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

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Swamiji,

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:15 PM, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <
lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com> wrote:

> Even for most of participants here, the pramANatva of shruti is either
> unclear or useless. In that case, it is easy to say that they are believers
> of advaita, not seekers.
>

Agreed. Shruti has to be the only pramANa for aikya, since it cannot be
known through any other means.

"After hearing the Self to be the Brahman the person finds the true import
of the Self and reverts to it whenever he is diverted from it.  Here is the
*WHOLE PROCESS* of Realization."


> This doesn't convince me about his understanding. It just gives credit to
> shrautaikyaGYAna for making understand importance of AtmA(whatever that
> means) to remember self whenever one is distracted. This is not the use of
> aikyaGYAna or shruti. Moreover, what is this turning to self? Why is it
> needed? - We must think about that.
>

The sentence does not say "importance of AtmA", but *import*, which means
what it really is, which is brahman. Then "reverts to it" would mean revert
to the lakShyArtha of self being brahman as learnt from Shruti. That would
be gaining niShThA..


> I don't think Ramana Maharshi said that that was his sAdhana. He said that
> it was spontaneous as a child and he just analyzed this experience. So it
> is more closer to unknown first, even before vichAra.
>

I've read that the death-like experience caused him to understand self
apart from body. And that is what he clearly said and supported.
This type of experience is evident in even new sAdhaka-s who experience in
meditation that the japa and other vR^itti-s are coming and going and he is
watching. This is tvampadArthashodhanam. Same is case of ramaNa.
Rest parts, as aikyam and mithyAtva of prapa~ncha, can't be known by such
means.



> Praveen, I know that there are occurrence where he mentions brahma and
> negates bheda, but was that based on shruti(which must be known as pramANa)
> or was just added later because someone told him that he is talking similar
> to upaniShad-s. We have to decide that he understood that part. Mere
> repetition to confirm to shruti is not enough.
>

I don't have such a doubt since this can be raised about anyone in the
sampradAya itself and I do not know how this would ever be proven.


> I'm not against good qualities. The problem is that there are things which
> can't be known on their own, they need shruti. For that portion, I've to
> decide whether he knew that shruti is pramANa. Once it is clear, there will
> be no problem to increase the probability of him being brahmaGYAnI.
>

I understand your point of view. Thanks.


Kind rgds,
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known!
[Br.Up. 4.5.15] */