13 Feb 2011 21:47

```Sadanandaji, praNAm.

First, thank you for the pointers to sources. The term is indeed used as such by
the two great acharyas and the explanation given by you is quite right. However,
if one looks at the way the same technical terms are used by different Indian
systems, there seem to be significant differences. Let me establish this from
the quote texts.

In the first chapter of Vedantapanchadasi, Vidyaranyswami [1] specifically
states that Atma must be differentiated from the five kosas using the
Anvaya-vyatireka method. In the next sloka [2], he distinguishes the
sthUlaSarIra, the gross body from Atma using that logic. As per the logic in
that sloka

Va) Anvaya: In the dreaming state the gross body is absent but the Atma is
manifest (on account of its sAkshitva - as explained by the
commentator Ramakrishna, a disciple of Vidyaranyaswami).
Vb) Vyatireka: In the same state, the Atma is present, but the gross body is not
manifest.

(I am unable to make out the difference between a) and b) and was unable to find
any directionality of causation or such hints either from the Sanskrit
commentator or the English translator - but that is a different issue, one that
has to be resolved with a Guru).

Now, if we examine TarkabhAshA, an introductory manual of logic, anvaya and
vyatireka are established quite differently [3]. That may be summarised as:

Ta) Mountain has fire; as there is smoke on the mountain; since wherever there
is smoke, there is fire (anvaya)
```

14 Feb 2011 13:00

```Shree Siva Senani, PraNAms

First my hats off to you- you have done more research than what I can dream off.

In the vyaaptis there are vyaapti that are mutually pervading each other and there are others which I think
or called Vishama vyaapti- where both are not mutually pervasive. For example for fire and smoke -
classical example the pervasion is where ever there is smoke there is fire but not where ever fire is there
is smoke.
Hence the dRishTanta that supports the vyaapti has to be exact to see the range of validity of the vyaapti. In
the above case - as in the kitchen fire - there is smoke in the kitchen and there is fire associated with it but
not  there is fire and smoke associated with it.

Even in the ring and gold example - I gave the both ways starting from ring point and also from gold point. Ring
is gold is, and ring is not gold is - the anvaya works and vyatireka does not work since it is also vishama
vyaapti. But if you start from gold is ring is, and gold is not ring is not - the vyaapti is pervading - The
represent in terms of concentric circles - smoke circle is enclosed in the fire circle - implying that
there are regions where fire can exist without having smoke.

In the case of body and aatma - body is aatma is and body is not aatma is - hence like fire and smoke circles body
circle is enclosed in the all pervading aatma circle.

In the other way - we have to use aatma not sat chit ananda aatma but only as jiiva aatma - then we have aatma is
body is, aatma is not body is not (not conscious of that dead body). In the pancadashi it is used to separate I
am different and independent of the body. It works up to that point before mahavaakya takes over. Hence
logic has only limited application to indicate 1. I am different from the body. 2. I am independent of the
body while body depends on me. That is how I think Vidyaranya uses the anvaya vyatireka logic in Pancadashi
and Sureswara in Naiskarmya Siddhi.
Beyond that - we have the famous statement - Naishaa tarkena matiraapaneya - Logic cannot be used.

```

14 Feb 2011 14:47

```namaste Shri Siva Senani-ji and Shri Sadananda-ji

Here are some excerpts from "Methods of Knowledge -- according to
Advaita Vedanta" by Swami Satprakashananda, chapter on anumaana, which
I think can help this discussion. The book is available from RK-Math
stores.

2011/2/13 Siva Senani Nori <sivasenani@...>:
> Now, if we examine TarkabhAshA, an introductory manual of logic, anvaya and
> vyatireka are established quite differently [3]. That may be summarised as:
>
> Ta) Mountain has fire; as there is smoke on the mountain; since wherever there
> is smoke, there is fire (anvaya)
> Tb) also, since whereever there is no fire, there is no smoke. (vyatireka) (This
> is not normally stated as it is unreasonable to use a crooked path when a
> straight path is available).
>
> The key aspect in the above is that the sAdhya (what is to be established) and
> sAdhana (the reason, hetu or symptom which proves the sAdhya) change order when
> we move from anvaya to vyatireka. If we use gross body and Atma in the above
> framework, the third part (vyApti) ought to be written as:
>
> T/Va) wherever there is not gross body, Atma ought to be there, but it is not so
> as in the dream state.
> T/Vb) wherever there is not Atma, there ought to be no gross body, but no
> instance of this can be found as Atma is omni-preesnt.
>
> Michale Comans [4] gives three different examples of Anvaya Vyatireka logic used
> in Advaita (I was unable to follow-up the references cited by him because I
> checked it on Google Books and the relevant endnotes page where the references
```

14 Feb 2011 16:36

```> In the first chapter of Vedantapanchadasi, Vidyaranyswami [1] specifically
> states that Atma must be differentiated from the five kosas using the
> Anvaya-vyatireka method. In the next sloka [2], he distinguishes the
> sthUlaSarIra, the gross body from Atma using that logic. As per the logic
> in
> that sloka
>
> Va) Anvaya: In the dreaming state the gross body is absent but the Atma is
> manifest (on account of its sAkshitva - as explained by the
> commentator Ramakrishna, a disciple of Vidyaranyaswami).
> Vb) Vyatireka: In the same state, the Atma is present, but the gross body
> is not
> manifest.
>
> (I am unable to make out the difference between a) and b) and was unable
> to find
> any directionality of causation or such hints either from the Sanskrit
> commentator or the English translator - but that is a different issue, one
> that
> has to be resolved with a Guru).
>
and would be
> thankful for any pointers.
>
> Regards
> N. Siva Senani
>

Hari Om Shri Shiva Senani ji and Shri Sadanandaji, Pranaams!

```

15 Feb 2011 10:17

```
--- On Mon, 2/14/11, Br. Pranipata Chaitanya <pranipata@...> wrote:

>
> With the terms anuvritti and vyAvritti the method of
> discriminating Atman is explained by AcAryaji in shloka 7 of
> and svAmi svayamprakAshayati's laghu-tattva-sudhA explains
> the method in detail.
>
> ..............................................
>
>
> svAtmAnaM prakaTIkaroti bhajatAM yo mudrayA bhadrayA
> tasmai shrIgurumUrtaye nama idaM shrIdakShiNAmUrtaye ..
>