Monthly Archives: February 2025

Posted on

Kumārila conference 2025

To be held in Toronto, St George campus, May 5 to 8.

Kumārila ranks among the key Sanskrit thinkers, and his massive influence has forever changed the course of Sanskrit philosophy, from Buddhist epistemology to Nyāya ontology. This conference, held at the Department of Philosophy on the St. George campus, is the second time international experts on Kumārila’s philosophy can come together to discuss his masterpieces. These experts will workshop their translations of some of Kumārila’s works in two-hour reading sessions. Sessions will see us both reading and commenting on selected passages on a given topic (e.g., adhikāra in Ṭupṭīkā 6.1) and hearing a talk on the topic itself (e.g., mapping the intersection of adhikāra and sāmarthya). A discussion session will follow. Additionally, scholars and advanced students will have the opportunity to present their Kumārila-related research in shorter, 60-minute sessions.
The conference is coordinated by Elisa Freschi and Nilanjan Das and will see the participation of other experts in Sanskrit philosophy and philology.
Confirmed participants: Tarinee Awasthi, Hugo David, Alessandro Ganassi, Alessandro Graheli, Kei Kataoka, Malcolm Keating, Lawrence McCrea, John Nemec, Monika Nowakowska, Andrew Ollett, Sarju Patel, Parimal Patil, Jonathan Peterson, Akane Saito, Taisei Shida, Long Yin Sin, Elliot Stern, Alex Watson, and Kiyotaka Yoshimizu.
This will be an in-person only event, since we believe in the power of collective intelligence and collaboration, which are challenging to replicate when some participants speak on Zoom while others are in the room.
The organizers gratefully acknowledge support for the conference from the Departments of Philosophy at UTSG and UTM, as well as the Office of the Vice-Principal, Research, and the Decanal Fund at UTM.

Preliminary program!

Mon May 5th
9–11 Alex Watson, ŚV ātmavāda
11–11:15 Tea break
11:15-12:15pm Long Yin Sin ŚV Pratyakṣapariccheda 171-185
12.15–1.15 Alessandro Ganassi ŚV on ākṛti
1:15–2:15 Lunch break
2:15–4:15pm John Nemec ŚV, Saṃbandhākṣepaparihāra 42cd-114ab
4.15–4.30: Tea break
4.30–6.30 Hugo David, ŚV vākyādhikaraṇa

Tue May 6th
9–11 Tarinee Awasthi, mantrādhikaraṇa (TV 1.2.4)
11–11:15 Tea break
11:15-1:15pm Jonathan Peterson, virodhādhikaraṇa and śiṣṭākopādhikaraṇa (TV 1.3.3)
1:15–2:15 Lunch break
2:15-4:15pm Andrew Ollett, anuṣaṅgādhikaraṇa (TV 2.1.16)
4.15–4.30: Tea break
4.30–5.30: Sarju Patel, Tantravārttika 1.3.7

Wed May 7th
9–11 Alessandro Graheli, vyākaraṇādhikaraṇa (TV 1.3.adh. 9)
11–11:15 Tea break
11:15-12:15pm Elliot Stern, (ṬṬ 6.3.2)
12:15–12:45 Lunch break
12:45-2:45pm Malcolm Keating, tatsiddhipeṭikā (TV 1.4.23) + 1.3.10, on ākṛti as the primary meaning, (and maybe 3.2.1, the short section that also discusses mukhya/lakṣaṇā, etc.)
2.45–5: Break (Philosophy Department’s party)
5–7: Monika Nowakowska, similarity (TV ad 1.4.adh. 4, sū 5)+ŚV upamāna

Thu May 8th
9–11 Kei Kataoka, śeṣapratijñādhikaraṇa (TV 3.1.1); bhāvanādhikaraṇa (TV ad 2.1.1–4)
11–11:15 Tea break
11:15-12:15pm Kiyotaka Yoshimizu, deities (ṬṬ 9.1.6–10 and 10.4.23)
12:15–1:15 Lunch break
1:15-3:15pm Larry McCrea, vājapeyādhikaraṇa (TV 1.4.adh.5)
3.15–3.30: Tea break
3.30–5.30: Akane Saito, viniyogādhikaraṇa (TV 3.1.2)

Location: JHB 100 (5–7 May); JHB 401 (8 May).

Posted on

Veṅkaṭanātha on free will to surrender

Veṅkaṭanātha has to adapt the Mīmāṃsā approach to free will to his Vaiṣṇava commitment to the role of God’s grace.
He thus concludes that humans are free in their intentions, although they need God’s consent to convert them into action. Interestingly enough, here he reuses again a Mīmāṃsā technical term, namely anumati ‘permission’ to indicate God’s allowing humans to act according to their wishes. This limited range of freedom is still enough for humans to surrender, since surrender (prapatti) is primarily an act of will.
The situation becomes slightly more complicated insofar as in order to surrender one needs to be in the correct state of mind, which includes one’s desperation about one’s ability to ever be able to perform any activity in a correct manner, including making progress in the ritual and the salvific knowledge paths. Thus, one is free to surrender, but genuine surrender can only happen once one is deeply desperate about one’s abilities, so that it seems that the freedom to surrender appears as to one as their last freedom available, their last resort.
This divide between one’s phenomenological state (and one’s conviction to be utterly unable to undertake anything) and the undeniable reality of one’s freedom to surrender is captured in Veṅkaṭanātha’s commentary on Rāmānuja’s Śaraṇāgatigadya. There, Veṅkaṭanātha has to defend the author’s first turning to Lakṣmī before surrendering to God directly.

[Obj:] But in this way the Revered one alone, who is the giver of all results, is the one to whom one must take refuge, even in order for surrender in Him to succeed. What is the purpose at this point (in the text) of surrendering to Lakṣmī?

[R:] It is not so. If one ascertained that it is possible to surrender now (i.e., before surrendering to Lakṣmī) to the Revered one, then one would be using (upādā-) that (surrender) in order to [reach] liberation (mokṣa), but this should not be employed in order to achieve that (liberation). If, by contrast, one were not able to ascertain that it is possible [to directly surrender to Nārāyaṇa], then [it would be] even less likely for one to do so.

nanv evaṃ sakalaphalaprado bhagavān eva tatprapattisiddhyartam apy āśrīyatām, kim iha lakṣmīprapadanena? maivam. yadi bhagavatprapadanam idānīṃ śakyam iti niścinuyāt, tadā mokṣārtham eva tad upādadīta. na punas tadarthaṃ tat prayuñjīta. aniścite tu śakyatve natarām. (Intro to v. 1, Aṇṇaṅgarācārya 1940–1: 98).

In other words, in order to surrender, one must be desperate, up to the point of despairing about their possibility to successfully surrender. If one said “I surrender”, while still thinking to be in control one one’s situation, one would not in fact be really surrendering, since surrendering involves giving up the responsibility for one’s salvation (this is technically called bharanyāsa ‘giving up the burden’). Thus, surrendering in order to reach salvation would be an internal contradiction. Still, one’s ability to independently surrender shows that one was indeed free to surrender.