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

sreenivasa murthy narayana145 at yahoo.co.in
Mon Oct 3 21:46:32 CDT 2016

Dear Sri Kripa Shanker,
  Sri Subramnian wrote thus : "There is nothing more I need to add to this thread.  You can take time to understand the various concepts that came up in this discussion."
I will slightly amend the above thus : " Do not waste your time and energy to understand the various concepts. Instead of it, You  utilze  your energy and time to cognize / realize (svAnuBavamkRutvA) THE ONE who exists Prior to the appearance of the concepts , who illumines the concepts during their existence and who continues to exist even after they subside". This is what Upanishads and Sri Shankara teach.
With respectful namaskarams, Your Well-wisher,Sreenivasa Murthy  

      From: V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
 To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> 
 Sent: Monday, 3 October 2016 11:03 PM
 Subject: [Advaita-l] Fwd: Ramana Maharshi - Advaitin or Neo Advaitin?
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 10:13 PM, Kripa Shankar <kripa.shankar.0294 at gmail.com
> wrote:

> Dear Subramanian
> I have already responded to Praveen and I am not sure what exactly you are
> referring to. Can you please elaborate if you don't mind? The comments
> within brackets were my own and not translation of the text. In any case it
> is pretty straight forward statement. ‎When Shankara is explicitly saying
> Sarva shastravidapi, I am not sure what is that you don't seem to get from
> this assertion.

You can see for yourself what you missed from that 'straightforward'

The sentence from the BGB 13.2:

.. स्वयं मूढः अन्यांश्च व्यामोहयति शास्त्रार्थसंप्रदायरहितत्वात्?
श्रुतहानिम् अश्रुतकल्पनां च कुर्वन्।* तस्मात् असंप्रदायवित्
सर्वशास्त्रविदपि मूर्खवदेव उपेक्षणीयः।।*

Translation by Alladi Mahadeva Sastri:

//Ignorant in himself, he confounds others, devoid as he is of the
traditional key (sampradaya) to the teaching of the sastras. Ignoring what
is directly taught, he suggests what is not taught. Therefore, not being
acquainted with the traditional interpretation, he is to be neglected as an
ignorant man, though learned in all sastras.//

What you (mis)understood:

//* for ShrutahAni(how can it be shruti if there is no successive order?
And hence ShrutahAni by definition , ) , which * by default or by
definition * becomes Ashrutakalpana.//

What the words actually mean:

//shrutahāni = Ignoring what is directly taught (in the upanishads such as
'Tat tvam asi), ashrutakalpanam = he suggests what is not taught. //

With such fundamental misunderstanding you have tried to apply that
sentence to Ramana!!

You thought 'shruti' = something that is heard or passed on by vocal
instruction. But that is not at all what it means here.  This term is quite
common as 'defect' in the sastra.

>> ‎When you are comparing the case of Ramana and Vāmadeva, you are comparing
> Apples and Oranges. It's like comparing a kindergarten teacher with a
> university professor. Vāmadeva * claimed * that he knew about his past
> incarnations while Ramana did not make such claims. Thus Vāmadeva had a
> different level of perception (supra human) but Ramana had only limited
> perception although his name indicates otherwise.

Since you have no understanding of the Vedanta shastra, you think: every
jnani has to give expression to his realization in the 'same' way. That is
your folly and hence the above misconception.

In that Br.up.1.4.10 itself we have two samples of such expression:1.
 'Brahman knew itself as 'aham brahma asmi' and therefore became
everything. 2. Vamadeva declared 'I was manu, surya, etc.' and thereby
expressed his sarvatmatva.  The key is sarvatmatva anubhava and not what is
expressed. One may not express at all. There are several jnanis stated in
the upanishads and smritis.  No two expressions of realization are always
the same.

> So Shankara has not quoted him out of context but you have. Thus the rest
> of your argument fails.‎

All your arguments fail since they are ab initio void as shown from your
own words.

There is nothing more I need to add to this thread.  You can take time to
understand the various concepts that came up in this discussion.


Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/

To unsubscribe or change your options:

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list