Venkatraghavan S agnimile at gmail.com
Mon Dec 27 22:11:36 EST 2021

```Namaste Sudhanshu ji,

How would you prove that अकारणत्व and अक्षणिकत्व are mithyA to the
opponent? Without this, the hetu in your reasoning would be unproven and
hence the opponent would allege asiddhi.

In the viTTalesha vyAkhya, the anumAnas are examined to test their
validity. The first anumAna he says is actually shabda prayojya, and the
word janya in the shabda-ajanya-vRtti-viShayatva has been used in the sense
of prayojyatva, so the tucCha that is the object of the first anumAna is
shabda janya (prayojya) only and there is no vyabhichAra.

The second anumAna is presented to counter such a challenge. Here, on the
basis that kshaNikatva is proven by arthakriyAkAritva (an abyupetya), he
says that the absence of arthakriyAkAritva proves akshaNikatva. An
objection is raised saying that the absence of kshaNikatva should prove the
absence of arthakriyAkAritva (vyApyAbhAva is proven by vyApakAbhAva) and
not the other way around. To this, the counter given is that this is a
samavyApta anumAna (there is a two-way vyApti between vyApya and vyApaka,
ie vyApya implies the vyApaka and vice versa). Hence the absence of vyApya
(arthakriyAkAritva = akAraNatva) should also prove the absence of vyApaka
(kshaNikatva abhAva).

The tucCha that is known in these anumAna-s is a bhrama because it is
sublated - and he goes on to say that in this system, bhrama can be
two-fold: mithyAviShayaka and asatviShayaka. So he accepts that tucCha is
the object of these anumAna-s, but such a jnAna is a bhrama because it is

To counter such an opponent, the alternative definition of dRshyatva is
presented in the siddhi.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 1:59 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Or should we say -
>
> This anumAna is invalid.
>
> Because hetu and sAdhya (अकारणत्व and अक्षणिकत्व) are mithyA and they
> cannot belong to tuchcha, because tuchcha is asat.
>
> However, if you insist on the validity of this anumAna through some
> imaginary and incorrect definition of tuchcha, then take this another
> definition of drishyatva.
>
> Regards.
>
>
> On Mon, 27 Dec, 2021, 1:13 pm Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> If it is tucCha, then we would have accepted that tucCha is also anumiti
>> viShaya. Hence I said it is only the pada which is the viShaya of such a
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 27 Dec 2021, 12:51 Sudhanshu Shekhar, <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Venkataraghavan ji,
>>>
>>> तुच्छं न क्षणिकम्, अकारणत्वात्, ब्रह्मवत्।
>>>
>>> Here paksha is tuchcha, अक्षणिकत्व is sAdhya.
>>>
>>> How can we hold that paksha is tuchcha shabda?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 27 Dec, 2021, 11:43 am Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Namaste Sudhanshu ji,
>>>> The paksha of any anumAna is a viShaya of the anumiti.
>>>>
>>>> We hold that the paksha here is the shabda tucCha. They hold that the
>>>> paksha is the tucCha itself. So for them, the tucCha itself is
>>>> anumiti-viShaya.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Venkatraghavan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 27 Dec 2021, 11:30 Sudhanshu Shekhar, <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Venkataraghavan ji,
>>>>>
>>>>> तुच्छं न क्षणिकम्, अकारणत्वात्, ब्रह्मवत्।
>>>>>
>>>>> Is shasha-vishANa an object of vritti janya by this anumAna?
>>>>>
>>>>> Laghuchandrika makes that statement for