·阳。
深
तमसो मा ज्योतिर्गमय
SANTINIKETAN
VISWA BHARATI
LIBRARY
派派派
210.9
B4
※

·No text on this page.

·No text on this page.

·AN ACCOUNT OF THE DIFFERENT EXISTING
dok
SYSTEMS OF SANSKRIT GRAMMAR
BEING
THE VISHWANATH NARAYAN MANDLIK
GOLD MEDAL PRIZE-ESSAY FOR 1909
BY
SHRIPAD KRISHNA BELVALKAR, M. A., Ph. D.
वाचारम्भणं विकार'
PUBLISHED
WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
BOMBAY
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BY THE AUTHOR
POONA, 1915

·Copies of this book can be had by addressing to the
Oriental Books Supplying Agency, 13 Shukrawar, Poona.
Indian price Rs. 3-0-0. Foreign price 4 shillings. American
price one dollar. All prices include postage.
BY THE SAME AUTHOR
THE
UTTARA-RĀMA-CHARITA
OF
BHAVABHÜTI
MARATHI TRANSLATION
Over 275 pages
Price Rs. 2-0-0
To be had of -
The Oriental Books Supplying Agency
13 Shukrawar, POONA
Printed by Anant Vinayak Patwardhan at the
Aryabhushan Press, Poona, and published by
Shripad Krishna Belvalkar
At Poona.
First edition, 1915, One Thousand Copies

·CONTENTS 1 ... ... ... .. ... ... ... ... .. ... 6 ... ... ... 10 ... ... ... PAGE PREFACE vii 1. Grammatical speculations in In lia : Their extent and value 1 2. Early grammatical speculations : In the Vedas, 3. In the Brāhmaṇas, and 3 4. In allied works 4 5. The predecessors of Yāska 4 6. Yāska's Nirukta : Its date 7. Nature of Yāska's work 8 8. Yāska's successors 9 9. The so-called Aindra treatises 1 10. The School of Pāṇini 12 11. Pānini's date 13 12. The view that Pāṇini cannot be placed before B. C. 350 examined 15 13. Known facts about Pāṇini's life... 18 14. Character of Pānini's work 19 15. Technical devices used by Panini 22 16. Treatises accessory to Pāņini's Ashțādhyāyī 35 17. Kātyāyana : His date 28 18. Nature of Kātyāyana's vārtikas to Pāṇini's grammar 29 19. Vārtikakāras before and after Kātyāyana 31 20. Patañjali : His date and personal history 31. The Vyā karana-Malābhashya as marking the end of the first period in the history of the Pāṇiniya school 22. Chandragomin and his work 34 23. The Kāśikā of Jayā:litya and Vāmana 35 24. The indebtedness of the Kasikā to Chandragomin 37 25. Jinendrabuddhi's Nyāsa ou the Kāśikā ... 38 36. Haradatta's Padamaſjari on the Kasikā 39 27. Bhartřihari's Vākyapadiya 40 ... ... ... 32 34 ... ... ... ..

·iv. Contents ... 51 ... ... ... . ... 53 ... ... ... ... ... PAGE 28. Kaiyyata's Pradipa as marking the end of second period in the history of the Pāṇiniya school 41 29. Recasts of the Ashta dhyāyī: The Rūpamālā 43 30. Ramachandra's Prakriýā-kaumudi, and its commentaries .. 45 31. Bhattoji's Siddhānta-kaumudi and other works 46 33. The works of Nāgesa and of Vaidyanātha Pāyagunda 49 33. Grammatical works outside the Dikshita school 50 34.' Abridgements and manuals 35. Later history of treatises accessory to Pāṇini's grammar 51 36. Dhātupātha 51 37. Ganapātha ... 53 38. Liñgānusāsana 39. Uņādipātha... 54 40. Paribhāshās 54 41. Résumé of the history of the Pāṇinīya school... 55 42. The Chāndra school 57 43. The data of Chandragomin 58 44. Nature of his work 59 45. Accessory treatises of the Chandra grammar 60 46. Later history of the Chāndra school 61 47. The Jainendra school 62 48. Date of the Jainendra Vyakarana 64 49. Its character, and ... 65 50. Later history 66 51. The ſākațāyana school 68 52. Its founder not the ancient šākatāyana but his modern name-sake 68 53. Character of sakațāyana's Šabdānusāsana 69 54. Other works of this school 71 55. Its later history 71 56. The Hemachandra school 73 57. Life of Hemachandra 73 58. Nature of Hemachandra's Sabdanusāsana 59. Treatises accessory to the Sabdānusāsana 77 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. ... ... ... ... ...

·Contents PAGE ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 80. Commentaries on the Sabdājušāsana 78 61. Digests, manuals, and other niscellaneous works 79 62. Conclusion of the Hemachandra school 80 63. The Kātantra school 81 64. Traditional account about Śarvavarnan, the founder of the school 82 65. Evidence for later interpolations in the Katantra Sätrapātha... 83 66. Nature of Sarvavarman's work 86 67. Early history of the school 87 68. Durgasimha and his vșitti 87 69. Commentaries on Durgasiniha's vșitti 88 70. Treatises accessory to the Kātantra 89 71. History of the Kātantra school in Bengal 90 72. History of the Katancra school in Kasmira 91 73. The Sārasvata school : Its dato 81 we can get there many times 74. Special features of the Sārasvata 98 75. Its traditional founder 95 76. Sārasvata-prakriyā of Anubhūtisvarūpāchārya... 96 77. Commentators of Sārasvata-prakriyā 96 78. Commentators of the Sārasvata independently of the Prakriya 102 79. Treatises accessory to the Sārasvata 103 80. General review of the history of the Sarasvata school 103 81. The school of Bopadeva 104 82. Date of Bopadeva... 104 83. Object of Bopadeva's Mugdhabodha 105 84. Later history of the school 107 85. Supplements and accessory treatises of the Mugdhabodha 108 86. The Jaumara school of Kramadigvara 108 87. Its special features 109 88. Commentaries on the Jaymara 109 89. Its present status 110 90. The Saupadma school of Padmunābhụdutta 111 91. Its special features 111 02. Commentaries on the Saupadma... 112 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. ... ... ... ... ..

·vi. Contents .. ... PAGE 93. Treatises accessory to the Saupadma 112 94. Its present status ... 113 95. Later sectarian schools 113 96. Harināmāmpita 113 97. Prabodhaprakāśa 114 98. Lesser Manuals and school-books 115 99. Conclusion ... 116 APPENDIX I. Chāndra-varņa-sūtrāņi 117 APPENDIX II. Jogarāja's Pā lapra karanasangati... 181 APPENDIX III. A Chronological Conspectus of the different Schools, separately in a bag ... GENERAL INDEX 121 ... ... System of Transliteration अ आ इ ई उ ऊ ऋ ऋ ल ए ऐ ओ औ a ā į i u ū ri ri li e ai o au ग घ 27 5 T ka kha ga gha na cha chha ja jha ña hu ho ho थ द ध न ta tha da aha na ta tha da dha na प फ भ H य र ST pa pha ba bha ma ya ra la va ga प है ळ sha sa ha la Visarga — ; Nasalized as in H --- Nasalized as in मीमांसा -n ·PRERACE The following essay (with the nom de plume te fren: ) was offered in competition for the Vishwanath Narayan Mandlik Gold Medal of the University of Bombay. It was approved by the Jalges with the remark: It deserves to be printed, as it collects together a great deal of interesting historical information. It is now accordingly publishel with the kind permission of the University of Bombay. In preparing the essay I have ntilised the labonrs of most of the previous workers in the field, to whore writings I have given constant references in the foot-notes. I also enjoyed the exceptionnl advantage of having at my disposal the entire Government Manuscripts Library at the Deccan College, Poona, and was in fact, at the time of writing this essay, actually engaged in preparing a Destriptive Catalogne of the grammatical works in that Library. As the title indicates, it is an essay—8 mere tentative attempt--and not a profound trentise; ani I have thought it worth while printing it merely because, as far as I know, no work of the kind, covering exactly the field of this essay, has so far appeare:l. In the "Grundriss der In lo-Arischen Philologie' there was to appear a work which would have made the writing of this essay superfluous, but apparently nothicg has come of it so far. I have ma le a few necessary changes in the essay as it was originally submitted, especially in the light of some kin i suggestions received from Professor Hari Mahadeva Bhadkamkar of the Wilson College, Bombay, ant from Professor Vaijanath Kashinath Rajavade of the Fergusson College, Poona, who were appointed julges for the essay. My old and honoured teacher, Professor K. B. Patbak, hah also the goodness to read the essay through and point out certain inaccuracies of fact an'l statement, for which I am deeply grateful to bim. For the most part, however, the ·viii. Preface essay remains just as it was written in 1909 with the exception of the Chronological Conspectus and the General Index, without which no pablished work of this nature could be regarde:l as complete. I do not, of course, expect that the essay would be entirely free from mistakes both of omission and of cominiesion. New facts are coming to light every day; and even of facts that have been already known, it is too much to hope--so numerous are the workers in the field and so scattered their writings-tbat I have taken into consideration all, or even the most important all. I would most thankfully receive, therefore, any corrections or suggestions for improvement. I only hope that the essay contains enough to justify its publication in this present form. Poona, Norember 1914. S. K. BELVALKAR. Postscript : Little did I expoct, when I wrote the above in Novenaber last, that one of the judges for the essay-Professor H. M. Bhadkamkar of the Wilson College, Bombay--would not live to see it in print. But it is the unexpected tbat has happened. Professor Bhadkanıkar took a genuine interest in me and my work, and by writing this postscript I wish to keep his name permanently associated with what is though not the first--yet one of the earliest fruits of nıy literary activity. DECOAN COLLEGE, Poona, ? 15th July 1915. S. K. BELVALKAR.

·AN ACCOUNT OF THE DIFFERENT EXISTING SYSTEMS OF SANSKRIT GRAMMAR 1. Grammatical speculations in India: Their extent and value.- It would be hardly an exaggeration to say that in Do other country has the science of grammar been studied with such a zeal and carried to such a perfection as it has been in India. Even a bare catalogue of the names of grammarians ancient and modern and of such of their works as are still preserved to us can amply bear out the truth of this assertion. On the lowest calulation there are yet current in various parts of India nearly a dozen different schools of Sanskrit grammar, at least three hundred writers in the field including those that are known to us only from quotations, and more than a thousand separate treatises original as well as explanatory. And it is not merely the quantity-for that need not be a source of unalloyed pride to any people-but the quality of the work produced that has won for it a recognition and an honorable mention even at the hands of the rigorously scientific philologists of our own day, who are not ashamed to own their obligations to works and authors of over twenty-five hundred years old. Early grammatical speculations 2. Grammatical speculations in the Vedas.The earliest speculations of a grammatical nature are to be met with in the later portions of the Rigveda itself ; for, even if we pasidemn Patañjali's explanation (Mahābhāshya : Kielhorn, Vol. 1, p. 3) of A FT by ATA Araumat: or his explanation (Ibid. p. 4; Rigveda viii. 69. 12 ) of सप्त सिन्धषः by सप्त विभक्तय: as being too subtle for the Vedic [Sk. Gr. ] ·Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 2- ] bards, still passages, such as Rigveda 8. 125 or Taitti. riya Samhita vi, 4.7. 3, already evince the consciousnoss that the study of the forms of speech is of sufficient importance to be pursued by itself independently of the dealings between men and men which are rendered possible by them. It is not, however, nocessary for our purpose to put together all the Vedic passages that have or can be made to have a grammatical significance. Suffice it to say that the available data do not warrant the supposition that the Seers of the Mantras' had made any considerable advance in the science of grammar. Indeed, it was not their business to do that. To observe the silent or violent workings of Nature and to record in fitting verse the feelings and thoughts awakened by their contemplation was enough to employ all their leisure hours. Philosophy arises only when the harmony of life is disturbed from within (or from without) so that the old child-like faith in the world and its laws becomes no longer possible; and grammar is a species of philosophy. The study of grammar receives a sudden impetus when one form of speech comes into close contact with another and a different form. Thus, for example, the discovery of Sanskrit by modern Europe has created a revolution in the science of philology, just as, in ancient times, the Roman conquest of Greece and, later, the discovery of Greek after the fall of Constantinople led to equally momentous consequences in the development of thought. The same result is also produced when in course of time there arise inevitable dialectical peculiarities within a language. These are either a consequence of the impact of the different races one of which conquers and dominates over the rest, or they may be due I Compare Tantra-virtika, Benares edition, p. 216. * Until the Greeks began to touch their language to the Romans, Grook grammar made little progr06a.

·[-$3 Early grammatical speculations 3 to a change in the climatic conditions—to the people having migrated from one place to another and modified their expressions and articulations in the course of their journey. Something of this sort must have happen. ed when the ancient Sanskrit diverged into the different forms of Prakrit, and we are probably to explain in the same way the considerable difference that is observable in the language of the Brāhmaṇas when contrasted with that of the ancient Samhitas.' 3. Grammatical speculations in the Brihmaņas.-When we come to the Brāhmaṇic speculations on the nature and meaning of the utterances of the ancient sages, we find that they have already lost any living touch with the old form of the language. Old forms and old words as also old ideas had grown obsolete giving place to newer, less poetic and more practical ones.” Since, however, the Sacred Scriptures (the Vedas) were composed in the older form of the language, and since, for various reasons, it was deemed necessary to preserve intact from generation to generation the inherited stock of Vedic poetry, attention came naturally to be focussed upon the peculiarities of that form of the language, and this was the beginning of grammar proper. The main interest of the Brāhmaṇas, however, was sacerdotal. They busied themselves with the details of the ritual and tried to discover-or invent-& rational, that is to say, a mythological justification for every act of the priest and every element of the sacrifice. If they discussed questions of grammar or phonetics at all, they. notes, 1 Dr. Burnell in bis 6say on the ly developed enquiry into Aindra school of Grammariang language as Papini', treatise " without somo contact displays is contrary to all ex. with foreigo peoples, and peridace,” bitter disputes among religi. 2 Compare the Arctio home in the ous secta at bomo, sach high Vodas, p. 230.

·4 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 3-] * came in mainly by way of illustration, or because no other equally cogent explanation of the Samhită passage in question was at hand. We cannot make much capital out of their stray and half poetic utterances. 4. Grammatical speculations in allied works. It was in the next period that the study of grammar as a science was taken in earnest. This was the period when the scattered hymns of the Vedas came to be collected into familybooks and elaborate rules were framed for the regulation of the parishads or charanas.' To help students in their task there also came into being about the same time various manuals on phonetics,” which dealt with letters, accents, quantity, pronunciation, and euphonic rules. In course of time the retentive faculty came to be cultivated to an extent which is without any parallel in the history of the world. A further advance was made by the constitution of the Padapātha, commonly ascribed to $akalya, which resolved the euphonic combinations and gave each word, each member of a compound, each prefix of the verb, as also each suffix or termination of the noun separately. The stock of grammatical notions familiar to this stage of development, though not very large, is already sufficient to indicate the earnestness of the search for truth. 8. The predecessors of Yaska. We are not yet certain when the art of writing came to be invented—or introduced in Ancient India. It was certainly much earlier than what Max Müller once believed it to be. Whatever that period might be, it must have been prior to the production of the Prátisakhya literature; and by this we 4 1 Soo Max Möller's Higtory of Ancient Indian literature, and edition pp. 128, 187, &c. Cp. Taittiriya Ārapyake, vii. 1. 3 History of Ancient Indian Litorature, p. 520. Compare on the subject Bühler's contribution to the Grundriss der Indo- Arischen Philologio, especially page 18.

·[- $ 5 Predecessors of Viska 5 mean not the Prātiśākhyas in their present form-which. are post-Pāṇiniya and pre-suppose much of his terminology--but in some earlier form, and under whatever other names they may have been then known. The contributions which these prototypes of our present Prātisakhyas made to the science of graminar can now, in the absenco of any really representative works of that class, be merely guessed at. If the nature and contents of our existing Prātiśākhya literature can safely be made the basis of any inference, we may suppose that these earlier treatises 1. classified the Vedic texts into the four forms of speech known to Yáską ; 2. framed and carefully defined some of the primitive safjñās or technical terms; and 3. possibly also made some more or less crude attempts to reduce the words to their elements and explain the mode of their grammatical formation. The really creative period of this science is just this. Had there been for this period any works extant, they would have shown us Yāska in the making, as Yāska himself, to some extent, shows us Pāṇini in the making. It is a great pity, therefore, that the period should be all blank to us. Since, however, these tentative sallies of the earlier authors were not probably definite enough to constitute a system, and since we have here to treat of systems of Sanskrit grammar, we must next pass on to Yaska”, who, although a philologist and not a grammarian as such, can for our purpose be regarded as forming the link between the primitive Prātiśākhya type of spe- 1 Goldsttickor, Pagini: his place in Sanskrit literature, pp. 183 and f. ; Reprint of the same by Paniai office, pp. 141 andff. 2 Primitive: thone gamely that Paņini pre-supposes and usos without explaining them. Dr. Burnell would call these the terms of the Aindra School of Grammarlans. 3 Yaaku calls his own work a complement to grammar: যাবে ।

·6 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar 5- ] culation on the one hand, and the later Påņiniya made of thought on the other. 6. Yiska's Nirukta : its date.--In & memorable passage Yaska himself roughly indicates the course of the development of Vedic studies before his time, and, reflecting the achievements made upto his days in the sciences of grammar and philology, contributes his own quota to the same. The passage has been variously interpreted, but the explanation given below may be found perhaps as acceptable as any other. It mentions three distinct periods of intellectual development corresponding roughly to sections 2-5 above. Unfortunately the time of Yaska is by no means yet certain. It depends for the most part, on the date that is to be assigned to Paņini, between whom and this great writer at least a century, if not more, must be supposed to have elapsed in order to account properly for all the advances in the matter 1 साक्षात्काथर्माण अषयो पभूधुः। तेऽपरेयोऽसाक्षात्कतधर्मभ्य उप- देशेन मन्त्रान् सम्पादुः। These are the original "Seers of Mantras " Those correspond to tbe author of the Brahmanio apeculations; possibly also to the compilers of the family-books. These are the authors of the Pada. patha, the Nighapțu,and other allied works, including possibly the prototypes of our modern Prūtisakbyas. उपदेशाप ग्लायन्तोऽबरे विस्मनह. णाम पन्ध समाम्नासिषुः। वेदच बेदागामि च। wbile Panini u801- ftringer 2 Thpe, foram Yanka 1866– Causal Fifth Frequentativo Dosiderative fireffer Attribute Weak termination निजविस्थान Denominative tormigation Similarly Yraka defnes (rather derives) सर्वनाम साणि मामानि पल्प । सो सूतेषु नमति गच्छातिबा । सर्वव्यापि । It is No one term exists for these. often used by him otherwise than as a technical torna of gremmar. Compare vi. 6. 8, vij. 1. 2, vü. 1. 5, &o. Again, ·[- $6 Yaska's Nirukta :: Its date 7 7 and wording of the rules of grammar that are to be met with in the Ashtadhyāyi. We have dealt with the question of Paņini's date in another part of this essay, and if that rosult be accepted, Yaska must be placed about 800 to 700 before Christ. There are, however, a few facts which seem to militate against the view that Yáska flourished before Paņini. The Sätras of Pāṇini nowhere make any provision for the formation of words like forut, which occurs in Nirukta (Bib. Ind. edition, Vol. iv. page 258 &c.). Nor did Pāṇini appar. ently know Yáska's explanation of set (Rigveda x. 85.20) by art graft. Pāṇini must, therefore, have preceded Yáska; else how can we account for such omissions in a gram. marian of the calibre of Pāṇini ? The utter uselessness of these and similar negative arguments can be seen on a closer examination of the instances adduced. To obviate the last of these defects.Kātyāyana' gives mentaari TW: as a vārtika to sātra iv.1. 48. Kātyáyna must, therefore, havo come after Yāska whose work he here presumably utilises. On the contrary, the first omission is not rectified even by Kātyāyana who gives two vārtikas (no. 7 and 8 to vi. 1.89) to explain forms like stof and peoprof but not grot. This would necessitate the supposition that Yaska came after Kátyāyana. A mode of argumentation which leads to such contradictory conclusions is no safe foundation for ween there is a great distance bet. 1 In Kiel horn's edition vol. ii. p. Yaska's definition of 220, this is given not as a forters as Jerug farger vārtika of Katyayana but as and his giving the 'ineanings & part of the Mababbiabye. for each individually, and In that case Yiska's explana- Panini's classification of them tion of अरण्यानी 8 भरण्यस्थ into the when joined to ght and his non-acquaintance verbs, afat if the root develops with vartika 1 to Sutra iv. 1. into a noun, and कर्मप्रवचनीय. 49 may be adduced to prove Many more similar illustra the point at issue. tions could be found.

·oo Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 6- ] any chronological edifice, especially when the evidence for Yaska's priority to Panini is so overwhelming. 7. Nature of Yala's work-In form Yaska's work is a running commentrary upon a list of words in five adhyāyas, known as the Nighantu. The words are all taken from the Veda; the first three adhyāyas arrange them as synonyms, the fourth is a collection of certain difficult words occurring in the Veda, while the last is a list of the names of Vedic deities. Yáska takes these words one by one (in the case of the first three adhyāyas only the more important ones), quotes Vedic passages wherein they are used, and tries to connect them with radical stems and launches into various interesting social and historical discussions in his attempts to trace the later history of these words, always giving references to any conflicting views that may have been held on the subject. Certain general reflections as to the nature and utility of the study of the Vedas, the cosmological functions of the Vedic Gods, and so forth also find their proper place in the work. That grammatical speculations had sufficiently advanced in the days of Yáska is evidenced even by the list of schools and individual teachers quoted or referred to in the Nirukta,' none of whose works have been preserved to us. Yāska already knew, what it required an Aristotle to discover subsequently, viz : the fourfold classification of words, as also the distinction between personal terminations and tense affixes on the one hand, and the primary and secondary nominal affixes on the other. Nay, he definitely formulates the theory that every noun is deriv- 1 These are: Woyut:, TUTTOT:, आचार्या,पके, ऐतिहासिका,औदुब- रायणः, औपमन्यवः, और्णवाभः, AVTT:, ilgari, medi, ei, Afteråreformasi, toti, परिव्राजकाः, पार्षदानि, मनु, या शिकाः, पूर्वे याज्ञिकाः, वायणिः, वैय्याकरणाः, शाकटायनः, शाक. पूणिः, शाकल्यः, स्थौलाष्टीविहारि.

·[-$8 vaska's Successors 9 ed from a verbal root and moets the various objections raised against it,- thoory on which the whole system of Pāņini is based, and which is, in fact, the postulate of modern Philology.' 8. Yaska's successors.-Many valuable works on grammar subsequent to Yaska's Nirukta but antorior to Papini's Ashtadhyāyi have been irrevocably lost to us ; for, it cannot be maintained with cogoncy that the extremely artificial and algebraic style of the Ashtādhyāyi could have been completely evolved by Pāṇini himself in the absence of similar tentative works preceding his. We have got for this the evidence of Pāṇini's own sātras, which use many technical words and formulas without having previously explained them'-an omission which, as indicated by Pāņini at 1.2.53-57, is to be accounted for on the supposition that they were too well-known or already sufficiently dealt with in other works to need any exposition at his hands. Some of these works must certainly have been in existence long after the time of the Mahābhāshya, since we find many quotations from them in later writers. The chief founders of grammatical schools prior to Pāṇini aro, Apiśali and Kāšakṣitsna (compare Pāņini vi. 1. 92 ). A rule of Apišali' is given by the Kāśikā on vii. 3. 95, 1 Compare Max Müller's History and elsewhere. Theso could of Ancient Sk, Literature, pp. not all have been taken from 161-168. the Protidakbye works anterior % Such 88 प्रत्यय, प्रथमा, द्वितीया, to Yaska, since some of them सुतीपा, चतुर्थी, पञ्चमी, षष्ठी, appear to be unknown to that ससमी,समास, तत्पुरुष, अन्ययीभाव, author and must have come io- ,, ART, &c., occur. to voguosince his day.Comparo ring respectively in i. 1. 69, also Panini 1. 3. 120, Tam ii. 3. 46, ii. 3, 2, ii. 3. 18, ii. नाश्रियाम् । where Bhattoji 3. 13, ii. 3. 28, ii. 3. 50, ii. 3. says, आकिति वासंज्ञा प्राचाम् । 86, ii. 1. 3, i. 1. 22, ii, 1.5, 3 MTOTO ; #: HTUTET ii. 2. 23, iii. 1. 93, iv. 1, 76, सम्बसीपिडन्ति- 2 [ Sk. Gr. ] .

·10 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar § 8 - ] while elsewhere it gives us the information that the grammar of Kāśakritsta consisted of sūtras thrown into three Adhyāyas.' Kaiyyata on V. I. 21 actually gives portions of the text of both these grammarians--and this is about all the information that we possess regarding those two ancient grammarians. To later writers like Bopadevathey are probably little more than mere namos. 9. The so-called Alndra treatisas.-The case stands a little difforent with Indra or Indragomin. Pāṇini nowhere mentions this name except under the general appelation of the easterners'. An oft-quoted passage from the fourth tarañga of the Kathāsarítsāgara informs us that the school which Pāṇini supplanted was known as the Aindra school, and numbered among its adherents Kātyā. yana alias Vararuchi, Vyādi, and Indradatta. Hiuen Tsang the Chinese pilgrim, and Tārānātha the Tibetian historian, both relate a similar story, the latter adding that the Chandra vyākarana agrees with Pāņini, and the Kālāpa vyākaraņa vith the Aindra. Tārānātha also states that God Kürttikeya revealed the Aindra vyākaraņa to Sapta- (not Sarva-)varman (compare section 64, below). Further corroborative evidence is furnished by a passage from the Taittiriya-samhitā (vir 47.), which speaks of Indra as the first of grammarians. 14. o all this Dr. Burnell 1 Compare the Kīsikī on v. 1.58, the subject of आतिष्ठते । and iv. 2.66 : त्रिकं काशकृत्स्नम्। 2 आपिशलकाशकृत्स्नयोस्त्वग्रन्थ इतिव. धिकारकाशकत्साःAnother bit चनादन्यत्र प्रतिषेधाभावः। ot information about आपि- 3 Compere, इन्द्रश्चन्द्रः काशकृत्स्नापि- nes, which I owe to Profes शली शाकटापनः । पाणिन्यमरजैने- sor Pathak, is that he changed FIT SuureT: # from the root stuk 'to bol to #. Com. Bopadeva's Mugdhabodha. pare अस्ति सकारमातिष्ठते. in the 4 बार बै पराच्यम्याकृताऽवदत् । ते देवा Mahabhrabya on i. 3. 22. इम्बममुवतिमा नो वाचव्याकुर्विति। Jipendrabuddhi and Ánkatāyana TAFE Argatser (i. 4. 38 ) apply to: as व्याकरोत् ।

·[$-9 The so-called Aindra treatises 11 further adds that the Tolkappiyam, one of the oldest Tamil grammars, represents itself to be full of the Aindra system, and was read in the Pandya King's Assembly and there met with approval. This Tolkappiyam is closely related to Katantra, to Kachchāyana's Pali grammar, and to the Prātiśākhyas, all of which are to be regarded as treatises belonging to the Aindra school of grammarians. The conclusion' whích Dr. Burnell reaches is that the Aindra was the oldest school of Sanskrit grammar, and that Aindra treatises were actually known to and quoted by Pāṇini and others, and that Aindra treatises still exist in the Prātiśākhyas, in the Kātantra, and in similar works, though they have been partly recast or corrected.' And again, 'the Aindra treatises belong to a system older than Pāṇini's, though there is perhaps reason to believe that not one of them is, as a whole, older than the grammar of the last.' That the technical terms used by the so-called Aindra treatises are connected with one another and are, further, simpler and more primitive than those of Pāṇini is quite evident ; and on this ground it is not unlikely that they represent a school of grammarians prior to Påņini's. But since, besides the Aindra, we have at least two other schools also older than Pāṇini, it will not do to put down every one of theso sanjñās as belonging to the Aindra school, seeing that we have no information regarding the sañjſiās of the other two. In the present state of our knowledge, the fact that the Aindra school is nowhere quoted by name either in Pāņini or Mahabhashya or Kāśikā should point to the conclusion--also endorsed by Keilhorn-that the Aindra school is post- Pāņiniya in date, though pre-Pāṇinīya in substanco. Possibly it may be no other than the Kātantra school 1 Compare bin Essay on the Aindra sabool of grammarianu panoin.

·I2 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $9-] which belongs to the early centuries of the Christian era, Any further details regarding the grammatical efforts carlier than Pāṇini it is not possible to give. All that we can do is, following Yaska and on the basis of references occurring in Pāṇini, Kâtyāyana, Patañjali, and the earlier Prātiśākhyas and Brāhmaṇas, to frame a tabular statement of the schools and teachers with the tenets peculiar to each. A beginning towards one is made in Dr. Burnell's essay quoted before, where only the names of the teachers ---some of them later than Pāṇini-are given.' The School of Panini 10. The School of Paşlnl.— The work which brought to a focus these tentative efforts of the early grammarians: and by its accuracy and thoroughness eclipsed all its predecessors, dominating the thoughts of generations of thinkers even to present times, is the Ashtādhyāyi of Pāṇini. It stands and it will always stand as long as Sanskrit continues to be studied--as a monument at once of encyclopedic research and technical perfection. The work is also interesting in that it is probably the oldest surviv- 1 A few instances are also collect. ed in Indiache Studien, iv. p. 76, Cumpare also History of Ancient Sanskrit Litera. ture, p. 160. 2 ln bis satres Pantai refers to the Northern and the Eastern schools of grammariang and to the following ten individual authoriभापिशालि, काश्यप, गाग्र्ष, मालप, पाकर्मण, भारद्वाज, सकापन, शाकल्प, सेनक, and merga. It would not be far from the truth to assume that in one way or another Paņini's work Was an improvement upon those of his predecessors. Some of them may have confined their attention merely to tbe Vedic and some to the post-Vedic Literature, or, treating of both, must bave given lens attention to corrent speech and more to the scriptures. The Vedaöga spoken of by Praka must be saob a treatise and not the Ashtadhytyi.

·[- $11 Panini: His Date 13 ing specimen of that type of literary activity, which found expression in the aphoristic style.' 11. Pāņial' date. The question about the age of this greatest of grammarians is by no means yet settled, or even on the way of being settled. The late Dr. Peterson was inclined to identify him with his namesake, Pāṇini the poet, quoted in Vallabhadeva's Sabhāshitāvali and elsewhere, and to place him 'at a date much later than that ordinarily accepted,' that is, about the heginning of the Christian era. The identification of Pāṇini the grammarian with Pāṇini the poet was also accepted by Pischel, who however assigned to him the date cir. 500 before Christ. The question how far Pāṇini will eventually have to be brought down from the date now accepted for him, or how far it may be, on the contrary, advisable to push into remoter antiquity the lyrical poetry of Northern India' is finally left undetermined by Dr. Peterson.s According to this view it would appear that the two well-known references to the ākhyāyikă called Vāsavadatta occurring in the Mahābhāshya (vol. ii, p. 284) are to be taken as chronologically in touch with the celebrated romance of Subandhu, a writer of the seventh century. This will leave not even a century between Patanjali and Bhartrihari the author of the Vākyapadiya. How in that case we are to account for the vicissitudes in the text of the Mahābhāshya as recorded in the latter work and in the Rājatarañgiņis one is at a loss to say. 'Since the recent discovery of Bhāsa's Svapna-Väsavadattam, which probably was based upon an earlier epic or ākhyānaka, 1 That the agtra-fort was not new 3 lotroduction to the Subhtabitein Paộini's days is evident vali, p. 58. from the sutra v.1.58 : HOUT- 4 Towards the end of Kaņda ii. पार संज्ञासत्राम्ययनेषु। 5 Compare 1.176 ; See aloo Indian 2 See bis Roport on the searoh of Antiquary, vol. iv. p. 107. Sk. Mo. for 1882-83, pp. 39ff.

·14 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 11-] 1 we are no longer required to connect Patafijali with Subandhu. Weber and after him Max Müller put Pāṇini down to about 350 B. C., thereby making Pāṇini almost the contemporary of Kātyāyana the author of the vārtikas to Pāṇini's sätras ; and this opinion obtained for a time, until it was assailed by Drs. Goldstücker and Bhandarkar who have succeeded in proving that Pāṇini cannot hạve flourished later than B. C. 500. Goldstücker went much farther : he maintained that within the whole range of Sanskrit literature, so far as it is known to us, only the Samhitās of the Rik, Sāma, and Krishna-Yajus, and among individual authors only the exegete Yaska preceded Pāṇini, and that the whole bulk of the remaining known literature is posterior to him." This position in an exaggerated form has been stated at length by Pandit Satyavrata Sāmasrami, in the introduction to his Nirukta, making Yaska also & successor of Pāṇini. The date he assigns to Pāṇini is cir. 2400 before Christ. Conclusions of this kind it was once the fashion to brush aside as carrying the starting point of Vedic chronology much farther than there was any warrant: for it. Since, however, recent researches into the antiquity of | Histoy of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, se quoted by Goldstücker in bis noto 91, p. 80 (Reprint, p. 60) of Papini, His place &c. 2. Goldstückor, loc. cit., p. 243 (Reprint, p. 187). This view of Goldstickor, however, is pot strictly accurato. Popini must bave known some form of the Gribye and the Dharma matras. ln bis satra is. 4.71 Papini montions prohibited places or times for study: STT 1976, 1. Patanjali in the Mababhishya (vo. ii, p. 386) explains what probibited places (ra) or tirnog (अमावास्या or चतुर्दशी) are meant. These probibitions are embodied in works of the Gribya or Dharma sūtra type, and Panini munt he thinking of some such works existing in bis days. I owe this note to Professor Pathak.

·[ - $ 12 Pāņini: His Date 15 the Vedas have done much to throw & doubt over the starting point for Ancient Indian Literature accepted by Professor Max Müller and othet writers, the best thing, in the absence of any positive evidence, is a suspension of judgment. In another place (pp. 6-7) we have given Teasons for agreeing with Goldstücker in accepting the priority of Yaska over Pāṇini. Perhaps 700 to 600 B.C. would be as near an approximation to Pāṇini's time as, in our presnt state of knowledge, or rather want of knowledge, we are likely to get. 12. Tho viow that Panini cannot be placed before B. C. 350 examined.— The fact that Pāṇini in iv. 1.49 (Pietro सृडहिमारण्ययवयवनमातुलाचार्याणामानुक्) mentions Yavanas (and the female formation Yavanāni from the stem) has led most western scholars to put down Pāṇini to a date not earlier than B.C. 350. The underlying assumptions are: i. that Yavanas' can designate none but the Ionian Greeks, and ii. that India did not have her knowledge of 'Yavanas' prior to Alexander's invasion, B. C. 327. Now regarding point i. the late Dr. Rājendralal Mitra in his Indo- Aryans' gave ample evidence to prove that for no period of Indian history could we be quite certain that the word Yavana necessarily designated the Ionian Greeks. But even if we agree to wave this consideration for the present, point ii. is by no means a settled fact. The 'v' sound in the word "Yavana 'represents an original digamma (T) in Greek ; and as the digamma was lost as early as B. C. 800, the Sanskrit word Yavana' must be at least as old as the ninth century before Christ. The Ionians appear in history long before B.C. 1,000 and it is not at all improbable that the Indians knew them, as well as their neighbouring races, such as Assyrians ( HET--) Skythians (T$-$*4rttu), Medes (.AT-AT-ATT), Persians ( PT), Parthians (US), etc.—perhaps centuries before Alexander's invasion. At any rate if Indian troops are ·:16 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 12- ] known to have formed part of the army of Darius in the battle of Platææ (B. C. 479), India's knowledge of the Greeks can go back to the middle of the fifth century before Christ. The fact is and scholars are just bogining to recognise it--that we have been too hasty in con demning the Pauranic accounts of the frontier tribes and racos (e. g. those in the Vishņupurāņa or in the Mahabhārata, Bhīshmaparvan, Chap. xi) as purely imaginative fabrications. We have so far altogether ignored the extensive commerce and interchange of ideas that went on between the Indian Aryans and their brethren beyond the frontiers as far as the Mediterranean-and this long before B. C. 400. So much so that when other independent proofs vouch for the antiquity of an author in the case of Pāṇini we shall discuss these proofs presently) the burden of proof rests with the person who maintains that some specific reference in that author belongs to a later and not to an earlier time, when, so far as facts go, the reference might just as well be to an earlier period. Nay, more. In this particular case Pāṇini's reference must certainly belong to the earlier period. Compared with Kātyāyana's knowledge about the Yavanas that of Pāṇini is very slight. Pāṇini did not know that the Yavanas had a script of their own (comp. roga, Katyāyana's vārtika 3 to iv. 1.49), or at least in his time there was no current Sanskrit word for that script. Nor was the fact that the Yavanas had a native-place and a kingdom of their own sufficiently known to Sanskrit literature, as is evidenced by Kātyāyana's vārtika कम्बोजादिभ्यो लुग्वचनं चोडायर्थम् i... चोडकडेरकेरल(शकयवना)पर्थम to iv. 1.175—supposing of course that 37% and son form agenuine part of the कम्बोजादिगण. Such slight acquaintance with the Yavanas, therefore, as Pāṇini betrays cannot have belonged to a time subsequent to Alexander's invasion.

·[ - $ 12 Pánini: His Date 17 But there is also indopendent evidence to prove that Pagini lived before Alexander's invasion. The internal evidence which compels us to presuppose at least a couple of hundred years between Patanjali and Kātyāyana, and Katyāyana and Pāṇini-án evidence which even Vincent Smith finds himself compelled to accept(Early Hist, 3rd. ed., p. 451, note 4)—has been indicated in note 1, page 28 below. The most important of external evidence that has boen lately brought forward (by Mr. Vishyanāth Kāshināth Rājavāde in the 'Kesari' for 30th August 1910) is Pāṇini's mention of the town Sangala (Gr. Sángala, Sk. Sāñkala) in the sūtra foram (iv. 2. 75). Pāṇini derives the name of the town from the proper name Satīkala. Sāökala is a city completed by (Prince?) Sankala. This city Alexander razed to the ground as a punishment for the stout resistance of its defenders (Vincent Sinith, loc. cit., page 75), and Pāṇini could not have thereafter spoken of it in the manner in which he does. Pāņini, therefore, must have lived before Alexander's invasion. Another independent evidence is furnished by the sātra wainnametsatsit (v. 3.117). Here the Parsus or the Persians (and the Asuras or the Assyrians) are mentioned as an irgvstratie or an organization of mercenary fighters, similar to the Greeks of the fourth century B.C., or the Germans of the seventeenth century. The Persians were blotted out as a political power in B. C. 329, and the Assyrians in B. C. 538. Pāṇini's references to these people belong, therefore, probably to a time anterior to these dates. Lastly, reverting once more to Kātyāyana's vārtika to iv. 1.175, if the word she forms a genuine part of the **turi for, it will be necessary to suppose that Pāṇini did not know that the Sakas or Skythians had a country or a kingdom of their own. Now the first Now the first King of the 3 [ Sk. Gm] ·18 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 12- ) Skythians was Deioces ( free) whose date is cir. 700 B.C., and Pāṇini must have lived before B. C. 700 or at least not long after that date. It is of course conceded that none of these arguments are decisive taken singly. Alternative suppositions could be made to explain away some of these facts. Thus Pāṇini may conceivably mention the city of Sangala even after its destruction by Alexander. The Persians and the Assyrians might have turned into mercenary soldiers after the loss of their independence. And in the case of the *FETTFE sūtra, since Patañjali in his gloss on Kātyāyana's vārtika does not mention the Sakas or the Yavanas, the two words may not possibly form a genuine part of Kātyāyana's addition, and consequently no cogent argument could be based on that circumstance,--waving the alternative possibility of Pāņini having at times made mistakes. Finally, it is not altogether impossible that the sūtras on which our arguments for Pāṇini's, antiquity are based, were taken over by Pāṇini bodily from some of his predecessors, just as, contrariwise, the sātras from which his modernity is inferred (especially the word Tara in sūtra iv. 1.149) were later interpolations. But in that way anything is possible and we would be reduced to speechlessness. The upshot of all this is that there is nothing in Pāṇini's Ashțādhyāyī that is inconsistent with his having flourished in the seventh century B. C., and this negative conclusion is all that I am content to reach for the present, leaving the burden of proof with those who wish to maintain the contrary, 13. Known facts about Pāṇini's Me.--As differing from himself Pāņini mentions (v. 3. 80, vi. 2. 74, etc.) a school of Eastern grammarians, and in later literature he is also known by the name Sālāturiya' which is probably derived I sireva fre***Teluita &c, fron Protinetara stanza 2.

·[- $14 Known Pacts about Panini's Life 19 from his native place. Cunningham has identified Salātura with the present Lahaur in the Yusufzai valley. In the days of Hiuen Tsang the valley was known as Udyāna and Sālātura was a prosperous town. To-day it is an obscure deserted village in the North-western Frontier Province, near Attock. In his Mahābhāshya' Patanjali gives Another bit of biographical information about Pāṇini whom he calles grafiger. Dākshi then was Pāṇini's mother. The Kathāsaritsāgara (tarañga 4) makes Pāṇini a contemporary of Kātyāyana and Vyāời and Indradatta, along with whom he studied at the house of उपाध्याय वर्ष. Not succeeding in his studies Pāṇini practised penance and received from God Śiva the fourteen pratyāhāra sātras. The story about his death from a tiger? as recorded in Panchatantra, if based on fact, may or may not refer to our Pāņini. And this is about all that we know of Pāņini's personality, 14. Character of Piņini's work.-Pāņini's work consists of nearly four thousand sūtras thrown into eight adhyāyas of four pădas each : hence its name Ashtādhyāyi. The text of the sūtras has come down to us almost intact. A doubt exists as to the genuineness of only five of these sõtras, and that is because they are given in the Mahābhāshya as vārtikas to the stras just preceding them. When we say that the text has been preserved intact, it is not meant that it is exactly as we find it in any of our current editions. The late Dr. Kielhorn drew attention to the 33. 1 po para att arafgerig erfora: 1 tendency to regard as putra Kielhorn's ed. vol. i. p. 75. wbat is given as virtika, and 2 सिंहो म्याकरणस्य कर्तुरहरत् प्राणान् vice versa, has created some fyrr urfora: 1 Tantra ii, stanza confusion in the exact enumaration of the sūtrag. The whole 3 Namely, two bet weon iv. 3.131 matter needs to be critically and 132 and v. 1.36, vi. 1.62, studied. Compare Goldsticker and vi, 1.100,--the last tbrea page 29 (Reprint, p. 21), note being given in the Mahabha- 28. shya ao vârtikas to the sotras 4 Indian Antiquary, volume xri, immediately preceding. The Page 179, ·Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 14 - ] fact that the text of the sātras has not received from the editors all the care that is necessary. All that we mean is that with sufficient pains we can restore from the vārtikas and the Mahābhāshya the exact words as they were used by Pāṇini himself. Changes have been suggested in more than one place by more than one writer, but they were not actually made until after the times of" Chandragomin, the Kāśikākāras, and subsequent writers. Pāṇini has discussed his entire subject in a manner which is very simple in outline, could we but once grasp it, but which has proved very complex in execution. We may conceive of it in some such way as the following. Analysing language--and this is what vyākaraņa literally means--the first element we reach is a sentence, which again consists of a verb in the various tenses and moods, and a number of substantives in case-relations to each other. [The indeclinables we do not count for the present ; they are put in towards the end of 1.4.] Now the forms of verbs that we meet in sentences seem to be made up of an original root-stem and a number of pratyayas or endings, and it is these endings that give the verbs their several modal and temporal significances. These endings, we further notice, group themselves into two sets, and some roots take invariably only one of them, others both, while a number of others change from one to the other under certain circumstances. At the outset then, and to get rid of extra complexity, we dispose of these so-called Atmane-pada and Parasmai-pada prakriyās (1.3). Turning pari passu to the other element of the sentence, having defined a case-relation (i. 4), we notice that there are often in a sentence sustantives without any case termination at all. We explain these as the members of a whole which we technically call a samāsa or a compound. The formation and the varieties of these must ·MAMA www water taste [- $ 14 Programme of the Ashtadhyayi first be explained (ii. 1 and 2), before we actually treat of the kārakas or case-relations (ii. 3). Taking up the verbs where we left them, we next, after a few preliminary definitions and other cognate matters (ii. 4 end), deal at length with the formation and the uses of the various tenses and moods; and, while we are still on the subject, we explain what are usually known as verbal derivatives, that is to say, those elements of sentences which, although by reason of their case-endings they may seem to belong to the category of substantives, do yet bear a very close affinity in meaning and formation to the root stems from which they are derived (iii. 1-4). Now we are free to concentraie ourselves on the nounelement of the sentence. The Nairuktas or Etymologists seem to assert that all these nouns are derived from the root-stems, which were the ultimate factors that we reached in our examination of the verb-element of the sentence. Let us examine this theory. To simplify matters we must, in the first place, dispose of a large number of nouns which are derived from other nouns by the addition of the so-called taddhita affixes (iv.1.76—7.4). Then it is that we reach the substantive divested of all external wrappings. But may not there be some changes in the very body of the nouns which we can explain? It is only when we have done that (vi.4--vii.4) that we are at liberty to style the residual as ymarfa sfaturaena,'--unless, of course, we intend to step outside the role of a mere grammarian, as distinguished from a philologist, and try to trace even these back to some more primitive verb-stems. Pāṇini has made his contribution to philology in the form of the Uņādi. sātras (see below, $ 16). This gives us the complete programme of the Ashtā. dhyāyi, and if Pāņini seems to depart from this in places ADEM ·Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $14 - ] it is more for convenience of treatment than for anything else. He begins, as was quite appropriate, with a few definitions and capons of interpretation (i. 1 and 2), and he always takes care to introduce such definitions whereever they are required. Some minor topics usually found included in systematic treatises on grammar, such as the Svara-prakarana (vi. 2) or the Strī-pratyayas, Pāṇini has attempted to put into the places where they would most fit in, the only prominent exception to the above rule being the Sandhi-prakarana, which may conceivably have as well been placed elsewhere than where it occurs (vi, i and viii. 2-4), and which in any case need not have been cut into two halves separated from one another by the whole matter of nearly two chapters. His system of pratyāhāras and his anxiety to secure a maximum of brevity are perhaps responsible for this lapse in regular logical sequence. But barring these paltry exceptions there is no doubt that Pāṇini has succeeded remarkably well in welding the whole incongruous mass of grammatical matter into a regular and a consistent whole. 15. Technical devices used by Paņinl.-The difficulty in understanding Pāṇini comes from the very circumstance which Pāņini himself perhaps considered as his real advance over all his predecessors, namely his attempt to economise expression where conceivably he could do so 1 I do not wish to conceal the fact that the above topical scheme for the whole of the Ashtadbydyl will be found wanting, it tried in details. It would Beem as it Panini was working alternately upon the two main aspects of his problem: the nouns and the verbs; and the present arrangoment of the sütras in the Asbțådhyllyl is the repult of attempting to dovetail the two into a coherent whole, involving in the process many an addition and omission and transposition. It may even be that some sections of the sūtras are post-Pāṇinſya interpolations, just an, contrariwise, other sections of the sotras Panini may bave bodily takon over from some earlier ·( - 15 Technical Devices used by Panini 23 without being misunderstood. Why Pāṇini should have elected to strain all his nerves to bring about a result which a student of grammar is often likely tu regard as the curse of his lot is more than what we can say. His object may have been to give his students aids to memory, or the sātra-style may have arised, as suggested by Goldstücker, in the scarcity of the material for writing. In any case we have reasons to assume that the sātras from the earliest times were accompanied by a traditional explanation of them. Let us for a moment dwell a little longer on this point and note the various means whereby Pāṇini attemp- W to secure terseness and brevity of expression. The foremost amongst the devices used was of course that of the pratyāhāras or elliptical statements, and of the anubandhas or significant endings. The first was effected by means of the fourteen Siva-sūtras, which, according to tradition, were revealed to him by God Siva himself by sounding his tabor. As to the second, although the anubandhas used by Pāņini are peculiar to himself, the de- . vice does not appear to have been his invention. The practice already existed, and Pāṇini only utilised it to its utmost limits. The formation of ganas, by which are meant lists of words which undergo similar grammatical changes, also tended towards the same result. Some of these ganas are complete and some abiti-gaņas, that is to say, ganas which do not exhaustively enumerate all the words of a ] graminars. But for the intrinhave it now,-here would be a sic difficulty of the task and splendid problem in textual for the fact that we have no criticisin. extant authority earlier than 1 Compare Mahabbäshya on vii, 1. the Mahabhashya, which knows 18 · weet profits i the Ashtadhyāyi in practically पूर्वसूत्रेषु येऽवधान रिहेका tao same forw in which we पाणि क्रियते।

·Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $15 - 1 class, but rather give merely a few leading types. Pāṇini in his sātras gives only the first word of a gana and they have hence been considerably tampered with since his times. So, although we cannot be certain whether any one word now found in the Ganapātha existed in Pāṇini's day, still the bulk of our present Ganapatha may safely be considered as coming from the hands of the grammarian himself. The next device to secure brevity was the invention of peculiar technical symbols such as T, TV, 39, 93, 94 &c. Some of these may have been known to Pāṇini from his predecessors, while others were probably of his own creation. Patañjali distinctly tells us that re, g and a were known to him already.' In the framing of the sātras Pāṇini always scrupulously omitted all such words as may be conveniently supplied from sense or from preceding sätras. The technical name for this process is anuvritti, and to secure it he has made some of his sātras adhikāra-sātras," that is to say, sūtras which have to be repeated, wholly or in part, each time any of the sātras dominated by it are to be interpreted. Lastly, in portions of the Ashtadhyāyi he has so arranged the sātras that where two sãtras appear equally applicable, that which comes earlier in the order of the Ashţādhyāyi must obtain precedence over the one which comes later.3 1 Mahabhishys on 1. 2. 53, and faa-eg.i. 2.48, where Kaiyyata in the same place. has it, 3. giving a numerical 2 Papini shows that a particular value to some mute letter addsutra is an adhikīra sūtra by ed to the sūtra , e.g. r (322) i, the word प्राक followed by a is supposed to be added to word in the ablative v. 1.80 to gbow the extent of occurring in & subsequent satra the adhikūra; and 4. TETto which the adhikara is to at fosterfagfert ! continue ; as in i. 4. 56 ; 2. 3 Panini viii. 2.1- TATTI Case ·- - $ 16 Treatises accessory to Panini 25 There is yet one more device serving the same end which remains to be mentioned and of which so much was made in later' grammatical speculations, namely, the use of the paribhashās or canons of interpretation. Some of them are enunciated by Pāņini himself, but a larger aumber he found already current in his day, and so used them tacitly, and the task reserved for later gramnarians was to discover what facts in Pāņini's sūtras imply the use of what particular paribhāshās.' 16. Froatisos accessory to Pāņial's Ashţădhyāyi.- In addition to the Ashtādhyāyi, Pāṇini put together a Dhātupātha or list of roots, a Ganapātha or list of words which behave alike grammatically, and Uņādi-sātras in some form or other. Regarding the first, Pāṇini mentions in the sātras themselves all the ten classes and even some of their sub-divisions just as they occur in the Dhātupātha.? The anubandhas of the Dhātupātha, further, have the same significance as those of the Ashtādhyāyi. These facts tend to establish Pāṇini's authorship of the Dhātupātha. We have already spoken (p. 23 above) about the Gaņapātha, which also in the main belongs to Pāṇini. The question as to the authorship of the Uņādi-sātras cannot be so easily settled. They are commonly supposed to be the work of ſākatāyana on the basis of statements found in the Niruktat and the Mahābhāshya,' according to which śākatāyana agreed with the town in deriving 1 For the distinction between the vii. 1. 59 ; vii, 2, 45;&o. CHITEY and the CEE 3 Westergaard's Radices Lingum and the whole question of Sanscritæ, pp. 342, 343. Popini's use of paribliisbīs 4 Nirukta i. 4.1 : TATRSTRATE- Bee Goldstücker, pp. 106-118 जानीतिमाकडालो मैतसमयश्च । (Reprint, pp. 81-90). 5 Kielborn, vol. ii. p. 131 : ATAT 2 Compare i. 3.1 ; ii, 4. 72 and धातुजमाह निरुक्के व्याकरणे शकटस्थ 76 ; iii, 1. 25, 56, 69, 73, 77, चतोकम् । 78, 79, 81; iii. 3. 104; vi. 1.15; + [ Sk. Gr. ) ·36 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $16 - 1 all nouns from roots. Since, however, no work of Śākatā. yana has come down to us, and since the Śabdānusāsana which now passes under his name is a comparatively late production (see below, § 52), we cannot say whether this ancient Śákatāyana left behind him any work in justification of the views which he doubtless held. On the other hand the Uņādi-sâtras exhibit unmistakable marks of Pāṇini's system. They use sanjñās such as हस्व, दीर्घ, प्लुत, उदात्त, उपधा, लोप, संप्रसारण, and अभ्यास in the same sense in which Pāņini uses them. The anubandhas of the Uņādis are also similar to Pāṇini's. This raises a strong presumption that the Uņādi-sātras are the work of Pāṇini himself; and it is further corroborated by the fact that Kātyāyana in more than one place takes objection to the technical application of a rule in the Ashtādhyāyi urging that it does not hold good in the case of particular Uņādisātras-an objection which could not have been urged unless Katyāyana regarded Pāṇini to be the author of the Uņādis ; for, Pāṇini was not to be expected to frame rules that would hold good in other people's works. There is no reason why we should not accept this conclusion. We cannot, however, assign all the Uņādi-sātras to Pāṇini's authorship, seeing that in some places their teaching runs counter to the Ashţādhyāyi. The probable view, as suggested by Goldstücker," is that the Uņādi list was first drawn up by Pāņini, but that it was afterwards modified or corrected by Kātyāyana. The extent of the changes introduced by the author of the Vārtikas must 1 Examples are vii. 3.50, vii, 4.13, ed on the fact that Jurants viii. 2. 78, and viii. 3. 59. In व्युत्पन्नानि प्रातिपदिकानि । most of these casen KatyTyana 2 Thus, Uņādi-sūtra iv. 226 goes has the remark उणादीनां प्रति. against Panini vi, 2. 139. tri or words to this 3 ?aņini, his place &c., pp. 170 effect. Patañjali's defence of (Reprint, 130) and 4181 (Ro- Papini is throughout ground. print, 139).

·[ - $ 16 Treatises accessory to Pāṇini 27 $ have been so great as to credit him, in popular tradition, with their sole authorship. Thus Vimalasarasvati,' a writer not later than the fourteenth century A. D., and Durgasimha' who belongs to the early centuries of the Christian era, both assign the authorship of the Uņādisātras to Vararuchi alias Kātyāyana. The poet Māgha, however, seems to look upon the Uņādis as belonging to Pāṇini, though his words are not quite explicit. The other works appended to Pāṇini's system probably do not come from him. The Phit-sātras are, by unanimous testimony, the work of Sântanaváchārya, a writer much later than Pāṇini. The Sikshā bears on the face of it the stamp of modernness, notwithstanding the fact that a verse from it has found its way into the Mahabhāshya; 5 and the same is true of the Liñgānušāsana. Regarding the Paribhāshās, in addition to those given by Pāņini in his Ashţādhyāyi there may have been others current in Pāṇini's time and tacitly employed by him ; but no ancient collection of them has come down to us. The Paribhāshās are usually assigned to the authorship of Vyādi who comes between Pāṇini and Patanjali. 1 In the FTATÁT, the ludia Office 4 Compare are on free Ms. of whiob is dated 1381 ii. 21, where he remarks- A.D., we find : gorifa sa फिद्रवत्राणि पाणिग्यपेक्षया माधु. करणाय वररुचिमा प्रथगेव सूत्राणि निककर्तृकाणीति परत्वं पोयम् । प्रणीतानि । तयथा । कवापाजि &c. 5 Mababbesby, vol. I, p. 2: 2 Ho begins his com, on the man E &o. = feret, stanza 52 section of the Katantra with front stra: &o. This stanza, the verse : पक्षादिषदमी सहाः however, forms a genuine कृतिना न कृताः कृतः। कात्यायनेन part of the Mahabhasbya, see- ते सृथा विद्युद्धिपतिदये। The ing that it is commented upon krits in this school also in by भर्तहरि in his महाभाष्पटाका, clude the UņTdis, as will be Kielborn, vol.'ii, preface, p. seen later. 13, and is quoted by Shift 3 ſidupalavadba xix, 75, and Mal in the Tantravartika, Benares atha's commentary upon ed., p. 233. the same ·our Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 16-) Between Pāņini and the next great grammarian, Kityāyana, came many authors, who attempted, more or less successfully, to emend or justify Pāṇini's rules, and some of the metrical vārtikas found in the Mahābhāshya probably belong to these predecessors of Kātyāyana. We must needs assume this, unless we are ready to suppose that the considerable interval of time that exists between Pāṇini and Kätyāyana was altogether barren of grammatical speculations. Whoever these predecessors were, as knowledge about their works is next to nothing, we must now pass on to Katyāyana himself. 17. Katyāyana : His date. The Kathāsaritsāgara makes Kātyāyana the contemporary of Pāṇini, or more accurately, the senior of the two; and had not this tradition been to this extent accepted by so great an authority as Max Müller, we might have explained this on the analogy of a row of columns seen in perspective, where the columns which are farthest from us look nearest to each other, for the simple reason that we cannot discern any marks in the interspaces. We must be prepared however to give up this view and presuppose between Pāṇini and Kātyā. yana that much time which the nature of the changes in the forms of language above indicated will reasonably require; and unless we assume that language and customs were in an extraordinarily volatile condition in ancient times, .. 1 Goldstücker proves this by sbow. ing that 1. grammatical forme current in Paşini's time are obsolute in that of Katyayana. 2. So also the meanings of worde. 3. Words acquire in Katydyana's time significances which they had not in Panini's. 4. Literature known to Katya. yapa was unknown to Panini. 5. Writers contemporary with or little separated in time from Papini are looked upon by Katyayana ag very ancient, e.g. Yajáyavalkya ; on his last point the kidikt remarks: पाज्ञवल्क्यादयो हि न चिरकाला hereurig Taf. For fuller particulars Bee Goldsticker on Papini, pp. 122-187 (Reprint, pp. 94-120).

·[ - $ 18 Kityāyana : His Work 29 about two to three conturies would not by any means be too great an interval that we can suppose to have elapsed between them. In the present state of our knowledge we cannot therefore, unfortunately, arrive at a greater approximation than 500-350 B. C., nearer to the latter limit if the relation of Kātyāyana with the Nandas mentioned in Kathāsaritsägara has any basis in fact, 18 Naturo of Katylyana's work.- Kātyāyana's work, the vārtikas, are meant to correct, modify, or supplemont the rules of Pāṇini wherever they were or had become partially or totally inapplicable. There are two works of his which aim at this object. The earlier is the Vājasaneyi Prātiśākhya, a work dealing with the grammar and orthography of the Vājasaneyi-Samhitā. Being limited by the nature of his subject to Vedic forms of language only, Kātyāyana has herein given his criticisms on such of the sātras of Pānini as fell within his province. Taking up the suggestion which dawned upon him probably in the course of his Prātišākhya, Kātyāyana next subjected Pāṇini's Ashtādhyāyī to a searching criticism. Since here his object was not to explain Pāņini but find faults in his grammar, he has left unnoticed many sūtras that to him appeared valid. Of the nearly 4,000 sūtras Kātyāyana 1 Katyayani is credited with the thore given are indentical with authorship of a third work in those of Paņini. ii. The preattra style, the Katyayana tyahoras and anubandhas are Srauta fatras (published in in most cases those of Papini, the Chauk hamba Sanskrit iii. Where there are changes series, but it has nothing to they are improvements upon do with grammar. It inight Pagini, such improvements as have given Katyayana prac. Katyayana later embodied tice in writing sttras, but with occasional ohanges for that is all. the better in bis virtikas. Bee & That the Vajapapeyi-Prutidakhya Goldottloker, Papini, pp. 199 is posterior to and based upon (Reprint, pp. 168) and the fol- Tapin is clear from the foot lowing. i. that many of the sotras ·go Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 18-1 noticed over 1,500 in about 4,000 vārtikas. We must add to these the considerable number of cases where Kātyā. yana has criticised Pāṇini's rules in his Prātiśākhya. Some of these criticisms he repeats as vārtikas, generally saying there what he had to say in a more correct form.' Kātyāyana has not merely stated his doubts and objections in regard to some of Pāṇini's rules, but in most cases has shown how they can be solved or removed." At the same time he always takes care to prove his propositions, and when suggesting an alternative course, he always tells us that he does so. Notwithstanding this there are, according to Patañjali's showing, a good many cases where his criticisms are misplaced, or are the result of misunderstanding Pāṇini. Some of the vārtikas are written in prose, while others are thrown into a metrical form. In a vast number of cases Kātyāyana has clearly indicated the rules of Pāṇini to which his remarks refer by repeating the sūtras verbatim, or with slight changes," or by taking its most importants or introductorye word. Cross references to his own vartikas he gives by उक्तं शेषे, उक्तं वा, or उक्तं पूर्वेण.' Kātyāyana, in that he meant to write a criticism on Pāṇini was compelled to adhere to the latter's terminology. Notwithstanding this fact he has used fare for 3 1 For Panioi's- Katyāyana in the Prátisakhya hao- अदर्शनं लोपः 1-1-६० वर्णस्याऽदर्शनं लोपः १-१४१ तस्मादित्युत्तरस्य १-१-६७ तस्मादित्युत्तरस्या१-२५ मुखमासिकापचनोऽनुनासिका 1-1-2 मुखानुनासिकाकरणोऽनुनासिका -७५ . 2 Usually by phrases such as J 4 Vārtika 1 to sūtra iii. 1. 84 ; 1. Compare Indian Anti. 5 Vārtika 1 to sūtra v. 2. 47; quary, volume v, Note 2 on 6 Vārtika 1 to sūtra vi, 4. 14; the Mabubhishya, where Kiel-7 Vārtika 2 to gâtra iii, 4. 79 ; horn discusses the whole subto give but one instance of ject. each, 3 Vartika 1 to sutra ii. 1. 83 ;

·7- § 1 Earlier and Later Vārtikakäras 31 व्यञ्जन for हब, समानाक्षर tor अझ, भवन्ती and अपतनी tor लदू and C. This fact, together with the statement in the Kathasaritsagara' to the effect that he was a follower of the Aindra school, makes it probable that he belonged to a school, of grammar different from Pāņini's. Pataſijali distinctly calls him a Southerner'.? 19. Vårtikakäras before and aftor Kätyāyana.-As observed before (p. 28), Kātyāyana had several predecessors from whose works he may have taken many suggestions. In his Prātiśākhya he refers to Śākatāyana’ and Sākalya," names already quoted by Pāṇini; while in the vārtikas he refers by name to Vājapyāyana, Vyādi,and Paushkarasādi,' and designates a number of others under the general appelation of testera, and so forth.8 Some of these latter must have been scholars who, like Kātyāyana himself, subjected the wording of the sūtras of Pāņini to a critical examination. Vyādi we know, was the author of an extensive work called Saõgraha, referred to in the Mahābhāshya which is in fact based upon it. Kātyāyana was followed in his task by a vast number of writers. The names of some of these are preserved for us by Patañjali.1To that list we must add the author or authors of the metrical vārtikas(over 250) that are quoted in the Mahābāshya. Some of these belong to Patañjali himself, others probably to Kātyāyana, while still others, to either the predecessors or successors of Kātyāyana. 11 That 1 Tarañga iv, and elsewhere : padiya describes the Maba- प्रणमन्वं तदस्मब्याकरणं भुवि । bhashya as सश्यहातिकम्युक. & Mababhishya, vol. 1, p.8, line 2: 10 Namely, Transit, atar, 5- प्रियतद्धिता दाक्षिणात्याः । णरवादव, वादव, सौर्यभगवत् and 3 iii. 8 प्रत्ययसवर्ण मुदि शाकटायनः। कुणि. 4 iii.9 : अविकारं शाकल्यः शषसेषु । 11 The question as to the author- 5 Vārtika 35 to i. 2, 64, ship of these श्लोकवार्तिक is 6 Vartika 45 to i. 2. 64. discussed in the Indian Anti- 7 Vartika 3 to viii. 4. 48. quary vol. v, Note 4, on the 8 Vartika 4 to ii. 1, 1, Mebabhäsbya. 9 Vol. i. p. 6, line 2 ; The Vokya.

·§ 2 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 19-] some of them at least presuppose Kātyāyana is proved by kārikā i on Pāṇini iij. 2.118, which quotes one of his vārtikas. Unfortunately none of these successors of Kātyāyana are known to us otherwise than through quotations made by Patanjali in his Mahābhāshya. 'We must therefore next pass on to Patanjali, with whom ends the first period in the history of the Pāṇiniya school. 20. Patanjall: His date and personal history. The date of Patañjali the author of the Mahābhāshya is not subject to as vague a guess-work as that of Kātyāyana or Pāṇini. At one time scholars were inclined to make him temporary of Christ, but · Dr. Bhandarkar has fought through the pages of the Indian Antiquary for an earlier date ; and it has been now accepted by scholars all round, and formed, in fact, until the recent discovery of the Kautiliya, the one definite landmark in the history of ancient Indian Literature, by a reference to which the dates of Patañjali's predecessors and successors could be approximately determined. The main arguments for assigning him to 150 B. C. are these: i. The instance ir पुष्पमित्रंयाजयामः in such a context that the event must have occurred within the lifetime of Patañjali. ii. Similarly the instances अरुणयवनः साकेतं and अरुणधवनो मध्यामिकाम, which refer to a siege by Menander. iii. As a collateral evidence, the mention of a financial expedient of the Mauryas.' Regarding the personal history of Patanjali very little is known. He was a contemporary of Pushpamitra and probably much honoured by him for his learning. It is usual to suppose that the epithets Gonardiya and Goņikā. putra used in the Mahābhāshya' are his own other names . 1 The references are : Jadian An. tiquary i. 299–302 ; ii, 67, 69, 94, 2C6-10, 238, and 862 ; xv. 80-84 ; xvi. 156, 178 ; and Goldstücker, pp. 228-38 (Reprint, pp. 175-183). 2 Vol. i. pp. 78, 91, 386, &o, ·[ - 20 Patanjali's Mahābhashya 33 derived from his native place and the name of his mother, but it has been shown by Rõjendralal Mitra' and Dr. Kielhoma that they are distinct authors, and as such they are quoted by so early a writer as Vātsyāyana the author of the Kāma-sātra. The best account of Patanjali's time, if not of his person, is to be found in the Mahābhāshya itself; and a detailed exposition of the religious, historical, geographical, social, and literary data as resulting from the contents of that work is to be found in the Indische Studien, xiii. pp. 293-502. We have stated that Patanjali was not the first to deal with Katyāyana in the same way in which the latter dealt with Pāṇini. Patañjali was perhaps the most successful if not also the last of the number. Besides giving his ishtis (desiderata) on Pāṇini's sūtras, wherever Kātyäyana had omitted to give vārtikas, his chief aim was to vindicate Pāṇini against the often unmerited attacks of Kātyāyana ; and in this he has achieved a remarkable success, although in some places he overdoes his defence and becomes decidedly unfair to Kātyāyana. The style of his work is unparalleled in the whole range of Sanskrit Literature, only the Śārīra-bhāshya of ſaīkara being worthy of a mention by its side. Regarding the text of the Mahābhāshya the traditions recorded in the Rājatarangiņia and in the Vákyapadiya. state that it had become so hopelessly corrupt in the time of king Abhimanyu of Kāśmir that only one authentic Ms. of it existed throughout India, from which all subsequent copies of it have been derived. The work, like 1 Journal of the Asiatic Society of vided into four classes, while Bengal, vol. lii. p. 289. गोनहाय divides them into 2 Indian Antiquary xiv, p. 40. · eight. 3 See Kama-sūtra, p. 67 (Kavya. 4 Vido aote 5 on p. 13 above. mtils edition). According to 5 Kanda ii, stanzas 484-90 was the mo eto di. 5 ( St. Gr. ] ·34 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 20 - Pāṇini's Ashtādhyāyī, is divided into eight adhyāyas of four pādas each, each pāda being further subdivided into from one to nine ähnikas. The Mahābhāshya does not notice all the sūtras of Pāṇini, but only such as were noticed by Kātyāyana, as also such others as Patañjali himself considered incomplete and capable of improvement. Whether the remaining were likewise commented upon by Pataſjali or not is more than what we can say.' 21. Patañjall's Mahābhāshya es marking the end of the first period in the history of the Paņiniya school.-Pāṇini, Kātyāyana, and Patanjali are traditionally known as the "three sages, muni-trayam, who gave the law to the science of grammar. Each took for his study the whole field of the living language, and the contribution niade by each to the stock of inherited knowledge and idens is quite considerable. Patanjali's Mahābhāshya for a time marked the highest point in the development of the science of grammar. So far as grammatical speculations go, the next three or four centuries--which coincided with the bloom of the classical Prākrit literature and which also witnessed the Scythian invasions on a large scale-are a perfect blank to us ; and our next leap from Patañjali should be to Chandragomin, the founder of the Chăndra school. 22. Chandragomin and his work.--Chandragomina was a close student of Pāṇini, Kātyāyana, and Patanjali, and for his work he utilized all their labours, trying in several places, in the light of the changes that had come over 1 A fanciful explanation of tho the Mahabhi Tsbya were blowa fact that some of Panipi's away by the wind and others satras are not to be found in got disarranged. Another ao. the Mahabhusliya is given in count makes a monkey पटदल. tbe Patañjala-cbarita (Kavya. चयमामलोलः responsible for mala, No. 51), whero it is said the accident. that soine of the leaves of the 2 For a more detailed account of originally completo copy of bim see $$ 42 and following.

·Ĉ- $23 Chandragomin and his work 35 Sanskrit since the days of the author of the Mahābhāslıya to improve upon thein in the forn as well as the matter of their sätras and vārtikas and ishtis. Chandragomiu was a Bauddha, and one of his objects in writing a new grammar must have been to supply, for the benefit of members of his Church, a grammar that would be free from the traditional Brahmanical element. The more orthodox grammarians, however, were not willing to accept his innovations. They accordingly tried to invent new maxims of interpretation, tending to show, after a very diligent analysis of the works of the three great sages, that such defects as Chandragomin and others tried to find in the Pāụiniya grammar were in it already implicitly provided for. This procedure was no doubt unhistorical, but so was that of Kātyāyana or of Patanjali. As yet we cannot fix upon any great leading names, but the traditional elaboration of the system of jñāpakas and Paribliāshās must be referred to the time somewhere between 470 (the date of Chandrayomin) and 650 (the date of one of the authors of the Kašikā). 23. The Kāśikā of Jayāditya and Vāmena.--Itsing, the Chinese pilgrim, speaks of Jayāditya of Kāśmir as the author of a grammatical work called vritti-sātra, which it is usual to identify with the Kāśikā, a joint work of Jayāditya and Vāmana. Itsing tells us that Jayāditya died about A. D. 660 ; and if the above identification is correct,” this gives us the date of the Kāśikā. 1 Unless it be those of T, TY, and the mentioned in the Vakya ndiya, Kanda secoud, stanza 487. 2 Itsipg's account of the greus by Try may not after all refer to the Firfront. He speaks of a com, on the great by Patanjali and writes as if जयादित्य completed the वृत्ति himself. Even so, however, we cannot bring tho Kūdikī any earlier than 650 A.D., soving that on iv. 3. 88 it mentions the Vakyapadiya by Damo. Jayaditya then appears. to be ·36 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar The Kasika was once believed to be the work of one author variously called Vamana, Jayāditya, or Vämana- Jayāditya. It has now been found out that they are two distinct persons. Bhattoji Dikshita clearly distinguishes between their views,' and the concurrent testimony of Mss from all parts of India assigns to Jayāditya the authorship of the first five chapters of it, while the last three belong to Vāmana, who probably came soon after Jayaditya and certainly before the time of Jinendrabuddhi, who comments upon the whole work.> Regarding the personality of the authors of the Kāśikā little definite is known. Neither of them begins his work with any mañgala, both exhibit an unorthodox tendency to introduce changes into the wording of the sātras, and Jayāditya at any rate refers on i. 1. 36, with evident satisfaction, to the work of the Lokāyatikas. These reasons tend to show that the author or authors were Bauddhas. It is supposed that Jayāditya is to be identified with king Jayāpīda of Kāśmir, whose minister, as mentioned by Kalhana, was a person named Vămana. This may not be strictly accurate. Dr. Bühler bolieved that the author was a native of Kāśmir. 4 3 at least a contenporary of Panini v 4.42: Ra * - Bhartrihari the author of the स्यमलेनोकम् । बामनस्त्वाह &c. Vīkya padīya. Vīmana who 2 On the question of the differcat probably wrote the last three authorship of the Kasiko Bee chapters of the Kūšikā came Dr. Bhandarkar’s Report for soon after Jayaditya, and 1883-84, p. 58. Jinendrabuddhi, the author of 3 Soe Bala Sastri's edition of the the Nyasa on the Kusika came Kūdika, p. 62-qraf : I probably before 750, seeing तत्सम्बन्धादाचार्योऽपि चार्म । स that he is quoted by so early लोकायते शाने पदार्थान मयते । an author as Bbumaba. Coin उपपतिभिः स्थिरीकस्य शिष्येभ्यः pare also J. B. B. R. A. 8, for प्रापयति । युतिभिः स्थाप्यमाना। 1909, p. 94 ; Indian Antiquary, सम्मानिता जिला भवन्ति । xli, pp. 232-237 and xlii, pp. 4 Dr. Bibler's Report for 1875-76, 263-264. 1Compare the प्रौढमनोरमा on Dx 73.

·(-$24 Kasiki of legentication and Vamana 37 The Käsikā is a running commentary on Pagini's Asktadhyāyī, and its merit consists in the lucid matter. in which it has explained the 'sätras of Pāṇint, clearly indicating all the aduvgittis and giving numerous: illustration tions for each rule. Sometimes the Käsikä gives us information which we could not possibly lave obtained from any other source. Thus on sätra vii. 3.95 it gives us a rule of Apišali, the grammarian who preceded Pāṇini and whose work must consequently have been known to the authors of the Käsikā. On sūtra vii. 2. 17 it gives us a vārtika of the Saunāgas other than those quoted in the Mahābhāshya. These facts, however scanty by themselves, corroborate the tradition of the existence of a vast number of grammarians prior and subsequent to the time of Kātyāyana. 24. The Indebtedness of the Kāólkā to Chandragomin.The object of the Kāśikā was to embody in the Pāņiniya system all the improvements that were made by Chandragomin. As the result of an exhaustive analysis of the text of Pāṇini's sātras as given in the Kāśıkā-vritti Dr. Kielhorna sums up his conclusions thus : “The text of the Ashtā. dhyāyi as given in the Kāśikā differs in the case of 58 rules from the text known to Kātyāyana and Patanjali. Ten of these 58 rules are altogether fresh additions; nine are a result of separating (by yoga-vibhāga) the original 8 sätras into 17. In 19 cases new words have been inserted into the original sūtras, while in the rest there are other changes in the wording &c. of the sätras." Some of these changes had been alıeady suggested by Kātyāyana or Patanjali, especially in the matter of vibhāga. The additional words also were mostly taken 1 See atove, page 9 note 4. 2 free ladiso antiquary vol. xvi, pp. 179 and following ·Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 24 - 1 from the vārtikas or from the notes in the Mahābhāshya, as well as from some of the added rules. Most of the new matter found in the Kāśikā can, however, be traced to Chandragomin, from whose work he diligently draws his material without anywhere acknowledging his sources.' This fact, as before pointed out, settles 470 A. D. as the upper limit for the date of the Kāśikā. 25. Jinon trabuddhi's Nyāsa on the Käsiki.-An excellent commentary on the Kāśikā called Kāśikā-vivarana-panjikā or Kāśikā-nyāsa is the work of Jinendrabuddhi, who styles himself weigeret. This informs us about his religion ; as to his date he cannot be later than 750 A. D., seeing that he is referred to by Bhāmaha, who says that a poet should never employ a compound in which a verbal derivative in ga is compounded with a noun in the genetive case, and adds that he should not support such usage by the authority of the Nyāsa, which presumably is the same as this work.3 The Nyāsa follows closely on the lines of the Kāśikā and tries to incorporate into itself whatever new was produced upto its time. It is a pity that we as yet 1 Thus on iv, 2. 138 Kasikū gives the sūtra itself in conformity the vartika वेणुकादिभ्यश्वप् with the Chindra vy karana. Theer: i which is Cbūndra Many more similar instances sitra iii. 2.61 ; the kārika on are given by Liebich in his V. 4.77 in the Kusika embodies edition of the Chữadra vyūkasätras iv. 4. 72 and 73, of rana. Chandra, the Kasiko further 2 Govt. Or. Mss. Library, Madras, remarking तदेतत् सर्व योगविभार्ग Ms. no. 941 gives the Dame GEOT #Trafi; Panini's satra ६ स्थविरजिनेन्द्र viii. 3. 118, Frâ: ari para, See, however, the references citod Chandra changes into सदिस्व at the end of page 35, pote 2 affet (vi. 4.98), following above. herein a vārtika of Katyayada 4 Compare-1994 Franet (सदोलिटि प्रतिषेधे स्वञ्जरपस. काशिका यथा। वृधिस्तस्वा यथा. TW); while Kasikx reads शक्ति क्रियते पम्जिका तथा ·(-$ 26 Commentaries on Kasika 39 possess not a single edition of this ancient commentary. There is no complete Ms. of it in any hitherto known collection, but the several fragments may yield a tolerably complete text. And the commentary is well worth the labours of a critical editor, to judge from such fragments of it as were available to me at the Deccan College Mss. Library. 26. Haradatta's Padainanjari on the Kasika.-There is another valuable commentary on the Kātikā called the Padamañjarī by Haradatta. Haradatta was, as he himself informs us, the son of Padma-(or Rudra-)kumāra, and younger brother of Agnikumāra; while his preceptor was one Aparājita. He was probably a native of the Tamil country and may subsequently have acquainted himself with the Telugu literature, as the instance of a vernacular word (Prerit) given by him seems to indicate." The Padamañjari is quoted in the Mādhaviya Dhātuvritti and by Mallinātba, and itself quotes Māgha. According to a portion of the Bhavishyottara Purāņa giving the history of Haradatta (who is considered as an incarnaare 1 Professor K. B. Pathak tells ino shortly (1912). Maitreyarakthat the M8. in the Jain shita is reported to have writ- Matha at Sravana Belgola, ten a commentary on the which is put down in the lists Nyasa, but I have not been able as a Nyasa on the Sīkuļāyana to verify the statement. sabdāpusīgana, is really a Ms. 2 These and the following detuils of the above work, and goes taken from Sheshagiri as far as viii. 3. 11. I under ShTetri's Report on the search atand that Prof. Srish Chandra of Sanskrit and Tamil M88. Chakravarti of Rajshahi Col for 1893-94, Madras, No. 2. lege, Bengal, has beon able 3 Bonares edition (Reprint from to put together & tolerably the Papait) pages 657, 715 complete copy of the text line 2=Magha iii. 74), &c. from Mss. collected from all Kirsta ii, 35 is quoted on corners of India. He is page 237 line 8; and Bhatti. also going to publish the work kávya on page 641 line 16.

·40 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $26 - ) tion of God Śiva,) we learn that he died 3979 years after the beginning of Kali, which corresponds to 878 A. D. This account of the Bhavishyottara Purāņa probably does not refer to our Haradatta, seeing that it gives Vāsudeva as the name of Haradatta's father.' More. over, Haradatta's Padamañjarī seems to be later than and partly based upon Kaiyyata's Mahābhāshya-Pradipa, and we cannot assign to Kaiyyata so early a date as cir. 800 A. D., which would be necessary if Haradatta is to be put at 878. Probably, therefore, Haradatta belongs to somewhere about 1100 A. D. 27. Bhartrihari's Vākyapadiya.-From Padamañjarī, the commentary on the Kāśikā, we go back to the writer who according to Itsing was a contemporary of Jayāditya, one of the authors of the Kāśikā; and this is no other than Bhartrihari, the celebrated poet and grammarian whose date of death, according to the Chinese pilgrim, is 650 A. D. It is not necessary for us to consider in this place the different problems suggested by his name. He may or may not have been a king, a brother of a king or the author of the ŝatakas. Itsing's account unmistakably 1 Mr. Sheshagiri Sbīstri suggests, genio11g but not convincing, loc.cit.,that Haradatta's father and it must yield to the chronomay have been & Vaisbṇava to 'logical evidence given below. begin with and may have 2 Compare Padananjari on ii. 1.66 later changed his name and (Benares ed. p 384 11. 5 ff..) with become a Śniva, just as Hara. Pradipa on tho Anine place datta bim-zelf changed his ori. (Nir. Sag. ed. of the Mahaginal nome of Sudargana into bhashya, part ii. p. 405). So the one which is more general also compare Padumanjart on ly known. Some such change ii. 1.70 (p. 385) with Pradtpa of namo may appear to bave on the same place (ibid, p. 414). been hinted at in the intro Many more instances can be dactory stanza-free par likewise adduced to sbow the संज्ञया विश्रुतो वास दिक्षिणः। indebtedness of Pademanjari उजहार पदमकमरीमसौ शमशास्त्र to the Pradipa. सहकारपादपात् | All this is in- ·( - $ 28 Bhartrihori's Vakyanadiya 41 . refers to Bhartrihari the author of the Väkyupadiya and consequently also to the author of a commentary on the Mahābhāshya. Regarding the latter work all that we can say is that it was probably never completed by the author. The Ganaratna-mahodadhi states that the commentary extends only to the first three pādas. According to Dr. Bühler fragments of Bliartrihari's comment exist in the Royal Library at Berlin' and in the Deccan. If they exist in the Deccan, they have not so far come to light. The Väkyapadiya is a metrical discourse on the philosophy of grammar, distributed into three chapters : the Brahma or Āyama-kāņda, the Vākya-kāņda, and the Pada or Prakīrṇa-kānda. The chief historical interest of the work attaches itself to the account given in about seven stanzas, towards the end of the second kāụda, confirming the statement of the Rājatarñgiņi about the fate of the Mahābhāshya. The passage also contains the earliest reference to the Chāodra school, and mentions Baiji, Saubhava, and Haryaksha as grammarians who went before Chandrāchārya or Chandragomin, and who by their uncritical methods of study contributod not a little to the neglect of the Mahābhāshya during the early centuries of the Christian era. 28. Kalyyata's Pradipa as marking the end of the second period la the history of the Pāṇiniya school.-Between Bhartrihari (650 A. D.) and Kaiyyata (the next great writer of the Pāṇiniya school whom we notice and who probably belongs to the eleventh century) we have no names of any consequence to mention. The period was indeed marked by a more or less general grammatical activity, but that 1 Compare com. on Ganaratna the Mababbūshya, vol. ii. mabodadhi, st.3, -Ft: Agt 3 India : what can it toach us ? wroofTTUT BREYTTI p. 352 ; Iodian Antiquary for 2 Seo preface to Kielborn's ed. of 1876, p. 245. 6 Sk. Gs. ) ·42 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar § 28 - ) was confined to the systems of grammar outside the Pāṇiniya school. These we shall notice in another place. For Pāṇini's school Kaiyyata's Pradipa marks the end of the second period of development. Kaiyyata was probably, as his name indicates, a native of Kāśmir. His father was Jaiyyata surnamed Upādhyā. ya, and his preceptor was one Mahesvara. In a commentary on Mammata's Kavyaprakāśa written by Bhimasena (Samvat 1779=1722 A. D.) Kaiyyata along, with Auvata has been spoken of as the disciple and even the younger brother of Mammata.' This statement is inaccurate if by Auvata is meant the author of the Bhāshya on the Yajurveda-Samhitā, whose father was Vajrata ; and since Bhimasena is a late writer we need not likewise attach much importance to the chronological relation between Mammata and Kaiyyata as suggested by him. Mammata was, we know, a great grammarian as well as a rhetorician who lived cir. 1100, and there is nothing improbable in his being a teacher to even - Kaiyyata. Kaiyyata's lower limit is given by the circumstance that he is quoted in the Sarva-darśana-sañgruha (cir. 1300).” Regarding the nature of Kaiyyata's performance it is not necessary in this place to say much. He tells us in his introduction that he followed on the lines of Hari, that is, Bhartrihari, and he may be pronounced to have been fairly successful on the whole in the task of interpreting the Mahābhāshya. His work has been, 1 श्रीमान् कैय्यट औषगे बरजो यच्छा- त्रतामागतो भायाधि निगम यथा. क्रममनुव्याख्याय सिद्धिं गतः। 2 Aufrecht's Oxford Catalogue, p. 247 a. 3 Are we to suppose, therefore, that Kaiyyaţa bad a complate Ilianuscript of Bhartřihari's conuinentary on the Mahs bhashya before him ? In that case the Tripadri alluded to in the Ganaratna-mahodadbi ( above, p. 41) must be vither a distinct work, or may be no other than the Vakyapadiya itself, which is in three chap ters.

·- $ 29 Kalyyata's Pradipa and commentaries 43 in turn, commented upon by Nāgojibhatta the author of the Pradipodyota, by Nárāyaṇa who has written a Vivaraṇa upon it, and by īśvarānanda the pupilof Satyā - nanda who has composed another similarly named commentary. None of these writers seems to be earlier than A. D. 1600. We have already spoken of Haradatta's Padamafjarī, which is based upon Kaiyyata's work. For most of these writers who followed Kaiyyata there was very little original work in the Pāṇiniya school that was left to be done. Sanskrit had long been established as a classical language; it ceased to be influenced by current speech in any vital manner. Hence in grammar there was no occasion for any creative work; and even the work of critical elaboration bad well-nigh run its course. This was also the period of the early Muhammedan incursions, which necessarily preceded their permanent occupation of India, and it was, as was to be expected, marked by a general decadence of literature, reflecting a corresponding ebb in the tide of social and political activities. The study of grammar, accordingly, succumbed to the operation of the usual laws of demand and supply. In the next century or two there may have been petty commentators here and there, and, possibly, some really great writers, but none of their names even have survived the ravages of time. Later when the clouds cleared a little and literature began to flourish, the demand--feeble at first--which some of the enlightened Muhammedan rulers created was adequately met by popular schools of grammar, like the Sārasvata, which now sprang into existence. 29. Recasts of the Ashtādhyāyi : The Rūpamāli. - It was clear now that if the Pāṇiniya grammar was to keep abreast of the spirit of the times, it should have been remoulded and presented in easier and less repellent style.

·44 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 29 - ) The earliest and on that ground the simplest of these recasts of the Ashtādhyāyī that has come down to us is the Rūpamālā of Vimalasarasvati, a writer who, if the date given in Ms. of the work be true,' must be placed not later than A. D. 1350. The arrangement of the work is in the style of later Kaumudis. After treating of प्रत्याहार, संज्ञा, and परिभाषा the author denls with सन्धि in four sections : स्वरसन्धि, प्रकृतिभाव, व्यञ्जन, and विसर्गसन्धि ; then follows declension in six parts: i अजन्तमाला, ii. हलन्तमाला, iii. सर्वनाममाला, iv. संख्याभाग, v. irregular words like HIE: grâ &c., and vi. Vedic irregularities. After these come fargras, their meanings and grammatical peculiarities, argets, and are relations. The longest section deals with the streets, the peculiarities of each er being arranged under separate headings; and as an appendix we have लकारार्थमाला and तङादिनियमभाग, the last giving the circumstances under which verbs change their qes. The ea and the afer occupy the next two sections, the work concluding with a chapter on समास. It has been thought worth while giving the above details as they help us to show in what respects the later Kaumudis are an improvement on this their prototype. Vimalasarasvati's manner of presenting his whole subject is quite simple and attractive, if it cannot also claim to be exhaustive. The merit of later works consists mainly in a more systematic arrangement and a somewhat more detailed treatment. All the same, the credit for having conceived the idea of such a recast and carried it into exe- 1 India office Ma. No, 612, which is stated to have been written in Samvat 1437 =1379A.. The game Ms. gives Sam. 1467 as another date. A Me. deposited at the Deocan College (No. 209 of 1879-80) ia dated Sanivat 1507. Vimalasarasvati is quoted by Anuritabharati, & writer of the Strasvata school, a manuscript of whoso work bears the date A. D. 1496.

·[-30 Recasts of Ashtadhydyr 45 cution must ungrudgingly be given to the author of the Rūpamālā. 30. Ramachandra's Prakrly #kaumudi and its commentaries. Next in chronological order comes the Prakriyakaumudi of Rāmachandra, a writer who probably belongs to the first half of the fifteenth century. He was a Dakshini Brahman, the son of a Krishṇāchārya, and was eminently versed in grammar and Vedānta and astronomy, in all of which he has written original works of his own. The Prakriyākaumudi is supposed to have been the model for Bhattoji's Siddhāntakaumudi. There are several commentaries extant on Ramchandra's Prakriyākaumudi of which the most famous is the Prasāda of Vitthalāchārya. The earliest Ms. of the Prasāda is dated Samvat 1605-6 = A. D. 1548-9; hence Vitthalāchārya cannot be later than 1525 A. D. As a grammarian Vitthala is disparaged by Bhattoji, who often refers to him. Vitthala, in his turn, quotes from, among others, Kaiyyata, Trilochanadāsa, Kshīrasvāmin, Durgasimha, Jinendrabuddhi, Bhartrihari, Vāmana, Haradatta, and Bopadeva. Vitthala tells us that he was the son of Nrisimhāchārya and grandson of Rāmakrishṇāchārya, while his own son was named Lakshmidharāchārya. Another commentary on the Prakriyakaumudi that • demands a passing notice is the Prakriyāprakāśa of Šesha- Krishna the son of Šesha-Nrisimhasāri. As he tells us in the introduction to his commentary, which extends to 46 stanzas, he composed this comment for the benefit of Prince Kalyāņa, the son of a (petty) king of Patrapunja, 3 1 Blattoji Dikshita acknowledges bis indebtednemu to bim in tbet be quotes him in the Praudha-Manorama. % The information comes from Vitthala who ako giver other dotails, for which see Bendall's Cat. of Mom in the Durbar Library of Nepel, p. rii, 3 Aufrecht's Oxford Catalogue gives these and other names.

·46 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $30 - 1 a small place in the Duab formod by the Ganges and the Yamunā. Šesha-Krishna, as we shall presently see, was the preceptor of Bhattoji Dikshita, and must accordingly be placed cir. 1600 A. D.' 31. Bhattoll's Siddhantakaumudi and other works. We next pass on to the deservedly famous Siddhāntakaumudi of Bhattoji Dikshita,-a work which is remarkable not only by reason of the host of commentaries and sub-commentaries that it called into being, nor again because it is at present practically the only popular introduction to Pāṇini's grammar, but also owing to the fact-strange as it may appear--that it has eventually ousted Pāṇini himself and most of the other ancient authors of grammar, as also the numerous new schools that hąd lately sprung into existence. The work is too well known to need any detailed exposition. From the list of previous authors quoted by Bhattoji in this and his other works we can gather that he freely availed himself of such help as he could possibly get. His indebtedness to one work, however, we learn, only from Meghavijaya, the author of Haima-Kaumudi, who tells us that Bhattoji's Kaumudi was largely modelled upon Hemachandra's Sabdānušāsana." Bhattoji was the son of Lakshmidhara and the bro. ther of Rañgoji Dikshita, while his son was variously known as Bhānu-dikshita, Vireśvara-dīkshita or Rāmā. śrama. Regarding the other details of Bhattoji's life Jagannātha, the court pandit of the Emperor Shahajahan, informs us in his Manoramākuchamardini that Bhattoji was the pupil of Sesha-Krishņa, to whose memory he does p. 162. 1 Other commentaries on our Aufrecht's Oxford Catalogue, कौमुदी are सार by काशीनाथ, weef by TTTTTTTTT, 3 Peterson's report ill, p. 291. I e$t by funnet &c. am not sure about the truth of 2AD exhaustive list is given in this statement.

·I - $ 31 Bhattoji's Siddhôntakaumudi 47 AL very scant justice in his Praudha-Manoramā. As Jagannátha himself was the pupil of the son of this Sesha- Krishna, this gives us Bhattojis date, which must be about A. D. 1630. This is also confirmed by the fact that a pupil of Bhattoji wrote a work in Samvat 1693. Bhattoji himself wrote a commentary on his Sid. dhānta-kaumudi, called Praudha-Manoramā to distinguish it from an abridgment of the same called Bāla-Manoramā also by the same author. Besides shorter works such as commentaries on the Pāṇiniya Dhātupātha, Liñigānušāsana, &c, Bhattoji wrote the Sabda-kaustubha which is a voluminous commentary on Pāṇini's Ashtādhyāyi similar in plan to the Käsikā. This was left, probably, incomplete; though he must have written as far at least as the fourth āhnika of adhyāya iſi, and not only the first pāda of the first adhyāya, as is usually supposed." Besides Jagannātha's commentary on the Praudha- Manoramă, there is another written by Nāgesā, but ascribed by him to his teacher Hati-dikshita,. just as Nāgesa ascribed another work, a commentary on the Adhyātma-Rāmāyaṇa, to his parton. Sabda-kaustubha similarly is commented upon by Nāgeśa and by Nāgeśa's pupil Vaidyanātha Pāyagunda. To commentaries ancient and modern on the Siddhānta kaumudi there is no limit. Those most famous are the Tattvabodhini by Jflanendrasarasvati, pupil of Vāmanendra-sarasvati, which treats ..... 1 Compere T केचिनिखिलपिन्मु. तापि स्वमतिपरीक्षार्थं पुनरस्माभिर्मि. कुरमयूखमालालालितचरणाना... क्ष्यिते। utarat gufutarat.. 2 Deccan College Mo. No. 183 of प्रसादादासावितशवादशासनास्तेषु A.1882-83, the author of which चपरमेश्वरं पदं प्रयातेषु कलिकाल. is नीलकण्ठ शुक्ल, w Gov. Or. Mar. Library, Madras, निर्मितापीमनोरमायामाकुल्पकार्यु। No. 00, 1328 goes upto the साप्रापापकाशता पौरस्मा fifth ehnika of adhy&ya ili. रुपतिवीरेश्वराणां तनपैषि ·48 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 31 - 1 of the classical language only and omits the svara and vaidiki prakriyā. It is mostly modelled on Bhattoji's own commentary and is very useful for beginners. Jayakrishna, son of Raghunāthabhatta of the Mauni family has written a commentary on the svara and vaidiki prakriya only of the Siddhānta-kaumudi, thus completing that of Jhänendra-sarasvati. Both these writers probably belong to the first half of the eighteenth century. Regarding tho' abridgments of the Siddhānta-kaumudi and other shorter manuals based upon it we shall speak presently., The family of Bhattoji Dikshita seems to have been a family of great writers and grammarians up and down. Bhattoji's nephew Kondabhatta wrote an original work on syntax and philosophy of grammar modelled on the lines of his illustrous uncle and being in fact a discursive gloss on some 74 kārikās of Bhattoji. Bhattoj's son Bhānuji taught several pupils, as also his grandson Haridikshita. Among the pupils of the latter is ranked no loss an illustrious name than that of Nāgojibhatta or Nāgesa. el 1 These relations would be clear from the following geneological table- लक्ष्मीधर Tyco Author of प्रक्रियाप्रकाश GODS BON रंगोबिंदीक्षित disciple Herfere trata वीरेश्वर 1 800 SON disciple rus Author of the per भामुजि = बीरेश्वर -रामाश्रम ...... (1650 A. D.) son disciple हरिदीक्षित disciple disciple नीलकण्ठ पल नागेश or मागोजिमा Wroto ia 163% A. D. disciplo बैधनाथ पायोट wrote in 1641 A. D.

·49 [ - $ 32 Works of Nigesa and Payagunda 32. The works of Nagesa and of Vaidyanachu Pigugundo.com Nāgeśa or Nāgojibhatta was a very prolific writor. Bosides fourteen great works on Dharma, one on Yoga, three on Alañkāra, and about a dozen on Vyakarana-sāstra, he has been credited with the authorship of extensive commentaries on Vālmiki-Rāmāyaṇa and Adhyatma- . Rāmāyaṇa as also on Saptašati, Gitagovinda, Sudhälahari, and other works. We are here concerned with his gramrnatical treatises, and prominent amongst these is the Udyota on Kaiyyata's Mahābhāshya-pradipa ; Paribhăshendusekhara, a collection of Paribhāskās handed down in connection with Pāṇini's grammar and followed by a concise explanatory commentary on them called the Śabdendusekhara (in two editions a major and a minor) ; & commentary on the Siddhānta-kaumudi and intended as a companion to the Manoramā ; Sabdaratna, a commentary on the Praudha-Manoramā, ascribed by him honoris causa to his teacher Hari-diksbita ; Vishami a commentary on Bhattoji's Šabda-kaustubha ; and finally the Vaiyākaranasiddhāntamañjāshā (in three editions) on the philosophy of grammar. The geneological tree given above exhibits Nāgojibhatta's spiritual descent from his illustrious predecessors ; it also helps us roughly to determine his time. In addition we have a tradition current at Jeypur, and mentioned by the learned editor of the Kāvyamālā in his introduction to Rasagañgādhara, which refers to an invitation for a horse sacrifice received in 1714 A. D. by Nāgesabhatta from Savāi Jeysiṁha, ruler of Jeypur (1688 to 1728 A.D), an invitation which Nāgesa courteously declined on the ground that he had taken kshetra-sannyāsa and could not, therefore, leave Benares to attend the ceremony. Regarding himself he informs us that he was a Mahratta Brahman surnamed Kāle, the son of Śivabhatta and Satí, a rosident of Benares and a protegee of [Sk. Gr.)

·50 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $32 - 1 Rāmasimha, a local prince of Śriñgaverapura (now Singarour) a few miles north of Allahabad. Vaidyanatha or Bālambbatta Pāyagunda, a direct disciple of Nāgesabhatta, wrote like his teacher several works on Dharma and Vyākarana-śātra. He was the son of Mahādeva and Venī, and Lakshmidevi the wife of king Chandrasimha of Mithilā was probably his patroness, in whose honour he is reported to have composed a commentary on the Vyavahāra-kānda of the Mitāksharā, which is usually known as Bālambhatti. His grammatical labours are mainly confined to writing comments on the works of his predecessors. Thus he has written a Gadā on the Paribhāshendusekhara, a Chhāyā on the Mahābhāshya-pradīpodyota, a Kalā on Vaiyākaraṇasiddhāntamañjāshā, a Prabhā on the śabdakaustubha, a Bhāvaprakāśikā on the Sabdaratna, Chidasthimālā on the Šabdendusekhara, and a host of others. 33. Grammatical works outside the Dikshita school.-Independently of the Dikshita school there are very few notable names of grammarians belonging to the seventeenth century. We may perhaps mention, as belonging to the early decades of the century, Annambhatta the author of the Tarkasañgraha, who has written an indenpendent commentary on the Ashtādhyāyi, called Mitā. ksharā. The school of profound grammarians which is now almost dying out was already on the decline since the middle of the eighteenth century, as is evidenced by the numerous easy manuals that have come into existence during the last two centuries. Some of these popular epitomes ally themselves to no particular school, and these will be dealt with in another part of the essay. We now confine our attention to those belonging to the Pāṇiniya school. 1 Publixhed in the Benares Sanskrit Series ·[ - $ 36 Abridgements and Manuals 51 34. Abridgements and Manuals.-Prominent among these are the abridgements of the Siddhānta-Kaumudi itself by Varadarāja. There are three editions of themmadhya-, a laghu-, and a sāra-Siddhāntakauraudi,-- the difference consisting only in the more or less thorough eschewing of unnecessary details. Strange as it may seem, even these epitomes stood in need of commentaries for their further siinplification, or rather the reverse of it. The major abridgment was commented upon by Rāmašarman at the request of one śivānanda ; the middle one by a Jayakrishſa, son of Raghunāthabhatta and grandson of Govardhanabhatta of the Mauni family.' There are a few other easy texts framed independently of the Siddhāntakaumudi, but they hardly deserve special mention. The last stage of this progressive simplification is perhaps reached when to works such as Rupāvali, Samāsachakra, etc. 35. Later history of treatisos accessory to Panlal's grammar.- It only remains now, finally, to speak of the further history of the treatises accessory to Pāņini's grammar mentioned by us on pages 25 and following of this essay. These works, although originally framed for a particular system,had so much in common with other schools of grammar that they have been transferred with very little modifications from one school to another. The successive stages of this process deserve to be made the subject of an independent study; we cannot in this place afford to dwell on them at any length. We shall only allude to a few notable works in each line. we come 36. Dhātupātha - The Dhātupātha as we find it embodied in the Pāṇinīya system was commented upon by 1 The affetrait has a similar abridgment calld an, the work of owo of the pupils of the author, 37, and written in A, D. 1631 (?).

·Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 36 - ] Kshirasvāmin. A Kāśmirian tradition makes him teacher to king Jayāpida, which brings him into the eighth century. This conficts with the fact that Kshirasvāmin quotes Bhoja, and in so far as he is quoted by Vardhamāna in the Ganaratnamahodadhi, this settles his date, which is roughly 1050 A. D. Besides the Dhātuvritti Kshirasvāmin wrote five other works : i. commentary on the Amarakosha, ii. निपातायोपसर्गवत्ति, iii. अमृततरङ्गिणी referred to in the Dhātuvritti (which is more usually known as aftraffoft), iv. forrugefa mentioned by Devarāja in his Niruktanirvachana, and v. Gañavritti referred to by Vardhamāna in his Ganaratnamahodadhi, a work presently to be mentioned. In the introduction to the Dhātuvritti Kshirasvāmin notes that several people, including the great Chandra, had essayed before him to write about the roots, but not always successfully. The Chandra here referred to must be Chandragomin, the founder of the Chāndra school, whose Dhātupātha was subsequently incorporated by Durgasimha with the Kātantra grammar. About the nature of the contents of the Dhātuvritti Kshīrasvāmin tells us that one can find therein : अव्याख्याकार्यजातं गणानां सेवानिदत्वोपग्रहादेः फलं च । अष्टाध्यायां ये विशेषप्रयोगा धातोर्धातोर्दशितास्ते विशेषात् ॥ Of other works of Kshirasvāmin it is not necessary to say rauch in this place. We next turn our attention to the Madhviya-Dhātuvritti, which deals with the same subject and which was written by Madhava or Sāyana, the great Vedic Bhāshyakāra (1350 A.D). Sāyaṇa also mentions numerous workers in the same field whose labours he partly utilised. Among .. 1 Soe Introduction to Mr. Oka's edition of sbirasvõinin's com. on Amara. 2 Compare Art arrafe न्द्राथा अपि. च यत्र विभ्रान्ताः। तान्धातून्निवरीतं गहनमहो अध्यव. सिताः स्मः॥

·[ - $ 38 Accessory Treatises these may be mentioned, as belonging to the Pāṇiniya school, Bhimasena and Maitreyarakshita. Of Sāyana's successors we need only specify Bhattoji and Nageśa. The Dhātupāțhas belonging to thu other grammatical schools will be found in their proper places elsewhere. 37. Ganapāțha.-The Pāụiniya Ganapātha has not received from comnicntators the attention chat it merits.. Different portions of it, such as nipātas, azyayas, and upasargas have been individually explained by various writers, and Kshirasvāmin, as we saw, is reported to have written a Gaņavritti, which is no longer extant. The only complete work on the Ganapātha is the Gañaratnamahodadhi, which is a metrical arrangement of the Ganas followed by a lucid cominentary, both composed by Vardhamāna in A. D. 1140. 38. Llīgānušāsana..-Besides Rāmachandra and Bhattoji, who have embodied the Liñgānuśāsana in their Kaumudis and written commentaries upon it, we find mentioned in connection with the Pāņinīya treatises on genders the names of Harshavardhana, Sabarasvãmin and Vararuchi. Of these the first is probably not the same as the celebrated patron of Bāņa, while the second may or may not be identical with the great Mimāńsākāra. Vararuchi is another name for Kātyāyana, and even if these be considered as different, so many late and spurious works are assigned to this great name that it is well-nigh difficult to determine the genuineness of any one of them. A primleaf Ms. at Cambay, dated Samvat 1287 contains a Liñgā. nušāsana by Vāmanāchārya, which mentions among its predecessors the works of Vyādi, Vararuchi, Chandra, and Jinendra.? This would at least decide for the existence of 1 Seo note 1 on page 39, above. 2 Cambay, No. 266 ; sunt foarte पारचं सचान्द्र जैनेन्द्रलक्षणगतं विविधं तथान्यत् । लिङ्गस्य लक्ष्न हि समस्य विशेषयुक्ता मया परिमित &c. See also Dr. Peterson's ·54 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 38 - ] these works prior to 1200 A. D., and, if Dr. Peterson's identification of Vāmanāchärya with the author of the Kāśika be correct, prior also to 800 A. D. 39. Vņādipātha - The question as to the authorship of the Paniniya Uņādi.sātras has been already dealt with (p. 25, above). These Uņādis have been very readily absorbed-with only slight modifications—by the various non-Pāṇiniya schools such as Kātantra, Haima, Jaumara, Saupadma, &c. In the school of Pāṇini the future development of the Uņādis has been only by way of commentaries, the best known being Ujjvaladatta's Vritti, which, as pointed out by Aufrecht in his introduction to his edition of that work, must be assigned to cir. 1250. Ujjvaladatta quotes the Vrittis of Kshapanaka, Govardhana, Purushottamadeva, and the Satī-vritti, -all of which preceded his own commentary. Later than Ujjvaladatta come Māņikyadeva, Bhattoji, and others. 40. Paribhäshās.--Already we have more than once alluded to the Pāṇinīya paribhāshās. Pāṇini himself gave a few of these as his sūtras, but he can be proved to have tacitly employed å still larger number.' Kātyāyana quotes one, according to Patañjali's showing, in his vārtika 3 to sātra i. 1. 65, while Vyādi, who according to some was a near relation of Pāṇini, is credited with the authorship of almost all the paribhāshās now current. The doctrine of the paribhāshās was, however, fully elaborated by Patanjali and the writers who came after him.? So much ingenuity and energy has been spent on the Report iii. p. 41. The Jinen. 2 For the distinction between offdra here mentioned must be भाषासत्र and ज्ञापकसूत्र and the the founder of the Jainendra whole theory of paribbeshts Vyakaraña. 800 ibidem, pp. 115 (Reprint, 1 Goldetüoker : Paņini, page 114 p. 89) and the following. (Reprint, p. 87).

·[ - $ 41 Accessory Treatises 55 paribhāskās that eventually it has become, for the Pāņiniya student, the hardest nut to crack. This feet has usually been attempted in the body of the commentaries themselves. Regular treatises specially dealing with paribhāshās come much later. Perhaps the earliest known is that of Siradeva, who is quoted in the Madhaviya-Dhātuvritti. Nāgesa's Paribhāshenduſekhara contains the most popular exposition of the paribhāshās, and it has been commented upon by Pāyagunda, Bhairavamišra, Seshasarman, Bhimabhatta, and inany others. Non-Pāṇiniya schools copied most of their paribhāshās from Pāṇini, the earliest of them being the Kātantra for which Durgasimha put together a list of paribhāshās and wrote a comnmentary on the same. This is also the place where we can introduce a host of treatises on the philosophy of grammar--dealing with questions such as the nature of sound, the connection between word and its meaning or of sentence and its component parts, and so forth. The issues have been raised and dealt with in the Mahābhāshya itself, and later writers have derived most of the material for their lucubrations from that source. The earliest of such treatises is the Vākyapadiya of Bhartrihari and the latest deserving a special mention is the Vaiyākaranasiddhāntabhūshaņa of Kondabhatta, a commentary on which was written by Nāgesa. A multitude of smaller and larger lights came in between. The works are mainly special monograms on particular topics, the kāraka relations alone having engaged over forty writers of different schools and opinions. 41. Résumé of the history of the Pāņlnīya school -Here perhaps we may draw a deep breath and, before proceeding with the history of the non-Pāṇiniya schools of grammar) cast a hurried glance over the field that we have already travelled.

·Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 41 - ) Beginning with the dim and half poetic speculations of the Brahmanic exegetes, we saw how the science of grammar flowed onward broadening down from precedent to precedent until we reach the age of Yāska who sums up the results achieved by his predecessors and makes his own contribution to the stream. The leap from Yāska to Pāṇini is probably a very great one, but the course of development is, to a large extent, hidden from us--is underground as it were--until it issues in a perfect form in the Ashtādhyāyi of Pāņini. The subsequent history of the science is marked by three well-defined stages. The first which ends with the Mahābhāshya busies itself with the perfection of Pāṇini's work, adding a rule here, restricting the application of another there, and so on. This period may be characterised as the creative stage of the science. This is followed by a period of critical elaboration, the chief work of which consists in giving a precise point to these rules, changing the wording of some for the sake of brevity, of others for including in it a word or two inadvertently left out by the earlier grammarians, or not in vogue in their time ; but for the main part in writing vast commentaries on the works of their predecessors so as to explain their intention. This was also the stage when the theory of the paribhāshās and jñāpakas was worked out in details. The branching off from the main stem of a separate school, the Chāndra, which belongs to this period, is to be explained as due rather to the necessities of the times, than to any real split in the domain of the science itself. This period extends roughly to about 1000 A. D. The last stage marks a progressive deterioration in the study of grammar. We have in the first place the rise of a number of new and popular schools of grammar intended to simplify the science for the enlightenment of ·[-$42 The Chändra School 57 the laity. Following the wake of the times we have, side by side, numerous recasts of the Ashtādhyāyi tending towards the same object. The lowest stage is reached when we come to the popular handbooks of the eighteenth century. How far this decline is to be attributed to the political aspects of the time is more curious than profitable to inquire. Certain it is that they could not have failed to produce their influence, though it is easy to exaggerate it. Nor, finally, should it be forgotten that broad characterisations of long periods in the history of any country or science have always to be accepted with limitations. The periods often overlap, and in this present case they are tentative only and may have to be revised in the light of later researches. It is time now that we turned to the non-Pāṇiniya schools of grammar.' The Chăndra School 42. The Chăndra School. The earliest reference to the Chāndra school of grammarians occurs in Bhartrihari's Vākyapadiya (see p. 41 above), while one of the latest is perhaps that of Mallinātha, who quotes a rule of his in his commentary on Kālidāsa's Meghadāta, stanza 25 (off- Tre FTAT:). Mallinātha, however, does not appear to 1 The order in whicb schools are here presented is not strictly chronological, the allied schoole being taken together. 2 In the passage cited Mallipatha says that while Pașini allows only the form fou Chandra allows for also. As matter of fact Chandra allows only one form (Chindra sūtra vi. 1.42); it is Šakatayana and Hemachandra wbro allow 8 Sk. Gr. ] both the forms, which are indiscriminately used in clasaical Sanskrit. Prosumably, therefore, Mallingtha either had access to a work of tbe Chandra school not known to us, or more probably be meant by Chandra Heme-chandra, unless the wholo is a postivo mistake. I owo this wote to Mr. Krishnaji Gerinde Oka, editor of the Kshirstanhgiặr. 8 ·58 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar § 42 - ] have had a direct access to the Chandra vyākaraṇa, seeing that Mss. of the work have been extremely rare, none of the various' Searches for Sanskrit manuscripts' instituted by Government having been able to bring to light any works of the school except a fragment brought by Dr. Bühler from Kāśmir in 1875, and a complete copy of the Chandra vyākarana written in the Nepalese year 476 (i. e. 1356 A. D.) brought by Haraprasāda Shastri from Nepal. However, by the labours of Dr. Bruno Liebich, the whole system has now been recovered in the original or Tibetan translation. The same scholar has also published the Chāndra vyākaraņa (Leipzig 1902). The account of the system given below is mostly based on his writings. 43. The date of Chandragomin.-Chandra, or more accurately, Chandragomin must have lived at least some time before the authors of the Kāśikā, which has borrowed, always without acknowledgment, such sūtras of Chandra as have no parallel either in Pāṇini or in Kātyāyana. This gives us 650 A. D. as the lower liinit for Chandragomin. The upper limit is supplied by a vritti on the Chāndra sõtras, most probably the work of Chandragomin himself,' which gives the sentence अजयगुप्तो(? Ms. जौ or जप्तो) हूणान as an illustration of the use of the imperfect to express an event which occurred within the lifetime of the speaker. This victory over the Hānas can refer either to their temporary defeat by Skandagupta soon after 465 A.D., or (less likely) to their final expulsion by Yaśodharma in 544 A. D. This gives us 470 as the approximate date for Chandragomin. This result is further confirmed by the fact that Vasurāta the preceptor 1 Soo Nachrichten der Goettinger Dutum Chandragomin's und Gesellschaft 1896, pp. 279-321. Kalidasa's”, p. 3. 2 See Dr. Liebich's pa per “ Das 3 Who, however, was not a Gupta. .

·[ - $ 44 Chandragomin : His Work 59 of Bhartrihari acknowledged Chandrāchārya (Chandragomin) as his master.' Chandragomin must have lived therefore at least two generations before the author of, the Vākyapadiye All accounts agree in stating that Chandragomin was a Bauddha. He was one of the laity, and is not to be confused with Chandradāsa who belonged to the order. 44. Nature of Chandragomin's work. ---Chandragomin's grammar was meant as an improvement on that of Pāṇini, Kātyāyana, and Patañjali, mainly in the way of greater brevity and precision. Accordingly he has omitted, for obvious reasons, the Pāṇinīya rules about Vedic accent and grammar, although he includes some Vedic roots in his Dhātupātha. He has lessened ihe number of pratyā. hāra-sitras by one (fusir.g हयवर and लग into हयवरलए), omitted some of the Pāṇinīya pratyāhāras and coined others. In many cases, the rules of Pāṇini are recast simply for the sake of securing facility of pronunciation. The really original contributions of Chandragomin amount to about 35 sūtras and these have been incorporated in the Kāśikā. In all these cases Kaiyyata has the remark अपाणिनीयः सूत्रेषु पाठः. The total number of the Chāndra sātras is about 3100 as against 4000 of Pāṇini. The work consists of six chapters of four pādas each, the matter of Pāṇini's first two chapters being scattered all through. The object of Chandragomin was to 'rearrange the grammatical material with the object of bringing together all the rules that deal with the same phonetic or grammatical operations as well as the same part of con. 1 See Vakya padiya Kanda ii, stanzas 489-90 and thereon. 2 Liebich, ibidem, p. 10-11; Kern: Manual of Buddhisin, pp. 129, 130; also Ind. Ant, xv. pp. 183-184. 3 For Panini's अनेकालू शित सर्वस्य (i. 1.55) Chandra reads ft. FT Fire (i. 1.12).

·Systems of Sanskrit Grammar 44 - ) speech.' The Chāndra terminology with slight changes is that of Pāṇini. The mode of presenting the subject is also artificial, after the fashion of Pāṇini. The gramar goes by the nickname of , perhaps because the Fists are not here treated of separately, but probably because wherever in his sātra Pāṇini has used the word TT Chandragomin uses the word नामन्.' 45. Accessory treatises of the Chandra grammar.- 1.-In addi. tion to the stras in six adhyāyas Chandragomin has put together an Uņādi list in three parts, a Dhātupātha in ten sections (both published by Dr. Liebich), as also Liñgakārikās or Liñgānuśāsana, Ganapātha, Upasargavritti, and Varņa sūtras. The Uņādis differ from those belonging to the Pāṇiniya school principally in their mode of presentation, the suffixes being here arranged according to their final letter. In a few cases Chandra also derives the words differently. The Dhātupātha, as we saw (p. 52, above), is referred to by Kshirasvāmin and was subsequently incorporated in the Kātantra system. The Liñgānušāsana is referred to by Vāmanāchārya, Ujjaladatta, and Rāyamukuta (see above, p. 53). As to the Ganapatha no separate work of the kind has yet been discovered, but we must assume the existence of such a work as we find it embodied in the sūtra-vritti, just as the Kāśikā has done with regard to the Pāṇiniya Ganapätha. The Upasargavritti is found in Tibetan version only, and explains the meaning and use of about twenty upasargas. Finally, the Varnasātra (Ms. no. 289 of 1875-76 in the Deccan College collection) is a very short treatise corresponding to the Pāṇiniya Śikshā and gives in about 40 sātras 1 Comparo Chiodra sūtras i, 2.30, i. 3. 77, ii. 2. 14, &o, with Panini's iii, 2. 46, iii. 3. 174, ii. 1. 21 &c. A few cascs do occur, however, where Chandra pormits the use of the word : e. g. Chandra i, 1. 123=Panini iji. 1. 112. 2 I take this occasion to publish the work entire on the basis ·[ - $ 46 Chandra School: Later History 61 the para and 7 of rufe. No work on Paribhashās in connection with the Chāndrá school has come down to us. Besides the above grammatical works Chandragomin is credited with the authorship of a religious poem called Sishyalekhā, and a drama called Lokānanda, neither probably of much consequence. 46. Later history of the Chāndra school.-We have already alluded to Chandragomin's own vritti on his grammar. Fragments from it extending from about v. 1. 13 to V. 1. 176 are still extant. This vritti was later incoporated in a commentary by Dharmadāsa, a complete Ms. of which exists in the Library of the Mahārāja of Nepal. It is undoubted that there must have been written numerous commentaries on the Chāndra Vyākaraņa during the palmy days of Buddhistic literature; and they must have been very popular, seeing that a good many of them have been translated and freely circulated in Tibet at least since 1000 A. D., if not earlier, when Sthiramati, one of the translators of most of the Chăndra texts in the Tibetan language, probably lived. Some of these works had also gone to Ceylon along with other Buddhistic texts. However, at present, in addition to the works above mentioned, only a few more-about fifteen-are known to exist, mostly in Tibetan translations. Such of the Sanskrit Mss. as we know of, come all from Nepal. Having once enjoyed such a vast circulation, the almost total disappearance of the system from India requires explanation. We can account for this fact, firstly, on the ground of its want of originality, such of the original matter as there was and it was not much-beof the only Ms. of the work 1 For a list of these see lod. Ant. known to exist. See Appen XXV, pp. 103 and following. dix 1.

·Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 46 - ] ing already incorporated in the Pāṇinīya school through the Kāśikā. Mainly however we must look to the cause of its disappearance in its non-secular character. Being the work of a Buddhist for the Buddhistic community, it shared the fate of Buddhism, and having obtained vogue for a few centuries it gradually ceased to be cared for, its aid being invoked in later times only for the sake of justifying an otherwise unjustifiable word, or for pointing out and rejecting such of its rules as went counter to the established system of grammar. The Grammar, we are told, is still extensively studied in Tibet. In Ceylon its fate was different. Being a Buddhistic country we expect the chāndra system to be diligently studied there. As a matter of fact, the current Sanskrit grammar in Ceylon belongs to the Chāndra school, but we shall look in vain for any original Mss. either of the Chāndra-sūtras or of commentaries thereon. The reason is that about 1200 A. D. a Ceylonese Buddhistic priest, Kāśyapa by name, wrote a popular recast of the Chāndra grammar called Bālāvabodha. It corresponds to Varadarāja's Laghu-kaumudi in treatment and subject-matter. The work was so popular in Ceylon that it quite superseded the original Chāndra text, with the result that all other Chāndra works have disappeared in course of time, just as the works of the pre-Pāņiniya grammarians did after the advent of Pāṇini. Under these circumstances, it is quite impossible to pursue any farther the history of the Chāndra school of grammarians in India. The Jainendra School 47. The Jalpendra School. The traditional author of the aphorisms of grammar which go under this name is Jina or Mahāvira, the last of the Tirthañkaras. The tradition ·[ - § 47 The Jainendra School 63 of the Digambara' Jains as embodied in several of their works such as Samayasundarasiri's commentary on the Kalpasūtras or Lakshmivallabha's 'Jpadešamālākarņikā is, that Indra asked certain questions to Jina when of eight years, and had the science of gr-minar revealed to him by way of answers; the grammar in consequence came to be known by their joint name.? A Ms. (no. 1223) belonging to Professor Kathavate's collection for 1891. 1895 launches, in its marginal notes, into a detailed verification of this tradition, trying to answer all the objections raised aganist it. The chief objection, of course, is the concurrent testimony of the colophons of all the Mss., which invariably ascribe the work to Devanandi. This is also confirmed by the introductory stanza- लक्ष्मीरात्यंतिकी यस्य निरवद्यावभासते। देवनंदितपूजेशं नमस्तस्मै स्वयंभुवे ॥ which is given by all Mss., wherein the first word of the second line, obscure in meaning as it is, appears to be purposely used to indicate the name of the author. Further, works like Dhananjaya-kośa or Jaina-Harivamsa 4 (A. D. 783) and writers like Bopadeva or Hemachandra refer to Devanandi as the author of this grammar. The point then may be regarded as fairly settled. This Devanandi is otherwise known as Pājyapāda. 1 The Jainendra-sūtrapatha bo. 3 Except the one abore quoted, longs to the Digambaras from which gives a different maāwhom the Svetimbaras have gala. borrowed it wholesale. Tho 4 In the opening prasasti of the tradition, therefore, belonge work there is a reference to inore strictly to the SvetImthe Jainendra-vyakarana, Akabaras. luñkadeva algo quotes a Jain- 2 पविन्दाय जिनेन्द्रण कौमारेपि निस endra sutra in the arearrante पितम्। ऐन्द्र जैनेन्द्रमितितत्याहुः frei. 5.1. TETESITETET ·64' Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 47 - ] Dr. Kielhorn once believed that Pājyapāda was a nom de plume assumed by a late writer, with the view all the more readily to make the work pass under the name of the last Tirthaõkara. The historical existence of the founder of this school thus doubted by Dr. Kielhorn has been conclusively established by Professor Pathak, who quotes a verse from the Nandisangha Pattāvali and gives other references to prove that Devanandi was no other personage than Pājyapāda himself. 48. Date of the Jalnendra-vyakarana._The foundation of this school dates from about the same time as that of the Chāndra. If anything, the Jainendra would come a little before the Chāndra. Professor Pathak in his paper on the Jaina Śākatāyana (Indian Antiquary, Oct. 1914) gives evidence to assign the Jainendra-vyākaraṇa to the latter part of fifth century A. D. Among his arguments are: '1. the fact that the Kāśikā seems to betray a knowledge of the Jainendra-vyākaraņa ; 2. the circumstance that the Jainendra sātra* alludes to īśvarakrishna the author of the Sankhya-kārikās (who is assigned by Dr. Takakusu to A. D. 450 ) and to the twelve year cycle of Jupiter according to the heliacal rising system a system which was in vogue in the time of the Early Kadamba kings and their contemporaries, the Early Gupta kings; and 3. the collateral evidence to be drived from later references to the Jainendra from the ninth century on. Thus the ſākatā. 1 Indian Antiquary xii, pp. 19 ff. 4 Sūtru iii. 3.134-17 gaihauf- 2 यश-कीर्तिपशोनन्दी देवनन्दी महा निशर्मकृष्णरणाद् भृगुवत्सामायण- यतिः। श्रीपूज्यपादापराख्यो गुणनंदी वृषगणवाह्मणवसिष्ठे । Contrast GOTTFTT: U Panini, iv. 1.102. The Amo- 3 Kadiko iii. 3.40 TT gratuit ghavritti of Sakatay&De ex- Test: presupposes Jainendra plains आग्निशर्मायणो वार्षगण्यः, gutra ii, 3. 36 rarea saun the latter being apolher name to, as Kasika could not for Isvarakrishọa. have derived it from else- 5 Satra jii. 2.5 96897ATOS where. 1 ·65 [ - $49 fainendra-vyā karana : Its Character yana Šabdāgušāsana (which dates from 1025 A. D., as we shall see) is largely indebted to the Jainendra. A Digambara Darsanaśāstra of 853 A. D. mentions, as stated by Dr. Peterson,' a pupil of a certain Pajyapäda as being the founder of a Dravica-sangha. Lastly, an inscription fron the Sañkhabasti temple at Lakshmesvata records a gift in Saka 652 (730 A. D.) of Śri-Pājyapāda to his house-pupil, although this ląst is not quite a trustworthy evidence, being not contemporaneous, and there may have been more than one Pūjyapāda. 49. Character of the Jainendra-vyákaraņa.-There are two versions in which the Jainendra grammar has come down to us. The shorter one which consists of about 3,000 Sātras is followed by Abhayanandi in his gloss on the grammar, while the longer one wlrich, besides other minor differences in the wording and the arrangement of the sūtras, gives over 700 sūtras not found in the shorter version, is followed by Somadeva in his commentary called Šabdārņavachandrikā, which, as he himself tells us, was composed in A. D. 1205. Professor Pathak has accumulated evidence tending to show that the longer version followed by Somadeva is the truer one, while that of Abhayanandi is much later.? The Jainendra grammar is altogether wanting in originality. It is nothing but Pāṇini and the vārtikas condensed as much as possible. The merit of the work solely consists in the number of ingenuous shifts resorted to for the purpose of securing the maximum economy of words. Even the most trifling changes such as that of विभाषा or अन्यतरस्यां into वा, of and the alteration of the order of the words in the sātras so as to मनुष्य into 1 Report for 1883–84, p. 74. subject. 2 Professor Pathak intends short. 3 Paşini vij. 1. 9 sent for de is ly to write a paper on the cbanged into भिसोडत पंस। . [ Sk. Gr. ) . WW ·66 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $49.-) produce by coalescence a syllable less are not disregardod. Thio Pāṇiniya pratyāhāras are retainod without a change, though the fourteen śiva-sūtras together with the section on Vedic grammar, are omitted. In addition, Devanandi has invented a large number of shorter technical terms, which bristle throughout his work and make its study the most complex imaginable. Devanandi alias Pājyapāda has, as is the wont of most Digambara writers, nowhero quoted by name or acknowledged his obligations to authors and works not belonging to his own religion. He has in his sūtras quoted six names. The Deccan College Ms. no. 1223 of 1891-95, which makes it its business to prove that the author of this grammar is Jina himself, gives on this point a rather incorrectly written notes which tends to say that since one of the above names, that of Prabhachandra, which occurs in the sātra रात्रेः प्रभाचन्द्रस्य, appears on the face of it to be a fiction, we may presume the same for all the rest. We can couple with this the statement of one of the commentators on Hemachandra's Dvyātrayamabākāvya to the effect that Siddhasena, another of the quoted names, was not a grammarian at all. Dr. Kielhorn similarly believed that all these names were fictitious and thought that the practice of thus quoting names honcris causa was not confined to the Jainendra school alone. Unfortunately we cannot decide the matter now. 50. Later history of the Jalnendra-vyakarana.--The absence of any originality accounts for the paucity of works connected with this school. Two commentaries only have 1 Such asel tor मत्वच, for कर्म- 3 प्रक्षेपापीच्य(१)तां दत्वात् । रावे धारप, म tor परस्मैपद, अग for मभाचप्रस्थवत् । देवनदिमता मोह: TVOTT, and so on. प्रक्षेपरजसीपिबेत् । चिराष भवती 2 Namely, श्रीदत्त, पशोभद, पूतियालि, "रा प्रभाचदरव"जीच्यसार। प्रभाष मिनसेन, समन्तभव.

·[ = $ $0 : Jainendra-vyā karana : Later History 67 boen preservod, one by Abhayanandi whose date is probably 750 A. D., and another called Sabdarnava-chandriko by Somadeva. Somadeva represents' himself as the contemporary of the Silāhāra King Bhojadova (Bhoja II) and an inhabitant of Ajurikā (which is probably to bo identified with stort in the Kolhapur State). It is probable that in addition to these two commentaries that have come down to us, some others were written, and possibly the grammar was at one time made the object of diligent study; but our information on this point is extremely scanty. There is also a recast of the Jainendra grammar meant to facilitate its study for beginners. It is called Panchavastu, and, as is to be expected, it follows the shortor text of the sñtras as given by Abhayanandi. The work is said to be that of Devanandi; but this is clearly a mistake founded on the fact that the sätras followed are those of Devanandi. The introductory section of the Pafichavastu which deals with the pratyāhāras seems to be an interpolation. This section mentions a person called Ārya-Śrutakīrti' as the author of the whole work. Is he then the author of this recast? If so, the absence of any other allusion to him in the body of the work becomes rather curious. Professor Pathak mentions Śrutskirti as having flourished about Saka 1045. About the history of the Jainendra grammar since the thirteenth century very little definite is known. The work probably shared the fate of all imitations and ceased 1 Compare the Colophon-- FAT श्रीपूज्यपादपबारक्तचेतसा भीम- श्रीकोल्हापरदेशान्तराजुरिकामहा सोमदेषमुनीभरण &c. frare......tapos. 2 Indian Aatiquary, %, p. 75; aring TATOVE. ..afrofit Dr. Peterson's Report for भाजपा शकसहक 1883–84, pp. 67 #. Laganiniwa ·68 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 50 - ] to be attended to when the original on which it was based came to be studied more and more. It was meant to appeal to a sect and even there it was not without a rival. To this day it draws a solitary student here and there from amongst the Digambara Jains, especially of Southern India. The Saktayana School 31. The ſākațāyana School. Separated from the Jainendra school by some two centuries or so but much allied to it in its object and the mode of treatment comes the Śākatāyana Šabdānušāsana, which, like its predecessor, was meant to appeal to a limited body of co-religionists: the Svetāmbara Jains. To judge from the number of regular commentaries and other accessory treatises in connection with this school and from the numerous references to it in works like the Ganaratna-mahodadhi, Madhaviya- Dhātuvritti and so forth, it would appear that at one time the Sabdānušāsana was largely studied among members of communities other than those to whom it was primarily addressed. There is not much originality in the work itself to deserve this popularity. 52. The founder of the śākațāyana ſabdānusāsana not the ancient sakatāyana but his modern damesake. The name Śākatāyana suggests, as we have seen, a very high antiquity in that it is quoted in the Nirukta (i. 3) and in Pāṇini's Ashtādhyāyi (iii. 4.111, viii. 3.18, viii. 4.50). Here, howover, we are dealing not with the ancient śākatāyanamnone of whose works have survived even in name but with a modern or abhinava Śākatāyana: with the person who under this appelation is quoted, for instance, in Bopadeva's Kāmadhenu,' by Hemachandra, and other later writers. Catalogue p. 176 a. 1 Colebrooke, Mio. Essays, Vol. II. p. 44; Aufrecht's Oxford ·1- $ 53 Abhinava-śākatāyana : Ilis Dato 69 The late Dr. Kielhorn once expressed doubts as to the historical existence of this modern Šākațāyana. He inclined to the view that it was some modern Jain writer who has presented his own grammatical inbours under the auspicies of a revered name, carefully trying to follow the views attributed to him in ancient works and possibly having for its basis some of the teachings of the earlier Śākatāyana. Professor Pathak's paper on the Jaina Śākatāyana (Indian Antiquary for October 1914) has now conclusively established not only the historical existence of the author of the Šabdānusãsana but his exact date. The ſākatāyana who wrote the Šalsdānušāsana also wrote the Amoghavritti, which was written in the time of Amoghavarsha I, the great Rāshtrakāta king whose known epigraphic dates range from A. D. 817--877. 53. Character of the ſākatāyaga śabdājušāsana.--Besides the older grammarians such as Pāņini, Kâtyāyana, Patanjali, and Chandragorin, śākatāyana has froely drawn upon the work of Pājyapāda the author of the Jainendravyākaraņa. Many sātras of Śākatāyana are identical with those of Pāṇini, and in cases where they differ the object has been to say in shorter and fewer words what 1 Carefully but often inuccurately: Thus in autrus iii. 4. 111 and 112, Pūņini tells 118 thut the Imperf. 3rd pers. plu. of or is 377: only according to Sakatayana, but not so in bis own opinion. This establishes fa 27797. Now the modern Sakıtāyana also wakes the rule optional and allows both forms in his sutra urgatager i This is what Paņini teaches, and not what Panini represents Sakathyana to have taught: 2 The most conclusive proof for this is the use of the instance अदहदमोघवर्षोऽरातीन् to illus.. trute the 1180 of the imperfect (sūtra iv. 3. 207) to describe a well-known past event which the writer might have personully witnessed but did not. There is inscriptional evidence to prove that the event in questiou took place shortly before Saka 789 or A. D. 867 (see Ep. lod. vol. i, p. 54, Ind. Apt, vol. xii, p. 181). 3 E. g. Panini's i. 3. 11, ii. 1.1, viji. 4. 40, &c.

·70. Systems of Sanskrit Grammar § 53 - ) was already intended by Pāṇini. Most of the new mattor is taken from Chandragomin? (without acknowledgment of course) and where he has improved upon Chandragomin, the improvement was already suggestod by the Jainendra sätras, independently of which there is hardly anything new that we can put to his credit. In his sõtra i. 2.37 Śäkatāyana seems to quote Indra who probably is to be identified with Põjyapāda, the founder of the Jainendra school. The Śākatāyana Śabdānuſasana consists of four adhyāyas of four pādas each, the total number of sūtras being about 3,200. The arrangement of topics is similar to that of later Kaumudis. · He gives thirteen UTEKELETS and following the suggestion of Kātyāyana has omitted from them the vowel and assigned therein a place to the TUTTIES. He does not, of course, treat of the Vedic grammar. His ingenuity is mainly confined to economising the wording of the sätras. Except in three casos, he has invariably substituted the motiosyllabica) wherever Panini had used विभाषा, or अन्यतरस्यान or had quoted the name of some ancient authority. The most striking instance of this tendency is given perhaps by 1 E.g. सात्मेतत् for आदित्येन सईता of Peņini (i. 1. 71). 2 (nstead of Panini's iv. 4. 29, परिमुखंच, Chandra givesपरे- refe end 10 sloo door Sakatayana 3 lo giving Chandragomin'. in provement समितपणियों : op Pagini's Aøgf: (6. 1. 126) Sakatayos conocide one wyllable by giving the attra as aftarang: , Lorein imitating Pajyapade. 4 For Panini's Terwit (v. 2. 133), Chandra gives that arat (iv. 2. 180), Jaipendra gives हस्तबम्तकराज्जातो (iii 4. 143), and so also does sukata yana. The like bolde true of Pāņini's ii. 1. 18, ii. 3. 34, &c. 6 Namely Sukațdyada putras ii, 1. 229, 1, 2. 13, i. 2. 37 (corres ponding to Pagini's v. 4, 154, vii. 1. 79, and vii. 2. 101 respectively), where Sakata yana quotes सिद्धनधी, आर्यन, and . Whether, these threa names are merely corner or there were before him grammarians of that name cannot be determined.

·( - $ 55 Śakatdyana School : Later Ilistory 71 Pāṇini's sātra v. 2,128, which runs Tratamorpemara: Chandra changod this into चार्थ(31) रोग( उपताप)गर्हिता- TOPUIT ettirarat: , whore the substartial change is the addition of the qualifying clause yr15,ra. Śakatāyang says just what Chandra said, but instead of the puts a form which is shortor by full two syllables-arm. In his technical terininology also he has often taken up Chăndra words in preference to Panini's wherever tho formor were shortor. Thus ho has used nf, Futa a and अतडू instead of निपात, सर्वनामन्, आत्मनेपद and परस्मैपद of Pāṇini. 54. Other works of the Śskațiyann schrol. Besides the Śabdānušāsana and the Amoghavritti śákatāyana is credited with the authorship of i. Paribhāshā-sõtras, ii. Gaṇapātha in sixteen pādas, iii. Dhātupătha, ir. Uņādi-sūtras in four pădas, and v. Liñgānušāsana in seventy āryā stanzas, Of these none is older than the corresponding Paniniya treatise. One expects to find in the Uņādi-sātras at least traces of the ancient Śā katāyana and his works, but he is sure to be disappointed in his expectations. The other treatises also do not call for any special notice. Hemechandra based his own Liñgānušāsana on that of śākatayana, of which, in fact, it is only an enlarged odition. 85. Later history of the śikatāyana school. The later history of the sākatāyana school--as is the case with almost every grammatical school is to be divided into two parts: the period of commentaries and sub-commentaries, and the period of digests and manuals. The periods often overlap chronologically. Of commentaries on the Šákatāyana Šabdánušāsana the most noted are i. a Nyása quoted in the Madhaviya Dhātuvritti. Probably this is 1 The Mo. in the Jain Matha at Śrīvaņa Belgoļa is not, as reported, a Me. of the śukatayana Ny se ; it is a Ma. Jinendrabuddhi's Kasikavipa. l'aņapaújika, and an almost complete Mo. for that, writton ia Cadorescbaracters. See before, note 1 od page 39.

·72 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 55 - ] no other than the Nyāsa by Prabhāchandrāchārya, which is in the nature of a commentary on the Amoghavritti.' And ii. a commentary called Chintā maņi by Yakshavarman. This was throughout based upon the Amoghavritti and lays no claim to originality. Nevertheless it has been honoured by many sub-commentaries such as the Maniprakāśikā by Ajitasenāchārya, Chintāmanipratipada by Mangarasa, and a Tippaņi by Samantabhadra. Besides regular commentaries there have been produced at least two or three recasts of the sākatāyana grammar. The best of them is the Prakriyāsangraha by Abhayachandrāchārya, published at Kolhapur, 1907. Abhayachandra's date follows from that of his pupil Kesavavarni who in Śaka 1281 (=A. D. 1359) wrote a Sanskrit commentary on Gomatasära, a philosophical work in Präkrit. Abhayachandra thus flourished during the first half of the fourteenth century. In his recast Abhayachandra has omitted a large number of the original sätras, which were unnecessary in a work for begin. ners, and amplified a few others. His arrangement is closely modelled upon works like the Prakriyākaumudi. Another and a still shorter abridgment of the sākatāyana grammar is the Ripasiddhi by Dayāpåla, pupil of Matisāgara and a fellow-student of Vādirāja alias Jayasimha 11, the Chālukya emperor who was reigning in Šaka 947 (=A, D. 1025). The work is somewhat similar in scope to the Laghukaumudi. 1 Regarding the Amoghavritti, Sūkatiyana's own commentury on his satras, 800 Professor Pathak's papor (Ind. Ant. for October 1914). 2 Compare-तस्यातिमहतीं वृत्तिं संह त्य यं लघीयसी । सम्पूर्णलक्षणा वृत्ति. पक्ष्यते पक्षवर्मणा ॥ Extracts to prove the dopendence of this commentary on tho Amoghavritti are given by Professor Pathak, loc. cit. 3 For tbese facts I ain indebted to Professor Pathnk's paper iu tho lud. Ant, for Oct. 1914.

·[ - $ 57 The Hemachandra School 73 In course of time the Śākatāyana Šabdājušāsana came to be fairly ousted from the field by a powerful rival in the shape of Hemachandra's Šabdãnušāsana, which like its predecessor' was addressed to the Svetām. bara Jains, with the result that even Mss, of works belonging to the school are at present very rarely to bo met with outside of Southern India, which was once the centre of its greatest influence. The Hemachandra School 56. The Hemachandra School. The last, but not on that account the least, of these sectarian schools that we have to notice is the one which is known under the name of its founder, the Jain monk Hemachandra. About Hemachandra and his times we know a good deal more than what we did regarding the founders of the other schools hitherto described. The biographical material regarding Hemachandra has been brought to a focus in Dr. Bühler's German pamphlet? entitled 'Ueber das Leben des Jaina Monches Hemachandra,' Wien, 1889. 57. Lito of Hemachandra-Hemachandra was born on the full-moon night of the month of Kārttika in the year of Vikrama 1145 (corresponding to A. D. 1088 or 1089; November-December) at a place called Dhunduka, now in the British Collectorate of Ahmedabad. His parents were humble banias, Chachiga and Pahini by name. He was originally named Chãñgadeva. The mother was a 1 That Śakatāyana was Śvetimbara Jain is proved by the numerous references to the Avagyaka-būtra,Chheda-sútra, Niryukti, Kālikā-sūtra, and other Svetāmbara works found in the Amoghavșitti. 2 Besides the TTFETS found in Hemachandra's writings this 10 Sk. Gr. ] work is based upon प्रभावक चरित्र by मेरुतगाचार्य and uprave (1250 A. D.), raput चिन्तामाणि by मेरुतगाचार्य (1305-6 A. D.), प्रबन्धकोश by Tstar (1348-9 A. D.), and कुमारपालचरित by जिनमण्वन (1435-6 A. D) ·74 Systents of Sanskrit Grammar $ 57-) good pious woman, and the birth and the greatness of her would-be son was conveyed to her in a dream which kas interpreted for her by a religious teacher named Devachandra, When Hemachandra was a boy of five, Devachandra requested Pahini to surrender the son to the service of religion, offering considerable money in compensation. The money was refused, but the boy was given over, who, at Cambay, on the 14th day of the light half of the month of Māgha, being Sunday, was solemnly received into the order of the Jain Priesthood, taking on that occasion the new name of Somachandra. During the twelve years that followed his ordination, and of which our information is very scanty, Somachandra probably devoted himself to learning with great zcal. On the conclusion of his studies he was consecrated as Sõri or Āchārya, once more, and for the last time, changing his name to Hemachandra. The next glimpse that we have of him is at Anahillapattaka as the acknowledged head of the greatest of the many Jain communities thero. Jayasimha otherwise called Siddharāja, was then on the throne, ruling from (Anhilvad-) Patan an empire which extended froin Abu to Girnar and from the western sea to the borders of Malva. He was a munificent patron of learning and an earnest enquirer into religious truth. He never abandoned the worship of Siva which was traditional with his house, but it was his delight to gather religious men from all quarters and to set them discussing before him the truth of their systems. Hemachandra early attracted his notice and he sought to conciliate, if not actually to convert, his sovereign by the use of clever parables inculcating suspense of judgment and eclecticism. There are several stories current about Jayasimha and Hemachandra displaying the latter's shrewdness in contending with his Brahman enemies at court, ·[- $ 58 llemachandra: Mis Il'ork 75 After the death of Jayasimha (1143 A. D.) Kumārapāla, his nephew, came to the throne. The first ten years of his reigu he spent in victorious warfare on the northern frontiers of his kingdom. When he had nothing to fear froin his enemies, he settled down to a peaceful and contemplative life. In this case there is no reason to doubt that Hemachandra's exertions resulted in the king's conversion. A drama called Moharāja-pardjaya is based upon this fact. It is the oldest of our authorities for Hemachandra's times, being written by Yaśabpāla, minister to Ajayapāla, Kumārapāla's successor. According to the drama Kumārapāla's conversion took place in Samvat 1216, the second day of the bright half of the month of Mārgasīrsha. It is at the request of Kumārapāla and in order to establish him in his new faith that Hemachandra wrote the Yogaśāstra, just as, ere long, he had written the Sabdānušāsana at the request of Siddharāja or Jayasimha. During the closing years of Kumārapāla's reign he, in company with Hemchandra, made many pilgrimages to Jain sacred places in Western India. Hemachandra, who was now an octogenarian, soon felt his end drawing near, and he boldly set out to meet it by means of STUTTUSTA. He was 84 at the time of his death. Kumārapāla diod only six months after him. With their death the glories of the Jain empire also came to an end, after a brief existence of unparalleled brilliancy. 38. Nature of Hemachandra's Šabdãoušāsana.--Regarding Hemachandra's grammar (the full title of which is frath FTTETTECTOSTRA?) it consists, like Pāṇini's work, of eight adhyāyas of four pādas each, the total number of sātras being about 4,500. Of these nearly a 1 A certain commentator explaide the firet part of the title thus- सिद्धराजेन कारितत्वात् सिरम् । हेमचवेण तत्वावगरा।

·76 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 58 - ] fourth part of sūtras is given by the last adhyāya alone, which deals exclusively with the Prākrit languages which were now in their most flourishing condition. In the remaining adhyāyas the arrangement of subjects is natural, only slightly differing from that of the Kaumudis. Hemachandra's object in writing a new grammar for the benefit of his illustrious patron was to say in the shortest possible manner not only all that his predecessors had said upon the subject, but everything that could be said. Accordingly he has drawn freely upon the works of all the grammarians and commentators that had gone before hima : indeed in some cases-especially in regard to Śākatāyana's Śabdānušāsana and the Amoghavritti—his dependence is so close as to amount to almost slavish imitation.' Hemachandra wrote a commentary on his own sõtras called Śabdānušāsana-Brihadvritti. This commentary is profuse and learned, quoting the views of many writers always under the general appellation of अपरः, परः, अन्यः, , Tera etc.-- for approval in some cases and refutation in most others. A commentary called Nyäsa on this Brihadvritti identifies a large number of these quotations! and if properly edited along with Hemachandra's Brihad. 1 Some typical instances will be 2 These are : ita, TM, found collected by Professor उपाण्याप, कमाल,कलापक, काशि. Pathak in the Indian Anti- काकार, क्षीरस्वामी, चन्द्रगोमिन, quary for October 1914, page जपन्तीकार, दुर्गसिंह, देवनदी, न्या. 209. That Hemachandra does सकार, पाणिनि, भाग्यकार (other. now and then add a bit of his wise शेषराज or श्रीशेष), भोज, own is proved by instances घामम, वार्तिककार, विमान्तपिया- like the sutra पारे मध्ये षष्ठयापा धर, शाकटायन, भुतपाल, and (Panini ii. 1.18), which Sukamany others. The rपापाय is tayana given as पारे मापेऽन्तः probably कैय्पर, while तपाल HUT (), while Hemachanis probably the same person dra gives as पारे मध्येऽयेऽन्तः who is quoted in the Amoghavritti at iv. 1. 252-3.

·[ - $ 59 Accessory Treatises 77 vritti it is very likely to shed considerable light on many a dubious point in the history of Indian grammar. At the end of each päda of the vritti Hemachandra, by way of a praśasti, has added a stanza in praise of his patron and his family. They are all given together in a note to Dr..Bühler's panaphlet above referred to, and are written in the usual classical style of flattery. An abridgment of the Brihadvșitti for the first seven chapters of the Sabdānušāsana is also attributed to Hemachandra, and may probably have been written with his concurrence. It is a mere patchwork, containing nothing new or original. Mss. of it date as far back as cir. 1350 A. D., and one old palm leaf Ms. calls it, instead of Śabdānušāsana, Laghuvritti-Šabdānušāsana-Rahasya. To illustrate the rules of his grammar, Hemachandra has composed a poem, resembling the Bhattikāvya, which is known as Dvyāśraya-mahākāvya. 89. Trentises accessory to Hemachandra's Śabdinusisann. It is not necessary to describe in fuller details the treatises accessory to Hemachandra's Śabdānušāsana. These are : i. Haima-Dhātupātha, which is arranged for the most part like the corresponding treatise of Pāṇini; ii. Uņādisātras, numbering a little over 960; iii. Liñgānusk. sana, a metrical treatise, being an enlargement of the Sakatāyana Liñgānušāsana and divided into eight sec. tions; ? iv. Ganapatha ; v. A collection of Paribhashis; and some others. For the most part these treatises are embodied in Hemachandra's Brihadvritti, from which they seem to have been subsequently extracted and published in a separate form. It is doubtful whether the vivaraņas or vrittis which are given in Mss. of the Linganušāsana or of the Uņādisstras do really come from 1 1 Namely-yrer, age, twitter, Afers Sweetes, aigta, त्रिलिक and परलिक.

·78 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 59-] Hemachandra. Here, as in most of the commentaries on the Sabdānusasana, the colophons of the original work are mistaken for those of the commentaries themselves. 60. Commentaries on Hemachandra's Šabdlousisana. The most important and extensive of these commentaries or rather sub-commentaries is the Brihadvritti-dhundhika. No complete Ms. of this work has been hitherto discovered, the longest extending only upto the fifth adhyāya. The Mss. indifferently call it दीपिका, अवचूरि, अवचूर्णिका and TrưCT. Its authorship also is equally uncertain. Many Mss. and reports ascribe it to Hemachandra, which is very probably a mistake. A Ms.: from the Deccan College collection, which contains the commentary on adhyāyas vi. and vii, is stated to have been the work of Dhanachandra. Another? Ms. of the Dhundhikā purports to be the work of Jinasāgara, while a third which contains only a fragment from the åkhyāta section gives Nandasundara as its author. These conflicting statements it is very hard to reconcile The most probable view is that there were two slightly varying versions of the Dhundhikā and consequently there may have been two separate authors. Whether each wrote a commentary on all the seven adhyāyas or only on portions from them it is perhaps inpossible to decide. The Dhundhikā on the eighth or the Prakrit chapter is the work of Udayasaubhāgya, pupil of Harshakula of the Laghutapāgachchha. It was written in 1533 A. D. during the reign of Bahadur Shah of Gujarat (1525-1537). The object of a Dhundhika is to take the various sätras of the Sabdānušāsana in order, explain them word by word, and in the majority of cases to quote instances of its application, deriving the several forms step by step by bringing in the necessary sätras. Another very useful commentary on the Brihadyritti is by Devendrasfiri, pupil of Udayachandra of the Chan- 1 No. 10 of 1877-78. 2 No. 119 of 1869-70, ·[-561 Digests, Manuals, etc. 19 dragachchha. It is called Haimalaghunyāsa and purports to be an abridgment of a larger Nvisa by Udayachandra, the author's preceptor.' This latter work has not come down to us. The importance of this commentary mainly consists in that it refers many of Hemachandras's quotations to their sources. A third anonynuous commentary calls itself Šabdamahārņavanyāsa. There do not seem to be existing any more commentaries worth the name. 61. Digests and manuals and other uniscellancous works. Smaller manuals based on Hemachandra's Šabdānušāsana have also come down to us, the most famous by far being the Haima-laghuprakriyā by Vinayavijayagani, pupil of Kirtivijayagani. It was composed in Samvat 1710=1652 A. D. A commentary on it called Haima-prakāśa was also written by the author some twenty-five years later. A second digest referred to above, called Haimakaumudi alias Chandraprabhā, was put together in Samvat 1725 (=1669 A. D.) by Meghavijaya, one of the sūris who "by the command of the lord of the country (Deśapati) were provided with quarters for the rainy season in the palace of Agarāvara. *! This work is said to have been the model for the Siddhāntakaumudi. The facts may have beon just otherwise. Of lesser lights we have i. Punyasundaragaại who arranged for the school the different Sanskrit roots in their alphabetical order giving after each root its meaning, gaña, and other conjugational peculiarities; ii. Srivallabhavāchanāchārya who wrote in Samvat 1661, 1 Compare the following stanzas तो राजधन्यपुरनगरे। हैमध्याकरणस्य from the Prasasti :- Tag Maq......., t उदयचन्दोस्ति शिष्यः संख्या- 3 Compare: ऋषिवहिजलधिशशिमित- बता परः। यावज्जीवमभूयस्य व्याख्या वर्षे रतलामपुरे रम्ये। ग्रन्धो ज्ञानामृतमपा ॥ तस्योपदेशाद्देवेन्द्र सम्पूर्णः विजयादशम्या.......... frogasot STUTE I PUT HITA: 4 See before, page 46, note 3. मुहार मनीषी कनकपभः । 5 Peterson's Roport iii, pag. 10. 2 Compere i singing for rent - ·80 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar 61 § - ) during the reign of Sarasimha alias Siwairāj of Jodhapur, 1594-1619 A. D, & commentary called Durgapadaprabodha on Hemachandra's Liñgānušāsana ;' iii. Hemahamsāvijayagani who put together a collection of about 140 Paribha. shās or maxims of interpretation used in Hemachandra's grammar, and wrote a commentary on them called Nyäyárthamañjoshë, in Samvat 1515 or A. D. 1457 at Ahmedabad; iv. Amarachandra, a pupil of Jinadattasõri of the Vāyadagachchha, who lived about the middle of the thirteenth century and wrote a work, called Syādisamuchchya, on declensions and their irregularities; and v. Gunaratnasari who wrote a work, called Kriyāratnasamuchchaya, on the use and conjugational peculiarities of the more important Sanskrit roots. He was the pupil of Devasundarasāri and wrote this work in Samvat 1466 (=A. D. 1408). At the end of his work, in nearly 80 stanzas, he gives a succession of spiritual preceptors which is of considerable historical inportance. 62. Conclusion of the Homachandra school.--Hemachandra was a prolific writer. In nearly every branch of literature which he touched he has left one or more important works behind him. The school of grammar which he founded was not, however, destined to have a very long and even career of popularity. After the age of commentators which had its fullest swing in the fifteenth century, the work fell more or less into neglect, perhaps for lack of originality but more probably because of the sectarian character of its founder and followers. Outside its circle it has not exerted much influence, while in its own circle it had to stand against two predecessors, Jainendra and Sākatāyana, and at least one successor, Malayagiri 1 श्रीमयोधपुरंदगे (? पुरे दुर्गे) मूरसिंह THER Toy &c.........1 महीपतौ। माज्यराज्याश्रियं शश्वद्या- 2 श्रीमविक्रमवत्सरे तिथितिथौ &c. रतति प्रभुमोरये ॥ रमिषदसली- 3 काले पडसपूर्ववत्सरामिले &s.

·[ - $ 63 The Kdiantra School 81 who wrote a Šabdānušāsana of his own and composed a commentary on it during the life-time of Hemachandra himself, if we are to trust the evidence furnished by the instance 3raegersTTYT: given in the commentary.' This would make Malayagiri flourish between A. D. 1143 and 1174. Malayagiri, uslike Hemachandra. used pratyähäras and followed on the lines of the Kālautra as well as Śākatāyana. Unfortunately, the only Ms. of this work that has so far come to light is incomplete, and nothing further could be said of this work here. Regarding the Prākrit chapter of Hemchandra's Śabdānušāsana and its subsequent history -for, it had an independent development of its own-We need not discuss it in this place as it is beyond the proper province of our essay, which is limited only to the Sanskrit schools of grammar. From these sectarian schools of grammar we shall now turn to schools which are rather cosmopolitan in character, being designed mainly to appeal to the masses -to schools whose object was to say just what is sufficient for a proper understanding of the language, to which grammar was considered, and justly considered, as only ancillory-to schools, namely, which go by the names of the Kätantra, and the Sārasvata. The Kātantra School 63. The Kitaptra school. - The name Kātantra, according to the commentators, means a short treatise, a handbook in other words in which the niceties of Pāṇini's grammar have been dispensed with for the benefit of beginners. This view gains plausibility from a statement in the i Soo Dr. Kiolborn's report for 1880-81, page 46. II (SL.G.)

·82 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar 63-) Vyākhyānaprakriyā' which says that this grammar was primarily designed for the use of - छान्दस : स्वल्पमतयः शास्त्रान्तररताश्च ये। ईश्वरा व्याधिनिरतास्तथालस्ययुताश्च ये॥ राणिकसस्यादिसंसक्ता लोकयात्रादिषु स्थिताः। तेषां क्षिप्रं प्रबोधार्थम- Wober in his history of Indian Literature p. 227 notes that this grainiar was meant for those who wished to approach Sanskrit through Prākrit, and that the Pāli grammar of Kachchāyana was based upon the Kātantra. We have else where (page 10) spoken of the relation which Dr. Burnell discovered between this and the Tamil grammar, and of these again with the ancient Prātišākhyas and other Aindra treatises. All accounts thus agree in stating that the Kātantra grammar was not the creation of a school, but was rather meant to satisfy a real popular need ; and looking to the intrinsic merits of the work itself, as also to the host of commentators that have been attracted towards it, it is clear that the work must have served its purpose pretty well, at least for a time. 64. Traditional account about Śarvavarman, the founder of the school.-The Katantra is otherwise known as Kaumāra or Kālāpa, and the traditional explanation of the genesis of these two names is as follows: There once lived in the Deccan a king called śātavāhana who, while one day having jala-keli with his queen, was requested by her "TITE T77," ineaning “Pray, do not sprinkle any more . 1 MH. No. 316 of 1875-76 from 3 1. be to log ideutiged with the the Deccan College Library Andhra King of that nam. % The tradition is inentioned in mentioned on p. 208 of V. A. Dr. Bübler': Report for 1876 Smith's Early History of 76, p. 74, and detailed in the lodia, third edition, pablished कलापण्याकरणोत्पसिपस्तार by न. in 1914 ? la tbat case the AO, . Ms. of which is No. beginning of the Xatantra 50 of Notices, Second Series, will have to be put in the first by Hanspraude Shastri. contary of the Christian era, ·(-$65 Traditional Origin of Kitantra 83 >) water on me.” Thereupon the ignorant king offered her some (1948) sweets. Subsequently, discovering his error and being much ashamed of his ignorance of Sanskrit, he requested his Pandit named Sarvavarman' to devise a speedy method of learning grammar. The Pandit in his difficulty besought God Siva who ordered his son Kārtti. keya or Kumāra to accede to his wishes. Accordingly, Kumāra revealed the sātras of the Kaumāra grammar. As the God's vehicle, the bird Kalāpin (peacock), was the instrument of communication, the sätras also obtained their other name. This tradition--like cost others of its kind -has probably a germ of truth. The date of the rise of this school as given by the tradition is not at all inconsistent with other ascertained facts. Thus Durgasimha the earliest known commentator on this grammar cannot as we shall presently see, be later than 800 A. D., and when we consider that he may not have been the first commentator on the Kātantra, and that, at any rate, the Sātrapätha known to him cannot be necessarily identical with that which was original, seeing that considerable differences are observable between his Sñtrapātha and that current, for instance, in Kāśmir since 1100 A. D.,-- we may for the present accept the first century after Christ as the century which witnessed the rise of this grammar 65. Evidence for later interpolations in the Kätantra Sätra pitha-Coming now to the work itself we notice that the Sātrapātha which now goes under the name of Šarvavar. man is divided into four parts : i. सन्धिप्रकरण-Consisting of संज्ञापाद, स्वरसन्धि (समान*) पाद, स्वरसन्धिनिषेध (ओदन्त*) पाद. व्यञ्जनसन्धि (वर्ष*). पादपार. and निपामपादो. 1 l adopt this form of the demo ha porterest to BATATAMAN Toe starred Damok are derived from the bruit werta of the ·84 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 65-1 ii. नामप्रकरण-0onsisting of स्वरान्त (लिङ्ग*) पाद, व्यञ्जनान्त- पाद, ससिपाद*, युष्मत्पाद, कारकपाद, समासपाद, ताध्दितपाद, and [श्रीप्रत्ययपाद). iii. आख्यातप्रकरण-0onsisting of परस्मैपाद, प्रत्ययपाद*, द्विवचनपाद*, सम्प्रसारणपाद, गुणपाद, अनुषङ्गपाद, इडागमपाद, घुदपाद. *, and iv. रुत्प्रकरण-Consisting of सिध्दिपाद*, धातुपाद*, कर्मणिपाद*, ETTE*, [Fontant); and UTCHFITT*. In this connection the first question to be raised is : Does the fourth part-the neo-belong to the authorship of Sarvavarman himself, or was it only tacked on to his work by a later hand ? Most commentators, including Durgasimha, note that the word ferred which begins the first section of this prakarala is Aggret. A mañīgala it is true, may come at the beginning of the work as a whole or in the body of it : before commencing the various subdivisions of it. In this particular case Durgasimha tells us सिध्दिग्रहणं भिन्नकर्तृकत्वान्मङ्गलार्थम्. He elsewhere tells us that the scritor is the work of Kātyāyana. Jogarāja the author of a work called the Pādaprakarvasañgati“ and probably the same person who is alluded to by Mañkha (circa 1135-45 A. D.) in his Srikantha-charita, agrees in not assigning the act to to the authorship of Šarvavarman ; only he makes ſākatāyana their author. Lastly, Raghunandanaširomani, the author of a commentaty on the Durgasim ha-vritti, credits Vararuchi with the authorship of the prakarņa in question--34 ECAT: STOICANOTT sotras commoncing the various sactions. Alternative namen aro enclosed within circular brackets. 1 See note 2 on pago 27 boforo. . This work give a topical ons lysis of the Katantra-süting It is printed in Appendix 2 ou the basis of the Deccan College Ms. 292 of 1875-76. 3 A Ma. of the work is no. 353 of Notions, Second Bario, ·[- $ 65 Interpolations in Kütantra-Sitrapatha 85 11 कथं न व्युत्पादिताः। वररुचिना' वा कथं व्युत्पादिताः। इति शिष्यजिज्ञासायां प्रतिपादयन्नाह । वृक्षादिवदित्यादि। Whoever be the real author, it is clear that the 54%vur is a later addition to the original sātrapātha. Another clear case of later interpolations in the Kātantra sūtrapātha is furnished by the three sections in rectangular brackets-निपातपाद, स्त्रीप्रत्ययपाद, and उणादिपादwhich are absent in Durgasiinha's commentary but which are regularly found included in the Kāšmirian sötrapātha. And ever in the sections which are common to both these there are so many variant readings that we are probably justified in inferring that the Kātantra sātrapātha was in a very unsettled and changeable form when it reached Kāšmir-probably long before it found an expositor in Durgasiinha. Finally, the arecara belonging to the second prakarana seems likewise to be not of the authorship of Sarvavarman. The sõtras in this section (like those in the riguyong as given by the Kāšmirian tradition) naturally arrange them - selves into anushțubh stanzas; and although some sātras here and there from this section have been in Professor Eggeling's edition of the Kātantra printed as such stanzas, still this general fact has not yet received sufficient attention. The inference is obvious. If Sarvavarman did not think it necessary to teach the ea section to his Royal 1 Veraruchi is often an alias of 800 as Durgasimba ; und by Katydyana. The Indin office an Uộadipatba put together Mo. no. 855 purports to be by Durgasińha hinjself. This Vararuchi', com. on his own latter work differs consider - 78, which are juAt those ably from the gurrent in sotras cluded in the regular Kre- 2 Outside Kismir the place of mirian atrapatha. these sections is taken up by 3 A few such are collected in Dr. a Likganuskaana in 86 Irydo, Böbler's report for 1875-76, attributed to Durgitma, who pago cxxxiv is probably not too mm. par ·86 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 65-1 pupil, no more did he care to teach him the area section (or the free section). And as it cannot be urged that the area section formed for the king a harder nut to crack than, for instance, the rata section, there was no apparent need for Sarvavarman's running into poetry and that for one or two sections only. The facts may have been these : A manual which made the king proficient in grammar in a few months' time must have attracted the early notice of the courtiers and subjects of the king. The omission of area and other sections may then have been noticed and rectified-either by the original author or some other scholar. And the impetus to such additions being once given, the Kātantra from being a mere handbook issued fortb into a full-blown system. 66. Nature ol sarvavarman's work. The nature of the improvements made by Śarvavarman on the current textbooks of grammar is evident even from that portion of the Kātantra which we have no hesitation in accepting as his own genuine work. These consist in i. dispensing with the artificial arrangement of the letters of the alphabet introduced by Pāṇini, and retaining in their stead their natural arrangement such as is found in the Prātiśākhyas.' ii. As a consquence the Pāņiniya pratyāhāras, which result in brevity as well as unintelligibility, are dispensed with, their place being taken by the earlier and simpler Sanjñās such as fara. Gubitat, fara etc. This has saved the system the defining sātras, of which there is such a number in Pāņini. iii. In the distribution of the subject matter, in preference to the old artificial arrangement of Pāņini there has been adopted one which is natural or topical, similar to that of the later Kaumudis. iv. Last. ly, as was essential in a work designed for beginners, the tokeo from the Pratide khaya, 1 Tho first outra of the Katastr -- REKRETETE in tanong ·[ - $ 68 Katantra School : Early History 87 whole of the Vaidiki prakriyā of Pāṇini and all the other rules of an exceptional or difficult character have been simply omitted. Thus instead of the nearly 4000 sātras of Paņini, Śarvavarman could finish his work in about 855 sītras, or including the one section, 1400 sātras only. 67. Early history of the Katantra school. -The intrinsic merits of the work as also the fact that its author was patronised by a powerful king of the Deccan ensured its rapid circulation even in countries as remote as Kāśmir and Ceylon. The explanation of this popularity is also partly to be found in the fact that there was an urgent demand for such a work. The text-books in use prior to the advent of this schon were intended rather for Pandits and monks than for the merchants and agriculturists, in whom nevertheless the desire to learn the language of the Scriptures and of refined society was not quite absent! This led to the detec.ion of inaccuracies and omissions in the original version of the grammar, which came to be rectified in the course of study, so that the original Sūtrapātha of Sarvavarman experienced, in the course of the next two or three centuries, the addition of the area and ago TS, and the substantial assimilation with Sāktā. yana's or Vararuchi's gaTUT. During the period of its ensuing extensive circulation other minor changes or additions may have been made from time to time. The text must in any case have been pretty fairly fixed in at least two recensions, the northern and the southern, before it found an able commentator in Durgasimha. 68. Durgasimha and bis vfitti.--Whether Durgasiſha had any predecessors in the task of expounding the Kātantra cannot now be ascertained. His was probably the first systematic attempt where necessary to explain and ampli. fy' the Kātantra grammar so as to make it as thorough- 1 By means of giving birtikas, some vf whiob later' comua. tators have incorporated with the original stres. Ct. Egg ing's edition, Notes, p. 57?.

·88 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 68 - ] going as possible, without running counter to its original object of ease and simplicity. As Durgasimha is quoted by Hemachandra, and as he knew the Chãndra Dhātupātha, on the basis of which he put together another Dhātupātha for the Kātantra, Durgasimha probably is to be assigned to the cighth century. As the verse introductory' to his Uņādisātras contains an invocation to God Śiva, Durgasimha probably was not a Bauddha, and if so, he is distinct from another Durgasiṁha, the author of 4 commentary on Durgasimha's vritti, whose invocation? points unmistakably to his faith. Durgasimha is also to be distinguished from later writers such as Durga, Durgātma, and Durgācharya. The last is the author of a commentary on the Nirukta, and one of the first two, if indeed they are two persons," wrote a lingănušāsana to the Kātantra (see note 2 on page 85). 69. Commentaries on Durgasiſha's vřitti. . Writers subsequent to Durgasimha have mainly confined themselves to writing commentaries on his masterly vritti. The earli. est of these is the Kātāntravistara by Vardhamāna, whose patron was Karnadeva, who probably is the same who ruled Gujarat in A. D. 1088. Vardhamāna is often quoted by Bopadeva in his Kāvyakāmadhenu. A writer called Mahāmahopādhyāya Prithvidhara wrote it subcommentary on Vardhamāna's work. 1 ममहत्यशिर्ष भूरिशसम्तानकारिणम्। लिजयति सनित्पमशेषागमकार- उणादयो विधास्यन्ते पालन्युत्पत्ति OTT 11 It has a ring of that हेत॥ faith about it. The other as , शिवमेकमर्जपुद्ध अमाच स्वयंभुखम् । we saw Why u Bauddba. igreretana eat gifor quan + Holderücker nelieved himn till to This Durgs styles Durgasin the same as the author of the 20 भगवान कृतिकारः। Compare Canaratasına bodadbi, vzorke Eggeling's Notes, p. 465 componed (सप्तनपत्यधिकम्बेकार 3 One of thom nay have been a 71% artary) in 1139-40 Site; compare the vorso :- tutafuta A. D.

·[-$70 Treatises Accessory to Katantra 89 The next in succession comes Trilochanadāsa, who is also cited by Bopadeva and by "itthala the commentator on the Särasvata. He may have come very soon after Vardhamāna. His commentary is called Kātantravrittipaijikā, and from it we learn that the author was a Kayastha, the son of Megha and father to Gadādhara. Trilochanadāsa has been himself commented upon by Jinaprabhasūri alias Jinaprabodha,? by Kušala, by Rāmaciiandra, and by other more modern writers. Mahādeva, the author of a commentary called Sabdasiddhi, a Ms. of which bears the date Samvat 1340, is chro. nologically the next writer whom we have to notice. As, however, there is very little known about him either from his own works or from those nf others, we shall pass on to later writers. Of these we have already alluded to Durga or Durgrātma, author of a commentary on Durgasmha's vritti, who has often been confounded with Durgasimha himself. An anonymous writer has written a Dhundhikā on the Kātantravritti, probably modelled upon a similarly named commentary on Hemachandra's Sabdānušāsana. No other commentaries on the Kātantra that could be definitely assigned to a period anterior to 1500 A. D., ure now extant. See, however, $72. 70. Treatises accessory to the Kātantra. We have already incidentally spoken above of the treatises accessory to Kātantra. There are not many of them, and the majority of them are much later productions. The earlier ones are the Liñgānušāsana in 88 āryās by Durga, and the 1 He is not to be identified with the author of that name who wrote the Katantrottaraparisi. shța to śrīpatidatta's supplement. 2 for particulares about Jibapra- 12 [ Sk. Gr.] bodha gee Peterson's Report for 1896-92, Index; and Kiellorn's report for 1880.81, 1788, non. 35 and 36. 3 Ms. 00, 60 of Dr. Kielhoiu'! collection for 1880-31.

·90 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $76 - ) Uņādipātha and the Dhātupātha by Durgasimha the author of the vritti. The Dhātupātha is modelled upon that of Chandragomin, with only slight modifications. The genuine Kālāpa-Dhātusātra, which differs considerably from the above, is now reported to exist only in a Tibetian translation. 71. History of the Kātantra school in Bengal.- No definite information exists as to when the Kātantra was introduced into Bengal. In the fifteenth and sixtcenth centuries there arose in Bengal a host of cominentators and writers of supplements to the Kātantra, and the grammar is there to this day most assiduously studied. Some of the most Camous of these Bengali writers are : i. Kavirāja who quotes Trilochanadāsa and is quoted by Harirāma ; ii. kulachandra who is quoted by Rāmadāsa ; Gopinātha Tarkāchārya who is commented upon by Rãinachandra who also wrote a cominentary on the Kātantravrittipaíjikā; iii. Śrīpati who wrote a supplenient to the Kālantra which is honoured with cominentaries written by Gopinätlia Turkãchārya, Rāinachandra Chakravarti, Sivarāma Chakravarti, and I'undarikáksha ; iv. Trilochana (not the older Trilochanadāsa) who wrote an Uttaraparisishta, giving therein such information on urg, afgat, and FATH as had escaped Sripati ; and several others. Most of these writers came from the Vaidya community of Bengal, and their object in all cases has been, by partial or wholesale horrowing from all available sources, to make the Kātuntia us complete and up-to-date as possible, so as to prevent its being neglected in the course of the struggle for existence which began with the modern revival of Pāņini under the auspices of the Kaumudikāras, and the sinultaneous springing into existence of a large nunber of other modern schools of gramınar. At present, as before observed, the study of the Kätantra is confined to only a few districts of Bengal. ;

·[ - $ 73 Sarasvata Schoul 91 72. History of the Kätantra school in Kasmir.-In Kāšmir the school had a slightly varied development. The Sūtrapatha received there was, is we saw, considerably different from that known to Durgasimha ; and we can hence conclude that the Kāšmirian Pundits got familiar with the works of Durgasiṁhe much later. Until then they busied themselves with writing original commentaries and digests on the Kātantra which, as Dr. Bühler observes, has been the grammar of the Kāśmirians from the twelfth to the sixteenth century. Only a few of their works in Mss. have so far been available. There is among others work called the Bãlabodhini by Bhatta Jagaddhara with a Nyāsa upon it ly a writer called Ugrabhūti, who, if identical with his name-sake who was a teacher of gramnuar to Anandapala and whose book (as Alherāni says) was made fashionable in Kāśmir by liberal donations from the royal pupil to the Pandits, must be placed in the latter part of the tenth century.' Another rather well-known book is the Laghuvritti by Chhichhublatta, which perhaps belongs to about the same time.? Of later and less important books there is quite a nunber. The modern popular books of grammar in. Käśmir ure based on the Kātantra. The Sārasvata School 73. The Sārasvata school : Its date. The origin of tha Sārasvata school of grammarians cannot be put down to a date very much earlier than 1250 A. D., when Bopadeva the author of the Mugdhabodha flourished, seeing that he 1 See Vincent Smith's Early His. tory of India, Third edition, p. 382, note. The Deocan College Ms. of the work brought over by Bühler in 1875-76 contains at the epd the following colophon: STYR खाति(निर्षिमिते स्तस्तनैकरशे(?) faa &c., which perhaps stands for Saku 1037 = 1115 A. D.

·92 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar § 73-] nowhere refers to the Sārasvata school. If the school existed in his days—if it had attained a sufficient standing in the eyes of scholars--we should naturally expect Bopadeva to mention it, just as he does many other established schools and authors. Nor does the school appear to have been known to Hemachandra. Further, none of the commentaries on the Sārasvata belongs to a date earlier than 1450 A. D., and the majority of them were written in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Looking to the native places of the different commentators and the places where the Mss. were copied or discovered, it has to be admitted that the influence of the school, even in the most glorious period or its existence, was mostly limited to Northern India : to Gujarat, Nagapur, Udepur, Bikaner, Delhi and Bengal. The school continued in vigour down to the modern revival of Pāṇini under the auspices of Bhattoji Dikshita and his pupils, when inost schools of grammar began to decline and were driven into the corners of Bengal and other out-lying districts. The Sārasvata school was probably the last to go. These fucts when taken in conjunction with the extremely simple and brief manner in which the Sãrasvata treats its entire subject-700 sātras' as against the 4,000 1 Seven 'bundred sūtrus-i.eu, in the original sūtrupātha of the school. This assertion is made on the basis of the Deccan College Ms. Do. 239 of 1892-95, which gives 597 mūlasūtras mus 91 more värtikas or vaktavyas, thus reaching the total of 658. The original order of the autras scoms to be preserved in this Ms. alone ; other M98. ugnally follow the order of Anubhūtisvarūpacharya in his Säras- Vuta-prakriya. Thuis in two M83, of the Deccan College Collection (no. 257 of 1895- 98 and no. 210 of A. 1882-83) the total number of gūtrus is nearly 890, including some sūtras which occur twice and some vārtikas distinctly given by Anubhiūtisvarūpācharya as guch, We have in fact to distinguish clearly between the Sarasvata-nūlasūtrapatha and the Sarasvataprakriyasutra pātha.

·[ - § 74 Special Features of Sārasvata 93 of Pāṇini-render plausible the inference that the Sārasvata school, like the Kātantra, arose in response to a definite demand. This time the demand probably came from the Muhammedan rulers of India who felt it necessary to promote the study of Sanskrit, were it only for the purpose of criticising works written in that language. Thus Gaisuddin Khilgi the peaceful and enlightened ruler of Málva, Salemshah (1555 to 1556) the emperor who ruled Delhi during Humayun's wanderings, and Jahangir, the Conqueror of the world-all these alike encouraged the study of the Sārasvata grammar as being the one calculated to produce greatest results with the least effort. Indian princes like Udayasing of Udepur (1679 A. D.) also found it easier and less likely tu interfere with their usual enjoyments to study this gramniar. We shall presently consider the special features to which the Sārasvata owed its popularity amongst the aristocracy ; in the meanwhile it may be assumed as very probable that the Muhammedan rule of India is to be credited with having produced the demand which eventually led to the rise of the school of grammar with which we are at present concerned, 74. Special features of the Sārasvata. These special features are not very far to seek; and prominent amongst them is brevity of treatment. When we remember that schools like those of Jainendra and Bopadeva, whose avowed object was to curtail and improve upon Pāņini as far as practicable, could not conveniently treat of their subject in less than 3000 and 1200 sātras respectively; or that the school which in current opinion was labelled the short school--Kātantra--has more than 1400 sātras, 1 It is necessary to emphasise this in order to counteract the tendency to look upon the Islam as a purely destructive force. The instance before us is only one out of many.

·94 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 74 - ] it was certainly an achievement for the Sārasvata grammar to compass the whole subject in 700 aphorisms only. More important than brevity is simplicity; and in this respect also the Sārasvata compares favourably with its predecessors. The Sārasvata uses pratyāhāras but dispenses with the puzzling its so that in its terminology the letters , , , , , for instance, are indicated by the formula 74. This method has the advantage of pointing out at a glance the letters included in the application of a rule, whichi Panini's a fails to do, except to the initiate, The other technicalities adopted by the Sarasvata are of the simplest kind and are such that the meaning is evident from the word itsell (Haut, HETENT etc.), or is established by the concensus of grammarians (Area, TEUTAT, ETHITUT, FIT, UTAT, ITUT, etc.). Accordingly, the Sārasvata very rarely goes out of its way to explain its Ranjñās and thus, without sacrificing simplicity, gaios enormously in economy. The order followed is, of course, the natural or the topical one. The language of the sītras is easy, and in their interpretation we have not to follow the guidance of any paribhhāslās. No book on paribhāshäs has come down to us in connection with this school, This has been made possible, of course, by a studied avoidance of all difficult and out-of-the-way forms, the object being to learn grammar not for its own sake but as a medium for the study of literature. The Vedic irregularities and accents are left out, as also any detailed consideration of the Uņādis. Sometimes this process was carried too far and then later it was found necessary to insert vartikas such as पतिरसमास एव सखिशब्दवद्वक्तव्यः or गवा- देरपर्णागमोऽक्षादौ वक्तव्यः or again जरायाः स्वरादौ जरस्वा वक्तव्यः, where it was discovered that even some of the commoner forms of words remained unnoticed.

·[ - $ 75 Traditional Écunder of Sarasvata 95 75. Traditional founder of the Sārasvata school. The person who is credited with the authorship of these vārtikas to the Sārasvata is an ascetic called Anubhūtisvarīpāchārya. Tradition goes further and makes him the direct recipient of the revelation of the sülras from the Goddess Sarasvati, after whom the school gets its name. This does not seem to be, however, the right view. We know that Anubhātisvarīpāchărya gives in his Sārasvala-prakriyā some vārtikas, and this is inconapatible with his being the Sätrakāra, as there was nothing to prevent him from turiing his vārtikas into so many sūtras. Secondly, some of the rules which Anubhūtisvarūpāchărya gives in his cominentary are absent iu other commentaries. Lastly, though Lhis has hardly nuuch buaring on the question before us, Anubātisvarūpāchārya is tlie spiritual name of a man about whom we know nothing. On the contrary Ksheinendra at the end of his coinmentary on the Sārasvata-prakriyā las the colopholl-~-इतिश्रीनरेन्द्राचार्यसारस्वत क्षमंन्द्रकृतं टिपनं समाप्तम्- thereby making Narendra the author of the Sārasvata. Again, Amritabhārati another commentator has the following: यन्नरेन्द्रनगरिप्रभाषितं यच्च वैमलसरस्वतीरितम् । तन्मयात्र लिखितं तथाधिक किञ्चिदेव कलितं स्वया धिया ॥ A grammarian Narendrāchārya is also quoted by Vitthalāchārya in his l'rakriyākaumudiprasāda. Although as a result of these conflicting facts we are not justified in throwing any doubt upon the historical existence of Anubhūtisvarīipāchārya, still we must admit that he is no more than a name for us, and to set against him we have another--Narendra or Narendrachārya-who must have written some original work on the Sārasvata, no trace of which has, however, been hitherto discovered. We may observe in passing that such a confusion of names is more likely to occur in the case of modern writers, especially obscure writers; and such we might ·96 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 75-) assume was the person who, in response to a felt demand, produced the Sārasvatasūtras, and thus made it possible evena for the foreign rulers of India to get an insight into Sanskrit literature. 76. The Särasvata-prakriyā of Aoubhūtisvarūpāchārya --From this obscure and alınost mythical personage, who could not have lived prior to the establishment of Muhammedan rule in India, our next leap in the history of this school is to Anubūtisvarūpāchārya the author of the Sārasvataprakriyā. He may have had one or two predecessors in his task. Anyhow when he took up the task, there was probably such a confusion in the order of the Sārasvatasātras that he found it necessary to rearrange (FI) the whole matter for logical presentation. Anubhūitisvarūpachārya could not have lived earlier than 1250 and later than 1450, when Puñjarāja the earliest of his known cominentators lived. When the satras onco received a stereo-typed form at the hands of Anubhūtisvarūpa, the future history of this school is mainly one of commentaries and sub-commcntaries; and the fact that very few of the commentators--and they are over fifteen in the course of about 175 years-make any really original contribution, but confine themselves merely to an explanation more or less accurate, only means that the grammar was meant for practical purposes only. That there should have arisen so many commentators at all is to be explained on the ground that the several local Pandits felt it necessary, in vindication of their scholarship, to write for their patrons fresh commentaries rather than take up those already existing. 77. Commentators on the Sārasvata-prakriya. We shall now give short notices of these commentators one by ono. Puñjarāja.--He belonged to the śrīmāla family of Malabar which some time or other settled in Mālva. He ·[- [ 77 Commentators on Särasrcta-prakriya 97 gives his ancestry in the praśasti at the end of his commentary, from which we learn that he was a minister to Gaisudin Khilji of Mālva (1469-1500). Puñjarāja seeins to have carried on the administration very efficiently collecting round him a band of learned admirers, and indulging in numerous acts of charity and relief. He must have lived in the last quarter of the fifteenth century. He also wrote a work on alanlāra called Śist prabodha, and another larger work called Dhvanipradipa.' Amyltabharati.--As above pointed out, this coramentator mentions Narendranagari as an influencial writer on the Sārasvata. Amritabhārati was a pupil of. Amalasarasvati, and he bears the title THEATRUTH. His commentary is called Subodhikā. Unfortunately all the existing mss. of this commentaçy contain such & confusion as to the name of the author and of his guru, some stating the work to be that of Viśveśvarābdhi, pupil of Advayasarasvati, others that of Satyaprabodhabhattāraka, pupil of Brahmasāgaramuni, that it is hard to get at the truth, As the earliest known ms. of this work is dated Samvat 1554, the author must have lived about the last quarter of the fifteenth century. The work is said to have been composed at the holy place of Purushottama: क्षेत्रे व्यधायि पुरुषोत्तमसंज्ञकेऽस्मिन् । Kshemendra.We next take this commentator not because he comes chronologically next but because he, like Amritabhārati, speaks of Narendra. The only personal information we have of him is that he was the pupil of Krishņāśramas and the son of Haribhatta or Haribhadra, & fact sufficient to indicate that he was other than the great Kshemendra of Kāśmir, who lived a full century before Bopadova. Kshemendra speaks of some predecessors of his, and he is in turn quoted by Jagannātha, the 1 Soe Dr. Bhandarkar’s Report for 1882-83, p. 12. 13 [ SL Gr. ) ·98 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $77-) author of Sārapradīpikā, and unfavourably criticised by Bhatta Dhaneśvara who explicitly calls his own commentary eqTÉT. As a ms. of this last work is dated Samvat 1653, it clearly follows that Kshemendra could not have lived later than the first quarter of the sixteenth century. Chandrakirti.--His commentary is indifferently called Subodhikā or Dipikā. From the praśasti given at the end of this commentary we learn that the author was a Jain belonging to the Brihad-Gachchha of Nagpur, residing in a Jain Tirtha called Kautika, and 15th in succession from the founder of the Gachchha, Devasūri (Sam. 1174). He had a pupil called Harshakirti who wrote this commentary at first hand, and who himself produced a Dhātupātha and a commentary for the Sarasvata grammar. From the prasasti of this latter work we learn that Chandrakirti was honoured by Sāhi Salem' (A. D. 1545 to 1553) the emperor of Delhi. Chandrakīrti thus belongs to the second quarter of the sixteenth century. Madhava.-The son of Kāhnu and pupil of Śrirañga. He mentions several commentators before him. If the date of a ms. of his commentary (Sam. 1591) is correct, he must be placed earlier than Chandrakīrti. Väsudevabhatta.--He calls himself the pupil of Chandiśvara and gives the date of his commentary to be Sanvat 1634. The commentary is called Sārasvataprasāda. Mandada.--From the colophon at the end of the ffy- Tut we learn that Mandana was the Maha-pradhana and Sañghapati to Alpasāhi. His father was named Vāhada 1 Compare- ATHIGHSHMA - 2 Compare--acht der HTA- तिमा सम्मानितः सादरम् । सूरिः समन्विते। शुचौ कृष्णद्वितीयाया सर्वकलिन्दि[का कलितधीः श्रीच प्रसादोऽयं निरूपितः। न्द्रकीर्तिः प्रभुः॥

·[- $77 Commentators on Sarasvata-prakriya 99 and he belonged to the Kharatara Gachchha. The commentary subsequent to the ABTEJT seems to have been written by one of his pupils. From one of the mss. of the commentary (Dec. Coll. collection, no. 13 of 1877-78) we gather that Alpasāhi or Alam was a king of Mālva, whose minister (amatya) was known as Padama. Vāhada the father of Mandana was a brother to this Padama, and was, besides, himself a Sangheśvara or Samghapati. Our Mandana accordingly must have inherited his father's office and title. We are not yet certain as to who this Alpasāhi, king of Mālva, was. Probably he was merely soine local chieftain. The earliest dated ms. of the commentary belongs to the year 1574 A. D. Megharatna.--He was a Jain belonging to the Brihat- Kharatara Gachchha, and the pupil of Vinayasundara. The commentary is called Sārasvatavyākarañadhundhikā or Sārasvatadīpikā. A ms. of this work is dated Sarivat 1614 (A. D. 1556), and this gives the lower limit for Megharatna. Dhanesvara. -He wrote his commentary with the avowed object of correcting Kshemendra. As a consequence he comes after Kshemendra and before 1595 A, D., when one of the mss. of Dhaneśvara's commentary was copied. He has written, as mentioned in the praśasti of 1 Professor S. R. Bhandarkar in (Elliot and Dowson, iii. pp. his Report of a second tour in 157 and 208). If this Alpasearch of mss. in Rajputāna khana be the same as our and Central India (1904-5 and Alpasthi, Maņdapa will have 1905-6) mentions a facut on to be placed even before दुर्गसिंहकातन्त्रवृत्तिटीका, which is Punjaraja, which however does written in Sanvat 1369. This not appear very likely. Fecquet was made during the 2 He must be distinguished from reign of Alpakhana who has Bopadeva's preceptor, who was been identified with the bro also named Dhanesvara. ther-in-law of Sultan Alaudin ·100 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $77 - ] five stanzas at the end of the afin section of the commentary, a Tikā on the Mahābhāshya called Chintāmaņi, a new grammar for beginners called Prakriyāmaņi, and a commentary on a stotra from the Padmapurāņa. Jagannatha.-This commentator also quotes and is therefore later than Dhanendra. We know nothing personal about Jagannātha. The commentary bears the name of Sārapradipikā. Kasinātha.-His commentary is called Sārasvatabhā. shya, but is not so diffuse as the name would imply. The author is not communicative about himself and the only thing that can be definitely asserted of him is that he must have lived prior to 1610 A. D., when & ms. (no. 292 of 1880-81) of his commentary was copied down at Barhanpur. Bhatta Gopāla.--Is another commentator who can be similarly disposed of by noting that a ms. of his commentary was copied in A. D, 1615. Sahajakirti.-It is a relief to come from these shadowy figures to one who is somewhat less chary of giving us information about himself. Sahajakiriti was a Jain, a Vāchanāchāraya and a pupil of Hemanandanagani of the Kharatara Gachchha. The com. is called Sārasvataprakriyāvārtika and was composed' in A. D. 1623. HansaviJayaganl.-The contribution of this author is very slight, he having been apparently content to write a very diffuse com. called Śabdārthachandrikā on the introductory verses of the Sārasvataprakriyā. He was the pupil of Vijayānanda and flourished about Samvat 1708 = A.D. 1650. I Compare-पत्सरे भूमिसिध्यडकाश्यपीपमितिभिते। मापस्य अलपशम्या दिवसे पूर्णतामगात् ।।

·{-477 Coinmentators on Sarasvata-prakriya 101 Ramabhatta.-This author's com. is a curiosity pot so much for its subject matter as for the manner of its comapilation. The com. is called Vidvatprabodhini or Rāmbhatti after the author. At the end of each section of the com. the author gives in one to five stanzas details about himseif, his family, his travels, and his literary works, from which we learn i, that the author was an Andhra coming from the Telangaru country, or more definitely, from the regions around the Ureñgala hills, where ruled in his days a king called Pratāparudra, in whose court was the great pandit called Uddane or Udayana; ii. that the author's father was one Narasimha and his mother u very pious lady called Kāmā. Having led a very happy life in his native place and written various literary works-among others, commentaries on the three Kāvyas of the great Kālidāsa—the author in the company of his wife, two sons called Lakshmidhara and Janārdana, and daughters-in-law starts, at the advanced age of seventy-seven, on a pilgrimage to holy places. During the halts of the journey such leisure moments as the author could command were employed in writing the present commentary. The main interest of the work lies in the record which is kept of the holy places visited on the way. At the conclusion of every section, the incidents of the pilgrimage are versified and written down as a sort of a prasasti, together with a stanza or two in praise of the filial affection and dutifulness of the two sons. Although the diary is not as accurate and detailed as we would wish and the incidents of the journey by no means unusual yet the picture it gives of the real social life some three hundred years ago is by no means void of charm. It is to be regretted that none of the mss. accessible are complete. In addition to these names there could be mentioned a few others--such as Ratnākara, Nārāyaṇabhārati, ·102 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 77 - ] Kshemañkara, Mahidhara, etc.—but we have had already & wearisome list of them, sufficient to indicate the course of development of the school since its origin in the thirteenth century. It is necessary, however, to mention a few more writers who wrote commentaries on the Sārasvata independently of the Sārasvata prakriyā, although none extant is older than that work. 78 Commentaries on the Sārasvata independently of the Prakriyl. The most famous of these, as having given rise to more than one sub-commentaries is the Siddhãntachandrikā by Ramchandrāśrama. As we possess little information about this author, we at once turn to his commentators. These are i. Lokeśakara, son of Kshemañkara and grandson of Rāmakara. He wrote a com. on the Siddhāntachandrikā called Tattvadipikā in the year #TETYTA ya, i. e. A. D. 1683. And ii. Sadānanda who wrote a com. called Subodhini, which has been published at Benares. Rāmachandrāśrama appears also to have written an abridgment of his own com. called Laghu-Siddhāntachandrikā. Another independent com. on the Sārasvata sūtras is by Tarkatilakabhattāchārya, the of Dvārika or Dvarakādāsa and the younger brother of Mohana Madhusādana. The author points' out many interpolations in the works of Anubhūtisvarupāchārya. He wrote his work in 1614 A. D. in the reign of Jahangir.? Siddhāntaratna by Jinendu or Jinaratna is yet another. We know nothing about it or its author. The com. is very short and probably very modern. One more extensive work on the Sārasvata remains to be mentioned. It was undertaken by a pupil of Bhason 1 With the words-HH 2 Compare grafmagta (1672) श्रीमदभातीलखने क्षीरे भीरमिव वर्षे नगरे च टोहारूये। पतिरिय सं. प्रक्षिप्तम् ! सिद्धा क्षितिमपति भीजहांगीरे॥

·[ - $ 79 I'reatices Accessory to Sarasvata 103 ttoji Dikshita, Raghurătha by name. It is called Laghubhāshya and aspires to treat of the various grammatical topics after the manner of Patañjal. Raghunātha was a Nāgara, the son of Vināyaka, and belongs, as the pupil of Bhattoji to the middle of the seventeenth century. 79. Treatises accessory to the Sarasvata. Of accessory treatises in connection with the Sārasvata there are very few. There are no works on Uņādis or Paribhãshas. A Dhātupātha with a com. on it called Tarangiņi was composed, as stated above, by Harshakirti, pupil of Chandrakīrti. His date, therefore, is cir. 1560 A, D. A writer called Jñanatilaka has put together all the examples of कृत, तद्धित, and उणादि affixes based on the Sarasvata chapters dealing with them. A ms. of this work is dated Samvat 1704. Another writer named Mādhava has attempted a derivation of words according to the Sārasvata. His date is probably 1680; and these are all, or at any rate, all worth noticing As the Sārasvata was meant to be the shortest and the easiest manual of Sanskrit grammar, it would seem that no further abridgments of it were called for. The facts are otherwise. Besides the Laghusiddhāntachandrikā above noticed, an author called Kalyāṇasarasvati has produced arorat fryTT a small work called Laghusārasvata. He lived probably towards the close of the 18th century 80. General review of the history of the Sārasvata school. Taking now a general review of the history of this school it will be perceived that the Sārasvata like the Kātantra, sprang up in response to the felt need of the time, and having once attained a fixity of form, the work continued to be studied in all parts of Northern India by the सिते सौम्यै ोकादश्यां तवे (1) पुरे। 3 Compare ware(?<)5TTT- द्वेयने(1) उत्तरे तथा । ग्रीन्मे ज्येष्ठे ·104 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 80 - ) help of the numerous commentaries which came into existence simultaneously and on all sides. Each commentary may be looked upon as having centered within itself the literary longings of the country around its place of nativity. And in later times there were made no attempts to improve or supplement the Sārasvata, simply because the students of the Sārasvata did not wish to be erudite grammarians, considering grammar only as a means to an end. Only one such attempt by a pupil of Bhattoji has come down to us; but by that time the Kaumudis and the abridgments of Varadarāja and others had fairly ousted the Sārasvata from the field. It is an interesting coincidence that when the British rulers of India were first actuated by a desire to acquaint themselves more thoroughly with the literature and the ancient traditions of their subjects through the medium of Sanskrit, one of the earliest and the easiest of anglosanskrit grammars that was written was Wilkin's, the basis for which was just this same Sārasvata. At present the school has very little following. Its study is mainly confined to the provinces of Behar and Benares. 7 The School of Bopadeva 81. The school of Bopadeva-This is a comparatively recent school of grammarians. Consequently there is no tradition of divine revelation attaching to the Mugdhabodha, the chief text-book of the school, but it is accepted as the work of a real human author called Bopadeva. 82. The date of Bopadova.--Bopadeva was the son of a physician named Keśava and his teacher's name was Dhaneša. Bopadeva's birth-place is said to have been somewhere near the modern Daulatabad in the Mahratta country, then ruled by the Yādavas of Devagiri. Bopadova is quoted by Mallinātha (cir. 1350) in his commen- ·[ - $ 83 Bopadeva's Mugdhnbodha 103 tary on the Kumāra, and he is known' to have been the protege of Hemādri, who was a minister (soffror) to Mahadeva the Yādava king of Devagiri (1260-1271 A. D.), and to his successor Rāmadeva. Bopadeva's father as well as teacher lived at a place called Sārtha situated on the banks of the Varadā. He was thus a native of the Berars.? Although born of Vaidya parents he bears the surname Gosvāmi or high priest. Bopadeva was a scholar of great renown and a voluminous writer. Besides the Mugdhabodha, Kavikalpadruma, and its commentarythe Kāmadhenu--Bopadeva has written the Muktāphala and Harililāvivarana (both dealing with the Bhāgavatapurāņa), a medical work called Sātaśloki, and a treatise on Dharmaśāstra, 83. The object of Bopadeva's Mugdhabodha.-We have seen how various attempts were made quite early to improve upon Pāņini's grammar by making his rules more terse and accurate. Where these attempts were made in the way of vārtikas or commentaries, they increased the student's difficulties rather than simplified them. And where attempts were made to establish a new school independently of Panini, the founders were in most cases the followers of some unorthodox church, so that the need of a fresh manual (as distinguished from a mere recast of old rules and terms) remained as pressing as ever. 1 Compare विद्वद्धेनशशिष्येण भिषक्के. शवधनुना॥ हेमाद्रिोपदेवेन मुक्ता- फलमचीकरत् ॥-from the मुक्ता- फल, and श्रीमद्भागवतस्कंधाध्याया- र्धादि निरूप्यते । विदुषा बोपदेवेन मंत्रिहमाद्रितक्षये।-from the हरि- लीलाविवरण. 2 Dr. Bhandarkar's Early Ilistory of the Deccan, p. 89. 3 That Bopadova did not writo 14 [ Sk. Gr. ] the Bhagavata can be proved from various urguinents : amongst others the following quotation (उक्तोवधूतमार्गश्च कृष्णे- नैवोद्धधं प्रति । श्रीभागवतसंज्ञे तु पुराणे हश्यते हि सः॥) from the सर्वसिद्धांतसंग्रह (p. 63) of शंकरा. 4, edited (1909) by Rangachārya, who tries to prove its genuineness.

·106 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $83 - 1 It was at such a juncture that Bopadeva wrote his Mugdhabodha. His object therein was simplicity coupled with brevity. The first he attained by following the natural mode of presentation such as is found in the Kātantra. For the second, the adopted Pāṇini's pratyā. hāra-stras-making in them the changes necessary for their adoption to his own system. He omits all notices of accents, and the Vedic peculiarites are dismissed in one (the last) sūtra--ari aterior, corresponding to Pāṇini's oft-repeated as JETA. Another feature which we notice in this grammar for the first time is its religious element. In the choice of examples illustrating his rules Bopadeva has taken care to use wherever possible the names of Hari Hara, and other gods. Bopadeva is here equally partial to Hari, Hara, or Rāma ; but later writers have outdone him in this respect. Even the technical terms of some of these modern grammarians are the names of Krishņa, Rādhā, Śiva, Durgā, etc. We shall have occasion to revert to these later. Bopadeva's technical terms often deviate from Pāņini's. Owing to the absence of all the its of the Pāṇiniya system and a slightly varied arrangement of letters, the pratyāhāras or rather the samāhāras of Bopadeva are quite puzzling to a student of Pāņini; and since all ancient writers and commentators have followed the Paņiniya grammar in their writings, this extreme divergence from his system prevented the Mugdabodha from being studied in all parts of India, which its clear and logical method entitled it to be. 1 Thus this illustrated by instance of कारक is-रामा प्रत्य. मुरारि, लक्ष्मीश, विष्णूत्सव; the गृणात् तस्मै लक्ष्मणोऽवगृणात् कपिम्।। optional forms एन, एनौ, etc. and so on every ywhere. are shown by-इमं विद्धि हरेभक्तं 2 For example, धू for धातु वृ for विध्ययन शिवार्चकम् । अनेन पूजितः वृद्धि ; शान for शामच, श्रि for Fourirsoata fafieitsfracell un सर्वनामन् etc.

·[ - $ 84 Bopadeva's School : Later History 107 84. Later history of Bopadeva's school. From what is said just now we are not to conclude that the Mugdhabodha was never widely popular. In the two centuries preced. ing the rise of the Mahratta power and the revival of Pāņi. ni it enjoyed a wide currency as well in the land of its origin as elsewhere. This is clear from the statements of Bhattoji-dikshita in the Sabdakaustubha ar.d in the Manoramā. In the latter he says- बोपदेवमहाग्राहग्रस्ती वामनदिग्गजः । कीर्तरेव प्रसङ्गेन माधवेन विमोचितः ॥ He is also at great pains to refute the opinions of the author of the Mugdhabodha, which must have dominated the literary world before the advent of Bhāttoji. It was only in the seventcenth century that like other non-Pāṇiniya systems of grammar this school had to take refuge in a country which was farthest removed from Mahratta influence, that is, Bengal, or rather the neighbourhood of Nadia on both the sides of the Ganges, where it continues to be assiduously studied to the present day. During the few centuries of its existence the Mug. dhabodha has produced quite a bewildering number of digests and commentaries. The most celebrated of the commentaries is that of Rāmatarkavāgiša, a profound logician and an adept in the grammars of other schools (TTTÜGYNGĦara 1997:), upon whose systems he frequently draws to supply errors or omissions in the Mugdhabodha. He is quoted by Durgādāsa (1639 A. D.) who wrote a commentary on the Kavikalpadruma. Durgādāsa also quotes Rāmānanda, Devidāsa, and Kāśiśvāra and his predecessors, while he is in his turn quoted by Vidyāvāgiša, Bholānātha, and Rāmabhadranyayālankāra.

·108 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar § 84 - ] A few more names are given by Aufrecht, but they need not detain us here. Of modern commentaries on the Mugdhabodha there is no end. Most of these are produced in Bengal. 85. Supplements and accessory treatises of the Mugdhabodha.- As the aim of the Mugdhabodha was brevity, it was inevitable that it should have omitted several obscure rules. Accordingly we find three attempts made one after another to supply the defects : by Nandakiśorabhatta, by Kāśiśvara, and by Rāmatarkavāgiša. The first of these gives his date-- Taarten Ha, that is, A. D. 1398. He was therefore a very early writer. Of other modern attempts we need not speak anything. As to accessory treatises Bopadeva himself left none, except the Kavikalpadruma, which is a list of roots arranged accordingly to their endings, and a commentary on the same called Kāmadhenu, the chief importance of which for us lies in its numerous quotations. Attempts more or less successful have been since made to give to this school other accessory treatises. Rāmachandravidyābhūshna (Šaka 1610) wrote a Paribhāshāvșitti. Rāmatarkavāgūša put together an alphabetically arranged Uņādikosa And there are other minor works attributed, probably by mistake, to Bopadeva himself. The Jaumara School 86. The Jaumara school of Kramadīśvara.-The name by which this school is popularly known is a misnomer. It comes from Jumaranandi the most celebrated writer of the school, though we have reason to think that he lived some time after its founder. This was Kramadīśvara styled TETTY THOT. Nothing is known of Kramadīśvara's parentage and nativity. His work is called Saīkshiptasāra, indicating by it that it was an epitome or an abridgment of some larger grammar; and as it could be the ·illustrations from the Bhattikāvya. The work meant as [ - $ 88 The Jaumara School 109 abridgment of no other grammar than Pāņini's, it is pos. sible that this was the first of its kind, prior to the Prakriyā- and Siddhanta-kaumudīs. Aufrecht in fact makes the school even anterior to Bopadeva, though Coiebrooke places it immediately after. 87. Special features of the Jaumara Kramadiśvara seems to have composed his grammar on the model of Bhartrihari's Mahābhāshya-dīpikā, and he has taker, most of his an epitome of the Ashțādhyāyi is about three-fourths as large as that work. The only changes effected by Kramadīśvara were confined to the rejection of a few superfluous or difficult rules of Pāņini and the adoption of a different mode of arrangement. The work is divided into seven pādas,' the eighth dealing with Prākrit being added later. In the mode of systematising the grmmatical material, as also in accuracy and method, the grammars of Bopadeva and others certainly compare favourably with this grammar, which may be due to its being perhaps the first of its kind. Still it is not altogether wanting in correct reasoning, and the erudition displayed by Kramadīśvara is far in advance of that of popular grammarians. 88. Commentaries on the Jaumara.-The Sañkshiptasāra as it left the hands of Kramadīśvara must have been either incomplete or deficient, and it has undergone a more or less thorough revision at the hands of Jumgranandi who is styled in the mss. HETTIFIT. Detractors of the school make much fun of the name Jumaranandī, which they believe belongs to a man of the weaver caste. Jumara. nandi's vritti is known as Rasavati and in consequence the school itself bore the name of Rāsavata under which 1. Namely, सन्धि, तिवन्त, कृदन्त, सद्धित, कारक, सुबम्ब, and समास.

·IIQ Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 88 - ] 1 title it is quoted by Bharata the commentator on the Bhattikāvya. Jumarnandi's seems to have been the earliest exposition of this system. He has also revised for this school the Pāṇiniya Dhātupātha.' Next to Rasavati, Goyichandra's commentary deserves a brief mention. Goyichandra styles himself streha, which may be either & patronymic or some religious or political title the significance of which is lost to us. The best part of Goyichandra's commentary is that on the fifth or the Kāraka pāda, which along with its able and learned gloss by Abhirāmavidyālaſkāra is studied even by the students of other schools for the sake of a correct and complete understanding of syntax. Besides this commentary Goyichandra has also written a work on the Uņādis, and a list of some 127 paribhāshās. Goyichandra's commentary is further commented upon by Nyāyapanchānana, son of Vidyāvinoda, a mas. of which is dated Śaka 1634 ; by Keśavadeva styled Tarkapanchānanabhattāchārya ;3 by Chandrasekharavidyālañkāra ; by Vamśīvādana, Harirāma, and many others. Independently of Goyichandra's gloss there do not seem to be in existence any notable commentaries on the Jaumara grammar. Colebrooke mentions only one by Gopālachakravarti. 89. Present status of the Jaumara school.-Next to the Kāt. antra this grammar has the widest circulation at present in Western Bengal, where it disputes with Mugdhabodha the palm for supremacy. The literary activity of the school-such as it isu-is not yet over, 1 Compare ms. no. 196 of Noticos, 3 The commentary is calledoratur. second series, vol. i.. दुर्घटोद्घाट, and regarding it the ? Explained agPUTOTFA atua author says-गोपीचन्द्रमतं सम्य- राजादिभिरिति । अन्यदिश्य राज्ञा गबुधा दूषितं तु यत् । अन्यथा विवृतं. नाम्युत्थियते। अस्मै आसनमपि यद्वा तन्मया प्रकटीकृतम्। दिक्ते इत्याधिक्यमास्ति।

·[- $ 91 The Saupadma School 111 The Saapadma School 90. The Saupadma school of Padmarabhadatta. --The originator of this school is a Maithila Brahman named Padma. nābhadatta, the son of Damodaradatta and grandson of Śrīdatta. This Padmanābhadatta is to be distinguished from another writer of the same name, the son of Ganesvara and grandson of Slīpati, who wrote for the school a work called Prishodarādivritti, which was written, according to the author's own statement, in Saka 1297 (A. D. 1375). If this date be correct it follows that the other Padmanābhadatta, the founder of the Saupadma school, was either a contemporary or lived very shortly after Ujjvaladatta, whom he mentions as one of hisauthorities? in his lexicon called Bhūriprayoga. His being placed in the last quarter of the fourteenth century does not, at any rate, conflict with any other hitherto ascertained facts. 91. Special features of the Saupadma.—Regarding the work of Padmanābhadatta it is, as he himself states, based upon Pāṇini, some of whose sūtras and technical terms as also his pratyāhāras he has retained verbatim. He has, of course, remodelled a greater part of Pāṇini's rules and arranged them in a somewhat more methodical form, adding a short explanation of his own after each sūtra. His 1 A ms. of the work is no. 228 2 Compare-pareITATEATTE of Notices, second series, त्रिकाण्डशेषोज्वलदत्तवृत्तीः। vol. i. The data looks rather हारावलीमेदिनिकोषमन्यञ्चालोक्य लक्ष suspicious from the fact that लिखितं मयैतत् ॥ in the beginning of the same 3 Thus Papini's आदिरन्त्येन सहेता work the author has attempted is changed into आदिपिताम्स्पेन to trace his ancestry from समध्यः। Vararuchi, one of the nine 4 The work consists of five chapgems in the court of vikram ters dealing with i, in and aditya. Noodleas to say that सन्धि; ii.कारक and declension; the attempted geneology is a iii. भाख्यात ;iv.त् and उणादि failuro. suffixes; and v. arca.

·112 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $91-] treatment of Pāṇini-the fact of his having retained most of the Pāṇinīya terminology-has given the Saupadma an advantage over Bopadeva. Students of the Saupadma have not in their later studies to face the inconvenient necessity of unlearning their own technicalities in order to read the various commentaries and scholia (written to elucidate poems and works of science), most of which use Pāṇini's terminology. 92. Commentaries on the Saupadma.- Padmanābha, the founder of the school, has himself written & commentary on his grammar, called the Supadmapañjikā. Several later commentaries are mentioned by Colebrooke, such as those of Kandarpasiddhānta, Kāšīśvara, Śrīdhara-chakravarti, Rāmachandra, etc. The best of the lot is Vishņumiśra's Supadma-makaranda in twenty sections called drops or 'bindus.' 93. Treatises accessory to the Saupadma.-Of accessory treatises to the Saupadma there is also a great number. Works on the Uņādis, Dhātus, and Paribhāshās were written by the founder himself. At the conclusion of the last work, Paribhāshāvritti, the author has given an up-to-date account of his literary activity, which is of considerable value.' Regarding his work on the Uņādis (Uņādivritti) it follows a peculiar plan of arrangement. “The treatise is divided into two chapters, the first containing the suffixes that end in a vowel, and the second those in consonants. They are all arranged alphabetically. The sätras are Padm.anābha's own composition, and in his explanations he usually follows Ujjvaladatta." The paribhāshās of the Saupadma school are some of them word for word Pāņini's, while others are modelled on that basis. The Dhātupātha follows Pāṇini's division into भुवादि, अदादि etc, and has a com. on it called 1 See India Office Catalogue, Part ii, Ms. no. 890.

·[ - $ 96 Later Sectarian Schools 113 Dhātunirņaya. A Ganapātha to the Saupadma has been supplied by Kāšīśvara and a com. or it by Ramākānta. There are also minor works on FATH and 777F attaching to the school, and a supplement has also later been tacked on to it. 94. Present status of the Saupadma. -At present the influence of the school is limited to parts of central Bengal that is, to Jessore, Khulna and Bharatpur in the Twentyfour Paraganas. Later Sectarian Schools 95. Later Sectarian Schools.-We now come to a class of grammarians who have carried to extremes the tendency, already present, as we saw, in Bopadeva, to make grammar the vehicle of religion; and prominent amongst these are the Vaishnava grammars called Harināmāmrita. 96. Harināmāmţita – There are two works going by this name. The one by Rūpagosvāmin, the companion and disciple of Chaitanya (1484-1527) and the author of several other Vaishṇava works, is perhaps the older of the two. The peculiarity of this work is the employment of various names of Krishna and Rādhā, and of their acts, not simply by way of illustration but as actual technical terms. Thus the vowels of the pratyāhāra 377 are each designated by the different incarnations of Vishnu, the theory being-- साङ्केत्यं परिहास वा स्तो स्तोत्र (?) हेलनमेव। मैं वैकुण्ठनामग्रहणमशेषाघहर विदुः ॥ As is to be expected, beyond the introduction of this sectarian element no other improvement on the existing texts of grammar is here to be met with. The whole subject is presented to us in a dull uninteresting manner, 15 [Sk. G.)

·114 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 96 - 1 Jivagosvāmin's Hatinămámrita varies only slightly from "the above. A third Vaishnava grammar called Chaitanyámrita is likewise mentioned by Colebrooke.' Most of these grammars were intended to appeal to a very small community. There are consequently no commentaries or supplements handed down in connection with them. The few that exist do not call for any special mention. These grammars are at present in use among the Vaishnavas of Bengal. 97, Prabodhaprakása. --There are reported to have been in existence similar sectarian works of the Saiva or ſākta schools, of which the Prabodhaprakāśa is one It is uncertain and immaterical as to whether the Vaishnavas or the Śaivas are to be credited with the invention of this in. genious sectarian device. We may suppose that the beginning having been once made by Bopadeva, who was a हरिहराद्वैतवादी, little remained but to stretch the thing still further. The author of the Prabodhaprakāśa is Bālarāmapanchānana, probably a Brahman by caste, about whose time and place no information has come down to us. In his works he designated the vowels by Śiva, so that we read in his work of शिवसन्धिपाद, शक्त्यन्तपुल्लिङ्गपाद, शिवान्तस्रीलिङ्गपाद, etc. Here is one of his sūtras 3TYTT ATUA:, which is explained सृड्वर्जशम्भुवर्णानां स्थाने प्रथमवर्णः स्याद्रुद्रे परे। A Dhātuprakāśa is also attributed to this author. It is clear that works which carry things to such an extreme can claim the only merit of doggodly carrying an idea through. It may therefore be excused if no further attempt is made to sketch out the history of such schools, for the simple reason that they have no bistory. 1 Mincollaneou today*, vol. ii. p. 48.

·{- $ 98 Lesser Manuals and School-books 115 Lesser Manuals and School-books 98. Lesser Manuals and School-broks - The age of the really original grammarians was long over. It was succeeded by that of able commentators and critics which continued as long as there was the necessity of understanding and correctly interpreting great author. When even this became a difficult task, there was nothing to be done but the writing of small and smaller manuals adapted to the comprehension of the lay understanding. We have seen how, in most of the schools of grammarians worthy of the name, the declining age of each witnessed a host of such manuals and manuals of manuals. Even this, it would appear, was not enough. Out of the debris of these schools there grew up & spirit of eclecticism, and now we meet with grammatical handbooks which depend upon no system, and were written merely for a select circle of the uninitiated. These mushroom crops disappeared as fast as they were produced. They were not written for posterity. Before we close this essay we shall take up a few typical works of this class. I. Prabodhachandrika--A work not more than a hundred and fifty years old, being an elementary grammar treating in anushțubh stanzas of the leading topics of grammar, the illustrative examples being connected with the names of Rāma. The author is supposed to be Vijjala-bhāpati, the son of one Vikrama and Chandrāvati and belonging to the Chauhāņa race ruling at Patna. He wrote it for the benefit of his son Hirādhara. A commentary called Subodhini is written upon it by Gopālagiri doubtless a protege of the prince. 2, Bhoja-vyā karana by Vinayasundara-Written for the benefit of a king Bhoja, son of Bhāramalla. This ·116 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 98-99 ] work, like the above, is metrical in form, following the usual topical arrangement. 3. Bhavasimhaprakriyā by Bhatt a-rināyaka—This is another of what we may call 'royal' grammars. It was written for the edification of Bhāvasimha the eldest son of a local prince who is styled Hire (Lord of the Earth). 4. Dipavyā karana by Chidrūpāśrama--The author calls himself arah U16*. The work is independent of the symbolical and intricate terminology of the older schools, giving short rules in an easy form adapted to the capacities of juvenile students. 5. Kari kāvali by Narāyana surnamed Bhattācharyachakravarti--This elementary grammar was meant originally for the author's son, who in this case has made a grateful return by writing a commentary on the same. 6. Bālāvabodha by Narahari--This is the last of these little manuals--each typical of a host of others-- that we mention. The work is meant to remove the obstacles in the way of students learning the five mahā. kāvyas, arising from the circumstance of their not having learnt grammar before. The author assures us that with the help of his work दशभिर्दिवसैवैय्याकरणो भवति. In it words and their forms are taken up in the order in which they are required for the study of the Kavyas in the order in which they are usually studied. 99. Conclusion-We might mention a few more works of a similar kind, bringing the record down to quite recent times, but it would be hardly necessary. These works can by no device be grouped under one school. They merely represent a tendency and as such they do not fall within the province of our essay. Here then we might suppose our account of the different existing systems of Sanskrit grammar to have at last attained its natural termination.

·App. i.] Systems of Sanskrit Grammar II7 APPENDIXi. ( See note a on pag : 60 ) ॥ चान्द्रवर्णसूत्राणि ॥ ॐ विघ्रान्तकाय नमः । ॐ । स्थानकरणप्रयत्नेभ्यो वर्णा जायन्ते ॥ तत्र स्थानम् । कण्ठः अकुहविसर्जनीयानाम् । कण्ठतालुकम् इदेदेताम् । कण्ठोष्ठम् ३ उदोदीताम् । मूर्दा ऋटुरषाणाम् । दन्ताः तुलमानाम् । नासिका अनुस्वारस्य । स्वस्थानानुनासिकाः इन्त्रणनमाः । तालु इचुयशानाम् । ओष्ठो उपध्मानी- ययोः । दन्तोष्ठं वकारस्य । जिह्वामूलं जिह्वामूलीयस्य ॥ । ६ करणम् । जिह्वाग्रं दन्तानाम् । जिह्वामध्यं तालव्यानाम् । जिह्वोपायं शिर- स्यानाम् । शेषाः स्वस्थानकारणाः ॥ प्रयत्नो द्विविधः । आभ्यन्तरो बाद्यश्च ॥ तत्राभ्यन्तरः संवृतत्वं विवृतत्वं ९ स्पृष्टत्वं ईपत्स्पृष्टत्वं च ॥ संवृतत्वं अकारस्य । विवृतं ऊष्मणां स्वराणां च । तेभ्यो विवृतत्वं त्वैदौतोः [ त्वेदोतोः ] । ताभ्यामैदौतोः । ताभ्यामप्या- कारस्य ॥ स्पृष्टत्वं स्पर्शानाम् ॥ ईषत्स्पृष्टत्वं त्वन्तस्थानाम् ॥ बाह्यः । वर्गाणां १२ प्रथमद्वितीयाः शषसविसर्जनीयजिह्वामूलीयोपध्मानीयाश्च विवृतकण्ठा नादा- नुप्रदाना अघोषाः । प्रथमद्वितीयपश्चमा अन्तस्थाश्याल्पप्राणाः । इतरे सर्वे महाप्राणाः । तृतीयचतुर्थपञ्चमाः सानुस्वारान्तस्थहकाराः संवृतकण्ठनादानु- १५ प्रदाना घोषवन्तः । द्वितीयचतुर्थाः शषसहाश्योष्माणः । कादयो मावसानाः स्पर्शाः । अन्तस्था यरलवाः । इत्येष बाह्यः प्रयत्नः ॥ । अत्र चावर्णो हस्वो दीर्घः प्लुत इति त्रिधा भिन्नः प्रत्येकमुदात्तानुदात्त- १८ स्वरितभेदेन सानुनासिकनिरनुनासिकभेदेन चाष्टादशधा भवति । एवमिवों- वर्णों ऋवर्णश्च । लवर्णस्य दीर्घा न सन्ति । तेन द्वादशधा भवति ॥ एक- मात्रिको हस्वः । द्विमात्रिको दीर्घः । त्रिमात्रिकः प्लतः ॥ उच्चैरुदात्तः । नीचे- २१ रनुदात्तः । समाहारः स्वरितः॥स्वस्थानानुनासिको निरनुनासिकश्य ॥ अन्तस्था द्विप्रभेदा रेफवर्जिताः सानुनासिका निरनुनासिकाश्चेति ॥ ॥ इति चान्द्रवर्णसूत्राणि समाप्तानि ॥

·118
Systems of Sanskrit Grammar [ App. ii.-
-
APPENDIX il.
(See note a on page 48)
॥ अथ जोगराजविरचित्ता पापमकरणसङ्गतिः ।
ॐनमः शिवाय। ॐ
।
आराध्य षण्मुखमवाप्तवरप्रसादः
कारुण्यपूर्णहृदयः किल शर्ववर्मा ।
लोकस्य मोहतिमिराहतये व्यधत्त
सक्षेपतः प्रकरणत्रितयात्मशास्त्रम् ॥ १ ॥
तत्रादितो व्यधित वर्णपदेषु सन्धि
तत्रानुनासिकपदं बहुकारकादि ।
आख्यातिकं तदनु साध्यपदं क्रियाख्य-
मेतावतैव हि समन्वयमात्रलाभः ॥ २ ॥
संज्ञाश्च परिभाषाश्च प्रथमे पाद आदिशेत् ।
द्वितीये स्वरसन्धिं च तृतीये तनिषेधनम् ॥ ३ ॥
वैयञ्जनं चतुर्थे च सन्धिं वैसर्गिकं परे ।
षष्ठे प्रथमवच्चैवं सन्धिप्रकरणं जगौ ॥ ॥
-
नाम्न आये स्वरान्तस्य लिङ्गस्य स्यादिनिर्णयः ।
स्वरान्तव्यञ्जनान्तस्य द्वितीये युष्मदस्मदोः ॥ ५ ॥
तृतीयेपि त्यदादीनामित्थं नामपदस्थितिः ।
चतुर्थे कारकस्येइ विनियोगोथ पञ्चमे ॥ ६ ॥
समासवृसिसिद्धस्य तद्धितेष्वपि वर्तनम् ।
षष्ठेथ सप्तमे प्रोक्तलिङ्गमत् खीप्रत्ययात् खियाम् ॥ ७ ॥
इदं नामपदं सिद्धं सक्षेपात समुपादिशत् ।
तदन्तन्तमतो वित्तं वाङ्मयस्योपबृंहणम् ॥ ८ ॥
आख्यातेष्वादितः कालपुरुषार्थ नियोजनाः ।
न्यात्युद्देशे( १ )द्वितीयेपि सनादिप्रत्ययान्तता ॥ ९ ॥
ततो विकरणा आत्मनेपरस्मैविनिर्णयः ।
तृतीयेभ्यासकार्याणि चतुर्थे सम्मसारणम् ॥ १०॥

·- App. il. ] Systems of Sanskrit Grammar आदेशागमलोपादि पञ्चमे तु गुणागुणाः। तन्त्रं वाणपदं षष्ठं सप्तमे सेडनिटकता ॥ ११ ॥ सङ्करोष्टम इत्येवं आख्यातिकपदक्रमः । सश्चिन्तनीयो धात्वर्थकालभेदाद्विचक्षणः ॥ १२ ॥ यथोसौत्र( ? )जयत्येको यः परोपरुतौ रतः । योपि धन्यो धनं धत्ते सोत्यन्तं सुखमनुते ॥ १३ ॥ कृतस्तव्यादयः सोपपदानुपपदाश्य ये । लिनप्रतिसिद्ध्यर्थं तात्रु जगौ शाकटायनः ॥ १४ ॥ तत्रायपादे रुत्तन्वं पञ्चपाया रुता( ? )विधिः । सोपि साधनकालादि विमागेनेति निर्णयः ॥ १५ ॥ स्याद्यन्तत्वात् सुमिद्धत्वान्न तान सूत्ररुदयवीत् । दिशन्नदीदृशद्वाहिवन्सिनिष्टादुदीरणम् (१ ) ॥ १६ ॥ धातोः परे रुतो वुण्तृजादयस्ते च कर्तरि । आदौ तन्यादयस्तेषां कत्यास्ते भावकर्मणोः ॥ १७ ॥ अण्णादयः सोपपदास्ते च कालत्रये मताः । भूते कन्स्वादयो वर्तमाने शन्तृङ्कनादयः ॥ १८ ॥ उणादयः स्युबहुलं ये ते शास्त्रान्तरे स्थिताः । भविष्यतिस्यत्स्यमानक्रियार्थोपपदा मताः ॥ १९ ॥ घबलकारयुक्ताया भावे पुंखीनपुंसके। संज्ञायां प्रासवासादा( ? )वकर्तरि च कारके ॥ २० ॥ करणे चाधिकरणे घ्वादिरन्यत्र चेष्यते । ज्ञेयो धात्वर्थसम्बन्धे काणंखन्तु( ? )विशेषणात् ॥ २१ ॥ कर्तान्यार्थोपदेशोपि ज्ञातापूज्यो मतः सताम् । प्रकीर्णतन्त्रमित्येवं पादप्रकरणस्थितिः ॥ २२ ॥ यद्यप्यन्यानि कार्याणि पादेष्वेषु समासते । तथापीयन्ति बाहुल्याभिप्रायेणोदितानि हि ॥ २३ ॥ एवं शाखमिदं सूत्रमात्रेण पठितं सदा । तदेति कापि सौभाग्यलक्ष्मीः किं नेति शृण्वताम् ॥ २४ ॥ ॥

·120 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar [ App. ii. नाम्नः पादः कारकस्य स्वरूपं द्विराख्यातस्थितैश्य क्रियायाः । कान्तैश्यालोच्याभिधानं क्रमेण श्लोकायावेदने दत्तकर्णम् ॥ २५ ॥ श्रुत्वा साहित्यानि सूक्ष्माण्यथादौ ज्ञात्वा काव्याकूतवृत्तार्थशब्दान् । स्वप्रागल्भ्याच्चेतिहासादि बुध्वा काव्याभ्यासे तिष्ठताच्छब्दयत्नः ॥ २६ ॥ वाग्देवी सा सर्वतो भ्राजमाना पात्रापात्रावेक्षणेन प्रसादान् । कुर्वत्यन्तः कस्यचित् स्वाध्ययस्य(!) स्फीतिं सूतेथेतरस्याप्यशक्तिम् ॥ २७ ॥ * ... ..... पादप्रकरणस्थितिम् । पठतां शाखमाभाति करस्थं शार्ववर्मणाम् ॥ ४९ ॥ द्विजराजजोगराजोरचयद्देदीपनाय शिष्याणाम् । पादपकरणसङ्गतिमेतां कातन्त्रसूत्राणाम् ॥ ५० ॥ ॥ इति जोगराजविरचिता पादप्रकरणसङ्गतिः समाप्ता ॥ * At this place a few unimportant stanzas are omitted.

·GENERAL INDEX N. B. Refererces ars to page and line, or to page and footnoto (11), unless where preceded by $ which indicates gection. The arrangement is according to the English alphabet, the diacritical marks being ignored. A Abhayachandra's recast of (Śāka- Iñyana-) I'ri kriyāsangraha 72.1%; ite niture 72.17ff; the date of the anthor 72.14ff. Abhayanandin's version of the Juin encira 05:14; later than that of Somadeva 65.23 ; his date 07-2 ; liis version followed by the Punchavastu 07.15. Abbinanyu of Kaśmir rentcre's the corrupt text of the Maliābhīshya 33.27. A bhinava-Sakuttyana, se Sakutuyulu (Jaina). Ablirūmavidyalankara's vritti on the Käraku-pada oí Gyichandra's Commentary 110:11. Accessory treatisc's to Pärini's grammar $ 10; their later history $ 35;;-to Cliūndra gramuar $45; --to Sūkatīyana grammar $74;-- to Ileniachandru's grammar 859; --to the kūtantra $ 70 ;--to the Sīl'aevata $ 79,--to Muguhabodha $ 85 ;--to the Sunpadma $ 93. Adhikūra-sūtras, how indicated by Pūnini 24.n2. Adbyūtma-Rāmāyaṇa, com. on, liy Nāgesa 47.21 ; 49.6. Advayasuraavati 97.18. A garīvara 79 21. Agnikumāra, elder brother of Ilarudatta 39.12. Agnisarma, alias of Iſvarakrishna 64.n4. Agrayama mentioned in Nirnkta 8.n1. Agrāyana mentioned in Nirukta 8.01. Aindra school, supplanted by Phņini 10-15 ; amongst its followers Katyayana (Varurucbi), Vyhdi and Indradatta 10.16; iis ac. cont by Hiuen Thang and Tūrā. 16 [Sk. Gr.] natha 10:17 ; agreeing with Katantra aud perha,» id niical with it 10-20, 12:1, 84.14 ; revealed by Kartikeya 10-22; analogies in the l'ratistikhyas 11.12; its termin logy in the Tolakappiyam 11:33; Burnell's conclusion about il 11.971 ; post-lāniofya in date and fire-Pūriniya in substance 11:32. Aindrn School of grammarians, by Dr. Burnell :3.nl ; 5:12; 11.n1. Aitibilnikio mentioned in the Nirukta 8.n1. Ajuyapāla successor of Kumāra. pūlu 75.11. Ajitasenācharya author of Maniprakāśikā, com. on th: Chinta- Irani 72.1. Ājurika 67-5. Akalañkadeva 63.04. Alaudin, Sultan 99.16. Alherūni 91.16. Ali xander 15:35 ; 16:34 ; Pīīņini lived before his in vision 17.2 ; razed Sangala to ground 17.15; 18.8. Alpakliūna or Sultan Alaudin 99.nl. Alpasahi or Alain, patron and nas. ter of Manduna 98.29ff ; probubly a local chieftain from Malva 99.12 ; not the same as Sultan Alaudin 99.n1. Amalasarayvati teacher of Amritabbārati 97.12. Amaru quoted by name in Bopadeva's Mugdhabodha 10n3. Amarachandra's Syādisamuchchaya 80.8ff. Amarakosha, com, on., 111.112 ; ly Kshtrasvāmin 52.7. Amoghavarsla ! ( Rashtrakūta ), patron of Jaida ) Säkațdyana 69.14, 69.n2. Amoghavritti 64:14 ; written by ·122 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar on com. on it on it $akațāyana himself 69.13; its Art of writing, when introrluced dute 69.16, 69.n2, 72.nl ; Nya:a 4.26 ; presupposed by primitive by Prabhachandracharya Pratisūkliyas 4:30. 72-2 ; Yukghavarma: 's Ciri Ārya-śrutukirti anther (?) of the maņi based upon it 72:4; refers Pichavasti: 67.21ff. to various Svetaobara works Āryavnjra quoted by (Jaina) Śūka 73.nl ;. drawn upon freely by tūyaua 70-n5. Hemachandra 76.13, 76.nl ; Asužjūaka a nickname for Chandra 76.n2. grammar 60.4. Ainritabhārati's com Subodhikā, Ashtīdhyāyi of Pāṇini 7.2 ; 9.7; on Sarasvati prakriyū inentions 9.9:12.112 ; 12:17; oldest surviv. Narendra as the author uf Sīras ing work in sūtiä style 13.2 ; vata 95.2018, 97.11 ; quott's Vi 18.26 ; why 80 called 19.20; malasarasvati 44.nl; por.onalde programme of, pp. 20-21, and tails about lim 97.12f1 ; his late 22.nl ; arrangement of Būtras 97.22. within it, 24.21ff, 24.n3 ; trea- Amțitasrit by Värinavanosa, a lises accessory to it $16; someon the Prakriyakamuuli times its teaching contrary 46.ni. to that of the Unadinūtras Imțitatarangiųī sec Kaliratoriſ 26-24, 26.1:2; 27:17 ; 29.20 ; IPgint. Cast: of $29, 57.2 ; com. Anahillapattak: 74.18. by Bhattcji 47.12 : coin Anandapāla of Kasmír 91.15 ; his by Arinumbhatta 50:24 ; 56.10 ; dato 91.18. inenious Śūkatīyana 68.26 ; Ancient Indian Literature, History 109.101 ; see algo Panini. of, by Max Miillir, 4.nl ; 4:n3; Ariatic Society of Bengal, Journal 9.nl ; 12.nl ; 14.nl. of, 33.n1. Andhra 82. n3 ; 101.8. Assyrians not mknown to Indiana Annamblıatta's Mitūkshara on the before Alexander's invasion Ashtadhyayi 50-24. 15-32; inentioned its mercenary Anubaudhas of Piīņini 23.20 ; the fighiera by l'anini 17.23; Motted system already kucwn before out as a political power in 538 Pāņini 23.n1 ; -vf tho i hūtu ī- B.C., 17.27 : 18.9. tha Hame as those of the Ashtii Asuras, 8er Assyrians. dhyāy 25.18 ; - f Unādisūtras Audumbarīyaņu mentioned in the ar Panini's 20:10;-of Nirukta 8.01. Vajasaneyi Pratisīkliyi suine is Auf echt 42.n2; 45.n3 ; his edition those of Pūnini 29.n2. of Uņādivritti 54:11 ; 68.nl ; Anubhūlisvarūpī charya's Sīrunva 108:1; 109.3. tuprakriya 92.01, 976; the tradi- Aupamanya va mentioned in the tional founder of Sarasvata Nirukta 8.n1. 95.3 ; his vārtikas 95.9 ; his Aurņavābha mentioned in the date 96.15f ; interpolations in Nirukta 8.pl. his com. 102.25, 102.nl. Antthaganika title of Goytchandra A parūjita preceptor of Haradat'a 110.6, 110.02. 39.13. Auvata 42.9ff. Apisali, founder of a gramination! Avachūri or A vachūrnika op Hemuschool, and quoted by Panini chandra's Brihadvritti 78.9. 9.23, 12n2 ; his rule quoted by | Avagyaka-sūtra 73.n1. the Küsikū 9.24, 9.n3, 10.11; 37.8; Kaiyyate quotes from B his grammar 10-4, 10-02 ; quoted by name in Bopadeva's Mug Bahadur Shah 78.27. dhabodba 10.7, 10.03. Baiji 35.nl ; 41.19. Aranyaka, TaittirIga, 4.n2. Balabodhini by Bhatta Jagaddhara Arctic Home in the Vodae, 3.n2. 91.12, with Ugrabhati's Nyi su sanne ·General Index 123 9 personi.) on the same 91.14. Būlamanorumī an abricignient of the Praudhamanorama paraps by the game anthor 47.9. Balaibhatti, a com. on the Vyuvahīrakānda of the Mitīkshara, by Vaidyanatha, ascribed to his patron ss 50.10. Balarmapanchāvana's f'ravodi a prakasa 114.1918 ; his Dhittpr.. kus! 114.26. Bala Süstri, editor of the Kasik 36.03. Jalīvabodha, Chandra reconst hy Kaśya pa 62.20 ; elp:-168168 all other Chūnira treatises in Clon 62.23. Būlīvabodha liy Narulari 116.161. Bīna 53.23. Bendall, Catalogue of Naal mss. 45.n2. Bhagavata-prīna 105.01, 105.12 ; not the work of Bopadeva 105.03. Dhiravamisra's com. Onila l'ani- Ulūaher dusekhara 55.9. Bhandarkar k. G., Repart for 1883- 84, 36.12 ; Report for 1882-83, 97.nl ; on Pīņi:i's date 14.7; on l'atañjuli's late 32.12 ; Enily History of th: Deccan 105.12. Bhandarkar S R.99 ni. Bhãou-dikeviia alias iisti sivan alias Rāintýrama, eon of Bhattuji 46.25. Bharadvāja mentioned by Panini 12.02. Bliū advājīya mentioned by Patanjali 31.n10. Bharumalla, father of Bhoja 115.33. Bharata, commentator of the Bluttikāvya 110.2. Bhartrihari's account of the vicissitudes in the text of the Mahabhasliyn 13.26, 13.14; 27.15; author of Vakyapadiyu $27, 55.23 ; Itsing's date for him 40.17; also author of a com, Dipikā, on the Mababliūslıya 41.3, 42.n2, 109.8; quoted by Vitthalúcharya -15.20 his preceptor Vasurāta 59.1. Bhāea's Svapaa-Vasavadatta 13.28. Blāshyakīra, see Patañjali. Bbrīvasimha 116.5. Bhlivagiroba-Prakriyt by Bhatta vināyaka 116.3. Bhatta Gopala 100.16ff. Bhatta-vin Tyaka's Bhavasimhal'rakriya 116.3. D.I...Ițikūvya quoted by Haradatta 39.73 ; 77.16 ; 109.9 ; com. onhy Bhurata 110.2. Bhattoji Dikshita 9.n2; distinguisher: belween the two authors of the Kasikal 36.4, 36.01 ; acknowledges indeltedness to the Rūpan.ili 45.111 : bis model for Sixthāuta-kummudr the Prakriskaumudi of Ramachandra 41.10; his Siddhūnta-kaumudr and other wor?8 31 ; authors quoted tiy him 40.12 ; his presumed indebtedness to leniachardra's Sabulīnusāsana 46.21 ; disciple of Seslakrishna 46.3; rietails about hiin 46.231T ; his date 47.3ff ; works of "hattoji l’ikshita 47.9ff, 53.3, 53.16, 54.17 ; gencological table for Bhattoji's family 48.01 ; bis part in modern revival of Panini 92.17; 103.5 ; testifies to the domination of Bopadieva 107.7ff. Blavaprakasika, Vaidyanatha's com, on the Sabılaratna 50.15. Bhavishyottara-Purīna 39.19; 40.3. Bhabhiatta's com, on the Paribhishenius kları 55.10. Bhiwagena 42.8; mentioned as a wiiter on ivots by Sīyana 53.2. Bhishmaparvan, Mahabarata, 16.8. Bhe ja quoted liy Kshirusvīmin 52.3; quoted by Ilemachandra 76.02. Lhuja II Ś: lūlīra ) 67.4. Bhoja, son of Bhajamalla 115.33. Phoja vyatkarana by Vinayasundarat 115.32ff. Bholanātha quoting from Durgadāsa 107.32. Dhūriprayoga of Padmanabbadatta quotes Ujjvaladatta 111.13f, 111.12. Bliūtibali qucted by Pujya pada 66n.2. Bombus Branch of the R. A.S., jurnal of, 35.12. Popedeva quotes by name various grammerians 10.7, 10.03, 92.5 ; rinoted hy Vitthalāchārya 45.21; mentions Devanadius author of Juinendiagrammar 63.22; quotes Vardbamāna 88.23 ; quotes Trilo- ·184 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar chanadiga 89.2 ; nowhere refers to Sarasvata 92.1, 93.26 ; 97.32 ; his date 91.27 ; $82 ; personal details about him 105.30ff ; his works 105.10ff, 105.13; the religious element in his grammar 106.11ff, 113.13, 114.16, 106.01 ; his extreme divergence from Pāṇini's technical terminology 106.26ff ; his opinions refuted by Bhattoji 107.12; his present linnito influence 107.18 ; 109.4 ; 109.18 ; 112.3. Brühmaņas, grammatical speculutions in, $3 ; their language very different from that of the Sainhitas 3.8, 3.nl ; their i ain interest sacerdotal, and grammar only of secondary interest 3 24 ; 6.nl ; 12.6 ; 56.2. Brahinasāgaramuni 97.19. Brihad-gachchha of Nagpur 98.10 ; founded by Devasūri 98.12. Brihat-Kharatara-gache ha 99.15. Bribadvritti, ser Šahdinušāsanabrihadyritti. Bibler, on introduction of art of writing 4.n3; revards Jaya litya a Kāýmfrian 36.22, 30.n4 ; 58.6 ; his pamphlet on lomachandra 73 12ff ; 77.6 ; 82.n2 ; 85.13 ; 91.8 ; 91.n2. Burnell, Essay on Aindra School of grammarians, 3.11; 10.25; 11.11; 11.8 ; 12.9 ; 82.12. 41.7 ; Chandragomin 20.8; his date 35.19 ; quoted by name in Bopadova's Mugdhatodha 10.n3; mentioned by Vāmanācharya 53:30, 53.n2 ; quoted in Ganaratna- 11:ahodadhi 18.nl; Chandragomin and his work $22, also 8842 and following ; was a Bauddha 35.4, 59.5 ; and wrote primarily for his own Church 35.6 ; his 11- orthodox inpovations 35.6 ; the Klīšikā largely indetbed to him 37.181f ; iliustrations 38.nl ; his grammar edited by Liebich 38.nl ; earliest reference to him und his predecessors 41:19ff ; inentioned by Kslirasvāmin as author of some work on roots 52-14, 52'n2 ; his Dhätipatha incorporated with the Katiutra 52:18;57.n?; his duto 943, 58ºn2, 64.13 ; bis own vritti on the Chūndta sūtras 58.22, 61:9; exists now in fragments 61.10 ; incorporated by Dharmadīsil 61:12 ; naturo vf liis work 944; improves !1pon Pāṇintya grainmar 59.9ff ; his Dhitapitlu 59.14 ; his really original contribution 59.19; big object 59.27.11 ; his terminology inostly Pūņinfya 60.1 ; his grammar nicku:00d Asanjñaka 60.4, 60.nl ; other uccessory works by lim 60.982 ; no Clāndra paribhasbiy 61.2 , non-grainmatical works vf, 61.411 ; 69.19; 70.2ff, 70-12 ; 70.03 ; 70.114 ; 71.2 ; quoted by Fernachandra 76.n2 ; his graminar said to agree with that of Pāņini 10.19. Chandrakiri author of Subodhikā or Dipikā on Sarasvata-prakriyīt 98.7ff: personal detnils about him 98.10f ; his date 98.17ff; patronised by Sali Salern, the emperos of Dellii 98.17, 98.n1 : 103.11. Chandrasekhar-vidyalankīra, luis commentary on Goyichandra's vritti 110.19. Cbündra sūtras, vritti on, probably by Chandragomin himself 58.23; mentions & Gupta victory over Hūņas 58• 24 ; Dlarmadasa's comon, 61.12 ; other works dow only in Tibetan translations 61.25 ; or in Ceylon 61.22; their list 61.nl; с Cainbay 53.28 ; 74.9. Ceylon, Chindra treatises in, 01.22; 62.15. Chachige father of Ilemachandra 73.25. Chaitanya 113.18. Chaitanyimrita, a Vaishnava grammar 114.3, Chakravarmaņa mentioned hy Pilņini 12•n2. Chakravarti, Professor Srish Chandrs, 39.nl. Chalukya 72.25. Chandisvara teacher of Vasudeva. bhatta 98.24. Chandra, see Chandragomin. Chandradasa 59.6. Chandra-gachchha 78.33.

·General Index 125 on Ceylopese recast supersedes then in Ceylon 62.23. Chandrăvatt mother of Vijjalabliūpati 115.27. Chañgadeva, Hemachandra's first Dame 73.25. Charañas, rules for, framned 4.10. Charmasiras inentioned in the Nir. okta 8.nl. Chauhāna 115.28. Chhāyā, Vaidyanatha's com. the Malabbishyapradipod dyota 50.14. Chheda-sūtra 73.01. Chhicbhubhatta's Laghuvritti 91.19. Chidasthimala, Vaidyanatha's con. on Nāgojibhatta's Sabdenduse. khara 50.16. Chidrūpāsrama's Dipa vyūkarana 116.7. Chintamani, com. on Sakaļīyana- Sabdānušāsana by Yakshavarman 72.3 ; sub-coinmentaries on it 72.6ff. Chintīmeni, 8ce Mahābhashya-chintimuội. Chintīmaņipratipada, Mañgarasa's con. on the Chintamani 72.7. Choda 16.30. Climatic conditions, causes of dialectical peculiarities, ard influ- Encing study of grammar 3.1. Colebrooke 68.01 ; 109.4 ; 110.23 ; 112.12 ; 114.3. Cunningliam identifies Panini's native place with Labaur 19.2. Devanandi author of Jainendra grammar 63.14ff ; his new techni. cal terms 66.5, 66.nl, does not acknowledge obligations 66.10; Dames quoted by bina 66.12, 66.n2 ; 67.16 quoted by Hemachandra 76.n2. Derarīja mentions Kebirasvāmin's Nighantuvritti 52.11. Dovasundarasūri teacher of Guņu ratnasari 80.15. Devesūri founder of the Brihad. gaelichha of Nagpur 98.10ff. Devendratūri author of Haimu. laghanyisa and pupil of Udayachandra 78.33ff, 79.nl. Devidūsa quoted by Durgad on 107.30. Dhanachandra 78.14. Dhananjaya-kosa 63.21. Dhanesvara or Dhanesa teacher of Bopadeva 99.n2 ; 104.30, 105.ul. Dhanesvara, Bhutta, criticises Kshe.. mendra 98.2f, 99.21 ; his dato 99.21ff; not same as teacher of Bopadeva 99.n2 ; his works 100.1ff. Dharnia rūsa's coin. incorporates the Cliūndravritti 61.12. Dhirina sūtras of some kind known to Pāņini 14.n2. Dhatupatha, the Paniniya 25.14, 25.n2 ; its anubandhag same as those of Pāņini 25.18, 25.03 ; com. by Bhattoji 47.10; com. by Kshirasvūmin in his Dhūtuvritti 52.6ff ; other writers on Pāņinſya Dhatupatha : viz. Chandra 52.15, 52.n2; Madhava or Sāyaṇa 52.28; Bhímasena 53.2; Maitreyarakshita 53.2; and Nāgesa 53.3; the Chandra --was incorporated by Durgasimha with the Katantra 52.19, 59.14, 60.10, 60.19; 88.3ff, 90.1ff ; Jumaranandi revises Paņinſya-and adoptes it for his own school 110.3f ; of Salpadına 112.19 ;-of Sakatryana 71.15 ;-of Hemachandra 77.21 ; the genuine-of Katantra school in Tibetan translation only 90.4 ;--for the Sarasvata, by HarshakIrti 98.14, with a com. on it called Tarangini 103.9 ; the Saupadma--modelled after Prņini's 112.32 ; com, Dbatunirnaya on it 113.1. Dūkshi, nanie of Panini's mother 19.8, 19.nl. Damodaradatta father of Padmanabhadatta 111.4. Darins 16.1. Darsanaśāstra, Digambara, 65.3. Dayāpāla's abridgment. Rūpasiddhi, of śakatāyana Subdūnusi- Bana 72.23 ; personal details about him 72.23ff ; his date 72.26. Deioces ( Divankas) first king of the Śakas or Skytbiars, cir. 700 B. C. 18.1. Devachandra prophesies Heinachandru's future greatness 74.4 ; receivea hiin into order 74.11. Devagiri 104.32, 105.3.

·126 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar on, Dhātuprakada by Balarıma-pan. chānuna 114.26. Dhātuvritti by Kshirasvāınin 52.6ff; its pature and contents 52.20ff ; by Madhata or Sayana 52.28. Dhundhika on Hemachandra's Brihadvritti 78.10; its pature 72.28ff ; its dispnted anthorship 78.10ff;its pr..bable varying versions 78.20 ; --On the last chapter of the Brihudvritti 78.24ff ; 89.20. Phundhikit on Durgasimha's vritti 89.19f. Dhunduka, Qative place of lomachandra 73.23. Dhvani pradipa 97.9. Dialectical peculiarities causes of alsifting climatic conditions, und promoting study of grammar 2.29. Drkahita school 48.nl ; grammatical works outside it $33. DIPA-vyakarana by Chidrūpārima 116.7. Dipika on Heinachandra's Brihadvritti 78.9. Dipikā or Subodhikī by Chandrakirti, with an important praśusti at the end 98.7ff. Dowson 99.1. Dravidlasangha 65.5. Durga different from Durgasimha 88.12 ; 89.16 ; see Durgatma also. Durgūchārya uuthor of com. on Nirukta 88.14. Durgādāsa author of a Kavikalpadruma 107.28f; authors quoted by him 107.30ff. Durgapadaprabodha hy Śrívallabha Vāchanīchūrya on Himachandra’s Lingznius 4s811a 802f. Durgnsimli mentions Katyāyana as the author of the Uņādisūtras 274, 27.12 ; quoted by Vitthalacharya 45 ; incorporatrs Chandra Dhatupatha with the Katantra 52-19, 88.3ff, 90.1ff ; takes over most of the Pāṇiniya pari bhīshīs 55.12 ; quoted by Heinachandra 76.02, 88.3 ; says that the Krit. prakarana of the Katantru is by Katyayana 84.17ff, Durgasimha and his vritti $68 ; his vīrtikas to the Kātantra 87.nl ; his date 83.16, 88.6 ; not the first commentator of Katantra 83.178f; his date 83.16; his satrapatha differs from tbe one current in Kāśmīr 83.21f, 87.27, 9.14; 85.5ff ; author of an Uņādipatha 85 n2, 90.1 ; a Śaiva 88•ni, and distinct from his namesake, a Bauddha 88.2, who wrote a com. on his vșitti 88.10, and from other later namesakes of his 88.11ff ; known in Kasmir inuch late 91.6. Durgasimla, Bauddhu, author of a com. on Durgasimha's vritti 88.8. Durgasiniba-vritti, com. by Raglıunandunnsiromaņi 84.26; by another Durgusimha 88.10; other cuinn. on it $69; a coin. (anonymous) on it 99.nl. Durgatma (or Durga ) perhaps a l'Ir-śniva 88.n3, and author of a Lingänustanin 88-15,88 13,85.n2 vlistinct froin Durgasimba 88-12; 89.16; 89.29. Durgātma author of (Katantra ) Liñgannstgan 85-n2; different from Durgasiinba above 85.n2. Dvīrakādā-it alius Dvārika father of Tarkatilaka-bhattachuyu 102.22. Dvīriku, ser Dvärıkādasa Dvyasrayamabākīvye of Hemachandra G6.20; 77.17. E Eurly History of India by Vincent Sinith 17.5; 17.16, 82.n3. Early History of the Deccan by Dr. R. G, Bhan larkar 105•n2. Exstern school mentioned by Paņini 10-12; 12.12; 18.33. Eggeling's edition of the Katintra 85.22; 87.nl. Elliot 99.ni. Epigraphica Indica 69.n2. F Family-books of Vedan, compilers uf, G.nl. a Gada by Vnidyanatha, a Paribhashendusekhara 50.13. Gadadh ra son of Trilochanadaja 89.6. Gaisuddin Khilji of Malva 93.7 ; 97-3. com). on coin. on ·General Index 127 Galava mentioned in the Nirukta 8.nl; by Papini 19.n. Ganapatha of lāņini 23.24ff; 25.20 ; $37; com, upon by Kshirasvānnin 53.10; Chandra--60-12: cbodied in the sutravritti of Chandragomin 60-24; Pāņiniya emdodied in the Kasika 60.24; ----of Sakatayanu 71:14; - of Hemachandra 77.26 ;- of the Saupadma 113.1. Górnaratnamahodadhi quoting Salaturtya or Panini, Sukatāyanu, Chandragomin, etc. 18.nl; 42.n2; 41.5, 41.nl ; 52:16 ; with the author's own com. 53.13ff: 88.7:4. Garavritti by Kshiras rāmin mentioned by Vardhımāna 12 11. Guisvara father of Padmanabhadatta 111.6. Gurgy mentioned by Pāṇini 12.112; mentioned in the Nirukta 8.nl. Gitagovinda, com. on, hy Nagcse. 49.7. Goldstiicker : Pāņini, Elis pluce in Sanskrit literature, on Primitive Prūtiśākhyas 5.nl ; 23.7 ; Pāṇini's paribhushis 25.nl ; his views as to the authorship of the Unadisātris 26.25 , 26.113 ; 01 Vījunaneyi Prūtiśīklıy: 29.112. 32.n1;88.n4; on Panini's date14.7, 14.nl, 14.112; 19:13; his reasons for assuming considerable interval between Panini and Kätyāyana 28.n1; 54.nl. Gonnațasāra, a philosophical work in Prākrit 72.15. Gonardiya mentioned in the Mahā bhashya 32-29, 32 n2; quoted by Vītsyāyana in the Kāmasūtra 33.n3, 33-5. Goņikūputra mentioned in the Muhabbuslya 32.29, 32.1.2; quoted by Vatsyāyana in the Kūmasūtra 33.5, 33.03. Gopaluchakravarti's com. Jaumara 110.23. Gopalagiri's subodhinf on Vijja labhū pati's Prabodha-prakāda 115.30. Gopinatha Tarkacharya writes subcom, to SrTpati's supplcinent to Katantra 90-16; 90.20. Gosvami, surname of Bopadeva 105.8. Gorrdhana's vritti on Uạndis, quoted by Ujjvaladatta 54.14. Govaruha na blatta, granufusher of Jayakrishna 51.12. Goytcb:idru's com. on the Sunkshiplatūra 110.6ff;his other works 110-14f; sub-commchistes on his com, 110.164. Grammar, its study in India 1.3; existing school of - in Indiů 1.10; not treated a science in Vedic times 2:11; its study influenced by contact of different forms of spiccol, hy growth of diulects, or by a change of climatic conditions 2.21 ff; Greek--, influenced by Roman conquest 2.02; is study as science post-Breh. manic 3.29; 4:6; its really creative period 5.17; philosophy of-, treatises on, 55.16ff. Grammars, Vaishnava, 113.15. Grummatical speculations in India : their extent and value $1 ; early -882-4;- in the Vedas $2, in the Brahmaņas $3, and in allied works $4;- in the Taittirlyanambitā 2.1. Greeks, lonian, not always to be identified with Yavanas 15.21; their appearance in history long beforo 1000 B. C. 15.30. Grihya-sūtras of some kind known to Pūnini 14.n2. Guņakara 64.02. Gunanandi 64.02. Gunaratpasūri's Kriyaratnasainrichchaya 80.128f; his date 80.16, 80.n3; important prasasti at the end of his work 80.16ff. Gupta victory over Hüņas 58-24; Early-kings 64.24. On H OR the Haima-Dhatupātha 77.21. Haiina Kaumudy by Meghavijaya mentions Bhattoji's indebtedness to Hemacbandra 46-21; otherwise called Chandraprabha 79.17 ; its date 79 17. Huima-laghunyasa on Hemaahandra's Brihadvritti 79 176 abridg- ·Systems of Sanskrit Grammar sana ment of a larger Nyāsa 79.2ff. Huima-laghuprakriya by Vinayavijayagaội 79 12; com., Haimaprakada, on-79.14. Haimaprakasa com. on Haimalaghuprakriye 79.14, its date 79.15, 79.nž. Haina school absorbs Pūņiniya Uņ. ādisūtras 54:8; 77.23; see also Heinachandra. Hanga vijayagani's Śabdartlısclundrikā 100.27 ; his date 100 30. Haradatta author of Padamanjarī $26 ; personal detuils 39.10ff;' his originul name Sudarśana 40.nl ; his date 40 11; quoted by Vitthelacharya 45 20. llaraprasadu Shastri 588; 82'n 2. Haravali 111'n2. Hari, see Bhartrihari. llari bhadra, see Haribhatta. Haribhatta or Haribhadra father of Kshemendra 97.29. Hari-dikshita teacher of Nūgesa 47.19, 48.nl. Haridravaka mentioned in the Nirukta 8.n1. Hurililāmrita by Bopadeva 105-12, 105 nl. Harināmāmrita $ 96 ; two such grammars 113.16ff ; their technical terms 113.23ff. Harirama, a Bengal Katantra writer, quoted by Kavirāja 90-14. Ilurirāma's com. on GoyTchandra's vritti 110.20. Harivamsa (Jain ) 63.21. Harshakirti pupil of Chandrakirti 98:13; wrote a Dhātupātha for the Sarasvuta with an important pragasti at the end 98.15, and a com. on it called Tarangiņi 103.9ff. Harshakula teacher of Udayasaubhāgya 78.26. Harsha vardhana 53.20. Haryaksha 35.nl ; 41.20. Hemachandra 57.n2; mentions Devanandr as author of Jainendra 63.22; 66:20; 68-31 ; his Lingānu- Süsuna based on that of Sakatnyana 71.22; biographical inaterial of -73.n2, collected by Bühler 73.17 ; his life $ 57 ; his birthplace 73.23; received into order 47.10; consecrated sūri or acharya 74.16; attracts attention of Jayasimha Siddhurāja 74.29; writes Sabdānusūsana for him 75.18, 75.nl; converts Kumārapāla 75:8, writes Yogaśāstra at the instance of Kumāra pala 75-16 ; his pilgri. mage 75.20, and death 75.24; his indebtedness to the Amoghavritti and to $ākațāyana Śabdūnusa- 76.12, 76.nl ; gives the prasasti of his patron in his Brihadvritti 77-3ff; author of Dvyās. ruya-mahakāvya 77-17; also of uccessory tre tises 77.28, but not of the vivaraņas or vrittis on them 77.30ff; other works of Ilemachandra 80:20; does not use pratyāhūras 81.6 ; 89.21. Hemachandra's Sabdīnusāsana one of the works presumably used by Bhattoji 46.22 ; its nature 8 58 ; its object 76.6ff; author's own com. on it 76.17ff ; other comm. and sub-commentaries on it § 60; digests, manuals, and miscel laneous works $ 61 ; thio Prākrit chapter from it 76:2; its later independent history 81.12ff; Dhundhikū on it 78.25; 89.21. Hemūdri minister of Mahadeva and patron of Bopadeva 105 2ff, 105.nl. Hemahansavijayagani writes on paribhashas for Hemachandra's school 89.3ff; his Nyāyārthamanjusha 80-7 Hemanandanagani tcachor of Sahajakirti 100.22. Hirūdhara son of Vijjula-bhūpati 115.29. History of Ancient Indian Literature, by Max Miillor, 4.nl ; 4.n3 ; 9.01 ; 12.nl ; 14.11. History of Indian Literature by Weber 82-7. Hiuen Tsang, bis account about the Aindra school 10-17 ; 19.3. Humayun 93-9. Hüņas, Gupta victory over, 58.26. 1 India : what can it teach us, 41.23.

·General Index 129 granamaa 70.5; SOL Indian Antiquary 13; 6 ; 19.14. ; 30.n2; 31ºn11; 32:13; 32.01; 33.n2; 35:n2 ; 37.n2; 41°n3 ; 61.n1 ; 64.nl ; 64:14;: 67.02 ;; 69.9; 69.n2; 72'01 ; 72.n3 ; 70.01. Indische Studien, 12.nl ; 33:10. Indo-Aryans, by Rūj. Mitra, on the identification of Yay.mas with Ionian Greeks 15.21. Indra alias Indragomin quoted by name in Bopadeva's Mugdhubodba 10:23 ; but not so quotrd in Pāṇini's Ashtadhyüyi ; spoken of as the first of grammarians 10:25, 10:14 ; quoted by Sūkatīyana 70:7, 70 n5; quoted by Hemachandra 76.n2. Indra (God) revcals graminar to Jinu 63.4, 63.n2. Indradatta said to have been at first & follower of the Aindra school 10:16; and a contempo. rary of "Pāṇini 19.10. Ionian Greeks not always to be identified with Yavanas 15.21 ; their appearance in history long before 1000 B.C., 15.30. Ishtis of Patañjali 33.15. 35.3. Isvarakrishnu alluded to in Jainendra-sūtras 64.19; his two aliases 64.84, ſøvarānanda's Vivarana on Kaiyyata's Pradipa 43.3. Itsing's account of Jayāditya and his work 35.25. from whoin Sretambarag borrowed it 63.nl ; its real author Devanındı 63.140, alias Pajyapüüa 63.25, 64.n2 ; date of its foundation $48, 64.16ff; the Jain nded sūtras allude to Ibvarakrishna 64.19 ; churacter of ? 349 ; ito yo versions 05.136 ; its want of originality. 65.25ff, cominenturies on it 67.1tf; its recast 67.121F ; its later neglect and present "tatus 67.2648 ; 68.8 ; 70.04 ; 89.30 ; 93.26. Jaiyyatı father of Kuiyyața 42.6. Janārdai.a of Kūnabharta 101.18. Jaumera school, absorbs Pūniulya Unādisūtras 54.8 ; ita nume a znisnomor 108:27f1' ; its special featuris 987 ; its alternutive nune 109.32. Jayñditya his date 35.20 ; mentione hy Itsing 35.22, 35.26 ; his work called vritti sūtra 35.23 ; at least a contemporary of the author of thy Vakyapa - diya 35.n2 ; his contribution to tho kusikit distinguished froin that of Vanala 36.4, 36.nl ; refers Lo Lokayatikus 36.16, 36.13 ; perhaps sume is Jayapidla of Käśmir 36.19 ; qative of Kašimir 36.22. Jayakrishna supplements tbe Tativabiodhini by a section on svara and vaidiki prakriya 48,5 ; his date 48.8. Jayakrisliņa's com, on the Lagbusiddhāntakaumudi 51.11 ; personal details about himn 51.11ff. Jayanta author of Tattvachandra, an abridgment of the Prakriyakaumudr 51.01. Jayantikūra quoted by Hemachandra 76.n2. Jayūpida supposed to be pupil of Kshtras vāmin 52.2. Jayasimba II (Chalukya emperor) alius Vadiraju, fellow-student of Dayāpala 72.24ff. Jayasitisha-Siddharaja patron of de chandra 74.20ff ; stories about him and Heinachundra 74.32; bis death 75.1 ; tho J Jagaddhara, Bhatta, author of Būlabodhini 91.12. Jagannātha gives personal details about Bhattoji 46.27ff ; pupil of the son of Seshakrishna 47.2; 48.nl. Jagannatba, author of Strapradrpika, quotes Kshemendra 98.1, 100.6. Jahangir, Emperor, 93.9, 102.26; 102.12. Jainendra quoted by náme in Bopadeva's Mugdhabodha 10.13 ; 58.112 ; mentioned by Yamunācharya 53.31, 63.n2 Juinendra school 947 ; its traditional author 62.32f, its gūtrapatha originally belonged to Digambara Jains, 17 [Sk. Gr.]

·Systems of Sanskrit Grammar K Šabdūnusisana written at his request 75.18. Jina or Malvīra, traditional anthor of the Jainendra school 62.32f ; 63.4. Jindattasűri teacher of Amarachandru 80.8. Jinaunandana's Kumārapālacharita 73.n2. Jina prabhasūri alias Jina prabodha, autlior of a com). on Katantra. vritti-panjikā 89 12 ; particulars a bonit "liin 89.02. Jinaprabodha, sec Jinaprabhusūri. Jiparutna, sre Jinendu. Jinasāgara 78.16. Jinendrabuddhi author of Nysa on Käsikit $25, 71.nl; l.is dato 35 12, 38 12; quoted by Blūmaha 35.1.2, 38.15ff ; called sometimes Sthavira- Jinondra 38.12 ; etyles himself Bodhisattvadestyñchārya 38.11; nt later than 750 A.D. 33 12 ; quoted by Vitthalācharya 45.20. Jinendu alias Jinarstna author of Siddhantarotna 102.27. Jivagosvūnin's Ilarinīmīmrita 114.1. Jnanatilaka 103.12. Jñūncndra-Sarasvati author of the Tattvabodhint 47.25. Jñapakas 35 17, 54.271f, 54'n2, 56 25 ; sce also Paribhāslırīs. Jodha pur (Yodhapura) 80.1, 80.nl. Jogarāja's Pāda prakaraņosañgati 84.20, App. 2; mentioned by Muñkha 84.22 ; assigns the Kūtantra Kritprakuraņa to Sūkata- Kuchchāyana's Pali Grammar closely related to Tolkappiyain 11-5; and based on KTtantra 82.10. Kadanıba kinga, Early, C4.23. Kadera 16.30. Kahnu father of Madhava 98.20. Kaiyyața quotes from the works of Apisali and Kāśakritsna 10:3, 10-n2; 24.nl ; the Padamanjuri based on his Pradipa 40-7,40:12; his Pradipa marking end of eccond period in the histroy of Pāṇiniya school § 28 ; his probable dato 41.29; personal details about him 42-5ff ; quoted in the Sarva-darsana-sangrah 42:21, 42.n2 ; acknowledges indebtedness to Bhartrihari 42.25; quoted ly Vitthalachūrya 45-19; 59:21 ; 76.12. Ka kala quoted by Hemachandra 76.n2. Kalī, Vaidyanātba's com. on Nagesa's Vaiyakurana-siddhantamañjūshū 50.15. Kalapa-dlatusūtra 90-4. Kīlāpa graminar sail to agree with the Aindra gramınar 10-20 ; also oulled Kaumāra and Katantra 82.22f, 83.9f. Kalūpaka quoted by Ileinachandra 76.n2. Kalīpavyūkaranotpattiprastāva by Vanamali 82.n2. Kalapin, the vehicle of Kumāra 83.9. Kalc of Nagojibhatta 49.34. Kalhaņa 36.20. Kalidasa 57.22 ; 58.n2; 101.16. Kālikā-sūtra 73•ni. Kalpasūtras,Samayasundara's com. on, 63.2, 63.12. Kalyana, Prince, patron of Sesha krishna 45.29. Kalyāṇasarasvati's Laghusārasvata 103.24f. Kama mother of Ramabhatta 101.12. Kamadhenu by Bopadeva 68-31 ; quotes Vardhanana 88.23; com. on the author's Kavikalpadruma 105.11. surname yana 84 24. Journal of the Asiatic Sociсty of Bengal 33•11. Journal of the Bombay Branch of the R.A.S. 35.02. Jumarnnandi author of the vřitti, Rasavatt on Kramadisvara's Sañ. kehiptasar: 109,274f; the school roccives name (Jaumara) from hiin 108.28 ; and (Ragavata ) froin his vritti 109.32 ; vises Paniniya Dhatupātha for his own achool 110 37. Jupiter, twelve year cycle of, 61.21, 64.n5. ro- ·General Index 131 mlar Kamasutra quotes, Gunardiya and Goņikāputru 33.5, 33.n3. Kainboja 16-39. Kandarpasiddhānta’s com. on the Sanpadina 112.13. Kūrakus, treatises on, 55.28. Karikīvoli by Nārāyana Blattī. chñrya 116.12. Kürttikeya revealed Aindra grainto_ Sapta varman 10-22; see also Kumāra. Kasakritsna, founder of a gramma. tical school, 9.23 ; his grammar consisted of sūtras in thice Adhyâyas 10 3, 10.nl ; Kaiyyata quotes froin his gramniar 10:4; 10:n2 ; quoted by naine in Bopiadora's Mugdhabodha 19.7. 10.ni?. Kašikā gives a rule of Āpisuli 9.24; tells that Kūšakritsna's grammar consisted of sūtrag in three Adhyāyas 10:3, 10.nl ; does not anywhere mention the Aindra school 11.30 ; 20.8 ; 28.nl; its date 35.20 : a joint work of Jnyaditya and Vāmuna $ 23 ; perhapis samic as Vriitisūlra inentioned liy Itsing 35.24 ; quotes Vakya padiya, and so not earlier than 650 A.D. 35.n2 ; Nyīsi on hy Jinendrabuddhi $25,35•n2;personality of the authors of-36.11ff ; Pāla-śīstri's edition of 36•n3 ; nature of thcm-37.1/f ; quotes a a rule of Apisali 378, 9 113 ; gives a new vārtikir of the Siivnīgas 37.11 ; its indeltedness to Chan lragoniin $24. 62.2, 59-21, na ascertained by Kiclhorn 37.20; illustrated 38.nl ; Kišikā does not acknowledge its incel tedness 38.5, 58.18 ; Haralotta's Padamanjart on the Kiisilī $21; 47.13 ; embodies Panipiya Gangpatha 60 25 ; apparently krous the Jaincndra 64.17. 64 n3. Kñsikakāra quoted hy Hemachandra 6.1:2. Kisikavivaranapunjiko, &ce Nysa. Kastnatha author of Sāru, a com. on the Prakriyakauudi 46.n1. Kasinatha, his Sarasvata-bhashya 100-9ff ; his date 100-133. KISTÁvata quoted ly Durgilisa 107.31 ; his supplement to the Mugdhalodha 108-10. Kistévar:a's com. on the Sempadina 112:13; his Ganapatha to Saupadma 113.1 ; com. on it by Rainūkonta 113.2. Kūgyapa mentioned by Paniri 12.n2. Kāsyapa aruthor of the Claudra recast, Balāvabodha 62.20. Kitartra, closely related to Tolkurpiyan 11.5 ; absorlis Pilnintya Unidisūtras 54:3; why so called 81.26ff; traditionrı üccount of its origin § 64; its date 82.17, 83.2514 ; its ta) recensionis 87.25f1' ; Pergol con 1.01 -$71; its study no : confined to a few districts of Tongal 30:32; its history in Kasurir $ 72; incorporates Chandra Dhatupa 1:1 52.19 ; takes over most of the Pūriniya y'aril liūsdīs 59:11: 81.7 ; interpolutions in tl<--- Sūtrapatha $ 65 ; 67.1711; its early history $ 67; 93.2 ; 93.31 ; 106.5 ; 110.20. Katantravista ra, Vardhanna's01. on Durgasiinha's vritti, 88.20 ; a sub-coin. so it loy i'riílivii Imurit 48.24. Katantruvrittipanjika, Trilocha Nasa's com. on Durgasinila's Vritti 89.1/f ; sub-con nicolaries on it 89 717. Katlīsaritsīgara account atout Panini, his pode carors and contemporaries 10.131, 19-911:28:12: 29.7 ; account aloit Katyyana 31.3, 31.n1. Kathavnto. I'rofessor, 63.9. Katthakya meitioned in the Niikta 8 nl. Kītyüyana 7.17; 7.21; 7.12; a!i!8 Tararuhi 85.nl, said to have been at first a follower of the Aindra school 10.15; 12 6 ; 14 5: his knowledge of the larunas more exart than that of I'anini 16.25 ; 17.4 ; 17 30 ; 19:14; majd to be a contemporary of Panini 19.10 ; he probally iegarded the Unādisūtias un lūnini's 26 18, 26.nl ; he also probably nocified them 26.27 ; mceticued es tic ·Systems of Sanskrit Grammar sole author of the Upadisutra, by Vimalasarasvati 27.2, 27.01 ; by Durgasinha 27-4, 27.n2; Vār: tikakāras bifo hiin 28.5; considerable interval between him and Pânici 27.7, 27•n1, 84.19 ; his date $17 ; his relation with the Nandas 29:6; nature of his work 818 ; his first work, Vāja- Banayi Pratišākhya 29.13 ; extant of his criticism on Pāņini 30:1 ; his criticisin also constructivo 30:9, but in places injust 30-13; did not uniformly follow Pūņini's terminology 30:24ff ; probably belonging to a different school of grammar froin Panini 31.5 ; called a 'southernor' by Patanjali 316, 31.n2 refer's to śAkatīyana 31.n3, Sakalya 31.04, Vájapyāyana 31.n5, Vyudi 31:n6 Paushkarusīdi 31.n7, and others 31.n8 ; 38.nl ; 54.21 ; 59.10 ; 69.18 ; 70.14. Kaunāra another name of Kātantra 83.8. Kauinu!T 10411; see siddhantakan nudi, Prakriyt-kaumudt, and Haima-kaumudr. Kaumudikaras as authors of modern revival of Paņini 90.31. Kaushtuki inentioned in the Nir. ukta 8:01. Kanţika, a Jain Tirtha 98.11. Kautiliya 32.16. Kautsa inentioned in the Nirukta 8.nl. Kavikalpadrma y Ropadeva with his com.. Kama huu, 105-107, 108:15(T ; com. by l'urgirdūsa 107.29. Kaviraja a Bougil cuin. on Katantra 90.3 ; quote. Trilochanadāsa ant is quoted by Ilarirīma 90.14. Kavyaprakasa 42.8. Kerala 16.30. Kern : Manual of Buddhism 59.112. Kesart, artiele in, by Mr. linjavad- 17.941. Kesava, father of Bopadeva 104.29; 105.nl. Kesavadlevat arka panchānana bhattacharya's Vyakaranadurghatodghūta on Goyrchandra's com. 110.18, 110.n3. Kesavavarņi pupil of Abhayachapdra 72.13 ; author of a com. on Gomutagara 72.15. Kharatara-gachchha 99.1; 100.23. Kielhorn, his ed. of the Mahabbashya 7.12; 11.31 ; 19:27; 27.n5; 30.n2 ; 31.n11 ; about Patiñjali being distinct from Gonardiya and Goņikipntra 33.3 ; ou the indeltedness of the Kašikā to Chandragomin 37'21ff , about Bhartrihari's com. on the Mahabhāshya 41.12 ; doubts existence of Pūjyapāda as a real author 04.1ff, 66.22;, doubts existence of Abhinava Sūkatāyana 69.1ff ; 81•n1 ; 89.02 ; 89.n3. Kirātūrjuniya quoted by Haradatta 39.n3. Kirti vijayagani teacher of Vinayavijayagani 79.13. Kondabhatta nephew of Bhattoji 48.13, 48.nl ; author of Vaiyakaranabbūshaņa 48'ni, 48 14, 55.25. Kramadisvara founder of the Jau- Hark school 108-30;his Sañkshiptapīra probably an abridgment of Pāņini 108.32ff ; takes Bhartribari's Mababhāshya-dipikā for his model 109.8; his illustrations mostly from Bhattikārya 109-9; his erudition 109.21; his relation to Pāṇini's work 109.9ff. Krisbnīcārya, father of Ramachandra 45.7. Krishņāśrama teacher of Kshemendra 97.29. Krislina-Yajus-Sumhita anterior to l'anini 14.12. Kriyaratnaseinuchebaya of Guņaratnugūri 80.12ff. Kshapaņaka's vritti on Uņādlis, quoted hy Ujjvaladutta 54.14. Kshemañkara 102.1 ; father of Lokesakara 102.13. kshemendra of Kasmir 97.31. Kahemendra's coin. on Sarasvataprakriyā mentions Narendra as founder of the Sarasvata 95.17ff, 97.27; personal details about him 97.28ff ; quoted by Jagannatha 97.33; criticised by Dhanesvara 98.2, 99.21; his date 98.5f. Kshemendrațippana-khandana by Dhanesvara 98.3. Own 7 ·General Index 133 Kshirasyamin author of Dhatuvritti 52.1ff ; Personal" dotails about him 52.1f; his date 52.4ff ; his works 52.6ff, quotes Chandra Dhatit patha 52.16, 60-18 ; quoted by Hornachandra 76.n2 ; by Vitthalacharya 45.19. Kahratarañgint by Kshtresvīmin 52.9. Kulachandra quoted by Rūnjadása 90.15. Kumāra, reveals the Kanwīra or Kalapa or Katantia grammar 83.8ff. Kumarapalı 75.2ff ; his conversion by Hemachandra 75.8, the theme of Yasahpala's drama Moharajaparājaya 759.ff ; requests Hemachandra to write the Yogaśāstra 75.16 ; his pilgrimage 75-19, and death 75.25 ; 81.4. Kumarapalacharita by Jiraman. dana 73.02. Kumārasambhava 105.1. Kumūrila 27.n5. Kunaravādava mentioned by Patanjali 31.n10. Kuni, meutioned by Patanjali 31.n10. Kusala commentator on Katantravřitti-pañjikā 89.8. LakebeeIdhara father of Bhattoji 46.23, 48.n1. Latzhmidbare son of Ramabhatta 101.17. Lakshu Idhar charya son of Vitthalachārya 45-23. Lakshr. Ivailabha's Upadedamalakarņiku 63.3. Liebich, Bruno, editor of Chandra vyukarıq. 36.nl : 58.9 ; his paper on the date of Chandragomin and Kalidasa 58.n2;59.n2; 60.11. Lingakarikat or Tanginugana of Chandragomin 60-12. Liñgūnusasuna, Pāṇinīya, com. by Bhuttoji 47.10; by Kürachundra 53-16; other writers on--53.20ff; Vāmanācharya's - 53.29ff ;-of Chandragomin 27.15 ; referred to by Vámanācharya 53.29, Ujjvaladatta, and Rayamukuta 60.20;-of Sakațāyana 71.16, basis for IIemachandra's work 71.22, 77.25 ; of Hemachandra77.23,77.n1, with vivarana or vritti on it 77.31 ; and with a Durgapuda prabodha on it 80-2f; by Durgatina (Katantra) 85 n 2, 88.n3 ; 89.29. Lokānanda, drama by Chandragomin ( 2 ) 61.6. Lokegakara's Tattvadipika on the Siddantachandrika 102.14ff ; its date 102.16. 60-12; L M Laghubhashya on the Sarasvata, by Raghunātha 103.1f. Laghusarasvata of Kalyanagarasvati 103.24. Laghu-siddhantachandrika by Raacmhandrasrama 102:20, 103.22. Laghu-siddhantakaumudi of Varadarāja, an abridgment of the Siddhantakaumudi 51.4 ; com. by Jayakrishna 51.11 ; 62:21 ; 72.27. Laghuvritti by Chhichhubhatta 91-19 Laghuvritti-abdanngdaana-ra hagya another name for abridgment of Ilemachandra's Brihadvritti 77.14. Lahaur game as ancient ſalatura, the native place of Paņini 19.2. Lakshmesvara 65.6. Lakshmidevi patroness of Vaidya- Datha 50-6. Madhava or Sāyaṇa author of the Dhatuvritti 52.28ff ; 107.10. Madhava, a commentator on the Sarasvata-prakriya 98.20ff ; his date 98.23. Madhava, a writer on Sarasvata, 103.15, his date 103.17; 103.nl. Madhaviya-Dhātuvritti 52.26 ; quotes Haradatta 39.17 ; quotes Siradeva 55.6. Madhyamikā besieged by Menander 32.23. Madhya-siddhāntakaumudi óf Varadarāja, an abridgment of the Sid. dhānta-kaumudi 51.4; com. by Rumagarman 51.10. ;

·134 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar 33.10 ; Migha about authorship of Unadisūtras 27.6 ; quoted by Haradatta 39.n3. Mahabharata, Khishma parvan, 16.8. Mahabhäshya rd. of Kielhorn 7•n2 ; 9.20; does nowhere mention the Aindra school 11:30 ; 13:20 ; 14.n2 ; gives naine of Pūnini's mother 19.8; 19.23 ; 19.n3 ; 22.nl ; 23.nl ; 24.nl ; 25.25 ; 25ºn5 ; gives a stanza from the Ptņiniya Śikshī 27-15, 27.n5; Bhartrihari's cominentary on- 27.n5, 41.6,41.23,109.8; mentions Slokavārtikakäras28-4; Kielhorn's Notes on 30•n2, 311.nl; described ar a suminary of the Sangraha of Vyîdi 31.119 ; describes Kūt. yāyana as 'a southerner' 31:0, 31.12; mentions a number of vārtikakaras following Katyūyana 31.n10; 32.5; incntions Gonardiya and Gonikāputra32-29, 32.n2; detailed exposition of data in-found in Indische Studien text of them, traditions about, 33.24ff, 41.18 ; does not notice all sūtrīs of Pūnini 34:3; fanciful explanation of this fact 34.nl ; it marks end of the first period in the history of Pāṇinīya school $21, 56.13, Chintīmani on-, by Dhanesvara 100.2. Mahabhashya-chintamani of Dhanes vara 100.2. Malibhashya-pradīpa as the basis of Iluradatta's Padainaījari 40.7, 40•n2 ; itself indebted to Bhartrihari 42:24 ; cominentaries ou, it by Nagjibhattu, Nārāyana, Isvarananda, and others 433.11r. Mahabbīshya-pradi poddyota of Nigojihhatta 43.2 ; 49.10 ; a com. on it by Vaidyanatha, called Chhīya 50.13. Mahideva father of Vaidyanatha 50.6. Mabideva, author of Śabdasiddhi, on Durgasimha's vritti 89.10. Mahadeva tho Yadava king of Devagiri 105.3. Mahīvfra, scc Jinu. Mohos vara precoptor of Kaiyyata 42.7. Mahidharn 102.1. Maitreyarakshita 39.nl. Maitreyarakshite mentioned as a writer vid roots by Sāyaṇa 53.2. Malayagiri's Śabdānusagana with his own com. 80:31ff ; his date 81.4. Mallinatha, his coinmentary on the sisupalavadha 27-n3 ; quotes Pada mañjari 39.18; quotes Bopadeva in his com. of the Kumāra 104.33f; quotes a Chandru rulo 57.21, 57.n2. Mainmața 42.8ff ; 42.nl. Mandluna conmentator on the Sīrasvatu-pakriyā 98.27ff ; persunul details abont him 98.28ff; patronized by Alpasūhi of Mālva 99.9. Mangarasa author of a com. on the Chintīmaņi 72.7. Māņikyadova on Pūrinlya Uņādi. sūtras 54.17. Muņiprakasikā by Ajitusçnīchūrya, & com. on the Clintīmaņi 72.6. Mankha author of Śrīkantha-charita 84 22. Manoramā, sce Praudhamanoramā. Manoramakuchamardint of Jagannātha gives some personal detuilt aliout Plastoji 46.281, 47.nl. Mantras, Scois of, 6.nl. Manuentioned in the Nirukta 8.nl. Manual of Puddlism by Kern 59.n2. Manuals, lesner, $ 98; characteristic of the declining age of a school 115.11. Ma Tatiaägara teacher Of Dayāpāla 72.24. Mauni family 48.4; 51.12. Mauryas, their financial (xpedient mentioned by latañjali 32.25. Maxiina of interpretation, see Paribhasha. Max Willer, History of Ancient Indian Literature 4.nl ; 4.n3 ; 4.28 ; on introduction of art of writing 4.28 ; 9.nl ; on Panini's date 14:3; 15:3; 28.15. Medey not unknown to Indians be. fore Alexander's invasion 15.33. Medini 111.02. Megha father of Trilochanadī-a 89.6. Meghadūta, Mallinūtha's com, oni 57.22. + ·General Index 135 toji's Sabda-kaustubba 47-22; his pupil, Vaidyanatha Piyagunda 47-23, 48n1 ; his works $32. 53.3; his time 49.24ff; invited by Sayai Jeysim ha of Teyrur for an aóvamedha 49-3 ; personal details about him 49:33ff; 55.7. Naidānas incutioned in the Nirukta 8.nl. Nairuktas ientioned in the Nirukta 8.nl ; 21:14; their vicw as to root-origin of all words 25.26. Nandas, their relation with Katyyana 29.6. Megharatpa's Sarasvatavyákaranadhundhika or Sarasvat#dipika 99. 14ff. Megha vijaya tells of Bhattoji's indebtedness to Ilonachandra 46.20. Moghavijaya anthor of Hajinakaumudi 79.1818. Menander, his siege mentioned by Putanjali 32.24. Merutuñgachūrya's Prabandhacbiptamaņi 73•12. Miscellaneo118 Essays by Colebrooke 68.nl ; 114.nl. Mitakshară (grammar) Annurbliatta's com. on Panini's Ashtadhyāyr 50-24. Mitīkshara (law) the Vyavahārakāņda from it commented upon by Vaidyanatha 50-9. Mitra, Rajendralal, on the identification of Yavanas with lonian Grecks 15.21 ; shows that Patanjali is not suino as Gonardiya or Gonikāputra 33.2. Mohana Madhusūdana brother of Tarkatilakabhattāchārya 102.23. Moharajaparajaya, drama by Yasahpāla, 75.8. Mugdhabodha quctes by name various grammarians 10:n3 ; 104.23 ; 105:10 ; the object ofm 883; its domination prior to Bhattoji 107.12; commentaries on, 107.24ff ; supplements to, 108.9ff ; accessory treatises to, 108.15ff ; 110-27. Muhammedan incursions as affecting growth of literature 43.15ff ; later Muhammedan rulers creating a dernand for Sanskrit gramınar 43.27, 93.4ff ; 96.7. Muktaphala by Bopadova 105-11, 105.n1. Munitrayam 34.12. 91.28 ; Nandakigorabhattu's suplement to the Mugdhabodha 108.9; his date 108.11. Nandasundora 78.17. Nandisañgha Pattīvuli 64.7. 64n 2. Narahari's Balavabodha 1:16.16ff. Narasini ha father of Rāmablatļa 101.12. Nārāyana's vivarana on Kaiyyata's Pradipa 43.2. Narayannbhārati 101-35. Nariyana Bhattacharya's Karikavali 116.12. Narendra or Narendracharya mentioned as founder of Sarasvati by Ksheinendra 95.18, by Amritabharati 95.22; liy' Vitthala, chārya 95.24. Nighamțu 6.nl; commented upon by Yaska's Nirukta 8.5. Nighanți-vritti by Kshirasvīmin, quoted by, Devarnja 52.10. Nilakuntha Sukla, pupil of Bhattoji 47.n2, 48.n1. Nipatavyayopasargavritti by Kshiraßvāmin 52.8. Nirukta of Yaska, its date $6; 7.9; its naturo 87; teachers and schools referrcd to in it 8.nl; introduction to, by Pandit Satyavrata Samasrami 14:17; 25:25; 25.n4; quotes Sakațāyana 68-25; com. on, by Durgacharye 88.14 Niruktanirvachana by Devaraja 52.10. Niryukti 73.n1. Northern school mentioned Paņini 12 n2. Nrisimhacharya father of Vifthaltcharyu 45.22. 28 N Nagesa, see Nāgojibhatta. Ntgojibhatta speaks of Santanavi. charya as relatively modern author 27.n4; his Uddyota on Kaiyyața's Pradipa 43.1; his com. on the Praudhamanorama 47.18, and on the Adhyatma-Ramayana 47.21 ; his commentary on Bhatby ·136 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar on it Nyasa on Kadika by Jinendrabuddhi 35•n2, $25; otherwise known as Kasika-vivarana-pañjika 38.9; not a single edition or a complete manuscript of it in existence 39.1, 39.1n; said to have been commented upon by Maitreyarakshita 39.nl; 71.n1; quoted (?) by Hemachandra 76.n2. Nyasas (three) on Hemachandra's Brihadvritti, the first identifies most of Hemachandra's quotations 76.n2; second by Udayachandra 79.2, with an abridginent which traces most of Hemachandra's quotations 76.02; 79.3ff; 76-21; and the third anonyınous Nyasa called Sabdamahārņava 79.7. Nyasu on the Sakatiyana-Sabdanu: sana 39.nl; quoter in Madhaviya Dhatuvritti 71.31 ; quoted by Hemachandra: 76.n2. Nyasa, a com. on the Amogha-vritti quoted by Prabhachandrācharya 72.2. Nyasa of Ugrabhūti on Jagaddhara's Balabodhini 91.13. Nyāyapanchanana's com. on Goylchandra's vritti 110.17ff. Nytyarthainañjūsba of Homabansavijayagani 80.7; its date 80.n2. Padmanabhadatta founder of the Saupadma school 111.2 ; personal details about him 111.2ff;different from the author of the Prishoda rādivritti 111.8 ; his date 111.15; the arrangement of his work 111.n4 ; his own com. called Saupadmapañjikā 112-11; his other works 112.19ff, 112.nl. . Padmanabhadutta, author of Prishodaradivritti, different from the founder of Saupadma 111.5ff. Padmapurāņa 1004. Põhiui mother of Femachandra 73.25 ; gives her son over for religious service 74.7. Palhavas, see Parthians. Pandya king, the Tolkappiyam read before, 11•3. Panchatantra story about Pāṇini's death by tiger 19.15, 19.12. Pañchavastu, recast of Jainendra 67.14ff ; ita introductory part interpolated 67.20. Pāṇini, 3.nl ; his terminology presupposed by present Pratisakhyas His place in Sanskrit literature, by Geldstiicker, 5'n1; his terminology compared with that of Yūska 6.n2 ; objections to his being placed after Yāska considered 7.6ff; his system based on Yaska's theory of the verbal origin of every noun 9.3; 9.6ff ; uses technical words and formulas of earliar writers, some of whom came after Yaska 9.14; 9.n2 ; 10.n3 ; said to bave supplanted the Aindra school 10.15; as also otber schools 62.26 ; does not any-where mention Indra by name 10-11, Aindra school 11.28 ; 12.6; the school of $$10 to 41; authors quoted by-12.n2 ; his date $11; posterior to Yaska 14:14 ; must have known some form of Gribya and Dharma Sūtras 14.n2; placed oven before Yuska by Pandit Satyavrata Samasrami 14:18; usually but withont sufficient evidence agsigned to 350 B.C. 12, lived prior to Alexander's invasion 5.2 ; 7 0 Oka, Shastri, editor of Kshirasva. inin'o com. on Amarakosha 52-n1; 57.02. P nor the Padama brother of Vahada and minister to Alpasghi 99.6. Padamañjart of Haradatta $26; quoted in the Madha viya Dhatuvritti and by Mallinatha 39.18; quotes Magha 39-18, 39.n3 quotes Kirata and Bhattikávya 39.03 ; based upon Kaiyyata's Mahabhāshya-pradipa 40.7, 40:n2, 43.7. Padapatha of Sakalya 4.17; 6.nl. Padma-(or Rudra-) kumára, father of Haradatta 39.11.

·General Index 137 - com. 17.19; lived prior to 700, B. C. 18:3; 18.16 ; only ti negative conclusion about his date possiblo 18.27 ; tbe known facts about his life $13; balaturſya an alias of - 18.34 ; his mother's Daino, Dakshi 19.8,19.nl; his teacher said to be Varsha 19.11; has the fourteen pratyahara sutras revealed to him 19.13, 23.18 ; story about his death by a tiger 19.14, 19.n2 ; character of Puņini's work $14; bis contribution to philology in the Unadigūtras 21.31 ; the technical devices used by him $13; his method of indicating adhikara-sutras 24.02 ; his Paribhawhās 25.4 ; big Dhutupātha 25.14ff ; his Ganapatha 23.24, 24.2ff, 25.20 ; rersons for assigaing most of the Uņādisūtras to his authorship 26.7ff ; his Vārtikakāras pp. 28-32 ; considerable interval separatos him from Katyayanu 27.7, 27.nl ; criticised by Kätyāyana first in the Vajaga neyi Prātisūkhya 29.16, and later in the Vārtikas 29:20; his termino. logy not strictly udhered to by Katyāyana 30:24ff ; 38.nl ; Siddhānta kaumudi the most popular introduction to his grammar 46-11; he tacitly employed many Paribhasbās current before him 54.21, 54.nl ; history of his school, review of, $41 ; 56:7 ; three stages in the later history of his school 56.11ff ; 59.9 ; 65.28 ; 69.nl ; 69.18; 69.03 ; 70.n1-5; 71:1 ; 75:30 ; 76.n2 81.28; 86.21 ; 86.28; 86.30 ; 87.4 ; modern revival of Panini 90:31 ; 107.4; 92.16; 93.1 ; 93.27 ; later attempts to improve upon him 105.17 ; 105 22 ; 109.1 ; 111.20; 112:1. Pāṇini, the poet, quoted' in Vallabhadeva's Subhāshitūvali and indentified with Panini the grammarian 13.10. Paribbūsbās of Panini and of later grammarians 25.4 ; 25.01 ; no ancient collection has come down 27.19 1. commonly ascribed to Vyai 97.81, 54.23 ; invention of the system of-, 35:10; Paribh& 18 (Sk. Gr.] shas and Jhapakas elaborated between 470-650 A. D. 35.17, 54.27ff, 54.n2, 56.25 ; 40; PEpini tacitly employed many current before him 54.81, 54.nl ; Papiniya paribbachás borrowed by tho Katantra and other non- Paniniya schools 55.10; Pari. bhāsba-sútra by Sakațayana 71.14; of Hemachandra 77-86, collected by Hemahanga vijayagani 80•4ff ; none for Sarasvata 34.21, 103:8; a cullection of by Goyichandra 110-15; of Saupadma samo as Panini's 112.30; 112.19. Paribhashavritti (to Mugdhaboda) by Ramachandra-vidyabhusbana 108.21. Pari bhūshūvritti ( Saupadma ) of Padmanabhadatta 112.21ff. Paribhāshendusekhara by Nugoji. bhatta 49.1111, with the author's called Sabdendusekhara 49.14,55•7; com.on it culled Guda by Vaidyanatha 50.13 ; other commentaries 55.9. Purislads, rules for, frained, 4:10. Parivrājakas mentioned in the Nir. ukta 8.nl. Pāruhadas mentioned in the Nir. ukta 8.nl. Parsus, see Persiana. Parthians not unknown to Indians even before Alexander's invasion 15.33. Patañjalu-churita gives a fanciful explanation of the fact that the Mahābhashya does not notice all gūtras of Panini 34.nl. Patañjali 12.6 ; 13.23 ; 14.1 ; 14.n2; 17.4 ; 18.11 ; gives the name of Panini's inother 19.8; 24.13 ; 26.nl ; 27.21 ; quotes certain metrical Vartikas preceding those of Katyāyana 28.4 ; mentions a number of Vārtikakäras follow. ing KätyTyana 31.010; his date and personal history $20 ; main arguments for assigning him to 150 B.C. 32.19ff ; speaks of Pusbpamitra as his contemporary 32:21 ; refers to a siege of Menander 32.24 ; mentions a financial expedient of the Mauryan 32.25;

·138 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar a detailed. exposition of his time given in Indische Studien 33.10; 33:11 ; viudicates Panini against the attacks of Katyāyana 33.18 ; often unfair to Katyayana 33.20 ; hig unparalled style 33-21 ; his ishtis 33.15; 35-3 ; 54.22 ; 59.10; 69-18; 76•n2 ; 103.3. Pathak, professor, 10-01 ; 14.n2 ; 39.01 ; proves the historical existenge of Pujyapada 64.6ff ; his paper on Jaiau Śūkatāyana 64.14; 69.8ff, 76.nl ; hid arguments for the date of Juinendra 64.16ff ; 65.n2 ; 67.24 ; 72.nl; 72.n2; 72.03. Patra puñja 45.29. Pauranic accounts of frontier tribos not inere inaginative fabrications 16.6. Paushkarasādi mentioned hy KTTyāyana 31.n7. Priyaguna, sve Vaidyanātha Payagunda. Persians not unknown to Inrliang hofore Alexander's invasion 15.33; mentioned as mercenary tighters by Panini 17.24 ; blotted out as a political power in 329 B.C. 17.26. Peterson on Panini's date 13.51f ; 13.n2; 46.n3 ; 53.n2 ; 54.1 ; 65.4 ; 67.02 ; 79.n5 ; 89.n2. Philology, science of, revolutionizod by discovery of Sanskrit by inodern Europe 2.24 ; its postizlate Yaska's theory of the rootorigin of every noun 9.4. Phitsutras of Santanavicharya 27-12, 27.04. Phonetics, manuals Pischel on the identification of Puņini the grammarian and l'hpini the puet 13.10. Platum 16.2. Prabandhaolintīmaņi by Merutun. gichirya 73.n2. Prabandhukosa by Rajasokhara 73.02. Prabha, Vaidyanatha's com. Bhattoji's Sabdakaustubha 50-15. Prabhachandra quoted by Pajya. pada 66.02 ; attempt to prove that the name is Actitions ..66.18; 66.n3. Prabhachandra author of Prabha. vakacharitra 73.12. Prabhachandr charya" author of a Nyāga on Amoghavritti 72.1. Prabhavakacharitra by Prabbachandra and Pradyumnasūri 73.02. Prabodhachandrikt by Vijjala-bhūpati 115.22ff ; com. on it by Gopalagiri' 115-30. Prabodhaprakūša, a Stiv va grammar by Balaramapanchanana 114.12, 114:19ff. Pradipa, see Mahabhashya-pradipa. Pradyumnusūri reviser of Prabiachandra's Prabbūvakacharitra 73.n2. Prakrit literature, growth of, as affecting development of Sangkrit 34.20. Prakriyūkaumudi of Rilinachandra $30, the model for Bhattoji's Siddhanta-kaumudr 45.10; commented upon by Vitthalacharya in the Prasada 45-14 ; by Seskakrishna in the Prakasa 45.25 ; and by others 46.nl; an abridg: ment of it by author's pupil 51:11; 72:21 ; 109.3. Prakriyūmani by Dhanęśvara 100-3. Prakriyaprakaså of Seshakrislina 45.25. Prakriyāsangraba of Abhayachandra, recast of Sakațāyana Sabdānusasana 72.11. Prasada of Vitthalācharya 45.14 ; its dute 45:16 ; quotes Narendrā. charya 95.24. Prataparudra of Telangana 101.10. Prātidakhyas, pirimitive, presuppose art of writing 4.30 ; present post-Paniniya 5.8; their contribution to science of granumar 5:10ff ; their technical terms identifiod by Dr. Burnell with those of Aindra school 5.n2, 82.13 ; show Yaska in the making 5.19; 6.nl ; 9.n2 ; closely related to Tolkappiyam 11.6, and to Katantra 82.13 ; 12.6; 86-22, 86.nl ; Vajasanoyi Pratidakby the first grammatical work of Krtyayana, see under Vājasaneyi. on, 4.12. on ·General Index 139 Praty hard aatras, fourteen,, re. probably Putañjati's own patron vealed to Papini, by God Siva 32.28. 19.18 ; 22.15 ; means to produce brevity and torseness 23.26 ; VI. R jasaneyi-Prátisakhya Pratyaharas same as Pipini's 29.02 ; their Races, impact of different, as innumber reduced by Chandrago. fluepring study of grammar 2-81. min 69.15; Paņinſya retained Raghunandanaširomapi 84.25. by Jainendra 66:3 - Sakata Raghunatha author of the Laghuyana 70-13;-of Malayagiri.816; bhishya on the Sarasvata 103.1 ; not used by Hemachandra pupil of Blaţtoji 103.5. 81:6; Paninſya - dispensed with Raghunathabhatta father of Jayaby Katantra 86.23ff ; their tire kriauna 48.4.51.11. without its by the Sarasvata Rajadhaayapura 79.02. 94.5; 113.23 ; -- of Bopadeva Rajasekhara's Prabandhakosa 73.n2. 106.6, - called dapi harasutrag Rūjatarangin account of the vicinsi- 106.23;- of Panini retainer by tudes in the text of the Mala. Saupadma 111.21. bhashya 13-27, 13 nb ; 33-25, Praudha-inanorama Bhattoji's own 41.17. com. on the Siddhantakanmudi Rajavade, Vishvantb. K., bis pa por 47.7; distinguishes between the on Panini's date 17.9 ff. two authors of the Kusika 36.p1;. Pājev irlal Mitra on the identificaacknowledges indebtedness to Rū tion of Yavanas with Jonian pamal.I 45.nl ; (lors acant justice Greeks 15.21 ; shuws that Patañ. to the inemory of Seshakri jali is not the anme as Gonardiya shņa 47.1 ; its ahrid, ment called or Goņikāputrn 33.2. Bala-manornm.I 47.8; Jaganni- Rāmabhadra-Dyāyalankara 107-32. tha's coin, on it called the Mano. Ramabhatta's Vidvat-pradodhin ramtkuchamardini 47.18; anoth 101:3; porsonal deinils about or com. on it by Nagesa called the author 101.6 ff ; his works Sabdaratna 47.18, 49.16 ; 107.7. 101.16 ff. Puishodarndivritti of Padmanabhu. Rāmabhatti, see Vidvatprabodhini. datta 111.8; its date 111.9, Ramachandra's Prakriyakaumud! 111.nl. $30 ; his date 45.6 ; personal do. Prithvidhara, Mabamahopadhyīyn, tails about him 45-6 ff. author of sub-com. on Vardha Ramachandra, commontator on Kimana's Katantra-vistara 88.24. tantravrittipaõjika 89.8 ; 90-16. Pajyapada an alias of Devanandi Ramachandra's commentary on the 63.25 ; 64.n2; mentioned as the Saupadma 112-14. founder of a Dravida-sangha Ramachandra-chakravarti writes 65.4 ; possibility of other nane. sub.com. to SrIpati's supplement sakes of his 65.10 ; 69.20 ; 70:8. to Katantra 90.20. Pupdarrkūksba writes sub-com. to Rainachandrasrama's Siddhanta. Sripati's aupplement to Katantra chandrikā 102:11 ; commentaries 90.21. on it 102.13 f ; the author's own Punjaraja the earliest com. on the abridgment of it 102.19. Sarasvata-prakriya 96.15; per Rannadasa 90.15. sonal details about him 96.33f : his date 96.16, 9737 ; bis works Ranadeva the Yadava king of 97.8£ ; 99.21. Devagiri 105.4. Prayagunddragani 79.24ff. Ramakanta's com. on Saupadma- Purushottama 97.23. Ganapatha 113.2. Purushottamadeva's vritti on Uņādi Ramakara grandfatber of Lokesaquoted by Vijvaladatta 54.15. kara 102.14. Pushpamitra alluded to as contem Ramakrishpacharya grandfather of porary by Patañjali 32.21, and Vitthalacharya 45-22.

·Systems of Sanskrit Grammar mous coin. on com- Raminanda quoted by Durgad sa 107.30. Ramasarman's com. on the Madhya- Siddhantakaumudi 51.10. Ramasimha patron of Nagojibhatta 50.1. Ramagrama, see Bhanu drkshita. Rematarkavāgisa, commentator on Mugdhabodha 107-24; his supple. ment to Mugdhabodha 108.10; his Uņadikosa 108.22. Rang charya's edition of Sankara's Sarvasiddhanta-sangraba 105 n3. Rafigoji-diksbita brother of Bhattoji 46.24; 48.nl. Ragegangadhara 49-27. Ragavatu another name for the Jaumara school 109.32; quoted in Bharata's com. on Bbaţtikavya 110.1.. Rasavatr Jumaranandi's vritti on KramadIsvara's Sañkshiptasara 109.31. Rashtrakūta 69.15. Ratalana 79.03. Ratnakara 101.35. Rāyamukuta niontions Chandra Liñgānusagana 60-20. Recasts of Ashtādbydyr § 29 ; 57.2. Rigveda, grammatical speculations in 1.25 ; its Sarbitæ anterior to Panini 14.12. Roman conquest, influencing study of Greek grammar 2.12. Royal Asiatic Society, the Bombay Branch, Journal of, 35.02. Rūpagosvīmin's Harinnmāmritam 113.17. Rūpamula of Vimalasarasvati inen. tions Vararuchi alias Katyāyana us anthor of Uņadisutras 27.nl ; it is a recast of Ashtadhyāys 44.2 ; its date 44-5, 44.01, its arrangement of topics 44.6 ff; indebtedness to it acknowledged by Bhattoji Drkshita 45.01. Rūpasiddhi, an, abridgment of Sikatayana Sabdanud Isada, by Dayapala 72.23. Rupavali 51.16. Rodra-(or Padma-)kumāra, father of Haradatta 39.11. com. on tho Ashtadhyāģt 47.12 probably not completed by the author 47.14, 47.n3 ; com. on it called Visbami, by Nagega 49.18 ; another com. called Prabhx, by Vaidyanatha 50'15 ; 107.7. Sabdamabarnaya-nyaga, an anody. Henachandia's Brihadvritti 79.7. Sabdanusosana of Hemachandra presumably utilised by Bhattoji for his Siddhantakaumudr 46.22. Sabdanuśasada of Mulayagiri 80.31 ff. Sabdanusāsapa of Sakaļāyana (Jaina) not a very ancient work 26-3 ; later than Jainendra 68.9; meant for Svetamlaras 08-13 ; slicntioned in the Gaủaratnamahodadhi 68.16 ; in the Madha- Viya-Dhūtuvritti 68.17 ; mentaries on it 68.14 ; accessory treatises on it 68:14; not the same as ancient Sakatāyana $ 52 ; proof for this 69.nl ; quoted as abhinava by Bopadevu 68.31. Sabdanuáīsanu-Brihad vritti, Hemachandra's com. his Sorbrūnusagana 76.17 ; three diflorent Nyirsas on the same 76-21, 79.2, 79.7 ; its quotations mostly identified by the first Nyasa 76.2 ; contains Siddhartja's pras'asti 77.3 ff; its abridgment perhaps by Hemachandra biiself"76.8 ; comprehends also accessory treatises of the school 77.28; Dhundhika on it 78.6 ff ; a Laghu-oyasa on it 79.1. Sabdaratna, Nagoji's com. on the Praudbamanorama 49-16; a com., Bhavaprakasika, on it by Vaidyanatha 50.15. Sabdarthachandrika by Hansavija. yagaại 100.27. Sabdasiddhi, Mahadeva's com. Durgasimha's vritti 89.10. Sadananda's Subodhint 102.14f. Sages, the three, 34.11., Sabajakirti's Sarasvataprakriyavártika, 100.21 ff ; his date 100-24, 100.nl. Sabi Salem, emperor of Delhi, honours Chandrakirti 98.17 ff 98.91. on OWO on S Sabaraavāmin 53.20. Sabda kaustubha by Bhattoji, & ·General Index Saiva grammars 114.10 ff. Salatura Paini's native place 19.1; Saka 16-31 ; 17-31; 18-12; see also identified with Labaur in Yusuf- Scythians 18-18. zai valley 19.2 ; now an obecaro Šakalya, Padapatha by, 4:18; menand c'eserted place 19.6. tioned in the Nirukta 8.pl ; Šalkturfya an alias of Paņini 18-34 ; 18.01. mentioned by Panini 12.u2 , quoted hy Katyilyala 31.nd. Salomsbah, Emperor, 93.8. Samantabhadra quoted by Pujya- Śakapūņi mentioned in the Nirutta pada 66-n2. 8.nl. Samantabhadias Tipaņi on the Sakatāyada (ancient) quoted by Chintanani 72.7. name in Bopadera's Mugdhabo. Samasauliakra 51.17. dha 10.n3 ; mentioned by Panini Simasrami, Satyavratu, on Panini's 12.n2, 68.25 ; often considered date 14.17. author of the Uņādisūtras 25.24; Samayasında, agūri's com. on the no work of the urcient Śakati- Kalpusūtrus 03-2, 63-n2. Sunbila, Taittiriye, grainmatical yana now extant 26.5 ; quoted by speculations in, 2.2; the language Katyāyana 31.n3 ; mentioned in the Mahabhashya 25-n5 , differof Samhi as diferent from that of ent from later (Jaina ) Sabata- Brahmanas, 3 9; the Samlitas of Rik, Sīma, and Krishna-Yajne yana § 52 ; 80:31 ; 81:8; credited anterior to Pānini 14:12. with the authorship of the Krit prakaraṇa as incorporated in the Sangula, a town destroyed by Alexander and mentioned by Katantra 84.24, 87.20. Panini 17.11f1". Śūkatāyana (Jain) Prof Pathak's Sanghapati or Sanghesvara 98.29; paper on, 64 14 ; 64.84 ; his 99.8. date 65.1, 69 12 ff ; his in- Suñgraha, an extensive work of debtedi ess to Jainendia 65.2 ; Vyatli 31:18, and described as also author of the Amoghavritti the basis for Mahābhūehya 31.n9. 69-13; was a Śretāmhara Jain Sanjñas, sce Technical terms. 73.nl; nature of his Subdīnu. Sankala, see Sangala. sãouna $ 53; draws freely upon Sankala, Prince who founded the the Jainendra 69-20; many of big city of Sangala 17-13, gūtras same as Panini's 69-22, Sankaracharya's Sarvasiddbanta- 69'n3, or only slightly changed Aangraha edited by Rangãoharya 70.1, 70•p1; indebtedness to 105.03; lis Sārtra-bbīshya 33.22. Chandraginin 70.2ff, 70 12 ; t.) Sankhabasti insription 65-6. Jainendra 70.5, 70.n3, 70 n4; Sañkhya-kārikas 64.20. quotes Indra 70.7 ; the extent Sañksbiptasara of Kiamadisvara and arrargement of his Sab. 108:32 ; its relation to the Ashịadanusagana 70-10ff; the authors dhyāyr 109.10 ff ; Junjazanardi's quoted by him 70.05; his frantic Vritti on it 169 27ff. effort to secure brevity illustrated Sanskrit grammar, schools of, dear. 71.6; his technical terminology ly a dozen 1.10 ; writers on, at 71.7; other works by Sakațayana least three hundreds treatises on, over a thousand 1:13; $ 54; comm. on his Šabdūmust- 71-30ff; see under schools. recasts of it 72.10ff ; later ousted by Hema- Santapavacharya, author of the chandra's Sabdanusagana 73.3, Phițsūtrus 27.12 ; mentioned as a which however freely draws relatively modern writer 27.n4. upon it 76-13, 76.n1, 76•n 2. Suptasati, com. on, by Nagesa 49.7. Sapta varman received revelation of Suketa besieged by Mepander 32.23. Aindra grammar from Kurttikeya Śakta granmars 114.10ff. 10-22 ; see also Sarvavarman. * 1.11; ROD ·Systems of Sanskrit Grammar Sara by KadinTtha, a com. on the Sarasvati reveals Sarasvata setras Prakriyakaumudi 46.1. 95.5. Sarapradípikū by Jagannatha 98-1, ŚTrira-bhashya 33.22. 100-8. Sartha 105 5. Sara-Siddbantakaunydt of Varada Sarvasiddhantasangraha of Satikaraja, an abridgmant of the racharya, ed. by Rangtoharya Siddhantakaunndi 51.4. 105.03. Sarawyata school 43.29;81.24;its date Sarvavarman 10-3 ; 83.nl ; founder $73; its original extent 92.nl ; of the Katantra 864 ; his patron two rooensions of its Satrapatha Satavahana 82.25, 83.4, 82 n3 ; 92.pl ; its special features 874 ; evidence for later interpolations its technical terms 94.11ff ; 20 in his original sutrapatha $65; paribhashTs to it 94.21; and no 87·17ff ; the Kiitprakarana not Uņadis 94.29 ; the school not by hiin 84.18ff, as also certain mentioned by Bopadeva 92.4, not other sections 85.5ff, 85.16ff ; known to Hemachindra 92.6 ; nature of his work 865 ; the ex. its traditional founder $ 75.; tont of his work 87.3ff. vārtikas to it 94.31, 95-2; com. on Satabaliksha mentioned in the it by Vitthala 89.2; most of the Nirukta 8.01. comm. on it later than 1450 A. D. Śatasloki by Bupadev. 195.13. 92.8, and come from Northern Śatavībuna, patron of Sarvavarman India 92.14; comm, on it in- 82.25, 82.03. dopendently of the Sarasvata- Sati mother of Nāgesa 49.35. prakriya § 78; the school Sati-vritti on Uņādis quoted by oncouraged by Muhammedan Ujjvaladatta 54.15 rulers of India 93 4ff, its abridge Satvarāja disciple of Bhūnudikshita ments 103.21ff; a genrral review 48.ni. of its history $80 ; 20 supplc Satyananda, teacher of Isvarananda ments to it 104.6 ; the school the author of Mahabhishyapraaffected by modern revival of dipa-pivarana 43.3. Panini 92.20 ; ils pregent, stutus Satyaprabodha bhattīraka 97.18. 104 21. Satyavrata Sūmasramſ on Panini's Sarasvatabhishya of of Kasinatha dute 14.17. 100.9ff. Saubhava 35.n1 ; 41.20. Shiasvata-dipika, see Sarasvata- Saunagas mentioned by lataajali vyakarana-dhundhika. 31.n10 * one of their vārtikas Sarasvata-múlagatrapatla 92.n1. quoted by the Kasika 37 11. Sarasvataprakriyū of Anubhūtí. Saupadma school absorbe Paginiya Averü pucharya 92.ni, $76; ite Undisutrag 54.9. satrapatha not the original sutra-* | Saapedma school of Padmanabha. patha 92 nl ; commentators on datta $90; its special features it 96.20ff, 877 ; commentaries on 991 ; its arrangement 111.04 ; Sai „Avata independeutly of this commentaries on it 892 ; its pre- $ 78; vārtikas imbeded in its sent stetus 894. Būtrapatha 95.98 ; Saapadma-makaranda by Vishnuit by Kshemendra 95.17; by migra 112.16. Amrita bharati 95.20. Saupadmapaõjika, Padmanabha's Sarasvatapratriyavārtika by Şahathe Sappadma jakirti 100.24, its date 100.24. 112.10. Saragvatapraetda by Vasudeva. Sauryabhagavat mentioned by Pat bhatta 98.94ff ; its date 98.26, añjali 31.n10. 98.02. Savai Jeysir ha invites Nagesa for Sinevatavyakarana-dhandhika or an asvamedha 49.29. Sarasvata-dipika by Megharatna Siyana or Madhava author of the 99.14ff. Dhūtuvritti 52.288. COC on Own com. on ·General Index 143 Schools of Sanskrit grammar, nearly duzet 1.10; Aindra school of Grammarians by Dr. Burnell 3.nl ; the Dikshita school 48 nl, 833. The school of Papini &$10 to 41 , review its history $41; three stages in its later history 56.11ff. Chandra school 942 to $46; its branching off from tho Paniniya school 56.27; its later history $46; why din. appeared from India 61.28ff. The Jainendra school 947-550 ; its later history $ 50.. The school of Śabatāyana 951-955; its later history $55 Eurly weota. rian schools $842-62. Rise of popular schools of grammar 56.34 · 563-980. Hemuchaodra school $56-862 ; its later history $62 ; lunited influence 80.221%. ile Katantra school 863-972; its early history $67; its history in Bengal 871 ; in Ki mir $72. Tbo Saragvata school 873-980; general review of its luistory $800 The school of Bopadleva 8881-85 ; its later history $84. The Faumara schoul $86-19; its present status $89. "The Suupadina school $990-94 ; its present stutup $94. Later sectarian schools $95-$$7. Scythian invasions as affecting development of Sunskrit 34.20.; the people not unknown to Indians before Alexander's invasion 15.33; 17-32; their first king Doiocos 18.1. Sectarian schools, early $$42-62- later 8895-97. Senaka suentioned by Pāņini 12mn2. Sesha-Krishna author of Prakās'a on Ramachandra's Prakriyakaumudi 45,25; personal details about him 45.27ff ; the preceptor of Blattoji 46.3, who is however not grateful to his memory 46.29 ; his dato cir. 1600 A. D. 46.4 , Jagannatha his son's pupil 47.2, 48.01. Sesha-Nrisimbasūri father of Sesha- Krishna 45.26. Sesharaja, se Patañjali. Seshasurman's com, on the Pari. .bhasbendudekhara 55.9. Shabajaban patron of Jagannatha 46.27. Sheshagiri Shastri 39.n2; 40 at. Siddhanandi quoted by Sakatayana 70.25. Siddhantachandrika by Roma. chandrasrama 102.30; itp com. quentaries 102.18ff; the author's own abridgment of it called Lagbu-Siddhantacbandika with a com, 102.1988. Siddhantakaumudi of Bhattoji u modelied upon Ramachandra's Prakriyakaun:udi 45 10; importanco of the Siddhāntabau. mudi 831 ; its presumed indebtedness to Hemachandra's Subdanu. sábana 46 22 ; uuthor's own com. on it in two recensions 47.7ff ; com, Tattvabodhini by Jñaneudrasarasvati 47.25, with a sup. plement by Juyukrishna 48.4 ; com. on it by Nūgojibhaſta 49.15; its abridgments $34 ; its relation to tho Ilaimakainudi 79.21f ; 109.3 Siddhantaratna by Jinendu alias Jiparutna 102.27. Siddharāja, 8c6 Jayasinha. Siddhasenn quoted by Pujyapada 66.n2 ; not a grammarian at all according to Hemachandra 66.22. Siksha (of Paņini) not a vory ancient work 27.12; a stanza from it found in tho Mahabhīshy& 27.15, 27.05; the bame commented upon by Bhartrihari 27-06 ; and quoted by Kumrrila 275 60-30, Silahāra 67.4. Singarour; see Sringaverapura. Siradeva's treatise on Paribhaghas qnoted in the Madhaviya-Dhatuviiti 55.6. Śishyalekha, poem by Chandragomin (2) 61.6. Si upalavadha 27.03. sisuprabodha by Puñjarāja 97-8. Śiva revealed the pratyahara sütras to Panial 19.13 ; 23.18 ; 83-6 ; (=vowels) 114.22. Siyabhatta father of Nagojibhatta 49-34. Sivananda 51.10.

·Systems of Samskrit Grammar WE Sivarima Chakravarti writes sub Sthavira-Jinendrase Jinendre con, to Sripati's supplement to buddhi. Katantra 90-21. Sthiramati, translator of Chandra Siwairāj alias Sarasimha of Jodhatexts in Tibetan language 61.19, Subandhu 13-22 ; 14.1 pur 80.1f, 80.n1. Subbasbitavali of Vallabbadavu Skandagupta 58.27. quotes Panini the poet 13-7, Sloka-värtikas, their number 31.23, 13.n3. their authorship discussed. Subodhikt, Amitabhārati's com. 31.011. on the Sūrugata prakriya 97.14; Smith, Vincent, Emily History of aląd ascribed to Visvešvarūbdhi, India, 17-5; 17.16 ; 82.03,91 nl. to Satyajırab dhabhaçţaraka, etc. Somachandra, second name of He. 97.17ff. machandra 74.12. Subodhiki or Dip ka by Chandra- Bomadova's version of Jainendra kiti with an important pras'asti 65.18 ; his Sabdarnavuchandiikā at the end 98.7ff, 65.19, 67.2 ; his version earlier Subodhini of Sadananda 102.14f. and truer 65.21ff, 65.n2 ; personal Subodhin ly Gopalagiri on Vijdetails about him 67.2ff. jalabhüpati's Prabodhaprakada 115.30. Speeches, contact of different, as Sudarsana an alias of Haradatta influencing study of gian. 40.nl 2.21. Sudhalahari, com. on, by Nagesa Sphotāyana montioned by Panini 49.7. 12.nz. Sūrasimha al as Siwairty of Jodha- Srautu-gūtras of Katyāyana 29.n1. pur 80.1f ; 80.n1. Sravana Belgola 39 n1 ; 71 n1. Sūtra-form not new to Pāṇini 13.nl ; Średatta quoted by Pūjyanada possibly due to scarcity of writing matnial 23.6. 66.n2. Svapna-Vīgavudattam of Blība Srdatta grandfather of Padmana. 13.28. bhadatta 111.5. Syadisamuchchayu of Amarachan- Śridhara Chakravarti's com. on the dra 80-10f. Saupadma 112.13. Srikanthacharita by Mankha 84.22. T Srimala family 96.33. Śriñgaverapura 50-1. Taiţiki inentioned in the Nirukta 8.01. ŚrIpati's supplminent to the Kūtantra 90-18; sub-commentaries Taittirfya Aranyaka, 4.n2. on it 90-20f ; further supplement Taittiriya Samhita, grammatical to the supplement 90.24. speculations in 2.2, speaks of Śrrpati grandfather of Padmana- Indra as the first of grammarians bhadatta 111.7. 10-24, 10.n4. Takakusu 64.20. Sriranga teacher of Madhava 98.20. Tantra-vārtika 2.nl ; 27.n5. Sridesha, see Patañjali. Turinatha, his account about the Srivallabha-vāchanācbarya's com. Aindra school 10-17. Honiachandra's Liñgūnusa. Tarañgini, Harshakirti's com. on sana 79.28ff. his own Dhaluputha for Saras- Brutapala quoted by Hemschundia vata 103.9. 76'02 ; also in the Amogla viitti Tarkasañgraha 50-23. 76.n2. Turkatilakabhattacharya's oom. on Sthanlasbţivi inentioned in the the Sarasvata 102-23; bis date Nirukta 8.nl. 102.26. on ** ·General Index 145 as the Tattvabodhini by Jíūrendragarasvati, & com. on Siddhantakaumndr 47.25; supplemented by Jayakrishṇa 48.4 ; its nature 48.2ff, and dute 48.8. Tuttyachandra, Juyanta's abridg ment of the Prakriyakaumudi 51.nl. Tattvadipika by Lokesakara 102.15. Tattvartharīja vārtika 63:24. Technical devices used by Panini $13. Technical terms (Saõjñās) of primitive Prātiśākhyas 3:13; identified with thosa of Aindra school by Dr. Biruell 5•n2; of Yaska and Pāṇini compared f.n2 ; pre- Paņiniya not all necessarily of the Aindra school 11.25. those of Katyāyana not always the same ay thuse of Pāṇini 30.24ff ; of Devanandi 66-5. 66.nl; of Sakatāyana 71.85; of the Katantra 86.26 ; of the Sarasvata 94:6. 94.11ff ; of later sectarian schools 106.16 ; of Bopadeva 106.20, 106.n2 ; of Suupdma, samu as of Pūņini 111.20, 112.2ff; of the Harināmāmrita 113.23tf ; of Prabodhaprakıša 114.22/r. Tibetan translations of Chandra treatises 58.11 ; 01:18; of the Kälūp4-Dhātūsūtra 90.5. Toda 102.n2. Tolkuppiyam, the Tamil grainmar, full of Aindra terminology 11.3, 82.12 ; read in the Pandya King's 118sembly 11.4 ; is closely related to Katautra to Kachchāyanu's Pali grammar, and to the Prátisakhyas 11.7. Trikāndasesha 111.n2. Trilochana (not = Trilochanadisa ) author of the Uttaraparibishța to Śripati's supplement to Katantra 90.22f. Trilochanadūna quoted by Vitthala charya 45.19; his Katantravrittipanjika 89.1ff ; quoted by Bopadeva and Vitthula 89.2f ; per. sonal details abont lim 89.5f; subcom. on his work 89.7ff, 19.16 ; distinct from the author of the Katantrottaraparibishta 89.nl; quoted by Kaviraja 90-14; differ. ent from Trilochana 90.29. 19 [Sk. Gr. ] Udayacbandra author of an exten. Bive Nyaga un Eltmachundia's Brihadvritti 79.2, 78.ol; belongs to Chūiedrugachihha 78.33. Udayana or Uddana court pundit of Pratūpartitra 101.11. Lrlayasauthyre author of the Phundhika on the Prakrit cbapier of Hewachandru's Brihadvritli 78.25. Udayaning of Udepuis 93.13. Uddana, see Udayana. Uddyota, see Mahahhashyapradipoc! dyota. Udyāna sarae as Yugufzai valley 19.3. Ugrabbūti author of Nyāna on Ja. gaddhara's Būlabodhini 91.14 ; his jrobable identification with his namesake of cir. 1000 A. D. 91.18. Ugrabhūti teacher of Āuanda pala and probably the same author of the Nyaga 91.15. Ujjvuludatta's vritti on Paniniya *Uinadiputras 54.11 ; edited by Aufrecht 54.12 ; quotes earlier vrittis 54.14 ; mentions Chändra- Lingānusdeanu 60-20 ; quoted by Padmanabhadatta 111.13, 111.n2; 112.29. Unadikosa (to Mugdhabodha) Ly Rāmatarkavāgtúa 108.22. Unūdipūtha $39, see Uņadisūtras. Unīdisūtras of Panini 21.31 ; commonly ascribed to Sükuțayana 25.24tf, 25•n4 ; their technical terms and anuland has same as Panini's 26.10 ; probably regard. ed as Panini's by Katyayana 26.18. 26.nl ; not all belonging to Panini 26.23 ; probably revised by KatyTyana 26.27 ; traditionally assigned to Vararachi alias Katy yana 27.6; Panini's Uņādi sūt as absorbed by other schools 54.8; Ujjvaludatta 's vritti on them 54.11;other commentators 64.14ff ; Chandra Uñadi 60-10, its mode of presentation 60:14; that of Sakațayana 71.15; of Hemachandra 77.23, with vivarana or vritti" on it 77.31 ; of Katantra in two recensions: that of Durgu- ·146 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar sirisha 30.1, and that current in Kāšmir 85.nl ; none for Sarasvata 94.29, 103.8 ; of Goyichandra 110-14 ; of Padınanabhadatta the founder of Saupadma 112.19. Uņādivritti (Sauparmu) of Padma. habhadatta 112.24 ; its arrungement 112.25ff. Upadeśamalakarnikī of Lakshmi. vallabha 63.3. li padhvilya quoted hy Hemachandra 16.n2, sec Kaij yata. Upala quoted by Hemachandra 76.n2. Upasurgavritti of Chandragomin 60.12; found in Tibetan version only. 60.26. Urungala 101.9. Vadava inentioned by Patanjali 31.n10. Vadiraja alias Jayasimha II, follow-student of Dayüpāla 72.24, and a Chalukya ainperor 72.25. Vabada father of Mandana aod brother of lbe ininister Paduma 99.7. Vaidyo community of Beogal as producing muny wiiters on Kā. tantra 90.25. Vaidyapitha Payagunda, pupil of Nūgesı 48.nl : comments upon Sahda-kaustubha 47.23; his works 3:32, 50-37, 55.9 ; personal de lails about hiin 50-5ff. Vuislınava grammars 113:13, 114.3 ; now current only in Bengal 114.9. Vaiyakaranas, mentioned in the Nirukta 8.01. Vaiyakaranasiddhanta bhūshare of Konılabhatta 48.nl, 48.14, 55.24; com. on it ry Nagesa 55.26. Vaiyakaranasiddhữntamaūjūslia of Nigesa 49.20 ; & com. on it hy Vaidyanatha, called Kalı 50-14. Vajayyāyana mentioned by Katyyana 31.n5. Vájusuneyi Pratisakhya, the first grammatical work of Katyayana 29.11; posterior to and based upon Panini 29.02 ; some of its rules repeated in an einended foru un vārtikas 30.5, 30 nl ; refers to Sakaļāyana '31.123, and sakalya 31.n4. Vājagabeyi Sain hita 29.14. Vajrata 42.13. Vakyapadiyu account of viciositudes in the Mahabhashya text 13:20, 13.n4, 33.5 41.15 : states that Mahabhishya was a suminary of Vyādi's Sangrahu 31•n9; mentions Baiji and others 35.nl ; by Bhartrihari $27 ; its nature 41.11ff; gives the earliest reference to Chandra and mentions bis predecessors 41.1911, 57.20 ; 42.n3 ; 55.23 ; 59.nl. Vallabhadeva in the Sublāshitavali quotes Pāņini the poet 137. Pūliniki-Ramayana, commentary on, by Nāgesa 49.6. Vīmana, one of the authors of the Küsika 35:12, 86-8, ; his contri. bution to the Kāśikā distinguished from that of Juyaditya 36:4, 36.nl ; minister of Jayi. přila of Kasipir, sometimes idenlified with Jayaditya 36:21 ; quoted by Vitthalachărya 45-20; identified with the author of a Lingänuśāsana 54.2, quoted by Hemachandra 76•n2 ; and by Bhattoji 107.9 : 8ce Jayaditya. Vūinavācharya author of a Liõgii. nusasana 53.28 ; identified with iluthor of the Kāśikā 54.2 ; parljer writers mentioned by himn 53. 30f ; mentions Chandra Liñ. ginusīnana 60-20. Vananendru-sarasvati 47.26. Vamsivādana's com. on Goyichandra's vritti 110.20. Vananali's Kalāpavyakaranotpatti. prastīva 82.02. Varadarāja author of abridgments of the Siddbāntakaumudi 51.4 ; 62.21 ; 104.11. Vāraṇāvanesa author of Amritasriti, a com. on the Prakriyakaumudi 46.01. Varnruchi (alias Katyűyana) suid to bave been at firat & follower of the Aindra school 10.15 ; mentioned by Virualasarasvati 88, author of the Uņādisutras 27.al, 27.6; 111.n1; 53.24; 53.30; 53:12 85.nl ; credited with authorship of the Katantra-kritprakariņa ·General Index 147 cam. On 84.26, 87.23, viih a the same 85.21. Vardhanana anthor of Ganarztnamabodarbs 52:12; quotes Ksh!- rasvāmin 52-4 ; his date 53.15, 88.94 ; not fumo of the author of Katantra vistara 88-20ff. Vardhamāna author of Katantravistara 88.20 ; quoted h, Bopa deva 88.23 ; his probable date. 88.22 ; distinct from author of Ganaratnanalinda dhi 88.04: 89.4. Varnasūtras of Chandragomin 60.13, 60-29, 60.02, Appendix i. Varslia, said to be the teacher of Panini 19-11. Vīrshyaganya an alias of lóvarakrishnu 64.04. Värshyāyani inentioned in the Nirukta 8.11. Värtikas of Katyāyana 14.5: their nuinber 30.1 ; some - an einendud blatement of Vājasaneyi Pratiśükhya rules 30-5, 30.nl ; prose and metrical 39.15. Vartikukīra quoted by Henachandra 76.n2 ; 8ee Katyāvana. Virtikakaras before Kātyāyana especially the Sloka-vārtikakāras 28.4; the question about the authorship of these last, discussed 31.n11;-after Katyāyana31.2011, 31.010 Väravadattī, an akhyāyikit mentioned in the Mahabhãohiya 13:20. Vasudevnbhatta's Sarasvataprasīda 98.24ff ; his date 98.26, 98.12. Vasnrātā preceptor of Boarțritari and disciple of Chandra 59.1. Vātayāyana qurtes Gonardiya and Gunikāputra 33-4. Vayacagachchha 80-9. Vedañgas, 6'n1 ; 12.12. Vedas, grammatical speculations in, $2; Arctic Home in the -- 3.02 ; collected into familybooks 4.9 ; 6.nl ; lists of difficult words from them collected 8.7; nature and utility of their study 8.17. Vedic Gods, their names 8.9; their cosmological functions 8-18. Veni mother of Vaidyanātha 50-6. Vidvatprabodbint or Rāmabhatt of Rāmabhatta 101:3; the many pras'astis ombodied in it 101.5ff; 101.24ff. Vidyāvāgisa quotes Durgadasa 107.32. Vidyū vinoda, father of Nyāya I boltana 110-17. Vijayananda teacher of Hansa vijayagiui 100-29. Vijjala-hbūpati's Prabodhachan drika 115.2211; personal details about birn 115.27ff. Vikrame, f ther of Vijjala-bhupati 115.27. Vikinnuditya 111.01, Vimalasarasvati meptions Vararucbi alias Katyűyaua as author of Uạüdisutras 27.2; 27.01; uuthor of Rūpamala 44-2 ; his dato 44.5; 41.04 ; quoted by Amritabhārati 44.nl. Vi-rūyaka, father of Raghunatha 1034. Vinuyasundara, teacher of Megharatna 99.15. Vinnyavijayagaņi author of Haijnalaghuprakriya 79-12 ; pupil of Kirtivijayageni 79.13; bis date 79.13. 79.02. Vincent Smith, Early History of India, 17.5 ; 17.16. Vireśvara, preceptor of Jagannatha 47.nl, and son of Seshkrishna 48.01. Vishamt by Nāgoji bhatia, & com. on Ebaţtoji's Sabda-kaustubha 49.18. Vishnumisra's coin. Saupadmanakaranda 112.15. Vishnu-purāņa 16.7. Visrāntavidyadhara quoted by Hemachnodra 76.n2. Viśvakarma, author of Vyakriti, a com. on Prakriyakaumudi 46.01. Visvaprakasa 111.02. Viøvesvara-dikshita, see Bhin11- drksbita. Visves varăbdhi 97.17. Vitthala, com. on Sarasvata, quotes Trilochanadusa 89.2. Vitthalacharya author of Prasada the best com. on the Prakriykaumudi 45.14, 45•n2 ; bis date 45-16; disparaged by Bhattoji 45:17, the authors quoted by bim 45.19ff ; personal details ·148 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar about him 45.21ff; quotes Naren. dricharya 93.24. Vivarana of Isvarīnanda, a com. on Muhubhashyapradipa 43-3. Vivarana of Narayana, a com. on Mahabhishyapradipa 43-3. Vivarana on Heinachandru's Linganusiaana and on Uñadigūtras 77.31ff. Vrittinūtra mentioned by Itsing and perhaps same as the Kasika 35.20, 35.02. Vyādi said to have been at first a follower of the Aindra school 10.16 ; said to be a contemporary of Panini 19.10; cominonly regarded author of the Paribhashas 27.20 ; comes between Pāņini and Patañjali 27.21 ; inentioned by Katyāyaua 31'n6 ; author of the Sangraba 31.18. 31.nº ; mentioned by Vānanācharya 53.30, 53.n2. Vyakaranadurghatodghāta by Kesa vadevo 110 n3. Vyakhyānu-pra kriyū 82.1. Vytkriti hy Viśvakarman, coin. on the Prakriyakaumudi 46'n1. w Weber on Pūņini's date 14.3; his History of Indian literature 82.7. Westorgaard's Radices Linguæ Hanscritve 25•n3. Wilkin's Sanskrit Grammar 104.18. Writing, art of, when introduced 4:26 ; presnpposed by the primi. tive Pratidakhyas 4-30. X, Y, Z Yadavas of Devagiri 104:32, 105.3. Yajnavalkya looked upon by Katyayana as a very ancient writer 27.01. Yajõikas mentioned in the Nirukta Yaśaḥkirti 64.02. Yasuḥpāla writes the drama Mobaræju-parajaya 75.11. Yaska, prodecessors of, $5; ho knew fourfold classification of words 5.19; 8.25; shows Panini in making 5.19, as primitive Pratibakh yus show Yūska in making 5.19; Ya-ka, inuinly # philologist 5.26; forms link between primitive Pratisakhyas and Panini 5.28 ; calls his work a comploment to grammar 5•n3 ; his Nirukta, its date 86 ; his account of course of developinent of Vedic studies 6.nl ; mentions three periodo of Vedic studies 6.nl ; his data depending upon that of Pāṇipi 6.14 ; his teclinical terms com. pared with those of Pāṇini 6•n2; Yūska comes between 800 to 700 before Christ 7.5 ; objections to his being placed before Panini considered 7.6ff; nature of his Niruktı 87 ; teachers and schools mentioned by him 8.nl; his theory that every noun is derived from verbal root 9.1, being basis for Pūņini and postulate of modern philology 9:4; Yaska’s Bucoce. Surs $ 8; 9.n2 ; 12.5; 12.n2 ; be preceded Pūnini 14.13 ; made posterior to Păņini by Pandit Satyavrata Sämasrami 14.17;56-4. Yafobhadra quoted by Pujyapada 66.12. Yasodharma 58.29. Yasonandt 64.n2. Yavanas mentioned by Pāņini 15:13; not always to be identified with lonian Greeks 15.23 ; Panini's kaowledge of them less than that of Katyāyana 16-23;16:33: 18.12; 18.22; Menander, called Yavada 32.23. Yogavibhaga 37.25, 37-31 ; 38.nl. Yuenfzai valley 19.2 ; known as Udyana in the days of Hiuen Tsang 19.3. 8:01. Yajurvedasambita-bhablıya 42.13. Yajus, Krisna, Sainlita anterior to Panini 14.12. Yakshavarman's com. called Chin. 1Tmani on Sakatayana Sabdanu- Saaana 72.3.

·No text on this page.

·No text on this page.

·No text on this page.