See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/291336730

Kumārila and the grammarians

Working Paper · January 2016

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4875.3686

CITATIONS READS

0 258

1 author:

Johannes Bronkhorst
University of Lausanne
312 PUBLICATIONS 1,579 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Johannes Bronkhorst on 21 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1

Johannes Bronkhorst
johannes.bronkhorst@unil.ch

Kumārila and the grammarians

(explected to be published in History of Science in South Asia)

In a recent article, Yoshimizu (2012: 557-560) makes the following fascinating

observation:

We should not overlook the fact that the maxim “prakṛtipratyayau

pratyayārthaṃ saha brūtaḥ” is not accepted in the Pāṇinian school.
According to the Kāśikāvṛtti on Aṣṭādhyāyī (A) 1.2.56, this maxim was
formulated by a previous teacher (pūrvācārya), but Pāṇini laid down A
1.2.56 in order to refute it. In addition, Patañjali quotes this maxim
verbatim in MBh (I [this must be II, JB], p. 58, 11-12) on A 3.1.67, but he
applies it in a manner different from that of the Mīmāṃsakas. With this
quotation he maintains that the components of a word cooperate
harmoniously, but he does not say that a suffix is the principal component.
In the MBh we do find Patañjali saying, “What is the principal? It is a
suffix” (kiṃ pradhānam. pratyayaḥ). This is, however, said in a special
context. A 3.1.1 “pratyayaḥ” is an adhikārasūtra that governs the third,
fourth and fifth Adhyāyas. What Patañjali calls “pratyayaḥ” here is not the
suffixes attached to Sanskrit words used in ordinary discourse, but the
terms for suffixes embedded in each sūtra of these three Adhyāyas,
namely, some items of Pāṇini’s metalanguage. They are, moreover, called
“principal” because Pāṇini composed these Adhyāyas for them.
In contrast to the Pāṇinian school, Mīmāṃsakas insist that the
maxim “A base and a suffix express the meaning of the suffix together”
holds true for every word used in Sanskrit insofar as it consists of a base
and a suffix. It is therefore very unlikely that the Kartṛ-adhikaraṇa [of
Śabara’s Bhāṣya and Kumārila’s Tantravārttika thereon] reproduces any
historical debate, a short version by Śabara and a long one by Kumārila,
which occurred between the Mīmāṃsā and Pāṇinian schools. During the
course of the discussion, Kumārila uses two colloquial phrases in which
the opponent, on the one hand, criticises Kumārila, calling him “you,
Mīmāṃsaka” and Kumārila, on the other hand, explains the opponent’s
position with the proviso “for me, Pāṇini”. Although it is possible that
Kumārila recalled some discussions he had with contemporary
grammarians about individual topics of grammar, we should consider that
with these phrases he intends to give a stage effect, namely, the impression
that he is carrying out an interdisciplinary exploration.

This passage makes the following claim: Kumārila pretends that he is in

discussion with a grammarian of the Pāṇinian school, to whom he ascribes the
position that “a base and a suffix express the meaning of the suffix together”
(prakṛtipratyayau pratyayārthaṃ saha brūtaḥ), for all Sanskrit words that consist
 2

of a base and a suffix. In reality grammarians of the Pāṇinian school do not hold
this position. Kumārila invented this ascription to make a good impression on his
readers.
A priori this claim does not look very plausible. Why should Kumārila
invent a position and ascribe it to grammarians, if there might be grammarians
amongst his readers who would immediately see through the deceit? Let us
therefore look more closely at the reasons that make Yoshimizu think that the
grammarians did not agree with the position that Kumārila ascribes to them? This
position, as we have seen, centers around the statement “A base and a suffix
express the meaning of the suffix together” (prakṛtipratyayau pratyayārthaṃ saha
brūtaḥ).
First of all, there is the passage in the Kāśikā that rejects this position. It
occurs under A 1.2.56 (pradhānapratyayārthavacanam arthasyānyapramāṇatvāt),
which Yoshimizu (2012: 557 n. 19) translates as follows: “[Nor should it be
taught (53 aśiṣyam)] that the meaning [of a word] is expressed by the principal
member [when the word is a compound] or by the suffix [when it is a word that
consists of a base and a suffix], because [what a word means is] determined by
something else (i.e., conventional usage).” This rule belongs to a group of five
sūtras, about which Scharfe (1977: 89 n. 10) says the following: “The enigmatic
sūtra-s I 2 53-57 with their argumentative style must be an interpolation, and their
tenets point to a different school of thought. As only the first of them is
commented on and mentioned in the Mahābhāṣya (Patañjali only), it is likely that
the others got into the text later; Patañjali could otherwise hardly have avoided
any comment on them.” This possibility is to be kept in mind in what follows.
The history of Pāṇinian grammar — as I have been able to show in a
number of publications1 — is neither monolithic nor unilinear. An ever increasing
number of pieces of evidence indicate that Pāṇini’s grammar was studied for a
long time by scholars who did not accept Patañjali’s Mahābhāṣya as the ultimate
authority. This kind of Pāṇinian scholarship, it appears, was predominant during
the early centuries of the Common Era, until Candra2 and Bhartṛhari, who at last
imposed orthodoxy (if we mean by this term adherence to the Mahābhāṣya).
‘Unorthodox’ grammarians continued to exist in the Pāṇinian tradition: a late
(perhaps the most recent) example is Udbhaṭa, who may have lived around the
year 800 CE.
The Kāśikā belongs to the revived ‘orthodox’ tradition of Pāṇinian
grammar, even though it preserves some traces of the preceding ‘unorthodox’
period. This means that authors who entered into discussion with grammarians of
the Pāṇinian tradition — if they belonged to a period preceding the Kāśikā or
perhaps even to the first centuries following it — may have discussed with
‘unorthodox’ Pāṇinīyas.
Kumārila precedes the Kāśikā. He can be dated in the seventh century;3 the
Kāśikā appears to belong to the end of that same century.4 Kumārila may

1
E.g. Bronkhorst 1983; 2004; 2008; 2009a; 2009b.
2
Candra did not, of course, belong to the Pāṇinian tradition (he created his own), but he
did adhere closely to the Mahābhāṣya.
3
Clark, 2006: 110-111 n. 26; Taber, 2005: 163 n. 2.
4
Oberlies, 1996: 273.
 3

therefore have discussed (literally, as Yoshimizu suggests, or figuratively,

through reading and reacting to their works) with grammarians who did not in all
respects agree with the Kāśikā.
Let us now turn to the comments in the Kāśikā on the sūtra (A 1.2.56)
translated above. The parts that interest us, along with the sūtra, read:

pradhānapratyayārthavacanam arthasyānyapramāṇatvāt (A 1.2.56)

aśiṣyam iti vartate/ pradhānaṃ samāse kiṃcit padam, pratyayas
tavyadādiḥ, tābhyām arthavacanam arthābhidhānam anena prakāreṇa
bhavatīti pūrvācāryaiḥ paribhāṣitam: pradhānopasarjane pradhānārthaṃ
saha brūtaḥ, prakṛtipratyayau sahārthaṃ brūta iti/ tat pāṇinir ācāryaḥ
pratyācaṣṭe/ aśiṣyam etad, arthasyānyapramāṇatvād iti/ anya iti
śāstrāpekṣayā loko vyapadiśyate/ śabdair arthābhidhānaṃ svābhāvikaṃ na
pāribhāṣikam, aśakyatvāt, lokata evārthāvagateḥ/
[Nor should it be taught (53 aśiṣyam)] that the meaning [of a word] is
expressed by the principal member [when the word is a compound] or
by the suffix [when it is a word that consists of a base and a suffix],
because [what a word means is] determined by something else (i.e.,
conventional usage).
The word aśiṣyam (“should not be taught”) is carried over [from sūtra 53].
The principal member (pradhāna) is a [constituent] word in a compound; a
suffix is [an ending] such as tavyaT. Earlier preceptors have laid down that
the meaning [of a word] is expressed by these two, in this manner: “the
principal member and the subordinate one express the principal meaning
together” and “a base and a suffix express the meaning together”. The
preceptor Pāṇini rejects this [in this sūtra], with the words “this should not
be taught” “because [what a word means is] determined by something
else”. The ‘something else’ with respect to the discipline of grammar is
said to be conventional usage. The expression of meaning by words is
natural, not laid down [by teachers], because [such artificial meanings] are
not denoted [by words], and because we learn meanings from conventional
usage only.

The Kāśikā refers on a few other occasions to “earlier preceptors” (pūrvācārya),

normally preceptors that preceded (or were thought to precede) Pāṇini. In the
present passage these earlier preceptors are believed to precede the composition
of A 1.2.56, which the Kāśikā accepts as a sūtra of Pāṇini. We have already seen
that this is unlikely: A 1.2.56 was composed after Pāṇini, probably also after
Patañjali. Clearly this added sūtra responds to the rules laid down by the earlier
preceptors. In this respect the Kāśikā is no doubt right. It is not right when it
claims that the author of this sūtra is Pāṇini, and that the earlier preceptors are
predecessors of Pāṇini.
This leads us to the following hypothesis: Preceptors in the Pāṇinian
tradition, at some point in time, taught the maxims that “the principal member and
the subordinate one [of a compound] express the principal meaning together” and
“a base and a suffix express the meaning together”. Other Pāṇinīyas were not
pleased, and added A 1.2.56 to the Aṣṭādhyāyī. Kumārila still discussed with
followers of the ‘earlier preceptors’ who did not recognize A 1.2.56.
 4

What about Patañjali’s quotation of the second maxim “a base and a suffix
express the meaning of the suffix together” (prakṛtipratyayau pratyayārthaṃ saha
brūtaḥ) in his Mahābhāṣya? Yoshimizu points out that the maxim is here applied
differently. He also points out that Patañjali’s statement “What is the principal? It
is a suffix” (kiṃ [ca] pradhānam. pratyayaḥ; Mahābhāṣya on A 3.1.1 vt 3; II p. 2
l. 2) does not simply mean that suffixes are principal.5
All this may be true, but does not prove that Patañjali rejected another use
or interpretation of the maxim. For this reason it could not prevent later Pāṇinīyas
from using it in a way that suited them. (Since they did not attribute absolute
authority to Patañjali in any case, as we have seen, they might not even care if
Patañjali was against their use of the maxim.) We are therefore free to hold on to
our hypothesis.
But why would Pāṇinīyas like the author(s) of the Kāśikā give up this
maxim? If it did not give rise to problems before, why should it give rise to them
afterwards?
I think the answer must be as follows. Accepting the maxim of the
principal role of the suffix meant for the grammarians that in the analysis of a
verb like pacati “he cooks”, ‘agent’ would be the principal meaning, for -ti is
prescribed in Pāṇini’s grammar in the sense ‘agent’. This is indeed the opinion of
Kumārila’s opponent, who even provides proofs for this position. Here is how
Yoshimizu (2012: 567) presents the first one:

The first proof can be put in plain language as follows: In the sentence
“pacati devadattaḥ”, the finite verb “pacati” and the noun “devadattaḥ”
stand in apposition to each other, both ending in the singular number.
Owing to this apposition, the verb “pacati” denotes the agent of cooking in
the same way as an agent noun “pācaka” (or “paktṛ”) obviously denotes an
agent when standing in apposition to “devadattaḥ” in “pācako (or paktā)
devadattaḥ”. This proof can be rendered by a syllogism that consists of
three members: “The finite verb ‘pacati’ denotes the agent of cooking” as
the thesis (pratijñā), “because of its apposition with ‘devadattaḥ’ in the
nominative” as a reason (hetu), and “just as the agent noun ‘pācaka’ (or
‘paktṛ’) as an example (dṛṣṭānta).

However, Bhartṛhari and those who follow him do not look upon ‘agent’ as the
principal meaning of a verb; they rather consider ‘operation’ (vyāpāra) to be the
principal meaning expressed by verbs.6 We do not know whether Bhartṛhari was

5
Patañjali appears to attribute to someone else the idea that the verb is the main part of
the sentence. See Mahā-bh I p. 367 l. 15 (on P. 2.1.1 vt. 9): apara āha/ ākhyātaṃ
saviśeṣaṇam ity eva/ sarvāṇi hy etāni kriyāviśeṣaṇāni/. "Others say: ‘A [finite] verb with
qualifications [makes a sentence]’, simply. For all these [qualifying words] are
qualifications to the action." (tr. Kahrs 1986: 142 n. 2)
6
See Vkp 3.8.40-41: bahūnāṃ saṃbhave 'rthānāṃ kecid evopakāriṇaḥ/ saṃsarge kaścid
eṣāṃ tu prādhānyena pratīyate// sādhyatvāt tatra cākhyātair vyāpārāḥ siddhasādhanāḥ/
prādhānyenābhidhīyante phalenāpi pravartitāḥ// “Where there are many meanings, some
are subsidiary; one however is understood to be the principal one when they are
intimately related. (40) In that [situation] activities are expressed, by the verbs, as
principal, because they are what is to be accomplished (sādhya), even though [the
 5

the first to propose this semantic interpretation of verbs, but it will be useful to
recall that this author played a central role in establishing the ‘orthodox’ tradition
of Pāṇinian grammar. If orthodox grammarians wanted to accept Bhartṛhari’s
semantic interpretation of verbal forms (whether introduced by him or by others),
they had to abandon the maxim according to which the meaning of the suffix is
the principal meaning of a verbal form. The author(s) of the Kāśikā, and
presumably other orthodox grammarians, did so. Kumārila, on the other hand,
was still in discussion with Pāṇinīyas who had not yet taken this step.

References:

Bronkhorst, Johannes (1983): "On the history of Pāṇinian grammar in the early
centuries following Patañjali." Journal of Indian Philosophy 11, 357-412.
Bronkhorst, Johannes (2004): “More on the sources of the Kāśikā”. Problems in
Vedic and Sanskrit Literature. (Ganesh Umakant Thite Felicitation
Volume.) Ed. Maitreyee Deshpande. Delhi: New Bharatiya Book
Corporation. Pp. 47-54.
Bronkhorst, Johannes (2008): “Udbhaṭa, a grammarian and a Cārvāka.” Linguistic
Traditions of Kashmir. Essays in memory of paṇḍit Dinanath Yaksha. Ed.
Mrinal Kaul and Ashok Aklujkar. New Delhi: D. K. Printworld. Pp. 281-
299.
Bronkhorst, Johannes (2009a): “Critique et transmission textuelles dans la
tradition pāṇinéenne.” Écrire et transmettre en Inde classique. Ed. Gérard
Colas & Gerdi Gerschheimer. Paris: École française d’Extrême-Orient.
(Études thématiques, 23.) Pp. 269-286.
Bronkhorst, Johannes (2009b): “The importance of the Kāśikā.” Studies in the
Kāśikāvṛtti. The Section on Pratyāhāras: Critical Edition, Translation and
Other Contributions. Ed. Pascale Haag & Vincenzo Vergiani. Firenze:
Società Editrice Fiorentina. Pp. 129-140.
Clark, Matthew (2006): The Daśanāmī-Saṃnyāsīs. The integration of ascetic
lineages into an order. Leiden – Boston: Brill. (Brill’s Indological Library,
25.)
Kahrs, Eivind (1986): "Durga on bhāva." Kalyāṇamitrārāgaṇam. Essays in
Honour of Nils Simonsson. Ed. Eivind Kahrs. Oslo: Norwegian University
Press / The Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture. Series
B: Skrifter 70. Pp. 115-144.
Oberlies, Thomas (1996): “Das zeitliche und ideengeschichtliche Verhältnis der
Cāndra-vṛtti zu anderen V(ai)yākaraṇas (Studien zum Cāndravyākaraṇa
III).” Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 20 (Festschrift Paul Thieme zum
90. Geburtstag am 18. März 1995 dargebracht von Schülern und Kollegen;
ed. H.-P. Schmidt and A. Wezler), 265-317.
Scharfe, Hartmut (1977): Grammatical Literature. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
(A History of Indian Literature, 5/2.)

activities themselves], whose means of accomplishment (sādhana) are [already]

accomplished (siddha), are urged forward by the result. (41)”
 6

Taber, John (2005): A Hindu Critique of Buddhist Epistemology: Kumārila on

Perception. The “Determination of Perception” chapter of Kumārila
Bhaṭṭa’s Ślokavārttika. Translation and commentary. London & New
York: RoutledgeCurzon.
Yoshimizu, Kiyotaka (2012): “Tradition and reflection in Kumārila’s last stand
against the grammarians’ theories of verbal denotation.” Saṃskṛta-
sādhutā: Goodness of Sanskrit. Studies in Honour of Professor Ashok N.
Aklujkar. Ed. Chikafumi Watanabe, Michele Desmarais, Yoshichika
Honda. New Delhi: D. K. Printworld. Pp. 552-586.

Abbreviation:

Mahā-bh Patañjali, (Vyākaraṇa-)Mahābhāṣya, ed. F. Kielhorn,

Bombay 1880-1885

View publication stats