causative in Sanskrit

[jay saha]

Respected Scholars,

Thank u very much for your suggestions and answers. The two maxims regarding the cur- class are interesting indeed.

as per as the relation between causative and passive is concerned please notice the following case:

My hair is cut (passive)

I had my hair cut (causative) 

Thus causative verbs can be similar in meaning to passives

The cases of अन्तर्भावियण्यर्थः(where causative sense is present without form) is interesting. Can you kindly explain the argument behind such notion with an example?

A reason for the pan-Indian feature of morphological causativity can be found in its Sanskrit origin. In early IE languages causative suffix is usually  present but this suffix eventually got lost in many branches of the IE language tree.

Thank you for your learned suggestions and comments. 

yours sincerely

 Jay       

--
JAY SAHA

Research Student

Special Centre for Sanskrit Studies

Jawaharlal Nehru University

N.Delhi-110067

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

<My hair is cut (passive)I had my hair cut (causative)> This is causing unnecessary complication. "I dressed my hair" too may be transformed into "I got my hair dressed". "I copied the manuscript in two days" "It took me two days to copy the manuscript"and "I got the manuscript copied in two days" may express the same event. Moreover the nature of the apparent connection will be clear from a comparison of "I made him copy it" "I got it copied by him". The former example has got no 'passive' form in it.  Moreover, just the existence of a past participle does not mean passivity in relation to the finite verb. As already pointed out verbs governing two accusatives may have such apparent passives in Sanskrit too. The passivity's relation will become apparent from below. Cf., śiṣyaḥ praśiṣyaṃ vedaṃ pāṭhayati guruḥ śiṣyeṇa praśiṣyaṃ vedaṃ pāṭhayati   Note the vedam. Similarly the 'dressed' is passive in relation to the barber who is the agent of dressing itself but not to "I got". To 'my getting' it is just a participle, an adjective. Best DB  --- On Wed, 23/3/11, jay saha <jayviv...@gmail.com> wrote:

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

[Sampath Kannan]

Rarely do we come across Sanskrit-like phenomenon in Causatives in English. Example : Verb pure and simple : The tree falls.                   Causative : He fells the tree. KSKannan --- On Thu, 3/24/11, Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattach...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

Quite true! English shed off its inflexions in its very stages that are visible in Sanskrit. The analytical addition of helps will hardly be found in Dravidic or Sanskrit. Not even in NIA languages, as far as my knowledge goes. Thai is why, it has been pointed out by some correspondent, judging things from a formal analysis of English does not help. One may also note the special sense of ' to make' in say, 'he made him do it' This 'made' means prairayat not akarot. Best DB --- On Thu, 24/3/11, Sampath Kannan <ks_k...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[jay saha]

 Respected DB

my opinion about your observation is : 

I dressed my hair and I got my hair dressed are non transformable to each other. while  in the former there is no scope of accommodating an extra agent (surfaces usually in the by construction) in the later there is. this difference clearly comes out in the example of hair cutting. I cut my hair and I got my hair cut is non transferable. As per as make is concerned, make works quite differently than the other two verbs have and get while all the three are causative verbs. While make needs somebody to do something the other two verbs may or may not need. I made him to copy it can not be said otherwise as I made it copied  (absurd) , but I had it copied is correct. It is this kind of constructions where causative meets passive.

2011/3/24 Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattach...@yahoo.com>

[S P Narang]

Regards, About the curadigana, a number of types of roots are classified including with or without Nic or both. Cur itself denotes: steals or gets stealed through others.(causative) semantically in both the cases, the beneficiary is a person who steals or gets it steal through others. Originally in Wergeld system, the gold belonged to hero. The recovered items were not given to the owner but to the person who recovered it. The money went to the house of Cauroddharan.ika = caudhuri and not to the master. This principle may apply to a few roots of Curadi. But grammatically it is n.ic suffix which makes this category. It was not based on the meaning: simple or causative. A few roots in aadhRs.aadvaa may be considered on this principle. A number of considerations are available for the classification of this group. In the case of jnaapayati: jnaa is to know but jnaapayati: to express: may be through throat to others. The same expression is found in Panjabi: jaapanaa ( local: if you utter, you will express your intention: of course, with your mouth). But all the roots with puk do not express the same. In Sanskrit, they have different meanings and not necessarily the causative or passive. Various fields for Sanskrit passive and causative are to be reconsidered. spnarang

---

From: jay saha <jayviv...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, March 24, 2011 1:36:41 AM

Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} causative in Sanskrit

[hnbhat B.R.]

Thanks for all the efforts to clarify the point raised/posed by Jay Viveka.

The simple fact that all the transitive verbs will have their passive form in turn, according to the intention of the speaker. It is not specific to causative, desiderative, intensive, or so any derived verbal stems. It is inherent in the simple verb itself whether it is transitive or intransitive.  The aspects related to causative form are discussed in its proper place with reference to Nic suffix, which one agent is to be indicated by the verb in active or passive form.

Just I was observing the postings by Jay in different heads and replies by scholars of this forum. Anyway, a guide is there to guide him, for his research, I hope as usual in many departments. 

With best regards

--
Dr. Hari Narayana Bhat B.R.
EFEO,
PONDICHERRY

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

I did not follow your argument on passivity. The word is applied in the context of a sentence - a structured thing. At least when any analogy with karmavaacya is made the sentence context cannot be avoided. Now, in English in the passive voice the word with the object-role becomes the subject (I do not mean agent) as opposed to predicate. This is called prahamaantataa. This is the ewssence of karmavaacya expression. But where is the subjectivity of the object-role in I got it done. The word done is a participle, ie an adjective with object role. It seems that your concept of passivity is not analogous to Sanskrit karmavaacyataa. As I find it from your words any participle of a transitive verb is thought to have a passivity irrespective of context. But in Sanskrit the passivity is dependent on the subject position of the karman (object role). For example,  "It was done by him' idam tena krtam is a passive sentence. The said criterion is fulfilled here. But that is lacking in I got it done. Here done-by-him is a whole consisting of analysed immediate constituents that itself is the object of 'to have'  . So in the sentence level there is no passivity. When you analyse the semantic unit done-by-him, passivity may be established. But that sentence is different from the sentence in which the unit occurs. Best DB

[hnbhat B.R.]

2011/3/25 Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattach...@yahoo.com>

Thank you Sir for your elaborate exposition. Just I had replied in another thread, started by him and was expecting you to reply this argument by him.

Very nicely said. I had just mentioned of the relativeness of karma, in the case of transitive verbs  with the Causative formation in. Gati-buddhi - etc. and Causative formation also will have passive form. It is inherent in the transitive verb, that it can be used in passive structure. In Sanskrit, even intransitive verbs also can have passive structure, which makes the difference from the English concept of the voice. This is my personal view for which I can cite any external biblical reference to English structure.

With regards

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

It appears that Dr.Bhat's own addition to the mail is missing in his reply. Perhaps a yahoo freak. Best DB --- On Fri, 25/3/11, hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

[jay saha]

Respected teachers, 

I am more than delightful for getting so many enlightening responses for my queries. It is not even proper on the part of a sishya to say thanks to her acharyas. So I simply say I am extremely gratified.

Here are some more observations waiting for your consideration:   

The information posted regarding curadi class is very interesting. Let us try to do  without the curadi classified for us. on that case what be the criterion of deciding weather the Nyanta form faithfully expresses the causative sense? In other words what were the factors that worked in constructing curadi class.  If it is 'use' then the question comes why some causative verbs shed off its causative sense and behaves as an absolute non causative.  Prof. Narag Sir has indicated that there may be an historical process. I would like to draw your attention on the following fact:

many scholars (Whitney for example) expresses the possibility of the fact that the roots may have some denominative aspect in it. He considers some of the verb forms for example cintayati as half denominative and half causative. Thus the meaning of the verb from is 'put a thought' rather than 'he thinks'. So, this may be one more criterion.

I would like to have your opinion.

NB. Prof. Narang Sir  emphasises on the need to revisit the areas of causative and passives in Sanskrit grammar. Could you please specify what basically i need to do for this?   

2011/3/25 S P Narang <spna...@yahoo.com>

[Sampath Kannan]

There are grammarians in Sanskrit who accord no place for curAdi-gaNa. They manage with only nine. KSKannan

--- On Fri, 3/25/11, jay saha <jayviv...@gmail.com> wrote:

[jay saha]

Please tell me who are those grammarians or which school of grammar works without the curadigana as this will be helpful in understanding the nature of the roots of the class.

2011/3/25 Sampath Kannan <ks_k...@yahoo.com>

[Sampath Kannan]

kAs'akRtsna and hema, for example, have only nine conjugations. No curAdi.

[jay saha]

Thank u very much Sir. 

2011/3/25 Sampath Kannan <ks_k...@yahoo.com>

[subrahmanyam korada]

namo vidvadbhyah

The 'n.ic' is enumerated among SanAdi , so 'sanAdyantA dhAtava.h' (3-1-32) .

It is a Vr.tti and therefore falls under the AdhikAra - 'samartha.h padavidhi.h' (2-1-1) .

SApeks.tve'pi gamakatvAt samAsa.h - applies in certain cases --

mun.d.ayati mAn.avakam -- mun.d.mis'ra...(3-1-20) . Patanjali discusses under 'supa Atmana.h kyac'(3-1-8) - vr.ttipaks.a and avr.ttipaks.a .

N.ic to be discussed in Prakara.nas -- curAdi, n.ic ,  kr.t , parasmaipada , Atmanepada , karmakartr. , nAmadhAtu , bhAvakarmatin' . 

AntarbhAvitan.yartha.h -- rAjani yudhi kr.n~a.h (3-2-95,kr.danta) ,
samjn~AyAm bhr.tR.vr.jidhArisahitapidama.h (3-2-46) - (s'amu ) damu = upas'amane is sakarmaka, s'a'mu is akarmaka -according to MAdhavIyadhAtuvr.tti - then how upas'amane ? 'n.yante dras.t.vya.h' .
NyAsa and Haradatta say 'damu' is 'akarmaka'  and here (arindama.h) it is 'antarbhAvitan.yartha.h .

In VedAnta (s'amadamAdisAdhanasampat - Jijn~AsA - S'AmkarabhAs.yam) 's'ama' is antarindriyanigraha and 'dama' is bahirindriyanigraha . So one shoud accept that both are 'antarbhA..' .

'DamayantI kamanIyatAmadam' (apsarasAm , Nais.adham - 2) - here 'damu' undergoes  changes - parasmaipada-Atmanepada etc. .

According to BhAs.yam , PradIpa and Udyota under bhUvAdayo dhAtava.h (1-3-1) 'bahulametannidars'anam'(end of CurAdi - KaumudI) is not Ars.am .

It is surmised that the real dhAtupat.ha has got some missings . Here is Ks.IrasvAmy --

pAt.he 'rthe cAgamabhrams'At  mahatAmapi mohata.h I
na vidma.h kim jahImo'tra kimupAdadmahe vayam II

NAges'a in Br.hacchabdendus'ekhara (CurAdi) offers some roots which are common .

In the same work , under 'hetumati ca' (3-1-26) he offers the following useful remarks --

'sarve caite vis'es.A.h prakaran.AdinA gamyA.h , na tattadrUpen. vacyA.h , gauravAt mAnAbhAvAcca .
sarvAnugatam pravartanAsAmAnyam n.ico'rtha.h , sa ca vAcya eva , na tu dyotya.h ...'

'SamgrAma' - is the only dhAtu with upasarga . This and many other things are discussed in VAkyapadIyam (Vr.ttisamuddes'a of PadakAn.d.a and VAkyakAn.d.a)  as well as Man~jUs.A .

dhanyo'smi






+++++

2011/3/25 jay saha <jayviv...@gmail.com>

--
Prof.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit,
CALTS,
University of Hyderabad 500046
Ph:09866110741(R),91-40-23010741,040-23133660(O)

[Sampath Kannan]

Respected Sir, In place of the following reading, viz.

pAt.he 'rthe cAgamabhrams'At  mahatAmapi mohata.h I na vidma.h kim jahImo'tra kimupAdadmahe vayam II

the reading that I have come across is, pAThe'rthe cAgamabhraMs'An-     mahatAmapi mohataH / na vidmaH kiM nu jahimaH     kiM vAtrAdadhmahe vayam ? // KSKannan Bangalore --- On Sat, 3/26/11, subrahmanyam korada <kora...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Madhav M. Deshpande]

Hello Jay,

As Professor Korada has aptly pointed out, there is great uncertainty
about our knowledge of the exact contents of the Dhātupāṭha as known
to Pāṇini, and that this is already acknowledged by authorities like
Kṣīrasvāmī and Nāgeśa. Also consult "The Sanskrit Dhatupathas: A
critical study (Deccan College dissertation series)" by my late
teacher Professor Gajanana Balkrsna Palsule. This work and his
concordance of Sanskrit Dhātupāṭhas is invaluable in making us aware
of the variability in these lists. Kāśakṛtsna's Dhātupāṭha, with a
Kannada commentary of Channavirakavi (rendered into Sanskrit by
Yudhishthira Mimamsaka) is probably the earliest post-Pāṇinian
alternative source available to us. In many instances, Kāśakṛtsna
differs from Pāṇini (assuming we actually know the shape and form of
Pāṇini's Dhātupāṭha).

Madhav Deshpande
Professor of Sanskrit and Linguistics
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

On 26 Mar, 09:50, Sampath Kannan <ks_kan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Respected Sir,
>
> In place of the following reading, viz.
>
> pAt.he 'rthe cAgamabhrams'At  mahatAmapi mohata.h I
> na vidma.h kim jahImo'tra kimupAdadmahe vayam II
>
> the reading that I have come across is,
>
> pAThe'rthe cAgamabhraMs'An-
>     mahatAmapi mohataH /
> na vidmaH kiM nu jahimaH
>     kiM vAtrAdadhmahe vayam ? //
>
> KSKannan
> Bangalore
>

> --- On Sat, 3/26/11, subrahmanyam korada <korad...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 2011/3/25 jay saha <jayvivekan...@gmail.com>

>
> Please tell me who are those grammarians or which school of grammar works without the curadigana as this will be helpful in understanding the nature of the roots of the class.
>

> 2011/3/25 Sampath Kannan <ks_kan...@yahoo.com>

>
> There are grammarians in Sanskrit who accord no place for curAdi-gaNa. They manage with only nine.
>
> KSKannan
>

> --- On Fri, 3/25/11, jay saha <jayvivekan...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> From: jay saha <jayvivekan...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} causative in Sanskrit
> To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
>
> Date: Friday, March 25, 2011, 2:43 PM
>
> Respected teachers, I am more than delightful for getting so many enlightening responses for my queries. It is not even proper on the part of a sishya to say thanks to her acharyas. So I simply say I am extremely gratified.
>
> Here are some more observations waiting for your consideration:   
> The information posted regarding curadi class is very interesting. Let us try to do  without the curadi classified for us. on that case what be the criterion of deciding weather the Nyanta form faithfully expresses the causative sense? In other words what were the factors that worked in constructing curadi class.  If it is 'use' then the question comes why some causative verbs shed off its causative sense and behaves as an absolute non causative.  Prof. Narag Sir has indicated that there may be an historical process. I would like to draw your attention on the following fact:
>
> many scholars (Whitney for example) expresses the possibility of the fact that the roots may have some denominative aspect in it. He considers some of the verb forms for example cintayati as half denominative and half causative. Thus the meaning of the verb from is 'put a thought' rather than 'he thinks'. So, this may be one more criterion.
>
> I would like to have your opinion.
> NB. Prof. Narang Sir  emphasises on the need to revisit the areas of causative and passives in Sanskrit grammar. Could you please specify what basically i need to do for this?   
>

> 2011/3/25 S P Narang <spnar...@yahoo.com>

>
> Regards, About the curadigana, a number of types of roots are classified including with or without Nic or both. Cur itself denotes: steals or gets stealed through others.(causative) semantically in both the cases, the beneficiary is a person who steals or gets it steal through others. Originally in Wergeld system, the gold belonged to hero. The recovered items were not given to the owner but to the person who recovered it. The money went to the house of Cauroddharan.ika = caudhuri and not to the master. This principle may apply to a few roots of Curadi. But grammatically it is n.ic suffix which makes this category. It was not based on the meaning: simple or causative. A few roots in aadhRs.aadvaa may be considered on this principle. A number of considerations are available for the classification of
>  this group. In the case of jnaapayati: jnaa is to know but jnaapayati: to express: may be through throat to others. The same expression is found in Panjabi: jaapanaa ( local: if you utter, you will express your intention: of course, with your mouth). But all the roots with puk do not express the same. In Sanskrit, they have different meanings and not necessarily the causative or passive. Various fields for Sanskrit passive and causative are to be reconsidered. spnarang
>

> From: jay saha <jayvivekan...@gmail.com>
>
> To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Thu, March 24, 2011 1:36:41 AM
>
> Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} causative in Sanskrit
>

> Respected Scholars,Thank u very much for your suggestions and answers. The two maxims regarding the cur- class are interesting indeed.

> as per as the relation between causative and passive is concerned please notice the following case:
>

> My hair is cut (passive)I had my hair cut (causative) Thus causative verbs can be similar in meaning to passives

> ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा...
>
> read more »

[Sampath Kannan]

Sir, In fact, even the half-verse (latter half) I had cited earlier is from the verses of ks"IrasvAmin, prefatory to his treatment of the roots of the X Conjugation, (and immediately precedes the verse just discussed). The full verse is : vyAkhyAteyaM navagaNI     kus'akAs'AvalambanAt / curAdir adhunArabdho     yatra bhagnA mahArathAH // KSKannan Bangalore

--- On Sat, 3/26/11, Sampath Kannan <ks_k...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Shrivathsa B]

was very happy to find Shri Palsule's book quoted by Shri Deshpande here:
http://www.dli.ernet.in/scripts/FullindexDefault.htm?path1=/rawdataupload/upload/0098/720&first=1&last=212&barcode=5990010098720

2011/3/26 Madhav M. Deshpande <mmd...@umich.edu>

[subrahmanyam korada]

namo vidvabhyah

Thankful to Prof Deshpande and Prof Kannan . I shall get Sri Palsule's book .

Dear Sri Kannan
I found the quoted verse of Ks.IrasvAmy in Br.hacchabdendusekhara and also in Tattvabodhinee .Your information is very useful for me .

N.ijanta is a difficult but nice PrakriyA and in fact I cut short my posting as it may be proper that we may answer specific questions , if any , instead of  dumping .

dhanyo'smi

2011/3/26 Shrivathsa B <shrivath...@gmail.com>

--

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

--

[jay saha]

Pranamami guravah,

The posts are full of resources. Prof. Korada Sir’s comments are very enlightening.

The heads that he has counted under which one has to search for the functions of Nic are very interesting and assures me that my thinking is going in right direction. One thing that interests is most of the heads are basically deal with different aspects of transitivity. Causativity is intrinsically related with this aspect. Even the much acclaimed sutra ‘Gatibuddhi &c’ also proclaims this fact. Gatyarthak and buddharthak roots are also basically intransitive. Do you think so?

As per as Namadhatus are concerned their relation with causativity is quite a matter of investigation. Semantically a Nama which do not express action on its own needs an external ‘cause’ to make it a bhava or expressive of action. Am I right?

Madhaviya Dhatuvrtti exclusively talks about Nijanta namadhataah.

The case of AntarbhAvitan.yartha.h as it is explained by Prof. Korada is again very interesting and it seems that it too suggests to the transitivity factor. Many many thanks to him for giving such a nice explanation with great ease.

Sir, you will be happy to hair that I have already collected the work of "The Sanskrit Dhatupathas: A critical study of Professor Gajanana Balkrsna Palsule and reading it.

Yours sincerely

Jay

(I am not he but she, the confusion often arises because of my name )

2011/3/26 subrahmanyam korada <kora...@gmail.com>

--

[subrahmanyam korada]

namo vidvadbhyah

First of all it is better to understand as to what is the  yardstick to decide whether a dhAtu is sakarmaka
or akarmaka . Here is Hari - 88,89, SAdhanasamuddes'a , PadakAn.d.a , VAkyapadIyam --

dhAtorarthAntare vr.tte.h dhAtvrthenopasamgrahAt I
prasiddheravivaks.Ata.h karman.o'karmikA kriyA II

1.dhAto.h arthAntare vr.tti.h - 'bhAram vahati' - sakarmaka , 'nadI vahati -akarmaka
2.dhAtvarthena upasamgrahAt(karman.a.h) - caitra.h jIvati - here 'jIvati' has got  'prAnadhAran.am'  within .
3.prasiddhe.h - vars.ati - 'udakam' need not be used .
4.karman.a.h avivaks.Ata.h - na sams'r.n.ute -- hitAt hitam na sams'r.n.ute .

See MahAbhAs.yam  under 'supa Atmana.h kyac' (3-1-8) .

NAges'a in Atmanepadaprakaran.a of Laghus'abdendus'ekhara discusses this aspect and says, quoting Kaiyata in TAparasUtra , that 'prasiddhe.h' is not said in BhAs.yam and in certain cases there can be 'megho jalam vars.ati'  etc. usage . The word 'jalam' is not used because just like in the case of 'pravis'a pin.d.Im' there is 'jhatityupasthiti' and no problem in Anvayabodha . Simply by that we cannot call it 'akarmaka' .

bhedA ya ete catvAra.h sAmAnyena pradars'itA.h I
te nimittAdibhedena bhidyante bahudhA puna.h Ii

1.due to Upasarga - grAmam carati - sakarmaka , dhUma uccarati - akarmaka .
2.parasmaipada is sakamaka - ghat.am jAnAti (he is knowing the pot)
   Atmanepada is akamaka - sarpis.A jAnIte (proceding/behaving taking ghee as the device )

The word ' akarmakAn.Am' in 'gatibuddhi'. means - 'avivaks.itakarman.Am'  also . BhAs.yakAra  and Kaiyat.a agreed that in cases like 'kr.tapUrvI kat.am' kta etc (in BhAva) are there on 'avivaks.itakarmakA.h'.

Kaiyat.a under 'n.eran.au'  offeres an example - lAvayati kedAram devadatta.h - on 'nivr.ttapres.an.At dhAto.h' .

One has to sit down and check as to whether a dhAtu  with gatyartha/buddhyarhta is sakarmaka /akarmaka .

NAmadhAtus are formed on Subantas by adding SanAdi as nAmas cannot denote action .

It should be pran.amAmi he gurava.h or pran.amAmi gurUn .

dhanyo'smi

2011/3/27 jay saha <jayviv...@gmail.com>

[jay saha]

Thank you very much Sir.  From the discussion of Vakyapadiya on transitivity it is very clear that a dhatu cannot be classified in sakarmaka or akarmaka in a rigid sense. Rather we should talk about sakarmaka or akarmaka use of a dhatu as this is now the norm in modern linguistics.   

  

 I think all the conditions of regarding a dhatu sakarmaka or akarmaka largely maintain this sublime rule that weather the action and the result falls upon the same person/object or not.     

Sir, as  you have showed in the earlier post that the dhatu 'damu' is regarded akarmaka. Will you please explain how is it? because the root has a need of an object intrinsically i,e. subduing naturally needs someone or something to be subdued. then how can it be akarmaka? Please explain the logic.

     

2011/3/27 subrahmanyam korada <kora...@gmail.com>

[subrahmanyam korada]

Namo vidvadbhyah

 

Prayogas’aran.am VyAkaran.am  , siddhe s’abdArthasambandhe lokata.h arthaprayukte s’abdaprayoge s’Astren.a dharmaniyama.h (KAtyA)

indriyAn.Am  svavis.ayes.vanAdiryogyatA  yathA  I

anAdirarthai.h   s’abdAnAm  sambandho yogyatA tathA II (Sambandhasamuddes’a. Pada, VAkyapadI).

There have been  S’abdas ,   since time immemorial  , in both  S’is.t.aloka  and Veda and PAn.ini  wants to analyze the same .

Damu = upas’ame  -- sakarmaka and akarmaka

S’amu = upas’ame  --  akarmaka

S’amAmas..t.AnAm  dIrgha.h  s’yani (7-3-74) -  s’amu  etc   eight  DhAtus are earmarked  as a group because in Kr.danta  there will be ‘ghinun.’-pratyaya for these eight only  - s’amityas.t.Abhyo ghinun.(3-2-141) -  s’amI , damI … .

When the meaning is the same , i. upas’ama , then why not  put both of them  side by side  -- s’amu damu  = upas’ame  ?

Because  s’amu is akrmaka and damu is sakarmaka .

 AkarmakadhAtu  becomes  ‘sakarmaka’ if  ‘n.ic’ is added  .

If  ‘hetuman.n.ic’ is added on S’amu  , it becomes  sakarmaka   --  dAmyati = s’amayati .

Upas’ama.h --  s’ama  +  n.ic  + ghan~  ( mitAm  hrasva.h 6-4-62, mitAm upadhAyA hrasva.h  n.au , nodAttopades’asya  mAntasyAnAcame.h  7-3-34 , Vr.ddhinis.edha.h) – upas’ama.h .

Damayati – damayate –

anudAtta n’ita  atmanepadam (1-3-12) , svaritan~ita.h kartrabhiprAye kriyAphale (1-3-72) , s’es.A t  kartari  parasmaipadam (1-3-78)

an.au  akarmakAt cittavatkartr.kAt (1-3-88)  --    n.yanta , which is  an.au  akarmaka and cittavatkartr.ka , becomes  Parasmaipadam  -- so   n.yanta  damu  gets  Parasmaipada .

Na  pA – dami – An’yama – An’yasa – parimuha – ruci-nuti – vada – vasa.h (1-3-89) – ebhyo n.yantebhya.h  Parasmaipadam  na   - dami  does not get Parasmaipadam  , sanctioned by earlier SUtra .

Therefore , damayate  only  .  Then  how is the S’rIhars.aprayoga  (Nais.adha – 2 ) – damayantI  kamanIyatAmadam , i. e. Parasmaipadam ( akarmaka and  cittavatkartr.ka  + n.yanta)  --

akartrabhiprAye  Parasmaipadam  bhavatyeva  .

Cittavat  = prAn.I,  i.e. which has got  ‘caitanyam ‘ .

‘Sarvam  cetanAvat’ (S’ruti) -  is  in  VedAnta .  Patanjali in Sanprakaran.a (kUlam pipatis.ati)  takes  this sentence .  MImAmsA  (AdhyAya 1) also  discusses this point  . In BrahmakAn.d.a  Hari  discusses  this – caitanyam  sarvajantus.u ,  dr.s.yate  kAs.th.kud.yavat  etc.  .

It is  suggested  that  one should learn  the earlier enumerated  Prakaran.as  with a  Guru , who has got very good  command  upon PAn.ini  and  VAkyapramAn.as’Astras also . N.ijanta  is  full of  semantics and prakriyA .

Do not compare  with concepts of  Modern Linguistics  . It may be taken as a separate  case .

The  sakarmaka, akarmaka , Atmanepada , Parasmaipada  etc. are intertwined  . It requires a lot of hard work and depends on memory .

Purity of  mind , vAk, body and  clothes adds  to knowledge  -- pavitratvam  hi sarasvatyA.h  samvananam  Amananti  (Rajas’ekhara  in  KAvyamImAmsA ) .

dhanyo’smi

 

 

2011/3/29 jay saha <jayviv...@gmail.com>

[murali krishna]

How many Sanskrit Directories are there in india? what are the aims of this directories? and how many Sanskrit Academies are in India? What are the aims and works of this?  please give me the information and details if any one of the Parishad Scholars know.

[jay saha]

Thank you very much Sir. I am highly benefited from your scholarly explanations and shall always remain grateful. 

your sincerely 

Jay  

2011/3/31 subrahmanyam korada <kora...@gmail.com>