Sharon Ben-Dor

Followers

Following

Public Views

Uploads

Papers by Sharon Ben-Dor

Ramakrishnamacharyulu, K.V (Hg.): The Vaiyākaraṇasiddhāntabhūṣaṇa of Kauṇḍabhaṭṭa. (Also known as Vaiyākaraṇabh-ūṣaṇa & Bṛhadbhūṣaṇa). Part II. (Lakārārtha-, Kārakārtha- and Nāmārtha-chapters). With the Nirañjanī commentary by Ramyatna Shukla and Prakāśa explanator...

Orientalistische Literaturzeitung, Apr 1, 2024

On the necessity of immediate sequence (ānantarya) in the Aṣṭādhyāyī

Śabdānugamaḥ. Indian Linguistic studies in honor of George Cardona. Volume I. Vyākraṇa and Śābdabodha. Edited by Peter M. Scharf, 2021

In his first vārttika on A. 1.1.66–67, Kātyāyana argues that these sūtras specify that an item me... more In his first vārttika on A. 1.1.66–67, Kātyāyana argues that these sūtras specify that an item mentioned in the locative follows, or ablative precedes, the item undergoing the provided grammatical operation in immediate sequence (ānantarya). Later commentators and modern scholars follow Kātyāyana and accept the notion that Pāṇini’s sūtras are conditioned by immediate sequence between the items. However, the necessity of such a condition for the desired application of the sūtras is questionable. Pāṇini’s saṃhitā and Kātyāyana’s ānantarya are comparable. Commentators struggled to explain why this condition should be speciﬁed by A. 1.1.66–67, and their explanations for differences between the terms are unsatisfactory. In addition, accepting that Pāṇini’s sūtras are conditioned by immediate sequence produces difﬁculties for the desired application of many sūtras including fundamental effect on some major rules. These difﬁculties entailed inadequate interpretation of some sūtras or supplementary paribhāṣās which in turn create additional difﬁculties. These difﬁculties, and the use of saṃhitā by Pāṇini for speciﬁc instances, indicate that the condition of immediate sequence does not occur throughout the Aṣṭādhyāyī. In addition, the import of the notion that the sūtras in the Aṣṭādhyāyī are conditioned by such sequence is to specify the location of a grammatical operation. Yet, Pāṇini speciﬁes the location of the operation by other means. Therefore, this notion should be dismissed.

The paribhāṣās arthavadgrahaṇe nānarthakasya, lakṣaṇapratipadoktayoḥ pratipadoktasyaiva grahaṇam and ekadeśavikṛtam ananyavat : Studies on some Metarules in Pāṇinian system

Download

Sūtra Paraphrases in the Cāndravyākaraṇavṛtti, the Kāśikāvṛtti, and the Mahāvṛtti

This paper examines the paraphrases of the Cāndravyākaraṇavṛtti, the Kāśikāvṛtti and the Mahāvṛtt... more This paper examines the paraphrases of the Cāndravyākaraṇavṛtti, the Kāśikāvṛtti and the Mahāvṛtti on the sūtras occurring in the section on the addition of the parasmaipada and ātmanepada endings. It shows that the authors share a certain pattern which might be the pattern of an earlier source which the authors of these texts where using. The paper discusses the inconsistencies found in the paraphrases and shows that they can be explained. In addition, an earlier version of the Kāśikāvṛtti may have had consistency on this matter and the variations found in the current Kāśikāvṛtti are a result of two opposite approaches and the version of the paraphrases which appears in the current Kāśikāvṛtti is a mixture of the paraphrases of these two approaches.

The paribhasas arthavadgrahane nanarthakasya, laksanapratipadoktayoh pratipadoktasyaiva grahanam and ekadesavikrtam ananyavat : Studies on some Metarules in Paninian system

The electronic versions of Patañjali's Mahābhāṣya and the Kāśikā. Compiled by George Cardona, Pet... more The electronic versions of Patañjali's Mahābhāṣya and the Kāśikā. Compiled by George Cardona, Peter Scharf and Elliot Stern. 1 See Cardona (1980b:168) for the opinions of Kielhorn, Belvekar, P. C. Chakravarti, Devasthali and the earlier opinion of Renou. 2 See Cardona (1980b:168) for the opinion of Buiskool and the later opinion of Renou. 3 This opinion was already presented by Wezler and Cardona. See Cardona (1980b:168). 4 In the discussion on this paribhāṣā, I include also the related paribhāṣās यदागमा तद्गु णीभू ता तद्गर्हणे न गृ न्ते ,

Download

Cardona, George / Aklujkar, Ashok / Ogawa, Hideyo (Hg.): Studies in Sanskrit Grammars. Proceedings of the Vyākaraṇa Section of the 14th World Sanskrit Conference. New Delhi: D.K. Printworld 2012. XII, 417 S. 8°. Hartbd. ISBN 978.81-246-0608-7

Orientalistische Literaturzeitung

Sūtra Paraphrases in the Cāndravyākaraṇavṛtti, the Kāśikāvṛtti, and the Mahāvṛtti: The Interpretation of Ablative Case in the Ātmanepada and Parasmaipada Sections

Proceedings of the 17th World Sanskrit Conference, Vancouver, Canada, July 9-13 2018, Section 3: Vyākaraṇa, edited by Malhar Kulkarni and Peter Scharf, 2019

Various scholars have noted the similarities among the Cāndravyākaraṇavṛtti, the Kāśikāvṛtti, and... more Various scholars have noted the similarities among the Cāndravyākaraṇavṛtti, the Kāśikāvṛtti, and the Mahāvṛtti. The examination of the paraphrases of the authors of these texts on the sūtras occurring in the section which concerns the addition of the parasmaipada and ātmanepada endings confirms that these paraphrases share a common pattern. This pattern might have belonged to an earlier source which the three authors were using. Although the Mahāvṛtti is consistent and keeps the same pattern in its paraphrases of the sūtras, the Cāndravyākaraṇavṛtti and Kāśikāvṛtti have inconsistencies and variations in respect to the way the sū-tras are paraphrased. There are clear reasons for the variations found in the Cān-dravyākaraṇavṛtti, and they are the result of the author's own intention. In contrast , the variations found in the Kāśikāvṛtti in paraphrases of the parallel sūtras are probably the result of later modifications to the original text, which may have had consistency in the way the sūtras were paraphrased. The variations found in the current text originate from two opposite approaches in the way additional specifications are mentioned in the commentary. The version of the paraphrases which appears in the current Kāśikāvṛtti is a mixture of the paraphrases of these two approaches.

Download

On the relation of Kāśikāvṛtti to the Mahābhāṣya

The Kāśikāvṛtti is the earliest available complete commentary on Pāṇini's sūtras. Some scholars h... more The Kāśikāvṛtti is the earliest available complete commentary on Pāṇini's sūtras. Some scholars have argued that the Kāśikāvṛtti contains notions which belong to an authentic Pāṇinian tradition , a tradition which is independent of and different from the tradition followed by and established by Patañjali. This paper is about the relation of the Kāśikāvṛtti to the Mahābhāṣya. It is based on a preliminary data from a comparison of the text of the Kāśikāvṛtti with the Mahābhāṣya using a text analysis program. The paper concerns some instances where the Kāśikāvṛtti presents a different opinion from the opinion presented in the Mahābhāṣya. I show that a deep study of such instances reveals the reasons why the authors of the Kāśikāvṛtti chose to differ from the views of Kātyāyana and Patañjali. Moreover, I highlight a feature seen throughout the Kāśikāvṛtti: the authors aim to justify the use of every term in the Aṣṭādhyāyī. They constantly follow this aim although in several cases, by giving a purpose to a term, they contradict what they say elsewhere.

Download

The use of the terms dā, mā and gā in the Aṣṭādhyāyī

Download

Pāṇini and Daily Life Activities

Throughout the Mahābhāṣya, Kātyāyana and Patañjali present several paribhāṣās ('interpretative pr... more Throughout the Mahābhāṣya, Kātyāyana and Patañjali present several paribhāṣās ('interpretative principles') which are not stated explicitly in Pāṇini's Aṣṭādhyāyī. The question whether Pāṇini has really used these additional paribhāṣās and whether they are necessary for the correct interpretation or application of Pāṇini's grammatical rules to arrive at the right form of a word is already asked in the Mahābhāṣya itself. Several times after invoking such an additional paribhāṣā, the authors discuss extensively about its validity and necessity. This is done by giving examples where the application of that paribhāṣā is necessary, and sometimes also counterexamples where the same paribhāṣā, if applied, will cause difficulties in arriving at the desired result. Usually, such a discussion ends with a decision whether the given paribhāṣā should be accepted or not. Accepting such a paribhāṣā raises another question: why did Pāṇini not state these paribhāṣās in his Aṣṭādhyāyī? We have an answer in the Mahābhāṣya itself. There, it is argued that some of these paribhāṣās are actually stated implicitly in the Aṣṭādhyāyī by the way of indicators (jñāpaka), while others belong to the common knowledge of our daily life, and thus are obvious and it was not necessary to state them. 1 This second type of paribhāṣā is called lokanyāyasiddhā or nyāyasiddhā. 2 1 Actually, according to Pāṇinīyas, stating this kind of paribhāṣās would be a defect-the defect of gaurava ('heaviness')-on behalf of the author. 2 lokanyāyasiddhā means 'established by norms of worldly life' and nyāyasiddhā 'established by reasoning' (see Kielhorn 1960: iv-v). Sometimes, the

Download

The paribhāṣās arthavadgrahaṇe nānarthakasya, lakṣaṇapratipadoktayoḥ pratipadoktasyaiva grahaṇam and ekadeśavikṛtam ananyavat - Studies on some Metarules in Pāṇinian system

In his grammatical treatise, the Astadhyayi, Panini includes sutras that state guiding rules for ... more In his grammatical treatise, the Astadhyayi, Panini includes sutras that state guiding rules for the right interpretation and application of his other directly grammatical sutras. These sutras are called paribhasas. In addition to these paribhasas, the various commentaries on Panini frequently invoke supplementary paribhasas which are not stated explicitly in his Astadhyayi. These paribhasas have been a subject of study since early times after Panini and have also occupied modern scholars on Panini s grammar. In regard to most of them, it remains unsettled even today whether they are used in the Astadhyayi, where they apply, what is their role, and whether they are necessary in arriving at the desired grammatical form. Some scholars go even further and argue that none of such paribhasas were intended by Panini. This study aims to settle this question by dealing with three such of these paribhasas individually considering all the information available in the commentaries in their regard and examining the cases in which, according to commentaries, the paribhasas apply. I select the paribhasas arthavadgrahane nanarthakasya, laksanapratipadoktayoh pratipadoktasyaiva grahanam and ekadesavikrtam ananyavat, which are all considered nyayasiddha or lokanyayasiddha; they express logical and obvious principles which are found in daily life. On this basis, Paniniyas explain why Panini did not mention them in the Astadhyayi. I discuss each paribhasa separately and all the issues it involves. I present and explain the cases where the specified paribhasas are invoked in the major commentaries, the Mahabhasya, the Kasika and the Siddhantakaumudi and the arguments found in the commentaries concerning these cases. If available, I supply other solutions to the difficulties for which these paribhasas are invoked. The study aims to make the issue of these paribhasas clearer, which will help us to reach a solution to the key question, that is, whether Panini has presupposed them in his Astadhyayi. My study shows that Panini has presupposed the paribhasa ekadesavikrtam ananyavat (or a similar principle). He also may have used the paribhasa arthavadgrahane nanarthakasya (or a similar principle) as this paribhasa does not lead to undesired results. As for the paribhasa laksanapratipadoktayoh pratipadoktasyaiva grahanam (or a similar principle), the original scope of this paribhasa was clearly extended by later Paniniyas. Moreover, their interpretation of this paribhasa conflicts with Panini s procedure. If Panini has used this paribhasa, he has used it in a very limited way.

Download

Sharon Ben-Dor

Uploads

Papers by Sharon Ben-Dor

Log In