Sutra literature

[Bijoy Misra]

Dear friends,

I am interested in finding more about the technique that is applied in creating

the sutra literature, particularly its mathematical evolution if it has been reconstructed.

I appreciate any help and references.

Thank you.

Bijoy Misra

[S. L. Abhyankar]

नमस्ते श्रीमन् बिजोय्-मिश्र-महोदय !

Thinking of Sutras and mathematics 

1. The शल्बसूत्राणि have primarily mathematics as their subject.
2. Vedic mathematics is mathematical exposition expounded from select Sutras from the Vedas
3. शिवसूत्राणि are primarily arrangement of vowels and consonants, the arrangement having inherent to it elements of set theory - All the 14 sutras together make one big set of all phonemes. Each one of the 14 sutras is a subset of the big set. Rather, sutras 1 to 4 make another subset of vowels and sutras 5 to 14 make the other subset of consonants. The concept of प्रत्याहार-s facilitates creation of large number of "intersection" sets, if I may say so.
4. अष्टाध्यायी is one big algorithm, the अधिकारसूत्राणि serving as declarations of 'topics' or if I may say so, of subroutines. निषेधसूत्राणि serve as 'if-then-else' conditional statements. 
5. But every other सूत्र-वाङ्मयम् such as ब्रह्मसूत्राणि, योगसूत्राणि, श्रौतसूत्राणि may not have as much of mathematical logic. Even then since every सूत्र-वाङ्मयम् has chapters in it means, there is arrangement and order, which should be prone to be deciphered.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_History_of_Sanskrit_Literature/Chapter_9

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

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

BoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, Maharashtra

BoS, Chinmaya Vishwavidyapeeth, Veliyanad, Kerala

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )

 

 

 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

https://www.academia.edu/3747402/P%C4%81nini_and_Euclid_Reflections_on_Indian_Geometry

Staal, J.F. (= Frits) (1965). ‘Euclid and P¯an. ini’ (PEW 15, 99–116) = Staal, 1988: 143–160.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

"Each system (or darshana, literally “view”) eventually developed sutras: aphoristic summaries of its positions, along with quick responses to common objections and brief attacks on the other systems. But the systems themselves predate their sutras, probably by many centuries."

http://lukemuehlhauser.com/ancient-indian-philosophy-a-painless-introduction/

[Bijoy Misra]

Nagarajji, Abhyankarji,

I have read some of these and understand the basic thrust.

What I am looking for is any sAkhA literature or sections in

brAhmaNa literature which might suggest codification.

It appears to me as a technique like we do index cards these days.

I would like to see any analysis on the selection of information

and the technique (syntax, style etc) of the process. It seems

technical to me than just empirical. I see it as an intermediate 

development before the shAstra literature is created.

I assume some original literature might exist, hence the query.

Best regards,

BM

[S. L. Abhyankar]

नमस्ते श्रीमन् बिजोय्-मिश्र-महोदय !

Your message has become quite confusing to understand what focus is in your mind. In the previous message there was mention of "sUtra"-literature. In this message there is mention of (1) "..sAkhA literature or sections in

brAhmaNa literature .." (2) ".. an intermediate development before the shAstra literature is created..." And you also mention (3) "..some original literature .." 

In your two messages together you have used the word "literature" in combination with five other words, which I have marked in magenta colour.

[Bijoy Misra]

It has to do with the origin of sutra literature like any analysis why the

style developed.  While we check "why", possibly we may encounter "how".

sAkhA is my conjecture.  There could be elsewhere.  

[S. L. Abhyankar]

नमस्ते श्रीमन् बिजोय्-मिश्र-महोदय ! 

These days I am getting to think that most of Sanskrit literature is a subject, not of lexical translation, but of "interpretation". For example the महावाक्यम् - सोऽहमस्मि can be translated as "He is me" or "I am He". As interpretation it would encompass the entire अद्वैततत्त्वज्ञानम् "He and I are not different at all. We are same, rather, we are one entity only". In ईशावास्योपनिषत् this महावाक्यम् is a part of the statement योऽसावसौ पुरुषः सोऽहमस्मि (यः असौ असौ पुरुषः सः अहम् अस्मि = (my interpretation) "Who this ? This PuruSa ! He is me only.). 

I think, being cryptic is the fundamental of not only the सूत्रवाङ्मयम् but much of Sanskrit literature. Even in गीता, where basic purpose was to clear अर्जुनस्य संमोह, in 13'27 it does no better than saying यः पश्यति स पश्यति (one who sees, sees). 

In Hindi they say समझदारको इशारा काफी होता है Suggestion or hint is enough for one, who has an understanding mind. 

Yes, "understanding mind" is the basic presumption. All effort to explain anything to someone, who does not have an understanding mind is wasteful. Hence in 18'67 in गीता this caution, not to waste effort with people not having "understanding mind", is well elaborated इदं ते नातपस्काय नाभक्ताय कदाचन/ न चाशुश्रूषवे वाच्यम् .. Even in फलश्रुति of श्रीगणपत्यथर्वशीर्षम् - इदमथर्वशीर्षमशिष्याय न देयम् I take it that अशिष्य or अशुश्रुषु is simply one, who does not have an "understanding mind". 

All our scriptures are only for those, who have an understanding mind. By corollary, they are for everyone, who has an understanding mind. "Understanding mind" is the basic condition and that puts aside all other conditions of caste, creed, religion, language, culture, color of the skin, gender, age, education, aptitude, where and when on earth you are, whatever. The scriptures are basically universal in their spirit and hence eternal. That is why they survive and will survive. 

It becomes wrong to brand them as Hindu scriptures. Nowhere in the scriptures, one would find the word Hindu. Unwitty people are misled to think that anything in Sanskrit is Hindu. 

Sorry for this digression. But yes, "understanding mind" is the fundamental of not just सूत्रवाङ्मयम् but for much of Sanskrit literature.

[Bijoy Misra]

Abhyankarji,

Language and expression are cultural.  In Sanskrit, the words reveal thoughts.

In English the word becomes a descriptive tool.  The translators use dictionaries

to check some "equivalence" and they fail miserably.  I have not looked how the 

Sanskrit to English dictionaries came to be.  Some local people here would believe

a dictionary word rather that a "native" creating an interpretation.  I do not know if

scholars back home use dictionaries or struggle to interpret through multiple

readings and contemplating the context.  A word is not "local" (Bhartrhari). 

Best regards,

BM 

[Shashi Joshi]

Abhayankarji,

Shouldnt सोऽहमस्मि only mean "i am he" because of अस्मि it can't be "he is i"

Thanks,
Shashi

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Shashi Joshi <shas...@gmail.com> wrote:

Abhayankarji,

Shouldnt सोऽहमस्मि only mean "i am he" because of अस्मि it can't be "he is i"

Thanks,
Shashi

Exactly. English syntax applied to Sanskrit will be incorrect as Sanskrit is inflectional language. Grammar is the first tool for grasping the meaning of words in sentence in addition to seven other factors like analogy, lexicon etc.

शक्तिग्रहं व्याकरणोपमानकोशाप्तवाक्याद् व्यवहारतश्च। 

वाक्यस्य शेषाद् विवृत्तेर्वदन्ति सान्निध्यतः सिद्धपदस्य वृद्धाः॥ -- 

(न्यायसिद्धांतमुक्तावली-शब्दखंड).

1- व्याकरण, 2- उपमान, 3- कोश, 4- आप्त वाक्य

5- वृद्ध व्यवहार/लोक व्यवहार, 6- वाक्य शेष, 7- विवृत्ति, 8- सिद्ध पद सान्निध्य

Traditionally 5th one is the important while learning a language,  while all the others are used gradually. There are many lexicons in Sanskrit itself, not only Sanskrit-Engish Dictionary. Only one should be used to use them. Here is an article on the Word in Sanskrit, not the English Word.

https://hi.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%AC%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A6

In case one could not understand the meaning of a word in spite of above tools, he can make use of the following contextual factors::

अर्थः प्रकरणं लिङ्गं शब्दस्यान्यस्य संनिधिः । । २.३१५ । ।

सामर्थ्यं औचिती देशः कालो व्यक्तिः स्वरादयः ।

शब्दार्थस्यानवच्छेदे विशेषस्मृतिहेतवः । । २.३१६ ।।(वाक्यपदीय)

These are traditional tools in addition to lexicons/Dictionary meaning. Here the interpretation is wrong as in the above:

योऽसावसौ पुरुषः सोऽहमस्मि (यः असौ असौ पुरुषः सः अहम् अस्मि = (my interpretation) "Who this ? This PuruSa ! He is me only.)

Exactly The Purusha who is this, I am he. The असौ refers to similar idea:

स यश्चायं पुरुषे यश्चासावादित्ये स एकः (तै० उप०, २.८)

This answers the question of Bijoy Mishra also on the use of Dictionaries.

 

 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dr Bhat,

Your aakaankshaapoorvaka analysis 

योऽसावसौ पुरुषः सोऽहमस्मि (यः असौ असौ पुरुषः सः अहम् अस्मि = (my interpretation) "Who this ? This PuruSa ! He is me only.)

is ending in 

"He is me  only " i.e., "He is me"  

--

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

[Shashi Joshi]

He was only quoting Abhayankarji's post. He clarifies right after this.

These are traditional tools in addition to lexicons/Dictionary meaning. Here the interpretation is wrong as in the above:

योऽसावसौ पुरुषः सोऽहमस्मि (यः असौ असौ पुरुषः सः अहम् अस्मि = (my interpretation) "Who this ? This PuruSa ! He is me only.)

Exactly The Purusha who is this, I am he. The असौ refers to similar idea:

Thanks,

~ Shashi

[Nagaraj Paturi]

That exactly is the point. 

Conclusion in 

योऽसावसौ पुरुषः सोऽहमस्मि (यः असौ असौ पुरुषः सः अहम् अस्मि = (my interpretation) "Who this ? This PuruSa ! He is me only.)

and the immediately  following sentence

Exactly The Purusha who is this, I am he. The असौ refers to similar idea:

are in contradiction with each other. 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Coming back to the original thread, 

> Your message has become quite confusing to understand what focus is in your mind.

                                                                                                           ---- Sri Abhyankar-ji

Sri Abhyankar-ji,

You are not alone/the first one to face this confusion from the posts of Sri Bijoy-ji. 

>In the previous message there was mention of "sUtra"-literature. In this message there is mention of (1) "..sAkhAliterature or sections in

>brAhmaNa literature .." (2) ".. an intermediate development before the shAstra literature is created..." And you also mention (3) >"..some original literature .." 

>In your two messages together you have used the word "literature" in combination with five other words, which I have marked >in magenta colour.

                                                                                                                      ---- Sri Abhyankar-ji

This is the pattern. The initial question begins somewhere. You provide the answer taking the meaning of the initial question in the way any reasonable person would take. 

Then comes the answer " I know all this stuff. What I am looking for is....." , taking the discussion to a different point than the initial question.

To be fair to him, we have to assume that he really knows all the stuff that we post in response to his question. But why did we assume that he was asking for that stuff? Are we at fault? Do we everytime misunderstand his intial question? To be fair to ourselves, we should consider that we understood his intial question on the basis of how he articulated it. Then where is the fault? Articulation. Better articulation from him may save our time and efforts. How I wish, we knew all that he knew about the issue while asking for help! 

On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Nagaraj Paturi]

To continue the discussion, regarding origins, here is some discussion:

[Nagaraj Paturi]

The discussion of the origin of Brahmanas and the rishis composing them in the 33rd chapter of Brahmandapurana, mentions origin of sutras as part of that discussion . 

the 33rd chapter is here. 

[Bijoy Misra]

Nagarajji,

I "know" and I "read" are two different statements.  I have read some of the stuff

but I could not decipher "how" sutra as a technique in literature might have come

to be.  I "see" mathematical concepts of "indexing" through the process.  I would 

like to check if analysis on the matter exists..

A "sutra" seems to aim at compaction of space as well as compaction of concepts.

Normally the scientific process goes for an "observation" to an analysis.  A "sutra"

tries to condense an analysis to a phrase, which has the potential to be expanded.  

One can think that the metaphorical representation and use of adjectives could

also be a part of the "sutra" process.  it could have some clue how we create 

memory and unravel stories.

I am extremely sorry if I don't articulate right.  Possibly I should do more research

before putting a question.  Let me keep on looking.

Best regards

Bijoy Misra. 

[Madhav Deshpande]

I have attached Professor Johannes Bronkhorst's article on "Sūtra" from Brill's Encyclopedia of Hinduism.  May be of interest to Shri Bijoy Misra and others.  With best wishes,

Madhav Deshpande

Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

[Nagaraj Paturi]

The link I provided earlier in the thread too is to an article by Johannes Bronkhorst only. 

Both the articles by him trace the origin of the Sutra literature to Srauta Sutras and Kalpa. Interestingly, the ancient text Brahmandapurana too, in its 33rd Chapter does the same. It brings in the definition of Sutras as part of its 'narration' from Brahmanas, their rishis to kalpa and to sutras. 

The point that is focused on in his article on Euclid and Panini is the commonality in the scientific expression universally. 

Aiming at brevity (alpaaksharam), precision (asandigdham), sense-making (saaravat)  and widest possible applicability (vis'vatomukham)  is found in all scientific expression all over. 

But what sutra books in Vedic/Sanskrit tradition distinctly have is the extreme brevity that is achieved through computer code like arrangement of common components of different sentences as strings to get connected to the uncommon /components of those sentences. These common components too make sutras and through a system of rule order and rule connecting, these sentence-pieces form into full sentences. 

[Achyut Karve]

Dear Scholars,

If I am allowed I feel that as said by Bhartrihari  we need to realise that in the sutra texts the whole is bigger or beyond the sum of its parts.  Thus a Sutra needs to be visualised before it is put in prose form in which ever language it be.  This is because sutra literature pieces together experiential realities rather than mere thoughts which are largely based on reasoning.

With regards,
Achyut Karve.

[Bijoy Misra]

Achyutji,

Any creative work is supposed to be a product of internal visualization.

We compose only when a pattern sits in the brain.  In art, music or in

mathematics, the neural work propels muscular work.

Makes sense?

BM

[Achyut Karve]

Dear Misraji,

Here is an example.  Take for instance the first stanza of the Vakyapadiyam.  I am illiterate as far as Sanskrit is concerned and hence with the translation.

Is the level of visualization of the above the same as 'The cat caught the rat' or 'I see smoke and hence there is fire out there'.  

Therefore I have described the former visualization an experiencial reality and the later as 

thoughts based on reasoning.  

In this thread itself there was a reference to Euclid.  One cannot compare Euclid and Panini.  While Euclid was looking at the reality of the figures of geometry through the eyes reason Panini was looking at language as experiencial reality.  If one sees some uniformity of treatment of the subject throughout the discourse that is incidental to the subject and is necessarily not its core.  Those who will try to impose Euclid's logic or reason on Panini's Ashtaadhyayi  or the Maheshwar Sutras are bound to fail. 

and

In short it is incorrect to view Sutra Texts (those of Panini included) through the eyes of reason alone as for them the reality is not the real world we see but the world presented in Vedas because for them the world of the Vedas is the real one.

With regards,

Achyut Karve.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

In this post in the thread, I said,

"Prof. Peter Raster of Germany whose name I was quoting in a thread on universals in Panini, while speaking about the idea of composition of Ashtadhyayi as a 'miracle', brought the analogy of Mozart's composition of a huge number of symphonies (around 600 works altogether ) within the small age that he lived. He said that Mozart when asked about how could he compose such big complex compositions in a short span of time, he used to say that he 'saw' the whole composition in his mind. Prof. Raster said that Panini must have 'seen' the whole of Ashtaadhyaayi in a flash. Ability to see that way is what is called as 'yogipratyaksha'"

 

[G S S Murthy]

Dear Prof.Paturiji,

I do not think it is necessary to believe that Panini saw the whole of Ashtadhyayi in a flash. He would have borrowed several ideas from his predecessors. He would have worked on it for decades and like any truth seeker, refined his premises as he went on applying his rules, created various divisions like ganas, lakaaraas etc and was forced to make set,anit,vet lists and finally several lists of exceptions.

Regards,

Murthy

My web site : http://murthygss.tripod.com/index.htm
and also my Sanskrit blog :

http://simplesanskrit.blogspot.com/

http://gssmurthy.blogspot.com

[Achyut Karve]

Dear Scholars,

If I am not mistaken any creative writing invariably has to visualise the subject matter and put it into parts.  With the Ashtadhyayi we find that he has split the subject matter primarily into eight parts and has subsequently divided each such part into four parts each.   This process is even followed today while writing articles or books.

What Sanskrit provides is that they need not be written down as is necessary for  a prose writing and the  author can commit it to memory in the process of drafting.

However the problem with the Ashtadhyayi is that the author has not stated the axioms separately and instead has included them into the subject matter itself.  This may be the cause for differences cropping up subsequently. 

Any writing needs a starting point and rightly Panini has started it with letters.  However from there onwards he takes for granted that students know the Vedas or spoken Sanskrit.  And it is here that the difficulty starts.  Students tend to interpret the Ashtadhyayi in terms of their own usage because they have already picked up the tongue causing confusion when the contrary  is expected. 

They are these issues that have been addressed by Katyayana, Panini and later by Bhartrihari and some more.

Therefore for reconstructing the Ashtadhyayi as was envisioned by Panini we need to go in the reverse order because they are these later authors who have described the preconditions on which the Ashtadhyayi was formulated.  Patanjali therefore often refers to  स्वभाव of Panini.

With regards,
Achyut Karve.

[Achyut Karve]

Dear Scholars,

One more point needs to be kept in mind and that is the method of investigation and the method of presentation are different. 

With regards,
Achyut Karve.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Sri G S S Muthy-ji,

When it is said that some creative work or a scientific discovery occurred to a person as a flash , it does not mean that there is no previous knowledge, thinking, or any other process involved or is there behind that flash. 

You might want to study Gestalt theory of problem solving here, Psychology's study of incubation here, Psychology's study of insight here, discussion of Eureka Effect here and so on. 

In fact, when we say that the entire Ashtadhyayi could have occured to Panini as a flash, we are applying the theory on similar lines as the above cognitive science theories, coming from the aarthika bhaaga of the Paniniyan tradition, called 'sphOTa', articulated by Bhartrihari in Vakyapadiyam to the beginner of that tradition.  SphOTa theory too proposes that the idea to be communicated through an entire piece of communication occurs to the communicator all at once, though the communicator consciously or unconsciously arranges the whole communication of that idea into a certain scheme and communicates. Even the scheme of communication occurs as a flash to the communicator. Then he/she goes on to put the scheme into a communicable form such as a scientific work, a kaavya, a piece of musical presentation, a painting, a sculpture and so on. 

Nevertheless, this flash is a result of a previous attempt at problem solving only. But this attempt too need not be conscious, slow, stepwise, trial and error process as you might have seen in the above theories of cognitive science. 

Bhartrihari calls the flash as sphOTa, the flashed communicable entity as vaakyaartha or pratibhaa, connects it to bhaavanaa, itikartavyataa (intuition) etc. But agrees that there is abhyaasa behind this. Classifies the aagama resulting from abhyaasa into aasatti and viprakarshaa. He provides an elaborate theory of this process involved in the flash .

[Madhav Deshpande]

Dear Paturiji and colleagues,

     In this whole discussion of how Pāṇini may have composed his Aṣṭādhyāyī, it would be useful to remember Patañjali's description of how Pāṇini produced the sūtras: प्रमाणभूत आचार्यो दर्भपवित्रपाणि: शुचाववकाशे प्राङ्मुख उपविश्य महता प्रयत्नेन सूत्राणि प्रणयति स्म.  At least in Patañjali's conception of how Pāṇini produced his rules, it was not a flash of insight, but a deliberative act of great mental effort.  The huge amount of details, references to previous teacher's opinions, recording variation of usage in different regions and scholastic tradition, etc. suggests the same.  It was a long deliberative act involving collection of enormous data of language use, and an intensive study of the previous grammatical works.  The fact that numerous sūtras of Pāṇini are virtually identical with sūtras of the Prātiśākhyas, and with the few known sūtras of other teachers like Āpiśali, shows that he had done an intensive study of a wide ranging grammatical literature, and then composed his rules.  This is what I mean by a "deliberative act of great mental effort."

Madhav Deshpande

[Bijoy Misra]

Dear friends,

From personal experience, we can easily check that creative writing and creative analysis are not

similar in their origin.  The creative impulse can be flash like, an inspiration to do something new and 

novel.  Creative writing is imagination, it can be a fancy, the author is the owner.  On the other hand

creative analysis has the world as its base.  It is more of distillation of existing facts with possible new

discoveries which could take years of deductive effort..  It is empirically understood that the creative

analytic work blossoms in the youth while the creative writing matures with age.

My thinking has been that a sutra is an effort of condensing larger texts into rules and norms.

In the sciences the process could be analogous to the laws, formulas and equations.  The latter process

is algebraic in nature.  So I wanted to check if there is any research on how the sutra style came to

be, particularly if it was connected to number theory and numerology through astronomy.  The technique

can go deeper in organizing information, like classification and noticing dissimilarity.  The discovery and

enunciation of alphabet by the "unidentified scholar" might have something to do with the origin of the

technique.

Best regards,

BM

. 

[Narayan Joshi]

Aug 22, 2017

I agree with observation of Prof. M. Deshpande on " Efforts of PANini in composing eight chapters on grammar". There was no Sphota doctrine before Yaask of Nirukta.No Sphota in available Veda samhitas. Sphota got support after Bhartrihari. Thanks. N.R.Joshi

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Dr Joshi,

When someone says, a phenomenon that occurred in the past can be explained using a certain theory, that does not mean that the theory was known by the time of occurence of that theory. 

When someone says, the action of a person in the past can be explained using a certain theory it does not mean that the theory was known to the person that executed the action. 

Why past, if I explain the action of a contemporary person , it does not mean that the person executing the action knew the theory. 

Moreover the point being discussed here includes the aspect that the person in whom the process of incubation, insight etc. happen is usually unconscious of this process. 

Applying these points to the case of Panini's composition of Ashtadhyayi 

when I explain Panini's composition using sphōṭa theory, it does not mean 

a. sphōṭa theory was known by the time of Panini

b. sphōṭa theory was known to Panini

c. Panini used sphōṭa theory in his composition.

That said, I did point out the coincidence/interesting aspect that Panini's composing process is being explained using a theory propounded by a sage/scientist belonging, of course during a time later to him, to his tradition.  

[Nagaraj Paturi]

mistake:

When someone says, a phenomenon that occurred in the past can be explained using a certain theory, that does not mean that the theory was known by the time of occurrence of that phenomenon

not

by the time of occurrence of that theory. 

[Achyut Karve]

Dear Scholars,

Though analytical thinking in creative analytic is a long drawn process yet many a times the basis for the structure is a spark. 

We see this happening in Panini in the Maheshwar Sutras.  Using the sutra form for rendering a subject is one thing but to apply it to letters is mind boggling.

Previous attempts to sequence letters  do not appear to be as robust as the Maheshwar Sutras.  Taking cue from the Vakyapadiam it can be said that they simultaneously serve two purposes as light i.e. as the illuminor and the illumined.  First as an instruction of letters as also a means to  express letter groups.

Thus to totally rule out the presence of a spark or flash is not correct.  Secondly it is fine that a writer has worked for a number of years for analysing a subject but without an amazing spark it would not have been possible to generate nearly 4000 sutra lines.  That can only be the work of a genius.  To put a subject matter into a defined form is no easy task.

Thus I feel that though what Madhav Deshpandeji has said is valid one cannot rule out that creative analytical writing needs a spark or a flash.

With regards,
Achyut Karve.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Prof. Deshpande,

प्रमाणभूत आचार्यो दर्भपवित्रपाणि: शुचाववकाशे प्राङ्मुख उपविश्य महता प्रयत्नेन सूत्राणि प्रणयति स्म. 

does not contradict what I said. 

When someone says, the painter knew his picture completely before starting to paint, it does not mean he spent a long time in painting. 

In sculpting, they use the word subtractive process. It means that the sculpture knows his sculpture completely before starting to sculpt. The process of sculpting is just removing that part of the material that is not required to be there as per the vision of the sculptor. This does not mean that the sculptor takes days, weeks, months or even years to sculpt. 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

error again:

It means that the sculptor knows his sculpture completely before starting to sculpt. 

not

It means that the sculpture knows his sculpture completely before starting to sculpt. 

[Anilkumar Veppatangudi]

What Prof.Deshpande says makes a lot of sense. When Panini mentions what is Sadhu referring to what is prevalent, it certainly does not indicate 'revealed' nature of his work. It may perhaps be a good idea to be rid of 'romantic' notions of how Asthadhyayi was formed

Dr.V.R.Anil Kumar

http://www.kalpaheritage.org

http://www.kalpapublishing.com 

http://veppatangudi.blogspot.in

[Nagaraj Paturi]

The sphOTa theory of flash or the insight (flash) theory of modern cognitive science or not romantic theories nor are they ideas of revelation.

In my very first response in the present thread to the idea contradicting Panini's  visioning of his creative work, I said the following:

"When it is said that some creative work or a scientific discovery occurred to a person as a flash , it does not mean that there is no previous knowledge, thinking, or any other process involved or is there behind that flash. "

I don't know whether those contradicting the idea of flash as applicable to the present case and as applied by me here in the present thread, read the theories cited by me from cognitive sciences either through the links provided by me or through some other source of their own. I don't know whether they studied the sphOTa theory of flash.

If they did they would not have confused a theory of cognition for an occult or a spiritual notion of revelation.  

The whole debate boils down to the following:

One side: AA resulted through a trial and error, observation to generalisation to more observation and then correction of previous generalisation and then to more observation and then to a better generalisation and so on, then a sutra and then correcting the sutra and so on  writing and striking off , step by step gradual development of the whole book from zero idea to the whole idea, without any previous vision of the whole work.

The other side: All the observations and the generalisations based on that are done by the author with a greater efficiency than a one by one observation a huge number of, if not all observations and the generalisations based on them occurring with the entire picture occurring to the mind's eye at the same time, with all the intricate relationships between the parts and the whole of all these generalisations too occurring to the mind's eye at the same time, the scheme of how all the generalisations and their intricate relationships can be articulated through a set of intricately arranged and ordered sutras occurring to the mind's eye at the same time. Please remember that this process has observations in its background, skills and methods of generalisations in its background. But the distinction of this process lies in its quicker processing, in mind, of the broadest scope of observation and a quicker envisioning of the entire scheme of the book at the same time. Writing down of the book of the book begins only after such an envisioning of the whole work happens. Proposing this process does not imply saying Panini did not observe, did not study previous works etc. It just means that Panini was such a genius that he had a skill of quick and intricate processing of broadest range of his observations and the previous studies of them. The quickness or the speed of that processing is so great that it appears as though the whole work occurred as a flash to him. 

I am arguing for this second side.  

[Shrikant Jamadagni]

Just an observation.

Panini had garuda-drshti. Just as a eagle flying high has the large view including hills, forests, rivers etc. but also notices even a little animal scurrying away, Panini had a view of the entire system he was building as well as little things.

thanks.

 

Shrikant Jamadagni
Bengaluru

--

My web site : http://murthygss.tripod.com/in dex.htm
and also my Sanskrit blog :

http://simplesanskrit.blogspot .com/

http://gssmurthy.blogspot.com

--
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+unsubscribe@googleg roups.com.

--
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.

[Achyut Karve]

Dear Scholars,

Nobody has commented on the form of the sutras.  Is it of the nature of मुक्त छंद poetry still retaining the Samhita form.

With regards,
Achyut Karve .

[K S Kannan]

I more than fully agree with the analysis provided by Prof Paturi.

I remember how, way back in 1987, if I remember aright, 

I had in a writing of mine compared Sphota theory with the Gestalt theory.

Those who have a naive view of science think that everything in science proceeds 

on lines of a fixed routine of experiment, observation, and inference.

A true grasp of how at true moments of discovery, leaps happen in sudden flashes 

is well detailed in Arthur Koestler's (1905-1983) The Act of Creation (1964),

and set forth and accounted for even better in Michael Polanyi's (1891-1976)

incisive and insightful writings, going well beyond Karl Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934).

(An excellent summary of the penetrating analysis of Polanyi

can be found in Gelwick's The Way of Discovery (1977)).

Psychologists have also delved into the neural basis for the Aha! moments

of solving problems with insight. 

I recall that my own grandfather is said to have remarked that 

Panini's work is really grasped only by those 

who can visualise the entire work as an akhanda-mandala.

The analogy of the subtractive process of the sculptor is also a powerful one.

The opposite of a bird's eye-view is what is called a worm's eye-view:

Panini would lose neither the wood for the trees nor the trees for the wood.

The analogy of Garuda provided by Jamadagni is commendable.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Thanks Prof. Kannan, for your erudite post, reassuring me that I have co-members on the list who do not only understand me but in fact did express this thought already in their earlier works. Coincidentally My MPhil on Vakyapadiyam too is dated 1987 only. 

[gobind medini]

In my understanding, Sphota theory is about meaning of a language construct in general and sentential meaning in particular. It is as much applicable to any meaningful sentence or a group of sentences as to the pANinI's aShTAdhyAyI. The flashes of insight which are being talked about in the name of pANinI and aShTAdhyAyI are available to ordinary person as much as to pANinI. 

g

[Nagaraj Paturi]

True Sri Gobind-ji, very much true.Those like me and Prof. Kannan, who cited Gestalt theory did so to say that this flash (the Aha! thing) is universal. sphOTa theory is also a theory applicable to all. 

Potentially flash of a thing like AA can happen to all humans. 

But as has been repeatedly said , that requires all the observations, generalisations, identification of intricate relation between those generalisations etc. with a GaruDa drishTi (thanks to Sri Jagannatha Sarma-ji ), as happened with Panini. 

Now its history, record, that there is one and only AA and there is one and only Panini, who had its flash. It happened because one and only Panini had all the observations, generalisations, identification of intricate relation between those generalisations etc. with a GaruDa drishTi ..

[Nagaraj Paturi]

>My thinking has been that a sutra is an effort of condensing larger texts into rules and norms.

'that a sutra is an effort of condensing larger texts into rules and norms'

if modified by changing

' larger texts' --------- to-----------> ideas contained in the texts either oral or written along with the ideas from the adhyayana-adhyaapana tradition of the texts selected for and orgainised into a specific s'aastra (such as meemaamsaa or vedaanta)

and 

rules and norms -------- to --------> briefest possible and the most precise expressions,

applies to meemaamaamsaa sutras and vedaanta sutras (brahma sutras)

since these two sutra books have their roots in the braamhaNa and aaraNyaka texts (upanishads counted as part of braamhaNa and aaraNyaka texts) and their adhyayana - adhyaapana traditions.  

[Achyut Karve]

Dear Scholars,

What is the difference between a sutra and a sentence?

With regards,
Achyut Karve

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Sutra can be part of only a sutra book. A (Sanskrit ) sentence can be part of any (Sanskrit ) verbal communication. 

(Exceptions can be there to 'Sutra can be part of only a sutra book': An example of an expression that is given the name of sutra even though it is not a part of a sutra book is rasanishpattisutra, picked up from Bharata's Natya Shastra)

Sutra can be an incomplete portion of a sentence too. i.e., it need not have a samaapti. A sentence is a group of words with a samaapti. 

Sutra is called a sutra only if it has the features such as alpaaksharam , asandigdham etc. A sentence can be called a sentence, even if it does not have such features.  

[Bijoy Misra]

Nagarajji,

alpAksram may not be a unique characteristic though Panini tries hard in situations.

He would also go for longer constructs if warranted.  Other sutra literature are

seen to have long constructs.  Actually my inquiry has been to find the need and the

characteristic of the construction.

Some of the flash theories have also to be carefully qualified to apply in this context.

Best regards,

BM

[S. L. Abhyankar]

प्रायः सूत्रे तिङन्तं न भवति ! 

[Hnbhat B.R.]

one of thelengthy sutras with 25 words: अचतुरविचतुरसुचतुरस्त्रीपुंसधेन्वनडुहर्क्षामवाङ्मनसाक्षिभ्रुवदारगवौउर्वष्ठीवपदष्ठीवनक्तंदिवरात्रिंदिवाहर्दिवसरजसनिःश्रेयसपुरुषायुषद्व्यायुषत्र्यायुषर्ग्यजुषजातोक्षमहोक्षवृद्धोक्षौपशुनगोष्ठश्वाः ५।४।७७

Shortest one: टेः

सूत्र की परिभाषा----. अल्पाक्षरमसन्दिग्धं सारवद् विश्वतोमुखम्। अस्तोभमनवद्यं च सूत्रं सूत्रविदो विदुः।। 

अथवा,  लघूनि सूचितार्थानि स्वल्पाक्षरपदानि च । सर्वतः सारभूतानि सूत्राण्याहुर्मनीषिणः।। 

[Hnbhat B.R.]

'अस्तिर्भवन्ति परः. अप्रयुज्यमानोऽप्यस्ति ' 

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 8:12 AM, S. L. Abhyankar <sl.abh...@gmail.com> wrote:

प्रायः सूत्रे तिङन्तं न भवति ! 

--

[Achyut Karve]

Dear Abhyankarji,

Does this apply to all sutra texts.

With regards,
Achyut Karve.

On Aug 25, 2017 8:13 AM, "S. L. Abhyankar" <sl.abh...@gmail.com> wrote:

प्रायः सूत्रे तिङन्तं न भवति ! 

--

[Achyut Karve]

Dear Scholars,

What are the grammatical niceties in terms of noun cases and verbs.

With regards,
Achyut Karve.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

>alpAksram may not be a unique characteristic though Panini tries hard in situations. He would also go for longer constructs if warranted.  Other sutra literature are seen to have long constructs.

"He would also go for longer constructs if warranted. "

Don't you see that your own sentences show that alpAksharam is the ideal for sUtrakAras, since they resort to longer constructs only if warranted?

I said in one of my previous posts in the thread, 

"Aiming at brevity (alpaaksharam), precision (asandigdham), sense-making (saaravat)  and widest possible applicability (vis'vatomukham)  is found in all scientific expression all over. 

But what sutra books in Vedic/Sanskrit tradition distinctly have is the extreme brevity that is achieved through computer code like arrangement of common components of different sentences as strings to get connected to the uncommon /components of those sentences. These common components too make sutras and through a system of rule order and rule connecting, these sentence-pieces form into full sentences. "

>Actually my inquiry has been to find the need and the characteristic of the construction.

Whatever is the need for brevity in scientific expression all over the world, is the need for brevity here too.

What is the need for Newton to say

Actioni contrariam semper & æqualem esse reactionem (What is usually translated into English as For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction) so briefly?

[S. L. Abhyankar]

श्रीमन् कर्वे-महोदय !

पूर्वं प्रस्तुतं मया सूत्रेषु तिङन्तं न भवतीति !

सूत्रेषु द्वितीया विभक्तिरपि न भवति प्रायः !

[S. L. Abhyankar]

श्रीमन् कर्वे-महोदय !

यद्यपि मया "प्रायः"-इत्युक्तं, तर्कसुसङ्गतमपि भाव्यते यत्सूत्रेषु तिङन्तानामावश्यकता न प्रतीयते ! 

[rniyengar]

The discussions have gone far away from the original question of optimality in linguistic representation, to issues that border on the emotional. Bijoy Mishra is trying to bring it back and Abhyankar ji has pointed out one characteristic by its ‘absence’. A general ‘presence’ is that of pre-defined abbreviations or (saṅjñā).  There would be many other wares in the sophisticated intellectual toolbox, built in an ecosystem conducive for such literature. So I rephrase Mishraji’s question with an analogy. Two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen combine to make one molecule of water. All the words in this sentence are supposed to be understood by the Guru and Śiṣya. Such long sentences are represented as sūtra  aka  formula using Roman alphabets and Hindu numerals as subscripts; as is too well known. The background for understanding this in all its sophistication and complexity involves study of Chemistry from elementary level and going up and up further. This may be called a meta-language or by any other name for convenience. There are at least two evidences that Piṅgala and Bharata used the ‘meta-language’ concept to further their theories of prosody and music that are primarily ‘śravaṇendriya-janya’ like ‘Bhāṣā’, all the same remaining rigorous in terms of pattern recognition and presentation.

The Brahmāṇḍa purāṇa does not give a definition of Sūtra.  Of course a Purāṇa is not expected to get into such issues. At best ‘asandhigdham’ is a pious wish; but as an ideal to strive for, it is perfect. It is a near equivalent of  “accuracy and rigour”  not so exactly expected to be aimed always in science subjects, but certainly so in Mathematics.  Now, the question is, has any among the inheritors of the tradition made attempts to work out the general principles behind sūtra formation; not just limited to Aṣṭādhyāyī but including a few other texts roughly belonging to the same period. 

regards

RN Iyengar

[उज्ज्वल राजपूत]

नाभावस्तिङन्तानां पाणिनीयेषु सूत्रेषु।

पक्षिमत्स्यमृगान्हन्ति। ४।४।३५।
परिपन्थं च तिष्ठति। ४।४।३६।
अन्यान्यपि बहूनि सूत्राणि येषु तिङन्तानि सन्ति। तेषु कानिचिद्यथा। तदधीते तद्वेद। तरति। चरति। योजनं गच्छतीत्यादीनि।
तथाप्यत्र वक्तव्यं यदेतानि सतिङन्तानि सूत्राणि सामान्यार्थतो वस्तु न कथयन्ति। पक्षिमत्स्यमृगान्हन्तीत्यनेन सूत्रेण पक्षिमत्स्यमृगेभ्यष्ठक्प्रत्ययो विहितस्तत्सम्पादितेन शब्देन हन्ताऽभिधीयत इति प्रोक्तं च।

शुक्रवार, 25 अगस्त 2017 को 11:23:37 पूर्व UTC+5:30 को, अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नः श्रीपादः | ने लिखा:

[Hnbhat B.R.]

Panini's metalanguage. by Hartmut Scharfe 

--

[Nagaraj Paturi]

>The Brahmāṇḍa purāṇa does not give a definition of Sūtra.  Of course a Purāṇa is not expected to get into such issues.

-- अल्पाक्षरमसंदिग्धं सारवद्विश्वतोमुखम् ।।

अस्तोभमनवद्यं च सूत्रं सूत्रविदो विदुः ।। ३३.५८ ।।

from ब्रह्माण्डपुराणम् अध्यायः ३३  here

[Nagaraj Paturi]

> At best ‘asandhigdham’ is a pious wish; but as an ideal to strive for, it is perfect. It is a near equivalent of  “accuracy and rigour”  not so exactly expected to be aimed always in science subjects, but certainly so in Mathematics.

"not so exactly expected to be aimed always in science subjects"

not so exactly  but expected, right?

Rigour is a different aspect. It is a feature of the method, reasoning, logic , argument etc. also not limited to be the quality of a statement of definition, law, theory etc. 

Whereas accuracy applies to expressions such as definition, law, theory etc

asandigdham is unambiguous. 

ativyaaptavyaaptasambhavaadidosharaahitya brings asandigdhataa. 

In any case , ancient texts used asandigdhataa not in the case of mathematics but in the context of sutras of sutragranthas only. 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

> The discussions have gone far away from the original question of optimality in linguistic representation

--- I agree, whether the original question was on 'of optimality in linguistic representation' or not, (I think it is not) , (I think, your words "  has any among the inheritors of the tradition made attempts to work out the general principles behind sūtra formation; not just limited to Aṣṭādhyāyī but including a few other texts roughly belonging to the same period." rephrase the original question ), 

there was indeed a digression. 

The flash theory discussion , which never had any emotional aspects in the thread , started with Sri Achyut-ji's following post: 

If I am allowed I feel that as said by Bhartrihari  we need to realise that in the sutra texts the whole is bigger or beyond the sum of its parts.  Thus a Sutra needs to be visualised before it is put in prose form in which ever language it be.  This is because sutra literature pieces together experiential realities rather than mere thoughts which are largely based on reasoning.

I nearly supporting him quoted Prof. Peter Raster. 

The ensuing discussion went on very dispassionate lines of debate between two opposing views about how Panini could have composed his "intellectual monument" (Bloomfield) that "antedated modern linguists by millennia" (H A Gleason).

I was trying to explain what was the intention of Prof. Peter Raster. I brought in Aha! moment theory of the Gestalt Psychology and sphOTa for that purpose. 

I brought the discussion every time back to the original topic. 

When the initiator wanted to know , away from the original question, what was the need for Sutras or Sutra works , yes, there is a scope for digression. 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

You seem not to have noticed that there was, among other things, 

"What I am looking for is any sAkhA literature or sections in brAhmaNa literature which might suggest codification."

from the initiator. 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Regarding the alpaaksharam verse,

people trace the verse to Vishnudharmottara Purana and Padma Purana too. 

There is a variant of this --

the first two quarters are the same, the last two are:

सम्यगसंसूचितार्थं यत् तत् सूत्रमिति कथ्यते ||

The following version:

अल्पाक्षरमसंदिग्धं सारवद् गूढनिर्णयम्। निर्दोषहेतुमत्तथ्यं सूत्रमित्युच्यते बुधैः ।।११७।।

is from a Jain source found here. 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

The variant 

with the first two quarters  the same, the last two being

सम्यगसंसूचितार्थं यत् तत् सूत्रमिति कथ्यते ||

is from Bhamaha.

[Achyut Karve]

Dear Scholars,

What remains of a sentence when as Abhyankarji says that a sutra is rid of the verb and the object?  What do expressions like tall tree, sweet apple and the like convey? 

With regards,
Achyut Karve.

[Srinivasakrishnan ln]

> I recall that my own grandfather is said to have remarked that

> Panini's work is really grasped only by those

> who can visualise the entire work as an akhanda-mandala.

Prof Kannan's statement is rather reminiscent of a view I found expressed  in an article I read sometime back. On Panini's Ashtadhyayi, the author writes

The sūtras function as a complex network of symbolic notations, and one must grasp the entire sūtra collection qua sūtra collection in order to grasp the subtlety of the grammatical system as a whole. A discursive commentary on the sūtra-s, though essential for understanding the semantic significance of the notions and concepts in the system, can never fully communicate the elegance of the system itself. That elegance can be grasped fully only by the student who learns the sūtra-s as a whole and then comes to "see" the total functioning of the grammatical system.

Gerald James Larson, The Format of Technical Philosophical Writing in Ancient India: Inadequacies of Conventional Translations, Philosophy East and West

​,  No. 3 (Jul., 1980), pp. 375-380

​

​

L Srinivas

Srini

With regards,

Achyut Karve.

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 7:36 AM, Bijoy Misra <misra...@gmail.com> wrote:

Achyutji,

Any creative work is supposed to be a product of internal visualization.

We compose only when a pattern sits in the brain.  In art, music or in

mathematics, the neural work propels muscular work.

Makes sense?

BM

On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Achyut Karve <achyut...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Scholars,

If I am allowed I feel that as said by Bhartrihari  we need to realise that in the sutra texts the whole is bigger or beyond the sum of its parts.  Thus a Sutra needs to be visualised before it is put in prose form in which ever language it be.  This is because sutra literature pieces together experiential realities rather than mere thoughts which are largely based on reasoning.

With regards,
Achyut Karve.

On Aug 20, 2017 4:28 PM, "Nagaraj Paturi" <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

The link I provided earlier in the thread too is to an article by Johannes Bronkhorst only. 

Both the articles by him trace the origin of the Sutra literature to Srauta Sutras and Kalpa. Interestingly, the ancient text Brahmandapurana too, in its 33rd Chapter does the same. It brings in the definition of Sutras as part of its 'narration' from Brahmanas, their rishis to kalpa and to sutras. 

The point that is focused on in his article on Euclid and Panini is the commonality in the scientific expression universally. 

Aiming at brevity (alpaaksharam), precision (asandigdham), sense-making (saaravat)  and widest possible applicability (vis'vatomukham)  is found in all scientific expression all over. 

But what sutra books in Vedic/Sanskrit tradition distinctly have is the extreme brevity that is achieved through computer code like arrangement of common components of different sentences as strings to get connected to the uncommon /components of those sentences. These common components too make sutras and through a system of rule order and rule connecting, these sentence-pieces form into full sentences. 

On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Madhav Deshpande <mmd...@umich.edu> wrote:

I have attached Professor Johannes Bronkhorst's article on "Sūtra" from Brill's Encyclopedia of Hinduism.  May be of interest to Shri Bijoy Misra and others.  With best wishes,

Madhav Deshpande

Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 11:04 PM, S. L. Abhyankar <sl.abh...@gmail.com> wrote:

नमस्ते श्रीमन् बिजोय्-मिश्र-महोदय ! 

These days I am getting to think that most of Sanskrit literature is a subject, not of lexical translation, but of "interpretation". For example the महावाक्यम् - सोऽहमस्मि can be translated as "He is me" or "I am He". As interpretation it would encompass the entire अद्वैततत्त्वज्ञानम् "He and I are not different at all. We are same, rather, we are one entity only". In ईशावास्योपनिषत् this महावाक्यम् is a part of the statement योऽसावसौ पुरुषः सोऽहमस्मि (यः असौ असौ पुरुषः सः अहम् अस्मि = (my interpretation) "Who this ? This PuruSa ! He is me only.). 

I think, being cryptic is the fundamental of not only the सूत्रवाङ्मयम् but much of Sanskrit literature. Even in गीता, where basic purpose was to clear अर्जुनस्य संमोह, in 13'27 it does no better than saying यः पश्यति स पश्यति (one who sees, sees). 

In Hindi they say समझदारको इशारा काफी होता है Suggestion or hint is enough for one, who has an understanding mind. 

Yes, "understanding mind" is the basic presumption. All effort to explain anything to someone, who does not have an understanding mind is wasteful. Hence in 18'67 in गीता this caution, not to waste effort with people not having "understanding mind", is well elaborated इदं ते नातपस्काय नाभक्ताय कदाचन/ न चाशुश्रूषवे वाच्यम् .. Even in फलश्रुति of श्रीगणपत्यथर्वशीर्षम् - इदमथर्वशीर्षमशिष्याय न देयम् I take it that अशिष्य or अशुश्रुषु is simply one, who does not have an "understanding mind". 

All our scriptures are only for those, who have an understanding mind. By corollary, they are for everyone, who has an understanding mind. "Understanding mind" is the basic condition and that puts aside all other conditions of caste, creed, religion, language, culture, color of the skin, gender, age, education, aptitude, where and when on earth you are, whatever. The scriptures are basically universal in their spirit and hence eternal. That is why they survive and will survive. 

It becomes wrong to brand them as Hindu scriptures. Nowhere in the scriptures, one would find the word Hindu. Unwitty people are misled to think that anything in Sanskrit is Hindu. 

Sorry for this digression. But yes, "understanding mind" is the fundamental of not just सूत्रवाङ्मयम् but for much of Sanskrit literature.

--

My web site : http://murthygss.tripod.com/index.htm
and also my Sanskrit blog :

http://simplesanskrit.blogspot.com/

http://gssmurthy.blogspot.com

--

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

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

[Ashok Aklujkar]

The following (particularly pages 200-215) may be helpful in the discussions under way: 

[Bijoy Misra]

Dear Prof Aklujkar,

Thank you for sharing the article.  This is an excellent exposition of the Panini's

method and technique.  I had seen some reference in Cardona's book. 

The technique employs algebra and patterns.  The technique applies brevity.

Brevity is also a mathematical process. 

Other texts I see are not as complex, but could be older.

The following paragraph is from the paper:

Have you thought through more on this?  Is there a comparable text to Panini in construction?

Best regards,

Bijoy Misra

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Ashok Aklujkar <ashok.a...@gmail.com> wrote:

The following (particularly pages 200-215) may be helpful in the discussions under way: 

--

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

The distinguished French Indologist, Louis Renou, had also written articles on the forms literature took in the Sanskrit tradition. The incomplete references I have are: 

1961. "Sur la forme de quelques textes sanskrits.” JA xxx:163-211.

1962. "Sur la forme des Brahma-sūtra.” In Indological Studies in Honor of W. Norman Brown, pp. 195-203. 

These are, as I recall, reprinted in a collection of his articles. 

If time permits, I will complete these references later.

a.a.

[Madhav Deshpande]

Dear Colleagues,

We do not have full access to grammatical works of Pāṇini's predecessors, but there are a few glimpses here and there found in quotations in commentarial literature.  For example, Pāṇini 7-3-95 reads तुरुस्तुशम्यमः सार्वधातुके, while Āpiśali's quoted rule reads तुरुस्तुशम्यम: सार्वधातुकासु छन्दसि.  A comparison of these two rules reveals that the two grammarians are by and large using similar modes of formulating their rules, and they have a shared terminology.  The difference is that while Pāṇini's rule is a general rule, Āpiśali's rule states that, in his observation, the particular phenomenon occurs only in chandas.  There is another interesting quote regarding the views of Vyāḍi and Gālava: इकां यण्भिर्व्यवधानं व्याडिगालवयो:.  Again this quotation suggests that Vyāḍi and Gālava had terminology like इक् and यण्, very similar to Pāṇini, and this further hints the possibility that these grammarians had a similar version of the Śivasūtras that may have allowed them to formulate these short forms.  There is another interesting quote about the views of a grammarian named Bhāguri:

     वष्टि भागुरिरल्लोपमवाप्योरुपसर्गयो: ।

     आपं चैव हलन्तानां यथा वाचा निशा दिशा ।।

This quote suggests the possibility that Bhāguri not only had the short forms like हल्, further suggesting a shared version of the Śivasūtras, but his system also had terms like "lopa" and affixes like "āP", as they are found in Pāṇini's system.  Such indications make it very clear that Pāṇini was not an entirely new grammarian, but that he followed a long line of previous grammarians, and made changes in their formulations as he saw fit.  However, the shared style and terminology indicates a wide-spread tradition of grammatical science prior of Pāṇini's time.

Madhav Deshpande

[Bijoy Misra]

Prof Deshpande,

This could be the method of gradual accumulation.

So, one would think that the technique of compaction and 

directive writing was developed and Panini gave it a full form

application (Kalidasa among the sutra practitioners!).

Prof Aklujkar gives a possible sketch for construction at the

end of his paper..  But it is possible to create a skeletal template

and then fill in through time.

Let me look s'ulba sutra literature and check if I can find any clues.

Best regards,

Bijoy Misra.

[उज्ज्वल राजपूत]

संस्कृत भाषा में, विशेषतः सूत्रों में, अस्ति और भवति (है, होता है) क्रियाएँ प्रायः अनुक्त रहती हैं। किन्तु अनुक्त या उक्त रूप में क्रियापद प्रत्येक वाक्य में होता है (एकतिङ् वाक्यम्)।
अस्ति और भवति क्रियाओं के द्वारा अन्य सभी क्रियाओं का अर्थ भाव के द्वारा कहा जा सकता है। जैसे तस्य लोपो भवति अर्थात् उसका लोप होता है।

शुक्रवार, 25 अगस्त 2017 को 5:49:22 अपर UTC+5:30 को, Achyut Karve ने लिखा:

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Respected Prof. Aklujkar-ji,

What are the details of year of publication, book/journal details of this amazing article while reading which I had such an ecstasy of resonance!?

On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 1:56 AM, Ashok Aklujkar <ashok.a...@gmail.com> wrote:

The following (particularly pages 200-215) may be helpful in the discussions under way: 

--

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

The distinguished French Indologist, Louis Renou, had also written articles on the forms literature took in the Sanskrit tradition. The incomplete references I have are: 

1961. "Sur la forme de quelques textes sanskrits.” JA xxx:163-211.

1962. "Sur la forme des Brahma-sūtra.” In Indological Studies in Honor of W. Norman Brown, pp. 195-203. 

These are, as I recall, reprinted in a collection of his articles. 

If time permits, I will complete these references later.

a.a.

--

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

[G S S Murthy]

Dear Prof.Deshpande and other scholars,

My CONJECTURE on how Panini might have started on Sutra formulation is based on my successful attempt to write a computer program for Sandhis. This program is based on a set of clear rules spelt out in a Primer "Second Sanskrit Course" by MS Gole. The program does not try to decipher Panini sutras and arrive at the result.

Sandhi Sutras form a compact subset of Panini Sutras and seem to be self sufficient to codify Sandhi rules. Panini might have first tried to work out a set of Sutras for Sandhi and he would have been successful. That might  have made him think, " Pretty good! Can I extend it further to cover the whole of Sanskrit Grammar?" And I leave it here.

I am willing to be contradicted and made fun of.  

Regards,

Murthy    

[K S Kannan]

Is is understood though unstated.

Attributed to , but not traceable in the Mahābhāṣya, is the adage -

astir bhavantī-paraḥ prathama-puruṣe'prayujyamāno'py asti /

[Ashok Aklujkar]

Dear Prof. Paturi,

Sorry, I overlooked to give the publication particulars. They are:

2008. "Traditions of language study in South Asia." In Language in South Asia, pp. 189-220 (= chapter 9). (eds) Kachru, Braj B.; Kachru, Yamuna; Sridhar, S. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.    

The volume has a common bibliography for all the articles included in it. That is why the publication particulars of the studies I refer to did not appear at the end of the pdf I shared on the BVP forum.

I am glad you liked the article. Many thanks 

a.a.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Thanks Prof. Aklujkar, for these details. 

How many more such treasures you have with you?

When and how will the Indian nation acknowledge the services to Indic Knowledge Traditions rendered by Gurus like you and Prof. Deshpande? 

Members influential with the Government of India should do something about this. 

--

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

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Bhartrihari uses the technical terms S'ritakriyaavaakya and As'ritakriyaavaakya to refer to this. Yes, Prof. Kannan pointed out, he must have had the seeds in Mahaabhaashya.(In fact, he openly acknowledges that the very purpose of his VP is to preserve the theoretical foundations of AA provided by Mahaabhaashya. ) 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Sri G S S Murthy-ji,

You or your ideas don't deserve to be made fun of.

Just to bring fun into the discussion, let me say, we may try playing cricket. Sometimes we may play well too. But a Sachin, a Brian Lara, a Muttaiah Muralidharan or an Anil Kumble are a class in themselves. 

Coming to the serious aspect, the exercises such as yours are very good to be used in a higher level Sanskrit class room, to teach students how laakshaNikas arrive at lakshaNa. By doing such exercise they realise that we are being guided by the lakshaNa book to follow the 'rule' inherent in the lashyas of the s'ishTas. 'We follow the s'ishTas not the lakshaNa' is learnt by them. 

It gives them the confidence that everyone has a potential to become a Panini. 

Only through such an exercise and realising the challenges through personal experience that they can appreciate the greatness of Panini. 

[Madhav Deshpande]

Dear Misraji,

     The available evidence points to gradual development of the science of grammar in ancient India, and Pāṇini's grammar is the only complete surviving version of this ancient period.  Pāṇini may be said to have given it a full form, as you say.  However, in the absence of grammatical works of his predecessors, it is not possible to make a viable comparative statement.  For reasons not clearly known to us, in many branches of ancient knowledge systems, only one ancient exemplar survives.  This is true of Nirukta, Mīmāṃsā and many other branches.  The surviving works clearly refer to numerous predecessors, and so we know that they were not the only works of those branches.  Yet, other works somehow fell behind in circulation, and eventually were lost.

Madhav Deshpande

[K S Kannan]

In response to GSSM and NP.

Not only that.

Laws such as of Kepler have been arrived at independently by machines (Artificial Intelligence) from a mass of data provided to them (which includes even redundant data).

There may therefore be a method to test whether Panini has done what he set out to do with high efficiency - the comprehensiveness and compaction he must have sought to bring in or whether there can be any "improvements" on him, or even whether a totally new paradigm can be possible.

Given the fact that linguistic data are not as easily amenable to law-making as the data of the physical world, owing to the fluid, and even protean, nature of the linguistic realm abounding in allotropy - synchronic as well as diachronic -  it is yet not an impossible dream that the nāma-prapañca can draw inspiration from rūpa-prapañca (even if involving/introducing some additional/different features); after all the nāma-rūpa-vyākaraṇa was done by the same "author".

[G S S Murthy]

​I agree with Prof.Kannan that using AI we could develop a Sanskrit grammar. For all I know it could be much better than Panini and an ever evolving one.​ It is said that AI machines are capable of translation without really bothering about formulating a grammar.

Thanks and regards,

Murthy

[Achyut Karve]

Dear Scholars,

The attempt of looking at Paninian grammar as  a a source for AI not only debases the effort of Panini but also denaturalizes language.  In short such an effort is the product of looking at grammar   as an object better called वस्तुसा प्रयोग. 

The traditional practice of teaching Sanskrit is the only way to protect the Sanskrit language.  The more artificial one makes it the sooner it will die and that surely was not the purpose of composing the AA. To put it into Paturiji's words, traditional teaching practices offer

"the confidence that everyone has a potential to become a Panini. 

Only through such an exercise and realising the challenges through personal experience that they can appreciate the greatness of Panini. "

and of the language.

With regards,
Achyut Karve

[Anilkumar Veppatangudi]

Sutra or aphorisms came into existence,as I understand with my little knowledge, to make it easier to transmit knowledge orally. In fact, Sutras made it difficult to understand the essence of the matter without commentaries or understanding the context. What will a scholar make out of a Sutra हलन्त्यम् without a commentary or learning from an expert? Are we missing the wood for the trees?

Dr.V.R.Anil Kumar

http://www.kalpaheritage.org

http://www.kalpapublishing.com 

http://veppatangudi.blogspot.in

[K S Kannan]

I agree and disagree with Sri Murthy-ji and Karve-ji.

 We must tread cautiously  while speaking about Artificial Intelligence (AI). I have a fair though passive feel of the field, and can hope to make some sensible comments.

While it is true, as Sri Murthy-ji says, that there can be a possibility that AI can evolve a grammar  which could even surpass Panini - theoretically that is -  that that is nowhere near reality must first be recognised. It is no ordinary task, first of all, to make even a sensible "linguistic survey" - some such as Panini must have accomplished while or before embarking upon a grammar of that scale or precision, whatever they may mean. There is not even a dim vision of AI succeeding or even attempting in a manner comparable to Panini,  in evolving a grammar for even the English language, one at which virtually the thousands of engineers working in the field of AI are so familiar if not actual adepts at. The Comprehensive Dictionary of the English Language authored by Randolf Quirk et al has over 60 pages dedicated to the treatment of the just the definite article (the the), whereas all that Panini wrote - to describe as fully as possible a language as complex and sophisticated as Sanskrit -  if printed run on, is of a bulk less than 60 pages. Panini has done the quintessential work, for he knows what language is  - in theory and in practice, and what could be needed beyond his work is not much more than add a note here or a note there, but nothing substantial stands to be supplemented. 

As to the ability of AI doing translations, it is simply not true that all grammar is done away with or just ignored. Fairly sophisticated semantic grammars such as Lexical Function Grammar (LFG), or its more sophisticated versions and advances, are abundantly made use of in Machine Translation. Mere statistical approaches can take one thus far but no further. I may not be very wrong if I say even LFG owes its genesis more to Fillmore than to Chomsky. Fillmore himself was not unacquainted with Panini. 

It is quite another matter that most Western linguists conceal, latterly especially, what they owe to Panini, or to Indian linguistic analysis in general. It is typical of the West, after all, to "digest" Indian concepts, repackage them, and present it as their own. This characteristic hypocrisy of the West is centuries old, even though it is they who cry hoarse about IPR. 

It looks like Karve-ji is given to speak more than he knows. Does he mean Kepler's Laws were "debased" by the automated learning algorithms? What is at all debasement according to him? What does he mean by debasing Panini? Did even Patanjali's "shakyam pratyAkhyAtum" debase Panini ? Does "uktAnuktaduruktachinta" of Katyayana debase Panini? Would alternative grammars that were proposed/produced in the post-Paninian period "debase" Panini? I am sure if someone turned out a new grammar that surpassed Panini's, he would perhaps be garlanded by Panini! akke cen madhu vindeta kimartham parvatam vrajet?

And what grammar did denaturalise a language ever? What on earth is this "denaturalisation of language"? It would have been better if Karve-ji spoke with clarity of what he meant by the special terms/concepts he is pressing forward.

Mathematics is, indeed, an artificial language. Science was strengthened, not hindered, by the profuse growth of mathematics. Science would be no quintessential science were it not for its mathematical expression. For all the beauty that Nature abounds in, it is written in the language of mathematics (to paraphrase Galileo), hence the most "natural" language! The metalanguage Panini has pitched upon is the metalanguage par excellence in that it is utterly useful for the description and handling of his object language viz. the natural language, the Sanskrit. And of course there are "scholars" who would love to declare that Panini murdered Sanskrit, much as there are sincere haters of the "hegemony" of mathematics or mathematicians bidding fair of late to trespassing into realms that were till now the forte of specialists in humanities and social sciences.

And finally, it is exactly those who attempt to write algorithms of Paninian procedures that truly and best understand the importance or role of Panini. After all, the complexity of language was a closed book to all in the West until attempts were made to accomplish "automatic translation", and even better, till the ALPAC Committee gave its fatal verdict to the numerous language projects, many of them multinational, that were being carried on across continents. It is only upon the grand failures that the best engineers in the West faced in handling language with their (un)becoming overconfidence, that true appreciation regarding the Indian endeavours towards the analysis and synthesis of language began to dawn upon them, gradually begetting the respect that were naturally due to these endeavours. It was given to master cynics such as Whitney to hold Panini to ridicule, or again, speak spitefully of the Navya Nyaya language (an artificial natural language again) as did Athalye and Bodas do in their Introduction to the BORI edition of Tarkasangraha. 

And lastly, the basic presumption/pretension made, or at least the impression given, by some that Panini sought to write a primer for beginners to learn Sanskrit is not even laughworthy. Before censuring or even eulogising Panini, what the project was that Panini set about to handle needs first to be appreciated. 

KSKannan

[Bijoy Misra]

Friends,

It is possible that we have exhausted the analysis of the topic as much we can.

We may close the thread and pursue individual efforts and share any new finding

gradually. People may pursue Panini and his contribution in another thread.

Once I thought he was the most scholarly of all people lived.  Then I confronted

Valmiki and Bharata.  Lately I am stuck with Charaka.

Thank you.

Bijoy Misra 

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

सूत्रम् ---

What is सूत्रम् ?  -- a thread .

What is सूत्रम् ? -- an elliptical sentence - an incomplete sentence -- ellipsis / ellipses to be added to have a full sentence.

Any analogy that can be drawn between सूत्रम् and सूत्रम् ? 

A thread is used to string together some flowers to make a garland - similarly a सूत्रम्  can be used to string together some sentences of a selected text  to arrive at a single meaning or thing --

वेदान्तवाक्यकुसुमग्रथनार्थत्वात् सूत्राणाम् । वेदान्तवाक्यानि हि सूत्रैः उदाहृत्य विचार्यन्ते । वाक्यार्थविचारणाध्यवसाननिर्वृत्ता हि ब्रह्मावगतिः .... ।

                                                   --- ब्रह्मसूत्रशांकरभाष्यम् , 1-1-1

(निर्वृत्तिः = आविर्भावः)

एवं वेदवाक्यान्येव एभिः व्याख्यास्यन्ते ।

                                                              --- शाबरभाष्यम् , प्रतिज्ञासूत्रम् , 1-1-1

( एभिः = मीमांसासूत्रैः )

What is the definition of a सूत्रम् ?

अल्पाक्षरम् असन्दिग्धम् सारवत् विश्वतोमुखम् ।

अस्तोभम् अनवद्यं च सूत्रं सूत्रविदो विदुः ॥ 

                                                        ----- पराशरोपपुराणे , विष्णुधर्मोत्तरे च

Something is missing here in this verse ? 

Yes , the विशेष्यम् is missing -- the term ' वाक्यम् ’ is to be made अध्याहार ।

So , अल्पाक्ष्ररम् ........ अनवद्यम् वाक्यं सूत्रं सूत्रविदः विदुः ।

लघूनि सूचितार्थानि स्वल्पाक्षरपदानि च ।

सर्वतः सारभूतानि सूत्राण्याहुर्मनीषिणः ॥

                                                            ----- भामती , 1-1-1

लघूनि = असन्दिग्धार्थानि ।

Here in the above verse , the term वाक्यानि is to be made अध्याहार।

न्यायकोश quotes ' अल्पाक्षरम् असन्दिग्धम् ...’ from  माध्वभाष्यम् (1-1-1 , प्रस्तावः , पृ 3) and says this is the वेदान्तिनां सूत्रलक्षणम् of शास्त्रीयसूत्रम् - i. e. of six दर्शनानि only .

The author also says - शाब्दिकास्तु सूत्रलक्षणमाहुः -- संज्ञा च परिभाषा च .... सूत्रलक्षणम् । पाणिन्यादिप्रणीतानि व्यकरणसूत्राणि तु वेदाग्ङान्येव । न तु शास्त्रीयसूत्रषट्कान्तर्भूतानि । एवम् आश्वलायनापस्तस्म्बादिमहर्षिप्रणीतानि धर्मगृह्यश्रौतसूत्राणि बहूनि सन्ति।

I do not agree with the above thesis - where is this dichotomy of सूत्रs stated ? -- the author had drawn a hasty conclusion -- तत्र विद्वान्सः प्रमाणम् ।

सूत्रं प्रतिष्णातम् ( पा 8-3-90) - शुद्धम् = निर्दुष्टम् इत्यर्थः ।

Sometimes the term सूत्रम् is used as a synonym of शास्त्रम्  and vice versa -- धर्मसूत्रम् / धर्मशास्त्रम् ।

 The length of a सूत्रम्  depends on the subject that is being dealt with . It is generally stated that पाणिनिसूत्रs are the best example of अल्पाक्षरम् ....    

Elliptical sentence ----

Where are you coming from ? 

Hostel .

Here , ' hostel ' - is an elliptical sentence . ' I , am , coming , from ' - are ellipses. Is this a सूत्रम् ?

No . The term सूत्रम् is used for शास्त्रीयवाक्यम् only and it is pregnant with meaning .

What about -

स्वाध्यायो’ध्येतव्यः , तत्त्वमसि , अर्धो वा एष अत्मनो यत्पत्नी -- these sentences are pregnant with meaning and therefore can they be called सूत्राणि ?

No , they are called श्रुतिवाक्यानि । 

श्रुति is अपौरुषेयी - सूत्रम् is पौरुषेयम् ।

सूत्रम् is compiled by a  ऋषि - and since this term is there for long it is अनादि --

इन्द्रियाणां स्वविषयेष्वनादिः योग्यता यथा ।

अनादिरर्थैः शब्दानां सम्बन्धो योग्यता तथा ॥ 

                                                    --- 29,  सम्बन्धसमुद्देशः , पदकाण्डः , वाक्यपदीयम्

The term ऋषि ( ऋष = अपरोक्षदर्शने ) has got two meanings - वेदः ( ऋषिः पठति ) and a  मुनि ।

So आर्षं सूत्रम् -- छन्दोवत् सूत्राणि -- सूत्रs are just like वेद ।

महाभाष्यम् ( पस्पशाह्निकम् ) ---

व्याकरणम् - सूत्रम् - व्याख्यानम् ----

सूत्रे व्याकरणे  षष्ठ्यर्थो’नुपपन्नः ( वार्तिकम्)

भाष्यम् --

सूत्रे व्याकरणे षष्ठ्यर्थो नोपपद्यते - ’ व्याकरणस्य सूत्रम् ’ इति ।

(सूत्रम् is general - सामान्यम् -- मीमांसासूत्रम्, न्यायसूत्रम् etc . व्याकरणम् is specific - विशेषः ।

शब्दाप्रतिपत्तिः ( वा)

भाष्यम् --

शब्दानं च अप्रतिपत्तिः प्राप्नोति - ’ व्यकरणात् शब्दान् प्रतिपद्यमहे ’ इति । न हि सूत्रत एव शब्दान् प्रतिपद्यन्ते ।

किं तर्हि ?

व्याख्यानतश्च ।

ननु तदेव सूत्रं विगृहीतं व्याख्यानं  भवति ।

न केवलं चर्चापदानि व्याख्यानम् - ’ वृद्धिः आत्  ऐच् ’ इति !

किं तर्हि ?

उदाहरणं - प्रत्युदाहरणं - वाक्याध्याहारः - इत्येतत् समुदितं व्याख्यानं  भवति ।

लक्ष्यलक्षणे व्यकरणम् (वा)

भाष्यम् --

लक्ष्यं च लक्षणं च एतत् समुदितं व्याकरणं भवति ।

किं पुनर्लक्ष्यम् , किं  लक्षणम् ?

शब्दो लक्ष्यः , सूत्रं लक्षणम् ।

..... सूत्रत एव हि शब्दान्  प्रतिपद्यन्ते ।

तन्त्रवार्तिकम् of कुमारिलभट्ट (2-3-6-16) - यागविधायकत्वाधिकरणम् --

सूत्रेष्वेव हि तत्सर्वं यद्व्रुत्तौ यच्च वार्तिके ।

सूत्रं योनिरिहार्थानां सर्वं सूत्रे प्रतिष्ठितम् ॥

Whatever is said in वार्तिकम् and वृत्ति is already there in सूत्रम्  itself . सूत्रम् is the abode of all meanings and everything is embedded in a सूत्रम् ।

पाणिनि did it with the help of योगिप्रत्यक्षम् and anybody who has got such a capacity may try to do a matching work .

More info on demand.

धन्यो’स्मि

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

Skype Id: Subrahmanyam Korada

Blog: Koradeeyam.blogspot.in 

[Achyut Karve]

Dear Scholars,

What is the लक्ष्यं and what is the  लक्षणं in the Maheshwar Sutras?

With regards,
Achyut Karve.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Sri Achyut-ji,

AA's lakshaNa is, in most cases, made up of several different Sutras.

One lakshaNa statement may include several sutras arranged one after the other.

Statement thus formed may include a few pratyaahaara expressions which express a list of phones.

Maheshwara sutras is a table that helps create the list of phones that can be 'called' to apply the lakshaNa statement 'for siddhi of' (to generate) the lakshya - expression.

Thus Maheshwara Sutras are not directly lakshaNa of any lakshya. They participate in the siddhi of several different lakshyas.

On what corpus of lakhyas was the whole book focusing, Prof. Madhav Deshpande and other scholars published several articles. 

So if you are interested in knowing why a certain phone is not included in the table, in the generation of which corpus of  lakshyas this table participates, you must read those articles. 

[S. L. Abhyankar]

नमस्ते कर्वे-महोदय !

कस्यापि सूत्रस्य सूत्राणां वा यः विषयः तस्य प्रतिपादनमेव सूत्रस्य सूत्राणां वा लक्ष्यम् ! 

मन्येऽहं शिवसुत्राणां लक्ष्यं "वर्णानां व्यवस्थिता प्रस्तुतिः" !

व्यवस्थिता इति कथम् ?

1. सर्वे स्वराः चतुर्भिः सूत्रैः ! 
2. सर्वाणि व्यञ्जनानि दशसु सूत्रेषु !
3. व्यवस्था एतद्विधापि यया प्रत्याहाराः साधु प्रापणीयाः !
4. व्यवस्था एतद्विधापि यया संहिता अपि साधु स्पष्टीक्रियन्ते ! अस्मात् कारणादेव यद्यपि शब्दकोशेषु वर्णक्रमः "य-र-ल-व" एवमस्ति, पञ्चम-षष्ठ-सूत्रयोः वर्णक्रमः "य-व-र-ल" इति ! एषः "य-व-र-ल"-क्रमः इकः क्रममनुसरति, येन "इको यणचि (6-1-77)"-सूत्रं सिध्यते !

लक्षणानि तु कस्यापि सूत्रस्य अल्पाक्षरादीनि पञ्च !

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

माहेश्वरसूत्रs are called संज्ञासूत्रs as they are useful in generating संज्ञs like - अण् , अक् , अच् , हल्  etc .

So while the माहेश्वरसूत्रs are लक्षणम् , the संज्ञs like अण् , अक् etc are लक्ष्यम् ।

See कौमुदी --

अ इ उ ण् , ऋ लृ क्...... इति माहेश्वराणि सूत्राणि अणादिसंज्ञार्थानि ।

It is strongly recommended that one should study any शास्त्रम् with the help of a गुरु --

अनुपासितवृद्धानां विद्या नातिप्रसीदति 

                                                       --- वाक्यपदीयम्

धन्यो’स्मि

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

Skype Id: Subrahmanyam Korada

Blog: Koradeeyam.blogspot.in 

[Achyut Karve]

Dear Scholars,

How many of us have been taught the alphabet with the help of the Maheshwar Sutras?

It was only when I asked my Sanskrit Guru at the age of 55 years as to who composed अ आ इ ई...
क ख ग घ ..  that he told me that the seed lay in the Maheshwar Sutras. 

With regards,
Achyut Karve.

[Madhav Deshpande]

Dear Shri Karve,

     While I admire your enthusiasm for the Śivasūtras, they are not the origin of the standard Varṇasamāmnāya with the order of consonants like k, kh, g, gh, ṅ etc., but it is a particular reordering of the traditional Varṇasamāmnāya to fit the need of Pāṇini's grammar to produce specific short forms for various groups of sounds.  There is also no inclusion of long vowels etc. in the Śivasūtras.  The short "a" can stand for the entire class of "a" varieties, differing in accents, length and nasality, while long "ā" (not listed in the Śivasūtra) cannot.  So there is a different system specific logic in exclusion and inclusion of different sounds in the Śivasūtra listings.  On the other hand, the Varṇasamāmnāya, as given in the Śikṣās and the Prātiśākhyas has the purpose that is to provide a pure phonetic listing of sounds, organized by their phonetic features.  Therefore, the long vowels get included in the Varṇasamāmnāya, but they are excluded from the Śivasūtras.  

Madhav Deshpande

[Achyut Karve]

Dear Madhav Deshpandeji,

I would be more than grateful if you can provide me information on the attempts previous to Panini Vis a vis the composition of an alphabet for Sanskrit either for instructing students how to recite the letters
or for the purpose of writing.

With regards,
Achyut Karve.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Email posts, like books, for that matter, like any piece of communication have anubandhachatushTaya. My अधिकारी was the member to whose post I was responding. My prayojanam was to cater to his prayojanam. I remember his enquiry on l̥ . My answer to his question on lakshya and lakshaNa was based on that.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As an upAsaka of my Guru in both senses of the term and vriddhas and agrajas like Prof. Korada, may I present my vidyaa as far as it is prasanna to me? If there are any flaws in the following argument, they are totally due to the deficiencies in my upaasanaa and not those of upaasya(s):

अ इ उ ण् , ऋ लृ क्...... इति माहेश्वराणि सूत्राणि अणादिसंज्ञार्थानि । 

implies each of अण्, अक्, अच्, हल् etc. is a संज्ञा। संज्ञा here means a technical term of a śāstra. Particularly here, it means the technical term of the śāstra. The śāstra here means AA. 

The meaning of artha in अणादिसंज्ञार्थानि is different from the meaning of lakshya in the pair of technical terms lakshya and lakshaNa, though in a day to day usage artha and lakshya, in a certain sense are synonyms of each other. 

LakshaNa in the pair Lakshya - LakshaNa refers to the (description/statement of) the 'rule'/principle/ (set of )common feature(s) shared by several different lakshyas (instances/cases/examples/usages/observed facts/pieces of data). 

अ इ उ ण् , ऋ लृ क्...... इति माहेश्वराणि सूत्राणि अणादिसंज्ञार्थानि । is not saying that माहेश्वराणि सूत्राणि are providing the  the (description/statement of) the 'rule'/principle/ (set of )common feature(s) shared by several different lakshyas (instances/cases/examples/usages/observed facts/pieces of data) namely अण्, अक्, अच्, हल् etc. 

अ इ उ ण् , ऋ लृ क्...... इति माहेश्वराणि सूत्राणि अणादिसंज्ञार्थानि । means अ इ उ ण् , ऋ लृ क्...... इति माहेश्वराणि सूत्राणि are for the purpose of  saṁjñās (technical terms, here, grouping technical terms) like अण्, अक्, अच्, हल् etc. 

If  the माहेश्वरसूत्रs are लक्षणम् of the  saṁjñās  like अण् , अक् etc., then माहेश्वरसूत्रs are to be taken as the (description/statement of) the 'rule'/principle/ (set of )common feature(s) shared by several different lakshyas (instances/cases/examples/usages/observed facts/pieces of data) namely अण्, अक्, अच्, हल् etc.

LakshaNa statements in a grammar book may be in the form of definitions of technical terms used in the book or the statements delineating the common features of sveral usages in the language that is being described/prescribed by the grammar book. 

माहेश्वरसूत्रs are neither of these is my humble opinion placed at the feet of gurus . 

Obediently,

  

[Madhav Deshpande]

Dear Shri Karve,

     All you have to do is to look up the various Prātiśākhyas and Śikṣās.  Many of them are available in pdf form on DLI or Archive.org etc.  I have attached Professor George Cardona's monograph on the Śivasūtras, where he summarizes the classifications from the different Prātiśākhyas.  A different account is provided by Kiparsky, though he does recognize the existence of Pre-Pāṇinian ordering of the Varṇasamāmnāya.  No study claims that the Varṇasamāmnāya originates with Pāṇini.

Madhav Deshpande

[Nagaraj Paturi]

If lakshaNa is used in the sense of definition of a technical term, and if a technical term can be called a lakshya in that connection/context, may be we could see Maahes'vara suutras as helping to form lakshaNa of various pratyaahaara based technical terms such as aN, ak, hal etc.

But vyavahaarah padaas'rayah refers to padas of lokavyavahaara IMHO.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

I said,

LakshaNa statements in a grammar book may be in the form of definitions of technical terms used in the book or the statements delineating the common features of sveral usages in the language that is being described/prescribed by the grammar book. 

माहेश्वरसूत्रs are neither of these is my humble opinion placed at the feet of gurus.

As is my nature, I thought , 'there must be some reason for a respectable scholar calling Maaheshwara Sutras as lakshaNa. I found the following justification. 

Definition is an answer to the question, What is X? To the question of say, What is अण्  ? , if अ इ उ ण्  is taken as the answer, the sutra अ इ उ ण् an be treated as the definition or lakshaNa of अण् . But for अक् , not one , but the sequence of  two sutras  अ इ उ ण्  and ऋ लृ क् works as the definition or lakshaNa . 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That said, when we say A A is a lakshaNa work, what do we mean? lakshaNa of what, do we mean, A A is?  We mean that it provides the lakshaNa of Sanskrit language. From this point of view, what are the lakshyas of the lakshaNa(s) in A A? Expressions in Laukika and Vaidika Sanskrit are the lakshyas. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lakshya(s) of Natyashastra is (are) Natya performance(s).

Lakshyas of Sangeeta shastra are Music(al) renderings.

The term Rasa is not the lakshya of the lashaNa called Rasanishpatti sutra. The Rasa in the Natya performance(s) is the lakshya of the lashaNa called Rasanishpatti sutra. 

Vibhaava, Anubhaava vyabhichaaree bhaava etc. are terms (samjnas) that form part of the Rasanishpatti sutra. Those terms are not the lakshaNa(s). 

Can the definitions of these terms be treated as lakshaNa and these terms themselves as lakshyas?

May be in relation to each other, a term and its definition could be treated as lakshya and lakshaNa respectively. 

But, at least, that is not what we mean when we say Natyashastra provides lakshaNa of Natya, its lakshya. 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Sri Achyut-ji might want to refer to this thread with regard to Varnamaala:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/bvparishat/dipak$20bhattacharya$20varnamala%7Csort:relevance/bvparishat/8ZpsS3zqdDE/Zz0kMUGWKBcJ