Author Topic: Guru Sishya Samvada - An Imaginary Story  (Read 974 times)


  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
    • View Profile
Guru Sishya Samvada - An Imaginary Story
« on: November 13, 2017, 12:09:54 PM »
[A new gospel : taken from an old forum]

There lived a simple and happy person in a small village. local people considered him a saint and addressed him as guruji. Whenever they had something important to decide, they would go to him and he would give what ever friendly advise he could.
One fine day, a sincere spiritual seeker came to know about him through an acquaintance. He was eager to know the Truth or Reality as he called it. So he reached out to guru ji to meet him and get some knowledge. As he reached out to his hut, he found guru ji sitting in silence with closed eyes! The guru had a long beard because he did not go to a barber for a few days. He thought of going this day but when he woke up in the morning he did not feel any inclination to go. He sat there because he did not feel an inclination to go out and he was with closed eyes because he did not feel any need to open them.

He was not smiling as he did not go to the modern day yoga schools which teach that we should always keep smiling. So at first our seeker was a little confused.His silence was impressive and he was impressed with the beard but guru ji did not smile! The seeker always saw that buddha was seated in padmasana with a smile on face. But here, this person was seated with a bent back and was leaning in an awkward way against a tree. So is this an enlightened person ?

But being a sincere seeker he wanted to give him the benefit of doubt ! he thought, let me ask him and find out.
D: Sir, have you found the Truth ?
G: :) Yes.
D: You are faking, the standard answer should be silence.
G: Its ok, if I answer I wont lose it!
D: Who answers.
G: Me. Why do you have such a confusion.
D: Oh! That means you are present as an individual!!
G: Of course.
D: Then you are not liberated.
G: Liberation is not a new state. There is no bondage and this is at once true for you as well as me.
D: You and me, so you see duality.
G: Of course, how else will I speak ?
D: You may make any egoistic claims, I am humble, I am in maya -- please dont include me.
G: If its there then its not called Maya, Maya means ya ma... that which is not there ! so how can you be that which is not there.
D: Hey! Now you reject Maya ? Shankara said there is Maya !!
G: He said the world is Maya, meaning its not there.
D: If its not there, how can you see it ?
G: Like a Mirage. There are three: SAT, ASAT, MAYA. SAT means that which IS and changeless. ASAT means that which is not and is not experienced like the horns of a hare and Maya is that which is seen and yet not there. Maya is that which is there because its seen!!
D: Oh ! Now you analyze also !
G: Of course I do , God gave me an intellect to use!
D: Hey look! You cannot get God using intellect.
G: You don't need to "Get" him :). He is already given to you.
D: You have to pray to God to Find him.
G: Why do you have to find him? Is he Lost ?
D: What else ? I do not see God anytime!
G: You do not see because God is not an object to be seen.
D: Did not Sri Ramakrishna see God ?
G: Humm! If its seen its an object.
D: I am now getting convinced that you are a fake guru !!
G: Is guru a position to be taken up like a political figure? If you seek knowledge from me I am your guru.
D: But should I not also get your "Grace"
G: whats that ?
D: Well, it means I should be able to easily find God ... without much effort on my part because I am a weak person.
G: But you never Lost God! And then you are not weak.
D: Don't say that! I am weak. Its very arrogant to say i am not weak. I am servant of God!
G: when did God appoint you as his servant ?
D: I do not want to argue on that. This time spent with you is a total waste! I am now going to meet someone who can help me find God in a true way! You are very one sided and dry in your approach.
I am also convinced that you are far from realization.
so our seeker started walking away ...
and the guru nodded his head a few times seeing that he cannot help him, got up to have a glass of water.
Just then the disciple again turned back and ...
D: I saw you shaking your head! Do you see you get affected ?
G: Ofcourse I would have felt nice if you understood :)
D: So you have those "feelings"
G: yes.
D: How can you be liberated then ?
G: Liberation is in-spite of all that. Like a movie on a screen, the screen is unaffected by the movie.
D: Ok, tell me one thing. Are you getting affected or not ?
G: Depends on from what stand point you are asking. Suppose you hit me with a stone, it will pain.
D: That means you are affected ! Then how can you claim to be Liberated ?
G: Liberated because there is no bondage! What else ? Do you expect me to have no pain when hit?
D: Ramana did not feel pain.
G: oh! Did he not himself say he had pain ?
D: Lets talk about it later, so tell me if someone praises you, do you feel nice ?
G: yes, ofcourse !
D: And When someone hurls abuses you feel bad ?
G: Yes!

D: And then whats liberation ? Are these not bondages ?
G: :) Mind has its functioning , I am not the mind.
D: So you are have these feelings or not ?
G: It depends on what stand point you talk from. If I am playing a role in a drama, the role has its emotions and expressions. The one who plays the role is beyond. When speaking from the stand point of the role I have those emotions and when speaking from the standpoint of the one who plays the roles I have none! So I have pure choice whether to express those emotions or not.
D: How can you prove me that you are liberated ?
G: I cannot and will not.
D: Why should I believe you ?
G: You need not.
D: But you are not like a liberated person in any way !!
G: What do you mean by that ?
D: Well, see ... You are very ordinary.
G: Of course I am, what else do you expect ?
D: Ramana was meditating when worms ate away a part of his body and he remained aloof. Ramakrishna once fell on a burning charcoal in samadhi. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu fell in yamuna ! do you see , there was something extraordinary about them.
G: Did they claim they were extraordinary and anything greater than you ?
D: No! But they had an extraordinary side.
G: You found that ?
the disciple wanted to try a different direction of inquiry...
D: When someone blamed Buddha he smiled and you are saying you would be happier if someone praised.
G: Ok, yes.
D: So Buddha was enlightened and you are not.
G: You are entitled to your opinion. To smile, not to smile etc is a choice. Whether one has the choice or not is what matters.
D: You do not fit into any "Prototype" of Enlightened person!!
G: Yes, infact there is no prototype for a wise man. Be wise and chose your lifestyle. A lifestyle wont make you enlightened. Moreover by associating these extraordinary stuff with them you miss the Wisdom they are teaching.
D: How so ?
G: well because they are teaching something thats ordinary and you are expecting something extra ordinary.
It was late in the night and so the disciple decided to leave and meet the guru the next day. Guru smiled and said "Do come tomorrow :). There is a lot more to talk"! ...



  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
    • View Profile
Re: Guru Sishya Samvada - An Imaginary Story
« Reply #1 on: November 13, 2017, 12:12:16 PM »
The next day the disciple thought for some time ... should I go to this person again or not ? There seemed only one thing clear about this person: He has total confidence in what he is saying. Now this confidence could well be due to some false notions, only to be gone the next day. But may be he has indeed realized ! Thus pondering, for some unknown reason he decided to go to the guru again.
This time as he entered the place he found the guru clean shaved, without any smile and sitting like a solid Rock. Totally motionless. Pretty impressive. But what he also noticed was that this guru had colored his hair and combed it in "Style" :)! Once again something impressive and some things not at all impressive. He was still seated with his back leaning against the tree. The guru did not notice that he had come.

D: Hello guru ji!
G: Slowly turned towards him waved his had , signing him to come :). He remained in silence for some time and then said .
G: How are you today ?
D: Fine, how about you ?
G: Perfect ! As Always , how else can I be ?
D: Sir, I have pondered on what you said yesterday and even discussed with a friend who is online.
G: Humm.
D: I have a doubt: Are you saying I am already liberated ?
G: Yes. I would say "There is no bondage". Liberation is nothing to be "attained". But you can say like that, if its understood that liberation means "no bondage".
D: Ok, So why should I come to you ?
G: You need not! And you may , as we can talk. There is nothing binding you to come.
D: But I feel I am not liberated.
G: Humm, is that so ?
D: Of what use is a theoretical statement like "You are not bound ", I continue to suffer.
G: Why do you call that "Theoretical". that's purely your interpretation. If you understood and got it you stand free.
D: But then will mere intellectual analysis help me get rid of all my emotions and base feelings hidden in my subconscious mind ?
G: Once again "mere intellectual analysis", another interpretation. Anyways, I never told you your emotions will
D: So I will continue to have my subconscious mind which is with anger, agitation etc ! Then I will be troubled, would I not be ?
G: Yes and no.
D: what do you mean ?
G: The subconscious mind can do only one thing: produce thoughts and feelings in your mind.
D: Yes of course. And When the feelings like anger , worry are there, I am one with them.
G: :) If you can see yourself as not one with those mental feelings ?
D: Now what is that supposed to mean ?
G: Well, if the mental state cannot "Touch" you ?
D: How can that be ? This is ridiculous. Its an escape saying my mind has anger but not me.
G: :) We can see that. Does angry thoughts mean "i am angry" ?
D: Wait! The very presence of angry thoughts is sufficient to torment me. Do you know how it goes? The thoughts and then there are some chemicals released in the blood stream also there is a whole neural process that takes place. Nothing seeks my permission and the ideas you are giving me right now will not even be surfacing at that time because neural dynamics will inhibit contrary ideas from arising. Do you get this ?
G: We will take this up in steps, because what you have just asked is a rather big question.
D: Ok, lets start with this: when thoughts related to anger are released, biological changes take place?
G: Yes. Certain chemicals are released and the whole organism is prepared to fight/flight kind of response.
D: Nice. Now do you agree that fight/flight response is a very fast response of brain ?
G: yes. It happens from the limbic system which is very fast and designed to work inhibiting the other functions of brain.
D: So now, when this happens, will not the brain inhibit any piece of knowledge you give me now ?
G: :) Neo-cortex which is the area of reasoning is less prominent.
D: So then, how can reasoning help me here? Because the logical reasoning portion of brain is as if non-functioning at that moment.
G: :) Thats a nice question. But we will have to get deeper into the psyche to explore this better.
D: Ok, lets proceed ...
G: Suppose you see your own shadow and imagine its a ghost. You are chased by it.
D: I do not know why this example is being told, anyways, please continue.
G: So, the shadow is the ghost. It is creating fear, tension, worries etc in mind. Right ?
D: Ok, if I have taken it to be a ghost.
G: So I tell you "That is a shadow and not a ghost".
D: But my fear wont go. I will still be afraid.
G: That means there can be two reasons: a) Samshaya [Doubt , may be you dont believe me], and b) Vipariyaya, the opposite experience.
D: Ok. I understand samshaya but what is vipariyaya ? If it is a shadow and not the ghost, how can I have the experience of a ghost ?
G: Well, you are running and it appears to be following you. So you think its chasing you. Thats the kind of opposite experience.
D: Humm. Ok.
G: so there are just two problems to the taking place of this knowledge: samshaya & vipariyaya.
D: ok.
G: We will have to solve both.
D: I get that, but you earlier told me that I am already liberated and now you are telling me a sadhana ?
G: My telling you that you are already liberated is exactly like telling that its a shadow and not a ghost. Thats why I said a better way is to say "There is no bondage" or "Bondage is a shadow".
D: You mean that all this bondage I experience is like a shadow ghost chasing me ?
G: Exactly !
D: Is this enough to say ? How does it help me now ? You have said it.
G: Well, as I said "Doubt" and "Opposite Experience" have to be handled.
D: So do you agree there is "bondage" ?
G: No. All I have been saying is that your bondage is only self created and like a ghost imagined in a shadow.
D: And that did not help me !
G: As I said it did not help because you had "Doubt" / "Opposite Experience" which are blocking. As even, a person who thinks the shadows as ghosts is not helped by simply listening that those are mere shadows.
D: So I need experience, Samadhi. Which will make me get the Experience that this world is mithya.
G: :) No!
D: You are telling something new now. Lets see what Ramakrishna, Ramana etc said. Even Shankara spoke highly of samadhi and you are arrogant enough to say its not needed.
G: :) You do not need Samadhi and Ashtavakra Gita and Panchadasi do speak of this.
D: May be you are misinterpreting them.
G: We will look into it and I will demonstrate to you why you do not need samadhi shortly if we can talk for some time.
D: You seem to be eager to discuss this stuff and become a kind of "guru"
G: hey! If a friend finds out something easy and interesting will he not share with others? does he does he have to become a guru for that ?
D: Then in this forum what are you a guru or a disciple?
G: Neither! I share data! This thread calls me a guru, you addressed me "Guruji" earlier. And some have people may bad mouth me. So I am none of that. I am a friend and I share a vision.
D: But if you have a desire to share, you cannot be liberated.
G: :) There are two kinds of desires : binding and non-binding desires. A few non-binding desires are there in everyone as long as they live.
D: What do you mean by non-binding desires?
G: Well, if those desires can be suspended without much effort. Meaning when they arise, I can wave them off and remain without any trouble. Then those desires are non-binding. Infact it is a non-desire though appearing like a desire.
D: So how do I know if a desire is binding or non-binding ?
G: Just suspend that desire without fulfilling and see for yourself.
D: So now there are desires that are binding in me and i have to make them non-binding.
G: You may say so. The actual fact however is the original statement of mine: "No desire can bind you" Now when you say there are some desires that are binding you its a viparita bhavana or opposite experience you are talking about.
D: Hold on! You have diverted the topic. We started with saying that neo-cortex will become useless when our emotions etc are in full function. So how will our reasoning help us ?
G: :) I did not deviate the topic. I just said we will look deeply into it and we started from there.
D: Ok! Thats fine, now tell me have we got any deeper here ?
G: Yes , If your emotions etc are because of taking the shadows as ghosts we know what needs to be done.
D: Ok. So what you seem to be saying is that the "desires or raga-dveshas cannot bind us" because they are like "Shadows imagined to be ghosts". So then, what you have also told me is that I have "doubt" and "opposite experience" and therefore I am not able to live this. You have also promised to demonstrate that samadhi is not required for me.
G: Yes. Only one correction, Its not that I said you have doubt etc, I just said if one has them then they will inhibit him from seeing the truth.
D: ok, I hope that was some kind of correction. But then you should atleast agree now that these inhibitors are there.
G: :) "There" ? Where ? Investigate and they will vanish. They are like the ghosts imagined in shadows.
D: I feel you like ghosts and shadows. Ok, I have this problem : I do not understand how raga-dveshas cannot bind me. Tell me that.
G: Ok, For that you need some Vedantic Knowledge.
D: Vedanta ? Scriptural knowledge is a burden !
G: :) Nothing is a burden unless you carry it on your head where its not required.
D: But great saints like Ramakrishna did not read any scriptures.
G: Humm.
D: Is not Scriptural study just intellectual jargon?
G: :) Who told you all this ? You talk as if being uneducated is a qualification of Atma-Jnana.
D: No, but vivekachudamani says "Shabda jalam maha aranyam", the network of words is a great forest.
G: It says that and yet there is a vivekachudamani written and composed out of words! It says that about works that do not teach you that you are Ever Free Self. Shankara himself wrote
commentaries on various vedantic works and he says those are important.
D: So you are telling me that Scriptural Knowledge is important.
G: Yes, a must.
D: But you see more like a "no-rule" guy. Scriptures suggest various sadhanas [Practises] and you say even Samadhi is not required.
G: I do not say practises are not required. Sadhana is a must. But then one has to understand its purpose. Fire is useful, but I should know how to use it. Sadhanas are useful but one should be clear about their purpose.
D: Humm, so now you agree Samadhi is useful.
G: First the need and use of Samadhi has to be clearly appreciated and then we can discuss whether its needed or not.
D: And what about Mano-nashanam ?
G: That is another oft misunderstood word. Vasana Kshaya is one more. In the way its commonly understood all these three: Samadhi, Mano-nasha and Vasana Kshaya are useless. But some scriptures do advocate them in specific ways. With the meaning specified in scriptures They are a MUST. But folk lore , the common usage of these terms is pure nonsense.
D: You seem to be twisting the meaning of scriptures to suite your need.
G: I am simply conveying the Truth , the vision. He who gets it gets it. Scriptures convey the Truth. Without seeing the truth if you try to interpret then there seem to be different ways of interpreting. If you see the truth ,by seeing I actually mean being, you see no second valid interpretation.
D: But Sri Ramakrishna , Ramana have said what they have to say in quite explicit way.
G: Yes. They saw the Truth , meaning remained as Truth, and spoke. One who has the same vision can convey it and also convey it differently. One who does not see the truth my speak about them but gets naught.
D: I been studying Sri Ramakrishna and Ramana for the last 15 years and always tried to take the words as they said, do you mean to say I have not understood what they are saying ?
G: Well, I say nothing. Its for you to say. Do you see yourself as "Fulfilled" or "Lacking" ?
D: Of course Lacking, I need to do a lot of sadhana to be done.
G: Sadhana does not make a "Lacking person", "Fulfilled" because Sadhana is finite ! Sadhana can help you see yourself as a "Fulfilled Person".
D: So I feel I am a lacking person , but will become fulfilled.
G: That means you got nothing ! Ramana constantly says you are ever Free Self, Purna or Complete.
D: But I have not yet realized it, I cannot fake it.
G: Have you understood how you are Purna/Complete ?
D: Thats what I plan to realize through Samadhi.
G: :) Will Samadhi make you realize that you were always Fulfilled? A person goes into samadhi and then comes out saying "I have gone into samadhi and come out". Which means the person still sees himself as a "Changing Mind".
D: So what Ramana / Ramakrishna said is of no use ?
G: who said that ? They are pointers which you should use to see yourself as fulfilled.
D: But you are twisting them and changing their meaning to suite you.
G: I come the other way round. To me it does not matter who said it. If it is the Truth, I convey it. If its not correct I dismiss it.
D: Can Ramana / Ramakrishna say something thats not true ?
G: Not sure! Ramana is what he is coz he saw the truth and spoke it. If I have seen the Truth then I appreciate what he said and the way he said. But If I have not seen the truth and do not use those pointers to see the Truth that I am fulfilled then I will continue to remain ignorant -- just repeating like a parrot.
D: So now you are dismissing Ramana / Ramakrishna 's teachings ?
G: No. All I am saying is that my purpose is not to confirm to what Ramana/Ramakrishna said. My purpose is to see myself as fulfilled and if those pointers help, they help. thats all.
D: do you say the same thing about scriptural teachings also ?
G: Of course. Whats the difference ?
D: Truth cannot be seen they say !
G: Yes, Its not an object to be seen. Its "You" the Self who has no lackings.
D: Sadhana is not required at all, then ?
G: Sadhana is absolutely important , but this is a subtle point we should grasp. Sadhana is to remove viparita bhavana or vipariyeya which I said earlier: the opposite experience.
D: Why do I need Sadhana if I am already That ?
G: Not needed.
D: But I do feel lackings.
G: Then do Sadhana , having understood the Truth that you are fulfilled.
D: Why do I have to understand that I am fulfilled ? Why not simply practise ?
G: LOL! What will you practise if you have not understood ?
D: So you mean to say understanding is required for sadhana ?
G: Absolutely. Without knowing your true nature from a guru, no sadhana.
D: I have lot of doubts on that, but before getting into it... tell me how to get this understanding?
G: Go to a guru and learn from him.
D: So I have to go to a guru and learn from him about myself ?
G: Learn a vedantic text from him.

[to be continued ...]


  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
    • View Profile
Re: Guru Sishya Samvada - An Imaginary Story
« Reply #2 on: November 13, 2017, 01:09:53 PM »

D: Why vedantic text now ?
G: Because Vedantic text is a Pramana.
D: whats that now ? Whats a Pramana ? Will not simply asking questions and getting answers be enough?
G: We will have to discuss this in detail. Simply asking questions and getting answers is most likely not enough.
D: Ok before you explain to me about why Vedantic texts are pramanas, tell me how did Ramakrishna realize without Vedantic learning ?
G: Srinivasa Ramanujam learnt mathematics without books and without knowing what a proof is that a standard ? What will you tell a student who says "I will become a mathematician but I do not need to study the books" ? Systematic training is a must for all of us. A few exceptions
cannot be taken as standards.
D: But why then do you say Ramakrishna / Ramana realized ?
G: Coz they speak the Truth... they have given solid pointers.
D: So we can read them and know the truth ?
G: of course , but I think these are written down when people asked questions and that means those were mostly conversations that might have helped those students, but may or may not help you in person, because those are dispersed and not a systematic presentation. Thats why I think they are wonderful for mananam and nidhidhyasanam [reflection and abidance] but not for Sravanam [Learning or Knowing].
D: You are very rude here.
G: I am neither rude nor very humble. My main moto is the Truth, not a confirmation to Ramana / Ramakrishna.
D: But that can be dangerous ! You may get caught in something and think thats the Truth!
G: :) When you see the Truth, you see solid pointers from Ramana and Ramakrishna which will clearly show you what they are speaking.
D: You said these texts are wonderful for Mananam & Nidhidhyasanam can you explain that a little ?
G: Sravana is to know about the Self from a guru. The guru teaches the upanishads or one of the prakarana granthas to expound the Truth about you : That you are not a Lacking individual.
D: Why will the guru have to use the upanishads/ prakarana granthas ? Why can he not himself teach ?
G: The guru who has grasped the scriptures can teach it himself. The upanishads/Prakarana granthas are still used because they provide a systematic presentation of the subject matter and its also establishing a tradition. The guru does not have a better way to present so why resort to a new method ? Why not present in the same traditional way ?
D: Ok, but when we agreed that a guru who has seen the truth can teach it himself, why cannot a Ramana / Ramakrishna teach by themselves? Perhaps they have a better way?
G: I never said Ramakrishna/Ramana cannot teach by themselves and definitely they have some wonderful comments and pointers. But reading their answers to some random questions is not systematic enough in my opinion.
D: However it should have its use ! They are great saints! You seem to have no respect for them !
G: They are Exceptional Saints and I have the highest respect for them. But then, you cannot use their text to know about yourself because they are answers to questions and not a systematic presentation.
D: I believe you are missing out the importance of Grace here. If I am sincere and I go to Ramana and pray to him, he helps.
G: Yes, he helps by sending you a guru who can teach systematically, in a traditional way.
D: Ok tell me about mananam now.
G: Having understood the Truth, we need to proceed to manana texts where we see how we this teaching is "real" and not theoretical. Anywhere you see people saying this teaching is merely theoretical , that means they lack mananam. Ramana's gospel, Sri Ramakrishna's gospel etc are excellent manana granthas. Infact I suggest Yoga Vasishta and Ashtavakra Gita for this.
D: Ok. Even here we have nothing to with sadhana ?
G: May be some sadhana to facilitate this is ok. It may depend from person to person.
D: Fine, so whats nidhidhyasanam.
G: Well to Remain as Self. Mananam when done properly automatically leads to nidhidhyasanam. All three: Sravana,Manana,nidhidhyasana can happen at the same time if a good guru is teaching. In most cases, however, the disciple sits down and does some enquiry into himself and verifies the validity of teaching. Lives of Ramana etc can stand as examples of how one may live this truth. And then one "Abides" as Self thats nidhidhyasanam. When one goes through this systematically through Self inquiry one gains enough clarity to leave out unrelated events in lives of these saints and continue with whats appropriate.
D: What do you mean unreleated events in the lives of these saints ? You speak very rudely and you seem to lack politeness.
G: you are left to your opinions. I am not rude. There will always be some events in anyone's life that do not have any importance to our spiritual development. For example if Ramana used to clean his teeth with a tooth brush or a twing, how does it matter for spiritual development ? So there are
events that reveal some valuable stuff and there are events that are simply incidental. People get too interested in everything about these teachers and as a result they tend to just look for more and more such events. The guru said "All this is mithya" and people keep saying "we cannot yet take everything as mithya , we take you as Satyam" !!
D: But thats bhakti, we love to hear their stories and love to revel in their presence.
G: Thats not bhakti. Bhakti is not leaving this story of ours and getting involved in someone else's stories. Bhakti is Self Abidance.
D: There are various definitions of Bhakti.
G: There is only one: Self Abidance. No other definition.
D: What if a person does not know all these jnana terms and simply sits and prays.
G: If he abides as Self, knowingly then he is. Do you know the story of Prahallada from Yoga Vasishtam?
D: whats that ? Prahallada story is from bhagavatam.
G: Well After the story of bhagavatam , YV says, Prahallada had to meditate on that Vishnu as his own Self and only then he got liberated. Thats how he found true bhakti!
D: This is surely misinterpretation.
G: Then its done by Yoga Vasishta and not by me.
D: so you say grace has no place here ?
G: Grace is always there. Guru does not have paritiality. When you open your mouth its grace. That you are able to breathe is grace. Grace is always there. Grace is what facilitates your life itself.
D: Ah, so you agree one realizes by Grace and not Self effort ?
G: :) No. Suppose someone asks : Whats the reason for this theft ? And you answer : Sun. because if the light of sun is not there he could not have stolen anything. And then you say its God, because of whom he was able to move his limbs :)! thats not proper reason. These are common reasons, samanya karanas which are same for all. But some people do not steal and this fellow stole. So his vasanas to steal are the reason why he became a thief. So this is vishesha karanam ,specific
reason. When we ask for the reason for something, there is a samanya karanam and vishesha karanam --- a common reason and a specific reason. Grace is there for all. That you are able to breathe is grace. That you are able to lift your hand is grace. So Grace is common enabler. But I become lucky is because of my karma not because of grace. My own self effort. So if i have right effort then automatically results follow. So grace wont block there. If it blocks also, it means thats because of a wrong effort or because of my past karmas.
D: Ok, let me ask you a simple question: Are you not putting down Bhakti when you said that story of Prahallada ?
G: Well do you think yoga vasishta was doing that ?
D: Why did you quote it ?
G: I quoted it with the same intention as Yoga Vasishta.
D: what can that be ? I think we should refer Bhagavatam for Prahallada's story and not YV.
G: Why so ?
D: Because Bhagavatam is more authentic.
G: Yoga Vasishta is telling that story with a specific intention.
D: Whats that ?
G: All preliminary forms of bhakti have to mature into Advaita, Being as "I AM". YV says that Prahallada had to meditate on himself as Vishnu for liberation.
D: You like controversies ?
G: Why do you say so ?
D: Because you always speak against the common people's ideas. They are all vexed with you.
G: Yes, they are vexed with me coz I bring to light such things as above.
D: But will not a devotee who does not go into advaita realize ?
G: Here is what Ramana says :
[Ramana Mahashi's Advice To a Vaishnavite
One Sri Vaishnavite asked him, what should he do to realize Narayana.
Maharshi : You pray to him and meditate on him.
Devotee: After that, what will happen?
Maharshi : You will go to Narayana and be in his august company with other such devotees, singing his glory.
Devotee: After that, what will happen?
Maharshi : If Narayana is quite pleased with you, he will call you one day, very close to him and tell you: Please enquire Who am ?
Devotee: I can do that even here!
Maharshi : And that is what I want you to do here and now!]
So ultimately one has to land up to Self inquiry -- even if one practises bhakti.
D: Did not Ramana say that Surrender is also a path ?
G: Do you mean partial surrender or complete surrender ?
D: Complete.
G: That is equivalent to Just Be. Coz there is only God. Its pure Advaita.
D: Ok, what about partial surrender ?
G: well its a sadhana and all sadhananas ultimately land up to Self inquiry :).
D: You are not saying what Ramana said. You are twisting the fact.
G: Well Verse 8 of Upadesha saram says :
[verse 8: Bheda Bhavanat soham ityasau bhavana bhida pavani mata
compared to contemplation with duality is the contemplation without duality as "I am He" is superior.]
and I am saying the same thing. The contemplation with "I" am jiva and there is "God" is "lower" form of worship and a higher form is "I AM HE". So one has to mature to the higher form some or the other day.
D: You are again twisting the fact.
G: what way ?
D: IF one sincerely prays to God, he can get everything that a person gets out of jnana yoga.
G: Yes, then god will lead him to Jnana : the oneness.
D: How ?
G: For example in Sri RamaHrdhayam , Rama tells Hanuman: since you are a sincere disciple, ill tell you the truth : TAT TVAM ASI.
D: Why should he say so ?
G: Coz without that there is no liberation.
D: Is it not Ego to say "I AM Brahman" ?
G: No. It just means non-identification with ego.
D: But its ego to say I am liberated.
G: It means there is no bondage. To say there is bondage is identification with ego.
D: How so ?
G: well, when you say "I am bound" , who is bound ? Ego right ? you are identifying with it.
D: But will simply saying serve any purpose.
G: Well, Bhavana is important.
D: who says so ?
G: the above statement its clear.
D: Ill do Self inquiry, why this bhavana ?
G: This bhavana is an anga of Self inquiry.
D: Ramana does not say so !!
G: Well read sat darshanam:
[verse 31:
maunena mahhan manasaa svamuulcarcaiva satyatma vicaaraNaam syat |
eshoahametanna mama svarupam iti pramaa satya vicaranaangam ||
Diving in Silence by the mind, inquiring about one's root alone is true Self inquiry. This i am, This is not my nature.
These thoughts are the limbs of True inquiry.]
D: But Ramana said "Does a Man keep repeating he is man?"
G: For whom was that said ?
D: For a man!
G: so once one is firmly abiding as Self, one need not repeat, its redundant.
D: For others also he said dont repeat.
G: yes, to just repeat without bhavana is not correct.
D: It could also mean to have this bhavana is bad.
G: then he would not have said what he said in verse 8 of upadesha saram.
D: How can you say he used "does a man keep repeating he is man" for a realized person ?
G: sat darshanam again
[soham vicharo vapuratmabhave sahayyakaarii pra marganasya |
svatmaika sidhau sa punarnirartho yatha naratva pramitirnarasya ||
In the State of thinking that the body is the Self, the contemplation of "I am he", is helpful to the search of supreme. Just as to a man, the knowledge if his manhood is of no help, similarly in the accomplishment of oneness of one's self, that "I am he" contemplation is useless.]

[To be Continued ...]