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

[Praveen R. Bhat]

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.