EDITORIAL
Bhagavan and the Tradition of
Advaita
We read, hear and concentrate
so much on Advaita Vedanta that it seems to
be, for us followers of the teaching of Ramana
Maharshi, the only path to follow. If that were
the case, it would be of interest to follow
it back and see its origins and connection to
Sri Ramana.
The tradition of Advaita Vedanta
is most often associated with Sankara, especially
his commentaries on the Badarayana’s Brahma
Sutra, the Bhagavad Gita and the principal Upanishads.
Sri Ramana Maharshi translated into Tamil Sankara’s
Dakshinamurti Stotra, Vivekachudamani and Atma
Bodha and in talks with devotees elaborated
on the subtle points of the tradition using
Sankara’s viewpoint as a reference. It
is said that their teachings are similar but
it should be understood that Sri Ramana’s
authenticity is not dependent on orthodox interpretations
of religious texts— his authority rests
on his own inimitable experience.
Though the writings of Sankara
are considered to be the doctrinal pillars upon
which the advaitic tradition rests, we keep
in mind that Advaita Vedanta did not originate
with Sankara.
Both Badarayana and Sankara refer
to ancient teachers and their schools, which
belonged to the advaitic tradition. Badarayana
alludes to various teachers, Asmarathya, Audulomi
and Kasakrtsna among others while Sankara refers
to his sampradaya (lineage or tradition) and
cites ancient teachers with a reverence appropriate
to elders in one’s tradition. Sankara
and his disciples made frequent references to
certain vrttikara-s, commentators, especially
to a sub-commentator on the Brahma Sutras, named
Upavarsa. Sankara went to the extent of saying
that this commentator was a member of his own
tradition and calls him Bhagavan. In all, there
are some ninety-nine such vrtti-s, commentaries,
referred to in the Sariraka-bhasya, that is,
the commentary on the Brahma Sutras.1
We can trace back to the Vedas
many of the teachings of Advaita. The first
clear emphasis on the immanent and transcendental
nature of Brahman is recorded in the teachings
of Yajnavalkya.2 One can see in the Upanishads
the development and debate of the finer points
in metaphysics — the question of moksha;
the nature of Brahman; and the concealing power
of avidya. In the Chandogya Upanishad we can
find an example of the purest advaita as taught
by the great rishi Uddalaka: sad eva, saumya,
idam asid ekam evditiyam. (In the beginning,
my dear, this was Being alone, one only without
a second.) 3 There is a passion and conviction
in the texts, which indicates commitment and
adherence to the truth in the lives of these
rishis. These are no idle debates but fiery
deliberations, which contain a hidden power
which can excite the reader even today.
What was it that drove these seekers
to fathom the depths of the mind and consciousness?
Whatever it is, we today resonate to the very
same tension. Is it the same impetus that today
compels us to restate those stubborn questions
about the nature of reality? What is real? What
is false? Though baffled by these questions,
we can readily identify with this modern rishi,
Sri Ramana because intuitively we know he has
resolved these burning questions. His connection
to this ancient lineage is not proved by some
spurious heritage but by the recognition his
feat is perennial. It is open to all who dare
refuse all anodynes and pursue their convictions
whole-heartedly.
It was around 300BCE that Badarayana
systemised the flashes of Upanisadic genius
and gave us the Brahma Sutras. From this point,
scholars have been able to vaguely trace the
lineage of preceptors who, each in their way,
elaborated aspects of the teaching. There was
a living, continuous line of teachers who expounded
the tenets of Advaita.4
Does Sri Ramana Maharshi belong
to this tradition? If so how — as it appears
he arrived suddenly at the summit of advaitic
understanding without any preparation or visible
link to the advaitic tradition? If he does not
belong to any tradition, then on what authority
did he teach?
Bhagavan does not belong to any
specific tradition. In the lineage of authentic
teachers which have been thrown up by the Sanatana
Dharma in the last several thousand years we
see these individual prominences — surges
of exemplary understanding. There doesn’t
seem to be any thread connecting them to those
who went before or after. Like Arunachala, they
stand alone. They came, not merely to preserve
the recorded wisdom but to rejuvenate it free
of the historical, social and religious accretions
that obscured the direct perception of our being-ness.
Bhagavan was that rare anomaly,
a marvel like some mythic bird that sprang into
life full grown without having to grow or learn.
From his awakening, he was complete. His awakening
was the single, sufficient, pre-requisite that
sanctioned him to teach us, his followers.
We do understand that something
significant occurred one day in Madurai in 1896.
What exactly it was cannot be related because
the experience was beyond words. No amount of
words such as ‘refulgent Self’ or
‘Self- realisation’ explains the
momentous occasion. The fabric of his carefully
constructed world was ripped open. The conventional
restraints of time and space were subverted.
What happened outdistanced our language of mental
image and concept. Something did occur but what
it was, remains a mystery to this day. What
we do know is that the young Venkataraman was
radically and irreversibly changed and that
he left his family and security to find his
‘father’. He did so in the shape
of Arunachala and the rest is history.
We cannot say how or why this
event occurred. To say that it was the result
of past samskara-s is an explanation but nothing
more. What we are discussing is an ‘event’
which was not an effect of something else. Self-realisation
is not a result. We say it does not have a cause
because the ‘concept’ of Self-realisation
transcends all notions of causality. The best
we can articulate is that it happened. This
experience of Ramana is as close as we can come
to defining what advaita means. For advaita
in its true sense is not a philosophy, it is
an experience.
What concerns us who now follow
in his footsteps is his ability to transfer
to us something of the magic, which enveloped
him so completely. A pretty picture on the wall
or a nice story about Ramana is all very well,
but it does nothing for us who hunger for that
same transcendence, which catapulted Venkataraman
beyond the physical emotional and mental needs
of a person belonging to his milieu.
We all seek to be free of the
constraints imposed upon us by society, our
family or our own conditioned personality. We
look to Ramana for the solution because we do
know that here was someone who accomplished
the unthinkable.
Bhagavan taught as much by example
as instruction. His life was a teaching: he
was invariably courteous to others; he never
accepted something unless others could share;
he wasted nothing that was available; he never
asked another to do something he could not do
himself. In short, he was as self-sufficient
as any human being could be on this terrestrial
plane. When people came to see him he did not
take, rather he gave: he gave respect, he gave
understanding, he gave patience and love. It
was as natural to him as breathing.
Bhagavan understood early on that
those who came to him for guidance needed some
type of map so that they too, could pass through
that often terrifying territory where they had
to give up all their expectations and pre-conceptions
of who they were and win through to the other
side, the fourth, turiyatitta.
The teaching most readily available
to his newly arrived, mature devotees was Advaita
Vedanta. Though it was not commonly followed
or understood by the majority of Tamils, it
was recognised as the ultimate instruction.
It was the one traditional teaching which most
corresponded with his experience. He was given
various scriptures such as Vivekachudamani,
and requested to explain them. He did so with
ease. In the course of discussions he discovered
that the experience related in these texts were
identical with his own experience.
He respected the tradition and
in time became very proficient in locating a
relevant line in a text to clarify a point but
he was not bound in anyway by the written word.
He established the teachings of advaita for
those who came and were prepared to listen,
its intended purpose and how to arrive at that
desired state. He did not have to explain anything
to himself. Bhagavan’s qualification as
a guru rests on the foundation of his own distinctive
experience. There was no difference between
Bhagavan and jnana — he was jnana.
We should note that he said too
much scriptural study could be an impediment.
Once the basic theory was understood the responsibility
lay with the seeker to practise. The emphasis
is on perception and understanding.
Though he did not belong to the
school of advaita in the conventional sense,
Bhagavan used the teachings of advaita for his
own purpose. He understood right from the beginning,
the value of the orthodox teaching which was
aimed at preparing the adherent for that dramatic
moment when we leave all attachments and sense
of identification with an individual body-consciousness.
One of the last things he wrote
was a short poem. In the Zen Buddhist tradition,
a master prior to his death generally composed
a pithy verse, which summed up his attitude
at this decisive moment of departure. We can
see the same spirit in Bhagavan’s verse:
As one throws off the leaf
after eating the food,
The seer sheds his body.5
_________________________________________________________________
1. Bhamati and Vivarana Schools
of Advaita Vedanta by P.S. Roodurmun, p.10.
Motilal Banarsidass, 2002.
2. See the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad, III.7.
3. Chandogya Upanisad, 6.2.1.
4. Pre-Sankara Advaita Philosophy by S.L. Pandey.
Darshan Peeth, Allahabad, 1974. Further, we
should remember that metaphysical truths are
eternal and while they may change in external
form according to circumstance, the change has
nothing to do with what is termed evolution,
as we know it today. The foundation is unaffected
by time and change as is the essential unity
of being which is unaffected by the multiplicity
of the states of manifestation we experience.
5. The Collected Works of Sri Ramana Maharshi,
p. 147, 2001.
