Fwd: Rishi Rajpopat— Paninian Grammar

[विश्वासो वासुकेयः]

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: ramesh.rao.n <Unknown>
Date: Thursday, 15 December, 2022 at 9:31:30 am UTC+5:30
Subject: Rishi Rajpopat— Paninian Grammar
To: bhAratIya-vidvat-pariShad भारतीय-विद्वत्परिषद् <Unknown>

https://phys.org/news/2022-12-ancient-grammatical-puzzle-years.amp

Ramesh

--

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

https://www.cam.ac.uk/system/files/rajpopat_phd_thesis_15_dec_2022.pdf

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "shabda-shAstram" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to shabda-shastr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/shabda-shastram/02e69b5f-c5b7-49e7-99f3-eb53433c89e2n%40googlegroups.com.

--

--
Vishvas /विश्वासः

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Mx_mW-PK3U

This discovery (if it stands up to scrutiny as it seems to), about how a certain crucial rule is to be interpreted, 
overturns 2k years of tradition.
This type of research would be very unlikely in traditional India - since any such researcher would be stuck within tradition - forced to parrot the same old ancient misunderstandings of scholars (who're turned into "always-correct" sages by tradition).

[Hari Parshad Das]

In the thesis, the author himself acknowledges (on pages 83,84) that his solution doesn't work while deriving the term — trayāṇām, and gives an incorrect solution. He them himself gives a "speculative" (in his own words) reasoning for why it doesn't work. He says that the earlier Vedic form was trīṇām and it later got fully replaced by the newer form trayāṇām. He then also speculates that someone inserted the sūtra — trestrayaḥ (7.1.53) to the Aṣṭādhyāyī to justify the form "trayāṇām".

All this speculation may look good for a PhD thesis, but I'm not sure how well it will go down with those who side with the traditional commentators. I surmise that those who side with the tradition will say that it is still best to interpret the sūtra as Patañjali did — iṣṭa-vāci para-śabdaḥ, vipratiṣedhe paraṁ yad iṣṭaṁ tad bhavati (Mahābhāṣyam on 1.1.3).

I think we should wait before declaring that the entire tradition was incorrect for thousands of years.

sādhu-caraṇa-rajo'bhilāṣī,

hari pārṣada dāsa.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hindu-vidyA हिन्दुविद्या" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to hindu-vidya...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/hindu-vidya/CAFY6qgEKsiVPStuOYZRwsXvsXidnMdzdQFsZDw4H8R1uMRKF8A%40mail.gmail.com.

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

bcc - sanskrit-programmers  given the obvious impact on grammar simulation (विप्रतिषेधे परं कार्यम्। )

"Shri Yadavaryaru gives a similar  artha to Paratva in 1.4.2."

किन्तु -"इत्यर्थस्यापि सूत्रे विवक्षितत्वात्" इति भागे "अपि"-शब्दप्रयोगो दर्शयति यद् अनेनापि धीमता न तत् तथावगतं यथानेन यूना।

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Thu, 15 Dec 2022 at 19:12, Hari Parshad Das <hpd...@gmail.com> wrote:

All this speculation may look good for a PhD thesis, but I'm not sure how well it will go down with those who side with the traditional commentators. I surmise that those who side with the tradition will say that it is still best to interpret the sūtra as Patañjali did — iṣṭa-vāci para-śabdaḥ, vipratiṣedhe paraṁ yad iṣṭaṁ tad bhavati (Mahābhāṣyam on 1.1.3).

From the above, patanjali's solution is basically "resignation" it seems. Quite unsatisfactory since it renders the rule useless.

If the simple interpretation of the rule entails _far_ fewer exceptions while keeping it useful - it is objectively superior.

[Madhav Deshpande]

In contrast with Patañjali, many modern scholars have argued that originally the rule "vipratiṣedhe paraṃ kāryam" was intended to apply only within the ekasaṃjñādhikāra prescribed by the previous rule "ā kaḍārād ekā saṃjñā." While Rishi Popat disagrees with Patañjali, he still seems to take the rule as applying across the entire Aṣṭādhyāyī. Popat has an interesting suggestion, but I am not yet convinced of his understanding of paratva.

Madhav M. Deshpande

Professor Emeritus, raSanskrit and Linguistics

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

Senior Fellow, Oxford Center for Hindu Studies

Adjunct Professor, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore, India

[Residence: Campbell, California, USA]

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/shabda-shastram/CAFY6qgEkEX3ZjddKaMcB3CLQ5EuuwNgHPLFSXw%2BXoc9VQmTbMg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Hari Parshad Das]

Well Patañjali's solution doesn't require one to speculate that sūtras were interpolated into the Aṣṭādhyāyī.

The author speculates that the sūtra trestrayaḥ (7.1.53) was interpolated into the Aṣṭādhyāyī.

However, Patañjali has commented on that sūtra in the Mahābhāṣyam. This means that even if the sūtra was interpolated, it was done before Patañjali. Who would do that? If Kātyāyana would do it, Patañjali would clearly say that it is a Vārttika. In this way, the solution suggested by the author is creating new waves of speculative problems.

--

Automatically Inserted Signature: Dear receiver. In case I am not able to reply to your emails due to lack of time, kindly do not take it negatively. In the age of the internet and social media, it is almost impossible to respond to hundreds of individuals who are simultaneously communicating with us using these platforms. Although my attempt is to try and respond to every email, it is simply not possible sometimes due to work overload and time related constraints. Kindly understand my predicament and excuse me if I am sometimes unable to reply to your emails.

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

https://groups.google.com/g/bvparishat/c/hwpl0eLWTAU इत्यत्र केनचित् सज्जनेन प्रबन्धः साधु नाधिगतः - दोषान्वेषणे त्वरमाणेन स्खलितम्। रचयितुः सम्पर्कसङ्केतो नास्तीत्य् अत्रैव प्रतिलिखामि किञ्चित् - तत्रैव तादृशैस् तज्ज्ञैः समीचीनतरः प्रयासः कार्य इति धिया।

कार्तिकभागवत्wrote:

नमस्ते
लेखकेन विप्रतिषेधे परं कार्यमित्यत्र परशब्दस्य उत्तरवर्ति (right side) इति व्याख्यायते । परं तु तथा स्वीकृते रामेभ्यः इत्येव साधनं कष्टाय । राम + भ्यस् इत्यत्र *बहुवचने झल्येत्, सुपि च * इत्यनयोः सूत्रयोः प्रसक्तिः । अत्र अत्र right side वर्तमानं कार्यं करणीयमिति नासम्भवम् । (विप्रतिषेधसूत्रेण कार्यमेव न भवतीति तदाशयः)
तेन यत् मन्त्रैः इति उदाहरणं (video) प्रदर्शितं तत्र तु निरवकाशत्वात् विभक्त्यादेशस्य प्राबल्यं स्वीक्रियते, अत्र विप्रतिषेधस्य प्रसक्तिरेव नास्ति ।

विप्रतिषेधे लेखकस्यावगतिर् नावगता कार्तिकमहाशयेन। "vipratiṣedha  ‘mutual opposition’ in 1.4.2 stands for DOI" इति स्पष्टं वक्ति।

 

यतो हि परस्पराप्राप्तियोग्येऽन्यत्रान्यत्र चरितार्थयोरुभयोश्शास्त्रयोरेकत्र प्राप्तिः विप्रतिषेधः इति । अत एव कर्मण्यण्, आतोनुपसर्गे कः इत्यनयोर्नास्ति विप्रतिषेधः । अणः काप्राप्तियोग्ये चारितार्थ्येऽपि कस्य तथात्वाभावात् । अत एव वापवादता । विरोधस्त्वनयोरस्त्येव नासौ विप्रतिषेधः। तस्मात् न सर्वो विरोधः विप्रतिषेधशास्त्रोपयोगी ।

अयम् आशयः लेखकेनापि रामेभ्यः इत्यस्य रूपसिद्धौ आदृतः । (page – 72) यः एतस्य मतानुरोधेन अपाणिनीयः स्यात् ।

 तन्मते Same operand Interaction (SOI) इति स्थानेषु +उत्सर्गापवादन्याय आदरणीय एव। नूनम् पाणिनीयः, सूत्रसाहित्यसहजः।

 

यतो हि अनेन विरोधे सति व्यवस्थापकमेकमेव विप्रतिषेधे परं कार्यमित्युच्यते । 
किञ्चात्र बहुधा उदाहरणानि विभक्तेः अङ्गस्य च कार्यसम्बन्धीनि । तत्रापि उदाहरणानि नपुंसकलिङ्गानि यत्र विभक्तेः लुग्भवति (लुकः प्राबल्यादेव इष्टसिद्धिः) । तत्र च सर्वत्रापि विप्रतिषेधः नासम्भवि । यत्रास्ति तत्र परशब्दस्य भाष्यकारोक्तदिशा इष्टवाचकत्वेन कार्यसिद्धिः । अतः एव विभक्तेः कार्यं सर्वापेक्षया प्रबलम् ।

 

वारिणे इति रूपसिद्धौ वारि ङे इत्यत्र इकोचि विभक्तौ, घेर्ङिति इति सूत्रद्वयं प्राप्नोति । तत्र परः गुणः तस्मिन् सति रूपासिद्धिः । अतः पूर्वविप्रतिषेधः आदृतः वास्तविकतया । लेखकः अत्र परशब्दस्य right hand side इत्यर्थमादाय आदौ नुमं साधयति । परन्तु अत्र ङे प्रत्ययस्य कार्यं न वर्तते । सूत्राभ्यां वारीति अङ्गस्यैव कार्यं विशीयत इति इदं right hand side कार्यमेव नास्ति । (page no 59)

प्रायोगिक एवात्र प्रयासो लेखकस्य। (यद्यपि same operand interaction (SOI) एव स्वीकारो वर इति मे ऽपि भाति, लेखको ऽपि तथैव शङ्कत इति ज्ञायते सम्भाषणेन। )

ननु वदति - "In my thesis, I do not focus on augments (आ॒ग॒माः) and thus am not in a position to definitively answer the aforementioned questions. For the sake of this thesis, I have treated examples of the aforementioned kind involving M-marked augments (नुम्) as cases of DOI (नुमः प॒र॒त्वम्) and those of the aforementioned kind involving Ṭ- or K-marked augments (टकितौ) as cases of SOI (स॒मः स्था॒नीत्य॒स्मान्न पौर्वा॑पर्यं॒ यत्र॑). I have done this so that the reader may get exposure to both positions – one, that these are cases of SOI and the other, that these are cases of DOI." (pg 53)

 

त्रि आम् इत्यत्र ह्रस्वनद्यापो नुट्, त्रेस्त्रयः इति सूत्रद्वयं प्राप्नोति । तत्र परः नुट् । यथाश्रुतार्थे स्वीकृते त्रयाणामिति रूपं न भवतीति, अस्य विषये समाधानं केनापि एतावता साम्प्रदायिकेन नोक्तम्, अतः पाणिनिकालात् पूर्वं त्रीणामित्येव रूपमासीत् । निजां त्रयाणां गुणः श्लौ इति पाणिनिप्रयोगस्य साधनाय अन्येन केनचित् त्रेस्त्रयः इति सूत्रम् अष्टाध्याय्यां योजितम् । अथवा पाणिनिना त्रीणामित्येवोक्तं परन्तु केनचित् तस्य त्रयणामिति विपरिणामः कृतः इति लेखकः (page – 83-84) । परन्तु अत्र विशेषविहितत्वेनापि आदौ त्रयादेशः शक्यः कर्तुम् । अथवा आदौ नुटि कृते यदागमपरिभाषया त्रयादेशः सिध्यत्येव । 

 

किञ्च लेखकेन मया नूतनः मार्गोन्विष्टः, वार्तिककारादिभिः सूत्रस्य सुष्ठु व्याख्यानं न विहितमित्यप्युक्तम् । तत्सर्वं नीरसम् । शब्दपरविप्रतिषेध इति पक्षः तु अचः परस्मिन् पूर्वविधौ सूत्रे भाष्ये एव अस्ति ।

क्वचित् समीचीना परिभाषा प्रयुक्ता कात्यायनेनैवेति +ऋषिराजस्यैव कण्ठोक्तिः खलु।

नात्र प्राचीनैः क्वचिद् आनुषङ्गिकरीत्या ऽङ्गीकृतस्य शब्द-क्रमाधारित-परत्वस्य +आविष्करणं योगदानम् -
अपि तु प्रकृतसूत्रस्य कार्यक्षेत्रे सूत्र-क्रम-परत्व-निवृत्ति-सहितम् शब्द-क्रमाधारित-परत्वस्य प्रतिष्ठापनम्।

तथा च "विप्रतिषेधे परं कार्यम्" इति नियमस्य व्याप्ताव् अवगतौ च भेदः।

पट्व्या मृद्व्या इत्यत्र पटु ई आ इति स्थिते कुत्र आदौ यणादेशः इति संशयमुद्भाव्य चर्चा विहिता । अतः शब्दपरविप्रतिषेधः इत्यंशोपि न नूतनः ।  वार्तिककारेण परशब्दस्य व्यवस्थावाचकत्वमादाय दोषपरिमार्जनाय पूर्वविप्रतिषेधवार्तिकानि आरब्धानि । तानि लक्ष्याणि भाष्यकारः परशब्दस्य इष्टवाचकत्वमादाय साधितवान् । अत्र बहुधा लेखकेन तादृशान्येवोदाहरणानि स्वीकृतानि यत्र पूर्वविप्रतिषेधोस्ति । सूत्रस्यास्य सम्पूर्णाष्टाध्यायीमभिव्याप्य प्रवृत्तिः इति लेखकप्रतिज्ञा (page 31)। तथा सति तु बहूपप्लवः ।  

उपप्लवः प्रदर्शनीयो हि ऋजुतरपरिहारनिश्चयाय।

 

सिद्धस्यैव अंशस्य भाषान्तरेण वक्तुं तेन प्रयासः कृतः ।

कथम् इव?

 

क्वचिदन्यथापि । तत्रापि बहवो दोषाः वर्तन्त इति मम भाति ।

ननु दोषाणां प्रदर्शनेन काऽवगतिर् वरीयसीति भ्रमो वार्यते।

 गौरववारणम् / लघुताग्रहणम्, लक्ष्यानुकूल्यता, अपवादनैयून्यम् इति गुणान् परिशील्य कः परिहारो वर इति निश्चेतव्यं खलु।

 

-कार्तिकभागवत्।

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

Another helpful video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vK6idwmdDXQ&t=374s

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

+shabda-shAstram, yatrāpi prāktanas sandeshaḥ prēṣitaḥ

(svāgataṁ kārtikāyāryāya 🙏)

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/4d5bc351-7a66-415e-8ad2-fdd310910ab9n%40googlegroups.com iti pariśīlanam api prāsaṅgikam.

On Sat, 17 Dec 2022 at 15:50, Kartik Bhagwat <kartikb...@gmail.com> wrote:

नमांसि

भवतां प्रतिस्पन्दम् अद्राक्षम् ।
मया तद्ग्रन्थगतदोषस्य अन्वेषणाय अयं यत्नः न कृतः, परं लेखकेन एव यः क्रमः नादृतः मन्त्रैः इत्यस्य सिद्धये सः कथं वा रामेभ्यः इत्यत्र आदृतः स्यात्।
किञ्च रामेभ्यः इत्यत्र उत्सर्गापवादभावः नास्तीति भावयामि ।
परस्परविरोधः एव विप्रतिषेधः न, किन्तु तुल्यबलविरोधः एव इति दर्शनाय मया विप्रतिषेधपदार्थः लेखकेन नावगतः इत्युच्यमानम् ।
किञ्च विप्रतिषेधो न केवलं रूपसिद्धिमात्रोपयोगी, किन्तु सूत्रार्थनिर्णय-सञ्ज्ञादिनिश्चायकः अपि ।
पुनरपि शोधं परिशीलयामि, न मम निन्दायाम्  आग्रहः ।

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hindu-vidyA हिन्दुविद्या" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to hindu-vidya...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/hindu-vidya/a04409c1-f8bc-427c-88a5-d412b51d844cn%40googlegroups.com.

[G S S Murthy]

"This type of research would be very unlikely in traditional India - since any such researcher would be stuck within tradition - forced to parrot the same old ancient misunderstandings of scholars (who're turned into "always-correct" sages by tradition)"

Mr Vishvas has hit the nail on its head.

Regards,

Murthy

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/hindu-vidya/CAFY6qgFhQMPb%3D3TLsG4mdUUzz_QhR6W5tN2qVT9PfV9FN0O42g%40mail.gmail.com.

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Sat, 17 Dec 2022 at 18:20, G S S Murthy <murt...@gmail.com> wrote:

"This type of research would be very unlikely in traditional India - since any such researcher would be stuck within tradition - forced to parrot the same old ancient misunderstandings of scholars (who're turned into "always-correct" sages by tradition)"

Mr Vishvas has hit the nail on its head.

Regards,

Murthy

Some interesting reactions of this type:

https://www.facebook.com/CSUekalavyacampus/videos/518572730039242 is an excellent reminder of traditional obtuseness (Starting at 43:45 where "यथोत्तरं मुनीनां प्रामाण्यम् " is quoted to defend inviolability of patanjali's opinion. )

(Received on whatsapp today) -

According to the information I got, this person has not learnt at least entire Ashtadhyayi (Kashika or Siddhantakaumudi) properly nor his guide.
Thus, making such discoveries without proper learning is a great wonder.
Debating on such matters, which are not based on proper learning, is a waste of time.

शास्त्राध्ययनमापाततो न। परिश्रम आवश्यक:। ग्रामं गच्छंस्तृणं स्पृशतीति यथा तथा तन्न।

अनेन राजपोपटवृत्तान्तेन शास्त्रप्रसिद्ध्यात्मकं फलं समजनिष्ट। नान्यत्किमपि। शास्त्रं राराज्यते।

From navIn gangotri on FB:

ಪಾಣಿನಿಯನ್ ಮೆಟಾರೂಲ್ ಮತ್ತು ಕನ್ನಡ ಪತ್ರಿಕೆಯ ವರದಿಗಳು

==================================

ಕಳೆದೊಂದು ದಶಕದಿಂದ ಸಂಸ್ಕೃತದ ಕುರಿತಾಗಿ ಮಾಧ್ಯಮದ ಮುಖ್ಯವಾಹಿನಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಆಗೀಗ ನಾನಾ ಬಗೆಯ ಚರ್ಚೆಗಳಾಗುತ್ತಲೇ ಇವೆ. ಭಾರತ ಮಾತ್ರವಲ್ಲ, ಹಲವಾರುಬಾರಿ ಯುರೋಪು ಮತ್ತು ಅಮೇರಿಕದ ಅಕೆಡೆಮಿಯ ಸಹ ಈ ಸುದ್ದಿಗಳ ಭಾಗವಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ಬಹುತೇಕ ಇವೆಲ್ಲವನ್ನು ಸೆನ್ಸೇಶನಲ್ ಸುದ್ದಿಯಾಗಿಸುವ ಹುನ್ನಾರು ಕನ್ನಡ ಮತ್ತು ಇಂಗ್ಲೀಷ್ ಮಾಧ್ಯಮಗಳೆರಡರಲ್ಲೂ ನಡೆದೇ ಇರುವುದನ್ನು ಕಂಡಿದ್ದೇವೆ. ಈ ಬಾರಿ ಮತ್ತದೇ ಯುರೋಪಿನಿಂದ ಬಂದ ಸಂಸ್ಕೃತದ ಕುರಿತಾದ ಸುದ್ದಿಯೊಂದು ಸೆನ್ಸೇಶನಲ್ ಆಗಿ ನಮ್ಮ ಮಾಧ್ಯಮಗಳಿಗೆ ಕಂಡಿದೆ. ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ಕಾರಣ ಎರಡು – ಪಾಣಿನಿವ್ಯಾಕರಣಕ್ಕೆ ಎರಡುವರೆ ಸಾವಿರ ವರ್ಷದ ಇತಿಹಾಸವಿರುವುದರಿಂದ ‘ಎರಡುವರೆ ಸಾವಿರ ವರ್ಷದ ಸಮಸ್ಯೆ’ ಎನ್ನುವ ಫ್ಯಾನ್ಸಿ ಹೆಡಿಂಗ್ ಕೊಡಬಹುದು ಎನ್ನುವುದು ಒಂದಾದರೆ, ಇದುವರೆಗೆ ಭಾರತೀಯ ಸಂಸ್ಕೃತವಿದ್ವಾಂಸರಿಗೆ ಸಾಧ್ಯವಾಗದೇ ಇದ್ದುದನ್ನು ಭಾರತೀಯ ಹುಡುಗನೊಬ್ಬ ಯುರೋಪಿಯನ್ ವಿಶ್ವವಿದ್ಯಾಲಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಕಂಡುಹಿಡಿದ ಎನ್ನುವುದು ಇನ್ನೊಂದು.

ಇವೆರಡೂ ಸತ್ಯವೇ ಎನ್ನುವುದನ್ನು ಅಕೆಡೆಮಿಯವೊಂದೇ ಹೇಳಬಹುದೇ ಹೊರತು ಸುದ್ದಿಕೋರರಿಗೆ ಅದು ಶಕ್ಯವೂ ಇಲ್ಲ, ಅದವರಿಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧವೂ ಇಲ್ಲ. ಆದರೆ ಈ ನಡುವೆ ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯ ಓದುಗ ಮಾತ್ರ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲದ ಮಾಹಿತಿಯನ್ನು ತನ್ನ ಮಿದುಳಿಗೇರಿಸಿಕೊಂಡಿರುತ್ತಾನೆ.

ಥಿಸೀಸು ಬರೆದಿರುವ ಹುಡುಗ ತಾನು ಪಾಣಿನೀಯ ಸೂತ್ರವೊಂದಕ್ಕೆ (ಸೂತ್ರವೊಂದರಲ್ಲಿನ ಪದಕ್ಕೆ) ತನ್ನದೇ ಆದ (ಪಾರಂಪರಿಕವಲ್ಲದ) ಅರ್ಥವನ್ನು ಹಚ್ಚುವಮೂಲಕ ಹೆಚ್ಚಿನ ಪ್ರಯಾಸವಿಲ್ಲದೆ ಶಬ್ದಗಳ ರೂಪಸಿದ್ಧಿಯನ್ನು ಮಾಡುವ ವಿಧಾನವನ್ನು ನಿರೂಪಿಸಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದಾನೆ. ಇದಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ತಾನು ನೆಚ್ಚಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದು ಪಾಣಿನೀಯ ಅಷ್ಟಾಧ್ಯಾಯೀ ಗ್ರಂಥವನ್ನು ಮಾತ್ರ (ವ್ಯಾಖ್ಯಾನಪರಂಪರೆಯನ್ನಲ್ಲ), ಪರಂಪರೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ಸಂದರ್ಭವನ್ನು ನಿರ್ವಹಿಸುವುದಕ್ಕೋಸ್ಕರ ಹಲವಾರು ಅಡಿಶನ್ ಗಳನ್ನು ಮಾಡಬೇಕಾಗಿ ಬಂದಿದೆ, ಆದರೆ ತನ್ನ ಪದ್ಧತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ಬಗೆಯ ಅಡಿಶನ್ ಗಳು ಬೇಕಾಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದಾನೆ. ಇದು ಎಷ್ಟರಮಟ್ಟಿಗೆ ನಿಲ್ಲಬಹುದಾದ ವಾದ ಎನ್ನುವುದಕ್ಕೆ ಇನ್ನುಮೇಲಷ್ಟೆ ಉತ್ತರಸಿಗಬೇಕಿದೆ.

ಆದರೆ ಅದಾಗಲೇ ‘ಎರಡೂವರೆ ಸಾವಿರ ವರ್ಷಗಳ ಪಝಲ್’ ಗೆ ಉತ್ತರ ಸಿಕ್ಕಿದೆ ಎಂದು ಬರೆದುಕೊಂಡಿರುವ ಮಾಧ್ಯಮಗಳು ಹಬ್ಬಿಸುತ್ತಿರುವ ರಂಗು ಬೇರೆಯದ್ದೇ ಇದೆ. ಇಲ್ಲೊಬ್ಬರು ಕರ್ನಾಟಕದ ಕನ್ನಡ ವರದಿಗಾರರು ಈ ಪಝಲ್ ಅನ್ನುವ ಪದವನ್ನು ‘ಪದಬಂಧ’ ಎಂದು ಅನುವಾದಿಸಿ ‘ಪಾಣಿನಿ ಪದಬಂಧ ಬಿಡಿಸಿದ ಭಾರತೀಯ’ ಎಂದು ಕೊಂಡಾಡಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಮಹರ್ಷಿ ಪಾಣಿನಿ ಪದಬಂಧ ಬರೆಯುತ್ತಿದ್ದರೋ ಎಂಬ ಅನುಮಾನವನ್ನು ಹುಟ್ಟಿಸುವ ವರದಿ ಇದು. ಅದೇ ವರದಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ‘ಪಾಣಿನಿ ಬಲಪಂಥೀಯ ಆಡಳಿತ ಬಯಸಿದ್ದರು’ ಎಂಬ ಅಧಿಕಪ್ರಸಂಗವನ್ನೂ ಪ್ರದರ್ಶಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ. ಇಂಗ್ಲಿಷ್ ವರದಿಯಲ್ಲಿದ್ದ (ಅಲ್ಲಿಯೂ ಸಹ ಮೂಲ ಥಿಸೀಸಿನಿಂದ ಎತ್ತಿ ಬಳಸಿಕೊಂಡ ವಾಕ್ಯ) ವಾಕ್ಯವನ್ನು ಕನ್ನಡಕ್ಕೆ ಅನುವಾದಿಸಲಾಗದೆ ಮಾಡಿದ ಅರ್ಜೆಂಟ್ ಪ್ರಸವ ಇದು. ಇಂಗ್ಲೀಷ್ ಪತ್ರಿಕೆಯಲ್ಲಿದ್ದ ‘ಮೆಟಾರೂಲ್’ ಅನ್ನುವ ಪದವನ್ನು ಕನ್ನಡಕ್ಕೆ ತರಲಾಗದೆ ‘ಮೆಟಾರೂಲ್’ ಎಂದೇ ಉಳಿಸಿಕೊಂಡು ವರದಿ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಓದುಗನ ಮಿದುಳಿಗೆ ವಿದ್ಯುತ್ಸಂಚಾರದ ಅನುಭವ ಕೊಡುವುದಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಈ ಜನ ತಮಗೆ ಅಪೂಟು ತಿಳಿಯದ ವಿಷಯವೊಂದನ್ನು ಅಡ್ಡಾದಿಡ್ಡಿ ಅನುವಾದಿಸಿ ವರದಿ ಮಾಡಲು ನಿಂತಿದ್ದು ಮಾತ್ರ ಹಾಸ್ಯಾಸ್ಪದ.

ಮೆಟರೂಲ್, ಟೂ ಥೌಸಂಡ್ ಫೈವ್ ಹಂಡ್ರೆಡ್ ಇಯರ್ ಓಲ್ಡ್ ಪಝಲ್, ಅಂತೆಲ್ಲ ನೋಡುವಾಗ ಓದುಗನಿಗೂ ಇದೊಂದೇನೋ ಹಿಂದಿಲ್ಲದ್ದು ಈಗ ಆಗಿಬಿಟ್ಟಿದೆ ಅನ್ನುವ ಭಾವನೆ ಬರಬಹುದು. ಆದರೆ ವಿಷಯ ಅಷ್ಟು ಸೀದಾ ಇಲ್ಲ. ಎರಡುವರೆಸಾವಿರ ವರ್ಷದಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ಪರಂಪರೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಎಂತೆಂಥ ಮೇಧಾವಿಗಳು ಆಗಿಹೋಗಿದ್ದಾರೆಂದರೆ ಅವರು ಯೋಚಿಸದೇ ಉಳಿದ ಕೋನಗಳೇ ಇಲ್ಲ ಎನ್ನುವಷ್ಟು. ಪಾಣಿನಿ ಮಹರ್ಷಿಗಳ ಬಳಿಕ ವಾರ್ತ್ತಿಕಗಳನ್ನು ಬರೆದ ವರರುಚಿ ಕಾತ್ಯಾಯನರಿಂದ ಹಿಡಿದು ತೀರಾ ಹದಿನೆಂಟನೆಯ ಶತಮಾನದಲ್ಲಿ ಆಗಿಹೋದ ನಾಗೇಶಭಟ್ಟರಂಥ ಆಧುನಿಕ ವೈಯಾಕರಣರವರೆಗೆ ಈ ಪರಂಪರೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಊಹಾತೀತ ಬುದ್ಧಿಮತ್ತೆಯ ಜನಗಳು ಅದೆಷ್ಟೋ. ಬರಿಯ ವ್ಯಾಕರಣವೊಂದರಲ್ಲೇ ನೂರಾರು ಪ್ರಮುಖ ಗ್ರಂಥಗಳು ಬಂದಿವೆ. ಅಲ್ಲೆಲ್ಲೂ ಹೇಳದೇ ಇರುವುದನ್ನು ಹೇಳುವುದಕ್ಕೆ, ಕಾಣದೇ ಇರುವುದನ್ನು ಕಾಣುವುದಕ್ಕೆ ತೀರಾ ಗಹನವಾದ ಅಧ್ಯಯನ ಬೇಕು. ಈ ಥಿಸೀಸು ಬರೆದಿರುವ ಹುಡುಗ ಹಾಗೆ ಅಧ್ಯಯನ ಮಾಡಿ ಥಿಸೀಸು ಬರೆದನೋ ಇಲ್ಲವೋ ಅನ್ನುವುದನ್ನು ಇದೀಗ ಅವನ ಥಿಸೀಸು ಓದಿಯೇ ಹೇಳಬೇಕು.

ಅಂದಹಾಗೆ, ಟೂ ಥೌಸಂಡು ವರ್ಷಗಳಿಂದ ಯಾವ ಸಮಸ್ಯೆಯೂ ಪೆಂಡಿಂಗ್ ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ. ಪರಂಪರೆ ಅದೆಲ್ಲದಕ್ಕೂ ಯಥಾಯೋಗ್ಯವಾದ ಪರಿಹಾರವನ್ನು ಕಂಡುಕೊಂಡೇ ಇದೆ. ಇವತ್ತಿಗೂ ಯಾವೊಂದು ಸಂಸ್ಕೃತ ಶಬ್ದದ ವ್ಯುತ್ಪತ್ತಿಯನ್ನು ಮತ್ತು ರೂಪಸಿದ್ಧಿಯನ್ನು ಹೇಳಲಾಗದ ಒಂದಾದರೂ ಉದಾಹರಣೆ ಪರಂಪರೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಇಲ್ಲ. ಹಾಗಾಗಿ ಕಗ್ಗಂಟು ಬಿಡಿಸಿದ ಕೇಂಬ್ರಿಡ್ಜ್ ಹುಡುಗ ಎಂದೆಲ್ಲ ಹೇಳುವ ಮಾಧ್ಯಮ ವರದಿಗಾರರು ಸ್ವಲ್ಪ ಸಾವರಿಸಬೇಕು.

 

From ramakrishna pejattaya on FB:

ಸದ್ಯ ವ್ಯಾಪಕಚರ್ಚೆಯಲ್ಲಿರುವ ವ್ಯಾಕರಣಕ್ಕೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದ ಸಂಶೋಧನೆಯ ಸಾರಾಂಶ ಹಾಗೂ ಅದನ್ನು ನೋಡಬೇಕಾದ ರೀತಿಗಳನ್ನಷ್ಟೇ ಹಂಚಿಕೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತಿದ್ದೇನೆ.

ಈ ಶೋಧಪ್ರಬಂಧವಿರುವುದು ‘ವಿಪ್ರತಿಷೇಧೇ ಪರಂ ಕಾರ್ಯಮ್’ ಎಂಬ ಪಾಣಿನೀಯ ಸೂತ್ರವೊಂದನ್ನು ಹೇಗೆ ಅರ್ಥೈಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳಬೇಕೆಂಬುದರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ. ಪ್ರಕೃತ ಶೋಧಪ್ರಬಂಧ ಆ ಸೂತ್ರವನ್ನು ಪತಂಜಲಿಯೇ ಮೊದಲಾದ ಪ್ರಾಚೀನ ಆಚಾರ್ಯರು ಮತ್ತು ಕಾಲ್ಡೋನಾ ಮೊದಲಾದ ಅರ್ವಾಚೀನ ವಿದ್ವಾಂಸರು ಹೇಗೆ ಅರ್ಥೈಸಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ಧಾರೆಂಬುದನ್ನು ಚರ್ಚಿಸಿ, ಅವರೆಲ್ಲರ ಗ್ರಹಿಕೆ ಸಮರ್ಪಕವಾಗಿಲ್ಲವೆಂದು ತಿಳಿಸುತ್ತಾ, ಅದನ್ನು ಅರ್ಥೈಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳಲು ತನ್ನದೇ ಆದ ಹೊಸ ರೀತಿಯನ್ನು ಪ್ರಸ್ತುತಪಡಿಸಿದೆ. ಯಾವುದೇ ಶಾಸ್ತ್ರಪ್ರಮೇಯವನ್ನು ಅರ್ಥೈಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳಲು ಬೇರೆಬೇರೆ ವಿಧವಾದ ವ್ಯಾಖ್ಯಾನಗಳು ಹೊಸತೇನಲ್ಲ. ಇಂತಹ ಪ್ರಸಂಗಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಎಲ್ಲ ವಿಧವಾದ ವ್ಯಾಖ್ಯಾನಗಳಲ್ಲಿಯೂ ಒಂದಷ್ಟು ಗುಣಗಳು ಮತ್ತೊಂದಷ್ಟು ದೋಷಗಳು ಇದ್ದೇ ಇರುತ್ತವೆ. ಕೆಲವೆಡೆ ಹೊಸ ವಾದಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ‘ಅಳಿಯ ಅಲ್ಲ ಮಗಳ ಗಂಡ’ ಎಂಬಂತೆ ಶಬ್ದಚಮತ್ಕಾರವಷ್ಟೇ ಇರುವುದನ್ನೂ ನಾವು ಕಾಣಬಹುದು. ಪ್ರಕೃತ ಪ್ರಬಂಧವು ಪ್ರಸ್ತುತಪಡಿಸಿರುವ ಸೂತ್ರಾರ್ಥದ ಯುಕ್ತಾಯುಕ್ತತೆಯ ಚರ್ಚೆ ಈಗಾಗಲೇ ವಿದ್ವದ್ವಲಯದಲ್ಲಿ ನಡೆಯುತ್ತಿದೆ. ಕೆಲ ವಿದ್ವಾಂಸರು ಈ ದೃಷ್ಟಿಕೋನದರಲ್ಲಿರುವ ನ್ಯೂನತೆಗಳನ್ನೂ ತೋರಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಇನ್ನು ಕೆಲವರು, ಪ್ರಾಚೀನ ವೈಯಾಕರಣರ ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯವೇ ಇಲ್ಲಿ ಬೇರೆ ಶಬ್ದಗಳಿಂದ ಹೇಳಲ್ಪಟ್ಟಿವೆ ಎಂದಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಒಟ್ಟಾರೆ ಈ ಸಂಶೋಧನೆ ಎಲ್ಲರ ಗಮನ ಸೆಳೆದಿರುವುದು ಸ್ಪಷ್ಟ.

ಒಳ್ಳೆಯ ಹೊಸ ಸಂಶೋಧನೆಗಳನ್ನು ಪ್ರೀತಿಯಿಂದ ಸ್ವಾಗತಿಸಬೇಕು. ಆದರೆ ಪತ್ರಿಕೆಗಳು ಬಳಸಿರುವ ‘ಎರಡೂವರೆಸಾವಿರ ವರ್ಷಗಳಿಂದ ಅರ್ಥವಾಗದೇ ಇದ್ದ’, ‘traditionally misunderstood’ ಇತ್ಯಾದಿ ಶಬ್ದಗಳು ತುಂಬಾ ಭಾರವಾದವುಗಳು. ವಿಷಯ ಅರ್ಥವಾಗಿಲ್ಲದಿದ್ದರೂ ಹಲವರು ಈ ಪತ್ರಿಕಾವರದಿಗಳನ್ನು ಹಂಚಿಕೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತಿರುವುದೇಕೋ ಅರ್ಥವಾಗದು. ಕೆಲ ಬೃಹಸ್ಪತಿಗಳಂತೂ ಏನೇನೂ ಅರ್ಥವಾಗದಿದ್ದರೂ ‘ಪಾಣಿನಿ ಬಲಪಂಥೀಯ ಆಡಳಿತ ಬಯಸಿದ್ದನು’ ಎನ್ನುವಲ್ಲಿಯವರೆಗೂ ಇದನ್ನು ವ್ಯಾಖ್ಯಾನಿಸಿ ಸಂ’ಭ್ರಮಿಸಿ’ದ್ದಾರೆ. ಈಗಾಗಲೇ ಆ ನಿರ್ಣಯಕ್ಕೆ ಬರುವುದು ತುಂಬಾ ಅವಸರವಾದೀತು. ಸ್ವಲ್ಪ ಕಾಯುವುದೊಳಿತು. ಒಂದು ವೇಳೆ ಪ್ರಾಮಾಣಿಕ ವೈಯಾಕರಣರು ಈ ಹೊಸ ಅರ್ಥೈಕೆಯನ್ನು ಒಪ್ಪಿಕೊಂಡರೆ ಎಲ್ಲರೂ ಒಟ್ಟಿಗೇ ಸಂಭ್ರಮಿಸಬಹುದು. ಆ ಸಂಶೋಧಕರನ್ನೂ ಅಭಿನಂದಿಸಬಹುದು.

ಇದನ್ನೆಲ್ಲಾ ನೋಡಿದಾಗ ಕಾಳಿದಾಸ ಹೇಳಿರುವ ಮಾತು ಎಷ್ಟು ಅರ್ಥಪೂರ್ಣ ಎಂದೆನಿಸುತ್ತದೆ –

ತಂ ಸಂತಃ ಶ್ರೋತುಮರ್ಹಂತಿ ಸದಸದ್ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಹೇತವಃ |

ಹೇಮ್ನಃ ಸಂಲಕ್ಷ್ಯತೇ ಹ್ಯಗ್ನೌ ವಿಶುದ್ಧಿಃ ಶ್ಯಾಮಿಕಾಪಿ ವಾ ||

There was also a vituperous reaction circulated on whatsapp, said to be written by shrI udayana - but seems to have been deleted.

[G S S Murthy]

Risking comments that I am utilizing this discussion to air a personal grievance, let me say:

In 2003 Annals of BORI published my paper, "Characterizing classical Anushtup: A study in Sanskrit prosody" where I had shown how the ubiquitous anushtup has not been properly characterized for the last 2500 years or more and how it could be characterized. As a respected Indologist pointed out in an entirely different context the standard way of pouring cold water to a new work is to ignore it. And that happened in my case. As a loner  I did not have the wherewithal for publicity. My case rusts there.

Regards,

Murthy

[Hari Parshad Das]

Khandanam of Rishi Rajpopats PhD by Vyakarana Vidushi Smt. Pushpa Dixit.

Part 1: https://youtu.be/PXBo3zz7IcU

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/hindu-vidya/CADi6ZRjjydFU%3DNiG-A5k5QX0YFe2Cb12dYgiyPqernzRiviN6Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

अस्याः प्रक्रियाया लक्ष्यव्यभिचारा एकत्र (यथा ऽत्र https://rebrand.ly/rishi-rajpopat-errors ) सङ्गृहीतुं सरलास् स्युः।

[Hari Parshad Das]

Part 2: Khandanam begins

https://youtu.be/hp3sBTWJ2AI

Vidvans can continue following the Khandanam series on the YouTube channel. 🙏

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

vaMshIkRShNa-ghanapAThI -

https://fb.watch/huHJCBuyXR/?mibextid=2Rb1fB

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 at 06:45, विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki) <vishvas...@gmail.com> wrote:

vaMshIkRShNa-ghanapAThI -

https://fb.watch/huHJCBuyXR/?mibextid=2Rb1fB

This has a good beginning, but at 6:13, he makes a gross error - "param means 'desired one' [according to RishirAj]" (+cc वंशिकृष्णार्यः)

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Sun, 18 Dec 2022 at 21:44, Hari Parshad Das <hpd...@gmail.com> wrote:

Part 2: Khandanam begins

https://youtu.be/hp3sBTWJ2AI

At 2:48, there's the claim that unlike ordinary folk, the munitraya could observe ALL laxya-s in a single period (hence their pronouncements can't be shaken by us)!

I would be grateful if someone could share a transcript or just list cases mentioned where RShirAj's prakriyA fails in contrast to traditional interpretation.

[Lokesh Sharma]

नमोनमः

केचन परम्परावादिनः पण्डितमन्यमानाः आचार्याः ऋषिराजं द्विषन्ति। सः परम्परायाः विरुद्धम् उक्तवान् इति कारणात्। तस्मात् ते अहर्निशं ऋषिराजस्य दोषान् अन्वेषितुं संलग्नाः सन्ति। विना तस्य लेखस्य महत्त्वं गृहीत्वा केवलं येन केन प्रकारेण तम् दूषितम् इच्छन्ति। धिक् तादृशानाम् आचार्याणाम् पाण्डित्यम्। वस्तुतः मूर्खाः एव ते न तु पण्डिताः इति ज्ञातव्यम् सुधीभिः।

ॐ

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/hindu-vidya/CAFY6qgHht6-k3nBbAdVFDT%2BTP3rRYTLZ3tsGO-o6c%3DRc0P_PeQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 at 11:13, Lokesh Sharma <lokeshh...@gmail.com> wrote:

नमोनमः

केचन परम्परावादिनः पण्डितमन्यमानाः आचार्याः ऋषिराजं द्विषन्ति। सः परम्परायाः विरुद्धम् उक्तवान् इति कारणात्। तस्मात् ते अहर्निशं ऋषिराजस्य दोषान् अन्वेषितुं संलग्नाः सन्ति। विना तस्य लेखस्य महत्त्वं गृहीत्वा केवलं येन केन प्रकारेण तम् दूषितम् इच्छन्ति। धिक् तादृशानाम् आचार्याणाम् पाण्डित्यम्। वस्तुतः मूर्खाः एव ते न तु पण्डिताः इति ज्ञातव्यम् सुधीभिः।

naivam bhō manyē - kōpasyāpi sanniyōjanam bhavati cēt - duṣṭāṁśa-pratipādanātmakam, na tad vyartham.

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

(I've begun recording some vacuous non-technical "responses", such as that problem-summary by shrI nAgarAja in BVP, at https://groups.google.com/g/meta-indology/c/odeE8BusYlE/m/1Qy-CYdcCwAJ )

Now this article is being circulated:

Claims made by Cambridge University Researcher are Illogical, Invalid and Misleading — An article by Sanskrit Vyākaraṇa Vidvān Swami Shivamurthy Shivacharya of Sri Taralabalu Math.

Link: http://math.taralabalu.in/news.php?tp=1901

अयम् महाशयो वदति -

- mantra + bhis इति प्रक्रियायाम् 7.3.103 bahuvacane jhaly et (ataḥ supi) इति सूत्रस्य प्राप्तिर् एव नास्ति (तेन बाधाया एव प्रसङ्ग एव नास्ति)। (" The conflict here is not with the Vidhi Sutras 7.3.102 or 7.3.103")
-  siv + na is processed by the Sutra 6.4.019 chvoḥ śūḍ anunānāsike ca, the v of siv is replaced with ū yielding the output (si + ū) + na  इत्यत्र 7.3.086 pugantalghūpadhasya ca इत्यस्य च प्राप्तिर् नास्ति। ("In fact, the researcher has a wrong notion that two Sutras are simultaneously applicable here.  I strongly deny the occurrence of two Sutras here. ... there is no scope for the rule 7.3.086 pugantalghūpadhasya ca.")

पारम्परिकास् तु वदन्ति - प्राप्तिर् अस्ति, किन्त्व् अनुचितं सूत्रम् बाध्यते।

अस्य महाशयस्यात्रैवावगतिर् नास्ति, तथापि जना अस्य प्रामादिकं लेखम् प्रसार्य +उल्लसन्तीति विडम्बनं खलु। भगवान् एव रक्षतु शास्त्राणि :-(

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

+ सन्देशधारे

On Tue, 20 Dec 2022 at 04:08, P D <jup...@rediffmail.com> wrote:

Vishvas Mahodaya, नमस्ते भू + (शप्) अ + (तिप्) ति अत्र 6.1.77 इको यणचि सूत्रेण यण् सन्धि उत् 7.3.84 सार्वधातुकार्धधातुकयोः सूत्रेण गुणः करणीय इति प्रश्ने द्वे अपि कार्याः वामतः एव, प्रथमं कार्यम् वर्णकार्यम्, अपरं अङ्ग कार्यम्, अतः वार्णात् अङ्गम् बलीय इति परिभाषया साह्य्येन एव निर्णय कर्तुम् शक्नुमः । परिभाषेन्दुशेखरः इत्यत्र नागेशः भट्टः द्वितीयप्रकरणे - बाधबीजप्रकरणे एतादृशानां सर्वानां संशयानां समाधानार्थं परिभाषाः पाठयति, राजपोपटमहोदयस्य अध्ययन कृते । Thanks & Regards, Paresh

नमामि।

ममैवम् अवगतिः -

ऋषिराजप्रक्रिया -  
भू+लँट् → भू+लँ → भू+ल् → भू+तिप् → भू+शप्+तिप् → भू + शप् + ति → भू + अ + ति → … भवति।

भू + अ + ति इति दशायाम् "6.1.77 इको यणचि", "7.3.84 सार्वधातुकार्धधातुकयोः" इत्येतयोः प्रसक्तिः। द्वयोर् अपि कार्यस्थाने "भू" इत्य् अन्तर्भवति। तेन समान-स्थान-("SOI")-स्पर्धा। तत्र सूक्ष्मतरो (more specific) नियमो जयेत्।  

"7.3.84 सार्वधातुकार्धधातुकयोः" इत्यस्यात्र कार्यक्षेत्रम् धातुस्थ ऊकारः। "6.1.77 इको यणचि" इत्यस्य कार्यक्षेत्रम् अत्र +अविशिष्ट ऊकारः। तेन प्राक्तनं "7.3.84 सार्वधातुकार्धधातुकयोः" जयति।

ततः - भो + अ + ति → … भवति।

नात्र कस्याश्चन परिभाषाया अपेक्षा।

https://www.cam.ac.uk/system/files/rajpopat_phd_thesis_15_dec_2022.pdf

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/shabda-shastram/02e69b5f-c5b7-49e7...@googlegroups.com.

--

--
Vishvas /विश्वासः

--

--
Vishvas /विश्वासः

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hindu-vidyA हिन्दुविद्या" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to hindu-vidya...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/hindu-vidya/CAFY6qgEKsiVPStuOYZRwsXvs...@mail.gmail.com.

--

--
Vishvas /विश्वासः

--

Automatically Inserted Signature: Dear receiver. In case I am not able to reply to your emails due to lack of time, kindly do not take it negatively. In the age of the internet and social media, it is almost impossible to respond to hundreds of individuals who are simultaneously communicating with us using these platforms. Although my attempt is to try and respond to every email, it is simply not possible sometimes due to work overload and time related constraints. Kindly understand my predicament and excuse me if I am sometimes unable to reply to your emails.

--

--
Vishvas /विश्वासः

--

--
Vishvas /विश्वासः

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "shabda-shAstram" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to shabda-shastr...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/shabda-shastram/CAFY6qgHht6-k3nBbAdVFDT+TP3rRYTLZ3tsGO-o6c=Rc0P...@mail.gmail.com.

[S. L. Abhyankar]

इति+इदम् = इतीदम् इत्येव संहिता अकः सवर्णे दीर्घः (6-1-97) अनेनैव सूत्रेण भवितुमर्हति न तु इत्यिदम् इति इको यणचि (6-1-74) इत्यनेन पूर्वेण सूत्रेण | 

कात्यायनमुनिना विप्रतिषेधे परं कार्यम् (1-4-2) इत्यस्य सूत्रस्य अर्थः समीचीनः एव प्रस्तुतः | 

मुनेः प्रस्तुतौ राजगोपालाय समस्या का एतत्तु नैव स्पष्टीकृतम् ? 

आत्मश्लाघायुतमेतावन्निवेदनं गर्हणीयमित्येव् मे मतिः 

Cordially, S. L. Abhyankar
सस्नेहमिदम् अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नस्य श्रीपादस्य |
"श्रीपतेः पदयुगं स्मरणीयम् ।"
My blogs मम जालपुटानि - 

१ संस्कृताध्ययनम्  २ सरलं संस्कृतम् ३ संस्कृतभवनम् ४  गीतान्वेषणम् ५ गीतायाः धात्वभ्यासः 

६ संस्कृत-व्याकरणस्य अध्ययनम् ७ संस्कृतप्रसृतिः ८ उपनिषदध्ययनम् ९ संस्कृतचर्चा १० ज्योतिर्विज्ञानम् 

११ गणिताभ्यासः

My YouTube videos on Sanskrit are at this channel <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHnw6UVN1Q6wLgEsbuyuMVA>

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/hindu-vidya/CAFY6qgE-%3DDUyDn_oQa_RDxp-c3WbmFrNFkrrMpTN1cjh6s%3DSpQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Tue, 20 Dec 2022 at 09:06, S. L. Abhyankar <sl.abh...@gmail.com> wrote:

इति+इदम् = इतीदम् इत्येव संहिता अकः सवर्णे दीर्घः (6-1-97) अनेनैव सूत्रेण भवितुमर्हति न तु इत्यिदम् इति इको यणचि (6-1-74) इत्यनेन पूर्वेण सूत्रेण | 

कात्यायनमुनिना विप्रतिषेधे परं कार्यम् (1-4-2) इत्यस्य सूत्रस्य अर्थः समीचीनः एव प्रस्तुतः | 

एकत्र समीचीनम्, अनेकत्र न। सर्वस्याप्यालोडनपूर्वकं वरीयसी परिभाषा ग्राह्या।

 

मुनेः प्रस्तुतौ राजगोपालाय समस्या का एतत्तु नैव स्पष्टीकृतम् ? 

राजपोपटो, न राजगोपालः।

ननु मुनेः प्रस्तुतौ कः क्लेश इति स्पष्टीकृतम् एव तस्य लेखे? जटिलतपरिभाषाजालापेक्षा।

 

आत्मश्लाघायुतमेतावन्निवेदनं गर्हणीयमित्येव् मे मतिः 

घोषणापरीक्षा (निवेदनपरीक्षा) भिन्ना, प्रक्रियापरिभाषापरीक्षा भिन्ना। मम तु प्रक्रियापरिभाषापरीक्षायाम् एवासक्तिः।

[S. L. Abhyankar]

मूलतः कात्यायनैः वार्त्तिकानीति अधिकानि सूत्राणि प्रस्तुतानि न तु सूत्रे सूत्रे भाष्यम् | एवं सति किं नु तेषां नामोल्लेखः ? 

Cordially, S. L. Abhyankar
सस्नेहमिदम् अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नस्य श्रीपादस्य |
"श्रीपतेः पदयुगं स्मरणीयम् ।"
My blogs मम जालपुटानि - 

१ संस्कृताध्ययनम्  २ सरलं संस्कृतम् ३ संस्कृतभवनम् ४  गीतान्वेषणम् ५ गीतायाः धात्वभ्यासः 

६ संस्कृत-व्याकरणस्य अध्ययनम् ७ संस्कृतप्रसृतिः ८ उपनिषदध्ययनम् ९ संस्कृतचर्चा १० ज्योतिर्विज्ञानम् 

११ गणिताभ्यासः

My YouTube videos on Sanskrit are at this channel <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHnw6UVN1Q6wLgEsbuyuMVA>

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/hindu-vidya/CAFY6qgE-%3DDUyDn_oQa_RDxp-c3WbmFrNFkrrMpTN1cjh6s%3DSpQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Tue, 20 Dec 2022 at 10:05, S. L. Abhyankar <sl.abh...@gmail.com> wrote:

मूलतः कात्यायनैः वार्त्तिकानीति अधिकानि सूत्राणि प्रस्तुतानि न तु सूत्रे सूत्रे भाष्यम् | एवं सति किं नु तेषां नामोल्लेखः ? 

काद्यायनेन प्रकृतसूत्रे तद्दृष्ट्या ऽसमीचीनाध्वा प्रदर्श्यतेतराम् इति

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

Some very good commentary by someone on indology list:

Dear all,

what has surprised and worried me most in all this is the way that an unsubstantiated claim has been propagated as truth by Cambridge University, and by many otherwise reputable newspapers and broadcasters around the world including, in the UK, the BBC and the Independent newspaper, without any of them bothering to seek independent confirmation.

I would like to note the honourable exception of the NY Times, who I spoke to on Friday after they sought a third-party view. After I explained that this is not 'Cambridge student solves 2,500 year old mystery', but rather merely 'Cambridge student proposes new idea, academic community yet to assess it', they quite rightly decided that it was not newsworthy. What I think would be much more newsworthy is quite how this Trump-esque propagation of what is really - at least at this point in time, that is, until or unless the claims are proved true and accepted in the academic community - fake news, happened.

It is of course good to see Sanskrit in the mainstream news, but at the expense of truth and academic integrity? I am not so sure.

Rishi, I like you and have supported you in the past, but since you have been bold enough to declare yourself the saviour of Pāṇinian studies, perhaps you will permit me a few critical comments/questions. The 'philological' argument you made in an earlier post does not actively support your argument. At best it shows that yes, para in the sense 'subsequent, to the right' can apply to contexts for rules. But that doesn't mean that 'subsequent' can't also apply in the context of the order of rules themselves, that is, it doesn't rule out the interpretation you are arguing against. What would be more probative would be to show that Pāṇini himself uses a different term for that, so that para cannot have the meaning usually assumed.

Then you note that most readers of this list wouldn't follow the detailed technical arguments. True perhaps, but what any academic could follow, what I would like in this context, and what is missing from your thesis, is any attempt at a quantitative and qualitative assessment of the relative coverage of your proposal vs the existing proposals. Let us say, for example, that the traditional Pāṇinīya model of rule interaction recognizes, or at least discusses, 30 exceptions or classes of exceptions, and the Kiparsky siddha model say 20. How many of these does your proposal immediately account for, without any other mechanisms required? To what extent can all the cases immediately accounted for on the previous models also be immediately accounted for on your model? What remains unassessed? What kinds of problematic cases are there, and what kinds of solutions are you forced into? How do the numbers and types of exceptions compare with those of previous approaches, and can this tell us anything about the relative value of the different approaches? This is not religion or poetry: it is, or at least aims to be, science - so there must be some objective verification available.

Your thesis admits that you have not considered the accent rules nor the Vedic rules, so at best you can only claim that your proposal works for a specific subset of the sutras. I also note that there are examples discussed in your thesis which don't immediately fall out from your proposal, and you admit the likelihood of more; and for these you propose 'solutions' like: excluding derivations involving uṇādi suffixes as being non-Pāṇinian (p. 230); proposing that rules which contradict your idea might be later additions to the Aṣṭādhyāyī (p. 212); taking forms which are standardly treated as two-step derivations as one-step derivations based on a previously fully constituted form (p. 231). To what extent are these 'solutions' better or worse, or narrower or broader in scope, than what is needed under earlier proposals?

Perhaps these solutions are valid in the particular cases you discuss, or perhaps not, but the point is: only if you, or someone else - but really it should be you first off - can provide a clear assessment of the overall picture, showing that your proposal uncontroversially - that is, in an objectively verifiable way - improves the empirical adequacy of the Aṣṭādhyāyī as a grammar of Pāṇinian Sanskrit in comparison with earlier interpretations, can the field even begin to move towards the point of accepting this as a revolution in our understanding. Otherwise, it is just another idea out there - a new one, and an interesting one, yes, and one you can be proud of, but not necessarily any better or truer than existing ideas.

John

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

> १.४.१ इत्य् "आकडाराद् एका संज्ञा"। कुतः ततः पूर्वम् एव "विप्रतिषेधे परं कार्यम्" इत्य् अवदिष्यद् यदि तस्माद् अधिकाराद् अपि बहिर् व्याप्तिम् ऐच्छत्। 

इति केचित्। तत्रैवं प्रतिवादः - 

- अज्ञातकारणत्वं बहुषु सूत्रस्थानेषु दृश्यत एव। 
- संज्ञा काचित् क्वास्मिन् सूत्रे विहिता?
- सूत्रान्तराण्य् अपि व्यापकानि बहून्य् अस्मिन्न् एवाधिकारे प्रोक्तानि। 

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Sun, 18 Dec 2022 at 20:03, विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki) <vishvas...@gmail.com> wrote:

अस्याः प्रक्रियाया लक्ष्यव्यभिचारा एकत्र (यथा ऽत्र https://rebrand.ly/rishi-rajpopat-errors ) सङ्गृहीतुं सरलास् स्युः।

https://groups.google.com/g/bvparishat/c/6qmOvWMiy2g/m/T1yQEATgBAAJ , https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jXzDI5g9XviXYwg46z6O_-AL_UyzGiehs4j-Ryjz4Kc/edit# इत्येताभ्यां

नूतनप्रक्रियावगतौ दोषाः पटु दर्शिता इति महतः प्रयोजनाय। युक्तं च शत-सहस्राधिक-शब्द-निष्पत्ति-परीक्षा-चोदनम्। तेन वन्दनीयो नीलेशमहोदयः।

अनेन प्रस्तुतप्रक्रियायां दोषा निवार्येरन्, पटुतरं परीक्ष्य प्रदर्श्येरन्न् इत्य् आशासे ।

एतच्च मुनिद्वयाभिप्रायस्य विरोधे (←अत्र नीलेशार्यमताद् भेदः) सम्मतौ वाप्य् ऋषिराजसदृशधीरैः क्रियात्। मङ्गलं च देवभाषाप्रतिष्ठाया भूयात्तराम्🙏

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJAMsE9p0Jc इति नित्यानन्दमिश्रः ३ दिनेभ्यः पूर्वम्।

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k_Wb-VCYhs इति दृश्यते प्रसार्यमाणम्।
एतत्तु बालिशम् - पूर्वपक्षावगतिं विना। नीलेशार्यस् तु पूर्वपक्षं सम्यग् अवागच्छत् प्रायेण - एष त्व् ऋषिराजमतेन विप्रतिषेधस्यार्थम् एव नावगतवान्। केवलं साम्प्रदायिकव्याख्यानम् अवगत्य नूतनव्याख्यानं तिरस्कुरुते।

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20221223/197e8402/attachment.pdf इति Peter Scharf नामको विद्वान्।

तत्र दर्शितः कश्चन "दोषः" -

> First of all, consider the derivation of the form bhavya, gerundive of the verb ‘to
be’. While the form is derivable from the root bh ̄u, P ̄an. ini also derives it from
the root as. In the derivation from the latter, two rules are simultaneously appli-
cable: (1) A. 2.4.52 aster bh ̄uh. ( ̄ardhadh ̄atuke 35), and (2) A. 3.1.124 r ̊halor n. yat
(dh ̄atoh. 91). The former provides the replacement of the root as with the root bh ̄u
when an  ̄ardhadh ̄atuka affix is to be provided. The term  ̄ardhadh ̄atuke is a vis.aya-
saptam ̄ı making the rule a forward-looking condition so that the replacement can
take place before the particular affix is actually provided (Scharf 2011a: 67, 2016:
317–18). The latter provides the affix n. yat after a root that ends in a short or long
vowel r ̊ or in a consonant. Rajpopat’s procedure would provide the affix since it
is the right-hand operation resulting in the incorrect form * ̄asya.

एतत् तु विचित्रम्। भूधातौ SOI भवत्य् अत्र। DOI-ग्रहणम् अनुचितं स्यात्। तथा हि -

> Secondly, consider the derivation of the form bhavanti, third-person plural
present active indicative of the root bh ̄u. At the stage bh ̄u a anti two rules apply (1)
A. 7.3.84 s ̄arvadh ̄atuk ̄ardhadh ̄atukayoh. (gun. ah. 82) which provides replacement
of the final vowel  ̄u of the stem bh ̄u before the stem-forming affix  ́sap, and (2)
A. 6.1.97 ato gun. e (parar ̄upam 94). Rajpopat’s procedure would select the right-
hand operation A. 6.1.97 resulting in bh ̄u anti.

एतद् अपि चित्रम् - SOI भवति खलु‌।

तथा च -

> Thirdly, consider the derivation of the form aj ̄abhih. , feminine instrumental
plural ‘she-goat’. At the stage after the introduction of the instrumental plural
termination bhis we have the string aja bhis. Here two rules are applicable (1)
A. 4.1.3 aj ̄adyatas. t. ̄ap which introduces the feminine affix ̄a after the nominal base
aja, and (2) A. 7.1.9 ato bhisa ais which replaces the nominal termination bhis
after a stem ending in a by ais. By his DOI principle, A. 7.1.9 will apply yielding
the string aja ais. A. 4.1.3 would then apply to yield aja ̄a ais and ultimately ajaih.
which is incorrect

विचित्रम्। "ङ्याप्प्रातिपदिकात् स्वौजसमौट्छष्टाभ्याम्भिस्ङेभ्याम्भ्यस्ङसिभ्याम्भ्यस्ङसोसाङ्ङ्योस्सुप्" इति वर्तते। अयं महाशय आबन्तम् असाधयित्वैव सुपं योक्तुं गच्छति।

अनेनापि साधु नावागामीति भाति।

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

दीक्षितपुष्पाक्षेपः - [YT](https://youtu.be/w9usSin1Y-4?t=87). चेचित् + तिप् ("प्रत्यय-ग्रहणे यङ्-लुग्-अन्तस्यापि ग्रहणम्")। तेन चेचेत्ति +इति लब्धुम् "7.3.86 pugantalaghūpadhasya ca" इति गुणः कथम् भवेद् इति।

अयम् आक्षेपो न साधुः। यतः - "चेचिद्" इत्य् अङ्गसंज्ञां लभत एव +ऋषिराजानुसारेण।

तथा हि - https://youtu.be/w9usSin1Y-4?t=159 इत्यत्र "To the best of my knowledge, the tradition does not mention this conflict" इति व्यक्तिपरवाक्यस्य जातिपरार्थग्रहणं नैव युक्तम्। तत् स्पष्टं स्याद् येन केनचित् पठितः प्रबन्धः। 

On Sat, 24 Dec 2022 at 19:00, विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki) <vishvas...@gmail.com> wrote:

https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20221223/197e8402/attachment.pdf इति Peter Scharf नामको विद्वान्।

तत्र दर्शितः कश्चन "दोषः" -

> First of all, consider the derivation of the form bhavya, gerundive of the verb ‘to
be’. While the form is derivable from the root bh ̄u, P ̄an. ini also derives it from
the root as. In the derivation from the latter, two rules are simultaneously appli-
cable: (1) A. 2.4.52 aster bh ̄uh. ( ̄ardhadh ̄atuke 35), and (2) A. 3.1.124 r ̊halor n. yat
(dh ̄atoh. 91). The former provides the replacement of the root as with the root bh ̄u
when an  ̄ardhadh ̄atuka affix is to be provided. The term  ̄ardhadh ̄atuke is a vis.aya-
saptam ̄ı making the rule a forward-looking condition so that the replacement can
take place before the particular affix is actually provided (Scharf 2011a: 67, 2016:
317–18). The latter provides the affix n. yat after a root that ends in a short or long
vowel r ̊ or in a consonant. Rajpopat’s procedure would provide the affix since it
is the right-hand operation resulting in the incorrect form * ̄asya.

एतत् तु विचित्रम्। भूधातौ SOI भवत्य् अत्र। DOI-ग्रहणम् अनुचितं स्यात्।

तथा हि -

> Secondly, consider the derivation of the form bhavanti, third-person plural
present active indicative of the root bh ̄u. At the stage bh ̄u a anti two rules apply (1)
A. 7.3.84 s ̄arvadh ̄atuk ̄ardhadh ̄atukayoh. (gun. ah. 82) which provides replacement
of the final vowel  ̄u of the stem bh ̄u before the stem-forming affix  ́sap, and (2)
A. 6.1.97 ato gun. e (parar ̄upam 94). Rajpopat’s procedure would select the right-
hand operation A. 6.1.97 resulting in bh ̄u anti.

एतद् अपि चित्रम् - SOI भवति खलु‌।

अन्यथा यथोक्तम् ऋषिराजेन - "अङ्गस्य" इति सूत्रस्य तदवगतेर् अनुसारम् अङ्गसिद्धिर् आदौ स्याद् इति व्यक्तम्।

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

नमामि। ऋषिराजः स्वप्रबन्धे कृतान् आक्षेपान् समाधित्सुर् एवम् विज्ञापयति - "Can you please ask around in your WhatsApp groups etc if anyone has found any exceptions apart from the ones mentioned by neelesh and peter" । दोषज्ञाः (नेपथ्ये?) सूचयन्तु ।