On Jan 2, 2006, at 10:55 PM, Marek Reavis wrote:

Could you be more specific as to what you mean by the "new advaita

thing"?  It sounds as if you're implying something negative but I

don't know enough to comment.

Well good and bad--covers a lot of ground: Neo-advaita, Pseudo-advaita (perhaps the neg you were thinking of?), traditional advaita Vedanta, Dzogchen/Mahasandhi, Sri Vidya, etc.

Perhaps you are better informed than I, but it is my understanding

that Ramana Maharishi was devoted to Shiva, in particular the holy

Mount Arunchala, sacred to Shiva, that he considered his guru. 

Ramakrishna, however, was a devotee of Ma Kali and was a priest at the

Kali temple in Calcutta.  Maybe you have the two confused?

Yes, my bad. But then again, there you go--did Ramana teach Shaivite methods? One wonders.

If you read Nisargadatta it appears that he clearly believed he was

teaching out of the Nath tradition, specifically what he had learned

from his guru.  However, from what I've read, his guru,

Siddharameshwar, taught an understanding of the Nath tradition that

may be at variance with others.  Again, I do not have the expertise to

comment more completely.

There certainly is a non-dual tradition in the Nath teachings which is ultimately very simple--but at the same time it has methods depending on where a person is at.

To subscribe, send a message to:

Or go to:
and click 'Join This Group!'


Reply via email to