1. Some problems in translating the Mahabhasya
1.0. KIELHORN has observed that "The Mahabhasya besides being one of the most interesting works for the student of language is in many respects also one of the most difficult... But we ought never to forget that little would be gained by conjectures, or by a perusal of the bare text of Patanjali's work, and that no attempt at understanding the true nature of the Mahabhasya is likely to be successful, unless it be based on a careful study of what the Hindu commentators themselves have written about it." This remark still holds good, but should be somewhat qualified as far as the true nature of the Mbh. and the Indian commentators are concerned.
1.1. To understand the true nature of the Mbh. something should be said about the difference in attitude shown by Katyayana and Patanjali towards Panini's rules. Both authors question the correctness of Panini's formulations. The rules must neither contain superfluous words nor lack necessary terms. Katyayana, apart from proposing additions and deletions, straight- forwardly introduces complete changes. Patanjali many times accepts Katyayana's additions and deletions as separate Varttikas, but generally not new formulations of the sutra itself Patanjali's attitude in this respect is neatly summed up in his own words apaniniyam tu bhavati; yathanyasam evastu: (This), however, becomes un-Paninian; (the rule) should be (kept) in its (original) formulation'. Even in cases in which yogavibhaga is accepted, as in P. 2.1.4, the formulation is not changed, but merely the interpretation.
1.2. This attitude of Patanjali, in a number of cases, leads to difficulties regarding the interpretation of the Panini-sutra and the Varttika on the one hand, and that of the Bhasya, offered by the commentators, on the other hand. To prove the redundancy of certain Varttikas, Patanjali is inclined to read into a sutra more than Panini could possibly have meant. For this purpose, Patanjali makes use of interpretative devices, whose general aim is "to secure the right interpretation...of Panini's rules;...to extend the sphere of the rules of the Astadhyayi so as to make them apply, where at
1. F. KIELHORN, "On the Mahabhasya", Indian Antiquary, V. 1876, pp. 250-251.
2. P. THIEME, "Panini and the Paniniyas", JAOS, Vol. 76, 1956 , p. 21.
3. Mbh. 1, p. 14, lines 7-8. Sometimes Patanjali accepts even a new formulation to Cover more usages, c. g. Varttika II on P. 2.1.33.
4. Enumerated by F. KIELHORN, "Notes on the Mahabhasya", Indian Antiquary, XVI, 1887, pp. 244-252. Most of the devices are also known to Katyayana, but he uses them to a far smaller extent.
first sight they would seem to be inapplicable; and to render additional rules unnecessary. "s This amounts to a reinterpretation of the sutra concerned, Reinterpretation may also concern a Varttika. The discussion on the very first Varttika in the Mbh. offers a clear example. The Varttika simply means that grammar does not invent new words or meanings, but takes into account the relation between the word and its meaning as established (siddha) by the speech-community (loka). Patanjali, however, wants to show that a particular view attributed to Vyadi is shared by Katyayana. Therefore he interprets the Varttika to mean that word, meaning and their relation are nitya: permanent. Now the difficulty is how to explain that the word siddha in the Varttika could mean nitya. Patanjali offers no less than seven successive interpretations. The remarkable thing is that Patanjali blandly, coolly, deli- berately, without even mentioning another interpretation, states that such is the meaning of the Varttika. In this way, he imposes his (or Vyadi's) view concerning the nityatva of words on Katyayana. This silent process of reinterpretation might very well go unnoticed in other cases, because we are used to looking at Katyayana through Patanjali's eyes.
Send as free online greeting card
Email a Friend
Manage Wishlist