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

Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan rama.balasubramanian at gmail.com
Sun Feb 25 19:49:19 EST 2018

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.


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

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list