[Advaita-l] Ramana Maharshi - Advaitin or Neo Advaitin?
agnimile at gmail.com
Sun Oct 2 10:37:02 CDT 2016
On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 2:24 PM, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <
lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
>> Everyone is familiar with "I", and if they have a religious upbringing,
>> they know Ishvara too. So it cannot be argued that the tattvas are
>> completely unknown.
> First of all, these are not those tattva-s which are said to be one by
> The parichchhina-chaitanya is not tattva.
> So, no knowing these two is not enough.
Yes, I agree. Knowing the two is not enough. However, one knows these two -
I and Ishvara, and knows them not to be the same. The question is why does
the aikyAnusandhAnam of sandhyAvandana ask the brahmachAri to say
brahmaivAham? Therefore what the shruti says is one, is neither what I
think as "I", nor what I think as "Ishvara". The fact that I have
misunderstood this is the starting point of enquiry.
> For an uttamAdhikAri who is taught 'brahmaivAham asmi' as part of SandhyA
> By whom?
> If he was taught, then you are in my camp, not other's.
> BTW, just 'hearing' a sentence from someone somewhere can't be termed as
> learning the same. More so when the meaning was never taught.
>> Taught as part of the the sandhyAvandana procedure. By the guru, in this
case, the father. Hearing a sentence from someone somewhere is not
learning. However, for a thinking student, the natural question that will
arise when he looks at the sun saying "asAvadityo brahma, brahmaivAham
asmi" is how can the shruti say that "I", who consider myself to be a
limited individual, and the all powerful Ishvara is the same? However,
shruti, which cannot be wrong, says that to be the case. Therefore, what I
consider to be as me, and what I consider to be Ishvara must be wrong.
> no one can definitively say it is impossible to understand through vichAra
>> the true meanings of I and Brahman for that aikya vAkya to have tAtparya.
> What this vichAra is? I'll give you some time to ponder.
> Think about the nature of vichAra. And, when you are sure that it is not a
> prAmANa, then I'll look at rest of your post.
> If I continue now, I'll have to propound many things.
> Moreover, I don't want to continue by assuming any of your faults(wrong
> ideas) granted. It increases complexity of my answers.
By vichAra I mean the thinking process that is generated when the mahAvAkya
is heard - what would need to be the nature of aham and Brahman for that
equation to hold. If you read Ramana Maharishi's experience of death in his
uncle's house, his thought process is to consider who is I, and what is the
entity that is facing death, and dismiss the body, the mind and intellect
as "I" as part of the thought process.
I do not consider vichAra to be pramANa either. Shruti is the pramANa here,
and whatever thought process that is line with shruti that leads to
understand the real nature of "I" is what I call vichAra.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list