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

[Kripa Shankar]

Namaste Subramanian 

Ok I am willing to consider all your points except few. 

I didn't say posing for camera was wrong! If Ramana was discovered in 1931, who was taking the photo of Ramana when he was a teenager? Or was he quite well known to anyone at that age? 

If as you say lineage doesn't matter, then will it not set a bad example? People following that rule will have no significance and people in general may switch to svechachara. 

Also what about the other points? 

Regards 
Kripa ‎

Vyasaya Vishnu roopaya Vyasa roopaya Vishnave 
Namo vai Brahma nidhaye Vasishtaya namo namaha 
  Original Message  
From: V Subrahmanian
Sent: Thursday 22 September 2016 11:50 PM
To: Kripa Shankar; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Ramana Maharshi - Advaitin or Neo Advaitin?



On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Kripa Shankar via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

 Namaste Praveen 
‎




Sadashiva Brahmendra was a great renunciate. He was sky clad and roamed about as if he was dumb or mad. But he followed all principles of conduct before that.

How do you know Ramana did not follow the principles of conduct before he became a renunciate?

 
I hate my guts to do this but Ramana although wore a single piece of cloth he had quite comfortable seating arrangements within the Ashram atop the hill. He had many servants around him all the time. He used to have Mrishtanna bhojana and was always surrounded by people.

Have you read about what condition was Ramana was in during the Pathala Lingam times? How many servants were there then? What bhojana he was served by whom then?

  
How this is Atiashrama no one really knows. The British man Paul Brunton discovered Ramana in 1931. I suppose he was in his fifties then. But there is a picture of an adolescent Ramana posing for the camera, very calmly. Any explanation without assumptions?  

You fault posing for a photo?  If camera was popular then, Sadashiva Brahmendral would also have posed!!  The Upanishads have given descriptions of Brahman for upasana. Sadashiva has penned innumerable major and minor works. How do you think this was possible without any interaction with people? In fact he did interact with people, there are stories about that. 


 I am contrasting it with Shankara's teachings and trying to conclude that both are in opposition. 

1) Ramana tries to reconcile his teachings with teachings of other popular names like Christ. Shankara reconciles his teachings with Shruti smriti Puranas.

You have not read how many stories based on puranas Ramana has narrated. 
 
2) Ramana does not emphasise on following the duties of order. In other words, Vedas are stripped from Vedanta. Shankara emphasises on following the duties of respective order. 

You do not know that there was a Veda pathashala in the Ashram during Ramana's times. 
 

6) A student of Ramana (who is ignorant of orthodox school of shankara) would relate to the stories told by Ramana about Christ, Buddha, some random Paramahamsa, some random Mahatma. Orthodox school has a rich history of Yogis of innumerable kinds. It is but natural that we emulate our ancestors. So this aspect should be kept in mind.

You do not know that Shankara has given a word of appreciation to Buddha's vairagya. For Shankara 'para matam apratishiddham anumatam bhavati.' What is non-contradictory to one's school, is happily admitted. So, if a contemporary Acharya takes some points from Christ or Buddha, how does that become bad?