[Advaita-l] Ramana Maharshi - Advaitin or Neo Advaitin?
raghavkumar00 at gmail.com
Wed Sep 21 09:39:24 CDT 2016
> The only contention is that his
> teachings cannot be considered as orthodox Advaita because :
> 1) By his own/Ramanashram admission
> 2) His words are not shruti (paurusheya)
> 3) He cannot be considered a Guru in orthodox sense, for he was
> illiterate of Shastras, outside the lineage and mostly maintained silence
> when asked about anything. This is considering for the sake of argument
> that he was jnani.
> 4) Judging by the affairs of the Ashram
Namaste Kripa ji
I must admit to being amused by what you suggest in the above post. Is
someone to be judged orthodox or unorthodox based on the running of an
ashram. For example some of the Shankara paramparA maTha-s in the north
have faced some legal problems and are not exactly the epitomes of
efficient administration. Does that mean that they become outside the pale
of Advaita Vedanta tradition thereby? There is no connection whatsoever.
Also you seem to have some grouse against the Ramanasramam administration.
After all, what is life without nursing some grievance. But you may need to
keep that separate from trying to analyze Sri Ramana Maharshi.
Also I can state with authority one obsevation about the Ramanasramam -
they do not try to foist any ideology or official doctrine or dogma in the
name of Sri Ramana Maharshi. It is entirely left to each one of us
individually to understand and benefit from Sri Ramana Maharshi. Again I
see that you are trying to find an imaged Vatican in the form of
'Ramanashram' to fight which thrusts some official doctrine or creed. One
more quixotic windmill to tilt at. If it makes you feel any better let me
share with you the fact even within a tightly knit organization like Sri
Ramakrishna Mission, sweets were distributed in some of the Southern indian
centres of the organization when they lost the case claiming that they were
a non-hindu religious minority ; a status which had already been bestowed
upon the 'Vedic' Arya Samaj etc. But its a mistaken appraoch to look for
some 'official' version and fight crusades against it.
If someone says we need to do considerable shravaNam before properly
appreciating and benefitting from Sri Ramana Maharshi whose words are more
nidhidhyAsana-pradhAna, else (without shravaNam) we might unwittingly
become dogmatic camp followers, I am in agreement.
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 6:54 PM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> Namaste Kripa ji,
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Kripa Shankar <
> kripa.shankar.0294 at gmail.com
> > wrote:
> > Namaste Venkatraghavan
> > Yes there are some issues with my phone.
> > I am not saying study of Shastras is futile because then I would be
> > contradicting myself. A Vedantin considers Shravana manana and
> > as an anugraha of ishwara. Otherwise it is just revelling in ahankara(I
> > will study, I will be free). It is again for this reason that shAstra
> > vidhis are central to orthodox Advaita. Because a sadhaka performs all
> > actions because they are mentioned in the shastras and not moved by own
> > will / obligation. Otherwise if the sadhaka deluding himself or herself
> > be intelligent, performs anything as per own inclination, is firmly bound
> > within the confines of ahankara.
> Good, we are on the same page here.
> > If we cannot identify Karma, then how can Akarma be achieved. Karma is
> > not mithyA. Karma is the law of causality. How can * understanding *
> > is a kriya itself lead to the * conclusion / understanding * that Karma
> > mithya.
> You are sadly mistaken here. All the things you mention in this paragraph -
> karma, the law of causality, ajnAna and jnAna are ALL very much within the
> sphere of vyavahAra, and therefore mithyA. If any of these were paramAtma
> satya, then Atma would respectively be 1) kartA 2) the ultimate cause and
> 3) changing (it was ignorant, now it is knowledgeable). If anything other
> than Atma were to be real, then that would be advaita hAni. How can
> understanding get rid of the wrong notion that karma is mithyA? A mithyA
> jnAna is necessary and sufficient to remove the mithyA ignorance and its
> product, mithyA karma. My dream thirst can only be quenched by dream water,
> not the water available in the waking state.
> > Ramana taught what he taught. Those who want to believe it believe it.
> > Ramana, a true saint or not is irrelevant. The only contention is that
> > teachings cannot be considered as orthodox Advaita because :
> > 1) By his own/Ramanashram admission
> > 2) His words are not shruti (paurusheya)
> > 3) He cannot be considered a Guru in orthodox sense, for he was
> > illiterate of Shastras, outside the lineage and mostly maintained silence
> > when asked about anything. This is considering for the sake of argument
> > that he was jnani.
> > 4) Judging by the affairs of the Ashram
> You are missing the most important criterion - is his teaching as
> preserved, in line with shruti? A dispassionate analysis would reveal that
> it most definitely is in line with shruti. If you believe it to be
> otherwise, then it is your burden of proof to do so.
> > I am not mentioning his teachings because then it will be a matter
> > opinion. In fact, his teachings matter the least in order to classify.
> > nonetheless I have already stated my opinion.
> No it will be a matter of analysis open to scrutiny and unfortunately your
> analysis is unlikely to stand up to that scrutiny - as demonstrated in
> this very email, your understanding of various advaita concepts are sadly
> muddled. However, please do not take this as criticism, it is simply a
> pointer to address those issues in your sAdhana.
> My view is that Ramana Maharshi's teachings are not meant for the lay
> reader - it requires a high level of sAdhana chatushTaya, and an
> understanding of shAstra already. His teachings are really meant for those
> that have already completed shravaNa (and maybe manana). The true value of
> his teaching is for those doing nidhidhyAsana in my view,
> > You have admitted that Ramana himself never claimed to be either shAstra
> > vid or sampradayavid. Then why is it an issue to classify him as a great
> > soul outside the orthodox school of Advaita?
> > No issue whatsoever - however it would be erroneous to use that as a
> basis to classify his teaching as non-vedAnta or neo Vedanta.
> > Regards
> > Kripa
> > ---
> > Vyasaya Vishnu roopaya Vyasa roopaya Vishnave
> > Namo vai Brahma nidhaye Vasishtaya namo namaha
> 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