[Advaita-l] Theory of Language: Mimamsa, Advaita and Vyakarana 3 of 3
H S Chandramouli
hschandramouli at gmail.com
Sun Dec 13 06:48:51 CST 2015
Sri Venkatraghavan Ji,
I have pursued the issue from the response of Sri Siva Senani Ji to your
post only . Only I thought of restricting the scope of discussion for
better analysis and clarity, as well as getting the position on the
Sidhanta of Shabdadvaita ( which is what the position of Vyaiyakarana and
Bharthruhari is ) from a proponent of that school of thought only instead
of from a follower of advaitic school of thought. Hence I await the
response of Sri Siva Senani Ji on the question.
On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
> Sri Chandramouliji,
> Namaste. That is the same question I had also.
> If sabda is non-different from Brahman, then the difference between
> various sabdAs, like गौ:, दुग्धं, etc can only be kalpitam. Further, if
> that is true, the nityatvam of individual sabdA, arthA and their sambandha
> is only true in a vyavahAra sense. Therefore from a paramArtha viewpoint,
> vyAkaraNa is the same as advaita.
> However, if as you ask, sabda is a dharma of Brahman, then there is a
> difference between advaita and vyAkaraNa in paramArtham.
> On 13 Dec 2015 06:55, "H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l" <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>> Sri Siva Senani Ji,
>> You observed << according to vyAkaraNa, Sabda, artha and their saMbandha
>> - all three are nitya, with Brahman of the nature of Sabda being the base,
>> or being the entity seen as three. >>.
>> What exactly is the difference between the Brahman of Advaita and Shabda
>> Vyakarana ?? Is Shabda a Dharma of Brahman or nondifferent from Brahman ?
>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 9:59 PM, Siva Senani Nori via Advaita-l <
>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>> > Sri Venkatraghavan ji
>> > Namaste.
>> > Thank you for initiating the discussion. My response is given inline.
>> > From: Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
>> > To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <
>> > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>; Siva Senani Nori <
>> > sivasenani at yahoo.com>
>> > Sent: Friday, 11 December 2015 7:45 PM
>> > Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Theory of Language: Mimamsa, Advaita and
>> > Vyakarana 3 of 3
>> > Sri Siva SenAniji,
>> > Namaste.Thank you very much for making these posts available to the
>> > - they were very enlightening indeed. Apologies about the barrage of
>> > questions (please ignore, if I have not understood the concepts
>> outlined by
>> > you):1) If the vaiyAkaraNa considers sabda to be nitya, but that the
>> > denoted by the sabda to be only conceptual, does that concept have
>> > nityatvam or not?
>> > - the conceptual artha is nitya.
>> > 2) If the conceptual meaning of the word has nityatvam, then it follows
>> > that arthA according to vyAkaraNa will have to survive praLaya, etc. If
>> > did not survive praLaya, how can the artha be nitya?
>> > - yes, concepts survive pralaya.
>> > 3) If such an artha did survive praLaya, how is the concept different
>> > mImAmsa's jAti?
>> > - jAti cannot exist by itself and needs the ASraya of a vyakti. For
>> > instance, where is cowness? It is there only in cows and nowhere else.
>> > after pralaya and before SRshTi, when nothing is, where does jAti
>> > The situation with concept is different. The conceiver, the conceived
>> > the concept are non-different; they are viewed as different during
>> > Irrespective of how they are viewed, they always are. When we have
>> > bheda-vivakshA (a desire to talk of them as separate, say as in "his
>> > hands", and "the fingers of his hand"), they are referred to separately,
>> > and when we have abheda-vivakshA (whether after pralaya and before
>> > or with reference to a jIvanmukta etc.), they are spoken of as one.
>> > 4) If on the other hand, the vyAkaraNa position is that vyAkaraNa artha
>> > not nitya, then it follows that their relationship (betn. a nitya sabda
>> > its anitya artha) is not nitya. So when a vaiyAkaraNa says sabda is
>> > is he only referring to sabda, but not its artha and sambandha?
>> > - according to vyAkaraNa, Sabda, artha and their saMbandha - all three
>> > nitya, with Brahman of the nature of Sabda being the base, or being the
>> > entity seen as three.
>> > 5) Moreover, any specific sabda can then have several meanings, because
>> > its artha is anitya. From srishti to srishti, or even within one srishti
>> > itself, the same sabdA can denote different things. Extending this
>> > is vyAkaraNa's position that veda sabda is nitya, but its artha keeps
>> > changing?
>> > - This is supposed to put the VaiyAkaraNa in a dock because nityatva
>> > demands that the relation between Sabdas and Arthas should remain
>> > through various kalpas, but there is a bhAshya statement to the contrary
>> > , seemingly accepting Sabdanityatva limited to a kalpa, and stating
>> > artha is nitya across kalpas. The resolution is that bhAshykAra
>> > keeps toying in such a manner. Following the maxim, व्याख्यानात्
>> > विशेषप्रतिपत्तिः, one should understand bhAshya statements with the
>> help of
>> > commentators. There are many places where Patanjali states many views
>> > without indicating what the siddhAnta is. This is called perspectivism
>> > modern western scholars (i.e. accommodating multiple views to develop a
>> > perspective), but traditional scholars identity certain positions as
>> > siddhAnta, though there is no textual support. SiddhAnta is that the
>> > relation is same across kalpas.
>> > 6) Finally, is the nityatvam of sabda a paramArtha satyam in vyAkaraNa?
>> > is it nityam only in a vyavahAra sense, like srishti/samsAra of an
>> > advaitin? If paramArtha satyam, veda sabda will be paramArtham, but
>> that is
>> > not advaita's position (त्रैगुण्य विषयाः वेदाः).
>> > - In the paramArtha Veda is non-different from Brahman; all Artha is
>> > non-different from Sabda. That said, Veda - presumably in its manifest
>> > state - is explicitly accepted as an upAya (i.e. something which is no
>> > longer useful after the goal is attained) in Vakyapadiya 1.5.
>> > Once again, apologies about the many questions.
>> > - Sir, on the contrary, you have my gratitude for raising the questions.
>> > Hopefully, the answers help take the discussion forward.
>> > RegardsN. Siva Senani
>> >  This occurs in the bhAshya under the sUtra तेन प्रोक्तम् ॥4.3.101॥
>> > This sUtra states that taddhita affixes, taught in subsequent sUtras,
>> > in the sense of tena proktam, i.e. prakarsheNa uktam. For instance on
>> > strength of 4.3.102, the taddhita affix छण् is ordained after tittiri
>> > the intended sense is tena proktam, i.e. तित्तिरिणा प्रोक्तम् अधीयते
>> > तैत्तिरीयाः। This sUtra starts a discussion on the difference between
>> > प्रोक्तम् and कृतम् (there is one more similar category called
>> > but then we are digressing too much). One difference shown is that Veda
>> > being nitya cannot be kRtam, and has to be proktam. In that context,
>> > Patanjali makes the following statement:
>> > ननु चोक्तं, न हि छन्दांसि क्रियन्ते नित्यानि छन्दांसीति। यद्यप्यर्थो
>> > नित्यः, या त्वसौ वर्णानुपूर्वी सा अनित्या, तद्भेदाच्चैतद्भवति काठकं
>> > मोदकं पैप्पलादकमिति।It has been said that Vedas are not made, that they
>> > nitya. Even though the artha of Veda is nitya, the order of letters is
>> > on account of the difference in the order of varNas, the same Veda is
>> > called by various names such as kAThakam, kAlApakam, modakam and
>> > paippalAdakam.
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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/
>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>> For assistance, contact:
>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list