Etymological Derivations of Kṣīrasvāmin

[Full title: Derivation of words following Pāṇini’s sūtras (2): Etymological Derivations of Kṣīrasvāmin]

Kṣīrasvāmin is a grammarian of great merit, as pointed out by Liṅgayasūrin and also evident from the authorship of his other commentaries on grammatical texts. The available commentaries on Amarakośa can be catagorized into two groups–one which gives etymology of words with the application of the Pāṇinian rules while the other gives etymologies or mere explanations. To the former belongs the commentaries of Kṣīrasvāmin, Jātarūpa, Sarvānanda, Mukuṭa, Bhānuji and others while to the latter Liṅgayasūrin, Mallinātha, Maheśvara and others.

Kṣīrasvāmin explains most of the words and substantiates many of his derivations with the Pāṇinian rules. General grammatical statements and special or exceptional rules are also brought to notice by the commentator wherever necessary. A sample of these etymologies and the grammatical statements made by Kṣīrasvāmin are highlighted under this section.

(a) Devatā (I. 1. 9; p. 5)–

[God:]

Deriving the word Kṣīrasvāmin remarks that the svārthika pratyayas do not follow the gender of their primitive.

deva eva devatā devāttal (Pā. 5. 4. 27) |
svārthikāḥ pratyayāḥ prakṛtito liṅgavacanānyativartante'pi |
devataiva daivataṃ, prajñāditvāt (Pā. 5.4. 38) svārthe—
āṇ, viśeṣavidheḥ puṃstvaṃ rūpabhedāt klībatvaṃ tacca pracuraprayogam |

Kṣīrasvāmin remarks that the gods in groups are used optionally in plural; he adds that the singularity is applicable for the component as well as the compuond:

ete dvādaśatvādinā saṃghena yuktā gaṇadevatā saṃghacāriṇo bahuvacanāntā vā |
ekatvaṃ tu samudāyeṣvapi vṛttāḥ śabdā āvayaveṣvapi vartanta iti |

(b) Puruṣottamaḥ (I.1.21; p.8)–

[Viṣṇu:]

Kṣīrasvāmin prefers to derive the word in saptamī tatpuruṣa for he mentions that the sūtra ‘na nirdhāraṇe’ (Pā. 2. 2. 10) prohibits the formation of ṣaṣṭhītatpuruṣa samāsa. He also says that the word cannot be a karmadhāraya as by the sūtra sanmahatpuruṣottama... (Pā. 2. 1. 61), the compound-word would be Uttamapuruṣa and not Puruṣottama.

Analysis:

The following are the steps in forming a saptamī samāsa—(i) The sūtra–yataścanirdhāraṇam | (Pā. 2. 3. 41) ordains saptamī vibhakti and ṣaṣṭhī vibhakti optionally. In the example, the saptamī vibhakti is ordained to the word ‘puruṣa’ by this sūtra and (ii) By the yoga vibhāga of saptamī śauṇḍaiḥ | (Pā. 2. 1. 40) the two words–puruṣeṣu uttamaḥ is compounded into Puruṣottamaḥ.

Though one can find that ṣaṣṭhītatpuruṣa samāsa is popularly prefered by many, Kṣīrasvāmin chooses saptamī tatpuruṣa probably on the basis of following reasons-

(i) If ṣaṣṭhī vibhakti is to be ordained to the word it is possible by application of two sūtras–yataścanirdhāraṇam or ṣaṣṭhī śeṣe | (Pā. 2. 3. 50)

(ii) If the compound is effected by the former, then as already mentioned by Kṣīrasvāmin the sūtra ‘na nirdhāraṇe’ prohibits the formation of ṣaṣṭhītatpuruṣa samāsa.

(iii) If the latter is employed and the compound is effected by the sūtra–ṣaṣṭhī (Pā. 2. 2. 8), the utterence of the words puruṣāṇām uttamaḥ | immediately evokes doubt in the listener regarding the application of ṣaṣṭhī vibhakti by the above mentioned sūtras.

(iv) Further the vidheya is not mentioned and has to be assumed as Lord Viṣṇu.

Note: A better option to avoid all these confusions would be the pañcamī tatpuruṣa as—puruṣebhyaḥ uttamaḥ |

(c) Lakṣmīḥ (I. 1. 27; p. 10):

Kṣīrasvāmin derives the word as follows:

lakṣyate lakṣmīḥ |

The uṇādi rule (440) lakṣermuṭ ca ordains ‘ī’ and Kṣīrasvāmin quotes the special rule halṅyābhyodīrghātsutīti (Pā. 6/1/68) by which the visarga is not elided–

itīpratyayāntaḥ āta eva ṅyantatvābhāvād halṅyābhyodīrghātsutīti (Pā. 6. 1. 68) sulopābhāvaḥ |

Thus he reminds the ecxeptional rules or special cases of grammatical derivations.

(d) Sudarśanam (I. 1. 28; p. 10)–

[The discus of Viṣṇu:]

Amarakośa reads the word in neuter gender and Kṣīrasvāmin observes that in usage the word is also employed in masculine gender and cites from Śiśupālavadham (14.16)–

sudarśanaḥ puṃsi lokāśrayatvālliṅgasya yathā—bandhureṣa jagatāṃ sudarśanaḥ |^[1]

(e) Garutmān (I. 1. 29; p. 10)–

[Garuda:]

Kṣīrasvāmin highlights that the taddita word Garutmān which has the ‘matup’ pratyaya does not get the substitution of ‘va’ ordained by the rule jhayaḥ (Pā. 5. 4. 111), as the word ‘garut’ is read in the yavādigaṇa–

garutaḥ pakṣāḥ santyasya garutmān jhayaḥ (Pā. 5.4.111) iti vatvaṃ yavādipāṭhānnāsti |

(f) Śivā (I. 1. 37; p. 13)–

[Pārvatī:]

Kṣīrasvāmin remarks that since Pārvatī by herself is a bestower of all auspiciousness, she is called Śivā and quotes Śāśvata in support.

He also adds that if the wife of Śiva were to be denoted then the word would be Śivī–

śivā svataḥ śreyaskarītvāccivavat yacchāśvataḥ—
śivaṃ bhadraṃ śivaḥ śambhuḥ śivā gaurī śivābhayā |
puṃyoge ca śivasya strī śivī |

(g) Marutvān (I. 1. 41; p. 14)–

[Indra:]

Kṣīrasvāmin deriving the word Marutvān, reminds one that the word ‘marut’ gets the sajñā ‘bha’ by the rule–tasaumatvarthe (Pā. 4.1.19); thus by making the pada kārya inapplicabe it does not get the jaśtva–

maruto devāḥ santyasya marutvān | tasaumatvarthe (Pā. 4.1.19) iti bhasaṃjñāyāṃ padakāryaṃ jaśatvaṃ nāsti |

(h) Sāyam (I. 3. 3; p.32)–

[Evening:]

Kṣīrasvāmin specifies that the word is an indeclinable which is not mentioned in Amarakośa–

sāyamavyayam |

(i) Trisandhya (I. 3. 3; p.32)–

[Periods of the day:]

Kṣīrasvāmin derives the word and quotes the Vārttika–ābanto vā (1557) which optionally ordains the feminine gender which according to him is not desired.

He quotes Mālā which ordains the word to be in nueter gender–

tisraḥ sandhyāḥ samāhṛtāstrisandhyam |
ābanto vā iti pakṣe strītvaṃ neṣṭaṃ yan mālā—
trisandhyaṃ tu napuṃsakam |

(j) Amarakośa I.3.21 (p. 36)–

Commenting on Amarakośa I. 3. 21 (p. 36)—“ye dve daive yugasahasre tau nṛṇāṃ kalpau”, Kṣīrasvāmin explains that the pronouns used as vidhīyamāna and anūdyamāna need not adhere to the general rule that the genders of the qualifier and qualified should comply with each other–

sarvanāmnāṃ vidhīya—mānānūdyamānaliṅgagrahaṇe kāmacaraḥ |

This statement of Kṣīrasvāmin is quoted by Kṛṣṇadaivajña (16th C. A.D) in his commentary Bījapallava^[2] on Bījagaṇita (p. 41) justifying the usage of the text:

“bhājyācchedyaḥ śudhyati pracyutaḥ san sveṣu sveṣu sthanakeṣu krameṇa | yairyairvarṇaiḥ saṃguṇo yaiśca yaiśca rūpairbhāgahare labdhayastāḥ syuratra | tā labdhayaḥ ityatra tacchabdasya vidhīyamānaliṅgatā śaityaṃ hi yasyā prakṛtirjalasya ityadau prasiddhā daive yugasahasre dve brāhmaḥ kalpau tu tau nṛṇāṃ”

ityasya vyākhyāvasare likhitaṃ ca kṣīrasvāminā sarvanāmnāṃ vidhīyamānānūdyamānaliṅgagrahaṇe kāmacaraḥ iti |

This seems to be the reflection of the idea expressed in Pradīpa^[3] on the statement in Mahābhāṣya which reads–

kiṃ yattatsāsnālāṅgūlakakudakhuraviṣāṇyartharūpaṃ saḥ śabdaḥ |

The Pradīpa remarks that sarvanāma words which equate the sense and word, the use of pronouns need not strictly follow the general rule that the qualifiers should adhere to the gender of the qualifying noun–

kiṃ yattaditi—uddiśyamānapratinirdiśyamānayorekatvamāpādayanti sarvanāmāni paryāyeṇa talliṅgamupapādata iti kāmacārataḥ sa śabdaḥ iti pulliṅgena nirdeśaḥ |

(k) Saṃśaya (I. 4. 3; p. 39)–

[Doubt:]

Kṣīrasvāmin takes opportunity to give the general tips in grammar. In deriving the term saṃśaya he highlights as to how the meaning of the verb changes with an upasarga–

kitaḥ saṃśaye san | śīṅ dihornānārthayoḥ saṃśabdenaiṣortho dyotyate upasargasya vā so'rtho dhātūpādhivaśātprakāśate |

(l) Saṃvidāgūḥ (I. 4. 5; p. 39)–

[Transcendental knowledge:]

Kṣīrasvāmin says that the different shades of meaning to a word is also due to the presence of upasarga. This is better illustrated in explaining the term saṃvidāgūḥ.

He says that the meaning of the word saṃvid is right knowledge as well as code of conduct and this is either due to the nature of roots for their varied meanings or due to the influence of prefixes and illustrates it with relevant example–

saṃvijjñānaṃ, yathā-satsaṃvitkaraṇātītā | niyamo'pi, yathā—saṃvidaṃ laṅghayecca yaḥ | (yājñavalkya 2.187) dhātūnāmanekārtha-tvādupasargavaśādvā tattadarthatvam |

(m) Avidyā (I. 4. 7; p. 39)–

[Ignorance:]

In explaining the term avidyā, Kṣīrasvāmin says that it is the opposite of knowledge and says that it is the nañ pratyaya used in sense of opposite as in adharma and anartha—

viruddhaṃ vedanamavidyā ādharmānarthavad viparyaye nañ yadāha,—ānityaśuciduḥkhānātmasu nityaśucisukhātmakhyātiravidyā | (Pātañjala yogasūtra -II. 5)

(n) Ahammati (I. 4. 7; pp. 39-40):

Ahammati is synonymous to avidyā; deriving the word, Kṣīrasvāmin remarks that the word aham used here is not the noun of asmad śabda but it is a nipāta–

āhamityasya mananamahaṃmatiḥ, ānātmanyātmābhimānāt, āhamiti vibhaktipratirūpako nipātaḥ |

(o) Colours:

The dhīvarga ends with the mention of colours and Amarakośa states that the colours when used as qualities takes masculine gender and when used as qualifiers take the gender of the noun they qualify. (I. 4. 17; p. 42)–

guṇe śuklādayaḥ puṃsi guṇi liṅgāstu tadvat—

This statement is well illustrated by Kṣīrasvāmin–

guṇa mātre vartamānā guṇāḥ puṃsi paṭasya śuklaḥ guṇa-vadvṛttitāyāṃtvabhidheyaliṅgāḥ śuklaḥ paṭaḥ śuklā śāṭī śuklaṃ vastram |

In this context, he also quotes the Paninian sūtra which ordains ‘ṅīṣ’ optionally after a Nominal stem, expressive of colour ending in a udātta, gravely accented vowel and having the letter ‘t’ as its penultimate letter: and the letter ‘n’ is substituted in the room of ‘t’–

varṇādanudāttāttopadhāttonaḥ (Pā 4.1.39) iti śyenī śyetā lohinī lohitā |

(p) Satyam^[4] (I. 5. 24; p. 46)–

[Truth:]

Amarakośa gives satyam, tathyam ṛtaṃ and samyag as words for truth and mentions that these words can be used in all three genders–Kṣīrasvāmin illustrates well as to how the word satyam can be used in all the three genders–

vāgbhedāstriṣūktāḥ satyaśīḥ, satyaḥ śabdaḥ, satyaṃ vacaḥ | yadā tu satyavāktvādinā tadvati vartante tadāpi triṣu yathā satyaṃ kulaṃ satya strī satyaḥ pumān | evaṃ grāmya niṣṭhurādayaḥ |

(q) Tandrī (I. 6. 38; p. 56)–

[Lassitude:]

Amarakośa gives the word tandrī for lassitude; explaining the term Kṣīrasvāmin adds that the word can also be used as a word ending in long ‘ā’ similar to nidrā–

indriyāṇāṃ tananaṃ drātyasyāṃ tandrī nidrā tandretyabanto'pi |

(r) Mahaḥ (I. 6. 39; p. 56)–

[Festival:]

Amarakośa gives five synonyms for festival of which mahaḥ is one. Kṣīrasvāmin makes note that the word mahaḥ has ‘a’ ending and is different from mahas ending in ‘s’, which is a neuter gender word denoting effulgence or lusture–

mahaḥ—ākārāntaḥ, sāntastu tejo'rthaḥ klībe |

(s) Gonasa (I. 7. 4; p. 57)–

[Kind of snake:]

According to Kṣīrasvāmin, the word gonasa etymologically means a serpant that has the head (hood) resembling that of a cow. He also quotes the Pāṇini sūtra–āñ nāsikāyāḥ saṃjñāyāṃ nasaṃ cāsthūlāt (Pā. 5.4.118) according to which the nāsikā śabda at the end of a bahuvrīhi compound is replaced by ‘nas’ and gets the ‘ac’ pratyaya; thus the word gonasa is derived.

(t) Ulūpī (I. 9. 18; p. 64)–

[A porpoise:]

Kṣīrasvāmin rightly points out here that it is a ' in' anta word for generally it could be mistaken to be an īkārānta word:

ulūpīnnantaḥ ullumpatīti |

(u) Śivā (II. 5. 5; p. 125)–

[Jackal:]

Kṣīrasvāmin specifies that this word in feminine gender denotes a jackal also since it smells out the birds or sharpens (the teeth) and is ominous.

He further adds that Śivā also denotes a gooseberry, while the word in masculine gender denotes lord Śiva as mentioned by Śāśvata:

śinoti śivā śakunāvedinī vā śṛgāle'pi strīliṅgaḥ yacchāśvataḥ—
śivaḥ kīlaḥ śivā kroṣṭā bhavedāmalakī śivā |

(v) Manojavasaḥ (III. 1. 13; p. 238)–

[Fatherly:]

Kṣīrasvāmin explains that the mind is attracted towards him as towards a father and hence manojavasaḥ and is arrived at by the Uṇādisūtra similar to deriving the word camasa–

mano javate'smin pitāyamiti dhāvati manojavasaḥ auṇādiko'saḥ—camasāditvāt manoje'bhilāṣe vasati vā |

Bhānuji (p.356) records this statement of Kṣīrasvāmin without any remarks probably accepting his derivation.

(w) Pravīṇa (III. 1. 4; p. 236)–

[Skilful:]

Kṣīrasvāmin observes that the etymology of the word actually signifies ' one who has an excellent lute'; but in popular usage the word has lost its original sense and has gained popularity signifying a skilled person.

He also quotes Kumārilabhaṭṭa's view in this regard and also adds that the words niṣṇāta and kuśala are of similar nature–

mukhyārthaṃ parityajya nipuṇe rūḍhaḥ yadāhuḥ -nirūḍhā lakṣaṇāḥ kāścitsāmarthyādabhidhānavat | kriyante'dyatanaiḥ kāścit ‘kāścinnaivatvaśaktita’ iti | evaṃ niṣṇātakuśalau |

(x) Viṣvak (III. 1. 34; p. 243)–

[Ubiquitous:]

Deriving the word viṣvak by the sūtra—viṣvagdevayośca ṭeradyañcatāvapratyaye (Pā 6. 3. 92) remarks that the word viṣvak is an indeclinable when it denotes ubiquity—

viṣvak sarvato'rthe'vyayam |

(y) Vāvadūka (III. 1. 35; p. 243)–

[Talkative:]

Kṣīrasvāmin explains that the word cannot be arrived at by the application of the sūtra–yajajapa... (Pā 3.2.166) as the sūtra ordains ūka pratyaya only to the two roots mentioned viz., yaj and jap.

Kṣīrasvāmin derives the word on the authority of the Padakāra^[5], that ūka is also ordained to vad dhātu–

vāvadyate tacchīlo vāvadūkaḥ yajajapa ityatra?[!] vaderanupadeśaḥ, kārya iti padakāravākyād ūkaḥ |

(z) Jaḍaḥ (III. 1. 38; p. 244)–

[Stupid:]

Kṣīrasvāmin derives the word from the root jala signifying dhānya and remarks that linguistically la and ḍa are considered identical–

jala dhānye ḍalayorekatvam |

This meaning of the root is in keeping with the Cāndra school while the Pāṇinian school takes the meaning of the root as ghātya, signifying dullness.

It is interesting to note that in Kṣīrataraṅgiṇī, Kṣīrasvāmin himself mentions the meaning of the root ‘jala’ as ‘ghātye’ (I. 570) or jala āvaraṇe (X. 10) according to Pāṇini and remarks that the Cāndra school does not accept both these meannigs.

(aa) Pīvara (III.1.61; p.249)–

[Fat:]

Commenting on the word Kṣīrasvāmin observes that pīvara and pīvana are two words to denote a fat person; further he states that the words are formed by addition of two suffixes–

kvarap and kvanip–pīvana pīvara kvanip kvarap ca |

(ab) Samaṃ (III.1.65; p.250)–

[Equal:]

Kṣīrasvāmin remarks that the word in the sense of ‘all’ is a sarvanāma word and gives an example that the ‘sun is the same for all’–

samati samaṃ sarvārthe sarvanāma yathā—sūryaḥ sameṣāṃ samaḥ |

Here in the example the word sameṣāṃ is a sarvanāma śabda used in masculine gender genetive form.

The sarvanāma gaṇa includes this word in the group–

sarvādīni sarvanāmani.

(ac) Ādiḥ (III.1.81; p.253)–

[First:]

Amarakośa specifies that the word is always in masculine gender.

Kṣīrasvāmin illustrates as to how the words though an adjective of a neuter gender remains in its own gender–

dharmivṛttitve'pyajahalliṅgaṃ yathā—ādirgargakulam |

He also remarks that if the word takes the gender of the qualifier it is used as ādya–

dharmavṛttitve bhave yat ādyo vācyaliṅgaḥ |

(ad) Āpracchannaṃ (III. 2. 7; p. 261)–

[Bidding Farewell:]

Kṣīrasvāmin explains that the prefix āṅ with the root pracchi signifies “to please by embracing and the like”.

He also substantiates his view with a citation from Meghasandeśa (I. 9)–

āpracchannaṃ āṅpūrvaḥ pracchirāliṅganādinānandanārthaḥ yathā—āpṛcchasva priyasakhamamum |

(ae) Saṃstavaḥ (III. 2. 23; p. 265)–

[Acquaintance:]

Kṣīrasvāmin explains that the root of the verb though signifies eulogy besides other meanings, the prefix sam in the word saṃstavaḥ implies acquaintance–

saṃgataṃ stavanaṃ saṃstavaḥ dhātoranekārthasya copasargeṇaiṣo'rtho dyotyate |

(af) Bāḍhaṃ (III. 3. 44; p. 280)–

[Promise:]

Kṣīrasvāmin observes that the word in the sense of affirmation or promise is an indeclinable–

bāḍhaṃ pratijñāne'ṅgīkāre'vyayam |

(ag) Sikatāḥ (III. 3. 73; p. 286-87)–

[Sand:]

Deriving the word Kṣīrasvāmin specifies that it is always in plural–

sicyante sikatāḥ nityaṃ bahutve'yam |

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Mallinātha also quotes the same and says that the masculine gender is also accepted and cites the Amarakośa statement (III. 5. 46) that in determining the gender one should refer to the works of poets and usages.

[2]:

Bījapallava of Kṛṣṇadaivajña, p.42. Mrs. Sita Sundar Ram was awarded Ph.D degree for "A Critical study on the text under the supervision of Dr. V. Kameswari, by the University of Madras. Subsequently this has been published by The Kuppuswami Sastri Research Institute in 2012.

[3]:

Vyākaraṇa Mahābhāṣya, p.5.

[4]:

satyaṃ tathyamṛtaṃ samyagamūni triṣu tadvati |

[5]:

Patañjali occationally refers to Kātyāyana and the writers of Prātiśākhyas as the Padakāra, Ref. Dictionary of Sanskrit grammar, p.234.