Why Vyavahare Bhattanayah

[Sachchidanand Mishra]

Dear friends,
I have been wondering for a long time that why the Advaitins accept
the rule "Vyavahare Bhattanayah" व्यवहारे भाट्टनयः। My problem is that
the Advaitins accept three types of सत्ता प्रातिभासिक, व्यावहारिक एवम्
पारमार्थिक। According to the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta, परमार्थतः
there is only one सत्ता, that is Brahman, and if so why then this type
of obstinacy that in व्यवहार they argue for that there they would
accept only भाट्टनय। If in their philosphy there is a clear cut
difference between व्यवहार and परमार्थ, I am not able to understand
that if they accept any other philosophy at the level of व्यवहार there
would be any harm or problem in accepting that. If at the level of
व्यवहार they accept the न्यायनय would there arise any problem?

[Advayananda ~ अद्वयानन्दः]

Dear Sachchidananda Mishraji,

Hari Om

Pramana-prameya-vyayhara comes under the purview of Vyavahara-satta and not paramathka-satta.

The Bhattas and the Advaitans accept all the six pramanas including Anupalabdhi (unlike the Naiyayika and the followers of other schools.) Hence the the pramana-premeya-vyavyahara of the Advaitin follows closely that of the Bhattas. It is because of this reason that it is it is said Vyavahare bhattanayah advaitinah.

I hope this answers your query.

In Shri Guru Smriti,

Swami Advayananda

2009/2/12 Sachchidanand Mishra <sachchi...@gmail.com>

[Krishna K]

On 12 Feb, 12:21, Sachchidanand Mishra <sachchitmis...@gmail.com>
wrote:

An answer to this can be from a historical perspective where no other
school places as much emphasis on Veda as does pUrvamImAmsA. While
advaita differs from the pUrvamImAsa only on the part of veda that
they focus on; and the fundamental support to advaita, if any, should
come from Veda. nyAya, sAmkhya, buddhism etc. give more importance to
logic or their propounder, than to the Veda. This could be why bhATTas
were the closest match. It could also be that bhATTas were considered
stronger opponents of buddhism etc at that time, than was nyAya or
other schools. Hence the orientation towards bhaTTa school.

Regards,
Krishna

[swa...@asianetindia.com]

Quoting Sachchidanand Mishra <sachchi...@gmail.com>:

> Dear friends,

Ayi bhoh,
There is controversy between the Advaitavedantins and the
Naiyayikas, as to whether anumiti should be taken as the effect of the
two cognitions vyaptijnana and paksadharmatajnana or as the effect of
the complex cognition called paramarsa. In fact, the controversy
between the Advaitaved¡ntins and the Naiyayikas was a continuation of
that between the Mimasakas and the Naiyayikas. Of the two schools of
the Mimamsa¡ namely Bhatta and Prabhakara, the Advaitavedantins
followed the former for all practical purposes. Hence originated the
saying among the Advaitavedantins -vyavahare bhattanayah.
Dr.K.Maheswaran Nair
Hon.Director
Centre for Vedanta Studies
University of Kerala
Thiruvananthapuram

[Tirumala Kulakarni]

Dears

On 2/12/09, Sachchidanand Mishra <sachchi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear friends,
I have been wondering for a long time that why the Advaitins accept
the rule "Vyavahare Bhattanayah" व्यवहारे भाट्टनयः।

 

This is the logic, I heard some where, behind this acceptance - every school needs प्रमाणव्यवस्था and प्रमाणव्यवस्था (pramANa & prameya vyavasthaa). Each needs much time to be toughed and to be established. Since Advaita wanted to focus on prameya part it accepted Bhaatta school's view about pramANa. It helped to concentrate on prameya.

 

Dr. Tirumala Kulakarni

Asst. Prof. Alankara Dept.

Poornaprajna Vidyapeetha

Bangalore - 560028

[Sachchidanand Mishra]

Hari Om,

True, you pointed out important thing but my problem is that this rule seems to me very superficial. Let me make it clear, it can't be the basis for the rule in question because Nyaya also accept those pramanas, Pratyaksha is accepted, Anuman is also accepted, in addition to in Nyaya Anuman is three kind of, and on the other hand in Bhatta school anuman is twofold Kevalanvayi and Anvayavyatireki, it does not make any true difference that Naiyayikas call that Kevalavyatireki Anumana, and Bhattas call it Arthapatti. It should also taken into consederation that Advaitins do not accept Kevalanvayi type of inference. It goes against the Nyaya notion and also Bhatta notion. Upamana is used in different sense in Bhatta school knowing the similarity in Gavaya, through Upamana pramana we know the similarity in Go of Gavaya, Naiyayikas would not accept it, they would say that we know it through Anumana. Only one pramana is left Anupalabdhi, what the Advaistins would find the difficulty in acceopting that absence in known through perception but not through Anupalabdhi Pramana. The Nyaya theory of Pramana is wel developed, accepting that I think they would not fall in any trouble.

Varanasi

[Sachchidanand Mishra]

But why not Nyaya प्रमाणव्यवस्था can be useful for this purpose?

Dears

व्यवहार they accept the न्यायनय would there arise any problem? Varanasi

[Sachchidanand Mishra]

Your answer seems somehow half satisfactory, this is true that no other
school places as much emphasis on Veda as does pUrvamImAmsA. But again the problem seems unanswered, because there are other schools to which give emphasis on VedAnta. We know there are many VedAnta school, but not a single has this type of claim व्बवहारे भाट्टनयः.

Varanasi

[Sachchidanand Mishra]

Thanks for the response but my question is not answered yet, what would be the harm of Advaitins if they accept परामर्श in inferencial process? At least all this is व्यवहार, and why should they argue for the व्यवहार, this acceptance of व्यवहार does not make I think any problem about their परमार्थ.

Varanasi

[Tirumala Kulakarni]

Namaskara

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 8:29 AM, Sachchidanand Mishra <sachchi...@gmail.com> wrote:

But why not Nyaya प्रमाणव्यवस्था can be useful for this purpose?

The प्रमाणव्यवस्था of is much vast. It is not just question of numbers, nature, classification. If x school's प्रमाणव्यवस्था matches 70% and y school's 60% then certainly one should goes for previous. For instance both Bahaattas and advaitins accept jnaatataa. So Bhattas come more nearer than any others. This could be the reason. Any way we should explore more minute similarities to astablish this point.

Tirumala Kulakarni

[veeranarayana Pandurangi]

i am afraid to anounce that I heard this half with anothter half
व्यवहारे भाट्टनयः तार्किकस्याथ वा नयः।
it is because advaitins want to establish total advaita and people
like shriharsha and anandabodha in his tarkasangraha (different work
that annambhattaas namesake, baroda publication) make it clear that
there is no pramana in advaita (vedantaparibhasha came too late) hence
they have to accept somebody's pramanas. so do accept either bhatta or
naiyayika to do some vyavahara. paramarthataya there is no pramana at
all. please also look for this sentence where it firts occurs
vnkp

--
Veeranarayana N.K. Pandurangi
Head, Dept of Darshanas,
Yoganandacharya Bhavan,
Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Rajasthan Samskrita University, Madau, post
Bhankrota, Jaipur, 302026.

[Rajendran C]

The Advaitins seem to hold  the view that they have nothing against the epistemological position of the Bhattas with the rider that all this is applicable only to a lower plane of reality.Why Bhatta's?Two reasons: one, the Advaita, which is Uttaramimamsa is organically affiliated to Purvamimamsa.If the Advaitin would affiliate with Nayayikas at the empirical level, , it would create doubt about their Vedic orientation in the mind of diehard 'Vedic'  exegetical theorists.Two, it is the Bhattas among all thel classical systems, barring a few like the pauranikas,  who accept the maximum number of Pramanas.Sankara and his followers would like to project themselves as having an open mind with regard to the possible sources of valid knowledge:The maximum, the better.but, of course, at a lower plane of reality Dr.C.Rajendran www.crajendran.com Professor of Sanskrit University of Calicut Calicut University P.O Kerala 673 635 Phone: 0494-2401144 Residential address:28/1097,Rajadhani Kumaran Nair Road, Chevayur, Calicut Kerala 673 017 Phone: 0495-2354 624 --- On Fri, 2/13/09, veeranarayana Pandurangi <veer...@gmail.com> wrote:

[KV RamaKrishnamacharyulu]

Dear members, I think the openion of Sri Swamy Advayananda on the subject "vyavahare bhattanaya" is more appropriate. K.V.Ramakrishnamacharya Former V.C., JRRS Uni., Jaipur. prof. dept. of Vyakarana, R S Vidyapeetha, Tirupati. A.P. contact nos- 09441864491,09848229970,0877-2238690 --- On Thu, 2/12/09, Advayananda ~ अद्वयानन्दः <advay...@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Advayananda ~ अद्वयानन्दः <advay...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Why Vyavahare Bhattanayah To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com

[piyali palit]

Respected Members, I think, 'Vyavahare Bhattanayah' is in practice because Advaita Vedantins followed the principle of Abhihitanvayavada preached by Kumarila to interpret or justify shabdabodha, specially in case of Mahavakyartha or any other Shrautavakya in favour of abheda-tatparya. Advaita Brahman though remains beyond any sort of pramana, to justify pramanya of those Shrautavakyas remain to be a great task for Advaita Vedantins, for which they accepted 'Bhattanaya' - methods adopted by the Bhattas. Best regards. Piyali Palit Professor, Dept. of Philosophy Jadavpur University --- On Tue, 17/2/09, KV RamaKrishnamacharyulu <kvr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

---

Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Invite them now.

[Sachchidanand Mishra]

Thank you very much for your response but i am unable to digest your answer, the reason is that the theory अभिहितान्वयवाद is not only acceptable to Bhattas but also to Naiyayikas. When Naiyayikas do say that the relation is known through संसर्गमर्यादा it is nothing but the acceptance of अभिहितान्वयवाद in other worlds. It seems to me only a verbal desput between Nyaya and Bhatta school. This could be a matter of question that whether it is logical to accept for a Naiyayyika that the निर्विकल्पक बोध is generated by any sentence as Advaita Vedantins would have to believe, but the same question can be asked to Bhattas, according to their epistemology.

Therefore, this reason does not seem probable. I think there must be any deep link between the concept of Brahman and the acceptance of 'Vyavahare Bhattanayah' .

Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Invite them now. Sachchidanand Mishra
Reader
Department of Philosophy and Religion
Banaras Hindu University
Varanasi

[Dr Madhu Kapoor]

dear scholar Samsarga-maryada and Abhihitanvyavada is not same as claimed. As the name suggests there is a limitation (I prefer to call ethical boundary which is close to the meaning of the word maryada)which is apprehended through Akamksa. (Akamksa-bhasya) Again I have mentioned in my writing that it is a relational seam. Whereas in abhihitanvayavada all the word-meanings are loose and separate which are tied through laksana etc as the case may be.So two are not same . madhu kapoor --- On Thu, 19/2/09, Sachchidanand Mishra <sachchi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[KV RamaKrishnamacharyulu]

Dear Scholars, All the saastrakaaraas accept that the "samsarga" is the meaning of the sentence.How the "samsarga" is captured? In Prabhakaras view that is with "pada shakti", in Bhattas view that is with "lakshana". In this way both accept the "samsarga" as "vrttibhasya". Naiyayikas are not going to accept both the views. they say that it is not vrtti bhasya but "akankshabhasya". Mimamsakas "lakshana"is different than that of naiyayikas. kvrk --- On Thu, 2/19/09, Dr Madhu Kapoor <matt...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

[Dr Madhu Kapoor]

Dear scholar Samsarga is not the meaning of the sentence since sentence is not padartha. The expression gives a wrong signal. The Naiyayikas accept meaning only for the word, that is, pada. Samsarga Maryada is no doubt akamksa bhasya which can be apprehended through the metaphor of thread and flowers in a garland. The thread is not seen yet without its support the garland cannot exist.Flowers are anusyut in thread. regards madhu kapoor

[Sachchidanand Mishra]

I do not have the claim that both are identical but only I am trying to assert that in Abhihitanvayavad first the meaning of words are understood then they are known in relation with each other trough Tatparya Virtti; on the other hand in the theory of Sansargamaryada it is accepted but a little nit of modification that the realtion of Padarthas is not known through Tatpary Vritti but Akanksha which is not a Vritti. 

--

[KV RamaKrishnamacharyulu]

[KV RamaKrishnamacharyulu]

Dear scholar,
Please take note of the quotation from Mahabhasya "yadatraadhikyam sa vaakyaarthah. kosou? visheshanavisheshyabhaavo naama." If we delete the padarthas from the meaning cognaised from a senrense the remaning samsarga is treated as "vaakyaartha". Here vaakyaartha means that,  which is cognaised from a sentense.The question

is wheter it is vrittibhasya or not? Naiyayikas say that it is not vrittibhasya.
regards,
kvrk

---

From: Dr Madhu Kapoor <matt...@yahoo.co.uk>

To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 10:45:35 AM

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

22 02 09 I read with interest the different views expressed on the reason for the Advaitins clinging to Bhaatta epistemology. Emphasis on the samaanatnrtaa of the two Miimaamsaas did not come to my notice as emphasised by the correspondents. But it remains a fact that only these two schools regard the Vedas as apaurusheya, one (Miimaamsaa) as uncreated and eternal and the other as a creation of God.  The other two samaanatantras Nyaaya-Vai;se.sika and Saamkhya-Yoga regarded the Vedas as smriti. This point was elaborately dealt with by Satyavarata Saama;sramin. In the Trayīparicaya he comes to the conclusion that most of the Āstika Darśanas held the Veda to have been a human work (Trayīparicaya pp.73-74). He cites from Yāska in Nirukta 1.21and on the basis of the statement granthaÆ samāmnāsiÀur vedaÆ ca vedā´gāni ca comes to the conclusion siddhaÆ cetthaÆ vedānām āmnātatvam ārÀatvaÆ ca. Sāmaśramin also mentions the traditional explanation of the passage. But he cites other passages from the Nirukta and the Aitareya Brāhma¸a to show that the earlier view regarded the Vedas as human creation. He also cites VaiśeÀika, Nyāya, Sā´khya, and Pātañjala passages to show the same position. My learned colleagues may kindly consider if this could this be the cause? DB

--- On Thu, 12/2/09, Sachchidanand Mishra <sachchi...@gmail.com> wrote:

---

Share files, take polls, and make new friends - all under one roof. Click here.

[veeranarayana Pandurangi]

but even Shankara considers veda as paurusheya. read these lines (BSB1.1.3 ) महतः ऋग्वेदादेः शास्त्रस्यानेकविद्यास्थानोपबृंहितस्य प्रदीपवत्सर्वार्थद्योतिनः सर्वज्ञकल्पस्य योनिः कारणं ब्रह्म। also भामती thereupon तत्र सृष्टिप्रलयमनिच्छन्तो जैमिनीया वेदाध्ययनं प्रत्यस्मादृशगुरुशिष्यपरंपरामविच्छिन्नामनादिमाचक्षते। वैयासिकं तु मतमनुवर्तमाना श्रुतिस्मृतीतिहासादिसिद्धसृष्टिप्रलयानुसारेणानाद्यविद्योपधानलब्धसर्वशक्तिज्ञानस्यापि परमात्मनो नित्यस्य वेदानां योनेरपि न तेषु स्वातन्त्र्यम्, पूर्वपूर्वसर्गानुसारेण तादृशतादृशानुपूर्वीरचनात्......पूर्वपूर्वसर्गानुसारेण वेदान् विरचयन् न स्वतन्त्रः

vnkp

> here.

>

>

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

Yes! And that is why I mentioned "the other(ie ;Saankaraadvaita) as a creation of God." But this does not mean sm.riti. Even the Manusa.mhitaa has this standpoint but it excludes the Veda from the domain of sm.ritis. Here lies the unity of the two Miimaamsaas. DB the

> other as a creation of God.

--- On Sun, 22/2/09, veeranarayana Pandurangi <veer...@gmail.com> wrote:

From: veeranarayana Pandurangi <veer...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Why Vyavahare Bhattanayah To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com

Did you know? You can CHAT without downloading messenger. Click here

[Dr Madhu Kapoor]

Dear scholar Vakyartha is the meaning of the sentence but that is not padartha. The technical meaning of the padartha is referent (jatyaakrtayavyaktastu padaartha). Vakyartha is a fact configured in a way. For example there are table, chair,almirah and phone in a room . I can arrange them as I wish. So table chair etc are referent (padartha) whereas the phone is on the table or phone is in the almirah are two  different facts(may be vaakyaartha). regards madhu kapoor

[veeranarayana Pandurangi]

but they dont hold it apaurusheya. clearly it is ईश्वरकृत. it is same with Nyaya. both of them dont think veda as smrti. but that does not bar them from holding it as paurusheya. this point does not make advaitins to cling to bhattanaya.

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

But as maintained by Saama;sramin whom I mentioned, the two other samaanatantras (SY,NV) regard the Veda as human creation. Interpreted without prejudice Yaaska's utterance(1.20)   bilmagraha.naayema.m  grantha.m  samaamnaasi.ur  veda.m  ca vedaangaani  ca has this standpoint that is to say that the vedas and vedaangas are compilations by saak.saatk.rtadharman sages.. So Sama;sramin's interpretation of the NV, SY point of view seems acceptable to me. This is not the position of ;Sankara, not to speak of Karmamiimaa.msaa.

[sridhar subbanna]

Dear Scholars,
I had thought about this some time back and my imagination goes like this.
In the process of revolution, what would be the reason for accepting Advaita ? Answer would be that, during that time when Mimamsakas and Buddhists were trying to establish their positions. Mimasakasas seemed to be right from the day to day activities and following the tradition and vedic culture but rejected the thinking beyond the swarga etc. Buddhists seemed to be right looking beyond this mundane samsara but rejected the vedic tradition. Synthesis happened in Advaita. Advaita took best of both. At paramarthika level accepted most of the buddhist thinking and tried to prove using the Vedas (Aranyakas,Updanishads). Concept of Brahman in Advaita and Shoonya in Buddhism looks very similar (Both can only be experienced and cannot be described in words) . At the vyavahara level accepted the bhatta mimamsakas who are more into the vedic culture and tradition compared to the nyaya (mainly into logical thinking). It was easy for people to digest this than to come out of tradition to accept something new or reject the new thinking that was gaining popularity totally.
Hence "व्यवहारे भाट्टनयः".

We are seeing another such situation now. Science becoming popular and we are trying to map the traditional knowledge or shastras in scientific terms.

Please pardon me if I have wasted your time. Eager to know the fallacies in this thinking.

Regards
Sridhar S.

[Veeranarayana Pandurangi]

dear all recently I came to find this sentence in चित्सुखी. I think position is clear as earlier proposed by prof. piyali palit.

 

तस्मादभिहितान्वयवाद एव श्रेयानिति केचिदाचार्याः। न चैवमपसिद्धान्तः, भाष्यकारसंमतत्वात्। तथा च समन्वयसूत्रे वेदान्तवाक्यानि प्रस्तुत्य भाष्यकारः प्रतिपादयति स्म "न च तद्गतानां पदार्थानां ब्रह्मस्वरूपविषये निश्चिते समन्वयेवगम्यमाने अर्थान्तरकल्पना युक्ता, श्रुतहान्यश्रुतकल्पनाप्रसङ्गात्"। तत्र च पदार्थानामन्योन्यान्वयप्रत्यायकता प्रतीयते, मण्डनमिश्रादिभिरप्यङ्गीकृतत्वात् (quotation of brhmasiddhi) व्यवहारे भट्टनय इत्यङ्गीकारात्। भट्टपादैश्च वाक्यार्थस्य सर्वत्र लाक्षणिकत्वस्वीकारात् "वाक्यार्थो लक्ष्यमाणो हि सर्वत्रैवेति नः स्थितिः" इति। चित्सुखी प्रथमपरिच्छेदे अभिहितान्वयप्रसङ्गे पृ.404 हनुमानदासजीपुस्तके

>> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~

>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

>> "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

>>  To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com

>>  To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

>> bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com

>>  For more options, visit this group at

>> http://groups.google.co.in/group/bvparishat?hl=en-GB

>>

>> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[subrahmanyam korada]

namo vidvadbhyah

In MImAmsA there are  two sides chiefly -  BhAtta and PrAbhAkara .

The main differences are as follows --

1. Anupalabdhi - BhAttas accept  Anupalabdhi as the cause of  AbhAvapratyaksa , PrAbhAkaras wo'nt .

2. AbhAva - it is AdhikaranAtmaka according to PrAbhAkaras , BhAttas do not agree to this .
    In other Darsanas  the sentence - abhAvah adhikaranAtmakah iti mImAmsakamatam  - is seen and the same is applicable to PrAbhAkaras but not BhAttas .

3. AkhyAti and AnyathAkhyAti : PrAbhAkaras follow  AkhyAti - they do not accept suktirajatajnAna as 'bhrama' . All the jnAnas are Pramas - they argue .
In the case of ' idam rajatam' - idamAkArajnAnam is pratyaksAtmakam . RajatAkArajnAnam smaranAtmakam .
Generally , the smrtijnAnamis grhItagrahanAtmakam , but here due to 'dosa' (deect) the grhItattvAmsa is left behind and there is only grahanAtmaka .
Since the drastA does not know  that there is no relation between suktika and rajata , being a rajatArthI , he would have pravrtti in suktika .

BhAttas take it as  'anyathAkhyAti' , also called ' viparItakhyAti'  - in the case of suktirajata , the jnAnam ' idam rajatam' - is AnyathAkhyAti and simply ' vivekAgrahanam' cannot be called 'bhrAnti'

See SAnkarabhAsyam on  'athAto dharmajijnAsA' - Aha ko'yamadhyAso nAmeti ? ucyate -paratra pUrvadrstAvabhAsah , tam kecit danyatra anyadharmAdhyAsa iti vadanti , kecittu yatra yadadhyAsah tadvivekAgrahanibandhanahbhramah iti , anye tu ... sarvathApi tvanyasya anyadharmAvabhAsatAm na vyabhicarati , tathA ca loke'nubhavah - suktikA hi rajatavadavabhAsate iti ekascndrah sadvitIyavaditi (AdhyAsabhAsyam) .

It is generally said that Advaitins acept ' AnirvacanIyakhyAti ' - this is not said by Sankara but by latter commentators .

In 'siddhAnta' it is 'Brahman' but in 'VyavahAra' it is BhAttanayah , na tu PrAbhAkaranayah
navA NyAyanayah, nvA Vaisesikanayah etc.

After all VedAntins can have their own 'naya', if they want but they followed Bhatta , why ? because it is logical and widely accepted .

Joke - PrabhAkara takes up UpanisadvAkyas  also for analysis , KumArila does not .

dhanyo'smi

2010/9/23 Veeranarayana Pandurangi <veer...@gmail.com>

 

--
अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि।
ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवाप्स्यसि।।
तस्मादुत्तिष्ठ कौन्तेय युद्धाय कृतनिश्चयः।
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)

--
Prof.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit,
CALTS,
University of Hyderabad 500046
Ph:09866110741(R),91-40-23010741,040-23133660(O)

[Sachchidanand Mishra]

Dear Pandurangeeji,

My question is at the same place. I had seen the reference you provide now. My point is there should be any deep connection between Advaitic metaphysics and व्यवहारे भाट्टनयः. As Prof. Subrahmanyam Korada has shown there are a few points where we can see very clearly that Advaitins accept the Prabhakar view not the Bhatta view. For example AbhAva is AdhikaranAtmaka according to PrAbhAkaras but BhAttas do not agree to this. And here Advaitins take the side of Prabhakaras.

One point I would like to suggest in relation with the mail of Prof.Subrahmanyam Koradaji that the Bhattas do not accept Anupalabdhi as the cause of AbhAvapratyaksa but only cause of Abhavajnana. This is the position of Adviatins they do accept Anupalabdhi as the cause of Abhavapratyaksa.

Thanks for remembering my question

2010/9/23 Veeranarayana Pandurangi <veer...@gmail.com>

--
अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि।
ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवाप्स्यसि।।
तस्मादुत्तिष्ठ कौन्तेय युद्धाय कृतनिश्चयः।
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)

--
Sachchidanand Mishra
*************************
Associate Professor

Department of Philosophy and Religion
Banaras Hindu University
Varanasi

Mobile--09450823808
<http://sites.google.com/site/awebsiteonnavyanyaya/>

[subrahmanyam korada]

namo vidvadbhyah

I am thankful to Dr Misra for raising the point - Bhattas  do not accept  Anupalabdhi as the cause
of AbhAvapratyaksa but that of AbhAvajnAna . The statement is taken from the book ' AndhramImAmsAdarsanam' of an erudite scholar sri MallAvajjhala VenkatasubbarAmasAstri . Anyway I will check with the original works .

What I understand  (the meaning of ' vyavahAre bhAttanayah' from CitsukhI) is that there are instances accross  BhAmatIprasthAnam , Vivaranam, SamksepasArIrakam, Advaitasiddhi, Kalpataruparimala etc .

The fact is that right from ' athAto brahmajijnAsA' down to 'satyam jnAnamanantam brahma',AdvaitavedAtins follow BhAttamatam only . BrahmAnandasarasvatI quotes and follows 'CitsukhI'.

Hereunder I produce a few quotations --

1. Advaitasiddhih --

BhAttas accept LaksanA in VAkyArtha  (SlokavArtikam - VAkyAdhikaranam) -

na vimuncanti sAmarthyam vAkyArthe'pi padAni nah I
vAkyArtho laksyamAno hi sarvatraiveti nah sthitih II
vAcyasyArthasya vAkyArthe sambandhAnupapattitah I
tatsambandhavasaqprAptasyAnvayAllaksanocyate II

MadhusUdanasarasvatI in his Advaitasiddhi ( Part II - AkhandArthanirUpanam ) says the folloing -

taccakhandArtham dvividham , ekam padArthanistham aparam vAkyArthanistham ....
tatra satyam jnAnamanantamityAdi tatpadArthanistham ... , vAkyArthanisthamapi vaidikam tattvamasyAdivAkyam ..
nanu pravrttinimittabhede aparyAyatvam sa ca anantAdipadesu na sambhavati , suddhabrahmamAtranisthatvAt , ato vedAntesu laksAnAvyAptiriti cenna , pravrttinimittabhedam svIkrtyaiva laksanayA anantAdipadAnAm  suddhabrahmaparatvasya vaksyamAnatvAt . na ca suddhe sambandhAbhAvAnna laksanApIti vAcyam , atAttvikasambandhenaiva laksanopapatteh,bhramapratItarajatattvena sambandhena suktau rajatapadalaksanAvat , suddhasyaiva sarvakalpanAspadattvena sudddhe na kalpitasambandhAnupapattih , yathA cAnantAdipadAnAm lAksanikatve'pi brahmani nAntavattvAdiprasangah tathA vaksyate .

visesanavibhakteh sAdhutvArthakatvam ityasambaddham, abhedArthakatvasya naiyAyikaih pratyekamanvayasya ca mImAmsakaih arunAdhikaranasiddhasya ca abhyupagamAt . evamanyadapi vAkyalaksanpdAharanam anusandheyam , gaccha gacchasi cet kAntetyAdi visam bhunksvetyAdi ca .... tathA ca samudAye laksanA .

... tathA ca padArthatAtparyAnvayAnupapattibhyAm laksanA pade vAkyArthe taddvayanupapattyA  laksanA vAkye .vAkyArthAnvayAnupapattyanibandhanatvam  ca laksAyAh padavrttittvasAdhane upAdhirityavadheyam .

evam  ca brahmajijnAsApadena vicAro laksyate iti vivaranakAroktam,
yajnAyudhapadena yajamAno laksyate iti samksepasArIrakoktam ca
vAkyalaksanopapannam ... evam vAyurvai ksepisthA devatA ityAdau arthavAde'pi prAsastyapratipattaye vAkye eva laksanA angIkAryA.

lAksanikamapi kvacicchaktameva , bhattAcAryaih vAkyArthasya sarvapadalaksyatvAbhyupagamAcca ...
sarvapadalAksanikatve'pi na vedAntavAkyAnAm anvayAnubhAvakatvAnupapattih , syAdetat , abhihitAnvayavAde mA bhUd anupapattih , anvitAbhidhAne tu bhavati
tathA ca satyAdipadAnAm sarvesAmapi lAksanikatve kathamanvayA-nubhavopapattiriti cet naisa dosah .

Bauddhamatakhandanam (slokavArtikam) etc  can alsobe taken in support .

granthavistarabhItyA viramyate .

dhanyo'smi

2010/9/25 Sachchidanand Mishra <sachchi...@gmail.com>

--

[Veeranarayana Pandurangi]

thanks for both profss Koradaji and mishraji.

point is

Vyayahara means not the opposite of paramartha. But वाग्व्यवहार, विवाद, dealing with others. this is meant in all the vyavahars found in dharmashastras, ayurveda etc. That means advaitins follow bhattas only in dealing with others. because advaitins dont accept any pramana (as illustrated in चित्सुखी and खण्डनखण्डनखण्डखाद्य), but they need these pramanas to deal with others for refuting or supporting their own positions.

 so for this Vyayahara, advaitins use bhatta's pramanas. व्यवहारे भाट्टनयः does not refer to ontology. it does not make any difference in व्यवहार even if  AbhAva is AdhikaranAtmaka according to PrAbhAkaras but not for BhAttas And here Advaitins take the side of Prabhakaras.
that is ontology and not व्यवहार. I hope this makes sense.

 

2010/10/2 subrahmanyam korada <kora...@gmail.com>

[Dr ramanath]

व्यवहारे तु भाट्टाः - This is the quite interesting and important
issue, so far I have seen in this forum, in the context of Indian
philosophy. I have some ideas on the subject under discussion which I
want to share with all.
Here, the actual problem is related to the nature of the objects of
our empirical knowledge. Have they really exist in the present or
external world, or have they only ideated character or merely images
of our knowledge?

Vyayahara- We find several meaning of this term in Sanskrit but in the
present context it implies in following sense:
१. यथा व्यवहरन्ति जना इत्यादॊ।२.बुबोधयिषापूर्वकवाक्यप्रयोगः। यथा
सर्वव्यवहारहेतुर्ज्ञानं बुद्धिः इत्यादॊ व्यवहारः(वाक्यवृत्तिः१,
तर्कप्रकाशः४, पृ०१३३)। ३.तद्रूपावच्छिन्नबोधकशब्दः। यथा अयं गॊः इति
शब्दः। अत्रायं कार्यकारणभावो बोध्यः व्यवहारे व्यवहर्तव्यज्ञानं हेतुः
(नीलकण्ठी-१ पृ०५, तर्कप्रकाशः शितिकण्ठी)। प्रभाकरा: तु व्यवहारे
व्यवहर्तव्यतावच्छेदकासंसर्गाग्रह एव कारणम् न तु
व्यवहर्तव्यतावच्छेदकप्रकारकं ज्ञानं कारणम् इत्याहुः(तर्कप्रकाशः४,
पृ०१३३)। तेन शुक्तॊ इदं रजतम् इति व्यवहार उपपद्यते इति ज्ञेयम्
(न्यायकोशः)।

Thus, In the present context the term Vyayahara indicates the worldly
activities or experiences, dharma or karman (or Vedic Ritual).
According to KumaArila the karman is the basic cause for the
attainment of our main object. In the same way AdvaitavAdin aver that
without being qualified ( an adhikAri- adhikAri tu vidhivat
vedavdangatvena....etc VedAntasAra-SadAnanda), we cannot get our real
object i.e. brahman (self). yuktAttmAnam - you should be qualified,
then only the knowledge may be obtain. He is the one who is clear
minded, and in possession of his faculties, yuktah AtmA antahkaraNam
yasya, the one whose mind is pure and worthy. BGita 7 -18. This is why
because without experiencing of the worldly affairs we cannot know the
right or wrong. So the purification of mind (cittasuddhi) is necessary
before further proceeding.

In this regard भाट्टाः - MImAmsaka's (कुमारिलतुतातभट्ट: मीमांसकः तस्य
अनुयायिनः भाट्टाः) theory is clear cut, they states that कर्मैव
वेदमुख्यतात्पर्यम्, तेषां मते तु कर्मैवेश्वरः।स्वर्गादिकमेव पुरुषार्थः।
अर्थवादो प्रमाणम् नास्ति। यथा सिद्धान्तचन्द्रोदये(१ पृ०११) यथा भूपालः
परिचारकृतकर्मणः फलदाता तथा वेदोक्तकृत कर्मणः फलदातेश्वर एव इति
समूचिरे। तदन्यश्चेतनरूपो ईश्वर: भगवान् वा नास्ति। In MimAMsakas,
there are two main groups 1.PrabhAkara, and 2. BhATTaas.
1. PrabhAkara's theory of knowledge is quite different than BATTas -
प्रभाकरा: तु व्यवहारे व्यवहर्तव्यतावच्छेदकासंसर्गाग्रह एवकारणम् न तु
व्यवहर्तव्यतावच्छेदकप्रकारकं ज्ञानं कारणम् इत्याहुः (तर्कप्रकाशः ४,
पृ०१३३)। तेन शुक्तॊ इदं रजतम् इति व्यवहार उपपद्यते इति ज्ञेयम्
(न्यायकोशः)।
Prabhakaras theory is called as tripartite perception (tripuTI-
pratyak). According to him there are three factors- i. that of the
object, ii. that of knowledge itself which must be held to be self-
luminous, and iii. that of the knower. He has been called by
Stcherbatsky as a ' bastered son of Buddhism' ('The Philosophy of
NyAya-VaseShika and its conflict with the Buddhist Dignaga School',
D.N.Shastri, p.373),

On the other hand, KumArila hesitates even accepting two factors in a
perception such as, i. perception of the object and that of its
knowledge. NyAya system hesitates in accepting the simultaneous
perception of the two i.e. the object and its knowledge by the same
act of perception. Prabhakara strongly recommends that there are three
factors in perception, which are revealed simultaneously by the same
act of perception (for detail discussion please see D.N Shastri) .

Furthermore, according to Nyaiyayikas, the main object is ISvara, but
they also think that the padArthAs or logical categories are real
entities. Thus they think that pramAnas are absolutely valid and
provide us real knowledge of the object regardless to VyAvahArika or
PAramArhika truth. On the other hand AdvaitavAdin as well as
MIMansakas(BhaTTas) think that padArthAs have only a relative
existence vyAvahArika satya. For them we cannot know the absolute
through means of valid knowledge "naiva vAcA naiva ManasA JnyAtum
Sakyo na cakShuShA". वाचस्पत्यम्- कर्मकाण्डोपयोगस्तु ज्ञानयोगेन
संख्यानां कर्मयोगेण योगिनाम् इति भगवद्गीतया तमेतं वेदानुवचनेन ब्रह्मणा
विविदिषन्ति यज्ञेन तपसा अनाशकेन इति श्रुत्या च कर्मणां
विविदिषाहेतुत्वोक्तेः विविदिषायामेव कर्मकाण्डप्रतिपाद्यकर्मण उपयोगः
इति केचिद्वदन्ति।
In this regard VijnyanavAdin Buddhist, SAmkhya and even advaitavAdin
have similar concept about the absolute -गुणानां परमं रूपं न
दृष्टिपथम् ऋच्छति, यत् तु दृष्टिपथं प्राप्तं तन्मायेव सुतुच्छकम्॥
सांख्यप्रवचनसार, this verse has quoted by Dingnaga in his
Pramanasamuccaya in fifth chapter - Apoha prakaraNa.

In the light of above contentions it is clear that why
AdvaitavedAntin state that व्यवहारे तु भाट्टाः, na to vyavahAre
PrabhAkaraH or NaiyAyikaH or MIMamsakAH etc.|

On Sep 24, 5:43 pm, Sachchidanand Mishra <sachchitmis...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear Pandurangeeji,
> My question is at the same place. I had seen the reference you provide now.
> My point is there should be any deep connection between Advaitic metaphysics
> and व्यवहारे भाट्टनयः. As Prof. Subrahmanyam Korada has shown there are a
> few points where we can see very clearly that Advaitins accept the Prabhakar
> view not the Bhatta view. For example AbhAva is AdhikaranAtmaka according to
> PrAbhAkaras but BhAttas do not agree to this. And here Advaitins take the
> side of Prabhakaras.
> One point I would like to suggest in relation with the mail of
> Prof.Subrahmanyam Koradaji that the Bhattas do not accept Anupalabdhi as the
> cause of AbhAvapratyaksa but only cause of Abhavajnana. This is the position
> of Adviatins they do accept Anupalabdhi as the cause of Abhavapratyaksa.
> Thanks for remembering my question
>

> 2010/9/23 Veeranarayana Pandurangi <veera...@gmail.com>

>
>
>
> > dear all recently I came to find this sentence in चित्सुखी. I think
> > position is clear as earlier proposed by prof. piyali palit.
>
> > तस्मादभिहितान्वयवाद एव श्रेयानिति केचिदाचार्याः। न चैवमपसिद्धान्तः,
> > भाष्यकारसंमतत्वात्। तथा च समन्वयसूत्रे वेदान्तवाक्यानि प्रस्तुत्य भाष्यकारः
> > प्रतिपादयति स्म "न च तद्गतानां पदार्थानां ब्रह्मस्वरूपविषये निश्चिते
> > समन्वयेवगम्यमाने अर्थान्तरकल्पना युक्ता, श्रुतहान्यश्रुतकल्पनाप्रसङ्गात्"।
> > तत्र च पदार्थानामन्योन्यान्वयप्रत्यायकता प्रतीयते,

> > मण्डनमिश्रादिभिरप्यङ्गीकृतत्वात् (quotation of brhmasiddhi) *व्यवहारे

> > भट्टनय इत्यङ्गीकारात्। भट्टपादैश्च वाक्यार्थस्य सर्वत्र

> > लाक्षणिकत्वस्वीकारात्* "वाक्यार्थो लक्ष्यमाणो हि सर्वत्रैवेति नः स्थितिः"

> > इति। चित्सुखी प्रथमपरिच्छेदे अभिहितान्वयप्रसङ्गे पृ.404 हनुमानदासजीपुस्तके
>
> > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Sachchidanand Mishra <
> > sachchitmis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Thank you very much for your response but i am unable to digest your
> > answer,
> > > the reason is that the theory अभिहितान्वयवाद is not only acceptable to
> > > Bhattas but also to Naiyayikas. When Naiyayikas do say that the relation
> > is
> > > known through संसर्गमर्यादा it is nothing but the acceptance of
> > > अभिहितान्वयवाद in other worlds. It seems to me only a verbal desput
> > between
> > > Nyaya and Bhatta school. This could be a matter of question that whether
> > it
> > > is logical to accept for a Naiyayyika that the निर्विकल्पक बोध is
> > generated
> > > by any sentence as Advaita Vedantins would have to believe, but the same
> > > question can be asked to Bhattas, according to their epistemology.
> > > Therefore, this reason does not seem probable. I think there must be any
> > > deep link between the concept of Brahman and the acceptance of 'Vyavahare
> > > Bhattanayah' .
>

> > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 7:40 PM, piyali palit <piyali...@yahoo.co.in>

> > >> --- On Thu, 2/12/09, Advayananda ~ अद्वयानन्दः <advayana...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:

>
> > >> From: Advayananda ~ अद्वयानन्दः <advayana...@gmail.com>
> > >> Subject: Re: Why Vyavahare Bhattanayah
> > >> To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
> > >> Date: Thursday, February 12, 2009, 12:08 AM
>
> > >> Dear Sachchidananda Mishraji,
> > >> Hari Om
> > >> Pramana-prameya-vyayhara comes under the purview of Vyavahara-satta and
> > >> not paramathka-satta.
> > >> The Bhattas and the Advaitans accept all the six pramanas including
> > >> Anupalabdhi (unlike the Naiyayika and the followers of other schools.)
> > Hence
> > >> the the pramana-premeya-vyavyahara of the Advaitin follows closely that
> > of
> > >> the Bhattas. It is because of this reason that it is it is said
> > Vyavahare
> > >> bhattanayah advaitinah.
> > >> I hope this answers your query.
> > >> In Shri Guru Smriti,
> > >> Swami Advayananda

> > >> 2009/2/12 Sachchidanand Mishra <sachchitmis...@gmail.com>

> > >> bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com<bvparishat%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>