I am again pleasantly stuck in a passage of Uttamur T. Vīrarāghavācārya’s learned commentary on the Pūrva Mīmāṃsā Sūtra. This time he is discussing PMS 1.1.26, which is an important sūtra for philosophy of language, but one whose wordings was unclear even within Mīmāṃsā:
loke sanniyamāt prayogasannikarṣaḥ syāt
In an article (forthcoming on The Memoirs of the Institute for Advanced Studies on Asia, 177, 2020) Kei Kataoka suggests therefore an emendation to the PMS itself.
Within the history of Mīmāṃsā, Sucarita also suggested an emendation and read the sūtra as follows:
loke sanniyamāt prayogaḥ sannikarṣaḥ syāt
Moreover, Sucarita explains the sūtra as follows:
This aphorism aims at showing the difference of the Vedas [from worldly texts], since some people think that the Vedas consist of a collection of words, and the collections of words are commonly seen to have been made by people, for instance, the ones regarding objects (artha) such as groups of blue lotuses, and that therefore also these (Vedic collection of words) have been authored.
padasaṅghātātmāno vedāḥ. padasaṅghātāś ca puruṣakṛtā dṛṣṭāḥ, yathā nīlotpalavanādyarthaviṣayāḥ. ata ete ’pi kṛtrimā iti. tadviśeṣapradarśanārthaṃ cedaṃ sūtram. (Kāśikā ad ŚV pratijñā 55 ad PMS 1.1.1).
Veṅkaṭanātha and Uttamur T. Vīrarāghavācārya agree that this is not a suitable explanation, since it would be out of place. Moreover, says, Veṅkaṭanātha
And the insertion (niveśa) [of the aphorism] within that finality (i.e., showing the difference between ordinary and Vedic language) is not clear.
tādarthye niveśaś ca na spaṣṭaḥ. (SM ad PMS 1.1.26, 1971 p. 116)
The sentence is so short that it demands some explanation, and here follows Uttamur T. Vīrarāghavācārya’s one:
And the insertion [of the aphorism] within that finality means ‘And [the aphorism would] be included in the reflection on that purpose (i.e., showing the difference between ordinary and Vedic language)’, through the postulation that they (general purpose and aphorism) are linked as result and thing leading to the result (phalin) [respectively] insofar as it (aphorism) supplements the principal purpose.
tādarthye niveśaś ceti. pradhānārthaśeṣatayā phalaphalibhāvakalpanayā tadarthavicārāntarbhāvaś cetyarthaḥ.
(SĀṬ ad SM ad PMS 1.1.26, 1971 p. 116)
(I am not completely sure about my understanding of the commentary. Suggestions are welcome!)
In short, Veṅkaṭanātha and Uttamur T. Vīrarāghavācārya enter the debate with Mīmāṃsā authors on their very arena. The disagreement here does not regard a topic which would have a relevance for Vedānta, they just think Sucarita has not respected the sambandha requirement while interpreting the aphorism.
Hi! I am now reading Ślokavārttika, and find the explanation about 1.1.26 of Pārthasārathi Miśra in the Nyāyaratnākara is different from the Sucaritamiśra, “loke” should be linked with “sannikarṣa” rather than with “prayogaḥ”.
atra loka ityasya padasya sanniyamaprayogapadavyavahitena sannikarṣapadena sambandhaḥ / loke cakṣurādisannikarṣādarthasya tadviṣayaḥ śabdaprayogaḥ sanniyama upapadyate, na tu vede… NR p.16.
Having read your post about how to write accurate Sanskrit words in English, I have noticed that my last comment was in an improper manner, mixed “loke” “sannikarṣa” and “prayogaḥ”, and didn’t make white spaces.
May you forgive my faults. And I try to rewrite it in below.
Hello! I am now reading Ślokavārttika, and find the explanation about PMS 1.1.26 of Pārthasārathi Miśra in the Nyāyaratnākara is different from the Sucaritamiśra, “loka” should be linked with “sannikarṣa” rather than with “prayoga”.
atra loka ity asya padasya sanniyamaprayogapadavyavahitena sannikarṣapadena sambandhaḥ, loke cakṣurādisannikarṣād arthasya tadviṣayaḥ śabdaprayogaḥ sanniyama upapadyate. NR p.16.
atra ca sanniyamād iti padavyavahitaḥ prayogaśabdo loka ity asyānantaraṃ sambandhanīyaḥ. Kaśikā p.24.
thanks for rewriting. I am travelling, but will come back to this comment, please bear with me!
Once again, thanks for pointing it out, there are not many divergences between Sucarita and PSM, hence it is always fun to spot one. In this case,
Sucarita: The linguistic usage which one finds in the world is sanniyamaḥ `having a correct restriction’ because of the connection (see the lines following the one you quote, namely: tad ayam arthaḥ: loke śabdaprayogaḥ sanniyamaḥ samyaṅnibandhanātmako yuktaḥ, arthasya cakṣurādisannikarṣāt.)
PSM: Same, but loka can go with sannikarṣa, ‘because of the worldly connection’.
I agree that PSM here disagrees with Sucarita, but I am not sure why, given that the end-result is quite similar. In fact, both speak about worldly linguistic usage and are sure that this depends on worldly circumstances (the way our sense-perception works, etc.).
What do you think? And are you reading the whole PSM with commentaries? (If so, congratulations!)
Very thanks for replying. and sorry for late. I also think there is no much different between them in regard to the explanation of PMS 1.1.26, maybe PSM just want to show some diffrernt when he wrote NR. And I am just reading the first chapter of Slokavārttika with three commemtaries, finding this little difference when Kumārila explains what is the obstruction caused by word in verse 55 pada cd.