Regarding Dhvani And Varna Theories

[Yasoda Jivan dasa]

Namaskāraḥ Respected Vidvajjanas,

While studying the concept of Śabda, I came across its twofold division—Dhvani and Varṇa. It is well known that the Naiyāyikas hold that varṇas are eternal, whereas the Mīmāṃsakas consider them non-eternal. In this context, I seek clarification on a few points related to this philosophical discussion:

1. Do the Mīmāṃsakas also accept the division of Śabda into Dhvani and Varṇa?

2. What are the arguments of the Naiyāyikas to establish that Dhvani is non-eternal, while Varṇas are eternal?

3. What are the views of the Naiyāyikas regarding the relationship between Bhāṣā, Varṇa, and Dhvani?

4. Interpretation of “Mṛdaṅgādibhāvo dhvaniḥ” and its modern implications

According to Naiyyayikas-Mṛdaṅgādibhāvo dhvaniḥ

—Dhvani is the sound produced by instruments such as the mṛdaṅga.

In modern practice, we record tāla and rāga (of mṛdaṅga and other instruments) using written varṇas. If dhvani is considered non-eternal by the Naiyāyikas, how do they interpret the continuity or reproducibility of these sounds in the context of musical notation and memory?

I submit these questions with due reverence to the learned scholars for their kind elucidation and guidance.

With humble regards,

[Bijoy Misra]

Dear Sri Yasoda Jivan Dasa,

I will like the list of references that you cite.

Please help.  

Best regards,

Bijoy Misra

  

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CA%2BxhfBJoxSxv2MxMYtOAkEn3ULOyB7yngBM0V6Hz9MLirY7RCQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sivasenani Nori]

Sir

The Naiyayikas hold Sabda to be ephemeral. शब्दः अनित्यः, कृतकत्वात्. Sabda is not permanent as it is manufactured (anything which is manufactured does not exist prior to the manufacture).

Meemamsakas, on the other hand, hold Sabda to be Nitya. This is essential to obtain the apaurusheyatva of Veda, which in turn is essential to establish the validity of Veda as a Pramana. (If Sabda were anitya, then some or the other man would have started the convention of  गौः means an animal with a dewlap and this way Veda would be paurusheya and hence fallible). The Meemansaka's prof is very interesting. They flip the question saying "we have not been told about an author; if you know who the author is, please prove it". 

Naiyayikas overcome this by positing that it is Isvara who first pronounced the Veda and so it is still infallible, but then they get the burden of proving Isvara's existence, which they do through Anumana pramana. 

The intricacies are fascinating and can fill chapters, if not a book. A post cannot do justice to the minutae. 

Regards 

Senani

--

[keyur joshi]

प्रणाम 

I am more of a researcher in the modern sense than a student of शास्त्र.

But I can practically demonstrate the difference between what is ever existing and what is transient.

My humble submission is this-

Please listen to this, I hope you are listening to it for the first time in life - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDIWg7xf-go

The sound itself gives a sensation. The same sensation is felt by all humans who listen to these sounds irrespective of their age, ethnicity, gender or education.

 That “sensation’s association with this sound” is नित्य.

The sound itself and the sensation in itself, are अ-नित्य.

 

When language first emerged, all वर्ण had an intrinsic association with some sensation about that वर्ण. शब्द/पद gave composite feelings arising from constituent वर्ण. We are unable to experience that with वर्ण now because we have overused language and lost that ability. But when it comes to music, that intrinsic association between sound and sensation can be experienced. 

Regards

Keyur

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAAs%2BaZP2jz9shnarhW_2DfUgfkuo1xHLNvBV%3DXhxa7%2BfQSeJ8A%40mail.gmail.com.