[Advaita-l] Purva Mimamsa Discussions - Vidwan Sri Mani Dravid Sastrinah

[V Subrahmanian]

I have also heard this:

When it is said 'ज्योत्ष्टोमेन स्वर्गकामो यजेत' it is understood as
'....स्वर्गं भावयेत् which means स्वर्गम् उत्पादयेत्  It is not, however,
'producing' svarga but initiating the action that produces the bhoga,
eligibility to bhoga, in svarga.

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 7:05 AM, D.V.N.Sarma డి.వి.ఎన్.శర్మ via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> From Nyaya Kosa
>
> भावना
> मीमांसकास्तु भवितुः भवनानुकूलो भावयितुः व्यपारविशेषः। य़था यजेत इत्यादौ
> लिङाद्याख्यातार्थो भावनेत्याहुः(लौ.भा)। अत्रायं विशेषो ज्ञेयः। भट्टमते
> शाब्दी भावना आर्थी भावना चेति भेदेन द्विविधा भावना। तत्रान्त्यायां भावनायां
> भाव्यजनकत्वम्। भाव्यत्वम् चेष्टत्वम् इति विज्ञेयम्।
>
> regards,
> Sarma.
>
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 6:19 AM, Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan via Advaita-l
> <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> > I haven’t seen the video, but the summary seems fine. Although I can’t
> > comment on vis-à-vis nyAya, since I have very little knowledge in that
> > area.
> >
> > Rama
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 5:31 PM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Thank you.
> > >
> > > The talks were really meaningful with that in mind. If I understood Sri
> > > MDS correctly, mImAmsakas hold that the mukhya visheShya, the central
> > > object of a sentence, is the bhAvana, defined as AkhyAtArtha, or the
> > verbal
> > > ending of the sentence. In determining vAkyArtha or sentence meaning,
> the
> > > anvaya of every element of the sentence is with that AkhyArtha. Such an
> > > approach - ie everything having anvaya with bhAvana as the mukhya
> > visheShya
> > > - is a more parsimonious approach compared to nyAya which in contrast,
> > > requires seven different anvayas (corresponding to liNg / its absence,
> > naN
> > > and its absence)
> > >
> > > In the case of liNg, the vidhi artha is the shAbdibhAvana - ie the
> > > pravartana (the knowledge gained from the vidhi - veda is enjoining a
> > > sacrifice to me). This leads to the anumAna (hence the sAcrifice must
> be
> > an
> > > iShTa sAdhana, leading to a desirable outcome for me). This leads to
> > > pravritti (the ArthabhAvana) - let me perform the sacrifice.
> > >
> > > In cases other than liNg too, the bhAvana, the central component of the
> > > sentence, is the verb ending, and other words in the sentence take
> their
> > > meaning in relation to the activity denoted by the verb.
> > >
> > > Given that sentences, according to mImAmsa, have action (bhAvana) as
> > their
> > > central element, the prAmANya of veda according to that school is in
> > > sentences enjoining a particular action or in prohibiting one.
> Sentences
> > > that talk of the nature of Atma (as one with Brahman) have no prAmANya,
> > as
> > > no pravritti takes place from them - they are arthavAda, in mImAmsa's
> > view.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Venkatraghavan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 25 Feb 2018 16:52, "Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan" <
> > > rama.balasubramanian at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> The key point to understand is that according to pUrva mImAmsA the
> > entire
> > >> Veda is for following dharma, as in performance of karma. Now, the
> first
> > >> key type of statements are the liN forms derived from the dhAtus, or
> the
> > >> optative, as they create a state of mind in the person hearing the
> > Vedas as
> > >> to what is to be performed. This characteristic of the liN is called
> > >> bhAvana. It is a peculiar “force” that resides in the liN. The word
> > itself
> > >> is from the causative form of bhU, which gives a clue. Once this is
> > >> understood every other statement which is not  urging an action needs
> > to be
> > >> interpreted the right way and that’s where mImAmsA starts. Advaitins
> do
> > not
> > >> necessarily disagree with the fact that the Veda talks about dharma,
> but
> > >> say that Veda can also make statements on things as they actually are,
> > when
> > >> the other means of knowledge may produce errorneous knowledge, e.g.,
> the
> > >> true nature of the self.
> > >>
> > >> Ramakrishnan
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 2:14 AM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
> > >> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Thank you Subbuji. Can anyone please provide an explanation of the
> term
> > >>> bhAvana in pUrvamImAmsa? Sri MDS refers to the term in his talk. It
> > would
> > >>> be helpful to understand what the term precisely corresponds to.
> > >>>
> > >>> Regards,
> > >>> Venkatraghavan
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>