogues that have been thrown together by various devotees. They provide little more than a disjointed series of responses tailored to meet the level of spiritual readiness and aptitude of specific aspirants.
But neither unfolded a coherent and comprehensive, step-by-step system of self-inquiry and related practices that provided a practical map out of samsara, the repetitive cycle rebirth.
What we are left with is essentially an array of sometimes provocative and sometimes inspiring chunks concerning the nature of self that entice us with their promise of permanent fulfillment. Yet offer no practical means of achieving it, no sound teaching methodology by means of which one can clearly “see” the true nature of reality and, thereby, assimilate self-knowledge.
And neither clarified the fact that knowledge rather than experience constitutes the essential character of “enlightenment.”
Their Statements May Plunge Aspirants into Experience-Seeking…
Having only the limited tool of language with which to express their understanding of non-dual reality — both were constrained to describe self-realization in experiential terms.
For example, Ramana says that one must “reach the self” and, having apparently done so, Nisargadatta tells us that he is “in that state where there is total absence of any concept of presence or absence.”
At one point, Ramana describes the self as being located at a specific internal spot on the right side of the chest.
While Ramana must have intended this portrayal to be understood and utilized as an upasana, or focal point, that would help tame a meditator’s wandering mind — because he never properly unfolded the underlying meaning of his statement — many aspirants have expended a great deal of time and energy attempting to locate and somehow enter, merge with, or otherwise experience the ecstasy of this spiritual G-spot.
Some Statements are Loaded with Logical Inconsistencies…
Moreover, the dialogues of Ramana and Nisargadatta run amok with logical inconsistencies.
Ramana’s depiction of the self residing on the right side of the chest, for instance, fails to account for how limitless, attributeless awareness (Brahman) could somehow be confined by or contained within such a discrete locus.
Two more examples…
Illogical statement 1:
Time and again, both Ramana and Nisargadatta urge us to give up thought or to destroy the mind in order to obtain liberation.
As with the previous statement, however, such advice does not withstand the test of reason.
First, thought is not under the control of the person, but is the spontaneous offspring of the vasanas, or impression-based likes and dislikes, desires and fears — born of the macrocosmic causal body (maya).
Second, given that the nature of reality is non-dual, there can be no experiential solution to existential angst.
Since all objects/experiences are inherently transitory, no object – including the experience of a thought-free state – can offer one complete fulfillment.
Moreover, since the fundamental cause of suffering is ignorance of one’s true nature, the only solution is knowledge.
But since the instrument of knowledge is the mind, no knowledge can be gained by the seeker if the mind is destroyed or thought eradicated.
Finally, because silence, which is the state implied by a thought-free mind, is not opposed to ignorance — no experience of silence will remove one’s ignorance and magically replace it with the self-knowledge that sets one free.
Illogical statement 2:
Hands down, the most notoriously puzzling of the statements concerning the nature of reality, is Nisargadatta’s assertion that the self is prior to consciousness.
Though he must have meant that pure awareness (Brahman) exists prior to the subtle body or mind — this utterance has confused countless spiritual aspirants because it wasn't elaborated as a proper Vedanta teacher would.
Firstly, self is consciousness. They are synonymous words. Who is conscious right now? I am. The conscious “I” in Sanskrit is literally called, self (atman).
Secondly, existence and consciousness are one and the same, for nothing can be determined existent unless it appears in consciousness.
Thirdly, the only way one could know that the self was prior to consciousness is if I was “there” or consciously present to “see” it. In other words, something cannot exist prior to its own existence.
Reason Why Some Truth Admirers are Getting Nowhere…
In conclusion, we are not saying the utterances of these two great souls are invalid or worthless — but the fact of the matter is that they are in want of coherent and systematic elaboration.
They did not unfold the implied meaning of their statements. Thus many quotes were and continue to be taken literally and incorrectly.
Nor did they establish a logically consistent method of inquiry which emphasized that knowledge alone is the key to self-realization.
But because so many seekers are nevertheless greatly influenced by the words of Ramana and Nisargadatta — let us perform an analysis of their quotes that reflect the most essential “teachings” of non-duality…
www.yesvedanta.com/analysis-of-quotes-by-ramana-maharshi-and-nisargadatta-maharaj/
I kinda have to agree, while Ramana and Niz are exceptional in terms of clarity (that is, if you know what specific Sanskrit terms they are actually referring to), as teachers they are only average and so they caused a lot of unnecessary confusion with some of their statements.
. And since. While I can understand the value of a logically consistent initial introduction, adherence to this is quite obviously going to eventually have an opposite effect, and I’d imagine that would vary quite a bit from seeker-to-seeker. Logic is one of the first things I had to leave behind, and it was the lyricism of life that set my stage as much as any other facet of the ride. I didn’t counter-comment about the Ramana content because Ramana’s influence on my path had to do with his method and recommended practices. I’m not familiar with most of those particular quotes, much less their context.