A New Edition of Vyāḍi's ParibhāṣāvṛttiA New Edition of Vyāḍi's Paribhāṣāvṛtti

A New Edition of Vyāḍi's ParibhāṣāvṛttiMetarules of Pāṇinian Grammar: Vyāḍi's Paribhāṣāvṛtti, Critically Edited with Translationand Commentary by Dominik WujastykReview by: George CardonaJournal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 118, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1998), pp. 239-244Published by: American Oriental SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/605895 .

Accessed: 12/06/2014 23:15

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal ofthe American Oriental Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.113 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 23:15:26 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aos

http://www.jstor.org/stable/605895?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


A NEW EDITION OF VYADI'S PARIBHASAVRTTI*

GEORGE CARDONA

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

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

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

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

* This is a review article of: Metarules of Paninian Grammar:

Vyadi's Paribhdsavrtti, Critically Edited with Translation and Commentary. By DOMINIK WUJASTYK. Two volumes. Groningen Oriental Series, vol. V. Groningen: EGBERT FORSTEN, 1993. Pp. xxiv + 96; xxxi + 304.

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

The translation of each text section is accompanied by an explanation and comments. As Wujastyk notes (vol. 2, p. xxxi), these reflect the oral commentary he received when he read the text with Pt. V. B. Bhagavat and Prof. S. Bhate in 1979. In notes to his translation and comments, Wujastyk also supplies information concerning where paribhasas are used in the Mahdbhdsya, the

1 Concerning general issues about Vyadi and the Paribha-

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

239



Journal of the American Oriental Society 118.2 (1998)

Kasikd, and other Paniniya works, as well as their inclu- sion in other paribhasS collections. The latter is also available in Abhyankar 1967: 466-93. Wujastyk's references are not exhaustive. For example, in connection with paribhasa 57 (arthavagad vibhaktiviparindmo bhavati), he says (vol. 2, p. 205, n. 313): "The maxim is used five times by Patafijali, each time accompanied by the lau- kika examples of the argument.... It is not quoted in the Kiaika or Siddhdntakaumudi. It does appear in the Nyasa (KV VI.124: 26-27). It is discussed by Purusotta- madeva (no. 88), Siradeva (no. 120) and Haribhaskara (no. 122)." It is literally true that the Kadsikd does not cite the paribhasa in the form noted. It does, however, speak of change in endings (vibhaktiviparinamah) by the same principle. Thus, commenting on 3.2.106 (litah kanaj vd), the Kasikd asks why the term lit is used again in this sutra (litah 'in place of li'): will not the ending of the nominative lit stated previously (3.2.105: chandasi lit) be changed to a genitive in a provision for a replace- ment?2 The Nydsa comments: yady api lid iti pra- thamdntarh prakrtarh tathapy arthdd vibhaktiviparinamo bhavisyati 'although lit, ending in a first-triplet ending, is given, there will be a change in ending due to the meaning intended.' The wording of the paribhasa in this

Nyasa passage-arthdt and not arthavasat-is the one found in the Nyasa passage to which Wujastyk refers: Nydsa on Kds. 7.3.120: ana iti sthdnyantaranirdesad ihdrthdd vibhaktiviparinamo bhavati....3

Wujastyk explains (vol. 2, pp. xxix-xxx) the princi- ples he has followed in his translation. He also rejects in fairly strong language the practice, followed by many, of including large amounts of material in parentheses, and singles out Kielhom's translation of the Paribha- sendusekhara as an especially noteworthy example of what should be avoided. I agree with Wujastyk that the sentence should be the unit for translation, and that "[i]t is wholly unacceptable for a translator to place syntacti- cally essential parts of the sentence within parentheses, unless the Sanskrit text itself is genuinely incomplete." Wujastyk's practice results in very smooth translations. Consider for example, his translation (vol. 2, p. 3) of

paribhasa Ia: "When a meaningful item is mentioned, that item should not be mentioned without meaning." The Sanskrit this translates is arthavadgrahane ndnar-

2 lidgrahanam kim I na parvasyaiva prakrtasyadesavidhane vibhaktiviparindmo bhavisyati.

3 See also Kdsika 3.3.96 (mantre vrsesapacamanavidabhu- vira udattah) with the Nydsa thereto. Note also that Purusot- tama and Siradeva give the paribhasa in the form cited in the Nydsa: arthdd vibhaktiviparindmah.

thakasya. Kielhorn's translation (1960: 81-82) of the equivalent paribhasa (no. 14) in Nagesa's Paribhd- sendusekhara is: "(A combination of letters capable of) expressing a meaning (denotes), whenever it is em- ployed (in grammar, that combination of letters in so far as it possesses that meaning, but it) does not denote (the same combination of letters) void of a meaning." Ob- viously, Kielhor has supplied a great deal in parentheses that is absent from Wujastyk's translation. It is also true that Kielhorn has been overly literal in translating arthavat as "expressing a meaning," with a parenthetical suppletion, since the term itself refers to any speech element that has meaning. On the other hand, Wuja- styk's translation of na ... grahanam as "should not be mentioned" itself violates Sanskrit syntax for the sake of smoothness. In accordance with normal Sanskrit syntax, one understands bhavati, so that the phrase means 'there is not the use' and could be translated '(is) not used'. Moreover, after all is said and done, I think Kielhorn's admittedly cumbersome translation conveys the intended sense more effectively than Wujastyk's. What is at issue concerns two possible homophonous elements, one of which is meaningful, the other not; if there is doubt con-

cerning a given item which could be either of these, it is assumed that the meaningful element is used.4 Simi- larly, consider Wujastyk's translation (vol. 2, p. 129) of

paribhasa 25 (pratyekah vdkyaparisamdptih):5 "A sentence is complete with respect to each single one [of its constituents]," and Kielhorn's translation (1960: 491) of the equivalent paribhasa (no. 107) of the Paribhasen- dusekhara: "What is stated (in grammar of several

things) must be understood (to have been stated thereby) of each of them separately." The suppletions made in both of these translations can be avoided without vio- lence: "An utterance meaning is fulfilled with respect to each individual." Note that I have used "utterance mean-

ing" instead of "sentence." As commentators have rec-

ognized,6 vikya in this context refers to an utterance's meaning, that is, what it provides. For example, in the stock example devadattayajnadattavisnumitrd bhojyan-

4 The simplest Sanskrit rendition I know of is the one found

in Laksmana Sarma's Tattvaprakaiika (Sadasiva Sastri 1978:

49): sambhavaty arthavadgrahane nanarthakasya grahanam 'If

the use of a meaningful term is possible, there is not the use of a meaningless one.'

5 Wujastyk notes (vol. 2, p. 129, n. 235), "This maxim is

originally KatySyana's virt. 12 on P. 1.1.1." The actual wording of the varttika is pratyavayavamh vdkyaparisamdpteh.

6 E.g., Pradipa on Mahabhdsya 1.1.1 (Vedavrata 1962: 135): atra vdkyasabdena vdkyarthah phalam ucyate.

240



CARDONA: A New Edition of Vyadi's Paribhasavrtti

tam 'Let Devadatta, Yajiiadatta, and Visnumitra be fed',7 the act of feeding applies to each of the individuals. Kielhorn translates Nagesa's devadattadayo bhojyantam ity atra bhujivat "just as in (the sentence) 'let Devadatta and the others be fed' the feeding (is enjoined of every individual denoted by the words 'Devadatta and the others')." The Vyddiyaparibhasdvrtti on paribhasa 25 says na cocyate pratyekam iti I pratyekarh ca bhujih parisa- mapyate 'one does not say "with respect to each individual" and yet the act of eating is accomplished with respect to each individual.' Wujastyk's translation of this passage is: "And one does not say it individually; the [root] bhuj'to eat' is completed with each single one [of the names]." To me, this does not bring out what the author of the passage says.

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

Wujastyk's work contains much that should stimulate discussion among scholars with sufficient knowledge of vyakarana and its intricacies. At times, however, one is struck by the absence of justification of some assertions. For example, Wujastyk simply says (vol. 2, p. xxvii): "Katyayana, the author of the vdrttikas also wrote the Vajasaneyipratisdkhya and might therefore be thought of as a Padakara." But it is not certain that the two works stem from the same author; indeed, there are definite differences in theory between them.8 Again, in his comments on the introductory section of the Vyadiyapari- bhdasvrtti Wujastyk remarks (vol. 2, p. 1): "Abhyankar likened the style of the opening phrases to the Mahd- bhasya. However, it is a common enough beginning in sadstric literature. It lends the first sentence the status of an initial rule, and indeed the following sentences do gloss it in a manner." To me, saying "is common enough" without further justification appears facile. It is true that vydkhydsydmah 'we will explain' occurs at the beginning of some gastric works. For example: Apastam- badharmasutra 1.1.1: athdtah sdmayacdrikan dharmdn vydkhydsydmah; Sdnkhayanasrautasitra 1.1.1: yajiiari vydkhydsydmah. The continuation found in the Vyddiya-

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

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

paribhasavrtti, however, is not so common. Consider the

opening statements of principal s'astric works which begin with atha: Jaimini's Mimarhsisaitra: athdto dhar- majijiisd; Brahmasutra: athdto brahmajijnasa; Vaisesi- kasitra: athdto dharmarh vykakhydsydmah; Yogasutra: atha yogdnugdsanam; Mahabhdsya: atha sabdanusdsanam. It is noteworthy that the Yogasutrabhasya begins, yoganusasanarh sastram adhikrtarh veditavyam, and that after atha sabdanusdsanam the Mahdbhdsya continues athety ayarh sabdo 'dhikdrdrthah prayujyate I sabddnu- sdsanarh dsstram adhikrtath veditavyam.9 After saying atha paribhidssicanamt vydkhydsydmah, the Vyddiya- paribhdsdvrtti continues (vol. 2, p. 1): athety ayam adhikidrarthah I paribhdasascanarh sastram adhikrtamr veditavyam. Concerning this and the general style of the text, Abhyankar remarked (1967: 11): "Not only the beginning of the work is very similar to that of the Mahabhiasya which begins with the remark ... ,but the general style of writing is also similar to that of the Ma-

habhasya." I think the evidence noted supports this claim of similarity between the beginnings of both works.

As I pointed out earlier, Wujastyk has not made it one of his aims to produce a completely detailed study of the Vyddiyaparibhdasvrtti. Nevertheless, he rightly summa- rizes (vol. 2, pp. xxvii-xxix) the major characteristics of the work. Remarkably, as far as I can see, Wujastyk has not considered it necessary to stress a striking feature of the Vyddiyaparibhasdvrtti. In this text there is constant emphasis on finding something to show what makes known Panini's use of paribhasas even if these are established from common usage, and the phrases katharh jniyate 'how is... known?', kathath krtva jnapakam 'on the basis of what reasoning is... something that makes ... known?', kim etasyd jnipane prayojanam 'what is the compelling reason for making this (paribhasa) known?', occur again and again. Moreover, although other commentators on paribhfsas, such as Purusottamadeva, also find something in Panini's formulations that serves to make known his use of paribhasas that are established already from common behavior, the Vyddiyaparibhdsd- vrtti carries this procedure farther than others. For example, the commentary on paribhasa 57 (see above) cites an example from ordinary usage,10 thus showing that the principle in question is known from such usage. It then goes on to note that this is observed also in the grammar,

9 See below and Cardona 1997: 543-44 (827). 10 Vol. 1, p. 62: tad yatha uccair grhdni devadattasya

dmantrayasvainam I devadattasya gdvo 'svadh suvarnarm ca

.dhyo vaidhaveyo devadatta iti. See also Cardona 1997: 73-74 (117).

241




and cites Panini 7.3.120: aho nastriyam.l In addition, the commentary then asks (vol. 1, p. 62: kathath krtvd

jnapakam) on what grounds this is considered a state- ment that makes known that this paribhasa is observed, and goes on to cite other jinpakas. This contrasts with the procedure of Purusottamadeva and Siradeva, who

simply note that the paribhasa is established from every- day usage, then illustrate its application in the Asta-

dhyayi without saying that what Panini states serves to make known its validity.'2

I think this point is pertinent to understanding the

import of the introductory section of the Vyadlyapari- bhasavrtti. In Abhyankar's edition, this reads as follows:'3

(1) orh atha paribhasdsucanarh vydkhydsyamah | (2) athety ayam adhikdarrthah I paribhdsasucanarh sdstram adhikrtarh veditavyam I (3) yad ita ardhvam anukramisyamah iyam asmin sutre siddhi iyam asmin siddheti I kith karanam | (4) atra hi jnitaparibhdsah svayarh gas- trah pratipadayiturh samartho bhavati I (5) sa tavat sukharh jnitaparibhdso bhavati I (6) ato vydkhydnarh drastavyam

In Wujastyk's edition, oth is absent, which is justified by the manuscript evidence. More importantly, Wujastyk punctuates (3) differently: yad ita urdhvam anukrami-

sydmah iyam asmin sutre siddhd I iyam asmin siddheti kith karanam I He translates (vol. 2, p. 1) the entire passage as follows:

-Now I shall discuss the indication of paribhasds. This 'now' is meant as a heading. One is to understand

that the discipline by which paribhdass are indicated has been headed, since from here on we shall proceed saying 'this [paribhasa] is validated in this rule'.

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

Because he who has got to know the paribhasas becomes capable of teaching the discipline himself.

Indeed, he gets to know the paribhdsas easily. So, an

explanation is to be consulted.

ll Vol. 1, p. 62: sastre 'pi yad ayam aha dho ndstriyam iti.

Wujastyk's use (vol. 2, p. 206) of "discipline" to translate dastra here seems inappropriate to me.

12 Laghuparibhdsdvrtti of Purusottama (Abhyankar 1967:

150): lokata eva siddho 'yam arthah ... evarh sastre 'pi ...

Brhatparibhdsdvrtti of Siradeva (Abhyankar 1967: 268): loka- siddha evayam arthah ... tathd sdstre 'pi . ..

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

I think the translation of the first line is weak. It would have been better to translate vydkhydsyamah 'we shall

explain','4 since a vydkhydna is rarely a mere discussion. For example, when Patanijali comments on Katyayana's eleventh varttika in the Paspasa and notes that one does not acquire correct speech items solely from the sutras, he adds that, on the contrary, one acquires them through an explanation of the sutras and adds that the explanation consists not only in showing the separate constituents of a sitra but also giving examples, counterexamples, and

suppletions for the sutras; all these together constitute an

explanation.15 Now, as Abhyankar recognized and I mentioned earlier in this review, (2) is comparable to

athety ayarh sabdo 'dhikardrthah prayujyate I sabdd- nusasanath sastram adhikrtarh veditavyam of the Ma-

habhasya, where Patanjali says that the term atha found here is used with the meaning 'introduction, beginning'.16 That is, atha of atha sabddnugdsanam is used to intro- duce something, not for the purpose of auspiciousness or to mark a transition to something following some-

thing else. As commentators have noted, sabdanugssana is an etymologically analyzable name for grammar. Patafijali thus states that a particular sastra, namely a

sabdanus'gsara, is to be understood as being introduced. The s'astra in question is grammar, in particular Panini's

grammar. Taking seriously the parallel between the two

introductory texts, (2) should mean that the term atha used here means 'introduction' and the sastra referred

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

15 Abhyankar 1962: 11.20-24: na hi sutrata eva sabddn

pratipadyante I kirh tarhi vydkhydnatas ca I nanu ca tad eva sutrarh vigrhitarh vydkhydnarh bhavati I na kevalani carcapa- dani vydkhydnarh vrddhih at aij iti I kih tarhy uddharanam

pratyuddharanamr vakyddhydhara ity etat samuditam vya- khydnarh bhavati.

16 Kaiyata (Vedavrata 1962: 2: adhikdrah prastdvah.. .) notes that adhikdra here means 'introduction' (prastava), and Annam- bhatta (Narasimhacharya 1973: 8) remarks that the meaning meant is 'beginning' (prdrambha). Sivaramendrasarasvati (Na-

rasimhacharya 1973: 9) directly says that adhikdra here means

'beginning'. He also differs from Kaiyata in the analysis of adhikdrartha: he takes artha here in the sense of 'significand' (abhidheya), while Kaiyata says it means 'purpose' (prayojana). This issue does not concern us here. Wujastyk's "heading" is doubtless motivated by the common use of adhikara with

reference to suitras and parts of sutras which serve as headings, understood to recur in subsequent sutras, but to speak of a dis-

cipline as headed in this sense is, at least to me, rather strange.

242



CARDONA: A New Edition of Vyadi's Paribhasavrtti

to as paribhsdsaucana is to be understood as introduced. In addition, paribhasustcanath of paribhdSdssucanarh sdstram, parallel to sabdanusgsanarh sdstram, should be understood as an etymologically analyzable term referring either to the act of indicating paribhasas or a means for doing this. Sdstra can of course refer to a teaching, a discipline like grammar, reckoned as a smrti. It also is used, however, with reference to specific works and their parts; see Cardona 1997: 572-73 (849). The question arises whether the Indian grammatical traditions recog- nize a discipline, comparable to grammar, which serves to explain paribhasas in the manner that grammar serves to explain Sanskrit usage. There is no evidence I know to support such a position. Accordingly, I think it is appropriate to consider that sgstram in paribhsdsascanarm sastram refers to a particular work, just as sabdanu- sgsanami sgstram at the beginning of the Mahdbhdsya refers to Panini's grammar. Thus, in (2) the author of the Vydidiyaparibhdsdvrtti informs us at the very outset that his work is one which serves to indicate paribhasas. In other words, it will demonstrate jnapakas for paribhasas.

As for (3), how this is punctuated and interpreted de- pends on how one understands anukramisydmah, which Wujastyk translates "we shall proceed." This term is found in passages of technical texts sufficient to indicate what we should understand here. The first thing to note is that anukram is used as a transitive verb. For example, Nirukta 4.1 (ekdrtham anekasabdam ity etad uktam I atha ydny anekdrthdny ekasabdani tany anukramisydmah...) makes a transition between the group of terms treated earlier and those to be dealt with next. In the earlier chapters of his work, Yaska dealt with terms which are treated as synonymous and listed in the first three sections of the Nighantu. In what follows, he will deal with terms listed in the remainder of the Nighantu, terms such that more than one meaning (anekdrthdni) is signified by them, so that the multiple meanings in question are signified by single polysemous terms (ekasabdani). Since the terms in question are indeed already listed in the Nighantu and Yaska does more than merely go through such a list, anukramisydmah cannot mean simply 'we will go through, we will go over'. As Durga and Skanda-Mahesvara say, by this Yaska means 'we will explain'.17 The Kdsikavrtti on the Astddhydyi also uses

17 Durga (Bhadkamkar 1985: 348: purastdt samdsatah sici-

tdni etavatdm arthdndm abhidhanam ity evam tany atah param anukramisydmah vydkhyayety abhisambandhah) notes that earlier (Nirukta 1.20) Yaska refers summarily to polysemous items. He also supplies vyakhyayd 'with an explanation, inter- pretation' to be connected with anukramisydmah. Subsequently

anukramisydmah comparably on several occasions. For example, commenting on 1.4.56 (prdg risvardn nipd- tdh), it explains that certain terms, concerned in sitras up to 1.4.97 (adhir Isvare) are to be known as bearing the name nipdta.18 The important passage here is ydn ita urdhvam anukramisydmah 'which we will ... from here onwards.' Now, since subsequent sutras either state out- right terms to be given the class name nipdta or say that items included in sets given in the ganapatha are given this name, anukramisydmah could be considered here to mean simply 'we will go through'. This is not possible, however, in all such contexts. For example, commenting on 2.1.3 (prak kaddrdt samdsah), the Kdsikd says (ka- .ddrasathmabdandt prag ydn ita urdhvam anukramisydmas te samdsasarmjnd veditavyah) that certain items concerned in sutras prior to 2.2.38 (kaddrah karmadhdraye) are to be known to bear the class name samdsa. Here again, the phrase ydn ita urdhvam anukramisydmah is used. But the items to which the name samdsa should apply are not all simply given; they are derived by the rules in question. Consequently, anukramisydmah here must mean more than merely 'we will go through'. It must be understood to have the sense which English 'we will cover' can have; that is, the Kdsikd is stating that the name applies to items which will be explained through derivation in subsequent rules.

Given the sort of text we are dealing with, (3) of the Vyddiyaparibhaisvrtti introduction should be understood in accordance with such usage. This means that anukramisydmah here calls for a complement denoting an object. The only available term is the relative pronoun form yat, which itself requires a correlative. The syn- tactic requirements are met if we understand yat to be coreferential with the preceding term sgstram. The reference is to a sastra which the commentator will go through explaining. It is reasonable to assume that the author views the paribhasas together with his commentary as the entire sastra in question, so that he speaks of going serially through the set of paribhasas with an explanation. The remainder of (3) states how he will carry out this explanation: stating that such and such a paribhasa is established in such and such a sitra of the

(Bhadkamkar 1985: 349: ... evamprakarayd aikapadikapraka- ranavydkhyayd anukramisydmah varnayisyamah) he glosses anukramisyamah with varnayisydmah 'we will describe'. The commentary of Skanda-Mahesvara (Sarup 1982: 195) explains that anukramisydmah means '... will explain' (vyakhyasyd- mah) in a particular manner.

18 adhir isvara iti vaksyati I prdg etasmdd avadher yin ita irdhvam anukramisydmo nipdtasarhjnds te veditavydh

243




Astddhyayi. Since there is only one iti and the second clause of iyam asmin sitre siddha iyam asmin siddheti is

elliptical, the text as punctuated by Abhyankar is more

appropriate than the text given in Wujastyk's edition.19

Accordingly, kimt karanam asks the reason for the entire

enterprise that is undertaken. (4) to (6) then justify this

enterprise by maintaining that one who has learned the

paribhasas in this (atra) work is capable of conveying the sastra20 himself and that such a person becomes so

19 Wujastyk translates as though iti also followed iyam asmin

sutre siddhd. 20 Since tdvat is used in (5), it is appropriate to distinguish

the reasons stated in (4) and (5). Now, in the Paninian tradi-

tion, commentators distinguish between the immediate purpose (sdksdtprayojanam) of the sabdanusasanam-namely knowing correct speech forms-and reasons for this. One of the latter reasons for studying grammar is to be able to teach properly. See Cardona 1997: 545-46 (829). (5) would comparably con-

vey the immediate purpose of the work at hand: one acquires a

knowledge of paribhasas and how they are made known. (4) states a reason for this: someone who has learned the paribhasas in this work is capable of conveying the sastra to others. To be sure, this gastra could be the present work itself. Yet the very purpose of paribhasas in the first place is to allow sutras to be

interpreted and applied as required by the usage to be ac-

qualified easily at the outset (tavat) through this work. Hence (atah), the explanation now undertaken is to be considered. The use of the term paribhdsasucana is thus

important. In using this, the author of the commentary informs his audience that he intends to show how paribhasas treated are indeed indicated, that is, that their ac-

ceptance by Panini is made known by what he says, even if the principle at issue is established from common

knowledge. In brief, paribhadsiscanam, though not the title of the work, is a descriptive term referring to this

work, just as sabdanusasanam is a descriptive term that is used to refer to Panini's Astadhyayi.

That one can find room for improvement in much of

Wujastyk's translation does not, I think, diminish the debt the community of scholars interested in Indian grammatical thought owes him for producing a truly critical edition of an important work on paribhasas, for establishing with fair certainty the relation of the work's author to others in the grammatical traditions, for supplying ample references to parallel works, and for undertaking a prin- cipled translation of a difficult text. I congratulate him on

carrying out this work with much success.

counted for. Accordingly, I think it is plausible to consider that the sastra in question here is grammar, Panini's Astadhyayi, in

particular.

REFERENCES

Abhyankar, K. V. 1960. The Paribhaisendusekhara of Nagoji- bhatta Edited and Explained by F. Kielhorn . . ., part II: Translation and Notes (second edition, by K. V. Abhyan- kar). Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.

1962. The Vydkarana-Mahdbhdsya of Patanjali, Ed- ited by F Kielhorn; third edition, . . . vol. I. Poona: Bhan- darkar Oriental Research Institute.

1967. Paribhdsdsaahgraha (A collection of original works on Vyakarana Paribhasas). Poona: Bhandarkar Ori- ental Research Institute.

Bhadkamkar, H. M. 1985. The Nirukta of Yaska . . Edited with

Durga's Commentary, by ... assisted by R. G. Bhadkam-

kar, vol. I, reprinted. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.

Bhatt, V. M. 1977. Purusottamadevani 'Laghuparibhasavrtti' numt Vivecandtmaka Adhyayana (A Critical Study of Puru- sottamadeva's Laghuparibhasavrtti). Ahmedabad: Gujarat University [in Gujarati].

Cardona, George. 1976. Pinini: A Survey of Research. The

Hague: Mouton (rpt. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1980). 1996. "Amredita compounds?" Studien zur Indologie

und Iranistik 20: 67-72.

1997. Panini, his Work and its Traditions, vol. I:

Background and Introduction, 2nd ed. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Kielhorn, Franz. See Abhyankar 1960.

Narasimhacharya, M. S. 1973. Mahdbhdsya Pradipa Vydkhyd- ndni, Adhydya 1, Pdda 1 Ahnika 1-4. Pondichery: Institut francais d'Indologie.

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

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

Limaye, vol. I. Delhi: Panini.

Scharf, Peter. 1996. The Denotation of Generic Terms in An-

cient Indian Philosophy: Grammar, Nydya, and Mimdmsa. TAPS 86.3.

Vedavrata. 1962. Sribhagavatpataijaliviracitarh Vydkarana- mahibhasyam [Srikaiyyatakrtapradipena nagojibhatta- krtena bhasyapradipoddyotena ca vibhusitam], vol. I. Rohatak: Harayana-Sahitya-Sa rhtsthana.

244



Documents

A New Edition of Vyāḍi's ParibhāṣāvṛttiA New Edition of Vyāḍi's Paribhāṣāvṛtti