AshTAdhyAyI not limited to classical Sanskrit
nagarajpaturi
Nagaraj Paturi
--
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.
--
Usha Sanka
Hnbhat B.R.
not give any place for discussion. He clearly states,
अथ शब्दानुशासनम्। केषां शब्दानाम्? लौकिकानां वैदिकानां च। and not
वैदिकानां लौकिकानां च।
Does this mean any thing by the change of order? Just a hunch.
He did not primarily intend वैदिकानां शब्दानाम्, but लौकिकानाम्, by
taking first the लौकिक-words, which had already other अनुशासन by other
grammarians, and hence this monumental work points out the difference
from लौकिक- words. And also there are प्रातिशाख्य and शिक्षा-s to
which are dedicated to each शाखा-s. So it clears that वैदिक- words are
also included, so as to distinguish from their counter parts in
लौकिक-s and special forms in वैदिक are explained with specific rules.
In other words, it includes both वैदिक-words also which are not in use
in Classical Sanskrit, besides लौकिक-words. and not dedicated to
वैदिक-words only.
So there need not be any discussion afresh whether it is meant for
वैदिक-words primarily or Classical Sanskrit primarily, as it simply
covers both. But most of the cases of Vedic usages are covered by an
extension of the rules applicable to Classical Words, with his remark
छन्दसि बहुलम्, छन्दस्युभयथा, and certain suffixes used in primarily in
छन्दस्, and extended to "भाषायां सदवसश्रुवः" and लिटः कानच्, क्वसुश्च,
primarily meant for Vedic words. Such are comparatively few, but most
cases are general.extension or relaxation or restriction of the rules
applicable for Classical Sanskrit usages.
This is my hunch, but not an verified statement or thesis.
On 11/30/14, Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anyone with a cursory glance at ashTAdhyAyI would have noticed the repeated
> use of छंदसि in the intellectual monument.
>
>
>
> 2014-11-30 9:44 GMT+05:30 nagarajpaturi <nagara...@gmail.com>:
>
>> In the thread on Sanskrit-German issue, Vidwan Shreyas said:
>>
>> Respected Scholars,
>>
>>
Hnbhat B.R.
discussion in the earlier thread of Sanskrit German relation. Sanskrit
German relationship was discussed by Indo European Linguists, and lead
to the Aryan Theory of Invasion Theory which has now outdated and new
trend of Aryan Origin Theory replacing it gradually in its place.
A comparison is that German in Germany needs not any compulsory
inclusion of German in the syllabus meant for that country, while
Sanskrit has to be enforced into syllabus in the educational syllubus,
by compulsory Order of the State. That is the only difference, as each
language has its own heritage and culture, and the people using both.
I have no opinion of the Ordinance of the Government to make Sanskrit
compulsory in schools, or its policy which is left to the policy
makers.
Hnbhat B.R.
> Namaste
> In Mahabhashyam, when the question is put- केषां शब्दानां - The answer
> comes- लौकिकानां, वैदिकानां च..
> So it is doubt-free that अष्टाध्यायी is for both.
> Due to Kaumudi, putting all Vedic rules as one chapter, may be both rules
> got separated.
Just consider why Mahabhashya had said लौकिकानां, वैदिकानां च? and not
the reverse वैदिकानां लौकिकानां च, as पाणिनीयव्याकरण is considered as
वेदाङ्ग, he could have given the answer the otherwise.?
Now we can rectify that by studying all Vedic rules in
> main-stream.
spoken language? लौकिक words? सिद्धान्तकौमुदी only intended that those
who want to use Classical Sanskrit Literature, need not learn Vedic
words and it is comparatively larger. And the need of the society,
though Sanskrit was learnt as language by all, Vedic Text was not
learnt by the main stream of the speakers. So for the convenience was
provided by him, for those who want to learn लौकिक-words, which are
the majority of the words, and neded for those who want it for
learning Classical Literature, which was already indicated by the
order of the answer. लौकिकानां शब्दानाम्। and for those who want to
learn वैदिक usages also, those differentiating forms are indicated
specifically at places, but mostly as the relaxation or retriction or
extensions of the rules for the main stream. as बहुलं छन्दसि,
छन्दस्युभयथा,. That was need of the day of भट्टोजि दीक्षित.
Consider why he Patanjali has given reason for learning व्याकरण, among
others, ब्राह्मणेन निष्कारणो धर्मः षडङ्गो वेदोऽध्येयो ज्ञेयः चेति
(भा.प.)" but not for all it is necessary. and for whom the necessity
of uses of learning Grammar in general, and Vedic words, he has given
an example>
वेदान्नो वैदिकाः, लोकाच्च लौकिकाः, किमर्थमध्येयं व्याकरणम्?
Those who need to know Vedic usages, only need to learn it separately.
and not all those who want to learn Sanskrit to read Classical
Sanskrit. This was the convenience provided by Bhattoji.
In the present day, one can learn both in the अष्टाध्यायी itself, as
learning Veda, is not restricted to ब्राह्मण and anybody can read it
online or offline with or without commentary. And need to learn both
from Ashtadhyayi itsel, which is also available online, with or
without commentary.
I think this is the need for changing the order, लौकिक-s first and
वैदिक as the second option.
and Bhattoji picked up the hint and provided for both, in the
प्रक्रिया method. The earlier रूपावतार, प्रक्रियाकौमुदी etc. took up
the first set and arranged the rules accordingly which comprised only
rules governing लौकिक-words only. Siddhantakaumudi also followed the
same path, and extended it to वैदिक usages in the same way, divided
into प्रकरण-s needed for Vedic usages.
काशिका, न्यास, पदमञ्जरी followed the अष्टाध्यायी, which is also
available online or offline, for those who need to learn both.
So there is nothing wrong in both methods. But what matters is one
should follow a method consistently and learn deeply. In nothern
Gurukula-s, अष्टाध्यायी is followed while in Southern Institutions,
सिद्धान्तकौमुदी, शब्दरत्न, शब्देन्दुशेखर are included in the
traditional learning Grammar. Even महाभाष्य is partly included in the
syllabus, but शेखरान्तं व्याकरणम् is the popularly known maxim I have
heard from my teacher. The grasping of the content of अष्टाध्यायी and
masterning is the object of learning व्याकरण either following
अष्टाध्यायी or सिद्धान्तकौमुदी or प्रक्रियासर्वस्व.
Hari Parshad Das
my praṇāmas to all the vidvaj-janas.
My two cents: Although it is true that Mahābhāṣya says — keṣāṁ śabdānāṁ? laukikānāṁ vaidikānāṁ ca.
So, can all vaidika terms be explained? I doubt. We do realize that, "vyatyayo bahulam (PS 3.1.85)" is also a fact.
Maybe some interpret 'vyatyayo bahulam' as Pāṇini's way of saying that "I cannot explain all formations in the Vedas".
So it may be for this reason that some scholars opine that Pāṇini-vyākaraṇa is somewhat of a departure from previous styles of grammar which may have had more rules for explaining the formation of special Vedic terms.
sādhu-caraṇa-rajo 'bhilāṣī,
hari parshad das.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Saroja Bhate
Dipak Bhattacharya
1.12.14
Dear Colleagues,
This is an interesting debate. Many valuable observations have been made. I give my views, which more or less agree with those of Professor Bhate barring her conclusion, with due respect to all the scholars who have contributed to the discussion.
The paradigmatic structures of Vedic and Classical Sanskrit declension and conjugation are not radically different like, say, that of Prakrit and Sanskrit. Vedic has additional forms like accusative plural āsaḥ, ebhiḥ, the subjunctive, modal variations in non-present tenses etc. Decay in the form of quantitative loss within identical structures does not make fundamental difference when the phonemic structures are identical.
As I counted, barring seven sūtras, namely, 3.2.108 (perfect active participle with sad, vas, śrū); 4.1.62 (sakhī, aśiśvī), 3.141(143 addition of secondary suffix maya); 6.1.177(181 alternative accent in bhāṣā), 3.19 (20 non-occurrence of aluk before sthe); 7.2.88(deictic declension); 8.2.98 (pluti in bhāṣā) where bhāṣā has been explicitly mentioned as the language where the object word/phenomenon occurred, the sūtras either aim at both Vedic and Classical equally or only Vedic. And as the evidence of 6.1.177 shows this bhāṣā had accent.
Let us now assess the situation. There were variations in the dialects of the teachers. Bhāṣā too had its features. And this 'bhāṣā' accented with intonation its vowels that means even this had not moved away from Vedic as Classical Sanskrit with its stress, for which perhaps because of its normal oxytone character no need was felt to show marks, had.
That means vital common features existed between Vedic and bhāṣā while the elite dialects of the teachers must have been even closer to Vedic
Also it is noteworthy that 263 Pāṇinian sūtras have been collected by Bhaṭṭoji Dīkṣita in his Vaidikīprakrīyā for rules relating to word formation and phonology (3387-3649). Apart from that there are 329 sūtras on accent (3650-3978). Moreover, Pāṇini (3.1.80) approves kṛṇva which occurs only in the AV Paippalāda (Bhattacharya 2008: lvii). The sūtra had been made only to approve the roots kṛṇv and dhinv that is to say with their vikaraṇas. The purpose was to form the two words adhinvīt (Tāṇḍya-Mahābrāhmaṇa 4.10.1 ) and krṇva occurring in the AVP (12.20.2 etc.). The occurrence of some other exclusive AVP forms in the Aṣṭādhyāyī was pointed to by the present author in 1997 (xli) too. Many such exclusive Vedic words shall be foundin the Aṣṭādhyāyī outside Bhaṭṭoji Dīkṣita's Vaidikī- and Svaraprakriyā.
The first point to note is that Pāṇini was careful about exclusive Vedic words though he did miss some (Wackernagel-Renou 1957: 37). That, of course, does not prove his distance from the Vedic language, nor any insincerity. As Wackernagel mentions, that was caused by system constraints that means the oral mode, pedagogic concern etc. The contemporary elite language was close to Vedic and sometimes mildly differed in dialectal features from teacher to teacher. Even the language mentioned as bhāṣā had retained some salient features of the Vedic language like intonation. In effect, even if Pāṇini mainly drew from the language spoken around him, not an absolutely accurate observation, his grammar is as valid for Vedic as it is for the Classical Sanskrit.
All the above show Pāṇini's closeness to the Vedas. Now, it is true that Pāṇini (3.1.35) mentions the occurrence of the periphrastic perfect outside mantra (amantre) though this occurs in AVP 18.65.10 and AVŚ 18.2.27. But the reason for this was discussed in detail by me (2011:lxxxii -lxxxvii) : the manuscripts indicate that the funeral hymns of the AV were not available to outsiders.
Hence it is not fully correct to say that Pāṇini's object language was the one spoken around him. Also the standpoint of the Mīmāṃsakas that the Vedic and Classical Skt are not essentially different and are similarly meaningful cannot be brushed away.
I think these facts show that the Aṣṭādhyāyī is entitled to be called a Vedāṅga.
Sorry for the length of the note.
Best wishes
DB
Hnbhat B.R.
Just a small question, why the distinction was made by the time of Patanjali?
लौकिकानां वैदिकानां च? and what does the statement suggest in the
portion beginning with अद्यत्वे त्वरिता वक्तारो भवन्ति,
वेदान्नो वैदिकाः, लोकाच्च लौकिकाः?
who did not find the need to learn व्याकरण separately and for those he
is enumerating the प्रयोजन of learning Vyakarana? (Not particularly of
Panini?). Did शाकटायन, स्फोटायन, the earlier grammarians deal with
Vedic grammar or exclusively for वैदिक-शब्द-s? May not be the
deviation not considerable at their times.
These are silly questions, I am sure.
Thanking you once again,
Dipak Bhattacharya
Hnbhat B.R.
Saroja Bhate
Nagaraj Paturi
Hnbhat B.R.
ब्राह्मण-s only for whom it is धर्म, and not for others.
आगम: खल्वपि ब्राह्मणेन निष्कारणो धर्म: षडङ्गो वेदोध्येतव्य इति। प्रथमं
च षड्ष्वङ्गेषु व्याकरणम् प्रधानमेव। प्रधाने च कृतो यत्न: फलवान्
भवति।
so it is for वैदिक-s compulsory as धर्म, even though there is no
specific purpose, to learn साङ्गवेद, but at least they should learn
व्याकरण, if not other अङ्ग-s.
In the beginning of the announcement of प्रयोजन -
रक्षोहागमलघ्वसन्देहाः प्रयोजनम् to inspire those वैदिकाः, who are
reluctant to learn व्याकरण.
किं च रक्षोहागमलघ्वसन्देहा: प्रयोजनम्। पुराकल्प एतदासीत्
‘‘संस्कारोत्तरकालं ब्राह्मणा व्याकरणं स्माधीयते तेभ्य:
स्थानकरणानुप्रदानज्ञेभ्य: तत उत्तरकालं वैदिका: शब्दा उपदिश्यन्ते,
तदद्यत्वे न तथा। तथा वेदमधीत्य त्वरिता वक्तारो भवन्ति। वेदान्नो
वैदिका: सिद्धा: लोकाच्च लौकिका:। अनर्थकं व्याकरणमिति तेभ्य
एवंविप्रतिपन्नबुद्धिभ्योऽध्येतृभ्य आचार्य: प्रयोजनानि व्याचष्टे इमानि
प्रयोजनानि नित्यमध्येयं व्याकरणमिति। तत्र ,
So it is never a secular शास्त्र as contemplated by Vidvan Nagaraja.
So by the same token, it is not to be learnt by other people than
ब्राह्मण, as it is prescribed for ब्राह्मण-s, in the above quoted
sentence. by the general maxim सर्वं वाक्यं सावधारणं भवति -
"पञ्च पञ्चनखा भक्ष्याः" means other five nailed animals are not to be
consumed as food.
Good observation.
Nagaraj Paturi
ब्राह्मण
Nagaraj Paturi
Hnbhat B.R.
Dipak Bhattacharya
3.12.14
Dear Colleagues,
Judging by its own nature and use, the Aṣṭādhyāyī has utility for learning both Classical and Vedic. For Buddhists like Jayāditya or Jinendrabuddhi learning the Aṣṭādhyāyī was indeed also for knowing the language of the Vedas but not for knowing Vedic ritual application. The secular use of Pāṇini's work, thus, has been demonstrated as a historical reality.
One may state that the Niruktaśāstra, which only tried to fit the mantras to prayers applicable in rituals through nirukti in disregard of grammar, was not secular. Unlike Yāska Pāṇini himself has not stated such a purpose. Rather he stands in opposition to the type of nirukti proposed by Yāska.
So I do not find anything to disagree with Professor Bhate on the secular character of the Aṣṭādhyāyī. As far as I understand Pāṇini did secularize the contemporary Śabdaśāstra.
Best
DB