[Advaita-l] SSS: Anantanand Rambachans Study

Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian rama.balasubramanian at gmail.com
Sat May 5 08:37:48 CDT 2007

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
> http://www.pramana.org/Dayananda/Disciples/rationale.pdf
> 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.
> Rama
> 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!

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list