[Advaita-l] SSS: Anantanand Rambachans Study
K Kathirasan NCS
kkathir at ncs.com.sg
Wed May 9 02:56:36 CDT 2007
Namaste Sri Rama,
The reason why modern scholars attributed the anubhava to a mystical
experience could be due to a subsequent development that took place
after Vacaspati Mishra's Bhamati (9th century CE). In the Bhamati one
would find probably the first time in the Vedanta tradition the equation
of 'anubhava' to Patanjali Yoga's Samadhi. Subsequent authors who used
the Bhamati as an authority could have interpreted anubhava from this
angle and developed further. This could have also given rise to the
Nirvikalpa and Savikalpa Samadhi teachings in Vedanta. So what is termed
as modern interpretation may not be that modern after all. In fact, the
views of Sri Abhinava Vidya Teertha can be said to be modern when
compared with the Anubhava that Anantanand explains in this book with
the necessary support from Shankara's bhashyas.
The reason why I found Anantanand's work very good was that he kept to
the core teachings of Shankara with respect to the efficacy of Shabda
Pramana to give rise to immediate knowledge. And Shabda pramana being
the sole pramana for Self knowledge. To me it is indeed a ground
breaking work but it may not be acceptable to those who accept the
teachings of the Vivarana & Bhamati to be absolute.
So now do you feel like dumping this professor as well because he
doesn't agree with your views?
From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
[mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org] On Behalf Of
Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 9:38 PM
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] SSS: Anantanand Rambachans Study
One thing I forgot to mention. Prof Rambachan actually tries to
*devalue* the role of anubhava quite a lot in his paper and book,
unlike me. Also note that the Prof. is mainly combating views that
anubahava is some kind of mystical state, which is a modern
interpretation by Radhakrishnan and others.
A review of this book appeared in Philosophy East and West and Arvind
Sharma had critiqued the book. Interested readers may consult their
local library. Again, note that this book and my paper are *entirely*
orthogonal, and we address completely different things, and in this
sense the paper complements the book. I leave it to the advaita list
members to actually read the book and either confirm or refute my
assertion for themselves. Quite clearly, spin doctoring has begun to
quote random things out of context, and people are trying to gain
legitimacy by quoting a well known Professor.
On 4/30/07, Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian
<rama.balasubramanian at gmail.com> wrote:
> A pretty good summary of the book quoted is in
> I am not sure if this link has been pointed out on the list before.
> Note that the point shrutyaadayaH and anubhavaadayaH are exegetical
> techniques does not occur in the paper at all. With all due respect to
> Prof Rambachan, and his excellent book, he does not seem to have noted
> the secondary use of the word pramaaNa in the quoted passage. Note
> that ***both Padmapaada and SSS**** agree that shrutyaadayaH refer to
> exegetical techniques.
> PS: The other highly amusing thing is that Ramabachan is a disciple of
> Dayananda Saaswati, 2 of whose disciples have heavily crtiticized SSS,
> one of whom has got a Ph.D by criticizing SSS! The irony is quite
> comical, to say the least, quoting Ramabachan to disprove a
> ***mis-understanding*** of my paper. Needless to say, 2 negatives do
> not make a positive, at least in this case.
> PPS: Perhaps, I should quote all books that I have read, and have no
> relevance to the paper also. That should boost the page count by 3 or
> 4 pages!
To unsubscribe or change your options:
For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list