[Advaita-l] anumAna-pramANa

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

Reg  // I hope you agree with his statement regarding VivaraNa though //,

I confess that I have not studied VivaraNa in any great depth. When there
is a difference in understanding as broughtout in any discussions on such
issues, I tend to refer to the views of acknowledged experts, and then
arrive at a conclusion. On VivaraNa, I already drew attention to talk by
Sri MDS. Also referred to the commentary by Sri Anantakrishna Shastri. My
understanding is that VP is in line with VivaraNa.

Regards

On Sat, Oct 26, 2024 at 3:57 PM H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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.
>>
>>>