[Advaita-l] anumAna-pramANa

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

>
> Namaste Chandramouli ji.

Here Bhattacharya is saying that while VivaraNa does not accept
>  vyAptijnAna as  anumitikAraNa, VP considers it so. This statement itself
> is wrong. VP considers vyAptijnAna as  anumitikaraNa only, not kAraNa.
>

karaNatva is vyApya while kAraNatva is vyApaka. Whatever entity is karaNa,
is mandatorily kAraNa also. यत्र यत्र करणत्वम्, तत्र तत्र कारणत्वम्। In
order to be karaNa, the entity has to be mandatorily a kAraNa.

Since, VP accepts vyApti-jnAna as anumiti-karaNa, it stands implied *ipso
facto* that vyApti-jnAna is anumiti-kAraNa also in VP's view.

So, I fail to see any incorrectness in Panchanan Bhattacharya Ji's
statement.

I hope you agree with his statement regarding VivaraNa though.

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.

>