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 <[email protected]>:
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
<[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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[1]
_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
[email protected]
https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology[2]
Links:
------
[1]
https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.academia.edu/raffaeletorella&source=gmail-imap&ust=1731335165000000&usg=AOvVaw2cVeMHNRJZogGix5POyFcn
[2]
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology&source=gmail-imap&ust=1731335165000000&usg=AOvVaw0ppRZ_lEC8fvhONstCa4E9
_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
[email protected]
https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
