Elisa Freschi, PhD in South Asian Studies, has studied both Indian and Western Philosophy. Currently Research Fellow of Sanskrit at the University “Sapienza”, Rome, Italy, she has published on the history of ideas in various schools of Indian philosophy.

"In this first ever translation of Rāmānujācārya’s Tantrarahasya she (Freschi [ed]) has unraveled the complicated inter-Mīmāṃsā argument over the prescription theory through minute philological investigation. In addition her succint explanation of the technical terms in Mīmāṃsā hermeneutics (chap. 4.) as well as the glossary supplied in the appendix, offer readers - even non-specialists - considerable help in better understanding Rāmānujācārya thought." - Taisei Shida, Kyoto University Japan

• PrefaceRA̅MA̅NUJA̅ CA̅ RYA AND THE TANTRARAHASYA1. Author and Text 1.1. Rāmānujācārya1.2. The Tantrarahasya1.3. Quotations in the Tantrarahasya1.4. Sources1.5. Structure of TR IVANALYSIS OF THE CONTENT OF TR IV2. Exhortation2.1. Bhāvanā and Vidhi According to the Bhāṭṭas2.2. Bhāṭṭa Theories on Exhortative Expressions in TR IV3. Exhortation and Duty3.1. Prābhākara Theories on Exhortative Expressions in TR IV3.2. The Sacred Texts’ Loop (TR IV 9.1)3.3. A Possible Way Out (TR IV 9.2)3.4. Reaching Duty through Metaphor (TR IV 9.3–TR IV 9.3.2; TR IV 9.4–TR IV 9.5.1; TR IV 9.11)3.5. Actions and Duty3.6. An Unprecedented Duty Does Not Have to Be Grasped (TR IV 9.10–TR IV 9.10.4)3.7. Reasons to Act (TR IV 9.12–TR IV 9.15)3.8. Epistemological Conclusions of §2 and §34. Hermeneutics of Sacrifice4.1. Introduction4.2. Ritual Auxiliaries4.3. Archetypes and Ectypes (TR IV 6–TR IV 7)4.4. Bhāṭṭa Hermeneutics in TR IV4.5. Prābhākara Hermeneutics in TR IV5. Prescriptions and Apūrva5.1. Prescriptions According to the Bhāṭṭas (TR IV 5)5.2. Apūrva as the Centre of the Veda6. Desire and Contrary-to-Duty Obligations6.1. Desire (TR IV 10.2–TR IV 10.11)6.2. The Śyena Sacrifice (TR IV 3.16.1, TR IV 4.3.3, TR IV 11.3.1.1)6.3. Śyena according to Deontic Logic (TR IV 11.3.1)7. Grammar and Exegesis7.1. Kārakas as Functions (TR IV 3.13.2, TR IV 11.7.1)7.2. Linguistic Implications of TR Hermeneutics (and Vice Versa)INTRODUCTION TO THE CRITICAL EDITION OF TR IV8. Methodology and Introductory Remarks8.1. Tantrarahasyaśikṣā 2177 Mysore8.2. History of M and Dating 8.3. Evaluation of the Witnesses and an Attempt of a Stemma Codicum8.4. Critical EditionANNOTATED TEXT OF THE ´SA¯ STRAPRAMEYAPARICCHEDA, TOGETHER WITH ITS SOURCES. ANNOTATED TRANSLATION1. maṅgala2. siddhānta on kārya as the Core of Prescriptions3. PP: The Linguistic bhāvanā is the Core of Prescriptions3.1. Ma˙ n˙dana: A Prescription Expresses the Means for Realising What Is Desired3.2. Pārthasārathi Miśra against TR IV 3.13.3. Other Bhāṭṭas: The Notion That the Action to Be Undertaken Is an Instrument to a Desired End might Be Implicit3.4. PP (Ritualists): The Prescription Is Tantamount to the Optative and Similar Suffixes3.5. UP: Then Everyone Would Act! If There Are Further Conditions, the Thesis Has already Been Refuted3.6. Kumārila on Linguistic bhāvanā and Objective bhāvanā (vs. TR IV 3.1.1)3.7. S against TR IV 3.63.8. Kumārila: Optative and Similar Suffixes Express Two bhāvanās (as above TR IV 3.6; vs. TR IV 3.7)3.9. S: Verbal Suffixes Do not Express the bhāvanā, but just the Agent’s Number3.10. S: Optative and Similar Suffixes Express the Notion that Something Must Be Done and, therefore, also the bhāvanā3.11. PP/ekadeśin against TR IV 3.10: The bhāvanā could Be Understood as a Specification of What Must Be Done3.12. Further Arguments of the S about Duty Implying an E_fort and not the Opposite3.13. Other Bhāṭṭas: The Prescription is the Function of the Optative and Similar Suffixes, and It Is a Cognition3.14. Bhāṭṭa Continuing TR IV 3.133.15. Pārthasārathi Miśra vs. TR IV 3.14: The Function of Optative and Similar Suffixes Cannot Incite3.16. Bhāṭṭa Adjusting TR IV 3.13 According to TR IV 3.153.17. (Siddhānta among Bhāṭṭas) Pārthasārathi: Incitement Can Be of Four Kinds. It Is Surely of the Fourth Type in the Veda, as this is Authorless4. Connections of Elements to the Principal Prescription (According to Pārthasārathi Miśra)4.1. Connection of Semantemes within the Prescriptive Sentence4.2. Connection of Other Sentences to the Main Sentence4.3. Means of Knowledge for Ascertaining the Connection of the bhāvanā, of What Must Be Realised, of the Instrument, and of the Procedure in Archetypes5. Kinds of Prescriptions5.1. Originative Prescription and Its Inner Partition (Prescription about the Unprecedented and Restrictive Prescription)5.2. Application Prescription5.3. Prescription regarding the Responsibility5.4. Promoting Prescription5.5. Interactions among Prescriptions6. Accomplishing the Prescription in Archetypes6.1. Accomplishing the Prescription in Ectypes6.2. Differences between Archetype and Ectype for Accomplishing the Prescription: Principles of Analogical Extension6.3. Modifucation7. Summary of the Bhāṭṭa Position7.1. Summary of TR IV 4–TR IV 6 7.2. Summary of the siddhānta of TR IV 38. Siddhānta8.1. Siddhānta against TR IV 7.18.2. Siddhānta against TR IV 3.178.3. Siddhānta as in TR IV 29. Is the apūrva Denoted by Exhortative Endings?9.1. PP against TR IV 8.3: What Must Be Done Cannot Be Unprecedented, because Then One would not Comprehend Its Meaning9.2. Something to Be Done Can instead Be Expressed as an Action by the Verbal Root, while the Optative Endings only Express the Number (see supra TR IV 3.9–TR IV 3.10)9.3. S against the TR IV 9.2: The Optative (liṅ) and the Other Suffixes Surely Denote Something to Be Done. This Is Totally New (apūrva), because It Can Be Connected with “The One Who Is Desirous of Heaven” and Similar Words (Indicating an Enjoined Person) (and Heaven Can Only Be Brought about by Something Exceeding Our Normal Experience, see TR IV 9.3.2)9.4. PP: Let It Be That the Vedic Injunctions Express the Action as Something to Be Done9.5. S against TR IV 9.1: It Is Possible to Understand a Transcendent Thing to Be Done because One already Knows the Words Expressing It as Bearing the Meaning of an Action to Be Done, and the Syntactical Closeness to the Enjoined Person Specifies Them (the Words)9.6. PP (Prābhākara): One Can Learn the Meaning also with regard to a Transcendent Thing to Be Done9.7. S vs. TR IV 9.6: Only an Action Can Be Directly Understood, not a Transcendent Thing to Be Done9.8. PP (See TR IV 9.4.8): The Action Is Principal; That It Must Be Done Is Known through Indirect Signification9.9. S vs.TR IV 9.8: No, There Cannot Be Indirect Signification with regard to What Is Unprecedented9.10. PP (Maṇḍana), See TR IV 3.1, TR IV 9.4.89.11. Summary of TR IV 9.9–TR IV 9.10: In Ordinary Experience, the Optative and Similar Suffixes Designate the Action and, through Inference, What Must Be Done; in the Veda, They Denote What Must Be Done as Shown by the Contiguity to Well-Known Words (See TR IV 9.5.1)9.12. PP vs. TR IV 9.11: One Acts because of Will (See supra, TR IV 3.8)9.13. S vs. TR IV 9.129.14. PP: The Optative and Other Suffixes Designate Impulsion, Request and Consent, not What Must Be Done9.15. S vs. TR IV 9.14: Impulsion, etc., Merely Depend on Speaker and Hearer10. Connection of the Result10.1. PP: In Optional Rituals the Result Is the Principal Element10.2. S vs. TR IV 10.1: The Result Is a Specification of the Enjoined Person10.3. The Real Thing to Be Brought about Is Just the Non-Precedented [Thing to Be Done]10.4. Succession of Desirous, Enjoined, Responsible, Agent10.5. What Happens if the Enjoined Person Is not Specified by a Result?10.6. PP: If a Result Is Needed as a Specification of the Enjoined Person, why Do Fixed and Occasional Rituals and Prohibitions not Have a Result?10.7. S vs. TR IV 10.6: Indeed, the Enjoined Person is Specified even in Fixed and Occasional Rituals10.8. PP/Naiyāyika: What Is Known through the Veda is Contradicted by Inference!10.9. S vs. TR IV 10.8: No Inference Can Occur with regard to Something That Is Known through the Veda10.10. PP: What Happens if Certain People, despite Being Endowed with Ritual Responsibility, Do not Act?10.11. Non-Performing Dharma, Which Is a Human Aim, Is in Itself Something not Desired11. Connection of the Other Elements to the apūrva11.1. Connection vs. TR IV 4.211.2. Aspects of the Non-Precedented Thing to Be Done, vs. TR IV 5 11.3. The Promoter Role of the Non-Precedented Duty11.4. Promoting Power of Supreme and Intermediate apūrvas11.5. The Relation with the Enjoined Person Pertains to the Promoting apūrva11.6. The Connection of apūrva and Content is Inevitable11.7. Connection of the Meaning of the Verbal Root as the Instrument (cf. TR IV 3.13.2)12. Summary of TR IV 10–TR IV 11 (vs. TR IV 4.2.8 and TR IV 7)12.1. Connection of the Full and New Moon Prescriptions as Prescribing a Single Sacrfice through Closeness, Expectation and Fitness12.2. Reciprocal Expression of Connected Words between the Auxiliaires and the Principal Prescription: The Difference between Directly and Indirectly Contributing Auxiliaries12.3. Grasping through the Grasper13. Conclusion regarding apūrva as the PrescriptionGlossaryBibliographyIndex of Passages of TR IVGeneral Index

Elisa Freschi, PhD in South Asian Studies, has studied both Indian and Western Philosophy. Currently Research Fellow of Sanskrit at the University “Sapienza”, Rome, Italy, she has published on the history of ideas in various schools of Indian philosophy.

"In this first ever translation of Rāmānujācārya’s Tantrarahasya she (Freschi [ed]) has unraveled the complicated inter-Mīmāṃsā argument over the prescription theory through minute philological investigation. In addition her succint explanation of the technical terms in Mīmāṃsā hermeneutics (chap. 4.) as well as the glossary supplied in the appendix, offer readers - even non-specialists - considerable help in better understanding Rāmānujācārya thought." - Taisei Shida, Kyoto University Japan

• PrefaceRA̅MA̅NUJA̅ CA̅ RYA AND THE TANTRARAHASYA1. Author and Text 1.1. Rāmānujācārya1.2. The Tantrarahasya1.3. Quotations in the Tantrarahasya1.4. Sources1.5. Structure of TR IVANALYSIS OF THE CONTENT OF TR IV2. Exhortation2.1. Bhāvanā and Vidhi According to the Bhāṭṭas2.2. Bhāṭṭa Theories on Exhortative Expressions in TR IV3. Exhortation and Duty3.1. Prābhākara Theories on Exhortative Expressions in TR IV3.2. The Sacred Texts’ Loop (TR IV 9.1)3.3. A Possible Way Out (TR IV 9.2)3.4. Reaching Duty through Metaphor (TR IV 9.3–TR IV 9.3.2; TR IV 9.4–TR IV 9.5.1; TR IV 9.11)3.5. Actions and Duty3.6. An Unprecedented Duty Does Not Have to Be Grasped (TR IV 9.10–TR IV 9.10.4)3.7. Reasons to Act (TR IV 9.12–TR IV 9.15)3.8. Epistemological Conclusions of §2 and §34. Hermeneutics of Sacrifice4.1. Introduction4.2. Ritual Auxiliaries4.3. Archetypes and Ectypes (TR IV 6–TR IV 7)4.4. Bhāṭṭa Hermeneutics in TR IV4.5. Prābhākara Hermeneutics in TR IV5. Prescriptions and Apūrva5.1. Prescriptions According to the Bhāṭṭas (TR IV 5)5.2. Apūrva as the Centre of the Veda6. Desire and Contrary-to-Duty Obligations6.1. Desire (TR IV 10.2–TR IV 10.11)6.2. The Śyena Sacrifice (TR IV 3.16.1, TR IV 4.3.3, TR IV 11.3.1.1)6.3. Śyena according to Deontic Logic (TR IV 11.3.1)7. Grammar and Exegesis7.1. Kārakas as Functions (TR IV 3.13.2, TR IV 11.7.1)7.2. Linguistic Implications of TR Hermeneutics (and Vice Versa)INTRODUCTION TO THE CRITICAL EDITION OF TR IV8. Methodology and Introductory Remarks8.1. Tantrarahasyaśikṣā 2177 Mysore8.2. History of M and Dating 8.3. Evaluation of the Witnesses and an Attempt of a Stemma Codicum8.4. Critical EditionANNOTATED TEXT OF THE ´SA¯ STRAPRAMEYAPARICCHEDA, TOGETHER WITH ITS SOURCES. ANNOTATED TRANSLATION1. maṅgala2. siddhānta on kārya as the Core of Prescriptions3. PP: The Linguistic bhāvanā is the Core of Prescriptions3.1. Ma˙ n˙dana: A Prescription Expresses the Means for Realising What Is Desired3.2. Pārthasārathi Miśra against TR IV 3.13.3. Other Bhāṭṭas: The Notion That the Action to Be Undertaken Is an Instrument to a Desired End might Be Implicit3.4. PP (Ritualists): The Prescription Is Tantamount to the Optative and Similar Suffixes3.5. UP: Then Everyone Would Act! If There Are Further Conditions, the Thesis Has already Been Refuted3.6. Kumārila on Linguistic bhāvanā and Objective bhāvanā (vs. TR IV 3.1.1)3.7. S against TR IV 3.63.8. Kumārila: Optative and Similar Suffixes Express Two bhāvanās (as above TR IV 3.6; vs. TR IV 3.7)3.9. S: Verbal Suffixes Do not Express the bhāvanā, but just the Agent’s Number3.10. S: Optative and Similar Suffixes Express the Notion that Something Must Be Done and, therefore, also the bhāvanā3.11. PP/ekadeśin against TR IV 3.10: The bhāvanā could Be Understood as a Specification of What Must Be Done3.12. Further Arguments of the S about Duty Implying an E_fort and not the Opposite3.13. Other Bhāṭṭas: The Prescription is the Function of the Optative and Similar Suffixes, and It Is a Cognition3.14. Bhāṭṭa Continuing TR IV 3.133.15. Pārthasārathi Miśra vs. TR IV 3.14: The Function of Optative and Similar Suffixes Cannot Incite3.16. Bhāṭṭa Adjusting TR IV 3.13 According to TR IV 3.153.17. (Siddhānta among Bhāṭṭas) Pārthasārathi: Incitement Can Be of Four Kinds. It Is Surely of the Fourth Type in the Veda, as this is Authorless4. Connections of Elements to the Principal Prescription (According to Pārthasārathi Miśra)4.1. Connection of Semantemes within the Prescriptive Sentence4.2. Connection of Other Sentences to the Main Sentence4.3. Means of Knowledge for Ascertaining the Connection of the bhāvanā, of What Must Be Realised, of the Instrument, and of the Procedure in Archetypes5. Kinds of Prescriptions5.1. Originative Prescription and Its Inner Partition (Prescription about the Unprecedented and Restrictive Prescription)5.2. Application Prescription5.3. Prescription regarding the Responsibility5.4. Promoting Prescription5.5. Interactions among Prescriptions6. Accomplishing the Prescription in Archetypes6.1. Accomplishing the Prescription in Ectypes6.2. Differences between Archetype and Ectype for Accomplishing the Prescription: Principles of Analogical Extension6.3. Modifucation7. Summary of the Bhāṭṭa Position7.1. Summary of TR IV 4–TR IV 6 7.2. Summary of the siddhānta of TR IV 38. Siddhānta8.1. Siddhānta against TR IV 7.18.2. Siddhānta against TR IV 3.178.3. Siddhānta as in TR IV 29. Is the apūrva Denoted by Exhortative Endings?9.1. PP against TR IV 8.3: What Must Be Done Cannot Be Unprecedented, because Then One would not Comprehend Its Meaning9.2. Something to Be Done Can instead Be Expressed as an Action by the Verbal Root, while the Optative Endings only Express the Number (see supra TR IV 3.9–TR IV 3.10)9.3. S against the TR IV 9.2: The Optative (liṅ) and the Other Suffixes Surely Denote Something to Be Done. This Is Totally New (apūrva), because It Can Be Connected with “The One Who Is Desirous of Heaven” and Similar Words (Indicating an Enjoined Person) (and Heaven Can Only Be Brought about by Something Exceeding Our Normal Experience, see TR IV 9.3.2)9.4. PP: Let It Be That the Vedic Injunctions Express the Action as Something to Be Done9.5. S against TR IV 9.1: It Is Possible to Understand a Transcendent Thing to Be Done because One already Knows the Words Expressing It as Bearing the Meaning of an Action to Be Done, and the Syntactical Closeness to the Enjoined Person Specifies Them (the Words)9.6. PP (Prābhākara): One Can Learn the Meaning also with regard to a Transcendent Thing to Be Done9.7. S vs. TR IV 9.6: Only an Action Can Be Directly Understood, not a Transcendent Thing to Be Done9.8. PP (See TR IV 9.4.8): The Action Is Principal; That It Must Be Done Is Known through Indirect Signification9.9. S vs.TR IV 9.8: No, There Cannot Be Indirect Signification with regard to What Is Unprecedented9.10. PP (Maṇḍana), See TR IV 3.1, TR IV 9.4.89.11. Summary of TR IV 9.9–TR IV 9.10: In Ordinary Experience, the Optative and Similar Suffixes Designate the Action and, through Inference, What Must Be Done; in the Veda, They Denote What Must Be Done as Shown by the Contiguity to Well-Known Words (See TR IV 9.5.1)9.12. PP vs. TR IV 9.11: One Acts because of Will (See supra, TR IV 3.8)9.13. S vs. TR IV 9.129.14. PP: The Optative and Other Suffixes Designate Impulsion, Request and Consent, not What Must Be Done9.15. S vs. TR IV 9.14: Impulsion, etc., Merely Depend on Speaker and Hearer10. Connection of the Result10.1. PP: In Optional Rituals the Result Is the Principal Element10.2. S vs. TR IV 10.1: The Result Is a Specification of the Enjoined Person10.3. The Real Thing to Be Brought about Is Just the Non-Precedented [Thing to Be Done]10.4. Succession of Desirous, Enjoined, Responsible, Agent10.5. What Happens if the Enjoined Person Is not Specified by a Result?10.6. PP: If a Result Is Needed as a Specification of the Enjoined Person, why Do Fixed and Occasional Rituals and Prohibitions not Have a Result?10.7. S vs. TR IV 10.6: Indeed, the Enjoined Person is Specified even in Fixed and Occasional Rituals10.8. PP/Naiyāyika: What Is Known through the Veda is Contradicted by Inference!10.9. S vs. TR IV 10.8: No Inference Can Occur with regard to Something That Is Known through the Veda10.10. PP: What Happens if Certain People, despite Being Endowed with Ritual Responsibility, Do not Act?10.11. Non-Performing Dharma, Which Is a Human Aim, Is in Itself Something not Desired11. Connection of the Other Elements to the apūrva11.1. Connection vs. TR IV 4.211.2. Aspects of the Non-Precedented Thing to Be Done, vs. TR IV 5 11.3. The Promoter Role of the Non-Precedented Duty11.4. Promoting Power of Supreme and Intermediate apūrvas11.5. The Relation with the Enjoined Person Pertains to the Promoting apūrva11.6. The Connection of apūrva and Content is Inevitable11.7. Connection of the Meaning of the Verbal Root as the Instrument (cf. TR IV 3.13.2)12. Summary of TR IV 10–TR IV 11 (vs. TR IV 4.2.8 and TR IV 7)12.1. Connection of the Full and New Moon Prescriptions as Prescribing a Single Sacrfice through Closeness, Expectation and Fitness12.2. Reciprocal Expression of Connected Words between the Auxiliaires and the Principal Prescription: The Difference between Directly and Indirectly Contributing Auxiliaries12.3. Grasping through the Grasper13. Conclusion regarding apūrva as the PrescriptionGlossaryBibliographyIndex of Passages of TR IVGeneral Index

Elisa Freschi, PhD in South Asian Studies, has studied both Indian and Western Philosophy. Currently Research Fellow of Sanskrit at the University “Sapienza”, Rome, Italy, she has published on the history of ideas in various schools of Indian philosophy.

"In this first ever translation of Rāmānujācārya’s Tantrarahasya she (Freschi [ed]) has unraveled the complicated inter-Mīmāṃsā argument over the prescription theory through minute philological investigation. In addition her succint explanation of the technical terms in Mīmāṃsā hermeneutics (chap. 4.) as well as the glossary supplied in the appendix, offer readers - even non-specialists - considerable help in better understanding Rāmānujācārya thought." - Taisei Shida, Kyoto University Japan

• PrefaceRA̅MA̅NUJA̅ CA̅ RYA AND THE TANTRARAHASYA1. Author and Text 1.1. Rāmānujācārya1.2. The Tantrarahasya1.3. Quotations in the Tantrarahasya1.4. Sources1.5. Structure of TR IVANALYSIS OF THE CONTENT OF TR IV2. Exhortation2.1. Bhāvanā and Vidhi According to the Bhāṭṭas2.2. Bhāṭṭa Theories on Exhortative Expressions in TR IV3. Exhortation and Duty3.1. Prābhākara Theories on Exhortative Expressions in TR IV3.2. The Sacred Texts’ Loop (TR IV 9.1)3.3. A Possible Way Out (TR IV 9.2)3.4. Reaching Duty through Metaphor (TR IV 9.3–TR IV 9.3.2; TR IV 9.4–TR IV 9.5.1; TR IV 9.11)3.5. Actions and Duty3.6. An Unprecedented Duty Does Not Have to Be Grasped (TR IV 9.10–TR IV 9.10.4)3.7. Reasons to Act (TR IV 9.12–TR IV 9.15)3.8. Epistemological Conclusions of §2 and §34. Hermeneutics of Sacrifice4.1. Introduction4.2. Ritual Auxiliaries4.3. Archetypes and Ectypes (TR IV 6–TR IV 7)4.4. Bhāṭṭa Hermeneutics in TR IV4.5. Prābhākara Hermeneutics in TR IV5. Prescriptions and Apūrva5.1. Prescriptions According to the Bhāṭṭas (TR IV 5)5.2. Apūrva as the Centre of the Veda6. Desire and Contrary-to-Duty Obligations6.1. Desire (TR IV 10.2–TR IV 10.11)6.2. The Śyena Sacrifice (TR IV 3.16.1, TR IV 4.3.3, TR IV 11.3.1.1)6.3. Śyena according to Deontic Logic (TR IV 11.3.1)7. Grammar and Exegesis7.1. Kārakas as Functions (TR IV 3.13.2, TR IV 11.7.1)7.2. Linguistic Implications of TR Hermeneutics (and Vice Versa)INTRODUCTION TO THE CRITICAL EDITION OF TR IV8. Methodology and Introductory Remarks8.1. Tantrarahasyaśikṣā 2177 Mysore8.2. History of M and Dating 8.3. Evaluation of the Witnesses and an Attempt of a Stemma Codicum8.4. Critical EditionANNOTATED TEXT OF THE ´SA¯ STRAPRAMEYAPARICCHEDA, TOGETHER WITH ITS SOURCES. ANNOTATED TRANSLATION1. maṅgala2. siddhānta on kārya as the Core of Prescriptions3. PP: The Linguistic bhāvanā is the Core of Prescriptions3.1. Ma˙ n˙dana: A Prescription Expresses the Means for Realising What Is Desired3.2. Pārthasārathi Miśra against TR IV 3.13.3. Other Bhāṭṭas: The Notion That the Action to Be Undertaken Is an Instrument to a Desired End might Be Implicit3.4. PP (Ritualists): The Prescription Is Tantamount to the Optative and Similar Suffixes3.5. UP: Then Everyone Would Act! If There Are Further Conditions, the Thesis Has already Been Refuted3.6. Kumārila on Linguistic bhāvanā and Objective bhāvanā (vs. TR IV 3.1.1)3.7. S against TR IV 3.63.8. Kumārila: Optative and Similar Suffixes Express Two bhāvanās (as above TR IV 3.6; vs. TR IV 3.7)3.9. S: Verbal Suffixes Do not Express the bhāvanā, but just the Agent’s Number3.10. S: Optative and Similar Suffixes Express the Notion that Something Must Be Done and, therefore, also the bhāvanā3.11. PP/ekadeśin against TR IV 3.10: The bhāvanā could Be Understood as a Specification of What Must Be Done3.12. Further Arguments of the S about Duty Implying an E_fort and not the Opposite3.13. Other Bhāṭṭas: The Prescription is the Function of the Optative and Similar Suffixes, and It Is a Cognition3.14. Bhāṭṭa Continuing TR IV 3.133.15. Pārthasārathi Miśra vs. TR IV 3.14: The Function of Optative and Similar Suffixes Cannot Incite3.16. Bhāṭṭa Adjusting TR IV 3.13 According to TR IV 3.153.17. (Siddhānta among Bhāṭṭas) Pārthasārathi: Incitement Can Be of Four Kinds. It Is Surely of the Fourth Type in the Veda, as this is Authorless4. Connections of Elements to the Principal Prescription (According to Pārthasārathi Miśra)4.1. Connection of Semantemes within the Prescriptive Sentence4.2. Connection of Other Sentences to the Main Sentence4.3. Means of Knowledge for Ascertaining the Connection of the bhāvanā, of What Must Be Realised, of the Instrument, and of the Procedure in Archetypes5. Kinds of Prescriptions5.1. Originative Prescription and Its Inner Partition (Prescription about the Unprecedented and Restrictive Prescription)5.2. Application Prescription5.3. Prescription regarding the Responsibility5.4. Promoting Prescription5.5. Interactions among Prescriptions6. Accomplishing the Prescription in Archetypes6.1. Accomplishing the Prescription in Ectypes6.2. Differences between Archetype and Ectype for Accomplishing the Prescription: Principles of Analogical Extension6.3. Modifucation7. Summary of the Bhāṭṭa Position7.1. Summary of TR IV 4–TR IV 6 7.2. Summary of the siddhānta of TR IV 38. Siddhānta8.1. Siddhānta against TR IV 7.18.2. Siddhānta against TR IV 3.178.3. Siddhānta as in TR IV 29. Is the apūrva Denoted by Exhortative Endings?9.1. PP against TR IV 8.3: What Must Be Done Cannot Be Unprecedented, because Then One would not Comprehend Its Meaning9.2. Something to Be Done Can instead Be Expressed as an Action by the Verbal Root, while the Optative Endings only Express the Number (see supra TR IV 3.9–TR IV 3.10)9.3. S against the TR IV 9.2: The Optative (liṅ) and the Other Suffixes Surely Denote Something to Be Done. This Is Totally New (apūrva), because It Can Be Connected with “The One Who Is Desirous of Heaven” and Similar Words (Indicating an Enjoined Person) (and Heaven Can Only Be Brought about by Something Exceeding Our Normal Experience, see TR IV 9.3.2)9.4. PP: Let It Be That the Vedic Injunctions Express the Action as Something to Be Done9.5. S against TR IV 9.1: It Is Possible to Understand a Transcendent Thing to Be Done because One already Knows the Words Expressing It as Bearing the Meaning of an Action to Be Done, and the Syntactical Closeness to the Enjoined Person Specifies Them (the Words)9.6. PP (Prābhākara): One Can Learn the Meaning also with regard to a Transcendent Thing to Be Done9.7. S vs. TR IV 9.6: Only an Action Can Be Directly Understood, not a Transcendent Thing to Be Done9.8. PP (See TR IV 9.4.8): The Action Is Principal; That It Must Be Done Is Known through Indirect Signification9.9. S vs.TR IV 9.8: No, There Cannot Be Indirect Signification with regard to What Is Unprecedented9.10. PP (Maṇḍana), See TR IV 3.1, TR IV 9.4.89.11. Summary of TR IV 9.9–TR IV 9.10: In Ordinary Experience, the Optative and Similar Suffixes Designate the Action and, through Inference, What Must Be Done; in the Veda, They Denote What Must Be Done as Shown by the Contiguity to Well-Known Words (See TR IV 9.5.1)9.12. PP vs. TR IV 9.11: One Acts because of Will (See supra, TR IV 3.8)9.13. S vs. TR IV 9.129.14. PP: The Optative and Other Suffixes Designate Impulsion, Request and Consent, not What Must Be Done9.15. S vs. TR IV 9.14: Impulsion, etc., Merely Depend on Speaker and Hearer10. Connection of the Result10.1. PP: In Optional Rituals the Result Is the Principal Element10.2. S vs. TR IV 10.1: The Result Is a Specification of the Enjoined Person10.3. The Real Thing to Be Brought about Is Just the Non-Precedented [Thing to Be Done]10.4. Succession of Desirous, Enjoined, Responsible, Agent10.5. What Happens if the Enjoined Person Is not Specified by a Result?10.6. PP: If a Result Is Needed as a Specification of the Enjoined Person, why Do Fixed and Occasional Rituals and Prohibitions not Have a Result?10.7. S vs. TR IV 10.6: Indeed, the Enjoined Person is Specified even in Fixed and Occasional Rituals10.8. PP/Naiyāyika: What Is Known through the Veda is Contradicted by Inference!10.9. S vs. TR IV 10.8: No Inference Can Occur with regard to Something That Is Known through the Veda10.10. PP: What Happens if Certain People, despite Being Endowed with Ritual Responsibility, Do not Act?10.11. Non-Performing Dharma, Which Is a Human Aim, Is in Itself Something not Desired11. Connection of the Other Elements to the apūrva11.1. Connection vs. TR IV 4.211.2. Aspects of the Non-Precedented Thing to Be Done, vs. TR IV 5 11.3. The Promoter Role of the Non-Precedented Duty11.4. Promoting Power of Supreme and Intermediate apūrvas11.5. The Relation with the Enjoined Person Pertains to the Promoting apūrva11.6. The Connection of apūrva and Content is Inevitable11.7. Connection of the Meaning of the Verbal Root as the Instrument (cf. TR IV 3.13.2)12. Summary of TR IV 10–TR IV 11 (vs. TR IV 4.2.8 and TR IV 7)12.1. Connection of the Full and New Moon Prescriptions as Prescribing a Single Sacrfice through Closeness, Expectation and Fitness12.2. Reciprocal Expression of Connected Words between the Auxiliaires and the Principal Prescription: The Difference between Directly and Indirectly Contributing Auxiliaries12.3. Grasping through the Grasper13. Conclusion regarding apūrva as the PrescriptionGlossaryBibliographyIndex of Passages of TR IVGeneral Index