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

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

I'll be very happy to stop posting critical essays. But, that may harm
those who are ready for next step, to question more to get more clarity.
Believers are lower-grade. They must continue on there path. Because, that
may take them to the correct one.

In true sense, I started by believing vivekAnanda, then rAmakR^iShNa, then
ramaNa, then uriyA bAbA, then sha~NkarAchArya, etc. Now, I'm independently
studying, not relying on their talks wholly. Now, shruti is more important
for me, logic is needed more than bhAShya.
I know that such transformation doesn't occur in everyone's life. But,
wherever and whenever it happens, it needs some help. This thread may help
to turn their direction to pramANa.


*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः*www.lalitaalaalitah.com

On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 12:29 AM, Ravi Kiran <ravikiranm108 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste
>
> Just few thoughts on this entire thread :
>
> It is said by Bhagavan Sri Krishna that .. ShraddhAvan labhate jnAnam
>
> Having shraddhA is an important aspect from the seeker's perspective and
> at the same time, most difficult to get, mind being saMshayAtmaka and
> fickle natured.
>
> It is only through aquaintance of a mahApurusha in some way or exposure to
> such great soul's teachings,
> that one gets interest towards AdhyAtmika vicAra and having such exposure
> is rare,
> as told in vivekachUDAmanI -
>
> manushyatvam mumukShutvam mahApurushasamsrayam – durlabham – daiva
> anugraham
>
> For many, it is quite possible that through such mahAtma's influence in
> some way (Sri Ramana Maharshi,
> Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Sri Sarada Devi, Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
> etc), belief's in such Teachings,
> eventually one gets shraddhA and/or interest and/or opportunity in study
> of scriptures (knowing its importance) from a shrotrIya (Brahma nishThA).
> It is very rare, that one gets shraddhA in Sruti directly at start, without
> any path traversal ..
>
> The logic based discussions (categorizing a Sage as GYAni or not, is his
> GYAna based on
> sruti pramANA etc) such as the current thread has the potential of
> blocking or hitting at the
> root of the seeker's shraddhA in AdhyAtma or create disturbance in their
> belief's and
> one can possibly lose interest in AdhyAtma mArga itself (if one can no
> longer hold onto one's
> belief strongly to move forward nor hop onto the traditional system)..
>
> I am pointing to the entire discussion on this thread starting from the
> initial post (as controversial)
> ...
>
> If one has the knowledge to refute all these opinions and continue on
> one's path in a steadfast
> manner, it is fine. If not, if it is based on devotion to a mahAtma or
> belief in such teachings and
> getting introduced to advaita, the negations or refutations, seeding
> doubts, may have a counter effect
> on such seekers, which may potentially affect a seeker.
>
> At the same time, for many of the members, such critical reasoning in
> advaita is a good learning benefit as well.
> Since this list may have a mix of audience, at all levels (beginner in
> this path to GYAni's/AchArya's, it is up to one's decision/discretion to
> chose the topic to start the discussions and share your understandings.
>
> If the same discussion (such as the current topic here) happens within a
> vidvat goshti
> ( meeting a minimum common level) , chances of buddhi bhEdha are less ..
>
> However, if one opines, it is up to the audience, to chose which thread to
> read and which to discard, the audience
> to use their discretion, have nothing more to say :)
>
> Just my 2c,
>
> Thanks
>
> On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 10:10 AM, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <lalitaalaalitah@
> lalitaalaalitah.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>
>