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

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

It appears that there are few options available:
1. Ramana was a GYAnI
2. He was not a GYAnI

BTW, why not make it clear that what do we mean by the word GYAna here and
what are it's means?

We have to think about the proof of him being GYAnI or signs of the same.

Once we establish that he was indeed a GYAnI, we can go further to think
about his teachings, either vague or clear.

Then I'll also like to know the definition of advaitin and neo-advaitin, so
that I can try to categorise him as any one of them.

Till now we have one person telling that he was not a person endowed with
brahmaGYAna, while others are assuming that he was indeed because someone
showed some respect to him.
To me respect from other is not a sign of GYAna, but is common for any good
quality. Ramana had many good qualities, including tyAga which
maThAdhIsha-s don't possess. So, respect from one of maThAdhIsha-s, who is
a sannyAsI and who is expected to be sarva-tyAgI but can't do, may be just
a sign of greater degree of aparigraha in respected.
Whatever signs you see in him, are not essentially signs of GYAna. They can
be found in a dvaitI who posseses bhakti and it's means. Don't we see many
vaiShNava-s tyAgI-s or calm as sea?
I'm sure that in advaita-l group, we talk about GYAna of oneness which is
generated by shAstra only. I'm quite sure that just asking who am I is not
enough to ascertain nature of Atman, although it helps us do
anvaya-vyatireka to decide that Atman is not dRshya. This discrimination is
not enough to help us decide that we are not tainted by relation of dRshya.
We may imagine that we are not tainted, but that is not a proof. So, I
think that Ramana stands close to sA~Nkhya-s, and yogI-s compared to
advaitin-s.
Unless GYAna of Ramana is ascertained, we can't imagine that he had done
any sAdhana in previous births.
Mere hearing of praNava or some mantra-s which eulogise knowledge of
oneness, is not enough to generate GYAna - as is evident in our case. So,
we can't claim that they caused the brahmaGYAna in his case too. Once the
existence of result, GYAna, is decided; we should run to find it's cause,
ignoring how much small or ineffective it may be for us, so called
ashama-adhikArI-s.
According to me there are only two divisions - advaitins, who have
knowledge of oneness which dawns due to shruti; and dvaitins, who are
ignorant of oneness, owing to lack of shruti, vichAra, etc. Even people
striving for dawn of knowledge fall in second category, according to this
division. How could a person who has not ascertained advaita, be called
advaitin? So, according to me even a faithful of advaita who lacks GYAna or
who is inclined towards advaita for unknown/vague reasons or who lacks
means of such knowledge, is neo-advaitin. People, about whom we can't
decide anything also fall in this category. To play safe and not to indulge
in hating others, I'll say that such people are impressive, but I can't
decide that they are actually GYAnI or not, and hence I'll keep them in neo
group. No disrespect. They have good qualities. I'll take them. For the
portion where uncertainty lies, that is GYAna, I'm also not willing to
delude myself with overload of respect(mostly by shutting the ability to
critically think) towards people, whoever they are, maThAdhipatI-s,
sannyasI-s, tyAgI-s, shAnta-s, jIvanmukta-s or whatever their follower term
them.

  इति
श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
ललितालालितः ॥
www.lalitaalaalitah.com

On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 at 18:40 Kripa Shankar via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Bhaskar
>
> I request you to kindly read the article after you reach home or open the
> link on your phone. The author has credibility and it is a well researched
> article with ample references. He has summarised all the points succinctly.
> Like Kalidasa said everything old is not supreme, everything new is not
> bad. Same way everything on the internet is not trash. ‎
>
> We are in agreement then. He was not a rigid follower of orthodox Advaita
> tradition. We ‎can label that however we want.
>
> Since you have asked my personal opinion :
> 1) Ramana got famous by rumours, hear says and media coverage. Further
> owing to post colonial effect, we Indians accept blindly whatever the white
> man says (not being a racist, but indicating that Indians subconsciously
> have a bit of self loathing). So white man's words are Apta vakyas for us.
> 2) The  man who was responsible for the 'discovery' of Ramana was a
> dubious person.
> 3) Most of Ramana's teachings were written by his associates.
> 4) Ramanashram is an international organisation with many centres all over
> the world. How is it sustainable?
> 5) Not to be hurtful or bitter towards anyone, but his teachings are
> vague, hollow and mostly answers the deep philosophical questions with
> another question.  It cannot be compared to Shankara even in wildest
> fantasy. For eg: 'Insert any question ' - Who are you, who is asking the
> question? To whom does the question belong? Or something like - There is
> nothing to be taught, no nothing, just keep asking who the heck you are. Or
> abide in yourself.
> 6) lastly, Ramana often quotes from Tao, Christ, Osho etc but never
> Shankara or other old Rishis.
>
> 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 5:56 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
>
> Due to restrictions in accessibility of internet I am not able to open the
> link you provided at my office desk top. Anyway, instead of depending too
> much on web data, what do you think of yourself about ramaNa's teaching and
> why do you think his teaching goes against Advaita ?? can you share your
> thoughts in your own words prabhuji?? Kindly note I am not saying ramaNa's
> teaching and methodology is strictly in line with traditional teaching and
> sAdhana, but to my knowledge I hardly find any difference in ramaNa's
> teaching with that of Advaita. In short, though bhagavaan ramaNa was not a
> rigid follower of orthodox Advaita tradition, his teaching is NOT alien to
> Advaita.
>
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> bhaskar
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Advaita-l [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org] On
> Behalf Of Kripa Shankar via Advaita-l
> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 5:49 PM
> To: Advaita discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Ramana Maharshi - Advaitin or Neo Advaitin?
>
> ‎Namaste
>
> Interesting article about Ramana. This mig‎ht explain so many aspects
> about Neo-Advaita and the confusion around. Further, this corresponds to
> the recent campaign of Rajiv Malhotra. This may also explain why Ramana is
> saying there is no reincarnation.
>
>
> https://bharatabharati.wordpress.com/2011/01/30/atma-jyoti-ashram-sannyasis-or-snake-oil-salesmen-swami-devananda-saraswati/
>
> ‎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 4:44 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
>
> My query i‎s simple. There are so many concepts like shrAddha, Creation
> theory, Karma etc
>
> > yes, in the shruti, dharma shAstra etc. we will find plenty of
> references with regard to shrAddhAdi karma, creation, karma etc. for the
> jignAsu-s who are yet to realize that ultimate truth that there is no
> creation, no jeeva, nor mukti nor bandha.
>
> 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?
>
> > don’t you think shruti and bhAshya themselves an admixture of these dual
> viewpoints?? 're-incarnation' is one of those topics. And in this
> particular context ramaNa might have taken this topic and clarified his
> stand from the highest view point. To do apavAda first we have to know what
> is adhyArOpita, is it not prabhuji. Kindly see kArika maraNe sambhave
> chaiva gatyAgamanayOrapi and shankara bhAshya on that it would clear from
> this that exit, going away, reincarnating are all from the stand point of
> imputation and nothing real in 'real' sense.
> ‎
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> bhaskar
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>