Kunhan Raja C. & Suryanarayana Sastri S. S. ²1975, Mānameyodaya of Nārāyaṇa Bhaṭṭa and Nārāyaṇa Paṇḍita (an elementary treatise on the Mīmāṃsā), Madras, Adyar Library Series 105, pp. 233-244.

• p. 243 (17 - Bhāṭṭa conclusion): "Thus is established 'Brahminness'. What apprehends it is the sense of sight itself assisted by the understanding of his being born of a Brahmin father and mother, whose Brahminness is not corrupted; hence it is not non-perceptible either"

Cf. also (recognized as one of the main sources of the Mānameyodaya) the earlier Nītitattvāvirbhāva of Cidānanda (cf. éd. P. K. Narayana Pillai 1953, Nītitattvāvirbhāva of Cidānandapaṇḍita, Trivandrum, TSS 168 ; cf. republ. in K. T. Pandurangi 2008, Cidānanda-paṇḍita-viracitaḥ, Nītitattvāvirbhāvaḥ, Mīmāṃsābhāṣyapariśiṣṭena Tantrarahasyena ca sahitaḥ, Bangalore), the 20th topic of which is Jātinirṇaya, apparently more directed against the Buddhist views, without dealing with the problem of Brahminhood (abstract in Pandurangi 2008 pp. xvii-viii, EIPh 16, p. 114-15).

I did not go into the provided Śālikanātha's text in details (and did not start to search into Prabhâkara's own commentatorial works where the original statements could be found), but from secondary sources, it appears that Bhāṭṭas and Prābhākaras differ here in the explanation. For both jāti is a perceptible category, but the relation of jāti with individual is given as a combination of difference and non-difference for the former, whereas it is difference for the latter, according to whom the apposition (individual - universal) is through inherence. Prābhākaras admit the existence of genus/class of substance, but refuse to accept the existence of genus of quality and action.

And according to Prābhākaras, differently from the case of cowness, Brahminhood or Kṣatriyahood are not considered as real jāti:

• MM p. 239 (- 9): "Although the genus is thus established, the Guru [Prabhâkara] says that, since its cognition is invariably controlled by the knowledge of the earlier form, existence, soundness, Brahminness, etc. which have not that knowledge are non-existent".

So the debate referred to could be internal to Mimamsakas rather than between Mimamsakas and Buddhists.

Best wishes,

Christophe

Le 17 juin 2016 à 20:00, John Taber <jataber@unm.edu> a écrit :

Dear Don et al.,

Since Christophe brought up Mīmāṃsā: the relevant passage in Kumārila is Tantravārttika ad MS 1.2.2. This is interpreted by Halbfass in the chapter of Tradition and Reflection mentioned by Sam Wright. (I look forward to reading his forthcoming article in JIP.)

The issue for Kumārila is mainly the perceptibility of universals, as H. explains. The varṇas pose a sort of test case. It's not at all clear that one can just SEE that someone is a brahmin. K. argues that, even though various factors may be required to stimulate perception of a universal - in the case of Brahminhood, for instance, being told the person's lineage - it is perceptible nonetheless. Cf. Ślokavārttika Vanavāda 26-29, where the problem is discussed in more general terms; other problematic cases are mentioned there (e.g., how does one perceive gheeness in melted ghee? - by smelling or tasting it!). Some universals may be more difficult to perceive than others, but even if one has to climb to the top of a mountain in order to see something (presumably something very far away), that does not make it not perceptible (na hi yad giriśṛṅgam āruhya gṛhyate tad apratyakṣam, TV 1.2.2).

There may be certain cultural prejudices in the background of Kumārila's discussion (here I'm thinking of what Dominik wrote and some of the things Halbfass says: Brahminhood is determined by a universal, not by conduct; it is inherent in someone; there's certainly no social mobility here!), but ultimately I think he is concerned to defend the notion that real (eternal) universals, which are perceptible, as opposed to the pseudo-universals of the Buddhists (apohas), are the meanings of words. Since the universal cowness is perceptible, we can SEE that that is the meaning of the word "cow" when someone points to a cow and says, "That is called a cow." Otherwise, it is not clear how the connected between word and meaning could ever be established.

Cheers again,

JT

On Jun 17, 2016, at 7:08 AM, Christophe Vielle <christophe.vielle@uclouvain.be> wrote:

Dear Don,
The problem is also epistemologically discussed by the Prabhakara-mimamsaka Śālikanātha in the Prakaraṇapañcikā, prakaraṇa 4 : Jātinirṇaya
See short abstract of this chapter in
Potter K. H. éd. 2014, Philosophy of Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā, Delhi, Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies 16, pp. 308-309 (relying on Verpoorten and Pandurangi)
The 1961 Benares edition of the PP is available here :
http://www.new.dli.ernet.in/handle/2015/383225
(better scan than :
http://www.dli.ernet.in/handle/2015/541509
http://www.dli.ernet.in/handle/2015/311115 )
Here below an extract of the Sansknet input on GRETIL
http://gretil.sub.uni-goettingen.de/gretil/1_sanskr/6_sastra/3_phil/mimamsa/prakp04u.htm
(…)
tad idam apahastitam, yad āhuḥ
"śabdatvam eva tattadasādhāraṇābhivyañjakadhvaninibandhanatayā nānāvarṇapeṇa viṣayībhavat tasya tasyārthasyāvagamāya kalpata" iti /
brāhmaṇatvādijātinirākaraṇam /
anayaiva ca diśā brāhmaṇatvādijātir api nivāritā /
nahi nānāstrīpuruṣavyaktiṣu puruṣatvādarthāntarabhūtamekamākāramātmasātkurvāntī matirāvirbhavati /
nahi kṣatriyādibhyo vyāvartamānaṃ sakalabrāhmaṇeṣvanuvartamānamekamākāramaticiramanusandadhato 'pi budhyante /
yadapyāhuḥ- yadyapyāpātasaṃjātayā dhiyā brāhmaṇyaṃ nāvasīyate, tathāpi brāhmaṇabhūtamātāpitṛsambandhānusandhānaprabhavāyāṃ banddhau taccakāstīti /
tadapi ca svamānasavisaṃvādi /
anusandadhāno 'pi mātāpitṛsambandhaṃ ko jātvekamākāramavaboddhuṃ prabhavati /
yaccopadarśitam---yathā vilīnamājyaṃ tailādavyatiricyamānaṃ gandhagrahaṇasahakāriṇā cakṣuṣaiva bhinnamavagamtaya---iti /
tadapi na sundaram /
nahi tadānīṃ cākṣuṣasya saṃvedanasya viṣayātirekaḥ, kintvanumānameva tatra sarpiṣaḥ /
yastu nipuṇadarśo sūkṣmamapi rūpamīkṣituṃ kṣamaḥ, sa cakṣuṣaivājyajātimapi pratyeti, na gandhagrahaṇamapekṣate /
nanvevaṃ bahvavahīnam, kiṃnibandhano hi tadānīmāhavanīyādisādhyakarmasu keṣāñcidadhikāro nānyeṣām; kiṃnibandhanā ca brāhmaṇaśabdasya pravṛttivyavasthā iti /
atrocyate /
anādau saṃsāre janyajanakabhāvena vyavasthitāstāvat kāścideva strīpuruṣasantatayaḥ santi, tāsām anyonyavyatikareṇa jātāḥ strīpuṃsavyaktayo brāhmaṇaśabdavācyāḥ /
anidamprathamatayā ca santateḥ sarveṣāṃ tatsantatipatitatvāt siddhā brāhmaṇaśabdavācyatā /
tena santativiśeṣaprabhavatvameva brāhmaṇaśabdapravṛttāv upādhiḥ /
tatprabhavānāmeva karmasvadhikāra iti na kiñcidavahīnam /
ke punaste santativiśeṣāḥ /
na te parigaṇayya nirdeṣṭuṃ śakyante, kintu lokata eva prasiddhāḥ pratyetavyāḥ /
tathā ca tajjanyatve 'vagate brāhmaṇaśabdaṃ prayuñjate lokāḥ /
(…)

Best wishes,

Christophe

Le 16 juin 2016 à 20:41, Donald R Davis <drdj@austin.utexas.edu> a écrit :

My thanks to Sam Wright who pointed me to the following:

Wilhelm Halbfass, “Homo Hierarchicus: The Conceptualization of the Varna System in Indian Thought,” in Tradition and Reflecton. SUNY Press, 1991. [contains a long discussion of the jati as caste and as universal in the works of several authors, including Jayanta and, especially, Kumarila on pp. 363ff.]

Samuel Wright, "History in the Abstract: ‘Brahman-ness’ and the Discipline of Nyaya in Seventeenth-Century Varanasi.” Journal of Indian Philosophy, forthcoming.

The issue is discussed on page 204 in Sukla, S. N. (Ed.). (1971). Nyāyamañjarī of Jayanta Bhaṭṭa (Part I). The Kashi Sanskrit Series 106, Nyaya Section No. 15. Varanasi: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office.

Best, Don

From: INDOLOGY <indology-bounces@list.indology.info> on behalf of Johannes Bronkhorst <johannes.bronkhorst@unil.ch>
Date: Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 11:40 AM
To: rajam <rajam@earthlink.net>
Cc: Dominik Wujastyk <wujastyk@gmail.com>, "indology@list.indology.info" <indology@list.indology.info>
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] J?ti as Caste in Ny?ya?

Vincent Eltschinger’s « Caste » et philosophie bouddhique (Vienna 2000) seems relevant in this connection. An English version of this book is also available:
Caste and Buddhist Philosophy: Continuity of Some Buddhist Arguments Against the Realist Interpretation of Social Denominations (Motilal Banarsidass 2012)

Johannes

On 16 juin 2016, at 18:37, rajam <rajam@earthlink.net> wrote:

Many thanks to the originator of this thread!

Right now, I just want to register the fact that I’m very much interested in this topic.

Last year (May 2015), I had a publication (in Tamil) about references to, or a lack there of, “jāti” and “caste” (as we understand it today) in Old Tamil literature/grammar, also known as Sangam literature/grammar.

I don’t know how many of you are aware of the fact that the English word “caste” has its origin in the Portuguese word “casta,” which was first recorded in Arte da Lingua Malabar written by Fr. Henrique Henriques in the mid-16th century.

If one wants to dig deep into the understanding of the terms such as “jāti” and “caste” … one has to have a minimal understanding of the origins of the Western contact with India, which happened in the early 16-th century through Portuguese arrival in South India.

Thanks and regards,

V.S.Rajam

On Jun 16, 2016, at 8:53 AM, Dominik Wujastyk <wujastyk@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Don,

This interests me a lot, and I'd be grateful to read what you might write about it in future. It's on my back-burner, but I've long wondered whether Sanskritic narratives about jati and varna can be thought about in ways similar to eighteenth and nineteenth century European narratives about races and species. Were people of different varnas formally considered to be of different "species?" It's a bit shocking to think in these terms, but I've been wondering about it. If you ever put flesh on these bones, one way or another, or can point me to existing discussions on this, I'd be really interested.

Best,

Dominik

--

Professor Dominik Wujastyk*
Singhmar Chair in Classical Indian Society and Polity

Department of History and Classics

University of Alberta, Canada

On 16 June 2016 at 08:53, Donald R Davis <drdj@austin.utexas.edu> wrote:

Dear Colleagues,

I would be grateful for additional references to an argument mentioned in Jayanta Bhatta’s Āgamaḍambara 4.143-4 (in Dezso’s edition in the Clay series). The question is whether the jāti of Brahmins, etc. is like the jāti of cow-ness, etc. in being empirically observable or directly perceivable. Jayanta refers to those who say that verbal/textual testimony alone (śabdamātreṇa) establishes the four-varṇa system. This prefigures an argument made in Vijñāneśvara’s Mitākṣarā (on Yaj 1.90) where the same distinction is drawn to refute an objection.

I assumed Jayanta would have made a similar argument in his Nyāyamañjarī, but I have not been able to locate it (probably because I barely know the Nyāya literature). If anyone could point me toward other instances of this issue, whether in original sources or contemporary research, I’d appreciate it.

Best,

Don Davis

Dept of Asian Studies

University of Texas at Austin

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)

–––––––––––––––––––

Christophe Vielle

Louvain-la-Neuve

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)

–––––––––––––––––––

Christophe Vielle

Louvain-la-Neuve