Haim Yakaran Parampara Ma Sarvam Vyakam Savdharanam Nyayani Samiksha

This article, "Haim Vyakarana Parampara ma Sarvam Vakyem Savadharanam Nyayani Samiksha" by Vasant Kumar M. Bhatt, delves into the critical analysis of a particular principle, known as a "nyaya" or "paribhashavachana," within the tradition of Hemachandra's grammar.

The article begins by introducing Acharya Hemachandra Suri (1088-1172 AD) and his monumental work, the Siddhahaima Shabdanushasana. This grammar, inspired by Panini's work, covers both classical Sanskrit and various Prakrit languages. Hemachandra himself authored three commentaries on his grammar: Laghu Vritti, Brihad Vritti, and Brihad Abhyasa (Shabdamaharnava Nyasa). Within these commentaries, he employed several "nyayas," also referred to as "paribhashavachanas," which are interpretative rules. The article notes that these nyayas have been extracted and studied separately, with commentaries written on them by scholars like Hemahamsagani (15th century) and Vijaylavanyasuri (20th century). The contemporary work of Muni Nandighoshvijayji, with Hindi translation and commentary on the Nyaya Sangraha, is also mentioned.

A key point highlighted is Hemachandra's groundbreaking inclusion of the Syadvada (the Jain principle of manifold predication) at the very beginning of his grammar with the sutra Siddhih syadvadat (Si. He. Sha. 1-1-2). The article explores the interpretation of this sutra in the Brihad Vritti. According to this commentary, "Siddhi" (accomplishment) is based on Syadvada. The word 'syat' is presented as an indicator of anekanta (non-one-sidedness), making syadvada a synonym for anekantavada. This perspective acknowledges that objects possess multiple inherent qualities, both permanent and impermanent. The accomplishment, completion, or identification of words in classical Sanskrit is to be understood through this Syadvada. The commentary further explains that the application of rules like making a vowel short or long, the confluence of multiple case-markers, the coexistence of opposing qualities, and the relationship between substantive and adjective are all comprehensible only through the acceptance of Syadvada. Given that the Shabdanushasana is universally applicable, embracing Syadvada, which encompasses all philosophical schools, is considered elegant. An alternative interpretation of the sutra suggests that "syat" might be separated, leading to the meaning: "accomplishment through discourse, i.e., the attainment of right knowledge, and through that, the attainment of liberation." This, it is suggested, is the reason for beginning the Shabdanushasana.

The author emphasizes that Hemachandra, being a follower of Jainism, indeed placed the Syadvada principle at the outset. However, the article argues that Syadvada is also the most excellent logical solution to explain the inherently variable and often irregular nature of language. It draws a parallel between the modern linguistic concept of "arbitrariness" in language and Hemachandra's use of Syadvada to explain linguistic variation.

The article then raises a potential logical issue with placing the blanket statement "accomplishment is through Syadvada" at the beginning of the grammar. It examines the word 'syat' itself, which is the third person singular imperative of the root 'as' (to be) and signifies injunction. While it can indicate obligation ("it should be so"), it can also imply permissiveness ("it can be done if one wishes"). If the obligative sense is taken, Hemachandra's grammar becomes prescriptive. However, if the permissive sense is adopted, it could lead to undesirable situations. For example, in the sutra Samānāṁ tena tīrthaḥ (Si. He. Sha. 6-2), which states that vowels designated as 'samāna' become long when they are in conjunction with subsequent 'samāna' vowels, a student taking a permissive interpretation of 'syat' might not perform the sandhi (conjunction) or might perform it arbitrarily. Such linguistic license is not acceptable.

To address this, the Nyaya Sangraha within the Hemachandra tradition accepted the paribhashavachana: "Sarva vakyem savadharanam!" (All statements are definitive/absolute!). This rule states that even if the word 'vat' (indicating definitiveness) is not explicitly present in the grammatical rules (vidhi sutras), those rules should still be understood as definitive. This ensures that the sutra Samānāṁ tena tīrthaḥ is interpreted definitively, meaning the long vowel must be applied, and only the intended result, like sūḍi from su + ḍi, is achieved.

The article explains that to avoid the undesirable consequences of applying Syadvada to the intent of the rules, the Nyaya Sangraha incorporated "Sarva vakyem savadharanam!".

The author then discusses the interpretations of this nyaya within the Hemachandra tradition:

• Hemahamsagani argues that this nyaya was introduced to indicate that the sthani (replacement) established at the beginning of the grammar is not universally applicable. He also suggests that the existence of this nyaya is inferred from optional statements in sutras like Hrasvo va (Si. He. Sha. 2-2). If this nyaya did not exist, the word 'va' (or) would not have been necessary in Hrasvo va. The inclusion of 'va' implies the existence of the nyaya, and it serves to prevent the rules of shortening, lengthening, etc., from becoming permanent.

• Vijaylavanyasuri offers a different perspective to demonstrate the impermanence of "Sarva vakyem savadharanam!". He states that where the word 'eva' (indeed) is used in prescriptive sutras, the nyaya Dirghaddh suvaram bhavati (the twice-made becomes well-made) is applicable, thereby removing any fault. Otherwise, the use of 'eva' would be redundant, as the definitive meaning would be obtained through the primary nyaya. Thus, the nyaya Dirghaddh suvaram bhavati negates "Sarva vakyem savadharanam!".

Vijaylavanyasuri further posits that Syadvada was accepted at the beginning of the grammar solely for the accomplishment of the linguistic examples (lakshya siddhi). However, this Syadvada is not universal. If Syadvada were universal, it would be impossible to determine whether a statement in the practical application of the grammar is optional or obligatory. Therefore, in the practical application, "Sarva vakyem savadharanam!" must be accepted, and Syadvada should be understood as being for the accomplishment of specific, seemingly irregular linguistic instances.

Vijaylavanyasuri also raises a subtle point regarding the relationship between Syadvada and the definitive meaning conveyed by "Sarva vakyem savadharanam!". If Syadvada signifies non-one-sidedness, how can it incorporate the concept of definitiveness? The resolution offered is that within Syadvada, the meaning of definitiveness is inherent through different perspectives. This is evident in the Saptabhangi (seven-fold predication) derived from Syadvada, where a statement like "syat astyeva" (it is indeed so) incorporates a definitive element. Thus, Vijaylavanyasuri argues that there is no logical contradiction or self-contradiction between Syadvada and "Sarva vakyem savadharanam!". It is not that Syadvada was adopted, and then "Sarva vakyem savadharanam!" was introduced to restrict its scope. Rather, the interpretation of Syadvada within the grammar should be understood as "Sarva vakyem savadharanam!". The author commends Vijaylavanyasuri for this insightful analysis.

The article then presents a critical review of the considerations regarding this nyaya in the Hemachandra tradition. The author agrees that the word 'syat', while primarily imperative, can also imply permissiveness. However, they contend that the nyaya "Sarva vakyem savadharanam!" is not necessary. They point to Hemachandra's own Brihad Vritti, where verbs in the present tense like bhavati are used. In contrast, in the Laghu Vritti, the seventh case form verbs (like syat) are used to explain the sutras, indicating an injunctive or prescriptive sense. The author suggests that understanding the underlying reason for this difference in commentary style might eliminate the need for "Sarva vakyem savadharanam!".

Using modern linguistic terminology, the author questions whether Hemachandra's grammar should be considered descriptive or prescriptive. They argue that the use of present tense verbs like bhavati in the Brihad Vritti suggests that Hemachandra intended it to be a descriptive grammar, reflecting the language as it was used. When he wrote the Brihad Vritti, he aimed to describe linguistic phenomena, such as sound changes and sandhi. However, when he later composed the Laghu Vritti for beginner students, he intended it to be prescriptive. Therefore, he used seventh case form verbs like syat in an injunctive manner for the Laghu Vritti, implying that for new learners, grammar must be prescriptive, and the permissive sense of 'syat' cannot be applied in that context. Consequently, the nyaya "Sarva vakyem savadharanam!" becomes irrelevant.

The author acknowledges that scholars like Hemahamsagani in the Hemachandra tradition did notice the difference in the use of verbs in the Brihad Vritti and Laghu Vritti. However, they defended this difference by stating that all grammatical sutras are injunctive, and the use of seventh case verbs is appropriate for injunctions.

The author refutes this reasoning, stating that the issue is not about appropriateness but about Hemachandra's own intent. Hemachandra intended for those studying his Brihad Vritti to understand that language precedes grammar, and that grammar is merely a description of the language in use. Thus, the present tense verb usage is appropriate. For beginners, however, grammar must be taught through injunctive rules to prevent any arbitrary application. Therefore, using injunctive verbs in explaining sutras for beginners is in their best interest.

In conclusion, the author reiterates the points made by Vijaylavanyasuri:

1. The nyaya "Sarva vakyem savadharanam!" is needed to indicate that the definitive meaning ('samakve') is also intended.
2. Alternatively, for students unaware of the Saptabhangi principle that includes a definitive aspect ('syad astyeva'), the nyaya is necessary to prevent the possibility of optionality in all grammatical rules arising from 'syat'.
3. Or, if the meaning of 'syat' is interpreted as injunctive and the grammar is considered prescriptive for beginners, then the nyaya "Sarva vakyem savadharanam!" would not be necessary.

The article concludes with references to other works and specific interpretations of the sutras and nyayas discussed.