[Advaita-l] Ramana Maharshi - Advaitin or Neo Advaitin?

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

On 03-Oct-2016 5:12 pm, "Kripa Shankar via Advaita-l" <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> Namaste Praveen
>
> I'll take the example of your choice : Devadatta is fat but he doesn't
eat during the day. Here * Devadatta is fat * is a * Fact *. But the cause
is not known. Hence to explain this * unknown fact *, we can * conclude *
that Devadatta eats during the night.
>
> There is * no assumption made * in the above example. You must have
confused binary logic with arthapatthi :)
>
> In your example all the three statements are unrelated and you make an
assumption which itself is the conclusion :D Hence it is an absurd
statement. ‎
>

>hope I have made my point clear.

Nope Kripa ji, you have not made your point clear. You have made your
confusion clearer to others

It may help you if you just use X to denote a GYAnI.

1.  Mr.X is a GYAnI (established through other means such as Apta vakya or
by facts such as a shrotriya like svami Paramarthananda ji well grounded in
mImAmsa and tarka uses the canonical works of X to accomplish avidyA
nivRtti. )
2. Statement 1 implies GYanam or pramA has arisen in Mr.X

End of first part. No arthApatti until this point. Only other points to
debate.

Now use arthApatti
1. pramA is known to have arisen in Mr.X
(Like the fatness observed in Devadatta).
2. pramA arises only through exposure to shruti pramANam
(Fatness happens only by eating food)
3. The biodata of Mr.X does not include vedAnta adhyayanam in this life.
(Devadatta does not eat during the day)
4. He *must have* studied in a previous janma. anyatha anupapattiH.
Otherwise pramA not possible.
(Devadatta must be eating during the night, else not possible).

I hope you see the Devadatta arthApatti similarity atleast now.

And see why sri subbu ji is particular to  argue about point 1 based on
Apta vakya and other pramANa-s like upamAna etc. Please note arthApatti is
not for proving statement 1 that X is a GYAnI.

End of arthApatti

There is no dispute in the second part viz., the arthApatti.

The debate is over the validity of the first part viz., statement 1 based
on Apta vakya and upamAna etc., (drawing similarities with other
'unlearned' GYAnI-s, and showing that such rare possibilities are not
opposed to shruti).

That  is why sri subrahmanian ji was trying to say that in srI
candrashekhara bhArati mahAswAminaH too it is said that he had the pramA
even prior to formal adhyayana in the MaTham.

Om
Raghav

P.s. you can kindly avoid making remarks like 'you do not know what pramANa
is' etc., to praveen ji when there is so much confusion in you as when you
say arthApatti is not an independent pramANa.

>
>
> Regards
> Kripa ‎
>
> Vyasaya Vishnu roopaya Vyasa roopaya Vishnave
> Namo vai Brahma nidhaye Vasishtaya namo namaha
>   Original Message
> From: Kripa Shankar
> Sent: Monday 3 October 2016 4:22 PM
> To: Praveen R. Bhat
> Cc: Advaita discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Ramana Maharshi - Advaitin or Neo Advaitin?
>
> Namaste Praveen
>
> I am not even sure if you understand Pramana correctly! Your example of
hypothetical assumption can be proved by simple logic! It is not arthApatti
but poor logic!
> ‎
> Arthapatti as I understand is a * presumption * of a * fact * .  It is a
method to explain unknown * fact *.  That is why it serves in explaining
the Upanishads statements. It is * not a pramana on it's own *. Now please
tell me how does this apply to your declaration.
>
> Regards
> Kripa ‎‎
> ‎
>
> Vyasaya Vishnu roopaya Vyasa roopaya Vishnave
> Namo vai Brahma nidhaye Vasishtaya namo namaha
>   Original Message
> From: Praveen R. Bhat
> Sent: Monday 3 October 2016 3:33 PM
> To: Kripa Shankar
> Cc: Advaita discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Ramana Maharshi - Advaitin or Neo Advaitin?
>
>
>
> Namaste Kripaji,
>
> My hope of the last mail on the thread has remained a hope alone. Now, I
will try to be as verbose as possible to really conclude, since I have been
accused earlier of giving replies similar to aphorisms! :) Far from it...
>
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Kripa Shankar <
kripa.shankar.0294 at gmail.com> wrote:
> No, its stands proven.
>
> >> How is this even an argument :D ‎
> ‎
> Its not an argument. Its stating a conclusion of arthApatti.  All your
choices of examples of arthApatti are WRONG. Sorry for the caps, but thats
how wrong they are, repeatedly. You choose not even to take an advice of
trying to understand what arthApatti is. As for below...
>
> ‎
> This is not arthApatti at all! You have just proven my suspicion I
mentioned in the last response.
>
> Best wishes.
>
> >> What is arthapatti : when the Vedas say do this yajna and you will go
to heaven, we cannot ever ascertain it. But because we are accepting *
Shruti as pramana * we have to conclude : it must be so and this is
arthapatti (and it's limitation)
>
> This is NOT arthApatti. It is shabda pramANa. Please don't mix the two,
it is deprecating the pramANas themselves! If you have to show arthApatti
of shabda pramANa itself, you have to use other steps of multi-step anumAna.
>
>
> What is not arthapatti : If we say a person has not yet arrived, we
cannot come to a conclusion as to the what the exact reason
is(inconclusive) .
> You can't apply it to anything any which way. Just because you use the
tools wrongly and call it arthApatti or not and say its inconclusive
doesn't make arthApatti inconclusive.
>
>
> What is absurdity : To make an assumption first and * coming to a
conclusion * by arthapatti! (?).
> Yes, thats exactly the field of arthApatti, which is a multi-step
anumAna, that says "otherwise, it is impossible". You cannot use it
anywhere where you cannot conclude "otherwise it is impossible". Please
read up the stock example of Devadatta eating at night.
>
> Eg: Assuming Ramana as a Jnani, it must be concluded that he must have
studied well in his previous birth.
> No, no. Please reread what I wrote. Here it is again since you seem to
have either ignored it or not understood.
>
> ----
> 1) jnAna cannot arise from anything but shruti.
> 2) One is a jnAni.
> 3) Therefore, jnAna of a jnAni has come from shruti alone, be it from
study in last life/ lives.
>
> This is an undeniable conclusion via arthApatti unless you deny point 2
(#Note#). Point 1 is not of dispute else shruti will no longer remain
pramANa.
> -----
> #Note# You will have to necessarily say that you do not accept Ramana
Maharshi as a jnAni for the above conclusive arthApatti to not apply.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org