Upanisads And Grammar On Meaning Of Anuvyakhyana

Here's a comprehensive summary of Johannes Bronkhorst's "Upanisads and Grammar: On the Meaning of Anuvyākhyāna," based on the provided text:

This scholarly work by Johannes Bronkhorst delves into the meaning of the term anuvyākhyāna, a word that appears infrequently in Vedic literature, specifically four times: three in the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad and once in the Maitrayaniya Upanisad. It consistently occurs within a specific enumeration of literary works:

• ṛgveda, yajurvedaḥ, samavedaḥ, atharvāngirasaḥ, itihāsaḥ, purāṇam, vidyā, upaniṣadaḥ, ślokāḥ, sūtrāṇi, anuvyākhyānāni, vyākhyānāni (Rigveda, Yajurveda, Samaveda, Atharvangirasas, Itihasa, Purana, Vidya, Upanishads, Shlokas, Sutras, Anuvyākhyānas, Vyākhyānas)

Bronkhorst begins by examining previous interpretations, noting Paul Horsch's view that anuvyākhyāna and vyākhyāna must refer to explanatory texts, likely predecessors to later commentary literature. Horsch posits anuvyākhyāna as an "additional or extended vyākhyāna." Bronkhorst finds this problematic, suggesting that the position of anuvyākhyāna between sūtra and vyākhyāna implies a hierarchical structure where vyākhyāna might be secondary to anuvyākhyāna, which itself could be a commentary on the sūtra. The enumeration's apparent hierarchical progression, starting with the Vedas, further supports this idea of anuvyākhyāna being "higher" than vyākhyāna and "lower" than sūtra.

The author then turns to later interpretations, including that of Sankara, who offered differing explanations for anuvyākhyāna and vyākhyāna in his commentary on the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad. Sankara suggests anuvyākhyāna could be either a commentary on a mantra (mantravivaraṇa) or an explanation of a concise statement of reality (vastusangrahavakyavivarana). In the latter case, vyākhyāna would be a commentary on a mantra. This ambiguity in Sankara's own understanding highlights the difficulty in defining the term.

Bronkhorst notes that occurrences of anuvyākhyāna in post-Vedic literature are generally indebted to this Upanisadic enumeration. He also examines commentaries on the Yajnavalkyasmrti and the Mahabharata, where the terms are used, but often in ways that suggest reliance on the Upanisadic context or a differing understanding of the terms' relationship. Notably, Sāyana and Nilakantha use vyākhyāna and anuvyākhyāna differently.

A significant part of Bronkhorst's argument focuses on the potential for a textual error or a single editorial hand behind the term anuvyākhyāna. He proposes that anvākhyāna is a more likely original form, as this word appears in Vedic literature, sometimes in similar enumerations, and a manuscript variation shows sanvyākhyānaḥ instead of sānvākhyānāḥ, suggesting an easy corruption.

This leads to the central hypothesis: the original list may have contained sūtrāṇi, anvākhyānāni, vyākhyānāni.

Bronkhorst then explores this tripartite structure through the lens of ancient grammar literature:

1. Sūtra - Anvākhyāna Connection: The Vadhula Śrautasutra is mentioned as having a brahmana-portion accompanying it, which calls itself Anvakhyāna. This suggests a "secondary Brahmana" alongside an older one. This parallel to a sūtra followed by an anvakhyāna resonates with the proposed Upanisadic enumeration.

2. Grammatical Context: Pāṇini, Kātyāyana, Patañjali: Bronkhorst argues that the terms sūtra, anvākhyāna, and vyākhyāna may refer to the structure of grammatical works, specifically Pāṇini's Aṣṭādhyāyī (the sūtra), Kātyāyana's vārttikas (which he argues were known as anvākhyāna or associated with the verb anvācaste – "to communicate additionally"), and Patañjali's Mahābhāṣya (which he argues Patañjali himself referred to as vyākhyāna).

   • R.G. Bhandarkar's observation that Patañjali used anvācaste for Kātyāyana's work and vyākhyāsyāmah for his own is cited. Bronkhorst elaborates on Patañjali's usage of anvācaste and the related noun anvākhyāna, connecting them to Kātyāyana's vārttikas as an "additional communication."
   • This two-layered commentary structure (Sūtra-Vārttika-Mahābhāṣya) mirrors the proposed sūtra, anvākhyāna, vyākhyāna sequence.
   • Bronkhorst suggests that if this grammatical model influenced the Upanisadic enumeration, the author of the list must have lived after Patañjali (mid-2nd century BCE).

3. Vyākhyāna in Grammar: While Patañjali often used vyākhyāna to refer to his own Mahābhāṣya, Bronkhorst notes instances where vyākhyāna in the Mahābhāṣya refers to explanations found within a vārttika, or even simply the "separation of words" in a sūtra. However, the primary sense for Patañjali is "interpretation" or "explanation" in general.

Conclusion:

Bronkhorst concludes that the presence of anuvyākhyāna in the Upanisads is likely a late addition or a scribal error for anvākhyāna. This emended list (sūtrāṇi, anvākhyānāni, vyākhyānāni) strongly suggests a reference to the three-tiered structure of grammatical works, exemplified by Pāṇini, Kātyāyana, and Patañjali. This interpretation provides an explanation for the otherwise obscure term anuvyākhyāna within its Upanisadic context. The hypothesis, while still a conjecture, offers a plausible explanation for the term's meaning and its placement in the ancient literary enumeration.