Hi!
There are many situations where मात्रा can be saved by rearranging the contents.
But it has not been done. Any idea why?
I am learning and may not know some rule that prohibits this.
Namaste
On < … many situations where मात्रा can be saved by rearranging the contents. But it has not been done. Any idea why? >
In my limited understanding :
1. The resolution of two constructions as < सूत्राच्च कोपधात् 4.2.65 – Panini – Original > and < सूत्रकोपधात् च – Modern proposed suggestion>
End up in different outcomes .
The < च> in < सूत्रात् च क-उपधात् > makes two separate independent rule application constructs, two contextual
applications, and outcomes without any ambiguity. The connector < च> is clear on two application parts. < सूत्रात्> - च - < क-उपधात् >
The proposed construction needs a ‘Samasa’ technicality. The Traditional construction uses only ‘Sandhi’.
Technically – ‘SAMASA’ – is a ‘ HEAVIER APPROACH’ Compared to ‘SANDHI’. This is ‘ मात्रा-लाघव ‘ where ‘मात्रा =प्रक्रिया ; and ‘मात्रा-लाघव is प्रक्रिया-लाघव
process saver’.
The Traditions and Goals are different in different commentary models from Grammarians. Siddhanta Kaumudi is Focused on प्रक्रिया-लाघव.
Explore traditional commentaries at sanskritdocuments.org/learning_tools/ashtadhyayi/vyakhya/4/4.2.65.htm
सूत्रवाचिनः ककार उपधादुपन्नस्य प्रत्ययस्य लुग् भवति। अप्रोक्तार्थ आरम्भः। पाणिनीयम् अष्टकं सूत्रम्। तदधीयते अष्टकाः पाणिनीयाः। दशका वैयघ्रपदीयाः।
त्रिकाः काशकृत्स्नाः। सङ्ख्याप्रकृतेरिति वक्तव्यम्। इह मा भूत्, महावार्त्तिकं सूत्रम् अधीते माहावार्त्तिकः। कालापकम् अधीते कालापकः। कोपधातिति
किम्? चतुष्टयम् अधीते चातुष्टयः।
2. The proposed construction does not comprehend the context sensitivity of the usage and Grammarians Traditions.
3. I am not sure whether Sanskrit Pedagogy Language Modelers by ‘Tower of Babel- IE linguistics historical constructs
have even identified and explored the Kashika referred ‘Different Models – Pedagogies of Ashtadhyayai Sutra studies by
Plurality of ‘Vyakarana- Sampradayas’ which STUDY COMMON TEXT - ‘Ashtadhyayi’ as ‘Ashtaka’, Trika and Dashaka’ -
Eights, Triads, Decas of Common Resource Text.
4. And deeper issue, is on ‘ How many sub-pedagogic ways ‘Ashtadhyayi’- A common rule text of SAMSKRUTHAM’ was studied in Muni-Traya Traditions ?
If our current study is limited to 40% limited study of ‘Bhattoji Deekshita’: commentary on ‘Siddhanta Kaumudi’,
Where the anchor of teaching is Siddhanta Kaumudi ( ) itself is a reorganized model of ‘Ashtadhyayi’ –Original sutra –Patha- Krama- Sampradaya,
And ‘Siddhanta Kaumudi acknowledges total authority of Panini- Patanjali – Ashtaka – Sampradaya,
what is the target text and construction of other traditions referred to in traditional commentaries ?
What is the uniqueness of other traditions? Why did these ‘ Different schools of Samskrutha- Bhashaa’ come in to existence at all ?
More so, when the name ‘Vaiyaghrapada’ is presented along with Patanjali in Worship of Nataraja in south india as : tiger-footed
Vyaghrapada and snake-footed Patanjali salute Nataraja at Chidambara (?) Temple.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vyaghrapada
Vyaghrapada, who was earlier called Madhyandina, was the father of the famous sage Upamanyu. Mahabharata credits Upamanyu with praying to Siva even as a small child for milk and being blessed with the Ocean of Milk by Siva. Memory in south Indian tradition says ‘ Patanjali and Vaiyaghrapada are common contemporary devotees of Shiva in Vedic traditions –practice connected with Yoga, Ayurveda, Tantra Professions.
This is what has prompted me to explore the connection of ‘Yoga and Samskrutham’ as ‘Yoga-Samskrutham’:: which is called VAK-YOGA/ VAKO VAKYAM’.
Regards
BVK Sastry
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN53ShVKnnzWCMP%2BvQFJMrBhdknpJHvjiGPFnqmE7QB-4K4C8A%40mail.gmail.com.