1.1.24
Mīmāṃsā Sūtra / Adhyāya 1 / 1.1.24
उत्पत्तौ वावचनाः स्युरर्थस्यातन्निमित्तत्वात्
utpattau vāvacanāḥ syur arthasyātannimittatvāt
The line
Or, if the sentence is an originated thing, the sentences would fail as statements, because the meaning would not have the word as its cause.
नेपालीमा
वा यदि वाक्य उत्पन्न चीज हो भने वाक्यहरू कथनका रूपमा चल्दैनन्, किनकि अर्थको कारण शब्द हुने छैन।
Where it sits
Nityaḥ (नित्यः) śabdaḥ (शब्दः) from 1.1.18 is granted. Utpatti opens a further problem about the sentence. Artha is now sentence-meaning. The injunction of 1.1.2 is what would fail if the sentence had no authority.
Split: utpattau (उत्पत्तौ) + vā (वा) + avacanāḥ (अवचनाः) + syuḥ (स्युः) + arthasya (अर्थस्य) + atad-nimittatvāt (अतद्-निमित्तत्वात्)
Sanskrit, in depth
The words
| Word | Grammar | Sense |
|---|---|---|
| utpattau (उत्पत्तौ) | locative singular, feminine | in the case of origination, if the sentence is something that arises |
| vā (वा) | indeclinable | or, alternatively |
| avacanāḥ (अवचनाः) | nominative plural, feminine | non-statements, sentences that would fail to say anything authoritative |
| syuḥ (स्युः) | optative, third person plural, active | they would be |
| arthasya (अर्थस्य) | genitive singular, masculine | of the meaning |
| atad-nimittatvāt (अतद्-निमित्तत्वात्) | ablative singular, neuter | because it does not have that, the word-meaning, as its cause |
The phrases
The word has been settled as lasting, and so has its connection with meaning. A new doubt begins. The injunction is a sentence, not a single word. From the word agnihotra alone one does not yet understand that heaven comes from the agnihotra offering. The understanding comes when the words are uttered as one sentence.
There is no further word, beyond the words, which is the collection. A collection looks like something a person puts together, as a verse is put together. If the sentence-meaning is not caused by the meanings of the words, the Vedic sentences would be avacanāḥ (अवचनाः). They would not be statements that teach dharma (धर्म). They would be a made arrangement, or a confusion.
Sanskrit in this line
Vāvacanāḥ (वावचनाः) is vā (वा) plus avacanāḥ (अवचनाः). The pāṭha (पाठ) writes uttpattau, with a doubled t, and splits arthasyātan (अर्थस्यातन्) nimittatvāt (निमित्तत्वात्). The line is utpattau, and arthasya atannimittatvāt (अतन्निमित्तत्वात्), not having that as cause.
Say it back
State the new doubt: eternal words do not yet, by themselves, make a sentence a means of knowing.