tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post3827142989038031890..comments2023-08-27T12:35:12.308+02:00Comments on sanscrite cogitare, sanscrite loqui: Another possible symmetry between śabdabhāvanā and arthabhāvanāelisa freschihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17068583874519657894noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-45029284990228557152008-12-15T10:40:00.000+01:002008-12-15T10:40:00.000+01:00I have been inaccurate. What I meant in the commen...I have been inaccurate. What I meant in the comment is:<BR/>1) śabda in śabdabhāvanā seems to define the prayojaka (as śabdabhāvanā is glossed as prayojakavyāpāra)<BR/>Since bhāvanā=vyāpāra, one might argue that śabda=prayojaka. But if prayojakavyāpāra is meant as such an analytical explanation of the compound, then it cannot be a karmadhāraya. It remains to be explained why Pārthasārathi does not see any problem in suggesting the karmadhāraya interpretation although he is a commentator of Kumārila (and hence knows his work quite well).elisa freschihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17068583874519657894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-45527025377412502582008-12-11T16:19:00.000+01:002008-12-11T16:19:00.000+01:00I am not following anymore. Who glosses śabda with...I am not following anymore. Who glosses śabda with prayojakavyāpāra? I thought that bhāvanā is prayojakavyāpāra. On the contrary, artha is glossed in your first post as prayojakavyāpāra.Alessandrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09816882546283912976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-68708910860838585982008-12-11T11:27:00.000+01:002008-12-11T11:27:00.000+01:00Kumārila on prayojakavyāpāra:prayojakakriyām āhur ...Kumārila on prayojakavyāpāra:<BR/>prayojakakriyām āhur bhāvanāṃ bhāvanāvidaḥ (TV ad 2.1.1, v.23cd, Kataoka 2004 p.74)<BR/>I am sure this is not the only passage where he mentions it, but this is not very significant as evidence of a direct interpretation of śabdabhāvanā as śabdaprayojaka-bhāvanā (tṛtiyātatpuruṣa). In fact, one could think of śabda-prayojakakriyā-bhāvanā, that is, “that bhāvanā which is a prayojakakriyā and which consists in language”. What I mean is that the interpretation of bhāvanā as being in need of a prayojaka does not necessarily conflict with the idea that śabdabhāvanā is a karmadhāraya.elisa freschihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17068583874519657894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-1876454642941516252008-12-11T11:21:00.000+01:002008-12-11T11:21:00.000+01:00I discussed this interpretation with Kei Kataoka, ...I discussed this interpretation with Kei Kataoka, who made me consider the following weak points:<BR/>1) śabda in śabdabhāvanā seems to define the prayojaka (as it is glossed as prayojakavyāpāra).<BR/>2) if śabda in śabdabhāvanā is the prayojaka, then the symmetry is lost again!<BR/>I will go back to Kumārila's usage of prayojakavyāpāra, but I can only add that the interpretation of śabdabhāvanā as a karmadhāraya is proposed by Pārthasārathi Miśra.elisa freschihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17068583874519657894noreply@blogger.com