Inspired by David Reigle’s insightful article, which suggests that it is unlikely to encounter the benedictive in Sanskrit programs at (presumably American?) universities,* I decided to browse through some German-language textbooks.

The benedictive mood is evidently taught there, but most thoroughly by Bühler.** He, in turn, draws on Kielhorn’s grammar, where the rules of benedictive formations are described in great detail (§§ 380–385).***

 

What is interesting here, particularly regarding the question of whether vīkṣīṣīraṃs could be a variant worth considering at all, is that both authors explicitly point out that the interposed vowel of seṭ-roots in the Ātmanepada appears as a long -ī- exclusively in formations from the root grah (e.g., grahīṣīṣṭa), but must otherwise always be short (Kielhorn § 382c; Bühler p. 95, 20).

 

As if to confirm Riegle’s observation regarding the exclusion of the benedictive from English-language Sanskrit programs and textbooks, Perry—who otherwise bases his textbook strictly on Bühler and follows him even in the exercises****—also excludes any treatment of the benedictive with the following words:

“[...] it is so rare that its formation need not be explained here.” (p. 188).

 

As said, this is merely an observation regarding trends in Sanskrit textbooks from different scholarly traditions.

 

Regards,

WS

 

*

“It is possible to go through university Sanskrit programs without ever encountering the benedictive. […] Readings in classical Sanskrit texts typically follow this in the programs, so that unless one specifically takes up Pāṇinian grammar (or Vedic texts, where a few benedictives do occur), one is quite unlikely to encounter the benedictive.” (Reigle 1997, p. 127).

 

**

https://uvhw.de/studia-indologica/product/200922_08-228-8.html

 

***

https://uvhw.de/studia-indologica/product/200921_08-227-1.html

 

****

“The Primer [...] is based upon an excellent little work by Professor Georg Bühler of Vienna: Leitfaden für den Elementarcursus des Sanskrit, Vienna 1883. I became acquainted with this book while in Germany, and after using it with a class at Columbia College was convinced of its great practical value.” (Preface to the 1936 edition).

 

 



Am Fr., 20. März 2026 um 10:48 Uhr schrieb Matthew Kapstein via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info>:
Dear Harry,

I was following the text given by Amano:
Abhisamayālaṃkārakārikāśāstravivṛti by Haribhadra. Skt.
ed. Koei H. Amano, Kyoto: Heirakujishoten, 2000.
and consulting the earlier editions as well.

I think that the readings you find in GRETIL are simply typos and not genuine variants.

Matthew

Matthew T. Kapstein
Professor emeritus
Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, PSL Research University, Paris

Associate
The University of Chicago Divinity School

Member, American Academy of Arts and Sciences






Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

On Friday, March 20th, 2026 at 12:51 AM, Harry Spier <vasishtha.spier@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear list members,

Matthew Kapstein and ( David Reigle using edition 1929 by Stcherbatsky and Obermiller) spell the word as vīkṣiṣīraṃs . Same text in GRETIL (different editions) spell it vīkṣīṣīraṃs and vīkṣiṣiraṃs

Are these misprints or alternate spellings in GRETIL? pratipatsīrann is spelled the same in these etexts

Matthew Kapstein and ( David Reigle)

sarvākārajñatāmārgaḥ śāsitrā yo'tra deśitaḥ|
dhīmanto vīkṣiṣīraṃs tam anālīḍhaṃ parair iti ||1||

smṛtau cādhāya sūtrārthaṃ dharmacaryāṃ daśātmikām |
sukhena pratipatsīrann ity ārambhaprayojanam ||2||

--------------------------

GRETIL abhisamayālaṃkaranāmaprajñāpāramitopadeśaśāstram

https://gretil.sub.uni-goettingen.de/gretil/corpustei/transformations/html/sa_maitreyanAtha-abhisamayAlaMkaranAmaprajJApAramitopadezazAstra.htm
 input by Christian Coseru (no source book given) has;

sarvākārajñatāmārgaḥ śāsitrā yo 'tra deśita /

dhīmantī vīkṣīṣīraṃstamanālīḍhaṃ parairiti // Abhs_1.1 //

smṛtau cādhāya sūtrārthaṃ dharmacaryā daśātmikā /

sūkhena pratipatsīrannityārambhaprayojanam // Abhs_1.2 //

--------------------------------------

GRETIL Abhisamayālaṃkāra https://gretil.sub.uni-goettingen.de/gretil/corpustei/transformations/html/sa_abhisamayAlaMkAra.htm
Data entry: members of the Digital Sanskrit Buddhist Canon Input Project 
Based on the ed. by Ramsankar Tripathi: Abhisamayalankaravrttih Sphutartha.
Sarnath : Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies (CIHTS), 1977.

grānthārambhaprayojanam sarvākārajñatāmārgaḥ śāsitrā yo 'tra deśitaḥ /
dhīmanto vīkṣiṣiraṃstamanālīḍhaṃ parairiti // asa_1.2 //
smṛtau cādhāya sūtrārthaṃ dharmacaryāṃ daśātmikām /
sukhena pratipatsīrannityārambhaprayojanam // asa_1.3 //
Harry Spier


On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 5:30 PM Matthew Kapstein via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:
Many thanks to all who replied on- and off-list. I am sorry that I was not aware of David Reigle's paper, addressing my query so precisely, beforehand, and I am grateful to him and to Asko Parpola for sharing it. Walter Slaje's helpful remarks lend some support to my thought that the benedictive form may have had an intentionally archaic nuance.

Matthew


On Thursday, March 19th, 2026 at 3:39 PM, Asko Parpola <aparpola@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Matthew, David Reigle ha written a paper (attached) on these very two occurrences of the benedictive.
With best wishes, Asko

On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 11:39 AM Matthew Kapstein via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:
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


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


--


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


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