1. Kumārila stating in the ātmavāda chapter within his ŚV that we can directly grasp the self through our awareness of ourselves as an I (via ahampratyaya)
2. Kumārila stating, against Dignāga, that cognitions are not transparent to themselves (see ŚV pratyakṣa 79, 134 and then ŚV śūnyavāda) and that they are rather known a posteriori through arthāpatti based on the fact that something, e.g., a pot, has now the characteristic of being manifest (jñātatā or prākaṭya, see ŚV pratyakṣa 56) and that this characteristic wold be unexplainable otherwise
3. Kumārila stating in the pratyakṣa chapter within the ŚV that perception is sense-perception

Which sort of cognition is ahampratyaya? The “I” cannot be known through cognitions’ awareness of themselves (as in Prabhākara), because of No. 2. Nor can the “I” be known through perception, because of No. 3. Again, given that there must be a solution (the point is too striking to have been missed by Kumārila himself) and that No. 2 looks quite sure, let me try to explore No. 3. Could it be that Kumārila accepts perception as sense-perception AND ahampratyaya? (In this connection, please note that also Jhā writes that “the notion of “I” […] is directly perceptible by the Senses”, fn on ŚV ātmavāda v. 107).

The relevant verses in the chapter on perception are mainly addressed against upholders of yogic perception. Kumārila insists there that perception is about present contents, and the “I” would qualify. He also says that perception arises from a contact between the object and the sense-faculty (sati indriyasaṅgame […] tasya (=pratyakṣasya) evaṃdharmakatvataḥ, vv 17–18), thus excluding svasaṃvedana or other forms of non-sensory direct perception from pratyakṣa. Still, ahampratyaya could qualify as belonging to perception. The sense-faculty at stake in the case of the “I” could be manas, the inner sense faculty. It is in this sense somehow disappointing that Kumārila does not mention the case of ahampratyaya while discussing ātman-manas contact in ŚV pratyakṣa, v. 66. Moreover, ŚV pratyakṣa v. 83 discusses the apprehension of pleasure and pain via manas, but does not mention the case of the manas also cognising the “I”. Even more relevant, v.83 follows a discussion of how a cognition cannot grasp itself and how pleasure etc. can be an exception because there is no svasaṃvedana there, but rather the apprehension of something inhering in the self, via the manas (see Pārthasārathi thereon: manaḥsañjñakenendriyeṇa saṃyuktaḥ ātmā svasamavetān sukhādīn […] pratipadyate). If we were to apply the same scheme to ahampratyaya, we would need to say that the self, connected to the manas, grasps the self itself, which seems to contradict the point made in v. 82, against reflectivity. Also disappointing in this regard are ŚV pratyakṣa, vv. 134–139, that discuss the role of manas in svasaṃvitti (refuted by Kumārila) and pleasure etc. (accepted) and never mention the case of “I-cognitions”. Then, again, ŚV pratyakṣa v. 160 states that manas can work on its own, without an external object, but only cites pleasure and pain as an example (yathā hi manasaḥ sārdhaṃ rūpādau cakṣurādinā | pravṛttiḥ sukhaduḥkhādau kevalasyaiva dṛśyate ||). Same with ŚV śabdanityatādhikaraṇa 337 on manas grasping pleasure etc. when not connected with the external senses.
This is all not conclusive, but it is disheartening that Kumārila never mentions the case of ahampratyaya in the chapter on perception, if ahampratyaya is in fact a case of perception.

At this point I might have been too negative about the possibility of ahampratyaya being a case of perception. Let me therefore look at the evidence in favour of it. The main one is that ahampratyaya is mentioned as an evidence for the existence of the self and as being different than inference in ŚV ātmavāda v. 107. Next, ahampratyaya is discussed in conjunction with recognition (pratyabhijñā) in the same chapter (v. 109, v. 137), and we know that recognition is a combination of memory and perception.

Could it be that ahampratyaya is just a case of recognition? In favour of this view run a few passages in Pārthasārathi’s commentary, where he says pratyabhijñārūpeṇa ahampratyayena (ad ŚV ātmavāda v. 109) and ekasantānasambandhino ‘hampratyayā ekajñātṛviṣayā iti pratyabhijñeti (ad ŚV ātmavāda v. 139), as well as the fact that the self is proven to exist because of phenomena like desire, which need some extension through time (perception of X, memory that X in the past produced pleasure, desire of X, see vv. 104–105). However, recognition requires a preceding (perceptual) awareness (and Kumārila has already established that inference does not establish the ātman). How could one re-cognise something if one had not cognised it in the first place? Recognition is essential in the argumentative structure of ŚV ātmavāda, because this has as its main opponent the Buddhist epistemologists’ point of view on the self being momentary. Yet, it would be strange to claim that ahampratyaya is only a recognition, since this would deny the phenomenological appeal that we recognise ourselves qua-I immediately (not inferentially, as Nyāya-Vaiśeṣikas would like it to be, see vv. 92–101).

At this point I wonder whether for Kumārila ahampratyaya is an ad hoc pramāṇa, a cognition that never ceases every time one cognises something (see ŚV ātmavāda 133), but different than the arthāpatti through which one knows a posteriori that a cognition has taken place. Now, against that runs Kumārila’s mention of six pramāṇas (e.g., ŚV codanā 111cd), which seem to either point to ahampratyaya as a subspecies within one of the main sources of knowledge or to ahampratyaya as not necessarily knowledge-conducive. Could be just a cognition (jñāna), one that is not necessarily true, but that remains valid as long as it is not falsified? However, a pramāṇa is in Kumārila exactly defined as something that remains valid as long as it is not falsified. That is, in Nyāya it is easy to distinguish pramāṇas from thinking processes that are not *necessarily* knowledge-conducive although they might lead to true cognitions, such as tarka. But this distinction does not seem to be available to Kumārila’s falsificationism. He does use the term pramāṇa also for sources other than the six (pratyakṣa, anumāna, śabda, upamāna, arthāpatti, abhāva), for instance in the case of pratyabhijñā and of the hermeneutic pramāṇas, but both can be reduced to a subspecies of one of the six pramāṇas. This all would lead one back to ahampratyaya being a form of manas-pratyakṣa, with the ātman featuring both as the subject and object thereof.

ŚV ātmavāda 142 seems to offer a slightly different point of view, with the ātman being described as self-luminous (through the simile of a light, jyotiḥ). Thus, even though Kumārila refutes (see point No. 2 above) self-luminosity in the case of cognitions, he seems to accept it for the self. The next verses explains that this does not apply to other people’s selves, that need to be known through inference (v. 145) and perhaps also through analogy and linguistic communication combined (v. 144). Unfortunately, Uṃveka’s commentary is not available for this chapter and Pārthsārathi does not add much to this short section.

By the way, one might wonder whether ahampratyaya could ever count as knowledge, given that it is unfalsifiable. However,
a. Kumārila has defeated the alternatives already (mainly bhūtacaitanyavāda, or physicalism and the non-physicalist illusionism of Buddhist epistemologists)
b. Kumārila showed at least in one case that he is comfortable with an unfalsifiable knowledge, namely the Veda.

Kumārila’s theory had two pillars:

• 1. a theory of rational behaviour being always goal-oriented,
• 2. a strong hermeneutic basis linked to the analysis of prescriptive language.

In the 2. analysis, exhortative verbal endings are analysed as entailing a verbal part (tiṅ) and an exhortative part (liṅ). The former express the action (bhāvanā), the latter express the injunction (vidhi/śabdabhāvanā). And any action needs three components, namely something to be brought about by the action (bhāvya), an instrument to bring it about (karaṇa) and a procedure (itikartavyatā), which is equated to the instrument’s instrument. bhāvanā, vidhi, bhāvya, karaṇa and itikartavyatā are all conveyed by the Vedic prescriptive sentence, but are they conveyed *qua* bhāvanā etc.? The answer is clearly affirmative for bhāvanā and vidhi, which are directly conveyed by tiṅ and liṅ respectively. By contrast, bhāvya, karaṇa and itikartavyatā might need the application of some further investigation on the part of the knower, who will need to apply hermeneutical rules (nyāya) to correctly interpret the sentence and link the bhāvya to the word mentioning the eligible person and the karaṇa to the meaning of the verbal root.

The first pillar (1) is taken up by Maṇḍana.
In fact, Maṇḍana expands on Kumārila’s intuition about human behaviour being always goal-oriented by offering a radical reductionist hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, being a motivator is nothing but communicating that the action to be undertaken is an instrument to some desired result. In this sense, prescribing X to people desiring Y is *nothing but* explaining that X is the means to achieve Y. The “nothing but” part of the definition is key to distinguish Maṇḍana’s position from Kumārila’s. Also for Kumārila a prescription presupposes that one understands that the prescribed action will lead to something independently desired.

Now, I am grateful to Sudipta Munsi, who recently made me read Uṃveka’s commentary on ŚV codanā 214, where Uṃveka rejects a view that seems a proto-version of Kumārila’s one, since it speaks of bhāvanā, of a desired bhāvya and of the meaning of the verbal root, but without mentioning the fact that this conveys the karaṇa. In this proto-Kumārila view, the prescriptive sentence impels (pravṛt-), but since one might doubt this impulsion, it implies (ākṣip-) a bhāvya in the form of something desirable and therefore orients the listener’s understanding to move past the meaning of the verbal root towards the identification of something really desirable. Uṃveka does not use the verb abhidhā- ‘directly denote’, but says that the prescriptive sentences conveys (avagam-) this meaning. The doubt (āśaṅkā) about the impulsion seems to be the reason for the implication (ākṣepa). Uṃveka does not frame this as a case of śrutārthāpatti (postulation of a linguistic element based on cogent evidence), because ākṣepa performs almost the same role (but without the postulation of an explicit linguistic unit, which remains implied).
Uṃveka contrasts to this view his own (vayaṃ tu brūmaḥ), according to which a prescriptive sentence first conveys an impulsion (preraṇā) and then (uttarakālam) conveys (pratī-) a desired goal. Here, there are important points that appear to be influenced by Maṇḍana (please remember that Uṃveka commented on Maṇḍana’s Bhāvanāviveka):

• The mention of the destruction of accumulated bad karman as the desired result for fixed sacrifices
• The connection between impulsion and the fact that the action impelled leads to a desirable goal

However, unlike in Maṇḍana, Uṃveka distinguishes impulsion (preraṇā) from the fact of being the instrument to a desired goal, whereas Maṇḍana’s main claim is that the two are completely identical. Uṃveka is possibly the first person mentioning the temporal sequence linking impulsion and the understanding (pratī-) of something as a desirable goal. Like in the discussion of the proto-Kumārila view, Uṃveka does not use the word abhidhā, but he says that the prescriptive content is conveyed (avagam-).

Pārthasārathi (another commentator of Kumārila) de facto embedded Maṇḍana’s view of iṣṭasādhanatā, i.e., the prescribed action is an instrument to a desired result, as part of Kumārila’s śabdabhāvanā theory, more precisely as its procedure (itikartavyatā).

This was just a quick summary. Specifications or corrections are welcome.

This transformation occurred in parallel within the Mīmāṃsā school itself and within the theist Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta school, which since its beginnings with Rāmānuja (11th c) came gradually closer to Mīmāṃsā until, in the 14th c., its great proponent Veṅkaṭanātha declared Viśişṭādvaita Vedānta and Mīmāṃsā to be a single school (aikaśāstrya).

Who are the key authors of this transition from global to local atheism and towards a reconceptualised theism? The answer is not completely clear, especially because it requires a close examination of both schools. Within Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta, one witnesses a gradual, though not linear, progression towards Mīmāṃsā and towards a more bhagavat-like conception of God from Rāmānuja to Ātreya Rāmānuja and culminating in Veṅkaṭanātha. Within Mīmāṃsā, there might be an important distinction between the Bhāṭṭa and the Prābhākara subschool. Within the first, Pārthasārathi (11–12th c. CE) appears to have been a global atheist, for instance when he comments upon the opening of Kumārila’s Ślokavārttika. The Prābhākara school might have been more inclined to move towards theism. The main figure here could have been the Prābhākara author Bhavanātha, whose Nayaviveka has been repeatedly commented upon in South India and seems to have been extremely influential at the beginning of the second millennium CE. It is in fact quoted and discussed by Veṅkaṭanātha and by later authors (like Rāmānujācārya) who recognise him as a theist. Moreover, Bhavanātha’s theistic move could be part of the reasons for the great significance of Prābhākara philosophy in (South) India at the beginning of the second millennium, as attested by Gaṅgeśa’s Tattvacintāmaṇi, a game-changing work of the Nyāya school, composed in the 13th c. CE. The Nayaviveka is a commentary on the Mīmāṃsā Sūtra. While discussing the inference to the existence of a Lord (īśvara), Bhavanātha concludes:

evam īśvare paroktam eva anumānaṃ nirastam, na tv īśvaro ‘pi.

In this way I have refuted the inference to the existence of the Lord said by other scholars, but I have not refuted the Lord Himself. (NV, tarkapāda, end of sambandhākṣepaparihāra)

Do readers know other theistic passages in the Nayaviveka?

*These dates are based on Potter’s online bibliography, previously printed as Potter 1995.

Topic

During the workshop, we will translate and analyse the section dedicated to Linguistic Communication as an instrument of knowledge of Kumārila Bhaṭṭa’s (6th c.?) Ślokavārttika. The text offers the uncommon advantage of discussing the topic from the point of view of several philosophical schools, whose philosopical positions will also be analysed and debated. Particular attention will be dedicated to the topic of the independent validity of Linguistic Communication as an instrument of knowledge, both as worldly communication and as Sacred Texts.

Detailed Contents

Ślokavārttika, śabdapariccheda,

v. 1 (Introduction)

v. 3–4 (Definition of Linguistic Communication)

v. 15 (Introduction to the position of Sāṅkhya philosophers)

vv. 35–56 (Dissussion of Buddhist and Inner-Mīmāṃsā Objections)

vv. 57ab, 62cd (Content communicated by words and sentences) [we will not read vv. 57cd–62ab, since they discuss a linguistic issue]

vv. 63–111 (Discussion of Buddhist Objections)

Commentaries to be read: Pārthasārathi’s one (as basis) and Uṃveka’s one (for further thoughts on the topic)

X-copies of the texts will be distributed during the workshop. Please email the organiser if you want to receive them in advance.

For organisative purposes, you are kindly invited to announce your partecipation with an email at elisa.freschi@oeaw.ac.at.

The present workshop is the ideal continuation of this one. For a pathway in the Śabdapariccheda see this post.
 

The following is thus the first post in a series attempting a pathway through the chapter:

V. 1 is the polemical beginning of the chapter: It starts by attacking Śabara’s definition of language as an instrument of knowledge. One understands from the very beginning that Kumārila is not afraid of fights, not even with his respected predecessors:

Among the various instruments of knowledge, one should have said the definition of śabda in general,

why does here, this [definition by Śabara], hurrily denote the śāstra ‘Sacred Texts’ teaching’ [alone] (and not śabda in general)? || 1 ||

pratyakṣādiṣu vaktavyaṃ śabdamātrasya lakṣaṇam |
tad atitvaritena iha kiṃ vā śāstrāsyāhidhīyate || 1 ||

The next verses (2–14) explain why Śabara’s definition could be attacked and discuss whether a definition is at all needed. Incidentally, they present also a short definition of śabda in general and of the Sacred Texts’ teaching in particular:

And what has been said [by Śabara], namely “It consists in the cognition of a meaning obtained out of a linguistic cognition”, this is a general definition [of śabda], not the definition of the specific case of the Sacred Texts’ teaching || 3 ||

The teaching of the Sacred Texts, be it permanent or human-made, is denoted as that which teaches to people what [should] be done and what [should] not be done || 4 ||

yac ca uktaṃ “śabdavijñānād arthe jñānam” itīdṛśam |
aviśiṣṭaṃ viśiṣṭasya na tac chāstrasya lakṣaṇam || 3 ||

pravṛttir vā nivṛttir vā nityena kṛtakena vā |
puṃsāṃ yena upadiśyeta tac chāstram abhidhīyate || 4 ||

In v. 15ab, Kumārila introduces the main opponents, the Vaiśeṣikas and Buddhists, who agree in reducing śabda to a case of inference, whereas v. 15cd presents the view of the Sāṅkhyas, who —like the Mīmāṃsakas— consider śabda as an autonomous instrument of knowledge, but —according to Kumārila— for the wrong reasons:

In this regard, Buddhists and Vaiśeṣikas have considered [śabda] an inference |

By contrast, the Sāṅkhyas and others accept that there is a difference, but they do not say what is the [real] reason of the difference || 15 ||

tatrānumānam evedaṃ bauddhair vaiśeṣikaiḥ śritam |
bhedaḥ sāṅkhyādibhis tv iṣṭo na tūktaṃ bhedakāraṇam || 15 ||

(Who are the others? It might be a general reference to Paurāṇikas and other groups or a specific one to non-Pramāṇavāda Buddhists, who also accepted śabda as an autonomous instrument of knowledge.)

Next, from v. 16 to v. 34, Kumārila discusses the position of the Sāṅkhya thinkers. This passage is therefore relevant especially for historians of philosophy aiming at reconstructing the Sāṅkhya position.

Kumārila discusses with Vaiśeṣikas and Buddhists in the verses 35–51, which are perhaps the philosophical core of this chapter, since they address the central topic of the alleged epistemic autonomy of śabda.

In v. 52 Kumārila mentions the Naiyāyikas and their definition of śabda as depending on a reliable speaker, a definition which Kumārila cannot accept, as it rules out cases in which we rightly rely on linguistic communications whose authors is not known or never existed (as in the case of the Mīmāṃsā understanding of the Vedas).

The chapter counts altogether 111 verses. I will discuss the next ones in a separate post.

On Kumārila’s commentators, see this post.

Kunjunni Raja argues that, in fact, the theory of exclusion can already be found in the work by Vyāḍi, an ancient grammarian whose views are referred to by Patañjali in the Mahābhāṣya. Until now, I had known of Vyāḍi only because he is linked to the theory that words denote individuals (vyakti) and, therefore, opposed to Vājapyāyana who supported the opposite view that words mean universals (jāti). But, Kunjunni Raja explains, what happens if this theory is applied to the sentence-meaning? Words denoting individuals end up delimiting each other by excluding whatever else. Kunjunni Raja refers to a passage where Patañjali discussed sāmarthya, a condition given by Pāṇini for compounds (Kunjunni Raja quotes a shorter version of the same passage):

Indeed, the sāmarthya is the distinction (bheda), or the association [of words in the compound]. Someone else said: “The sāmarthya is the distinction and the association”. What is indeed the distinction and what is the association? In this [compound, namely rājapuruṣa, which can be analysed as “the servant of the king” (rajñaḥ puruṣaḥ)], the term “of the king” is automatically associated with everything which belongs to him, whereas “the servant” is automatically associated with all possible masters. Now, when one utters the sentence “Bring the servant of the king!” “the king” removes (nivṛt-) the servant from all other masters and also “the servant” [removes] the king from anything else which belongs to him. In this way, given that both are determined [by each other], if [each word] relinquishes its own meaning, let it be. It is not the case that one can bring a “servant” in general.
(sāmarthyaṃ nāma bhedaḥ, saṃsargo vā. apara āha —bhedasaṃsargau vā sāmarthyam iti. kaḥ punar bhedaḥ saṃsargo vā? iha rājña ity ukte sarvaṃ svaṃ prasaktam, puruṣa ity ukte sarvaṃ svāmī prasaktaḥ. ihedānīṃ rājapuruṣam ānayety ukte rājā puruṣaṃ nivartayaty anyebhyaḥ svāmibhyaḥ, puruṣo ‘pi rājānam anyebhyaḥ svebhyaḥ. evam etasminn ubhayato svavacchinne yadi svārthaṃ jahāti kāmam. jahātu na jātucit puruṣamātrasyānayanaṃ bhaviṣyati, MBh ad A 2.1.1.5, p. 330, my translation)

In other words, in order to accomplish the order to fetch someone, one needs a specification, and words, while connected, specify each other. Does this amount to a proto-apoha theory? I would not say so, although some key terms are there, most notably bheda and nivṛt-, since in this theory each words delimits another word’s meaning. It is not the case that no word has an own meaning. In other words, distinction steps in for Vyāḍi only at the sentence level, and not as the meaning of each single word (which is, as already mentioned, an individual).

By the way, I am by no means familiar with Patañjali, but I checked Kaiyaṭa’s Pradīpa and Nāgeśa’s Uddyota on this passage and could not find any indication of Vyāḍi’s name. Kunjunni Raja does not really elaborate on this point, but refers in a footnote to Helārāja’s commentary on VP 3.1.2:

According to the opinion of Vyāḍi, the meaning of a sentence is the distinction (bheda), because [the sentence-meaning] is denoted through the fact of being the purpose of the exclusion (nivṛtti) [operated] by the individual substances expressed by words.
(vyāḍimate bhedo vākyārthaḥ, padavācyānāṃ dravyāṇāṃ dravyāntaranivṛttitātparyeṇābhidheyatvāt, my translation).

UPDATE: Sudipta Munsi kindly located the passsage for me: It is not as claimed by Kunjunni Raja on VP 3.1.2, but rather on 3.1.5, p. 15 of Vākyapadīya of Bhartṛhari with the commentary of Helarāja, Part 3, Vol. 1, Ed. K. A. Subramania Iyer, 1963.

The interesting challenge now becomes to determin whether later authors had in view Vyāḍi or already an apohavādin while discussing about bheda as the sentence meaning. I will discuss Jayanta’s case next week, while Kunjunni Raja mentions Kumārila (“Tantravārttika, p, 447″) and Pārthasārathi (“Ślokavārttika (Benares ed.), p. 854″). I have not checked them yet, but the first one is quoted by Kunjunni Raja as follows:

bhedo nāma padārthānāṃ vyavacchedaḥ parasparam. […] vyaktipadārthapakṣe sarvavyaktīnāṃ gavādipadenaivopāttatvāt viṣayaśabdaiḥ śuklādibhiḥ kṛṣṇādivyavacchedamātraṃ vaktavyam.

I would imagine that a good criterion would be to focus on what is the locus of exclusion (sentence meaning or each word meaning?). Kumārila seems to fulfil it, also insofar as he mentions that the words themselves mean individuals (vyakti) and not exclusions. Pārthasārathi’s text is not reported, and I will need the library to reopen after Easter to check it.

Do you know the passages by Kumārila and Pārthasārathi? Do you agree with Kunjunni Raja’s attribution? Can you think of other examples of critiques against Vyāḍi (and not the apohavādins)? Last, how long and how much “popular” was Vyāḍi?