[Advaita-l] Svarita TP Rules

[Bhadraiah Mallampalli]

I believe the term deerghasvarita may have originated when the acharyas were trying categorize the possible variations already indicated in TP I.41 to 45. This may need a detailed logical proof.
 
Just to illustrate a point, kindly let me take up a discussion what happens if a sutra (e.g., TP.X.3 athAvarNapUrve) is chanted differently how its meaning changes and which rendering is correct as per TP and oral tradition.  (I mean how we chant this sutra itself, not its meaning or how it contibutes to discussion re: svarita or pluta. There are 100 other sutras which can influence svarita/pluta quality of a varna.) 
 
The main assumption is: The relationship between sutras and Shruti (which should over rule what) is a matter that can only be decided between original mantradrashtas (Vashishta et al) and sutrakaras (Paushkarasaadi et al.), provided one's own current teacher is the most competent authority for oneself personally. This is a given conclusion, and we will not need to discuss this.   


My effort is to establish that:


- The sutras are chantable, even if rendering is not as rigid as main texts (Did any one hear ghanapatha used for sutras?)

- Rules of Sheeksha like balam etc must be applied to sutras also

- No sutra text can violate another sutra from its own text (Pratisakhya of YV or RV as the case may) blatantly (unless sutra agrees there are differences across recensions & traditions). 
 
Let us consider the sutra - TP X.3 athAvarNapurve. This can be rendered in many ways (only one of them is correct):

 

- atha varNapurva (This is lazy rendering without the required deergha)

 

- athA varNapurve (Sloka style rendering (no offense) where deergha is assigned to first word. athA is meaningless. varNa can be any varna, which is not the intended meaning.)

 

- atha avarNapurve (Rendered with svarita - padavRtta as athA~varNapurve, correct meaning. avarna is a term which denotes a set of three varnas a, A, a3)

 

- atha AvarNapurve (with simple deergha on second word, over ambitious, wrong meaning. Even though A is very much a valid varna, there is no such term as Avarna as per TP. If the varna A is intended sutrakara should have used AkAra instead, making the sutra athAkArapurve, which is not the case here.)

 

- athAAvarNapurva (with pluta, over ambitious, in correct grammar. athA is meaningless. Avarna is also meaningless as discussed)
 
Therefore it is proved that even if a sutra is written in plain text it must be chanted with a perfect tone and applied in relation to its own position within TP. 


In case of sa'idhana 'a' is clearly udatta and 'i' is anudatta, so 'i' gets the svarita quality (this is straight svarita). Svarita quality arises from its identification with vyana and we feel it as gently massaging the heart for a fraction of a second. 
 
In case of te' bruan which is really te abruan, 'a' gets elided due to another rule in TP (as it is preceded by e or o), so in this case 'e' is udatta and the elided 'a' which is anudatta gets the svarita quality, and so it appears that we have a svarita which doesn't have an associated varna or svarita itself is a varna! but such is not the case here. Svarita is very much a quality of a varna, it is not the varna itself. When a is elided it becomes a piece of vyana and it gets svarita quality. 
 
Vyanjana may be some times involved in svarita, but it is not a required entity. Considering the rule XXI.1 vyanjanam svarangam, svara (even in elided form) takes much of the load.  


Please correct me if I am wrong. 

 

Regards

Bhadraiah      
 
 






_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™: Life without walls.
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_allup_1a_explore_032009