kunda bhatta on the meaning of sanskrit verbs

8/12/2019 Kunda Bhatta on the Meaning of Sanskrit Verbs

1/39

K U ~ QBHATTA ON THE MEANINGOF SANSKRIT VERBS 1)*

An English Translation and Annotationof the V a i y i i k a r ~ a b h i i ~ a s a r a ,Chapter 1 with the Introduction

Shivaram Dattatray Josm

Acknowlegements

I t


2/39

knowledge sympathy and instruction were a const nt source ofinspiration to me. The fatherly care which I have received from him keptme encouraged. He took a generous interest in my work and improved

andre-improved the drafts of my thesis. His wide exprerience as a scholarand editor was always beneficial to me. There are no lines which have notwitnessed improvement and accuracy from his hand. Whatever merit isfound in this work goes to my honored teacher and for whatever faultsremain the blame must attach to my ignorance.

Y ad atra s a u ~ t h a v a r pkirp cit tad guror eva me na hiyad a t r a s a u ~ t h a v a r pkirp cit tan mamaiva guror na hill

Prastavana

S a b d a n u v i d d h a v i ~ a y a d h i g a m a r ps u s i i k ~ m r p

prastaumi vacam akhilarthanidhisvariipamsri-Sarpkararp gurum upasya Mahesvararp casiiriyatattvavivrtirp sugamaiJ 1 tanomi

Mamasit saubhagyarp trimunivacananiha pafhiturp maya labdharppremlJa harivacanatattvarp gurumukbatna karturp Jane 'harp param ativisuddhiirtha-racanarp vicintyaivarp d o ~

mama hi parihiiryi.Ql pathitrbhil}.Sastrarp vyiikaralJarp kusagradhialJair alocjaniyarp kva nu kvahaiJ.lmandamatir na yasya savidhe sa granthak[ccaturievarp saty api capale krtamatir yasyamyaharp hasyatiim pararp n e ~ y t imarp pararp gurulqpa sai 'vasti me kamadhukSarppradayagatarp kirp cit praticyagamasarpbhavamjiianarp gurulqpalabdharp bhiiyiin matk[tivighnabrtSuddharp yadi syad upalabdham asmin vibhavaniyarp vibudhair gurostatasuddham asmin yad asarpmatarp ca vibhavaniyarp vibudbair mameti

Sril}.Arpa Ja-patrika

S r i m a d - g u r u v a r y a - I n g a l l s - k u l a b h i i ~ a J a - D a n i e l - m a l J o d

CaralJara vindayugul e sadararpSamarpalJam

Niinasastravicaracarcanaratarp s i ~ y p r d e y g m r pvidyiimandirama JcJanaiJ.I bahuvidhe v a i s e ~ i k ekovidam

2


3/39

A i i i g i i l i y a k u l a r a v i n d a t a r a ~ 1 i r pniinopavidyanidilirp vande madgurumadarepa sumatirp vedabdilipararpgatamNa vagartilajiiiinarp na ca paricita.p sastrasamayap na vii ste praucjila dilipj a { i l a v i ~ > a y i i b h y i i s a n i p u p i i

tatilapiyarp tikii yadadilikrpaya labdha Jananarp amu: >yantarbilaktyiipadakamalayor arpyata iyam

ONTENTS

Part I: Introduction

1. The Author2. The Karikas of Bhagoji D i k ~ i t a3. Kaul .


4/39

PART I: INTRODUCTION

l The Author

What is known of a u ~ c ; I aBhaga is derived from his statements at theopening and closing of his books and from what we know of his familyfrom other sources. K a u J ; ~ < ; i aBhatta himself tells us in theVaiyiikaraiJabhii aiJasiiral that he was the son of Railgoji Bhaga andnephew of Bhattoji. This establishes his position in what was one of India'smost famous families of scholars.

The date of Bhagoji has been the subject of much discussion. The factsare best treated by P. K Gode, who has fixed Bhattoji's literary career as

between about A.D. 1560 and 1620.2 Various opinions have been heldregarding the caste to which Bhattoji belonged: that he was a DesasthaBrahmin, that he was a Sarasvata Brahmin, or, what is now the mostgenerally accepted view, that he was a Telanga Brahmin originally fromthe south. Bhagoji was the author of numerous works on grammar, lawand philosophy. A list of such works preserved in manuscripts may befound in Aufrecht's Catalogus Catalogorum. The following have beenprinted.

1. Sabdakaustubha2. Siddhiintakaumudi

3. Prauc;Jhamanoramii4 Caturvirpsatimatasa1pgraha5. TithiniiiJaya6. Vedabhii yasiira

Finally, Bhagoji was part author and part compiler of the Vaiyiikaral}a-matonmajjna a collection of pithy verses described below, on whichKaul


5/39

composed a commentary on the Brahmasiitras6 and that he defeated aMadhva philosopher named Vaderu in public debate at the court of a KingVellkatappa. King Vcnkatappa was one ofthe Kela


6/39

2. The Karikas of Bha toji D i k ~ i t a

Kaunda Bhatta s V a i y a k a r a ~ a b h i i a ~ aand its abridgement, theV a i y a k a r ~ a b h i i a ~ a s a r aare commentaries on a number of verses orkarikas by the author's uncle, Bhattoji D i k ~ i t a .In a manuscript preservedin the Adyar library the verses bear the title Vaiyakaral}amatonmajjana12and are ascribed to Bhatto.fi Dik$ita.

The kiirikas of Bhagoji summarize the essence of philosophical doctrinesof the grammarians in 74 or 76 verses. The number 76 is doubtless thecorrect one, for the first two verses of the Vaiyakaral}abhii$a Ja and itssummary, the V a i y i i k a r a J a b h i i $ ~ a s a r aare surely by Bhagoji. I say thisbecause it is the practice of scholastic authors to remark on the marigalaof the text on which they comment, saying that this marigala is for theremoval of obstacles and is written down in order to instruct pupils. Inview of the general habits of grammatical literature it is hardly likely thatthese remarks refer to Kau:J?


7/39


8/39


9/39

Naiyayikas most wanted to teach, the pluralistic realism of Nyaya-V a i s e ~ i k aphilosophy.

4. Commentaries on the V a i y i i k a r a i _ 1 a b h i i ~ a i _ 1 a s i i r a

I know of no Commentary on the V a i y a k a r a i J a b h u ~ a i J a .On the otherhand, eight commentaries have been published in whole or in part on theVai yiikarai_1abhii,


10/39


11/39

What I propose to furnish, then, is a historical skeleton of the subject. Letus hope that in the future some scholar will clothe it with flesh.

The germs of an interest in semantics may be traced back to the Tenth

Book of the Rigveda. Hymns X. 71, X. 114, X. 125 begin withphilosophical speculations concerning speech ( vak) and its relation tomeaning. Here and elsewhere the Veda raises such problems as the originof language, the different forms of speech, the relation of a word to itsmeaning. Such speculations form the background to a regular philosophyof language such as we find fully developed in Bhart:rhari s Vakyapadlya.

But the Indian interest in semantics was interrupted and then for manycenturies overshadowed by a scientific investigation of phonetics andmorphology. We meet with interest in what might be called descriptivelinguistics in the Siitra period. In the Pratisakhyas, the Nirukta, and in

Pfu .ini the science of language is no longer something new.In Yaska s Nirukta the two interests exist side by side. The fourfold

classification of parts of speech is given a semantic basis. Thus, todistinguish verb from noun, Yaska says that a verb denotes activity inprocess26, denotes that which is composed of preceding and followingparts, whereas a noun denotes frozen action or action in the form ofsubstance.

In Pa.J?ini (5th century B.C.) descriptive linguistics has won the upperhand. Pa.J?ini27 avoids problems of semantics as studiously as do themodern Western linguists. The A ~ t a d y i i y la ~ a p a t h aand Dhatupatha

describe the grammatical or linguistic structure of the Sansk[t language interms of morphemes (base form and suffix) and rules of combination.The phonemes are systematically listed in the Sivasiitras, morphemes inthe ~ a p a t h aand Dhatupatha. Using these phonemes and morphemes asbasic units Pa.J?ini built a detailed and comprehensive grammar of thelanguage. Pa.J?ini s genius lies in morphological description andallomorphemic statements. The concept of zero lopa) as an allomorph isa marvelous invention of Pa.J?ini s, as remarkable if not as influential onhuman culture as the later Indian invention of zero as a mathematicalsymbol. Terms such as dhatu, sarvanamasthiina, sarvaniima etc. are notdefined by Pa.J?ini on the basis of semantics. His method of analysis ispurely formal.

It is true, of course, that in a sense Pfu).ini s system is not quite freefrom semantics. Pfu .ini collected and classified types of meanings underthe terms k[t, apatya, rakta, caturarthika etc. What I mean by saying thathis system is free from semantics is simply that his process of

26. Nirukta 1.1.27

Piip 1.2.56.


12/39

grammatical description does not involve meaning, but is formal; mattersof semantics are implicit only.

Between Pfu_lini and Katyayana and between Katyayna and Pataiijali

many works were written which are lost to us. Of these the S a ~ p g r a h aofD a k ~ a y a : t : t iis worth mentioning. Pataiijali28 several times mentions thename of S a ~ p g r a h ain the M a h a b h a ~ y aand praises D i i k ~ a y a : t : t ihighly.Pataiijali tells us that the question is fully discussed in the S a ~ p g r a h a

whether word is eternal or ephemeral, and Pu:t:tyaraja in his Commentaryon the Vakyapadiya quotes three verses from the S a ~ p g r a h a J O

Unlike Pfu_lini Katyayana (3rd century B.C.) gave his attention not onlyto descriptive grammar but also to philosophical problems such as thefeatures of words, the definition of sentence31 and theories on syntax. ButKatyayana did not write an independent work. He found it more

convenient to append viirtikas to ce1tain rules of Pfu.lini. The main aim ofKatyayana was to amplify and revise the rules of Pfu.Iini rather than tobroach a new system of philosophy.

Pataiijali s M a h a b h a ~ y a[150 B.C.] in its opening section paspasii) dealswith the nature of language from a philosophical point of view, a subjectexcluded by Pfu_lini and Katyayana from their grammars. Patafijali with ascientific curiousity for the first time raises the question what it is that wecall a word. Pataiijali s M a h i i b h i i ~ y ais a storehouse of informationconcerning general matters connected with the science of grammar.Pataiijali, like his predecessor, was not only interested in the investigationof correct forms but also in theories of syntax and semantics. ordiscussion of semantics and the philosophy of language one may seeMahiibhii ya on Pfu_lini 1.3.1; 1.2.64; 2.1.1; 2.2.24; 3.3.19; 3.4.26 etc.But Patafijali s M a h i i b h i i ~ y adoes not deal with semantics systematically.Rather, it touches on various semantic problems as they arise in the courseof explaining Pfu_lini.

Bhartrhari s Viikyapadiya about A.D.40Q32 is the first systematic workon semantics and the philosophy of language that we have preserved to usin India. I t deals with these subjects exclusively and is not concerned withthe philosophy of grammar. Bhartrhari is a remarkable philosopher. Hetreats metaphysical and semantic problems side by side. This unusualjuxtaposition makes his work difficult and has resulted in diverseinterpretations of his teaching. He was the first to formulate the

28. b vol. I p 6.

29. Ibid., p. 468.30 Vale 1.14.

31. Viirtika on Piin. 2.1.1.32. Cf. Bhar trhari s date, Prof. Sadhuram, Gailganiith Jha Research Institute, vol. IX, 1952, pp.

135-151.

12


13/39

philosophy of Sabdabrahma, wherein the essence of word is regarded asthe essence of reality and the source of cosmic evolution. All wordsdenote primarily pure existence (sattii).34 The word cow means basically

that something exists, to which the designation cow is given.Bhartrhari s contributions to metaphysical problems such as his theory

of sphota etc. were critisized by Dharmak:Irti in his Pramii.flaviirtika andby Kumarila in his Slokaviirtika. In later times interest in Bhartrhari smetaphysics declined. All later commentators interpret the metaphysics ofthe Viikyapadiya as Vivartadvaita in the form in which that doctrine waslater masterfully presented by Sarp.kara in his Brahmasiitrabhii ya.Bhartrhari s metaphysical contributions are quite forgotten in the light ofsar:rkara. And so it happens that while Bhartrhari is an often quotedauthor he is quoted not for his metaphysics but for his contributions to

semantics and grammar. This holds for the writers on Alarp.kara andNyaya as well as for the grammarians. Bhagoji and K a m ; t ~ aBhaga doquote his theories on Sattii or sabdabrahma but they read into thesetheories the whole of sarrkara s Advaita philosophy. One may concludefrom this that as a metaphysician Bhartrhari has suffered in tumopposition, neglect, and finally misinterpretation. His influence on Indianthought, then, h ~been primarily as a semanticist.

Bhartrhari s Viikyapadiya consists of about three thousand karikasdivided into three chapters. The first chapter is called B r a h m a k : a : t ; t ~ aorA g a m a k a : t ; t ~ athe second, V a k y a k a : t ; t ~ aand the third, P a d a k a : t ; t ~ aorP r a k : i r : t ; t a k : i i : t ; t ~ a

The first chapter of the Viikyapadiya deals with metaphysical andsemantic problems side by side. In it Bhartrhari maintains that the eternalword is the supreme reality. It is transcendent and devoid of all qualities.

abdabrahman is the originator of sabdaprapaiica as well asarthaprapaiica. It is existence in essence. From this sabdabrahman thewhole universe is evolved. It does not change nor cease. That whichcannot be subjected to the expression of articulated sound cannot be thecontent (object) of thought and must therefore be regarded as illusion.35On the other hand, things36 such as sky-flowers and the sons of barrenwomen, which have no external existence but can be subjected to theexpression of articulated sound, are the contents of knowledge and invirtue thereof must be regarded as real. This articulated form gives theobject existential status.

_ Viik 1.1.34 Vak 2.121.

5_ Vak 1.124.

36 Ibid., 1.125.

13


14/39

Bhartrhari was the first author to elaborate the doctrine of sphota and toidentify s p h o ~ awith the Vedanta brahman. Hence the first chapter of thiswork is called Brahmakiil;l


15/39

commented on Pataiijali, but there is a gap of nearly 1200 years betweenhim and the older author during which period the chief grammarianswere Buddhist37 or at least opposed to Pataiijali.38 Kaiyata remarks at the

beginning of his commentary on theM a h i i b h i i ~ y a

that he has composedhis work on the model of Bhartrhari s commentary on the M a h i i b h i i ~ y aand he refers occasionally to that commentary in what follows.

Long after Kaiyata, Bhagoji wrote his Sabdakaustubha a voluminouscommentary on Pffi:lini s A ~ t a d h y a y iand Pataiijali s M a h i i b h i i ~ y awhichlatter is supplanted in many parts of India. Bhagoji enters intocontroversy concerning the philosophy of Sanskrit grammar and presentsthe grammarian s view very thoroughly. Especially the Sabdakaustubhareforms the interpretation of Pffi:lini and Pataiijali and criticizes the viewsof ancient grammarians like Jayaditya, Vamana, Haradatta, Nyasa and the

author of the Prakriyiikaumudi. After completion of the SabdakaustubhaBhagoji wrote the V a i y i i k a r ~ a m a t o n m a j j a n a .In the Introductory verse ofthe V a i y i i k a r ~ a m a t o n m a j j a n ahe tells us that topics which have beenthoroughly discussed in the Sabdakaustubha are briefly mentioned here.Bhagoji s VaiyiikaraiJ.a-matonmajjana furnishes a summary of theresearch of the Pffi:liniyan school on semantics.

As I have already said K a u ~ s J . aBhatta composed two commentaries onthe Karikas of Bhattoji: the B h i i ~ ~ aand its abridged version the Siira TheSara gives all the essential principles of semantics and the philosophy oflanguage. What it omits are the detailed arguments against the opposing

views of the Nyaya and Mimfup.sa.Both the V a i y i i k a r ~ a b h i i ~ ~ aand the Siira are divided into fourteen

chapters. 1) Analysis of the meaning of the verbal roots. 2) On themeaning of tense suffixes. 3) On the meaning of case endings. 4) On themeaning of nouns. 5) On the denotative power of compounds. 6) n thedenotative power in general. 7) On the meaning of negation. 8) On themeaning of prepositions and particles. 9) On the meaning of abstractnouns. 10) n the meaning of suffixes appended to the names of deities.11 n the non-denotation of number by the subordinate constituent of avrtti. 12) n the meaning of the kft suffixes ktvii etc. 13) On the intended

and unintended denotation of number. 14 On sphota.Nagesa Bhaga (A.D. 1670-1750) was the last great original scholar of

the Pffi:liniyan school. His L a g h u m a i i j i i ~ i iis a masterly treatise in which heelucidates the principles of semantics. It furnishes an ample store ofarguments and refutes the view of ancient writers. The general plan ofthe L a g h u m a i i j i i ~ i iis the same as that of the V a i y i i k a r ~ a b h i i ~ ~ awith

37 E.g. Chandragomin, Jayaditya, Vamana etc.38 Viik

the last 7 versesof

secondK a ~ c J a

15


16/39

this difference that where K a u ~ < ; i aBhaga put the chapter on sphota at theend Nagesa Bhaga begins with it.

The term neogrammarian has been applied to the school to whichB h a ~ t o j i K a u ~ < ; i aBhatta and Nagesa belonged. What is new in the workof these men as opposed to that of Bhartrhari is a number of techniqueswhich give their analysis and arguments great precision. Most importantamong these techniques is the siibdabodha. The term means literallyverbal cognition,' i.e. what the hearer actually understands from the

spoken phrase or sentence. By extension the term is then applied to aparaphrase of a given expression, a paraphrase in which the denotation ofeach element and the relations between these elements are renderedexplicit. Many of these siibdabodhas will be found in the text and noteswhich follow. A single example will suffice here. Of the sentence

'Devadatta cooks' devadattah pacall) K a u ~ < ; i aBhatta's iibdabodha wouldbe as follows. Ekatviivaccinnadevadattakart[ko V artamiinakiiliko Viklity-anukiilo vyiipiira]J : An activity of which the agent Devadatta is limited bysingularity, belonging to present time, and favourable to the [result,namely] the becoming soft [of the rice grains]."

The neogrammarians like the Navyanaiyayikas were careful to definetheir terms. They furnish precise definitions of agenthood, objecthood,root, compound, activity, result etc. They give great attention to themanner in which the elements of meaning are combined. Many of theirarguments concern the question of predominance. Thus, they assign the

denotation of the verbal root predominance over the denotation of finiteverbal suffixes, whereas in the case of nouns the suffix is predominant.When the argument concerns syntax one might apply the terms nucleusand satellites to their categories.

Thus, the history of semantics in India falls into four stages. 1 Theprescientific state. Here belong the mystical and magical speculations onspeech and sound in the Rigveda and the Upanishads. 2) The ~ i n i a nSchool. The central interest of this school is descriptive linguistics, butnumerous questions of semantics are treated incidentally by Pata:iijali. 3)Bhartrhari and his commentators. Bhartrhari' s interest lay in semanticsand metaphysics. He himself considered metaphysics as more importantbut his influence on later ages was far greater in semantics. 4) Theneogrammarians. This stage begins with Bhagoji s Sabdakaustubha. Onemight call it a school of descriptive semantics.

In what precedes I have limited my remarks to authors who fall underthe general category of grammarians. Philosophers of other schools alsowrote on semantics and the history of their speculations parallels thatwhich I have outlined. Thus, parallel to Bhartrhari we have themetaphysical semantics of the Mima lsa as preserved in Kumarila sSlokaviirtika and Vacaspati' s Tattvabindu. Parallel to the neogrammarians

16


17/39

we have the descriptive semantics of the i m ~ s a k aKh:u;t


18/39

2 The fragment t a i J . c f u l a b h i n n a k a n n a n i ~ t h a v i k l i t y a n u k i i l a . ? J .shows that theobject, rice grains, qualifies the meaning result.3 The fragment ekatvavacchinnacaitra shows that the meaning number

denoted by the tin suffix qualifies the agent.4) The fragment vartamiinakaliko vyapiira.?J. shows that the meaning timequalifies the meaning activity.

According to Kau:J?.


19/39

putting the pot on the fire, that he is putting rice in the pot, that he isblowing on the fire etc. Only context can determine which or how manyof these activities ( vyiipiiriiij. we intend.

The same root pac may be used with a non-sentient subject. Thus, wemay say sthiily odanarp pacati: the pot cooks the rice,' or K i i ~ t h i i n yodanarp pacanti: 'the sticks of wood cook the rice.' Here the activity of thepot in the first instance and of the sticks of wood in the second may becalled vyiipiira. These instances reveal a distinction between vyiipiira andlqti (effort). K[ti can be used to refer only to activities of sentient beings.

Although the root pac may refer in different contexts to differmtvyiipiiras, within a single sentence it refers to the vyiipiira of the agentonly. Thus, in the sentence Devadattaij k i i ~ t h a i { lsthiilyiim odanarp pacati:'Devadatta cooks rice in the pot by means of sticks of wood,' the root pac

denotes the activities of Devadatta but not the activities of the pot andsticks of wood.

8 Kriyii (action)

Kriyii has been variously defined, but through all the definitions thereruns a thread of similarity. Kriyii is a complex entity, a process which hasparts. Extended and secondary usages sometimes permit kriyii andvyiipiira to be interchanged, but basically kriyii is complex whereas

vyiipiira is simple. The kriyii of cooking includes setting the pot on thefire, putting the rice in the pot, blowing on the fire etc., whereas av.yiipiira of cooking is any one of these but only one, the particular onebeing determined by context. With so much by way of preface we mayexamine the historical definitions.

Yaska, using the word bhiiva rather than kriyii, says at the beginning ofhis Nirukta: Action, which consists of preceding and succeeding [parts], isexpressed by the verb. 41

Pataiijali, using the word kriyii, remarks that action, since it consists ofsuccessive parts, in a strict sense is invisible.42 We can only see the

component parts. However, by our identifying the part with the whole wespeak metaphorically of seeing action.

Bhartrhari considered the nature of action more deeply. To him thedifference between kriyii and vyiipiira is one of degree rather than basicnature. Even the component activity ( vyiipiira), if analyzed, turns out tobe a process consisting of consecutive parts.43 Thus, the single activity of

41 piirvapa.ribhiitam bhavam a k h y a t e n a c a ~ t eNimkta 1.1.42 Patafijali on P ~ 1.3.1.43 Viik. m p 609.

19


20/39

pouring water into the rice pot may be broken down into stretching outone s hands, grasping the vessel, tipping it etc. To Bhartrhari the world ofreality is very like that of the Buddhists: a succession of infinitely

numerous, infinitely brief, quanta of occurrences. All his categories fallunder this metaphysics. Action kriyii) and activity vyiipiira) are simplydifferent calibrations that we make on the underlying reality. Thediffernce between them is a difference of viewpoint, subjective notobjective in nature. Accordingly, as our viewpoint changes so will ourselection of terms. Thus, if we think of the pouring of water into the ricepot as part of a larger process we term it an activity vyapiira). If wethink of it as a whole composed of parts we term it an action kriyii).

Our use of tense, on Bhartrhari's showing, is equally subjective.Properly the idea of tense goes with an idea as a whole. But if that whichhas elsewhere been conceived as a part is in a given context conceived asa whole44 it will draw to it the idea of tense. If the speaker considers thefirst activity of cooking, such as setting the fire, to be the main part and ifhe thus identifies this one activity with the whole, he may use a tense withreference to this one activity, saying, for example, a p a k ~ I the hascooked' when only the first activity is completed. On the other hand,from a different point of view he may say with reference to the sameexternal facts: pacati, he is cooking.

Some of Bhartrhari's remarks concerning action are very subtle. Thus,an opponent argues that at least one portion of action must be visible,namely the fmal portion. After all, actions are not endless, so every actionmust have a final portion which itself is partless. Bhartrhari replies45 thatif something is partless it cannot be action.

The grammarians were early bothered by the peculiarity of thoseactions denoted by such verbs as as (to be), bhii (to come into existence),jiia (to know). That what is here denoted is action kriyii) as indicated bythe distinctions of tense. If what was denoted was result only, the presenttense would be used so long as the result continued, and we should sayghato bhavati: the pot comes into existence for years after it had beenmade.

The key to a solution was found by V a r ~ y a y m ; t iwhose work is lost butwho is quoted by Yaska as listing six stages46 of which all activities arecomposed: jayate, asti, viparii;J.amate vardhate, a p a k ~ I y a t enasyati: it isborn, is, alters, grows, decays, perishes. Bhartrhari47 takes these stagesas six aspects of bhava.

44. Viikyapadiya, 3 Kriyasam. p. 307.

45. Viikyapadiya, 3, Kriyasam., p. 610

46. Nirukta 1.1.

47. Viikyapadiya, 3, Kriyasam, p. 311, 322.

2


21/39


22/39

a second interpretation, this time the right one: bhiivap_ karma kriyiidhiitvartha i ty anarthiintaram; bhiiva, karma, kriyii are not different inmeaning i.e., are synonyms.

The neogrammarians usually avoid the term bhiiva, but since theystrove for precise definitions they did find such definitions for bhiiva.Nagesa says:Sl Saparispandaniiparispandanasiidhanasiidhyo dhiitvarthobhiivap_, saparispandanasiidhanasiidhyo dhiitvarthap kriyii: Bhiiva is theroot meaning representing that which is brought about by kiirakas(siidhana) whether these have motion or not; kriyii is the root meaningrepresenting that which is brought about by those kiirakas only whichhave motion. Thus, according to Nagesa bhava is of wider extention thankriyii. Both pacati and asti denote bhiiva; only pacati denotes kriyii. Butnot everyone agrees with Nagesa. According to the TattvabodhinP2 bhiivadoes not include kriyii; rather, each term refers to a separate type of rootmeaning: bhiiva to a meaning that does not involve motion, kriyii to ameaning that does. According to this definition pacati denotes kriyii, astidenotes bhiiva.

10. Akhyiita

Yaska's predecessors used the word iikhyiita in the sense of verbal root,e.g. niimiini iikhyiitajiini iti Siikatiiyanap_: Sakatayana53 holds the viewthat nouns are derived from verbal roots. Yaska used the word iikhyiitain the sense of (finite) verb,54 e.g. catviiri padajiitiini namiikhyiitopasarganipiitiip_: There are four parts of speech: nouns, verbs, prepositionsand particles.

Pfu;lini, Katyayana, Pataiijali and Bhartrhari used the word iikhyiita inthe sense of finite verb. See G


23/39


24/39

12. Verbs and Nouns

The structure of Sanskrit as of all the older Indo-European languages

reveals a clear distinction between verbs and nouns. However, it is muchmore difficult to define these categories semantically thanmorphologically. In Sanskrit a verb is tirianta, that is, ends in a tin suffix,whereas a noun is subanta, ends in a sup suffix. By the compilation oflists of suffixes and by use of the fiction of omitted suffixes it waspossible to construct criteria for assigning all verbs and nouns to theirproper group. But what is of the distinction of meaning?

Yaska was first to handle the problem. He tells us58 that a verb denotesbhava, by which he means action, and he defines this bhava as a processof happening, which consists of a definite sequence of beginning, middle

and end. Nouns, on the other hand, do not denote a process. Patafijali,commenting on Pa:J .ini 5.4.19, notes that nominalized action, that is, actiondenoted by the 1qt suffixes, appears as a substance dravya).

Patafijali notes several other distinctions of verb from noun which are asmuch semantic as morphological. Commenting on Pa:l .ini 3.1.67 henotices the fact, which had been pointed out in Greece by Aristotle, thataction denoted by a verb has a temporal character whereas the actiondenoted by nouns does not indicate time. Commenting on Plli;tini 1.2.64he says that the denotation of a verb is single eka or nivf tabheda). Hismeaning is that the verb does not directly denote number. The verbpacanti: (they cook) does not denote a plurality of actions. At most itindicates a plurality of agents. On the other hand, a noun like ghata whenthe plurality suffix as is added to it marks the plurality of the objectsdirectly denoted.

But it is Bhartrhari who considered the semantic distinctions of verbsfrom nouns most carefully. He speaks of verbs as denoting sadhya-kriya,literally, action to-be-effected as opposed to nouns which denote siddha,that which is effected. The intended distinction is a valuable one but thechoice of terms was unfortunate. Even in Bhartrhari s time it led tomisunderstanding, for one naturally understands sadhya to refer to futuretime and siddha to past. This was not Bhartrhari s intention, as he tells usexplicitly in Vakyapadiya, page 298.59 To him a p a k ~ i the cookeddenoted something that was sadhya just as much as p a k ~ y a t ihe willcook. What Bhartrhari meant by sadhya in this context was processaction, durative action as opposed to frozen action for which he used theterm siddha. His distinction raises an interesting question as to the nature

8_ Nirukta

59_ The passage is quoted (and misunderstood) by K a m ; ~ aBhana page 2, lines 8-16 of the text

which is translated below, see with notes thereon.

24


25/39

of the Sanskrit verb in classical times. It would seem that Bhartrhari feltverbs to be of continuative action type rather than point action type. Hisunderstanding of apiikit may have been closer to our 'he was cooking'

than to he cooked.' But this is not certain.The neogrammarians either misunderstood Bhartrhari's distinction ofverbs from nouns or disapproved of it. KauJ?


26/39

f the agent is to be the primary designation of the verb the sentencepasya mr o dhavati must be reinterpreted. According to the Nyaya this isreally two sentences with a pronoun omitted: pasya tam) mr o dhavati:

See him The deer runs. The grammarians object that such aninterpretation loses sight of the speaker's intention, which is to callattention more vividly to the running of the deer. But the Naiyayikas usea further example to strengthen their case. Take the words raja gacchatinamaskuru: The king comes Pay honor " Even a grammarian mustadmit that this is two sentences with a pronoun omitted: raja gacchati(tam) namaskuru: "The king comes Pay him honor " Why, then, shouldone refuse to supply the pronoun tam in one case when one is willing todo so in another?

14 Phala

The grammarians use the word phala in two senses, which one maydistinguish as a popular sense and a technical sense. In the popular sensephala means the ultimate aim of an action. Such a sense is implied byP ~ i n i sSiitra 1.3.72 svaritaiiitap kartrabhipriiye kriyiiphale: "when thebenefit of the action accrues to the agent the roots with indicatory svaritavowel and ii take middle endings." Thus, when a man cooks, thepradhanarp. phalam, the chief or ultimate aim or benefit of his action isthe appeasement of hunger. When he performs a sacrifice the ultimateaim is the attainment of heaven etc. The cook and the priest may earnmoney by cooking or sacrificing, but this is not the ultimate aim of actionsin which they engage.

This popular sense of phala is defined by Bhartrhari as follows.yasyarthasya prasiddhyartham iirabhyante paciidayaptat pradhiinarp. phalarp. te iirp. na labhadiprayojanam

when [an action] such as cooking etc. is undertaken for the purpose ofgaining a given goal, that goal and not the purpose of gaining money isthe chief aim of that action.

In the technical sense phala means something quite different, viz., thesingle effect of an action kriyii) as produced by the various activities(vyapara) of which the action is composed and which are denotable bythe verbal root. For example, the root pac denotes any of the activitieswhich go to make up the action of cooking, e.g. setting fire under the pot,blowing on the fire, putting rice in the pot etc. Here we see that all senseactivities result in a single effect, namely, the becoming soft of the grainsof rice. This single effect is the phala, in the technical sense of the actionof cooking. In general it is in the technical sense that Kaunda Bhatta usesthe word phala. The sense may be defined more precisely as

26


27/39

taddhiitvarthajanyatve sati taddhiitvartha-tvam: that which is producedby the activity denoted by a verbal root, being itself denoted by theverbal root. Between the activity and result denoted by a root there

subsists a producer-produced relation. Result is produced and activity isthe producer.In the semantic paraphrase result is expressed by a noun ending in a lqt

suffix, e.g. viklitti sarp.yoga, utpatti etc. Thus, pacati is rendered byviklittyanukiilo vyiipiira. J.: an activity favourable to the becoming soft ofthe rice grains; gacchati (he goes) is rendered by uttaradesasarp.yogiinukiilo vyiipiira. J.: an activity favourable to the result conjunction witha consequent point. Karoti (he does) is rendered by utpattyanukiilovyiipiira. J.: an activity favourable to production. Thus, in the semanticparaphrases the result is expressed by nouns such as viklitti, utpatti,

sarp.yoga, vibhiiga, tyiiga, piika etc. These verbal nouns are resultativenouns which denote frozen action. Thus, result is nothing but frozenaction.

The old theory propounded by Yaska and Bhartrhari was that the verbdenotes action in process siidhyakriyii) whereas frozen actionsiddhakriyii) is denoted by nouns. It will be seen from the foregoing that

this old theory was revised by the neogrammarians. According to themboth these aspects of action are denoted by the verbal root. When theyparaphrase pacati ('he cooks') by viklittyanukiilo vyiipiira. J., the processaspect of the action is expressed by vyiipiira. J., the frozen aspect byviklitti. The two aspects are related to one another as producer andproduced.

In some cases this producer-produced relation is said to be superimposed iiropita). n example is furnished by the analysis of the verb as,'to exist.' Asti ('he exists') is paraphrased as sattiinukiilo vyiipiira. J.: anactivity favourable to existence. Here the activity is not really differentfrom the existence. Both activity and result reside in the same entity. Touse technical language, the agent of the verb asti has two propertiesvyiipiiriisrayatva and phaliisrayatva. Since this is so and since activity isnot cognized in this case as separate from result the relation between thetwo is said to be superimposed iiropita), e.g. fictional, imagined.

15 Transitive and Intransitive

The last paragraph above will serve to explain the distinction which theneogrammarians make between transitive and intransitive verbs.

With the older grammarians the distinction of transitive from intransitive was purely formal. To them a verb was transitive when it took a

27


28/39

direct object in the accusative, intransitive when it took no direct object.Thus, if the object was in the dative the root was intransitive.

For the formal distinction the neogrammarians substitute a semantic

one. Transitive roots, they say, are those where the activity and the resultdenoted by the root reside in different entities. Thus, in pacati ('he cooks')the activity resides in the cook, the result in the rice. Intransitive roots arethose where the activity and result denoted by the root reside in the sameentity.

16 The Double Designation of Roots

The translation which follows is chiefly concerned with proof of the

double designation of roots. To repeat all the arguments here would bewasteful of space. I limit myself therefore to the most salient points.

Activity No one except the i m ~ s a k a sever argued that activity wasnot a denotation of roots. The reason for the Mimiirp.sakas' peculiarity isthat they assigned activity to the verb ending; the root, then, must denoteresult. The most trenchant argument against them and in favor of thecommon sense view is based on the maxim that common meaning shouldcorrespond to common morpheme. We have the forms

pacati he cookspakvavan he has cookedpakvam it is cooked

Common to each of these is the activity of cooking. There is only onecommon morpheme to which this can correspond, namely, the root pac

Result We have shown how the neogrammarians revised the oldertheory in such fashion as to include result in the denotation of the root.Their favourite argument in favour of this innovation is that without it theroots gam (to go) and tyaj (to leave) would be synonymous, for accordingto the grammarians the distinction between gam and tyaj lies only in theirdenoted results, not in their denoted activities. Gam means uttaradesa-smp yoganukiilaspandavyiipiiral:z: an activity in the form of motionfavourable to a conjunction with a consequent point, whereas tyaj meanspiirvadesavibhiiganukiilaspandavyapiiral:z: an activity in the form ofmotion favourable to disjunction from a preceding point. It will be seenthat denoted activity is the same in both instances.

The ancient Naiyiiyikas who denied the verbal roots the denotation ofresult explained such cases as follows. While the root's denotation isactivity only, they said, its meaning in the broadest sense may envisageresult. The general idea of result which is denoted by the accusative caseending conditions the meaning of the root, so that one may say that themeaning of gam when it is in juxtaposition with an accusative implies

28


29/39

( p a l a k ~ a y a t ia result defferent from the result implied undercomparable circumstances by tyaj.

The ancient Naiyayikas, then, distinguish gam from tyaj by a syntactic

criterion whereas the neogrammarians insist on the morphologicalcriterion. Such arguments are frequent in modern Western linguisticsalso. In favour of the grammarians is the fact that no one feels thatgacchati and tyajati mean the same thing even when they are usedwithout accusatives.

17. The Nyaya Theory of the Denotation ofRoot and Verb Ending

The Naiyayikas60 say that the tin suffixes denote Jq-ti =yatna: exertion,

the acting of an intelligent being). This theory is based on the sameprinciple by which the Nyaya proves the existence of God. According tothe Nyaya- a i s e ~ i k athere can be no effect without a cause and everyeffect is produced ultimately by the exertion of an intelligent being.Unintelligent things produce effects only when they are impelled by thatwhich is intelligent. Thus, such a result as the becoming soft of foodcannot be produced unless an intelligent agent exerts himself to this end.

Such words as kartii: 'maker,' Iqtam: 'made,' karoti: 'makes' can beapplied, according to the Nyiiya,61 only to intelligent or consciousexertion. In such a sentence as ghata-9- krta-9-: the pot is made, we

understand the maker as an intelligent agent and not an unintelligent onesuch as a wheel etc. When the root 1qii is used with reference tounintelligent things it is used metaphorically. Such metaphorical use isseen in the sentences cakrarp gha{arp karoti: The wheel makes the pot,ratho gacchati:62 The chariot moves, tantavap. pa{arp kurvanti: Thethreads make the cloth. According to Nyaya, wheel, chariot and threads,being non-sentient, cannot be called agents (kartar


30/39

According to the Nyaya63 the agent is not simply a substratum ofactivity ( vyiipiirasraya) as the grammarians would have it, because thenevery kiiraka would be an agent. According to the Nyaya the agent is

distinguished from the other karakas by its independence. Only the agentcan act independently and this independence on the part of the agent isnothing other than exertion. In such a sentence as ratho gacchati: Thechariot moves we see that the grammatical agent is the chariot but thisagenthood on the part of the chariot is not actual but metaphorical.64

Against the grammarians the Nyaya argues that if the tin suffix were todenote agent instead of exertion then the limiting property of thedenotation would be agentness kart[lva). Since agentness is nothing morenor less than the property which characterizes all agents it is equivalent tok li (exertion, the acting of an agent), and will differ from verb to verb.

[For the difficulties to which one is led by lack of a unitary limitingproperty of denotation see Excursus 2 (on text page 2, lines 21-24,addition by the editors).]

Concerning the designation of verbal roots Nyaya opinion passedthrough several stages. The old Nyaya65 held that the root denotedactivity only. Thus, it was held that pacati meant phiitkaradi-vyapiiranukiilakrtimiin: one possessed of exertion favourable to theactivities of blowing on the fire etc. Gailgesa then invented the doctrinethat the root denotes 'an activity favourable to a result' phalanukiila-vyapiira),66 and it is likely that the neogrammarians owe this important

doctrine ultimately to Gange8a. Thus, according to Gailgesa pacati meansviklittyanukiilavyaparanukiilakrtimiin: 'one possessed of exertionfavourable to an activity which is in turn favourable to [the result] thebecoming soft [of the rice grains].' The final stage of Nyaya doctrine isachieved by the Navya Nyaya. Raghunatha67 says that the root denotesphaliivacchinnavyapiira: 'an activity as limited by a result.' Thisrefmement obviates the old Nyaya difficulty with the roots gam and tyaj.Gam (to go) denotes the activity of motion as limited by the resultconjunction with a succeeding point; tyaj (to leave) denotes the activity ofmotion as limited by the result disjunction from a preceding point.

According to the Naiyayikas68 the tin suffixes do not directly denoteagent or object. t is true that when we have the sentence gramarpgacchati: He walkes to the village, we have an apprehension of agent.

63 a k - th . - 35. arar av1cara, p. .64 Lakiiriirthaviciira, p. 28.65 Vyutpattiviida, p. 206.

66. Tattvacintiimap.i, p. 84967 Ji.khyiitalfaktiviida, p. 115

68 Ibid., p 115

30


31/39


32/39

notion of number denoted by the tin suffix is connected with the meaningdenoted by the word in the nominative.

According to the Naiyayikas the semantic paraphrase of the passive

sentence Caitre {la ta {ltjuliilJ pacyante: "The rice grains are cooked byCaitra," is as follows: Ekatviisrayacaitravrttivartamiinakiilikakrtijanya-vyiipiirajanyaviklittimiin bahutviisrayas ta {lt;iulalJ: "The rice grainspossessed of plurality and softening which is produced by the activitywhich is in turn produced by exertion in present time residing in the agentCaitra possessed of singularity." The relation in the passive sentencediffers in only a few particulars from those in the active. Caitra isconnected with the instrumental suffix ina which denotes substratumhoodof exertion) and singularity. The instrumental suffix is connected with

the meaning exertion denoted by the tin suffix. The meaning exertion isconnected with the meaning activity denoted by the root by producerproduced relation. The notion of present time denoted by the tin suffix isconnected with the meaning exertion denoted by the tin suffix. Themeaning activity denoted by the root is connected with the meaning resultdenoted by the middle ending by producer-produced relation. Themeaning number denoted by the tin suffix is connected with the meaningdenoted by the word ending in the nominative. The meaning resultdenoted by the middle ending is connected with the meaning denoted bythe word ending in the nominative which stands predominant.

Thus, we see a shift of certain elements from principal to subordinatestatus as we pass from active to passive construction. The same number ofmeanings is conveyed but the status of certain elements changes.

18. The Mimamsa Theories of Verbal Denotation

The Mimfuylsakas or Ritualists, like the grammarians, hold that the verbis the central element in the sentence. But they differ from thegrammarians in their assignment of meanings and status to the componentparts of the verb.

A verb consists of root dhiitu) and suffixes iikhyiita). Of these thesuffixes, according to the MimaJ: lsa, predominate semantically over theroot. In justification of this view the MimaJ: lsakas quote the maximpr krtipr ty y u sahiirtharp briitalJ t yor m dhye pratyayiirthasyapriidhiinyam: "Base form and suffix denote meaning jointly [i.e. so thatthe meaning of the one is joined to the meaning of the other] and of thesetwo meanings that of the suffix is syntactically predominant." The maximhas obvious validity in many cases. In the patronymic Diisarathi [ =Dasaratha plus patronymic suffix iii ] it is the suffix which predominatessyntactically and its meaning which is therefore construed with the rest of

3


33/39

the sentence: Dasarathi avanam avadhit means that the son ofDasaratha, not Dasaratha himself, slew Ravaga. Similarly, say theMima:rp.sakas, in pacati ( 'he cooks') the suffix -ti predominates

syntactically over pac and is the construction bearer with other sentenceelements. The grammarians avoid this conclusion by saying that themaxim concerning base form and suffix is a general maxim to whichthere are exceptions.

Verb suffixes, according to the Mima:rp.sa denote bhavana. The word isderived from the causal root of bhii (to come into being) and meansliterally that which brings something into being. Apadeva in theMimiilpsiinyayaprakasa (page 193) defines bhavana as bhavitur bhavananukiilo b h a v a k a v y a p i i r a v i s e ~ a p :"the particular operation belonging to theoperator which is conducive to the production of the result."

Bhavana is further said to be of two kinds: sabdabhavana (verbalproduction operation) and arthabhavana (material productive operation).Verbal production operation is the injunction of scripture which inducesthe hearer to take a particular action. t is denoted by the optative suffixl n and is discussed by Kaugc a Bhatta in the second chapter of his book.Here we are concerned only with arthabhavana, which is denoted by thetin suffixes. t is the material exertion or activity of an agent leading to aresult.

Such, at least, is the general Mima:rp.sa understanding of bhavana. Butwithin the Mima:rp.sa school there have been many divergent views on this

subject.For example, Somesvara,69 a commentator on the Tantraviirtika holds

that bhavana is simply exertion lqti or prayatna). According to him theroot denotes activity of frozen nature siddhavyiipiira) and the tin suffixdenotes prayatna or lqti. He says that the verb pacati is paraphrased bypaka1p karoti: He makes a cooking," where karoti explains the sense ofthe tin suffix. In the paraphrase the word karoti is synonymous withbhavayati, which conveys the sense of bhavana. Thus, Somesvara agreeswith the Naiyayikas in saying that the tin suffixes denote lqti. Thisbhavana, he says, is a quality which resides in a soul. Accordingly,

sentences like ratho gacchati: "the chariot goes," cannot be used in theprimary sense. Rather the hearer passes over the denoted meaning asbeing impossible badhita) and understands by implication l a k ~ C l { l a y i i )asecondary meaning asrayatva 'the state of being a substratum (of theresult denoted by the root).' The followers of Somdvara agree furtherwith the Nyaya, at least with the Navya Nyaya, in holding that the rootsjiia (to know), i ~ (to desire), nas (to perish) etc. also form exceptions tothe general rule. Here too the tin suffixes do not denote lqti (bhavanii) but

69.Nyayasudha on sabara 2.1.1., pp. 576 ff

33


34/39

the state of being a substratum asrayatva). In other words in the case ofthese roots the primary meaning of the tin suffixes is hindered ( biidhita),being impossible, and we must take them in a secondary sense niriicjhiil a k ~ a i J . i i ) .For the rationale of this argument see Translation and notes,page 5, lines 8-9.

Parthasarathi70 Misra and his followers hold that the tin suffixes denoteactivity in general. Thus, according to the followers of Parthasarathi Misrathe term bhiivanii means any action whether belonging to a sentient or anon-sentient agent. The term bhiivanii is therefore of wider extention thanthe term lqti and is synonymous with the grammarian's term kriyii orsiidhyavyiipiira. Thus, this school holds that the sentence ratho gacchatican be taken in the primary sense.

M m t ~ a n aMisra71 in his Bhiivaniiviveka defines the word bhiivanii asaudiisTnyavicchittisiimiinyariipii: 'total absence of inactivity.' According tohim in the case of inanimate objects bhiivanii means activity residing inthe non-sentient object but originating from the association of that objectwith the exertion of an intelligent being.

All Mima:rp.sakas hold that the meaning agent is implied by theproductive operation denoted by the tin suffixes, because productiveoperation is inconceivable without an operator. Thus, the meaning agent isimplied rather than denoted. The Alqtyadhikarru;ta of the Mimiirp.siiSiistsa states the principle that a word always denoted primarily aqualifier (i.e. a t t r i b u t e = v i s e ~ a - J a )whereas the meaning qualificand( i s c ~ y a )is indicated by a secondary function ( l a k ~ a - J a y i i )of the word.For example, the word cow primarily denotes the qualifier cowness

gotva, the generic character). The individual cow (the viSet?ya) isindicated by l a k ~ < l - l i i . S i m i l a r l ythe word kartii (doer, agent=Jqtyiisraya,substratum of exertion, or lqtimiin, possessor of exertion) primarilydenotes the qualifier 'exertion' lq:t1). Therefore the tin suffixes primarilydenote lq:ti and the meaning kartii, i.e. iisraya is implied. The meaningskrti and iisraya cannot both be denoted because of the Mim3 :tp sa ruleananyalabhyal}. sabdiirthal}.: The meaning of a word is always exclusive,i.e. cannot be obtained elsewhere. Since the meaning iisraya can beobtained either by implication ( i i k ~ e p a )or by indication ( l a k ~ a - J i i }it cannotbe a denoted meaning of the tin suffixes.

Kumarila72 classifies activity into two categories, activity belonging tothe instigated prayojyavyiipiira) and activity belonging to the instigatorprayojakavyiipiira). The tin suffixes in connection with the root as, bhii,

vid etc. denote activity belonging to the instigated whereas in connection

70. Siistradfpikii on Jaimini 2.1.1, p. 102.71_ Rhiivaniiviveka, pp. 67 ff

72. Tantraviirtika on Sabara 2.1.1.

34


35/39


36/39

One may state the foregoing in another way by saying that everybhavana must have an object. an end. a result. Kumarila calls this objector end sadhya that which is to be accomplished, to be distinguished from

the sense of sadhya in sadhyakriya for which see below). He paraphrasessuch intransitive verbs as sete lies down) and aste sits) by sayanarp.bhavayati and asanarp bhavayati.

The Mimfup.sa agrees with the grammarians in distinguishing action inprocess sadhyakriyii) from frozen action siddhakriyii). But it disagreesby assigning the denotation of action in process to the tin suffixes and thedenotation of frozen action to the root. The Mimfup.sa like the Nyaya usesthe gloss piikarp. karoti of pacati as justification for its assignment ofmeanings. In the gloss the noun piikam is said to represent the frozenaction of the root whereas karoti represents the action in process of the

suffix -ti. Thus. M m ; t ~ a n aMisra73 says that verbal roots denote result andthe tin suffixes denote action in process.

According to the Mimfup.sakas the semantic paraphrase of the sentenceCaitro griimarp gacchati will be as follows. Ekatvavacchinnacaitrakartrkae k a t v a v a c c h i n n a g r a m a n i ~ t h a s a r pyogiinukiila vartamiinakaliki bhavana: Aproductive operation of present time favourable to [the result] conjunctiona quality) residing in the object village which is limited by singularity, of

which productive operation) Caitra limited by singularity is the agent.The passive sentence according to the Mimfup.saka would be analyzedprecisely with the same paraphrase.

19. Note on the Translation

The text of the Vaiyakarap.amatonmajjana with the commentaryV a i y i i k a r a p . a b h i i ~ a p . a s i i r aby K a u : J ; ~ ~ aBhatta has been repeatedly printed inIndia with and without commentaries. I have had access to sevendifferent editions.

1 Anandasrama Sanskrit Series. vol. 43, Poona, 1901.2) Bombay Sanskrit and Prakrt Series, vol. LXX, with the

commentary Kasika by Harirama Kale, Bombay, 1915.3) Kashi Sanskrit Series, vol. 3, with the commentary Darpap a by

Harivallabha, Benares, 1939.4) Kashi Sanskrit Series, vol. 133, with the commentaries Darpap a

by Harivallabha, P a r i k ~ aby Bhairava Misra and B h i i ~ a i J a -vyiikhya by . K f ~ J ; I a m i t r aBenares, 1939.

73 Bhavaniiviveka, pp. 167 ff

36


37/39

5) A d a r s a g r a n t h a m ~ i l a ,vol. 4, with the commentary Prabha byPancoli and Darpm;Ja by Harivallabha, Benares, 1947.

6) S r i h a r i k f ~ J a n i b a n d h a m a l a ,vol. 7, with the commentary Sarala

by Gopalasastri Nene, Benares, 1952.7) Anandasrama Sanskrit Series, vol. 135, with the commentarySa pkari by SaJ lkara Shastri Marulkar, Poona, 1957.

I have mainly followed the first Anandasrama Sanskrit edition of 1901for my translation and have used its pagination when referring to the text.I have done this not only because the edition is accurate but because it isavailable to students in many libraries.

All the editions of the work agree except in small points. f we ignoreobvious misprints, the variant readings are very few. Accordingly, it isonly seldom that they will be found recorded in my notes.

In writing the notes I have made use of all the available commentaries,but have relied more particularly on the excellent Darpa 9 a ofHarivallabha and the Kasika of Harirama Kale. In a few cases, when thepublished explanation seemed to me oversubtle or too far removed fromthe natural meaning of the text I have ventured on my own authority togive what seemed to me a stricter and more straightforwardinterpretation. I have tried throughout to make my translation as accurateas possible. Accordingly, I have preferred literal renderings when thesecould be given without cost to intelligibility.

(to be continued)

Works of Reference

Abhyankar, Vasudev Shastri. Sarvadarsanasmpgraha o Miidhava. Edited with the Commentary inSanskrit by Vasudev Shastri Abhyankar. Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. 3rd ed.Poona, 1951.

Apadeva. Mimiirpsiinyiiyaprakiisa. Edited and translated into English by Franklin Edgerton. NewHaven: Yale University Press, 1929.

Belvalkar, Sripad Krishna. Systems o Sanskrit Grammar. Poona: r y a b h u ~ ~ aPress, 1915.Bohtlingk, Otto. Pii.(lini's Grammatik, herausgegeben, tibersetgt, erlaiitert etc. 2 vols. Leipzig: Verlag

von H Haessel, 1887.Bhairava Misra. Parik ii, a Commentary on the Vaiyiikarap.abhii ap.asiira. Edited by Sadasiva Sastri

Joshi. Kashi Sanskrit Series, vol, CXXXIIL Benares, 1939.Bhagoji l l i k ~ i t a .Siddhiintakaumudi with the Commentary Tattvabodhinf. Edited by V L P a ~ s i k a r .

th ed. Bombay: Nimayasagar Press, 1908.Bhagoji l l i k ~ i t aSabdakaustubha. Edited by Gopala Sastri Nene. Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series.

Benares, 1933.Bhartrhari. Viik.: Viikyapadiya [with the Commentary of ~ y r j on the first two chapters]. Edited

by the Pandits of Benares Sanskrit College. Benares Sanskrit Series. Benares, 1887.Bhartrhari. Viik: Viikyapadzya with the Commentary of Helaraja on the third chapter. Edited by the

Pandits of the Benares Sanskrit College. Benares Sanskrit Series, Benares, 1905.Bhoja. srngiiraprakiisa. Edited by G. R. Josyer. Mysore: Coronation Press, 1955.

7


38/39

Durga. Nirukta with Durga's Commentary. Edited by H.M. Bhadkamkar. Bombay Sanskrit andPrakrit Series, vol. LXXIII. Bombay, 1908.

Gadadhara Bhagacarya. Vyutpattiviida. Edited by R a j a n a r i i y ~ asastri. Kashi Sanskrit Series, vol.CXV. Benares, 1935.

Gadadhara Bhagaciirya. Lakiiriirthaviciira. Edited and commented on by V. Subrahmal)iya Shastri.Annamalai University Sanskrit Series, vol. X, 1948.

Gaitgesa. Tattvacintiimai_Ji with the Commentary o Mathuranatha. Edited by KamakhyanathaTarkaratna. Bibliotheca Indica. Calcutta, 1884. 1900.

Gode, P. K. Studies in Indian Literary History. Vols. I and II. Singhi Jaina Series, No. 37-38.Bombay: Bharaliya Vidya Bhavan, 1953-54. Vol. III: Published by Prof. P. K. Gode.Collected Works Publication Committee. Poona, 1956.

Hall, Fitzedward. Index A Contribution towards an Index to the Bibliography o f the IndianPhilosophical Systems. Calcutta, 1959.

Haririima Kale. Kasikii a Commentary on the V a i y i i k a r a i _ J a b h i i ~ a i _ J a s i i r a .Edited by K.P. Trivedi.Bombay Sanskrit and Prakrit Series, vol. LXX. Bombay, 19l.'i.

Harivallabha. Darpa1_1a, a Commentary on the V a i y i i k a r a i _ J a b h i i ~ a i _ J a s i i r aEdited by Sadasiva Sastri

Joshi. Kashi Sanskrit series, vol. CXXXITI. Benares, 1939.Heliiriija. See. Bhartfhari.Ingalls, Daniel H. H. Materials for the Study o f Navya Nyiiya Logic. Harvard Oriental Series, vol.

XL. Cambridge, 1951.Jagadisa. Sabdasaktiprakiisikii. Edited by Dundiraja Sastri. Kashi Sanskrit Series, vol. CIX. Benares,

1934.Jaimini. The Aphorisms o f the Mimiirpsii by Jaimini with the C-ommentary o f Sabarasviimin. Edited

by Mahesvaracandra Narayana. Bibliothica Indica. Calcutta, 1873-1889.Jayaditya. Kasikii by Jayaditya and Vamana. Edited by Ananta Shastri Phadke. Kashi Sanskrit

Series, vol. XXXVII. Benares, 1931.Jhalakikar, Bhlmiiciirya. Nyiiyakosa or Dictionary o f Technical Terms o f Indian Philosophy. Edited

by Vasudev Shastri Abhyankar. Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. 3rd ed. Poona, 1928.Jiianedrasarasvati. Tattvabodhini a Commenta ry on the Siddhiintakaumudi. Edited by V.I. P ~ S k a r .

4th ed. Bombay: Nirnayasagar Press, 1908.Katyayana. Viirtika as published with M a h i i b h i i ~ y a .See Kielhom.Kaiyata. Pradi pa, a Commentary on the M a h i i b h i i ~ y a .Bombay: Nirnayasagar Press, 1908-1955.Kau1J


39/39

Somesvara. Nyiiyasudhii a Commentary on the Tantraviirtika. Edited by Mukund Shastri.Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series voL XIV. Benares 1901-1909. [The work is known by thename Ri4taka also.]

Udayana. Nyiiyakusumiiiijali. Edited by CowelL Calcutta: Baptist Mission Press 1864.

Vacaspati Misra. Tattvabindu. Edited by Riimaswami Shastri. Annamalai University Sanskrit SeriesvoL III. 1936.Vamana. See Jayaditya.Visvanatha Paficanana. Siddhiintamuktiivali. Edited by Hariram Sastri Sukla. Kashi Sanskrit Series.

2nd ed. Benares 1951.Yaska. Nirukta See Durga.

Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscripts

Cat dyar Lib.: Descriptive Catalogue o f Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Ady ar Library. VoL VI.Grammar Prosody and Lexicography by Pandit V. Krsnammacarya. 1947.

Cat Asiatic Society of Bengal: Descriptive Catalogue of the Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Collectionof the Asiatic Society of Bengal by Haraprasad Sastri. VoL VI. VyakaraJ;Ja Manuscripts.Calcutta 1931.

Aufrecht Theodor: Catalogus Catalogorum: An Alphabetical Register o Sanskrit Works andAuthors. Leipzig 1891.

Professor Emeritus o the University o Poonaand General Editor o Sanskrit Dictionary ProjectDeccan ollege Postgraduate Research Institute

oona

(to be continued)

kunda bhatta on the meaning of sanskrit verbs

Documents