While commenting on PMS 1.1.4, Veṅkaṭanātha makes a long digression aimed at refuting every kind of intellectual intuition, especially as a source for knowing dharma. Dharma, he explains, can only be known through the Veda.
People who claim to have directly perceived dharma are, by contrast, liars. This seems consistent in most cases, but may be problematic when it comes to the Veda, who are believed (by some) to have been composed by some ancient sages of the past, the ṛṣis. Veṅkaṭanātha explains that it is not the case that out of their austerities they gained the ability to directly perceive dharma, also because this would lead to a vicious circle, insofar as efficacious austerities would need to be based on the Veda. Thus, ṛṣis are not an exception to the rule.
This means that the ṛṣis did not compose the Vedas. How comes that they could teach them? Their teaching was based on the Vedas themselves (a Mīmāṃsaka would add: because time is beginningless).
Their (the ṛṣis’) teaching, by contrast, is of human origin, although it may come from the Veda (āgama). Therefore, the listeners [of such teaching] need to reflect on its root and once one eliminates that this teaching is based on a [supersensuous] perception originated out of the dharma’s energy, one needs to look for another pramāṇa for this dharma. And this is nothing but the Veda (itself) (śāstra).I am grateful to Meera Sridhara’s comment for having forced me to rethink my interpretation of śrotṛ (see below for her comment).tadupadeśasya tu āgamāyamānasyāpi pauruṣeyatayā śrotṝṇāṃ mūlaparāmarśasāpekṣatvena dharmavīryaprasūtapratyakṣamūlatvapariśeṣe tasmin dharme pramāṇāntaram anveṣaṇīyam. tac ca nānyat śāstrāt.
I will just say that your understanding and translation based on it is wrong.
I’ll also suggest to keep aside assumption that ‘this word must mean this’, etc. and the problem will be solved.
Since, your spam filter kills all comments and you don’t check comments to allow them, I’ll leave it here.
As last time, I will suggest you to become member of some Google group where scholars are present and can interact with you easily.
I did not find any comment blocked by my spam filter, apart from Meera’s one (here below). As already announced on this blog, I welcome messages of readers if they encountered similar problems.
Was it G.E. Moore who said at the end of a conference: “I have only one comment. All you said was wrong”?
Hello!
Here is an attempt at translating:
Of that teaching (tadupadeśasya) however (tu) – even though (api) having come from the āgamās (āgamāyamānasya) – due to the human nature (pauruṣeyatayā) of [its] hearers (śrotṝṇāṃ) [and] due to dependence on inference regarding the source (mūlaparāmarśasāpekṣatvena) [by the hearers], in the remainder which has the nature of the source – which is directly perceived and which originated from the efficacy of dharma (dharmavīryaprasūtapratyakṣamūlatvapariśeṣe), in that dharma (tasmin dharme), a different instrument of knowledge (pramāṇāntaram) needs to be searched for (anveṣaṇīyam). And that (tat) is nothing other (nānyat) than śāstra.
Without knowing any context around the text and looking only at this snippet, śrotṝṇāṃ seems to apply to the listeners of the upadeśa. I have also never heard of ṛṣis referred to as śrotṛ , they usually see the mantras – mantradṛṣṭāraḥ
Thank you, Meera. You convinced me that I was wrong concerning śrotṛ.
Two small comments, in case they can be useful for you:
—pariśeṣa seems to be a technical term, indicating what remains after one has eliminated implausible options.
—you are right, parāmarśa is also a technical term *within* anumāna, but I do not think that this is what is meant here. If this had been the point, Veṅkaṭanātha would have used the word anumāna (or a synonym of it).
Good to know the comment was useful!
As a classical Indology student at Uni Heidelberg, I follow your work closely as they overlap (to a very large extent!) with my own interests. Thanks for being active on this blog and now recently starting a twitter account. They both provide interesting and useful glimpses into the work of a scholar in areas I hope to study one day.
Thank you, Meera. I try to understand my blogging (and my use of twitter) as a form of public service. It is nice to receive feedback about it.
One small comment: āgamāyamānasya is the present participle of a denominative verb.
It conveys the sense of ‘behaving/being like the āgama’, rather than meaning
‘coming from the āgama’. (āgama ivācaraty āgamāyate; cf. Aṣṭādhyāyī 3.1.10-11).
Thank you very much, H.I. This was also my initial understanding, I will go back to it.