[Advaita-l] Theory of Language: Mimamsa, Advaita and Vyakarana - 2 of 3
Siva Senani Nori
sivasenani at yahoo.com
Thu Dec 10 08:23:50 CST 2015
Let me put your query in my words, so that I understand it properly. Here there are three entities dadhi - let us call dadhi as E1; atra, E2; and dadhy, E3. Now your query is this:
"The interpretation of E1 depends on E2, which occurs after it." - if by "interpretation", we mean "form", yes, E1 'transforms' to E3, if E2 follows E1. So, how do we know whether to utter E1 or E3, unless we know what E2 is, before it is uttered? A very valid observation. That is why, we need to accept the existence of SphoTa. Not only E2, but the entire sentence exists in our mind, in the form of madhyamA vAk.
"Such an interpretation would mean that effect (E3) precedes the cause (E2)".- This is a very acute observation. Now, what if kaala is a kalpanaa, not ultimately real? The problem gets resolved. This is the position of both Advaita and VyAkaraNa.
"Of course, one possible answer is that the first sabda and second sabda always existed as dadhya and atra, and that the rule is merely observing that the first sabda is not dadhi, but dadhya and is attributing the exception (a different first sabda) to the start of the second sabda."- This is more or less the Mimamsa view. I would state it slightly differently. E1, E2 and E3 always exist, and the rule states that E3 is to be used when the right context is E2.
RegardsN. Siva Senani
From: Venkatraghavan S <agnimile 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, 10 December 2015 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Theory of Language: Mimamsa, Advaita and Vyakarana - 2 of 3
Namaste Sri Siva SenAni ji,
Thanks once again for your posts.
Re the below, I have a query:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Siva Senani Nori via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
He interprets the sūtra 6.1.77 as a niyama sūtra which restricts proper usage to "dadhy" inplace of "dadhi" when a vowel follows. That is, when a vowel follows,the restriction is that the word dadhya (=dadhy, the final vowel is forease of pronunciation) only should be used.
If the interpretation of the vyAkaraNa sUtra is one of restriction of usage, it would mean that the identity of the first sabda is dependent on the the sabda that follows it, or something that occurs after it in time. Such an interpretation would mean that the effect precedes the cause. How can that be possible? Also, is nityatvam of the sabda not affected thereby (because there is a cause effect dependency)?
Of course, one possible answer is that the first sabda and second sabda always existed as dadhya and atra, and that the rule is merely observing that the first sabda is not dadhi, but dadhya and is attributing the exception (a different first sabda) to the start of the second sabda.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list