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

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

All my replies which you feel are assumption are just because I've to
entertain other's assumption.
Even if you didn't say anything, I've to imagine from my side and reply to
that. Those are extras, you don't need to bother if you didn't mean the
same.
But, your clarification about your stand is welcome.

On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 10:29 Praveen R. Bhat, <bhatpraveen at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Swamiji,
>
> On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 11:39 PM, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <
> lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com> wrote:
>
> ​If you understand limitations regarding GYAna, my case is still strong.
>
>
> I think you meant samAdhi not jnAna.
>
> To add, vAsanAxaya is not result of samAdhi, it just helps them suppress.
> The eradication is brought by practicing shubhavAsanA and finding faults.
> ​kAraNa means asAdhAraNakAraNa, whenever we talk.
>
> Thanks, I stand corrected.
>
>
>
> In case of shAstraGYA, if the person has studied mImAMsA to ascertain
> validity of veda-s and then vedAnta(definitely according to
> advaita-sampradAya) to ascertain the meaning as aikya, there is nothing
> left to cause doubt.
> pramANa doesn't expect your inclination towards it.
>
>
> True, but still one can misunderstand due to some pratibandhaka. That is
> all I was indicating.
>
>
> ​
>
> The only benefit of doubt you would give is that since he studied
> shAstras, maybe he really knows.
>
>
> ​If study doesn't generate knowledge, then what does? Not studying and
> some peculiar shock!?
> We are talking of kAraNa, which itself is kAryaniyatapUrvavR^itti. If you
> think knowledge can't be gained by study, then you must not study yourself
> and try to get some shock which again is not in your control.​
>
> I am sorry, Swamiji, you are doing the same thing that you accuse others
> of doing! I did not say that study does not generate knowledge.
>
>
>
> BTW, if a person has some means, it's not a small thing to lead us to
> decisions. Compare it with the case of person who claims that he has gained
> results without having means. It either means that you accept that without
> means the result is possible, or the means is not unique.
> If first, let us start sleeping for everything is going to happen somehow.
> If second, let us add that shock, etc. are means of knowledge.
>
>
> Both are out of the question, since I never said no means are needed or I
> accepted any other means. To rephrase, the dispute was only if prior life
> learning can be conducive to jnAna in this life, which is the question I
> had ended my previous post with.
>
>
> I am giving the benefit of doubt that maybe Maharshi studied in earlier
> life.
>
>
> ​Without deciding that the person had results, you can't ascertain that he
> had means even in some distant time. If you are willing to guess that he
> had results and so he must have means. Then I wish best of luck for you are
> showing bias, which makes you unfit for a meaningful dialogue.
> ​
>
> That is a very unfair assessment about me, since I have not particularly
> used any kutarka. Here's why. All this was said in the context of analysing
> if one is a jnAni, whether after study in sampradAya or not. If former, you
> are saying that "it is not a small thing", which I don't disagree with, but
> you cannot discount that the person may not be a jnAni due to
> misunderstanding like many sampradaya offshoots. If latter, hypothetically
> accepting, not definitely, I am saying that the study has to have been done
> in former life. Which is why I had asked the final question you explain
> below.
>
>
>
> In a response to someone else, you said that prAmANyabuddhi in earlier
> life does not help in this life.
>
>
> Any GYAna(vR^itti) is anitya and leaves saMskAra. saMskAra-s don't work
> directly for any other purpose. They can only work by generating smR^iti.
> ...
>
>
>
> why I feel  intense during  japa, that I'm sitting still and separate and
> japa is being done automatically. And the senior replied that : That's
> sAxI, and the mind is doing japa. It was so simple, but the brahmachArI
> didn't understand it completely and failed to rise to height of ramaNa.
> I also remember what svAmI nishchalAnanda-sarasvatI, sha~NkarAchArya of
> purI, told me : The person -  who doesn't respect his experience - falls.
>
>
> Thanks for the explanation and your time. That was useful, especially the
> last point above.
>
> praNAm,
> --praveen
>