The Problem with Maharshi and Maharaj…

[sharon]

Jan 25, 2024 15:23:54 GMT -5 inavalan said:

Getting back to the topic, the two not being good teachers (according to some opinions) is a false problem, of those who want to be taught. Wanting to be taught is the opposite of wanting to learn, and it is a detrimental approach to evolvement. 

Actually, the two pointed to what they did, and pointed inwards toward the source of knowledge and guidance. If further they misinterpreted what they found, if their words were misinterpreted,  it is less important for you, because you need to learn how to learn, then take it from there. A good teacher teaches you how to learn, so you could reach your potential, and filter out most of the distortions that inherently the teacher's knowledge includes.

A good teacher primarily teaches trust. In trust, receptivity is a given. In receptivity, learning happens. To know that learning has been complete, the showing of action is necessary.

[inavalan]

Jan 25, 2024 15:48:02 GMT -5 sharon said:

Jan 25, 2024 15:23:54 GMT -5 inavalan said:

Getting back to the topic, the two not being good teachers (according to some opinions) is a false problem, of those who want to be taught. Wanting to be taught is the opposite of wanting to learn, and it is a detrimental approach to evolvement. 

Actually, the two pointed to what they did, and pointed inwards toward the source of knowledge and guidance. If further they misinterpreted what they found, if their words were misinterpreted,  it is less important for you, because you need to learn how to learn, then take it from there. A good teacher teaches you how to learn, so you could reach your potential, and filter out most of the distortions that inherently the teacher's knowledge includes.

A good teacher primarily teaches trust. In trust, receptivity is a given. In receptivity, learning happens. To know that learning has been complete, the showing of action is necessary.

I disagree with all your opinions expressed in your reply. There's nothing to clarify.

[stardustpilgrim]

Jan 25, 2024 15:48:02 GMT -5 sharon said:

Jan 25, 2024 15:23:54 GMT -5 inavalan said:

Getting back to the topic, the two not being good teachers (according to some opinions) is a false problem, of those who want to be taught. Wanting to be taught is the opposite of wanting to learn, and it is a detrimental approach to evolvement. 

Actually, the two pointed to what they did, and pointed inwards toward the source of knowledge and guidance. If further they misinterpreted what they found, if their words were misinterpreted,  it is less important for you, because you need to learn how to learn, then take it from there. A good teacher teaches you how to learn, so you could reach your potential, and filter out most of the distortions that inherently the teacher's knowledge includes.

A good teacher primarily teaches trust. In trust, receptivity is a given. In receptivity, learning happens. To know that learning has been complete, the showing of action is necessary.

In what is one to trust? A good teacher teaches discernment. A good teacher teaches how to verify. Sufi saying: Trust in Allah, but tie your camel.

We were sometimes given incorrect instructions, to test our understanding. The only thing you can trust is correct practice, and understanding.

[steven]

Jan 20, 2024 11:36:15 GMT -5 Reefs said:

This is an interesting article...

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.

I could only get through the 1st 6 or 8 paragraphs before shaking my head so much that I didn’t bother to read the rest…the premise established in those first paragraphs is so fundamentally flawed that the rest is pointless to spend time on.

[steven]

Okay I skimmed through the rest lol

Grandma, respectfully, its a stupid article in the OG post on like many many levels 😂😂😂



I could be wrong, but me thinks Andre Vas has some books to sell or weekend retreat vacancies to fill lol

[sharon]

Jan 25, 2024 18:37:54 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

Jan 25, 2024 15:48:02 GMT -5 sharon said:

A good teacher primarily teaches trust. In trust, receptivity is a given. In receptivity, learning happens. To know that learning has been complete, the showing of action is necessary.

In what is one to trust? A good teacher teaches discernment. A good teacher teaches how to verify. Sufi saying: Trust in Allah, but tie your camel.

We were sometimes given incorrect instructions, to test our understanding. The only thing you can trust is correct practice, and understanding.

I see that really you've answered your own question. Which indicates to me anyway, that your time for teachers is done. Perhaps we only ever get one truly good teacher and thankfully, that's all we really need.

Neglecting the intelligence in your own heart is the height of foolishness.

[stardustpilgrim]

Jan 26, 2024 3:43:33 GMT -5 sharon said:

Jan 25, 2024 18:37:54 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

In what is one to trust? A good teacher teaches discernment. A good teacher teaches how to verify. Sufi saying: Trust in Allah, but tie your camel.

We were sometimes given incorrect instructions, to test our understanding. The only thing you can trust is correct practice, and understanding.

I see that really you've answered your own question. Which indicates to me anyway, that your time for teachers is done. Perhaps we only ever get one truly good teacher and thankfully, that's all we really need.

Neglecting the intelligence in your own heart is the height of foolishness.

Yes, absolutely. Yes, you have to lead with your heart. Yes, the heart is more intelligent than the stuff between the ears.

[Reefs]

All,

off-topic discussion has been moved here.


R

[Reefs]

If you study TAV, you will see that their teaching method is quite genius and that it is not actually a culture specific method, but a universal method. But you are not going to see that until you have actually studied it (which apparently no one here has). So all we have here is a random collection of uniformed opinions, I’m afraid. Which doesn’t make for a good discussion and inviting Andre over here rather pointless.

Now, the question that the OP tackled was if the teaching method of Niz and RM is in alignment with TAV, a method that doesn’t leave room for mental confusion, if applied correctly. The answer is a clear no. Niz and RM, despite their exceptional clarity of vision, actually leave plenty of room for confusion. This very forum is a point in case.

That’s why, by TAV standards, they are not good teachers.

That judgment doesn’t affect their realization status though.

[inavalan]

Jan 26, 2024 14:16:50 GMT -5 Reefs said:

If you study TAV, you will see that their teaching method is quite genius and that it is not actually a culture specific method, but a universal method. But you are not going to see that until you have actually studied it (which apparently no one here has). So all we have here is a random collection of uniformed opinions, I’m afraid. Which doesn’t make for a good discussion and inviting Andre over here rather pointless.

Now, the question that the OP tackled was if the teaching method of Niz and RM is in alignment with TAV, a method that doesn’t leave room for mental confusion, if applied correctly. The answer is a clear no. Niz and RM, despite their exceptional clarity of vision, actually leave plenty of room for confusion. This very forum is a point in case.

That’s why, by TAV standards, they are not good teachers.

That judgment doesn’t affect their realization status though.

What is TAV please? It isn't on the "list" . It sounds like an intellectualized version of (probably) Advaita Vedanta. 

Why should one adopt it?

[stardustpilgrim]

Jan 26, 2024 14:39:19 GMT -5 inavalan said:

Jan 26, 2024 14:16:50 GMT -5 Reefs said:

If you study TAV, you will see that their teaching method is quite genius and that it is not actually a culture specific method, but a universal method. But you are not going to see that until you have actually studied it (which apparently no one here has). So all we have here is a random collection of uniformed opinions, I’m afraid. Which doesn’t make for a good discussion and inviting Andre over here rather pointless.

Now, the question that the OP tackled was if the teaching method of Niz and RM is in alignment with TAV, a method that doesn’t leave room for mental confusion, if applied correctly. The answer is a clear no. Niz and RM, despite their exceptional clarity of vision, actually leave plenty of room for confusion. This very forum is a point in case.

That’s why, by TAV standards, they are not good teachers.

That judgment doesn’t affect their realization status though.

What is TAV please? It isn't on the "list" . It sounds like an intellectualized version of (probably) Advaita Vedanta. 

Why should one adopt it?

Traditional Advaita Vedanta. It has more integrity than the modern neo-advaita Vedanta.

[inavalan]

Jan 26, 2024 18:11:51 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

Jan 26, 2024 14:39:19 GMT -5 inavalan said:

What is TAV please? It isn't on the "list" . It sounds like an intellectualized version of (probably) Advaita Vedanta. 

Why should one adopt it?

Traditional Advaita Vedanta. It has more integrity than the modern neo-advaita Vedanta.

Then it (TAV) probably makes more sense.

[laughter]

Jan 24, 2024 1:41:55 GMT -5 Reefs said:

The way I understood it, in TAV self-inquiry is the first step. Meditation comes later. Nowadays it's usually the other way around.

Perhaps the relatively hyper-distracted nature of the current common-mind state is what led to this. Looking back, it's a trend that's been accelerating for quite some time.

[laughter]

Jan 26, 2024 4:45:42 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

Jan 26, 2024 3:43:33 GMT -5 sharon said:

I see that really you've answered your own question. Which indicates to me anyway, that your time for teachers is done. Perhaps we only ever get one truly good teacher and thankfully, that's all we really need.

Neglecting the intelligence in your own heart is the height of foolishness.

Yes, absolutely. Yes, you have to lead with your heart. Yes, the heart is more intelligent than the stuff between the ears.

Even the heart can deceive, although it certainly is more trustworthy than the intellect.

[laughter]

Jan 26, 2024 14:16:50 GMT -5 Reefs said:

If you study TAV, you will see that their teaching method is quite genius and that it is not actually a culture specific method, but a universal method. But you are not going to see that until you have actually studied it (which apparently no one here has). So all we have here is a random collection of uniformed opinions, I’m afraid. Which doesn’t make for a good discussion and inviting Andre over here rather pointless.

Now, the question that the OP tackled was if the teaching method of Niz and RM is in alignment with TAV, a method that doesn’t leave room for mental confusion, if applied correctly. The answer is a clear no. Niz and RM, despite their exceptional clarity of vision, actually leave plenty of room for confusion. This very forum is a point in case.

That’s why, by TAV standards, they are not good teachers.

That judgment doesn’t affect their realization status though.

This is a matter of degree. I know enough about TAV to know that it requires a level of commitment. I'm pretty sure it requires a selection of and following a guru. My critique of Andre's critique's were perhaps inclusive of critique's of TAV, but for the most part not directed to TAV as a culture. Rather, my critiques were of what I opine to be distortions of his outlook on nondual variants from, but as you pointed out, related to, TAV.