Studies on Some Metarules

Ben-Dor, Sharon:
The paribhāṣās arthavadgrahaṇe nānarthakasya, lakṣaṇapratipadoktayoḥ pratipadoktasyaiva grahaṇam and ekadeśavikṛtam ananyavat : studies on some metarules in Pāṇinian system / Sharon Ben-Dor. - Academic dissertation. - Helsinki : Helsinki University Print, 2009. - xviii, 342 S. - (Publications of the Institute for Asian and African Studies ; 9).
Hochschulschrift: Helsinki, Univ., Diss., 2009
ISBN 978-952-10-5613-0 (PDF)
ISBN 978-952-10-5612-3 (Print-Ausg.)

Beschreibung
In his grammatical treatise, the Aṣṭādhyāyī, Pāṇini includes sūtras that state guiding rules for the right interpretation and application of his other directly grammatical sūtras. These sūtras are called paribhāṣās. In addition to these paribhāṣās, the various commentaries on Pāṇini frequently invoke supplementary paribhāṣās which are not stated explicitly in his Aṣṭādhyāyī. These paribhāṣās have been a subject of study since early times after Pāṇini and have also occupied modern scholars on Pāṇini’s grammar. In regard to most of them, it remains unsettled even today whether they are used in the Aṣṭādhyāyī, where they apply, what is their role, and whether they are necessary in arriving at the desired grammatical form. Some scholars go even further and argue that none of such paribhāṣās were intended by Pāṇini.
   This study aims to settle this question by dealing with three such of these paribhāṣās individually considering all the information available in the commentaries in their regard and examining the cases in which, according to commentaries, the paribhāṣās apply. I select the paribhāṣās arthavadgrahaṇe nānarthakasya, lakṣaṇapratipadoktayoḥ pratipadoktasyaiva grahaṇam and ekadeśavikṛtam ananyavat, which are all considered nyāyasiddha or lokanyāyasiddha; they express logical and obvious principles which are found in daily life. On this basis, Pāṇiniyas explain why Pāṇini did not mention them in the Aṣṭādhyāyī. I discuss each paribhāṣā separately and all the issues it involves. I present and explain the cases where the specified paribhāṣās are invoked in the major commentaries, the Mahābhāṣya, the Kāśikā and the Siddhāntakaumudī and the arguments found in the commentaries concerning these cases. If available, I supply other solutions to the difficulties for which these paribhāṣās are invoked. The study aims to make the issue of these paribhāṣās clearer, which will help us to reach a solution to the key question, that is, whether Pāṇini has presupposed them in his Aṣṭādhyāyī.
   My study shows that Pāṇini has presupposed the paribhāṣā ekadesavikrtam ananyavat (or a similar principle). He also may have used the paribhāṣā arthavadgrahaṇe nanarthakasya (or a similar principle) as this paribhāṣā does not lead to undesired results. As for the paribhāṣā laksanapratipadoktayoh pratipadoktasyaiva grahanam (or a similar principle), the original scope of this paribhāṣā was clearly extended by later Pāṇiniyas. Moreover, their interpretation of this paribhāṣā conflicts with Pāṇini’s procedure. If Pāṇini has used this paribhāṣā, he has used it in a very limited way.

Quelle: University of Helsinki, E-thesis