[Advaita-l] anumAna-pramANa

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hmm.

But tell me Chandramouli ji. vyApti-jnAna is nowhere in picture. It arose
to me when I was eleven years old. I came to know in 1990 that wherever
there is smoke, there is fire. After that, all I was having is
vyApti-smriti.

Now, I am sixty years old (let's say 🙂 ) and I see hill with smoke and I
infer fire. How can something which is not existent now be spoken as
karaNa. vyApti-jnAna is not existing now. It was there long back. Now, at
best one can speak of vyApti-smriti. But that is strongly rejected by
VivaraNa as well as VP.

Something which is karaNa/kAraNa needs to be present. Isn't it?
vyApti-jnAna is not even present. It is a thing of distant past.

Panchanan Bhattacharya Ji's statement is also supported by VivaraNa
UpanyAsa. PB was a disciple of BAlabodhinIkAra who at several places in
Advaita Siddhi TIkA has mentioned about divergences in VP, in a rather
critical fashion.

I am a fan of all of our traditional AchAryAs and have immense reverence
and gratitude for them. VedAnta ParibhAshA is an exceptional conceptual
text. However, these little divergences enable further clarity on the
issue. Hence, I find them worthy. And put in the forum for discussion. I
hope I am not misunderstood.

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.
>

I don't think so. I wrote the rule just to explain. It is by the very
definition of of karaNa. He is merely saying that VivaraNa does not accept
vyApti-jnAna as anumiti-kAraNa whereas VP accepts vyApti-jnAna as
anumiti-kAraNa. There is no incorrectness in this statement.

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.