Relationship Between Linguistics And Other Sciences In India

This document, "The Relationship Between Linguistics and Other Sciences in India" by Johannes Bronkhorst, explores the intricate connections between Sanskrit grammar, particularly Pāṇini's Aṣṭādhyāyī, and various other scientific and philosophical disciplines in classical India. The author primarily focuses on how grammar interacted with other fields, either by being influenced by them or by influencing them in turn.

Here's a breakdown of the key points:

1. Introduction to Indian Language Sciences:

• Classical India had several language sciences, with three of the six Vedic auxiliary sciences (vedāṅga) being directly related to language: phonetics (śikṣā), etymological explanation (nirukta), and grammar (vyākaraṇa).
• While other disciplines like Vedic hermeneutics (mīmāṁsā) and even certain philosophical schools also touched upon language, grammar was the most widely studied and considered the most important auxiliary science by grammarians like Patañjali.
• The author notes that grammar did not have strong interactions with mathematics or natural sciences like astronomy and medicine, refuting a supposed influence of Pāṇini's "linguistic zero" on the mathematical concept of zero.

2. The Origin of Grammar:

• Grammar emerged from circles connected with Vedic ritual. Bronkhorst highlights parallels like the shared aphoristic (sūtra) style, the use of general interpretative rules (paribhāṣā), and common vocabulary. However, he argues these parallels are often limited to details and don't prove that ritual fundamentally shaped grammar's existence or nature.
• A more definite antecedent of grammar is the concern for the correct preservation of Vedic texts. The difference between the padapāṭha (word-for-word recitation) and saṁhitāpāṭha (continuous recitation) of the Vedas, and the rules of sandhi (euphonic combination), were central to early grammatical thought.
• The term vyākaraṇa itself, meaning "separation, distinction," is linked to the philosophical concept of distinguishing names (nāman) and forms (rūpa) as a way of ordering reality, a concept found in Vedic literature and considered a mythological counterpart to Pāṇini's grammar, which distinguishes words and their meanings.

3. Interaction with Etymological Explanation (Nirukta):

• The Vedic auxiliary science of nirukta, systematized in Yāska's Nirukta, focused on finding the meaning of unknown words by assuming that the meaning of a word is derived from the combination of its parts, and that these parts have inherent meanings.
• These presuppositions are also found in Pāṇini's grammar, where constituent elements are combined, and the resulting word's meaning is seen as a combination of the meanings of those elements.
• Yāska himself described nirukta as the "complement of grammar," with nirukta focusing on irregular words and grammar on regular ones. The analytical aspect of grammar, the search for word constituents, is seen as deriving from the preoccupation with "etymological" connections.
• The interaction was bidirectional, with nirukta drawing inspiration from grammar, justifying its procedures (like sound modifications) by pointing to similar practices in grammar.

4. Influence from Philosophy:

• While Pāṇini's grammar reflects Vedic religious thought, influence from systematic philosophical thought is more evident in later commentaries like Yāska's Vārttikas and Patañjali's Mahābhāṣya.
• The Buddhist school of Sarvāstivāda, with its concept of dharmas as ultimate constituents of reality, influenced Patañjali. The Sarvāstivāda idea of linguistic units (padakāya, nāmakāya, vyañjanakāya representing sentence, word, and phoneme) as indivisible entities likely influenced Patañjali's introduction of the concept of sphoṭa, a unitary, eternal word and phoneme distinct from the sounds that express them. Patañjali's grammar assigned a higher ontological status to the word than to its constituent morphemes.

5. Language and Philosophy:

• The profound influence of grammar on Indian thought is often emphasized, with the claim that Indian thought is fundamentally shaped by grammatical reasoning. While grammatical concepts and methods (like systematic abbreviations and the sūtra style) are found in philosophy, the author argues that this interest in grammar doesn't always penetrate the core of philosophical arguments.
• A significant aspect is the Indian belief that Sanskrit language offers preferential access to reality.
  • Phase 1: Language was seen as reflecting or even creating/organizing phenomenal reality. This led to the Vaiseṣika school's conviction of a direct correspondence between words and things, justifying ontological conclusions based on verbal usage. However, direct grammatical influence on Vaiseṣika's categorization (substance, quality, movement) is questioned.
  • Phase 2: The "correspondence principle" suggests words in a statement correspond one-to-one with the things in the described situation. This principle, evident in Nāgārjuna's arguments, can lead to philosophical positions even when not directly based on grammar, though some argue for a grammatical basis for Nāgārjuna's paradoxes.

6. Bhartṛhari:

• Bhartṛhari, a 5th-century CE philosopher of grammar, saw reality as fundamentally undivided but divisible by language. He viewed words as more real than their constituent morphemes and sentences as more real than their words.
• This ontological hierarchy, extending Patañjali's ideas, positioned grammar as a path to liberation, with the highest insight being beyond words. This philosophy is not based on linguistic analysis but on understanding the limitations of that analysis.
• Bhartṛhari's concept of sphoṭa as the indivisible word, distinct from manifesting sounds, is a key contribution, later developed by others. Modern scholars sometimes overlook its philosophical and ontological dimensions.

7. Understanding the Meaning of a Sentence (Śābdabodha):

• Pāṇini's analysis of Sanskrit had a clear influence on the description of verbal cognition (śābdabodha), a central concept in Mīmāṁsā, Navya-Nyāya, and the philosophical school of Vyākaraṇa.
• Mīmāṁsā, tasked with interpreting Vedic sentences, developed paraphrases of injunctions. Kumārila's commentary shows a connection with Pāṇinian analysis, though deviations from Pāṇini's assigned meanings (like the verbal ending) exist.
• Navya-Nyāya, particularly Gangesa, engaged with Mīmāṁsā's ideas. They developed paraphrases of verbal cognition that remained close to Pāṇinian analysis, even treating Pāṇinian morphemes as "words." They assigned different meanings to verbal endings and words.
• Grammarians maintained Pāṇini's meaning of "agent" for the verbal ending and focused on the verbal root's meaning as the primary element, further developing ontological hierarchies of meaning.
• In all these discussions, Pāṇini's analysis served as a departure point, though only grammatical philosophers fully accepted his assigned meanings.

8. Conclusion:

• Bronkhorst emphasizes the immense importance of grammar in classical Indian culture but cautions against overestimating its deterministic influence on other sciences. He suggests that simplistic slogans about grammar's overarching influence are misleading.
• He concludes that while intensive interaction between grammar and other sciences did occur, leaving its traces, uncovering these traces requires continued detailed philological research.

In essence, the text meticulously details how grammar, exemplified by Pāṇini, was not an isolated discipline but was deeply interwoven with the intellectual fabric of classical India, influencing and being influenced by ritual, etymology, philosophy, and the very understanding of language and reality.