Upanisads And Grammar On Meaning Of Anuvyakhyana

Author(s): Johannes Bronkhorst
Publisher: Johannes Bronkhorst
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269448/1

Page #1

Johannes BRONKHORST
Upanisads and grammar: On the meaning of anuvyākhyāna
The word anuvyākhyāna occurs four times in Vedic literature, three times in the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad, once in the Maitrayaṇīya Upanisad, and nowhere else. It always occurs in the following enumeration of literary works:
rgvedo yajurvedaḥ samavedo 'tharvängirasa itihasaḥ puranam vidya upanişadaḥ ślokaḥ sütrany anuvyäkhyānāni vyākhyānāni
Paul Horsch discussed some of the terms of this enumeration in his Die vedische Gatha- und Śloka-Literatur. The terms anuvyakhyāna and vyäkhyana, he argues (1966: 32), cannot but refer to texts that explain (vyākhyā-). They must be predecessors of the later commentatorial literature. With regard to anuvyakhyāna he expresses the opinion that this can only be an additional or extended vyākhyāna (p. 32).2
This opinion is not unproblematic. The position of anuvyakhyāna between sūtra and vyakhyana suggests rather that, if anything, the vyäkhyana is secondary to the anuvyäkhyana, which in its turn might conceivably be some kind of commentary on the sutra. The enumera
1. BAU 2.4.10, 4.1.2, 4.5.11 ( SB 14.5.4.10, 14.6.10.6, 14.7.3.11) and MaiU
6.32.
2. The standard dictionaries offer the following translations: 'eine besondere Klasse von Schriften' (PW), 'eine best. Klasse von exegetischen Texten' (pw), 'that portion of a Brahmana which explains or illustrates difficult Sütras, texts or obscure statements occurring in another portion' (MW), 'That which comments on and explains Mantras, Sutras &c. ...; especially, that portion of a Brahmana which explains difficult Sutras, texts &c. occurring in another place' (Apte), 'n[om] de portions explicatives des Brahmana' (SNR). Professor D. Seyfort Ruegg has made the suggestion in a private communication that anuvyäkhyāna might be a graded vyäkkyäna, just as anusasana is a graded śäsana, adapted to the needs of the person taught. While this may be true, I am not sure that it would solve the difficulty to be discussed below.

Page #2

188
Johannes BRONKHORST
tion, moreover, seems to display a hierarchical structure, beginning as it does with the 'five Vedas' (itihasa and purana being occasionally referred to as 'the fifth Veda'; see Bronkhorst, 1989: 129f.) which supports the idea that anuvyakhyana is 'higher' than vyakhyāna and 'lower' than sutra.
A search for occurrences of the term anuvyakhyāna in post-Vedic literature does not help to solve the problem. Sankara comments on the three words sutra, anuvyākhyāna and vyakhyāna in the following manner under BAU 2.4.10:
sūtrani vastusangrahaväkyäni vede yatha atmety evopasita (BAU 1.4.7) ityădinil anuvyäkhyänäni mantravivarananil vyakhyänäny arthavadaḥl athava vastusangrahavakyavivaraṇāni anuvyākhyānānil yatha caturthādhyāye atmety evopasita ity asya yatha va anyo 'sav anyo ham asmiti na sa veda yatha pasur evam (BAU 1.4.10) ity asyayam evadhyayaseṣaḥl mantravivaranani vyākhyānānil.
The fact that two different explanations are given for the words anuvyākhyāna and vyakhyāna shows that Sankara was not at all certain about their meaning. According to him, anuvyakhyana is either the explanation of a mantra (mantravivarana) or the explanation of a concise statement of (ultimate) reality (vastusangrahavakyavivarana). In the latter case, vyakhyana is the explanation of a mantra. In other words, the distinction between anuvyākhyāna and vyākhyāna is not clear to Sankara.
The term anuvyäkhyāna occurs in some other contexts, too, but always, as far I am aware, in passages that are clearly indebted to the Upanisadic enumeration. Horsch (1966: 32) already refers to the scholiast on Yajnavalkyasmrti 3.189, who explains bhasyani with anuvyäkhyānāni and vyäkhyänäni. Since Yajnavalkyasmrti 3.189. contains partly the same enumeration as the one we are studying, putting however bhāṣyani where our passage has anuvyākhyānāni vyākhyānāni, we can be sure that Horsch's scholiast copied our passage here. The term is also used by Nilakantha in his comments on savaiyakhya in Mahabharata 1.1.50 (= Cr.Ed. 1.1.48). Nilakantha states:
savaiyakhyah vyakhyanam adhikṛtya kto grantho vaiyakhyas tadyuktaḥ yatha brahmavid apnoti param iti sütrasya vyakhyā satyam jñānam iti mantraḥl anuvyakhyānam tasmad vā etasmad ityādi brahmanam! evam atrapi
Upanisads and grammar
prathame 'dhyāye sütritasyarthasya dvitiyatṛtiyabhyam vyäkhyānam uttaragranthenanuvyakhyānam cal.
189
This refers to TA 8.1.1 (8.2 in the edition accessible to me, see the note on p. 591; this passage is identical with TU 2.1), which reads, with extracts of Sāyaṇa's commentary:
dvitiyasyanuvākasyadau ktsnopanisatsaram samgrahena sūtrayati om brahmavid apnoti param iti I... idanim tasya sütrasya samkşiptavyäkhyanarūpām kamcid rcam udaharati... satyam jñānam anantam brahma itil... tam etam anantyopapädanopayuktam srstim darśayati tasmäd va etasmād atmana ākāśaḥ sambhutah... itil.
Interestingly, Sayana cites in this context the above enumeration from itihasa onwards, then explains the terms that interest us as follows (p. 563):
brahmavid ityädikam sütram/ satyam jñānam ityādikam anuvyäkhyanam anukramena sūtragatānām padanam tätparyakathanat! tasminn upasamkhyane yo bubhutsito 'rthavisesas tasya vispaṣṭam asamantat kathanam vyäkhyānam tad idam atra tavat tasmad vā etasmād ity arabhyannāt puruşa ityantena granthenābhidhiyatel.
Note that Sayana and Nilakantha use the terms vyakhyāna and anuvyäkhyana differently. (Sankara on TU 2.1 uses the word sutra in connection with the line brahmavid äpnoti param, but does not refer to anuvyakhyāna (p. 360):
sarva eva vallyartho brahmavid äpnoti param iti brähmaṇaväkyena sütritahl sa ca sutrito 'rthaḥ samkşepato mantrena vyakhyātah punas tasyaiva vistareṇarthanirnayah kartavya ity uttaras tadyrttisthāniyo grantha arabhyate tasmad va etasmād ityādiḥl)."
How do we deal with the problem presented by anuvyakhyāna in the Bṛhadaranyaka and Maitrayaniya Upanisads? Two observations are to be made here. The first one concerns the date of the enumeration in its present form, the second its correct shape.
First the date. The portion of the Maitrayaniya Upanisad that contains our enumeration is considered by J.A.B. van Buitenen, who dedi
3. The expression anuvyakhyasyamah occurs in the Şadvimsa Brahmana (ed. B.R. Sharma, 5.6.1, p. 187) in a phrase which throws no light on our question; anuvyakhyasyami at Ch-Up 8.9.3; 10.4; 11.3 clearly means "I will explain further", as Hume (1931: 270f.) translates correctly.

Page #3

190
Johannes BRONKHORST
cated a study to this Upanisad (1962: 34) - an accretion to an accretion to an insertion into the original Maitrayaniya Upanisad. This raises the question whether the enumeration containing anuvyäkhyāna might not be late, perhaps added, or completed, by a late redactor.
With regard to the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad, which is part of the Satapatha Brahmana, it is worthwhile to quote the following observation made by Michael Witzel (1987: 399 n. 76):
The final compilation of [the Satapatha Brahmana], made up of several independent portions, is probably a comparatively late one; yet the compiler was able still to put cross-references into the Vedic text;...; the compilator still knew Vedic well enough to produce... sentences referring forwards and backwards in the text. On the other hand: the compiler was different from the (much later) redactor who seems to have lived many generations after Yajnavalkya, even according to the various Vamsas found in [the Satapatha Brahmana] and [the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad]. I suspect that he was a contemporary of the Kanva dynasty or the Satavahana dynasty. (This problem will have to be treated separately). It is only the redactor that was responsible for glorification of Yajnavalkya and for his authorship of the White [Yajurveda]; note that this information is added as the very last words of [the Satapatha Brahmana]...; note that the redactor already describes Janaka as presenting land to Yajnavalkya.... Yet even the Satakarni inscription, 2 cent. A.D., ... still mentions only presents of cows given as daksiņā to Brahmins, and not a donation of land....
Janaka is described as presenting land to Yajnavalkya at the end of BAU 4.2.4 (so Witzel, op. cit., p. 409 n. 99), not therefore at the very end of the Upanisad. This means that, according to Witzel, the redactor has made additions and modifications in other places than only at the end of the SB and of the BAU. The enumeration of texts containing the term anuvyakhyāna might therefore conceivably be late,
too.
Let us next look at the exact form of the term anuvyākhyāna. This term occurs only at the above indicated places of the Brhadaranyaka and Maitrayaniya Upanisads, always in the same enumeration, and in passages that implicitly or explicitly refer to this enumeration, so far as I am aware. This may mean that one single editorial hand, or even one scribal error, may have been responsible for this word, and for its occurrence in this enumeration. And the possibility cannot be discarded that this single editorial hand 'corrected' some other word into anuvyäkhyāna under the influence of the following vyäkhyāna.
Upanisads and grammar
191
If we accept this last hypothesis, the most likely candidate for the original form underlying anuvyakhyana is, no doubt, anvākhyāna. This word occurs a few times in Vedic literature, once, at GB 1.2.10, in another enumeration of literary works. The fact that one ms. of the Gopatha Brahmana has sanvyäkhyänäḥ instead of sänvākhyānāḥ confirms our impression that anvakhyāna could easily be 'corrected' into anuvyākhyāna.
We arrive, then, at the hypothetical conclusion that our list originally contained the three terms sūtrany anväkhyänäni vyäkhyänäni, in this order. Does this help us to reach some form of understanding?
Consider first the pair sutra - anväkhyāna. This reminds us of the manuscripts of the Vadhula Śrautasutra, which contain both sutra and anväkhyāna. Anvākhyana is here the term used for the brahmana-portion accompanying this Śrautasutra. For, as Willem Caland (1926: 5 (307)) observed,
[d]ie Texte der Vadhūlas... haben... dieses Merkwürdige, dass zu dem Sutra ein eigenes Brahmana gehört, eine Art Anubrahmana, ein sekundäres Brahmana, das neben dem alten Brahmana der Taittiriyas (oder vielleicht richtiger: neben einem alten Brahmana, das mit dem der Taittiriyas aufs engste verwandt ist) steht: eine noch nie in einem vedischen Sütra angetroffene Eigentümlichkeit.
This secondary Brāhmaṇa of the Vadhula Śrautasutra calls itself *Anvakhyāna"."
It is, in view of the above, at least conceivable that the author of our enumeration had the Vadhula Śrautasutra in mind while adding anvakhyāna after sutra (supposing that he actually did so). Interestingly, there is another set of texts that appears to be referred to by the terms sutra and anväkhyāna. More precisely, this set consists of three texts, which are, it has been argued, referred to by the terms sūtra, anvākhyāna and vyakhyāna respectively, i.e., by the very three terms that occur in this order in our enumeration. What is more, these texts were already referred to in this manner well before the beginning of our era. I am speaking about Panini's Aṣṭādhyāyī, a
4. See Caland, 1928: 210 (510), 218 (518); Witzel, 1975: 102 n. 47. Witzel argues (1975: 82) that, in spite of the joint occurrence of Anvakhyanas and Vadhula Śrautasutra in the same manuscripts, "Eine Zuordnung zum Śrautasutra ist damit.... nicht notwendig gegeben."

Page #4

192
Johannes BRONKHORST
Upanişads and grammar
193
Sutra-work on grammar commented upon in Kätyāyana's vārttikas, which in their turn are discussed in Patanjali's Mahabhäsya. The Mahabhäsya is to be dated in the middle of the second century B.C.E.
In order to substantiate the above claim, I now cite from an article by R.G. Bhandarkar, written more than a century ago (1876: 347): ... it seems that the verb anvācaste is used by Patanjali as characteristic of the work of Katyayana ... His own work Patanjali calls vyakhyāna, and frequently uses the verb vākhyāsyāmah.
Since khya replaces the root caks before ārdhadhātuka suffixes by P. 2.4.54 (caksinah khyar), the noun corresponding to the verb anväcaste is anvākhyāna. If then Bhandarkar is correct, Katyāyana's vārttikas form an anvākhyāna, and Patanjali's Mahābhāsya a vyakhyana, also in Patanjali's own terminology. It is clear that Patañjali's choice of words deserves to be subjected to a closer examination
next värttika is meant to show the purpose of this anvākhyāna,' which makes no sense if the anvākhyāna does not derive from Katyāyana. And on another occasion Patañjali ascribes the sentence under consideration to the ācārya, and repeats it in a slightly modified way, as he often does with vārttikas.
In the one remaining case Patañjali uses the word anvācaste in order to describe the activity of the author of the preceding värttika (P. 1.1.44 vt. 16), who, thinking that words are eternal, teaches (anvācaste) the correctness of words actually in use."
The terms anvākhyeya and anvākhyāna are sometimes used in immediate connection with anvācaste. So in Mbh II p. 83 1. 20 - p. 84 1.1 (evam tarhy anvacaste 'nupasarga iti vartate itil naitad anvākhyeyam ...), III p. 27 1. 15 (the same with yani instead of anupasarga), III p. 349 1. 4-5 (same with upasargad), II p. 265 1. 1213 (evam tarhy anväcaste pautraprabhraiti vartate itil kim etasyānvākhyāne prayojanam/).
At Mbh I p. 209 1. 1 and 4 anvākhyāna refers back to anvācaste on p. 208 1. 16, which here however refers to Panini.
In one passage on P. 2.1.1 the sense 'additional communication suffices for anvākhyāna (Mbh I p. 363 1. 12, 13 and 27). An additional communication regarding their meaning is given (in sütras like P. 2.2.24 anekam anyapadārthe, P. 2.2.29 cärthe dvandvah, etc.) to words which are naturally endowed with those meanings, by way of condition of application. And later it is said that there is no use for an additional communication regarding the meaning of something whose meaning is known."
The sense of anvākhyāna and anväkhyāyaka in the Bhāsya on P. 1.1.62 vt. 1 (I p. 161 I. 17-18) is not relevant in the present investiga
(i) The word anvācaste in Patanjali's Mahābhäsya occurs most often in the expression acāryaḥ suhd bhūtvā anväcaste, which expression appears to refer in all cases but one -- where it refers to Pāņini' - to Katyayana (see Bronkhorst, 1987:6f.). In four of the five remaining cases it can reasonably be argued that anvacaste has Katyayana as (understood) subject, even though Kielhorn's edition of the Mahābhāsya contains no indication to this effect. They all occur in the following general context:
X'iti vartatel evam tarhy anvācaste 'x' iti vartate itil
The first part x'iti vartate is commented upon in the immediate sequel and can therefore be considered a vārttika. This is confirmed by the fact that on one occasion Patanjali explicitly claims that the
5. At Mbh I p. 208 1. 16. the expression refers to the author of P. 1.2.32. This sūtra (rascadita udartam ardhahrasvan) gives supplementary (anu) information concerning preciscly how much of the syarita is udarta, how much anudarta
6. Mbh II p. 83 1. 20 (on P. 3.1.106 vt. 1). p. 265 1. 12 (on P. 4.1.163 vt. 1); III p. 271. 15 (on P. 6.1.20 vt. 1), p. 349 1. 4 (on P. 7.4.24).
7. It is not printed as such in Kielhor's edition on any of the four occasions
8. See Mbh II p. 265 1. 12-15: pautaprabhtiti vartatelevant tarhy anvdcaste patraprabhrfiti, vartate it kimetasyon váhyane prayojanam/ fac ca daivadattyartham (vt. 2).
9. Mbh III p. 349 1. 4-5: upasargad iti vartale evamt farhy dcdyo invacasta upasargad ity anwartata itil.
10. Mbh I p. 104 I. 22-23: yasya punar nityah sabah prayuktūnām asaw sudutum anvicasse
11. svabhavata eteşan sabdânām elesy arthey abhiniviständer nimittatvenanvākhyānam kriyale.
12. na khalv api nirjñātasyärthasyavakhyane kimcid api prayojanam asti.

Page #5

194
Johannes BRONKHORST
Upanişads and grammar
195
tion because the Bhāsya follows here the use of anvakhyana in the preceding vārttika
We can conclude from the above that anvākhyāna and anväcaste carry the meaning additional communication wherever Patanjali uses these terms in his own right (i.e., where he does not borrow these words from the värttika he is explaining). This 'additional communication is in the vast majority of cases embodied in the varuikas of Kātyāyana.
We see that Bhandarkar's remark to the extent that Katyayana's värttikas were known by the designation anväkhyāna, and Patañjali's Mahābhäsya by the name vyākhyāna, is justified, but only to a certain extent. It is therefore at least conceivable that the terms anvākhyāna and vyakhyana in our Upanişadic passage (supposing that the first of these two actually belongs there) refers to two-layered commentaries on Sūtra works like what we find in the case of Pāņini's Astādhyayi.
Here it must be observed that it is out of the question that the word sütra in our enumeration refers only to the Astädhyayi. There are many other Sutra works connected with Vedic literature, and there may have been even more when our list was made. Nor can we believe that no other commentaries were known to the author of the list. However, one can reasonably raise the question whether other two-layered commentaries were known to him. Suppose there weren't. Suppose further that our author had such a two-layered commentary in mind when he enumerated the three items sutra, anvākhyāna, vyākhyāna. In that case we cannot but conclude that he lived after Patañjali, i.e., after the middle of the second century B.C.E.
All this should not blind us to the fact that the present interpretation of the terms anuvyākhyāna (anvākhyāna) and vyakhyana is no more than a conjecture. But even though a conjecture, it proposes an explanation for an otherwise obscure term.
(ii) The word vyakhyāsyāmah occurs always, i.e. no fewer than 11 times, in connection with the Paribhāşa vyakhyānato visesapratipattir na hi samdehād alaksanam "The precise (meaning of an ambiguous term) is ascertained from interpretation, for (a rule), even though it contains an ambiguous term, must nevertheless teach (something definite)" (tr. Kielhorn, 1874: 2). In all these cases the vyakhyāna, i.e., 'interpretation' or 'explanation', is given by Patañjali himself. It can here be said that the Mahābhāsya embodies the vyakhyānas.
But in Mbh I p. 170 1. 17 vyakhyāyate is used to show how a sutra is explained or interpreted in a varttika, viz. in P. 1.1.65 vt. 5. And Mbh I p. 111. 21-23 contains a brief discussion in which vyakhyāna is explained to be not just the separation of the words of sütras, but to include, example, counterexample, and words to be supplied'. "Mbh I p. 12 1. 23-27 again rejects this position and returns to the view that separation of words of sütras is vyakhyāna." None of these characteristics apply to the Mahābhāsya.
We must conclude that vyākhyāna for Patanjali means 'interpretation' or 'explanation' in general, and that he applies the word most often, but by no means always, to refer to his own Mahābhāsya.
C.E.
ABBREVIATIONS
Apte V.S.
13. nanu ca tad eva sūtram vigrhitam vākhyānam bhavati na kevalani carcapadani vyakhyānam vrddhih ar aijiti kim tarhil udāharanam pratyudaharanam vākytidhychära ity etat samuditam vyakhyanam bhavati.
14. yad apy weyate sabdápratipattir iti na hi satrata eva Sabdan pratipadyante kim tarhi vyakhyanatas ceti parihtam etad tad eva sūtramt vigrhitam vyakhyanam bhavatitil nanu coktam na kevaldni carcapadani vyakhyanam wrddhih ar aij iti kim tarhi udaharanam pratyudäharanam vākyadhyahara ity etat samuditam vyakhyānam bhavanti avijanata etad enam bhavati sūtrata eva hi sabdan pratipadyantel ...
BAU Ch-Up GB MaiU Mbh MW
Apte, Sanskrit-English Dictionary, 3 vols., Poona 1957-1959. Byhadāranyaka Upanişad Chandogya Upanişad Gopatha Brāhmana Maitrāyaṇi Upanişad Patañjali's Vyākarana-Mahābhāsya Monier Monier-Williams, A Sanskrit-English Dictionary, Oxford 1899. Pāņinian sūtra

Page #6

Johannes BRONKHORST
Upanişads and grammar
197
Otto Böhtlingk, Rudolph Roth, Sanskrit-Wörterbuch, 7 Bde., St. Petersburg 1855-1875. Otto Böhtlingk, Sanskrit-Wörterbuch in kürzerer Fassung, 4 Bde., St. Petersburg 1879-1889. Satapatha Brāhmana N. Stchoupak, L. Nitti, L. Renou, Dictionnaire sanskrit-français, Paris 1932. Taittiriya Aranyaka Taittiriya Upanisad
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Nilakantha. In: Mahābhāratam with the Commentary of Mlakantha,
1: Adiparva. Printed and published by Shankar Narhar Joshi, at
Chitrashala Press, Poona. 1929. Patañjali: Vyakarana-Mahābhäsya. Edited by F. Kielhorn. Third
edition by K.V. Abhyankar. 3 vol. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Re
search Institute. 1962-72. Šankara: Sankarabhäsya. In: Ten Principal Upanişads with
Sankarabhäsya. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. (Works of
Sankarācārya, 1.) 1964 Sāyana. In: Krsnayajurvediyam Taittiriyaranyakam, Srimat
Sayanācāryaviracitabhäsya-sametam, tatra saptamaprapathakad ärabhya daśamaprapathakaparyanto 'yam sapariţisto dvitiyo bhāgah. Poona: Anandāśrama. (Anandāśramasanskrtagranthavali,
36.) 1981 Sharma, Bellikoth Ramachandra (ed.)(1967): Sadvisa Brahmana,
with Vedärthaprakasa of Sayana. Tirupati: Kendriya Sanskrit Vi
dyapeetha (Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha Series, 9.) van Buitenen, J.A.B. (1962): The Maitrāyaniya Upanisad. A critical
essay, with text, translation and commentary. 's-Gravenhage:
Mouton. (Disputationes Rheno-Trajectinae, 6). Witzel, Michael (1975): "Eine fünfte Mitteilung über das
Vadhülasutra." Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik, 1, 75-108. Witzel, Michael (1987): "The case of the shattered head." Studien zur
Indologie und Iranistik, 13/14 (Festschrift Wilhelm Rau), 363-415.
Bhandarkar, R.G. (1876): "Acharya, the friend of the student, and the
relations between the three achāryas." Indian Antiquary, 5, 345-50.
(Reprinted in: Collected Works of Sir R.G. Bhandarkar I, 136-47). Bronkhorst, Johannes (1987): Three Problems pertaining to the
Mahābhäsya. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. (Post-graduate and Research Department Series No. 30, Pandit
Shripad Shastri Deodhar Memorial Lectures, Third series). Bronkhorst, Johannes (1989): "Veda." Annals of the Bhandarkar
Oriental Research Institute, 70, 125-135. Caland, Willem (1926): "Eine dritte Mitteilung über das
Vadhalasutra." Acta Orientalia, 4, 1-41, 161-213. Reprint: Kleine
Schriften (Stuttgart 1990), 303-396. Caland, Willem (1928): "Eine vierte Mitteilung über das
Vädhülasutra." Acta Orientalia, 6, 97-241. Reprint: Kleine
Schriften, 397-541. Horsch, Paul (1966): Die vedische Gatha- und Sloka-Literatur. Bern:
Francke. Hume, Robert Ernest (1931): The Thirteen Principal Upanishads,
translated from the Sanskrit. Second edition, revised. Reprint: Ox
ford University Press, 1975. Kielhorn, F. (1874): The Paribhāşendusekhara of Nagojibhatta. Part
H: translation and notes. Second edition by K.V. Abhyankar. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. 1960.
RÉSUMÉ
Dans la littérature ancienne, le terme anuvākhyāna ne se rencontre que dans une énumération d'ouvrages littéraires qui est répétée trois fois dans la Brhadāranyaka Upanişad et une fois dans la Maiträyaniya Upanişad. Cette énumération a la forme suivante:
rgvedo yajurvedah samavedo 'tharvängirasa itihasah puranam vidya upanişadah slokāk sutrūny anuvyakhyānäni vyakhyanani
La forme anuvyakhyana suggère qu'il s'agit d'un vyakhyana additionnel ou étendu, sa position entre sūtra et vyakhyāna suggère le contraire que le vyakhyana est secondaire à l'anuvyakhyana, qui, à

Page #7
198 Johannes BRONKHORST son tour, pourrait vraisemblablement etre une sorte de commentaire sur le sutra. De plus, en commencant par les 'cinq Vedas' (on se refere occasionnellement a itihasa et a purana comme 'le cinquieme. Veda'), l'enumeration semble montrer une structure hierarchique qui sous-tend l'idee qu'anuvyakhyana est 'plus haut que vyakhyana et 'plus bas' que sutra. Une tentative de solution a ce probleme est ici presentee a la lumiere de l'ancienne litterature grammaticale.