Sanskrit syntax problem: Double bind constructions

[Lawrence McCrea]

Dear Mr. Buescher,

     I can't point you to any secondary literature on this phenomenon, but it 
is quite common and well-known within the tradition.  The principle that allows 
terms to construe backwards and forwards at the same time is generally referred 
to as the "si.mha-avalokana-nyaya"-- "the rule of the lion's glance".  Lions 
are said, either when pursuing prey or fleeing a hunter (I've seen it explained 
both ways), to periodically leap into the air and cast a quick glance backwards 
to see what's behind them, and this provides an analogy for the grammatical 
phenomenon.  There are brief entries on it in Apte, Monier-Williams, and 
MacDonell, but none cites any passages.  MW, in his typically frustrating 
manner, says that it's found in commentaries on Mahabharata, 'Saankhaayana 
Braahma.na, and Taittiriya Prati'saakhya, but declines to cite passages.  A 
couple of references are given in Miimaa.msaako.sa.  You might also want to 
look at Abhyankar's _Dictionary of Sanskrit Grammar_.  Hope this is helpful to 
you. 

Yours, 
     Larry McCrea 
     Lecturer, Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies 
     Harvard University 

Quoting Hartmut Buescher <buescher at HUM.KU.DK>:

> Dear VyAkaraNa-savants,
> 
> now and then we meet with ambivalent syntactic constructions in Sanskrit,
> that is, with cases where a particular part of a sentence -- say, a
> genitive
> construction -- is strategically placed so as to be connected to both the
> preceding and the subsequent elements with equal strength in terms of
> semantic possibilities. 
> Recently I saw that, for example, Jan E. Houben (in: The
> saMbandha-samuddeza
> [Chapter on Relation] and BhartRhari's Philosophy of Language, Groningen
> 1995: 6 n. 8) shortly referred to this phenomenon. 
> 
> In the context of Buddhist studies it has been the phrase "ekasmin samaye"
> in the opening formular of sUtras ("Thus I have heard [: ?] once [: ?] the
> Buddha was staying .....") that has triggered a fairly large scholarship
> providing interpretations, references to which have been conveniently
> collected by Daniel Boucher (on p. 90 n. 1 of the contribution "The
> NagaropamasUtra .... " in: Sanskrit Texte aus dem buddhistischen Kanon:
> Neuentdeckungen und Neueditionen, Dritte Folge, Göttingen 1996). With
> particular reference to Paul Harrison, Boucher's solution is to take
> "ekasmin samaye" as what I am here designating as "double bind
> construction"
> (being unaware of any existing technical terms to designate this
> phenomenon).
> 
> The problem becomes more complex when we have to try to reconstruct the
> original Sanskrit wording of a philosophically significant passage, e.g.,
> from the Tibetan. 
> It is -- just to come up with an example without wishing to discuss the
> passage itself -- rather problematic, when Lamotte reconstructs the
> Sanskrit
> original of the term kun gzhi as a verb ["gîte (Aliiyate)"] in the
> MahAyAnasaMgraha I.2 passage
> chos kun sa bon thams cad pa'i / rnam par shes pa kun gzhi ste //,
> because Aliiyate has regularly (though, admittedly, not always) been
> translated by sbyor ba (just as in the immediately subsequent passage MSg
> I.3).
> On the basis of contextually related passages, I regard it as quite
> probable
> that the original Sanskrit read:
> *sarvabIjakaM vijJAnaM sarvadharmANAm AlayaH //
> whereby sarvadharmANAm would also semantically be closely related to both
> the preceding and the subsequent elements. 
> 
> Now, in view of such problems I would like to become more familiar with
> this
> type of double bind constructions in Sanskrit. The title of Prof.
> Deshpande's book "Ellipsis and Syntactic Overlapping ... " sounded
> attractive, but I had to realise that it was not pertinent to the present
> concern. The Speijer centennial volume "Studies in Sanskrit Syntax", ed. by
> H. H. Hock contains a long bibliography; yet, from the listed titles
> themselves I could not immediately spot those that might eventually help
> further.
> 
> I am interested in all sorts of references drawing attention to instances
> of
> double bind constructions either in connection with more or less extended
> theoretical reflections, or just in form of (foot-)notes merely saying:
> "here occurs this phenomenon; I deal with it in such a way".
> 
> For any pertinent information I would be grateful.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Hartmut Buescher
>