Sambandha And Abhisambandha

SR No.: 269561
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Ashok Aklujkar
Publisher: Ashok Aklujkar
Total Pages: 9
Language: English
Classification: Article
File Size: 827 KB

Page 7

SAMBANDHA AND ABHISAMBANDHA
305
? I have no difference of opinion regarding the other observations made by Staal in the passage quoted at the beginning. 4 One of Staal's references on p. 32 may be taken by some as suggesting that Renou 1957: 57 is his authority for the distinction. However, as I point out in note 6, the distinction is not found in Renou and Staal's reference should be taken literally the way he makes it - as simply stating that the passage quoted by him is also quoted by Renou or as indicating at the most that he became aware of the passage through Renou's quotation. $ Important MB passages containing abhisambandha are discussed below. The word is found in TP ähnika 1 p. 12, āhnika 4 p. 142, ähnika 7 pp. 303, 305, 306; and in TK V 1.55, K 1.67, K 2.17, V 2.17, K 2.40, V 2.40, V 2.128, K 2.160, K 2.186, V 2.204, V 2.223, K 2.246, V 2.251, V 2.270, K 2.329, K 2.333, V 2.356, V 2.364, K 2.369, V 2.383, V 2.391, K 2.432, K 2.441, K 2.460, K 3.75, and K 3.163. Not to belabour the point, only a few of these will be quoted at the end of this article. 6 The source referred to here is Louis Renou's Terminologie grammaticale du Sanskrit, Paris: Librairie Ancienne, Honoré Champion, Éditeur. In it, Renou explains abhisambandha as "connexion (d'un mot avec telle notion ou avec tel autre mot dans la phrase, etc.)" and translates the MB passage reproduced by Staal as "pour des choses qui se présentent dans un ordre successif, la connexion entre elles peut être faite arbitrairement." From this, it is evident that Staal's understanding of abhisambandha is not derived from Renou. See note 4. 7 (a) That is, the rule vrddhir adaic would achieve prayoga-niyama by setting an example of itself, by being a jñāpaka, that is, by being suggestive, through its formal peculiarity, of a general principle presupposed by Panini in his grammar.
(b) Kaiyata and his commentators (Nagesa and Annam-bhatta) do not reveal how exactly they interpreted the first sentence. They do not use any word like jñāpaka in their explanations which would support my explanation. The TP is unavailable for this portion. However, if Pa's remark is not interpreted in the way I suggest and is taken to mean 'Or, this (vrddhir ādaic or the specific order of words in vrddhir ādaic) would be for the purpose of restricting usage through a statement of the form 'ādaic should be used after the word vrddhi," then it would not be even a tentative answer to the specified problem. If understood as applicable to the sutra itself, it would amount to simply pointing out what we already know, namely that ādaic is used after vrddhi in the sūtra; if understood as applicable to a sentence of the object language, what would be the justification for making a regulation like the following: 'If one wishes to use vrddhi and adaic in a sentence, one should put ādaic after vrddhi.'? Is the purva-paksin so unsophisticated as to entertain the possibility that Panini may write rules about individual sentences? How would what he says be even an answer to the problem pointed out in the case of a sentence of the metalanguage? Even if it were to be applicable to a rule, would it not amount to an assertion without any supporting argument, to a restatement of the problem itself?
(c) The discussion in (b) should suffice to establish that the following translation by Abhyankar and Shukla (1987), and other similar translations, are not likely to be correct: "Well, then, the present sūtra (vrddhirādaic) can be said to be for regulating the use of the words 'vrddhi and ādaic in such a way that the words at and aic i.e. the vowels ā, ai and au must be used after the word vrddhi and not in the other way, i.e. before the word vrddhi." * This does not mean either that the freedom is absolute or that there are no preferred word order patterns.