[Advaita-l] anumAna-pramANa

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji

Reg // Now, I am sixty years old (let's say [image: 🙂] ) and I see hill
with smoke and I infer fire. How can something which is not existent now be
spoken as karaNa //,

Why the smiley !! Yes. You are not so old. But so what. I am 84 plus
(actual) and when I see smoke, I involuntarily exclaim almost immediately
**Oh there is fire**. I am quite comfortable with the understanding
**vyAptijnAna is spontaneous/involuntary/intuitive understanding of
presence of agni on seeing smoke**. In the absence of such intuitive
understanding, which implies conviction as well, it is not possible to
infer agni on seeing smoke. That is fine. All it means is agni is not
inferred. AnumAna pramANa is not available for you, even if you are just
forty,  in this case.

Reg  // 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 //,

It is certainly present NOW, for the person who is making the inference.

I myself do not subscribe to all the views of VP. However in respect of
epistemology, I understand VP as the authority, of course as amended over a
period of time by various acknowledged experts and by common consent, at
least mostly.

Reg // And put in the forum for discussion. I hope I am not misunderstood//,

I don’t think there is any question of misunderstanding. At least as far as
I am concerned it has given me an excellent opportunity to search for
authoritative backup to my own personal understanding. It is not possible
to go through texts in full and remember the contents as well. Such
opportunities help in studying particular, limited issues in depth. Thank
you for providing the same.

Regards

On Sat, Oct 26, 2024 at 4:14 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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.
>
>
>