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

[Kripa Shankar]

Namaste Praveen 
‎
And by scriptures, you mean shAnkarabhAshya only, I suppose. As discussed earlier, the term Neovedantin itself is vague and subjective. To me, it may those who follow "anything goes" in the name of Vedanta, while to you anyone non-sampradAyavit. (As an aside, among these sampradAyavits also, going by the Mundakashruti, one should approach a shrotriya and brahmaniShTa. Every sampradAyavit is not shrotriya and I don't even need to mention about the latter qualification).

>> Let me elaborate. Shruti is valid only through Guru shishya tradition. Hence shruti pramana / Apaurusheya aspect is lost without the Guru shishya link. To further my argument and to emphasise on Shruti pramana, we can compare how new age Gurus are teaching Vedanta. The narrative amongst neo Vedantins is that Vedanta corresponds to the 'scientific facts '. Some call it scientific experiential knowledge which is universal. But what if the 'scientific facts ' are not verified? Some of the proponents still  think of Newtonian physics when they think of 'science'‎. But again that's besides the point. The issue at hand is that in the orthodox school, the pramana cannot be hijacked from Shruti (sampradAya) to 'Modern Science'. The hatred for the Vedas is subtle as some people, due to the influence of self hate inflicted by the current education system will regard the whole Guru shishya sampradAya as regressive and caste based. Our own personal opinions doesn't matter, Scriptures should be honoured. 
 ‎
Shankara says A sampradAyavit Sarva shastravidapi..... He didn't say Ramana was exception to this rule. 
Well, he did. Read the line previous to it. आत्महा स्वयं मूढः अन्यांश्च व्यामोहयति शास्त्रार्थसम्प्रदायरहितत्वात्, श्रुतहानिम् अश्रुतकल्पनां च कुर्वन् । तस्मात् असम्प्रदायवित् सर्वशास्त्रविदपि मूर्खवदेव उपेक्षणीयः That तस्मात् stands out indicating a preceding हेतु right in our faces. There is a context for everything. If all one has a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The context here is wrong interpretations of shAstras by an आत्महा, स्वयं मढः, अश्रुतकल्पनां च कुर्वन्, not a ज्ञानी। Moreover, when Bhagavan Ramana did not teach shAstras, did not claim to do so, and never said anything against shAstras, he is an exception to the rule, if at all the rule is taken to be meant for him! All one can understand is that Ramana Maharshi was not a श्रोत्रिय and due to that, one should prefer to learn Vedanta from a श्रोत्रिय Guru. That, with no imagination should be taken to mean that everything that a non-shrotriya says is opposed to shAstra!

>> I will have to say the same thing, please read it : *ShastrArthasampradAyarahitatvAt ShrutahAnim kurvan* then what does it become?  *AshrutakalpanAm*. Here Shankara has emphasised on SampradAya both implicitly and explicitly. Besides, This alone is enough to determine whether someone is orthodox or not. Without ascertaining the background of the prospective groom will a father give away his daughter randomly to anyone? It's amusing to see we are even arguing about this point when it is considered as the basics. What is shAstriya and what i‎s not shAstriya, who will decide this? It is the Shastras alone which decides this. If you consider Ramana said every bit of what he said exactly as per Shastras, even then he will stand outside of the orthodox school. It is that simple. A mirror image can never become the object itself. Shruti is the greatest of all in the Vedas, the grand celebrity. 
‎


... He is using the conclusion listed as point 3 in: 
1) jnAna cannot arise from anything but shruti. 
2) One is a jnAni.
3) Therefore, jnAna of a jnAni has come from shruti alone, be it from study in last life/ lives. 

This is an undeniable conclusion via arthApatti unless you deny point 2. Point 1 is not of dispute else shruti will no longer remain pramANa.

>> I am not sure why you used arthapatthi here as it applies only to Shruti statements. Otherwise I can deduce that even a rock is a jnani by my own arthapatthi. ‎

Regards 
Kripa ‎