2.3 Evidence for My Interpretation of Para
Before going further, let me provide more evidence to support my interpretation of para. The meaning of para in 1.4.2 can be confirmed by looking at the meaning of para in the rest of the Aá¹£á¹ÄdhyÄyÄ«. The term para has been used by PÄṇini on many occasions. Its occurrences can be classified into two groups:
Group A: 1.1.34, 1.4.109, 3.2.39, 3.3.138, 3.4.20, 4.3.5, 5.2.92, 5.3.29, 6.3.8.
Group B: 1.1.47, 1.1.51, 1.1.54, 1.1.57, 1.1.70, 1.2.40, 1.4.2, 1.4.62, 1.4.81, 2.1.2, 2.2.31, 2.4.26, 3.1.2, 6.1.84, 6.1.94, 6.1.112, 6.1.115, 6.1.120, 6.2.199, 6.4.156, 7.3.22, 7.3.27, 7.4.80, 7.4.88, 7.4.93, 8.1.2, 8.1.56, 8.2.92, 8.3.4, 8.3.6, 8.3.26, 8.3.27, 8.3.35, 8.3.87, 8.3.110, 8.3.118, 8.4.28, 8.4.58.
Let us consider an example from Group A. 1.1.34 pÅ«rvaparÄvaradaká¹£iṇottarÄparÄdharÄṇi vyavasthÄyÄm asaá¹jñÄyÄm (vibhÄá¹£Ä jasi sarvanÄmÄni) teaches that the terms pÅ«rva, para etc. are called sarvanÄma optionally when followed by Jas. In 1.1.34 and in the other rules belonging to Group A, para is used as an ordinary word of the object language Sanskrit. In these rules, it does not have any special technical connotation with respect to PÄṇini’s derivational system. We are not interested in Group A, because 1.4.2 belongs to group B.
Let us consider some examples from Group B. 1.1.47 mid aco’ntyÄt paraḥ teaches that an item marked with anubandha M is placed after, i.e., to the right-hand side of, the last vowel of the item to which it is added. 1.1.51 ur aṇ raparaḥ teaches that r is added after, i.e., to the right side of the vowels a, i, u when they are substitutes of rÌ¥. 1.1.54 Ädeḥ parasya teaches that a substitute taught for the following or right-hand side item replaces its first sound. From these examples, it becomes clear that in the rules I have listed under group B, para is used to mean ‘right-hand side’ in the context of PÄṇinian derivations.
Let us confirm this by considering some rules which contain both pÅ«rva and para. 6.1.84 ekaḥ pÅ«rvaparayoḥ teaches that (in the following rules) a single sound replaces both the LHS sound and the RHS sound in case of saá¹hitÄ â€˜immediate proximity’. Similarly, 1.1.57 acaḥ parasmin pÅ«rvavidhau teaches that a substitute for a vowel, if it is conditioned by an RHS context, is treated like its substituendum with respect to an operation on an LHS element.
This leads to an important question: if traditional scholars interpreted para as ‘RHS item/operation’ in so many metarules as shown above, why did they interpret it as ‘the following rule’ in 1.4.2?[1] I think this misunderstanding possibly arose because another metarule, 8.2.1 pÅ«rvatrÄsiddham, uses pÅ«rva, the opposite of para, to mean ‘preceding rule’. 8.2.1 teaches that from 8.2.1 onwards, a preceding rule treats a following rule as suspended. This may have led KÄtyÄyana, the first scholar to comment upon PÄṇini’s sÅ«tras, to think that, in sÅ«tras dealing with relationships between rules such as 8.2.1 and 1.4.2, pÅ«rva and para mean preceding rule and following rule respectively. However, upon closer examination, one realizes that when PÄṇini wants to indicate that he is referring to the relationship between preceding and following rules rather than operands, he adds the affix traL to the base: he says pÅ«rva-tra in 8.2.1.Â
I discuss the suffis -tra again in chapter 5. In appendix F, I have listed all the rules of Group A and Group B.
Ever since Shefts' Grammatical Method in PÄṇini and Kiparsky's PÄṇini as a Variationist, there has been a scholarly interest in discovering features in the Aá¹£á¹ÄdhyÄyÄ« that were unknown to even the earliest commentators. Mr Rajpopat kindly sent me his 2021 PhD thesis in February this year. I cannot give a definitive judgement, because I haven't had time to work through all the examples. But it is a well-written, thought-provoking and compelling thesis. I have more work to do on it, but at present I am convinced by Rajpopat's arguments and insights. Apart from right-or-wrong, it raises lots of good questions and insights into problems with the Aá¹£á¹a. and it's traditional interpreters.ÂIt would be interesting to have Vincenzo Vergiani's opinion, since he must be the closest reader of this thesis so far.ÂWhatever the upshot, it's great for a technical work in our field to get some public exposure like this. The public needs to be told repeatedly that research on ancient India is exciting and innovative, which it truly is!Best,Dominik
_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology