Does K A Really Need His Own Grammar Jīva Gosvāmin's Answer PDF

Does Kṛṣṇa Really Need His Own Grammar?
Jīva Gosvāmin's Answer

Author(s): Rebecca J. Manring
Reviewed work(s):
Source: International Journal of Hindu Studies, Vol. 12, No. 3 (Dec., 2008), pp. 257-282
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40343818 .
Accessed: 14/03/2013 08:45
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International Journal of Hindu
Studies.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:45:50 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Does Krsna ReallyNeed His Own Grammar?
JIvaGosvamin'sAnswer
Rebecca J. Manring
Everyone who has ever studied Sanskritis struckby the remarkablegrammatical

self-awarenessof Indian intellectualculture. Harold G. Coward and K. Kunjunni
Raja discuss some eighty-fiveIndian grammariansin The Philosophyof the Gram-
marians (1990) and admit thattheirwork is not exhaustive. Not included in their
summaryare the dozens of sectarian grammars,most of which appeared in the
middle period of roughly the thirteenththroughthe seventeenthcenturies. JIva
Gosvamin's (1523-1608) Harindmdmrtavydkarana falls into this lattergroup. This
lengthy work (some three thousand sutras in the Brhad recension and about one-
thirdthat in the Laghu) is intriguingin and of itself,all the more so because few
scholarsto date have takenthesectariangrammarsseriously.These worksconstitute
a testimonyto the continuous centrality,to the presentday, of Sanskritin many
religiouscommunitiesin South Asia.
The Indian fascinationwithgrammar,and withlanguage itself,as well as language
choice forvarious purposes, made me wonder how the elite (Sanskrit)and the com-
mon (vernacular)dichotomyin South Asia functionedin the middle period. Would
an examinationof the similarbilingualismwe find in Medieval Europe (Latin and
the European vernaculars)provide any insightinto the issue? The medieval period
in Europe is somewhatearlierthan what scholars call the "middle period" in South
Asia; the latterextends nearlyto the coming of European colonialism and the col-
lapse of theMughal empire.
I wantto explore theextentto which the situationin South Asia is unique and how
much it parallels thinkingelsewhere in the world. The early Buddhist linguistic
situation,forexample,while South Asian, would at firstglance seem to representthe
opposite of thisdichotomy.It is difficultto determinewithany certaintytheoriginal
language of the early Buddhist canon, but the Buddha is widely reported"to have
enjoined his followers to rememberhis doctrinein theirown languages" (Warder
1991: 206). Only later,some centuriesafterthe Buddha's death,did Buddhistsbegin
to compose theirtreatisesin Sanskrit,and eventuallythey,too, produced sectarian
grammarsof thatlanguage.
Did the European writersask the same sorts of questions as the Indians when
JournalofHinduStudies12,3: 257-82
International
© 2008 Springer
DOI 10.1007/sll407-008-9062-z

258 / RebeccaJ.Manring
choosingto composein Latinor a local vernacular?

JIvaopenshisgrammar
withan
invocation
thatincludestheverse:
krsnamupdsitumasya srajamivandmdvalimtanavaiI
tvaritam vitaredesd II
tatsdhityddijdmodam
Let me composea seriesof namesas a garlandto worshipKrsna;mayitquickly
lead (us) totheblissbornfrom(contemplating) abouthim.
theliterature
Was his effort

simplyan actof devotion,or did he haveadditional,
subtlermotiva-
tions?
Background
The GaudlyaVaisnavasproudlyproclaimtheuniversalappeal of,and accessibility

to,theirrouteto salvation.Muchof theirdevotionalliterature is in MiddleBengali.
Yet all its theologicalliterature
is in Sanskrit,a languageonlya minority (albeit
substantial andinfluential)couldread,write,orspeakinsixteenth-century Bengal.
Atfirstglance,JIvaGosvaminseemsto havewantedtobridgethetwoworlds.He
providedhisco-religionists witha grammar thatwouldallow themto readtheother
material,all the while maintaining theirsimplepracticeof repeatingthe Lord's
Name.
JIvawas one of themovement's earlytheologians,a groupof six scholars,twoof
whomwereespeciallyprolificwriters.Caitanyahad sentthesesix gosvdminsto
Vrndavanawithtwoinstructions: to reclaimthelostsitesassociatedwiththelifeof
Krsna,andto formally codifyhis(Caitanya's) movement's theology. Theircomposi-
tionslayoutritual,dailypractices, theology, and evena masterfully complextheory
ofaesthetics.
JIvawas thenephewof thegosvdmlsRupa and Sanatana.He was bornin Rama-
keli,in thenorthern partof Bengal,around1523,accordingto bothJadunath Sinha
(1982) andTarapadaMukherjeeandJ.C. Wright(1979). NarahariCakravartI writes
in veryhagiographical stylein his Bhaktiratndkara and claims thatJIvawas an
extremely precociouschildwhostudiedall thetimeandveryearlybecameskilledin
grammar andothersubjects.His father AnupamadiedwhenJIvawas sevenbutwas
stillalive and workingat thecourtof HusainShah around1515, whenCaitanya
passedthrough Ramakelion his way to Vrndavanaand methis unclesforthefirst
time.Positingtheearlierdateof birthallowsNaraharito have JIvameetthemove-
ment'sfounder. Caitanyahad alreadyrelocatedto thecoastaltownof Purl,a major
centerof Vaisnavapilgrimage and devotion,by themorelikely1523 dateof Jlva's
birth(Chatterjee 1996: 12; Elkman1986:21; Sinha1982:3). Notonlywas thechild
Narahariwrites,he was also a greatdevoteeof Krsnafroma youngage,
brilliant,
interested in nothing
butdoingpujd. He lefthis homevillageof Ramakelito study
further,and following a dreamin whichKrsnaand hisyoungerbrother appearedas
Caitanya and Nityananda and embraced the young JIvawith greataffection,JIva

Does Krsna Really Need His Own Grammar?Jlva Gosvdmin's Answer I 259
traveledto Navadvlpa where he metNityanandain person. Nityanandareceived him

warmly and took him to visit all the sites associated with Caitanya. Nityananda
blessed Jlva and told him thatCaitanya had given Vrndavana to his (thatis, Jiva's)
family(Elkman 1986: 22).
Nityanandasent him on to Varanasi to learn Sanskrit.He studied under Madhu-
sudana Vacaspati and continuedto performbrilliantly.Jlva earned some reputeas a
scholar while still there,and accordingto Harivenu Das (2001: 48),1 Banaras Hindu
Universityand anotherinstitutionin Banaras still rememberhim as such and have
dedicatedsub-departments to thestudyof his works.
By the time Jlva reached Vrndavana his motherhad died and he was ready to join
his uncles Rupa and Sanatana in a life of scholarlyrenunciation.Jlva,the youngest
of the gosvamis,outlivedthemall, and so, Mark StuartElkman writes,"the respon-
sibilityfor the organization of the movement fell squarely on Jiva's shoulders"
(1986: 23). As a result,he was "a major force in making Vrndavana an important
centerof learningand religion,devotinghis time and effortsto the constructionof
new templesas well as a libraryof Sanskritreligiousliterature"(23). Jlvacomposed
twenty-five worksof various types,all in Sanskrit,includingthreeon grammar.
Many of Jiva's works were commentarieson, or elaborationsof, the works of his
uncles Rupa and Sanatana, but he also produced a numberof original pieces. Jlva
laid out the fundamentalconcepts Caitanya taughtin his six samdarbhas. He also
composed fourVaisnava kdvyas;threeworkson rasa sdstra; theKrsndrcanaDipika,
which treatsmodes of worship; and commentarieson such works as the Brahma
Samhitd and the Bhdgavata Purdna. Jiva's oeuvre also includes a grammarof
Sanskrit. In creating the Harindmdmrtavydkarana, Jlva joined dozens of other
- -
sectarian grammarians Buddhists, Jains, &aivas in producing a descriptionof
the Sanskritlanguage thatwould not merelygeneratecorrectoutputin Sanskrit,but
do so in strictlyVaisnava sectarian terms.But why? Why, in the midstof all the
theological writing,did Jlva feel the need to add a grammaticaltextto his already
remarkableoutput?Scholars of Jiva's time had, as we have seen, a large libraryof
grammarsto choose from.Why another?
Jlvawas writingsome six decades and more afterthedeath of Caitanya,by which
timethe new school had alreadybegun to fragment.The largestseparationwas, and
continuesto be, between the theologiansand theirfollowers in Vrndavana and the
Gaudlyas who remained in the east, each group operating with its own distinct
agenda.
themselvesfrom
At home in Bengal, Caitanya's followershad only to differentiate
local Saktas, Buddhists,and Muslims, all of whose praxis and philosophydiffered
dramaticallyfromCaitanya's. This hometowncrowd wrotein Bengali and produced
hundredsof lyricaldevotionalpoems as well as a large numberof hagiographiesand
theologicaland ritualtexts.The authorsin thisgroup who acknowledge competition
veryneatlysubsume and absorb it,demonstrating thatthe Gaudlya Vaisnavas repre-
senta continuationof, and an improvementupon, whatpreceded themin the region.
For the mostpart,the authorsof these materialshad a verybroad audience in mind,

an audiencewhosedevotionfaroutweighed theirintellectualinterests
or degreeof
sophistication.
Theysimply wanted to focus on Krsna and His Name.
When Caitanyasentthe gosvdmiswest to Vrndavana,thesetheologiansfaced
another taskentirely in delineatinghowCaitanya's ideologywas different fromand
moreeffective thanthoseof the otherschools of Vaisnavismactivethere.This
requiredfinerbrushstrokesand a philosophy bothelaborateanddetailed.Rupa,for
example, reworked classical rasa theory producea theologicalframework
to in
which,tociteDavid L. Haberman (1988), actingbecamethewayofsalvation.
Thesescholarswrotefora muchsmalleraudience,of highlyeducatedVaisnavas,
and weremakingverydifferent claimsforlegitimacy amonga verydifferent group
ofcompetitors. One waytheydid so was byadhering to "theold Brahmanicalnotion
thattheonlyappropriate languagefortruth is Sanskrit"(Dimock1989: 84). Sanskrit
was,afterall,thelanguageofthegodsandmostappropriate choiceforany"serious"
or "important" text.This attitude towardtheancientlanguageis largelydue to the
Vedic priestlyheritage,but otherfactorsmay also be involved.Ashok Aklujkar
(1996), forexample,suggeststhat"at an ancienttime,it came to India as thelan-
guage,or as a close descendantof the language,of victors"(61). He of course
elaborateson thisand proceedsto a discussionof "a compositeculturein which
"
organizedexclusivistic religion'existedand yetdid notexist' (79), forthatexclu-
sivisticreligioneventuallyincludedseverepenaltiesforinterlopers who werenot
authorized access. Overthecenturies, as colloquialspeechdivergedmoreand more
fromtheold liturgical language,itwas increasingly easyto maintain thispartition.
LanguageChoiceand Grammatica
Languagechoiceis oftencloselyconnectedto issuesof social and politicalhierar-

chy. Sometimeswriterschoose an archaiclanguageto connecttheirworkwith
timelesseternityor to restrict access to theeducatedfew. Conversely, theymay
writein thevernacular so thattheirworkmaybe morewidelydisseminated, across
socio-economicboundaries,withinthe geographiclimitsof thatcontemporary
language.
An exampleof thelatterphenomenon, thebhaktimovement flowedthrough the
subcontinenton a riverof vernacular poetryand itsearlyleaderspridedthemselves
on thebroadaccessibility of theirmessage.But theGaudlyascomposedall of their
theologicaltreatisesin Sanskrit.By the sixteenth centurySanskrithad eludedthe
tightclutchesof the Brahmanas who had codifieddharmasdstray butno one could
claimit as mothertongue.Whatwas it aboutthispractically uselesslanguagethat
continued- and continues - to attractauthorsand readers?W. MartinBloomer,
writingabout Latin,observesthat"the use of a languagemay attractto itself
symbolicresonances,quickeningcultural,ethnic,intellectual, religious,social or
nationalanimosities" (2005: 1), or vice versa.It "maybe represented as a torpid
languageof privilegeand exclusionor thelivinglanguageof thewordof God" (2).
It mayevenbe all of theabove! Sanskrit is certainly
Indian,andso notthelanguage

Does Krsna Really Need His Own Grammar?Jlva Gosvamin's Answer / 261
of any of the various immigrantsto South Asia. It is ancient, harkeningback, in

some form at least, to the Vedas of furthestcultural memory.As such it is the
language of privilege, its use restrictedto those who were licensed to hold inter-
course withthe gods. Throughoutits historySanskritfunctionsas a living language
of the divine. Occasionally groups would use Sanskrit as a tool to elevate their
status,not only making an upwardly mobile move in human society, but also to
permitthemaccess to the world of the gods. To thatend, many differentreligious
groups produced theirown grammarsof the language, each designed to provide its
diligentfollowerswitha guide notonly to a difficultlanguage,but also to an entirely
new religious world and the soteriological opportunitiesit presents.The scholars
who produced these texts were participatingin the longstanding,much-venerated
grammatologicaltraditionof the subcontinent,a traditionthat continues in some
formto the presentday, as attendancein the grammarsections at meetingsof the
World SanskritConferencemakes clear.
CatherineM. Chin, writingabout Latin in the late Roman world,says, "The prac-
tice of grammarformeda technologyof the imaginationthatallowed its users to
understandthemselvesas partof a coherentculturalsystem,one specificallyoriented
toward the valorizationof an idealized past" (2008: 7). For Jlva,thatcoherentcul-
turalsystemwas Krsna's world in Vraja, which in its eternitywas translatedwhole-
sale intoSanskrit.
We know thatinterestin grammarin India has been constantsince the timeof the
Rg Veda. The Padapdtha of theRg Veda is probablythe firstof what would become
a rich traditionof Indian grammaticalworks and appeared long before the ritual
specialistshad any use forwriting.It consistsof thewords of thehymnsin isolation,
breakingup compounds and sandhi. The Samhitdpdthagives the textas a whole, as
we know it, in poetic form,afterapplicationof the sandhi rules. The very fact that
we have these two different versionsof the same hymnsis eloquent testimonyto the
linguisticconcerns and self-awareness of thepeople who producedthem.
As time passed and the language of the Rg Veda was no longer the same as that
which people actually spoke, the hymns still retained their importance.Vac, the
goddess Speech, is herselfthe object of one of the laterhymns(Rg Veda 10.125), a
testimonyto the perceived power of the word itself.This hymngives us a clue that
"word, or speech in the largersense was viewed... as a mysticforce" pervadingthe
universe (Maurer 1981: 4). The very phenomenonof the eventual incomprehen-
sibilityof the hymnsseems to have provoked interestin the meaningsof the words
theycontain,since many were no longer in common use, as well as of theircorrect
pronunciation.Now we have a bifurcationin the linguisticworld: we have what we
call etymologyand lexicology on the one hand, and phoneticsand phonologyon the
other.
Concern with sounds led to the phoneticdiscoveries thatresultedin the familiar
arrangementof the sounds in the alphabeticalorderwe now use in the various Indie
scripts,with the vowels firstand then the five groups of stop consonants ordered
fromthe back to the frontof the mouth(Maurer 1981: 5) - probablythe only such

logical arrangement in worldphonetichistory.All this,however,developedlong

beforeanyonewas committing the Vedas to writing. As FritsStaal, citingLouis
Renou and Jean Filliozat (1953: 668), pointsout, such a developmentwould
probablynot have occurredhad people been usingwritten languageat the time,
because an establishedscript"would have provideda model of analysisof the
soundsof languagethatwas practicalbutnotscientific" (1989: 303) andwouldhave
proved a distraction.
The Padapdthaand othertextsancillaryto theVedas tellus thatintellectuals had
alreadybeen discussingphonologyand etymologyfor centuriesbeforePanini
composedwhatmaywell be themostbrilliant grammar in worldlinguistichistory.
His workwas so remarkably conceivedand executedthatit eclipsedall prior
Sanskritgrammars (Panininamesten of his predecessorsin his own work)and
becamethemodelfromwhichsubsequentgrammarians woulddeveloptheirown,
eitherfollowinghimor deliberately deviating waystheywouldusuallyspecify,
in
forreasonsthat,again,theywould delineate.Because Panini's workbecamethe
standard, someunderstanding of thetextis crucialto anyconsideration of grammar
in SouthAsia,andso a briefdiscussionhereofhisAstadhydyl willhelpsetthestage
forexploring Jlva'sHarindmdmrtavydkarana.
Paniniand His Astadhydyl
Panini's Astadhydyl consistsof nearlyfourthousanddense sutrasin which"the

greatestpossibleeconomyof wordswas achievedby the adoptionof a nominal
sentenceas the mode of expression"and the use of some veryclevertechnical
devices,someborrowed fromearliergrammarians andsomePanini's owninvention
(Maurer1981: 9). Panini'smetalanguage consistsof a mix of Sanskritwordsand
inventednon-words, and he definestheirnew and unique technicalapplications
carefully.Read independently, the sutrasmake no sense. The textis basicallya
mnemonic device,and once students had committed it to memory, teacherswould
the
explain meaning of the pithy sutras.
The sutrasarenotarranged topicallyaccordingto,forexample,verbformation or
nominaldeclension, but in an ingenious way.Rulesareorderedmainlyon theprinci-
ple of economy,andPaninievenincludessomeexemption rulesto tellus wherenot
to applya givenrule,so thatone endsup generating thecorrect morphological forms
and thecorrectsandhito produceSanskritsentences.Puristssay one has to know
all thesutrasbeforeone can trulyunderstand anyof them.It is certainly themost
accurateand concisedescription of anylanguage,and attempts to be exhaustive,
at
leastwithrespectto morphology.
Paninibeginswiththefourteen Siva Sutras;traditiontellsus Siva himselfpassed
theseto Panini.Herethegrammarian arrangesthesounds in an orderthatallowshim
to posittheruleshe needsfortheexpositionadoptedin thegrammar. Each groupof
soundsendsin a consonant, thefunction of whichis onlyto markthegroup.In the
firstfoursutrasPaninitellsus thathe will represent the soundsindicatedon the

Does KrsnaReallyNeedHis OwnGrammar? 's AnswerI 263
JlvaGosvdmin
leftin thechartbelow withthecode on theright.He will referto thesegroupings

throughout his workby citingthefirstsoundand thecode forthelasthe wantsto
includeina group.Longvowelsareimplicit withinshortones.
Vowel Code
a i u -n
r I -k
e o -h
ai au -c
Thusa-c meansall thevowelsincludingdiphthongs; i-kmeans/through theone

preceding thek,so that would be /,w, r,I. Paninidoes the same with consonants such
thatya-nmeansall thesemivowels.These formulaeare thepratydhdras (Maurer
1981: 10),a termcoinedbylatergrammarians fortheseabbreviations.
Grammatical cases carrytechnicalmeaningin Panini's sutras.A word in the
genitive means "in place of thatword;in theablative,"after";and in thelocative,
"before."Thus thesutra"iko yan act* (Astddhydyl 6.1.77) means"in place of ik,
yan beforeac." Or, "In place of the or
(long short) vowels i, w,r, and /,thesemi-
vowelsy, v, r, and /respectively are substituted beforeany vowel"(Maurer1981:
12). Obviouslya verysuccinctwaytodescribesemivowelsandhil
Panini's grammartreats"the vernacularspokenby cultivatedpersonsof his
times,"buthe is describing an earlierlanguagethanwhatwe nowthinkof as Classi-
cal Sanskrit;he neveruses thetermsamskrta(Maurer1981: 16). Whatmighthave
led Panini,andindeedmanyof hisintellectual countrymen, to whatseemsan obses-
sionwithgrammar?
SheldonPollock(2006: 102) has workedexhaustively on thestatusof Sanskrit
throughout SouthAsian historyand concludesthatgrammarproduction provided
linguisticdiscipline,homogenizing Sanskrit so that it exhibited no regional or
othervariation. Pollockfindsthatnormativity predates its manifestation: "practices
conformed to rules,while rules were neverconstituted out of practices"(167).
Grammaticalcorrectness"was seen as a componentof politicalcorrectness"
(167). Thus if a writerwantedhis workto be valued and to endure,he notonly
neededto use Sanskrit, he neededto use it correctly, accordingto long-established
rules.
In his Mahdbhdsya(1.1), his commentary on the Astadhydyl, Patanjaligives
fivereasonsforstudying Sanskritgrammar: "[7] to preservetheVedas, [2] to be
able to modifyformulae fromtheVedas to fita new situation, [3] to fulfilla relig-
ious commitment, [4] to learn the language easily possible,and [5] to resolve
as as
doubtsin textualinterpretation" (Ostler2005: 180). Noticethat"to learnthelan-
guage" is only the fourth of these fivemotivators! The mostimportant reasonfor
learning Sanskrit grammar, at least for Patanjali,is to maintain the status quo of
theVedas. In theSanskritworld,grammar has alwaysbeen in some way tiedto
religion.

Grammarin Bengal
WhilePanini'svoice remainsdominant throughout thehistoryof Indiangramma-

tology,otherschoolsof Sanskrit grammar eventually arose.Someauthors claimedto
wantto improveor simplifyPanini's work,while othersdeliberately set out to
an
produce entirely differentsortof grammar. None of these grammars is entirely
freeof Paninianinfluence, buteach had itsown uniquefeatures, including in many
cases its own technicalapparatus.In thissectionI describesome of those,with
particularattention to textsthatgainedpopularity in Bengal.Manyof thesegram-
marianswereBuddhist(Buddhismwas verypopularin Bengal),andso, notsurpris-
ingly,thosegrammarians do not talk aboutVedic grammarin theirworks.It is
difficultto tell whichof the scholarswereBengali;manyBengaliKayasthasand
Vaidyasuse namesendingin -ddsa,-datta,-kara,-sena,-gupta,and so on, butthe
presenceof one of theseendingsin a nameis notconclusiveevidenceof itsbearer's
origins.The name"Devadatta,"forexample,occursall overthesubcontinent, and
no onewouldsayAbhinavagupta was a BengaliVaidya(Banerji2004: 126).
One of theearliestnon-Paninian grammars to gainwidecurrency is theKdtantra,
also knownas theKaumdraor Kdldpa,whichappearedbetween50 and 150 CE.
Laterlegendsays Siva's son Kumararevealedthe Kdtantrato its authorSarva-
varmanthrough his peacock(kaldpin).The Kdtantrais relatively simpleand brief
comparedto theAstddhydyl, whichmayaccountforitsgreatpopularity, especially
in KashmirandBengalwheremanycommentaries anddigeststo theKdtantra, most
producedby local Vaidyas(Satpathy 1999: 18), appeared in the fifteenth and six-
teenthcenturies.Sarvavarman avoidsthemetarules of Panini'stext,in an attempt,
Satpathy claims,to avoid ambiguity by makingtherulestransparent. Since mostof
Sarvavarman's rulesare fullsentences, he seemsto have succeeded.Sarvavarman
beginshis workwithsiddhovarnasamdmndyah, 'The list of phonemesis estab-
lished"(1.1). In theverynextsutra,to continuewiththepoint,unlikePanini,who
usesac to standforall thevowels,Sarvavarman saystatracaturdasddau svardh,"In
itarethefourteen vowels"( 1.2).
His grammar is topicallyarranged, unlikePanini's,and thoughhe excludesVedic
grammar, he does reveal knowledgeof Vedic prdtisdkhya literature and so was
probablynotBuddhist(Pollock2006: 170). PollockdescribesSarvavarman's core
projectas "desacralization"; he seems to have wantedto untieSanskritfromits
exclusivelyreligiousassociation.Some of the Vaisnava hagiographies - at least
thosetreating -
Advaitacarya specifically mention the Kdtantra as the grammar their
protagonist learned.A briefappendixfollowing thisarticlecomparesa fewsutrasin
Panini,Sarvavarman, and Jiva;a quickperusalwill leave thereaderwiththestrong
impression that Jiva was veryfamiliarwiththeKdtantra. A moredetaileddiscussion
andcomparison of thesegrammars andof theHarindmdmrtavydkarana's relationto
themwillformpartofa largerwork,ofwhichthispaperis a mereexploratory foray.
Candragomin, or Candra,producedthetextthatcameto be knownas theCandra-
vydkarana aroundthefifth century.2MuchofCandragomin' s workremains extantin

Does Krsna Really Need His Own Grammar?Jiva Gosvdmin's Answer I 265
Tibetan, and the Tibetan traditionmakes him an dearya at Nalanda and claims he
studiedthereas well.
Candragominrephrasedsome Paninian sutras and rearrangedthem by topic for
ease of memorization(Maurer 1981: 18). We can see thatthis issue of the ordering
of sutras seems to have concernedsome of the grammarians,as several strovefora
more practicalarrangementthantheyfound in Panini. Candragomin's work has six
chapters,and, like theotherBuddhistgrammarians,he omits Vedic grammarand the
entireproblem of accent; nor does he use Panini's terminology.His text was very
popular but nearly disappeared when Buddhism disappeared from India and was
supplantedby a simpler version called the Bdldvabodha writtenby a Sri Lankan
Buddhistmonknamed Kasyapa around 1200 (19).
Devanandin, a Digambara Jain roughlycontemporarywith Candragomin,wrote
the Jainendravydkarana.Tradition explains the name Jainendra as a dvandva
compound consistingof "Jaina," the Jina (Mahavlra, putativefounderof the Jain
religion), and "Indra" and so ascribes the textjointly to Mahavlra and to the god
Indra. Othersconstruethe name as a genitivetatpurusa ("Lord of the Jainas") and
say the title must refersimply to an outstandingmember of the Jain community.
Extantmanuscriptsall name Devanandin as the author.Like the Buddhistgrammars,
this one too omits Vedic grammar.Its particularlyinterestingfeatureis its mono-
syllabic abbreviationsfortechnicalterms,formulated,like Panini's, on theprinciple
of economy:
pratydya tya
parasmaipada ma
abhydsa ca
sdrvadhdtuka ga
These short formsrenderthe Jainendravydkaranaeven more condensed than the

Astddhydyi,but consequently also more difficultto follow (Maurer 1981: 19).
Hemacandra's work (see chart in Appendix) would eventually supersede Deva-
nandin's.
The SvetambaraJaincommunityalso produced an importantSanskritgrammatical
treatise.Sakatayana (not the same one Yaska and Panini cite) wrotethe Sabddnusd-
sana (Instructionin Words) based on the works of the great triumvirateof gram-
marians (Panini, Katyayana,and Patanjali) and on the works of Candragominand
Devanandin. Most of his sutras are abridged versions of Panini's sutras. By the
twelfthcenturyhis work,too, was replaced by Hemacandra's textof the same name,
also called the Haimavydkarana. Hemacandra's work is not terriblyoriginal; in
commonwithSakatayana,he draws heavily on theworksof earlierscholars (Maurer
1981: 20). However what is significantabout Hemacandra's grammarfrom the
standpointof linguistichistoryis thathis eighthchapteris devoted to the Prakrits
and includes citationsfromworks thathave since disappeared (21), giving us some
data about Prakritliteraturethatwe would nototherwisehave.

The nextrelevant Maharashtrian

big nameis thatof Vopadeva,a southern writing
in thethirteenthcentury. the
Vopadevaproduced Mugdhabodha(Enlightenment of
theIgnorant),whichMaurer(1981: 23) describesas themostwidelystudiedSanskrit
grammarin Bengal. Vopadeva devised his own, mostlymonosyllabictechnical
termsand used different pratydhdras, thanusing
whichhe called samdhdrasrather
Panini'sterm,fromhispredecessors. Thesefactors butmakehiswork
areinteresting
to followforone used to Panini.Below are thesamdhdrasVopadevauses
difficult
forsomeoftheverbtensesandmoods:
Vopadeva Panini Meaning

kl lat present
khi lih optative
gi lot imperative
ghi Ian imperfect
tl In future
thl lit perfect
dl lut future
periphrastic
thl Irh conditional
Vopadevauses thevariousnamesof Hari,Hara,and Rama in all hisgrammatical

examples.Given how popularVopadeva's grammarwas in Bengal, Jlva had
probablyseen it,thoughtheKdtantraseemsto have morestrongly influenced his
Ha rindmdmrta vydkarana.
Severalothersproducedgrammars thatreceivedwide circulation in theeastern
partof India,as shown inthe chart in theAppendix.
Even thegreatnineteenth-century educationalreformer Isvaracandra Vidyasagara
producednotone buttwoSanskrit grammars in Bengali:first,
his SamskrtaVydka-
raneraUpakramanikd in 1851, and twoyearslater,theVydkarana Kaumudl.When
he was made principalof SanskritCollege in Kolkata,in 1851,he undertook the
reformof the entirecollege curriculum, criticizingthe traditionalapproachto
Sanskritgrammar as ineffective,and attempted to simplifytheAstddhydyl. Vopa-
deva's workwas thecurricular standard of thetime,as ithad beenforcenturies, but
Isvaracandra wantedto introduce a European-style Sanskritgrammar. He feltthat
Kolkatastudents approaching theverydifficult languageof Sanskritthrough their
own mothertongueof Bengali,the way today'scollege studentslearna foreign
language,couldmasterthebasicgrammar in muchless time(Hatcher1996:95). He
dividesup someofPanini'slongersutrasandgivesdefinitions fortermsPaninidoes
notdefine.
WhySanskrit?
- Sanskrit
Choiceoflanguage orBengali- was one ofthemajordifferences
between
thetwobranchesof theGaudlyas.The gosvdmiswerenotinterestedin thefamous

Vaisnava claims of universal accessibility. Most of the Gaudlya poets produced

Bengali, not Sanskrit lyrics; most of the hagiographical works on Caitanya and
the Vaisnava leaders in subsequent generationsare in Bengali, not Sanskrit.Yet
all of JIva's writingsare in Sanskrit.Jlva apparentlyhad objected to his student
Krsnadasa's choice of Bengali as the medium for his massive Caitanya Caritdmrta
because he fearedthatwould make it more important, because it would thenbe more
available, than what the gosvdmls had written and "he saw no reason why the
commonpeople should be given access to the new dispensation"(Dimock 1989: 84).
Akincana Dasa writes in his Vivarta Vildsa that Jlva and the gosvdmls wrote in
Sanskritto hide "the truemeaningof the Caitanya-lilafromtheunworthy"(84). And
there we have it: Gaudlya Vaisnavism was now becoming what Aklujkar calls
"exclusivistic,"thoughrarelywould the gosvdmlsthemselvesadmit to this,at least
publicly.
Yet Caitanya,hailed forhis insistencethateveryone,regardlessof caste or gender,
could approach Krsna, had sent his gosvdmlswest to Vrndavana to reclaim the lost
sites of Krsna's lilds and, while they were at it, to codify the new movement's
theology- in Sanskrit. However, while the practice of congregationaldevotional
singing,even while parading throughthe streetsof rural Bengal at all hours, was
available to everyone,access to the new school's formaltheology,which was not in
thevernacularBengali of the lyricpoems but in Sanskrit,remainedlimited.
With this intellectualbias, the problem was thatby the late sixteenthcenturyno
one actually spoke Sanskrit any longer- not on the streets at least- though it
remaineda linguafranca in elite circles. What good would the new theologicaltexts
do, then,if few could read them,even among elite intellectuals?Were these texts
even intendedfor the masses, or was language choice yet again a tool to exclude
them?
Obviously, potentialreadersof Jiva's work,and thatof his eruditeuncles, had to
learn the language. This assumes thatnot all of these readers had already received
theclassical education.Presumablytheywere literatein theirown language and only
needed to add Sanskritto theirrepertoires.And how best to do that,in the absence of
handy native-speakinginformants?By working througha carefully constructed,
pedagogical grammar.
Even in Bengal, Jain and Buddhist grammarianshad composed grammarsfor
use by their own co-religionists. Balarama Pancanana's Prabodha-prakdsa is
a &aiva grammarin which the vowels are called Siva and the consonants Sakti
(Banerji 2004: 137). Jlva would have had many examples to draw on for his own
work.
Scholars have never taken the specifically narrowlysectarian grammars very
seriously,though.These textsdo not even warrantmentionin the grammarvolume
of theEncyclopedia of Indian Philosophy.In his "The Originof GrammaticalSpecu-
lationand its Development in India," WalterH. Maurercomments:"Of no scientific
value, but rathera curiosityin the historyof Sanskritgrammar,are the sectarian
manuals composed duringthe sixteenthcenturyby devout Vaisnavas and Saivas in

whichall thetechnicaltermsare replacedby namesand epithets of Visnuor Siva"

(1981: 24). Unliketheothergrammarians, thesescholarsare not concernedwith
abridging extantgrammatical treatises.
Theyarewriting formembers
specifically of
theirownschools.
Maurer,alone amongthesescholars,believesthatthemerefactof theirpresence
in India's vastgrammatical tradition
makesthemsignificant enoughto study.3He
observes, 'These manuals are notconcerned with brevity, obsessionof mostof
the
theschools,as indicatedby thesubstitution of thetenincarnationsof Visnuforthe
vowelsanddiphthongs. Thoughsomeof thetechnical termsseemtohavebeenquite
arbitrarilychosen,in theselectionof manysomesortof rationale can be discerned"
(1981: 24). At least Maurer seems to take them and
seriously, I agree thatthe
sectariangrammars are indeedworthour intellectual attention.
Theirauthorshad
significantreasonsforproducing them,whichmeritourattention.
Jiva'sAgenda
Jlvagives us partof the answerin his mahgala verse at the beginningof his
Harindmdmrtavydkaranam :
krsnamupdsitumasya srajamivandmdvalim tanavaiI

tvaritam vitaredesd II
tatsdhityddijdmodam
Let me composea seriesof namesas a garlandto worshipKrsna;mayitquickly
lead(us) totheblissbornfrom(contemplating)theliterature
abouthim.
Jlvaclaimsthatthegrammars availablewereall dryand useless,dullandboring;

theyprovideno inspiration at all. He realizedthatin orderto understand thetheo-
logical textsthat he and his uncles had written,in Sanskrit,Gaudiyas needed to
knowhow Sanskritworks.But Jlvadid not wantthemto have to give up their
primary practiceswhilesuffering through memorizing endlessparadigms, theway
we all did. So he producedhis own pedagogicalgrammar.Since Vaisnavasare
enjoinedto keepKrsna's nameon theirlips,he neededa dual purposegrammar: one
thatwould(/) teachSanskrit, whileallowingdevoteesto (//)constantly recitethe
Name.
Jlvaactuallyhadevenmorethanthatin mind,forhisgrammar displayshispoliti-
cal as wellas sectarian
rhetoricalstrategies.His rulescertainly careof Sanskrit,
take
buttheydo so usingnames,epithets, and traitsof Krsnaand his associatesforthe
technicalterminology. In theprocess,Jlvaalso highlights desiredbehavior(ritual
and mundane)forthedevotionalcommunity as well as thingsto be ignoredor at
least not takenseriously(non-dualistic thinking about the divine,forexample).
Jiva'sworkconstitutes yetanother piece of thegroup'sstrategyto establishitselfas
a legitimatecomponent ofthegreater Vaisnavacommunity.
VrndavanaDasa, in his CaitanyaBhagavata,reportsthatJlvagot the idea of
writing a Sanskritgrammar fromlistening to thewayCaitanyaincludedthenameof

Does KrsnaReallyNeedHis OwnGrammar?
JlvaGosvdmin
's AnswerI 269
Krsnain everything
he said.The CaitanyaBhdgavata2.1.144(or 147) says:
dvistahaiydprabhukarayevydkhydna
sutravrtti
tlkdyasakaleharindma
Thoroughly absorbed,Prabhu(Caitanya)expoundedsutraswithexplanation
and
commentary, and in everyone was thenameof Hari.
Jlvacompletedhis Harindmdmrtavydkarana sometimebefore1600,theyearhe

sentSrlnivasa,Narottama, and SyamanandafromVrndavanabackto Bengalwitha
cartfullof theologicaltextsand treatises.
Nityananda includesJlva'stextin a listof
thecontents of thatcartin thetwelfth chapterof his Prema Vildsa(Sen 1917: 43,
105-6). Incidentally, the then-soleexemplarof KrsnadasaKaviraja's Caitanya
Caritdmrta was also in thatcart:itwas stolenandeventuallyrecovered,butthatis a
different
story.4
Illustrations
Let us turnnow to see how successfulJlvawas. We shallconsiderseveralillustra-

tions.Jlvabeginshiscompositionwith:
ndrdyanddudbhudato'yamvarnakramahI
Thisalphabetical arosefromNarayana.
arrangement
Rightfromthebeginning his students

Jlvasetshis tone,reminding of thesourceof
Noticethathe uses nottheword"Krsna,"butthemucholderdesig-
all knowledge.
withwhatmustbe theaim of connecting
nationof "Narayana," therelatively
young
Gaudiya with
tradition one moreestablished.
Herearea fewofJlva'stechnicalterms:
Jiva Panini
vrsnindra vrddhi
govinda guna
visnujana vyanjana(consonant)
sarvesvara svara(vowel)5
krsnadhdtuka6 sdrvadhdtuka
rdmadhdtuka1 drdhadhdtuka
acyuta% lat
kalki Irf
The firstsectionis the samjndprakaranam, the definitionsection,in whichJlva

providesthe basic he
definitions will use throughoutthe text.Jlvabeginswiththe
vowels,and I draw thereader'sattentionto thesimilarityof thisverseto Kdtantra
1.2:

Harinamamrtavyakarana Katantra
tatrddau
caturdasasarvesvardh tatracaturdasddau
svardh
Thefourteen(vowels)thereat the
(of thevarnasamdm-
beginning
are
ndyah) calledsarvesvaras,
theLordsofAll.
Isvara,10theheadof thecompoundhere,is a theologicaltermtheVaisnavasuse to

referto an impersonalgod,thatis, theabstractnotionof deitywithwhomone does
nothavea relationship.(Othergroupsuse thetermwithvarying theological
implica-
tions.)These "Lords of AH" are nonethelessomnipotent. Why such a powerful
name?Consonants cannotbe pronounced without vowels,so thisgroupof soundsis
all-powerful.One needs themto sayanything.
NowJivabeginstorefinetheterminology aboutvowels:
dasa dasdvatdrdh
The ten(at thebeginning)
arethetendescentsoftheLord.
Convenientlywe havetensimplevowels,ifwe countboth/and /,and theyarethe

ten"descents"or "incarnations"of Visnu.To recapitulate:we beganthesutraswith
the
Narayana, verypowerful, yetmajesticand so distant
formof Visnu,thenmoved
to theLordsof All, and now we have come to theformsof Visnuwithwhichone
canhavean actualrelationship.The goal of lifefortheGaudlyaVaisnavas,I remind
thereader,is to cultivatean eternalpersonalrelationship withKrsna,and Jlva's
grammar constantlyleads itsstudents
back to that and
point specificallytoKrsna.
The simplevowels come in pairs,as we all know:we have the shortvowels,
whichJivacalls Vamana,andthelongvowels,calledTrivikrama - twoformsof the
same avatdra,firstthedwarfand thentheenormousformin whichhe takeshis
famousthreestepstoconquertheworldandthedemon-king Bali.
Now we moveintothesectionon vowelsandhi.Here is theruleforcombining
likesimplevowels:
dasdvatdraekdtmake
militvdtrivikramah
A simplevowelbeforea simplevowelof thesamepairbecomesitslongcounter-
part.
NoteveryruleinvolvesKrsna.The rulesforcombining a/d(advayam)withunlike

vowelsare strictlytechnical:advayamidvayee. Dvayamin theserulesdenotesa
pairof likevowels:a/d,i/i,u/u,and so on, so advayammeans"thepaira/a" Thus
theabove sutratranslates
to,"a vowelof thea/dpairbeforea vowelof thei/ipair
becomese" The advayamfromthe firstrule will now applyto thenextseveral
sutrasso Jivawillnotrepeatit.We finda similarpatternin Paniniwithhisanuvrtti
system,wherebywordsare not repeated,thoughtheirapplicationin subsequent

rules is signaled in various ways: udvaye o, "(and) beforeu/ubecome 0." Making up

for the lack of names of Krsna in these sutras, Jlva provides illustrationsfor these
rules:
had hari iti> harthariti;hari + isa > harisa; visnu+ udaya >
visnudaya',purusa + uttamah> purusottamah,and so on.
Jlvacalls theconsonantsvisnujana, "Visnu' s people." Jlvagroups themnot by place

of articulation,but by manner,so thatthe unvoiced, unaspiratedconsonantshe calls
"Hari's lotuses" (kamaldni),
kddayovisnujandh
ka,etc.,areVisnu's people(1.17).
ka ca ta ta pa harikamaldni
ka, ca, ta, ta,pa are Hari's lotuses (1 .21).
kha cha tha thaphd harikhadgdh

kha,cha, tha,tha,pha are Hari's swords(1 .22).
gaja da da bd harigaddh
gaja, da, da, ba are Hari's maces (1 .23).
ghajha dha dha bhd harighosdh

ghajha, dha, dha, bha are Hari's conches (1 .24).
Collectively the four groups are Visnu' s servants (ddsdh), with the nasals as his
flutes (venavah). Notice that with the exception of the nasals, the name of each
groupbegins withthefirstmemberof thatgroup.
The semivowels are Hari's friends(mitrdni).To some extent,Jlva follows Panini
in thathe groupssounds in code, thoughhe does so quite differently.
Let us thenlook at Panini's 6.1.77, iko yanaci, and see what thesemivowel sandhi
rule mightbe in Jiva's system: rememberthat in Panini ik is the simple vowels
except fora/a; yan is the semivowels; and ac is all vowels. The locative reflectsthe
rightcontext,"beforeX," and the genitiveis thecase of substitution, "insteadof X."
Thus the above sutra translatesto "in place of i, u, r, I you get y, v, r, or I beforeany
vowel."
Jlvauses the cases in the same way. With thatin mind,I wanted to see thenhow
Jlva would phraseAstddhydyl 6.1.77 and postulated"isvardndmharimitrdnisarves-
varesu" or perhaps "isvarasya harimitrdnisarvesvare" In grammaticalterms,this
says the same thingas Panini's rule,but here, unlike in Panini, we have a semantic
meaning: "In place of Isvara you findHari's friendsbeforethe Lord of All." Isvara
is Siva. The Gaudlyas usually eithersubordinateSiva to Krsna, the Lord of All, or

ignorehimentirely.ThusHari'sownfriends be closertohimthanwill
willnaturally
Isvara,as thisrule states.But thisis not how Jlvaactuallydescribessemivowel
sandhi.Jivahandlesthe issue much less succinctlythanPanini.He takes four
separaterulestocovertheproblem:
idvayamevayahsarvesvare
ill > ylv
Idvayammeansthepairill.Jlvagivestheexample:
had + arccanam> haryarccanam

("praisingHari").
- beforea vowel- intothenextthreerules:

NowJlvacarriessarvesvare
Rule Illustration
udvayameva vah(and) ulu> v madhu+ ari > madhvari
rdvayamrah(and) rlf> r rdmabhrdtr + udaya> rdmabhrdtrudaya
Idvayam (and)///>/
lah sakl+ artha> saklartha
Jiva'sgrammar is farless complex,andso morecumbersome, thanPanini's.He has

no otherrulesthatacton thisparticular thatcorrelate
situation, specificvowelswith
theirassociatedsemivowels.
In place ofgeneralrulesto coverentireclasses,or seriesof rulesthatwill,follow-
ing theirsequentialapplication,yield the correctoutput,Jlvaoftenposits very
specificrulesthatapply to only one or two dhdtus.One such example,"jergih
sannadhoksajayoh ceh kirvvd"tellsus thatin thedesiderative(san) andtheperfect
(adhoksaja), thedhdtu to
ji changes gi and the dhdtu cihchangestoki.
Panini handles this much more neatlythrougha series of rules governing
phonological substitution incertainspecifiedverbaloperations:
cajohkughinyatoh (7.3.52)
The finalc andj of an ahga arereplacedwiththeircorresponding
soundsdenoted
by kU "consonants of k-series,"whenan affixmarkedwithGH as an it,or one
constituted n
byNyaT,follows(Sharma2003: 266).
abhydsdcca (7.3.55)
A replacement in kU comesin place of h of an ahga, namelyhan,evenwhenthe
same occurs afterthat which is termedan abhydsa "reduplicatedsyllable"
(Sharma2003: 269).
sanlitorjeh(7.3.57)
A replacement in kU comesin place ofj ofji "to win"whenoccurringafterthe
abhydsa ofan ahga,providedaffixessaN and LIT follow 2003:
(Sharma 271).

Does Krsna Really Need His Own Grammar?JJvaGosvdmin's Answer I 273
vibhdsdceh(1.3.5S)
A replacementin kU comes, optionally,in place of c of verbal rootciN "to gather,
heap" when occurringafterthe abhydsa of an ahga, providedaffixessaN and LIT
follow (Sharma 2003: 271-72).
Because Panini's rules apply seriallyand cumulatively,one will, in theend, arriveat

the correctperfectand desiderativeformsforthese roots.In the above rules he does
not specifyany roots at all but ratherclasses, while Jlva,who does not generalize,
mustthereforespecificallymentiontherootsji and ci (which he calls cin).
Jlva also blends philosophy in with his grammar.In 2.39 we find samsdrasya
harasciti, 'The ending of a word is dropped before suffixes with (c)," or, as
HarivenuDas interprets, "Our materialexistence (samsdra) comes to an end (hara)
when we cultivate Spiritual Knowledge (city (2001: 5). In Jlva's metalanguage,
samsdra is thefinalelementor syllable of a word and cit is the marker(it) Id.
To illustrateJlva's desire to keep his studentsrecitingthe Name as theymasterthe
language,I turnnow to the passage in whichJlvahandles abhydsa, the reduplication
of the root characteristicof the perfect,the desiderative,the intensive,and some
aoriststems. It is a littlecumbersome,but bear in mind thatJlva's goal has nothing
to do witheitherelegance or simplicity.
Here are thefourrules concerned:
dhdtordvirvvacanamadhoksaja sannahyahsu I
purvo narah paw ndrdyanah I
bhiinarasya bho 'dhoksaje I
harikhadgasyaharikamalamharighosasyaharigadd narasya I
Reduplication of the root (takes place) in the perfect,desiderative,aorist, and
intensive.The prior part (of the reduplicatedstem) is called "Nara," the latter,
"Narayana." In theperfect,the Nara of bhii is bha. In theNara, voiceless aspirates
(harikhadga) are replaced by voiceless nonaspirates(harikamala), voiced aspi-
rates(harighosa) by voiced nonaspirates(harigada).
While this works, it is, as previously mentioned,a little cumbersome. Look at

what it gets Jlva, though: ten Names in four verses! Clearly he has succeeded, at
least here, in makingus continueto reciteNames while learningour grammar,and
thatis his primaryaim.
Jlvaalso makes the occasional polemical theologicalremark.My finalillustration,
fromhis treatment of the vocative case, is one of the more strikingexamples of this
phenomenon.Withone simple rule governingthe vocative case, Jlvadoes away with
Buddhism entirely - somethingthatmuststill have been a threateven as late as his
time, because we see so much condemnationof it,eitherveiled (ndstikas,and so on)
or specific,in Gaudlya Vaisnava literature.
Like most of the grammarians,Jlva handles the vocative as a variantof thepra-
thamdratherthanas a discretecase. In 4.7 and 4.8 he says,

274 / Rebecca J. Manring
prathamdndmamdtrdrthe I
sambodhane ca I
In termsof meaning,the nominativeis simplythe name.
And (the same) in thevocative.
He calls thevocative affix"sw." Earlier,in 2.24, JIvasays,
sambodhane surbuddha- samjnah
The "sm"in the vocative case, Panini's "sambuddhi" JIva calls "the Buddha." This
is a good example of Maurer's "some sort of rationale" (1981: 60), and here that
rationale is obviously phonological similarity.Bear in mind, though,that even in
Jlva's day, Vaisnavas needed to account for these rivals. And now look at the
theological/grammatical move JIvamakes in his nextsutra:
e-o- buddhasyddarsanam
vdmanebhyo
Aftere, oyand shortvowels, the Buddha is unseen.
Then "krsna+ su" yields "he krsna" thecorrectvocative form.

In otherwords, withoutfurthercommenton the problem,JIva simply makes the
Buddha disappear! This is a much more dramaticsolution than absorbinghim into
thedasdvatdra structure, as some schools do.
Jlva's grammar is clever but offers nothingnew, grammaticallyspeaking, for
teaching the Sanskrit language. His point, he tells us, is to meld the learningof
grammarwiththe recitationof names of God, and, citingBhdgavata Purdna 6.2.14,
in thefinalverse of his mahgaldcarana, he says:
sdhketyam pdrihdsyamvd stobhamhelanameva vd II

vaikunthandmagrahanamasesddhaharam viduhII
The learned recognize the takingof a name of Visnu removes endless sins, even
when it is (uttered) accidentally, in ridicule, as an interjectionor even out of
contempt.
It would appear thatJlva's intendedaudience was his fellow intellectuals.We see

no reason to believe he was interestedin the enlightenmentof ordinarymen and
women. This may be surprisingwhen we recall that one of the hallmarksof the
bhaktimovement,certainlyin its early stages, was the use of the vernacular,witha
great deal of lip service being paid to the notion of universal accessibility, that
everyoneregardlessof social situationor gendercould now have a chance of salva-
tionmerelyby chantingthe names of God. JIvaseems to have subscribedto "the old
Brahmanicalnotionthatthe only appropriatelanguage fortruthis Sanskrit"(Dimock
1989: 84). Nityanandareportsin the twelfthchapterof the Prema Vildsa thatthere
had been some discussion in Vrndavanaabout how the textssentto Bengal would be

JlvaGosvdmin
*sAnswerI 275
used,thatis, whichweresuitableforgeneralaudiences,whichshouldbe reserved

forthosewho had some background in Vaisnavism,and whichshouldbe keptfor
theeyesofonlythemostadvancedofVaisnavas.
Apparently we have a multitiered social systemat workamongtheGaudlyas.
The generalinjunction to reciteKrsna's names applies to everyone.Individuals
at thebottomof thesocial hierarchy who displayparticular zeal in theirrecitation
can be elevatedto highstatusas Vaisnavas.Severalauthorsmaketheclaim that
all Vaisnavasregardlessof social class at birthbecome like or even betterthan
Brahmanas byvirtueof theirdevotional practices.12The veryfewstorieswe haveof
thissortof social promotion highlight One exampleis thatof Haridasa,
its rarity.
probablybornMuslim,who was a student of Advaitacarya.
His pious and focused
devotionshamed the local Brahmanas into admitting associationwithhim
that
wouldnotresultin loss of casteafterall, forhe was holierthanthey.But theseare
notthepeoplein whomJlvais interested. Jlvastandsat theotherend of thesocial
pyramid, and thehead of those at the top level of GaudlyaVaisnavasociety,those
who closelystudiedscripture - Sanskritscripture. They were educatedmen who
couldreadanddiscusstheSanskrit textsthatthetheologians of theirmovement had
produced.
Evidenceof Use
Whatevidencedo we have of how theHarindmdmrtavydkarana was, or is, used?

Alas, very little.
Even within the vastVaisnava canon,when we find references to
various members of the first or second generationsstudying Sanskrit, neither Jlva
norhistextis mentioned. The veryfactof thetext'spreservation, firstin manuscript
formin suchlocationsas Vrindavan and in thelastcentury
ResearchInstitute, in its
severalpublishededitions, is testimony as iconifnothing
to itsimportance, else. As
mentioned above, theusual historiesof Sanskritgrammatology and grammarians
mention itonlyinpassing,ifat all,as something ofa novelty.
In veryrecentyearsthetexthas emergedas thepedagogicalgrammar of choicein
Vrindaban, the
among Gaudlyas' most visiblecomponent,the International Society
forKrsnaConsciousness.In 2001 HarivenuDas publishedhis SanskritBhagavad-
Gita Grammar.The authorassertsthat"It is studiedin schools in Bengal and
considered to havean almostmystical effecton itsreaders"(18), thoughhe does not
tellus in whichschoolsitis studiedorbywhomoutsideofhisowntradition, andmy
ownattempts toascertain thesedetailshavenotprovedfruitful.
ParallelswithLatin in Europe
The Harindmdmrtavydkarana is uniquein itsspecifics,

butas a Sanskrit
grammar it
is butanotherelementin a verylargecorpus.In theregionof Bengalalone,many
grammarians commented on Paniniand manyothersproducedentirely new works
(Banerji2004: 125). As we
Sanskritists, may tendto thinkthatthisobsessionwith

276 / Rebecca J.Manring
grammarand grammatologyis uniquely South Asian, so I was surprisedto discover,

in reading MartinIrvine,thatin westernEurope, "grammatica was foundational,a
social practice thatprovided the exclusive access to literacy,the understandingof
Scripture,the knowledge of a literarycanon, and membershipin an international
Latin textualcommunity"(1994: 1). Irvinetells us thatgrammarand its codification
performedmuch the same functionforChristianEurope as we findthatit did forthe
respective sectarian traditionsof South Asia. It served "to establish a method of
teachingand interpretation to justifythe validityof the...corpus of writingsto those
withinand withoutthecommunity"(163).
Irvine was interestedin the social effectsand the agenda behind the profusion,
in Europe, of textson grammar,and that same question sparks my researchhere.
Knowledge of Sanskritwas limitedto certainprivileged,usually male, people, and
thatknowledgewas a prerequisiteforaccess to religioustexts.Thus by continuingto
produce religious texts in thatexclusive language, the gosvdmls were perpetuating
the Brahmanical status quo, while pretendingto espouse a philosophyopen to all.
Jiva's grammarwould be the key to unlockingthe mysteriesof the works of all the
gosvdmis,but a key thatwould only be given to a chosen few. It is an effectivetool,
butnota universallyavailable one.
The question of language choice- Sanskrit or vernacular - found different
answers at differenttimes and under differentcircumstances.The Buddha's insis-
tence thathis teachingsbe preservednot in Sanskrit,but in the language(s) of those
transmitting themand theiraudience, highlightshis rejectionof contemporarysocial
structureand claims of Brahmanicalsupremacy.This is the firstdocumentedcase of
resistanceto Sanskrit;the Jains would shortlyfollow suit (Pollock 2006: 55). Five
centurieslater,however, in a momentousdevelopment,Buddhistswould decide to
use Sanskrit(Pollock 2006: 55). Why? Theories range fromnotionsof an inherent
superiorityof Sanskrit to express philosophical ideas to a need to compete with
and/orwin over Brahmanas. Pollock (2006: 55-59) rejects all theories currently
propoundedon thisissue but can come up withno more satisfactoryan explanation.
Flawed explanationsfor historicalphenomena are no bar to theiruse, and Jlva and
the othergosvdmiscertainlywrote in Sanskritfor a reason. Using Sanskritallowed
themto place theirtheologyalongside those of othermovementsfrommany times
and places in South Asia, somethingthattheycould not do with,for example, the
vernacularlyricsof thepaddvali. It allowed them to elevate theirtheologybeyond
mereregionalinterestto muchbroaderaccessibility.
In medieval Europe, Latin was not limitedto theclergy,"but to a large social elite,
namely those who had roles in public authorityin any sense" (McKitterick 1992:
99). At the courtof King HenryII (1 154-89), "the growing(Angevin) bureaucracy
may well have extendedbothopportunitiesand Latin literacyfurther down thesocial
scale thanwe mightimagine....Administrators came fromthelower or middle levels
of theknightlycaste" (Echard 1998: 10). Thus, while Latin may have permeatedthe
region throughreligious conquest, it was not the exclusive propertyof the church.
Roger Wrightasks whetherpeople at thattime "could be using more thanone Ian-

Does Krsna Really Need His Own Grammar?Jlva Gosvamin's Answer I 211
guage for differentsocial purposes" (1991: 3). Were people using Latin at church
and speaking a recognizablydifferentlanguage among their friendsand families?
Nicholas Ostler,forexample, says "Latin neverbecame the language of thecommon
people in Britain"(2005: 295).
As late as the seventeenthcenturyLatin was not "altogethera dead language... but
it retaineda vital power for daily work, and along with the humble and unlearned
vernacularwas still an instrument of civilization" (Myers 1912: 8). Latin was also
the language of internationalcorrespondence,official or otherwise, and its use
allowed correspondentswho did not speak each other's mothertongueto communi-
cate effectively.Very often"it seems certainthatthe English user of Latin believed
he was wielding a tool of fineredge, and thathis precious thoughtattainedperfect
expressiononly in the incomparablelanguage of the ancients"(118). Thus far,then,
althoughLatin seems to have been known more widely across the social spectrum
thanwas Sanskrit,attitudestowardsthe two languages seem verysimilar.
How, and why, had Latin become so dominant in Europe? First, the Roman
Catholic Church, which operated in Latin, "insisted on that in all contextsand in
all countries" (Janson 2004: 86). And very few people outside the church were
literate,so as a consequence, "Latin became completely dominantas the written
language throughoutEurope" (86). By the time of Charlemagne (ninth century),
most of Europe had one religion,with priestswell educated in Latin, while nearly
everyoneelse was illiterate(96). Continueduse of Latin further reinforcedthe social
hierarchyin thatthe situationallowed those in its uppermostechelons to communi-
cate across culturaland geographical boundaries while theirless educated citizens
could not.
Sanskritand Latin "are comparable in theirtemporaldevelopmentas writtencodes
for what both conceptualized as this-worldly (laukika, saeculare) communication
aftercenturiesof the liturgical,magical, and generallysupramundanetextuality...to
which theyhad restrictedthemselves"(Pollock 2002: 23). The two languages shared
an "unboundedspatiotemporalcirculationand normativity in literaryand intellectual
practice that sought to ensure that circulation" (24). But in practice, Latin and
Sanskritcame withverydifferent packaging.Rome, and its language, expanded with
a view to political conquest, while Sanskritterritory, never in the hands of a single
political entity,saw successive waves of immigrationand did not have the sense of
dispersal froma centerthat Rome enjoyed (27). "Latin traveled where it did as a
language of conquest" (2006: 260), firstpolitical and thenreligious,but Sanskritwas
"almost...borntransregional;it was at home everywhere"(262).
Knowledge in the Sanskritworld is "language-as-speech," not, as it was in the
Latin world, "knowledge-as-text"(Pollock 2006: 82). In the Latin world, literacy
assumed an education in grammarand the abilityto read and interpret Latin. In the
Sanskritworld, "literacy" and "learning" were not synonymous(82), and writing
remained somewhat suspect until relativelyrecently.Romila Thapar (2000: 196)
describes literacy and orality as complementaryand distinguishesbetween the
"carefullypreserved"oralityof the Vedas and the "relativelyfree" oralityof, for

278 / Rebecca J.Manring
example, the epics. In both worlds, however, committingentiretexts to memory

was evidence of a good elite education, whetherthose texts were a part of oral
traditionor actuallywritten.
In both areas, moreover,grammatica"functionedin supportof social institutions
on a grand scale... in... the major centersof institutionalpower" (Irvine 1994: 20).
"Grammaticaltheory...formedan unquestioned knowledge base for every literate
person" (88) and "to know these texts,and theirpresumedtraditionalmeaning,was
to participatein the power of empire" (87). Again, this is true to a large extentin
South Asia, where even today literacyremains out of the reach of many. Maybe
those who know Sanskritare not participatingin "empire" in thepolitical sense, but
certainlytheyare participatingin theempireof Brahmanicalhegemony.
Pollock (2006: 182) proclaims thatgrammarproductionseems motivatedby the
need to supplant a competitor'sdominantgrammarand in so doing, conferglory
upon the king and his grammarian.He views grammaras a "model or prototype
of the moral, social, and political order" (183). With the sectarian grammarsthe
focal point is not the temporalking,but a religious leader and, usually, the version
of divinitys/headvocates. If we accept Ostler's suggestion thatgrammar(at least
in South Asia) has always been seen as religious, and substitute"Caitanya" and
"Krsna" forPollock's "the king," thenJlva's grammarfitsthisdescriptionand, with
its use of names and attributesof Krsna and his entourage,provides a moreconcrete
model of theworld thanmostforthereaders' emulation.
Conclusions
At theoutsetof thisprojectI had hoped to findin Jlva's grammarsomethingentirely

new in the world of Sanskritgrammar,frombothdescriptiveand pedagogical stand-
points.But, given thehuge numberof extantSanskritgrammars,it would be difficult
for anyone, even someone of Jlva's intellectualacumen, to generate something
novel. The Harindmdmrtavydkarana, like Jlva's otherworks,seems notto have been
particularlypopular back in Bengal. As Ramakanta Chakravartiwrites,"the whole
tenorof theCaitanya movementin Bengal was againstscholasticphilosophy"(1985:
92), and so we are not surprisedthatJlva's grammarremains largely confinedto
Gaudlya Vaisnava circles. Yet despite the presence of a numberof well-accepted
Sanskritgrammarsstill in use in Bengal, Jlva felt compelled to produce his own.
Why did he do so? As I indicatedearlier,he tells us in his mahgaldcarana:
krsnamupdsitumasya srajamiva ndmdvalimtanavai I

tvaritamvitaredesdtatsdhityddijdmodam II
dhatajalpitajatitam drstvd sabddnusasanastomam I
harindmdvalivalitam vydkaranamvaisnavdrthamdcinmah II
Let me compose a series of names as a garland to worship Krsna; may it quickly
lead (us) to thebliss bornfrom(contemplating)the literatureabout him.
I saw that the (extant) grammarswere false, pointless, and confused, and so

JivaGosvamin
's AnswerI 279
adornedwitha garlandthatis the Name of Hari,for

composedthisgrammar,
Vaisnavas.
Jivawantedtojoin scholarship to devotion,

to providea meansforVaisnavasof a
scholarlyinclinationto studySanskritwithoutfora moment givingup theirpractice
ofconstant of theName.
recitation
Settingpoliticalcorrectness aside for a moment,we can appreciate,at least
thatwhatJivahas done is to producean accuratedescription
intellectually, of this
magnificent languageand a way to learnit withGaudlyaVaisnavatheologyas its
metalanguage and terminology.Thatis, he has presentedKrsnawithhis veryown
grammar and met his of a
goal providing grammar thatis redolent
withthenameof
Krsna.
Notes
1. 1 havenotbeenable toconfirm thisassertion.

2. Banerji(2004: 127) placesitsprobabledateofcomposition twocenturies later.
3. Personalcorrespondence, June1, 1990.
4. Stewart,in TheFinal Word(2009),dealswiththisissueat length.
5. Because"a consonant is dependent on a vowelforitsutterance."
6. Krsnawas a purndvatdra.
7. Ramawas an amsavatara.
"unshakeable"
8. Acyutais literally or "imperishable"
and is an epithetfrequently
used forKrsna,especially in the Bhagavad Gltd.The presenttensein Sanskritcan
standinforanytenseandis hence"imperishable" oreternallyvalid.
9. The future tense;Kalki is theavatdra,or divinedescent,intothephenomenal
world,whois yettocome.
10.A noteforthenon-Sanskritists: rulesofsandhi(euphoniccombination) dictate
thatsarva+ Uvarahcombinetoyieldthecompoundnounsarvesvarah.
11. The translations of Panini's sutrasare Sharma's(2003). For clarityI use
Sharma'stranslation of theKasikdvrtti, because Vamana-Jayaditya (authorof the
latter)decodesand contextualizes much of Panini'smetalanguage.
12. Notice thattheydo not, however,actuallybecome Brahmanas!Further,
Buddhists, and no doubtothers,makea verysimilarclaim.This wouldseemto be
of theSouthAsianhabitof subsuming
anotherillustration dominant notionsundera
newphilosophy thatredefines old conceptsin newwaysto suita changingpolitical
agenda.
ReferencesCited
Aklujkar,Ashok. 1996. "The EarlyHistoryof Sanskritas SupremeLanguage."In

JanE. M. Houben,ed.,Ideology& StatusofSanskrit:Contributionsto theHistory
oftheSanskritLanguage, 59-85. Leiden:E.J.Brill.

280 / Rebecca J. Manring
Banerji, Sures Chandra. 2004. Sanskrit Culture of Bengal. New Delhi: Sharada
PublishingHouse.
Bloomer, W. Martin.2005. "Introduction."In W. MartinBloomer, ed., The Contest
of Language: Before and Beyond Nationalism, 1-12. Notre Dame: Universityof
NotreDame Press.
Chakravarti,Ramakanta. 1985. Vaisnavismin Bengal, 1486-1900. Calcutta: Sanskrit
PustakBhandar.
Chatterjee,Asoke. 1996. Jiva Gosvamin. Calcutta: The Asiatic Society.
Chin, Catherine M. 2008. Grammar and Christianityin the Late Roman World.
Philadelphia:Universityof PennsylvaniaPress.
Coward, Harold G. and K. Kunjunni Raja, eds. 1990. The Philosophyof the Gram-
marians.New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Das, Harivenu. 2001. SanskritBhagavad-Gita Grammar: An IntroductoryCourse
Based on Srlmad Bhagavad-Gltd and Srlla Jiva Gosvdmfs Hdrindmrta[sic]
Vydkaranam.Vrindavan:BhaktivedantaSvamI Language School.
Dimock, Edward C, Jr. 1989 [1966]. The Place of the Hidden Moon: Erotic
Mysticism in the Vaisnava-Sahajiyd Cult of Bengal. Chicago: Universityof
Chicago Press.
Echard, Sian. 1998. Arthurian Narrative in the Latin Tradition. Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
Elkman, Mark Stuart. 1986. Jiva Gosvdmin's Tattvasandarbha: A Study on the
Philosophical and Sectarian Developments of the Gaudlya Vaisnava Movement.
New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Haberman, David L. 1988. Acting as a Way of Salvation: A Study of Rdgdnugd
BhaktiSddhana. New York: OxfordUniversityPress.
Hatcher,Brian A. 1996. Idioms of Improvement:Vidyasagar and Cultural Encoun-
terin Bengal. New Delhi: OxfordUniversityPress.
Irvine,Martin. 1994. The Making of Textual Culture: "Grammatica" and Literary
Theory,350-1100. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Janson,Tore. 2004 [2002]. A Natural History of Latin (trans. Merethe Damsg&rd
S0rensenand Nigel Vincent).New York: OxfordUniversityPress.
Maurer,Walter H. 1981. "The Origin of GrammaticalSpeculation and its Develop-
ment in India." Indo-Pacifica Occasional Papers, 1. Honolulu: Universityof
Hawaii Departmentof Indo-PacificLanguages.
McKitterick,Roasmond. 1992. "Rome's Legacy to the Franks." In Richard North
and Tette Hofstra,eds., Latin Culture and Medieval Germanic Europe: Proceed-
ings from the First Germania Latina Conference Held at the Universityof
Groningent26 May 1989, 97-108. Groningen:EgbertForsten.
Mukherjee,Tarapada and J. C. Wright.1979. "An Early TestamentaryDocument in
Sanskrit."Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, Universityof
London42, 2: 297-320.
Myers, Weldon T. 1912. The Relations of Latin and English During the Age of
Milton.Ph.D. dissertation.Charlottesville:Universityof VirginiaLibrary.

Does KrsnaReallyNeedHis OwnGrammar? *sAnswerI 281
JivaGosvdmin
Ostler,Nicholas.2005. EmpiresoftheWord:A LanguageHistory oftheWorld.New

York:HarperCollins.
Pollock,Sheldon.2002. "Cosmopolitanand Vernacularin History."In Carol A.
Breckenridge, SheldonPollock,Homi K. Bhabha,and DipeshChakrabarty, eds.,
Cosmopolitanism, 15-53.Durham:Duke University Press.
Pollock,Sheldon.2006. TheLanguageof theGods in theWorldofMen: Sanskrit,
Culture, and PowerinPremodern India.Berkeley:University
ofCaliforniaPress.
Renou,Louis and JeanFilliozat.1953 [1947 (sic; 1949)]. VInde classique:manuel
des etudesindiennes. Paris:Payot.
Satpathy, R. K. 1999. Pdninian and KdtantraSystems ofGrammar(A Comparative
Study). New Delhi: BharatiyaVidya Prakashan.
Sharma,Rama Nath. 2003. The Astddhydyl of Panini: English Translationof
Adhydyas Sevenand EightwithSanskritText,Transliteration, Word-Boundary,
Anuvrtti, Vrtti,Explanatory Notes, Derivational
HistoryofExamples,and Indices.
Volume6 of6. New Delhi:Munshiram Manoharlal.
Sen, Dineschandra.1917. The VaisnavaLiteratureof MedievalBengal. Calcutta:
University ofCalcutta.
Sinha,Jadunath.1982. Jiva GosvdmVsReligionof Devotionand Love (Bengal
Vaisnvism [sic]). Varanasi:Chowkhamba Vidyabhawan.
Staal, Frits. 1989. "The Independenceof Rationality fromLiteracy."European
JournalofSociology30, 3: 301-310.
Stewart, TonyK. 2009. The Final Word:The CaitanyaCaritdmrta and theGram-
marofReligiousTradition. New York:OxfordUniversity Press.
Thapar,Romila.2000. CulturalPasts: Essay in EarlyIndianHistory.New Delhi:
OxfordUniversity Press.
Warder, A. K. 1991[1970].IndianBuddhism. New Delhi:MotilalBanarsidass.
Wright, Roger, ed. 1991. Latin and theRomance Languagesin theEarlyMiddle
Ages.London:Routledge.
REBECCA J.MANRING is AssociateProfessor ofIndiaStudiesandReligious

StudiesatIndianaUniversity, Indiana.
Bloomington, <rmanring@indiana.edu>

Appendix
A§tadhyayi Katantra Harinamamrtavyakarana

ac tatracaturdasddau tatrddaucaturddasa
svardh( 1.2) ( 1.2)
sarvesvardh
ak purvohrasvah( 1.5) purvovdmanah( 1.5)
hal kddlnivyahjandni( 1.9) kddayovisnujandh (1.17)
hay tevargdhpahca temdntdh pahca pahca
pahca pahca (1.10) (1.19)
visnuvargdh
ddgunah(6.1.87) avarneivarnee (1.25) a dvayamidvaye e (1.41)

ad gunah(6. 1.87) uvarneo ( 1.26) o 1
udvaye ( .42)
ad gunah(6. 1.87) rvarnear ( 1.27) rdvayear ( 1.43)
ad gunah(6. 1.87) Irvarneal ( 1.28) Idvayeal ( 1.44)
Mudghabodha
lot vartamdna Acyuta kl
lit paroksa Adhoksaja (hi
lut svastanl Balakalki dl
Irt bhavisyanti Kalki tl
lot pahcaml Vidhatr gl
lah hyastanl Bhutesvara ghl
lih saptaml Vidhi khl
lihdsl dslh Kamapala dhi
luh adyatanl Bhutesa tl
Irn kriydtipatti Ajita thl
SanskritGrammarsin Circulationin Sixteenth-Century

Bengal
Author Title Date ofComposition

Panini Astddhydyl fourth BCE
century
Sarvavarman Katantra first
centuryCE
Candragomin Candravydkarana fifth-seventh CE
century
Devanandin Jainendravydkarana fifth-seventh CE
century
Sakatayana Sabddnusdsana 850?
Hemacandra or
Sabddnusdsana, twelfthcentury
Haimavydka
rana
Purusottamadeva Bhdsdvrtti latetwelfthcentury
Vopadeva Mudghabodha thirteenth
century
Kramadlsvara Samksiptasdra thirteenth
century
JumaraNandin Jaumaravydkarana fourteenthcentury?
Pundarikaksa Kaldpddlpikd sixteenth
century
JlvaGosvamin sixteenth
Harindmdmrtavydkarana century


Does K A Really Need His Own Grammar Jīva Gosvāmin's Answer PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Does K A Really Need His Own Grammar Jīva Gosvāmin's Answer PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Does Kṛṣṇa Really Need His Own Grammar?

Jīva Gosvāmin's Answer

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:45:50 AM

Everyone who has ever studied Sanskritis struckby the remarkablegrammatical

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:45:50 AM

choosingto composein Latinor a local vernacular?

Was his effort

The GaudlyaVaisnavasproudlyproclaimtheuniversalappeal of,and accessibility

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:45:50 AM

traveledto Navadvlpa where he metNityanandain person. Nityanandareceived him

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:45:50 AM

Languagechoiceis oftencloselyconnectedto issuesof social and politicalhierar-

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:45:50 AM

of any of the various immigrantsto South Asia. It is ancient, harkeningback, in

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:45:50 AM

logical arrangement in worldphonetichistory.All this,however,developedlong

Paniniand His Astadhydyl

Panini's Astadhydyl consistsof nearlyfourthousanddense sutrasin which"the

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:45:50 AM

leftin thechartbelow withthecode on theright.He will referto thesegroupings

Thusa-c meansall thevowelsincludingdiphthongs; i-kmeans/through theone

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:45:50 AM

WhilePanini'svoice remainsdominant throughout thehistoryof Indiangramma-

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:45:50 AM

These short formsrenderthe Jainendravydkaranaeven more condensed than the

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:45:50 AM

The nextrelevant Maharashtrian

Vopadeva Panini Meaning

Vopadevauses thevariousnamesof Hari,Hara,and Rama in all hisgrammatical

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:45:50 AM

Vaisnava claims of universal accessibility. Most of the Gaudlya poets produced

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:45:50 AM

whichall thetechnicaltermsare replacedby namesand epithets of Visnuor Siva"

krsnamupdsitumasya srajamivandmdvalim tanavaiI

Jlvaclaimsthatthegrammars availablewereall dryand useless,dullandboring;

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:45:50 AM

Jlvacompletedhis Harindmdmrtavydkarana sometimebefore1600,theyearhe

Let us turnnow to see how successfulJlvawas. We shallconsiderseveralillustra-

Rightfromthebeginning his students

The firstsectionis the samjndprakaranam, the definitionsection,in whichJlva

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:45:50 AM

Isvara,10theheadof thecompoundhere,is a theologicaltermtheVaisnavasuse to

Convenientlywe havetensimplevowels,ifwe countboth/and /,and theyarethe

NoteveryruleinvolvesKrsna.The rulesforcombining a/d(advayam)withunlike

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:45:50 AM

rules is signaled in various ways: udvaye o, "(and) beforeu/ubecome 0." Making up

Jlvacalls theconsonantsvisnujana, "Visnu' s people." Jlvagroups themnot by place

kha cha tha thaphd harikhadgdh

ghajha dha dha bhd harighosdh

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:45:50 AM

had + arccanam> haryarccanam

- beforea vowel- intothenextthreerules:

Jiva'sgrammar is farless complex,andso morecumbersome, thanPanini's.He has

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:45:50 AM

Because Panini's rules apply seriallyand cumulatively,one will, in theend, arriveat

While this works, it is, as previously mentioned,a little cumbersome. Look at

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:45:50 AM

He calls thevocative affix"sw." Earlier,in 2.24, JIvasays,

sambodhane surbuddha- samjnah

Then "krsna+ su" yields "he krsna" thecorrectvocative form.

sdhketyam pdrihdsyamvd stobhamhelanameva vd II

It would appear thatJlva's intendedaudience was his fellow intellectuals.We see

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:45:50 AM