Sprachtheorie Und Philosophie Im Mhabhasyam Des Patanjali - Book Summary

Here's a comprehensive summary of Erich Frauwallner's "Sprachtheorie Und Philosophie Im Mhabhasyam Des Patanjali" in English, based on the provided text:

Book Title: Sprachtheorie Und Philosophie Im Mhabhasyam Des Patanjali Author: Erich Frauwallner

Central Argument: Erich Frauwallner's essay argues that Patañjali's Mahābhāṣyam, particularly in its linguistic and philosophical sections, is not an original work but rather a compilation of material from various older sources, often integrated with little critical engagement. Frauwallner's analysis of a specific section (commentary on Pāṇini's Sūtra I, 2, 64, concerning ekaśeṣaḥ) aims to demonstrate this reliance on external texts and suggests a re-evaluation of Patañjali's standing as an independent thinker.

Key Points and Analysis:

Patañjali's Perceived Lack of Philosophical Interest: Frauwallner begins by noting that while Patañjali is highly regarded as a grammarian, those approaching him from the perspective of linguistic theory or philosophy might be disappointed. He suggests Patañjali lacked deep interest or capacity for philosophical speculation.
Evidence of Borrowed Material: A recurring phenomenon in the Mahābhāṣyam, according to Frauwallner, is the sudden insertion of paragraphs that presuppose highly developed concepts and lines of thought, which then disappear just as abruptly. This suggests that these sections are "borrowed from a foreign source" and that longer passages may even appear to be constructed from such pieces.
Detailed Analysis of a Specific Passage (Sūtra I, 2, 64):
- The essay focuses on Patañjali's commentary on the ekaśeṣaḥ (single residual element) rule, which deals with how dual and plural forms are derived, particularly in compound words. The core debate revolves around whether a word refers to the form (ākṛti) or the individual thing (dravyam).
- Vājapyāyana's Doctrine (Form-based): This view posits that words refer to the form, making ekaśeṣaḥ unnecessary. Arguments for this include the unchanging nature of the conceptual image, the inability to distinguish individual things, the recognition of the same entity, and the general applicability of rules.
- Vyādi's Doctrine (Thing-based): This view argues that words refer to individual things, which is necessary to justify grammatical gender and number, as these attributes belong to individual things, not abstract forms.
- The Disruption in the Mahābhāṣyam: Frauwallner meticulously dissects a section where Patañjali discusses the justification of gender and number. He highlights a significant shift in argument:
  - Initially, the proponent of Vājapyāyana's view tries to justify gender and number by suggesting they "adhere" to the form.
  - When challenged, the argument shifts to the idea that the intention to express a particular number or gender makes their use valid.
  - Then, there's a radical change: the view that the form is the sole object of words is abandoned. Gender and number are now justified by the changing properties (gunāḥ) of things, and words express both form and individual things, with the focus shifting.
- Identification of Foreign Material: Frauwallner identifies specific parts of this argument as clearly foreign. The explanation of feminine and masculine gender based on "swelling" (samstyānam) and "procreation" (prasavaḥ) is traced back to an older commentator (ślokavārttikakāra) and found to be out of place. Similarly, sentences asserting that words express both form and individual things are found almost verbatim in Śabara-svāmin's Mimāṃsābhāṣyam, indicating another source.
Patañjali's Method of Compilation:
- Mechanical Amalgamation: Frauwallner suggests Patañjali’s method was largely mechanical, integrating these borrowed sections into his existing text. He points to repeated passages and awkward transitions as evidence.
- The "Paste and Scissors" Approach: He describes Patañjali's activity as akin to "paste and scissors," where he selected suitable passages from older sources and "glued" them together, adding brief connecting remarks to relate them to his grammatical context (like the ekaśeṣaḥ rule).
- Source Identification: The analysis reveals that a significant philosophical discussion on the "object of words" was not from a grammatical work but likely from a Mimāṃsā source. This is evidenced by the focus on interpreting Vedic injunctions rather than purely grammatical concerns, and the presence of ideas that predate Śabara-svāmin.
Implications for Patañjali's Scholarship:
- Reduced Originality: This approach suggests that Patañjali's originality as a philosopher and linguistic theorist is significantly diminished. His primary contribution appears to be compilation and organization, with the real intellectual work residing in his sources.
- Importance of Source Recovery: The essay emphasizes the critical need to identify and thoroughly examine Patañjali's sources to understand the intellectual landscape of ancient India.
- Challenging Traditional Judgments: Frauwallner challenges the traditional high regard for Patañjali, suggesting it stems from a time when Indian literature was less understood. He compares Patañjali's work to the Buddhist Mahāvibhāṣāśāstram, characterized by the stringing together of various doctrines and a lack of original engagement.
Dating Patañjali:
- Frauwallner discusses the dating of Patañjali, referencing historical allusions that point to the mid-2nd century BCE. However, he argues that if Patañjali borrowed examples from older sources, these allusions lose their reliability as dating markers.
- He also considers the example of Śakayavanam (Saka-Greek) used in the Mahābhāṣyam. Based on Patañjali's definition of Āryāvarta (the land of the Aryans), which excludes regions where the Saka and Greeks resided, Frauwallner concludes that Patañjali was likely familiar with these groups as residents on Indian soil outside his defined Āryāvarta. This observation, combined with the timing of Saka incursions into India, leads him to suggest that a dating beyond the first century BCE is questionable, and a mid-2nd century BCE date or earlier is becoming improbable.

Conclusion: Frauwallner's essay presents a compelling case that the linguistic and philosophical content of Patañjali's Mahābhāṣyam is heavily derivative. Patañjali, in this view, was less an original thinker and more a highly skilled compiler who integrated material from diverse sources, including older Mimāṃsā texts, into his grammatical commentary. This understanding necessitates a re-evaluation of Patañjali's intellectual contributions and highlights the crucial task of recovering and analyzing his underlying sources.