Patajali's Vykaraa-Mahbhya. Samarthhnika (P 2.1.1) by S. D.

Joshi; Patajali
Review by: Rosane Rocher
Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 91, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1971), pp. 315-316
Published by: American Oriental Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/600115 .
Accessed: 12/06/2014 17:24

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
the American Oriental Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.154 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:24:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Reviews of Books
underscoring the continuity of thought in the
Paninian grammatical school. Both parts of the
book (paribhads IV-V, and paribhasa XV) follow
the same scheme: a study of the entire relevant
commentatorial literature is followed by a discus-
sion and evaluation of the materials, subdivided
into a) Katyayana; b) Patafijali; c) Kaiyata; d)
Bhattoji Diksita (for paribhdad XV only); e)
Nagojibhatta. In both instances, the major ques-
tion is whether Katyayana or Patafijali is the
author of the paribhadas. Wezler persuasively
demonstrates that paribhdads IV and XVII go
back to Katyayana, whereas paribhdads VI to
VIII and XV originated with Patafijali; paribhdsd
V, although containing an alternative already con-
sidered-and rejected-by Katyayana, was only
formulated-and accepted-by Patafijali. In iso-
lating Katyayana's vdrttikas in Patafijali's Ma-
hdbhdaya,the only source where they have been
preserved, Wezler follows, of course, Kielhorn's
edition. We cannot help reiterating here our
doubts about the validity of Kielhorn's work in
this respect. The edition, neatly printing in dif-
ferent types what Kielhorn recognizes as vdrttikas
on the one hand, and the rest of the text of the
Mahabhasya on the other, creates a false impres-
sion of clarity. If one reads the text without the
help of Kielhorn's typographical device, and if
one considers the grounds on which Kielhorn had
to rely to isolate the vdrttikas, as he describes
them in his Notes on the Mahdbhdsya, one realizes
how tentative the venture was. There is no doubt
that Kielhorn did the best he could at that stage of
Indian grammatical research, but it is our opinion
that the Katyayana who will eventually emerge
from repeated and thorough studies of the Ma-
hdbhasya might well be substantially different
from the one created by Kielhorn.
Although Wezler does not entertain such mis-
givings about the authenticity of Kielhorn's
Katyayana, his study, contrasting the theories
put forth in the vdrttikas and in the remainder of
the Mahdbhaya, is a real contribution to a better
understanding of the texts; it is one of the many
inquiries that will be needed to bring about the
necessary refinement in our understanding of
Katyayana's contribution. Kielhorn's criteria were
This content downloaded from 62.122.72.154 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:24:17 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
315
necessarily mainly formal; a definitive appraisal
of Katyayana's contribution to grammatical litera-
ture will have to be based on an analysis of the
contents of the varttikasthat have been attributed
to him, and on an attempt to build out of these a
reasonably coherent structure. Detailed and con-
trasting studies of the Mahdbhdsya, such as
Wezler's, are the only ones that will lead to an
acceptable answer. With this first book, Albrecht
Wezler has made a brilliant appearance on the
scene of Paninian studies. Old hands, and not so
old hands, will be happy to welcome him to their
circle.
ROSANE ROCHER
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
Patafjali's Vydkarana-Mahabhd6ya. Samarthah-
nika (P 2.1.1). Edited with Translation and
Explanatory Notes by S. D. JoSHI. (Publica-
tions of the Centre of Advanced Study in
Sanskrit. Class C. No. 3). Pp. xix + 32 +
223. Poona: UNIVERSITYOF POONA. 1968.
Patafijali's Mahdbhdsya occupies an outstand-
ing place in Indian grammatical literature. It is
not only the oldest extant commentary on Panini's
grammar (together with Katyayana's vdrttikas
which it preserves); it is also the most fascinating
one. The Mahdbhdayadoes not explain each and
every rule of the A.tddhydyi in the manner of a
textbook; some sutras are not commented upon,
but other sutras are made the object of lengthy
and profound discussions, of interest both to the
linguist and to the philosopher. Although written
in limpid Sanskrit, the Mahdbhdaya is an ex-
tremely difficult text; the complexity of the
arguments belies the apparent simplicity of the
expression. All these characteristics are present in
the discussion of sitra 2.1.1, which constitutes an
ahnika by itself, generally referred to as sa-
marthdhnika. This very important rule heads the
chapter of grammar dealing with compounds, and
establishes from the outset that all rules of com-
position apply only to words that are semantically
connected. Among the topics discussed in the
Mahdbhdsya are: the role of sutra 2.1.1 in the
A.tddhydyz (is it an adhikara, i.e., a rule valid for
316 Journal of the American OrientalSociety, 91.2 (1971)
the section of the grammar it heads only, or a
paribhdad, i.e., a rule of interpretation valid
throughout the entire grammar?); the nature of
semantic connection (is it interdependence of
meaning, or emergence of a single integrated
meaning?); the relevance of word-meaning to
grammar; the difference, if any, between semantic
connection in a compound and in words related in
a sentence; the definition of a sentence; grouping
in a compound of more than two constituent
elements; the problem of samdnddhikarana com-
pounds (such as vira-puru?a "hero-man").
The text of the samarthdhnika section of the
Mahdbhdayapublished in S. D. Joshi's book does
not constitute a new edition: it basically repro-
duces the text of Kielhorn's edition, with a few
minor corrections, and modifications in the punc-
tuation. The interest of the volume lies in the
translation and explanation of the text. Joshi is
aware of the shortcomings of a straightforward
translation of grammatical texts generally (see
his successful treatment of the Sphotanirnaya,
reviewed previously in this Journal) and of the
Mahdbhdsya in particular (see P. S. Subrah-
manya Sastri's attempt at an-incomplete-trans-
lation: Lectures on Patanjali's Mahabhdaya). The
difficulty is not understanding what Pataijali says,
but finding out what he means. Joshi comes as
close as one can get to an ideal rendition, by ob-
serving three steps: for each segment of the text,
he gives 1. (printed in large characters) a transla-
tion that follows the original as far as perspicuity
allows, but carefully avoids including Sanskrit
technical terms; then (printed in small characters)
2. a translation of parts of the PradTpa,Kaiyata's
commentary on the Mahabhdsya; 3. a paraphrase
and explanation that draws upon the traditional
interpretations of the commentators, but mainly
reflects Joshi's own informed analysis of the text.
The Sanskrit text of the translated passages of the
PradTpa and other eventual references are given
in footnotes.
The volume is a tribute to the author's scholar-
ship: a remarkable blend of knowledge of the
sources and critical attitude. We are even tempted
to say, that the translation is excessively critical
in one respect: all words introduced into the
This content downloaded from 62.122.72.154 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:24:17 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
English translation for the sake of clarification are
placed between parentheses, similarly to Renou's
French translation of Panini's grammar. If that
procMd6is to be commended generally, in some
cases the parentheses unnecessarily complicate
the sentence. We select an example at random:
"The letter i denoting the passive sense (is
added) after (the root) dhaN preceded by (the
preverb) vi. What is prescribed (by Panini's rules)
is vidhi: 'operation' " (p. 3). The words in paren-
theses do not add to the text; the translation
would be more readable if parentheses were re-
served for real additions.
The author announces a forthcoming work on
the whole section of the Mahabhdsyabearing upon
composition (adhyaya 2, padas 1-2). We hope
that he will go even farther, and provide us with a
complete translation-explanation of Patanijali's
work in the future.
ROSANE ROCHER
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
Materialien zur dltesten Erkenntnislehre der Kar-
mamimdmsd. By ERICH FRAUWALLNER.Pp.
114 (Osterreichische Akademie der Wissen-
schaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse, Sitzungsberichte,
259. Band, 2. Abhandlung). Wien: HERMANN
BOHLAUS NACHF. 1968.
The book presents in three parts, 1) the initial
section of Sabarasvamin's Bhasya including the
well known Vrttikara-section, 2) the polemical
references to the Mimamsa philosophy in Dig-
naga's Pramanasamuccaya and 3) an attempt to
put the Vrttikara into his proper place within the
history of the Mimamisa.
The Sabara-bhasya on the M1immsa-sfitras
I 1, 1-5 is given, on opposing pages, both in the
transliterated Sanskrit original and a German
translation. The text is based on the older printed
editions plus four south Indian manuscripts; while
a strictly critical text could not be established on
the basis of this material, it was possible to con-
vincingly emend the text in several places. The
Vrttikara, in his argumentation to prove that
language was not created by man, makes the point