Wilson Philological Lectures on Sanskrit and the Derived Languages c6.47

c6.47

But it was in the field of philosophy, dialectics, and exegesis, scriptural or grammatical, that this nominal style was greatly cultivated and developed. The earliest work of the kind we know of is Patañjali’s Mahâbhâshya on Kâtyâyana’s Vârtikas or notes on Pâṇini’s Sûtras. Nearly the whole of the philosophical literature of the Sanskrit is written more or less in the style of disputation. An Indian author does not lead his readers into the processes his own mind has gone through in arriving at the doctrines he lays down; in other words, he does not tell us how he has come by the opinions he holds, but lays down these doctrines and sets forth those opinions and conceives objections that may be raised and answers them. Or before actually stating the true doctrine or siddhânta, certain others, more or less opposed are stated, and reasons given in support of them (pûrvapaksha) which are, of course, refuted. The Mahâbhâshya is written in this manner, but it differs in a good many respects from later works of the kind. Unlike the latter, it gives the very words that an opponent, speaking in his own person, may be expected to use. It therefore really consists of a series of dialogues, often smart, between one who maintains the pûrvapaksha, and another who lays down the siddhânta. Hence, the language is plain and simple, and the sentences are short, and such as a man may naturally use in ordinary conversation or oral disputation. The nominal style, however, as I have ventured to call it, in contradistinction to that of the Brâhmanas and also of Yâska, is observable; but it has of course not yet degenerated into the long compounds and algebraic expressions of modern times, and is perfectly natural. In this respect it keeps pace with the language of the Itihâsas and Smritis. Vâtsyâyana’s Bhâshya on Gotama’s Nyâya Sûtra, and Sabarasvâmin’s on that of Jaimini, as well as the Bhâshyas on some of the sacrificial Sûtras, are written in the same sort of simple and lively style, though however they present a further stage in the downward progress. But gradually this manner of writing ceased to be used, and the philosophical style went on progressing until it has come to be what it is now. Samkarâchârya’s Bhâshya presents it in a middle stage. The sentences are much longer than those of the earlier writers, the construction is more involved, there is a freer use of attributive adjuncts, and the form is that of an essay or a lecture, instead of an oral disputation. But the great Âchârya’s style is perspicuous throughout, fluent and charming, and not solidified or petrified, as that of later writers is. These latter hardly ever use a verb, and of the cases only a few are to be met with in their works. The nominative and ablative singular prevail, and long compounds are constantly employed. All our ideas are thrown into the form of nouns, mostly abstract, and even the participles have become rare. This style is the style of formulas rather than of discourse. It has reached its climax in the works of recent Naiyâyikas, but it has been more or less used by modern writers in all the Sâstras. The movement which began with a less frequent use of verbal forms and the employment of attributive expressions has thus ended in making Sanskrit a language of abstract nouns and compound words.