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

[Siva Senani Nori]

Praveen ji, Namaste.
Thank you for your kind words.
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: 
Ifdadhi and dadhy are different Śabdas, then the sūtra of Pāṇini (iko yaNaci) which ordains this mustbe wrong.
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.
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 6:28 PM
 Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Theory of Language: Mimamsa, Advaita and Vyakarana - 2 of 3
  
Namaste Siva Senani ji,

First of all, thanks for both of your wonderful posts. While awaiting your 3rd post in the series, may I ask the following clarification?





On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Siva Senani Nori via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:


If dadhi and dadhy are differentŚabdas, then the sūtra of Pāṇini which ordains this(इको यणचि ॥6.1.77॥- In the place of iK (i, u, ṛ, ḷ) aresubstituted yaṆ (y, v, r, l) when iK is followed by aC (vowels) – this is theusual translation of this sūtra) mustbe wrong. 




Why would the usual translation be wrong, when the वृत्ति for इको यणचि would have to say that इकः स्थाने यण् आदेशः भवति? Isn't आदेश (or आगम/ लोप for that matter) always supposed to be a replacement and not a modification? In that case, the word दध्य् formed by replacing a letter is not the same word, unless said so by another पारिभाषिक sutra; is this right?

Of course, Bhashyakara Sabariswami's answer seemed to clinch the argument.

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