[Advaita-l] anumAna-pramANa

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Raghav ji.

vyApti-jnAna-tva-avachchhinna-vyApti-jnAna is not clear. What does it mean
> in simpler elaborate language?
>

Let us revise the concept of avachchhedaka. Let us say that there is a pot.
This pot is a cause in several actions, namely:

1. You can bring water in the pot. So, pot is the cause of
water-Anayana-kriyA.
2. You can break the pot. So, pot is the cause of pot-dhvamsa.
3. You can know pot. So, pot is the cause of pot-jnAna.

In 1, pot is the cause in jala-Anayana-kriyA on account of being a pot.
In 2, pot is the cause in pot-dhvamsa on account of being pratiyogI.
In 3, pot is the cause in pot-jnAna on account of being vishaya.

So, in 1, the kAraNatA of pot is avachchhinna by pot-ness. In 2, the
kAraNatA iof pot is avachchhinna by pratiyogitA. In 3, the kAraNatA of pot
is avachchhinna by vishayatva.

Now, there is something called anuvyavasAya. For e.g. suppose I know a pot.
So, first there is a jnAna-1 named ghaTa-jnAna. Subsequent thereto, I get a
jnAna-2 "I have ghaTa-jnAna". Now, this jnAna-2 has jnAna-1 as vishaya.
This jnAna-2 is called anuvyavasAya.

Now, please see that jnAna-1 is the cause of jnAna-2 but not on account of
being a jnAna but on account of being a vishaya. So, the kAraNatA of
jnAna-1 vis-a-vis jnAna-2 is avachchhinna by vishayatva and not by jnAnatva.

When we say vyApti-jnAna-tvena-vyApti-jnAna-janyA (अनुमितिश्च
व्याप्तिज्ञानत्वेन व्याप्तिज्ञानजन्या), we basically mean that the kAraNatA
of vyApti-jnAna vis-a-vis anumiti-pramA is avachchhinna by
vyApti-jnAna-tva. That is "on account of being vyApti-jnAna" and not on
account of being anything else.

Hope, I could convey.


> Also, X-avacchinna-Y implies there are also Z-avacchinna-Y and
> W-avacchinna-Y. Here what are the avacchedakas possible?
>

Like vishayatva and pratiyogitva. So, the vyApti-jnAna is
vishaytvena-janaka of vyApti-jnAna-anuvyvasAya. vyApti-jnAna is
pratiyogitvena-janaka of vyApti-jnAna-dhvamsa. However, vyApti-jnAna is
vyApti-jnAnatvena-janaka in case of anumiti-pramA.


> For example, would a word/idea like
> "ghaTa-jnAnatva-avacchinna-ghaTa-jnAnaM " make semantic sense?
>

Yes. It is a very much sensible statement, as discussed above.

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.