[Advaita-l] Ramana Maharshi - Advaitin or Neo Advaitin?

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः*www.lalitaalaalitah.com

On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 1:47 AM, kuntimaddi sadananda via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> First the whole discussion whether Ramana Maharshi is jnaani or not is
> meaningless. Since it is up to one's beliefs whether someone is a jnaani or
> not. Beliefs are not logical since they are beliefs.
>

​If this was so meaningless, you wouldn't have posted it here.
It has some purpose.
>From our end, it will help you learn about pramANa(shruti) and logic.​
>From other's end, ramaNa's devotees may get force to follow more and more.

Shraddhaa you are referring is very important - but that is defined as -
> shaastrasya guruvaakyasya satya budhyaavadhaaraNa - saa shradhaa. Hence not
> only on teacher but on shaastra is also important.
>

​The misconception which is well spread among even advaitin-s is that they
think that avadhAraNa is assumptions.
It is not.
avadhAraNa means conclusion. And, that is not same as assumption. It must
be reached by using logic.
So, in this way even those teaching advaita are reaping benefits by making
fool of students. That's why we see that guru's rarely get questioned
seriously, for their anger(visible or not) may arise and destroy you. :P
​

> Whether one is jnaani or not cannot be litmus-tested,

​
Yes, that's why shruti says disciple to reach shrotriya​ and brahmaniShTha,
since no one can know who is brahmasaMstha!! :P

Hence one can say he is shaastravit not necessarily jnaani - but hopefully
> we assume that he knows what he is teaching.
>

​That's why I said that assumption is base of the whole breed of new
vedAnta sampradAya.
​

> Knowledge once gained will not get negated - the mind may not be capable
> of repeating that knowledge due to memory problems - that is true for any
> jnaanam - as Uddalaka tests Swetaketu by asking him to starve for 15 days
> and Swetaketu could not chant Vedas after that. Hence I do not agree with
> LalitalaalitaH statement that jnaanam can get lost - if that is what I he
> meant. If that is not what he meant, then I am not sure what he said in
> that. However it does not matter since it is not relevant.
>

​You may need some help for differntiating 'negation'(bAdha) of GYAna and
anityatva of the same.
​I think you are capable, and will find the difference of what I told and
what you are superimposing on me.

Scripture provided a case using Vamadeva that jnaanam is not lost by being
> born as vaamadeva.


​Then accept that GYAna is not a mean of cessation of saMsAra, since the
GYAna was not lost and he got birth too.
​

> Krishna says a person, if he has not shtita prajna, will be born in a
> conducive family for his rapid growth. Nothing is lost by this pursuit.  It
> is a fact that Bhagavan Ramana's life took complete change after his
> death-experience - some experience that triggered further pursuit. Hence
> knowledge never get wasted.
>
​
The portion of gItA which is exclusively for yoga(karma), is being bent
here for some unknown reason.
God know what purpose this dishonesty will serve.​

Most of us agree that anubhava -including samadhi - is not a means of
> knowledge. Pramana has to operate by its due process via the mind. anubhava
> from advaita point is abiding in the knowledge gained by shravana etc.
>

​So, here :
abiding in knowledge = anubhava
I leave people to decide, where this useless laxaNA will lead.
​

> What is required is mahaavaakya - the essence of vedanta - That part is
> apourusheya - not the text per sec - that is the pramaana part.


​I've seen K Sadananda doing this all over apauruSheyatva thread in many
forums. He doesn't have any idea about the meaning and context of the word
in which it occurs during discussion in older text. So, he always tends to
bring his version.
​
Rest of his post doesn't deserve attention, since this apauruSheytva thing
is too much disturbing.

If the teacher teaches tat tvam asi in some form that the disciple can
> understand, and the student has faith in that teaching, which is the faith
> indirectly on the Vedantic teaching, then teaching is fulfilled. The
> example of Nisargadatta Maharaj is one where he has not studied Vedanta but
> understood from the teaching of his master - the essence of tat tvam asi.
>
> There is Ammachi in Kerala - a saintly lady who sent her own students to
> learn Vedanta so that they can formally teach, since she could not teach
> although she seems to have understood the essence of the teaching.
>
> I had mentioned that Bhagavan Ramana's texts Upadesha saara and Sat
> Darshnanam are packed with Vedanta. Some of the question-answers he gave,
> gives the impression that study of scriptures are not needed. I am reminded
> of the Vevekacudamani Sloka that says
> ajnaate pare tatve shaastraadeestu nishphalaa}vijnaatepi pare tatve
> shaastraadeesty nishpalaa}Thus study of scriptures is useless if one is
> ajnaani or jnaani. - Obviously the superficial meaning will give wrong
> guidance, since the very fact the rest of the text provides exhaustive
> analysis of the scriptures.
>
> I must admit that some of these question-answers by Bhagavan can mislead
> the students - as it appears to be happening as we see since many think
> that the study of scriptures is useless or not needed and one can sit down
> and inquire - who am I, and gain the knowledge.
> What is essentially required is to understand clearly without a doubt 1.
> Brahma statyam, 2. jagat mithyaa and 3. aham brahmaasmi.
> Shakara says - anena vedyam tat shaastram, iti vedanta DinDimaH - Hence he
> has defined what is shaastram - if the three understood - one way or the
> other.
>
> The difficult part and I am sure many of us agree is to abide in the
> knowledge - or jnaana nishTaa.
>
> The rest of discussion, however logical or illogical has no bearing.
> Just my 2c On this topic.
> Hari Om!Sadananda
>
>
>       From: Ravi Kiran via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
>  To: श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com>
> Cc: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-
> vedanta.org>
>  Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2016 2:59 PM
>  Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Ramana Maharshi - Advaitin or Neo Advaitin?
>
> Namaste
>
> Just few thoughts on this entire thread :
>
> It is said by Bhagavan Sri Krishna that .. ShraddhAvan labhate jnAnam
>
> Having shraddhA is an important aspect from the seeker's perspective and
> at the same time, most difficult to get, mind being saMshayAtmaka and
> fickle natured.
>
> It is only through aquaintance of a mahApurusha in some way or exposure to
> such great soul's teachings,
> that one gets interest towards AdhyAtmika vicAra and having such exposure
> is rare,
> as told in vivekachUDAmanI -
>
> manushyatvam mumukShutvam mahApurushasamsrayam – durlabham – daiva
> anugraham
>
> For many, it is quite possible that through such mahAtma's influence in
> some way (Sri Ramana Maharshi,
> Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Sri Sarada Devi, Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
> etc), belief's in such Teachings,
> eventually one gets shraddhA and/or interest and/or opportunity in study of
> scriptures (knowing its importance) from a shrotrIya (Brahma nishThA). It
> is very rare, that one gets shraddhA in Sruti directly at start, without
> any path traversal ..
>
> The logic based discussions (categorizing a Sage as GYAni or not, is his
> GYAna based on
> sruti pramANA etc) such as the current thread has the potential of blocking
> or hitting at the
> root of the seeker's shraddhA in AdhyAtma or create disturbance in their
> belief's and
> one can possibly lose interest in AdhyAtma mArga itself (if one can no
> longer hold onto one's
> belief strongly to move forward nor hop onto the traditional system)..
>
> I am pointing to the entire discussion on this thread starting from the
> initial post (as controversial)
> ...
>
> If one has the knowledge to refute all these opinions and continue on one's
> path in a steadfast
> manner, it is fine. If not, if it is based on devotion to a mahAtma or
> belief in such teachings and
> getting introduced to advaita, the negations or refutations, seeding
> doubts, may have a counter effect
> on such seekers, which may potentially affect a seeker.
>
> At the same time, for many of the members, such critical reasoning in
> advaita is a good learning benefit as well.
> Since this list may have a mix of audience, at all levels (beginner in this
> path to GYAni's/AchArya's, it is up to one's decision/discretion to chose
> the topic to start the discussions and share your understandings.
>
> If the same discussion (such as the current topic here) happens within a
> vidvat goshti
> ( meeting a minimum common level) , chances of buddhi bhEdha are less ..
>
> However, if one opines, it is up to the audience, to chose which thread to
> read and which to discard, the audience
> to use their discretion, have nothing more to say :)
>
> Just my 2c,
>
> Thanks
>
> On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 10:10 AM, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <
> lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com> wrote:
>
> > That's fine with me. I don't have to conclude that ramaNa was GYAnI. The
> > condition of doubt is more favorable for me.
> >
> > On Sat, 1 Oct 2016 09:20 Ravi Kiran, <ravikiranm108 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Namaste,
> >>
> >> On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 1:43 AM, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः via Advaita-l <
> >> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Ø    Yes, that is why I said jnana of the particular jnAni is his
> >> > hrudaya spandana and acknowledging that in any particular person is
> >> > subjective decision of his/her followers.
> >> >
> >> You have to understand that I was accepting other's point of view
> >> apparently and then questioning their claim about ramaNa being GYAnI.
> Try
> >> to relate the answer to the logic which others provided.
> >>
> >>
> >> >  Ø    In the brahma jignAsa  (unlike dharma jignAsa)  shAstra is not
> >> the
> >> > sole pramANa anubhavAdhyascha too valid pramANa says shankara…If the
> >> > anubhava of ‘deathlessness’ of Atman to ramaNa is in line with shruti
> >> > pramANa can we discard it just it is not the result of shruti vAkya
> >> janita
> >> > or pramANa janita jnana prabhuji ??
> >> >
> >>
> >> I'm questioning the cause of anubhava he had? First of all, I'm not sure
> >> that the anubhava he had was same as that which is generated by shruti.
> >> Second, how could he get that result without pramANa.
> >>
> >>
> >> If there is lack of information (whether one(A) has admitted that jnAna
> >> had, is through Sruti pramANa or not) and in the absence of such
> >> information (if one (A) has not admitted through one's own
> words/writings
> >> that jnAna is not through Sruti pramANa. Note: there is no admission
> that
> >> one(A) has not been exposed to Sruti texts through one's life either),
> how
> >> can any one(B) categorize another one(A) as not jnAni or advaitin, as
> jnAna
> >> is svasaMvedya ? It can't be established either way through logic?
> >>
> >> Based on such a one's (A) describing his experience about one's (A) own
> >> absorption in the Self experience, another yogi (X) or jnAni (Y) or Z
> >> reading such texts may interpret accordingly and such interpretation
> >> (pramA) is vyakti-niShTA knowledge (from A's point, such interpretation
> may
> >> be true or false, but from X or Y or Z standpoint, it is true only).
> Now,
> >> some one (C) may say, all such interpretations ( X or Y or Z) are
> beliefs,
> >> since there is no clear information available about A's jnAna prApti.
> That
> >> is fine. But, one(B or C) cannot conclude/establish A, as not
> >> jnAni/advaitin either.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>