Påˆini and the Kramapå ha of the Ùgveda *

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Påˆini and the Kramapå ha of the Ùgveda *"

Joleen Robbins
5 years ago
Views:

1 PÓÔINI AND THE KRAMAPÓÈHA 1 JOHANNES BRONKHORST Påˆini and the Kramapå ha of the Ùgveda * (published in: Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 66 (1985), pp ) 1. In an earlier article (Bronkhorst, 1982a: 1.2) it has been argued that retroflexion as a result of sandhi conditioned by the reduplication of a verb or by the earlier member of a compound did not yet take place at the time of composition of the Padapå ha of the Ùgveda. We can be sure that retroflexion conditioned by an earlier word was also foreign to the Ùgveda at that time. Retroflexion of this type had become a common feature of the Ùgveda in the time of the Ùgveda-Pråtißåkhya. This means that the text of the Ùgveda went through a process of evolution in this respect. In the following pages an attempt will be made to derive conclusions on chronology by assigning the Kramapå ha of the Ùgveda and Påˆini's A ådhyåy to different stages in this process The Kramapå ha 1 is described in chapters 10 and 11 of the Ùgveda-Pråtißåkhya. These chapters give indications how to arrive at the Kramapå ha on the basis of the Padapå ha and the Saµhitåpå ha. the relationship between chapters 10 and 11 is a peculiar one. Chapter 11 restates much that is said in chapter 10 and adds explanations as well as alternatives proposed by others. 2 Already Müller (1869: CCXLVI; cf. Shastri, 1959: 76) concluded from this that chapter 11 is a supplement to chapter 10, the main aim being to give reasons for the rules of chapter 10. But the search for reasons, Müller observes, led to something else. Where the presumed rationale of certain rules was not fully attained by these rules, new rules were added or modifications proposed. One traditionally handed down Kramapå ha was none the less known to the author of chapter 11. This is clear from certain sëtras in this chapter. SËtra 11.8 (620) questions the rationality of some features of the Kramapå ha, thus indicating that the Kramapå ha existed in a fixed form even where this was considered irrational. SËtras (675-76) are quite explicit on this point: "But one should not go beyond what is customary. While saying that both tradition and [186] reasoning are the way of the Kramapå ha, one should praise other [rules regarding the formation of the Kramapå ha only in as far as they are] in agreement with its (i.e., of the Kramapå ha) completion. The rules of the Kramapå ha are correct as they were taught in * I am indebted to the Netherlands Organization for the Advancement of Pure Research (Z.W.O.) for financial assistance. 1 The Kramapå ha has been committed to writing by Bhalchandrashastri Karambelkar in Poona, perhaps for the first time. Let us hope that it will soon be published. 2 Cf. Devasthali, 1981.

2 PÓÔINI AND THE KRAMAPÓÈHA 2 the beginning, but not with all kinds of deviations [therefrom]. Thus Båbhravya, the propounder of the Kramapå ha, propounded and praised the Kramapå ha." (åcaritaµ tu notkramet/ kramasya vartma sm tisaµbhavau bruvan samådhim asyånv itaråˆi k rtayet// yathopadi aµ kramaßåstram ådita puna p thaktvair 3 vividhair na sådhuvat/ iti pra båbhravya uvåca ca kramaµ kramapravaktå prathamaµ ßaßaµsa ca// RV. Pr ) In view of the above, we can conclude that chapter 10 of the Ùgveda-Pråtißåkhya describes the Kramapå ha as it was traditionally handed down and, we may assume, as it was at the time of its composition Some features of the Kramapå ha as described in chapter 10 of the Ùgveda- Pråtißåkhya allow us to gain knowledge of the stage to which retroflexion in the Saµhitåpå ha had reached. SËtra 10.3 (592) of the Ùgveda-Pråtißåkhya tells us that "they finish [a group of words joined in the Kramapå ha] having passed over... su and sma when retroflexed and followed by na (nate susmeti na pare... at tyaitåny avasyanti). In these cases the Kramapå ha contains groups of three rather than two words. The examples given by the commentator Uva a are: mo u ˆa (RV ); åsu må ˆa (RV ). For sma there are no further examples; for su there are, such as: Ë u ˆa (RV ); o Ë ˆa (RV ); te u ˆa (RV ); mo Ë ˆa (RV ); etc. It is clear why in these cases three rather than two words form a group. Retroflexion of s in the second word is conditioned by the first word, the second word thus modified causes in its turn retroflexion of n in ˆa. Retroflexion in the third word is therefore (indirectly) conditioned by the first word. Groups of two words at a time would not show the Saµhitå-form ˆa, 4 contrary to what is desired. The above shows that at the time of composition of the Kramapå ha the Saµhitåpå ha read mo u ˆa, åsu må ˆa, 5 with retroflex and ˆ. In this respect the Kramapå ha agrees with the Ùgveda as described in the [187] Ùgveda-Pråtißåkhya, not with the Ùgveda as it existed when the Padapå ha was composed I have argued elsewhere (1981: 2) that Påˆini is to be dated after the Padapå ha and before the Ùgveda-Pråtißåkhya. In that same article I concluded that differences between the A ådhyåy and the Ùgveda known to us may be significant: "Certainly where phonetic questions are concerned, Påˆini may describe an earlier form of the Ùgveda, and may not deserve to be blamed for being lacunary" (1981: 91-92). What are the consequences of this in the present context? 3 Müller's edition has p thaktair. 4 The reason is that retroflexion of s in the second word is not allowed when the cause of this retroflexion is not present; see Ùgveda-Pråtißåkhya 10.5 (594). mo u ˆa, e.g., would be mo u / su na. 5 To be exact: åsu må ˆo, due to following maghavan.

3 PÓÔINI AND THE KRAMAPÓÈHA P reads: naß ca dhåtusthoru ubhya [chandasi (26), ra åbhyåµ no ˆa (1)] "In Sacred Literature, ˆ [comes] in the place of n of nas after r or when part of a root, uru, or u." This sëtra accounts for mo u ˆa and the other phrases containing u ˆa. However, this sëtra does not account for åsu må ˆa ; nor does any other sëtra in the A ådhyåy do so. If the Ùgveda had read åsu må ˆa in the time of Påˆini, the A ådhyåy should have accounted for it. If Påˆini had known the Kramapå ha and its peculiar shape in this particular place, he could not possibly have failed to account for it. The conclusion seems unavoidable that Påˆini preceded the Kramapå ha There is nothing implausible in the assumption that na got retroflex ˆ following må at a later time than u ˆa. The cases described in Påˆini's rule have none but vowels intervening between the conditioning or r and na. The Ùgveda-Pråtißåkhya (5.58; 374), on the other hand, prescribes retroflexion in na also after purupriyå, brahma, aryamå, and of course må. Intervention of a non-vowel without prevention of retroflexion may not have taken place until after Påˆini. 4. The use of padaka "one who studies or knows the Pada" 6 in the Påli Buddhist scriptures provides some evidence in support of the view that the Kramapå ha did not yet exist about Påˆini's time. This word is used as an attribute of Brahmans who excel in learning. If the Kramapå ha had existed when padaka made its appearance in Buddhist literature, a term might have been used that shows the Brahman's familiarity with the Kramapå ha, 7 such as kramaka; but such terms are unknown to the Buddhist canon. [188] Buddhist literature originated after the Buddha. Irrespective of the precise dates of the Buddha's death and of Påˆini 8 it is likely that the earliest Buddhist literature and Påˆini's grammar were not far apart, and that, if anything, the former was later than the latter. 5. There is a complication. P reads: kramådibhyo vun "After krama etc. [comes the suffix] vun (= aka)." This sëtra accounts for the formation of kramaka. 9 The sense to be assigned to kramaka must be "one who studies or knows the Krama", in view of P See note 9 below. 7 Similarly today a learned Brahman is called Ghanapå hin after the last and most complicated vik ti which he masters. (See Abhyankar and Devasthali, 1978: XVII-IL for a discussion of the eleven modes of Vedic recitation: three prak ti, eight vik ti.) 8 For the date of the Buddha, see Bareau, 1953 and now Bechert, A survey of opinions regarding Påˆini's date is given in Cardona, 1976: The interval between Påˆini and Kåtyåyana is to be taken as rather wide, in view of Kåtyåyana's recurrent lack of knowledge regarding Påˆini's intention (Thieme, 1935: 130; and esp. Kiparsky, 1980; Bronkhorst, 1980). Påˆini may further antedate parts of Vedic literature (Bronkhorst, 1982b) and should therefore not be dated too late. 9 It also accounts for padaka. This word does not occur in early Sanskrit literature (it does occur in Påli and the Buddhist Divyåvadåna, see above) so that it does not affect the argument which follows.

4 PÓÔINI AND THE KRAMAPÓÈHA 4 tad adh te tad veda. P seems a clear indication that Påˆini knew the Kramapå ha of the Ùgveda. That is to say, once we accept that P was part of the original A ådhyåy we are almost compelled to believe that Påˆini knew the Kramapå ha. But here there is room for doubt. I shall show i) that there is no evidence agains the assumptions that P is a later interpolation in the text of the A ådhyåy, and ii) that there is some evidence in support of this assumption. (i) P is not commented upon nor in any other way used in Patañjali's Mahåbhå ya (Lahiri, 1935: 44; Birwé, 1966: 205). It can moreover be removed from its context without difficulty. The rule can therefore have been added in the time separating Patañjali from Candra. 10 It is known that much grammatical activity characterized this period, resulting in various additions and modifications in Påˆini's grammar (Bronkhorst, 1983). (ii) Some positive evidence may be seen in the fact that the word krama occurs in the gaˆa accompanying the preceding sëtra P kratëkthådisëtråntå hak. This sëtra is thus made to teach the formation of kråmika in the sense "one who studies or knows the Krama". The mention of krama in the immediately following sëtra may be more than coincidence. Conceivably there was a grammarian who did not approve of the word kråmika and preferred kramaka instead. 11 He added P in order to justify kramaka. [189] A disagreement of the type hypothesized above may well have existed. Neither of the two words kråmika and kramaka seems to occur in the ancient Sanskrit literature in the sense here required. The fact that krama occurs in the gaˆa of P does not in any way prove that Påˆini knew the Kramapå ha. The gaˆas are know to have undergone modifications and additions. There are even some indications that gaˆas were not originally part of Påˆini's grammar (Scharfe, 1977: ). Some further, be it negative, evidence for the late origin of P is as follows. P , together with the accompanying gaˆa, accounts for the words kramaka, padaka, ßik aka, m måµsaka, and såmaka. All these words are of extremely rare occurrence in the ancient literature, and a grammatical derivation is never given. There is one exception. The Jaina Tattvårthådhigama Bhå ya, which may date from the fourth century A.D. (Bronkhorst, 1985), paraphrases the word ßaik aka which occurs in Tattvårtha SËtra 9.24 as ßik aka (II, p. 256). It explains this (p. 257): acirapravrajita ßik ayitavya ßik a ßik åm arhat ti ßaik o vå 10 The rule occurs in Candra's grammar (3.1.40). 11 Or in addition to kråmika.

5 PÓÔINI AND THE KRAMAPÓÈHA 5 "One who has recently renounced is someone who must be instructed (ßik ayitavya) [and is called] ßik a because he deserves instruction (ßik åm arhati), or [he is called] ßaik a." The author of the Tattvårthådhigama Bhå ya gives evidence of being acquainted with Påˆini's grammar at a few places. 12 There can therefore be no doubt that his remark he deserves instruction (ßik åm arhati) is a reference to P : tad arhati. His word ßik aka is therefore derived, through ßik a, with the help of P (A svårthika suffix - ka or -aka is added after ßik a/ßaik a; cf. P f.) The alternative derivation with P from ßik åm adh te who studies the precepts the only derivation in the grammar which is explicitly meant to produce ßik aka would also yield an acceptable meaning. 13 Its non-mention may indicate that P was not yet part of the A ådhyåy at that time. 6. The above arguments do not prove beyond doubt that Påˆini preceded the Kramapå ha of the Ùgveda. They do however show that this is possible or even probable. We shall therefore consider one of its consequences. [190] Aitareya Óraˆyaka speaks of nirbhuja, prat ˆˆa and ubhayamantara. These terms find their explanation in the statement: "For when he unites the words, that is the Nirbhuja form. When he pronounces the two syllables pure, that is the Prat ˆˆa form. This is the first. By the Ubhayamantara both are fulfilled." (cf. Keith, 1909: 241, 128: yad dhi saµdhiµ vivartayati tan nirbhujasya rëpam atha yac chuddhe ak are abhivyåharati tat prat ˆˆasyågra u evobhayamantareˆobhayaµ vyåptaµ bhavati.) It seems clear that the three terms refer to the Saµhitåpå ha, Padapå ha and Kramapå ha respectively. 14 If we accept that Påˆini preceded the Kramapå ha of the Ùgveda, we must also accept that he preceded the portion of the Aitareya Óraˆyaka which refers to it. This would be a welcome addition to our knowledge of late-vedic chronology. However, the evidence discussed above makes Påˆini's priority in time to the Aitareya Óraˆyaka no more than a probability. 12 A full sëtra (P ) is quoted under Tattvårtha SËtra 2.16 (I, p. 162). A full entry from the Dhåtupå ha (X.300) is cited under 1.5 (I, p. 44). Oblique references occur repeatedly. 13 The derivation of ßaik aka from ßik aka with a svårthika suffix, e.g. aô, could not be a problem. Note the meaning assigned to ßik å in the Tattvårthådhigama Bhå ya on sëtra 1.3 (I, p. 35): adhigama adhigama ågamo nimittaµ ßravaˆaµ ßik å upadeßa ity anarthåntaram. 14 A closely similar description of the terms is found in the introductory stanzas of the Ùgveda- Pråtißåkhya, vv. 3 and 4.

6 PÓÔINI AND THE KRAMAPÓÈHA 6 REFERENCES Abhyankar, K.V., and Devasthali, G.V. (1978): Vedavik tilak aˆa-saµgraha. A collection of twelve tracts on Vedavik tis and allied topics. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. (Research Unit Publications, No. 5.) Aitareya Óraˆyaka. See Keith, Bareau, André (1953): "La date du Nirvåˆa." JA 241, Bechert, Heinz (1982): "The date of the Buddha reconsidered." Indologica Taurinensia X, pp Birwé, Robert (1966): Studien zu Adhyåya III der A ådhyåy Påˆinis. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Bronkhorst, Johannes (1980): "Asiddha in the A ådhyåy : a misunderstanding among the traditional commentators?" JIP 8, Bronkhorst, Johannes (1981): "The orthoepic diaskeuasis of the Ùgveda and the date of Påˆini." IIJ 23, Bronkhorst, Johannes (1982a): "Some observations on the Padapå ha of the Ùgveda." IIJ 24, Bronkhorst, Johannes (1982b): "The variationist Påˆini and Vedic: a review article." IIJ 24, [191] Bronkhorst, Johannes (1983): "On the history of Påˆinian grammar in the early centuries following Patañjali." JIP 11, Bronkhorst, Johannes (1985): "On the chronology of the Tattvårtha SËtra and some early commentaries." WZKS 29, pp Candra(-gomin). Cåndravyåkaraˆa. Part I (Chapters 1-3). Edited by Kshitish Chandra Chatterji. Poona: Deccan College (Sources of Indo-Aryan Lexicography, 13.) Cardona, George (1976): Påˆini: A Survey of Research. Delhi - Varanasi - Patna: Motilal Banarsidass Devasthali, G.V. (1981): "Pre-fixation fermentation of the (Ùgveda) Krama-På ha." Indologica Taurinensia 8-9 ( ), Keith, Arthur Berriedale (ed., tr.)(1909): The Aitareya Óraˆyaka. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Kiparsky, Paul (1980): Påˆini as a Variationist. Ed. S.D. Joshi. Poona: Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit, University of Poona. Lahiri, P.C. (1935): Concordance Panini-Patañjali (Mahåbhå ya). Breslau: M. & H. Marcus. Müller, Max (1869): Rig-Veda-Pråtißåkhya, das älteste Lehrbuch der vedischen Phonetik. Sanskrittext mit Übersetzung und Anmerkungen. Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus. Ùgveda-Pråtißåkhya. 1. Edited, with Uva a's commentary, by Mangal Deva Shastri.Vol. II. Allahabad: The Indian Press = Müller, Scharfe, Hartmut (1977): Grammatical Literature. Volume V, Fasc. 2 (pp ) of A History of Indian Literature, ed. Jan Gonda. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Shastri, Mangal Deva (1959): The Ùgveda-Pråtißåkhya with the Commentary of Uva a. Volume I. Introduction, original text of the Ùgveda-Pråtißåkhya in stanza-form, supplementary notes and several appendices. Varanasi: Vaidika Svådhyåya Mandira. Tattvårthådhigama Bhå ya. In: TattvårthådhigamasËtra, ed. Hiralal Rasikdas Kapadia. Bombay: Sheth Devchand Lalbhai Jain Pustakoddhar Fund (Sheth Devchand Lalbhai Jain Pustakoddhar Fund Series No. 67, 76.) Thieme, Paul (1935): Påˆini and the Veda. Studies in the early history of linguistic science in India. Allahabad: Globe Press.

The variationist Påˆini and Vedic: a review article*

THE VARIATIONIST PÓÔINI AND VEDIC 1 JOHANNES BRONKHORST The variationist Påˆini and Vedic: a review article* (published in: Indo-Iranian Journal 24 (1982), pp. 273-282) (1) The main aim of Kiparsky's book