10 ms·

The Holy Men of India

57 points by perfmode 6y ago

seesawtron 6y ago
I found this to be very insightful from Jung that he beautifully captures here: "For the fact is, I doubt his uniqueness; he is of a type which always was and will be. Therefore it was not necessary to seek him out. I saw him all over India, in the pictures of Ramakrishna, in Ramakrishna’s disciples, in Buddhist monks, in innumerable other figures of the daily Indian scene, and the words of his wisdom are the sous-entendu of India’s spiritual life. Shri Ramana is, in a sense, a hominum homo, a true “son of man” of the Indian earth. He is “genuine,” and on top of that he is a “phenomenon” which, seen through European eyes, has claims to uniqueness. But in India he is merely the whitest spot on a white surface..."
carapace 6y ago
> It is evident that Shri Ramana has either really been more or less absorbed by the self, or has at least struggled earnestly all his life to extinguish his ego in it. In fact it was spontaneous: > July 1896, at age 16, he had a sudden fear of death. He was struck by "a flash of excitement" or "heat", like some avesam, a "current" or "force" that seemed to possess him, while his body became rigid. He initiated a process of self-enquiry, asking himself, "what it is that dies?" He concluded the body dies, but this "current" or "force" remains alive, and recognized this "current" or "force" as his Self, which he later identified with "the personal God, or Iswara". > In one of his rare written comments on this process Ramana Maharshi wrote, "inquiring within Who is the seer? I saw the seer disappear leaving That alone which stands forever. No thought arose to say I saw. How then could the thought arise to say I did not see." > Later in life, he called his death experience akrama mukti, "sudden liberation", as opposed to the krama mukti, "gradual liberation" ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramana_Maharshi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramana_Maharshi Ramana Maharshi taught the simple, direct method of enlightenment. FWIW I recently found this manual for "The Most Rapid and Direct Means to Eternal Bliss" https://albigen.com/uarelove/most_rapid/contents.htm https://albigen.com/uarelove/most_rapid/contents.htm
- perfmode 6y ago
  Thanks for the link to that manual. It is indeed quite direct. Self-Enquiry is like a ROP exploit for hacking consciousness.
- laichzeit0 6y ago
  > Ramana Maharshi taught the simple, direct method of enlightenment. Can someone explain why I should want "enlightenment"?
  - seesawtron 6y ago
    What do you think "enlightenment" means to you? Then it will be easier to understand whether you want it or not.
    - laichzeit0 6y ago
      I have no idea to be honest. But when ever I read about these sort of things it seems like people are seeking after some insight that requires meditation or introspection of some sort and I have absolutely no idea why people are seeking it or find it in any way necessary? Am I missing out on something? I am perfectly content with existence and whatever idea I have of "I" or "self" seems sufficient. But I still find it curious that other people don't? For example, I'd rather study mathematics than meditate or seek enlightenment. I'm not sure why I should spend time pursing that over other things I enjoy.
      - seesawtron 6y ago
        If you are perfectly content with your existence and your understanding of the "self", you do not need to pursue paths of meditation or enlightenment. One might think that you are being stubborn and egotistical by implying that you have everything figured out but those opinions don't matter. It is easier to live your life the way you want it individually but when you are part of a society, others expect you to behave in ways that might contradict your actions but that's just how the societal system works. As to why others choose to seek the said "enlightenment" varies from person to person. Sometimes its hard to find meaning in your everyday life and you get stuck in existential angst and it is not easy to go on. There one find comfort in seeking the answers and meaning through western or eastern philosophies , through meditation, through religion, through community or whatever fits well to their sense of the world. As the Easter Indic philosophy points out that the optimal and yet hardest path to "enlightenment" is not in abandonment of your responsibilites and an ascetic way of life but in the "middle" i.e. where you do your duty towards others in your everyday life while being aware of the the highest moral standards and doing your best to adhere to them (reflection of Stoicism here). I would assume this is something you believe you are already doing so cheers to that!
n_t 6y ago
While Jung here mostly seem to admire Ramana and India's philosophy, it is my opinion that world has largely slighted and meted out injustice to India's philosophical traditions. There are many exceptions, primarily among physicists and non-academic philosophers, but most commonly cited literature is very dismissive. It could be due to two reasons - 1. 1000+ years of invasions and occupations which deliberately mispotrayed indic philosophy, still has its effect. 2. Earlier academicians took a reductionist view or outright dismissal due to incorrect translation of literature and lack of cultural understanding. The translations were also incorrect as they were retrofitted into then familiar philosophies, religions and terms. Probably, same argument can be applied to many other ancient cultures too but I think over time native or non-native academicians took genuine interest and brought out the the best. For India, unfortunately, everything got entangled with politics post-independence, including philosophy. Indians themselves either have next to no knowledge of it's philosophical treasures (barring few sayings and quotes) or take very negative view of it's past contributions since that's what they have largely read. The end result is that now traditionalists are very apprehensive of any scrutiny or change as they feel more and more cornered. On the hand, modernists are even more vocally abusive of past, as with flooded with all sort of information (like the one from OP) general audience has started questioning their stance as well. I hope, eventually people will get to see the depth of Indian philosophies and with that start seeing religious text as high philosophies and its "holy-men" as philosophers (what they really are and as Jung sees) and not as godmen who craft miracles and wishes.
- switch11 6y ago
  very well put
- sidm83 6y ago
  Having been very much from the modernist camp, a few years ago I read some Norse mythology followed by some Greek. Whatever I knew of Indian mythology was mostly through festivals, stories told by elders during childhood and some children's books. Norse felt pretty much tribal in comparison and Greek was a bit better than Norse, still it felt short of childhood memories. So I started to dig up more about Indian, and boy it took me a while in wikipedia figuring out the chronology and even the different kinds of literature that existed, a real rabbit hole. I have just about started out and got a long way to go.
blackhaz 6y ago
For those wondering about Maharshi, I would wholeheartedly recommend the book "Be as You Are, the Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi" edited by David Godman (Penguin) ISBN 978-0-14-019062-5.
nabla9 6y ago
I have read a lot about Jung and Ramana Maharshi when I was younger. Carl Jung had very strange inner life. He could create hallucinatory beings to talk and interact with, while still fully understanding that they were inside his mind. Very atypical mind. Interesting person to read about and influenced western thinking about psychology. As a scientist and psychologist he gave new ideas, not better scientific understanding. Probably because his unique psyche. His ideas are too much influenced by what is to be Carl Jung. Ramana Maharshi was another atypical person, probably had some neurologically interesting going on in his mind. As a young boy he could sleep so deep that his friends could drag him outside and beat him without waking him up. One Buddhist teacher described Maharshi as the most realized person he ever met, but his method of teaching was not as good as what other meditation practices can achieve. He gave some rudimentary instructions, but if you are not a worshipper type there was no reason to stick around him. Mostly people just gathered around to worship and hear him talk.
- kaybe 6y ago
  Concerning the hallucinatory beings, if you're interested it it have a look at the tulpa subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Tulpas/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Tulpas/ edit: I'm browsing that place again and am still not sure what to make of it. It's.. weird. (The link was not a recommendation to try btw, just have a look.)
- kumarvvr 6y ago
  Nothing about his teachings is rudimentary. The feel like that because they look as simple thoughts. But those simple thoughts are enough to attain realization of the self, according to hindu philosophy. However, they are not suited for the normal layman, because realization through Ramana Maharshis teachings involves a certain level of knowledge and thought. I highly encourage you to read "Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi" by his disciple. In those talks, maharshi breaks down how the elaborate hindu cultural and vedic literature ultimately boils down to utter simplicity.
  - nabla9 6y ago
    I have read it. The point is that for committed practitioners reading books and listening teaching talks is not is not enough. It helps only so much. Buddhist teacher was someone who had meditated and studied decades. He recognized Maharshis was very realized. His point was that Maharshis was not able to teach more than that was in his talks in personal contact. Well known fact in these circles is that medicore person who has struggled his whole life can teach his way to other in personal contact much better than someone who is just amazing.
iambrj 6y ago
Ramana's experience with a near death incident reminds me of Wittgenstein enrolling in the army for the war so that he can have a near death experience himself
- perfmode 6y ago
  Wittgenstein is special. what are his books if not non-dual pointings?
yesenadam 6y ago
Not really interested what Jung says about Maharshi - I had a Jung phase after my Freud phase, aged about 20, and came away not at all impressed. Also had a Hindu guru (and many other religions) phase in my mid 20s. I loved Vivekananda, but Maharshi was the most impressive. I read the Gospel of Ramana Maharshi again 20 years later..and 90%+ of it still seemed true, because he mostly taught from his direct experience, not what he'd heard or read in books. What he knew to be true. More immediately accessible for westerners might be Gangaji, an American woman, who has videos (some on youtube) and books out, who is in Maharshi's lineage, and has that same quality of speaking from direct experience. She's great. Also I got a lot from Ram Dass's books and tapes. Yes, the guy who was a Harvard psychology professor until he had LSD. Super-articulate and I love his attitude, full of love and joy.
foobar_ 6y ago
It is interesting how the buddhist conception of not-self goes against this. People often confuse Indian philosophy with Hinduism. That's usually not the case. The western equivalents would be Neo-Platonism and Stoicism, which have little to do with Greek Paganism or Christianity. It seems cultures all across the world come up with similar ideas. People should be vary of fraudsters and cults. There are plenty of holy men who run a shady business and use magic tricks to deceive others for personal benefit. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grDKdmUcGig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grDKdmUcGig [Documentary Holy Men and Fools] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcPuRaSEq1I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcPuRaSEq1I [James Randi] I also remember watching documentaries about Osho and Bikram yoga on Netflix, which highlight spiritual narcissism.
haltingproblem 6y ago
I am more familiar with the Buddhist literature on the self and the theory of mind which was developed in India alongside the Vedic approaches. There should be something similar in the Vedic system. The article is guilty of the same fault it attributes to others - namely looking at Indian philosophy and its theory of self from a Western lens and missing the vast majority of literature. In the Buddhist system, they first start by dismantling the idea of a fixed unchanging self by various. This is accomplished in progressively sophisticated arguments - self is just an aggregation of parts, to self is just that which functions to self is a transient changing phenomenon we construct on a moment-by-moment basis. Then there are extremely sophisticated divisions of the function of the (so-called) mind. See Plato (https://stanford.io/2UFYPZW https://stanford.io/2UFYPZW) for a comphrensive overview and this one for good readable (https://evanthompsondotme.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/indian-theories-of-mind.pdf https://evanthompsondotme.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/indian...) intro. There are many schools of thought in ancient India like the Carvaka, who were rational/materialist, which no longer exist. Then there are traditions like Mahanyana and Theravada Buddhism that were destroyed after the Islamic conquest from 1100~1400 AD. No survey is complete without considering these traditions.
- perfmode 6y ago
  Books and scriptures serve to indicate the existence of the Higher Power or Self and to point the way to It. That is their essential purpose. Apart from that they are useless. However, they are voluminous, in order to be adapted to the level of development of every seeker. As a person rises in the scale he finds the stages already attained to be only stepping stones to higher stages, until finally the goal is reached. When that happens, the goal alone remains and everything else, including the scriptures, become useless. The intricate maze of philosophy of the various schools is said to clarify matters and to reveal the Truth, but in fact it creates confusion where none need exist. To understand anything there must be the Self. The Self is obvious, so why not remain as the Self? What need to explain the non-self?
  - haltingproblem 6y ago
    I will try but any incoherence is just my lack of understanding ;) Why prove that the self is a delusion and it does not exist. First lets try a simple example of refutation of the self - I am putting a car together part by part, first the chassis, then the engine block, then the tires. At each point I turn to ask you "is it a car yet". You say no but at some point, you say "its a car now". The notion of "this is a car now" is created in your mind the moment the last part was added. The last part by itself does not contain "car" any more than other parts. Similarly, we can explain the notion of self. It is an illusion formed in the mind. Once we understand that it does not exist but is simply a collection of physical and mental phenomena - we have reached no-self. Why bother with this? The realization of no-self creates the space to understand that we can be anything because we lack a fixed nature (self). Of course, this leads to many apparent contradictions. Why should the present me bother to help the future me if the self is illusory and changing (i.e. not fixed) ;)

57 points by perfmode 6y ago

I found this to be very insightful from Jung that he beautifully captures here: "For the fact is, I doubt his uniqueness; he is of a type which always was and will be. Therefore it was not necessary to seek him out. I saw him all over India, in the pictures of Ramakrishna, in Ramakrishna’s disciples, in Buddhist monks, in innumerable other figures of the daily Indian scene, and the words of his wisdom are the sous-entendu of India’s spiritual life. Shri Ramana is, in a sense, a hominum homo, a true “son of man” of the Indian earth. He is “genuine,” and on top of that he is a “phenomenon” which, seen through European eyes, has claims to uniqueness. But in India he is merely the whitest spot on a white surface..."

carapace 6y ago

> It is evident that Shri Ramana has either really been more or less absorbed by the self, or has at least struggled earnestly all his life to extinguish his ego in it. In fact it was spontaneous: > July 1896, at age 16, he had a sudden fear of death. He was struck by "a flash of excitement" or "heat", like some avesam, a "current" or "force" that seemed to possess him, while his body became rigid. He initiated a process of self-enquiry, asking himself, "what it is that dies?" He concluded the body dies, but this "current" or "force" remains alive, and recognized this "current" or "force" as his Self, which he later identified with "the personal God, or Iswara". > In one of his rare written comments on this process Ramana Maharshi wrote, "inquiring within Who is the seer? I saw the seer disappear leaving That alone which stands forever. No thought arose to say I saw. How then could the thought arise to say I did not see." > Later in life, he called his death experience akrama mukti, "sudden liberation", as opposed to the krama mukti, "gradual liberation" ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramana_Maharshi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramana_Maharshi Ramana Maharshi taught the simple, direct method of enlightenment. FWIW I recently found this manual for "The Most Rapid and Direct Means to Eternal Bliss" https://albigen.com/uarelove/most_rapid/contents.htm https://albigen.com/uarelove/most_rapid/contents.htm

perfmode 6y ago
Thanks for the link to that manual. It is indeed quite direct. Self-Enquiry is like a ROP exploit for hacking consciousness.
laichzeit0 6y ago
> Ramana Maharshi taught the simple, direct method of enlightenment. Can someone explain why I should want "enlightenment"?
- seesawtron 6y ago
  What do you think "enlightenment" means to you? Then it will be easier to understand whether you want it or not.
  - laichzeit0 6y ago
    I have no idea to be honest. But when ever I read about these sort of things it seems like people are seeking after some insight that requires meditation or introspection of some sort and I have absolutely no idea why people are seeking it or find it in any way necessary? Am I missing out on something? I am perfectly content with existence and whatever idea I have of "I" or "self" seems sufficient. But I still find it curious that other people don't? For example, I'd rather study mathematics than meditate or seek enlightenment. I'm not sure why I should spend time pursing that over other things I enjoy.
    - seesawtron 6y ago
      If you are perfectly content with your existence and your understanding of the "self", you do not need to pursue paths of meditation or enlightenment. One might think that you are being stubborn and egotistical by implying that you have everything figured out but those opinions don't matter. It is easier to live your life the way you want it individually but when you are part of a society, others expect you to behave in ways that might contradict your actions but that's just how the societal system works. As to why others choose to seek the said "enlightenment" varies from person to person. Sometimes its hard to find meaning in your everyday life and you get stuck in existential angst and it is not easy to go on. There one find comfort in seeking the answers and meaning through western or eastern philosophies , through meditation, through religion, through community or whatever fits well to their sense of the world. As the Easter Indic philosophy points out that the optimal and yet hardest path to "enlightenment" is not in abandonment of your responsibilites and an ascetic way of life but in the "middle" i.e. where you do your duty towards others in your everyday life while being aware of the the highest moral standards and doing your best to adhere to them (reflection of Stoicism here). I would assume this is something you believe you are already doing so cheers to that!

n_t 6y ago

While Jung here mostly seem to admire Ramana and India's philosophy, it is my opinion that world has largely slighted and meted out injustice to India's philosophical traditions. There are many exceptions, primarily among physicists and non-academic philosophers, but most commonly cited literature is very dismissive. It could be due to two reasons - 1. 1000+ years of invasions and occupations which deliberately mispotrayed indic philosophy, still has its effect. 2. Earlier academicians took a reductionist view or outright dismissal due to incorrect translation of literature and lack of cultural understanding. The translations were also incorrect as they were retrofitted into then familiar philosophies, religions and terms. Probably, same argument can be applied to many other ancient cultures too but I think over time native or non-native academicians took genuine interest and brought out the the best. For India, unfortunately, everything got entangled with politics post-independence, including philosophy. Indians themselves either have next to no knowledge of it's philosophical treasures (barring few sayings and quotes) or take very negative view of it's past contributions since that's what they have largely read. The end result is that now traditionalists are very apprehensive of any scrutiny or change as they feel more and more cornered. On the hand, modernists are even more vocally abusive of past, as with flooded with all sort of information (like the one from OP) general audience has started questioning their stance as well. I hope, eventually people will get to see the depth of Indian philosophies and with that start seeing religious text as high philosophies and its "holy-men" as philosophers (what they really are and as Jung sees) and not as godmen who craft miracles and wishes.

switch11 6y ago
very well put
sidm83 6y ago
Having been very much from the modernist camp, a few years ago I read some Norse mythology followed by some Greek. Whatever I knew of Indian mythology was mostly through festivals, stories told by elders during childhood and some children's books. Norse felt pretty much tribal in comparison and Greek was a bit better than Norse, still it felt short of childhood memories. So I started to dig up more about Indian, and boy it took me a while in wikipedia figuring out the chronology and even the different kinds of literature that existed, a real rabbit hole. I have just about started out and got a long way to go.

blackhaz 6y ago

For those wondering about Maharshi, I would wholeheartedly recommend the book "Be as You Are, the Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi" edited by David Godman (Penguin) ISBN 978-0-14-019062-5.

nabla9 6y ago

I have read a lot about Jung and Ramana Maharshi when I was younger. Carl Jung had very strange inner life. He could create hallucinatory beings to talk and interact with, while still fully understanding that they were inside his mind. Very atypical mind. Interesting person to read about and influenced western thinking about psychology. As a scientist and psychologist he gave new ideas, not better scientific understanding. Probably because his unique psyche. His ideas are too much influenced by what is to be Carl Jung. Ramana Maharshi was another atypical person, probably had some neurologically interesting going on in his mind. As a young boy he could sleep so deep that his friends could drag him outside and beat him without waking him up. One Buddhist teacher described Maharshi as the most realized person he ever met, but his method of teaching was not as good as what other meditation practices can achieve. He gave some rudimentary instructions, but if you are not a worshipper type there was no reason to stick around him. Mostly people just gathered around to worship and hear him talk.

kaybe 6y ago
Concerning the hallucinatory beings, if you're interested it it have a look at the tulpa subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Tulpas/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Tulpas/ edit: I'm browsing that place again and am still not sure what to make of it. It's.. weird. (The link was not a recommendation to try btw, just have a look.)
kumarvvr 6y ago
Nothing about his teachings is rudimentary. The feel like that because they look as simple thoughts. But those simple thoughts are enough to attain realization of the self, according to hindu philosophy. However, they are not suited for the normal layman, because realization through Ramana Maharshis teachings involves a certain level of knowledge and thought. I highly encourage you to read "Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi" by his disciple. In those talks, maharshi breaks down how the elaborate hindu cultural and vedic literature ultimately boils down to utter simplicity.
- nabla9 6y ago
  I have read it. The point is that for committed practitioners reading books and listening teaching talks is not is not enough. It helps only so much. Buddhist teacher was someone who had meditated and studied decades. He recognized Maharshis was very realized. His point was that Maharshis was not able to teach more than that was in his talks in personal contact. Well known fact in these circles is that medicore person who has struggled his whole life can teach his way to other in personal contact much better than someone who is just amazing.

iambrj 6y ago

Ramana's experience with a near death incident reminds me of Wittgenstein enrolling in the army for the war so that he can have a near death experience himself

perfmode 6y ago
Wittgenstein is special. what are his books if not non-dual pointings?

yesenadam 6y ago

Not really interested what Jung says about Maharshi - I had a Jung phase after my Freud phase, aged about 20, and came away not at all impressed. Also had a Hindu guru (and many other religions) phase in my mid 20s. I loved Vivekananda, but Maharshi was the most impressive. I read the Gospel of Ramana Maharshi again 20 years later..and 90%+ of it still seemed true, because he mostly taught from his direct experience, not what he'd heard or read in books. What he knew to be true. More immediately accessible for westerners might be Gangaji, an American woman, who has videos (some on youtube) and books out, who is in Maharshi's lineage, and has that same quality of speaking from direct experience. She's great. Also I got a lot from Ram Dass's books and tapes. Yes, the guy who was a Harvard psychology professor until he had LSD. Super-articulate and I love his attitude, full of love and joy.

foobar_ 6y ago

It is interesting how the buddhist conception of not-self goes against this. People often confuse Indian philosophy with Hinduism. That's usually not the case. The western equivalents would be Neo-Platonism and Stoicism, which have little to do with Greek Paganism or Christianity. It seems cultures all across the world come up with similar ideas. People should be vary of fraudsters and cults. There are plenty of holy men who run a shady business and use magic tricks to deceive others for personal benefit. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grDKdmUcGig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grDKdmUcGig [Documentary Holy Men and Fools] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcPuRaSEq1I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcPuRaSEq1I [James Randi] I also remember watching documentaries about Osho and Bikram yoga on Netflix, which highlight spiritual narcissism.

haltingproblem 6y ago

I am more familiar with the Buddhist literature on the self and the theory of mind which was developed in India alongside the Vedic approaches. There should be something similar in the Vedic system. The article is guilty of the same fault it attributes to others - namely looking at Indian philosophy and its theory of self from a Western lens and missing the vast majority of literature. In the Buddhist system, they first start by dismantling the idea of a fixed unchanging self by various. This is accomplished in progressively sophisticated arguments - self is just an aggregation of parts, to self is just that which functions to self is a transient changing phenomenon we construct on a moment-by-moment basis. Then there are extremely sophisticated divisions of the function of the (so-called) mind. See Plato (https://stanford.io/2UFYPZW https://stanford.io/2UFYPZW) for a comphrensive overview and this one for good readable (https://evanthompsondotme.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/indian-theories-of-mind.pdf https://evanthompsondotme.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/indian...) intro. There are many schools of thought in ancient India like the Carvaka, who were rational/materialist, which no longer exist. Then there are traditions like Mahanyana and Theravada Buddhism that were destroyed after the Islamic conquest from 1100~1400 AD. No survey is complete without considering these traditions.

perfmode 6y ago
Books and scriptures serve to indicate the existence of the Higher Power or Self and to point the way to It. That is their essential purpose. Apart from that they are useless. However, they are voluminous, in order to be adapted to the level of development of every seeker. As a person rises in the scale he finds the stages already attained to be only stepping stones to higher stages, until finally the goal is reached. When that happens, the goal alone remains and everything else, including the scriptures, become useless. The intricate maze of philosophy of the various schools is said to clarify matters and to reveal the Truth, but in fact it creates confusion where none need exist. To understand anything there must be the Self. The Self is obvious, so why not remain as the Self? What need to explain the non-self?
- haltingproblem 6y ago
  I will try but any incoherence is just my lack of understanding ;) Why prove that the self is a delusion and it does not exist. First lets try a simple example of refutation of the self - I am putting a car together part by part, first the chassis, then the engine block, then the tires. At each point I turn to ask you "is it a car yet". You say no but at some point, you say "its a car now". The notion of "this is a car now" is created in your mind the moment the last part was added. The last part by itself does not contain "car" any more than other parts. Similarly, we can explain the notion of self. It is an illusion formed in the mind. Once we understand that it does not exist but is simply a collection of physical and mental phenomena - we have reached no-self. Why bother with this? The realization of no-self creates the space to understand that we can be anything because we lack a fixed nature (self). Of course, this leads to many apparent contradictions. Why should the present me bother to help the future me if the self is illusory and changing (i.e. not fixed) ;)