Ramana did not "sidestep" these issues. The answers given, were direct. If the mind does not understand how the answers given, answer the questions asked, it is due to ignorance of the mind doing the asking. When Ramana was being chewed on by insects and various vermin, it was not experienced as suffering. For the truth was being displayed in his experience. Namely, that suffering does not exist to the Self, and does not touch the true Self. Be the Self, and suffering is known not to exist.
Dearest thankyou for this pointing, oh beloved Bhagavan the lords instrument, such wisdom such truth such comfort yes it’s all unreal a dream it’s maya🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
However truthfull on a side, there is sophistry in Maharshi's talk : first is told that the world, as a suffering "place", is a kind of "creation by auto-involvment" thing, which is true only in the sense of "being CONCERNED with", in the sense of suffering of (being lost in) it. Nevertheless one's behaviour can't be distinguished from his freedom : one has to follow principles in his choices, and it's not so easy (isn't it easy morality for instance to give to the poor at times if you're not excesssiively poor yourself, and "apart from that" do all what your boss tells you to do, including collaborating with let's say, his bulying, mistreating, blackmailing of another employee ? And also, can't simple charity entertain misery in some sense ?). One can't reach anything by simply denying the world he lives in and morality (which is impracticable, we can't avoid making choices in the sense that we'll always feel responsible for even NOT voting (which may be a good choice), NOT working (the same - no need for more production but for more distribution of it), NOT fighting fascism (more problematic), NOT doing anything at times, even long times (which is my case, I don't mean the contrary !) etc.), but the fundamental problem is not the karmic consequences of your (non-)acts (acting truthfully can have some bad repercussions on my own life, and even in a short term (not long term), to some others' life (whether the others are an illusion or not (little self versus Self etc.), I can't avoid being concerned by other's life to some extent). But one must have the courage to endure true choices (without being compliant) in order to stay really awakened, rooted in true freedom, and try to avoid impracticable paths in a long term. We have to be true to the story we're involved in, whether we see it as an illusion or not : there is no escaping from the world, and personnaly, I would be more of a buddhist (than hindouist and its idea of "Atman") on this subject : whether the world is an illusion or not, there is nothing else than what you're "in" (the idea of a "real" world, or Self, or principle "behind" the false world of the senses or self is delusory too, just a mind play, whatever reality you're involved in, in this world or another one. In other terms : all is illusion, but nothing is (more) real), THERE IS interdependency on a side, and history, class struggles (largely denied today) on the other, oppression, food deprivation or excess, all that (hi-)story ,which is supposed to precede my own birth. I must be really a scientist on this point : I simply don't know (all is imagination, even so called "revelations") why there is something more than nothing, why the world is what it is, if it has some purpose or not (no reason a priori to think it owns one), how it works (the question is itself delusionnal because I'm part of it), and I must not cling to any view, idea. I think it's an illusion, and even a perverse (auto-punishing) view, to think that there is a good principle eternaly reigning "behind" things, samsara etc. I think there is no "good principle" behind what is, it just is what it is, with all its mystery and even non-sense (that make it truly unbelievable, yes !), and the only sense that we can see, in this world or another, is the sense we give to it, by doing at times, non doing at others.
You’re preaching “nonsense” but writing a message expecting people to make “sense” of it, using a metaphysical principe of logic yet denying any “substance” behind everything. And you accuse Ramana of sophistry? “We see the splinter in our bothers eye but not the log in our own”
Well, that is a common and sensible question. Glad you brought it up. So, did you ask yourself that to find out, as the creator? It would be good to know the answer to the questions you pose, or are you going to remain a mystery? If I am not mistaken, both Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta do address that conceptual problem.
The world is not full of sorrows. It contains pain and pleasure. One should go beyond pain and pleasure and remain unmoved. When the mind disappears the world disappears. Don't jump to conclusions, slow and steady and understand.
