CHAFFER EIGHT
OBSERVATION ON THE INCOMPLETENESS OF THE PARIBHASA
PRAKARANA
OF SIDDHANTAKAUMUDI
4
As it is already observed that the PP is a very small prakarana in comparison to
the other chapters o f the VSK o f Bhattoji. It is also notified that Bhattoji has arranged
all the sutra-s o f Panini in his VSK following his own placement mechanism. The
process o f categorizing the sutra-s o f Panini, though not a new one, has received
brilliance in the hands o f Bhattoji. However, all the chapters o f the VSK can not be said
to have reached the same level of perfection and comprehensiveness. The PP is one
amongst them. Though in the AST, there are about fifty paribhasa rules o f divergent
mode which are treated in various sections1, the PP deals with only 13 paribhasa rules
o f Panini. According to K. Das, the interpretative canons found in the A S T are thirty
(30) in number.23Besides these rules o f Panini, a huge field o f paribhasapatha-s are
available in the area o f Paninian Grammar. These paribhasapatha-s are either suggested
by the rules o f Panini, or derived from the popular nyaya-s or extracted from the
statements o f grammarians like Katyayana and Patanjali. Nagesa has dealt with one
hundred and thirty three such paribhasa-s in
his PBSS. Thus the field of Paninian
paribhasa-s is definitely a vast one and each o f these paribhasa-s has its own area of
operation. It can be said more clearly that all the paribhasa-s are connected with a
1. Panini, the earliest writer o f systematic treatise on Sanskrit Vyakarana has given
about fifty rales, scattered here and there in his Astadhyayi which could be called
Paribhasa rales. Introduction to PBS.
m
2. appen. II. PPSG. p.245
3. BDHSG.p.106
192
grammatical operation someway or other. Bhattoji, while categorizing the rules of
Panini, has drawn the line o f demarcation between the paribhasa rules and other types
o f sutra-s by creating a separate chapter for the interpretative canons. But he has not
maintained the conceptual uniformity o f the metarules o f the Grammar o f Panini. It is
evident from the fact that the famous interpretative canon adyantavad ekasmin (1.1.21)
has not been taken into consideration by Bhattoji while accommodating the PP in the
VSK. In case o f the paribhasapatha-s also, it is seen that Bhattoji is too selective
because he has taken into account only four such interpretative canons o f which one is
adjusted in the vrtti o f the rule sthane ntaratamah (1,1.50 ).45This curtailment on the part
o f Bhattoji can not be judged in any way. When he made up his mind to categorize all
the Paninian rules under specific heads, he could have followed the principle o f
including all the rules o f the same nature under a single head. It can not be proposed
that Bhattoji has included in the PP o f the VSK only those paribhasa sutra-s o f Panini
which are related to the process of word construction, the most important grammatical
arena chosen by Panini in his AST. It is because Bhattoji has left out a good number o f
important interpretative canons o f Paninian Grammar which are regarded as almost
indispensable in many places to judge the process o f word-formation. As for example,
the paribhasa - laksanapratipadoktayoh pratipadoktasyaiva grahanams which has been
taken resort to in order to judge the construction process o f the word like bhavisnuh6 ,is
A
4)
not mentioned in the PP for reason so far unearthed. Moreover, Bhattoji has enlisted the
paribhasa - asiddham
bahirangamantarahge
in the PP but he has left another
important canon purastadapavada anantardn vidhin badhante nottaran,7 which proves
4. yatiinekavidhamantaryam tatra sthanata antaryam baliyah. PP. VSK. vol. 1. p.45
5. pr no. 114. PBSS. p.255
6. ka rupasiddhih. adhyambhavisnuriti. PBSC, PBS, p. 3.
7. pr. no. 60. PBSS. p. 185
193
its importance in the grammatical process involved in many sutra-s.89Similarly, Bhattoji
has not taken into account, in the PP,
the important interpretative canons like
sannipatalaksano vidhiranimittam tadvighdtasya* which is employed in the formation
process o f the words rdthaya, sripdya. etc. This is clearly mentioned by S. Bali in the
fif|h chapter o f his book BDHSG.10 It can neither be said that Bhattoji has accumulated
in this prakarana those paribhasd sutra-s o f Panini only which are placed in the very
first chapter o f the AST, It is because, in that case, the interpretative canons o f Panini
like eca ighrasvadese (1.1.4$,
uranraparah (1.1.51) etc. would also demand their
inclusion in the PP which Bhattoji has not done. Again Bhattoji has treated the famous
pafibhasd - paranitydntarahgdpavdddndmuttarottaram baliyah in the PP o f the VSK,
but he has avoided the inclusion o f the famous paribhasd rule vipratisedhe param
karyam (1.4.2) here, which deals with the establishment o f priority o f the subsequent rule
ovpr the previous one when both are o f equal strength. Thus, in the PP o f the VSK,
Bhattoji while delineating the interpretative canons related to the priority of rules of
unpqual strength, he has avoided the grammatical convention regarding the priority o f
certain Paninian rules o f equal strength. The topic of conventional priority o f one sutra
over another can not be considered as exhaustive in the PP of the VSK. Bhattoji has
explained the Paninian rules tasmimiti nirdiste purvasya (1.1.66) and tasmddityuttarasya
(1.1.67) in the PP o f the VSK. Both o f these rules deal with the positional importance
o f the words with the seventh case-ending and fifth case-endings respectively in
the aphorisms o f Panini by establishing the convention that the proposed grammatical
8. P. sut. sola igupadhddanitah ksah (3.1.45) supersedes the action o f the P. sut.
asyativyaktikhyatibhyo n (3.1.52) but it is superseded by the P. sut. cintepadah
(3.1.60)
9. pr. no. 86. PBSS, p. 215.
10. loc. cit,p. 116.
194
operation will take place before the element specified with the seventh case-ending and
the concerned grammatical function will take place after the lexical unit specified with
the help of the fifth case-ending. Many o f the Paninian rules show the simultaneous use
o f the words with locative and ablative in a single rule. The probable solution to such a
problem is not discussed by Bhattoji in the PP. The paribhasa adopted in this case is
ubhayanirdese pancaminirdeso baliyan which is conspicuously avoided by Bhattoji in
the PP of the VSK. But without the knowledge o f this paribhasa the interpretation
process o f many Paninian aphorisms gets interrupted. So this can be regarded as a lacuna
of the concerned prakarana o f the VSK - a fact that leads us to believe that the
procedure followed by Bhattoji is not comprehensive enough. Again it can not be said
that only important paribhasa-s o f Paninian Grammar have been taken up by Bhattoji in
the PP. It is because none o f the Paninian aphorisms o f interpretative nature, nor the
paribhasapatha-s o f this school can be regarded as devoid o f grammatical importance
as each o f the paribhasa-s has connection with a particular grammatical operation
inyolved in some stages o f the grammatical process o f Paninian school. Again, the
important paribhasa-s
like yathoddesam samjnaparibhasam11 and
karyakalaih
saihjnaparibhasam12 are not taken into account by Bhattoji in the PP o f the VSK. Thus
in comparison to the huge number o f interpretative canons floating in the field of
Grammar o f Paninian school, the PP o f the VSK appears to be very small and
incomplete. In our humble opinion, Bhattoji in his great endeavour o f explaining the
sutra-s o f Panini, could have at least included all the interpretative canons o f the A S T
altogether in the PP. Such an arrangement would have appeared to be much
comprehensive and self sustaining in connection with the re-shuffling process adopted by
Bhattoji through out the whole VSK.
11. pr. no. 2. PBSS, p.4
12. pr. no. 3. ibid, p.4