Patanjali's Vyakarana-Mahabhashya. Samartha-Ahnika (P.2.1.1.).(Ed. Tr. S.D.joshi.)(Poona,1968)(600dpi,Lossy)

Publications of the Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit Class C

No. 3

PATANJALI'S V Y A K A R A N A

-

M A H A B H A S Y A

SAMARTHAHNIKA ( P . 2. 1. 1 ) Edited with Translation and Explanatory Notes by S. D. JOSHI

UNIVERSITY OF POONA POONA 1968

First Edition: May 1968 ©

With Publisher

Printed by J. E. DAVID at Spicer College Press, Ganeshkhind, Poona 7, and published by W. H. GOLAY, Registrar, University of Poona, Poona 7. 1000—4847-68.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It is a pleasure to express here the debt of gratitude that I owe to my student-friend, Mr. Jouthe ROODBERGEN. While preparing the manuscript of this work he was constantly by my side. He has read the entire manuscript line by line and has made substantial changes both in idiom and thought. He has improved the translation by comparing it with the original text and has added a number of notes to make the background of the various arguments clear. Many a passage has been clarified as a result of his helpful suggestions, comments, and corrections. Without his continued assistance, the imperfections of the present work would have been much more numerous. I cannot thank him enough for his collaboration which is responsible for the present shape of the work. I am deeply indebted to my teacher, Prof. R. N. DANDEKAR, Director of the Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit, who, in spite of various activities and pressure of work, not only revised the manuscript securing consistency in style and treatment, but also offered constructive suggestions as regards the presentation of the text and translation. His affectionate encouragement and abiding interest in the progress of this work was a constant source of inspiration to me. His wide experience as scholar and editor has proved highly beneficial to me. I would also like to take this opportunity to express my deep sense of gratitude to my guru, Prof. Daniel H. H. INGALLS of Harvard University, who first taught me how to render Sanskrit texts into English. While at Harvard he introduced me to the various theories in Western linguistics and philosophy. I am also indebted to Prof. Dr. G. V. DEVASTHALI, M. D. BALASUBRAHMANYAM and Dr. S. D. LADDU of C.A.S.S. who have read parts of the Introduction and offered useful suggestions for its improvement. I am also grateful to my colleagues and friends, J. R. Jos HI and Saroja BHATE, for their able assistance in preparing the press-copy of the Sanskrit text and Index. Finally, the Spicer College Press and the Bhandarkar Oriental Institute Press deserve more than formal thanks. They have seen this work through press with such accuracy, speed, and skill as to win most cordial recognition.

C. A. S. S. University of Poona April 28, 1968

S. D. Jos HI.

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction

....

....

....

....

2. Text 3.

Translation and Explanatory Notes

4.

Index

i-xix 1- 32

....

....

1-208 209-223

INTRODUCTION 1. THE THREE MUNIS OF SANSKRIT GRAMMAR 1.1. In recent years, keen interest has been evinced in Pâninian studies, both by Indian and foreign scholars, and fresh attempts have been made to describe the technique of Pânini and his noteworthy commentators, Kätyäyana and Patanjali. Pânini's Astädhyäyü which gives a mathematical mode1 of grammatical description is regarded as one of the greatest monuments of human intelligence2. The first commentarial work on Pänini's Astädhyäyi that is available to us is Kätyäyana's Värttikas (Short Critical Notes). Kätyäyana was a southerner and a follower of a school of grammar different from Pänini's. The main aim of his Vàrttikas is not to explain Pänini's rules but to improve on Pänini's Astädhyäyi where it falls short of achieving its goal3. Patanjali's Mahäbhäsya which is based on the Sax&graha of Vyäoints which are left untouched by his predecessors. Pânini's code affords scope for a variety of possible interpretations and we shall be at a loss to decide which is the correct one, unless we take the help of the Mahàbhàsya16, The influence of the Mahàbhàsya on the later grammatical literature and philosophical works is so great that its pronouncements on various issues are regarded as final and indisputable. A person's scholarship was generally stamped as imperfect if he had no proper training in the Mahàbhàsya17. 3. THE SAMARTHÄHNIKA: MAHÄBHÄCYA ON P.2.1.1. 3.1. The text of the Astàdhyàyi, which consists of approximately 4000 aphorisms, is divided into eight books called adhyàyas. Each book is again divided into four quarters (pàdas). For the sake of convenience, Pataiijali further divides each quarter into àhnikas : 'day sessions'. The total number of àhnikas is 85. The text of the Mahàbhàsya presented here relates to the first aphorism of the first quarter of the second book of the Astàdhyàyi and is known amongst scholars by the name samarthàhnika. 3.2. The first two quarters of the second book of Pânini's Astàdhyàyi deal with the procedure of generative grammar i.e. the theory of integration (vftti). For a fuller understanding of this theory, one must first study Patanjali's Bhàsya on the two quarters relating to samàsa. Therefore, a detailed treatment of it is reserved until the proposed translation of those quarters has been completed. 3.3. I propose to give here a brief sketch of the arguments put forth in the section of the Bhàsya translated in this book, and to indicate their connection with one another. In connection with P.2.1.1 Patanjali has discussed fourteen topics ; three of these are discussed before the first Vàrttika is taken up for examination (Bhàsya No. 42). The practice of discussing a rule independently and before entering into an examination of the first Vàrttika on that rule is not uncommon in the Mahàbhàsya. 4. ANALYSIS OF THE TOPICS DISCUSSED IN THE SAMARTHÄHNIKA 4.1. According to Patanjali, the word vidhi in P.2.1.1 means 'grammatical operation'. Therefore, Patanjali interprets P.2.1.1 to mean 16. S. VARMA: Scientific and Technical Presentation of Patanjali as Reflected in the Mahàbhàsya, VI)\ Hoshiarpur, Vol. I, No. 1, pp. 1-23 (1963). 17. Vàkyapadfya, op. cit.* II 480: tasminn akrtabuddhïnâm naivâvàsihita niécayah.

Analysis of the topics discussed in the Samarthähnika that wherever a grammatical operation concerning finished words is prescribed, it must be applied to words which are semantically connected. 4.2(i). After discussing the meaning of the word vidhi Patanjali raises the question with regard to the character of P.2.1.1 : Is the scope of this rule restricted to a particular section of the Astädhyäyi as is the case with an adhikära rule, or does it apply throughout the Astädhyäyi like a paribhäsä rule? Patanjali regards P.2.1.1 as a paribhäsä rule (Bhäsya No. 10). In this connection, another basic question needs to be taken into consideration : What does the word samartha mean? Its exact significance has direct relevance to the determining of the character of the rule. Therefore Patanjali enters into a discussion on the nature of sämarthya. According to him, sämarthya is of two. kinds : vyapeksä : 'meaning-interdependence' and ekärthibhäva : 'emergence of single integrated meaning'18. 4.2 (ii). Interdependence of meaning exists only in groups of uncompounded words like räjnah purusah: 'king's man', or in a sentence. Here, the words depend on one another to make the meaning syntactically complete. 'Single integrated meaning' exists only in the integrated forms like räjapurusah: 'king-man'. In the case of the uncompounded word-^roun, the word meanings, separately presented by the stem words, are linked together by some relation indicated by the inflectional suffixes. In the case of the compound, on the other hand, the separate presentation of the meaning by the constituent words and of their relation with each other does not occur. The compound as a whole denotes a single meaning in which the grammatical relation between the constituents also obtains the status of a word-meaning. 4.2(iiiV The differentiation between vyapeksä : 'meaning-interdependence', and ekärthtbhäva: 'single integrated meaning', which plays an important role in determining the nature of an uncompounded wordrroun and a compound expression, is based on the manner of presentation rf t^n meaning. The two expressions, räjapurusah : 'king-man' and räjnah purusah : 'king's man' have almost identical meaning and refer to the same object. But the ways in which meaning is presented by these expressions are different. 4.2 (iv). Patanjali finally concludes that sämarthya : 'semantic connection' should be understood in the sense of ekärthibhäva : 'single integrated meaning', and P.2.1.1 as a paribhäsä-rale (Bhäsya No. 10). Since this rule is restricted to cases of 'single integrated meaning', according to Patanjali, P.2.1.1 does not supply the condition samarthah: 18. For the meaning of the terms used here, reference may be made to the translation of the text and to the notes.

Introduction 'semantically connected' in the rules dealing with the uncompounded wordgroup. This does not, however, appear to be Pänini's intention. According to Pânini, the semantic relationship that exists between words is an essential requirement for all the rules involving a finished word as one of the conditions for the operation prescribed by them. In other words, according to Pânini, the condition samarthah is valid for the rules dealing with both an uncompounded word-group and a compound. In P.2.1.1 the word samarthah means any kind of semantic relationship between two grammatical units. The division of sämarthya into ekàrthïbhâva and vyapeksä is not known explicitly or . implicitly to Pânini. These two interpretations of sämarthya date from Kätyäyana's period onwards. This whole discussion leads Patanjali to raise the basic question about the utility of the principle of sämarthya. 4.3(i). Pataniali, therefore, takes up for discussion the topic of the nurpose of P.2.1.1. While explaining the purpose he adopts an operational approach (Bhäsya No. 15). By means of examples and counterexamples he shows where P.2.1.-1 applies and what the purpose of the word samartha in the rule concerned is. The purpose of the word samartha is that the rules dealing with a compound apply to words which are semantically connected and not to words which just happen to occur in immediate sequence without semantic connection. For instance, by P.2.2.8 we derive the compound räjapurusah: cking-man\ The condition samartha supplied by P.2.1.1 informs us that this compound is only allowed when its members, 'king' and 'man', are semantically connected. The phrase(s) bhäryä räjnah(,) puruso devadrttas1"".'. 'wife of a king, man of Devadatta' serves as a counterexample. Here the words râjnàh and purusah occur in immediate sequence, but there is no semantic connection between them. Consequently, no compound is formed out of these two semantically unconnected words. 4.3 (ii). The word samartha means 'having semantic connection as indicated bv syntactic elements'. Literally the word samartha means samah art hah yasya : 'having the same meaning519. The term imolies that uncompounded word-group ( väkya ) and the corresponding compound (vTtti) should convey the same meaning. From Patanjali's discussion (Bhäsya Nos. 38 - 40) it appears that another term, namely gamaka, 19. Pânini uses the word samartha in aphorisms 1.3.42, 2.3.57, 3.3.152, 8.1.65, 8.3.44, precisely in the same meaning. In 4.1.82, the meaning *having semantic connection with other words connected* has to be assumed. The word sämarthya in P. 8.3.44 is used in the sense of vyapeksä, i.e. semantic connection as existing in a sentence. vi

Analysis of the topics discussed in the Samarthähnika was current among the grammarians to express more or less the same idea as conveyed by the word samartha. But it seems that the word gamaha belongs to the non-technical language. Gamakatva : 'ability to exnress (the same meaning)', as the non-technical principle underlying compound-formation in daily usage, must have been silently assumed by grammarians also. The Bhäsya No. 38 argues that the mention of the word samartha is not necessary in order to prevent the formation of the compound râjapurusah : 'king-man' from the expression hhäryä räjnah puruso devadattasya : 'wife of a king, man of Devadatta'. We can prevent the formation of the cömnound râjapurusah from the above expression by the non-technical principle of (a)gamakatva. For, the compound does not convey the same meaning as the corresponding uncompounded word-group. 4 3 (in). But for grammar, which is not concerned with word-meaning (Bhäsya No. 68), it will be difficult to account for compoundformation on the basis of the criterion of meaning. How can one establish the criterion for deciding the sameness of meaning,? In order to be able to establish this criterion (the sameness of meaning) one mav have to establish some other criterion, and this may ultimately lead to a regressus ad infinitum (Bhäsya No. 68). Patafiiali has thus finally arrived at this: The word samartha is not necessary (Bhäsya No. 40). 4 3(iv). But can Pänini not have chosen the word samarthah as a technical term to indicate that, for the formation of a compound out of uncomDounded word-group, mere sameness of meaning between the comnound and the uncomnounded word-grouo is not enough but that something more than this is required? And if he has actually done so, what can that extra-technical meaning expressed by the word samartha have been? It may be that Pânini wants to describe supramorphemic syntactic level of grammar in terms of syntactic or semantic relationship, as also to lay down that semantic connection is an essential requirement for building up syntactic combinations by the rules which involve a finished word as one of the conditions for their application. Since Pânini has stated that samartha is a necessary condition for building up syntactic combination like compounding, etc. the question arises: What can samartha mean in connection with padavidhi: 'syntactic operation'? Here the discussion on the first Värttika starts. 4.4. It has been already pointed out that the meaning of sdmarthya implied in P. 2.1.1 is ekärthtbhäva: 'emergence of single integrated meaning'—as seen in compounds. Then Patanjali, while discussing the terms pfthagartha: 'having separate meaning' and ekärthibhäva: 'emergence of single meaning' (Värttika 1), points out that both the vii

Introduction compound and the uncompounded word-group (out of which the compound is formed) present the same meaning but they do it in two different ways.20 But the terms prthagartha and ekärthlbhäva evidently indicate the difference in the characteristics of the compound and the uncompounded word-group. Hence arises the question: What are the special characteristic features of ekârthîbhâva, which distinguish it from the prthagarthatva? 4.5. This topic is left unnoticed by Kätyäyana. But Patanjali takes it UD and mentions the grammatical as well as the semantic features which distinguish the compound from the corresponding uncompounded wordgroup. The grammatical features are: (i) absence of the inflectional suffixes, (ii) absence of word-intervention between the members of a compound, (iii) a fixed word-order and (iv) a single accent. The semantic features are: (i) that the members of a compound being uninflected remain ambiguous in indicating the precise number of the object ; (ii) that the meaning of uncompounded word-group is clear while that of the compound is vague; (iii) that the constituents of a compound cannot be qualified by the word outside the compound but that the uncompounded word-group permits this; and (iv) that, when the sense of conjunction is to be conveyed, the conjunctive particle ca\ 'and' is used in the uncompounded word-group but not in a compound. This discussion leads us to the basic question: Whether the denotation of single meaning of a compound is a natural phenomenon or is based on any grammatical rules. 4.6(i). In his first Vàrttika Kâtyâyana has already discussed this tonic which must have occupied the attention of grammarians and philosophers of language from the early days. In Patanjali's opinion denotation of a single meaning by the compound form is a natural thing. In fact, grammarians do not have any criterion to analyse meaning. Päninrs method of generation of word-forms is purely mechanical and unrelated to semantics. It is, of course, true that Pânini collects and classifies all types of meaning under the various headings (Bhäsya No. 65-66) ; but these are not intended to teach meanings unknown to us. These meanings present the condition in which the rules are operative. To explain this, Patanjali provides an analog}'. The statements: 'The path is on the right hand side of the well', 'Look at the moon in the cloud5, do not confer a new position on the path or on the moon. They only explain their existing location with the help of distinctive signs, 'well' and 'cloud'. Similarly Pänini's rules only mention the meanings as a condition for their application. 20. See 4.2.(ii). viii

Analysis of the topics discussed in the Samarthahnika 4.6. (ii). Patanjali further says that, for the sake of economy, meanings are not taught. One can define the meaning of A by means of synonym B, that of B by means of G, and so on. This would lead to a regressus ad inftnitum, and also result in the lack of economy. Patanjali further points out that the description of the meaning of each word is an impossible task. Who has competence enough to define the meaning of roots, nominal stems, terminations and particles? In Patanjali's opinion if the entities referred to by the words are known then no fruitful purpose is served by discussing the nature of meaning denoted by the words. Grammar does not serve any useful purpose by teaching meanings which are already known to us from daily communication. 4.6 (iii). If, both the compound and the uncompounded word-group convey the same meaning naturally, then what is the function of grammar? Is a current compound form merely described by grammar (nityasabda), or is it generated by grammar (käryasabda)? 4.7(i). Patanjali's attitude in regard to this question is neutral. In his opinion, whichever alternative is accepted, the basic position of Pänini's procedure remains the same. For, in either view the formulation of the Astädhyäyi is not rendered futile.21 The function of grammar is both to analyse the usage into its constituent elements (nityasabda) and to formulate the rules the application of which allows the generation of word-form (käryasabda). It appears that the käryasabda view has reference to the generative aspect of grammar whereas the nityasabda view refers to its descriptive aspect. 4.7(ii). It would perhaps be helpful at this stage to examine in greater detail the meaning of the term 'generative'22 when it is used with reference to Pänini's grammatical system. The 'generative' grammar builds units of a more complex-structure out of the units of a less complex structure by strictly applying the rules which make up the system. It does not matter whether the generated forms are actually used in the spoken or written language. The generative grammar is concerned only with possible correct usage. ' 4.7(iii). How did this generative grammar itself originate? Presumably, in the following manner: A relatively small number of words both from Vedic and actual spoken language was selected. These words were sub21. Mbh Vol. 1, II 14-15: yadyeva nityo'thäpi \axya ubhaythäpi laksanam, pravartyam hi 22. The term 'generative grammar* used here does not exactly correspond to CHOMSKY'S conception of generative grammar. See CHOMSKY, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Cambridge, Mass., 1965. ix

Introduction jected to grammatical analysis, and, from this analysis, elements (stems and suffixes) were obtained which defied further analysis into smaller elements. A set of rules was formulated to govern the combination of these elements. These rules were intended to cover all possible correct usages. This is clearly shown by the fact that Kätyäyana and Patafijali had to introduce substantial corrections and supplements into Pânini's system, in order to make it cover the usages of their own times and regions. After Sanskrit had been codified by them and had ceased to be a spoken language, the necessity to include new, living usage was no longer there. The only concern then was the correct usage of the written literary Sanskrit, and this was guaranteed by strict adherence to the prescriptions enjoined in the works of the three great grammarians. 4.7 (iv). We find that Pânini's generative grammar differs from the descriptive grammar in at least two respects: (1) His rules of generation are aDplicable only if one adopts the 'bottom-to-top' or the 'beginningto-end' procedure ; ( 2 ) it does not concern itself with actual usage but only with possible correct usage. The procedure of Pânini's generative grammar is called integration (z/ftti) as indicated above. For instance, the nominal stem gamana is built up from the simple elements gam (root) and ana (suffix), the latter being technically known as a kft suffix and the formational process as the kfdvrtti: 'integration by means of krt suffix'. From the complex elements fiutra and kàmya a denominative verbal root putrakärnya is formed. Compounding is also a case of integration. From the (alreaHv complex) elements räjnah purusah we form the compound räjapurusah. The uncompounded expression is transformed into a compound. In the nityasabda view the expression rajnah purusah is a paranhrase of räjapurusah. Both exist side by side. The compound is not derived from the non-compound as would be suggested by the käryasabda view. 4.7(v). The two views, descriptive (nityapaksa) and generative (käryapaksa), are not to be looked upon as diametrically opposite to each other; they together present a complete picture of the generative procedure of Pânini's system. The first view (nityapaksa) pays greater attention to the theoretical procedure and the device employed by Pânini in his system for the generation of word-forms, while the second view (kàryapaksa) is concerned with the experimental aspect of Pänini's system for the generation of word-forms. In fact, these two views are interdependent, and cannot be dissociated from each other. 4.7 (vi). It has been already pointed out that grammar bases its analysis on the natural data (nityasabda) and tries to derive from it a number of rules capable of explaining the formation of words. The consistency

Analysis of the topics discussed in the Samarthähnika and completeness of the formal rules would be tested by the consideration whether by applying them, one could generate the words which might have been accepted as good usage at the time when the rules were formulated. The nityasabda view takes into account the ultimate form of language, while the kàryasabda view takes into account the smallest grammatical unit where the rules of generation are applicable. Both the views considered together imply that, in order to analyse a usage, one should take into account the ultimate form; but that, in order to generate it, one should start from the beginning. Thus Pänini's analytical method combines these two. different approaches, namely, the ultimate form as the starting point of description (vibhajya anväkhyäna23) and the same form as the final stage of generation (kramena anväkhyäna2*). While formulating the rules of grammar Pânini has adopted the 'end-tobeginning' or 'top-to-bottom5 procedure, but for the application of his rules of generation one has to adopt the 'beginning-to-end' or the 'bottom-totop' procedure. -, . 4.7 (vii). The process of integrating elements into what eventually becomes a finished word is called VfttL Jhere are two types of' t/fttis: ajahatsvärthä and jahatsvärthä. According to the first type of z/ftti, the compound does not denote a meaning totally independent of its constituents. The compound as a whole denotes a single meaning without, however, ignoring the mutual interdependence of parts. The second type implies that the compound as a single whole conveys the meaning, and in conveying this meaning the constituents have no function separate from that of the whole. These two interpretations of ekärthtbhäva seem to date from Patanjali's time and are not known to Kâtyâyana. It is, of course, not improbable that Patanjali has derived them from some other grammarian whom he does not quote. , 4.7(viii). The next topic that Patanjali takes tip for discussion is whether P. 2.1.1 applies to cases of integration (In. 19) only or also to those of words in a sentence. According to Patanjali, the rule applies to both types of cases. This, however, goes against what he has stated in Bhäsya No. 10. In order to show that P. 2.1.1 is applicable to both kinds of cases he interprets the term samartha in four ways (Bhäsya Nö. 100), two of which refer to ekärthtbhäva : 'single integrated meaning' and two to vyapeksä: 'meaning interdependence'. Thus the scope of P. 2.1.1 is substantially widened: (a) Being à paribhäsä it becomes applicable 23. See KIELHORN'S translation of the Paribhäsendusekhara of Nâgojï Bhatta, pp. 260-63, second edn. by K. V. ABHYANKAR, 1960, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona 4. 24. See fn. 23. '

Introduction throughout the Astädhyäyi. (b) It concerns both compounds and words related to each other in a sentence. 4.8. If it is assumed that, besides the compounds, P. 2.1.1 applies to the words in a sentence context also, a difficulty arises in the case of nighäta: 'loss of accent' and yu?madasmadädesa: 'substitution in respect of yusmad and asmad\ Patanjali suggests that the exception to the operation of sämarthya is, any way, necessary to prevent the generation of ungrammatical forms, whatever the alternative we choose, ekärthibhäva or vyapeksä, or both (Bhäsya No. 101-111). 4.9(i). Kätyäyana holds a different opinion. He knows that Pânini's samartha-paribhäsä is operative everywhere in the field of grammatical or semantic relation of words. But the nighäta: 'loss of accent' and the substitution in respect of yusmad and asmad are applicable to words even though' they do not show such a relationship with each other. Therefore, instead of bringing the nighäta and yusmadasmadädesa : 'substitution in respect of yusmad and asmad3 within the sphere of the samartha-paribhäsä he prefers to mention them under the heading samänaväkye: 'in one and the same sentence'. This implies that the words which are not grammatically connected may occur in the same sentence, and that the nighäta and the substitution in respect of yusmad and asmad may take place in such cases. In order to substantiate this, he gives a definition of 'sentence'. According to him, a grammatical sentence contains only one single verb. One can say that the introduction of this new section-heading samänaväkye has pertinence only in the case of substitution for yusmad and asmad. As for nighäta, the examples which Patanjali gives to illustrate the Värttika, samänaväkye, are non-vedic, and their accents cannot be ascertained. Moreover, some of Pânini's rules in the nighäta section are applicable only in the complex or compound sentences which contain more than one verb.25 Therefore, if the whole nighäta section is brought under the heading samänaväkye, the rules regarding the nighäta will not apply to a sentence which contains more than one verb. 4.9 (ii). In order to have a clear picture of the operation of the samartha paribhäsä it would be worth while here to discuss in brief the theory of grammatical relation of words as revealed in Pânini's system. Although Pânini's system appears to have no direct relevance to ontological relationships, his generative rules do take into account the grammatical or semantic relationship26 when those rules are utilised for building a structure of the higher order. This relationship between the two or more meaningful units is called sämarthya, and it is variously represented as follows: 25. 8.1.35, 39, 46, 51-53, 58-66. 26. For a detailed treatment of the subject, see J. F. STAAL, Word Order In Sanskrit and Universal Grammar, pp. 38-44, Dordrecht - Holland, Î965.

Analysis of the topics discussed in the Samarthähniha (a) Kâraka relationship: Here one of the finished words is a verb and the other is a non-verb (i.e. operator). For instance, odanaffî pacati: 'he cooks rice'. These kàraka relations are divided by Pänini into six broad categories: apädäna, sampradäna, karana, adhikarana, karman and kartT(b) Genitive relationship: This occurs between two case-inflected words one of which occurs in a genitive case or between a word in a genitive case and a verb. For instance, räjnah puru?ah: 'king's man', or iti me bhâti: 'I think so'. (c) Samänädhikarana i.e. appositional or syntactic relationship: This relationship is marked by agreement in number, case, gender, person, etc. For instance, mlah ghatah: 'a. blue jar', sa pacati: 'he cooks'. (d) Samäsa relationship: A relationship between two or more caseinflected words which when combined into a compound drop their inflectional suffixes. For instance, räjapurusah: 'a king-man'. (e) Mahäväkya relationship: A relation between two or more sentences forming one complex or compound sentence. (f) Stem-suffix relationship: The relationship between the stem and the root-forming suffixes (dhätuvrtti) or the secondary suffixes (taddhitavTtti). For instance, putnyati: 'he desires to have a son'; dàsarathîh: 'offspring of Dasaratha'. It should be noted that this stem-suffix relationship which falls within the sphere of the samartha-paribhäsä does not include the relationship between the stems and the case-suffixes or the stems and the verb ending suffixes. The primary derivatives fall within the sphere of the samartha-paribhäsä, only when they are accompanied by an upapada. For instance, kurabhakära\\ 'pot-maker'. (g) Partitive relationship: This might occur between two case inflected words or verbs joined by the particles like ca: 'and', etc. For instance, grämas (ca) nagaram (ca) : ca village (and) a city'; pacati (ca) pathati (ca) : 'he cooks (and) studies'. This relationship is also possible between one finished word or verb on the one hand and the particle itself on the other. For instance, räma eva: 'Rama only'; pacati eva: 'he cooks only'. (h) A preverb-verb relationship: For instance, 'He goes after'.

sa

anugacchati:

(i) upapada relationship: A relationship between a noun or verb on the one hand and the upapada (accompanying word) on the other. For instance, piträ saha : 'with a father'; bhuktvä vrajati : 'having eaten he goes away'. xiii

Introduction 4.9 (ni). To generate the syntactic combinations of the types mentioned above Pänini has laid down an essential condition namely that of meaningful relationship between the units concerned. As a result of this condition the rules concerning finished words become applicable only when these words are inter-related from the point of meaning. Pänini does not define the term vàkya: 'sentence' although he uses it. But his rules on nighäta and pluta27 imply that a sentence may contain one verb (simple sentence) or more verbs (a compound or a complex sentence whose constituents are connected by means of the particles ca, yat, hi, etc.). Actually, Pänini is not much concerned with defining a sentence, because in his opinion the device of sämarthya : 'meaning relationship' between the two grammatical units will be enough for generating or describing the combination of syntactically connected units.28 4.10(i). The foregoing discussion lea^s to the further question: Does the samartha-paribhäsä take into account only a semantic relationship of one word with another, or does it determine also the grouping of words into a particular set? Suppose B has sämarthya: 'semantic connection' with A and C. Then the sequence ABC can be arranged into two hierarchical structures, namely, [AB(C)] and [A(BC)]. Now the question is: When we have several possibilities of grouping, does the samartha-paribhäsä show preference to any particular way of arrangement or not? The answer is that grouping can be made in any desired order. An illustration will make the point clear. The expression 'king's cow's milk' can be organised into two different arrangements, leading to two different ways of compound-formation: (i) (king's cow)'s milk nnd (iiï kind's (cow's milk). The first analysis leads to the compoundform räjagavtksira, and the second to räjagokslra (Bhäsya No. 121-129). These compounds denote different meanings and they have different internal structures. The principle of sämarthya has nothing to do with the grouping of constituents of the compound to be formed. One can group them in any desired order. However, the rules of compounding and the device of sämarthya work in the same order in which the words are grouped. Once the words 'king's' and 'cow's' are grouped into one set (räjagaui) the set as a whole forms a semantic connection with the other words. Its part is not allowed to form an independent connection with any other word. 4.10(îi). A similar question is raised in the Bhäsya No. 105-111. In the expression "king's cow and horse and man", we cannot say whether the unit 'king's' is connected only with 'cow' or with 'horse' and 'man' as well. The sequence of words can be arranged into two alternative 27. See fn. 25, and 8.2.93, 94, 99, 104. 28. The Descriptive Technique of Päninu Op.cit 112-113. xiv

Analysis of the topics discussed in the Samarthâhnika hierarchical structures, with a difference in meaning : [king's (cow and horse and man)] or [(king's cow) and horse and man]. The first set leads to a compound räjagavyasvapurusa, while the second either to räjagaväsvapurusa or râjagoêvapurusa. Here the ambiguity is removed when the compound is formed. However, this is not possible everywhere. The compounds râjadhenuksïra or räjadhenvasvapurusa remain as ambiguous as their corresponding uncompounded word-groups. It is only in the case of the word go that we find a visible difference in the internal structures (P. 5.4.90). 4.11. The next question that arises is : Why is the samartha condition restricted to the province of syntax only? The reply is that the operations which are phonologic ally conditioned take into account only the immediate sequence of phonemes (samhitä P. 6.1.72) irrespective of whether the phonemes concerned belong to the words which are semantically connected or not. For instance, in the sentence tisthatu dadhy asäna tvaxa säkena : 'let curds be left alone, eat with vegetables', P.6.1.77 which prescribes semivowels y in place of i, applies, even when the words dadhi: 'curds' and asäna: 'eat' are not semantically connected but only occur in immediate sequence. In this discussion, a difference is made between the varnavidhi : 'phonological operation' and padavidhi : 'syntactic operation'. P. 2.1.1 is applicable only in the case of the padaindhu 4.12(i). Having explained the scope of the samartha-paribhäsä and its utility for the generation of syntactic combination, Kätyäyana and Patanjali raise a Question regarding the wording of the aphorism, samarthah padavidhih : Can the aphorism, as it is, prevent the compoundformation of words which are not semantically connected? Obviously it canot prevent such a formation, because the rule samarthah padavidhih, which amounts to saying samarthah samäsah literally interpreted, would mean that the process of compound-formation itself is semantically connected. This is a meaningless statement. The rule, as it is, does not mean that a compound is to be formed only of words that are semantically connected, but it means that the operation of compounding is semantically connected (Bhäsya No. 132). Therefore, Kätyäyana proposes a change in the wording of the aphorism and reads samarthänäm padavidhih : 'compounding etc. (takes place) of semantically connected words'. Patanjali tries to solve this difficulty by resorting to a somewhat far-fetched way of uttarapadalopin compounding as explained in the Bhäsya No. 139. The purpose of Patanjali's five-way compounding elaborated there is to show that the word samarthah in P.2.1.1 covers everything, all numbers and cases, independently of Kätyäyana's rephrasing. For a detailed explanation see Note (122). xv

Introduction 4.12(ii). The whole discussion of the commentators on P.2.1.1, starting from Kätyäyana's rephrasing is "based on the assumption that the word padavidhih in the aphorism is vidheya: 'predicate' and the word samarthah is uddesya: 'subject'. Once the rule is analysed like this there is no other possibility to extract sense out of it except by changing the word samarthah to samarthänäm. But if the word samarthah was taken as vidheya, and padavidhih as uddesya, the rule would mean : yatra padavidhih tatra samarthah iti upatisthate : "Where an operation concerning finished words is prescribed, there the word samarthah 'semantically connected' is to be supplied". Thus the rephrasing as well as the elaborate explanation given in the Bhäsya (No. 139) to interpret the word samarthah becomes unnecessary. 4.13(i). Now Kätyäyana raises the question : How may one account theoretically for the formation of samänädhikarana compounds like vhapurusah 'brave-man'? According to him, the condition of sdmarthya will not allow such a formation. In the samänädhikarana compound, the constituents stand in syntactic agreement, i.e. they refer to one and the same entity. A relation, on the other hand, invariably involves two entities which are mutually related. Since in the expression cbrave-man' only one entity is referred to, namely man, we cannot speak of any meaning-relationship with reference to it. Therefore, a special rule to justify the samänädhikarana compounds would seem to be needed. Kätyäyana, however, says that such a special rule is not necessary, because Pänini's procedure (P.2.1.58) itself clearly indicates that this type of formation is allowed. Patanjali, on his part, tries to justify these compounds by pointing out the fact that the expression virapurusah refers to the qualities, 'braveness' and 'manhood', as well as to one individual entity, namely man. According to Patanjali, the semantic connection between two syntactically agreeing words is possible, because one and the same entity can be thought of differently on account of the difference in its qualities {Bhäsya No. 140170). 4.13(ii). The discussion introduced here by Kätyäyana has a philosophical implication rather than a grammatical one. Kätyäyana has a philosophical bend of mind — a characteristic which Bhartrhari shares with him—whereas Pänini and Patanjali are essentially descriptive grammarians who think that they can do without any discussion on philosophical issues. Pänini and Patanjali take it for granted that the constituents of the samänädhikarana compound are semantically connected. According to them the question regarding the semantic xvi

General Observations connection between two syntactically agreeing words falls beyond the scope of grammar. Kätyäyana overrates the importance of philosophical issues and Patafijali underrates their relevance to linguistic analysis. Patanjali often shows that the philosophic doctrines explicitly propounded by Kätyäyana are implicitly approved by Pânini. 4.14. After having discussed the principle of sàmarthya and its application Kätyäyana and Patanjali introduced the general topic regarding number of words to be compounded. Can a compound of more than two words be formed or not? The conclusion that they arrived at is that a dvandva or a bahuvnhi can be formed of more than two constituent words. Elsewhere a compound is generally formed of two words only (Bhäsya No. 171-213). 5. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS 5.1. From the foregoing discussion it will be clear that Kätyäyana maintains the tradition of Pänini so far its technique is concerned but tries to improve upon that tradition by means of its philosophical interpretation. He defines sàmarthya in terms of semantics as, ekärthibhäva and vyapeksä — the concepts which seem to have been unknown to Pânini. He also introduces the new section-heading samänaväkye and defines väkya. Pänini can do without defining väkya because he describes syntactic combinations in terms of grammatical relationship without bringing in the notion of a sentence. Kätyäyana thinks that the wording of the aphorism, samarthah padavidhih, is inadequate and rephrases it as samarthänäm padavidhih. He attempts to present a grammar as a system of philosophy—a tendency which becomes more conspicuous in the Väkyapadtya of Bhartrhari. In connection with the samänädhikaratia compounds he raises the question, whether a word denotes guna: 'quality' or draiya: 'individual entity'. It appears that he is more concerned with meaning and philosophization. Therefore, he introduces manv new tonics which are loosely connected, or have no apparent connection, with Pänini's system. 5.2. Before examining the Värttika first, Patanjali clarifies Pänini's position with regard to the samartha-paribhäsä. While doing so, he discusses the topics: (i) the meaning of the word mdhi, (ii) the nature of the rule: whether adhikàra or a paribhäsä, and (iii) the operation of the principle of sämarthya. He makes his own contribution to the svs^em by introducing the theories relating to the types of vfttis, jahatsvärthä and ajahatsvärthä. He reinterprets P.2.1.1 and shows that Kätyävana's rephrasing of it is not necessary. It will be seen that Patanjali seeks to steer clear of the two extreme approaches, namely, that of descriptive linguistics adopted by Pänini and that of philosophical xvii

Introduction linguistics adopted by Kätyäyana. He accepts in essence Kâtyâyana's philosophical and semantic view-points, but hints at the same time, that Pänini's procedure takes that view-point for granted without caring to discuss it. According to Patanjali, a discussion on philosophical issues falls beyond the scope of descriptive generative grammar. Thus we find many digressions from Pänini in the Värttikas and in the Mahäbhäsya. One must, however, admit that they have substantially enriched the grammatical tradition of India. Some of these digressions are important even from the point of view of modern linguistic and semantic theories. Indeed, they constitute quite a significant contribution to the linguistic thought as a whole. 6 A NOTE ON THE TEXT AND TRANSLATION 6.1. The text of the Vyäkarana-Mahäbhäsya given here is virtually reproduced from KJELHORN'S edition.29 I have, however, slightly revised it by introducing my own punctuation, by marking the accent in relevant context, and by using double dandas. I have also changed a few readings which obviously seemed to be misprints, on the authority of other editions and commentaries. The variant readings worth considering are very few. It is, therefore, only seldom that I have recorded them in my notes. 6.2. The main improvement which I may claim to have made in the text of the Bhäsya consists in the manner of its presentation. The present text is divided into 14 sections, and each section into paragraphs which are serially numbered for facility of reference. The numbers shown in the translation of the Bhäsya correspond to the numbers of paragraph in the Sanskrit text. Sometimes the paragraphs are further subdivided [subdivisions being indicated by (a), (b), (c), etc.,] in order that the reader should find it easy to understand the internal links between the arguments involved. Section-titles and bracket-headings are inserted in the Sanskrit text and the English translation, to make the line of the arguments and the topics discussed in the Mahäbhäsya clear. These titles and headings are borrowed from the Nirnaya Sagar edition, the VyakaranaMahäbhäsya, Vol. II, Bombay, 1912. Occasionally, I have ventured to coin new titles and headings when those of the Nirnaya Sagar Press appeared to be inadequate. 6.3. I have tried throughout to make my translation as precise as possible. Accordingly, I have preferred literal rendering wherever it was possible without adversely affecting the intelligibility. 29. The Vyakarana - Mahäbhäsya of Patanjali, Vol. I, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, 1962. xviii

A Note on the Text and Translation Serious students of the Mahäbhäsya are aware of the many difficulties in presenting a definite, final and ideal translation of this work. The present translation and interpretation of the Mahäbhäsya is mainly based on the two notable commentaries: Pradïpa of Kaiyata and Uddyota of Nägesa. Wherever the explanation given by the commentaries appeared to be over-subtle or too far removed from the natural meaning of the text, I have ventured to give what seemed to me to be a stricter and more straightforward interpretation. In such cases, I have clearly indicated in the notes my disagreement with the commentators with reasons. Wherever the interpretation of the commentators was not available, I have supplied my own in the notes. 6.4. It is a matter of regret that the most valuable commentary, namely, the Mahâbhâsyadïpika of Bhartrhari, is not available on the Mahäbhäsya on P.2.1.1. It is available up to the first seven ähnikas only. The next important commentary that is available to us is the Pradïpa of Kaiyata which is largely based on Bhartrhari's Dïpikâ. The value of this commentary lies not only in its learned interpretation of the Mahäbhäsya but also in that it reflects the development in the field of grammatical thoughts from Bhartrhari to Kaiyata. I have given the translation of the relevant portions from Kaiyata's commentary, because I think that it will be invaluable to those who care for a first-hand interpretation of the Mahäbhäsya. I have also given the translation of such passages from the Uddyota of Nägesa, as contain an independent examination of the Mahäbhäsya or show some difference from Kaiyata's view-point or present some new observations. The Sanskrit text of the portions translated from the Pradïpa or the Uddyota, which follows the Nirnaya Sagar edition of the Vyäkarana-Mahäbhäsya, is given in footnotes.

XIX

(IT-

* M

I \\

I R^7% RRiRîci | f^î

$\ ïïtïï

( ^

^

.I

?• ïn^îR )

\, Ben. reads îffq- for ^, Ben, reads [^ for ^.

(*)

(%') ÇFl^fot f ^ W ^ I § ^

ïïNt

ftct

f fàwfaj ïïTqr