I Introductory study
3
I
Remarks concerning the critical edition
3
II Introductory study: Jayanta between Nyāya and Mīmāṃsā
4
II.1 Survey of Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
II.2 The SĀP and the ĀḌ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
II.3 Jayanta’s sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
II.4 Establishing the validity of Sacred Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
II.4.1
Validity of the Veda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
II.4.2 Validity of Sacred Texts other than the Veda . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
II.4.2.1
Historical evolution of the criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
II.4.2.2
The term *smṛti *‘recollected tradition’ . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
II.4.3 Conflict between *śruti * and *smṛti *. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
II.4.4 Validity of texts which are far away from the Veda or overtly contradict it 17
II.4.5 The problem of violent practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18
II.4.5.1
The origin of prohibitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19
II.4.6 Jayanta’s “pluralism” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20
II.4.6.1
Criteria for the validity of Sacred Texts . . . . . . . . . . .
21
II.4.7 Who cannot be accepted in any case? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24
II.5 What is Jayanta’s final view? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25
II Translation
28
1
Introduction on the validity of texts other than the Veda
28
2 The validity of Dharmaśāstras
28
2.1
Mīmāṃsā point of view: Veda-basis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
28
2.1.1
Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
28
2.1.1.1
Minority argument about the common performers . . . . .
28
2.1.1.2
The Vedic base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
28
2.1.1.2.1
Types of Vedic bases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29
*The research for this article was enabled by a four week Postdoctoral Fellowship from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science in March 2012, when Elisa Freschi joined Kei Kataoka at Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan. This paper is the result of a joint work entirely discussed and shared by both authors. However, Elisa Freschi is responsible for pp. 15–27 and 28–37; and Kei Kataoka for pp.3–15 and 38–48.
1
2.1.1.3
Distinction between Veda and recollected tradition . . . . .
30
2.1.2
Conflict with the Veda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30
2.1.2.1
Invalidation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30
2.1.2.2
Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30
2.1.3
Invalidity of other texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31
2.2 Nyāya point of view: author’s reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31
2.2.1
Validity: yogic perception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31
2.2.1.1
Distinction between Veda and recollected tradition . . . . .
32
2.2.2
Conflict with the Veda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
32
3 Itihāsas and Purāṇas
33
3.1
Nyāya view . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33
3.2 Mīmāṃsā view . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33
4 Fourteen branches of knowledge
33
5 Texts other than the fourteen branches of knowledge
34
5.1
Validity of texts which do not criticise the Veda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
34
5.1.1
Mīmāṃsā-based arguments and argument out of partial agreements .
34
5.1.2
Nyāya-based arguments: God as author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36
5.2 Invalidity of the other texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36
5.2.1
Mīmāṃsā-based arguments: they are outside the Veda . . . . . . . .
36
5.2.1.1
Practices which are outside the Veda . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36
5.2.1.2
Practices prohibited by the Veda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36
5.2.2
Nyāya-based arguments: there is no agreement of the great people . .
37
5.2.2.1
Definition of great person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
37
5.2.2.2
This great person is accepted also by Buddhists, etc. . . . .
38
5.2.2.3
The Vedic model is accepted also by Buddhists, etc. . . . .
38
5.2.2.4
If the agreement of the exemplary people is enough, what is
the purpose of Nyāya? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39
6 Validity of all Sacred Texts
39
6.1
Invalidity: reasons for it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40
6.1.1
The various Sacred Texts contradict each other . . . . . . . . . . . .
40
6.1.1.1
Contradictions are inessential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40
6.1.1.2
No contradictions as for the main points . . . . . . . . . . .
40
6.1.1.3
Contradictions in the practices are not important . . . . . .
41
6.1.1.4
Conclusion: mutual contradictions do not entail invalidity .
41
6.1.2
Suspicious practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
41
6.1.3
Practices prohibited by the Veda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
42
6.1.3.1
Prohibitions are not text-independent . . . . . . . . . . . .
42
6.1.3.2
Violating a prohibition regards the performer, not the text .
43
6.1.3.3
Figurative meaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
43
6.2 Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
43
6.2.1
Nyāya-based argument: reliable authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
43
6.2.1.1
God as reliable author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
43
6.2.1.2
Agreement of the exemplary people . . . . . . . . . . . . .
44
6.2.1.3
Conflict: already explained away . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
44
6.2.2
Mīmāṃsā-based arguments: Veda-base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
44
6.2.2.1
Having common performers is not the main point . . . . . .
45
6.2.2.2
Conflict: There are endless Vedic branches and hence po-
tentially no conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
45
2
6.2.2.3
Lokāyata texts have no independent value . . . . . . . . . .
46
6.3 Conclusion through Mīmāṃsā and Nyāya arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
47
7 Abbreviations
51
7.1
Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
51
7.2 Other abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
51
References
51
8 Primary sources
51
9 Secondary sources
53
List of Tables
1
Contents of NM 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
2
Principal criteria for the validity of the Veda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
3
Naiyāyika ways to establish that the author is reliable . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
4
Principal criteria for texts other than the Veda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
5
Cogent evidence to prove the validity of Manu’s text, etc. . . . . . . . . . . .
14
6
Mīmāṃsā sources of invalidity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14
7
Jayanta’s criteria for establishing that an author is reliable . . . . . . . . . . .
15
8
Refuted criteria for establishing that a text is valid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
9
Explanation of the differences among Sacred Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
10
Principal attempts to invalidate the texts other than the Veda . . . . . . . . .
18
11
Sources for morality in Nyāya and Mīmāṃsā . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20
12
Answers to the possible reasons for invalidity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21
13
Different degrees of validity among Sacred Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22
14
Criteria mentioned by Kumārila . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24
15
SĀP criteria as derived from Kumārila’s ones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24
16
ĀḌ criteria as derived from Kumārila’s ones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24
17
Validity and invalidity criteria in the SĀP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25
18
Oscillations between the Mīmāṃsā and the Nyāya approach . . . . . . . . . .
27