·वरेन्द्र-अनुसन्धान-समिति-ग्रन्थमाला
काशिकाविवरणपञ्जिका।
बोधिसत्वदेशीयाचार्यचौजिनेन्दबुद्धिपादविरचिता
शास्त्रिीश्रीशचन्द्रचक्रवत्तिभट्टाचार्येण संस्कृता ।
THE
KASIKA VIVARANA PANJIKA
(THE NYASA)
A COMMENTARY ON VAIANA-JAYADITYA'S KASIKA
JINENDRA BUDDHI.
EDITED
WITH INTRODUCTION AND OCCASIONAL NOTES
-
mower
BY
SRISH CHANDRA CHAKRAVARTI, BA
READER OF SANSKRIT, DACCA UNIVERSITY.
Vol. I
(Adhyayas 14).
PUBLISHED BY
THE VARENDRA RESEARCH SOCIETY,
RAJSHAHI, BENGAL
1913-1916
[All rights reserved]

·वरेन्द्र-अनुसन्धान-समिति-ग्रन्थमाला
काशिकाविवरणपञ्जिका।
बोधिसत्त्वदेशीवाचार्यथोजिनेन्दबुद्धिपादविरचिता
शाखिौशीशचन्द्रचक्रवत्तिभट्टाचार्येव संस्खता।
THE
KASIKA VIVARANA PANJIKA
(THE NYASA)
A COMMENTARY ON VAMANA JAYADITYAS KASIKA
JINENDRA BUDDHL
EDITED
WITE INTRODUCTION AND OCCASIONAL NOTES
BX
SRISH CHANDRA CHAKRAVARTI, BA
READER OF SANSKRIT, DACCA UNIVERSITY.
Vol. II. Part I.
(Adhyaya 5)
PUBLISHED BY
THE VARENDRA RESEARCH SOCIETY
RAJSHAHI, BENGAL
1919
[All rights reserved].

·No text on this page.

·वरेन्द्र-अनुसन्धान-समिति-ग्रन्थमाला
काशिकाविवरणपञ्जिका।
बोधिसत्त्वदेशीयाचार्यश्रौजिनेन्दबुद्धिपादविरचिता
शास्त्रिीश्रीशचन्द्रचक्रवत्तिभट्टाचार्येण संस्कृता।
THE
KASIKA VIVARANA PANJIKA
(THE NYASA)
A COMMENTARY ON VAJIANI-JAYADITYA'S KASIKA
BY
JINENDRA BUDDHI.
EDITED
VITH INTRODUCTION AND OCCASIONAL NOTES
BY
SRISH CHANDRA CHAKRAVARTI, BA
READER OF SANSKRIT, DACCA UNIVERSITY
Vol. II. Part II.
(Adhyaya )
PUBLISHED BY
THE VARENDRA RESEARCH SOCIETY,
RAJSHAHI, BENGAL
1924
[All rights reserved]

·No text on this page.

·KASIKA VIVARANA PANJIKA Vol II शुद्धिपत्रम् पृष्ठायाम् पडतो अशुद्धम् शुद्धम् २४ २५ १८६ २१ २२ २० ३११ १५ लशून लशुन कश्चिन् • कश्चित् क्वचिन्. क्वचित व्यवधानोऽपि व्यवधानेऽपि एतश्च विशेषं दर्शयति...ननु विशेष सम्बन्ध कन्निति कविति समरणी शमरणों त्यवन्तः त्यवन्तः नोपगमें सोपसर्ग संहत संहित एकोऽर्थों एकोऽभिन्नोऽर्थों डिति डिति ३२२ ८,१२ ३५४ १८ 99 9 ५२८ ङकिति ङ किति ५३० ५४० ५५६ 4y अवाप्युरिति अवाप्सुरिति

·No text on this page.

·तथाप्यते KASIKA VIVARANA PANJIKA Vol III शुद्धिपत्वम् पृष्ठायाम् पडतो अशवम् मम्मान सन्मान ७४८ तथाप्यात बाधको बाधको यौविशेष्ये त यो विशिष्यते भावार्थ भवार्थे ८१८ चिए मलोष चिण्णलो पृतान पृक्ता वचनमादित्य विधायने विधीयते 0 ७७८ ८७१ ८८५ २५ प्रयोल, प्रयोक्ता १ कारणं ८३० षा पुत्वभाव यदपेक्ष कुञ्चीति लडन्तम्। येषां पुत्रभावः यदपेचं 99 ८८५ ८८५ कञ्चति and "परत्तु न्यास एहोत." is to go before “भाष्ये त्वयं. १००३ २४ वकार गूरी गुरी १००४ २१ इट ईट दोधिक दोधक २० खयम् खयम् १०८१ ११ किप्रत्ययान्तः किप्रत्ययान्ताः २२ तदुत्तरमित्येष तदुत्तरपदमित्येष विधि विधे १० ततेहा ११२२ तोहा मचि मचि "

·No text on this page.

·II + BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE MSS CID IN PREPAPING THF PPESS COPY of the काशिकाविवरणपञ्जिका। (1) The first MS (a) contain, I 4 (A), II 123, III I, VII 2 and VIII 1 It is owned by the Rajshahi Government College For details see notes in P 332 and P 790 vol I (2) The second MS (1) contain I 2 3 4 and II 1 2 3 4 Details die given in note P 332 vol I (3) The thud MS (H) 15 with only I and II 1 (1) The 4th MS (51) cotainning I 2, III 1 2 and VI 1+, At the of 1-2 it has nu fardan i At the end of its 3-2 Is its rangfauhu पुस्त कमिदम् । लिखित श्रीजगन्मोहनसेनेन। शकाब्दा १७३० आषाढस्य तौरदिवमे । शक १७३० 1- 1808 AD Its pages were found torn in some places But it is a collcct copy At the end of 6-4 is इन्दुविन्दुमुनिक्षौणीशाके सिहगते रवौ। व्यालखि न्यासटीकेय श्रीकृष्णानन्दशमणा ॥१॥ sefaguraaiutafi is pool that is 1779 AD Elsew here is 47 2078 that is 1817 D See details in note P 790 vol I (5) The 5th MS (a) contains VII 1, 2, 3, 4 and VIII 1 2 3 4, Foi fuller account of this and of the MISS 11, 12, 20 and 21 vide pp 883-1 in vol II It is an excellent, faithful and very correct MS got from Bengal We have in the 5th MS VIII 2 though mutilated This and the प्रत्याहार Section and 1 I are very iaie in Bengal, and after much tiouble we had been successful in procuring the Bengal recension of them (6) The Sixth MS (2+i) contains III 1 (7) The 7th MS (51) is with III 2 See note P 790, vol I (8) The Sth MS () is with III, 4 See note P 790, vol ] (9) The 9th MS () It was from the Deccan College Poona, kindly lent by the late lamented Professoi Ghate It has FRETT, I 1 2 3 4, IV 1 2 3 4 and V 1 2 3 4 See page 331 and Page 1061 notes, vol I (10) The 10th MS (9) is with V 13 Its copyist and owner was one श्रीकान्तशम्मी। (11) The 11th MS (95) containing II 1, 2, VI 3 and VII 1 2 3 4 It has at the end fafcat iTTAHT LEUTI A veiy good and collect MS (A) 1-4 indicates the fourth pada (or section) of the 1st Adhyaya and similarly 2 1 or 2-1 is the 1st pada of the 2nd Adyaya and so on.

·( 4 ) (12) The 12th MS (5) has 1 3 II 1 2 3 , IV 1 VII 1 2 3 1 and VIII 1 4 see note P 484 (13) The 13th MS (1) ls with RTETT, 11 23 and II 1 2 3 4 sec note 331 vol I This is the Bengal MS containing the game and I 1 01 the beginning of the FTTH I It is the property, and is now in the office, of the a fase society (14) The 14th MS (5) with VIII 3 is from the village street, Rajshahi It has at the end श्रीशिवरामशर्मण खाक्षरम् । शकाब्दा १६४६ 10 1724 A D (15) The 15th MS (T) is with VI 4 (16) The 16th MS (a) is with 1 4 sce note p 332, vol I (17) The 17th MS (a) is from the Deccan College, Poona It contains II 1 2 3 4 See note P, 484 vol I (18) The 18th MS (?) has VII 2 and VIII + vide note P 884 vot II (19) Thc 19th MS (a) has VII 3 4 vide note P 884 vol II (20) The 20th MS (a) is with VII 1 2 3 and VIII 1 2 3 At the end of 7-1 is THHT 79TT 864 10 1773 A D At the end of VIII 1 is fast Tatetatra i अत्र शेषभागस्य दशनामावान्न स लिखित । So it is incomplete Infact the Vedic portions of the Book were mostly lost in Bengal It was from other provinces of India that they were to be piocued (21) The 21st MS (U) ls with II 1, VII 1 + and VIII 1 3 (22) The 22nd MS (3) with III 3 and IV 2 It is a copy wiitten in Devanagar, duly compared and certified, from the MS on the palm leaves in Canarese characters at the Sravan Belgolah Jam temple, Mysoie It was got in 1915 See note P 791, vol 1 (23) The 231d MS (@) with VI 3 4 and VIII 4, was got from the village वद्यवेलघरिया, Rajshahi, from the house of पण्डित शिवचन्द्रसिद्धान्त । (24) The 21th MS Is with III 3 See note P 791 vol I (25) The 25th MS () is also a copy in Devanagai certified as duly compared with the original from the afoi esaid Siavan Belgolad MS prepared like the copy of the MS XXII Its contents are VI 1 2 and VIII 1 2 But VI, 2 VIII 2 were incomplete (26) The 26th MIS (a) is with VI ? This is a poition of the Kasmir MS and a copy in Devanagai, certified as duly compared It has been got from the Superintedent Research Deparment,Siinagai, Jamoo Kasmu State, Kasmir (27) The 27th MS (6) contains VI 2, and VIII I 2 It has been procured from the Oriental Libialy Barada, Gaequare's State The MS in this Libialy also is not complete and contains only V, VI, VII and some poitions of VIII the Devanagal characters and were written in 1463 Haqie 1406 A D I am indebted to Mi Benoytosh Bhattacharya MA Superintendent of the aforesaid Libialy for photo graphed facsimiles of the portions of V 2 & VIII 1 & 2, while we were extremely in want of them It Is in ·APPENDIX I After the printing of thr VI 2, ba-cd mainly on the Kasmir MS had been finished, the photoed facsimiles of the Baloda MS of the same came to us On comparison it is found that the lattei contains some differently worded and some additional and some common statements in the Sutras 197 and 199 of VI 2 though all othcı Sutias of the section arc identical in both As the Kasinu MS given to us was a tran-cript and the Baroda one is a photoed facsimile, the original of which had been written so carly as 1406 A D the lattei secms to be the genuine thing So the version as found in the Barada MS iegarding the Sutras 197 and 199 of VI 2 is printed below In the case of the iemaining Sutias of the entire Nyasa the MSS from the different quarters have been found throughout as piecisely identical excepting a few slight and occasional variants All these variants have been noticed in due places १९७। हिविझ्या पादनमूर्धस बहुव्रीहौ । हित्रिभ्यामिति। दिग् योगलक्षणा (२।३।२८) पञ्चमौ। पाददनमूर्धस्विति । यस्य च भावेन भावलक्षणमिति ( २।३।६७) भावलक्षणा सप्तमौ। दिपात् निपादिति। पादस्य लोपोऽहस्त्यादिभ्यः ( ५।४।१३८)। संख्यासुपूर्वस्येत्यकार- लोपः ( ५।४।१४० )। पादशब्दो धजन्तत्वादाादात्तइति पाच्छब्दश्चाद्य दात्तएव भवति। हिदनिति। वयसि दन्तस्यति ( ५।४।१४१) दनादेशः। दन्तशब्द आद्य दात्त इत्युक्तम्। तेन दनादेशोऽपि स्थानिवद्भावेनाद्य दात्तएव भवति । हिमूर्धति। मूर्धशब्दः श्वब्रुक्षन्पूषन् प्लौहनित्यादिना रन-(उण, ११५७ ) प्रत्ययान्तो निपात्यते । तेनाद्य दात्तः। मूर्धनित्यादि। दित्रिभ्या षो मू, इति ( ५।४।११५) षः समासान्त प्राप्नोति । स न कृतः। तेनान नान्तएव मूर्धशब्दः । किं पुनः कारणमकृतसमासान्त एव मूर्धशब्द उपात्त इत्यत आह तस्य त्यादि। यदि कृतसमासान्त उपादौयेत तदा सत्येव समासान्तेऽन्तोदात्तत्वं स्यात् । असति न स्यात् । तस्मादसत्यपि समासान्तेऽन्तोदात्तत्व यथा स्यादित्येतत् प्रयाजनमकृत- समासान्तनिर्देशस्य । ननु च नित्यमेव समासान्तेन भवितव्यम् । तत् कुतस्तस्या- सत्त्वमित्यत आह एतदेवेत्यादि। यदिदमस्य प्रयोजनस्य सम्पादनार्थमकत- समासान्तस्य मूर्धज् शब्दस्योपादानम् एतदेव ज्ञापकम् अनित्यः समासान्तो भवतीति । तेन हिमूर्धत्यादिप्रयोग उपपन्नो भवति। यदि तह्य कृतसमासान्त इह मूर्ध शब द उपात्त एवं सति यदा समासान्तः क्रियते तदान्तोदात्तेन न भवितव्यम् । कृतसमासान्तस्य शब दान्तरत्वादित्यत आह यद्यपौत्यादि । इह हि बहुव्रीहिः कायौं। तदेकदेशित्वञ्च समासान्तस्य । एकदेयोऽस्यास्तीत्येकदेशो। स बहुव्रीहि ·( 2 ) कल्याण- अत्र रेकदेशो यस्य समासान्तस्य स तदेकदेशी । तद्भावस्तदेकदेशित्वम् । एतेन बहुव्रीह्य- वयवत्वं समासान्तस्य दर्शयन कृतसमासान्तस्य शब दान्तरत्व निरस्यति। तदेव यस्मादिह बहुव्रीहिः कार्यों तदेकदेशित्त्वञ्च समासान्तस्य तस्माद् यदापि समानान्त' क्रियते तदापि पक्षेन्तोदात्तत्वं भवत्येव। कल्याणमूर्धेति । शब दो नविषयस्येत्याधु दात्त: (फिट, २६ )। इयो मूर्धेति । नित्यमेव समासान्तोदात्तत्व भवति । १६६ । परादिश्छन्दसि बहुलम् । परशब देनात्र सकथशब दएव ग्राह्यत इति। प्रत्यासत्तेः । स हि पूर्वसूत्रे सन्निहितत्वात् प्रत्यासन्नः। यद्य व परशब दग्रहणमनर्थकम् । सक्थशब.दएव यत्रानुवतिष्यते। नेतदस्ति । बहुब्रोहिग्रहणमप्यत्रानुवत्ततइति तस्याप्याद्यु- दात्तत्वमाशयत। अञ्जिमकथमिति । अञ्जिशबद प्रातिपदिकम्बरेणान्तोदात्तः । अथाप्यञ्ज शब दान् मत्वर्थइनिः क्रियत एवमप्यन्तोदात्तएव । लोमशसक्थमिति । (A) लोमादिपामादिपिच्छादिभ्यः शनेलच इति (५२।१००) शप्रत्ययान्त- वालोमशशब दोऽन्तोदात्तः। ऋज़बाहुरिति । कुनश्चेत्यधिकृत्य ( उण, ११२२) अजिंदशिकम्यमिपशिबाधामृजिपशितुगधुगदोघहकारश्चेति (उण, ११२७) कुप्रत्ययान्तौ ऋजुबाहुशब दौ। तेनान्तोदात्तो। वाक्पतिश्चित्पतिरिति । षष्ठीसमासावेती। अनोत्तरमाद्युदात्तं भवति । बहुलग्रहणात्। विभाषा- ग्रहणे हि प्रकृते बहुलग्रहणेन यत् सिध्यति तदर्शनार्थं मुपन्यस्तः । व्यत्ययो बहुल ततइति। यत एवं बहलग्रहणेनानन कार्य सिध्यति तेन व्यत्ययो बहुल भवति। ननु च पूर्वमेव खराणा व्यत्ययो विहितः। सत्यमेतत्। तस्यैव तु प्रपञ्चोऽयम्। परादि रुदाहृतइति। वाक्पतिश्चित्पतिरिति । 'अत्र परग्रहणेनोत्तरपदमुक्तम्। अन्तोदात्तप्रकरणइति । अन्तः (६।२।१४३)। थाथवक्ताजबित्रकाणामित्यादौ (६।२।६४४ )। पूर्वपदान्तोदात्तप्रकरणइति । अन्तः (६।२।९२)। सर्व गुणकारत्मा इत्यादौ (६।२।८३)। पूर्वपदाद्य : दात्तप्रकरण इति। आदिरुदात्त. (६।२।६४) सप्तमोहारिणौ धम्येऽहरण इत्यादी (६।२।६३)। एवमादि सवं संग्रहीत भवतीति। बहुलग्रहणेन । यतस्तेन विभाषाग्रहणे प्रकृते बद्दलग्रहनं कृत मित्यभिप्रायः। त्रिचक्रादोना पूर्वमेव पूर्वोत्तरपदस्वर उक्तइति पुनरिह नोच्यते ॥ इति षष्ठाध्यायस्य द्वितीयः पादः ॥२॥ (A) मुद्रितकाशिकायान्तु त्वाष्ट्रौ लोमसर था विति पाठ । न्यासकारस्तु लोमशसकथाविति पठति ।

·The Fifttfattarget i INTRODUCTION. शेषाशेषार्थविटु यो मा शेत्राशेषगवीः स्फुटम । विशिष्याव्यापयद वन्द त प्रशयनीयमम ॥ १ ॥ Before entering into some accounts of Tinendra Buddhi, the main facts hitherto ascertained in connection with the chief grammarians of the Panını school, who had preceded that author, may be briefly noticed here In absence of authentic details, they are no doubt often fou id full of confusion and nofit for yielding any sure conclusion Yet the importance of the su'vject demands a review of them and hence this digression is made regarding those authors auf! I This apcient and great grammarian of India is know. only by his aphorisms (Sutras) They form his work called the 12137 or the ( nifuata ) 27 He did not amplify these Sutras with any explanations or illustrations As to the grammarians anterior to afuff, the larat furnishes the names of ten sages 114 आपिशलि, काश्यप, गाग्य , गालव, चाकवर्मग, भारद्वाज, शाकल्य, शाकटायन, #74 and 112797, (1) Panini's age is a debatable matter Scholars have ass gned different periods to it Some give 2400 BC, some 900 B C, some 650 B C, some 550 BC, and others 350 B C as his age The कथामरित्- सागर makes पाणिनि, कात्यायन and व्याडि all co-eval with the king Nanda of Magadha But as a story book, it may not be true in its chronology Raj shekhara's statement in his 137TATET merely asserts that these sages were examined and put on test at Patalıputra and obtained fame But it does not imply that they lived there at one and the same time or even assembled there ever simultaneously (2) So no reliance can be put on such statements as to their synchronisation The word 1977 ocwurs in his sutra 4 T 49, in 4 I 161 and यस्क in (2463) We find also in the अष्टाध्यायी the words अति, भृगु, कुतस, Fara in 3 2 21 (1) Though in the गणपाठ, पौष्करसादि occurs in the तौललादि (81६१), काशकृतस्त्र in the उपकादि (रा४।१९), दाक्षायण in the ऐषुकायादि (४।२।५४) and व्याडि 1s in the क्रौड्यादि (४।१।८०) गहादि (४२६६), and छावग्रादिगण (६।२।४८, they cannot be taken as coming from Panını himself The 1913 was not the work of a single author It was subsequently enlarged by others (2) "श्रूयते च पाटलिपुत्र शास्त्रकारपरीक्षा । अत्रीपवर्षवर्षाविह पाणिनिपिङ्गलाविह व्याडिः। वररुचिपतञ्जली इह परीक्षिता; खातिमुपजग्मुः ॥” इति काव्यमीमासायाम् ।

·, , - , वसिष्ठ, गोतम, अद्विरम् (2 4 65) आगना, कोडिन्य (2470) कटु (4 1.71) ट्रीणा, अन्धक, वृषि, कुरु, सौवौर, वासुदेव, अर्जुन, भारत (6 2 38), इक्ष्वाकु (6 8 178) मिवयु, गान्धारि and such others and some geographical terms such as उशौमर, गौड (6 2 100), वाहीक, विगतं, मगध, सूरमस, कलिङ्ग, कोशल, आजाद, साल्ख, अश्मक, कम्बोज, अवन्ति, कुन्ति, विपाश, सुवास्तु, कापिशी, काशी, मद्र, वृजि, युगन्धर, कच्छ, विदूर, सिन्धु, तक्षशिला, तूदी, शलातुर, वर्मती, कूचवार, सरयू (6 8 178), केकय, चर्मणतो, चामराट, &c as well, in addition to such aphorisms as सकलादिभ्यश्च (4 2 75), पश्चादियौधेयादिभ्योऽणजौ (5 3 IIT), &c These are taken as good hints for determining his time. (3) The aphorisms कुमार श्रमणादिभिः (२।१७०), पाराशय॑शिलालिभ्या भिक्षु नटसूत्रयोः (२११०) कमन्दकशाश्वादिनिः (४।३।११), मस्करमस्करिणौ वेणुपरिव्राजकयोः (६।११५४), निर्वाणोऽवाते (८.२।५०) &c indicate that there had existed at the time when the Grammarian lived, or before him, some other religion or religions side by side with Brahminism This is clear enough from the meanings which are assigned by the भाष्यकार. to the words श्रमण and मस्करिण । There is no doubt that Sanskrit was a colloquial language of the people cf Northern India ( आर्यावर्त ) for some centuries in ancient time It ceased to be so, probably some two hundred years after patanjali' date Though thus dead, it remained still long enough as the exclusive property of the Brahmios. The Buddhist, always jealous of it, began at first to adopt a sort of broken Sanskrit and ultimately made Pali their chief tongue Patanjalı, in the second century BC, testified that Sanskrit was a current language spoken even by ordinary people He speaks of a charioteer, certainly not a Brahmin, correcting the derivation of a Sanskrit word misinterpreted by a student of Grammar (भाग्य 2 4 6) Again in the भाष्य of 8 ? 83, we find a man geering another in Sanskrit (4) Nay, long before the भाष्यकार, Sanskrit had been also . (3) Dr SK Belvalkar, Professor, Deccan College, Poona, says "Here the Par sus or the Persians and the Asurs or the Assyrians are mentioned as an sigailfang or an organisation of mercenary fighters similar to the Greeks of the 4th century B C or the Germans of the 17th century The Persians were blotted out as a political power in B C 329 and the Assyriads in 538 B C” (Systems of Sanskrit Grammar) The city 81571, Gr Sangal, was totally destroyed by Alexander in 326 BC (4) (1) एव हि कश्चिद वैयाकरण आह "कोऽस्य रथस्य प्रवेतेति' । सूत आह "अहमायुष्मनस्य रथस्य प्राजितति । वैयाकरण श्राह "अपशब्द इति।" सूत आह "प्राप्तिजी देवानाप्रियः । विष्टिज्ञ. । दृश्यत एतद्रूपमिति' । वेयाकरण आह "अहो खलनेन दुरुतेन बाध्यामह इति'। सूत आह 'न खलु वेब सूत । सुवरेव सूत । यदि सुवते कुतसा प्रयोक्तव्या दु सूतेनेति वक्तव्यम्। (भाष्य ( 2 4 56) (11) "स्थालो अह भोः।" 'आयुष्मानेधि स्थालिन्।" "मैषा मम सज्ञा स्थालीति"। 'कि तहि" , "दण्डिन्यायो मम विवक्षित । स वक्तव्य । स्थालौ अह भोः । “आयुष्मानधि स्थाखिन् ।" "न मम दण्डिन्यायो विवक्षित ।" "कि वह " "सज्ञा ममैषा।" "असूयक स्वममि जाण । नल प्रत्यभिवादन मर्हसि । भिद्यस्व वृषल। स्थालिन् । -(भाष्य, 8 2. 83) दृटिन्याय alludes to the etymological meaning of the word दण्डिन् 1 °e अस्त्यर्थ, दण्डाऽस्त्यस्येति । So न , ·[ 3 ] language of conversation Otherwise Panini would not have taken so inuch care to prepare hundreds of Sutras on accents of words, with extreme nicety and sharp minuteness Consider the Sutra. उदक् च विपाश (4 2 74) It regulates the derivation of such words as IT, it, &c with affixes 151 and y, without altering the sense, for ditferent accepts in them They were pronounced in one way by the people living in the north bank of the river faqat (Beas) and in a different way by those who lived on its Southern bank Struck with such keen knowledge and nice discrimination of the sage, Galfer the author of the Kasıkavritti, speaks out in his praise Ha fet aia wafite (fl, 4 2 74 ) Such care and exertions to preserve the purity of a language must have been taken when it was in its balmy days of glory and in the full vigour of its coloquial state It could not be at a time when Pali was slowly and gradually setting aside Sansk it I he Sutra. भिद्योङयौ मर्द (3 I 115) presents the nanies of two rivers It is wholly obscure where and when these rivers existed How and when they were defunct are also mysterious They had certainly existed once There is no reason why the grammarian should falsely or uselessly give us a Sutra, referring to two never existing rivers The terminologist cannot be supposed either crazy or sportive to issue such things merely from his imagination So the disappearance of the rivers fra and 31 at a time somehow immemorial, may stand against the view which alleges uifufa as fiourishing so late as the fourth century BC Considering all these and the references cited above from his Sutras, and taking aifs as the author of the # and prior to alerga because of his naming the former in the Vartikas, we differ from the great scholars who take the Grammarian as a man of about the time of Nanda the king of Magadha We think him as flourishing at least half a century earlier than 500 B C The Grammarian shows his marvellous acquaintance with ancient manners and customs of the people of several countries The term mga comes from It was a the Sutra 1218 (4 3 42) and means a sort of silk cloth production of industry which is said to have been current only in China in time sufficiently old (5) Here aifufa supplies a very early information regarding cocoon Consider again the Sutra मनुष्यतत्स्थयोवुन (4 2 134), fuq means EMAREFA If eifca be a $711 e the name of a person, its last vowel is to be pronounced as prolated (ya) in re address (gafwata ) But in its derivative (ifalar ) sense, its last vowel shall not be ga i (5) कौशय कमिकोशोत्थमित्यमरः । "कोशे सभूत कौशय वस्त्रम् । कढिरेषा । तेन क्रिमौ न भवति । खनकोशाति" काशिका। मिर्माभिकौशयमुपाचवाणमिति कालिदासः। As such silk used to come from China, it was often called =1711! We have in FISCH,"2121- शकमिव केती प्रतिवात नीयमानस्य', again "चीनाशके कल्पितकेतुमालम् ।'

·[ 4 ] By this, such forms as काच्चक, मैन्धवक, वार्णवक, काश्मोरक, कौलूतक & are formed from terms कच्छ, मिन्ध, वर्ण, काश्मोर, कुलूत, & which indicate countries and the derivative words imply the residents of those countries as well as their manners and customs eg काच्चकी मनुष्य । काच्छकमस्य हसित जल्पितम्। काच्छिका चूड़ा। सैन्धवको मनुष्यः। मैन्धवकमस्य हसि त जल्पितम्। सेन्धविका चूडा and so on Take another, 9191 anteay ( 2 4 20) A kind of 21 (quilt) used in the country of start acquired a technical sense on account of some peculiarties in it It was to be in neutre when at the end of some compound words The sage had observed this and bearing it in mind recorded the fact 1 his Sutra His acquaintance with and repeated reference to such matters of Western India leads one to think of him as a native of that part of the country The न्यासकार and others called him argila connected with the country Targe which was in the modern district of Peshwar in the N W Frontier province of British India Panini's ancestors lived there The Chinese pilgrim Hiuen Thsang even speaks of gigt as the birthplace, and also of a statue having been erected there, of the Grammarian But the Indian Scholars derive tagita in connection with his f49* (the residence of his ancestors) and not in connection with his birth place or faig (1e his own residence) tagit नाम ग्राम'। सोऽभिजनोऽस्यास्तौति शालातुरीयः पाणिमिः । called दाक्षीपुत्र and his mother a. दाक्षी। therefore one of his maternal ancestors There had been one arra among his paternal forefathers The grandson or any subsequent successor of पणिन् was पाणिन। qoft was either the great-grandson or any later progeny of this area ! This is found from the etymology of the word nifafa as it is derived with the affir 35t applied to the term afya, 1a the grammatical sense of युवन् । There is a statement in the पञ्चतन्त्र-"सिहो व्याकरणस्य कर्तुरहरत प्राणान् प्रियान् qifa” and it may or many not be true There are 3996 Sutras in all in the gezigt i The sage 1S SO was 2015 "बीणि सूबसहखाणि तथा नव शतानि च । षमबतिच सृवाणा पाणिनि कृतवान् स्वयम ॥ १ ॥ By the end of the 8th century A Da Sanskrit Poem named the mat- जयकाव्य or the जाम्बवतीविजयकाव्य was composed by a writer who was clever enough in palming his book off under the name of arfufa It was that the dramatist, preceptor to her king of Kanoj (AD 890-910 AD), who seems to have given much prominence to an assertion that Panını had been the author of this stel Hence probably much value was set on and some undue regard paid to it, by a few classical authors such as grqe, grate, &cc The sage could, in fact, have no connexion with this book which was unduubtedly a later Production ·[5] a vas (2) ज्याडि। No grammarian is heard of in the interval between afufy and at, If aufs be not such a one कात्यायन cites the authority of व्याडि in वार्तिक of his attached to I 2 64 VIZ द्रव्याभिधान व्याडि'-which is explained by पतञ्जलि as ट्रव्याभिधाम व्याडिराचाय्यो न्याय्य मन्यते । To the Sutra आचाव्योपसर्जनयातेवासी (६५.३६), पतञ्जलि cites the illustration आपिशलपाणिनीयच्याडीयगौतमौयाः। कुणि and चूर्णि are named as prior to पतञ्जलि। But how they are connected with कात्यायन in time is not known भर्तृहरि says in his वाक्यपदीय (6) that there was a grammatical work called संग्रह। When it was obsolete, पतञ्जलि prepared his Great Commentary-the महाभाष्य-which the सग्रहप्रतिकचुक, that 1s, the substance or essence of the संग्रह। But the 1914 deals chiefly with the Vartikas by कात्यायन and the मग्रह had probably to do nothing with them So the FETHIET is called the सग्रहप्रतिकञ्चक, probably because it had adopted and incorporated the grammatical tenets and principles set down in the संग्रह। व्याडि Is also supposed to have collected together all aftwint or the Sutras of the antepanını grammarians, which have been tacıtly adopted as authoritative by the common tators and the followers of the अष्टाध्यायी। पतञ्जलि names one दाक्षायण as the author of the मग्रह। lo illustrate the Sutra. 2 3 26, he says-"शोभना खलु दाक्षायणस्य मग्रहस्य कृतिः। शोभना खलु दाक्षायणन सग्रहस्य कृतिः।' In 4 2 60, he puts वार्तिकसत्रिक (7) साग्रहसूत्रिक , मवार्तिकः, समग्रहः । In the पस्पशा ( or the commencing chapter of the महाभाष्य ) is the passage संग्रह एतत प्राधान्येन परीक्षितम् and again सग्रहे तावत कार्य प्रतिबन्दिभावान् मन्यामह नित्यपय्यायवाचिनी agufafai Besides, he leads us to a fact that the author of the 4 was a kinsman to Panini In the भाष्य of I 2 20 and again of VII I 27 standa. the Stanza--- सर्वे सर्वपदादेशा दाक्षीपुतस्य पाणिने । एकदशविकार तु नित्यत्वमुपजायते ॥ १॥ from which Panini's mother is found to be a दाक्षी, a relation to दक्ष। दाक्षी 1s derived from दाक्षि by डष under इती मनुष्यजात. 14 1 95) दाक्षि again comes from दक्ष by the patronymic इञ् (4 I 95' So दाक्षि is a descendant of दक्ष and co eval with दाक्षी Now platgy is a gat descendant of erf by Jiraila (4 I 101) ID Sanskrit grammar, a gar descendant is either a great grandson or any of his - (6) प्रायेण सक्षेपरुचीनल्य विद्यापरिग्रहान् । सप्राप्य वैयाकरणाम् संग्रह समुपागते ॥ १ कृतेऽथ पतञ्चलिना गुरुणा तीर्थदर्शिना। सर्वेषा न्यायवीजाना महाभाष्ये निबन्धने ॥ २ ॥ श्रलागाधे गाम्भीर्यादुत्तान इव सौष्ठवात्। तमिलतबुद्धीना वावास्थित निश्चय ॥३॥ वैजिसौभवहर्य शुष्कतानुसारिभि । आर्षे विलाविते ग्रन्थ सग्रहप्रतिकञ्चुके । ४ ॥ य पतञ्जस्लिशिष्य भ्यो बाटो व्याकरणागम । कान स दाक्षिणात्येषु ग्रन्थमात्र व्यवस्थित ॥५॥ ( वाक्यपदीय दितीयकारद, लाक 484488) (7) Another reading here is affiata from the base sa ·[6] ndants So a Giapau cannot but be at least three generations later than दाक्षि। Thus the distance in time between दाक्षीपुत्र (or पाणिनि ) and दाक्षायण can not be less than at least two generations Now पुण्यराज (8) a commentator of the वाक्यपदीय asserts, in explaining the stanzas प्रायेण सक्षेपरुचीन् &c quoted above, that "इह पुग पाणिनीयेऽस्मिन् व्याकरणे व्यायः परचितं ग्रन्थलक्षपरिमाण सग्रहाभिधान निबन्धनमासीत् । तच्च कालवशात् सुकुमारबुद्धौन् वैयाकरणान् प्राप्यास्तमुपागतम्।" So, if ब्याडि be the author of the सग्रह, he is a दाक्षायण । The सग्रह 1s also mentioned in the काशिका in 4 2 60 viz -साग्रहसूविक: and ससंग्रह and again in VII 376 समग्रह व्याकरणमधीयते । In 2 4 21 and in 6 2 14 Is व्याड्युपज्ञ दुष्करणम। श्रीपतिदत्त the writer of the कातन्त्रपरिशिष्ट, who had flourished in the 13th century A D also refers to the सग्रह and remarks सग्रहकारोऽप्याह &c As to the inclusion of व्याडि in the छानादि (6 2 48) गहादि (4 2 66) and क्रीद्यादि (4 1 80) गण, it is to be noticed that the groups of words originally fixed, had been augmented with later additions to them by other grammarians I his probably led जिनेन्द्रबुद्धि to observe in VII 4 3 प्रतिपादित हि पूर्व गणकार पाणिनि नं भव- सौति । तथा चान्यो हि गणकार | अन्यो हि सूत्रकार ।" Says also कैयट II 34, 'अभि- युक्ता गणान् पठन्ति । । त्यहादीनि पठित्वा ( सवाटि ) गणे कैश्चित् पूर्वादीनि पठितानि।' Besides, व्याडि being a descendant of व्यड given in the खागतादिगण (737), may as well be any member of the family other than the author of the FIF Taking न्याडि as the author of the सग्रह and as referred to by कात्यायन in his वार्तिक as stated above, he might be living in 450 BC (3) कात्यायन । According to the कथासरित्सागर, कात्यायन was a contemporary to the king Nanda of Magadba, by ousting whom the #1 king I set up his own reign there in about 321 B C कात्यायन wrote a critique on the अष्टाध्यायी, containing short epigra matic statements called the Vartikas He often assigned new meanings to words cited by aifuft in different senses and advocated such alterations by his Vartikas such as यवनाल्लिप्याम (4 I 49) पथ्यध्यायन्यायविहारमनुष्य हस्तिषु (4 2 129), &c So the interval between aifufa and Fl9197 was long enough Otherwise such changes in a language cannot be so rapid He lived probably That para was not a contemporary of Panini appears to be almost certain Our attention is arrested by his veneration for the sage This is evident from such of his Vartikas as ब्रुविशासिगुणेन च यत् सचते तदकौर्तित माचरित कविना ( 1 4 51 वार्तिक ), तदनल्प मतेर्वचन सरत (1 4 51 ढतीय बार्तिक), मरन्ति क वचनान् मनीषिणः ( 6 4 110, वात्तिक ) च भगवान् कतवास्तदर्थं तेन भवेदिटिणे in 350, BC (8) पुण्यगन finishes his commentary with शशाङ्क शिष्याच्छ्रुत्तद वाक्यकाण्डं समासस । पुण्यराकेन तस्योक्ता सङ्गति कारिकाश्रिता ॥१॥ गुरवे भत्तहग्ये प्राब्दब्रह्मविदे नमः। सर्वसिद्धान्त सन्दीहसागमृतमयाय च ॥२॥ So some 7 grammarian helped him in preparing his book If neeft were really his preceptor, he lived in the 7th century A D ·[1] 3 reforefay ( 918138, affæ), 170 पाणिनेः सिद्धम् (८४६८, वार्तिक )। In these statements fearga mentions afufa as Fa (poet or of retentive memory, #979), var#fa (e of much intelligence, wise), Fat (master) 717 (sage] Here the term #777 at least is too high and respectful This clearly shows Paninis priority to Katyayani Otherwise is it not unusual and strange to apply #1917 or such an appellation of respect to a rival who is a contemporary or a neighbour ? They may be applied, if applied at all by co eval persons, at most to a very old personage of established fame and of some extraordinary power or ability Besides the words wife and ma in two of those above quoted Vartıkas are, I think, enough to shake out such a likelihood in the present case Says कात्यायन, तदनन्पमते वचन परत Recollect the word of that wise man. Again he says on aga FET ie the intelligent remember on account of the word of the master Remembering surely cannot but relate to something which had been once very well known and now disappeared from memory, This, I think, s'ringly decides the earlier existence of qirufa and Katyayana's posteriority कात्यायन names व्याडि, वाजप्यायन and पौष्करसादि in his vartikas So they could not be posterior to him He was a resident of the Deccan पतञ्चलि taunted him with the remark fazlafsat afara, that is, the people of the Deccan are fond of the afga affixes The occasion for this taunt was that instead of stating लोके वैदे च, कायायन had used लोकिक वैदिकेषु in the aif"Tu शिष्टाशिष्टप्रतिषिद्धेषु यथा लोकिकवैदिकेषु'। Yet he honoured 2107 elsewhere by calling him भगवान् कात्य ---- "प्रोवाच भगवान कात्य स्तेनासिद्धियणस्तु ते । आत को लिट् नैड पूर्व सिद्ध आहस्तथा सति ॥ १॥" (भाष्य 3 2 3) Tradition gives another name to कात्यायन It is aroha The illustration वाररुच काव्यम in the भाष्य of 4 3 103 also refers to a वररुचि But it is uncertain if the grammarian laga is identical with the poet arafe Nor is it acknowledged by all that the affia FIT is the same personage who is the author of either any one or more of the following viz, fal, arfauigi, affar or other such works connected with the name of a I Many vartikas are in poetry Only a few of them are assigned to alta and recorded in the वार्तिकपाठ। जिनेन्द्रबुद्धि, केवट and नागोजिभट्ट often speak of some नोकवातिककार other than कात्यायन In the भाष्यप्रदीप of 2 4 36, कैयट speaks of one व्याघ्रभूति to whom 1s ascribed the वोकवार्तिक- जग्धिविधियपि यत तदकस्मादसिद्धिमदस्ति कितीति विधानात् । हिप्रभृतीस्तु सदा बहिरङ्गी ल्यब् भवतीति तत तदु विधि ॥ १॥ As this stanza is quoted in the #ETHCT (2 4 36) iula is found to be prior to qaaf The ufaz #iftars, eleven in number, enumerating (9) the futz. 9 (9) These are quoted in 7 2 10 of the effecti ·roots, also belong to Ziua There is another halfefæ quoted in 8 2 I in the fiIFT ATT Viz कुणि। मुक्षिका शुक्षजहा च क्षामिमानौजढत तथा । मतो बत्वे झाला नश्व गुडलिण्मान् निदर्शनम् ॥ १ ॥ which is known as composed by one 1991€ 1 It is therefore called the वैयाघ्रपद्यवार्तिक। (4) We find the pame of this grammarian in the Helgeta by mac and in the UCHaT by ref=1 / From their reference, it is found that ify was prior to gagfe, for at observes that gaafs adopted, in the #THIC, Kuni's explana tion of 1 1 75 "fuato Fifar afeafamarefa rental a तु प्राग्ग्रहणं देशविशेषण व्याखयातम् । भाष्यकारस्तु कुणिदर्शनमाशिक्ष्यित ।"-(कैयट ११११७५ )। In annotating on the काशिका stanza वृत्तौ भाष्य तथा धातुनामपारायणादिषु &c says हरदन-"सूवार्थप्रधानो ग्रन्थो वृत्ति । सा चेह पाणिनिप्रणीतानां सूत्राणा कुणिप्रभृतिभि राचाय्येविरचित fantugi" Probability is strong enough that fy and all to be spoken of presently, are identical (5) afori The wife begins with STT TT 991 agaiaqntiaufey The term are here precedes the word 7167, from which the existence of an earlier work of that name on arrafer than the Felaten, is inferred The Fur was one such, is also was the afuara i färgfs in explaining the verse says "afi: qifofagutarat varui fracu affnanefarfa7" This reading is from the Poona Deccan college MS The MS in Bengalı characters, which is in the Varendra Research Society of Rajshahi, Bengal, hasme aifafruante parut faaru faufefaeuifefaxftaxi" मैत्रेयरचित in hrs तन्त्रप्रदीप writes on 8 3 97-"सव्येष्ठा इति । सारथिवचनोऽयम् । अव चूलिभ- हिवतावपि तत्पुरुष कति बहुलमित्यलुग दृश्यते ।" श्रीपतिदत्त of the कातन्त्रपरिशिष्ट speaks of the निरवृत्ति, Commenting on the चकरीत roots, says he,-निर्लरवृत्तौ चीनी भाषायामपि यजलुगसौति So the न्यासकार seems to refer to two works चूल्लिभहिति and नरवत्ति or Freitafe This may induce one to think zform and fe of fufe as the same It will presently be stated that the work by rod was commented on by Hifi and almuere might be this joint work Regarding for a very powerful evidence comes from the Chinese source Itsing, the Chinese traveller, who had been in India nineteen years from 671 A D to 691 A D refers to fo Says he-"Next there is a commentary on the flag (10) entitled Churne It is a work of the learned qapfer This , (10) What was this बत्तिसूत्र? Was it another commentary on the अष्टाध्यायौ ? Who then was its author ? That the name offiua for a grammatical book was recognised even in ancient time, is found from the variant arriram for वारर्तिकसूविक in the महाभाष्य in 4 2 60 ·[ 9 ] भत्तु हरिशास्त्र again cites the former Sutras (Panini's) explaining the obscure points and analysing the principles contained in it and it illustrates the latter commentary (the Virti, that is, the farafat, clearing up many difficulties Ad vanced scholars learn it in three years "Next there is the This is the commentary of the foregoing for and is the work of a great scholar भर्तृहरि।" (II) चूणि 1s referred to by श्रीपतिदत्त In his णत्वप्रकरण is the statement "मसमेतच चूर्णि- रप्यनुग्टह्णाति and again “सयोगावयवव्यञ्जगम्य सजातीयस्यै कस्येवाने कम्योच्चारणाभेद इति चूदि।" ITETTHETETE of the Tamilar and some other modern writers too speak of a grammatical scholiast fui afu means something powdered So the scholium is the ani Hence its author is variously called ara, fuzia or affitt According to Itsing, qaafa himself is this af or afona Some Indians too hold this view Now the work by zru and its commentary by Hif narrated by I tsirg, might be the fuff in tanced by the 19* and the latter was composed earlier than the Fifacii On the other hand if afu had really been a scholiast other than qara, he might be identical with my mentioned by and हरदत्त । Now one thing is to be marked If qaars were the author of the are, that is, of a scholium oa ufufa, it was different from the #14184 For the #ETHIBET deals with the Vartikas by कात्यायन and not with Panini's aphorisms directly and generally Hence that Scholium is no longer extant gruafe (or foi aſa) too is now defunct There is however much confu ion about af No satisfactory proofs are available at present to come to a decisive conclusion on the point Further information is absolutely required to clear the obscurity (6) was The Great Commentary, that is the FTAT, is a work by auf He defends Panını in it from the ill conceived and often erroneous attacks by कात्यायन, preferred in his Vartikas To a वार्तिक, (जितपर्यायवचनस्येव राजाद्यर्थम् ) in II 68, पतञ्जलि puts two illustrations पुष्प ( ष्य) मिवसभा। चन्द्रगुप्तसभा। Now चन्द्रगुप्त founded the #14 dynasty of Magadha in about 321 B C. Another any the first of the Gupta dynasty, was living in 320 A D It will be found presently that this second la could not have been intended by qaafa in supplying the name of a king in the illustration of the aforesaid वार्तिक । पुष्पमित्र (or पुष्यमित्र) was the founder of the Sunga dynasty in Magadha He usurped the throne in about 183 B C by assassinating the last ta king whose commander inchief he had been पतञ्जलि again cites the name of पुष्य (थ) मित्र in the भाष्य of (11) A record of the Buddhist Religion as practised in India and Maloy Archipelago (A D 671 to A D, 695) by Itsing Translated by J, Takukusu B, A Ph D Clarendon press, Oxford, 1856 ·[ 10 ] III 1 26, पुष्यमित्री यजते याजका याजयन्तीति । तव भवितव्य पुष्पमित्रो याजयते यानका याजयन्तीति and again of III 11 123 mg you (67) Fa FIFTH 1" It is known from the Drama Araufgfra by #fekre that this king performed the y ceremony in which he appointed his grandson affha to protect the sacred horse Most likely gasts witnessed this ceremony Nay, remembering his statemapt y gorraa F996, it may be that he officiated in it as a priest This king died in about 148 B C and was succeeded by his son afara i The illustrations अरुण यवन साकेतम्। अरुणद यवनी माव्यमिकाम् given for the वार्तिक in the Sutra III 11 IIr, determine his age from the three conditions laid down in it, v12 -971 alafasta yatatesiafaga i Menander, called by the Buddhists Mılında, a relation to the Bactrian king Eucratides and himself of Greek origin, was a king of the Punjab and Kabul He beseiged Fla (Oude) and मायामका n 155 BC माध्यमिका here indicates a country It is Nagari, near Chitore in Rajputana It is also mentioned in the वहतसहिता,-"मरुवत्सघोषयासुनसारqaz" (14/2) Now the wait (speaker) of those two illustrations is qafe himself The event was notorious enough (tafania ) It was out of bis sight, though capable of being viewed by him (12) Hence 9a3fa was living iu 155 B C The statement "attituiführef: nafaqat I waqi alp 7 orq," in the #10 of V 111 99, may also indicate, if the passage be not corrupted in transcription or transmission, the impecunious conditions of the last #toy kings and their kinsmen who had flourished before qafei The example in #1 in the 19 of IV 111 101, refers probably to a very remote period, as Xe koow from the Tsatsat that one greit had been a king of the in about 600 BC The statement एकाकिभि क्षुद्रकैर्जितम् occurs in the भाष्य of I I 31 and of 5 3 52 The cei people were defeated by Alexander the Great, but he could not annihilate thein पतञ्जलि names the महाभाष्य other authors such as दाक्षायण, गौनीय, गोणिकापुत्र, वाायणि, काशकत्स, कुणरवाडव, and सौर्यभगवान् (13) Different schools of Grammarians or Scholars, such as भारहाजीयाः, क्रोष्ट्रीया', सौनागा. and साव्यमुनिराणायनीयाः, are also mentioned by him In the area of III 11 108, he supplies the illustration उपसैदिवान् कौत्सः पाणिनिम् । This shows that age was rather some personage of the time Otherwise why his approach to the great Grammarian, in 3 (12) In imitation, in the 911 TT, agitat puts the illustration 69€ ya Fulfafa for his Sutra based upon the affequat a fagia gatewafaqat (3 2 III), This refers, it is said, to Skanda Gupta's conquest over the Huns in 465 A D If so gerar lived likely in 465 A D But others assert that are was a contemporary to fy who riegned over it in the first Century BC (13) best was the name of a city and a certain Savant ( a ) of it, is called सौर्यभगवान् by पतञ्जलि ।

·[II] SO I I VII 2 IOI should be recorded ? In 3 3 3 1s वैयाकरणानाञ्च शाकटायन आह धातुज नामति । Again in 3 2 15 1s वैयाकरणाना शाकटायनो रथमार्गे आसीन शकटमार्थ यात नीपलमे। We find the statement "उभयथा गोणिकापुव" in the भाष्य of I I 15, मागोजिभट्ट takes illufit as the name of Patanjali's mother hela occurs repeatedly viz in the भाष्य of I 12, of I 29, of II 92 of III I 92 and again of The country the identified with the modern Gonda in Oude, belonged to the Eastern Province" known as such by the Grammarians of the time (14) and therefore gaifea forms an illustration with it as sitarata for I 1 75 which he understood to concern the area, or the "Eastern Province" Now in the भाष्य of I I 21, stands the passage गोनदीयवाह सत्यमेतत् सति वन्यस्मि निति and कैयट paraphrases it भाष्यकारस्वाह सति बन्यस्मिन्निस ! Again in the भाष्य of I 1 29 15 गोगद्दीय स्वाह अकच्खरौतु कत्तयौ प्रत्यङ्ग मुक्ताशयौ । त्वकपिटक मकल्पिक इत्येव भवितव्यमिति। On this says केयट-"गोनीयस्वाहेति। सूत्रप्रत्याख्यानमेतत् । यथोत्तर हि मुनिवयस्य प्रामाण्यम् ।" So कैयह takes पतञ्जलि and गोमदीय as one and the same person But in the कामसूत्र by वात्स्यायन, गोनीय and गोणिकापुर are separately named as two persons and as certain authorities holding differe it views on a matter Now it is said that वात्स्यायन, कौटिल्य, चाणक्य, मल्ल नाग and विष्णुपुर (15) are the several names of one and the same person Hence if वात्स्यायन were the preceptor of चन्द्रगुप्त the मौर्य, गोनहींय or गोणिकापुत्र cannot be identical with पतञ्जलि। So, to support age and artist, 7ta and aftfuarga of the Firma are taken to be as some other authors. The tradition is that the FETHI became for some time obsolete the king अभिमन्यु of काश्मीर, who braught, during the first century B_C, the scholars from other provinces and set up its study in his own kingdom देशान्तरादागमष्य व्याचक्षाणान् आमापतिः । प्रावर्तयत विच्छिन्न महाभाष्य खमडले ॥ १॥ ( राजतरङ्गिणी 4 487) It was . The study of the #ETH17 was again forsaken by the scholars misled by the sophists वैजि, सौभव, हर्यक्ष &c The causes thereof are recounted by भर्तृहरि in the stanzas beginning with प्रायेण सचेपरुचौन् &c quoted before It is said that only one single MS of it once existed in the whole of India -Adds भर्तहरि- (14) प्रागुदश्चौ विभजते हंस क्षौरीदके यथा । विदुषा शब्दसिद्धार्थ सा न. पातु शरावती ॥ १ ॥ (15) In the Drama मुद्राराक्षस by विशाखदत्त, चाणक्य, कौटिल्य and विष्णु गुप्त ae found to be the names of one and the same person नवनन्दान् विजः कश्चित् सपुवानुवरिष्यतीति श्रीमहागवत पद्यव्याखयाने हिज कौटिल्य वात्स्यायनादिपर्याय चाणक्य इति श्रीधरस्वामी।

·[ 12 ] व III य पतञ्जलि शिष्येभ्यो भ्रष्टो व्याकरणागमः। काल स दाक्षिणात्येषु ग्रन्थमाव व्यवस्थित । पर्वतादागस लञ्चा भाष्य वीजानुमारिभि । स नौती बहुशाखत्व चन्द्रागादिभिः पुन ॥ २ ॥ न्यायप्रस्थानमागास्तानभ्यस्य स्वञ दर्शनम् । प्रणीतो गुरुणास्माक मयमागमसग्रह ॥ ३ ॥ This is also confirmed by the राजतरङ्गिणी- चन्द्राचार्यादिभिल दिश तसात् तदाग मम । प्रवर्तित महाभाष्य खञ्ज व्याकरणं महत ॥ १ ॥ if the Grammariana dd really live during the reign of Abhimanyu, king of Kasmira Here are evidently means from Abhimanyu So according to some चन्द्राचार्य and अभिमन्यु are co eval But others assert that क्षन्द्राचार्य or चन्द्र गोमिन, the author of the चान्द्रव्याकरण, lived in 465 A D It is inferred from an example- अजयद गुप्तो हणा-given by him in his grammar, in imitation of अरुणद यवनः साकेतम् cited by पतञ्जलि to examplify a वात्तिक in 3 2 Anoth-r Grammarian वसुरात is said to have been a pupil of चन्द्र मोमिन् 10 480 A D Some take वमुरात as the preceptor of Heft If so, he might have got this pupil in his very old age, as भर्तृहरि died in 65T A D So the study of the महाभाष्य seems to have been again current since the 5th century A D Poetical passages in large number are found in the महाभाष्य । पति जोवन्तमानन्दो नर वर्षशतादपि 1s in 3 I 67 It occurs also in the रामायण ( Book V 36 ) The couplet in 6 1 84 जई प्राणा व्युतकाम न्ति यून. स्थविर आयति। प्रत्त्यानाभिवादाभ्या पुनस्तान् प्रतिपद्यते ॥ १॥ Is found in the मनुसहिता । कान पचति भूतानि काल सहरति प्रना in 3 3 167 1s in the हारीतसहिता and the महाभारत। अहरहनयमानी गामश्व पुरुष पशुम् । वैवखती न तप्यति सुरया इव दुर्मदो in 2 2 29 1s in the महाभारत too In 2 3 3515 दूगदावसथान्मूब दूरात् पादावसेचनम् । दृराक्ष भाव्य दस्युभ्यो दूराम कुपिताद गुरोः ॥ १ ॥ उपासात स्थलमिक्त तूष्णोद्भङ्ग महाहदम् । द्रोणञ्चेशको गन्तु मा त्वा वाता कताकते ॥ १ ॥ In 1 4 3 15 यस्मिन् दश सहसाणि पुने जाते गवा ददौ । ब्राह्मणेभ्य प्रियाखान्य सोऽयमुन जीवति ॥ १ ॥ In I 3 25 we get बर्मामप्यचित्ता नामकी भवति चित्तवान् । पश्य वामर सेऽस्मिन् यदक मुपतिठते ॥ १ ॥ मव मस्था सचित्तोऽयमंत्रीऽपि हिपधा वयम्। मतदप्यम्य कापय यटक मुप्रतिष्ठति ॥ २ ॥ In 2 2 2915 ·[ 13 ] In 2 3 13 In 4 1 9315 कुतश्चरति मायूरिः केन कापिञ्जग्नि कश । आहेयेन च दष्टस्य पाञ्जिः सुतसमो मत ॥ १ ॥ In 4 1 48 15 वीणि यस्यावदातानि विद्या योनिश कर्म च। एतचिव विजानीहि ब्राह्मणाग्रस्य लक्षणम् ॥ १ ॥ वाताय कपिला विद्युदातपायातिलोहिनौ। कृष्णा सर्वविनाशाय दुभिक्षाय सिता भवेत् ॥ १॥ In 2 3 36 चर्मणि हौपिन हत्ति दन्तयो हन्ति कुञ्जरम् । वैशेषु चमरी हन्ति सोम्नि पुष्कलको हत ॥ १ ॥ In 3 1 48 नाकमिष्टसुख याति सुयुक्तंडवारयः अथ पत्काषिणी यान्ति येऽचीकमतभाषिण' ॥ १॥ In 5 I 115 तपः श्रुतञ्च योनिश्च एतद ब्राह्मण कारकम् । तप श्रुताभ्या यो हीनो जातिव्राह्मण एव म ॥ १ ॥ In 8 1 8 18 सामृतै पाणिभिनन्ति गुरवी न विषोक्षिते'। लालनायिणो दोषा स्ताड नायिणो गुणा ॥ १ ॥ Many other verses such as वरतनु सम्प्रवदन्ति कुक टा., असिवितीयोऽनुमसार पारडुन , there महोपानवच श्रुत्वा जुधुषु पुष्यमाणवाः सज्ञषणहितीयस्य बल कृष्णस्य बद्धताम् &c This shows that Sanskrit literature was then Sufficiently developed In the भाष्य of 3 3. 167 and elsewhere (specially in the पस्पशा) many other stanzas, current then as adages, are to be found D amatic representations and the public recitations of ancient texts are also hinted in the 2107 of III I 26 by ये तावदेते शोभिका नाम, एते प्रत्यक्ष कस घातयन्ति प्रत्यक्षञ्च बलि बन्धयतीति । . ग्रन्यिकेषु कथ यत्र शब्दग्रन्य नमाव लक्ष्यते ? (16) &c . are (7) भर्तृहरि। भर्तृहरि is the name of the author or authors of three grammatical works and three didactic poems These are a commentary on the महाभाष्य, the वाक्यपदीय, the भागवृत्ति, the वैराग्यशतक, the नौतिशतक, and the शृङ्गारशतक, Kalyata in writing his Bhashya Prodeepa often availed of the first with the acknow ledgment- "तथापि हरिबर्द्धन सारण ग्रन्यसेतुना । क्रममाण शनै पार तस्य प्राप्तासि पङ्गवत्" ॥ १ ॥ Itsing in a part of his book, makes or the author of a commentary on ufuf-He calls it "pei na", which is surmised by the Japanese translator (16) शौभिका नाम क साधनुकारिणी नामा व्याग्वाानोपाध्याया । गन्धिकेष्विति क यश्चित्यथ इति के यट' ।

·L 14 ] (Mr J Takukusu) to be the "Veda Vritu” or 'asrafa" (17) Says I tsing-"A person who has studied so far as this book, is sud to have mastered Grammatical Science" Now this "Pei na' is probably the hitaſt which was a commentary on the 127817 The भागवत्ति is referred to by हरदत्त, मैत्र यरक्षित, पुरुषोचमदेव, शरणदेव, श्रीपतिदत्त, माधव (सायनाचार्य), भट्टोजि and others As to its authorship, the following statement is found in the auela (a commentary on the काशिका and the न्यास, perhaps also called the वृत्तिप्रदीप) by मैत्रेय रक्षित on the Sutra VIII 11 21-viz -"Hefour are formarea atat i तथाच भागतिकता प्रत्युदा हरणमुपन्यस्त तन्ने उत तन्त्रयुतमिति। वामनोऽपि लोप नैवीदाहरणमुक्तवान् ।"-शरणदेव says in his gacafe on the Sutra VIII 111 37-"उपराम उदयाम इत्येव भवतीति भर्तृहरिणा भागतिकता चोक्तम्।" सृष्टिधराचाय्य the author of the भाषाहत्त्यर्थ विति, a commentary on the भाषावृत्ति by पुरुषोत्तमदेव, remarks in the end of his book-"भागवत्ति- भत्तृहरिणा विरचिता श्रीधरसेन नरेन्द्रादिष्टा ।" This that might be the third king of that name of amait, whose reign terminated in about 629 A D Or it might be an error on the part of æfent, arising from the belief entertained by some, that the poet of the f#12 and the Gramtrarian yfi are identical.. I tsing also speaks of the areageta by Horft and gives 651 A D as the year of his death Now the author of the भट्टिकाव्य observes काव्यमिदं विहित मया वलभ्या श्रीधरसे मनरेन्द्र पालितायाम्।" There is a variant here viz श्रीधरसूनुमरेन्द्रपालितायाम् । In Dandın's दशकुमारचरित is the passage अस्ति सौराष्ट्रषु वलभी नाम नगरी, It is indentified with the modern country Wala in Kath awar Sridhar en I, King of at was succeeded by his brother sofae in 502 A D Another Dharasena or Sridharasen II reigned over quit in 517 A D Next, Sridhara-Sena III reigned there till 629 A D The poet #fe had likely one of these Dharasenas as his patron That he is different from eft, the author of the Himale and is anterior to the latter, is clear enough, as the grammarian find, fault with the poet sometimes and sometimes justifies him On आहध्व मा रघूत्तमम् in the भट्टि काव्य, the भागवत्ति asserts प्रमाद एवायम् ( (18)। Again on प्राक् केकयीतो भरतस्ततोऽभूत् says Atels TATT 491 Blfafa tla (19) Regarding the author of the three Satakas named above, there is a tradition that, miortified at his wife's infidelity, he renounced the world and became a mendicant I tsing alludes to and admires a similar event in the life of the Grammarian Hopefc who had exchanged his r ches for the life of a devotee This cannot, of course, be sufficient for asserting that the writer of (17) May not the "Veda Vrittı" as well be a corruption of the word Area वा भेदहत्ति 1 भागबत्ति ? (18) Quoted by भट्टोजि in the सिद्धान्तकौमुदी on the Sutra आडी यमहन (श२८)। (19) Quoted by पुरुषोत्तमदेव in the भाषावृत्ति on the Sutra न प्राच्यभर्गादियौधेया- fex: (8198915) 1 ·[ 15 ] 4 ܚܝܘܢ - the opfanga and àtizana is the same personage as the author of the angela or the H175 Besides, the Satakas are more or less eclectic in which 'stanzas of later writers even, are found incorporated According to the न्यासकार, there was a चूल्लिभवित्ति on the अष्टाव्यायौ and it had been composed earlier than the काशिका On the other hand, I tsing's assertion that nejpft had written a commentary on the afo, is well known for might have been changed to any of or a fa through provinc alism or manipulations of the scribes -- In the f#, a gf is referred to in VIII 111 48 yız -" वृत्तौ च नित्य समासेऽनुत्तरपदस्थस्य त्यव (8345) परमसपि कुण्डिकत्येतदेव प्रत्यु दाहरणम् ।" Most likely this af is the ATTEET The order in which it is stated seems to make it a later work than the महाभाष्य According to I tsing, Bhatrıhari's death took place ten years earlier than Jayaditya's So the latter might easily consult the former's work The term वृत्ति in the opening line वृत्तौ भाष्य तथा धातु नामपारायणादिषु of the giftfrit, may be a work prior in time to the FETHIY and different from the mentioned in VIII 111 48 The one might be the भागहत्ति by भर्तृहरि and the other fugle or afueras The word araneta occurs as an example to IV 111 88 in the f*#1, viz "galvarzila 4764 124elari" az also names it, as already stated, and repeatedly quotes from it. The observation that walafi lived 10 about 800 A D goes againt I tsing's asserton This may be true in the case of the poet of the three satukas, but not of the grammarian Though the pseudo-voertika Fuarelat afallet 972 in I 1. Il is rejected by Hetafe and adopted by Jalferd, there is no inconsistency as to their synchronism As this artig was not given by कात्यायन and पतञ्जलि, भत्तृहरि did not take it in But the Buddhist author either composed it himself or transferred it to his book from some older scholium, thinking इव, 2nd not व, following such words as मणी, दम्पती, &c Other pseudo vartıkas, such as gafa han in iv, 1 85, (20) are also found in the काशिका। (8) ware or fagtartet i Nothing more is known of this treatise than that it is mentioned by the न्यासकार and once quoted by श्रीपतिदत्त in his कातन्त्रपरिशिष्ट | So its author too Is now unknown (9) जयादित्य and वामन । These two are the au hors of the Fift) aifead died in 661 AD I tsing describes him as the author of the Sutra Vritti identified with the TFT I But the Indian scholars take the Kasika as the joint work of two writers (20) This aife is found exemplified in ancient as well as modern works For instance-याम्ये न चाभवन् केशा बाहवी विष्णु जसेति देवीमाहात्म। याते चेतसि माप्नुयाम शतशो याम्या पुनर्यात ना इति कुसुमाञ्जलावाचार्य उदयन ।

·[16 ] - " वृत्ती ग्रन्थ नयादित्य and वामन । जिनेन्द्रबुद्धि discourses in III 1, 33 on a contradiction arising from two opposite statements in III 1, 33 and vi i 58 10 the fafarail and he attemps to remove it thus "नाम्नि विरोध । भिन्नककत्वात्। इद हि जयादित्यस्य वचनम्। तत् पुनर्वाम नस्य । वाम महत्तौ तु तासिमिचोरिकार उच्चारणाथो नानुबन्ध पत्यते। तेन विरोधी नाशनीय । केन पुनरभिसन्धिना जयादित्यस्तासिरि कारस्यानुनासिकलोपप्रतिबन्धार्थता कृतवान् ? वाम मस्तूचारणार्थताम् १ श्रूयताम्। & He again notices a difference of views between the two authors in I 15,- 'घलाजिस्थश्वेत्त्यत्र (3, 2 13) जयादित्यवत्तौ ग्रन्थ . श्रुकः कितीत्यचापि (12 II) जयादित्य | वामनस्य त्वेतत् सर्वमनभिमतम्। तथाहि तस्यैव सूवस्य (7 2 11) वहिरचिताया वृत्तौ ग्रन्थ केचिदव दिककारनिर्देशन गकारप्रश्नेष वर्ग यन्तीति । हरदत्त too echoes the statement by the न्यासकार 10 III 1 33 in his पदमञ्जरी- "एव तावन, जयादित्ये नासिद्धत्वमाश्रित्य तामेरितकरणमनुनासिकलोपप्रतिषेधाथमित्युक्तम् । वामनस्तु टिन्नोपस्य सिद्धलादेव नलोपो न भविष्यतीति मन्यमान दिनोरित्यत्र (7 1 58) वक्ष्यति तासिसिचोरिदित् काय्य नास्त त्युच्चारणार्थो निग्नुनासिक कारः पठ्यत इति ।" Again in II 11 17 हरदत्त tares बच क्रीडाजीविकयोनास्तीति as the opinion of जयादित्य and then says वाम नस्त्व के जीविकार्थे (6 2 73) इत्यनाक इति किम् ? रमणीयकवि नौविकाया बच प्रत्युदाहरिष्यवि। भट्टोजि also maintains this joint authorship in his प्रौढ मनोरमा in v 42 viz -एतच्च सर्व जयादित्य मते मोक्तम् । वामनस्तु मन्यते नाविशब्देभ्योऽपि भवत्येव Again in the शब्दकौस्तुभ, on 1 1, 5 he says जयादित्योऽन्येवम्। वामनम्तु न क्वापि गकारप्रश्लेष कार्य इत्याह । So the काशिका 1s the ] int work of जयादित्य and वामन It is desirable to find out their individual shares in it हरिदीक्षित asserts in his शब्दरन on V 1v 42 "प्रथमाहित यपञ्चमषष्ठा जयादित्यकतत्तय । इतरे वामनकतवृत्तय इत्यभियुक्ताः। In Pundit Bilshastrın's printed edition of the Fiftl, the first four Adhyayas are assigned to जयादित्य and the rest to वामन Thrs view is now generally accepted But the observation by जिनेन्द्रबुद्धि quoted above -शुकः कितीत्यत्रापि (7 2 19) जयादित्यवृत्ती ग्रन्य &c-throws some doubt on it DId जयादित्य write a complete commentary on the काशिका? Besides, it is strange that I-tsing is totally silent about वामन Says he of जयादित्य- "He was a man of great ability His literary power was very striking He understood things which he had heard once, not requiring to be taught twice It is now nearly thirty years since his death I tsing composed his book in 691 A D So Jayaditya's death occurred in 661 A, D Now why within so short a time is Jayaditya's colleague entirely ignored by I tsing? In the fut, the Indian scholars fuund contradictory allegations and they reconciled them by ascribing them to the two authors जयादित्य and वामन This shows that वामन could neither be a different name nor a surname of the other - Was it because ata held then a subordinate position, either as a pupil of the other or a very ner writer who had not therefore attained yet reputation enough to be named as an author ? the last four Adhyayas of the book a subsequent addition to, or a recast by वामन of the form in which जयादित्य had left them ? If वामन were either an Or were

·17
II 11 19
intimate friend or a pupil of the other, he might undertake this task of retou
ching the work leſt by Father, if he thought it requiring further improvement,
That Agifen might have left his own comments on the last four Adhyayas
appear not altogether improbable from the assertion of the art on I 15-
"शक' कितीत्यवापि (12 II) जयादित्यवृत्ती ग्रन्थ ।' Probably वामन wrote down his share
of the fiftusit shortly after I tsing had left India and so he is not at all
mentioned by the former Unless there be some such reasons, it cannot be
likely that I rsing could avsid or forget 972 within so short a time as between
the composition of the fact that is Jayaditya's waaf) and his own book,
the Record of the Buddhist Religion
In the काशिका are found references to पदीषकार, माव्यन्दिनि and भट्टाचार्य (12 36)
and quotations from the रामायण, महाभारत, मनुसंहिता, भारवि and नानार्थकोष , besides,
stray lines such as सा हि तस्य धनकौता प्राणेभ्योऽपि गरीयसी, कैनेद लिखित चित्र मनोनव-
विकाशि यत्, घटदिति गम्भौरमम्बुदैनंदितम् &c. The verse सा हि तस्य धनक्रीता &c is assigned
to भट्टि by माधव in his धातु वृत्ति (on the root डुक्रौञ्) and भट्टीजि in his शब्दकौस्तुभ in
But it is not met with in the HF 104. To II 1 55 in the Fift, the
examples Fumeet and fixed and again to VI 2 2 these two and
galFiegliai are supplied This reminds one of the stanza in the FETTI
योषिवन्दारिका तस्य दयिता हसमादिनी ।
दूर्वाकाण्डमिव श्यामा न्यगरीधपरिमण्डला ॥ १॥ (V_18)
If there be any borrowing here, the grammarian is the borrower, supposing
that the H17867 is prior to the full As however quife quotes are and
refers to the 27229€la, I-ts'ng's chronology is sufficiently borne out Nothing
is koown of the life, parentage &c of garfema and ar# It is said that they
were Buddhists, for they commenced their work without any statement
of salutation to a god, supplied such un Brahminic illustration as a graf
1917a &c , mutilated the aphorisms of the sage or often augmented them
by interpolations No Brahmin classical author would do it, as it would lead
to a wrong qilay and be a sacrilege
This famous work the काशिकावृत्ति, sometimes called the सत्ति, or the महावृत्ति,
is now the only extant independent complete commentary on the qeztat written
in accordance with the order of the Sutras as laid down by qifof himself The
qazah would have been another such work independently composed, if
Hitra could finish it If is said that he died before its completion
The व्याकरण
मिताक्षरा by अन्नम्भट्ट, (21) the वैयाकरण सवस्व by धरणीधर काशीनाथ composed in 1809 A D
(21) The beginning of the 219 ofwaran is
शिव साम्ब नमस्कृत्य गणेशञ्च सरस्वतीम् ।
पाणिनीयमतेनाह बत्ति कुर्के मिताक्षराम् ॥ १ ॥
and the colophon is-
ग्रन्थविस्तरभीरुभ्य ध्य वृत्तिमंया कता।
यया व्याकरण सर्व करस्थामलकायते ॥ १॥

·[18] on the request by Henry Colebrook ( 22 ) and the Scholiuin prepired in 1839 42 A D by two unknown pundits appointed by Dr Boethlinck, were all, more or less, based on the materials supplied by the fiftit They are not enough to make one unders and girofa fully and clearly In fact, had the Ifqet been not written at all or defunct, the need for a systematic Sanskrit Grammar treating both the holy and profane parts of the language, would have been awfully great The study of the 912197 then would have disappeared altogether or lingered only with a very few scholars Its importance and necessity cannot therefore be overstated The term काशिका 1s thus explained-काशयति प्रकाशयति सूवार्थमिति काशिका। काश्या भगा वा। हरदत्त favours the second etymology,- "काशिकेति देशतोऽभिधानम्। काशिषु भवा"-So they prepared it at Benares, that eternal city and centre of Sanskrit learning in India (10) जिनेन्द्रबुद्धि । जिनेन्द्रबुद्धि is the author of the काशिकाविवरण पञ्जिका It is variously called the काशिकाविवरणपञ्चिका, काशिकाविवरणपञ्जिका, काशिकान्यास, जिनेन्द्रन्यास or the न्यास The name ie is because of its methodical justification of the statements of the text commented upon (23) The 218 was most likely the first of the commentaries written on the Kasika. Another of its commentaries is the पदमञ्जरी by हरदत्तमिश Says he in the Introduction of his book तात पद्मकुमाराखा प्रणम्याग्बा श्रिय तथा । ज्येष्ठं चाग्निकुमाराखामाचार्यमपराजितम् ॥ १ ॥ यश्चिराय हरदत्तसज्ञया विश्रुती दशसु दिक्षु दक्षिण । उज्जहार पदमञ्जरीमसौ शब्दशास्त्र सहकारपादपात ॥ ३ ॥ The variants in (1) are रुद्रकुमाराखाम, पद्मकुमाराय॑म् and चाग्निकुमाराय॑म् । if these variants are the real readings and contain आर्य, हरदत्त was clearly a Madras Iyer. From a varnacular word waafa used by him in his book, this assertion further confirmed He often speaks of his own merit thus 1S (22) The colophan of the वैयाकरणसर्वख runs thus- देश श्रीमति वनानि नगरे शौकल्लकत्ताभिधे श्रीमत्तामसहनृक कुलवुरुक्साहेवदत्ताज्ञया । प्रारचं धरणीधरण विदुषा व्याखयानक पाणिनेः सूवाणा समनुक्रमेण च महाभाष्येण तट्टीकया ॥१॥ कौमुद्यापि च काशिकासहितया सयुक्तक वार्तिक तहत सर्वगण सहैव च परीभाषष्टिभि मिश्रितम् । मूढाना द्रुतबोधद च सुमहत् सवोपकारक्षम काशीनाथ इतौरितो बुधवर पूर्णीचकाराथ तत ॥ २ गौरीपुत्रमुख नागधरणीसवत्सरे (१८६६) वैक्रम भूवैश्वानरसप्तचन्द्रकमिते शाके (१७३१) तपस्ये सिते । पचे सूर्यतिथौ विधी सुदिवसे विप्रस्तु सारखती वावूरामसमाखायातिविदितो मुद्राक्षरैर् न्यस्तवान् ॥ ३ ॥ (23) न्यस्यते स्थाप्यते दृढीक्रियतेऽनेनेति न्यास, ।

·[ 9 ] एव प्रकटितोऽस्माभिर्भाष्य परिचय पर । तस्य नि शेषतो मन्ये प्रतिपत्तापि दुर्लभ ॥१॥ Again प्रक्रियातकंगहनप्रविष्टो हृष्टमानस । हरदत्तहरि खर विहरन् केन वार्यते ॥१॥ Though he boasts of the superiority of his work (24) to all other common taries on the aftal, said to be existing by hundreds, yet it is doubtful if he has been able to dislodge the wip from its pedestal of the first and test of its kind frategis was a grammarian of extraordinary acumen His grammatical knowledge and insight were intensely keen , his studies and acquirements vast, deep and varied His memory, as evidenced from his book, was wonderful His book is a veritable repositary of minute, cogent and incisive reasonings Its sterling merits deservedly acquired for it, a worldwide fame The scholars sang its praises यत पञ्जिकानावमिमामासाद्य सुधिय सुखम् । तरन्ति काशिकाम्भोधिस जिनेन्द्रो जयत्ययम् ॥ १ ॥ . and again उच्चारित शेषमुखैरशेषाखामृत शब्दमहार्णवस्य । न्यासीकत येन जिनेन्द्रकन तस्मै नमः शाब्दिकवन्दिताय ॥१॥ मृष्टिधराचाय्य of the भाषावृत्त्यर्थविवति based his work on it and he says न्यासग्रन्थार्थतातपर्यापय्यालोचनालिभिः। बोध्योऽय करुणावद्भिः कृतिभिर मे परिश्रम ॥ १॥ The 271# has a commentary of its own in common with the fulfil by मवेयरनित It is called the तन्त्र प्रदीप Says मैत्रेय in his धातुप्रदोप- मञ्जुघोषप्रसादन धातूना वृत्तिमारभे । बहुशोऽमून् यथा भौम प्रोतावास्तबदागमात् ॥ १ ॥ Again in the colophon वृत्तिन्यासी (स)समुद्दिश्य कृतवान् ग्रन्थविस्तरम् । माम्ना तन्त्र प्रदीप यो विकृतास्तेन धातव ॥ २ ॥ आवष्य भाष्यजलधे रथ धातुनामणरायणक्षपणपाणिनिशास्त्रवेदी। कालापचान्द्रमततत्त्व विभागदक्षी धातुप्रदीपमकरोज्जगतो हिताय ॥ ३ ॥ He composed his books in about 1100 A D Some say that this तन्त्रप्रदीप Is probably ider tical with the अनुन्यास, or the न्यासोद्योत। माधवाचार्य often refers to it by the name of वृत्तिप्रदीप after the भाष्यप्रदीप by कैयट। Nothing is known regarding the birth place, parentage and life of the न्यासकार । बोधिमत्त्वदेशीयाचार्य being a title of his, it is plain that he was a Buddhist Some take him as a जैन। भदोजि called him वेदवाह्य (25), because he was not a (24) अविचारितरमणीय काम व्याखयाशत भवतु वृत्तेः। हृदयङ्गमा भविष्यति गुणरयाणामिय व्याखया ॥ १ ॥" (25) "यत्तु न्यासलतोक्त मुगलानीशब्दे हितोय उदात्त इति तदुवेदवायत्वप्रयुक्तमेव । लितीति (१९३) प्रत्ययात् पूर्वस्य विधीयमानं सन्निहितमानुकं विहाय हितीये प्रवत्तंत इत्यत्र वीजाभावात् । सकनवेदिविकपाठरोधाच्च ।” (प्रौढमनोरमा, वैदिकपक्रिया on 4 1 49) .

·1 20 ] 11 11 Brahmin बोधिसत्त्वदेशीय 1s by the तद्धित affix देशीयर (५।२६७)। Another view asserts देशीय with the affix v under गहादि (४।२।३८) or with छ to बोधिसत्त्वदेश by एड. प्राचा देश (1175) As to his age the internal evidences are very few and far between जिनेन्द्रबुद्धि names a poem सीताहरण in II 1 15 There is nothing to show that the न्यासकार means by it the जानकौहरण by the Buddhist poet कुमारदास In VI 1 74, he quotes मा बालिपथमन्वगा which is from the रामायण (Book IV 81 and 34 18) In II 16 15 भीष्मः कुरूणा भयशोकहर्ता (न्ता) likely from the AETHICA In IV 1 20 is the stanza पिता रक्षति कौमारी भर्ती रक्षति यौवने । पुवस्तु स्थाविरे भावे न स्त्री स्वातन्वामहति ॥ १॥ Which occurs in the मनुसहिता In III 1187 he discourses on अवस्य हन्तु which may remind one of the line त्रस्य हन्तुः कुलिश कुण्ठिताश्रीव लक्ष्य in the कुमारसम्भव in viil 280 15 अहरहर्नयमानो गामश्व पुरुष पशुम् which is from the महाभारत, In III 11 21 Is faire faisait in III 174 कान्तो हरिश्चन्द्र इव प्रजानाम , in VI 2 187 1S तत्रोपासितलोकभर्तरि , in VI 111 67 शिरो मे श्रीयंशी मे श्री and in VIII 1v 16, अपि शाक पचानस्य सुखा वै मघवम् ग्यहा । But their sources have not been traced In II 1 17 stands a quotation प्राहे कल्याननामानावेतो तिष्यपुनर्वसू which is also found, slightly changed, in the साहित्यदर्पण To illustrate the drammatic लक्षण अनुत्तसिद्धि in chapter vf the author sets down "विशेषार्थोहविस्तारीऽनुक्रमिद्धिरुदीच्यते यथा ग्रहवृक्षवाटिकाया- दृश्यतै तन्वि गवती चारुचन्द्रमस प्रति । प्राहे कल्याणनामानाबुभौ तिष्यपुनर्वसू ॥ १ ॥ One रामचरणतकवागीश who wrote a commentary on the साहित्यदर्पण, by naune the साहित्यदर्पणविकृति, in 1702 A D, glossed over it thus - "अहविस्तारस्तौतिशयः। दृश्येते इति । रहोपवने विश्वामिवस मौप श्रीरामलक्ष्मणौ दृष्ट्वा सौता सम्बोव्य तत्सखीना वितर्कवर्णनमिदम् । अत्र चन्द्रादोना पृथिव्या मसभवे वितकोतिशय ।" Is this ग्टहवक्षवाटिकायाम् the name of a book? Or a portion of the text quoted from a book, indicating the spot from which the maidens addressed सीता? S, There is a passage (26) in the MS of the न्यास belonging to the Deccan college, Poona, in which a quotation is found from the अमरकोष Viz -"अथवा तन्त्र प्रधाने सिद्धान्त इत्यमर ।" But it does not occur in the Bengal MS in Bengalı characters, ferreted out from Bengal, and now deposited in the Varendra Research Society of Rajshahi, nor in the MS in Malayalam characters, which is in the Library of Trivancore Government (27) So it cannot be safely asserted that जिनेन्द्रबुद्धि had quoted अमरमिह । - तन्त्र सिद्धान्तः । AP (26) P 2 in the Text (27) IV Pundit I Go pili Sastrin assured the editor of this his letler į rinul i Bonnep 191 Vol I Vide ·। 21 ] As for the external evidence, it is known from I tsing that alfer died 10 661 A D Now fargers did not write his apA within a very short time after Jayaditya's demise It is clear from the following passages of it (a) In I 1 5 writes the न्यासकार-"अन्ये तूत्तरसूवे कणिता श्वी रणिता व इत्यनन्तरमनेन ग्रन्थेम भवितव्यम् । इह तु दुर्विन्यस्तकाकुपदजनितभ्रान्तिभि कुलेखकैच लिखितमिति वर्णयन्ति । (b) In IV 1 2-"ौटष्टकार सुडिति प्रत्याहारग्रहणाथ । वृत्तौ त्वेष ग्रन्यो नास्ति । भवितव्य बनेन। लेखक प्रमाददोषादिदानीमन्नहित ।" (c) In VI 111 79-"ससग्रहमित्येतदुदाहरण प्रमादादिदानीन्तनै कुलेखकैलिखितम् ।" 1 his shows that the use and study of the fire had spread vastly and ranged for a sufficient time before the air was...composed Otherwise it is hardly possible for the scribes to so soon forget the order of words in trans cription of any recently composed book The complaint of the commentator consists of the words इदानीम् and इदानीन्तने This clearly bespeaks a certain period of time sufficiently long and previously elapsed after which the copyists were likely to be careless in their work Now मेयरक्षित the commentator on the न्यास 1s quoted by शरणदेव in his दुर्घट हत्ति written in 1172 A D मैच्यरक्षित refers to कैघट and quotes माघ in his तन्त्रप्रदीप। It will be presently shown that माघ names the न्यास। पुरुषोत्तमदेव men tioned in the दुर्घटवत्ति, quotes न्यासकार and कैयट in his भाषावृत्ति composed in about 1150 A Diaz often refers to ieft (of the angela ) and glare (जयादित्य) directly and speaks of the न्यासकार in the भाष्यप्रदीप indirectly thus (a) In III 1 III, on the Sutra ई च खनः ( ३१११११) says न्यासकार-"इयोरिकारयो प्रश्लेषनिर्देश. । तत्र यो द्वितीय इवर्णः स ये (6443) चेत्यात्त्वबाधा यथा स्यादित्ये बमर्थ ।” Now कैयट remarks "दोघोच्चारणे भाष्यकारण प्रत्याखवाते केचित् प्रश्लेषनिर्देशन द्वितीय डकारो ये विभाषेत्यात्त्वस्य (6443) पचे परत्वात् प्राप्तस्य बाधमार्य इत्याहु । वदयुक्तम् । क्यप्सन्नियोगेन विधीयमानस्येवस्थान्त- रगत्त्वात् । (b) Again in VII 111 70 (घोलोपो लेटि वा) कैयट observes-"कैचिनित्यमागम- शासनमित्यस्य ज्ञापक वाग्रहण वर्णयन्ति । अनित्यत्वात् तस्य घसति ददादिति न स्यादिति। तसिद्धय वाग्रहण क्रियमाणमेना परिभाषा ज्ञापयति । This assertion that the term at in VII 111, 70 is the indicatory of the qfCHIET quoted above, stands in the wie in VII 1 I viz अनित्यता पुनरागमशासनस्य धो लौंपो लेटि वैत्यत्र (7370) याग्रहणाल्लिङ्गाद विज्ञायते । मद्धि ददद दटादिस्यत्र नित्य घी लोपी मा भूदित्यवमर्थ क्रियते । यदि च नित्यमार्गमशासन स्याद वाग्रहणमनर्थक स्यात्। भवतु नित्यो लोप । सत्यपि तस्मि जेटोऽडाटा (3494) इत्यटि कृते ददद ददादिति सिद्धात्येव । अनित्यत्वे त्गमशासनस्याडागमाभावान्न सिव्यति। ततो वावचनमर्थवद भवति।" From this elaborate explanation in which no previous writer is alluded to, it is clear that जिनेन्द्रबुद्धि 1s the first prapagator of this view If so, कैयट refers to the all and kse must have flourished some time between 661 A D and 1100 A D This limit for az is set down in consideration of the reference to him, by gautarea who by पुरुषोत्तमदेव who was most likely a. Bengali He composed his HTC in about 1150 AD, and we may take 50 years as the minimum period for the circulation of the भाष्यप्रदीप 11 Bengal Again हरदत्त ·122 maamumar often indirectly speaks of maz (28) and appears to have lived in 1100 AD हरदत्त, मैव यनित and पुरुषोत्तम appear to have been all co eval as no one of them refers to the others tuea too does not speak of , but he quotes कैयट | Kalycta introduces himself thus पदवाक्यप्रमाणाना पार यातस्य धीमतः। गुरी महेश्वरस्थापि कल्ला चर रावन्दनम ॥ १ ॥ महाभाष्याणं वावारपारीण विवतिप्रवस । यथागम विधाम्येऽह कैयटो जेयटात्मज ॥ २ ॥ So his preceptor was one महेश्वर and father जैयट One भीमसेत in his commen tary सुधासागर on the काव्यप्रकाश, written in a bout 1723 A D asserts that कैयट was a brother to मम्मटभट्ट and उव्वट and flourished in काश्मीर They say मम्मट lived in 1050 A D and so did fac as they both referred to the king as in their works मम्भट names भोज in his काव्यप्रकाश-"यद विहदभवनेषु भोजनृपते स्ततत्यागलीलायितम।" भोज was reigning in 1042 A D उव्वट in his ऋक प्रातिशाखाभाष्य says इति श्रीपार्षदव्याखवाया मानन्दपुरवास्तव्यवचटपुत्रोबटकते प्रातिशाखाभाष्ये पटल" and in his वाजसनेयसहिताभाष्य says ऋष्यादीच नमस्कृत्य अवन्त्यामुव्वटो वमन् । मन्त्रभाष्य मद चक्रे भाजे राष्ट्र प्रशामति ॥ १ ॥ Elsewhere is the statement आनन्द पुरवास्तव्यवज्रटाखास्य सूनुना। मन्त्रभाष्यमिट लुप्त भजि पृष्ठो प्रशामति ॥ १ ॥ Which makes aaz as his father and not jaz, which jers with the assertion by भीमसेन in his सुधासागर in asmuch as कैवट himself says that जैयट was his father, It can however be defended by taking पिटव्यपुत्र (cousin) as the meaning of the term aar (brother) here, -the term at may even indicate मातुलपुत्र, माष्वसीय and पिष्वसीय । But from consideration of the age of हरदत्त, शरणदेव and पुरुषोत्तमटेव, कैयट may be taken to have lived in Iogo A D if not earlier Now the stanza. in the शिशुपाल वध- अनुत्सूवपदन्यासा सवृत्ति सनिबन्धना। शब्दविद्येव नी भाति राजनीतिरपस्पशा ॥ १ ॥ really alludes to the Te Going through the pages of the latter, the hit in the epithet अनुत्सूत्रपदन्यासा will be found very thoroughly appropriate I he reader will be amazed to find that flaggfs invariably and studiously rejects the vartikas and shows that whatever had been supplied by कात्यायन with Vartikas, (28) E G says कैरट in 3 2 115 in forming the word परीत्त-"प्रतिपरस- मनुभ्योऽक्षण इति टच् समासान्त । च यद्यप्यव्ययीभावे विधीयते तथापि परशब्दस्याक्षिशब्देनाव्ययीभावा- सम्मवात् समासान्तरे विज्ञायते ।" Now हरदन remarks there "अन्ये तु प्रतिपरसमनुभ्योऽक्षा इति शरतप्रभृतिषु पाठाच समासान्त इत्याहु । स च यद्यप्यव्ययीभावे विधीयते तथापि परशब्द माव्ययीभावासम्म वात् समासान्तरे विजायते।' from such cases हरदत्त is clearly posterior to कैयट ·[ 23 ] could be independently formed and justified by the sutras of the weat The vartikas were therefore absolutely needless, as things established by them, could be deduced from the very sutras -"सर्व सूबे प्रविष्ठितम्'। So the न्यास 1s really wae and Magha's allusion to it in the stanza, is quite sure and certain माघ is quoted by आनन्द वर्द्धन in his ध्वन्यालोक and धनिकधनञ्जय in the दशरूप The 769 was composed in about 977 A D and 1795 lived in the reign (from 855 A D to 883 A D) of qafqašą son to Faq and a king, of #### Hence A19 might be living in about 800 A D Taking the two limits of 661 AD (the year of Jayaditya's death) and 800 A, D the ae appears to have been composed in about 725 A D Kielhorn's statement that sgąæaqeml# does not refer to the alë, is not tenable and need not be relied on The term waqa might be used in the FETH1 as many times as one may please, but marking the systematic way in which fagf having rejected every affiat, maintains and props up the authority, of the sutras only, 19 could not mean anything but the be in the aforesaid passage, when putting an epithet to the word uiaal It is also worth consideration how many renowned and important books there had been available on the necfaat when composed his poem It was #famat because it had in it the #FTHte which is a grea Bhatrıhari's description, कृतिऽय पतञ्जलिना गुरुणा तीर्थदर्शिना । सर्वेषा न्यायवीजाना महाभाष्ये निबन्धनम् ॥ leeds to the idea that it was the content of all न्यायवीज and a सन्निबन्धन। Bagafat is the other qualification, because it had then in it hitafa by heeft and the gifteht afar by 9177591FECT. The next important treatise in it is the न्यास So #ta described the narraai as enriched with all those works Kielhorn's other assertion that the 6 was the source of the is equally wrong हरदत्त names the न्यासकार directly in 4 I 22 of the पदमनरी (29) and indirectly often as अपर आह, कश्चिदाह, केचित &c and then quotes the passages of the न्यास For løstances the reader is referred to the Sutras 3 3 67, 3 3 99 and 4 4 in the chat and the # in which he will find the quotations word for word from the lat er in the former Vana's हर्षचरित has a passage v12 -तच् श्रुत्वा वाणस्य चत्वारः पिढव्य पुवा भातरः प्रसन्नत्तयो सहीतवाक्याः कृत गुरुपदन्यासा न्यायवादिन मुक्तसग्रहाभ्यास गुग्वी लब्ध साधु शब्दा लोक इव 214fa, 4TETTE FEIFT (Chapter III) This reading is from the Bombay fallait Press edition. The edition of A A Fuhren is identical, as far as this passage is concerned, with it Some say that owing owing to the double entendres in the simile लोकडव 3719Tosty, the word nie here refers to the fall or the commentary on the Kasika The words वृत्ति, वाक्य, न्याम and ग्रह are there The first may imply . I (-2) "न्यासकारस्तु हौ विस्तौ परिमाणमति विग्टङ्गम् निस्त परिपरिमाण मन्यते ।" इति पदमञ्जरौ ।

·[ 24 ] - 73 the भागत्ति by भर्तृहरि or the काशिका by जयादित्य or any other earlier work such as afuaft or sfigfu 919 may indicate the affer by far and of the work by zifs Similarly are may stand for the commentery on the Kasika But the Calcutta edition of the rafra of 1876 reads " धातर प्रसन्न प्रहत्तयो सहीतवाक्या कतगुरुन्यासा न्यायवादिन सुक्कतसग्टहीताभ्यासगुरबो ल साधुशब्दा लोकदव व्याकरणे The translation of the passage by S B Cowell and F W Thomas runs thus “Men of mild manners and cultures, holding the status of preceptors, expoun ders of Nyaya, deep in the study of able works, receiving only good words (1 e they are called good and as Grammarians they receive only good words) both in the world and in grammar An old commentary printed in the fachaint press and Fuhren's edition takes zie as meaning "afafanua", and does not say it is feargle's work So to take the word are here, meaning the fifaarufi is probably a far stretched idea It is capable of getting several other interpretation perfectly connected with Grammar, though not indicating any particular Book Besides, there is the direct and positive statement of Itsing who had almost been a contemparary to the authors of the 2014 and #lfgait, against the aforesaid assertion Vana lived in the reign of Harshavardana (606-648) of Kanoj His serta was composed to glorify this monırch whereas Itsing's statement made in 691 A D is that Hajaft died in 651 A D and Farfer died in 661 A D If Itsing be right, Vana cannot even dream of the fate by fsaggis | Neither is there any grouod to hold the Chines traveller's statement as false and incredible Another view is sugested to preserve the assertion that the term wa here really refers to a bock The words are and present no difficulty gf too may be some earlier work than the भागवत्ति or the काशिका Similarly he is some other sale which had appeared before Vana One art is said to have been composed in the fifth century A D by देवनन्द or देवनन्दिन्। We shall presently speak of it If there had realy existed any such it before the seventh century A, D the word in the passage may be taken as lodicating a book Of course it is not the काशिकाविवरणपञ्जिका। There is another important reference to the 1917 in the Rhetorical work by #17a, Says he शिष्टप्रयोगमात्रेण न्यासकारमतेन वा। दृचा समस्तपाठीक न कथञ्जिदुदाहरीत ॥ १ ॥ सूत्रज्ञापकमानेन वहन्ता यथोदित. । अकेन च न कुर्वीत वृत्तिं तद्गमको यथा ॥ २ ॥ In 2 2 16, 1971 asserts that a word ending with art cannot be compounded with another derived with me! This opinion he repeats in IV. I 33 in which he observes ·[ 25 ] "अघ फलग्रहीत्वादिति। कथमत्र षष्ठीसमास ? कथञ्च न स्यात् १ कर्तरि चेति (२२ १६) ढचा मह षष्ठीसमासप्रतिषेधात्। नैवार्य जन्तेन षष्ठीसमासः। कि तर्हि १ हितीयेति (२०२४) योग- विभागात् टन्नन्तं न हितीयासमासः। अथवा याजकादिषु ग्रहोटशब्दो द्रष्टव्यः। तेन षष्ठीसमासे भविष्यति।' In III 11 87, in opposing the affix za he says "Ta#01 Telegrafa 77 77 strai प्रायिकत्वानियमस्य न दोष ।" SO THE perhaps means that fagyatta ITT अथवा न्यासकारमतेन हेतुना बचा समस्तषष्ठीक कथञ्चिन्नोदाहरेत, that is, in accordance with the ues of the learned who never compound a 257, word with a 98177 one or as the opinion of the TT is against such a compound, such words should never be used सूत्रज्ञापकमावण likely refers to जनिकरर्तु प्रकृति. (१।४।३०) and ततप्रयोनको हेतुश्च ( ११४५५)। Now it is said that as there were many Nyasakaras, flaufs might not be here intended by भामह But the 721227787 is the chief of all other works on Sanskrit grammar fagfs being the commentator on it, cannot but be the chief 21189177 ! For the same reason, he is likely the first of all other tits It might be that other works were called 17 in imitation of the name of his book In some MSS such as those in the Madras Government Library or in the Research Department of Kasmir State, he is mentioned as farfare It is either because he was ancient or old as he had likely been prior to the authors of the other Nyasas or because he was a revered personage with the Buddhists Bramın authors too similarly show their reverence to the sages, often calling them as az or a such as gal, gay, g1, 1570, implying either their great antiquity or revered position w therefore very likely alludes to him Had he referred to any other न्यासकार, he would have most likely qualified him, as the author of such as areale, 1921979, IE, &c, Again Panini's grammar is the most authoritative one , therefore the prefirt belonging to it, was perhaps given preference to by भामह in his allusion No other it belonging to the pure Paninian school1 is so familiarly known now all and Firstanta are, as their very names indicate, probably treatises on the zip itself A recent assertion is that there was apother Fliesite who lived in the 5th century A D His name was 977 or ea नन्दिम् and he had the title पूज्यपाद Though माधवाचायं refers to the works of other न्यासकारs such as the बोधिन्यास, शाकटायनन्यास, क्षेमेन्द्रन्यास &c yet in his repeated statements such as falazifefactata &c, alueig &ce, he invariably refers to the Fifgrafaatua! Quotations from the mie given by TETT, श्रीपति, पारणदेव, Acariga, y7127, माधवाचार्य, भट्टोजि &c, all tally with the passages of this treatise and quotations from 220 are nonexitent in these writers or if found elsewhere, they are very rare So inspite of the existence of many न्यासकार, these authors all seem to take जिनेन्द्रबुद्धि as the chief न्यासकार । HI#too similarly and most likely in his book, referred to and meant foaf and not देवनन्द Now one भट्टोअट wrote a commen.ary named the भामहविवरण, on the Rhetorical work by HIA He was one of the court pundits of जयापीड king of K2,mir, who re gned from 779 A D to 813 A DETEZ, (also named हहन्नारद &c > Care ·[ 26 ] उभटाचाय्य), composed another Rhetorical treatise named the का यालङ्कारम ग्रह In the conmentary of th s उदमटानडार by प्रतोहारटुगज, it is asserted that भट्टोइट had written the भामहविवरण । This makes HFE either a contemporary to g. or one preceding him We may therefore take He living in 775 A D But भामह as stated above spanks of the न्यासकार। जिनेन्द्रबुद्धि was therefore prior to him and he might have prepared his zie by about 725-750 A D, Again कुमारिलभट्ट appears postirnor by a few years only to the न्यासकार। They were the inhabitants of distant regions and were mutually unknown FATTETHE attacks the #fit on its way in which it defends the compound in fas: apd तत्प्रयोजकः। जिनेन्द्रबुद्धि Is silent here He appears to be ignorant of this attack or to have written his commentary earlier aaaft supports the wfmt regarding those compounds The chronology of these works therefore starts up likely thus -The date of the H127067 is about 625 A D of the fifg[sit is about 650 AD, and of the man is 725-750 AD of the works of FAITHE 750 A D , of TFF 775 A D AD , HEIKE 785 A D , of 19 800 A D of the af 867 A D of कैयट 1050 AD of हरदत्त and मैत्रेयरक्षित II00 A D , of GP019T 1150 AD, of the cazafa by nivea 1172 A D (30) - 3 > > DACCA UNIVERSITY DACCA, 1923 SRISH CHANDRA CHAKRAVARTI sy (30) The beginning of the catafa is "Et yea 179aa1 वृहद्भट्टननान्भोन-कोश-वीकाश भाखते ॥ १ ॥ शाकमहीपतिवत्सरमान एक नभीनवपञ्चवितान। दुर्घटहत्तिरकारि मुद वः कण्डविभूषणहारलतेव ॥ २॥ एकमभोनवपञ्चाना वितानो विस्तारो विन्यास इति यावदस्ति यस्मिन्निति विग्रह । तस्मिञ्शाक- महीपतिवत्सरमान इत्यन्वय । That is the 17 year 1095 which corresponds with 1172 A D ·। 27 ] THE DESCRIPTION OF THE MISS USED IN PREPARING THE PRESS COPY of the काशिकाविवररापचिका। III 2 and III I . (1) The first MS (a) contains I 4 (A), 2 3, III I, VII VII I It is owned by the Rajshahi Goverrment College For details, see notes in P 332 and P 790 vol I (2) The Second MS (ग) contains I 2 3 4 and II I 2 3 4 Details are given in note P 332 vol I (3) The third MS (2) is with ony I 3 and II 4. (4) The 4th MS (न) containing I 2, 2 and VI I 4, at the end of 1/2 has श्रोशानशर्मणा लिखितम् । At the end of its 3/2 15 श्रीकाशीपतिशमण पुस्तकमिदम् । लिखित श्रीजगन्मोहनसेनेन। शकाब्दा १७३० आषाढस्य तौयदिवसे। शक १७३० 15 1808 AD Its pages were found torn in some places At the end of 6/4 1s इन्दुविन्दुमुनिक्षौणीशाके सिंहगते रवौ । व्यालेखि न्यासटौक्य श्रीकृष्णानन्दशर्मणा ॥१॥ इन्दुविन्दु मुनिक्षौणीशक 15 १७०१ that 1s 1779 A D Elsewhere is शक १७३९ that 1s 1817 A D See details in note P 790 vol I (5) The 5th MS (a) contains VII 1, 2, 3,4 and VII I 34 At the end of 7/3 1s औरस्तु कृष्ण नाथशमणि and at the end of 8/4, it has तैलाद्रत जलाट्रक्ष रक्ष मा श्लथबन्धनात् । आखुभ्य परहस्तेभ्य एव वदति पुस्तिका ॥ १ ॥ नत्वा कालीपदान निखिलभयहर' शोकसन्तापनाश यस्था. समुक्ति मिच्छन् मुरपुरि वसता स्तव्य इश समाते । यस्य क्रोधाद् विनष्ट स्त्रिभुवनविजयी तेन सोऽभूदनन शाके न्यास खशन्याधिशशिपरिमिते क्रमानाथो व्यलेखोत ॥ २॥ खशून्याधिशशिपरिमितशाक 15 १७००, 1e 1778 A D (6) The Sixth MS (**i) contains III I (7) The 7th MS (67) is with III , See note P 709, vol I (8) The 8th MS (ट) 1s with III 4 See note P 791, vol I (9) The 9th MS (C) It was from the Deccan College Poona, kindly lent by the late lamented Professor Ghate It has प्रत्याहार, I I 2 3 4, IV 12 3 4 and V 1 2 3 4 See page 331 and Page 1061 notes, vol I (A) II 4 or 1/4 indicates the fourth padi (or section) of the 1st Adhyaya and similarly 21 or 2/1 is the rst pada of the 2nd Adyaya and so on ·[ 28 ] Was one I 11 I 2 IV I VII I n II I 2 3 4 (10) The oth Ms (9) is with V 1 3 Its copyist and owner श्रीकान्तशर्मा। (11) The 11th MS. (5) containing II 1,2 VI 3 and VII 2 3 + has at the end farea ##17UTI A very good and correct MS (12) The 12th MS, () has I 3, 3, 2 3 4 and VIII 1 4 see note P 484 (13) The 13th MS (क) 1s with प्रत्याहार, II a 3 and cee n te 331 vol I This is the Bengal MS containig the gate and I I or the beginning of the aid I It is the property and is now in the office, of the air society (14) The 14th MS (7) with VIII 3 is from the village CT, Rajshahi It has at the end fifaT FIATH | 97818T: 268€ 1C 1724 A D (15) The 15th MS (u) is with VI 4 (16) The 16th MS (5) is with 1 4 see note p 332, vol I (17) The 17th MS () is from the Deccan College, Poona It contains II I 2 3 4 See i ote P 484, vol I (18) The 18th MIS () is from the Asiatic Society Bengal Calcutta and has VII 2 and VIII 4 The label is no 8029 #fifaarufi fa sofagian सप्तमाध्यायस्य द्वितीय पाद किञ्चिदून । अष्टमाव्यायस्य चतुर्थपादश्च व्याकरणम्।" At the end of 8 4, it has guru qal eat Targ पुस्तक लिखितञ्चेद देवानन्यान् प्रयत्नत ।। १ ।। (19) The 19th MS () is also from the aforesaid Society and has VII 34 1 he label is "-8/24 Seal AS NS Goverment Sanskrit MS At the end of 7/3 15 VETT EGI At the end of 7/4 is iframe su Famil (20) The 20th MS () is with VII 12 3 and VIII I 2 3 At the end of 7/1 15 शुभमस्तु शकाव्दाः १६९५ 1e 1773 A D At tne end of VIII I is fast Patataifa, ya 4617 917 #fearga 1 So it is incomplete So it is incomplete Infact the vedic portions of the Book were completely lost in Bengal and from other provinces those have to be procured (21) The 21st MS (T) is with II 1, VII i 4 and VII I 3 (22) The 22nd MS (5) with III 3 and IV It is a copy written in Devanagar from the MS on the palm leaves in Canarese characters at the Sravan Belgolah Jain Matha in Mysore It was got on i 7 I 7 1915 See note p 791, vol 1 (23) The 23rd MS ( ) with VI 3 4 and VIII 34, was got from the village वैद्यवेलघरिया, Rajshahi, from the house of परिडत शिवचन्द्रसिद्धान्त । (24) The 24th MS (8) is with III 3 See note P 791 vol I I ·L 29 (25) The 25th MS (#) is also a copy in Devanagar certified as duly compared with the original from the aforesaid Sravan Belgolah MS prepared like the copy of the MS XXII Its contents are VI I 2 and VIII I 2 (26) The 28th MS (a) is with VI 2 This is a portion of the Kasmir MS a copy in Devanagar duly compared It has been got from the Superintendent Research Department Srinagar, Jamoo Kasmir State, Kasmir In our collection, the MSS 10 Bengalı letters were almost all collected from almost all distritcs of North Bengal In whole Bengal the literate people of Rajshahi Division together with only a very few Tole pundits of Vishnupur in West Bengal, preserved the studies of Panini's grammar from generation to generation There were in North Bengal countless scholars who used to teach this grammar to their pupils in indegenous system They kept alive specially the study of the Buddhist commentaries viz काशिका, न्यास, तन्त्रप्रदीप, भाषावृत्ति, &c Many of them have left commentaries of their own on those books One of these is fear the commentator of the #1919777 i One #9197 too had commentar es on portions of the airfaren 2717 &c We may refer here to two TOLE pundits of Bengal of recent time who by their erudition in aifufa Grammar, were very much reputed One is pundit शिवचन्द्र मद्धान्त of वैद्यबेलवरिया in Nattore, District Rajsahi He was born in 1797 and died in 1867 AD He went to Benares and solicited 19177# for lessons on the ETHTET This Sastrin was formerly the court pundit of the Panjab Lion Rapajit Singha faza had argeauffaq as his classmate there under काकागम The Bengalis being generally fi h-eaters, his prayer was at first rejected fram used however to daily go to him and sit at a distance listening to his lectures He raised oſten argumentative objections and they struck and charmed the man who ultimately softened and favoured him with giving hım lessons directly He returned to his country and proved superior to other Pundits There are some adages concerning his name शिव काशीशिव काशीकाशी शिव शिव । शिवचन्द्रोदयो यव तव नास्य पराभव ॥१॥ शिवेन शिवचन्द्रेण मुसिद्धान्तेन धीमता। विसर्जने कता यातु व्याखासावुत्तमोत्तमा ॥ २॥ His works are अव्यात्म चण्डो, श्रीमद्भागवतविचार, गृढभावार्थकाशिनी ( रुद्राव्यायटौका) विधवाविवाहखण्ड नम्, वासुदेवविजय महाकाव्यम्, सिद्धान्त चन्द्रिका (वेदान्तदशमटीका), कुलशास्त्रदीपिका, सुधाविन्दु ( पाणिनिव्याकरणटीका ), अभावपदार्थ खण्ड नम्, दोल यात्राविधिः, विहन्म नोरञ्जनकाव्यम्, कालियदमन कायम, रसिकोल्लासकाव्यम्, रसिकप्रमीद काव्यम्। His father's name was राम দ্ধিমানহ্মাৰ।

·130 ) 1 he Last Grammarian of the giftfr School of North Bengal teaching it in role or indegenous system, was one पण्डित पीताम्बरतकालकार of the village दीघा in Nattore (Rajshahi) He was the court Pundit of the Maharaja of Nattore He used to regularly lecture on the taraft, and fifti Pupils flocked to him in large numbers, on account of his vaste erudition With his death in 1916, the class of such grammarians of North Bengal was alas extinct SRISH CHANDRA CHAKRAVARTI Dacca University, Dacca, 1923

·ABBREVIATIONS AND THEIR EXPLANATIONS.
उणादि सूत्र ।
91
92
(प, ) Stands for परिभाषा ।
(1,7)
TUELT
(39)
"When a number is put after 9, 30., &c in the above, it means the parti
cular number of the परिभाषा or the उणादि सूत्र, &c as the case miy
be For
instance (7, 15) indicates the afchrat no 151
Again (30 R124) is for the safe ya no 153 to be found in the sccond
Pada of these Sutras We have quoted such Sutras only from the agret of
the उणादि Rules
Io the case of the Aphorisms or the main Sutras of the larat, we have
quoted three numbers of these first figure indicates the Adhyaya (chapter)
and the second figure is pada (section) and third is the number of the Sutra in
this pada viz: (RIRI84) Here the 45th Sutra of the second pada of the third
Adhyaya of the permit is meant and so on in other cases