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

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Swamiji,

On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 11:39 PM, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <
lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com> wrote:

> ​If you understand limitations regarding GYAna, my case is still strong.
>

I think you meant samAdhi not jnAna.

To add, vAsanAxaya is not result of samAdhi, it just helps them suppress.
> The eradication is brought by practicing shubhavAsanA and finding faults.
> ​kAraNa means asAdhAraNakAraNa, whenever we talk.
>
Thanks, I stand corrected.


>
> In case of shAstraGYA, if the person has studied mImAMsA to ascertain
> validity of veda-s and then vedAnta(definitely according to
> advaita-sampradAya) to ascertain the meaning as aikya, there is nothing
> left to cause doubt.
> pramANa doesn't expect your inclination towards it.
>

True, but still one can misunderstand due to some pratibandhaka. That is
all I was indicating.


> ​
>
>> The only benefit of doubt you would give is that since he studied
>> shAstras, maybe he really knows.
>>
>
> ​If study doesn't generate knowledge, then what does? Not studying and
> some peculiar shock!?
> We are talking of kAraNa, which itself is kAryaniyatapUrvavR^itti. If you
> think knowledge can't be gained by study, then you must not study yourself
> and try to get some shock which again is not in your control.​
>
I am sorry, Swamiji, you are doing the same thing that you accuse others of
doing! I did not say that study does not generate knowledge.


>
> BTW, if a person has some means, it's not a small thing to lead us to
> decisions. Compare it with the case of person who claims that he has gained
> results without having means. It either means that you accept that without
> means the result is possible, or the means is not unique.
> If first, let us start sleeping for everything is going to happen somehow.
> If second, let us add that shock, etc. are means of knowledge.
>

Both are out of the question, since I never said no means are needed or I
accepted any other means. To rephrase, the dispute was only if prior life
learning can be conducive to jnAna in this life, which is the question I
had ended my previous post with.


> I am giving the benefit of doubt that maybe Maharshi studied in earlier
>> life.
>>
>
> ​Without deciding that the person had results, you can't ascertain that he
> had means even in some distant time. If you are willing to guess that he
> had results and so he must have means. Then I wish best of luck for you are
> showing bias, which makes you unfit for a meaningful dialogue.
> ​
>
>> That is a very unfair assessment about me, since I have not particularly
used any kutarka. Here's why. All this was said in the context of analysing
if one is a jnAni, whether after study in sampradAya or not. If former, you
are saying that "it is not a small thing", which I don't disagree with, but
you cannot discount that the person may not be a jnAni due to
misunderstanding like many sampradaya offshoots. If latter, hypothetically
accepting, not definitely, I am saying that the study has to have been done
in former life. Which is why I had asked the final question you explain
below.


>
> In a response to someone else, you said that prAmANyabuddhi in earlier
>> life does not help in this life.
>>
>
> Any GYAna(vR^itti) is anitya and leaves saMskAra. saMskAra-s don't work
> directly for any other purpose. They can only work by generating smR^iti.
> ...
>


> why I feel  intense during  japa, that I'm sitting still and separate and
> japa is being done automatically. And the senior replied that : That's
> sAxI, and the mind is doing japa. It was so simple, but the brahmachArI
> didn't understand it completely and failed to rise to height of ramaNa.
> I also remember what svAmI nishchalAnanda-sarasvatI, sha~NkarAchArya of
> purI, told me : The person -  who doesn't respect his experience - falls.
>

Thanks for the explanation and your time. That was useful, especially the
last point above.

praNAm,
--praveen