Re: [INDOLOGY] khaṇḍa- and daṇḍānvaya

[Christophe Vielle]

Dear Andrey,

when I came across such a statement in secondary literature I wondered also what could be the precise Sanskrit source attributing to Mīmāṃsā or Nyāya, respectively, these two types/methods of (kāvya) commenting (more precisely, of re-establishing the natural/prose syntactical order of the words in the sentence, either "by sections"/syntagmatically?, or ?"by line"?). 
In the khaṇḍānvaya method, the verb is taken first, ad then, in respect of cases, questions are asked ; so, through the successive questions, the prose order of the verse is drawn. In the daṇḍānvaya method (followed e.g. by Mallinātha), the subject is taken first and the prose order of the verse is logically drawn without including questions.
Maybe this attribution is based on the fact that in the first case there is a prevalence of "questioning" which looks a bit like the (Pūrva and Uttara-)Mīmāṃsā traditional dialectic method of adhikaraṇa (used for commenting the sūtra's),  whereas in the second case it would be considered like a purely logical (naiyāyika) way of operating. 
It is a mere supposition because only the saṃśaya expression is marked by questions in the adhikaraṇa, the definition of which is found in the following stray verse (found with variants) something attributed to Kumārila :
viṣayo saṃśayaś caiva  pūrvapakṣas tathottaram |

nirṇayaś ceti pañcāṅgaṃ  śāstre ’dhikaraṇaṃ smṛtam ||

Best wishes,
Christophe Vielle

Le 27 juin 2016 à 16:33, Andrey Klebanov <andra.kleb at gmail.com> a écrit :

> Dear members of the list, 
> 
> in some articles (S. Pollock’s 2015’ contribution to the “World Philology” volume, or N.V.P. Unithiri's 2002’ article “The Commentarial Literature in Sanskrit”) I read that the commentarial styles of daṇḍa- and khaṇḍānvaya- stem from (the linguistic theories? textual history? of) nyāya- and mīmāṃsā respectively. As far as at least the the linguistic theories go (I talk of their śābdabodha-aspect now), I don’t see any compulsive reason for this strict differentiation.
> I wonder if anyone could help me out with any further reference or, perhaps, a missing piece of common knowledge that would explain or corroborate the above statement. 
> 
> Thank you very much in advance, 
> 
> best, 
> Andrey 
> _______________________________________________
> INDOLOGY mailing list
> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
> indology-owner at list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
> http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)

–––––––––––––––––––
Christophe Vielle
Louvain-la-Neuve



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20160627/3fe17842/attachment.htm>