Send sanskrit mailing list submissions to

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to

You can reach the person managing the list at

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of sanskrit digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: inflecting individual letters (Anand Mishra)
   2. Re: Disputing the finality of reason: but who claims it   is
      final? (Anand Mishra)


Message: 1
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:13:56 +0200 (CEST)
From: Anand Mishra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] inflecting individual letters
To: Jay Vaidya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

Dear Friends

Following observations, motivated by the eloquent
explanations by Mr.Dhananjaya regarding (a) the
distinction of word and word-form; rule 1.1.68 and (b)
vyAkaraNa vis-a-vis nirukta.

(a) Rule 1.1.68: svaM rUpaM zabdasya azabda-saMjJA
1. The rule becomes necessary as pANini is composing
the grammar of a language in the 'same' language
(which is a tight situation!). A clear demarcation is
therefore important between 'word-form' or
objects/items on which a grammatical operation is
applied; and 'words' conveying some meaning for
prescription of these operations. Let us take an
example: Rule 6.4.95 hlAdaH niSThAyAm which prescribes
a short vowel substitution to penultimate vowel of the
verbal root /hlAd/ before 'niSThA'. Here /hlAd/
(within /./) is zabda or word-form only and
grammatical operation is applicable only to that
word-form and not to any other word-forms which could
have a similar meaning (e.g. mud). 'niSThA' however is
saMjJA and therefore stands for some other word-form
(in this case, the affixes: /kta/ and /ktavatu/). So
the operation is applied not when /niSThA/ follows but
when /kta/ or /ktavatu/ follow.

2. Apart from technical-terms ('saMjJA'), there is
another important exception or another meta-linguistic
convention where 'the meaning of that word and not its
word-form' is meant. It is the use of the word 'iti'
in grammar. Usually 'iti' indicates a quotation, but
in grammar its purpose is 'to prevent a reference to
word-forms'. Example: Rule 1.1.44: na vA iti vibhASA.
Here 'vibhASA' is defined as that which 'na vA' means
and not the word form /na/ /vA/. Another example is
Rule 1.1.66 tasmin iti nirdiSTe pUrvasya. Here because
of 'iti', 'tasmin' stands not for word-form /tasmin/
but any item with locative case ending.

(b) This brings us to the next point. What purpose the
'meaning' of a word has in grammar? Clearly,
grammatical operations are applied on word-forms but
many rules are conditioned by 'meaning' of a word and
not its word-form. Thus, 'bhAve' in 3.1.107; 'kArake'
in 1.4.23; 'bhUte' in 3.2.84; 'kartari' in
3.1.68;3.4.67; 'karmaNi' 2.3.2; 'chandasi' in 2.4.39
or 'mantre' in 2.4.80; etc. are all
'meaning-conditions'. In the words of
'nirukta-TIkAkAra': vyAkaraNaM tu lakSaNa-pradhAnamiti
vizeSaH' because it is concerned with 'zabda-sAdhutva'
or correctness of words only ('na tu
artha-nirdhAraNam'). Yet it does not (and can not)
neglect the 'meaning'. Because grammatical operations
are also conditioned by 'meaning-conditions': 'evaM
vyAkaraNe'pi lakSaNa-pradhAne sati arthavazena
lopa-Agamau vipariNAmazca zabdAnAM dRSTaH'.

But it is to be again emphasized, that 'vyAkaraNa'
deals with 'the correct description of the word',
while 'nirukta' with that of 'appropriate definition
of the word'. 'vyAkaraNa' concerns itself both with
'prakRti' and 'pratyaya', while 'nirukta' only with
'prakRti'. 'nirukta' has no intention to show
'zabda-sAdhutva'. Therefore, these are separate
branches of linguistic-studies.
'yathA zabda-lakSaNa-parijJAnaM sarva-zAstreSu
vyAkaraNAt evaM zabdArtha-nirvacana-parijJAnaN

To sum up, 'meaning' is of primary importance,
therefore, all this effort of 'vyAkaraNa' as well:
'artho hi pradhAnaM, tadguNaH zabdaH, sa cetareSu
vyAkaraNadiSu cintyate' (cf. relationship of
'pradhAna' and 'guNa' in 'sAMkhya' philosophy). 

Not only 'vyAkaraNa', even 'chanda', with no apperant
connection with 'meaning' is sometimes important for
proper underastanding. The same line sung in two
different verse can mean differently. 
I end this letter with one example from Rgveda 6.16.1:
'tvamagne yajJAnAM hotA vizveSAM hitaH devebhirmAnuSe
jane'. Here, the meaning is different if we read
'tvamagne yajJAnAM --- hotA vizveSAM hitaH...' in
'vardhamAna gAyatrI 6+7+8' or as 'tvamagne yajJAnAM
hotA --- vizveSAM hitaH...' in 'pipIlikA-madhya

With warm regards,
Anand Mishra

--- Jay Vaidya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:

> mishela-Anandmishra-mahodayau krameNa likhataH :
> mishela-mahodayaH:
> > ... these sounds ... are not found in
> > any dictionary and, as far as I know, they have no
> > conjugations or declensions, so they cannot be
> used 
> > in a Sanskrit sentence.
> tataH Ananda-mishramahodayaH:
> > Secondly is the question, Can the individual
> letters
> > be inflected? The answer is: yes. Examples (in
> > abundance!) is to be found in the 'aSTAdhyAyI' of
> > 'pANini' itself.
> atra mahodayayoH vachanayoH sa.nGYa-sa.nGYI-sandehaH
> sandigdha-prayogaH vA dR^ishyate | ata eva tayoH
> prashn-ottara-vAkye paraspara-a-sambaddhe | 
> (Taken together, the two gentlemen's statements show
> either a doubt between the the "name" and the
> "named",
> or show ambiguous usage. Thus, their question and
> answer do not pertain to each other.)
> tatra sa.nGYA eva prAtipadikatvam prApnoti, tAm eva
> anu-yujyate pratyayaH, tad-yogena eva ud-bhavati
> padam, padAni eva bhAshhAyAM sAdhuni | sa.nGYI tu
> bhAshhAyAM na sAdhuH | 
> (Only the name gets lexical status, only to it are
> terminations added, and from that arise
> syntax-capable
> word-forms. Only these are grammatical in language.
> The "named" is not grammatical in language.)
> tasy-odAharaNaM | 
> lAlArasa iti shabdaH sa.nGYA, lAlArasa iti dravam
> sa.nGYI |
> lAlArasaH iti dravam mukhAt-praxiptam loke arthavat,
> ghR^iNAM vA tiraskAro vA prakaTayati | tathApi tan
> mukha-rasa-praxepaH bhAshhA-prayoga iti na hi
> uchyate
> | tena artha-pUrNena api mukha-rasa-praxepeNa saha
> pratyaya-yoga-prasa.ngaH eva na, kim uta
> kAraka-prakriyA | 
> lAlArasa-iti shabdaH pratyayayuktaH sa.nGYA-tvaM
> prAptaH bhAshhAyAm upayoge sAdhuH | 
> (Here is an example:
> The word "spittle" is a name, the liquid "spittle"
> is
> the named.
> The liquid called "spittle" can be projected from
> the
> mouth, and is meaningful in society as an expression
> of disgust or despising. However, the projection of
> this mouth-fluid is not said to be language-use.
> There
> is no word-termination added to this
> liquid-projection, there is no question of
> coordinating syntax.
> The word "spittle", which is a name, after adding
> word-terminations, is grammatical for use in
> language.)
> ata eva pANininA 1.1.68-tame sUtre  upadishyate |
> 1.1.68 svaM rUpaM shabdasya a-shabda-sa.nGYA |
> (That is why it is taught by pANini in 1.1.68
> 1.1.68 Excepting the use of technical names, the
> form
> of a sound itself is the technical name for the
> sound.)
> atra "shabda" ityasya arthaH uchchArita-mAtram | na
> tu
> prAtipadikam naiva padam | ataH shabdaH sa.nGYI,
> vyAkaraNa-shAstre tasya sva-rUpam eva sa.nGYA | atra
> pANiniH "svaH shabdaH" iti na upadishhTavAn, api tu
> "svaM rUpaM shabdasya" iti | shabdasa.nGYA-shabdayoH
> bhedam vadati khalu pANiniH | tatra shabda-sa.nGYAH
> prAtipadikAni iti jAnAtu mishela-mahodayaH |
> (Here "shabda" means "uttered sound", not a lexical
> or
> inflected word. Here the uttered sound is the
> "named",
> and in the science of grammar, its form indeed is
> its
> "name". Here pANini did not teach "The sound
> itself...", but rather taught "The form of the sound
> itself..." In fact, pANini is making a distinction
> between the sound and its technical name.
> Michel-mahodaya may know that the technical names of
> the sounds are lexical elements to be found in a
> dictionary.)
> "DaH si dhuT" iti Adishhu sthAneshhu vyApR^itAH yAH
> tAH shabdAnAM sa.nGYAH iti cha spashhTameva |
> (In the sUtra "DaH si dhuT" and elsewhere, it is
> clear
> that it is the names of the sounds that are used.)
> kechit vadishhyanti | mA maiva bhUt shabdaH
> arthavAn,
> tat-svarUpA sa.nGYA nishchyena arthavatI - tasyAH
> eva
> AdhyAtmiko arthaH vichArayAma | te tam artham
> pashyantu nirukte anyatra vA yathA upadishhTavAn
> Ananda-mishra-mahodayaH | na tu vyAkaraNe | sA
> shabda-rUpa-sa.nGYA tat-shabda-mAtram bodhayati iti
> spashhTam eva uktaM pANininA |
> (Some will say: Let the sounds themselves not be
> meaningful, but surely, theier exact-form names are
> meaningful. We ask for the spiritual meaning of
> those
> names. Let them seek those meanings in the nirukta
> or
> other locations as Ananda Mishra mahodaya says. But
> not in grammar. pANini has clearly said that the
> sound-form-name only stands for the sound itself.)
> namraH
> dhana.njayaH
> _______________________________________________
> sanskrit mailing list

Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC:


Message: 2
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:15:42 +0200 (CEST)
From: Anand Mishra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] Disputing the finality of reason: but who
        claims it       is final?
To: Jay Vaidya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

satyameva bhaNitaM bhagavatA dhanaJjaya-mahodayena!

>'atra kau pratispardhinau iti kUTam eva' 
ityasmin viSaye vAkyArdhameva nivedayitum icchAmi. ye
tu vidvAMsaH kevalaM tarkameva sarvopari manyanti,
brahmANDa-bhANDastha-rahasyodghATanaM sambhavamasti
iti ca upadizanti, tebhyaH vidvadbhyaH asUyAmi. 

tatra viJjaptizca samarpayAmi:

seyaM nimajjatu na bhArata-zAstra-naukA
mAnyAH budhAH bhavata samprati karNadhArAH (1)

smAraM smAraM bhuvana-viditaM gauravaM pUrvajAnAM
dhyAyaM dhyAyaM manana-kuzalairAyatiM santatInAm
vijJaiH sarvairamala-matibhiH sAmprataM tadvidheyaM
mandAkrAntA na bhavati yathA saMskRtorvI pavitrA (2)

mizro AnandaH
smaraharanagaryAm, 27.10.2006

--- Jay Vaidya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:

> uktam Ananda-mishra-mahodayena:
> > ...An almost dogmatic faith in the finality of
> > reason is as hazardous as its opposite. ...
> atra kau pratispardhinau iti kUTam eva |
> nAsti antar-GYAna-sAdhakaH ko api yena
> prataxa-anumAna-upamAnAni etAni buddhi-pramANani na
> vyApR^tAni | nAsti vaiGYAnikaH tArkikaH vA yau
> buddhi-prAmANyaM sarva-charamam iti manyete |
> (It is a puzzle who exactly is being opposed here.
> There is no seeker of mystical knowledge that has
> not
> used the "reason"-evidence-methods of experience,
> logic (syllogism), and analogy. There is not a
> scientist or philosopher that ascribes global
> finality
> to reason.)
> rudati sva-shishau, sarvaH api antar-GYAnasAdhakaH
> anumAnena taM khAdayati, tadvastram parIxati, tam
> lAlayati vA | na karoti anyAni karmaNi
> buddhi-prAmANy-opexA-buddhyA | viparItaM na mayA
> dR^ishhTam kadA-pi |
> (When their baby is crying, every mystical-seeker
> gives it food, or checks its clothes, or caresses
> it.
> They don't do other things with a mind to spite
> "reason". I have never seen it happen differently.)
> nishhkAraNe hasati sva-shishau,
> buddhi-prAmANya-vAdAt
> na modati, IdR^ishaH na kadA api dR^ishhTo mayA
> buddhi-prAmANyavAdI |
> (When their baby laughs for no reason, no person who
> follows reason will refuse to be happy, just because
> they only believe in reason. I have never seen such
> a
> person.)
> ubhau cha tau cha sarve cha vayaM buddhi-prAmANyam
> preraNA-prAmANyam cha dve api Ashrite, tathA eva
> jIvAmaH | sarve api vayaM vivekaH kurmaH,
> pratyekasya
> vivekasya buddhi-svayampreraNA-bhAgau IyattayA
> bhinnau|
> (Both of them, and all of us take support from
> reason-evidence and spontaneity, that is how we
> live.
> We all make judgments, but the proportion of reason
> and spontaneity in our judgment differ in degree.)
> yattu na stau pUrNatayA ekadeshinau asmin jagati,
> kim
> bho tayoH bhartsanA ? atra vAkya-khaNDana-mAtram
> anye
> ekadeshitvam Aropitam iti mA bhUt | ataH
> buddhi-prAmANyasya vivaxitA IyattA eva
> saMvAda-prameyaH |
> (When there is no one at either pure polar extreme
> in
> the world, why bother criticizing them? It should
> not
> be that we call the other a one-sided person only to
> contradict a statement. Thus, only the specific
> proportionality of reason-evidence is a subject for
> discussion.)
> namraH
> dhana.njayaH
> _______________________________________________
> sanskrit mailing list

Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC:


sanskrit mailing list

End of sanskrit Digest, Vol 42, Issue 18

Reply via email to