Kumārila’s Critique of prayojana of the Vyākaraṇa, Propounded in the Paspaśā-Āhnika of the Vyākaraṇamahābhāṣya
This paper is a revised version of Harikai 1975：“Kumārila’s critique of the prayojana of Vyākaraṇa, propounded in the Paspaśā-Āhnika of the Vyākaraṇa-mahābhāṣya Tetsugaku Nempō No. 34 (March 1975), Faculty of Letters, Kyūshū University, pp. 318-342.
The third section (the Pāda 3) of the Mīmāṃsā Sūtra deals with the authority of the text of sacred tradition (Smr₀ti), which according to the Brahmanistic standard has just secondary authority compared to the Veda (Śruti), the authority of which had been considered so absolute as the authority of Smr₀ti literatures comes therefrom. The grammatical text is regarded in Brahmanical cultures, in the Mīmāṃsā tradition as well, as one of those Smr₀ti texts. The first scholar who discussed the authority of the grammar, the Pāṇini’s sūtra, was Kātyāyana, ca. B.C. 3 c. in his Vārttika to the introductory lecture of the Vyākaraṇa. A key word regarding the authority of grammar phrased by Kātyāyana is the compound dharmaniyama, which he considered as the most important utility (prayojana) of Sanskrit grammar. In the Mīmāṃsā philosophy, the authority of grammar is took up for discussion in the ninth topic of the third section of the first volume of the Mīmāṃsā Sutra (Mīmāṃsā Sutra Adhyāya 1, Pāda 3, Adhikaraṇa 9). Kumārila Bhaṭṭa in the sixth or seventh century A.D. in his magnum opus Tantravārttika tried to analyze and interpret this compound so as to accommodate to his unique theory, regarding dharma in the compound as adr₀ṣṭa or apūrva, the unseen merit originating from using the correct words (sādhuśabda) based on grammar. I tried to analyze and elucidate Kumārila’s tenet on the utility of grammar in constantly initiating sādhuśabda.
I owe valuable remarks for this revision to Professor emeritus Masaaki Hattori, Kyoto University, Professor Dr. Hideyo Ogawa, University of Hiroshima and Professor Dr. Kiyotaka Yoshimizu, Tohoku University.
本稿は「マハーバーシュヤ第一日課（Paspaśā-Āhnika）とタントラヴアールツティカ」（『哲学年報』第34輯（昭和50年3月） pp. 318-342 所収）の改訂である。