मीमामसाशास्त्रे, सूत्रषु ६–२४ अनेकाः पूर्वपक्षाः (तेषामुत्तराणि च) कथ्यन्ते । शब्दः कर्तृक इति ते पूर्वपक्षिन मन्यन्ते । यद्येवं स्यात्, शब्दस्यार्थेन नित्यसम्बन्धो ऽप्यसम्भव एव । एतस्मात् करणात् ते पूर्वपक्षाः न मीमांसकानामुक्ताः, अपि तु नैयायिकादीनाम् ।
सूत्राणाम् १।१।६–११पर्यन्तात् शबरस्वामिनः भाष्यं स्वल्पमेव । श्रीवेदान्तदेशिकैस्तु स्फोटनिरासः, केषांचिच्चोपनिषद्वाक्यानां व्याख्यमपीह लिखितम् ।
६-सूत्रम् “कर्मैके तत्र दर्शनात्” इति । भाष्यपठणात्पूर्वम् “शब्द कर्म एव, इति केचिद्वदन्ति, क्रियानन्तरं शब्दस्य दर्श्नात्” इति मयावगतम् । शाबरभाष्ये ऽपि शब्दो ऽनित्यः क्रियमानत्वादिति व्याख्यातम् ।
श्रीवेदान्तदेशिकानां सेश्वरमीमांसायां तु “कर्म” इति शब्दस्य वाचक्तवं, न तु शब्द एव । “तत्र दर्श्नात्” इति च “संकेते सति वाचकत्वदर्शनात्” इति ।
यथा कात्यायनवार्त्तिके अादौ “सिद्ध शब्दस्यार्थेन संबन्धः“, तथा मीमांसासूत्रेषु १।१।१–१।१।५ अपि शब्दार्थसंबन्ध एव नित्यः, न तु शब्द स्वयम् । नैयायिकास्तु शब्द नाद एव इति मन्वानः शब्दस्यानित्यत्वं स्वीकुर्वन्ति ।
अतः मीमांसादृष्टौ वेदान्तदेशिकमतं युक्तमेव । नैयायिकदृष्टौ तु शबरस्वामिनः ।
एतस्मिन् “ब्लोगे” संस्कृत“पोस्ट्” मासे मासे प्रथमे सोमवासरे पठितव्यानि ।
Aleix Ruiz-Falqués (his blog is here) studies (in Cambridge) Pāli Grammatical Literature written in Burma. He is an engaged scholar and one who is not shy to get involved in controversies about ideas. You can read the first part of this interview here. This time I will be asking him more general (and more provocative) questions.
EF: In some of your posts (see here and here), you seem to be quite sceptical about Anthropology as applied to Buddhism (i.e., you seem to share the textual-based approach you described in the first part of your interview). You also exhibited some scepticism concerning comparative philosophy and comparatism in general. How do you see interactions with people outside your field? Are they still possible, these premisses notwithstanding?
Rāmānuja is usually considered the real founder of Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta. The Śrī Bhāṣya is usually considered his masterpiece. Thus, what would one expect in it?
Concerning the Epistemology of Testimony, one can first distinguish between reductionists (claiming that Testimony is just a subset of Inference) and anti-reductionists (claiming that Testimony is a distinct instrument of knowledge). In India and in the West, we have reductionists (David Hume, Elisabeth Fricker, Buddhist Pramāṇavāda, Vaiśeṣika) and anti-reductionists (Thomas Reid, Jennifer Lackey, Arindam Chakrabarti, Nyāya, Mīmāṃsā).
Interestingly, however, in the West reductionists insist on the need for testimony to be grounded on something else (e.g., on the reliability of the speaker), whereas anti-reductionists claim that we have a “presumptive right” to accept testimony, so that it “is a source of justification in its own right” (Gelfert 2010).
On Monday the 23rd and Tuesday the 24th I will host a panel with Philipp Maas at the 32nd DOT in Münster. The panel’s title is:
Adaptive Reuse of Texts, Ideas and Images and it is part of the broader project of rethinking categories such as Authoriality, Originality and Creativity in South Asia. The Coffee Break Meeting in December 2012 in Rome (and the volume of essays which will be published soon in the Journal of Indian Philosophy) have investigated the form of textual reuse (literality of quotations, acknowledgement of reuse, marks of reuse and the like), while independently a 2012 conference in Matsumoto (and the proceeding thereof) have focused on the reused “fragments” and the possibility to collect them. This panel goes one step beyond and focuses on the originality implied in each instance of reuse, showing how reuse always adapts a text/an idea/an image to new conditions.
Can the Absolute be at the same time One and still be defined as existence, knowledge and bliss? Rāmānuja discusses this topic with an opponent in his Śrī Bhāṣya on Brahma Sūtra 1.1.1. The opponent says that if the Absolute brahman is only Oneness, then all attributes would end up as having to be understood only metaphorically (lakṣaṇā). Rāmānuja replies that this would not be a problem, since contextual meaning (tātparyavṛtti) —which, we understand, includes the possibility of secondary signification (lakṣaṇā)— overrules direct meaning (abhidhānavṛtti):
How can one interpret a Vedic passage by saying that a certain meaning was not “intended” (vivakṣita), while still thinking that the Veda has no personal author?
The Mīmāṃsā cannot renounce the idea that the Veda has no personal author (apauruṣeyatva): its whole theory about the Veda’s validity depends on this principle. However, Kumārila needs also to explain in which sense one can decide whether an interpretation of the Veda is right or not on the basis of whether it is intended (vivakṣita). How can one speak of intention if there is no author?
Do you want to focus on research only or do you enjoy teaching? If the latter is the case, the US can offer you many job opportunities.
This study focuses on the devices implemented in Classical Indian texts on ritual and language in order to develop a structure of rules in an economic and systematic way. These devices presuppose a spatial approach to ritual and language, one which deals for instance with absences as substitutions within a pre-existing grid, and not as temporal disappearances. In this way, the study reveals a key feature of some among the most influential schools of Indian thought. The sources are Kalpasūtra, Vyākaraṇa and Mīmāṃsā, three textual traditions which developed alongside each other, sharing – as the volume shows – common presuppositions and methodologies. In the intentions of its authors, the book will be of interest for Sanskritists, scholars of ritual exegesis and of the history of linguistics.
Further informations here.