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

[R Krishnamoorthy]

Dears
My view is this discussion about Sri Ramana Bhagwan is not worth being
pursued. If one does not accept His teachings calling Him Neo advaitin or
not sampradhayavic nothing is lost. It is his view. Really it is not
serving any purpose except for flashing upanishad vakyas to prove that the
poster knows what he knows.
R. Krishnamoorthy
On 8 Oct 2016 11:13, "V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l" <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Dear Sri Kripa Shankar,
>
> The post that you have sent (below) shows that you have not understood the
> phrase 'shruta- hāni' even though it was explained already before. So all
> that you have concluded is void ab initio.
>
> regards
> vs
>
> On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Kripa Shankar <
> kripa.shankar.0294 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > ‎Namaste Subramanian
> >
> > Sorry for the late reply (was out) .
> >
> > I would like to draw your attention to a more fundamental aspect. I will
> > take just two words from the phrase and I will choose the translation of
> > your choice. First is Shastravit - learned in all Shastras. Now a
> > fundamental question is how does one learn the shastras?
> > A) On palm leaves
> > B) On Kindle or
> > C) Orally from teacher's mouth
> >
> > To be very specific, Vedanta should be learnt from a teacher who would
> > have learnt from a teacher who would have learnt from a.......
> >
> > Now it's a whole different matter that Ramana didn't care to study at
> all.
> > So by definition, he was a.....
> >
> > However, let's assume that he was indeed a SampradAya vit - acquainted
> > with traditional interpretation, although he was not even a shAstra vit
> at
> > the first place. How does one ever be acquainted with traditional
> > interpretation without ever studying is beyond my child like
> understanding.
> > ‎‎
> >
> > Let's take an example :
> > A proclaims - As per the traditional interpretation the sky is indeed
> blue
> > (A has studied shAstra on his own)
> > B proclaims - As per the traditional interpretation the sky is indeed
> > black (B has studied shAstra as per the injunction, from a teacher from a
> > certain parampara)
> >
> > We will then have to conclude that B is right and should dismiss the view
> > of A by attributing the fault in his understanding to his fault of
> studying
> > on his own.
> >
> > Now we have C who is neither conversant with Shastras nor the traditional
> > interpretation (impossible to know the interpretation of a subject, being
> > ignorant of the subject itself) . C talks something unrelated, based on
> > some personal experience. C never mentions anything about shruti because
> he
> > is obviously illiterate of it. So his personal experience is the only
> > pramANa. Now if we accept C to be a sampradAyavit, then so is Christopher
> > Nolan. Because Nolan made no such claims either. However by your logic we
> > will have to arrive at that conclusion.
> >
> > Now for ShrutahAni - ignoring what is directly taught. This obviously
> > means taught directly from guru to shishya * as per the rules *.
> >
> > Now to even argue about Vamadeva and Ramana is downright ridiculous. Even
> > if we say Vamadeva was ignorant of previous births but only proclaimed
> > sarvatmabhava, he did that * in his mother's womb *. Proclaiming anything
> > in mother's womb is unusual and so we have to conclude that Vamadeva had
> a
> > different level of perception. So your justification is meek.
> >
> > Regards
> > Kripa ‎
> > ‎
> > Vyasaya Vishnu roopaya Vyasa roopaya Vishnave
> > Namo vai Brahma nidhaye Vasishtaya namo namaha
> >   Original Message
> > From: Kripa Shankar
> > Sent: Monday 3 October 2016 3:56 PM
> > To: V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l; Praveen R. Bhat
> > Cc: Advaita discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
> > Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Ramana Maharshi - Advaitin or Neo Advaitin?
> >
> > Namaste Subramanian - I hope you can read my comments (with >>)
> > ‎
> > I will address just the above point that Praveen ji did not choose to:
> >
> > Shankara is making the ShastrArthasampradAyarahitatvam, that is the
> > absence
> > of ShastrArthasampradAya, as the hetu, cause for someone doing ShrutahAni
> > and ashrutakalpanAm, the two defects that make a person an
> > asampradāyavit. By saying this, Shankara is implying that one who does
> not
> > do ShrutahAni and ashrutakalpanAm is ShastrArthasampradAya-sahitaḥ. Thus
> > ShastrArthasampradAya does not have anything to do with lineage but
> *only*
> > to the teaching-content.
> >
> > >> I respectfully disagree. Here Shankara says
> > ShastrArthasampradAyarahitatvam is the * only cause * 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. This is ascertained as Shankara goes on to say * Sarva
> > shastravid * which means fully versed in Vedanta etc, who imitates
> Vedanta
> > to the word, *api* even if that be the case, *Moorkhavat eva*, still
> only a
> > fool (should be regarded as such) . ‎
> >
> > So, since Ramana did not engage in the two defects stated by Shankara, he
> > cannot be put in the category of someone who lacks ShastrArthasampradAya.
> > For Shankara this is enough reason to hold someone a Guru as he
> > demonstrated in the Manishāpanchakam: even a chāndāla, since he is not
> > distorting the shāstrārtha, is admissible to him as a Guru, on the same
> > pedestal of a dvija. Shankara did not go to find out who is the one from‎
> > whom the chāndāla learnt or when he did sādhana and became a jnani. That,
> > again, is the sole consideration for the Chandogyopanishad to have Raikva
> > teach the Atma tattva to Janashruti, the King. Again, Bālāki the Brahmana
> > did not go into the Guru-lineage of King Ajātashatru, a Kshatriya-Jnani,
> > when the former surrendered to to get brahmavidyā. Same case with the
> > vaidika sampradāya Acharyas to acknowledge Ramana as a Jnani; and the
> > earlier Sringeri Acharya pointing to the Jnani identified as 'Para
> > Brahma'.
> >
> > An account on Para Brahma here:
> >
> > *http://tinyurl.com/hl6wt4e <http://tinyurl.com/hl6wt4e>*
> >
> > Read p.92 to 95
> >
> > >> I wish to point out that you are quoting almost every example that
> > features in the classic texts and thereby you are quoting it completely *
> > out of context *. In Soundarya lahiri, Shankara says Shivakare manche. So
> > should we conclude that Shiva is in fact a helper in the house and not
> > Ishana mentioned in the Upanishads. Or should we conclude that one diety
> is
> > inferior or superior to another? No! It is used in a poetic sense to
> > highlight the greatness of the subject (Devi). Here too in
> > Manishapanchakam, Shankara is trying to highlight the greatness of
> > Atmavidya (anyone can have Atmavidya is the inference ). Else, he would
> be
> > contradicting his own statement made earlier about Moorkha.
> >
> > ‎‎
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>