Introduction, Statement of the problem – Two incompatible meanings for ārya / anārya

Discussion in 'Hindu' started by Speechless world, Feb 7, 2016.

  1. Speechless world

    Speechless world New Member

    Introduction : The word ārya and anārya occur in vedic documents 1 and classicalSanskrit language documents 2 which are dated prior to Sanskrit grammarian Pā ini. These words also occur in post Pā inian period documents also. The cognate forms of these words occur in non-Sanskrit languages 3 also, prior to Pā ini. The word ‘anārya’ (and in tune with it, the word ārya) is interpreted in two distinct shades of meaning by the traditional and modern scholars in these documents.


    Traditional scholars prefer to go by the meaning ‘anārya’= ‘not noble’, without any flavor of race, cast, ethnicity, in all the documents, throughout the past and post period of Pā ini. Modern scholars prefer to go by the meaning ‘anārya= a race, ethnic group opposed to āryan’s’, with a flavor of race, cast, ethnicity in the documents, throughout the past period of Pā ini.These two meanings are incompatible. This difference in meaning has an impact on the following points: (a) understanding of pre-pā inian sources in the light of rules of Sanskrit (bhā hā / chandas) (b) construction of the history ofvedic traditions (c) explaining the post pā inian understanding of large number of documents / pā inian rules involving the word ārya for compounding.


    1.1.2 Genesis of the problem

    Let us look a little more deeply in to the two shades of meaning and deeper vestiges built in it.

    1.1.2A: The shade of meaning 4 preferred by the modern scholars carries a deeper understanding on the foundation of modern linguistic studies. According to this team, ‘ārya’ is an ethnic group, which is opposed to the tribes like ‘dasyu’. The word ‘anārya’ means ‘non-āryan’ = one who does not belong to the āryan ethnic group. Anārya is taken to connote commonly all major and minor groups (dāsa, dasyu, śhūdra’s, unreligious person, non-religious person, next to sorcerers, non-humans like dānava, demons, kīka a, anudruhyu, yadu turvasu, pūru) which are contrary (opponend) to the Ārya’s in the ig. The appearance of such names among the groups belonging to the Indo-Aryans indicates, that ārya/anārya does not mean a particular ''people'' or even a particular 'racial' group but all those who had joined the tribes speaking Vedic Sanskrit and adhering to their cultural norms (such as ritual, poetry, etc.) The Others such as the kīka a (RV 3.53), who inhabit the greater Panjab together with the ārya, are even declared ''not to be fit to deal with cows.'' They form the amorphous group of the dasyu ''the foreigner, the enemy.'' While the ārya frequently fight among themselves, their main enemy are the dasyu who are portrayed in typical half-mythical fashion as ''foreign devils'' and demons.


    1.1.2B:
    The meaning preferred by the traditional scholars carries a deeper reliance on the sources of traditional pā inian grammar, and Sanskrit lexicon amarako ha (dated circa 500 CE or earlier, but certainly post pā inian) and the belief on the accuracy/ authenticity of transmission of traditional texts and their understanding. The prime meaning of the word ‘ĀRYA’ is ‘nobility, related to birth’ without any limitation / qualifier of race, caste, ethnicity. The listed synonyms 5 of the word confirm this. 1.1.2C:


    It may be of interest at this point, to peruse the different word forms with similar sound / structure but different meanings listed in the lexicon amarako ha. ( The search engines are likely to pick up these words when searching for the part of the words ‘ arya /anary ‘ in the internet searches.) Each form has its unique Pā inian grammatical rule processing associated with it. The meaning of the words comes from the background of Vedas, Dharma-śhāstra’s (some of which are pre-pā inian ) and sm iti’s, may of which are post-pā inian. The awareness of the specific words, with their structure and meaning, firmly stated in Sanskrit dictionary helps to mark a reference point.


    * ĀRYA= Born in a noble family (mahākula- kulīna- ārya-sabhya- sajjana-sādhava .)
    * ARYĀ = a merchant, a man of third var a, known as vaiśhya. (Ūruvyā, ūrujā ARYĀ, vaiśhyā, bhūmisp uśho viśha .)
    *Anāryatikta = chiretta or a sort of gentian (gentian cherayta, Rox) *Aryamā =Name of the Sun, The primary form is aryaman with a ‘–n’ ending, masculine.
    *Aryā = A female of the vaiśhya var a. (aryā ī svayamaryā syāt) *Aryā ī = A female of the vaiśhya var a. (aryā ī svayamaryā syāt)
    *Ahārya =Mountain
    *Āhārya = A technical term from the nātya śhāstra for a specific class of body expression (abhinaya).
    *Āchāryā = A learned woman (upādhyāyā – py-upādhyāyī, syādāchāryā pi cha svata ) , āchāryā ī tu pumyoge, syādaryī kśhatriyī tathā
    *Āchāryā ī = The wife of a religious teacher (āchāryā ī tu pumyoge ) *Aryī = Wife of a kśhatriya or a vaiśhya.( syādaryī kśhatriyī tathā ) *Ārya =mahākula- kulīna- ārya-sabhya- sajjana- sādhava . *ĀryĀ= Wife of Śhiva ( Āryā dāk hāya ī chaiva, girijā menakātmajā) *Ārā = Awl, an implement for cutting skin ( Ārā charma-prabhedikā
    *Āryāvarta = Sanctified land which is identified between two mountain ranges of vindhya and Himalayas.
    *Bhāryā = Wife.
    *ĪryĀ = To stay on good conduct ( Īryā pathi sthiti ) *Charyā =wandering (vrajyā ātyā parya anam)
    *Āchārya = A brāhmin well versed in Vedas and who can explain and comment on veda. (mantra-vyākhyāk udāchārya )


    While there is nothing extraordinary in a word undergoing phase shifts in the meaning associated with it over a period of time and society, a study of the meaning shift projected for these two words in two models of interpretation of Hinduism is of significance. This difference highlights the postulates guiding the approach in the interpretation of Vedic language documents in two traditions of study.


    In the current period, Bhagavad-Gita is a widely read classical Sanskrit language document, belonging to pre-pā inian period and used for representing religious – history, tenets and philosophy of Hinduism. The meaning of the verse (Ch2- sl.2), associated with Lord Sri Krishna, where the word ‘anārya-jush am’,occurs, poses an interesting challenge. The śhloka reads as follows: Kutastvā kaśhmalamidam vi hame samupasthitam | Anāryaju h am - asvargyam akīrtikaramarjuna ||


    Here, does the word anārya here carry any ethnic background meaning or is it used in a generic sense of ‘not- noble’ without any ethnic implications?


    What should be the guidelines to fix the meaning of the word ‘Ārya’ in this Gita 6 reference / vedic sources ?


    Should it be the post period understanding (as provided by Pā inian rules) OR The past period model (meaning of the word in the vedic period, whence the linguistic approach needs to be followed?

    1.2 Specific statement of the problem

    This boils down to the specifics of analytical investigation:

    a) Is Pā ini clear about the meaning of the word ārya?
    b) Are Pā inian rules clear for the compounding of the word ārya?
    c) Is Pā ini addressing / aware of the vedic documents where ārya/anārya issues are coming? how does he address the meaning issue? 1.3 Relevance of study

    This study is important from the point of addressing the following points:

    (a) the relevance of linguistic methodologies 7 adopted in the study of Vedas
    (b) establishing the relevance of language tools, methodologies and related reference points for understanding the classical language texts
    (c) claim of traditions for authenticity of undistorted transmission of understanding over a period of time, locale and generations. These issues affect the larger picture of Hindu religious identity, Sanskrit as major sacred language tradition of Hindus and traditional understanding of Vedas / sacred documents like Dharma-śhāstra/sm iti’s based on commentaries in sanskrit.

    2. Analysis of the issue – Pā inan Grammar rules


    2.1 Primary rule of grammar on the dissolution of the compound anārya The normal dissolution of the compound word ‘anārya’ would be made according to the pā inian rule (nañ:2-2-6; (SK= Siddhānta Kaumudi) SK 756) as follows:

    Na ārya / āryā = anārya (= Not ārya / ārya’s)


    (Note: the shift in the singular /plural form- ārya / āryā does not impact the samāsa.)


    The resultant of the tatpuru ha compound is a masculine gender word ending in ‘a’ , reading as ‘ anārya’ . The grammatical processing of the words are regulated by the rules (na lopo naña 6-3-73/ SK 757; tasmāt nu achi 6-3-74/ SK 758). The masculine gender is according to the rule (paravallinga dvandva-tatpuru hayo 2-4-26 /SK812).


    If the compounding was intended to be processed under the avyayībhāva rule (2-1-6 /SK 652), then the communication would have been ‘total absence of ārya’s’- and the word form would have been ‘nir-āryam’ – ( like nir-makśhikam) an indeclinable. The ‘na’ component of the compound can add six shades of meaning to the overall communication of the word anārya. The ‘na’ part of the compound is NOT limited to the sense of ‘not’. There are six meanings of the ‘Na’ component,which need to be inferred contextually. The six meanings of ‘Na’ are: (1) similarity (sādrśhya) (2) non-presence (abhāva) (3) uniquely distinguished from the other (tadanyatvam) (4) less than that (tadalpatā) (5) not prominent (apraśhastyam) (6) opposite ( virodha). These communications only qualify the meaning of the second word ārya in thetotal communication. The meaning of ‘na’ does not carry any meaning of race-caste-ethnicity.
     
  2. Speechless world

    Speechless world New Member

    2.2 Rule boundary


    With the form ‘anārya’ as a tatpuru ha compound, further analysis is as follows:

    a) under what allowable meanings of the word ‘ārya’ , the compound ‘anārya’ as a tatpurur ha compound is permissible? What are the permissive and restrictive aspects?


    The compounding process in Sanskrit has specific technicalities related to the nature of the words combining – by meaning compatibility (sāmarthya) and theprevious processing ( prakriyā).


    If the second word of the compound in the (2-2-6) rule of tatpuru ha had todenote an ‘ethnicity’ (= jāti) then the rule ( jātyākhyāyā ekasmin bahuvachanam anyatarasyām - 1-2-58; SK 817) brings in special processing features about the number, the subsequent processing of the word in specific cases and communication of meaning. These would come in to play, only when a next process involving the word anārya are taken up. In the words ‘anārya-ju h am’ ‘anāryatā’ , there is a next level of process; another compounding / addition of a taddhita pratyaya. The known usages of these words do not indicate any shade of ethnicity in the communication. More words of this type are: ārya-bhā hā, ārya-putra.



    The word ‘ārya’ does not have any specific social and religious connotations of var a like identity of brāhma a, kśhatriya, vaiśhya, śhūdra, or any other groups like dāsa, dasyu, cha āla in the society. The technical processes of compounding or taddhita pratyaya do not add or take out any thing from the primary meaning of the word, which in this case is ārya. The lack of race-caste- ethnicity shades of communication in the second level words clearly establishes that the primary word does not carry any association with the meanings of race-caste- ethnicity.

    2.3 Rule Āryo brāhma akumaārayo (6-2-58 /SK 3792)


    This is an important rule which helps to firm up many of the issues under discussion. The rule, deals with the accent for the compound word expression,where first word is ārya and the second word is brāhma a. The rule reads as below.

    Āryo brāhma a-kumārayo . - (SK Gloss)- Ārya-kumāra | Ārya-brāhmana | Āryo yadantatvāt anta-svarita . Āryah kim? Parama – brāhmana | brāhmanadi- iti kim ? Ārya-kshatriya | Karma-dhāraye ityeva.


    Meaning of gloss: In the context of deciding the accent and the compounding rule for the words where the first is Ārya and second is brāhma a/kumāra, the compounding obeys the rule of Karmadhāraya; and the last svara will be udaatta. In the word Ārya-brāhmana , Ārya-kumāra why is the restriction placed
    – ‘first is ārya’ ? The counter example is Parama – brāhmana . Here the accent rule will not apply. Why the limitation – ‘second is brāhma a/kumāra’ ? The counter example is Ārya-kshatriya . Why is the restriction - rule of Karmadhāraya? The rule does not apply in other compounds.


    In terms of accent sequence, the compound word Ārya-brāhmana = (1= Ā)-(2=rya)-(3=brā)-(4=hma)-(5=na ) in karmadharya would have the pattern (1anudatta- 2udatta-3svarita- 4svarita- 5svarita) markings. In other compounding the accent sequence will be (1 svarita - 2 svarita -3svarita- 4svarita- 5 svarita).


    This rule shows the subtlest clarity of deliberation by Pā ini in the nature of compounding where the word ārya ( an adjective) and a word which denotes a var a are involved. This subtle deliberation can not take place if the word ārya had a common loci with any of the var a factors, which are inaccurately translated as race-caste-ethnicity flavored social category implication words!


    This rule needs to be read in the context of the previous and succeeding rules, which is discussing the accent of the compound words in vedic documents.


    (6-2-57 /SK 3791) – katara-katamau karmadhāraye (6-2-59/SK 3792) – āryo brāhma akumārayo
    (6-2-60/SK 3793) rājā cha
    - Brāhma a-kumārayo parato rājā vā prakrutyā karmadharaye | rājabrāhmana | rajakumāra | yogavibhāga uttarārtha .


    The word ‘Rājā’ (= King) also compounds with the words brāhma a and kumāra; in the karamadhāraya mode; and the accent is on the last svara.


    This rule also has an interesting point to bring in. The word rājabrāhmana denotes the same individual who is a brāhmana as well as a king! One may have to investigate how many illustrations of brāhmins being kings are there in the Indian history. How ever that is a side issue. The important point to note is that kśhatriya does not always mean a ‘king’ and ‘brāhmana’ always does not imply a ‘vedic ritualist’. This is the implication of karmadhāraya compound.


    What is the significance of the karmadhāraya compound? The rule of karmadhāraya samāsa reads as follows:


    (1-2-42 /SK 745) tatpuru ha samānādhikara a karmadhāraya (6-3-42 /SK 746) pumvat karmadhāraya – jātīya-deśhīye hu
    - karmadhāraye jātīya-deśhīyayośhcha parata bhā hitapu skāt-para ū gabhāvo yasmin tathābhūta pūrva pu vat


    The karmadhāraya compounding has the unique feature that the two wordsgetting compounded denote qualifying properties of the same target. Like k hnachaturdaśhī = k h ā chāsau chaturdaśhī. The meaning of the compound word is ‘the night which is dark and also the fourteenth in count’. The word ‘night’ is qualified as dark and also fourteenth. Following this guidance, the compound word āryabrāhmana, which is a karmadhāraya compound of vedic source / accented sanskrit, indicates the same person who is an ārya as well as a brāhma a. If the word ārya were to indicate any specific race- cast- ethnicity- var a, this compound can not take place. There will be lack of sāmarthya (competence) for the words to enter in to the grammatical process. The fact that pā ini has made specific rule for this type of compound and made deliberations about the guiding rule and the accent, establishes that pā ini is clear about the meaning of the two words here; ārya does not carry any meaning of any specific race- cast- ethnicity- var a; ārya is an adjective.


    The respectable nature of this adjective is brought out in the linguistic usage and from other contextual explanations.
    This rule brings out the following important points:


    a) Pā ini is clear about the meaning of ārya as different from the race-caste-ethnicity meanings associated.
    b) Pā ini is clear about the meaning of ārya as an adjective.
    c) The stratification argument of ā h ādhyāyī is not going to help. The distribution of the compounding rules, accent related rules and process rules in the text demands an integrated intelligent structure of the text in it’s entirety.
    d) If the next processes like further compounding, addition of affixes, feminine gender formation needs to be done with the word ārya in the meaning of race-caste-ethnicity, the resultant forms do not match the well known linguistic usages in Sanskrit. For example, the feminine gender form of ārya (race-caste-ethnicity meaning) would have to be regulated by the rule (4-1-65 /SK 520 ito manu hya jāte ). The resultant form would be āryī (= female of ārya). But the right Sanskrit word would be āryā. The generic female of ārya (noble, as an adjective) is regulated by (4-1-4 /SK454 ajādyata tāp). The resultant form will be āryā. This is the respectable address word used in Sanskrit literature for all women. The word āryā is also used as a synonym for the wife of Shiva.
     
  3. Speechless world

    Speechless world New Member

    2.4 Other rules which discuss about the word ārya and provide clarification onPā inan understanding of race-caste-ethnicity- var a.Pā ini has several other rules in which the word ārya figures. Placed below are some of these references:


    7-3-46 /SK 465

    Udīchāmāta sthāne yaka pūrvāyā

    This explains the rules to form the feminine gender form of ārya. The resultant form is āryā, āryakā, āryikā.
    4-1-30 /SK 430


    Kevala-māmaka-bhāgadheya- pāpa-apara-samāna-āryak uta-suma gala-bhe hajāccha

    The feminine gender formation for the base word āryak uta is explained as it would be in the chandas and bhā hā. The feminine gender form is āryak utī. (There is a subnote- that the vedic occurrence of the word āryak utī needs to be searched. 4-1-49 /SK 505


    Indra-varu a-bhava-śharva-rudra-m u a-hima-ara ya-yavana-mātula-āchāryā ām Ānuk; - (vārtika 2478)-Arya- kśhatriyābhyā vā svārthe


    This explains how the word āchāryā, āchāryā ī, āchāryānī, aryā ī, aryā- are formed in specific meanings.

    4-1-62 /SK517

    Jāterastrīvi hayādayopadhāt Here the formation of feminine gender for the generic words which indicate race-caste-ethnicity are covered. The formation of feminine gender words from ārya in the sense of race-caste-ethnicity do not yield validated forms.


    4-1-161 /SK1185 manorjātāvañyatau


    This rule explains the formation of taddhita word indicative of ‘class’ (= jāti) of human race as a whole. The final word is mānu ha, manu hya.

    The feminine gender form of this is mānu hī / manu hyā. This word has a distinct meaning from ārya related words.


    6-4-171/SK 1158 Brāhmo jātau


    The formation of the word brāhma a in the meaning of a male born in the family of brāhma a. The rule shows that Pā ini is clearly distinguishing the vedic var a, the generic concept of jāti (class). 4-4-138 /SK 1161

    Kśhatrāt gha

    The word kśhatriya is formed with a specific meaning of a male born in the family of kśhatriya var a.

    4-4-139 /SK1162;

    4-4-141/SK 1164;

    4-1-142 /SK1165;


    Kulāt kha ; mahākulāt añ-khañau; du hkulāt hak

    Specific words for the meaning of a person born in a family (kula), great family (mahākula) and a bad family (du hkula) are given as kulīna/ māhākula –māhākulīna-mahākulīna / dau hkuleya – du hkulīna. When such specific words for race-caste-ethnicity are deliberated and explained, we can not say that Pā ini was not aware of the meaning of ārya.

    4-1-63 (sk519)

    4-1-48 (sk 505)

    Jāterastīvi hayādayopadhāt; Pu yogaāt ākhyāyām

    Other relevant rules covering the compounding of sanskrit words indicative of ‘race’, gender, profession, color related communication are debated. Pā ini shows a good acquaintance with several formats of vedic documents. He uses the following words 8 with great precision: mantra, chandas, rik, yajus, sāma, nigama, nigada, yajñakarma, yājya, agnītpre ha a. Pā ini shows clarity of use of many vedic words like svāhā, svadhā, havi , nyūnkha and conventions related to these by mīmā sā. With this background, there can be no doubt about the acquaintance of pā ini with the vedic documents. If we have to take the statement of Patañjali about the vedic documents kept in view by pā ini and realize that what we have today is less than five percent of the listed items referred by Pā ini, the charge made by some scholars that pā ini might not have been aware of the vedic documents to the extent and as we know it currently appears to be a tall statement.

    The use of the word ‘chandas’ in the rule ‘bhaula chandasi’ is not inaccurate or an easy escape route as some linguists prefer to call it. The word ‘chandasi’ covers major part of human usage of accented sanskrit in vedic ritual context along with the mantra. This use of accented ritual Sanskrit language 9 is technically called ūha in the parlor of mīmā sā. The ūha is a human construction. Ūha is not a revelation. The guidance of Pā ini in ‘chandasi’ is to make the ūha text from mantra in specific rituals. The rules of grammar need to be supplemented in ūha with the guidance of the prātiśhākhya texts for the accents and śhrauta sūtra for the ritual specificity of who is the yajamāna, the technical performer of the ritual. This entire exercise is a part of the ritual technicality called ‘ itvik-vara a, samkalpa’ in a vedic ritual, even before the first spark of fire is lit and the first sound of mantra is uttered. This is called the design of the vedic ritual for a specific goal; and this is the prime professional expertise of yājñika-mīmāmsaka’s. The brāhma a’s who were in to this profession of technical application of veda for customized rituals for certain goals were called by special name of ‘chāndasa, śhrotriya, āde h ā, adhvaryu,yajvan,dīkśhita’ and the like. The non-native tradition calls them as magician, druid, sorcerer! These category were a part of the King’s team as artha-śhastra notes it. The records say that Kautilya himself was an expert in the Atharvaveda- ābhichārika yajña’s. It is in this part, the use of ūha = accented ritualistic Sanskrit language = ‘chandasi’ deliberation of grammar starts. The accented ūha covers the sāman- the musical chanting also. The modern scholars look at this aspect as part of tantra-magical sounds and incantations! This exercise spreads throughout the society which looks at vedic ritual as a tool for welfare. As ūha sentences are contextual and ritual specific, they are neither written down nor memorized as a part of the ‘protected sacred revelation’.

    Therefore there is no tangible documentation for such words, and it is called ‘loss-lack of usage documentation’. When specific forms of rituals ( like śhyena yāga) goes out of societal usage, the related ūha exercise also goes off the frame of ritual training and usage. There are several i i’s of atharvaveda which are no longer practiced; and the ūha part of those rituals are not to be traced at all! To look for word forms that really comes in a ūha (= which is a human construction for the application of a vedic revelation in a specific ritual) in the revelation part (Mantra) which is not in the scope of the rule making by Pā ini and draw incompatible conclusions, with mounting of historicity and linguistic construction not supported by the evidence in the pā inian language grammar text will not be a right form of approaching/ analyzing/ appreciating/ reserching a classical religion or language tradition.

    It is true that over a period of time, the vedic priestly class ( mīmā saka brāhma a’s) has simply given up the ūha exercises and preferred to go by the bhā hā expressions which are safer and easier to work. This shift seems to have taken place and got firmed up some time close to Prābhākaras / Ma anamiśhra/ Shankara.
    There is no demand that the bhā hā expression and the ūha expression should have the same accent structure. The important point is that they carry the same communication and are used in the same vedic ritual. The bhā hā expression is easier to learn, train, transmit and verify with reference to the rule book by giving the freedom from the ‘upadeśha’ model where the ‘human accent of the teacher’ was an issue. Even in Patañjali’s time the issue of accented grammar tradition seems to have been in a state of jeopardy; and the leaning seems to move the bhā hā standards to an ‘accent fault tolerable’ model.


    Why is this explanation to be made like this? This is just reading the text that is there right in the opening of the pā inian grammar studies. Under the debate of the rule related to - what constitutes ‘upadeśha’, the long list of items that are covered in the oral instruction / training are provided. This includes the ga a-pā ha, pratyaya, the svaras and the like. It is also noted that the upadeśha will be maintained ‘pure’ = śhuddha and verbally vocally voice - instructed pure =‘pa hyante’. This maintenance of purity calls for a social condition for the education, practice of ritual and profession for a livelihood. When this condition is challenged, the relevance of religion shifts to personal spirituality. At this point, the eighteen unique forms of one ‘a’ svara’s uniquely needed in chandasi /ūha get coalesced in to one unit for use in bhā hā. This is the significance of the rule ‘anuditsavaranasya chāpratyaya (1-1-69).

    In short, the ritual society of Pā ini is different from the ritual society what we have in the current period. The rules of ‘chandasi’ address and guide the ūha part of human construction of accented Sanskrit language, modeled on the revelation ‘mantra’ , as per the rules of prātiśhākhya, śhrautasūtra’s and the contemporary customization of ritual as per mimā sā-yājñika traditions. The word forms of ūha human construction will certainly be not be available in the revealed mantra portions, which are preserved as vedic tradition. Any commonality, should only be said as a coincidence. In the svara-sanchara parts also, the prime mantra-akśhara is never altered; be it the a h a-vik uti pā ha or the sāma of the ik! Without taking in to account the nature and purpose of ūha provided by vedā ga vyākara a for the use in mīmā sā, the extraneous postulation of ‘insufficiency of Pā ini to understand and explain veda’s, ignorance of Pā ini about the vedic documents as we know/ have it today is a prejudicial construction on Sanskrit tradition.



    That leads to the next part of interesting investigation- how much of today’s Indian Vedic traditional document is to be placed in the baskets of mantra –ūha,for both are accented Sanskrit texts used in vedic ritual. Some conform to the Pā ian rules an some dont! Does conformity or other wise of a given document to the Pā ian ‘chandasi’ rule make it to be a vedic document of mantra or a ūha type? The question valid as it is beyond the scope of current paper to address in its fullness.
     
  4. Speechless world

    Speechless world New Member

    3. Inference

    In the above discussion, two principles are leading to two different ends of inference. One is focused on historicity. Another is based on traditional continuity and authenticity.


    Hindu native traditions have held for two thousand years or more that Pā inian grammar provides authentic frame of reference for the proper understanding of the Vedic language and decryption of the communication. Post colonial Vedic studies and modern studies bringing in linguistics, genetic and other type of perspectives project that Pā ini, separated by at least a thousand years from Vedic society and language can not be relied as the sole authority for decrypting the language of Vedas; in short, Pā inian grammar based understanding of Vedic tradition by native teams suffers a historical, linguistic inappropriateness. This means that Pā ini has not been able to address all the linguistic issues in Vedas; Pā ini uses escape routes in case of difficulties in explaining vedic words.



    The school preferring historicity places the argument as below: For the purpose of clarity, the following time line blocks are marked on either side of Pā ini. A current period can look to its own present context and the past; but can not look in to the future to fix the meaning of the word in usage. For example: If the word ārya / anārya were used in the pre-pā inian / ‘vedic’ block, in a certain meaning, that society inherited the meaning of the word from it’s previous period. Therefore the right way to understand the meaning of the words ārya / anārya in that document / context would be from the specific block and/or blocks preceding it. Any interpretation of the past period words from a post period documentation would be anachronistic. Given the fact that pā inian usage /rules / guidance are post vedic, arguments based on Pā inian references would not be appropriate in the understanding of vedic document. Therefore one should go for the investigation of the postulated pre-vedic languages to resolve this issue. This is in essence, the argument put forth by one team who postulate that pā ini is not of much help in understanding the vedic documents. According to these, the real help can come only from the exploration of pre-vedic languages, which are the postulated as proto languages as per IE linguistics.
     

Share This Page