
The Holy Men of India - perfmode
https://realization.org/p/misc/jung.holy-men-of-india.html
======
n_t
While Jung here mostly seem to admire Ramana and India's philosophy, it is my
opinion that world has largely slighted and meted out injustice to India's
philosophical traditions. There are many exceptions, primarily among
physicists and non-academic philosophers, but most commonly cited literature
is very dismissive. It could be due to two reasons -

1\. 1000+ years of invasions and occupations which deliberately mispotrayed
indic philosophy, still has its effect.

2\. Earlier academicians took a reductionist view or outright dismissal due to
incorrect translation of literature and lack of cultural understanding. The
translations were also incorrect as they were retrofitted into then familiar
philosophies, religions and terms.

Probably, same argument can be applied to many other ancient cultures too but
I think over time native or non-native academicians took genuine interest and
brought out the the best. For India, unfortunately, everything got entangled
with politics post-independence, including philosophy. Indians themselves
either have next to no knowledge of it's philosophical treasures (barring few
sayings and quotes) or take very negative view of it's past contributions
since that's what they have largely read. The end result is that now
traditionalists are very apprehensive of any scrutiny or change as they feel
more and more cornered. On the hand, modernists are even more vocally abusive
of past, as with flooded with all sort of information (like the one from OP)
general audience has started questioning their stance as well. I hope,
eventually people will get to see the depth of Indian philosophies and with
that start seeing religious text as high philosophies and its "holy-men" as
philosophers (what they really are and as Jung sees) and not as godmen who
craft miracles and wishes.

~~~
sidm83
Having been very much from the modernist camp, a few years ago I read some
Norse mythology followed by some Greek. Whatever I knew of Indian mythology
was mostly through festivals, stories told by elders during childhood and some
children's books. Norse felt pretty much tribal in comparison and Greek was a
bit better than Norse, still it felt short of childhood memories. So I started
to dig up more about Indian, and boy it took me a while in wikipedia figuring
out the chronology and even the different kinds of literature that existed, a
real rabbit hole. I have just about started out and got a long way to go.

~~~
galtwho
Someone making it easier for the current educated english speaking Indian to
know about their history and culture is a guy called Jaggi Vasudev also known
to his fans as Sadhguru.

His organisation Isha has 2 ashrams, one in Missippi, US and a bigger one in
Coimbatore, India.

Seems to have quite the following as well as is evident by some of the
discussions from diverse[1] set of people

1\.
[https://www.youtube.com/user/sadhguru/videos](https://www.youtube.com/user/sadhguru/videos)

~~~
sidm83
Not him please. Even otherwise I feel not wise to follow a single guru if your
interests are more academic otherwise it generally leads to a more cultish
experience. There is no single canonical way to 'enlightenment' here, each one
can find their own.

What I am doing - starting with Upanishads (aka Vedanta, literally the end
part of Vedas, where you get the gist), there are 10 major ones which come
with commentary by Adi Shankaracharya. Remaining are not minor in the sense of
importance, just that you get to them once you grasp the major ones first as
they come without the authoritative commentary. They are overall philosophical
in nature.

Next come the Puranas. Again there are about 8-10 of these. These contain most
of the stories or the 'mythology' which we heard in our childhood and read in
the books.

There are many more but I guess I'll start here and see where it takes me.

~~~
sidm83
I am currently reading the Aitareya Upanishad with commentary by Swami
Chinmayananda (founder Chinmaya Mission), but you can find multiple well rated
ones online. For Puranas too there are multiple options though I don't think
one could go wrong with the translations by Dr Bibek Debroy (leading Economist
and Chairman of the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister. Look up
his limericks on twitter) who has also translated the Ramayana and only the
third person to translate the unabridged version of the Mahabharata.

Otherwise if you can read Hindi and manage to find physical or electronic
versions, would recommend Gita Press versions. English ones often come with a
multitude of pronunciation symbols (due to the limits of English) which
unaccustomed readers may find a bit irritating.

------
carapace
> It is evident that Shri Ramana has either really been more or less absorbed
> by the self, or has at least struggled earnestly all his life to extinguish
> his ego in it.

In fact it was spontaneous:

> July 1896, at age 16, he had a sudden fear of death. He was struck by "a
> flash of excitement" or "heat", like some avesam, a "current" or "force"
> that seemed to possess him, while his body became rigid. He initiated a
> process of self-enquiry, asking himself, "what it is that dies?" He
> concluded the body dies, but this "current" or "force" remains alive, and
> recognized this "current" or "force" as his Self, which he later identified
> with "the personal God, or Iswara".

> In one of his rare written comments on this process Ramana Maharshi wrote,
> "inquiring within Who is the seer? I saw the seer disappear leaving That
> alone which stands forever. No thought arose to say I saw. How then could
> the thought arise to say I did not see."

> Later in life, he called his death experience akrama mukti, "sudden
> liberation", as opposed to the krama mukti, "gradual liberation"

~
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramana_Maharshi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramana_Maharshi)

Ramana Maharshi taught the simple, direct method of enlightenment.

FWIW I recently found this manual for "The Most Rapid and Direct Means to
Eternal Bliss"

[https://albigen.com/uarelove/most_rapid/contents.htm](https://albigen.com/uarelove/most_rapid/contents.htm)

~~~
laichzeit0
> Ramana Maharshi taught the simple, direct method of enlightenment.

Can someone explain why I should want "enlightenment"?

~~~
seesawtron
What do you think "enlightenment" means to you? Then it will be easier to
understand whether you want it or not.

~~~
laichzeit0
I have no idea to be honest. But when ever I read about these sort of things
it seems like people are seeking after some insight that requires meditation
or introspection of some sort and I have absolutely no idea why people are
seeking it or find it in any way necessary? Am I missing out on something? I
am perfectly content with existence and whatever idea I have of "I" or "self"
seems sufficient. But I still find it curious that other people don't?

For example, I'd rather study mathematics than meditate or seek enlightenment.
I'm not sure why I should spend time pursing that over other things I enjoy.

~~~
seesawtron
If you are perfectly content with your existence and your understanding of the
"self", you do not need to pursue paths of meditation or enlightenment. One
might think that you are being stubborn and egotistical by implying that you
have everything figured out but those opinions don't matter. It is easier to
live your life the way you want it individually but when you are part of a
society, others expect you to behave in ways that might contradict your
actions but that's just how the societal system works.

As to why others choose to seek the said "enlightenment" varies from person to
person. Sometimes its hard to find meaning in your everyday life and you get
stuck in existential angst and it is not easy to go on. There one find comfort
in seeking the answers and meaning through western or eastern philosophies ,
through meditation, through religion, through community or whatever fits well
to their sense of the world.

As the Easter Indic philosophy points out that the optimal and yet hardest
path to "enlightenment" is not in abandonment of your responsibilites and an
ascetic way of life but in the "middle" i.e. where you do your duty towards
others in your everyday life while being aware of the the highest moral
standards and doing your best to adhere to them (reflection of Stoicism here).
I would assume this is something you believe you are already doing so cheers
to that!

------
seesawtron
I found this to be very insightful from Jung that he beautifully captures
here:

"For the fact is, I doubt his uniqueness; he is of a type which always was and
will be. Therefore it was not necessary to seek him out. I saw him all over
India, in the pictures of Ramakrishna, in Ramakrishna’s disciples, in Buddhist
monks, in innumerable other figures of the daily Indian scene, and the words
of his wisdom are the sous-entendu of India’s spiritual life. Shri Ramana is,
in a sense, a hominum homo, a true “son of man” of the Indian earth. He is
“genuine,” and on top of that he is a “phenomenon” which, seen through
European eyes, has claims to uniqueness. But in India he is merely the whitest
spot on a white surface..."

------
blackhaz
For those wondering about Maharshi, I would wholeheartedly recommend the book
"Be as You Are, the Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi" edited by David Godman
(Penguin) ISBN 978-0-14-019062-5.

------
haltingproblem
I am more familiar with the Buddhist literature on the self and the theory of
mind which was developed in India alongside the Vedic approaches. There should
be something similar in the Vedic system.

The article is guilty of the same fault it attributes to others - namely
looking at Indian philosophy and its theory of self from a Western lens and
missing the vast majority of literature.

In the Buddhist system, they first start by dismantling the idea of a fixed
unchanging self by various. This is accomplished in progressively
sophisticated arguments - self is just an aggregation of parts, to self is
just that which functions to self is a transient changing phenomenon we
construct on a moment-by-moment basis.

Then there are extremely sophisticated divisions of the function of the (so-
called) mind. See Plato
([https://stanford.io/2UFYPZW](https://stanford.io/2UFYPZW)) for a
comphrensive overview and this one for good readable
([https://evanthompsondotme.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/indian...](https://evanthompsondotme.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/indian-
theories-of-mind.pdf)) intro.

There are many schools of thought in ancient India like the Carvaka, who were
rational/materialist, which no longer exist. Then there are traditions like
Mahanyana and Theravada Buddhism that were destroyed after the Islamic
conquest from 1100~1400 AD. No survey is complete without considering these
traditions.

~~~
perfmode
Books and scriptures serve to indicate the existence of the Higher Power or
Self and to point the way to It. That is their essential purpose. Apart from
that they are useless.

However, they are voluminous, in order to be adapted to the level of
development of every seeker.

As a person rises in the scale he finds the stages already attained to be only
stepping stones to higher stages, until finally the goal is reached. When that
happens, the goal alone remains and everything else, including the scriptures,
become useless.

The intricate maze of philosophy of the various schools is said to clarify
matters and to reveal the Truth, but in fact it creates confusion where none
need exist. To understand anything there must be the Self. The Self is
obvious, so why not remain as the Self? What need to explain the non-self?

~~~
haltingproblem
I will try but any incoherence is just my lack of understanding ;)

Why prove that the self is a delusion and it does not exist. First lets try a
simple example of refutation of the self - I am putting a car together part by
part, first the chassis, then the engine block, then the tires. At each point
I turn to ask you "is it a car yet". You say no but at some point, you say
"its a car now". The notion of "this is a car now" is created in your mind the
moment the last part was added. The last part by itself does not contain "car"
any more than other parts. Similarly, we can explain the notion of self. It is
an illusion formed in the mind. Once we understand that it does not exist but
is simply a collection of physical and mental phenomena - we have reached no-
self.

Why bother with this? The realization of no-self creates the space to
understand that we can be anything because we lack a fixed nature (self).

Of course, this leads to many apparent contradictions. Why should the present
me bother to help the future me if the self is illusory and changing (i.e. not
fixed) ;)

~~~
perfmode
"Present me and future me..."

"why should..."

all these... also thoughts...

questions like these... undecidable...

* thoughts are the words of your language in your mind.

* The ego is thought.

* The ego is the I-thought.

* "I am happy", "I am sad", "I did this", "I did that". There are so many sentences that are thought of with the word I in them. That thought "I" in each of those sentences is the ego.

* The root of thought is the I thought.

* Disconnected the I-thought from the external sense objects to which it attaches, and all other thoughts will fall away.

* Follow the I-thought to its source.

* To turn the attention that normally goes out to the world around 180 degrees and to look inward, towards awareness watching awareness.

* Disconnected from external sense objects, the I-thought becomes unstable and retreats to the source and disappears.

* What remains is the Self!

~~~
haltingproblem
I wish removing the ego was as simple as pulling a linguistic trick of
dropping the "I" in a sentence or saying just dont think of the I.

------
iambrj
Ramana's experience with a near death incident reminds me of Wittgenstein
enrolling in the army for the war so that he can have a near death experience
himself

~~~
perfmode
Wittgenstein is special.

what are his books if not non-dual pointings?

------
nabla9
I have read a lot about Jung and Ramana Maharshi when I was younger.

Carl Jung had very strange inner life. He could create hallucinatory beings to
talk and interact with, while still fully understanding that they were inside
his mind. Very atypical mind. Interesting person to read about and influenced
western thinking about psychology.

As a scientist and psychologist he gave new ideas, not better scientific
understanding. Probably because his unique psyche. His ideas are too much
influenced by what is to be Carl Jung.

Ramana Maharshi was another atypical person, probably had some neurologically
interesting going on in his mind. As a young boy he could sleep so deep that
his friends could drag him outside and beat him without waking him up.

One Buddhist teacher described Maharshi as the most realized person he ever
met, but his method of teaching was not as good as what other meditation
practices can achieve. He gave some rudimentary instructions, but if you are
not a worshipper type there was no reason to stick around him. Mostly people
just gathered around to worship and hear him talk.

~~~
kumarvvr
Nothing about his teachings is rudimentary.

The feel like that because they look as simple thoughts.

But those simple thoughts are enough to attain realization of the self,
according to hindu philosophy.

However, they are not suited for the normal layman, because realization
through Ramana Maharshis teachings involves a certain level of knowledge and
thought.

I highly encourage you to read "Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi" by his
disciple.

In those talks, maharshi breaks down how the elaborate hindu cultural and
vedic literature ultimately boils down to utter simplicity.

~~~
nabla9
I have read it. The point is that for committed practitioners reading books
and listening teaching talks is not is not enough. It helps only so much.

Buddhist teacher was someone who had meditated and studied decades. He
recognized Maharshis was very realized. His point was that Maharshis was not
able to teach more than that was in his talks in personal contact.

Well known fact in these circles is that medicore person who has struggled his
whole life can teach his way to other in personal contact much better than
someone who is just amazing.

------
yesenadam
Not really interested what Jung says about Maharshi - I had a Jung phase after
my Freud phase, aged about 20, and came away not at all impressed.

Also had a Hindu guru (and many other religions) phase in my mid 20s. I loved
Vivekananda, but Maharshi was the most impressive. I read the _Gospel of
Ramana Maharshi_ again 20 years later..and 90%+ of it still seemed true,
because he mostly taught from his direct experience, not what he'd heard or
read in books. What he knew to be true.

More immediately accessible for westerners might be Gangaji, an American
woman, who has videos (some on youtube) and books out, who is in Maharshi's
lineage, and has that same quality of speaking from direct experience. She's
great.

Also I got a lot from Ram Dass's books and tapes. Yes, the guy who was a
Harvard psychology professor until he had LSD. Super-articulate and I love his
attitude, full of love and joy.

------
foobar_
It is interesting how the buddhist conception of not-self goes against this.

People often confuse Indian philosophy with Hinduism. That's usually not the
case. The western equivalents would be Neo-Platonism and Stoicism, which have
little to do with Greek Paganism or Christianity. It seems cultures all across
the world come up with similar ideas.

People should be vary of fraudsters and cults. There are plenty of holy men
who run a shady business and use magic tricks to deceive others for personal
benefit.

\-
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grDKdmUcGig](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grDKdmUcGig)
[Documentary Holy Men and Fools]

\-
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcPuRaSEq1I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcPuRaSEq1I)
[James Randi]

I also remember watching documentaries about Osho and Bikram yoga on Netflix,
which highlight spiritual narcissism.

