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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Should be "Not sure what you mean"

On Mon, 27 Dec 2021, 15:24 Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> Not sure what 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>