[Advaita-l] Dayanand Saraswathi interview - Very interesting stand taken by Swami
kripa.shankar.0294 at gmail.com
Fri Jan 13 14:03:10 CST 2017
Thanks a lot for this reference. Really fascinating. I glanced through a few pages of the book that's available online. From it, I could gather that, the author classes RM somewhere between traditional and Neo-Advaita(he explicitly says so). It however seems to me, like a politically correct way of asserting that RM cannot be aligned with the traditional school. Just to give an example, if there is a fruit, it has to fall under a specific category / family. It is either an Apple or an Orange. Here we are certain that the fruit is not an Apple. Whether it is Orange or not is irrelevant. This reaffirms my opinion.
If we consider the statement given by Mahasannidhanam, Gurugal * is certain * that RM was * not a jivanmukta *. That is a strong statement in my opinion. There is no other way to interpret it, is there? This is in alignment to what Dayanand Saraswathi Swamy ji said that he was a mystic not a Vedantin.
What is the implication of the above statement? - That RM did not attain liberation! In other words, he is bound to be reborn! In other words, he was not a jnani!
Now we may wonder how Mahasannidhanam is so sure that, RM was * not * a jivanmukta. The only logical conclusion would be that, the pramana for the state of jivanmukti is the shastras alone and none other! Neither does the Shastras acknowledge an instance such as RM nor RM recognises the importance of ShAstra pramana.
As for as the Gurugal's remark that he was a mahant, I am not sure why you seem to attach so much importance. It is certainly in line with what Dayanand Saraswathi Swamiji said that there are millions of housewives in India who are engaged in taking care of their family, but have the same level of understanding. What does swamiji mean by this? Everyone knows that RM was ignorant of Shastras. Further, an average woman in our tradition will not engage in scriptural studies but rather engage in devotion to rituals and hymns. So Swamiji's comparison implies that, RM is, at best, as good as an ajnani.
This will translate to the core issue - that Advaitic experential knowledge / aparoksha jnana cannot occur magically without proper paroksha jnana / shastra jnana. Again, because the only pramANa for such an experience is the shastras!
Thanks again for this great information.
AchArya ghAtinAm lokA na santi kulapAmsana ~
There is NO region, O wretch of your race, for those who seek to slay an AchArya
From: Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan
Sent: Friday 13 January 2017 11:56 PM
To: Kripa Shankar; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
Cc: Vidyasankar Sundaresan
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Dayanand Saraswathi interview - Very interesting stand taken by Swami
In "Jivanmukti in Transformation", Andrew Fort reports speaking to Mahasannidhanam (Bharati Tirtha SwamigaL) in Hindi and reports that his opinion is that Ramana was not a jivanmukta like Vidyaranya or Abhinava Vidyatirtha, but a mahant. I think that's a trustworthy source.
Of course I wonder what your issue is. If you look at what RM actually wrote and translated, they are solidly in mainstream advaita. His (at least Indian) devotees pretty much engage in the usual practices - srichakra worship, vedic recitations, so on and so forth. Yes, it's problematic that some people go to Thiruvannamalai and declare themselves "enlightened", but that's hardly the problem of Ramana Maharshi? Such people will find something or the other to fool themselves/others with.
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Kripa Shankar via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
Thanks for the clarification. Yes, that is the only option. However, I am not sure if Bharati teertha Swamiji will entertain such questions. On a second thought, he is also known to be a large hearted person. So perhaps I'll get an answer to this one way or the other.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list