DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.39769#0131
THE SECOND LECTURE. I O'?
» -’
*
plete idea; in other words, would constitute one complete
sentence. So here the want is »of some words
or phrase. Again in the case of Prakarana the want is
that of a purpose in a clause or sentence representing a
detail, while there is another clause or sentence which
lias the purpose but which is more or less in need of
the detail.
Mr. Kunte of Bombay, the author of Saddarsnana-
chintanika, whose elaborate researches in the Mimansa
Shastra have elicited high compliments from European
scholars, has attempted to explain the above mentioned
general principles of Mimansa construction as follows:—
“The Mimansakas define Sruti or a direct state-
ment to be a word or a sentence which at*first sight con-
veys its sense, about the interpretation of which no
argument or reasoning is necessary, which does nc^t
necessitate the analysis of compound terms br the con-
sideration of its etymology. They define Linga tp be
that which involves the consideration of the deriva-
tion and etymology of a word, and employs in-
ference in settling the sense either of a word or a sen-
tence.One consistent sens’e is conveyed to the
mind by a variety of words bearing different relationships
to one another, and arranged in an order prescribed by
the rules of grammar. The evidential power of such a
sense is exegetically called a Vakya, which we have trans-
lated by the syntactical construction of a sentence. It
is recognised by the Mimansakas as a method of proof in
interpreting a passage. Why is the syntactical construc-
tion or its exegetical power considered to be a method of
exegetical proof by the Mimansakas ? Because in
interpreting a passage, it is necessary to determine
14
Mr. Kunte’s
comparative
explanation
of Sruti,
Linga &c.
1
» -’
*
plete idea; in other words, would constitute one complete
sentence. So here the want is »of some words
or phrase. Again in the case of Prakarana the want is
that of a purpose in a clause or sentence representing a
detail, while there is another clause or sentence which
lias the purpose but which is more or less in need of
the detail.
Mr. Kunte of Bombay, the author of Saddarsnana-
chintanika, whose elaborate researches in the Mimansa
Shastra have elicited high compliments from European
scholars, has attempted to explain the above mentioned
general principles of Mimansa construction as follows:—
“The Mimansakas define Sruti or a direct state-
ment to be a word or a sentence which at*first sight con-
veys its sense, about the interpretation of which no
argument or reasoning is necessary, which does nc^t
necessitate the analysis of compound terms br the con-
sideration of its etymology. They define Linga tp be
that which involves the consideration of the deriva-
tion and etymology of a word, and employs in-
ference in settling the sense either of a word or a sen-
tence.One consistent sens’e is conveyed to the
mind by a variety of words bearing different relationships
to one another, and arranged in an order prescribed by
the rules of grammar. The evidential power of such a
sense is exegetically called a Vakya, which we have trans-
lated by the syntactical construction of a sentence. It
is recognised by the Mimansakas as a method of proof in
interpreting a passage. Why is the syntactical construc-
tion or its exegetical power considered to be a method of
exegetical proof by the Mimansakas ? Because in
interpreting a passage, it is necessary to determine
14
Mr. Kunte’s
comparative
explanation
of Sruti,
Linga &c.
1