[Advaita-l] Theory of Language: Mimamsa, Vyakarana and Advaita - 1 of 3

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Namaste

Advaitis will also say Yatra Vedaa Avedaaha. They can agree with
Mimamsa only for Vyavahara purpose but in the end they will not agree.
Dvaitis like Vaadiraaja say Advaitis are like a man killing his own
mother -  the Shruti. But they cannot understand the three tier
Reality system.

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l
<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> Sri Siva SenAni ji,
>
> Namaste. Thanks for sharing the results of your study.
>
> Your post made for very interesting reading - and you have stopped at a
> tantalising point in the discussion!
>
> Please do post the remaining sections when convenient.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
> On 9 Dec 2015 08:39, "Siva Senani Nori via Advaita-l" <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> श्रीगुरुभ्यो नमः।  Earlier, Imade a statement that "Mimamsa also has a
>> philosophy of language so tospeak but it gets tied up in so many knots as a
>> given issue is explored that itbecomes a hindrance than help" based on a
>> study of Mīmāṃsā. Sri S. Venkatraghavanthen asked that the results of the
>> study be shared. I propose to do so inthree parts: Part 1:Introduction: Why
>> this is relevant to Advaita and introduction to the tensionbetween nityatva
>> of Śabda on one hand and the apparent vikāras that Śabda undergoesin sandhi
>> etc. Part 2: Mīmāṃsā'sresolution of this tension. Part 3:Problems with the
>> resolution; comparison with Vyākaraṇa's proposed resolution;and a
>> conclusion that Advaita is better off resorting to the Theory of
>> Languagethat Vyākaraṇa has developed rather than depend on the
>> Mīmāṃsā-version. This isbased, by and large, on a forthcoming paper (to be
>> published in the next issueof the Sanskrit Academy Journal, Hyderabad)
>> "dadhi atra is notdadhyatra" that I co-authored with my teacher Brahmaśrī
>> Vedamūrtulu Prof.Korada Subrahmanyam garu. Part 1:Introduction As is
>> wellknown, Śabda is held to be nitya by Mīmāṃsā (and Advaita) whereas
>> Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika and Sāṃkhyahold it to be anitya. Why is this concept of
>> Śabdanityatva so important? Theshort answer is to achieve pramāṇatā of
>> Veda. Accordingto Mīmāṃsā valid knowledge is that which is not later
>> sublated, abādhitajñānam. A bookwritten by a man could be erroneous, i.e.
>> it may be bettered or sublated by alater writer and hence pauruṣeya works
>> cannot be taken as valid. Veda isapauruṣeya and is therefore infallible and
>> hence a Pramāṇa. To this, it isobjected that Veda cannot be apauruṣeya
>> because in the beginning somebody hasto make a convention that such and
>> such Śabda means such and such Artha, suchas gauḥ means the animal with
>> dewlap (sāsnā) etc., and only after such aconvention is current will
>> language, and hence Veda, become meaningful. Inother words, if Veda is to
>> be understood by the first man, he must knowlanguage, but language was
>> developed by men as a means of communication.Therefore, from the very fact
>> that Veda uses language used by men, it followsthat Veda is pauruṣeya. To
>> this, the Mīmāṃsaka's defence is that Śabda, Arthaand the relation between
>> them (i.e. this Śabda means this Artha) occur from thetime of utpatti, i.e.
>> all the three are "natural", i.e. they are beginningless(autpattikasūtra,
>> 1.1.5 – it might be of interest that Bādarāyaṇa is cited as an authority in
>> this sūtra). Theremaining part of the first Pāda of the first Adhyāya is
>> devoted to Śabdanityatvam,1.1.6 to 1.1.25, and Vedamprāmāṇyam, 1.1.26 to
>> 1.1.32). Kumārila gives the justificationfor the discussion (7,
>> Śabdanityatādhikaraṇam, Ślokavārtika): "therefore, forthe sake of
>> establishing the Veda as a Pramāṇa, Śabda is being proved to be
>> nitya":तस्माद्वेदप्रमाणार्थं नित्यत्वमिह साध्यते ॥७, शब्दनित्यताधिकरणम्,
>> श्लोकवार्तिकम्॥ Therefore Śabdanityatvais an important position for Advaita
>> as well which believes in the apauruṣeyatvaof Veda. The moment we accept
>> Śabda as nitya, we face a number of problems.First sandhi involves lopa,
>> āgama and vikāra – all of which are modificationsof Śabda. To give an
>> example, it is widely accepted that dadhi + atra = dadhyatra,wherein the
>> "i" is transforming to "y". If it be so, then thequestion arises as to how
>> nitya Śabda could transform like this. It is notmerely transformation,
>> sometimes it is dropped (devaḥ + atra = devo'tra) and sometimes anew letter
>> comes in. Not only that, in forming compound words, rājñaḥ puruṣaḥ becomes
>> rājapuruṣaḥ. Indeclensions, the base "rāma" 'transforms' into twenty one
>> differentforms such as rāmaḥ, rāmau, rāmāḥ . . . rāmeṣu. It similarly
>> extends to conjugations (bhūtransforming into bhavati, bhavataḥ, bhavanti .
>> . .), formation of kṛdantas (primarynominal bases), taddhitāntas (secondary
>> nominal bases) and so on. In short,either Śabdanityatā is not valid or
>> Vyākaraṇam, as explicated by Pāṇini, is notvalid. This then is the tension
>> between Śabdanityatva andsandhi, samāsa etc. as seen in
>> Vyākaraṇa. RegardsN. Siva Senani
>> _______________________________________________
>> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>>
>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>>
>> For assistance, contact:
>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org



-- 
Regards

-Venkatesh