reference to the classification of languages in sanskrit literature

[Veeranarayana Pandurangi]

dear all

I am looking for the reference to the classification of languages in sanskrit literature. whether the dravidian languages were known as a different group or not. etc.
--

Veeranarayana N.K. Pandurangi
Director of Academics
Dean, Faculty of Vedantas

Karnakata Samskrita University, 

Pampa Mahakavi Road,
Chamarajpet, Bengaluru.

अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि। ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवाप्स्यसि।।
तस्मादुत्तिष्ठ कौन्तेय युद्धाय कृतनिश्चयः। निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)

http://www.ksu.ac.in

http://www.ksu.ac.in/en/dr-veeranarayana-n-k-pandurangi/
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups#!forum/bvparishat

[Nagaraj Paturi]

1. The very classification of vocabulary into Tatsama, Tadbhava and Des'ya in the traditional grammars of south Indian languages  indicates that the core of these languages was viewed as different from the Sanskrit -derived and the Prakrit-derived portions.

 

2. Bharata treated the non-Sanskrit and non-Prakrit languages as a separate category.

 

3. Abhinavagupta too discusses south Indian languages as a different category than Saskrit and the Prakrits.

--

निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

 

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )

 

 

 

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Namaste,

The origin of the  Dravida languages could have been the now extinct Paisachi language. Manu also talks about two languages in the ancient  past. I am open to correction.

Regards,

Sunil KB

--

निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)

[Sivasenani Nori]

2015-10-05 23:19 GMT+05:30 Veeranarayana Pandurangi <veer...@gmail.com>:

dear all

I am looking for the reference to the classification of languages in sanskrit literature. whether the dravidian languages were known as a different group or not. etc.

​The earliest reference to a Dravidian language in Sanskrit literature that I know is in the MlecchaprasiddhapraamaaNyaadhikaraNam (consisting of one soota 1.3.10) in Tantravartikam by Kumarila, where he refers to a few Dravidian words.​ I am attaching the adhikaraNam for your ready reference. Please see the prose part in the third page.

Regards

N. Siva Senani

[Dr.BVK Sastry (G-Mail-pop)]

Namaste

 

1. Thanks Siva Senani for the reference from Tantravartika of Kumarila ( 7^th century AD - ?). And the notes on language classification, carrying reference to the word ‘Mleccha ,Dramida’ et al.  Can we  go a little more back in time and get more references on this issue, as debated in relation to ‘ meemaamsaa sutras’ of Jaimini  by  earlier commentators than Kumarila?

 

The reasons for asking this is the following.   We still have with us many important works which are available to us in a  structurally intact and technically accurate way ( at least so believed) on the subject of ‘ Bharateeya languages  classification in pre-Christian era’ , way before the post colonial linguistics overshadowed the pedagogy of Samskrutham- Prakrutham –Dramidam ( Tamils) – Apabhramshas and Mleccha languages.  These references are indicated in  the disciplines of Artha Shastra , Kama Sutra, texts and specific language grammars, many of which are most likely locked in the manuscripts unpublished.

 

 

2.   Modern linguists and indologists use a different model of analysis  in this study which seems to  further  their  preferred perspectives, even if it means taking a  significant  exit from the  language of the given text.   One such tangential analysis   can be seen at the url: http://www.modernrationalist.com/2011/january/page04.html  -  which deals with POST COLONIAL DRAVIDIAN STUDIES IN THE CONTEXT OF CONTEMPORARY SOCIAL DISCOURSE  - by  - PROF.K.S.CHALAM.

 

Why is this analysis bringing forth a different and discordant note ? If one goes sufficiently deep in to this ‘ language black-hole’,  one can see that modern indologists and linguists are using an alien language classification pattern and set of tools to study the ‘ classical languages of India’.  There are  a plethora of writings  which make ‘ Time- jumps’ and ‘  uncalled for language –osmosis in the name of linguistic changes ’ in word analysis, which is the characteristic signature tune of ‘ post colonial  Dravidian  linguistics’.  The credit for tracing the existence of  which is generally attributed to the colonial administrators and missionaries like William Jones (1786), Caldwell, Burrow and Emeneau, Campbell  and Ellis .

 

 

3.   ‘Samskrutham grammarians /linguists classification of languages  starts with the  ‘Daivee –Maanushee Vak’ paradigm;  Daivee Vak stays sacred as ‘Chandas’.  Maanushee vak branches  out to develop the  Bhashaa – Prakrtuahm – Apabhramsha –Dramida – Mleccha varieties.

 

 

4.   Whichever way one goes, the  anchor of Panini-Patanjali model of  four fold language classification,   as below can be seen transparently.

 

‘Samskrutham –Prakrutham – Dramida Siddham- Mleccha’ is the primary frame. All four varieties of languages have their co-existence, continuing existence, consistent interactivity of give and take on vocabulary, mixed use in society and literature.  Samskruth linguistics and users have recognized this model, implicitly. It may be difficult to find explicit statements to support this. The operational areas of these four language classes are also clear.

 

2a)    Samskrutham has two  transparent compartments: Visioned  Transcendent word (Chandas based on Yoga-Darshana) and True word Truthfully processed  Rule based derivative from Vyakarana (Bhashaa),  

 

2b)    Prakrutham -  Words which are derived and root linked to source of Bhashaa aspect of Samskrutham ( and NOT to Chandas) yet deviant from Samskrutha Vyakarana rules to accommodate a practical usage and convenience. Different conveniences in distant lands leads to different flavors of Prakruts.  Apabhramsha group of languages also known as regional (desi) come in between Prakrtuham and Mleccha.

 

2c)    Dramida Siddham – Encrypted technical linguistics for use in Siddha traditions , a technical language standard, linked to Samskrutham and yet separate by its unique rule base and application. Modern schools identify this language branching as Tamils of multiple layers going back to pre-Christian era.

 

2d)    Mleccha - Distorted beyond any chance for recovery and connectivity to Samskrutham or Prakrutham.  

 

5. This discussion should also connect with the writings related to Pancha Gauda /Pancha Dramida and definition of boundaries of Aryavarta.  By and large there are many unconnected dots and grey areas in these areas. For more on Pancha dramida /Pancha gowda, post 10^th century AD classification see  A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century - Upinder Singh -

Pearson Education India, 2008 - India - 677 pages. Google book available at url:

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=GW5Gx0HSXKUC&pg=PA575&lpg=PA575&dq=pancha+dravida+desha&source=bl&ots=QgOaDlKZAe&sig=NdfXw5DZdyuD33vJg0m00V-KkhU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAmoVChMI3vijwuysyAIVyh8eCh3MnAAX#v=onepage&q=pancha%20dravida%20desha&f=false

 

 

About:  This book is a comprehensive introductory work for scholars and students of ancient and early medieval Indian history, this books provides the most exhaustive overview of the subject. Dividing the vast historical expanse from the stone age to the 12th century into broad chronological units, it constructs profiles of various geographical regions of the subcontinent, weaving together and analyzing an unparalleled range of literary and archaeological evidence. Dealing with prehistory and proto-history of the subcontinent in considerable detail, the narrative of the historical period breaks away from conventional text-based history writing. Providing a window into the world primary sources, it incorporates a large volume of archaeological data, along with literary, epigraphic, and numismatic evidence. Revealing the ways in which our past is constructed, it explains fundamental concepts, and illuminates contemporary debates, discoveries, and research. Situating prevailing historical debates in their contexts, Ancient and Early Medieval India presents balanced assessments, encouraging readers to independently evaluate theories, evidence, and arguments. Beautifully illustrated with over four hundred photographs, maps, and figures, Ancient and Early Medieval India helps visualize and understand the extraordinarily rich and varied remains of the ancient past of Indian subcontinent. It offers a scholarly and nuanced, yet lucid, account of India's early past, and will surely transform the discovery of this past into an exciting experience.

 

I look forward for more specific and enlightening details on this matter which is of vital importance to Sanskrit language studies.

 

Regards

BVK Sastry

--

निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Though this is not related to the issue of identification of 'Dravidian languages' as a separate group than Sanskrit-Prakrit, since the general classification of languages is also the issue taken up for discussion here, let me bring up the point that treating Sanskrit and Prakritas as different languages is artificial. 

While talking to younger students, I found the following aspects of misinformation spread among them:

1. There is a language called Prakrita. --- Whereas the fact is that (1) Prakrita stands for the non-standard variety of Sanskrit speech and in its singular number usage, the word refers to the whole category of what are called Prakritas, in its plural form it refers to the individual members of that category (2) There is no single language called Prakrita

2. Pali is a different language than Prakrita- this impression seems to have been created through the discussions on history of Asoka's times and Asoka's use of Pali 

Are different dialects of Kannada or Telugu  and the standard form of Kannada or Telugu (I am confident that list members are aware of the value-free  use of the word standard language in modern linguistics) treated as separate languages? Are there two separate departments in universities for standard Telugu and non-standard dialects of  Telugu ? But this has been artificially happening in the case of Sanskrit. the standard form called Sanskrit and the non-standard forms called Prakritas. There are separate departments in universities for the standard form called Sanskrit and the non-standard forms called Prakritas. 

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 11:54 PM, Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

1. The very classification of vocabulary into Tatsama, Tadbhava and Des'ya in the traditional grammars of south Indian languages  indicates that the core of these languages was viewed as different from the Sanskrit -derived and the Prakrit-derived portions.

 

Dandin classified literature of Prakrit into three :

तद्भवस्तत्समो देशीत्यनेकः प्राकृत- क्रमः Kāv.1.33

 

2. Bharata treated the non-Sanskrit and non-Prakrit languages as a separate category.

Here the language classification by Bharata to be employed in Natya. as he explicitly requires:

http://www.aa.tufs.ac.jp/~tjun/irc/abhinavabhaaratii_v2.html

 भाषा चतुर्विधा ज्ञेया दशरूपे प्रयोगतः8 ॥ BhNZ_17_026cd

संस्कृतं प्राकृतं चैव यत्र पाठ्यं प्रयुज्यते । BhNZ_17_027ab

9अतिभाषार्यभाषा च जातिभाषा तथैव च ॥ BhNZ_17_027cd

तथा योन्यन्तरी चैव भाषा नाट्ये प्रकीर्तिता10 

 

3. Abhinavagupta too discusses south Indian languages as a different category than Saskrit and the Prakrits.

Chapter 17.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Thanks Dr Bhat for the specific references.

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[N.R.Joshi]

Oct 6, 2015

 

Respected Scholars, Namaskar!

 

To the best of my knowledge Mlecchas were located on the west of Aryas, somewhere on the ancient  border land of modern day Pakistan and Afghanistan. They were related to Aryas.  If the word Dravidian meant south Indian languages, then it has nothing to do with Mleccha language. I may be corrected if my understanding is faulty. Thanks. N.R.Joshi

---------- Original Message ----------
From: Sivasenani Nori <sivas...@gmail.com>
To: भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} reference to the classification of languages in sanskrit literature
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 00:20:58 +0530

2015-10-05 23:19 GMT+05:30 Veeranarayana Pandurangi <veer...@gmail.com>:

dear all

I am looking for the reference to the classification of languages in sanskrit literature. whether the dravidian languages were known as a different group or not. etc.

 

​The earliest reference to a Dravidian language in Sanskrit literature that I know is in the MlecchaprasiddhapraamaaNyaadhikaraNam (consisting of one soota 1.3.10) in Tantravartikam by Kumarila, where he refers to a few Dravidian words.​ I am attaching the adhikaraNam for your ready reference. Please see the prose part in the third page.

 

Regards

N. Siva Senani

 

--

निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

____________________________________________________________
Meet the Graviteers: Ezekiel Victor
http://www.gravity.com/blog/meet-the-graviteers-ezekiel-victor/

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear friends,

It seems there are claims that the Dravidians originally lived in the Sindhu-Saraswati region. Later on they could have migrated from there and that could be due to the drying up of the Saraswati river. There have been the  Brahui Dravidians in Baluchistan and Afghaniastan belonging to the same ancient Dravidian stock.

Regards,

SKB

[Madhav Deshpande]

Dear Dr. Joshi,

     I have attached the pdf of an article of mine dealing with Mimamsa discussions regarding the usage of the Mlecchas.  This was published in 2008, and may be of interest to you and others.  With best wishes,

Madhav Deshpande

Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

--

Madhav M. Deshpande
Professor of Sanskrit and Linguistics
Department of Asian Languages and Cultures
202 South Thayer Street, Suite 6111
The University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1608, USA

[Dr.BVK Sastry (G-Mail-pop)]

Namaste

 

Prof. Deshpande, you have  provided a very illuminating paper on this topic. Thank you very much for  sharing this paper. The points raised in your paper open up more fronts of deliberation for this thread of  discussion.

 

According to traditional schools, there are strong views and fierce  debate raging on    ‘ Who is qualified to study Vedas’,  the societal category  high end extreme are ‘Brahmana’s’   and low end extreme are ‘Shudra/Chanadala/Mleccha’ .  This brings forth the first and foremost classification of languages in Sanskrit literature by its application, as  language of  Vedic ritual (Chandas)  and beyond (Bhashaa).

 It is a historic fact that the access and usage of Vedic Sanskrit (Chandas)  was of different orders amongst these communities; and even amongst the Varna- teams , for the Brahman-Kshatriya-Vaishyas.

 

The current debate on the spectrum of languages discussed in this thread - ‘ classification of languages in Sanskrit literature’  covers the languages used by the above wide spectrum of society from Brahmans to Mlecchas  and  applications of these languages. The  references mentioned  throughout the discussions till now  fall in widely separated time segments and application domains as Ritual, Community narrative(itihasa), Sutra, Shastra, Kavya  of different periods. Example:       

 

<Vedas/ Upanishads ..    prior to 7000 BCE?  >  ..  <Mahabharata < quoted text authenticity uncertain , and yet pushed back to the time period 3000 BCE> … < Jaimini’s Meemaamsaa Sutras .. Prior to 700 BCE>..     <Panini’-Patanjali s view -  700 to 300 BCE  >  ….. <  Kumarila Bhatta’s view 700 AD>  <Bharatas Natya Sahstra .. 200 BCE ? >   

 

Mixing up of references separated in time by such vast span of time and specificity of applications in explaining the raised issue is a hermeneutic error.

 

Also it may be interesting to explore the views expressed in Vedanta texts  regarding the community languages of the Shudras ( as in apa-shudra adhiakrana of  brahma sutra 3^rd chapter)  and Nishada -Sthapati  (Nishada-sthapati nyaya of meemaamsaa)  . The original sutra references goes back to  a hoary past in pre-Christian era; and the interpretation of these words seem to have undergone a sea of meaning changes over a period of time.

 

I believe that tracing the footprints  of these changes is important to understand the approach of ‘ Die-Hard’ Sanskritists classification of Indian language spectrum and helps to define the oft asked question: What is Sanskrit? And Why should it be treated any different from any other social usage language of several world civilizations and societies??  In short the very premise, so dear to Die-Hard Sanskritists , namely classification of Vak as  Apaursheya – Daivee –Maanushee ::  The paradigm of Transcendental Natural ( Nitya) – God and Divine (Deva) and Human societal  (Maanushee) – language classification paradigm is  being  challenged.

 

 

Can you please help us  with  your illuminating  thoughts on this  issue  please.

 

Thanks in advance.

Regards

BVK Sastry

[Madhav Deshpande]

Dear Dr. BVK Sastry,

     The doctrine of Apauruṣeyatva of the Vedas as proposed by the Mīmāṃsakas was in all probability a response to the Pauruṣeyatva of the Vedas argued by the Buddhists (cf. Tevijja-Sutta of Dīghanikāya of the Pali Tripitaka). The contestation by the Buddhists continued through the works of Nāgārjuna, Dharmakīrti, Bhāvaviveka, Śāntarakṣita and others till 1000 A.D. A student of mine is currently working on the Buddhist debate with the Mīmāṃsakas.  Even among the Āstika schools, the Nyāya-Vaiśeṣikas argued for Pauruṣeyatva of the Vedas, with the Puruṣa being Īśvara, a position not acceptable to the Mīmāṃsakas.  Even among schools that argue for the Nityatva, there are differences, some arguing for the Kūṭasthanityatā of the Vedas, while others being perfectly satisfied with Pravāhanityatā. So, it appears that this doctrine of Apauruṣeyatva, though obviously an important doctrine, was not universally accepted, and positively contested by Nāstika and Āstika schools.  Bhartṛhari refers to both views, Nityatva and Kṛtakatva, and argues: nityatve kṛtakatve vā teṣām ādir na vidyate.  It is not only the Buddhists who called the Ṛṣis as the authors of the Mantras (mantānaṃ kattāro isayo, in Tevijja-Sutta), but the same expression appears in Kālidāsa: apy agraṇīr mantrakṛtām ṛṣīṇām ...  So, we have a long history of contestation on this issue before we reach the modern period.  With best regards,

Madhav Deshpande

Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

[Nagaraj Paturi]

> Even among the Āstika schools, the Nyāya-Vaiśeṣikas argued for Pauruṣeyatva of the Vedas, with the Puruṣa being Īśvara,

 

----- Is the word "'paurusheyatava' of the Vedas" used by Naiyayikas or is this an inference drawn from the theory of Is'vara's role in S'abda -artha sambandha?

 

> a position not acceptable to the Mīmāṃsakas.

 

-------- Is the position that the Vedas are from Is'vara not acceptable to Mimamsakas?

 

> Bhartṛhari refers to both views, Nityatva and Kṛtakatva, and argues: nityatve kṛtakatve vā teṣām ādir na vidyate

 

------ Is this about s'abdas or the Vedas

 

Is the theory of Rishi-role (as mantradrashTas) in the Vedas incompatible with the theory of apaurushEyatva of the Vedas?

 

To my understanding these two views are not mutually incompatible.

 

All aastikas believe in the role of Rishis as mantradrashTas of the different mantras of the Vedas.

 

Kalidasa's mantrakṛtām ṛṣīṇām needs to be viewed from this perspective only.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

From Bhartihari, relevant line is:

 

अनादिम् अव्यवच्छिन्नां श्रुतिम् आहुर् अकर्तृकाम् /

[Nagaraj Paturi]

1. Naiyaayika view does not support 'paurushEyatva' in the sense of human authorship including rishi-authorship of the Vedas.

 

2. 'Isvarakrita ' in fact is in contradiction with or in opposition to human authorship including rishi-authorship. (Interesting anology in Marxist theory is -- abolishing individual property is achieved through the nationalization or government taking over  of all means of production and distribution. Isvara is the 'non-individual' entity  )

 

3. Everyone who calls the Vedas the s'ruti is in opposition to  'paurushEyatva' in the sense of human authorship including rishi-authorship of the Vedas.

   

[Dr.S.R.Leela(MLC)]

In this context , I request the scholars to discuss the term matrubhasha also. My studies point towards something like this---mathrubhasha is an alien concept to Bharat.it is imported from  English, mother tounge.The most important ancient treatise on theatre involving dance ,music, languages and other aspects , the Natya shastra, does not mention matrubhasha , despite giving names of several samudaya bhashas.

Leela S R

Sent from my iPad

[Malti Auckle]

Dear respected scholars,

I thank you for taking up this issue.  Members of the Indian diaspora are still linked with their past and so have still involved themselves in the study of Sanskrit and have been facing the problem determining the source of Indian languages and we are also not convinced about the fact that Sanskrit is THE FIRST LANGUAGE or among the first languages .

 I have a humble request to respected administrator.

 Sir, is there the possibility to collect all the threads of this eye opening discussion under one article with references? This will help us who do not have the opportunity to attend workshops and seminars regarding this burning issue. It will help us enormously. We can learn the right thing. List of books of references already existing will be of great help

Thank you.

Malti

 

Mrs. Malti AUCKLE

Head Department of Sanskrit

Senior Lecturer in Sanskrit

School of Indological Studies

Mahatma Gandhi Institute

Moka

Mauritius.

---

From: 'Dr.S.R.Leela(MLC)' via भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
To: "bvpar...@googlegroups.com" <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 7, 2015 1:49 PM

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Vidushee Malti Auckle,

 

You said:

 

"we are also not convinced about the fact that Sanskrit is THE FIRST LANGUAGE or among the first languages"

 

The word 'first language' has a specific connotation in linguistics.

 

It is contrasted with 'second language'

 

In this sense, the word 'first language' is used to mean 'native tongue' of a speaker.

 

It appears that you are using the word in the sense of origin language. Perhaps you want to say , "we are also not convinced about the fact that Sanskrit is THE ORIGIN LANGUAGE or among the origin languages" (of all Indian languages).