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

[Kripa Shankar]

Namaste Subramanian 

Your advice is well taken. Btw the book which you mentioned earlier by Umesh is apparently out of print and it has been edited with new title yoga enlightenment and perfection. I have read this book not once but several times. I was always skeptical of other branches like Kundalini Yoga because it was defiled by popular culture. Because of this book, I have come to appreciate various aspects of Yoga, owing to the words of true sadguru. Vidya is homogeneous. All the branches are to be reconciled and all paths (shad darshanas) including Shaiva and Shakta lead to the same goal. But it becomes annoying when the same statement is extended to mean even following Christ Buddha or some random saint is same.  (note that this book does not mention anything other than the conversations with Abhinava Vidyatirtha Swamy  ). Anyone can compare this book with Ramana's book and infer the difference between orthodox and the other schools like day and night. 
‎
This is a direct consequence ‎of mixing up new age corporate gurus with the orthodox. This is the undercurrent of my view. Does it matter now if Ramana was a saint or not? No. It's all about affiliation. In my own house there are books stacked up about new age gurus filled with simplistic remarks and hollow, vague statements. The title of the book reads 'Guru charitre' but it's not about Dattatreya, it's about some Sai baba who was compelled, for some strange reason, to club sufism. I don't want to read about the goddamn sufism in guru charitre of Datta. You might also find it strange that there are so many apara dattas.lol. 
‎
The result of all this is that no one gets to read Shankara or the Puranas like Mahabharata. ‎An average person doesn't care about the political side of anything. And an average new age guru is at best, the seller of Vedas. There can be no freedom of thought if there is no study of the Shastras. I am not saying Sringeri is the epitome of Vedas. I am only referring to it frequently because it's an organized structure representing the orthodox school. Like all rivers take refuge in the ocean, there should be a refuge for the orthodox school. Otherwise any group that is leaderless is scattered away like a herd of sheep. 

I really don't care about popular culture but I feel that the original Vedas should be left alone. ‎
‎
Ramana's case always intrigued me and it surprised me that almost 100 percent of the people within the circle considered only his fables and not anything else. Guru vakya is a command and not heeding to it means to disrespect. I am surprised why this disrespect for the age old Vedas by not obeying / acknowledging it or by not knowing it. 
‎
Sorry if I have hurt anyone, not my intention. 

Regards 
Kripa 
‎
‎
Vyasaya Vishnu roopaya Vyasa roopaya Vishnave ‎
Namo vai Brahma nidhaye Vasishtaya namo namaha 
  Original Message  
From: V Subrahmanian
Sent: Sunday 25 September 2016 10:55 PM
To: Kripa Shankar; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Ramana Maharshi - Advaitin or Neo Advaitin?
‎


On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 9:08 PM, Kripa Shankar <kripa.shankar.0294 at gmail.com> wrote:
Namaste Subramanian 

I will see if I can get a clarification on this matter by the Mutt. 

Dear Kripa Shankar,

My sincere advice to you on this is to please desist from writing to the Mutt.  It is important to know that Acharyas of the same peetham, even if they have come in close succession, are distinct individuals who are bound to and free to have individual opinions on one or many matters.  If you read the book 'Yoga Enlightenment and Perfection' authored by Sri R.M.Umesh which has a small account consisting of excerpts from an essay (1993) and discourse (1989) by the present Jagadguru Sri Bharati Tirtha Mahaswaminaḥ on his Guru Sri Abhinava Vidyatirtha Mhaswaminaḥ.  Just a few lines from that:

p.6

//He (the predecessor Guru) was not in the least dogmatic.  The ancients held that the earth is fixed while the modern scientists aver that it moves.

पुराणमित्येव न साधु सर्वं....
 In keeping with this statement of the pre-eminent poet Kalidasa, HH subscribed only to the position that the earth moves. He ignored, in this manner, the distinction of ancient and modern in numerous matters and gave weight only to that which was reasonable and accorded with evidence. Broadmindedness such as His was difficult to come by in anyone else.//

Actually the earlier Guru and His predecessor HH Sri Chandrashekhara Bharati Mahaswaminah did have such differences over certain ideas and the latter had told the former: You can freely have those ideas that go with the present times.

I gave this example just to inform you, if you are already not aware of this, that it is quite possible that the present and the earlier Acharyas could hold differing views on given points. 

Let me also quote from the earlier Acharya on His Guru HH Sri Chandrashekhara Bharati Mahaswaminah:

>From the discourse given in Bangalore as part of a saptāha in memory of the latter:

Excerpted from the book 'Divine Discourses' p.70:

//In the life of My Guru, one special feature was that he did not acquire the knowledge of the Truth from the teaching of someone. 

Arjuna asked:

अयतिः श्रद्धयोपेतो....[O Krishna, What end does a person attain who is endowed with faith but who does not strive and whose mind has slipped from HYoga without his having attained perfection in Yoga?]

The Lord answered:

[He who has failed in Yoga is born in the house of the pure and affluent. Alternatively, he is born in the family of wise Yogis. Such a birth is indeed very difficult ....There he gains the knowledge that was acquired in the previous birth.]

....
In the case of My Guru, his introversion did not stem subsequent to his taking Sannyasa, studying the Śāstras and practicing spiritual disciplines. It manifested right from his birth.
....
My Guru was a knower of Brahman and was not dependent on any effect or cause. ...

End of that chapter.

For a skeptic, questions such as: How can someone become or be enlightened without study of the śāstras and practicing disciplines?  Also, 'How can someone else say with certainty that another is a realized person?', etc. could arise. But these are things that are beyond logic. Otherwise, Krishna's averment in the 4th chapter:

tadviddhi pranipātena .....upadekṣhyanti tey jnānam jnāninaḥ tattvadarshinaḥ

can never be put in practice. One can also think of the absurd conclusion this above verse could lead to: Krishna meant that Only those coming in the Sringeri Mutt lineage could be tattvadarshis. Also, none will be able to approach a Tattvadarshi since it would be impossible, first of all for a jijgnāsu, to determine who is a tattvadarshi. For anyone can put up a show of sthitaprajna lakshanas since the samatvam can be feigned also since none can see what is going on in that one's head.  It happens only by grace that a sincere sadhaka is shown, led to, a Tattvadarshi.  Logic fails in this matter.  

It is your privilege to write or not to the Mutt on the current topic. 

regards
vs  



 
 
‎
Regards 
Kripa ‎

Vyasaya Vishnu roopaya Vyasa roopaya Vishnave 
Namo vai Brahma nidhaye Vasishtaya namo namaha 
  Original Message  
From: V Subrahmanian
Sent: Sunday 25 September 2016 6:06 PM
To: Kripa Shankar; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Ramana Maharshi - Advaitin or Neo Advaitin?



On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Kripa Shankar via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
Namaste 

Some great points of grave import presented by SrimaLalitalalitah. Praveen, like many others are trying to defend Ramana as if it's an assault on Ramana s character, which clearly is not(it's also irrelevant) . But I am baffled to see that when Shruti pramana is neglected, in other words when the Shruti is under assault, no one takes offence! 
‎
Just wanted to add one more point. I was watching a video of Bharati teertha swami delivering a lecture in Tamil. There he categorically stated that Sringeri Mutt never acknowledges anyone outside of the Mutt but a pramada (an exception) to this rule was when one of the great swamis (can't recall the name sorry) acknowledged Sadashiva Brahmendra. It is on YouTube. 

Here is a quote from the book 'Crest Jewel of Yogis' Vol.I penned by Sri R.M.Umesh, a disciple has said while narrating a couple of incidents from the lives of Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa and Ramana Maharshi:

//We can even consider the cases of Sri Ramakrishna and Sri Ramana whom Acharyal (Jagadguru Sri Abhinava Vidyatirtha Mahaswaminah) acknowledges as Jnanins. That will help to throw light on the behavior of comparatively recent personages.// p.646

(The above book was published by Sri Sharada Trust, Sringeri) 

and goes on to cite an incident or two from the famous book 'Sri Ramakrishna the Great Master' of Swamy Saradananda. And another or two from the book 'Ramana Maharishi and the path of Self Knowledge'  by Osborne. Another incident from the book of K.S.Swaminathan on 'Ramana Maharshi' is also cited in the above book. 

This the author does after citing incidents from Shankara (Madhaviya Shankara Vijaya), Rama in the Ramayana and Krishna in the Mahabharata.  This is a chapter titled ' The Human Aspect' where Acharyal's expressions of several human traits have been mentioned.  

Thus there is solid evidence to the Acharya of Sringeri Maṭha acknowledging personages 'outside' the maṭha.  I had already pointed out the case of one Para Brahma (from Punjab/Kashmir) whom also the Acharya had acknowledged as a Jnani and even directed one of his own devotees to associate with him. Sri Umesh has written about this Para Brahma too in his book. So, there is no way one can assert that the Sringeri Acharyas do not acknowledge those 'outside' the 'maṭha.'     

regards
subrahmanian.v    

Regards 
Kripa 
‎
Vyasaya Vishnu roopaya Vyasa roopaya Vishnave 
Namo vai Brahma nidhaye Vasishtaya namo namaha 
  Original Message  
From: Praveen R. Bhat via Advaita-l
Sent: Sunday 25 September 2016 3:03 PM
To: श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
Reply To: Praveen R. Bhat
Cc: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Ramana Maharshi - Advaitin or Neo Advaitin?