The Upanishads, Ramana Maharshi, & Shankara

I'm going to start with Ramana Maharshi because that reading was the only one that resonated with me. I impressed with the simplicity and truth of the essay, as well as its lack of pithy clichés. I found the sentence “All religions have come into existence because people want something elaborate and attractive and puzzling” to be particular valid. His assertion that “only mature minds can grasp the simple truth in all its nakedness” goes right to the heart of the problem with varying religious doctrine. Humans seem to require that their belief system contains a complex set of rules, a convoluted and far-fetched tale and a charismatic leader. Ramana Maharshi simply states that “Nobody doubts that he exists, though he may doubt the existence of God. If he finds out the truth about himself and discovers his own source, this is all that is required.” Beautiful.

Shankara is similar in its position that a simple approach to self-enlightenment is all that is required for “bliss”. However, too many of the proclamations of this essay seem like an over-simplification of the world and the nature of humans. “A child plays with his toys, forgetting even hunger and physical pain.” Hmm. No child of mine ever did that. The knower of Brahman also “gets his food easily by begging alms…”, evidently unbothered by the fact that someone has to actually earn alms so as to have them to give to him. It’s a naive, rather myopic position to take that by eschewing all material things we can achieve perfection and as such, in my opinion, provides little in the way of true insight and enlightenment.

Finally, I will comment on the Upanishads. Or more accurately, I will start by commenting on Mitchell’s introduction to this reading regarding the first four lines (That is perfect…). The statement that this piece of work is the “epitome of all spiritual teaching, a sword to cut through the Gordian knot of theodicy” is such an over-statement that it is hard to know where to begin. I suppose it can be taken as an example of the teleological argument for the existence of god. That argument is one that can rather easily be refuted, however. I guess as a saying for a fortune cookie or a nice wall plaque it works, but as a serious theological explanation it fails, in my opinion, to offer anything in the way of insightful and clarifying edification.