Ritual, Exegetical and Linguistic Considerations on the "tantra</I>- and "prasaṅga</I>-Principles
The sources are Kalpasūtra, Vyākaraṇa and Mīmāṃsā, three textual traditions which developed alongside each other, sharing – as the volume shows – common presuppositions and methodologies. The book will be of interest for Sanskritists, scholars of ritual exegesis and of the history of linguistics.
Chapter 3 prasaṅga
prasaṅga is attested in several meanings. Are they connected? What is the object of prasaṅga as a technical device? An element or its function? What are the conditions for prasaṅga? Does prasaṅga as a device have any Vyākaraṇa counterpart? 3.1 How to translate prasaṅga We have long been struggling to ﬁnd a single suitable translation for prasaṅga in its technical usage. At the end of our enquiry into Śrautasūtras, Grammar and Mīmāṃsā, we are sure of its general sense of “what happens automatically, unless one blocks it”. The prasaṅga is what would happen, if one were not to block it. It is used often in regard to rules, referring to the rules which would be applied, if there were not a contrary, more speciﬁc, rule blocking them. In the context of lopa, Benson often translates prasaṅga as “possible appearance” (Benson 1990, pp. 124–140), and prasakta as “something which would appear” (p. 131), a translation which works smoothly whenever a certain suﬃx “could appear” if it were not blocked by the lopa rules. However, we decided not to use “possible appearance” because it is too interpretative (i.e., it is an interpretation, not a translation) and it seems to overemphasise the mere eﬀect of prasaṅga over its action. In a diﬀerent case, Benson translates sarvaprasaṅga as “possible application to all” (1990, p. 129). This translation is, we believe, correct, but again, it...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.Or login to access all content.