[Advaita-l] Commentary on Ramana's Forty Verses

[jaldhar at braincells.com]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2021, S Jayanarayanan via Advaita-l wrote:

> Although Akilesh has a view of Sannyasa that I believe is not really held by either
> Traditionalists or a specific Teacher, he has done two things correctly:
>
> 1) He has quoted passages from Ramana Bhagavan's teachings, rather than mere empty talk.
> 2) He has not resorted to any personal attacks.
>
> For the above reasons, I would recommend that he not be removed, but of course,
> you are the moderator.

Even the moderator can make mistakes so I welcome your feedback.  What you 
have said is true and that's why after the first big argument a few weeks 
back I didn't take any action.  It's ok to have different opinions if you 
can back them up but the measuring stick is ultimately what is the 
teaching of Advaita Vedanta?  Now there is room for flexibility in some 
areas but this idea that mukti is possible without physical renunciation 
is stretching things beyond the limit.  As Akilesh just kept grasping at 
straws instead of acknowledging this, there was no point in just 
continuing to bash heads fruitlessly.

n Mon, 21 Jun 2021, S Jayanarayanan via Advaita-l wrote:

> Ramana Bhagavan has been revered by both the Sringeri and Puri Acharyas
> of His time.

And it was the Kanchi Acharya who told Paul Brunton to visit him.  These 
are the kind of recommendations that are of great weight to me.  What was 
it about him exactly that impressed them so much?  It would be 
instructive to find that out from discourses etc.

n Mon, 21 Jun 2021, Sanju Nath via Advaita-l wrote:

> I was actually looking forward to reading his commentary/interpretation 
on
> RM’s most important work, which is a big commitment of time on his part,
> and some discussion on how it aligned with Bhagvadpada Shankarcharya’s
> works.
>
[...]
>
> But the main purpose - the posting of the verses, and his interpretation 
-
> was useful, I felt, for contemplation on “Who Am I” message of Ramana
> Maharishi.
>

If someone else would like to take this up (maybe you?) it would be 
welcome by many readers.

On Tue, 22 Jun 2021, Anand N via Advaita-l wrote:

> When I read about Arjuna being called a Jnani and the quote being used 
from
> BG, it was very suspect.
> Jaldharji took the effort to point out to sources in Mahabharatha which
> shows otherwise.

Especially when answering Akilesh I made it a point to include the
sanskrit text.  Because the problem with people with "opinions" is that
they think everyone else is just giving an opinion too so the entire
concept of objective truth falls by the wayside.



> These excerpts were simply speculated upon. The problem of or the rules
> of the tradition, is that the texts are Pramana, since Anubhava cannot
> be documented. If we interpret texts however we want, then we are
> entering chaos, which will be inconsistent with the overall message of
> the Vedas.

That kind of radical subjectivity was championed by the Jains and some
sections of the Buddhists.  And Advaita Vedanta has opposed this.  This is
a historical fact.

[...[

> Let us now see the rules of this list,
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/lists/
> Focus of the list is also NOT on the new non-dual and neo-vedanta
> teachings. But, scholarly articles comparing these traditions with
> traditional advaita-vedAnta are welcome.
>
> The problem is the word neo-vedanta is nebulous, since it's very hard to
> define who all fall under the category.
> For e.g. for me J. Krishnamurthi would be a Neo Vedantin. But wikipedia
> will define it otherwise.
>

I am relieved that there is someone who actually read that. :-)  I get the
feeling most people treat it like those popups with long legal "end-user
license agreements" that you have to agree to when installing software.
Just click ok so I can get to the good stuff. :-)  But we have that for a
reason.  We don't want to have our time wasted by people who aren't
discussing things which aren't Advaita at all but we also don't want to
waste their time if what we are discussing is not what they are
interested in.

Now Ramana is an interesting case.  I think he is more of a transitional
figure between traditional and neo.  (It's not a fixed boundary as you
say.  Who can point to the exact place where the Ganga ends and the Bay of
Bengal begins?) So he has followers from both camps.

(And btw Wikipedia is a terrible source for anything related to Hinduism.
I advise you not to rely on it.)


-- 
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>