[Advaita-l] anumAna-pramANa

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sudhanshu JI,

Reg // 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
//,

That is by implication,by another inference, drawing upon another rule. He
should go by the direct statement made in VP, not drawing upon another
rule.We need to assume that he is drawing upon  that rule.  Direct
statement made by VP is that vyAptijnAna is anumitikaraNa. Why should he be
shy of saying so. He does not mention anything about any inferential
conclusion by him.

Why I am bringing this out is to show the possibility that Bhattacharya's
understanding itself is suspect. His conclusion is also contradictory to
the commentary on this topic by Sri Anantakrishna Shastri who is
acknowledged as a scholar of great repute.

Regards



On Sat, Oct 26, 2024 at 3:35 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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.
>
>>