[Advaita-l] Theory of Language: Mimamsa, Advaita and Vyakarana - 2 of 3

Siva Senani Nori sivasenani at yahoo.com
Fri Dec 11 05:56:50 CST 2015

The PUrvapakshin is not saying that the translation is wrong, he is saying that the sUtra itself has to be wrong, as on the one hand the MImAMsaka says that "dadhi" and "dadhy" are different Sabdas, whereas the sUtra is saying that "dadhy" is a form obtained by replacing the "i" in "dadhi" by "y".
Of course you are right that in the view of the VaiyAkaraNa, AdeSa operates upon the entire word, not just one letter. In the bhAshya under dAdhAghvadAp 1.1.20, Patanjali shows that not merely AdeSa, but even Agama operates through AdeSa in place of the entire word:
सर्वे सर्वपदादेशा दाक्षीपुत्रस्य पाणिनेः। एकदेशविकारे हिनित्यत्वं नोपपद्यते ॥In the opinion of PANini, the son of DAkshI, all (i.e. Agamas, AdeSas etc.) are the AdeSas of whole words, for if there is change in one place then Sabdanityatva is not possible.
The MimAMsaka answers the objector by interpreting the sUtra as a niyama rather than a plain vidhi. The VaiyAkaraNa's resolution is to remind that all substitutions are conceptual or mental and not real, and that all grammatical operations are to be understood as happening through the device of substitution of whole words.
RegardsN. Siva Senani 

      From: Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com>
 To: Siva Senani Nori <sivasenani at yahoo.com>; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> 
 Sent: Thursday, 10 December 2015 9:50 PM
 Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Theory of Language: Mimamsa, Advaita and Vyakarana - 2 of 3
Namaste Siva Senani ji,

Thanks for your response.

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Siva Senani Nori <sivasenani at yahoo.com> wrote:

I am sorry to have used too many sub-clauses in my post. Most of the matter within brackets could have been presented better as footnotes. The intended meaning of the sentence is hopefully clearer once much of the material in brackets is removed: 

Not at all; your sub-clauses were useful. I didn't misunderstand that it was not a pUrvapakSha, but perhaps I should have phrased my question better. Apologies for repeating the question but I intended to ask as to why does the pUrvapakShi consider यण् ordained in the place of इक् as wrong translation/ interpretation when it is called as a *substitution/ replacement*? Only if said to be a *modification*, then the translation could be construed as being wrong. Or...


Ifdadhi and dadhy are different Śabdas, then the sūtra of Pāṇini (iko yaNaci) which ordains this mustbe wrong.

... is the pUrvapakShi considering that Panini is substituting only a letter not a word? I would have thought that when Panini says अचि परतः, the इ in दधि gets य् आदेश it is not different from saying that दधि gets दध्य् आदश meaning that replacement of a letter is replacement of the word as well.

This is a pUrvapaksha, i.e. the objection of the opponent of Mimamsa, who is answered by the Mimamsaka. The answer is implicit in SAbarabhAshya, as you noted, and made explicit by KumArila.

Thanks again, in advance.

Kind rgds,
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */ 


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list