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

[Jetsun]

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?

 

 

 

Well it is me paraphrasing things I have heard Adyashanti has said, without a direct quote it is probably bit unfair to put those words to him as he is far more precise and clear about these things than I am. But it is hardly rare for non dualists to say that at some point it takes grace, that is a very common theme from many teachers that at one point there is nothing you can do that efforts are useless because efforts reinforce dualism, what then takes over apart from grace? Many hundreds of thousands of people have done self inquiry and sat in Zazen etc, yet only a handful have awakened from it, so what is the factor which moves some people that bit further? Everyone qualifies for and receives grace in many forms but as I explained it is only likely to result in awakening if you put yourself in certain situations first, if you bring yourself to the door.

 

Committing suicide is the ego trying to get away from something usually suffering, so in other words it is the ego trying to control the situation, therefore it is completely different from ego death which is about accepting the truth and the situation, suicide is egotistical (not that I blame people as trying to get away from suffering is a normal pursuit).

 

I actually think what he is saying is very useful, that at certain points your own efforts and dedication to practice and the truth are useful as they bring you to the edge, which is far more empowering than those teachers who say everything you do for awakening is useless, but at some point all things including effort, including the meditator or the one doing enquiry have to be let go. I don't see how this in inconsistent from Zen or Vedanta or many of the other wisdom traditions, he just uses some different terms and mixes in a bit of Christianity.

[9th]

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.

 

You dont have to worry about the will of the Tao, its not really a matter of "will it or wont it". When you follow the root of inquiry all the way, it goes all the way.

[9th]

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.

 

Id say thats putting some extra layers on it. Its more like, when you are ready to allow it to go. But, whatever form that needs to take is certainly different for everyone.

[BrokenYogi]

Here's some good quotes from Ramana on silence:

“Oral lectures are not so eloquent as silence. Silence is unceasing eloquence.” He further said, “Language is only a medium for communicating one’s thoughts to another. It is called in only after thoughts arise – when one remains without thinking, one understands another by means of the universal language of silence. Silence is the eternal flow of language, unobstructed by words.”

 

“What one fails to know by conversation extending to several years can be known in a trice in silence, or in front of silence.”

 

“…Be still and know that I am God. To be still is not to think. Know, and not think, is the word.”

 

 

Shaving the Man in the Mirror

 

Once a few very learned Sanskrit scholars were seated in the hall discussing portions of the Upanishads and other scriptural texts with Bhagavan. I felt in my heart, how great these people are and how fortunate they are to be so learned and to have such deep understanding and ability to discuss with our Bhagavan. I felt miserable. After the pandits had taken leave, Bhagavan turned to me and said, "What?" looking into my eyes and studying my thoughts, "This is only the husk! All this book learning and capacity to repeat the scriptures by memory is absolutely of no use. Not by reading do you get the Truth. Be Quiet that is Truth. Be Still, that is God."

 

Then very graciously he turned to me again, and there was an immediate change in his tone and attitude. He asked, "Do you shave yourself?" Bewildered by this sudden change, I answered trembling that I did. "Ah", he said, "For shaving you use a mirror, don't you? You look into the mirror and then shave your face; you don't shave the image in the mirror. Similarly, all the scriptures are meant only to show you the way of Realization. They are meant for practice and attainment. Mere book learning and discussions are comparable to a man shaving the image in the mirror." From that day onwards my long-standing sense of inferiority vanished once for all.

[Wayfarer]

Just some quick points regarding this interesting post:

 

Silence does not necessarily mean a lack of noise; a blackbird singing is Silence, a noisy waterfall is Silence...what we may call I Am or Tao is being expressed as it is without the noise of thought disturbing it.

 

The Tao, God, I Am has no will to do anything for all outcomes are Itself; it is all just Life living itself out as a natural expression of what IT is. There are no preferences where there is only One.

 

In a way, what we are discussing is before silence, stillness and I Am...these are just human constructs. It is as it is and therefore appears still, silent, at peace - for there is nothing but itself to disturb itself.

 

'We' have nothing to do, nothing to be, or have something to evolve into; for 'we' are 'IT'; as we are, as it is. I am IT living as I. You are IT living as you. Space is IT being as space. No difference

Edited September 29, 2014 by Wayfarer

[BrokenYogi]

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..."

 

Ramana didn't really follow the traditional Advaitic view, especially on practice. He felt that Sankara and he were on the same page, but the traditional Advaitic stages of practice were a different story.

 

For example, Ramana was very critical of the use of neti-neti, which is the core of traditional advaita practice. He felt it introduced a negative attention towards phenomena, which could be just as limiting as a positive one. Instead, his form of self-enquiry always directed attention back upon its source, without any negative viewpoint towards thoughts or phenomenal arising.

 

Ramana also was very critical of the traditional Advaitic approach that was very heavy on study of the scriptures and the development of ideas and concepts about realization. There's a lot of Ramana's teaching that scolds people for resorting to book-learning rather than the direct process of self-enquiry.

 

One example would be when Ramana was asked to come to a gathering of traditional Advaitins to discuss his teaching. Instead, Ramana sent a young devotee of his with very little schooling in the traditions. The meeting went well, apparently, but when the devotee returned, he asked Ramana if he should embark on the traditional path of heavy study of the scriptures such as these traditional Advaitins were steeped in. Ramana told him not to worry, all that was unnecessary, and he should just do the practice Ramana taught him (self-enquiry), and he would learn much more that way.

 

Ramana did say that there were levels or stages of practice however, even of self-enquiry, but they did not correspond exactly to the traditional stages. In fact, Ramana's specific instructions on self-enquiry are not found in the traditions. The course of self-enquiry engaged there is markedly different. So even there, he wasn't a traditionalist.