Necessity in Mīmāṃsā philosophy

Our Anand Vaidya has recently raised a very intriguing discussion on modality in Indian philosophy. His post started with the suggestion that modality is less central in Indian philosophy than it is in Western thought. In the comments, several scholars Continue reading Necessity in Mīmāṃsā philosophy

Untangling the Golden Age

The seventh and eighth centuries were, as Jean-Marie Verpoorten said, a “Golden Age” for Mīmāṃsā, when the two most important exponents of the system, Kumārila and Prabhākara, lived. But it was also a “Golden Age” for other systems. It was Continue reading Untangling the Golden Age

Injunction and denotation in the Veda

What are the principles by which we divide texts into portions, and why would we want to do that in the first place? What Elisa has referred to as “the prescriptive portion of the Veda” is what Mīmāṃsā authors call Continue reading Injunction and denotation in the Veda

What do I obtain if I refrain from eating onion (and so on)?

In the case of the Śyena and the Agnīṣomīya rituals, violence is once condemned and once allowed, causing long discussions among Mīmāṃsā authors. Similarly, the prohibition to eat kalañja, onion and garlic is interpreted differently than the prohibition to look Continue reading What do I obtain if I refrain from eating onion (and so on)?

Fifth day at the IABS: “Buddhism and Philosophy of Mind” panel

Saturday, I went to the panel on Buddhism and Philosophy of Mind, which was announced as involving “our” Christian Coseru, Mark Siderits and Jonardon Ganeri. In fact, Ganeri could not make it (“obviously he did not feel fit for the Continue reading Fifth day at the IABS: “Buddhism and Philosophy of Mind” panel

First day at the IABS: Apoha in Dignāga according to Kataoka

I am currently attending the IABS conference in Vienna. I am trying to keep the few of you who could not come updated through my impressions of the talks at my personal blog. I will cross-post here the posts which Continue reading First day at the IABS: Apoha in Dignāga according to Kataoka

Forging Indian philosophical texts

Did Indian authors forge their authorities? Did they need it, given the freedom commentators enjoyed (so that Śaiva texts have been used by Vaiṣṇava authors (see the Spandakārikā) and dualist texts by non-dualist authors (see the Paratriṃśikā) as their authorities)?

What is the difference between nouns and verbs (according to Mīmāṃsā authors)? Diaconescu vs. Clooney

What do nouns mean? And what is the difference between nouns and verbs? Pūrva Mīmāṃsā authors are rightly known as having conceived the first textual linguistics in South Asia. In this sense, their theory differs from the Vyākaraṇa one, as Continue reading What is the difference between nouns and verbs (according to Mīmāṃsā authors)? Diaconescu vs. Clooney

Who invented the apoha theory? On Kunjunni Raja 1986

Who invented the apoha theory? If you, like me, are prone to answer “Dignāga” and to add that Dignāga (as shown by Hattori) was inspired by Bhartṛhari’s theory and that Dharmakīrti and Dharmottara later fine-tuned Dignāga’s one, you are ready Continue reading Who invented the apoha theory? On Kunjunni Raja 1986