[INDOLOGY] special metrical rules for śāstric verses

Mon Nov 4 18:05:50 UTC 2024

Could it not be seen as a special case of enjambement, not uncommon in
Sanskrit and quite common, if not frequent, in the Kashmirian Mokṣopāya,
where a sentence is continued into the next verse (from b to c) or stanza
(from d to a), resulting in a non-coincidence of sentence and pāda endings?
This is why the editors of the Mokṣopāya decided to omit the usual daṇḍa at
the end of the first line of a stanza (pāda b), since the brutal line-break
marker disrupts the natural flow of the actual sentence construction. Could
Utpaladeva's 'special propensity' therefore reflect a regional Sanskrit
preference for enjambment constructions (in extreme cases even extending to
compounds)?

Kind regards,
WS

Am Mo., 4. Nov. 2024 um 18:46 Uhr schrieb jason.cannon-silber--- via
INDOLOGY <indology at list.indology.info>:

> Dear all,
>
> Though I can offer no direct answer to Prof. Torella's question about a
> treatise concerning śāstrasamaya, I thought it could be worth pointing out
> that we may have to deal, in part at least, with a peculiarity of
> Utpaladeva himself. As Profs. Torella and Ratié will well know, it is not
> only Utpaladeva's kārikās that exhibit this feature; his efforts in the
> field of kāvya (if we accept stotra as a branch of kāvya) also do. Here are
> two examples from the Śivastotrāvalī:
>
> agnīṣomaravibrahmaviṣṇusthāvarajaṅgama-
> svarūpa bahurūpāya namaḥ saṃvinmayāya te ||2.1||
>
> namo nikṛttaniḥśeṣatrailokyavigaladvasā-
> vasekaviṣamāyāpi maṅgalāya śivāgnaye ||2.5||
>
> Swami Lakshman Joo's edition of this text is not completely reliable from
> a philological perspective, of course, but hopefully taking two examples is
> enough to reduce the possibility of a major problem in the text. Now, in
> the first example, it might be possible to take the first line as an
> independent vocative (or even as a series of vocatives), although I think
> that Kṣemarāja's commentary (... viśvātmanaḥ āmantraṇam idaṃ "svarūpa"
> ityantam |) makes it fairly clear that he takes the whole thing as just one
> āmantraṇa, nor does he feel any need to comment upon the breach between the
> two halves of the śloka.
>
> In the second case, the lack of even a hiatus between the two halves
> should make us feel even more certain that nikṛtta...viṣamāya is one
> compound, I think. I've also gathered, from Prof. Torella's own exemplary
> edition of the Īśvarapratyabhijñākārikā and -vṛtti, that Utpaladeva seems
> to have a special propensity for breaking the hiatus between 1st and 2nd
> and between 3rd and 4th pādas (e.g. 1.1.2, 1.2.4, 1.3.4, etc.), a practice
> that I think (please correct me if I am wrong) would not generally be
> allowed according to kāvyasamaya. Another question I have had, related to
> Prof. Torella's, is whether this propensity is to be found in other texts
> of the kārikā type, or if this too could be taken as characteristic of
> Utpala's style.
>
> Best wishes,
> Jason
>
> Quoting Raffaele Torella via INDOLOGY <indology at list.indology.info>:
>
> The only (or at least the best..) way to make sense of the śloka is by
> accepting Abhinava’s intepretation.
>
> Bhāskarakaṇṭha in his Vyākhyā on IPV has nothing to object. Interestingly,
> he comments on “*śāstre*” by *śivapraṇītādau*, which amounts to saying
> that this exception may apply not only to Śaiva scriptures (-*ādau*). The
> hypothesis that this “anomaly” may be part of the so-called Āṛṣa Sanskrit
> is to be excluded as Utpaladeva and Abhinavagupta’s Sanskrit is always
> flawless.
>
>  Anyhow, a certain margin for assuming a “traditional” practice might be
> found in the sequel of Abhinava’s discourse. He says that also the more
> even interpretation (no compound between II and III pādas) could in
> principle be taken into account, but : *evaṃ tu na kvacit paṭhitam*
> (Bh.’s comment: *śiṣyapraśiṣyaparamparayā etan naiva śrutam ity arthaḥ*).
>
> In sum, apart from the case at issue, is there any shared agreement in
> Indian literature about a possible acceptance of this irregularity?
>
> Raffaele
>
> Il giorno 4 nov 2024, alle ore 15:25, Madhav Deshpande <mmdesh at umich.edu>
> ha scritto:
>
> This is very unusual. Normally, compounds can continue between the first
> and the second pādas, and the third and the fourth pādas; but not between
> the second and the third pādas. I don't know of any example similar to
> Abhinavagupta's interpretation. Leave aside his interpretation for a
> moment. Is there a good way to understand the verse without assuming such
> an irregular compounding between the second and the third pādas?
>
> Madhav
>
> Madhav M. Deshpande
> Professor Emeritus, Sanskrit and Linguistics
> University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
> Senior Fellow, Oxford Center for Hindu Studies
> Adjunct Professor, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore, India
>
> [Residence: Campbell, California, USA]
>
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 6:05 AM Raffaele Torella via INDOLOGY <
> indology at list.indology.info> wrote:
>
>> Dear Colleagues,
>>
>> while commenting on IPK I.5.12 Abhinava’s Vimarśinī says:
>>
>> ātmāta eva caitanyaṃ citkriyācitikartṛtā /
>> tātparyeṇoditas tena jaḍāt sa hi vilakṣaṇaḥ // Ipk_1,5.12 //
>> […] citkriyācitikartṛtātātparyeṇa iti samāsaḥ / ardhayuk pādaviśrāntiḥ
>> iti hi kāvye samayaḥ, na śāstre.
>>
>> So the first word in the third pāda is to be considered in compound with
>> the last word of the second. According to the rule *ardhayuk
>> pādaviśrāntiḥ* (by the way, coming from where?) this should be
>> inadmissible, but – Abhinava says – this holds only for kāvya, not for
>> śāstra. My question is: are you aware of a set of exceptional rules only
>> valid for the śāstric metrical texts?
>>
>> Many thanks!
>> Raffaele
>>
>>
>> Prof. Raffaele Torella
>> Emeritus Professor of Sanskrit
>> Sapienza University of Rome
>> www.academia.edu/raffaeletorella
>> <https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.academia.edu/raffaeletorella&source=gmail-imap&ust=1731335165000000&usg=AOvVaw2cVeMHNRJZogGix5POyFcn>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> INDOLOGY mailing list
>> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
>> https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
>> <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology&source=gmail-imap&ust=1731335165000000&usg=AOvVaw0ppRZ_lEC8fvhONstCa4E9>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20241104/526f5919/attachment.htm>