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

Kripa Shankar kripa.shankar.0294 at gmail.com
Sat Oct 8 02:42:36 CDT 2016

My final comment. Even if we assume that Ramana proclaimed  jiva Brahma aikya , we cannot, by any stretch of imagination assume (conclude) that he was a Shastravit, sampradAyavit or a jnAni. 

It can be best termed as ‎plagiarism. 

Vyasaya Vishnu roopaya Vyasa roopaya Vishnave 
Namo vai Brahma nidhaye Vasishtaya namo namaha 
  Original Message  
From: V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l
Sent: Saturday 8 October 2016 11:13 AM
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
Reply To: V Subrahmanian
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Ramana Maharshi - Advaitin or Neo Advaitin?

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.


On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Kripa Shankar <kripa.shankar.0294 at gmail.com>

> ‎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/

To unsubscribe or change your options:

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

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list