Dr Rajpopat's thesis : what is the puzzle ?

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Did all the pre Rajpopat VaiyaakaraNas face/identify a puzzle that they felt they could not resolve and left it at that waiting to get resolved by Dr Rajpopat ? 

No. No one ever faced/identified/mentioned any such puzzle. 

Why ? Why did not they face/identify/mention any such puzzle ?

They were satisfied with AA regarding its ability to provide all the rules required to derive the saadhu shabdas.  

They were not averse to apply some sequential rule application procedures suggested (in the form of rules of procedure) by the ancients  starting with munis and that did the job. 

Then what puzzle was faced/identified/mentioned by Dr Rajpopat ?

He did not want to apply sequential rule application procedures suggested (in the form of rules of procedure) by the ancients  starting with munis. He wanted to use even rules of procedure from within AA. 

He was not successful in the beginning. 

That was the puzzle. 

His claim now is that he is successful in his attempt to derive all the saadhu shabdas using no rule, including a rule for rule-application-sequence/procedure from outside AA. 

This was not aimed at by the Vaiyaakaranas prior to him. They were not averse to apply some sequential rule application procedures suggested (in the form of rules of procedure) by the ancients  starting with munis and that did the job for them.  

So no puzzle for them. 

[S. Kalyanaraman]

Excellent.

The so-called conflict which Dr. Rajpopat tries to resolve is only in his imagination and the scholar's mis-understanding of the AA sutra-s. As Korada ji observes, Dr. R should have read the previous grammarians who elucidated AA succinctly.

S. Kalyanaraman, Ph.D., D. Litt.

https://srinivasankalyanaraman.academia.edu/research.

https://taksha.org/advisors/kalyanaraman

https://sites.google.com/site/kalyan97/national-water-grid

https://sites.google.com/site/indianoceancommunity1/

--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/de6820ec-5eb0-409b-8f7a-dc028a64855fn%40googlegroups.com.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

No, no. That is not my intention.

My point is to answer the doubt in the minds of the media-watching /reading public " Why was this puzzle left unresolved for '2500' years ? '

Answer is the puzzle was not faced/identified earlier because they did not start with the objective of AA being self-sufficient including in providing the rules of procedure. 

Dr Rajpopat started with this new problem.

That is why he really faced a puzzle. Not his imagination. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CA%2BaCD%3DUGaBNDyM2-51%2BOjMQQppQXn%3DGf3mXxBUcQ6v8VJKvvYQ%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

Senior Director, IndicA

BoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, Maharashtra

BoS Kavikulaguru Kalidasa Sanskrit University, Ramtek, Maharashtra

BoS Veda Vijnana Gurukula, Bengaluru.

Member, Advisory Council, Veda Vijnana Shodha Samsthanam, Bengaluru

BoS Rashtram School of Public Leadership

Editor-in-Chief, International Journal of Studies in Public Leadership

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies, 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education, 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

 

 

 

[Bijoy Misra]

Dear friends,

I cannot say that i am expert on Paninian grammar, but have been diligently pursuing the neurology of

speech from an expression point of view.  We look for the clinical data and do experiments on human voice.

Let me briefly summarize our observations.  We will offer more in the forthcoming XVIII World Sanskrit Conference

scheduled next month.  According to the latest announcement the Conference will be on the internet

coordinated from Canberra, Australia, who are the official hosts.

Briefly let me say  that the digression is with some of the western linguists in interpreting  शब्द as a

mechanical construct than as a voice construct.  As a voice construct, it is controlled by the human brain

and becomes organic in its manifestation.  So the root is in the production of वर्ण which is the fundamental

expressive unit.   The neurological genesis of a   वर्ण is a good scientific question, the recitation

of the Vedas would show that वर्ण is a cognitive descriptive unit with manifold vocal dimensions than

a flat mechanical sound.  My belief has been that the western researchers have totally failed to

appreciate the cognitive aspect and have been driven by mechanical aspects to check

"what does it mean".  My answer is it means what it says and not what one wants to hear.

This is where modern clinical research in neurology enters the picture.  Human speech is

cognitive and not mechanical.  It is produced internally, in Indian literature it is a शक्ति, an innate capacity.

Panini's शब्दानुशासनम् is to discover the clues of expression such that the vedic constructs

can be recreated.  The effort has nothing to do with the creation of mechanical constructs outside

of human voice, outside human neurology.  The power of  वाक् in cosmology as a process

is another aspect that would need critical examination.  While I will review some of these

in my paper next month, interested researchers may view my talk in MIT twenty five years ago

at the inauguration of AI lab there.  Here is the link

  https://infinite.mit.edu/video/bijoy-misra-intelligence-and-god-shankaras-view-world-and-its-implications-cognitive-science%E2%80%9D

Best regards,

Bijoy Misra

US 

.  

--

[Partha Banerjee]

The bibliography of Dr. Rajpopat's thesis contains some clues regarding the origin of this assumption that Panini should be self-sufficient for understanding all rules of procedure. Two authors are heavily mentioned in it, S.D.Joshi & J.A.F. Roodbergen from the Pune School, who translated considerable portions of the Mahabhashya into English but their final conclusions were that Patanjali is often confused regarding the AA. The attached excerpt from Vol. 1 of their Astadhyayi English translation lays out the view of this school succinctly. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJGj9eYhxTidVrmbOxa-b-k0EG%3DCL_zpy7ZWcv-E30UNWFNBSA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Thanks, Sri Partha ji, for this. 

This is interesting. 

Yes, there seem to be two lineages of modern day study of our traditional knowledge systems: one that has an approach of trying to empathetically understand the expressions of respected ancient commentators,  trying to see from where they might be coming. The other, in which the contemporary researcher thinks that he is overcoming the impact of the commentator in approaching the original , catching the original author better than the commentator. 

Many researchers of Veda today claim that they understood the Vedarshi better than the authors in the Brahmanas , Aaranyakas , Upanishads who interpreted Veda mantras. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CA%2BuNnyWUFZkGdtRqky_k7pJ%2BKc9Oh9Q2OLNN6hMzLGa_gAS7pg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Hari Parshad Das]

Claims made by Cambridge University Researcher are Illogical, Invalid and Misleading — An article by Sanskrit Vyākaraṇa Vidvān Swami Shivamurthy Shivacharya of Sri Taralabalu Math.

Link: http://math.taralabalu.in/news.php?tp=1901

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

Vidvan S D Joshi was one of the adjudicators of my Thesis (Ph D 1982) , महावाक्यविचारः (पूर्वमीमांसा , वेदान्तः , व्याकरणम् , न्यायवैशेषिके , अलङ्कारशास्त्रम्  online) ।

We used to have discussions on various issues related to व्याकरणम् ।

I have seen the English translation of पस्पशाह्निकम् , महाभाष्यम् ।

 It would have attracted more people if , instead of a word to word translation , the concepts , such as जाति and व्यक्ति ,  from पूर्वमीमांसा ( सू . आकृतिः क्रियार्थत्वात् ) न्याय ( सू . जात्याकृतिव्यक्तयस्तु पदार्थः ) etc  are also explained .

Vidvan Joshi published स्फोटनिर्णय of कौण्डभट्ट  with English translation ( K A Subrahmanya Iyer) . 

Here are some of his observations (taken from परिचय of वाक्यपदीयम् - TeluguTranslation ) --

1. Bhartrhari nowhere stated that  स्फोट precedes ध्वनि - it is अखण्ड - without स्वगतभेद and अर्थस्फोरक ।

2. स्फोट is manifested through स्थानकरण -- this is what is said by Hari .

3. The problem is due to the thinking that the concept of शब्द defined by Patanjali (येनोच्चारितेन ..... पस्पशा ) is the same as the meaning of स्फोट ।

4. Hari nowhere stated that स्फोट is a meaningful वाक् ।

5. One should  take it as Hari's idea that ध्वनि  - is heard and  is related to body - is  a जाति  born out of the ध्वनिs  emanating from body .

On the contrary , Hari  clearly mentions the  following  --

1. महाभाष्यदीपिका (P13) - द्वौ शब्दात्मानौ  नित्यः कार्यश्च इति । कैश्चिन्नित्यमिति दृष्टः कैश्चिदनित्य इति । अथवा जातिर्व्यक्तिश्च इति । अथवा स्फोटो ध्वनिश्च ।

2. वाक्यपदीयम् , 1-82 , यथानुवादः श्लोको वा ..., वृत्तिः -- वर्णपदवाक्यविषयाः प्रयत्नविशेषसाध्याः ध्वनयः वर्णपदवाक्याख्यान् स्फोटान् पुनराविर्भावयन्तः  बुद्धिष्वारोपयन्ति ।

4. काव्यप्रकाशः - 1 -- बुधैः वैयाकरणैः प्रधानभूतव्यङ्ग्यव्यञ्जकस्य शब्दस्य ध्वनिरिति व्यवहारः कृतः ( here and also in  ध्वन्यालोक ,  पतञ्जलि and हरि are taken by he term वैयाकरणैः) ।

पतञ्जलि took  opinions of  various scholars of his time and constructed  महाभाष्यम् (The Great Sholium ) . It is a concise form of  सङ्रग्रह  ( one lakh verses) of व्याडि ।

महाभाष्यम् ( परोक्षे लिट् 3-2-115) --

कथंजातीयकं परोक्षं नाम ? 

केचित्तावदाहुः - वर्षशतवृत्तं परोक्षमिति ।

अपर आहुः - वर्षसहस्रवृत्तं परोक्षमिति ।

अपर आहुः - कुड्यकटान्तरितं परोक्षमिति ।

अपर आहुः - द्व्यहवृत्तं त्र्यहवृत्तं चेति ।

शङ्कराचार्य also in his सूत्रभाष्यम् says -- अत्र अपरे प्रत्यवतिष्ठन्ते  ( some scholars are resisting in this matter ) .

Had there been any misunderstanding of the सूत्रs of पाणिनि , भर्तृहरि  would have mentioned . 

The present generation should think ---

Any comment offered by a विद्वान् , who is  पदवाक्यप्रमाणज्ञ ( who studied all the three शास्त्रs , viz व्याकरणम् , पूर्वमीमांसा and  न्यायवैशेषिके) can be taken as authoritative - this has been an age old tradition .

एकं शास्त्रमधीयानः न विद्यात् शास्त्रनिश्चयम्  -- सुश्रुतसंहिता ।

प्रज्ञा विवेकं लभते भिन्नैरागमदर्शनैः ।

कियद्वा शक्यमुन्नेतुं स्वतर्कमनुधावता ?  484 , वाक्यकाण्डः , वाक्यपदीयम्

Today we come across many so called scholars. who want quickly to be in the limelight without properly learning शास्त्रs with गुरुs / आचार्यs and this kind of propensity 

has been there --

तत्तदुत्प्रेक्षमाणानां पुराणैरागमैर्विना |

अनुपासितवृद्धानां विद्या नातिप्रसीदति ॥  485 , ibid 

घटं भिन्द्यात् पटं छिन्द्यात् कुर्याद्वा गार्दभस्वरम् ।

येन केनाप्युपायेन प्रसिद्धः पुरुषो भवेत् ॥

धन्यो’स्मि

Dr.Korada Subrahmanyam
Adju.Professor , Dept of Heritage Science and Technology, IIT, Hyderabad

299 Doyen , Serilingampally, Hyderabad 500 019
Ph:09866110741

Skype Id: Subrahmanyam Korada

Blog: Koradeeyam.blogspot.in 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJGj9eahMc54U_wR747cYVOWvdHaSFv6WixDbcnYkEfpw5xKTQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Thanks, Prof. Korada for sharing your observations regarding the approach of 'I know the original work (here AA) better than the commentator (here Patanjali)' found in the comments of Profs SD Joshi  and Roodbergen, brought to this forum's notice by Sri Partha Banerjee. 

They say, 

" Therefore Patanjali's opinions can never replace our independent judgement regarding the interpretation of Panini especially in the matter of anuvritti and nivritti and of conflict -solving procedures. Patanjali can only act as a guide and not as the final authority regarding the interpretation of Ashtadhyayi. " 

Since they mention " conflict-solving procedures" as one of the aspects in which they prefer independent judgement to Patanjali's opinion, their approach becomes relevant to the thesis under discussion. 

As I mentioned in another post, there is a parallel discussion running on Indology list where Dr Rajpopat is a member. 

There, Prof. Jan E M Houben does mention Bhartrihari's approach of 'arbitrariness of descriptive choices" 

He says, 

(Houben 2020, p. 18: "On the rules, skilfully formulated by several generations of grammarians up to Pāṇini, a formalism was superimposed and finally brought to perfection by Pāṇini. Behind it, the skilful and even artful choices of description all but disappeared except to the discerning eye of a few critical thinkers, including the earliest great grammarian-philosopher in the Pāṇinian tradition, Bhartṛhari (fifth century CE), who at a few occasions emphasised the ‘arbitrariness’ of the descriptive choices"). 

This approach of a single Upeya (the saadhu S'abda) having a choice of multiple upaayas (siddhi procedures) (arbitrariness of descriptive choices) is mentioned by Bhartrihari to be the approach of Paniniya tradition. 

The approach of independent judgement mentioned by Profs SD Joshi  and Roodbergen is criticized by Bhartrihari as sushkatarkaanusaraNa when he discusses how Paniniya tradition preserved by Patanjali was lost due to sushkatarkaanusaraNa. 

भैजिसौभवहर्यक्षैः शुष्कतर्कानुसारिभिः 

आर्षे विप्लाविते ग्रंथे संग्रहप्रतिकंचुके वा. प. 2. 484 

The thesis on hand is takes the approach of using sutras including paribhaashaa sutras  within AA alone and relies on विप्रतिषेधे परं कार्यं as the key sutra within AA to achieve the derivation of all saadhu s'abdas just with the help of AA. 

interpretation of this sutra is the puzzle. because, according to him, without his interpretation, through traditional interpretation, application of this sutra does not yield correct results. 

His claim is that he resolved the puzzle of interpretation of this sutra which is key to using sutras including paribhaashaa sutras  within AA alone to achieve the derivation of all saadhu s'abdas, by giving a non-traditional, new interpretation to paratva. 

My point  : to say that vaiyaakaranas for 2500 years faced the same puzzle and were not able to resolve it is not correct because they did not approach AA with this approach of using sutras including paribhaashaa sutras  within AA alone to achieve the derivation of all saadhu s'abdas and considering विप्रतिषेधे परं कार्यं as the key sutra within AA to achieve the derivation of all saadhu s'abdas just with the help of AA. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKj2ELQv2BehUQEz7rU-57aBmpa4CXqHqX0csJD0svSo9jD%2Byw%40mail.gmail.com.

[BVK Sastry (G-S-Pop)]

Namaste  Misra ji

 

Thanks for sharing the 1997- Video Lecture link (70 minutes).

I am using this as an anchor to trace a plausible historic backdrop for Cambridge accepting  ‘Dr.Rajpoots identification of Research Problem on Samskruth Grammar’  as worthy of pursuit.

 

Your lecture serves as a good historic reference to highlight the importance of  U-turn and ‘ In-house cleaning’ needed for ‘ Western Researchers’ (Academia and Scientists) to understand the purpose and pedagogy needed for understanding and development of applications using ‘Vedic Resources: Language, Teaching, Practices’.  

The key shift is focus from ‘Biological’ to ‘Consciousness – Cognition’ and beyond. [Video Time line: 44.16 to  49.57 ].

This is the ‘Darshana’ Phase of ‘Shabda-Brahma’ ( Gita: 6-44)  Where ‘Samskrutham as Vak-yoga starts; and Muni-Traya tradition provides the guidance of ‘ Mantra- Sukta’.  

 

1. I urge scholars of in-house tradition debating Rajpoot’s thesis to watch this. 

     I also attach the 17- page lecture transcript which could be  easier to read slowly.  

 

     Lecture title: "Intelligence and God: Shankara's View of the World and Its Implications for Cognitive Science” - God

                                 and Computers: Minds, Machines, and Metaphysics (A.I. Lab Lecture Series)

 

     The link to watch:  

  https://infinite.mit.edu/video/bijoy-misra-intelligence-and-god-shankaras-view-world-and-its-implications-cognitive-science%E2%80%9D

 

2.  Why do I think that this is important in current thread titled - Dr Rajpopat's thesis : what is the puzzle ?

         

 

          Reason:  Your lecture  has some pointers on how to make Samskruth Education overcome  Socio-Political

                            Communal Constraints at Nation, seemingly continuing to cling to Colonial Legacy actions.

                            This in spite of three (?) Sanskrit Commissions  reports to push Sanskrit to society !

 

                          Traditional Samskruth Scholars have limited exposure ( interest / access ? ) to such line of thinking.

 

          The areas to benefit from your pointed thoughts  are  :  Policy framing, Implementation priorities in institutions,

                          Employment Opportunities, Research project- Productization failure to open up adequate support  for  

                           interdisciplinary studies of Native Traditions  [ Every Samskruth research need not be Vimana Shastra or

                           Cancer cure Goal oriented],  Opening in –house/ institutional  opportunities and resources  beyond ‘ lip

                           sympathy’ and ‘doles – for chosen places’ as a part of ‘ Actions to Realize the Intent of Constitution of

                          Bharath’.  Lopsided importance to filter out tradition using ‘colonial achromatized views’.

 

      2.1:   The lecture series clearly defines the ‘VIEWING POINT – EXPLORATION & VALIDATION MODELS ’  and

                ‘EXPECTATION – FROM INTERACTIONS / INPUTS FROM DIFFERENT TRADITIONS’.  

  

      2.2:    The lecture serves as a good WESTERN reference anchor to see reasons to explore Texts –disciplines  

                  Documented in ‘Vak-Yoga: Samskrutham’  with a teaching pedagogy of ‘ Shaastra –Paribhashaa’.

 

                            to see how ‘Western Science Tradition’,  has missed ‘Shaastra- Yoga- Samskrutha-Paribhashaa - Nirukti’

                                         ; and substituted  a ‘Saamjika –Praakrutha Loka vyaavaharika – Bhashaa – Kosha –Paddhati’ to

                                             understand the  text –teaching and practices ; Translate – Interpret – Research Investigate    

                               how on ‘investigating’ the  ‘Indian (Bharatiya / Hindu -?? Shaastra –Vijnana) – position

                                  as received inheritance– as provided – as accepted – as available Knowledge stock of ‘Bhashaa-

                                      Vijnana’ / Vak- Vijnana  =  The Science of Language Elementals  and Express –Manifestations.

                                     Elementals are as  sounds ( call it Shabda, Varna, Swara, Naada)

                                     Express –Manifestations ( call it Pada – Vakya –Kavya – Veda – Maha vakya…).   

 

                 The Scientists have used the ‘GIVEN KNOWLEDGE –STOCK’ through ‘ Non-Samskruth Language framework ,

                  mainly with a Historic ENGLISH ( or French ?) /  TRANSLATIONS from ‘ Colonial Academia’.

 

                  These resources, coming in a duration of 17^th to 20^th century do invariably compromise the  

                  ‘Vedic (Apaurusheya) Tradition  - Samskrutham as  ‘Veda-Bhashaa  to a Veda (Socio-Historic Biblical Time

                   Frame,  Religion literature with all the motives and  bias that goes with it)  and models- maps PANINI-

                  SAMSKRUTHAM to be a LANGUAGE OF HISTORIC SOCIETY.

 

                 Consequent of this, the ‘TRANSLATION OF SAMSKRUTH –SHAASTRA TECHNICAL TERMS (PARIBHASHAA)  and

                  –  ‘CONCEPT MAPPING IN PRACTICE’ is to be traced back to the GIVERS of BHARATEEYA SHAASTRA

                  PARAMPARAA to the seeking Western teams. 

It is a challenging problem, an in house work to be done  to know ‘ State – Status of Healthy Transmission of Pride Claims of Tradition’.  Prof. Koradas  valuable inputs are in another post, where I am placing a visual of his post.

 

Regards

BVK Sastry

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CALw-kjXMsW%2Bg4e6LCSzt8dbQ%3D7u19ijLFmbcj_%3DO-rTFYJfX-Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Partha Banerjee]

Thanks Dr. Paturi for your insights regarding the issue. It seems the fundamental issue concerns the western Indology influenced "progressive" scholars' view of the very essence of the AA & whether it needs commentators at all. This view, needs to be thoroughly countered by the Traditional view whose reasons for venerating Katyayana & Patanjali are absolutely rational but which may not be articulated in a modern terminology that western indologists understand since they don't have much understanding of the Tradition's fundamental anchoring of all Vedangas in the Vedas. The issue won't end with this Thesis since the western view dominates the english language based academic sanskrit universe which churns out thousands of such PhDs every year & will have some clout in policy making eventually. This may be a good opportunity to start a process where a serious dialogue is initiated where the parameters & axioms on which Tradition rests & draws its legitimacy from, are set out in a language which settles this foundational problem once and for all. Western Indology imposes standards developed in their own cultures on Indian Vyakarana tradition which has it's own standards & this needs to be emphasized. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJGj9eYS_Q5vzsvDTDtJAKmbRZ_95%3DsmXm050-HB6ubTN6ydOw%40mail.gmail.com.

[BVK Sastry (G-S-Pop)]

Namaste

 

1. Thanks for bringing in ‘Prof. SD Joshi’s views on ‘Patanjali lens- Limitation to

     understand Panini’.  A standard defence mode adapted when in doubt on ‘Panini’!

     Certainly Ingenious invocation for ‘Cambridge- defence’!  claiming ‘In Panini We trust’ !!

   Patanjali is often confused regarding the AA is incorrect construct of Prof. S D Joshi’s position.

    Cambridge research problem is ‘Imagined’ – due to lack of ‘Sampradaya –Shikshana’, as Prof.

    Korada said. May be time one should recheck with Prof. Cardona !

 

2. I am sure there are still many seniors living around who know very well the mind of Prof. Joshi and have interacted seriously with him.  My very younger days quest was in seeking clarification on ‘Vak-yoga’ mention by Patanjali.  Many  may not have liked the intellectual sharpness of Prof. Joshi’s quest – questions  and outcome work of Prof. SD Joshi. That is no reason to mis-invoke Prof. Joshi to defined Cambridge deviation on Panini standards for Samskruth studies.

 

I am personally aware (to a limited extent) on the frustrations expressed by Prof. Joshi on How extant in house Pune / Indian scholarship on ‘Patanjali’ is not satisfying to bring out Patanjali’s comprehension of Panini ‘formalized -Sutra’  with great difficulties ( mahataa –payatnena,  acahryena….).

 

3.  Patanjali, despite the amends and alternatives stays a strong supporter of Panini. So why put an ‘ imaginary’ – Cambridge-wedge between ‘Panini and Patanjali’ ? using ‘History –time line –Social language limitation’ push ??

In short, Patanjali  was NOT in any ‘Enemy camp’ to function as ‘Evaluator – Demolisher’ - out to Kill Panini’ !  as modern researchers would desire it to be ! How can Patanjali isolate and make Patanjali  an adversary of Panini – Katyayana ?   

 

‘muni’ is ‘ moksha-parayana / free from raga- dvesha :: Gita 5-27/28: yatendriya-mano-buddhir munir moksha-parayanah vigateccha-bhaya-krodho yah sada mukta eva sah. 

 

4.   This is the ‘integrity of ‘ Muni-Traya’ Sampradaya, the core of ‘Vako-Vakya’ Shaastra, at least till Acharya Madhwa. Acharya Madhwa invokes ‘Beyond Panini Grammars mainly and seemingly only for ‘Chandas’-Veda-Mantrathas’ ; to  justify a certain Siddhanta-Vedantic position. This invocation is NOT meant for demolition of ‘Samskrutha –Bhashaa / Vyakarana sampradaya’.

 

5. The listing of eight grammar schools (Pre and Post/ Postulation of Buddhist- Hybrid Sanskrit..) yet all needs a revamp review. A good reference point could be Sri Belvalkar’s systems of Sanskrit Grammar. [Systems Of Sanskrit Grammar : Belvalkar, Shripad Krishna : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive ].

 

6.  The ‘ lost / missing  ( Aja-bhakshita)/ alternative  readings ( Pathantara) / loss of ‘ Veda – Shaakhaa – Prayogas’ ( for which Vaidika samshodhana Mandala, Pune may have to say something) are another point here.  The loss of ‘Vak-yoga’ Sampradaya ofSamskruth studies, the less prevalence of ‘Vako-Vakya / Ekaayana’ tradition of Samskruth Language teaching, the lesser prevalence of Nirukta teaching ( especially on Mantratha Nirvachana and VINIYOGA) , the override of Katyayana anukramanikaa system guidance on how to use Rishi- Devata- Chandas in Yajna/ Upaasnaa ( beyond invocatory mentioning) -  and many such constraints are unresolved issues ; and seems to have disturbed Prof. Joshi.  

 

Summary : Prof. S.D. Joshi cannot be invoked for ‘Cambridge- defence’ and effort to drive a wedge between Panini and Patanjali !   Yet  claiming ‘In Panini We trust’ !!

 

Regards

BVK Sastry

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CA%2BuNnyWUFZkGdtRqky_k7pJ%2BKc9Oh9Q2OLNN6hMzLGa_gAS7pg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

" Therefore Patanjali's opinions can never replace our independent judgement regarding the interpretation of Panini especially in the matter of anuvritti and nivritti and of conflict -solving procedures. Patanjali can only act as a guide and not as the final authority regarding the interpretation of Ashtadhyayi. " 

                                                                                                                                                                                             - S D Joshi ,

                                                                                                                                                                                               J A F  Roodbegen 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/045b01d9143a%24757daed0%2460790c70%24%40gmail.com.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

That is a broader issue and whether that should be viewed as western Vs Indian local or approaching a shaastra through its own agama /handed down tradition or through one's own mind etc. is also a broader issue. 

Our present focus is whether the same puzzle claimed to be solved in 2021 by the researcher was identified and attempted to be solved by vaiyaakaranas from the lost  2500 years or a new puzzle , a new problem is identified and solved because of a new approach to the issue. 

Yes, as you attempted to trace, this new approach can have older precedences or lineage.  

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Our present focus is whether the same puzzle claimed to be solved in 2021 by the researcher was identified and attempted to be solved by vaiyaakaranas from the lost  2500 years or a new puzzle  or  a new problem is identified and solved because of a new approach to the issue by the researcher. 

[bk]

Respected Vidvāns,

I understand that the real issue at hand is "whether his interpretation is correct or wrong" but not "why has he gone against the tradition".

By his method forming the word panthāḥ from pathin seems to fail:

pathin + su

two possibilities:

6.1.68  hal-ṅy-ābbhyo dīrghāt su-ti-sy-apṛktaṁ hal

7.1.85  pathi-mathy-ṛbhukṣām āt

By his Phd this is an example of DOI (different operand interaction) since 6.1.68 applies to su while 7.1.85 applies to in. And more specifically a DOI unidirectional blocking.

So by his method 6.1.68 wins since it is RHS.

so we get pathin.

now his usual technique in such situations is to raise the paribhāṣā pratyaya-lope pratyaya-lakṣaṇam.

that lets us apply 7.1.85.

then we get pathā. which is still not the right form.

regards

[bsdas]

A message from another list:

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: vishvas...@gmail.com <Unknown>
Date: Thursday, 15 December 2022 at 19:28:33 UTC+5:30
Subject: Re: Rishi Rajpopat— Paninian Grammar
To: Hari Parshad Das हरिपार्षददास: हर्षद-मराठे <Unknown>
Cc: shabda-...@googlegroups.com <Unknown>, Hindu-vidyA हिन्दुविद्या <Unknown>

bcc - sanskrit-programmers  given the obvious impact on grammar simulation (विप्रतिषेधे परं कार्यम्। )

"Shri Yadavaryaru gives a similar  artha to Paratva in 1.4.2."

किन्तु -"इत्यर्थस्यापि सूत्रे विवक्षितत्वात्" इति भागे "अपि"-शब्दप्रयोगो दर्शयति यद् अनेनापि धीमता न तत् तथावगतं यथानेन यूना।

On Tuesday, 20 December 2022 at 12:06:50 UTC+5:30 Nagaraj Paturi wrote:

[bk]

The only way to save him seems to be by using nimittāpāye naimittikasyāpyapāyaḥ and say that su appears back after in changes to ā and then apply 7.1.87 tho nthaḥ and get panthāḥ...

Regards

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Sri Madhav Kiran ji,

Yes, there is the issue of correctness of his interpretation of paratva, whether it actually leads to correct forms. 

But his interpretation of paratva is the solution he offers to a problem that he identified.

But what is being claimed/projected/publicised is that there was a problem that scholars were not able to solve for 2500 years. 

What is that problem ?  Was that the interpretation of paratva in विप्रतिषेधे परं कार्यं ?  Did they face problem in interpreting paratva in विप्रतिषेधे परं कार्यं ?  Were they facing the problem of their interpretation of paratva in विप्रतिषेधे परं कार्यं yielding wrong results ? There is no textual evidence to agree that for the lost 2500 years they have been facing the  problem of their interpretation of paratva in विप्रतिषेधे परं कार्यं yielding wrong results. 

Who faced the problem of their interpretation of paratva in विप्रतिषेधे परं कार्यं yielding wrong results ? Dr Rajpopat says that he faced the problem of their traditional  interpretation of paratva in विप्रतिषेधे परं कार्यं yielding wrong results . 

So it could be the view that their interpretation of paratva in विप्रतिषेधे परं कार्यं  yielded (at least some) wrong results for the lost 2500 years but they did not document that fact. 

By giving a new interpretation to  paratva in विप्रतिषेधे परं कार्यं , Dr Rajpopat solved that problem faced for 2500 years by vaiyaakaranas, but not documented by them anywhere. 

Or, is the 'puzzle' being claimed/projected/publicised to have not been solved for the last 2500 years different from interpretation to  paratva in विप्रतिषेधे परं कार्यं ? 

Did they face the problem of their interpretation of paratva in विप्रतिषेधे परं कार्यं yielding wrong results and not document it ? Or, Did they not face the  the problem of their interpretation of paratva in विप्रतिषेधे परं कार्यं yielding wrong results at all ?

Or, for them विप्रतिषेधे परं कार्यं is not the only tool for deriving grammatically correct words. So they did not find this sutra (with their interpretation of paratva) alone not yielding correct results to be a problem at all  ? 

I think vaiyaakaranas for the lost 2500 years were not focusing on विप्रतिषेधे परं कार्यं as the only tool for deriving grammatically correct words. So they did not find this sutra (with their interpretation of paratva) alone not yielding correct results to be a problem at all. 

But for Dr Rajpopat,  interpretation of paratva in विप्रतिषेधे परं कार्यं is crucial because his project is self sufficiency of AA including in terms paribhaashaa sutras  which was not the project of the vaiyaakaranas for the lost 2500 years. 

How can  vaiyaakaranas for the lost 2500 years be said to have failed in solving a problem that they did not face nor took up?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/2755fa47-af8a-4385-a49e-a82c345990bbn%40googlegroups.com.