We concluded at present an amazing workshop on Maṇḍana’s Vidhiviveka and these are my first feedback on what we may set up. My deepest gratitude goes to all individuals. (For extra on the workshop, learn right here: https://philosophy.utoronto.ca/event/workshop-maṇḍana-on-ritual-duties/)
Construction:
vv. 2.1–2.6: Maṇḍana’s siddhānta on iṣṭābhyupāyatā (chapter 11 in Elliot Stern’s forthcoming version)
v. 2.7: abstract of chapter 11, opening the brand new matter (chapter 12)
v. 2.8: yathāśakti provision applies to nitya sacrifices, sarvāṅgopasaṃhāra in kāmya ones (chapter 13)
v. 2.9: time must be the distinguishing issue between nitya/namimittika and kāmya rituals. For the previous, kāla is included in nimitta, that ensures avaśyakartavyatā (chapter 14)
Abstract of Chapters 13–14:
Chapter 13 tries to discover a appropriate candidate as phala for nitya sacrifices. The Prābhākara opponent insists on akaraṇe pratyavāya, whereas the siddhāntin (or quasi-siddhāntin) prefers pāpakṣaya. A primary proposal on this sense, nonetheless, is refuted, as a result of it could result in simply vāstava nityatva, and this may not assure the appliance of the yathāśakti provision. This could solely be assured by the ought-implies-can metarule and thus by a śābda nityatva, prescribed as such by the Veda. Therefore, Maṇḍana desires each ranges.
The akaraṇe-pratyavāya different is mentioned at size. A preliminary chance saying that akaraṇe there may be pratyavāya, and that the sacrifice, being duḥkha, leads in an ānuṣaṅgika solution to the manufacturing of pāpakṣaya.
That is lastly refuted as a result of there isn’t any Vedic textual content justifying this view (it could be simply inflicting whimsical ache to oneself).
At this level, the dialogue turns into extra technical. The acceptance of the yathāśakti provision implies that one contracts (saṅkoca) the that means of both the point out of the adhikāra (in order that solely a samartha adhikārin is supposed) or of the varied aṅgavidhis. Which one is best? The fixed threat to be averted is that the identical view might be utilized to nitya and kāmya rituals, thus ending up of their being non-different.
The opponent suggests the appliance of Kāmsyabhojinyāya and of bādha primarily based on bhūyastva as a way to get to the consequence that the one adhikāraśruti ought to be contracted and never the various aṅgavidhis. Against this, Maṇḍana (atha matam, p, 671 in ES’ version, 17.5.2023) thinks that the aṅgavidhis are restricted, bc in any other case two undesirable penalties would comply with (vaicitrya-risk within the prayoga) and since a single śruti will not be proof, since phrases are utilized in context (naitat sāram, p. 672).
Thus, this answer is placing a lot wait on yāvajjīvam-śruti, whereas chapter 14 will put within the context of naimittika sacrifices.
On this chapter, the brand new threat is adhikārātikrānti and the extra hurdle are naimittika sacrifices, which aren’t carried out daily, however are in any other case equivalent to the nitya ones. To the atha matam and naitat sāram positions talked about above one thing else is added, particularly the definition of nimitta as not being a viśeṣaṇa of the adhikārin (that is what the Prābhākara opponent argues for), however only a nimitta. Time (kāla) additionally belongs to the nimitta within the case of nitya and naimittika sacrifices, though it’s an aṅga for kāmya ones and might therefore be a distinguishing issue (v. 2.9).
One level we didn’t have the time to debate: Vācaspati (on 13.5) discusses a tantra vs prasaṅga strategy and concludes that the primary one ought to be most popular. What two issues are centrally carried out by way of tantra? Vācaspati clearly says that one is a kāmya and the opposite one is a nitya ritual (e.g. ubhayor api kāmyanityayoḥ karmaṇoḥ […] tantram anuṣṭhānam" ortasmān na kāmye ‘nuṣṭhīyamāne prāsaṅgikatvaṃ nityasya”, p. 660), however what are these referring to? A suggestion: There’s a nitya sacrifice comparable to the śābda nityatva, and a kāmya sacrifice comparable to the vāstava nityatva and the 2 are carried out on the identical time.
