[Advaita-l] Dr Mani Dravid

[Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian]

On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 6:35 AM, kuntimaddi sadananda
<kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> --- On Sun, 3/15/09, Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian  But as I said, this is not really an
> issue if we apply the Anathakya kind of reasoning as used by Citsukha.
>
> Rama
>
> Shree Rama - PraNAms
>
> What is Anathakya kind of reasoning of Citsukha? Is it some kind of khyaati vaada?

Anarthakya is a general principle in the mImA.msA theory of language
and interpretation. essentially it prevents data-mining the texts to
come up with conclusions we are comfortable with. Essentially if two
different statements *seem* to contradict one another, one cannot be
picked over the other, common ground has to be sought.

While the mImA.msA is strictly applied to shruti and smR^iti , this is
used even in Indian jurisprudence. P.V.Kane has shown how the Indian
jurisprudence is largely indebted to this principle. Franklin Edgerton
calls this principle a "sound" way of interpreting texts.

Since both the bhAmatI and vivaraNa prakriyAs were used by shiShTa-s,
citsukha shows how all of them are valid by using the
adhikArI-bheda-nyAya. But you can only go so far with this - he does
concede that maNDana's theories, although pouplar, would have to be
modified a little bit, since they do not pass all the tests for a
"correct" theory.

You can see this principle in practice on this list. While Vidyasankar
implicitly used these principles to write his excellent series on
yoga, there were some mails claiming that Sankara had written about
the "non-stability" of knowledge after attaining j~nAna only here so
that it could be discarded. There were also other objections, whcih
would not have come up if the mImA.msA principle of shruti (not veda),
li^nga, vAkya, etc., were understood. This is essentially the problem
I see: people think they can examine texts without the guru or come up
with their own prakriyA-s, without having sound knowledge of mImA.msA
and nyAya.

Rama

Rama