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

[Praveen R. Bhat]

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...



>
> If dadhi and dadhy are different Śabdas, then the sūtra of Pāṇini (iko
> yaNaci) which ordains this must be 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] */