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

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

That's fine with me. I don't have to conclude that ramaNa was GYAnI. The
condition of doubt is more favorable for me.

On Sat, 1 Oct 2016 09:20 Ravi Kiran, <ravikiranm108 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste,
>
> On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 1:43 AM, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> > Ø     Yes, that is why I said jnana of the particular jnAni is his
> > hrudaya spandana and acknowledging that in any particular person is
> > subjective decision of his/her followers.
> >
> You have to understand that I was accepting other's point of view
> apparently and then questioning their claim about ramaNa being GYAnI. Try
> to relate the answer to the logic which others provided.
>
>
> >  Ø     In the brahma jignAsa  (unlike dharma jignAsa)  shAstra is not the
> > sole pramANa anubhavAdhyascha too valid pramANa says shankara…If the
> > anubhava of ‘deathlessness’ of Atman to ramaNa is in line with shruti
> > pramANa can we discard it just it is not the result of shruti vAkya
> janita
> > or pramANa janita jnana prabhuji ??
> >
>
> I'm questioning the cause of anubhava he had? First of all, I'm not sure
> that the anubhava he had was same as that which is generated by shruti.
> Second, how could he get that result without pramANa.
>
>
> If there is lack of information (whether one(A) has admitted that jnAna
> had, is through Sruti pramANa or not) and in the absence of such
> information (if one (A) has not admitted through one's own words/writings
> that jnAna is not through Sruti pramANa. Note: there is no admission that
> one(A) has not been exposed to Sruti texts through one's life either), how
> can any one(B) categorize another one(A) as not jnAni or advaitin, as jnAna
> is svasaMvedya ? It can't be established either way through logic?
>
> Based on such a one's (A) describing his experience about one's (A) own
> absorption in the Self experience, another yogi (X) or jnAni (Y) or Z
> reading such texts may interpret accordingly and such interpretation
> (pramA) is vyakti-niShTA knowledge (from A's point, such interpretation may
> be true or false, but from X or Y or Z standpoint, it is true only). Now,
> some one (C) may say, all such interpretations ( X or Y or Z) are beliefs,
> since there is no clear information available about A's jnAna prApti. That
> is fine. But, one(B or C) cannot conclude/establish A, as not
> jnAni/advaitin either.
>
>
> Thanks
>