[Advaita-l] vyavahAre bhaTTanayaH

[Siva Senani Nori]

Recently there was a discussion and the quotation "व्यवहारे भट्टनयः" was cited. I thought it would be helpful if this quotation is discussed.
This first occurs in the book तत्त्वप्रदीपिका (tattvapradIpIkA) by CitsukhAcArya. This book is popularly known as CitsukhI (चित्सुखी). Here in the first pariccheda, in the fifteenth topic, abhihitAnvayavAda [1] is established. In the upasaMhAra, it is said: व्यवहारे भट्टनय इत्यङ्गीकारात् (since the school of Kumarila Bhatta is agreed to [by AcAryas of Advaita]), within the plane of transactions), in p 155 of the Nirnay Sagar edition (you can access the particular page here: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/89238017/chitsukhi%20extract%20-%20vyavahAre%20bhaTTanayaH.pdf). 
This means that neither Gurumatam (the school of Prabhakara Misra) nor Nyaaya (nor any other school like Vaisehika, Saamkhya or Yoga) is agreeable to Advaita, to the extent the BhATTa school is. We see this agreement between BhATTA school and Advaita in a number of other places. Even where they differ, the two are the closest Darsanas, with some qualifications [2]. 
1. Veda is the pramANa for knowing the highest principle - Gurumatam, BhATTamatam, VyaakaraNam and Advaita agree on this. Nyaya-VaiSeshika and SAMkhya-Yoga derive their highest principle (ISvara and PradhAna, respectively) through anumAna. Sruti is useful only for things such as Svarga and Apsarasas in their view.
2. Word denotes jAti according to Advaita and MimAmsA (both schools). In NyAya, it is jAti-viSishTa-vyakti. VyaakaraNam accepts both at the level of vyavahAra, but at ParamArtha level, both Advaita and VyAkaraNa reject jAti as the meaning of words. Brahman alone is the reality. Refer: अपागादग्नेरग्नित्वम् छा० उ० 6.4.1 and DravyasamuddeSa of Vakyapadiyam.
3. Anupalabdhi as a pramANa is acceptable to BhATTas and Advaitins (and also VaiyAkaraNas), but not PrAbhakaras, NaiyAyikas etc.
4. For NaiyAyikas, anumiti happens through liñgaparAmarSa, but for MImAMsakas and Advaitins, it happens through the knowledge of vyApti and pakshadharmatA.
5. Advaita, MImAMsA and VyAkaraNa agree that Sabda is nitya. The other schools hold the opposite position.
6. Advaita, MImAMsA and VyAkaraNa agree to the principle of Sabdaprabhavatvam of Jagat (i.e. the world is born from Sabda), but not the others. Refer Brahmasutra 1.1.28 (शब्द इति चेत् . . .)
7. Where MImAMsA and Advaita subscribe to varNavAda (i.e. varNas arranged in a certain order express meaning), VyAkaraNa holds that SphoTa is what expresses meaning. 
8. SAmkhyas, Advaitins, MImAMsakas and VaiyAkaraNas are satkAryavAdins, whereas NaiyAyikas are ArambhavAdins. (Some also call Advaitins satkAraNavAdins, for Brahman is the ultimate reality, not Jagat).
9. However in the classification of what is Vidhi and what is not, MImAMsA and Advaita differ. The former hold that only those sentences which teach an action are vidhi, but Advaita holds that even those sentences which teach Brahman (but not any action) are important.
10. Similarly, one major difference between MImAMsA and Advaita is about the degree of reality of the world. There MImAMsakas and NaiyAyikas are staunch Realists, whereas Advaita and VyaakaraNa are idealists or conceptualists.
11. The list can go on with svataHprAmANyam vs. parataHprAmANyam; whether contact between vastu and indriya is essential or not for direct perception (pratyaksha); whether indriya travels to the vastu or not in pratyaksha; whether jAtitva (jAtau jAtiH) is accepted or not; whether pralaya is accepted; on the role of ISvara; vivarta vs. pariNAma and so on.
Even later when VedAntaparibhAshA was written (the manual of Advaitas's logic), MimAMsA influence continues. For instance the very first definition in VedAntaparibhAshA - अनधिगताबाधितार्थविषयकज्ञानत्वं प्रमात्वम् - Here the dala, अबाधित is the influence of MImAMsA.
RegardsN. Siva Senani
[1] The discussion is about the meaning of a sentence. Kumarila Bhatta holds that first words express their meaning (abhidhaana) and then through the mutual connection of these meanings (anvaya), the sentence meaning (artha) is known. Thus the meaning of sentence is known through lakshaNA. Prabhakara Misra and his followers hold that the words are first connected to each other (anvaya) and then the meaning of the sentence (artha) is expressed (abhidhaana). Here padaSakti is what expresses the meaning. Nyaaya has a slightly different position. They accept that first the meaning of words is known but the sentence meaning is known through aakaankshaa. For VaiyaakaraNas, the additional meaning (i.e. meaning gleaned from the sentence in addition to the meaning of words) is the vaakyaartha and its relation is that of viSeshaNaviSeshyabhAva.
[2] Actually I think vyAkaraNa is closer to Advaita - if it is not held as one form of Advaita itself (it indeed is so if we compare Brahmasiddhi and Sphotasiddhi - but we need to realize that Mandana Misra also fused Mimamsa positions and accepts Jnanakarmasamuccaya in Brahmasiddhi) - than Mimamsa is. In my view the real reason for adopting bhaTTAnayaH is that for the purpose of interpreting the meaning of Vedic sentences (which alone establish Brahman as the ultimate reality), Mimamsa was the most respected and that school had the best tool set (for instance, the six lingas for interpreting - उपक्रमोपसंहारौ etc. are all from Mimamsa). However in the important topic about the ultimate reality, their positions could not be more different. Here is where Vyakarana is the closest and that is why the word व्यवहारे is used.