Why the Ramana Maharshi model for humanity is flawed.

[PeteJ]

The point is that other than being a particularly charismatic purveyor of standard Hindu dogma (most of which is mythological nonsense), is there anything else about his teachings that truly represent something earth shattering?

If there is, then here is a good opportunity to show it to us.
_______

For goodness sake. Do you imagine you understand what Sri Ramana is teaching? Such arrogance. Do you not consider the possibility that it might take some effort to understand him?

He teaches what the Oracle at Delphi teaches and what the Perennial philosophy teaches. If you can find some sound objections to the the latter then I'll attempt to meet them. I haven't seen one yet.

There is nothing earth-shattering about his teachings. it is standard stuff in the perennial tradition. It's just that such a degree of realisation is rare, and this allows him to teach at a simple and direct level. Hos preferred method of teaching was silence, and if you don't know why this is then dismissing him as you do just reveals a lack of interest. When you dismiss him you do the same for Buddha. Lao Tsu, Rumi, Al-hallaj, Plotinus, Mooji. Osho, Wei Wu Wei, Nagarjuna. Eckhart and ten thousand other teachers of the same message. This is not a sensible way to approach philosophy.

You seem to think that by adopting his methods and discovering truth we must end up living the same life as him. This is a very basic misunderstanding. If you examine the lives of teachers of his message you'll see that while having certain characteristics in common they all have different characters and live their lives differently.

Perhaps you're making the mistake of thinking that Sri Ramana's teachings are unique to him. If you cannot see that he teaches what all the great sages teach then you're missing his message.

[Atla]

The point is that other than being a particularly charismatic purveyor of standard Hindu dogma (most of which is mythological nonsense), is there anything else about his teachings that truly represent something earth shattering?

If there is, then here is a good opportunity to show it to us.
_______

For goodness sake. Do you imagine you understand what Sri Ramana is teaching? Such arrogance. Do you not consider the possibility that it might take some effort to understand him?

He teaches what the Oracle at Delphi teaches and what the Perennial philosophy teaches. If you can find some sound objections to the the latter then I'll attempt to meet them. I haven't seen one yet.

There is nothing earth-shattering about his teachings. it is standard stuff in the perennial tradition. It's just that such a degree of realisation is rare, and this allows him to teach at a simple and direct level. Hos preferred method of teaching was silence, and if you don't know why this is then dismissing him as you do just reveals a lack of interest. When you dismiss him you do the same for Buddha. Lao Tsu, Rumi, Al-hallaj, Plotinus, Mooji. Osho, Wei Wu Wei, Nagarjuna. Eckhart and ten thousand other teachers of the same message. This is not a sensible way to approach philosophy.

You seem to think that by adopting his methods and discovering truth we must end up living the same life as him. This is a very basic misunderstanding. If you examine the lives of teachers of his message you'll see that while having certain characteristics in common they all have different characters and live their lives differently.

Perhaps you're making the mistake of thinking that Sri Ramana's teachings are unique to him. If you cannot see that he teaches what all the great sages teach then you're missing his message.

roydop thinks however that this world isn't fundamental reality, so humanity should just commit suicide, cease to exist.

If Ramana too thought that this isn't fundamental reality, then he was simply delusional. But I doubt that that's what he meant.

[Belinda]

Seeds wrote:

The point is that other than being a particularly charismatic purveyor of standard Hindu dogma (most of which is mythological nonsense),

The many myths of what we call 'Hinduism' describe ways to God, or good, or how best to live. There is no religion that does not do that or aim to do so. When I say religion I refer to the mythology and codification of morality and cosmological explanation.

[PeteJ]

roydop thinks however that this world isn't fundamental reality, so humanity should just commit suicide, cease to exist.

If Ramana too thought that this isn't fundamental reality, then he was simply delusional. But I doubt that that's what he meant.

It's very definitely not what he meant. For the Perennial philosophy the space-time world is not fundamental, and this is why life is so wonderful.
I struggle to grasp how anyone could think Ramana's teachings are pessimistic.

[Atla]

roydop thinks however that this world isn't fundamental reality, so humanity should just commit suicide, cease to exist.

If Ramana too thought that this isn't fundamental reality, then he was simply delusional. But I doubt that that's what he meant.

It's very definitely not what he meant. For the Perennial philosophy the space-time world is not fundamental, and this is why life is so wonderful.
I struggle to grasp how anyone could think Ramana's teachings are pessimistic.

Not sure I follow you. Spacetime may not be fundamental, but we humans sure are bound to it. The Perennial philosophy confirms that there is nothing for the individual after death, which can be somewhat depressing. All the memories and experiences of this human will be lost, and it's all pretty meaningless anyway.

On the other hand, one can find some solace in the idea of an eternal Absolute self, that we also "are" at the same time.

[Belinda]

The Perennial philosophy confirms that there is nothing for the individual after death, which can be somewhat depressing. All the memories and experiences of this human will be lost, and it's all pretty meaningless anyway.

It's not the least bit sad and no need for anyone to be depressed about death. If there is no sort of life after death then there is oblivion which means no sadness, no tears, no dashed hopes, no bereavement, no rotting body in grave, and no obliteration of humankind .

Meaning is made by living beings who have a use for meanings. Dead people have no use for meaning.

[Atla]

The Perennial philosophy confirms that there is nothing for the individual after death, which can be somewhat depressing. All the memories and experiences of this human will be lost, and it's all pretty meaningless anyway.

It's not the least bit sad and no need for anyone to be depressed about death. If there is no sort of life after death then there is oblivion which means no sadness, no tears, no dashed hopes, no bereavement, no rotting body in grave, and no obliteration of humankind .

Meaning is made by living beings who have a use for meanings. Dead people have no use for meaning.

It's life that's somewhat depressing or disappointing, not death. This is it, life doesn't amount to anything more (though there might turn out to be exceptions to this, maybe we'll see).

[Walker]

His epiphany: Back when first interested in Sri Ramana Maharshi, I read that when he was 16 or so, he lay down on the floor of the family house when alone and while lying motionless, he wondered what will happen when he dies, which led to the enquiry, who dies? Looking within he found the answer right then and there and everything changed. Soon after he found himself at the sacred mountain without money, clothes, food, or possessions. He stayed there for the rest of his life and without trying to do so, attracted pilgrims. That seems flawless for humanity.

After Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj realized after three years of the same enquiry, he lit out for the mountains to simply, Be. Then intellect caught up and he had no choice but to see his karma through to the end, like a turntable spinning only on momentum. That also seems flawless for humanity.

[seeds]

The point is that other than being a particularly charismatic purveyor of standard Hindu dogma (most of which is mythological nonsense), is there anything else about his teachings that truly represent something earth shattering?

If there is, then here is a good opportunity to show it to us.

For goodness sake. Do you imagine you understand what Sri Ramana is teaching? Such arrogance. Do you not consider the possibility that it might take some effort to understand him?

If you had paid the slightest bit of attention to the conversation then you should have noticed that the main intent of the thread is to point out to poster roydop how wrong he is in thinking that the extinction of humanity would be a good thing.

And if the “welcomed” extinction of humanity is what Ramana’s teachings have inspired him to accept, then either something is wrong with Ramana’s teachings, or roydop needs an attitude adjustment (or both).

He teaches what the Oracle at Delphi teaches and what the Perennial philosophy teaches. If you can find some sound objections to the the latter then I'll attempt to meet them. I haven't seen one yet.

I have nothing against the Perennial philosophy. Indeed, I have often used its central theme to support some of my arguments.

According to Wiki, the Perennial philosophy...

...is a perspective in spirituality that views all of the world's religious traditions as sharing a single, metaphysical truth or origin from which all esoteric and exoteric knowledge and doctrine has grown.

In which case, my only objection to the Perennial philosophy is that even though it makes what I believe is a logical assertion that all of the world’s religious traditions have a common origin, it offers absolutely nothing** towards resolving the mystery of what that shared origin actually is.

**(Nothing unless you view the divergent religious traditions as each possessing a hazy and tenuous piece of the “Grand Philosophical Puzzle.”)

There is nothing earth-shattering about his teachings. it is standard stuff in the perennial tradition. It's just that such a degree of realisation is rare, and this allows him to teach at a simple and direct level.

Again, you are missing the point of the thread being a rebuke against poster roydop’s assertions, one of which was this:

My Satguru Ramana Maharshi spoke of remaining in the heart and not "going out" in awareness into thought and sensations.

And my point of contention is that if we did not go out into “thought and sensations,” then I suggest that the ultimate purpose** of this universe would be rendered null and void.

**(Ask me what I think the “ultimate purpose” of the universe might actually be.)

Hos preferred method of teaching was silence, and if you don't know why this is then dismissing him as you do just reveals a lack of interest. When you dismiss him you do the same for Buddha. Lao Tsu, Rumi, Al-hallaj, Plotinus, Mooji. Osho, Wei Wu Wei, Nagarjuna. Eckhart and ten thousand other teachers of the same message. This is not a sensible way to approach philosophy.

I do not mean to seem disrespectful of those who have attempted to give us spiritual guidance down through the ages, for I have learned a great deal from many of them.

No, I am merely pointing out that the promoters of any of the “old paradigm” religions...

(Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc.)

...are working with doctrines that are so tainted with arcane and mythological nonsense that not only do they not fit-in with our modern understanding of the universe...

...but their incompatibility with each other in this new age of globalization has us on the verge of annihilating each other.

Thus, a sensible way to approach our dilemma would be to find a “new paradigm” (one that can [hopefully] shed light on that “...single, metaphysical truth...” that lies at the root of the Perennial philosophy).

From my own personal perspective, I believe that the universe is founded upon a transcendent level of consciousness and intelligence that is so far above our level that it makes you, me, Einstein, Ramana, Buddha, and Plotinus, et al, seem like amoebas in comparison.

And the point is that amoebas that appear to be in possession of a little more knowledge and insight than their fellow amoebas are still just amoebas (hence my air of dismissiveness).
_______

[Belinda]

Atla wrote:

It's life that's somewhat depressing or disappointing, not death. This is it, life doesn't amount to anything more (though there might turn out to be exceptions to this, maybe we'll see).

It's your life's work to make meanings. It's not supposed to be easy.

[Atla]

Atla wrote:

It's life that's somewhat depressing or disappointing, not death. This is it, life doesn't amount to anything more (though there might turn out to be exceptions to this, maybe we'll see).

It's your life's work to make meanings. It's not supposed to be easy.

Making meanings is what we do, but in the end this too is meaningless (void of meaning, I don't mean it in a negative sense).

[Dubious]

The Perennial philosophy confirms that there is nothing for the individual after death, which can be somewhat depressing. All the memories and experiences of this human will be lost, and it's all pretty meaningless anyway.

It's not the least bit sad and no need for anyone to be depressed about death. If there is no sort of life after death then there is oblivion which means no sadness, no tears, no dashed hopes, no bereavement, no rotting body in grave, and no obliteration of humankind .

Meaning is made by living beings who have a use for meanings. Dead people have no use for meaning.

That's for sure, just as what never existed had any use for it either. Meaning is shaped as an insignificant blip dividing one eternity. The Before and After are flatliners where the same single infinitesimal moment exists forever. Time changes nothing for the dead or all the potential existences which never came to be.

[Belinda]

Atla wrote:

Making meanings is what we do, but in the end this too is meaningless (void of meaning, I don't mean it in a negative sense).

But there is no end for people as long as there are people. It's only dead people who cannot tell the difference between meaning and meaningless.Live people can tell the difference. You are not dead.

[Atla]

Atla wrote:

Making meanings is what we do, but in the end this too is meaningless (void of meaning, I don't mean it in a negative sense).

But there is no end for people as long as there are people. It's only dead people who cannot tell the difference between meaning and meaningless.Live people can tell the difference. You are not dead.

?
I'm alive and can tell that everything is void of meaning. I just ignore this.

[PeteJ]

In which case, my only objection to the Perennial philosophy is that even though it makes what I believe is a logical assertion that all of the world’s religious traditions have a common origin, it offers absolutely nothing** towards resolving the mystery of what that shared origin actually is.

I'm not sure how you could be missing this. It is explained all over the place.

**(Nothing unless you view the divergent religious traditions as each possessing a hazy and tenuous piece of the “Grand Philosophical Puzzle.”)

.
Each of the main monotheistic religions has its mystical core. This is easy to determine. This would be its origin. The problem is only that monotheism denies it. Compare classical Christianity with the modern version and you'll see the story.

And my point of contention is that if we did not go out into “thought and sensations,” then I suggest that the ultimate purpose** of this universe would be rendered null and void.

I'd agree on this. But if we did not come back it would likewise be pointless.

No, I am merely pointing out that the promoters of any of the “old paradigm” religions...

(Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc.)

...are working with doctrines that are so tainted with arcane and mythological nonsense that not only do they not fit-in with our modern understanding of the universe...

...but their incompatibility with each other in this new age of globalization has us on the verge of annihilating each other.

I do not recognise the situation you describe. I feel you are awarding these traditions only a superficial reading. In what respect do they not fit in with modern science and philosophy?

Thus, a sensible way to approach our dilemma would be to find a “new paradigm” (one that can [hopefully] shed light on that “...single, metaphysical truth...” that lies at the root of the Perennial philosophy).

That single truth is the Unity of All. Even sceptics can work out that all other ideas fail in metaphysics. Almost everyone agrees that all positive metaphysical theories fail.

From my own personal perspective, I believe that the universe is founded upon a transcendent level of consciousness and intelligence that is so far above our level that it makes you, me, Einstein, Ramana, Buddha, and Plotinus, et al, seem like amoebas in comparison.

Okay. But this is not what is said by those who research these things. Rather, it would be founded on something so simple it is free of all distinction and division.

We needn't argue. I would simply suggest that the Perennial view may not be as easy to grasp as you imagine.