Could it not be seen as a special case of enjambement, not uncommon in Sanskrit and quite common, if not frequent, in the Kashmirian Mokṣopāya, where a sentence is continued into the next verse (from b to c) or stanza (from d to a), resulting in a non-coincidence of sentence and pāda endings? This is why the editors of the Mokṣopāya decided to omit the usual daṇḍa at the end of the first line of a stanza (pāda b), since the brutal line-break marker disrupts the natural flow of the actual sentence construction. Could Utpaladeva's 'special propensity' therefore reflect a regional Sanskrit preference for enjambment constructions (in extreme cases even extending to compounds)?
Kind regards, WS Am Mo., 4. Nov. 2024 um 18:46 Uhr schrieb jason.cannon-silber--- via INDOLOGY <[email protected]>: > Dear all, > > Though I can offer no direct answer to Prof. Torella's question about a > treatise concerning śāstrasamaya, I thought it could be worth pointing out > that we may have to deal, in part at least, with a peculiarity of > Utpaladeva himself. As Profs. Torella and Ratié will well know, it is not > only Utpaladeva's kārikās that exhibit this feature; his efforts in the > field of kāvya (if we accept stotra as a branch of kāvya) also do. Here are > two examples from the Śivastotrāvalī: > > agnīṣomaravibrahmaviṣṇusthāvarajaṅgama- > svarūpa bahurūpāya namaḥ saṃvinmayāya te ||2.1|| > > namo nikṛttaniḥśeṣatrailokyavigaladvasā- > vasekaviṣamāyāpi maṅgalāya śivāgnaye ||2.5|| > > Swami Lakshman Joo's edition of this text is not completely reliable from > a philological perspective, of course, but hopefully taking two examples is > enough to reduce the possibility of a major problem in the text. Now, in > the first example, it might be possible to take the first line as an > independent vocative (or even as a series of vocatives), although I think > that Kṣemarāja's commentary (... viśvātmanaḥ āmantraṇam idaṃ "svarūpa" > ityantam |) makes it fairly clear that he takes the whole thing as just one > āmantraṇa, nor does he feel any need to comment upon the breach between the > two halves of the śloka. > > In the second case, the lack of even a hiatus between the two halves > should make us feel even more certain that nikṛtta...viṣamāya is one > compound, I think. I've also gathered, from Prof. Torella's own exemplary > edition of the Īśvarapratyabhijñākārikā and -vṛtti, that Utpaladeva seems > to have a special propensity for breaking the hiatus between 1st and 2nd > and between 3rd and 4th pādas (e.g. 1.1.2, 1.2.4, 1.3.4, etc.), a practice > that I think (please correct me if I am wrong) would not generally be > allowed according to kāvyasamaya. Another question I have had, related to > Prof. Torella's, is whether this propensity is to be found in other texts > of the kārikā type, or if this too could be taken as characteristic of > Utpala's style. > > Best wishes, > Jason > > Quoting Raffaele Torella via INDOLOGY <[email protected]>: > > The only (or at least the best..) way to make sense of the śloka is by > accepting Abhinava’s intepretation. > > Bhāskarakaṇṭha in his Vyākhyā on IPV has nothing to object. Interestingly, > he comments on “*śāstre*” by *śivapraṇītādau*, which amounts to saying > that this exception may apply not only to Śaiva scriptures (-*ādau*). The > hypothesis that this “anomaly” may be part of the so-called Āṛṣa Sanskrit > is to be excluded as Utpaladeva and Abhinavagupta’s Sanskrit is always > flawless. > > Anyhow, a certain margin for assuming a “traditional” practice might be > found in the sequel of Abhinava’s discourse. He says that also the more > even interpretation (no compound between II and III pādas) could in > principle be taken into account, but : *evaṃ tu na kvacit paṭhitam* > (Bh.’s comment: *śiṣyapraśiṣyaparamparayā etan naiva śrutam ity arthaḥ*). > > In sum, apart from the case at issue, is there any shared agreement in > Indian literature about a possible acceptance of this irregularity? > > Raffaele > > Il giorno 4 nov 2024, alle ore 15:25, Madhav Deshpande <[email protected]> > ha scritto: > > This is very unusual. Normally, compounds can continue between the first > and the second pādas, and the third and the fourth pādas; but not between > the second and the third pādas. I don't know of any example similar to > Abhinavagupta's interpretation. Leave aside his interpretation for a > moment. Is there a good way to understand the verse without assuming such > an irregular compounding between the second and the third pādas? > > Madhav > > Madhav M. Deshpande > Professor Emeritus, Sanskrit 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] > > On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 6:05 AM Raffaele Torella via INDOLOGY < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> while commenting on IPK I.5.12 Abhinava’s Vimarśinī says: >> >> ātmāta eva caitanyaṃ citkriyācitikartṛtā / >> tātparyeṇoditas tena jaḍāt sa hi vilakṣaṇaḥ // Ipk_1,5.12 // >> […] citkriyācitikartṛtātātparyeṇa iti samāsaḥ / ardhayuk pādaviśrāntiḥ >> iti hi kāvye samayaḥ, na śāstre. >> >> So the first word in the third pāda is to be considered in compound with >> the last word of the second. According to the rule *ardhayuk >> pādaviśrāntiḥ* (by the way, coming from where?) this should be >> inadmissible, but – Abhinava says – this holds only for kāvya, not for >> śāstra. My question is: are you aware of a set of exceptional rules only >> valid for the śāstric metrical texts? >> >> Many thanks! >> Raffaele >> >> >> Prof. Raffaele Torella >> Emeritus Professor of Sanskrit >> Sapienza University of Rome >> www.academia.edu/raffaeletorella >> <https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.academia.edu/raffaeletorella&source=gmail-imap&ust=1731335165000000&usg=AOvVaw2cVeMHNRJZogGix5POyFcn> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> INDOLOGY mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology >> <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology&source=gmail-imap&ust=1731335165000000&usg=AOvVaw0ppRZ_lEC8fvhONstCa4E9> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > INDOLOGY mailing list > [email protected] > https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology >
_______________________________________________ INDOLOGY mailing list [email protected] https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
