[Advaita-l] Fw: vyavahAre bhaTTanayaH

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sri Siva Senani ji,

Given the proximity from a philosophical/empirical perspective of VyAkaraNa
and Advaita, why do you think the saying is not vyavahAre vaiyAkaraNa: ?

Surely given the historicity of vyAkaraNa vis a vis ShankarAchArya, he and
all the pre Shankara advaita Acharyas could easily have used the vyAkaraNa
darshana to explain vyavahAra.

Were the principles of exegesis/epistemology in vyAkaraNa not as developed
as pUrva mImAmsa?

Regards,
Venkatraghavan
On 26 Nov 2015 05:54, "Siva Senani Nori via Advaita-l" <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

>
>
> Sir
> Vyakarana has two aspects - prakriyaa part and aarthika part. Almost all
> Sanskrit scholars - whatever school they belong to - accept the prakriyaa
> part, and in fact even offer new meanings to Sutras of Panini (for instance
> Naiyayikas to लः कर्मणि च भावे चाकर्मकेभ्यः, and Mimamsakas to इको यणचि).
> However when it comes to the aarthikabhaaga, some do not agree, and it is
> only natural, just like Advaitins take all the practical aspects of
> Saadhana from Yoga but do not subscribe to the dualism of Yoga. Vaishnavas
> interpret Bhartrihari differently arguing that he never said that the world
> is mithyaa (it is true, he did not say it - but the purport of how the
> Saktis of Brahman operate have but one purport - that the seen world is not
> ultimately real) and that he has a weak version of Vivartavaada. Prof.
> Ashok Aklujkar refers to this in his paper "The Word is the World" (
> http://www.jstor.org/stable/1400162?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents).
> RegardsN. Siva Senani
> |   |
> |   |   |   |   |   |
> | The Word Is the World: Nondualism in Indian Philosophy of Language on
> JSTORThe meanings in which the word "word" can be taken, the
> interpretations that the relevant meanings would necessitate of the
> "word-equals-world&qu... |
> |  |
> | View on www.jstor.org | Preview by Yahoo |
> |  |
> |   |
>
>
>
>
>
>
>       From: Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com>
>  To: Siva Senani Nori <sivasenani at yahoo.com>; A discussion group for
> Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
>  Sent: Thursday, 26 November 2015 11:03 AM
>  Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] vyavahAre bhaTTanayaH
>
> Namaste
>
> Thank you for the nice explanation. But I have seen members in
> Bharatiya Vidwat Parishad argue as if Vyakarana is not close to
> Advaita. They are Vaishnavas. They quarrel with Vedantis over some
> technical matter. They cannot tolerate any discussion on Vedanta.
> Question is - Is Bhartruhari's teaching and Sphota Vada accepted by
> all Vyakarana Panditas? If they are Vaishnavas they may not accept
> because they may fear Vaishnava doctrine will be rejected.
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 9:42 PM, Siva Senani Nori via Advaita-l
> <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> > Sri Sundaram Venkatraman, Namaste.
> > Yes, Vyakaranam, specifically the Ashtadhyayi is indeed a Vedanga. Along
> with being a Vedanga, it is also a Darsana. This aspect becomes clear in
> the commentary of Ashtadhyayi, called Mahabhashyam. Broadly there are two
> streams in the commentary - what is called prakriyaa and aarthikam.
> Prakriyaa refers to the process through which the correct form of words is
> derived. Aarthikam refers to the philosophical side dealing with questions
> such what is the meaning of word (jaati or vyakti, i.e. universal or
> particular), what is the nature of external reality (according to
> Grammarians, Sabda refers to an entity in one's mind - there is no need for
> such an entity to exist outside), and so on. Later Bhartrihari wrote a book
> called Vakyapadiyam (apart from a Deepikaa on the Mahabhashya, which is
> available only on the first seven ahnikas out of 84 ahnikas in the
> Mahabhashya) where the "philosophy" part is set out in great detail. There
> are three kaaNDas in this book, called a) BrahmakaaNDa dealing with
> Sabdabrahman, the highest principle according to Grammarians; b)
> VaakyakaaNDA dealing with sentence and c) PadakaaNDa, divided into fourteen
> samuddeSas (some say, there were more, but no longer available) dealing
> with the "categories" of grammar (according to some), such as Jati, Dravya,
> Guna, Dik, Kaala, Saadhana (Kaarakam), Kriyaa, Purusha, Sankhya, Linga and
> Vritti. Here, though technically dealing with "Padas" the way in which
> language operates is laid out. One might ask as to why so much needs to be
> written (the Vakyapadiya is roughly of 2,000 verses, nearly triple of
> Gita). The problem is this: in reality there is no difference amongst the
> knower, known and knowledge - and yet language operates only with this
> differentiation. This is the reason why Brahman is beyond words. Language
> is our only tool to describe this Brahman, who is beyond language. It is to
> explain how language operates that Bhartrihari examines each category of
> word and sentence as a whole. After Bhartrihari, MaNDanamiSra wrote
> SphoTasiddhi. After that Grammarians like Bhattoji Dikshita wrote
> separately on the Prakriya (Siddhantakaumudi) and Aarthika (Sabdaratna).
> KoundabhaTTa (VaiyaakaranabhuushaNa, BhuushaNasaara), Hari Dishita
> (Sabdaratna) and NageSabhaTTa (Manjuushaa, SabdenduSekhara,
> ParibhaashenduSekharaa etc.). More about this tradition can be known from
> Vol. V of Potter's "Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies"
> > What is SphoTa? स्फुटीभवति अस्मात् अर्थः इति स्फोटः अर्थप्रत्यायकः is
> one definition. That is, SphoTa is the one which makes meaning clear as the
> meaning bursts forth from this. A simpler way of expressing the same is
> स्फोटो वाचकः, that is that which expresses the meaning is SphoTa. Another
> definition is स्फुट्यते व्यज्यते वर्णैः इति स्फोटो वर्णाभिव्यङ्ग्यः, that
> is SphoTa is what is made manifest by Varnas (both definitions are from
> Paninidarsanam of Sarvadarsanasangraha). I will try to explain this in a
> dialectic form below:
> > A: Sabda is held to be nitya by Mimaamsakas, Vedantins and
> VaiyaakaraNas. B: What is this nityatva? After all, the moment we say a
> word, it perishes immediately. A: Sabda is not the sound described in
> modern Physics, but that entity which is made manifest by various letters
> etc. B: Okay, what is that which is made manifest by the various letter?A:
> Let me given an instance. If I say "he has *doopa* ", what is understood?B:
> Oh, that he has "doopa" is what is understood.A: What is "doopa"? B: I
> don't know.A: So, even when a sound is uttered, meaning is not conveyed/B:
> Yes, because I don't know what "doopa" is. A: Precisely. Communication
> happens only when the speaker and listener share a common knowledge. The
> speaker wants to communicate an idea. This idea is an integral whole at the
> first stage and finds expression through SphoTa, which is then articulated
> and conveyed to the listener through what are called sounds by modern
> Physics (and Sabda by naiyaayikas etc.). Here the speaker wants to
> communicate that "he has thirst", or that "he is thirsty". "Doopa" is the
> word used in the Telangana maandalika of Telugu for thirst. However before
> he finds individual words in the sentence, the entire sense of the sentence
> flashes in his mind. The stage where this idea is not split into individual
> words etc. is SphoTa. Now when the listener receives the series of sounds,
> these manifest the exact SphoTa that had flashed in the speaker's mind. Of
> course, this can happen only when they share a common knowledge. The above
> two definitions correspond to SphoTa from the Speaker's point of view, and
> the Listener's point of view, respectively.B: But, how do we say that there
> is an integral idea in the mind which later gets expanded.A: Okay, let us
> examine the process by which anything is expressed. Maybe writing is a good
> example in modern times. When we want to write an essay, an article or
> anything, the first stage is that of contemplation, say over a cup of
> coffee. Suddenly, at some moment an idea forms, which we then quickly
> develop, sometimes on a paper napkin. These points on the paper napkin then
> are moulded into an essay etc.B: Yeah, we all have our Eureka moments.A:
> Yes, that is why we say that artha bursts forth, flashes - all at once.
> (This intuition is called Pratibhaa). Then it is articulated, i.e.
> expanded. This is the process of expressing it. Reverse is the process of
> comprehending it. We can look at a sentence or a paragraph for long and
> struggle to grasp it, but suddenly, in a flash, the meaning dawns upon us.
> > Some people say that SphoTa is the second stage of Vaak, i.e. Madhyamaa.
> Others say that it applies to all stages. The four stages of Vaaak are
> Paraa, Pasyantee, Madhyamaa and Vaikharee. Vaikharee is the spoken
> language. Madhyamaa is the stage at which the meaning is clear, but not
> expressed in individual words or varnas and PaSyantee is the level of
> consciousness. Paraa is the stage accessible only to Yogins, it is the
> universal consicousness. Some identity Sabda = SphoTa at the level of
> Madhyamaa, others at PaSyantee and yet others at Paraa. By the way, it is
> not only Grammarians who admit the four stages of Vaak; many others like
> Saivas, followers of Tantra, and even many Advaitins do, but they have
> their own explanations.
> > I hope this helps.
> > RegardsN. Siva Senani
> >
> >      From: Sundaram Venkatraman <svenkat52 at gmail.com>
> >  To: Siva Senani Nori <sivasenani at yahoo.com>; A discussion group for
> Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.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
>