Sureshvara and Mandana Mishra

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

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>