//shriih// ittham me pratibhaati sanmatir iyam !---Is Paanini a Non-dualist/Monist ?

Esteemed Scholars,

Namaskaarah.

You will excuse me for this wild guess not unsupported by facts that Paanini,initially an unsuspecting dualist, has been pictured in the tradition of the following grammarians as a hardcore non-dualist thanks to the influences of Tantra,Advaita Shaivaagama of Kashmir and Advaita Vedaanta in due course.Paanini ought to be a Shaiva dualist sharing a number of common fundamentals with Vaisheshikas and Naiyaayikas in respect of ontology,metaphysics and epistemology.

The Paninian formations are more close to a multiple universe consisting of multiple reals with mutual interaction.It's basic layout and tenets are closer to atomism and ancient particle physics as one could denote it and not certainly a non-dual eternal verbum with an overdose of spiritual psychology as Bhartrihari and Naagesha etc have laid it to be largely believed.For such views the supportive germination is in the Mahaabhaashya of Patanjali which is considered as the mainstay of Samskrit grammatical edifice.The Vaartikas of Kaatyaayana were either assimilated or replied to therein.

Without contesting the brilliance of the Cuurni in matters of grammatical expedition of the wold of words,well a simple query could be entertained for consideration : Is Phanin unimpeachably faithful to the spirit(s) of Paanini in his basic treatise(s) ?What is it that Patanjali has of his innovated and added ? Has this extended vision and version not placed things in an order other than what initially darbha-pavitra-
paani Paanini could have in his illustrious mind?

Or is this an atiprashna ? To me let's find out causes to believe and not to believe in the possible digressions that have taken place resulting in ascribing attitudes to Paanini which on closer scrutiny would appear to be not his cup of tea !

I humbly submit this to the vidvats to elicit their considered response :

prashnah sa me baala-mataav udeti naa 'tiprashasto yadi vaa sadahsu,
santas tu satpaksha-nipaata-dakshaas tarka-pramaanair na tu ruudha-tantraah.

saprashraya-bahumaanam,

Surendramohan Mishra
Kurukshetram

//shriih//naa 'nartham vidyate 'ksharam /na varno vidyate 'narthah !

Dear Colleagues,
An input by N R Joshi in USA and some comments by scholars thereto in the site of Bharatiiya Vidvat Parishad has made me think on this fundamental issue.Sri Aurobindo i know provides the brightest clue so far after the Tantras in this regard.
This is a moot question regarding the smallest components in a sentence,viz.letters as to whether at this level some semantic content could be made out.Or that these are the merely the scaffolding and the sentence is entirely independent as perhaps implied by Bhartrihari in his celebrated Vaakyapadiiya at "pade varnaa na vidyante" etc.in the first kaanda.I think Bhartrihari is only partially justified if he tells this in a relative vein.But in absolute sense this is not true that like words having no independent meaning in a sentence,letters also do have no significative value.I have contested this in my blog in Sanskrit "surendrashastram.blogspot.com .

I shall be obliged for more enlightening explanation.

Vidushah pranipatya,

Surendramohan Mishra