Dear Edwin,

In the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava tradition there is an allowance to move from the primary meaning to a secondary (non-literal) meaning when the primary makes no sense; in this regard they follow Kāvya, especially well known texts like Mammaṭabhaṭṭa's Kāvyaprakāśa. For discussion, see Jīva Gosvāmin's auto-commentary on his Tattvasandarbha called the Sarvasaṃvādinī (p.25 ff. of Hari Dāsa Śāstrī's edition). Viśvanātha Cakravartin goes so far as to say that the Bhāgavata Purāṇa was composed according to three types of meaning (e.g. vācya, lakṣya and vyaṅgya, the latter two being "non-literal") in his Sārārthadarśinī 1.1.1 (p.53 of Kṛṣṇa Śaṅkara Śāstrī's edition).

I've got an article called, "When Stones Float and Mud Speaks," which examines Jīva's views on śrūti passages that should be understood non-literally; it will be out in the J of Hindu Studies in a few months.

Re Vallabha: He only alludes to the three types of language, bhāṣā, in the 4th maṅgala of his Bhāgavata Purāṇa commentary (p.65 of Kṛṣṇa Śaṅkara Śāstrī's edition), promising to show how they appear throughout the text. A more full examination is in his Tattvāthadīpanibandha, especially verses 11-12.

Sincerely,
Jonathan Edelmann
Mississippi State University

On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 2:13 PM, <edbryant@rci.rutgers.edu> wrote:

Greetings friends,

Forgive any cross-listing, but I am looking for any references in
pre-modern (i.e. pre-colonial) commentarial (or primary) sources pointing
to acceptable non-literal ways of reading Sanskrit texts (Sruti and
Smriti). I include the following possibilities, which are the only ones
of which I am presently aware in this mode, to give some sense of that
which I seek. If anyone can provide the exact references for these, or of
any other similar expressions of non-literal hermeneutics, I would be very
much obliged:

1) The later Mimamsas speak of the devas as being dative case holders,
rather than actual entities. Anyone have a textual reference for where
this is stated?

2) Madhva (who already in the 12c presaged the need for a criticial
edition of the MhBh), speaks of 3 ways of reading itihasa, if I am not
mistaken: as itihasa, from the perspective of siddhanta and.....if I
recall correctly, as kavya. Does anyone have a reference for this?

3) Vallabha also speaks of 3 types of language in the Bhagavata: samadhi
bhasa, laukika bhasa, and matantara bhass. Elsewhere he speaks of
adhyatmika (spiritual), adhidaivika (emotional) and adhibautika (material)
modes of reading the Bhagavata. Can anyone provide references here?

These are just the references I have some recollection encountering,
correctly or incorrectly, but I am hoping there will be other expressions
of non-literal modes of exegesis. Any readings that bypass a focus on
literal historicism, especially of Purana and itihasa (e.g. placing more
stress on rasa or some such thing as the primary purpose of Purana and
itihasa) - that the learned shastris on this list might know and be
willing to share, would be greatly appreciated.

Many thanks. Edwin Bryant.
_______________________________________________
RISA-L mailing list
RISA-L@lists.sandiego.edu
https://lists.sandiego.edu/mailman/listinfo/risa-l

Jonathan B. Edelmann, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Religion

Mississippi State University Department of Philosophy and Religion

449 Hardy Road Etheredge Hall

Mississippi State 39762
Work Phone (662) 325-9363

University Website | Book