Printer Friendly

Metarules of Paninian Grammar: Vyadi's Paribhasavrtti, Critically Edited with Translation and Commentary, 2 vols.

The strengths and weaknesses of Wujatyk's welcome edition are here examined.

The Vyadiyaparibhasavrtti, alias Paribhasasucana, has been the source of scholarly debate concerning its antiquity; see Cardona 1976: 168 for work done to that date. Dominik Wujastyk has now given us a critical edition of this work along with an annotated translation.

The critical edition is based on four manuscripts, all in Devanagari script, two from the Bhandarkar Oriental Institute (Pune), one from Sri Ranbir Sanskrit Research Institute (Jammu and Kashmir), and one from the Staatsbibliothek (Berlin). The first volume contains the text with apparatus criticus (pp. 1-85), followed by an appendix (p. 87), containing an interpolated text, and four indexes: alphabetical index of paribhasas (pp. 89-92), page index to paribhasas (p. 93), paribhasas cross-referenced in the text (p. 93), texts cited in the Vyadiparibhasavrtti (pp. 94-96). In an introduction to the text (pp. xiii-xxiv), Wujastyk deals with the discovery of the Paribhasavrtti, the editio princeps of K. V. Abhyankar (1967: 1-38: Vyadikrtam paribhasasucanam; pp. 39-43: Vyadiparibhasapathah), and details concerning the manuscripts used and the apparatus criticus. This ends with a list of sigla. The first volume also contains a brief foreword (pp. ix-x) and acknowledgments (pp. xi-xii). The major part of volume two consists of Wujastyk's annotated translation (pp. 1-274). This volume also contains a bibliography (pp. 275-82), followed by indexes of citations (pp. 283-301) and of word forms discussed (pp. 302-4). In the introduction to this volume (pp. xi-xxxi), Wujastyk takes up the relation to Panini's Astadhyayi of paribhasas contained in the Paribhasavrtti and comparable works, the authorship of the Vyadiparibhasavrtti, Vyadi as referred to by various authors (what he calls "the various Vyadis"), the nature of the Vyadiparibhasavrtti, and his method of translating and explaining the text.

Wujastyk states in clear terms what he views as the purposes of his study: ". . . to present as good a text of the Paribhasavrtti as can be established on the basis of the available manuscripts" and ". . . to identify the Vyadi commentator's sources and affiliations, and to locate him intellectually and temporally" (vol. 1, p. x). He also clarifies what his study is not: "It is not a general examination of the paribhasa literature. Nor is it intended to be a completely general study of this paribhasa text." I think Wujastyk has accomplished his major aims. The text he presents shows improvements over the editio princeps, as he demonstrates on several occasions in notes within his apparatus criticus. He has also given us a very good discussion on the authorship of Vyadiyaparibhasavrtti, including a thorough treatment of references to a Vyadi (or Vyali) in sources from Katyayana on.(1) After Wujastyk's study, I think there can be little doubt that the Vyadiyaparibhasavrtti, that is, the commentary, is later than Patanjali's Mahabhasya. This does not, however, settle the question whether the paribhasa collection to which this vrtti is a commentary is earlier or later. I agree with Wujastyk that the term Vyadiyaparibhasavrtti is best interpreted as referring to a vrtti on the Vyadiyaparibhasa. Consequently, the author of the paribhasas can be an ancient Vyadi. In the present state of knowledge, the question may in fact be unanswerable.

The translation of each text section is accompanied by an explanation and comments. As Wujastyk notes (vol. 2, p. xxxi), these reflect the oral commentary he received when he read the text with Pt. V. B. Bhagavat and Prof. S. Bhate in 1979. In notes to his translation and comments, Wujastyk also supplies information concerning where paribhasas are used in the Mahabhasya, the Kasika, and other Paniniya works, as well as their inclusion in other paribhasa collections. The latter is also available in Abhyankar 1967: 466-93. Wujastyk's references are not exhaustive. For example, in connection with paribhasa 57 (arthavasad vibhaktiviparinamo bhavati), he says (vol. 2, p. 205, n. 313): "The maxim is used five times by Patanjali, each time accompanied by the laukika examples of the argument. . . . It is not quoted in the Kasika or Siddhantakaumudi. It does appear in the Nyasa (KV VI.124: 26-27). It is discussed by Purusottamadeva (no. 88), Siradeva (no. 120) and Haribhaskara (no. 122)." It is literally true that the Kasika does not cite the paribhasa in the form noted. It does, however, speak of change in endings (vibhaktiviparinamah) by the same principle. Thus, commenting on 3.2.106 (litah kanaj va), the Kasika asks why the term lit is used again in this sutra (litah 'in place of lit'): will not the ending of the nominative lit stated previously (3.2.105: chandasi lit) be changed to a genitive in a provision for a replacement?(2) The Nyasa comments: yady api lid iti prathamantam prakrtam tathapy arthad vibhaktiviparinamo bhavisyati 'although lit, ending in a first-triplet ending, is given, there will be a change in ending due to the meaning intended.' The wording of the paribhasa in this Nyasa passage - arthat and not arthavasat - is the one found in the Nyasa passage to which Wujastyk refers: Nyasa on Kas. 7.3.120: ana iti sthanyantaranirdesad iharthad vibhaktiviparinamo bhavati. . . .(3)

Wujastyk explains (vol. 2, pp. xxix-xxx) the principles he has followed in his translation. He also rejects in fairly strong language the practice, followed by many, of including large amounts of material in parentheses, and singles out Kielhorn's translation of the Paribhasendusekhara as an especially noteworthy example of what should be avoided. I agree with Wujastyk that the sentence should be the unit for translation, and that "[i]t is wholly unacceptable for a translator to place syntactically essential parts of the sentence within parentheses, unless the Sanskrit text itself is genuinely incomplete." Wujastyk's practice results in very smooth translations. Consider for example, his translation (vol. 2, p. 3) of paribhasa [I.sup.a]: "When a meaningful item is mentioned, that item should not be mentioned without meaning." The Sanskrit this translates is arthavadgrahane nanarthakasya. Kielhorn's translation (1960: 81-82) of the equivalent paribhasa (no. 14) in Nagesa's Paribhasendusekhara is: "(A combination of letters capable of) expressing a meaning (denotes), whenever it is employed (in grammar, that combination of letters in so far as it possesses that meaning, but it) does not denote (the same combination of letters) void of a meaning." Obviously, Kielhorn has supplied a great deal in parentheses that is absent from Wujastyk's translation. It is also true that Kielhorn has been overly literal in translating arthavat as "expressing a meaning," with a parenthetical suppletion, since the term itself refers to any speech element that has meaning. On the other hand, Wujastyk's translation of na . . . grahanam as "should not be mentioned" itself violates Sanskrit syntax for the sake of smoothness. In accordance with normal Sanskrit syntax, one understands bhavati, so that the phrase means 'there is not the use' and could be translated '(is) not used'. Moreover, after all is said and done, I think Kielhorn's admittedly cumbersome translation conveys the intended sense more effectively than Wujastyk's. What is at issue concerns two possible homophonous elements, one of which is meaningful, the other not; if there is doubt concerning a given item which could be either of these, it is assumed that the meaningful element is used.(4) Similarly, consider Wujastyk's translation (vol. 2, p. 129) of paribhasa 25 (pratyekam vakyaparisamaptih):(5) "A sentence is complete with respect to each single one [of its constituents]," and Kielhorn's translation (1960: 491) of the equivalent paribhasa (no. 107) of the Paribhasendusekhara: "What is stated (in grammar of several things) must be understood (to have been stated thereby) of each of them separately." The suppletions made in both of these translations can be avoided without violence: "An utterance meaning is fulfilled with respect to each individual." Note that I have used "utterance meaning" instead of "sentence." As commentators have recognized,(6) vakya in this context refers to an utterance's meaning, that is, what it provides. For example, in the stock example devadattayajnadattavisnumitra bhojyantam 'Let Devadatta, Yajnadatta, and Visnumitra be fed',(7) the act of feeding applies to each of the individuals. Kielhorn translates Nagesa's devadattadayo bhojyantam ity atra bhujivat "just as in (the sentence) 'let Devadatta and the others be fed' the feeding (is enjoined of every individual denoted by the words 'Devadatta and the others')." The Vyadiyaparibhasavrtti on paribhasa 25 says na cocyate pratyekam iti | pratyekam ca bhujih parisamapyate 'one does not say "with respect to each individual" and yet the act of eating is accomplished with respect to each individual.' Wujastyk's translation of this passage is: "And one does not say it individually; the [root] bhuj 'to eat' is completed with each single one [of the names]." To me, this does not bring out what the author of the passage says.

This is not meant to belittle Wujastyk's effort and accomplishment as a translator. He has produced a very smooth translation, which in most instances, with the help of the accompanying notes, serves a student well. I do not think, however, that this translation eclipses Kielhorn's translation of the paribhasas common to both the present work and to Nagesa's collection or the notes in Kielhorn's and Abhyankar's edition.

Wujastyk's work contains much that should stimulate discussion among scholars with sufficient knowledge of vyakarana and its intricacies. At times, however, one is struck by the absence of justification of some assertions. For example, Wujastyk simply says (vol. 2, p. xxvii): "Katyayana, the author of the varttikas also wrote the Vajasaneyipratisakhya and might therefore be thought of as a Padakara." But it is not certain that the two works stem from the same author; indeed, there are definite differences in theory between them.(8) Again, in his comments on the introductory section of the Vyadiyaparibhasavrtti Wujastyk remarks (vol. 2, p. 1): "Abhyankar likened the style of the opening phrases to the Mahabhasya. However, it is a common enough beginning in gastric literature. It lends the first sentence the status of an initial rule, and indeed the following sentences do gloss it in a manner." To me, saying "is common enough" without further justification appears facile. It is true that vyakhyasyamah 'we will explain' occurs at the beginning of some gastric works. For example: Apastambadharmasutra 1.1.1: athatah samayacarikan dharman vyakhyasyamah; Sankhayanasrautasutra 1.1.1: yajnam vyakhyasyamah. The continuation found in the Vyadiyaparibhasavrtti, however, is not so common. Consider the opening statements of principal gastric works which begin with atha: Jaimini's Mimamsasutra: athato dharmajijnasa; Brahmasutra: athato brahmajijnasa; Vaisesikasutra: athato dharmam vykakhyasyamah; Yogasutra: atha yoganusasanam; Mahabhasya: atha sabdanusasanam. It is noteworthy that the Yogasutrabhasya begins, yoganusasanam sastram adhikrtam veditavyam, and that after atha sabdanusasanam the Mahabhasya continues athety ayam sabdo 'dhikararthah prayujyate | sabdanusasanam sastram adhikrtam veditavyam.(9) After saying atha paribhasasucanam vyakhyasyamah, the Vyadiyaparibhasavrtti continues (vol. 2, p. 1): athety ayam adhikararthah | paribhasasucanam sastram adhikrtam veditavyam. Concerning this and the general style of the text, Abhyankar remarked (1967:11): "Not only the beginning of the work is very similar to that of the Mahabhasya which begins with the remark . . . , but the general style of writing is also similar to that of the Mahabhasya." I think the evidence noted supports this claim of similarity between the beginnings of both works.

As I pointed out earlier, Wujastyk has not made it one of his aims to produce a completely detailed study of the Vyadiyaparibhasavrtti. Nevertheless, he rightly summarizes (vol. 2, pp. xxvii-xxix) the major characteristics of the work. Remarkably, as far as I can see, Wujastyk has not considered it necessary to stress a striking feature of the Vyadiyaparibhasavrtti. In this text there is constant emphasis on finding something to show what makes known Panini's use of paribhasas even if these are established from common usage, and the phrases katham jnayate 'how is . . . known?', katham krtva jnapakam 'on the basis of what reasoning is . . . something that makes . . . known?', kim etasya jnapane prayojanam 'what is the compelling reason for making this (paribhasa) known?', occur again and again. Moreover, although other commentators on paribhasas, such as Purusottamadeva, also find something in Panini's formulations that serves to make known his use of paribhasas that are established already from common behavior, the Vyadiyaparibhasavrtti carries this procedure farther than others. For example, the commentary on paribhasa 57 (see above) cites an example from ordinary usage,(10) thus showing that the principle in question is known from such usage. It then goes on to note that this is observed also in the grammar, and cites Panini 7.3.120: ano nastriyam.(11) In addition, the commentary then asks (vol. 1, p. 62: katham krtva jnapakam) on what grounds this is considered a statement that makes known that this paribhasa is observed, and goes on to cite other jnapakas. This contrasts with the procedure of Purusottamadeva and Siradeva, who simply note that the paribhasa is established from everyday usage, then illustrate its application in the Astadhyayi without saying that what Panini states serves to make known its validity.(12)

I think this point is pertinent to understanding the import of the introductory section of the Vyadiyaparibhasavrtti. In Abhyankar's edition, this reads as follows:(13)

(1) om atha paribhasasucanam vyakhyasyamah | (2) athety ayam adhikararthah | paribhasasucanam sastram adhikrtam veditavyam | (3) yad ita urdhvam anukramisyamah iyam asmin sutre siddha iyam asmin siddheti | kim karanam | (4) atra hi jnataparibhasah svayam sastram pratipadayitum samartho bhavati | (5) sa tavat sukham jnataparibhaso bhavati | (6) ato vyakhyanam drastavyam

In Wujastyk's edition, om is absent, which is justified by the manuscript evidence. More importantly, Wujastyk punctuates (3) differently: yad ita urdhvam anukramisyamah iyam asmin sutre siddha | iyam asmin siddheti kim karanam | He translates (vol. 2, p. 1) the entire passage as follows:

- Now I shall discuss the indication of paribhasas.

This 'now' is meant as a heading. One is to understand that the discipline by which paribhasas are indicated has been headed, since from here on we shall proceed saying 'this [paribhasa] is validated in this role'.

- Why (sic!) is the reason for [saying], 'this one is validated in this'?

Because he who has got to know the paribhasas becomes capable of teaching the discipline himself. Indeed, he gets to know the paribhasas easily. So, an explanation is to be consulted.

I think the translation of the first line is weak. It would have been better to translate vyakhyasyamah 'we shall explain',(14) since a vyakhyana is rarely a mere discussion. For example, when Patanjali comments on Katyayana's eleventh varttika in the Paspasa and notes that one does not acquire correct speech items solely from the sutras, he adds that, on the contrary, one acquires them through an explanation of the sutras and adds that the explanation consists not only in showing the separate constituents of a sutra but also giving examples, counterexamples, and suppletions for the sutras; all these together constitute an explanation.(15) Now, as Abhyankar recognized and I mentioned earlier in this review, (2) is comparable to athety ayam sabdo 'dhikararthah prayujyate | sabdanusasanam sastram adhikrtam veditavyam of the Mahabhasya, where Patanjali says that the term atha found here is used with the meaning 'introduction, beginning'.(16) That is, atha of atha sabdanusasanam is used to introduce something, not for the purpose of auspiciousness or to mark a transition to something following something else. As commentators have noted, sabdanusasana is an etymologically analyzable name for grammar. Patanjali thus states that a particular sastra, namely a sabdanusasana, is to be understood as being introduced. The sastra in question is grammar, in particular Panini's grammar. Taking seriously the parallel between the two introductory texts, (2) should mean that the term atha used here means 'introduction' and the sastra referred to as paribhasasucana is to be understood as introduced. In addition, paribhasasucanam of paribhasasucanam sastram, parallel to sabdanusasanam sastram, should be understood as an etymologically analyzable term referring either to the act of indicating paribhasas or a means for doing this. Sastra can of course refer to a teaching, a discipline like grammar, reckoned as a smrti. It also is used, however, with reference to specific works and their parts; see Cardona 1997: 572-73 (849). The question arises whether the Indian grammatical traditions recognize a discipline, comparable to grammar, which serves to explain paribhasas in the manner that grammar serves to explain Sanskrit usage. There is no evidence I know to support such a position. Accordingly, I think it is appropriate to consider that sastram in paribhasasucanam sastram refers to a particular work, just as sabdanusasanam sastram at the beginning of the Mahabhasya refers to Panini's grammar. Thus, in (2) the author of the Vyadiyaparibhasavrtti informs us at the very outset that his work is one which serves to indicate paribhasas. In other words, it will demonstrate jnapakas for paribhasas.

As for (3), how this is punctuated and interpreted depends on how one understands anukramisyamah, which Wujastyk translates "we shall proceed." This term is found in passages of technical texts sufficient to indicate what we should understand here. The first thing to note is that anukram is used as a transitive verb. For example, Nirukta 4.1 (ekartham anekasabdam ity etad uktam | atha yany anekarthany ekasabdani tany anukramisyamah. . .) makes a transition between the group of terms treated earlier and those to be dealt with next. In the earlier chapters of his work, Yaska dealt with terms which are treated as synonymous and listed in the first three sections of the Nighantu. In what follows, he will deal with terms listed in the remainder of the Nighantu, terms such that more than one meaning (anekarthani) is signified by them, so that the multiple meanings in question are signified by single polysemous terms (ekasabdani). Since the terms in question are indeed already listed in the Nighantu and Yaska does more than merely go through such a list, anukramisyamah cannot mean simply 'we will go through, we will go over'. As Durga and Skanda-Mahesvara say, by this Yaska means 'we will explain'.(17) The Kasikavrtti on the Astadhyayi also uses anukramisyamah comparably on several occasions. For example, commenting on 1.4.56 (prag risvaran nipatah), it explains that certain terms, concerned in sutras up to 1.4.97 (adhir isvare) are to be known as bearing the name nipata.(18) The important passage here is yan ita urdhvam anukramisyamah 'which we will . . . from here onwards.' Now, since subsequent sutras either state outright terms to be given the class name nipata or say that items included in sets given in the ganapatha are given this name, anukramisyamah could be considered here to mean simply 'we will go through'. This is not possible, however, in all such contexts. For example, commenting on 2.1.3 (prak kadarat samasah), the Kasika says (kadarasamsabdanat prag yan ita urdhvam anukramisyamas te samasasamjna veditavyah) that certain items concerned in sutras prior to 2.2.38 (kadarah karmadharaye) are to be known to bear the class name samasa. Here again, the phrase yan ita urdhvam anukramisyamah is used. But the items to which the name samasa should apply are not all simply given; they are derived by the rules in question. Consequently, anukramisyamah here must mean more than merely 'we will go through'. It must be understood to have the sense which English 'we will cover' can have; that is, the Kasika is stating that the name applies to items which will be explained through derivation in subsequent rules.

Given the sort of text we are dealing with, (3) of the Vyadiyaparibhasavrtti introduction should be understood in accordance with such usage. This means that anukramisyamah here calls for a complement denoting an object. The only available term is the relative pronoun form yat, which itself requires a correlative. The syntactic requirements are met if we understand yat to be coreferential with the preceding term sastram. The reference is to a sastra which the commentator will go through explaining. It is reasonable to assume that the author views the paribhasas together with his commentary as the entire sastra in question, so that he speaks of going serially through the set of paribhasas with an explanation. The remainder of (3) states how he will carry out this explanation: stating that such and such a paribhasa is established in such and such a sutra of the Astadhyayi. Since there is only one iti and the second clause of iyam asmin sutre siddha iyam, asmin siddheti is elliptical, the text as punctuated by Abhyankar is more appropriate than the text given in Wujastyk's edition.(19) Accordingly, kith karanam asks the reason for the entire enterprise that is undertaken. (4) to (6) then justify this enterprise by maintaining that one who has learned the paribhasas in this (atra) work is capable of conveying the sastra(20) himself and that such a person becomes so qualified easily at the outset (tavat) through this work. Hence (atah), the explanation now undertaken is to be considered. The use of the term paribhasasucana is thus important. In using this, the author of the commentary informs his audience that he intends to show how paribhasas treated are indeed indicated, that is, that their acceptance by Panini is made known by what he says, even if the principle at issue is established from common knowledge. In brief, paribhasasucanam, though not the title of the work, is a descriptive term referring to this work, just as sabdanusasanam is a descriptive term that is used to refer to Panini's Astadhyayi.

That one can find room for improvement in much of Wujastyk's translation does not, I think, diminish the debt the community of scholars interested in Indian grammatical thought owes him for producing a truly critical edition of an important work on paribhasas, for establishing with fair certainty the relation of the work's author to others in the grammatical traditions, for supplying ample references to parallel works, and for undertaking a principled translation of a difficult text. I congratulate him on carrying out this work with much success.

1 Concerning general issues about Vyadi and the Paribhasavrtti, another recent discussion worth mentioning is by V. M. Bhatt 1977 (pp. 49-70, in particular). To the reference Wujastyk gives (vol. 2, p. xiv, n. 8) concerning Vyadi's position, that a nominal term signifies an individual thing, should now be added Scharf 1996.

2 lidgrahanam kim | na purvasyaiva prakrtasyadesavidhane vibhaktiviparinamo bhavisyati.

3 See also Kasika 3.3.96 (mantre vrsesapacamanavidabhuvira udattah) with the Nyasa thereto. Note also that Purusottama and Siradeva give the paribhasa in the form cited in the Nyasa: arthad vibhaktiviparinamah.

4 The simplest Sanskrit rendition I know of is the one found in Laksmana Sarma's Tattvaprakasika (Sadasiva Sastri 1978: 49): sambhavaty arthavadgrahane nanarthakasya grahanam 'If the use of a meaningful term is possible, there is not the use of a meaningless one.'

5 Wujastyk notes (vol. 2, p. 129, n. 235), "This maxim is originally Katyayana's vart. 12 on P. 1.1.1 ." The actual wording of the varttika is pratyavayavam vakyaparisamapteh.

6 E.g., Pradipa on Mahabhasya 1.1.1 (Vedavrata 1962: 135): atra vakyasabdena vakyarthah phalam ucyate.

7 Wujastyk translates "let . . . eat." This would be appropriate for bhunjatam. Bhojyantam is the imperative passive of the causative.

8 See most recently Cardona 1996: 72 n. 15.

9 See below and Cardona 1997: 543-44 (827).

10 Vol. 1, p. 62: tad yatha uccair grhani devadattasya amantrayasvainam | devadattasya gavo 'svah suvarnam ca adhyo vaidhaveyo devadatta iti. See also Cardona 1997: 73-74 (117).

11 Vol. 1, p. 62: sastre 'pi yad ayam aha ano nastriyam iti. Wujastyk's use (vol. 2, p. 206) of "discipline" to translate sastra here seems inappropriate to me.

12 Laghuparibhasavrtti of Purusottama (Abhyankar 1967: 150): lokata eva siddho 'yam arthah . . . evam sastre 'pi . . . Brhatparibhasavrtti of Siradeva (Abhyankar 1967: 268): lokasiddha evayam arthah . . . tatha sastre 'pi . . .

13 I have appended numbers to sections of the text in order to refer to them later in my discussion.

14 Since English and other Western languages use the editorial "we," I think it appropriate to imitate the use of the plural in Sanskrit here.

15 Abhyankar 1962: 11.20-24: na hi sutrata eva sabdan pratipadyante | kim tarhi vyakhyanatas ca | nanu ca tad eva sutram vigrhitam vyakhyanam bhavati | na kevalani carcapadani vyakhyanam vrddhih at aij iti | kim tarhy udaharanam pratyudaharanam vakyadhyahara ity etat samuditam vyakhyanam bhavati.

16 Kaiyata (Vedavrata 1962: 2: adhikarah prastavah. . .) notes that adhikara here means 'introduction' (prastava), and Annambhatta (Narasimhacharya 1973: 8) remarks that the meaning meant is 'beginning' (prarambha). Sivaramendrasarasvati (Narasimhacharya 1973: 9) directly says that adhikara here means 'beginning'. He also differs from Kaiyata in the analysis of adhikarartha: he takes artha here in the sense of 'significand' (abhidheya), while Kaiyata says it means 'purpose' (prayojana). This issue does not concern us here. Wujastyk's "heading" is doubtless motivated by the common use of adhikara with reference to sutras and parts of sutras which serve as headings, understood to recur in subsequent sutras, but to speak of a discipline as headed in this sense is, at least to me, rather strange.

17 Durga (Bhadkamkar 1985: 348: purastat samasatah sucitani etavatam arthanam abhidhanam ity evam tany atah param anukramisyamah vyakhyayety abhisambandhah) notes that earlier (Nirukta 1.20) Yaska refers summarily to polysemous items. He also supplies vyakhyaya 'with an explanation, interpretation' to be connected with anukramisyamah. Subsequently (Bhadkamkar 1985: 349: . . . evamprakaraya aikapadikaprakaranavyakhyaya anukramisyamah varnayisyamah) he glosses anukramisyamah with varnayisyamah 'we will describe'. The commentary of Skanda-Mahesvara (Sarup 1982: 195) explains that anukramisyamah means '. . . will explain' (vyakhyasyamah) in a particular manner.

18 adhir isvara iti vaksyati | prag etasmad avadher yan ita urdhvam anukramisyamo nipatasathjnas te veditavyah

19 Wujastyk translates as though iti also followed iyam asmin sutre siddha.

20 Since tavat is used in (5), it is appropriate to distinguish the reasons stated in (4) and (5). Now, in the Paninian tradition, commentators distinguish between the immediate purpose (saksatprayojanam) of the sabdanusasanam - namely knowing correct speech forms - and reasons for this. One of the latter reasons for studying grammar is to be able to teach properly. See Cardona 1997: 545-46 (829). (5) would comparably convey the immediate purpose of the work at hand: one acquires a knowledge of paribhasas and how they are made known. (4) states a reason for this: someone who has learned the paribhasas in this work is capable of conveying the sastra to others. To be sure, this sastra could be the present work itself. Yet the very purpose of paribhasas in the first place is to allow sutras to be interpreted and applied as required by the usage to be accounted for. Accordingly, I think it is plausible to consider that the sastra in question here is grammar, Panini's Astadhyayi, in particular.


Abhyankar, K. V. 1960. The Paribhasendusekhara of Nagojibhatta Edited and Explained by E Kielhorn . . . , part II: Translation and Notes (second edition, by K. V. Abhyankar). Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.

-----. 1962. The Vyakarana-Mahabhasya of Patanjali, Edited by F. Kielhorn; third edition, . . . vol. I. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.

-----. 1967. Paribhasasamgraha (A collection of original works on Vyakarana Paribhasas). Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.

Bhadkamkar, H. M. 1985. The Nirukta of Yaska . . . Edited with Durga's Commentary, by. . . assisted by R. G. Bhadkamkar, vol. I, reprinted. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.

Bhatt, V. M. 1977. Purusottamadevani 'Laghuparibhasavrtti' num Vivecanatmaka Adhyayana (A Critical Study of Purusottamadeva's Laghuparibhasavrtti). Ahmedabad: Gujarat University [in Gujarati].

Cardona, George. 1976. Panini: A Survey of Research. The Hague: Mouton (rpt. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1980).

-----. 1996. "Amredita compounds?" Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 20: 67-72.

-----. 1997. Panini, his Work and its Traditions, vol. I: Background and Introduction, 2nd ed. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Kielhorn, Franz. See Abhyankar 1960.

Narasimhacharya, M. S. 1973. Mahabhasya Pradipa Vyakhyanani, Adhyaya 1, Pada 1 Ahnika 1-4. Pondichery: Institut francais d'Indologie.

Sadasiva Sastri. 1978. The Paribhasendusekharah . . . with the Bhairavi Commentary by Sri Bhairava Misra and the Tattraprakasika . . . Varanasi: Chaukhambha Sanskrit Sansthan.

Sarup, Lakshman. 1982. Commentary of Skandasvavin and Mahesvara on the Nirukta [chapters I-VI], critically edited. . . with additions and corrections by Acharya V. P. Limaye, vol. I. Delhi: Panini.

Scharf, Peter. 1996. The Denotation of Generic Terms in Ancient Indian Philosophy: Grammar, Nyaya, and Mimamsa. TAPS 86.3.

Vedavrata. 1962. Sribhagavatpatanjaliviracitam Vyakaranamahabhasyam [Srikaiyyatakrtapradipena nagojibhattakrtena bhasyapradipoddyotena ca vibhusitam], vol. I. Rohatak: Harayana-Sahitya-Samsthana.
COPYRIGHT 1998 American Oriental Society
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1998 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Cardona, George
Publication:The Journal of the American Oriental Society
Article Type:Book Review
Date:Apr 1, 1998
Previous Article:A new edition of Vyadi's 'Paribhasavrtti.' (new critical edition based on four ancient Sanskrit manuscripts)
Next Article:Artaxerxes, Ardasir, and Bahman.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters