[INDOLOGY] Avagraha (or lack of) in Kashmiri manuscripts

Thu May 11 19:35:45 UTC 2023

Dominik wrote:

> My book *Metarules of Paninian Grammar* was partly based on Raghunatha
> MSS and they were definitely copied from Śāradā originals.  I discussed the
> reasons in my introduction.  For example, several character-pairs are
> confused, that are similar in Śāradā but quite different in Devanāgarī.
>

Still available at a reasonable price for indological books:
https://www.amazon.com/Metarules-Paninian-Grammar-Paribhasavrtti-Critical/dp/812083982X

Also the  Sharada unicode font I was looking.  at was a google unicode font
Noto Sans Sharada . So if anyone needs a Sharada font the link is:
https://fonts.google.com/noto/specimen/Noto+Sans+Sharada

But I noticed from this font that unicode Sharada has one code point for
avagraha (#11c1) and another for Sharada sandhi mark (#11c9) and in this
font the two characters are identical (same size, same shape, same
position).  In manuscripts are Sharada avagraha and sandhi mark identical?
If so it seems strange that unicode has two different code points based on
the usage of this one sign.

Harry Spier

> Best,
> Dominik
>
> On Wed, 10 May 2023 at 19:54, Harry Spier via INDOLOGY <
> indology at list.indology.info> wrote:
>
>> Thank you to all the knowledgeable people who answered both on and
>> off-list. Sven Ekelin, Deepro Chakraborty, Dominik Wujastyk, Lubomire
>> Ondracka,  Wlater Slaje, Jonathan Silk, Sweta Prajapati, Charles DiSimone,
>> Elliot Stern, Charles Li.
>>
>> I wonder if this folio 6a from ajñānadhvāntadīpikā (attached) also from
>> Ragunath temple in Jammu like the other manuscripts, confirms that the
>> devanagari manuscripts are copying Sharada originals. This is the only
>> avagraha in the entire manuscript(circled with a blue line).  I had thought
>> this was an insert, but looking at a Sharada font, this appears to be the
>> position and size of the Sharada avagraha.  So maybe the scribe just absent
>> mindedly wrote it in the way it was in the Sharada original.
>>
>> Harry Spier
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 4:42 AM Walter Slaje <walter.slaje at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Here are my humble suggestions:
>>>
>>> *Kaulārcanadīpikā 43b*
>>>
>>> Avagraha erroneously placed after, instead before, *yaṃ*: *loko yaṃ* ’
>>> → *loko ’yaṃ*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *57a*
>>>
>>> The two dots written on top of each other (visarga) were misread or
>>> accidentally misspelled (or simply give the wrong impression through
>>> blurred ink) as being an avagraha:
>>>
>>> *mokṣa’syād* → *mokṣaḥ syād*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Dakṣiṇāmūrtisaṃhitā 21a*
>>>
>>> As above (*57a*):
>>>
>>> *ṛṣi’syād* → *ṛṣiḥ syād*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So apparently also *55b*.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Mudrāprakāśaḥ* *11a*
>>>
>>> Appears to indicate word separation
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *21a/30a*
>>>
>>> Word separation and/or exegetical function: separating the conditional
>>> clause (*yadi syād*) from the main clause.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Similarly *18a*: separating the scope of *iti* from the definiendum.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> WS
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am So., 7. Mai 2023 um 22:20 Uhr schrieb Harry Spier via INDOLOGY <
>>> indology at list.indology.info>:
>>>
>>>> It was suggested offlist that the unusual avagrahas may be used as a
>>>> gap filler.  At his request I'm attaching a pdf of the folios with the
>>>> unusual avagrahas circled.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Harry Spier
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, May 7, 2023 at 9:35 AM Harry Spier <vasishtha.spier at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thank you Elliot,
>>>>> I've been going through transcriptions of a group of manuscripts from
>>>>> the Ragunath Temple, Jammu and in the eloquent words of Charles DiSimone
>>>>> who replied offlist in describing some Nepalese manuscripts, its a mishmash.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some don't have have avagraha. Some have one or two in a whole
>>>>> manuscript and some use avagraha.  Where manuscripts use avagraha to elide
>>>>> a afte e or o they also use avagraha to indicate ā+a .
>>>>>
>>>>> But in some cases I'm finding avagraha in places strange places. I've
>>>>> checked these following cases against the actual manuscripts which are in
>>>>> archive.org.  For example:
>>>>>
>>>>> dakṣiṇāmūrtisaṁhitā ऋषिऽस्याद्दक्षिणामूर्तिर्गायत्रीछंद उच्यते ।। 4 ।। folio 21aअंते जीवऽशिवस्या तु विद्या वरुण पूजिता ।। 43 ।। folio 55b
>>>>>
>>>>>  kaulārcanadīpikā
>>>>>  लोकोयंऽजुगुप्सिति folio 43bनिःसंग एव मोक्षऽस्याद्दोषाः सर्वे च संगजाः । folio 57a
>>>>>
>>>>> mudrāprakāśaḥ शिखयागालिनीं मुद्रामऽर्धस्यो परिचालयेत् । folio 11aअनामा मध्यमे अंगुष्टेन स्पृशेदित्यऽपानमुद्रा ।। 2 ।। folio 18aस्यादऽपानहुतौ मुद्रा ।। 2 ।। folio 21aमध्यापृष्टेंऽगुष्टौ मध्या क्रोडे स्थितौ कामः काम इति काममुद्रेत्यर्थः ।। 19 ।। folio 30a
>>>>>
>>>>> Any explanation for the use of avagraha in these cases would be
>>>>> appreciated.
>>>>>
>>>>> If anyone wants to look at the actual manuscript I can provide the
>>>>> images for these cases.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Harry Spier
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, May 6, 2023 at 10:18 AM Elliot Stern <emstern1948 at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Harry,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The use of avagraha to mark elision of an initial short a is not
>>>>>> usual in Sanskrit mss. MacDonell,  for example,  says in his Sanskrit
>>>>>> Grammar for Students (page 5):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The elision of अ a at the beginning of a word is marked in
>>>>>>
>>>>>> European editions with the sign ऽ called Avaagraha ('separation');
>>>>>> e.g. तेऽपि te 'pi for ते अपि te pi.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Elliot
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 5, 2023, at 9:14 PM, Harry Spier via INDOLOGY <
>>>>>> indology at list.indology.info> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear list members,
>>>>>> I'm looking at the manuscript ajñānadhvāntadīpikā by somanāthaḥ
>>>>>> As far as I can tell there are no avagrahas in the manuscript.
>>>>>> For example if you look at the end of line 5 on the attached 1st folio
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The end of verse 5 is संन्यासाःसप्रयोगाश्चवक्ष्यन्तेत्रसमासतः ५  Anirban Dash (and several others pointed out that this should be
>>>>>>
>>>>>> संन्यासाःसप्रयोगाश्चवक्ष्यन्तेऽत्रसमासतः ५
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As far as I can see there are no avagrahas  anywhere in the
>>>>>> manuscript.
>>>>>> Is this normal or unusual for Kashmiri manuscripts not to use
>>>>>> avagraha.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The manuscript can be downloaded from egangotri on archive.org from
>>>>>> https://archive.org/details/AgyanDhvantaDeepikaShriSomnath4966Alm22Shlf4DevanagariTantra_201708
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Harry Spier
>>>>>> <VERSE 5.pdf>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> INDOLOGY mailing list
>>>>>> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
>>>>>> https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Elliot M. Stern
>>>>>> 552 South 48th Street
>>>>>> Philadelphia, PA 19143-2029
>>>>>> emstern1948 at gmail.com
>>>>>> 267-240-8418
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> INDOLOGY mailing list
>>>> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
>>>> https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
>>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> INDOLOGY mailing list
>> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
>> https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20230511/9039f0df/attachment.htm>