CONTRIBUTION OF THE GRAMMARIANS OF KERALA

TO SANSKRIT GRAMMAR
C.Rajendran.
Kerala has a hoary tradition of Sanskrit stretching to remote antiquity, even before
the times when the land emerged as a cultural entity. This is vouchsafed by
references like that of Daņḍin, who, in his Avantisundarikathā [7th C] makes a
mention of Kerala scholars like Bhavarãta, a commentator of some Kalpasütras
and Matrdatta, his son, who was also a scholar-poet . Studies in Sanskrit grammar
were cultivated with great zeal and diligence in Kerala right from the time of the
introduction of this language to the land. Probably, the logical mind of the
Keralite, which developed abstract sciences like mathematics and astronomy to an
uncanny degree of sophistication had something to do with the progress
grammatical studies registered here. The Sanskrit language deeply penetrated to
the psyche of Kerala, as is attested by the emergence of manipravala literature
during the medieval times, and also by the high percentage of Sanskrit words
found in Malayalam vocabulary. Sanskrit grammar also made a deep impact on the
Kerala mind and it is not surprising that most of the Malayalam Grammatical
treatises themselves were modeled after Panini’s Sanskrit grammar.
A unique feature of Kerala’s grammatical tradition is that unlike in many other
parts of India, non-brahmanical sources like Buddhism also were strong here as
evidenced by the popularity of works like Rupavatara of Dharmakirti, a Simhala
Buddhist scholar. It may be interesting to note that in Candrotsava, a medieval
campu work, there is a humorous reference to people parading as scholars in
grammar just after studying the introductory samjna portion of Rupavatara. From
this, it is evident that even in medieval times, Rupavatara was universally
regarded as a standard primer for the study of Sanskrit grammar in Kerala . In the
Sanskrit curriculum adopted here as a part of Buddhistic traditions, as epitomized
in Rupavatara, the Siddharupa was based on a set of secular words like Vrksa
[tree], kavi [poet], karu [smith], and jaya [wife] in contrast with the Hindu
tradition consisting of words like Rama, Hari, Visnu and Rama, all names of
Hindu gods. To quote N.V.Krishna Warrier,
It does not seem to be historically true to equate Sanskritisation of
South India as Brahmanisation, as done by some. It was the Baudhas
and Jainas, who stood outside the purview of the Varnasrama system
that gave leadership to the propagation of Sanskrit in Ceylon and
South India, and not Brahmins. And they were not averse to give
Sanskrit education to non-brahmins. Just as Sanskrit was
indispensable for Brahmins for the study of Vedas and Vedangas,
Sanskrit was required for non-brahmins to study result-oriented
Sastras like medicine, astrology and architecture.1
1
N.V.Krishna Warrier, Keralapanini’s contribution to Sanskrit grammar, State Institute of languages,
Trivandrum, 1989, p15.

1
 Another significant point is the progressive outlook of Kerala grammarians like
Melputtur Narayana Bhattatiri who readily accepted non-paniniyan traditions also
to validate current linguistic usage. It is needless to point out that the conservative
tendency among Grammarians to uphold tradition and censure freedom in usage
all over the world is much more pronounced in India where Panini and his ilk have
acquired, not without reason, almost a superhuman aura. Against this general
tendency, it is interesting to note that there were a set of grammarians, like
Melputtur, who believed that rules followed usage and not vice-versa, a dictum
acknowledged in principle even by Paninians. Melputtur even takes the radical
stand that other traditions in grammar are as authentic as the Paninian tradition
and controverts the view that the latter alone is authentic .It is a pity that this
aspect of the personality of the great scholar is often overlooked by people who
condemn him, on the basis of heresy, as a staunch traditionalist who derided the
local language.
Of all, there are about sixty grammatical works penned by Kerala authors, which
are now available, including treatises, commentaries and grammatical poems
illustrating usage. The following is a list of the more important ones among them,
with the names of their authors wherever known.
A. Treatises and commentaries
1. Pravesaka of Trkkandiyur Acyuta Pisaroti
2.Prakriyasarvasva of Melputtur Narayana Bhattatiri
3.Apaniniyapramanasdhanata of Melputtur Narayana Bhattatiri
4.Mukhabhusana
5.Arsaprayogasadhutvanirupana
6.Samasacakra
7.Samasanirupana
8.Sarvapratyayamala
9.Paryayapadavali
10.Laghupaniniya of A.R.Rajarajavarma.
11.Manidipika of A.R.Rajarajavarma.
12.Paniniyapradyota of I.C.Chako
13.Prakriyabhasyam of John Kunappilli
B. Grammatical poems illustrating usage
1.Dhatukavya of Melputtur
2.Subhadraharana of Brahmadattanarayana
3.Vasudevavijaya of Vasudeva
4.Paniniyasutrodaharanakavya
5.Govindabhiseka [Sricihnakavya] Krsnalilasuka and Durgaprasadayati.
6.Ramavarmamaharajacarita of Vaikkattu Pachumuttau
7.Suruparaghava of Ilattur Ramaswamisastri
8.Sugalarthamala of Peruntanam Narayanan Namboodiri.

2
 The present paper would focus on the treatises of three important authors, viz.
Acyuta Pisaroti, Melputtur Narayana Bhattatiri and A.R.Rajarajavarma, whose
contributions are of seminal importance to Sanskrit grammar.
2
Simplicity and clarity are the characteristic features of Pravesaka, the preliminary
treatise of grammar penned by Trikkandiyiur Acyuta Pisaroti, the famous teacher
of Melputtur Narayana Bhattatiri. Pravesaka is an ingenious attempt to explain
complicated grammatical principles to children in a lucid manner, through six
hundred verses in Anustubh metre. It is modeled after the Prakriyakaumudi of
Ramacandra, which comments on Paninian sutras on the basis of the subject
matter. The author himself has stated the rationale of his scheme in the following
verses.
Pravesakassamskriyte sabdasastrapravesakah
Sugamo’yamrjurmargo balanam mandacetassam
Pravesakena jananti sabdan vyakaranaksamah
Iksum khadanti nadantah rasam sarkaraya viduh
Darpane panamatre’pi danti pratiphaledyatha.
[This Pravesaka, which is a preliminary work to enter into grammar, is being
composed. It will be a direct and easy path for children of moderate intellect. Unable
to learn grammar as they are, they will be able to understand words through this
Pravesaka. . Those without teeth cannot eat sugar in the sugarcane; yet they can
understand the taste through jaggery. Just as a big elephant is reflected in a mirror as
small as a coin, here the whole of grammar will be illumined through this small work]
A cursory illustration from Pravesaka would show that there is no exaggeration
whatsoever in the author’s claim.
Titpithavadatdhatisthet kinmurdhani kiritavt/
Mit syadantyasvaradurdhvam phale pundravadagamah//
This lucid verse refers to the nature of the agama [augment] type of rules in
Panini enjoined with the help of three types of markers, viz.tit, kit and mit, enjoined by
the rules, adyantau takitau [1.1.46] and midaco’ntyatparah. [7.2.35]. Here the author
explains tit suffix as a stool occupying the base of the stem, and kit as occupying the
crest like a crown and mit occupying the place after the ultimate sonant of the stem just
as a sandal paste mark occupying the forehead of a person.
However, the fact remains that this work is not a treatise explaining Paninian rules
word by word, like regular commentaries, but an attempt to explain the grammatical
principles enshrined in them in memorial verses. It does not enable the students to
understand Paninian sutras as such, even when familiarizing them with actual
grammatical principles. As such, the work is no substitute for regular commentaries.
This fact explains the lack of popularity of this lucid work in Kerala, and it is not
surprising that Melputtur, even while referring to Pisaroti as his venerable teacher does
not quote from the work anywhere in his Prakriyasarvasva.
. 3

3
We now come to Melputtur Narayana Bhattatiri’s Prakriyasarvasva, by far the
greatest grammatical work written by any Keralite author. At the outset of the
work, Melputtur gives the rationale of his treatise against the backdrop of several
other well-known treatises on grammar. The author informs us that it was at the
behest of king Devanarayana of Ambalapula that he ventured to write the treatise.
The king found that derivations are not properly explained in Kasika commentary,
which aims at simply explaining the rules of Panini as such. In works like
Rupavatara and Prakriyakaumudi, on the other hand, though there is derivation of
forms, not all the sutras of Panini are taken up. Hence it is necessary to write a
new comprehensive treatise explaining formations as well as all the rules of
Panini. This was exactly executed with clinical perfection by Melputtur. The work
is divided into two major parts called Purvabhaga and Uttarabhaga and twenty
minor sections called Khandas. The first part deals with classical Sanskrit and the
second part, with Vedic language and also contains the two supplements, called
Unadi and Dhatu. This division shows the sound linguistic orientation of the
author and sharply contrasts with the arrangement in other treatises where classical
and Vedic languages are not so clearly demarcated from each other.
Another significant feature of Prakriyasarvasva is that it takes into account the
fact that language is not static, but a growing phenomenon. As pointed out by
S.Venkitasubraminiya Iyer,
To him grammar is more a dynamic system of science than a static
set of formulas .He holds that grammar should follow language and not
language grammar. Language is a growing phenomenon and whatever
passes into parlance must be admitted into it.2
. As such, Melputtur recognizes the fact that Panini’s grammar is not
exhaustive. He does not hesitate to validate several usages, unrecognized by
Panini by urging the fact that usage by eminent poets would itself sanction their
validity. Thus, discussing the validity of the word visrama, Melputtur maintains
that though not sanctioned by Panini, it must be taken as valid on the ground that
great poets like Murari and Bhavabhuti have used it. Vardhamana also has
validated it.
Visramasyapasabdatvasm vrttyuktam nadriyamahe/
Muraribhavabhutyadinapramanikaroti kah//
Visramassakhinam vacam visramo hrdayasya ca/
Visramahetorityadi mahantaste prayunjate.3//
The Prakriyasarvasva contains some interesing information on dialectical features
of Sanskrit, especially in pronunciation.
1.The author refers to the view of early authorities who equate different phonemes
like r and l, d and l and b and v. He illustrates them thus. Rekha-lekha. Jala-jada,.
Bindu-vindu.

2
Prakriyasarvasva-Acritical Study.p.305.
3
PS.II.p.82

4
2.He also maintains that l is not separate phoneme, but only a variation of d and l
as can be ascertained from forms like ide/ile, mangalam/mangalam etc.
3.Tadagha is written as talagha by him following Kerala pronunciation4
4.r/l difference is illustrated by the pair plavanga/plavngama [monkey]
vs.pravanga/pravangama [frog]5
5.The pronunciation of Padma as Patma in Kerala is referred to, and explained as
due to the misconception that it is derived from pat, instead of pad. 6The
pronunciation of the Northerners is deemed to be the correct one by the author
here.
6.The eastern pronunciation of s as s is attested as in susira as susira 7
7.The pronunciation of lipi as libi is attested 8
To sum up the features of the work, we can quote Venkitasubramoniya Iyer, who
correctly states;
Narayanabhatta has thus given us a grammatical treatise
which is broad in its conception and bold in its execution, novel in its
organization and plentiful in its illustration. He expounds topicwise the
Astadhyayi and its principal auxilaries concisely and clearly, unfettered by
any scholastic rigidity and unhampered by any dogmatic loyalty. With rare
eclecticism in approach and catholicity in outlook, he complements the
Paninian system with what others have to offer; amd proclaims language to
be more important than grammar9
3
As could be expected, Melputtur’s Prakriyasarvasva invited sharp reaction from
orthodox grammarians who could not digest liberties taken with Paninain
grammar. It appears that Vainateya, a scholar, presumably from Coladesa criticized
the work, but another scholar, called Sudarsana, seems to have upheld the views of
Melputtur. This raging controversy prompted Melputtur to write a short
monograph, in the form of a letter addressed to Vainateya, listing his arguments
.The work is titled Apaniniyapramanyasadhana and refutes the argument that
Non-paninian systems of grammar are not valid. According to Melputtur, the
grammar propounded by scholars like Candragomin and Bhoja cannot be regarded
as non-authoritative. There is no valid proof to warrant such a conclusion. Though
the Paninian grammar is universally accepted because of its inherent qualities, it
does not follow that other systems are worthless. Even Panini refers to previous
authorities. Therefore, Melputtur concludes that if there is some contradiction
between Panini and others on specific points, it would be ideal to take these
4
PS.I.p.124.
5
PS.I.p.122
6
padmam hi padyateruktam na padermadhavadibhih/
spasto dakarascodicam takaroktirato bhaved.PS.Unadi 1.130 See also, Venkatasubramoniya Iyer,
op.cit.p.282
7
pragdese he sakarasya sakarah pathyate kvacit.PS.III.p.175.
8
PS.I.p.115.
9
Venkitasubramonia Iyer, op.cit.p.314.

5
principles as optional. Melputtur points out that great authorities like Vyasa,
Sankaracarya and Vidyaranya, and poets like Murari, Sureswara and Sriharsa have
occasionally used unpaninian forms. Thus, through this short treatise, Melputtur
demonstrates that he is a progressive grammarian who accepts accretions and
modifications in tradition as language undergoes change.
4.
We now come to the contributions of A.R.Rajarajavarma, [1863-1918], the
illustrious modern grammarian of Kerala who is mainly remembered for his
comprehensive Malayalam grammar, Keralapaniniyam. As the title of his magnum
opus indicates, A.R. was greatly influenced by the Sanskrit grammatical tradition
of Panini in as much as he conceived the grammar of Malayalam itself in the
framework of Paninian tradition. A.R’s signal contribution to Sanskrit grammar is
his Laghupaniniam, which combines in itself the wisdom of tradition and the
insights of modern linguistics in a remarkable manner. In writing the work, the
main aim of the author seems to have been to retrieve the principles of Paninian
grammar from the obscurity caused by the commentaries. 10 He is highly skeptical
of the dogmatic methods of traditional commentators and pleads for applying
modern critical methodology in the explication of the sutras. A.R. refers to the
indiscriminate practice of commentators in squeezing out intended meanings from
sutras through techniques of yogavibhaga under the assumption that everything
has been said by Panini himself before. He freely criticizes Patanjali for often
losing his way in the labyrinth of arguments.
A.R.maintains that Panini’s work has become an unaccessible fort to enter which
there are only two paths; one is the Kasika tradition which misses the wood for the
trees, as Paninian rules are approached in a bits and pieces fashion there. The other
is the Rupavatara tradition, which, for obtaining formations, has to go foreward
and backward to assort the necessary sutras from different parts of the work. A.R.
pleads for a new methodology, assimilating the positive features of both of theses.
Confining himself to the basic and fundamental aspects of Classical and Vedic
Sanskrit, he has commented only 1954 sutras through Laghupaniniyam. He
proposes a novel scheme of division of subject matter, consisting of four sections
called Siksa [alphabet] Parinistha [formation] Nirukta [Word etymology] and
Akamksa [syntax.] The following is a rough outline of the arrangement.
1.Siksa: Samjna, Paribhasa, Sandhi
2.Parinistha: Stripratyaya, Subanta, Tinanta, Krt, Karaka
3.Nirukta: Taddhita
4.Akanksa: Samasa, Dirukti
A unique feature of the work is the amazing ease with which the author has
condensed very intricate points to brief memorial verses. His five verses giving the
gist of the Asiddhakanda of Astadhyayi is a case in point, which led N.V.Krishna
Warrier to compare this feat to the condensation of a multitude of data to a floppy

10
Introduction to Laghupaniniya.

6
disc.11. A general rule [utsarga] and its exception [apavada] are likened to the
sweeping statement and its subsequent modification as an afterthought. A.R.
demonstrates that many of the techniques used in Astadhyayi like markers and
technical terms were prevalent even before Panini’s time .The survival of
Astadhyayi and the extinction of other systems, however suggests the fact that the
former must have been doubtlessly superior to the latter in some respects .A.R
suggests that Panini used historical methods [agamika] in his derivation with
which he could explain word etymology in a better manner than by simply explain
words on an ad hoc basis. [abhyuhika].
The foregoing survey, eventhough by no means exhaustive, shows the richness of
the contributions made by Kerala authors to the tradition. Kerala authors
approached grammar from the point of view of usage; they had a pluralistic
perspective of language .It is, therefore, not surprising that we find several
scientific principles in this tradition.

11
N.V.Krishna Warrier Contribution of Keralapanini to Sanskrit Grammar.p.48.