It was in 1866 that Franz KIELHORN brought out an edition of Santanava's Phitsutra mit verschiedenen indischen Commentaren, Einleitung, Uebersetzung, und Anmerkungen and also with two Indices at the end. The commentaries included in that edition are (1) that of Bh as found in his SK; (2) that of Nas found in his LS; and (3) the Phitsutra-vstti by some unidentified commentator called the urttikara. Ever since then no other edition of the Phifsutranot even a reprint of KIELHORN'S edition-has appeared so far; and hardly any work has been done on this little manual, which, in its own way, is quite useful for Vedic studies.
The present edition of the Phitsutra is based on three MSS, kindly lent to me by the curator of the BORI, Poona. These MSS have been described in Descriptive Catalogue of MSS in the Govt. MSS Library, Vol. II, Part 1, Nos. 282, 283 and 284, and are designated here as B3, B1, and B2 respectively. Two of these MSS contain the ftti along with the text, while the third has the text with Bh's commentary. I have, however, edited only the text, for which I have used not only these MSS but also other works such as SSC, LS, PM, SP. and SM (as quoted in KIELHORN's edition). In one case (Ph 3-6), an emendation is sought to be made on the strength of the Kasika, while, in another (Ph 4-10), the emendation is suggested only with a view to exonerating the author from the lapse of making an absolutely incorrect statement (See Notes).
In the Notes I have derived ample benefit from the excellent edition of KIELHORN, the available commentaries on the Phit sutra, and the various other works mentioned above. Occasionally, I have also been able to suggest some original and better interpretations (see e. g. Notes on Ph. 1-7 and 4-13).
As far as possible, I have cited under every sutra some Vedic words which abide by the rule stated in that sutra as also some which go against it (for these see Index II), thus indicating indirectly how far the work could be useful for Vedic studies.
The Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit, University of Poona, may be said to have started functioning academically in January 1965, about which time one Professor and three Readers joined their duties. The Centre is at present concentrating on advanced study and research in the field of Veda and Vyakarana. It is proposed to issue the publications of the Centre in the following six classes: Class A-Reprints; Class B-Monographs; Class C-Critical Editions; Class D Exegetical and Critical Studies; Class E-Bibliographies, Indexes, etc., and Class F-Translations of Research Publications in foreign languages.
A few publications in Class A have already been issued, and it is now with great pleasure that I am introducing to the world of scholars the first publication in Class C. The Phitsutras of Santanava is no doubt a small work; but, in its own way, it sheds some fresh light on certain aspects of Vedic grammar and accentuation and therefore deserves to be studied critically. An edition of this work by KIELHORN was published nearly a century ago, but no further study of the Phitsutras had been undertaken since then and they seemed to have been almost relegated to oblivion. Professor DEVASTHALI has, therefore, done well to have resurrected, as it were, this interesting manual and to have made available a competently prepared edition of it. It will be seen that he has not only examined and discreetly utilized all the material on the subject which has been published during this long interval but has also brought his own original thinking to bear upon the elucidation of several passages. The present edition of the Phitsutras by Professor DEVASTHALI Certainly promises well for his next work on the Anubandhas of Panini, which is now in press.
PHITSUTRA AND RGVEDIC ACCENTUATION
1. Accent is generally seen to play a predominant role in the interpretation of Vedic literature, particularly the Samhitas. Naturally, therefore, it is marked in Vedic literature only and is conspicuous by its absence in all other literature including the classical. In fact in classical literature it can have no place at all; for if accent had been an essential factor in the interpretation of classical literature, it would have become utterly impossible to admit of such examples of the figure paronomasia (slesa) as sarvadomadhavah. For the figure slesa, this expression has to be split up in two different ways namely, (i) sarvada + umadhavah and (ii) sarvadah + madhavah. This would obviously be not possible if accent were to be taken into account here. That is the reason why it has been declared by ancient authorities on rhetorics that "accent is not counted in the field of poetry". This may lead one to think that accent has always been restricted to the Vedic language alone and has no connection whatsoever with classical language and also the language of common parlance. But such is not the case. For, accent has always been an inherent feature of a language. Stress is a phenomenon, as we can see, in every language that is spoken; and there is no reason why Sanskrit, which in all its phases has been a spoken language, should not have had it. It was by passage of time that accent tended to fall off and became neglected with the result that it has disappeared not only from the classical literature but even from some portions of Vedic literature such as the Upanisads (where it is now hardly marked) and even the Brahmanas and the Aranyakas (where, though marked at times it is hardly utilised for interpretation). It is only in the Samhita, that accents are not only marked, but are also utilised and are indeed quite necessary for a correct interpretation.
That accent was not restricted to the Vedas alone is demonstrable in another way also. For, when Panini composed his rules or aphorisms concerning accentuation, he did not declare that these rules were to apply to the Vedic language only. On the contrary, whenever he wanted to restrict any of his rules to the Veda or to any particular branch thereof, he did so by expressly using some such expression as mantre or chandasi and the like On the other hand, whenever he wanted to restrict them to the language of common parlance he used the expression bhasaydm³. Whenever, therefore, no such restricting expression has been used by Panini, we must conclude that he has framed such rules as applying not to this or that particular aspect of the language but to the language as a whole. This is further corroborated by the fact that, for a large number of his rules of accentuation, we cannot derive any illustrations at all from the extant Vedic literature. They are, in fact, meant to apply to the language of common parlance and are based on it. There can, therefore, be no doubt that the phenomenon of accent prevailed throughout in the Sanskrit language and that, when Panini composed his rules about accentuation, he had the whole of the Sanskrit language (i. e. of the Vedic literature and also that of common parlance in his time) before him. In fact such is the case with even other writers of works on accentuation as can be seen and realised by a perusal of the Phitsutra, a work dealing with the accentuation of the pratipadika which is what is meant by the ancient grammatical term phit. Even here, as in Panini's work, we come across the expressions chandari and bhasaydı signifying the language of the Veda and the language of common parlance respectively. Again, here, as in Panini, many rules have no illustrative passages or expressions in the Veda. It may, therefore, be presumed that when Santanavacarya, the author of the Phitsitra, framed these rules, he had before him Sanskrit as a language not only as found in the Veda but also as then current or prevailing in common parlance. We are, however, not here concerned with this latter aspect of the language; for, we are going to examine this work of Santanavacarya only so far as it applies to the Vedic literature and more particularly the Rigveda Samhita only.
3. A reference has been made above to two authors, namely, Panini and Santanavacarya, as having composed rules of accentuation of Sanskrit. It may be interesting as well as useful to compare these two authors, more particularly because both of them have tried to tackle the same subject and have covered almost the same ground in their works. Before, however, we actually undertake such comparison, we must try to get a very clear idea of the two views that appear to have been held in India regarding words and their formation. These views are as old as-nay even older than Yaska, who has referred to them in his Nirukta. Thus, while discussing the fourfold classification of words, viz, namakhyate copasarganipatas ca, Yaska happens to discuss nouns; and there naturally comes up the question of their derivation. In this connection he remarks that Sakatayana holds, and it is also the confirmed and considered opinion of the Nairuktas that nouns are one and all derived from roots; he mentions also che opposite view held by Gargya and some of the grammarians in the words: na sarvaniti gargyo vaiyakarananam caike. It is, therefore, quite clear that from very ancient times two views were entertained by the elite as to whether nouns (or words) were or were not derivable. Some held that they were derivable; while others held that they were not so at least not all of them. Later grammarians like Kaiyata and Bhattoji Diksita and commentators like Sayanacarya have referred to these two views by the expressions vyutpallipaksa and avyutpattipaksa respectively.
Send as free online greeting card
Email a Friend
Manage Wishlist