atantram in the Mahabhasya imagery (PANDANUS 2008)

1 The edible part of the rice in Mahābhāṣya imagery: What are the husks of rules? What is a -tantram ? * TIZIANA PONTILLO, University of Cagliari SUMMARY: The grammarian Patañjali employs four times an image taken from the natural world to depict a specific kind of part-whole relationship which he considers relevant as far as the correct recognition of Pāṇiniʼs metalinguistic code is concerned and consequently the right application of some rules. Thus he manages to make understood how the essential sense of grammar sentences should be isolated from their complex form, singling out what is tantram in the rule. 1. Some Paribhāṣās make plain how the grammatical tradition has ripened a particular attitude which tends to detach some features of the precise wording from Pāṇiniʼs rules, in order to refuse certain proposals of integration and correction or merely to warrant the preferred interpretation and consequently the desirable application of them. Nāge aʼs Pbh. 73 excludes gender and number marks: sūtre li gavacanam atantram, translated by Abhyankar as “The (particular) gender and number in which a word is put down in a rule, are not (intended) to teach anything”. The same term a-tantram is also employed to block the current sense of comparative for the affix ‒tara by Vyāḍiʼs Pbh. 60: atantraṃ nirde aḥ, translated by Wujastyk as “The specification of ‒tara is not the main point”. 2. Atantram is the term which Patañjali chooses in six passages with a total of 10 occurrences in order to dispose of some features of the wording of sūtras. Moreover there are a total of 21 occurrences of the nominal base tantra-, of which 4 are casual linguistic examples on external sandhis, and 3 are involved in the commentary on A I.4.54 svatantraḥ kartā. The remaining 14 occurrences are intended as the positive corresponding to the mentioned a-tantra and are always opposed to this latter in the same context except in two passages.1 The present paper merely aims to inquire into I should like to thank Dr. M.P. Candotti for sharing the analysis of some crucial grammariansʼ passages. 1 In the first case M (III.194 l. 24 - 195 l. 1 ad A VI.4.24) rejects the Vt. 4 which defines the lopa-replacement of n in a ga rañj- before the affix GHinU as “already established” because of a nipātana , that is the mention of the dhātu rañjA as rajA in A III.2.142. M refuses to treat * 2 the peculiar concept conveyed by tantra- / a-tantraterminology elaborated by commentators about Pāṇiniʼs metalanguage. 2.1. The first occurrence corresponds to the subject of the latter mentioned Pbh. The implications of the comparative suffix ‒tara2 involved both in A I.2.35 and in A I.2.40 are questioned with reference to the eka ruti “monotone utterance” taught by the rule A I.2.33 “when calling someone from a distance”. Patañjali wonders whether eka ruti is udātta or anudātta. He states by jñāpaka that the affix -tara is atantram (M I.210 ll. 6-7; l. 9 ad A I.2.33: atantraṃ taranirde aḥ) both in A I.2.35 uccaistarāṃ vā vaṣaṭkāraḥ, which seems to optionally introduce “a higher pitch than udātta” for the utterance of the expression vaṣaṭ and A I.2.40 udāttasvaritaparasya sannataraḥ, which seems to teach the replacement of an anudātta followed by an udātta or by a svarita with “a pitch lower than anudātta” (that is a pitch distinguished for its superiority in comparison with anudātta). It follows that A I.2.35 teaches a mere udātta as an option and A I.2.40 an anudātta. As a consequence eka ruti should be a sort of mixture of udātta and anudātta, in which the respective identities are not distinguished, unlike the svarita which is a samāhāra “combination” (A I.2.31). The reverse solution, i.e. tantraṃ taranirde aḥ is expounded as someone elseʼs mind immediately after (M I.210 l. 11: apara āha) and implies a remarkable increase in the range of types of pitch up to seven types, namely udātta (A I.2.29), udāttatara (35), anudātta (30), anudāttatara (40), svarita (31), what is udātta and qualified by the other constituent in svarita, eka ruti (33). 2.2. Vyāḍiʼs Pbh. 60 is even included in a vārttika (quoted below) on A II.2.34 alpāctaram, which teaches the sequence of padas in a dvandva-compound: the pada which contains fewer vowels must precede. The a nipātana as tantram and resorts to A VI.4.26, which teaches the same lopa-replacement of n of rañjA before aP. The second one (M II.382 l. 9 ad Vt. 4 ad A V.2.47) is the only passage which employs tantram in the siddhānta view, stating that the singular vibhakti of gu asya in A V.2.47 is tantram, that is only the taddhita-affix -maya can be applied to a singular stem. 2 In fact this affix ‒tara should have been applied according to A V.3.57, that is on condition that “its derivatives denote ati āyana ʻsuperiority, excellenceʼ” and that “a pada which denotes two items or which distinguishes one from another co-occurs”. 3 question is whether the affix ‒tara is tantram or not and consequently whether this sequence is restricted to dvandvas with two members or can be extended to each dvandva, regardless of the number of members (M I.435 ll. 18-19 ad A II.2.34). In the restrictive interpretation the pada dundubhi- has a chance of coming first in the compound a kha-dundubhi-vī ānām “of a conch, a drum and a vī ā”. Otherwise some other examples such as mṛda ga- a kha-tū avāḥ “the drum, the conch and the flute” and dhanapati-rāma-ke avānām “of Kubera, Rāma and Ke ava” cannot be justified. The final view coincides with the second alternative and Vt. 1 (atantre taranirde e a khatū avayor mṛda gena samāsaḥ) assumes that a first member mṛda gaḥ containing three vowels forms a compound with a second more complex member, which is actually compounded by two members ( a kha-tū avau), containing a total of five vowels. By the way it is possible notice that if we had to reduce each plurimember dvandva to a bi-member compound, the first restrictive alternative should in theory be equally valid but only the speakerʼs free choice or at maximum a linguistic convention could constitute the leading principle.3 On the other hand Vt. 2 states that we can apply the rule only once, even when there is a choice between two or more members containing fewer vowels, i.e. after having applied the rule once, the sequence of the remaining members can only be free. Nevertheless ‒ as Joshi-Roodbergen 1974, LXVIII points out - if we adopt the a-tantra view, we manage both to justify mṛda ga- a khatū avāḥ by resorting to a two-word compound-formation, and to block **dundubhi- a khavī ānām, by resorting to a three-word compoundformation. Meanwhile we would not be able to block this latter formation, if we adopted the tantra-view.4 In fact M leads us to conclude ‒ as Radicchi 1988, 112 demonstrates - that this rule is valid for the bi-member compounds, while the pluri-member ones are not governed by any grammatical rules but rather by usage. On the contrary the so-called first member of both examples which contravene the atantra-view are after all bi-members ( mṛda ga- ; dhanapati-) with a first two-syllabled member, although they are not dvandva, which seems to match the prevalence of a rhythmic law otherwise underlined by Caland 1931, 59. 4 For “three-word” vs. “two-word” compounding see JoshiRoodbergen 1968, 22‒5. 3 4 3.1. Four M passages which define something as atantram in Pāṇiniʼs rules correspond to the above mentioned Nāge aʼs Pbh. 73. The first one deals with a rule (A I.2.39 svaritāt saṃhitāyām anudāttānām) which teaches the replacement of every anudātta which occurs after a svarita by eka ruti in saṃhitāpāṭha. The use of the plural ending for anudātta is questioned by both Vts. and M (M I.211 l. 19-212 l. 7 ad A I.2.39), which wonder whether this rule should only apply after more than two anudāttas, that is if a new wording is compulsory in order to also extend the mentioned replacement to a single or to a double anudātta (Vt. 1:［ ］dvayekayor aika rutyavacanam). M points out that number endings are intrinsically (nāntarīyakatvād) part of any kind of sentence, including grammatical sūtras. He probably alludes to the definition of “word” (pada) as an exclusively “inflected word” (A I.4.14 supti antam padam, “pada is an item terminating in nominal or verbal endings”), i.e. furnished with its number mark according to the standard list of triplets which distinguishes singular, dual and plural of every nominal case-ending (A IV.1.2). So the plural number does not convey any specific distinction to the rule, that is to say it does not constitute any limit to its application, although the number mark is compulsory for its correct and complete wording; it is part of the current features of a rule by nature. Nevertheless this mark is supposed to be thrown away to catch the precise sense of the rule, to sieve the specific artha from the whole abda. Thereabouts M introduces an enjoyable metaphor of the edible part of rice in comparison with its husks and stalks which have to be discarded. It occurs ‒ as we can see below - in three other M passages always about something which is defined atantram in the wording of grammar rules, always about the gender and number of grammariansʼ wordings.5 Whoever aims to apply the rule This image is not a grammatical exclusive: e.g. this comparison is made known by the Paramārthasāra, a probably 10th‒11th century A.D. work attributed to Abhinavagupta. Strophe 57 places the grain of rice which cannot sprout more, when it is despoiled from the threefold chaff, in relation to the self which is free from ā ava, māyā and karman, and thus is not being subjected to entering any longer into a new existence through rebirth. Paramārthasāra 57: tuṣakambukakiṃ ārukamuktaṃ bījaṃ yathā kuraṃ kurute / naiva tathā avamāyākarmavimukto bhavā kuraṃ hy ātmā, “Comme la graine dépouillée de la balle, du tégument et du son ne donne pas de pousse; ainsi le Soi délivré (des impuretées) de lʼatomicité, de lʼillusion 5 5 is assimilated to a hungry man who only asks for rice. Moreover the image is doubled by adding a second comparison of atantram with fish-bones and scales with reference to a man who only asks for meat. M I.212, ll. 3-7 ad Vt. 1 ad A I.2.39: tad yathā / ka cid annārthī ālikalāpaṃ sapalālaṃ satuṣam āharati nāntarīyakatvāt / sa yāvad ādeyaṃ tāvad ādāya tuṣapalālāny utsṛjati tathā ka cin māṃsārthī matsyān saka ṭakān sa akalān āharati nāntarīyakatvāt / sa yāvad ādeyaṃ tāvad ādāya akalaka ṭakān utsṛjati / evam ihāpi nāntarīyakatvād bahuvacanena nirde aḥ kriyate ʻvi eṣe aika rutyam, “For example whosoever asks for food (as is well known, anna denotes in particular boiled rice) gets the whole bundle of rice with stalks and husks since these last ones are intrinsic parts. After having taken out what has to be taken out, he casts away husks and stalks. In this way whosoever asks for meat gets fish with fish-bones and scales. After having taken out what is supposed to be taken out, he casts away fish-scales and bones. In such a manner the mention of the plural number is also made here in A I.2.39 because it is its intrinsic part, while the sameness of tone (aika rutya) is applied without a special distinction”. 3.2. The second rule whose M commentary employs this same image is A III.3.18 bhāve, which requires the application of the affix kṛt GhaÑ to denote a condition of being i.e. to derive an action noun. Since the condition of denotation is expressed by a noun which is masculine singular (bhāvaḥ), derivatives are supposed only to be masculine singular and therefore Vt. 1 propounds the addition of a specific mention of all genders (sarvali go nirde aḥ). M rejects the Vt.6 by two different solutions, the first of which involves our metaphor (M II.144 ll. 12‒ 20 ad A III.3.18).7 et de lʼacte ne produit pas le rejeton de lʼexistence” (transl. Silburn 1957, 82). For the speculative context of this image see Pelissero 1998, above all 78 ff. and the bibliography quoted there. 6 Cardona 1999, 231, underlines how “In accordance with the usage, however one should be able to refer to action associated with all genders” and precisely quotes the f. and n. examples, bhūtiḥ and bhavanam, mentioned by M in its explanation of the Vt. 1. 7 For this second solution advanced by M see also Scharfe 1961, 12; Wezler 1986, 95; Cardona 1999, 232-3; 308 n. 126‒7. Bhāva might 6 At first he defines the masculine singular ending atantram and introduces the rice image to explain how the gender and number of the rule are to be discarded. The double metaphor is repeated word by word except for a simple inversion of respectively sapalālaṃ with satuṣam and of saka ṭakān with sa akalān, getting rid of the chiasmus with respectively tuṣapalālāny and akalaka ṭakān as a consequence. The masculine gender ending is intrinsically (nāntarīyakatvāt) part of the sentence: in fact some ending with some gender has to be used out of necessity (kayācid vibhaktyā kenacic ca li gena nirde aḥ kartavyaḥ) and the choice of bhāva determines the masculine singular ending, which nevertheless does not aim to exclude other genders. 3.3. The same definition of atantram attributed to the gender and number ending of a pada in a sūtra shows up in the M on A III.4.21 samānakartṛkayoḥ pūrvakāle, which introduces the gerund affix provided that the denoted action precedes the relative subsequent action and shares the same agent. The dual ending of samānakartṛkayoḥ is questioned by Vt. 1: does it limit the number of actions syntactically involved in gerund constructions to two? Vt. 2 denies this shortcoming and resorts to the fixed statement according to which what is principal (pradhāna) is the kriyā: siddhaṃ tu kriyāpradhānatvāt. Once again the image of rice and chaff together with that of fish and fish-bones (without the underlined chiasmus) is chosen by M to explain this mentioned difference between what is tantra and what is a-tantra in the rules. The usual comment about the gender and number as an intrinsic part of sentences ‒ exactly in the same words as above - introduces the metaphor (M II.172 ll. 19‒22 ad A III.4.21). What is have indicated as an abstract noun what is common to all actions, what is common to all verbs, opposed to particular actions denoted by specific verbal bases, although it implies a particular action. The precise parallel of a man who is a teacher as well as a maternal uncle is meant by M to explain its assumption. When a student asks his teacherʼs nephew to greet his teacher, the latter is referred to as a teacher, although he will be greeted by his nephew in virtue of the fact that he is the maternal uncle of this nephew i.e. of the person who will effectively meet and greet him. 7 noteworthy is that here pradhāna is used as a synonym of tantram. Only the action (kriyā) is treated as “principal” and it figures as twofold in the rule strictly in terms of time, distinguishing between what is the prior time and what is the subsequent one. 3.4. The last rule about which M employs this same image with the same words (once again without the mentioned chiasmus) is A IV.1.92 tasyāpatyam which provides for the derivation of a noun of descendant applying the taddhita affix a after the first pada which ends in a genitive in the rule. Vt. 1 taddhitārthanirde e li gavacanam apramā aṃ tasyāvivakṣitatvāt states that the particular specification of gender and number is not intended (a-vivakṣitatvāt) to govern any feature of the rule, i.e. to exclude nominal bases which are feminine, neuter, dual and plural. In M II.245 ll. 19‒27 ad Vt. 1 ad A IV.1.92 the usual reference to the gender and number marks as an intrinsic part of sentences occurs once again, after the close paraphrase to the Vt. The whole passage coincides exactly with the three other quoted parallel passages. 4. Abhyankar 1986, 182; 10 principally defines tantra “a word frequently used in the M in the sense of ʻintendedʼ or vivakṣita” and a-tantra “implying no specific purpose; not intended to teach anything avivakṣita”. On the contrary ‒ as we have seen - there is actually only one occurrence in the above quoted Vt. and in the relative M which could advance a hypothesis according to which a-vivakṣita is a sort of synonym of a-tantra. Furthermore we could reply to this assumption by pointing out a second more direct candidate synonym involved by the quoted Vt. and by M in the same quoted paraphrase i.e. a-pramā a “which is no standard of action” / “of no importance or authority”,8 so that the ablative avivakṣitatvāt must have denoted some other feature of the rule, secondarily connected to the apramā a-label attributed to the gender and number marks.9 For this couple of meanings see Monier-Williams, 1899, s.v. Cf. Renou 1942, 6; 156: (s.v. atantra) “(ce) qui ne constitue pas ou nʼimplique pas un enseignement, ce qui (dans un sū.) nʼa pas de valeur prescriptive”; “un énoncé (nirde a) est tantra lorsquʼil est prescriptif”. 8 9 8 5. In order to check the meaning of the term tantra, we can try to find the source of the M usage in the ritual context. In fact in the most ancient tradition of Mīmāṃsādar ana, precisely in Jaimini-Mīmāṃsā-Sūtra, which might have been contemporary with Vt. and consequently antecedent to M, tantra occurs as a specific technical term employed to indicate a principle of extended application or better a procedure examined in chapter XI of JMS according to which some subordinate acts go to help more than one primary act on condition that they are not prescribed for each primary act separately, according to a specific time and place (JMS XI.4.1): codanaikatvād rājasūye ʼnuktade akālānāṃ samavāyāt tantram a gāni. Tantram results as what is shared as subordinate by more than one primary act (JMS XII.1.1): tantrisamavāye codanātaḥ samānanām ekatantryam ［ ］, “When there is a combination of such (primary) sacrifices which have common subsidiary elements (tantrin) with regard to the injunction, there is a simultaneous procedure for those elements which are homogeneous ［ ］”.10 In the most ancient extant commentary on JMS, i.e. in the abarabhāṣya, which dates back to the 5th century C.E. the tantra-principle is presented as in opposition to the prasa ga-one, which is examined in chapter XII of JMS. In particular Bh on JMS XI.1.1 distinguishes them in the following way: sādhāra aṃ bhavet tantraṃ parārthe tv aprayojakaḥ / evam eva prasa gaḥ syād vidyamāne svake vidhau, “Tantra should be the common element, but it is not a promoter in the case of a second object (of a second main rite).11 Even so prasa ga could be, but there is its own injunction”. In fact this kind of interpretation,12 which separates the two hemistichs referring to tantra and prasa ga respectively and considers the masculine aprayojakaḥ as a substantive can be questioned: pāda b might have been connected with c and d, also referring the masculine Cf. JMS XI.3.17; XI.3.55. In JMS XI.1.4 it is self-evident that pararthatva represents the feature of a subsidiary rite, which is subordinate to a main rite, aiming at the object of this main rite (Cf. JMS XI.2.6) and in JMS XI.3.40 prayojakatva is the promoter, the element prompting a rite. 12 Cf. Jha 1933‒1936, vol. III, p. 2253: “That which is common is tantra; it is not prompted by the needs of other things; so also is prasa ga (an extended tantra), which has its own injunction present”. 10 11 9 aprayojakaḥ to the masculine prasa ga, as an adjective, as Bronkhorst 1986, 77 suggests. So pāda b and c should be translated as: “Prasaṅga, on the other hand, is just like [tantra] (evam eva), while not aiming at the other object”.13 The peculiarity of tantra as a consequence would once again result as the intentionality.14 An important Bronkhorst argument is D 1.37 ll. 11‒12 ad Vt. 18, which seems to show that Bhartṛhari, who might have been contemporary with abara, “considered aprayojaka ʻnot aiming, not instigatingʼ the essential characteristic of prasa ga: yady arthāprayojako ʼnyadvāre ārthaṃ pratipadyate sa prasa ga ity ucyate, “If [something], while not aiming at an object, attains [that] object through something else, that is called ʻprasa gaʼ”. The analysis of the context of the whole passage seems to be crucial. Effectively some other interesting occurrences of Bhartṛhariʼs use of tantra and prasa ga could be considered in order to reconstruct his complex usage of these terms, but only a couple of quotations have been selected here, exclusively focusing on the explanation of this D passage. The grammatical context of this passage is the discussion of the propounded prohibition (M I.13 l. 21 Vt. 18) of the uncorrected vowels beginning from the saṃvṛta-ones, taken apart from the ivasūtras, which on the contrary do not include this teaching. The refusal of Vt. 18 is assumed, since the ga as like Gargādi or Bidādi are recited without these defects, but in this way ga as would serve two aims simultaneously, i.e. they should teach both the whole (each word derivated from each member of the ga a) and the part (each sound involved in the stems listed in the ga a). M explains how there are also causes which serve two purposes referring to the specific ritual act performed pouring water onto the roots of mango trees to satisfy the pitṛs. The same water is the cause ‒ as D 1.37 ll. 6‒8 ad Vt. 18 highlights - of both satisfying the pitṛs and of watering the trees, while it does not deal with two purposes “when Devadatta and Yajñadatta are to be refreshed”. What is noteworthy is that D 1.37 ll. 15‒16 ad Vt. 18 reinterprets the same example according to the prasa ga-principle: “The mango trees promote the watering (sekasya prayojakāḥ) separately (i.e., on their own); the pitṛs do not promote (aprayojakāḥ) anything. This translation is quoted from Bronkhorst 1986, 78. See Bronkhorst 1986, 78: “In the case of tantra the multiple function is intentional”; Pandurangi 2006, 221: “However, if the application of the auxiliaries to many is intentional, it is tantra”. 13 14 10 They experience the pouring of water in this case, promoted (by the mango trees), by virtue of prasa ga”. Moreover before this re-interpretation, D 1.37 ll. 12‒14 ad Vt. 18 adds a second interesting example, which seems to allude at least from afar to the M metaphor here examined: “E.g. whosoever aims to eat (bhojanenārthin) promotes the activities of cooking such as ʻplacing of the pot on the fire and does not promote it as whosoever eats the remains of food. In fact only someone who wants to cook again, even when food is ready, promotes it (i.e. ʻplacing of the pot on the fireʼ), when a lot of food is prepared for this purpose”. From the point of view of activities, even as regards the M metaphor we could say that whosoever asks for food (annārthin) does not promote the pearling of rice. The examined prasa ga-definition precedes both these examples. Afterwards D1.37 l. 17 ‒ 38 l. 1 introduces the tantra-principle, so that a comparison between prasa ga and tantra is indirectly sketched. It deals with a comment on a second more linguistically oriented M sentence which states that “There are some sentences which can perform two functions”, quoting the example sveto dhāvati, which can be meant both as “the white one runs” and as “the dog runs from here” (M I.14 l. 14 ad vt. 18).15 D 1.37 l. 21 ad Vt. 18 re-elaborates this example in terms of “speakerʼs (prayoktṛ) usage” and adds that “The listeners (pratipattṛ) understand the meaning in accordance with the part of the denotative power (that is used)”. More explicitly VP II.475‒ 6, even concerning the tantra-usage of sentences, distinguishes the intention (vivakṣā) of the speaker which is just one taken from a plurality of meanings, which come to the mind of the hearers, even independently of the purpose of the speaker.16 Bhartṛhari concludes that the ga as make known both wholes and parts, resorting to the tantra-principle and exemplifies it by a comparison with a lamp, closely inspired by a Mīmāṃsā example (D 1.37 l. 21‒24 ad Vt. 18): yathā pradīpas tantre a pravartamāno ʻrthināṃ yathābhipretam arthaṃ nirvartayati / ekasyaiva vā vidyādikā didṛkṣo ca tantre a nirvartayati, “It may be compared to a lamp which works on the tantra-principle: it operates according to the intended object of people who D 1.37 ll. 19‒20 ad Vt. 18 adds the single words purā and ārāt each of which is expressive of two meanings as two easier preliminary examples. 16 bhedenādhigatau pūrvaṃ abdau tulya rutī punaḥ / tantre a pratipattāraḥ prayoktrā pratipāditāḥ // ekasyāpi vivakṣāyāṃ anuniṣpadyate paraḥ / vinābhisandhinā abdaḥ aktirūpaḥ prakā ate. 15 11 are in need of it. Or through tantra it brings about knowledge and the like of just one, even though he is only desirous to see”.17 In fact the simple examples from common life in which abara chooses to illustrate the use of these two procedures, are respectively yathā bahūnām brāhma ānāṃ madhye kṛtaḥ pradīpaḥ, “like for instance a lamp placed in the midst of many brāhma as” ( Bh on JMS XI.1.1) and yathā pradīpasya prāsāde kṛtasya rājamārge ʻpy ālokakara am, “like for instance the spreading light also on the public road by a lamp placed in a palace” ( Bh on JMS XII.1.1). As we can see there is not any hint at the category of intentionality. Rather the difference seems to consist in another detail, explicitly the presence of an injunction which prescribes an implement connected to a main rite, which leads to a result appropriate to a second main rite, in the case of prasa ga. On the other hand neither the first lamp nor the second one seem explicitly to be promoters for a second object of their making light. We do not know whether the first lamp is placed there for one or more brāhma as or even for any other target. We are only certain that it is placed there, in a specific place, where many brāhma as can simultaneously benefit from it. Paradoxically the second lamp has been placed in a palace with the obvious intention of making light inside it and only by chance does the public road (which also is to be enlightened) benefit from that lighting instead of resorting to a lamp specifically put there for it.18 The source of abaraʼs lamp-examples seems to be JMS XI.1.59, pertaining to a kind of subsidiary which provides benefits for more than one primary rite, although performed only once, according to the tantra principle: Cf. VP II.298‒299 where a word which also conveys things connected but different from the thing to convey which it was used (saṃsargiṣu tathārtheṣu abdo yena prayujyate / tasmāt prayojakād anyān api pratyāyayati asau) is compared with a lamp ( dīpa) which through proximity ( sāṃnidhyāt) reveals in an object (e.g. a jar) other things than that for the illumination of which it was employed (pra-yuj). 18 But there is another apparent difference. In the former case it dealt with a lamp as a standard of comparison, in the latter it dealt with a function, the making of light. When under JMS XII.1.3 abara wonders again what is the difference between prasa ga and tantra, this is precisely the detail which is given special emphasis: tatrā gam eva sādhāra am iha tv a gakṛta evopakāraḥ, “What is common in the case of tantra is the subsidiary rite itself, while here (in the case of prasa ga) the help is rendered by the subsidiary”. 17 12 vibhavād vā pradīpavat, “Or like a lamp on account of its influence (omnipresence)”. The focus of the tantra-feature of subsidiaries does not seem to be an intentionality for helping more than a rite, but rather the place occupied by certain subsidiaries in the middle of a procedure, as a common part of a whole complex act.19 On the other hand before quoting the above-discussed verse and introducing the first lamp example, abara himself on JMS XI.1.1 defines tantra in the following way: tatra yat sakṛt kṛtaṃ bahūnām upakaroti tat tantram ity ucyate, “What serves to many acts, being done there once for all, is called tantram”. In fact the first mentioned translation of Bh on JMS XI.1.1 ‒ as the same Bronkhorst20 underlines - is also consistent with Bh on JMS XII.1.1, when the same verse as an already presented definition of prasa ga (Bronkhorst 1986, 77) is quoted, completely omitting pādas a and b. On the other hand the former passage is explicitly quoted by abara as someone elseʼs definition and it is not unlikely that it is derived from Bhavadāsaʼs work (Bronkhorst 1986, 79), which is lost but must have been known by Bhartṛhari, who on the contrary was not acquainted with Bh. 6. Nevertheless the term tantra does not seem to occur as a term opposed to prasa ga in the Pāṇinian tradition: in none of the above reviewed passages where tantra occurs, except in Bhartṛhari, does prasa ga also occur.21 Therefore we wonder what the meaning of tantra is before the two analysed terms were arranged as such a See the Siddhānta point of view JMS XII.1.3: tantramadhye vidhānād vā mukhyatantre a siddhiḥ syāt tantrārthasyāvi iṣṭatvāt, “In fact, it should be accomplished through the main procedure of subsidiary rites because it is prescribed in the middle of the procedure of subsidiary rites, because the object of the procedure is not distinguished”. 20 Therefore Bronkhorst 1986, 80 concludes that “ abara himself was not very clear about the precise meanings he wanted to assign to the two terms”. 21 Also in VP II.77 we find both principles mentioned in the same context: prāsa gikam idam kāryam idaṃ tantre a labhyate / idam āvṛttibhedābhyām atra bādhāsamuccayau, “The action which is prāsa gika, that which is obtained through tantra, that which (is obtained) through repetition or difference, here there is suspension and there combination”. The context is a Mīmāṃsaka- argument to confute the indivisibility of the meaning of a sentence: “If the individual word and its meaning are denied any existence, certain principles followed in the world and in the āstra would become inexplicable” (cf. Iyer 1977, 36). 19 13 pair of Mīmāṃsā-dar ana (and in Bhartṛhari). We can once again resort to an ancient ritual context, precisely to the rauta-Sūtras, where both prasa ga and tantra are employed less systematically, in some passages which in my opinion are at least partially comparable with those found in the JMS,22 although they never occur in the same context. The passages submitted here do not seem to have been considered for this kind of comparison before now. Their discovery is due to the consultation of tantraand prasa ga-slips in the Scriptorium of the Dictionary Project at the Deccan College of Poona.23 In one of the rauta-Sūtras judged to be the most ancient,24 the term prasa ga occurs in the sense of “general rule”, opposed to apavāda, in a context which seems to be comparable with some of the formulas occurring in the M, e.g. I.44 ll. 9‒12 ad Vt. 2 ad A I.1.3 [ ] utsarge a prasaktasyāpavādo bādhako bhavati, “a specific rule for an element which has a chance of being applied by a general rule has a suspending effect”:25 (Ā v. r.Sū. I.1.22) prasa gād apavādo balīyan, “The statement of an exception is more forceful than the general rule”. The interpretation of prasa ga- as a “general rule” is suggested by both Devavrataʼs commentary (yo vidhiḥ sakṛd uktaḥ sarvatra prasajyate sa prasa go nāma) and by Gārgya For the data on which the comparison between Kalpasūtras and Mīmāṃsā-system relies, see Garge 1952, 53; 56‒64; Chakrabarti 1980, 84; Verpoorten 1987, 3; for some cases of similarity between Jaiminiʼs Sūtras and Kātyāyana- rauta-Sūtra, see in particular Kane 1977, 1155‒1156, n. 1878, which nevertheless underlines how sometimes this latter work takes a view opposed to that of the Pūrvamīmāṃsā. Parpola 1994 systematically lists all the details shared by the two works. The priority between Kātyāyana and Jaimini is difficult to ascertain (Clooney 1990, 85f.): some cases of several Jaiminiʼs sūtras compressed in one sūtra by Kātyāyana could prove that the latter was later than the former (Garge 1952, 53f.), but sometimes Jaimini seems to try to improve upon some paribhāṣās of Kātyāyana (Chakrabarti 1980, 111; Chakrabarti 2006, 46). However it is beyond all doubt that the comparability between the two works is consistent 23 In this context I wish to thank the Director Dr. V.P. Bhatta, who allowed me to consult this unpublished material in the Scriptorium of the Dictionary Project at the end of November 2007. 24 See Brucker 1980, 58; Mylius 1967, 248‒9. 25 Cf. M I. 457 ll. 11‒13 ad Vt. 3 ad A II.3.32; M II.372 ll. 15‒16 ad Vt. 2 ad A V.2.4. 22 14 Nārāyaṇaʼs one (sāmānyavidher vi eṣavidhir balīyān ity arthaḥ).26 The Kāt. r.Sū. which is more recent and might have been contemporary with the Vtt. on the A or even composed by the same author27 contains e.g. four occurrences of prasa ga and two of tantra. Let us see e.g. as regards prasa ga, Kāt. r.Sū. I.3.26 pratikarmoddhara am aprasa ge, “The āhavanīya- and the dakṣi a-fires are to be taken freshly from the gārhapatya-fire at every rite, except (when the fires taken for one, not completed, rite), can occasionally (serve for another rite coming in between)”; Kāt. r.Sū. IX.12.2 yathoktaṃ vā 'prasa gāt, “(Or the Vājina-water should be offered) in its regularly prescribed order (i.e. after the Sūkta and the amyuvāka), as there is no occasion”,28 and, as regards tantra, Kāt. r.Sū. I.7.1; 3: karma āṃ yugapadbhāvas tantram, “When the main acts are performed simultaneously, subordinate acts are also to be performed (only once) jointly and this technique is known as tantram” ［ ］; phalakarmade akāladravyadevatāgu asāmānye, “The performance of the (main) rites together arises when there is a reference to a common fruit for the different (main) rites, when there is a prescription of common subservient rites and when there is a mention of the same place, offering material, deities and qualities (subservient objects) for the performance of different rites”. The Āpastamba rauta Sūtra, which dates back to the same age of Kāt. r.Sū., contains 30 occurrences of tantram, out of which 20 have the sense of “procedure”, “paradigm”, e.g. Āp. r.Sū. I.15.1 ［ ］paur amāsyās tantram “the procedure of the full-moon sacrifice”; VIII.5.6 The present translation is quoted from Ranade 1981, 3 . Cf. Mylius 1967, 251; Mylius 1994, 29a: “Eine Ausnahme (-Regel) ist gewichtiger als eine allgemeine Regel”. 27 See Brucker 1980, 58. Cf. moreover the conclusions about the similarity between A and Ā v. r.Sū. language by Liebich 1891, 30‒32. Goldstücker 1966, 141 otherwise considers Pāṇini more recent than Kāt. r.Sū. For the hypothesis according to which the author of Vtt. on the A might have been the same as the Vājasaneyīprāti ākhya (white Yajur Veda) and of Kāt. r.Sū see Parpola 1994, 293-308: 298 ff. 28 As regards the locative aprasa ge, my interpretation agrees with Thite 2006, 11; meanwhile it differs from that of Ranade 1978, 11. Cf. also Kāt. r.Sū. I.4.8; I.7.7; VI.10.16. 26 15 kṛtsnam tantram ”the entire common paradigmatic ritual”.29 The remaining 10 occurrences clearly testify to the already seen meaning of “jointly”: e.g. Āp. r.Sū. XXI.3.4 nānāgotravyavāyād eva samānagotrā ām ārṣeyavara am abhyāvartetety ekam / vyavete ʼpi tantram evety aparam, “According to one opinion the enumeration of the ṛṣiancestors of those who belong to one and the same family (gotra) should be repeated each in its place after a separation through insertion; another opinion is that at the time of separation through insertion the ṛṣi-ancestors of all those who belong to one and the same family should be enumerated only once”; XXIV.4.16‒17 kumbhī ūla vapā rapa ī prabhūtvāt tantraṃ syāt / jātibhede tu bhidyeta paktivaiṣamyāt, “The cooking pot, (heart-roasting) spit, and the Vapā rapa ī (y-shaped sticks) for roasting the omentum should be common (to all the victims) because they are capable for being used for more than one victim. But when there is a difference (of the genus of the victims) then these things should be different, because of the difference in cooking”.30 Moreover Lāṭ. r.Sū. which has been attributed to about the same period as Āp. r.Sū. and Kāt. r.Sū. includes a veritable definition of tantram: Lāṭ. r.Sū. VI.9.13 bhūyiṣṭhaṃ tantralakṣa am, “Whatever is found in a large number of sacrifices forms the definition (or character) of the model (or standard framework) for the sacrifice (and becomes applicable to other varieties)”. 7. Summing up the data collected here about the usage of the technical term tantra above all in the rauta-Sūtras and in JMS, it seems to be more probable that the meaning of “intentional” was not the original one. Tantram constitutes what is standard in a rule, in the sense that it constitutes the common element, which can be generalised for the highest number of cases of application, tending to be a valuable standard for each example. Conversely atantra is what only takes part in the sūtrawording because of linguistic necessity and upon which the metalanguage depends as a part of the linguistic code. The evaluation of grammariansʼ intentionality as a reason The other 18 occurrences are Āp. r.Sū. V.19.1; VI.29.5; VI.31.10; VII.7.5; VIII.12.1; VIII.13.1; X.4.1; X.21.1; X.30.1; XI.2.13; X.16.1; XIII.13.14; XIII.19.1; XIII.19.1; XIII.25.3; XVII.16.1; XVIII.20.11; XIX.1.1. 30 The other 8 occurrences are Āp. r.Sū. XIV.5.3; XIV.7.16; XIV.7.5; XVI.7.7; XXI.3.8; XXI.5.6; XXIV.3.22; XXIV.12.5. 29 16 for the tantra- or a-tantra-definition of some feature of the rules seems to be a sort of corollary of the centrality of this feature, rather than constituting the essential reason for a particular lexical choice between tantra and atantra. On the other hand the same M commenting on A I.4.54 (svatantraḥ kartā, “The independent one is called kartṛ”) introduces an important disquisition about the term tantra (M I. 338 ll. 17‒20 ad A I.4.54): kiṃ yasya svaṃ tantraṃ sa svatantraḥ ［ ］ ayaṃ tantra abdo ʻsty eva vitāne vartate / tad yathā / āstīr aṃ tantram / protaṃ tantram / vitānaiti gamyate / asti prādhānye vartate / tad yathā / svatantro ʻsau brāhma a ity ucyate svapradhānaiti gamyate, “svatantra is a person who has his own loom? ［ ］Certainly the word tantra is sometimes employed in the sense of ʻwarpʼ - e.g. āstīr aṃ tantram ʻthe warp has been stretchedʼ, protaṃ tantram ʻthe warp has been strungʼ. (Here) ʻwarpʼ is meant but it is sometimes used in the sense of prādhānya: e.g. when one says ʻthis brāhma a is svatantra (independent), prādhānya is meant.31 The metaphor of the edible part of rice in comparison with its husks and stalks which have to be discarded seems to strengthen this lexical hypothesis. The centrality of the edible part of rice is evaluated relying on the aim of the person who is hungry. The natural features of the rice plant also make it compulsory to give it together with the other elements which have to be discarded, when one prepares the rice as anna. What is aimed at in the preparation of the anna only corresponds secondarily to the object or the intention of the person who gives the rice to a hungry man. The difference between the rice and its husks and stalks is the same as that between the warp and the other parts of a tissue. Between that is a common base, which can be used for different kinds of weaving, and what is only woven on. Between what is essential and prescriptive in the grammariansʼ sentences and standard for the application of rules and what is only accidental, fit for some examples and not for others, for instance determined by the intrinsic features of the language. References A. Prim ary So urc es Joshi-Roodbergen 1975, 266‒268. For Pāṇiniʼs meaning of tantra as “loom” see Agrawala 1963, 232. 31Cf. 17 A = R. N. Sharma, The Aṣṭādhyāyī of Pā ini. 6 vols. New Delhi 1987‒ 2003. Āp. r.Sū. = Āpastamba- rauta-Sūtra. Text with Engl. Transl. and Notes by G.U. Thite. Delhi 2004. Ā v. r.Sū. = The Ā valāyana rauta Sūtra with the Commentary of Devavrata. Part I (Adhyāyas 1‒3). Edited critically, and annotated with text-comparative data from original manuscripts and other available materials by R.S. Bawa (managing editor). Hoshiarpur 1986 (Panjab University Indological Series, 31). D 1 = Mahābhāshya-Dīpikā of Bhartṛhari. Fascicule IV, Āhnika I. Critically edited by J. Bronkhorst. Poona 1987. JMS = Mīmāṃsādar anam, ed. by K. V. Abhyankar ‒ G. A. Jo ī. Ānandā rama-saṃskṛtagranthāvaliḥ, 97, 7 vols., Trivandrum 1970‒ 1976. Gārgya Nārāyaṇa = The Ā valāyana rauta Sūtra, with the Commentary of Gārgya Nārāyaṇa. Edited by G.S. Gokhale. Poona 1917 (Anandashram Sanskrit Series, 81). Kāt. r.Sū. = Kātyāya a rauta Sūtra with Devayājñika Paddhati. Ed. by Vedāchārya Pandit rī Vidyādhara armā. The Chowkhambā Sanskrit Series, No. 415. Vols. I‒VI. Benares 1933‒1937. Lāṭ. r.Sū. = Lāṭyāyana rauta Sūtra Critically edited and translated by H.G. Ranade. New Delhi 1998, 3 vols. M = The Vyākarana-Mahābhāshya of Patañjali. Ed. F. Kielhorn. Vol. I, II, III. Osnabrück 1970 [Bombay 1880‒85]. Nāge aʼs Pbh = The Paribhāṣendu ekhara of Nāgojībhaṭṭa. Edited and explained by F. Kielhorn. Part I. Edited critically with the commentary Tattvādar a of MM. Vasudev Shastri Abhyankar by MM. K. V. Abhyankar. Poona 2001 [1962]; Part II. Translation and Notes. Second edition by K. V. Abhyankar. Poona 2001 [1960]. Bh = abarabhāṣya = The text is quoted from Mīmāṃsādar anam: see JMS. VP = Vākyapadīya of Bhartṛhari. Ed. by W. Rau. Wiesbaden 1977. Vt. = vārttika quoted from M. Vyāḍiʼs Pbh. = D. Wujastyk, Metarules of Pā inian Grammar. Vyāḍiʼs Paribhāṣāvṛtti. Critically Edited with Translation and Commentary. Groningen Oriental Studies. Vol. V. Ed. by H.T. Bakker - A.W. Entwistle - H. Isaacson - K.R. van Kooij ‒ G.J., Meulenbeld, Groningen 1993, 2 vols. B. Se co n da ry S ou rc es Abhyankar, K.V., 1986(3), A Dictionary of Sanskrit Grammar. Gaekwadʼs Oriental Series 134, Baroda. Agrawala, V.S., 1953, India as known to Pā ini. Lucknow. Bronkhorst, J., 1986, Tantra and Prasaṅga. Aligarh Journal of Oriental Studies III, 2, 77‒80. Brucker, E., 1980, Die Spätvedische Kulturepoche nach den Quellen der rauta-, Gṛhya-, und Dharmasūtras. Wiesbaden. Caland, W., 1931, A rhythmic law in language. Acta Orientalia IX, 59‒ 68. Cardona, G., 1999, Recent Research in Pā inian Studies. Delhi. Chakrabarti, S.C., 1980, The Paribhāṣās in the rautasūtras. Sanskrit Pustak Bhandar, Calcutta. Chakrabarti, S.C., 2006, rautasūtras and the Pūrvamīmāṃsāsūtra, in Pūrvamīmāṃsā from an Interdisciplinary Point of View. Ed. by K.T. 18 Pandurangi. History of Science, Philosophy and Culture in Indian Civilization, Gen. Ed. D.P. Chattopadhyaya. Vol. VI, Part 6. Delhi. Clooney, F.X., 1990, Thinking Ritually. Rediscovering the Pūrva Mīmāṃsā of Jaimini. Publications of the De Nobili Research Library, 17. Vienna. Garge, D.V., 1952, Citations in abara-Bhāṣya (A Study). Deccan College Diss. Ser. 8. Poona. Goldstücker, Th., 1966, Panini: His Place in Sanskrit Literature. Osnabrück. Iyer, S., 1977, The Vākyapadīya of Bhartṛhari. Chapter II. Engl. Translation with Exegetical Notes. Delhi. Jha, G., 1933‒1936, Shabara-bhāṣya translated into English, 3 Vols. Gaekwadʼs Oriental Series LXVI, LXX, LXXIII. Baroda. Joshi, S. D., Roodbergen, J. A. F. (eds.), 1968, Patañjali's Vyākara aMahābhāṣya. Samarthāhnika (P. 2.1.1). Introduction, Translation and Notes by S.D. Joshi. Publications of the Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit Class C, No. 3. Poona. Joshi, S. D., Roodbergen, J. A. F. (eds.), 1974, Patañjali's Vyākara aMahābhāṣya. Bahuvrīhi-dvandvāhnika (P 2.2.23‒2.2.38) . Text, Translation and Notes. Publications of the Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit Class C, No.9. Poona. Joshi, S.D., Roodbergen, J. A. F. (eds.), 1975, Patañjali's Vyākara aMahābhāṣya. Kārakāhnika (P I.4.23-I.4.55). Text, Translation and Notes. Publications of the Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit Class C, No. 10. Poona. Kane, P.V., 1977 [1962], History of Dharma- āstra. Vol. V, part. II. Poona. Liebich, B., 1891, Panini. Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Indischen Literatur und Grammatik. Leipzig. Mylius, K., 1967, Der erste Adhyāya des Ā valāyana rautasūtra übersetzt, Zeitschrift für Missions Wissenschaft und Religionswissenschaft 51, 3‒4. Mylius, K., 1994, Ā valāyana rauta-Sūtra. Erstmalig vollständig übersetzt, erlaütert und mit Indices versehen. Wichtrach (Schweiz). Monier-Williams, M., 1899, A Sanskrit-English Dictionary. Oxford. Pandurangi, K.T., 2006, Exposition of Dharma as the Central Theme of Pūrvamīmāṃsā. In: Pūrvamīmāṃsā from an Interdisciplinary Point of View. Ed. by K.T. Pandurangi. History of Science, Philosophy and Culture in Indian Civilization, Gen. Ed. D.P. Chattopadhyaya. Vol. VI, Part 6. Delhi. Parpola, A., 1994, On the Formation of the Mīmāṃsā and the Problems concerning Jaimini with particular reference to the teacher quotations and the Vedic Schools (Part II). Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens XXXVIII, 293‒308. Pelissero, A., 1998, Il riso e la pula. Vie di salvezza nello ivaismo del Ka mīr. Asiatica. Collana di Studi sulle civiltà dellʼAsia diretta da S. Piano, Alessandria. Radicchi, A., 1988, La teoria pā iniana dei Samāsa secondo lʼinterpretazione delle scuole grammaticali indiane dal quinto allʼottavo secolo d.C. Parte seconda. Firenze. Ranade, H.G., 1978, Kātyāyana rauta Sūtra [Rules for the Vedic Sacrifices]. Translated into English. Pune. Ranade, H.G., 1981, Ā valāyana rauta-Sūtram. Part I (translation into English). Poona 1981. 19 Renou, L., 1942, Terminologie Grammaticale du Sanskrit. 3 vols., Paris. Scharfe, H., 1961, Die Logik im Mahābhāṣya. Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Institut für Orientforschung. No. 50, Berlin. Silburn, L., 1957, Le Paramārthasāra. Texte Sanskrit édité et traduit par L. Silburn. Publications de lʼInstitut de Civilisation Indienne. Fasc. 5. Paris. Thite, 2006, G.U., Kātyāyana- rautasūtra. Text with English Translation and Notes. 2 vols., Delhi. Verpoorten, J.M., 1987, Mīmāṃsā Literature. A History of Indian Literature. Ed. by J. Gonda, VI, 5. Wiesbaden. Wezler, A., 1986, Zum Verständnis des Bhāṣya zu Pāṇini 3.3.18 (Studien zu Patañjalis Mahābhāṣya II). Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 30, 91‒108.