[Advaita-l] Anvaya Vyatireka Method (Was: Re: Fw: Adhyaropa-Apavada Nyaya.)

[kuntimaddi sadananda]

Shree Siva Senani, PraNAms

First my hats off to you- you have done more research than what I can dream off.

In the vyaaptis there are vyaapti that are mutually pervading each other and there are others which I think or called Vishama vyaapti- where both are not mutually pervasive. For example for fire and smoke - classical example the pervasion is where ever there is smoke there is fire but not where ever fire is there is smoke. 
Hence the dRishTanta that supports the vyaapti has to be exact to see the range of validity of the vyaapti. In the above case - as in the kitchen fire - there is smoke in the kitchen and there is fire associated with it but not  there is fire and smoke associated with it.  

Even in the ring and gold example - I gave the both ways starting from ring point and also from gold point. Ring is gold is, and ring is not gold is - the anvaya works and vyatireka does not work since it is also vishama vyaapti. But if you start from gold is ring is, and gold is not ring is not - the vyaapti is pervading - The represent in terms of concentric circles - smoke circle is enclosed in the fire circle - implying that there are regions where fire can exist without having smoke.

In the case of body and aatma - body is aatma is and body is not aatma is - hence like fire and smoke circles body circle is enclosed in the all pervading aatma circle.

In the other way - we have to use aatma not sat chit ananda aatma but only as jiiva aatma - then we have aatma is body is, aatma is not body is not (not conscious of that dead body). In the pancadashi it is used to separate I am different and independent of the body. It works up to that point before mahavaakya takes over. Hence logic has only limited application to indicate 1. I am different from the body. 2. I am independent of the body while body depends on me. That is how I think Vidyaranya uses the anvaya vyatireka logic in Pancadashi and Sureswara in Naiskarmya Siddhi. 
Beyond that - we have the famous statement - Naishaa tarkena matiraapaneya - Logic cannot be used. 


some more comments below:


--- On Sun, 2/13/11, Siva Senani Nori <sivasenani at yahoo.com> wrote:


> 
> Va) Anvaya: In the dreaming state the gross body is absent
> but the Atma is 
> manifest (on account of its sAkshitva - as explained by the
> 
> commentator Ramakrishna, a disciple of Vidyaranyaswami).
> Vb) Vyatireka: In the same state, the Atma is present, but
> the gross body is not 
> manifest.

Shree Siva Senani - the way I have learned is - 

In the waking state - the gross body is - aatma is - that is anvaya - anvaya establishes the co-existence - not absence. This only tells that they both are interrelated. At this stage we do not know which has dependent existence and which has independent existence.

Vyatireka is co-absence - one is not the other is not. This does not apply from the point of body-aatma - since gross body is not (as in dream state) but aatma is. Therefore by anvaya their existence is related, vyatireka establishes that aatma has independent existence while body has dependent existence. It is vishama vyaapti as in the case of smoke and fire. smoke is fire is - anvaya. and smoke is not, fire is as in some cases. Hence fire is independent existence while smoke has dependent existence. This is how anvaya -vyatireka logic is employed and works fine as I presented. 
-----


> 
> (I am unable to make out the difference between a) and b)
> and was unable to find 
> any directionality of causation or such hints either from
> the Sanskrit 
> commentator or the English translator - but that is a
> different issue, one that 
> has to be resolved with a Guru).

> 
> Now, if we examine TarkabhAshA, an introductory manual of
> logic, anvaya and 
> vyatireka are established quite differently [3]. That may
> be summarised as:
> 
> Ta) Mountain has fire; as there is smoke on the mountain;
> since wherever there 
> is smoke, there is fire (anvaya)
> Tb) also, since whereever there is no fire, there is no
> smoke. (vyatireka) (This 
> is not normally stated as it is unreasonable to use a
> crooked path when a 
> straight path is available).

Yes - this is because to establish the vyatireka operating, they have to use the negative terms. In the concentric circles illustration with the smoke circle inside and fire circle outside, if the fire circle is bounded then we have outside the fire circle - there is no fire and no smoke also - to say vyatireka also works or there co-absence works. 

In the way they have presented is both anvyaa and vyatireka works provided for vyatireka one has use the negatives - because of vishama vyaapti. But I think corrent way to establish one is dependent and the other is independent is - show anvaya works but not vyatireka - as I have presented it. Also use from both references - as starting from ring and next from gold as I have illustrated. Long time ago I discussed this issue with Shree Paramarthanandaji and he agreed with my assessment - this is not an endorsement that I am right.  

Hence I presented it starting from ways - from the ring point and then from the gold point. In my opinion to correct analysis should involve application starting from both. In the case of aatma as all pervading reality, we have outer circle extended to infinity - so we cannot apply that where there is no aatma - there is no body, since no aatma condition is ever fulfilled. Hence I mentioned that aatma has to be restricted to jiiva aatma. The all pervading aatma has to be understood from Scriptures only and not from logic. 

My understanding is limited to this since the logic did its part that I needed. I did not pursue it further.

Hari Om!
Sadananda