Paninikal Evam Sanskrut Me Dwivachan

Here's a comprehensive summary in English of the provided Jain text:

Book Title: Paninikal evam Sanskrut me Dwivachan (Pāṇini's Era and the Dual Number in Sanskrit) Author: Udayvir Shastri Publisher: Z_Nahta_Bandhu_Abhinandan_Granth_012007.pdf Catalog Link: https://jainqq.org/explore/211341/1

This article, "Pāṇini's Era and the Dual Number in Sanskrit" by Udayvir Shastri, critically examines a claim made by Dr. Parpola, a resident of Finland, regarding the origin of the dual number in Sanskrit. Dr. Parpola, who visited Delhi in January-February 1971, asserted that he had made significant progress in deciphering the Mohenjo-daro and Harappan scripts and language. He posited that these ancient Indian languages were not related to any Indo-Aryan languages but rather to Dravidian languages. According to Dr. Parpola, the Indo-Aryan languages, including Sanskrit, were introduced to India by Aryans who arrived between 1700 and 1300 BCE, displacing the indigenous Dravidians.

Dr. Parpola's central argument for the Dravidian connection of the Mohenjo-daro and Harappan languages was the presence of the dual number. He claimed that the dual number is found in ancient Dravidian inscriptions, and also in the Mohenjo-daro and Harappan languages, but not in other Indo-Aryan languages worldwide. He further suggested that Sanskrit borrowed the dual number from the prevalent Dravidian language after the Aryans arrived in India, sometime after 1700 BCE.

Udayvir Shastri refutes this claim, primarily by analyzing the historical context of Sanskrit grammar, particularly Pāṇini's grammar. He emphasizes the importance of determining Pāṇini's era to ascertain whether the dual number in Sanskrit is indigenous or borrowed.

Shastri addresses a common assumption that the absence of the dual number in most Indo-European languages, and its presence in Sanskrit, suggests a common ancestral language without the dual, from which Sanskrit borrowed it, and other European languages lost it. He argues against this by pointing to the modern Indian languages, such as Hindi, Marathi, Bengali, etc., all of which are derived from Sanskrit but lack the dual number. He contends that it would be illogical to assume these languages also borrowed the dual from a hypothetical non-dual ancestral language. Therefore, he suggests that Sanskrit's dual number is likely original, and its absence in descendant languages is due to their evolution and simplification over time.

A significant part of Shastri's argument relies on the evidence within Pāṇini's Ashtadhyayi. He highlights numerous examples of Pāṇini's grammatical rules that describe the usage of everyday words and expressions common among ordinary people in North and Northwest India. These include terms used by vegetable sellers, cooks, farmers, dyers, and even place names derived from the creators of wells, with distinct pronunciation variations. Shastri argues that Pāṇini's meticulous attention to such vernacular usages, including subtle phonetic differences, indicates that Sanskrit was the common, spoken language of the general populace during his time.

Shastri challenges the widely accepted dating of Pāṇini to the 5th-6th century BCE, the same period attributed to Lord Buddha. He points out that the common language during Buddha's time was Pali or Prakrit, not Sanskrit, as evidenced by Buddhist literature and Buddha's own choice of language for public discourse. He estimates that it took approximately 1000-1200 years for Sanskrit to evolve into the Prakrit spoken during Buddha's era. Therefore, he deduces that Pāṇini's era must have been around 1200 years before Buddha's time, placing him around 1700-1800 BCE.

This revised dating of Pāṇini creates a significant conflict with Dr. Parpola's timeline for the arrival of Aryans in India (1700-1300 BCE). Shastri argues that if Aryans arrived at the earliest possible time (1700 BCE) and Pāṇini was also active then, it would imply that the Aryans brought Pāṇini's grammar with them upon their arrival. Shastri dismisses this as illogical, citing Pāṇini's detailed knowledge of specific Indian geographical locations and personal names. Furthermore, he questions how the Aryans could have taught Sanskrit to the entire common population of North India immediately upon their arrival in the 17th-18th century BCE.

Shastri strongly asserts that Aryans did not migrate to India from elsewhere; they have always been indigenous to India. He posits that until the end of the Dvapara Yuga (approximately 5000 years ago), the entire population spoke Sanskrit. The Indian Mahabharata War and its aftermath plunged the populace into a period of decline and darkness. It was during this transition, roughly 150-200 years before Pāṇini, that the language began to change rapidly. Pāṇini, a master of linguistics, recognized this impending shift and the potential for corruption due to the lack of contact with learned circles. He then compiled his grammar, Ashtadhyayi, to systematize, organize, and preserve the Sanskrit language. The fact that Katyayana later had to compose his Varttikas to address further changes and corruptions further supports the idea of a dynamic linguistic evolution during Pāṇini's time.

In conclusion, Shastri firmly maintains that Sanskrit was never influenced by Dravidian languages in its structure. He considers its construction to be original and independent. While acknowledging that languages can absorb words from others over time, he asserts that the dual number in Sanskrit is an inherent feature of its original composition, not a borrowed or imitated element. He believes its basis is philosophical and scientific. The author's primary aim is to demonstrate that the use of the dual number in Sanskrit by the Indian populace five thousand years ago was indigenous. He considers any definitive statements about the Mohenjo-daro inscriptions, which are still largely unknown and undeciphered, to be presumptuous and a distortion of true knowledge, while keeping the door open for future efforts.