[Advaita-l] On Ramana

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri rAghav prabhuji
Hare Krishna

If you could permit me, would like to share my thoughts : 

1.  Many scholarly Acharyas of Advaita vedanta today who are outstanding sAmpradAyavits such as Swami Paramarthanandaji and Swami Tattvavidanandaji, Swami Haribrahmendranandaji etc., unequivocally regard Sri Ramana Maharshi as a GYAnI.

>  If my understanding is right, to get the traditional teaching one should approach the shrotreeya-brahmanishTa guru.  A shrotreeya guru may not be a brahmanishTa but he knows the sampradaya, sAmpradAyik way of teaching and guide his shishyA-s in a traditional way.  If the teaching is not traditional then that teaching and the teacher should be ignored is the instruction of bhagavatpAda.  Having said this I am not saying RM's teaching should be completely ignored but at the same time having the genuine doubt whether his teachings are within the frame of sampradaya.  In short, ramaNa = brahmanishTa but he was not shrotreeya ( forgive me if I am judgmental here) , the Advaita vedAnta should be taught by a shrotreeya who knows the sampradaya.  Anyway, happy to learn more about it.  

2. Moreover, these acharyas actually teach RM's works like upadesha sAram and saddarshanam as prakaraNa granthas to *convey brahma GYAna* through their (these sAmpradAyavit's) talks. Now when a mahAtma's (RM's) written canonical sanskrit compositions are employed by the advaita sAmpradAya today to communicate brahma GYAnam, there's no doubt that as far as the advaita sAmpradAya today is concerned, RM was a GYAnI and his ultimate tAtparya as Advaita teaching is adequately conveyed by his sanskrit compositions.

>  In the orthodox Amnaya mutts they are teaching prakaraNa-s like VC, PD, JMV, US etc. but I really doubt in these mutts there will be a teaching of upadesha sAraM and saddarshana etc.(written / composed by other Advaita teachers) holding it as valid prakaraNa from a traditional teacher.  Yes there is no doubt RM was a paramArtha gnAni and his teachings are indeed Advaita teaching but I am afraid his works recognized as valid prakaraNa-s in traditional mutts. Yes, there are other religious /spiritual institutions / gurukula-s teaching vedAnta through RM's prakaraNa-s and other works written by their teachers but that does not mean these prakaraNa-s widely accepted as traditionally accepted prakaraNa.  For example, teachers in APK teach Sri SSS's paramArtha chintAmaNi, avasthAtraya prakriya, vedAnta prakriya pratyabhigNa, shuddha shankara prakriya bhAskara etc.  which are purely based on prasthAna traya and shankara bhAshya but it has its validity within the boundaries of APK's zone 😊   

Any other reading of his (RM's) words and views based on his informal conversations to a wide variety of people, can only be contextualised as specific to that particular adhikArI at that particular time.

>  Whenever I read about case specific teaching by guru to a particular shishya/adhikAri at a particular time I wonder whether there is anything in general that can be taught/applicable to general mumukshu/jignaasu if there is nothing why one the earth it made public ??  If geeta is exclusively taught to confused mind of   kshatriya arjuna by lord by blanking the others on battle field of Kurukshetra, if the yAgnAvalkya teaching only to janaka and maitreyi, if the uddAlaka teaching only to shwetaketu, yama only to nachiketa,  why should we take these teachings as common / general and quoting these one to one dialogues as  valid pramANa??  

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar