World Sanskrit Conference (WSC) (17th : 2018)

Bitextual Meaning in Two Pre-navya Vyākaraṇas : The Case of Rāmacandrācārya and Jīva Gosvāmin Blinderman, Radha 2019

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata


70440-Blinderman_Radha_Bitextual_meaning_2019.pdf [ 728.75kB ]
JSON: 70440-1.0379845.json
JSON-LD: 70440-1.0379845-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 70440-1.0379845-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 70440-1.0379845-rdf.json
Turtle: 70440-1.0379845-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 70440-1.0379845-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 70440-1.0379845-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

 Bitextual Meaning in Two Pre-Navya Vyākaraṇas: The Case of Rāmacandrācārya and Jīva Gosvāmin   Radha Blinderman Proceedings of the 17th World Sanskrit Conference, Vancouver, Canada, July 9-13, 2018, Section 3: Vyākaraṇa.  Section Convenors: Malhar Kulkarni and Peter Scharf
General Editor: Adheesh Sathaye Published by the Department of Asian Studies, University of British Columbia, on behalf of the International Association for Sanskrit Studies. DOI: 10.14288/1.0379845.
URI: Suggested Citation Format: MLA:
Blinderman, Radha. “Bitextual Meaning in Two Pre-Navya Vyākaraṇas: The Case of Rāmacandrācārya and Jīva Gosvāmin.” Proceedings of the 17th World Sanskrit Conference, Vancouver, Canada, July 9-13, 2018, Section 3: Vyākaraṇa. Edited by Malhar Kulkarni and Peter Scharf, 2019. DOI: 10.14288/1.0379845. APA:
Blinderman, R. (2019). Bitextual meaning in two pre-Navya vyākaraṇas: The case of Rāmacandrācārya and Jīva Gosvāmin. In M. Kulkarni and P. Scharf (eds.) Proceedings of the 17th World Sanskrit Conference, Vancouver, Canada, July 9-13, 2018, Section 3: Vyākaraṇa. DOI: 10.14288/1.0379845. Chicago:
Blinderman, Radha. 2019. “Bitextual Meaning in Two Pre-Navya Vyākaraṇas: The Case 
of Rāmacandrācārya and Jīva Gosvāmin.” In Proceedings of the 17th World Sanskrit 
Conference, Vancouver, Canada, July 9-13, 2018, Section 3: Vyākaraṇa, edited 
by Malhar Kulkarni and Peter Scharf. DOI: 10.14288/1.0379845. Proceedings of the 17th World Sanskrit Conference, July 9-13, 2018 University of British Columbia, Vancouver, CanadaTHE   17TH    WORLD   SANSKRIT  CONFERENCEVANCOUVER, CANADA • JULY 9-13, 2018Copyright © 2019 by the author. Content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).वैधुसव ्मकबुंटुकअ ारा यसं तृा यनसमवायःINTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SANSKRIT STUDIES THE 17TH WORLD SANSKRIT CONFERENCE, VANCOUVER, CANADA, JULY 9-13, 2018 Bitextual Meaning in Two Pre-Navya Vyākaraṇas: The Case of Rāmacandrācārya and Jīva Gosvāmin Radha Blinderman Department of South Asian Studies, Harvard University,  Cambridge, MA, USA Abstract Rāmacandrācārya’s Prakriyākaumudī (15th century) and Jīva Gosvāmin’s Hari-nāmāmṛtavyākaraṇa (15th-16th centuries) are the first two grammars in the Brah-minical context to include verses with bitextual meaning (śleṣa). In those verses, the authors simultaneously talk about grammar and the divine, often expressing their Vedāntic views. They make extensive use of religious examples and invoca-tion (maṅgala) verses like the 13th century Mugdhabodha and many 17th-18th centu-ry Navya (“new school”) grammar texts. What is new is their use of śleṣa.  Śleṣa in these texts correlates with the authors’ project of religious assimilation in Sanskrit grammar. It provides a useful commentary on Rāmacandra’s and Jīva’s attitudes towards grammatical correctness and authority and can indicate their religious and grammatical positions. Both Rāmacandra and Jīva, who was one of the first to critique Rāmacandra’s grammar, innovated with śleṣa to fur-ther the process of theologization of grammar, which commenced with Vopade-va’s Mugdhabodha. Their grammatical śleṣa aims to produce not only more than one meaning, but also more puṇya (religious merit) and bears a striking corre-spondence with these authors’ desire to grammatically sanction a wider variety of Sanskrit words than does the later Navya school. The texts under discussion will be Rāmacandra’s Prakriyākaumudī with Viṭṭhala’s and Śeṣaśrīkṛṣṇa’s com-mentaries and the Harināmāmṛtavyākaraṇa with its commentaries. In addition to exploring the role of śleṣa in the history of grammar, this paper responds to Bel-valkar’s critique of “sectarian” grammars and discusses the implications of the absence of śleṣa in Navya grammars. Keywords: vyākaraṇa, śleṣa, prāmāṇya (grammatical authority), Navya school, bhakti. Proceedings of the 17th World Sanskrit Conference, Vancouver, Canada, July 9-13 2018, Section 3: Vyākaraṇa, edited by Malhar Kulkarni and Peter Scharf, 2019. DOI: 10.14288/1.0379845. BLINDERMAN 2Introduction: Śleṣa in Grammar When speaking of paronomasia in Sanskrit literature, the term we use most of-ten is śleṣa, “embrace of two meanings.” This literary trope first got its designa-tion in the field of poetics in the sixth century CE.  However, unlike much other 1Sanskrit terminology that tends to stay in its own discipline, śleṣa was destined for application beyond strictly literary texts.  This paper focuses on the general phenomenon of paronomasia, or in-tended double meaning, in the context of Vyākaraṇa, as well as more specifically on the use of the literary trope of śleṣa in grammatical texts. Arguably, the for-mer presents itself in various forms since the dawn of the discipline of Vyākaraṇa, but not the latter. For example, when Patañjali says that the gram-matical term vṛddhi in vṛddhi ādaic (Pā. 1.1.1) is maṅgalārtha (has auspiciousness as its purpose), he in fact takes into consideration the other, non-grammatical register of the word vṛddhi (prosperity, success, auspiciousness). However, nei-ther he nor his commentators use the term śleṣa or in fact any other literary term to describe this situation. Of course, Patañjali lived much before the term śleṣa was coined, but even later grammarians avoid the term when they want to say that Pāṇini intended double meaning, and the trope itself hardly ever figures in grammatical literature. After all, this is an alaṅkāra which belongs in kāvya, not in Vyākaraṇa, right?  This attitude was about to change in the 15th century. The two grammars that did incorporate śleṣa for the first time in the Brahminical context are the Prakriyākaumudī of Rāmacandrācārya in the 15th century and the Harināmāmṛta-vyākaraṇa of Jīva Gosvāmin in the 16th. Why did they do that? The most defend-able reason among many is their desire to further the project of religious assimi-lation in grammar started by the 13th century grammar of Vopadeva, the Mugdhabodha. While the Mugdhabodha introduces an abundance of religious ex-amples as well as iṣṭadeva-oriented maṅgala verses, it does not contain a single śleṣa verse. It appears reasonable that in an age when śleṣa becomes one of the most popular alaṅkāras in kāvya, Rāmacandrācārya decides to write a maṅgala verse with bitextual meaning that talks about grammatical and Vedāntic Prakṛti simultaneously. While the Prakriyākaumudī uses śleṣa only in two verses, Jīva’s Ha-rināmāmṛtavyākaraṇa takes a step further: it contains śleṣa in more than ten vers-es, as well as in many of its sūtras, thanks to Jīva’s śleṣa-yielding terminology.   See Bronner 2010: 20-23.1 Bitextual Meaning in Two Pre-Navya Vyākaraṇas 3In spite of many similarities, these authors are categorically different. Al-though both are invested in bringing a Vaiṣṇava Vedānta (albeit two different brands of Vaiṣṇava Vedānta) into their grammars through śleṣa, one is a Pāṇinīya, while the other is not. To many modern scholars this means that Jīva’s is a sectarian grammar, while Rāmacandra’s is not. The categorization of Vyākaraṇa as cosmopolitan or sectarian is at least as early as S.K. Belvarkar’s Systems of Sanskrit Grammar, and I want to bring your attention to the difficulties of this approach as well as Belvalkar’s critique of sectarian grammars and of the Harināmāmṛtavyākaraṇa in particular. He writes: As is to be expected, beyond the introduction of this sectarian element [i.e. religiously inflected technical terms] no other improvement on the existing texts of grammar is here to be met with. The whole subject is presented to us in a dull uninteresting manner … We may suppose that the beginning having been once made by Bopadeva who was a hariharā-dvaitavādī,  little remained but to stretch the thing still further … It is 2clear that works which carry things to such an extreme can claim the only merit of doggedly carrying an idea through. It may therefore be ex-cused if no further attempt is made to sketch out the history of such schools, for the simple reason that they have no history. (Belvalkar 1976: 95) I believe that the examples that we are about to analyse here will address many aspects of this critique, but we can already agree that the Harināmāmṛta’s project is not limited to the sectarian element alone: it is also dedicated to natu-ralizing śleṣa in the grammatical context to an unprecedented degree. Also, the problematic of categorizing the Harināmāmṛta, but not the Prakriyākaumudī, as a “sectarian” grammar should become more apparent as we now turn our atten-tion to religious elements in the Prakriyākaumudī.  I.e., one who believes in the non-duality of Śiva and Viṣṇu.2 BLINDERMAN 41. Prakriyākaumudī The first śleṣa verse of the Prakriyākaumudī is a maṅgala verse from its second half, the Uttarārdha.  Both major commentaries, Prasāda and Prakāśa, agree that 3this verse contains śleṣa, but this is also visible to the naked eye because of po-tent words like prakṛti, dhātu, śabda, rūpa, para, and pratyaya. It is important to note that in the 17th century Nārāyāṇa Bhaṭṭa writes a maṅgala verse in his Prakriyāsarvasva with a similar play on words, but Bhaṭṭoji Diksita and other au-thors of kaumudī works in the Navya school resist the temptation of śleṣa in their grammars. We will later discuss possible implications of this, such as attitude towards grammatical optionality and the authority structure.   After expounding the Vyākaraṇa register of the verse, Viṭṭhala, Rāmacandra’s grandson and author of the Prasāda commentary, takes great pains to interpret the Vedānta register in accordance with what he understands to be Rāmacandra’s conception of Vedānta. He warns the reader against a Sāṅkhya reading in spite of its being yielded by śleṣa as facilely as the Vedānta meaning. His primary reason is that “the Ācārya only intended the meaning be-longing to the school of Vedānta.”  He then quotes two verses from Rāmacan4 -dra’s theological work, Vaiṣṇavasiddhāntadīpikā, to prove his allegiance with a tradition of Vedānta. The first verse mentions Rāmacandra’s family deity, Viṭṭha-la, Brahminical initiation in accordance with the tradition of Hariharāgama, and finally the non-duality of Brahman.  The second verse shares more information 5about Rāmacandra’s religious tradition (sampradāya), mentioning the worship of  prakṛtiḥ sā jayaty ādyā yayā dhātvādirūpayā | vyajyante śabdarūpāṇi parapratyayasannidheḥ || 1 || 3(Grammatical register): Glorious is the grammatical base (prakṛti), which always comes first (in respect to the suffix). Possessing many forms such as the verbal root (prātipadi-ka, ṅyanta, ābanta etc.) it manifests word forms with the help of proximity of the poste-rior ending. (Vedāntic register): Glorious is the primeval Prakṛti! Having manifested itself as material elements (dhatu) etc., it manifests words and forms because it has proximity to Him who possesses absolute knowledge. (My own translation based on the Prasāda com-mentary, PK part 2, 1). vedāntaśāstrārthasyaivācāryāṇām abhīpsitatvāt | (Prasādaṭīkā, PK part 1, 2-3).4 kule yasmin daivaṃ sakalaphaladaṃ viṭṭhalavibhuḥ  5 smṛtā yasmin dīkṣā hariharamanuṣyāgamayutā | ratir brahmādvaite tad amalam anantāgamapathaṃ  budhāḥ saṃsevantāṃ kathitam asakṛd rāmagurubhiḥ || (Prasādaṭīkā, PK part 1, 3). Bitextual Meaning in Two Pre-Navya Vyākaraṇas 5Viṣṇu “which is in accordance with the Āgamas that do not contradict the Veda.”  6At the end of his Prasāda commentary, Viṭṭhala provides even further detail about Rāmacandra’s lineage, describing it as following Vedic ritual, pleasing the deity Viṭṭhala with proper Vaiṣṇava conduct, and demonstrating great talent for expounding the Pāñcarātrāgama, which, according to Viṭṭhala, is the “essence of all sacred texts beginning with the Ṛgveda.”  So, Viṭṭhala safely concludes that the 7Prakṛti that Rāmacandra invokes in this śleṣa verse of the Prakriyākaumudī is the śakti of Parameśvara, the original (ādyā) cause of the five elements (dhātus), or, alternatively, it is īśvaramāyā (illusory potency of god) of the Vedāntins. Although Śeṣaśrīkṛṣṇa is skeptical about Viṭṭhala’s rejection of the Sāṅkhya-pakṣa, he also interprets Prakṛti as īśvarādhiṣṭhitavidyāśakti (knowledge potency of god) of the Vedantins.  Thus, both commentators agree that śleṣa here has a theological 8purpose: it introduces the author’s religious views into grammatical content to a greater degree than the udāharaṇas and pratyudāharaṇas, grammatical examples and counterexamples, do alone. It also suggests a comparison between the Prakṛtis of the two registers.   Other reasons to use śleṣa, like pedagogical and aesthetic, become apparent from verse 2.2. of Prakriyākaumudī.  The prominent alaṅkāras here are 9rūpaka and samāsokti, which depend on śleṣa readings of words like kaumudī, candra, and prakāśitā. Again, as with the two Prakṛtis, these alaṅkāras suggest a comparison: just as the light (kaumudī) manifested (prakāśitā) by the moon (can- sadā yatra vedāviruddhāgamokta- 6 prakāreṇa viṣṇoḥ saparyāvidhānam | matir yatra vedāntasiddhāntavarye   budhaḥ sampradāyaṃ kathaṃ nāśrayet tam || (Ibid). yasmin vaidikadharmajātam aniśaṃ jāgarti yadvaiṣṇavā- 7 cārānuṣṭhitituṣṭaviṭṭhalaprabhuḥ sarvārthadaḥ sarvadā | ṛgvedādisamastaśāstranicayaśrīpāñcarātrāgama-  vyākhyānakṣamapūruṣo vijayate vaṃśo'ndhradeśodbhavaḥ || 3 || (Prasādaṭīkā, PK part 2, 796). Prakāśaṭīkā, PK part 1, 2.8 prakriyākaumudī seyaṃ rāmacandraprakāśitā | 
9asadvacastamo vadhyāt saccakorapriyā ciram || 2 || (PK part 2, 794).  “May this Prakriyākaumudī (also moonlight of prakriyā) which was written by Rāmacandra (also shed by the Rāma-moon) annihilate the darkness of incorrect speech, and may it be ever dear to noble, cakora-like scholars.” BLINDERMAN 6dra) dispels darkness, may the light of Prakriyākaumudī, composed by Rāmacan-dra, dispel the darkness of incorrect words.  10 In Viṭṭhala’s view, multiplicity of meaning is what makes Rāmacandra’s style highly praiseworthy. He says: “May my work delight the experts (mar-mavedin) in the Bhāṣya, Vṛtti, Vākyapadīya, and their commentaries, while mak-ing their minds overcome by pleasure/wonder/interest/entertainment (kau-tukākrāntamanasaḥ). The words of Rāmacandrācarya, though clear, have multiple meanings (spaṣṭārthatve 'pi citratā).  Just like an object seen through a crystal, the 11meaning of the Prakriyākaumudī cannot be grasped by those who are not experts (amarmajña).”   12I believe that citratā or vicitratā here refers not only to śleṣa in the maṅgala verses that we saw. To a great degree it must refer to Prakriyākaumudī’s elements that can be pleasing to scholars, such as entertaining, kautuka-inducing exam-ples and unique, even surprising grammatical interpretations. However, if there is a way to make grammar entertaining to “children” (or beginners, bāla) as much as to scholars, then it is through combining grammatical content with the non-grammatical with the help of śleṣa and udāharaṇa. This is exactly what Rā-macandra does: he innovates not only with the prakriyā rearrangement of Pāṇi-ni’s grammar for increased ease, but he also imports “entertaining” and religious elements of other text genres into his grammar. He had some famous predeces-sors who combined to various degrees grammar, poetry and religious didactic in a single work, the most notable being Bhaṭṭi (circa. 7th century, CE). However, a crucial difference between Bhaṭṭi’s retelling of the Rāmāyaṇa and Rāmacandra’s grammar is that the former is only a supplement to a standard grammar, while Rāmacandra’s Prakriyākaumudī is a free-standing grammar text book. Another important predecessor whose example Rāmacandra emulates is Vopadeva (13th century, CE), who was first to introduce “religious” udāharaṇas in his grammar.  yathā candraprakāśitā kaumudī cakorapriyā satī tamo nāśayati, tatheyam api satpriyā saty 10apaśabdān nāśayatv iti bhāvaḥ | (Prasādaṭīkā, PK part 2, 795). Mss. Dc2, Bc1, Dc3 read: spaṣṭārthatve vicitratā.11 bhāṣyavṛttiharigranthatadvyākhyāmarmavedinaḥ | 
12kautukākrāntamanasaḥ pramodayatu matkṛtiḥ || 1 || 
śrīrāmacandrācāryokteḥ spaṣṭārthatve'pi citratā | 
nāmarmajñaiḥ prayojyo'rthaḥ sphaṭikākārago yathā || 2 || 
pade vākye pramāṇe ca tattvajñaṃ jñātṛsammatam | 
rāmacandrācāryasūrer anyaṃ nopalabhāmahe || 3 || (Prasāda, Pūrvārdhopasaṃhāra, PK part 1, 965). Bitextual Meaning in Two Pre-Navya Vyākaraṇas 7However, Rāmacandra substantially proliferates the udāharaṇas in his grammar and also employs śleṣa to create an intersection of grammar, theology, and poet-ic elements. One such udāharaṇa of the Prakriyākaumudī illustrates the use of the causative in the passive construction (karmaṇi ṇijanta): “A gopī was brought to a secluded place by Ananta; she was kept awake by Ananta; she was intoxicated by Ananta; she was begged for union by Ananta; she was caused to experience the festival of love (hāva) by Ananta. Expression of emotion was caused in her by Ananta.”  13Evidently, the choice of example here aims beyond simply illustrating the grammatical rule that ṇyādi (ditransitive) verbs, ṇijanta intransitive verbs and motion verbs apply the karmapratyaya (object-ending) to the principal object (mukhya/pradhāna karman); verbs in the duhyādi list apply the karmapratyaya to the secondary objects (gauṇa/apradhāna karman), and other verbs can optionally apply the karmapratyaya either in the principal object or the secondary object.  14In this verse, “a gopī was brought to a secluded place by Ananta” illustrates the use of ditransitive verbs, where the gopī is the principal object (mukhyakarman); “she was kept awake by Ananta” illustrates ṇijanta intransitive verbs; “she was intoxicated by Ananta” illustrates ṇijanta motion verbs; “she was begged for union by Ananta” illustrates the duhyādis, where the gopī again takes on the first case ending, but now she is the secondary object, since it is sambhoga (union) and not she that is the principal object of Ananta’s begging, i.e. it is sambhoga here that is īpsitatama (the most desired object).  Finally, “she was caused to experi15 -ence the festival of love (hāva) by Ananta” and “expression of emotion was caused  ninye vijanam ajāgari rajanim agami madam ayāci sambhogam |
13 gopī hāvam akāryata bhāvaś cainām anantena || 2 || (PK part 2, 443). ṇyādayo ṇyantaniṣkarmagatyarthā mukhyakarmaṇi |
14pratyayaṃ yānti duhyādir gauṇe 'nye tu yathāruci || (PK part 2, 442).
… ṇyādiṇyantaniṣkarmagatyarthaduhādibhyo 'nye gatibuddhītyādisūtreṣu paṭhitā yathāruci rucim anatikramya yathecchaṃ mukhye gauṇe vā karmaṇi karmapratyayaṃ yānti | (Prasāda, ibid). For further discussion of principal and secondary objects and īpsitatama see Desh15 -pande 1991: 22: “In the Sanskrit grammatical tradition, the following distinction is made: the īpsitatama ‘most desired’ object is the principal object (pradhānakarman), and the akathita-karman ‘the object with an unspecified kāraka role’ is the secondary object (apradhānakarman). Especially in the context of passivizing these constructions, the tradition offers us a list of verbs with two objects.” BLINDERMAN 8in her by Ananta” illustrate the optional application of karmapratyayas in the secondary object (gopī) and the primary object (bhāva). Despite the technical nature of the present discussion, Rāmacandra’s verse maintains a playful tone, unlike the many standard examples such as gargāḥ śataṃ daṇḍyantām (“Let the Gargas be fined one hundred.”). Through this udāharaṇa verse, Rāmacandra accomplishes the goal of explaining grammar while entertaining the listener/reader and reminding him of the divine, or more exactly, of Rāmacandra’s own deity of choice. Rāmacandra introduced the śleṣa alaṅkāra strictly within the domain of maṅgalaślokas in the Prakriyākaumudī, but the citratā/vicitratā of grammatical content, too, should not be ignored: this is where the connection between “dou-ble meaning” and grammatical optionality and grammatical variety/diversity can be traced. Even before Rāmacandra’s time, the interpretative genius of the com-mentators of the Aṣṭādhyāyī had come up with several terms to describe situa-tions where Pāṇini intended more than what is visible to the naked eye of non-experts (amarmajña). The praśleṣa (coalescence) of g in kṅiti ca (Pā. 1.1.5) is one such example; so is the praśleṣa of u, ū, and u3 in ūkālo'jjhrasvadīrghaplutaḥ (Pā. 1.2.27). Citratā/vicitratā can also refer to the vaicitrya (wondrous variation) as-cribed to the Aṣṭādhyāyī by the Kāśikā, Nyāsa, and Padamañjarī. The Mahābhāṣya describes the taddhita rules as full of wondrous variety (vicitrās taddhita-vṛttayaḥ),  and the Kāśikā also repeatedly characterizes Pāṇini’s sūtras as such 16(vicitrā hi sūtrasya kṛtiḥ pāṇineḥ),  While K.V. Abhyankar defines vaicitryārtha as 17something that is done in grammar “simply for the sake of variety without any specific purpose in view” (Abhyankar 1961: 342), in the Kāśikā, Nyāsa, and Padamañjarī it also becomes a rationalization for cases when Pāṇini apparently could have taken an easier route but did not, and somewhere it is also equated with optionality. The Kāśikā on sūtra 4.1.160 (prācām avṛddhāt phin bahulam) asks, “since the words prācām, bahulam, etc. all indicate optionality, it would suffice to use just one. The word prācām here expresses respect; the word bahulam express-es vaicitrya, multiplicity of options; therefore the taddhita suffix phin is not used  Mbh. 1.3.56, 2.4.32, K. 7.2.78, 1. 2.35, 2.2.14, 4.1.166, 3. 3.96, 4. 1.148, 153, 160. 17 Bitextual Meaning in Two Pre-Navya Vyākaraṇas 9in dākṣi and plākṣi.”  Also, the Kāśikā on karmavyatihāre ṇac striyām (Pā. 3.3.43) 18asks why the kṛt suffix ṇac is not used in the words vyatīkṣā and vyatīhā but is used in vyātyukṣī, referring to this deviation as vaicitrya: why does this variation take place (tad etad vaicitryaṃ kathaṃ labhyate)? The answer is that this is made possible by kṛtyalyuṭo bahulam (Pā. 3.3.113), and later the Padamañjarī and Viṭṭha-la’s Prasāda also refer to this situation as vaicitrya caused by bahulagrahaṇa (the use of the word bahula, meaning “variously [applied]”).  Also, in the discussion 19of vṛddhāṭ ṭhak sauvīreṣu bahulam (Pā. 4.1.148), Nyāsa equates vaicitrya with varie-gatedness of conditions/qualifiers (upādhīnāṃ viśeṣaṇānāṃ vaicitryaṃ nānāprakāratā) and explicitly states that the purpose of the word bahulam in the sūtra is to enable this variegatedness, which is not possible simply by the use of the word vā (or), which refers only to optionality.  In all the above examples, 20vaicitrya is expressly seen as the purpose of bahulagrahaṇa.  The grammatical citratā/vicitratā of the Prakriyākaumudī and its commen-taries may well correspond to their tendency for this kind of optionality and grammatical variety within the Pāṇinian school as well as optionally accepting forms of many other grammatical authorities, for which they were later harshly criticized in the Navya school. In fact, the terms vaicitrya and vaicitryārtha be-come nearly absent in the Siddhāntakaumudī and its commentaries, being often replaced with words like bhāṣyavirodhād upekṣyam (“this is to be rejected because of contradiction with the Bhāṣya”). For Viṭṭhala, however, grammatical authority (prāmāṇya) is not a closed system: in the commentary on ī ca gaṇaḥ (Pā. 7.4.97), he defends the form naujaḍhat by saying: this option has been elevated to an au-thoritative status by the scholar Vopadeva in a long discussion in his Kāvyakāma- udīcāṃ prācāmanyatarasyāṃ bahulam iti sarva ete vikalpārthāsteṣāmekenaiva siddhyati | tatra 18ācāryagrahaṇaṃ pūjārtham, bahulagrahaṇaṃ vaicitryārtham | kvacin na bhavati, dākṣiḥ plākṣiḥ |  It is important to note here that the interpretation of the commentators flatten-ing these words into the meaning “optional” is in contrast to their interpretation by modern scholars according to whom udīcāṃ and prācām mean “of the northerners” and “of the easterners” and indicate dialects of the northern and eastern regions.  kṛtyalyuṭo bahulam iti | evaṃvidhaṃ vaicitryaṃ kartuṃ bahulagrahaṇam eva bhavatīti bhā19 -vaḥ || (Padamañjarī).
kṛtyalyuṭo bahulam iti bahulagrahaṇādidaṃ vaicitryam | (Prasāda). vāgrahaṇād vikalpamātraṃ labhyate, na tūpadhāvaicitryam | bahulagrahaṇe tu tadapi | ta-20smād upādhīnāṃ viśeṣaṇānāṃ vaicitryaṃ nānāprakāratā yathā syād ity evam arthaṃ bahula-grahaṇam | BLINDERMAN 10dhenu.  New grammarians would indeed not grant someone like Vopadeva this 21privilege of elevating a word to an authoritative status, and this has been one of the main aspects of their critique of the Prakriyākaumudī and its commentaries, especially Prasāda. Both the grammatical and poetic citratā/vicitratā of the Prakriyākaumudī had little appeal to the sensibilities of this new wave in the grammatical discipline, which was becoming increasingly orthodox and resis-tant to grammatical flexibility.  222. Harināmāmṛtavyākaraṇa  Moving on to the Harināmāmṛtavyākaraṇa, we cannot but note its strong predilection for optionality, grammatical variety and a rather open authority system. Here “correct” forms are not only those condoned by the three munis. For example, Jīva appeals to Cāndra alongside the Bhāṣya for authority and ac-cepts vikalpa of the forms priyacatasṛ and priyacatur in the neuter, condoned by Vistara.  However, I would argue, contrary to Belvalkar’s and some other schol23 -ars’ assessment, that his preoccupation with śleṣa and favor for vikalpa do not equate to lack of care for grammatical content. In fact, the apāṇinīya Jīva often criticizes the pāṇinīya Prakriyākaumudī for contradictions with the Kāśīkā and the Bhāṣya. For example, he writes: “The endorsement of forms he sa and he asau by Prakriyā is wrong, since it contradicts the examples in the Bhāṣya.”  He defines 24an error as that which is not accepted by anyone, while that which is not accept-ed by many is the opinion of “some.”  This approach definitely allows more op25 -tional forms than does the closed authority structure of the later Navya school, but it does not mean that anything is optionally correct to Jīva, or that his only objective is the “sectarian element” in his grammar, or that he was not invested in “improving on the existing grammatical texts,” as opined by Belvalkar.   ayaṃ ca pakṣo vopadevapaṇḍitaiḥ kāvyakāmadhenau mahatā prabandhena pramāṇapa21 -davīmārohitaḥ | (Prasāda, PK part 2, 297). For a more detailed discussion of this tendency in the new school, see Houben 2008.22 priyacatasṛ | vistarakāras tu vikalpayati | tena priyatri priyacatur ity api | (HNV sūtravṛtti, 232.93). he sa he asau iti bhāṣyodāharaṇāt prakriyā tu cintyā | (HNV sūtravṛtti, 2.183).24 sarveṣām amataṃ yatsyāt sa bhramaḥ paricīyate | 
25bahūnāmamataṃ yat tat keṣāñcin matam iṣyate || (HNV sūtravṛtti, 1.75). Bitextual Meaning in Two Pre-Navya Vyākaraṇas 11One example of his engagement with a major grammatical debate is sūtra 2.22, which defines adverbs: an adverb is an object, and it is neuter, singular and always unexpressed.  Here Jīva expands on Sīradeva’s paribhāṣā 54,  discussed 26 27in detail in Cardona 1973 and Gombrich 1978: adverbs are objects and neuter in gender (kriyāviśeṣaṇānāṃ karmatvaṃ napuṃsakaliṅgatā ca). Unlike Hemacandra, Jīva believes that a word like śīghram (fast) is a karman (object), not just a dvitīyān-ta (word with second case ending). Furthermore, he categorizes adverbs as tu-lyādhikaraṇa and vyadhikaraṇa (having and not having case agreement),  so in 28his system, unlike the Pāṇinīya system, the category “adverb” (kriyāviśeṣaṇa) in-cludes sukhena (happily) in sukhena bhajati (he worships happily), which gets the third case ending by sūtra 4.114 (viśeṣalakṣaṇāt tṛtīyā). The convenience of the cat-egory “adverb,” which is absent in the Aṣṭādhyāyī, allows Jīva to create sūtras like kriyāviśeṣaṇasya na ṣaṣṭhī (4.40) to get sādhu pācakaḥ (person who cooks well). Fur-thermore, this rule is necessitated solely by the acceptance of adverbs as objects in HNV sūtra 2.2: since adverbs are objects, the unwanted consequence of the sixth case is made possible by kartṛkarmaṇoḥ kṛti (Pā. 2.3.65) or kartṛkarmaṇoḥ ṣaṣṭhī kṛdyoge (HNV 2.39). Apart from expressing here his own grammatical con-victions, Jīva critiques the Prakriyākaumudī, thus providing a missing link in the history of the debate. Jīva says that according to the Prakriyākaumudī adverbs are singular, but not karman or dvitīyānta, and he puts much effort in disproving that (atra kevalam ekavacanam iti tasyāṃ bhramaḥ). Despite his general favor for vikalpa, he respects here Kātyāyana’s wish to prohibit vikalpa in anvādeśa, an anaphoric situation, and provides a counterexample in line with Sīradeva’s and Hemacandra’s argument.  His treatment of adverbs provides insights not only 29 kriyāviśeṣaṇaṃ karma, tac ca brahmaikavacanaṃ sadānuktañ ca |26 Sīradeva’s 12-13th century Bṛhatparibhāṣāsavṛtti is discussed in Abhyankar, Paribhāṣā-27saṅgraha, Poona, 1967: 29-30, 268. Examples are śīghram and sukhena, respectively.28 Jīva’s counterexample (“he walks towards you, so he sees you quickly” – yāti yuṣmān atho 29paśyati śīghraṃ vaḥ), like Sīradeva’s (“So in the village he cooks softly for you” – atho grāme saḥ pacati mṛdu te/tava) and Hemacandra’s (“You are rich, so your wife cooks well” – dhanavān asi atho pacati śobhanaṃ te bhāryā) illustrates an anaphoric situation where the adverb, if having a first case ending, will enable sapūrvāyāḥ prathamāyā vibhāṣā (Pā. 8.1.26) to make the alternation type te/tava optional. This optionality is an unwanted consequence, since it contradicts Kātyāyana’s vārtika on 8.1.26 (yuṣmadasmador any-atarasyām ananvādeśe). For more detail, see Cardona 1973 and Gombrich 1978. BLINDERMAN 12about his own grammatical convictions but also about his level of engagement with the larger world of grammar. It also demonstrates that our understanding of the debate can be enhanced by analyzing his contribution. Let us now move on to Jīva’s engagement with śleṣa, which, unlike Rā-macandra’s, extends way beyond the maṅgala verses. His reasons to use it also span more than just religious and pedagogical. While his śleṣa-laden grammati-cal terms (saṃjñās) work as mnemonic devices, much like Vararuci’s fourth-cen-tury astronomical “moon-sentences” (candravākyas),  Jīva also uses śleṣa to rede30 -fine the purpose of vyākaraṇa for the new social context of the emerging Vaiṣṇa-va “bhakti-networks,” as John Hawley calls them.  His vyākaraṇa, which claims 31that it is meant for all the Vaiṣṇavas, cannot maintain the traditional purposes (proyajana) of grammar, like preservation of the Veda, etc.,  since many who are 32not twice-born males would then be excluded. Jīva had an intuition directly op-posite to that of the early Buddhists, Jains and the Mahānubhavs, who, instead of making Sanskrit “for all,” turned to other languages, among other reasons, because of the ideological conflict with the social orthodoxy of caste (varṇa) asso-ciated with Sanskrit. This rejection of Sanskrit, according to Christian Novetzke,  was an acceptance of its taxonomic world. Jīva’s democratizing San33 -skrit and relegating its Veda-associated elite status to the Aṣṭādhyāyī is both an acceptance and a revision of that taxonomy: if Kṛṣṇa’s name is for everyone, then Sanskrit equated with Kṛṣṇa’s name should also be for everyone. He uses śleṣa to inscribe a new value system throughout his grammar, which is not just about accruing merit and avoiding demerit by using correct words. Jīva’s grammar is a living illustration of his theological position that everything created by Kṛṣṇa, including grammar and language itself, is inevitably about him and his glory. He states the purpose of his vyākaraṇa to be worshipping Kṛṣṇa (kṛṣṇam upāsitum); it  For example the sentence rudras tu namyaḥ (Rudra is to be paid respect to) is actually a 30collection of numbers related to the motion of the moon in its orbit around the earth. See Raja 1946. One representative example is HNV sūtra 2.7 (viṣṇubhaktisiddhaṃ viṣṇu-padam), which simultaneously yields through śleṣa a grammatical and a theological statement, one serving as a mnemonic for the other: 1) a word is made complete by a (case or verb) ending; 2) the abode of Viṣṇu is attained by devotion to him. For more detailed examples of mnemonics in HNV, see Manring 2008. Hawley & India International Centre 2009.31 rakṣohāgamalaghvasaṃdehāḥ prayojanam | (Mbh. Vol.1, p. 1. 38).32 Novetzke 2016, op. cit., ch. III, “The Mahanubhav Ethic.”33 Bitextual Meaning in Two Pre-Navya Vyākaraṇas 13is the bliss of literature about Kṛṣṇa and the bliss of being close to him (conveyed through śleṣa in tatsāhityādijāmodam);  it is reminding about him (smārakaṃ 34vakṣye),  it is about the avyayībhāva of bhakti, the never declining of devotion 35(again a pun on avyayībhāva compounds).  The purpose of all the sūtras is said, 36again through śleṣa, to express Viṣṇu-bhakti.  There are many more śleṣa exam37 -ples where the grammatical prayojana is fused into bhakti-prayojana. Finally, according to two concluding verses of the Harināmāmṛta, the purpose of this vyākaraṇa is to make the entire discipline of grammar dhanyam, praśastam, (blessed, praiseworthy, auspicious, pleasing, wholesome, virtuous) by Jīva’s us-ing language in such a way that She, Language, meets Govinda.  It is important 38to note that in the phrases govindaṃ vindamānāṃ and govindaṃ vindatīṃ, which express Jīva’s central purpose, instead of the second-class vid of the Veda (vid jñāne, “to know”), which is the standard prayojana, we have the sixth class vidḶ lābhe: to obtain, meet, marry Kṛṣṇa. Apart from repetition of vidḶ and anuprāsa (alliteration) in each of the final pādas, there is prakṛti-śleṣa and vacana-śleṣa here, too (i.e. punning based on the grammatical stem, and punning based on “speech,” which may include more than one grammatical element).  Conse39 -quently, Jīva’s words can be interpreted in various ways: “If I do not speak you, O Goddess [of language], in such a way that you meet with, find, marry Govinda,  kṛṣṇamupāsitum asya nāmāvaliṃ tanavai |
34tvaritaṃ vitared eṣā tatsāhityādijāmodam || (HNV 1.1). kṛṣṇasya vigrahe bhāti samāsenākhilaṃ jagat | 
35itīva smārakaṃ vakṣye samāsapadavigraham || (HNV 6.1). sabahuvrīhidvigutāmātre lubdho 'smi sadvandvaḥ | 
36tatpuruṣa karma dhāraya bhakter yenāvyayībhāvaḥ || (HNV 6.2). ato bālakabodhāya padaṃ vicchidya mūrdhani |
37aṅkā deyā viṣṇubhaktivyaktyarthaṃ sarvasūtrataḥ || (HNV 1.8). hānīyaṃ pāṇinīyaṃ rasavad arasavat kākalāpaḥ kalāpaḥ 
38sārapratyāgi sārasvatam apahatagīr vistaro vistaro ‘pi |
cāndraṃ duḥkhena sāndraṃ sakalam avikalaṃ śāstram anyan na dhanyaṃ
govindaṃ vindamānāṃ bhagavati bhavatīṃ vāṇi no ced bravāṇi ||
pānīyaṃ pāṇinīyaṃ rasamṛdu rasavan mutkalāpaḥ kalāpaḥ
sāraśrīsāri sārasvatam adhimadhugīr vistaro vistaro 'pi |
cāndraṃ saukhyena sāndraṃ sakalam avikalaṃ śāstram anyat praśastam
govindaṃ vindatīṃ tvāṃ yadi bhagavati gīrvāṇi vāṇi bravāṇi || (HNV upasaṃhāra, 7.3-4). See Sāhityadarpaṇa 6.4-7 for more detail. 39 BLINDERMAN 14the Master of Language, the protector of Language, he who meets, subdues lan-guage, … all the śāstra (discipline of grammar), though faultless, is not blessed; however, if I succeed in speaking you, O Language, in such a way that you meet, marry Govinda, then … all the faultless śāstra is blessed.” These śleṣa-laden statements of prayojana once again affirm Elaine Fish-er’s idea that “from the gaze of early modern India, sectarianism and pluralism were not opposites.”  Arguably, just like Puṣpadanta in Śivamahimnastotra 7, Jīva 40adopts here a model of inclusivism (of the Pāṇinīya, Kātantra, and other schools of grammar, all the “faultless śāstra”) which “appears to welcome with one hand while excluding with the other”  through affirming the supremacy of his own 41religion. Quite in line with Halbfass’s definition of inclusivism as the “subordi-nating identification of the other, the foreign, with parts or preliminary stages of one’s own sphere,”  Jīva points out what in his view is a crucial lacuna in the 42discipline while also maintaining that the discipline is flawless, and that his purpose is actually not to diminish the importance of other grammars. Whether or not we choose to interpret his statement as hubristic or egalitarian towards other grammars,  it defines the way he sees his contribution to the discipline, 43which, according to him, is not blessed without pleasing Sarasvatī by marrying Language and Kṛṣṇa, jñāna and bhakti; and śleṣa plays a major role in express-ing this message throughout his grammar.  Conclusion Prakriyākaumudī and Harināmāmṛtavyākaraṇa employ śleṣa for grammar peda-gogy in unprecedent ways, flipping the narrative where usually it is grammar that is the indispensable tool for poetry and poetic analysis. While generally the function of śleṣa is to bring into a text semantic/syntactic optionality, the func-tions that Rāmacandra and Jīva systematically prioritize the most are as follows: i. to bring about the virtue (puṇya) of remembering and reminding the students of their deity of choice by creating the non-grammatical register, and ii. to make  Fisher 2017: 193.40 Fisher 2017: 191.41 Halfbass 1988: 411; Fisher 2017: 191.42 After all, Jīva is not offering redactions to any of these grammars. Rather, he maintains 43that they all are flawless/complete (avikala) and all will become equally blessed if he succeeds in his project. Bitextual Meaning in Two Pre-Navya Vyākaraṇas 15grammar (relatively) easy and accessible to beginners,  and entertaining 44through śleṣa and udāharaṇas which are capable of producing wonder (vaicitrya) and a whole other array of aesthetic emotions.  This intersection of grammar, 45theology and aesthetic elements perceptible in both grammars suggests that, despite many differences, Rāmacandra and Jīva had a similar interest in bring-ing śleṣa into grammatical texts and infusing their grammars with religious el-ements to a greater degree than their predecessors. Another similarity between the two authors is that neither author claims to have given an exhaustive account of grammar. Rāmacandra includes far from all of the Aṣṭādhyāyī in his prakriyā-centered rearrangement of its sūtras (since some of the sūtras’ meaning was clear and did not require a commentary, according to Viṭṭhala 1.8). Jīva excludes the description of Vedic usages from the body of his grammar to focus solely on bhāṣā, i.e. Classical Sanskrit. Both authors prioritized not exhaustiveness of pre-sentation, but rather pedagogical innovation in the form of prakriyā-based or-ganization of grammar. Furthermore, we have explored the tentative correlation between śleṣa, aesthetic enjoyment, religious merit and grammatical optionality and variety (vaicitrya) in these texts—a vaicitrya which in the end also yields more “grammatical merit” in the form of greater diversity of sanctioned word forms. This approach to grammar pedagogy, adopted by Nārāyaṇa Bhaṭṭa in the 17th century but rejected by Bhaṭṭoji Dīkṣita, offers valuable and surprising in-sights on the history of Vyākaraṇa and widens the standard understanding of what can be done in this discipline.  For a more detailed discussion of greater ease and accessibility of the PK's prakriyā-44based approach, see Houben 2008, as well as PK Prasāda 2.7, p. 797: yenānekaprabandhāḥ kṣitipatisamitikhyātavidvatprabodhodbodhārthaṃ cakrire yair bhavati hṛdikṛtaiḥ kovidaḥ prākṛto'pi (“[Rāmacandra] ... wrote texts which make even an ordinary person who in-ternalizes them an expert.”) For Jīva's innovation with mnemonic terminology, see Manring 2008, and for another pedagogical method aimed at making grammar more accessible, see HNV 1.43:  asiddharūpaṃ na tyājyaṃ pratijñeyaṃ kṛdantikā (“A word form will not be left incomplete in this grammar—this promise holds until the section on kṛt suffixes.”) In Sāhityadarpaṇa 6.8, vaicitrya itself is said to be an alaṅkāra, and śleṣa is often de45 -scribed as having vaicitrya as its purpose. BLINDERMAN 16Abbreviations HNV  Harināmāmṛtavyākaraṇa K  Kāśikā Mbh  Mahābhāṣya PK  Prakriyākaumudī Bibliography Primary Sources Jīva Gosvāmī. 1974. Śrī-Śrī Harināmāmŗta-vyākaraṇam saṃjā-sandhi-viṣṇupadā-khyāta-prakaraṇānta-'amŗtā'-'bālatoṣaṇī'-ṭīkādvayopetam (dhātugaṇapārhādi-pariśiṣṭasahitam). Edited by Rāsabihāriśāstrī and Haridāsaśāstrī, 1st ed. Vṛndāvana, Jilā Mathurā, Uttara Pradeśa: Śrīpremaharīpresa. Rāmacandrācārya and Viṭṭhala. 1925. The Prakriyâkaumudî with the Commentary Prasâda of Vittḥala and with Critical Notice of Manuscripts and an Exhaustive and Critical Introduction. Edited by Rao Bahadur Kamalashankar Prana-shankar Trivedi. Bombay: Bombay Sanskrit and Prakrit series. Rāmacandrācārya and Śrīkṛṣṇa. 1977. Prakriyākaumudī, 1. ed. (Sarasvatībhavana-granthamālā, 111-112). Edited by Muralīdhara Miśra. Vārāṇasī: Anu-sandhānsạmsthānam, Sampūrṇānanda-saṃskṛtaviśvavidyālayaḥ. Patañjali. 1906. The Vyākaraṇa-Mahābhāṣya of Patañjali. Edited by F. Kielhorn. Bombay: Government Central Book Depot. Viśvanātha Kavirāja. 1980. The Sáhitya-darpana, or, Mirror of Composition: A treatise on Literary Criticism. Edited by Mitra, Pramada Dasa, Ballantyne, James Robert, and Röer, Edward. Biblio Verlag.	Secondary sources Abhyankar, Kashinath Vasudev. 1961. A Dictionary of Sanskrit Grammar, 1st ed. (Gaekwad's oriental series; no. 134). Baroda: Oriental Institute.  Bitextual Meaning in Two Pre-Navya Vyākaraṇas 17Abhyankar, Kashinath Vasudev. 1967. Paribhāṣāsaṅgraha (a collection of original works on Vyākaraṇa Paribhāṣās). Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. Belvalkar, Shripad Krishna. 1976. An Account of the Different Existing Systems of Sanskrit Grammar (2d ed., rev. ed.). Delhi: Bharatiya Vidya Prakashan. Bronner, Yigal. 2010. Extreme Poetry: The South Asian Movement of Simultaneous Nar-ration. New York: Columbia University Press. Cardona, George. 1973. “Indian Grammarians on Adverbs.” In Issues in Linguistics: Papers in honor of Henry and Renée Kahane, edited by Braj B. Kachru. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 85-98. Deshpande, Madhav. 1991. “Ditransitive Passive in Panini.” Indo-Iranian Journal 34: 19-35. Fisher, Elaine. 2017. Hindu Pluralism: Religion and the Public Sphere in Early Modern South India. Oakland, CA: University of California Press. Gombrich, Richard. 1979. “‘He Cooks Softly’: Adverbs in Sanskrit Grammar 1,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 42: 244-256. Hawley, John Stratton & India International Centre. 2009. The Bhakti Movement—From Where? Since When? (IIC occasional publication, 10). New Delhi: India International Centre. Houben, Jan. 2008. “Bhaṭṭoji Dīkṣita’s ‘Small Step’ for a Grammarian and ‘Giant Leap’ for Sanskrit Grammar.” Journal of Indian Philosophy 36: 563-574. Manring, Rebecca J. 2008. “Does Kṛṣṇa Really Need His Own Grammar? Jīva Gosvāmin’s Answer.” International Journal of Hindu Studies 12: 257-282. Novetzke, Christian. 2016. The Quotidian Revolution: Vernacularization, Religion, and the Pre-modern Public Sphere in India. New York, New York: Columbia University Press. Raja, C. Kunhan. 1946. Chandravakyas of Vararuci: A Practical Guide for Calculating the Position of the Sun and Moon, Namely, Tithi and Naksatra, on Any Day of the Year. Madras: Adyar Library. 


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items