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

[Kripa Shankar]

Namaste Praveen, 

Even self inquiry cannot be the cause of jnana. As Sadananda has already stated, there is no tvam padaartha which differentiates the Vedantic method. Go on, come up with a justification for that :D 

I am just saying he is not a Vedantin and his teachings are not Vedanta. If you agree with this, then there is no debate. It then proves that he cannot be considered as jnAni. You can call it whatever you want - Neovedanta or mysticism or a cult. But you have been arguing that he is a jnAni and his teachings are Vedanta. ‎
‎
‎Regards 
Kripa ‎

yo vedAdau svaraH prokto vedAnte cha pratiShThitaH |
tasya prakRRiti-lInasya yaH parassa maheshvaraH || 
  Original Message  
From: Praveen R. Bhat
Sent: Friday 27 January 2017 5:46 PM
To: Kripa Shankar; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
Cc: Bhaskar YR
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Dayanand Saraswathi interview - Very interesting stand taken by Swami

Namaste Kripaji,

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Kripa Shankar via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
Namaste, 

Just thought I'd add these final points :-

In spite of all the arguments made, the point made by LalitaalalitaaH still holds good.
True, Swamiji presented very logical arguments based on shAstras as he has thoroughly studied them. But he did not make the point you are making!
 
That RM categorically stated that, the basis for his 'non-dual experience' was the 'death experience' (whatever that is).
I am not sure if you have studied tarkashAstra, but this statement of yours would mean that death experience is the cause of his non-dual experience. And if you meant that itself, no, RM has said that self-inquiry followed this. It is therefore understood that such inquiry on experience is the basis for his "non-dual experience" (whatever you think that is).
 
So RM himself never claimed that he was a Vedantin. ‎
You are contradicting yourself for the umpteenth time again! If he never claimed he was a Vedantin, what is your problem about his saying anything "mystic" or not?! Moreover, how then can you even opine that is he "flag bearer of the neovedantins"! 
 
Another fact which I am merely stating is -
There is nothing "mere" about anything that you say; you just keep opening one can of worms after another. Please put this very doubt as well to any scholar that you speak to next.
 
He didn't attain samadhi on his own will.
This is a new addition, not repetition, I'll give you that. :)
 
He died because of a fatal disease. 
As opposed all Vedantins dying of svecchA! This is hilarious, thanks. :D Moreover, he would surely ask you as to who died, be it of a fatal disease or svecchA.

ramaNArpaNamstu,
--praveen