Uttamur T. Vīrarāghavācārya discusses the reasons for having to deal with epistemology while trying to understand dharma in the context of PMS 1.1.3: We need to deal with epistemology because there are too many disagreements about what dharma is and how to know it. Here he summarises the Lokāyata position:
Why is bhakti different than the other human purposes?
Vīrarāghavācārya on Pūrva Mīmāṃsā Sūtra 1.1.2
Vīrarāghavācārya was a 20th c. Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedāntin whose editorial and commentarial contribution to his school will remain impressive for many generations to come. Personally, I am particularly pleased by his attempts to think along the tradition in a creative way.
Within his subcommentary on Vedānta Deśika’s Seśvaramīmāṃsā, Vīrarāghavācārya is at times closer to Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta than Vedānta Deśika’s pro-Mīmāṃsā attitudes. At other times, he just elaborates further on Vedānta Deśika’s hints. In one of such cases, he describes how the choice of words in Pūrva Mīmāṃsā Sūtra 1.1.2 (codanālakṣaṇo ‘rtho dharmaḥ ‘Dharma is that goal which is known through Vedic injunctions’) was not at all casual. Rather, each word had a direct meaning and also further suggested something more. For instance, codanālakṣaṇa is not just the same as codanāpramāṇa, but rather suggests that the Vedic injunction also defines what dharma is. dharma is also to be interpreted etymologically as ‘instrument of dhṛti‘, where dhṛti means prīti ‘happiness’. Similarly, artha indicates that bhakti is the result to be achieved, consisting in pleasing God. Then he sums up:
Through the word dharma, which means instrument for dhṛti, Jaimini also suggests that this ritual action devoid of desire which is a purpose in itself (svayamprayojana) is different than the instruments for the results consisting in the four human aims, which are expressed with reference to their own contents (svaviṣaya) [only]. [He suggests it] because through this [word dharma] also pleasing the Revered one (bhagavat) is communicated (uddeśya).
dharmapadena dhṛtisādhanavācinā caturvargaphalopāyāḥ ye svaviṣayāḥ vācyāḥ tais saha anlat svayaṃprayojanaṃ niṣkāmakarmāpy asūcayat bhagavatprītes tatroddeśyatvāt.
In other words, bhakti points beyond oneself, to God, whereas all other purposes remain confined to oneself.
Associate Professor in Non-Canonical philosophy
The department of philosophy of the York University in Toronto, Canada, opened a position for Associate Professor whose AOS include Asian Philosophy. The deadline for applying is November the 1st and the position starts in the academic year 2020–2021. You can read all the details on Philjobs, here.
(Many thanks to Jack Beaulieu for the pointer)
Duty and Sacrifice: A Logical Analysis of the Mīmāṃsā Theory of Vedic Injunctions
A new OA article on deontic logic and Mīmāṃsā
A new article by Andrew Ollett, Matteo Pascucci and myself has been published OA on History and Philosophy of Logic. You can download it here. Don’t forget to let me know what you think about it!
Tenure Track position for “Indology” in Milan, Italy
I am sorry for the short notice, but I just found out that there is an opening in Italy, Milan, for a “Researcher of the type B”. This resembles a tenure track position, insofar as after 6 years one becomes Associate professor. The deadline is Monday the 5th of August and the application is relatively easy to prepare (cv, publications, signed declaration of authenticity of what you state in the cv). Here is the link for the text in Italian. I also uploaded here the English summary (scroll down until you find “Indology”). You can apply online, here.
Best of luck!
Summary of the 9th CBC conference in Oxford
A guest post by Yiming Shen
Thanks to the generous support from the Lorne Thyssen Research Fund for Ancient World Topics (Wolfson College, Oxford), Max Müller Fund (Faculty of Oriental Studies, Oxford), and Wolfson College Academic Committee (Oxford), the 9th Coffee Break Conference has successfully taken place at Wolfson College, University of Oxford, on 4-6 Dec 2018.
The theme of the conference was “Science and Technology in Premodern Asia”, and there
were altogether 5 panels, on Medicine, Music, Astronomy and Mathematics, Language
Science, and Technology. On the first morning (4 Dec), Prof. Christopher Minkowski from the
Faculty of Oriental Studies delivered the keynote speech titled “The Study of Science and
the Study of Indian Science”, and after that altogether 23 speakers delivered their papers
over the three days. The speakers were mostly from different parts of Europe, but also a
few were coming from the United States and India. For details of the talks and their
presenters, please see the conference program here.
On the final day of the conference (6 Dec), we organised the following two activities: Show
& Tell of manuscripts at the Weston Library, and a visit to the Museum of the History of
Science. On the whole, the conference went on smoothly, according to our plan. Currently,
the possibilities of publishing the conference proceedings are being discussed.
Yiming Shen is a PhD student in Oxford.
Wrestling with the angel: Fight all night
Further thoughts on intercultural philosophy
I hope that readers will bear with me while I keep on exploiting the metaphor of wrestling with the angel. There are a few more indications, in fact, we can take out of it. First, Jacob fights. He does not just encounter the angel, he fights with him. Similarly, in order for the encounter with another philosopher to be really transformative, one should not just engage with a restatement of one’s ideas, and rather look for points of difference and not just of harmony. One is not transformed with the encounter of the n-th philosopher who agrees with oneself.
How to make a reader? UPDATED
What is a reader? An anthology of texts put together because of a specific purpose, i.e., learning about a given topic (say “A reader on Sanskrit philosophy of language”) or gaining proficiency in a specific language (e.g., “A Vedic reader”). A reader is rarely a high scientific achievement, but it might be extremely useful for students and laypersons, hence I think it makes sense to give the genre some thoughts.
The last reader I used is Tamiḻ Matu, by Kausalya Hart, which is meant to be at the same time a historical anthology of Tamil literature and guide students in their learning of Tamil. It comprises a short text by K. Hart herself introducing a given period of Tamil literature and is followed by an excerpt of real Tamil literature of that time. After each text comes a glossary and a global glossary is repeated at the end of the book, together with some questions in Tamil about the content of each chapter. Apart from the short English equivalents given in the glossary, the book is entirely in Tamil. This has surely advantages, but if I were to write a reader, I would try to focus clearly on my readers. If my target readers are not proficient in the topic or in the language the reader is about, I will provide a TOC and all other auxiliary materials (e.g., index locorum) in English or in a language accessible to them (typically non-technical English). I would also:
- Provide a general glossary at the end of the book (not everyone would read the book in a short time and they might forget the words learnt in Unit 1 by the time they reach Unit 14). UPDATE: I would prepare both the general glossary and the glossaries of each chapter in alphabetic order and not in order of occurrence (I am grateful to Francesco for having pointed out this issue).
Next comes the nature of the reader. What does one exactly want to achieve through it? There might be multiple purposes, but one needs to be the main one. As much as you want to achieve them all, focus on one, or you will fail to achieve any.
- If, for instance, one wants to primarily teach a language, one should be sure to start with the easiest texts and move towards the most complex ones. One might also decide to oversimplify concepts (say, just saying that Govinda, Kṛṣṇa and Nārāyaṇa are names of the same God).
- If, by contrast, one wants to accompany intermediate students while they explore a given literature, one might prefer to go chronologically. (I really enjoy this type of readers, since they are an entertaining way to learn about the history of a given genre but can easily see why the first type is way more appealing to publishing houses).
- Again, if one wants to primarily introduce students or laypersons to a fascinating field, one might want to proceed thematically (e.g. “devotional literature”, “commentaries”, “epic”) and explain as much as possible of the culture involved.
What about translations? They are extremely useful for self-study (including both working on one’s own or in a group where no one is ufficially the teacher) and can make a reader a useuful tool for the purposes 2 and 3 above. But where to put them? Again, if one’s purpose is 1, then translations should be found in a separate section of the book, otherwise one would be constantly tempted to check them too soon. If one wants to achieve primarily 2 or 3, then translations can be printed as parallel texts.
In sum: Choose one goal (e.g., teaching a language) and focus on it. You can have a subsidiary one (e.g., introducing readers to interesting topics within that language), but no more than one. Be straightforward about what you are doing in your introduction and tell your readers what they will find in your book and how you conceived it.
What do readers think? Which readers did you use and appreciate?
From unfinished starting points to new balances
The common background of all Mīmāṃsā authors is based mainly on Jaimini’s Mīmāṃsā Sūtra (henceforth PMS) and Śabara’s Bhāṣya `commentary’ thereon (henceforth ŚBh). I refer to this phase in the history of Mīmāṃsā as ”common Mīmāṃsā”, since the authority of these texts was accepted by all later Mīmāṃsā authors.
Various later Mīmāṃsā authors rethought this inherited background, in particular, on two connected issues:
- How later Mīmāṃsā authors reconsidered the classification of obligations implemented in the early Mīmāṃsā
- What later Mīmāṃsā authors considered to be the real trigger for obligations
They will implement in both cases reductionistic strategies which, however, were based on very different presuppositions. They introduced to the background Mīmāṃsā new assumptions, although these were —according to the ancient Indian étiquette— concealed as (re)interpretations of the ancient lore.
As for No. 1, the Mīmāṃsā school operates presupposing that prescriptions could enjoin:
- nitya-karman `fixed sacrifices’, to be performed throughout one’s life, such as the Agnihotra, which one needs to perform each single day
- naimittika-karman `occasional sacrifices’, to be performed only on given occasions, e.g., on the birth of a son
- kāmya-karman `elective sacrifices’, to be performed if one wishes to obtain their result, e.g., the citrā sacrifice if one desires cattle
Here one can see already how the scheme offers the chance for different interpretations, precisely according to one’s interpretation of No. 2, namely of the understanding of what is the real motivator of one’s action, as below:
| elective | specific desire |
| occasional | occasion, generic desire |
| fixed | generic occasion (being alive), generic desire |
Should you upload your articles on Academia.edu, Research Gate, etc.?
Should you upload your articles, presentations and further material online?
Reasons for not doing it:
- People might criticise you because they read your unfinished stuff (this of course only applies if you are considering to upload unfinished articles).
- It takes time, and you should rather use your time to write or read.
- Academia.edu, etc., are for-profit and one should rather not help them (however, they also retain a free version and moreover see No. 3 below).
- Are there other arguments I forgot?
Reasons for doing it:
- You can reach more people.
- You can interact with more people, especially scholars you would not meet at your usual conferences.
- You can reach people who would not be able to read your articles because they are not affiliated to a university and/or their university does not possess a library and/or their university’s library does not have access to the journals where you published.
I think that especially No. 3 is relevant and cannot but lead one to conclude that the ethically correct choice involves uploading one’s work. What do you think?