I am very grateful to Isabelle, Jason, Madhav and Walter for their valuable suggestions and contributions. All those engaged in text editing know very well how metrics may prove useful in establishing correct readings.
Warm greetings from Bochnia Raffaele > Il giorno 4 nov 2024, alle ore 19:33, Madhav Deshpande via INDOLOGY > <[email protected]> ha scritto: > > Thanks, Jason, for these Kāvya examples from Utpaladeva's work. It sure looks > like a peculiarity of Utpaladeva. Normally there is a sandhi between the > pādas 1 and 2, and 3 and 4. Normally there is a pause in the recitation after > the second pāda, and the 3rd pāda is a new beginning. It is conceivable that > Utpaladeva is reciting the pādas 2 and 3 as contiguous segments. This is just > a conjecture. Also the long compounds in the works of Bāṇa or the Gadyakāvyas > the Vaiṣṇavas often do get pauses within the compounds in recitation. > > 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 9:46 AM jason.cannon-silber--- via INDOLOGY > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> 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] >> <mailto:[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] >>>> <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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 >>>>> <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttp://www.academia.edu/raffaeletorella%26source%3Dgmail-imap%26ust%3D1731335165000000%26usg%3DAOvVaw2cVeMHNRJZogGix5POyFcn&source=gmail-imap&ust=1731350096000000&usg=AOvVaw3hvRx0vw9xeQiAn1JW1zVd> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> INDOLOGY mailing list >>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>> https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology >>>>> <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology%26source%3Dgmail-imap%26ust%3D1731335165000000%26usg%3DAOvVaw0ppRZ_lEC8fvhONstCa4E9&source=gmail-imap&ust=1731350096000000&usg=AOvVaw3LR_1rF3Uaqd6VZzwTirSh> >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> INDOLOGY mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology >> <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology&source=gmail-imap&ust=1731350096000000&usg=AOvVaw29Ei1PJG7_jJMzFXi0Htdd> > > _______________________________________________ > INDOLOGY mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.google.com/url?q=https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology&source=gmail-imap&ust=1731350096000000&usg=AOvVaw29Ei1PJG7_jJMzFXi0Htdd
_______________________________________________ INDOLOGY mailing list [email protected] https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
