Author Topic: Paul Brunton And Major Chadwick's primary criticism of Ramana Maharshi  (Read 22925 times)

DRPVSSNRAJU

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 546
    • View Profile
    • BE AS YOU ARE
Re: Paul Brunton And Major Chadwick's primary criticism of Ramana Maharshi
« Reply #30 on: August 08, 2010, 10:59:19 PM »
Dear Snow,your post is full of facts and i like it very much.
pvssnraju

ramana_maharshi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3557
    • View Profile
Re: Paul Brunton And Major Chadwick's primary criticism of Ramana Maharshi
« Reply #31 on: August 10, 2010, 12:51:14 PM »
Dear All,

Last secretary Of Paul Bruton Timothy commented in my blog regarding paul bruton's criticism regarding bhagavan.

Quote
While it may be true that Paul Brunton criticized Sri Ramana's 'lack of ethical concern' regarding WWII, that was definitely in the greater context of his life-long reverence for him. And while he did study with other people in India, I know that he did NOT take them as his guru(s)--though he had hoped to take HH Shankaracarya for his guru prior to coming to Ramana.

Later in life Brunton felt he had arrived at a point where the Atman alone was his Guru, and at that point 'broke' with Ramana, if you will. As his last secretary, I can tell you that he had a photograph of Ramana in a position of honor in his study in his final years.

- Timothy
« Last Edit: August 10, 2010, 12:56:43 PM by prasanth_ramana_maharshi »

snow

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Re: Paul Brunton And Major Chadwick's primary criticism of Ramana Maharshi
« Reply #32 on: October 11, 2010, 03:18:38 PM »
I asked David Godman about Bhagavan's reported comment on Hitler.

Me:In Major Chadwick's book A Sadhu’s Reminiscences Chadwick writes:  "Of course he (Ramana Maharshi) 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.”

I would very much like to hear your opinion on this. Do you think that it's a mistranslation, taken out of context, false all together or an authentic statement made by Sri Bhagavan? To me the sentece doesn't make sense because the beginning of the clause "Who knows" implies that Sri Bhagavan doesn't know for sure if Hitler is a jnani, but the end of the sentence clearly says that Hitler is a jnani. Linguistically the sentence would make more sense if it said: "Who knows if that Hitler is a Jnani, a divine instrument.” Also I think that a jnani and "a divine instrument" cannot be synonyms because the jnani is the Self/God, not an instrument of Him."



This is David Godman's reply:

 "From the qualifying introductory words of Bhagavan's sentence ('Who knows but that...') he might have been saying (assuming  the quotation is even true) that the possibility can't be discounted, which is a long way from saying, 'Yes, he is a jnani'. It may have been part of a conversation in which some devotee was trying to challenge Bhagavan about his statement that you can't tell who is or who is not a jnani by what they do or say, and this might have been included as an extreme example.

The phrase 'divine instrument' also gives it some context. We are all divine instruments, according to Bhagavan, in so far as we have a script to perform that was handed to us by God. By giving Hitler this script he (Hitler, not God) in effect became the agent for enabling millions of people to fulfill some karmic destiny. If millions of people have an earned destiny to suffer and die in a particular era, then someone else has to incarnate alongside them with the karma of being the instigator of that suffering. That's a long way from saying he was a jnani; it is just an acceptance that certain things needed to happen for everyone in that era, and that Hitler had the karma to make it happen. Everyone involved was an actor on the stage, playing out a script that had been written and allocated by God, a script that each person involved had somehow individually earned through past actions.

Bhagavan taught that each of us has a predestined script that has been allocated by Iswara, and that He chooses the sequence of the script from among all the pending karma from millions of lives. The jnani is the one who can go through the script knowing 'I am not this person who is performing these actions'. Everyone else idenifies with the actor on the stage and suffers as if the script is real.

Personally, I doubt that Hitler was a jnani, and I doubt that Bhagavan ever said that he was. In his whole life he never once went on record as certifying that someone was alive who was a jnani. His mother and Lakshmi the cow got posthumous certification. I am guessing that we are dealing here with a garbled, misrendered, and second-hand (at least) account."


Best Wishes    David Godman

DRPVSSNRAJU

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 546
    • View Profile
    • BE AS YOU ARE
Re: Paul Brunton And Major Chadwick's primary criticism of Ramana Maharshi
« Reply #33 on: October 11, 2010, 03:46:18 PM »
The saint and murderer are both instruments in divine hand.This does not mean that the murderer is a jnani.The murderer is
just fulfilling his job of murderer efficiently in this cosmic drama.We take the events in the phenomenal reality seriously but
for the saint they are part of a dream and they do not take it seriously.
pvssnraju