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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Kripaji,
"This is why I felt * the method adopted by Ramana * of always speaking in
paramarthika(apparently)  is not in line with scriptures. "

Scriptures speaks in vyavahAra in order to take people from vyavahAra
drishTi to paramArtha drishTi. The ultimate reality is only paramArtha.
There is no harm in speaking of it.

"It's the same with reincarnation. To say that reincarnation is applicable
for fools and the wise do not acknowledge it is just wrong."

I think you are missing the wood for the trees here. You expect that just
because some shruti uses a particular prakriya  (teaching methodology), all
shrutis need to necessarily use it. Aitareya, Taittiriya etc use srishTi as
a prakriyA to explain Brahman, but mANDUkya doesn't. Similarly if a student
is caught up with the view that reincarnation is correct, sometimes shruti
provisionally accepts it before finally invalidating it. However, that
provisional acceptance does not mean that all gurus have to use it all
times. Neither does an adherence to reincarnation confer "advaitatva" to
the teaching, nor does the failure to adhere to it deny it. As it has been
successfully argued in advaita tradition, prakriyA bheda does not mean
siddhAnta bheda. In order to determine if some teaching is in line with
advaita or not, one needs to look at the siddhAnta, not the prakriya. It is
not a question of someone being a fool or not, it is whether a particular
teaching works for him or not.

"Your last line is just a matter of terminology. "

You had said: "You have admitted that Ramana himself never claimed to be
either shAstra vid or sampradayavid. Then why is it an issue to classify
him as a great soul outside the orthodox school of Advaita?" to which I
replied "No issue whatsoever  - however it would be erroneous to use that
as a basis to classify his teaching as non-vedAnta or neo Vedanta." Perhaps
you mean this last line in my email.

Sorry, what I meant to say was that there is a difference between
classifying Ramana the person as outside the orthodox school of advaita, vs
classifying his teaching as outside the school of advaita. Even if you
concede the former, it does not imply the latter. Not an issue of
terminology, its the crux of the entire debate.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Kripa Shankar <kripa.shankar.0294 at gmail.com
> wrote:

> ‎
> ‎Namaste Venkatraghavan
>
> I am not saying Karma exists in paramarthika! I am saying we should first
> establish what is Karma in order for us to negate it in paramarthika! This
> is why I felt * the method adopted by Ramana * of always speaking in
> paramarthika(apparently)  is not in line with scriptures. It's the same
> with reincarnation. To say that reincarnation is applicable for fools and
> the wise do not acknowledge it is just wrong. ‎This is however my opinion
> and hence my reasoning.
>
> Like I said, it's a matter of opinion. If you want to reconcile his
> teachings with Shruti, then fine. But it would be enlightening to know the
> official stance of Ramanashram itself.
>
> I never claimed that I have a crystal clear understanding. From darkness
> to light, from imperfection to perfection.
>
> Your last line is just a matter of terminology.
>
> Regards
> Kripa
>
> ---
> ‎
> Vyasaya Vishnu roopaya Vyasa roopaya Vishnave
> Namo vai Brahma nidhaye Vasishtaya namo namaha
>   Original Message
> From: Venkatraghavan S
> Sent: Wednesday 21 September 2016 6:54 PM
> To: Kripa Shankar
> Cc: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Ramana Maharshi - Advaitin or Neo Advaitin?
>
> Namaste Kripa ji,
>
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Kripa Shankar <
> kripa.shankar.0294 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Namaste Venkatraghavan
>
> Yes there are some issues with my phone.
>
> I am not saying study of Shastras is futile because then I would be
> contradicting myself. A Vedantin considers Shravana manana and nidhidhyasa
> as an anugraha of ishwara. Otherwise it is just revelling in ahankara(I
> will study, I will be free). It is again for this reason that shAstra
> vidhis are central to orthodox Advaita. Because a sadhaka performs a‎ll
> actions because they are mentioned in the shastras and not moved by own
> will / obligation. Otherwise if the sadhaka deluding himself or herself to
> be intelligent, performs anything as per own inclination, is firmly bound
> within the confines of ahankara.
>
> Good, we are on the same page here.
>
> ‎If we cannot identify Karma, then how can Akarma be achieved. Karma is
> not mithyA. Karma is the law of causality. How can * understanding * which
> is a kriya itself lead to the * conclusion / understanding * that Karma is
> mithya. ‎
>
> You are sadly mistaken here. All the things you mention in this paragraph
> - karma, the law of causality, ajnAna and jnAna are ALL very much within
> the sphere of vyavahAra, and therefore mithyA. If any of these were
> paramAtma satya, then Atma would respectively be 1) kartA 2) the ultimate
> cause and 3) changing (it was ignorant, now it is knowledgeable). If
> anything other than Atma were to be real, then that would be advaita hAni.
> How can understanding get rid of the wrong notion that karma is mithyA? A
> mithyA jnAna is necessary and sufficient to remove the mithyA ignorance and
> its product, mithyA karma. My dream thirst can only be quenched by dream
> water, not the water available in the waking state.
>
> Ramana taught what he taught. Those who want to believe it ‎believe it.
> Ramana, a true saint or not is irrelevant. The only contention is that his
> teachings cannot be considered as orthodox Advaita because :
>
> 1) By his own/Ramanashram  admission
> 2) His words are not shruti (paurusheya)‎
> 3) He cannot be considered a Guru in orth‎odox sense, for he was
> illiterate of Shastras, outside the lineage and mostly maintained silence
> when asked about anything. This is considering for the sake of argument
> that he was jnani.
> 4) Judging by the affairs of the Ashram
>
> You are missing the most important criterion - is his teaching as
> preserved, in line with shruti? A dispassionate analysis would reveal that
> it most definitely is in line with shruti. If you believe it to be
> otherwise, then it is your burden of proof to do so.
>
> I am not mentioning his teachings because then it will be a matter
> o‎pinion. In fact, his teachings matter the least in order to classify. But
> nonetheless I have already stated my opinion.
>
> No it will be a matter of analysis open to scrutiny and unfortunately your
> analysis is unlikely to stand up to that scrutiny -  as demonstrated in
> this very email, your understanding of various advaita concepts are sadly
> muddled. However, please do not take this as criticism, it is simply a
> pointer to address those issues in your sAdhana.
>
> My view is that Ramana Maharshi's teachings are not meant for the lay
> reader - it requires a high level of sAdhana chatushTaya, and an
> understanding of shAstra already. His teachings are really meant for those
> that have already completed shravaNa (and maybe manana). The true value of
> his teaching is for those doing nidhidhyAsana in my view,
>
>
> You have admitted that Ramana himself never claimed to be either shAstra
> vid or sampradayavid. Then why is it an issue to classify him as a great
> soul outside the orthodox school of Advaita?
>
> No issue whatsoever  - however it would be erroneous to use that as a
> basis to classify his teaching as non-vedAnta or neo Vedanta.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
> Regards
> Kripa
> ‎
> ‎---
> Vyasaya Vishnu roopaya Vyasa roopaya Vishnave
> Namo vai Brahma nidhaye Vasishtaya namo namaha
>
>
>