[Advaita-l] Theory of Language: Mimamsa, Advaita and Vyakarana 3 of 3

[Venkatraghavan S]

Sri Siva SenAniji,
Namaste.

Thank you very much for making these posts available to the group - they
were very enlightening indeed.

Apologies about the barrage of questions (please ignore, if I have not
understood the concepts outlined by you):

1) If the vaiyAkaraNa considers sabda to be nitya, but that the artha
denoted by the sabda to be only conceptual, does that concept have
nityatvam or not?

2) If the conceptual meaning of the word has nityatvam, then it follows
that arthA according to vyAkaraNa will have to survive praLaya, etc. If it
did not survive praLaya, how can the artha be nitya?

3) If such an artha did survive praLaya, how is the concept different from
mImAmsa's jAti?

4) If on the other hand, the vyAkaraNa position is that vyAkaraNa artha is
not nitya, then it follows that their relationship (betn. a nitya sabda and
its anitya artha) is not nitya. So when a vaiyAkaraNa says sabda is nitya,
is he only referring to sabda, but not its artha and sambandha?

5) Moreover, any specific sabda can then have several meanings, because its
artha is anitya. From srishti to srishti, or even within one srishti
itself, the same sabdA can denote different things. Extending this further,
is vyAkaraNa's position that veda sabda is nitya, but its artha keeps
changing?

6) Finally, is the nityatvam of sabda a paramArtha satyam in vyAkaraNa? Or
is it nityam only in a vyavahAra sense, like srishti/samsAra of an
advaitin? If paramArtha satyam, veda sabda will be paramArtham, but that is
not advaita's position (त्रैगुण्य विषयाः वेदाः).

Once again, apologies about the many questions.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan