Le Mahabhasya Adhyay 01 Ahnika 08

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Le Mahabhasya Adhyaya 01 Ahnika 08" by Yutaka Ojihara, based on the provided pages:

This document is an essayistic translation and commentary on the eighth ahnika (section) of the first adhyaya (chapter) of Patañjali's Mahābhāṣya, a foundational text of Sanskrit grammar. The translator, Yutaka Ojihara, acknowledges the immense difficulty of such a task, particularly in a language not his own and with only a rudimentary knowledge of Sanskrit. He expresses gratitude to M. Jacques May for his assistance in refining the French phrasing.

Ojihara notes that while English translations of the Mahābhāṣya by P. S. Subrahmanya Sastri and an upcoming one by K. V. Abhyankar are available or in progress, his own translation aims to provide a more detailed clarification of the implicit reasoning that underpins the debates within the text. He feels this is crucial for a deep understanding of the operational scope of each grammatical observation.

Ojihara's approach is influenced by his collaboration with Louis Renou on the Kāśikā-Vṛtti, another significant grammatical commentary. He intends his translation to be similar to the summaries he provided for that work, deliberately enclosing necessary amplifications in parentheses to allow readers to discern a more literal translation of the Sanskrit text, as presented in F. Kielhorn's edition. Each debate is numbered, with references to Kielhorn's edition.

He adopts a flexible approach to identifying participants in debates, often simplifying them to two equally matched interlocutors (labeled A and B), while allowing for the possibility of a third. A vertical line in the left margin indicates a concluded debate (siddhānta) or significant preceding observations that support the conclusion.

Ojihara admits to an eclectic methodology in interpreting Patañjali's arguments, primarily relying on Kaiyaṭa's Pradipa commentary and, to a lesser extent, Nageśa's Uddyota. He expresses regret at not being able to match the profound and exhaustive analysis of scholars like P. Thieme. He believes a complete translation of the Mahābhāṣya into Western languages will only be possible through global collaboration led by authoritative specialists.

The text then delves into a specific grammatical sutra: STHĀNIVAD ADEŚO 'NALVIDHAU || 1.1.56 || (A substitute is treated as the original, except where it concerns a phonemic operation). The subsequent sections are structured as a dialogue between interlocutors A and B, dissecting the meaning and rationale behind this sutra.

Key points of the discussion regarding Sūtra 1.1.56:

• The necessity of "vat" (like): The initial discussion explores why the particle "vat" (like) is necessary. If the sutra only stated "a substitute is like the original in non-phonemic operations," it might be misinterpreted as defining a technical term. However, it's clarified that "original" refers to the sthānin (the item being replaced) and "substitute" to the ādeśa (the replacement). The "like" signifies that an operation applied to the original is also applied to the substitute.
• The role of "ādeśa" (substitute): The presence of the term "ādeśa" is debated. One perspective suggests it's redundant, as the concept of "what takes the place of" is inherent in the notion of a substitute. The counterargument is that its inclusion is intentional to ensure that both "manifest" and "inferred" substitutes are treated according to the rule, preventing the loss of specific grammatical operations.
• The significance of "vidhi" (operation): The inclusion of "vidhi" is analyzed. It's suggested that it signifies a compound, specifying the nature of the operation. Different interpretations arise regarding the precise meaning of "al-vidhi" (phonemic operation) as a compound, with discussions on whether it refers to operations related to a phoneme as a primary element or a qualifier.
• Specific examples and counter-arguments: The text engages in detailed analysis, using examples from Patañjali's sutras to illustrate the application and potential misapplication of the rule. This includes discussions on:
  • The voice in verbs (madhyama) and its transfer to substitutes.
  • The concept of pratyakṣa (manifest) and ānumānika (inferred) substitutes.
  • The formation of specific verb forms like pradivya and prasivya, and the crucial role of the analvidhau exception in preventing unintended phonetic accretions.
  • The difference between general and particular treatments being transferred to substitutes, using analogies from everyday life and grammatical rules.
  • The case of sārvadhātuka affixes and their substitution, and how the analvidhau prohibition might or might not apply.

Overall Purpose and Contribution:

Ojihara's work aims to shed light on the intricate logical structure and subtle nuances of Patañjali's grammar. By providing detailed explanations and engaging in a dialectical analysis of the sutra and its exceptions, he seeks to make the Mahābhāṣya more accessible to a wider audience of scholars, particularly those outside of traditional Indian scholarship. The text highlights the highly analytical and rigorous nature of Patañjali's grammatical system, where every term and its placement within a sutra carries significant weight and has far-reaching implications for linguistic analysis.