[Advaita-l] Doubt on the title अपरोक्षानुभूति ascribed to Shankarcharya

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

अपरोक्षानुभूति,
I understand that root अनु भू is not same is ज्ञा .While reading the
Samskrita commentary where the commentator gives both षष्ठी तत्पुरुष and
कर्मधारय parsings are given for अपरोक्षानुभूति. ( I am speaking about
Vidyaranyas commentary on the second verse or the title itself)
षष्ठी तत्पुरुष = अपरोक्षस्य अनुभूतिः  अपरोक्षानुभूतिः = अपरोक्षानुभूति =
"the अनुभूति of that which is अपरोक्ष"
कर्मधारय = अपरोक्षा चासौ अनुभूतिः च = अपरोक्षानुभूतिः = अपरोक्षानुभूति =
"that अनुभूति which is अपरोक्ष"

Now if we take your hypothesis that "only that अनुभूति which is अपरोक्ष is
true अनुभूति, and परोक्षानुभूति = अननुभूति" then both विग्रहs of the
commentary become problematic.

   1. The problem with first विग्रह is that what type of अनुभूति is meant
   when we say "the अनुभूति of that which is अपरोक्ष". Is it "परोक्ष अनुभूति
   of अपरोक्ष" or "अपरोक्ष अनुभूति of अपरोक्ष". If the latter then why not say
   "अपरोक्षापरोक्षानुभूति" to get precise meaning? Therefore the षष्ठी
   तत्पुरुष parsing by the commentator proves that अनुभूति, whether प्रत्यक्ष
   or परोक्ष, is अनुभूति, and is the subject of the work..
   2. The problem with the second विग्रह is that it if true अनुभूति = "that
   अनुभूति which is अपरोक्ष",  then why unnecessarily qualify the noun with an
   adjective? We use a qualifier for the noun only if the लक्षण represented by
   the noun is अतिव्याप्त w.r.t the qualified noun and if the qualified noun
   is not well-known. E.g. we say परशुराम or बलराम only because we have three
   रामs (sons of जमदग्नि, दशरथ and वसुदेव) and राम usually means the son of
   दशरथ. We say "white hair" only because hair can be "black and blonde also".
   We do not need to say "नीलमुत्पलम्" since by definition उत्पल is नील in
   colour. So if we are qualifying the noun अनुभूति by the adjective अपरोक्ष
   (as in the कर्मधारय here), we are admitting that there is अनुभूति which is
   परोक्ष also. Else the title of the work would be simply अनुभूति.

May I request Scholars to point out where my above analysis is going wrong
Thanks​

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।