INDOLOGY Digest - 7 Feb 2001 to 8 Feb 2001 (#2001-40)

[Dmitri]

On Sun, 11 Feb 2001 02:01:37 +0000, Vidyasankar Sundaresan
<vsundaresan at HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:

>... words like manas, buddhi and
>citta can have different meanings based on context.
Quite agree with this. My point is that
1. It is not certain that VyAsa used the correct context for YS
2. The context should be assumed the same through the whole YS text,
    and not changed from one sUtra to the next.

I assumed context for citta, vRttis etc. to be phenomena of perception.
And, it turns out that it is possible to consistently interprete
samAdhi-pAda in this context.

>Take the compound citta-v.rtti, which you take as "v.rttis
>beginning with citta". However, YS 1.5 says v.rttis are of
>five types, and 1.6 lists them as pramaa.na, viparyaya etc.
>This is a straightforward pointer to interpret citta-v.rtti
>as "v.rttis of the citta" - a different kind of tatpuru.sa.
I fail to see how it is a "straightforward pointer".
Could you elaborate on this?
OTOH:
Distortions of sensation while it's being transformed into percept
are quite kliSTa-akliSTa  -- experimental conditions allow for
setting level of intensity of various sources of distortions in
quite controllable fashion.

>Aren't you imposing a very Western mind vs. matter duality on
>an Indian school of thought? Similarly with your comment on the
>word aagama, on which you have imposed a Cartesian presumption.
I try not to impose it.  As a matter of fact, I don't have to resort
to any metaphisics like duality mind vs. matter and like.
What I use of Descart is the method of inquiry.
Proof by reference to an authority is not accepted as a valid proof.
This is a tradition going back to at least Pyrrho.

But, let's assume that somehow (e.g. by a divine blessing),
south of Himalayas reference to authority IS a valid proof.
This assumption leads to a good question: Are the words of
authority understood correctly?  De facto, it is aknowledged
by Indian scholastic tradition that there is a difficulty in
understanding words of Vedas correctly.  That is why there were
grammars composed, nirukta written, etc. ---
to restore original meaning of Vedas and other scriptures authority of which
might be used as a proof.
Am I wrong here? If I am at least partially correct, than the next question
is: What are the reasons to believe that vyAsa got it right with YS?

>>>And similarly, also the word pratyaya.
>>Meaning of pratyaya I use is an analogy with its use in Panini's grammar
--
>>an affix that gives the word its final meaning. ...
>... Are these merely different kinds of verbal affixes?
No, pratyaya is used in the sense "the final step in gestalt formation".
Please, look in Mini-Dictionary section for explanations.

>Well, to take just one early case - your interpretation of YS
>1.6 takes its list of nouns ending in the plural number as a
>copulative compound, but in 1.7, it takes a related list of
>nouns ending in the plural number as a different kind of
>compound. Again, without getting into saa.mkhya, and without
>getting into the possible identity of patanjali, why so?
Each compound may be re-constructed in many different ways without any
violations of grammar.
Usually, I considered several of them and selected one that made
most sense in the context of the previous sUtras. It's quite possible
to make a different choice and, thus, different meaning.
Choices I made are fitting each other pretty well (that's very subjective!)
and result in statements that
1. are practical in nature, not metaphisical
2. allow experimental verification (this is not subjective at all!)

Hope there is more clarity and best reagrds,
  Dmitri.