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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Kripaji,

You said that you do no want to debate if Ramana is a jnAni or not. If you
do not dispute it and if the other side says he is a jnAni, then they are
free to conclude that the jnAna that Ramana has is from shruti - because
there is no other means for jnAna, other than shruti.

So if you dispute that conclusion, you will have to necessarily go back
from your stand of not disputing if Ramana is a jnani and assert that
Ramana cannot be a jnAni.

You cannot have it both ways.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

On 3 Oct 2016 12:32 p.m., "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. ‎
>
> I hope I have made my point clear.
>
> 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
>