meaning
subrahmanyam korada
Namo vidvadbhyah
I am very much thankful to Prof N R Joshi . However the merit goes to my Gurus .
In my 13th Feb posting I quoted Patanjali (samarthah padavidhih 2-1-1) -- it is impossible to offer or register the
meanings of dhatus etc. . I rather think that there is no reason for puzzling . Please consider the folloing ( some of
these points are repeated) --
Language changes - is the general rule . This is applicable more to a language in use (spoken). Rather as it is explained
by Katyayana ( siddhe sabdaarthasambandhe lokatah arthaprayukte sabdaprayoge sastrena dharmaniyamah kriyate)
- unless and until the trio, i.e. sabda, artha and their relation , are immutable it is not possible to compile a grammar
(otherwise there will be chaos -- Indian Govt started 'Standardization of Languages', here is the end ? Which Telugu and
which Hindi is convincingly Standard ?). Sanskrit is associated with Dharma and may be due to this reason that
the general tendency of change is arrested to a maximum extent.
Panini offered the gamut of words in three ways - 1. Vidhi = Prakrti and Pratyaya are offered , we have to combine.
2. Nipaata = literally means pronunciation (of ready made word) - we have to separate the parts - srotriyah, ksetriyah.
3. Prsodaraadiini yathopadistam(6-3-109) = the sabdas that are being used by Sistas of Aryavarta, such as prsodara,
jimuta etc., but not analysed in Astadhyayi areaceptable. Yatra varnalopaagamavikaaraah drsyante nacocyante -
Patanjali.
In the last category there are words like anaphaa, sunaphaa, duradhuraa (Yogas in Jyotisa, from Persian) and some
more wherein some change occurs.
There are 1137 Sakhas of Vedas, Vedangas, Upavedas, Darsanas, Puranas etc. and the spoken language with all
its Dialects. One has to take into consideration all these things and fix / assign meaning.
The word 'annam' means the one that is being eaten and the one that eats away (the consumer) -- adyate'tti ca bhuutaani, tasmaadannam taducyata it ( Anandavally, Taittiriyopanisad).
Take the word 'guna' and see the meanings in Ayurveda (Vatapittakaphaah), Samkhya, Vyakarana, Mimamsa, Nyaya,
Alamkara and so on .
Hari in Vakyapadiya ( Vakyakanda - samyogo viprayogasca), Kautalya in Arthasastra (Tantrayuktis - 15 Adhikarana),
Caraka(Tantrayuktis-Siddhisthanam - 40) and Susruta (Tantrayuktis-Uttaratantram - 65-4) tried to provide a number of Deciding Factors of Meaning in case of 'sabdaarthasyaanavacchede visesasmrtihetavah'. What for ? There has always been problem about meaning .
At sentence level there are 24 Nyayas in Purvamimamsa to decide the meaning.
Philosophy of meaning is a difficult , unending and scholarly subject . Most of the people are poor in this subject as knowledge of
other sastras is essential in many cases. For example Tantrayuktis are not touched (take any Alamkaragrantha).
Let me give an example(presently I am teaching to my M Phil student) - Devadattah pacate -- the aatmanepada means - Devadatta
is arranging for cooking (and not Devadatta is cooking). Yajnadatta or someone employed is doing the job. Because Panini says
'kartrabhipraaye kriyaaphale'(aatmanepadam). The result finally goes to Prayojakakarta, i.e. Devadatta but not Prayojyakarta (who is
the real cook) . For a detailed discussion see Upagrahasamuddesa of Padakanda of Vakyapadiyam
Why 2000 years ? It is difficult to say. Hari says the following in Sambandhasamuddesa --
indriyaanaam svavisayesvanaadiryogyataa yathaa I anaadirarthaih sabdaanaam sambandho yogyataa tathaa II
Therefore it is anaadi, i.e. we don't know.
Therefore the tradition believes ' offering / registering all the meanings (vaacya only) of all dhatus etc is difficult.
We should not leave it there . Scholars like Dr Joshi are verymuch required today for maintaining the heat of discussions . Otherwise
here is Hari at the end of Vakyakanda - praayena samkseparuchiin alpavidyaaparigrahaan praapya samgrahe'stamupaagate.
Mahabhasyam is not being paid attention.
In order to get good aquaintance with any Sastra I suggest Gurukula type of education.
What Korada is doing ? He is going to conduct a heavy Workshop on Mahabhasyam and Vakyapadiyam (all Vedangas and
all Darsanas , Arthasastra and Ayurveda are covered) during April/May 2010. Pl wait for the anouncement here.
The delay in my response may be condoned keeping my schedule in mind.
2010/2/27 gira...@juno.com <gira...@juno.com>
Feb. 26, 2010Respected Scholars, Namaskar!
In the following discussion I am using the word “word” because it is easy to write. In my earlier postings I presented differences among lexemes, pada, Vaakya etc.
First I would like to thank Dr. Surendramohan Mishra for his posting on Feb.25. I appreciate his encouraging words about my speculations on meanings of letter-sounds. I did not use the phrase “meaning at an atomic level” because in modern physics the word “atom” carries a lot of information. So if we understand atomic means ‘reduced to the smallest unit (VarNa) of Vaak” then it is OK. The Jain linguists believed that words are material substances made up of atoms which are distinct from other material atoms in nature. The atoms of words are designated as sound-atoms in order to distinguish them from the material atoms. Naiyayikas opposed Jain theory.
As a matter of fact Sanskrit words and their meanings is one of the main topics discussed in Philosophy of Language in India for past 2000 years. All schools and Acharyas (Upavarsha, Shankar, Kumaril Bhatta etc) Jain, Bauddha, Vaidika participated in this debate.
Dr. S. Korad always respond carefully giving all pertinent details, I have great respect for him. I get puzzled when he wrote (Feb. 13 posting) “it is impossible to offer or register the meanings of all dhaatus, praatipadikas, pratyayas and nipatas”. This may be true in certain cases. However if we accept the thesis that meaning convention is very old in Sanskrit, changes of meanings have occurred, changes of sound have occurred, then my question is
“What was the purpose of debate among grammarians, Naiyayikas, and many other schools on “Words and Meanings?” And what is the purpose of scholars like S.D. Joshi, Bimal Matilal, Gaurinath Shastry, K. Kunjunni Raja, Padmarajia (Jain theories). R.C. Pandeya, and of many other scholars in writing books on “Words and Meanings” in Indian philosophy of language? These books offer good review of the debate for the past 2000 years. Is that all? Are we just happy to know that we debated the topic? Thanks. N. R. Joshi
____________________________________________________________
Senior Assisted Living
Put your loved ones in good hands with quality senior assisted living. Click now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=jMACYwEydT3FEP02OZMaUAAAJ1DzphoupZ8w6IeWaVuMIhzHAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASUQAAAAA=
--
Prof.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit,
CALTS,
University of Hyderabad 500046
Ph:09866110741(R),91-40-23010741,040-23133660(O)
Surendra Mohan Mishra
Namaskaarah.
I am highly enthused to read what Dr N R Joshi and Dr Subramanyam
Korada in his reply to him have written.
Firstly let me make it clear that i used "atomic"only in the sense of
a further indivisible part of a given language so also so also of it's
semantic aspect taking just for analogy the Nyaaya concept of a
metaphysical and logical atom,vide the Nyaaya suutra "param vaa
truteh".As put rightly by Dr Joshi earlier the correlation between
last tip of the acoustic space and the corresponding semantic space
needs to be brought out in our attempt to analyse a language and this
in fact has been attempted in a number of ways in the longest
tradition of development that Samskrit has been fortunate to
witness.Grammars and Linguistics,Lexicons and Exegeses have been
continuously presented by scholiasts coming down to the contemporary
times in support and justification of establishing and re-establishing
the inseparable relationship between the Word and the World.
I greatly appreciate the basic questions raised by Joshi and I love
the way Korada wants us to make a stocktaking of the whole otherwise
holistic understanding will not result.In fact as admitted by the
ancients pada-vaakya-pramaana-jnataa is a must but along with that the
whole tradition of usages pushing in varying frequencies of semantic
nuances ought to be known firsthand as Bhartrihari rightly avers :
prajnaa vivekam labhate bhinnair aagama-darshanaih/kiyad vaa shakyam
unnetum sva-tarkam anudhaavataa //(Bra. Kaa.);or as the Mahaabhaarata
put it : itihaasa-puraanaabhyaam vedam
samupabrimhayet/vibhetyalpa-shrutaad vedo maam ayam pratarishyati// or
the statement naa 'vedavin manute tam brihantam /Venkata in his
introduction to Vedic Comm. gives the great qualifications a
commentator ought to possess.
Sometimes one feels as if we have been somewhat been shortsighted by
following Paanini only unsuspectingly and repudiating the rest as
'apaaniniiya' or 'archaic' which is like calling names and just a
sacrilege.A pointer to this is the krodapatra by Narayana Bhattatiri
'Apaaniniiya-praamaanya-saadhanam'.Such usages have been there for a
much longer time than the Paninian formations.In due recognition of
our vishaala vaanmaya we know the addage : samudravad vyaakaranam
maheshvare tadardha-kumbhoddharanam brihaspatau/tadbhaaga-bhaagaac ca
shatam purandare kushaagra-bindur grathito hi paaninau//This is not to
minimise the importance of Paanini but to put him in his abhiishta
perspective.We mostly forget his eminent predecessors and the
Praatishaakhyas and the subtle language analysis there in the
Braahmanas,Aaranyakas and Kalpasuutras,dharmashaastras etc.In fact the
whole literature that came to be drishta,prokta or nibaddha of which
seventy percent has been lost,is that shabda-murtir vishaalah which is
our Shabda-Brahma in the unique Bhaaratiiya tradition.We do use
different logics,frameworks and paradigms and thereby we have
sampradaayarakshaa annd vriddhi.Hari rightly says : yatnenaanumito 'py
arthah kushalair anumaatribhih/abhiyuktatarair anyair
anyathaivopapadyaate//But then we in the face of unflinching logic
seem to have an unimpeachable position which Jayantabhatta says :
yatnenaa 'numito 'py arthah kushalair anumaatribhih/abhiyuktatarair
anyaih so 'nyathaa nopapadyate//See,the divine origin of language also
ought to be taken with a pinch of salt and we must develop
perspectives to deconstruct and see through.One logician Bhaasarvajna
maintains : neha khalu vai suutrakaara-niyoga-bhayaat padaarthaah
svadharmam haatum arhanti,yadi caa 'vicaaritam suutrakaara-vacah
pramaanam pariikshaa-suutraanaam tarhi vaiyarthyam syaat/Conforming to
old ways with logic is no taboo and creating wider paths is not denied
in our tradition.Our catholicity is our modesty and greatness.
The doctrines of Praaciina and Navya logicians proposing
'ishvarecchaa-sanketah shaktih' and 'aadhunika-sanketah shaktih' speak
of the development of a language in histiorical sense also naturally
warranting changed context and new meaning emerging and consequently
taken care of by the grammarians and lexicographers.The statement
'niruktam hi kaartsnyam vyaakaranasya' is very true.Actual usage is
taken note of by a lexicographer which may or may not be vouchsafed by
a grammarian.Words generated by grammatical formulae also may not be
there in actual use."Prushodaraadiini yathopadishtam' and the 'Unaadi'
are there to lend passport to the words in vogue which otherwise would
fail to be accounted for.Thus Sanskrit grammar is not closed as some
think,it has ways to invite and rehabilitate words from outside,but
only when it's necessary to do so.
Yes.Gurukul tradition is a desideratum as suited of course to present
reality,not adversely adulterated i mean,is a sure way to preserve and
further our distinct traditions of intellectual growth.Both kshema and
yoga must be taken care of.Bhaaratiiya Vidvat Parishad should
deliberate on what exactly should be the difference and meeting point
between the traditional and modern systems of education in the
Shaastras.The syllabii of the universities and the vidyaapiithas(both
now run on an European/American pattern) present a anomalous picture
as to what exactly is being put across.But rejuvenating and
re-inventing the Gurukul system would be a great idea.Manu truly
declares : nishekaadi-shmashaanaantam mantrair yasyodito vidhih/tasya
shaastre 'dhikaaro 'sti jneyo naa 'nyasya kasyacit.Unless and until we
live and breathe in a culture,how can we ever command it's language
which is culture-specific the sensitivities and sensibilities are more
deep-rooted than what normally meets our so called critical judgment
which is only a clever paraphrasing.The Nirukta-commentator Durga says
: 'ninyaa vacaamsi' and 'gambhiira-padaartho hi vedah'.Justly it's
so.Our traditions inspire both awe and reverence.
The Dictionary of Sanskrit on Historical Principles at Deccan
College,Pune would serve much if completed in the right earnest,but so
far perhaps the letter 'a' is yet to be completed if my information is
correct.
We have grown from stipulated dhaatvarthas to 'anekaarthaa hi dhaatavo
bhavanti(MBhaashya)' to 'sati taatparye sarve sarvaartha-vaacakaah'
and in metaphysics 'sarvam sarvaatmakam'(Vyaasa in
Yoga-suutra-vritti).Our visions and missions have been commendable and
this journey is to be taken ahead in svatantra Bhaaratam !
And one thing in fine : Korada is apt in in his exhortion that it is
'dharma' that has bestowed on Samskrit this universal life and glory
that the world now reckons after attempts to subdue her timeless
spirit.The Vedas are essentially the repository of this 'dharma' and
the whole paramparaa can be traced back to this pivotal force.Even the
non-Vedic owe their origin to a distinct aspect of this Vedic
heritage.
vidushaam vidheyah
surendramohanmishrah
kurukshetra-vishvavidyaalayah