[Advaita-l] Ramana Maharshi - Advaitin or Neo Advaitin?
agnimile at gmail.com
Fri Sep 23 01:59:14 CDT 2016
Who are these Aptas that you keep referring to? Are these the venerable
contributors to Wikipedia?
Chandrashekhara Sarasvati Svaminah not Apta enough?
Excellent sir - I wish you luck.
On 22 Sep 2016 6:56 p.m., "Kripa Shankar via Advaita-l" <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> This email has better formatting sorry for the inconvenience
> Namaste Praveen
> My answers are embedded in between. Hope it's easy to read.
> First of all I don't know how they lived their own personal lives.
> How does anyone know that about anyone? The whole idea is the benefit of
> doubt unless proven otherwise.
> Kripa : Apta vakya:) Credible source of information, the main source of
> They are all stories and some even bordering on hilarious fiction.
> Maybe, maybe not, but what does that have anything to do with categorizing
> anything as Neovedanta is beyond me. Moreover, your reference of stories
> seem to be some author writing something about someone, saint or not. Why
> not read what the saint wrote to drive you to an unbiased conclusion of
> your own than someone else's that you anyway start by distrusting in the
> first place? What would you call someone who finds Bhashyakara's
> parakAyapraveSha story "bordering on hilarious fiction" and then saying
> that why bother reading what he taught?
> Kripa : Please refer my earlier email stating that teachers conduct should
> be ascertained.
> So I can't trust their words and so I lack shraddha.
> I think you got it the other way round! You lack shraddhA, that is why you
> can't trust their words.
> Kripa : No its because of lack of credible sources. Absence of apta vakya.
> Everyone knows about their conduct.
> Who is everyone here? The people you trust I presume.
> Kripa : Yes, well wishers whom I trust.
> Now if any one wants to use this rule - A sampradAyavit..... selectively
> based on assumptions, that is merely a personal bias.
> and vice-versa.
> Kripa : There is no other way around. It's either yes or no.
> Those who have no affiliation will obviously reject it. Because there is
> no room for assumption when it requires faith.
> No, in fact there is indeed an assumption in faith that there is no reason
> for a person to lie unless proven so. This is the fundamental basis on
> which a human being lives! When a kid is born, it has nothing but complete
> faith in the person holding. Till life cheats him of such trust, the faith
> continues. A normal person doesn't go around asking for directions and
> think that the director is lying! So as Venkatraghavanji said earlier, the
> onus would be on you to prove that something that you not only don't trust
> but call it outright against Vedanta teaching. And you haven't done so.
> Just pick up Upadeshasaram to know how wrong you are.
> Kripa : There is a fine line between faith and blind faith. Blind faith is
> due to lack of investigation.
> Secondly regarding the scriptures. Vedas are A paurusheya. It's not an
> individuals doctrine. The shruti is the unbroken lineage. This lineage is a
> parameter which safeguards the original teachings. Any one who is familiar
> with the scriptures will not accept anything outside of the lineage.
> I have no clue why you bring this to the discussion table. I supported the
> idea in my earlier response, but you seem to be using "Shruti is unbroken
> lineage" to prove that "any statement from anyone who belongs to that
> unbroken lineage" is Shruti. If not that, then there is no argument about
> one teacher in the tradition against another not in the tradition if both
> teachings are inline with Shruti.
> Kripa : What is Shruti according to you?
> Just as a bastard cannot ascertain the origin, those outside of the
> lineage cannot tell the source of their doctrine. Such a doctrine is Aveda,
> by definition.
> What a weird example! Still, if one can see that a doctrine talked of is
> traced in the Shruti teachings, it is the source.
> Kripa : What is Shruti according to you?
> To assume that one could have learnt in previous births is not supported
> by Vedas.
> Pray tell how you land this conclusion. Shruti and Smriti both support
> that a student most likely goes through many lives of sAdhana before mukti.
> Gita's kalyANakRt is precisely such a person.
> Kripa : this is the crux of the matter. Even if one were to be
> Dakshinamurty himself, an orthodox fellow like Shankara follows the Ashrama
> dharma of going through the phase of education first. One who doesn't
> follow /honour these rules of conduct set forth by Vedas, how can he be
> regarded as Vedantin??
> Sadashiva Brahmendra was a great renunciate. He was sky clad and roamed
> about as if he was dumb or mad. But he followed all principles of conduct
> before that.
> A person in your shoes of shraddhA may rightfully counter you so: "by
> which trustworthy records"? :)
> Kripa : Apta vakya :)
> 1) Ramana tries to reconcile his teachings with teachings of other popular
> names like Christ. Shankara reconciles his teachings with Shruti smriti
> For the questioner's sake only, please read context there. He doesn't say
> Christ says so and so in Upadeshasaram! So what should a person do when a
> Christian asks a question with no background in Hinduism, let alone Shruti,
> etc? Do you think Bhashyakara deals with Buddhists and other non-Vedic
> opponents by quoting Shruti, Smriti and Puranas? The answer is based on the
> questioner's background.
> Kripa : The final siddhanta is however reconciled with Shruti smriti
> Puranas. Sometimes the samadhana is simply- shastras says so.
> 2) Ramana does not emphasise on following the duties of order. In other
> words, Vedas are stripped from Vedanta. Shankara emphasises on following
> the duties of respective order.
> That sounds like an ignorant's opinion. I wonder if you even know of a
> work called Upadeshasaram, let alone referring to it even after quoting
> multiple times. Else, please explain where do you think ईश्वरार्पतं नेच्छया
> कृतं चित्तशोधकं मुक्तिसाधकम् stands in your so-called analysis.
> Kripa : I am talking about the modes of life, respective orders.
> 3) The terminology and definitions are different from the Vedic ones. A
> newbie will not be capable of reconciling his words which allegedly are
> always in Paramarthika calling everything as mithyA.
> Did he claim that he is teaching newbies? How will a newbie understand
> Vedic terminology even if he used them? Will a newbie understand tat tvam
> asi which is a vyAvahArika statement?
> Kripa : So you are admitting that Ramana s teaching is not self
> sufficient? Shastras consider even the most dull person. Shastras are
> taught from vyakarana and not mahavakyas.
> Hence the basic tenets are lost.
> Not true. Basic tenets are in self-inquiry.
> Kripa : Basic tenets like Karma.
> Without a foundation collapse is imminent.
> True, but out of context.
> 6) A student of Ramana (who is ignorant of orthodox school of shankara)
> would relate to the stories told by Ramana about Christ, Buddha, some
> random Paramahamsa, some random Mahatma.
> That is the student's problem who reads things out of context meant for
> the questioner and not everyone.
> Kripa : Hence it is not suitable for all unlike the Vedas. Vedas doesn't
> mix up things from other faiths.
> 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