The importance of learning विभक्तिः !
Why do we need to mug up the dreaded Vibhakti tables ? Why रामः रामौ रामाः ?
Vibhaktis are absolutely brilliant – here is why !
जंगल शाम अस्त्र घने रावण सोमवार में मारा को को एक ने राम से
Challenge: १ Unscramble this sentence! २ Also provide ‘one correct’ meaning ONLY
Even this FAMILIAR sentence takes effort to correctly bring together in Hindi!
Correct answer: राम ने रावण को घने जंगल में एक सोमवार शाम को अस्त्र से मारा
Some perfectly OK variations exist in Hindi Example: रावण ने राम को एक जंगल में सोमवार घने शाम को अस्त्र से मारा
Why?
Absent ने, from a bunch of random words, we can’t identify whether it is राम ने or रावण ने
Now in संस्कृतम् : वने सायङ्काले अस्त्रेण धने रावणं सोमवासरे मारितवान् एकस्मिन् रामः
The order is pretty obvious in संस्कृतम् – रामः रावणं धने वने एकस्मिन् सोमवासरे सायङ्काले अस्त्रेण मारितवान्
Samskritam grammar rules (vibhakti) provides sentence structure & prevents variant / random readings!
How?
Unlike many Bhashas, multiple possible readings are reduced/avoided in a संस्कृतम् sentence via integrated word+विभक्तिः combination [Inflection]
Options to parse are reduced
Clues – रावण [ म् ] is a द्वितीया vibhakti form which means he can’t be the कर्ता [ DOER ] but has to be the कर्म्म [ the object of action ].
राम [ः] is the प्रथमा vibhakti form which signifes the DOER
So by the specific use of प्रथमा and द्वितीया vibhakti forms, any confusion as to who killed whom avoided!
Vibhakti provides context and relationships
Combined word+विभक्तिः format avoids many ‘interpretation’ issues
रामस्य means Rama’s
रामेण means by Rama
रामाय means – for Ram [का।को।से।ने।में] in Hindi & [of / by / for/ in] in English. This causes scrambling in meanings, unless rigidly tied to the word {as राम के & राम ने are different}
word+ विभक्तिः also provides CONTEXT within a sentence
रामः-प्रथमा-DOER
रावणं-द्वितीया-OBJECT of action
वने-सप्तमी-location
अस्त्रेण-तृतीया-causative
रावण cannot be DOER since रावणम् is द्वितीया & hence Karma (object/receiver of action)
Word-position within a sentence immaterial
Also, Samskritam ‘rule’ of यल्लिङ्गं यद्वचनं या च विभक्तिर्विशेष्यस्य तल्लिङ्गं तद्वचनं सा च विभक्तिर्विशेषणस्यापि means adjectives must have same vibhakti, linga & vachana as the noun
कुरुवृद्धः पितामहः – प्रथमा
वसुदेवसुतं देवं कृष्णम् – द्वितीया
By grouping similar विभक्ति words, we can find out which all are related in a sentence
All प्रथमा words will be कर्ता or विशेषण of कर्ता
द्वितीया words will be कर्म or विशेषण of कर्म
Hence, even if scrambled, we can unzip the correct combinations via विभक्तिः। Brilliant!
So while we mug up रामः रामौ रामाः in the beginning, we typically don’t realize the significant payoff we get at the end of the process
– the ability to write scrambled order euphonic verses that retain fidelity of meaning
-Unmatched accuracy in transmission of meaning
-Flexibility
विभक्तिः is a powerful concept – unfortunately turned into a beginner’s rote learning nightmare!
The ability to maintain fidelity of meaning irrespective of word position provides amazing opportunities Hence, grammatically correct संस्कृत sentences are a thing of beauty !
As Patanjali Maharishi mentions in the Mahabhashya एकः शब्दः सम्यग्ज्ञातः शास्त्रान्वितः सुप्रयुक्तः स्वर्गे लोके कामधुग्भवति।
Even ONE word, learnt fully well, used correctly according to rules will bring you whatever you wish for; not only in this world, but also the heavens
Post Script
For a brilliant exemplar of the type of analysis made possible by these Samskritam grammar rules (vibhakti), please read this thread analyzing the faulty translation as well as the logical/grammatical issues pertaining to ‘Arthashastra’ raised by the redoubtable @kmadathil
Read on…
Let’s look at the original. Chapter 2 starts with
आन्विक्षिकी त्रयी वार्ता दण्डनीतिश्च विद्याः
“Anvikshiki”, the vedas, economics, and political science are the four vidyAs. Anvikshiki is defined later. He then presents alternate views, but later reasserts his position
चतस्र एव विद्याः इति कौटिल्यः, he reasserts – these four are indeed the vidyAs, unlike what other schools say.
ताभिर्धर्मार्थौ यद्विद्यात्तद्विद्यानाम् विद्यात्वम्
By these are known what is dharma, and what is artha, and that is the essence of vidyA (knowing what is “right”)
साङ्ख्यं योगो लोकायातं चेत्यान्वीक्षिकी
“AnvIkshikI” is defined as Saankhya, Yoga, and Lokayata. A glaring omission is nyAya and/or vaisheShika. Commentators say he did intend this to be a synecdoche for all other दर्शनानि, but that’s speculation.
धर्माधर्मौ त्रय्यामर्थानर्थौ वार्तायां नयापनयौ दण्डनीत्याम्
The vedas define what is dharma/adharma. Economics defines artha/anartha. Good and bad policy is determined by politics.
बलाबले चैतासां हेतुभिरन्वीक्षमाणा लोकस्योपकरोति व्यसनेऽभ्युदये च । बुद्धिमवस्थापयति प्रज्ञावाक्यक्रियावैशारद्यं च करोति।
By pondering the strength and otherwise (of the topic at hand) by these (veda/economics/politics) one helps society, keeps ones mind steady in good and bad times, and gains good sense, and ability in word as well as deed. (implying that this is the point of education)
प्रदीपः सर्वविर्यानामुपायः सर्वकर्मणाम् ।
आश्रयः सर्वधर्माणां शश्वदान्वीक्षिकी मता ।
This is the final verse – Kautilya tends to add a verse that summarizes the chapter, but is also often tangential. Here he seems to be putting AnvIkShikI on a higher pedestal
The light of all knowledge, the means of all action. The eternal base of all dharma, AnvikShiki is considered to be.
Does he contradict here his earlier statement specifically privileging veda, economics, and politics as the source of all judgement?
It is definitely feasible, but slightly shaky to think that he does. Using the Indian convention of the whole illuminating the part, we should probably to prefer the interpretation that AnvikShiki trains the mind to make better arguments *on the basis of his preferred bases*
Alternatively, we could interpret this as using अन्विक्षिकी in the literal sense of “inquiry”, rather than as the definition he’s made a while ago. What is missing here is the reference to प्रत्यक्ष, अनुमान etc, the pramANas. These are first seen in the nyAya sUtras, and we’ve seen that Kautilya specifically *does not mention* nyAya. It would be strange if he were using AnvIkShikI to mean those and never even mentions nyAya
I have to say *I* prefer a more critical approach than Kautilya does, but that’s different from saying that *that was what he said*.
Point of clarification. Why do I call it a faulty translation? The translator says “enquire through logical reasoning into the triple” (ie veda/economics/politics) . The original has बलाबले चैतासां हेतुभिरन्वीक्षमाणा. “Enquire into strengths and weaknesses through these”
The anaphora एतासां cannot be interpreted to mean AnvIkshikI (even if we take the translators interpretation of the word as “logical reasoning”) for simple grammatical reasons – it is in the grammatical feminine plural. AnvIkshikI is singular.
What if we take the components of AnvIkshikI separately and construe as plural? The constituents are grammatically masculine and neuter, and by the Paninian rule नपुंसकमनपुंस्केन … the collection has to be grammatically neuter (hence एतेषां, not एतासां)
What does that leave us with? Given the context, we need a feminine collection, and that could be the four vidyAs including AnvIkshikI, or the three not including it. So the veda/economics/politics are the *means* (हेतु) of enquiry for Kautilya not the subject, as translated.
Originally tweeted by Karthik Madathil (@kmadathil) on June 3, 2021.
प्वालसंस्कृतभाण्डारम्। PvaalSamskritam 