[Advaita-l] Shabda-ajanya-vritti-vishayatva of tuchch

[Venkatraghavan S]

Not sure what are you mean, but as I said, the commentator has said that
the yadvA section has been introduced to address the opponent who holds
that the anumAna is valid.

On Mon, 27 Dec 2021, 13:59 Sudhanshu Shekhar, <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Or should we say -
>
> This anumAna is invalid.
>
> Because hetu and sAdhya (अकारणत्व and अक्षणिकत्व) are mithyA and they
> cannot belong to tuchcha, because tuchcha is asat.
>
> However, if you insist on the validity of this anumAna through some
> imaginary and incorrect definition of tuchcha, then take this another
> definition of drishyatva.
>
> Regards.
>
>
> On Mon, 27 Dec, 2021, 1:13 pm Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> If it is tucCha, then we would have accepted that tucCha is also anumiti
>> viShaya. Hence I said it is only the pada which is the viShaya of such a
>> vRtti not an akhaNDa padArtha denoted by the tucCha pada.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 27 Dec 2021, 12:51 Sudhanshu Shekhar, <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Venkataraghavan ji,
>>>
>>> तुच्छं न क्षणिकम्, अकारणत्वात्, ब्रह्मवत्।
>>>
>>> Here paksha is tuchcha, अक्षणिकत्व is sAdhya.
>>>
>>> How can we hold that paksha is tuchcha shabda?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 27 Dec, 2021, 11:43 am Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Namaste Sudhanshu ji,
>>>> The paksha of any anumAna is a viShaya of the anumiti.
>>>>
>>>> We hold that the paksha here is the shabda tucCha. They hold that the
>>>> paksha is the tucCha itself. So for them, the tucCha itself is
>>>> anumiti-viShaya.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Venkatraghavan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 27 Dec 2021, 11:30 Sudhanshu Shekhar, <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Venkataraghavan ji,
>>>>>
>>>>> तुच्छं न क्षणिकम्, अकारणत्वात्, ब्रह्मवत्।
>>>>>
>>>>> Is shasha-vishANa an object of vritti janya by this anumAna?
>>>>>
>>>>> Laghuchandrika makes that statement for
>>>>> sat-tAdAtmya-asat-tAdAtmya-anyataravatva (a little later). In this context
>>>>> of anumAna-vritti-janya-vishayatva, it does not make that statement. That's
>>>>> why I got confused.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>
>>>>