Ramana Maharshi

[Jitendra Hydonus]

Are we dreaming now? Ramana Maharshi said the only difference between the waking and the dreaming state is that wakefulness lasts long and dreams are short. He said that we create a new body when we dream. As long as there is a sense of "I" hood there will be karma whether it is in this body or another body or another plane of consciousness.

source: Teachings of Ramana Maharshi

i woke up to dreams of energizing and it inspired me to get up and actually practice them in the physical. We can carry our spiritual practices into our dream within a dream-our nite excursions into sleepland. I enjoy the quotes and teachings of the Master. It is easy to see why Paramahansa Yogananda devoted a chapter of the Autobiography of a Yogi to this incredible being.

[Swami Peevananda]

Actually Yogananda didn't devote an entire chapter to Ramana Maharshi. He included a short mention of him and a photo at the end of his chapter on his visit to South India. Of all the saints in the autobiography, his account of his meeting with Ramana was conspicuously brief. I read somewhere that someone asked Yogananda about this and he is reported to have said it was because Paul Brunton had already written about him (i'm not sure the validity of that quote). Still, I get the feeling that there may have been some philosophical tension when he visited Ramana Maharshi' ashram.

There is a more detailed account of Yogananda's visit and conversation with Ramana online somewhere which didn't make it into Yogananda's autobiography.

[Jitendra Hydonus]

Actually Yogananda didn't devote an entire chapter to Ramana Maharshi. He included a short mention of him and a photo at the end of his chapter on his visit to South India. Of all the saints in the autobiography, his account of his meeting with Ramana was conspicuously brief. I read somewhere that someone asked Yogananda about this and he is reported to have said it was because Paul Brunton had already written about him (i'm not sure the validity of that quote). Still, I get the feeling that there may have been some philosophical tension when he visited Ramana Maharshi' ashram.

There is a more detailed account of Yogananda's visit and conversation with Ramana online somewhere which didn't make it into Yogananda's autobiography.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/59658814/Paramhansa-Yogananda-and-Richard-Wright-Interview-Ramana-Maharshi

i will tell you a story about Yogananda. Someone came to the Lake Shrine and tried to convince him that he needed to follow his view of the Bible. The Master simply listened to him and replied that he may be right several times. When the man left he told the monks who were there that he would like to see them as enthusiastic about their spiritual life. i doubt that Yogananda would let very much tension transpire on spiritual matters but it would be interesting to read a more extensive version of the meeting between Ramana Maharshi and Yogananda.

Steve



http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Yogananda+meets+Ramana+Maharshi&qpvt=Yogananda+meets+Ramana+Maharshi&FORM=VDRE#view=detail&mid=71C696250B9C25A7B37271C696250B9C25A7B372


http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Yogananda+meets+Ramana+Maharshi&qpvt=Yogananda+meets+Ramana+Maharshi&FORM=VDRE#view=detail&mid=3B07A1C3B4506DBF04A93B07A1C3B4506DBF04A9

[Swami Peevananda]

Sure, I don't think it was a negative tension. I think it was a subtle philosophical one. And not between him and Ramana. Yogananda is reported to have said that Ramana's brother had tried to engage him in philosophical discussion. I don't believe there was any exchange of ill-will, obviously. Thanks for "telling me that story". You mentioned it once before.

[Jitendra Hydonus]

                       Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi                      

Previous: 105.Talk 105. Next: 107.Talk 107.  Goto:      

29th November, 1935Swami Yogananda with four others arrived at 8.45 a.m. He looks big, but gentle and well-groomed. He has dark flowing hair, hanging over his shoulders. The group had lunch in the Asramam.

Mr. C. R. Wright, his secretary, asked: How shall I realise God? 
M.: God is an unknown entity. Moreover He is external. Whereas, the Self is always with you and it is you. Why do you leave out what is intimate and go in for what is external?

Page 103
D.: What is this Self again? 
M.: The Self is known to everyone but not clearly. You always exist. The Be-ing is the Self. `I am' is the name of God. Of all the definitions of God, none is indeed so well put as the Biblical statement "I AM THAT I AM" in EXODUS (Chap. 3). There are other statements, such asBrahmaivaham, Aham Brahmasmi and Soham [?]. But none is so direct as the name JEHOVAH = I AM. The Absolute Being is what is - It is the Self. It is God. Knowing the Self, God is known. In fact God is none other than the Self.

D.: Why are there good and evil? 
M.: They are relative terms. There must be a subject to know the good and evil. That subject is the ego. Trace the source of the ego. It ends in the Self. The source of the ego is God. This definition of God is probably more concrete and better understood by you.

D.: So it is. How to get Bliss? 
M.: Bliss is not something to be got. On the other hand you are always Bliss. This desire is born of the sense of incompleteness. To whom is this sense of incompleteness? Enquire. In deep sleep you were blissful: Now you are not so. What has interposed between that Bliss and this non-bliss? It is the ego. Seek its source and find you are Bliss. There is nothing new to get. You have, on the other hand, to get rid of your ignorance which makes you think that you are other than Bliss. For whom is this ignorance? It is to the ego. Trace the source of the ego. Then the ego is lost and Bliss remains over. It is eternal. You are That, here and now…. That is the master key for solving all doubts. The doubts arise in the mind. The mind is born of the ego. The ego rises from the Self. Search the source of the ego and the Self is revealed. That alone remains. The universe is only expanded Self. It is not different from the Self.

D.: What is the best way of living? 
M.: It differs according as one is a Jnani [?] or ajnani [?] [?] does not find anything different or separate from the Self. All are in the Self. It is wrong to imagine that there is the world, that there is a body in it and that you dwell in the body. If the Truth is known, the universe and what is beyond it will be found to be only in the Self. The outlook
Page 104
differs according to the sight of the person. The sight is from the eye. The eye must be located somewhere. If you are seeing with the gross eyes you find others gross. If with subtle eyes (i.e., the mind) others appear subtle. If the eye becomes the Self, the Self being infinite, the eye is infinite. There is nothing else to see different from the Self. He thanked Maharshi. He was told that the best way of thanking is to remain always as the Self.

OTHER LINKS:
Links to Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi:
Jnani: (158) Talk 158. (499) Talk 499. (513) Talk 513. (385) Talk 385. 
Bliss: (95) Talk 95. (227) Talk 227. (141) Talk 141. (326) Talk 326. 
Links to Gems of Bhagavan:
Jnani: (12) XII— Jnani 

                       Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi                      

Previous: 105.Talk 105. Next: 107.Talk 107.  Goto:      

© Sri Ramanasramam, Tiruvannamalai
Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi | Words of Bhagavan | Bhagavan Photos | Letters from Sri Ramanasramam | Collected Works | Sri Ramana Leela | Talks | BOOKS
Version 1.1.2 Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Ramanaya 2007/02/15 vim7.0 , ruby 1.8.5

 only search this site

[Jitendra Hydonus]

Sure, I don't think it was a negative tension. I think it was a subtle philosophical one. And not between him and Ramana. Yogananda is reported to have said that Ramana's brother had tried to engage him in philosophical discussion. I don't believe there was any exchange of ill-will, obviously. Thanks for "telling me that story". You mentioned it once before.

i am not a specialist on philosophy, although from what  i have seen and know about philosophy is  that it is based on thought and the mental approach and constructs taken in an approach to life. Spirituality and meditation is that process of letting go of thought. That is why when Jesus was asked by Pilot 'What is truth' there was silence.  So perhaps Paramahansa Yogananda saw where this conversation was going. He has already reached that state which is beyond thought. In my experience philosophy does not have the goal of no thought. If there were philosophers that had that goal and a means to it I am unaware of it.

Jitendra

[Jitendra Hydonus]

http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/59658814?width=360#fullscreen

It is interesting to me that Paramahansa Yogananda has said before that he argued with God about why God allowed suffering. Here we see the Master is asking Maharshi Ramana similar questions.

[Swami Peevananda]

What you are saying is true from the highest perspective. Ramana Maharshi also would not entertain people's philosophical questions to the extent that they were merely getting the person more deeply entrenched in mind identification. All of his advice was given in an effort to turn the questions back upon the questioner. He said his highest teaching was in silence, and even 'self-inquiry', the teaching that he gave most often, was only for those who were not yet ready to understand the silence.

With that said, I am a little impatient with people who are dismissive of philosophy on the grounds that ultimate truth cannot be attained by thinking. Because until they are truly abiding in that thought-free state they are not free of philosophy and thinking. Even while they dismiss philosophy, their head is full of all kinds of ideas (many of them wrong, due to their distaste for critical philosophical thinking).

This is just my opinion. I have rarely met people who hold both views as I do, and expect to be disagreed with on this point. Most people either think that thinking is the only way to truth or that thinking is the great evil and they would rather remain stupid. Cults are bad about promoting this latter view, when in many cases they could only stand to benefit from a strong dose of critical thinking. It is an under-appreciated form of tuition in American society as well, because most state schools do not teach it. Private schools are different, which is why your upper classmen are often better critical thinkers.

So it appears that I hold contradictory views. But to me, these are complimentary views. In my opinion, the mind can be greatly purified by critical thinking and philosophical exercises as long as they are realized as such. It is only when a person is overly identified with his own thought processes that the problem arises (in my opinion).

Even Yogananda, whose approach was more devotional and practical (yoga is a procedure), was not against philosophy. I read somewhere that he told Tara Mata that she was the only American that he enjoyed discussing 'eastern philosophy' with. Also, in his B.A. course in college, he did best in philosophy. (There was an instance in which he wrote a long essay on Sri Yuktswars teachings and intentionally left his name off of the paper to trick the professor into grading him fairly.)

One of his affirmative statements is, "Lord, I will think. I will reason. But guide thou my thinking, guide thou my reason."

It is wrong, in my opinion, for Gurus to "poke out your eyes of reason", to use Sri Yukteswars phrase. When people are taught in this way, their devotion becomes overly emotional, immature and unstable. Doubt becomes a repressed trait, which paradoxically makes it stronger. Much like a wound which is keep for too long underneath a bandage until it begins to fester.

These are my opinions.

"Stupid people will not find God." - Paramahansa Yogananda

[Jitendra Hydonus]

What you are saying is true from the highest perspective. Ramana Maharshi also would not entertain people's philosophical questions to the extent that they were merely getting the person more deeply entrenched in mind identification. All of his advice was given in an effort to turn the questions back upon the questioner. He said his highest teaching was in silence, and even 'self-inquiry', the teaching that he gave most often, was only for those who were not yet ready to understand the silence.

With that said, I am a little impatient with people who are dismissive of philosophy on the grounds that ultimate truth cannot be attained by thinking. Because until they are truly abiding in that thought-free state they are not free of philosophy and thinking. Even while they dismiss philosophy, their head is full of all kinds of ideas (many of them wrong, due to their distaste for critical philosophical thinking).

This is just my opinion. I have rarely met people who hold both views as I do, and expect to be disagreed with on this point. Most people either think that thinking is the only way to truth or that thinking is the great evil and they would rather remain stupid. Cults are bad about promoting this latter view, when in many cases they could only stand to benefit from a strong dose of critical thinking. It is an under-appreciated form of tuition in American society as well, because most state schools do not teach it. Private schools are different, which is why your upper classmen are often better critical thinkers.

So it appears that I hold contradictory views. But to me, these are complimentary views. In my opinion, the mind can be greatly purified by critical thinking and philosophical exercises as long as they are realized as such. It is only when a person is overly identified with his own thought processes that the problem arises (in my opinion).

Even Yogananda, whose approach was more devotional and practical (yoga is a procedure), was not against philosophy. I read somewhere that he told Tara Mata that she was the only American that he enjoyed discussing 'eastern philosophy' with. Also, in his B.A. course in college, he did best in philosophy. (There was an instance in which he wrote a long essay on Sri Yuktswars teachings and intentionally left his name off of the paper to trick the professor into grading him fairly.)

One of his affirmative statements is, "Lord, I will think. I will reason. But guide thou my thinking, guide thou my reason."

It is wrong, in my opinion, for Gurus to "poke out your eyes of reason", to use Sri Yukteswars phrase. When people are taught in this way, their devotion becomes overly emotional, immature and unstable. Doubt becomes a repressed trait, which paradoxically makes it stronger. Much like a wound which is keep for too long underneath a bandage until it begins to fester.

These are my opinions.

"Stupid people will not find God." - Paramahansa Yogananda

... if scientists and businessmen got together in a temple and prayed for results in their various activities, and did not use their God-given intelligence to work towards those results, would they get anywhere? No. Mind is the power of all powers, but it has to be put to use in order to get results. That is the law of God. ~ Paramahansa Yogananda