As far as tendencies toward archaization are concerned, I can point to the following passages, though without the use of the middle voice: In footnote 96 (p. 466 of my edition of Śrīvara

[https://uvhw.de/studia-indologica/product/211230_08-252-3.html])

there is the following remark on „the deliberately archaic style“ that Śrīvara sought to create through the use of the benedictive in his Rājataraṅgiṇī :

 

„Śrīvara bedient sich hier [= ŚRT I.1.79] eines gewollt archaisierenden Stils, indem er die seltene Imperativendung °tāt (an die schwache Form der Wurzel √as gefügt) in der Bedeutung eines Benediktivs so verwendet, als segnete er hier die Kanonen. Vgl. auch oben I.1.75d (Benediktiv kriyāt) sowie I.1.113 (Benediktiv kriyāḥ).“

 

Here they are:

 

yadanugraheṇa rājnāṃ

samayo līlāvilāsamayaḥ |

samayaś ca yantratantrais

sthirām pratiṣṭhāṃ kriyāt sa Mayaḥ ‖ I.1.75 ‖

 

sāraṃ surītibaddhaṃ

ghanaghoṣaṃ śilpikalpitam ahāryam |

navam iva nagaraṃ nṛpateẖ

kalpaṃ stād yantrabhāṇḍam idam ‖ I.1.79 ‖

 

tvam evākaṇṭakaṃ rājyaṃ kriyā dharmakriyā bhajan |

vairiṇo vimukhā yāntu raṇe labdhaparābhavāḥ ‖ I.1.113 ‖

 

Regards, WS

 


Am Do., 19. März 2026 um 10:39 Uhr schrieb Matthew Kapstein via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info>:
Dear friends,

In the opening verses (given below) of the Abhisamayālamkāra-śāstra (ASA), an important Mahāyāna Buddhist treatise (said to have been revealed to Asaṅga by the bodhisattva Maitreya), we find two instances of verbs that I take to be examples of “precatives” or “benedictives” (āśīrliṅ) in the middle voice (ātmanepāda) third person plural. Whitney (925) and Macdonell (150) both flatly state that the precative middle, though current in Vedic, does not occur in Classical Sanskrit. Renou (330-331) does not affirm this categorically, but suggests that the āśīrliṅ (without specifying voice) is commonly met with in kāvya and epigraphy, though unknown to Buddhist usage. Edgerton, BHS Grammar, has nothing at all to say about the āśīrliṅ, probably due to its absence in the corpus that he consulted, though the ASA is not in any case written in “hybrid” Sanskrit; its terminology is distinctly Buddhist, of course, but without peculiarly BHS grammatical forms.  

Conze, in the vocabulary accompanying his summary translation of the ASA (SOR VI) offers no grammatical analysis, but treats vīkṣiṣīran as an aorist optative, “have been able to behold,” and pratipatsīran as a future optative, “will be able to make progress.” (It seems simpler to me to adopt a mildly benedictive reading of both, “that the wise may behold… and that they may easily master…”) 

What I wish to ask the vyākaraṇa specialists, however, is whether I am correct to take these verbs as middle voice āśīrliṅ third person plural? And, if so, are there other instances, whether in Buddhist or non-Buddhist works, that similarly call into question Whitney and Macdonell’s assertions? I would welcome any other observations about this apparently unusual form that you may be able to share. In particular, I am wondering if it is plausible to take its use here as a deliberately archaizing gesture. 

 
sarvākārajñatāmārgaḥ śāsitrā yo'tra deśitaḥ|

dhīmanto vīkṣiṣīraṃs tam anālīḍhaṃ parair iti ||1||

smṛtau cādhāya sūtrārthaṃ dharmacaryāṃ daśātmikām |

sukhena pratipatsīrann ity ārambhaprayojanam ||2|| 


with thanks in advance for your observations and insights,
Matthew


Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
 INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
 https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology