[Advaita-l] Mimamsa Question: karmabheda in SAkAs (Jaimini Sutra 2.4.8 )
vaidix at hotmail.com
Sun Jan 25 13:29:09 CST 2009
>Rama Wrote:>> Furthermore, the explanation you quote (from what text is this BTW?)>> does not mean that there was a "point in time" when the kAThaka>> recension came into effect or that there was an "Ur-agnihotra". The>> recension may have been known by a *particular name* starting some>> part of time - but not started to actually exist at some point of>> time. All the vedas are equally anAdi - there is no point of time when>> they sprung into existence.
>Indeed, and this is how I understood it as well. >The text is the bhAshyA under 2.4.12 (krtakam cAbhidAnam).>I am reading two texts together, Jha’s translation of SabarabhAshyA and >bhATTadIpikA. Jha’s translation reads:
One trivial answer might be that the Rishi who gave us the recension was immortal,
so it is just incidental that the rishi expressed it at some point in time. Therefore the
timing of the new recension is a non-event.
How about ordinary humans? Even though Gaudapada said ordinary humans are also immortal,
as they do not express ideas that qualify as Shruti, we do not recognize the immortality of
the ordinary humans, even though absolutely speaking they are immortal. In this case
both reasons - our inability to see the ordinary human as immortal as well as the
ordinary human's inability to speak Shruti or take actions as appropriate in yajna
necessarily combine together and result in person's statements being not apaurusheya.
>“Further, the name (‘Kathaka, as applied to the act) could only be >one that has been coined in modern times, - one that did not exist >before, but was applied to the particular recension only since the >time of the Teacher[sic] of the name of Katha who proved himself to >be an expert in the teaching of that particular recension.”
The time of enlightenment is not important for us, and Kathaka is already immortal as
we discussed above, so this is immaterial. However due to responsibility to give due credit where it belongs we prefer to use the name Kathaka. Otherwise
it gets very confusing without any names whatsoever. As Sankara also explained
"someone going the country of Gandhara... asking directions from village to village..
finally reaches the destination..". Kathaka is one such person who gave direction
for that specific situation, and at that time he has to be considered as the guru,
no exception, otherwise we would have surely gotten lost.
>bhATThadIpikA reads:>itaSca kAThakAdisam.gyAbhedo na karmabhedahetuhu yataha abhidhAnam. kAThakAdikam. krtakam. ca vaiSampAyanAntevAsipurushaviSeshavAci >kaThaSabdaghaTitatvAttasya ca sAditvAttataha parameva pravrttataya anityamapi |>na khalu anityasam.gyayA nityacodanAvihitakarmabhedo yujyate |>> BTW, in general viniyoga vidhis can vary for the same karma - which is>> indicated by an original karmotpatti vidhi.>This anticipates my next few questions…>Continuing the discussion between the pUrvapakshin and the siddAntin,>the next argument of the pUrvapakshin is that even though the act may>be one, it has diversity of forms. This is the dharmaviSesha argument,>restated in sutra 13 as “ekatvepi param”.>This argument is rejected on the grounds that the particular details,>where they exist, are only with reference to the study of the texts, >and not to the performance of the act. The bhATTadIpikA here glosses >this as follows:>yatpunaha bhUmibhojanAdiparam. dharmaSastram. tat kArIrIvAkyAdyadhyayanasAdhyAyAm. vidhyAyAm. vighnanivrttidvArA upayoginamartham. vidhatte >na punaha kArIryAdikarmAngam |
Even if it is a difference in performance it is still valid as apaurusheya.
The variations are merely like another janya ragam which does not
change its relation to melakarta ragam. The difference might be so minute
we may not perceive, but the brahmajnani sees the difference.
>[ My Question: Am I right in understanding the thrust of the argument>here to mean that all variation in the particulars of the rite are >limited to the study of the rite. If so, in what sense can the >viniyoga vidhi vary for the same act mentioned in different >recensions? ]
Text as well as actions could be different.
However when the Shruti itself summarizes both opinions (happens insome places) things get clarified.
>The pUrvapakshin challenges this by saying that in that case there >will be (unnecessary) repetition. ( Agneyavat punarvacanam.)>The response to this is that there really is no repetition, since it >is the same subject agnihotra, that is spoken by different people, >and when different people speak of the same subject it is not >‘repetition’.
Is it also the same yajna (instance of performance)? I don't think so.
If a person belonging to the first teachers' clan performs, he may do it one way. Another person belonging to another teachers' clan may do it differently.
>I struggle here.>1. If the restriction on particular variations being limited to >study of the texts, somehow allows for the viniyoga vidhis to be >different; then, I can see how when different people speak of these >viniyoga vidhis, the resulting difference does not cause repetition. >So, the repetition challenge is put to rest.>2. On the other hand; if the argument is that by the mere fact >that different teachers speak of the same subject, there is no repetition; >the focus seems to be on the speaker; not on the sameness of what is spoken; >how is this not repetition? Granted, it is not repetition by the same person; >but that seems highly anthropocentric in a discussion where the focus is the act.
Each rishi has his/her place in the yajna as well, which is unique.
So there should be no repetition. Please refer to Ai.Ar for definitions of rishi's names.
These are not necessary humans, but certain frames of reference in yajna.
The same events might be seen by different frames of reference, and
expressing these is not a repetition because this is meant to explain
the difference between the frames of reference.
Hotmail® goes where you go. On a PC, on the Web, on your phone.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list