For the logicians among you

[MC1]

In a message dated 97-12-03 16:56:23 EST, Vidyasankar writes:

<< the thrust of the argument (holding that perception does not reveal
difference) being that a conclusion that difference exists rests on an
assumption that difference exists. >>

THanks for your scholarly response to my query -- I'm left burdened with
finding the answer to my own question -- quite appropriate. However, for the
benefit of my own inertia and other less motivated readers on this forum, is
it possible for you to outline the reasoning of Sureswara and others regarding
difference and pramana.

I can understand how perception does not necessarily indicate difference but I
am not at all clear how inference is faulted in concluding difference. The
argument I presented in my original posting holds that inference being based
upon perception cannot justify difference. If so, then how is inference a
separate pramana. I don't see fire but advaita accepts the validity of
concluding its exist from smoke - two separate entities -- it seems by the
very fact of accepting inference as a separate pramana is indeed acceptance of
difference.