self-enquiry and surrender

[Sankar Jayanarayanan]

Ramakrishnan wrote:

> This is going to be my last post on this subject.

Could you please make that your last but one? Thanks. I have some questions,
which I should have made clear the first time itself.Anyway, I'll just stick to
the point:

> >
> > I do remember a posting in the SRH (by Ken) which said how RamaNa also
> > recommended surrendering to the Guru. ("Either enquire into the self, or
 admit
> > your own inability and surrender to God or to the Guru. God or the Guru
 never
> > forsakes the devotee who comes for refuge".)
>
> You forgot to notice "Others are also quite valid as they lead to purification
> of the mind, and automatically _result_ in self enquiry.".

I didnot forget that. My point is that RamaNa was clearly specifying *two*
"ways". I mean:

> This holds true for
> surrender also. Complete surrender is synonymous with realization, which
> results from enquiry _only_. This point is quite clear from the talks.

It's not clear! (I mean the fact that the *only* path is self-enquiry,
admitting that "complete surrender" is synonymous with "realization"; at least
from the quote that Giri has provided)

quote from Giri's posting-------

Maharshi : Why do you want to know of Brahman apart from yourself ? The
scripture says "You are that" The Self is intimate to you and you can not
indeed be without the Self. Realise it. That is the Realisation of Brahman also.
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Disciple : But I am unable to do it. I am too weak to realise my Self.
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Maharshi : In that case surrender yourself unreservedly and the Higher
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
power will reveal Itself.

Disciple : What is unconditional surrender ?

Maharshi : If one surrenders oneself there will be no one to ask
questions or to be thought of. Either the thoughts are eliminated by
holding on to the root thought 'I' or one surrenders oneself
unconditionally to the Higher power. These are the only two ways for
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Realisation.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
---------------------

Why the "two ways"? RamaNa in fact explicitly states surrender as an alternate
path : "in that case...", i.e, if self-enquiry is not possible. Note: I don't
mean "bhakti" but "sharaNagati", in the sense of what RamaNa says,"unconditional
surrender to the Higher Power".

If the disciple were capable of self-enquiry, he wouldn't surrender in the
first place. "Surrender" leads to "revelation" ("the higher power will reveals
itself") and "self-enquiry" leads to "realization" ("realize the self").
Revelation and realization may be the same thing: but clearly, there are two
PATHS to it, as RamaNa himself says so _explicitly_.

This might make things clearer:

> > Definitely, sharaNaagati is _not_ self-enquiry. Rather, the former is to
 rely
> > upon "someone else", the latter is to rely upon "yourself". I'll be more
 clear:
> > surrender places emphasis on "Thou", and self-enquiry places emphasis on
 "I".
>
> Complete surrender = realization according to ramaNa. He has also said partial
> surrender will lead to complete surrender to one Maharani who visited him.

ok then:

1. self-enquiry leads to realization.
2. "partial surrender" also leads to "complete surrender" (realization).

There are two paths then: "self-enquiry" for the "meditative" disciples and
"surrender" for the "un-meditative"; the ONE goal being "realization".

Unless you contend that "surrender" = "self-enquiry", which is hardly credible,
especially as RamaNa himself says,"In that case...surrender", when the disciple
states his own lack of ability towards self-enquiry.

To be absolutely clear: surrender is _not_ "neti, neti" or "locating the source
of the `I' thought", which is otherwise termed "self-enquiry". Surrender is,
as RamaNa says,"surrendering oneself unconditionally to the Higher Power."

**Where is the question of a "Higher Power" in Self-enquiry?**

> I am not very well read about Ramakrishna. However the
> fact is that his quotes on samaadhi directly contradict both ramaNa and
> shaMkara. This does not mean he was not an advaitin. Various advaitins have
> contradicted each other.

You said that Ramakrishna espoused average(Vishishh. & advaita). And I believe
that it is advaita, that's all.

And when you said,"RamaNa, if anything, was an advaitin..." all made me think
that "Ramakrishna is not an advaitin".

What's more, repeatedly saying that Shankara and RamaNa were on one side and
Ramakrishna was "contradicting both" made me feel that way.

>
> > I distinctly remember RamaNa recommending Bhakti in his "talks".
> > What exactly is the advaitic notion of Bhakti?
>
> ramaNa has also recommended praaNaayaama and hatha yoga. He recommended
> iishvara aaraadhana for mind control also. Complete absorption in the self =
> realization = bhakti according to ramaNa. This bhakti is different from the
> usual concept of bhakti. In other words the JNaani is alone a bhakta.

Could you please quote from the talks? Because this is very unclear: why
two words "bhakti" and "GYAna" at all? It seems like erasing the word "bhakti"!

Anyway, it still feels like "surrender" and "self-enquiry" are different,
though the *realization* is identical.

>
> > > ramaNa has explicitly said that he is always in sahaja samadhi (or
 permanent
> > > nirvikalpa samadhi), again contrary to Ramakrishna.
> >
> > There are so many "contradictions" in advaita more glaring than that.
>
> You are introducing straw men into the argument un-necessarily.

Sorry!

I'll make up for that :-) :

I remember a book on the Shankara dig-vijayam, which said,"At such-and-such
place, Shankara remained immersed in Samadhi". Why are the time and place
specified? I'll try and get the reference.

And of course, Hastaamalaaka was supposed to be "always in samadhi, hence he
couldn't apply his mind to mundane matters of taking care of a maTh, etc., so
sureshvara took care of it". Which again suggests that one need not "always be
in samadhi", for the other disciples did take care of the MaThs, Shankara did
establish the MaThs, etc.

>
> Ramakrishnan.

-Kartik