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

[Sujal Upadhyay]

​​
praNAms Sri श्रीमल्ललितालालितः ji,

How do you know that I hate varNAshrama dharma? Personal opinion without
knowing me? I have not asked about only sanyAsins. Have asked to share
opinion and have sad that a fact checking has to be done on critical
review. and I have appreciated their way of life. I salute them, honestly.
It is ok to have an opinion, ask others to follow the tradition. I really
appreciate their effort and their intention of well-wishing of society
behind their request to follow dharma. But if someone tries to force
something down the throat, is it acceptable?

Anyone who questions has to have a credibility. It is my opinion. The
problem is that critics never want themselves to be questioned. It is their
fatva which we must accept, else we are all what you have said ....

Yes, no one is perfect, and on practical grounds, ours journey is to learn.
For learning, there is no need for a character certificate, though there
are some prequalifications for learning advaita. But to criticize anyone,
is it a spiritual journey? a sAdhaka blames only himself / herself, not
others. When one is firm about his/her opinion, but still says, I am open,
is it not contradiction?

​**So, a discussion must not depend on what you do. It must be based on
knowledge.

Agreed, but not agreed. How do you gain knowledge without practicing and
applying the teachings in your own life? It is we ourselves that feel the
inner change, not others. action depends upon samskAra. Your samskAra-s in
your mind is your true nature, not what you present or how you present in
front of others.

Yes, critics do have courage to discuss which others do not have courage,
but then, what if they have their own dogmas and they issue their own fatva
and not ready to listen?

If there is argument from one side, there will be counter on other side
too. It is a chance to refute argument. But the person has to be open. If
some quotes from Ramana Gita or any other works are presented which
contracts the claim of critic, then it should be accepted. Same is true for
those trying to refute argument. If you do not find answers, better accept
you do not have answers.

**So, never bring character of person to win an argument. It's the worst
logic, if we can term it a logic, which can be used.

So you mean to say that a sanyAsin can have affairs, can ask for money to
build ashram. Is this explanation a justification of their actions? If
non-traditional saints are questioned, then why cant traditional be
questioned.

and do you mean to say that an AcArya can do whatever he wants, and there
is no need to do any kind of sAdhanA? Adi Sankara's arguments are mere
logic without the backing of experience nor they are said from rooting in
Brahman. Is this your opinion? Buddha, rAmAjuna, mAdhva, Adi Sankara, and
other AchArya-s were men of lofty character says Kanchi Paramacharya. They
did not attract mass by their scholarships, but by their lofty character
says Kanchi Paramacharya. So when someone say SrI rAmAnuja objected the
philosophy, his own personality made others accept the objections with
respect.

Those who criticize can live the way they want. In other words, I can point
fingers at others but no one should point a finger at me. I can question
the opinion, logic, philosophy, character or life of any one, but no one
should question mine. I have a right to live private life, which should not
be discussed, but my opponent, whom I am criticizing, cannot have anything
private.

Nobody is bringing character to *WIN* argument. Ramana Maharshi was least
concerned about what others think about him. He is not at a loss. I am not
trying to *win* by any means. It is your own opinion that when there is
disagreement, it turns into a war. It is not jalpa or vitaNDa.

Strong, weak, lose, win, guts, no guts, etc --- where is the learning here?
is there?

After shooting my last post, I had expected this kind of response, but was
surprised to get it from you and in a way it is being said. If something
unexpected is said, it should be also a medium of inner reflection.

Nothing said to *attack* *win* or *Hurt* anyone. If someone thinks so, I
publicly apologize unconditionally and take my words back.


On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 2:13 PM, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> There is a specific tendency visible in many people, mostly those who hate
> varNAshrama but don't want to appear as so, to expect 100% observance of
> shAstrokta-dharma and AchAra from anyone who appears to follow them.
> Let us accept that there is nothing called 100% observance of any rule,
> either shAsrtIya or other. It's a journey where we learn shAstra-s, gain
> shraddhA in vidhi-niShedha and then try to follow them according to our
> eligibility and likings. These factors are common for any area of
> unforced-natural-learning.
> ​<content Clipped>
>