User talk:Asteramellus

Hi there. Looking for info on Ramana Maharshi and Shaivism; came across this interesting comment: "In my opinion, the updesha or teaching is not original."
Ever read the Tripura Rahasya? It was recommended by RM; I've read parts of it, and found it resembling some of the comments and explanations of Ramana Maharshi. There's this idea that he was quite 'simple', but it seems to me that he was actually very well educated with regard to Indian spirituality, but without' the drive to present himself as a sort of 'Sanskrit learning scholar'.
Anyway, would you know more about Tamil Shaivism? Was RM raised in a milieu that was influenced by Kashmir (trika) Shaivism, or are those two different streams/traditions? Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing this. I have definitely come across Tripura Rahasya - I have seen it understood as functioning like a supplement to RM's atma-vichara. RM also wanted to get it translated into English? I know that he read Tamil Shaiva literature, including Periya Puranam, and also wrote some poems in Tamil himself. In my readings, I did not come across anything that says RM had any direct knowledge about Trika (Kashmir Shaivism). So not entirely sure what he had to say about Kashmir Shaivism and whether there was any influence.

On a side note, I see that his death experience at age 16 greatly influenced his self-inquiry teachings, but he also has shown his respect for bhakti (maybe due to his experience before age 16) - e.g. creating/singing hymns of Arunachala (as Shiva in form of mountain), which I found quite interesting. Asteramellus (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's right. The presentation of Ramana Maharshi as an Advaita Vedantin seems to be quite misleading; it has a lot more to do with Saiva religiosity. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asteramellus An Advaita Vedantin can very much also walk the path of Bhakti (in this case, towards Shiva) without contradiction, as long as the metaphysical understanding remains non-dual. Shaivism is a sect, while Vedanta is a philosophy—they are not entirely equivalent. Even the Smarta tradition, which essentially emerged from Advaita, worships five different deities and follows the Advaita philosophy. However, unless someone is explicitly sectarian toward other deities, we should not label them as a Shaivite, Vaishnavite, etc. Sectarianism is the defining feature of these sects. These are sectarian traditions, and most Hindus today, to be honest, do not identify strictly with any particular sect—perhaps with some exceptions in South India. Personally, I’ve never heard anyone in my life explicitly refer to themselves as a Shaivite or Vaishnavite. 2409:40C1:5D:A51A:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 04:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I see that boundaries are often artificial in Indian Philosophy - e.g. there is also Advaita commentator Madhusudana Sarasvati who saw himself as a devotee of Krishna... Asteramellus (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]