03-23-2007, 07:18 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Mar 22 2007, 02:00 PM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Mar 22 2007, 02:00 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Post 6 (Kalyan97):
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>http://docs.google.com/View?docID=ajhwbkz2nkfv_620hs8zfc</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->That link, hidden away in post 6, is brilliant. Everyone should read the doc at that link. I find it quite intensive reading, but thoroughly worth it. Besides the information, a new and far more useful paradigm is suggested there.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thanks, Husky ji.
I want to delve further on bhaashya (study of language) and knowledge systems.
The questions raised by Prof. BVK Sastry ji are fundamental. Every Hindu and every student of sanatana dharma has to ponder on these questions and act to revitalise bhaashya (study of bhaashaa).
Formation and evolution of bhaashaa cannot be meaningfully advanced without the foundations and methods provided by Panini or Tolkaappiyan or Yaska. And, of course, the later elaborations of savants such as Patanjali, Bhartrhari, Acharya Hemacandra. We have the ancient texts and an extraordinary tradition exemplified by bhaashaa pariccheda, as an integral part of nyaaya, as a sine qua non for advancement of knowledge systems.
Will the debate started by Sastry ji be joined on bharatiya knowledge systems based on bhaashya?
Namaskaram. Kalyanaraman
Excerpts from BVK Sastry's email of 22 March 2007:
[quote] The good debate should focus on answering the issue and not respond based on who is asking. This calls for a global Hindu / Sanskrit / Vedic debate on the following points, beyond the 'faith'! Would the Panini experts wake up ? Would the Paninian research studies be supported really beyond lip sympathies and 'partial week wise support for a TA?
Would the real resources come up beyond cyber bits and glorified talks of 'great heritage' and 'Vedic antiquity' et al? If Sanskrit is lost for misinterpretation of its grammar-dictionary, will any Veda, Bhashya, Prayer, ritual mantras, Guru traditions, temples - survive the meaning and interpretation that is being offered? If this attack at the root of the tradition through the language gate is not recognized, and remedied properly, by an integration of the voice tradition (Shruti), then there is likely to be a greater danger of loosing the religious traditions and identity. For, corruption in language is a sure sign of the corruption of society! And if the goal is to surrender to a bloodless coup on 'Indian / Vedic / Hindu religious languages- traditions' religions, then tolerate the corruption the languages on the model of tower of Babel, on the same streak that has been there for the last three hundred years! And allow it to be percolated to the cyber space documents of 'Indian / Vedic / Hindu religious languages- traditions' on which the next generation of Hindus especially at US heavily depend upon!
Issues:
(1) Why Sanskrit ? Why Panini and Yaska - are critical for Vedic traditions and Hindus? What has been the consequence on Hindu/Bharatiya/ Brahmin/ Indic religious identities ? Why Panini is the anchor for the religious languages of Buddhism and Jainism?
(2) What is the scripting traditions of the religious languages of Indic origin? (By defocusing the verbiage as 'South Asian religions' there is a deliberate detour and dilution of the debate! It would be most appropriate to keep the title of the debate as 'Indian / Vedic / Hindu religious languages- traditions' rather than geo-centric names. No one studying Abrahamic traditions and religions marks it as a 'land centric-institution centric study!)
(3) What are the limitations on which the 1700-1900 views of 'Indian / Vedic / Hindu religious languages- traditions' has been built and brought forward as 'manuscript evidences' and 'material evidences' to play unevenly against the living oral traditions of 'Indian / Vedic / Hindu religious linguistic origin?' Why these are not being addressed and remedied as a consolidated view point?
Time to review- and act on for whom these jobs are cut out for: Are these the jobs for the temple priests ? Gurus running the meditation ashrams and global meditation resorts? Astrologers? Archaeological teams? DNA scheming genome project experts? Linguists of modern languages? Poorly paid researchers in the oriental libraries being guided by manuscript hunting-publication oriented scholars? OR an institution focused on the Education and Research?
The self review and action on these questions guide what Hinduism is going to be the flavor of the next generation! [unquote]
--- Michael Witzel <witzel@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>> Why Panini? This thread has been ongoing for a while > and it useful to
> prepare a summary now. > As we have stressed several times before, Panini's
> (PÄá¹ini's) work, the > Astadhyayi (Aá¹£á¹ÄdhyÄyÄ«), is critical for the > early history of S. Asia > in several respects:
>
> - Panini (PÄá¹ini, c. 500/350 BCE?) marks the end > of the Vedic period
> proper (he quotes some texts), and his correct > dating(*) would be of > signal importance to fix the lower limit of the > earliest S. Asian > texts, the Vedas. (**)
>
> - he obviously was a citizen of Gandhara (NW > Pakistan), > a province of the Persian empire (at minimum, after > 519 BCE); > therefore his work, which mentions the Old > Persian/Iranian word > for script (lipi/libi), is of signal importance for > the history of > writing in S.Asia. (***)
>
> - his text, though quasi-algebraically condensed and > cryptic beyond any > 'direct' way of reading, contains valuable data > for the culture and > geography of the Northwest (which is very little > known from other > Indian texts) and for S. Asia in general. (As > mentioned, Schwartzberg's > Atlas is useless in this regard)
>
> In consequence, we badly need to know when to date > him. He is, in many
> ways, the sheet anchor of early (literary) Indian > history.
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> That said, we need a solid background on which to > base our studies of
> the Astadhyayi.
>
> This, however, does not exist, even after more than > 150 years of modern
> studies. As should be clear to all readers of this > list by now.
>
> Briefly:
> - we only have Vulgate editions of his text. None of > them is based on a
> critical edition (with stemma). > - worse, the various early testimonies of Panini
> (Mahabhashya, > Varttika, Kashika), too, do not have critical > editions. (****)
>
> As the nature of the Vulgate has been questioned > even by specialists of > Panini, this question must finally be taken up and > solved by studying > available MSS, though nobody seems ready to do so, neither in India nor outside.
>
> The same applies to the Mahabhasya (****) of Patanjali (c. 150 BCE)
> that quotes many, but certainly not all of Panini's rules. As mentioned, Kielhorn's 19th cent. edition is based only on "northern" (Maharastrian etc.) MSS. Southern, Nepalese, Kashmiri, etc. ones have not been used, nor have they been used in later editions. In sum: there is no critical Mbh. edition.
>
> I have bemoaned that already in 1986, and A. Aklujkar has done the same
> in 1993. Nothing has been done about it.
>
> (I leave aside the Aphorisms/Varttikas of Katyayana that precede
> Patanjali as they are embedded in his text. -- Of course, I also leave apart the complex issue of non-Paninean grammatical traditions: Candra, Katantra, Sarasvata, etc.)
>
> The same is true of the Kashika (c. 700 CE), whose text presents the
> first complete external testimony of Panini's Astadhyayi. It does not have a critical edition either.
>
> A. Sharma's 1969-85 Kashika edition makes use of some 8-9 MSS (C. & S.
> Indian), but it is not clear at all how consistently they have been used and quoted in the edition. In the end, we have to go back to the very MSS, which are not accessible easily, if at all, during a short visits to India. (see my msg. of March 7:
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Indo-Eurasia...ch/message/6244
> )
>> More or less the same, but in great detail, had already been said by Birwé (who, laudably, has critically edited a largely post-Paninean text, the Ganapatha). His detailed review is in: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlaendischen Gesellschaft (ZDMG) 123, 1973, 427-441 (which I may not have read then as I was working in
> Nepal those years). See a list of Kashika ed.s on p. 440-1. > The same criticism applies to the *completely> uncritical* editions of> the commentaries on the Kashika such as the Nyasa> (ed. Ramachandrulu,> Hyderabad 1985; not to speak others such as Raghuvir> Vedalankar's,> 1997). Ramachandrulu's book does not record the> variants nor even> indicate the MSS used, --except for very> occasionally mentioning> an/the unidentified 'muulapaaTha' or [an]other> printed edition[s].
> This 'edition' is of MS value only.>
> The Nyasa ed.s thus have just the value of any> traditional (often badly> written) MS. A Panini specialist on this list wrote> to me âtypically,> in private-- that the Nyasa commentary could be used> as a testimony for> the Kashika. This of course means: the blind leading> the dumb and muteâ¦
>
>> In sum, NONE of the Paninean grammar texts can be> relied on. We simply
> do not know where we can and where not.
>
> At best, we can *assume* that a certain text is> supported by later
> (sub)commentaries, but these too are unreliableâ¦
>
> Thus, I have to be direct and frank: what have> Indologists been doing?
> And what are they doing now?
>
> Now, luckily, the Paris-Pune-Roma team is preparing> a new 'critical'> edition of the Kashika, based on ten times more MSS> than Sharma's. But,> I see some dangers lurking there too (see next> message).
>
> Again, Panini specialists, wake up!
>
> Do the basic, preliminary work, instead of relying> on 19th cent.> pioneer editions. Get into the libraries and start> checking out a small> disputed section *across the board.* After> conducting such a pilot> project, expand, if and where necessaryâ¦
>
> If this is not done, Paniniyas must face the fact> (and criticism) that> their conclusions, especially in disputed sections,> can no longer be> taken for granted.
>
> They have merely been discussing the Vulgate with> the help of ⦠the> Vulgate tradition.
>
> (NB: if someone were to say: why don't YOU do it,> the answer is: I have> done my share, several critical editions and MSS> studies of Vedic> texts, and so have my students. And, I will do more> later, based on my> many microfilms, but only in my dotageâ¦)
>
> Now is the time for the Paniniyas to finally wake up> and actâ¦
>
> Cheers,
> MW
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>http://docs.google.com/View?docID=ajhwbkz2nkfv_620hs8zfc</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->That link, hidden away in post 6, is brilliant. Everyone should read the doc at that link. I find it quite intensive reading, but thoroughly worth it. Besides the information, a new and far more useful paradigm is suggested there.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thanks, Husky ji.
I want to delve further on bhaashya (study of language) and knowledge systems.
The questions raised by Prof. BVK Sastry ji are fundamental. Every Hindu and every student of sanatana dharma has to ponder on these questions and act to revitalise bhaashya (study of bhaashaa).
Formation and evolution of bhaashaa cannot be meaningfully advanced without the foundations and methods provided by Panini or Tolkaappiyan or Yaska. And, of course, the later elaborations of savants such as Patanjali, Bhartrhari, Acharya Hemacandra. We have the ancient texts and an extraordinary tradition exemplified by bhaashaa pariccheda, as an integral part of nyaaya, as a sine qua non for advancement of knowledge systems.
Will the debate started by Sastry ji be joined on bharatiya knowledge systems based on bhaashya?
Namaskaram. Kalyanaraman
Excerpts from BVK Sastry's email of 22 March 2007:
[quote] The good debate should focus on answering the issue and not respond based on who is asking. This calls for a global Hindu / Sanskrit / Vedic debate on the following points, beyond the 'faith'! Would the Panini experts wake up ? Would the Paninian research studies be supported really beyond lip sympathies and 'partial week wise support for a TA?
Would the real resources come up beyond cyber bits and glorified talks of 'great heritage' and 'Vedic antiquity' et al? If Sanskrit is lost for misinterpretation of its grammar-dictionary, will any Veda, Bhashya, Prayer, ritual mantras, Guru traditions, temples - survive the meaning and interpretation that is being offered? If this attack at the root of the tradition through the language gate is not recognized, and remedied properly, by an integration of the voice tradition (Shruti), then there is likely to be a greater danger of loosing the religious traditions and identity. For, corruption in language is a sure sign of the corruption of society! And if the goal is to surrender to a bloodless coup on 'Indian / Vedic / Hindu religious languages- traditions' religions, then tolerate the corruption the languages on the model of tower of Babel, on the same streak that has been there for the last three hundred years! And allow it to be percolated to the cyber space documents of 'Indian / Vedic / Hindu religious languages- traditions' on which the next generation of Hindus especially at US heavily depend upon!
Issues:
(1) Why Sanskrit ? Why Panini and Yaska - are critical for Vedic traditions and Hindus? What has been the consequence on Hindu/Bharatiya/ Brahmin/ Indic religious identities ? Why Panini is the anchor for the religious languages of Buddhism and Jainism?
(2) What is the scripting traditions of the religious languages of Indic origin? (By defocusing the verbiage as 'South Asian religions' there is a deliberate detour and dilution of the debate! It would be most appropriate to keep the title of the debate as 'Indian / Vedic / Hindu religious languages- traditions' rather than geo-centric names. No one studying Abrahamic traditions and religions marks it as a 'land centric-institution centric study!)
(3) What are the limitations on which the 1700-1900 views of 'Indian / Vedic / Hindu religious languages- traditions' has been built and brought forward as 'manuscript evidences' and 'material evidences' to play unevenly against the living oral traditions of 'Indian / Vedic / Hindu religious linguistic origin?' Why these are not being addressed and remedied as a consolidated view point?
Time to review- and act on for whom these jobs are cut out for: Are these the jobs for the temple priests ? Gurus running the meditation ashrams and global meditation resorts? Astrologers? Archaeological teams? DNA scheming genome project experts? Linguists of modern languages? Poorly paid researchers in the oriental libraries being guided by manuscript hunting-publication oriented scholars? OR an institution focused on the Education and Research?
The self review and action on these questions guide what Hinduism is going to be the flavor of the next generation! [unquote]
--- Michael Witzel <witzel@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>> Why Panini? This thread has been ongoing for a while > and it useful to
> prepare a summary now. > As we have stressed several times before, Panini's
> (PÄá¹ini's) work, the > Astadhyayi (Aá¹£á¹ÄdhyÄyÄ«), is critical for the > early history of S. Asia > in several respects:
>
> - Panini (PÄá¹ini, c. 500/350 BCE?) marks the end > of the Vedic period
> proper (he quotes some texts), and his correct > dating(*) would be of > signal importance to fix the lower limit of the > earliest S. Asian > texts, the Vedas. (**)
>
> - he obviously was a citizen of Gandhara (NW > Pakistan), > a province of the Persian empire (at minimum, after > 519 BCE); > therefore his work, which mentions the Old > Persian/Iranian word > for script (lipi/libi), is of signal importance for > the history of > writing in S.Asia. (***)
>
> - his text, though quasi-algebraically condensed and > cryptic beyond any > 'direct' way of reading, contains valuable data > for the culture and > geography of the Northwest (which is very little > known from other > Indian texts) and for S. Asia in general. (As > mentioned, Schwartzberg's > Atlas is useless in this regard)
>
> In consequence, we badly need to know when to date > him. He is, in many
> ways, the sheet anchor of early (literary) Indian > history.
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> That said, we need a solid background on which to > base our studies of
> the Astadhyayi.
>
> This, however, does not exist, even after more than > 150 years of modern
> studies. As should be clear to all readers of this > list by now.
>
> Briefly:
> - we only have Vulgate editions of his text. None of > them is based on a
> critical edition (with stemma). > - worse, the various early testimonies of Panini
> (Mahabhashya, > Varttika, Kashika), too, do not have critical > editions. (****)
>
> As the nature of the Vulgate has been questioned > even by specialists of > Panini, this question must finally be taken up and > solved by studying > available MSS, though nobody seems ready to do so, neither in India nor outside.
>
> The same applies to the Mahabhasya (****) of Patanjali (c. 150 BCE)
> that quotes many, but certainly not all of Panini's rules. As mentioned, Kielhorn's 19th cent. edition is based only on "northern" (Maharastrian etc.) MSS. Southern, Nepalese, Kashmiri, etc. ones have not been used, nor have they been used in later editions. In sum: there is no critical Mbh. edition.
>
> I have bemoaned that already in 1986, and A. Aklujkar has done the same
> in 1993. Nothing has been done about it.
>
> (I leave aside the Aphorisms/Varttikas of Katyayana that precede
> Patanjali as they are embedded in his text. -- Of course, I also leave apart the complex issue of non-Paninean grammatical traditions: Candra, Katantra, Sarasvata, etc.)
>
> The same is true of the Kashika (c. 700 CE), whose text presents the
> first complete external testimony of Panini's Astadhyayi. It does not have a critical edition either.
>
> A. Sharma's 1969-85 Kashika edition makes use of some 8-9 MSS (C. & S.
> Indian), but it is not clear at all how consistently they have been used and quoted in the edition. In the end, we have to go back to the very MSS, which are not accessible easily, if at all, during a short visits to India. (see my msg. of March 7:
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Indo-Eurasia...ch/message/6244
> )
>> More or less the same, but in great detail, had already been said by Birwé (who, laudably, has critically edited a largely post-Paninean text, the Ganapatha). His detailed review is in: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlaendischen Gesellschaft (ZDMG) 123, 1973, 427-441 (which I may not have read then as I was working in
> Nepal those years). See a list of Kashika ed.s on p. 440-1. > The same criticism applies to the *completely> uncritical* editions of> the commentaries on the Kashika such as the Nyasa> (ed. Ramachandrulu,> Hyderabad 1985; not to speak others such as Raghuvir> Vedalankar's,> 1997). Ramachandrulu's book does not record the> variants nor even> indicate the MSS used, --except for very> occasionally mentioning> an/the unidentified 'muulapaaTha' or [an]other> printed edition[s].
> This 'edition' is of MS value only.>
> The Nyasa ed.s thus have just the value of any> traditional (often badly> written) MS. A Panini specialist on this list wrote> to me âtypically,> in private-- that the Nyasa commentary could be used> as a testimony for> the Kashika. This of course means: the blind leading> the dumb and muteâ¦
>
>> In sum, NONE of the Paninean grammar texts can be> relied on. We simply
> do not know where we can and where not.
>
> At best, we can *assume* that a certain text is> supported by later
> (sub)commentaries, but these too are unreliableâ¦
>
> Thus, I have to be direct and frank: what have> Indologists been doing?
> And what are they doing now?
>
> Now, luckily, the Paris-Pune-Roma team is preparing> a new 'critical'> edition of the Kashika, based on ten times more MSS> than Sharma's. But,> I see some dangers lurking there too (see next> message).
>
> Again, Panini specialists, wake up!
>
> Do the basic, preliminary work, instead of relying> on 19th cent.> pioneer editions. Get into the libraries and start> checking out a small> disputed section *across the board.* After> conducting such a pilot> project, expand, if and where necessaryâ¦
>
> If this is not done, Paniniyas must face the fact> (and criticism) that> their conclusions, especially in disputed sections,> can no longer be> taken for granted.
>
> They have merely been discussing the Vulgate with> the help of ⦠the> Vulgate tradition.
>
> (NB: if someone were to say: why don't YOU do it,> the answer is: I have> done my share, several critical editions and MSS> studies of Vedic> texts, and so have my students. And, I will do more> later, based on my> many microfilms, but only in my dotageâ¦)
>
> Now is the time for the Paniniyas to finally wake up> and actâ¦
>
> Cheers,
> MW