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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Kripaji,
Very good. I was also discussing about arthApatti only - I just removed the
jargon around it.  Let us just look at the logic -

If A can only happen if B is there, and if someone is saying A has
happened, then by logic, B has to have happened also. The conclusion that B
has happened is said to be due to the application of arthApatti pramANa.

Here A = Ramana is a jnAni and B = Ramana's jnAna is due to vedAnta
shravaNA - manana-nidhidhyAsanam (SMN).  The unsaid logical link here is
that someone can be a jnAni *only* through vedAnta SMN.

Now the only reason B stands is because you have not agreed to debate A. So
if you wish to contest B, unfortunately you will have to get into the mud
and contest that A has happened.


Regards,
Venkatraghavan

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Kripa Shankar <kripa.shankar.0294 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Venkatraghavan
>
> Please forgive me if I'm hurting anyone's sentiments. I still concede that
> I don't want to debate on whether Ramana was a jnAni or not. In the course
> of classification (Advaita and Neo-Advaita) many aspects came up and I have
> only responded accordingly. But some members took offence at the mention of
> Neo Advaita. Some opined that my intent was malicious from the start. But
> my clear objection is towards those who are contemptuous towards the age
> old Vedas. They seem to patronise Vedas but are vicious towards the
> Shastras. Hence for my own reference, I asked the opinion of others within
> the Advaita circle about Ramana and the whole subject of classification.
>
> In this particular instance though, the debate is only about arthApatti. ‎
>
> 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 5:15 PM
> To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta; Kripa Shankar
> Cc: Praveen R. Bhat
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Ramana Maharshi - Advaitin or Neo Advaitin?
>
> 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
>
>