Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi

[N0T 2]

( I began a thread about Maharshi to put here shortly after getting the book referred to a few months ago, but at last minute, decided not to post at the time. This one is prompted by Michael's lovely post in this thread.)

It seems high time we had a section devoted to Maharshi here, as his gnosis is shared through Kenneth, and he has been mentioned by others elsewhere in this board.

Earlier this year I was lucky enough to get a copy of The Teachings of Ramana Maharshi by Arthur Osborne, from an extant esoteric bookshop. It is testimony to my flaws as a student, as well as to the bewildering scope, substance and depth of Grant's work, that it has taken me until this year to finally get around to studying Maharshi's own work. Yet one could say it is really a starting-point, as it's behind all of the rest.

Maharshi and his teachings are of course mentioned in Grant's work, most prominently in Outer Gateways. This is the tome that shifted my "assemblage point" as Castenada might have put it, in a non-intellectual, direct, uninvited way, forever, around 2004, with a realisation, or apprehension that the location of Self (i.e., my natural perspective, from which viewpoint all was suddenly perceived, as opposed to an idea of identity, or concept) as being naturally outside the universe we seem to inhabit, but aren't actually "inside" at all, in any real sense, any more than we "are inside" a dream whilst experiencing it. The interesting thing for me at the time, apart from the intrinsic drama of unwitting, unfamiliar liberation (the first six months was particularly unfamiliar, and felt like the universe was a single space-suit "I" was wearing, or experiencing life through, remotely), was the fact that I'd had no intention of being anything except entertained and teased by the book with the doomy title and spooky artwork when I bought it. I was absolutely awake, drug-free, and in a "fallow" period as far as occult practices or studies went, on an indulgent study/work/holiday period in Europe, and enjoying life. The experience was beyond bizzarre, had bizzarre epiphenomena, and basically made me sound nuts to anyone I tried to describe it to, apart from one associate, who told me I'd involuntarily done what Buddhists try to do, without knowing anything (apart from Crowley's trashing of it) about Buddhism whatsoever at the time. No, I didn't do anything. Kenneth just wrote a book, and I got in its way when the stars were right.

Upon starting The Teachings of Ramana Maharshi a few months ago, the obvious thing struck me, that my experience was of a similar kind to that described by Maharshi himself as occurring in a similarly unexpected way as a teenager, and is really the only thing he ever taught: self-enquiry, going upstream of any and all conceptual streams to find from whom/whence/where they issue. It sounds simple but is actually anything but, because you think about doing it way more than you actually do it. In fact it seems one almost can't "do" it, it has to happen to you. Although this had been stated again and again in Kenneth's book, it never quite is possible to put in words properly, and it wasn't those parts of the book that I was reading when my experience was triggered. It was just the sort of whole thing going "pop" when a phrase I read in one chapter resonated with a bit in another, got stuck in my mind, next thing I'm looking at myself as context, rather than content, of life, from a place that was not either. Clearly, seeds were planted by his mentioning of the ideas, but other phrases produced the critical mass, so to speak. 

In studying Maharshi as an absolute novice, I love the clarity and directness, no-nonsense, pure spirituality, natural intelligence of his path. It is a dark, cool underside to the glittering snake Grant's work presents us with. It is a great shame Crowley was never able to connect with Maharshi. I'm still only halfway through The Teachings... , sipping it, but I have to say - this is the thing, the same thing, that I recognise from what Outer Gateways did to me, a truth informing The Wisdom of S'lba, the book of non-mobile becoming, Grant's own Received text, an unique interpenetration of advaita, thelema and all the rest - or perhaps simply, Reality as Kenneth could best expound it, translated through those idioms.

At some stage I'll post some choice quotes by Bhagavan, it's great stuff.

[Gregory Peters]

Great stuff NOT 2. Like many of us, Kenneth Grant's Typhonian Trilogies were my gateway to Ramana Maharshi. It was the article Going Beyond (http://www.parareligion.ch/dplanet/staley/staley5.htm) by Michael Staley in an issue of Starfire that really "flipped the switch" in my head:

"There is neither creation nor destruction,
Neither destiny nor free will,
Neither path nor achievement;
This is the final truth."
Sri Ramana Maharshi.

[N0T 2]

Oct 20, 2017 17:02:13 GMT Gregory Peters said:

Great stuff NOT 2. Like many of us, Kenneth Grant's Typhonian Trilogies were my gateway to Ramana Maharshi. It was the article Going Beyond (http://www.parareligion.ch/dplanet/staley/staley5.htm) by Michael Staley in an issue of Starfire that really "flipped the switch" in my head:

"There is neither creation nor destruction,
Neither destiny nor free will,
Neither path nor achievement;
This is the final truth."
Sri Ramana Maharshi.

Thank you Gregory.  Michael's articles have been greatly inspirational for me too. Thank you for reminding me of this, it's been a while since I have read them, but time for a fresh blast. 

Maharshi's description of the intuitive (auto-didact) process that he followed in order to attain his realisation seems close to Spare's core technique, the Death Posture:

"I at once dramatized the occurrence of death. I lay with my limbs stretched out stiff as though rigor mortis had set in and imitated a corpse so as to give greater reality to the enquiry. I held my breath and kept my lips tightly closed so that no sound could escape, so that neither the word "I" nor any other word could be uttered. ... "Well then" I said to myself, "this body is dead... but ... is the body I? ... So I am Spirit transcending the body. The body dies but the Spirit that transcends it cannot be touched by death. That means I am the deathless spirit. All this flashed through me vividly as a living truth which I perceived directly, almost without thought-process. From that moment onwards the "I" or Self focussed attention on itself by a powerful fascination. Fear of death had vanished once and for all. Absorption in the Self continued unbroken from that time on".

The thing that always attracted me about Thelema was the call of the reality underlying the symbols, that they exist to communicate. Crowley's poetic, irrational side, despite his appalling lack of stable attainment (or integration thereof), still managed to point towards similar things pointed to by his predecessors (those he lists as Masters), if you can get past the way he insecurely inserts himself into every single bit, but one always gets the feeling that it is merely his (admittedly huge) intellect that fully grasps their gnoses, not his heart or soul, or an established inner default, spiritual point-of-view. It is a kind of nervous display. He read all the travel guides to the Self, and made a career out of writing about what they said, but had never actually visited the country himself. Yeah, I said it. People who realise the Self are not selfish, and Crowley was the most selfish prick imaginable, piling human wreckage in his personal messianic delusion. The articulation and wit and even genius casts a spell, but forever sits "on top" of the reality it indicates, but ultimately obscures. That said, I suppose it's at least that.

Grant's work on the other hand seems to be able to use the maelstrom of imagery (and more), the thicker the better, to create a vortex through which consciousness is able to pass to this basic substratum of being, if you can stick with it, and Maharshi's gnosis would appear to be the key that enables him to do this. It is something he is able to then share with the reader, especially if the reader isn't looking for anything. Once glimpsed, the relationships of the other elements in his work (surrealism, hermetics, sorcery, theosophy, Lovecraft) cohere anew. It casts new light on the anti-Buddhist jibes in Crowley's writings, as Crowley had absolutely no idea about Buddhism from any personal experience beyond that of a Victorian orientalist dilletante, and created a false and unhelpful duality between Buddhism and Thelema, when a Master would understand their proper relation and teach the goal behind both. Grant wasn't trying to destroy the Theosophical Society as Crowley was, nor trying to destroy the Golden Dawn as Crowley also was, so he had no agenda to trash Buddhism or weaken the Western traditions with a narcissistic retirement plan, as Crowley did. He actually managed to present the hot water required to infuse the various ingredients and let them mingle in their own way, and serve it in exquisite family porcelain.

Perhaps a simpler way to put what I tried to above, is that Crowley objectified himself as any number of things, identities, characters, and left a tangle of lies for himself and his legacy to deal with, for all the truths (second-hand or otherwise) that he managed to convey and teach. Maharshi subjectified the universe(s) of Self, teaching the path inwards with skill and power, and based his entire life upon a position of absolute security, because the entire point of his teaching is brutal honesty and absolute reality at all times, on a subjective (i.e. Real, i.e.  spiritual) level, something Crowley managed to do only sporadically (as most of us do). 

Compare the traditional techniques of Lucid Dreaming - what are they but atmavicharya (Self-inquiry)? When you "pop" and realise you're dreaming in the dream, it's because you realise or apprehend yourself as being in a dream, from a wholer perspective. Your perspective on your reality is what changes - it was always a dream, and it doesn't stop being real or experienced. You lose the dream, in the sense of no longer identifying objectively with it, or objectifying it. The content of the dream suddenly becomes almost irrelevant, because you know its realer context: it is spun from awareness, i.e., it is the subject, but the subject is also you, your consciousness, experiencing it, but your consciousness (i.e. spirit) is the container of the world, not the contained. 

What I absolutely love about Maharshi (as presented in this book The Teachings of Ramana Maharshi) is how doggedly anti-weasel he is. How many dudes are like this? It is all plain speech, applied with the power precision and skill of a martial artist to every objection and mental obstacle presented by his students in the dialogue. He doesn't tell you to "sit down and shut up" like Crowley does. He says:

"Meditation requires an object to meditate on, whereas in Self-inquiry there is only the subject and no object.

Find out who it is who has free will or predestination and abide in that state. Then both are transcended. That is the only purpose in discussing these questions. To whom do such questions present themselves? Discover and be at peace."

Waking, dream and sleep are mere phases of the mind, not of the Self. The Self is witness of those three states. Your true nature exists in sleep.

Everyone is the Self and, indeed, is infinite. Yet each person mistakes his body for his Self. In order to know anything, illumination is necessary. This can only be of the nature of Light; however it [illumination] "lights up" both physical light and physical darkness. That is to say, that it lies beyond apparent light and darkness. It is itself neither, but it is said to be light because it illumines both. It is infinite and is Consciousness. Consciousness is the Self of which everyone is aware. No one is ever away from his Self and therefore everyone is in fact Self-realized; only-- and this is the great mystery-- people do not know this and want to realize the Self. Realization consists only in getting rid of the false idea that one is not realized. It is not anything new to be acquired. It must already exist or it would not be eternal and only what is eternal is worth striving for. "

[Raj Don Yasser]

Oct 21, 2017 1:31:33 GMT N0T 2 said:

You really hit the nail on the head describing his method as "doggedly anti-weasel" and precisely "plain speech". I can vividly recall purchasing The Teachings of Ramana Maharshi at Powell's Books in Chicago and being eager to patronize the coffee shop down the street and begin reading. After a half hour I felt disappointed, didn't comprehend what was being communicated although it was right there in "plain speech". At that time I was knee-deep in 4th Way and Sufi literature and, as many sufi classics can seem obtuse, metaphorical, and philosophical, the directness and simplicity of Maharshi's talks didn't "mesh" with me even though I whole-heartedly concurred with everything I'd read about Advaita and Ramana Maharshi's teachings in the articles I'd read in Telos/Gurdjieff Journal. It wasn't until reading Grant's At the Feet of the Guru that something "clicked" and then I was able to appreciate the talks in Osborne's books.

EDIT: I seem to have not included the quote and, not being computer/internet proficient, have no idea how to edit. Oh well, I think it's obvious the section I wanted to quote.

[N0T 2]

Oct 28, 2017 15:43:39 GMT Raj Don Yasser said:

Oct 21, 2017 1:31:33 GMT N0T 2 said:

... After a half hour I felt disappointed, didn't comprehend what was being communicated although it was right there in "plain speech".  

I know, right? There is nothing intellectually impressive or tasty about it whatsoever; zero romance, poetry, art, guile, or atmosphere. All he does is describe a single process (atmavicharya) over and again to whoever he's addressing. And instead of doing it, one keeps reading, looking for cool stuff to dig. But it's not there to dig, it's there to do.

The very first quote (in my final list of quotes of RM above) is the whole thing - the process of subjectivisation.

Interestingly, Grant is able to convey transcendent experiences directly (as attested by a number of his readers), but using apparently indirect language, compared to Maharshi, whose directness was not necessarily the tool for the job on every occasion. Grant occupies a crucial space in this regard. Perhaps this is the difference between a mystic and a magus?