Sanskrit: etad vimarse sivasutrajaalam

[Gop]

This is about the arrangement of Sanskrit phonemes in Panini’s Astadhyayi.
The legend of the revelation to Panini of the ‘Maheswara sutras’ that organise Sanskrit phonemes Is described in the following verse:
"नृत्तावसाने नटराजराजो ननाद ढक्कां नवपञ्चवारम्। उद्धर्तुकामः सनकादिसिद्धान् एतद्विमर्शे शिवसूत्रजालम् ॥"
I have not succeeded in figuring out the word for word meaning of the last part of this verse, namely, etad, vimarse, sivasutrajaalam.
Should be grateful for help.
Gop

 

[Dib]

How about taking "etad-vimarśe" to mean "in consideration to this"? So, I'd basically take the first three pāda's as one sentence: "नृत्तावसाने नटराजराजो ननाद ढक्कां नवपञ्चवारम् उद्धर्तुकामः सनकादिसिद्धान्।" The last pāda would then draw a conclusion where "शिवसूत्रजालम्" can be loosely another object to ननाद, or simply as a stand-alone sentence: "(and) शिवसूत्रजालम् (exists) in consideration to this".

The word "vimarśe" is a bit difficult to interpret here. I suspect, there is some idiomatic sense that we are missing.

 

[Gop]

Dib-ji, thank you for so promptly coming to my help. You have put the finger on the difficulty presented by this pāda. One has to postulate, as you indicate, ‘exists’ to complete the meaning. And vimarśé is indeed difficult to interpret in a straightforward manner. Could ‘etadvimarśé’ have as its antecedent Śiva’s intention expressed in uddhartukaamah? Then could we say ‘in this thought, i.e. of emancipating(?) the Sanakas, the Śivasutrajaalam [came into being]?

 

[Dib]

Dib-ji, thank you for so promptly coming to my help.

You are welcome.

One has to postulate, as you indicate, ‘exists’ to complete the meaning.

Yes but it sounds quite natural in Sanskrit, because verbs of existence are often omitted anyway.

Could ‘etadvimarśé’ have as its antecedent Śiva’s intention expressed in uddhartukaamah? Then could we say ‘in this thought, i.e. of emancipating(?) the Sanakas, the Śivasutrajaalam [came into being]?

That is essentially what I was implying as well. Yes.

 

[Gop]

No further doubts!

 

[Gop]

The word "vimarśe" is a bit difficult to interpret here. I suspect, there is some idiomatic sense that we are missing.

I have just come across a commentary on how विमर्शे could be interpreted in two ways: as the atmanepada 1st person singular present of the verb [वि]मृश्, or as the सप्तमी of the noun विमर्श. Am attaching the relevant text. I’m afraid I have no idea of the title of the text or of the author.
I should be grateful for a literal translation of footnote १ .
Thanks for help.

 

[Gop]

Since the text uses some terminology of Pāninian grammar, instead of a literal translation of all of it, I would be quite happy with help in understanding अन्तर्भावितण्यर्थः, परस्मैपदित्वात्, व्यत्ययेन, प्रतीम.
Thanks.

 

[Dib]

Translations/quotations in normal type, and my own comments/interpretations in the italics. I am quoting the parts where the sandhi may be a bit tricky - by undoing the sandhi. Not quoting the other parts.

Since the text uses some terminology of Pāninian grammar, instead of a literal translation of all of it, I would be quite happy with help in understanding अन्तर्भावितण्यर्थः, परस्मैपदित्वात्, व्यत्ययेन, प्रतीम.
Thanks.

'ननाद' इति अत्र अन्तः-भावित-णि-अर्थः। 'नादयामास' इति अर्थः। = ननाद here has an implied causative (णि/णिच्) meaning, i.e. the meaning is नादयामास। (Basically, ननाद is normally supposed to be intransitive, but here used as transitive/causative.)

विमर्शे - the sense is "I deliberate and clarify", i.e. "I make a clear deliberation".

Since मृशति is परस्मैपदी, (here we have) exceptionally (=व्यत्ययेन) the first person singular of आत्मनेपद, where because इट् becomes/behaves like ङित्*, गुण does not obtain (गुण-अप्राप्तौ अपि < अप्राप्ति), yet exceptionally (we have) गुण|

*"इटो ङित्" seems to refer to some rule of grammar, but I don't really speak पाणिनि - so not sure exactly what the rule in question is. In any case, the idea is that in this interpretation, the expected form is परस्मैपद "विमृशामि". Even if we allow आत्मनेपद as an exception, it should have been विमृशे without गुण. The actual form विमर्शे requires an additional exceptional गुण on top of the आत्मनेपद usage.

अथवा सप्तमी-अन्तम् एतत् पदम् = Alternatively, it may be a form in the locative case.

विमर्शे = विचारे कृते सति प्रति-इमः इति शेषः
This one is difficult to translate directly because of the idiom इति शेषः (=to be supplied, implying an ellipsis) and the use of the locative absolute (भावे सप्तमी). So just paraphrasing: "विमर्श means विचार (deliberation); and after that we have to supply 'having being done, we believe'". In other words, विमर्शे stands for "we believe after having deliberated" by an ellipsis.

It is to be kept in mind (=धातव्यम्) that many later authors use ungrammatical forms in their works in order to pass them off as आर्ष (i.e. composed by the ancient ऋषि-s)।

इह अपि एषा युक्तिः आस्थिता इति प्रतीयते = This argument seems to apply also here.

In summary, the commentator rates this verse as having a late origin and containing bad grammar.

----

अन्तर्भावितण्यर्थः = (having) an implied causative meaning
परस्मैपदित्वात् = because of its परस्मैपदी-ness
व्यत्ययेन = exceptionally, as an exception
प्रतीमः = we believe (present 1st plural of प्रति-इ)

 

[Gop]

Translations/quotations in normal type, and my own comments/interpretations in the italics. I am quoting the parts where the sandhi may be a bit tricky - by undoing the sandhi. Not quoting the other parts.


'ननाद' इति अत्र अन्तः-भावित-णि-अर्थः। 'नादयामास' इति अर्थः। = ननाद here has an implied causative (णि/णिच्) meaning, i.e. the meaning is नादयामास। (Basically, ननाद is normally supposed to be intransitive, but here used as transitive/causative.)

विमर्शे - the sense is "I deliberate and clarify", i.e. "I make a clear deliberation".

Since मृशति is परस्मैपदी, (here we have) exceptionally (=व्यत्ययेन) the first person singular of आत्मनेपद, where because इट् becomes/behaves like ङित्*, गुण does not obtain (गुण-अप्राप्तौ अपि < अप्राप्ति), yet exceptionally (we have) गुण|

*"इटो ङित्" seems to refer to some rule of grammar, but I don't really speak पाणिनि - so not sure exactly what the rule in question is. In any case, the idea is that in this interpretation, the expected form is परस्मैपद "विमृशामि". Even if we allow आत्मनेपद as an exception, it should have been विमृशे without गुण. The actual form विमर्शे requires an additional exceptional गुण on top of the आत्मनेपद usage.

अथवा सप्तमी-अन्तम् एतत् पदम् = Alternatively, it may be a form in the locative case.

विमर्शे = विचारे कृते सति प्रति-इमः इति शेषः
This one is difficult to translate directly because of the idiom इति शेषः (=to be supplied, implying an ellipsis) and the use of the locative absolute (भावे सप्तमी). So just paraphrasing: "विमर्श means विचार (deliberation); and after that we have to supply 'having being done, we believe'". In other words, विमर्शे stands for "we believe after having deliberated" by an ellipsis.

It is to be kept in mind (=धातव्यम्) that many later authors use ungrammatical forms in their works in order to pass them off as आर्ष (i.e. composed by the ancient ऋषि-s)।

इह अपि एषा युक्तिः आस्थिता इति प्रतीयते = This argument seems to apply also here.

In summary, the commentator rates this verse as having a late origin and containing bad grammar.

----

अन्तर्भावितण्यर्थः = (having) an implied causative meaning
परस्मैपदित्वात् = because of its परस्मैपदी-ness
व्यत्ययेन = exceptionally, as an exception
प्रतीमः = we believe (present 1st plural of प्रति-इ)

Dib-ji, I do not have words enough to thank you for the precision of your exhaustive and scholarly explanation, but for which I would have had to be content with just a broad general idea of the meaning of this footnote. (Quite ironical that the scholarly commentator has critiqued the grammar of this verse as bad, and more!).

 

[Dib]

It's my pleasure.

 

[Gop]

It's my pleasure.

As a matter of record this footnote is from a work titled अ इ उ ण् ऋलृक् आदि
प्रत्याहार सूत्रों का निर्माता कौन by Bhimsen Sastri, MA PhD Sahityaratna and published (by him?) by Bhaimii Prakashan, 537 Lajpatrai market, New Delhi 110006. From a copy in Göttingen University Library for Indology and Tibetology.