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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sudhanshu ji,

I think you had forgotten to copy the list. Doing so here. Will reply to
the point in the last paragraph separately.

Regards
Venkatraghavan

On Tue, 28 Dec 2021, 18:11 Sudhanshu Shekhar, <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
>
> //In the viTTalesha vyAkhya, the anumAnas are examined to test their
> validity. The first anumAna he says is actually shabda prayojya, and the
> word janya in the shabda-ajanya-vRtti-viShayatva has been used in the sense
> of prayojyatva, so the tucCha that is the object of the first anumAna is
> shabda janya (prayojya) only and there is no vyabhichAra.//
>
>
>
> Yes. This is very clear. The vyAKhyA proves that the first anumAna does
> not prove that tuchcha is anumAna-janya-vritti-vishaya because janya pada
> basically means prayojya.
>
>
>
> //The second anumAna is presented to counter such a challenge. Here, on
> the basis that kshaNikatva is proven by arthakriyAkAritva (an abyupetya),
> he says that the absence of arthakriyAkAritva proves akshaNikatva. An
> objection is raised saying that the absence of kshaNikatva should prove the
> absence of arthakriyAkAritva (vyApyAbhAva is proven by vyApakAbhAva) and
> not the other way around. To this, the counter given is that this is a
> samavyApta anumAna (there is a two-way vyApti between vyApya and vyApaka,
> ie vyApya implies the vyApaka and vice versa). Hence the absence of vyApya
> (arthakriyAkAritva = akAraNatva) should also prove the absence of vyApaka
> (kshaNikatva abhAva).//
>
>
>
> Absolutely clear. Thanks.
>
>
>
> //The tucCha that is known in these anumAna-s is a bhrama because it is
> sublated - and he goes on to say that in this system, bhrama can be
> two-fold: mithyAviShayaka and asatviShayaka. So he accepts that tucCha is
> the object of these anumAna-s, but such a jnAna is a bhrama because it is
> bAdhitaviShaya.//
>
>
>
> Absolutely clear. Thanks.
>
>
>
> //To counter such an opponent, the alternative definition of dRshyatva is
> presented in the siddhi.//
>
> //How would you prove that अकारणत्व and अक्षणिकत्व are mithyA to the
> opponent? Without this, the hetu in your reasoning would be unproven and
> hence the opponent would allege asiddhi.//
>
>
>
> The opponent has defined kAraNatva as arthakriyAkAritva. He states that
> arthakriyAkAritva implies kshAnikatva and hence (due to equating kAraNatva
> and arthakriyAkAritva) kAraNatva implies kshAnikatva. He further stated
> that akAraNatva is the hetu and akshaNikatva is the sAdhya owing to two-way
> vyApti.
>
>
>
> Now, world has artha-kriyA-kAritva and hence as defined by the opponent
> himself, the world will have kAraNatva. And hence kshAnikatva also. Now,
> world is mithyA (for not being either tuchcha or Brahman - world’s
> mithyAtva is not disputed by the opponent. The definition of drishyatva is
> in dispute). So, kAraNatva and kshaNikatva will be mithyA also. So their
> abhAva, akAraNatva and akshaNikatva will be bhAvarUpa mithyA only [through
> the logic adduced by Acharya in BU 1.2.1 - तथैव भावात्मकताभावानाम्].
>
>
>
> Please indicate fault in this logic.
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 8:41 AM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Sudhanshu ji,
>>
>> How would you prove that अकारणत्व and अक्षणिकत्व are mithyA to the
>> opponent? Without this, the hetu in your reasoning would be unproven and
>> hence the opponent would allege asiddhi.
>>
>> In the viTTalesha vyAkhya, the anumAnas are examined to test their
>> validity. The first anumAna he says is actually shabda prayojya, and the
>> word janya in the shabda-ajanya-vRtti-viShayatva has been used in the sense
>> of prayojyatva, so the tucCha that is the object of the first anumAna is
>> shabda janya (prayojya) only and there is no vyabhichAra.
>>
>> The second anumAna is presented to counter such a challenge. Here, on the
>> basis that kshaNikatva is proven by arthakriyAkAritva (an abyupetya), he
>> says that the absence of arthakriyAkAritva proves akshaNikatva. An
>> objection is raised saying that the absence of kshaNikatva should prove the
>> absence of arthakriyAkAritva (vyApyAbhAva is proven by vyApakAbhAva) and
>> not the other way around. To this, the counter given is that this is a
>> samavyApta anumAna (there is a two-way vyApti between vyApya and vyApaka,
>> ie vyApya implies the vyApaka and vice versa). Hence the absence of vyApya
>> (arthakriyAkAritva = akAraNatva) should also prove the absence of vyApaka
>> (kshaNikatva abhAva).
>>
>> The tucCha that is known in these anumAna-s is a bhrama because it is
>> sublated - and he goes on to say that in this system, bhrama can be
>> two-fold: mithyAviShayaka and asatviShayaka. So he accepts that tucCha is
>> the object of these anumAna-s, but such a jnAna is a bhrama because it is
>> bAdhitaviShaya.
>>
>> To counter such an opponent, the alternative definition of dRshyatva is
>> presented in the siddhi.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Venkatraghavan
>>
>>
>>