Chapter 5 - Conclusion

Through the study of the compounds of Sanskrit grammar as undertaken in this project, an attempt has been made to study Sanskrit compounds from general, philosophical and linguistic point of view. In this study, it is observed that the process of compounding two or more words is not a technical process but it is the result of a spontaneous expression of the speaker. Like any other linguistic activity, the exercise of samāsa also involves the active participation of the speaker. Samāsa enhances the beauty of the language in terms of brevity, compactness etc. As the term saṃskrita means–refined, embellished or made perfect; the compound formation of the words enhances the linguistic arena of Sanskrit towards more perfectness both theoretically and practically. To understand the meaning of the term compound in connection with the Sanskrit language, it is necessary to identify each component of this linguistic phenomenon and to discover the existing relations among them. It has also been noticed that the analysis of compound word can throw light on different syntactical relation that stays among the words. The compound words are not only meaningful words but it reflects different linguistic aspects through its analysis. As a result, besides grammarians, many philosophers also have shown their interest in the analysis of the compound words. The views regarding the deciphering process of the intended meaning of the compound word of the grammarians are generally different from the those of the philosophers. The philosophers give their interest on the analytical part of the sentences but the grammarians are generally concerned with both the analytical sentence the compound word as well. The implication of the proper relation of components of compound helps to require the actual meaning of the word. The commentators of the different Indian schools of philosophy also offer their help in finding the proper application of many of the grammatical sūtras.

The importance of the compound words have been noticed from the period of the Vedas. The Vedic literature is seen to record a number of use of the samāsa. The study of samāsa is seen in the Vedic padapātha with the splitting of the samāsa from the compounded construction. Later the Prātiśākhyas also offer their advanced opinions towards the discussion on samāsa. Thus it can be said that from the time of the, Vedas the study of samāsa entered into the Sanskrit language. The popular example in this case can be referred to as the application of the word indraśatruḥ^[1].In almost all of the Sanskrit works, ample uses of samāsa is seen. In the grammatical field of the Sanskrit language also a discussion of wide range regarding samāsa has been projected time to time. So the jurisdiction of samāsa has received a wide range of linguistic importance. Not only the Pāṇinian school of grammar, even almost all the non-Pāṇinian schools of grammar also have shown various issues and concepts of samāsa in Sanskrit grammar. All these have contributed a lot towards the study of samāsa as a whole. In the present dissertation an attempt is carried out on the study of samāsa with reference to Pāṇinian and non-Pāṇinian grammars. Thus in the previous chapters a study has been incorporated on Sanskrit compounds with its concept, definition, classification, philosophical aspect and also linguistic analysis from different perspectives.

The first chapter of the present dissertation provides a general discussion on Sanskrit grammar. In the beginning of the chapter a discussion of the term vyākaraṇa is made on the basis of the Mahābhāṣya of Patañjali. This discussion reflects, the aims and objectives of the study of vyākaraṇa, its definition and amplification, the proper meaning of the term vyākaraṇa and so on. Vyākaraṇa used to hold a supreme position in the realm of Indian study. Besides all those dimensions of grammar, this chapter also reflects linguistic and human behaviour. After that a discussion has been made on the topic of the development of Sanskrit grammar from the Vedic era onward. The growth and development of Sanskrit grammar can be seen from the time of the Veda. At that time, the main importance of language was placed on accent, accuracy of pronunciation, phonetics as well as to keep the sanctity and the purity of the language. On the basis of these characteristics, three kinds of treatises had been flourished in ancient India. Those are Śīkṣā, Prātiśākhya and Nirukta. The Śīkṣā deals with Sanskrit phonetics in general and pronunciation of Vedic speech sounds in particular. In the other hand, the Prātiśākhyas also deal with the phonetic peculiarities of a particular school of the Vedas. The Nirukta also helps to understand the actual meaning of the Vedic words. Though these works are directly not on grammar, but discussion on different grammatical elements has been incorporated in these. A short note on these works is presented here to get an idea on the sequential development of Sanskrit grammar. At the time of Yāska, agood number of grammarians flourished in Indian soil as he has referred to some of the names in his Nirukta.The Ṛktantra also hosts a number of grammarians and states that Indra was the first. The Taittirīyasaṃhitā also tells us that Indra was the first grammarian. Pāṇini also mentions ten names of grammarians and they are concerned with mainly in phonetic rules. Among all these grammarians, Pāṇini gets high esteem and his grammar follows a number of commentaries in course of time and meets all aspects of Sanskrit language. But after Pāṇini there also exist a number of grammarians which works are available to us. These grammars are practices under some local kings, so they did not carry the fame as the grammar of Pāṇini. The main characteristics of these grammars are they entirely omitted the Vedic portion. These works broadly divided into two parts i.e. Pāṇinian and non Pāṇinian. In this chapter a note on the Aṣṭādhyāyī and its commentaries, the other works related to commentary of Aṣṭādhyāyī are prepared as Pāṇinian Grammar. In the presentation of these works besides Aṣṭādhyāyī the Vārttika, the Mahābhāṣya, the Kāśikāvṛtti, the Rupmāla, the Prakriyākaumudī, the Vyakaraṇasiddhāntakaumudī, the Vākyapadīya the Vaiyākaraṇabhuṣana, the Vaiyākaraṇabhuṣanasāra, the Vaiyākaraṇasiddhantamañjuṣā, the Laghumañjuṣā, the Paramalaghumañjuṣā are also taken for discussion. Besides Pāṇini, there also flourished some other grammars, of whom some have followed the Aṣṭādhyāyī and some have not. The grammarians which do not follow the Aṣṭādhyāyī popularly are called non -Pāṇinian. Though these grammars are many in numbers, keeping the importance of the relation with the present subject matter, only thirteen schools are taken into account.

In the second chapter of the present project is dealt with the concept of samāsa and its classification. At the very beginning of the chapter, deals the derivative meaning of the term samāsa is presented. From the derivative meaning of the term samāsa it is clear that it means the sense of the act of unifying separate words. The compound is a natural linguistic phenomenon of almost all language of the world. So a short paragraph on English compound is also presented here. After that the etymological meaning of the term samāsa from the Vedic treatise are presented. Moreover, the term samāsa was not directly used in the Vedas and also in the Brāhmaṇas but the terms like samasyati, samasyetām are used to convey the meaning of samāsa. The Ṛktantra shows the application of the term samāsa for several times. It is noticed that, at that period the term samāsa is used in the sense of act of combination and unification. After discussing the Vedic context different grammarian’s view on the term samāsa are incorporated here. Almost every grammarian shows a keen interest on the meaning of the suffix ghañ of the term samāsa which is used in the sense of bhāva and karma.This is followed by the opinions of the different grammarian’s definition of samāsa. Most of the grammarians give the opinion that this competency must be in the components of the compound. The compound words cannot define by any one rule. Because these words are already exists in the language and there cannot form any special rule for the compound words. The rules are always flexible and full of optional suggestions. After this various modes of classifications of samāsa is incorporated here. Broadly speaking, on the basis of morphological and semantic structure compound word has two forms of divisions. One is luk and aluk and other is nitya and anitya. On the basis of two main divisions later grammarians classifies the samāsa with their own point of view. Pāṇini gives his own treatment on the division of compounds. He categorise the compound words under four interpreting aphorisms viz., avyayībhāva, tatpuruṣa, bahuvrīhi and dvandva. He treats karmadhāraya and dvigu as a subclass of tatpuruṣa. Patañjali supports Pāṇini’s classification of samāsa done one on the basis of predominance of the meaning of the members of the compounds. After that a detail discussion on the individual class of the compounds is presented. In the treatment of the avyayībhāvasamāsa definitions of different grammarians have been presented. Here it is noticed that besides the Cāndravyākaraṇa, has all the grammar used the term avyaya for indeclinable words. But the Cāndravyākaraṇa used the term asaṃkhyaṃ in this regard. The Mugdhabodha and the Jainendravyākaraṇa have used the technical term ha and va respectively for the avyayībhāvasamāsa. On the basis of the discussion of the definition of this samāsa it is clear that most of the grammarian gives their view on the predominance of the first member. Thereafter the rules given by Pāṇini under the heading avyayībhāva are illustrated.. On the treatment of avyayībhāva it is noticed that the particles used in the avyayībhāva compound shows different shades of meaning. In the treatment of tatpuruṣa different grammarians view are analysed, where the main division of tatpuruṣa is vibhaktitatpuruṣa. In the treatment of vibhaktitatpuruṣa the rules given by Pāṇini are discussed. From the examples of vibhaktitatpuruṣa in the context of dvitīyātatpuruṣa the examples khatvāruḍhah,tirthakāka expresses the high esteem of education of that time. In the caturthītatpurusasamāsa the term tadartha is significant. In the treatment of ṣaṣṭhī the prohibitive rules are applied rather than formulating rules. After the vibhaktitatpuruṣa the analysis of nañ are mentioned in this chapter. With the analysis of the nañ the six fold division of the sense of the nañ given by Bhattojī are mentioned in this chapter. Then it is hold the discussion of upapada,gati and prādisamāsa with the analysis of the term as well as compound words formed by those rules.Thereafter the definition nature and examples with the analysis of the sūtras of karmadhāraya is undertaken. Though the name karmdhāraya does not signify its nature but some scholars try to find out the sense of maker and maintainer. But all the grammarians view is almost same in the context of samanādhikarṇa or co-locative nature of this samāsa. Though different grammarian classifies karmadhāraya with different view but here five divisions are made for its illustration in the present project. In this samāsa application of standard of comparison made it special. Thereafter the treatment of dvigu is presented with its three varieties. Then it holds the discussion on bahuvrīhi. It is noticed from the analysis that this particular type of samāsa may differ in language but in connection with the meaning, all those carry almost the same feature. Pāṇini an introduction to this compound says that the samāsa other than avyayībhāva, dvandva and tatpuruṣa is said to be the bahuvrīhi. Different type of syntactical relations is seen in the analysis of bahuvrīhi. The bahuvrīhi also shows different varieties. But in this chapter four divisions are made on the basis of philosophical and linguistic point of view. Then the treatment on dvandva has been taken. From the definition of the dvandva given by different grammarians it is seen that some other grammarians also gives the definition of dvandva as like as Pāṇini. Though the particle ca has four meanings only two are applicable in dvandvasamāsa. Thus it forms two divisions i.e. itaretara and samāhāra. But there seen another variations called ekaśeṣadvandva. At the bottom of this chapter an analysis of the term samāsa is given.

The third chapter of the proposed thesis is deals with the philosophy of samāsa. Here it is shown that the relation of the words and meaning along with its syntactical analysis leads the compound words towards a philosophical idea. The philosophy like Pūrvamīmāṃsā and Nyāya system are related with the sentence analysis. In some compounds they accept the implication i.e. lakṣaṇā in the analytical sentence of the compound but not in the whole compound. But the grammarians views are different on the meaning of the compound. So, here it is seen that there is always a sharp contrast with the grammarians and the philosophers regarding its acceptance of its meaning. The main argument of the Nyāya and Mīmāṃsā that they did not accept the aggregate capacity of the compound words.

But the grammarians always recognise the separate denotative capacity called samudāyaśakti of the compound word. The example citraguṃānaya and unmattagaṅgād āgacchati shows the importance of the aggregate capacity of the compound words. After that this expressive capacity of the compound words explained as a prātipadika. Because the prātipadika is always a meaningful word and it forms after the syntactical analysis of the compound words. There after an expression from the Subodhini commentary Vaiyākaraṇabhuṣaṇasāra is taken for illustration, which reflects the expressive capacity of the compound words as the philosopher accepts the existence of fire by the connection with its meaning. After that a note on samāsa as a vṛtti is furnished here, because the grammarian holds samāsa as a vṛtti. On the explanation of the expression parārthābhidhānaṃ vṛtti Kauṇḍabhaṭṭa opines that the meaning of the vṛtti required by primary denotative sense, secondary meaning and relation of the constituents. Thus samāsa as a vṛtti also shows some philosophical aspects. There after views of Patañjali on the Jahatsvārtha and Ajahatsvārthā are furnished. Another three varietiesof the vṛtti viz., bheda saṃsarga and ubhaya are also discussed here. The compound word rajapuruṣa shows all tree vṛttis in it. In this context the opinion of Nāgeśa regarding the view of the unitary import of the mahāvākya tatvamasi is highlighted. He remarks that samāsa also shows the unitary meaning of its components. Thereafter the term sāmarthya is discussed. Almost all the grammarians import this view of the term sāmarthya i.e. the capacity of express something in the context of samāsa. The discussion of the term sāmarthya with the reference of the Bālamanoramā, the Kāśikā and the Mahābhāṣya has been included in this chapter. It is seen here that the sense of samartha i.e sāmarthyaṃ has key role in the process of compounding. Though it has two forms ekārthībhāva and vyapekṣā, the grammarians accepts ekārthībhāva on the compound word. In this regard Patañjali shows four senses of the term samartha i.e saṅgatārtha i.e. mixed up, saṃsṛṣṭārtha i.e. united, saṃbadhārtha i.e. distinguished and samprekshitartha i.e. amalgamated. Where first two are applicable in the context of ekarthibhava and remain two are applicable for vyapekṣāsāmarthyam. Then the philosophy of the individual samāsa are furnished here. In the philosophical treatment of the avyayībhāvasamāsa it is seen that the compound words formed by avyayībhāvasamāsa treats as an avyaya. The term avyaya is seen in different treatise as an adjective of Brahman. Like the nature of Brahman who doesnot undergo any increase and decrease, the words formed by avyayībhāvasamāsa also doesnot undergo any increase and decrease in term of meaning. The upasargas and nipatas also played a significant role on the import of the meaning of the compound. So different meaning of the upasargas and nipātas are furnished here. The tatpuruṣasamāsa also shows different philosophical aspect in terms of its name and meaning. It is seen that the name of the tatpuruṣa applies in the different treatise like Vedas, Upaniṣads, as Lord Śiva, Brahman, Paramātman etc. the definition given by Jagadīśa in Śabdaśaktiprakāśikā shows philosophical aspect with the meaning of the case affixes. The term atyantasaṃyoga, tadartha also import the philosophical sense in this regard. Then the philosophical treatment of the karmadhāraya is furnished here. In the name of karmadhāraya, the term karma is also significant from the philosophical point of view. Some grammarians hold the term as bhedakakriyā i.e. a distinguishing attribute. The name of karmadhāraya also shows the sense of dharmadhāraya. The expression like nīlotpalaṃ holds such sense. The nature of samānādhikaraṇa which is the principal feature of karmadhāraya also imports philosophical aspect. It states that the words have different objects to denote same objects bymeans of their senses. The standard of comparison in the karmadhārayasamāsa shows different sense with its mutual placement on compound words. The term karma has also vast philosophical arena as the Śrīmadbhāgavadgītā has detailed discussion on it. The term karma i.e. action states that any individual is always related with a karma. The nature of the dvigusamāsa is the first number of it is a numeral. The compound conveys the meaning of the compound by implication. The compound word trinayanaṃ, ṣaṇmātura shows the co-relation with its meaning as they means not any other person but Lord Śiva and Kārtikeya respectively. In the philosophical treatment of the nañtatpuruṣa it is seen that the negative particle nañ is indicative of different meaning. The Mīmāmsāsūtra shows the meaning of nañ in terms of paryudāsapratiṣedha and prasajyapratiṣedha. Bhattojidīkṣita also shows that six different shades of its meaning. Thus it is establishes by the grammarians that the function of the nañis to convey the absence of something in physical reality. Then the philosophical treatment of the bahuvrīhisamāsa is furnished. The philosophy of the bahuvrīhisamāsa is quite different because semantically the words are anyapadārthapradhāna. It denotes the meaning other than what was denoted by the components. The division of the bahuvrīhisamāsa i.e. tadguṇasaṃvijñāna and atadguṇasaṃvijñāna also shows special philosophical identity as the tadguṇasaṃvijñāna is applicable in connection with the second sūtra of the Brahmasūtra. After establishing the philosophy of bahuvrīhisamāsa the philosophy of dvandvasamāsa is discussed. It is seen that in dvandvasamāsa the Naiyāyikas didnot accept lakṣaṇā in itaretaradvandva. They accept simultaneous signification of different individuals i.e. yugapadādhikaraṇavācatā in the analytical sentence with the example of dhavakhadirau. But the grammarians reject their opinion and establishes that different rule for different samāsa cannot be applicable because it arises gauravadoṣa. Thus the grammarian establishes philosophical treatment in the compound word as a whole and also in individual compound also.

The fourth chapter of the present thesis deals with the topics of modern linguistics in connection with Sanskrit samāsa. Modern linguistics tries to analyse the linguistics activities from the standpoint of phonology, morphology, semantics and syntax. Samāsa in Sanskrit plays a great role in the construction process of various words. More specifically it can be said that samāsa offers a great field of word formation in the Sanskrit language. On the basis of the syntactical relation of the words, a unification is made to express the idea in a much shorter way.In the process of this unification it is obvious that some linguistic events take place. Some of those are phonological and some again are morphological phenomena. Besides these, in the process of samāsa the topic like semantics and syntax also remain as of great importance. So in the fourth chapter of this thesis all these arenas of modern linguistics have been taken into account with regard to the exercise of Sanskrit compound. In the first place the discussion starts with the phonological events that occur in the process of samāsa in the Sanskrit language. In this phase it is shown that how in different varieties of Sanskrit compound, various phonological changes take place and how these changes are connected with the process of meaning is also discussed in this regards. All the varieties of samāsa are taken here one by one and the phonological changes are shown with the help of the examples. In many places of discussion the rule that plays the part of changing the phonological pattern is also incorporated here. Thereafter a discussion on the morphological importance of the process of Sanskrit compound has been discussed in this chapter. Samāsa, being solely related to the process of word formation, has a major effect in the morphological field of the Sanskrit language. How two or more words are unified and form a single word with the purport of communicating the sense in a proper way have been dealt with in this part of this chapter. All the varieties of samāsa are taken into account and their effect in connection with the production of meaning is specifically discussed here. Through this discussion it is established that the compound process in Sanskrit language has a great field of action throughout the complex field of Sanskrit linguistics. After the discussion on morphology a detailed projection on the semantics has been added in this chapter. The semantics deals with the process of deciphering the meaning in connection with various linguistic process. Compound being a strong linguistic phenomenon, has a very close connection with the action of meaning generation. Pāṇini and all other grammarians are very clear about their respective feed back in this field. A general overview in this arena has been projected in this part of our discussion. It is important to note here that the meaning of a compound word in Sanskrit language, in all the cases is not identical with the meaning of the individual members used in the expanded expression. In many cases, the combined meaning has been generated in many other ways. As in the cases of parapadapradhāna compound like those under the bahuvrihi compound the unified meaning remains to be a completely different one. Thus all the varieties of Sanskrit compound are discussed here in connection with the semantics. Thereafter the topic called syntax has been taken into account. The varieties of different compounds in Sanskrit establish various syntactical relation among the constituent words used in the expanded expression. Compound, with all its activities has a deep connection with the process of generating the syntactical base and this base remains at the bottom of the process of meaning generation. How the varieties of Sanskrit compound contribute in the field of syntax has been projected in this chapter.

Thus from the above study it becomes clear that the topic of samāsa plays a great role in the linguistic form of Sanskrit. Though the process of compound is not a feature of Sanskrit language solely, in Sanskrit language samāsa shows a multifaceted arena of application. From a combination of two members, samāsa can go to join multiple words and it thus opens a wide horizon of study and notice. Moreover, the philosophical implications of samāsa establishes the fact that a compounded word can be a successful source of sphoṭa. Pāṇini’s deliberation in this regard can be taken as a milestone in the exposition offered by Bhartṛhari. The grammarians other than Pāṇini, have also projected many subtle ideas related to samāsa which afterwards have pointed out many linguistic and philosophical ideas regarding this feature of Sanskrit language.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

Vide.,duṣṭaḥ śabdaḥ svarato varṇato vā mithyāprayokto na tamarthamāha/
sa vāgvajro yajamānam hinasti yathendraśatruḥ svarato’aparada ḥ// Mahābhāṣya, Paspaśāhnika