Sureshvara and Mandana Mishra
Jaldhar H. Vyas
jaldhar at BRAINCELLS.COM
Mon Jan 19 04:59:56 CST 1998
On Thu, 15 Jan 1998, Shrisha Rao wrote:
> Besides, I think you're confounding philosophy of language with
> grammar; both are certainly proper parts of any serious classical
> doctrine, Vedantic or otherwise, but grammar, unlike the former,
> cannot be "elevated to a school of philosophy in itself," because that
> makes no sense. The philosophical criticisms of Bhartrhari's
> sphoTavAda by Sri Shankara and later scholars are properly considered
> as criticisms of his philosophy of language, not as criticisms of his
> grammar. If you feel differently, then it is best we cordially agree
> to disagree.
I see my use of the word grammarian has caused more confusion than light.
When I said grammarian I meant Vaiyakaranik. As you know, in Sanskrit
this word is not just used to mean "one who knows grammar" but "adherent
of the Vyakarana school" which _is_ treated as a seperate darshan.
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list