The problem of “अ िस ु ित”

As we all know, ीम वाचाय has come in for severe criticisms at

the hands of so called modern scholarship on the problem of
अ िस माण’s enlisted in support of his position relating to
epistemology, logic, ontology, and theology which are quite
different to that of the earlier *beaten track* philosophers of the
past. This modern theory is gaining currency to such an extent
that volumes are written about it and published in the
international arena. Roque Mesquita of Vienna University is
working overtime to prove that अ िस माण’s galore in the works
of our Acharya. He has argued to the effect that Acharya
composed these by himself and then adduced them as evidences
to support philosophical conclusions he arrived at. He has argued
further that some of his own compositions were appropriated
surreptitiously as *works proper* by ीवेद यास. He finally arrives
to the conclusion that Acharya *forged* and/or *faked*
evidences which are diametrically opposite to philosophical
persuasions of ancient Indian philosophers whom I call here
*beaten track* philosophers.

I am sure this kind of malicious campaign against our Acharya

must have been bothering many of his ardent followers. I am one
such follower trying to *muster antithetical support* in our
*ancient literature mass* to prove Roque Mesquita is wrong in
my own humble way.

Article by B. Raghavendra Vishvaamitra Page 1

 The problem of “अ िस ु ित”
“भा लवेय ु ित” is one among many our Acharya adduces as
evidence in his works. This ु ित is not-extant-now and we seem to
have lost it irretrievably forever. It is unfortunate that our country
has lost more, than it has gained especially when it comes to
preserving our *ancient heritage*. I don’t want sound pessimistic
here but the-fact-of-the-matter is obvious to every one of us. We,
as custodians, need to take up rescue work on a war-footing lest
these globe-trotting-self-styled-scholars damage our *hoary past*,
beyond recognition, which *alone* is the *torch-bearer* for the
future of mankind.

Coming back to my discussion on the question of non-extant

*भा लवेय ु ित*, I was trying to find out if our ancients’ knew it as
this would, at least, help remove strictures such as *forgery*
and/or *fake* passed against our Acharya who is hailed in the
sacred literature as *आखणा मसम*. I was indeed overwhelmed and
my joy knew no bounds when I learnt that पिणिन had knowledge
of it. A piece of literature may have been lost to us forever but
that it existed and पिणिन knew it is proof enough that our Acharya
did not *forge and/or fake* it as evidence. वामनजयािद य of कािशका
fame brings this truth out. कािशका is an ancient commentary on
the पिणिन’s grammatical aphorisms. Its author वामनजयािद य points
to the fact that पिणिन had thorough knowledge of divisions of ु ित
texts. He seems to be answering a criticism against पिणिन in the
affirmative stating that the later had knowledge of all branches of
Vedas. The criticism may have been like how much of ु ित texts
Article by B. Raghavendra Vishvaamitra Page 2
 The problem of “अ िस ु ित”
पिणिन knew as his system of grammar is more to do with Sanskrit
language which obtained in his days than ancient language per
se which is used in the Vedic literature alone. In actual fact, the
great grammarian पिणिन talks about two types of language in his
अ ा यािय which he has termed them as भाषा and छा दस. The
former is pertaining to the secular and spoken language, the later,
as the name itself suggests, belongs to Vedas. As earlier alluded
to and according to some, the paninian grammar standardizes the
secular and spoken Sanskrit language through the process of ि य
and it merely “acquiesces” to the other form of Sanskrit language
belonging to the Vedas viz., the छा दस. He doesn’t seem to work
out ि य process for the later type as he has done for the other.
This may have led to criticisms of the type mentioned above and
some in his times may have questioned if पिणिन knew Vedas and
if so, how much of it. In order to substantiate his thorough
knowledge of the छा दस type of language, his able commentators
वामनजयािद य while commenting upon the aphorism 4.3.105 of
अ ा यािय talk of him having known both ancient and vulgate
forms of languages. They argue that Paninian system is उभयस मत.

I have given below the original paninian text and comments

thereon for ready reference:-

पिणिनसू - ||पु राण ो े षु ा णक पेषु ||4.3.105||

सू ाथ:- ू तीयासमथात् ाितपिदकात् पु रण ो े षु ा णक पे विभधेयेषु ो ाथ
*िणिन:* ययो भवित। भा वेन ो ं ा णमधीयते = भा लिवन:......
Article by B. Raghavendra Vishvaamitra Page 3
 The problem of “अ िस ु ित”
कािशका - ययाथिवशेषमेतत् । ु तीयासमथा ो े *िणिन:* ययो भवित
य ो म् पु राण ो ा ेद् ा णक पा ते भवि त। पु राणेन = िचर तनेन मु िनना
ो ा:। ा णेषु तावत् - *भा लिवन:* । शाट् यायिनन: । ऐतरे ियण: । क पेषु -
पै गी क प: । आ णपराजी ।

Here the application of affix/suffix *िणिन:* is discussed. This

affix/suffix is applied *in the sense of enunciation by ancient
seers* after the 3rd case in a construction. Here the definition of
the word पु राण is also given by an extension of the sense of
*िणिन:* यय to mean mystical musings of ancient seers. The
examples of this type of ा ण literature which came in to being is
that of भा लिवन:, शाट् यायिनन:, ऐतरे ियण: and पै गी, आ णपराजी are of
क प literature respectively.

Both कािशका and its sub-commentaries [पदम ज र and यास] further

discuss on the distinction to be made with those of या नव कािन
ा णािन and आ मरथ: क प:. These cannot be called पु रण ो –
meaning as “enunciated by ancient sages” - as they are of modern
times. Here it must be noted that वामनजयािद य’s are telling us that
Panini did not consider these as ancient as they were
contemporaneous. Please mark अिचरकाला: in their significant
comment “या नव कादयो अिचरकाला इ या यानेषु वाता, तया यवहरित
सू कार:” which in my humble view has historical value, if further
probed.

Article by B. Raghavendra Vishvaamitra Page 4

 The problem of “अ िस ु ित”
The view of Patanjali – the great महाभा यकार and Katyaayana
Vararuchi – the great वाितककार – are the same. वाितककार is
explicit when he says *पु राण ो े षु ा णक पेषु या नव यािद य:
ितषेध तु यकाल वात्*. This doesn’t need further explanation.

Now, let me return to my discussion in the backdrop of foregoing

comments of the *masters* of Sanskrit grammar. All of them are
anterior to our Acharyaa in date. Panini, Katyaayana-Vararuchi,
Patanjali and Vamana-Jayaaditya were earlier to Acharya by
many centuries. The former, *मु िन य* as they are collectively
called in the * याकरण* tradition, must have been over a
millennium earlier to Acharya. They knew every branch of Vedas
existed to such a detail giving *proper names* those ancient
seers who envisioned म भाग, णभाग, आर कभाग, उपिनषत् भाग
found in the vast mass of Vedic literature. It may not be out of
place to recall that Patanjali – who appeared on the Indian literary
scene some 2000 years ago - alludes to precious literature lost
even during his times. This he records in his introduction titled
प पशाि हक in the महाभा य. What this means is that “भा लवेय ु ित”
was part of णभाग of Vedas and it indeed exist based on the
authority of the *Vyakarana Masters* quoted above. A natural
question would then arise as to how our Acharya alone had access
to it coming as he did centuries later than those grammarians
above mentioned. Answer to this question is not difficult as we
learn from his biography that he travelled length and breadth of
this country 4 times and collected huge manuscripts available
Article by B. Raghavendra Vishvaamitra Page 5
 The problem of “अ िस ु ित”
those days and thus he was able to make use of them in his works.
He was one of the very few *titanic thinkers* of the past who
was able envision through his unmatched *yogic power* all that
had existed in the past *which ability his earlier compeers in the
field did not posses*. There is no point in castigating Acharya
due to inability of others who were not able to procure and/or
have access to original sources. *भा लवेय ु ित* thus known to
Panini and his school men is good enough to silence unnecessary
criticism against our Acharya on the problem of “अ िस ु ित”.
Instead of harping on this it will do a world of good to *research*
and *rescue* all such now-not-extant “अ िस ु ित” to posterity.

Dr. B N K Sharma - the redoubtable scholar – wrote rejoinder to

Roque Mesquita almost during his last days. At 97 it was difficult
for him to have covered all aspects of criticism of the later. I had
occasion to meet him at Mumbai 2 weeks before his death and he
had conveyed his desire and wanted me to carry it to Sri Pejavar
Swamy and the desire was to commission a small team of bright
and young scholars of Vidyapeeta to write a detailed rejoinder. I
did carry this message to Swamiji who in his multifarious
activities agreed to do so. I gather information that an effort is on
to take up critical study of the caustic criticisms to prepare an
unassailable rejoinder. I seek blessings of the Providence to this
effort such that it gets concluded quickly. Our rejoinder to
criticisms of both Roque Mesquita and Robert Zydenbos is long
overdue and I sincerely hope against hope that scholarship of our
Article by B. Raghavendra Vishvaamitra Page 6
 The problem of “अ िस ु ित”
school will defend ably and effectively. I think it as our
*beholden-duty* to stand against onslaught of attack on our
Acharya and reinstate glory with firm conviction.

I have kept a toddlers foot step in this direction. I am crippled as

my Sanskrit background is meagre and feeble. I do not know if
the material collected in this paper is sound enough to be called a
rejoinder as I have touched upon only one aspect of the criticism.
If, in case, material collected here is right direction, then, I think
we can further search through a concerted effort for similar
corroborative evidences hidden in our vast literature to *lay bare
bombastic criticisms* which is out to malign personality of our
great Acharya.

I, thus, request you all to review this paper critically and offer
your feedback with comments such that it helps embark upon
journey of अ वेषण and not rest till the goal is reached...let’s then
get engaged ourselves to the clarion call of Upanishad उि त,
जा त, ा यवरािनबोधत ...

Thanks for your understanding and patience,

Regards / िब. राघवे िव ािम

Article by B. Raghavendra Vishvaamitra Page 7