[Note: In an earlier comment that is available at
http://www.bharatvani.org/reviews/philology.html,
Dr. Swaminathan had questioned Professor Witzel’s estimation of Panini’s comprehension
of Vedic grammar. Professor Witzel responded in a very abusive and arrogant
manner, just as he often addresses other Indian/Hindu scholars. This response
is available at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/INDOLOGY/message/2939
.
The first few lines of the
response by Professor Witzel read –
“Again, I don't object if people want to make
fools of themselves. V. Swaminathan, Retired Principal, Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha,
Tiruchur, now finds himself on the "patriotic" bharatvani web site in
the good company of Rajaram, Frawley et al. Thank god(s) I can save time to
answer this purely grammatical question (which could have been handled calmly!)…
Daniel Baum <dbaum@i...> has
felt it necessary to correct the grammatical deficiencies of Swaminathan in his
Indo-Iranian list (Mon, 13 Jan 2003)….”
Daniel Baum himself professes ignorance of Panini, in subsequent communication. Nevertheless, the reader can refer to his view at the URL of Professor Witzel’s post listed by me above. The reader can also refer to considerable discussion on this matter in the public archives of the Indo-Iranian Discussion list, available at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/indo_iranian ( - Bharatvani Team) ]
*
Panini’s Understanding of Vedic Grammar
A Rejoinder to Professor Michael Witzel and Daniel Baum
By Dr. V.
Swaminathan, Retd. Principal, Guruvayur Sanskrit Vidyapeeth
*
In
my article entitled “Panini’s Grammar, Sayanacharya’s Vedic Bhasyas and Michael
Witzel’s Philology” I had exposed the hollowness of Witzel’s allegation that
“Panini and Sayana do not know the injunctive e.g. han” and conclusively established that Panini and Sayana were
thoroughly acquainted with the injunctive. My thesis rests upon the secure
foundation of Panini’s sutras whose
dependability as valid evidence can never be questioned. The sutras speak for themselves; they do not
expect corroboration or support from any external source.
Witzel
has not spoken anything against my thesis. Nor has he made any attempt to
examine the evidences I have adduced. It is highly impossible for him to
venture upon such an examination as his writings reveal he had not studied
Panini’s work in the original Sanskrit.
How can he understand the subtle meanings and the modus operandi of the sutras of Panini? Therefore he has chosen to launch a personal
attack on me, employing offending and uncharitable expressions. He writes –
1. that I am a fool (indirectly of course),
2. that my article is the result of mere patriotism,
3. that he could calmly answer questions pertaining to grammar, implying that I am ignorant of solutions to difficult problems in grammar, and
4. that my knowledge of grammar is deficient.
The motive behind this scathing attack is to make the reader prejudiced against my article and tell him that the author can deliver no goods worth the name.
Let us now see whether these hostile remarks are substantiable. An intelligent reader with a balanced mind knows pretty well that leaving the subject aside and indulging in personal attacks, in a discussion or debate, is a positive sign of weakness – incompetence to proceed on or lack of wit. Will any wise person believe that an intelligent reader will tacitly subscribe to his biased views and switch over to his way of thinking? Certainly not.
It is absolutely absurd and ridiculous on the part of Witzel to say that he would answer this purely grammatical question calmly. If he is capable of answering this purely grammatical question he could have given his answer in a brief manner at least. Where is the necessity to depute Mr. Daniel Baum to deal with this grammatical question? What is it that prevented him from providing an answer? The intelligent reader certainly knows what it is.
Reeling under a tight
grip of prejudice and intolerance of colossal magnitude could he ever think of
calmness? With little or nil knowledge of Panini’s work he arrogates to answer
difficult questions in grammar. A penniless man rushes forward to extend
financial assistance to others.
By
casting the sarcastic remark “now finds himself on the patriotic website”,
Witzel intends to say that my article is not founded on facts; it is a product
of mere patriotism. His intolerant attitude has deprived him of his mental
faculties to distinguish a writing containing purely matter of fact statements
from a writing emerging from pure patriotism. I give, hereinafter, extracts
from the writings of some well-known scholars representing their estimate of
Panini.
T.
Goldstuker:
“Panini’s
grammar is the centre of a vast and important branch of the ancient literature.
No work has struck deeper roots than his in the soil of the scientific
development of India. It is the standard of accuracy in speech – the grammatical
basis of Vaidika commentaries. It is
appealed to by every scientific writer whenever he meets with a linguistic
difficulty - Panini is the only one among those authors of scientific works who
may be looked upon as real personages, who is a Rishi in the proper sense of the word, an author supposed to have
had the foundation of his work revealed to him by a divinity”.
Paul
Thieme:
“If
Panini had done nothing more than expound the rather simple principles of his
functional analysis and make them clear by a few well chosen examples, he would
have earned already a claim to be held one of the greatest linguist of all
times. Even then he could have furnished Bopp the key to his comparative
grammar. Even then we should have to acknowledge that our modern representations
of stem - and word - formation in the ‘Indo-European’ languages essentially are
nothing else but the consistent application of his great discovery. We merely
add the idea of historical development, which is a modern, which is totally
European, idea. In fact, Panini has done more. He applied the principles of his
functional analysis to the entire extensive field of the Sanskrit language,
following it up to its last consequence by leaving unexplained nothing he could
explain by it. Thus he presented us not only with a great idea, but with a
grand scientific work. It lies before us spread out like a wonderful carpet
woven out of hundreds of brilliant discoveries and inventions, all of which
derive from one fundamental truth, are subservient to one fundamental truth:
the truth that, the inflected word forms of the Sanskrit language can be
analyzed into their functional elements in a rational way. The passionate wish
to limit the unavoidable rest to a minimum – that is the spring setting in
motion the capacities of his prodigious sagacity and of his ingenious
intuition, the splendour of which millennia could not tarnish”. “Panini’s
grammar has been called the first complete and accurate description of a
language”.
“Panini’s teaching method approaches the
accuracy of a mathematical deduction. It has, apparently, no practical, but
only a theoretical, purpose. It seems to give knowledge for the sake of
knowledge only. It does not belong to the category of ‘arts’ but of science”.
“The ‘built-up’ ‘regularly formed’ character of
the Sanskrit words and utterances is complicated enough to the layman. It is a
truth that could be looked upon as paroksha
‘beyond sensual conception’. It is realizable to the deep insight only”.
“Studying Panini’s vyakaranam we are in the presence of a momentous hour in the
history of the development of human thinking. It is an hour of birth of science
out of magic”.
A.L.
Basham:
“Though
its fame is much restricted by its specialized nature, there is no doubt that
Panini’s grammar is one of the greatest intellectual achievements of any
ancient civilization, and the most detailed and scientific grammar composed
before the 19th century in any part of the world”.
George
Cardona, a living Panini expert:
“Panini’s
is the earliest complete treatise of its kind to have been preserved. Moreover
this work has exalted status”.
All
these four scholars are non-Indians. Will Witzel boldly declare that they have
been inspired by patriotic feelings when they penned the extracts quoted above?
Even a cursory reader will not fail to notice that every item in my article is
fully supported by unassailable evidence. It is purely objective in nature.
Witzel’s presumption that my article is an outcome of patriotism is sheer
nonsense.
In contrast, I present here a few samples of
patriotic writings.
Shakespeare,
in Richard II:
This royal throne of kings, this sceptered isle,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demiparadise
This fortress built by nature for herself
This precious stone set in the silver sea
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this
England,
This nurse, this teeming womb of royal kings,
Feared by their breed, and famous by their
birth;
Renowned for their deeds afar from home
This land of such dear souls, this dear dear
land
Dear for her reputation through the world
England bound in with the triumphant sea
Whose rocky shore beats back the envious siege.
Sir Walter
Scott, in Lay of the last Minstrel
Breathes there the man whose soul so dead
Who never to himself hath said
This is my own my native land.
Witzel
writes, “Daniel Baum has felt it necessary to correct the grammatical
deficiency of Swaminathan” (I quote) and reproduces Daniel Baum’s comments that
appeared in his Indo-Iranian list. We shall now see whether this statement
contains any truth and whether Mr. Baum can propose any correction worth the
name.
It
requires no special skill to know that it is Witzel who has commissioned Baum
to go through my article and offer adverse comments. The comments offered by
Baum might have surely disappointed Witzel owing to the absence of personal
attack and use of foul and pungent language in them.
The
purpose of my penning the article is to highlight the fact that Panini and
Sayana were thoroughly acquainted with the injunctive in both of its aspects,
via, morphological and functional and to prevent the misapprehension that
Witzel’s Open Page write up may create in the mind of the readers. In evidence
of what I had said I had solely relied upon Panini’s sutras, Patanjali’s comments thereon, RV verses and Sayana’s
comments thereon. I had not quoted from the works of any European writer in
support of my statements since Panini and Sayana stand on their own legs and do
not stand in need of support from any European Orientalist who will be
appearing on the arena several centuries after their times. Any citation I had
made or will make in the course of this article from their works is only to
show their concurrence in respect of the issue on hand and not to derive and
add any weight to Panini’s and Sayana’s writings. This fact I had clearly
indicated in the first paragraph of my article, by the words “a close study of
Sayana and Panini”. Any attempt therefore to assess my article with an
invocation to the writings of the European Orientalists is unwarranted. I have
freely availed the grammatical terms used in the works, on Sanskrit grammar, in
English since the article is mainly meant for the English knowing readers.
With
this preamble I now proceed on a critical examination of Baum’s comments.
I
Mr.
Daniel Baum accepts unequivocally that Panini and Sayana were acquainted with
the injunctive forms when he says “it is pretty obvious they were acquainted
with the forms themselves”. But he also says that “he cannot comment on whether
or not Panini or Sayana were acquainted with the functions of the injunctive”.
He has not disclosed the evidence he has relied upon to arrive at the
conclusion that Panini and Sayana were acquainted with the injunctive form.
Evidently he has to go to the works of Panini or Sayana in the original to ascertain whether they have known the injunctive. Secondhand information gathered from the studies carried on in the modern European languages, distanced by millennia, will never serve as a secure foundation to base any conclusion. If his assertion that Panini and Sayana were acquainted with the injunctive form is a result of a first hand knowledge of the Ashtadhyayi, then he must be able to express decisively about Panini’s acquaintance with the functions of the injunctive. There would have been no occasion for the non-committal statement ‘I cannot comment on whether or not Panini or Sayana were acquainted with the function of the injunctive’, to emerge. The study of the Ashtadhyayi would have unfailingly enabled him to come forward with a decisive statement. If Panini’s work in the original had not been consulted by him in this regard, then he is not competent to offer any comment on my article. I reiterate that my account of the injunctive in both of its aspects was entirely based on the grammatical rules of Panini. In fact, my account is only an English rendering of the rules. In my article I had referred to the rules concerned by the numbers of the chapters, sections and the rules.
Panini has elaborately dealt with the functions of all the verbs – tenses and moods, ten in total according to his scheme – by a large number of sutras nestling in the second, third and fourth sections of the third chapter of his work. In the light of the above-mentioned facts the comment “the description of the functions of the injunctive as found in the article are quite inaccurate” cannot sustain. I also quoted from A. A. Macdonell’s Vedic grammar, “The general meaning of the injunctive expresses a desire combining the senses of the subjunctive, the optative and the imperative”.
II
Never
had I said that the augment is optional in general. Nor had I referred to any rule
of Panini that enjoins the augment optionally. Nor had I written that the
injunctive form takes the augment optionally. All the five examples I had given
for the injunctive are augmentless forms; I had not included even one augmented
form in the list. Therefore the statements “the augment is probably never
optional”, “Thus the augmentless forms should always be termed injunctives”
meant as a corrective to my description of the injunctive form cannot claim
legitimate accommodation in the midst of the comments and as such unwarranted.
It presupposes what I had never said and is therefore baseless. Perhaps Mr.
Baum thinks that the word ‘bahulam’
in P VI.4.75 (I had cited) means option. In Panini’s sutras, ‘bahulam’ is
employed to convey more than one sense and option is one among them. Bahulam meaning option holds good only
in the case of the augmentless indicative.
Further
the statement that “the augment is simply to be dropped when the poet felt like
it” involves self-contradiction. It implies that the poet does not drop it when
he does not feel like it. The clause ‘when the poet felt like it’ is meant to
necessarily exclude the opposite (when he did not feel like it) as otherwise it
becomes superfluous and has no place in the sentence. If the augmentless forms
are always injunctive how could the poet use an augmented form? When he does not drop it the augment becomes
optional, an instance of blatant contradiction.
An
important note on augment (agama) dropping (lopa) and option (vibhasha)
Augment,
dropping, option and the like are certain devices, adopted by the ancient
Sanskrit grammarians, to enable the students to learn the formation of words
easily (laghuna upayena) with minimum effort (alpena
yatnena) and in less time. Patanjali observes, “Very extensive indeed is
the domain of words”, “There is no easier method other than Vyakarana in learning words”, “Will
learn vast expanse of words with minimum effort”. These devices have no
function in the actual language. Finished words are already available in the
language. The speaker chooses the words capable of conveying his ideas. Both
the scholar and the layman do not fashion words either by dropping some element
from (bhavati, bhavat), or by adding
some element to (dattva, dattvaya),
the existing word. Nor do they optionally effect an addition or dropping (ahni, ahani, janah, janasah).
An ordinary individual (with moderate learning
or no learning) even without a knowledge of the grammatical devices is able to
clothe his ideas in a correct and easily understandable language. Patanjali
expresses this in a humorous language. “When one wants to do some work with a
jar he goes to the potter and requests him to make a jar for his use. Whereas a
person who wants to express by means of words does not go to the residence of a
grammarian and request him to manufacture words for his use. Even without going
to the grammarian he simply gathers the ideas in his mind and makes them known
by the utterance of proper words”.
Reverting to the foregoing discussion, the poet
does not fashion the injunctive from an augmented past tense form by dropping
the augment. Both the augmented and augmentless forms are already there in the
language he speaks. He picks up the augmented or augmentless forms according to
his requirements. In a prose composition the author can freely exercise his
option. But in a metrical composition like the RV Samhita, his freedom for option becomes restricted and he has to
abide by the exigencies of the metre. Exercise of option could take place only
in respect of the past indicative and not the injunctive.