Conclusion
Now, we can draw a conclusion on the matter of the necessity of angādhikāra in Pā\( \underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{n}\)ini's grammar. We have seen that angādhikāra constitutes a very important section of the grammar where the relation of the suffixes and their bases is crucial. We also have observed that the concept of anga cannot be separated from Pā\( \underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{n}\)ini's system due to its being a part of many sūtras as well as many paribhā \(\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{s}\) ās. We have also seen that at least three exclusive prayojanas exist for the justification of angādhikāra. Another justification can be given in the form of preventing the double samprasāra \( \underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{n}\) a in forms like vavraś which we discussed while determining the limit of angādhikāra. We saw that three important paribhā \(\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{s}\) ās, which are accepted by Patañjali, depend on angādhikāra. Finally we saw that an alternative suggested by Patañjali for angādhikāra is in no way better, but actually defective.
Kātyāyana's use of angādhikāra in other sections to counter some objections has been shown too. Patañjali's apparent rejection of angādhikāra on the basis of Kātyāyana's vārtika on ‘angasya’ (6-4-1) is not supported by his own treatment of the subject in other places. So, we conclude that Patañjali did not really intend to refute the angādhikāra and the view which appears in his commentary on 6-4-1 should not be taken as his siddhānta on this matter.Footnote 1
Thus the necessity of angādhikāra in Pā\( \underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{n}\)ini's A \(\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{s}\) \(\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{t}\) ādhyāyī is established.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Tasmād angādhikāra iti bhagavato gūdho 'bhisandhir iti bhāvah. Naitāni ity ādi grantha\(\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{h}\) ekadeśyuktir iti tātparyam. Nāgeśa, ‘Uddyota’, MB, Vol. 5, p. 273.
Bibliography
Abhyankar, K. V. (1961). A Dictionary of Sanskrit Grammar, Baroda: Gaekwad's Oriental Series No. 134.
Abhyankar, K. V. ed., (1967). 175–24 175–25 (A collection of original works on Vyākarana 175–26. Poona: Post Graduate and Research Department Series No. 7, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.
Abhyankar, K. V. ed., Paribhā\(\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{s}\)enduśekhara (Part I). See Nāgeśa Bha\(\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{t}\) \(\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{t}\)a.
175–29 175–30, (1961). Siddhānta Kaumudī with the commentary Bālamanoramā of Vāsudeva 175–31. Edited by Gopala Shastri Nene, Vols. 1–4. Benares: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office.
Bloomfield, Leonard (1963). Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Chatterji, Kshitish Chandra (1964). Technical Terms and Technique of Sanskrit Grammar. Calcutta: Calcutta University Press.
Goldstücker, T. (1966). 176–32, His Place in Sanskrit Literature. Reprint, Osnabruck: Otto Zeller.
Kaiya\(\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{t}\)a, ‘Pradipa’, a commentary on Mahābhāsya. See Patañjali.
Kielhorn, F. See Nāgeśa Bha\(\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{t}\) \(\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{t}\)a.
Nāgeśa 176–35, (also called Nāgoji Bhatta), (1962). 176–36, Part 1, edited by K. V. Abhyankar with commentary Tattvādarsa of Vāsudeva Śastri Abhyankar. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Institute, Part 2, translation by F. Kielhorn, second edition. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Institute, 1960.
Nāgeśa Bha\(\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{t}\) \(\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{t}\)a, ‘Uddyota’, (a subcommentary on Mahābhā \(\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{s}\) a). See Patañjali.
Patañjali, (1951). Mahābhā \(\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{s}\) a with Kaiyata's commentary ‘Pradīpa’ and Nāgeśa Bha\(\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{t}\) \(\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{t}\)a's subcommentary ‘Uddyota’ (Srīmadbhagavatpatañjalimahar\(\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{s}\)ipra\( \underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{n}\)īta\(\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{m}\) Vyākara\( \underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{n}\)a Mhaābhā\(\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{s}\)yam srīmadupādhyaya Kaiya\(\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{t}\)anirmita Pradīpa prakāśitam, Sarvatantrasvatantraśrīman NāgeŚbha\(\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{t}\) \(\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{t}\)aviracitoddyotodbhāsitam), Vol. 1, edited by Bhārgava Śastri Jośi, fifth edition, Vol. 3, edited by Raghunāth Śāstri and Śivadatta D. Kudala, first edition, 1937. Vol. 5 edited by Bhārgava Śāstri, first edition, 1945. Bombay: Nirnayasagar Press.
Patañjali, (1967). 176–46 Mahābhāsya, Government of India Reprint Edition, Part 3. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Vāmana and Jayāditya, (1952). Kāśikā, edited by Shobhita Mishra. Benares: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office.
Vāsudeva Dī\(\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{s}\)ita, Bālamanoramā (a commentary on Siddhānta Kaumudī). See Bha\(\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{t}\) \(\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{t}\)oji Dī\(\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{s}\)ita.
Additional information
I wish to express my deep gratitude here to Vidvan T. Sitharama Shastry, who initiated me into the study of Sanskrit grammar. I also wish to express my indebtedness to Dr. Edwin Gerow, but for whom I could never venture in the difficult task of explaining the subtle problems of Paninian grammar in English.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nagaraja Rao, H.V. The scope and necessity of angādhikāra. J Indian Philos 6, 145–176 (1978). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00171374
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00171374