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

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Kripaji,


On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Kripa Shankar via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

>
> >> Again you are veering off the tangent. Let me try to break it down.
> There are 3 students. Student A studies and interprets Vedanta on his own.
> Student B studies under a qualified Guru (**NOT Necessarily A JNANI **) and
> interprets it according to the scriptures as handed down from one teacher
> to another in successive order. Student C does not even study anything.
> ‎
> Now lets say for the sake of argument that student B IS A FOOL but
> students A and C ARE JNANIS. THAT IS BESIDES THE POINT.
>
> The Point is THIS - Students A and C are still considered neo Vedantins
> because THE SCRIPTURES SAYS SO.


And by scriptures, you mean shAnkarabhAshya only, I suppose. As discussed
earlier, the term Neovedantin itself is vague and subjective. To me, it may
those who follow "anything goes" in the name of Vedanta, while to you
anyone non-sampradAyavit. (As an aside, among these sampradAyavits also,
going by the Mundakashruti, one should approach a shrotriya and
brahmaniShTa. Every sampradAyavit is not shrotriya and I don't even need to
mention about the latter qualification).


> Shankara says A sampradAyavit Sarva shastravidapi..... He didn't say
> Ramana was exception to this rule.
>
Well, he did. Read the line previous to it. आत्महा स्वयं मूढः अन्यांश्च
व्यामोहयति शास्त्रार्थसम्प्रदायरहितत्वात्, श्रुतहानिम् अश्रुतकल्पनां च
कुर्वन् । तस्मात् असम्प्रदायवित् सर्वशास्त्रविदपि मूर्खवदेव उपेक्षणीयः That
तस्मात् stands out indicating a preceding हेतु right in our faces. There is
a context for everything. If all one has a hammer, everything looks like a
nail. The context here is wrong interpretations of shAstras by an आत्महा,
स्वयं मढः, अश्रुतकल्पनां च कुर्वन्, not a ज्ञानी। Moreover, when Bhagavan
Ramana did not teach shAstras, did not claim to do so, and never said
anything against shAstras, he is an exception to the rule, if at all the
rule is taken to be meant for him! All one can understand is that Ramana
Maharshi was not a श्रोत्रिय and due to that, one should prefer to learn
Vedanta from a श्रोत्रिय Guru. That, with no imagination should be taken to
mean that everything that a non-shrotriya says is opposed to shAstra!

>> You are going on and on about jnani and ajnani while I'm trying to point
> out SOMETHING ELSE.
> ‎
>
Subbuji is going on about jnAni for a reason...


> >> For the nth time I AM NOT ARGUING ABOUT RAMANA BEING A JNANI. ‎
> <listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org>
>
... He is using the conclusion listed as point 3 in:
1) jnAna cannot arise from anything but shruti.
2) One is a jnAni.
3) Therefore, jnAna of a jnAni has come from shruti alone, be it from study
in last life/ lives.

This is an undeniable conclusion via arthApatti unless you deny point 2.
Point 1 is not of dispute else shruti will no longer remain pramANa.

Kind rgds,
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known!
[Br.Up. 4.5.15] */