[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, 17:10 H S Chandramouli, <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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.
>>
>>
>>