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

[Venkatraghavan S]

The purpose of this exercise is not to prove whether Ramana is a jnAni.
That you have failed to even respond to that question means that the
opponent's propositionthat he is a jnAni, stands proven as it is
uncontested. The purpose is to establish whether whether Ramana went
through shAstra vichAra or not.

As there are no other means for shAstra vichAra, and since it was said that
there is no evidence of his having done shAstra vichAra in the current
life, it stands to reason that he went through shAstra vichAra in the past
life.

However, this elementary logic seems to be clearly beyond your
understanding.

Regards
Venkatraghavan




On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 2:06 PM, Kripa Shankar via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> ‎Namaste Raghav
>
> Don't take it otherwise but of all attempts made at explaining arthApatti
> your answer takes the cake. In the very first statement you have already
> concluded that Mr X is a jnani! Forget arthApatti you don't need another
> word to prove something which is already proved.
> ‎
> Regards
> Kripa ‎
>
> Vyasaya Vishnu roopaya Vyasa roopaya Vishnave
> Namo vai Brahma nidhaye Vasishtaya namo namaha
>   Original Message
> From: Raghav Kumar Dwivedula
> Sent: Monday 3 October 2016 6:04 PM
> To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta; Kripa Shankar
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Ramana Maharshi - Advaitin or Neo Advaitin?
>
>
> On 03-Oct-2016 5:12 pm, "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. ‎
> >
>
>
> >hope I have made my point clear.
>
> Nope Kripa ji, you have not made your point clear. You have made your
> confusion clearer to others
>
> It may help you if you just use X to denote a GYAnI.
>
> 1.  Mr.X is a GYAnI (established through other means such as Apta vakya or
> by facts such as a shrotriya like svami Paramarthananda ji well grounded in
> mImAmsa and tarka uses the canonical works of X to accomplish avidyA
> nivRtti. )
> 2. Statement 1 implies GYanam or pramA has arisen in Mr.X
>
> End of first part. No arthApatti until this point. Only other points to
> debate.
>
> Now use arthApatti
> 1. pramA is known to have arisen in Mr.X
> (Like the fatness observed in Devadatta).
> 2. pramA arises only through exposure to shruti pramANam
> (Fatness happens only by eating food)
> 3. The biodata of Mr.X does not include vedAnta adhyayanam in this life.
> (Devadatta does not eat during the day)
> 4. He *must have* studied in a previous janma. anyatha anupapattiH.
> Otherwise pramA not possible.
> (Devadatta must be eating during the night, else not possible).
>
> I hope you see the Devadatta arthApatti similarity atleast now.
>
> And see why sri subbu ji is particular to  argue about point 1 based on
> Apta vakya and other pramANa-s like upamAna etc. Please note arthApatti is
> not for proving statement 1 that X is a GYAnI.
>
> End of arthApatti
>
> There is no dispute in the second part viz., the arthApatti.
>
> The debate is over the validity of the first part viz., statement 1 based
> on Apta vakya and upamAna etc., (drawing similarities with other
> 'unlearned' GYAnI-s, and showing that such rare possibilities are not
> opposed to shruti).
>
> That  is why sri subrahmanian ji was trying to say that in srI
> candrashekhara bhArati mahAswAminaH too it is said that he had the pramA
> even prior to formal adhyayana in the MaTham.
>
> Om
> Raghav
>
> P.s. you can kindly avoid making remarks like 'you do not know what
> pramANa is' etc., to praveen ji when there is so much confusion in you as
> when you say arthApatti is not an independent pramANa.
>
> >
> >
> > 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>