Thursday, August 26, 2010

9. अष्टाध्यायी कण्ठस्थ कैसे करें ?

[यों तो यह लेख खासकर उन लोगों के लिए लिखा जा रहा है जिन्हें औपचारिक रूप से किसी पाणिनीय व्याकरण के विशेषज्ञ आचार्य की देखरेख में अष्टाध्यायी के अध्ययन का अवसर नहीं मिला और जो गम्भीरतापूर्वक स्वाध्याय (self-study) से इसका अध्ययन करना चाहते हैं, परन्तु अन्य छात्रों के लिए भी यह लेख उपयोगी सिद्ध होगा, ऐसी आशा है ।

ऐसे तो पाणिनीय व्याकरण का अष्टाध्यायी क्रम से मैंने अध्ययन किया है, किन्तु अष्टाध्यायी मुझे कण्ठस्थ नहीं । कई बार मैंने कण्ठस्थ करने का प्रयत्न किया परन्तु अन्य कार्यों में व्यस्तता के कारण सफल नहीं हो पाया । फिर भी कुछ अध्याय तो कण्ठस्थ हैं । इस प्रक्रिया में जो भी कठिनाई मुझे झेलनी पड़ी है और जो कुछ मुझे अनुभव प्राप्त हुआ है, वह मैं उनलोगों के सामने प्रस्तुत करना चाहूँगा जो पाणिनीय व्याकरण में रुचि रखते हैं और अष्टाध्यायी कण्ठस्थ करना चाहते हैं ।]

1.0 पं॰ युधिष्ठिर मीमांसक जी ने "मेरी दृष्टि में स्वामी दयानन्द सरस्वती और उनका कार्य" में लिखा है - "व्याकरणाध्ययन से पूर्व अष्टाध्यायी के कण्ठस्थीकरण की परम्परा विद्यमान रही है । आज से ७०-८० वर्ष पूर्व तक सिद्धान्त कौमुदी के क्रम से पाणिनीय व्याकरण के पठन-पाठन करने वाले बच्चों को भी अष्टाध्यायी कण्ठस्थ कराई जाती थी । अपने समय के काशी के सर्वश्रेष्ठ वैयाकरण गुरुवर श्री पं॰ देवनारायण तिवारी जी ने सन् १९२७ में कहा था कि 'आजकल के छात्रों को व्याकरण इसलिए नहीं आता कि उन्हें अष्टाध्यायी कण्ठस्थ नहीं होती है ।' इसी प्रसंग में उन्होंने यह भी कहा था कि 'मैं प्रतिदिन नैत्यिक कर्म के पश्चात् अष्टाध्यायी का पाठ करता हूँ ।' " [सन्दर्भ १, पृष्ठ ७, पैरा २] अष्टाध्यायी के कण्ठस्थीकरण की परम्परा के बारे में चीनी यात्री इत्सिङ्ग ने भी भारत के अपने यात्रा-विवरण (६८१-६९१) में उल्लेख किया है, उद्धरण के लिए देखें - पं॰ ब्रह्मदत्त जिज्ञासु जी लिखित "अष्टाध्यायी (भाष्य) प्रथमावृत्ति”, प्रथम भाग, भूमिका, पृ॰३२, अन्तिम पैरा ।

1.1 पाणिनीय व्याकरण के ठीक-ठीक बोध के लिए अष्टाध्यायी के कम-से-कम अध्याय १-३, ७-८ तथा ६ का डेढ़ पाद (प्रथम पाद आधा, चौथा सम्पूर्ण) कण्ठस्थ करना आवश्यक है [सन्दर्भ २, पृष्ठ १५, पैरा २] ।

1.2 सुश्री मेधा देवी पं॰ ब्रह्मदत्त जी जिज्ञासु के बारे में लिखती हैं - "मुझ सर्वथा लघु विद्यार्थिनी को कितना उत्साहित कर और प्रेरणाएँ देकर गुरुजी ने आगे बढ़ाया, यह मेरे लिए अविस्मरणीय है । अष्टाध्यायी के सूत्र ५० प्रातः और ५० सायं याद कराके ४॥ महीने में पूरी अष्टाध्यायी कण्ठस्थ करा दी ।" [सन्दर्भ ३, पृष्ठ ३०४]

1.3 सन् १९५२ में पूज्यपाद गुरुजी के प्रथम दर्शन करके उनसे अष्टाध्यायी अध्ययन की अनुमति पाने के बाद की बात श्री व्रतपाल आर्य अपने संस्मरण में लिखते हैं - "अष्टाध्यायी का अध्ययन चालू हो गया । अष्टाध्यायी कण्ठस्थ कराने की सरलतम विधि बतायी गयी । प्रथम सूत्र को पाँच बार उच्चारण करना, दूसरा सूत्र पाँच बार उच्चारण करना, फिर प्रथम और दूसरा सूत्र मिलाकर क्रमशः पाँच बार उच्चारण करना । पुनः तीसरा सूत्र पाँच बार उच्चारण करके पुनः एक, दो, तीन सूत्रों को क्रमशः पाँच बार उच्चारण करना । चौथा सूत्र पाँच बार उच्चारण करना । फिर एक से ४ सूत्र पर्यन्त पाँच बार उच्चारण करना । पाँचवाँ सूत्र पाँच बार उच्चारण करना । पुनः एक से पाँच सूत्रों का क्रमशः पाँच बार उच्चारण करना । बस पाँचो सूत्र छात्र को सरलता से कण्ठस्थ हो जाते हैं । मैंने अष्टाध्यायी के सूत्र इसी विधि से कण्ठस्थ किये थे । यह सरलतम विधि अन्य आर्ष गुरुकुल में नहीं बतायी गयी थी । इस कारण दो वर्षों में भी अष्टाध्यायी कण्ठस्थ नहीं हो पायी थी ।" [सन्दर्भ ३, पृष्ठ ३२१- ३२२]

1.4 वैद्य भीमसेन शास्त्री पूज्य जिज्ञासु जी सम्बन्धी अपने संस्मरण में लिखते हैं - "[६] हमारे विद्यालय के विद्यार्थियों ने 'आसु-यु-वपि-रपि-लपि-त्रपि-चमश्च' (३।१।१२६) सूत्र को इस प्रकार घोट (रट) रखा था - 'आसु-युव-पिर-पिल-पित्र-पिचमश्च' । जब अष्टाध्यायी का पाठ गुरुवर्य ने सुना तो वे उन्मुक्त हँसे और कहने लगे कि इस पाठ ने तो 'दश रामशराः' के स्थान पर 'दशरा मशराः' कहने वाले पण्डित जी की याद दिला दी । और विद्यार्थियों को कहने लगे कि मुझे तो तुम्हारे जैसे अष्टाध्यायी के भक्तों की जरूरत है, चाहे तुम्हें पदच्छेद नहीं आया, तुम लोग रुके नहीं, सूत्र को किसी प्रकार रट ही लिया, तो यह भी कम महत्त्व की बात नहीं ।" [सन्दर्भ ३, पृष्ठ २७२, पैरा ३]

2.0 अष्टाध्यायी-सूत्रपाठ के कई संस्करण उपलब्ध हैं [सन्दर्भ ४-७] । इन विभिन्न संस्करणों का निम्नलिखित प्रकार से वर्गीकरण किया जा सकता है –

(क) संहिता पाठ या विभिन्न पदों का योजक-चिह्न से पृथक्कृत पाठ के अनुसार

किसी संस्करण में सूत्रों का केवल संहिता पाठ है (सन्दर्भ ४-६), तो किसी में विभिन्न पदों का योजक-चिह्न से पृथक्कृत पाठ (सन्दर्भ ७) ।

(ख) अनुवृत्ति उल्लेख के अनुसार

किसी संस्करण में सूत्रस्थ पदों की अनुवृत्ति दायीं ओर के हाशिए में उस संख्या से प्रदर्शित प्राप्त होता है जिस सूत्र तक अनुवृत्ति जाती है और अनुवृत्तिस्थ पद अधिक काला (bold face) में मुद्रित है (सन्दर्भ ७) अथवा किसी सूत्र में कौन-कौन पद अनुवृत्ति रूप में आते हैं और इस सूत्र के कौन-कौन पद अनुवृत्ति के रूप में आगे जाते हैं उनका दोनों ओर के हाशिए में साक्षात् उल्लेख (सन्दर्भ ५) ।

(ग) सूत्रपाठ की प्राचीनता के आधार पर

किसी संस्करण में सूत्रपाठ संशोधित करके महाभाष्यानुसारी बना दिया गया है (सन्दर्भ ४-५), जबकि किसी में काशिकानुसारी ज्यों का त्यों रखा गया है (सन्दर्भ ६-७) ।

2.1 अष्टाध्यायी-सूत्रपाठ कण्ठस्थ करने के पूर्व अपने लिए सुविधाजनक संस्करण का चयन भी अत्यन्त आवश्यक है । सूत्रों को ठीक-ठीक उच्चारण सहित याद करने के लिए यह आवश्यक है कि सूत्रपाठ का ऐसा संस्करण चुना जाय जिसमें किसी सूत्र के पदों को योजक चिह्न (हाइफन) से पृथक्-पृथक् किया रहे, विशेष रूप से ऐसे सूत्रों में जहाँ पदों के पृथक्करण में भ्रम की पर्याप्त सम्भावना हो । उदाहरण - सूत्र 'तनादिभ्यस्तथासोः' (२.४.७९) को यदि 'तनादिभ्यस्त-थासोः' लिखा जाय तो 'तथा' जैसे पद का भ्रम नहीं रहेगा । इसी प्रसंग में पं॰ भीमसेन शास्त्री का संस्मरण भी सटीक बैठता है (देखें अनुच्छेद 1.4) ।

यद्यपि पाणिनीय व्याकरण के अध्ययन के लिए पं॰ ब्रह्मदत्त जिज्ञासु जी की "अष्टाध्यायी (भाष्य) प्रथमावृत्ति" ही मेरी दृष्टि में अभी तक सर्वोत्तम सिद्ध हुई है, और जिन्होंने इसी पर आधारित अष्टाध्यायी-सूत्रपाठ भी तैयार किया है, तथापि मुझ जैसे व्यक्ति के लिए पं॰ सत्यनारायण शास्त्री खण्डूड़ी द्वारा सम्पादित अष्टाध्यायी-सूत्रपाठ ही कण्ठस्थ करने हेतु सर्वोत्तम प्रतीत हुआ । सूत्रपाठ कण्ठस्थ करने के समय जो कुछ कठिनाइयाँ मुझे झेलनी पड़ीं और जो कुछ अनुभव प्राप्त हुए, वह सब स्वाध्यायी लोगों के समक्ष प्रस्तुत कर रहा हूँ । आगे उल्लिखित सभी सूत्र या सूत्र-संख्या इसी संस्करण से सम्बन्धित हैं ।

2.2  सूत्रपाठ कण्ठस्थ करने के पूर्व यदि सूत्रों के अर्थ स्पष्ट न हों, तो सूत्रों को कण्ठस्थ करने में अधिक समय लगेगा और कण्ठस्थ हो जाने के बाद स्मृतिपटल पर उन्हें अधिक समय तक बनाए रखना सम्भव नहीं होगा । अतः जिन सूत्रों को आप कण्ठस्थ करने जा रहे हैं, पहले उनका उचित उदाहरण सहित अर्थ अष्टाध्यायी की किसी टीका से अच्छी तरह समझ-बूझ लें । इसके लिए पं॰ ब्रह्मदत्त जिज्ञासु जी की अष्टाध्यायी (भाष्य) प्रथमावृति का प्रयोग कर सकते हैं । यदि उदाहरण के साथ-साथ प्रत्युदाहरण (cross-examples) भी देख लें तो सूत्रार्थ और भी स्पष्ट होगा । इसके लिए काशिका देखनी चाहिए, जैसे- जयशंकर लाल त्रिपाठी द्वारा सम्पादित काशिका (न्यास-पदमञ्जरी सहित), जिसकी उन्होंने भावबोधिनी हिन्दी व्याख्या भी दी है (देखें - सन्दर्भ ८) । 
अष्टाध्यायी टीका का अध्ययन करते समय यदि सूत्रपाठ में कोई छपाई की अशुद्धि दिखे तो उसे उसी समय शुद्ध कर लें ।

3.0 अनुच्छेद 1.3 में अष्टाध्यायी कण्ठस्थ करने की सरलतम विधि जो कुछ बताई गई है, वह एक सामान्य वक्तव्य है । विभिन्न सूत्रों की लम्बाई में बहुत अन्तर है । अतः आवश्यकतानुसार उपर्युक्त नियम में बहुत-कुछ परिवर्तन की गुंजाइश है । उदाहरणार्थ –

3.1 यदि कई लगातार सूत्र छोटे-छोटे एवं लयदार पाये गये तो मैंने कण्ठस्थ करने के लिए एक ही साँस में उन सभी सूत्रों को इकट्ठा दुहराता मानो वे एक ही सूत्र हों । उदाहरणस्वरूप –

(1) प्राद् वहः / परेर्मृषः / व्याङ्-परिभ्यो रमः // उपाच्च (१.३.८१-८४);

(2) खट्वा क्षेपे // सामि / कालाः / अत्यन्त संयोगे च (२.१.२६-२९);

(3) तत्र / क्षेपे / पात्रेसंमितादयश्च (२.१.४६-४८);

(4) हनो वध लिङि / लुङि च / आत्मनेपदेष्वन्यतरस्याम् (२.४.४२-४४);

(5) प्रत्ययः / परश्च / आद्युदात्तश्च // अनुदात्तौ सुपप्पितौ (३.१.१-४);

(6) कृत्याः / तव्यत्-तव्यानीयरः / अचो यत् (३.१.९५-९७);

(7) वहाभ्रे लिहः / परिमाणे पचः / मित-नखे च // विध्वरुषोस्तुदः (३.२.३२-३५)

(8) करणे यजः / कर्मणि हनः / ब्रह्म-भ्रूण-वृत्रेषु क्विप् // बहुलं छन्दसि (३.२.८५-८८)

(9) सु-कर्म-पाप-मन्त्र-पुण्येषु कृञः / सोमे सुञः (३.२.८९-९०)

(10) सृ स्थिरे / भावे / अकर्तरि च कारके संज्ञायाम् (३.३.१७-१९)

(11) प्रे लिप्सायाम् / परौ यज्ञे / नौ वृ धान्ये (३.३.४६-४८)

(12) स्मे लोट् / अधीष्टे च / काल-समय वेलासु तुमुन् // लिङ् यदि (३.३.१६५-१६८)

(13) स्वे पुषः / अधिकरणे बन्धः / संज्ञायाम् (३.४.४०-४२)

(14) अन्तोऽवत्याः / ईवत्याः // चौ / समासस्य (६.१.२२०-२२३)

(15) अतो येयः / आतो ङितः / आने मुक् / ईदासः (७.२.८०-८३)

3.2 यदि कोई सूत्र बहुत लम्बा हुआ तो इस एक सूत्र को कई खंडों में बाँटकर प्रत्येक खंड को एक सूत्र के रूप में समझकर कण्ठस्थ किया । उदाहरणस्वरूप –

छन्दसि निष्टर्क्य-देवहूय // प्रणीयोन्नीयोच्छिष्य // मर्य-स्तर्या / ध्वर्य-खन्य-खान्य-देवयज्या // (आ)पृच्छ्य-प्रतिषीव्य-ब्रह्मवाद्य // भाव्य-स्ताव्योपचाय्य-पृडानि (३.१.१२३)

दिवा-विभा-निशा-प्रभा // भास्कारानन्तादि // बहु-नान्दी-किं // लिपि-लिबि-बलि-भक्ति-कर्तृ // चित्र-क्षेत्र-संख्या-जङ्घा-बाह्वर् // यत्तद्धनुररुःषु (३.२.२१)

संपृचानुरुध-आङ्यम-आङ्यस // परिसृ-संसृज-परिदेवि-संज्वर // परिक्षिप-परिरट-परिवद-परिदह // परिमुह / दुष-द्विष-द्रुह-दुह // युजाक्रीड-विविच-त्यज-रज // भजाति-चरापचरामुषाभ्याहनश्च (३.२.१४२)

ग्रसित-स्कभित-स्तभितोत्तभित // चत्त-विकस्ता / विशस्तृ-शंस्तृ-शास्तृ // तरुतृ-तरूतृ-वरुतृ-वरूतृ-वरूत्रीर् // उज्जवलिति-क्षरिति-क्षमिति-वमित्यमितीति च (७.२.३४)

दाधर्ति-दर्धर्ति-दर्धर्षि // बोभूतु / तेतिक्तेऽलर्ष्यापनीफणत् // संसनिष्यदत्-करिक्रत्-कनिक्रदत् // भरिभ्रद्-दविध्वतो-दविद्युतत् // तरित्रतः-सरीसृपतं-वरीवृजन् // मर्मृज्यागनीगन्तीति च (७.४.६५)

4.0 अष्टाध्यायी कण्ठस्थ करने में प्रौढ़ लोगों के लिए सबसे बड़ी कठिनाई यह है कि अन्य कार्यों की व्यस्तता के कारण लगातार समय दे पाना सम्भव नहीं हो पाता और जो कुछ सूत्र कुछ समय लगाकर रट लिये जाते हैं वे बीच में यदि समयाभाव के कारण सप्ताहों/ महीनों तक दुहराये नहीं गये तो वे स्मृतिपटल से निकल जाते हैं । मैंने कभी अनुच्छेद 1.1 में निर्दिष्ट अंश रट लिये थे परन्तु बाद में लम्बे समय तक मैं उन्हें दुहरा नहीं सका । अतः सब-कुछ मस्तिष्क से निकल गया । हाँ, यदि मैं दुबारा रटने का प्रयास करता हूँ तो रटने में पहले जितना समय नहीं लगता । फिर भी प्रयास यह रहता है कि कम-से-कम पहले तीन अध्याय, विशेष रूप से तृतीय अध्याय, सदा याद रहे । तृतीय अध्याय में कृत् प्रत्यय का विधान है जिसका तकनीकी हिन्दी (या किसी भी अन्य भारतीय भाषा) के लिए नये-नये शब्दों के निर्माण में बहुत महत्त्व है । वैज्ञानिक एवं तकनीकी हिन्दी में मुख्यतः कृदन्त और कुछ तद्धितान्त शब्दों का प्रयोग होता है, तिङन्त शब्दों का प्रयोग बिलकुल नहीं होता । इसलिए विशेष रूप से तृतीय अध्याय की बात की है ।

4.1 अब मैं कुछ ऐसे उपाय की चर्चा करना चाहता हूँ जिनकी सहायता से रटे हुए सूत्रों को अधिक-से-अधिक समय तक स्मृतिपटल पर कायम रखा जा सके और यदि भूल भी गये तो तुरन्त स्मरण में लाया जा सके ।

4.1.1 परम्परा के अनुसार किसी पाद विशेष के सूत्रों के क्रम को स्मृतिपटल पर अक्षुण्ण रखने के लिए प्रथम सूत्र से आरम्भ करके बाद में बीस-बीस सूत्रों के अन्तराल पर के सूत्र सूत्रपाठ के प्रत्येक पाद के अन्त में उल्लिखित पाये जाते हैं । परन्तु प्रौढ़ों के लिए यह अन्तराल बहुत अधिक है । मेरे अनुभव में दस-दस सूत्रों का अन्तराल भी अधिक है । मैं पाँच-पाँच सूत्रों के अन्तराल का प्रयोग करता हूँ । समयाभाव के कारण इन्हीं सूत्रों को बीच-बीच में दुहरा लिया करता हूँ । परम्परा के अनुसार किसी पाद के अन्तिम सूत्र का उल्लेख न कर अवशिष्ट सूत्रों की संख्या का उल्लेख किया जाता है । मुझे यह पसन्द नहीं । मैं अन्तिम सूत्र को ही याद रखता हूँ और उसकी क्रम-संख्या भी ।

4.1.2 कई बार ऐसा होता है कि किसी पाद के सभी या कई सूत्र याद तो होते हैं, किन्तु उनके क्रम याद नहीं रहते अर्थात् किसी विशेष सूत्र के बाद कौन-सा सूत्र आता है यह ध्यान में नहीं रहता । और कभी-कभी ऐसा भी हुआ कि सम्पूर्ण पाद के सूत्रों को मन-ही-मन तेजी से दुहरा लेता तो लगता कि मुझे तो इस पाद के सभी सूत्र अच्छी तरह कण्ठस्थ हो गये हैं । परन्तु तुरन्त बाद पुस्तक से जाँच करने पर पाता कि कोई-कोई सूत्र दुहराते समय छूट गया । सभी सूत्र क्रमबद्ध रूप से याद रहें इसके लिए वही युक्ति लागायी जा सकती है जैसे छात्र जीवन में बच्चों को प्रकाश के अवयव रंगों के क्रमबद्ध नाम याद रखने के लिए “बैनीआहपीनाला” (VIBGYOR) जैसा परिवर्णी (acronym) शब्द स्मरण रखने के लिए सिखाया जाता है । लय का ध्यान रखते हुए सुविधानुसार किसी पूरे कॉलम के सभी सूत्रों के लिए या कुछ सूत्र-समूहों के लिए परिवर्णी बनाये जा सकते हैं । उदाहरणार्थ - पृष्ठ ४२ पर के बायें कॉलम के सभी सूत्रों [३.३.३१ "यज्ञे समि स्तुवः" से लेकर ३.३.४१ "निवास-चिति-शरीरोपसमाधानेष्वादेश्च कः"] के लिए परिवर्णी "य-प्रे-प्र-छ / उ-स-प-प / व्यु-ह-नि" का निर्माण किया । उसी तरह, पृष्ठ ४५ पर के दाहिने कॉलम के सभी सूत्रों [३.३.१३५ "नानद्यतनवत् क्रियाप्रबन्धसामीप्ययोः" से लेकर ३.३.१४७ "जातु-यदोर्लिङ्"] के लिए परिवर्णी "ना-भ-का-प / लि-भू-वो-ग / वि-किं-अ-किं / जा" का निर्माण किया । यहाँ किसी परिवर्णी के किसी अकारान्त अक्षर का उच्चारण अकार सहित किया जाना चाहिए । जैसे, "ना-भ-का-प" का उच्चारण "नाभ्काप्" जैसा नहीं किया जाना चाहिए । कुछ सूत्र-समूहों के लिए परिवर्णी के उदाहरण के लिए "आर्धधातुके" (२.४.३६) अधिकार के अन्तर्गत आये सभी सूत्रों [ २.४.३७ "अदो जग्धिर्ल्यप्-ति किति" से लेकर २.४.५७ "वा यौ" तक] को लिया जा सकता है – “अ-लु-घ / ब-लि-वे // ह-लु-आ // इ-णौ / स-इ-गा-वि-णौ // अ-ब्रु-च-वा-अ-वा” ।

4.1.3 मुझे और एक कठिनाई का सामना करना पड़ा । किसी पाद में सूत्रों की संख्या अधिक (लगभग डेढ़ सौ या इससे अधिक) होने पर किसी विशिष्ट पृष्ठ या कॉलम के सूत्र के बाद अगले पृष्ठ या कॉलम का पहला सूत्र कौन-सा है यह ध्यान में नहीं आता और मन-ही-मन रटे सूत्रों को दुहराते समय उस पाद विशिष्ट के सूत्र के साथ किसी अन्य पाद के सूत्र का मिश्रण हो जाया करता । अतः मैंने किसी पाद का कौन-सा सूत्र प्रत्येक कॉलम के आरम्भ में आता है, इसके लिए भी परिवर्णी बनाना आवश्यक समझा । उदाहरणार्थ - तृतीय अध्याय के प्रथम पाद के १५० सूत्र कुल बारह कॉलम (छह पृष्ठ) में आते हैं जिससे कुल बारह सूत्रों का परिवर्णी इस प्रकार बनता है - "प्र-भृ-नि-क / भी-लि-दि-लि / प्रो-भि-प्र-ज्व" । उसी तरह द्वितीय पाद के लिए - "क-पू-व-अ / ज-भू-सु-प्र / पू-वौ-स्पृ-भ्रा" एवं तृतीय पाद के लिए - "उ-प-य-स / वृ-आ-क-आ / अ-ना- य-वि / आ" परिवर्णी बनते हैं ।

उपर्युक्त अनुच्छेद 4.1.1 एवं 4.1.3 में बतायी हुई युक्तियों के प्रयोग से किसी पाद विशिष्ट के सूत्रों में किसी अन्य अध्याय या पाद के सूत्र के साथ मिश्रण होने की गुंजाइश बहुत कम रह जाती है ।

4.1.4 कभी-कभी सूत्रों के क्रम को याद रखने के लिए निर्मित परिवर्णी आसानी से याद रखा जा सकता है, जैसे १.१.७ "हलोऽनन्तराः संयोगः" से लेकर १.१.१० "नाज्झलौ" तक के सूत्रों के लिए "ह-मु-तु-ना" । परन्तु कभी-कभी परिवर्णी के लयदार न होने से इसे याद रखना आसान नहीं होता । ऐसी परिस्थिति में कुछ प्रसिद्ध नाम या किसी आसान वाक्य का प्रयोग लाभदायक हो सकता है । उदाहरणार्थ - आरम्भ में मुझे सूत्र १.२.२२ "पूङः क्त्वा च" से लेकर १.२.२४ "वञ्चि-लुञ्च्यृतश्च" के क्रम को याद रखने में कठिनाई होती थी तो मुझे रूसी गणितज्ञ "लियापूनोव" (Liapunov) का नाम ध्यान में आया । आसान वाक्य का एक उदाहरण है - "आ, ए ले, आ वै-इ-स-नि" (अर्थात् "आओ, ये लो, आओ, बैठो न" ) जिसका प्रयोग मैंने ३.४.९२ "आडुत्तमस्य पिच्च" से लेकर ३.४.९९ "नित्यं ङितः" तक के सूत्रों के क्रम को याद रखने के लिए किया करता था ।

5.0 उपर्युक्त विवेचन से ऐसा प्रतीत हो सकता है कि मैंने सभी सूत्रों के लिए परिवर्णी के निर्माण की बात कही है । परन्तु ऐसी बात नहीं है । जहाँ सूत्र आसानी से याद रहते हैं वहाँ परिवर्णी की आवश्यकता नहीं । उदाहरणस्वरूप - पृ॰ ४६ के पहले कॉलम वाले सभी सूत्रों (३.३.१४८ "यच्च यत्रयोः" से लेकर ३.३.१६० "इच्छार्थेभ्यो विभाषा वर्तमाने") के लिए परिवर्णी का प्रयोग किया है - "य-ग-चि-शे / उ-का-सं-वि / हे-इ / स-लि-इ" । परन्तु उसी पृष्ठ के दूसरे कॉलम के सभी १२ सूत्रों का परिवर्णी न बनाकर केवल पहले आठ सूत्रों का ही परिवर्णी बनाया - "वि-लो-प्रै-लि / स्मे-अ-का-लि" । उस कॉलम के शेष चार सूत्रों को और अगले पृष्ठ पर के इसी पाद के अन्य चार सूत्रों को ऐसे ही कण्ठस्थ किया ।

6.0 जिस अष्टाध्यायी-सूत्रपाठ को आपने कण्ठस्थ करने के लिए चुना है, हो सके तो, उस संस्करण का पॉकेट साइज बना लें और पॉकेट में रखें । यदि कहीं / कभी अवकाश या खाली समय मिल गया तो इसका सदुपयोग करके सूत्रपाठ को दुहरा सकते हैं । यह पॉकेट साइज ९.५ सें॰मी॰ x ११ सें॰मी॰ का हो तो अधिकतर लोगों के लिए सुविधाजनक होगा । रामलाल कपूर ट्रस्ट द्वारा ११ सें॰मी॰ x १३ सें॰मी॰ साइज का सन् २००६ में प्रकाशित पॉकेट संस्करण तो शायद ही किसी के पॉकेट में घुस सकता हो । जिस संस्करण का आप प्रयोग करना चाहते हैं उसका यदि पॉकेट संस्करण उपलब्ध न हो तो अपने व्यक्तिगत प्रयोग के लिए सूत्रपाठ की उपर्युक्त निर्दिष्ट पॉकेट साइज (या जो भी साइज आपके लिए उचित हो) में छायाप्रति करवाकर सुविधानुसार इसके तीन खंड (अध्याय १-३, ४-५, ६-८) या एक ही खंड तैयार कर प्रयोग कर सकते हैं ।

सन्दर्भ ग्रन्थ

१. पं॰ युधिष्ठिर मीमांसक (१९९१): "मेरी दृष्टि में स्वामी दयानन्द सरस्वती और उनका कार्य", रामलाल कपूर ट्रस्ट, बहालगढ़, सोनीपत, हरयाणा, २४० पृष्ठ ।

२. पं॰ ब्रह्मदत्त जी जिज्ञासु (जून १९८६): "संस्कृत पठन-पाठन की अनुभूत सरलतम विधि", विना रटे ६ मास में अष्टाध्यायी-पद्धति से संस्कृत का पठन-पाठन, [प्रथम भाग], रामलाल कपूर ट्रस्ट, बहालगढ़, सोनीपत, हरयाणा, २६४ पृष्ठ ।

३. "स्व॰ पं॰ ब्रह्मदत्तजी जिज्ञासु-जन्म-शताब्दी-समारोह अङ्क (२)", वेदवाणी विशेषाङ्क, दिसम्बर १९९२, रामलाल कपूर ट्रस्ट, बहालगढ़, सोनीपत, हरयाणा ।

४. पाणिनीयः अष्टाध्यायीसूत्रपाठः (संशोधित संस्करणम्), सम्पादकः - श्री पं॰ ब्रह्मदत्त जिज्ञासु, प्रकाशक - रामलाल कपूर ट्रस्ट, बहालगढ़ (सोनीपत-हरयाणा), बारहवाँ संस्करण, फरवरी १९८५; कुल १०+८८ पृष्ठ ।

५. अष्टाध्यायीसूत्रपाठः (वार्तिक-गणपाठ-सहितः अनुवृत्ति-निर्देश-समन्वितश्च), संस्कर्ता - श्रीशंकरदेव पाठकः, सम्पादक - नन्द किशोरः, प्रकाशक - अनीता आर्ष प्रकाशन, पानीपत (हरियाणा), वृन्दावन संस्करण का पुनर्मुद्रण, तृतीय संस्करण, ११ अप्रैल १९९४; कुल ७+२७५ पृष्ठ; मूल्य - २० रुपये ।

६. अष्टाध्यायीसूत्रपाठः (वार्तिक-गणपाठ-धातुपाठ-पाणिनीयशिक्षा-परिभाषापाठ-सूत्रसूची सहितः), सम्पादक - सि॰ शंकरराम शास्त्री, प्रकाशक - बालमनोरमा प्रेस, मद्रास, द्वितीय संस्करण, १९३७; पुनर्मुद्रण - शारदा पब्लिशिंग हाउस, दिल्ली, १९९४ ई॰; कुल - xx + ३०३ पृष्ठ [अंग्रेजी प्रस्तावना (पृ॰ vii-xx) - श्रीमती रत्ना बसु; सूत्रपाठ - पृ॰ १-२३४, धातुपाठ - पृ॰ २३५-२६९; पाणिनीयशिक्षा- पृ॰ २६९-२७२; परिभाषापाठ - पृ॰ २७३-२७६; अष्टाध्यायीसूत्राणां सूची - पृ॰ २७७-३०३] ।

७. पाणिनीयः अष्टाध्यायी-सूत्रपाठः (पूर्वपीठिका-सूत्रविवरणात्मक 'प्रह्लाद' टिप्पणीसहितः), संस्कर्त्ता - स्वामी प्रह्लाद गिरि वेदान्तकेशरी, सम्पादकः - आचार्य पं॰ सत्यनारायण खण्डूड़ी, प्रकाशक - कृष्णदास अकादमी, वाराणसी, १९८५ ई॰; कुल - ५५+१८३ पृष्ठ (भूमिका - पृ॰ ७-८; पूर्वपीठिका - पृ॰ ९-५०; विषयसूची - पृ॰ ५१, विषयानुक्रमणिका - पृ॰ ५२-५५; सूत्रपाठ - पृ॰ १-१३३, परिशिष्टम् – अनुबन्धविचारः - पृ॰ १३४-१३५; कारिका - पृ॰ १३५-१३६; अष्टाध्यायीसूत्राणां सूची - पृ॰ १३७-१८३) ।

८. वामनजयादित्यविरचिता काशिका (न्यास-पदमञ्जरी-भावबोधिनी-सहिता)
प्रकाशकः तारा बुक एजेंसी, वाराणसी ।

सम्पादकः डॉ॰ जयशंकरलाल त्रिपाठी एवं डॉ॰ सुधाकर मालवीय
भाग-1 (अध्याय 1.1-1.2) - 1986 (52+343 पृ॰)
भाग-2 (अध्याय 1.3-2.2) - 1986 (20+30+408 पृ॰)
भाग-3 (अध्याय 2.3-3.2) - 1987 (20+568 पृ॰)
भाग-4 (अध्याय 3.3-4.1) - 1984 (xvi+516 पृ॰)
भाग-5 (अध्याय 4.2-5.1) - 1988 (24+450 पृ॰)
भाग-6 (अध्याय 5.2-5.4) - 1989 (24+358 पृ॰)
भाग-7 (अध्याय 6.1-6.2) - 1990 (19+486 पृ॰)

सम्पादकः डॉ॰ जयशंकरलाल त्रिपाठी
भाग-8 (अध्याय 6.3-7.1) - 1991 (24+486 पृ॰)
भाग-9 (अध्याय 7.2-7.4) - 1994 (25+384 पृ॰)
भाग-10 (अध्याय 8.1-8.4) - 2000 (54+501 पृ॰)


Sunday, December 27, 2009

8. Treatment of कित्-ङित् प्रकरण (P.1.2.1-26) in the Post-Paninian Systems of Sanskrit Grammar


(Note: for diacritics the font Taralabalu Roman 11 is required)

1.0 Based on the present author’s “Concordance of Nine Sanskrit Grammars”, a comparative study of the Treatment of कित्-ङित् प्रकरण (P.1.2.1-26) in the Post-Paninian Systems of Sanskrit Grammar is presented. The nine grammars considered are पाणिनि, कातन्त्र, चान्द्र, both recensions of जैनेन्द्र grammar (with महावृत्ति and लघुवृत्ति or शब्दार्णवचन्द्रिका), शाकटायन, भोज, हेमचन्द्र and मलयगिरि. Comparison of the sutras of these grammars indicates that different systems may be classified into two groups. The first group consists of कातन्त्र, चान्द्र and भोज grammars that discard this प्रकरण completely, whereas the remaining systems constitute the second group, which retain it.

1.1 The चान्द्र and भोज grammars, following कातन्त्र, prescribe the rules of गुणवृद्धि-प्रतिषेध, सम्प्रसारण, नकारलोप, इत्त्व, ईत्त्व, उत्त्व, अल्लोप, आल्लोप etc directly in the respective contexts instead of making extension (अतिदेश) and prohibtion (निषेध) rules for कित्-ङित् and later merging all these grammatical operations under क्ङिति, किति or ङिति. Regarding the application of P.1.2.4 to actual grammatical operations, the context may have to do with only अपित् शित्, or only अपित् तिङ्, or both, or only those pratyayas which actually have ङ्-marker in उपदेशावस्था itself. Which one is meant is more explicit in case of the first group of grammars, esp. चान्द्र and भोज. The part असंयोगात् of P.1.2.5 has been eliminated by all the systems of the first group by directly enumerating the dhátus concerned in the proper context. The part “क्त्वा च” of P.1.2.22 “पूङः क्त्वा च “ has been rejected by all the Post-Páõinian systems, the part पूङ् being incorporated in the sítra parallel to P.1.2.19 itself.

2.0 Now let us consider the treatment of ङित्-प्रकरण P.1.2.1-4 in detail by supplying the parallel sítras, including the अनुवृत्ति from the post-Páõinian systems. For अनुवृत्ति in case of पाणिनिसूत्र, the अष्टाध्यायी (भाष्य) प्रथमावृत्ति of पं० जिज्ञासु [1985: 36-47] has been referred. The अनुवृत्ति in case of other systems of Sanskrit grammar has been prepared by the present author on the basis of the corresponding available Sanskrit commentaries.

2.1 P.1.2.1 “गाङ्कुटादिभ्योऽञ्णिन् ङित् ” is broken into two parts, गाङ् and कुटादि, in all the systems of the first group and मलयगिरि of the second group. Although मलयगिरि prescribes the extension sítra “कुट आदेः ङिद्वत् अञ्णित्” for कुटादि, he avoids it in case of गाङ् .

2.1.1 In case of गाङ्, the purpose of declaring pratyayas or suffixes, which are actually not provided with the anubandha ङ्, but which will be treated like having been provided with ङ्, is to change गा to गी, that is allowing ईत्त्व of गाङ् under Páõini’s general rule 6.4.66 “घु-मा-स्था-गा-पा-जहाति-सां हलि” (अनुवृत्ति - क्ङिति, ईत्, अङ्गस्य ). The corresponding examples given in काशिका are अध्यगीष्ट, अध्यगीषाताम्, अध्यगीषत, which are the verbal forms in the प्रथम पुरुष, लुङ् लकार. So the pratyayas concerned are सिच् and respectively त, आताम्, झ (= अत, as per P.7.1.5 “आत्मनेपदेष्वनतः”, अनुवृत्ति - झः, अत्, प्रत्ययस्य, अङ्गस्य ). None of these pratyayas are actually marked with ङ्, but they are treated as such with the अतिदेश-सूत्र P.1.2.1.
2.1.2 The parallel sítras prescribing ईत्त्व of गाङ् in the first group and मलयगिरि of the second group are as follows:
कातन्त्र – 3.4.29 “दा-मा-गायति-पिबति-स्था-स्याति-जहातीनामीकारो व्यञ्जनादौ ”
(अनुवृत्ति - असार्वधातुके, अगुणे)
चान्द्र – 6.2.28 “गाङ ईत् स्ये च ” (अनु० - सिचि, न, अदेङ्, प्रकृतेः)
भोज – 7.2.25 “गाङ ईत् स्ये च ” (अनु० - सिचि, न, गुणः, प्रकृतेः )
मलयगिरि – 3.6.77 “अयपि व्यञ्जने ईः ” (अनु०- क्ङिति, अशिति, दा-मा-गा-पा-स्था-हाकः )

2.1.3 The purpose of declaring the pratyayas, actually not marked with ङ्, and coming after कुटादि as ङित् is to prohibit the गुण as per P.1.1.5 “क्ङिति च ”, which would otherwise take place as per P.7.3.84, 86 “सार्वधातुकार्धधातुकयोः ” and “पुगन्तलघूपधस्य च ”.

2.1.4 The parallel sítras to prohibit गुण of कुटादि in the first group of grammars are:
कातन्त्र -- 3.5.27 “कुटादेरनिनिचट्सु ” (अनु० - न, गुणः )
चान्द्र -- 6.2.13 “कुटादीनामञ्णिति ” (अनु० - न, अदेङ्, प्रकृतेः )
भोज -- 7.2.11 “कुटादीनामञ्णिति ” (अनु० - न, गुणः, प्रकृतेः )

2.1.5 The parallel sítras for P.1.2.1 in the second group of grammars are:
जैनेन्द्र (महावृत्ति) – 1.1.75 “गाङ्कुटादेरञ्णिन्ङित् ”
शाकटायन – 4.1.144 “गाङ्कुटां ङिद्वदञ्णिः ”
हैम – 4.3.17 “गाङ्कुटादेर्ङिद्वदञ्णित् ”
जैनेन्द्र (लघुवृत्ति) – 1.1.89 “गाङ्कुटामञ्णि ङिद्वत् ”
मलयगिरि – 3.6.19 “कुट आदेः ङिद्वत् अञ्णित् ”

2.2.1 As per P.1.2.2 “विज इट् ” (अनु० - ङित् ), the suffix with initial इट् is treated as if marked with ङ् when it occurs after the root ओविजी (= विज् ). Here also the purpose of ङिद्वत् treatment of इट् is to prevent the गुण of विज् as per P.1.1.5 “क्ङिति च ”, which would otherwise take place as per P.7.3. 86 “पुगन्तलघूपधस्य च ”.

2.2.2 The parallel sítras to prohibit गुण of विज् in the first group of grammars are:
कातन्त्र – 3.5.28 “विजेरिटि ” (अनु० - न, गुणः )
चान्द्र – 6.2.14 “विज इटि ” (अनु० - न, अदेङ्, प्रकृतेः )
भोज – 7.2.12 “विज इटि ” (अनु० - न, गुणः, प्रकृतेः )

2.2.3 The parallel sítras for P.1.2.2 in the second group of grammars are:
जैनेन्द्र (महावृत्ति) – 1.1.76 “इड्विजः ” (अनु० - ङित् )
शाकटायन – 4.1.145 “इटि विजः ” (अनु० - ङिद्वत् )
हैम – 4.3.18 “विजेरिट् ” (अनु० - ङिद्वत् )
जैनेन्द्र (लघुवृत्ति) – 1.1.90 “इटि विजः ” (अनु० - ङिद्वत् )
मलयगिरि – 3.6.20 “विजेः इट् ” (अनु० - ङिद्वत् )

2.3.1 As per P.1.2.3 “विभाषोर्णोः ” (अनु० – इट्, ङित् ), the suffix with initial इट् is optionally treated as if marked with ङ् when it occurs after the root ऊर्णुञ् (= ऊर्णु ). Here the purpose of optional ङिद्वत् treatment of इट् is to optionally prevent the गुण of ऊर्णु as per P.1.1.5 “क्ङिति च ”, which would otherwise result from P.7.3.84 “सार्वधातुकार्धधातुकयोः ”, thereby resulting in two forms, e.g., प्रोर्णुविता (without गुण of ऊर्णु ) and प्रोर्णविता (with गुण ).

2.3.2 The parallel sítras to prohibit optional गुण of ऊर्णु in the first group of grammars are:
कातन्त्र – 3.5.29 “विजेरिटि ” (अनु० - न, गुणः )
चान्द्र – 6.2.15 “विज इटि ” (अनु० - न, अदेङ्, प्रकृतेः )
भोज – 7.2.13 “विज इटि ” (अनु० - न, गुणः, प्रकृतेः )

2.2.3 The parallel sítras for P.1.2.3 in the second group of grammars are:
जैनेन्द्र (महावृत्ति) – 1.1.77 “वोर्णोः ” (अनु० - इट्, ङित् )
शाकटायन – 4.1.146 “वोर्णोः ” (अनु० - इटि, ङिद्वत् )
हैम – 4.3.19 “वोर्णोः ” (अनु० - इटि, ङिद्वत् )
जैनेन्द्र (लघुवृत्ति) – 1.1.91 “वोर्णोः ” (अनु० - इटि, ङित् )
मलयगिरि – 3.6.21 “वा ऊर्णोः ” (अनु० - इट्, ङिद्वत् )

2.4.1 As per P.1.2.4 “सार्वधातुकमपित् (अनु० - ङित् ), all the तिङ् and शित् suffixes, which are not marked with प्, are treated as marked with ङ् . P.3.4.113 “तिङ्-शित् सार्वधातुकम् ”, defines which suffixes are सार्वधातुक. The three out of eighteen तिङ् suffixes, namely तिप्, सिप्, मिप् and the two शित् suffixes शप् and श्तिप् are marked with प् . So these five suffixes are to be excluded from being treated as marked with ङ् . The सार्वधातुक तिङ् suffixes encompass not only the 18 mentioned under P.3.4.78, but all their substitutes, due to स्थानिवद्भाव as per P.1.1.58, in the other lakáras also, except लिट् and आशीर्लिङ्, the तिङ् substitutes of which are आर्धधातुक as per P.3.4.115-116.

The purpose of treating all the अपित् सार्वधातुक suffixes as marked with ङ् is (i) to block गुण as per P.1.1.5 (ii) सम्प्रसारण as per P.6.1.16 (iii) elision of the penultimate नकार as per P.6.4.24 (iii) इत्त्व of the root शास् as per P.6.4.34 (iv) elision of अनुनासिक ( ञम् ) as per P.6.4.37 (v) अल्लोप as per P.6.4.111 (vi) आल्लोप as per P.6.4.112 (vii) ईत्त्व as per P.6.4.113 (viii) इत्त्व as per P.6.4.114-115. For detailed discussion with examples from all the ten conjugation classes भ्वादि to चुरादि regarding तिङ् suffixes in लट् लकार along with the corresponding शित् suffixes called विकरण, please refer to Joshi and Roodbergen [1993:5-7].

2.4.2 The parallel sítras related to the various operations for the अपित् सार्वधातुक suffixes in the first group of grammars are:
कातन्त्र – 3.5.18 “सर्वेषामात्मने सार्वधातुकेऽनुत्तमे पञ्चम्याः ” (अनु० - न, गुणः )
[Here, पञ्चमी is the लोट् of Páõini. Cf. P.3.4.92 “आडुत्तमस्य पिच्च ” (अनु० - लोटः )].
– 3.5.19 “द्वित्वबहुत्वयोश्च परस्मै ” (अनु० - न, गुणः )
– 3.5.24 “हौ च ” (अनु० - न, गुणः ) [cf. P.3.4.87 “सेर्ह्यपिच्च ” (अनु० - लोटः )]
– 3.5.25 “तुदादेरनि ” (अनु० - न, गुणः )
– 3.6.1 “अनिदनुबन्धानामगुणेऽनुषङ्गलोपः ”
– 3.4.48 “शासेरिदुपधाया अण्-व्यञ्जनयोः ” (अनु० - अगुणे )
– 3.4.2 “ग्रहि-ज्या-वयि-व्यधि-वष्टि-व्यचि-प्रच्छि-व्रश्चि-भ्रस्जीनामगुणे ”
(अनु० - सपरस्वरायाः सम्प्रसारणमन्तस्थायाः)

चान्द्र – 6.2.8 “तिङ्-शित्यपिदाशीर्लिङि ” (अनु० - न, अदेङ् )
– 5.3.24 “शित्यपिति ” (अनु० - हलोऽनिदितः, उपान्तस्य, न:, लोपः, प्रकृतेः)
– 5.3.34 “झलि तिङ्यपिति ” (अनु० - तनाद्यनिट्वनाम्, ञमः, लोपः )
– 5.3.58 “तिङि हल्यपिति ” (अनु० - शासः, शिस्, प्रकृतेः )
– 5.1.16 “शिन्-ङितोः ” (अनु० - ग्रहि-व्यधोः, इग् यणः , अपिति)
– 5.1.17 “ज्या-व्रश्च-प्रच्छ-भ्रस्जाम्” (अनु० - शिन्-ङितोः, इग् यणः , अपिति)
– 5.1.18 “वशस्तिङ्-शित्यपिति” (अनु० - इग् यणः )

भोज – 7.2.07 “अपिति ” (अनु० - न, गुणः, लघोरुपधायाः, सार्वधातुके )
– 6.3.22 “शित्यपिति ” (अनु० - हलोऽनिदितः, उपान्तस्य, न:, लोपः, प्रकृतेः )
– 6.3.35 “झलि तिङ्यपिति ” (अनु० - वनति-तनोत्याद्यनिटाम्, ञमः, लोपः )
– 6.3.58 “तिङि हल्यपिति ” (अनु० - शासः, इदुपधायाः, प्रकृतेः)
– 6.1.22 “शिन्-ङितोः ” (अनु० - ग्रहि-व्यध्योः, सम्प्रसारणम् , अपिति )
– 6.1.23 “ज्या-व्रश्च-भ्रस्जाम् ” (अनु० - शिन्-ङितोः, सम्प्रसारणम् , अपिति )
– 6.1.24 “पृच्छेरनङि ” (अनु० - शिन्-ङितोः, सम्प्रसारणम् , अपिति )
– 6.1.25 “वशेस्तिङ्-शित्यपिति ” (अनु० - सम्प्रसारणम् )

2.4.3 The parallel sítras for P.1.2.4 in the second group of grammars are:
जैनेन्द्र (महावृत्ति) – 1.1.78 “गोऽपित् ” (अनु० - ङित् )
शाकटायन – 4.1.147 “श्ल्यब्लौ ” (अनु० - ङिद्वत् )
हैम – 4.3.20 “शिदवित् ” (अनु० - ङिद्वत् )
जैनेन्द्र (लघुवृत्ति) – 1.1.92 “गेऽपि ” (अनु० - ङित् )
मलयगिरि – 3.6.22 “शित् अपित् ” (अनु० - ङिद्वत् )

3.0 Now let us consider the treatment of कित्-प्रकरण P.1.2.5-26 in detail in the post-Páõinian systems.

3.1.1 P.1.2.5 “असंयोगाल्लिट् कित्” (अनु० - अपित् ) prescribes that लिट् suffixes which are not originally marked with प् and which are added after roots not ending in a conjunct consonant are treated as marked with क्. The purpose of कित्-करण is (i) to block गुण as per P.1.1.5 (ii) सम्प्रसारण as per P.6.1.15 etc (iii) elision of the penultimate नकार as per P.6.4.24 (iv) the उपधा अल्लोप as per P.6.4.98-99 (v) एत्त्व of अकार as per P.6.4.120-125.

3.1.2 The parallel sítras related to the various operations for the अपित् लिट् suffixes in the first group of grammars are:
कातन्त्र – 3.5.20 “परोक्षायाञ्च ” (अनु० - द्वित्वबहुत्वयोश्च परस्मैपदे, न, गुणः )
– 3.5.21 “सर्वत्रात्मने ” (अनु० - परोक्षायाञ्च, न, गुणः )
– 3.4.3 “स्वपि-वचि-यजादीनां यण्-परोक्षाशीःषु ”
(अनु० - अगुणे, अन्तस्थायाः, सम्प्रसारणम् )
– 3.4.2 “ग्रहि-ज्या-वयि-व्यधि-वष्टि-व्यचि-प्रच्छि-व्रश्चि-भ्रस्जीनामगुणे ”
(अनु० - सपरस्वरायाः सम्प्रसारणमन्तस्थायाः )
– 3.4.19 “प्रच्छादीनां परोक्षायाम् ” (अनु० - न, सम्प्रसारणम् )
– 3.6.43 “गम-हन-जन-खन-लसामुपधायाः स्वरादावनण्यगुणे ” (अनु० - लोपः)
– 3.6.43 “अस्यैक-व्यञ्जन-मध्येऽनादेशादेः परोक्षायाम् ” (अनु० - अगुणे, ए, अभ्यासलोपश्च)

चान्द्र – 6.2.8 “तिङ्-शित्यपिदाशीर्लिङि ” (अनु० - न, अदेङ् )
– 5.1.14 “वचि-स्वपि-यजादीनां लिट्यपिति ” (अनु० - इग् यणः )
– 5.1.15 “ग्रहि-व्यधोः ” (अनु० - लिट्यपिति, इग् यणः )
– 5.1.44 “वेरपिति वा ” (अनु० - लिटि, इग् यणः) [cf.P.6.1.40]
– 5.3.96 “गम-जन-खन-घसां ले लोपोऽपिति” (अनु० – अचः, अचि, प्रकृतेः)
– 5.3.116 “लिट्यनादेशादेरेकहल्मध्येऽतः ” (अनु० – अपिति, एत्, अद्विश्च, प्रकृतेः )

भोज – 7.2.8 “अनाम्-लिट्यजागुः ” (अनु० - अपिति, न, गुणः )
– 6.1.20 “वचि-स्वपि-यजादीनां लिट्यपिति ” (अनु० - इग् यणः )
– 6.1.21 “ग्रहि-व्यध्योः ” (अनु० - लिट्यपिति, इग् यणः )
– 6.1.50 “अपिति वा ” (अनु० - लिटि, वेञः, न, सम्प्रसारणम् ) [cf.P.6.1.40]
– 6.3.95 “गम-जन-खन-घसां ले लोपोऽपिति” (अनु० –अचः, अचि, प्रकृतेः) [cf.P.6.4.98]
– 8.2.56 “तनिपत्योर्लोप उपधायाः” (अनु० – बहुलं छन्दसि, अचि, ले, अपिति, प्रकृतेः) [cf.P.6.4.99]
– 6.3.115 “लिट्यनादेशादेरेकहल्मध्येऽतः ” (अनु० – अपिति, एत्, अद्विश्च, प्रकृतेः ) [cf.P.6.4.120]

It is worth noting that unlike कातन्त्र, the चान्द्र and भोज grammars break P.6.1.16 to avoid redundancy of certain items and hence in these two systems a rule like the कातन्त्र सूत्र 3.4.19, which prevents सम्प्रसारण of प्रच्छादि, i.e., प्रच्छ्, व्रश्च् and भ्रस्ज् which end in a consonant conjunct, is not at all required.

3.1.3 The parallel sítras for P.1.2.5 in the second group of grammars are:
जैनेन्द्र (महावृत्ति) – 1.1.79 “लिडस्फात्कित् ” (अनु० - अपित् )
शाकटायन – 4.1.148 “किद्वल्लिटीन्धेश्चासंयोगात् ” (अनु० - अब्लौ )
हैम – 4.3.21 “इन्ध्यसंयोगात्परोक्षा किद्वत् ” (अनु० - अवित् )
जैनेन्द्र (लघुवृत्ति) – 1.1.193 “लिटीन्ध्यस्फात् किद्वत् ” (अनु० - अपि )
मलयगिरि – 3.6.23 “असंयोगात् परोक्षा कित् ” (अनु० - अपित् )

3.2.1 P.1.2.6 “इन्धिभवतिभ्यां च ” (अनु० – लिट्, कित् )+वा०1+वृत्ति prescribes that लिट् suffixes added after the roots इन्ध्, भू, श्रन्थ्, ग्रन्थ्, दम्भ्, स्वञ्ज् are treated as marked with क्. The purpose of कित्-करण is (i) to block वृद्धि, which would otherwise take place as per P.7.2.115, when लिट् suffix णल् is added after the root भू and गुण in case of other suffixes as per P.7.3.84 (ii) the elision of penultimate ञम् as per P.6.4.24 in case of the other five roots ending in conjunct consonant. But the post-Páõinian grammarians have excluded भू, their explanation being that since वुगागम as per P.6.4.88 “भुवो वुग् लुङ्लिटोः ” is नित्य, the गुण and वृद्धि won’t take place due to व्यवधान of वकार.

3.2.2 The parallel sítras related to the elision of penultimate ञम् in case of the कित् लिट् suffixes in the first group of grammars are:
कातन्त्र – 3.6.3 “परोक्षायामिन्धि-श्रन्थि-ग्रन्थि-दम्भीनामगुणे” (अनु० - अनुषङ्गलोपः )
चान्द्र – 5.3.25 “लिटीन्धि-श्रन्थ-ग्रन्थाम्” (अनु० - अपिति, उपान्तस्य, न:, लोपः, प्रकृतेः )
– 5.3.26 “दम्भः स्सनि च” (अनु० - लिटि, अपिति, उपान्तस्य, न:, लोपः, प्रकृतेः )
– 5.3.27 “स्वञ्जः ” (अनु० - लिटि, अपिति, उपान्तस्य, न:, लोपः, प्रकृतेः )
भोज – 6.3.23 “श्रन्थि-ग्रन्थि-ष्वञ्जीन्धीनां लिटि ” (अनु० - अपिति, उपधायाः, न:, लोपः, प्रकृतेः )
– 6.3.24 “दम्भेः सि सनि च ” (अनु० - लिटि, अपिति, उपधायाः, न:, लोपः, प्रकृतेः )

3.2.3 The parallel sítras for P.1.2.6 in the second group of grammars are:
जैनेन्द्र (महावृत्ति) – 1.1.79 वृत्ति “श्रन्थि-ग्रन्थि-दम्भि-ष्वञ्जीन्धिभ्योऽपि किद् भवतीत्येके ” शाकटायन – 4.1.149 “स्वञ्जेर्वा ” (अनु० - अब्लौ, लिटि, किद्वत् ) + 4.1.148
हैम – 4.3.21 “स्वञ्जेर्न वा ” (अनु० - परोक्षा किद्वत् ) + 4.3.20
जैनेन्द्र (लघुवृत्ति) – 1.1.194 “स्वञ्जेर्वा ” (अनु० - लिटि, किद्वत् ) +1.1.193
मलयगिरि – 3.6.23 “इन्धेः ” (अनु० - अपित्, परोक्षा कित् )
– 3.6.24 “वा स्वञ्जेः ” (अनु० - परोक्षा कित् )

3.3.1 P.1.2.7 “मृड-मृद-गुध-कुष-क्लिश-वद-वसः क्त्वा ” (अनु० – कित् ) is a prior exception (पुरस्तादपवाद) to P.1.2.18 “न क्त्वा सेट्” whereby the सेट् क्त्वा is denied the status of being कित्. This rule lets the सेट् क्त्वा in case of the seven roots to be treated as कित्. Also the सेट् क्त्वा in case of the three हलादि रलन्त roots गुध्, कुष् and क्लिश् is made नित्य कित् to avoid the status of optional कित् as per P.1.2.26 “रलो व्युपधाद्धलादेः संश्च ”.

The purpose of कित्-करण is to avoid गुण in case of the first five roots as per P.1.1.5, and allow सम्प्रसारण in case of the last two roots as per P.6.1.15.

3.3.2 The parallel sítras related to the गुण and सम्प्रसारण operations in the first group of grammars are:
कातन्त्र – 4.1.9 “गुणी क्त्वा-सेड् अरुदादि-क्षुध-कुश-क्लिश-गुध-मृड-मृद-वद-वस-ग्रहाम्”
चान्द्र – 6.2.19 “मृड-मृद-गुध-कुष-क्लिश-वद-वस-लुच-ग्रहां क्त्वि ” (अनु० - इटि, न, अदेङ्, प्रकृतेः )
भोज – 7.2.17 “मृड-मृद-गुध-कुष-क्लिश-वद-वस-लुचां क्त्वि ” (अनु० - इटि, न, गुणः, प्रकृतेः )

वद् and वस् get सम्प्रसारण as per चान्द्र 5.1.20 “किति तेषाम्” and भोज 6.1.27 “किति चैतेषाम् ”. It is to be observed that in कातन्त्र, the technical term गुणी does not necessarily mean simply that which allows गुण, and its opposite अगुण, that which does not allow गुण. The कातन्त्रवृत्ति makes it clear under 4.1.9 regarding गुणी -- “यस्मिन् यो भवति स तस्येति विवक्षायाम् । ”. As per कातन्त्र 4.1.9, except रुदादि (=रुद्, विद्, मुष्) and the क्षुधादि nine roots emumerated in this síutra, the सेट् क्त्वा gets the status of गुणी. The examples are - शयित्वा, देवित्वा, स्रंसित्वा. Because of गुणी status of सेट् क्त्वा, the penultimate nasal sound of the root स्रंस् is not elided.

3.3.3 The parallel sítras for P.1.2.7 in the second group of grammars are:
जैनेन्द्र (महावृत्ति) – 1.1.80 “मृड-मृद-गुध-कुष-वद-वसः क्त्वा ” (अनु० - कित् )
– 1.1.81 “क्लिशः ” (अनु० - क्त्वा, कित् )
शाकटायन – 4.1.158 “मृड्-मृद्-गुध-कुष-क्लिश-वद-वसः ” (अनु० - त्वि, किद्वत् )
हैम – 4.3.31 “क्षुध-क्लिश-कुष-गुध-मृड-मृद-वद-वसः ” (अनु० - सेट्, क्त्वा, किद्वत् )
जैनेन्द्र (लघुवृत्ति) – 1.1.194 “मृड्-मृद्-गुध्-कुष्-वद्-वसः क्त्वि ” (अनु० - किद्वत् )
– 1.1.195 “क्लिशः ” (अनु० - क्त्वि, किद्वत् )
मलयगिरि – 3.6.34 “क्षुध-क्लिश-कुष-गुध-मृड-मृद-वद-वसः ” (अनु० - सेट्, क्त्वा, किद्वत् )

3.4.1 P.1.2.8 “रुद-विद-मुष-ग्रहि-स्वपि-प्रच्छः संश्च ” (अनु० – कित् ). The सेट् क्त्वा in case of the हलादि रलन्त roots रुद्, विद्, मुष् is made नित्य कित् to avoid the status of optional कित् as per P.1.2.26. The question of assigning कित् status to क्त्वा after the verbal roots स्वप् and प्रच्छ् does not arise, since these two roots are अनिट्, and thus are not affected by P.1.2.18. So the कित्-करण refers only to the suffix सन्. In case of the root ग्रह्, the assignment of कित्त्व by the present rule ensures सम्प्रसारण by P.6.1.16, and prohibits गुण of the सम्प्रसारण vowel which would be applicable by P.7.3.86. For details, see Joshi and Roodbergen [1993:13-14].

3.4.2 The parallel sítras related to the गुण and सम्प्रसारण operations in the first group of grammars are:
कातन्त्र – 4.1.9 “गुणी क्त्वा-सेड् अरुदादि-क्षुध-कुश-क्लिश-गुध-मृड-मृद-वद-वस-ग्रहाम्”
चान्द्र – 6.2.19 “मृड-मृद-गुध-कुष-क्लिश-वद-वस-लुच-ग्रहां क्त्वि ” (अनु० - इटि, न, अदेङ्, प्रकृतेः )
भोज – 7.2.17 “मृड-मृद-गुध-कुष-क्लिश-वद-वस-लुचां क्त्वि ” (अनु० - इटि, न, गुणः, प्रकृतेः )

3.4.3 The parallel sítras for P.1.2.8 in the second group of grammars are:
जैनेन्द्र (महावृत्ति) – 1.1.82 “मुष-ग्रहि-वद-विदः संश्च ” (अनु० - क्त्वा, कित् )
शाकटायन – 4.1.159 “रुद्विन्-मुषि-ग्रहि-स्वप्-प्रच्छां सनि च ” (अनु० - त्वि, किद्वत् )
हैम – 4.3.32 “रुद-विद-मुष-ग्रह-स्वप-प्रच्छः सन् च ” (अनु० - क्त्वा, किद्वत् )
जैनेन्द्र (लघुवृत्ति) – 1.1.97 “रुद्-विद्-मुष्-ग्रह्-स्वप्-प्रच्छां सनि च ” (अनु० - क्त्वि, किद्वत् )
मलयगिरि – 3.6.35 “रुद-विद-मुष-ग्रह-स्वप-प्रच्छः सन् च ” (अनु० - क्त्वा, किद्वत् )

3.5.1 P.1.2.9 “इको झल् ” (अनु० – सन्, कित् ) prescribes that a सन् suffix is treated as कित्, when it begins with a झल् and occurs after roots ending in इक्. The purpose of this rule is to prevent गुण of the verbal stem vowel applicable as per P.7.3.84. The purpose appears to be also to facilitate णिलोप as, for example, in case of “ज्ञीप्सति”. For details, see Joshi and Roodbergen [1993:16] and Sharma [1990:82].

3.5.2 The parallel sítras in the first group of grammars are:
कातन्त्र – 3.5.17 “नाम्यन्तानामनिटाम् ” (अनु० - सनि, न, गुणः )
चान्द्र – 6.2.23 “इकोऽनिटि ” (अनु० - सनि, न, अदेङ्, प्रकृतेः )
भोज – 7.2.17 “सन्यनिटि ” (अनु० - न, गुणः, प्रकृतेः )

3.5.3 The parallel sítras for P.1.2.9 in the second group of grammars are:
जैनेन्द्र (महावृत्ति) – 1.1.83 “झलिकः ” (अनु० - सन्, कित् )
शाकटायन – 4.1.160 “सीकः ” (अनु० - सनि, किद्वत् )
हैम – 4.3.33 “नामिनोऽनिट् ” (अनु० - सन्, किद्वत् )
जैनेन्द्र (लघुवृत्ति) – 1.1.98 “सीकः ” (अनु० - सनि, किद्वत् )
मलयगिरि – 3.6.36 “इकः अनिट् ” (अनु० - सन्, किद्वत् )

3.6.1 P.1.2.10 “हलन्ताच्च ” (अनु० – इको झल्, सन्, कित् ) prescribes that a सन् suffix is treated as कित्, when it begins with a झल् and occurs after a हल् preceded by an इक्. The purpose of this rule is to prevent गुण of the verbal penultimate vowel applicable as per P.7.3.86, and to facilitate सम्प्रसारण as per P.6.1.15; see Sharma [1990:83]. इक इत्येव - यियक्षते (due to सन् not getting the कित् status here, the सम्प्रसारण of the root यज् does not take place).

3.6.2 The parallel sítras in the first group of grammars are:
कातन्त्र – 3.5.9 “सनि चानिटि ” (अनु० - उपधायाः, नामिनः, न, गुणः )
चान्द्र – 6.2.24 “उपान्तस्य ” (अनु० - सनि, अनिटि, न, अदेङ्, प्रकृतेः )
भोज – 7.2.21A “उपधायाः ” (अनु० - सन्यनिटि, न, गुणः, प्रकृतेः )

3.6.3 The parallel sítras for P.1.2.10 in the second group of grammars are:
जैनेन्द्र (महावृत्ति) – 1.1.84 “हलन्तात् ” (अनु० - झलिकः, सन्, कित् )
शाकटायन – 4.1.161 “हलि ” (अनु० - सीकः, सनि, किद्वत् )
हैम – 4.3.34 “उपान्त्ये ” (अनु० - नामिनः, अनिट्, सन्, किद्वत् )
जैनेन्द्र (लघुवृत्ति) – 1.1.99 “हलि ” (अनु० - सीकः, सनि, किद्वत् )
मलयगिरि – 3.6.37 “व्यञ्जनात् ” (अनु० - इकः, अनिट्, सन्, किद्वत् )

3.7.1 P.1.2.11 “लिङ्-सिचावात्मनेपदेषु ” (अनु० – हलन्तात्, इको झल्, कित् ). The purpose of this rule is to prevent गुण of the verbal stem vowel applicable as per P.7.3.86.

3.7.2 The parallel sítras in the first group of grammars are:
कातन्त्र – 3.5.10 “सिजाशिषोश्चात्मने ” (अनु० - उपधायाः, नामिनः, अनिटि, न, गुणः)
चान्द्र – 6.2.25 “लिङ्-सिचोस्तङि ” (अनु० - उपान्तस्य, अनिटि, न, अदेङ्, प्रकृतेः )
भोज – 7.2.22 “लिङ्-सिचोरात्मनेपदे ” (अनु० - अनिटि, न, गुणः, प्रकृतेः )

3.7.3 The parallel sítras for P.1.2.11 in the second group of grammars are:
जैनेन्द्र (महावृत्ति) – 1.1.85 “सि-लिङ् दे ” (अनु० - हलन्तात्, झलिकः, कित् )
शाकटायन – 4.1.162 “सि-लौ तङि ” (अनु० - हलि, सीकः, किद्वत्)
हैम – 4.3.35 “सिजाशिषावात्मने ” (अनु० - नामिनः, उपान्त्ये, अनिट्, किद्वत् )
जैनेन्द्र (लघुवृत्ति) – 1.1.100 “सिलौ दे ” (अनु० - हलि, सीकः, किद्वत् )
मलयगिरि – 3.6.38 “सिच्-आशिषौ आत्मने ” (अनु० - इकः, व्यञ्जनात्, अनिट्, किद्वत् )

3.8.1 P.1.2.12 “उश्च ” (अनु० – लिङ्-सिचावात्मनेपदेषु, झल्, कित् ). The purpose of this rule is to prevent गुण of the verbal stem vowel applicable as per P.7.3.84.

3.8.2 The parallel sítras in the first group of grammars are:
कातन्त्र – 3.5.11 “ऋदन्तानाञ्च ” (अनु० - सिजाशिषोश्चात्मने, नामिनः, अनिटि, न, गुणः )
चान्द्र – 6.2.26 “उः ” (अनु० - लिङ्-सिचोस्तङि, अनिटि, न, अदेङ्, प्रकृतेः )
भोज – 7.2.23 “उश्च ” (अनु० - लिङ्-सिचोरात्मनेपदे, अनिटि, न, गुणः, प्रकृतेः )

3.8.3 The parallel sítras for P.1.2.12 in the second group of grammars are:
जैनेन्द्र (महावृत्ति) – 1.1.86 “उः ” (अनु० - सि-लिङ् दे, झलिकः, कित् )
शाकटायन – 4.1.163 “उः ” (अनु० - सीकः, सि-लौ तङि, किद्वत् )
हैम – 4.3.36 “ऋवर्णात् ” (अनु० - सिजाशिषावात्मने, अनिट्, किद्वत् )
जैनेन्द्र (लघुवृत्ति) – 1.1.101 “उः ” (अनु० - सिलौ दे, सीकः, किद्वत् )
मलयगिरि – 3.6.39 “ऋवर्णात् ” (अनु० - सिच्-आशिषौ आत्मने, अनिट्, किद्वत् )

3.9.1 P.1.2.13 “वा गमः ” (अनु० – लिङ्-सिचावात्मनेपदेषु, झल्, कित् ). The purpose of this rule is to facilitate the optional deletion of the म् of गम् by P.6.4.37.

3.9.2 The parallel sítras in the first group of grammars are:
कातन्त्र – 4.1.69 “यम-मन-तन-गमां क्वौ ” (अनु० - पञ्चमः, लोप्यः ) + वृत्ति
चान्द्र – 5.3.44 “लिङि तङि गमः ” (अनु० - वा, लोपः, प्रकृतेः )
– 5.3.45 “सिचि ” (अनु० - गमः, वा, लोपः, तङि, प्रकृतेः )
भोज – 6.3.42 “गमेर्लिङ्यात्मनेपदे ” (अनु० - वा, लोपः, प्रकृतेः )
– 6.3.43 “सिचि च ” (अनु० - गमेः, वा, लोपः, आत्मनेपदे, प्रकृतेः )

3.9.3 The parallel sítras for P.1.2.13 in the second group of grammars are:
जैनेन्द्र (महावृत्ति) – 1.1.87 “गमो वा ” (अनु० - सि-लिङ् दे, झल्, कित् )
शाकटायन – 4.1.164 “गमो वा ” (अनु० - सि, सि-लौ तङि, किद्वत् )
हैम – 4.3.37 “गमो वा ” (अनु० - सिजाशिषावात्मने, किद्वत् )
जैनेन्द्र (लघुवृत्ति) – 1.1.102 “गमो वा ” (अनु० - सिलौ दे, सि, किद्वत् )
मलयगिरि – 3.6.40 “गमः वा ” (अनु० - सिच्-आशिषौ आत्मने, किद्वत् )

3.10.1 P.1.2.14 “हनः सिच् ” (अनु० – आत्मनेपदेषु, झल्, कित् ). The purpose of this rule is to facilitate deletion of the न् of हन् by P.6.4.37.

3.10.2 The parallel sítras in the first group of grammars are:
कातन्त्र – 4.1.69 “यम-मन-तन-गमां क्वौ ” (अनु० - पञ्चमः, लोप्यः ) + वृत्ति
चान्द्र – 5.3.46 “हनः ” (अनु० - सिचि, लोपः, तङि, प्रकृतेः )
भोज – 6.3.44 “हनो नित्यम् ” (अनु० - सिचि, लोपः, आत्मनेपदे, प्रकृतेः )

3.10.3 The parallel sítras for P.1.2.14 in the second group of grammars are:
जैनेन्द्र (महावृत्ति) – 1.1.88 “हनः सिः ” (अनु० - दे, झल्, कित् )
शाकटायन – 4.1.167 “घ्नः ” (अनु० - सि, सि तङि, किद्वत् )
हैम – 4.3.38 “हनः सिच् ” (अनु० - आत्मने, किद्वत् )
जैनेन्द्र (लघुवृत्ति) – 1.1.105 “घ्नः ” (अनु० - सि, सौ, दे, किद्वत् )
मलयगिरि – 3.6.43 “हन्तेः ” (अनु० - आत्मने, सिच्, किद्वत् )

3.11.1 P.1.2.15 “यमो गन्धने ” (अनु० – आत्मनेपदेषु, सिच्, झल्, कित् ). The purpose of this rule is to facilitate deletion of the म् of यम् by P.6.4.37.

3.11.2 The parallel sítras in the first group of grammars are:
कातन्त्र – 4.1.69 “यम-मन-तन-गमां क्वौ ” (अनु० - पञ्चमः, लोप्यः ) + वृत्ति
चान्द्र – 5.3.47 “यमः सूचने ” (अनु० - सिचि, लोपः, तङि, प्रकृतेः )
भोज – 6.3.45 “यमः सूचने ” (अनु० - सिचि, लोपः, आत्मनेपदे, प्रकृतेः )

3.11.3 The parallel sítras for P.1.2.15 in the second group of grammars are:
जैनेन्द्र (महावृत्ति) – 1.1.89 “यमः सूचने ” (अनु० - सिः, दे, कित् )
शाकटायन – 4.1.166 “गन्धने ” (अनु० - यमः, सि, सौ तङि, किद्वत् )
हैम – 4.3.39 “यमः सूचने ” (अनु० - आत्मने, सिच्, किद्वत् )
जैनेन्द्र (लघुवृत्ति) – 1.1.104 “सूचने ” (अनु० - यमः, सि, सौ, दे, किद्वत् )
मलयगिरि – 3.6.42 “सूचने ” (अनु० - यमः, आत्मने, सिच्, किद्वत् )

3.12.1 P.1.2.16 “विभाषोपयमने ” (अनु० – यमः, सिच्, झल्, आत्मनेपदेषु, कित् ). The purpose of this rule is to allow, by way of less preferred option, deletion of the म् of यम् by P.6.4.37.

3.12.2 The parallel sítras in the first group of grammars are:
कातन्त्र – 4.1.69 “यम-मन-तन-गमां क्वौ ” (अनु० - पञ्चमः, लोप्यः ) + वृत्ति
चान्द्र – 5.3.48 “वोद्वाहे ” (अनु० - यमः, सिचि, लोपः, तङि, प्रकृतेः )
भोज – 6.3.46 “वोद्वाहे ” (अनु० - यमः, सिचि, लोपः, आत्मनेपदे, प्रकृतेः )

3.12.3 The parallel sítras for P.1.2.16 in the second group of grammars are:
जैनेन्द्र (महावृत्ति) – 1.1.90 “वोपयमे ” (अनु० - यमः, सिः, दे, कित् )
शाकटायन – 4.1.165 “यमः सौ विवाहे ” (अनु० - सि, तङि, किद्वत् )
हैम – 4.3.40 “वा स्वीकृतौ ” (अनु० - यमः, आत्मने, सिच्, किद्वत् )
जैनेन्द्र (लघुवृत्ति) – 1.1.103 “यमः सौ स्वीकृतौ ” (अनु० - सि, दे, वा, किद्वत् )
मलयगिरि – 3.6.41 “यमः सिच् विवाहे ” (अनु० - आत्मने, किद्वत् )

3.13.1 P.1.2.17 “स्थाघ्वोरिच्च ” (अनु० – सिच्, झल्, आत्मनेपदेषु, कित् ). The purpose of this rule is to prevent गुण of the verbal stem vowel इ in स्थि, दि, धि (obtained after इकारादेश of स्था, दा, धा), applicable as per P.7.3.84.

3.13.2 The parallel sítras in the first group of grammars are:
कातन्त्र – 3.5.12 “स्थादोश्च ” (अनु० - सिचि, आत्मने, नामिनः, न, गुणः )
चान्द्र – 6.2.27 “सिचि दा-धा-स्थामिच्च ” (अनु० - तङि, न, अदेङ्, प्रकृतेः )
भोज – 7.2.24 “सिचि दा-धा-स्थामिच्च ” (अनु० - आत्मनेपदे, न, गुणः, प्रकृतेः )

3.13.3 The parallel sítras for P.1.2.17 in the second group of grammars are:
जैनेन्द्र (महावृत्ति) – 1.1.91 “भुस्थोरिः ” (अनु० - सिः, दे, कित् ) [cf 1.1.27 “दाधा भ्वपित् ”]
शाकटायन – 4.1.168 “घुस्थोरि च ” (अनु० - सि, सौ तङि, किद्वत् )
हैम – 4.3.41 “इश्च स्थादः ” (अनु० - आत्मने, सिच्, किद्वत् )
जैनेन्द्र (लघुवृत्ति) – 1.1.106 “भुस्थोरिः ” (अनु० - सि, सौ, दे, किद्वत् ) [cf 1.1.28 “दाधा भ्वपित् ”]
मलयगिरि – 3.6.44 “दा-स्थोः इच् ” (अनु० - आत्मने, सिच्, किद्वत् )

3.14.1 P.1.2.18 “न क्त्वा सेट् ” (अनु० – कित् ). The purpose of the rule is (i) to allow गुण of the verbal stem vowel as per P.7.3.86, which would otherwise have been prohibited by P.1.1.5 (ii) to prohibit अनुनासिक-लोप.

3.14.2 The parallel sítras in the first group of grammars are:
कातन्त्र – 4.1.9 “गुणी क्त्वा-सेड् अरुदादि-क्षुध-कुश-क्लिश-गुध-मृड-मृद-वद-वस-ग्रहाम् ”
चान्द्र – 5.3.53 “सेटि ” (अनु० - क्त्वि, ञमः, न, लोपः, प्रकृतेः )
– 6.2.19 “मृड-मृद-गुध-कुष-क्लिश-वद-वस-लुच-ग्रहां क्त्वि ” (अनु० - इटि, न, अदेङ्, प्रकृतेः )
भोज – 6.3.51 “सेटि ” (अनु० - क्त्वि, ञमः, न, लोपः, प्रकृतेः )
– 7.2.17 “मृड-मृद-गुध-कुष-क्लिश-वद-वस-लुचां क्त्वि ” (अनु० - इटि, न, गुणः, प्रकृतेः )

3.14.3 The parallel sítras for P.1.2.18 in the second group of grammars are:
जैनेन्द्र (महावृत्ति) – 1.1.80+वृत्ति “मृड-मृद-गुध-कुष-वद-वसः क्त्वा ” (अनु० -कित् ) । मृडादिभ्य एव
क्त्वा सेट् किद्भवति नान्येभ्यः । देवित्वा । सेवित्वा । वर्तित्वा ।
शाकटायन – 4.1.56 “त्वि ” (अनु० - इटि, न, किद्वत् )
हैम – 4.3.29 “क्त्वा ” (अनु० - सेट्, न, किद्वत् )
जैनेन्द्र (लघुवृत्ति) – 1.1.95+वृत्ति “मृड्-मृद्-गुध्-कुष्-वद्-वसः क्त्वि ” (अनु० - इटि, किद्वत् ) ।
नियमार्थोऽयं योगः । एषामेव सेट्क्त्वात्ये किद्वत् । देवित्वा । सेवित्वा । वर्तित्वा । वर्द्धित्वा ।
मलयगिरि – 3.6.32 “क्त्वा ” (अनु० - सेट्, न, किद्वत् )

3.15.1 P.1.2.19 “निष्ठा शीङ्-स्विदि-मिदि-क्ष्विदि-धृषः ” (अनु० – न सेट्, कित् ). The purpose of the rule is to allow गुण of the verbal stem vowel by P.7.3.84 or 86, which would otherwise have been prohibited by P.1.1.5.

3.15.2 The parallel sítras in the first group of grammars are:
कातन्त्र – 4.1.15 “शीङ्-पूङ्-धृषि-क्ष्विदि-स्विदि-मिदां निष्ठा सेट् ” (अनु० - गुणी )
चान्द्र – 6.2.16 “त-तवतोरपू-शी-स्विदि-मिदि-क्ष्विदि-धृषः ” (अनु० - इटि, न, अदेङ्, प्रकृतेः )
भोज – 7.2.14 “निष्ठायामशीङ्-पू-स्विदि-मिदि-क्ष्विदि-धृषः ” (अनु० - इटि, न, गुणः, प्रकृतेः )

3.15.3 The parallel sítras for P.1.2.19 in the second group of grammars are:
जैनेन्द्र (महावृत्ति) – 1.1.92 “तः सेट् पूङ्-शीङ्-स्विन्मिद्-क्ष्विद्-धृषो न ” (अनु० -कित् )
शाकटायन – 4.1.154 “शीङ्-डीङ्-पूङ्-स्विद्-मिदि-क्ष्विद्-धृषो न ”(अनु० - क्तयोः, इटि, किद्वत् )
हैम – 4.3.27 “न डीङ्-शीङ्-पूङ्-धृषि-क्ष्विदि-स्विदि-मिदः ” (अनु० - क्तौ, सेट्, किद्वत्)
जैनेन्द्र (लघुवृत्ति) – 1.1.107 “सेट् ते पूङ्-शीङ्-डीङ्-स्विन्मिद्-क्ष्विद्-धृषो न ” (अनु० - किद्वत् )
मलयगिरि – 3.6.30 “न शीङ्-डीङ्-पूङ्-धृषि-क्ष्विदि-स्विदि-मिदः ” (अनु० - क्तौ, सेट्, किद्वत्)

3.16.1 P.1.2.20 “मृषस्तितिक्षायाम् ” (अनु० – निष्ठा, न सेट्, कित् ). The purpose of the rule is to allow गुण of the verbal stem vowel by P.7.3.86., which would otherwise have been prohibited by P.1.1.5.

3.16.2 The parallel sítras in the first group of grammars are:
कातन्त्र – 4.1.16 “मृषः क्षमायाम् ” (अनु० - निष्ठा सेट्, गुणी )
चान्द्र – 6.2.17 “मृषोऽक्षान्तौ ” (अनु० - त-तवतोः, इटि, न, अदेङ्, प्रकृतेः )
भोज – 7.2.15 “मृषेरक्षमायाम् ” (अनु० - निष्ठायाम्, इटि, न, गुणः, प्रकृतेः )

3.16.3 The parallel sítras for P.1.2.20 in the second group of grammars are:
जैनेन्द्र (महावृत्ति) – 1.1.92 “तः सेट् पूङ्-शीङ्-स्विन्मिद्-क्ष्विद्-धृषो न ” (अनु० -कित् )
शाकटायन – 4.1.154 “शीङ्-डीङ्-पूङ्-स्विद्-मिदि-क्ष्विद्-धृषो न ”(अनु० - क्तयोः, इटि, किद्वत् )
हैम – 4.3.27 “न डीङ्-शीङ्-पूङ्-धृषि-क्ष्विदि-स्विदि-मिदः ” (अनु० - क्तौ, सेट्, किद्वत्)
जैनेन्द्र (लघुवृत्ति) – 1.1.107 “सेट् ते पूङ्-शीङ्-डीङ्-स्विन्मिद्-क्ष्विद्-धृषो न ” (अनु० - किद्वत् )
मलयगिरि – 3.6.30 “न शीङ्-डीङ्-पूङ्-धृषि-क्ष्विदि-स्विदि-मिदः ” (अनु० - क्तौ, सेट्, किद्वत्)

3.17.1 P.1.2.21 “उदुपधाद् भावादिकर्मणोरन्यतरस्याम् ” (अनु० – निष्ठा, न सेट्, कित् ). The purpose of the rule is to allow, by way of option, गुण of the verbal stem vowel by P.7.3.86., which would otherwise have been prohibited by P.1.1.5.

3.17.2 The parallel sítras in the first group of grammars are:
कातन्त्र – 4.1.17 “भावादिकर्मणोर्वोदुपधात् ” (अनु० - निष्ठा सेट्, गुणी )
चान्द्र – 6.2.18 “उदुपान्तस्य शब्वतो भावारम्भयोर्वा ” (अनु० - त-तवतोः, इटि, न, अदेङ्, प्रकृतेः )
भोज – 7.2.16 “उदुपधस्य शब्वतो भावादिकर्मणोर्वा ” (अनु० - निष्ठायाम्, इटि, न, गुणः, प्रकृतेः )

3.17.3 The parallel sítras for P.1.2.21 in the second group of grammars are:
जैनेन्द्र (महावृत्ति) – 1.1.94 “वोदुङो भावारम्भयोः शपः ” (अनु० - तः सेट्, न, कित् )
शाकटायन – 4.1.153 “उति शपः क्तयोर्भावारम्भे ” (अनु० - इटि, वा, न, किद्वत् )
हैम – 4.3.26 “उति शवर्हाद्भ्यः क्तौ भावारम्भे ” (अनु० - क्तौ, सेट्, वा, किद्वत् )
जैनेन्द्र (लघुवृत्ति) – 1.1.109 “वोदुङो भावारम्भे शपः ” (अनु० - सेट् ते, न, किद्वत् )
मलयगिरि – 3.6.29 “उति 'शव्' अर्ह-अदादेः क्तौ भाव-आरम्भे ” (अनु० - उपान्त्ये, सेट्, वा, किद्वत् )

3.18.1 P.1.2.22 “पूङः क्त्वा च ” (अनु० – निष्ठा, न सेट्, कित् ) taken together with P.7.2.51 “पूङश्च ” (अनु० - क्त्वानिष्ठयोः, वा, इट् ) allows, by way of preferable option, गुण of the verbal stem vowel by P.7.3.84, which would otherwise have been prohibited by P.1.1.5. For details, see Joshi and Roodbergen [1993:32-33].

3.18.2 The part “क्त्वा च” of P.1.2.22 “पूङः क्त्वा च “ has been rejected by all the Post-Páõinian systems, the part पूङ् being incorporated in the sítra parallel to P.1.2.19 itself.

3.19.1 P.1.2.23 “नोपधात् थफान्ताद् वा ” (अनु० – क्त्वा, न सेट्, कित् ) prescribes that सेट् क्त्वा when added after a verbal base having penultimate न् and ending in थ् or फ् is preferably not treated as कित्. The purpose of the rule is to allow, by way of less preferred option, deletion of the penultimate न् by P.6.4.24. For details, see Joshi and Roodbergen [1993:35, 37].

3.19.2 The parallel sítras in the first group of grammars are:
कातन्त्र – 4.1.13 “थफान्तानाञ्चानुषङ्गिणाम् ” (अनु० - क्त्वा सेट् , गुणी, वा )
चान्द्र – 5.3.54 “वञ्चि-लुञ्चि-थ-फो वा ” (अनु० - क्त्वि, सेटि, ञमः, न, लोपः, प्रकृतेः )
भोज – 6.3.53 “थफान्त-वञ्चि-लुञ्चीनां वा ” (अनु० - क्त्वि, सेटि, ञमः, लोपः, प्रकृतेः )

3.19.3 The parallel sítras for P.1.2.23 in the second group of grammars are:
जैनेन्द्र (महावृत्ति) – 1.1.95 “नोङस्थफात् क्त्वा ” (अनु० - सेट्, वा, कित् )
शाकटायन – 4.1.151 “थ-फ-वञ्चि-लुञ्च्यृति-तृषि-मृषि-कृष इटि ”(अनु० - न्युपान्त्ये, त्वि, वा, किद्वत् )
हैम – 4.3.24 “ऋत्तृष-मृष-कृश-वञ्च-लुञ्च-थ-फः सेट् ” (अनु० - न्युपान्त्ये, क्त्वा, वा, किद्वत् )
जैनेन्द्र (लघुवृत्ति) – 1.1.110 “नोङ्-थ-फ-वञ्चि-लुञ्च्यृति-तृष्-मृष्-कृशः क्त्वि ”(अनु०-सेट्, वा, किद्वत् )
मलयगिरि – 3.6.26“थ-फ-तृषि-मृषि-कृषि-वञ्चि-लुञ्चि-ऋतेः सेट् ”(अनु०-नि उपान्त्ये,क्त्वा,वा,किद्वत् )
3.20.1 P.1.2.24 “वञ्चि-लुञ्च्यृतश्च ” (अनु० – वा क्त्वा, न सेट्, कित् ). The purpose of the rule is to allow, by way of less preferred option, (i) deletion of the penultimate ञ् of वञ्च् and लुञ्च् by P.6.4.24 and (ii) गुण of the penultimate vowel of ऋत् by P.7.3.86.

3.20.2 The parallel sítras in the first group of grammars are:
कातन्त्र – 4.1.12 “तृषि-मृषि-कृशि-वञ्चि-लुञ्च्यृताञ्च ” (अनु० - क्त्वा सेट् , गुणी, वा )
चान्द्र – 5.3.54 “वञ्चि-लुञ्चि-थ-फो वा ” (अनु० - क्त्वि, सेटि, ञमः, न, लोपः, प्रकृतेः )
– 6.2.20 “ऋत-तृष-मृष-कृशां वा ” (अनु० - क्त्वि, इटि, न, अदेङ्, प्रकृतेः )
भोज – 6.3.53 “थफान्त-वञ्चि-लुञ्चीनां वा ” (अनु० - क्त्वि, सेटि, ञमः, लोपः, प्रकृतेः )
– 7.2.18 “ऋत-तृष-मृष-कृशां वा ” (अनु० - क्त्वि, इटि, न, गुणः, प्रकृतेः )

3.20.3 The parallel sítras for P.1.2.24 in the second group of grammars are:
जैनेन्द्र (महावृत्ति) – 1.1.96 “वञ्चि-लुञ्च्यृत्तृषि-मृषि-कृषः ” (अनु० - सेट्, वा, कित् )
शाकटायन – 4.1.151 “थ-फ-वञ्चि-लुञ्च्यृति-तृषि-मृषि-कृष इटि ”(अनु० - न्युपान्त्ये, त्वि, वा, किद्वत् )
हैम – 4.3.24 “ऋत्तृष-मृष-कृश-वञ्च-लुञ्च-थ-फः सेट् ” (अनु० - न्युपान्त्ये, क्त्वा, वा, किद्वत् )
जैनेन्द्र (लघुवृत्ति) – 1.1.110 “नोङ्-थ-फ-वञ्चि-लुञ्च्यृति-तृष्-मृष्-कृशः क्त्वि ”(अनु०-सेट्, वा, किद्वत् )
मलयगिरि – 3.6.26“थ-फ-तृषि-मृषि-कृषि-वञ्चि-लुञ्चि-ऋतेः सेट् ”(अनु०-नि उपान्त्ये,क्त्वा,वा,किद्वत् )
3.21.1 P.1.2.25 “तृषि-मृषि-कृशेः काश्यपस्य ” (अनु० – वा क्त्वा, न सेट्, कित् ) says that सेट् क्त्वा, when added after the verbal base तृष्, मृष् and कृश्, is better not be treated as कित्, according to the opinion of काश्यप. The purpose of the rule is to allow, by way of preferred option, गुण of the penultimate vowel of तृष्, मृष् and कृश् by P.7.3.86.

3.21.2 The parallel sítras in the first group of grammars are:
कातन्त्र – 4.1.12 “तृषि-मृषि-कृशि-वञ्चि-लुञ्च्यृताञ्च ” (अनु० - क्त्वा सेट् , गुणी, वा )
चान्द्र – 6.2.20 “ऋत-तृष-मृष-कृशां वा ” (अनु० - क्त्वि, इटि, न, अदेङ्, प्रकृतेः )
भोज – 7.2.18 “ऋत-तृष-मृष-कृशां वा ” (अनु० - क्त्वि, इटि, न, गुणः, प्रकृतेः )

3.21.3 The parallel sítras for P.1.2.25 in the second group of grammars are:
जैनेन्द्र (महावृत्ति) – 1.1.96 “वञ्चि-लुञ्च्यृत्तृषि-मृषि-कृषः ” (अनु० - सेट्, वा, कित् )
शाकटायन – 4.1.151 “थ-फ-वञ्चि-लुञ्च्यृति-तृषि-मृषि-कृष इटि ”(अनु० - न्युपान्त्ये, त्वि, वा, किद्वत् )
हैम – 4.3.24 “ऋत्तृष-मृष-कृश-वञ्च-लुञ्च-थ-फः सेट् ” (अनु० - न्युपान्त्ये, क्त्वा, वा, किद्वत् )
जैनेन्द्र (लघुवृत्ति) – 1.1.110 “नोङ्-थ-फ-वञ्चि-लुञ्च्यृति-तृष्-मृष्-कृशः क्त्वि ”(अनु०-सेट्, वा, किद्वत् )
मलयगिरि – 3.6.26“थ-फ-तृषि-मृषि-कृषि-वञ्चि-लुञ्चि-ऋतेः सेट् ”(अनु०-नि उपान्त्ये,क्त्वा,वा,किद्वत् )

3.22.1 P.1.2.26 “रलो व्युपधाद्धलादेः संश्च ” (अनु० – वा क्त्वा, न सेट्, कित् ) says that सेट् क्त्वा, when added after a verbal base which is हलादि and रलन्त, is better not be treated as कित्. The purpose of the rule is to allow, by way of preferred option, गुण of the penultimate vowel by P.7.3.86.

3.22.2 The parallel sítras in the first group of grammars are:
कातन्त्र – 4.1.11 “व्यञ्जनादेर्व्युपधस्यावो वा” (अनु० - क्त्वा सेट् , गुणी, वा )
+ वा० 1 "संश्चेति वा वक्तव्यम्"
चान्द्र – 6.2.21 “रलो हलादेरिदुतोः सनि च ” (अनु० - वा, क्त्वि, इटि, न, अदेङ्, प्रकृतेः )
भोज – 7.2.19 “रलोर्हलादेरिदुदुपधस्य सनि च ” (अनु० - वा, क्त्वि, इटि, न, गुणः, प्रकृतेः )

3.22.3 The parallel sítras for P.1.2.26 in the second group of grammars are:
जैनेन्द्र (महावृत्ति) – 1.1.97 “व्युङोऽवो हलः संश्च ” (अनु० - सेट्, वा, कित् )
शाकटायन – 4.1.152 “यौ हलादे रलः संस्त्वोः ” (अनु० - उपान्त्ये, इटि, वा, किद्वत् )
हैम – 4.3.25 “वौ व्यञ्जनादेः सन्चाय्वः ” (अनु० - उपान्त्ये,सेट्, वा, किद्वत् )
जैनेन्द्र (लघुवृत्ति) – 1.1.111 “व्युङोऽवो हलः सन्क्त्वोः ” (अनु०-सेट्, वा, किद्वत् )
मलयगिरि – 3.6.28 “यौ व्यञ्जनादेः अवः सन् च ”(अनु०-उपान्त्ये, सेट्, वा, किद्वत् )

4.0 REFERENCES

(1) अष्टाध्यायी (भाष्य) प्रथमावृत्ति (पहला भाग) - पं० ब्रह्मदत्त जिज्ञासु; प्र० - रामलाल कपूर ट्रस्ट, बहालगढ़, 1985.

(2) The Aúýádhyáyå of Páõini (with Translation and Explanatory Notes) – by S D Joshi and J A F Roodbergen; Vol – II (1.2.1-1.2.73); Pub: Sahitya Akedemi, New Delhi, 1993.

(3) The Aúýádhyáyå of Páõini (with Translation and Explanatory Notes etc) – by Rama Nath Sharma; Vol – II, Pub: Munshiram Manoharlal, New Delhi, 1990

(4) Kátantra Vyákaraõa – edited by Dr R S Saini; Pub: Bhartiya Vidya Prakashan, Delhi, 1987.

(5) Cándravyákaraõa of Candragomin – edited by K C Chatterji; Vol.– II (Ch. 4-6), Pub: Deccan College Postgraduate & Research Institute, Poona, 1961.

(6) जैनेन्द्रव्याकरणम् (महावृत्तिसहितम्) - सं० - पं० शम्भुनाथ त्रिपाठी; प्र० - भारतीय ज्ञानपीठ काशी; 1956.

(7) शब्दार्णवचन्द्रिका (जैनेन्द्रलघुवृत्तिः) - श्रीसोमदेवसूरिविरचिता; सं० - पं. श्रीलाल जैन; प्र० - भारतीय जैन सिद्धान्त प्रकाशिनी संस्था, काशी.

(8) शाकटायन-व्याकरणम् (स्वोपज्ञ-अमोघवृत्तिसमलंकृतम्) - सं० - पं.शम्भुनाथ त्रिपाठी; प्र० - भारतीय ज्ञानपीठ प्रकाशन, दिल्ली, 1971.

(9) श्रीसिद्धहेमचन्द्र शब्दानुशासनम् (स्वोपज्ञ-बृहद्वृत्ति तथा न्याससारसमुद्धार संवलितम्) ; सं० - मुनिश्री वज्रसेन विजय जी; द्वितीयो भागः ; प्र० - भेरुलाल कनैयालाल रिलिजीयस ट्रस्ट, बम्बई; 1985.

(10) शब्दानुशासनम् (आचार्य मलयगिरि विरचितम्) – सं० - पं० बेचरदास जीवराज दोशी; प्र० -
लालभाई दलपतभाई भारतीय संस्कृति विद्यामंदिर, अमदाबाद, 1967

(11) सरस्वतीकण्ठाभरणम् (भोजदेव-विरचितम्) – edited by T R Chintamani; Pub: University
of Madras, 1937.
(12) Narayan Prasad (1997) – “Concordance of Nine Sanskrit Grammars” (unpublished).


Note: This article was presented to the All India Oriental Conference, 43rd Session, Jammu, 12-14 October, 2006; Published in the Journal of Oriental Institute, Baroda, Vol.58, Nos.3-4, March-June 2009 Issue, pp.147-167.

Friday, December 26, 2008

7. कातन्त्र विस्तरवृत्ति का रचयिता एवं शर्ववर्मा

कातन्त्र विस्तरवृत्ति का रचयिता एवं शर्ववर्मा


Synopsis

'संस्कृत व्याकरणशास्त्र का इतिहास' written by पं॰ युधिष्ठिर मीमांसक is a monumental work in the field of history of Sanskrit grammatical literature. In view of its great usefulness both as a textbook for university students and as a manual for researchers, it is worthwhile revising it.

In the course of his research work, the present author has come across not only new findings on certain controversial points but also a serious mistake committed by पं॰ यु॰मी॰ of even a quite obvious statement. In this article this mistake is pointed out and discussed.

On p.629 of Vol.I (4th edition) he writes - "On page 437 of his व्याकरण दर्शनेर इतिहास Shri Pt. Gurupoda Halder mentions Sharvavarma as the author of बृहद्-वृत्ति of कातन्त्र. But he has not given any proof in this regard". On p.622 also he writes about Pt. Gurupoda Halder having mentioned that Sharvavarma has written a long commentary on कातन्त्र.

मीमांसक जी is highly mistaken in interpreting the statement originally in Bengali given by Pt. Gurupoda Halder. It is not Sharvavarma who is the author of कातन्त्र विस्तरवृत्ति, but Vardhamana. मीमांसक जी has taken the literal meaning of 'विस्तर' as 'बृहद्', i.e. long and interpreted कातन्त्रेर विस्तरवृत्ति as the बृहद्-वृत्ति of कातन्त्र.

Dr जानकी प्रसाद द्विवेदी has committed the same mistake, vide his D.Litt. thesis 'कातन्त्र व्याकरण विमर्शः', page 6, line 16 and the corresponding footnote 3.

* * * * * *

"आज तक लिखा गया संस्कृत व्याकरणों का सबसे अधिक पूर्ण इतिहास पं॰ युधिष्ठिर मीमांसक का है जिसमें कालक्रम तथा ग्न्थपाठ सम्बन्धी सभी महत्त्वपूर्ण प्रश्नों पर पूर्ण प्रमाणों के साथ विचार किया गया है । यह उपयोगी एवं सुव्यवस्थित सूचना का आकर है ।" [1] दो दशक पूर्व श्री जॉर्ज कार्डोना के ये व्यक्त विचार अभी भी लागू होते हैं । पं॰ युधिष्ठिर मीमांसक कृत 'संस्कृत व्याकरणशास्त्र का इतिहास' विश्वविद्यालयीय व्याकरण विषयक छात्रों के लिए पाठ्य-पुस्तक या साहाय्य ग्रन्थ एवं अनेक शोधकर्ताओं के लिए प्रेरणा स्रोत रहा है । सरस्वतीकण्ठाभरण (व्याकरण) पर शोध की ओर रुझान हमें इसी ग्रन्थ से प्राप्त हुआ । शोधकार्य के दौरान हमें न केवल कई विवादास्पद मुद्दों पर अधिक सामग्री मिलने से नये तथ्य उजागर हुए हैं, बल्कि हमें इस ग्रन्थ में मीमांसक जी की ऐसी भूल भी सामने आयी जो उन्होंने स्पष्ट वाक्य का गलत अर्थ करने से की है । इसी गलती का निर्देश एवं स्पष्टीकरण इस लेख में किया जा रहा है ।

मीमांसक जी सं॰ व्या॰ इ॰ के चतुर्थ संस्करण के पृष्ठ ६२९ पर लिखते हैं -
"श्री पं॰ गुरुपद हालदार ने अपने 'व्याकरण दर्शनेर इतिहास' के पृष्ठ ४३७ पर शर्ववर्मा को कातन्त्र की 'बृहद्वृत्ति' का रचयिता लिखा है । परन्तु इसके लिए उन्होंने कोई प्रमाण नहीं दिया ।"

इस स्थल पर उन्होंने फुटनोट में हालदार जी की निम्नलिखित उक्ति उद्धृत की है -
"जिनि कातन्त्रेर विस्तरवृत्ति लिखियाछेन तिनि सर्ववर्मार नाम करेन न केन ?"

पृष्ठ ६२२ पर भी मीमांसक जी लिखते हैं -
"पं॰ गुरुपद हालदार ने अपने 'व्याकरण दर्शनेर इतिहास' में शर्ववर्मा को कातन्त्र की विस्तरवृत्ति का रचयिता लिखा है ।" इस स्थल पर उन्होंने फुटनोट ६ में लिखा है - 'द्र॰ पृ॰ ४३७ ।' "

हालदार जी के उपर्युक्त वाक्य का अर्थ है - "जिन्होंने कातन्त्र की विस्तरवृत्ति लिखी है, उन्होंने शर्ववर्मा का नाम उद्धृत क्यों नहीं किया ?" 'जिनि .... ... तिनि' या 'जिन्होंने ... ... उन्होंने' - इस वाक्य रचना में ये दोनों शब्द एक ही व्यक्ति को निर्दिष्ट करते हैं, दो को नहीं । प्रसंग के अनुसार ये व्यक्ति वर्धमान हैं । इस बात को और स्पष्ट करने के लिए हालदार जी की पुस्तक से संगत सम्पूर्ण पैरा ही उद्धृत किया जाता है । मुग्धबोध में उपलब्ध श्लोक "इन्द्रश्चन्द्रः काशकृत्स्नापिशली शाकटायनः । पाणिन्यमरजैनेन्द्रा जयन्त्यष्टादि शाब्दिकाः ।।" को ऐतिहासिक महत्त्व के लिए अनुपयोगी बताते हुए पं॰ हालदार आगे लिखते हैं –

भास्कराचार्य समये गणरत्नमहोदधिकार वर्द्धमान उपाध्याय लिखियाछेन -
"शालातुरीय-शकटांगज-चन्द्रगोमि-दिग्वस्त्र-भर्तृहरि-वामन-भोजमुख्याः ।
मेधाविनः प्रवरदीपक कर्तृयुक्ताः प्राज्ञैर्निषेवित पदद्वितया जयन्ति ।।
... शालातुरीयः पाणिनिः । शकटाङ्गजः शाकटायनः । दिग्वस्त्रो देवनन्दी । भर्तृहरिर्वाक्यपदीय प्रकीर्णकयोः कर्त्ता महाभाष्यत्रिपाद्या व्याख्याता च । वामनो विश्रान्तविद्याधरव्याकरणकर्त्ता । भोजः सरस्वतीकण्ठाभरणकर्त्ता । मुख्य शब्दस्यादिवचनात् शिवस्वामि पतञ्जलिकात्यायन प्रभृतयो लभ्यन्ते । दीपककर्त्ता श्री भद्रेश्वरसूरिः । प्रवरश्चासौ दीपककर्त्ता च प्रवरदीपककर्त्ता । प्राधान्यं चास्याधुनिक वैयाकरणापेक्षया । निषेवितं पदद्वितयं चराम्बुजद्वयं सुप्तिङ् लक्षणं च येषां ते तथोक्ताः ।" (गणरत्न म॰, पु॰ २-३) । ए स्थले जे आचार्य्येर नाम गृहीत हइयाछे तांहादेर मध्ये केह केह मूलग्रन्थेर व्याख्याकार वा निबन्धकार, सुतरां सकलेइ सम्प्रदाय प्रवर्त्तक नहेन । इहा व्यतीत अनेक सम्प्रदाय प्रवर्त्तकेर नाम ओ उपेक्षित हइयाछे । जिनि कातन्त्रेर विस्तरवृत्ति लिखियाछेन तिनि सर्ववर्म्मार नाम करेन न केन ? सुतरां वर्द्धमानेर उक्तिसमूह स्थूलतः सत्य हइलेओ इतिहासेर उपयोगी नहे ।" (व्या॰ द॰ इ॰, पृष्ठ ४३६-४३७) ।

अर्थात् भास्कराचार्य के समय रत्नमहोदधिकार वर्धमान उपाध्याय ने लिखा है -
"शालातुरीय ... ... ते तथोक्ताः ।" (गणरत्न म॰, पृ॰ २-३) । इस स्थल में जिन-जिन आचार्यों के नाम का ग्रहण हुआ है, उनके बीच कोई-कोई व्याख्याकार या निबन्धकार हैं, इसलिए सभी सम्प्रदाय प्रवर्त्तक नहीं हैं । व्यतीत अनेक सम्प्रदाय प्रवर्त्तकों का नाम भी यहाँ उपेक्षित हुआ है । जिन्होंने कातन्त्र की विस्तरवृत्ति लिखी है, उन्होंने शर्ववर्मा के नाम को उद्धृत क्यों नहीं किया ? अतः वर्धमान की उक्तियाँ स्थूलतः सत्य होते हुए भी इतिहासार्थ उपयोगी नहीं हैं ।"

स्पष्ट है कि पं॰ गुरुपद हालदार यहाँ कातन्त्र विस्तरवृत्ति का कर्ता वर्धमान को बता रहे हैं, न कि शर्ववर्मा को । उनके कहने का मतलब यह है कि जिन वर्धमान ने शर्ववर्माकृत कातन्त्र व्याकरण पर विस्तरवृत्ति लिखी वे शर्ववर्मा के नाम को उद्धृत करना कैसे भूल गये ? परिशिष्ट में भी उन्होंने "कातन्त्र विस्तरवृत्ति (वर्द्धमानकृत) ३९५, ४५७" "विस्तरवृत्ति - 'कातन्त्र विस्तरवृत्ति' ३४६, ३९५, ४५७", "वृत्ति (व्याकरण सम्बन्धीय) - कातन्त्र विस्तरवृत्ति (वर्द्धमानीय) ३९५, ४५७" लिखा है । (व्या॰ द॰ इ॰, पृष्ठ ७०८, ७३५, ७३५) । मीमांसक जी ने पृ॰ ६३८ पर लिखा है -

"डॉ॰ बेल्वालकर ने वर्धमान की टीका का नाम 'कातन्त्र विस्तर' लिखा है । .... ... गुरुपद हालदार ने भी इसे गणरत्नमहोदधिकार वर्धमान की रचना माना है ।"

इस पर वे फुटनोट संख्या ३ पर लिखते हैं -
"वर्धमान ११४० [2] खृष्टाब्दे गणरत्न महोदधि प्रणयन करेन । ... तांहार [3] 'कातन्त्र विस्तरवृत्ति' एकखानि प्रामाणिक ग्रन्थ, एखन ओ किन्तु उहा मुद्रित हय नाइ [4]। व्याकरण दर्शनेर इतिहास, पृष्ठ ४५७ ।"

मीमांसक जी से उपर्युक्त भूल या तो बंगला के उनके सीमित ज्ञान के कारण या कुछ जल्दीबाजी के कारण हुई होगी । जल्दीबाजी के कारण कई विद्वान् गलतफहमी के शिकार हुए हैं । उदाहरणस्वरूप, डॉ॰ भीमसेन शास्त्री जैसे संस्कृत व्याकरण के दिग्गज विद्वान ने भी चन्द्राचार्य के बारे में यहाँ तक टिप्पणी कर दी है कि 'जिस स्वर प्रयोजन का न्यासकार ने उल्लेख किया है, सम्भवतः वह प्रयोजन चान्द्र-व्याकरणकार को सूझा नहीं, अतः उन्होंने इसे निष्प्रयोजन समझकर बहिष्कृत कर दिया ।' (न्यास पर्यालोचन, पृ॰ १२५) ।

टिप्पणी
1. संस्कृत व्याकरणशास्त्र का इतिहास, तृतीय भाग, पृ॰ १०७ ।
2. सं॰ व्या॰ इ॰ में "१९४०", जो कि मुद्रण की अशुद्धि है ।
3. सं॰ व्या॰ इ॰ में "ताहार", जो कि मुद्रण की अशुद्धि है ।
4. सं॰ व्या॰ इ॰ में "हुई नाई", जो कि मुद्रण की अशुद्धि है ।

(वेदवाणी, जून १९९७, पृष्ठ १९-२१, में प्रकाशित)

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

6. कातन्त्रस्य शार्ववर्मिक-व्याख्यानम्

कातन्त्रस्य शार्ववर्मिक-व्याख्यानम्
Synopsis

The proof of Sharvavarman being a commentator of कातन्त्र is discussed and an English translation of pp.677-678 from "Philologica Indica" in German dealing with this topic is presented. A brief information about the fragments of manuscripts on कातन्त्र traced in eastern Turkestan is also given.

पं॰ युधिष्ठिर मीमांसक के "संस्कृत व्याकरण शास्त्र का इतिहास" एवं डॉ॰ जानकी प्रसाद द्विवेदी के "कातन्त्र व्याकरण विमर्शः" और "कलापव्याकरणम्" में शर्ववर्मा के कातन्त्र वृत्तिकार होने के प्रमाण के बारे में की गयी चर्चा हमें सन्तोषजनक नहीं लगी । द्विवेदी जी कलापव्याकरणम् [1] में लिखते हैं -

"गुरुपद हालदार मानते हैं कि शर्ववर्मा ने ही सर्वप्रथम अपने व्याकरण की वृत्ति बनाई थी (व्या॰ द॰ इ॰, पृष्ठ ४३७) । इसमें अन्य प्रमाण प्राप्त नहीं हैं ।" (सम्पादकीय, पृ॰ ४६)

हमने वेदवाणी, जून १९९७, पृष्ठ १९-२१ में विस्तृत चर्चा कर यह दर्शाया है कि पं॰ गुरुपद हालदार ने 'व्याकरण दर्शनेर इतिहास' के पृ॰ ४३७ पर शर्ववर्मा के कातन्त्र वृत्तिकार होने का कोई उल्लेख नहीं किया है । इस लेख में शर्ववर्मा के कातन्त्र वृत्तिकार होने की सप्रमाण चर्चा की जा रही है ।

कातन्त्र की दुर्गवृत्ति में निम्नलिखित मङ्गल श्लोक पाया जाता है -

देवदेवं प्रणम्यादौ सर्वज्ञं सर्वदर्शिनम् ।
कातन्त्रस्य प्रवक्ष्यामि व्याख्यानं शार्ववर्मिकम् ॥

कविराज सुषेण विद्याभूषण ने 'कलापचन्द्र' में इस मङ्गल श्लोक को वररुचि की 'दुर्घटवृत्ति' में भी पाये जाने की बात कही है । [2] अतः कातन्त्र के दो प्राचीन वृत्तिकार वररुचि और दुर्गसिंह के उपर्युक्त वचन से प्रमाणित होता है कि शर्ववर्मा ने कातन्त्र की व्याख्या (वृत्ति) अवश्य लिखी थी । इस पर विस्तृत चर्चा हाइनरिश लूडर्स (Heinrich Lueders) ने अपने जर्मन लेख "कातन्त्र und कौमारलात" (कातन्त्र और कौमारलात) [3] में की है । पूर्वी तुर्किस्तान से प्राप्त कातन्त्र के कई आंशिक हस्तलेखों से ज्ञात होता है कि प्राचीन काल में वहाँ संस्कृत व्याकरणों में कातन्त्र का सबसे ज्यादा प्रचार था । [4] इन आंशिक हस्तलेखों में कुछ सन् १९३० के पूर्व प्रकाशित भी किये गये हैं । ये निम्नलिखित हैं [5] -

१. Sa1 - कुल ४ पत्र (folios) । Sieg द्वारा प्रकाशित । [6] कात॰ २।६।४६-५० स्त्री-प्रत्याध्याय । कात॰ ३।१।१-२, २६ । टीका नहीं । हस्तलेख का काल - ईस्वी सन् की सातवीं शताब्दी ।

२. Mu - १ पत्र । Sieg द्वारा प्रकाशित । [7] कात॰ १।१।१२-१३ । टीका नहीं । शारदा लिपि । नवीं या दशवीं शताब्दी ।

३. So - ५९ पत्र । Sieg द्वारा प्रकाशित । [8] कात॰ १।१।१-५, १८ । निपात पाद । एक टीका सहित । सातवीं शताब्दी ।

४. Sa2 - १ पत्र । Sieg द्वारा प्रकाशित । [9] कात॰ २।६।४१-४७ । एक टीका सहित । सातवीं शताब्दी ।

५. Du - Finot द्वारा प्रकाशित । [10] कात॰ १।२।४-९ । एक टीका सहित । ब्राह्मी लिपि । ईसा की छठी शताब्दी ।

अब हम Philologica Indica के पृष्ठ ६७७-६७८ के जर्मन उद्धरण (passage) का अंग्रेजी अनुवाद प्रस्तुत करते हैं ।

English Translation of pp.677-678, Philologica Indica

As far as the mutual relationship of the commentaries in the Turkestan manuscripts and दुर्गसिंह commentary is concerned, it, even with the help of newly retrieved fragments, goes hardly beyond what Finot has already observed (ibid, pp.194 onwards). दुर्गसिंह declaredly says in his मङ्गलाचरण श्लोक that he is going to enunciate the Sharvavarman's commentary on कातन्त्र: " कातन्त्रस्य प्रवक्ष्यामि व्याख्यानं शार्ववर्मिकम्". I think that with this word of Finot we can infer only this that दुर्गसिंह brought about a new edition of the commentary of Sharvavarman. Finot has further pointed out that in the commentary of दुर्गसिंह two parts can be distinguished which can characterize as वृत्ति and वार्त्तिक. First a simple commentary of the sutras followed by examples are given. Then frequently comes a section in which the peculiarities and exceptions are dealt with. The assumption is that the वृत्ति is more or less due to Sharvavarman and the वार्त्तिक belongs to दुर्गसिंह. This distribution of the commentary texts between Sharvavarman and दुर्गसिंह could be regarded as valid if it was certain that Sharvavarman is also the author of the sutras as the tradition maintains. It is impossible that the author of the sutras himself would give such a supplement to his text as, for example, प्रतिरित्सतीति वक्तव्यम् [11], in the commentary to 3.3.39. These types of remarks could belong to दुर्गसिंह only. When his work itself mentions 'व्याख्यानं शार्ववर्मिकम्', it must have also included the commentary of Sharvavarman, which can consist of the simple commentary of the sutras and the examples. Finot, however, does not rule out the possibility that some of the sutras of Sharvavarman have come down to us, as the Mss Sa1, Qy1 and Mu show, without commentary also. But the fragments can in this respect hardly prove anything. Later one could also have extracted the sutras from the commented text and it is perhaps no accident (chance) that the sutra text alone is found in the later manuscripts, whereas in both the oldest manuscripts Qy2 and Du it is accompanied by a commentary.

The commentary of दुर्गसिंह is not known to the Turkestan manuscripts.

टिप्पणी
1. डॉ॰ जानकी प्रसाद द्विवेदी, "कलापव्याकरणम्", केन्द्रीय उच्च तिब्बती शिक्षा संस्थान, सारनाथ, वाराणसी, १९८८ ई॰ ।
2. पं॰ युधिष्ठिर मीमांसक, "संस्कृत व्याकरणशास्त्र का इतिहास", चतुर्थ संस्करण, भाग १, पृष्ठ ६२९ ।
3. BSB. Phil-Hist KL. 1930, pp.482-538.
Reprinted in "Philologica Indica", Felicitation Volume on Heinrich Lueders, 70th birth anniversary on 25 June 1939, pp.659-721. Publisher: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Goettingen, 1940 (in German).

4. "Die in Ostturkestan am weitesten verbreitete Sanskrit-Grammatik war das Katantra. Es haben eine ganze Anzahl von Bruchstucken von ostturkestanischen Handschriften des werkes erhalten" - Philologica Indica, p.699.

5. वही, पृष्ठ ६५९.

6. SBAW, 1907, pp. 466 onwards.
7. SBAW, 1908, pp. 182 onwards.
8. SBAW, 1908, pp. 184 onwards.
9. SBAW, 1908, pp. 204 onwards.

10. Museon N. S., pp. 193 onwards.

11. ऐसे वार्त्तिक निम्नलिखित ३६ स्थलों पर पाये जाते हैं -
२।२।११, ४६, ५६; २।४।२३, ४२; २।५।२६; २।६।२८, २९; ३।२।१५, २६, २८, ३५, ३८, ४७; ३।३।२७, ३९, ४०, ४१; ३।४।३०, ४५, ४६, ५१, ५३, ९३; ३।५।४०, ४१; ३।६।९, ३०, ३९, ९६, ९७; ३।७।३७, ३८(२); ३।८।१५, २३, २४

(वेदवाणी, फरवरी १९९८, पृ॰ ८-११, में प्रकाशित)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
विस्तृत विवरण इस प्रकार है -
(१) २।२।११ - बहूर्ज्जि बहुर्ज्जीति वा वक्तव्यम्
(२) २।२।४६ - घे च वक्तव्यम्
(३) २।२।५६ - स्वायम्भुवमिति वक्तव्यम्

(४) २।४।२३ - आधिक्यार्थोपसंयोगे सप्तमी वाच्या
(५) २।४।४२ - द्विषः शत्रौ वा वक्तव्यम्
(६) २।५।२६ - कोष्णम्, कवोष्णम्, कदुष्णमिति वक्तव्यम्

(७) २।६।२८ - उगवादितः प्रयोगतश्चेति ज्ञापकादसर्वनाम्नोऽप्यवधिमात्रे तस् वक्तव्यः
(८) २।६।२९ - आद्यादिभ्यस्तस् वक्तव्यः
(९) ३।२।१५ - ऋतेर्णीयङ् वक्तव्यः

(१०) ३।२।२६ - श्विधेटोर्वा वक्तव्यः
(११) ३।२।२८ - इरनुबन्धाद् वा वक्तव्यम्
(१२) ३।२।३५ - धिन्विकृण्व्योर्धिकृचेति वक्तव्यम्

(१३) ३।२।३८ - स्तम्भु-स्तुम्भु-स्कन्भु-स्कुभ्यो नुश्चेति वा वक्तव्यम्
(१४) ३।२।४७ - कथमनुकरोति पराकरोतीति नित्यं वक्तव्यम्
(१५) ३।३।२७ - श्रु-स्रु-द्रु-प्रु-प्लु-च्युङां वा वक्तव्यम्

(१६) ३।३।३९ - प्रतिरित्सतीति वक्तव्यम्
(१७) ३।३।४० - ऋधिज्ञप्योरीरीतौ वक्तव्यौ सनि सकारादौ
(१८) ३।३।४१ - मुचोऽकर्मकस्योद्वा वक्तव्यः

(१९) ३।४।३० - वा संयोगादेरस्थ इति वक्तव्यम्
(२०) ३।४।४५ - भियो वेति वक्तव्यम्
(२१) ३।४।४६ - व्यञ्जनादावगुणे सार्वधातुके इत्वं वा वक्तव्यम्

(२२) ३।४।५१ - भ्लाशीनां वा वक्तव्यम्
(२३) ३।४।५३ - जृ-भ्रमु-त्रसि-स्वन-फण-स्यमां वा वक्तव्यम्
(२४) ३।४।९३ - घ्रा-शा-च्छा-सा-धेटां वा वक्तव्यम्

(२५) ३।५।४० - वेत्तेर्वा वक्तव्यम्
(२६) ३।५।४१ - आशिषि तुस्योस्तातण् वा वक्तव्यः
(२७) ३।६।९ - व्यञ्जनादीनां सेटामनेदनुबन्ध-क्ष्यन्त-क्षण-स्वसां वेति वक्तव्यम्

(२८) ३।६।३० - हेरचणीति वक्तव्यम्
(२९) ३।६।३९ - ह एकारे वक्तव्यः
(३०) ३।६।९६ - श्वेरद् वक्तव्यः

(३१) ३।६।९७ - रश्रुतेर्लश्रुतिरिति वक्तव्यं वा

(३२) ३।७।३७ - स्यसिजाशीः श्वस्तनीषु भावकर्मार्थिकासु च ।
स्वर-हन-ग्रह-दृशामिड्वेज्वच्चेति वक्तव्यम् ॥

(३३) ३।७।३८ - अडभ्यासव्यवधानेऽपि षत्वमिष्यते ।
एवं समवायेऽपि वक्तव्यम् ।
भूषणसमवायाभ्यामन्यत्रापि दृश्यते ।
उपात् प्रतियत्नविकृतवाक्याध्याहारेषु वक्तव्यः ।

(३४) ३।८।१५ - ह्यस्तन्यां सौ वा वक्तव्यम्
(३५) ३।८।२३ - अगुणे स्वरे वा वक्तव्यम्
(३६) ३।८।२४ - ष्वक्केर्न स्यादिति वक्तव्यम्

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

5. .सरस्वतीकण्ठाभरण - the Magnum Opus of Sanskrit Grammar *

(Note: for diacritics the font Taralabalu Roman 11 is required)


1. Introduction -- Importance of पाणिनि
The अष्टाध्यायी of  पाणिनि (5th century B.C.) is the most refined and sophisticated grammar of all the ancient and modern languages of the world [1-5]. Accepting its importance even the western scholars have called it in express terms ‘one of the greatest monuments of human intelligence’ [6], ‘a wonderful specimen of human intelligence’ [7], ‘a notable manifestation of human intelligence’ [8], ‘one of the greatest productions of the human mind’ [9] and ‘an important invention of human intelligence’ [10-11]. The algebraic formulation [12] of Páõini’s rules was not appreciated by the first western scholars. They regarded the work as abstruse [13], ambiguous and in the highest degree obscure [14] or artificial [15]; its each aphorism more dark and mystic than the darkest and most mystical of oracles [16], pregnant with endless progeny of interpretations and commentaries sometimes as obscure as the original [17]; a system with a network of mysticism [18]; and the order of the sítras as illogical and impracticable for any one to learn Sanskrit by its means [19]. But the western critique was muted and eventually turned into praise when modern schools of linguistics developed sophisticated notation systems of their own [20-28]. Today some scholars go upto the extent of saying that ‘the Aúýádhyáyå is not a Sanskrit grammar, it is a work on general linguistics’[29].
Acquaintance with the Páõinian analysis of root and suffixes and his recognition of ablaut --- though only indirect via Charles Wilkins’ (c.1750-1836) Sanskrit Grammar (1808) --- inspired Franz Bopp (1791-1867) and others to develop the imposing structure of Indo-European comparative and historical linguistics [30]. Otto Böhtlingk (1815-1904) was so much impressed by Páõinian method that he wrote the grammar of the Turkic Yakut language of Siberia [31], in which the working out of phonology, morphology, and syntax is detailed and complete in a very Páõini-like fashion, and which Edward Sapir used repeatedly to praise as a model of excellent method [32]. The Russian scholar E. E. Obermiller (1901-1936), who was profoundly impressed by, and full of admiration for the greatest Indian linguist, knew by heart almost every sítra and cherished for some time a scheme of writing the grammar of the Russian language according to the grammatical sítra method of Páõini [33].


2. Additions to Páõini
In view of the importance and usefulness of Páõini’s monumental work, attempts have been made almost right from the time of Páõini to revise and improve it. The famous Paribháúásícana of Vyáði, a contemporary of Páõini [34-35], contains also some supplementary rules called várttikas [36]. The great commentary called Mahábháúya of Patañjali (c.150 BC) preserves about 4280 várttikas [37-38] of his predecessors Kátyáyana (c.350 BC), Bháradvájåyas, Saunágas, Ÿlokavárttikakára etc. The two grammatical saints, Kátyáyana and Patañjali, scrutinised every doubtful word of the sítras [39]. In addition to the várttikas of his predecessors, Patañjali gave some extra supplementary rules called iúýis. In the 3983 sítras [40] (excluding the 14 ÿivasítras) of the Aúýádhyáyå, 270 sítras deal with Vedic morphology and 334 with the accent. In the Kielhorn edition of Mahábháúya, 1713 sítras have been discussed by Patañjali --- 1245 with Kátyáyana’s várttikas and the remaining 468 with ÿloka-várttikas and bháúya or only with bháúya; 1153 sítras have been cited, 532 without discussion; 1760 sítras have been given in the footnotes by Kielhorn, out of which 516 sítras are neither discussed nor cited by Patañjali; in case of 1222 sítras, Kielhorn has not indicated in the footnote [41]. Later in the commentary called Káÿiká, Jayáditya and Vámana (6th century AD), gave 917 várttikas [42] (excluding those having explanatory nature in the Mahábháúya), out of which 78 várttikas [43] are extra, not found in the Mahábháúya, and 138 iúýis [44].


3. Revised Editions of Páõini

3.1 Cándra-vyákaraõa --- the first great revised edition of Páõini
[45]
Candragomin (c.5th century AD) wrote his grammar called after him as Cándra-Vyákaraõa, embodying all the suggestions and corrections of Kátyáyana and Patañjali. Dr K C Chatterji calls it the first great revised edition of Páõini [45]. This grammar had both laukika and Vedic parts in which the Vedic morphology was covered in ch.VII and the accent rules in ch.VIII --- this is evident from its commentary [46]. But at present only the first six chapters have come down to us. Many other systems of grammar came up in the first millenium of the Christian era but only the laukika portion was given a place in them.


3.2 Sarasvatåkaõýhábharaõa --- the second great revised edition of Páõini [47]
In 11th century AD Bhojadeva wrote a monumental grammatical work called Sarasvatåkaõýhábharaõa [48] in eight chapters, each chapter in turn containing four quarters or pádas like the Aúýádhyáyå of Páõini. The Sarasvatåkaõýhábharaõa (SKÁ) is the biggest grammar of the sítra style containing 6432 sutras (see TABLE-I in section 5) in all. It is the only extant complete revised edition of Páõini in which the rules of accent and the Vedic morphology are also taken into account. It embodies all the suggestions and corrections of Vyáði, Kátyáyana, Patañjali, Jayáditya, Vámana and the post-Páõinian grammarians such as Ÿarvavarman, the author of Kátantra grammar, Candragomin and (Jain) Ÿákaýáyana. The várttikas, iúýis, uõádi-sítras, gaõa-páýha, gaõa-sítras, paribháúás and phiý-sítras have been incorporated by Bhoja in the body of the sítra-páýha itself. Thus, the SKÁ can safely be placed next to the Aúýádhyáyå of Páõini [49]. The work itself was not known, except through citations, till about the first quarter of the 20th century [50] (S. K. Belvalkar does not make any mention of this work in his 1915 edition of Systems of Sanskrit Grammar), when manuscripts of the work were discovered, all in Málábár [51].
In the SKÁ, unlike Aúýádhyáyå, all the sašjñá sítras are kept in the first páda of the first chapter, while the second páda contains all the paribháúá-sítras. The uõádi-sítras are placed in the proper order in the køt-prakaraõa itself and form the first three pádas of ch. II. The first two pádas of ch. VIII contain the sítras related to the Vedic morphology, while the accent rules of both laukika and Vedic Sanskrit are placed in the last two pádas. The phiý-sítras are incorporated in the grammar of Bhoja in the svara-prakaraõa itself under the sítras VIII.3.109-196. All the words of gaõa-páýha are enumerated in the form of sítras only in the respective places.
The strategy behind the preparation by Bhojadeva of the complete revised edition of Páõini is expressed in a very brief and compact form in one sentence by the Prastávaná writer, K S Mahádeva Ÿástrå, thus:
“लोकवेदोभयानुग्राहकत्वादार्षत्वाद् बहुभिरादृतत्वाद् व्याख्या-शतैरुपबृंहितत्वाच्च सर्वतोमुखीं प्रतिष्ठामास्थाय प्रावर्तमानेऽस्मिन् पाणिनीये तन्त्रे वार्त्तिक-गणपाठादि-सापेक्षतयाध्येतॄणामतीव क्लेशजालं पश्यन्नाचार्यदेशीयो भोजदेवः बहुग्रन्थालोडनमन्तरा एकेनैव ग्रन्थेनाधीतेन कृत्स्नस्यापि व्याकरणशास्त्रस्य लघुनोपायेन प्रतिपत्तावभ्युपायं चिन्तयन् प्रायेण पाणिनिमेवानुरुन्धानः तत्र तत्र चान्द्र-कातन्त्रादि-गतानप्यर्थान् यावदपेक्षं सञ्चित्य वार्त्तिक-गणोणादि-परिभाषापाठ-फिट्सूत्रादिकं निखिलमपि संगृह्य पाणिन्यननुशिष्टानां तत्तत्समय-समुच्चितानां महाकविभिरन्यैश्च साधुतया प्रयुज्यमानानां शब्दानामप्यनुशासनं विदधत् सरस्वतीकण्ठाभरणाख्यं ग्रन्थरत्नं विनिर्ममे ।” [52]


Bhojadeva appears to have made great efforts towards making grammar easy for the readers. This point is expressed by Mahádeva Ÿástrå thus:
“इहहि पाणिनीयं तन्त्रमधिजिगांसमानानां महान् क्लेशः सम्पद्यते । तथाहि - क्वचिद् ज्ञापकेन क्वचिद् योगविभागेन कुत्रचिद् व्याख्यानेन क्वचन पदानामनुकर्षेण क्वचिच्च मण्डूकप्लुत्या क्वचिच्च परिगणनेन एकत्र भाष्यार्थ-परिशीलनेन इतरत्र वार्त्तिक-परिचिन्तनेन अपरत्र च गणपाठादि-शीलनेन ते तेऽर्थाः साधनीया दृश्यन्ते । तानेतान् क्लेशान् परिजिहीर्षुर्भोजदेवः गणपठितान् शब्दान्, परिभाषाः, ज्ञापक-भाष्येष्टि-वार्त्तिक-व्याख्यागम्यानर्थांश्च सूत्ररूपेण ग्रन्थशरीर एव समायोजयत् । क्वचित् तत्र तत्र विप्रकीर्णानां सूत्राणामेकत्रैव समावेशेन, क्वचिच्च प्रकरणादिविनिमयेन, सूत्राणां प्रदेशविनिमयेन पौर्वापर्य-विपरिणामादिना च महती सौकर्य-सम्पत्तिः सम्पादिता ।”[53]


Many sítras in Páõini grammar are interpreted through jñápaka. This is especially the case regarding the optional dårghatva of aúýan, when a vibhakti follows (this point has been discussed by Mahádeva Ÿástrå in his Prasatávaná, p.10). Patañjali rejects some of the Kátyáyana várttikas on the ground that the same are indicated by the wordings of Páõini’s other sítras. Bhoja has included such implied meanings of jñápakas in his sítras itself. Two examples are presented here.
Consider first P.2.3.13 चतुर्थी सम्प्रदाने. The Kátyáyana várttika no.1 says: चतुर्थी-विधाने तादर्थ्ये उपसंख्यानम्. The Bháúyakára says: “चतुर्थी-विधाने तादर्थ्ये उपसंख्यानं कर्तव्यम् । यूपाय दारु । कुण्डलाय हिरण्यम् ॥ ... ... तत् तर्हि वक्तव्यम् । न वक्तव्यम् । आचार्यप्रवृत्तिर्ज्ञापयति भवत्यर्थ-शब्देन योगे चतुर्थीति यदयं चतुर्थी तदर्थार्थ (२.१.३६) इति चतुर्थ्यन्तस्यार्थ-शब्देन सह समासं शास्ति॥” Bhoja includes this implied meaning of jñápaka when along with the sítra चतुर्थी सम्प्रदाने (2.3.13), he also gives तादर्थ्ये (3.1.234).
On the sítra सार्वधातुके यक् (P.3.1.67), várttika 3 says: भावकर्मणोर्यग्विधाने कर्मकर्तर्युपसंख्यानं कर्तव्यम्. On this the Bháúyakára remarks: “भावकर्मणोर्यग्विधाने कर्मकर्तर्युपसंख्यानं कर्तव्यम् । पच्यते स्वयमेव । पठ्यते स्वयमेव । ... अथवाचार्य-प्रवृत्तिर्ज्ञापयति भवति कर्मकर्तरि यग् इति यदयं न दुह-स्नु-नमां यक्-चिणौ (३.१.८९) इति यक्-चिणोः प्रतिषेधं शास्ति ।” Bhoja includes the implied meaning of this jñápaka and gives the sítra कर्मकर्तरि च (१.३.१०४) after the sítra सार्वधातुके यक् (३.१.६७).
A list of such sítras along with corresponding Páõini sítras is given in TABLE-I. A good discussion of all the peculiarities of Bhoja’s SKÁ can be found in the Prastávaná (in Sanskrit) of K S Mahádeva Ÿástrå , Vol. IV of Trivandrum Edition.


4. Commentaries on SKÁ
There are three incomplete commentaries on SKÁ -- the first one is the Hødayaháriõå by Daõðanátha Náráyaõa Bhaýýa (either contemporary of Bhoja or 12th c. AD) and extends only up to ch.VII. Not only the commentary, but also some sítras are missing in between (see TABLE-IV & V in the next section). The other commentary called Puruúakára is by Køúõalåláÿukamuni (c.12th century AD), the author of the commentary Puruúakára on the dhátupáýha called Daivam. M. Krishnamacharya in his ‘History of Classical Sanskrit Literature’ mentions his name twice [54] and says that in Køúõalåláÿuka’s commentary on


TABLE-I :  स॰कं॰ सूत्रs based on  ज्ञापक सूत्रs in पाणिनि
---------------------------------------------------
स॰कं॰ सूत्र         पाणिनि सूत्र            ज्ञापक सूत्र 
(Madras edition) (+vtt.)          in पाणिनि
---------------------------------------------------
1.3.104         3.1.67 v.3        3.1.89
2.4.113-114     3.3.90 v.1-2      3.2.117
3.1.234         2.3.13 v.1        2.1.36
4.1.21          4.1.87 v.2        6.3.34
6.4.53          7.2.84            6.1.172; 7.1.21
7.1.53          3.1.30 v.1        न कम्यमिचमाम् (ग॰सू॰)
7.1.91          7.3.45 v.1        5.4.39
7.2.31, 33      1.1.56 v.21       8.2.35
7.3.63          8.2.7 v.2         8.2.68
---------------------------------------------------


Bhoja’s grammatical treatise, Sarasvatåkaõýhábharaõa, Páõini’s verses are quoted freely as illustrations. ‘A Catalogue of Skt MSS’, edited by T Gaõapati Ÿástrå (1921), Vol. VI, mentions at p.6, No.35 the commentary Puruúakára (sítra-vyákhyá-rípaò) of size 2200 granthas. Probably this commentary is related to Bhoja’s SKÁ. The New Catalogus Catalogurum, Vol IX, mentions Puruúakára as the commentary on Daivam only. The third commentary in Gujarati on ch. VIII by Dr N M Kansara has been written only recently (see the last para in the next section).


5. Editions of SKÁ
The complete sítra-páýha of SKÁ, edited by T R Chintamani, was published in the Madras University Sanskrit Series No.11 in 1937 with a Foreword by C Kunhan Raja and Preface by the editor himself giving a brief sketch of the life and works of Bhojadeva. The Madras edition is based on the following MSS (The details of the MSS have not been given in any of the published works on SKÁ. Based on the Descriptive Catalogues on Skt MSS in different libraries, these details have been compiled by the present author and are separately given at the end of this article) --- (i) R. No. 3279 (ii) R. No. 4179 (iii) No. 698 (iv) a transcript of the SKÁ sítras, prepared from the original palm leaf Ms (v) a fragment of the commentary of Daõðanátha, the last two supplied to the editor by his friend M Ramakrishnakavi. The Madras edition suffers from a lot of errors, mostly misprints. Some of the errors have arisen due to limitations of the editor in understanding Bhoja sítras. This edition contains 6432 sítras in all. The páda-wise break-up is shown in TABLE-II.


TABLE-II: Number of sítras in the Madras Edition of SKÁ
---------------------------------------------------
Ch. -->   1     2    3    4    5    6    7    8
---------------------------------------------------
पाद 1     212   348  304  211  181  175  140  173
पाद 2     135   255  161  149  224  180  151  149
पाद 3     231   191  148  269  156  183  150  263
पाद 4     277   283  135  207  189  192  178  232
---------------------------------------------------
Total->  855  1077  748  836  750  730  619  817
---------------------------------------------------


The available Hødayaháriõå commentary of Daõðanátha has been published upto first six chapters in the Trivandrum Sanskrit Series Nos. 117, 127, 140 and 154, edited by K Sámbaÿiva Ÿástrå, Vol. I (ch. I, 1935), Vol. II (ch.II, 1937), Vol. III (ch. III-IV, 1938) and V A Rámaswámi Ÿástrå, Vol. IV (ch. V-VI, 1948). The Trivandrum edition is based on the following MSS --- (i) No. 806 (ii) No. 817 (iii) No. 557 (iv) R. No. 3279 (v) the Ms containing the sítra-páýha alone obtained from Brahmasri Venkitaráma Ÿástrå, Shenkotta. The commentary on ch. VII is still unpublished. There is considerable variance in readings of the sítras in the two editions. Upto ch. VI, the number of sítras in the Trivandrum edition is 5019, as against 4996 in the Madras edition. The páda-wise break-up is shown in TABLE-III.
There is a difference also in the number of pratyáhára-sítras in the two editions. The Madras edition has 14, i.e. same as in the Aúýádhyáyå. But the Trivandrum edition has only 13, as in Cándra-vyákaraõa. The two sítras ‘ह य व र ट् । ल ण् ।’ are combined into one as


TABLE-III: Number of sítras in the Trivandrum Edition of SKÁ
---------------------------------------------------
Ch. -->    1      2     3     4     5     6    
---------------------------------------------------
पाद 1      211    348   307   212   182   175  
पाद 2      134    255   164   152   227   185  
पाद 3      230    190   150   272   157   181  
पाद 4      278    285   135   208   189   192  
---------------------------------------------------
Total --> 853   1078   756   844   755   733  
---------------------------------------------------


‘ह य व र ल ण् ।’ With ýakára only one pratyáhára viz. aý is used in grammar. The aý pratyáhára does not occur in any Bhoja-sítras. Therefore, the reading without the ýakára viz. ‘ह य व र ल ण् ।’ appears to be the correct one. The aý occurs in four Páõini sítras: आतोऽटि नित्यम् (८.३.३), दीर्घादटि समानपादे (८.३.९), अट्-कुप्वाङ्-नुम्व्यवायेऽपि (८.४.२) and शश्छोऽटि (८.४.६३). The Bhoja-sítras corresponding to P.8.3.9, 8.4.2 and 8.4.63 are: दीर्घादटि समानपादे (८.२.१२८), चु-टु-तु-ल-शर्-व्यवायेऽपि (७.४.१४५) mentioning the letters the intervention of which prevents õatva and चयश्शश्छोऽमि (७.४.१७६), which is based on the Kátyáyana’s várttika: छत्वममि तच्छ्मश्रुणा तच्छलोकेनेति प्रयोजनम्. Bhoja has rejected the Páõini sítra आतोऽटि नित्यम्, following the statement found in the Káÿikávøtti : केचिदनुस्वारमधीयते, which indicates that the anunásikatva is not nitya.
The Gujarati commentary of Dr Narayan M Kansara on ch. VIII has been published by Rashtriya Veda Vidya Pratishthan and Motilal Banarsidass, New Delhi, 1992. The editor deserves praise for bringing out the so far unavailable commentary on this chapter. This edition is based on the Madras edition only. No available MSS have been consulted. The variations from the Ms are not supplied. The Madras edition itself does not give the original readings of many sítras. That is why the Gujarati edition also suffers from inaccuracy in case of many sítras. In case of a few sítras, the vøtti requires to be rewritten. Moreover, many correct sítras of the Madras edition have been blunderingly modified in this edition. For example, the Bhoja-sítra हियासामः (८.३.११) makes provision for the udáttatva of हि (the substitute for सि in लोट्), यास् (= यासुट्, the आगम in case of लिङ्) and आम् of अनडुह्. In the Gujarati edition this sítra has been changed to हिमारण्याभ्याम्.


6. Review of the first three chapters by Louis Renou (1957)
Renou has given an excellent review of the first three chapters of the Trivandrum edition of SKÁ in his ‘Le Sarasvatåkaõýhábharaõa’, pp. 121-127 in Vol. III of ‘Études Vediques et Páõineennes’ (in French). According to him, the SKÁ is much more than a revised edition of Páõini (beaucoup plus qu’une edition “revue” de P.). First of all, it has incorporated in the frame of sítras all the positive teachings (tout l’enseignement positif) of the old várttikas, which are more or less preserved in the Káÿiká : casting aside the várttikas which are of technical, scholastic and explanatory character. Secondly, the new additions in the form of इति वक्तव्यम्, इत्युपसंख्यानम् take the form of sítra. Every effort has been made to remove the limitations of Páõini, which makes this manual that the Sanskrit tradition has bequeathed to us, more complete [55]. He adds in the footnote that it contains some rare


TABLE-IV: Sítras without Daõðanátha commentary
---------------------------------------------------
Ch.पाद  सूत्र सं॰             सूत्र सं॰ in           Total
in TSS          Madras Edition
---------------------------------------------------
1  1  10               10                 1

3  6-17             6-18               12(13)
---------------------------------------------------
2  4  84a, 98a, 98b,   83, 98, 99, 199    4
200

3  1  20, 27-41,       19, 26-40, 220-275 73(72)
223-279

2  16-20, 80,       16-20, 80, 83-114  41(38)
83-117

3  102-113, 142     102-113, 140       13

4  24, 12#          24, 12#            1 + 1
---------------------------------------------------
4  2  46               45a                1

3  224-226, 205#,   223a-223c (fn),    3 + 2
248#             205a, 245
---------------------------------------------------
5  2  77-96, 76#       77-93, 76#         20(17)+1
4  161-167          161-167            7 
---------------------------------------------------
6  2  153, 154-155,    151a(fn),          16(14)
164-176          151b(fn), 
160-171
3  4, 26, 127,      3a, 25-27, 128,    16(19)
150-162          151-164
4  39-52, 72#,      39-52, 72#, 112#   14 + 2
112#
---------------------------------------------------
**7 1  52, 101         Same               2
2  90, 105, 106,   Same               3 + 1
25#
4  66, 67,         Same               13
158-167, 173
---------------------------------------------------


The symbol # after the såtra number indicates that only one or two words of commentary are available. The letters a & b following a såtra number indicate that the såtra is not available in the corresponding edition but if also followed by (fn), indicate that the såtra is available in the foot note.


Vedic examples (naturally in the commentary only) – I.1.118 रक्षामाकिर्नो अघशंस ईशत (ऋ॰ ६.७५.१०); 119 अधैनं वृका रभसासो अद्युः (ऋ॰ १०.९५.१४) ; विश्वकर्मा विमना आद् विहायाः (यजु॰ १७.२६) etc [56]. Regarding paribháúá-sítras he says, not less interesting is the 2nd páda which condenses all the paribháúás taken from Páõini as well as várttikas and bháúya. There are some paribháúás which are not attested by Såradeva, e.g. आदिष्टादचः पूर्वस्य (49). One also finds the maxims of Bháúya which have not been brought under special treatment, such as नानिष्टार्था शास्त्रप्रवृत्तिः (123). A few others make appearance unprecedented, such as the last but one, अभिधानलक्षणाः कृत्-तद्धित-समासाः (133) which summarises a point of view often expressed by the commentators [57].
Commenting on the series of exceptional sítras in between III.2.62-68, 73-88, related to composition (samása), he says, “This shows the considerable part of novelties, which the grammar of Bhoja provides. Novelties in the sense of relative term, because the vøtti of


TABLE-V: Sítras with incomplete Daõðanátha commentary (*)
---------------------------------------------------
Ch. पाद    सूत्र सं॰                     सूत्र सं॰  
(TSS)              (Madras Edition)    
---------------------------------------------------
1   1    113m, 128m           113, 128
2    9e                   9
3    18i                  19
---------------------------------------------------
2   1    277m                 277
3    95m                  96
4    61m, 98e, 98bi,      59a, 97, 99, 183, 282
183m, 284m
---------------------------------------------------
3   1    61e, 62i, 115m,      60, 61, 114, 119, 
120m, 212m, 280i     209, 276

2    6m, 10i, 41m, 43m,   6, 10, 41, 43, 82, 
82e, 118i, 125m,     115, 122, 147
150i

3    11i, 101e, 114i,     11,101,114,139,141
141e, 143im

4    1m, 7m, 10me, 11e,   same as in TSS
14m,16m,18ie, 19i, 
20e, 21ie,23m,25m, 
54e, 55i 
---------------------------------------------------
4   1    7i, 64e, 65i, 66i,   7, 64, 65, 66, 193, 
193i, 197i           196a(fn)

2    47i                  45b

3    49e,50i,55i,121m,    49, 50, 55-56, 122, 
247e                 244

4    9e,26m,154e,155i     9, 26, 154, 154a
---------------------------------------------------
5   1    88e, 89i, 133m       88, 88a, 131

2    97i, 108e, 112m,     94, 105, 109, 164, 
167m, 174i, 178i     171(misprinted 271), 
175

3    149e, 150i           148, 149

4    10m, 160e, 168i      10, 160, 168
---------------------------------------------------
6   1    13e,13a(fn)i,27m,    12, 13, 27, 45, 92, 
45i(ह्वः),92m,109m,    109, 172
172im

2    20m, 72e, 73i,       20, 72, 73, 74, 
74e(possibly),75i,   74a(fn), 112, 151, 
113m, 152e, 178e     173

3    9m, 11m, 19m, 22m,   8, 10, 18, 21, 33, 
32m(possibly),64m,   65,76,77,103, 105, 
75i,76m,102m,104e,   106, 113, 126, 127, 
105i, 112m,          129, 165 
125e(misprinted 122), 
126i, 128m, 163i

4    38e, 113i             38, 113
---------------------------------------------------
**7 1    8m, 46i, 56m, 75m,    Same
83e, 84i, 123m

2    14m,97m,138e,139i     Same

3    4m, 27m,44i,84m,      Same
149m

4    70i,157e,168i,175m,   Same
177m
---------------------------------------------------


(*) Letters i, m & e following the sutra numbers indicate respectively the initial, middle & end portion of the commentary as missing.


** - Available only in manuscript without såtra numbers, såtra numbers indicated are taken from Madras edition.


Candragomin, much earlier to the SKÁ, gives in the long commentary on the sítra चार्थे (II.2.48) most of the examples cited in the (Daõðanátha)vøtti or those resulting from the teachings of the sítras of Bhoja.” [58]


7. Article of Robert Birwé (1964)
An excellent article entitled ‘Náráyaõa Daõðanátha’s Commentary on Rules III.2.106-121 of Bhoja’s Sarasvatåkaõýhábharaõa’ of Robert Birwé has appeared in the Journal of American Oriental Society, Vol. 84, 1964, pp.150-162. The article is mainly meant for providing an alternative to the missing commentary on many rules of the sítras under the above title. Náráyaõa Bhaýýa quotes in his प्रक्रियासर्वस्व, a commentary on Páõini’s grammar, numerous rules from Bhoja’s SKÁ, among them the rules Bh III.2.106-121. Besides Náráyaõa Bhaýýa’s commentary there is another one -- the Káÿiká-manuscript No. 2440 of the India Office Library (cf. J Eggeling, Catalogue of the Skt MSS in the Library of India Office, Vol. II, p.159, No. 991, 992 = Ind. Off. Lib. Nos. 2440, 2441. The Ms, in Devanágarå characters, has been written between 1630-1632 AD) on Rule P II.1.72: मयूरव्यंसकादयश्च. It is a unique fact that this Ms comments a Páõinian sítra by quoting rules from a non-Páõinian grammar and a commentary thereon. Since this commentary is, moreover, partly missing in the Trivandrum edition of Bhoja, it deserves to be published.
First quoting, on pp. 153-155, the vøtti of the above Ms, Dr Birwé discusses in section 11, p.155, the possible author of this Ms. In his opinion it must be Daõðanátha. In section 12, pp.155-158, he has attempted to edit and reconstruct the missing portions of Daõðanátha’s vøtti on Bhoja’s rules III.2.106-121. In sections 13-17, pp.159-162, he has discussed the date of Daõðanátha. With the help of a comparative study of the Daõðanátha’s commentary on Bh.I.3.196 and the Hemacandra’s auto-commentary called Bøhadvøtti on Haima sítra V.1.52, Birwé concludes that Hemacandra must have copied Daõðanátha’s commentary. With this he leaves a scope of further research -- a systematic search for parallel passages in the works of Hemacandra and Daõðanátha. According to Dr. Birwé, the year 1100 A.D. is the upper limit of Daõðanátha’s date (p. 161).


8. Articles of Dr N M Kansara (1989, 1990)
The article entitled ‘The Vaidika Vyákaraõa of Bhojadeva’ by Dr Kansara was published in the Journal of the Oriental Institute, Baroda, Vol. 38, Nos.3-4,1989, pp.309-313. In this paper he has given an outline of the contents of ch.VIII of Bhoja’s grammar based on the Madras edition. At the end he mentions the possible scope of research work regarding search for the correct readings of the sítras of this chapter with the help of the parallel sítras in Páõini.
A second article entitled ‘Emendations Essential to the Vedic Grammar of Bhojadeva’ by the same author was presented to the AIOC, 35th Session, Hardwar, 1990, pp.43-53. In most of the sítras discussed by him, he has modified the Bhoja sítras by adding many words for the sake of anuvøtti. In his Gujarati edition of SKÁ, he has emended many more sítras by adding certain words to them. In my opinion such additions, except in very few cases, are unwarranted. Consider, for example, the Bhoja sítras ल्यप् क्त्वा वा (VIII.2.67) and प्लुत उदात्तः (VIII.4.225). In the Gujarati edition they are changed to समासेऽनञ्पूर्वे ल्यपः क्त्वा वा (VIII.2.68) and वाक्यस्य टेः प्लुत उदात्तः (VIII.4.228). The sítra ल्यपः क्त्वा वा simply means that in case of Vedic literature the suffix क्त्वा is optionally applicable to the case where the suffix ल्यप् has been prescribed in the laukika section. Here the context does not demand where the suffix ल्यप् is used. This provision has already been made in the laukika part under the sítra भाविनि गत्युपपदसमासे क्त्वो ल्यप् (VI.4.6). The Bhoja sítra VIII.4.225 makes provision for udáttatva to pluta. This sítra does not require any statement regarding which अच् is pluta. This part is already covered under the sítra वाक्यस्य टेः प्लुतः (VII.3.131). Thus modifying the Bhoja sítra प्लुत उदात्तः to वाक्यस्य टेः प्लुत उदात्तः is not only unnecessary but also wrong.


9. Ph.D. Thesis on SKÁ by K Neelakaõýham (1989)
A Ph.D. thesis entitled ‘A Comparative Study of Páõini’s Aúýádhyáyå and Bhoja’s Sarasvatåkaõýhábharõam’ by K Neelakaõýham was submitted to Osmania University, Hyderabad, in 1989. For the comparative study, the order of Aúýádhyáyå has been followed except in sašjñá and paribháúá sítras. This thesis of 6+718+iv pages gives all the novelties in SKÁ with exact number of várttikas included as sítras, added and deleted words in gaõas and added and deleted uõádi suffixes. Thus it is a good contribution to the study of SKÁ. However, it must be noted that except in a few cases, no attempt has been made to correct the corrupted sítras of SKÁ. Comparison of the two grammars has been done only for the selected sítras and not for all the sítras of Páõini. Moreover, in case of many sítras of Páõini which contain the accent part also, such as चतुरनडुहोरामुदात्तः (P VII.1.98), he has given the parallel sítras from SKÁ only for the morphological part, completely neglecting the accent part of SKÁ. For P.VII.1.98, the parallel sítra in SKÁ is हियासामः (VIII.3.11), as mentioned earlier. At p.323, he says “SKÁ has सायं-चिरं-प्राह्णे-प्रगेऽव्ययेभ्यष्ट्युः (4.3.109) as against सायं-चिरं-प्राह्णे-प्रगेऽव्ययेभ्यष्ट्यु-ट्युलौ तुट् च (4.3.23) of Aúý. Bhoja following CG omits the affix ट्युल्.” He does not look in SKÁ for the svara-siddhi of the affix ट्यु corresponding to Páõini’s ट्युल्. In SKÁ, it will suffice to provide an optional लित्-स्वर to ट्यु. This gives us a clue for correcting the highly corrupted sítra रद्यौ वा [?] 8.3.71 in the Madras edition of SKÁ. It must be ट्यौ वा. The Gujarati edition gives रथोर्वा (8.3.74), which is obviously not correct.
Many conclusions indicated in the thesis are wrong. For example, at p.39, Dr Neelakaõýham says, “षष्ठी स्थाने योगा (1.1.49) of P. is not found in SKÁ…. Bhoja does not seek the help of this sítra and only implies this rule in the sítra like इको यणचि (6.1.77)”. Actually based on the Bháúya on P.1.1.49, Bhoja has accepted the second alternative to this sítra, viz. निर्दिश्यमानस्यादेशाः (I.2.38) where षष्ठ्या comes as anuvøtti from the sítra I.2.30. On p.661 he says that ‘the P.VIII.4.66-68 are not found in SKÁ’. But actually corresponding to P.VIII.4.66-67, we have the Bhoja sítras उदात्तादनुदात्तः and उदात्त-स्वरित-परश्च वा यणः (VIII.4.229-230). The latter sítra is wrongly printed in the Madras edition. In the Ms also यणः has been wrongly included in sítra no. 230. Actually it forms part of the next sítra which is supposed to be parallel to P.VIII.2.4. At p.149, he says that ‘the अनुदात्तौ सुप्पितौ (P.III.1.3) is not found in SKÁ’. This topic has been discussed in detail in the Februry 1999 issue of वेदवाणी by the present author.


10. Ph.D. Thesis on SKÁ by V G Ÿástrå (1989)
A Ph.D. thesis entitled ‘Bhojadevakøta Sarasvatåkaõýhábharaõa (Ek Samåkúátmak Adhyayan)’ by V G Ÿástrå was submitted to Gujarat University, Ahmedabad, in 1989. It has been published by Parimal Publications, Delhi, 1996. The main contribution of this thesis lies in its first chapter, which contains the discussion on the life and works of Bhojadeva. Out of the total 287 pp., 120 pp. have been allotted to the description of contributions of other grammarians! As per the title and his Foreword, this thesis is supposed to be the critical study of SKÁ, especially on ch.VIII. One hardly finds in the published thesis any significant contribution to the study of SKÁ. What has been expressed by Dr Chintamani in the tabular form in Bhoja-Páõini Concordance in Appendix-I, has been expressed in oft-repeated words in ch.6 of this thesis. As per Dr N M Kansara’s information, all the corrections in the sítra-páýha with the help of parallel sítras in Páõini, done by V G Ÿástrå (but not compiled separately in the thesis), have been incorporated in the Gujarati edition.


11. SKÁ cited as Authority in Various Works
The great depositaries of learning such as Hemacandra, Kúårasvámin, Vardhamána, Mallinátha Síri, Devarája Yajvan, Sáyaõácárya, Náráyaõa Bhaýýa and Bhaýýoji Dåkúita have cited in their works the SKÁ as authority. This topic has been described in detail by the present author in the May 1995 issue of वेदवाणी. Some details not supplied in this issue are given below.


Vardhamána has quoted Bhojadeva by name as a lexicographer, grammarian and commentator in the following kárikas of गणरत्नमहोदधि (edited by Julius Eggeling, 1879; Reprint MLBD, New Delhi, 1963):
---------------------------------------------------
2(2)      7(2)      13       22       25   
27        28         29       31       39
40        45         46       49       52


64        80         82       85       91(2)
93        94         95(2)    96(3)   101 
105       107        109      112      113


114       123(2)     131      135      139 
140(2)    145        146      157      164(2)
170       175        182      186      191


197       202(2)     203      207      209(2)
211       212(3)     214      215      216
219(4)    222        228(2)   229      230


233(2)    240        243      245      249
261       268        272(2)   286      288
302       304        314(2)   315      317


326       330        342      348      351
352       353        359      392(4)   403(2)
404       405        406      409      414(2)


417       419        420      423      426
433       434        435      437(2)   438
446       449        450      452      457(2)

--- Total     1 (in कारिका 2)
+ 129 (in the commentary)
---------------------------------------------------


Devarája Yajvan quotes Bhoja in his निघण्टु-निर्वचनम् (edited by Sudyumnácárya and published by Ram Lall Kapoor Trust, Bahalgarh, 1998) at the following pages:
By name:
---------------------------------------------------
3        13         14       19       20
24        26         31       39(2)    49(2)
52        55         67       83       92


102       117        122      123      127
128(2)    129        131      135      137
138       139        150      178(2)   207


210       216

--- Total 36 times
---------------------------------------------------


SKÁ sítras quoted without mentioning by name:
---------------------------------------------------
41       144        152      154      157
179       183        186      188(2)   189 
201       202        204      206(2)   208


209       210(2)     211      214      216
230       237        244      246      274
276       279        281      282      284(3)


285(2)    288        290      291(2)   301
302       308        310      311(2)   322
--- Total 48 times

दण्डनाथवृत्ति (by name) : 152 198 202 
---------------------------------------------------


On page 210 under the commentary on ‘दुरोणे’ the Bhoja-sítra (2.2.184) is mentioned along with its vøtti. But this vøtti is found otherwise in Trivandrum Edition.
Scholars like Bhimsen Ÿástrå and Hariÿcandramaõi Tripáýhå have made good use of the SKÁ and its commentary in their theses entitled ‘न्यास-पर्यालोचन’ (in Hindi) and ‘निपातार्थनिर्णयः’ respectively, published by Bhaimi Prakashan, New Delhi, 1979 and Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya, 1991.


12. Ákúepas against SKÁ
Certain modern scholars like K V Abhyankar and Nemicandra Ÿástrå have put up ákúepas against this monumental work. K V Abhyankar says in ‘A Dictionary of Sanskrit Grammar’ -- “ By the anxiety of the author to bring together, the necessary portions of the gaõa-páýha and the paribháúás, which the author has included in his eight chapters, the book instead of being easy to understand, has lost the element of brevity and become tedious for reading. Hence it is not studied widely.”
-- It appears that reading the Páõinian grammar scattered in different books like the Aúýádhyáyå with Káÿiká and Mahábháúya, gaõa-páýha, Uõádi-páýha, phiý-sítras and paribháúás with their commentaries and sub-commentaries was not tedious for him !


In “Ácárya Hemacandra aur unká ÿabdánuÿásan’(1963, in Hindi), pp.101-102, Nemicandra Ÿástrå remarks :
(i) The Bhoja grammar is heavily loaded with paribháúá. It can be said in express terms that the above-mentioned grammar cannot be understood without the knowledge of Páõinian grammar. Only an expert in Páõini can understand it well. Regarding paribháúá it appears essential that the knowledge of the Páõini grammar be gained first…. Bhojarája has collected all the paribháúá-sítras found in Paribháúenduÿekhara. Due to this an initial complexity appears in this work.
-- With the above remarks Nemicandra Ÿástrå has only strengthened the statement that the SKÁ is nothing but the great revised edition of Páõini and supports also the view of Robert Birwé who says in his article mentioned earlier: “I doubt very much that the understanding of the SKÁ is impossible without the vøtti, as maintained by K. Sámbaÿiva Ÿástrå. There is, I am convinced of it, no serious difficulty, not to speak of impossibility, to understand it for anyone fully conversant with Páõini’s Aúýádhyáyå and the main works of his followers”(p.152). It is always preferable to have all the information implied by the sítrakára at one place. Nemicandra Ÿástrå has expressed the view that Hemacandra has kept his grammar free from the burden of paribháúá. But in order to fully understand the grammar of Hemacandra, Hemahašsagaõi has compiled 141 paribháúás, the largest number of paribháúá in Sanskrit grammar ! Out of these, 57 paribháúás have been cited by Hemacandra himself in his auto-commentary Bøhadvøtti.
(ii) Bhojarája’s treatment of the feminine affixes is very complicated.
-- Nemicandra Ÿástrå has compared the SKÁ with the brevity of Haima grammar in which the accent part has been neglected. Naturally the affixes ङीष्, ङीप् and ङीन् are changed to a single affix ङी. That cannot happen in case of a work like the Aúýádhyáyå and SKÁ where accent is also taken into account. He shows happiness over the fact that Hema has only one sítra ‘अजादेः’ regarding the feminine affix, whereas Bhoja has constructed 13 sítras for the same affix टाप्, III.4.2-14. It is to be noted that Bhoja had to construct so many sítras as exceptions to the affix ङीष्.


13. Articles on SKÁ by the Present Author
Ten articles on SKÁ by the present author have been published so far in Vedaváõå (July 1993 - June 2000), mostly dealing with the correction of some sítras from ch. VIII whose readings are found incorrect in both the editions. This has been possible with the help of the “Concordance of Nine Sanskrit Grammars” prepared by the author especially for this purpose. In this Concordance, Páõini sítra and várttika numbers have been given in the first column in serial order and the corresponding sítra numbers of the remaining eight grammars -- Bhoja, Kátantra, Cándra, Jainendra (mahávøtti), Jainendra (laghuvøtti or ÿabdárõava-candriká), Ÿákaýáyana, Haima and Malayagiri -- in the following columns.






14. Details of the MSS on the Sarasvatåkaõýhábharaõa (grammar)

I. K. Sámbaÿiva Ÿástrå (1938):
“A Descriptive Catalogue of the Skt MSS in H. H. the Maharajah's Palace Library, Trivandrum", Vol III - Vedánta, Måmášsá, Vyákaraõa, Nyáya and Jyotiúa
(1) No. 806 Sarasvatåkaõýhábharaõam
Palm leaf, 11" x 1½", 6 leaves, 11 lines per page, 40 letters per line, Grantha script, and size - 150 granthas.
The Ms contains only sítra-páýha and concludes with the 2nd páda in the 1st chapter.
(2) No. 817 Sarasvatåkaõýhábharaõam (savøttikam)
Palm leaf, 22⅜" x 1⅞", 330 leaves, 9-11 lines per page, 88 letters per line, Malayalam script, size - 18000 granthas.
The Ms contains the Hødayaháriõå commentary of Daõðanátha Náráyaõa Bhaýýa upto the end of ch. VII.


II. K. Sámbaÿiva Ÿástrå (1939):“A Descriptive Catalogue of the Skt MSS in the Curator’s Office Library, Trivandrum”, Vol III – Vedánta, Måmášsá and Vyákaraõa.
(3) No. 556 Sarasvatåkaõýhábharaõam
Paper, 13" x 8", 112 pages, 24 lines per page, and 24 letters per line, Devanágarå script, and size – 2000 granthas.
The Ms contains only sítra-páýha. Complete.
(4) No. 557 Sarasvatåkaõýhábharaõam (savøttikam)
Palm leaf, 11⅜" x 1⅜", 64 leaves, 7-8 lines per page, 28-36 letters per line, Malayalam script, size – 960 granthas.
The Ms contains the Hødayaháriõå commentary of Daõðanátha Náráyaõa Bhaýýa. It begins on a portion of the 1st páda of the 2nd ch. and breaks off on the 4th páda of the same chapter. The last 18 leaves are blank.
(5) No. 558 Sarasvatåkaõýhábharaõam (savøttikam)
Paper, 13¼" x 8⅜", 1067 pages, 14 lines per page, 20 letters per line, Devanágarå script, size – 9000 granthas.
The Ms contains the Hødayaháriõå commentary of Daõðanátha.. It extends from the beginning of ch. V. upto the end of ch. VII.


III. S. Kuppuswami Ÿástrå (1928):“A Triennial Catalogue of MSS collected during the Triennium 1919-20 to 1921-22 for the Govt Oriental MSS Library, Madras”, Vol IV, Part I, Sanskrit B.
(6) R. No. 3279 Sarasvatåkaõýhábharaõam
Paper, 10⅝" x 9¼", 62 foll., 20 lines per page, 28-33 letters per line, Devanágarå script. Good. Transcribed in 1920-21 from a Ms of M R Ry K C Valiyarája of Kottakal, Malabar District. Foll. 61b and 62 are left blank.
The Ms contains only sítra-páýha. Complete.
(7) R. No. 4179 Sarasvatåkaõýhábharaõa-vyákhyá -- Hødayaháriõå
Paper, 10¾" x 9¾", 298 foll., 20 lines per page, Devanágarå script. Good. Transcribed in 1922-23 from a Ms of Mahámahopádhyáya Náráyaõa Nambudiripad Avargal, Kunnanukulam, Cochin State. Fol. 297 b contains the name of the owner of the original Ms. Fol. 298 is left blank.
The Ms contains ch. I to III complete and breaks off in ch. IV.


IV. V. Krishnamacharya (1947): “A Descriptive Catalogue of Skt MSS in the Adyar Library, Madras”, Vol VI – Grammar, Prosody and Lexicography.
(8) No. 697 (38.I.7) Sarasvatåkaõýhábharaõam -- Bhojadevakøtam
Paper, 8½" x 6⅝", 170 foll., 14 lines per page, Devanágarå script. Good. Good writing.
The Ms contains only sítra-páýha. Complete in 8 chapters. It is a copy of R. No. 3279 prepared by K. Ramachandra Sharma, Adyar.
(9) No. 698 (39.I.8) Sarasvatåkaõýhábharaõa-vyákhyá -- Hødayaháriõå
Paper, 8" x 6½", 1247 foll., 14 lines per page, Devanágarå script. New. Good. Good writing.
Bound in 7 volumes or 8 parts on the whole, the volume 3 containing 2 parts. The pagination in parts 1 to 3 is continuous as 1 to 1043 and in parts 4 to 8, as 1 to 1449. The Ms contains the commentary up to the end of ch. VII.


REMARKS:


1. The Revised Catalogue of the Palace Granthappura (Library), Trivandrum, edited by K Sámbaÿiva Ÿástrå (1929) at p.35 mentions palm leaf MSS Nos. 806 and 817. It appears that these same MSS are described in the Descriptive Catalogue of 1938. However, in the case of No. 806 the character is mentioned to be Malayalam and no. of granthas 175. In the case of No. 817, the no. of granthas is mentioned as 20000.
2. The Annual Report on the Administration of the Dept for the Publication of Skt MSS for 1104 ME, Travancore State, mentions on p.16, No.62 Sarasvatåkaõýhábharaõa-vøtti of Daõðanátha. This appears to be same as described under No. 557 earlier. The Ms belongs to Brahmadattan Nambudiripad, Plakkattiri, Koodalloramana, Pattambi. However, the size is mentioned to be 1200 granthas.
3. A Catalogue of Skt MSS, edited by Gaõapati Ÿástrå (1923), Trivandrum, Vol III, p.9, No.53 mentions a Ms of Sarasvatåkaõýhábharaõa (size 2200 granthas) which was prepared from the Ms obtained from the Govt Oriental MSS Library, Madras. The latter appears to be R. No. 3279, which was copied to Ms bearing No. 556 mentioned earlier.


Acknowledgement
The author expresses his deep gratitude to Prof E R Rama Bai, Head of the Sanskrit Dept, University of Madras, for making available the manuscript numbers on SKÁ from different libraries. The author is thankful to Dr S D Laddu, Curator, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune, for his suggestion to write to the Editor, New Catalogus Catalogurum, University of Madras, in regard to the details of MSS on SKÁ. The author is also thankful to Dr P G Lalye, who made available for reference a copy of the unpublished thesis of Dr K Neelakaõýham. Dr Narayan Kansara, Ex-Director of Maharshi Academy of Vedic Sciences, Ahmedabad, deserves special thanks, who provided the required information on SKÁ through correspondence from time to time.
This paper is dedicated to late Mahámahopádhyáya Pt. Yudhiúýthir Måmášsak who has been a great inspiration to the author regarding svádhyáya (self-study) and who created interest in research on SKÁ, the result of which is the state-of-art in this field, presented for the first time, especially the details of MSS, which would be of great help to the future researchers on SKÁ.


NOTES
1. “संसार भर में किसी भी इतर प्राचीन अथवा अर्वाचीन भाषा का ऐसा परिष्कृत व्याकरण आज तक नहीं बना ।” -- पं॰ युधिष्ठिर मीमांसक, संस्कृत व्याकरणशास्त्र का इतिहास, 4th edition, Ram Lall Kapoor Trust, Vol .I, 1984, p 193, lines 13-15 (in Hindi).
2. Commenting on Páõini’s extraordinary work and about one hundred and fifty grammarians and annotators who followed in the footsteps of the great Father of Sanskrit grammar, Monier Williams (1819-1899) remarks --- “It cannot be wondered ….. that the science of Sanskrit grammar should have been refined and elaborated by the Hindus to a degree wholly unknown in the other languages of the world", A Practical Grammar of the Sanskrit Language, Third Edition, The Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1864, p xii. (Reprint The Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series, Vol.XXI, 1962).
3. “For no language of the past have we a record comparable to Páõini’s record of his mother-tongue, nor is it likely that any language spoken today will be so perfectly recorded.” --- Review by Leonard Bloomfield of Bruno Liebich’s “Konkordanz Panini-Candra”, Language: Journal of the Linguistic Society of America, Vol.V, 1929, p.274.
4. Commenting on the works of Páõini and his successors T Burrow remarks --- “The importance of the grammarians in the history of Sanskrit is unequalled anywhere in the world. Also the accuracy of their linguistic analysis is unequalled until comparatively modern times. The whole of the classical literature of Sanskrit is written in a form of language which is regulated to the last detail by the work of Páõini and his successors”, The Sanskrit Language, Faber and Faber, London, 1977, p 47.
5. Commenting on Páõini and his predecessors A B Keith remarks --- “… in this field Páõini, or more correctly his predecessors, achieved very remarkable results, as in the postulate of Guõa and Vøddhi changes, of forms with long ॠ vowel, roots in ai, masj as the original of majj, dive, s as the ending of inflexions. The analysis of forms is normally carried out with great acumen; …. In comparison with the work of Greek Grammarians Páõini is on a totally different plane in this regard”, A History of Sanskrit Literature, The Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1928, pp 424-425. [ “Although Páõini’s work has a history behind it, it is the achievement of one man”, Bloomfield, op.cit., p.274, para 2.]
6. The Father of modern linguistics, Leonard Bloomfield, in his book ‘Language’, which is considered the Bible of modern linguistics, remarks --- “This grammar (Páõini’s Aúýádhyáyå) which dates from somewhere round 350 to 250 BC is one of the greatest monuments of human intelligence. …. No other language to this day has been so perfectly described”, Language, Henry Holt and Company, New York, 1933, p 11. Cf also Language, Vol.V, 1929, p 268, para 2 and p 274, para 2.
7. “पाणिनिचे व्याकरण म्हणजे मानवी बुद्धिचा एक आश्चर्यजनक नमूना आहे असे मोनियर-विलियम्सने काढलेले उद्गार प्रसिद्धच आहे”, K V Abhyankar, व्याकरण महाभाष्य, प्रस्तावना खण्ड, Part VII, Deccan Education Society, Pune, 1954, p 153, fn 1 (in Maráýhå).
8. K V Abhyankar and J M Shukla, A Dictionary of Sanskrit Grammar, Oriental Institute Baroda, 1986, p 286.
9. “Páõini’s book is something more than a mere grammar. It has been described by the Soviet Professor Th. Stcherbatsky of Leningrad, as one of the greatest productions of the human mind”, Jawaharlal Nehru, The Discovery of India, Asia Publishing House, Bombay, 1972, p 115 (Reprint of 1961 edition).
10. “संसार के व्याकरणों में पाणिनि का व्याकरण चोटी का है । उसकी वर्णशुद्धता, भाषा का धात्वन्वय सिद्धान्त और प्रयोगविधियाँ अद्वितीय एवं अपूर्व हैं ... ... यह मानव मस्तिष्क का अत्यन्त महत्त्वपूर्ण आविष्कार है ।” -- W W Hunter’s statement translated in Hindi and quoted in युधिष्ठिर मीमांसक, op.cit., p.224.


11. “सर विलियम हंटरने सुद्धा पाणिनीय अष्टकाला मानवी बुद्धिचा महत्त्वपूर्ण आविष्कार असे म्हटले आहे” -- K V Abhyankar, op.cit., p.153, fn.1.
12. Hermut Scharfe, Grammatical Literature, Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, 1977, p 112, para 2. In the footnote he remarks ---“Often mislabeled in the past as ‘mnemotechnical devices’ ”.
13. “ … the study of the more abstruse work of the first great grammarian, Páõini”, Monier Williams, op.cit., p xi.
14. Even H T Colebrooke (1765-1836), the profoundest Sanskrit scholar of his day, imbued with a predilection for every thing Indian,* remarks on Páõini’s work --- “The studied brevity of the Páõinåya sítras renders them in the highest degree obscure; even with the knowledge of the key to their interpretation, the student finds them ambiguous. In the application of them, when understood, he discovers many seeming contradictions; and, with every exertion of practised memory, he must experience the utmost difficulty in combining rules dispersed in apparent confusion through different portions of Páõini’s eight lectures”, Miscellaneous Essays, Higginbotham and Co., Madras, 1872, Vol.II, pp 6-7. Further on p.11 he adds --- “The outline of Páõini’s arrangement is simple, but numerous exceptions and frequent digressions have involved it in much seeming confusion…. The apparent simplicity of the design vanishes in the perplexity of the structure. The endless pursuit of exceptions and limitations so disjoins the general precepts, that the reader cannot keep in view their intended connexion and mutual relation. He wanders in an intricate maze, and the clew of the labyrinth is continually slipping from his hand.”
[* Monier Williams, op.cit., p.xiii. It was the same Colebrooke, who, before tasting the beauties of Sanskrit literature, believed that there was nothing worth learning in this land of hot sun. According to him, Charles Wilkins was “Sanskrit mad”, “ ‘Asiatic Miscellany’ was a repository of nonsense”, and “ ‘the Institute of Akbar’ a dunghill in which, perhaps, a pearl or two might be found”, Eminent Orientalists, G A Natesan & Co., Madras, 1922 (Reprint Asian Educational Services, New Delhi, 1991), p.49].
15. Not only (Páõini’s) grammar but also the Sanskrit language according to Monier Williams is artificial. He remarks -- “At the best, a grammar is regarded by an European as a necessary evil, only to be tolerated because unavoidable. Especially must it be so in the case of a language confessedly more copious, more elaborate and artificial, than any other language of the world, living or dead”, op.cit., p. ix. On p.xiii he says about the grammar --- “…constructed a complicated machinery of signs, symbols and indicatory letters.”
16. Monier Williams, op.cit., p.xiii, lines 4-6.
17. Ibid, p.xiii, lines 6-8.
18. Ibid, p.xiii, lines 8-9.
19. Páõini’s Grammar is written in cryptic sítra form and its illogical order renders it impracticable for anyone to learn Sanskrit by its means”, Alfred Master, Jones and Páõini, JAOS, Vol.76, 1956, p.187. Cf also A B Keith, op.cit., p.424.
19a. W D Whitney (1827–1894) in his article “The Study of Hindu Grammar and the
Study of Sanskrit” (1884), remarks on Páõini’s Grammar thus: “ Its form of presentation is of the strangest: a miracle of ingenuity, but of perverse and wasted ingenuity. The only object aimed at in it is brevity, at the sacrifice of everything else --- of order, of clearness, of even intelligibility except by the aid of keys and commentaries and lists of words, which then are furnished in profusion.”, J F Staal, A Reader on the Sanskrit Grammarians, Motilal Banarsidass, 1985, p.142, lines 41-46.
20. Scharfe, op.cit., p.112. Cf also p.115, para 2, where he elaborates this point ---“It is a sad observation that we did not learn more from Páõini than we did, that we recognized the value and the spirit of his ‘artificial’ and ‘abstruse’ formulations only when we had independently constructed comparable systems. The Indian New Logic (navya nyáya) had the same fate: only after Western mathematicians had developed a formal logic of their own and after this knowledge had reached a few Indologists, did the attitude towards the navya nyáya school change from ridicule to respect. A striking example of how we only understand what we already know is the frequent translation of varõa as ‘letter’ by F. Kielhorn and others who followed the Western grammatical tradition at least in their choice of words, while the linguistically inclined O. v. Böhtlingk at the same time correctly used ‘Laut’ (e.g. in his translation of I.3.9 and in the index under varõa).”
21. “It was…. the linguistics of the India of more than two millenia ago that was the direct germinal origin of the linguistics of the Western world of today” --- M B Emeneau, India and Linguistics, JAOS, Vol.75, 1955, p.145, col.1, para 1.
22. “The native and Medieval Greek and Latin phonology is immature and inept compared with the Hindu phonetic, phonemic, and morphophonemic analysis. One result of the difference is that on numerous points we can only guess how Latin and Greek were pronounced, while we are almost one hundred percent sure of the pronunciation of Sanskrit in Páõini’s time”, ibid, p.147, col.1, last para.
23. “Indo-European comparative grammar had (and has) at its service only one complete description of a language, the grammar of Páõini. For all other Indo-European languages it had only the traditional grammars of Greek and Latin, wofully incomplete and unsystematic.”, Bloomfield, Language, Vol.V, 1929, p.270, para 1.
24. “The Hindu achievements in morphological description were of a kind that we have only just begun to rival in modern Western descriptive linguistics and that we have not yet bettered.”, Emeneau, op.cit., p.147, col.2, para 2.
25. “ …. Benfey, Whitney, and all others who described Sanskrit for the West. They tended to graft on to their virtual translations and rearrangements of Páõini the traditional European method of description by means of paradigms, in which morphological units are essentially unidentified, similarities of the morphophonemics type are not analysed, and the description proceeds in terms of whole words – a graft which tends to obscure the excellences of the Páõinean system”, ibid, p.149, col.2, para 1.
26. John Brough remarks --- “It is well known that the discovery of Sanskrit by the West at the end of the 18th century* provided the operative stimulus for the development of the comparative study of the Indo-European languages. It has also been recognized that the Páõinean analysis of Sanskrit into a system of roots, stems, and suffixes pointed the way to the method which has prevailed in Indo-European studies to the present day. It is true that roots and suffixes were not entirely new concepts to Europe, but it remains doubtful whether the method would have been applied with such thoroughness if it had not been for Páõini’s example. It is customary to add at this point the deprecatory remark that Páõini was, of course, aided in his analysis by the extraordinary clarity of structure of the Sanskrit language; but we are apt to overlook the possibility that this structure might not have seemed so clear and obvious to us if Páõini had not analysed it for us. ..we in the West have acknowledged a debt to Pàõini in the matter of formal analysis”, Theories of General Linguistics in the Sanskrit Grammarians, Transactions of the (American) Philological Society, 1951, p.27.
* (i) Father Heinrich Roth (1620-1668) was the first European to write a grammar of the Sanskrit language in 17th century itself. He was a Jesuit missionary to the Moghul court in Agra. In Agra, Roth learnt Sanskrit and was able to discuss with Brahmins in the language. He realised the importance of Sanskrit and wrote a grammar between 1660-1662. The grammar is descriptive and shows great pedagogical skill – the explanations are given in Latin. The grammar is based on Páõini. The grammar was later highly appreciated by Max Müller. The manuscript was taken to Rome, but never printed, although several scholars and even the Austrian Emperor wanted to have it published…. Roth not only studied Sanskrit but was also well-versed in Sanskrit literature and Indian philosophy…. The grammar and manuscripts of Father H. Roth were published in a facsimile edition in Leiden, 1988.”, Valentina Stache-Rosen, German Indologists, 2nd revised edition, Max Müller Bhavan, New Delhi, 1990, pp.1-2.
(ii) The other early European scholars to write Sanskrit grammar are --- Johann Ernest Hanxleden (1681-1732) and Jean-Francois Pons (1688-1752?). See Filliozat (Ref. under footnote 29), Introduction, p.41, para 2. For details see J. C. Muller, “Recherches sur les premières grammaires manuscrites du sanskrit”, Bulletin d’études indiennes, No 3, Paris, 1985, pp. 125–144.
(iii) Theodore Benfey (1809-1881) in his ‘Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft und orientalischen Philologie in Deutschland’ (History of Linguistics and Oriental Philology in Germany), 1869, p.222 tells about the Italian scholar Filippo Sassetti (c.1585) – “Schön im 16. Jahrhundert schrieb Sassetti, daß das Italienische vieles mit dem Sanskrit gemeinsam habe, Zahlwörter und andere Wörter” (As early as 16th century Sassetti wrote that Italian has much in common with Sanskrit regarding the numerals and other words) and at p.336 onwards --- “Im Jahre 1725 verglich Benjamin Schultze, Missionar in Tranquebar, die Zahlwörter des Sanskrit mit den lateinschen bis 40” (in the year 1725, Benjamin Schultze, a missionary in Tranquebar, compared the numerals of Sanskrit with those of Latin upto 40). The original German quotations are taken from Ernst Windisch’(1844-1918) “Geschichte der Sanskrit Philologie und Altertumskunde” (History of Sanskrit Philology and Ancient Culture), p.24, fn 1. Cf also Alfred Master, Jones and Páõini, op.cit., p.186, col.1.
27. “Páõini and the Mahábháúya are documents of the first importance for the historical interpretation of old India and of the Sanskrit language, as well as for the history of linguistic science in general”, Paul Thieme, Páõini and the Páõinåyas, JAOS, Vol.76, 1956, p.23.
28. Regarding importance of Páõini, Louis Renou refers to Pavolini, Asiatica, 3, No.1 (1938), vide Jakob Wackernagel’s Altindische Grammatik (in German), Vol.I, 2nd edition, Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, Göttingen, 1957, Introduction générale (in French), p.113, fn.513. I have not had access to the journal Asiatica mentioned by him.
29. “… l’Aúýádhyáyå, n’est pas une grammaire sanskrite, c’est une oeuvre de linguistique générale’, Pierre-Sylvain Filliozat, GRAMMAIRE SANSKRITE PÂËINÉENNE, Picard, Paris, 1988, Introduction, p.12, lines 40-41 (in French). Cf also the following lines of the article “Les notions de verbe et de substantif dans l’Ecole páõinéenne” by the same author, where he expresses his views more lucidly --- “ L’étude de Páõini est un chapitre important de l’histoire des sciences. La grammaire dans l’Inde ancienne n’est pas une simple discipline d’érudition, c’est une science. Elle se présente elle-même comme une linguistique générale et non comme une grammaire d’une langue particuliére en une période donnée. Páõini et ses successeurs traitent du langage en général en traitant du Sanskrit. Ils considérent que le Sanskrit est le langage parfait, unique, et que toute autre langue en est une corruption. Il n’y a donc pas chez eux de considérations historiques et comparatives.” (The study of Páõini is an important chapter in the history of science. The grammar of ancient India is not a simple discipline of erudition, it is a science. It presents itself as general linguistics and not as a grammar of a particular language of a given period. Páõini and his successors treat the language in general while dealing with Sanskrit. They think that Sanskrit is a unique and perfect language and that all the other languages are a corruption. There are, therefore, no historical or comparative considerations in them), Bulletin d’études indiennes, No 1, Paris, 1983, p.81, para 1.
30. Scharfe, op.cit., p.115, para 2. The title of the Wilkins’ grammatical work is ‘A Grammar of the Sanskrita Language’ (1808) [Reprint Ajay Book Service, 704 Chandni Mahal, Darya Ganj, New Delhi, First Indian Edition, 1983].
31. Die Sprache der Jakuten (A. Th. Von Middendorff, Reise in den äussersten Norden und Osten Siberiens, Bd.III, St. Petersburg, Kais. Ak. D. Wissen., 1851) -- Emeneau, op.cit., p.150, fn 18. It was the first scientific grammar of the hitherto not at all studied Yakut language. Böhtlingk, member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, initiated the civilian written form of the Yakut language. While doing research on Yakut language, he devised the civilian Yakut alphabet for the first time, against the parallel and already existing missionary alphabet. The publications of religious literature by the missionaries in Yakut language from 1819 onwards were not accessible to the Yakut people, as the masses were illiterate. The school education started only in the last few decades of the 19th century (p.23 in the Ref . mentioned below). In a letter to Böhtlingk, the Yakut born Russian A Y Uvarovskiy (1800-c.1860), teacher and great inspiration to the former regarding research on the Yakut language, warmly greeted his initiation of the creation of written Yakut language: “Iz-za otsutstviya pis’mennosti yakutskiy yazik schitaetsya mertvim yazikom. Nedaleko to vremya, kogda Vi ozhivite ego. Nedaleko to vremya, kogda Vi polucite pokhvali ot visokoobrazovannikh lyudey I beskonecnuyu blagodarnoct’ ot yakutskogo naroda. Gryaduschee pokolenie yakutov polnoct’yu ispol’zuet Vase tvorenie I visoko podnimet Vase imya…. Eto budet vozdayaniye ot nikh, eto budet nagrada dlya Vas.“ (Due to the absence of the written form, the Yakut languge is considered to be a dead language. The time is not far away, when you will revive it. The time is not far away, when you will receive appreciation from highly educated people and the endless thanks and gratitude from the Yakut people. The coming generation of Yakut will fully utilize your work and raise your name high…… It will be a requital from them and a reward for you.”), Ocerk istorii yakuctskoy sovetskoy literaturi, izdatel’stvo akademii nauk SSSR, Moskva, 1955, str. 24 (Essay on the History of Yakut Soviet Literature, Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences, USSR, Moscow, 1955, p.24). - in Russian. As expected by Uvarovskiy, Böhtlingk’s work excited great interest in the scientific circle, which had important after-effects in the study and development of the Yakut language.
32. Emeneau, op.cit., p.150, col.1, para 2.
33. “Obituary Notice: Dr E E Obermiller”, by Th. Stcherbatsky, IHQ, Vol.12, 1936, p.380. Cf also Scharfe, op.cit., p.115, fn 119.
34. Pt Yudhiúýhir Måmášsak assigns same date to Páõini and Vyáði, op.cit., p.193 and 298. He considers Vyáði to be the maternal uncle of Páõini. – cf p.301, line 5.
35. “He (i.e. Vyáði) is believed to have been a relative and contemporary of Páõini”, A Dictionary of Sanskrit Grammar, op.cit., p.378.
36. “As Vyáði has used a number of Páõini’s rules in deciding his Paribháúás and, as he has actually quoted a few várttikas he appears to have flourished a few decades after Páõini, when there was an addition of a few várttikas only for the sítrapáýha of Páõini”, K V Abhyankar, Paribháúásašgraha, B.O.R.I., Poona, 1967, Introduction, p.12.
37. “सम्पूर्ण भाष्य में 4280 वार्त्तिक हैं । इनमें 3870 वार्त्तिक कात्यायन के हैं । 410 वचन अन्य आचार्यों के एवं स्वयं भाष्यकार के हैं”, वेदपति मिश्र, “व्याकरण-वार्त्तिक : एक समीक्षात्मक अध्ययन”, पृथिवी प्रकाशन, वाराणसी, 1970, आमुख, p.7.
38. “Nágeÿa appears to have divided várttikas into two classes as shown by his definition ‘सूत्रेऽनुक्त-दुरुक्त-चिन्ताकरत्वं वार्त्तिकम्’. If this definition be followed, many of the várttikas given in the Mahábháúya as explained and commented upon the sítras will not strictly be termed as várttikas, and their total number which is given as exceeding 5000, will be reduced to about 1400 or so. There are some manuscript copies which give this reduced number, and it may be said that only these várttikas were written by Kátyáyana while the others were added by learned grammarians after Kátyáyana. In the Mbh. there are seen more than 5000 statementüs of the type of várttikas out of which Dr Kielhorn has marked about 4200 as várttikas”, A Dictionary of Sanskrit Grammar, op.cit., pp.247-248.
39. Goldstücker, “Páõini: His Place in Sanskrit Literature”, London and Berlin, 1861 (Reprint, The Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office, Varanasi, 1965), p.57.
40. The number of total sítras varies from edition to edition. Ram Lall Kapoor Trust, Bahalgarh, edition contains 3964 sítras, while Káÿiká published from the same place contains 3981; the Vøndávan edition (Reprint अनीता आर्ष प्रकाशन, पानीपत, 1990), contains 3973; Krishnadas Academy, Varanasi edition, edited by Satyanarayan Shastri Khanduri, contains 3983, which is same as in Böhtlingk’s edition (various reprints are available, e.g. MLBD, Delhi, and Rinsen Book Company, Kyoto, 1977); the one edited by C. शंकरराम शास्त्री (Reprint Sharda Publishing House, Delhi, 1994) contains 3981 sítras. The number of sítras in the last one and that in Káÿiká mentioned above is, although, same, there is difference in the number of sítras in ch.4, páda 1 and ch.8, páda 4. The number of sítras preserved in Siddhánta-kaumudå, published by MLBD, is 3978. The number mentioned in the main body of the article is taken from Böhtlingk’s edition.
41. Robert Birwé, Studien zu Adhyàya III der Aúýádhyáyå Páõinis (in German), Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, 1966, Table at pp.156-157.
42. रघुवीर वेदालंकार, “काशिका का समालोचनात्मक अध्ययन”, Nag Publishers, Delhi, 1977, परिशिष्ट-7, pp.359-387. The list gives 913 várttikas plus additional four under 191A, 413A, 418A and 711A.
43. Ibid परिशिष्ट-8, pp.388-390.
44. Ibid, परिशिष्ट-10, pp.394-398.
45. K C Chatterji, Cándravyákaraõa of Candragomin, Part-I (ch.1-3), Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute, Poona, 1953, PREFACE, p.v, lines 1-2.
46. E.g. IV.3.93. “स्वरविशेषं तु स्वराध्याये वक्ष्यामः” and I.1.145. “स्वरविशेषमष्टमे वक्ष्यामः” -- Chatterji, op.cit., Part II (ch.4-6), 1961, p.90 and Part I, p.51.
47. Chatterji, op.cit., Part I, p.v, lines 28-29.
48. This work is not to be confounded with another work of Bhoja named likewise Sarasvatåkaõýhábharaõa. It deals with poetics.
49. Madras Edition of SKÁ, FOREWORD, p.vii.
50. Ibid
51. Ibid
52. Trivandrum edition of SKÁ, Vol.IV, Prastávaná, p.6, para 3.
53. Ibid, pp.6-7.
54. “In Køúõalåláÿuka’s commentary on Bhoja’s grammatical treatise, Sarasvatåkaõýhábharaõa Páõini’s verses are quoted freely as illustrations” and “In the field of grammar and philosophy, his proficiency was over as great as in the field of poetry. He commented on the Aúýádhyáyå of Bhoja (known as Sarasvatåkaõýhábharaõa) and there quotes several verses of Páõini.”, M Krishnamachariyar, History of Classical Sanskrit Literature, MLBD, New Delhi, p.85 and pp.335-336 respectively.
55. “ ..le S(arasvatå)K(aõýh)Á(bharaõa) est beaucoup plus qu’une édition “revue” de P. D’abord, il a incorporé dans la trame des sí. tous l’enseignement positif émané des vieux v(ár)tt(ika), celui-là même qui, à peu de choses près, nous a été conservé dans la K(áÿiká): laissant de côté, comme fait cette dernière, les vtt. de caractère technique, scolastique, argumentatoire. …. Ensuite, des additifs nouveaux -- semblables aux axiomes introduits ailleurs par iti vaktavyam, ity upasaškhyánam -- prennent rang de sí. …. Il y a eu là tous un effort pour sortir des limites páõinéennes, ….et qui fait de ce manuel le plus complet que nous ait légué la tradition sanskrite.”, p.121.
56. fn.2, pp.122-123.
57. p.123.
58. “Ceci montre le part assez considérable de nouveautés qu’apporte la grammaire de Bhoja. Nouveautés au sens relatif du terme, car il est aisé de voir que la vøtti de Candragomin, oeuvre de l’auteur même des sí. et bien antérieure au SKÁ, donnait déjà, dans le long commentaire qu’elle fabrique sur le sí. II.2,48, la plupart des examples que cite la vøtti de Bhoja ou qui résultent de l’enseignement des sí.”, p.125.


* The abridged version of this paper was submitted to the 40th Session of AIOC.


Published in : SAMBODHI, Vol. XXV, December 2002, pp.91-120; Publisher: L.D. Institute of Indology, Ahmedabad.


Original citation under fn 9:
On the topic of “THE POSITION OF THE LATER SCHOOLS OF THE HÅNAYANA”, Prof. Stcherbatsky writes:
M. de la Valee Poussin insists that in order to escape obscurity we must construct an outline (“un schema d’ensemble”) of the history of Buddhism, that this outline must harmonize with the general conception we have about the history of ancient India[1], and that questions of detail become at once settled, if they find their place in this historical outline (p.XX).


Footnote 1.
“1. This general conception of the history of India ia apparently mentioned as implying the opinion of the author about the social milieu (p.107) in which nothing but obscure magic could possibly originate, an opinion fully shared by Prof. Keith. It would be interesting to know the opinion of both these authors about the milieu in which the grammar of Páõini, this one of the greatest productions of the human mind, originated !”
--- pp.26-27 in Fedor Ippolitovich Stcherbatsky, “The Conception of Buddhist Nirváõa”, Leningrad: Publishing Office of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR., 1927; VI+246 pp.


Original citation under fn 10:
On the section “Páõini” under “Sanskrit Grammar”, W.W. Hunter writes:
“The grammar of Páõini stands supreme among the grammars of the world, alike for its precision of statement, and for its thorough analysis of the roots of the language and of the formative principles of words. By employing an algebraic terminology it attains a sharp succinctness unrivalled in brevity, but at times enigmatical. It arranges, in logical harmony, the whole phenomena which the Sanskrit language presents, and stands forth as one of the most splendid achievements of human invention and industry.” - pp.100-101 in W.W.Hunter, “THE INDIAN EMPIRE: ITS PEOPLE, HISTORY AND PRODUCTS”, Second Edition; London: Truebner & Co., Ludgate Hill, 1886, xxx+747 pp.