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

[Venkatraghavan S]

It's all getting a bit nasty, so I will desist from posting further.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Kripa Shankar <kripa.shankar.0294 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Venkatraghavan
>
> This is getting hilarious. I am truly spell bound by the depth of your
> understanding. In order to establish whether Ramana went through ShAstra
> adhyayana or not, should we :
>
> 1) Assume that he was a jnAni or
> ‎2) should we first *conclude* he was a jnAni in which case there is no
> darn reason to establish whether he studied shAstra or not.
>
> In any case to conclude that he must have gone to gurukul in previous
> life, for which there is no direct evidence, we must have some extra
> ordinary logic which as you say is indeed beyond my understanding.
>
> Regards
> Kripa ‎
>
> Vyasaya Vishnu roopaya Vyasa roopaya Vishnave
> Namo vai Brahma nidhaye Vasishtaya namo namaha
>   Original Message
> From: Venkatraghavan S
> Sent: Monday 3 October 2016 7:11 PM
> To: Kripa Shankar; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
> Cc: Raghav Kumar Dwivedula
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Ramana Maharshi - Advaitin or Neo Advaitin?
>
> The purpose of this exercise is not to prove whether Ramana is a jnAni.
> That you have failed to even respond to that question means that the
> opponent's propositionthat he is a jnAni, stands proven as it is
> uncontested. The purpose is to establish whether whether Ramana went
> through shAstra vichAra or not.
>
> As there are no other means for shAstra vichAra, and since it was said
> that there is no evidence of his having done shAstra vichAra in the current
> life, it stands to reason that he went through shAstra vichAra in the past
> life.
>
> However, this elementary logic seems to be clearly beyond your
> understanding.
>
> Regards
> Venkatraghavan
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 2:06 PM, Kripa Shankar via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> ‎Namaste Raghav
>
> Don't take it otherwise but of all attempts made at explaining arthApatti
> your answer takes the cake. In the very first statement you have already
> concluded that Mr X is a jnani! Forget arthApatti you don't need another
> word to prove something which is already proved.
> ‎
> Regards
> Kripa ‎
>
> Vyasaya Vishnu roopaya Vyasa roopaya Vishnave
> Namo vai Brahma nidhaye Vasishtaya namo namaha
>   Original Message
> From: Raghav Kumar Dwivedula
> Sent: Monday 3 October 2016 6:04 PM
> To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta; Kripa Shankar
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Ramana Maharshi - Advaitin or Neo Advaitin?
>
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>