I got a lot of comments recently about my big ego for daring to find any "mistakes" in Ramana's logic or expositions. Strangely, they also say I do the same with Nisargadatta, which means they really have not actually read what I wrote. Rather they "read" their instant bias against me for daring not to kiss the toes of Ramana and Nisargadatta.
Imagine what kind of comments I'd get if I criticized Jesus' or Buddha's understanding. Oh, I forgot, I have. But remember, both lived over 2,000 years ago, and most of what was written about them was written centuries later, with lots that has been written lost to history by one council or another. So how can anyone take what is claimed they have said, literally?
Rather than offering an attempt to explain away my observations, these critics only try to discredit the messenger, and also demonstrate their slavish adulation to their personal idealizations of dead gurus who can never disappoint them.