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

[Durga Prasad Janaswamy]

Hari Om,
Pranams Swamiji,

You wrote: "Now, shruti is more important for me, logic is needed more than
bhAShya."

Question: Where do you place Māṇḍukya Kārikās (not Māṇḍukya upanishad) ?
Shruti or not shruti?

Thank you and regard
-- durga prasad


On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 11:26 AM, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> I'll be very happy to stop posting critical essays. But, that may harm
> those who are ready for next step, to question more to get more clarity.
> Believers are lower-grade. They must continue on there path. Because, that
> may take them to the correct one.
>
> In true sense, I started by believing vivekAnanda, then rAmakR^iShNa, then
> ramaNa, then uriyA bAbA, then sha~NkarAchArya, etc. Now, I'm independently
> studying, not relying on their talks wholly. Now, shruti is more important
> for me, logic is needed more than bhAShya.
> I know that such transformation doesn't occur in everyone's life. But,
> wherever and whenever it happens, it needs some help. This thread may help
> to turn their direction to pramANa.
>
>
> *श्रीमल्ललितालालितः*www.lalitaalaalitah.com
>
> On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 12:29 AM, Ravi Kiran <ravikiranm108 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Namaste
> >
> > Just few thoughts on this entire thread :
> >
> > It is said by Bhagavan Sri Krishna that .. ShraddhAvan labhate jnAnam
> >
> > Having shraddhA is an important aspect from the seeker's perspective and
> > at the same time, most difficult to get, mind being saMshayAtmaka and
> > fickle natured.
> >
> > It is only through aquaintance of a mahApurusha in some way or exposure
> to
> > such great soul's teachings,
> > that one gets interest towards AdhyAtmika vicAra and having such exposure
> > is rare,
> > as told in vivekachUDAmanI -
> >
> > manushyatvam mumukShutvam mahApurushasamsrayam – durlabham – daiva
> > anugraham
> >
> > For many, it is quite possible that through such mahAtma's influence in
> > some way (Sri Ramana Maharshi,
> > Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Sri Sarada Devi, Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
> > etc), belief's in such Teachings,
> > eventually one gets shraddhA and/or interest and/or opportunity in study
> > of scriptures (knowing its importance) from a shrotrIya (Brahma nishThA).
> > It is very rare, that one gets shraddhA in Sruti directly at start,
> without
> > any path traversal ..
> >
> > The logic based discussions (categorizing a Sage as GYAni or not, is his
> > GYAna based on
> > sruti pramANA etc) such as the current thread has the potential of
> > blocking or hitting at the
> > root of the seeker's shraddhA in AdhyAtma or create disturbance in their
> > belief's and
> > one can possibly lose interest in AdhyAtma mArga itself (if one can no
> > longer hold onto one's
> > belief strongly to move forward nor hop onto the traditional system)..
> >
> > I am pointing to the entire discussion on this thread starting from the
> > initial post (as controversial)
> > ...
> >
> > If one has the knowledge to refute all these opinions and continue on
> > one's path in a steadfast
> > manner, it is fine. If not, if it is based on devotion to a mahAtma or
> > belief in such teachings and
> > getting introduced to advaita, the negations or refutations, seeding
> > doubts, may have a counter effect
> > on such seekers, which may potentially affect a seeker.
> >
> > At the same time, for many of the members, such critical reasoning in
> > advaita is a good learning benefit as well.
> > Since this list may have a mix of audience, at all levels (beginner in
> > this path to GYAni's/AchArya's, it is up to one's decision/discretion to
> > chose the topic to start the discussions and share your understandings.
> >
> > If the same discussion (such as the current topic here) happens within a
> > vidvat goshti
> > ( meeting a minimum common level) , chances of buddhi bhEdha are less ..
> >
> > However, if one opines, it is up to the audience, to chose which thread
> to
> > read and which to discard, the audience
> > to use their discretion, have nothing more to say :)
> >
> > Just my 2c,
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 10:10 AM, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <lalitaalaalitah@
> > lalitaalaalitah.com> wrote:
> >
> >> That's fine with me. I don't have to conclude that ramaNa was GYAnI. The
> >> condition of doubt is more favorable for me.
> >>
> >> On Sat, 1 Oct 2016 09:20 Ravi Kiran, <ravikiranm108 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Namaste,
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 1:43 AM, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः via Advaita-l <
> >>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > Ø     Yes, that is why I said jnana of the particular jnAni is his
> >>> > hrudaya spandana and acknowledging that in any particular person is
> >>> > subjective decision of his/her followers.
> >>> >
> >>> You have to understand that I was accepting other's point of view
> >>> apparently and then questioning their claim about ramaNa being GYAnI.
> Try
> >>> to relate the answer to the logic which others provided.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> >  Ø     In the brahma jignAsa  (unlike dharma jignAsa)  shAstra is not
> >>> the
> >>> > sole pramANa anubhavAdhyascha too valid pramANa says shankara…If the
> >>> > anubhava of ‘deathlessness’ of Atman to ramaNa is in line with shruti
> >>> > pramANa can we discard it just it is not the result of shruti vAkya
> >>> janita
> >>> > or pramANa janita jnana prabhuji ??
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> I'm questioning the cause of anubhava he had? First of all, I'm not
> sure
> >>> that the anubhava he had was same as that which is generated by shruti.
> >>> Second, how could he get that result without pramANa.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> If there is lack of information (whether one(A) has admitted that jnAna
> >>> had, is through Sruti pramANa or not) and in the absence of such
> >>> information (if one (A) has not admitted through one's own
> words/writings
> >>> that jnAna is not through Sruti pramANa. Note: there is no admission
> that
> >>> one(A) has not been exposed to Sruti texts through one's life either),
> how
> >>> can any one(B) categorize another one(A) as not jnAni or advaitin, as
> jnAna
> >>> is svasaMvedya ? It can't be established either way through logic?
> >>>
> >>> Based on such a one's (A) describing his experience about one's (A) own
> >>> absorption in the Self experience, another yogi (X) or jnAni (Y) or Z
> >>> reading such texts may interpret accordingly and such interpretation
> >>> (pramA) is vyakti-niShTA knowledge (from A's point, such
> interpretation may
> >>> be true or false, but from X or Y or Z standpoint, it is true only).
> Now,
> >>> some one (C) may say, all such interpretations ( X or Y or Z) are
> beliefs,
> >>> since there is no clear information available about A's jnAna prApti.
> That
> >>> is fine. But, one(B or C) cannot conclude/establish A, as not
> >>> jnAni/advaitin either.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>>
> >>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>