2007 年 55 巻 2 号 p. 820-814,1265
On the fourth section of the Mimamsasutra 3.4, Kumarila gives an extensive commentary whereby he criticizes the view that a finite verb denotes an agent. The original theme of this section, however, is to determine whether the Vedic injunction “One should not tell an untruth” (nanrtam vadet) embedded in the chapter of the new and full moon sacrifices prescribes a mode of performing a sacrifice or enjoins one to follow one's duty as a human being. The present paper elucidates how the linguistic discussion started by Sabara and developed by Kumarila with regard to a finite verb is related to the original theme of this section. Sabara and Kumarila have recourse to a grammatical maxim “A base (prakrti) and a suffix (pratyaya) express the meaning of the suffix together.” Patañjali quotes this maxim once with a modification of its meaning, and Paniniyas do not recognize the general validity of this maxim by confining its application to the rules of suffixes. Following Astadhyayi 3.4.69 and this maxim, however, the opponent of Kumarila asserts that the personal ending of “vadet” indicates an agent as the main element of the meaning of this verb. Kumarila, in retort, emphasizes that the agent of a Vedic sacrifice is an agent of the thinking prior to an action (buddhipurvakarin), who thinks what kind of result is expected to follow the action (phalasankalpana). If, by its personal suffix, the verb “vadet” denotes an agent to which the act of telling becomes subsidiary, one is inclined to keep away from telling an untruth in order to purify oneself and take the injunction out of context (prakarana) because one does not expect the injunction to have any indirect efficacy that may result from the contribution to the sacrifice. As a result of this self-centered interpretation, however, most injunctions would be prevented from their integration into the text. If, on the other hand, one convincingly refutes the theory that a finite verb denotes an agent, it becomes possible for the verb with a personal ending to denote bhavana, the general form of intentional actions, which requires the purpose (sadhya) and the requisites (itikartavyata) of the action. Both requirements are fulfilled by relevant injunctions within the context of the Veda. By criticizing the opponent's view, Kumarila intends to integrate Vedic injunctions in order to construct a unitary system of the sacrifice.