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
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

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

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

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), 
3  4, 26, 127,      3a, 25-27, 128,    16(19)
150-162          151-164
4  39-52, 72#,      39-52, 72#, 112#   14 + 2
**7 1  52, 101         Same               2
2  90, 105, 106,   Same               3 + 1
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

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), 

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

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

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

(*) 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.


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.

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.

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.

Monday, October 27, 2008

4. On Reconstruction of the धातुपाठ of Bhoja's सरस्वतीकण्ठाभरण

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

The Sarasvatåkaõýhábharaõa (सरस्वतीकण्ठाभरण) of Bhojadeva (11th century A.D.) is the biggest Sanskrit grammar of the sítra style containing (as per the Madras edition) 6432 sítras 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 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 sítrapáýha itself. Thus, the Sarasvatåkaõýhábharaõa can safely be placed next to the Aúýádhyáyå of Páõini. But unfortunately the dhátupáýha of this monumental work has not come down to us. The internal and external evidences indicate that Bhojadeva must have written his own dhátupáýha for Sarasvatåkaõýhábharaõa.

Comparison of the sítrapáýha of Sarasvatåkaõýhábharaõa (SKÁ) with Páõini’s Aúýádhyáyå and Cándravyákaraõa and the study of the Páõinian dhátupáýha and Cándra dhátupáýha indicate that Bhoja appears to have followed the Cándra dhátupáýha, rather than the Páõinian dhátupáýha. In this paper the sítra numbers of SKÁ are referred as per the Trivandrum edition up to chapter six and for the remaining two chapters as per the Madras edition. Like Páõini, Bhoja uses the terms parasmaipada (1.1.23 etc), átmanepada (1.1.24 etc), átmanepadin (1.4.220), átmanebháúa (3.1.44), but the term vibháúita (3.1.121) like Candra (1.4.125) for ubhayapadin. For Páõini sítra “anudátta-þita átmanepadam” (1.3.12), Bhoja has “kartary-átmanebháúebhyaò” and “þitaò” (3.1.44-45) against Cándra sítras “taþáná yathápáýham” and “þitaò” (1.4.46-47); for “anudáttetaÿca haládeò” (P.3.2.149), he gives “aþito haláder-átmanepadinaò” (1.4.220) against Cándra “taþvato haláder-aþaò” (1.2.98); for the term anudáttet together with þit used in the accent rule of P.6.1.186, he uses átmanepadin (8.3.60); for svaritet (P.1.3.72), he gives vibháúita (3.1.121) which is same as Cándra (1.4.125). Thus like Candra, Bhoja gives up the use of the Páõinian terms udáttet, anudáttet and svaritet.

A verbal root ending in a consonant is read without a halanta mark in all the existing dhátupáýhas. The final a coming after a root originally ending in a consonant is not strictly an anubandha but is read simply for the facility of pronunciation. In the Páõinian dhátupáýha, however, it serves two additional purposes. Firstly, it carries an accent (which serves as an anubandha) and secondly it preserves the final consonant of the root as otherwise it would have got the designation it and would have got elided as per P.1.3.3, 1.3.9 (halantyam; tasya lopaò) [Palsule 1961:64]. Although Bhoja does not use the accent in the anubandhas, he has the sítras parallel to P.1.3.3, 1.3.9. So in the Bhojåya dhátupáýha it serves the second purpose. Out of the 13 vowels, a being already used, and ai and au not being utilized by Páõini at all [Palsule 1961:83], comparison of the other vowel anubandhas used by Páõini, Candra and Bhoja is shown in TABLE 1. Regarding the haládi anubandhas [Palsule 1961:85] a similar comparison is shown in TABLE 2. It is evident from these two tables that Candra omits the anubandha ñi, whereas Bhoja retains all the anubandhas of Páõini.

Similar to Páõini, Candra and Bhoja also read some úopadeÿa and õopadeÿa dhátus [TABLE 3] and classify the dhátus in the ten main gaõas [TABLE 4]. Although the modified Páõinåya dhátupáýha as preserved in the Siddhántakaumudå of Bhaýýojidikúita does list the dhátus under kaõðvádi-gaõa, the oldest commentary kúårataraþgiõå of Kúårasvámin does not include the kaõðvádi-gaõa. The Cándra dhátupáýha also does not have kaõðvádi-gaõa. Bhoja reads all the kaõðvádi dhátus in the sítrapáýha itself.

कण्डूञ्-असु-वल्गु-मन्तु-महीङ्-हृणीङ्-वेङ्-लाङ्-वेड्-लाड्-लेड्-लोड्-उरुष्-इरस्-तिरस्-दुवस्-इयस्-उषस्-इरज्-भिषज्-भिष्णुज्भ्यो यक् १।३।२८

एला-वेला-केला-खेला-मगध-इरध-इषुध-कुषुभ-सुख-दुख-गद्गद-अगद-तरण-चरण-चुरण-उरण-तुरण-भुरण-तन्तस-पम्पस-अरर-समर-सपरेभ्यश्च १।३।२९

So one can surmise that in all probability Bhoja also did not read kaõðvádi dhátus again in the dhátupáýha just to supply the meanings of the dhátus.

Unlike Candra, Bhoja shifts all the gaõasítras of the Páõinian dhátupáýha, such as, ghaýádayo mitaò, svádaya oditaò etc [TABLE 5] and those at the end of curádigaõa, such as, “सुपो धात्वर्थे बहुलम् इष्ठवच्च”, “णिङ् अङ्गनिरसने”, “श्वेताश्व-अश्वतर-गालोडित-आह्वरकाणाम् अश्व-तर-इत-कलोपश्च” (Cándra dhátupáýha 10.103-105) to the sítrapáýha (1.3.37, 1.3.52 “अङ्गात् तन्निरस्यति ङित्”, 1.3.41). Unlike Candra, Bhoja incorporates many other gaõasítras, such as, स्थूलादीनाचष्टे च (१.३.३९), तेनातिक्रामति (१.३.५०) etc, in the sítrapáýha itself.

One surprising point with Bhoja’s grammar, which is supposed to incorporate all the positive teachings of the previous works, is the non-existence of the sítra parallel to the Páõinian gaõa-sítra “ádhøúád vá”, which is shifted to sítrapáýha by Ÿákaýáyana [“yujáder vá” (4.1.8)] and Hemacandra [“yujáder na vá” (3.4.18)]. Thus like Candra, Bhoja appears to have done away with the sub-sections ákusmåya, ásvadåya, ádhøúåya (yujádi) and the kathádi (with the sub-section ágarvåya) [see TABLE 5]. The big group of bháúártha must naturally have been missing in the Bhojåya dhátupáýha. So in brief, the Bhojåya dhátupáýha must be very much similar to Cándra dhátupáýha in the arrangement of dhátus, but with the ñi anubandha and without the gaõa-sítras in it.

Candra has, as far as practicable, kept all the parasmaipada roots together, then all the átmanepada roots and then the ubhayapada roots together. Where a main gaõa itself starts with an ubhayapada root (e.g. svádigaõa), first all the ubhayapada roots are kept together and then all the parasmaipada and then all the átmanepada roots. When a specific type of operation is to take place with a set of certain mixed types of roots (e.g. in the antargaõas in a particular gaõa), the arrangements of roots have been slightly adapted and hence the parasmaipada or any other type of roots have to appear more than once. As far as practicable, the Páõinåya roots are kept in the increasing serial order.
TABLE 1: अजादि Anubandhas (इत्) in the धातुपाठ of
              पाणिनि, चन्द्र and भोज
इत्      पाणिनि              चन्द्र             भोज
आदित्   आदितश्च ७।२।१६    आदित: ५।४।१४१   आदित: ६।४।५६
इदित्    इदितो नुम् धातो:   इदितो नुम् ५।४।१०  इदितो नुम् ६।४।१०
ईदित्    श्वीदितो निष्ठायाम्   श्वीदितस्ततवतो:     श्वि-डीङ्-ईदिद्भ्यो 
        ७।२।१४           ५।४।१३९          निष्ठाया: ६।४।१५४

उदित्    उदितो वा ७।२।५६  उदितो वा ५।४।११७   उदितो वा ६।४।१२३
ऊदित्   स्वरति-सूति-      स्वृ-सूङ्-ऊदित:    स्वरति-सूति-सूयति-
       सूयति-धूञ्-ऊदितो   ५।४।१०७          धूञ्-ऊदिद्भ्य: 
       वा ७।२।४४                          ६।४।११३
ऋदित्  नाग्लोपि-शास्वृदिताम् नाग्लोपि-शास्वृदिताम्  नाग्लोपि-शास्वृदिताम् 
       ७।४।२            ६।१।६२            ७।१।७५

ॠदित्  ॠत इद्धातो:      ॠत इद्धातो: ५।४।७   ॠत इद्धातो: ६।४।७
       ७।१।१००          ॠदोरप् १।३।४७       ॠदोरप् २।४।७९
      ॠदोरप् ३।३।५७ 
लृदित् पुषादि-द्युताद्य्-लृदित: लृदिद्-द्युतादि-पुष्यत्या- लृदिद्-द्युतादि-पुष्य-
      परस्मैपदेषु ३।१।५५   दिभ्योऽतङि १।१।७३    त्यादिभ्य: परस्मैपदे 
एदित् ह्म्यन्त-क्षण-श्वस-   हलादेरुपान्तस्याश्वस-  हलादेरह्म्यन्त-क्षण-
    जागृ-णि-श्व्येदिताम्    क्षण-ह्म्येदितोऽत:   श्वसेदितोऽत उपधाया 
                       ६।१।७             ७।१।७
ओदित् ओदितश्च ८।२।४५    ओदित: ६।३।८०     ओदित: ७।३।९०
इरित्  इरितो वा ३।१।५७    इरितो वा १।१।७४     इरिज्-जॄ-श्वि-स्तन्भु-
                                    ग्लुञ्चेभ्यो वा १।३।९१

TABLE 2: हलादि Anubandhas (इत्) in the धातुपाठ of
              पाणिनि, चन्द्र and भोज
इत्      पाणिनि              चन्द्र             भोज
कित्  अधीगर्थ दयेशां कर्मणि  इक् स्मरणे २।११    इणिकोर्गा ६।४।९८
      २।३।५२            (धातुपाठ)
टित्   विभाषा धेट्-श्व्यो:    धेट् पाने १।२५९     धेट्-श्विभ्यां वा ३।१।८५
      ३।१।४९            (धातुपाठ)

णित्   इणो यण् ६।४।८१    इणो यण् ५।३।८७    इणो यण् ६।३।८६

      दाणश्च सा          दाण: सा          दाणश्च सा चेच्चतुर्थ्यर्थे    
      चेच्चतुर्थ्यर्थे १।३।५५  चेच्चतुर्थ्यर्थे १।४।१०८  ३।१।१०३

पित्  दा-धा घ्वदाप् १।१।२०   दोऽप: १।१।४        दोऽप: १।२।५

षित्  षिद्-भिदादिभ्योऽङ्     भिदादि-षितोऽङ्      षितोऽङ् २।४।१३८
     ३।३।१०४             १।३।८६

ञीत्   आदिर्ञिटुडव: १।३।५   ----------    आदिर्ञिटुडव: १।२।१२

ट्वित्  ट्वितोऽथुच् ३।३।८९    ट्वितोऽथुच् १।३।६९   ट्वितोऽथुच् २।४।१११
ड्वित्  ड्वित: क्त्रि: ३।३।८८ ड्वित: क्त्रि: १।३।६८ ड्वित: क्त्रि: २।४।११०

TABLE 3: षोपदेश and णोपदेश in the धातुपाठ of
              पाणिनि, चन्द्र and भोज
  पाणिनि              चन्द्र                 भोज
धात्वादे: ष: स:  अष्ठिवु-ष्वक्कादे: ष: स: अष्ठिवु-ष्वष्केरादे: ष: स: 
६।१।६४           ५।१।६१                ६।१।७१

णो न: ६।१।६५    णो न: ५।१।६२          णो न: ६।१।७२

     TABLE 4: धातुगणs in the धातुपाठ of
              पाणिनि, चन्द्र and भोज
गण      पाणिनि              चन्द्र             भोज
भ्वादि  भूवादयो धातव: १।३।१ ----------   भूवादि: क्रियावचनो धातु:
      कर्तरि शप् ३।१।६८    कर्तरि शप् १।१।८२  कर्तरि शप् १।३।१०७

अदादि  अदिप्रभृतिभ्य: शप:  अदादिभ्यो लुक्    अदादिभ्यो लुक् १।३।१०८
       २।४।७२           १।१।८३

जुहोत्यादि जुहोत्यादिभ्य: श्लु:  हूनां द्वे च १।१।८४  जुहोत्यादिभ्य: श्लु: 
        २।४।७५                          १।३।१०९

दिवादि   दिवादिभ्य: श्यन्     दिवादिभ्य: श्यन्   दिवादिभ्य: श्यन् 
        ३।१।६९             १।१।८७           १।३।११०

स्वादि  स्वादिभ्य: श्नु:       स्वादिभ्य: श्नु:    स्वादिभ्य: श्नु: 
      ३।१।७३             १।१।९५           १।३।११९

तुदादि  तुदादिभ्य: श:       तुदादिभ्य: श:    तुदादिभ्य: श: 
      ३।१।७७             १।१।९२           १।३।११६

रुधादि  रुधादिभ्य: श्नम्      रुधादीनां श्नम्      रुधादीनां श्नम् १।३।११७
      ३।१।७८             १।१।९३

तनादि  तनादि-कृञ्भ्य उ:    तनादिभ्य उ:     तनादिभ्य उ: १।३।११८
       ३।१।७९            १।१।९४

क्र्यादि  क्र्यादिभ्य: श्ना       क्र्यादिभ्य:      श्ना क्र्यादिभ्यश्च १।३।१२४
       ३।१।८१             १।१।१००
चुरादि  सत्याप-पाश-रूप-   चुरादिभ्यो णिच्    चुरादिभ्यो णिच् १।३।३६
      वीणा-तूल-श्लोक-    १।१।४५
      चुरादिभ्यो णिच्   

कण्ड्वादि कण्ड्वादिभ्यो यक्   कण्ड्वादिभ्यो यक्  कण्डूञ्-असु-..
        ३।१।२७         १।१।३९          -भिष्णुज्भ्यो यक् १।३।२८

     TABLE 5: Antargaõas in the धातुपाठ of
              पाणिनि, चन्द्र and भोज
गण   अन्तर्गण  पाणिनि           चन्द्र             भोज
भ्वादि द्युतादि   द्युद्भ्यो लुङि       द्युद्भ्यो लुङि      द्युद्भ्यो लुङि 
             १।३।९१           १।४।१४३         ३।१।१४२

     वृतादि   वृद्भ्य: स्यसनो:  वृद्भ्य: स्यसनो:  वृद्भ्य: स्यसनो:
           १।३।९२           १।४।१४४         ३।१।१४३

     घटादि   घटादयो मित:    घटादयो मित:   घटादय आत्मनेपदिन:
            (गणसूत्र)        (गणसूत्र)       षित: १।१।१८९
                                          सर्वे मित: १।१।१९०

     फणादि   फणां च सप्तानाम्  फणादीनां सप्तानाम् फण-स्यम-स्वन-
             ६।४।१२५        ५।३।१२१       राज-भ्राज-भ्राश- 
                                     भ्लाशाम् ६।३।१२०

    ज्वलादि   ज्वलितिकसन्तेभ्यो ज्वलादिभ्यो णो   ज्वलादि-दु-नी-भूभ्यो 
             ण: ३।१।१४०     वा १।१।१४६      ण: १।३।२१७

    यजादि    वचि-स्वपि-      वचि-स्वपि-   वचि-स्वपि-यजादीनां 
            यजादीनां किति     यजादीनां       लिट्यपिति ६।१।२०
             ६।१।१५          लिट्यपिति 
अदादि रुदादि   रुदश्च पञ्चभ्य:  रुद्भ्यस्तिङ:   रुदि-स्वपि-श्वस्यनि-  
           ७।३।९८        ५।४।१७३      जक्षिभ्यस्तिङ: ६।४।१८९

     जक्षादि  जक्षित्यादय:    जक्षादिभ्य:    जक्षादयश्चाशास: १।१।७९
            षट् ६।१।६      पञ्चभ्य:  
                                 वेवीङामादि: ८।३।६६
दिवादि स्वादि  ओदितश्च       ओदितश्च ६।३।८०  ओदितश्च ७।३।९०

           स्वादय ओदित:  स्वादय ओदित:   सूयत्यादिभ्यो    
           (गणसूत्र)      (गणसूत्र)      नवभ्य: ७।३।९१

    पुषादि  पुषादि-        लृदित्-द्युतादि-    लृदित्-द्युतादि-
         द्युताद्य्लृदित:   पुष्यत्यादिभ्योऽतङि  पुष्यत्यादिभ्य: 
         परस्मैपदेषु       १।१।७३          परस्मैपदे १।३।९०

    रधादि  रधादिभ्यश्च       रधादिभ्य:      रध-नश-तृप-दृप-द्रुह-  
          ७।२।४५         ५।४।१०८       मुह-स्नुह-स्निहिभ्य: 

    शमादि शमामष्टानां दीर्घ:  शमामष्टानां श्ये     शमामष्टानां श्ये दीर्घ:  
         श्यनि ७।३।७४   दीर्घ: ६।१।१०२     ७।१।१३०
तुदादि कुटादि गाङ्-कुटादिभ्यो-  कुटादीनामञ्णिति   कुटादीनामञ्णिति 
           ऽञ्णिन् ङित्     ६।२।१३          ७।२।११

     किरादि किरश्च पञ्चभ्य:  कॄभ्य: पञ्चभ्य: ऋ-स्मि-पूङञ्ज्वशू-कॄ-
           ७।२।७५        ५।४।१७२      गॄ-दृ-धृ-प्रच्छिभ्य:  
                                   सन: ६।४।१८८

     मुचादि शे मुचादीनाम्    शे मुचादीनाम्    मुच-लुप-लिप-विद- 
           ७।१।५९        ५।४।११       सिच-कृत-खिद-पिष-
                                  तृप-दृफ-गुफोभ-शुभां शे 
क्र्यादि प्वादि प्वादीनां ह्रस्व:   प्वादीनां ह्रस्व:   प्वादीनां ह्रस्व: ७।१।१३७
         ७।३।८०         ६।१।१०८

     ल्वादि  ल्वादिभ्य:     ॠ-ल्वादिभ्य:    ॠ-ल्वादिभ्य: क्तिनश्च 
           ८।२।४४        क्तिनश्च ६।३।७६   ७।३।८६
चुरादि आकुस्मीया: Available  Wanting    Wanting

    आस्वदीया:  Available  Wanting    Wanting    

    आधृषीया:  Available   Wanting    Wanting      

    आगर्वीया:  Available   Wanting    Wanting    


1. G. B. Palsule (1961): ”The Sanskrit Dhátupáýhas : A Critical Study”, University of Poona, Poona, xiii+257 pp.

2. “Sarasvatikaõýhábharaõa of Bhojadeva”, edited by T R Chintamani, University of Madras, 1937, xvi+512 pp. (contains only the sítrapáýha); Madras University Sanskrit Series No. 11.

3. “The Sarasvatikaõýhábharaõa of Ÿrå Bhojadeva with the commentary of Ÿrå Náráyaõadaõðanátha”, edited by K. Sámbaÿiva Ÿástrå, Vol. I (ch. I, 1935, total 216 pp.), Vol.II (ch.II, 1937, total 192 pp.), Vol.III (ch.III-IV, 1938, total 344 pp.) and V.A. Rámasvámi Ÿástrå, Vol. IV (ch. V-VI, 1948, total 568 pp.); published under Trivandrum Sanskrit Series Nos. 117, 127, 140 and 154.

4. “Cándravyákaraõa of Candragomin”, Part I (ch. I-III, 1953; vi+352 pp.); Part II (ch.IV-VI, 1961; v+448 pp.), edited by K.C.Chatterji, Deccan College of Postgraduate & Research Institute, Poona; published under Sources of Indo-Aryan Lexicography, No.13 [contains sítrapáýha with cándravøtti, , varõasítras (ÿikúá), paribháúásítras and sítránukramaõå ].

5. आचार्यचन्द्रगोमिप्रणीतं चान्द्रव्याकरणम् (शोधपूर्णभूमिकासहितम्), प्रधान सम्पादक: फतहसिंह ; सम्पादक – पं. श्रीबेचरदास जीवराज दोशी ; प्रकाशक : राजस्थान प्राच्यविद्या प्रतिष्ठान, जोधपुर ; 1967, pp.5+19+6+230+6; राजस्थान पुरातन ग्रन्थमाला, ग्रन्थाङ्क 39 [contains sítrapáýha, varõasítras (ÿikúá), uõádipáýha, dhátupáýha and many appendices].

6. क्षीर-तरङ्गिणी, क्षीरस्वामि-विरचिता [पाणिनीयधातुपाठस्य पश्चिमोत्तरपाठस्य व्याख्या ], सम्पादक : युधिष्ठिर मीमांसक: ; प्रकाशक: रामलाल कपूर ट्रस्ट बहालगढ़, सोनीपत-हरयाणा ; वि.स<. 2042, pp.52+376+10.

7. आचार्य-शाकटायन-विरचितम् शाकटायन-व्याकरणम् [स्वोपज्ञ-अमोघवृत्ति-समलंकृतम्], सम्पादक : पण्डित शम्भुनाथ त्रिपाठी; English Introduction: Prof. Robert Birwe; प्रकाशक : भारतीय ज्ञानपीठ प्रकाशन, दिल्ली-वाराणसी, 1971, pp.14+127+488; ज्ञानपीठ मूर्तिदेवी ग्रन्थमाला, संस्कृत ग्रन्थांक 37.

8. श्रीसिद्ध-हेमचन्द्र-शब्दानुशासनम् [स्वोपज्ञ-बृहद्वृत्ति तथा न्याससारसमुद्धार (लघुन्यास)-संवलितम्], संपादक : मुनि श्री वज्रसेन विजयजी; प्रकाशक : भेरुलाल कनैयालाल रिलिजिस ट्रस्ट, चन्दनबाला, बम्बई-6, Part I (1985: 32+616 pp); Part II (1985: 8+502 pp); Part-III (Nov.1986: 16+407+136 pp).

Published in: Journal of the Oriental Institute, M.S. University of Baroda, Vadodara, Vol.55, Nos.1-4,September 2005 - June 2006 Issue, pp. 41-49; Issued – May 2007.

* The abridged version of this article was presented to the All India Oriental Conference, 42nd session, Varanasi, 4-6 November, 2004.

Friday, October 24, 2008

3. Asiddhavadatrábhát: its Treatment in the post-Páõinian Systems of Sanskrit Grammar *

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

1. Asiddhavadatrábhát (6.4.22) and pírvatrásiddham (8.2.1) are the two most sophisticated adhikára-sítrás of the Aúýádhyáyå. Although a detailed study was done in case of the latter topic more than six decades back (Buiskool 1934, 1939), such a study is still a desideratum in case of the former. Buiskool has established that many sítras which are called asiddha are proved not to be so, however this adhikára is maintained so carefully as to render nearly every group asiddha with reference to the immediately preceding one of the same rank (Buiskool 1939:156). In the similar line, a systematic check of the sítras under the adhikára of asiddhavadatrábhát is also desired to verify whether all the sítras under it really deserve to be kept under it. In this regard a comparative study of the different systems of Sanskrit grammar may prove to be useful.

1.1 In view of the above, this paper is a humble attempt to present a comparative study in case of the derivation of a few examples usually quoted in the commentaries of the Aúýádhyáyå under asiddhavadatrábhát. The study is chiefly based on the present author’s “Concordance of Nine Sanskrit Grammars” which provides the concordance of the sítras of Páõini, Kátantra, Cándra, both recensions of Jainendra, Ÿákaýáyana, Bhoja’s Sarasvatåkaõýhábharaõa, Hemacandra and Malayagiri grammars. Regarding the above adhikára-sítra, the different systems may be classified into two groups. The first group consists of Cándra, Bhoja and both recensions of Jainendra grammars that retain the adhikára-sítra, whereas the remaining systems constitute the second group, which reject it. The second group generally simplifies matters by resorting to the method of nipátana or prescribing some special or exceptional sítras.

2. The Páõini sítra 6.4.22 with its Káÿiká commentary and the corresponding parallel sítras along with commentary on the grammars of the first group are presented herewith for easy reference. The commentaries are being given in the chronological order.

2.1 Incorporating the várttikas on P.6.4.22, समानाश्रय-वचनात् सिद्धम् ॥12॥, वुग्युटावुवङ्यणोः ॥14॥ into the body of the sítra itself and based on the bháúya on these várttikas and that of असिद्धवचन उक्तम् ॥1॥, अत्रग्रहणं विषयार्थम् ॥2॥, Candragomå (about 5th c. AD) gives the following parallel sítra and auto-commentary in his Cándravyákaraõa:

प्राग्युवोरवुग्युगसिद्धं समानाश्रये ॥५।३।२१॥

प्राग् युवुसंशब्दनाद् [५।४।१] वुका युका च वर्जितं कार्यं समानाश्रये कार्यान्तरे कर्तव्येऽसिद्धं वेदितव्यम् । एधि शाधि । एत्त्वशात्वयोरसिद्धत्वाज्झल्लक्षणं धित्वं भवति । जहि । जत्वस्यासिद्धत्वाद्धेर्लुग् न भवति। तत्र तस्य च भावात् समानाश्रयत्वमेतेषाम् । समानाश्रयलक्षणश्चात्र विधि: । न व्याश्रयलक्षणप्रतिषेध: । प्राग्युवोरिति किम् । अभाजि । राग: । आकारे कर्तव्ये नलोप: सिद्ध एव। अवुग्युगिति किम् । बभूवतु: । उपदिदीये । वुग्युवो: सिद्धत्वाद् उव्यणादेशौ न भवत: । समानाश्रय इति किम् । पपुष: चिच्युष: लुलुवुष: । वसोरुद् विभक्त्याश्रयेष्वालोप-यण्-उवादेशेषु कर्तव्येषु नासिद्ध:। अस्मादेव वचनाद् बहिरङ्गपरिभाषा नेहाश्रीयते। बहिरङ्गस्य चान्तरङ्गनिमित्तत्वात् ।

2.2 Based on the bháúya of the above-mentioned four várttikas, viz. 1, 2, 12 and 14, the Káÿiká commentary (about the beginning of 7th c. AD) on P.6.4.22 reads as follows:

असिद्धवदत्राभात् ॥६।४।२२॥

असिद्धवदित्यमधिकार: । यदित ऊर्ध्वमनुक्रमिष्याम आ अध्यायपरिसमाप्तेस्तद् असिद्धवद् भवतीत्येवं वेदितव्यम्। आभादिति विषयनिर्देश: । आ भसंशब्दनाद् यदुच्यते तत्र कर्तव्ये। अत्रेति समानाश्रयत्वप्रतिपत्त्यर्थम् । तच्चेदत्र भवति । यत्र तदाभाच्छास्त्रीयं विधीयते तदाश्रयमेव भवति । व्याश्रयं तु नासिद्धवद् भवतीत्यर्थ: । असिद्धवचनमुत्सर्गलक्षणभावार्थम् । आदेशलक्षणप्रतिषेधार्थं च । एधि । शाधीत्यत्र एत्वशाभावयो: कृतयोर्झल्लक्षणं धित्वं न प्राप्नोति । असिद्धत्वाद् भवति । आगहि। जहीत्यत्रानुनासिकलोपे जभावे च अतो हे: (६।४।१०५) इति लुक् प्राप्नोति । असिद्धत्वाद् न भवति। आभादिति किम् । अभाजि । राग: । अत उपधाया: (७।२।११६) इति वृद्धौ कर्तव्यायां नलोपो नासिद्धो भवति। अत्रग्रहणं किम् । पपुष: पश्य। चिच्युष: पश्य । लुलुवुष: पश्य । वसुसंप्रसारणमाल्लोपे यणादेश उवङादेशे च कर्तव्ये नासिद्धं भवति । आल्लोपादीनि वसौ । वस्वन्तस्य विभक्तौ सम्प्रसारणमिति समानाश्रयत्वं नास्ति । असिद्धं बहिरङ्गमन्तरङ्गे (परि॰ ५०) इत्येतदप्यत्र न भवति। किं कारणम् । एषा हि परिभाषा आभाच्छास्त्रीया । तस्यां प्रवर्तमानायां वसुसंप्रसारणादीनामाभाच्छास्त्रीयाणामेवासिद्धत्वादन्तरङ्गबहिरङ्गयोर्युगपत् समुपस्थानं नास्तीति परिभाषा न प्रवर्तते ॥ वुग्युटावुवङ्यणो: सिद्धौ भवत इति वक्तव्यम् ॥ वुग् उवङादेशे -- बभूव । बभूवतु: । बभूवु: । युट् यणादेशे -- उपदिदीये । उपदिदीयाते । उपदिदीयिरे । आभादित्यमभिविधावाङ्। तेन भाधिकारेऽप्यसिद्धवद् भवति ॥

2.3 The corresponding parralel sítra in Jainendra grammar is same as in Páõini. The commentary called mahávøtti of Abhayanandå (between 8th and 10th c. AD) on this sítra, which also gives the purpose of vat-karaõa in it, is as follows:


असिद्धवच्छास्त्रं भवति आ भसंशब्दनात् । अत्र शास्त्रे कर्तव्य इत्यधिकारो वेदितव्य: । आङभिविधौ द्रष्टव्य: । एधि इत्यत्र नित्यत्वादस एत्वखभावयो: कृतयोर्झल्लक्षणं धित्वमप्राप्तमसिद्धत्वाद्भवति । जहीत्यत्र जादेशे कृते “अतो हे:” (४।४।९६) इत्युप् प्राप्नोति असिद्धत्वान्न भवति । गतमित्यत्र क्ङिति झलि ङखे कृते अत: खं प्राप्तमसिद्धत्वान्न भवति । एवं यथायोगमुत्सर्गलक्षणसमावेश: । आदेशलक्षणप्रतिषेधश्च वेदितव्य: । वत्करणं किम् । स्वाश्रयमपि यथा स्यात् । देभतु: । देभु: । दम्भेरुपसंख्यानेन लिट: कित्त्वे कृतेऽनु नखस्य सिद्धत्वात् “हल्मध्ये लिट्यत:” (४।४।१०८) इत्येवं भवति । तथा वुगागमे उवादेशो सिद्ध: । बभूव । बभूवतु: । बभूवु: । युडागम: “एर्गिवाक्चादुङोऽसुधिय:” (४।४।७८) इति यणादेशे कर्तव्ये सिद्ध: । उपदिदीये । उपदिदीयेते । उपदिदीयिरे। अत्रग्रहणं किम् । अभाजि राग: । “उङोऽत:” (५।२।४) इत्यैपि कर्तव्ये नकारस्य खं नासिद्धम्। आभादिति किम् । ररन्धिव । ररन्धिम । हल्मध्ये लिट्यत इति एत्वे कर्तव्ये नुम्शास्त्रं नासिद्धम् ।

2.4 The Daõðanátha commentary on the parralel sítra in the sarasvatåkaõýhábharaõa of Bhojadeva (11th c.AD) reads as follows. The influence of Cándra in the sítra-páýha is obvious.

प्राग्युवोरयुग्वुगसिद्धं समानाश्रये ॥६।३।१९॥

युवोरिति संशब्दनात् प्रा ... ... ... ... रवर्जितं कार्यं समानाश्रये प्रत्यये कार्यान्तरे कर्तव्ये असिद्धं भवति। असिद्धवचनमुत्सर्गलक्षणभावार्थमादेशलक्षणप्रतिषेधार्थं च । एधि । शाधि । अस्तिशास्त्योरेत्वशाभावयो: कृतयोर्झल्लक्षणं धित्वं न प्राप्नोति । असिद्धत्वाद् भवति । जहि गतवानिति जभावे अनुनासिकलोपे च कृते आदेशलक्षणौ हिलुगल्लोपौ प्राप्नुत:। असिद्धत्वान्न भवत: । तत्र तस्य च भावात् समानाश्रयत्वमेतेषाम् । समानाश्रयलक्षणश्चात्र विधि: । न व्याश्रयलक्षणप्रतिषेध: । प्राग्युवोरिति किम् । अभाजि । राग: । वृद्धौ कर्तव्यायां नलोप: सिद्ध एव । अयुग्वुगिति किम् । बभूवतु: । उपदिदीये । वुग्युको: सिद्धत्वाद् उवयणादेशौ न भवत: । समानाश्रय इति किम् । पपुष: पश्य । चिच्युष: पश्य । लुलुवुष: पश्य । वसो: संप्रसारणं विभक्त्याश्रयं तदनाश्रयाल्लोप-यणुवङादेशेषु कर्तव्येषु नासिद्धं भवति । अस्मादेव वचनाद् “असिद्धं बहिरङ्गमन्तरङ्गे” (१-२-८४) इति परिभाषाप्यत्र नोपतिष्ठते। अन्तरङ्गबहिरङ्गयोर्युगपत् समवस्थानाभावात् ॥

2.5 Influenced by Cándra, Somadeva Síri, the author of Ÿabdárõavacandriká (also called the laghu-vøtti of Jainendra grammar), has modified the Jainendra-sítra preserved in the mahávøtti, by incorporating the Kátyáyana várttikas 12 and 14 on P.6.4.22 and removing vat from it. His commentary reads as follows:

असिद्धोऽत्राभादयुग्वुक् ॥४।४।२०॥

असिद्धं भवत्याभाच्छास्त्रं अत्र शास्त्रे युग्वुग्वर्जिते कर्तव्ये । एधि, शाधि इत्यत्र एत्वशाभावयो: कृतयो: झल्लक्षणं धित्वमप्राप्तमसिद्धत्वात् भवति । जहीत्यत्र जभावे कृतेऽतो हेरुप् प्राप्त: सिद्धत्वान्नास्ति । अत्रेति किं । अभाजि । एपि नखं नासिद्धं । आभादिति किं । ररंधिव । ररंधिम । एच्चखे नुम्नासिद्धं । अयुग्वुगिति किं । उपदिदीये । बभूव । यणि उवि च कर्तव्ये युग्वुकौ नासिद्धौ ।

3. In recent times there has been some controversy concerning just what is meant by asiddha and siddha (Cardona 1999:155-161). There seems also to be some misunderstanding among the traditional commentators of the Aúýádhyáyå regarding the interpretation of the terms asiddha and asiddhavat (Bronkhorst 1980). The effects of using the terms asiddha and asiddhavat were deemed to be same by Kátyáyana. But presenting the derivation of vakti, manassu and apsaráò, Bronkhorst shows that if asiddha is taken to mean same as asiddhavat, these three word-forms would result in the unwanted word-forms vacci, manarúu and apsará respectively. The term asiddha determines in what order rules are to be applied. The term asiddhavat, on the other hand, does no such thing. It imposes no restriction at all on the order in which rules are to be applied. It merely states that, once a rule has taken effect first, it is as if it has not taken effect when subsequently certain other rules within the same adhikára are to take effect (Bronkhorst 1980, section 2.2).

3.1 The purpose of vat-karaõa in the sítra is first mentioned by Abhayanandå (between 8th and 10th c. AD) in the commentary called mahávøtti on Jainendra grammar (see the underlined portion above, here na-kham = na-lopaò). Later Kaiyaýa (about 11th c. AD) in his mahábháúya-pradåpa, the sub-commentary on the mahábháúya of Patañjali, presents the reason as the view of “others” thus: “अन्ये त्वाहुः ... ... स्वाश्रयमपि यथा स्यादित्येवमर्थं वत्करणम् । तेन देभतुरित्यत्र स्वाश्रयैक-हल्मध्य-गतत्वाश्रयावेत्वाभ्यास-लोपौ भवत इति ।”. But the direct derivation of देभतुः from दन्भ् as दन्भतुस् > दभतुस् (P.6.4.24) > देभतुस् (P.6.4.120) > देभतुः (P.8.2.66, 8.3.15) is acceptable neither to Kátyáyana/Patañjali nor to the Káÿikákára, because P.6.4.24 and P.6.4.120 belonging to the आभीय section, the नलोप of दन्भ् is asiddha in their opinion. Under P.6.4.120 the várttika 5 along with the bháúya is as follows:

दम्भ एत्त्वम्
दम्भ एत्त्वं वक्तव्यम् । देभतु: देभु: । किं पुन: कारणं न सिध्यति ।
नलोपस्यासिद्धत्वात् ॥ ५॥
असिद्धो नलोपस्तस्यासिद्धत्वादेत्त्वं न प्राप्नोति ॥
The Káÿiká on P.6.4.120 gives the várttika: ॥ दम्भेरेत्वं वक्तव्यम् ॥ देभतु: देभु: । नलोपस्या-सिद्धत्वाद् न प्राप्नोति ॥

On similar ground the post-Páõinian grammars of the first group, except Jainendra (mahávøtti), provide separate sítra in the etva-prakaraõa for this purpose.

Cándra gives the sítra: दम्भ-श्रन्थ-ग्रन्थाम् ॥ 5.3.122 ॥
Sarasvatåkaõýhábharaõa: दभ-श्लथ-ग्रथाम् ॥ 6.3.121 ॥
Ÿabdárõavacandriká: दंभेः ॥ 4.4.126 ॥

Thus on the basis of the available grammatical literature we conclude that by the term “anye”, Kaiyaýa refers to Abhayanandå only.

4. Now, let us consider the second group of the post-Páõinian grammars which have rejected the adhikára-sítra of Páõini.

4.1 Consider first the derivation of the word-forms एधि, शाधि and जहि. The grammars of the first sub-group which follow the method of nipátana:

Ÿákaýáyana : शाध्येधि-जहि ॥ 4.2.33 ॥
Hemacandra : शासस्-हनः शाध्येधि-जहि ॥ 4.2.84 ॥
Malayagiri : शासस्-हनः शाध्येधि-जहि ॥ 3.8.55 ॥
Siddhántacandriká : जह्येधि-शाधि ॥ 213 ॥
Mugdhabodha : जह्येधि-शाधि हन्यस्ति-शास्ति हिना ॥ 9.8 ॥
Ÿråharinámøtavyákaraõam:हन्-हेर्जहि ॥3.286॥; अस्-हेरेधि ॥3.308॥; शास्-हेः शाधि ॥3.328॥

4.2 Consider now the grammars of the second sub-group, which prescribe special or exceptional sítras, viz. Kátantra and Supadma-vyákaraõa.

हन्तेर्ज्ज हौ ॥३।४।४९॥
हेरकारादहन्ते: ॥३।४।३३॥ धातोर्विहितस्य हेरकारात् परस्य लोपो भवति अहन्ते: । पच । पठ । भव । दीव्य । … .. अहन्तेरिति किम् । जहि शत्रून् । सन्निपातलक्षणस्य वर्णग्रहणेऽनिमित्तत्वात् ।
दास्त्योरेऽभ्यासलोपश्च ॥३।४।५०॥
हुधुड्भ्यां हेर्धि: ॥३।५।३५॥; अस्ते: ॥३।५।३६॥ अस्ते: परस्य हेर्धिर्भवति । अस - एधि । नित्यत्वादन्तरङ्गत्वाच्च एत्वे सति वचनम् ।
शा शास्तेश्च ॥३।५।३७॥ शास्ते: परस्य हेर्धिर्भवति शास्तेश्च शादेशो भवति । शाधि । अच्चेति कृते इत्वं स्यात् ।

Supadma-vyákaraõa :
हुझलो हेर्धि: शा-शासेश्चास्तेरत् ॥३।३।१॥ जुहोतेर्झलन्ताच्च हेर्धि: स्यात् । शाशेश्च शादेशो अस्तेश्च एद् भवति । … … शाधि । एधि ।
हल: श्न आनश् हौ ॥३।३।२॥
हन्तेर्ज: ॥३।३।३॥ हौ परे हन्तेर्ज स्यात् । जहि । अप्रत्ययत्वाद् हेर्लुक् न स्यात् ।
घोरादेद् द्विलुक् च ॥३।३।४॥
अयुक्श्नूदतो हे: प्रत्ययात् ॥३।३।५॥ असंयुक्ता – श्नु । उत् । अत् इत्येतेभ्य: प्रत्ययेभ्य: उत्तरस्य हेर्लुक् स्यात् । सुनु । कुरु । भव । अयुगिति किं । शक्नुहि । प्रत्ययादिति किं । नुहि । स्तुहि ।

5. Let us now consider the derivation of the word-forms आयन् and आसन्, the लङ् प्रथम पुरुष बहुवचन of the verbal roots इण् (to go) and अस् (to be).

इण् शप् झि > इण् अन्त् (P.2.4.72, 3.4.87, 7.1.3, 3.4.100). At this stage two sítras find the conditions fulfilled for their application. P.6.4.72 (आडजादीनाम्) and P.6.4.81 (इणो यण्). If the rule P.6.4.81 is applied, इण् अन्त् > य् अन्त्, which destroys the condition for the applicability of P.6.4.72. But the two sítras belong to the आभीय section. Hence, the result after the application of the rule P.6.4.81 is asiddha with respect to P.6.4.72, i.e. the result य् अन्त् is as if it were इण् अन्त् only. Thus P.6.4.72 is applicable and we get आट् य् अन्त् > आ य् अन्त् > आयन् (P.6.1.68).
Regarding the derivation of आसन्, at the stage अस् अन्त्, two sítras find conditions for their application fulfilled: P.6.4.72 (आडजादीनाम् ) and P.6.4.111 (श्नसोरल्लोपः). Due to asiddhatva of अल्लोप of अस् from the latter, the former also applies and we get अस् अन्त् > आट् स् अन्त् > आ स् अन्त् > आसन्.
5.1 The parallel sítras for P.6.4.72, 6.4.81 and 6.4.111 in the grammars of the first group are given below (the parallel sítras for P.6.4.22 have already been supplied earlier):
Cándra: 5.3.82 (लुङ्-लङ्-लृङ्क्ष्वडमाङ्योगे ) ; 5.3.87 (इणो यण् ) ; 5.3.104 (श्नसोर्लोपः).
Jainendra(mahávøtti): 4.4.70 (लुङ्-लङ्-लृङ्यट् ) ; 4.4.77 (यणेत्योः) ; 4.4.101 (श्नसः खम्).
Bhoja(TE): 6.3.81 (लुङ्-लङ्-लृङ्क्ष्वडमाङ्योगे) ; 6.3.86 (इणो यण्) ; 6.3.103 (श्नमसोर्लोपः).
Jainendra(लघुवृत्ति): 4.4.74 (लुङ्-लङ्-लृङ्यमाङाऽट्); 4.4.80 (यणिणः); 4.4.108 (श्नासण् खम् ).
The post-Páõinian grammars appear to have rejected the Páõini sítra 6.4.72 (आडजादीनाम् ), and used the augment अट् only whether the verb root is ajádi or haládi. In place of P.6.1.99 (आटश्च ), these grammars prescribe a sítra equivalent to अटश्च as follows:
Cándra: 5.1.83 (आदैजेवाद्यटः ); Jainendra(mahávøtti): 4.3.78 (अटश्च); Bhoja(TE): 6.1.97 (वृद्धिरेवाद्यटः); Jainendra(laghuvøtti): 4.3.90 (अटश्च धौ). In the derivation of the word-form आयन् , the sítra equivalent to P.6.4.81 is not used. In this regard the views of different commentators of the post-Páõinian grammars are given below.
Under the sítra 5.1.83, Cándra remarks: आदैजेवाद्यट: ॥५।१।८३॥ पदादेरट: परो योऽच् । तस्माच्च पूर्वो योऽट् तयोर्द्वयोरेक आद् भवति । ऐच्च । … … आयन् आसन् इत्यन्तरङ्गत्वादेकादेश:।

Under the sítra 4.4.70, the mahávøttikára Abhayanandå remarks: लुङ्-लङ्-लृङ्यट् ॥४।४।७०॥ लुङि लङि लृङि च परतो गोरडागमो भवति । … … आसन् आयन् इत्यत्र लावस्थायामडागमेऽन्तरङ्गत्वादैप्यायादेशे च कृतेऽत इत्यनुवृत्ते: “श्नस: खम्” [४।४।१०१] यणादेशश्च न भवत: । (guò = aþgam, aip = vøddhiò, kham = lopaò)

Under the sítra 6.1.97, the Daõðanátha-vøtti on Bhoja’s Sarasvatåkaõýhábharaõa reads thus: वृद्धिरेवाद्यट: ॥६।१।९७॥ पदादेरट: परो योऽच्। अचि च पूर्वो योऽट् तयो: पूर्वपरयोरडचो: स्थाने वृद्धिरेवैकादेशो भवति । … … … कथमायन् आसन् इति । अत्र हीणस्त्योर्यणल्लोपयो: कृतयोरनजादित्वाद् वृद्धिर्न प्राप्नोति । अन्तरङ्गत्वात् प्रागेव भविष्यति ।
5.2 Now let us see how the second group of grammars have handled the derivation of आयन् and आसन्. The parallel sítras for P.6.4.81 and 6.4.111 in these grammars are:
Kátantra : 3.4.59 (इणश्च) ; 3.4.40-41 (रुधादेर्विकरणस्य लोपः ; अस्तेरादेः ) Ÿákaýáyana: 4.2.1 (ह्विनोऽचीकश्श्लेले यञ् ) ; 4.2.46 (नमस्त्योर्लुक् ) Hemacandra : 4.3.15 (ह्विनोरप्विति व्यौ ) ; 4.2.90 (श्नस्त्योर्लुक् ) Malayagiri : 3.8.41 (जुहोति-इणोः अपिति व्यौ ) ; 3.8.61 (श्नमस्त्योर्लुक् )

Under the Kátantra-sítras 3.8.19-20, Durga-vøtti reads thus: अस्ते: ॥३।८।१९॥ अस्तेर्ह्यस्तन्याम-गुणेऽवर्णस्याकारो भवति । आस्ताम् । आसन् । व्यत्यास्त । परोऽप्यवर्णस्याकारो लोपेन बाध्यते । अस्तिमात्राश्रयत्वात् । एतेर्ये ॥३।८।२०॥ ह्यस्तनि एतेर्ये परेऽटो वर्णस्याकारो भवति । आयन् । अध्यायन् । परापि वृद्धिरिणमात्राश्रितेण यत्वेन बाध्यते ।

Under the sítra 4.2.133, Ÿákaýáyana in his amogha-vøtti remarks: यस: ॥४।२।१३३॥ ए: इण इकश्च अस भुवीत्येतस्य धातोराद्यच: लङ्लुङ्लृङ् विषये आरैजासन्न ऐकार आकारश्चादेशो भवति अमाङा योगे । … … आयन् । अध्यायन् । आस्ताम् । आसन् । … … यञादेशे कृतेऽल्लुचि च आदिरज् नास्तीति पूर्वेणारैज् न भवति । इति वचनम् ।

Under the sítra 4.4.30, Hemacandra in his bøhadvøtti remarks: एत्यस्तेर्वृद्धि: ॥४।४।३०॥ इणिकोरस्तेश्चादे: स्वरस्य ह्यस्तन्यां विषये वृद्धिर्भवति अमाङा । … … आयन् । अध्यायन् । आस्ताम्। आसन् । … … यत्वे लुकि च स्वरादित्वाभावादुत्तरेण वृद्धिर्न प्राप्नोतीति वचनम् ।

Under the sítra 3.5.103, Malayagiri in his auto-commentary remarks: एति-अस्ते: ॥५।३।१०३॥ एते: अस्तेश्च आदे: स्वरस्य “ह्यस्तनी” आदिविषये वृद्धिर्भवति न तु माङा योगे । आयन् । अध्यायन् । आस्ताम् । … … “अच्” आदेशादिबाधनार्थं वचनम् ।

Thus we see that in all the above four grammars, special or exceptional sítras have been prescribed for the derivation of आयन् and आसन्.

6. Let us now consider the derivation of the word-forms शामिष्यते, शमिष्यते and शमयिष्यते which are the three forms of शामि (the णिजन्त form of the root शम्, and hence अजन्त ) in भाव or कर्म, लृट् प्रथम पुरुष singular. शामि is मित्-संज्ञक as per the Páõini धातुपाठ गणसूत्र (जनी-जॄष्-क्नसु-रञ्जोऽमन्ताच्च ). Hence as per P.6.4.92 (मितां ह्रस्वः ), शामि > शमि. Thus शमि लृट् > शमि स्य लृट् (P.3.1.33) > शमि स्य ते (P.3.4.77-78; 1.3.13; 3.4.79). At this stage P.6.4.62 (स्य-सिच्-सीयुट्-तासिषु भावकर्मणोरुपदेशेऽज्झन-ग्रह-दृशां वा चिण्वदिट् च ) is optionally applicable. The augment इट् takes place only in case of चिण्वद्-भाव. When चिण्वद्-भाव is allowed, the P.6.4.93 (चिण्-णमुलोर्दीर्घोऽन्यतरस्याम् ) finds its applicability. Thus three cases arise.
(a) चिण्वद्-भाव + optional दीर्घत्व of शम्
We get, शमि स्य ते > शामि इट् स्य ते (P.6.4.62; 6.4.93) > शाम् इट् स्य ते [P.6.4.51 (णेरनिटि)] > शाम् इ ष्य ते (P.1.3. 3; 8.3.59) > शामिष्यते. Since P.6.4.51 and 6.4.62 belong to the same आभीय section, the augment इट् through P.6.4.62 is asiddha and hence the suffix स्य is अनिट् for P.6.4.51. Therefore, the णिलोप takes place.
(b) चिण्वद्-भाव without दीर्घत्व of शम्
शमि स्य ते > शमि इट् स्य ते > शम् इ स्य ते > शम् इ ष्य ते > शमिष्यते.
(c) Without चिण्वद्-भाव
In this case, since the suffix स्य is वलादि, it gets the augment इट् as per P.7.2.35 (आर्धधातुकस्येड् वलादेः ). Thus we get, शमि स्य ते > शमि इट् स्य ते > शमे इ स्य ते (P.7.3.84) > शमय् इ स्य ते (P.6.1.78) > शमयिष्यते (P.8.3.59).
Since कारि (कृ + णिच् ) and चोरि (चुर् + णिच् ) are not मित्-संज्ञक, only two forms from each of these are possible -- कारयिष्यते, कारिष्यते and चोरयिष्यते, चोरिष्यते.
6.1 The parallel sítras for P.6.4.51, 62, 92, 93 and 7.3.84 in the grammars of the first group are as follows:
Cándra: 5.3.67 (णेरनिटि) ; 5.3.73 (उपदेशेऽज्झन-ग्रह-दृग्भ्यः स्य-सिच्-सीयुट्-तासां भावाप्ययोश्चिण्वदिड् वा) ; 6.1.56-57 (मितां ह्रस्वः ; चिण्-णमोर्दीर्घश्च) ; 6.2.1 (इकोऽदेङ् क्रियार्थायाः ).
Jainendra (mahávøtti): 4.4.53(णेः ) ; 4.4.61 (सि-स्य-सीयुट्-तासौ ङौ ग्रहाज्झन्-दृशां वा ञिवदिट् च ) ; 4.4.86 (ञि-णमोर्दीर्मिताम् ) ; 5.2.81(गागयोः ).
Bhoja (TE): 6.3.67 (णेरनिटि) ; 6.3.73 (उपदेशेऽज्झन-ग्रह-दृशः स्य-सिच्-सीयुट्-तासां भाव-कर्म-कर्तृषु चिण्वदिड् वा) ; 7.1.69-70 (मितां ह्रस्वः ; चिण्-णमुलोर्दीर्घश्च) ; 7.2.1 (सार्वधातुकार्धधातुकयोर्गुणः ).
Jainendra (laghuvøtti): 4.4.57 (णेः ) ; 4.4.65 (सि-स्य-सीयुट्-तासां ङौ ग्रहाज्झन्-दृशो ञिट्); 4.4.90 (घटादि-कगे-वनु-जनि-जॄष्-स्नस्-क्नस्-रंज्यमोऽपर्यपस्खत्-कम्-चम्-यमः प्रोऽम्-ञोस्तु दीर्वा); 5.2.91 (गाऽगयोः).
6.2 Now let us see how the second group of grammars have handled the derivation of शामिष्यते, शमिष्यते and शमयिष्यते. The parallel sítras for P.6.4.51, 62, 92-93 and 7.3.84 in the grammars of the second group are as follows:
Kátantra: 3.6.44 (कारितस्यानाम्-इड्-विकरणे); Vøtti of 3.7.37 (कृञोऽसुटः); 3.4.65-66 (मानुबन्धानां ह्रस्वः ; इचि वा); 3.5.1(नाम्यन्तयोर्गुणः)
Ÿákaýáyana: 4.2.101 (णेरिक्तानिडामाल्वन्तेत्‍न्वाय्ये); 4.3.18 (हन्-दृषि-ग्रहज्भयस् सि-तास्-स्य-सटां ञिड् वा); 4.1.202 (घटादि-कगे-वनू-जनैङ्-जॄष्-क्नसू-रञ्ज्यमोऽकमि-चम्यम्यम्परिस्खद उपान्त्यस्याचोऽणम्ञौ तु दीर्घो वा ); 4.2.17(अक्ङिल्लुग्घेतौ)
Hemacandra: 4.3.83 (णेरनिटि); 3.4.69 (स्वर-ग्रह-दृश-हन्भ्यः स्य-सिजाशिःश्वस्तन्यां ञिड् वा); 4.2.24 (घटादेर्ह्रस्वो दीर्घस्तु वा ञिणम्परे); 4.3.1(नामिनो गुणोऽक्ङिति)
Malayagiri: 3.6.50 (णेः अनिटि) ; 3.10.27 (स्वर-ग्रह-दृश-हनिभ्यः स्य-सिच्-आशीः-श्वस्तन्या वा ञिट्); 3.9.26(ह्रस्वः घटादेः उपान्त्यस्य स्वरस्य अम्-ञौ तु वा दीर्घः) ; 3.8.37 (अक्ङिल्लुग्घेतौ)
The parallel sítras for P.6.4.62 along with the relevant parts of the commentary in these grammars are:
Kátantra: कृञोऽसुट: ॥३।७।३७॥ असुट: कृञ: परोक्षायां थलि च नेड् भवति । … “स्य-सिजाशी: श्वस्तनीषु भावकर्मार्थिकासु च”। “स्वर-हन-ग्रह-दृशाम्-इड्वेज्वच्चे”ति वक्तव्यम् । … इज्वद्भावाद् इटस्तु कारितलोप: स्यात् – कारयिष्यते, कारिष्यते; चोरयिष्यते, चोरिष्यते । मानुबन्धानां ह्रस्वो नित्यं -- गमिष्यते । (here इच् = चिण् in Páõini, कारित = णिच् )
Ÿákaýáyana: हन्-दृशि-ग्रहज्भ्यस्-सि-तास्-स्य-सटां ञिड् वा ॥४।३।१८॥ हन् दृशि ग्रह इत्येतेभ्योऽजन्तेभ्यश्च धातुभ्यो विहितानां कर्मभाव-विषयाणां सि तास् स्य सट् इत्येतेषां प्रत्ययानां ञिडागमो भवति वा । … अच: - … शामिष्यते, शमयिष्यते, शमिष्यते । … …
Hemacandra: स्वर-ग्रह-दृश-हन्भ्य: स्य-सिजाशी:श्वस्तन्यां ञिट् वा ॥३।४।६९॥ स्वरान्ताद्धातो: ग्रहादिभ्यश्च विहितासु भाव-कर्म-विषयासु स्य-सिजाशी:श्वस्तन्यीषु ञिट् प्रत्ययो वा भवति । स्वर - … शमिष्यते, शामिष्यते, शमयिष्यते … ।
Malayagiri: स्वर-ग्रह-दृशि-हनिभ्य: स्य-सिच्-आशी:श्वस्तन्या वा ञिट् ॥३।१०।२७॥ स्वरान्तात् ग्रहादिभ्यश्च परेषां भाव-कर्मविषयाणां स्य-सिच्-आशी:-श्वस्तनीनां ञिट् वा भवति । The commentary does not give the examples शमिष्यते, शामिष्यते, शमयिष्यते । But these examples are fully derivable from this sítra. Malayagiri follows Hemacandra regarding the sítrapáýha.
It is remarkable here that Ÿákaýáyana, Hemacandra and Malayagiri prescribe ञिट् in place of चिण्वद्-भाव along with इट् augment in Páõini. Unlike Ÿákaýáyana, who calls ञिट् an ágama, Hemacandra calls it a pratyaya (suffix), whereas Malayagiri is silent about it. The ञिट् suffix (or ágama) is अनिडादि and hence in all these grammars, there is no problem in the operation of णिलोप. So far as Kátantra is concerned, as per the várttika in the Durga-vøtti, the इट् augment is to be treated as if it were इच् suffix, which is अनिडादि. It is to be noted here that it is इट् which gets the treatment of इच् (equivalent to चिण् in Páõini), i.e. इज्वद्-भाव and not any स्वरान्त धातु or the धातु ग्रह्, दृश् and हन्. So the Kátantra sítra 3.6.44 (कारितस्यानाम्-इड्-विकरणे) is applicable and the कारित-लोप (i.e. णिलोप) occurs. Ÿákaýáyana appears to have received this clue from Kátantra and has prescribed ञिट् in place of इट् (by the way, the Páõini’s चिण् is ञि in Ÿákaýáyana). Hemacandra and Malayagiri have followed Ÿákaýáyana.
7. Now let us consider the derivation of the Vedic word-forms दध्रे and परिददृश्रे, the corresponding laukika forms being दधिरे and परिददृशिरे. The Káÿiká on P.6.4.76 gives:
इरयो रे ॥६।४।७६॥ इर इत्येतस्य छन्दसि विषये बहुलं रे इत्ययमादेशो भवति । गर्भं॑ प्रथ॒मं द॑ध्र॒ आप॒: (ऋ० १०।८२।५।) । या॑श्च॒ परि॒द॑दृ॒श्रे (मै० सं० ४।४।१।) । धाञो रेभावस्यासिद्धत्वादातो लोप: (६।४।६४) भवति । न च भवति - परमाया धियोऽग्निकर्माणि चक्रिरे ।
Here, इरे is the इरेच् आदेश of the तिङ् suffix झ in the लिट्, प्रथम पुरुष, plural number as per P.3.4.81 (लिटस्त-झयोरेशिरेच्). At the stage दधा + इरे, if इरे is replaced with रे as per P.6.4.76, it becomes अनजादि. But P.6.4.64 and 6.4.76 belong to the आभीय section. Hence for P.6.4.64, the result रे is as if इरे only. So the final आ of दधा gets elided and we get the required form दध्रे. Similarly परिददृश्रे.

7.1 The parallel sítras for P.3.4.81; 6.4.64 and 6.4.76 in the sarasvatikaõýhábharaõa (SKÁ) of Bhojadeva are: 3.1.8-9 (लिट इरेच् ; तस्यैश्) ; 6.3.75 (लोपोऽचि क्ङिति चातः ) ; 8.2.54 (इरयो रे)1.
The Vedic and accent rules are scattered in Páõini’s Aúýádhyáyå . But Bhoja has kept all these rules in ch.VIII; the Vedic rules in páda 1 and 2 and all the accent rules in páda 3 and 4. Then how to account for the adhikára sítras parallel to P.6.4.22 (असिद्धवदत्राभात् ) and P.8.2.1 (पूर्वत्रासिद्धम् ) ? The structure of the sítrapáýha in SKÁ is such that the rules are to be considered as divided into three parts (1) the laukika part consisting of ch. I to VII, (2) the Vedic part ch.VIII, pádas 1-2, and (3) the accent part ch.VIII, pádas 3-4. Then the main adhikára sítras mentioned in the laukika part have to be considered afresh in the remaining two parts, as is clear from the Daõðanátha-vøtti on the SKÁ såtra 7.4.178 [the Daõðanátha-vøtti on ch.VII is still unpublished and the relevant part is being produced here from Ms No.698, preserved in the Adyar Library, Madras. For details about SKÁ, please refer to (Prasad 2002)]:

उत्तरस्य प्राक्षु यथापूर्वमुपदेशदर्शनाद् इष्टसिद्धि: ॥७।४।१७८॥ बहुलं छन्दसि (८।१।१) इत्यत आरभ्य यदित उत्तरमनुक्रमिष्यामस्तस्य संज्ञाप्रत्ययविधानादे: पूर्वे वा मध्ये पूर्वोपदिष्ट-संज्ञाद्युद्देशानतिक्रमेणोपदेशोऽत्र द्रष्टव्य: । ते विप्रतिषेधे परं कार्यमिति समानाश्रये पूर्वत्रासिद्धं प्राग्जितादणित्यादे: प्रत्याहाराधिकारादेश्च समस्तस्याभीष्टस्य विधि: सिद्धिर्भवति ॥

Here, by the term समानाश्रये, the SKÁ sítra प्राग्युवोरयुग्वुगसिद्धं समानाश्रये ॥६।३।१९॥ is hinted at. The SKÁ sítra 6.4.1 is “युवोरनाकावसः”. Thus in the laukika part the समानाश्रय असिद्धत्व is covered under the sítras 6.3.19 to the end of páda 3 of ch.6. The समानाश्रय असिद्धत्व in the Vedic part lies between the sítras 8.2.47 and 8.2.66, both inclusive. The पूर्वत्रासिद्धम् (7.3.38) adhikára mentioned in the laukika part is to be considered afresh in the Vedic part between 8.2.106 and 8.2.149 and again in the accent part between 8.4.224 and 8.4.232. Thus the sítras 8.2.54 (इरयो रे) and 6.3.75 (लोपोऽचि क्ङिति चातः ) belong to the section under समानाश्रय असिद्धत्व.

The published Madras Edition reads the sítra 8.2.54 (इरयोरेत्रितस्वादीनामचीयुवौ वा). This is obviously corrupted. Actually it should be read as two sítras, the first one being quite obvious: “इरयोरे ”. The other one is based on the várttika “इयङादि-प्रकरणे तन्वादीनां छन्दसि बहुलम्” on P.6.4.77 (अचि श्नु-धातु-भ्रुवां य्वोरियङ्-उवङौ), on which the bháúya is as follows:

इयङादिप्रकरणे तन्वादीनां छन्दसि बहुलमुपसंख्यानं कर्तव्यम् । तन्वं पुषेम । तनुवं पुषेम । विष्वं पश्य । विषुवं पश्य । स्वर्गं लोकम् । सुवर्गं लोकम् । त्र्यम्बकं यजामहे । त्रियम्बकं यजामहे ॥

So the possible nature of the sítra, considering the style of Bhoja to include gaõapáýha also in the body of the sítra along with the addition of आदि at the end of the list to indicate the आकृतिगण, could be: “त्रि-तनु-विषु-स्वादीनामचीयुवौ वा”.

Bronkhorst, Johannes (1980): “Asiddha in the Aúýádhyáyå: A Misunderstanding among the Traditional Commentators?”, Journal of Indian Philosophy, 8:69-85.

Buiskool, H. E. (1934): “Pírvatrásiddham: analytisch onderzoek aangaende het system der Tripádå van Páõini's Aúýádhyáyå”( Pírvatrásiddham: An Analytical-Synthetical Inquiry into the System of the Tripádå of Páõini’s Aúýádhyáyå”) (Amsterdam:Paris) (in Dutch).

Buiskool, H. E. (1939): “The Tripádå: Being an Abridged Version of Pírvatrásiddham”, E.J.Brill, Leiden; xv+156 pp.

Cardona, George (1999): “Recent Research in Páõinian Studies”, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, xi+372 pp.

S. D. Joshi and J. A. F. Roodbergen (2002): “The Aúýádhyáyå of Páõini with Translations and Explanatory Notes”, Vol IX (6.4.1-6.4.175), Sahitya Akademi, New Delhi; lxvii+435+xviii pp.

Prasad Narayan (2002): “Sarasvatåkaõýhábharaõa – the Magnum Opus of Sanskrit Grammar”, SAMBODHI, Vol XXV, December, pp.91-120; publisher: L.D. Institute of Indology, Ahmedabad.

Published in: Journal of the Oriental Institute, M.S. University of Baroda, Vadodara, The Golden Jubilee Issue, Vol. 50, Nos.1-4, September 2000 - June 2001 Issue, pp.43-54; Issued – April 2004.

* The abridged version of this article was presented to the All India Oriental Conference, 41st session, Puri, 14-16 December, 2002.