Panini and Patanjali on the source of meaning of a samasa.

[Satyan Sharma]

Namaste 

In Ashtadhyayi 1.2.56, Panini says that there's no need to teach the rule relating to the dependence of meaning on the pradhana in case of a compound word. Patanjali in the paspashahnika in the part beginning from 'असंदेहार्थम् अध्येयं व्याकरणम्" gives an example of the word स्थूलपृषती, and says that an avaiyakarana cannot by himself determine its meaning, and hence only a vaiyakarana can. 

Is there a difference of opinion between Panini and Patanjali here?

Kindly guide.

[Neelesh Bodas]

'असंदेहार्थम् अध्येयं व्याकरणम्' means that "In order to not have any confusion ("प्रागभावः" इति कैयटः), one should study vyakarana". It does not mean that "If you do not study vyakarana, you will end up with doubts". And thus, the two views can be linked by saying that "while the meaning of the words is clear from their usage in the loka, a mandamati can get some doubts, and the best way not to get these doubts in the first place is to study vyakarana.  For instance, a non-learned person might miss out the swara differences in the two pronunciations of  स्थूलपृषती, which a learned person will certainly not.

Regards

Neelesh

 

Kindly guide.

--
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 post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Satyan Sharma]

Thank you Neelesh ji. 

I still have a doubt. Panini in the aforesaid sutra says that there's no need to teach it, because, as has been interpreted, he thinks that the meaning is determined by the usage in the loka. As the authority for the meaning is loka, why not consult those who use that word, who may or may not be vaiyakaranas? If they use the word, they must have an idea about its meaning, especially if the word relates to a ritual, the practice of which has been seen off and on. 

Kindly guide.

Regards

Satyan

[Neelesh Bodas]

On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 9:32:22 PM UTC-8, Satyan Sharma wrote:

Thank you Neelesh ji. 

I still have a doubt. Panini in the aforesaid sutra says that there's no need to teach it, because, as has been interpreted, he thinks that the meaning is determined by the usage in the loka. As the authority for the meaning is loka, why not consult those who use that word, who may or may not be vaiyakaranas? If they use the word, they must have an idea about its meaning, especially if the word relates to a ritual, the practice of which has been seen off and on. 

Kindly guide.

As I understand it, whenever in doubt, there is no issue whatsoever in consulting those who use that word. "असन्देहार्थम्..." doesn't advise against asking others. It just says that that on studying vyakarana, you will (most likely) not have any doubts right in the beginning itself, thereby not requiring to consult.  (Of course occasionally one may still have questions, as nagesha puts - यस्य तु अधीतव्याकरणस्यापि क्वचित् सन्देहः.... )।

Hope this helps

Neelesh

[Madhav Deshpande]

Dear Neelesh Ji,

     Can you please give the textual reference to the passage from Nāṅeśabhaṭṭa that you have cited: यस्य तु अधीतव्याकरणस्यापि क्वचित् सन्देहः.... )।  This looks very interesting.  Thanks.

Madhav M. Deshpande

Professor Emeritus

Sanskrit and Linguistics

University of Michigan

[Residence: Campbell, California]

[Satyan Sharma]

Thanks a lot Neelesh ji. 

Regards

Satyan

[Neelesh Bodas]

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 6:28 AM Madhav Deshpande <mmd...@umich.edu> wrote:

Dear Neelesh Ji,

     Can you please give the textual reference to the passage from Nāṅeśabhaṭṭa that you have cited: यस्य तु अधीतव्याकरणस्यापि क्वचित् सन्देहः.... )।  This looks very interesting.  Thanks.

Namaste Dr. Deshpande,

This is in उद्योत explaining Kaiyata's word "प्रागभावः" in the commentary on "असंदेहार्थं चाध्येयं व्याकरणम्". The exact text is as  follows -

भाष्यम् - असन्देहार्थं चाध्येयं व्याकरणम् ।

कैयटः - सन्देहस्य प्रागभावः अत्र द्रष्टव्यः, न तु प्रध्वंसाभावः । न हि वैयाकरणस्य संशय उत्पद्य विनश्यति, इतरस्यैव तदुत्पादात् ।

नागेशः - नन्वसन्देहः सन्देहाभावः ।  स च न अत्यन्ताभावः, तस्य नित्यत्वात् । न च ध्वंसः, तत्तद्विषयकव्याकरणज्ञानवतः सन्देहस्यैव अभावेन तदसम्भवात् । यस्य तु अधीतव्याकरणस्यापि क्वचित् सन्देहः, सः तद्विषयकवैयाकरणत्वाभाववानेव, वेदनार्थे हि तत्र प्रत्ययः, अतः आह "प्रागभाव" इति । 

- Neelesh

[Madhav Deshpande]

Thank you, Neelesh Ji, for this reference.  Very interesting comment.  

Madhav M. Deshpande

Professor Emeritus

Sanskrit and Linguistics

University of Michigan

[Residence: Campbell, California]

[Saroja Bhate]

Modern scholars have described the 5 sutras beginning with तदशिष्यं..As not coming from Panini.

[Satyan Sharma]

Pranaam Saroja Ma’am.

I would like to know the reasons why they have reached this conclusion. Kindly guide.

Regards

Satyan

[Neelesh Bodas]

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 12:28 AM Neelesh Bodas <neeles...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 9:32:22 PM UTC-8, Satyan Sharma wrote:

Thank you Neelesh ji. 

I still have a doubt. Panini in the aforesaid sutra says that there's no need to teach it, because, as has been interpreted, he thinks that the meaning is determined by the usage in the loka. As the authority for the meaning is loka, why not consult those who use that word, who may or may not be vaiyakaranas? If they use the word, they must have an idea about its meaning, especially if the word relates to a ritual, the practice of which has been seen off and on. 

Kindly guide.

As I understand it, whenever in doubt, there is no issue whatsoever in consulting those who use that word. "असन्देहार्थम्..." doesn't advise against asking others. It just says that that on studying vyakarana, you will (most likely) not have any doubts right in the beginning itself, thereby not requiring to consult.  (Of course occasionally one may still have questions, as nagesha puts - यस्य तु अधीतव्याकरणस्यापि क्वचित् सन्देहः.... )।

And actually, I wanted to add some more to this but was unable to locate exact reference earlier. Thanks to the other thread from Dr. Bhate and Dr. Kannan about usage of the word ashtadhyayi in bhashyam - I was able to locate it. Here it goes, quoting from पृषोदरादीनि यथोपदिष्टम् 6.3.109. Very beautiful (somewhat hilarious as well),  this precisely answers your question (Viz. why study grammar instead of just asking others who already know it)

यदि तर्हि शिष्टाः शब्देषु प्रमाणं, किम् अष्टाध्याय्या क्रियते ? शिष्टपरिज्ञानार्था अष्टाध्यायी? कथं पुनः अष्टाध्याय्या शिष्टाः शक्या विज्ञातुम्? अष्टाध्यायीम् अधीयमानः अन्यं पश्यति अनधीयानम्, ये अत्र विहिताः शब्दाः तां प्रयुञ्जानम् ।  स पश्यति - नूनमस्य दैवानुग्रहः स्वभावो वा, योऽयं न अष्टाध्यायीमधीते, ये च अस्यां विहिताः शब्दाः तां च प्रयुङ्क्ते ! नूनम् अयम् अन्यानपि जानाति इति । एवमेषा शिष्टज्ञानार्था अष्टाध्यायी ॥ 

When a student of ashtadhyayi sees someone around who is easily and confidently using the words (but never appears to study ashtadhyayi), then there is a high chance that he is a scholar and he knows a little more as well (even the words that are not in the ashtadhyayi). This is how one can identify the real "shishta" and approach them.

Bottom line, the "study of ashtadhyayi" and "consulting the experts in the field" should typically go hand-in-hand so that the error from the one is balanced by another!

इत्यलम्

नीलेशः

[Satyan Sharma]

This excerpt is so descriptive. Thanks alot for sharing this Neelesh ji.

Regards

Satyan