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

[Kripa Shankar]

‎
I am not clear how you use the example. What I had asked was whether he did Vedanta adhyayana also apart from Veda?  For, mere veda study would not be conducive to Atma jnana. You have not provided that information.   
‎
DISCLAIMER : I have used caps because I am unable to use rich text editor. Sorry for the inconvenience. ‎
>> Yes he must have studied Vedanta because I don't think he would be quoted for being proficient in panchatantra. ‎

‎

‎
The above argument suffers from a serious illogicality. We will have to restrict only those jnani-ns spoken of in the Veda/smriti to qualify for the above. Just because a jnani of the post-veda/smriti period exists we cannot say he has gained knowledge form a paurusheya source.  The purpose of the sutra I referred to is to help us decide on those cases such as Ramana. In fact Shankara has said that those who are not eligible to study the Upanishads can get Jnana through purana, paurusheya source. 

>> Again you are veering off the tangent. Let me try to break it down. There are 3 students. Student A studies and interprets Vedanta on his own. Student B studies under a qualified Guru (**NOT Necessarily A JNANI **) and interprets it according to the scriptures as handed down from one teacher to another in successive order. Student C does not even study anything. 
‎
Now lets say for the sake of argument that student B IS A FOOL but students A and C ARE JNANIS. THAT IS BESIDES THE POINT. 

The Point is THIS - Students A and C are still considered neo Vedantins because THE SCRIPTURES SAYS SO. Shankara says A sampradAyavit Sarva shastravidapi..... He didn't say Ramana was exception to this rule. You quoted the example of Jadabharatha wrongly. I have already mentioned why. 
 ‎
‎

What you say //The cause of Ramana's jnana could not be established and hence it is a mere belief that he was a jnAni.// happily applies to Shankaracharya too.  Is Shankaracharya a Vedic-personage? It is only we Advaitins believe that he is a Jnani; non-advaitins care least about this belief.  For them he is an ajnani. Our belief that Shankara is a Jnani is also from others saying so; we have no power to judge that ourselves. For, even an ajnani can do the anuvāda, alluding, of the shrutis and that can create a belief in someone that he is a Jnani. 

I mentioned that outside Veda Vyasa's woks and period, there cannot be anyone who can be admitted as Jnani because there is no way one can decide whether one is since it is still a belief or someone else in whom we have shraddhā has to vouch for it.  That is why I said in an earlier post that in this field logic will never work; it is only āpta vākya for the seeker or Grace that guides him to the Jnani-guru. Even Ramana has said he has a Guru, the inner Self, Arunachala. 

Shankara did not say how he became jnani.  We have to only believe that he became one.         

>> You are going on and on about jnani and ajnani while I'm trying to point out SOMETHING ELSE. 
‎

I will try to give an example although it might be inappropriate. Artists from elsewhere come to our country to make money but when they are asked to say a few words sympathising with our people, they show deep disregard and ignore us as if we don't matter. 

Now Ramana who is claimed to be the epitome of Vedanta never acknowledged the cause of his jnana to the Vedas. In other words it is equal to show contempt to the Shastras. That doesn't mean he was not a jnani, just that he had nothing to do with Vedas even remotely.  

Now, this is self-contradictory.  On the one had you want to accept Ramana as a Jnani. Tell me if 'Jnani' can be anywhere outside the purview of the Veda? It is only within the range of Veda do we have the concept of a Jnani. So, his alleged not acknowledging Veda as the source of Jnana will never disqualify him from being a Jnani, which automatically means he is within the purview of the Veda. In fact Vedic scholars approached him for clarifications and blessings. Those who are accepted by all as being within the Veda sampradaya have acknowledged Ramana as jnani. Do you think you are better qualified than these personages to pass judgement on Ramana? In fact this is what is contempt to shastra. The shastra never puts a bar on Ramana.  It is because of Jnanis that the shastra gets its value. If there are no jnanis the shastra will be merely empty words.    

>> For the nth time I AM NOT ARGUING ABOUT RAMANA BEING A JNANI. ‎

Regards
vs


Regards 
Kripa‎
‎
‎