[Advaita-l] Karma yoga: the kinder, softer preparation for self-inquiry and surrender

[H S Chandramouli]

Dear Venkat,

Reg  << In Nan Yar (Who am I?) Ramana writes in his second para:

“I am not this physical body, nor the five organs of perception; not the
five organs of activity, nor the five vital forces, nor even the thinking
mind. Neither am I that unconscious state of nescience which retains merely
the subtle vastness, while being free from functional activity of the sense
organs and mind.

Therefore summarily rejecting all the above-mentioned as ’not I, not I’,
that which then remains separate and alone by itself, that pure Awareness
is what I am.” >>,

As I had mentioned earlier, there is no difference in the final conclusion
of Advaita, Realization,  as between Sri Bhagavatpada and Sri Maharshi.
What we are discussing is the differences in methodology advocated for
achieving this Realization as between the two.

Reg  << Scriptures bring a person who is caught in the ignorance
to understand step by step - from creation to non-creation -  ’neti, neti’,
the best that words can do to describe Brahman.  Ramana is saying that that
neti, neti has then to be applied, each time a desire, a fear, an egoistic
thought arises; until that I-thought no longer arises.  That is abidance in
the Self, mouna.  Sankara says as much as set out in the first para above
>>,

Oh no. Scriptures go well beyond just stating neti-neti. It is part of the
process. They do not just stop at declaring what is NOT but also go on to
declare what IS the conclusion. Sri Maharshi, according to you, prescribes
the above mentioned procedure for Realization. That is not accepted in the
Sidhanta advanced by Sri Bhagavtpada. I may also mention here that many of
the Maharshis I had mentioned earlier also accept the first part but end up
with different conclusions in the followup part.

Regarding  ‘baalya’ and ‘mouna’, you have yourself stated that both are
AFTER gaining jnaana. What the Maharshi is advocating according to you is
FOR gaining jnaana. That is the difference.

Regards
Chandramouli

On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 2:16 PM Ven Balakrishnan <ventzu at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Dear H S Chandramouli
>
> I made the observation that Sankara had written: “therefore the knowledge
> of this Self, by the process of neti, neti and the renunciation of
> everything are the only means of attaining immortality”, and SSSS’ comments
> on baalya and mouna as the total rejection with disdain of any perceptual
> or conceptual knowledge of the not-self).  There is a logic to why neti,
> neti and renunciation go together.
>
> In Nan Yar (Who am I?) Ramana writes in his second para:
>
> “I am not this physical body, nor the five organs of perception; not the
> five organs of activity, nor the five vital forces, nor even the thinking
> mind. Neither am I that unconscious state of nescience which retains merely
> the subtle vastness, while being free from functional activity of the sense
> organs and mind.
> Therefore summarily rejecting all the above-mentioned as ’not I, not I’,
> that which then remains separate and alone by itself, that pure Awareness
> is what I am.”
>
> This teaching of Ramana is not something other than what Sankara has
> said.  Scriptures bring a person who is caught in the ignorance
> to understand step by step - from creation to non-creation -  ’neti, neti’,
> the best that words can do to describe Brahman.  Ramana is saying that that
> neti, neti has then to be applied, each time a desire, a fear, an egoistic
> thought arises; until that I-thought no longer arises.  That is abidance in
> the Self, mouna.  Sankara says as much as set out in the first para above.
>
> Best wishes.
>
>