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

[Raghav Kumar]

>
> > Namaste Raghav
> >
> > Yes, I agree with Rajiv Malhotra.
> >
> > The question of adhikara bedha does not arise here, in my opinion. It is
> plain and simple adhyaropa apavada. We do not teach two different things
> for dull and the bright ones.
> > ‎
> > ‎In order to negate something, we must acknowledge that something
> exists, even for uttamottama adhikaris. How can we negate something which
> never existed? Not only Ramana, most neo Advaitins say that there is
> nothing like reincarnation and karma.
> >
> > Regards
> > Kripa ‎
> >
> I am afraid you are making a false statement again and again that Sri
> Ramana Maharshi denied reincarnation altogether. In spite of my
> highlighting in the earlier post the written words by Sri Ramana Maharshi
> where there is clear mention  by him of past lives and coming together
> again in this janma etc.,  and about the mind being freed of taint by doing
> karma over several lives - in words directly ascribed to him which
> contradicts what you said about him being like a neo-Guru who altogether
> denies karma and reincarnation - you want to continue in the same vein. I
> suggest it may be wise to shed this preconceived notion of yours about Sri
> Ramana Maharshi denying the importance of all karmas and reincarnation and
> karma yoga etc., implying total premature dismissal of all sadhanas
> required for antaHkaraNa shuddhi. Such reiteration by you only shows your
> inadequate understanding of him.
>
>
> Also you write "how can understanding which is a kriya lead to the
> conclusion/understanding that karma is mithyA". I am afraid the more you
> write about advaita tattvam the more your confusion becomes evident.
> "Understanding" or jnAnam is NOT a  kriyA. It is vastu-tantra and there is
> no choice in it.
>
> Also your haste to label Sri Ramana Maharshi as neo at all costs is
> evident from your claim that Sri Ramana Maharshi quotes Osho. I am afraid
> the imagined Ramana of your imagination has little correlation with Sri
> Ramana Maharshi of Arunachala who left his physical body in 1950. I would
> suggest that you may be better off if you were to stop tilting at quixotic
> windmills.
>
> On another note you said you broadly agree with Sri Rajiv Malhotra's
> approach. I too am in broad agreement with him.  Just an FYI, Rajiv
> Malhotra has devoted an entire book to defending Swami Vivekananda as being
> firmly within the sanAtana dharma in the way he engaged with modernity and
> defended our dharma.
>
> Om
> Raghav
>
>