[Advaita-l] On Ramana

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sadaji,
Resending as the original did not go through due to size restrictions.

Yes, agreed. It is well worth clarifying that anubhava is not of the triad
type, but don't think my email implied it.

Re anubhava, from the ratnaprabhA - अनुभवो ब्रह्मसाक्षात्काराख्यो
विद्वदनुभवः । आदिपदान्मनननिदिध्यासनयोर्ग्रहः । तत्र हेतुमाह - अनुभवेति ।
मुक्त्यर्थं ब्रह्मज्ञानस्य शाब्दस्य
साक्षात्कारावसानत्वापेक्षणात्प्रत्यग्भूतसिद्धब्रह्मगोचरत्वेन
साक्षात्कारफलकत्वसम्भवात् , तदर्थं मननाद्यपेक्षा युक्ता ।

The point being made was that shAbda jnAna must culminate in the direct
experience. मुक्त्यर्थं ब्रह्मज्ञानस्य शाब्दस्य
साक्षात्कारावसानत्वापेक्षणात्.

See for example, Sri Mahasannidhanam's speech from 6 minutes onward:
https://youtu.be/DXB7mSmqVtE

brahma jnAna arising from shruti must culminate in anubhava (yes, it is not
of the triad type) for mukti. The corollary is - where that anubhava
occurs, its source is necessarily the shruti.

Now let us assume that one infers the presence of anubhava in some person,
but that person has not performed what one considers to be "authentic"
shravaNa, manana, nididhyAsana, that anubhava cannot be dismissed as
apramANa, because as the bhAShyakAra says, अनुभवादयः अपि यथासम्भवमिह
प्रमाणम्.

The connection between anubhava and shravaNam need not necessarily be in
this birth. We have seen so many examples from the shAstra itself -
vAmadeva, shuka mahaRShi, jaDabharata, hastAmalaka, etc where mahAtma-s
took birth as jnAni-s or seemingly attained jnAna without any ostensible
shAstra connection. The crucial word in the bhAShya is यथासम्भवम्.

Just because we have had some shAstra vAsana in this birth, and need
shravaNa, manana, nididhyAsana now, it is inappropriate to sit in judgment
of someone else's anubhava or to claim that their anubhava is outside the
fold of the Upanishadic knowledge on the grounds that we haven't observed
the connection of that anubhava with shruti in that person's case.

Nor is it a case that the anubhava in question is Upanishadic, but the
teaching is not, as has been shown in the previous email. The people that
are likely to benefit from such a teaching are those who have attained a
certain level of maturity already. Those that do not benefit will be those
that need further maturity which will come through the systematic,
traditional approach.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan



> On Sat, 26 Jun 2021, 17:25 Kuntimaddi Sadananda, <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Venkatraghavanji - PraNAms
>>
>>
>>
>> First thanks for the relevant post in view of the current discussion on
>> Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi.
>>
>> A word of caution, though.
>>
>> 1. While anubhava is important from the individual point, it is not
>> anubhave of triad type.
>>
>> 2. Experience of others cannot be validated nor dismissed as it is
>> subjective.
>>
>> 3. Hence it follows that to follow a teacher based on his personal
>> anubhava alone will require lot of faith.
>>
>> 4. Hence Shankara defines the faith or shraddhaa
>>
>> shaastraya guruvaakyasya satya budhyaavadharaNa - Faith is that the
>> scripture statements as interpreted by teacher are indeed true.
>>
>> 5. Hence the scriptures declare - tat vijnaartham sa gurum eva
>> abhigacchet samit paaNiH, *shrotriyam* brahmanishTam - He should be
>> Shrotriya.
>>
>> 6. Bhagavan's Ramana Maharshi's texts Upadesha saara and Sat Darshanam
>> are in tune with Vedanta. Only one has to be careful in explaining the
>> slokas like
>>
>> maanasantu kim maargane kRite, naiva maanasam
>>
>> Hari Om!
>>
>> Sadananda
>>
>>