They do not refer to it by that name but they do have discussions related to that topic. I would be very interested to see how far the Theravaada treatment of text is related to a miimaMsA position in particular. The Theravaada is quite unique in this regard since they still posit zabdapramaaNa as the ultimate means of knowledge, unlike all other Buddhist schools that still exist. Perhaps there is scope for a collaboration?
Do not mention it! Of course I would be glad to collaborate on this topic. I once wrote something with a colleague on Theravāda vs. Mīmāṃsā arguments on the buddhavacana and it was quite intriguing to see how later Theravādins had adopted several hermeneutical nyāyas which seemed to be influenced by the Mīmāṃsā (but maybe I am biased and it was the other way round:-)). Furthermore, one of my long-term projects is to edit a Sanskrit reader on śabdapramāṇa. Until now, I did not think of Theravāda, many thanks! (But first I have to end the quotations-volume…a pity you cannot be there, too).
excellent! you have to show me these texts by sariputta. did I hear correctly that sautrantikas defended “sadda”, and not its meaning, as the canonical? it would be great if you wrote more on this topic in this blog, especially giving references for the sautrantika/vaibhasika controversy.
the speech is really good. congratulations!
March 1, 2012 at 7:15 am
intriguing topic. I hope to be able to listen to it soon. In short: do Pāli refer to the āptavacana paradigm? Or to a different paradigm altogether?
March 2, 2012 at 10:16 am
They do not refer to it by that name but they do have discussions related to that topic. I would be very interested to see how far the Theravaada treatment of text is related to a miimaMsA position in particular. The Theravaada is quite unique in this regard since they still posit zabdapramaaNa as the ultimate means of knowledge, unlike all other Buddhist schools that still exist. Perhaps there is scope for a collaboration?
March 3, 2012 at 10:54 pm
Do not mention it! Of course I would be glad to collaborate on this topic. I once wrote something with a colleague on Theravāda vs. Mīmāṃsā arguments on the buddhavacana and it was quite intriguing to see how later Theravādins had adopted several hermeneutical nyāyas which seemed to be influenced by the Mīmāṃsā (but maybe I am biased and it was the other way round:-)). Furthermore, one of my long-term projects is to edit a Sanskrit reader on śabdapramāṇa. Until now, I did not think of Theravāda, many thanks! (But first I have to end the quotations-volume…a pity you cannot be there, too).
March 1, 2012 at 10:11 pm
excellent! you have to show me these texts by sariputta. did I hear correctly that sautrantikas defended “sadda”, and not its meaning, as the canonical? it would be great if you wrote more on this topic in this blog, especially giving references for the sautrantika/vaibhasika controversy.
the speech is really good. congratulations!
March 2, 2012 at 5:26 pm
Thanks a lot Aleix, you can check out a good overview of the debate by Jaini here: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZlyDot9RyGcC&pg=PA201&dq=the+vaibhasika+theory+of+words+and+meanings&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kQJRT_TBKISQ0AXnxejICw&ved=0CEIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=the%20vaibhasika%20theory%20of%20words%20and%20meanings&f=false
March 10, 2012 at 8:15 pm
Thank you. I have read it. Very interesting. Now I understand the background of the discussion a little better.
March 6, 2012 at 12:36 pm
Would you mind posting a copy of the hand-out you mention in the presentation?
March 19, 2012 at 1:41 am
I’ll see what I can do!