शास्त्रवाक्येषु व्य़ञ्जना ?

[Jagannatha s]

आर्याः, स्वस्ति।

 

अद्य मध्याह्ने तत्रभवता रामाज्ञापाण्डेयेन वैयाकरणेन विरचितां व्याकरणदर्शनभूमिकां (वाराणासेय-

 

संपूर्णानन्द-संस्कृतविश्वविद्यानिलये 2038 विक्रमसंवत्सरे प्रकटितां तत्रभवता गौरीनाथशास्त्रिणा संपादितां

 

च  ) पठतो मम चक्षुःपथे  पतितमधोनिर्दिष्टं वाक्यम्-

 

‘‘भाष्यकृता यस्मिन् सूत्रे वार्त्तिके वा गुणस्वरूपं वाच्यवृत्त्या व्यञ्जनावृत्त्या वा न प्रदर्शितं तत्र आकडारसूत्रोक्तं गुणवचनमभ्युपगन्तव्यमिति वदन्ति।(पु.92)’’

 

चमत्कृतोऽस्मि वाक्यस्थेन ‘‘व्यञ्जनावृत्त्या’’ इति पदेन।

 

शास्त्रवाक्येषु अभिधा-लक्षणे  वर्तेते। व्यञ्जना तु साहित्यनिष्ठो धर्मो न पुनः शास्त्रनिष्ठः।

 

शास्त्रवाक्येष्वपि  व्यञ्जनायां सत्यां सर्वशास्त्रविचारव्याकोपप्रसङ्गः। तत्रभवता महावैयाकरणेन

 

रामाज्ञापाण्डेयेन कमभिप्रायं मनस्याकलय्य वाक्यमेतद् विरचितवता भाव्यम् ?

 

इति, जिज्ञासुर्जगन्नाथः।

 

 

 

[Ashok Aklujkar]

On 2010-08-21, at 6:21 AM, Jagannatha s wrote:

‘‘भाष्यकृता यस्मिन् सूत्रे वार्त्तिके वा गुणस्वरूपं वाच्यवृत्त्या व्यञ्जनावृत्त्या वा न प्रदर्शितं तत्र आकडारसूत्रोक्तं गुणवचनमभ्युपगन्तव्यमिति वदन्ति।(पु.92)’’

 ...

 

शास्त्रवाक्येषु अभिधा-लक्षणे  वर्तेते। व्यञ्जना तु साहित्यनिष्ठो धर्मो न पुनः शास्त्रनिष्ठः।

 

शास्त्रवाक्येष्वपि  व्यञ्जनायां सत्यां सर्वशास्त्रविचारव्याकोपप्रसङ्गः। तत्रभवता महावैयाकरणेन

 

रामाज्ञापाण्डेयेन कमभिप्रायं मनस्याकलय्य वाक्यमेतद् विरचितवता भाव्यम् ?

An excellent question. However, the assumption that there is a fundamental difference between ;saastra sentences and saahitya or kaavya sentences as far as modes (v.rttis) of conveying are concerned is questionable. One should separate the processes or phenomena that take place in conveying from how one thoerizes about those processes or phenomena. The latter depends on what a theoretician prefers in certain other related areas (e.g., if one holds that with every change of meaning a word becomes a different entiry -- artha-bhedac.chabda-bheda.h no matter how small the difference is, then there would be no laak.sa.nika or vya;njaka ;sabdas. If, on the other hand, one holds that the word remains the same or that certain small differences of meaning (e.g., ga:ngaa standing for ga:ngaa-pravaaha) are to be viewed as insufficient justification for postulating a different word, one remains free to admit (a) laak.sa.nika or (b) laak.sa.nika and vya;njaka ;sabdas in one's theory. 

It would be quite legitimate for scholars studying the Vaartikakaara and Bhaa.syakaara pronouncements to characterize some of the pronouncements as involving lak.sa.naa or vya;njanaa, regardless of whether the Vaartikakaara and Bhaa.syakaara were aware of more than one mode of conveying or subscribed to a theory that advocated modes beyond abhidhaa. In fact, the Mahaabhaa.sya commentators do speak of certain words or uses as laak.sa.nika (e.g. under Paa.nini 1.1.57, Kaiya.ta says a:nga-;sabdena prattyaasattir lak.syate and Anna.m-bha.tta explains this with lak.sa.naa-biijam aaha). Later, in his Ma;njuu.saa, Naage;sa accepts vya;njanaa as a part of the Vaiyaakara.na theory. 

Moreover, if the lak.sa.naa accepted in the interpretation of the ;saastras includes prayojanavatii lak.sa.naa, it would be difficult to keep vya;njanaa out (as Mamma.ta suggests). Many dyotakas accepted by the Bhaa.syakaara and others can be viewed as indications of the acceptance of prayojanavatii lak.sa.na if not of vya;njanaa. This does not imply that they were aware of additional modes of linguistic communication *as a part of theory* or that they subscribed to a two-mode or three-mode theory. They were just using language as one normally uses it. 

a.a.

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

Without going into the question if the concept of व्यञ्जना had at all been developed in Patanjali's time, the use of व्यञ्जना can be shown in शास्त्र | Bhāmaha’s reply हन्त दुर्मेधसो हताःto Bhatti's हतो दुर्मेधसश्चास्मिन् विद्वत्‌प्रियतया मया has some व्यञ्जना in it. This is शास्त्रवाक्य। Best DB --- On Sat, 21/8/10, Ashok Aklujkar <ashok.a...@ubc.ca> wrote:

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

[Jagannatha s]

Respected scholars,

 

The question of mine is not related to acceptance  of vyanjana in that shastra or  this shastra. Neither it is related to having Dhvani meaning from any literary piece. The question  is of extracting Vyanjanaa  meaning through Shastravakyas. Pandit Raamaajnaa Pandeya opines that it is possible to extract Vyanjanaa meaning from the sentences of Mahaabhaashya. I am not making query here about Patanjali's acceptance or  non-acceptance of Vyanjanaa. Obviously, no sentence of Bhattikaavya is  being questioned. Whether it is possible to extract vyanjanaa meanings from Patanjali's OWN sentence patterns- that is the theme of my post.

S.Jagannatha.

 

2010/8/21 Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattach...@yahoo.com>

[Jagannatha s]

I am failed  to understand how हन्त दुर्मेधसो हताः is Shaastravaakya.

2010/8/22 Jagannatha s <jgra...@gmail.com>

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

This occurs in an work on AlamkAAra that is Shastra not Kaavya. My remarks were not meant for incisive analysis and serious debate. Nobody argues against the main point. A sarcastic remark by one literary critic -- some might have been made also by Maadhava in the Sarvadarshanasamgraha - does not alter the general position that vyanjanaa primarily belongs to the domain of kaavya, belles lettres etc but not to that of serious scientific literature. Grammatical or philosophical treatises are mainly made of unequivocal statements. The decisive observations therein cannot be made by taking recourse to Vyanjanaa. Best DB --- On Sun, 22/8/10, Jagannatha s <jgra...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Jagannatha s]

Respected scholars,

 

I thank Dr. Ashok Aklujikar and Dr. Dipak Bhattacharya for   their informative responses.

 

इति विनयावनतो जगन्नाथः.

 

2010/8/22 Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattach...@yahoo.com>

[subrahmanyam korada]

namo vidvadbhyah

 

Three or four types of Meaning has been there ever since the Language is used as a tool

in the transformation of ideas.

 

In Vyakaranam it is MukhyArtha and GaunArtha  for VAcyArtha and LaksyArtha .

'AbhidhIyate' is used by Patanjali if not AbhidhA .

 

jahatsvArthAyAm ca na dosah , samudAyArtho'bhidhIyate (IdUtau ca , 1-1-19).

 

Under 'PumyogAdAkhyAyAm"(Pani 4-1-49) Patanjali illustrates  LaksanA (see also Nyayasutram) .

 

The usage of the word 'jnApaka ' in Mahabhasya denotes the so called 'VyanjanA' --

 

kenedAnIm samkhyApradesesu samkhyAsampratyayo bhavisyati? 'jnApakAt siddham'

(bahugana 1-1-23).

atra AcAryaprvrttih jnApayati - tadvisesebhyo na bhavatIti yadayam vipAtsabdam saratprabhrtisu pathati .

 

The ParibhAsA - jnApakasiddham na sarvatra - also refers to VyangyArtha .

 

In Uddyota Nagesa  remarks - tadetat dhvanayannaha on ' arthavadgrahane ityasya svam rUpam ityanena jnApitatvAt (Mahabhasyam , dAdAghvadap 1-1-20) .

 

Even Kaiyata states - bhAsyAbdhih kvAtigambhIrah ? the 'atigambhIratvam' is nothing but

having more meaning than that is seen apparently .

 

Any scholar who goes thru one or two Ahnikas of Mahabhasya would certainly come across a number of discussions involving the hidden meaning of Paninisutras .

 

AnekamanyapadArthe (2-2-24) , according to Hari , is a Sutra that suggests  that there is jahatsvArthavikalpa --

 

jahatsvArthavikalpe ca sarvArthatyAgamicchatA I

bahuvrIhipadArthasya tyAgah sarvasya darsitah II (Vakyapadi 2-228)

 

It should be noted that Panini ( nor can anybodyelse) does not  say everything with

vAcyamaryAdA, nor is it possible . 'SAravat' means ' having a lot of meaning' .

 

VyAkhyAnato visesapratipattih - means the suggested also .

 

As far as the words  Vyangya, Vynanjaka and VyanjanA are  concerned  they are  used by Hari (in 1at and 2nd Adhyayas)--

 

vyanjakA bhinnA varnavAkyapadesu ye (1-88)

anekavyaktyabhivyangyA jAtih (1-93)

tulyopavyanjanA srutih (2-21)

vyangyavyanjakabhAvena tathaiva sphotanAdayoh (1-97) etc.

 

DhAtUnAm anekArthatvam is suggested by Panini - mrsastitiksAyAm (1-2-20) parau bhuvo'vajnAne (3-3-55) .

Across 1st and 2nd chapters Hari discusses the VAcyArtha , GaunArtha VyangyArtha and TAtparyArtha (kAkebhyo raksyatA sarpih - upalaksanam etc.) . This is what , probably,

led Mammatacarya to remark - tAtparyArtho'pi kesucit .

 

Anandavardhanacarya clearly states that 'Dhvani' is taken from Vyakaranam - budhaih vaiyAkaranaih sphotarUpavyangyavyanjakasya dhvaniriti vyavahArah kdetah .

 

One should have the knowledge of all the four Sastras to teach Alamkarasastra .

 

dhanyo'smi
 

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

[satyendra pandey]

मान्याः विद्वांसः!
रोचकः विषयः उपस्थापितः जगन्नाथमहोदयैः। परं तस्य उत्तरप्रत्युतरं
आङ्गलमाध्यमेन जाते सति न सर्वथा ग्राह्यः संजातः।
अतो निवेद्यते यत् यदीदृशाः शास्त्रीयविषयाः विवेचनीयाश्चेत् संस्कॄतेन
हिन्द्या वा भवेत् तर्हि इतोऽपि सुकरं स्यात्।
सधन्यवादः

On 8/24/10, subrahmanyam korada <kora...@gmail.com> wrote:
> namo vidvadbhyah
>
> Three or four types of Meaning has been there ever since the Language is
> used as a tool
> in the transformation of ideas.
>

> In Vyakaranam it is *MukhyArtha* and *GaunArtha* for *VAcyArtha* and *
> LaksyArtha* .
> *'AbhidhIyate*' is used by *Patanjal*i if not *AbhidhA* .
>
> jahatsvArthAyAm ca na dosah , *samudAyArtho'bhidhIyate* (IdUtau ca ,
> 1-1-19).
>
> Under 'PumyogAdAkhyAyAm"(Pani 4-1-49) *Patanjali* illustrates *
> LaksanA*(see also
> *Nyayasutram*) .
>
> The usage of the word '*jnApaka* ' in *Mahabhasya* denotes the so called '*
> VyanjanA*' --
>
> kenedAnIm samkhyApradesesu samkhyAsampratyayo bhavisyati? *'jnApakAt
> siddham'*
> (bahugana 1-1-23).
> atra *AcAryaprvrttih jnApayati* - tadvisesebhyo na bhavatIti yadayam
> vipAtsabdam saratprabhrtisu pathati .
>
> The *ParibhAsA - jnApakasiddham na sarvatra* - also refers to *VyangyArtha *
> .
>
> In *Uddyota Nagesa* remarks - tadetat dhvanayannaha on ' arthavadgrahane

> ityasya svam rUpam ityanena jnApitatvAt (Mahabhasyam , dAdAghvadap 1-1-20) .
>

> Even *Kaiyata* states - *bhAsyAbdhih kvAtigambhIrah* ? the 'atigambhIratvam'

> is nothing but
> having more meaning than that is seen apparently .
>

> Any scholar who goes thru one or two *Ahnikas* of *Mahabhasy*a would

> certainly come across a number of discussions involving the hidden meaning

> of *Paninisutras* .
>
> *AnekamanyapadArthe* (2-2-24) , according to Hari , is a Sutra that
> suggests that there is *jahatsvArthavikalpa* --
>
> jahatsvArthavikalpe ca *sarvArthatyAgamicchatA* I
> bahuvrIhipadArthasya *tyAgah sarvasya darsitah* II (Vakyapadi 2-228)
>
> It should be noted that *Panini *( nor can anybodyelse) does not say
> everything with
> *vAcyamaryAdA*, nor is it possible . '*SAravat*' means ' having a lot of
> meaning' . **
> **
> *VyAkhyAnato visesapratipattih* - means the suggested also .
>
> As far as the words *Vyangya, Vynanjaka and VyanjanA* are concerned they
> are used by *Hari *(in 1at and 2nd Adhyayas)--
>
> *vyanjakA bhinnA varnavAkyapadesu* ye (1-88)
> *anekavyaktyabhivyangyA* jAtih (1-93)
> *tulyopavyanjanA* srutih (2-21)
> *vyangyavyanjakabhAvena* tathaiva *sphotanAdayoh* (1-97) etc.
>
> *DhAtUnAm anekArthatvam* is suggested by *Panini* - mrsastitiksAyAm (1-2-20)

> parau bhuvo'vajnAne (3-3-55) .

> Across 1st and 2nd chapters Hari discusses the *VAcyArtha , GaunArtha
> VyangyArtha* and *TAtparyArtha* (kAkebhyo raksyatA sarpih -
> *upalaksanam*etc.) . This is what , probably,
> led *Mammatacarya* to remark - *tAtparyArtho'pi kesucit* .
>
> *Anandavardhanacarya* clearly states that '*Dhvani*' is taken from *
> Vyakaranam* - budhaih vaiyAkaranaih sphotarUpavyangyavyanjakasya dhvaniriti

>>> <jgra...@gmail.com<http://in.mc86.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jgra...@gmail.com>

>>> >
>>>
>>> Respected scholars,
>>>
>>> The question of mine is not related to acceptance of vyanjana in that
>>> shastra or this shastra. Neither it is related to having Dhvani meaning
>>> from any literary piece. The question is of extracting Vyanjanaa
>>> meaning
>>> through Shastravakyas. Pandit Raamaajnaa Pandeya opines that it is
>>> possible
>>> to extract Vyanjanaa meaning from the sentences of Mahaabhaashya. I am
>>> not
>>> making query here about Patanjali's acceptance or non-acceptance of
>>> Vyanjanaa. Obviously, no sentence of Bhattikaavya is being questioned.
>>> Whether it is possible to extract vyanjanaa meanings from Patanjali's OWN
>>> sentence patterns- that is the theme of my post.
>>> S.Jagannatha.
>>>
>>>
>>> 2010/8/21 Dipak Bhattacharya

>>> <dbhattach...@yahoo.com<http://in.mc86.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=dbhattach...@yahoo.com>
>>> >
>>>
>>> *
>>> *

>>> Without going into the question if the concept of व्यञ्जना had at all
>>> been
>>> developed in Patanjali's time, the use of व्यञ्जना can be shown in
>>> शास्त्र |
>>>
>>> Bhāmaha’s reply हन्त दुर्मेधसो हताःto Bhatti's हतो दुर्मेधसश्चास्मिन्
>>> विद्वत्‌प्रियतया मया has some व्यञ्जना in it. This is शास्त्रवाक्य।
>>> Best
>>> DB
>>>
>>>

>>> --- On *Sat, 21/8/10, Ashok Aklujkar
>>> <ashok.a...@ubc.ca<http://in.mc86.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ashok.a...@ubc.ca>

>>> >* wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Ashok Aklujkar
>>> <ashok.a...@ubc.ca<http://in.mc86.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ashok.a...@ubc.ca>
>>> >
>>> Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} शास्त्रवाक्येषु व्य़ञ्जना ?
>>> To:

>>> bvpar...@googlegroups.com<http://in.mc86.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=bvpar...@googlegroups.com>

--
सत्येन्द्र पाण्डेयः
शोधच्छात्रः[साहित्यसंस्कॄतिसंकायः]
श्रीलालबहादुरशास्त्रिराष्ट्रियसंस्कॄतविद्यापीठम्,
चलवाणी-09958256212
नवदेहली,

[Jagannatha s]

आर्याः, स्वस्ति।

 

विहितप्रतिक्रियाकेभ्यः सर्वेभ्यो विद्वद्भ्यो विनयेन वन्दनानि समर्पयामि। तत्रभवतां श्रीसुब्रह्मण्यकोरडवर्याणां विस्तृतं सशास्त्रोल्लेखमुत्तरं पठित्वा अतीव हर्षः संजातः स्थितश्चास्मि गतसंदेहः। भारतीयविद्वत्परिषदः सदस्यो यदभवं, तत्तु मम भाग्यपरिपाकं मन्ये। अतीवाल्पत्वेन मादृशां कदाचिद् भासमानान् अपि संशयान् विद्वांसः सविस्तरं सोदाहरणं च निवारयन्ति, ततश्च मादृशां ज्ञानवर्धनस्य कारणं भवन्तीति ज्ञात्वा विस्मयोदधौ मग्नोस्मि। अत्र गृहीतभागेभ्यः सर्वेभ्यो वन्दनानि पुनः पुनः समर्पये ततश्च- कञ्चित् प्रसिद्धं श्लोकमपि स्मरामि-

 

चातकस्त्रिचतुरान् पयःकणान्

 

याचते जलधरं पिपासया।

 

सोपि पूरयति विश्वमम्भसा

 

हन्त हन्त  महतामुदारता।।

 

श्रीमतः  सत्येन्द्रपाण्डेयस्य पत्रं पठितं मया। संस्कृतसंबद्धं यद् वर्तते तत्र संस्कृतस्यैव  प्राशस्त्यमभीष्टमित्यत्र न कोपि संशयः। परन्तु केषाञ्चन विदुषां font download विषये काचित् समस्यास्तीति अभ्यूह्यते। आगामिनि काले सा समस्या अपगम्यादित्याशासे।

2010/8/25 satyendra pandey <pandeysa...@gmail.com>

[S P Narang]

Vyanjana is not the copyright of kaavyasastrins. If you accept the norm of the grammarians, they are concerned only with the word and its formation. They are less concerned about the deeper meaning as kaavyasastrin thinks. Then the grammarian should only accept abhidhaa and no other Vrtti. Laksana and Vyanjana had been entering different sastras whereas they were not the original vrtti of their sastras. e.g. Laksana in Mimamsa. That is why, isvarodbhavitaa and isvaraanudbhaavita is accepted in poetics. the first vrtti is exclusively used for Mimamsa. But later laksanaa also entered Mimamsa. Siddhicandra Gani in Kavyaprakasakhandanam has offered a few comments to refute laksana and vyanjana. Similar case is with Taatparya. It may be investigated in details with chronology. Patanjali accepts any norm known to loka. Regards, spnarang

---

From: Ashok Aklujkar <ashok.a...@ubc.ca>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, August 21, 2010 9:39:45 PM

Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} शास्त्रवाक्येषु व्य़ञ्जना ?

[Jagannatha s]

Respected sir,

Theme of my post  was not of acceptance or rejection of Vyanjana in shastras other than Kaavyashastra. The query was on generating Vyanjana meanings from any SHASTRA-VAKYA. In other words, whether we can take very  Shastric sentences as  examples for Vyanjana- that was the focal point of  my question. Prof. Prof.Korada Subrahmanyam has said that it is  possible to get vyanjana meanings from Shastravaakyas particularly, sentences of  Bhashya. His mentioning the word Jnaapaka (means vyanjaka)is correct. He has  not only cited one or two sutras of Panini but also some sentences of BhartrHari and Nagesha by analizing which one can understand that  Vyanjana-meanings can be obtained even from sutra. Before reading his post I was thinking that Vyanjana vritti is possible only in pure literature and not Shastra vakyas(including sentences of Kavyashastra!). Now, I have got definite answer.

 

2010/8/27 S P Narang <spna...@yahoo.com>

[subrahmanyam korada]

namo vidvadbhyah

yes , there is  or has ben problem  with understanding -

'sarvatraiva hi vAkyArthah laksya eveti nah sthitih' - TantravArtiksm , Some MImAmsakas  accept  LaksanA  only .

This was refuted by Hari (VAkyakAnda -VAkyapadIyam) - asAbdo yadi vAkyArthah padArtho'pi tathA bhavet .
 
PrAbhAkaras - by AbhidhA only -- isoriva dIrghadIrghataro vyApArah .

NaiyAyikas - AbhidhA and LaksanA only . VyangyArtha is understood thru either  and / or Manas .  Vyaktiviveka was
meant to exhibit inclusion of Dhvani ( of Anandavardhana) in AnumAna .

Gamakatvam - would offer a detailed picture of  VyanjanA  in Vyakarana .

dhanyo'smi

2010/8/29 Jagannatha s <jgra...@gmail.com>

--

[Jagannatha s]

Thank you sir for quoting the interesting sentence

सर्वत्रैव हि वाक्यार्थो  लक्ष्य एवेति नः स्थितिः and continuing discussion with further useful information.

Now please enlighten me on the following point.

The statement of BhAshya ‘astir bhavantI para.h avidyamAno'pyasti. Devadatta ityukte astIti gamyate.’ is well known. Now my question:

Does the verb ‘gamyate’ mean ‘vyajyate’ or ‘lakshyate’?

If ‘lakshyate’ is the meaning, can we take this as an example for UpAdAnalakshaNA ?

(The very pronunciation of  the word ‘Devadatta’ includes the meaning ‘Asti’.)

The reason for my query is the concept ‘gatyarthaanaam dhaatuunam jnaanaarthakatvam’.

Does ‘gamyamaana Artha’ mean ‘vyajyamaana artha?’

 

2010/8/29 subrahmanyam korada <kora...@gmail.com>

[subrahmanyam korada]

namo vidvadbhyah

gamyate means vyajyate and gamyamAnArtha means vyajyamAnArtha . For PramAnam please  visit  the posting on
'gamakatvam' , today .