Final Balance on my 2012 projects: Veṅkaṭanātha

The following is the final balance I had to write about my first months (September 2012--end of the year) in the Austrian Academy of Sciences.

Sacred Texts’ Epistemology in Veṅkaṭanātha’s Seśvaramīmāṃsā

Participants: E. Freschi

The purpose of the project is the study of the dialectics of the conflicting epistemologies and world-views of Pūrva Mīmāṃsā and Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta as represented in Veṅkaṭanātha's Seśvaramīmāṃsā (SM). How can its author, for instance, be at the same time faithful to the Mīmāṃsā atheism and the Viśiṣṭādvaita devotion for Viṣṇu? How can he harmonise the Mīmāṃsā claim that the Sacred Texts are reliable insofar as they have no author with the Viśiṣṭādvaita one that the Sacred Texts have been authored by Viṣṇu? How can he make sense of the conflict between the Mīmāṃsā idea of permanence of the world and the theistic account of its creation? The project will explore the way in which Veṅkaṭanātha produced a new synthesis of these conflicting claims, by reinterpreting some of them and by organizing hierarchically the others.

For this purpose the text of SM 1 (i.e., the epistemological part of the SM, corresponding to approximately 2/3 of the whole SM) will be translated and its edition improved through an unedited manuscript found at Adyar Library.

Retrospect of 2012 (September-December): During the first four months of the project, the first folia of the Adyar Library manuscript of the SM have been collated and the first third of SM 1 has been translated and analysed on the basis especially of its principal model, a discussion on the unity of the Sacred Texts and their analysis in Rāmānuja's Śrī Bhāṣya. Interestingly, Veṅkaṭanātha follows closely the structure of Rāmānuja's argumentation, but brings to completely new results, i.e., to the inclusion of Pūrva Mīmāṃsā within the Canon of Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta.

Preview of 2013: The SM 1 will be completely translated. The comparison with Rāmānuja's text and with other texts by Veṅkaṭanātha, especially the Mīmāṃsāpādukā, will be continued. The collation of the Adyar Library manuscript of the SM will be continued. An article will be written on the topic of the innovations to Rāmānuja's position brought forth by Veṅkaṭanātha and a contribution on this topic will be presented at the DOT in Münster, September 2013. Prof. Lawrence McCrea will be in Vienna for one week in June 2013 for a reading session of the SM together with E. Freschi, M. Rastelli, M. Schmücker. A panel on epistemology will be hosted by E. Freschi (together with M. Cuono and P. Mindus) at the Symposium ''There is no Orient: 4th Coffee Break Conference", Turin, 5--7 September 2013.

Any suggestion concerning the Preview of 2013 are welcome!

On Veṅkaṭanātha, see, e.g., this post.

TOC of my forthcoming volume on reuse of texts in Indian Philosophy

This is the provisional Table of Content of the forthcoming volume on the analysis of the reuse in Indian philosophical texts.


Preface, by Raffaele Torella

The re-use of texts in Indian Philosophy, by Elisa Freschi (Vienna, ÖAW)

1. REUSE IN INDIAN PHILOSOPHICAL TEXTS

Quotations, References, and the Re-Use of texts in the Early Nyāya Tradition, by Payal Doctor (CUNY-LaGuardia Community College)

Types of quotations as connected to the types of siddhānta in the Nyāyamañjarī 6, by Alessandro Graheli (Vienna)

Quotations of the Kāśikāvṛtti in Grammatical texts and the manuscript transmission of the Kāśikāvṛtti, by Malhar Kulkarni (IIT Mumbai)

Āgamārthānusāribhiḥ. Helārāja’s use of quotations and other referential devices in his commentary on the Vākyapadīya, by Vincenzo Vergiani (Cambridge)

Quotations, References, etc. A glance on a late Mīmāṃsaka's writing habits, by Elisa Freschi (Vienna, ÖAW)

Quotations and (lost) commentaries in Advaita Vedānta: Some philological notes on the 'Fragments' of Bhartr̥prapañca, by Ivan Andrijanić (Zagreb)

“Old is Gold!” Madhusūdana Sarasvatī’s way of referring to earlier textual tradition, by Gianni Pellegrini (Turin)

Evaluation and classification of intertextual elements in a phi­lo­so­phi­cal Jaina Sanskrit work, by Himal Trikha (Vienna, ÖAW)


1.1 SUBFOCUS ON THE BUDDHIST MILIEU: IS THERE ANYTHING SPECIFIC?
The Case of the Sārasaṅgaha. Reflections on the Reuse of Texts In Medieval Singalese Pāli Literature, by Chiara Neri (Rome "Sapienza")

The creative erudition of Chapaṭa Saddhammajotipāla, a 15th-century grammarian and philosopher from Burma, by Aleix Ruiz-Falqués (Cambridge)

Dharmottara’s Re-Use of Arguments from the Kṣaṇabhaṅgasiddhi in the Pramāṇaviniścayaṭīkā, by Masamichi Sakai (Cambridge, Massachusetts / Tokyo)

Commenting by quoting. The case of Manorathanandin's Pramāṇavārttikavr̥tti, by Cristina Pecchia (Vienna)

Text re-use in early Tibetan epistemological treatises, by Pascale Hugon (Vienna, ÖAW)

A discussion of some problems related to the Madhyamakaratnapradīpa with particular attention to the quotation from Saraha’s Dohākośagīti, by Krishna Del Toso (Trieste)

The introduction of canonical and non canonical quotations in Paali commentarial literature, by Petra Kieffer-Pülz (Mainz, AWL)

2. WIDENING THE PICTURE: RE-USE OUTSIDE IN NON-PHILOSOPHICAL TEXTS

Quotations in Vedic Literature: is the changing of a mantra a stylistic device or
the degeneration of a “beautiful mind?, by Elena Mucciarelli (Tübingen)

To borrow or not to borrow? The case of "vaibhavīyanarasiṃhakalpa" within the scope of Pāñcarātra literature, by Ewa Debicka-Borek (Krakow)

Observations on the Use of Quotations in Sanskrit Dharmanibandhas, by Florinda De Simini (Naples/Turin)

Re-use in artistic field: the iconography of Yakṣī, by Cristina Bignami (Cagliari)

Any suggestion concerning the sections' titles, their sequence, their internal organization, etc.?

Is it possible to survive out of research on Sanskrit/Pāli/etc.?

From time to time someone asks me whether he or she will be able to make her living out of Sanskrit. The issue has been last raised by Jayarava in his comment to this post. The following one is my answer to the general question:

1. 1. Finding a scholarship for one's PhD is feasible, most of all if you are open to work on your PhD within someone else's project (for instance, in Heidelberg or Leiden for Buddhist studies) and can afford leaving your country.
2. 2. The departing point is that you will never become rich out of Sanskrit (better: it may happen, but just like it may happen that you become the president of your country).
3. 3. You will also hardly achieve a tenure-track position (it may happen, but you cannot count on it). Thus, if you cannot cope with instability, think twice before trying a Sanskrit-related career.
4. 4. Why would you want to work in the Academia at all costs? It is not heaven and if you think it is, you might be disappointed.
5. 5. There seem to be still job opportunities in two contexts, i.e., within someone else's projects and with a heavy didactic burden. 

Interestingly enough, in the last months two acquaintances of mine advertised some positions within a project and in all cases the applications were hardly more than the positions advertised, so that there was basically no possible selection.

Thus, the point is: Are you willing to work for someone else's project? Or do you understand research only as your own research? Alternatively, are you willing to teach "Introduction to South Asian studies"? Last, are you ready to move to a different country? You cannot expect to find a Sanskrit related position in each county…

For further information on the advertisements I referred to, check the label "opportunities and projects". On Academia as not the only way to do research, check this post.

Is the Academia the best place to study Indian philosophy?

A recent post by Aleix Ruiz-Falqués has gone back to an issue I had dealt with years ago, because of a post by Amod Lele, i.e., does it make sense to remain in the Academia? Are Universities (Academies and similar institutions) the best place to persue one's interest for Sanskrit (and) Philosophy?

The pros and cons usually mentioned in this connection are:

1. 1. Time: if you work 8 hours a day at something else, you will have much less time and energy to focus on Sanskrit (and) Philosophy. However, University staff often laments the fact that they have to focus on different aims, such as teaching undergraduate classes on "Introduction to South Asian studies", writing projects, dealing with administrative problems, etc.
2. 2. Reunification of Career and Hobby (again, see this post by Amod Lele): officially working on the topics you love may make you more responsible towards them. However, if you a rebel or a procrastinator (i.e., someone who is ready to do whatever, in order to avoid fulfilling her primary duty), you might end up noticing that you spent more time on research when you were not officially researching.
3. 3. Money: Many would say that the fact of being paid is in itself something more than pleasant and that during the present crisis, it is very difficult to find jobs at PhD level. However, I am assuming here that the ultimate goal is one's happiness and that money plays a noteworthy, but not exclusive role, for it. Moreover, in the present crisis, one (almost) only finds temporary positions which are not particularly well-paid.
4. 4. Students: I tend to think that the pleasure of interacting with students is an end in itself. However, people engaged in undergraduate curricula in the US often hate their dull students, who come to the class only because they have to.
5. 5. Colleagues: Working on the Academia may mean having many interesting colleagues with whom you can discuss and share ideas. However, this is often not the case, and one may happen to share more gossip than research ideas, whereas the web is often a great place to virtually meet people with similar aims.

Long story short: The Academia is part of the world and it is not intrinsically better, nor worse than it. Working in it or outside it have both advantages and disadvantages and choosing for the one or the other must ultimately depend on an accurate self analysis: is one a rebel or an obliger? Does one appreciate having to do what one loves? Can one be in love with one's wife/hisband? If the answer to the latter two questions is no, it is probably better for one's happiness to work outside the Academia.

What has been your experience, within or without Universities (etc.)? 

yoga, yukta, yujyate, etc.: should we translate all cognate Sanskrit words with cognate English (etc.) ones?

Should we translate Sanskrit words deriving from the same root with English (French/German/Latin…) words deriving from the same root? Or at least try to?
How important was the commonness of the root for actual readers and listeners? How much do we loose if we interrupt their continuity?

This is my procedure:

1. 1. I try to translate words deriving from the same root with cognate English words. E.g., anvaya 'relation', anvi- 'to relate'.
2. 2. I admit exceptions for technical terms, whenever I think that the technical aspect is predominant. E.g., I translate anvaya as 'positive concomitance' and vyatireka as 'negative concomitance' when they are used as a pair.

How do you proceed?

On the translation of Sanskrit texts, see this post and this one.

Hindu-Christian and interreligious dialogue: has it any religious value?

Inter-religious dialogue is surely needed for political and sociological reasons. We prefer to be able to discuss, rather than dislike each other's cloths, food and rules of conduct, at the risk of ending up hating each other. However, is inter-religious dialogue also needed for religious reasons? Christians are used to the idea that they need to learn about Hebraism, since they depend so much on the Old Testament and its Hebrew interpretations. But what about Hindu-Christian or Buddhist-Christian or Muslim-Buddhist, etc., dialogue?

How can one theologically justify inter-religious dialogue? In his Comparative Theology, Francis Xavier Clooney mentions a Vaiṣṇava verse, which, although not understood as such in its own tradition, could be used for this purpose:

Whichever form pleases his people, that is his form;
Whichever name pleases his people, that is his name;
Whichever way pleases his people who meditate without ceasing,
That is his way, the one who holds the discus.

Clooney comments:

As we love God, God adjusts and comes to us accordingly; if someone loves like a bride, God comes as a groom. […]

My hypothesis is that in contemplation we construct a path of religious belonging that suits our own spiritual imagining; we do this according to our traditions but also the possibilities available in our time and place. In all of this, God agrees to meet us there; if our contemplation happens to cross religious boundaries, God agrees to meet us there too (p. 130). 

Do you agree? Has inter-religious dialogue a religious value (and/or justification)? Or is it just a dangerous new-age-like "supermarket of religions"?

On Comparative Theology by F.X. Clooney, see this post.

Kumārila's commentators

Kumārila's Ślokavārttika has been commented several times. The main three commentators are

• Uṃveka Bhaṭṭa
• Sucarita Miśra
• Pārthasāsathi Miśra

DATE
Uṃveka was possibly a direct disciple of Kumārila and is surely the most ancient commentator. As for Sucarita and Pārthasārathi, they surely lived several centuries thereafter. Their relative chronology is under discussion. The two share a lot which is distinctive to them and not borrowed from Uṃveka. Personally (see an article by me on Kumārila's commentators published on Sambhāṣā in 2008) I am inclined to think that Sucarita is the source of Pārthasārathi.

PHILOSOPHICAL VALUE
Uṃveka is original and interesting in approach and seems to be the most philosophically interesting author (which also means that he might not be completely reliable as for the interpretation of Kumārila's thought, as shown by John Taber in regard to the thesis of svataḥ prāmāṇya). The edition of Uṃveka has the text of Kumārila reproduced on the top, but the text has been added by the editor and needs not be exactly the same which Uṃveka had before his eyes.

This last remark applies even more to Sucarita. In his case one often has the feeling (at least, I do) that he might have had a different text before his eyes. I enjoy reading Sucarita, since he seems to me to offer a good balance between philosophical acumen and adherence to the text.

Pārthasārathi is the most useful commentator as for understanding Kumārila's text in itself but one hardly finds any new idea elaborated by him (and not already traceable in Sucarita).

EXTENSION OF THE COMMENTARY
Pārthasārathi's commentary is the only one which has been completely published. Sucarita's commentary is possibly complete (Taisei Shida is currently editing the unedited portions), but has only been partially published (see the etext of the available part here). Uṃveka's commentary is, so far, incomplete.
Thus we have:
—Uṃveka covering from the beginning to the sphoṭa section (i.e., covering MS 1.1.1, MS 1.1.2, MS 1.1.3, MS 1.1.4, and the following sections out of MS 1.1.5: vṛttikāragrantha, nirālambanavāda, śūnyavāda, anumāna, śabda, upamāna, arthāpatti, abhāva, citrākṣepa-sambandhākṣepa, sphoṭavāda).
—Sucarita covering from the beginning to almost the end of the citrākṣepa section.
—Pārthasārathi covering the whole Ślokavārttika.

(this post has been prompted by a question by Sudipta Munsi.)

Which one do you know and use?