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

[Kripa Shankar]

Namaste Bhaskar

My query i‎s simple. There are so many concepts like shrAddha, Creation theory, Karma etc 

Why pick up reincarnation, why mix up vyavahara and paramaartha and why to take pain to explain again that nothing holds in absolute terms when it is said already many times. Kim punaha?
‎
Regards
Kripa

‎---‎
‎Vyasaya Vishnu roopaya Vyasa roopaya Vishnave 
Namo vai Brahma nidhaye Vasishtaya namo namaha 
  Original Message  
From: Bhaskar YR
Sent: Tuesday 20 September 2016 4:03 PM
To: Kripa Shankar; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta‎
Subject: RE: [Advaita-l] Ramana Maharshi - Advaitin or Neo Advaitin?

praNAms Sri Kripa Shankar prabhuji
Hare Krishna

When Ramana comments that there is no reincarnation, is it in paramarthika sense or vyavaharika?

> if we read the ramaNa's words carefully, it is quite evident that for the believers of reality of individual self (jeeva) reincarnation is there but when one realized that there is no individual self as such there is no reincarnation. This is, I think in line with vedAnta. 

If it is paramarthika, why is there a need to emphasise on reincarnation? Why couldn't he just tell his devotees to refer to the standard definition given in the shastras. 

> As I said before what ramaNa saying here is not deviating from vedAnta. Since ramaNa often talks from that highest point of view (pAramArthika drushti ), it appears that he is not giving due importance to vyAvahArik teachings of vedAnta. But that is not the case I think at least in this case. avidyApratyupasthApita kAryakAraNOpAdhinimittOyaM ShAreerAntaryAmiNOrbheda vyapadeshaH, na pAramArthikaH clarifies shankara in sUtra bhAshya. When ramaNa says there is no incarnation what so ever for the self it is from this highest point of view where there is no different between vijnAnAtma and paramAtma. 

In my opinion this exact thing is what differentiates Advaita from neo Advaita. Not acknowledging the Shastras, trying to redefine concepts which are already well explained  in Shastras, not acknowledging traditional gurus etc. 

> Again, kindly pardon me prabhuji, I still failed to understand your stand with regard to ramaNa here in this particular context of jeeva's re-incarnation. In short here ramaNa saying as long as there is belief that there is jeevAtma (individual jeeva) there is punarjanma after the dawn of jnana that there is only SELF there is nothing like punarjanma because 'janma' itself denied for the parabrahma vastu. 

> hope I am not missing anything from your observation here.

Hari Hari hari Bol!!!
bhaskar