Thanks to Franco and Cancerpiscis suggestion also, we begin a new stage in this blog, where we specific issues and investigate thoroughly. All are invited, of course.
The conversation will focus on the text sent by Franco.
Welcome and thank you for your participation in this blog - you are a luxury.
MAHARSHI & J. RAMANA K
illusion of difference
The impetus for this exhibition was created as a direct response to an article by Douglas Harding in the publication "The Mountain Path "in Harding which states that a huge gap divides the teachings of Ramana Maharshi and J. Krishnamurti, both in form and practice of realization.
object not see how the form and content of the teachings of Ramana Maharshi and J. Krishnamurti show large differences, but these are differences in the periphery rather than in essence. As I will demonstrate later in terms of existing practices exposed there is absolutely no experiential difference, except in the labels given to them. What Ramana Maharshi was formulated through the question "Who am I?, Krishnamurti for this was a matter of being aware without choice.
However, before discussing the two methods of inquiry, will be useful to look more closely "the differences of substance" according to Douglas Harding proposed. It is only by examining how valid are those which sets the stage for what is essential in the two teachings.
correctly, I believe, Douglas Harding calls attention to basically two types of spiritual teachers, spiritual, psychological and spiritual-religious, but he presents made a point of view without the proper information when referring to Krishnamurti. (I might add that Douglas Harding, one reply I wrote about my reservations about his opinion on Krishnamurti, acknowledged that his study this was not comprehensive and was therefore subject to misinterpretation. In addition, during his visit to South Africa, he publicly acknowledged that his "position of two ways of understanding" was not essentially different from no choice to realize Krishnamurti). But in the article he says:
The difference between them is wide and deep. For the first position, or the Meta Reality is strictly impersonal, an absence rather than presence, a cold white light, an emptiness, a disappearance, absolutely nothing more than the wonderful not-be fully awake Himself as anything and everything.
is my opinion that the teachings of Krishnamurti evolved in response to the general condition of the Western mind which, already convinced by the logic of the principles of materialism, living in a universe where God was dead. To reach that
mind and open to something beyond itself, Krishnamurti had to take the psychological path, which included the path of denial, to show what it is:
V. Ganesan, in his article "Research and Identity Ramsuratkumar quoted Sri Yogi (one of the great saints of today):
Krishnaji is for unbelievers. For believers, there are a lot of teachers to follow. But for a genuine non-believer, what is the refuge? Therefore, Krishnaji chose entirely different terms, but acceptable for non-believers ... I assure you, Krishnaji gives us the same essence as any of the great masters, but expressed in opposite terms.
addition, in Krishnamurti's notebooks, there are more than ample evidence that he was not pointing to "a vacuum" but to "wake up care ... in which the origin of thought had ceased. " This is perfectly in line with the declaration of Maharshi that "the intellect ... can never reach to himself. "
Teachings of Ramana Maharshi on the other hand, arose in the context of the traditional Indian mind where he had to negotiate the simplicity of his vision with spiritual legacies of those who came to him. He is different in that while insisting on the supremacy
question self (Self-inquiry), but also spoke in traditional terms for those spiritual conditions were simply too deep to see how simple.
However, as stated many firsthand accounts (for serious, reliable and made some very well known) the most important thing is that both radiated Krishnamurti Ramana Maharshi as a quality that drew the audience into them regardless of whether they understood these teachers intellectually or not, despite the possible deficiencies in expression and style that these great beings might have to communicate what for them was a living reality and unquestioned.
Douglas Harding also argues that because Krishnamurti, in his psychological approach to self-realization, asks us to be aware without choice of the activities of the mind so that thought can be transcended, he is inevitably involved in a process of "gradual and cumulative." Ramana Maharshi, by contrast, Harding argues, denies the mind and as such it points directly to the Self which is collected at the time. However, this is to overlook the only statement that Krishnamurti did so repeatedly, that the transformation can never be a matter of time, it is always in the immediate moment.
I assure you, that can be carried out immediately if you give full attention to it. (1954:69)
The other point at which Harding draws our attention to justify their point of view is that there is a large gap between Krishnamurti and Ramana Maharshi, which is the acceptance of previous of traditional scriptures, while the latter rejected them completely. In addition, Ramana Maharshi was recorded saying:
The sage who is the personification of the truths mentioned in the scriptures, these are not necessary for its realization.
I penetrated Harding points of difference in some detail, just to show that when the spiritual teachings are considered intellectually one can reach different conclusions because it is the very nature of dynamic teachings deal with the challenges of the moment and be natural to the requirements of time before the consistency of the verbal assurances. For this reason, both teachings of Ramana Maharshi and Krishnamurti, one will find statements that seem contradictory. But this is as it should be, because ultimately the teachings are pointing to what is beyond words. It is precisely because we are set in terms that fail to see that respect, by definition, can not be completely consistent. In the history of religions this false identification has caused much suffering for the resulting dispute over the words. The great teacher Nisargadatta Maharaj also said
I do not make claims about consistency. You believe that absolute consistency is possible, test it through an example.
Having sought to clarify the intellectual area residue that tends to overshadow the fundamental need more understanding, we look at the respective ways of self-inquiry advocated by Ramana Maharshi and Krishnamurti.
start with the "awareness without choice" of Krishnamurti.
For Krishnamurti, the election notice without realizing he meant the entire field of consciousness observable without condemnation whatever it is. This is simply the act of observation, both exterior and interior, and the reactions from the inside out.
The realization is a state in which there is no condemnation or justification, or identification, and therefore no understanding, in the passive state of alert to realize there is neither the experimenter nor the experienced. (1954:176)
If you really realize experiments with no choice, you automatically receive the actions of "my", the small self, let go his grip because the usual process identification creates the idea "I'm-my-body-and-my-thoughts" is denied by the act of observation without a "me" who is doing the observer. Where there is choice there is the birth of "my" moment to moment, but where there is choice there is only the state of awareness, which Krishnamurti said as the territory of Silence is the gateway to the immeasurable, which can not be named .
How different is to realize no choice, it is not a thought process but a continual observation of the mind, with the Auto-polling of Ramana Maharshi? Ramana Maharshi let speak for itself:
If the question "Who am I? were a mere mental questioning, it would not be of much value. The real purpose of Self-inquiry is to focus the entire mind at its source. This is not, therefore, the case of an "I" looking for another "me." Much less is the Auto-polling an empty formula, because it involves an intense activity of the whole mind to keep it permanently balanced on the single self-interrogation. (76)
What is indicated here is precisely the act of realizing no choice. Is experientially impossible to focus the mind the whole source "without being in a state of seeing (seeing), which at the beginning, at least, inevitably will involve seeing the activities of thought, but without identifying with them.
If Douglas Harding objected to the manner of Krishnamurti to be tied to the time compared to the snapshot Maharshi's self, then there has been a big misunderstanding of both methods, because in response to the question " For how long should the interrogation practiced, "said Ramana Maharshi:
As long as there impressions of objects in mind, much as the question "Who am I" required. To the extent that thoughts arise they should be destroyed at the same time and place in the same place of origin, through the question (8).
They both teaching similar confusions arise for consultants. Krishnamurti Ramana Maharshi as both assert that the transformation in the sense of having a true perception of who we really are, can be achieved now, yet both seem to indicate practices that involve time.
It is my contention that this is a paradox that one has to solve by yourself, because at the same address the paradox that we gain a realization of the logical difficulties of trying to understand what intellect is beyond the intellect. Also, try to explain intellectually would throw away from the real question.
In this view you can see the meaning of Zen koan whose sole purpose is to thwart the intellect to give up his verbal game maddening and so allowing the mind to see its real nature.
However, there are more a hint of what is meant by the teachings of Krishnamurti and Ramana Maharshi in the words of Nisargadatta Maharaj, which at the end, more than adequately summarizes the main methods of these two spiritual geniuses of the twentieth century.
The mere act of observing alters the observer and the observed.
After all, what prevents understanding of our true nature is the weakness and blindness of mind and its tendency to ignore the subtle and focus on the bulk only. When you take my advice and try to keep your mind on the notion of 'I am' only, you get to be fully aware of your mind and its vagaries. The realization, being lucid harmony (sattva) in action, dissolve the dark and quiet your restlessness of the mind and gently, but relentlessly changing its substance. This change need not be spectacular, it can be hardly noticeable, yet it is a profound and fundamental shift from darkness to light, from the unseen to realize. (271-272)
REFERENCIAS
Ganesan. V. 1991. Inquiry and Identity. The Mountain Path. 28 (1 & 2), 41- 48.
Harding, Douglas E. 1991. Ramana Maharshi and Krishnamurti: Differences of Substance. The Mountain Path. 28 (1 & 2), 20 - 22.
Krishnamurti, J. 1954. The First and Last Freedom. London: Victor Gollancz Ltd.
Krishnamurti, J. 1976. Krishnamurti’s Notebook. London: Victor Gollancz Ltd.
Maharaj, Nisargadatta. 1988. I Am That . Durham, North Carolina: The Acorn Press.
Nature is Sacred 
0 comments:
Post a Comment