Non Standard Usages In Pancatantra - Book Summary

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Non-standard Usages in Pancatantra" by Dinanath Sharma, focusing on the linguistic analysis presented:

Book Title: Non-standard Usages in Pancatantra (Tantrakhyayika) Author: Dinanath Sharma Publisher: Jain Education International (as indicated by the PDF source)

Core Argument: The article by Dinanath Sharma meticulously examines instances within the Pañcatantra (specifically referencing the Tantrakhyayika recension as the closest to the original) where grammatical usages deviate from the strict rules established by Pāṇini's Aṣṭādhyāyī, the authoritative text of classical Sanskrit grammar. Sharma aims to highlight these deviations and, where possible, justify them using principles from Prakrit grammar and other linguistic sources.

Key Points and Analysis:

The Tantrakhyayika as a Primary Source: Sharma establishes that while the original Pañcatantra is lost, the Tantrakhyayika recension, being a complete Sanskrit text and closely aligned with a common source of other recensions, serves as a reliable basis for linguistic study of the work.
Focus on Grammatical Deviations: The central theme is the identification and analysis of "non-standard usages" in the Pañcatantra. These are instances where the case endings or verb constructions do not conform to Pāṇini's grammar.
Specific Examples of Deviations and Justifications: The article presents several categories of deviations:
- Locative Case Used for Movement Verbs: Sharma points out that verbs indicating movement with physical activity (like āgatam, āgataḥ, ārūḍhaḥ) are shown with their objects in the locative case (e.g., devagr̥he, asminnayog'yādhivāse, nyagrodhapādapa). According to Pāṇini, these objects should typically be in the accusative or dative case. Sharma justifies this usage by referring to Hemacandra's Prakrit grammar, which allows the locative case to be used in place of the accusative and instrumental cases in certain contexts.
- Genitive Case Instead of Accusative for Direct Objects: The author highlights sentences where verbs that can take two objects (like brū, pañch—to ask, to tell) are presented with the indirect object in the genitive case (e.g., damanakasya) instead of the expected accusative or dative. This is justified by Hemacandra's Prakrit rule allowing the sixth case (genitive) to be used for other cases like the second (accusative) or third (instrumental). The example damanakasya is contrasted with the expected damanakāt (ablative) or damanakam (accusative).
- Genitive Case for Recipients of Donation: Sharma discusses instances where verbs of bestowing (like datam) are followed by the recipient in the genitive case (e.g., asya [ūṣṭrasya], brāhmaṇatrayasya). Pāṇini's grammar prescribes the dative case for the permanent recipient of a gift and sometimes the genitive for a temporary recipient (though the Mahābhāṣya also allows dative). Sharma again finds support in Prakrit grammar, which frequently permits the genitive case (sixth case) to substitute for the dative case (fourth case).
- Active Voice Usage with Transitive Verbs: The author notes that verbs typically used in the passive voice or verbs not listed in Pāṇini's rules for active voice usage (like avasṛtya, āśritaḥ) are sometimes employed in the active voice in the Pañcatantra. This is exemplified by the usage of śayanādavatyirya and āśritaḥ. Sharma argues these verbs are transitive and not part of the specific categories that Pāṇini allows to be used actively in such constructions.
- Genitive Case with Indeclinables: The article examines the use of the genitive case (brahmaṇa) after an indeclinable (brahmanyā) ending in the kt affix. Pāṇini's rules prohibit the genitive in such cases, requiring the accusative. This deviation is again attributed to the broader flexibility found in Prakrit usage.
- Accusative Case in Passive Constructions: Sharma points out sentences in the passive voice where the object is in the accusative case (e.g., citrāṅgavārtām) when it should ideally be in the nominative case for a passive construction.
- Double Object Usage: The author discusses verbs like kṛ (to do) which, when used with certain qualifiers or in specific contexts (like krīḍārtha), can take multiple objects. The genitive case (rājaputrasya) is used for the prince, which Sharma suggests could be justified by Pāṇini's rules regarding the "remaining genitive" (ṣaṣṭhī śeṣe) or specific rules related to instrumental upapadas.
- Use of citra, buddhi, mati with Future Tense Suffixes: Sharma notes instances where citra, buddhi, mati are used with verb forms indicating future action (like yogdhadhū, droghdhabudhi), which deviates from Pāṇini's rule requiring the verb to precede these nouns when forming compound words related to intention or desire.
Possible Reasons for Deviations: Sharma speculates on the causes for these non-standard usages:
- Influence of Prakrit: Given the Pañcatantra's popularity among common people, the vernacular language (Prakrit) likely influenced its textual tradition.
- Scribal Errors: Ignorance of standard Sanskrit grammar among scribes copying the manuscripts could have led to these deviations.
- Textual Dynamics: The author suggests that the more a text is read and copied over time, the more variations can emerge in its language.
Conclusion: Sharma concludes that identifying the exact reasons for these deviations is challenging. However, he posits that the influence of Prakrit and potential scribal errors are the most probable factors. He emphasizes that linguistic evolution and transmission are dynamic processes, leading to variations from the original codified rules.

In essence, Dinanath Sharma's article provides a scholarly examination of the linguistic variations in the Pañcatantra, demonstrating how the text often reflects a more fluid and potentially vernacular-influenced grammar than the rigid classical Sanskrit prescribed by Pāṇini, with Prakrit grammar often serving as a valuable tool for understanding these divergences.