उणादि सूत्राणि

पठिताः केचन विषयाः अत्र   लिख्यन्ते |
कृपावाजिमिस्वादिस्वाध्यशूभ्य उण् | 1.1.
डु कृञ् करणे – करोतीति कारुः – शिल्पी जातिविशेषः
पा पाने – पातीति पायुः – गुदम्
वा गतिगन्धनयोः – वातीति वायुः – मरुत्
जि जये / जि अभिभावे – जयत्यभिभवति रोगान् जायुः – औषधम्
दु मिञ् प्रक्षेपणे – मिनोति प्रक्षिपति ऊष्माणं देहे इति मायुः (पित्तः)
स्वद् आस्वादने – स्वदत्ते इति स्वादुः – मृष्टतागुणसंयुक्तः
राध साध संसिद्धौ – साध्नोति परकार्यमिति / साधयतीति साधुः – योग्यः
आशु व्याप्तौ (स्वादि) – अश्नुते इति आशु – आदित्यः, शीघ्र
एतेभ्यः उण्प्रत्ययो भवति |
दॄसनिजनिचरिचटिरहिभ्यो ञुण्  1.3
दॄ विदारणे –  दीर्यते इति दारुः  – काष्ठम्
सन् – सन्यते भज्यत इति  सानुः – प्रस्थः
जन  जनने / जनी प्रादुर्भावे – जायत इति जानु
चर् चारु – चरति गच्छति प्रविशति मन इति – शोभनम्
चट स्फुट भेदने – चटतीति चाटुः  – प्रियवाक्यम्
रहि पृथाग्भावे – रह्यते रहयतीति वा राहुः – ग्रहविशेषः

कस्य बिभ्यति देवाश्च -षष्ठी प्रयोगहेतुः

मत्पुत्र्यै वाल्मीकिरामायणम् अध्यापयामि | बालकाण्डस्य प्रथमसर्गे चतुर्थे श्लोके “कस्य बिभ्यति देवाश्च” इत्यत्र  षष्ठी प्रयोगस्य विषये जातः  प्रश्नः |
 
श्लोकः 
आत्मवान्को जितक्रोधो द्युतिमान्कोऽनसूयक: ।
कस्य बिभ्यति देवाश्च जातरोषस्य संयुगे ।।1.1.4।। 
अन्वयः: कः आत्मवान् जितक्रोधः  द्युतिमान् अनसूयकश्च | संयुगे  जातरोषस्य कस्य देवाश्च बिभ्यति | पाणिनीय प्रयोगे तु आपादाने पञ्चमी विभक्ति प्रयोगः स्यात् | भीत्रार्थानां भयहेतुः इति सूत्रेण सामान्यतया  वृकात् भयम् , चोरात् भयम् इत्यादीनयनेकान्युदाहरणानि जानीमहे | अत्र किमर्थं ‘कस्मात् बिभ्यति देवाश्च जातरोषात् संयुगे इति न  भवितुमर्हतीति प्रश्नः | माधवयोगिना आर्षप्रयोगमित्यङ्गीक्रियते | तथापि  एतदर्थं व्याख्यातृभिः इत्थं प्रयत्यते |
अमृतकतककारः :
एवं पाङ्क्ते मार्गे स्थिते– कस्येति षष्ठी ऋषिवचनत्वादित्याह कश्चित् ।। 1.1.4 ।।
तिलकाकारः 
कस्येति सम्बन्धसामान्ये षष्ठीत्यन्ये । कस्य संयुगे कस्माद्बिभ्यतीत्यर्थः ।। 
 
भूषणकारः| 
 
जातरोषस्य कस्य संयुगे देवादयः सर्वे बिभ्यतीत्यन्वयः । अतो न “भीत्रार्थानां ” इति किंशब्दात्पञ्चमी । शत्रुविषयः कोपो मित्राणामपि भयमावहतीत्यर्थः । यद्वा चकारो ऽप्यर्थः । अनुकूला अपि बिभ्यति, किं पुनः प्रतिकूला इत्यर्थः । यद्वा संयुगे जातरोषस्य कस्य बिभ्यतीत्येवान्वयः । शेषे षष्ठी । “सञ्ज्ञापूर्वको विधिरनित्यः” इत्यपादानसञ्ज्ञापूर्वकपञ्चम्यभावः । अत्र श्लोकत्रये समृद्धिमद्वस्तुवर्णनादुदात्तालङ्कारः ।। 1.1.4 
 
धर्मकूटे: 
कस्य संयुगे इत्यन्वयान्न किंशब्दाद्भीत्रार्थानामित्यपादानमूलकपञ्चमीप्रसक्ति:। कस्य बिभ्यतीत्यन्वये तु अपादानत्वाविवक्षया तदप्रसक्ति: सम्बन्धसामान्यविवक्षया च षष्ठी ।।
अस्य विवरणं अन्योदाहरणान्यपि परिशीलयित्वा अनन्न्तरं लेखिष्यामि |

आङोनास्त्रियाम् – 7.2.120

आङोनास्त्रियाम् इति सूत्रम् | अत्र प्रश्नद्वयमासीत् |

१. किमर्थम् आचार्यैः अत्र टा सञ्ज्ञा नोपयुज्यते | केन कारणेन नूतना सञ्ज्ञा प्रयोगमकारि |
२. सूत्रेस्मिन् सिद्धान्तकौमुदीकार्रैरुक्तम्  – आङिति टा  सञ्ज्ञा प्राचाम् इति | अस्य प्रमाणं  किम् इति किञ्चिदालोचयामः |
अस्मिन् सूत्रे ७.३.१२० भगवान् भाष्यकारः किमपि नोक्तत्वात् प्रश्नोऽयम् उदेति | कैयटनागेशावचनादपि प्राचामाचार्याणां विषये किमपि नोपलभ्यते | काशिकायामपि तथैव  | यदाहमस्मदाचार्यानपृच्चम् तैरुक्तम् ७.३.१०५ आङि चापः सूत्रे काशिकायाम् आङिति पूर्वाचार्यनिर्देशेन तृतीयैकवचनं गृह्यते इत्युक्तत्वात् अत्रापि  प्रमाणं सिद्ध्यत्येव इति |  परन्तु महाभाष्ययकारैः सूत्रमिदम् न विव्रियते तस्माद् भाष्यप्रमाणं नास्ति | कार्दोनामहाभागैरेव पुनः ७.१.१८: औङ आपः  सूत्रमपि प्रदर्शितम् |
तत्सूत्रमपि परिशीलयामः |
आबन्तात् (स्त्रीप्रत्ययेषु) परतः औङः  शि आदेशो भवति |  जसः शी इत्यतः शी इत्यनुवर्तयामः |  सूत्रमिदमपि पुनरीक्षामहै |
रमा / खट्वा + औ
रमा / खट्वा + शी
रमा / खट्वा  + ई  इति स्थितौ
रमे / खट्वे इति स्वरूपे सिद्ध्यतः
अस्मात् सूत्रात् सम्यगवेदिष्म यत् प्रमाणबलात् कौमुदीकारैः पूर्वसूत्रे तदा उक्तम् | किन्तु अत्र औट् औ च निर्दिश्यमानः  द्वितीयाविभक्तेः प्रत्ययः न स्यादित्याक्षेपः तिष्ठत्येव  |  किमर्थम्   औङ  इति प्रश्नः अत्र पाणिनीयाः अवोचन् | एकोऽपि भेदः अत्र वर्तत एव |  औ औट् इति द्विवचनप्रत्ययद्वयस्य कथम् इत् सञ्ज्ञा करणीयम् | अस्माकम् उदाहरणे तु अन्यो विषयः | ननु टाङोनास्त्रियाम् इत्यपि सूत्रं भवेत् को दोषः |   तत्र पूर्वाचार्याणां कृते आदरभावो प्रदर्श्यते इत्युक्ते किमर्थं टा इति नूतन सञ्ज्ञा  करणीयम् | प्रायः प्रथमप्रश्नस्य उत्तरं वास्तविकं कारणञ्च सूत्रकार एव जानाति |

The loss of friends and mentors..

Within the span of a single week, I lost two dear friends (and/or mentors) in Coimbatore. One was S.Vaidyanathakrishnan (mama, 81) and the other was Raja Iyengar (Raja Anna, 94).

S.Vaidyanathakrishnan

hqdefault

Mama was an advocate by training. He was the president of the Tyaga Brahma Aradhana Committee in Coimbatore. His devotion to the Sangitamummurti and to Tyagaraja in particular was unique. The first time I met mama was when I was in middle school. At a speech of his after a concert, he was talking about Marugelara and expounding on the beauty of the word, tinnagA. It was a speech that moved me beyond words. I decided right then that this was the kind of person I wanted to emulate. Since then, I have spent countless hours at his home, listening to him as he expounded on the many things I was reading and learning and answering the innumerable questions I had. Not once was I made to feel like a newbie.I was treated with genuineness, generosity and his ever-present eagerness to share his knowledge.Every word of his is etched in my mind as if it were today and more than two decades have passed.  It was again through him that I attended the Muttusvami Dikshitar Jayanti at Tiruvarur where a group from Coimbatore conducted the Navavarana puja. This soon led to Samskrtam. He introduced me to C.H.Raghuttaman, my first Samskrtam teacher and I studied Laghukaumudi from him. There were days when we both had classes together with Raghuttamachar Sir. Every Saturday afternoon was spent in the company of these two wise men and I found their thirst for knowledge, principles  and life goals truly inspiring. Many were his journeys –  Tyagaraja, Rama, Shrivaishnavism  and Periyavachan Pillai, Kshetras, Bhagavadgita, Kamban, Cilappatikaram,  Ambal, Syamasastri, Dikshitar, Adi Sankaracharya, Kanchi Paramacharya, SubrahmanyaBhujangam, his own seniors in law and what he learnt from them. He kindly took me along on these journeys for several hours and showed me glimpses of the little nuggets of wisdom he had gathered. When he went to Italy, he spoke to me about St.Augustine and the gnostics. In anything he saw,  he was the proverbial swan applying nirakshiranyaya taking only the best and discarding the rest. When I met him this August 2016, he shared an article on legal luminaries that he was writing and threw light on the judgements given by justices T.Muthuswami Iyer, Patanjali Sastri, Rajamannar and many others. For the first time,  we talked at length of something other than music, Tamiz and Samskrta and spoke of Indian Independence, British History. Today,  I feel like have lost a huge part of myself and am grieving the loss of a friend, philosopher and guide. He was my father’s friend but ended up being mine as well – for friendship is about shared memories, time spent, shared values and conversations that enrich you as a human being and has nothing with age. Mama will always remain with me in spirit – in his thirst for knowledge, in the values he stood for, in the kind of life he led, having inspired many people through his words, thoughts and actions.

Raja Iyengar

While mama was a charismatic person who took the world by storm through his brilliance , people skills and speech, the learned Raja Anna was the polar opposite. He was what we could call a lamp lit inside a pot with very very few people knowing who he really was and what all he knew. Again, mama was one of the few people who understood Raja Anna and the depth of his learning and love for Tamiz and it was he who gave me his address and telephone number.

Raja Anna’s garb was simple an old white veshTi and a cloth bag. He worked as an Income Tax officer, highly principled and honest and and hardly cared for social mores and status and lived in his own world. He learnt Tamiz from Teivacikamanikkavuntar in Coimbatore, studied Tolkappiam and other texts from him and mastered the art of copying palm leaf manuscripts. He would take a sack of manuscripts, sit at his desk after work and would laboriously copy them onto sheets of paper. I met him in 2014 , again thanks to mama’s introduction. And how much we spoke! What was originally a visit for two hours, ended up over 12-14 hours spreading over two days and he simply would not let me go as he had more information to share. He spoke of his early days of learning Tamil, of how TeivacikamanikkavuNtar would walk for miles together in the hot sun and how he fainted outside a lady’s home in his search for manuscripts. He talked of the history of olai suvadi in KongunAtu, of early publishers such as SaravaNapperumaL Iyer and the many tales of intrigue and pettiness that happened in early Tamil publication history. He was in particular caustic towards Ph.ds in Tamil and felt that they were simply selling Tamil and did not care for it. His eyes had tears as he spoke of TeivaCikamanikkavuNTar and UVeSa.  He recounted the literature of KonguNatu – such as TakkaiRamayanam, the Pazhaiya urai to Kalladam, Pancamarabu and the urai of Perunkathai. As a Srivaishnava, his learning of the Divyaprabandhams were exemplary. He had given talks in All India Radio Coimbatore on Tiruppavai during several Margazhi seasons. Mama had asked me to talk to him about Periyavachan Pillai and so I did. He showed me several books and wanted me to come back so I could learn from him. He spoke of Kamban and explained some verses from the Kambaramayanam. I asked him to give a small pravachanam on the Kambaramayanam and recorded it. He wanted me to come back to learn to copy palm leaf manuscripts, to study more Tamiz from him. He also made me promise that I would write to him and said he may not be able to reply back. And I did. In an age of email and text messages, I wrote a couple of long hand-written letters to him in 2014 and 2015. Unfortunately, I ran out of time to make good of the promise I made to him when I visited India in 2016.

I am honored to have had an opportunity to spend time with them. We shared a beautiful bond of the things we cared deeply about. From them, I learnt the many ways of gathering knowledge and the many ways of knowing.