Did Ramana Maharshi teach about Brahman and Maya?

[Martin]

So are you saying Atman is devoid of bliss and that bliss is only the intrinsic quality of anandamaya sheath??
...
And that whoever experiences this blissfull anandamaya sheath in meditation experiences bliss (moksha)??
...
And that one can never actually experience Atman, but one can always realize the 'bliss' of the blissful anandamaya sheath instead??
Is this what you're saying??

If Atman/turiya is pure consciousness, then presumably bliss is something known to Atman/turiya, an object of experience.

There is also the question of how we interpret "satchitananda". Is it the experience of "being" Brahman?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I don't know, in what notion you point the "one", like same memory/etc.
Let's see whether you say the same after you attain Siddhi powers and Enlightenment.

Because, many scriptures speak about 'desires' in the time of death becomes seed for birth, as it has deep impresseions to be acquired/experienced. So, to find out whether "You Only Live Once", let one speak about it after Siddhi powers and Enlightenment. Let one become Buddha or like many sages, and then accept/reject about re-incarnations.

I have already attained 'Siddhi' and I am an 'enlightened' person. Yes, I am 'jeevan-mukta', 'videhi', 'kaivalya jnani'. The dichotomy is only with the unenlightened. 'Me' and 'my' memory / consciousness will not exist after my death and will never make a return. I know, most humans are not courageous enough to accept this stark reality.

The molecules that constitute me are not going to die. They will become part of millions of living and non-living things. If you want to term that (chemical cycle) as rebirth, you are well come. If the scriptures talk of any thing other than that, then they are not correct. Buddha never said that 'self' is ever reborn. Sage Brihaspati was not wrong when and if he said (there are no authentic records):

"Bhasmi bhūtasya dehasya, punarāgamanam kutah?"

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. how we interpret "satchitananda" ..

It is basically a poetic blurb.

 

[Viswa]

I have already attained 'Siddhi' and I am an 'enlightened' person. Yes, I am 'jeevan-mukta', 'videhi', 'kaivalya jnani'. The dichotomy is only with the unenlightened. 'Me' and 'my' memory / consciousness will not exist after my death and will never make a return. I know, most humans are not courageous enough to accept this stark reality.

The molecules that constitute me are not going to die. They will become part of millions of living and non-living things. If you want to term that (chemical cycle) as rebirth, you are well come. If the scriptures talk of any thing other than that, then they are not correct. Buddha never said that 'self' is ever reborn. Sage Brihaspati was not wrong when and if he said (there are no authentic records):

"Bhasmi bhūtasya dehasya, punarāgamanam kutah?"

Hey Aup. What about individual desires?? What happens to unfulfilled desires in one's mind after or at the time of death?

You maybe a "Jivan Mukta". My obeisance to you. But cannot as Videha Mukti speak to me. I'm sorry Jivan Mukta.
And,
Congratulations. Hope you attain many enlightenments and not rest with this. Good to go.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

If Atman/turiya is pure consciousness, then presumably bliss is something known to Atman/turiya, an object of experience.

There is also the question of how we interpret "satchitananda". Is it the experience of "being" Brahman?

I have the same question as well. Lets hope we find the answers in this life.
:=)

 

[Aupmanyav]

Hey Aup. What about individual desires?? What happens to unfulfilled desires in one's mind after or at the time of death?
Hope you attain many enlightenments and not rest with this. Good to go. Congratulations.

Desires either go up in flames or remain buried in graves.
There is nothing more for me to attain.

"māna apamānayah tulyah, tulyah mitra ari-pakṣayaḥ;
sarva ārambha-parityāgī, guṇātītaḥ sa ucyate." BG 14.25

(Situated equally well in praise and blame, honor and dishonor; who treats alike both friend and enemy; and who has renounced all material activities – such a person is said to have transcended the modes of nature.)

That means that if you want to make fun of me, that does not affect me.

 

[Viswa]

Desires either go up in flames or remain buried in graves.
There is nothing more for me to attain.

"māna apamānayah tulyah, tulyah mitra ari-pakṣayaḥ;
sarva ārambha-parityāgī, guṇātītaḥ sa ucyate." BG 14.25

(Situated equally well in praise and blame, honor and dishonor; who treats alike both friend and enemy; and who has renounced all material activities – such a person is said to have transcended the modes of nature.)

That means that if you want to make fun of me, that does not affect me.

Yes, Just for Laugh. Good to know that you take it wise.

So, you say,
"Desires either go up in flames or remain buried in graves.
There is nothing more for me to attain."

Does it mean, Desires doesn't matter after death, and it goes unfulfilled? Not reap fruits? I'm not asking you particularly, but what happens to people's desires who die in vain? When their desires are unfulfilled and they die thinking about that, what happens to those desires?

Also, as you said "Desire go up in flames or remain buried" - How do you know that what happens to desires after death, as there is no you after death itself? If there is no 'you' after death, how come you 'know' what happens to desires? It go with flames or remain buried, you cannot tell so because there is no 'you' after death and you must not know what happens to it. Right?

If you 'know' what happens to those desires after death, then 'you' or 'your consciousness' remain after death and watch what happens to those desires, being buried or go up in flame?

 

[Aupmanyav]

"Desires either go up in flames or remain buried in graves.
There is nothing more for me to attain."

Does it mean, Desires doesn't matter after death, and it goes unfulfilled? Not reap fruits? I'm not asking you particularly, but what happens to people's desires who die in vain? When their desires are unfulfilled and they die thinking about that, what happens to those desires?

Also, as you said "Desire go up in flames or remain buried" - How do you know that what happens to desires after death, as there is no you after death itself? If there is no 'you' after death, how come you 'know' what happens to desires? It go with flames or remain buried, you cannot tell so because there is no 'you' after death and you must not know what happens to it. Right?

If you 'know' what happens to those desires after death, then 'you' or 'your consciousness' remain after death and watch what happens to those desires, being buried or go up in flame?

Whose desires, when the 'who' does not exist? Desires cease to exist after death along with the person and his mind. No fruits there. Nobody dies in gain or vain. Death depends on probability and chance.

How do I know what happens after death: I make a reasoned guess.

 

[Viswa]

Whose desires, when the 'who' does not exist? Desires cease to exist after death along with the person and his mind. No fruits there. Nobody dies in gain or vain. Death depends on probability and chance.

How do I know what happens after death: I make a reasoned guess.

Guess..........

 

[Aupmanyav]

No, I have seen many dying but never saw any ghost rise. At least I can say that. What can you say about existence of ghosts with unfulfilled desires?

 

[The Crimson Universe]

@Viswa Our friend Aup here is an atheist.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

I have the same question as well. Lets hope we find the answers in this life.
:=)

@Greg Levenski you will not find any new answers.

If you have read Shankara, he says in multiple places (right from his commentary on the very first Brahma Sutra 1.1.1) that knowledge liberates. It is not mediation, Bhakti (or any type of action), but knowledge alone that liberates. You will find all of this in his commentary on the first few sutras. It is purely intellectual with no mystical content.

Now there is no secret knowledge for you to discover. Everything is written down and easily available to all humans. Any answers you are looking for, are already in the vast amount of material that has come down to us. And I am sure by this time, you have already read all of it.

The obstacle here is that most of this material is junk. For you to wade through all of it to find your answers is the challenge. How do you unlearn?

I'll pull up the quote from my signature -

Brahman cannot logically be a goal to be attained; For one cannot reach where one already is - Shankara, BSB 4.3.14

 

[Martin]

@Greg Levenski you will not find any new answers.

If you have read Shankara, he says in multiple places (right from his commentary on the very first Brahma Sutra 1.1.1) that knowledge liberates. It is not mediation, Bhakti (or any type of action), but knowledge alone that liberates. You will find all of this in his commentary on the first few sutras.

Now there is no secret knowledge for you to discover. Everything is written down and easily available to all humans. Any answers you are looking for, are already in the vast amount of material that has come down to us. And I am sure by this time, you have already read all of it.

The obstacle here is that most of this material is pure junk. For you to wade through all of it to find your answers is the challenge. How do you unlearn?

So how do separate out the useful bits from all the junk? What's your approach?

 

[shivsomashekhar]

So how do separate out the useful bits from all the junk? What's your approach?

My strong opinion - start from the basics.

What is Advaita?
It is the teaching of Shankara. Ignore people who came later and go straight to the source.

But Shankara has authored several books?
If you read only one book of Shankara, it should be Upadesha Sahasri. This text is definitely legitimate as it was quoted by his direct disciples. Viveka Chudamani is of dubious origin.

Anything else?

1. Gaudapada's Mandukya Karika (Gaudapada was Shankara's Guru's Guru)
2. It may help to learn the context behind Advaita. That is, Advaita vs. other streams of Vedanta and Advaita vs. Buddhism (particularly Vijnanavada) as it connects all the dots.

This is all anyone needs. Reading more will only result in confusion. I wish they had spent some time writing about the nature of time. I believe this would have made it a lot more simpler.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

@shivsomashekhar So according to Shankara how should we acquire this knowledge?

 

[Viswa]

No, I have seen many dying but never saw any ghost rise. At least I can say that. What can you say about existence of ghosts with unfulfilled desires?

Nope. Nothing about Ghosts. Just about Mind and Thoughts and Desires.

 

[ajay0]

"The mind is maya (illusion). Reality lies beyond the mind." ~ Ramana Maharshi

'The pure mind is itself Brahman; it therefore follows that Brahman is not other than the mind of the sage.'~ Ramana Maharshi


Through these sayings, you can see that Ramana had talked about the nature of maya and Brahman.

The compulsive mind, projected by vasanas and desires, is Maya due to its externalizing influence on the person forcing him or her to seek happiness in transient pleasures.

The purified mind, equanimous and aware, becomes an instrument to perceive the Self or Brahman and enjoys the bliss of the eternal Self, much superior to finite sense-pleasures.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So how do separate out the useful bits from all the junk? What's your approach?

First choose what is necessary for you? Can you do without God? Otherwise it would not be advaita but some diluted concoction. Like the Ishwara or Saguna Brahman of Sankara who exists only in Vyavaharika. If God is necessary, then you have four lines - Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita, Chaitanya's Acintya Bheda-Abheda Advaita, or Madhwacharyas Dvaita (dualism). There are two more kinds of Advaita _ Nimbarka's Dvaitadvaita an Vallabha's or the two Shuddhadvaita. Those other than Sankara want devotion to Narayana/Vishnu/Krishna. Once you have selected the theme, then you can proceed.