Candragomins Syntactic Rules Some Misconceptions

Author(s): Mahadev Deshpande
Publisher: Mahadev Deshpande

Page 11

144
MADHAV DESHPANDE
Vyakarana-Mohabhäsya, Karakāhnika, (P.1.4.23-1.4.55), with Introduction, Translation
and Notes, by S. D. Joshi and J. A. F. Roodbergen, Publications of the Centre of Ad. vanced Study in Sankrsit, Class C, No. 10, University of Poona, Poona, 1975. (Referred to : Karakalnika) Karano-Mahabha sya, Anabhihira hnika (P.2.3.1. - 2.3.17), with Introduction, Text, Translation and Notes, by S. D. Joshi, and J.A.F. Roodborgen, Publications of the Cerere of Advanced Study in Sanskrit, Class C, No. 11, University of Poona, Poona, 1975. (Referred to as: Anabhihitähnika)
NOTES
Mahābhāsya on P.2.3.1., Vol.I., Pt. II., pp.476-482. Also see: Anabhihitahnika, Intro., pp. XXXV-xxxvi. Pataūjali discusses two possibilities. The caso endings may be said to depote either (A) kärakas, or (B) number. Joshi and Roodbergen rightly say: "In view (A), P.2.3.1. is not required, because we can manage by the principle uktärthanam aprayogah", Anabhihitähnika, Intro., P. xxxvi. Candragomin's Vrati on C.2.1.1. (Vol. L, p.161) says: ete ca (svā dayah) să marthyad ekatvā dimad-artha-vā cinah tabdāt pare bhavanti. This means to say that case endings (singular etc. in each triplet) occur after words which denote entities possessed of singularity etc. Thus, it appears that, according to Candragomin, the case ending itself does not denote number, but that it denotes the syntactic meanings such as agent and object. This is also clear from the Vrtti on C.2.1.87. This provides us the reason why Candragomin did not explicitly state a rule such as P.2.3.1. (anabhihite). The maxim uktartha nām aprayogah is included in Candragomin's Paribhasa sūtras, see: Candra-Vyākaraņa, Vol. II., P. 396. This is the most direct evidence against the criticisms levelled by Joshi and Roodbergen. Also: Paribhāşasarngraha, ed. by K.V. Abhyankar, Bhandarkar Oriental
Research Institute, Poona, 1968, p. 47. 2. Värttikas 56 on P.2.3.1.. (dvayoh kriyayoh kärake anyatarenā bhihite vibhakty
ablano-prasarigah, na vă anyatarenā nabhidhānāt, anabhihite hi vidhanam). Also see:
Anabhikitä krika, Intro., pp. xxxvii and 37ff. 3. Mahabhasya, Vol. I, pt. II. pp. 483-4; Vol. II., pp. 251-253. 4. Mahabha spa on P.3.4.26, Vol. II., pp. 251-3. Also see: Madhav Deshpande (Forth
coming-A). 5. Anabhihitähnika, Intro., pp. xxxvii-xxxviii, and pp. 37ff. Also see: Madhav
Deshpande (Forthcoming-B). Punyaraja's cmmentary on Väkyapadīya, II. 484. (nyā ya-prasthäna ... etc.) I must note here that my inferred principle is not the only possible way of explaining Candragomin's handling of the sentence gantur samartho bhavati. There are a few other possible caxplanations, though not necessarily better ones. I can think of two possible alternatives. [A] Unliko Katyayana's assumption, ono may assume that if a koraka related to two actions is at the samo time expressed (abhihita, ukta) by one affix and not expressed (anabhihita, anukta) by another affix, it would be considered expresseul