[Advaita-l] Ramana Maharshi - Advaitin or Neo Advaitin?
agnimile at gmail.com
Mon Oct 3 04:27:54 CDT 2016
It is very sad to read about the so called "treatment" endured by Para
Brahman - let alone a jnAni, no living thing should go through this.
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 10:18 AM, V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com>
> > Namaste Kripaji,
> > I am hoping that this will be my last posting on this thread, since there
> > doesn't seem to be more to add, unless we go into repetitive mode...
> > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Kripa Shankar <
> > kripa.shankar.0294 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> I will have to say the same thing, please read it :
> >> *ShastrArthasampradAyarahitatvAt ShrutahAnim kurvan* then what does it
> >> become? *AshrutakalpanAm*. Here Shankara has emphasised on SampradAya
> >> implicitly and explicitly. Besides, This alone is enough to determine
> >> whether someone is orthodox or not. Without ascertaining the background
> >> the prospective groom will a father give away his daughter randomly to
> >> anyone?
> I will address just the above point that Praveen ji did not choose to:
> Shankara is making the ShastrArthasampradAyarahitatvam, that is the
> of ShastrArthasampradAya, as the hetu, cause for someone doing ShrutahAni
> and ashrutakalpanAm, the two defects that make a person an
> asampradāyavit. By saying this, Shankara is implying that one who does not
> do ShrutahAni and ashrutakalpanAm is ShastrArthasampradAya-sahitaḥ. Thus
> ShastrArthasampradAya does not have anything to do with lineage but *only*
> to the teaching-content.
> So, since Ramana did not engage in the two defects stated by Shankara, he
> cannot be put in the category of someone who lacks ShastrArthasampradAya.
> For Shankara this is enough reason to hold someone a Guru as he
> demonstrated in the Manishāpanchakam: even a chāndāla, since he is not
> distorting the shāstrārtha, is admissible to him as a Guru, on the same
> pedestal of a dvija. Shankara did not go to find out who is the one from
> whom the chāndāla learnt or when he did sādhana and became a jnani. That,
> again, is the sole consideration for the Chandogyopanishad to have Raikva
> teach the Atma tattva to Janashruti, the King. Again, Bālāki the Brahmana
> did not go into the Guru-lineage of King Ajātashatru, a Kshatriya-Jnani,
> when the former surrendered to to get brahmavidyā. Same case with the
> vaidika sampradāya Acharyas to acknowledge Ramana as a Jnani; and the
> earlier Sringeri Acharya pointing to the Jnani identified as 'Para
> An account on Para Brahma here:
> *http://tinyurl.com/hl6wt4e <http://tinyurl.com/hl6wt4e>*
> Read p.92 to 95
> > It's amusing to see we are even arguing about this point when it is
> >> considered as the basics.
> > That is because you think that those basic are the basis of ongoing
> > debate. It is not. Recall that the whole thread started with the
> > that what Ramana Maharshi say is opposed to sampradAya. All this,
> > my last post, is in that context itself. I have already agreed in my
> > earlier mail that he is not the person that shAstra encourages one to go
> > to, to study shAstras from. Even in sampradAyavits, not all
> > can be studied from. I rest on this point.
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list