Journal of Indian Philosophy

, Volume 45, Issue 5, pp 911–938 | Cite as

(Close) the Door, the King (is Going): The Development of Elliptical Resolution in Bhāṭṭa Mīmāṃsā

  • Malcolm KeatingEmail author


This paper examines three commentaries on the Śabdapariccheda in Kumārila Bhaṭṭa’s Ślokavārttika, along with the the seventeenth century Bhāṭṭa Mīmāṃsā work, the Mānameyodaya. The focus is the Mīmāṃsā principle that only sentences communicate qualified meanings and Kumārila’s discussion of a potential counter-example to this claim–single words which appear to communicate such content. I argue that there is some conflict among commentators over precisely what Kumārila describes with the phrase sāmarthyād anumeyetvād, although he is most likely describing ellipsis completion through arthāpatti. The paper attempts both a cogent exegesis and philosophical evaluation of the Bhāṭṭa Mīmāṃsā view of ellipsis completion, arguing that there remain internal tensions in the account of ellipsis preferred by the Bhāṭṭa, tensions which are not entirely resolved even by the late date of the Mānameyodaya.


Mīmāṃsā Bhāṭṭa Ellipsis Language Grammar Kumārila Bhaṭṭa 



Sucarita Miśra, Kāśikā, in the edition Mīmāṃsāślokavārttika of Kumārilabhaṭṭa with Commentary Kāśikā of Sucaritamiśra, ed. V. A. Ramaswami Sastri, 3 parts, Trivandrum Sanskrit Series Nos. 90, 99, 150, Government Press, Trivandrum 1926, 1929, 1943.


Nārāyaṇa Bhaṭṭa and Nārāyaṇa Paṇḍita, Mānameyodaya, 3rd edition, eds. C. Kunhan Raja and S. S. Suryanarayana Sastri, The Adyar Library and Research Centre, Adyar 2004.


Jaimini, Mīmāṃsāsūtra, in the edition Śrīmajjaiminipraṇīte Mīmāṃsādarśane, ed. V. Sastri, 7 parts, Samskrita Granthavali 97, Puṇya: Ānandāśram 1929–1934.


Pārthasārathi Miśra, Nyāyaratnākara, in the edition Ślokavārttikam of Kumārila Bhaṭṭa with the Commentary Nyāyaratnākara of Śrī Pārthasārathi Miśra, ed. G. Jha, Chaukhamba Sanskrit Pratishthan, Delhi 2009.


Śabarasvamin, Śabarabhāṣya, for edition, see MS


Kumārila Bhaṭṭa, Ślokavārttika, for edition, see NR.


Uṃveka Bhaṭṭa, Tātparyaṭīkā, 2nd edition, ed. S.K. Ramanatha Sastri, revised 2nd edition by K.K. Raja and R. Thangaswamy, Madras Library Sanskrit Series 13, University of Madras, Madras 1971.


Kumārila Bhaṭṭa, Tantravārttika, for edition, see MS.


Bhartṛhari, Vākyapadīya, ed. K. A. Subramania Iyer, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi 1983.


Vākyapadīyavṛtti, for edition, see VP.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Cardona, G. (1974). Pāṇini’s Kārakas: Agency, animation, and identity. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 2, 231–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Coward, H., & Raja, K. K. (1990). The philosophy of the grammarians, Vol. 5 of The encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Das, N. (2011). Lakṣaṇā as inference. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 39, 353–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Deshpande, M. (1985). Ellipsis and syntactic overlapping: Current issues in Pāṇinian syntactic theory. Number 24 in Postgraduate and Research Department Series. Pune: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.Google Scholar
  5. Deshpande, M. (1991). Protoypes in Pāṇinian syntax. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 111, 465–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Deshpande, M. M. (1989). Ellipsis in modern linguistics and Pāṇini. Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 70(1), 103–124.Google Scholar
  7. Dreyfus, G. B. (1997). Recognizing reality: Dharmakīrti’s philosophy and its Tibetan interpretations. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  8. Dunne, J. (2004). Foundations of Dharmakīrti’s philosophy. Boston: Wisdom Publications.Google Scholar
  9. Gillon, B. S. (2007). Pāṇini’s Aṣṭādhyāyī and linguistic theory. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 35, 45–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gillon, B. S. (2010). Linguistic investigations into ellipsis in classical Sanskrit. In Sanskrit computational linguistics: 4th international symposium, New Delhi, India, 10–12 December 2010. Proceedings (pp. 218–230). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Gillon, B. S. (2013). Constituency and contextual dependence in classical Sanskrit. In Seminar on Sanskrit syntax and discourse structures, Number 237–266. Paris: Université Paris Diderot.Google Scholar
  12. Gonda, J. (1960). Ellipsis, brachylogy and other forms of brevity in speech in the Ṛgveda. Amsterdam: N.V. Noord-Hollandsche Uitgevers Maatschappij.Google Scholar
  13. Guha, N. (2016). On Arthāpatti. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 44(4), 757–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hayes, R. P. (1988). Di \(\dot{{\rm n}}\) nāga on the interpretation of signs. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hayes, R. P. (2009). Dignāga on sensation, inference, and language. In Buddhist philosophy: Essential readings (pp. 107–115). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hock, H. H. (1991a). Principles of historical linguistics (2nd ed.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hock, H. H. (1991b). Studies in Sanskrit syntax. Delhi: Motilal Banardsidass.Google Scholar
  18. Houben, J. (1995). The Saṃbandha-samuddeśa (Chapter on relation) and Bhaṛtharis’s philosophy of language. Groningen: Egbert Forsten.Google Scholar
  19. Iyer, K. A. S. (1977). Vākyapadīya of Bharthari: Chapter II English Translation with exegetical notes. Delhi: Motilal Banardsidass.Google Scholar
  20. Kanaujia, T. R. (1992). Heterogeneity of arthapatti. In H. S. P. Gustav Roth (Ed.), Philosophy, grammar, and indology: Essays in honour of Professor Gustav Roth (pp. 165–184). Delhi: Indian Books Centre.Google Scholar
  21. Kataoka, K. (2011). Kumārila on truth, omniscience, and killing. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
  22. Keating, M. (2017). Metonymy and metaphor as verbal postulation: The epistemic status of non-literal speech in Indian philosophy. Journal of World Philosophies, 2(1), 67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Matilal, B. K. (1990). The word and the world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Matilal, B. K., & Sen, P. K. (1988). The context principle and some Indian controversies over meaning. Mind, 97(385), 73–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Merchant, J. (2010). Three kinds of ellipsis: Syntactic, semantic, pragmatic? In F. Recanati, I. Stojanovic, & N. Villanueva (Eds.), Context-dependence, perspective, and relativity (pp. 141–192). The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  26. Monier-Williams, M. (2008). A Sanskrit-English Dictionary: Etymologically and philologically arranged (Indica et Buddhica HTML Version 0.3 RC1 Conversion to HTML from Cologne Source version by Richard (Mahoney ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  27. Nārāyaṇabhaṭṭa. (2004). Mānameyodaya by Nārāyaṇa Bhaṭṭa and Nārāyaṇa Paṇḍita (3rd ed.). Chennai: The Adyar Library and Research Centre.Google Scholar
  28. Ollett, A. (2013). What is Bhāvanā? Journal of Indian Philosophy, 41, 221–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Phillips, S. (2002). Ellipsis and propositional anaphora inGa\(\dot{{\rm n}}\)geśa’s Tattvacintāmaṇi. In F. Grimal (Ed.), Time and sources (pp. 173–186). Pondicherry: Ecole Francaise d’Extreme Orient.Google Scholar
  30. Potter, K. (2014). Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies: Philosophy of Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā (Vol. XVI). Delhi: Motilal Banardsidass.Google Scholar
  31. Raja, K. (1970–1972). Umbeka Bhaṭṭa. Journal of Oriental Research 40–41, 93–96.Google Scholar
  32. Raja, K. (1994). ākṣepa, Arthāpatti and Lakṣaṇā. In V. D. et al (Ed.), Cultura Indica: Tributes to an Indologist Professor Dr. Asoke Chatterjee Sastri (pp. 103–106). Delhi: Sarada Publishing House.Google Scholar
  33. Raja, K. (2000). Indian theories of meaning. Adyar: The Adyar Library and Research Centre.Google Scholar
  34. Raja, K. K. (1958). The elliptical sentence-Indian theories. Adyar Library Bulletin, 40(22), 25–31.Google Scholar
  35. Sastri, V. R. (1936). A short history of the Pūrva Mīmāṃsā Śāstra. In Tattvabindu by Vācaspatimiśra with Tattvavibhāvanā by ṣiputra Parameśvara. Number 3 in Annamalai University Sanskrit Series (pp. 1–197). Trichinopoly.Google Scholar
  36. Scharf, P. (1996). The denotations of generic terms in ancient Indian philosophy: Grammar, Nyāya, and Mīmāṃsā. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 86(3), 1–336.Google Scholar
  37. Siderits, M. (1991). Indian Philosophy of Language. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stainton, R. (2006). Words and thoughts: Subsentences, ellipsis, and the philosophy of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Taber, J. (1989). The theory of the sentence in Pūrva Mīmāṃsā and Western philosophy. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 17, 407–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Taber, J., & Kataoka, K. (2015). Coreference and qualification: Dignaga debated by kumarila and dharmakirti. In The Oxford (Ed.), Handbook of Indian Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Unithiri, N. (1983). A note on the anumāna chapters in Mānameyodaya and Nītitattvavirbhāva. Adyar Library, 47, 36–47.Google Scholar
  42. Van de Walle, L. (1993). Pragmatics and classical Sanskrit: a pilot study in linguistic politeness. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Yoshimizu, K. (2007). Kumārila’s propositional derivation (arthāpatti) without pervasion (vyāpti). In K. Preisendanz (Ed.), Expanding and merging horizons: Contributions to South asian and cross-cultural studies in commemoration of Wilhelm Halbfass (pp. 315–335). Wien: Verlag der Österrechischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
  44. Yoshimizu, K. (2011). How to refer to a thing by a word: Another difference between Dignāga’s and Kumārila’s theories of denotation. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 39, 571–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Yale-NUS CollegeSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations