Sri Ramana Maharshi......Silent power?!

[stefos]

Howdy y'all!

 

Soooo....Sri Ramana Maharshi said that silence speaks while language stops silence.

 

SRM meant that the Self is silence.

 

Furthermore, SRM, based on different people's testimonies which I believe are true, is said to have "sent out" waves of silence on & over people which precipitated a direct knowledge of the Self!

 

In other words........He wasn't a joke.

 

Comments please!

 

Stefos

[silent thunder]

I am semi-retired so I have many days to myself as my wife still works and my son is at school and usually don't utter a word.

 

I have for the last few years... been practicing appropriate silence as a response in many conversations and situations, it's been awesome. I've learned so much more about people as my listening has increased.

 

It came from a realization I had while sitting with my young son. The most valuable thing I have, the most precious thing I can give... is my complete attention, my full presence. This was all he ever really wanted anyway, no matter what we were playing with...

 

It has led to some interesting twists as people, who are expecting an immediate response, will fill in the gaps, sometimes answering their own questions for me, or offering a plausible response for me... only in a very few cases has there been hostility or aggression to it.

 

People fill in the gaps.

 

As to the real silence of our true self... even when my mind and mouth are quiet, the body is still so noisy...

[Mystique Enigma]

There is this interesting story about Silence and speaking in silence ..........

 

Before he became a hermit. Zarathud was a young Priest, and took great delight in making fools of his opponents, in front of his followers.

 

One day Zarathud took his students to a pleasant pasture and there he confronted The Sacred Chao while She was contentedly grazing.

 

"Tell me you dumb beast," demanded the Priest in his commanding voice, "why don't you do something worthwhile? What is your Purpose in Life, anyway?"

 

Munching the tasty grass. The Sacred Chao replied "MU". (The Chinese ideogram for NO-THING.)

 

Upon hearing this, absolutely nobody was enlightened.

 

Primarily because nobody understood Chinese.

 

[Jetsun]

Howdy y'all!

 

Soooo....Sri Ramana Maharshi said that silence speaks while language stops silence.

 

SRM meant that the Self is silence.

 

Furthermore, SRM, based on different people's testimonies which I believe are true, is said to have "sent out" waves of silence on & over people which precipitated a direct knowledge of the Self!

 

In other words........He wasn't a joke.

 

Comments please!

 

Stefos

 

Who ever said he was a joke? as far as I am aware just about everybody who met him in person regarded him as a highly realised master. You do have to be a bit careful with what you read about him though and what he taught, as apparently most of what is written about him in the English language comes from just a few sources looking through their own skewed lense of interpretation and translation, so i'm not confident what is available to us about him gives a very full picture of what he was really about. Yet I like and agree with what you write here about silence, I have met some masters who also transmit waves of silence like that.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Jetsun

[Infinity]

I have met some masters who also transmit waves of silence like that.

You mean Shaktipat?

 

∞

Edited September 16, 2014 by Infinity

[aboo]

I guess things can get lost in translation Jetsun. The reason why I have always been drawn to his teachings are that they are relatively modern, and are backed by the exemplary way he lived his life - although that, of course, is relying on secondary sources as well.

 

There are also the teachings of Annamalai Swami, one of Sri Ramana Maharshi's personal attendants, and who helped build the first ashram. I think it was only by the 1980-1990's that he agreed to discuss his time with Sri Ramana Maharshi, and give his interpretation of his teachings; some of which can be found at the following url: http://www.arunachala-ramana.org/forum/index.php?topic=8236.0

[aboo]

To the OP: I am pretty sure Sri Ramana Maharishi taught that silence was his highest teaching, and his written teachings were for those who could not appreciate his silent teaching. His written teaching was to investigate the non-self (ego), which would highlight the illusory nature of it, quiet the mind to silence, and the real self would shine forth.

[Captain Mar-Vell]

...

Sri Ramana Maharshi takes his place amongst the great saints.

 

I read his accounts, brief though they were, of his "awakening."

 

Such descriptions are fascinating to me, since they so closely resemble my own experiences.

 

I have read very many similar accounts over the years.

 

They are not just myths and stories.

 

Thank you for the link, I shall check it if I have time.

...

[Infinity]

I guess things can get lost in translation Jetsun. The reason why I have always been drawn to his teachings are that they are relatively modern, and are backed by the exemplary way he lived his life - although that, of course, is relying on secondary sources as well.

 

There are also the teachings of Annamalai Swami, one of Sri Ramana Maharshi's personal attendants, and who helped build the first ashram. I think it was only by the 1980-1990's that he agreed to discuss his time with Sri Ramana Maharshi, and give his interpretation of his teachings; some of which can be found at the following url: http://www.arunachala-ramana.org/forum/index.php?topic=8236.0]http://www.arunachala-ramana.org/forum/index.php?topic=8236.0[/url]

Many thanks, great link.

 

I love Ramana his teaching are simple, direct and to the point and I cannot see that any teachings could be more direct and simple and that's why he is one of the greats in my world. However, it's not what the little 'i' wants to hear as the little 'i' wants to feel its important and exists. He he.

 

In my understanding more and more it appears all methods are just mind games as there are no roads to here! It's such a crazy truth!

 

In my head this morning for some reason I was singing "be still and know that I am god" seems the Christians tradition knew this truth too (pretty obvious) but the message has been lost. Am going to revisit the bible as I was raised Roman Catholic and understand and reintegrate all that I rejected years ago.

 

Peace

 

∞

Edited September 16, 2014 by Infinity

[Nikolai1]

In my head this morning for some reason I was singing "be still and know that I am god" seems the Christians tradition knew this truth too (pretty of obvious) but the message has been lost.

 

Another verse from the Bible SRM constantly quoted was 'I AM THAT I AM' from Exodus 3:14. He said it summed up his whole teaching and the whole truth.

 

I would love to hear how people interpret it.

[GrandmasterP]

I've mentioned Munir Baba on here before.

He was a Shiva devotee.

Retired from a good job in India and then took to Saddhu-ing as a silent saddhu.

He could speak but had made a vow to stop speaking.

Totally nice chap.

I've not met many 'holy' people but he was one for sure.

Edited September 16, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[stefos]

Who ever said he was a joke? as far as I am aware just about everybody who met him in person regarded him as a highly realised master. You do have to be a bit careful with what you read about him though and what he taught, as apparently most of what is written about him in the English language comes from just a few sources looking through their own skewed lense of interpretation and translation, so i'm not confident what is available to us about him gives a very full picture of what he was really about. Yet I like and agree with what you write here about silence, I have met some masters who also transmit waves of silence like that.

 

Hi,

 

It appears to me that Buddhists that I've spoken with, on this forum and not on this forum, seem to "degrade" any theist of any form of theism.

 

I don't appreciate people who are not enlightened and who have not actually read all the available sourcework about this man making statements.

 

All the evidence I've read about points to SRM as a person who understood SOMETHING.

 

That's all sir......Buddhist speak against Theism is my problem.

 

If you'd like to discuss my view of "Theism" we may in private.

 

Thank you

 

 

 

In my head this morning for some reason I was singing "be still and know that I am god" seems the Christians tradition knew this truth too (pretty obvious) but the message has been lost. Am going to revisit the bible as I was raised Roman Catholic and understand and reintegrate all that I rejected years ago.

 

Hi,

 

You know, MANY people read the "Old Testament" and "New Testament" and don't perceive what's actually being said!

 

For example....Creation = The sun and moon weren't created until Day 4

 

Jewish commentaries from days of yore, per se, said that before the sun and moon were made, Light & Dark functioned in the form of a mixture.

 

Also, The Tanakh "Old Testament in English" DOES talk about Astrology as being real but that it can't be trusted beyond a certain point!

 

Have you heard this stuff before?

 

Finally, sir, Numbers in the "Old" & "New" testaments: I challenge you to read Leviticus carefully and look at the number patterns....You will see a meaning hidden below the surface of the text........I promise you that you will.

 

Take care...

 

 

Another verse from the Bible SRM constantly quoted was 'I AM THAT I AM' from Exodus 3:14. He said it summed up his whole teaching and the whole truth.

 

I would love to hear how people interpret it.

 

In Hebrew, this phrase means "I will be what I will be"....Present tense, not future.

 

Furthermore, All things are resolved into God.

 

The "New Testament" says that "God is Love"

The Apostle Paul in the "New Testament" says "Love is patient, kind, is not envious, does not boast, DOES NOT SEEK ITS OWN, etc."

 

I'd like to stop right here and let's think about this for 2 secs......O.K.

 

The problem with people is that we are selfish.....God according to biblical definition "DOES NOT SEEK ITS OWN" in other words....God is selfless....SELFless my friend.

 

So, when I see teachings about the non-dual state, either in Buddhism or in Vedanta, I say "Yes....The self must go."

 

Finally, In Galatians Chapter 5, The Apostle Paul talks about the "deeds of the flesh."

What is the hub round which these "deeds of the flesh" spin? The self.

 

I send my well wishes to you

Stefos

[Jetsun]

 

You mean Shaktipat?

 

∞

 

I guess it is related but not necessarily the same thing, it is more like their presence emits this kind of silence which feels palpable when you are around them and then it is easier for you to fall into silence too being there.

 

Hi,

 

It appears to me that Buddhists that I've spoken with, on this forum and not on this forum, seem to "degrade" any theist of any form of theism.

 

I don't appreciate people who are not enlightened and who have not actually read all the available sourcework about this man making statements.

 

All the evidence I've read about points to SRM as a person who understood SOMETHING.

 

That's all sir......Buddhist speak against Theism is my problem.

 

If you'd like to discuss my view of "Theism" we may in private.

 

Thank you

 

Yes I know what you mean, usually internet scholars who have read a few books about right view believe that they get it and Ramana (who is generally considered one of the greatest Sages who ever lived by all who met him in person) is somehow missing the mark or locked in an eternalist viewpoint. In reality Ramana explained how the eternalist and nihilist views are actually two sides of the same coin when trying to communicate about reality using language which is always dualistic, which is why silence is the more direct and powerful teacher. I try to ignore those guys these days, in my perspective they tend to value their intellectual position on these matters as more valuable than actually realising and embodying these things.

 

One thing about Ramana which I didn't understand is that he had his awakening through doing a death meditation and pretending he was already dead, yet he never instructed others to do similar meditations, rather to investigate what the I or self is.

.

[Nikolai1]

One thing about Ramana which I didn't understand is that he had his awakening through doing a death meditation and pretending he was already dead, yet he never instructed others to do similar meditations,

 

Many things happened to him, which he refused to turn into 'techniques'. For example, at age 16 he quit his studies, and walked out of the family home without saying where he was going. Yet he expressed the strongest disapproval whenever one of his devotees expressed a wish to renounce the world and become a wandering sadhu.

 

He spent many years following his 'death meditation' in a silent samadhic trance, and would not respond to any questions - and even wrote a note to his own mother. But he disapproved of sitting meditation, saying that ' it is for the merest novice' and saw vows of silence to be pointless.

 

In essence, he considered any deliberate, goal-orientated technique as stemming from the exact mentality that needs to cease. Any deliberate yoga or meditation therefore defeats its own object.

 

All the behaviours, meditations, death-like experiences, renunciations will happen very sweetly and naturally of their own accord so long as one first goes immediately to the experience to which they aim: knowledge of the true self. To try and reverse this sequence is acting egoically and is doomed to failure.

 

This is why he did not recommend that anyone try to imitate his death meditation.

[Captain Mar-Vell]

...

You are reminding me how fond I was of this man.

 

Your post is relevant to a lot of the taobums and modern materials with regard to "spiritual practices" generally.

 

I just tried to be a moral person, sincere and aware, fond of philosophies of Mind, of Religion, Epistemology and Cosmology.

 

Another dumb Seeker.

 

"I don't need a credit card, I'm a seeker after truth!"

 

"You will sonny, you will."

 

Still ain't got one, ya big yin.

 

I found things happening despite myself.

 

Totally beyond strange.

 

I can't take credit, you know that.

 

It's just delusions of grandeur.

...

Edited September 17, 2014 by Captain Mar-Vell

[Jetsun]

This is why he did not recommend that anyone try to imitate his death meditation.

 

I don't disagree with you, yet even to investigate the 'I' could be considered a technique just as much as lying down and pretending you are dying.

[Nikolai1]

I don't disagree with you, yet even to investigate the 'I' could be considered a technique just as much as lying down and pretending you are dying.

 

Lots of people said the same as you, but Sri Ramana considered self-enquiry to be a special case where the 'technique' is indistinguishable from the goal that the technique aims for. This is the same as the Zen notion that practice and enlightenment are one and the same thing. If we are dwelling in the I AM feeling then there is nowhere left to go, nothing further to achieve.

 

But we should remember that self-enquiry was one of two 'second-best' approaches (along with surrender to an external creator God)

 

The first best, and most powerful approach was simply being in the vicinity of the realised sage. The immense peace one experiences is the better and higher than any other means. This is why Sri Ramana went hours and hours without speaking, not even answering questions most the time, but was always until his dying day available in full view to anyone who wished to see him.

[9th]

In 1903 there came to Tiruvannamalai a great Sanskrit scholar and savant, Ganapati Sastri, known also as Ganapati Muni because of the austerities he had been observing. He had the title Kavya-kantha (one who had poetry at his throat), and his disciples addressed him as nayana (father). He was a specialist in the worship of the Divine Mother.

 

He visited Sri Ramana in the Virupaksa cave quite a few times. Once in 1907 he was assailed by doubts regarding his own spiritual practices. He went up the hill, saw Ramana sitting alone in the cave, and expressed himself thus :

 

"All that has to be read I have read; even Vedanta sastra I have fully understood; I have done japa to my heart's content; yet I have not up to this time understood what tapas is. Therefore I have sought refuge at your feet. Pray enlighten me as to the nature of tapas."

 

Ramana replied, now speaking, "If one watches whence the notion 'I' arises, the mind gets absorbed there; that is tapas. When a mantra is repeated, if one watches whence that mantra sound arises, the mind gets absorbed there; that is tapas."

 

To the scholar this came as a revelation; he felt the grace of the sage enveloping him. He it was that proclaimed Ramana to be Maharshi and Bhagavan. He composed hymns in Sanskrit in praise of the sage, and also wrote the Ramana-Gita explaining his teachings.

[3bob]

Quoted from Vamadeva's website: (link below)

 

"...Ramana, though he emphasized Self-inquiry, never rejected the value of other yogic practices. He commonly extolled such practices as chanting the name of God, chanting Om and doing pranayama. He had regular Vedic chanting and pujas done at the ashram which continue today.

This traditional Advaitic view of different levels practice should not be confused with an approach that rejects all practices as useless. In this regard we can contrast traditional Advaita Vedanta, which Ramana followed, and the teachings of J. Krishnamurti, which is often the source of neo-Advaita’s rejection of support practices..."

 

http://vedanet.com/2012/06/13/misconceptions-about-advaita/

[stefos]

Quoted from Vamadeva's website: (link below)

 

"...Ramana, though he emphasized Self-inquiry, never rejected the value of other yogic practices. He commonly extolled such practices as chanting the name of God, chanting Om and doing pranayama. He had regular Vedic chanting and pujas done at the ashram which continue today.

This traditional Advaitic view of different levels practice should not be confused with an approach that rejects all practices as useless. In this regard we can contrast traditional Advaita Vedanta, which Ramana followed, and the teachings of J. Krishnamurti, which is often the source of neo-Advaita’s rejection of support practices..."

 

http://vedanet.com/2012/06/13/misconceptions-about-advaita/

 

Thanks for the quote....

 

J.Krishnamurti emphasized "Choiceless Awareness."

 

In Dzogchen this is called Naked Awareness.

 

It is not a practice as such on one side due to no poses, no mantra and no visualization involved.

 

It IS a practice insofar as one must BE Choicelessly Aware and not play intellectual games about the concept of being Choicelessly Aware.

 

Dzogchen states that it is the state "Beyond the sickness of effort"...Effort being mantras, yantras, mudras, visualization of Tantric deities, etc. It's just being "Nakedly Aware."

 

Stefos

[3bob]

I don't know jack about Dzogchen (as in its school particulars) and unless there is some compelling reason to make further comparative speculations that amount to more than a hill of beans I don't have much interest.

Edited September 20, 2014 by 3bob

[stefos]

I don't know jack about Dzogchen (as in its school particulars) and unless there is some compelling reason to make further comparative speculations that amount to more than a hill of beans I don't have much interest.

 

Sorry Dzogchen doesn't appeal to you.

 

Anyone can contribute here, whether they agree or not.

 

I don't own this forum or this thread.

 

Take care,

Stefos

[Jetsun]

Lots of people said the same as you, but Sri Ramana considered self-enquiry to be a special case where the 'technique' is indistinguishable from the goal that the technique aims for. This is the same as the Zen notion that practice and enlightenment are one and the same thing. If we are dwelling in the I AM feeling then there is nowhere left to go, nothing further to achieve.

 

What Adyashanti says is that all the direct techniques whether it is to sit in silence like they do in Zen, self enquiry of Ramana or dwell in the 'I Am' like Nisrigatta Maharaj prescribes are all effort techniques, which are very direct pure techniques leaving you nowhere else to go but they don't take you all the way, what they do is take you to the cliff edge then to move into what they call 'awakening' means falling over the edge of the cliff, but there is absolutely nothing you can do to fall over the edge as by definition the ego wont commit suicide, all you can do is wait for what he called a 'strong wind' to blow you over or get moved over by grace. So the more time you spend at the cliff edge the greater chance of being blown over the edge by grace, which is why up to a certain point efforts can be helpful but after that its up to God or will of the Tao.

[Captain Mar-Vell]

...

Jetsun wrote;

 

So the more time you spend at the cliff edge the greater chance of being blown over the edge by grace, which is why up to a certain point efforts can be helpful but after that its up to God or will of the Tao.

 

Perhaps Faith and Love can also help.

 

Or maybe Faith in Love.

 

The Power of Love.

...

Edited September 21, 2014 by Captain Mar-Vell

[Tibetan_Ice]

 

What Adyashanti says is that all the direct techniques whether it is to sit in silence like they do in Zen, self enquiry of Ramana or dwell in the 'I Am' like Nisrigatta Maharaj prescribes are all effort techniques, which are very direct pure techniques leaving you nowhere else to go but they don't take you all the way, what they do is take you to the cliff edge then to move into what they call 'awakening' means falling over the edge of the cliff, but there is absolutely nothing you can do to fall over the edge as by definition the ego wont commit suicide, all you can do is wait for what he called a 'strong wind' to blow you over or get moved over by grace. So the more time you spend at the cliff edge the greater chance of being blown over the edge by grace, which is why up to a certain point efforts can be helpful but after that its up to God or will of the Tao.

How much of that is Adyashanti? It is very like him to put down other disciplines and attribute awakening to grace.

 

Did sitting staring at a wall for years like Adyashanti did qualify him for grace? Is he saying he is the chosen one?

 

The ego is very capable of committing suicide, how many people in the world killed themselves today do you think?

 

Adyashanti is quite a spin doctor and a dualist, isn't he? There is "you" and there is God", and only God will save you.

 

Only thing is, God is already in your heart so what kind of rubbish is Adyashanti talking about?

 

😳

Edited September 22, 2014 by Tibetan_Ice