Voyage Into Root of Language

Voyage into root of
Language-usage:
A work based on
Apaśabdakhaṇḍanam
(Śree Bhaṭṭadhaneśvara)
and
Vyākaraṇakhaṇḍanam
(Śree Vācaspati Bhaṭṭācārya)
Madhu Kapoor
Contents Page no.
1
Acknowledgement 2-4
Introduction 5-15
Chapter I Vāk-tattva― Exploring the route 16-26
Chapter II Vyākaraṇaprayojanam 27-57
Chapter III Apaśabdānāṃ vicāraḥ 58-81
Chapter IV Truth as Reflected in the Language 82-98
Chapter V Awakening of Knowledge: Prātibhajñāna 99-109
Chapter VI Śikṣā— art of learning pronunciation 110-125
Chapter VII Traversing in the duality of Vāgartha 126-136
Appendix I Apaśabdakhaṇḍanam (MS) 137-164
Appendix II Vyākaraṇakhaṇḍanam (MS) 165-166
Bibliography 167-168
Acknowledgement
2
The present work embodies two manuscripts––
Apaśabdakhaṇḍanam by Śree Bhaṭṭadhaneśvara and
Vyākaraṇakhaṇḍanam by Śree Vācaspati Bhaṭṭācārya and some writings
related to the manuscripts. The work is not a translation of the manuscripts
but certainly based on the topics discussed thereon. While applying for post-
doctoral research work to University Grants Commission, Professor (Dr.)
Ratna Basu, Department of Sanskrit, University of Calcutta, suggested me
the above mentioned manuscripts. I prepared my write up based on these
two MS. But unfortunately I could not avail the fellowship. The manuscripts
were with me, so I took up the task of rescuing the same. The task was
difficult for me. Some of the parts of the MS were distorted and ineligible, but
fortunately, I found, Associate Professor of Sanskrit Dr. (Smt) Sutapa
Bhattacharya, Vivekananda College, Thakurpukur, who not only gave enough
time to undergo the whole text but also solved problems related to several
passages. Dr. Debmitra Dey, Assistant Professor of Sanskrit, Durgapur
College, rescued some of the gaps in the scripts. I am really grateful and
indebted to both of them. Professor (Dr.) Piyali Palit of the Department of
Philosophy, Jadavpur University, helped me in salvage the script from The
Asiatic Society, Calcutta, under her Major Research Project on Manuscripts.
While correcting the script of Vyākaraṇakhaṇḍanam by Śree

Vācaspati Bhaṭṭācārya, Professor Madhav Deshpande, Ann Arbor, University
of Michigan, was a boon for me. He took the quick initiative to correct it
within hours, I should say. I have no words to thank him. I will not forget the
encouragement and support of Professor Raghunath Ghosh, North Bengal
University, who not only read few chapters but also guided me with his
suggestions and finally with the words ‘go ahead with the work’. I will always
cherish and carry Professor Madhav Deshpande and Professor Raghunath
Ghosh’s help in my memory.
Finally, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Dr.(Smt) Kakali Ghoshal,

Budge Budge College, who not only participated in arranging the whole idea
3
since its initiation but also took the active interest to correct and structure it
to its final shape, I have no words to thank her. I would be failing in my duty
if I do not express my gratitude to Dr. Payel Chowdhury Dutta, Department
of Human Rights, Rabindra Bharati University, who took active interest while
making some necessary suggestions and corrections.
My special gratitude remains for The Asiatic Society, Kolkata, who

allowed me to use both the texts freely and granted me the permission to
publish them.
Madhu Kapoor
Former Associate Professor of
Philosophy,
Vivekananda College, Thakurpukur,
Kolkata.
4
Introduction
The present work, Voyage into root of Language-usage: A work based

on Apaśabdakhaṇḍanam (Śree Bhaṭṭadhaneśvara) and
Vyākaraṇakhaṇḍanam (Śree Vācaspati Bhaṭṭācārya), is a collection of
some of the writings, published on several occasions, exploring the journey
of Vyākaraṇa— beginning from its utility, its elements supporting the infra-
structure requirement of the language-speaker, the classification of pure
(Sādhu) and impure words (apaśabda) depending upon their pronunciation,
and finally a philosophy behind the grammatical structure of a language to
its highest culmination in Śabdabrahman— the philosophical submission of
language to its supreme source.
Apaśabdakhaṇḍanam— a text by Śree Bhaṭṭadhaneśvara, is an

interesting and fascinating work on Vyākaraṇaśāstra. Śree Bhaṭṭadhaneśvara
belongs to the beginning of the 13 th century as claimed by Yudhiṣṭhira
Mīmāṃsaka in the Encyclopedia of Grammar. He is said to be the author of
Prakriyāratnamaṇi and Cintāmaṇi on the Mahābhāṣyam too, preserved in a
single manuscript at Adyar Library, Madras. He is supposed to be the teacher
of Bopadeva, the famous grammarian from Bengal. While going through the
Manuscript, it seems that the writer is a great admirer of Patañjali, as clear
from the opening verse of the text. He appears to be well acquainted with
the previous grammarians’ work too, since he quotes them freely and
frequently. His authority and scholarship on Mīmāṃsāśāstra and Navya-
nyāya becomes clear from the passages he quotes from Śāstradīpikā of
Pārthasārathi, and defends the theory of apaśabda taking clue from
5
Gaṅgesa’s Cintāmaṇi. His range of erudition extracts several passages from
the Vākyapadīyam of Bhartṛhari in his support. Moreover his knowledge of
accent and pronunciation of syllables are greatly commendable.
In the manuscript, he has taken up the task of providing certain

defensible arguments in support of his thesis that the so-called apaśabda-s is
also meaningful words, though importance is denied to them due to non-
grammatical-configuration. The impact of socio-linguistic-psychological
reasons can also be observed in the free use of apaśabda-s. He has
discussed at length why Vyākaraṇa is at all necessary to learn the proper
usages of words and their derivations. In this connection he does show the
metaphysical relationship of words to its main source, i.e., śabdabrahman—
the theory developed by Bhartṛhari. Indeed, for the ordinary language
speakers the so-called apaśabda-s is not non-sense items of language. They
do generate meanings; otherwise, if apaśabda had failed to communicate
successfully, then mutual understanding among its users would have come
to an end. Herein one can raise the pertinent question of standard that
distinguishes the apaśabda (asādhu śabda) from sādhu śabda. Thus, Śree
Bhaṭṭadhaneśvara discussed the parameter of deciding sādhu śabda and
asādhu śabda. The common native speakers of the language do not often
speak the standardized language. Their spoken words are not always
according to the rules and the grammatical operations, yet they successfully
communicate their intended meanings. This proves that common speakers
do not often care for the legal and official perfection of the grammatical rules
and pronunciation. They just wish to carry their thoughts to the listeners.
The text Vyākaraṇakhaṇḍanam is written by Śree Vācaspati

Bhaṭṭācārya. It is a very short text of 3 folios only, but in a very unique style
the author has refuted the very core of the division of the grammar, that is,
into prakṛti and pratyaya. He goes on to demolish the very definition of the
word (pada) in a characteristic manner of Navya-nyāya philosophers.
6
The present volume Voyage into root of Language-usage: A work
based on Apaśabdakhaṇḍanam (Śree Bhaṭṭadhaneśvara) and
Vyākaraṇakhaṇḍanam (Śree Vācaspati Bhaṭṭācārya) is not the literal
translation of the manuscript. The writings incorporated here take the core
idea from these manuscripts and grow independently, yet not absolutely cut
off from the main body of the manuscripts.
The first chapter Vāk-tattva―Exploring the route of the present

work is based on the text Vyākaraṇakhaṇḍanam by Śree Vācaspati
Bhaṭṭācārya. Vyākaraṇakhaṇḍanam is ground-breaking in its complete
rejection of grammatical learning of a language and advocates the technique
of Navya-nyāya to deconstruct the edifice of grammar. Thus, it somehow
complies with the soul of Śree Bhaṭṭadhaneśvara’s manuscript
Apaśabdakhaṇḍanam and serves indirectly its purpose proclaiming that
language should be learnt through communication with native speakers. This
teaches the finer nuances of language untouched by rigorous grammatical
learning. In fact, Language is, here, looked upon as a natural growth in
human beings within the societal environment.
In the manuscript, Śree Bhaṭṭadhaneśvara starts his discussion from

Patañjali and then proceeds on dealing with the six different auxiliaries of the
Vedas like śikṣā, kalpa, nirukta, chanda and vyākaraṇa in detail. One can find
several passages from Mahābhāṣyam in defense of his arguments that
grammar is so much essential for learning a language. The words which are
determined by grammatical operations are sanctioned as sādhu śabda. But,
at the same time, it is also a fact that common usages are not ignored by
Patañjali, even if sometimes they go against the grammatical rules and
formations. According to him, Vyākaraṇa is lokavijñāna and Vyākaraṇaśāstra
draws its materials from the oral-treasure of the native speakers, the
enriched source of language. This actually endows complete essence to a
language over and above the learning of language through grammar.
7
The importance of Vyākaraṇaśāstra can be understood from the fact
that it has been raised to the status of Smṛtiśāstra and Āgamaśāstra. The
Vyākaraṇaśāstra is handed down to us through generations of seers and
sages who were the direct vehicle of that treasure. The practical aspect, that
is the spoken capability of a language, is preserved through oral tradition
only and consequently becomes the ground of authoritative knowledge. This
is the main focus of the chapter Apaśabdānāṃ vicāraḥ included in this
volume.
It is worth mentioning that a language can be learnt correctly within

the spoken-community of that particular language with dialogue and
interaction, yet learning of Grammar at the same time helps to capture the
logical structure behind the linguistic system which enhances the beauty of
the speech by clarifying the dust of vagueness in it. It is because of this
character that Vyākaraṇaśāstra is called lokāgama by Bhartṛhari. Thus, it
moves in two ways: it collects its data from the ordinary language speakers,
thereby it is called lokavijñāna and then systematizes them and thereby is
designated as Vyākaraṇaśāstra. It is called āgamaśāstra too because it is the
sole authority for the final verdict for any controversial issue.
However, it becomes a debatable issue whether one should always use

words sanctioned by Vyākaraṇaśāstra because they are branded with the
label ‘words-which-convey-meaning’. The words which are not permissible by
Vyākaraṇaśāstra should not be used and they are to be marked as asādhu
śabda / apaśabda or corrupted / distorted words. The standard example
often given by the scholars is ‘gauḥ’. The derivative meaning of the word
‘gauḥ’ is ‘gacchatīti gauḥ’ (that which moves is called gauḥ); but the
language speakers know that the word ‘gauḥ’ stands for the animal having
horns and dewlap etc. It does not convey the derivative meaning as such,
that is, ‘gacchatīti gauḥ’. Rather it refers to an animal having horns and
hoofs etc., which is not always moving, but might be sitting or sleeping also.
Thus the meaning of the word ‘gauḥ’ designates conventional meaning
8
(rūḍha) which is prominent over the derivative meaning. As the mandate
goes: avayavaprasiddheḥ samudāyaprasiddhirbalīyasī.
Again, it is often the case that the animal gauḥ, sometimes, is referred
to by the words like gāvī, goṇī, goputtalikā also in colloquial language.
Whether these are the correct pronunciation or not, is a controversial issue.
If ‘gāvī, goṇī, goputtalikā’ refer to the same animal, then they should be
given the status of sādhu śabda like ‘gauḥ’ but unfortunately they are
treated as asādhu śabda / apaśabda. If the listeners can grasp the correct
meaning by the so-called asādhu śabda / apaśabda then it becomes the
issue under consideration.
The word apaśabda, is formed by adding the prefix apa in the sense of

‘going away’ to the root śabda meaning ‘to fall or to deviate’.
Thus, apaśabda means ‘to fall away or to deviate’ from the standard uses. In
grammatical traditions, we find that both apaśabda and apabhraṃśa are
used to denote incorrect usage. Therefore, they are synonymously
(apabhraṃśa apaśabda syāt) used for our convenience.
The difference between the two is very subtle. Both apaśabda and
apabhraṃśa are formed by adding the prefix 'apa' in the sense of ‘going
away’ from the roots śabda and bhraṃśa respectively. Though apabhraṃśa
does not have value, either positive or negative, attached to it since they
have regional impact, but apaśabda is always used in a derogatory sense to
hurt someone.
Mleccho ha vā eṣa yadapaśabdaḥ (Mahābhāṣyam 1.1.1.)
The first reference of the term apabhraṃśa is found in

Tāṇḍyabrāhmaṇa, where it is used in its literal sense of 'falling down'.
Viśvāḥ prtanā abhibhūtarantara ityajagati varṣiyayaścchanda

ākramate'nāpabhraṃśa.
(Tāṇḍyabrāhmaṇa, 1.5)
9
The term apabhraṃśa is an example of the shift in the approach of the
grammarians in dealing with variations in Sanskrit language. In literature,
the word apabhraṃśa is used in several senses. From its original sense of
'falling down,' it came to signify an incorrect or corrupt form by the time of
Patañjali. In Śabdārthacintāmaṇi, apabhraṃśa is defined as ungrammatical
word, crude word, language of countryside, or vulgar language.
"aśāstra śabde, asaṃskṛta śabde. Grāmyaṃ bhāṣāyām"
(Apabhramsha Hindi Dictionary, Dr. Naresha

Kumar, p. xix.)
Pāṇini never used the term apabhraṃśa or apaśabda in the

Aṣṭādhyāyī. The variations, as he has described, are part of the standard
language and are treated as such. Pāṇini does not refer to them as sub-
standard, but only as optional forms. In fact, Pāṇini has used two methods of
incorporating regional variations in his grammar. They are, by referring to
the region in which a particular word is exclusively used and by referring to
grammarians of different regions and mentioning the variations acceptable
to them. In the Pāṇinian School of grammar, the term ‘apabhraṃśa’ is found
for the first time used by Patañjali side by side of apaśabda. Kātyāyana also
does not use the word ‘apabhraṃśa’ or ‘apaśabda’ in his Vārttika, but he
took note of the changes in language of phonetic, morphological, and
semantic in nature. These changes can be considered to be the first step
towards apabhraṃśa or apaśabda.
One has to be reminded in this context that the word ‘apaśabda’ here
conveys the distorted use of the words either because of the ignorance of its
user or due to the defects of the sense organs. The Grammarians do accept
this view. According to them a slight deviation brings defect in the words.
Apaśabdatvaṃ vyākaraṇānugata śabdaṣyed bhraṃśan eva

prasiddham.(Nageśa).
10
There are several arguments advanced in favour of both the
alternatives, and finally Śree Bhaṭṭadhaneśvara left the decision open. One
can side with any one of the alternatives with strong conviction. For instance,
if one thinks that the function of a word is to convey the meaning and if that
task is performed appropriately, one is bound to say that the word is sādhu
whether it is pronounced correctly or incorrectly. On the other hand, if one
thinks that the correct pronunciation is one of the basic criteria for words
being declared as sādhu, then obviously there will be a problem in saying
that the so-called corrupt words, i.e., gāvī, goṇī, goputtalikā are sādhu. If
mis-pronounced-words should be granted the status of sādhu śabda, then
the controversy does not arise at all. But this stand is refuted by Gaṅgeśa, a
Navya-Naiyāyika. According to him, the meaning of a word is signified
according to the Will of the God and subsequently a word is regarded as
vācaka. But a corrupt word that does not possess the Will of God cannot
convey any meaning and is deprived of the status of being regarded as
vācaka. Either it should be treated as lākṣaṇika pada or it is through the
remembrance of a vācaka word that it signifies meaning indirectly. In no
case it should be treated as sādhu śabda. The writer Śree Bhaṭṭadhaneśvara
does not side with any of the view. He preferred to raise the issue and
favourable arguments for both the alternatives. Interestingly he cited two
cases where the users of apaśabdas are not punishable by law; rather they
are socially accepted too. For example, a father gives his daughter to a
person who often speaks out apaśabda while communicating and a king
cannot punish a person if he is a user of corrupt language (apaśabda). If it
would have meant the abusive use of a word (gālāgāli as we call in
vernaculars) as often in our colloquial uses it occurs, it would certainly be
punishable because it causes injury to the person it is spoken off. But then it
would not be robbed off the status of being considered as sādhu śabda
because of its grammatical correctness and pristine pronunciation. Moreover,
whether the word ‘gauḥ’ be regarded as sādhu śabda and other distorted
forms of the same word like ‘gāvī’, ‘goṇī’, ‘goputtalikā’ are treated as asādhu
11
śabda--- is the basic question. The point is, all of them are coexisting
(sahavasthāna) without any mutual rivalry. The latter is not totally discarded
by the former, since they have no such mutual relationship like killer and
killed (badhya-ghātaka-saṃbandha).
The point can be clarified by analyzing the title of the manuscript

apaśabdakhaṇḍanaṃ that comes out with the analysis apaśabdānāṃ
khaṇḍanam, that is, the criticism of corrupt words where corrupt words
convey defective and distorted pronunciation of the words. That issue has
not been taken into account for the present purpose of this volume. There
are some other who think that technical words like, ṭi, ghu, etc., are neither
sādhu śabdas nor asādhu śabdas because they are neither used in common
practice nor they are grammatically structured, they are coined technically
for a particular śāstra.
One can refer to here the position of Bhartṛhari for whom the
correctness or corruptness of a particular form depends upon the meaning
context. The same word is corrupt in a particular sense and correct in
another sense. Bhartṛhari clarifies this point by giving the example of ‘goṇī’
and ‘asva’. Both are correct forms, when used to denote the object other
than the cow and horse. They are incorrect (apabhraṃśa), when they are
used to convey the meaning, i.e., cow and horse respectively. But if the
speaker's intention is to convey the idea of "a lot of milk" and "one who has
nothing" respectively, then, both are correct because in this sense they are
not the corrupt form of ‘cow’ and ‘horse’. In Vṛtti, Bhartṛhari clearly mentions
that, a word becomes an apabhraṃśa only when the speaker tries to
pronounce the correct one to convey the intended meaning, but, due to
incapability, he eventually utters the corrupt one. Thus it is said:
Gauriti prayoktavye’śaktyā pramādādibhirvā gāvyādayo’pabhraṃśāḥ prayujyañte.

(Vṛtti on Brahmakāṇḍa of Vākyapadīyam, kārikā 1.147)
Another point, which Bhartṛhari makes, is that even though corrupt
form (apabhraṃśa) conveys the same meaning as its counterpart, it cannot
12
be considered as a synonym of it, because the apabhraṃśa forms are not
explained by the grammar. In this regard, the only authority is the tradition
of the cultured people, recorded in the science of grammar.
Na śiṣṭairanugamyante paryāyā iva sādhavaḥ /

te yataḥ smṛtiśāstreṇa tasmāt sākṣādavācakāḥ //
(Vākyapadīyam, Brahmakāṇḍa,
kārikā 1. 150)
Sometimes the corrupt form gives a clue to know the correct one.
Here, Bhartṛhari gives an example of the effort of a new-born baby. Due to
the deficiency in the vocal organs, the baby utters indistinct sounds, which
give clues to the hearer to understand the distinct form, which is original.
Though the view of Bhartṛhari is not explicitly accepted by the writer here,
but the several indications can be shown in its defense.
The point is: if so-called apaśabda be regarded as meaningful to

sustain the whole system of communication between the speakers and the
hearers, then there is no need to divide śabdas into sādhu śabda and asādhu
śabda.
Necessarily speaking, words (śabda-s) are used to communicate

various expressions of emotional and cognitive form in order to share our
thoughts. These śabdas are the transport of our relationship in the society.
Patañjali emphasized, therefore, on both aspects of the śabdas, that is,
signifying meaning and its pronunciation. Meaning can be direct and simple
as found in the dictionary but when we focus on sound we find that it shows
various kinds of interpretations depending on the intonation of the words
uttered. For example, if one says ‘go to the next room’ with orderly gesture,
one will bring books or anything that has been ordered. If it is accompanied
with exclamation mark one will find either some gift waiting for him or any
close one waiting to meet him. If the statement is followed with shouting
tone one is said to leave the room. It may be a request to go to the next
13
room in order not to be disturbed. Therefore, śabda-s are pronounced to give
some information etc. If a machine pronounced the same statement every
time, one will understand the same dictionary meaning and not the emotion
behind it.
So much emphasis has been given to the learning of pronunciation

that it is mandatory to learn through śruti/listening, otherwise there will be
mistakes if it is learnt through written texts (likhita pāṭha). Śiksāgrantha are
there to protect the most important but neglected aspect of pronunciation
which has been set aside. It is one of the essential parts among the six
elements—vyākaraṇa, śikṣā, nirukta, chanda, jyotiṣa. The chapter ‘Śiksā—
art of learning pronunciation’ has been accommodated keeping this
tradition in mind. Śree Bhaṭṭadhaneśvara, the writer of the manuscript has
devoted several pages discussing the importance of svara-uccāraṇa.
Since the texts are completely related to “śabda and śabdārtha”, I

started writing papers on the related theme and some of the papers were
read on several occasions. The nature of ‘Vāk-tattva’, ‘apaśabdavicāra’,
‘truth reflected in the language’, and ‘vyākaraṇaprayojanam’
elaborately discussed the theme of the scripts, so I did not take up the task
of translating the texts. Moreover, some of the portions occurred repeatedly
that also I cannot undo from the papers because of the demand of the theme
of the paper. I kept them as they were read either before the audience or
submitted as the part of the UGC Seminars on different occasions. Two
papers, that is ‘Traversing in duality of Vāgartha’ and ‘Awakening of
verbal knowledge: Prātibhajñāna’ though not the part of the script but I
have a special fascination to resurrect the literary meaning of any kind of
word in general and its metaphorical significance, so I have made place to
accommodate these two papers into this volume. I avail the opportunity of
introducing the paper “Awakening of the verbal cognition: Prātibhajñāna”,
since the writer Śree Bhaṭṭadhaneśvara himself refers to śabda-Brahman on
various places in the text. In a way, the inception of the papers enlarges the
14
scope of understanding the word-meaning and initiate one to think out of the
grammatical boundary for which I am always keen to defend.
Though the thrust area under discussion centers round the

distinguishing criterion of correct (sādhu śabda) and corrupt (asādhu śabda)
form of words in order to eliminate the corrupt words from our practical
usages, yet it cannot be denied that both forms of words are capable of
conveying the meaning. The only difference between these two is that the
former follows standard grammar and therefore generates merits (dharma),
whereas the latter does not, hence generates demerits (adharma). Śree
Bhaṭṭadhaneśvara seems to balance the two views. He sets limit for two
kinds of words. As far as the ordinary speech is concerned there is no
distinction because without knowing the correct grammatical operations and
pronunciation, the listener can understand the meaning of an apaśabda and
sādhu śabda, but when it comes to classical use of words in Vedic rites and
rituals the distinction is maintained because the correct pronunciation is said
to generate dharma while incorrect pronunciations lead to adharma. For
ordinary language speaker it does not matter much if a word successfully
conveys its meaning to the hearer but in Vedic rites and rituals it matters
much if a word is not uttered correctly. It causes disaster. So the question of
dharma and adharma are raised. Even in ordinary communication, the uses
of apaśabda cause disaster if the words are not uttered correctly. For
example, the difference between ‘sva’ and ‘śva’, ‘sakalam’ and ‘śakalam’
where former (‘sva’ and ‘sakalam’) stand for ‘mine’ and ‘all’ and the latter
(‘śva’ and ‘śakalaṃ’) stands for ‘dog’ and ‘a part’. A small mistake in
pronunciation may cause disaster as mentioned in the śloka:
Yadyapi bahu nādhīṣe tathāpi paṭha putra vyākaraṇam/

Svajanaḥ śvajano mā bhūt sakalaṃ śakalaṃ sakṛta śakṛta ca//
For Patañjali the utterance of the word ‘helaya’ instead of ‘he’raya’ is
an impure pronunciation so it led to defeat of demons, consequently it
generates demerit (adharma).
15
For Patañjali and Pāṇini, language is a sacred form of utterance and
any deviation from that is called apabhraṃśa. According to them, by using a
correct word one can attain glory even in the yonder world, whereas by using
the corrupt forms one becomes impure.
Yastu prayuṃkte kuśalo viśeṣe śabdān yathāvada vyavahārakāle.
so'nantamāpnoti jayaṃ paratra vāgyogavid duṣyati ca apaśabdaiḥ.
( Mahābhāṣyam,
Paspaśāhnika 1.1.1)
A brief note on dharma and adharma is needed to do justice to the

writing. It is said that sādhuśabda yields dharma and asādhu śabda
generates adharma which clearly points to the moral aspect of the utterance
of the words. Morality sets a boundary line before any kind of discipline. For
human beings like us, the moral code is very much essential because
without this line of demarcation, one trespasses one’s limit and can go to
any extent to enjoy one’s liberty. Therefore, the law in court-room, rules in
play-ground, order in family, governance in political field is so much
required, since rules bring harmony and unity among the scattered facts in
order to control the disordered situation. Without law there will be absolute
chaos and discord. Once the transgression is allowed, there will be no end of
it. For some pretext or other rules will be broken. It is true that human life is
subject to varied changes and it is unpredictable in nature, consequently, an
order must be maintained in life as far as possible. Thus, the rules and
grammatical operations are needed to set the limit and control the meaning
of words in order to stop the exploitation of words.
Chapter I
Vāk-tattva―Exploring the route

16
Vāgvāva nāmno bhūyasī vāgvā ṛgvedaṃ vijñāpayati….. yadvai
vāṅgnābhaviṣyanna dharmo nādharmo vyajñāpayiṣyanna satyaṃ nānṛtaṃ
na
Sādhu nāsādhu na hṛdayajño nāhṛdayajño vāgevaitatsarvaṃ vijñāpayati
vācamupāssveti.
(Chāndogya Upaniṣad VII.

2.1)
“In order to persuade Nārada to worship Vāk, the Vāktattva has been
praised as a multi-functional element in the dialogue between Sanat kumāra
and Nārada. It has been said that all the Vedas and different branches of
learning are represented by Vāk and apprehension of virtue or vice, truth or
falsehood would never have been possible, had there been no such means of
expressing thought as Vāk.”
This Vāktattva has been said to reveal in various stages― beginning

with Parā, Paśyantī, Madhyamā and finally coming down to Vaikharī. The first
three are incomprehensible to human beings but the last one, that is,
Vaikharī spoken by men, is manifested through throat coming in contact with
various places of mouth. Jayanta Bhaṭṭa says:
Vikhara iti dehendriya saṁghāta ucyate tatra bhavā vaikhari.
Vaikharī occupies a very important place in the study of the science of
grammar (Vyākaraṇaśāstra). This chapter attempts to analyse the very
nature and function of Vaikharī. The vāktattva, with its dual character of
being self-sensitive (svasaṃvedya) as well as other-sensitive
(parasaṃvedya), involves both speaker (vaktā) and hearer (śrotā) at this
level― where they need mutual understanding. Without this mutual
understanding, dialogue cannot take place. At this final manifestation of
language, words may be regarded as correct (sādhu śabda) and corrupt
(asādhu śabda) depending on the standard of pronunciation (fixed by the
community of speakers). Thus, in this chapter, I have restricted myself to
17
that aspect of language which initiates one to learn the correct usages of
words and will try to show that there is no other way except to begin with
the science of grammar (Vyākaraṇaśāstra).
The word ‘Vyākaraṇa’ as defined ‘vyākriyante vyutpādyante śabda

anena asmin vā iti’ or in other words ‘prakṛti-pratyayādi vibhāga kalpyante
yeneti Vyākaraṇam’, the meaning thereby is this that Vyākaraṇa analyses a
word into stem and suffix in order to find out the derivative meaning of the
word. That is, the syntactical form of the word is traced with the help of
grammatical operation, and the semantic aspect is taken care of by the
usages of the elderly persons (vṛddha-vyavahāra). The famous mandate
‘avayavaprasiddheḥ samudāyaprasiddhirbalīyasī’ (Paribhāṣā 107) clarifies
the difference between the syntactical and semantical forms of a word and
emphasizes the point that practical usages of words as found in the
particular community of language should be given primary importance. For
example, Patañjali and kaiyaṭa both agree that the word ‘taila’ is not the
modification of the word ‘tila’, though people have usually accepted that
meaning. In fact, there are varieties of ‘taila’ (oil) and in order to differentiate
them from ‘tila-taila’ (oil derived from ‘tila’ only), one has to put adjectives
before every kind of oil. Thus both Patañjali and Kaiyaṭa viewed that the
word ‘taila’ is fixed (ruḍha) for all kinds of oil by the community-users of the
language. Similar is the case with the word ‘pravīṇa’. Though, etymologically
it designates ‘one who is expert in playing Veenā’, but the community-users
of the language have fixed the meaning for ‘one who is expert in any kind of
work’. Both the words—taila and pravīṇa – are given the status of
independent and fixed meaning, having no connection with their etymology.
Taila śabdācca pratyayo na vaktavya iti. Prakṛtyantaraṃ tailaśabdo vikāre
vartate. Evaṃ ca kṛtvā tilatailamapi siddhaṃ bhavati
(Mahābhāṣyam under
Pāṇini-sūtra 5/2/29)
18
Upamānāśryeṇāpīṅgudatailamityādi sidhyati. Tilavikāre mukhyaṃ tailaṃ, tat
sādṛśyādanyadapi tailamiṅgudādibhivirśiṣyate. Gauṇasaṃbhave ca
mukhyataila pratipādanāya tilaiḥ viśeṣṇāt tilatailamityapi bhavatīti
kecidāhuḥ vyutpatyupāya eva tilatailavikāraḥ tailamātra.
Ruḍhiśabdasatvayaṃ snehadravyavṛttiḥ
( Mahābhāṣyapradīpa under Pāṇini-sūtra
5/2/29)
Therefore, the meaning given by the community-users of that word is more
important than the derivative meaning of the word. Naturally the question
that comes to one’s mind is― what is the use of learning grammar, if one
can grasp the meaning of a word by (community-users) convention only?
Patañjali opens his discussion on Vyākaraṇa by citing the Sūtra― ‘atha

śabdānuśāsanam’ which has been further rendered as ‘śabdānvākhyāna’ or
sometimes explained as ‘śabdopadeśaḥ’. The literal meaning of
‘śabdānuśāsanam’ is that Vyākaraṇa determines the structural formation of
words according to certain rules and regulations. Patañjali himself says
‘anuśāsana’ is nothing but ‘anvākhyāna’ or narration of word. Vyākaraṇa
does not count only how many words are there in a language, what are the
grammatical operations of them but it also takes into account its usages and
its variations in different contexts. The word ‘anuśāsana’ is derived from
‘śasu upadeśe’ and ‘śāsu anuśiṣṭau’. The former clearly explains that
Vyākaraṇa prescribes certain rules and operations in order to deliver the
correct and consistent language and the latter describes that Vyākaraṇa
determines the correct use of language. Through Vyākaraṇa one
understands the different ways of formatting words, sentences. It also
determines how the words and sentences uttered by the speaker carry the
correct meaning to the listener. Thus, the internal structure of the language
and the mutual relationships among different words in a sentence are
determined by Vyākaraṇa. Bhartṛhari ensures that the Vyākaraṇa does not
19
create any new language, but it aims to find out the hidden structure of the
language which is in vogue.
Yaḥ eva laukikaḥ śabdo’sāvevāśṛīyate. Tasyaivedamanuśāsanaṃ śāstram.
(Mahābhāṣyam, Tripadi Tīkā 1.1.10)
Thus, he bestows the foundation of Vyākaraṇa Śāstra to the ordinary

language speakers. One remembers here once again Patañjali who says that
when one wants to have a pot, one goes to the pot-maker’s house and asks
for a pot, but one does not go to the grammarians’ house if one wants to
coin a new word. One simply coins a word.
“Lokataḥ-- yalloke’rthamupādāya śabdānprayuñjate naiṣāṃ nirvṛttau
yatnaṃ kurvanti. Ye puṇaḥ kāryābhāvā nirvṛttau tāvatteṣāṃ yatnaḥ kriyate.
Tadyatha ― ghaṭena kāryaṃ kariṣyan kumbhakārakulaṃ gatvāha ― kuru
ghaṭaṃ kāryamanena kariṣyāmīti. Na tāvacchabdānprayuyukṣamāṇo
vaiyākaraṇakulaṃ gatvāha ― kuru śabdānprayuñjate prayokṣya iti.
Tavatyevārthamupādāya śabdānprayuñjate”
(Mahābhāṣyam, Paspaśāhnika 1.1.1)
This establishes the point that words carry their meanings depending on
the different uses of the language speakers and not just by reading the
grammar books.
Let us come back to our point and discuss the function of grammar in the
context of learning a language. It is not the case that Vyākaraṇa does display
the list of words and their operations like a dictionary. On the other hand, it
conveys the process and relationship among the different words. Patañjali,
when uses the word ‘śabdopadeśa’, understands by it ‘śabdopadeśaḥ
kartavyo’paśabdopadeśo vā’ (Mahābhāṣyam, Paspaśāhnika, 1.1.1). That is to
say, he intends to designate that Vyākaraṇa distinguishes between sādhu
śabda and asādhu śabda, which are the words to be used and which are the
words not to be used by the elite speakers (śiṣṭa) respectively. Apart from
this, the list of words is infinite which cannot be taught for an eternal period
of time. In thousands of years Guru like Vṛhaspati could not teach pupil like
20
Indra, what to say of human beings who have limited time and potential!
Therefore, what is the way out if one desires to learn a particular language?
It is to be noted in this connection that Bhartṛhari interprets the word

‘upadeśa’ in two ways. First, the word ‘upadeśa’ stands for the lessons which
one derives from the tradition of the authoritative persons,
‘pāramparyeṇāvacchinna upadeśa āgamaḥ’, ground of which is called śruti
because it is the unquestionable authority of the seers (Ṛṣi). Secondly, in
the same line, he emphasized that Vyākaraṇa is Smṛtiśāstram also, because
it is retained and stored by a group of scholars, carrying the same traditions:
Tasmādakṛtakaṃ śāsṭraṃ smṛti ca sanibandhanām /
Ᾱśrityā’rabhyate śiṣṭaiḥ śabdānāmanuśāsnam //
(Vākyapadīyam, kārikā 1.43)
In this way, Vyākaraṇa is regarded by Bhartṛhari as both śrutiśāstra and
smṛtiśāstra. The main source of them is āgama, consequently Vyākaraṇa is
truly treated as āgamaśāstra. “Vyākaraṇāgama” means Vyākaraṇaśāstra,
which though depends on ordinary usages of words, yet it judges their
proper application in the proper contexts. Thus, one can say that ordinary
usage determines our linguistic behaviour, though later on it becomes the
treasure of Vyākaraṇaśāstra and generations to come are benefitted by that
treasure.
Śabdāḥ lokanibandhanā (Vākyapadīyam, kārikā 2.297)
Patañjali says―
Lokato’rtho prayukte śabdprayoge śāstreṇa dharmaniyamaḥ
( Mahābhāṣyam,
Paspaśāhnika, 1.1.1)
Śiṣṭebhya āgamāt siddhāḥ sādhavo dharmasādhanam/

Arthapratyāyanabhede viparītāstvasādhavaḥ//
(Vākyapadīyam, kārikā
1.27)
21
Wherever there is clash with traditional rules, the Grammarians favour
ordinary usages and assure their dignity, that is to say, the usages
overpower the grammatical rules and operations. For example, Bhartṛhari
argues that if one wants to know the nature of water, one cannot know it
through reason and arguments; one has to feel it and through practice one
can know what it is. It is impossible to know its nature through concepts or
logical arguments because knowledge about the nature of water is acquired
through its use, just as a goldsmith can evaluate the price of gems through
his constant practice and not through bare reasoning. Similar is the case with
language too. One learns the meaning of words through the usages of
ordinary speakers and not through grammatical operation only. Bhartṛhari
says―
Dharmasya cāvyavacchinnāḥ panthāno ye vyavasthitāḥ/
Na tānllokaprasiddhatvāt kaścit tarkeṇa bādhate//
Avasthādeśakālānāṃ bhedād bhinnāsu śaktiṣu/
Bhāvānāmanumānena prasiddhiratidurlabhā//
(Vākyapadīyam, kārikā 1. 31-32)
Thus the grammar can be primarily regarded as part of lokavijñāna and

its necessity can be shown in many ways. For instance, in Indian Philosophy,
especially Naiyāyikas accept that the relationship between the whole and
part is that of ādhāra-ādheya-bhāva (substratum-superstratum-relation).
The whole (avayava) resides in the parts (avayavī), as ‘the tree resides in its
parts, i.e., its branches, flowers, fruits etc’. But, in ordinary usage, when it is
said ‘the branch of a tree’, it amount to saying that the part (branch) is in the
whole (tree). Therefore, grammarians reject the traditional notion of ādhāra-
ādheya-bhāva (substratum-super stratum-relation) and confine to the
ordinary usage of parts residing in the whole. Helārāja, a commentator of
Vākyapadīyam says―
22
Etacca laukikavyavahārānuguṇyena śāstre’smin vyutpādyte.
Śāstrāntaraprasiddhā hi vyavasthā lokaviruddhā. Loke hi ‘gavi śṛṅgaṃ’
‘vṛkṣe śākhā’ iti vyavahāraḥ. Tathaiva ca vyākaraṇe’pyādhārasaptamī.
śāstrāntare tu avayaveṣvayavīti‘śṛṅge gauḥ’ ‘śākhāyāṃ vṛkṣaḥ īti syāt.
(Vṛtti on Vākyapadīyam, Jāti Samuddeśa,
kārikā 3.11)
Other examples can also be advanced in favour of lokavijñāna. Whether

a particular sentence conveys its meaning, individually or collectively,
depends on its popular usages. For example, when one says, ‘Devadatta and
others should be served food’ (Devadattādayobhojyantām), the sentence
should be analysed into three―
(1) Devadatta should be served food;
(2) Yajñadatta should be served food;
(3) Viṣṇumitra should be served food.
The single word ‘bhojyantām’ conveys the meaning for three different
persons. In another example, ‘Gargāḥ should be fined with hundred
currency’ (Gargāḥ sataṃ daṇḍanyatām), the single verb ‘daṇḍanyatām’
conveys the meaning collectively. In the former example the emphasis was
given to the individual, but in the latter example importance is given to the
collective aspect. It says that not every Garga should be fined with hundred
currencies, but collectively they should give hundred currencies to the king.
In the above instances cited, the popular usage simply determines the
relationship of verbal word to its subject counterpart― individually or
collectively. The common linguistic users do not go into the intricacy of this
puzzle. They just use it without prior learning of the grammatical rules. I
wonder, sometimes, if somebody asks me the rules of my mother tongue, I
would fail to get the answer. I simply can say ‘Oh! It is used in that way only.’
I have no argument for why it is so used. If this is the case what is the role of
grammar?
II
23
Vyākaraṇaśāstra is called Ᾱgamaśāstra, as mentioned above, because
the latter provides foundation to this Vyākaraṇaśāstra, since everything
cannot be proved by reason or logic always. There comes a time when one
stops this process of reasoning and rests on one’s own realization. For
example, Bhartṛhari says, the nature of dharma cannot be known by any
logic. It can only be realized.
Nā cāgamādṛte dharmastarkeṇa vyavastiṣṭhate/

Ṛṣīṇāmapi yajjñānaṃ tadapyāgamapūrvakam//
Bhartṛhari says there are two functions of studying grammar. The study
of grammar allows one to obtain the ground for application (pravṛttinimitta)
for the word and at the same time it allows one to disengage oneself from
the meaning which is not so desired (nivṛttinimitta). Sometimes they are
named as upacāra sattā and praticāra sattā respectively. The upacāra sattā
brings the meaning of a word in front of us and praticāra sattā takes away
the undesired meaning (anabhipsīta or pratiṣiddha artha) from the same.
The two roles― positive and negative― simultaneously operate. He
sometimes named them vyākaraṇa and apākaraṇa as well.
In other words, vyākaraṇa and apākaraṇa initiate one to choose the

appropriate meaning from the context, and eliminate the inappropriate
meaning from the same context. If someone asks: How many sons have you?
The questioner presupposed that the latter person has one or two sons or
three. If the other person answers that he has none, the answer is supported
by the method of elimination, apākaraṇa paddhati. This decision is taken by
vyākaraṇa and apākaraṇa both, which affirms the number as well as negates
the number too. Otherwise, there is no scope for answering the question that
he has none.
Once again if the question is asked ‘What is vyākaraṇa?’ and if again the
answer given is ‘Sūtraṃ vyākaraṇam’, then the question remains to be
answered is, sūtra-s are so cryptic that they need explanation and
24
justification so that one can understand the process of its application on
words.
Śabdā pratipattriti … kiṃ tarhi? Vyākhyānataḥ … nanu ca tadeva sūtraṃ
vigṛhitaṃ vyākhyānaṃ bhavati.
(Mahābhāṣyam 1.1.1)
Only the knowledge of rules and operation does not give one the
capacity to form words. It requires explanation also. For example, the sūtra
‘vṛddhirādaica’ gives no secret of word-formation unless one knows what
those words are and how they are changed. For example, the rule ‘akaḥ
savarṇe dīrghaḥ’ presupposes a phonological principle according to which
two ‘a’ sounds ‘ā’ having close proximity in their utterances. It usually and
invariably shows the natural tendency of being amalgamated into one
lengthened ‘ā’ sound. Thus the above mentioned sūtra is the natural
derivation from the spoken style. This might be regarded as a synthetic
method, since it approaches language in a fully comprehensive way and
helps one to gain mastery of language with lived-experiences. Thus
vyākhyāna is interpreted as:
Smṛtyudāharaṇapratyudāharaṇaṃ vākyādhyāhāraśceti.
( Mahābhāṣyam
1.1.1)
The basis of vyākaraṇaśāstra is smṛtiparamparā too. It is handed down

to the next generation, since, since at that time there was no much
possibility of storing the writing documentation and the tradition was oral
(śruti-paramparā). So vyākaraṇa was also treated in the similar fashion and
stored in memory bank and as such it is called smṛtiśāstra. If there arises
any controversy, one refers back to its traditional use. Hence, the birth of a
language takes place in a social context and its application is justified in
social context only. Unless one knows the intention (bhāva-tattva) of the
speaker, one cannot understand the meaning of an uttered word. Scholars
and elite speakers (śiṣṭa) of a language group begin with learning grammar
25
as upeya, where some of the words used in ordinary ways are taken for
granted and they are kept sacrosanct without any change or without any
analysis into prakṛti and pratyaya. For example, the words legitimatize by
nipātana are accepted as primordial form used in a linguistic community.
They do not require any explanation. They are considered as self-
evident. They are so mentioned as unanalysable and not subject to any
derivation. However, Pāṇini has tried to derive some of the words through
uṇādipratyaya in Uṇādisūtra. He has tries to find out the root of the word
through a common element among the many different meanings of a single
word. For example, the word ‘gauḥ’ stands for – ‘gauḥ’, ‘raśmi’ and ‘jyā’. The
common element which he explored among them is the root ‘gam’ which
means movement. Now he ignores the suffix and brings out the etymology
by ‘gamerḍo’ with the help of Uṇādi pratyaya. Here he has sought for
unexplored root of the word. But somehow it was not very well received by
the scholar-world.There is a very good humorous saying regarding the use of
Uṇādisūtra-s which I have heard from a Panditjee:
Uṇādi se pratyaya lāye ḍiyan ḍuluk ḍolanā/
Mā dhātu se sādha liyā miyā muluk maulanā//
III
The difference between śruti and smṛti is this that smṛti is the analysis of
‘accepted knowledge of language through tradition’ (jñāta jñānarāśi),
whereas śruti is that jñāta jñānarāśi which is unquestionable and more or
less incorrigible. They function together. Though language is constantly
changing, yet whenever there is pollution and mutilation of language more
than the necessary, tradition enters and checks its limit. On the other hand,
when there is too much rigidity in tradition then again the language is
reformed to some extent and is given a fresh air. So the dividing line
between the traditionally given stock and further added new stock, is very
difficult to draw.
26
The meaning of a word can be explained according to sūtra by providing
examples and illustrations (udāharaṇa). For example, in “sāmarthya” sūtra it
is asked: What does it mean by sāmarthya? Is it either bheda or saṁsarga,
or both? In the instance ‘rājapuruṣa’, the word ‘rājñaḥ’ stands for all the
royal properties and the word ‘puruṣa’ stands for person. But when the
sentence ‘rājapuruṣaṃ ānaya’ is uttered, the word ‘rājan’ eliminates all other
properties of the rājan except the puruṣa employed in royal office and the
word ‘puruṣa’ eliminates all other properties of puruṣa except relation to
royal office. In this way the two words rājan and puruṣa restrict each other’s
application and adopt a new meaning. The word rājan partially leaves off its
previous meaning, and adopts new meaning through ajahatsvārtha nāma
vṛttiḥ. This concept is beautifully narrated by Patañjali. He says that it is seen
in the world that a beggar having received alms once, proceeds to get from
elsewhere too without leaving the former and tries to add more. Similarly,
the words rājan and puruṣa keeping intact their partial meanings get a new
meaning too from the word ‘rājapuruṣam’.
Iha rājña ityukte sarvaṁ svaṃ prasaktaṃ; puruṣa ityukte sarvaḥ swāmi
prasaktaḥ. Ihedānīṃ rājapuruṣamānaya ityukte rājā puruṣaṃ
nivartayatyanyebhyaḥ swāmibhyaḥ, puruṣo’pi rājānamnyebhyaḥ svebhyaḥ.
Evaṃ etasminnubhayato vyavacchinne yadi svārthaṃ jahāti, kāmaṃ jahātu,
na jātucit puruṣamātrasyānayanaṃ bhaviṣyati…evaṃ hi dṛśyate loke
bhikṣuko’yaṃ dvitīyāṃ bhikṣāṃ samāsādya pūrvaṃ na jahāti.
(Mahābhāṣyam under Pāṇini-sūtra
2.1.1)
Sometimes counter examples (pratyudāharaṇa) are also required in
order to explain a point. Vākyādhyāhāra provides supplementary statements
in order to explain certain usages, the meaning of which is difficult to
apprehend through grammatical rules.
In this context, the two functions of the vyākaraṇa can be shown in a

slightly different way― lakṣyalakṣaṇe vyākaraṇam and lakṣaṇelakṣya
27
vyākaraṇam. The Vaiyākaraṇa-s who came after Pāṇini and Patañjali are
called Lakṣṇaikacakṣuṣa because they give much importance to grammatical
rules and their operation. According to them, it is only after learning the
grammar that one can acquire the mastery of language. The trinity of
Vyākaraṇa― Pāṇini, Patañjali and Kātyāyana, are treated as
Lakṣyaikacakṣuṣa since they put more weight to popular usages. The
Lakṣṇaikacakṣuṣa discusses the exceptional rules (apavāda) first and then
goes on to general rules (utsarga). Lakṣyaikacakṣuṣa discusses the general
rules first and then goes on to discuss the exceptional rules.
Kathaṃ tarhīme śabdāḥ pratipattavyāḥ kiñcitsāmānyaviśeṣavallakṣaṇaṃ
pravartyam. yenālpena yatnena mahato mahat
śabdaudhānapratipadyerana.
The lakṣaṇa is like cloud; when it rains, it rains equally everywhere
irrespective of its necessity.
‘Parjjanyavallakṣaṇa pravṛtti’ (Paribhāṣenduśekhara 120)
But in ordinary usages, one has to understand the context and then
apply the words. It is the lokavyavahāra that ultimately controls the
particular meaning of a particular word, otherwise any
word can designate any meaning― ‘sarve sarvapadādeśa’ (Mahābhāṣyam
1.1.20) as popularly said.
Sarvārthābhidhāna śaktiyuktaḥ śabdo yadā viśiṣṭe’rthe /
Saṁvyavahārāya niyamyate tadā tatraiva pratīti janayati //
(Mahābhāṣyapradīpa 1.1.22)
Patañjali has enumerated 18 such primary and secondary purposes of

learning grammar. The first five are counted as direct purposes,
Rakṣohāgamalaghvasaṁdehaḥ (Mahābhāṣyapradīpa 1.1.1), and the rests
are treated as advantages of learning grammar. For example, the sanctity of
the Vedas, the purity of pronunciation, derivation of words, simplest way to
learn a language and acquiring the different meanings of words are the
28
direct result of learning grammar. Other than these, there are many
additional advantages of learning grammar― one can use words according
to the appropriate situation, may avoid the incorrect utterance which may
cause disaster to the speaker.
IV
Knowledge is accepted as one of the most sacred possessions of human

beings and it must be partaken through language, so it is our prime concern
to protect the sanctity of the language. Therefore, Bhartṛhari concludes that
the science of grammar is a combination of both ‘lakṣya’ and ‘lakṣaṇa’. The
purification of language, the distinction of sādhu and asādhu śabda depends
on scriptures (āgama), and this in turn is regulated by ordinary usages. Just
as the medicines keep the body healthy and spiritual scriptural statements
keep the mind pure, similarly the study of grammar keeps the speech
correct. Thus, the sanctity of the language is maintained by following the
rules of Vyākaraṇaśāstra. This is an answer to the question whether
grammar does serve any useful purpose. Bhartṛhari looks upon grammar
from a different standpoint, elevating it to the status of āgama and smṛti as
referred to earlier.
Kāyavāgbuddhiviṣayā ye malāḥ samavasthitāḥ /
Cikitsālakṣaṇādhyātmaśāstraisteṣāṃ viśuddhayaḥ //
According to Helārāja, those who are in constant touch with the

scriptures, their intellect is clear like mirror. They can capture the true sense
of words. Even the common linguistic speakers cannot violate the rules set
by the elite users if they keep on consulting the grammar frequently. But,
sometimes elite users may have confusion regarding the particular use of a
word, and then they have to rely on scriptures for correct and appropriate
usage. Bhartṛhari says─ those who do not know the elite use of language are
like blind men. For them, the scriptures work as eyes─
Śāstraṃ cakṣurapaśyatām (Vākyapadīyam, Vṛttisamuddeśa, kārikā 79).
29
These scholars of śabdatatva are called śiṣṭapuruṣa, who ultimately
resolve the issue of correct and corrupt words. Their memory is respected,
since they are the conveyer of śāstras─
1) Śāstrasthānāṃ tannimittatvat / (Mīmāṃsā-Sūtra 1.3.9)
2) śiṣṭaprayogānuvidhyāyi idaṃ śāstram/ (Mahābhāṣyapradīpa, 1.1.1)
The śiṣṭā of one generation transmit their knowledge to the next

generation of śiṣṭā in an unbroken / uninterrupted way and presumably the
latter-day śiṣṭā derive their authority from their being in the line of
transmission from the śiṣṭā of older generation. In this way, the journey of
language is like the flowing water of a river that accumulates dirt on the
way, but again is purified by that flow alone, and consequently acquires the
signature of pravāha-nityatā.
Chapter II
Vyākaraṇaprayojanam
30
Saṃprāpte sannihite kāle na hi na hi rakṣati dukṛñ karaṇe
śabdajālaṃ mahāraṇyaṃ cittabhramakāraṇam. …
Vāgvaikharī śabdajharī śāstravyākhyānakauśalam.
Vaiduṣyaṃ viduṣāṃ tadvadbhuktye na tu muktye.
(Śaṃkarācārya)
These are only illustrations. They should be read in context. It says: “when in
death bed Grammar would not help. To get mukti one has to take resort to
bhakti. However for bhakti one has to have proper Knowledge which can be
had through Vedas. For proper understanding of Vedas one needs the
knowledge of Grammar”.
However, for mortal human beings like us, not aspiring for mukti, the
study of grammar is also essential to learn a language in order to cope up
with their greater benefit of social communication. Thus, any study of
language requires a systematic learning of words, sentences (principles
and derivations of words) and the different rules of operations. Learning
of language entails all three aspects of language-study, syntax (the
grammatical structure of words), semantics (their meanings) and pragmatics
(their uses) respectively. While it may not be easy to definitely determine
the meaning of words given this contextual flexibility and cultural
perspective, yet some “ fixed” meaning of words m u s t b e d e t e r m i n e d
for the language speakers to communicate effectively. It may happen that a
word is grammatically correct but when it comes into use, it may signify
nothing. Thus, structure of a language is embedded in its function and it is
precisely this function which determines the structure of the language.
Both these aspects cannot be separated categorically and because of this
closeness to each other, neither can be studied in isolation.
It is often the case that when one desires to fi rst learn a completely
alien language, one must start with the grammatical structure of such
language. Gradually one enters into the social framework of that language
and tries to pick up the nuances of the language. Conversely, it is also true
31
that people learn their mother tongue almost instinctively without having
any access to knowledge of grammar— an evidence of how we become
familiar with vocabularies as well as the method of constructing sentences
before actually c o m i n g in touch with grammar as such. For example,
long before one has acquired the word bhavati by grammatical operation,
one has used it in verbal form. Thus, the fundamental basis of grammar is
not purely artificial rules and their operations, but the natural principles of
grammar-learning have close affinity with popular axioms and laws. The
extent to which grammar is related to popular usages is best shown by
Patañjali through elaborate rules of grammar.
Naiveśvara ājñāpayati, nāpidharmasūtrakārāḥ paṭhanti— apavādairutsargā
bādhyāntamīti. Kiṃ tarhi? Laukiko’yaṃ dṛṣṭānta.
( Mahābhāṣyam under Pāṇini-
sūtra.1.1.47)
The science of grammar does not attempt to coin new words, taking
them in the very forms in which they are popularly used. Kātyāyana says
that authority of the popular usage of words dominates authority of the
meaning dependent on grammatical derivation. Thus, it is said:
Lokavijñānāt siddham (Mahābhāṣyam on Pāṇini-
sūtra.1.1.21)
Language undergoes tremendous transformation to an extent that it
becomes confusing for the people of that language community to decide
upon the accuracy of a word. In such a situation, speakers must depend
upon the cultured and educated class of people for final authority
regarding meaning of the word— Śiṣṭaśabdeṣu pramāṇam.
Thus, there are two parallel opinions determining the meaning of

words. One, popular, usage prevails such that the meaning of a word is
determined by how ordinary people use it; and two, it is presumed that the
meaning of a word is determined by an elite class who mostly follow the rules
of grammar.
32
Tadaśiṣyaṃ saṃjnapramāṇatvāt (Pāṇini-sūtra 1.2.53)
Siddhe śabdārthasambandhe (Kātyāyana under pāṇini-sūtra
1.1.1)
Lokataḥ (Kātyāyana under Pāṇini-sūtra 1.1.1)
It is true that there are no strict or fixed rules to learn a language.

Language is a flexible phenomenon which accommodates all kinds of
changes in society and in individual life. One keeps on balancing between
the two extremes for practical purposes. Therefore, there is no harm in
simultaneously following both ways in response to the situation.
Containing 4000 rules in style, preceded by abbreviation rules

grouping the phonemes of Sanskrit, Pāṇini’s Aṣṭādhyāyī is a monumental
work of the 5th century B.C. and a complete grammar of the Sanskrit
language. The Sanskrit language suffered mutilation and distortion of forms
at the hands of those who failed to pronounce wo rd s correctly and
distorted the glorious treasure of the Vedas and its culture. A complete
grammar is needed to protect the sanctity of language. Pāṇini’s
Aṣṭādhyāyī address this gap in attempting to integrate the syntactical and
semantical aspects of a language. Though the study of Vyākaraṇa was the
prime need to perform the religious activity of the Vedic tradition, but in
course of time the study of Vyākaraṇa branched out into an intensive study
of the Bhāṣā or spoken version of the ancient language. And there began a
different era of grammatical studies in early India— a big jump between
religious grammatical and secular grammatical studies.
While concerned mainly with the formation of correct words, Panini

did not ignore its semantic aspect. In samarthaḥ padavidhiḥ (Pāṇini-sūtra
2.1.1.), he r e v e a l s an operation involving two or more words that
applies only to such cases which are syntactically and semantically
related. The term sāmarthya is explained by Patañjali t o i m p l y unity of
semantic function (ekārthībhāva) and mutual expectancy
33
(parasparākāṃkṣā). For example, the term “measure” (parimāṇa) sanctions
use of the nominative in cases, like “measure of grains” (prastho brīhiḥ) in
which there is additional notion of being ‘measured by’ and in the case of
“the Brāhmaṇa is fire”, the additional notion of “similarity to the fire” is to
be indicated. This additional function is conveyed by looking into the use of
words because the meaning of a word is determined by the user of the
language given that Indian tradition is mainly an oral tradition. Knowledge
was imparted through śrutiparamparā. Vyākaraṇa provides the rules and
pronunciation to keep the oral forms of language pure which is essential for
all other philosophic schools. Thus, Pāṇini’s Aṣṭādhyāyī is grammar founded
upon the oral usages rather than etymology or derivation to some extent.
Language is said to be fully alive in Indian tradition only when spoken with
correct pronunciation in accent and precise meter. Writing is a coded
recording of the oral tradition that can never represent all nuances of the
spoken word and is, therefore, always secondary. Language is not just a
repeated reproduction caged within grammatical rules and operation, but a
phenomenon that not only incorporates live changes but sometimes
goes beyond the conventional framework. While Vyākaraṇa undeniably
provides training rules for the oral learning of language, it is not just a
mechanical mastering of conjugation and declension of certain forms. In
fact, it is said to cover almost the entire spectrum of thought as the entire
world of objects resides in words in a subtle form as claimed by
Grammarians. It is, in fact, regarded as the creative force behind all our
activities as mentioned by Bhartṛhari.
śabdeṣvevavāśritā śaktirviśvasyāsya nibandhanī. (Vākyapadīyam, kārikā
1.118)
Everyone uses grammar— each of us adheres to certain principles

in the verbal expression of our thoughts and presupposes a number of
principles upon which the science of grammar is based, though unaware of
the way in which we combine one word with another. Thus, Grammar
originates from the popular mode of expression that in turn derives its
34
essence from the popular usages. Consequently, it is the Vyākaraṇaśāstra
that draws its sources from popular usages and not the other way round.
People do not learn a language by initially learning grammatical operation.
In Daśakumāracarita, Daṇḍī says:
yāvatā ca nayena vinā na sidhyati lokayātrā sa lokata eva siddhau nātra
śāstrāṇārthaḥ. stanandhayopi tai stairupāyai lipsate stanyapānam jananyāḥ.
“Rules and regulations are learnt through our practical experience and not
through scriptures. Just as a new born child learns to feed from his mother’s
breast instinctively and not through scriptures, so we learn language
instinctively or effortlessly. He knows how to express himself through body
language.”
It is therefore said that poets and writers enjoy absolute freedom

while expressing themselves through their writings (niraṃkuśāḥ
kavayaḥ). Accomplished poets such as Māgha, Bhāravi and Kālidāsa used
to go beyond the conventional uses while expressing themselves:
apaśabdaśataṃ māghe bhāravau tu śatatrayam/
Kalidāse na gavyante kavireko dhanañjayaḥ//
In similar defiance to the rules of grammar, Naiyayikas stated

asmākunāṃ naiyāyikeṣāṃ arthani tātparyaṃ śabdani kościntā, meaning
thereby, “We, Naiyāyikas, do not care for words; we care for meaning”.
Devotees also do not accept the slavery of grammar. In whatever manner,
correctly or incorrectly, one utters the word “Viṣṇu”; the blessings pour
equally upon all.
Mūrkho vadati viṣṇāya jñānī vadati viṣṇave/
Dvayoreva samaṃ puṇyaṃ bhāvagrāhī janārdanaḥ//
If the rules of grammar were strictly applied, there will remain no

place for creative craft of words as pointed out sarcastically:
Vaiyākaraṇa kirātādapaśabda mṛgāḥ kva yānti santrastāḥ/
Jyotirnațavița gāyak bhiṣagānan ghvarāṇi yadi na syuḥ//
35
“Where would distorted words, like the deer frightened by hunters
(Grammarians) take refuge, if there were no dense forests (mouths of the
astrologers, actors, singers and physicians).”
Thus, grammar clearly derives its data from common sources while
leaving enough space for creative users to employ them in their own way.
Patañjali says:
Tadyathā— ghaṭena kāryaṃ kariṣyan kumbhakārakulaṃ gatvāha— kuru
ghaṭaṃ kāryamanena kariṣyāmīti. Na tāvacchabdānprayuyukṣamāṇo
vaiyākaraṇakulaṃ gatvaha— kuru śabdānprayokṣya iti.
Tāvatyevārthamupādāya śabdānprayuñjate.
( Mahābhāṣyam, Paspaśāhnika
1.1.1)
“When one desires to have a pot, one goes to the pot maker’s house and
says ‘make a pot’ but when one desires a new word, one does not go to
grammarian’s house and say ‘make me a word”.
It is the word-users who create words according to their choices

and wills. Even many of the usages, which are grammatically incorrect, are
accepted in Vyākaraṇaśāstra because such usages are palpably found
among the linguistic users. According to the grammarians, such usages are
not to be ignored but should be justified on the basis of the ‘intention of the
speaker’ (vivakṣā) which is a fact of language. For instance, one and the
same thing, i.e., sthālī might be used both as the karaṇa kāraka (sthālyā
pacati) and as the adhikaraṇa kāraka (sthālyāṃ pacati) and also as kartṛ
kāraka (sthālī pacati), though it is true that in all these cases sthālī always
remains as the adhikaraṇa. Thus, Grammar is concerned with what people
actually say, or rather how people speak of things and events; it does not
primarily impose its rules on language users. As Kaiyaṭa further states that
grammatical tradition has its root in usages—Prayogamūlatvād
vyākaraṇasmṛteḥ.
Bhartṛhari points out:
36
Vastutastadnirdeśyaṃ nahi vastu vyavasthitam /
Sthālyā pacyat ityeṣā vivakṣā dṛśyate yataḥ //
Patanjali says under Pāṇini sūtra 1.4.24 that one may not wish to
communicate things that objectively exist, just as one may wish to express
things that do not.
Sataḥ api avivakṣā bhavati. Tat yathā alomikā eḍakā. Anudarā kanyā iti.
Asatśca vivakṣā bhavati. Samudraḥ kunḍikā, vindhyaḥ vardhitakam iti.
Let us take the above instances ‘alomikā eḍakā’, ‘anudarā kanyā’.

Though, here, the speaker does not intend to refer to the slight hair of
sheep or slim belly of the girl, rather he wants to ignore them and thus he
uses the word ‘ña’ in order to set aside the existing fact, that is, slightly
existing hair and the slim belly of the sheep and the girl respectively.
Similarly, ocean may seem a basin and the Vindhya a large pile of rice, that
fantasy is free and the language following it must not be questioned.
To say least, sometimes certain grammatical expressions are often

bracketed as asādhu because of the dominance of the popular usages. Thus
instead of saying ‘skandhe bhāraṃ vahati’ (7th case case ending),
‘skandhena bhāraṃ vahati’ becomes the correct version. It proves that there
is, strictly speaking, no rigid principle as to restrict the use of certain kāraka
to particular things. The subjective element such as vivakṣā, appears to be
the prominent factor that regulates the use of kārakas. Thus one and the
same thing, such as asi, may be either used as a kartā or karaṇa, according
to the speaker’s intention that imply the operation of the active agent (asi
chinatti) or that of the instrumental cause (asinā chinatti) with regard to the
action of the cutting. Further, when the independence of the agent is a
matter of vivakṣā, one and the same thing as the soul (ātmā) may be used in
the example ātmanāmātmānaṃ hanti, either as the subject, the object or
the instrument of the act of killing. Such examples are innumerable in
37
grammar. But for the sake of brevity, we will take into account the case of
apādāna kāraka in this connection.
The definition of the apādāna kāraka — “dhruvam’pāye’pādānam”

(Pāṇini-sūtra 1.4.24) deserves careful examination. The word ‘dhruva’
generally means ‘motionless’ which fairly justifies the use of 5 th case ending
in the instance, ‘vṛkṣāt parṇam patati’ , where vṛkṣa remains motionless
while parṇam falls down. But this is hardly compatible when the ‘falling
down’ takes place from the ‘running horse’ as in the instance, “dhāvato’śvāt
patati”. Here both the horse and the rider are equally in motion. How, then,
are we justified in taking the word ‘aśva’ as an instance of apādāna kāraka?
Patañjali holds that there are some permanent elements in the horse such as
aśvatva which is said to be the implication of the speaker. Thus what
speaker intends to say is— dhruvatva or motionlessness. The literal sense,
i.e., nityam and kūṭastham is avoided here. In the instance, ‘vṛkṣāt parṇaṃ
patati’, tree is grammatically called dhruva in relation to the leaf that falls
down as the result of separation, but in the case of “dhāvato’śvāt patati
aśva” is not absolutely motionless in relation to the rider that falls down.
However, if we take the word aśva signifying aśvatva-jāti which remains
rather unaffected (udāsīna) during the fall of the rider, the inclusion of the
word ‘dhruva’ in the sūtra can be justified.
An exception is found in the instance, vṛkṣasya parṇam patati where

the co-inherence of vṛkṣa and parṇam, is intended to be expressed. So
instead of saying vṛkṣāt (5th case ending) we get vṛkṣasya (6th case ending).
The speaker’s intention is to point out the ‘the falling of the leaf which is in
relation with tree’. The intention is not to illustrate ‘the falling of the leaf
from the tree’, but ‘the falling of the leaf which is in relation with tree’
(vṛkṣasaṃbandhinaḥ parṇasya pāto vākyārtho vivakṣitaḥ, iti
vṛkṣasyāvadhinā vivaksa ca nāsti).
In fact, many such examples and usages justify that one is free to
mould the grammatical operation as one wishes to. In lighter vein it reflects
38
the famous proverb that ‘though it is correct, yet since it is against the
popular usages, it should not be followed’ (yadyapi śuddhaṃ lokaviruddhaṃ
nācarṇīyaṃ nācarṇīyam)
The above objection can be answered that the ‘intention of the
speaker’ cannot be stretched to any extent and consequently misused as
one desires. It is regulated by certain necessary conditions:
1) There should not be any change in the meaning of the sentence. For
example, ‘grāmādāgacchati’ should not be changed to ‘grāmamāgacchati’.
2) There should not be any change in the root-word—that is, prātipadika
and dhātu. For example, one cannot use ‘grāmaṃ tyajati’ in place of
‘grāmādāgacchati’ because the root-words are different in both the cases.
3) Patañjali explains under Pāṇini sūtra 5.1.16 that there are two types of
vivakṣā— prayoktṛ and laukikī. The former is present when one uses ‘tender,
affected, slippery’ words, showing individual taste for speech. Patañjali uses
the adjectives like ‘mṛdun snigdhān ślakṣaṇān’ which might incorporate
‘corrupt words’ (apabhraṃśa śabda) too in the long run. They are clearly
individual which otherwise must not and should not be imitated, since there
is no limit to personal freedom. The laukikī vivakṣā is of a different type,
there we have majority approval— Prāyasya sampratyayaḥ, and it expresses
a common perception of the established language users. It does not enjoy
the limitless freedom of the former type in violating the grammatical rules.
4) Thus, Vivakṣā is finally decided by elite speakers (śiṣṭa vaktā). Anyone
who is not an expert of language and suffering from derangement of mind
cannot be the elite speakers of the language.
Helāraja very beautifully observes that it is the intellectual intention of

the speaker which allows the imposition of ‘non-difference’ (abheda) over the
‘difference’ (bheda) and imposition of ‘difference’ (bheda) over the ‘non-
difference’ (abheda). (buddhyaikaṃ bhidyate bhinnamekatvaṃ
copagacchati). As we have found in the above example, ātmanāmātmānaṃ
hanti. Though ātmā is one, yet due to the vivakṣā-buddhi of the vaktā,
39
bhedabuddhi of kartā, karaṇa and karma is imposed. Similarly, in the
instance, ‘kaṭaṃ na karoti’ , though kaṭaṃ is yet to be produced, still without
assuming its existence the particle ‘na’ cannot be related to it. Thus the non-
existing kaṭam is taken as resident in the mind of the speaker and its
existence is thereby negated.
In this way, we can go on adding such grammatical deviation in the

linguistic operation, but that will only lengthen the body of the writing and
our main focus will be diverted. So we close down this issue here.
II
Mīmāṃsā-Sūtra “prayogotpattyaśāstratvācchabdeṣu na vyavasthā syāt”
(1.3.24) says that there are words which are formed according to sūtra yet
they are not permitted in popular usage and then there are words used
popularly but not as per the sūtras. The meaning ‘cow’ is determined by the
word ‘gauḥ’ and so is the case with other distorted words like ‘gāvī, ‘goṇī’
and ‘goputtalikā. They all designate the same meaning, so why the word
gauḥ should be kept in privileged position and declared as sādhu śabda? In
fact, it is the śāstra that follows the popular usages and its meaning is
controlled by them, so the question of distinguishing sādhu and asādhu
śabda does not arise at all.
lokaprasiddhaśabdārthavaśaṃ śāstraṃ pravartate/
ato na laukikeṣvasmātsādhvasādhutvanirṇayaḥ//
(Tantravārttika under Mīmāṃsā-
Sūtra 1.3.24)
Pāṇini, Kātyāyana and Patañjali, the greatest authorities in the
Vyākaraṇaśāstra, are found to have made use of ungrammatical words and
expressions in their works. For instance, in ‘janikartuḥ prakṛtiḥ’ (Pāṇini sūtra,
1.4.30), the Mīmāṃsākas point out two grammatical mistakes — 1) the term
‘jani’ stands for the root ‘jan’ (to produce) and it is in connection with the
‘kartā’ (creator) of this root that the sūtra evidently prescribed the use of the
5th case ending, which is absolutely unjustified, since the 5 th case ending
40
cannot be attached to the kartā. 2) The second mistake in the same sūtra is
that the compound ‘janikartuḥ’ itself is ungrammatical as it is direct
violation of the Pāṇini sūtra— tṛjakābhyāṃ kartari’ ( 2.2.15), which lays down
that there can be no compounding with nouns ending in ‘tṛch’ and ‘ak’
suffixes; and here we have the compounding with the ‘kartṛ’ which contains
the ‘tṛch’ suffix.
In Kātyāyana’s Vārtika also, one meets with sentence
‘dambherhalgrahaṇasya jātivācakatvāt siddham’, where the compound is
ungrammatical, being the violation of the Pāṇini sūtra—tṛjakābhyāṃ kartari’
(2.2.15), as the term ‘vācaka’ ends in the ‘ak’ suffix and as such is
uncompoundable under the sūtra. It is ironically mentioned in Tantravārttika
that ‘it is same as the one who rides a horse and forgets the horse itself:
‘aśvāruḍhāḥ kathaṃ cāśvanivismareyuḥ sacetanāḥ’.
It is true that in order to enhance the beauty in literature, rules of
grammar are sometimes kept aside. Rhetoricians often deny grammatical
rules and operation to add beauty to the argument. The Mīmāṃsā says:
Loke tu sarvabhāṣābhirarthā vyākaraṇādṛte/
Sidhyanti vyavahāreṇa kāvyādiṣvapyasaṃśayam//
Kāvyaśobhāṣvapi tvetannaivātīvopayujyate/
Vaiyākaraṇadoṣādhi kaṣṭāñcchabdānprayuñjate//
Na Ca lakṣaṇamastīti prayoktavyamlaukikam/
Lokasiddhaprayoge tu lakṣaṇam syādanarthakam//
Tenaloke’pi na kadācid vyākarṇena śabdarakṣā/
Sūtra 1.3.24)
Even Pāṇini set aside the rules of grammar in certain literary
expressions found in Pātālavijaya, say, for example —
Asaugireḥ śītalakandarasthaḥ pārāvato manmathacāṭudakṣaḥ /
Dharmālasāṅgīṃ madhurāṇi kūjan saṃbījate pakṣapuṭen kāntām/
Although correct according to Kātyāyana, the word ‘Dharmālasāngim’
is not correct according to Pāṇini grammar. In Aṣṭādhyāyī, it is mentioned
41
that at the end of the word ‘aṅga’, there should not be dīñp pratyaya if it is a
case of bahubrīhisamāsa. Thus according to Pāṇini, it should be
dharmālasāṅgāṃ. Moreover, the word madhuram is appropriate as a case of
‘kriyāviśeṣaṇa’, madhurāṇi, the plural form, should not have been used. Also,
saṃbījate should have been replaced by bījate. There are infinite examples
in every language where the limits of grammatical operation are
transcended. Does it prove that the learning of grammar is of no use?
Certainly not! Even though we learn our mother tongue instinctively and
effortlessly, yet we need to consciously learn grammar in order to hone
our linguistic technique. Native speakers are seldom models for learning a
language. In order to learn the practical rules of language, one must learn
grammar from one who is a model for even the native speaker, decided
through scriptural authority. The preceptor has repeatedly preached that:
Yadyapi bahu nādhīṣe tathāpi paṭha putra vyākaraṇam/
Svajanaḥ śvajano mā bhūt sakalaṃ śakalaṃ sakṛta śakṛta ca//
If the reading of the Vedas is one’s sole ambition, one cannot fulfill it
without mastering the rules of grammar. It is said in Nirukta:
Tadidaṃ vidyāsthānaṃ vyākaraṇasy kārtsynyaṃ svārthasādhakaṃ ca
(1.1.15)
Lack of a precise understanding of the meaning of the mantra will not

produce the appropriate result. The root of dharmādharma is Vedas and the
life of the Vedas is mantras, therefore mantra cannot be chanted without
proper accent and pronunciation and the same, in turn, is not possible
without acquiring the phonological art.
Āsannaṃ brahmaṇastasya tapasāmuttamaṃ tapaḥ/
Prathamaṃ chandasāmaṅgamāhuḥ vyākaraṇaṃ budhāḥ//
(Vākyapadīyam, kārikā,
Brahmakāṇḍa 1.11)
Thus, Vedic words need to be learnt through Nirukta, while ordinary
words require to be polished through grammar. So essential is grammar
42
that Kumārila has treated it a t par with Smṛtiśāstram. Kumārila c o n f e r s
Vyākaraṇaśāstra the status of Smṛti, since Vyākaraṇaśāstra is handed
down to us through oral tradition.
Śrutismṛtipramāṇatve hetupūrvaṃ nirupite/
Aṅgānāmpramāṇatvamśāstratvaṃ ca ko vadet//
Athāpi smṛtiśabdena nāngānāmabhidheyatā/
Tathā’pyeṣaṃ na śāstratvampramāṇatvanirākriyā//
Purāṇaṃ mānavo dharmaḥ sāngo vedaścikitsatam//
Iti hi tulyavatprāmāṇyasmaraṇam.
(Tantravārttika under Mīmāṃsā-sūtra
1.3.29)
III
At this juncture, we return to the basic question of whether popular
usages determine the meaning of a word. Whether learning a language
depends upon ordinary usages? Whether grammar is no longer necessary to
learning of language? Whether rules and grammatical operation have
nothing to do with language learning? We usually employ all kinds of
pramāṇas in grammar but “usages by ordinary speakers of that language
group” are called forth in crisis regarding the appropriate and correct use
of words. These popular usages hold a very special status among all valid
sources of knowledge. For example, the relationship between a word and its
meaning is determined by lokavijñāna, that is, by ordinary usages. Kaiyaṭa
says—
śabdārthasambandhe lokavyavahāra eva pramānaṃ, nānyat.
( Mahābhāṣyapradīpa
4/1/93)
Since meanings are not produced by words, one must seek resort to words in
order to explain the meaning, Kaiyaṭa says:
na hi śabdairarthā utpādyante yayhoktam/ na hi śabdakṛtena nāmārthena
bhavitavyam//.
(Mahābhāṣyapradīpa
43
2/2/29)
Pāṇini, Kātyāyana and Patañjali supported the ordinary users of
language. In any clash between the classical theory and common users,
one must seek refuge in the common uses. For example, there is an
accepted opinion among philosophers that the whole (avayavī) resides in
the parts (avayava); that the tree resides in its branches, fruits etc. On the
other hand, the common users of language say “the tree has branches” or
“the cow has horns”. Hence, the grammarians reject the notion of
ādhārādheyabhāva or avayava-avayavībhāva, and instead, welcome the
ordinary users’ version like “vṛkṩe śākhā, gavi śṛngam’. It is the tree which is
the substratum (ādhāra) of branches i.e., ādheya. The horns, though
avayava, occur in the cow which is, in turn, an avayavī as quoted earlier.
There is a mandate in Nyāyaśāstra that ‘pramāṇairvastu
tattvaparikṣanaṃ nyāyaḥ’ or the nature of an object is known through valid
sources of knowledge called pramāṇa. But wherever there is contradiction
between ordinary use and scriptural conclusion, grammarian sides with the
former. According to them, the true nature of an object cannot be known
through logic or reasoning despite our best efforts. For example, the nature
of water can never be known through inference. Reason is like a two-edged
sword that cuts from both sides. If it can prove, it can also disprove; so one
must rely upon one’s inherent potential to know the exact nature of a thing.
Jus t as a jeweler acquires the skill of acknowledging the real gem and gold
coin through long practice, so does the ordinary user of language well versed
in using certain words has acquired expertise determining the meaning of a
word, and not the grammarian, who makes rules for the sake of rules only
—
Yatnenānumito’pyarthaḥ kuśalairanumātṛbhiḥ/
Abhiyuktatarairanyairanyathaivopapādyate//
Pareṣāmsamākhyeyamabhyāsādeva jāyate/
Maṇirūpyādivijñānaṃ tadvidāṃ nānumānikam//
(Vākyapadīyam, kārikā 1.34-35)
44
This also reveals that certain usages of language are so deep rooted
among the speakers that they cannot be used otherwise. Human mind
accepts such facts and adheres to them rigorously because they emanate
from a long process of verification. This is loka-nyāya. For example, a dog is
called a dog even if its tail is cut off— ekadeśavikṛtamananyavat
(Paribhāṣenduśekhara 38), since traditions and usages are so ingrained in
our built system that we come to spontaneously accept them. Thus, a dog is
a dog even if its tail goes missing.
Chinnapucche śuchitva vyavahāra vanamānte tattvaṃ lokanyāyasiddham.
(Paribhāṣenduśekhara
225)
The Śūtra “Vyapadeśivadekasmin” reveals such fact through the
following example which transcends the classification of elder, eldest and
youngest among the sons. The instance cited here is that of a person whose
only son is, for him, both the eldest and the youngest.
Yathā tarhi bahuṣu putreṣ etadupapannaṃ bhavati ayaṃ me jyeṣthaḥ ayaṃ
me madhyamaḥ ayaṃ me kanīyāniti. Bhavati caitadekasminnapi ayameva
jyeṣṭhaḥ ayameva me madhyamaḥ ayameva me kanīyāniti .
1.1.21)
IV
The following text from Gopathabrāhmaṇa relates the origin of

Vyākaraṇa:
Oṃkāra— pṛcchāmḥ ko dhātuḥ? kiṃ prātipadikam? kiṃ
nāmākhyātam? kiṃ liṅgam? kiṃ vacanam? kā vibhaktihkaḥ?kaḥ
pratyayaḥ? kaḥ svara? upasargo nipātaḥ kiṃ vaiyākaraṇaṃ ko
vākāraḥ ko vikārya kati mātraḥ kati varṇaḥ katyakṣara katipadaḥ
kaḥ saṃyogaḥ kiṃ sthānanādānupradānānukaraṇam.
In Ṛk-tantra it is stated that the first author of Vyākaraṇaśāstra was

Brahmā—
45
Brahmā vṛhaspatya provāca, vṛhaspatirindrāya, indro bharadvajāya,
bharadvāja, ṛṣibhyeḥ ṛṣyo brāhmaṇebhyaḥ.
The term Vyākaraṇa itself is found in Vedic literature: ‘namarūpe

vyākaravāṇi, dṛṣṭvārūpe vyākarot satyājṛte prajāpatiḥ’ etc. Although the
etymological meaning of the word ‘Vyākaraṇa’ clearly refers to the division
of prakṛti (stem) and pratyaya (suffix) ‘vyākriyante vyutpādyante śabda
anena asmin vā iti’ ‘prakṛtipratyayādi vibhāga kalpyante yeneti
Vyākaraṇam’, yet the word ‘Vyākaraṇa’ also differentiates sādhu śabda from
asādhu śabda. The word gauḥ is taken as sādhu because it is regarded as
the standard pronunciation of the word, whereas other words designating
the same animal, such as ‘gāvī’, ‘goṇī’, ‘gotā’ and ‘goputtalikā’ etc. are
deemed asādhu śabda as they convey the distorted forms of the primary or
original word ‘gauḥ’.
Vyākriyante asādhu śabdebhyaḥ sādhu śabdaḥ pṛthak kriyante anena iti
vyākaraṇaṃ (karaṇe lyuṭ by default kṛtya lyuṭo bahulam Pāṇini)
Actually, grammar is not a good substitute for the word ‘ Vyākaraṇa’.
It is, at best, a rough translation of the word ‘Vyākaraṇa’ which, not only,
includes the function of grammar but surpasses it depending upon the
usages. Its usages are determined by older people’s behaviour etc., while
etymological derivation only shapes the words. In other words, it is the
community meaning of a word which is stronger than the derivative
meaning. For example, the word gauḥ though derived from gacchatīti, it is
referred as gauh - an animal having dewlap etc. The derivative meaning is
ignored here. This process whereby the meaning of the ordinary word is
understood can also be applied to the understanding of the Vedic
words, since it is the usages in the Vedic context that the words gain
meanings. In the context of vaidika vākya, the Mīmāṃsakas state that the
meaning of a sentence is to initiate one into action (vidhi). But it is alleged
that arthvāda vākyas are not suppose to do the same function since they
eulogize the concerned deity etc. and has nothing to do with action,
46
consequently, they are meaningless. It is replied that the vedic sentences
are codified in the same way as it happens in case of ordinary sentence
(laukika-vākya). For example, the seller of cows praises before the potential
buyer as ‘this cow is worth purchasing, it gives lot of milk, it has calf, and
gives birth every year etc.’ The potential buyer naturally proceeds to buy it.
The laukika and vedic words though differ in content yet the manner in which
they are interpreted are same.
Lokavaditi cet (Mīmāṃsā-sūtra 1.2.20)
Stutirranarthikā, na ca śabdenāvagamyat iti. laukikāni vākyāni bhavanto
vidāñkurvantu. Yadyatheyaṃ gauḥ kretavyā devadattīyā, eṣā hi bahukṣīrā,
stryapatyā, anaṣṭaprajā ca iti. Kretavyetyapyukte
guṇābhidhānatpravartantetarāṃ kretāraḥ. Bahukṣīreti ca
guṇābhidhānamavagamyate. tadvad vede’pi bhaviṣyati.
(Śābarabhāṣya under Mīmāṃsā-
sūtra 1.2.20)
Thus, Ordinary word meaning prepares the ground for Vedic meaning.
“lokāvagata sāmarthyaḥ śabdovede’pi bodhakaḥ”

Those who are well versed in grammar (ācārya/śiṣṭa) begin the study of
grammar in either of the two ways. The first is called upeya nirdeśa in
which the meaning of the word is sustained as it is used in popular
speech. It is mainly concerned with the process of nipātana. There are
many words which are mentioned in the śāstra as they are used and heard
in the popular speech. They do not need grammatical procession or
analysis in prakṛti and pratyaya, still they are given the status of sādhu
śabda. There is a famous quoted verse found in Mahābhāṣyapradīpa
5.1.114:
dhātusādhanakālānāṃ prāptyartha niyamasya ca/
anubandha vikārāṇāṃ ruḍhyarthaṃ ca nipātanam//
47
The second is upāyavidhi in which the sādhutva of a word is
retained by grammatical operation, its etymological derivation and
analysis into prakṛti and pratyaya. Vaiyākaraṇas are not supposed to
construe word as they wish but they are supposed to describe the way in
which words are used in popular speech by native speakers. Rules and
injunctions are necessary for linguistic users, otherwise people will take the
infinite liberty to use the words as they like, and thus the nature of the
particular language will be distorted in course of time. Moreover, the other
reason for grammatical consederation is this: in case the authoritative
person (śiṣṭa) is himself confused with regard to the precise meaning of a
word, he can consult the source books. It is said in Māhābhāṣyapradīpa,
1.1.1 that śiṣṭaprayogānuvidhyāyi idaṃ śāstram. Bhartṛhari, therefore, says
that Śāstras are deemed ‘the eye to those who are blind to the true
meaning of a word ‘Śāstraṃ cakṣurapaśyatām (Vākyapadīyam,
Vṛttisamuddeśa, kārikā, 3.79)
Now the question is, who are to be treated as the authoritative

person regarding usage of a word in the correct manner? It is said
‘śāstrasthā vā tannimittatvāt’ (Mīmāṃsā-Sūtra 1.3.9), or those who are well
versed in śastra and have good memory (smṛti) use the correct word
independent of lakṣaṇa are to be respected as authoritative person
(śiṣṭaḥ).
Santi tu sādhuprayogānumeya eva śiṣṭāḥ/ (Harivṛtti on Vākyapadīyam ,
kārikā, 1. 143)
Śāstrapūrvikā hi śiṣṭiḥ vaiyākaraṇāḥ śāstrajñā (śiṣṭaḥ).
(Mahābhāṣyam, under Pāṇini-
sūtra 6.3.109).
In grammar, both techniques are applied; (a) lakṣyalakṣaṇe
vyākaraṇam, where grammar determines the meaning of a word, and (b)
the usages of an authoritative person determines the meaning of a word,
grammar is there for consultation only (saiṣāśiṣṭaparijñānārthaṣṭādhyāyī).
48
Bhartṛhari, also mentions two kinds of injunction (vidhi) in order
to comprehend the proper meaning of a word. The first is called
śabdavatī and the second is called ‘aśabdā’.
Tasmādanādi gurupūrvakramāgatā śiṣṭānumānaheturavyabhicārā
lakṣaṇaprapañcābhyāṃ śabdavatī vāśabdā ca smṛtinibadhyate.
(Harivṛtti on Vākyapadīyam, kārikā, 1.29)
Though, grammatical tradition is accepted as anādi through guru-

paramparā, yet ‘śabdavatī’ is regarded as that injunction which
takes into account the derivative formulation (prakṛti-pratyaya) of the
word. For example, sūtra ‘agnerḍhak’ determines the meanings of
hundreds of words according to grammatical rules. Nevertheless, there
may still be millions of words, contends Bhartṛhari, which do not fall
under any category of grammatical operation yet they are
considered as śādhu śabda because they are accepted by
śāstrakāra and are pronounced by authoritative persons (śiṣṭa). In
order to establish their points there are statements like
‘iṣṭamevaitadgornadiīyasyeti’ (Mahābhāṣyapradīpa, 3.1.92). This
kind of anuśāsana is called ‘aśabdā’ by Bhartṛhari.
Therefore, Śiṣṭa are those who adhere to the tradition of

Vyākaraṇaśāstra and set the norm to be followed by others. Though, there
is no explicit reference to śiṣṭa in Aṣṭādhyāyī. Bhartṛhari states that those who
do not know grammar cannot understand the true intricacies of word
meaning and their relationship. He considers Vyākaraṇaśāstra as
āgamaśāstra. Āgama stands for avicchinnaśruti
smṛtirupādāpyāprodeśo’dhika pramāṇam, because it is grounded in the
continued tradition and c or re ct remembrance. Those who followed
tradition transmit their knowledge to others worthy of using words correctly
as a part of practicing dharma. Its root lies in the premise of the ground of
āgama which is an unquestionable authority. Lokavijñāna, a word used
for grammar sometimes, is determined by unquestionable usages of
49
ordinary speakers. And since it is handed down to us through a chain of
tradition, it is called Vyākaraṇāgama as well as lokāgamaśāstra and
regarded as pramāṇa by grammarians. Bhartṛhari points out that if sense
organs are defective they fail to produce the correct meaning of a word and
conversely, seers who are extra-sensitive regarding the meaning of a word
(alaukikārtha) are not the true vehicle of ordinary meaning of a word. It is
the ordinary native speakers in a naïve way carry the task of designating the
correct meaning of a word.
Yaccopaghātajaṃ jñānaṃ, yaccajñānamlaukikam/
Na tābhyāṃ vyavahāro’sti, śabdālokanibandhanā//
(Vākyapadīyam,
kārikā 2.297)
Vyākaraṇāgamaśāstra adheres to the tradition of ordinary users,

whose speech is not always determined by the rules of grammar, still their
words are categorised as sādhu śabda. Vyākaraṇaśāstra is thus called
śrutiśāstra because we obtain it through our tradition— an eternal process,
so to say, that continues ever after.
Tasmānnibadhyate śiṣṭaḥ sādhutvaviṣayā smṛtiḥ iti ca Bhartṛhari.
Upadeśaṃ cāntareṇa saṃsakāraveti nirapabhraṃśe śabdabrahmaṇi
labdhapratiṣṭhānāṃ śiṣṭānāṃ anumānam. (Harivṛtti
on Vākyapadīyam kārikā,1.12)
Grammarians from Pāṇini to Patañjali were’ lakṣyaikacakṣuṣaḥ’ i.e.,

‘those whose eyes were fixed on the usages’. Therefore, Kātyāyana was right
when he claims that the function of the grammar is not to invent usage, but
to lay down strictures (dharmaniyama) i.e., to specify which usages in the
world are proper leading, therefore, to religious merit, which usages are not
proper and therefore, not of religious merit.
Lokato’rtahaprayukte śabda prayoge śāstreṇa dharmaniyamaḥ kriyate.
50
Those, who think that the dominating factor for language users is
linguistic usage described by grammar based upon the actual linguistic
performance observed in the world, do not cite the exceptional uses
(apavāda) first, since it strengthens their position. They do not search for
grammatical rules. They look for the usages while performing linguistic
activity. On the other hand, the lakṣaṇaikacakṣuṣa see the rules first and
then go for the usages— they discuss exceptional usagess (apavāda) first
and then go for utsarga. Thus, they first give sāmānyalakṣaṇa (uniform
rules) and then show exceptions by viśeṣalakṣaṇa (special rules).
Kathaṃ tarhī me śabdāḥ pratipattavyāḥ kiñcitsāmānyaviśeṣavatllakṣaṇaṃ
pravartyaṃ yenālpena yatnena mahato mahat śabdaudhānpratipadyeran.
Grammar describes only the proper, correct and meritorious linguistic

usage and excludes the rest as improper, incorrect and that which does
not lead to religious merit. Tradition provides that grammarians after
Patañjali were lakṣaṇaikacākṣuṣa i.e., those whose eyes were fixed solely
upon the rules of grammar. Rules once coined, applied uniformly to all other
cases. Thus lakṣaṇa may be compared to clouds which rain once but wet
crops all over.
Lakṣye lakṣaṇaṃ sakṛdeva pravartate (Paribhāṣenduśekhara
105)
‘Parjjanyavallakṣaṇa pravṛtti’ (Paribhāṣenduśekhara 120)
Accordingly, Pāṇini’s grammar of language data includes language

material both from Vedic texts of the bygone era as well as contemporary
regional and scholastic dialects. Pāṇini drew a line between that which he
perceived to be the authoritative (śiṣṭa) linguistic usage and the non-
acceptable lower class usage. Thus he says, more about what he considered
to be the proper usage of Sanskrit and less about what the people actually
spoke.
These two differing aspects of looking at the study of Vyākaraṇa are

51
not entirely disparate; they function complimentarily. According to
Bhartṛhari, Patañjali favours both the methods. One can learn from a
śiṣṭāpuruṣa who knows the intricacies of ordinary uses of the language or
learn first through grammar and then look at the ordinary uses. Bhartŗhari
combines the two views of grammar, one, as Smṛtiśāstraṃ which is
recollection and description of Ideal behaviour and the other as śāsan i.e.,
teaching ruling decree, regulations etc. The first view is purely descriptive
while the second adds a prescriptive dimension (vidhi). The dichotomy
harks back to the old contrast between notions of grammar as expressed by
the terms Vyākaraṇa and anuśāsana. However, our grammatical rules, apply
both to vidhi (aprāptasya vidhāna) and niyam (pakṣataḥ prāptasya vidhāna)
through ingrained tradition, are beautifully revealed through many
examples. We will see that later.
But why should one study Vyākaraṇaśāstra? Unless it fulfills one’s

desire (idaṃ madiṣṭa sādhanam), one will not proceed to its study—
purposeless action is better left unperformed. Apart from madiṣța sādhanaṃ,
it must be kṛtisādhya for one, or one must be capable of doing it idam
madkṛtisādhyam.
Sarvasyaiva hi śāstrasya karmaṇo vāpi kasyacit/
Yāvat prayojanaṃ noktaṃ tāvat tat kena gṛhyate//
(Ślokavārttika, kārikā
12)
Pāṇini, never prescribed any purposes for studying Vyākaraṇaśāstra.
For him, it was like nityakarma (daily action) performed without being told
or ordered. Nityakarma is performed not for any result but simply to avoid
pratyavāya. It is said that one does not achieve any result through doing
sandhyāvandanādi — its effect is to avoid pāpādi. Likewise anyone
aspiring for upliftment of soul will study Vyākaraṇaśāstra. Bhagavatī śruti
states:
52
Brāhmaṇena niṣkāraṇo dharmaḥ ṣaḍaṅgo vedo’dhyeyo jñyeśca.
(Mahābhāṣyam)
A brāhmaṇa should read the Vedas along with the six auxiliaries (aṅga-
s): Vyākaraṇa, śikṣā, kalpa, nirukta, chanda, jyotiṣa. Since the Vedas are aṅgī,
they cannot be read without their aṅga. The importance of reading the
Vedas is self-evident, so is the reading of its aṅga. There is no need to
mention its purpose other than the Vedas. Jayanta Bhațța says:
yadapi sūtrakṛtā svyaṃ prayojanaṃ kimiti na vyāhṛtamiti vyāhṛtaṃ tadapyadūṣaṇameva/
vyākaraṇaṃ hi vedāṅgamiti prasiddhametad ā himavataḥ ā ca kumārībhyaḥ. vedaśca yadi
niṣprayojanaḥ svasti prajābhyaḥ … sa prayojano vedaḥ so’ṅgavatttvādaṅgaiḥ sahaiva
saprayojanatāṃ bhajata iti ko’rthaḥ prayojanāntaracintyā?
(Nyāyamañjarī, Vol.
II. Pg. 192)
Study of Vyākaraṇaśāstra generates knowledge of words and their meanings

(akṣaragrahaṇa and arthajñāna ). The six vedāṅga-s are:
Śikṣā: it teaches the correct pronunciation of Vedic mantras.
Prātiśākhya-grantha teaches how to pronounce words correctly. The division
of sound into u d ā t t a , a n u d ā t t a a n d s v a r i t a the transformation of
sounds illustrated through the rules of samprasāraṇa and the
principles of euphonic combinations (sandhi) are indications how intimately
related grammar and phonology are in order to produce varṇa. Eight such
places are mentioned in pāṇinīya śikṣā:
aṣṭau sthānāni varṇānāmuraḥ kaṇtha śirastathā /
jihvāmūlaṃ ca dantāśca nāsikoshțhau ca tālu ca//
(Pāṇinīya- śikṣā 13)
It is a treatise on phonetics dealing with letters such as svara and
vyañjana as well as their accents, pronunciation etc. The rules such as
‘paraḥ sannikarṣa saṃhitā’ (Pāṇinīya śikṣā 1.4.109) and ekaḥ savarṇe
dīrghaḥ (Pāṇinīya śikṣa 6.1.101) convey that the tendency of two vowels
having close proximity and homogeneity to lengthening are as much
53
phonological as grammatical.
Vyākaraṇa: It is said that Vyākaraṇa is most important among the
six vedāṅga or auxiliaries to read the Vedas. Vyākaraṇa is considered the
face (mukha) of the Vedas.
pradhānaṃ ca ṣaṭaṣvaṅgeṣu Vyākaraṇa /
pradhānaṃ ca kṛto yatnaḥ phalavān bhavati //
Lack of proper reading of the Vedas produces two kinds of doṣas or
defects—First, it constitutes a violation of one’s duty (kartavya). Second, the
appropriate meaning of the Vedas is not revealed. Obtaining the meaning of
Vedic sentences is the primal purpose of the scholar. Therefore, one must
study Vyākaraṇaśāstra in order to decipher the meaning of the Vedic
sentences. Studying Vyākaraṇa is, therefore regarded nityakarma for a
Brahmin scholar. It is also regarded as kāmyakarma because it initiates one
towards protection of the Vedas. To quote from Mahābhāṣyam:
Eteṣāmapi svaravarṇanupūrvijñānārtḥ upadeśaḥ kartavyaḥ/
śaśaḥ ṣaṣa iti mā bhūt/
palāśaḥ palāṣa iti mā bhūt/
mañcako mañjaka iti mā bhūt/
Thus, śikṣā helps to recite and interpret the Vedic texts as such.
Kalpa: It enables one to collect the methodology of performing rites
and rituals in sacrifices found all over the Vedas.
Nirukta: It enables one to understand the etymology of the Vedic words.
Jyotiṣa: It determines the time (kāla) i.e., when to study the Vedas,
when a rite or ritual should be performed.
Chanda: The proper meter of the vedic mantras should be
maintained to be able to generate the correct meaning of the mantra.
As mentioned earlier, śikṣā and Vyākaraṇa are the most important
among the six vedangas. So, it is our duty to determine the proper subject
matter of Vyākaraṇaśāstra. The word Vyākaraṇa, as mentioned, means
vyākriyante vyutpādyante śabdā aneniti. Vyākaraṇam is that which explains
54
the derivation as well as provides the explanation of the śabda. It analyses
śabda, into stems (prakṛti) and suffixes (pratyaya) and helps in
understanding the significance. Mahābhāṣya states explicitly that
śabdānuśāsanam constitutes the main function of Vyākaraṇam. Sūtra ‘atha
śabdānuśāsanam’ may be interpreted as ‘śabdānvākhyāna’ or the
description of words through etymology to structure and form.
In his commentary tripadī on Mahābhāṣyam, Bhartṛhari says that the
function of Vyākaraṇa is to determine the popular usage of words.
Ya eva laukikaḥ śabdo’sāvevāśrīyate tasyaivedamanuśāsanaṃ śāstram.
Patañjali says the function of Vyākaraṇa is not merely counting
(parigaṇanā) of words as illustrated in dictionaries but prescribing the rules
as well. However, it is also required that a word be fully described. The
word anuśāsanaṃ is cited in the sūtra śasu upadeśo and made of śāsu
anuśiṣṭau dhātu. The former indicates upadeśa in the use of language while
the latter over control of the use of language. The function includes word-
formation, sentence-formation and meaning determination. The former,
that is, ‘upadeśaḥ’ means śabdopadeśaḥ’ described as
kartavyo’paśabdopadeśo vā (Mahābhāṣyam 1.1.1).
Now the question is whether ‘upadeśaḥ’ applies solely to sādhuśabda
or asādhuśabda also, especially because it will take an infinite amount of
time if each and every ‘śabda' is to be prescribed or taught. Even a teacher
such as Vṛhaspati and a preceptor as Indra could not manage to complete
the study of Vyākaraṇa even in thousands of years, not to speak of ordinary
mortals.
Anabhyupāya eṣa śabdānāṃ pratipattau pratipadapāṭhaḥ. evaṃ hi śruyate—
vṛhaspatirindrāya divyaṃ varṣa sahasraṃ pratipadoktānāṃ śabdānāṃ
śabda pārāyanaṃ provāca nāntāṃ jagām. vṛhaspatiśca pravaktā,
indraścādhyetā, divyaṃ varṣasahasramadhyayanakālo na cāntaṃ jagāṃ kiṃ
punaradyatve. Yaḥ sarvathā ciraṃ jīvati varṣaśataṃ jīvati.
55
Bhartṛhari interprets ‘upadeśaḥ’ as pāramparyenāvacchinnopadeśa
āgamaḥ or the traditional ‘upadeśaḥ’ handed over through oral tradition. It is
both āgama as well as Smṛtiśāstram.
ucyate Smṛtiśāstramidam.
(Mahābhāṣyam,Tripadi 1.1.1)
anādimavyavacchinnaṃ śrutirmāhurkartṛkām/
śiṣṭainibadhyamānā tu na vyavachidyate smṛtiḥ//
Since Kātyāyana prefers lakṣyalakṣṇe vyākaraṇaṃ, according to him,
Vyākaraṇa is both an explanation of śabda and also that of sūtra.
Lakṣyaṃ ca lakṣṇaṃ caitat samuditaṃ vyākaraṇa bhavati. Kiṃ
punarlakṣyaṃ, kiṃ vā lakṣaṇam. śabdo lakṣyaḥ sūtraṃ lakṣaṇam.
As sūtra defines the etymology of words, śabda and sūtra are
mutually related as abhidheya and abhidhāyaka.
They have pratipādyapratipādakabhāvasaṃbandha. Bopadeva says
śabdaiḥ mangal syāditi prayojanābhidheya saṃbandhaḥ.
However, a mention of sūtra does not establish the derivation of
śabda— it needs further explanation. Just as the mere learning through
medical books does not make one doctor and one must learn it through
practice; mere grammatical rules do not help one obtain the derivation of
words — one has to explain its operation.
śabda’pratipatti kiṃ tarhi? Vyākhyānantaḥ nanu ca tadeva sūtraṃ vigṛhītaṃ
Vyākhyāna bhavati
(Mahābhāṣyam 1.1.1.)
Bhartṛhari further explains na hi vṛddhirādaijityetasmācchabdān
pratipadyāmahe… sūtrasyabhivyaktyupāyo vyākhyānaṃ na kevalaṃ
carcāpadāni.
In other words, a mere mention of the sūtra ‘vṛddhirādaica’ will not
allow us to form words, we must learn their application. Vyākhyāna involves
explaining how to apply them. Patañjali lucidly explains that Vyākhyāna is —
56
Smṛtyudāharaṇa, pratyudāharaṇa, and vākyādhyāhāraśceti (Mahābhāṣyam
1.1.1.) i.e., Vyākhyāna means description through Smṛti, udāharaṇa,
pratyudāharaṇa, and vākyādhyāhāra (prasaṅga) consecutively. Smṛti stands
for constant flow of tradition through finding the sajātīya and vijātīyaśabda.
Udāharaṇa implies providing instances that can prove the application of
words (pratipatti/sārthakatā).
tasmādidameva pratipattavya, sūtradevodāharaṇādivijñātārthāt
śabdapravṛttiriti.
(Mahābhāṣyam,
Tripadī 1.1.1)
However, this is possible only when one pays attention to the use of
the words in a proper context (prayoga and prasaṅga). Use of language
depends upon the four pillars of—smṛti, udāharaṇa, pratyudāharaṇa and
vākyādhyāhāra. Rules should be accommodative enough to include both
unused, so-called dead words and also to form new words in future. This
should pave the way for future word-formation ensuring that one is not left
with a gripe of unused words. For example, uṣa, tera, cakra etc., were
formed through grammatical operation but they are not in use now.
Dictionary is a mere collection of words, but vyākaraṇa finds the logic behind
the variety of uses of words. It combines both syntactical (rūparacanā) and
semantical aspect (arthabhāvanā) of language. Classification of words into
saṃjñā and kriyā is not possible without understanding their application.
Idamantareṇa padavibhāgo na vidyate (Nirukta 1.1.1)
For example, dictionary may provide several meanings of the word
gataḥ but only Vyākaraṇa provides the difference between gatam (tena
gatam) (bhāve /ktaḥ) and gataḥ (sa gataḥ). Grammar provides the
instruction to use them, how, when and where. Dictionary reveals only the
similarity in structure but grammar finds the similarity in meaning as well as
variation of uses. It takes into account both context and use. Śvetaḥ means
white, but śvā ita means the dog went away. Dictionary is a mere collection
of words, but Vyākaraṇa extends to their use to the future and past. Pāṇini,
57
therefore, prescribed certain rules of nipātana where Vyākaraṇa has no
control over the changes in language.
Bhartṛhari states that Vyākaraṇa has dual function of pravṛttinimitta
and nivṛttinimitta. The former explains the ground for application for words
and the lat er withdrawn from application for the words.
tatrāyaṃ vyākaraṇaśabdaḥ kim brūte? Vyākriyate ityanena dvāreṇa
śabdepravṛtti nimittamācikhyāsannupanyāsaṃ karoti. (Mahābhāṣyam,
Tripadī 1.1.1 )
For example, there may be words similar in syntactical appearance
such that simply judging them from their appearance, one may use them
wrongly. But Vyākaraṇa trains us in the proper context of their use.
Śabdo hi kaścitulyarūpaḥ pravartamāno bhinnārtho bhinnanimittaḥ
parasparaṇapekṣamāṇaḥ pravartate. (Mahābhāṣyam, Tripadī 1.1.1)
Opposite to pravṛttinimitta is nivṛttinimitta which is also called

apākaraṇa or, when should a given word be not used. This can be explained
through examples such as “If someone asks how many sons do you have?
The reply may be — “One, two or many,” or some may say— ‘ None’; the
latter totally eliminates (apākaroti) the relevance of question”
Nirṇayasya vyākaraṇāpākaraṇābhyāṃ prakarṇapravṛttidarṣanāt. tadyathā

kati bhavataḥ putrāḥ, ityukte saṁjñāpūrvaṃ saṁkhyāmupādāya praśne
sṛtāḥ. Tasya nirṇayo vyākaraṇena apākaraṇena vā. kaścidāha, eko dvau
bahaba iti. eko’pi me nāsti. Ayamapākarotyeva praśnaṃ. Naivāyaṁ pṛṣṭavya
iti.
(Mahābhāṣyam Tripadī
1.1.1)
The role of apākarana is different from Buddhist’s apohavāda where

the negative aspect is predominant. When one asks the meaning of the
word gau; we say it is gavetarāvyavṛtta ‘that which is different from other-
than-cows’, fully acknowledging the non-cows as dominant factor. We
58
accept this positive aspect as the foundation while taking into consideration
the negative aspect too. The total information is both positive and
negative taken together and not a partial one. Apākaraṇa is said to be
complimentary to pravṛttinimitta.
Bhartṛhari also asserts that while a sentence itself is akhaṇḍa but for
the practical purposes of utility and convenience, it may be classified into
prakṛti and pratyaya etc.
Apodhṛtyaiva vākebhyaḥ prakṛtipratyayādivat/
3.1.1.)
apoddhāra or abstraction is the analytical process of separating the complex
entity, say, sentence into parts and studying each part in microscopic style.
In a sense it is prescribed (vidhāyaka) for minute and detail observation.
. Now it is clear that śabdajñāna is the direct purpose of the
Vyākaraṇaśāstram and śabdānuśāsanam is the pratipādyaviṣayā
anuśiṣyante asādhuśabda ebhyo vivicya jñāpyante aneneti.
(Mahābhāṣyapradīpodyota)
viviktāḥ sādhavaḥ śabdāḥ prakṛtyādivibhāgato jñāpyante yena tacchāstramatra
śabdānuśāsanam (Padamañjarī)
The corrupt words (asādhu śabda∕apabhraṃśa śabda) are so because

they are wrongly pronounced by the aliens (mleccha śabda) and the
scriptures prohibit the use of asādhuśabda. This rule is followed especially by
Sanskrit speaking Brahmins, particularly at the time of sacrificial
performance lest the purity of their rituals be vitiated through utterance of
corrupt words.
Brāhmaṇena na mlecchitavai nāpabhaṣitavai. Mleccho ha vā eṣa
yadapaśabdaḥ
(Mahābh
āṣyam 1.1.1)
Although both sādhu śabda and asādhu śabda express meaning yet
sādhu śabda alone is attended with religious merit.
59
Samānāyāmarthāgatau śabdenacāpaśabdena ca dharmaniyamaḥ kriyate
śabdenaivārtho’bhidheyo nāpaśabdeneti. evaṃ kriyamāṇamabhyudayakāri
bhavatīti.
(Mahābhāṣyam-paspaśāhnika)
The main function of Vyākaraṇa is to support the correct forms in
keeping with the ascertained rules indirectly revealing that words of pure
Sanskrit origin differ from apabhraṃśa which represents linguistic corruption
caused through wrong imitation and the inability to pronounce the correct
Sanskrit words. Mahābhāṣya explicitly states that the distinction of correct
forms as gauḥ and corrupt forms as gāvī, goṇī, gotā are pointed out
indirectly.
sādhvanuśāsane’smin śāstre/ (Mahābhāṣyam. 1.1.1)
The point of distinction between correct and corrupt forms is that the
former is in conformity with the rules of grammar while the latter lies entirely
outside that field. One may argue that the knowledge of correct words may
be obtained through popular or current usage and consequently grammar
does not really serve any useful purpose. In this context, Bhartṛhari argues:
Grammar derives its importance from the fact that it lays down the
principles governing the entire ambit of correct words and is a practical
standard for distinguishing the correct words in current usages among the
śiṣṭā from the corrupt forms.
Sādhutvajñaviṣayā saiṣā Vyākaraṇasmritiḥ/
Avicchedena śiṣṭānāmidaṃ smṛtinibandhanam//
(Vākyapadīyam,
kārikā 1.141)
The Mīmāṃsā-Sūtra 1.3.28 clarifies that the origin of corrupt forms
should be traced to the natural inability to pronounce the correct words, and
that the meaning expressed by such distorted forms is on account of their
structural similarity with the correct words (1 -143). Patañjali endorsed this
view when he s ta te d that words are distorted due to imperfect imitation
60
and inability on part of the speaker—aśaktijānukarnārthaḥ (Mahābhāṣyam.).
Sanskrit has undergone distortion at the hands of those failing to correctly
utter a word by reason of their natural incompetency. While such words are
also significant, their significance is a matter of inference, that is, they
become significant only through recall of the corresponding correct word with
which they have close semblance.
Te sādhuṣvanumānena pratyayotpatti hetavaḥ/
tādātmyāmupagamyeva śabdārthasya prakāśakāḥ//.
(Vākyapadīyam, kārikā 1
/149)
For Bhartṛhari, Sanskrit is a divine tongue in usage from time
immemorial. Hence, it must be as free from ordinary error as much as
possible and must be interpreted in such a way that it is rendered amenable
to human understanding.
Daivī vāg vyatikīyaṇeyamśaktairabhidhātṛbhiḥ/
(Vākyapadīyam, kārikā, 1 /154)

Grammar is a means to ensure the successful study of the Vedas. By
śabdānuśāsanam or governance of words, Patañjali conveyed that the aim
of grammar is to protect the sanctity of Vedas, clear the doubts regarding
certain conflicting passages, respect the authority and simplify the process
— Rakṣohāgamalaghu saṃdehaḥ prayojanam/
Ancient teachers discovered the principle of a regular system of

grammar whose formidable range of words contributed greatly to the real
knowledge of the intellectual word. Vedas are the embodiment of wisdom
through centuries and they continue to be the sacred storehouse of
knowledge and their authority is such that there was a time when a man’s
education was not considered complete until he had acquired a thorough
knowledge of the Vedas. Manu’s ordinance was—
yo’nadhītya dvijo tedāyatra kurute śramam/
sa jīvanneva śudratvāmāśu gacchati sānvayaḥ//
61
(Manu-saṃhitā 2)
The injunction svādhyāyodhyetavyo not only insists upon a regular
study of the Vedas but presupposes the knowledge of grammar essential to
the understanding of Vedic texts.
Purākalpa etadāsīta saṃsakārottarakālaṃ brāhmaṇā vyākaraṇaṃ
smādhīyate tebhyastattsthānakaraṇanupradānajñyebhyo vaidikāḥ śabdā
upadiśyante.
( Mahābhāṣyam.
1.1.1)
In ancient India, grammar was studied not only for its own sake but
as a g u i d e for comprehending the structure of the Vedic texts while
enumerating the motives practically served through the study of grammar.
Patañjali considers the preservation of the Vedas as the primary reason why
the study of grammar should be undertaken. So far as the understanding of
the Vedic texts is concerned, Vedānāṃ vedaḥ reveals how useful and
indispensible the study of grammar is.
Chandaḥ pādau vu vedasya hastau kalpo’tha pathayate/
Jyotiṣāmayanaṃ cakṣuniruktaṃ śrotramucyate/
Sikṣā ghrāṇaṃ tu vedasya mukhaṃ vyākaraṇa smṛtam//
(Pāṇinīya-śikṣā, 40 &42)
One may trace the necessity for the study of grammar in the
transitional period spanning from the poetical activity of the oldest
s a ṃ h i t ā and the prosaic exegesis of the brāhmanāḥ with greater tendency
towards classical forms. In order to ke ep the s a ṃ h i t ā texts (poetics)
intact and save them from misinterpretation, particular attention was
directed towards grammar. For the survival of Vedic hymns that had
ceased to be comprehensible to a great extent and pronounced
meaningless, one looked for grammar. Both Nirukta and Vyākaraṇa engaged
themselves in the serious task of analyzing the entire structure of Vedic
words.
Yadi mantrārtha pratyāyanarthakaṃ bhavatīti kautmo’narthaka hi mantrāḥ/
62
Patañjali anticipated another objection to the necessity of studying
grammar. Vedic words might be learnt from the Vedas and the correctness
of laukikaśabda from popular usages. Hence the study of grammar is
considered useless. It is often considered inadequate towards acquiring
mastery over grammar in a span of one life time. Those who are willing to be
teachers capable of speaking Sanskrit in course of a short duration, they
study the Vedas only, there is no need of studying grammar.
Vedamadhītya tvaritā vaktāro bhavanti–– Vedānno vaidikāḥ śabdāḥ siddhā
lokācca laukikāḥ. anarthakaṃ vyākaraṇamiti. Tebhya eva
vipratipannabuddhibhyo’dhyetṛbhyaḥ suhṛdabhūtvā ācārya idaṃ
śāstranvācaṣṭe. imāni prayojanāni adhyeyaṃ vyākaraṇamiti.
To them, a good teacher will lay down the reason to study grammar
which enables know the Vedic texts and accurately distinguish the correct
Sanskrit words. One who does not know grammar, cannot pronounce
correctly the rituals of sacrifices considered sacrosant only through accurate
pronunciation.
lopāgamavarṇavikārajño hi samyagvedān paripālyiṣyatīti. (Mahābhāṣyam
1.1.1)
However the Mīmāṃsākas like Kumārila contend that it is not

essential that one not knowing grammar cannot pronounce Vedic words
correctly in sacrifices. It is the students of successive generations who
preserve the Vedas through oral tradition. Jayanta Bhaṭṭa also endorsed the
view that a study of grammar is no longer essential. According to him, Vedas
are protected through tradition wherein in case when the teacher is absent,
students talk among themselves to remove their doubts. Thus, the Vedas
are eternally protected through efforts of every successive generation.
Rakṣā tāvadadhyetṛparamparāta eva siddhā. manāgapi svarato varṇato vā
pramādyantaṃ kincidadhīyānamanye adhyetāro mā vinīnaśan /
Śrutimitthamuccārayedityācakṣaṇā śikṣayantīti rakṣito bhavati vedaḥ.
(Nyāya-mañjarī, Vol.II, p.171)
63
On the other hand, Patañjali and Kātyāyana consider grammar to be
essential for protection of the Vedas. In fact, teachers may themselves be
in doubt regarding various issues and in the absence of Vyākaraṇaśāstram,
there may be no reliable authority to guide them.
yānmāsike’pi samaye bhrāntiḥ sajāyate yataḥ śāstra’kṣarāṇi sṛṣtāni
patrāruḍhānyataḥ purā
Proper study of grammar encourages one to understand the Vedas
which in turn, allows one to properly chant mantras and consequently
benefit from the proper performance of rites and rituals, finally generating
Mokṣa. Bhartṛhari says:
tad dvāramapavargasya bāṅgamalānāṃ cikitsitam/
pavitraṃ sarvavidyānāmadhividyaṃ prakāśate//
(Vākyapadīyam,
kārika 1.14.)
In order to bring discipline, the Vedas must be protected through the
study of grammar. It is the natural course of studying Vyākaraṇaśāstram
and not the prescriptive way. Just as when we are hungry or sleepy, we
do not need any imperative such as ‘one should eat food when one is
hungry’ or ‘one should sleep when one is sleepy’. Similarly, one does not
require an order that one should study grammar. Just as it is self-evident
that one will eat and sleep when one is hungry or sleepy, so one studies
grammar out of necessity. It is not prescribed by Pāṇini, but later Patañjali
and Kātyāyana felt its necessity and prescribed it as a useful companion to
Vedic literature, when they felt that people have forgotten its necessity.
Sarvaveda pāriṣadaṃ hīdaṃ śāstram /
2.1.58)
One should remember that the goal of Indian grammarians is not
merely to obtain theoretical knowledge of language but to obtain the direct
experience of ultimate truth. Correct speech not only conveys meaning but
also enables one to gauge the reality. Vyākaraṇa entails more than just an
64
analysis of grammatical rules or theorizing about how speech conveys
meaning, it also insists that one must not be satisfied with mere intellectual
conviction but should transform that conviction into direct experience.
The Indian approach to language was never narrowed down solely to
the theoretical level and not discussed in isolation of human consciousness.
Nor was it ever reduced to just obscure mysticism but was clearly
concerned with human speech in everyday empirical world. Thus, the
correct knowledge of language is basic to all other approaches to reality.
Vyākaraṇa has the special mandate of keeping the Vedas clean of the
sloppy usage and transmission. Vyākaraṇa safeguards the transmission of
this scriptured-knowledge and assists the hearer in realizing the truth of
śabda because dharma cannot be determined by reasoning alone, it needs
the help of the scriptural tradition. That is why Vyākaraṇa is so much
essential to unlocking the door of dharma hidden in the Vedas.
In conclusion, one may say that the study of Grammar is devoted
mainly to the correct understanding of the Vedas which, in turn, generates
dharma. One who knows the connection between a word and its meaning in
proper context is called vāgayogavid. Knowing the difference between
śabda and apaśabda, he can attain dharma through the correct use of
words and adharma through their incorrect use. In no way can the
presence of apaśabda be denied in our ordinary usages which may
generate adharma and dharma may be outnumbered by adharma. As goes
the mandate “dhānyapalāla nyāyena” — Paribhāṣā 72. Just as one wishing
to bring paddy rice from the field, must also bring the husk along with, and
one who wishes to convey the meaning of a word, must pronounce it along
with gender and number etc., similarly one who wishes to know/hear the
sādhuśabda must know/hear some apaśabda too. Above all, it is the study of
correct words that eliminates the existence of apaśabda. One is tempted to
quote from Mahābhāṣyam:
Tadyathā kūpakhānakaḥ kūpa khanan yadyapi mŗdā pāṁsubhiścāvakīrņo
bhavati saḥ apsu sañjātāsu tata eva taṃ guṇamāsādayati yena sa doṣo
65
nirhaņyate, bhūyasā cābhyudayena yogo bhavati. Evamihāpi. yadyapi
apaśabdajñāne adharmaḥ tathā api yastvasau śabdajñāne dharmastena ca
sa doṣo nirghāniṣyate bhūyasā ca abhyudayena yogo bhaviṣyati.
“One is freed of adharma by accumulating dharma just as while digging a

well, one first acquires lot of dirt but that will be cleansed off by the water
coming off the same well. So, adharma can be cleansed off by accumulating
dharma only.”
Chapter III
Apaśabdānāṃ vicāraḥ
I
A very pertinent question is raised now days by many scholars and
intellectuals regarding the purification of language. The syntactical and
semantic combination of words with grammatical operations are so twisted
that the actual face of the word gets mutilated and executed in such a way
that it loses all severity, although it becomes a matter of amusement for a
class of people. For example, the SMS and whatsapp language of digital age
creates a lot of hue and cry among the elite and puritan class who condemn
and are wary of such usages. Perhaps similar kind of incident might have
happened at the time of Bhartṛhari, the great grammarian of the 7th century,
who incidentally talks about the purification of language as a necessary
requirement to clear the confusion among the different branches of
knowledge, that is, Kāvya, Darśana, Āyurveda and Arthaśāstra.
Vidyābhedāḥ pratāyante jñānasaṁskārahetavaḥ/
1.10)
Sometimes a single word is so used in different discourses of study
that their technical operations and applications differ in their function, while
66
its structure remains the same. For example, the word guṇa when used in
Sāṁkhya-darśana it stands for three kinds of natural quality sattva, rajas and
tamas that are constitutive elements of prakṛti, the primordial element, but
when used in Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika darśana it stands for twenty four kinds of
quality—śabda, sparśa, rūpa etc. When used in Ayurśāstra it stands for
property of a medicine; when used in literature it reveals the beauty of the
word-meaning in rhetoric sense. Thus, a word is impregnated with so many
meanings that when they are taken away from a particular context and are
applied in another context, the word is robbed off its meaning. But when it is
used in proper context, the language is purified of its vagueness.
For example, in Sāṃkhya-darśana, the word guṇa implies three kinds of
natural quality— sattva, rajas and tamas that exist in prakṛti; in Nyāya-
Vaiśesika Darśana, it stands for twenty four kinds of quality—Śabda, sparśa,
rūpa etc. in Āyurśastra, it represents the properties of medicine; in literature,
it reveals the beauty of the rhetorical meaning. Thus, a word may be
impregnated with several meanings that when disclosed in proper contexts,
purges the language of its vagueness and once purification is complete, the
path to achieve truth becomes easier. Thus, language purified by grammar is
called sanskrita (Saṃskṛtyasaṃskṛtyapadāniutsṛjyante— Mahābhāṣyam
1.1.1). Bhāṣa is the ancient name for saṃskṛta, that is, bhāṣyateiti bhāṣā,
that which reveals the true nature of the object. Gradually, however, with the
entry of distorted words into its fold, language fails to convey the true
meaning of the word and thereby the true nature of the object. The purified
language is also called Sādhubhāṣā— the language of the elite speakers
(śiṣṭapuruṣa). Purification of language is possible through proper
padasaṃskāra which is nothing but revealing the derivation of a word in its
combination of prakṛti (substantive) and pratyaya (suffix).
Na viśiṣṭotpattiratra saṃskāra apitu prakṛtipratyayādivibhāganvākhyānam//

( Ῑśvarapratyabhijñāvivṛttivimarśini
2.193)
67
The purification of language is possible through the clarification of
meaning of a given word in a particular context. For instance, the word ‘Hari’
signifies monkey, snake, Viṣṇu etc. yet when one says ‘Hare namaḥ’, it
signifies Viṣṇu, the God only; one gets the meaning from its context. Now the
proper understanding of a word in this way pours the ‘divine delight of
speech’. The necessity of Grammar, therefore, arises very urgently to find
out the correct pronunciation, its origin and derivation that help to show the
path of clarity in order to settle any conflict regarding the meaning of a word.
Prāptarūpavibhāgāyā yo vācaḥ paramo rasaḥ/

Yattatpuṇyatamaṃ jyotistasya mārgor’yamāñjasḥ//
Although it is true that a language can be learnt correctly within the

spoken community of that particular language with dialogue and interaction,
yet one is encouraged to learn grammar in order to understand the correct
form of the words, and that helps to capture the logical structure behind the
linguistic system. It enables and enhances the beauty of the speech by
clarifying the dust of vagueness in it.
Generally speaking, grammar is regarded as a collection of words and

rules of operations which brings out the uniformity and harmony among the
forms of words through the combination of prakṛti (crude substantive) and
pratyaya (suffix) which when properly applied/used, is called the purification
of words (pada-saṃskāra). Thus the language which is purified in accordance
with the rules of the grammar is called Saṃskrit, or in other words, Sanskrit
is taken as a purified language so to say. Perhaps it emphasizes the unity of
syntactical and semantic function of the language.
Saṃskṛtya saṃskṛtya padāni utsṛjyante— Mahābhāṣyam, 1.1.1.
The ancient name of Sanskrit is bhāṣā, which is analysed as bhāṣyate

iti bhāṣā— that which reveals the true nature and meaning of a word is
called bhāṣā. When many distorted words began to enter into the fold of a
language, it lost its ability to reveal the true nature of the object; then the
68
scholars felt the need for the protection of its sanctity; and subsequently
semantic aspect was taken up in order to obtain the exact and specific
meaning of words.
The purified language Sanskrit stands for Sādhu bhāṣā. To clarify the
stand one can take resort to an analogy. Now a day there is huge cry of
purification of river Gaṅgā, and when the task will be completed the river
Gaṅgā will be called purified Gaṅgā. Similarly when the task of cleansing the
mutilated and distorted words were completed, the sanctified language was
called Sanskrit, a purely Sādhu bhāṣā.
śabdabrahmaṇo hi yataḥ svarūpasaṃskāraḥ sādhutva pratiprattayartha
(Harivṛtti on
Vākyapadīyam, kārikā 1.11)
Mallinatha commented on Kumārsaṃbhava of Kālidāsa (1.90):
saṃskāro vyākaraṇajanyā śuddhiḥ saṃskārapūtena varaṃ vareṇyam/.
Grammar brings purity to language with the help of saṃskāra and
consequently it is accepted in the society.
Now, it is clear why bhāṣā is called Sanskrit which derives its name
from saṃskāra. It prescribes several rules and grammatical operations in
order to bring unity or harmony among the random use of words. It is true
that in ordinary usages sometimes words are applied without any rules
because one does not care for the conventional operations and the language
becomes impure by violation of rules and their application at one’s whims.
But a genuine scholar gets interest in exploring the journey of language
through the varied transformation phases— from its very inception to the
latest period in its modified form. For them, Language is not a static game of
words only, but it is a constant flow of words incorporated from other
languages too, and also elimination of some other words not very much
capable of communicating that very thought which needs to be delivered.
For this reason the study of conditions and limitations becomes very much
indispensable, that is, how much fluidity should be granted, to what extent
69
and how far the restriction should be imposed to keep the identity of a
language intact.
Śabdaḥ saṃskārahīno yo gauriti prayuyukṣite/

tamapabhraṃśamicchanti viśiṣṭārthaniveśinam//
(Vākyapadīyam kārikā 1.147)
The situation can be compared to human life which needs discipline in

order to systematize their activities. Just as one requires certain life pattern
vis-à-vis behaviour, rules and regulations, to sustain social life, otherwise one
will be an isolated unit without any relationship and one’s survival will be at
stake, similarly the necessity of grammatical operations was felt in order to
discipline a language. In ordinary life-world, tradition, ideal, imitations bring
harmony in one’s life style. Subsequently, grammar also follows the tradition
of how words were used by ordinary people in different contexts and in
different occasions in order to be understandable, and how they are now
employed as the tool of thought, in order to accomplish the task of
communication. It moves in two ways: it collects its data from the ordinary
language speakers, thereby it is called lokavijñāna; and then it systematizes
them and thereby gets designated as Vyākaraṇaśāstra and sometimes as
āgamaśāstra.
II
Let us discuss now what is padasaṃskāra which is essential for the

purification of language? When suffixes (pratyaya) are added to the root
(kriyā), it brings change in a word and that is called the saṃskāra of word
which is the constituting unit of a sentence and finally the foundation of
language. For example, the word ‘rāma’ is a crude substantive form of a
word (prātipadika) which is not usable in communication. But, when the
suffix ‘su’ is added to that crude form, it becomes ‘Rāmaḥ’, a purified word
which can now be used properly. The regular use of rules and grammatical
operations bind a language and thereby an integrated language makes its
class apart. And the people of that language community are then called the
70
elite class or a śiṣṭa puruṣa who uses that language following tradition and
grammar.
Nānārthikāmimāṃ kaścid vyavasthāṃ kartumarhati/
tasmānnibadhyate śiṣṭaiḥ sādhutvaviṣayā smṛtiḥ//
(Vākyapadīy
am, kārikā 1.29)
Tasmadakṛtakaṃ śāstraṃ smṛti ca sanibandhanām /
Āśrityarā’bhyate śiṣṭaiḥ śabdānāmanuśāsanam//
(Vākyapadīyam,
kārikā 1.43)
Although adding suffixes to root is not the only cause of purification, as

said earlier, but they are definitely a necessary step towards the purification
of language. Just as an animal cow is acknowledged by its horns and hoofs
etc., so a word is recognized by its suffixes and can be made usable. But that
is not enough; it requires something else to fulfill the task of purification.
After the addition of suffixes, the fundamental expression of a word is

properly extended to make out the number, gender, tense, indeclinable, and
finally the purified word is ready to join hands with another purified word to
complete the sentential function. For example, when the suffix ‘ti’ is added
to the root ‘paṭh’, consequently it becomes ‘paṭhati’; ‘ti’ here stands for
singular number, third person in present tense. But this does not mean that
grammar can create word of its own and then common people can use them.
Rather it is the other way round. People use them first, and grammar then
scans the way people use them and then systematizes those words as
repository of language. The study of grammar, thus, neither creates a word,
nor does it discriminate the root and suffixes. It only studies those words
which are used by the common people. It does not disturb their way of
speech. It deals with the given words which are spoken by the people,
searches for the basic structure of the language and instructs how to use
them properly.
71
III
Evidently, the question of correct word (sādhu) and incorrect words

(asādhu) automatically crops up and one looks for the criterion of
distinguishing correct words from the incorrect ones. Words other than
Sanskrit were generally termed as apaśabda because they are not purified
according to the rules and grammatical operations of the language. But
when other-than-Sanskrit-words are accepted by the speakers of the
Sanskrit language, then of course they are given the status of correct words
after they pass the test and trial of time. We will discuss it somewhere later.
The word apaśabda literally means distortion of or deviation from the

original and so far as it applies to a language it means a distorted form of
speech yielding corruption in language. It is sometimes synonymously used
as apabhraṃśa. A single word can be twisted in so many ways. Just as the
word ‘gauḥ’ is distorted as gāvi’, ‘goṇī’, ‘gotā’ and ‘goputtalikā’. As one finds
in Patañjali’s Mahābhāṣyam 1.1.1:
Ekaikasya hi śabdasya bahabo’pabraṃśatadyathā gaurityasya śabdasya gāvi
goṇī gotā goputtalikā ityevamādayo’pabhraṃśaḥ/
Only one among the several words, that is the word ‘gauḥ’, is correct
and others are regarded as incorrect. The several distorted words have no
harmony among themselves. They are united only through the thread of the
original word, ‘gauḥ’. Now the question is, where will one find such correct
word? The answer is— in śiṣṭapuruṣa, who have undergone the rigorous
training of saṃskāra. Thus, what we need is a clear cut distinction between
words which should be regarded as apaśabda, not to be used, and those
which are sādhu and should be used.
IV
The outstanding distorted feature of apaśabda though discredited

because they are not allowed to be used, yet its communicating capacity
cannot be ignored. And this function of apaśabda will be highlighted in due
72
course of discussion. The uneducated and ordinary people who are either
naturally unfit or careless so far as the use and utterance of correct Sanskrit
forms are concerned, are the main reason behind the distortion of words. It
is to such innate inaptitude and careless imitation that Bhartṛhari has traced
the origin of apabhraṃśa/ apaśabda in the pure form of Sanskrit language.
These mutilations and corruptions of Sanskrit words were due to both natural
unfitness and erroneous practice on the part of the people.
Gauriti prayoktavye gośabdaprakṛtikā apabhraṃśā gāvyādayo’śktya
pramādādibhirvā yadi prayunjate, te apabhraṃśāḥ sāsnādimatyevārthe
saṃbaddhasvarupāḥ pratītya prayujyamānāḥ sādhutvaṃ vijahati,
arthāntaretu prayujyamānāḥ sādhava eva vijñāyante (Ambākartṛ on
Vākyapadīyam, kārikā, 1. 148)
It is true that language-adaptability heavily depends on imitation.

Children learn language by imitating their elders in their learning period of
life. It might happen that close interaction with the cultural community in
which Sanskrit was a spoken language the uneducated tried to imitate their
way of spoken words, which is a very normal and natural practice for all
human beings. The expression ‘aśaktijānukaranārth’ (the imitation due to
inability) as occurs in vārttika perhaps points out the same.
Lṛkāropadeśo yadṛcchāśaktijānukaraṇaplutyādyārthaḥ.
(Vārttika II under
Śivasūtra 2)
It has been explained by Patañjali when he refers to man’s natural

incompetence for exact imitation which, according to him, is generally
displayed by females and lower class people. He observed that a female
uses lakāra instead of ṛkāra due to physical inability.
Aśaktyā kayācid brāhmaṇyā ṛtaka iti prayoktavye lṛtaka iti
prayuktam/
(Mahābhāṣyam
under Vārttika II)
73
Patañjali has noticed that āṇapayati, vaṭṭati and vaḍḍhati have evolved
from the correct words like ajñāpayati, varttate and varddhate
respectively.The enumeration of roots like ‘bhū’ etc, says Kātyāyana, is not
without purpose— it has served the object of preventing prākṛta and
apabhraṃśa forms from creeping into Sanskrit.
Bhūvādipāṭhaḥ prātipadikāṇpayatyādinivṛttyarthaḥ/
(Vārttika 12 under
Pāṇini-sūtra 1.3.1)
The author of Mīmāṃsā-sūtra has also referred to such inability to

pronounce the correct form as the real cause that accounts for the verbal
corruptions.
Tadaśaktiścānūrūpatvāt / (Mīmāṃsā-sūtra 1.3.28)
Gośabdamuccāryitukāmena kenacid śaktyā gāvītyuccāritam. apareṇa

jñātaṃ sāsnādimānasya vivakṣitaḥ tadartha gaurityuccāryitukāmo
gāvītyuccārayati. Tataḥ sikṣitvā’pare’pi sāsnādimānāmavagamyate. anurūpo
hi gāvyādigaurśabdasya.
(Śābarabhāṣyam under Mīmāṃsā-sūtra 1.3.28)
It is frequently found that the corrupt form ‘gāvī’ is uttered by a man

who is physically unable to pronounce ‘gauḥ’. The causes of the
transformation of Sanskrit into such a degraded form may be due to some
physical defects, carelessness and economy of effort on the part of the user.
They baffle all attempts to get back to the original Sanskrit forms of the
words, just as is the case with one’s interaction with foreign or non-āryan
words when they are adopted. Incidentally, the word āryan stands for the
speakers of pure Sanskrit and non-āryans do not fall in that category.
In this connection, it is to be mentioned that the need for language-

discussion centers round the proper understanding of scriptural texts. That is
why Mīmāṃsā’s renderings of language-interpretation become so relevant
here. To the Mīmāṃsā, scriptural words were full of divinity. The Mīmāṃsā-
74
śāstra executes the task of interpreting the scriptural texts. They have
discussed the rules and principles behind those texts. They warn the reader
against any attempt to read additional significance to their words. The Sūtra-
s are meant to expound and systematize the teachings of scriptural text
which laid down injunctions regarding the performance of certain acts. Now if
these injunctions are to be obeyed they must be understood first. They must
be understood in common language, otherwise how can the Mīmāṃsāka-s
say—
Aviśiṣṭastu vākyārthaḥ (Mīmāṃsā-sūtra 1.2.32)
Aviśiṣṭastu loke prayujyamānānāṃ vede ca padānāmarthaḥ. sa yathaiva
loke vivakṣitastathaiva vede’pi bhavitumarhati/
(Śābarabhāṣyam under
Mīmāṃsā-sūtra 1.2.32)
This by implication means that Vedic texts are to be interpreted on the

same principles on which we interpret sentences in our common speech.
Vaidika and laukikaśabda are not different in this particular sense because it
is always encouraged by the Mīmāṃsāka-s that Vaidika texts must be
interpreted in accordance with the laukika usages.
This is very important when Mīmāṃsā-sūtra 7.2.1 says that the main
purpose of words is to yield sense. They hold that śabda is nitya, and artha is
nitya and their relationship is also nitya (autpattika). The word ‘gauḥ’ refers
to animal cow, but in addition the same animal is referred by several words
like ‘gāvī, ’goṇī’ and ‘goputtalikā’ etc., too. Hence, are we supposed to take
all these words as autpattika, or is it only the one of them, viz. ‘gauḥ’ which
should be regarded as auttpattika and the rest are only apaśabda or
apabhraṃśa?
It is often found that when a word signifies one thing among the
Āryans (the so called elite class) and another thing among the Mlecchas (one
who distorts the use of words, i.e., a foreigner, or Mleccha is regarded as
non-āryan who use words other than Vedic), one naturally finds oneself in
75
dubious position so as to decide which of them should be preferred over the
other. The words selected for observation are Yava, used in the sense of
barley corn and also in the sense of long pepper by others, Varāha stands for
the boar among some and for the black bird among others, and Vetas refers
to a kind of creeper growing in water by some and black berry by others. The
question is that when words like these occur in the Vedas or in the smṛti, in
which sense is they to be understood? Since both the meanings are found to
be signified by the word, is the acceptance of the one or the other a matter
of context? Mlecchas use the word Yava for Kangu (long pepper), Varāha for
Vāyas (crow), and Vetas for a kind of creeper growing in water. The question
is which of these two sets of meanings are authoritative? Śabara has found
references among Vedic texts themselves, lending support to one or the
other of the two meanings attributed to the words. For instance, in regard to
the word Yava, he finds support for barley-corn, in the Vedic text which
speaks of the ‘Yava plant’ as ‘flourishing while other plants withers away’—
the description is applicable to the barley-corn, and not to the long pepper.
Similarly, in regard to the Varāha, the sense of boar is supported by the
Vedic text which speaks of ‘cows running after the Varāha’
(Śatapathabrāhmaṇa 4.4.3.19) and it is the boar and not the black bird that
is pursued by cows. With regard to the word Vetas, the sense of creeper is
supported by the Vedic text which speaks of the Vetas as water born, which
can apply to the creeper, not to the black berry. Thus, the options provided
are: either of them is correct, or both of the uses are correct but in different
context.
Tatra keciddīrghaśūkeṣu yavaśabdaṃ prayuñjyate, kecit priyañguṣu.
varāhaśabdaṃ kecit sūkare, kecit kṛṣṇaśakunau. vetasśabdaṃ kecit
vañjulake, kecijjambavām. Tatrobhayathā padārthāvagamādivikalpaḥ/
(Śābarabhāṣyam under Mīmāṃsā-

Sūtra 1-3-8)
76
There are certain words which are found to signify one thing in the texts and
another thing in common usages. Such words are Trivṛta, in the Veda it is
found to convey the ‘idea of nine’ while in common practice it stands for
three-fold; Cāru, in the Veda conveys ‘cooked rice’, while in common usage it
signifies the saucer. The word aśvabāl in the Veda stands for reed, while in
common use it stands for horse-hair. The question is in every such case,
which is the meaning that should be regarded as authoritative and right? The
answer given is — in as much as two meanings are different, and as both are
equally well apprehended, both of them should be equally right and hence to
be treated as optional alternatives— the sentence containing these words
may be construed to convey either the one or the other of the two ideas; or,
in fact, as common usages always come to one’s knowledge long before the
reading of the Vedas, the former should be given the preference of being
authority.
The Mīmāṃsākas, further, show that there should be no

objection in accepting the significance in which these words are used by
Mlecchas, since words such as loma and kūṭa are learnt from the low class
people who use these words for ‘butcher’ and ‘dealer in coins’ respectively.
No amount of precaution and rigorous injunction proved sufficient enough to
prevent the influx of foreign words into Sanskrit language and, if so, all
words should be given the status of being autpattika, and therefore, should
be treated as sādhu śabda.
Klomādayaḥ paśvayavā vede coditāḥ santo’dhvaryyādibhiḥ
svayamjñāyamānārthatvādye nityaṃ prāņivadhābhiyuktāḥ, tebhya
evāvadhayaṃ viniyujyante. yathā ca niṣādeṣṭayāṃ, ‘kuṭaṃ dakṣiṇeti’/
Sūtra 1.3.10)
There is no rational justification to reject the Mlecchas’ usages
altogether. Kumārila says, in ordinary speech there is no such distinction
between sādhu and asādhu śabda because both intend to produce the
77
meaning successfully. May be the distinction is meant for the Vedic domain
where the correct pronunciation brings dharma and incorrect pronunciation
brings adharma.
Lokaprasiddhaśabdārthavaśaṃ śāstraṃ pravartate/
Ato na laukikeṣvasmātsādhvasādhutvanirṇayaḥ//
sūtra 1.3.9)
Therefore, one should not look down upon the significance of the
Mlecchas’ usages simply on the ground of their being current among non-
Brāhmaṇa community because words like patrorṇa (silken cloth) and
vāravāṇā (armour) though borrowed from foreign languages are used by the
Aryans too.
Patrorṇavāravāṇādi yacca taddeṣasasambhavam/
Tairevākathitaṃ nāma tacca ko veditaṃ kṣamaḥ//
Tasmānna teṣāṃ vyavahāraprasiddhau daurbalyam /
Sūtra 1.3.10)
The process of naturalization of foreign words in a particular language

is a common practice in all languages. There are many words borrowed from
other countries like pika (cuckoo), tem (half), sat (round-topped-wooden
vessel with a hundred holes) and tāmarasa (lotus) in Sanskrit language and
are adopted by it like family members. They become the part and parcel of
language.
atha yāñcchabdān āryā na kaśminścidarthe ācaranti mlecchāstu kasminścit
prayuñjate. yathā pika-nema-sat-tāmarasādiśabdāḥ teṣu sandehaḥ kiṃ
nigamniruktavyākaraṇavaśen dhātuto’rthaḥ kalpayitavyaḥ, uta yatra
mlecchā ācaranti, sa śabdārtha iti. Śiṣṭācārasya prāmāṇyamuktaṃ,
nāśiṣṭasmṛteḥ. (Śābarabhāṣyam under Mīmāṃsā-Sūtra 1-3-10).
Ye śabdā na prasiddhāḥ, syurāryāvartanivāśinām/
Teṣāṃ mlecchaprasiddho’rtho, grāhyo neti vicintayate//
78
(Tantravārttika under Mῑmāṃsā-
Sūtra 1.3.10)
Kumārila has frankly admitted that the Āryans used to pick up some
words from foreign languages and changed them into Sanskrit with
necessary alteration.
āryāśca mlecchabhāṣābhyaḥ, kalpyantaḥ svakaṃ padam /
padāntarākṣaropetaṃ kalpyanti kadācana//.

Sūtra 1.3.10)
When they transformed the words taken from Dravidian language such
as cora, atara, pāpa, māla and vaira into their corresponding Sanskrit forms
namely cauraḥ (thief), ataraḥ (impossible), pāpa (sin), mālā (garland) and
vairī (enemy), they become naturalized form of the language and given the
same status as that of the original words.
na caiṣa nyāyo yatsadṛśāḥ śabdā ekamarthambhiniviśamānāḥ
sarvevicchinnapāramparyā eveti pratyayamātradarśanādabhyupagamyate,
sādṛśyātsādhuśabde’pyavagate, pratyayo’vakalpyate.
Tasmādmīṣāmeko’nādiḥ.anye’pabhraṃśāḥ/
(Śābarabhāṣyam under Mīmāṃsā-
sūtra. 1.3.26)
Thus the opponent, finally emphasized the issue that all words must be
accepted as equally autpattika, just as the word ’gauḥ’ stands for an animal
having horns and dewlap etc., similarly ‘gāvī’, ‘goṇī’ etc, also stand for the
same meaning, i.e., animal having horns and dewlap. No amount of practice
can change the meaning of the word. Therefore, the claim that only one
word is to be regarded as sādhu and others should be discarded as asādhu is
not justified.
79
Gośabdo yathā sāsnādimati pramānaṃ, kiṃ yathā gāvyādayo’pi uta neti
sandehaḥ….pratīyate hi gāvyādibhyaḥ sāsnādimānārthaḥ ... tasmātsarve
sādhavaḥ, sarvaibhāṣitavyam. sarve hi sādhayantyartham/
( Śābarabhāṣyam under Mīmāṃsā-
sūtra.1.3.24.)
It is often retorted that the different forms like gāvī’, ‘goṇī’ and
‘goputtalikā’ convey the correct meaning by reminding us of the correct form
of that word ‘gauḥ’, owing to the resemblance between the two. But in case
of words like karaḥ, pāṇi and hastaḥ which do not bear any resemblance to
each other, they are treated on equal par in their respective form. For
example, the words like karaḥ, pāṇi and hastaḥ are accepted as being right
and independent in their own way, because etymologically they have
different usages on different occasions and for different functions, though
they signify hand in all the cases. For instance, ‘hanto hanteḥ’ (Nirukta 1/6),
according to this derivation the word ‘hastaḥ’ is used when there is some
action of receiving or violation. The word ‘karaḥ’ is derived from the root ‘kṛ’
which signifies ‘karotīti kara’ which signifies any action of any kind. Similarly,
the word ‘pāṇi’ derived from ‘pāṇiḥ paṇāyateḥ pūjā karmaṇaḥ, pragṛhya
pāṇi devān pūjayanti’ (Nirukta 2/26) is used for religious rituals only. Thus,
the three words, hastaḥ, karaḥ, and pāṇi, are used differently in contexts,
and they should not be treated synonymous functionally. So it can be very
well accepted that the relation of these words with their sense is autpattika
on the strength of the abhiyuktopadeśa.
Hastaḥ karaḥ pāṇirityevamādiṣu tvabhiyuktopadeśādanādiramīṣārthena
sambandha iti. (Śābarabhāṣyam under Mīmāṃsā-Sūtra 1-3-
26).
However, it cannot be denied, as often considered, that the apaśabda-

s by themselves have no power to convey any sense. They do so only
through the medium of the correct forms of words. Jaimini has enunciated
this argument in Mīmāṃsā-Sūtra 1.3.29, where Śabara has expounded it by
80
adducing an illustration from common language. Just as in a statement like
‘aśmakaiḥ āgacchati’ the word ‘aśmakai’ first reminds the hearer of the
proper form ‘aśmakebhya’, and then through this latter form it presents the
real or the intended significance. Similarly the wrong forms like gāvyādi
when heard first bring the right word ‘gauḥ’, then through arthapratīti the
meaning is obtained. The only difference between these two cases is that in
the former the word remains the same but the vibhakti-s are different, and
the wrong vibhakti allows one to bring the latter to the mind of the hearer.
While in the latter case, the form of the word that is uttered is itself different
from the right word that is intended to be uttered.
Atyeva hi vibhaktivyatyaye’pi pratyayo bhavati.
Aśmakairāgacchāmityaśmakaśabdaikadeśa upalabdhe, aśmakebhya ityeva
śabdaḥ smaryate. Tato’śmakebhya ityeṣo’rtha upalabhyata iti. Evaṃ
gāvyādidarśanād gośabdasmaraṇam. Tataḥ sāsnādimānavagamyate.
( Śābarabhāṣyam under Mīmāṃsā-
sūtra 1.3.29)
Hence we conclude that, of the several forms that word may be found
to have in a language only one can be accepted as being right, while the rest
have to be labeled as apaśabda.
The Mīmaṃsakas have already established that—
 The origin of the apaśabda will be found to be in the incapability for
proper pronunciation on the part of the unskilled speakers. This explains how
wrong forms gain coinage in a language (Mīmāṃsā-sūtra. 1.3.28).
Mīmāṃsā-sūtra 1.3.26 has laid down that it is unjust to think that

many words can signify a single meaning. There is no ground to hold that the
other forms also are the right or the autpattika form—
“Anyāyaścānekaśabdatvam”. Which of the several forms is the right one? In
reply to this Jaimini points out, the sole guide in the matter of words and
their usages are the abhiyuktaśca, since they are constantly in touch with
the proper words, so it is not possible for them to pronounce incorrectly.
81
They perform their religious duties and are, thus, in constant touch with the
correct usage of words. The Mīmāṃsākas uphold that the meaning
sanctioned by the scriptures should be more authoritative, especially in the
sphere of dharma. They have laid greater emphasis on the usages of the
elite class (śiṣṭāḥ).
śāstrasthā vā tannimittatvāt/ (Mīmāṃsā-Sūtra 1.3.9)
Ke śāstrasthāḥ? śiṣṭāḥ. Teṣāmavicchinnā smṛtiḥ śabdeṣu, vedeṣu ca. tena
śiṣṭā nimittaṃ śrutismṛtidhāraṇe (Śābarabhāṣyam under Mīmāṃsā-Sūtra
1-3-9).
They are the sole authority on which to decide any question regarding the
correct usage of words, and the rest is put down as incorrect form— tatra
tattvam abhiyogaviśeṣāt syāt. And whatever form of a word is accepted by
abhiyukta as right form, will be followed by others and rest are to be
considered as apaśabda-s.
The apaśabdas owe their origin to the want of capacity in the speaker.
They lack the capacity to go through the elaborate process of uttering a
word without committing any mistake. The proponent points out that the
utterance of a word is a highly elaborate process, and that the unskilled
being often commits mistakes while uttering the words. Does it not happen
that while trying to avoid mud by jumping over it we fall into the mud itself?
Or, does not a man sip water twice though he wants to sip it only once?
Similar is the case with the utterance of apaśabda. While trying to avoid the
wrong pronunciation they fall into the same trap. It is, thus, the incapability
of the speaker that is at the root of such inaccurate forms of words as gāvī or
goṇī and that there is a continuous tradition supporting them. It is on
account of this similarity that the hearer is reminded of the right word, and it
is from this remembrance that the meaning of a word is obtained
(arthajñāna).
Mahatā prayatnena śabdaṃ uccaranti— vāyurnābherutthitaḥ, urasi vistīrṇaḥ
kaṇṭhe vivartitaḥ, mūrddhānamāhatya parāvṛttaḥ, vaktre vicarana vividhāna
82
śabdānabhivyanakti. tatrapāradhyetāpyuccārayitā. Yathā śuṣke patiṣyamīti
kardame patati, sakṛdupasprakṣyamīti dvirupasparśati.
Tato’parādhātpravṛddhā gāvyādayo bhaveyurna
niyogato’vicchinnapāramparyā eveti.
(Śābarabhāṣyam under Mīmāṃsā-sūtra
1.3.25)
It has already been pointed out that both correct and corrupt
words have potential to convey the intended sense (Mīṃāṃsā-sūtra 1.3.24),
though the former does it directly while the latter does indirectly by virtue of
their resemblance to the correct forms (tadanurūpatvāt).
Prayogapratyayānyathānupapattyā gāvyādīnāmapi sāsnādimatārthena
sahābhisambandho anādiravagamyata iti bhāvaḥ/
The same argument has been endorsed by Bhartṛhari also. According

to him, apabhraṃśas are not significant by themselves, but their apparent
expressiveness rests upon the inference of correct words which are held to
be endowed with the power of signifying the meaning of a word. Bhartṛhari
starts his exposition of apabhraṃśa with a precise definition of the term. He defines
apabhraṃśa as a word denoting a particular meaning, but devoid of the derivation through
grammatical procedure.
śabdaḥ saṃskārahīno yo gauriti prayuyukṣite /
tamapabhraṃśamicchanti viśiṣṭārthaniveśinam //
(Vākyapadīyam, kārikā I.175)
te sādhuṣvarnumānena pratyayotpattihetavaḥ/
tādātmyamupaśamyameva śabdārthasya
prakāśakaḥ//
But he raised a very significant issue that when the same word which
has been taken corrupt because of reminding the correct word, if signifies a
different meaning or the word is used in a different sense, then one cannot
83
question its correctness –– “arthāntare tu prayujyamānāḥ kecit sādhava eva
vijñāyate.”
Forms such as ‘asva’ and ‘goṇi’ are treated as apabhraṃśa only when
they are distorted by people for ‘aśvaḥ’ and ‘gauḥ’. But they are said to be
really correct when they signify ‘one deprive of wealth’ and ‘lot of
milk/vessel’ (āvapana) respectively, so to say. Ultimately, the criteria for
determining the correct and corrupt words depend upon the insight of the
language speakers. This may sound a little vague, but there is no other
logical way out. For example, a word can be correct and corrupt depending
upon the meaning of that word. The word ‘gauṇi’ when used in the sense of
cow through remembrance, is regarded as corrupt; but when used in the
sense of āvapana or lot of milk/bag, it is called sādhu.
Asvagoṇyādayaḥ Śabdāḥ sādhavo viṣayāntare /
Nimittabhedāt sarvatra sādhutvaṃ ca vyavasthitam//
(Vākyapadīyam, kārikā I .150)
āvapane gauṇīti svaviprayogābhidhāne cāsva ityetayoravasthitaṃ
sādhutvaṃ.
(Harivṛtti under
Vākyapadīyam, kārikā I .150)
Gauṇī āvapana cet Goṇānyā. (Bhaṭṭoji Dikṣita under Pāṇini-sūtra
4.1.42)
Gaṅgeśa shares the same view when he says, the word ‘gāvī’ for
instance though apparently an apabhraṃśa in the sense of a cow, may be
etymologically interpreted in such a way as to turn into a correct Sanskrit
word meaning ‘one who is competent to please Gaṇapati, the God of
successes. Here, the word ‘gāvī is as significant in the latter sense as that of
‘gauḥ’.
Evaṃ gāvīti gaṃ gaṇapatim avituṃ prīṇayituṃ śīlamasyeti gāvīśabde’pi

sādhutā kvacit.
84
( Tattvacintāmaṇyāloka by
Jayadeva Misra)
Gāvīśabdo’pi kayācid vyutpattyā kvacid sādhuriti.
( Tattvacintāmaṇyāloka by
Jayadeva Misra)
Interestingly enough, what we find here is nothing very definite about

sādhutva and asādhutva status of apabhraṃśa śabda/
Na kiñcid niyatamasti sādhutvamasādhutvaṃ vā vyavatiṣṭheta.
(Harivṛtti under
Vākyapadīyam, kārikā I .150)
The same word may be correct in one sense and turn out to be
incorrect in another sense. Thus, it is the meaning that decides the correct or
incorrect use of a word. Bhartṛhari referred to another view that takes
apabhraṃśa as vācaka because it directly comes from nature. It is more
popular than Sanskrit.
sākṣāt prayojakaṃ vācyamarthrūpaṃ sadhubhiḥ pratyāyate.
tasmadāha.
Pāramparyādapabhraṃśā viguṇeṣvbhidhāṛṣu/
Prasiddhimāgatā yeṣu teṣāṃ sādhuravācakaḥ//
Tameva cāsādhuṃ vācakaṃ pratyakṣapakṣeṇa manyante. Sādhuṃ
cānumānenapakṣe vyavasthāpayanti. ( Harivṛtti
under Vākyapadīyam kārikā I.153)
Thus apabhraṃśa is said to be naturally endowed with immediate

sense. The orthodox position was thus overthrown. Even sometimes usages
by orthodox were overthrown and the popular use is regarded as vācaka. We
have already mentioned that Grammar is Lokavijñāna and depends upon the
common practice of the local speakers.
There is, however, a contrary view which looks upon prākṛta as a

natural language, i.e., one that directly comes from nature. In a sense, it is
85
less artificial than Sanskrit. The prākṛta was the language of ordinary people
— prākṛtajanānāṃ bhāṣā. It is regarded as independent and popular
language, and not off-spring of Sanskrit.
According to Bhartṛhari, apabhraṃśa comes from popular usages,

since Vyākaraṇa is also said to be lokāgama, it is implied that apabhraṃśa
must be accepted as vācaka, i.e., signifying meanings, they are no different
from sādhu śabda. Bhartṛhari realizes and accepts the gravity of the
corrupted words because of their significant role in meaning-field. When,
after a long and repeated use, a word conveys a definite meaning, then the
so-called correct word (sādhu śabda) loses its primary meaning, and the
imposed meaning achieves the status of the correct use. For example, the
word gauḥ etymologically conveys ‘that which moves’ (gacchatīti gauḥ), but
when once it is determined for an animal having dewlap, the etymological
sense loses its primary meaning, and the conventional meaning gets
prominence
Prasiddhestu ruḍhitāmāpādyamānāḥ svātantryameva kecidapbhraṁśā
labhante.
(Harivṛtti on Vākyapadīyam, kārikā I. 148)
Vyākaraṇa is called ‘lokāgama’ because it directly comes from
common people’s usages and when corrupt words make their entry through
Vyākaraṇa, they must be regarded as meaningful. Patañjali admits it too. For
him the utterance ‘helaya’ instead of ’he’raya’ is a corrupt pronunciation
because it led to defeat of demons, consequently it gathers sin (adharma) in
vedic context, but the different modifications of the word gauḥ like ‘gāvī’,
‘gauṇi’ and ‘goputtalikā’ should not be regarded as corrupt because they
remind us of the original word gauḥ. Therefore, as discussed earlier, the
different modifications of the word gauḥ equally designate special meaning.
Tathāca asādhuvācaka pratyakṣapakṣe manyante/
Sādhu cānumanapakṣe vyavasthāpayanti//
Tamapabhraṃśamicchati viśiṣṭārtha niveśinam/
86
(Vākyapadīyam, kārikā I. 147)
At the time of Bhartṛhari, it seems that the use of corrupt words was
increasing rapidly, and the problem of distinguishing correct and corrupt
words was raising its head seriously. There was a group that used to think
that corrupt words convey meaningful expression and should be regarded as
natural part of natural language (prākṛta).
Anityavādinastu ye sādhunāṃ dharmahetutvaṃ na pratipadyante,
mallasamayādi sadṛśī sādhuvayavasthāṃ manyante te prakṛtau bhavaṃ
prākṛtaṃ sādhunamāṃ śabdānāṃ samūhamācakṣate. vikārastu paścād
vyavasthāpitaḥ yaḥ saṃbhinnabuddhibhiḥ puruṣaiḥ svarasaṃskārādibhi
nirṇīyate iti.
(Harivṛtti on
Vākyapadīyam, kārikā I.155)
There is another group that opines that Sanskrit language was never
devoid of corrupt words. Both correct and corrupt words were used equally
and have their existence in linguistic community, but in technical sense one
is called sādhu and the other is called asādhu. Just as all women can be
classed as being female, but one is called variable (gamyā) and the other is
called invariable (agamyā). Invariability (agamyatva) and variability
(gamyatva) are not natural quality, but determined by tradition.
Yeṣāmapi ca naiva purākalpaḥ na ca daivῑ vāgsaṁkῑrṇā kadācῑdāsit teṣāmapi
gamyāgamyādivyavasthāvadiyaṃ sādhvasādhuvyavasthā
nityamavicchidena Śiṣtaiḥ smaryate.
(Harivṛtti on
Vākyapadīyam, kārikā I. 155)
In the same vein, one can say that though every word has the
signifying power to designate any meaning (sarve sarvārtha vācakāḥ —
Nāgeśa), yet the meaning is restricted by human will (saṃketa). Human
relationship will break down if there will be no control over our ‘word and
meaning’ relationship. If any word will stand for any meaning then there will
be total anarchy. Infinite meanings and infinite interpretation will amount to
87
loss of communication and consequently to failure of language vis-à-vis
truth. Thus, human speech (Vāk) must be determined by rules and
grammatical operations.
Thus we have found four perspectives regarding the status of apabhraṃśa
śabda/ Apaśabda.
 They are not vācaka.
 They are vācaka indirectly through the remembrance of the correct
words.
 They are vācaka when they become conventional (ruḍha) in a particular
sense.
 Both correct and corrupt are vācaka.
Technically speaking, the only point of discrimination between the correct
and corrupt words is that the use of correct words lead to merit (dharma)
and use of corrupt words lead to demerit (adharma).
1) samānāyāmarthāvagatau śabdena cāpaśabdena ca dharmaniyamḥ
kriyate śabdenaivārtho’bhidheyonāpaśabdeneti/
2) Asādhuranumānena vācakatā kaiścisyate/
Vācakatāviśeṣo vā niyamaḥ punyapāpayoḥ//
(Vākyapadīyam III Saṃbandhsamuddeśa,
kārikā 30)
Let us now take the view of Haradatta in Padamañjarī Vol. I and
Bhaṭṭoji Dikṣita in Śabdakaustubha. According to them there are four
characteristics of correctness (sādhutā)—
anapabhraṣṭatānadiryadvābhyudaya yogyatā. Vyākriyā vañjanīyā vā jātiḥ
kāpīha sādhutā. (Śabdakaustubha)
1) The speaker must be capable of pronouncing the words correctly. In
Pātañjalamahābhāṣyam the statement, ‘te’asura helayo helaya iti kurvantuh
pasavabhuba’ says that the demons were defeated because of the incorrect
pronunciation of the word ‘’he’raya’, since it is repeated twice with ‘helayo
88
helayo’ so it brought defeat to the demons through defective pronunciation.
It is narrated in Pātañjalamahābhāṣyam:
Duṣṭaḥ śabdaḥ svarato varṇato vā mithyā prayukto na tamarthamāha/
Sa vāgvajro yajamānaṃ hinasti yathendraśatruḥ svarato’parādhātat//
The story runs like this: Tvaṣṭā, whose son was killed by Indra,
performed a sacrificial rite called ‘Abhicāra yajña’. The said sacrifice was
supposed to produce Vṛtra, the demon who was supposed to kill Indra, his
enemy. But at the time of performing ritual the mantra
‘svahendraśatrurvardhasva’ was mispronounced. The word ‘indraśatru’
should be read in tatpuruṣa samāsa in which the end varṇa is pronounced
in high pitch, but he read it in bahubrīhi samāsa where the first varṇa is
pronounced in high pitch and consequently, results in absolutely opposite
sense. Instead of killing Indra, his enemy, it killed the enemy of Indra, that is,
Vṛtra. This was all due to wrong pronunciation.
2) The correct word (sādhu śabda) must be regarded as eternal, i.e., anādi; it
must be used traditionally, following the grammatical rules and operations.
apaśabdo hi loke prayujyate sādhu samānāśca/
(Kaiyaṭa on
Mahābhāṣyam 3.1.8)
3) Thirdly, the characteristic of a correct word is that it leads to dharma which
everyone seeks for.
4) Correctness (sādhutā) is a universal common property possessed by all the
correct words, just as ‘pothood’ is possessed by all the pots uniformly, a
jeweler can recognise the true gem through repeated practice and
observation, so a correct word (sādhu śabda) is recognized by speakers of
the language community by frequent uses of them. As said earlier regarding
features of sādhuśabda, asādhutā (incorrectness) is also said to have four
kinds of features — (1) apabhraṣṭatā, (2) sāditā, (3) pratyavāyāyogyatā, (4)
tadavacchedakajātiviśeṣa.
89
Technical words such as ṭi, ghu and bhā are kept outside such purview as
they are neither sādhu nor asādhu.
Gaṅgeśa opens up the discussion by assuming that knowledge of

Grammar is not necessary for the usage of sādhu śabda because there are
persons who lack knowledge of Grammar but they may simply pronounce
words correctly.
The simple criterion to distinguish between correct and corrupt form is:
asādhutva is that form of a word which cannot be supported by the rules of
Grammar as recognized by the śiṣṭās. Sādhutva is a kind of power (vṛtti), a
relationship between word and its meaning, as is necessary for presenting
the meaning of the word before the mind of the listener.
Asādhutvam ca na bhramādijanyatvam anāptokte asādhutvapātteḥ
sukadyudirite grāmagāmādau bhramādyajanyatvācca. Kintu mahājana
parigṛhitavyākaraṇa
smṛtiniṣiddhatvaṃ tadparigṛhitatva veti. Padasya sādhutvam vṛttireva
vṛttiśca śābdabodhahetupadārthopasthityanukula
padapadārthayoḥsaṁbandhaḥ.
(Tattvacintāmaṇi-
Śabdakhaṇḍa, p. 626-27)
Gaṅgeśa takes up the example of the word ‘paṃkaja’ which signifies

lotus born in the mud. Although, the derivative meaning of the word is ‘that
which is born in mud’ and there are many insects also that are born in mud,
yet the word ‘paṃkaja’ does not signify them. It only stands for lotus. Hence,
the word ‘paṃkaja’ has the power to signify the meaning lotus only and not
other insects, therefore it is sādhuśabda. In fact, it is called ‘yogarūḍha’ word
and it is different from the apabhraṃśa śabda.
Nanvevaṁ pañkajapadasyevapābhraṃśānāmapi Śaktiḥ tato niyame-
nārthapratiteḥ vyavahārādhīnā vyutpatteraviśeṣāt. (Tattvacintāmaṇi-
Śabdakhaṇḍa, p. 638)
90
No one can deny that the word ‘gauḥ’ and ‘gāvī’ express the same
meaning. And one can argue that apabhraṃśa śabda also possesses the
signifying power because the meanings are as constantly signified by them
as by the so-called sādhuśabda. Hence, there is no justification for taking
apabhraṃśa śabda as indicative of some secondary meaning (lakṣaṇā), since
their primary signification is never found to be inconsistent.
It is not plausible to say that apaśabda appear to be significant only by

recalling the corresponding correct word which are alone considered to be
naturally endowed with sense, because uneducated people who have
nothing to do with Sanskrit words are also found to derive the usual meaning
from such apabhraṃśa śabda.
na ca lakṣaṇā, mukhyārthabādhāt . Na cāpabhraṃśena
smāritasādhuśabdāanvayabodhaḥ sādhuśabdamjānatāmapi pāmārānam
tato’rthapratīteḥ.
(Tattvacintāmaṇi-Śabdakhaṇḍa, p.639)
Lastly, in the absence of any logical criterion, we are not allowed to assume that the indicative
power of apaśabda is always derived from their reliance on the primary designative power of
sadhuśabda.
śaktyāropāttato’rthapratyaya iti cenna, mānābhāva
Śabdakhaṇḍa, p.639)
How, then are we to account for the acquisition of meaning in case of
apaśabda? It is obviously undeniable that the correct and corrupt words are
equally expressive of sense. One is not entitled to make any distinction
between these two classes of words in so far as the signifying power is
concerned. Still, there is somehow some difficulty in taking both of them to
be equally significant. Their equality will invalidate the division of correct and
corrupt words as normally supposed by the mass. Moreover, the nullification
of the distinction will lessen the force of Vedic injunction which prohibits one
to speak incorrect words and utter apabhraṃśa at the risk of collecting sin.
91
Nanūbhayoḥ Śaktatve sādhvasādhuvibhāgābhāvāt. Tadvayavahāravirodhaḥ
sādhubhirbhāṣitavyaṃ nāpibhraṃśitavai na mlecchitavai ityādi vaidika
vidhiniṣedhānupapattiśceti. (Tattvacintāmaṇi- Śabdakhaṇḍa p. 640)
Gaṅgeśa found himself in a dilemma. Though he continues to maintain

the distinction in ordinary usage, but he assigns śakti only to the words
which are determined by the ‘Will of God’ (Ῑśvarasaṃketa). Pāṇini etc have
maintained the sanctity of the Sanskrit words but they have never dealt with
apabhraṃśa/ apaśabda in the same way as the later grammarians like
Bhartṛhari etc.
Śaktatvāviśeṣe’pi tadabhiyuktendrapaṇinyadipraṇītavyākaraṇopi gṛhītā—
nāmeva saṁskṛtānāṃ sādhutvamastu, na hi apabhraṃśe taiḥ sādhutvaṃ
smaryate.
(Tattvacintāmaṇi- Śabdakhaṇḍa, p. 641-43)
So Gaṅgeśa found it much more reasonable to take sādhuśabda or

Sanskrit words as the only significant forms of speech; the apparent ‘śakti’ of
apabhraṃśa is the result of imposition only. Despite being a hard task
master one keeps provision for charity also, and allows, if not signifying
power (śakti), at least assigns expressive provision for apaśabda too and that
is the strategy which Gaṅgeśa follows.
Ekatra śaktyapyanyatra tadāropāttadarthapratītyapapattāvekatraiva
Śaktirlāghavāt.
( Tattvacintāmaṇi-
He refers to the Mīṃāṃsā-sūtra and strongly insists that the

assumption of śakti for more than one word of the same meaning has no
logical justification. Śakti really pertains to the Sanskrit words (sādhuśabda)
alone. The reason is obvious. A Sanskrit word has the same form in all parts
of the country, whereas apabhraṃśa/ apaśabda have got variant forms in
different provinces.
92
Sā ca śaktiḥ saṃskṛta eva sarvadeśe tasyaikatvāt nāpabhraṃśeṣu teṣāṃ
pratideśaṃketrārthe bhinnabhinnārupāṇāṃ tāvacchakti kalpane gauravāt.
In conclusion, one can say that the variant forms a word display as in
case of ‘gauḥ’, one can trace their origin to a single uniform word that
remains static. Its various forms depend on the ability of the speaker, their
tongue-mobility and their learning adaptability. And therein the problem
persists. If all the variant forms of a word be given the status of a correct
word, then there will be no end to the variant form. If a single form is taken
as the correct one, then how to decide on the status of the other variant
forms? They should be taken as the different variations of the original and
prototype word. The boundary must be set, that is, how far the allowance to
the so-called apabhraṃśa be given and where to draw the line. What
remains to be said is that the intuitive resistance on the part of the linguistic
speakers has to be sought to settle the issue and keep the balance.
Na śiṣṭairanugamyate paryāyā iva sādhavāḥ/
Te yataḥ smṛtiśāstreṇa tasmāt sākṣādavācakāḥ//
Chapter IV
Truth as Reflected in the Language
“True and false are attributes of speech, not of things. And where
speech is not, there is neither truth nor falsehood.”
(Leviathan)
“Vāgvā ṛgveda vijñāpayati― yaddai vāgnabhaviṣyanna dharmo
nādharmo nā satyaṃ nānṛtaṁ vāgaitat sarvaṃ vijñāpayati vācamupāsveti”.
(Chāndogya Upaniṣad
VII. 2)
93
“In order to persuade Nārada to worship Vāk, the Vāktattva has been
praised as a multi-functional element in the dialogue between Sanatkumāra
and Nārada. It has been said that all the Vedas and different branches of
learning are represented by Vāk and apprehension of virtue or vice, truth or
falsehood would never have been possible, had there been no such means of
expressing thought as Vāk.”
I
According to Nirukta (2.11), there are four kinds of creatures— Ṛṣi,

muni, manuṣya and paśu. Ṛṣi is one who perceives the object directly
(satyadṛṣṭā); one, who reflects (mananakurvanti) over what is perceived by
the Ṛṣi, is called Muni; one who partially perceives the object and assumes
the whole is called manuṣya; and finally, one whose perceptions are
dependent on others is called paśu.
Ye sarvatobhāvena viṣayān paśyantīti ta eva ṛṣyayaḥ, ye ca ṟṣayo
dṛṣtavā mananaṃ kurvanti, te munayaḥ ucyante, ye viṣayananśato dṛṣṭvā
mananenavāgachanti te manuṣyā ucyante. Ye ca parān spaśante bādhante
te paśavo bhavanti. Tathā ca spaśatereva paśuśabdo vyutpādanīyaḥ.
( Vyākaraṇadarśanabhūmikā, p. 64)
Now, the question that comes up is how Ṛṣis impart the truth to the
inferior beings like muni, manuṣya and paśu? The Vaiyākaraṇa-s explicitly
provide for the crucial role of the word (śabda). This is because only a few
among men can elevate themselves to the status of Ṛṣis and therefore,
visualize truth as seen by the Ṛṣis. Ordinary creatures mainly derive
knowledge through śabda which gradually reveals the truth to them.
However, one needs to distinguish between pure and impure words, so that
one can accumulate truth, not error. Thus, this chapter explicates the
necessity of distinction between pure and impure words, corresponding to
truth and erroneous knowledge, consequently leading to dharma and
adharma respectively.
94
Language indubitably takes one to the pinnacle of wisdom, while
remaining both exclusive and inclusive of the orbit of knowledge. This is so
since language alone transmits knowledge to others. Grammarians, thus,
claim that language is so ingrained in our system of knowledge that one
cannot dissociate from it at any point of time. When perception, inference
and other sources of knowledge fail to yield the required knowledge, the only
means that remain are words. Thus, it is no wonder that Vaiyākaraṇas are
called śābdikā. They accept śabda more readily as pramāņa than others—
“Śabdapūrvako hi arthe saṃpratyayaḥ”
(Mahābhāṣyam under Vārttika 2, 1.1 68 Pāṇini-sūtra)
Śabda is a direct source of knowledge and its trustworthiness, in
respect of a word whose meaning is too obvious to require an explanation.
“śabdapramāṇakā vayaṃ, yacchabda āha tadasmākaṃ pramāṇaṃ. śabdaśca
śabdajñāne dharmamāha”.
(Mahābhāṣyam under Vārttika 5, Pāņini-sūtra
2.1.1)
For example, one does not know when one was born, unless told by one’s
parents or other person. Thus, one takes it for granted that what one has
been told is absolutely true, since one has no means of verifying the
information. Concerns such as speaking lies or communicating erroneous
facts are kept out of the present discussion. Taken on trust, parents are the
most reliable source of information regarding one’s date of birth etc. This
conveys to us the indispensable role of speech as one runs one’s course of
life. However, problem arises when one finds that such information is
erroneous and the authentication of verbal knowledge becomes necessary. It
is at this juncture that Nyāya School provides that one who speaks the truth
(yathārthavaktā) is one who is free from the following four kinds of defects:
 Defect of vocal organ,
 Delusion,
 Lack of desire to communicate, and
95
 Passivity to convey the truth.
The second condition of delusion is little tricky, for there may be a
situation when what is known to be the truth at time T is conveyed otherwise
at time T1. For example, a teacher says to his student, ‘there are five fruits
on the bank of the river’. However, when the disciple reaches the bank, he
does not find them. They could have been taken away or stolen by someone.
Nevertheless, the teacher remains robbed of his quality of being
yathārthavaktā unless the situation is fully examined and explained. This
examination process will be further complicated in view of the many
variables and factors that it entails such that one is likely to miss track of
the argument. Add to this, even a small change in the situation can damage
the whole process of investigation of truth. For instance, the witness’
statement may be twisted or distorted. Also the witness may be under
threat, such that he is compelled to withdraw his true statement. This is also
the case in our court rooms where proceedings remain indefinitely
suspended without any verdict for lack of full proof. Although hypothetically,
a pure and ideal picture of truth can be found but the practical situation
makes it next to impossible. Who then is the ideal true speaker,
yathārthavaktā ? One is reminded of Wittgenstein’s concept of ideal and
perfect language, where guests are to arrive precisely at 1’o clock, neither
before nor after. However, spatial and temporal limitation will obstruct all the
invited guests simultaneously entering the gate. Therefore, the concept of
ideal truth remains elusive.
This chapter aspires to explore the truth via language. One has the option
to reach at the true object (viṣaya) through the ‘meaning of a word’ (artha).
Such true object (viṣaya) includes an event, an action or any other thing
related to truth. So we take it for granted that the preconditions for verbal
understanding of a statement are ākāṃkṣā, yogyatā, āsatti and tātparya.
The meaning of the spoken word is revealed through its expectancy
(ākāṃkṣā) with another word. Their proximity suggests the competency of
96
the meaning of the spoken statement. However, it is often seen that while
meaning of the spoken statement is obtained, the truth remains non-
deciphered. For example, the phrase ‘barren woman’s son’ conveys the
meaning of the statement but falls short of its practical implication. It forces
one to regard the statement itself as absurd, while conveying something that
one would not have called absurd otherwise. Therefore, the truth of any
statement does not depend on mere syntactical relationship alone such as
‘the man, the horse, and the elephant’, nor does it depend upon the
semantically construed meaning of the phrase ‘barren woman’s son’. It is, in
fact, a three tier process. The hearer hears the uttered statement,
understands the meaning and finally achieves the truth of the statement
(Vākyaśravaṇa, Vākyārtha and Vākyārthabodha). In the above example, the
hearer hears and understands the statement but knows very well that it is
not true.
Apart from the above condition, another aspect that may also mislead a
hearer is the incorrect utterance which reveals the wrong meaning of the
word, consequently failing to perceive the truth. The reverse is also possible
where a wrongly-uttered word accompanies the correct object. Thus, a
thorough study of grammar is advised in order to completely achieve the
correct meaning of a word, and thereby reach the truth.
Samskṛta-bhāṣā derived its name from pada-saṃskāra which brings

unity or harmony among various kinds of words in the same class.
Vyākaraṇa, therefore, not only prescribes several rules and grammatical
operations in language but also describes how words are to be used by
ordinary people. Saṃskāra modifies a word after adding suffixes to the root
word. When words are not formed according to proper rules, language
becomes impure, Bhartṛhari says:
Śabdaḥ saṃskārahīno yo gauriti prayuyukṣite/
tamapabhraṁśamicchanti viśiṣṭārthaniveśinam//
(Vākyapadīyam, kārikā, 1.147)
97
Rules and grammatical operations bind a language into one integrated
whole. The elite class (śiṣṭaḥ) is a class of people that uses such refined
language in keeping with tradition and grammar.
Nānārthikāmimāṃ kaścid vyavasthāṃ kartumarhati/
tasmānnibadhyate śiṣṭaiḥ sādhutvaviṣayā smṛtiḥ//
Adding suffixes to roots is definitely a necessary step towards the
purification of language. Just as a cow is acknowledged by its horns and
hoofs, a pure word is recognized for its suffixes. Now a word which has not
undergone saṃskāra, cannot be regarded as proper word (sādhuśabda) and
is designated as apaśabda or apabhraṃśa. Distortion of a pure word or
deviation from the original one is known as apabhraṃśa vis-à-vis apaśabda.
For example, if a word is pronounced differently on every occasion such that
it conveys different meanings, such a word will then lose the status of
sādhuśabda.
Ekaikasya hi śabdasya bahabo’pabraṃśaḥ. tadyathā gaurityasya śabdasya
gāvi goṇi gotā goputtalikā ityevamādayo’pabhraṃśāḥ.
(Mahābhāṣyam
1.1.1)
Thus, the word ‘gauḥ’ can be distorted to ‘gāvi’, ‘goṇī’, ‘gota’ and
‘goputtalikā’ etc. Only one of the words mentioned above is correct while all
others are incorrect. This mutilation or corruption of words is due to both
natural unfitness and wrong imitation on part of the people. Ordinary people
are commonly known to be careless so far as the precise use and utterance
of Sanskrit forms are concerned. It is to such innate inaptitude and careless
imitation that Bhartṛhari traced the origin of apabhraṃśa:
Gauriti prayoktavye’śaktyā pramādādibhirvā gāvyādayo’pabhraṃśāḥ prayujyañte.
(Vṛtti on Brahmakāṇḍa of Vākyapadīyam, kārikā 1.147)
The expression aśaktijānukaraṇārtha (imitation due to inability) occurring
in Vārttika intends to reflect the same point.
Lṛkāropadeśo yadṛcchāśaktijānukaraṇaplutyādyārthaḥ.
98
(Vārttika II under Śivasūtra 2)
Patañjali explainsthat ṛkāra is pronounced as lakāra due to physical
inability.
Aśaktyā kayācid brāhmaṇyā ṛtaka iti prayoktavye lṛtaka iti prayuktam/
(Mahābhāṣyam under Vārttika II)
The afore-mentioned grammarian’s view is shared by the Mimāṃsākas

also. A man physically unable to pronounce the word ‘gauḥ’ due to physical
defects, carelessness and economy of effort uses the impure form of the
word ‘gāvi’.While the apaśabda by itself has no power to convey any
meaning, hearer of the right form of the word in question to which it bears a
close semblance— “Tadaśaktiscanurūpatvāt”― Mīmāṃsā-sūtra 1.3.28
These echoes the grammarians’ view that among all the various forms of
the same word, only one shall be accepted as right whiles the rest shall be
regarded as Apaśabda.
Tasmādmῑṣāmeko’nādiḥ. anyeḥ apabhraṃśāḥ
(Śābarabhāṣyam under Mīmāṃsā-sūtra
1.3.26)
Śabara expounds this through adducing an illustration from common
language. In a statement like ‘aśmakaiḥāgacchati’ the word ‘aśmakaiḥ’
functions to first remind the listener of the proper form i.e., ‘aśmakebhya’
and then through it, presents the real or intended significance. Similarly,
wrong forms like ‘gāvῑ’ when first heard, bring the right word to the mind
and then through such right word, that is ‘gauḥ’, one obtains the correct
meaning. The corrupt word reminds one of the meanings which, in turn,
recall the correct word (sādhu śabda) which consequently generates
knowledge. Thus, one cannot question their sādhutva or correctness since
they are used to convey meanings.
atyeva hi vibhaktivyatyaye’pi pratyayo bhavati. Aśmakairāga-
chāmityasmakaśabdaikaśabdaikadeśa upalabdhe, aśmakebhya ityeva
99
Śabdaḥ smaryate. Tato’śmakebhya ityeṣo’rtha upalabhyata iti. Evaṃ
gāvyādidarśanād gośabdasmaraṇaṃ. Tataḥ sāsnādimānavagamyate.
(Śābarabhāṣyam under Mῑmāṃsā-Sūtra
1.3.29)
However in case of words which convey the same sense, such as kara,
pāṇi and hastaḥ ; all of them must be deemed to be right and it has also to
be accepted that the relation of these words with their sense is autpattika
(nitya) on the strength of abhiyuktopadeśa as in the case of other words. The
reason as has been mentioned in Mῑmāṁsā-Sūtra1.3.27 is that the abhiyuktā
are in constant touch with the proper words such that it is not possible that
they should forget them. So, the form of a word accepted by abhiyuktas is
deemed to be the right form, while the rest are only to be considered
apaśabda. Noteworthily, abhiyuktā is similar to what grammarians
understand by śiṣṭapuruṣaḥ. In the performance of their religious duties,
abhiyuktas are in constant touch with the correct usage of words. They are
the sole authority to decide upon any question regarding the correct usage
of words,
tatra tattvamabhiyogaviśeṣāt syāt
(Mῑmāṃsā-Sūtra 1.3.27)
Now, the difficulty for the Mῑmāṃsakas is though the word ‘gauḥ’ is
commonly referred by several words such as ‘gāvī’ ‘goṇi’ and ‘goputtalikā’ in
addition to ‘gauḥ’, are they supposed to take all of these words as
‘autpattika’ (nitya) or is it only one of them, viz., ‘gauḥ’ which is to be
regarded as ‘autpattika’ and the rest only apaśabda or apabhraṃśa?
Mῑmāṃsā-sūtra 7.2.1 states that the main purpose of a word is to yield
sense. When a word denotes one thing to the ārya and another to the
mleccha, one naturally wonders which should be preferred over the other.
They hold that śabda is nitya; artha is nitya such that their relationship is
also nitya (autpattika). And if several words can convey meanings to the
hearer, why should they not be assigned the same status as a pure word as
100
mentioned before, words like yava (barley corn), varāha (boar) and vetas (a
kind of creeper growing in water) which are used among the ārya as well as
the mlecchas, albeit in a different sense.
The question is which of two sets of meanings is authoritative? Hence,
one may conclude that of the several forms that a word may be found to
inhabit in any language, only one is accepted as right while the rest must be
labeled apaśabda although they help to convey the correct meaning.
The view of Gaṅgeśa, the Naiyāyika, differs from the Vaiyākaraṇa and the
Mῑmāṃsakas. In his opinion, asādhutva is not simply due to inadequate
knowledge of grammar and mistakes on the part of the speaker; since
neither a man who is not well versed in grammar nor the utterance of a
parrot can be treated as intelligent.
asādhutvaṃ ca na bhramādijanyatvaṃ anāptokte asādhutvapātteḥ
śukādyudirite grāmagrāmādau bhramādyajanyatvācca.
(Tattvacintāmaṇi- Śabdakhaṇḍa)
In Gaṅgeśa’s opinion, an apaśabda is that form of a word which cannot be
supported by the rules of grammar recognized by Śiṣṭa-s.
kintu mahājanaparigṛahīta vyākaraņa smṛti niṣiddhatvaṃ tadparigṛhītatva
veti.
On the other hand, Sādhutva is a kind of power (vṛtti) that reminds one
of the meanings conveyed by the uttered word.
padasya sādhutvaṃ vṛttirevavṛttiśca.
Śabdabodhahetupadārthopasthityanukūla padapadārthayosaṁbandhaḥ.
Śabdakhaṇḍa)
Gaṅgeśa also asserts that since apaśabda convey meaning as do the
“sādhuśabda”, it must possess signifying power.
nanvevaṃ pañkajapadasyevāpabhraṃśānāmapi Śaktiḥ tato
niyamenārthapratīteḥ vyavahārādhīnavyutpatteraviśeṣāt.
101
Śabdakhaṇḍa)
One cannot deny that both the words ‘gauḥ’ and ‘gāvī’ express the same
meaning. Again, it can be said that an apaśabda conveys meaning by
resorting to the secondary meaning (lakṣaṇā). Since the help of lakṣaṇā is
taken only when the primary meaning of a word is found to be inconsistent,
in case of apaśabda the primary signification is never inconsistent, there is
no justification for taking resort to lakṣaṇā—
tanna lakṣaṇā mukhyārthabādhāt / (Tattvacintāmaṇi- Śabdakhaṇḍa)
It is also not plausible to say that apaśabda are significant only for the
recall of the corresponding pure word, which alone is considered to be
naturally endowed with meaning. How could the uneducated people with no
knowledge of Sanskrit words, then have remembered the pure word and
derived the usual meaning from such apaśabda?
nāpabhraṃśena smāritasādhuśabdādanvayabodhaḥ
sādhuśabdamajānatāmapi pāmārānāṃ tato’rthapratīteḥ/
On the basis of the discussion above, nothing can be definitely said
about the sādhutva and asādhutva of apabhraṃśa.
na tveṣāṃ niyataṃ Sādhutvamasādhutvaṃ va avyavasthitamasti.
(Puṇyarāja under Vākyapadīyam, kārikā
1.150)
The same word may be correct in one sense and incorrect in another.
Bhartṛhari subscribed to another view that considers apabhraṃśa as vācaka
because it emanates directly from the popular usages of language.
Incidentally, Vyākaraṇaśāstra is said to be lokāgama, therefore, apabhraṃśa
must be accepted as vācaka. Bhartṛhari accepts the gravity of the distorted
word — when an impure word conveys a definite meaning for a long time,
the pure word (sādhu śabda) loses its primary meaning. For example, the
word ‘gauḥ’ etymologically conveys ‘that which moves’ (gacchatῑtigauḥ), but
102
once it is determined to signify an animal with dewlap, the etymological
sense loses its primary meaning.
prasiddhestu ruḍhitāmāpādyamānāḥ svātantryameva kecidapbhraṁśā
labhante/
( Harivṛtti on Vākyapadīyam kārikā I.
148)
Patañjali too admits that the different modifications of the word ‘gauh’
such as ‘gāvī’, ‘gauṇī’ and ‘goputtalikā’ are distorted, yet they remind us of
the original ‘gauḥ’ and do not lead to any kind of misunderstanding.
tameva cāsādhu vācakaṃ pratyakṣapakṣe manyante. Sādhu
cānumānapakṣe vyavasthāpayanti.
( Harivṛtti on Vākyapadīyam, kārikā I.
154)
Therefore, different modifications of the word ‘gauḥ’ all equally hold their
respective special places while conveying the similar meaning. In the
absence of any logical criterion, one cannot assume that the signifying
power of apaśabda is obtained via secondary power (lakṣaṇā).
Śaktyāropāttato’rthapratyaya iti cenna mānābhāvāt /
Śabdakhaṇḍa)
How then, should one account for the acquisition of meaning? It is a fact
that both pure and impure words are equally expressive of meaning. One
may not make any distinction between these two classes of words in so far
as their signifying power is concerned. There is, however, some difficulty in
deeming both to be of equal significance. Such equality nullifies the
distinction of pure and impure words and dilutes the force of Vedic injunction
which forbids one to speak impure words or utter apaśabda at the risk of
committing a sin.
nanubhayoḥ śaktatve sādhvasādhuvibhāgābhāvāt. Tadvayavahāravirodhaḥ
sādhubhirbhāṣitavyaṃ nāpibhraṃśitavai na mlecchitavai ityādi vaidika
vidhiniṣedhānupapattiśceti.
103
Śabdakhaṇḍa)
II
This section attempts to explore the mixed reactions of Vaiyākaraṇa and

Naiyāyika of handling of the issue. For instance, an apabhraṃśa word like
‘gāvi’, in the sense of cow, for instance may be etymologically interpreted so
as to turn into a correct word-meaning, that is, ‘one competent to please’,
Gaṇapati— the God of success, but that does not mean it is the same word.
The word ‘gāvi’ when uttered to indicate cow is different from the word ‘gāvi’
when it is uttered to indicate Gaṇapati— the God of success.
evaṁ gāvīti gāṃ gaņapati avitu prīņayituṃ śīlamasyeti gāvīśabde’pi sādhutā
kvacit
As the mandate goes — sakṛdeva śabda uccarayati sakṛdevārtha gamayati.
(Tattvacintāmaṇyāloka by Joydeva
Miśra)
Word forms as asva and goņῑ are treated as apabhraṃśa only when they
are distorted from their correct forms ‘aśvaḥ’ and ‘gauḥ’. However, they are
said to be really correct when they signify ‘one deprived of wealth’ (asva)
and ‘vessel/sack’ (āvapana/goṇῑ).
Asvagauņyādayaḥ Śabdāḥ sādhavo viṣayāntare
Śabdakhaṇḍa)
āvapane gauṇīti svaviprayogābhidhāne cāsva ityetayoravasthitaṃ
sādhutvam/
(Harivṛtti under Vākyapadīyam, kārikā, I .
149)
gauņī āvapana cet Goṇānyā.
(Bhaṭṭoji Dikṣita under Pāṇini-sūtra
4.1.42)
104
The distinction of pure words from impure ones poses a serious problem.
One group thinks that the so-called impure words comprise meaningful
expression and hence, should be regarded as natural part of the language.
The linguistic community agrees too; everyday new words are manufactured
and are used freely by youngsters. Yet the problem persists in technical
sense since the other group of older generation is not ready to accept such
words as pure. For them, the distinction exists—one is called sādhuśabda
while the other is called asādhuśabda. Just as a feminine gender of a woman
cannot be denied whether she is a variable (gamyā) or invariable (agamyā);
similarly a word is always a word as long as it signifies meaning, whilst
technically, it may be regarded as either pure or impure. Invariability
(agamyatva) and variability (gamyatva) are not natural qualities of a woman
but they are determined by tradition, conventions and habit of living.
Yeṣāmapi ca naiva purākalpaḥ na ca daivῑ vāgsaṃkῑrņā kadācῑdāsit
teṣāmapi gamyāgamyādivyavasthāvadiyaṃ sādhvasādhuvyavasthā
nityamavicchidena śiṣtaiḥ smaryate.
( Harivṛtti on Vākyapadīyam,
kārikā, I. 155)
Thus, we find four different perspectives with regard to the status of

Apaśabda
1) They are not vācaka
2) They become vācaka indirectly, via the remembrance of the
corresponding correct words. They are also vācaka when they become
conventional (ruḑhi) in a particular sense.
3) The distinction between pure and impure words should be
abolished.
Technically speaking, the only point of discrimination between the pure
and impure words is— pure words precisely follow grammatical rules leading
to merit (dharma) and impure words do not comply with grammatical rules
and, hence, yield demerit (adharma).
105
samānāyāmarthāvagatau śabdena cāpaśabdena ca dharmaniyamaḥ kriyate.
(Mahābhāṣyam
1.1.1)
asādhuranumānena vācakāḥ kaiścidiṣyate/
vācakatvā’viśeṣo vā niyamaḥ punyapāpayoḥ//
(Vākyapadῑyaṃ III Saṁbandhsamauddeśa, kārikā 30)
For Patañjali, utterance of the word ‘helaya’ instead of ‘he’raya’
constitutes impure pronunciation, so it led to the defeat of demons,
consequently it generates demerit (adharma).
Although Gaṅgeśa continues to maintain the distinction in ordinary usage,

he assigns śakti only to the sādhu śabda or Sanskrit words. While Pāṇini and
others have maintained the sanctity of the Sanskrit words, they never dealt
with apaśabda in the same way.
Śaktatvāviśeṣe’pi
tadabhiyuktendrapāṇinyādipraṇītvyākaraṇopigŗhītānāmeva saṁskṛtānāṃ
sādhutvamastu na hi apabhraṃśe taiḥ sādhutvaṃ smāryate.
Śabdakhaṇḍa)
Therefore, Gangeśa found it more reasonable to consider sādhuśabda as
the only significant forms of speech. Apparent śakti of apabhraṃśa is the
result of imposition only. The reason seems to very obvious and as
mentioned in the previous section; once rules are fixed, one is not allowed to
do otherwise.
ekatra śaktyāpyanyatra tadāropātatadartha pratītyūpapattāvekatraiva
śaktirlāghavāt.
Śabdakhaṇḍa)
One can refer to the ‘anyāyaścanekaśabdatvam’ (Mīmaṃsā-sūtra 1.3.26)
and strongly insists that the assumption of śakti with respect to more than
one word of the same meaning has no logical justification. Neither it seems
106
sound to select one among many as pure and discard others as impure.
Though synonymous words, like karaḥ, pāṇi and hastaḥ, are conventionally
treated as signifying single meaning yet this treatment may also cause
disaster to legitimacy to verbal testimony as referred to in the earlier pages.
One will be quite bewildered to know that the word ‘gauḥ’ conveys ‘cow’ at a
time but the same ‘cow’ may be referred by the words like ‘gāvī’, ‘gauṇī’
‘goputtalikā’ too. Thus it is correct to say that there must be one rule to be
specific and precise, despite being a hard task master, one keeps provision
for charity also, thus allowing signifying power to apaśabda too sometimes.
III
Thus far, there is no clear and definite picture of the distinction between
pure and impure words. While arguments from both sides have been taken
into consideration, can one say that the criterion for determining pure and
impure words depends upon the insight of the language speakers? While this
may sound vague, there is seemingly no other logic. In order to balance the
different views— one may either accept apaśabda as not signifying anything
or accept both sādhu and asādhu śabda on equal par. In the former, a
restriction line will be drawn between sādhu and according to pre-
determined rules. Just as the boundary of a country is determined through
mutual agreement and once fixed, none can violate the sacrosanct boundary
line; once the rules of a game are fixed, none of the players can be allowed
to violate the rules. If they do, they are simply declared disqualified. In the
language domain also, once the rules are fixed, they may not be violated. In
case of a violation, the word will be “disqualified” from the language and
considered apaśabda.
In the latter option, all words are “open” to be declared vācaka and thus
any distinction is abolished. However, a note of warning should be kept in
mind that allowing too much liberty may lead to disaster with a heavy price.
Indian scholars limited the boundary of significant meaning by ascribing
dharma and adharma to pure and impure words respectively.
107
A brief note on dharma and adharma is warranted in the interest of doing
justice to this chapter. It is said that sādhu śabda yields dharma while
asādhu śabda generates adharma clearly pointing out the moral aspect of
the utterance of words. Morality sets the boundary line in any kind of
discipline. For ordinary human beings, the moral code is essential because
without any demarcation, one may go to any extent to enjoy one’s liberty.
Therefore, the law in court-room, rules in play-ground, order in family,
governance in political field, comprises rules that bring harmony and unity
among scattered facts. There will be absolute chaos and discord without
law. Once transgression is allowed, rules will be broken on one pretext or
another. It is true that human life is subject to varied and unpredictable
changes, yet an order must be maintained in life as far as possible. Even a
small mistake in pronunciation may cause disaster as mentioned in the
śloka:
Yadyapi bahunādhīṣe tathāpi paṭhaputra vyākaraṇam/
Svajanaḥ śvajano mābhūt sakalaṃ śakalaṃ sakṛta śakṛta ca//
Vaiyākaraṇa’s remark is very important in this connection. They say that

although every word has the power to signify meaning (sarve
sarvārthavācakāḥ) yet, meaning is restricted by human will (saṃketa). In the
absence of control over ‘word and meaning’ relationship, human relationship
will break down. There will be total anarchy should any word stand for any
meaning. Infinite meanings and infinite interpretations will only amount to
loss of communication and consequently the failure of language vis-à-vis
truth. Thus, human speech (vāk) must be determined through rules and
grammatical operations.
To conclude, one can say that the variant forms displayed by a word as in
case of ‘gauḥ’, trace their origin to a single uniform word that remains static.
Its various forms depend upon the ability of the speaker, tongue-mobility and
learning adaptability. For example, the same English language spoken in
different regions acquires different accents and pronunciations. Both sādhu
108
śabda and asādhu śabda convey meaning without causing misunderstanding
among the speakers. Variations in accent do not hamper meaning, for it is
the dirt of impure words that is cleansed off through gradual elevation to the
pure words. But when it comes to theoretical discussion, one can set a
standard to which all other pronunciation should submit. Thus, the problem
is perennial and one may belong to any one of the sides. Purely syntactic
aspect keeps the word structure intact with its accents and pronunciation,
however when we combine it with ‘semantic-pragmatic’ aspect, the meaning
cannot be ignored and that inevitably introduces the flexibility in the various
forms of the word generating the same meaning. The theoretician may
accept or reject the meaning as significant.
Before a final verdict, however, let us look what Patañjali has to remark:
tadyathā kūpakhānakaḥ kūpa khanan yadyapi mŗdā pāṁsubhiścāvakīrṇo

bhavati saḥ apsu sañjātāsu tata eva taṃ guņamāsādayati yena sa doṣo
nirhaṇyate, bhūyasā cābhyudayena yogo bhavati. Evamihāpi. yadyapi
apaśabdajñāne adharmaḥ tathā api yastvasau śabdajñāne dharmastena ca
sa doṣo nirghāniṣyate bhūyasā ca abhyudayena yogo bhaviṣyati.
(Mahābhāṣyam
1.1.1)
The dirty water, drawn from well while digging, is subsequently cleaned
off, by the fresh water coming out of the same well. The journey of language
is similar to that of the flowing water of a river that accumulates dirt on the
way but is again purified in the course of that flow alone and consequently
acquires the signature of pravāha-nityatā.
Purification of knowledge is possible through language alone just as the

‘bliss of speech’ is obtained through grammar alone.
Prāptarupavibhāgāyā yo vācaḥ paramo rasaḥ/
yattatpuņyatamaṃ jyotistasya mārgo’yamāñjasḥ//
(Vākyapadῑyam,
kārikā 1.12)
109
Śabdabrahmaṇo hi yataḥ svarupasaṃskāraḥ sādhutva pratipattyarthaḥ/
(Harivṛtti on Vākyapadῑyam, kārikā
1.11)
Chapter V
Awakening of Knowledge: Prātibhajñāna
In any general discussion about valid sources of knowledge (pramāņa)

in Indian perspective, one posits Nyāya-Sūtra:
Pratyakṣānumānopamānaśabdaḥpramāņāni(1.1.3), adding arthāpatti and
anupalabdhi and extending the list to saṃbhāvanā and aitihya. It is said:
Pratyakṣamekaṃ cāravākaḥ kaṇādasugatau punaḥ/
Anumānaṃ ca taccāpi sāṃkhyā śabdaṃ ca te ubhe//
Nyāyaikadeśino’pyevamupamānaṃ ca kecana/
Arthāpattyā sahaitāni catvāryayāhuḥ prabhākaraḥ//
Abhāvaṣaṣṭhānyetāni bhāttā vedāntinastathā/
Saṃbhvaitihyayuktāni tāni paurānika jaguḥ//
One rarely finds an expert discussing Pratibhā as the source of all
sources of knowledge as referred by Bhartṛhari in Vākyapadīya. While it is
never mentioned as a source along with other so called “sources” of
knowledge, it is often used in the context of obtaining sentence-meaning
(Vākyārtha), where the debate between Anvitābhidhāna and
Abhihitānvayavāda takes place. Nevertheless, as a source of knowledge,
110
Pratibhā is often ignored or cancelled as a mystical interpretation. In the
context of sentence-meaning, the question is: how does a sentence acquire
its meaning? For example, pronouncement of the sentence like ‘Bring the
pot’ first conveys the meanings of the distinct words comprising the
sentence and then their combined meaning helps to acquire the sentence-
meaning on the strength of ākāṃkṣā, yogyatā, āsatti and tātparya. To put it
simply, the words are endowed with the capacity of giving rise to sentence-
meaning. The advocates of Abhihitānvayavāda hold further the former view
while the latter view is represented by Anvitābhidhāna. Arguments of either
side criticizing the other view are a matter beyond the purview of the
present discussion. The Naiyāyikas enter the picture as a third party, closing
the dispute through the saṃsargamaryādā theory which holds that the
relationship floating among different word-meanings is to be of the nature of
ākāṃkṣābhāsya. It is also sometimes referred to as a “seamless”
relationship among different word-meanings of a sentence. To answer the
question: what is ākāṃkṣābhāsya ? It is said when one word-meaning in a
sentence is related to another and they have mutual expectancy, they are
said to share the relationship of ākāṃkṣābhāsya.
Ekapadārtha aparapadārthavatta saṃsarga ākāṃkṣābhāsya saṃsarga-

maryādayā bhāsate.
(Vyuttpattivāda
, p.1)
But should the mere assumption of accepting such a relationship
satisfy our need for knowing the final word regarding sentence-meaning?
Such a standpoint says nothing new about the relationship; instead, it only
seems to further push the problem. Vaiyākaraṇa proposes that once all the
several distinct word-meanings are obtained, the integrated sentence-
meaning is revealed through Pratibhā. The nature of Pratibhā is has been
likened to a sudden flash of divine light. Putting it this way renders it
intangible, almost mystical for the critics. Come to systematically examine
111
each of the above mentioned theories, and all of them seem to be infested
with the defect of mystical interpretation, and consequently,
incomprehensible in their very nature. Hence, what is special about
Pratibhā? Vaiyākaraṇa, true to self, rather accepts that this ‘capacity’ is
indescribable in nature —ingrained in oneself but applied only when the
need arises. For instance, with pronouncement of the sentence discussed
above ‘Bring the pot’, distinct word-meanings (padārthas) may be obtained
through several words, yet the sentence-meaning is grasped somewhere
over and above the various word-meanings. It is the “integrated” sense of
several word-meanings taken together which helps one comprehend the
united meaning of a sentence. I have consciously used the word ‘capacity’
here because I would like to show that ‘capacity’ is a kind of faculty which
helps one comprehend several and scattered entities/ meanings together.
Bhartṛhari calls this faculty Pratibhā. Pratibhā correlates the different entities
together in intellect (Bauddhārthasya vācyatvam). According to Bhartṛhari’s
thesis, Padārthas though unreal in themselves, help to manifest sentence-
meaning through pratibhā.
Padairasatyairevopādhibhūtairupapāditāmabhivyaktamiti.
( Puṇyarāja under Vākyapadīyam, kārikā
2.145)
The over-arching operation of pratibhā harmonises the disconnected
(asaṃsṛsṭa) and unreal word-meanings together in sentence-meaning
(Vākyārtha). In the final analysis, words in themselves regarded as unreal by
Bhartṛhari, help gain the sentence-meaning.
Upaśleṣamivārthānāṃ sā karotyavicāritā/
Sārvarupāyamivāpannā viṣayatvena vartate/
This element of apprehension in the process of sentence-meaning is
regarded as direct which occurs as a flash of divine light.
Sākṣāccśabdena janitāṃ bhāvānānugamena vā/
Itikartavyatāyāṃ tāṃ na kaścidativartate/
112
Let’s explain this through an ordinary example. Suppose there occurs a
robbery in a house. The concerned investigating person visits the place, finds
the door unbroken, yet the things inside the house taken away, the
important papers not found and a member of the household murdered. After
careful Perception, he tries to put the pieces of evidence together through
inferential process of talking to the neighbours, recording their verbal
testimony and collecting all the necessary information, yet remains
nonplussed with regard to the murder. He sits on his chair, closes his eyes
and searches for the missing clue. After about three months or may be three
years, he suddenly jumps at his heels as he discovers the missing link. This
picture is common for detective stories where the mystery to the robbery is
resolved through a suddenly-found-clue that lifts the veil of mystery.
Incidentally, this is true also of a creative person such as a poet, painter,
musician as well as a cook even as each one goes about his daily routine.
Say, a cook wishes to prepare a dish differently. He may collect all the same
old ingredients yet cooking an absolutely novel way.
It is, therefore, proposed through this chapter that we collect our

ingredients, i.e. words, sounds, colours, in the same manner as cooking
materials through the channels of Perception, Inference, verbal records and
history. Nevertheless, they would remain dead or inert if it were not for their
use in an integrated manner. One would remain a hoarder unless one uses
them correctly integrates them in the course of usage. This integration
(samṣṛṣṭatā) comes through Pratibhā, as mentioned by Bhartṛhari:
Vicchedagrahaṇe’rthānāṃ pratibhā’nyeva jāyate/
Vākyārtha iti tāmāhuḥ padārthairupapāditām//
In the absence of the capacity of Pratibhā operating over isolated
meanings, each of the several meanings would remain loose and isolated.
Now, what is the nature of this pratibhā? Though the concept of pratibha is
113
introduced in the context of sentence-meaning, yet I would like to point out
here that it is well applied in most other fields of our lives. To quote
Puṇyarāja, the commentator of Vākyapadīyam, who quotes from Kālidāsa:
Satāṃ hi saṃdehapadeṣu vastusu pramāņamantaḥkaraṇa pravṛttayaḥ
Abhijñānaśākuntalam (1.19)
According to him, pratibhā is the function of mind (antaḥkaraṇavṛtti)

that works as a strong guiding principle (pramāna) whenever one finds
oneself in the midst of doubts as he tries to ascertain the right course of
action to be followed. This is true not only for human beings but for all
creatures who are endowed with the faculty of discretion since birth.
Samāraṃbhāḥ pratāyante tiraścāmapi tadvaśāt/
For instance, as soon as a young swan is hatched from the egg, it

shows a natural tendency towards swimming, a newly born child for sucking
the breast of its mother and a monkey for clutching the branch of a tree and
so on. He says that just as alcoholic properties may be naturally generated in
a substance, just as birds naturally make their nests, just as fish swim having
received no training; similarly this integration of scattered materials comes
to one naturally through the faculty of anādi pratibhā.
Bhartṛhari cites certain instances to justify the existence of this faculty

which is dependent neither on experience nor on any kind of training. What
makes the cuckoo pour its music upon the advent of spring? What teaches
the bird the art of preparing its nests in the most simple but skilful way?
Svaravṛttiṃ vikurute madhau punskokilasya kaḥ/
Jantvādayaḥ kulāyādikaraņe kena śikṣitāḥ//
Their simple mode of dancing, jumping, amusement, jealousy and the
very manner in which they collect their food are all naturally ingrained in
them.
114
āhāraprityabhidveṣaplavanādikriyāsu kaḥ/
jātyanvayapraddhāsu prayoktā mṛgapakṣiṇām//
It seems that the existence of Pratibhā is, thus, of a self certifying
character- a reality which one can hardly prove or disprove. It is given to all
creatures as a gift through the force of practice experienced in the long
chain of previous cycles of birth (Janmāntarabhyāsahetukeyam —Puṇyarāja)
and lies at the root of all untutored activities of all animals since birth.
Bhartṛhari concludes that the use of words (śabda/ śabda-bhāvanā) kindles
this innate faculty. This point subscribes to the fact that Pratibhā is an
intangible force/source of knowledge that initiates one into different kinds of
activities. However, this does not mean that it will require no effort on part of
the individual. Effort is required to utilize the potential capacity. Just as one
must apply effort in order to procure oil from sesame while it is potentially
out there; no matter the effort one applies to sand, he cannot produce oil
from there.
pratibhāyāśca śabda eva mūlamityah —
bhāvanānugatādetad āgamādeva jāyate/
āsattiviprakarṣābhyāṃ āgamastu viśiṣyate//
Bhartṛhari attempts to connect this skill to instinct on one hand, and
intuition on the other. Examples of instinct are birds making their nests and
fishes swimming naturally whereas the example given in case of musicians
who can identify the svaras like ṣaḍaj, gāndhāra etc., and jewelers who
identify gems through practice, consequently leading to intuitive capacity,
manifest intuitive wisdom. He mentions six such variety of Pratibhā— natural
(svabhāva), repeated exercise (ācaraṇa), practice (abhyāsa), concentration
of the mind (yogāda), action alone in prior lives (adṛṣṭa) and special
efficiency or aptitude (viśiṣṭopahitā).
Svabhāvacaraņābhyāsayogāda’dṛṣṭopapāditām/
Viśiṣṭopahitāṃ ceti pratibhāṃ ṣaḑavidhāṃ viduḥ//
115
Bhartṛhari goes to the extent of saying that even perception and
inference, the so-called accepted and valid sources of knowledge, depend
upon pratibhā for their functions. Unless pratibhā propels them into action,
they cannot function. The legitimacy of these so-called pramāṇa depends
upon pratibhā. Bhojarāja says in his book Śṛṅgāra Prakāśa:
Pratyakṣānumānaviṣaye’pi yāvat pūrvāparapratyavamarśaḥ śabdollekhavān
pratibhāyā na kriyate tāvat Pratyakṣanumānaṃ vā svakāryaṃ na
prasādhayati pratibhopagrhītāni sarvapramāṇāni pramāṇatā labhante.
He further adds that the stimulant of pratibhā is none other than the
saṃskāra caused through the constant hearing of words (śabda śravaṇa
janitasaṃskāra). Sometimes, the mere utterance of certain words may
delight a person through its revelation of pratibhā. Pratibhā is invoked
through bhāvanā-saṃskāra, firmly rooted in our minds and linked to the
continuous currents of knowledge flowing from previous stages of existence.
Kālidāsa says that the mind has the capacity to recall the deep-rooted
impressions of previous births—
mano hi janmāntarasaṃgatijňam/
taccetasāsmaratinūnambodhapūrvam/
bhāvasthirāņijananāntarasauhṛdāni//
(Abhijñānaśākuntalam V.2)
Our life is a great continuum in the long series of births and rebirths. It
is a process, unbroken in its run.
II
In the previous section I discussed the nature of Pratibhā, taken, more

or less, as an intangible force that requires insight to bring it in focus. There
isn’t any independent text in Vyākaraṇadarśana that can highlight the
number of pramāṇas, yet they emphatically throw their weight on verbal
understanding and its pragmatic utility without which one cannot perform
116
any activity. For them, verbal understanding is the main and most important
source of information and knowledge.
It is no wonder that the Vaiyākaraņas are called śābdikā. They accept

śabda more readily than others. śabdapūrvako arthe hi saṃpratyāyah
(Mahābhāṣya under Vārttika 2, Pāņini-sūtra 1.1 68). Śabda is a direct source
of knowledge and its trustworthiness in respect of meaning of word is too
obvious a fact to require an explanation.
śabdapramāṇakā vayaṃ, yacchabda āha tadasmākaṃ pramāṇam. śabdaśca
śabdajñāne dharmamāha.
(Mahābhāṣyam under Vārttika 5, Pāṇini-sūtra 2.1.1.)
Despite the great importance of verbal understanding, they do not
deny the role of other accepted sources of knowledge. Without such sources,
even verbal understanding may not function. For example, the primary
condition for obtaining the word-meaning is receipt of the uttered words
through ears, which is called (śrāvaṇapratyakṣa).
“Pratyakṣamupalabhyate” (Mahābhāṣyam 1.2.30.)
“Pratyakṣamākhyānamupadeśo guṇaiśca prāpaṇamuddeśaḥ” (Pāṇini-sūtra
1.3.2) “Anyathājatīyakaḥ khalvapi
pratyakṣeṇārthasaṃpratyayo’nyarthajātīyakaḥ saṃbandhāt. rājñaḥ sakhā
rājasakhaḥ. saṃbandhādetad gantavyaṃ nūnaṃ rājāpyasya sakheti
(Pāṇini-sūtra 2.1.24)
Furthermore, when one infers fire from smoke, the verbal expression of
pancāvayavī nyāya serves to communicate it to others. This is the reason
why it is called parārthānumiti.
“Ko’sāvamanumānaḥ” (Pāṇini-sūtra
1.3.1)
“Kriyāpṛthakatve ca dravyapṛthag
darśanāmanumānamuttaratrānekaśeṣabhāvasya”
117
Ityādau bhāṣye anumāna pramāṇa upalabhayate. “Dhūmaṃ dṛṣṭvā
agniratreti gamyate triviṣṭabdhakaṃ dṛṣṭvā paribrājaka” iti.
Similarly, one needs anupalabdhi and arthāpatti as aids to verbal
understanding. Without them, there remains always the risk of plunging or
falling in a dark well at every step. (Padepade’andhakupepātaḥ.)
Although Vaiyākaraṇas are not averse to other sources of knowledge

such as perception, inference, analogy, non-apprehension and arthāpatti
etc., yet they hold that these do not suffice to explain the epistemological
problems. Due respect is accorded to them at proper time and place. The
weakness and strength of the pramāṇa depends upon the appropriateness of
circumstances.
“Pratyakṣādapyanumānabalīyastvam/ tadyathā alātcakraṃ pratyakṣaṃ
dṛśyate, anumānacca gamyate naitadastī’ti. (Pāṇini-sūtra 3.2.13) ityādau
bhāṣye prāmāṇyamabhyupagatam. kimuta pratyakṣādapi tasya balīyastvaṃ
pradarśitam... Sthānabhedena balīyastvaṃ durbaltvaṃ cāvadhāryam.
Vastutastu ārṣapratyakṣemeva sarveṣāṃ mūlam. Vyavahārapathe tu
parasparaṃ pramāṇāni samupsthāpya yathārthapadārthanirņayo vidheyaḥ.
(Vyākaraṇadarśanbhūmikā, p. 64) .
Can one really say for certain that one can perceive a thing in its
totality? If one can perceive one part of the object, say, a table; the other
part of the same table remains beyond perception. If one perceives the other
side, yet another side would remain in dark. Therefore one must imply that
there is a table. This proves blind faith regarding the perception of the whole
object, which upon analysis, always appears to be fragmentary.
Durlabhaṃ kasyacilloke sarvāvayavadarśanam/
Kaiśccāvayavairdṛṣṭairarthaḥ kṛtsno’numīyate//
Yugapat sarvāvayavadarśanāsyāsaṃbhavāt. Katipayāvayavadarśanena
sakalārthaparicchedastatrā anumānika eveti pratyakṣmapi naiva
118
sakalamarthasvarūpaṃ paricchinatti “ādirantyena sahetā” (Pāṇini-sūtra
1.1.71) iti sūtre’arthāpattirapi dhvanitā.
Anirjñātasya nijñānaṃ yena tanmānamucyate/
Prasthādi tena meyātmā sākalyenāvadharyate//
Anirjñātaṃ prasiddhena yena tadharma gamyate/
Sākalyenā’parijñānādupamānaṃ taducyate//
(Vākyapadīyam, kārikā, III 359-360)
Though Vaiyākaraņa does not accept Upamāna as a source of
independent knowledge, yet it is sought out at times, as in the case ‘go
sadrśagavaya’.
Similarly one also needs anumāna— one may not perceive the fire at
distance if it were not for the chain of smoke that one perceived. Upon any
refusal to accept pratyakṣa as a pramāṇa, inferential knowledge will
automatically fall through since it depends on pratyakṣa largely. If one
refuses to accept the inference, the whole epistemic building may catch fire.
In this way, our ordinary behavior would be rendered impossible.
Interestingly, Niruktakāra mentions that though the priority of

perception cannot be denied, it operates through hierarchy. It is true that
seen from the perspective of origin, every pramāņais rooted in perception,
as pointed out by Nirukta who states that there are four kinds of men— Ṛṣi,
muni, manuṣya and paśu. Ṛṣis perceive the object directly. Those who reflect
(manana kurvanti) on that which is perceived by the Ṛṣis, are called Munis.
Those who partially perceive the object and infer the total, are called
manuṣya and finally those whose perceptions are dependent upon others,
are called pasu. Thus, clearly the central function of perception is not denied
while obtaining the nature of object. He says:
Ye sarvatobhāvena viṣayān paśyantīti ta eva ṛṣyayaḥ. ye ca ṟṣayo dṛṣtavā
mananaṃ kurvanti, te munayaḥ ucyante. ye viṣayananśato dṛṣṭvā
mananenavāgachanti te manuṣyā ucyante. Ye ca parān spaśante bādhante
te paśavo bhavanti. Tathā ca spaśatereva paśuśabdo vyutpādanīyaḥ.
119
“Tarkamṛṣiṃ prāyacchana” ityuktaṃ tathā ca “yatkiñcan anucāno’bhyūhati
ārṣa tadbhavati” (Nirukta 13/12)
Bhāṣyakāra supports the view:
Api śrutitaḥ api tarkataḥ śrutibhyo brāhmaṇebhyo
nigamaśeṣebhyasconnitarthabhidhansamarthebhyo vākyārthasāmarthyāt
tasyopariparyāyastarko’bhyūho lakṣaņa nyāya’ityuktam. Nahi eṣu
pratyakṣamastyanṛṣeratapaso vā pārovaryavitsu tu khalu veditṛṣu
bhūyovidyaḥ praśasyo bavatītyuktaṃ purastāt.Manuṣyā vā ṛṣiṣu utkrāmtstu
devānbruban ko na ṛṣirbhaviṣyatīti? Tebhya etaṃ tarkamṛṣiṃ prāyacchan —
Nirukta 13-12
(Vyākaraṇadarśanbhūmikā, p. 64-65)
The question is, how are we going to impart them? The Vaiyākaraṇas
make it clear that it is the word (śabda) that plays the crucial role given that
very few can elevate themselves to the status of Ṛṣis. As ordinary creatures,
we always derive our knowledge from listening to śabda. When perception
fails to fulfill the condition, one needs anumiti and when that too fails, one
must seek refuge in the other pramāṇas depending upon the need and
nature of the object.
Conceptually, communication of knowledge requires śabda prayoga,

and therefore, śabda pramāṇa retains authority over and above other
pramāṇas. Once the other pramāṇas are utilized and they seek further
extension for enlightenment, pratibhā begins its operation.
An important clue can be utilized in this context. Patañjali under

Pāṇini-sūtra, 2.1.34— “annena vyanjañam” and Nāgeśa in his Mañjūṣa —
“guḍo madhuraḥ” have shown that when one utters the word ‘guḍa’ the
meaning that is presented to us is that of ‘guḍa qualified by guḍatva’
(guḍatvāvacchinne eva śaktirnatu madhuratvāvacchine). The sweetness
(madhuratva) is apprehended either through inferential process like, “guḍo
madhuraḥ ikṣuvikāratvāt” or it is through svānubhavajanya, that is, direct
experience of it. The message is very much clear word can guide us to
120
certain degree but the real taste is to be obtained through direct
apprehension which falls under no enumerated pramāṇa whatsoever.
The question that remains to be answered: if pratibhā is ordained

status as a source of knowledge, what will be the karaṇa of pramā jñāna?
Unless one posits a karaņa, one may not claim pramā jñāna. The answer
which can be provided on behalf of Vaiyākaraṇa, may be somewhat such.
First, it may be said that other pramā jñāna, such as
Pratyakṣānumānaupamāna, arthāpatti and anupalabdhi will act as karaņa or
intermediate operation for producing new knowledge arrived through
pratibhā. As explained in the case of robbery, one needs all kinds of
pramājñāna, perception, inference and verbal testimony. All kinds of
different sources of knowledge contribute towards this arrival at a new kind
of knowledge, not known before. As a second alternative, it may also be
suggested that one has to ask oneself why acceptance of karaṇa is
sacrosanct. Is there any harm in obtaining knowledge without the help of
karaṇa? One is born with the potential to obtain such kind of knowledge, just
as one is born with eyes, ears etc to receive colours and sounds etc. As the
third alternative, sometimes when one looks at the result (kārya/phala) and
searches for the kāraṇa and in the case of pratibhā jñāna, one finds a new
source not possible to point out directly, rather it is a certain insightful clue
which emerges in collective manner.
To conclude, I submit that the function of pratibhā cannot be ignored in

every circumstance, and hence, why not grant it the status of a pramāṇa. It
is believed that the fourteen Māheśwara-Sūtra, which laid down the
foundation of Pāņini Sanskrit Grammar, emerged divinely when Lord Shiva
played the drum fourteen times to bless the sage Sanaka and others, at the
end of the cosmic dance. Divine enlightenment or pratibhā dawned upon
Pāṇini and the fourteen beats of the celestial drum then initiated him into his
monumental work Aṣṭādhyāyī.
Nṛttāvasāne naṭarājarājo nināda ḍhakkāṃ navapañcavāram/
121
Uddhartakāmaḥ sanakādi siddhā netadvimarśe śivasūtrajālam//
Chapter VI
Śikșā—art of learning pronunciation
The ancient Vedic schools developed a clear system, called

Śīkṣā, to understand the sound, vowels and consonants, rules of combination
and pronunciation to avoid mistakes while reading the major texts like Vedas
and the Upaniṣad-s. Śīkṣā, as described in these ancient texts has six
elements — varṇa (sound), svara (accent), mātrā (quantity), bala (strength,
articulation), samāna (recital) and samtāna — a connection between
preceding and following sounds. Thus it is described as:
Varṇaḥ svaraḥ/ Mātrā balaṃ/
122
Sāma samtānaḥ/ Ityuktaḥ śīkṣādhyāya/
(Taittirīya Upaniṣad 1.2, Śīkṣāvalli, Translated by Paul Deussen)
“Sounds and accentuation, Quantity (of vowels) and the expression (of
consonants),
balancing (Samāna) and connection (of sounds), so much about the study of
śīkṣā.”
Śikṣā, therefore, occupies a very important place among the six

elements called vedāṅga-s— vyākaraṇa, śikṣā, nirukta, chanda, jyotiṣa—in
the teaching of Veda-s. Śikṣā is the oldest and the first assisting discipline,
maintained since the Vedic era, mentioned along with the study of grammar
which develops rules for language and meaning of words. Śikṣā, on the other
hand, aims at the study of sound and its origin, which helps to preserve the
correct pronunciation of the Vedas and the Upaniṣad-s. This was essential
because Vedas were transmitted from one generation to the next by oral
tradition, which depends largely on phonetics.
The chanting practice of Vedas, a master piece of conserving the

vast corpus of Vedas in oral tradition, was transmitted through the guru-
śiṣya paramparā in śruti and smṛti tradition. Thus many forms of recitation
or pathas were introduced to serve the accuracy in recitation and in
communicating the Vedic stock of knowledge and other texts from one
generation to the next. Śikṣā under discussion is related to the science of
sound that which teaches proper accent of varṇa-s. The etymology of the
word śikṣā is derived from śikṣayati yā sā śikṣā— i.e. that which teaches is
called śikṣā. But this etymological meaning, that is, yogaruḍha can be
uniformly applied to all kinds of teaching. Therefore, the derivation is to be
taken in its ruḍhyārtha which technically stands for a particular kind of
teaching related to svara-uccāraṇa and varṇa-uccāraṇa in its pure forms. It is
said that the secrets of sound /accents have been revealed to Pāṇini in 14
maheśwara sūtra-s, the first teacher of which is said to be Lord Saṃkara. It
123
is, thus, described as “śikṣyante varṇāḥ śikṣyate ca varṇoccāraṇavidhiḥ yayā
sā śikṣā”.
Śikṣā is defined by Sāyaṇa as:
Varṇasvaradyuccāraṇaprakāro yatropadiśyate sa śikṣā (Ṛgveda-bhāṣya).
Even Patañjali accepted that “the grammar of any language can
be studied only after studying the sound of that language sufficiently”.
Vyākaraṇaṃ nameyamuttarā vidyā. Yo’sau chandaḥśāstreṣvabhivinīta
upalabdhyādhigantumutsahate. (Mahābhāṣyam under Pāṇini-sūtra)
Here, the meaning of the expression ‘chandaḥ śāstreṣu’ has been taken by
Udyota as Prātiśākhyaśikṣādiṣu which is the repository of the science of
sound (dhvanivijñāna). Each ancient Vedic school developed this field
of Vedāṅga, and the oldest surviving phonetic textbooks are the Prātiśākhya-
s. There are four such Prātiśākhya-s known today: one belongs to the
Ṛgveda, another to the Atharvaveda, and two to the Yajurveda (one attached
to Vājasaneyi Saṁhitā, the other to Taittīriya Saṁhitā). The Sāmaveda,
already written as a song (samān) that should be sung, does not have need a
Prātiśākhya. Prātiśākhya is so called because it is "intended for the use of
each respective branch (śākhā) of the Vedas". The word śikṣā itself is already
mentioned in the Taittīrīya Ᾱraṇyaka (VII.1), and that is meant to deal with
letters, accents, quantity, pronunciation, and euphonic rules. The Pāṅinīya-
śikṣā and Nāradīya-śikṣā are the examples of present ancient manuscripts of
this field of Vedic studies.
I
A spoken sound is said to be either articulate or inarticulate—
varṇātmaka or dhvanyātmaka. A varṇātmaka śabda is an articulate sound
and at the same time significant too. Śabara under Mῑmāṃsā-sūtra 1.1.5
defines śabda as:
Śrotragrahaṇe hi arthe loke śabdaśabdaḥ prasiddhaḥ.
A sound that is expressive of some meaning and received through auditory
organ, is popularly called śabda. Or it can be further defined following
Mahābhāṣyam 1.1.1 as:
124
athavā pratītapadārthakoloke dhvaniḥ śabdaḥ ityucyate.
A word when uttered and signifies a meaning is called śabda. For
instance when the word ‘cow’ is uttered it signifies that which gives the idea
of an animal having ‘horn, dewlap etc’.
On the other hand, the inarticulate sound of birds, animals, natural
events and musical instruments etc. is called dhvanyātmaka. In this chapter
we will discuss the articulate sound produced by human being in the form of
śabda. The reason is very much clear. Any beginner of studying Vedas must
learn the technique of producing sounds which initiate one to the nuances of
uttering mantras, since the defective pronunciation of mantras cause
disaster to the reader and to the performer. A mantra is, further described as
that through which one realises the enormity of the sound of words. The
correct pronunciation of the mantras as regards their notes such as āroha,
avaroha, udātta, anudātta, svarit, prachay, etc. is of special importance. If
there is an error in their pronunciation, it results in deadly effects. So Pāṇini
describes it in the following way —mantro hīnaḥ svarato varṇato vā
mithyāprayukto na tamārthamāha /
sa vāgvajro yajamānaṃ hinasti yathendraśatruḥ svarato’parādhāt //
(Pāṇinīya-śikṣā, 52)
The compound word Indraśatru in the above couplet could have
two meanings, one being “Indra’s enemy” (the slayer of Lord Indra)
from tatpuruṣa Samāsa and “the one whose enemy is Lord Indra” (the one
who will be slained by Lord Indra) from bahuvrīhi Samās. Since the first
meaning was intended for Tvaṣṭā he had to utter the note of the last letter of
the entire word in a lofty tone. He, however, uttered the last letter of the first
word in the Samās in a lofty tone. Consequently, instead of a son being born
to slay Lord Indra, a son, Vṛtra who would be killed by Lord Indra, was born.
The mantra without proper pronunciation of vowels (svara) and consonants
(varṇa) gets converted into a verbal thunderbolt and harms the one who is
chanting it, that is, the utterance of a mantra in a faulty manner makes it
erroneous and does not convey the intended meaning as happened in the
125
case of the word Indraśatru with faulty pronunciation of the vowels. The
teaching of Pāṇini further says:
avakṣaramanāyuṣyaṃ visvaraṃ vyādhipīḍitaṃ/
akṣatā śastrarūpeṇa vajraṃ patati mastake//
(Pāṇinīya-śikṣā 53)
“If some of the consonants in a mantra are deleted then they destroy life, if
the vowels (svar) are faulty then disease sets in. The consecrated rice
(akṣata, i.e. consecrated with a mantra) descends upon the head of the host
like a thunderbolt (vajra) if he has discordant vowels and omission of
letters.”
Thus, in oral tradition much emphasis has been given to the

learning of pronunciation through śruti/listening, even written texts (likhita
pāṭha) were not given much importance since they cannot teach the correct
pronunciation. And Śikṣāgrantha are there to protect the most important but
neglected aspect of pronunciation. In Pāṇini-sūtra 5.1.16 ‘tadasya tadasmin
syādi ti, its importance has been compared to the bricks which are sufficient
to build up the palace of śabdaśāstra.
Prāsādīyā iṣṭakāḥ vivakṣā ca dvayī. Astyeva prayoktrī vivakṣā, asti laukikī

vivakṣā. Prayoktrī vivakṣā—prayoktā hi mṛdaṇyā, snigdhyā, slakṣaṇayā
mṛdun snigdhān śabdān prayuñkte. Laukikī vivakṣā—yatra yatra prāyasya
sampratyayaḥ syāt, prāya iti loko vyapadiśyate. Na ca prāsādo devadattasya
syāt, prākāre nagarasya syāt ityatra utpadyamānena pratyayena prāyasya
sampratyayaḥ syāt. (Mahābhāṣya under Pāṇini-sūtra 5.1.16)
Further, the Śikṣā scholars had added mudrā (hand signs) to go
with each sound, thereby providing a visual affirmation to check the reading
integrity by the audience in addition to the audible means. Interesting these
mudrās continue to be the part of the classical Indian dance tradition. This
interplay of the gesture and sound in Sanskrit recital is similar to the gesture
of a music conductor and the sound produced by music players in any
126
classical orchestra. In Sanskrit, the posture of the performer is an added
dimension to those of pronunciation and gesture. As has been mentioned:
Udāttamākhyāti vṛșo’ṅgulīnām pradeśinīmūlanivișṭamūrdhā/
Upāntamadhye svaritam dhṛtam ca kanișṭhikāyāmanudāttameva//
Udāttaṃ pradesiniṁ vidyāt pracayam madhyato’ṅgulim/
Nihatam tu kanișṭhikyā svaritopakanișṭhikam//
(Pāṇinīya-śikṣā 43-44)
Anudātto hṛdi jñeyo mūrdhnyudātta udāhṛtaḥ/
Svaritaḥ karṇamūlīyaḥ sarvāsye pracayaḥ smṛtaḥ//
(Pāṇinīya-sikṣā 48)
Hastahinam tu yo’dhīte svaravarṇavivarjitam/
Ṛgyajuḥsāmabhirdagdho viyonimadhigacchati //
( Pāṇinīya sikṣā 54)
So, it is often suggested that the ordinary speakers are not to be
relied upon, as their words are not properly uttered, i.e. their pronounced
words may be taken as distorted in form (apabhramśa). When a word is
pronounced correctly and understood correctly by śiṣṭaloka, only then it is to
be granted the status of correct form (śādhu śabda), and thereon suffix can
be worthy of application in those words. This is what is called taking refuge
to grammar prayogaśaraṇaṃ vyākaraṇaṃ.
In ancient India, memorization of the sacred text of Vedas is much
emphasized for preserving pronunciation and accent as accurately as
possible, without any distortion. It is again related to the belief that the
potency of the mantras lies in their sound when pronounced correctly as
mentioned earlier. The Prātiśākhya-s thus have the purpose of preserving
knowledge of uttering divine sound originally cognized by the ṛṣi. Bhartṛhari
calls language adhividyā since it is intimately connected with all the
branches of knowledge or learning in an over arching manner. ‘Pavitraṃ
sarva vidyānām adhividyaṃ prakāśate (Vākyapadīyam, kārikā 1.14).
Bhartṛhari remarks that though the speech is divine yet erroneous
127
pronunciation has caused distortion and the divine speech later on becomes
apabhramśa.
daivī vāg vyavakīrṇeyam aśaktairabhidhātṛbhiḥ./
anityadarśināṃ tvasmin, vāde buddhiviparyayaḥ//
Grammar and śikṣā, thus, seem to have been the most important subsidiary
to facilitate the Vedic studies, so it is called ‘mukhaṃ vyākaraṇaṃ smṛtaṃ’
and śikṣā, is called ‘ghrāṇaṃ tu vedasya śikṣā,’ (Pāṇinīya-śikṣā)
The role of language in shaping human knowledge of sounds as is
illustrated by the rules of samprasāraṇ and the principles of euphonic
combination (sandhi) are indication how intimately grammar is related to the
use of sound. Akaḥ savarṇe dīrghaḥ (Pāṇini-sūtra.6.1.106) and ‘paraḥ
sannikarṣaḥ saṃhitā (Pāṇini-sūtra 1.4.104) show the tendency of two vowels
having close proximity and homogeneity to lengthening are as much
phonological as grammatical.
Hence, Sanskrit grammar is not the mechanical way of mastering
the grammar; it is deeply rooted in our ordinary way of linguistic capability.
Vedic words might be learnt from the Vedas and laukika words from popular
usages, but no one can get rid of the use of grammar, which has its origin in
the popular mode of expression, yet its articulation is given the shape under
the rules and operation.
‘vedānno vaidikāḥ śabdāḥ siddhā lokāccha laukikāḥ. Tasmādnarthakaṃ
vyākaraṇamiti. Tebhya evaṃ vipratipannabuddhibhyo’dhyetṛbhyaḥ suhṛda
bhūtvā ācārya idaṃ śāstramanvācaṣṭe—imāni prayojanamadhyeyaṃ
vyākaraṇaṃ. (Mahābhāṣyam )
Pāṇini was basically dhvaniśāstrī so he has put emphasis on
pronunciation because the erroneous pronunciation may cause damage to
the meaning of the words communicated as mentioned earlier. For example,
when śava is uttered instead of saba, or śūra is uttered instead of sura, and
sura instead of śūra, dīn instead of din, kūl instead of kul, they become
disastrous to the hearer. He further elucidates that Just as a tigress takes her
128
cubs tightly in her teeth without hurting them, whilst fearing that she might
drop them and injure them, so one should approach the individual syllables
very softly so that listener is not harmed/hurt in any way. One who
pronounces correctly is worshipped in heaven so to say.
Vyāghrī yathā haret putrān danṣṭrābhyāṃ na ca pīḍayet/
Bhītā patanabhedābhyāṃ tadvadvarṇān prayojayet//
Evaṃ varṇāḥ prayoktavyāḥ nāvyaktā na ca pīditāḥ/
Samyagvarṇa prayogeṇa brahmaloke mahīyate//
( Pāṇinīya-śikṣā. 25 & 31)
Again, he adds that one who reads silently, moving one’s head fastly,
and reading without any high and low pitch, without understanding the
meaning and with choked voice is called lower reader (adham). While
reading, one must be careful about clarity, differences between the various
words, sounds and must have patience.
Gītī śīghrī śiraḥkampī tathā likhitapāthakaḥ/
anarthajño’lpakaṇṭhaśca ṣadete pāthakādhamāḥ//
mādhuryamakṣaravyaktiḥ padacchedastu susvaraḥ/
dhairyaṃ layasamarthaṃ ca ṣadete pāthakā guṇāḥ//
(Pāṇinīya-śikṣā. 32 &33)
II
Śikṣā also discusses the physiological manifestation of the words
over and above its creative function. The course in which the physical air
gets itself manifested in the shape of audible sound is as follows: when one
sets its mind to communicate certain things to others, the soul urges the
mind to give expression, i.e. to vocalize the thought rising within. The mind,
so stimulated, acts upon the physical fire which in its turn, brings about
movement in the region of internal air. The internal air thus moves or goes
upward till it reaches the vocal apparatus.
ātmā buddhyā sametyārthān mano yuñkte vivakṣayā/
manaḥ kāyāgnimāhanti sa prerayati mārutam//
129
The internal air, first, rises from the naval region, receives
expansion in the heart and undergoes changes in the throat; then it strikes
the cerebral (mūrddhā) and comes back and finally gives rise to different
kinds of sounds coming out of mouth which acts as a resonance chamber.
Vāyurnābhiruthitāḥ urasi vistīrnaḥ kanṭhe vivarttitaḥ mūrddhānmāhatya
parāvṛttaḥ, vaktre vicaran vividhān śabdānbhivyanakti. (Śābarbhāṣya under
Mῑmāṃsā-sūtra 1.3.25)
According to tāntrika interpretation, it is the mulādhāra or the seat
of eternal consciousness from which all active impulses come out. Letters
whereby sounds are usually represented are called mātṛarkā varṇas in the
tantraśāstra.
The mandra sound which is produced rising from the naval region is same as
used in instrument (sādhana) in savankarma (somāyajña) is related to
Gāyatrī chanda.
mārutastūrasi caran mandraṃ janayati svaram./
prātaḥ savanayogaṃ taṃ chando gāyatramāśritam.//
The same air when moves in the heart region and takes upward
movement to throat produces mid-sound which is used in madhyāndin
savanna (somayāga) is related to triṣṭuṃ chanda. After that rising above the
throat region reaches head area, the high pitch sound is (tāra) produced and
used in evening somayāga, related to jagati chanda.
Now the air cannot move above the head (mūrddhā) area and so
the air comes out of mouth which is reduced to syllable form called vaikharī:
kaṇṭhe mādhyandinayugaṃ madhyaṃ traiṣṭubhanagam/
tāraṃ tātīryasavanaṃ śīrṣaṇyaṃ jāgatānugam/
sodīrṇo mūrdhnyabhihato vaktṛamāpādya mārutaḥ./
varṇān janayate teṣāṃ vibhāgaḥ pañcadhā smṛataḥ.//
(Pāṇinīya-śikṣā 8&9)
130
This process of producing sound is so quick that the speaker is
unaware of the process and feels that they are produced at once. The
production of the sound is like ‘utpalaśatapatrabhedanyāya’ sequential in
nature process of which is gradually revealed through language. Bhartṛhari
says:
Athā’yamāntaro jnātā sūkṣamavāgātmanā sthitam/
Vyaktye svasya rūpasya śabdatvena vivartate.
The division of vak into parā, paśyantī, madhyamā and vaikharī are
respectively resultant in and through mūlā, nābhi, hṛdaya and kaṇṭha. When
the air is raised through urasa, kaṇṭha and śiras consecutively cut comes out
striking back from there through mukha /mouth in the form of syllables, is
called vaikharī. In this way varṇātmakadhvani is produced from different
places of the mouth.
III
As has been already said two types of sounds are found in nature
—articulate and inarticulate. All speech sounds are articulate and all other
sounds in our surroundings like the sounds of birds, animals, rivers, clouds
etc. are inarticulate. The speech sounds are again of two types in all human
civilized language with a clear system of vowels and consonants which or
otherwise called svaras and vyañjanas in Sanskrit right from the Prātiśākhya
age. The total number of Varṇas is 63 or 64.
Triṣaṣṭiscatuḥșașṭirvā varṇāḥ śambhumate matāḥ/
Prakṛte saṃskṛte cāpi svyam proktāḥ svyambhuvā//
(Pāṇinīya-śikṣā 3.)
It is as followed: traditionally syllables (not letters) in Sanskrit are
called akṣara, meaning "imperishable (entity)": "atoms" of speech, as it
were. These akṣara-s are classified mainly into two types:
 Svara (pratyāhāra): Vowel
 Vyañjana (pratyāhāra): Consonant
131
Svara akṣaras are also known as prāṇa akṣaras; i.e., they are the main
sounds in speech, without which speech is not
possible. Pāṇini called svara as ac pratyāhāra. Later they became known
as ac (अच ्) akṣara. Vyañjana i.e., consonants are also known as Prāṇa

akṣara; that is, they are like a body to which life (svara) is added. Pāṇini's
name for vyañjana was hal (हल ्) Pratyāhāra, which were later referred to
as hal (हल ्) akṣara. He further elaborates that varṇas can be classified

according to the utterance of pitch: (svara), time (kāla), place (sthāna), effort
(prayatna) and an effort outside the mouth in the production of sound at the
different vocal organs (anupradāna).
Varṇasya sthānbheden kālabhedo bhavati. asyāṃ sthitau yadyapi virodhaḥ
paridṛśyate parasparam. Tathāpi ṛkatantravyākaraṇe drutāyāṃ vṛttau
ṣaḍabhiḥ paramāṇubhirmātrā bhavati, sā ca mātrā trikāla. (Mahābhāṣyam
under Pāṇini-sūtra 1.1.70.)
It is said that in Sanskrit a vowel can be pronounced in 18 ways

(3×2×3), based on time, manner, and accent of pronunciation. Each vowel
can be classified into three types based on the duration of pronunciation.
The unit of time is mātra (approx. 0.4 seconds). The quantitative
characteristics of vowels have three variations short (hrasva)—single mātrā,
long (dīrgha)—double mātrā and prolation of vowels (pluta)—more than two
mātrā.
Ekamātro bhavedhṛsvo dvimātro dīrgha ucyate/
Trimātrastu pluto jñeyo vyañjanaṃ cārdhamātrakam//
1. (a) Svarāḥ vinśatirekaḥ : There are 21 svaras. They are divided into
hrasva (short) Eka-mātrā: A (अ), I(इ), U(उ), RI(ऋ),
dīrgha (long) Dvi-mātrā: A(आ), I(ई), U(ऊ), RII(ऋॄ) and E (ए), O
(ओ),
132
AIE (ऐ), AU (औ)
३ ३ ३ ३ ३
pluta (prolonged long) Tri-mātrā: A3(अ ), I3(इ ), U3(उ ), RI3(ऋ ) and E3 (ए ), O3
३ ३ ३
(ओ ), AIE3, (ऐ ), AU3 (औ ).
Sometimes lri (ल)ृ varṇa is accepted. The total svaras are 13, therefore, in
number.
Each vowel can be further classified into two types based on the manner of
pronunciation:
Mukha: Oral (open)
Nāsikā: Nasal (all vowels are considered phonemically oral)
Each vowel can also be classified into three types that are, pronounced in
three ways, based on accent of articulation. These features are lost now in
course of time, but is still used in
reciting Vedic and Upaniṣadic hymns and mantras. The qualitative
characteristics of vowels have three variations as udātta, anudātta and
svarita which are the resultants of pitch variation in uttering the vowels.
Udāttaścanudāttaśca svaritaśca svarāstryaḥ.
a) Uccairanudāttaḥ. b) niccairanudāttaḥ. c) samāhāraḥ svaraitāḥ.
The 7 notes in music are related to this variation in pitch. For instance it is
said that the note ‘ni’ and ‘ga’ is manifestation of udātta and ‘re’ and ‘dha’
are the manifestations of anudātta and ‘sa’, ‘ma’ and ‘pa’ are the
manifestation of svarita.
Udātte niṣādagāndhārāvanudātta ṛṣabhadhaivatau/
Svaritaprabhavā hyete ṣaḍajamadhyamapañcamāḥ//
Udātta (high pitch), anudātta (low pitch) and svarita (descending pitch
usually follows high pitch) together with short (hrasva), long (dīrgha) and
prolongation of vowels (pluta) takes the total number to six but they have no
133
independent existence in the absence of any vowels or svara, hence they are
called svaradharma-s in Prātiśākhya.
Generally, in articulatory phonetics, the place of
articulation (or point of articulation) of a consonant is the point of contact,
where an obstruction occurs in the vocal tract between an active (moving)
articulator (typically some part of the tongue) and a passive (stationary)
articulator (typically some part of the apex of the mouth).
Aṣṭau sthānāni varṇanamuraḥ kaṇṭhaḥ śirastathā/
Jihvāmūlaṃ ca dantāśca nāsikauṣṭhau ca talu ca//
According to Indian linguistic tradition, there are eight places of articulation:
Uras: Heart
Kaṇṭhya: Velar
Tālavya: Palatal
Mūrdhanya: Retroflex
Dantya : Dental
Ōṣṭhya : Labial
Nāsikā: Nasal
Apart from that, other articulations are the combinations of the above five
places: Dant'oṣṭhya: Labio-dental (E.g.: v)
Kaṇṭhatālavya: e.g.: Diphthong e
Kaṇṭhōṣṭhya: labial-velar (E.g.: Diphthong o)
There are three active places of articulation:
Jihvāmūla: tongue root, for velar
Jihvāmadhya: tongue body, for palatal
Jihvāgra: tip of tongue, for cerebral and dental
Adhōṣṭha: lower lip, for labial
Effort (or manner) of articulation (Uccāraṇa Prayatna) is of two types for
consonants
Bāhya Prayatna: External effort
Spṛṣṭa: Plosive
134
Īṣat Spṛṣṭa: Approximant
Īṣat Saṃvṛta: Fricative
Abhyantara Prayatna: Internal effort
Alpaprāna: Unaspirated
Mahāprāṇa: Aspirated
Śvāsa: Unvoiced
Nāda: Voiced
The pronunciation of ‘ha’(ह) depends upon situation, when the fifth varṇa and antastha varṇa is
combined with ‘ha’(ह) it is urasya. For example—bāhya, āhlād, and aprāhna

etc. But in case ‘hari and ‘hara’ it is called kaṇṭhya. According to Pāṇini
following “akuhavisarjanīyānāṃ kaṇṭhaḥ” akāra, kavarga and hakāra visarga
is called kaṇṭhya.
Hakāraṃ pañcamairyuktamantaḥsthābhiśca saṁyutam/
Urasyaṃ tam vijānīyāt kaṇṭhyamāhurasaṁyutam//
The varṇas uttered with palate (tālu) are I, Kavarga (कवर्ग), Ya (य), Ṣakāra
(षकार). It is said “icuyaśānāṃ tālu”.
Similarly, U (उ) and Pavarga (पवर्ग) is uttered with the help of lips.
The varṇas uttered with mūrddhā are Ṛ (ऋ), tavarga (तवर्ग), Ra (र) and Șa (ष).
“syurmūrdhanyā ṛṭuraṣā” or “ṛṭuraṣānām mūrddhā”
The varṇas uttered with dental help are lṛ (ल)ृ , tavarga (तवर्ग), la and Sakār
(सकार). “Lṛtulasānām dantāḥ” Since jihvāmūla is close to kaṇṭhya, the place
for utterance of kavarga (कवर्ग)is jihvāmūla too. The place for utterance of
vakār (वकार) is sometimes dental and lips also. E-aie (ए-ऐ) kaṇṭha and tālu
and the place for utterance of o (ओ) and au (औ) is kaṇṭha and oṣṭha both.
Jihvāmūle tu kuḥ prokto dantyoṣṭhyo vaḥ smṛtau budhaiḥ/
135
E, aie tu kaṇṭhatālavyau o au kaṇṭhoșṭhjau smṛtau.//
(Pāṇinīya sikṣā, 18)
Anusvāra and yama varṇa are uttered with nasal help―“anusvārayamānām
ca nāsikāsthānamucyate”.
“Ayogavāha vijñeyā āśryasthānbhāginḥ”
Efforts are of two types external and internal. It is interesting to mention
raṅga, yama and kampa in this connection……..
Vyañjana akṣara are divided into three types:
 Sparśa: Stop
 Antastha: Approximant
 Uṣmaṇ: Sibilant
Sparśa akṣara include syllables from ka to ma; they are 25 in number.
Antastha akṣara include syllables ya, ra, la and va. Uṣmaṇ akṣaras
include śa, ṣa, sa and ha.
2. sparśānām pañcavinśatiḥ: They are 25 in number and called vyañjana

(consonants) starting from Ka etc. ― kādayao māvasānaḥ sparśaḥ. The chart
is given below:
K (क् ) KH(ख ्) G(ग ्) GH(घ) NG(ङ्)
C(च ्) CH(छ) J(ज ्) JH(झ ्) N(ञ)
T(ट) TH(ठ) D(ड) DH(ढ) N(ण)
T (त ्) TH(थ) D(द्) DH(ध ्) N(न ्)
P(प ्) PH(फ् ) B(ब ्) BH(भ ्) M(म ्) =25 in number.
3. Yadayah: yano’nantah stha+sal usmanah. They are 8 in number.
136
Yb (य) R (र) L(ल) V(व) S (श) S (ष) S(स) H(ह)=8.
4. Yamādi: They are 4 in number.

Anantya’ntyasaṁyoge madhye yamo pūrvaguṇaḥ.
5. Visarga: It is 1 only.
6. Anusvāra:
7. Jihvamūlīya and upadhmānīya: They are 2 in number.
͝ क and फ both are treated as dependent (parāśrita)

8. Duhspṛṣṭa: This is 1 in number and written as ऴकार. It is so told because of its harsh
pronunciation with the help of tongue and palata. The Ṛkprātiśākhya says
that in between two svars there is डकार which is pronounced as कार and ढकार
is uttered as हकार.
It is to be noted that we have used two words—akṣaram and varṇa.

Akṣaram, though, is used to refer to any of the speech sound, yet basically it
refers to vowels only. Hence it is defined in Ṛkaprātiśākhya as savyañjanaḥ:
“sānusvāraḥ śuddho vāpi svaro’kṣaraṃ (18/32) which means a vowel pure
by itself or in association with a consonant or anusvāra is called akṣaram.
Akṣaraṃ can be thus taken as a single expressible independent speech
sound unit and in other words can be called syllable.
A svara is called akṣara independently, while vyañjana or
anusvāra assumes akṣaratvam only in association with any svara and not
independently. Bhāṣyakāra says:
Svarāḥ svyaṃ rajate iti svarāḥ (1.2.30) that which resides in its own way
independently is called svara. It is a vital element that provides life to the
varṇa. It is an important aid in manifestation of varṇa. Bhāṣyakāra says: the
sweetness and constant unity (akhaṇḍatā) in uttering dhvani occur because
of certain properties which are acknowledged as svara vis-a-vis nādadhvani.
The flexibility in varṇa arouses due to svara or nāda.
“evaṃ ca ‘taparastatkālasya’iti sūtrabhāṣye śabdoccāraṇavicāraṇāyāṃ
trayaḥ padārthā nirdiṣṭā santi. ekā vṛttiḥ aparo dhvaniḥ tritiyāśca svaraḥ.
137
Tatra drutā madhyamā vilambitābhedena trividhā vṛttayaḥ. (Mahābhāṣyam
under Pāṇini-sūtra 1.1.70)
IV
In this section some of the interesting ways of recitation will be

narrated. The various pāthas or recitation styles are designed to allow the
complete and perfect memorization of the text and its pronunciation,
including the Vedic pitch accent. Eleven such ways of reciting the Vedic texts
were designed—Saṁhitā, Pada, Krama, Jaṭā, Mālā, Śikhā, Rekhā, Dhvajā,
Daṇḍa, Rathā, Ghana, of which Ghana is usually considered the most
difficult.
The students are first taught to memorize the Vedas using simpler
methods like continuous recitation (saṃhitā pāṭha), word by word recitation
(pada pāṭha) in which compounds (sandhi) are dissolved and in krama pāṭha
words are arranged in the pattern of ab bc cd ... and so on. Before teaching
the eight complex recitation styles, these two simple ways of recitations are
introduced to the scholars.
A pāṭhin is a scholar who has mastered the pāṭhas. Thus,

a ghanapāṭhin has learnt the chanting of the scripture up to the advanced
stage of ghana. The Ghanapāṭha or the "Bell" mode of chanting is so called
because the words are repeated back and forth in a bell shape. The sonority
natural to Vedic chanting is enhanced in Ghana. In Jaṭāpāṭha, the words are
braided together, so to speak, and recited back and forth.
The saṃhitā, pada and karma-pāṭhas can be described as the

natural recitation styles or prakṛtipāṭhas. The remaining 8 modes of chanting
are classified as complex recitation styles or Vikṛtipāṭhas as they involve
reversing of the word order. The backward chanting of words does not alter
the meanings in the Vedic (Sanskrit) language.
 Saṃhitā-pāṭha: continuous recitation of Sanskrit words bound by the

phonetic rules of euphonic combination;
138
 Pada-pāṭha: a recitation marked by a conscious pause after every
word, and after any special grammatical codes embedded inside the text;
this method suppresses euphonic combination and restores each word in its
original intended form;
 Krama-pāṭha: a step-by-step recitation where euphonically-combined
words are paired successively and sequentially and then recited; for
example, a hymn "word1 word2 word3 word4 ...”, would be recited as "word1
word2 word2 word3 word3 word4 ..."; this method to verify accuracy is credited
to Vedic sages Gārgya and Śākalya in the Vedic tradition and mentioned by
the ancient Sanskrit grammarian Panini .
 Krama-pāṭha: modified the same step-by-step recitation as above, but
without euphonic-combinations (or free form of each word); this method to
verify accuracy is credited to Vedic sages Bābhravya and Gālava in the Vedic
tradition, and is also mentioned by Pāṇini;
 Jaṭā-pāṭha, dhvajā-pāṭha and ghana-pāṭha are methods of recitation of
a text and its oral transmission which were rather complicated. These
extraordinary retention techniques guaranteed the most perfect canon not
just in terms of unaltered word order but also in terms of sound. That these
methods have been effective is testified to by the preservation of the Vedic
text, the Ṛgveda.
139
Chapter VII
Traversing in duality of Vāgartha
Relation, by virtue of its two relata, is a very important concept in

our everyday experience. Neither of the two relata is sufficient enough to
exist by itself. The chapter exclusively takes up the nature of relationship
between śabda and artha among many such existing relations like cause and
effect, substance and attribute, mother and son etc. The common practice,
especially of Naiyāyikas, is to treat the two— śabda and artha — occupying
two separate zones — one in the speech-organ and the other in the outside
world, so to say. But there is another school of Grammarians who treat both
śabda and artha residing in the intellect since there are many words, for
example, bandhyāputra, śaśaśṛnga, etc. which do not have any reference in
the outside world. As we can understand their meaning, we are forced to
accept their imaginary existence in the mind. Thus this parallel line of
thinking reflects the dual function of human mind which is always said to be
ambivalent in nature. Undoubtedly, the fact of duality often leads to
confusion and uncertainty and from that state of bewilderment emerges the
state of suspension of all kinds of decision-making process, yet it cannot be
denied that without the presence of the ‘two’ the communication between
the speaker and the hearer cannot take place. Thus, it requires ‘two’ to
evolve and then go beyond the sphere of duality. The antagonism between
the ‘two’ allows them to grow and incorporate the other into one’s fold,
140
which not only enriches both but also resolves the contradiction /conflict
between them.
However, there is another demand of human mind that searches

for one unitary-integral-principle that can redeem one from the bi-polarity
and can bring the state of serenity. The necessity of ‘two’, therefore, cannot
be denied which is the starting point of all innovative journey. The struggle
within and the struggle outside both helps one to come out with new idea.
When the different procedural stages in an activity merge into one and take
the shape of a product, one ignores the multiple stages that the activity has
crossed towards the achievement of the goal, that is, integrated unity of
oneness. As has been mentioned in Sāṃkhya Darśana, which accepted dual
principles of Prakṛti and Puruṣa, opposite to each other, yet when they come
into contact Prakṛti starts evolving showing its craftsmanship in full form, i.e.
creation of this world. Similarly the two syntactic and semantic aspects of
language formation—śabda and artha—when merge into one another, create
a different world of rasa often posited in kāvya and other art form.
Communication and expression through language is the

instinctive and treasured gift of to all human beings, but its culture and
nurture depends upon one’s practice to polish and beautify it. The chapter
takes into account the very relationship between word and its meaning as
the word ‘vāgartha’ is mentioned in the title. The meaning of any word is
acquired as soon as the word is uttered to the hearer. For example, the
hearer understands the meaning of the word ‘ghaṭa’ when the word ‘ghaṭa’
is pronounced to him. The meaning of the word ghaṭa, that is, the referent
object, is said to exist in the outside world and the word ‘ghaṭa’ is said to
exist in the speech organ. But the same word when uttered to a non-sanskrit
man signifies nothing because he cannot connect the same word with its
meaning. Thus the question arises: what is the nature of this relationship
that exists between the word and its meaning? The word ‘vāgartha’ when
141
analysed into vāk (speech) and artha (meaning), points out to this fact of
relationship. Different philosophical systems explain the nature of
relationship in different ways.
According to the Naiyāyikas both—śabda and artha— are separate

and their relationship is determined either by God’s will or sometimes by
human will (Īśvara-saṃketa or manuṣya-saṃketa) as well. The words are
uttered by mouth having several contacts with different places within the
speech organ such as tongue, palate, throat etc., whereas the meaning or
artha is there in the outside world in space and time. For example, the object
that is ghaṭa resides on the floor and the word is pronounced by mouth and
they are united by the conventional relation called sāmayika. For our
common workable purpose this relationship is too sufficed to raise any
problem. But as soon as we go deep into the problem one finds that this
simplistic explanation will not go very far, since there are millions of words
which have no reference in the external world. There are many words which
possess multiple meanings and do not point to any fixed meaning. Their
meanings are contextually-dependent. The Naiyāyikas takes resort to the
secondary meaning of the word, called lakṣyārtha, which performs this extra
function. For example the very patent instance of ‘nadyāṃ ghoṣaḥ’ where
the meaning of the word is not clear if the word ‘nadyāṃ’ taken in its literal
sense, since the milkman’s hut cannot be on the stream of water, that is
river. Incompatibility can be resolved by taking resort to the meaning of the
word ‘nadyāṃ’ as ‘bank of the river’. Even then the problem will not be
solved because the contexts are infinite in number and so the meanings are
also infinite, consequently no fixed meaning can be provided to the word.
The Naiyāyikas further do not accept the suggestive meaning of the word i.e.
vyaṅgārtha which is mainly the domain of literally work (kāvya-sāhitya). And,
if somehow the suggestive meaning is to introduced in our conversation,
Naiyāyikas insist that its meanings can be obtained with the help of
inferential process. The solution given by Naiyāyikas is not very much
142
appealing, because the very beauty and charm of the literature is lost in that
process.
Among the Vaiyākaraṇa, one finds two different kinds of opinion.

For the practical purpose, Vaiyākaraṇas go with the Naiyāyikas and accept
the nature of relationship as conventional because it is always determined
by ordinary usages. According to them —
śabdā lokanibandhanāḥ/ (Vākyapadīyam, kārikā 2.229)
But there is another view which admits that the meaning of the
word is a mental construct (Bauddhārtha), otherwise one would never have
understood the meaning of the word like śaśaśṛnga, khapuṣpa and
vandhyāputra etc. because they do not exist anywhere in the spatio-
temporal world. Patañjali subscribes to this view:
śabdaśca śabdād bahirbhūtaḥ . artho’bahirbhūtaḥ/
(Mahābhāṣyam
1.1.66)
According to them words remain separately in the outside world

but their meanings are always encircled with appropriate words and so
meanings cannot exist outside the domain of words. In fact, the Vaiyākaraṇa
accept two types of word-meanings—svarūpa and bāhya. When one says,
agnerḍhak one is referring to the word ‘agni’ where ‘ḍhak’ suffix is fixed, for,
the suffix cannot be added to the physical fire existing in the outside world.
But when one says, ‘bring cow, eat curd’, the words ‘cow’ and ‘curd’ refer to
the physical cow and curd which are to be brought and eaten.
astyanyad rūpāt svaṃ śabdsyeti. Kiṃ punastat? Arthaḥ.

Śabdenoccāritenārtho gamyate. Gāmānaya dadhyaśāneti artha ānīyate
arthaśca bhujyate.
143
The Vaiyākaraṇas go on to add that there is no hard and fast rule
of relationship between the śabda and artha, because a single word
sometimes refers to many objects. Therefore, the flexible relationship
existing between the two marks the uncertainty of the relationship too.
yadyekaḥ śabda ekasminnarthe niyataḥ syāt tat etad yujyate

vaktuṃ, yatstvaniyamaḥ tataḥ prakṛetereva sarve arthaḥ syuḥ.
(Mahābhā
ṣyam 1.2.25).
The uncertain character of this relationship is posited by Patañjali

advancing the examples of ‘akṣa’, ‘māṣā’ and ‘pāda’ which refer to different
meanings at different times. The word ‘akṣa’ refers to eye, a die for playing,
a cart etc. The word ‘māṣā’ refers to a bean, a fool and a weight used for
gold. The word ‘pāda’ refers to foot, added to a name for showing respect, a
ray of light, and a quartet, root of the tree or mountain, the fourth part of a
stanza and so on.
Ekaśca śabdo bahabarthaḥ. (Mahābhāṣyam 1.2.25)
Bhartṛhari endorses the same view and says:
Ekasyāpi ca śabdasya nimittairavyavasthitaiḥ/.

Eken bahubhiścārtho bahudhā pravibhajyate//.
( Vākyapadīyam, kārikā 2.137)
Bhartṛhari takes up both kinds of views. For him the relationship
between the two is determined by the ordinary usages and following that,
the very popular usages become primary and not-very-popular become
secondary. In this respect, the word, in fact, can never touch the meaning in
the outside world; it can indicate the meaning of a word from the distance
only. It has been duly pointed out by the Naiyāyikas in Nyāya-Sūtra 2.1.53,
“pūraṇapradāhapāṭanānupalabdhehśca saṃbandhābhāvaḥ” that

the word and its meaning can never touch each other. It says if that would
have been possible, then by merely pronouncing the words like ‘sweet, fire
144
and sword’ our mouth would have been filled with ‘sweetness, burnt and cut’
respectively, but that never happens; consequently, they reside separately
having temporal and indicative relationship (sāmayika) only. This view
emphasized the ordinary way of using the word and its meaning. The other
view which Bhartṛhari holds is that the relationship between the two is
ultimately regarded as natural which is determined by the capacity of the
word. Just as the capacity of fire is ‘to burn’, this capacity can never be
robbed off the character of fire, similarly the capacity of the word is to
indicate a fixed meaning of a word which can never be taken away from it.
Just as different sense organs have natural ability to receive their
appropriate objects, for example, eyes can receive the colour, olfactory
sense-organ can receive only taste, auditory sense organ can receive sound
and so on, similarly, a particular word can signify a particular meaning only
for which it has natural indulgence. Their respective functions cannot be
exchanged.
Indriyāṇāṃ svaviṣayeṣvanādiryogyatā yathā/

Anādirarthaiḥ śabdānāṃ saṃbandho yogyatā tathā//
How the natural relationship accommodates the conventional

relationship of the Naiyāyikas has been interestingly shown by the
Vaiyākaraṇas by a simple example from the daily life. They advance the
instance of relationship between mother and son. By looking at a woman and
a boy no one can understand they are mother-son duo, but if someone
points out that ‘she is the mother of…’ and ‘he is the son of…’, one can
immediately acknowledge the relationship.
Thus, as the Vaiyākaraṇas advance in their complex journey of

speech act, they find that the spoken language, which is the manifested form
of human speech, is called Vaikharī the gross form of the same. It is
classified as nāma, ākhyāta, upasarga, nipāta in order to arrive at the
systematic analysis of the language. Before this manifestation, there is
145
language called madhyamā which remains submerged in the heart and
uttered inside. It is the silent speech, involved in soliloquy. Further back we
find paśyantī which remains undifferentiated as śabda and artha residing in a
very subtle form. The final state beyond paśayantī is callled parā-vāk which
unites with artha as mentioned by Bhartṛhari. In this final stage, ‘two’, that
is śabda and artha are said to be amalgamated into ‘one’ without any trace
of ‘two-ness’.
Vaikhryā madhyamāyāśca paśyantyāscaitadadbhutam/

Anekatīrthabhedāyāstryā vācaḥ paraṃ padam//
Regarding the nature of this natural relationship, the Vaiyākaraṇa
insist that there is no vācya-vācaka sambandha between śabda and artha at
this stage. According to them, all relations between śabda and artha are
imposed for our convenience, so they are nothing but fictional
(tādātmyādhyāsa) and convey the intention of the speakers only. Though the
conventional establishment of the relationship is considered eternal because
no one knows when this relationship first set in motion, yet the relationship
itself is not authentic since it is not final.
Saṃbandhasyāpi vyavahārparamparayā’nāditvānnityatā.
(Mahābhāṣyapradīpa, 1.1.1)
This is explained with a beautiful metaphor from Aitareya

Brāhmaṇa (3.44). It is said, the sun never rises and never sets, yet the
common usages reflect that ‘the sun rises in the east and sets in the west’.
The scientific temper invalidates that which the common usage endorses.
But if one looks at them with the philosophical-subtle perspective, one can
find out the truth.
Sa vā eṣa (ādityaḥ) na kadācanāstameti nodeti, taṃ

yadastametīti manyante’han eva tadantamitvā’tha yadenaṃ prātarudetīti
manyante rātrereva tadantamitvā. Sa vā eṣa na kadācana nimrocati.
146
Thus it takes one beyond the duality and gradually delves into the
deep sea of one integral sphoṭa, the discussion of which is beyond the scope
of this paper. The problem still persists for the Vaiyākaraṇa, because
relationship is declared here as fictional.
The Śaivāgama School tackles the problem in a different manner

allowing the sanctity of the relationship as very much real. The beauty of the
śiva-tattva in linguistic forum not only balances the dual views advocated by
the Vaiyākaraṇas and the Naiyāyikas, but merges the boundary between
Vyāvahārika and Pāramārthika spheres of linguistic manifestation. The
radical view of the Buddhist that the meaning of a word is purely mental
construct, devoid of any real existence is also overruled. Though the
Buddhist view is not discussed here but it can be automatically rejected by
synerging the above mentioned two views together.
II
The beauty of the Śaivāgama School looks upon the relationship

as one and identical because they believe in the validity of the mental
constructs (bauddhārtha) as the meaning of the word, the same as the
Vaiyākaraṇa do. But they go beyond that and accept their oneness as very
much real because it gives rise to one experience as cognitive activity of the
subject. The basic assumption of Śaiva Philosophy is that the ultimate reality
in the universe is an All-Inclusive Universal Consciousness— that is śiva-
tattva. The universe, which is of the nature of Vāk, is broadly divided into
two—vācya and vācaka, accepted as prakāśa and vimarśa as artha and
śabda respectively. It can be clarified with the famous dictum of Vaiyākaraṇa
“sarve sarvārtha vācakāḥ” (Nāgeśa) which says that all words have the
potential to convey all meanings, there is no specificity on the part of a word
to stand for a particular meaning, but to avoid confusion at the
communicative level, the limitation has been fixed that a certain word will
signify a certain meaning and nothing else. The relationship is called vācya-
vācaka-bhāva. Similarly in Śaiva philosophy, the element of prakāśa has the
147
capacity to highlight any entity of the world, but for the sake of our practical
convenience we have given special designation to vāk to signify special
meaning which is termed as vimarśa which incidentally highlights the special
meaning of a word. Vāk equipped with prakāśa is the ultimate signifier of the
worldly objects qualified with the capacity to multiply it in various forms of
words and their forms are called vimarśa. The practical purpose of the world
is moved on with this capacity or vimarśa-śakti. So what stands for vācya-
vācaka-saṃbandha in the earlier views now stands for prakāśa-vimarśa-
śakti-svarūpa in Śaivāgama School. But at the same time it is not merely
replacing the words, but there is a deep ontological commitment which
marks the underlying distinction.
The ability to convey is the very movement in the form of desire.

In original work Śivadṛṣṭi by Somānanda, the vimarśa-śakti is described as
parāvāk which activates the speech with hope, inspiration and put into
action. It does so in three successive stages called paśyantī, madhyamā and
vaikharī as referred to earlier. The desire to manifest is the force of self-
delight (ānanda). Without ānanda there can be no Will or desire (Icchā) and
without desire there is no knowledge (jñāna), without knowledge of objects,
the means and ways to achieve it, there is no action (kriyā). Thus, vimarśa
stands for the power which produces ānanda, icchā, jñāna and kriyā in
succession. Vimarśa-śakti is called svātantrya-śakti also. Utapaladeva says:
Citiḥ pratyavamarśātmā parā vāksvarasoditā/

Svātantrayametat mukhyaṃ tat aiśvaryaṃ paramātmanaḥ//
(Iśvarapratyabhijñayāvimarśini 9)
The relationship between the prakāśa and vimarśa can be
compared to the empty-canvas and painted picture on it which bestows joy
to the artist. The manifested painting is not separated from the canvas, so
prakāśa is not separated from vimarśa. Vimarśa is described as the
‘manifested form of the world vis-à-vis word’ and again the cause of the
148
destruction of the same in a very natural course. Thus, it is the manifestation
which is called vimarśa.
Vimarśonāṃ viśvakāreṇa viśvaprakāśena viśvasaṃhāreṇa vā akṛti’hamiti

sphuraṇam.
Though the artist appears to move along with us in this ordinary

world of ours, experiencing with us the joys and sorrows of the worldly life,
yet he possesses a pure heart which retains the collected experiences in his
mind in the form of saṃskāra. The bifurcated mind of the artist, which
perceives the subjective experiences as objective, frees him from the
individuality and reflects the so-called objects in the Universalized soul just
to rouse and bring ānanda which then becomes a matter of relish (āsvādan).
It is due to the rise of ānandaśakti.
Ānandaśaktiḥ saivoktā yataḥ sahṛdayo janaḥ / (Tantrāloka. II

200)
In this way, one can assess, therefore, how the idea sprouts in
the mind of the artist. Only those, who have divinity in them, can make such
ideas function. Having gone through details, analysis and expansion of the
ideas, artist finally closes it with the initial idea wherefrom he had begun.
The artist, in fact, views his own idea, which is called paśyantī. In madhyamā
subject and object are on the same platform, yet somehow they remain
distinctive. In vaikharī, since the speech is heard by the hearer, one can
clearly make a distinction between śabda and artha as separated from the
subject. Thus, both artist and Maheśvara function in a similar fashion,
manifesting the world according to their will and the data retained therein.
All that exist from Shiva down to the earth exist within the ultimate self.
Utpaldeva says:
Yā caiṣā pratibhā tattatpadārthakramaruṣitā /

Akramānantacidrūpaḥ pramātā sa maheśvaraḥ //
(Iśvarapratyabhijñayāvimarśini, I.7.1)
149
The Śaivāgama texts are taken as the storehouse of divine speech
and as such they manifest the divine vimarśa as different from the human
speech and human vimarśa. The speech has eternal existence in the state of
identity with parā-vāk. When the identity is realized, we have a new
experience altogether—it is a joy of realizing identity. The difficulty before
the dualist is how to explain the phenomenon of knowledge. Śabda and
artha being opposite are completely cut off from each other. They cannot be
brought together. But Śaivāgama-s has introduced the concept of Anuttara
(parāsaṃvid) to explain the phenomenon of knowledge through the All-
inclusive-Universal-Consciousness. It means ‘beyond which there is nothing’.
Na vidyate uttaraṃ praśna prativacanarūpaṃ yatra /

(Tantrāloka.19)
Anuttara cannot be spoken as ‘this’, or ‘that’, nor as ‘not this’ or

‘not that’. It can never be the object of perception and conception but can
only be realized. The śabda which is said to be vimarśa-svarūpa reflects the
meaning of the word (artha) just as mirror reflects the image of the object
kept close by, yet it does not lose its purity. Vimarśa signifies the capacity of
the self to know itself in the state of perfect freedom from all kinds of
affections, retaining these affections in the form of residual traces, taking out
at will anytime, making judicious selection from the existing stock. In the
context of Universal self, according to Pratyabhijñā-Darśana, the universe is
the manifestation of what is already within the Universal self on the
background of itself. ‘Sā svātmabhittau viśvacitram unmīlayati’, i.e., the
manifested universe is apparently separated from the self much as the
reflected object is from the mirror.
Nirmale mukure yadvat bhānti bhūmijalādayaḥ/

Amiśrāstadvadekasminmaṣṭhicinnārthe viṣṭhavavṛttayaḥ//
(Tantrāloka. II.4)
Now it seems absurd to ask why the self manifests itself in such a
manner. For the answer cited in the Śaivāgam literature is that it is the very
150
nature of the self to do that like the nature of the fire to burn. All the worldly
abhāsa shine only on the background of the Absolute much the same as the
reflection in the mirror and painting on the canvas and waves in the ocean.
The system holds that Mahaeśvara as ‘Anuttara’ expresses itself through
powers of Kartṛtva and jñātṛtva. These two powers are the two aspects of the
vimarśa śakti.
The purely undifferentiated mass of Śabdabrahma or Parāvāk

cannot act unless there is desire for self-creation which initiates it into
activity of producing varṇa and sound with their various offshoots.
The śabda, in association with ability to reflect, idealises the function of the
physical principle that energy and mass cannot be separated. Following the
theory of convergence in Mathematics the idea can be taken as
the Bindu which is referred to in the tāntrika literature in order to explain the
cosmic as well as the activity-specific principle. The Bindu, rephrased as
mathematical point taking insight from mathematics, is transformed into
innumerable shapes and activities. The most valuable property of Bindu may
be expected to have its ability to be joined to other points to construct a line.
It has its use only while making figures, similarly it can be said that the Śiva-
tattva metaphorically manifests itself into wonder-world of many forms and
shapes. The common practice is to leave point undefined / dimensionless,
that is to say, without breadth, length and width. Similarly the subtlety of
Śiva-tattva is such that it goes beyond all kinds of word-category and
remains undefined like mathematical point, yet its presence is felt without
any absence. Though this chapter has no intention of drawing a parallel
between point and bindu yet the concept can be exploited in favour of Vāk-
tattva/Śiva-tattva as a metaphor. Abhinavagupta prays the four stages of
Vāk at the end of each chapter of Dhvanyā-Locana and let us echo his words
too:
Yadunmīlanaśaktyaiva viśvamunmīlati kṣanāt/

Svātmāyatanaviśrāntāṃ tāṃ vande pratibhāṃ śivām//
151
Prājyaṃ prollāsmātraṃ sadbhedenāsūtryate yayā/
Vande’bhinavagupto’haṃ paśyantīṃ tāmidaṃ jagat//
Ᾱsūtritānām bhedānāṃ sphuṭatāpattidāyinīm/
Trilocanapriyāṃ vande madhyamāṃ parameśvarīm//
Sphuṭīkṛtārthavaicitryabahiḥ prasaradāyinīm/
Turyā śaktimahaṃ vande pratyakṣārthanidarśinīm//
(Dhvanyāloka)
I bow to Shiva (parā-vāk) whose very opening of the eyes manifest the whole
world.
Appendix I
Apaśabdakhaṇḍanam by Sree Bhaṭṭadhaneśvara,

Vikramsamvat 1680, Folio No.35 Ms. No. 9366, available in the Catalogue of the Library of The
Asiatic Society, Kolkata, Collection compiled and edited by Haraprasad Sastri, Vol.VI. Part II.
अपशब्दखण्डनम्
श्रीभधनेश्वर
व्याकरणम्
ॐ नमः श्रीसकलवर्णोत्पत्तिनिदानाय कृ ष्णाय नमः ||
येनाक्षरसमाम्नायमधिगम्य महेश्वरात् |
कृ त्स्नं व्याकरणं प्रोक्तं तस्मै पाणिनये नमः ||१||
152
अज्ञानतिमिरान्धस्य ज्ञानाञ्जनशलाकया |
चक्षुरुन्मीलितं येन तस्मै श्रीगुरुवे नमः ||२||
सूत्रसप्तसती यस्मै ददौ साक्षात् सरस्वती |
अनुभूतिस्वरूपाय तस्मै श्रीगुरुवे नमः ||३||
यद्दत्तज्ञानदीपेन मार्जितं तम् आन्तरम् |
मया तस्मै कृ पार्द्राय नमः सद् गुरुविष्णवे ||४||
इन्द्रश्चन्द्रः काशकृ त्स्नोऽपिशली शाकटायनः |
पाणिन्यमरजैनेन्द्र: जयन्त्यष्टादिशाब्दिकाः || ५||
मन्दा अपि हि विद्वांसो यत्कृ पारङ्गलालिताः |
गद्यपद्यमयी सिद्धिः तस्यै वाचे नमोऽस्तु मे ||६||
येन शब्दमहांभौद्वौ कृ तो व्याकरणप्लवः |
शब्दरत्नार्थिना लोके तस्मै पाणिनये नमः ||७||
अज्ञानान्धस्य लोकस्य ज्ञानस्योत्पादनेन तु |
तमश्चाज्ञानजं भिन्नं तस्मै पाणिनये नमः ||८||
येन धौता गिरः पुंसां विमलैः शब्दवारिभिः |
अपशब्दमला दिग्धाः तस्मै पाणिनये नमः ||९||
शेषं वररुचिं नौमि भवशब्दागप्रणमेव च |
शिवं च वोपदेवं च रामचन्द्रं कवेः सुतम् ||१०||
कार्तिके यं हरिहरं स्वामिनं च कु मारिलम् |
क्षेमेन्द्रमपरान् शब्दप्रणेतॄंश्च शब्दसिद्धये ||११||
सूत्रमुक्तमयीं मालां कृ त्वा विमण्डितं यतः ||
येन कृ पया हि मनसा तं मुनिं नौमि पाणिनिम् ||१२||
ननु व्याकरणं प्रमाणं अप्रमाणं वा |प्रमाणमिति ब्रूमः | वेदाङ्गत्वात् |अङ्गीवदङ्गैः संपद्यते | अङ्गिनः प्रामाण्यात् तदङ्गानामपि | सुतरां सावकाशं प्रामाण्यम्
| इह खलु निरन्तरं वेदाभ्यासनिरतानामध्यपकानामध्येतॄणां च सम्यगुदात्तादयः स्वरा विवेचनीयातथैवोच्चारयितेव्याश्च | विवेकपूर्वसम्यगुच्चारणे
महाफलश्रवणात्‌तच्च ऋते व्याकरणान्न सिध्यति | असम्यगुच्चारणे प्रत्यवायदर्शनाच्च |
मन्त्रहीनः स्वरतो वर्णतो वा मिथ्याप्रयुक्तो न तमर्थमाह |
स वाग्वज्रो यजमानं हिनस्ति यथेन्द्रशत्रुः स्वरतोऽपराधात् ||
तथा च याज्ञवल्कीयमिव शिक्षायाम् |
गान्धर्ववेदे प्रोक्ता: सप्त षड्जादयः स्वराः |
त एव वेदे विज्ञेयास्त्रय उच्चादयः स्वराः ||१||१
उच्चौ निषादगान्धारौ नीचौ ॠषभधैवतौ ।२
शेषास्तु स्वरिता ज्ञेया: षड्जमध्यमपञ्चमाः ॥ २॥३
निमेषमात्र: कालः स्याद्विद्युतकालस्तथापरे ।
अक्षरात्तुल्ययोगाच्च मतिः स्यात्सोमशर्मणः ॥३।।४
सूर्यरश्मिप्रतीकाशात्कणिका यत्र दृश्यते ।
आणवस्य तु सा मात्रा मात्रा च चतुराणवी ॥५
मानसे चाणवं विद्यात् कण्ठे विद्यात् द्विरावणम् ।
त्रिराणवं तु जिह्वाग्रे निःसृतं मात्रिकं विदुः ॥ ४॥६
अवग्रहे तु यः कालस्त्वर्धमात्रा विधीयते ।
पदयोरन्तरे काले एकमात्रा विधीयते ।।७
ऋचोऽर्धे तु द्विमात्रः स्यात्त्रिमात्रः स्यादृगन्तकेः ।
रिक्तं तु पाणिमुत्क्षिप्य द्वे मात्रे धारयेद्बुधः ।।६।।८
विवृत्तौ चावसाने च ऋचोऽर्धे च तथापरे ।
153
पदे च पादसंस्थाने रिक्तहस्तं(शून्यहस्तं) विधीयते ।
प्रणवं तु प्लुतं कु र्याद् व्याहृतीमात्रिका(मार्तृका) विदुः ।।७।।९।।
चाषस्तु वदते मात्रां द्विमात्रां वायसोऽब्रवीत् ।
शिखि वदति त्रिमात्रां मात्राणामिति संस्थितिः ।।८।। १०
स्वरश्चैव तु हस्तश्च द्वावेतौ युगपद्भवेत् ।
हस्तभ्रष्टः स्वरभ्रष्टो न वेदः फलमश्नुते ।।९।।११
शङ्कितं भीतमुद्दष्टमव्यक्तमनुनासिकम् ।
काकस्वरं मूर्ध्निगतं तथा स्थानविवर्जितम् ।।१०।। १३
विस्वरं विरसं चैव विश्लिष्टं विषमाहतम् ।
व्याकु लं तालुहीनं च पाठदोषाश्चतुर्दश ।।११।।
तत्र स्थानानि पाणिनिशिक्षायाम् ।।
अष्टौ स्थानानि वर्णानामुरः कण्ठ शिरस्तथा ।
जिह्वामूलं च दन्ताश्च नासिकोष्ठौ च तालु च ।।१५।। १३
प्रत्येकं वर्णानां स्थानभेदात् संज्ञाप्रकरणे वक्ष्यते ।।
तथा याज्ञवल्कीय ।।
हस्तहीनं तु योऽधीते स्वरवर्णार्थविवर्जितम् ।१४
ऋग्यजुःसामभिर्दग्धो वियोनिमनुभवति ।।१३।।१५।।
ऋचो यजूंषि सामानि हस्तहीनानि यः पठेत् ।
अनृचो ब्राह्मणस्तावद्यावत्स्वारं न विन्दति ।।
हस्तेन वेदं योऽधीते स्वरवर्णार्थसंयुतम् ।
ऋग्यजुःसामभिःपूतो ब्रह्मलोके महीयते ।। १६
हस्तहीनं तु योऽधीते मन्त्रं वेदविदो विदुः ।
न साधयति यजूंषि भुक्तमव्यञ्जनं यथा ।।१६।।
हस्तहीनं तु योऽधीते स्वरवर्णविवर्जितम् ।
ऋग्यजुःसामभिर्दग्धो वियोनिमधिगच्छति ।। १७
स्वरिते त्र्यङ्गुलं विद्यान्निपाते तु षड्ङ्गुलम् ।
उत्थाने तु नवाङ्गुल्यमेतत्स्वरस्य लक्षणम् ।।१८
गम्यते त्रिविधे स्वरे तिर्यक्पदं
समाहारेत् यद्यकारो परिष्टात् स्वाद्गतोप्यगतिवद्भवेत् ।।१७।।१९
तथा च कात्यायनः ।
अनुदात्तो हृदि ज्ञेयो मुर्ध्युदात्त उच्यते ।
स्वरितः कर्णमूलीयः सर्वाङ्गे प्रचयः स्मृतः ।।१९।।
प्रचितशब्देन जात्यस्वरानुच्यते ।तथा वररुचिः।।
मूर्द्धा क्षतिर्मकारे तु मनकारेऽवग्रहः ।
अनुस्वारेऽङ्गुष्ठ क्षेपञष्मान्तेऽङ्गुलिमोक्षणम् ।।१९।।२०
मुष्ट्याकृ तिर्मकारे तु नकारे नखाग्रतः(हः) ।
अनुस्वारेऽङ्गुष्ठक्षेप ऊष्मान्तेऽङ्गुलिमोक्षणम् ।।१९।|२१
ककारान्ते टकारान्ते ङ्णे चाङ्गुलि नामयेत् ।
पञ्चागुल्य मकारे च तकारे कु ण्डलाकृ तिः ।।२०।। २२
ऊर्ध्वक्षेपाच्चयोष्मा च अधःक्षेपाच्च यो भवेत् २३
एकै कमुत्सृजेद्धीरः स्वरिते तूभयं क्षिपेत् ।।२१।। 2 ४
अङ्गुष्ठाकु ञ्चनं लब्धौ अनुस्वारे हि त्वपारसम् ।2 ५
दीर्घे रङ्गे च तर्जन्याः प्रसारः परिकीर्तितः ।।२२।। 2 ६
तत्संज्ञाभिर्विक्षिप्तेन संयोगो यत्र दृश्यते ।
द्विमात्रिके भवेदेका त्रिमात्रेद्युभयं क्षिपेत् ।।२३।।
154
तर्जन्यङ्गुष्ठयोःस्पर्शेऽप्युदात्तं प्रतिविद्यते ।
नीचं तु मध्यमं कु र्याच्छेषं नीचतरं क्रमात् ।।२४।। २७
स्वरितं यद्भवेत्किञ्चिद्वकारसहसंयुतम् ।
ऊष्माणं तद्विजानीयान्निक्षिपेदुभयोरपि ।।२५।। २८
जात्ये च स्वरिते चैव वकारो यत्र दृश्यते ।
कर्त्तव्यस्तूभयोः क्षेपो वायव्य इति दर्शनम् ।।२६।। २९
त्रिविधस्तु भवेदूष्मा प्रचिता बलकान्तरा ।
स्वरिते प्रचितां विद्यान्निपाते बलकां विदुः ।।२७।। ३०
उत्थाने तु तथा तारा एताभिस्त्रिभिरुष्माभिः ।
मात्रामात्रां विदित्वा तु ततः क्षेपं प्रयोजयेत् ।।२८।।३१
अक्षरं भजते काचित्काचिद्वित्ते प्रतिष्ठिता ।
समाने जातिका काचित्काचिदूष्मा प्रदायिका ।।२९।। ३२
विवृत्ति प्रत्यया ऊष्मां प्रवदन्ति मनीषिणः ।
तामेव प्रतिषेधन्ति आईऊए इति निदर्शनम् ।।३० ।।३३
अष्टौ स्वरान्प्रवक्ष्यामि तेषामेव तु लक्षणम्।
जात्योऽभिनिहितः क्षैप्रः प्रश्लिष्टश्च तथापरः ।। 3 ४
तैरोव्यञ्जनसंज्ञश्च तथातैरोविराम एव च ।
पादवृत्तस्ततस्तद्वत्ताथाभावाव्यस्तथाष्टमः ।। 3 ५
तैरो विरामं तंविन्द्यादुदात्तोयद्यवग्रहः।।
उदात्तात् स्वरितःपूर्व निहतः परतोऽपि ।
एकपदे नीचपूर्वः सयवो जात् एकपद इत्याह ।। 3 ६
नीचपूर्वः सयकारवकारौ वा जात्यः स्वरितो भवति । यथाजात्यं मनुष्यानिति सुद्येति चम्बीव धान्यम् कन्या इव स्वः वीर्यं एव ह्याह यानि
चान्यानिदॄग्लक्षणानि पदानि भवन्ति ।।३३।।एओ आभ्यामुदात्ताभ्यामकारो रिफितश्च यः ।अकारो यत्र लुप्यते तं चाभिनिहितः विदुः।।३४।। 3 ७
यथा ते –अप्सरसाम् तेप् रसाम् । वेदः –असि वेदोसि ।ते- अवन्तु तेवन्तु । कु क्कु टः—असि कु क्कु टोऽसि । भागः- असिः भागोसि । मारुतः- असि
मारूतोसि । श्वात्रः—असि श्वात्रोसि । कः- असि कोसि । सः- अहं सोऽहं । एवं हि यानि चान्यानिदॄग्लक्षणानि पदान्यभिहिता निवेदितव्यानि ।इऊवर्णौ
यदोदात्तावापद्येते यवौ क्वचित् । अनुदात्ते पदे नित्यं विन्द्यात्क्षैप्रस्य लक्षणम् ।। ३५ ।। 3 ८
यथा त्रि- अम्बकम् त्र्यंबकम् । द्रु- अन्नः द्रवन्नः । वीडु –अङ्गः वीड् वङ्ग । वाजी- अर्वन् वाज्यर्वन् ।एवम् ह्याह यानि
चान्यानिदॄग्लक्षणानि पदानि भवन्ति । इकारो यत्र दृश्येत इकारेनैव संयुतः|उदात्तश्चानुदात्तेन प्रश्लिष्टो भवति स्वरः।।३६।।३९
यथा अभि- इन्धताम् अभीन्धताम् । स्रुचि –इव स्रुचीव ।अभि- इमं अभीमम् ।वि- इहि वीहि । एवम् ह्याह यानि
चान्यानिदॄग्लक्षणानि पदानि भवन्ति ।उदात्तपूर्वं यत्किञ्चिच्छन्दसि स्वरितं पदम् ।एष सर्वो बहुस्वारस्तैरो व्यञ्जन संज्ञकः ।।३७।।
इडेरन्ते हव्ये काम्ये चन्द्रे ज्योति निदर्शनम् ।उदात्तावग्रहो यत्र स तु तैरोविरामकः ।।३८।। ४०
इडे रंते हव्ये काम्ये चन्द्रे ज्योते अदिति सरस्वति महि विश्रुतीति भवन्ति । एवम् ह्याह यानि चान्यानिदॄग्लक्षणानि पदानि भवन्ति ।
अवग्रहात्परो यस्तु स्वरितः स्यादनन्तरम् ।
तैरो विरामं तं विद्यादुदात्तो यद्यवग्रहः ।। ३९ ।। ४१
उदात्तावग्रहद्यत्र परश्च स्वरितोऽसति चेत् ।
तैरोविरामं तं विद्यात् गोमत्प्रपति गोपतौ ।।४३
स्वरो ज्ञेयः पदेऽन्यत्र तैरोव्यञ्जन एव तु ।
यथा गोपताविति गोपतौ यज्ञपतिस्तथा ।।
गोपताविति गो-पतौ । समिद्ध इति सम- इद्धः । यज्ञ पति यज्ञपति । गोमदिति गो –मत् ।प्रप्रेति प्र-प्र ।वि- ततेति वि- तता। एवम् ह्याह यानि
चान्यानिदॄग्लक्षणानि पदानि भवन्ति । स्वरेति स्वरिते चैव विवृतिर्यत्र दॄश्यते ।पादवृतौ भवेत्स्वारः श्वित्र आदित्येति निदर्शनम् ।।३९।। श्वित्रः –
आदित्यानां श्वित्रआदित्यानाम् । पुत्रः – ईधे- पुत्रईधे । दात्र- एधि दात्र एधि । कः- ईम् कईम् । ताः –अस्य ताअस्य । एवम् ह्याह यानि
चान्यानिदॄग्लक्षणानि पदानि भवन्ति । उदात्ताक्षरयोर्मध्ये भवेन्नीचस्त्ववग्रहः । तथा भाव्यं भवेत्कम्पस्तनूनप्त्रेति निदर्शनम् ।।४०।।४३
यथा तनूनप्त्र इति तनू—नप्त्रे । तनूनपादिति तनू- नपात् । तनूनपातमिति तनू—नपातम् । एवम् ह्याह यानि चान्यानिदॄग्लक्षणानि पदानि भवन्ति ।।
छ।।४४
155
इत्येवमादि व्याकरणद्विना ज्ञायत इति । तथा च शाकटायनः । नामाख्यातोपसर्गनिपातश्चेति ।चतुर्विध शब्दरूपं इति ।।छ।।तथा चतुर्विधः संधिर्भवति ।
तद्यथा—तत्र लोपागमवर्णविकारः प्रकृ तिभावश्चेति।तद्यथा—तत्र लोपो भवति यथा अयक्ष्माः –मा अयक्ष्मामा । शततेजाः वायुः शततेजावायुः ।
तिग्मतेजाः—द्विषतः तिग्मतेजाद्विषतः । इति लोपः ।।छ।। आगमो भवति – यथा प्रत्यक् सोमः प्रत्यङ् सोमः (प्रत्यङ्सोमः) प्राक्सोमः प्राङ् सोमः
(प्राङ्सोमः)अस्मान् सीते अस्मान्त्सीते।
त्रीन् समुद्रान् त्रीन्त्समुद्रान् । इत्यागमः । विकारो भवति आ—इदम् एदम् । आ- इमे एमे ।आ- इष्टयः एष्टयः। प्र-इषितः प्रेषितः इति विकारः प्रकृ तिभावः
यथा – आशुः शिशानः । युञ्जानः प्रथमम् । अदितिः षोड्शाक्षरेण । देवो वः सविता । इति प्रकृ तिभावः ।इत्यादि कथं विना व्याकरणेन तत् सिद्धिः । तथा
च पाणिनिः ।
त्रिषष्टिश्च्तुःषष्टिर्वा वर्णाः संभवती मताः ।
प्रकृ ते संस्कृ ते चापि स्वयं प्रोक्ताः स्वयंभुवा ।।१।।४५
उदात्तश्चानुदात्तश्च स्वरितश्च स्वरास्त्रयः ।
हृस्वो दीर्घः प्लुत इति कालतो नियमापि च ।।२।। ४६
इत्यादि सर्वव्याकरणेनैव ज्ञायते |
किं च वस्तुविवेकोऽपि न विना व्याकरणं भवति किमुत तद्भेदविवेकः । श स य ज ष क्षादितेषो वक्रे यस्य न लभ्यते पाठतः । मुख उदरन्ध्र विभेदो दशा
नैरुपलभ्यते तस्येति ।
पदक्रमविशेषाज्ञयो वर्णक्रमविचक्षणः ।
स्वरमात्रादिभागज्ञयो गच्छेदाचार्यसंसदम् । इति स्वरमंजरीकारः।
अत्र यद्यप्यध्यापकोपदेशवशादेव स्वराविभावयन्ते न तावता विशिष्टफलसिद्धिः ।
यदधीतमविज्ञातं निगदेनैव शब्द्यते ।
अनग्नाविव शुष्कै धो न तज्जवलति कहिर्चित ।
इत्यज्ञानपूर्वे पाठमात्रे फलाश्रवणात् ।
ननु विभाषा छन्दसि (पा.१.२.३६) इति छन्दोमात्रे विकल्पनैकश्रुत्यं विधीयते । तेनं अथाच्चातुस्वर्यनिषेधोऽपि वैकल्पिकः प्रतीयते । तेन
अर्थाच्चातुस्वर्यस्य षोडशिग्रहणाग्रहणवत् विधिप्रतिषेधाभ्यां (निषेधाभ्यां पाठान्तर) समविकल्पः । तथा च कृ तेऽभ्युदयोऽकृ ते प्रत्यवायोऽपि नास्तीति
गम्यते ।ततश्च मन्त्रो हीन इत्यर्थवादो विधस्तुत्यर्थतया नेतव्यः। तथाहि । नहि निन्द्य निन्दितुं निन्दा, अपि तु स्तुत्यं स्तोतुम् इत्युक्तं शाबरभाष्ये ।
अत्र ब्रूमः ।आचार्यासमयाचारविरोधान्न समविकल्पः। किन्तु उदितानुदिताहोमवत् व्यवस्थितविकल्पः । तथाहि प्रत्ययः, विशेषपरश्च, आद्युदात्तश्च,
अनुदात्तौ सुप्पित्तौ, (पा.३.१.१-४) तित् स्वरितम् (पा.६.१.१८५) इत्यादिस्वरविशेषाविधिरनुबन्धविशेषकरणं च स्वरार्थमाचार्यसम्मतं नोपपद्यते ।
अतः अकृ ते प्रत्यवायो न स्यात् , न च कृ तेऽभ्युदयः, अभ्युदयार्थ तदनपेक्षणात् तदनादरप्रसंगात् । अध्यापकाश्च वर्णलोपवत् स्वरलोपं
कु र्वद्भ्योऽध्येतृभ्यः कु प्यन्ति । मीमांसाका अपि तत्र स्वरवशादेवार्थनिर्णयं कु र्वन्ति । तस्मादैकश्रुत्यविधानं बह्वृचब्राह्माणादिविषयं, चातुःस्वर्यविधानं तु
दाशतयीविषयं तैत्तिरीयशाखादि विषयं च । तथा च शिष्टचारो न विरुध्यते । तस्माद्विषयभेदेन मन्त्रो हीन इति निन्दार्थवादोऽपि स्वार्थे एव प्रवर्तते ।
अकृ तेऽपि प्रत्यवायोस्त्येव च । अतो वर्णक्रमवत् स्वरा अपि सम्यक् वेदितव्याः। तद्व्युत्त्पत्तौ कारणान्यपि ज्ञातव्यानि ।
लोपागमविकाराणां प्रकृ तेः प्रत्ययस्य च।
प्लुतसंधिपदानां च समासानां च भेदतः ।
क्वचिदर्थवशादाहुर्दशधा तानि शाब्दिकाः ।
तत्र लोपनिमित्तस्वरो यथा।
देवी, पूष्णः, पूष्णाः, अर्यमणे, अस्थ्ना। देवीति दिवु क्रीडादौ, नन्दिग्रहिपचादिभ्यो ल्युणिन्यचः(पा. ३.१.१३४) इति पचाद्यजन्तः । तत्र
पचादिभ्योऽच्प्रत्ययः इति पचादित्वादच्प्रत्ययान्त इत्यादि स्वरमञ्जर्या।अतो व्याकरणाधीनं सर्वमेव शब्दजालमिति ।
अथ शब्दानुशासनम् । के षां शब्दानां लौकिकानां वैदिकानां च । अथ किमात्मकं शब्दमभ्युपगम्येदं शब्दानुशासनम् आरभ्यते ।वर्णानामिति तावद्ब्रुमः ।
वर्णाः पुनः नित्या अनित्या वा । तावन्नित्या इति वदामः । तानित्यतावगतिः । प्रत्यभिज्ञानात् यमहम्। श्रोषं गकारं तमेव तर्हि श्रॄणोमि अनुसन्धानमुत्पद्यमानं
दॄष्टम् । नन्विदमनित्यत्वे वर्णानामुत्पद्यतेऽथार्थप्रतीत्यनवत् न हि धूम स्वयमनुपलभ्यमानोऽग्निमनुमापयितुं शक्नोति । न च
पूर्ववर्णज्ञानसंस्कारसहितमपरवर्णस्य प्रतीतिरस्ति । संस्काराणामप्रत्यक्षत्वात् । संस्काराणामप्रत्यक्षतायामभिकार्यप्रत्यापितस्य स्फोटान्मनः पदस्य
वाचकाभ्युपगन्तव्यः ।अथ किमर्थं प्रतीत्यन्यथानुपपत्तया स्फोटः कल्प्यते । ततोपलभ्यमान न कल्प्याम्यहं स्फोटम् । प्रत्ययविषयत्वेनावगच्छामि । एकै कं
वर्णग्रहणाहितबीजमन्त्यवर्णप्रत्यक्षजनितविपाकायां बुद्धादयो विप्रत्ययवदखण्डिताकारता इति प्रतिभासनात्। समस्तवर्णविषयं ज्ञानमेतदिति
चक्षुसंयुक्तकृ तित्वेनवर्णानां साम्स्त्यासंभावत् । अयमेत्य वर्णप्रत्यय इति न वाच्यम् । गौरिति प्रतीतिमानत्वात् । तर्हि यथा
वागिन्द्रियमष्टस्थानविभक्तमुदानेन वायुनाभिः हन्यमानं क्रमेण वर्णान् करोति । तथा च शिक्षाकारवचनम् ।
आत्मा बुद्ध्या समेत्यार्थान्मनोयुङ्क्ते विवक्षया ।
मनः कायाग्निमाहन्ति स प्रेरयति मारुतम् । ४७
156
अष्टौ स्थानानि वर्णानामुरः कण्ठःशिरस्तथा ।
जिह्वामूलं च दन्ताश्च नासिकौष्ठौ च तालु च । ४८
एवमेकस्मिन् वर्णे जातिनष्टे परस्य जन्मनाशवित्यनेन शक्तिक्रमेणैकै का स्थानात् वर्णानां समुदायप्रत्ययाभावः । अथास्यत्येवं ब्रूयात्
पूर्वपूर्ववर्णजनितानुभवसंस्कारसचिवस्यान्त्यवर्णस्य वाचकत्वमिति मनोरथमात्रमेतत् । तथाहि सम्बन्धग्रहणमपेक्षमाणः । शब्दः स्वयं प्रतीयमानोऽर्थः
प्रत्याययितुमीष्टे। ते वर्णाकृ तिविषयत्वे का तदनुसारिता । अनन्तवृक्षस्वाभावत्वात् । तस्य पदवर्णेभ्योऽत्यन्तभिन्नत्वं तद्वर्णद्वारेणैव प्रतीयमानत्वात् ।
गाव्यादिव्यक्तिद्वारेण गोत्वादिवत् ।
स यदा गकारादिवर्णानुभवा हि संस्कारया धियाविषयीक्रिया तत्तदा य इयं भवति । स च प्रत्युच्चारणं प्रत्यभिज्ञायमानत्वादाकृ तिवन्नित्यः । ननु वर्णश्चेत्
सर्वदा किमिति नोपलभ्यते । तदभिव्यञ्जकवर्णकलापस्यानित्यत्वात् । ननु कथं वर्णानामप्यभिव्यञ्जकत्वम् । तथाहि । न समास्ते त्रैरभिव्यज्यात् । क्षणिकत्वे
समुदायानाभ्युपगमात् । नव्यास्ते त्रैरभिव्यक्तौ शेषोच्चारणम् । च अर्थ प्रसंगात् उच्यते । यद्यपि वर्णानाम् क्षणिकतया साक्षादभिव्यञ्जकत्वं न संभवतीति
तथापि गकारादिवर्णोच्चारणसमनन्तरं गौरित्यभिन्नबुद्धिविषयस्य शब्दाः प्रत्यवभासनात् । प्रणालिकया तेषामभिव्यञ्जकत्वं निर्धार्यते । तथाचोक्तम् –
नादैराहितबीजायामन्त्येन ध्वनिना सह ।
आवृत्तपरिपाकायां बुद्धौ शब्दौऽवधार्यते इत्यादि |४९
अपरं स्फोटनिरुपणपरमपरमवचनं तदेकमेकबुद्धिविषयमेकप्रयत्नाक्षिप्तं अभागवमक्रमवर्णे बौद्धमन्त्यवर्णप्रत्ययव्यापारोपस्थापितमिति । अस्य तत्पदं
बोध्यमानं संकरं नानेकमेकं स्यात् ।यस्मादेकबुद्धिविषयम् । कस्मादेकबुद्धिविषयम् । यस्मादेकप्रयत्नाक्षिप्तम् । कु त एकप्रयत्नाक्षिप्तम् । यस्माद् भागरहितम् ।
कस्माद्भागं यस्मादक्रमम् । कस्मादक्रमं यस्मादवर्णम् । यस्मादबौद्धम् । बाधकप्रत्ययाभवात् । न त्वस्मिनबाधकप्रत्ययस्त एवामी वर्णा इति प्रत्यभिज्ञानम् ।
नेयं वर्णा विषया प्रत्यभिज्ञेति चाख्यम् । नित्यत्वे वर्णानां बाधकस्योपपादितत्वात् । किं तर्हि । तदाकृ ति विषया । यद्वदन्योन्यविसदृशी तु गोव्यक्तिषु
चेयमित्यनुसंधानं जात्यालम्बनमेवम् बाध्यमानान्यथा प्रत्ययविषयेषु वर्णेषु प्रतिसन्धान्मुत्पद्यमानं वर्णाकृ तिमवलम्ब्यदर्थत दर्शनं इत्युक्तम् । तथाहि ।
संके तोत्तरकालं गवादिषु गोत्वादिवद्वर्णेषु तदाकृ तिप्रतिभासश्चेति । अतएव आकृ तिग्रहणस्य जातिवाचकत्वासिद्धम् – इत्यादि कृ तिनिर्देशसिद्धमिति
भाष्यकारवचनमुपपन्नं भवति । अस्तु । तर्हि कथं हि तेषां वाचकत्वम् । न प्रत्येकं वाचकत्वं व्यभिचारात् । तथाहि । न प्रत्येकं वर्णानामर्थवत् चक्षुर्यदि
साधनमित्यत्र तस्यान्त्यस्यार्थवत्त्वेन प्रातिपदिकसंज्ञायां सुबुत्त्तौ पदसंज्ञायां संज्ञाद्वयनिबन्धनो न लोपः स्यात् ।विसंषुसमित्यत्र सान्त्यस्यात् पदान्त एव
ससजुषोरुरितिरुत्पत्तं स्यादित्यादयो दोषाः प्रसज्येरन् । अपि च कू पः । सूपो यूप इत्यत्रान्वयव्यतिरेकाभ्यां ककारमकारयकारमेवार्थवन्न प्रतीयते ।
नेतरयो । कष्टकर्मकारः कवः बृकः शुकः बक इत्यादेः शब्दावुत्तरभावेन व्यवस्थितस्य ककारस्यार्थवत्त्वमन्वयव्यतिरेकसिद्धो नेतरयो । तस्मान्न
प्रत्येकमर्थवतो वर्णाः। न च समुदायो प्रत्ययोऽस्ति । तेषां क्रमेणोऽधिगतार्थविषयत्वमेव। सर्वत्र प्रमेयभेदादेव विज्ञानभेद इत्यभ्युपगमे प्रति न मन्यतायां
क्षणिकताप्रसंगः । तस्मानधिगतार्थगन्तृमाणमित्येवादिनो प्रति प्रत्यभिज्ञानम् । किं च छिन्नाङ्गेवके शनखादिषु सादृश्यवशात्प्रत्यभिज्ञामन्यादौ
चार्थतथात्वभावादिति । द्वैविध्योर्लब्धेः शेषानुपलब्धौ संदिग्धादप्रामाण्यम् ।अवर्णस्य श्रवणानन्तरमुपलब्धिव्यञ्जकाभावादितिवत् । न । स प्रमाणाभावात् ।
अभ्युपगमे वा क्वचित् प्रदेशे शब्दस्यानभिव्यक्त्यौ कथं सम्बन्धतदङ्गतानिस्तिमितवाद्यंतराणि अपनयति । ततः प्रवन्धकाभावे सति श्रोत्रस्य ग्राहकमिति
नन्वेवमप्यदोषः शब्दोपलम्भप्रसङ्गमतेपि श्रोत्रसान्निध्यात् ।तत् गोशब्दाभिव्यक्त्यर्थं प्रयत्नप्रेरितो वायुना च शब्दं व्यनक्तीति वाच्यम् । व्यञ्जके इति य
मानुपलब्धः।यथा घटाभिव्यक्त्यमर्थमुत्पाडितो प्रदीपसमानेन्द्रियश्च समानदेशस्थपदार्थाभिव्यञ्जक इति । तदेवमभिव्यक्तिपक्षे वर्णानां
बाधकोपपत्तेरर्थप्रतीतेरन्यथादिभावान्नित्यत्वप्रतिपादनम् निरालंबनमेव । अनित्ये तर्हि वर्णः कथं तेषामनित्यता उत्पन्नप्रध्वंसित्वात् एतच्च कु तोऽवसीयते ।
वर्णानाम् समुच्चारणमन्यथाभावेनानुभुयमानत्वात् । तथाहि । प्रत्यक्षमनुपलभ्यमाने पुरुषविशेषोध्ययनध्वनिश्रवणादेव निधीयते । देवदत्तोऽयमधीयते
यज्ञदत्तमधीयते इति । न चैवं वर्णविषयान्यथाप्रतीतिर्मिथ्याज्ञानमिति विदित्वात् च । तथाहि । क्षणिकत्वं वर्णानां समुदायाभावे संके तस्यासंभवात् ।
तत्पूर्विका शब्दादर्थप्रतीतिरनुनपन्ना स्यात् । नैतदस्ति प्रत्यभिज्ञानस्याधिगतार्थत्त्वेन सत्त्वेन प्रामाण्याभावः । अनधिगतार्थगन्तृप्रमाणमिति
प्रमाणसामान्यस्य लक्षणानि समाधानात् । अथानधिगतार्थप्रत्यभिज्ञानम् ।तन्न । अदॄष्टार्थतया मिथ्यात्वप्रसंगात् ।स्वरुपेणाधिगतार्थमपीदानीमितर
देशकालापेक्षया नाधिगतार्थः चेति । न चोभयदेशोपनिपातप्रसङ्गः। प्रमेयसामग्र्यां च देशकालादेरान्तर्भावाभ्युपगमेन गतार्थमेव ।ततः प्रमेयस्य
पूर्वमप्रतिपन्नेनैव श्रोत्रव्यापारेण देशकालादिप्रमाणं दृष्टम् अथ प्रमाणसामग्र्यामन्तर्भावः । तर्हि प्रमाणस्यानित्यत्वेपि प्रमेयस्य तादवस्थ्यात् तस्माद्वौद्धम्।
यस्मादन्त्यवर्णंमवर्णत्वाद क्रममक्रमत्वात् अभागमभागत्वादेकप्रयत्नाक्षिप्तत्वादेकबुद्धिविषयमेकबुद्धिविषयत्वादेकं पदम् इति ।ननु एकं पदम् इति यद्वौद्धं
पदमपि सूक्ष्मं तत्कथं लोके प्रतीयात् ।तदुच्यते । पुरुषतिरप्रतिपिपादयिषितवर्णैरेवाभिधीयमानैः श्रूयमाणैश्च श्रोतॄभिः अनादि वाक् व्यवहारजनितया
वासनावासितया लोकबुद्ध्या वृद्धेभ्यो बालानामपि वृद्धा यदा बालास्तेषामन्येभ्य इत्यनया संप्रदायपरम्परया प्रसिद्धमिवप्रतीयते । यत् एवं
तस्मादनादिवासनैवात्मनिदेहादावात्मबुद्धिरिव वर्णेषु शब्दबुद्धिः शरणम् ।।छ।।
वर्णैरिव पदाभिव्यक्तिरिति भ्रान्त्या वैदिकीलौकिकै वर्णेषु वाचकत्वमासज्यात्। ननु तस्य स्तिमितमहोदधिकल्पस्य शब्दातश्चास्य कु त प्रविभागः । उच्यते ।
तस्य यदस्य वर्णाकारेणावस्थितस्यै तावता वर्णानामनेन क्रमेणावस्थितो विन्यास एतस्यार्थस्य वाचक इति परोपदेशजनितार्थसंके तबुद्धिविभागात्
प्रविभागो दृश्यते लोकसंके तबुद्धिभेदास्तदाभिन्नस्यापि वस्तुनो भेदत्वव्यवहारहेतुत्वं तद्यथा । देवदत्तस्यैकस्यापि पुत्रः चैत्रो भातृणां मातृबुद्धिभेदवशेन
भेदव्यपदेशेन विभागत्वम् ।।ननु क्षणिकत्वे सति वर्णानां कथं संके तविषयत्वोपपत्तिरिष्टा । पूर्ववर्णसंस्कारसहितया तेषां संके तविषयत्वमुपपद्यत् इत्यदोषः।
तथा तदेकमेव शब्दब्रह्म कू टस्थं नित्यं सर्वभूतानां चैतन्यं तस्यैव विवर्तः परिणामो वा यदिदं सर्वादिर्मन्यन्ते शब्दाद्वैतवादिनां वैयाकरणः । तथापि शब्दः
157
संवृत्तः प्रतिभासवत्त्वं प्रमाणं सर्व एवार्थाविशिष्टनामधेयविशिष्टः परिस्फु रति । यत्रापि विशिष्टनामधेयाभावः। तदपि किं यत्तदादिशब्दैर्व्यपदेशः संभवति
इत्येव । तथाचात्र शब्दानुविद्धं प्रतिभासति ।तदुक्तम् –
न सोऽस्ति प्रत्ययो लोके यः शब्दानुगमादृते ।
अनुविद्धमिव ज्ञानं सर्वं शब्देन भासत ।
इति यदि गौरघटोऽयमित्येवं विमर्शो न स्यात्तदा ज्ञानमपि न भवेत् । तदुक्तम्—
वाग्रूपता चेदुत्क्रामेदवबोधस्य शाश्वती ।
न प्रकाशः प्रकाशेत् सा हि प्रत्यवमर्शिनि ।
न च शब्दानुविद्धानां ज्ञानेन प्रतिभासमानानां शब्दार्थकत्वमर्थानामिव साम्प्रतम् । रूपादिरुपत्वेनापि तदसिद्धिप्रसंगात् । तथा ज्ञानस्य शब्दानुविद्धत्वेन
शब्दज्ञानयोस्तादात्म्यात् |यदि वाग्रूपता अपगच्छेत् तदा प्रकाशो (ज्ञानं) न प्रकाशेत (प्रकाशाभावात्) अतएव विज्ञानधर्मः शब्दस्य ।
रुपोल्लेखसमानकक्षतया प्रतिभासनात् । तथाहि। शुक्लवस्त्रं शुक्लो गुण इति शुक्लविशिष्टः परिस्फु रति । तथा शुक्लशब्दविशिष्टोऽपि परिस्फु रति इत्युभयोः
सिद्धिरसिद्धिर्वा स्यात् । समानन्यायत्वात् । यत्तु गौरयमिति संवेदनेऽपि न गोशब्दोऽयमिति प्रतिपत्तिरसौ शब्दांशभेदात् । एवमन्यात्रापीति
तस्माच्छोत्रेणाग्रहणमवस्था भेदवत् ।तथा चोक्तम् –
वैखरीशब्दनिष्पत्तिर्मध्यमा श्रुतिगोचरा ।
द्योतितार्थ५० पश्यन्ती सूक्ष्मा वागनपायिनी ।
तन्त्रशस्त्र इत्यस्यार्थः शब्दनिष्पत्तिः घटादिरूपः परिणामो वैखरी । श्रुतिगोचरा श्रोत्रग्राह्यस्य मध्यमा । द्योतितः प्रकाशितो यस्याः सा द्योतिता ज्ञानरूपा
पश्यन्तीति गीयते । अनपायिनी ब्रह्मस्वरूपा सूक्ष्मेति गीयते । तथा चोक्तम्—
शब्दब्रह्मयदेकं यच्चैतन्यं च सर्वभूतानाम् ।
यत्परिणामस्त्रिभुवनमखिलमिदं जयति । सा वाणीति श्रुतिरपि ।
चत्वारि वाक् परिमितानि पदानि ।
तानि विदुः ब्राह्मणा यैः मनीषिणः ।
गुहा त्रीणि निहितानि नेङ्गयन्ति ।
तुरीयं वाचो मनुष्या वदन्ति ।।१।।
अस्याः श्रुतेरर्थाः वाक्यं परिमितानि पदानि वाचः।
परिमितानि शास्त्रेण तानि चत्वारि पदानि स्थानानि । परा पश्यन्ती मध्यमा वैखरीति । तानि च ये ब्राह्मणा मनीषिणोऽध्यात्मकु शलाः ते विदुः । तासां मध्ये
आद्यानि त्रीणि पदानि गुहायां शरीरे आधारनाभिहृदयेषु निहितानि नेङ्गयन्ति सर्वेषां ज्ञानविषया न भवन्ति न जानन्ति । तुरीयं चतुर्थं वैर्ख्र्याख्यं मनुष्या
वदन्ति । मनुष्यवादने वर्तमानोऽर्थबोधकः शब्दो भवतीत्यर्थः ।।१।। अत्राभियुक्तः श्लोकश्च ---
शाम्बपश्चाशिकाग्रन्थे—‘या सा मित्रावरुणसदनादुच्चरन्ती त्रिषष्टिं वर्णानन्तः प्रकटकरणैः प्राणसंगात्प्रसूते।
तां पश्यन्ती प्रथममुदितां मध्यमां बुद्धिसंस्थां वाचं वक्त्रे करणविशदां वैखरीं च प्रपद्ये ।। ५।।
अस्यार्थः । तां त्रिविधां भारतीं प्रपद्ये ।या सा भाति मित्रावरुणसदनादग्नीषोमीयमानादुच्चरन्ती उद्भवन्ती । मित्रोऽग्निः वरुणः सोमः तेषां सदनमावासस्थानं
परमार्थः यतः श्वासस्य उद्भवन्ती तस्मादुच्चरन्ती वर्णान्जनयति ।वायुः संगजातान् प्रकटकरणैः बुद्धिगतैः प्रत्यक्षरूपैरिन्द्रियैः अन्तः पश्यन्त्युच्चारयति ।
सा पश्यन्ती प्रथममुदितामुत्पन्नां बुद्धिसंस्थामुच्चारयामीति विचारयुक्तां मध्यमां मुखावस्थितकरणविशदास्थानप्रयत्ननिर्मलावैखरी च प्रपद्ये । त्रिषष्टिं
वर्णानिति हृस्वदीर्घप्लुतभेदेन स्वरा एकविशतिः। ऋलोरप्लुतत्वात् संध्यक्षराणां हृस्वत्वाच्च । व्यञ्जनास्त्र्यशत् । पञ्चानुनासिकाः।।छ।।विसर्गानुस्वारो चेति ।
तत्र शब्दसृष्टिप्रक्रिया प्रस्तावे उक्तं –
यथा हि सूक्ष्मं वटबीजं विवृद्धं सदाविर्भूतचैतन्यं वृक्षात्मना दृश्यते, तथैव तत्स्फोटरूपं वैखरीपर्यन्तं शब्दराश्यात्मना विमर्श|त्मना चार्थकक्षामाश्रित्य
सत्त्वरजसतमोरूपेण बुद्ध्यहङ्काकारेन्द्रियादिना सूक्ष्मस्थूलभूतात्मना च परिणमति | तत्र सर्वमपि बीजं वर्तुलाकृ ति अङ्कु रोत्तपत्तिकाले दलद्वयेन विभक्तं
भवति, तथैव प्रणवरूपः शब्दोऽपि विन्दुवर्तुलाविवृत्तिरेव सृष्ट्युन्मुखत्वे विभक्ति भवति |
भागवते एकादशस्कन्धे उद्भव प्रतिशब्दः—
स एष जीवो विवरप्रसूतिः प्राणेन घोषेण गुहां प्रविष्टः ।
मनोमयं सूक्ष्ममुपेत्यरूपं मात्रास्वरो वर्ण इति स्थविष्टः ।।१।।
तत्र तावदीश्वराद्वागीङ्गीन्द्रियद्वारा जीवसंसृतिकारणभूतं प्रपञ्चोद्गममाह ।सार्द्धेश्चतुर्भि स एषोऽपरोक्षो जीवयतीति जीवः परमेश्वरश्चितस्वरूप । अपरोक्षत्वे
हेतुः विवरेषु आधारचक्रे षु प्रसूतिरिव प्रसूतिरभिव्यक्तिर्यस्य सः। तामेवाभिव्यक्तिमाह । घोषेणेति । घोषेण पराख्येन नादवता प्राणेन सह गुहां आधारचक्रं
158
प्रविष्टः सन्मनोमयं सूक्ष्मरूपं पश्यन्त्याख्यं मध्यमाख्यं च मणिपुरचक्रे विशुद्धिचक्रे चोपेत्य प्राथम्यचक्रे मात्रा हृस्वादिस्वर उदात्तादि वर्णोऽकारादीत्येवं
वैखर्याख्योऽतिस्थूलो नानावेदशाख्यात्मको भवति ।१।
अव्यक्तस्य सतः सूक्ष्मं मध्यमक्रमेणाभिव्यक्तौ दृश्यते ।
यथानलः खेऽनिलो बन्धुरुष्माबलेन दारुणाभिः व्यज्यताभिर्मथ्यमानः।
अणुः प्रजाते हविषा समिध्यते तथैवमव्यक्तिरियं हि वाणी ।२।
अग्निः खे ऊष्माऽव्यक्तोष्मरुप अरणि । अधिकं मथ्यमानः अनिलसहायः सन् अणुः सूक्ष्मविस्फु ल्लिङ्गादिरूपं वो भवति । प्रकृ ष्टो जातो हविषा संवर्द्धते
तथैवेयं वाणी ममाभिव्यक्तिः ।छ।
भावेन स्थितस्य प्रपञ्चस्य शब्दब्रह्मात्मकत्वं दर्शयति । अकारो वै सर्वा वाक् स्पर्शोष्मभिर्व्यज्यमानाबह्नीनानारूपाभवति । इतिवेत्यलमति प्रपञ्चे ।छ।
नन्वेवं तर्हि कथमिच्छंभावमुपगम्य शब्दस्यानुशासनमुपपद्य विकृ त्यादिविभागकल्पनयेति ब्रूमः ।
ननु लोकाच्च लौकिकाः वेद्यत्व वेदान्नो वैदिका सिद्धा इति व्यर्थ व्याकरणम् । कश्चिद् घटेन कार्यं करिष्यन् कु लालकु लं गत्वा ब्रबीति-- कु रु घटमनेन
कार्यं करिष्यामीति ।न तथा शब्दान्प्रयुञ्ज प्रमाणे । वैयाकरणकु लं गत्वा कु रु शब्दान्प्रयोक्ष्य इति । तावत्येवार्थमुपादाय शब्दान्प्रयुञ्जते । उच्यते ।सिद्धे
शब्दार्थसंबन्धे लोकतोऽर्थप्रयुक्ते शब्दप्रयोगे शास्त्रेण धर्मनियमः क्रियते । किमिदं धर्मनियम इति । धर्माय नियमो धर्मनियमः ।तद्यथा । लोके वेदे च इति
प्रयोक्तव्यो यथा ‘लौकिकवैदिके ष्विति’ प्रयुञ्जते । लोके तावत् ‘अभक्ष्यो ग्राम्यकु क्कु टः’ ‘अभक्ष्यो ग्राम्यसूकरो’ इत्युच्यते । भक्ष्यं च नाम
क्षुत्प्रतीघातार्थमुपादीयते । शक्यं चानेन श्वमांसादिभिरपि क्षुत्प्रतिहन्तुं इति । तत्र नियमः क्रियते – इदं भक्ष्यं इदं न भक्ष्यमिति ।तथा खेदात्स्त्रीषु
प्रवृत्तिर्भवति । समानश्च खेदावगमो गम्यायां चागम्यायां च । तत्र नियमः क्रियते—इयं गम्यां, इयं न गम्यां इति।छ।
तथा वेदे --“पयोव्रतो ब्राह्मणो यवागूव्रतो राजन्य आमिक्षाव्रतो वैश्य” इत्युच्यते । व्रतं च नामाभ्यव्यवहारार्थमुपादीयते । शक्यं चानेन शालिमांसादीन्यपि
व्रतयितुम् । तत्र नियमः क्रियते । तथा -- वैल्वः खादिरो वा यूपः स्यात् इत्युच्यते । यूपश्च नाम पश्वनुबन्धार्थमुपादीयते । शक्यं चानेन यत् किञ्चिदेव
काष्ठमुच्छ्रि त्यानुच्छ्रि त्य वा पशुरनुबन्धुम् । तत्र नियमः क्रियते । तथा अग्नौ कपालान्यधिश्रित्याभिमन्त्रयते । “भृगुणामङ्गिरसां तपसा तप्यध्वम्” इति ।
अन्तरेणापि मंत्रमग्निर्दहनकर्मा कपालानि संतापयति । तत्र च नियमः क्रियते – एवं क्रियमाणमभ्युदयकारि भवतीति । एवमिहापि समानायामर्थगतौ शब्देन
चापशब्देन च धर्मनियमः क्रियते -- शब्देनैवार्थोऽभिधेयो नापशब्देनेति । एवं क्रियमाणभ्युदयकारि भवतीति । किन्च सति प्रयुक्तः सति च अप्रयुक्ताः ।
यद्यपि अप्रयुक्ताः तथाप्यवश्यं दीर्घसत्रवल्लक्षणेनानुविधेयाः ।तद्यथा --दीर्घसत्राणि वार्षशतिकानि वार्षसहस्रिकाणि च, न चाद्यत्वे कश्चिदप्याहरति ।
के वलमृषिसंप्रदायो धर्म इति कृ त्वा याज्ञिकाः शास्त्रेणानुविदधते । सर्वे खल्वप्येते शब्दा देशान्तरेषु प्रयुज्यन्ते । न चैवोपलभ्यन्ते । उपलब्धौ यत्नः
क्रियताम् । महान् हि शब्दस्य प्रयोगविषयः –सप्तद्वीपा वसुमती, त्रयो लोकाः, चत्वारो वेदाः, साङ्गाःसरहस्या बहुधाः भिन्नाः-- एक शतमध्वर्युशाखाः
सहस्रवर्त्मा सामवेदः एकविंशतिधा बाह्वृच्च्यं , नवधाऽऽथर्वणो वेदः वाकोवाक्यमितिहासः पुराणं , वैद्यकमित्येतावांञ्छब्दस्य प्रयोगविषयः । अथ किं पुनः
शब्दस्य ज्ञाने धर्म --आहोस्वित् प्रयोगे ? कश्चात्र विशेषः ? ज्ञाने धर्म इति चेत् । तथाऽधर्मश्च प्राप्नोति । यो हि शब्दान् जानाति अपशब्दानप्यसौ
जानाति । यथैव हि शब्दज्ञाने धर्म एवमपशब्दज्ञानेऽप्यऽधर्मः।अथवा भूयान्धर्मः प्राप्नोति ।भूयांसो हि अपशब्दाः अल्पीयांसः शब्दाः इति एकै कस्य
शब्दस्य हि बहवोऽपभ्रंशाः।तद्यथा गौरित्यस्य गावी गोणी गोता गोपोतलिके त्येवमादयोऽपभ्रंशाः। अस्तु तर्हि आचारे पुनर्ऋ षिनियमं वेदयते –“तेऽसुरा
हेऽलयो हेऽलय इति कु र्वन्तः परावभूबुः” ।तस्माद्ब्राह्मणेन न म्लेच्छितवै नापिभाषितवै म्लेच्छो ह वा एष यदपशब्द इति । अस्तु तर्हि प्रयोगे धर्मः ।सर्वो
लोकोऽभ्युदयेन युज्यते ? कश्चेदानीं भवतो मत्सरः, यदि सर्वो लोकोऽभ्युदयेन युज्यते,? न खलु कश्चिन्मत्सरः प्रयत्नार्थक्यं तु भवति । फलवता च
नाम प्रयत्नेन भवितव्यम् । न च प्रयत्नः फलाद् व्यतिरेच्यः।
ननु च ये कृ तप्रयत्नास्ते साधीयः शब्दान् प्रयोक्ष्यन्ते , अतएव साधीयोभ्युदयेन योक्ष्यन्ते ।
व्यतिरेकोऽपि वै लक्ष्यते – दृश्यन्ते हि कृ तप्रयत्नश्चाप्रवीणाः ,अकृ तप्रयत्नाश्च प्रवीणाः । तत्र फलव्यतिरेकोऽपि स्यात् । एवं तर्हि नापि ज्ञान एव धर्मो
नापि प्रयोग एव । किं तर्हि ? शास्त्रज्ञानपूर्वके प्रयोगेऽभ्युदयस्तुल्यं वेदशब्देन । तथाचोक्तम्—
यदधीतमविज्ञातं निगदेनैव शब्द्यते ।
अनग्नाविव शुष्कै धो न तज्ज्वलति कहिर्चित ।
किं वा रक्षोहागमलघुसंदेहाः प्रयोजनम् । पुराकल्प एतदासीत्-- संस्कारोत्तरकालं ब्राह्मणा व्याकरणं स्माधीयते ।तेभ्यस्तत्तत् स्थानकरणानुप्रदानज्ञेभ्यो
उत्तरकालं वैदिकाः शब्दा उपदिश्यन्ते । तदद्यत्वे न तथा, वेदमधीत्य त्वरिता वक्तारो भवति । वेदान्नो वैदिका शब्दाः लोकाच्चा लौकिकाः । अनर्थकं
व्याकरणं इति । तेभ्य एव विप्रतिपन्नबुद्धिभ्योऽध्येतृभ्यः सुहृद् भूत्वा आचार्य इदं शास्त्रमन्वाचष्टे –इमानि प्रयोजनानि अध्येयं व्याकरणमिति । तावत्
लोपागमवर्णविकाराभिज्ञो हि सम्यग् वेदान् परिपालयिष्यतीति । ऊहः खलु अपि न सर्वैलिङ्गेनः च सर्वाभिर्विभक्तिवेदे मन्त्रा निगदितास्ते चावश्यं यज्ञगतेन
159
पुरुषेण यथायथं विपरिणमयितव्याः । तान्नावैयाकरणः शक्नोति यथायथं विपरिणमयितुम् । तस्मादध्येयं व्याकरणमिति । आगमः खल्वपि । “ब्राह्मणा
निष्कारणो धर्मः षडङ्गो वेदोऽध्येयो ज्ञेयश्च॓“ति । प्रधाने च कृ तो यत्नः फलवान् भवति । लघ्वर्थं चाध्येयं व्याकरणम् । ब्राह्मणेनावश्यं शब्दा ज्ञेया इति । न
चान्तरेण व्याकरणं लघुनोपायेन शब्दाः शक्या ज्ञातुम् । असंदेहार्थं चाध्येयं व्याकरणम् । याज्ञिकाः पठन्ति --
“स्थूलपृषतीमाग्निवारुणीमनवाहीमालभेत्” इति । तस्यां संदेहः-- स्थूला चासौ पृषती च स्थूलापृषती, स्थूलानि वा पृषन्ति यस्याः सा
५१
स्थूलपृषतीति । तां नावैयाकरणः स्वरतोध्यवस्यति । यदि पूर्वपदप्रकृ तिस्वरत्वं ततो बहुव्रीहिः । अथ समासोन्तोदात्तत्वं ततस्तत्पुरुष इति ।
नामाख्यातपदसारुप्यादस्ति संदेहः । तद्यथा ।भवतश्च जायत इति भवति । शब्द आख्यातिकः क्रियावाचकः प्रथमपुरुषस्य कथंचन अस्ति विद्यते
भवतीति । तथाकारकं सप्तम्येकवचनं भवति च इति । तस्याश्च शब्दः टु ओ श्वि गतिवृद्धोःधातोलुङ् मध्यमपुरुषस्यैकवचनेऽपि सिचि(लुङित्यस्य) ।
यस्य वक्तिख्यातिभ्योयोङ्ति वर्तमाने । जंस्रंभ्वित्यादिना कृ ततद्धितवानीति वृद्धिङ्निश्चयतेरत्यात्वा ता पूर्ण॓पररूपत्वे आगमे रुप विसर्गयोश्च
विवृद्धवान (वृद्धवान) इति क्रियावाचकः । तथा जंस्रंभ्वित्यादिक् कारक वाचकोऽश्व शब्दः जवर्ण तस्य प्रथमैकवचने सिच्यागमे कृ ते सत्यज्ञापयो
जयकारितवानसीति क्रियावाचक पदमञ्जर्याः पयो यं ज्ञापय इति कारकवाचकम् । तथा तेनेति तनोते इति मध्यमबहुवचनैत्वाभ्यासलोपेषु सत्सु
क्रियावाचकं त्रितियैकवचने उकारकमिति नाख्यातसादृश्यम् । तथा च वचनसादृश्यं चास्तीति इत्युक्ते तद्विचनात् द्वे जले इति । बहुवचनान्ते पुरुषा इति ।
तस्माद् संदेहार्थमध्येयं व्याकरणम् ।।छ ।। इत्यादि शाब्दिकालंकारे विवृत्तम् ।
अथ प्रक्रियाप्रसारकाराश्चा प्रकृ तिप्रत्ययादिविभागेन शब्दव्युदनमेव व्याकरणाध्ययनं प्रयोजनम् ।भाष्यकारोक्तं —साक्षात् प्रयोजनम् । शब्दानुशासनम् ।
तच्च प्रकृ त्यादि विभागेन शब्दव्यक्तयाभावः । तथाचोक्तम् । तत्र ते साधवस्ते शास्त्रेनुशिष्यन्तेऽसाधुभ्यो विविक्तः प्रकृ त्यादिविभागेन ज्ञाप्यते इमे साधव
शब्दाः मात्र शब्दानुशासनमिति ।लोके दृष्टं वर्णलोपादिकं वेदे पश्यन्न वैयाकरणोवेदेनजायते । इति वेदरक्षार्थमध्येयं व्याकरणम् ।।छ।।वैदिकमन्त्राणां यज्ञे
जुहोषि प्रकृ त्यादिविभागेन तदङ्गानामध्येयं व्याकरणम् ।।छ।।तथा च ब्राह्मणेन चावश्यं शब्दाज्ञेयास्ते चानन्त्वात् प्रतिपद पाठेन न शङ्कते ज्ञातुम् । तथा च
श्रूयते । दिव्यं वर्षसहस्रं इन्द्रो वृहस्पतेः सकाशात्प्रतिपदपाठेन शब्दानां शब्दपारायणे प्रोवाच नान्तं जगामेति । अतो लक्षेणेनैव किं प्रयोजनानि सन्ति ।
रेफसंधिप्लुताभावा ‘हेलयोहेलयभाषिणोऽसुराः’। म्लेच्छनेन पराभवा ज्ञेयं व्याकरणम् इति आशङ्क्य आह--- लाघवार्थमध्येयं व्याकरणम् ।।छ।।अन्यानि
च बहूनि व्याकरणं प्रयोजनानि करणं ततः ।।छ।।
दुष्टः शब्दः स्वरतो वर्णतो वा मिथ्या प्रयुक्तो न तमर्थमाह ।
स वाग्वज्रो यजमानं हिनस्ति यथेन्द्रशत्रुः स्वरतोऽपराधात् ।।
तथा च दुष्टः शब्दः स्वरः। इन्द्रस्याभिचार शब्दार्थः । तत्रेन्द्रस्य शत्रुं वर्द्धस्वेति मन्त्रोक्त हितः । अथ शत्रुशब्दःशातयित्रर्थमाश्रितः तत्शब्दार्थः । तत्रेन्द्रस्य
शातयिता भवं तस्यार्थस्य ज्ञानाय तत्पुरुषद्योतके तोद्याते प्रयोज्ये संविज्ञा बहुब्रीहिद्योतक आद्ययुदात्त प्रयुक्तः । तत्रेन्द्र वृत्र एव शातयिता संपन्न इति वृत्र
इन्द्रशत्रुशब्दो हतवान । तथाच उक्तम्—
यस्तु प्रयुङ्क्ते कु शलो विशेषे शब्दान यथावद्व्यवहार काले ।
सोऽनन्तमाप्नोति फलं (जयं) परत्र वाग्योगविद दुष्यति चापशब्दैः ।।१।।
अविद्वांसः प्रत्यभिवादे नाम्नो ये न प्लुतिं विदुः।
कामं तेषु तु विप्रोष्य स्त्रीष्विवायमहं वदेत् ।।
अभिवादे स्त्रीवान्माभूमेत्यध्येयं व्याकरणम् ।५२
यो वा इमां पदशः स्वरशोऽक्षरशो वाचं विदधाति स् आर्त्विजीनो भवति इति कृ तेरध्येयं व्याकरणम् ।।छ ।।ऋचोक्तम्---
चत्वारि शृङ्गा त्रयो अस्य पादा
द्वे शीर्षे सप्त हस्तासो अस्य ।
त्रिधा बद्धो वृषभो रोरवीति ।
महो देवो मर्त्यो आविवेश ।।
एतद्व्याख्यान परौ पाणिनीयमत दर्पणश्लोकौ – नामाख्यातोपसर्गनिपाश्च । शृङ्गस्त्रि कालपादः ।त्रयो अस्य पादाः त्रयः कालाः भूतभविष्यद्वर्तमानः। ‘द्वे
शीर्षे ‘ द्वौ शब्दात्मानौ नित्यः कार्यश्च । ‘सप्त हस्तासौ अस्य’ सप्त विभक्तयः । ‘त्रिधा बद्धः’ – त्रिषु स्थानेषु बद्धः- उरसि कण्ठे शिरसीति ।। ‘वृषभो’
वर्षणात् । ‘रोरवीति’ शब्दं करोति । ‘मर्त्या’ मरणधर्माणो मनुष्या—तानाविवेश । महता देवेन नः साम्यं यथा स्यदित्याध्येयं व्याकरणम् |
160
कार्यता व्यङ्गता ।व्यञ्जकव्यङ्ग्यभेदेन कार्यनित्योर्वर्णाखण्डस्फोटात्मकयोर्द्वयम्’ शब्दस्वरूपम् |तन्मध्ये व्यञ्जकशब्दा वर्णात्मक कार्यरूपा व्यङ्ग्यशब्द
नित्य स्फोटरूपा |व्यञ्जका वर्णात्मका नित्य स्वरूपा । शब्दोत्तरं “अयं शब्दरूपो वृषभः सर्वान कामान वर्षति” कामानां स्वर्गमोक्षादीनाम् अन्यापि
चत्वारि वाक्यवर्ण । एतद्व्यख्यान पद्द्यं तत्रत्यमेव। नामाख्यातनिपातोपसर्ग समान जानान्ति । एकै कस्य चतुर्थो शं मन्ये विद्वांस इत्यपि ।अं अन्यापि ।
उत त्वः पश्यन्न ददर्श वाच। मुत त्वः शृन्वन्न शृणोत्येनाम् ।
उतो त्वस्मै तन्वं विसस्रे जायेव पत्य उशती सुवासाः।
उतः शब्दोऽप्यर्थे । त्वशब्दो अन्यार्थः । उतत्वः अथेकः अज्ञातवाक् तदर्थं पश्यन्नपि प्रत्यक्षेण शब्दरूपमुपलाभमानोपि ऋगादिवाचं न ददर्शन पश्यति ।
दर्शनफलाभावात् । उतत्वः अप्येक अज्ञातवाक्दर्थएव स्वमुखेन परमुखेनोच्चार्यमाणां वाचं न शृणोति । श्रवणफलाभावात् । उत त्वस्मै अथैकस्मै विज्ञातं
वा भोगार्थं स्वशरीरं बाह्याभ्यन्तरं विसस्रे विवृणुते । यथा जाया उशती संभोगम् पत्ये भर्त्रे च कामयमाना सुवासा निर्णिक्तवस्त्रा स् बाह्याभ्यन्तरं स्वशरीरं
स्वमात्मानं पत्ये विवृणुते । तथा वाग्विदे स्वमात्मानं विवृणुत इत्यध्येयं व्याकरणम्।।
अन्यच्च याज्ञिकाः पठन्ति “आहिताग्निरपशब्दं प्रयुज्य प्रायश्चित्तीयां सारस्वतीमिष्टिं निर्वपेद” इति । प्रायश्चित्तीयां मा भूमेत्यधेयं व्याकरणम् ।
इतरच्च “ दशमम्युत्तरकालं पुत्रस्य जातस्य नाम विदध्यात् घोषवदाद्यन्तरन्तःस्थमवृद्धं त्रिपुरुषानूकमनरिप्रतिष्ठितम्” तद्धि सुप्रतिष्ठिततमं भवति द्वयक्ष्ररं
चतुरक्षरं वा नाम कर्तव्यं कृ तं कु र्यान्न तद्धितमिति । न युग्माक्षरमिति श्रूयते । नाचन्तरेण व्याकरणं कृ तस्तद्धिता वा शक्या विज्ञातुमिति ज्ञेयं व्याकरणम् ।।
छ।। एकः शब्दः सम्यग् ज्ञातः सुप्रयुक्तः लोके कामधुग्भवतीति श्रुति अभ्युदयार्थ शब्दप्रयोगं वदन्ती तदङ्गानां वारणस्य ज्ञेयतामाह ।।छ।। मनुरप्याह ।
यश्च व्याकु रुते वाचं यश्च मीमांसामतेऽध्वरम् ।
तावुभौ पुण्यकर्माणौ पंक्तिपावनपावनौ ।
शब्दब्रह्मणि निष्णातः परं ब्रह्माधिगच्छति ।इति च ।
अन्यैरभ्युक्तम्---
उपासनीयं यत्नेन शास्त्रं व्याकरणं महत् ।
प्रदीपभूतं विद्यानां सर्वासां यद्वस्थितम् ।
इदमाद्यं पदस्थानं सिद्धिसोपानपर्वणाम् ।
इयं सा मोक्षमाणानां जिह्वा राजपद्धतिः ।
रूपान्तरेण देवास्ते विचरन्ती महीतले ।
ये व्याकरणसंस्कारपवित्रितमुखा नराः ।५३
इत्यादि ।
तत्स्थितं साधु शब्द प्रतिपादकं व्याकरणमध्येयम् ।छ ।
साधुत्वं चोक्तम् —
अनपभ्रष्टतानादिर्यद्वाभ्युदययोग्यता ।
व्याक्रिया व्यञ्जनीया वा जातिः कापीह साधुता ।
अनिन्द प्रथमाः शब्दाः साधवः परिकीर्तिताः ।
त एव शक्तिवैकल्य प्रमादालसतादिभिः ।
अन्यथोच्चारिताः पुंभिशब्दारपशब्दाः प्रकीर्तिताः ।
स्मारयन्तश्च ते साधुर्नार्थधीहेतवः स्मृताः ।
अन्याच्चयास्त्वेताः स्वेच्छया संज्ञाः क्रियन्ते टि घु भादयः ।
कथं नु तासां साधुत्वं नैव ताः साध्ववो मताः ।
अनपभ्रंशरूपत्वात् नाप्यासामपशब्दता ।
हस्तचेष्टा यथा लोके तथा संके तिता इमाः ।
ततश्च तासां प्रयोगभ्युदयः प्रत्यवायोऽपि वा भवेत् ।
लाघवेनार्थबोधार्थ प्रयुज्यन्ते तु के वलमिति ।
वर्णज्ञाने हि महाभ्युदयः । तथाचोक्तं महाभाष्ये ।
161
सोऽयमक्षर समाम्नायो वाक् समाम्नायः पुष्पितः ।
फलितश्चन्द्रतारकावत् प्रतिमण्डितो वेदितव्यो ब्रह्मराशि ।
सर्ववेद पुण्यफलावाप्तिश्चास्य ज्ञाने हि भवति ।
माता पितरौ चास्य स्वर्गे लोके महीयेतेति ।।छ।।५४
अथ शास्त्रदीपिकाकारः ।
इदानीं शब्दापशब्दविभागेऽपि किं व्याकरणस्मृतेस्तदभियुक्तानामाचारस्य चेतरलोकव्यवहाराद्वलीयस्त्वं संभवति, नेति विचार्यते ।
तदिहैकस्मिनर्थे प्रयुज्यमाना न गोगाव्यादि शब्दान् व्याकरणानुगताननुगतांश्चोदाहृत्य चिन्त्यतेकिमेते सर्वे एकस्मिन्नर्थे प्रयोक्तव्याः साधवः? किं वा
व्याकरणानुगता एव साधवः? अन्ये त्वसाधवो न प्रयोक्तव्याः इति । तदर्थं च किं सर्वेऽप्यविच्छिन्नपारम्पर्यप्रयोगजा ? उत के चिदशक्तिजाः ?
अपभ्रंशाः? इत्यर्थः | तदर्थं च किं व्याकरणमप्रमाणं वा इति चिन्तनीयम् । चिन्तयेति । तत्सिद्धये किं तस्य मूलं संभवति नेति । मूलसंभवे
प्रमाणभूतव्याकरणस्मृतिशास्त्रबलीयस्त्वेन तदभियुक्त पुरुषाचारबलेन च पृथग्जनाचारबाधात् गाव्यादीनासाधुत्वाम् निर्मूलत्वेपि तु
तदप्रामाण्याल्लौकिकप्रयोगाविशेषात् सर्वेषां साधुत्वेन प्रयोज्यतेति । तेन व्याकरणे प्रामाण्याप्रामाण्यामेवात्र चिन्तयितव्यम् । तत्र ---
निर्मूलत्वाद्विगीतत्वान्नैष्फल्याद्वेदबाधनात् ।
पूर्वापरविरोधाच्च नास्ति प्रामाण्यसंभवः ।
तस्मादनेन शब्दानां प्रयोगो न नियम्यते ।
तेनार्थप्रत्ययात्सर्वे प्रयोज्या न व्यवस्थया ।
नियमद्वयार्थ हि व्याकरणम् – साधूनेव प्रयुञ्जीत् नासाधून् इत्येकः प्रयोगनियमः, गवादय एव साधवो, न गाव्यादाय इति साधुत्वस्वरूपनियमोऽपरः । न
चेतद्द्वयमप्यनेन नियन्तुं शक्यते । तथाहि – न तावत्साधूनेव प्रयुञ्जीतेति नियमसंभवः, अर्थावगमाय हि शब्दोच्चारणं न धर्माय, अर्थश्च यदा साधुभ्योपि
गम्यते, तर्हि साधुनियमोऽनर्थकः । अथ न गम्यते, ततः सुतरां नियमशास्त्रनर्थक्यं , अर्थवशादेव नियमद्वयसिद्धेः । अथ गम्यमानेऽप्यसाधुभ्योऽर्थे
दृष्टार्थमपि शब्दप्रयोगमाश्रित्य धर्माय साधुनियमः, शास्त्रेण क्रियते इत्युच्यते, तत्र मूलासंभवात् ।न तावदत्र प्रत्यक्षादीनां मूलत्वम् तेषां
धर्माधर्मयोरप्रवृत्तेः।न च वेदवाक्यानि गवादिशब्देषु प्रतिपदं कल्पयितुं शक्यन्ते , अनन्तवाक्यपाठासंभवात् । अपठितानां च मूलत्वानुपपत्तेः।न च
सुशब्दमेव प्रयुञ्जीत नापशब्दमित्येके नैवोपलक्षणेन सर्वेषामुपसंग्रहः गाव्यादीनामपि श्रोत्रग्रहणत्वेन सुशब्दत्वाद्वयव्यवस्थानुपपत्तेः । न चावान्तरसामान्यं
गवादिष्वनुगतं गाव्यादिभ्यश्च व्यावृत्तं किं चिदस्ति येन व्यवस्था स्यात् । साधुत्वमिति चेत्, किं पुनरिदं साधुत्वम् ? यद्गवादीष्वेव व्यवस्थितमित्युच्यते ।
न हीदं प्रत्यक्षादिभिर्गम्यते । वाचकत्वमिति चेत, तदगाव्यादिष्वप्यविशिष्टम् । तेषामपि हि प्रयोगप्रत्यायनुपपत्तया वाचकत्वं लोके गम्यते ।नह्यावाचकानां
प्रयोगः प्रत्यायकत्वं वा घटते ।
न च गवादिनामिव प्रियङ्गवादिषु गुणात्प्रयोगसंभवः, मुख्याभावात् ।मुख्यपूर्वको हि गौणः, नासावत्यन्तावाचकस्य गाव्यादेरेवकल्पते। एतेन लक्षणा प्रत्यूढा
। तेन गाव्यादीनामवाचकत्वं लोकविरुद्धमिति ।न शास्त्रेण साधुरूपमपि नियन्तुं शक्यते । अनादित्वं साधुत्वमिति चेत, एतदपि गाव्यादिष्वविशिष्टम ।
तत्रापि संबद्धरस्मरणाद् दृष्टादृष्टसाधनत्वमिति चेत्,-- न, तस्य प्रत्याक्षाद्यविषयत्वात् वेदवाक्यानाञ्च प्रतिपदमसंभवादुपलक्षणानुपपत्तेश्च ।
तत्रसाधुत्वमेवोपालक्षणं तदेव च प्रमेयमित्यात्माश्रयदोषापत्तिः। तस्मान्मूलाभावादप्रमाणं व्याकरणम् । परस्परविगानाच्च सूत्रकारोऽपि ह्यवश्यवक्तव्यं
प्रयोजनमनभिदधानो निष्प्रयोजनतामेव शास्त्रस्य मन्यते , वार्त्तिकभाष्यकारौ तु धर्मप्रयोजनतामिति, विगीतत्वम् । तयोरपि मिथो
ज्ञानतत्पूर्वप्रयोगधर्मत्ववचनाद्विगीतत्वम् ।निष्फलं चेदं शास्त्रम्, न ह्यनेन धर्मार्थकाममोक्षाणां कश्चिदवाप्यते । धर्म इति चेत् , नः तत्रापि
पूर्वोक्तनिर्मूलत्वेनाप्रमाणत्वात् । न च रक्षोहादीनामपि प्रयोजनत्वम् , तेषामन्यत् एव शिष्याचार्यसम्बन्धलोकमीमांसादिभ्यः सिद्धिरिति वार्त्तिक एव
प्रपञ्चितम् । वेदविरुद्धं चेदं व्याकरणम्—“ दृष्टं सामे”त्यविकृ त्य “कलेर्ढक् ” “ वामदेवाद् ड्यड्ड्ययौ” इत्युक्तम् । वेदे च “यदकालयत्तत्कालेयस्य
कालेयत्वं ततो “ वामं वसु समभवत्” इत्युपन्यस्य “वामं वा इदं देवेभ्योऽजनि तस्माद्वामदेव्यम्” इति वेद बाधादप्रामाण्यम् । पूर्वापरविरोधाच्च—
अर्थप्रयुक्तानां हि शब्दानां व्याकरणं प्रतिज्ञातम् । वाक्यमेव च तथेष्टं न पदानि , अनर्थकत्वात्, यथोक्तम् –
ब्राह्मणार्थो यथा नास्ति कश्चिद ब्राह्मणकम्बले ।
देवदत्तादयो वाक्ये तथैव स्युरनर्थकाः । इति
ततश्च यथाप्रतिज्ञं वाक्यमेव व्याकरणेन च संस्कर्त्तव्यं तदव्याकरणात्पदव्याकरणाच्च पूर्वापरविरोधः । पदद्वारेण वाक्यमेव व्याकरणेन संस्क्रियत् इति
चेन्न, अत्यन्तमविद्यमानत्वाद्वाक्ये पदानां तदद्वारेण वाक्यस्य विषाणद्वारेणैव शशस्य संस्काराभावात् तस्मादप्रमाणं व्याकरणं सर्वैभाषितव्यम् इति
प्राप्तेऽभिधीयते ---
162
प्रयोगप्रत्ययौ तावद्वाचकत्वादृतेऽपि हि ।
युक्तावेकस्य चार्थस्य न्याय्या नानेकशब्दता ।
अभियुक्तस्मृतेश्चात्र स्याद्विशेषावधारणम् ।
स्मृतेः स्मृत्यन्तरं मूलं साधुरूपनिरूपणे ।
प्रत्यक्षव्यवधानाच्च नान्धवाक्यसमानता ।
प्रयोगनियमे मूलं वेदस्तस्मात्प्रमाणता ।
गवादय एव साधवो न गाव्यादय इति साधुस्वरुपनियमः । साधव एव प्रयोज्या नासाधव इति धर्माय प्रयोगनियम इति द्वौ नियमौ व्याकरणेन प्रतिपाद्येते ।
द्वयोरपि च मूलसंभवादुपपन्नं प्रामाण्यम् । तथा हि--- प्रयोगनियमे मन्वादिवत्सप्रत्ययप्रणीतत्त्वाद्वेदमूलत्वम् । न हि पाणिनिकात्यायनपतञ्जलिभ्योऽन्ये
प्रणयितारो विद्यन्ते । तेन च तत्प्रत्ययात्स्वनुमानं वेदवाक्यम् ।प्रत्यक्षमेव च वाजसनेयादिषु वचनम्—“तस्माद्ब्राह्मणेन न म्लेच्छितवै म्लेच्छो ह वा एष
यदपशब्दः” इत्यादि । “आहिताग्निरपशब्दं प्रयुज्य सारस्वतीमिष्टिं निर्वपेत्” इत्यादिषु च प्रायश्चित्तविधानम् । “उत त्वः पश्यन्नि”त्यादयश्च बहवो
मन्त्रवर्णाःशब्दापशब्दविभागाभिज्ञतदनभिज्ञस्तुतिनिन्दारूपाः दृष्टार्थेऽपि च शब्दप्रयोगे तदाश्रितःसाधुनियमो भोजनाश्रित इव दिङ्नियमः शास्त्रेण क्रियत
इति न प्रयोगोत्पत्त्यशास्त्रत्वादव्यवस्था । सत्यानृतवदनवर्जनयोश्चाविगीतमेव शास्त्रार्थत्वम् । तच्च शब्दार्थभेदेन द्विविधम्—तत्र यथैवार्थसत्यं
यथावस्थितार्थकथनं धर्माय, तथा शब्दसत्यत्वमपि यथावस्थिताविप्लुतशब्दोच्चारणमित्यर्थः । यथा चार्थानृतमन्यथावस्थितस्यान्यथावचनं प्रत्यवायाय,
तथा शब्दानृतमप्यन्यरूपे वाचके सत्यन्यरूपोच्चारणमिति यावत् । तेन प्रयोगोत्पत्त्यशास्त्रत्वम् । द्वाभ्यामेव च वाक्याभ्यां साधूनेव शब्दान्
सत्पर्यायान्प्रयुञ्जीत नासाधूनपशब्दाननृतपर्यायानिति समस्तशब्दापशब्द विधिनिषेधसिद्धेर्नानन्तवाक्यकल्पनापत्तिः । साधुत्वासाधुत्वे एव च
शब्दापशब्दसत्यानृतपर्याये उपलक्षणे । अनादिवाचकत्वमेव साधुत्वम् तद्विपर्यश्चासाधुत्वम् ।
यत्तु प्रयोगप्रत्ययान्यथानुपपत्त्या गाव्यादीनामपि वाचकत्वाद्व्यवस्थानुपपत्तिरित्युक्तम् , तत्रोच्यते – यद्यप्यमीषामवाचकत्त्वम्, यद्यपि च मुख्याभावे
गौणलाक्षणिकयोरसंभवस्तथाऽपि वाचकाशक्तिजतया मूलशब्दोपस्थापनेन प्रत्यायकत्वं भविष्यति । अशक्तिजत्त्वापरिज्ञानाच्चोपशृण्वन्तोऽपि बालास्त्रैव
संज्ञासंज्ञिसम्बन्धं शिक्षित्वा तथैव स्वयं व्यवहरन्ति । तेभ्यश्च शिक्षित्वान्येऽपीत्येवं प्रयोगप्रत्ययोरुपपत्तौ नैकान्ततः
सर्वेषामाप्यविच्छिन्नपारम्पर्यवाचकत्वम्, अध्यवसातुं शक्यते । संभवति चैवं नानेकशब्दत्वमेकस्यार्थस्यभ्युपगन्तुं न्याय्यम्, अनेकशक्तिकल्पनाप्रसंगात् ।
प्रयोगवेलायां चाष्टविधदोषानिदानविकल्पापत्तेः, वाच्यवाचकयोश्चैकै कधावधारितस्य नियमस्यानेकत्वे बाधप्रसङ्गात् । सास्नादिमानेव हि
यस्याभिधानक्रियायां कर्म तस्यां गोशब्दः करणमित्ययमन्योः शब्दार्थयोः संबन्धः। तद्यदि गाव्यादिभिरपि सास्नादिमानमभिधीयते ततस्तस्यां बेलातां
सास्नादिसत्कर्मिकायामप्यभिधानक्रियायां गोशब्दस्य करणत्वाभावात्प्रतीतबाधः । तस्मादेकै कस्यैव वाचकत्वमितरे तदशक्तिजा इति न्याय्यम् ।
करहस्तादिषु तु विशेषानवधारणादन्याय्याप्यनेकशब्दता गत्यन्तराभावादङ्गीक्रियते । गवादिगाव्यादिषु त्वभियुक्तस्मरणास्मरणाद्विशेषोस्तीति न तावत्सर्वेषां
वाचकत्वम् । वाचकरूपनियमेपि स्मृतेः स्मृत्यन्तरमेव मूलं तस्याप्यन्यदित्येवमनादिरेवैषा स्मृतिपरम्परा। नचान्धपरम्परान्यायः शब्दस्वरूपस्य
शब्दान्तराद्विविक्तस्य प्रत्यक्षत्वात् । सर्वे हि स्वे स्वे काले गवादिशब्दान्प्रत्यक्षत एवोपलम्भते । अतीतकाले च सत्तां पूर्वेभ्यः (वृद्धेभ्यः) श्रुत्यावधारयन्ति ।
सर्वकालवर्त्तित्वमेव चानादित्वं साधुत्वं तच्चाविच्छिन्नपारम्पर्याभियुक्तस्मरण॓न सुलभमिति न निर्मूलत्वम् । नच विगानादप्रामाण्यं श्रुतीनामपि
ग्रहणाग्रहणादिविगानादर्शनात् । फलं चास्य शब्दापशब्दविभागज्ञानमुपादानपरित्यागीपयोगिधर्माधर्मप्राप्तिपरिहारार्थम् । रक्षोहादि च वेदविरुद्धं कामं
भत्प्रमाणं सर्ववेष्टनादिस्मरणवत्, न तावता सर्वर्वाप्रामाण्यम् ।
ते विना च कथं वेदाध्ययने प्रवृत्तिपूर्वकं वेदार्थज्ञानं प्रामाण्यं, एवं पदानर्थक्यपदस्फोट वा वाक्यस्फोटाद्यभ्युपगमोऽपि न्यायाभासमूलं अपि
न्यायाभावादप्रमाणम् । धर्माधर्मसिद्ध्यर्थं तु शब्दापशब्दविभागकल्पना (कथनं) भियुक्तप्रणीतत्वात्प्रमाणमेवेति प्रमाणं व्याकरणं तदनुगता एव गवादयो
वाचका इति स्थितम् ।।छ।।५५
तस्माद्व्याकरणम् विना न शब्दापशब्दविभागकल्पनाज्ञानं तद्विना च कथं तदुक्तं कर्मानुष्ठानं तद्रचते कथमन्तःकरणशुद्धिः। तां विना कथं वैराग्यपूर्वकं
तत्त्वज्ञानम् । तद्विना च अनादिसंसारप्रवाहं जवजलजविरलजटोन्मूलनमिति व्याकरणमनादि निदानं भवबन्धमुक्तेः।।छ ।।
तथा च पतञ्जलिः सुशान्तं व्याकरणाध्ययननिष्णातं गुरुमभिगम्य शब्दानधीत्य वेदाभिगम्य तन्नियमेन मोक्षं लभते इति। तथा च भास्कराचार्यः
सिद्धान्तमिति प्रमाणं गोलाध्याये ।
योऽवेद वेदवदनं सदनं च सम्यक्
बाह्यः स वेदमपि वेद किमन्य शास्त्रम् ।
यस्मादतः प्रथममेतदधीत्य विद्वान ।
163
धीमान शास्त्राणां शास्त्रान्तरस्य भवति श्रवणेऽधिकारी ।
तथा च लोकोक्तिः ---
वैयाकरणकिरातादपशब्दमृगाः क्व यान्ति संत्रस्ताः।
ज्योतिर्नटविटगायकभिषगाननगह्वराणि यदि न स्युः ।
यत्र हि के चित् ध्वनि व्यङ्ग्यवर्णात्मकं नित्यं शब्दं वदन्ति । के चित्पदस्फोटम् । अपि च वाक्यस्फोटम् ।इतरे ध्वनिम् । तत्र वर्णानां अभिव्यक्तौ सर्वप्रकारेण
सर्वेषां एकस्मिन् देशे वा यत् स्थानं न संभवति । एकै कस्यार्थः वर्णस्य वाचकत्वे शेषाक्षरोच्चारणं अनर्थकम् । अथैकाः स्मृतिगोचरावर्णा अर्थवाचकाः ।
तदा सरो रस इति अर्थभेदो न स्यात् । तस्मात्पदानि वाक्यानि वा वाचकानि तानि येन स्वयमर्थं स्फु टयन्ति स स्फोटः ।स च पदस्फोटो
वाक्यस्फोटश्चेति स्फोटवादिनो वैयाकरणाः व्यक्तीनामानन्त्यात् न तत्र संबन्धः ग्रहयोगात्जातिः शब्दार्थ इत्येके । पाणिनिस्तूभयं मनुते विचारविशेषस्तु
महाभाष्यात् वाक्यपदीयाश्चावगंतव्यः।छ ।।अपि शब्दानां शब्दापशब्दाः सत्यानृतं साधुत्वासाधुत्वे इत्युक्तं च प्राक् । तथा शब्दापशब्दा-
विभागकल्पनाज्ञानमेव व्याकरणाध्ययनप्रयोजनमप्ययुक्तं च प्राक् । तत्र कश्चित् तार्कि कः शङ्कते कोऽयमपशब्दो नाम शब्दादन्यो वा । साधुशब्दादन्यो वा
। व्याकरणो निष्पन्नो वा ।तद्विरुद्धो वा । तदनुदाहृतो वा । शिष्टाप्रयुक्तो वा । प्रत्यवायहेतुर्वा असंस्कृ तो वा ।शब्दत्वे सति साधुशब्दानधिकरणं वा ।
अवाचको वा। नाद्यो घटेऽतिव्याप्तेः । अथ साधुशब्दादन्योऽपशब्द इत्युच्यते ।तदपि न ।साधुशब्दः अतिप्रसक्तेः। किञ्च प्रथमः साधुनिर्णेयः।तदनु तदन्यः ।
साधोरद्याप्यनिर्णायकोऽयं साधुर्नाम । व्याकरणानुशिष्टः साधुरिति ब्रूमः।मैवम् । उदाहरणव्यतिरिक्तं साधुना अपशब्दात्वापत्तेः।व्याकरणे हि उदाहरणशिष्टाः
शब्दानेतरे । अथैव मन्यसे उदाहृतशब्दानुपलक्षीकृ त्य तज्जातीयाः। सर्वाः शब्दव्यक्तस्तेनैवानुशासनेन शिष्टा ज्ञातव्याः। नैतदस्ति ।
साधुशब्दादन्यत्वलक्षणाक्रान्तत्वात् ।अन्याच्चात्र प्रत्ययना ह सर्वैः शब्दैः प्रयुज्यते । तच्चेदर्थप्रत्ययनमसाधुभिरपि क्रियते। कोऽर्थः साधुत्वाभिनिवेशेन
यत्रेत्यर्थ प्रतीति र्गौरित्यनेन स्यात् ।ता एव गावी गौणी गोपो गोवाचिके त्येतावतापि भवति गोपुत्तलिके त्येवमादयोऽपभ्रंशाः।अथ याज्ञिकप्रयोगे साधुभिः एव
भाषितव्यम् । नासाधुभिः तस्मान्नापभाषितव्यं न म्लेच्छितव्यम् ।म्लेच्छे शक्तिः किं निर्देशोक्तौ वा भाषया न वाच्यम् । एकः शब्दः सुप्रयुक्तः सम्यग्
ज्ञातःस्वर्गे लोके कामधुग्भवतीति निन्दास्तुत्यर्थवादाभ्यां साधुशब्दविधानं गम्यत इति चेत् । न । कोऽयं विधिर्नाम । न तावत्सुष्ठुः । विधेरन्तप्राप्तेर्नियमः ।
अत्यन्ताप्राप्तेरभावात् । अनधीतशब्दानामपि शब्दज्ञानवत्वात् । अथ यदि परिसंख्या सापि न उभयत्राप्राप्तोः ।अथ नियमो विशिष्यते । कथम् । यद्भाषितव्यं
तं साधुभिः देवेति नियमः संतानवन्नास्ति । साधुभिः भाषितव्यतमेवेत्यपि नास्ति । वेदाहुर्भट्टाचार्या साधुभिः भाषितव्यं च नासाधोरप्रयोगतः ।नियतं
भाषितव्यं चेत् दोषः प्रसज्यते । तस्मान्नायं पक्षः परीक्षककक्षामुद्वहति ।छ । अथ व्याकरणा निष्पन्नो वेति पक्षोभिमतः । सोऽपि न
परीक्षकाधिषणाधिरोहणमारोहयति ।कथं । यदि व्याकरणेन शब्दा निष्पाद्यन्ते तर्हि इतरेतराश्रयानवस्था भवतः । शब्दानां निष्पादन एवं व्याकरणम्
व्याकरणाच्च शब्दनिष्पत्तिरितीतरेतराश्रयः । अथ व्याकरणाच्च शब्दा निष्पन्नाः व्याकरणनिष्ठास्त्वन्येन तेप्यन्येनेत्यनवस्था । किं च न हि व्याकरणम् शब्दा
निष्पादयति अविषयत्वात् । न तन्समवायिकारणं भवेत् । नापि व्याकरणं भेर्याकाशडिंडिमसंयोगाद्यन्यतमाद्वायुनासमवायिकारणं स्यात् ।नापि व्याकरणं
धर्माधर्मादिष्वुत नैवमासादयेत् । येन निमित्तकारणता स्यात् । कारणं त्रयं विधुरां कार्यस्योत्त्पत्तिं परीक्षका न क्षमन्ते । तस्मादयमपि पक्षः प्रति
कु ष्मांडीकृ तः ।छ।अथ व्याकरणविरुद्धो अपशब्द इति चेत् । आयुष्मानाचक्षीत । कोऽयं विरोधो व्याकरणस्यापशब्देन न तावन्सहानवस्थान लक्षणः ।छ।
कृ तः व्याकरणं शब्दरूपम् ।तद् गगने समवैति । अपशब्दोऽपि शब्दरूपः सोऽपि गगने समवैति । तस्मादन्धतमसप्रकाशयोः इव न सहानवस्थानलक्षणो
विरोधः ।नापि बध्यघातकलक्षणः । न हि व्याकरणम् निस्त्रिंशः। अपशब्दः पशुः यत्त घातयेत् । अथ व्याकरणम् यद्भवति तद् विरुद्धमर्थमपशब्दो ब्रबीति
चेन्न । यदि तर्हि ब्रबीति कथं अपशब्दः । यद्यपशब्दः कथमर्थं ब्रूयात् ।अवरुद्धं स्यादनर्थकमिति । अनुशासनविरोधात् । अन्यच्च काल्पनिकं
प्रकृ तिप्रत्ययविभागमवलंब्य पदं निष्पादनीयम् । एवमृषित्वार्थाधिगतिः साधनीया । सेयमपशब्दादपि भवे किं व्याकरणाभ्यासनेन दुर्व्यसनेन ।छ।
तस्मात्तुच्छो अयं पक्षः ।छ। अथ व्याकरणानुदाहृतोपशब्द इत्युच्यते । तन्न ब्रह्मामांडोदर विवरवर्त्तिनां सर्वशब्दानामापदशब्दत्वापत्तेः । अथ ते सर्वे प्रग्भिः
वैयाकरणैः वृद्धिरुदाहृता इति मतं तदपि न इदमस्मदुदाहृतानां शब्दमालाप्रवाहपतितानां कर्णशष्कु लीं विश्रान्तानां चापशब्दत्वापत्तेः। तस्मादयमपि
प्रथमपक्षकक्षा विश्रान्तः ।छ। अथ शिष्टाप्रयुक्तोऽपशब्दस्तदपि न चतुरयो न पञ्चामाकारमाविष्करोति । कथम् । अद्यत्वेपि कथमस्माभिर्न प्रयुज्यते तेषां
अपशब्दत्वापत्तिः। न हि प्राञ्च एव शिष्टो न वयमित्येतस्मिन्नर्थे प्रमाणमस्ति । अशुद्धादिपरित्यागाद्वयमपि शिष्टाः । अथ शिष्टादेवादयस्तैयैर्न
प्रयुक्तास्तेपशब्दा इति। चेत्तर्हि गौरश्व इत्यादयोऽस्मात् प्रयुक्तास्ते प्रयुक्तत्वादपशब्दा भवेयुः । किं च सृष्टिप्रागभाववादिनां वेदशब्दानां
शिष्टाप्रयुक्तत्वादपशब्दाश्चापातः । तस्मादयमपि विकल्पो वृथा कल्पयितया ।छ। अथ प्रत्यवायहेतुरपशब्द इति मतम् । तन्न । कलञ्जभक्षणेऽतिव्याप्तेः।
अन्यच्च । न हि अपशब्दवादिनां स्मृतिविद्भिः महापातके षु पपातके षु संकरणी करणेषु मलिनी करणेषु वा प्रत्यवाय आम्नायते । नाप्यपशब्दवक्तारोऽपि
शिष्टराजा पापिन इति दण्ड्यते । नाप्यपशब्दव्याकरणं पङ्क्तिनिवारणम् । दशपुरुषविख्याता अपशब्दवक्तारोऽपि शिष्टकन्यायां पाणीन् गृंह्यतो दृश्यते । अथ
क्रतु प्रयोगे तु श्रावयेत्युच्यमाने यद्याश्रावयेति ब्रूयात् अवश्यं अपशब्दो भवति । प्रत्यवायहेतुश्च भवतीति मते तर्हि क्रतौ एवायं नियमोऽस्तु
164
जल्पवितण्डयोस्तु प्रत्यवायानपेक्षत्वात् । अपशब्दोद्भावं न वृथा स्यात् । अथ के शशब्देन श्मश्रुशब्दाकारो यदि न ग्रहोपायो निमित्तत्वात्
शब्दानुशासनमवश्यमेषितव्यम् । तदपि याज्ञिकपरंपरयैव सेस्यतीति किं मा यास्यते बहबो व्याकरणशिक्षया ।किं च । कञ्चन ब्राह्मणमतिः कवेर्वचनतया
कश्चिद् ब्रवीतीति ब्रह्मबन्धो निःसंततिः जगतिर्भवान् । क्रतुप्रयोगे याज्ञिकपरंपरयैव साधुशब्दप्रयोगे सिद्धे व्याकरणकथया ।छ। शतं भूयादित्येवामादिभिः
साधुभिरपि प्रत्यवायहेतुतानुभूयते । न च ते वैयाकरणानामपशब्दाः नाभिमताः । तस्मादयं शब्दः प्रत्यक्षेऽपि ।छ । अथासंस्कृ तं अपशब्द इत्युच्यते । तदपि
प्राकृ तप्रबन्धानामपशब्दत्वापत्तेः । प्राकृ तोऽपशब्दोऽस्तीति चेत् मैवं वो च । तद्भवस्तत्समोदेशीत्यनेनानेकः प्राकृ तक्रम इत्युपक्रमा प्रकृ तिव्याकृ तिरपि
दृश्यते । त्रिविक्रमादिप्रोक्ता । किं च सेतुकर्पूरमञ्जरी- प्रभृतीनां महाकाव्यनाटकप्रबन्धानां प्रणेतासेऽपशब्दवक्तार इति शिष्टानानुमन्यन्ते । किं च ।
असंस्कृ तमुपलक्षणं चाति व्यापकम् । अन्यच्च । किमिदमसंस्कृ तत्वं नाम । व्याकरणानिष्पन्नत्वं तदनुदाहृतत्त्वादयस्तु विकल्पाः प्रागेव दत्तोत्तराः । कोऽयं
नाम संस्कारो व्रीह्यादेरिव प्रोक्षणा वहमनादिर्न संभवति । क्षणिकत्वाच्छब्दस्य शब्दबुद्धिकर्मणा विरम्य व्यापाराभावादित्येव च न प्राञ्च शब्दसंस्कारा
प्रष्टततेन पुंसा यावत्प्रवृत्तिर्तव्यं तावच्छब्दोन्यं जनयित्वा विश्रान्तः अन्यस्य संस्कारोन्यः संस्क्रियत इति चित्रमेतत् । अथान्यनिष्ठः संस्कारः शब्देनोपचर्य
इति चेत्सोऽपि न संभवति । उपचार- निमित्ताभावात् । उपचारनिमित्तेषु अक्षपदे गौतमोक्ते षु एकस्याप्यात्राभावात् । तथाहि। सहचरण-स्थान-तादर्थ्य-
वृत्तमान-धारण-सामीप्यभ्यो-योग-साधनाधित्येभ्योब्रह्मण-मञ्च-कट-राज-सक्तु -चन्दन-गङ्गा-शाकटान्न-पुरुषेषु अतद्भावेऽपि-तदुपचारः।
इत्युपचारनिमित्तेषु अन्यतमं निमित्तमनुपश्यामः । तस्माच्छब्दे संस्कारासंस्कारौ गगनारविन्दकु सुमायमानौ । तस्मादयमपि पक्षो न परीक्षकघटा मञ्चति ।छ
। शब्दत्वे सति साधुशब्दत्वानधिकरणत्वापशब्दत्वं इत्यपि पक्षः साधुशब्दनिराकरणे नैव परास्तः।छ । अथ च कोऽपशब्द इति मतं तदपि न विपश्चेच्चेत्
संमतम् । शब्दस्यश्च वाचकश्चेति विरुद्धमभिधीयते, न विरुद्धं नदीघोषशब्दानां वाचकत्वम् च दृश्यते। नेति ब्रूमः । कथं शब्दस्तावत्संके तसहाय एव
वाचको भवति । संके तग्रहाभावादवाचकत्वं न तु अपशब्दत्वात् भेदमाहुरभिः युक्ताः। साक्षात्संके तितं योऽर्थमभिधत्ते स वाचकः । स मुख्यो यस्तत्र
मुख्योव्याकरणस्याभि वोच्यते । यथाहि लोके गवादयो वाचका न गव्यादयः। गवादिषु संके तितत्वात् । गव्यादिषु तथाभावात् । शब्दत्वं वाचकत्वं क्वापि
नास्ति । ये यान्प्रति संके तितास्तितान् प्रतिनामका एव । तथाचोक्तं भपादैः । चोर इति भक्ताभिधानं दाक्षिणात्यानां गुर्जराणां तस्कराभिधानम् । एक एव
चोरशब्दो दाक्षिणात्यानान्त्येषु भक्ते संके तितः ।। गुर्जरेषु चौरे । तथापि तैरनुव्याख्यानं कृ तम् । सत्यम् ।चोर एवायं यतः क्षुधं चोरयति । दाक्षिणातयास्तु
अपशब्द पापमित्याहुः ।सत्यम् । पापमेवेदं सम्मतं विधायित्वात् इत्येवं बहुविधत्वात् संके तनस्य । ये यत्रसंके तितास्तेतत्रवाचकाः । एवं एतदेवाभिप्रेत्य
भपादैरक्तं ----
यावन्तो यादृशो ये च पदार्थ प्रतिपादने ।
वर्णाः प्रज्ञातसामर्थ्यास्ते तथैवावबोधकाः ।
तस्मादयमपि पक्षः सैकतसेतुत्वान्नावाशिष्यते । तस्मादपशब्द इत्येतस्यार्थो न निश्चितुम् ।।छ।। तस्माद्वेदाङ्गश्च वेदविहितकर्मानुष्ठानद्वारा धर्मार्थमध्येयतव्यं
व्याकरणमिति सिद्धम् । नापशब्दा ज्ञानायेति ।।छ।। इति भट्टधनेश्वरोक्तमपशब्दखण्डनम् ।।छ।। श्रीरामकृ ष्णाभ्यां नमः ।।छ ।।
End notes:
१ याज्ञवल्कीय शिक्षा ६
२. उच्चौ निषादगान्धारावनुदात्तौ ऋषभधैवतौ ।
शेषास्तु स्वरिता ज्ञेया षड्जमध्यमपञ्चमाः ॥ २ ।। पाठान्तर
३ लौगक्षि शिक्षा २६ , याज्ञवल्कीय ७
४ याज्ञवल्कीय शिक्षा १०
५ याज्ञवल्कीय शिक्षा ११
मनसि चाणवं विद्याद्द्व्यणवं कण्ठदेशके ।
त्र्यणवं चैव जिह्वाग्रे निःसृतं मात्रिकं विदुः ॥४॥ पाठान्तर
६ याज्ञवल्कीय शिक्षा १२
७ याज्ञवल्कीय १३
८ याज्ञवल्कीय १४
९ याज्ञवल्कीय १६
१० याज्ञवल्कीय १७
११ याज्ञवल्कीय २५
165
१२. याज्ञवल्कीय २८
१३. पाणिनिशिक्षा.१३
१४ हस्तेनाधीयमान स्वरवर्णानप्रयुन्जतः। सैशिर शिक्षा(पाठान्तर )
१५ पाणिनिशिक्षा ५५ , अधिगच्छति (पाठान्तर ) पाणिनिशिक्षा ५२
१६ पाणिनिशिक्षा ५५, स्वर शिक्षा ३५
१७. याज्ञवल्कीय शिक्षा ३८
१८ याज्ञवल्कीय शिक्षा ५१
१९ लौगाक्षि शिक्षा ८४
२० वररुचि संग्रहः, प्राकृ त भाषा शिक्षा
२१. याज्ञवल्कीय शिक्षा ५४
२२ याज्ञवल्कीय शिक्षा ५७
२३ पातयेत् (पाठान्तर )
२४ याज्ञवल्कीय शिक्षा. ५८
२५ ह्यपासनं (पाठान्तर )
२६ याज्ञवल्कीय शिक्षा ५९
२७ याज्ञवल्कीय शिक्षा.६०
२८ याज्ञवल्कीय शिक्षा ६१
२९ याज्ञवल्कीय शिक्षा ६३
३० याज्ञवल्कीय शिक्षा ६६
३१. याज्ञवल्कीय शिक्षा ६७
३२. याज्ञवल्कीय शिक्षा. ६८
३३ याज्ञवल्कीय शिक्षा ७०
३४ याज्ञवल्कीय शिक्षा ७१
३५ वर्णरत्नप्रदीपिका ५७
३६ याज्ञवल्कीय शिक्षा ७२
३७ याज्ञवल्कीय शिक्षा. ७३
३८ याज्ञवल्कीय शिक्षा ७४
३९ याज्ञवल्कीय शिक्षा ७५
४० वर्णरत्नप्रदीपिका ६५
४१ याज्ञवल्कीय शिक्षा ७७
४२ पदचन्द्रिका १६
४३ याज्ञवल्कीय शिक्षा. ७८
४४ याज्ञवल्कीय शिक्षा ७९
४५ पाणिनिशिक्षा. ३ , शंभुमते (पाठान्तर )
४६ पाणिनिशिक्षा ११
४७ पाणिनिशिक्षा ६
४८ पाणिनिशिक्षा. १३
४९ वाक्यपदीयम् ८४
५० आन्तरार्था (पाठान्तर )
५१ पातञ्जलमहाभाष्य (पस्पशाह्निक)
५२ पातञ्जलमहाभाष्य(पस्पशाह्निक)
५३. वाक्यपदीयम्
५४ शब्द कौस्तुभ, शिक्षा etc
५५ शास्त्रदीपिका (व्याकरणाधिकरणम्)
166
Appendix II
Vyākaraṇakhaṇḍanaṃ by Vācaspati Bhaṭṭāchārya, Folio No. 3.

Ms.No.G9507, available in the Catalogue of the Library of The Asiatic Society,
Kolkata. Collection compiled and edited by Haraprasad Sastri, Vol.VI. Part II.
व्याकरणखण्डनम्
श्रीवाचस्पति भट्टाचार्य
ॐ श्री गणेशाय नमः | ॐ रामचन्द्रपदद्वन्द्वं नत्वा व्याकृ तिखण्डनम् कु रुल्यन्वयचन्द्रेणमहाचार्येण तन्मते किमिदं व्याकरणत्वं – साधुशब्दानुशासकत्वं ?
साधुशब्दानुशासकत्वमित्यत्रानुशासनं नाम प्रकृ तिप्रत्ययकल्पनं तत्र किमिदं प्रत्ययत्वं नाम अर्थप्रत्यायकत्वं १ ज्ञानविशेषत्वं वा २ संके त शब्दत्वं वा ३
प्रकृ तेः परतः प्रयुज्यमानत्वं वा ४ । तत्र न प्रथमः प्रकृ तावतिव्याप्तेः, न द्वितीयः घटज्ञानादेरपि वैयाकरणानां प्रत्ययत्वप्रसङ्गात् न तृतीयः
प्रकृ तावतिव्याप्तेः, न चतुर्थः बहुजादावव्याप्तेः विभाषासुपोबहुच् पुरस्तादिति सूत्रे विधीयमानबहुच् प्रत्ययेऽव्याप्तिः । किं च द्वितीयपक्षे ज्ञानसमवेतो वा
ज्ञानविशेषसमवेतो वा, न तावदाद्यः, न द्वितीयः । अत्र को विशेषः-- विषयकृ तो वा स्वरूपकृ तो वा ? अत्र को विषयः द्रव्यं वा गुणो वा कर्म्म वा
सामान्यं वा विशेषो वा समवायो वा अभावो वा न तावद्द्रव्यादिकं वैयाकरणानां तत्र प्रत्ययत्व व्यवहाराभावात् , न द्वितीयः, स्वरूपतो विशेष
आश्रीयमाणे ज्ञानस्य साकारकत्वप्रसङ्गात् । तच्च निषिद्धं ‘अर्थे नैव विशेषो हि निराकारतया धियां’ व्यक्तिविशेषश्चेत् व्यक्तीनां नानात्वात् का सा व्यक्तिः
यत्र प्रत्ययत्वव्यवहारो जायते । शब्दविशेषविषयकज्ञानत्वं स शब्द विशेषकः यमवज्ञाय प्रत्यय इति व्यावहारमापद्यते । प्रकृ तेः परस्तात् प्रयुज्यमान शब्द
इति चेन्न वहुच्प्रत्ययेऽव्याप्तेः । यत्प्रयोगमन्तरेण प्रकृ तेर्नसाधुत्वमिति चेन्न चकासांचकारेत्यादौ कृ ञादेरपि प्रत्ययप्रसंगात् ? प्रातिपदिकात्परतः
प्रयुज्यमानत्वमिति चेन्न अन्योन्याश्रयात् । अर्थवदधातुरप्रत्ययः प्रातिपदिकमित्यत्र प्रत्ययांतवर्जितस्य प्रातिपदिकत्वात् । ततश्च प्रातिपदिकज्ञाने
प्रत्ययज्ञानं प्रत्ययज्ञाने प्रातिपदिकज्ञानमिति एकत्वाद्यर्थ- प्रातिपदिकत्वं प्रत्ययत्वमिति चेन्न । एक शब्दादावपि प्रत्ययत्वप्रसङ्गात् कर्मादिकारकबोधकत्व
प्रत्ययत्वमिति चेन्न । तिङादावव्याप्तेः सुप्तिङ्ङन्यतरत्वं प्रत्ययत्वमिति चेन्न । उणादावव्याप्तेर्ययोर्मध्येयदर्थः प्राधान्येन प्रतीयते स प्रत्यय इति चेन्न ।
काष्ठेन पिपक्षतीत्यादौ पच्यादेरपि प्रत्ययत्वप्रसंगात् । यदर्थानुसंधानमन्तरेण प्रकृ तेरप्रयुज्येत एव संप्रत्यय इति चेन्न प्रकृ त्यार्थानतिरिक्तार्थके स्वार्थिके
167
प्रत्ययेऽव्याप्तेः । प्रकृ तौप्रयुज्यमानायां प्रयुज्येत एव संप्रत्यय इति चेन्न गोमानित्यादावसंभवात् । प्रयुज्यलुप्तश्चेत् तर्हीदं लक्षणं निष्पन्नं
प्रकृ तौप्रयुज्यमानायां यदर्थः प्रतीयते एवेति चेन्न । प्रकृ तावतिव्याप्तेःप्रकृ त्यर्थव्यतिरेके ण यदर्थः प्रतीयते स प्रत्यय इति चेन्न । वाचकत्वपक्षे
उपसर्गेऽतिव्याप्तेः प्रकृ त्युपसर्गभिन्नशब्दत्वमिति चेन्न प्रभवति चेत्यादावतिव्याप्तेः ।
ननु तस्यापि प्रकृ तित्वमिति चेन्न तर्हि प्रकृ तिभिन्नत्वमित्येवास्तु ||१ ।। किमिदं प्रकृ तित्वं प्रातिपदिकत्वं वा प्रत्ययात्पूर्वप्रयुज्यमानत्वं वा ।।२।
प्रयुज्यमानस्य प्रत्ययस्य साधुत्वनिर्वाहकत्वं वा ।।३।। अनेकप्रत्ययसंसर्गिशब्दत्वं वा ।।४।।कृ दन्ततद्धितान्तसमासप्रातिपदिकान्यतमशब्दत्वं वा ।।५ ।।
अभियुक्तपरिभाषितशब्दत्वं वा ।।६।।धात्वादित्वं वा ।।७ ।।यतः परस्तात्प्रत्ययः प्रयुज्यते तादृशशब्दत्वं वा ।।८।।सांख्याभिमतविशेषो वा ।।९।।
स्वभाववाचिशब्दविशेषो वा ।।१०।।प्रकृ ष्टाकृ तिः प्रकृ तिरितिविग्रहे यत्नविशेषो वा ।।११।।क्रियाविशेषो वा ।।१२ ।।प्रत्ययेनैव सह प्रयुज्यमानशब्दो वा ।।१३
।।अन्यद्वा ।।१४।।
न तावदाद्यः, धात्वादावव्याप्तेः । न द्वितीयः, बहुच्शब्दप्रत्ययपूर्वकप्रकृ तेः प्रकृ तित्वाभावप्रसङ्गात् प्रत्ययैकदेशागमादावतिव्याप्तेश्च प्रत्ययैकदेशोऽपि
एवेति चेत् किमिदमेकदेशत्वं अवयवविभागः । न तृतीयः, वर्तमानलडादेशतिबादिनिमित्तकभवतीत्यादिप्रयुज्यमानशब्दादावव्याप्तेः। न चतुर्थः,
तत्रैवातिव्याप्तेः। न पञ्चमः, धातावव्याप्तेः लक्षण॓ प्रातिपदिकपदस्थाने धातुपदप्रक्षेपे स्पष्ट एवेतरेतराश्रयः तथाहि प्रकृ तिस्थितौ प्रत्ययस्थिति:
प्रत्ययस्थितौ प्रकृ तिस्थिति:। न षष्ठः, अभियुक्तं व्याकरणाभिज्ञत्वं वा शास्त्रोत्तराभिज्ञत्वं वा प्रथमपक्ष आत्माश्रयः द्वितीयेऽतिव्याप्तेः यस्य कस्यापि
येनके नचित्परिभाषितत्वात् किञ्च परिभाषाप्यैष्टिकः संके तः स च प्रत्ययेऽपि तुल्यः। सप्तमोऽपि न आदिशब्दग्राह्यापरिज्ञानात् धातुत्वस्याप्यनिर्वचनात्। न
अष्टमः, अधुनादिशब्देऽव्याप्तेः बहुच्पूर्वकप्रकृ तावव्याप्तेश्च । न नवमः, असंभवात् न हि वैयाकरणा सांख्याभिमते प्रधाने शब्दवाच्ये प्रकृ तिशब्दं
कदाचिदपि प्रयुञ्जते । न दशमः, रामशब्दादिभ्यः प्रत्ययानुपपत्तिप्रसङ्गात् अव्याप्तेः। नैकादशः, उभयत्राप्यसंभवात् न हि तादृशेऽर्थे प्रकृ तिशब्दव्यवहारो
वैयाकरणानाम् । न द्वादशः, शब्दादावतिव्याप्तेः तिबादिप्रत्ययैः सह शब्दादीनां प्रयुज्यमानत्वात् । न त्रयोदशः, न चतुर्दशः, तदनिरुक्तेः पदसंस्कारत्वं
व्याकरणत्वं वाक्यसंस्कारत्वं वा । प्रथमलक्षणे किमिदं पदत्वं नाम ? सुप्तिङ्त्वं पदं प्रत्येकं तदन्तस्य पदत्वेऽव्याप्तिः समुदिततदन्तस्य पदत्वेऽसंभवः
सुप्तिङ्ङन्यतरान्तत्वे सुप्तिङ्ङन्यत्वमेव तत्र व्यस्तसमस्तयोर्दूषितत्वात् । विभक्त्यन्तं पदमित्यत्रापिस्यादित्यादिरूपैव विभक्तिः । तदन्तत्वे
प्रत्येकसमुदायविकल्पसहादौवदग्धत्वात् । वर्णपदसमूहः पदमिति चेन्न वाक्येतिऽव्याप्तेः । आदिपदेऽव्याप्तेश्च, न द्वितीयः पदसमूहस्यैववाक्यत्वात्,
पदस्य च खण्डितत्वात्वाक्यलक्षणान्तरस्यानिर्वचनात् तन्निर्वचने व्याकरणे तदनुपयोगात् न हि तादृशानां संस्कारः || इति
श्रीमहोपाध्यायकु रुल्यन्वयचन्द्रश्रीवाचस्पतिभट्टाचार्यविरचितौ व्याकरणखण्डनं संपूर्णम् ||१||
168
Bibliography:
1. Apaśabdakhaṇḍanaṃ by Sree Bhattadhaneswara, Vikramsamvat,1680,

Folio No.35 MS. No. 9366, available in the Catalogue of the Library of The
Asiatic Society, Kolkata, Collection compiled and edited by Haraprasad
Sastri, vol.VI. Part II.
2. Arthavijñāna (Hindi): Sree Kapildeve Dvivedi, Hindustan Academy,
Allahabad.
3. Abhinavagupta: G.T.Deshpande, Sahitya Akedemi.
4. Dhvanyālokaḥ: Sree Anandavardhana, Publisher Chowkham ba
vidyabhawan, Varanasi.
5. Iśvarapratyabhijñāvimarśinī: Abhinavagupta, edited and English
translation by K.C. Pandey, Motilala banarasidass.
6. Mīmāṃsā: Theory of Meaning, R.N.Sarma, Sri Satguru Publications,
New Delhi, 1988
7. Mīmāṃsā-sūtra (Śābara-Bhāṣya): Published by printing Works,
Kamaccha, Varanasi, Edited by Sree Mahaprabhulata Goswami.
8. Nyayamanjari: Jayanta Bhatta, Chakradhara virachitaya granthibhanga
vyakhayaya. Edited by Sree Gaurinatha Sastri, Published by Director
Research Institute, Sampurnananda Vishvavidyalaya, Varanasi.
9. Patañjali: Vyākaraṇa Samarthānika : Edited by S. D. Joshi, University of
Poona, 1968, Publications of Vidya Prakasana, Varanasi.
10. Pātañjalamahābhāṣya: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Pratisthana .
11. Pāṇinīya-śikṣā (Hindi): Edited and Hindi translation by Vidyasagar
Dr. Damodar Mahato, Motilala Banarasidass.
169
12. Pratyabhijnañāhṛdayam (Hindi): translator, commentator and
editor Jaydeva singh, Publisher, Motilala Banarasidass, Varanasi.
13. Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā In Its Sources:Mahamahopadhyaya Dr.
Ganganath Jha, Edited by Dr.S. Radhakrishnana, Banaras Hindu
University, 1942
14. Sanskrit Vyakarana Darsan (Hindi): Ramasuresh Tripathi,
published Rajakamala Prakasana, Delhi.
15. Śāstradīpikā: Parthasarathi Misra, with the commentary Prabha
by Tatsat Vidyanatha, Edited by Acharya P.N. Pattabhirama Sastri, sri
Lalbahadur Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha, 1978.
16. The Sambandha-samuddesa and Bhartṛahari’s Philosophy of
language: Houben, E. M. Gonda Indological Studies II published under
the auspices of the Gonda foundation, Royal Netherland Academy of
Arts and Sciences.
17. Tantra-Rahasya: Shree Ramanujacarya. Published by Gaekavada
Oriental series, Baroda.
18. The Philosophy of Sanskrit Grammar: Prabhat Chandra
Chakravarti, Sanskrit Pustak Bhandar, 38, Bidhan sarani, Kolkata-6.
19. The Linguistic Speculations of the Hindus: Prabhat Chandra
Chakravarti, Sanskrit Pustak Bhandar, 38, Bidhan sarani, Kolkata-6.
20. Tattva-cinatāmaṇi (śabda-Khaṇḑa): Shree Gangesa Upadhyaya,
Published by the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta.
21. The ancient Indian science of sentence: G.V.Devasthali,
published by Sai Satguru Publications Indological and Oriental
publishers, Delhi
22. Vyākaraṇakhaṇḍanam by Vacaspati Bhattacharya, Folio No. 3.
Ms.No.G9507, available in the Catalogue of the Library of The Asiatic
Society, Kolkata. Collection compiled and edited by Haraprasad Sastri,
vol.VI. Part II.
23. Vākya-Padīyam: Sree Bhartrhari (Vol. II), with Punyaraja’s
Commentary and Sree Raghunatha Sarmas Ambakartri Vyakhya,
170
Published by Director Research Institute, Sampurnananda
Visvavidyalaya, Varanasi
24. Vyakarana ki Darsanika Bhumika: Dr. Satyakama Varma (Hindi).
Munshiram Manoharlal, New Delhi.
25. Vyākaraṇa Darśaner Itihās (Vol I): Sree Gurupada Haldar,
Publisher,
Sree Bharativikas Haldar.
26. Vaiyākarṇānāṃ anyeṣāṃ ca matena
Śābdasvarupatacchaktivicāra: Dr. Kalika Prasad Sukla, Published by –
Director, Research Institute, Sampurnananda Vishvavidyalaya,
Varanasi.
27. Vyākaraṇadarśanbhūmikā: Pt. Ramjñā Pāndeya, Published by –
Varanasi.
28. Vyākaraṇadarśanpiṭhikā: Acārya Ramjñā Pāndeya, Published by –
Varanasi
171

Voyage Into Root of Language

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Voyage Into Root of Language

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Voyage Into Root of Language

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Voyage into root of

Chapter I Vāk-tattva― Exploring the route 16-26

Chapter II Vyākaraṇaprayojanam 27-57

Chapter III Apaśabdānāṃ vicāraḥ 58-81

Chapter IV Truth as Reflected in the Language 82-98

Chapter V Awakening of Knowledge: Prātibhajñāna 99-109

Chapter VI Śikṣā— art of learning pronunciation 110-125

Chapter VII Traversing in the duality of Vāgartha 126-136

Appendix I Apaśabdakhaṇḍanam (MS) 137-164

Appendix II Vyākaraṇakhaṇḍanam (MS) 165-166

While correcting the script of Vyākaraṇakhaṇḍanam by Śree

Finally, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Dr.(Smt) Kakali Ghoshal,

My special gratitude remains for The Asiatic Society, Kolkata, who

The present work, Voyage into root of Language-usage: A work based

Apaśabdakhaṇḍanam— a text by Śree Bhaṭṭadhaneśvara, is an

In the manuscript, he has taken up the task of providing certain

The text Vyākaraṇakhaṇḍanam is written by Śree Vācaspati

The first chapter Vāk-tattva―Exploring the route of the present

In the manuscript, Śree Bhaṭṭadhaneśvara starts his discussion from

It is worth mentioning that a language can be learnt correctly within

However, it becomes a debatable issue whether one should always use

The word apaśabda, is formed by adding the prefix apa in the sense of

The first reference of the term apabhraṃśa is found in

Viśvāḥ prtanā abhibhūtarantara ityajagati varṣiyayaścchanda

"aśāstra śabde, asaṃskṛta śabde. Grāmyaṃ bhāṣāyām"

(Apabhramsha Hindi Dictionary, Dr. Naresha

Pāṇini never used the term apabhraṃśa or apaśabda in the

Apaśabdatvaṃ vyākaraṇānugata śabdaṣyed bhraṃśan eva

The point can be clarified by analyzing the title of the manuscript

Gauriti prayoktavye’śaktyā pramādādibhirvā gāvyādayo’pabhraṃśāḥ prayujyañte.

Na śiṣṭairanugamyante paryāyā iva sādhavaḥ /

The point is: if so-called apaśabda be regarded as meaningful to

Necessarily speaking, words (śabda-s) are used to communicate

So much emphasis has been given to the learning of pronunciation

Since the texts are completely related to “śabda and śabdārtha”, I

Though the thrust area under discussion centers round the

Yadyapi bahu nādhīṣe tathāpi paṭha putra vyākaraṇam/

A brief note on dharma and adharma is needed to do justice to the

Vāk-tattva―Exploring the route

(Chāndogya Upaniṣad VII.

This Vāktattva has been said to reveal in various stages― beginning

The word ‘Vyākaraṇa’ as defined ‘vyākriyante vyutpādyante śabda

Patañjali opens his discussion on Vyākaraṇa by citing the Sūtra― ‘atha

Thus, he bestows the foundation of Vyākaraṇa Śāstra to the ordinary

It is to be noted in this connection that Bhartṛhari interprets the word

Śiṣṭebhya āgamāt siddhāḥ sādhavo dharmasādhanam/

Thus the grammar can be primarily regarded as part of lokavijñāna and

Other examples can also be advanced in favour of lokavijñāna. Whether

Nā cāgamādṛte dharmastarkeṇa vyavastiṣṭhate/

In other words, vyākaraṇa and apākaraṇa initiate one to choose the

The basis of vyākaraṇaśāstra is smṛtiparamparā too. It is handed down

In this context, the two functions of the vyākaraṇa can be shown in a

Patañjali has enumerated 18 such primary and secondary purposes of

Knowledge is accepted as one of the most sacred possessions of human

According to Helārāja, those who are in constant touch with the

The śiṣṭā of one generation transmit their knowledge to the next

Thus, there are two parallel opinions determining the meaning of

It is true that there are no strict or fixed rules to learn a language.