Evolution and decadence of laukik sanskrit

[Achyut Karve]

"Dear Ramkrishnanji,

You have addressed the problematic of the origin of Sanskrit in a very comprehensive manner.

If I am not wrong

"For there to exist a standardized form of the language, there should be multiple non-standard forms that are in use. The very existence of Pāṇini's grammatical standard is itself the most potent proof of there having been multiple dialects of spoken sanskrit in the late-vedic period.​"

the above passage means that till the time of Panini there was a process of crystallization taking place in the usage of Sanskrit which Panini has addressed through his Ashtadhyayi. Is it also true that in the period immediately after Panini Sanskrit experienced a process of decadence which is evident in the later commentaries which prefer to differ from the views of Panini.

Such type of crystallization and decadence is also to be seen in the arts where no sooner a particular art form reaches its zenith it begins to degenerates.

This has also happened with the tabla of which I am a student.

With regards,
Achyut Karve."

My above response to a discussion on the thread Native Sanskrit a week back has not been dwelt on any further by the forum.

The question is whether Katyayana and Patanjali are considered to be of the evolutionary stage or of the decadent stage? Or do academicians think that laukik sanskrit has at yet not peaked?

[Ramakrishnan]

Dear Achyut Karve ji,

I apologise for answering this late, I do not think Pāṇini's time or the 1000 years that followed him shows any sign of decadence as far as sanskrit speech and/or literature is concerned.

In fact it shows the exact opposite i.e. that period (even down till the 10th century) is commonly agreed to be the golden period of sanskrit literature.

The period of decadence (comparatively) set in during the last 1000 years i.e. sometime between the 10th and 20th centuries CE. Again this is only comparative.

I dont see based on what evidence exactly you think that decadence set in immediately after Pāṇini's time. 

I would call the period immediately following Pāṇini a period of considerable literary renaissance.

Regards,

Ramakrishnan

--
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.

[S. L. Abhyankar]

श्रीमन् रामकृष्णन्-महोदय !

I also disagree with Karveji's observation that structuring of Sanskrit grammar by Panini led to decadence of लौकिक Sanskrit. सिद्धान्तशिरोमणी of भास्कराचार्य was of 12th century. If सिद्धान्तशिरोमणी was about गणितम्, he also composed तत्त्वकौस्तुभ on ब्रह्मसूत्र-s. श्रीमच्छङ्कराचार्य's compositions are also of period 1300 years after Panini. So how can any one say that from 500 BC to 12th century AD the language suffered decadence ? Sanskrit of भास्कराचार्य and श्रीमच्छङ्कराचार्य' was nothing but लौकिक. The debate between मण्डणमिश्र and श्रीमच्छङ्कराचार्य was certainly लौकिक संस्कृत. 

If लौकिक संस्कृत survived for 1300 / 1600 years after Panini, how can any one dare to blame Panini that his structuring the grammar led to decadence ? Absolutely abhor-able ! 

The language suffered decadence only during British Raj or maybe also during Mugfhal dynasty and during times of so many invaders before Babar.  

[Nagaraj Paturi]

>The language suffered decadence only during British Raj or maybe also during Mugfhal dynasty and during times of so many invaders before Babar.  

----- What is this 'decadence' being discussed here?

What are the features being characterised as 'decadence' here?

Prof. Sheldon Pollock characterised certain features as "death" of Sanskrit. 

"The two centuries before European colonialism decisively established itself in the subcontinent

around 1750 constitute one of the most innovative epochs of Sanskrit

systematic thought (in language analysis, logic, hermeneutics, moral-legal philosophy,

and the rest). Thinkers produced new formulations of old problems, in

entirely new discursive idioms, in what were often new scholarly genres employing

often a new historicist framework; some even called themselves (or,

more often, their enemies) “the new” scholars (navya). Concurrently with the

spread of European power, however, this dynamism diminished so much that by

1800, the capacity of Sanskrit thought to make history had vanished. The production

of moral-legal texts, for example, which was so extensive throughout

the seventeenth century, ceased entirely, and in core disciplines like hermeneutics

or literary theory no significant scholarship—that is, significant in the eyes

of the tradition itself—was again to be written. How to account for this momentous

rupture is a complex question, and one of great importance for history—

the history of science, colonialism, modernity—and for social theory"

Are you by any chance, calling the same or similar features as 'decadence'?

Full article here:

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pollock/sks/papers/death_of_sanskrit.pdf

link to post :

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bvparishat/bsFTCaZgWSY/TSsWHCl9rBsJ

full thread:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/samskrita/PR2bj1VMfvw/TSsWHCl9rBsJ;context-place=searchin/bvparishat/Pollock$20death$20of$20Sanskrit$20usha$20sanka%7Csort:date

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://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/bvparishat/40uRpn_uHqc/0DjWaDZf12QJ;context-place=searchin/bvparishat/1800-1950%7Csort:date

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/bvparishat/wfy7f5BbD4g/TA2buJ9_8Z8J;context-place=msg/bvparishat/40uRpn_uHqc/0DjWaDZf12QJ

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/bvparishat/B6XhZLvPy5Y/oz4VRZ1Ny8YJ;context-place=msg/bvparishat/wfy7f5BbD4g/TA2buJ9_8Z8J

[S. L. Abhyankar]

नमस्ते श्रीमन् नागराज-महोदय !

From what I have understood, it has been argument of Achyut Karveji, not mine, that लौकिक Sanskrit suffered decadence due to the (rigid) structuring of grammar by Panini. According to him, (rigid) structuring of grammar caused decadence of free-wheeling Sanskrit speech, i.e. संस्कृत being language of the masses, which he terms as लौकिक संस्कृत. 

Your mention of ".. two centuries before European colonialism established itself in the subcontinent ..." is in tune with my mention of भास्कराचार्य, मण्डणमिश्र and श्रीमच्छङ्कराचार्य et al. 

[Ramakrishnan]

Śrī Abhayankar ji,

I think by 'decadence', he means the period when Sanskrit lost its position as the prime language of speech and/or literature and was clearly replaced by another language or languages i.e. when the majority of Indo-Aryan speakers could no longer identify their own spoken dialect with the language of the Ashtādhyāyī.

I think this happened sometime between the 10th and the 15th centuries of the current era.

Regards,

Ramakrishnan

--

[Nagaraj Paturi]

>Your mention of ".. two centuries before European colonialism established itself in the subcontinent ..." is in tune with my mention of भास्कराचार्य, मण्डणमिश्र and श्रीमच्छङ्कराचार्य et al. 

".. two centuries before European colonialism established itself in the subcontinent ..." are not my words, they are the words of Prof. Sheldon Pollock as part of his "Death of Sanskrit" thesis with which I disagreed and the threads to which I posted links are part of my effort to provide counter examples to his thesis. 

There were rejoinders to "Death of Sanskrit" thesis by other western academicians like Prof. Hannender:

https://www.uni-marburg.de/fb10/iksl/indologie/fachgebiet/mitarbeiter/hanneder/downloads/downloads-artikel/jh-a08-deathsanskrit.pdf

Sri Karveji's argument that post-Paniniyan grammarians had to differ with Panini in order to account for the 'decadent' changes in Sanskrit is naive.

There are scholarly publications on why the authors of vritti, vaartika, bhaashya etc. had to make expressions that appeared to differ with Panini. 

--

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.

[S. L. Abhyankar]

नमस्ते श्रीमन् रामकृष्णन्-महोदय !

My contention is that a dialect which emerges with quite some local flavor, definitely differs from the original. Logically then, such dialects do not have to have the same name as of the original. If more and more of the population would speak such native tongues, the original will get relegated. This keeps happening all over the world all the time. How many people in Europe as of today speak Greek or Latin or Hebrew ? 

I would like to contend that when a dialect differs too much from the original, it should become known by a name different from the original. So if लौकिकं संस्कृतम् is different from original, it should no more be called as any type of संस्कृतम्. By that logic लौकिकं संस्कृतम् is itself a malafide phrase. Almost all Indian languages have great influence of Sanskrit. Yet they all have their own names. None of them is लौकिक संस्कृत. 

I think we are indulging in all this debate, only because of the bad phrase लौकिकं संस्कृतम्. I for one would like to rest my indulgence. 

[Aurobind Padiyath]

Namaste,

Has the demise of oral-tradition any impact on this? The shift from oral tradition to print reduced the interest in Ashtadhyayi getting less prominence and later more shift to Sidhanta/Lagu S Kaumudi etc followed by change in teaching methodology using the route of Siddha roopa etc could have made the learning and usage less interesting.

it's my IMHO

Aurobind

[Achyut Karve]

Dear Scholars,

Does Patanjali's repeated warnings in his Ashtadhyayi not to discard the Ashtadhyayi, inspite of differences, not speak of a change if not of a decadence in laukik sanskrit.

With regards,
Achyut Karve.

--

[Achyut Karve]

Read Patanjali's Mahabhashya

[Achyut Karve]

Dear Scholars,

Is there evidence to say that Panini purposefully ignored the अयोगवाह letters by not including them in the Ashtadhyayi inspite of they being in usage at the time of Panini?

With regards,
Achyut Karve.

[S. L. Abhyankar]

नमस्ते श्रीमन् ओरोबिन्द-पदियत-महोदय !

(I hope I have spelled pronunciation of your name correcly)

That (1) Sanskrit had only oral tradition (2) Sanskrit was written much later - both are myths, possibly maliciously concocted myths.

Please see (1) https://samskrutacharchaa.wordpress.com/category/sanskrit-the-language/sanskrit-was-spoken/ (2) https://samskrutacharchaa.wordpress.com/grammatical-proof-that-sanskrit-was-also-written/ 

Basically, why we are accepting somebody's hypothesis that there was decadence of Sanskrit during the times, when grammarians presented its grammar ? If we continue to give credence to a wrong hypothesis, everything further will be wrong. 

I think that the  moderator should intervene and stop the cascading wrongs.

Cordially, S. L. Abhyankar

On 17 November 2017 at 06:12, Aurobind Padiyath <aurobind...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Moderator in his moderator's role does better not to enter into the correctness or incorrectness of the content of the post. 

But yes, from outside the moderator's role, I agree that this is again one of the untrained/ less informed understandings from Sri Achyut-ji. Words like 'decadence' of a language must first be defined well before concluding that 'decadence' happened. 

"The shift from oral tradition to print reduced the interest in Ashtadhyayi getting less prominence and later more shift to Sidhanta/Lagu S Kaumudi etc followed by change in teaching methodology using the route of Siddha roopa etc could have made the learning and usage less interesting."

too has many such mistakes:

Print is a highly recent development.Issue on hand is not Ashtadhyayi becoming less prominent. So this post Sri Aurobind-ji is a digression from the starting point of the thread. 

The issues such as the context that lead to AA and impact of AA on the later Sanskrit and the reasons for the expressions in Vritti, Vaartika, Bhashya etc. that are / may look to be 'differing with Panini' , are all discussed in detail by scholars , some of those stalwart authors being on this list itself. 

In stead of making concluding claims in a field in which we are just beginners, it is better to humbly request such stalwart members for guidance. 

--
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.

[Aurobind Padiyath]

Please treat my earlier post as withdrawn.

Aurobind Padiyath

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/cJpCxGeJFOc/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Dr.BVK Sastry(G-MAIL)]

Namaste

 

On < the bad phrase लौकिकं संस्कृतम्. I for one would like to rest my indulgence   >

 

Some observations to seriously  contemplate. 

 

 Base line : ‘Bhashaa’ is NOT a dialect of ‘Chandas’.  There is no local flavor of ‘Sanskrit’ from Gujrath differing from the ‘Sanskrit of Kashmir or Kanyakaumari’.  

 

                        The dialects from Sanskrit are called ‘ Prakrits’, Apabhramsha, Mleccha, Desi’.  These have local flavors.  These are studied differently from the model of Samskrutham.

 

The expression लौकिकं संस्कृतम्  means application of ‘Samskrutham for Worldly usage ; Aluakikam Samskrutham is application of Samskrutham for ‘Adhyaatma Brahma Darshana’.

The expression लौकिकं संस्कृतम्  is NOT a bad phrase. 

 

1)  The  two modes of संस्कृतम्   are 

     1.1:   Chandas -  The visioned ‘Vak’ , the ‘Vak-Darshana’, the Veda- Sukta. Path is ‘Yoga – Tapas’.

              IF one does not have the capability or intention  to ‘See/ Vision  the Speech’ (Vak-Darshana), let them not engage with the talk about the ‘ Veda’, Mantra.

             This is not a subject for ‘ intellectual cyber chit chat’.  

 

            1.1.1.  What is floating around as ‘Veda –Chandas’ for usage in Yajna (Karma)’ is the  APPLICATION (Viniyoga) of the Sukta’  for a benefit. The entire discipline of Meemaamsaa explains this.

 

            1.1.2 . What is floating around as ‘Vedanta from ‘ Upanishads’ for  Brahma- jijnyasa  is the  ANALYTICS’ ( Taatparya – Jnana Viniyoga) of Veda is for a benefit called ‘ Moksha, Satya darshana’..                

                       The entire discipline of   Vedanta = Uttara Meemaamsaa  addresses this.

 

            1.1.3. The Technical language used for ‘ Yajna Viniyoga guidance and Brahma Jijnyaasaa’ i.e. Analysis and Application of Chandas is ‘Bhashaa’-. 

                      This is   Currently called as ‘ Paninian Sanskrit’.  This is NOT a historical tribal dialect.

                     It is a ‘ Yoga –prescription’ ( Vaak- Anushaashanam, Shabda- anushaasanam)  to Make Responsible, Respectable, True and Total Communication of Thought as articulate Expression.

 

 

     1.2:    Bhashaa – is not a dilution of ‘Chandas’.  Bhashaa is Language rule guidance for Human conscious effort to articulate Truth, Totally = Satya Vak aakhyaana./ Vyaakhyaana.   

               Shikshaa –Vyakarana – Chandas- Nirukta are  Total Combine of LANGUAGE REPERTOIRE  TOOLS needed to work with   SAMSKRUTHAM in a 360 degree perspective ( Called the ‘Poornam’ / Sampoornam :: Full and Complete  model  for Shabda- Roopa –Shuddhi /Siddhi).

 

            Paninian work provides this guidance clearly by blending the rules of ‘Chandas Application’ and ‘ Bhashaa Analytics’ in one unified document.

 

      1.3 . The inaccurate fragmented model of holding on to the study of Samskrutham in the exclusivity of ‘Bhashaa’ to understand ‘Chandas’ is like looking at the world with one eye and using a colored lens.  The Totality (Samagrataa of Shadanga-Vedanga approach) and ‘ (Darshana approach needed for Veda’) -  Both are given up.

              This wrong , inappropriate model has been embraced by many in the Sanskrit studies, globally, for the love of the authority from colonial masters.

              This is in simple straight words –  is violation of the Guidance given by Panini-Patanjali to study Samskrutham as Vedanga.

 

        1.4.  Coming to Vedantacharya- varya –Shishyas debating on which Acharya is a greater grammarian and superior visionary  to explain ‘Vedaartha’, this debate is a total travesty of tradition. 

 

                Using ‘ Shikshaa and Vyakarana’ to understand ‘Veda’ is limited to the function of ‘ right articulation ( phonemics) – ucchaarana and  right vocabulary  - roopasiddhi’.

               This is the limit of ‘ Pada Shaastra.

     

                 Vedantacharyas transcend the limitation of ‘Pada-Shaastra’ and rise to ‘Vakya and Pramana Shaastra heights’ and then go beyond to the ‘Darshana’ .

                From this highest elevated point, they give the ‘ Mahaa –Vaakyartha’ of Veda mantra.

 

               When the fragmented split of words like ‘Tat- padam’ ( in another thread) pushes the grammar over the ‘ Mahaavaakyaartha’, and this is claimed as a ‘ new discovery, superior interpretation’ et al, it is like a person walking on hand fingers  with feet in the sky and claiming that to be the true walking,  resonating with  functioning of the  Universe.

 

              Acharays knew the potential possibilities of ‘ Word split by grammar’  but then they go beyond to the ‘ Mahaa-Vaakyaartha’ to over ride that limitation.

 

              In Alamkaara shaastra, this is called ‘ rasa-darshana’ over riding the ‘ pada-vakya doshas’.  

 

           1.5.  For Samskrutham, Oral Tradition :Shikshaa is the Foundation . The shift from Oral tradition to use of  scripted book where anglicized roma-naagari is used to teach Sanskrit has killed the essence of Samskrutham. This is gloriously proclaimed as the ‘ Classical Language Status of Sanskrit’ to get doles from Government, to weep over the R.I.P of Samskrutham!

 

1.6.  Siddhatna Kaumudi tradition or Kaashikaa Tradition or Bhaaashya tradition of studying Samskrutham depended on ‘ Voice Training first’ and then rest of the grammar.  These are alternative models to learn Ashtaadhyaayi  ; these are not competing or conflicting models.

 

      The  Colonial model shifted gears of this guru-kul study model to the ‘Montessori study model of learning a dialect from a spoken language environment’. 

 

       The price paid :  The global English spread has neither generated a ‘ next Shakespeare’ ( Literary language level  expressionist of human emotions)  or  Skilled translators to English. 

 

       There is no doubt a social proliferation and popularity of English ; but the technical strength of language has not been supported.

       Even today, ‘to learn English needed for business use’ one has to   learn by a certification process  and incur costs !  English, though free, is not free !

 

Regards

BVK Sastry

--

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.