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

[Venkatraghavan S]

The second paragraph should be read as "As there are no other means for
jnAnam apart from shAstra vichAra".

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>