[Advaita-l] anumAna-pramANa

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

👍

Sudhanshu reacted via Gmail
<https://www.google.com/gmail/about/?utm_source=gmail-in-product&utm_medium=et&utm_campaign=emojireactionemail#app>

On Sat, 26 Oct 2024, 16:09 H S Chandramouli, <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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.
>>>
>>>>