ICSS 2017
Permanent URI for this collectionhttp://repository.kln.ac.lk/handle/123456789/18219
Browse
2 results
Search Results
Item A study of Acceptance of the Long Character ‘låu’ of Sanskrit Grammarians.(International Conference on Sanskrit Studies, 2017 Department of Sanskrit, University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka., 2017) Panawala Dhammadhaja Thero.The classical Sanskrit language has sixty-four characters, according to Panini. It has pluta‘ilu’ (3 matras) and without the long character of ‘ilu’. He has been removed the long character of ‘ilu’ from the language because it is not used in Sanskrit language. In Panini Shiksha, ‘pluta’ character of ‘ilu’ is mentioned separately. The "iluvarñasyadwādasha, tasyadīrghābhawāt" in Siddhāntakaumudiya indicates that there is not a long pronounced ‘ilu’ letter. The Chāndra scholar removes the long character of ‘ilu’ from the classical Sanskrit by using statement of bālāwabōdhana “iluvarñasyadīrghānasanti, tenasadwādasha”. It should beresearchedwhat prospect the long character of ‘ilu’ included to Sanskrit alphabet by the later grammarians of Mugdhabōdha, sāraswata and siddhāntachandrikā, but was not accepted by the ancient grammarians. Vōpadēva who wrote Mugdhabōdha indicates three types of five vowels (hraswa, dīrgha, pluta) in Sanskrit by the furmula “Āwatswarghaplu”. Anubhūtiswarūpa who wrote Sāraswata has agreed the idea of Vōpadēva scholar by two formulae that “A I U IRU ILU samānāh” and “Hraswadīrghaplutabhēdāhsawarñāh”. Teacher Pāñinī accepted the short and plutacharacters of ‘ILU’ which they areused very rare in Sanskrit language, but same long character of ‘ILU’ was not accepted. Therefore scholar, Durgasinghe says “yathānukarañehraswailukārōstitathādīrgōpyastītimatam.” If the both short and plutacharacters of ‘ILU’ are accepted, the long character of ‘ILU’ also should be accepted. According to this matter, later grammarians can not find a suitable solution for using of character ‘ILU’. So, the long character of ’ILU’ have to be accepted.Item Study of different Views pertaining to the Volition (Prayatna) of Sanskrit Characters.(International Conference on Sanskrit Studies, 2017 Department of Sanskrit, University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka., 2017) Panawala Dhammadhaja Thero.A study reveals that there are different opinions of grammarians on the volition (prayatna) of characters. The objective of this research paper is to draw a conclusion based on the available facts. According to Dr.Pāñinī this volition consists of two main aspects. They are internal and external volitions respectively. According to him, internal volition is four fold while external volition is eight fold. This opinion of Pāñinī has been respected by those who provided commentaries for Astādyāyī. Although, Bhattōjidīksitaka who wrote Mahāsiddhāntakaumudī accepted the internal volition as has been mentioned by Dr. Pāñinī, they treat external volition is of eleven fold consisting the addition of udātta, anudātta and swarita categories to the original eight aspects. The scholar waradarāja, a student of Bhattōjidīksitaka has written Madyasiddhāntakaumudī by shortening mahāsiddhāntakaumudi. A concised version has also been produced by him namely laghusiddhāntakaumudi. As has been mentioned in both texts the internal volition has been presented in five fold by the addition of “īshadvivṛta”. It has been indicated as “adyah pańcadhā spṛshteshat spṛshteshadvivṛtavivṛtasaṁvṛtabhēdhāt”.The schcolar Waradarāja has included ‘ūshmākshara’ (hot characters) in “īshadvivṛta. Hence, it has been re-introduced as “īshadvivṛtamūshmañām”.In Mahāsiddhāntakaumudī, both ‘ūshma’ characters and vowels have been added in ‘vivṛtaprayatna’ by utilizing formula “vivṛtamūshmañām swarānāńca”. Among the vowels, character ‘A’ may either be ‘saṁvṛta’ or ‘vivṛta’. The ‘vivṛta’ character ‘A’ may be long or pluta. In usageof Vedic and classical languages, all vowels have been included in ‘vivṛtaprayatna’ except for the short character ‘A’. From formula ‘A A ithi” Ashtadyayi, itis revealed that short character ‘A’ is ‘vivṛta’. In above formula, the first character is ‘vivṛta’ while the latter is saṁvṛta. It is proved by the phrase of siddhāntakaumudī below: “iti vivṛtamanūdyasaṁvṛtō’nēna vidhīyatē. Asya cāshtādhyāyīṁ sampūrñāṁ pratyasiddhatvācchāstradṛshtyā vivṛtatvamastyewa” According to above facts, ample evidence would be seen on the differences in opinion of same student generation on character volition. The main reason is the serious concern extended on pronunciation by grammarians.