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

श्रीमल्ललितालालितः lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com
Sun Oct 2 13:26:26 CDT 2016

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.


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

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list