Indra VyAkaraNa and Chandra VyAkaraNa
gira...@juno.com
____________________________________________________________
Penny Stock Jumping 3000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
AwesomePennyStocks.com
VKG
We also understand from old scholars's averment, that Kaashakrutsna
Vyakarana is more suited to Atharva Veda Texts,more so in the case of
Braahmana Grantha.
One eager scholar collected these from old libraries. Now, Lakshya
Lakshana Samanvaya is due.
As I looked at a sample, it was quite interesting to note that; simple
Forms (Roopaani) such Prathama Vibhakti BahuVacahana; it is quite Easy
to correlate. As We are brought up in the Panineeya Vyaakarana fore
ground; the forms, which seem as different can be easily understood,
with these exceptions.
(As rightly mentioned, pre- panineeya grammarians can help us bridge
the gap to connote different words.)
100 years (Divya Varsha) of Upadesham in Aindra Vyaakarana, naturally
relate to Pratipaada Paatha; which is also inevitable at many places
and Avyaapti factor to generate different Shabdas in Paanineeya
Vyaakarana. Gana Paatha and the system of Aakruti Gana are meant for
this factor alone.
Some of the regular rules are optional in that Vyakarana.
Ex1: Raama + (J)as = Raamaas(h)राम, जस् - रामाः अथवा रामासः
Alternative: Raama+ S(ut)+(J)as= Raamaasas(h)
Ex2: मधु, ङस् - मधुनः, मध्वः। अत्र नुमागम विकल्पः, तेन यण् प्राप्नोति।
It is pointed out by them that, the concept of Yan Aadesha itself is
contextual not regular. It could be Other Aagama. उवङ् इयङ्,
पूर्वसवर्णादेशः.
These type of simple set of alternative rule base to Vyakarana/
Saahitya Students in advanced stage will help them understand the
perspective of Vaidika/ Praacheena Bhaasha.
Regards
VKG
On Aug 22, 12:22 am, "girav...@juno.com" <girav...@juno.com> wrote:
> August 21, 2011 Respected Scholars, Namaskar! Indra VyAkaraNa and Chandra VyAkaraNa There is an interesting reference to the grammar of Sanskrit in the book, “On the Aindra School of Sanskrit Grammarians, “ by A.C.Burnell---in 1608 a Tibetan Lama TArAnAtha compiled a very remarkable history of Buddha’s teaching in India, in which he, more than once alluded to the Indra grammar. In his account of PANini, he states that though it was said in Tibet that Indra VyAkaraNa was earlier, this must be held of the region of the gods and not of Aryadesha. He added that according to the knowledge of Pundits the Chandra-VyAkaraNa agrees with PANini and the KalApa with the Indra VyAkaraNa ( I do not have idea about the truth in this). However my question is this-------------In the praise of (PANini) VyAkaraNa, the often narrated story is of Brihaspati teaching Indra for thousands of years without end in the foresight. Is Indra in Brihaspati-Indra story the same as author of Indra VyAkaraNa or different? Does Indra VyAkaraNa exist today? Was it PrePANinian VyAkaraNa? PANini mentioned the names of at least 10 grammarians before him. The list of Pre-PANinian grammarians appear to be slightly different in different references. Was Indra included in it? Let me have fortune to increase my knowledge through valuable opinions of scholars of bvparishat. Thanks. N. R. Joshi.
> Penny Stock Jumping 3000%
subrahmanyam korada
The Indra - Br.haspati story is considered to be an ArthavAda simply to show that PratipadapAt.ha is an impossible task .
This Indra has got nothing to do with Indra of AindravyAkaran.am . Panini does not refer to Indra . AindravyAkaran.am is not available today .
dhanyo'smi
--
अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि।
ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवाप्स्यसि।।
तस्मादुत्तिष्ठ कौन्तेय युद्धाय कृतनिश्चयः।
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
--
Prof.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit,
CALTS,
University of Hyderabad 500046
Ph:09866110741(R),91-40-23010741,040-23133660(O)
Shrisha Rao
> August 21, 2011
>
> Respected Scholars, Namaskar!
>
> Indra VyAkaraNa and Chandra VyAkaraNa
>
> There is an interesting reference to the grammar of Sanskrit in the book, “On the Aindra School of Sanskrit Grammarians, “ by A.C.Burnell---in 1608 a Tibetan Lama TArAnAtha compiled a very remarkable history of Buddha’s teaching in India, in which he, more than once alluded to the Indra grammar. In his account of PANini, he states that though it was said in Tibet that Indra VyAkaraNa was earlier, this must be held of the region of the gods and not of Aryadesha. He added that according to the knowledge of Pundits the Chandra-VyAkaraNa agrees with PANini and the KalApa with the Indra VyAkaraNa ( I do not have idea about the truth in this). However my question is this-------------
> In the praise of (PANini) VyAkaraNa, the often narrated story is of Brihaspati teaching Indra for thousands of years without end in the foresight. Is Indra in Brihaspati-Indra story the same as author of Indra VyAkaraNa or different? Does Indra VyAkaraNa exist today? Was it PrePANinian VyAkaraNa? PANini mentioned the names of at least 10 grammarians before him. The list of Pre-PANinian grammarians appear to be slightly different in different references. Was Indra included in it? Let me have fortune to increase my knowledge through valuable opinions of scholars of bvparishat. Thanks. N. R. Joshi.
I am very far from being a scholar of Sanskrit, but here is what I know:
(1) The Paninian grammar is demonstrably incomplete, in the senses that (i) some well-known words like कृपालु are not explained by it, cf. the आलुच्-प्रत्यय not being stated to apply to कृपा in स्पृहिगृहिपतिदयिनिद्रातन्द्राश्रद्धाभ्य आलुच् (III.2.158); (ii) some other words like विश्वामित्र are explained in a one-off way rather than by application of a general rule or principle; and (iii) some usages like the occurrence of ळ in words like महिळा are not explained at all. There is a verse (quoted by Raghavendra Swami) purporting to list other grammars: इन्द्रश्चन्द्रःकाशकृत्स्नोऽपिशलिः शाकटायनः | पाणिन्यमरजैनेन्द्रा एतेऽष्टावादिशाब्दिकाः ||
(2) Cardona's important study (1976, p. 146) notes: "In the Aṣṭādhyāyī Pāṇini mentions by name ten other persons, all presumably grammarians: Āpiśali, Kāśyapa, Gārgya, Gālava, Cakravarman, Bhāradvāja, Śākaṭāyana, Śākalya, Senaka, Sphoṭāyana." (See अष्टाध्यायी I-1-16, I-2-25, III-4-111, V-4-112, VI-1-92, VI-1-123, VI-1-130, VII-2-63, and VII-3-99 for such references.)
(3) There is a Jaina grammar that is still studied by adherents of that religion. I have heard that it is compatible with the Paninian grammar except that the Vedic usages are discarded.
(4) The चान्द्रव्याकरण is said to have influenced the काशिका (Cardona 1999, pp. 242--243); it is also said by others that the महाभाष्य on the अष्टाध्यायी was lost for many years and the tradition of its study had ceased when the काशिका was written (7th cent. CE?), which is why there is no explicit reference to the महाभाष्य in the काशिका. I have also heard that some सूत्रs of the चान्द्रव्याकरण are still extant but don't know where.
(5) The Aindra grammar was the primary source for Tolkappiyar's early Tamil grammar (Cardona 1976, Mimamsaka 1984).
(6) The names of Āpiśali and Kāśakṛtsna are mentioned by Patanjali in the महाभाष्य under अष्टाध्यायी IV-1-14. A शिक्षा text by आपिशलि, and a धातुपाठ as well as fragments of a grammatical सूत्र text both by काशकृत्स्न, are said to be yet extant. Kāśakṛtsna is also mentioned by name in the ब्रह्मसूत्र, viz., अवस्थितेरिति काशकृत्स्नः (I-4-23).
(7) Śākaṭāyana is only known from brief references by Yāska and the Paninians. Patanjali ``refers to Śākaṭāyana as the grammarian who held that all nouns
were derived from verbs'' (Cardona 1976, p. 147).
References:
George Cardona (1976). Panini: A Survey of Research. Motilal Banarsidass edn. 1980.
George Cardona (1999). Recent Research in Paninian Studies. Motilal Banarsidass, 1999.
Yudhishthira Mimamsaka (1984). संस्कृत व्याकरण शास्त्र का इतिहास (3 vols., in Hindi), Ram Lal Kapur Trust, 1984.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
Dr.BVK Sastry
On this interesting topic of 'Pre-Paninian Samskrutha-Vyakarana
paddhati' I have some specific questions placed below. May i seek
scholarly inputs on each of the issue please? Thanks in advance for
the help:
Question 1: When 'Vyakarana'is referred to as 'Vedanga'and so used in
tradition, which of the eight vyakarana ( and 140 or so commentaries
in relation to it) is to be taken as the anchor?
(Note: The word 'tradition' here is meant to cover the following:
Muni traya tradition of Panini-Katyayana Patanjali, who recognize
'Veda'as Apaurusheya ; Poorva and Uttara meemaamsa Darshana Shastra
tradition anchored to Vyasa which recognize 'Veda'as Apaurusheya;
Nyaya-Vaisheshika darshana which looks at Veda as 'Ishwara Vaani', but
still is anchored largely to Paninian tradition; Traditional
Grammarians schools which brings in views of Bhartruhari et al.)
Question 2: When Vykarana is one of the six vedangas per tradition,
how the rest five look at Vyakarana ? - as a Vedanga or historical
language, which can be described using any alternate grammar rule
mix ?
(Note : Again Veda- apaurusheyatva is an integrally linked issue with
rest five vedangas. If the views on Vyakarana changes, the relatd
views from other vedangas need to be explored. So also are the views
from the upaveda and practicing traditions.)
Question 3 : Do we have any tradition of using the grammars of other
schools to explain out the documents of veda in its entirety, beyond
(statistically ) insignificant forms from the available texts ?
Note: The major writings of Samskrutham ( aka Sanskrit by western
schools) by the great doyens of philosophical schools - Acharya
Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhva use Paninian grammar as the anchor to
explain the technicalities of Vedic passages. Probably it is only Sri
Madhvacharya who brings in Hanumat-vyakarana which is supposedly not
listed in the éight'vyakaranas being discussed here . This seems a
little odd. If only Panini school survived in relation to Veda to the
exclusion of all other schools of grammar, what reason can be
attributed to it ?
Question 4 : What is the fundamental paradigm that is being adopted
here in the discussion on Language - Grammar Association? IS grammar
rule a generator ( of words), Organizer ( of existing Vocabulary),
Destroyer / Filter /Cleanser of incorrect vocabulary in relation to
language of Vedic documents?
Note: If Veda is apaurushya darshan, then grammar is to accept the '
given word' and accommodate it using the rules. This is for the '
yajnika'prayojana of Veda- Viniyoga. Patanjali uses the argument
(Vibhaktim kurvanti). The vyakarana rule is not for approving the
rightness of the vedic word ! This is the Paninian stand on Vedic
vocabulary. The grammar rules accommodate the vedic word; but do not
regulate it. If Veda is NOT APAURUSHEYA Darshana, then grammar ( of
specific periods) can be used to CORRECT and RECONSTRUCT The Texts (-
which is the primary argument of PIE / Historicity schools). The
tritional schools need to explain the histroic foot prints of
Samskrutham; and PIE schols need to prove beyond doubt that there is
NO POSSIBILITY OF APAURUSHEYA LANGUAGE , which is a deliberation
related to Language as a thought expression manifestation as sound-
sequence structures and socially accepted. These deliberations in
current period are in its infancy, even after Noam Chomsky et al.
Traditional schools have not explained using modern language
terminology, in a satisfactory way on why Acharyas need Aparusheyatva
of Veda as an anchor for 'Brahma Jijnaasaa / Vedanta Darshana'.Unless
this issue is sorted out, rest of the debates are not going to go
beyond personal opinionated writing. The quoting of Prof. George
Cardona does not over rule the traditional authenticity of Patanjali.
Even Prof. Cardona, if i remember correct, in one such discussion
maintained the line 'Muni-Traya pramana / Shishta paddhati' as the
line not to be crossed.
Regards
BVK Sastry
On Aug 22, 12:46 pm, Shrisha Rao <sh...@dvaita.org> wrote:
subrahmanyam korada
There is no explicit reference to Mahabhasya in Kasika .
Please check personally . Right from the reference in the beginning (vr.ttau bhAs.ye etc) Mahabhasya is quoted profusely in Kasika .
Panini did not ( may be for that matter nobody can offer) fail in his duty and for those S'abdsas which are not covered by his work he compiled a SUtra , pr.s.odarAdIni yathopasis.t.am (6-3-109) . Nagesa in 3 rd Adhyaya says - brahman.Api durupapAdatvAt .
dhanyo'smi
--
अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि।
ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवाप्स्यसि।।
तस्मादुत्तिष्ठ कौन्तेय युद्धाय कृतनिश्चयः।
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
gira...@juno.com
---------- Original Message ----------
From: subrahmanyam korada <kora...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Indra VyAkaraNa and Chandra VyAkaraNa
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 10:30:19 +0530
namo vidvadbhyah
The Indra - Br.haspati story is considered to be an ArthavAda simply to show that PratipadapAt.ha is an impossible task .
This Indra has got nothing to do with Indra of AindravyAkaran.am . Panini does not refer to Indra . AindravyAkaran.am is not available today .
dhanyo'smi
Respected Scholars, Namaskar!Indra VyAkaraNa and Chandra VyAkaraNaThere is an interesting reference to the grammar of Sanskrit in the book, “On the Aindra School of Sanskrit Grammarians, “ by A.C.Burnell---in 1608 a Tibetan Lama TArAnAtha compiled a very remarkable history of Buddha’s teaching in India, in which he, more than once alluded to the Indra grammar. In his account of PANini, he states that though it was said in Tibet that Indra VyAkaraNa was earlier, this must be held of the region of the gods and not of Aryadesha. He added that according to the knowledge of Pundits the Chandra-VyAkaraNa agrees with PANini and the KalApa with the Indra VyAkaraNa ( I do not have idea about the truth in this). However my question is this-------------In the praise of (PANini) VyAkaraNa, the often narrated story is of Brihaspati teaching Indra for thousands of years without end in the foresight. Is Indra in Brihaspati-Indra story the same as author of Indra VyAkaraNa or different? Does Indra VyAkaraNa exist today? Was it PrePANinian VyAkaraNa? PANini mentioned the names of at least 10 grammarians before him. The list of Pre-PANinian grammarians appear to be slightly different in different references. Was Indra included in it? Let me have fortune to increase my knowledge through valuable opinions of scholars of bvparishat. Thanks. N. R. Joshi.
____________________________________________________________
Penny Stock Jumping 3000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
AwesomePennyStocks.com
--
अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि।
ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवाप्स्यसि।।
तस्मादुत्तिष्ठ कौन्तेय युद्धाय कृतनिश्चयः।
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
--
Prof.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit,
CALTS,
University of Hyderabad 500046
Ph:09866110741(R),91-40-23010741,040-23133660(O)
--
अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि।
ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवाप्स्यसि।।
तस्मादुत्तिष्ठ कौन्तेय युद्धाय कृतनिश्चयः।
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
Shrisha Rao
> namo vidvadbhya.h
>
> There is no explicit reference to Mahabhasya in Kasika .
>
> Please check personally . Right from the reference in the beginning (vr.ttau bhAs.ye etc) Mahabhasya is quoted profusely in Kasika .
Thank you for the correction. To clarify, nothing I previously wrote is merely my own opinion, but whatever I had read in bits and pieces in various places (some apparently not very authentic).
It is also said that Panini is considered by tradition to have been killed by some wild animal, and that the anniversary of his death is observed as अनध्ययन by वैयाकरणाः -- are you aware of any details?
> Panini did not ( may be for that matter nobody can offer) fail in his duty and for those S'abdsas which are not covered by his work he compiled a SUtra , pr.s.odarAdIni yathopasis.t.am (6-3-109) . Nagesa in 3 rd Adhyaya says - brahman.Api durupapAdatvAt .
I don't think anyone can suggest that Panini's contribution was anything less than stupendous. Rather, we may say that the ocean of Sanskrit is so large that even Panini cannot cover all of it.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
> dhanyo'smi