Language debate between Mimamsakas and Vaiyakaranikas

[Ashay Naik]

गुरूभ्यो नमः।

I would like to know more about the differences between the theories of language formulated by the Mimamsakas and Vaiyakaranikas.

Could someone please guide me to relevant sources?

धन्यवादः।

आशय नाईक

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Could you please give the precise context and what exactly you are looking at, So that scholars will give you the right answer.

Regards

Ajit Gargeshwari

--
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 post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

There are many sources available on the net. For examplethis

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Ajit Gargeshwari <ajit.gar...@gmail.com> wrote:

Could you please give the precise context and what exactly you are looking at, So that scholars will give you the right answer.

Regards

Ajit Gargeshwari

 

From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com [mailto:bvparishat@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ashay Naik
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 3:30 PM
To: भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Language debate between Mimamsakas and Vaiyakaranikas

 

गुरूभ्यो नमः।

 

I would like to know more about the differences between the theories of language formulated by the Mimamsakas and Vaiyakaranikas.

 

Could someone please guide me to relevant sources?

 

धन्यवादः।

 

आशय नाईक

 

 

 

 

 

 

--
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

 

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )

 

 

 

[krishnaprasad g]

Shabda bodha mimansa by Ramanuja Tatacharya RSS New Delhi 4 Vols

[भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्]

Hello Sir,

Go through this link, (http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2015-December/039829.html) in the top click 'Next message' it will answer your questions.

Hari Om

Jaya Prakash

[Veeranarayana Pandurangi]

dear jayaprakash, pl. change your email id, other wise it will be difficult for us to differentiate a mail from jayap...@example.com from bvparishat name. 

--
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Veeranarayana N.K. Pandurangi
Director of Academics
Dean, Faculty of Vedantas

Karnakata Samskrita University, 

Pampa Mahakavi Road,
Chamarajpet, Bengaluru.

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

http://www.ksu.ac.in

http://www.ksu.ac.in/en/dr-veeranarayana-n-k-pandurangi/
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups#!forum/bvparishat

[Sivasenani Nori]

Sri Naik

Pranam.

This is a very rich topic indeed. Three schools - Vedanta, Vyakarana and Mimamsa - and maybe Nirukta [1], believe that Sabda is nitya, whereas others believe that it is not so. The Sabdanityavadins also believe that the relation between Sabda and Artha is nitya. By the word "Sabda", all the Sabdanityavadins refer to an entity other than what is called as "sound" in English. Leaving the Vedantins aside for a while, while Mimamsakas believe that this other entity, which is the meaning-bearing one, is वर्णानुपूर्वी, Vaiyakaranas believe that it is Sphota. Herein lies the difference in their theories of language. 

While Vaiyakaranas believe that this world emanates from Sabda, Mimamsakas admit no beginning for the seen world (न कदाप्यनीदृशं जगत्). Now since SabdArthasambandha is nitya, artha also has to be nitya. Normally when we say "pot", the artha corresponding to pot-Sabda is the earthen vessel with a narrow neck etc. How can this be nitya? So, for Vaiyakaranas, artha is BauddhArtha - the mental concept of pot, whereas for Mimamsakas, it is the pot-ness, the jAti of pots, which has a pot-individual as a resort. jAti is nitya in the view of Mimamsakas; Vaiyakaranas also accept jAti, but as a phenomenal (vyAvahArika) reality; however, in the ultimate view they hold that Dravya (=Brahman) alone is real.

In this way, there is a clash at every level between the Realistic Mimamsakas and the Idealistic Vaiyakaranas. Indian literature is full of these views. At a primary level, Mahabhashya, Vakyapadiya and Slokavartika are the primary texts. Then the texts of Navyavyakarana and Navyanyaya treat this topic in great detail. Alankara Sastra heavily draws from both schools (and Nyaya). Mammata while discussing artha says जात्यादिर्जातिरेव वा। The first option follows Mahabhashya - चतुष्टयी शब्दानां प्रवृत्तिः, the second options follows the views of Mimamsakas. This gets interesting when it comes to Lakshana. 

When it comes to meaning of sentence, within Mimamsa, there are two schools which give primacy to word-meaning and the sentence-meaning. In Vakyapadiya, Bhartrhari discusses both, but establishes pratibhA as the meaning of sentence.

In the case of pratyayas, it would not be incorrect to say that Kumarila discusses many pratyayas like kRtvasuc in far greater detail than most books on grammar. My teacher, Br. Ve. Prof. Korada Subrahmanyam garu, therefore says that Vayakaranam cannot be taught without Mimamsa.

Then we have the difference in SAbdabodha, with Vaiyakaranas giving importance to dhAtu and Mimamsakas to the pratyaya (though both finally give primacy to Verb, unlike Nyaya).

My apologies, if most of the above is well known to you. My intent was to show that this is a vast topic. If you give the context of your JijnAsA, and the specific areas of interest, the acclaimed scholars of this Parishat would be able to give the desired pointers.

In this particular topic, it would not be an exaggeration to say that BVP has some of the best scholars in the field in the entire world.

If you elaborate this topic, many interested people like yours truly would also benefit.

Regards

N. Siva Senani

[Jaya Prakash]

Hello Veeranarayana Sir,

Kindly remove my this mail id jayaprak...@gmail.com and add this new mail id ujayap...@gmail.com. Sorry for the inconvenience caused by mail id.

Hari OM.

Jaya Prakash 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/x5hHdNAr_xU/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Hello

 

 

Thank you & warm regards

U.N. Jaya Prakash Narayan Maiya,

IT Infrastructure Admin, IBM India Prv. Ltd,

Bangalore 560079.

Ph:8105879200

Mail: jayaprak...@gmail.com

[Ashay Naik]

Thank you Sirs for your replies.

My apologies for not supplying the context for my query in the previous post. Here it is.

I am trying to understand the ways in which Vyakarana and Mimamsa theories of language have influenced the disputes surrounding dhvani in kavya-sastra.

Those who proposed the dhvani theory i.e. the view that kavya produces its rasa by means of dhvani, appear to have based it on the sphota theory of the vaiyakaranikas. The brahma-asvada entailed in the experience of rasa can also be related to sabda-brahman of the vaiyakaranikas. (I suppose the Vaiyakaranikas themselves might not support such an interpretation of their ideas but that is a separate issue.)

On the other hand, those who opposed the dhvani theory such as Bhatta Nayaka and Mahimabhatta were adherents of Mimamsa. I think Bhatta Nayaka explained rasa as arising from a three-fold process (abhidha - bhavakatva - bhoga) because the vyanjana-shakti of the word as suggested by the dhvani theorists could not be accommodated in Mimamsa theory of language, which only acknowledges abhidha-sakti (as far as I know).

It appears to me that this whole dispute regarding dhvani in kavya has to do with the contradictions between Vyakarana and Mimamsa theories of language.

This is what I would like to confirm.

Regards

आशय नाईक

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On 24-Aug-2016 12:36 pm, "Jaya Prakash" <jayaprak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Veeranarayana Sir,
>
> Kindly remove my this mail id jayaprak...@gmail.com and add this new mail id ujayap...@gmail.com. Sorry for the inconvenience caused by mail id.
>

It is not your email ID that caused the problem in the first mail.

But it appeared as

 Ashay Naik your name.

Now with this old email ID

your name will be  be Jayaprakash Mayya.

Now ujayapramaiya your name will be something like mayya.

In the first post your mail ID, it aappeared as from bvp group to bvp group, sender and the receiver the same.

This the problem raised by Veeranarayana

[Jaya Prakash]

Ok fine then ujayapramaiya i don't want access for the group keep only for jayaprakashmaiya id only.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/x5hHdNAr_xU/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Sundareswaran N.K]

Yes. It is a vast subject. Mimamsaka-s Vaiyakarana-s and Naiyayika-s have put forth different theories regarding verbal cognition. Vedantins have also propounded different theories with regard to verbal cognition and hermenuetics. So also Buddhist philosophers. Besides,  Alankara shastrakara-s like Mukulabhatta and Mahimabhatta have enunciated original ideas and concepts (the latter drawing heavily from Bhartrhari, Kumarila Bhatta and Buddhist logicians). There are many scholars in BVP who can explain and elucidate the technicalities and nuances.

May I too suggest some books:

Indian theories of Meaning by K. Kunjunni Raja

Shabdatarangini by Veppattur Subrahmanya Sastri

The word and the world by B. K. Matilal.

We, the Department of Sanskrit, have brought out a small work on the topic:

Indian Theories of Verbal Comprehension and Hermeneutics, Calicut University Sanskrit Series No. 41.

(Collection of articles - Bilingual - English and Sanskrit).

Those who are interested, may please visit

  https://www.academia.edu/25032318/%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%B2%E0%A4%99_%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B8_%E0%A4%A4_%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%87_%E0%A4%B2%E0%A4%95_%E0%A4%B7%E0%A4%A3%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B5_%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%83 

for my article अलङ्कारशास्त्रे लक्षणाव्यापारः

nks

--

N. K. Sundareswaran,

Department of Sanskrit,

University of Calicut,

Kerala - 673635

INDIA

https://universityofcalicut.academia.edu/SundareswaranNK

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Now that we know your context, we can participate, more meaningfully.

Prof. Sheldon Pollock's write-up on Bhatta Nayaka's Rasa theory is available here

Discussion on this is available here

[Nagaraj Paturi]

For the benefit of those who were not able to access the page where Dr Sunthar Visuvalingam compiled responses of his own and others to Prof. Sheldon Pollock's paper on Bhatta Nayaka, I am sharing the pdf version of the same.

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

 in which Vyakarana and Mimamsa theories of language have influenced the disputes surrounding dhvani in kavya-sastra.

                                            --- Vidvan Ashay Naik

First try to understand the chronological order of the nomenclature --

शब्दार्थ or शक्ति is the term that is used before the term अभिधा came into existence .

लक्षणा has got its roots in महाभाष्यम् (पुंयोगादाख्यायाम् पा ) and the न्यायसूत्रम् - सहचरणस्थान ... (2-2-63) with the same examples .

The term गौण / गौणी (लक्षणा) has got its roots in the पूर्वमीमांसासूत्रम् - "गुणवादस्तु" and महाभाष्यम् ( गौणमुख्ययोः मुख्ये कार्यसंप्रत्ययः) ।

The term व्यञ्जना , I rather think , is first seen in आलङ्कारिकग्रन्थs and entered the works of व्यकरणम् and न्याय । 

So प्राचीनवैयाकरणs did not discuss ध्वनि / व्यङ्ग्यार्थ  but discussed स्फोट , which is the base of ध्वनिसिद्धान्त ।

नवीनवैयाकरणs , such as Nagesa discussed व्यञ्जना (लघुमञ्जूषा) and accepted as a वृत्ति ।

So far as the मीमांसकs are concerned they have many restrictions as they have to deal chiefly with वेदवाक्यs |

न विधौ परः शब्दार्थः - in a विधिवाक्य , लक्षणा should not be applied .

लक्षणा is applied in the case of अर्थवादवाक्यs | Jaimini calls the relation between विधिवाक्य and अर्थवादवाक्य as शेषशेषिभाव ।

Kumarila declares - सर्वत्रैव हि वाक्यार्थः लक्ष्य  एवेति नः स्थितिः ।

Prabhakara (गुरुः) says -although we accept व्यङ्ग्यार्थ , it is nothing but अभिधैव इषोरिव दीर्घदीर्घतरः व्यापारः ।

Since  मीमांसकs joined the  band of anti-स्फोट , one cannot expect any support to ध्वनि from them .

One should keep in mind that it is the मीमांसकs who analysed a महावाक्यम् and 

both the terms - महावाक्यम् and महाकाव्यम् are synonyms .

The analysis of  मीमांसकs of a महावाक्यम् is really helpful in a number of ways , especially in projecting महावाक्यध्वनि ।

In तंत्रवार्तिकम् , Kumarila clearly says - एवं भारतादिवाक्यानि व्याख्येयानि ।

Here , the term वाक्यम् is used in the sense of महावाक्यम् , just like in other शास्त्रs . the term महावाक्यम् is popular in the four महावाक्यs  - तत्त्वमसि etc.

Similarly , in the interpretation of some अलङ्कारs also the मीमांसान्यायs are very useful ( पर्युदासः - प्रसज्यप्रतिषेधः  etc) .

धन्यो’स्मि

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

Skype Id: Subrahmanyam Korada

Blog: Koradeeyam.blogspot.in 

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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

I realized that pdf I shared had potions quoted from Prof. Sheldon Pollock's paper and responses to it were all placed mixed in the documented. I now isolated only the responses part for convenience. 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

I have been waiting for the response of Vidwan Sri Ashay Naik to the material focussed on his specific interest in the Rasa theories of  Bhattanayaka and Abhinavagupta.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Response of Dr Sunthar Visuvalingam to the Bhattanayaka paper of Prof. Sheldon Pollock is based , among other things , on the following two important aspects:

1. Attempt to pit Bhatta Nayaka against Abhinavagupta

2. Calling Abhinavagupta the ungrateful disciple of Bhattanayaka.

Such problems with the western researchers on Indian intellectual tradition are rooted in their inability to appreciate the coexistence of continuities and discontinuities between two authors belonging to different traditions, say Mimamsa and Vyakarana, in  dialogue, nevertheless a polemical one, with each other.  

As Prof. Korada keeps reminding us repeatedly, Vyakarana Dars'ana as articulated in books such as Vakyapadiyam has a lot of borrowing of concepts and terms from Mimamsa. But can we call Hari as ungrateful disciple of Mimamsakas simply because he doesn't name the books and their authors of Mimamsa books from which he picked up those terms for a discussion and for providing a VaiyaakaraNa view of the same concepts (such as bhaavanaa, itikartvyataa etc. ) ?

The terms and concepts are continuities and their distinct interpretations as per the author's own tradition are discontinuities.

One such discontinuity that can be identified between Mimamsa and Vyakarana traditions, that is conspicuous by its lack of recognition in Prof. Pollock's paper is the epistemological difference between the two traditions that is called as the difference between rationalist (knowledge is innate)  and empiricist (knowledge is post-natally acquired)  epistemologies in the modern/western parlance. [Elsewhere I called rationalist epistemology as (janma)siddhajnaanavaada  and empiricist epistemology as saadhyajnaanavaada.]

VyaakaraNa dars'ana is rationalist in its epistemology.

Hari makes that clear by saying

इतिकर्तव्यता लॊकॆ सर्वा शब्दव्यपाश्रया /

यां पूर्वाहितसंस्कारॊ बालॊ ऽपि प्रतिपद्यतॆ // वाक्य_१।१२९ //

आद्यः कारणविन्यासः प्राणस्यॊर्ध्वं समीरणम् /

       स्थानानाम् अभिघातश् च न विना शब्दभावनाम् // वाक्य_१।१३० //  

Please note both itikartavyataa and bhaavanaa are found in Mimamsa too.

It is this major distinction of vaiyaakraNas that travelled from Hari through Aanandavardhana to Abhinavagupta that lead to the Abhivyaktivaada of Abhinavagupta. 

Like Hari who gives vaiyaakaraNa interpretation  , of Mimamsaka terms , Abhinavagupta gives vaiyaakaraNa /pratyabhijnaa interpretation, which is a siddhajnaanavaada interpretation  to the Mimamsaka terms of Bhattanayaka.   

[Sivasenani Nori]

Pranams to Prof. Nagaraj Paturi garu.

Sir, this is a brilliant analysis, which points out a major flaw in the modern western method of analysis, by giving a very relevant example. In fact, Abhinavagupta is also said - by a modern Indian scholar who wrote a commentary on Dhvanyaloka - to have hijacked the concept of Dhvani and attributed much more meaning to Dhvani than what Anandavardhana intended. So, a colonial mindset sees ungratefulness, where there is innovation.

Regards

Senani

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Thanks AadaraNIya Sivasenaniji, for appreciating the point.

Does the 'modern Indian scholar you mentioned agree /recognize the fact that Anandavardhana connects his theory to Vakyapadiyam?

If he recognizes that part and does not recognize the innateness or pratyabhinaa or any other aspect of Abhinava also being derived from the same source, it is ardhacharatinyaya.   

[K S Kannan]

ardha-jaratīya-nyāya, I suppose.

[Sivasenani Nori]

Sir

The modern scholar is Prof. Chandika Prasad Shukla who wrote a commrntary called DeepaSikhaa. I am attaching the back cover of his book. Prof. Shukla recognises the source of Dhvani (a page from the bhumika is attached); that is not the issue. His point is that Abhinava Gupta while retaining Anandavardhana's sense of Dhvani, adds further dimensions of his own (the starting page of his critique is also attached). Also unlike many modern scholars, he did not limit himself to criticism of Abhinavagupta but wrote an alternate commentary. The commentary lifts Abhinavagupta's Sanskrit rendering of the Prakrit kavyas in total and generally follows Locana except in the didactic extensions of Locana. On the whole it is not very radical. At least one another modern scholar Prof. Pullela Sriramachandrudu agrees with Prof. Shukla (relevant page from the Telugu comentary of Prof. Pullela Sriramachandrudu is also attached).

Without expressing stronger views on the remarks of the two scholars, I thought that it might be accurate to state that some see Abhinavagupta as "innovating". Other descriptions could be adding to, or developing the school etc.

Regards
N Siva Senani

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Thanks as always, Prof. Kannan.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

The page from Prof. Shukla's book with the title लोचन की स्वैरिता is not clearly visible.

I could read Prof. Pullela Sriramachandrudu, which is in Telugu.

His comment about Abhinavagupta is that he, in the name of commentary of a book , attributes his own ideas to the author of the book that he comments.

Is this not part of the feature of many commentaries of many books?

Let us take the various Rasanishpatti vaadas, since that is close to the theme of the present thread.

All the vaadas are commentaries to Bharata's Rasa nishpatti sutra only.

Each vaada is a claim that that is what actually Bharata meant.

If Abhinava bharati is accused to be attributing AG's own ideas to Bharata, every rasanishpattivaadi deserves to be accused for the same reason.

Similar argument applies to all the commentator's of Brahmasutras, Bhagavadgita, Yogasutras etc.

Our intellectual tradition evolved through commentaries only. Each new idea is a new interpretation of a source book.

Prof. Shukla 's 'own' (?)  interpretation of Dhvanyaloka, 'differing with' AG, also can be justified in the spirit of such tradition only.

Let us think.  

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Coming back to the Rationalist epistemology or (janma)siddhajnaanavaada of VaiyaakaraNa dars'ana which is the common thread between Bhartrihari and (supposedly Anandavardhana) and Abhinavagupta , there is an interesting coincidence:

Once there was a time people talked intensely about the numerous similarities between Chomsky's TG grammar and Panini's Ashtadhyayi.

Chomsky's linguistic theory has been, rationalist ( centred on the idea of innate knowledge ) in its epistemology.

Bhartrihari's philosophy, which claims to be the philosophy or theoretical foundation behind AA, which I proved (1987) to be justifiable on several grounds showing several proofs, is also rationalist (centred on the idea of innate knowledge).