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

[Kripa Shankar]

Namaste Praveen 

I used the word Vedas as a‎ broad category which includes everything that is there 'to know' to highlight the importance of * Shruti* and thus the importance of * shruti as pramana * and thus the importance of * authenticity maintained through tradition * (over * what is heard through indirect sources *) without which 'what is heard' will just become rumour. However I concede that it was phrased poorly. 

The proof is in the pudding. You can check my initial mail as also the title. 

‎When we accept * Shruti as pramana * but we don't have a direct evidence, we resort to arthapatti. But in your declaration an * assumption * is reinforced by arthapatti! ‎

It's like while waiting for the bus. According to the assumption that the bus should have departed by now, we will have to conclude that it has arrived now although it has not!

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 11:57 AM
To: Kripa Shankar
Cc: Advaita discussion group for Advaita Vedanta; V Subrahmanian
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Ramana Maharshi - Advaitin or Neo Advaitin?



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] */