1.3.31
Mīmāṃsā Sūtra / Adhyāya 1 / 1.3.31
अद्रव्यशब्दत्वात्
adravyaśabdatvāt
The line
The word would not denote the class-form, because then there would be no word for the substance that takes a number.
नेपालीमा
शब्दले आकृति जनाउँदैनथ्यो, किनकि त्यसो भए सङ्ख्या लिने द्रव्यका लागि शब्द हुँदैनथ्यो।
Where it sits
The oneness of meaning from 1.3.30 stays. The new question is whether that one meaning is the class-form or the individual substance. This line is the first view, for the substance. The subject, the word, is carried. The line itself is only the reason.
Split: a-dravya-śabdatvāt (अ-द्रव्य-शब्दत्वात्)
Sanskrit, in depth
The words
| Word | Grammar | Sense |
|---|---|---|
| a-dravya-śabdatvāt (अ-द्रव्य-शब्दत्वात्) | ablative singular, neuter | because it would not be a word for a substance |
The phrases
If the word meant only the class-form, it would not be a word for a substance. A word for a substance is a word that speaks of what the substance bears.
The texts say six are to be given, twelve are to be given, twenty-four are to be given. The class-form is not joined with the numbers six and the rest. So, on this view, the word does not denote the class-form.
Sanskrit in this line
The pāṭha (पाठ) has one ablative, adravyaśabdatvāt (अद्रव्यशब्दत्वात्). Śabara (शबर)'s printed sūtra (सूत्र) is the shorter dravyaśabdāt (द्रव्यशब्दात्). His gloss is this same point: a word for what rests on a substance would be missing if the meaning were only the form.
Say it back
Say six, twelve, and twenty-four are to be given, and that a bare class-form does not take those numbers.