Kripa Shankar kripa.shankar.0294 at gmail.com
Mon Oct 3 07:36:26 CDT 2016

```Namaste Venkatraghavan

I am sorry to break it to you but your logic is even more flawed than Praveen 's :D Praveen made one assumption but you are making two! A cannot be accepted unless we assume the value of B = 1 (true) but B can only be true if the value of A = 1!!

This is not arthApatti for God's sake! This is flawed logic. ‎

Regards
Kripa ‎

Vyasaya Vishnu roopaya Vyasa roopaya Vishnave
Namo vai Brahma nidhaye Vasishtaya namo namaha
Original Message
From: Venkatraghavan S
Sent: Monday 3 October 2016 5:54 PM
To: Kripa Shankar

Namaste Kripaji,
Very good. I was also discussing about arthApatti only - I just removed the jargon around it.  Let us just look at the logic -

If A can only happen if B is there, and if someone is saying A has happened, then by logic, B has to have happened also. The conclusion that B has happened is said to be due to the application of arthApatti pramANa.

Here A = Ramana is a jnAni and B = Ramana's jnAna is due to vedAnta shravaNA - manana-nidhidhyAsanam (SMN).  The unsaid logical link here is that someone can be a jnAni only through vedAnta SMN.

Now the only reason B stands is because you have not agreed to debate A. So if you wish to contest B, unfortunately you will have to get into the mud and contest that A has happened.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Kripa Shankar <kripa.shankar.0294 at gmail.com> wrote:
Namaste Venkatraghavan

Please forgive me if I'm hurting anyone's sentiments. I still concede that I don't want to debate on whether Ramana was a jnAni or not. In the course of classification (Advaita and Neo-Advaita) many aspects came up and I have only responded accordingly. But some members took offence at the mention of Neo Advaita. Some opined that my intent was malicious from the start. But my clear objection is towards those who are contemptuous towards the age old Vedas. They seem to patronise Vedas but are vicious towards the Shastras. Hence for my own reference, I asked the opinion of others within the Advaita circle about Ramana and the whole subject of classification.

In this particular instance though, the debate is only about arthApatti. ‎

Regards
Kripa ‎

Vyasaya Vishnu roopaya Vyasa roopaya Vishnave
Namo vai Brahma nidhaye Vasishtaya namo namaha
Original Message
From: Venkatraghavan S
Sent: Monday 3 October 2016 5:15 PM
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta; Kripa Shankar
Cc: Praveen R. Bhat

Namaste Kripaji,

You said that you do no want to debate if Ramana is a jnAni or not. If you do not dispute it and if the other side says he is a jnAni, then they are free to conclude that the jnAna that Ramana has is from shruti - because there is no other means for jnAna, other than shruti.

So if you dispute that conclusion, you will have to necessarily go back from your stand of not disputing if Ramana is a jnani and assert that Ramana cannot be a jnAni.

You cannot have it both ways.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

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. ‎

I hope I have made my point clear.

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

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

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.

_______________________________________________