05 September 2012

On Guru Concepts and Self-Inquiry

To Me:
My question is about the jnani behaviour,along indian history we heard about men who supposedly were in this state and had diffrent behaviours and life styles,some of them were hermits,others warriors like Krishna or kings like Janaka.Even Ramana Maharishi have said that self realization had nothing to do with samskaras.He have also said this:

"For a realized person, the one who remains ever in the Self, the loss of one or several or all lives in the world or in all the three worlds make no difference. Even if he happens to destroy them all,no sin can touch such a pure soul.Then Maharshi quoted the Gita, Chapter 18, Verse 17: -- 'He who is free from the notion of ego, whose intellect is unattached, though he annihilates
all the worlds, he slayeth not, nor is he bound by the results of his actions."

"The sage who knows the truth that the Self is indestructible will remain unaffected even if five million people are killed in his presence.Remember the advice of Krishna to Arjuna on the battlefield when disheartened by the thought of the impending slaughter of relatives on the opposing side."

Chadwick also made some criticisms of Ramana. He says that Ramana used to chew snuff(A pinch of smokeless tobacco inhaled at a single time), and that when Chadwick knew him he still chewed betel nut (Chadwick, 35).
A more serious ethical shortcoming is that caste was observed in the ashram dining room.On one side the Brahmins were seated, on the other side the rest. Ramana insisted on it (Chadwick, 34).

And Ramana seemed unconcerned regarding World War II. He is reported to have once remarked, “Who knows but that Hitler is a Jnani, a divine instrument.” (Chadwick, 35).
Ramana seemed to believe that a realized person was above ethical obligations of right and wrong. For the jnani there is no good or evil, only spontaneous activity or actionlessactivity of Tao:

What is right and wrong? There is no standard by which to judge something to be right and another to be wrong. Opinions differ according to the nature of the individual and according to the surroundings. They are again ideas and nothing more. Do not worry about them. But get rid of thoughts. If you always remain in the right, then right will prevail in the world (Talks, 428; Feb. 8, 1938)

I have take all this because this question of behavious sometimes give me some disturbance,because i think that i should be more good,more loving and etc.I always had the desire for the absolute but i canot see my self as a saint"who will offer the other cheek".I am sure self realization has nothing to do with sainthood.I would like to heard you opinion on this subject?

Ps: Even Ug Krishnamurti had said that the personality doesn't change.


Some interesting points you raise.

First, believe nothing you read in books or hear about.  The answers you find there are from long dead gurus responding to specific questions of long dead students, answering specifically for them, not for you and your almost unformed question.

Do not read too much about how to inquire into you, for are you not the one closest to you, where you are and what you mean when you ask a question?  Ramana lived in a different world completely, 70 years ago.  He was not of your time, his experiences were different from yours.

Trust only your own self, where it  should be.

The point is for you yourself to become self-realized, with whatever "faults" you may think you should not have.

Just be yourself, not how you think you should be.  This means getting rid of so many ideas of morality and proper behavior.

You will become more kind and compassionate, not less, but others may criticize whatever behavios manifest in you, but you will not care.




  1. "Trust your own self" as you say.
    ...And the Self is not the body, with its preferences, emotions, thoughts, memories, habits.

    So the seeming body cannot awaken, nor can the attributes of the body help so why crucify it?

    Seeming conviction helps: immediate apprehension of the self as the self. Then shit storms still swirl but peace prevails and love and devotion manifest as the pregnant language of the self.

    Some bodies seem to express less distortion of this love than others.

    Oddly, right and wrong as many of us insist upon becomes dry, brittle but truly love in all things does prevail: this devotion of the self!

  2. Apparently Chadwick did not directly hear Ramana make that comment, but rather it was reported to Chadwick that Ramana had reportedly made that comment.

    The following has been taken from http://www.arunachala-ramana.org/forum/index.php?topic=6021.15

    "The story about Hitler possibly being a jnani is one that Chadwick seems to have picked up second hand. He did not hear Bhagavan say this directly. This is how he reported it in A Sadhu’s Reminiscences:

    ‘During the war I never read the newspapers. I had, in fact, stopped doing so some time before the outbreak. I suppose it was really a form of escapism, but I did not escape much for even the nicest Indians took every opportunity of coming to me and crowing that the Allies were going to lose. Any catastrophe that happened they would not let escape my notice. They were, of course, working off some of their old resentment on me, a lot of which was the creation of the political propaganda of their leaders, besides the inherent sense of inferiority created by their position as a subject race. They became, however, much less communicative towards the end. Many of them now realize what would have happened to India if the Axis had won. The country would have been in chaos. But, though I did not read the papers, Bhagavan did. He was most punctilious in informing me if there was any notice in the paper which concerned British residents, such as reporting to the British Society, which was in charge of recruiting Britishers. Of course he was quite unmoved by the war and its course. Probably he saw it as just another turn in the wheel of Karma. He is reported to have remarked once, “Who knows but that Hitler is a Jnani, a divine instrument.” He was certainly a man of fate. To deny it by criticising many of his acts as evil is wrong. For the Jnani there is no good and evil. There is only action - spontaneous activity or the actionless activity of Tao. This has no Karma-binding effects. Yet it seems doubtful if Hitler’s actions were quite so disinterested, though it is not impossible.’"

  3. I have noticed that if i think "i need to be loving", automatically i am placing myself as "i am non-loving now". This creates a process, which hinders to be loving on the spot.

  4. Thanks for this post Ed. Here's another possible response: When one is in a state of divine grace all duality disappears, without which all concepts like right and wrong, good and evil etc, become utterly meaningless.

    I am not theorising here, this is my own experience. The whole of creation dances in perfect balance, and the suffering is as much a part of that as anything. Always progressing toward harmony before decaying into chaos again... One can even experience these cycles on a microcosmic scale in one's own life. If one isn't too desensitised by the rigours of modern living; addictions, worries, etc.

    Glad to hear that Ramana had his addictions too, makes him seem more human and less saintlike to me.

  5. Its is funny because in the email that you have send me,you dind't have put this part:"Do not read too much about how to inquire into you,for are you not the one closest to you, where you are and what you mean when you ask a question?Ramana lived in a different world completely, 70 years ago. He was not of your time, his experiences were different from yours.Trust only your own self, where it should be."

    Why do you mention the fact that Ramana had lived in a"completely diffrent world"?Self realization has nothing to do with time and space,those kind of human experiences are the same,does not matter in which contry or time.The abscence of right or wrong in existence is also timeless,so why mention the factor time?

  6. Paula, Istopped answering your questions because you kept arguing with me, telling me as here, what the truth is. You already know everything, so there is no need to teach me or communicate with me.

  7. During arguimentation everybody can learn,i realy dont know why do you see one problem with this!If i dont agree with you in some part,i simple start to argue to see if you can clarify to me or not(dont you reconizes the right to disagree?).My intention is not to create useless discussions,neither i know what truth is!

  8. This is so much more than i needed!!! but will all come in use thanks!!