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

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

> "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.
>>
>
> The sentence does not say "importance of AtmA", but *import*, which means
> what it really is, which is brahman. Then "reverts to it" would mean revert
> to the lakShyArtha of self being brahman as learnt from Shruti. That would
> be gaining niShThA.
>

These are not ramaNa's words. You, a person who knows about shruti and who
is trying to bring him to advaita-sampradAya(if I can say that), is
interpreting that. The meaning which we gain from shakti of pada and which
confirms to his teaching, is not same.
You may do that, but it's not enough for those who know that he always
emphasised on 'knowing AtmA', and not anything else.
I also know that, he also heard the same thing, which you are trying to
tell now, from scholars of his time. It is also known that some scholars of
his time, who were in his contact, tried what you are doing now.
But, that's not enough for me.
There is no way to know that he actually had firm conviction of aikya as
something which can't be known without a pramANa, shruti.
I have already said that his prAtibha-GYAna(samAdhija-praGYA) can be of any
other nature, but he may be sometimes defining it otherwise, just because
he came in contact with shAstraGYa-s. It is common tendency of people to
try to validate themselves with established norms, and if they can't do
that then they create a separate sampradAya, which is based on their
samAdhija-praGYA. This samAdhija-praGYA is not acceptable to me, if it
didn't originate from pramANa.
I've always said on other threads, that samAdhi can't generate any type of
GYAna, since it is not a pramANa. It is just cessation of mental
modifications. That may help you find that you exist even without those
vR^itti-s and in this way it helps you to understand that you are separate
from body. Nothing more than that is acceptable. This was for
nirvikalpa-samAdhi.
If you are not yet convinced about limitation of samAdhi, you may need some
reading of portions of naiShkarmya-siddhiH and bR^ihadAraNyaka-vArttika,
vArttika-sAra and pa~nchadashI.


>
>
>> 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 don't have such a doubt since this can be raised about anyone in the
> sampradAya itself and I do not know how this would ever be proven.
>

There is a difference between him and other sampradAyavit-s - he didn't
study mImAMsA or any other shAstar-s which support validity of veda-s.
Without that it is impossible to understand what that is, and how much
important that is. shAstravit-s study those shAstra-s which help them reach
the conclusion that veda-s are pramANa and that how they are important for
dharma and brahma GYAna.
I seriously doubt that those who are supporting ramaNa, has the
understanding of the same.

Please, don't reply to this for at least 2 days. I'm trying to rAghava and
bhAskar, both in that time.