AnabhidhAna Technique

[Gmail Team]

May 4, 2012

 

Respected Scholars, Namaskar!

 

AnabhidhAna Technique of Sanskrit grammarians

 

Could scholars of bvparishat list throw light on this technique please?  Where it is used? What are its advantages? I will appreciate if  some simple examples of use of this technique are added in explanation. Thanks.N.R.Joshi

____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
consumerproducts.com

[Hnbhat B.R.]

I do not know any such technique used in Grammar for its term as a technology of today.

If you mean the usages of in the महाभाष्य passages (which you will find if you simply google for the usage verbatim you will find many in the text of महाभाष्य. It is a simple way of avoiding any theoretical form assumed by the application of any rule strictly (but never found if we believe the words of महाभाष्य) so that such interpretation is not possible for the rule. This is what I understand of this technique.  Here is one such line

क्रियाविशेषणाभ्यां द्वितीयान्ताभ्यां प्रत्ययः। कृद्योग लक्षणा षष्ठी तु क्रियाविशेषणान्नेत्युक्तम्। मुख्यार्थवृत्तिभ्यां तु प्रत्ययो न भवति,अनभिधानात्।

Example I remember from the searched pages, शीतोष्णाभ्यां कारिणि - a suffix kan is used to get from the word शीत and उष्ण - 

य आशु कर्तव्यानर्थाश्चिरेण करोति स शीतक उच्यते, यस्तु अनाशु कर्तव्याना क्षणादेव करोति स उष्णक उच्यत इति भाष्ये। संज्ञायामित्यनुवृत्तेरयमर्थो लभ्यत इति कैयटः। 

Though the suffixes are added to the physical forms of them, literary meaning is intended here.

As in the case of the meaning intended as  शीतं करोति he makes something cold, or उष्णं करोति, he makes something hot, it does not take the suffix and you will not get the form derived as the word is not used in the primary sense. Though as per the rule, it should take the suffix, may mean the above, it is not accepted in the primary sense due to being never found in usage. मुख्यार्थवृत्तिभ्यां तु प्रत्ययो न भवति is the usage in the above quoted context from महाभाष्य, meaning even though theoretically possible, the word derived by the application, words mentioned in the rule do not take the suffix in the primary meaning as it is not found in usage. (on the authority of महाभाष्य). If one out of curiosity, asks whether the word could not used for refrigerator or room heater, ....... ..... ....  I have no answer as I respect महाभाष्य and accept its authority.  This is the case of many other instances. This is a free discussion between the technical aspect and practical aspect of the use of Grammar.

   

I got about 10 pages of results all from महाभाष्य. And the usage of it as भाष्येऽनभिधानात् also can be found, to reject some interpretation not supported by महाभाष्य by some opponent view, as the महाभाष्य is accepted a final authority of judgement and नागेशभट्ट the Supreme Court Lawyer makes use of this, to quote Supreme Judgement in support of his view or reject others' argument and his authority is accepted as the final also in the interpretation, traditionally. (Exception may be modern linguists or grammarians influenced by modern linguists/science/technology may not accept his authority who could not go to the depth of the discussions of Nageshabhatta.) This what I gather, about the usage by other later grammarians of the term. It depends on the interpretation strictly based on the महाभाष्य and not supported by महाभाष्य is summarily rejected. 

This the general impression I had by some glimpses of the usages in general in grammar texts. Prof. Korada and other Grammarians/Ling will through more light in this respect and correct me if my idea of this usage is wrong. 

This use of the phrase in the मीमांसा श्लोकवार्तिक - 

धूमोऽयं ज्वलतीति न भवति  ।

अनभिधानात् ।

न हि लोकऽ पर्यनुयोक्तुमर्हति  ।

meaning it अनभिधानात् means लोकेऽनभिधानात् as the popular usage is to be given importance over the शास्त्र in practice. Though the smoke is burning is a grammatically correct sentence, but is a non-sense as it is never used in practice as impossible. Only fire can burn and not the smoke. You cannot accept such sentence as authority. This is also meant by its अनभिधानात् in grammar texts.

 

A key note. This is not the licence for using any form one can conceive as grammatical or ungrammatical, but just a way of explanation for the use of the correct usage of grammatically well formed ones. As I have mentioned above, if one asks, why I could not use उष्णक for room heater and शीतक for refrigerator, or airconditioner, Patanjali won't have any answer nor me. 

This is the guide line for the coining of new terms today.

--
Dr. Hari Narayana Bhat B.R. M.A., Ph.D.,
Research Scholar,

Ecole française d'Extrême-OrientCentre de Pondichéry

16 & 19, Rue Dumas

Pondichéry - 605 001

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

5.5.12

Dear Colleague,

Over the last few years the topic has been severally discussed in this forum under different forms of enquiry and answer.

According to Pāṇinians the conjugational ending may mean the subject or object or the intransitive verb (P.3.4.69). Whom it does not mean (anabhihite) takes the nominal endings enjoined under P. 2.3.1. This is the simplest statement of the Pāṇinian position.  

The concept of anabhidhāna/abhidāna engendered a huge literature beginning with Patañjali and later revived by the Mīmāṃsakas and Naiyāyikas and continuing till the eighteenth century. One may consult Renou or S. C. Vasu for the preliminary ideas and the Śābdabodhamīmāṃsā by N.S.Rāmānuja Tatacharya for most of the debated points. This work requires some previous traditional training. As for myself, I do not think that the problems have all been solved.

Best

DB

---

From: Gmail Team <gira...@juno.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 5 May 2012 6:31 AM
Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} AnabhidhAna Technique

consumerproducts.com --
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
to subscribe go to the link below and put a request
https://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat/subscribe
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com

[V Subrahmanian]

Namaste.

Is this topic connected to the ’अभिहितान्वयवादः’ and 'अन्विताभिधानवादः’ ?  I am no expert in this but just wanted to draw the attention of the scholars to these terms.

subrahmanian.v

[narayanan er]

अभिधेति न्यायमते शब्दशक्तिः। मीमांसामते विधिसमवेतविधिव्यापारीभूतपदार्थः। शब्दस्य वाच्योर्थः स मुख्योऽर्थः, मुखे आदौ भवतीति। तत्र मुख्यो     व्यापारोऽस्याभिधोच्यते। अभिहितमभिधया बोधितम्। अभिहितं अन्वेति इत्यभिहितान्वयः। अन्वितानामभिधानमितरत्र। जोशीमहोदयैरपि यदनभिधानमुद्दिष्टं तत् समानमेव, अभिधया बोधितमभिधानं संज्ञा वा। अनभिधानं चानभिहिते कर्मणि द्वितीया इत्यादिसूत्रेषु। एतदेव सविस्तरं हरिनारायणभट्टैर्भट्टाचार्यैश्च प्रपञ्चितम्। कौमारिलानां प्राभाकराणां चाभिहितान्वयान्विताभिधानचर्चाः शाब्दबोधमीमांसायां ताताचार्यैः विशदीकृताः, शब्दादर्थबोधे सर्वे प्रकारास्तत्र ससूक्ष्मं निरूपिताः।  

---

From: V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com>
To: dbhattach...@yahoo.com
Cc: "gira...@juno.com" <gira...@juno.com>; "bvpar...@googlegroups.com" <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 5 May 2012 10:39 AM
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} AnabhidhAna Technique

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

5.5.12

Śrīmān Nārāyaṇan has put some essentials in black and white for which we must thank the young scholar. He is quite correct. However it is also essential to point out that the abhihitānvayavāda-anvitābhidhānavāda controversy and kārakābhidhāna controversy centre around two different problems. The former questions the primacy of meaning between the sentence and the word while the latter addresses the problem of the meaning of pratyayas. But I do not think that even a preliminary discussion of the subtle points, every aspect whereof has been debated for about 1500 years, can be instituted in this forum.  

Best wishes

DB

---

From: narayanan er <drerna...@yahoo.com>
To: BHARATIYA VIDVAT <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 5 May 2012 11:06 AM

Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} AnabhidhAna Technique

अभिधेति न्यायमते शब्दशक्तिः। मीमांसामते विधिसमवेतविधिव्यापारीभूतपदार्थः। शब्दस्य वाच्योर्थः स मुख्योऽर्थः, मुखे आदौ भवतीति। तत्र मुख्यो     व्यापारोऽस्याभिधोच्यते। अभिहितमभिधया बोधितम्। अभिहितं अन्वेति इत्यभिहितान्वयः। अन्वितानामभिधानमितरत्र। जोशीमहोदयैरपि यदनभिधानमुद्दिष्टं तत् समानमेव, अभिधया बोधितमभिधानं संज्ञा वा। अनभिधानं चानभिहिते कर्मणि द्वितीया इत्यादिसूत्रेषु। एतदेव सविस्तरं हरिनारायणभट्टैर्भट्टाचार्यैश्च प्रपञ्चितम्। कौमारिलानां प्राभाकराणां चाभिहितान्वयान्विताभिधानचर्चाः शाब्दबोधमीमांसायां ताताचार्यैः विशदीकृताः, शब्दादर्थबोधे सर्वे प्रकारास्तत्र ससूक्ष्मं निरूपिताः।  

---

From: V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com>
To: dbhattach...@yahoo.com
Cc: "gira...@juno.com" <gira...@juno.com>; "bvpar...@googlegroups.com" <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 5 May 2012 10:39 AM
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} AnabhidhAna Technique

Namaste.

Is this topic connected to the ’अभिहितान्वयवादः’ and 'अन्विताभिधानवादः’ ?  I am no expert in this but just wanted to draw the attention of the scholars to these terms.

subrahmanian.v

[Hnbhat B.R.]

2012/5/5 Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattach...@yahoo.com>

5.5.12

Śrīmān Nārāyaṇan has put some essentials in black and white for which we must thank the young scholar. He is quite correct. However it is also essential to point out that the abhihitānvayavāda-anvitābhidhānavāda controversy and kārakābhidhāna controversy centre around two different problems. The former questions the primacy of meaning between the sentence and the word while the latter addresses the problem of the meaning of pratyayas. But I do not think that even a preliminary discussion of the subtle points, every aspect whereof has been debated for about 1500 years, can be instituted in this forum.  

Best wishes

DB

In other words, the "अनभिहिते" rule discusses the possibilities of the कारक being conveyed by other suffixes than the case-ending suffixes prescribed for each कारक and this has a technical aspect in the rules under this अधिकार. Bhattoji, specifies the possibilities as अभिधानं च प्रायेण तिङ्-कृत्-तद्धित-समासैः and some times by निपात-s. It restricts the use of कारक-vibhakti-s to the cases not covered by अभिधान by the items listed above. In those cases, अभिहिते तु प्रथमैव - 

Just like रामः कटं करोति - the first case. of अभिधान and अनभिधान of कर्तृ and कर्म कारक by respectively by the conjugationa suffix. रामः is the case of कर्तृकारक conveyed by ति and अभिहिते प्रथमा। The कर्म-कारक is not अभिहित by the suffix ति as it is used to convey the कर्तृकारक. The reverse is the case in passive voice:

रामेण कटः कृतः/क्रियते - Here the ति conveys the कर्मकारक and hence अभिहित कर्म - कट takes प्रथमा, and not द्वितीया। On the other hand, the कर्तृकारक is अनभिहित and hence in this case, it takes तृतीया. This is the scope of अनभिधान in the context of the Grammar under this rule and it appears it is from the अनभिधान on which the question was raised. 

It is different from the शब्दवृत्ति called by the name अभिधा or अभिधान which is the domain of semantics mostly discussed by the texts in न्याय and मीमांसा though both differ in their views of the syntactical relation and शाब्दबोध, which also differs for व्याकरण also in the discussion concerned. This has been the topic of शाब्दबोधमीमांसा of Prof.NS Tatacharya which is a valuable tool as a ready reckoner for scholars. Accordingly taken up by the literary critics who followed आनन्दवर्धन who added ध्वनि, as a शब्दवृत्ति which was synchronized with other theories of meaning prevalent in the above said शास्त्र-s, अभिधावृत्तिमातृका, शब्दशक्तिप्रकाशः, वृत्तिवार्तिकम्, etc. independently.

I think the question raised by Mr. Joshi, as अनभिधान technique in grammar is different from the limited scope of अनभिहिते rule and the relevant theories अभिहितान्वय and अन्विताभिधान concepts developed by मीमांसा school taken up by न्याय school also.

There is one more maxim 

"अभिधानलक्षणा हि कृत्तद्धितसमासाः" which needs attention of the discussion and the अनभिधान concept raised by Mr. Joshi.

Thanks to Bhattacharya and Narayanan for contributing to the topic with some more elements.

 

-- 

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

5.5.12

Yes, this is just common sense and plausible. For, we could not understand the objecthood of veda in vedaṃ paṭhati without the abhidhāna of the object by the dvitīyā in -am. Patañjali raises this point and it is his statement that abhidhāna here should be normally by tiṅ-kṛt-taddhita-samāsas. Kvacin nipātenābhidhānam is an addition.

Best

DB

---

From: Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com>
To: dbhattach...@yahoo.com
Cc: "drerna...@yahoo.com" <drerna...@yahoo.com>; BHARATIYA VIDVAT <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 5 May 2012 12:12 PM

Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} AnabhidhAna Technique