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

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Kripaji,

I am hoping that this will be my last posting on this thread, since there
doesn't seem to be more to add, unless we go into repetitive mode...

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Kripa Shankar <kripa.shankar.0294 at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> >> I will have to say the same thing, please read it : *
> ShastrArthasampradAyarahitatvAt ShrutahAnim kurvan* then what does it
> become?  *AshrutakalpanAm*. Here Shankara has emphasised on SampradAya both
> implicitly and explicitly. Besides, This alone is enough to determine
> whether someone is orthodox or not. Without ascertaining the background of
> the prospective groom will a father give away his daughter randomly to
> anyone? It's amusing to see we are even arguing about this point when it is
> considered as the basics.

That is because you think that those basic are the basis of ongoing debate.
It is not. Recall that the whole thread started with the assumption that
what Ramana Maharshi say is opposed to sampradAya. All this, including my
last post, is in that context itself. I have already agreed in my earlier
mail that he is not the person that shAstra encourages one to go to, to
study shAstras from. Even in sampradAyavits, not all sampradAyavids can be
studied from. I rest on this point.





> Shruti is the greatest of all in the Vedas, the grand celebrity.
>
I don't know what you are saying here; Shruti *is* the Vedas!


> ‎
> >> I am not sure why you used arthapatthi here as it applies only to
> Shruti statements.

No, it is used by most intellectuals in the world all the time. What do you
think is the stock example to explain arthApatti? देवदत्तस्य रात्रिभोजनम्।
The conclusion that "Devadatta [surely] eats at night" is not a Shruti
statement. For that matter, all pramANas are used in daily life by almost
everyone.


> Otherwise I can deduce that even a rock is a jnani by my own arthapatthi. ‎
>
I'd be surprised if arthApatti could give you that! You are free to try. :)
Sorry, I suspect your understanding of arthApatti itself going by your
statement before and even above, (of course unless you literally mean your
own definition for a new arthApatti that you'd call "*my own* arthApatti").

Thanks for the discussion. I will rest on this thread here since I don't
have anything new and or constructive beyond this point.

Kind rgds,
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known!
[Br.Up. 4.5.15] */