advaitam and Kashmir shaivam

[Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian]

Martin Gifford  wrote:

>        The physical universe is Brahman - so says Ramana Maharshi. He said
>that he only denies it's reality for beginners. I think what he is really
>denying is the imposed ideas on physical reality that dualistic thinking
>people have; not the reality itself.

Please! He said no such thing. brahma satya, jagat mithyA is agreed upon
by all advaitins. It is quite clear from RMs writings also. RM merely
said if the physical world of name and form is removed, the substratum
behind it, i.e., brahman alone is reality. Only in this way the world is
brahman and not otherwise. Otherwise what is the point in saying that
brahman does not undergo any change (which RM has amply elucidated
countless times)? If a physical world of name and form is perceived,
then it is a superimposition on brahman by mAyA only. The former
approach is sarvaM khalvidaM brahma and the latter is the neti, neti
approach. They have nothing to do with the maturity of the student and
are merely two ways of stating the same truth.

Ramakrishnan.