Earlier layers in Sanskrit Grammar

[Gmail Team]

June 12, 2012

 

 Earlier layers and remnants in grammar of PANini.

 

Real Problem is VarNavaada versus Sphotavaada

 

Respected Scholars, Namaskar!

 

I agree with VKG that PANini system is the best thing to happen to Sanskrit.

I agree with DB that one need not expect PaNini to be comprehensive.

 

I apologize for using the word “attack” in my posting which changed the tone towards defending PANini. My problem is different and it is this.

 

We are told by Bhartrihari (Brahmakaanda) Sanskrit grammar is the “door of salvation”.

Patanjali says similarly that a single Sanskrit word expressed correct grammatically, helps in securing heaven.

 

Here I refer to two books (1) “Sanskrit Bhaas’echaa Ulagada” by Marathi researcher Rajawade and (2) “Sanskrit Vyakarana Shastra kaa Itihasa” by Yudhisthir Mimaamsaka. Both authors are from India.Nobody can doubt patriotism of both authors. I am not following the line of thinking of the western thinkers. This was explained several times by me on this list.

 

 Both authors say that in the Sanskrit of Panini’s time there were remnants from the earlier different Dhatus and their grammatical endings. It shows clearly that Sanskrit was undergoing changes over the period of thousands of years before the time of PaNini (500BC). They are describing what was happening in the historical development of Sanskrit up to time of PANini. (Greatness PANini is not questioned here).

 

Sanskrit was not exception to the basic trends in linguistics-information which is certain in the beginning tends to become uncertain with the passage of time and users of any language try to follow the Principle of Least Action. Yudhisthira Mimamsaka also mentions these two trends in his books. PaNini helped in preserving language.

 

So the question arises if grammar of language has undergone some changes, then which is the correct grammar that will open door to the salvation? Vaidika grammar? But even before that there was different version, not entirely but certainly different in many respects. Please look at the both books listed above for prevedic Sanskrit.

 

In addition Sanskrit is the language of Hindu liturgy; Yajnyas are performed using Sanskrit mantras. If some of the letters from mantra words or grammatical endings have undergone changes then how could we guaranty their effectiveness in producing desired effects? By both methods of grammar and Yajnya if Yajaman gets fruits in the next life, then there is nothing to check. One has to keep faith. So it is a religion based on faith. I am saying this because 99% of Hindu population does not understand Sanskrit mantras. But they believe that Sanskrit has esoteric power. Where does this power come from? Certainly not from changing grammar!

 

Now only thing left is Sanskrit shabdas. I just finished reading the book “ Sphotasiddhi of Mandana Misra” written in English by Dr, (Mrs.) Usha Rathode of Delhi. Throughout the book it is said that according to Mandana Misra, the meaning of Sanskrit shabdas (padas) are conventional. There is nothing esoteric power in them. Power is in sphota. If Sanskrit is conventional language, then why can’t we use Marathi or Hindi or Telugu mantras? Why such a high status to changing Sanskrit?

 

To me only hope appears from the position of Mimamsakas (Kumaril Bhatta etc) who somehow repeatedly talking about phonemes referring to Upavars'acharya’s old theory. If meanings of Sanskrit shabdas are conventional, it makes no difference if it comes through sphota or not.

 

On one instant they say meanings of Sanskrit shabdas are conventional and at the second instant they stretch sphota to all the way to the spiritual Shabda-Brahman. Why does not this Shabda-Brahma percolates its esoteric power all way down to Sanskrit shabdas of Vaikhari making them intrinsically powerful instead keeping them conventional?

 

Authors offer four divisions of Sanskrit shabdas-Yougika, Yoga-rUdha, rUdha and Yougika-rUdha. Here rUdha means conventional. Does this mean esoteric power is attached to only Yougika words? If yes, then how? The only possible solution is through letter-sounds. And if that is discarded as sphotavadins do, then Sanskrit is one hundred percent like any other language, like Marathi, English. No high status.

 

It was also discussed on this list that Para, Pashanti, Madhyama are common to all languages. Nagesh takes sphota from Vaikhari back to Shabda-Brahman through Para, Pashyanti ladder. So great great very old grand daddy Shabda-Brahman blesses all languages with its esoteric power Then why Sanskrit deserves high status? Please correct me in my logic so that I can improve in my understanding of philosophy of Sanskrit grammar. Remember, if you love (and I do) Sanskrit, that is different story. Please pardon me for a long posting. Thanks. N.R.Joshi.

 

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

[Sivasenani Nori]

Patanjali muni's views on the topic are (extracts with translations given below):

 

1. Only Vedic Sabdas need to be pronounced correctly, no such restriction obtains for non-vedic Sabdas.

 

2. As to what is a correct Sabda, SishTas are the pramaaNa. SishTas are those Brahmins who live in Aryavarta, have only a potful of grains, are not greedy, study the Veda and its subsidiaries like grammar without seeking any reason, and are experts in at least one Saastra / or have studied nearly every Saastra. It does not matter if SishTas know grammar or not; their usage is the standard. VyaakaraNa Saastra exists to enable us to identify SishTas.

 

In light of the above, one could say: how-many-ever layers there be, the words in Veda are constant, revealed as they are, and so are the doors to liberation. Non-vedic words change, and the usage of SishTas is the guide to rest of the population.

 

Budhajanavidheyah

N. Siva Senani

 

Extracts from the Mahabhashya (and one from the Uddyotah of Nagesa) with translations:

 

1. Only Vedic Sabdas need to be pronounced correctly.

 

पस्पशाह्निकम्

।। आचारे नियमः ।। वार्त्तिकम् or a view point popularly held।। ...

... यदप्युच्यते - आचारे नियमः इति। याज्ञे कर्मणि स नियमः, अन्यत्रानियमः। एवं हि श्रूयते - यर्वाणस्तर्वाणो नाम ऋषयो बभूवुः प्रत्यक्षधर्माणः। ते तत्रभवतः 'यद्वा नः' 'तद्वा नः' इति प्रयोक्तव्ये 'यर्वाणः' 'तर्वाणः' इति प्रयुञ्जते, याज्ञे पुनः कर्मणि नापभाषन्ते। तैः पुनरसुरैर्याज्ञे कर्मण्यपभाषितम्, ततस्ते पराभूताः।।  महाभाष्यम् ।।

 

... यज्ञे सुशब्दप्रयोगाद्धर्मः अपशब्दप्रयोगदधर्म इति तत्रैव तयोः प्रयोगनियमः। तदतिरिक्तस्थले तु सुशब्दापशब्दयोः प्रयोगेsनियमः। योsपि यज्ञे दोषः सोsपि तदङ्गभूतसङ्कल्पोहादिविषये एव। श्रुतौ 'हेलयो हेलयो नश्यध्वमि'त्यूह एव ।। उद्द्योतः ।।

 

The context is a discussion on the purpose served by VyaakaraNam, specifcally on 'dharmaniyamah' mentioned in the vaarttika 'सिद्धे शब्दार्थसम्बन्धे कतोsर्थप्रयुक्ते शब्दप्रयोगे शार्त्रेण धर्मनियमः, यथा लौकिकवैदिकेषु' (word, meaning and their relationship is nitya - constant or eternal; words are used only in the sense they are used in the world; dharmaniyamah is done by Saastra [by enjoining usage of correct words]). A question naturally arises, if words are eternal, and mean only the sense in which they are actually used in the world, to what purpose is the Saastra of VyaakaraNam then? The answer is: शास्त्रेण धर्मनियमः क्रियते। The phrase which follows immediately - यथा लौकिकवैदिकेषु - can be thought of as pertaining to examples of dharmaniyamah. However, Patanjali - somewhat ingeniously, I think (in my present state of learning) - carefully avoids that interpretation and takes the phrase as referring to illustrations of niyamavidhi - restrictive injunction.

 

It is in this context that the vaarttikam (or whatever view Patanjali is quoting) 'आचारे नियमः' is uttered. "The niyamavidhi is actually seen in practice". How? From 'तेsसुरा हेsलयो हेsलयो इति कुर्वन्तः पराबभूवुः'. (he'layo he'layo is wrong pronunciation, and the asuras who pronounced in such a way in a vaidika karma were humiliated or did not achieve the purpose for which they performed the karma). Now, a translation of the Mahabhashya:

 
'आचारे नियमः' is valid only in tasks related to a sacrifice and not elsewhere. It is indeed heard that there were two seers, YarvaaNa and TarvaaNa by name, who perceived the revealed Veda mantras directly. Those two greatly reverred seers used to use the words 'yarvaaNah' and 'tarvaaNah' where 'yadvaanah' and 'tadvaanah' were to be used. However, in the sacrifice they did not utter incorrectly. But, words were mispronunced by those asuras and they were humiliated.

 

Uddyota: In sacrifices dharma accrues from usage of correct words and adharma, from usage of incorrect words - this restrictive injunction with respect to usage of correct and incorrect words applies only in sacrifices. In other places, there is no restrictive injunction regarding usage of correct and incorrect words. Whatever is the blemish in sacrifice, that also applies only in the subsidiaries of sacrifice such as sankalpa, oohaa etc. only. The incident about 'he'layo he'layo' heard in the Veda falls under the category of oohaa only. 

 

We see that in the Udyota, Nagesa is further restricting the scope of dharmaniyamah. He holds that the correctness or incorrectness of words as they occur in Veda is not determined by VyaakaraNam. Only when the words of Veda are changed in the subsidiaries (a~Ngas - as used by Mimaamsakas) such as sankalpa and oohaa, will incorrect words result in adharma. For good measure, he also anticipated the question about 'he'layo he'layo' actually occuring in the Veda and states that the incidents falls under the category of 'oohaa' only. How? One might speculate that in a sacrifice, may be these words needed to be uttered (हे 3 अरयः, according to some; the Satapatha Brahmana has ' हेsलवो हेsलवो इति वदन्तः पराबभूवुः' III.2.1.23, 24) as decided by the yajamaana, and by getting them wrong, the purpose of doing the sacrifice was defeated.

 

2. Usage of Sistas is the standard

 

पृषोदरादीनि यथोपदिष्टम् ।। 6.3.109 ।।

 

... अथ किमिदमुपदिष्टानीति ?

 

उच्चारितानि।

 

कुत एतत् ?

 

दिशिरुच्चारणक्रियः। उच्चार्य हि वर्णानाह - 'उपदिष्टा इमे वर्णाः' इति ।

 

कैः पुनरुपदिष्टानि ?

 

शिष्टैः ।।

 

के पुनः शिष्टाः?

 

...तर्हि निवासतश्चाचारतश्च। स चाचार आर्यावर्त्ते एव।

 

कः पुनरार्यवर्त्तः?

 

प्रागादर्शात्, प्रत्यक् कालकवनात्, दक्षिणेन हिमवन्तम्, उत्तरेण परियात्रम्। एतस्मिन् आर्यावर्त्ते आर्यनिवासे ये ब्रीह्मणाः कुम्भीधान्या अलोलुपा अगृह्यमाणकारणाः किञ्चिदन्तरेण कस्याश्चिद्विद्यायाः पारं गतास्तत्रभवन्तः शिष्टाः। 

 

यदि तर्हि शिष्टाः शब्देषु प्रमाणम्, किमष्टाध्याय्या क्रियते?

 

शिष्टपरिज्ञानार्थाsष्टाध्यायी।

 

कथं पुनरष्टाध्याय्या शिष्टाः शक्या विज्ञातुम्?

 

अष्टाध्यायीमधीयानोsन्यं पश्यत्यनधीयान ये वाsस्यां विहिताः शब्दास्तान् प्रयुञ्जानम्। स पश्यति 'नूनमस्य देवानुग्रहः स्वभावो वा, योsयं न चाष्टाध्यायीमधीते, ये चास्यां विहिताः शब्दास्तांश्च प्रयुङ्क्ते। नूनमयमन्यानपि जानाति' इति। एवमेषा शिष्टज्ञानार्थाsष्टाध्यायी इति।

 

This sutra states that irregularly formed words like prishodara must be known as instructed. We follow the mahabhashya after skipping the discussion about prishodara and other words.

 

"Then, what about 'उपदिष्टानि'? (Pradipa says, the question is: instruction is done by the Saastra; such an instruction with respect to these words is not there; even if it is to be taken as present, are these words to be taken as given (that is, without further analysis into prakriti and pratyaya)?) 

 

[It means] Pronounced.

 

How come?

 

The root दिश् is used in the sense of pronouncing. Indeed, afte pronouncing only are the letters spoken, as in the sentence 'spoken are these letters'.

 

By whom, again, are they pronounced?

 

By SishTas, the elite?

 

And, pray, who are these elite?

 

(Here, the first answer proposed is that vaiyaakaraNas are SishTas, but that leads to a state of cicrular reference: we need grammar to define grammarians, but grammarians are being said to be the basis of a part of a grammar here. So, Patanjali offers an alternative:)

 

...Then, the elite are to be decided by their conduct and place of residence. Those practices are restricted to Aryavarta only. 

 

What, again then, is Aryavarta?

 

That country east of the AdarSa mountain (said by Nagesa to be at Kurukshetra), west of the Kaalaka forest (Prayag, again on the strength of Nagesa), south of Himalayas and north of Pariyatra (Vindhyas; Nagesa). In this Aryavarta, the abode of Aryas, those Brahmins who have only a potful of grains, who are not greedy, who do not seek purpose [to do their duty of learning the Veda with its subsidiaries] and who have more or less studied any one branch of knowledge to its very end (Kayata interprets किञ्चिदन्तरेण ... as to mean a knowledge of all Sastras acquired on one's own without the help of a guru) are the elite, SishTas.

 

If these SishTas are the standard in the matter of words, then what is the purpose served by the Ashtadhyayi?

 

Ashtadhyayi is for the purpose of identifying SishTas.

 

Then again, how is it possible to identify SishTas with the Ashtadhyayi?

 

One who has studied the Ashtadhyayi sees another person who has not studied the Ashtadhyayi but is using the words as prescribed by it and wonders thus: "Indeed, this man is blessed by the gods, or it is his genius, that without studying the Ashtadhyayi he is using the correct words as prescribed by the Ashtadhyayi; surely, he knows the others as well." Thus, it has been said that Ashtadhyayi is for the purpose fo identifying SishTas.

 

 

On 13 June 2012 01:44, Gmail Team <gira...@juno.com> wrote:

June 12, 2012

 

.... 

 

We are told by Bhartrihari (Brahmakaanda) Sanskrit grammar is the “door of salvation”.

 

Patanjali says similarly that a single Sanskrit word expressed correct grammatically, helps in securing heaven.

 

.... 

[subrahmanyam korada]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: subrahmanyam korada <kora...@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Earlier layers in Sanskrit Grammar
To: gira...@juno.com


नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

It seems that certain concepts are not clearly understood , may be due to dependence  on translations rather than originals and not learning thru a gurukulam .

1.Earlier to Panini , there were different treatises for Vaidikasabdas and Laukikasabdas - प्रातिशाख्यम् and व्याकरणम् ।

2.only आष्टाध्यायी  deals with both , so it is the only व्यकरणम्  fit to be called वेदाङ्गव्याकरणम् ।

3.दर्शनम् is the one that is useful in attaining मोक्ष  (दर्शयति तत्त्वम्) ।

4.Patanjali , following Sphotayana , assigned दर्शनत्वम् to व्याकरणम् । 

Hari elaborated the concept in Brahmakanda or Agamakanda .

Vakyakanda and Padakanda deal with the nuances of Vakya and Pada .

So , there  are two streams - दर्शन  and प्रक्रिया ।

In दर्शन there is स्फोटवाद - when varnas disappear as soon as they are pronounced how come people understand the meaning of a sentence - a नित्यशब्द called स्फोट  is there in the mind - since both शब्द and अर्थ  are identical both can be called स्फोट  । the same is the cause of understanding - here cause means the one that is instumental / helpful -

द्वावुपादानशब्देषु शब्दौ शब्दविदो विदुः ।

एको निमित्तं शब्दानाम् अपरो’र्थे प्रयुज्यते ।(वा प . ब्रहम्)

So meaning is conventional  and sphota is helpful  when both Sabda and Artha are there .

The term शब्द  denotes many meanings and therefore it is untranslatable -- वर्णः , प्रकृतिः , प्रत्ययः , पदम् , वाक्यम् , अवान्तरवाक्यम् , महावाक्यम् , परा , पश्यन्ती , मध्यमा , वैखरी , ध्वनिः , शब्दप्रमाणम् , काव्यम् , धातुः etc.

नाद etc was discussed long ago - it can be प्राकृतध्वनि  or वैकृतध्वनि etc.

Sanskrit is considered as a दैवी वाक् / व्याकृता वाक्  and therefore the same is considered for analysis -

दैवी वाग् व्यवकीर्णेयम् अशक्तैरभिधातृभिः (वा प , वा कां , end)

It is believed that the same only , if pronounced with vyakaranajnana , would fetch Dharma -

व्यकरणज्ञानपूर्वके प्रयोगे धर्मः - पस्पशा , महाभाष्यम् ।

Pronunciation should be as per शिक्षा ।

It is not the case with other languages .

It is difficult to answer - why  sugar  is sweet  . Why quite a different योगासन s do not yield the same result . How Plastic surgery was known to Susruta .

According to Ayurveda the bride should be younger than the groom . Otherwise -

बाला प्राणप्रदा प्रोक्ता युवती प्राणधारिणी ।

प्रौढा करोति वृद्धत्वं वृद्धा मरणमादिशेत् ॥

In such cases Patanjali remarks - स्वाभाविकमेतत् , किमस्माभिः कर्तुं शक्यते ?

About ऊह - 

आपस्तम्बसूत्रम् - ’अनाम्नातेषु  अमन्त्रत्वम्’ - if it is not there in Veda it cannot be a मन्त्र ।

This problem will not be there in ऊह as due to अतिदेश the प्रकृति /  लिङ्ग / वचन  is changed but not the entire मन्त्र  - अग्नये > सूर्याय ec.

Sphota is general , i.e. applicable to Language in general .

Pasyanty and Para are also for spiritual purpose , i.e.not language specific .

प्रक्रिया  may differ from  व्याकर्ता to व्याकर्ता  but  Pada will be the same .

Although the प्रक्रिया - योग / रूढ  etc. is shown , the meaning  has already been there - सिद्धे  शब्दार्थसम्बन्धे लोकतः अर्थप्रयुक्ते शब्दप्रयोगे शास्त्रेण धर्मनियमः क्रियते । Convention is taken by everybody . Panini may coin Sabdas - वृद्धिरादैच्    for specific purpose .

According to Vaiyakaranas it is अखण्डवाक्यम् - पदम् - वर्णः 

But they assign meaning to वर्ण -- तस्यापत्यम् - अण् .

Panini analyses पदम् , वाक्यम्  and महावाक्यम् ।

For Mimamsakas it is वर्णः - पदम्  - वाक्यम्  ।

- भिन्नं दर्शनमाश्रित्य व्यवहारो’नुगम्यते ।
   तत्र यन्मुख्यमेकेषां तत्रान्येषां विपर्ययः ॥ वा प , ब्रह्म.

If a वर्ण is वाचक  then it will become a पदम्  - ’अर्थवदधातुरप्रत्ययः प्रातिपदिकम्’ पा सू --

अः = ब्रह्मा , विष्णुः , महेश्वरः etc.. Similarly बीजाक्षराणि ।

Since no thing can be there , the verb अस्ति / भवति / विद्यते  has to be supplemented -- वृक्षः , अस्तीति गम्यते (महाभाष्यम्) . 

One may feel free to do research on वर्ण and its significance .

Such topics are better discussed face to face as it is difficult to convince thru such forum .

धन्यो’स्मि

--
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

--
Prof.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit,
CALTS,
University of Hyderabad 500046
Ph:09866110741(R),91-40-23010741,040-23133660(O)

--
Prof.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit,
CALTS,
University of Hyderabad 500046
Ph:09866110741(R),91-40-23010741,040-23133660(O)