[Advaita-l] Dayanand Saraswathi interview - Very interesting stand taken by Swami

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Kripa,


On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 10:23 PM, Kripa Shankar <
kripa.shankar.0294 at gmail.com> wrote:

> I am withholding all my comments / opinions until next week because I am
> planning to meet a scholar. After that I will post everything that
> transpires. Basically, I am trying to understand the intricacies of the
> Vedic construct. what falls within the vedic school and what does not.

Be forewarned that I would be free to take the same stance as you do and
question scholarship, since RM has been established as Bhagavan, no less,
by a great orthodox traditional scholar Kavyakantha Ganapati Muni who was
well-versed in all Vedas and all shastras. So I hope you find someone more
qualified than Ganapati Muni to comment on RM to your liking! And I presume
that since you come off as someone who has respect for the orthodox
tradition, you would know who Ganapati Muni was.


> For example, there is upanayana ceremony. It should be done in a certain
> way. I can't put the yajnopavita in a reverse fashion or upside down. The
> shastra alone decides how it has to be done.
>
Just giving an example doesn't help, it should fit the exemplified. RM did
nothing of the sort.


> similarly, I want to know if the scriptures accept that, with no prior
> cause could an effect take place? ‎Could someone become a Vedantin without
> studying it?

This is a question with an answer hidden within, because it is wrongly
phrased. No one said that one can become a Vedantin without studying it,
but one can be mukta *without studying it in this janma*.


> Could the impetus of previous janma work it's way through in this janma by
> an accident?
>
Please understand that the accident was not the hetu for the jnAna. Neither
RM nor Vedanta says that. jnAna is only due to Vedanta. Such are only
reasons for a kalyAnakRt to continue where he left of in earlier janma.


>
> I am mildly familiar with RM and his cult. I am convinced that his
> teachings are far from Vedanta.

Many of us here are mildly familiar with a lot of things under the sun, but
we don't go all out calling them as bogus.


> But I don't want to argue on philosophy because it will become subjective.
> But now that I come to think of it, it is worthwhile to add a few points on
> that as well.
>
Whatever gave you the idea that it is objective now!
‎

> But the key criterion is whether a traditional Vedantin would accept RM as
> a fellow vedantin on a fundamental level.

This has been the key criterion since day one of your questioning RM and
answered many times since day one as YES, if you mean about RM's being
jnAni/ mukta. No one claimed that He was an orthodox Vedanta teacher though.

Kind rgds,
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known!
[Br.Up. 4.5.15] */