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

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

Why ramaNa stands near sA~Nkhya?
>> Because, he never accepted that his knowledge was product of mahAvAkya.
>>
>
> Ramana Maharshi may not have accepted it in so many words but see what he
> says in Talks 647 (CAPS emphasis is mine please):
> Each one knows the Self but is yet ignorant.
>

This must mean that he know self otherwise, and in the sense that he
doesn't know the true nature, the person is called ignorant of self.


> The person is enabled to realize *ONLY* after hearing the Mahavakyas.
>

That's quite assuring. If he was sure then, it good to accept that he
supported mahAvAkya-s as pramANa.
Here, I must make clear that even if someone doesn't hear the same
tattvamasi, or have opportunity to learn veda-s/vedAnta-s, he has to
accept(logically, not only believe) that the hula-pramANa of the sentence
conveying similar meaning is shruti. If he doesn't then the whole thing,
the whole process, just becomes a belief system without backing of
pramANa-s.
So, whether ramaNa or you accept shruti as pramANa for dharma and brahma or
just believe in shruti, is to be decided.
Once it is made clear that the person has logically concluded the
pramANa-bhAva of shruti, then it is easy to say that what he heard from
other person(which was based on statement of shruti-pramANa) is also
pramita.
Even for most of participants here, the pramANatva of shruti is either
unclear or useless. In that case, it is easy to say that they are believers
of advaita, not seekers.


>   Hence the Upanishadic text is the eternal Truth to which *EVERYONE* who
> has realized owes his experience.
>

This sentence credits shruti for GYAna, since shruti must be either direct
cause or mUla-pramANa for the Apta-vAkya-s, etc. to realise that which is
beyond other pramANa-s. It is promising.


>   After hearing the Self to be the Brahman the person finds the true
> import of the Self and reverts to it whenever he is diverted from it.  Here
> is the *WHOLE PROCESS* of Realization.
>

This doesn't convince me about his understanding.
It just gives credit to shrautaikyaGYAna for making understand importance
of AtmA(whatever that means) to remember self whenever one is distracted.
This is not the use of aikyaGYAna or shruti.

Moreover, what is this turning to self? Why is it needed? - We must think
about that.


> I don't think Ramana Maharshi said that that was his sAdhana. He said that
> it was spontaneous as a child and he just analyzed this experience. So it
> is more closer to unknown first, even before vichAra.
>

I've read that the death-like experience caused him to understand self
apart from body. And that is what he clearly said and supported.
This type of experience is evident in even new sAdhaka-s who experience in
meditation that the japa and other vR^itti-s are coming and going and he is
watching. This is tvampadArthashodhanam. Same is case of ramaNa.
Rest parts, as aikyam and mithyAtva of prapa~ncha, can't be known by such
means.


> However, if he said that he accepts shruti as pramANa, and knows that he is
>> one with brahma, or is one alone; then I could have thought that he was
>> aupaniShadapuruShavettA.
>>
>
> Other than Talks 647 quoted above, Ramana Maharshi says in Upadeshasaram
> in his own words: ईशजीवयोर्वेषधीभिदा । सत्स्वभावतो वस्तु केवलम् ॥ २४॥
>

Praveen, I know that there are occurrence where he mentions brahma and
negates bheda, but was that based on shruti(which must be known as pramANa)
or was just added later because someone told him that he is talking similar
to upaniShad-s. We have to decide that he understood that part. Mere
repetition to confirm to shruti is not enough.

I'm not against good qualities. The problem is that there are things which
can't be known on their own, they need shruti. For that portion, I've to
decide whether he knew that shruti is pramANa. Once it is clear, there will
be no problem to increase the probability of him being brahmaGYAnI.