Argument
IPVV — V3-H ARGUMENT MAP (the kāryakāraṇatāvimarśa: inference, dependence, Sāṃkhya, and the reflection)
MACHINE_DRAFT · 4 premises
Question. V3-G established that causality is the conscious knower's agency and that inference rests on the own-nature-reason. Now the Vijñānavādin (Buddhist idealist) objects: "If everything is appearance (ābhāsa), then cause and effect are just relations *between appearances* — and an un-manifested fire is nothing. How can the smoke-appearance arise from it, or the fire be inferred from the smoke?" The rest of the vimarśa defends inference (kārikās 12–16), handles dependence/apekṣā (15–16), co-opts the Sāṃkhya account (17–18), and closes with the reflection argument for why only consciousness can bear difference-and-non-difference (19).
Issue. **The question:** V3-G established that causality is the conscious knower's agency and that inference
rests on the own-nature-reason. Now the Vijñānavādin (Buddhist idealist) objects: "If everything is
appearance (ābhāsa), then cause and effect are just relations *between appearances* — and an
un-manifested fire is nothing. How can the smoke-appearance arise from it, or the fire be inferred
from the smoke?" The rest of the vimarśa defends inference (kārikās 12–16), handles dependence/apekṣā
(15–16), co-opts the Sāṃkhya account (17–18), and closes with the reflection argument for why only
consciousness can bear difference-and-non-difference (19).
Premises
Kārikās 12–13 (lines 6460–6509) — inference across knowers, against the Vijñānavādin
> From the more, the that-that-knower, the one, the fire-appearance, from this it would be — even
> from the indirect, of the Lord, the smoke-appearance, and the rest, the new — 12
> The effect of the non-wandering [reason], the marker, from the other-knower; that-appearance from
> that-appearance alone, though, of the Lord, is the other — 13
The Vijñānavādin, holding each stream (santāna) to have its own distinct appearances, took the
cause-effect to be only within one's own smoke-and-fire appearances (he cannot sense another stream's
appearances). Abhinava replies: in our view, the Lord creates the appearances for all the knowers as
one. At the time of grasping the pervasion (vyāpti), the smoke-appearance in the one knower and the
fire-appearance are, in the Lord's one creation, the sam
Kārikā 14 (line 6579) — "in-this-existing-this-is": the causal relation as the pervasion
> "In this existing, this is" — the cause-effect relation, which — [is what the pervasion expresses].
Kārikās 15–16 (lines 6892–6975) — dependence (apekṣā) is not real otherness
> Not of the own-self-one-resting-ones, the synthesis-missing — even in the being/non-being-word, the
> seventh-ending's meaning is constructed — 15
The mutual dependence (anyonyalagnatā) is rejected in the first half; the intent-made dependence, in
the second. In all four cases (the cause/effect, either present or absent), dependence is not fitting.
The real fire and its heat: the distinction between them is only a constructed one
(vaikalpika); the fire, as the shining own-marker, cannot have the touch as a separate own-form —
both are of equal cause. So in truth the dependence is one, quickened by the synthesis. Kārikā 16:
thence alone the case-ending-meaning, the one-knower-supported. The seventh-ending (locative) is not
meaningless nor of a merely constructed referent; it is of the re
Kārikā 17 (lines 6976–6980) — mutual nature would collapse difference
> In the mutual nature of the cause-and-effect two, even — the one-ness
Unresolved. 1. The exact "adhipatipratyaya" (Lord's-cause) in kārikā 12 — the inference's object-cause is the
fire-appearance created by the Lord as one across knowers; rendered per the text.
2. The kārikā 16's four-case (pakṣacatuṣṭaya) dependence analysis is dense; the real/constructed
distinction is preserved, the full enumeration kept close.
Tension: IPVV-internal-arc-vimarsas
Referenced by essays (3)
Strength: MACHINE_DRAFT · Status: MACHINE_DRAFT · packet JSON
Sources & corrections: edit source →. packet lives here.