Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

India as Known to Panini: A Study of the Cultural Material in the Ashtadhyayi c10.s2: Section 2. Learning

India as Known to Pāṇini: A Study of the Cultural Material in the Ashṭādhyāyī c10.s2

Language
English

Section 2. Learning

c10.s2.1

AGENCIES OF LEARNING—The various agencies in the spread of learning comprised (1) teachers, (2) authors, (3) regular students, (4) travelling scholars (*charakas*), (5) educational institutions, (6) learned assemblies and conferences, (7) discourses, (8) expositions and (9) literature. The cumulative work of these agencies resulted in a nation-wide expansion of education and learning.

c10.s2.2

*IDEALS.* The ideals of learning must have played an important part in the moulding of educational activities. Both the teacher and the taught (*āchāryāntevāsinaḥ*) were inspired by the literary and cultural ideals of their age. We get from Pāṇini a graphic picture of the types of literature then developed, *viz.* Chhandas and Brāhmaṇa works, Vedāṅga literature like Kalpa and Vyākaraṇa, secular works and poetry, dramaturgical treatises and stories (IV.3.110-111), *gāthās* and *ślokas* (III.2.23). Students would prepare themselves for the study of one or other of these different classes of literature (*tadadhīte*). In the sphere of teaching, there were different classes of teachers dealing with the several classes of literature, *e.g.* *āchārya* for the esoteric knowledge of the Veda, *śrotriya* for recitation, *pravaktā* for *prokta* literature, *ākhyātā* imparting religious teaching, *anūchāna* for the Vedāṅgas, and *adhyāpaka* carrying on general teaching work. But from the point of view of scholarly attainments a large number of specialists in each branch of learning were coming into existence. In fact from Pāṇini's account of specialist scholars we learn that each text or subject of knowledge was represented by the learned men who had mastered it (*tadveda*, IV.2.59). For example, there is mention of experts in the various Soma sacrifices (*kratus*), named after the particular ritual which they had mastered, as *āgnishṭomika*, *vājapeyika* (IV.2.60); the reciters of *uktha* and the various forms of orthoëpic recitations of Chhandas texts, as the *krama-pāṭha* and *pada-pāṭha* (IV.2. 61); exponents of the Brāhmaṇa and Anubrāhamaṇa works (IV.2.62), and Sūtra works (IV.2.65) dealing with the several classes of scientific literature. The Vedāṅga literature was represented by its specialists, such as *vaiyākaraṇa*, (grammarians), (VI.3.7), *nairuktika*, (etymologists), and *yājñika*, (experts in Kalpa or ritual) (IV.3.129). Patañjali's elaborate list of works in the *vārttikas* appended to *sūtra* IV.2.60, shows the tendency towards specialization carried to extremes in his time, mention being made of experts in ornithology (*vāyasa-vidyā*), bodily signs (*aṅga-vidyā*), knowledge of cows (*go-lakshaṇa*), horses (*aśva-lakshaṇa*), military science (*kshattra-vidyā*). Multiplication of works had advanced and each is spoken of in terms of its exponent. Even the story literature had its devotees, *e.g.* *Yāvakrītika* (adept in the story of Yavakrīta, (related in the Vanaparva, Chs. 133-38, *A.B.O.R.I.*, XXI.282); *Yāyātika* (proficient in the legend of Yayāti, cf. examples on VI.2.103), *Vāsavadattika* (well-versed in the romance of Vāsavadattā), and *Saumanottarika* (a special student of the romance of Sumananottṛā, related at length in Buddhist literature (*Dict. of Pāli Proper Names*, I.361). Pāṇini himself refers to special works dealing with *ākhyāna* material (VI.2.103).

c10.s2.3

*CHARAKA*—The peripatetic scholar was called *charaka*, as distinct from the *māṇava* and *antevāsin* who were attached to their schools (V.1.11, *Māṇava-charakābhyāṁ khañ*). Vaiśampāyana was called a *charaka*, obviously on the basis of his literary activities from place to place; his pupils following in his footsteps were also known as *charakas*. The *charakas* were like post-graduate scholars who after finishing their studies sought higher knowledge by travelling. The expression *chārikaṁ charantā* is applied in the *Jātakas* to advanced students of the Takshaśilā university, who after reaching the end of their studies travelled to train themselves in the direct knowledge of country observances (*Sonaka Jātaka*, V. 247). In the *Bṛihad. Up.* we find Bhujyu Lāhyāyani mentioning to Yājñavalkya his wanderings in the Madra country as a *charaka* (*Madreshu charakāḥ paryavrajāma*, III.3.1). Yuan Chwang mentions about Pāṇini himself that he travelled widely in search of linguistic material, interrogating learned men in different localities.

c10.s2.4

*AUTHORSHIP*—Specialists justified themselves by creative activity in producing advanced literature. Pāṇini makes mention of *granthas* or works composed (IV.3.87; IV.3.116).

c10.s2.5

He refers to the following classes of authors: (1) *mantrakāra*, (2) *padakāra*, (3) *sūtrakāra*, (4) *gāthākāra* and (5) *ślokakāra* (III.2.23). These terms point to the different types of literature and styles of composition which they represented.

c10.s2.6

A writer on grammar is named *śabdakāra* (III.2.23), or *śābdika* (IV.4.34, *śabdaṁ karoti śābdiko vaiyākaraṇaḥ*). The literature of commentaries (*vyākhyāna*, IV.3.66) was also growing and was the work of learned men who were inspired to produce them by their mastery of the original works. The highest intellectual output of the age was, however, the work of master-minds and original thinkers like Āpiśali, Yāska, Śākaṭāyana and Pāṇini, who discovered and opened up new fields of knowledge. The literary efforts of these geniuses were aptly called *upajñā*, new knowledge promulgated, or *ādya āchīkhyāsā*, knowledge presented for the first time (*sūtras* II. 4.21, *Upajñopakramaṁ tadādyāchīkhyāsāyām*; IV.3.115; VI.2. 14). An indication of the great pains which these pioneers of learning took in order to enrich their subjects is given by Patañjali when he speaks of Pāṇini as *mahatā yatnena sūtraṁ praṇayati sma*, i.e. 'he planned and composed the *sūtras* with strenuous effort'. Pāṇini himself speaks of a perfect *sūtra* as *pratishṇāta*, 'immersed', i.e. emerging out of concentrated thought (VIII.3.90, *sūtraṁ pratishṇātam*). The simile appears to be taken from the maturity attained by one who had become a *snātaka*. He also refers to the linguistic forms expressive of the devotion of an author to his work (*bhāsana*, *jñāna*, *yatna*) expressed by the root *vad* in the Ātmanepada, as *vadate chārvī Lokayate*, 'the Chārvī teacher shows himself brilliant in the exposition of the Lokāyata doctrine.' I.3.47).

c10.s2.7

Pāṇini mentions a type of literary activity called *prakathana* (I.3.32), or extempore composition, *e.g.* *gāthāḥ prakurute* (*Kāśikā*). It appears that the *gāthākāra* mentioned in *sūtra* III.2.23 was a person who was expected to compose at the spur of the moment *gāthā* verses, generally of a eulogistic character. In the Pāriplava *ākhyāna* of the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* the *vīṇāgāthī*, also called *vīṇāgaṇagin* is said to sing *gāthā* verses of his own composition (*svayaṁ sambhṛitā gāthā gāyati*, Ś.B. XIII.4.3.5). The word *gāthaka* derived by Pāṇini from the root *gai*, to sing (III.1.146) seems to have been originally connected with a *gāthā* composer who sang the verses to the accompaniment of a lute.

c10.s2.8

*NAMING OF BOOKS*—Pāṇini enunciates two general principles for the naming of literary works: (1) after the name of the author (*Kṛite granthe*, IV.3.116), *e.g.* *Vāraruchāḥ ślokāḥ*, the *ślokas* composed by Vararuchi; and (2) after the name of the subject treated (*Adhikṛitya kṛite granthe*, IV.3.87), *e.g.* *Saubhadra*, 'story of Subhadrā'; *Gaurimitra*, not explained; *Yāyāta*, story of Yayāti. These short stories were meant to popularise the great characters of ancient history. As examples of works named after subects, Pāṇini mentions (1) *Śiśukrandīya* ('a work based on the cry of the divine child Kṛishṇa at birth'); (2) *Yamasabhīya* ('relating to the assembly of Yama'); (3) *Indrajananīya* ('relating to the birth of Indra') (IV.3.88).

c10.s2.9

Commentaries were named after the topics they expounded (*vyākhyātavyā-nāmnaḥ*, IV.3.66), *e.g.* *Supāṁ vyākhyānaḥ Saupaḥ granthaḥ* (a book on Nouns); similarly *Tiṅa* (verbs); *Kārta* (verbal Nouns); *Shātvaṇatvikam* (Cerebralisation); *Nātanātikam* (Accentuation). Pāṇini cites examples of commentarial literature dealing with topics, both big and small; *e.g.* (1) *kratus* (IV.3.68) such as (a) *Āgnishṭomika* (dealing with Agnishṭoma sacrifice), (b) *Vājapeyika* (dealing with Vājapeya sacrifice), (c) *Rājasūyika* (dealing with Rājasūya sacrifice); (2) *Yajñas* (smaller sacrifices in the domestic fire, IV.3.68), such as (a) *Pākayajñika*, (b) *Nāvayajñika*; (3) *Adhyāyas* (Chapters of Vedic works, IV.3.69), such as (a) *Vāsiśhṭhika Adhyāya* (*Vasishṭhasya vyākhyānaḥ*, commentary of the Seventh *Maṇḍala* of the *Ṛigveda*), (b) *Vaiśvamitrika* (Third *Maṇḍala*); and (4) smaller works, like (i) *Pauroḍāśika* (relating to the explanation of the *mantras* used in the preparation of *puroḍāśa* oblation); (ii) *Puroḍāśika* (relating to the regulations for the preparation of *puroḍāśa*); (iii) *Chhandasya* or *Chhāndasa* (a book on meters, IV.3.71); (iv) *Aishṭika* (IV.3.72, on the household sacrifices); (v) *Pāśuka* (animal sacrifices); (vi) *Chātur-hotṛika* (relating to the Chatur-hotṛi service, performed by the four chief-priests); (vii) *Pāñchahotṛika* (on the particular formula called *pañcha-hotṛi*, in which five deities are named); (viii) *Brāhmaṇika* (commentary of a *Brāhmaṇa*); (ix) *Ārchika* (of the *Ṛik* verses); (x) *Prāthamika* (probably the Prathmārchika of the *Sāmveda*); (xi) *Ādhvarika* (relating to the Adhvara or Soma-sacrifice); (xii) *Pauraścharaṇika* (relating to a preparatory rite as mentioned in the *Śatapatha* Br.); (xiii) *Nāmika* (dealing with Nouns) and (xiv) *Ākhyātika* (dealing with Verbs; IV.3.72). (xv) *Ārgayana* (=*Ṛigayana-vyākhyāna*, explanatory of the recitation or study of the whole *Ṛigveda*, IV.3.73, cf. also *Kāśikā* on VI.2.151). This extensive literature of commentaries is mentioned in the *sūtras*, IV.3.68-72. Other explanatory works based on minor texts are cited in the *Ṛig-ayanādi gaṇa* (IV.3.73), such as *Chhandomāna*, *Chhandobhāshā*, *Chhandovichiti*, *Nyāya*, *Punarukta*, *Vyākaraṇa*, *Nigama*, *Vāstuvidyā*, *Aṅgavidyā*, *Kshattravidyā*, *Utpāta*, *Saṁvatsara*, *Muhūrta*, *Nimitta*, etc. (Cf. *aṅgavijjā*, *vatthuvijjā*, *khattavijjā* in the Brahmajālasutta, Dīghanikāya, I.21).

c10.s2.10

*Sūtra* works had the peculiarity of being named after the number of their chapters (*adhyāyas*, V.1.58), e.g. Pāṇini's own work called *Ashṭaka* ('Eight Chapters'). The *Kāśikā* adds that the work of *Kāśakṛitsni* consisting of three *adhyāyas* was called *Trika* ('Three Chapters'), and of Vyāghrapād *Daśaka* ('Ten Chapters') (V.1.58). The students studying these texts were also designated as *Ashṭakāḥ*, *Trikāḥ* *Daśakāḥ* respectively (IV.2.65, *Sūtrāch-cha kopadhāt*). A similar principle of naming operated in the case of two Brāhmaṇa work of 30 and 40 chapters (V.1.62), which, as Keith suggests, were the *Kaushītakī* and the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇas* respectively (*Ṛigveda Brāhmaṇas*, Intro.). We know at least in the case of the *Śatapatha* that the *adhyāya* division was an important factor in the growth of its contents. The first nine books dealing with a complete exposition of the Haviryajña and Soma sacrifices (Books I-V also called *Ishṭi-Paśubandha*, cf. *Kāśikā* on *sūtra* II.1.6) contained sixty *adhyāyas* and were known as *Shashṭipatha* ('Sixty Chapters'). With the addition of the last five books (X-XIV) consisting of forty Chapters the name *Śatapatha* was finally applied to the work.

c10.s2.11

*PLAN OF A TREATISE*—A requisite of literary composition is its proper planning and presentation of subject-matter. This plan is called *tantra-yukti*. The work of Kauṭilya has thirty-two *Tantra-yuktis*; Charaka and Suśruta also mention them, the former adding three more to the list. The ancient Tamil grammar, the *Tolkappiyam*, based on the tradition of the Aindra school, enumerates in its Porulātikāram section thirty-two principles of which twenty-two agree with those of Kauṭilya. The Mīmāṁsakas with their flare for analysis have indicated the principles of a literary composition. Of these they have singled out *saṁgati*, inherent consistency or internal order, and *maṅgala*, benedictory opening. These *Tantra-yuktis* were also known to Pāṇini. The first of these, *viz.* *Adhikāra*, treatment of the matter within the purview or scope of a work is referred to in the *sūtra* *Adhikṛitya kṛite granthe* (IV.3.87), i.e. a work that is composed in accordance with the principle of *adhikāra*, or sense of the relevant. Pāṇini's own work is model of *Vidhāna* or the treatment of topics in their inherent order. Whitney supposed that the *Ashṭādhyāyī* lacked the logical order in the arrangement of its topics, but Barend Faddegon has shown that this assumption is not correct (*Studies on Pāṇini's Grammar*, 1936). Buiskool from his Study of the Tripādī Chapters (*Tripādī*, 1939) holds that Pāṇini's work was based on a system of thematical groups which are rationally classified and arranged.¹

c10.s2.12

Other principles of treatment proper for scientific works are also indicated by Pāṇini, *e.g.* (1) *Hetvartha*, the ground of a statement or proposition (as in I.2.53); (2) *Upadeśa*, the author's own directions or instruction contained in his work (as in I.3.2); (3) *Apadeśa*, citation of another's opinion along with one's own, for refutation (as in I.2.51-52); (4) cross-reference of which there are so many in the *Ashṭādhyāyī*; (5) *Saṁśaya* or *Vipratishedha*, doubt arising from two equally forceful alternatives (I.4.2); (6) *Vakyādhyāhāra*, supplying an ellipsis, mentioned in *sūtra* VI.¹.139; (7) *Anumata*, citation of the opinion of another for its acceptance, as in the case of the opinions of other grammarians quoted by Pāṇini; (8) *Atiśaya-varṇana*, detailed description or over-loading with details (as in *Indriyam Indra-liṅgam Indra-drishṭam Indra-srishṭam Indra-jushṭam Indra-dattam iti vā*, V.2.93); (9) *Nirvachana* employing the derivative sense of a word, as in the case of *mahāsaṁjñās*, like *Sarvanāma*, *Avyaya*; (10) *Svasaṁjñā*, use of one's own technical terms as *ṭi*, *ghu*, *bha*; (11) *Pūrvapaksha* and (12) *Uttara-paksha*, arguments for and against a proposition by which its truth may be ascertained (as in the *Sūtra-kāṇḍa*, I.2.51-56); (13) *Atideśa*, analogous application, (as in I.2.57, *Kālopasarjane cha tulyam*); and (14) alternative application, which appears in such words as *vā*, *anyatarasyām*, *ubhayathā*, *ekeshām*, *bahulam* and *vibhāshā* in the *Ashṭādhyāyī* (cf. Patañjali for the rationale of these variant terms, II.1.58; I.400). *THEORY OF MANGALA*—Maṅgala means invocation or benediction with which a treatise is to be commenced. The invocation of the Divine was made to ensure the success of the undertaking. Pāṇini, as one of the greatest authors has also commenced his work, the *Ashṭādhyāyī*, with a similar invocation, indicated in his use of the word *vṛiddhi* at its beginning, though it meant an alteration in the order of the words which should have read *Ādaich vṛiddhiḥ*, and not *Vṛiddhir-ādaich* (I.1.1). Patañjali raises this point and obviates the objection by invoking the practice of *maṅgala*. He says that Pāṇini as a *maṅgalika āchārya*, chose to begin his treatise with *vṛiddhi*, a word that ensures the growth of the work and the longevity of its readers (*Bhāshya*, I.40). Patañjali takes recourse to the same practice of *maṅgala* to justify the use of *vakāra* in *sūtra* *Bhūvādayo dhātavaḥ* (I.3.1). He further extends it to the middle and end of a work (*maṅgalādīni maṅgalamadhyāni maṅgalāntāni hi śāstrāṇi prathante*, I.3.1; I.252). This seems to hold good in the case of the *Ashṭādhyāyī*, for it has been suggested that the *sūtra* *Śiva-śaṁ-arishṭasya kare* (IV.4.143) represents Pāṇini's use of *maṅgala* also in the middle of his treatise. Only a few aphorisms later, *sūtra* *Tasmai hitam* (V. 1.5), a benedictory expression (‘Good be to all concerned!’), seems to be deliberately used by Pāṇini to name two of his most important chapters (fourth and fifth), viz. *Taddhita*, dealing with hundreds of grammatical formations (*vṛittis*).

c10.s2.13

¹ For a simple analysis of the plan of the work adopted by Pāṇini, see Belvalkar, *Systems of Sanskrit Grammar*, pp. 20-22.

c10.s2.14

Pāṇini also uses the benedictory term *udaya* in the last but one *sūtra* of the *Ashṭādhyāyī*. The use of *udaya* in place of shorter *para* points to his faith in the practice of *maṅgala* (*udāttaparasyeti vaktavya udaya- grahaṇaṁ maṅgalārtham*, *Kāśikā*, VIII.4.67). The word *udaya* of this *sūtra* was taken by him from the *Ṛik Prātiśākhya*, which uses it as a synonym of *para* (cf. *ṛikāra udaye*, II.32). It is impossible to agree with Sköld who argues that the *sūtra* *a a* concluding Pāṇini’s great work, coming as it does after the *maṅgala*-denoting word *udaya*, is a later interpolation (*Papers on Pāṇini*, p. 8). This assumption is not quite tenable considering that Kātyāyana devotes four *vārttikas* to it, and Patañjali also comments on them as authentic. Both of them conclude their works with the observation *Bhagavataḥ Pāṇineḥ siddham*. Patañjali, in his comment on *siddha*, the first word of the opening *vārttika* of Kātyāyana, makes that teacher also subscribe to the theory of *maṅgala* (as a *māṅgalika āchārya*, *Bhāshya*, I.7).

c10.s2.15

In the Pārshada or Prātiśākhya tradition of the *Caraṇas* *Om* was pronounced at the commencement of *svādhyāya*. Pāṇini says that for this purpose it was to be uttered with a *pluta* accent (*Om-abhyādāne*, VIII.2.87).

c10.s2.16

*WRITING*—Writing was known in the time of Pāṇini and even earlier according to Goldstücker who thinks that Vedic literature was available to Pāṇini even in Mss. (Goldstücker, *Pāṇini*, pp. 11-47). Though teaching was oral in those days, and study from manuscripts was not encouraged on principle as the proper method of learning, Pāṇini hints at the use of writing in several significant expressions. These are (1) *grantha*, (2) *lipikara*, a writer, (3) *Yavanānī lipi*, and (4) the marks of numerals imprinted on the ears of cattle to indicate their owners, as already shown (VI.3.115).

c10.s2.17

(1) *Lipikara* (III.2.21) as well as its variant form *libikara*, denoted a writer. The term *lipi* with its variant was a standing term for writing in the Maurya period and earlier. *Dhammalipi*, with its alternative form *dharmadipi*, stands for the Edicts of Aśoka engraved on rocks in the third century B.C. An engraver is there referred to as *lipikara* (M. R. E., II) Kauṭilya also knows the term: 'A king shall learn the *lipi* (alphabet) and *saṅkhyāna* (numbers, *Arth.* I.5). He also refers to *saṁjñā-lipi*, 'Code Writing' (*Arth.*, I.12) used at the Espionage Institute. In the Behistun inscription we find *dipi* for engraved writing. Thus it is certain that *lipi* in the time of Pāṇini meant writing and script.

c10.s2.18

(2) *Branding of kine with numerals*. Pāṇini refers to the marking of certain signs on the ears of cattle to indicate ownership. Among several signs thus branded (*sūtra* VI.3.115), the terms *ashṭa* and *pañcha* stood for the written figures of the numerals 8 and 5 (Goldstücker, *Pāṇini*, p. 44).

c10.s2.19

(3) *Yavanānī* (IV.1.49). Kātyāyana's *vārttika* mentioning the *lipi* of the Yavanas (*Yavanāl-lipyām*) is only an explanation of Pāṇini's use of the term *Yavanānī*. It is unwarranted to assume that he is supplying some new information not known to Pāṇini. Such an assumption goes against the very style of Kātyāyana's other *vārttikas* on this *sūtra*, designed to explain and not supplement the words of Pāṇini's rule, as *himānī*, *araṇyānī*, *yavānī*. *Yavanānī* as the name of a script occurs in the list of scripts in the *Samavāyāṅga sūtra* (*Samavāya* XVIII) under the form *Javaṇāṇīyā* (cf. also the same list in *Paṇṇavaṇā sūtra*). Weber interpreted *Yavanānī* as Greek writing (*Ind. St.*, IV.89). Keith also holds that *Yavanānī lipi* meant 'Greek (Ionian) writing' (*Hist. of Sans. Lit.*, p. 425).

c10.s2.20

Goldstücker and Spooner took *Yavanānī* to refer to the Persian cuneiform writing which Keith refutes as highly improbable since there is no evidence to show that the word *Yavana* ever meant the Persians (*J.R.A.S.*, 1915, p. 432). Darius (B. C. 521-B. C. 485) in his Old-Persian Inscriptions refers to the country *Yauna* and to its inhabitants as *Yaunā* (Behistun Inscription, names of the twenty-three provinces), which shows that the terms cannot be taken to mean Persia or the Persians. Most scholars agree in taking them as Ionia and Ionian Greeks. Aśoka likewise uses in his inscriptions the word *Yona* for *Yavana* and not for the Persians. The suggestion that *Yavanānī* was the name of the Armaic writing discovered in a stone inscription at Takshaśila, likewise remains unsupported by any proof. Herodotus mentions a contingent of Indian soldiers in the army of Xerxes fighting in Greece and there were Greek colonists settled in Bactria even before Alexander. Thus Pāṇini's knowledge of the word for Greek writing can be naturally understood.

Linked texts (5)