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

[Kripa Shankar]

Namaste Raghav 

I am not making any false statements. 

Request you to read the statement again. You are missing the context here. He stated that the understanding leads to the understanding that karma is mithya. ‎So according to you, in vastu tantra jnana we have a student who understands that karma is mithyA. 
‎
I mentioned Osho which was a mistake. I admit. But you can insert 'paramahamsa yogananda' in his place. What difference does it make? :)

I don't know about Rajiv Malhotra's defence. It's not that I agree with everything that Rajiv says. For instance I don't think his association with Ravi shankar will help his cause. 
‎
Regards 
Kripa ‎

Vyasaya Vishnu roopaya Vyasa roopaya Vishnave 
Namo vai Brahma nidhaye Vasishtaya namo namaha 
  Original Message  
From: Raghav Kumar
Sent: Wednesday 21 September 2016 6:55 PM
To: Kripa Shankar
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Ramana Maharshi - Advaitin or Neo Advaitin?


On 21-Sep-2016 12:05 pm, "Kripa Shankar" <kripa.shankar.0294 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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