Pāṇini : a survey of research 9789027934352, 9027934355

Citation preview

PANINI 4&

A SURVEY OF RESEARCH

by

GEORGE CARDONA University ofPennsylvania

1976

MOUTON THE HAGUE - PARIS

© Copyright 1976

Mouton & Co, B,V, Publishers, The Hague issue may be translated or reproduced ill anv (arm , or any other means, without written permission fre

ISBN 90 279 3435 5

Printed in the Netherlands

PREFACE

TO PARTS 1

-

3

PREFACE

This is the first volume (divided for technical reasons, into three sub­ volumes) of a projected larger work in which I plan to treat the history and methodology of Indian grammatical thought. Subsequent volumes will include an introduction to Paqini's A��adhyayi, a survey of commentator­ ial literature on this work, and studies of non-Paqinian works on grammar. The first of these subsequent volumes has been in typescript since 1970, and I hope soon to have it ready for publication. The present volume is intended as a critical survey of research carried out in the specific area of (>aqinian grammar, including works by pal).ini­ yas on semantics and philosophy of grammar. Articles and monographs devoted specifically to other Indian schools of grammar and to Pratisa ­ khyas and the Nirukta have been considered here only in so far as refer­ ence to them was required by the specific topic at hand. More detailed bibliographic information on these will appear in subsequent volumes. I have attempted to read and give serious thought to as many studies as I could in the area of discussion. Yet I have no illusions that the bibliography included here is anywhere near exhaustive. There are quite a few articles and monographs referred to in bibliographies which remain inaccessible to me. Moreover, I could not consult other works due to my own limitations, for example, works in Dravidian languages. In order to get a fuller bibliographic information, the reader is referred to the works noted in sections II. 1 - 3, though even the addition of these does not, I think, exhaust the field. Nevertheless, I hope to have covered enough of the work which has been done to give the reader a fair idea of the scope of the field, of the topics which have attracted and continue to attract the attention of scholars, and of the current state of research in this area. The aim of giving the reader a view of the state of research in this field required, I think, that I carry out two duties. First, that I give as much information as possible. Second, that I consider critically the work done, that is, that I treat the ideas and conclusions of scholars relative to topics which have been deemed important, and that, wherever pOSSible, I sift con­ flicting views and give what I consider to be reasonable and tenable con­ clusions warranted by the evidence, refraining from such conclusions where the evidence appears insufficient. This attitude has determined the format of this volume.

viii The bibliography which constitutes the first part, though not, strictly speaking, fully annotated, gives information on books and monographs which, in my opinion, a reader needs in order to know what an author or editor has done. In the survey, I have attempted to set forth the prin· cipal topics of interest and importance, views concerning these, and the evidence for these views. In each case, 1 have made a serious effort to keep from airing facile opinions or dismissing a given opinion - either favorably or unfavorably - with a mere epithet. Instead, I have attempted to summarize authors' works, where I thought this posslble, and the evi· dence which has led to given conclusions. 1 am aware that in so doing I have risked serving two possibly irreconcilable masters, the brevity of a survey and the prolixity consequent on discussion of evidence. I hope, nevertheless, that I have been able to strike a balance. As I said, I view this work as a critical survey of research, not as a his· tory of scholarship in the field, For, to begin with, I do not consider my· self a historian. Nevertheless, I hope that the treatment of the topics con· sidered serves to give the reader an idea of changing interests and empha­ ses. And, of course, it is these interests and emphases which have to a great extent dictated the amount of attention devoted to particular topics This work was completed in November 1 974. Between then and now, there have appeared studies, some, but not all, of which I have been able to incorporate into my work. Others will be included and commented on in subsequent volumes, It is now my pleasant obligation to thank those who have helped me. I began working on this survey during the year 1971 1972, while I was a feJlow of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Palo Alto, to the director of which, 0, Meredith Wilson, I extend my thanks for the superb workmg conditions and camaraderie I enjoyed, Many coworkers have also put me in their debt through their generosity Professors Ashok N. AkluJkar (University of British Columbia), Madhav M. Deshpande (University of Michigan), Hans H. Hock (University of Illinois), Ramanath Sharma (University of Rochester), Wilhelm Rau (Philipps-Universitat Marburg), Rosane Rocher (University of Pennsylvania), and Michael Shapiro (University of Washington) helped me to obtain var· ious works and information on dissertations. Many friends and colleagues in India gave me generously of their time in assisting me in obtaining works and information on research being done in their universities' Bhagiratha Prasada Tripathl (Varal}aseya SaqJsk�ta Visvavidyalaya), Jayashree A. Gune (Deccan College), Dayashankar M. Joshi (Deccan Coll­ ege), Shivram D. Joshi (University of Poona), K. Kunjunni Raja (Univer. sity of Madras), Pt. Raghunatha Sarma (retired Professor, VaraIiaseya SaqJsk�ta Visvavidyalaya), Ramaprasada TripathI (Varal}aseya SaqJskrta ViSvavidyiilaya), Satyavrat Shastri (Delhi University), Umakant P. Shah -

ix

(Oriental Institute, M. S. University of Baroda), Shiva Narayana Shastri (Kirorimal College, Delhi University), Esther Solomon (Gujarat University). In addition, Professors Rosane Rocher and Wilhelm Rau did me the great favor of reading and commenting on the bibliography and the survey. To all of these friends and colleagues I offer my sincerest thanks. Not for mine but for their sake do I echo Kumarila's words: tad vidval1)so'nugrhl).antu cittasrotra!1:t prasadibhJ.l:!/ santaJ:l pral).ayivakyani g�hl).anti hy anasuyavaJ:l11 na catriitlva kartavyaJTl dosadmipararp manaJ:l1 do�o hy avidyamano'pi taccittaniirp prakasate/ / Philadelphia, 24 March 1 975

GEORGE CARDONA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface to parts 1·3

v

Part]: Bibliography

Preliminary Remarks Alphabetical List of Abbrevations of J ournals and Festschriften and Collective Works Bi bliography Part 2. The Survey

3

5 13 137

L

Introduction

139

II.

Histories of Sanskrit grammar, surveys of research, bibliographies Histories of Sanskrit grammar Surveys of research . Bibliographies. . .

139 1 39 1 40 1 41

ILl. IU.

11.3. Ill. HI.l.

I I Ll.l. IILl.2. m.L2 . L IIL1.2.2.

.

.

.

IILU.L HU.3 .2. I II.! .3.2a

.

Par;ini, Katyiiyana and Patanjali Pal/inL the A�tadhyaYl Introduction . . . Editions, translations, indices and lexica of the A�,adhyayr . . . . . . . . Editions and translations of the sutra·patha Editions of the dhiitu·piitha and the gaIfa·piitha. . . . ' Lexica and indices . . . . . . Concerning the original text of the A?tiidhyiiyf . . . Evidence of pre·Piit;inian grammarians Extant works which have been attributed to pre·Piil}inians Apisali . . .

.

IIU.2.3 . IlLl.3.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

142 142 1 42 1 42 1 42 1 44 1 44 1 46 1 46 1 48 1 48

xii III.l.3.2b IlL! 3.2 c m .I .3 .2d !lLl . 32 . e IIL l .3.3 HI 1.3 .3a m .1. 3.3b m. 1.3.3c HU.3.3d

IlU. 33e

III.! 3 3f 1II.1. 3. 3g 1I1.l.3A. HI.1.3.S . m . 1 .3.5a m .1 3.5b m .1.3.5c m 1 .3 .6 . IILl.3.6a III. 1 . 3.6b UU .3.6c UL 1 . 3 .7. II I.IA. m . 1 .4. 1 . IIL1.4.1 a m .L4. l b IIUA.2 . IlL I A.2 a III.1.4.2 b III. 1.4 . 3 . m .L4.3a IILlA.3 b III.104.4.

Siikatayana . Indra Kiisakrtsna . Conclusion . Interpolations ill and modifications of the A�tadhyayi sutra-piitha Introduction Kinds of and evidence for interpolation Modifications made by the authors of the Kiisika . Principles for discovering rules to be interpolations which Kiityiiyana and Patafi]ali knew as parts of the AgiidhyiiYl Rules supposed to be interpolations because they were not discussed in the Maha-bhii�ya . Other suggested interpolations Conclusion . Authorship of the siva-siltras The dhatu-patha . Interpolations . Meaning entries. were they included in the original dhatu-pa�ha'? Authorship of the dhiitu-piitha . The galJa-patha Interpolations Authorship of the gal)a-patha The relation between the galJa-patha and the sutra-patha Metarules Other texts usually associated with the A�tadhyayi The uJ)-adi-sutras. The texts Questions of authorship and dates The phit-siitras The text Authorship and date The linganusasana The text Authorship and date Sik�a .

149 150 lSI 152 153 153 15 3 1 54 155

158 158 160 160 161 161 161 163 164 164 16 5 165 167 170 170 170 171 1 74 1 74 175 1 77 1 77 177 179

xiii H I . l .4. 4a III 1. 4 4b I lL! 5 . IlL1. 5 . 1 . III 1 .5 . l a JILl . 5 . l b 111.1 .5 .2. III . 1 . 5. 2a IlI. 1 .5 .2b IIL1 . 5 .2 c I I I. 1 .5 3. 1Il.1.5 3a IIL 1 . 5.3b 1Il . 1 . 5 .3b. 1. m . 1 . 5 .3b.2. III 1 . 5 .3b .3. Ill . 1 . 5 .3b .4. Ul . 1 .S .3c I I I . 1 .5 3d IIL 1 .5 .3e III. l.S 3f I I l . 1 .5 .3g IU. 1 .5 .4. I l 1. 1. 5. 4a III. 1 .5 Ab Ill.1 . 5 Ac ULl .S.S. III. l .S Sa UI. 1 . 5 .Sb HI.l .S. 5b . l . Ul. 1 . 5.Sb.2. Hl . l .S.S b.3. IH.l .S .5c 111.1 . 5 .Sc. l . IILl .S.Sc. 2 . IIL 1 .5 .Sc.3 . IIl . 1 . 5 .Sd I lI . 1 .5 .6.

The Pii!)iniya-siksii texts Authorship and date The system o f the A�tiidhyiiyf . General introduction Pat;lini's derivational system' generalities . PaDini's system: studies of general aspects The composition of the grammar: general organization, rule order, types of rules General organization Rule order and the application of rules . Types of rules Metalanguage. technical terminology, metaruies, stylistics . P:il)ini's technical terminology: generalities . P:il)ini's technical terminology: particular terms . General . Phonologic terminology Terms pertinent to the verb system Terms pertinent to the nominal system . Markers . The grammar of PaIfini's metalanguage The domain of metarules . Quotation Stylistics P:il)ini' s system of phonology and morphophonemics Phonetics Morphophonemics The siva-sutras PaDini's system of grammar I ntroduction Studies on verbal and nominal derivatives Verb morphology Nominal morphology Compounds and taddhita derivatives Syntax Karakas and karaka rules . Levels assumed recognized by Pii!)ini . Concord and parts of speech Semantics Studies of particular rules

179 1 79 182 1 82 1 82 1 85 1 87 1 87 1 89 191 1 93 1 93 1 96 1 96 1 96 1 97 1 98 1 99 20 1 20 2 203 20 4 20 6 20 6 20 8 20 9 2 10 2 10 2 10 210 211 212 215 215 22 1 222 224 226

xiv IIL 1 .5 .6a m . 1 .5 .6b m . 1 . 5 .7 . I lI . 1 . 5 .7a m . 1 . 5 .7b m . 1 .5.7c HI.U.8. m . 1 .5 .8a HI. 1 . 5 .8b m .1.5.8c Bl. 1 . 5 .Sd H I . l 5 .8e IIL2 m .2.I. m . 2.2. m.2.2 . 1 . m2.2.2. III.2 .2.3. m . 2 . 3. III .2.4. m .2 . 5 . m .25 l. m .2.S.2. m .2 .5 .3 . IH.2.6. UI .2 . 6. l . I IL2 .6.2. III.2.6.3 . UL2.7.

lIU. I IU,!. I I U .I . l . I IU . L2.

Vedic rules . Other rules . Comparisons o f PiiIJini's system with other systems . Comparisons with other Indian systems . Comparisons with modern systems and techniques . A note regarding methodology Evaluations of Piil).ini's grammar and its p urpose . The language described by Piil)ini . "Grammarians' Sanskrit" . Deficiencies seen in the grammar On the origins and purposes of grammar Conclusion . The Mahii-bhii�ya General introduction: early commentaries Editions, translations, and indices of the Mahii-bhii�ya and its commentaries Editions . Translations Indices On criteria for distinguishing Kiityiiyana's and Patafij ali's statements: s1oka-viirttikas . On the history of the Mahii·bhii�ya text The relation b etween Kiityiiyana and Patafijali and their attitudes towards PiiIJiru . Was Kiityiiyana an antagonist of Piil)ini and Patafij ali his defender? Were Katyiiyana and Patafijali adherents of different systems? Historical change a s a motivation for some of Kiityiiyana's viirttikas Methods and ideas found in the Mahii-bhii�ya . Generalities Techniques of interpretation Discussions of philosophical import Other studies of the Mahii·bhii�ya . Chronology and realia . The dates of Piit:lini, Kiityiiyana and Patafij ali . Introduction Possible internal evidence for Piil)ini's date .

226 228 230 230 232 23 6 238 238 239 239 242 243 243 243 244 244 245 247 247 247 250 250 250 25 1 253 253 254 256 259 260 260 260 26 1

xv

I IU . L 3 . m. 3 . 1 .4. !II . 3 .l 5 . I I I . 3.1. 6.

External evidence for Piil).ini's date The date of Patanjali Katyiiyana's date

The intervals to be assumed between paI).ini and Katyiiyana and Kiityayana and Patafijali

JII. 3. 1 .7 . JIU. 1 .8.

Conclusion.

m.3. 1 . 8a JIU.l . 8b m . 3 . 1 .8 c BU.2.

paJ.lini

UI . 3 . 2 . 1 . I 1I.3. 2 . 2 . m.3.3. IIU .3 . 1 . HL3.3.2. IV. IV. I . IV 2. IV.2.! . IV.2.2. IV.2.2 . l . IV.2.2.2. IV.2 .2 .3. IV.2 .2A. IV.2.2 . 5 . IV. 3 . IV. 3.! . IV.3 .! .! . IV.3.!. 2 . IV.3. 2 .

Excursus. the places of origin of paI).ini,

Katyiiyana and Patafijali Katyiiyana Patanjal1.

Relative chronology. PiiJ.lini and Yaska, PiiI).ini

and the pratisiikhyas

PiiI).ini and Yaska

Pal)ini and the pratisakhyas ReaIia The A�tadhyayr

The Maha-bha�ya Later commentaries. Introduction Running commentaries The Kasika-vrtti and its commentaries Other running commentaries . The Bh:i:�ii-vrtti The MitaJqani The Sabda-kaustubha The Bhiiga-vrtti The Durghata-vrtti Reordered commentaries Commentaries which do not treat all rules. The Rupavatara The Prakriya-kaumudi . The Siddhanta-kaumudI, its commentaries and

262 263 267 267 268 268 268 268 269 270 270 273 275 275 276 278 278 278 278 282 282 283 283 284 284 285 285 285 285

abridgements

IVA.

Commentaries on versions of the dhatu-patha.

286 288

V.

Evaluations of commentaries

289

VI.

Treatises on semantics and philosophy of

VI . I .

Introduction

grammar.

293 293

xvi VU. VI.2 .I. VU.2. VI.2.3.

295 295 297

VU. . . VI.3l VU. 2 .

Bhartrhari . . . . . . . . . . . . The Vakya-padiya: editions and translations The authorship of the Vrtti . . The dates of Bhartrhari and his commentators. . . . Studies on the doctnnes set forth in the . . . . . Vakya-padiya Evaluations of Bhartrhari and his commentators . . Later semantic treatises Introduction . . Editions, translations and studies

VII.

Literary works illustrating grammatical rules

308

VIII.

A summary of trends

308

.

VI.24

.

VU.5.

.

.

Part 3: Footnotes and Index

Footnotes Index

.

.

298 299 304 305 30 5 306

313 315 373

PART 1:

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRELIMINARY REMARKS

The following are to be noted.

0)

Abbreviations do not include specifications such as "humanities

section" or "philologisch-historische Klasse" for journals of uni­ versities and academies. The reader is to understand that referen­

(2)

ces are to such sections.

For editions whIch bear titles in English and another language

(Sanskrit etc.), both titles are given, one in parentheses. Since the present work is in English, the English title appears first. Information contained in one title and lacking in the other is sup­

plied in square brackets. Entries in Sanskrit, etc., show deletion

marks (' . .. '). I have thereby indicated the omission of authors' names, position, academic afflliation, and titles given on titlepage.

(3)

Translations of titles of works written in languages other than

English and other commonly known European languages appear in square brackets following the titles. The language in question is also specified within these brackets.

(4) (5)

All Festschriften, including "N. N. volumes" and "Melanges N. N." are listed under "Festschrift ... " in the bibliography.

Articles published in the Publications of the Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit, Qass A, are for the most part stated to be reo prints of articles published in the Journal of the University of Poona. However, the latter is at times dated later than the former. Therefore, I have listed all such articles first as appearing in the

former, followed by "also in ...." within square brackets.

(6)

If a book or article has been reprinted without modification, this is indIcated in square brackets by the specification "reprint:". If, however, an article has been republished with any modifications, reference is made to the subsequently pUblished article by the men­

tion "see also".

(7)

A work which I have not personally consulted is marked by aster­

isks surrounding the date (e.g., * 1950*) if I have not been able to verify its contents. If I have not been able to consult the work

4

(8)

directly but a summary of this has appeared in Pracl Jyoti or Dandekar's bibliography ( see the bibliography under these), however, no asteri&ks surround the date. Instead, a reference to the above­ mentioned refe rence works is given in square brackets accompanying the entry . Many I ndian editions are dated according to the vikrama e ra. I f a month is n ot given either on the title p age or in a preface or intro­ duction, I give two A . D. dates. For example , a work published in sarpvat 2014 is listed as published in 1957/8

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS OF JOURNALS AND FESTSCHRIFTEN AND COllECTIVE WORKS

AA'

Acta Asiatica; Bulletin of the Institute of Eastern Culture (Tokyo).

ABORI

Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute ( Poona).

ACll

Actes du.

ACUT.

. congres international des linguistes; see

Congres (1968).

Acta et communicationes Universitatis Tartuensis.

AGM

Adarsa-grantha-miilii (Adarsh Granthmala).

AIel

All-India Conference of Linguists; see Conference (I 972b).

AIOK: AIONSL. AIPHOS.

Akten des . .. .internationalen Orientalisten-Kongresses; see

Kongress (1957).

Annali, Istituto Orientale di Napoli, sezione Iinguistica. Annuaire de l'Institut de Philologie et d'Histoire Orientales et Slaves, Bruxelles.

AJGM

Sri Atmiinand Jain Grantha-miilii.

AJP.

American ] ournal of Philology, Baltimore.

AKM.

Abhandlungen fUr die Kunde des Morgenlandes.

ALB:

Brahmavidyii, The Adyar Library Bulle tin, Adyar (Madras)

AlS:

The Adyar Library Series.

AMGG

Abhandlungen der Marburger Gelehrten Gesellschaft.

AO

Acta Orientalia, Leiden.

AOR'

Annals of Oriental Research, University of Madras, Sanskrit section.

AOS. AOSE. AP. Arch. Or..

Amencan Oriental Series. American Oriental Series Essay. The Aryan Path, Bombay.

Archiv Orientalni, Praha.

ARSHlL.

Acta Regiae Societatis Humaniorum Litterarum Lundensis

AS:

Asian Studies, Quezon City, Philippines.

ASS'

Anandasrama Sanskrit Series.

AU]'

Annamalai University Journal, Annamalainagar.

ASVOI: AUS:

Annals of the Sri Venateswara Oriental Institute, TirupatL Andhra University Series.

6 AUSt.: AAWLM:

Allahabad University Studies. Abhandlungen def Akademie der Wissenschaften und def

BB'

Literatur, Mainz. (Bezzenbergers) Beitrage wr Kunde def indogermanischen

B DCRI:

Sprachen, Gbttingen. Bulletin of the Deccan College Research Institute, Poona.

BEFEO:

Bulletin de rEcole Franqaise d'Extreme-Onent, Paris.

BEPHE.

Bulletin de rEcole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, Paris

BGWL

Berichte Liber die Verhandlungen der koniglichen sachsischen

Bha?a'

Bha�a; Kendriya HindI Niddiilaya, New Delhi,

BHUSS'

Banaras Hindu University Sanskrit Series.

Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig,

BhV.

Bharatlya Vldya, Bombay.

Bl(E)S.

Bulletm of the Institute of Postgraduate (Evening) Studies,

BIG.

Bibliothek indogermanischer Grammatiken.

BORL

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona.

BORIS,

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute Post-graduate and

Delhi

Research Series. BOS

Bonner Orientalistische Studien.

BoSS'

Bombay Sanskrit Series. Buddhi Prakasa, Ahmedabad.

BP BPSC

Bulletin of the Philological Society of Calcutta.

BSOAS'

Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies,

BSOS.

Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, London.

BSPS: BSS.

Bombay Sanskrit and Prakrit Series. Benares Sanskrit Series. [Entries contain both the numbers of works and the numbers of individual fascicles of works.]

BSSM.

Shri Bahadur Singh Singhi Memoirs.

London.

CASS-St.. CLTA COl. CR:

Center of Advanced Study in Sanskrit, Studies (= PCASS-E). Cahiers de linguistique theorique et appliquee, Bucuresti. ' Calcutta Oriental J ouma!.

The Calcutta Review.

CSA:

Cahiers de la Societe Asiatique, Paris.

CSCRS:

Calcutta Sanskrit College Research Series. Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series. [Entries contain both the

CSS:

numbers of works and the numbers of individual fascicles of works.] CSSt:

Chowkhamba Sanskrit Studies.

CW,

Collected Works.

7 DAWIO DeBes: DeBCSlS DCDS; DCM S . EVP. EW FL. FLSS GBS. GGA GJPM GKP' GOS: GovOS . GSA: GSPM : GSS . HKNM . HOS. HSS: IA. IA3. I BKW IC. w

IHQ. Ill. IJDL: IL'

Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften l U Berlin, Institut fUr Orientforschung. Deccan C ollege Building Centenary Series. Deccan C ollege Building Centenary and Silver jubilee Series. Deccan College Dissertation Series. Deccan College Monograph Series. Etudes vediques et pil).ineennes; see Renou ( 1 9 55 ), ( l956c), ( 1 96 1 ). East and West, Roma. Foundations of Language , Dordrecht . Foundations of Language, supplementary series. Govind B ook Series. Gottingische Gelehrte Anzeigen. Ganganiitha lha Pravacana-maJa [Gangiinatha lhii Lecture Series] . Gurukula Patrika, Haridwar. Gaekwad's Oriental Series. Government Oriental Series. [The abbreviation is followed by a class letteLl Giornale della Societa Asiatica ltaliana, Roma. Grantha-sarpsodhana-prakiisana-mal)�ala. Gurukula Sanskrit Series. H ari-kr�I].a·nibandha-mal).i-miila. Harvard Oriental Series. Haridas Sanskrit Series. Indian Antiquary, Bombay. Indian Antiquary, third series, Bombay. Innsbrucker Beitnige zur Kulturwissenschaft. Indian Culture; J ournal of the Indian Historical Institute, Cakutta. Indogermanische Forschungen, Berlin. Indian Historical Quarterly, Calcutta. Indo-Iranian loumal, The Hague. International Joumal of Dravidian Linguistics, Trivandrum. Indian Linguistics; J oumal of the Linguistic Society of India, Poona. [The page numbers for volumes 1 1 5 are those of the reprints in three volumes (Poona: Centre for Advanced Study in Linguistics and the Linguistic Society of India); L volumes 1 4 ( 1 93 1 - 4), 1 966; 2 : volumes 5 8 ( 1 935 44), 1 965; 3 : volumes 9 . 1 5 ( 1 944 . 50), 1 965] . I ndische F orschungen, Breslau. -

-

IndF:

-

8 IPQ:

International Philosophical Quarterly, New York.

IS:

Indische Studien, Leipzig

IZAS.

Internationale Zeitschrift fUr allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft,

JAHRS'

Journal of the Andhra Historical Research Society, Hydera­

JAOS.

Heilbronn. bad.

Journal of the American Oriental Society, New Haven

lAs.

Journal Asiatique, Paris.

JASt.

Journal of the Asiatic Society (of Calcutta), Letters

JBBRAS

Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society

JASB.

JBBRAS2.

Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta.

Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, new series.

JDLCU:

Journal of the Department of Letters, Calcutta University [Papers are numbered and paginated separately; entries show

the number of the paper and pages]. JDSDU.

Journal of the Department of Sanskrit, Delhi University.

JGJRI:

Journal of the Ganganatha Jha Research Institute, Allahabad.

JGJKSY'

Journal of the Ganganatha Jha Kendriya Sanskrit Yidya. peeth. [New name for JGJRI as of

JIBS'

1 97 1 ].

Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies, Tokyo. [Two page

entries are shown; the first is the Japanese pagination, to

be read in reverse order; the second is to be read in ascend­ ing order]. JIP.

Journal of Indian Philosophy, Dordrecht.

JKU:

Journal of the Karnatak University, Dharwar.

JL:

Janua Linguarum; studia memoriae Nicolai van Wijk dedicata

JLSP

Janua Linguarum, series practica.

JMSUB:

J ourna] of the Maharaja SayaJirao University of Baroda.

JMU' JOIB: JOR: JPMJG. JRAS:

Journal of the Madras University.

Journal of the Oriental Institute, Baroda. Journal of Oriental Research, Madras.

Jfianapljha MurtidevI Jaina Grantha-mala. [Sanskrit volumes]. Joumal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, London.

JSP

SrI Jaina Satya Prakasa, Ahmedabad.

JSYOL

Journal of the Sri Venkateswara Oriental Institute. Tirupati, Sanskrit section.

JUB:

Journal of the University of Bombay.

JUG.

Journal of the University of Gauhati.

JUP:

Journal of the University of Poona.

JVS:

Journal of Vedic Studies, Lahore.

9 KSINA.

Kratkie soobscenip lnstituta naradov Azii AN SSSR,

Moskva.

KSS.

KaS! Sanskrit Series.

KSVS

Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha Series.

KUDSP'

Kerala University Department of Sanskrit Publications.

KURJ:

Kurukshetra University Research Journal.

KZ.

(Kuhns) Zeitschrift fUr vergleichende Sprachforschung auf

LBS.

dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen, Gbttingen. Linguistic Bibliography Senes.

LD

Language Dissertation.

LDS:

Lalbhai Dalpatbhai Series.

Lg.:

Language: Journal of the Linguistic Society of America, Baltimore.

Linguistic Inquiry LOS

Linguistic Inquiry, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

London School of Oriental and African Studies, London Oriental Series.

LS.

LUAS.

MAPS: Medha.

MGOMS

MIK: MO:

Language Sciences, Bloomington, Indiana.

Lunds Universitets Arsskrift, N. F . Avd.

1.

Memoirs o f the American Philosophical Society. Medha, Government Sanskrit College, Raipur.

Madras Government Oriental Manuscript Series. Miscellanea Indologica Kiotiensia, Kyoto.

Mysore Orientalist, Mysore.

MSL.

Memoires de la Societe Linguistique de Paris.

MSS.

Munchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft, Munchen.

MSUOS:

The M [aharaja] S [ayajirao J University Oriental Series.

MSPS:

MSURS. MUSS. NGGW' NIA:

Mehar Chand Lachman Das Sanskrit and Prakrit Series.

The M. S. University of Baroda Research Series.

Madras University Sanskrit Series.

Nachrichten von der ki:iniglichen Gesellschaft def Wissen­

schaften zu Gottingen.

New Indian Antiquary, Bombay.

NPP:

Nagar! Pracaril.11 Patrikii, Nagad Pracaril.1i Sabha, Varanasi.

NTS

Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap, Oslo.

NUJ

Nagpur University Journal .

OH.

Our Heritage; Bulletin of the Department o f Post-Graduate

OLZ:

Orientalistische Literaturzeitung, Leipzig.

Training and Research, Sanskrit College, Calcutta. Oriens:

os:

Oriens; J ourna! of the International Society for Oriental

Research, Leiden.

Orient alia Suecana, Uppsala.

10 aT. au PAICL PAIoe:

PBS: PCASS.

PEFEO. PEW PICI PICL. PICLMP:

Oriental Thought, Nasik. Occident und Orient, Gottingen Proceedings of the " All-India Conference of Linguists. see Conference (1970), (197:2b). Proceedings (and Transactions) of the . . . All-India Oriental Conference. [The place and date of each conference appear in parentheses following the number of the conference; all page references are to volumes of papers. ] Prachya Bharatl Series. Publications of the Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit, University of Poona. [The abbreviation is followed by a class letter and a number. J Publications de J'Ecole Fran�aise d'Extreme-Orient. Hanoi, Paris. Philosophy East and West, Honolulu. Publications de l'lnstitut de Civilisation indienne, serie in_SO. Proceedings of the " International Congress of Linguists; see "Congress (1962)". Proceedings of the ... International Congress for Logic. Methodology and Philosophy of Science, see "Congress (1960)" Proceedings of the . . . International Congress of Orientalists, see "Congress (l964b), (1967)". Publications de l'lnstitut franyais d'lndologie. Pondichery. The Poona Orientalist. Pra]fia Pathashala Mal).dala Grantha Mala. Princess of Wales Sarasvati Bhavana Studies. The Princess of Wales Sarasvati Bhavana Texts Series. Quarterly Journal of the Mythic Society, Bangalore. Rama Lal Kapur Trust Series. Shri Rajasthan Sanskrit College Granthamala. Rivista degli Studi Orientali, Roma. Revue de rUniversite de Bruxelles. Sagarikii, Sagar University. SarpgamanI; Sarpskrta Siihitya Pari�ad, Prayaga (Allallabad). Sarpvid, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bombay. Studia et Acta Orientalia, Bucure�ti. Sanskrit Academy Series. Sarasvati Bhavana Adhyayana-ma!;i. Sitzungsberichte der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaf· ten, Berlin. .

PICO. PIR po: PPMGM. PWSBS. PWSBTS: QJMS. RLKTS RSCG. RSO: RUB: Sag. Samgamanl. Sarpvid. SAO: SAS: SBAM: SBAW.

11 SBGM' SBh . . SBMS' SBS ' Scientia: SCOM. SHAW SIAL: SIL' SJS. SPAlOC. SPISC : spp

SS. SSGM' SSLPM : SSP: Svadhyaya: SVPM: SVS. SVUOJ: SWAW . TAPA' TAPS TICO: TPS: ULBTFPL: UMS: UPSPS: UTSS . Vak. YAPS:

Sarasvatl Bhavana Grantha-mala. Sura-bhiiratl; Baroda Sanskrit C ollege . Sri Balamanorama Series. Sarasvati Bhavana Studies. Scientia, Rivista di Scienza; International Review of Scien­ tific Synthesis, Bologna. Sri Citfodaya Mafijari. Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaf: ten . Sources of Indo-Aryan Lexicography. Studies in Linguistics. Singhi J am Series. Summaries of Papers, . . . All-India Oriental Conference. Summaries of Papers, First International S anskrit Conference; see "Conference ( 1 972a) " . S arada P1tha Pradlpa, a bi-annual of the Indological Research Institute, Dwarka. SarasvatI Su?ama, Varanasl. Savitaraya-sm{ti-rak$al)a-grantha-mala. SrI Setu Laksmi Prasada-mala. Sarpsk�ta Siihitya Pari�ad, Calcutta. Svadhyaya, Baroda. Sanskrit Vidyapeeth Prakashanmala. Sarasvati Vihar Series. Sri Venkateswara UnivefSlty Oriental J ournal, Tirupati. Sitzungsberichte der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaf­ ten zu Wien. Transactions of the American Plulological Association, Hart­ ford/Cleveland. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, new series. Transactions of the . . . Congress of Orientalists; see Con­ gress (1 892). Transactions of the Philological Society, London. Universite Libre de B ruxelles, Travaux de la faculte de philoso­ phie et lettres. Usha Memorial Series. University of Poona Sanskrit and Prakrit Series. University of Travancore Sanskrit Series. Vak, Poona. The late MM Vasudev Shastri Abhyankar Publication Series.

12

VBSGM: VlDK' VU' VIS. VISUE: VKAWA: VRGM VS. VSM V WZKM' WZKMUL. WZMLUH: WZKSOA ZDM G Zll: ZML

Vidyabhavana Sanskrit Grantha-mala. Verhandlungen des.. internationen Dialcktologenkongres�cs , see "Kongrcss ( 1 968 )". Vishveshvaranand I ndological Journal, I10shiarpu r Vishveshvaranand Indological Series. Verbffentlichungen des indogermanischen Seminars der Uni· versitat Erlangen. Verhandelingen def koninklij ke Akademie van Weten�chappcn te Amsterdam, Nieuwe Reeks. V!dyabhavana Ra�trabha�a G rantha-mala Visva-samskrtam, Hoshiarpur Vidarbha Sarpsodhana Mm.H;1ala Var�ika, Nagpur. Wiener Zeitschrift fUr die Kunde des Morgenlandes, Bombay , Wien. Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Karl-MJrx-Universititt LeipLig Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Martin-Luther-Universitat Halle-Wittenberg. Wiener Zeitschrift fUr die K un de Slid- und Ostasiens und Archiv fUr indische Philosophie, Wien Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenlandischen Gesellschaft, Leipzig, Wiesbaden. Zeitschrift fUr lndologie und lranistik, Leipzig Zeitschrift fUr Mundartforschung, Wiesbaden.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abegg, Emil '" Die Lehre vom sphota im S arvadarsanasamgraha", Festschrift 1914 Ernst Windisch, pp . 188-95. Abhyankar, Kashinath Vasudev 1 951 "Date and authorship of the Sabdaratna and the Brhat· sabdaratna", ABORI 3 2: 2 58-62. 1952 "The term karmadharaya, ABORI 33: 23 8-44. 1954 [See Abhyankar, Vasudev Shastri - Kashinath Vasudev Abhyankar.l "A short note on paribha�a works in Sanskrit grammar", 1 955 ABORI 36 1 57-62. "Short e (ardha ekilra) and short 0 (ardha okiira) in Sanskrit". 1 957 ABORI 3 8. 154-7. 171e Paribhii�endusekhara of Nagogibha!!a, edited and explained 1960 by F Kielhorn. 2: translation and notes2 [New e dition, with preface by K . V. Abhyankar, of Kielhorn ( 1 8 74a)] [Pre face to the second edition, pp. 1 -7; Kielhorn's preface, pp. i-xxv; appen­ dix' Paribhasa� contained in Siradeva's Paribha\iav�tti, pp. 5291 96 1 1 962

37.J

A dictionary of Sanskrit grammar (= GOS 134) (Baroda. Oriental Institute). (Ed.,) The Paribhii�enduiekhara of Niigojlbhat{a, edited critic­ ally with the commentary Tattvadaria oj MM. Vasudev Shastri Abhyankar. 1 (Srimad-upadhyayopanamaka-iivabhatta-suta-satl­ garbhaja-nagojlbhatta-k,:ta� inman-mahiimahopadhyaya­ abhyarrzkaropahva-vasudevasastn'-viracitaya tattvddaridbhidhaya vyakhyaya samavetah paribha�endu-iekhara�, prathamo bhagaM (Poona: BORl). [New edition, with new Sanskrit commentary, of Kielhorn ( 1 868)J [Introduction by K. V. Abhyankar, pp. 1-40, serial index of paribha�as with corresponding numbers of paribhasas i n Puru�ottama's Paribha�a-patha, Vya�i' s Paribha\ia­ sucana, Puru�ottama's Paribha�a·vrtti, Srradeva's Paribha�a-vrtti, and NlIakal)tha's Paribha�a-v�tti, pp. 41-6; alphabetic index of

14 paribha�as with corresponding numbers of paribha�as in Vyac;ii's, Puru?ottama's (Paribha?a-vJ;t1j), and Srradeva's collections, pp. 2 0 1 -06J. 1 962-72 (Ed.) llle Vyakaraf}a-mahiibh ii� ya o f PataFljali, edited b y F Kielh o rn, third edition, revised and fu rnished with additional readings, references and select critical notes by K. V A bh yankar, 3 vol. (Poona BORf). [ 1 : ( 1 962),2: ( 1 965),3' ( 1 972)J [Revised edition of Kielhorn ( 1 892-1 909), see Kielhorn ( 1 8 8085).J [Prefaces to the volumes of the third edition: l' 7-8, 2. 7-8; 3 5-6, select critical notes. 1: 561-72 .J "Authorship of the Laghusabdaratna", ABORI 45: 1 5 2-8. 1 964 "Euphonic combinations of rand ( with r: and l", FestschrZtt 1965 Sukumar Sen , pp. 1 -7 "A dissertation on a doubtful passage in the Kasikavrtti on 1 966 P.L1 .4 and two passages in the TaittirIya Aral).yaka prapajhaka 4", ABORJ 47 : 1 0 1 - 3 . ( Ed.) Paribha�asa ingraha (a collection of origmal works 011 1967 vyiikaraf/a paribha�a), edited critically with an introduction and an index oj paribha�as (Paribha�a-Sar!lgraha!l (vyadi-sakarayan c1di­ pr6kta-paribhasa-pathanal!l tat-praf/lta-Frtt1n iil!l ca �af!lgrahaf;)) (= BORIS 7) (Poona: B ORl). [Prefatory note, pp. 1 - 5 ; intro­ duction, pp . 1 -64; alphabetic index, pp. 466-93.] [Contams. Vyac;ii's Paribha�a-sucana (pp. 1.38), Vyadi's Paribha�a-pa!ha (pp . 39-43), Siikatayana's Paribha�a·sutras (pp. 44-46), Candra's Parjbha�a-sutras (pp . 47-48), Durgasimha's Katantra-paribha�a­ sutra-vrtti (pp 49-66), Bhiivamisra's K atantra-paribhasa-sutra­ vttti (pp. 67-75), Katantra-paribha$a-sutras (pp. 76-77), Kiilapa­ paribha$a·sutras (pp . 78-80), K. V. Abhyankar's lainendra­ paribha�a,vrtti (pp. 8 1 · 1 04), Bhoja's Paribha�a-v�tti (pp . 1 05-7), Hemacandra's paribha�as as collected by Hemahaf)1sagal}.i (pp. 1 08- 1 1 ), Puru�ottama's Laghu-paribha�a-v�tti (pp. 1 1 2·60) and Paribha�a-piitha (pp. 1 60a-b), Siradeva's Bfhat-paribha�a,vrtti with the Brhat-paribha�a-vrtti-tippal}.l (Vijaya) of M anasarma (pp. 2 73-92), Nilakal}.tha's Paribha�a·vrtti (pp. 293·3 1 6) , Haribhaskar a AgnihotrI's Paribha�a-bhaskara (pp . 3 1 7-74), Nagesabhatta's paribha�as (pp. 3 75-77), Se?adri's Paribha$a­ bhaskara (pp 3 7 8-465).] "Dramatic, pictorial, and verbal representations of past events 1 969 at the time of Patafijali", Festschrift Gopinath Kal'iraj, pp. 257·6 1 . 1 970 "A brief note on the chronological order of the Phit-sutras, the U1).adi·sutras and the A�radhyayI", IOIE 1 9: 3 3 1 ·32.

15 1971

"Ka nama vrttil:t kati vrttayas till" [What is vrtti and how many vrttis are there?] Festschrift Rajeshwar Shastri Dravid, grammar section, pp. 26-28 . [In Sanskrit ] Abhyankar, Kashinath Vasudev - V. P . Limaye 1 965 (Eds.) Vakyapad(va of Bhartrhari (Bhartrhari-viracitarr vakya­ pad(vam) (= UPSPS 2) (Poona : University of Poona). [Intro­ duction , pp. i-xv; appendices' 1: index of verses, pp. 1 66-92, 2 synopsis of the second kal)ga by PUI;yaraja, pp. 1 93-96; 3. verses from the Vakya-padiya cited by various later authors, with the context in which these are cited, pp. 1 97 - 297; supplement to appendix 3, pp. 297 - 3 5 7 ; 4' verses attributed to Bhartrhari but not found in this edition, pp. 3 5 8 - 68; 5: glossary of important words in the Vakya-padiya, pp. 369 408; 6: verses from the Vakya-padiya cited in Haradatta's Pada-mafij ari, pp. 409 - 22; 7: p assages from ancient works re­ ferred to by B hartrhari in the Vakya-padlya and his commentary thereon, pp. 423 - 64.] 1967 Mahabha$ya-dzpika of Bhartrhari 1. ahnikas 1 - 5 (Srlman­ mah6padhyaya-bhartrhari-vira cita mahabha$ya-dlpika ahnika­ pafiditmaka� prathamo bhagab) (:; BORlS 8) (Poona' BORI). [Originally published as supplements to ABORI 43 47 ( 1962· •

66).]

1969

Mahiibha�ya-dzpika of Bhartrhari 2: ahnikas 6-7 (= Supplement to ABORl 5 0). [I have supplied the title according to Abhyan­

kar - Limaye ( 1 967).] Abhyankar, Kashinath Vasudev - J ayadev Mohanlal Shukla (Eds., tT.) Patafijali's Vyiikarar;a-mahabha$ya - (navahnikl), 1 968 fasciculus 1 (iihnikas 1 and 2), with English translation and

notes (Sri-bhagavat-patafijali-kr ta-vyakarar;a-mahabha�yam (navdhnikl), khar;rj.a� 1 (prathame dve ahnike), angla­ bha�dnuvadena rippanzbhis ca sahitaJ:z) ( YAPS 15) (Poona: ::z

Sanskrit Vidya Parisa!p.sthii). [Includes in the notes extensive citations, untranslated, from Bhartrhari's commentary (edited by Abhyankar - Limaye 1 967).] Abhyankar, Vasudev Shastri - Kashinath Vasudev Abhyankar 1 93 8· 5 4 ( Eds., tf.) S rTmad-bhagavat-pataffjali-viracita-vyiikararza-mahabhiiV'a, mula a'1i mariithl bha�antara; bha�antara·kara mahamahopadhyaya Vasudeva Sastn A bhyahkara, sarrpadaka Kasznatha Vasudeva A bhyahkara [Patafij ali's Vyakara1).a-mahabhii�ya; Sanskrit text

an d Marathi translation; translated by Vasudev Shastri Abhyan­ kar, e dited by K. V. Abhyankarj , 7 vols. (Poona: Deccan

16 Education Society). [I ( 1 938) adhyaya 1 ,padas 1 ·2 , :2 (194 1 ). adhyaya 1 , padas 3-4, adhyaya 2, 3 ( 1 951 ). adhyaya 3, 4 ( 1 952). adhyayas 4-5: 5 ( 1 953) adhyaya 6, 6 ( 1 9 5 1 ) . adhyayas 7·8; 7 ( 1 954). prastavana, M arathi introduction by K. V. Abhyankar. Contains explanatory footnotes by the trans·

latoLl

Adya Prasada Misra 1 966 Prakriya·kaumud[·vimarsah [A study of the Prakriya·kaumudL in Sanskrit} (== SBS 1 5) (Varanasi Varal)aseya SaI)1skna Visvavidyiilaya). [Originally a YaraJ,laseya Safl1skrta ViSvavidya· laya doctoral dissertation, 1 964. j Agmhotrl, Prabhudayala [see Prabhudayala Agnihotri] Agrawala, Yasudev Sharan [== Agravala, Vasudeva Sarana 1 1 937 "Patanjali on the ksu draka·miilavas", PO 1 .4 ' 1 ·7. 1 939 "Patanjal i and the vahika·gramas", Ie 6: 1 29-36, 1 940 "Purvacarya safl1jnas for lakaras", NIA 3: 39-40. 1 943 "Sumanottara", PO 7: 1 97·200. 1 945 "Pal)ini, his life and works", JGJRI 2: 8 1 ·1 1 4 1 946 "Food and drink (annapana) in ancient I ndia from Pal)ini's A�tadhyayi" , JGJRI 4. 1 1 ·33. 1947 "Current proper names (manu�yanama ) in Pal)ini", Festschnft Mookerji, pp. 1 049·63. 1 949 "Pal)ini", JOR 1 9. 1 24·34. 1 950 "Pre·paninian technical terms". Festschrift Siddh esh war Varma 2, pp. 1 35-37. 1951 "Some chronological considerations about PiiI)ini's date", IHQ 27 269-86. 1 953a "Geographical data in PaT,lini", IHQ 29, 1 ·34. 1 953b " An ancient reference to Menander's invasion", IHQ 2 9 , 1 80-82. 1 9 56·57 "A note on pusya-malJ:ava", JOlB 6: 1 09 · 1 0. 1 963a India as known to pa/J.ini (a study of the cultural materia l i n the A Hadhyiiy[j2 (Yaranasi. Prithivi Prakashan). [First edition: (Lucknow, 1 953).1 [Originally delivered as the R adha Kumud MookeI)i lectures for 1 95 2 at the University of Lucknow. ] [Preface t o first edition, pp. xi·xv. Appendices: 1 : J anapadas and the Greek city-state, pp. 479-93; 2: A critical text of the geographical gal)as, pp. 449·52 1 , 3. Gotras, pp. 5 22·60, cf. Plate of punch·marked coins, opposite p. 5 6 1 ; key to plate, pp. 561 -63. Foldout maps of northwestern India, Panj ab , India at the time of paT,lini] .

17 1963b

Cotras in Pil}ini (an exposition with a critical text of the gotras in the Anadhyiyl) (Varanasi: Prithivi Prakashan).

1 969

Piif)inikiillna Bhiratavar�a (Astiidhyiyr kii: sirrskrtika adhyayana) ( VRCM 5 0) (Varanasi. Chowkhamba). [Hindi translation, by

[Separate issue of Appendix 3 in Agrawala ( 1 963).1 =

the author, of Agrawala ( 1 963a).] AkluJkar, Ashok Narhar 1 969 "Two textual studies of Bhartrhari", JA OS 89, 5 47·63 1 97 0a "Ancient Indian semantics", ABORI 5 1 : 1 1·29. 1 97 0b The philosophy of Bhartrhari's Trikiir;(lr [Harvard University dissertation, unpublished ; bibliography on Bhartrhari the gram­ marian, pp. 2 80·3 0 1 ] 1 97 1 a "Nakamura o n Bhartrhari", IIJ 1 3 : 1 6 1 ·7 5 1 97 1 b "Mahabha�ya·dipika or Tripadi? ", ALB 3 5 , 1 59-69. 1 97 1 c "The number of karikas i n TrikaJ)gl b o ok 1 " , JA OS 9 1 : 5 1 0- 1 3 . 1 97 2 "The authorship o f the Viikyapadiya-vrtti", WZKSOA 1 6 . 1 8 1 ·98. 1 974 "The authorship of the Viikya·kiiDga-tika" , Festschrift Charodeva Shastri, pp. 1 65-88. forthcoming Review of Scharfe ( l 97 1 a), OLZ. AI-George, Sergiu 1 95 7 " L e sujet grammatical chez Plli;lini" , SA O 1 : 39.47. 1966 "La fonction revelatrice des consonnes chez les phoneticiens de l'Inde antique", CL TA 3 : 1 1 · 1 5 . "The semiosis of zero according to Plli;lmi" , E W 1 7 : 1 1 5 ·24. 1 967 1 968 "The extra-linguistic origin of Plli;lini's syntactic categories and their linguistic accuracy", JOIB 1 8 : 1 ·7 . 1 969 "Sign (lak�at).a) and propositional logic in Plli;lini" , E W 1 9 : 1 76·93 , 1970 "L'Inde antique e t l e s origines d u structuralisme" , A CIL 10. 2 : 235.40. 1 97 1 " Lak�J)a, grammatical rule" , Festschrift K C. Chattopidhyiya, pp. 2 1 3·2 1 . 1 97 2 "Plli;lini and modern thought", SPISC 2 . 42.43. Alien, William Sidney 1953 Phonetics i n ancient India (= L OS 1 ) (London. Oxford Univer· sity Press). [reprint : ( 1 963)] 1955 "Zero and PaJ)ini" , Festschrift S. K. Chatterji p p . 1 06· 1 3 . 1 962 Sandhi, the theoretical, phonetic, and historical bases of word­ junction in Sanskrit (= Janua Linguarum, Series minor 1 7) (The Hague: Mouton).

18 Ananthanarayana, H . S . 1 969 "The feminine formation in Panini':, grammar" , Festschnft S. M. Katre 2, pp. 1 - 1 2, "The karaka theory and case grammar", IL 3 1 1 4-27 1 970 "A syntactic classification o f verbs i n PaJ;lini's grammar" , 1 97 2 AIeL 3 3 0. Anjaneya Sarma, V. "The sabda-brahman a n d t h e prasthana-traya", SVUOJ 8 ' 1 96 5 3 1 -3 5 . Arora, Sudarshan Kumari .. 1 969* Patafijali as a critic oj Katyiiyana and Pii(lini. [Delhi UniversIty dissertation, unpublished J Aryendra Sharma - Khanderao Deshpande - D. C . Padhye 1 9 69-70 ( Eds ) Kasika, a commen tary on Panini 's grammar by Vamana and Jayiiditya (Srl-vamana-!ayaditya-Jliracita pa(1in[yd.s{MhyayT­ sutra-vrttth kasika), 2 voL (= SAS 1 7, 20) (Hyderabad' Sans­

krit Academy, Osmania University). [ L adhyayas 1 -4, 2. adhy­ ayas 5-8) [ English introduction, vol . 1 v-vi , s ubject indices of chapters, vol. 1: x-xvi, voL 2. v-xvi] Athalekar, Shripad L * 1 9 74"1' Kasika-gatani udahara(1ani [ Examples in the Kasika, in Sanskrit] [University of Poona doctoral dissertation] Aufrecht. Theodor " 1 847 " De accentu compositorum sanskritorum [On the accent of Sanskrit compounds J ( Bonn Konig). [ In Lati n ] 1858 "Die Handschriften d e f PrauI- "Nipa.tartha.ninyaya" [The accepted conslusion regarding the meanings of particles ] , SS 24.4. 3 7 1 ·80, [In Sanskrit] 1 97 1 "Nafi-artha-vicarall", Sag. 1 0.2 2 1 9-23, [See also Hariscandra­ mani TripathI ( 1 970a),1 Hazra, Rajendra Chandra 1956 "Some observations on the repetition (anuvrtti) of 'sefil ' from PiiI).ini's rule �aHhl sese ", JASL 2 2 . 99· 1 3 L Heimann, Betty "Sphota and artha", Festschrift p, V. Kane, pp. 2 2 1 ·2 7 , 1 94 1 Herman, A. L. 1 962·63 "Sphota", JGJRI 1 9: 1 ·2 1 . Hertel, Johannes "Von pal).ini zu Phaedrus", ZDMG 6 2 ' 1 1 3- 1 8 . 1 908 Hillebrandt, Alfred 1918 "Zur Geschichte des indischen Dramas", ZDMG 7 2 : 227-3 2 . 1 927 "Die Anschauungen tiber das Alter des �gveda", ZDMG 8 1 ' 46-77 . Hiriyanna, M . "Vya�i and Vajapyayana", IHQ 1 4 : 2 6 1 -66. 1 938 Hockett, Charles Francis (Ed.) 1 97 0 A Leonard Bloomfield anthology (Bloomington Indiana Univer· sity Press). Hoffmann, Karl 1 974 "Pal)ini VII 2, 69 sanirp. sasaniviirpsam", MSS 3 2 : 73-80 1 97 5 "PiiI).ini V 4, 6 1 ativyathane", MSS 3 3 : 45·50. Insler, Stanley 1 963 Verbal paradigms in Patafijali: 250 roots and their paradigmatic derivations as used and discussed by Patafijali in the Mahabhatya. [Yale University dissertation, unpuQlished] . Isvaran Namputiri, 1 . 1 967 "VyakaraI;la·darsanam" [Philosophy of grammar] VS 4: 33945, [In Sanskrit] Iyangar, V. Krishnaswami: see K rishnaswami Iyangar, V, Iyengar, H . R. Rangaswami: see Rangaswami Iyengar, H. R . [yer, K, A . Subramania: s e e Subramania Iyer, K , A , Iyer, p, S , Vedachala. s e e Vedachala Iyer, p, S . Iyer, S. Venkitasubramonia: see Venkitasubramonia Iyer, S .

60 J acobi, Hermann 1 908 "MayiiraJJyarrzsaka ", ZDMG 62· 3 5 8-60. "The dates of the philosophical sutras o f the Brahmans", 191 1 JAOS 3 1 ] -2 9 . 1913 "Was ist Sanskrit? Scientia 1 4 2 5 1 -7 4 . 1 93 1 HUber das Alter des Yogasastra'" ZlI 8 8 0-88. J agannathaswamy A ryavaraguru, S . P . S . and Acharya BhaHanatha�wamy ( Ed .) 1 903-06 VyakarGl}amitakshara. a gloss on P(ll} illi's grammatical aphorisms ",

by Sri A nnambhana ( Vyakarana-mitdksara saD'a-tantra-SJJatan tra­ srimad-annGl!zbha{!a-pranitii) ( BSS 20 7 6 , 7 7 , 8 2 , 8 5 , 9 3 , 9 8 . oo

1 1 5, 1 2 1 , 1 1 26 ) ( Benares B ra] B . Das). [ M y c o p y d o e s not show the dates of the individual fascicles.) Jami, Padmanabh S. "The Vaibhasika theory o f words and meanings" . BSOAS 2 2 . 1 95 9 95- 1 07 . J ambuvijaya, Muni ] 95 1 a "Acarya Bhagavan Mallavadi-k�amasramana ane Bhartrhari-no samaya" [ Acarya Mallavadin and the date of BhartrhariJ , JSP 1 7 . 2 : 2 6-30. lIn Gujarati] [See also J ambuvijaya ( l 9 5 1 b) ] 1 9 5 1 b "Jainiicarya S ri Mallavadi ane Bhartrhari-no samaya" [ The Jaina teacher Mallaviidin and the date of Bhartrhari J , BP 9 8 . 1 1 . 332· 3 5 . [In GUJ arati l [ See also J ambuvijaya ( 1 95 1 a) . ] * 1 95 3 * "On the d ate of Bhartrhari, the author o f the Vakyapadlya", SPAJOC 1 4: 5 0-5 1 * 1 954'" "Bharqhari aur Dmnaga ka samaya" [The date of Dinnaga and Bhartrhari] NPP 60.3/4 227-33. lIn HllldiJ 1 96 1 (Ed.) Vaise�ikasutra of KGl:zitda with the commentary of ,

Candrananda (Candrdnanda-Yiracitaya praclnaya JJ!ttya samalahkrtam kGlJiida-pralJitarrz JJaise#ka-sutram) GOS 1 36) (Baroda: Oriental Institute ) . [Appendix 6: Vaise�ika works men­ tioned in Mallavadin's Naya-cakra and the commentary thereon. pp. 1 46-5 2 . J

1 966

(&1.) DJJadasararrz NayacakralJl of Acarya SrI Mallavadi K�ama­ sranlal}a with the commentary Nyayagamanusaril;l of Sri

Sirrzhasun' GalJi Vadi K�amasramalJa; edited with critical notes; part I (I - 4 aras) ( Tarkika-siromani-jina-sasana-JJadi-prabhaJJakdcarya­ pravara-sd-mallaJJadi-k�amasramalJa-pralJltam dJJadasaram naya­ cakram acarya-sr[..silJlhasuri-gaf/i-!,adi k�amasrama?1a-Yiracitaya nyayagamdrzusaril;zya vrttya samalankrtam, tippalJddibhiJ:t pari�krtaJ:t, prathamo vibhaga!; (1 4 ara!;)) (= AJGM 92) -

(Bhavnagar: Sri Jain Atmanand Sabha). [English introduction by

61 E. Frauwallner, pp. 1 -6 , Sanskrit pre face and Gu]arati intro­ duction by Jambuvijaya, pp. 743 , 44·89 , separately paginated preceding the text . ] J anacek, Adolf 1 95 8 "Two texts o f Patafijali and a statistical comparison o f their vocabulanes", Arch. Or. 26: 8 8 - 1 00. Janaklprasada Dviveda * 1 967'"

Paflin iya-vyakarafle sas tnya·sarrljfianarrt tatparya-vimarsab

(A study on the import of technical terms in PaI)ini 's grammar ] . [VaraI)aseya Sarpskrta Visvavidyiilaya dissertation, unpublished.j [In Sanskrit . ] "VyiikaraI)e lokasya p ramaqyam" [The authority of usage in grammar] , SS 24. 1 : 3 1 ·5 5 . [In SanskriL] "pat;lini.prayuktii icchiirthakal; kecana sabdiiJ:!" [Some words meaning 'desire' as used by PaI)ini] , Sag. 1 0. 1 : 1 05 · 1 2. [In Sanskrit.]

* 1 969 *

1 97 1

lani, A. 1 963

N.

"An emendation of a sutra of PaI)ini", JMSUB 1 2 ' 7 1 ·73. [Rule 7 . 1 .90] "The sivasutras and music", JOIB 1 5 : 400·02. 1 966 "Fresh light on PiiIJini's sutra 'tasyadita udattam ardhahrasvam' 1 97 1 (I. 2. 32)", Festschrift K. C. Cha.ttopadhyaya, pp. 26 1 -64. [See also A. N . Jani ( 1 972).] 1 972 "Fresh light on PaI)ini's sutra 'tasyadita u dattam ardhahrasvam"', PAJOC 24 (Varanasi, 1 968) : 257-5 9 . [See also A . N . Jani ( 1 97 1 ).] 1 974 "On the matra and the mode of recitation of an independent svarita", Festschrift Charudeva Shastri, pp. 77 ·8 l . l ayadatta S astr! ] 965 "paI)inrya�!aka·stha-pratyiihara-sutraI)iirp racayita" [The author of the pratyiihara·sutras of PiiI)ini's grammar, GKP 1 8 . 4: 237· 4 1 . [In Sanskrit,] [Dandekar ( 1 946 73): 3 : 1 7 7 , number 80.1 JayapaJa Vidyalankara 1 97 2 "Katyayana k e kala·nirdharaI)a merp devanarppriya sabda k a mahattva" [The importance of the word devanaf?1priya i n deter­ mining Kiityayana's date ] , JDSDU 1 .2 : 1 06·2 1 . [In HindL] 1 ayaswal, Kashi Prasad 1918 "Dates of PiiI)ini and Katyayana", IA 47 : 1 38 . "Katyayana and Piirthiva", IA 48: 1 2. 1919 1 943 Hindu polity; a constitutional history of India in Hindu times 2 (Bangalore: The Bangalore Printing and Publishing Company).

62 Jha, Madhukanta Sarma' see Madhukanta S arma Jha. Jha. Subhadra (Tr J History oj Indian literature by M. Winternitz, vol III, part 1I 1 967 (scientIfic literature); translated from the German into English with additions (Delhi' MotHal Banarsidass). (Translation of the second part of Winternitz ( I 920a).] Jha, Vedananda: see Vedananda Jha. Jhalak lkar, Bhlmacarya and Vasudev ShastrI Abhyankar Nyayakosa or dictionary of technical terms of Indian philosophy, 1928 by Mahamahopadhyaya Bhlmaciilya lhalaklkar; revised and re­ edited by Mahiimahopadhyaya Vasudev Shastrl A bhyankar (Nyaya-kosafJ (sakala-§astr6pakaraka-nyayildi-§astrlya-padrlrthaprakasakaf:!) )3 BSPS 49) (Poona: B O RI). Jilflasu, B rahmadatta: see Brahmadatta Jijflasu . Joshi (JoS!), B hargavasastrf BhikajI ( Ed.) Patarzjali's Vyiikaral}a Mahabhii�ya with Kaiyara 's Pradfpa and 1 942 Nageia 's Uddyota; vol. IV (adhyayas 4 5 l , edited with foo t­ notes etc. (SrTmad-bhagavat-patafi;ali-muni-viracitalfl pa�lin[ya­ vyakaral.1a-maha-bhasyam, etad-vyiikhyana-bhuta upadhyaya­ kazyata-pral}lto bhii�ya-pradlpas tad-vyakhyiina-bhiito nagesabhatia­ viracito bha�ya-pradTp6ddyota/:l, tatra caturtha-paficamrldhyaya­ vyakhyana-bhutalfl caturtha-khalJt;lam; ....... vi�ama-sthala­ /ippafllbhif:! piitha-bhedrldi-samdarianena ca sarrzbhu�ya sal?1skrtam) (Bombay: Nirnaya-Sagar Press). [Sanskrit introduction, pp. 1 -6, list of varttikas in the order of rules, pp. 425-50.J 1 94 5 Patafi;ali's Vyiikaral}a Mahabha�ya with Kaiyata's Pradipa and Nage§a 's Uddyota; vol. V [adhyaya 6] , edited with foot-notes etc. (Srlmad-bhagavat-patafijali-mahar�i-pral}hasya pal}inlya­ vyiikaral}G-maha-bhii�yasya sa�tho 'dhyaya�l, sa ca r�ikalp6padhyaya­ kaiyata-pranhena maha-bha�ya-vyiikhyanena prad{pena parh'(ta& sarva-tantra-svatantra-nagoJwhatta-krtena bhii�ya­ pradipa-vyakhyanen6ddyotety-anvartha-namadheyena samullasitas ca, prathamata/:l sthane-vidhi-mpalfl paficamalfl khaf}g.am; .. ... . vi�ama-sthala-tippalJya patha-bhedddi-mpefJa ca sarrzbhu$ya sarrzskrtam) (Bom bay: Nirnaya-Sagar Press). [Sanskrit introduction, pp. 1 - 1 8 , list of varttikas in the order of rules, pp. 3 73-92; list of Sloka-vaftttkas for the entire Maha-bhii�ya. pp. 393-400; alpha­ betic list of siltras discussed in this section, pp. 401 -04. J 1951 Srimad-bhagaJJat-patafijali-maharsi-prafJlte vyakaral'Ja-mahiibha�ye navrlhnikam, a�!adhyayl.prathamrldhyaya-prathama-pada­ vyakhyanam, srlmad-upadhyaya-kaiyata-nirmita-pradlpa-prakaiitam, .....

-

63 sarva-tantra-svatantra-srlman-nagesabhatta-viracit6ddyot6dbhasitam; . . . . . . .tippalJa-patha-bhedddi-pradarsana-puraskamJa pari�krtam)5

[Patafij ali's VyakaraJ)a Maha-bhasya with Kaiyata's Pradlpa and NageSa's Uddyota; voL 1 : naviihnikam, first pada of the first adhyaya, edited with foot-notes etc. 5 ] (Bombay . Nirnaya-Sagar Press). [Map of Aryavarta, facing p. 1 of introduction. Sanskrit introduction, pp. 1 -24. Indices: sutras, pp. 5 8 7-88 ; varttikas, pp. 589-99, particular words, pp. 60 1 -08.] Joshi, Dayashankar Madhusudan Prin ini's taddhita affixation roles. [University of Pennsylvania 1 969 dissertation, unpublished.} 1 97 1 "On expressing karakas, a propos of pal).ini 2 .3 . 1 " , IL 32: 1 07- 1 2 . Review o f Scharfe ( 1 97 1 a), IL 33. 94-97 . 1 972 J oshi, Sadasiva Sastr!, (Ed.) Th e VaiyiikaralJa Bhu�al}l1sara by M. JI.1. SrI KaUly;la Bhana with 1 93 9

the DarpatJa commentary by SrI Harivallabha, the Pari7qa com­ mentary by Bhairava Misra and a short commentary by Sri Kmla Mitra with Tih-artha-viida-siira by Sn Khudd! Jha Sarma, edited with notes, introduction etc. (MahiimahOpiidhyaya­ kaulJc;1a-bhat.ta-viracita� vaiyakaralJa-bhu�a;)a-saral; sn-han'vallabha­ viracita-darpara-{i'kaya mahamahOpadhyaya-palJc;1ita-srl-bhairava­ misra-krtaya pariK�a-.t[kayri sn-kr�ra-mitra-krta-bhu�ana-vyakhyaya parc;1ita-Sri-khuddi-jha-sarma-krta-tih-artha-vaaa-sam;.a ca sahitaM

( KSS 1 33) (Benares. Chowkhamba). [ Sanskrit introduction, pp. 1-6. Kr�l)a Mitra's commentary and the Tin-artha-vada-sara p rinted separately, following the text with other commentaries, p p . 443-57, 548-68. Indices: authors and works referred to, facing p . 468; verses of the text, pp. 1 .2, separately paginated.] =

1 94 6

Th e Parama Laghu Mafiju�a of NageSa Bhat.ta with notes by Sri Nityananda Pant ParvatTya; edited with the Arthad[pika commentary by Pandit sri Sadasiva Sarma Sastri£ (MahamahOpiidhyiiya-p [ar(iital -§ri-nage§abha.tta-krta-parama-Iaghu­ mailju�a, mahamahOpadhyaya-paIJ4ita-in..nityananda-panta­ parvatrya-krta-tippal;l[..sahita; sa ca joSfty-upahva-par(iita-sn.. sadasiva-sastrira satrlsodhita sva-/q'tartha-d[pikdkhya-vyakhyaya ca sal!lyojitii2) (:::: HSS 43) (Benares: Chowkhamba). M. M. Pt.

Sadasiva Sastri Joshi and Rama Candra J hii (Ed., commentators) 1 9 60 Sr[..varadarajacarya-viracita madhya-siddhanta-kaumud[ "sudha"­ "indumatl" - san;skrta·hind[..vyakhyopeta [Varadaraja's Madhya­ siddhanta-kaumudr with the Sanskrit commentary Sudhii of

64 Sadasiva S astrI J oshi and the Hindi commentary IndumatI of Rama Candra Jha] HSS 2 1 3) (Varanasi: Chowkhamba). [Sanskrit introduction by Sadasiva Sastri Joshi, pp 1 -6 . Indices works and schools mentioned, p. 1 , verses cited , pp. 1 - 2 , followmg the main text.] Joshi, Shivaram Dattatray Kaunc)abhatta on the meaning of Sanskrit verbs. [ Harvard Uni­ 1 960 versity dissertation, unpublished.] 1 962 "Verbs and nouns in Sanskrit", IL 2 3 . 60-63 "Two methods of interpreting PaIJini", PCASS-A 5 . l Also i n 1 96 5 JUP 2 3 ( 1 966) : 5 3 -6 1 ] 1 966a "Patafij ali's definition of a word an interpretation " , BDCRI 2 5 : 65-70. I Reprint : S . D . Joshi ( 1 969b).J 1 966b " A dj ectives and substantives as a single class in the 'parts of speech' " PCASS-A 9. (Also in JUP 25 ( 1 967) 1 9-30 ] 1 967 (Ed., tT.) The Sphotanin;aya (chapter xiv of the Vaiyiikaral;a­ ,

bhu!jalJasara) of KaulJc)abhatta; edited with introduction, trans­ lation and critical and exegetical notes (= PCASS-C 2)

1 968a

1 968b 1 969a

(Poona: University of Poona). [ In troductio n , pp. 1 -9 1 ; trans­ lation and notes, p p . 1 1 3-230; bibliography, pp. 23 1 -3 5 , Sanskrit index, pp. 2 37-43 . ] (Ed . , tf.) Patafijali's Vyakaral;a-mahiibha�ya samarthahnika

(P. 2. 1.1.); edited with translation and explanatory notes (::; PCASS-C 3) (Poona: University of Poona). [In troduction,

pp. i-xix. Translation and notes, pp. 1 -208. Indices' Sanskrit words, pp. 2 1 1 - 1 9 ; English terms, pp. 220-23 ] "Word-integrity and syntactic analysis", PCASS-A 20. [Also in JUP 2 7 ( 1 968): 1 65 .7 3 ] (Ed., tr.) Patafijali's Vyakara!Ja-mahiibhd�ya avyayibhiivatat­ puru!jahnika (P. 2. 1 . 2 - 2. 1.49); edited with translation and

explanatory notes by S. D. Joshi in collaboration with J. A. Roodbergen PCASS-C 5 ) (Poona: University of Poona).

1 969b 1 9 69c

F.

[Introduction, pp. i-xxvii. Translation and notes, pp. 1 ·2 3 8 . Indices: Sanskrit words, p p . 24 1 49 ; English terms, p p . 2 5 0-5 1 . In addition to the text of the Maha·bhii�ya, the Pradipa and Uddyota are also printed and translated.] "Patafijali's definition of a word : an interpretation", PICO 2 7 : 3 : 9 4·95. [See also S. D . J oshi ( l 966a).] "Sentence structure according to PaIJini", Festschrift R. N. Dandekar, pp. 1 4-26.

65 "Dhatusambandhe pratyayiil; (Pa. 3 .4. 1)" Ipal).ini's rule 3 .4. 1 ) , Festschrift Rajeshwar Shastri Dravid, grammar section , pp. 48-50. [In Sanskrit.] "pal).ini's treatment of karaka-relations", Festschrift Charudeva 1 974 Shastri, pp. 2 58-70. J oshi, Shivram Dattatray , and 1. A. F. Roodbergen (Ed., tr.) 1 969 see S . D. Joshi ( l 969a) 1 97 1 Patafijali's Vyiikara1)a-mahiibhri§ya karmadharayiihnika (P. 2. 1.51 - 2. 1. 72); edited with translation and explanatory notes (= PCASS-C 6) (Poona' University of Poona). [Introduction, pp. i-xxviii. Translation and notes, pp. 1 -258. Indices: Sanskrit words, pp. 259-7 1 ; English terms, p. 272. In addition to the text of the Maha·bha�ya, the Pradlpa is also printed and trans· lated.] 1 97 3 Patafijali's Vyakarafla-mahabha�ya tatpuru�ahnika (P 2.2.2 2. 2.23), edited with translation and explanatory notes PCASS-C 7) (Poona� University of Poona). [Introduction, pp. i·xxiv. Translation and notes, pp. 1 -25 1 . Indices: Sanskrit words, pp. 253-66, English terms, pp. 267-69. In addition to the text o f the Maha·bha�ya, the Pradfpa is also printed and translated. ] forthcoming Patafijali's Vyiikaral}a-mahabhii§ya karakahnika. [Mentioned as forthcoming in S. D. Joshi ( 1 974): 259, note 1 .] Joshi, Venkatesh Laxman 1 95 7 "Does the root 'nifij' belong to the seventh conjugation? " BDCRI 1 8 : 265-66. [Title and footnotes in English, text in Sanskrit.] 1 964 Praurjha Manoramd with commentary Sabdaratna; appendices 1 - 3 (::: DCMS 3 1 -A) (Poona: Deccan College). [Separate issue of appendices 1 . 3 of V. L. Joshi ( 1 966), with the pagination as given therein.] 1 965 "Piil).ini and the Piil).iniyas on saIpbita", Festschrift Sukumar Sen, pp. 66·7 1 . [Reprint : V. L. Joshi ( 1 969).] 1 9 66 (Ed.) Praurjha Manorama with commentary Sabdaratna critically edited; volume 1 (= DCMS 3 1 ) (Poona: Deccan College). [Sanskrit introduction, pp. 3·1 1 0. Appendices: 1 : citations in Vaidyanatha's Bhiivaprakiisa of noteworthy passages from H aridlk�ita, pp. 273·93; 2: other works of his own mentioned by the author of the Laghusabdaratna, pp. 295·306; 3: refu· tations of the Sabdaratna in the Laghusabdaratna, pp. 307·28: 4: technical terms, pp. 329-52 (part 1 : Sanskrit explanations 1 97 1

66

of Sanskrit terms, p p 3 3 0-45 , part 2 . Sanskrit glosses of English terms, pp. 346-50); 5 . 1 . unavailable works and their authors mentIOned in the S abdaratna, pp. 3 5 5 · 5 6 , 5. 2. works and authors mentioned in the Prau' gam-at -->' gacchat. ::;:

After iteration of the rule which introduces a second-triplet ending when an object is to be denoted, one derives

gaeehat-am (-+ gaeehantam) .

Ananthanarayana ( 1 970) compared pal).ini's grammar with case grammar. However, this is not a true comparison, since Ananthanarayana has simply carried into pal).ini's grammar the apparatus of case grammar as formulated by Fillmore ( 1 968), thereby omitting to note that, though case grammar is indeed possibly the dosest modern analog to Piil}ini's system, there are never­ theless important differences between the two. Cardona ( l 974b: 244-45) has briefly sketched one difference. the notion o f subject is absent from Pal}ini's system. In my opinion, Piil).ini's approach differs in an essential way from case grammar. In the latter, one is forced to posit surface categories such as subject or others, depending on the "surface phenomena" of individual languages . This is motivated, I think, in the first instance because the deep syntactico-semantic categories such as Agent, Object, have, in this system, to be defined in purely semantic terms. This requirement is, in turn, motiv­ ated by another attitude, namely that the grammarian is seeking to posit universal categories of language. It is, I think, dear that Pal}ini did not

234

rm. 1 .5 .7b ]

de fine his karaka categories in p urely semantic terms ( see section I I I 1 5 5c. l ). Nor is there a scintilla of evidence anywhere in the writings o f Palfiniyas or in Palfini's A�tadhyiiyi to suggest that they were seeking to posit universal categories of language. There aim was straightforward . to give a set of rules which account for correct Sanskrit usage. The same considerations I think serve to indicate that A. C. Sinha's (I 973) recent attempt to find in Piil.lini's system a system of generative semantics is at best misguided. In view of these recent attempts to read several modern theories into Panini's grammar, I think it worthwhile to consider possible reasons for this phenomenon. For I think most of the scholars who have propounded such views have done so in the honest belief that Par;tini indeed held the positions they attribute to him. Consider now the following features of par.tini's system. ( a) par.tini states rules of the type , "When meaning M is to be denoted. intra. duce affix A" (see section m . 1 .5 . 1 a) . (b) Among such rules are such as state, "When a n agent (obJect, etc ) is t o be denoted, introduce affix 1\" , s o that par.tmi operates with categories such as agent, obj ect the karaka categories (see section I I L 1 .5 .5c. 1 ). (c) The sentences (3) katar(l karoti 'He is making a m at.'

(4) kanharrl bhasma karoti 'He is turning the log to ashes: ( 5) gramarrz gacchati 'He is going to the village '

are all derived in precisely the same way , with the affix ·am introduced to denote an object, and given the same analysis' there is an object · action relation. This although the mat is an effected object (kiirya 'faciendum'), the log an affected object (vikiirya), and the village an object wluch is reached (priipya). (d) Panini relates utterances to each other (see section Ill . l .S . l a). Moreover, he distinguishes between items which, in an utterance actu ally used, have the same form. For example, (6) riijiia�l puru�a� 'king's man' and (7) odanasya pakta 'cooker of rice' both contain genitive forms. But in ( 6) the genitive affix is introduced to denote a relation (sarrzbandha), whereas in (7) it is introduced t o denote an

[IlL 1 . 5 . 7b 1

235

object (karman, see Cardona [ 1 970c: 2 29-30 n. 1 1 D. (e) Panini posits b asic bases and affixes which are replaced. For example, pas replaces drs 'see' and ina replaces the instrumental singular ending ii in given contexts. Taken separately , these can lead to certain conclusions. From (a) one could conclude that, since Pal)ini states meaning conditions as the first con­ ditions for derivations, he is indeed a generative semanticist. And this con­ clusion could appear to be supported by (b). However, once one considers all of Pal)ini's karaka categorization rules. it b ecomes clear that the karaka categories are not defined in purely semantic terms, so that this conclusion is attenuated. Moreover, had Pal)ini's principal emphasis been on semantics, one should expect him to make some explicit statement about the differ­ ences among sentences (3) - (5) of (c), differences well known to and dis­ cussed by PaI)iniyas (see Cardona [ 1 9 74b . 28 n. 7a and below, section HI. 2.6.2)). In addition, Pal)inj classes as agent (kartr) such things as an axe , so that sentences such as III L5 . l a (4) (devadatta odanan:z paeati) and III 1 .5 .5 c . 1 (7) (parasur vrk�an:z chinattz) receive the same analysis and deriva­ tion. On the other hand, Pal)ini does recognize a distinction between agents which are sentient beings (cittavat) and those which are not . He has a special rule ( 1 .3.88) whIch provides that only active endings occur after a causative verb i f the agent of the action denoted by the primitive verb is a sentient being (see Cardona [ 1 974b : 2 8 5 n. 2 8 ] ) . These facts are best accomodated as follows. Pa!)ini does indeed derive sentences and account for relations among sentences. However, his is truly a sabddnusasana (see section I I L 1 .5 . 1 b) For PaI)ini is principally concerned with accounting for forms which occur within sentences and the relations among such forms . In this context, the distinction between a sentient agent and one who is not is pertinent in that it is associated with a rule of the grammar which provides for the use o f affixes. B u t a distinction among effected, affected, and reached objects i s not pertinent to the afflxation rules which serve t o derive (c) (3) - ( 5 ) above. O f course, this distinction is not merely semantically pertinent but also syntactically pertinent, since (4) can answer to the question kiiNhasya kin:z karati 'What is he doing to the log? ', but (3) and (5) do not answer similar questions. However, this distinction is not grammatically pertinent in the context of PiU)ini's system. For here a grammatically pertinent dis­ tinction is one which requires a particular rule of affv{ation, affix replace­ ment, suppletion, or augmenting. And this gets to the core of PaI)ini's system, the grammar provides derivations in terms of bases and afflxes (see section HI. 1 . 5 . 1 a).322 From this one might conclude that Pal)ini's grammar deals essentially with morphology, in an item-and-process way at that, as shown by (e). But this is an untenable view, since Pru;ini does deal with

236

rIIL L S .7b

IIL LS .7cl

syntactic relations and relations among certain sentences. Again, since PalJini does indeed relate sentences such as m . I 5 . 1 a (3) (4), one might conclude that he was a transformationa1ist (cL Staal [ 1 967 3 9 ] ). But this too is an untenable view. PalJini does not derive one sentence from another, nor does he operate with actual embedding to derive a sentence such as ( 1 ) derived from (2) given above. My point is this. As one blind man, touching the trunk of an elephant, might say he is t ouching a snake, whereas another, t ouching the elephant's legs, might say he is among trees, yet the elephant remains what he is, so have the modern authors whose views I have noted looked only at parts of PiilJini's system in isolation, concluding therefrom that Panini was this or that. None of these views is without some foundation, yet none of them is fully acceptable either. The fault l ies in taking some small part of the system, comparing it with a modern system, and concluding that the two are indeed the same. 1 .5 .7 c . A note regarding methodology. There has arisen recently a controversy based, in the first instance, on a misunderstanding. Thieme ( 1 9 6 1 ' x) warned against a temptation on the part of modern linguists "to be more interested in our own theories concerning the Sanskrit grammarians than their actual teachings ." This sentiment was echoed by R. Rocher ( 1 968a. 3 39) who noted though without referrmg that scholars often too quickly make comparisons of Indian to Thieme grammarians' statements with other systems before the former are themselves sufficiently well understood. Cardona ( 1 969 ' 3) reiterated Thieme's warning in Thieme's own words and said that "the comparisons of this kind that have been made (e.g. Misra [ 1 966] , Staal [ 1 967 ] ) risk both being super­ ficial and committing the error alluded to by Thieme . . . " Staal unfortunately understood such statements - Cardona's in particular in a manner different from the one in which they were intended. He believes that two claims were being made: "The first is that the Sanskrit grammarians have in the past been studied by philologists but neglected by linguists. The second, turning the previous supposition into a principle of research, is that the materials have first to be made available and interpreted by philologists before they can be evaluated by linguists" ( Staal [ 1 97 2 : xi, cL 1 970� 507 ] ) . As has subsequently been noted (Cardona [ 1 973e: 46-47] , R. Rocher [forthcoming aD, this is not what was claimed by Tlueme, Rocher, or Cardona. None of them has claimed that the grammarians were earlier not studied by linguists such as Whitney or Bloomfield. Nor have they made this a principle of research. What they have warned against is simply a hasty superimposition of modern systems onto Indian grammarians such as PiilJini. That some theories have been read

[HL L S ,7c]

237

into Pal)ini without sufficient j ustification is, I think, patent (see section U L L S ,7b), I agree on this point with R. Rocher, who speaks (forthcoming

a) of "a genuine concern that hurried comparisons between familiar Western methods and partly understood Indian methods may distort have distorted

and in fact

the interpretation of Pal,1inian grammaL"

A lustorical note is in order in this context. In the last quarter of the nineteenth century there were scholars like Bhandarkar, Kielhorn and his student Liebich, who truly understood Pal,1ini's grammar and communicated their ideas. Of the scholars of that epoch who dealt with Pal,1ini, however, only Whitney can, I think, be saId to have had an interest in purely linguistic questions and an insight into them. And in the early twentieth century only Bloomfield among scholars working in Pal,1ini can be considered to have had a particular attitude towards linguistic questions,32 3 But Whitney, though I think he had a deeper insight into the methodological aspects of Pal,1ini's grammar than his contemporaries, was totally unsympathetic and arrogant. he did not like what he saw in pal).ini b ecause it did not agree with his concept of grammar or Sanskrit, hence he rejected it outright. And Bloom­ fiel d devoted almost none o f his scholarly energies to questions concerning

pal).ini's system per se . This is tragic, For, at the time Whitney was addressing lus polemics against scholars like B6htlingk and Liebich (see section I I U .S .8), great insight might have resulted from a scholarly exchange if Whitney's opponents had been able to answer his more theoretical objections - such as his dismissal of the karaka theory (see section IIJJ .S .5 c J ) - with equal insight The result has been that there has indeed developed a chasm between

those who know Pat;lini well but have little interest

in

questions of a purely

linguistic and theoretical nature and those who, though interested in these questions, know little Sanskrit and less pat;lini. These scholars, if they show any interest in Pat;lini's work at all, have to depend on translations, which are themselves inadequate (see section IIL L 2 . 1 ) . Moreover, of the great mass of commentatorial literature of the Pat;liniyas, in which all maj o r questions are discussed thoroughly and in wluch are also treated many questions of contemporary interest, only recently has there begun to appear a small num· ber of trustworthy translations. It is perhaps impossible for a student of pal).ini who also has some famil­ iarity with some modern theories completely to avoid seeking parallels or to interpret what he studies in the light of what he knows. And the situation I have outlined above makes this all the more probable. Yet an effort can and should be made, I think, to make broad comparisons only after one has considered Pat;lini in toto.

[IILl 5,8 ' IlL L5 , 8a J

238 1 .5.8

Evaluations of Pa(lini 's grammar and its purpose

and not In evaluating Pal/jni's grammar as a description of a language from the point of view of theoretical models -- one lla$ to accept that he mdeed describes a real language In connection with this three major que�­ Hons have been the objects of discussioll, With what known specimens of Sanskrit does the grammar most closely accord? What is meant by the term bhii§a in Pal)ini's rul e s ) And is one j ustified in speaking of a "gl ammm ian s ' Sanskrit"0 �

1 ,5 8a, The language described by Pa(lilli The ba,ic work in comparing P anini's rules and What they provide with the language represented in literary text s was done by Liebich ( 1 886-87, 1891), who was followed b y Franke ( 1 890b) and Wecker ( 1 906) 324 Liebich's principal conclusion ( 1 89 1 : 47) was that the language described by Pa1)ini was syntactically as good as identical with the language of the brahma!)as and sutra texts.3 2 5 That Pa!)ini's description of how the aorist was used tallied closely with the use of the aorist in the Aitareya-bl ahmal)a had earlier b ee n pointed out by R. G , Bhandarkar ( 1 8 64 (== 1 92 7·33 2 , 41 6-1 9 ) , see also 1 88 5 ['" 1 927-33 1 : 1 59-6 1 ] ) , In his grammar PaI)ini uses the term bhii�a (bhasiiyam " in t h e bha�a"). Franke ( 1 8 9 1 5 5 -78; cf. 1 890b . 1 1 7-20) took up the rules in which Pa1)ini uses this and came to an interesting conclusion. According to Franke , bha�a refers to a real language But it is a spoken language, SanskI it, of a type which Pamni himself would not consid e r exemplary . As for PaI)ini's Sans­ krit, says Franke it is really neither bhii;;a nor a living l anguage For the A�radhyaYI does not teach a single organic language : Pal/ lui has taken from both a living language and secondary sources, 3 2 6 F ranke s view was rejected, I think correctly, by Liebich ( I 892 xxv), although Whitney ( 1 893a: 1 75) accepted it as " re asonable and safe" . Uebich ( 1 89 1 ' 48) held what is now probably the most generally accepted view, namely that pal).ini's bhasa w a s a spoken language - though perhaps not a common vernacular - and a model for his rules, V , S . Agrawala ( 1 9 63a' 3 1 9 , 3 5 4) was also of this o p inion blul§a refers to the Sanskrit spoken by the culture d (iiq(a ) model speakers. Renou ( 1 94 1 : 1 9 5 5 1 1 4- 1 5) again studied PiiI)ini's use of this term, but without reaching any definite conclusions (cf. Renou [ 1 96 9 , 492-93 ] ) . M o s t recently S . S e n ( 1 970: 1 0- 1 2) has denied that Pal,1ini re­ ferred to a spe cific language at all, claiming instead that " , , , it is evident that Bhii,sii in the siitras of Papini indicates the 'style' of d i scourse I do not think this is incompatible with the communis opinio, which I consider acceptable, namely that bhii�a in the A�tadhyayr refers to the spoken Sans­ krit of model speakers, There remains some work to be d one conc erning the contexts of rules in which this term is used, 327 .

,

,

'

,

,

."

[Ill. 1 .5 . 8b - UU .5 .8c]

239

J 5.8b. "Grammarians ' Sanskrit ". The major proponent of the view that there was a "grammarians' Sanskrit" was Whltney . Before him, B enfey ( 1 874: 3-4) had spoken of two legacies of India. Vedic, a language without a grammar, and a most wonderful grammar without the language on which it was b ased . 3 2 8 Whitney himself ( 1 884 282 [= Silverstein 1 972' 290]) spoke of "the subject o f Hindu grammatical science, a peculiar dialect of Sansknt , different both from the pre-claSSical dialects and from the classical , and standing either between them or beside them in the general history of Indian language." This is not to say that Whitney believed Panini had somehow invented a fictional l anguage. On the contrary. Whitney's attitude, as far as I can discern from his writings, is as follows. pal).ini des­ cribed a real language . 329 However, this language was not a vernacular in the normal stream of Indic development; it was a learned dialect , 3 30 which suffered fro m pedantry at the hands of grammarians: "Moreover, as soon as it took on the character of a learned dialect, it b egan to be stiffened into something a little unnatural; no dialect ever fell into the hands of grammar­ ians without suffering from their pedantry" ( 1 893a: 1 76). It is on account of this, T surmise, that Whitney ( 1 893a: 1 8 1 ) distingUished "between the purely hypothetical 'grammarians' Sanskrit' and the Sanskrit of the l iterature" As opposed to Wlutney, most other scholars have maintained that PiiIjini described not only a real language but one that was in current use at his time among certain strata, not necessarily just among grammarians; see Gold· stucker ( 1 86 1 : 1 98 , 2 1 6), Burnell (1 875: 1 09), Bohtlingk ( 1 887a: xviii), K . B Pathak ( 1 930. 77·78), Thieme ( 1935a: 8 1 ), Renou ( 1940a. 9 ; 1 94 1 : 248 n . 1 ) . I n fact, Whitney's thesis i s hardly tenable i n the terms he put it. For he claimed that paI).ini sanctioned forms wluch were either "barbaric" or simply not part of Sanskrit, and these claims are not proper (see section BtU .8c). 1 .5 .8c. Deficiencies seen in the grammar. Whitney attacked Piil)ini's grammar from two points o f view. He asserted ( 1 893a' 1 76) that pal).ini left his grammar "abounding in errors, both of omission and commission" and that he couched his description in a form "which is one that no sensible man should ever have chosen . . : In judging the correctness o f PaJ;lini's description, Whitney exhibited both his linguistic prejudices and more than a little arrogance . He had his own ideas about what should be considered correct Sanskrit. For example, he branded a "barbarism" the use of forms such as prabhavatitariim 'is quite powerful', in whlch a finite form (prabhavati) is followed by the compar· ative suffix tara (Whitney 1 889: 47 1 ). Speijer ( 1 886: 1 8 9 n. 1 ) and Liebich ( 1 89 1 : 6 1 ) chided Whitney for this and pointed out that such forms were '

240

rm.L5 .8c]

provided for b y Pal)ini and used by authors such as Kalidasa, to which Whitney retorted ( 1 893a' 1 92). "Now I maintain, and without any fear of successful contradiction, that such formations, no matter who authorizes them, are homble barb arisms, offenses against the proprieties of the univer· sal Indo·European speech." Such assertions of Whitney's were later properly criticized by K. C. ChattefJ ! ( 1 95 2 ; 1 953). On the other hand. there are areas which require additional research. Recently Palsule ( 1 968) and Laddu ( l 97 1 a) have discussed the question of possible omissions in Pal)ini's gram· mar. Palsule ( 1 968: 1 5 1 ) j udiciously notes that it is difficult to determine precisely where Pal)ini drew the line between items he would derive by his rules and those which, either because he treated them as derived with Ul).· adi affixes (see section III.1 A.l b) or because he considered them obscure with respect to derivation, he left unmentioned. Laddu is less cautious and concludes ( 1 97 1 a . 3 22) that there are two pairs of forms concerning which "the early grammarians appear to be severely diverging from the recorded literary usages extant before us." Whitney's p rincipal target in accusing Palfini and Paninlyas of unreliability was the dhatu-patha (see sections I II . L2.2, III.L3.5). He set forth his views in 1 88 4 (282-84 [= Silverstein 1 9 7 2 : 290-92] ) , but had a rrived at them some years before, since by 1 879 his student Edgren had written his disser­ tation ( Edgren 1 88 2 , see Whitney [ 1 8 84 : 283] [= Silverstein 1 9 7 2 : 29 1 ] ) separating the "real" from the "fictitious" roots o f Sanskrit. The main points of Wlutney's - and Edgren'S - are as follows. Of the nearly two thousand roots of the dhatu-patha as published by Westergaard ( 1 8 4 1 ) and B6htlingk ( 1 88 7a) more than half are not attested in literature. Some might occur in texts not yet found (in Whitney's day), but certainly not the entire remamder. Others may have been pOSited as bases for derivatives, but such instances are not too numerous. Liebich ( 1 89 1 : 5 1 -5 2) and B ohtlingk ( 1 893) answered Whitney, but their arguments were not strong. For example, Liebich pointed out that an attack on Pal)ini should not be concentrated on the dhatu·patha, since this is not the strongest or most trustworthy part of the A?tadhyay!, liable to interpolatIOn . Whitney retorted scathingly , speaking of "this free and easy way of disposing of the subject" ( l 893a: 1 83). Whitney was cautious and anticipated avenues of escape from his objections. He envisaged, as I noted, that some roots were posited not because finite forms derived from them were used but because they served as bases for deriving nominal forms (see already Westergaard [ 1 84 1 : Viii] ) . He also anti­ cipated that some of the roots in question might appear in texts yet to be edited. Von Schroeder ( 1 879, 1 895) did indeed make known such forms in a Vedic text.

[llL 1 .5 .8c]

241

Another approach was yet to b e explored fully' roots given in the dhiitu­ pii�ha might appear in their Middle Indic shapes and be attested in Middle and even Modern Indic. This approach was used by Buhler ( 1 894) and, following him, Franke ( 1 894a).331 In addition, Kittel ( 1 893; cf. 1 89 5 . 8 1 -82) proposed to show that the dhiitu-pa�ha contained Dravidian roots. Two of these approaches the positing of roots to account for nominal derivatives and the occurrence of later lndic forms - have been investigated more fully by Palsule ( 1 961 . 208-1 3) ; and S. M. Katre ( 1 944: 65-72; cr. 1 9 3 8-39 : 485-86) considered Middle lndicisms. However, Palsule ( 1 9 6 1 : 2 1 3) admits that questions remain unanswered and that one has ultimately to resort to the hypothesis of lost literary texts. He nevertheless concludes ( 1 96 1 : 2 1 5-16) that it is unproductive simply to speak of fictitious roots. The most ambit­ ious work in the direction noted is by Bhaglratha Prasada Tripathl ( 1 965), wherein the author gives an alphabetically arranged catalog of roots found in different dhatu-pathas together with attestations - verbal and nominal forms in Sanskrit, PaIi, Aprabhrarpsa, other Prakrts, and also Hindi and Bundeli (see 1 96.5; eha). Bhaglratha Prasada Tripathi's professed aim ( 1 965. ea) is to refute Whitney's claims. More recently, R . Rocher ( 1 9 68b) has reconsidered the approach adopted by Buhler and others. After p ointing out some factual errors in Edgren's and Buhler's studies, she notes (l 968b: 705) that it is wrong to think that pal).ini or a successor of his should have included in the dhatu-patha large numbers of non-Sanskrit roots.332 How­ ever, she does admit that middle-Indicisms which had been adopted in Sans­ krit could be admitted by the grammanans. Rocher ends with a worthwhile appeal: more detailed work has to be done on the commentaries to the dhatu-patha. In my opinion the present state of this particular issue is as follows. It is admitted that the dhiitu-patha as now known contains roots form s of which do not occur in literary Sanskrit texts. However, it is also accepted that some Middle Indic can account for some roots. Moreover, the dhatu­ patha suffered interpolations. Before one can come close to a final answer, more studies are required on the commentaries through which we know the dhatu-patha, aimed at reachmg, if possible, a critical edition of this text. In any case, no knowledgeable scholar would now hold the view that the dhatu-patha reflects wholesale and willful fabrication by grammarians bent on propagating their pedantically ossified "grammarians' Sanskrit". Very few scholars followed Whitney in his extreme criticisms, although others did remark on the alleged strangeness of Pat;tini's system (Foucher [ 1 900: 946]) or even the lack of system (Jacobi [ 1 9 1 3 : 265-66]). However, a recent work by Narendra Chandra Nath (1 969) is very Whitneyesque in its approach. The author's main thesis is that PiiJ!inj's description is unsatis-

242

[Ul . L S 8c

.

I I Ll .5 8d I

factory, and he goes to great lengths to prove this for all aspects o f the grammar . However, Nath's work is characteriLed by a naivete concerning grammatical method and an unwillingness to accept basic presuppositions of PaJ;lini's system which severely attenuate all his conclusions Two ex­ amples will illustrate this. Nath claims ( 1969 . 29) that the items avara etc., which PaI)ini classes as pronominals (sarvaniiman, see section I I I J 3 6 c) should not be so classed , so that Panini's defmition of sarvaniiman 'pronoun' is too broad . Although Nath recogniLcs the obvious, namely that avara be­ haves like other pronominals slIch as tad with respect to grammatical opcr­ ations, still he says, "But outward appearance need not be the testing ground for deciding parts of speech ," as though it were not proper to place items in a class on the b asis of shared operations. Again, Nath ( 1 969. 33) argues that PaI)ini's definition o f a p ada ( see note 1 5 1 ) as an item which terminates in a nominal or verbal ending is improper because there are forms such as pita 'father' (nom. sg.) which contain no ending. Nath of course admits, as he must, that here an ending has indeed been intro­ duced and then deleted. He insists nevertheless that this is improper be­ cause, if such deletion is admitted, "then anything can be admitted any­ where." However, Nath does not, indeed he cannot, demonstrate that Paryini indulged in such unprincipled procedures. 333 .

,

L5.8d. On the origins and purposes of grammar. I n recent years there has arisen a controversy concerning the origins and purposes of Indian grammars, Pii�ini's in p articular . In the introductory sec­ tion of the Mahii-bha§ya, Katyayana and Patanjali note that one of the pur­ poses of grammar i, merit (dharma) obtained through the knowledge and use of correct speech ( see Tlueme [ 1 93 1 : 29-3 2 ] , Biardeau ( 1 9 64a: 3 5·3 6]) Indeed, PaI)iniyas consider grammar not only a means whereby correct usage is taught and discriminated from incorrect usage but also a means of attain­ ing ultimate release (mok.j'a ).3 34 This is obviously connected with a general Indian attitude towards knowledge and speech. Scharfe ( 1 961 a. 1 0) stressed the magical purpose of grammar, basing his claim on a passage from the Maha-bha�ya where Pal:Iini is said to have sat in a pure place facing east, with a ring of Kusa grass around his fourth finger,335 when he composed his grammar. Staal ( 1 963: 2 5 6) reacted strongly against this and objected to the "trend to discern 'magico-religious' backgrounds in everything Indian," to which Scharfe ( 1 97 1 a: 5 n, 42) responded by saying that he had merely been setting down Patafij ali's view. 336 I agree that Staal has missed the point to an extent. His contention ( 1 963: 2 5 6) that PirJini's assuming this attitude is comparable "with the fact that some Western professors put on their gown before they teach" is not to the point. There is clearly more in

rm.1 .5.8d

m .2 . ! J

243

the Indian's attitude towards grammar. Yet I also think a bit of subtlety is required in considering this question Though it IS true that an Indian grammarian attached a deeper purpose to grammar, this does not mean he had to seek all his ideas in his ritual background. The degree of influence on grammar of this ritual is a possible area of research. But I do not think it proper or profitable simply to assume or insist that every aspect of gram­ mar has a religio-ritual origin (see section III.! 5 . 5c.1 ) . 1 .5.8e. Conclusion. Panini's grammar has been evaluated from various points of view. After all thesc different evaluations, I think the grammar merits asserting. with Bloomfield ( 1 933' 1 1 ), that it is "one of the greatest monuments of human intelligence. "

2.

THE MAHA·BHA�Y A.

2 . 1 . General introductIOn: early commentaries. It is common in India that an author composes an autocommentary on his work. In the case of a grammar, an explanation (vyiikhyana) of rules con· sisted , according to Patafij ali (Kielhorn [ 1 880·85: L 1 L 22-23, 1 2. 24-26]), o f the following: an analysis of a rule into its components; 337 suppletion of items necessary to the understanding of the rule; 338 citation of examples (ud(iharmJa) and counterexamples (pratyudaharalJa) illustrating how the rule operates. It is possible that Patafij ali himself knew of such commentaries on the MtadhyayL 3 3 9 And there is some support for supposing this. For ex­ amp le, III his discussion of rule 3 . 3. 1 3 1 , Patafij ali says (Kielhorn [ 1 880-85 : I' 1 5 8. 7 ]), "Only the L·suffJx [at (that i s , a form containing this) i s given as an example (of the rule)" (!at:! eV6dahriyate). Now, the preceding dis· cussion does not contain such a citation . Yet Patafij ali directly uses the form udahriyate "is given as an example" . Kaiyata comments on this and notes that Patafijali assumes such an example to have been given in running com­ men taries (vrtti) on the lUies (Vedavrata [ 1 962-63: I I I : 347] : vrtti�v iti bhavab) . Renou ( 1 940a: 1 1 , 1 969: 486) unequivocally assumed that such a commentary contemporary with Pawni did at one time exist , see also Yudhisthira Mima:q1saka ( 1 973: I: 437). R. S. Bhattacharya ( l 9 5Sa) devoted a study to a consideration of such ancient vittis, including the ones which, he assumed, were cited in the Mahii-bhii�ya. Bhattacharya proposed (1955a: 174) some ways of determining when Patafij ali cites such an old vrJ:ti. For example, when Patafijali says kim ihOdaharar:zam "What is an example for

[BU . 1

244

m.2.2. l l

this rule? " and goes on to give an example, this is supposed to belong to an old vftti. Mangala D eva Shastri ( 1 947) noted that the Siddhanta-kaumudi (see section IV.3.2) replaces traditional examples for rules with sectarian ex­ amples, while the Kasikii ( se e section IV.2 . l ) generally agrees in its examples with the Maha-bha�ya. He proposed ( 1 94 7 . 3 36) that this is satisfactorily explained "only by assuming the pre-exi:>tence of a common stock of tradit­ ional udaharaf}as " 340 On the other hand, Thieme ( 1 932 2 4 1 -42) be­ lieved that at Patafij 3!i's time there were no such vrttis. However, his em­ phasis is on the fact that Patafij ali does not directly refer to such commen· taries using the term vrtti. Whether or not one accepts the existence of an auto commentary by Pavini or of vrttis either contemporary with him or earlier than Patafij ali, the fact remains that the earliest extensive discussion of Pavini's rules pre­ served to us now are contained in the varttrkas of Katyayana, which them­ selves are known as cited and discussed in Patafijali's Maha-bhawa. This text 341 is not, however, a true commentary on the grammar. Katyayana and Patafijali do not explain all rules, with examples to show how they operate They discuss the validity of rules. how they are stated, their rela­ tions to other rules, and whether some rules or parts of them can be elim­ mated without harm and additional rules need to be stated.

2.2. Editions, translations, and indices of the Mahii·bhri�}'a and its commentaries. 2.2. 1 . Editions.

The standard edition of the text alone of the Maha-bha�ya is Kielllorn's ( 1 880-85). This has been reedited by K. V. Abhyankar ( 1 962-72), who has

added some notes, entered accents where these are pertinent to the discus­ sions, and cited the text of rules where Kielhorn had earlier given only the number of each rule referred to but not directly cited in the course of a discussion. The earliest extant commentary on the Maha-bha�ya is by Bhartrhari (see section V 2 . 3) , a commentary to which K aiyata was indebted (see Vedavrata 1 962·63: I: 1 ) . Only one. poor, manuscript of this work is available. The text has been edited recently by Abhyankar and Limaye ( 1 967b, 1 969) and. in part, by Swaminathan ( 1 965); see also Kielhorn ( 1 880·85 . n· introduction, pp. 1 2-20). A dissertation (5. S. Dwivedi 1 974) has recently been devoted to this text. The question has arisen whether B hartrhari's was a commentary on the entire Maha-bha�ya or only on the first three quarter-chapters (piida). 34 2 .

[HL2.2.1 - m.2.2.2 1

245

Renou ( 1 940a' 24) held the former view, but A klu]kar ( 1 97 1 1 68-9) has presented evidence in support of the second view, arguing that the text is correctly to be called the Tripadi "collection of three padas". 343 The two major commentaries on the Maha-bhasya preserved in full are the Maha-bha�ya-pradipa or simply the Pradipa b y K aiyata (early eleventh century) 344 and the Maha·bha�ya-pradrp6ddyota - or simpJy U ddyota by NagesabhaHa. 345 The latter is in the first instance a commentary on th� Pradipa, b ut NageSa often differs from Kaiyata and offers what he considers the proper interpretation of a Maha-bha?ya passage . An excellent though in­ complete edition of the Mahii-bha('ya with the Pradipa and the Uddyota and also excerpts from the Chiiya commentary by Nagesa's student Vaidyanatha was produced by Bhargavasastrl Joshi ( 1 942, 1 945 , 1 9 5 1 ) , S ivadatta Kudala ( 1 9 1 2). and Raghunatha S arma - Sivadatta KUdala ( 1 937). Part of the Maha­ bha�ya with the Pradipa and Uddyota was also edited by S ankar Siistri Marulkara ( 1 938). A complete edition of the Maha.bha?ya with the two maj or commentaries noted was produced by Guruprasada S astrl ( 1 938) and, more recently, by Vedavrata ( 1 962-63).346 Kaiyala's Pradipa was also com· mented on by the polymath Annambhatta ( I 7th century, see Bodas [ I 9 1 8: hii-Iv] ) in his Maha-bha�ya.pradlp6ddyotana (Uddyotana). The first nine iihnikas of this were edited by P. P. S. Sastri ( 1 948) and T. Chandrasekharan ( 1 9 5 2) . A new edition of this commentary has been started by M. S . Narasimhacharya (I 973), who is also editing other commentaries on the Pradlpa - the Vivaral/a, B rhad-vivaralJa and NarayalJIya - in addition to the Ratna-prakiisa, another commentary on the Mahii-bhii�ya. 347 Rudradhara J ha ( 1 954) edited the first nine iihmkas o f the Mahii·bhii�ya with the Pradlpa, the Uddyota and his own comments on all three called Tattvaloka. 2.2.2.

Translations.

There is only one complete translation of the Mahii·bha�ya, the Marathi translation by V. S. Abhyankar edite d by his son (see Abhyankar Abhyankar [ 1 93 8.54 D. This includes also the text of the Mahii-bhii�ya and notes. P. S. Subrahmanya Sastri ( 1 95 1 ·62) undertook what was intended as a full English translation of the text, but finished only 28 iihnikas (to rule 2 4.85). This translation is not very useful to one who is not already fam· iliar with the A�!iidhyayI and the complexities of the argumentation which is portrayed in the M ahii-bhii�ya. For it is a literal translation with almost no annotations, however necessary , and Sanskrit terms are often left un· translated. At the other end of the spectrum is the English translation begun by S D. J oshi ( 1 968, 1 969a) and continued in collaboration with J. A. F. Roodbergen ( 1 97 1 ; 1 973; Roodbergen . J oshi [ 1 974 D. Literal translations

246

[m.2.l.2l

are here accompanied b y extensive notes clarifying the arguments involved. Charudeva Shastri ( 1 968) has translated into Hindi, with annotations, the first nine ahnikas, and the first five iihnikas have been translated into Hindi by Madhusudana Prasada Mishra ( 1 967). The first five iihnikas were trans· lated int o German by Trapp ( 1 933), an unsatisfactory work which Thieme criticized ( l 93 5 b ' 1 73 n. 2 et passim, see Thieme [ 1 9 5 6 ' 20 n. 5 0 ] ). K. V. Abhyankar and J. M Shukla ( 1 9 68 ) have begun an English translation of which the first fascicle ( containing the first iihnika) has appeared and in which extensive references are given to Bhartrhari's commentary on the Mahii·bha?ya ( section H I . 2 .2 1) The introductory chapter of the Maha·bha�ya the Pasasa has also becn translated by Danielssohn ( 1 883) an d K. C. Chatter}! (1957). The latter is t o b e singled out for its extensive notes. The collaborative effort of Renou and OJihara ( 19 60-62 . Oj ihara [ 1 967a]), though ostensibly only a translation of the Kiisika (see section IV .2 . 1 ), contains useful and extensive summaries of the materials in the Maha·bha�ya which form the b ackground of the Kiisika's statements. Ojiliara ( 1 9 5 8-60, 1 9 6 1 , 1 96 3 , 1 965a) has also devoted several papers to detailed translations of some Mahii-bha�ya discussions Two such discussions were also translated and studied by Geiger ( 1 908) and Thieme ( 1 93 5b) Shefts ( 1 9 6 1 : 1 8-38 ) has translated extracts from the Maha·bha�ya o n rules ( 3 . 1 . 67-83) which deal with the introduction of post-verbal affixes such as the -{1- of pac-a-ti 'is cooking'. More recently, R Rocher ( 1 968a) has paraphrased the Maha­ bhiisya arguments on restrictive rules concerning the distribution of paras· maipada and iitmanepada affixes (see section U l . 1 . 5 . 5 b . l ). Wezler ( 1 9 69) also cites and translates passages relative to the metarules he has studied. And Cardona ( 1 97 3 b : 1 1 -32 ; 1 97 4b : 2 5 4-79) has given paraphrases with explanations of the Maha·bha�ya discussions on rules 1 .4. 1 05·08, 1 .4 . 2 3 , varttlkas 1 2· 1 5 on 3 . 1 .7 , varttikas 5 , 8 -1 0 on 3 . 1 . 8 7 , and varttikas 7-9 on 23. 1 . Two short but important passages were translated by Renou ( 1 95 6a 76-80) the Maha-bha�ya on 6.3.1 09 , in which Patanjali takes up what is meant by iista ('elite, educated', that is, speakers of correct Sanskrit) and on 2.4.56, a famous passage in which i s presented a short dialogue b etween a charioteer and a grammarian, the l atter being one who knows what the grammar provides but not necessarily what is reqUired (i�ta 'desired') by correct usage. Of special interest have been passages from the Maha-bha$ya wherein are discussed questions of general linguistic and philosophical import (see section m.l.6.3). Such passages have been translated and studied by V. G. Paranjpe ( 1 922), Strauss ( l 927b), Frauwallner ( 1 960), Scharfe ( 1 96 1 ) , and Biardeau ( 1 9 64a: 3 5 -63). �

[IIU.2.3 - UU.4] 223

247

Indices.

There is a complete word-index to the Maha-bha�ya, with references to page, and lines of Kielhorn's edition ( 1 8 80-85), compiled by Pathak and Chitrao ( 928) The same authors compiled ( 1 93 5 ) a word-index to Kiityayana's varttikas. 348 Lahiri ( 1 93 5) composed a concordance showing the rules o f the A�tiidhyaYI to which Patafij ah refers i n t h e course o f discussions without citing them directly. Necessary modifications to Lahiri's work are supplied in Birwe ( I 966)

2 .3

On criteria for distinguishing Kiityayana 's and Patafijali 's statements; sloka-viirttikas.

As I have noted (section m .2 . l ), Kat yay ana's varttikas are known only as incorporated in the Maha-bha�ya. The essential work in arriving at criteria for separating Kat yay ana 's and Patafijali's statements waS done by Kielhorn 0 876a; 3 4 9 1 880-85: I I : introduction, p. 8 n. 2; 1 886e) Patafij ali normally repeats or paraphrases a varttika, which he then goes on to discuss. This topic has been restudied recently b y Vedpati Mishra ( 1 970: 7 5- 1 1 3) and Laddu ( 1 970), both of whom differ from Kielhorn concerning the attribu­ tion of some statements to Katyayana. 350 The M aha-bha�ya contains also varttika-Iike statements in verse form called sloka-varttikas. 35 1 Goldstticker ( 1 8 6 1 : 93-99) studied some of these and con­ cluded that they were the work of different authors. 352 Kielhorn (I 886f) also discussed these sloka-varttikas and concluded similarly that many of the verses which state arguments cannot be attrib uted to Katyay ana or Pat afij ali. Later Bhargavasastrl Joshi ( 1 945 : introduction , pp. 2-9) discussed a selection of these varttikas. The most recent treatment of sloka-varttikas is by Vedpati Mishra ( I 970: 1 66-75), who also attributes these to various authors, and in­ cludes among the authors also Katyayana and PatafijalL No full study has yet been made of all the sloka-varttikas and how they relate in detail to the statements of Kiityiiyana and PatafijaIi. 3 5 3

2.4. On the history of the Mahii-bhii$ya text The history of the text of the Mahii-bhii�ya has involved scholars in consider­ able controversy over a long time , and views which were once refuted have been restated, again refuted, only to be repeated once more . Two principal views have been held . Some scholars, above all R. G. Bhandarkar and Kielhorn,

[m.2Al

248

maintained that the text of the M aha-bha�ya preserved in manuscripts re­ presents quite faithfully the text as composed by Pa tafij ali. Other, principal among them Weber. held that the text was at one time destroyed or nearly destroyed - and then reconstituted, so that what is now available IS not Patafijali's own work. The controversy centered about the interpretation o f two sets o f verses, by Bhartrhari in his Viikya-pad iy a (see section VJ.2) and by the Kashmiri chronicler KalhaI).a in his Raja-tara ngil) l. At the end of the second book of the Vakya-padlya, 3 5 4 Bhartrhari briefly recounts the earlier history of the grammatical tradition b e fore him. He says that the Sarp.graha of Vyii�li 355 fell into disuse and practically perished because students at one time liked only summary works, hence neglected this massive treatise. Then Patafijali

composed the Mahii-bhasya, a work which contained all the germs of reason­ ing to be followed in grammatical interpretations and of such depth as to be unfathomable but also of such excellent style as to appear shallow . But those whose intellects had not attained a stage of sufficient expertise through proper study could not reach decisions about the final views con­ tained in this work. Hence, the work of the f�i Patafijali (see note 3 5 7) was reduced to a mere semblance of itself by those who, in dealing with it, followed their own dry reasoning, without a tradition to support it

In time that grammatical tradition which h a d fallen from t h e students o f PatafiJali came t o exist i n the south a n d there only in books, not as a living tradition. Then Candra and others obtained that traditional knowledge from the Trikilta mountain and, following the germs of reasoning found in the Mahii-bha�ya, they made of this many branches of grammatical thought. In his Riija-tararigil)l KalhaI,la speaks of Candra and others as having set into active use in the Kashmir the Maha-bha?ya, which is characterized as having been vicchinna 'interrupted (that is, which had ceased to be studied tradit­ ionally), . 356 The sources of mischief and controversy are the phrases iir�e vipliivite granthe 'when the work of the �si3 5 7 had been reduced to a mere semblance of itself, bhra�to vyiikarm:uigamaJ;t 'the grammatical tradition which had fal­ len from " grantha-miure vyavasthitah 'which came to exist in books only ' , and vicchinnaf[l mahiibhii�yam 'the Mah abha�ya. whose study had been interrupted'. Weber ( 1 8 6 2 . 1 59-61 ) considered the Viikya-padlya verses. 358 .

.

.

He translated vipliivite 'devastated' (verwustet) and grantha-mittre 'remained in only one manuscript' (in einer Handschrift nur bestand) instead of "only in books' . Further, Weber ( 1 862 : 1 67) rendered KalliaI).a's

vicchinna 'cut up"

(zerspalten). He later ( 1 873a. 5 8 ; 1 873c) emphasized that the Mahii-bhii�ya had undergone much remodeling and asked ( 1 87 3 d . 3 1 9-20) what guarantee one had that the text available w a s not a recast of the original.

[IIL2A ]

249

R. G. Bhandarkar (1 873d [= 1 927·3 3 1 : 1 34.3 5 ] ), on the other hand, said he saw no evidence in the Vakya·padiya or Raja·tarangiIJI passages indicating any such re construction of the text. Kielhorn was of the same opinion and protested ( 1 875: 1 08) "against the statement . . . that at some time or other the text of the Mahiibhii�ya had been lost, that it had been reconstituted, etc." Weber (1876: 242 n. 38) reiterated lus view, upon which Kielhorn (I 8 76c) pointed out 359 the correct interpretation of the words viplavita 'reduced to a semblance' and grantha·miJtre 'only in books' (thus already Stenzler [ 1 862]). Weber ( 1 87 7 ) retorted, but with no new arguments Later, Buhler ( 1 87 8 ) upheld Kielhorn's view and ( 1 882) rejected Weber Kielhom himself later ( l 880·g 5 : 1. introduction, p. 8) remained content to emphasize that the manuscripts offer no evidence of various recensions of the text. Another point which Weber maintained pertinaciously in defending his thesis is that the word iicarya 'teacher' in the Maha·bhii�ya regularly referred to Pataflj ali, spoken of in the third person (Weber [ 1 862 : 1 5 5 ] ). From this Weber concluded ( 1 862: 1 68) that the Mahii·bha�ya was composed by others than Pataflj ali. 360 R. G. Bhandarkar ( l 873c [= 1 927·33 1 . 1 26.2 8 ] ) rebutted Weber and pointed out that acarya in the Mahii.bhiiwa normally refers to Piilfini. Weber ( I 873d: 3 22·23) then retrenched a bit, but refused to give up his view completely. Kielhom ( l 876c: 248.5 0) and R. G. Bhandarkar (1876 [= 1 927·33 1 : 1 3 6-40 ] ) then showed definitively that Weber's view was untenable. Some of the earlier views, though they had been refuted, were neverthe· less repeated by later scholars. Belvalkar ( 1 9 1 5 : 33) repeated the claim that the Maha.bha�ya was spoken of in the Vakya-padlya as existing in only one manuscript. Skold ( 1 926a: 3 1 ·3 2) too spoke, amid a mass of unsubstantiated generalizations, of "only one authentic manuscript" and doubted that the Maha·bha�ya and Palfini's grammar "have been so well preserved through thousands o f years, as Kielhorn believes." Liebich ( 1 928. 2.3) rightly op· posed this revival of an antiquated view: neither Belvalkar nor Skbld gave substantive evidence to support his assertion. Later, Siirya Kiinta ( 1 93 9 . 2 7) said that his study of the Atharva-veda PratiSiikhya "revealing as it does, at every step, the great role additions and abbreviations have played in Sans· krit literature, have made me feel skeptical about Kielhorn's well-argued plea for the genuineness of the MBh. [Maha.bhii�ya] text, and I feel to·day more inclined towards the opposite [View] held b y Weber, although not in that form, to that extent . . . " But Siirya Kania did not support his feeling with evidence fro m the Mahii·bha�ya itself. More recently, Vidya Niwas Misra ( 1 966. 26) reiterated what was said b y Belvalkar, without further consideration. I think the view held by R. G. Bhandarkar and Kielhom stands. There are, to be sure, some differences in readings between the text established by Kielhorn

[m.2 4 . m.2.5.2)

250

on the basis o f manuscripts and the text known to Bhartrhari as ref1ected in his TripadI ( section III.2.2. l ) . and some unoriginal remarks may have been incorporated into the text after Bhartrhari's time (see Kielhorn [ 1 8 80·85 II' intI Oduction, pp. 1 8·2 1 ] , Liebich [ 1 93 0 246-47 ] , above . section I I L 1 .3.5b). Moreover, some evidence has been suggested o f interpolatIOns and minor "corruptions" in the Mahii·bhii�ya. 3 6 1 But none of the evidence proposed supports the supposition that the M ahii·bha�ya was at any time lost and re· constituted.

2.5

2.5 . 1 .

The relation between Katyayana and Patailjali and their attitudes towards panini.

Was Katyiiyana an antagonist of Fanini and Fatailjali his defender ?

Goldstucker ( 1 86 1 . 1 1 9·2 1 ) maintained that PatafiJali was a critic of K atyayana, who criticized Panini, but also independently subjected Panini', rules to scrutiny. Weber ( 1 8 7 3 d . 2 97·98 , 32 1 , 399, 502) carried Goldstucke r's positIOn farther, saying that Patafij ali's aim was to defend pal).ini against Katyayana (see Kielhorn [ 1 876a' 3-4 n. Weber was followed by B urnell ( 1 875 9 1 ) and B bhtlingk ( I 875a. 1 88 , 1 875b. 483), who assumed that Pat ailjali, as a defender of pal).ini against K atyayana, could not have been the author of the paraphrases o f some varttikas. R. G . Bhandarkar ( 1 8 7 6 [ = 1 9 27·33 l ' 1 40.4 8 ] ) and Kielhorn ( I 876a: 46·56 ) , but especially the latter, demonstrated that this was an improper view ' b oth K atyayana and Patafij ali had as their aim to discuss the rules and test their validity and consistency. This view has been accepted by most later scholars; see. for example, K . Madhava Krishna Sarma ( 1 940·4 1 . 1 27 ; 1 968' 48), Gaydhani ( 1 95 1 ) , 3 6 2 Thieme ( 1 956: 12 n. 26), Vedpati Mishra ( 1 970' 60.69). 3 6 3 However, the antiquated position has also been set forth as correct even after K ielhorn's definitive study. Belvalkar ( 1 9 1 5 : 29) still said of K atyayana that " . . . his object was not to expJain Piil.1ini b ut to find fault in his gram­ maL" More recently, Vidya Niwas Misra ( 1 966: 25·26) has again accepted the view that one o f K iityayana's purpose was " . . to doubt the validity of the rules of Piil).ini with reference to the language in use in his time and area" and cited Goldstucker as a reference (see Cardona [ 1 968b ' 647 ] ) 2.5.2.

Were Katyayana and Fatafijali adherents of different systems?

Another view which has gained some currency is that Katyayana somehow belonged to a different school of grammar than did pal).ini or Patailjali.

[IIL2. 5 .2 - IlL2.5 .3]

25 1

Belvalkar ( 1 9 1 5 ' 30·3 1 ) believed that, because Katyiiyana used terms such as svara 'vowel' in addition to Piil)inian terms such as ac 'vowel' and be­ cause a story in the Kathii-sarit-sagara ( I 2th century) makes Kiityayana a follower of an earlier school of grammar, it is "probable that he belonged to a school of grammar different from Piil)ini's. 3 64 Vidya Niwas M isra ( 1 966: 25) not only accepted this, he also claimed that " . . . Kiityiiyana could not understand properly the real significance of the defin itional terms in Piil)ini. " I think this claim remains unsubstantiated ( see Cardona l 1 968b 647 ] ) . More recently, S. D 10shi ( 1 968: i) has again claimed that Kiityayana was an adherent of a school other than paI)ini's. 10shi also claims ( 1 96 8 . iii) that Pataf]i ali's discussions were meant to bridge the gap between these schools. According to 1 0shi ( 1 968. xvi), Piil)ini and Patafji al i were descriptive grammarians, as opposed to Katyiiyana, whose views were more philosophic, al. 3 6 5 Cardona ( l 97 3d. 235-38) has argued that 1 0shi's contention rests to a large extent on an argument of suence and that there is no substantive evidence sufficient to demonstrate that Patanjali or Piil)ini was an adherent of a system different from Kiityiiyana's. 2.5 3. Historical change as a motivation for some of Katyayana 's viirttikas Goldstucker ( 1 86 1 : 1 22-28) presented evidence to support the thesis that PaI)ini and Kiityiiyana were separated by an interval of time sufficient to permi t : grammatical forms current at Piil)ini's time to become obsolete by Katyiiyana's time ; words to develop different meanings; words and meanings to become obsolete . R. G. Bhandarkar ( 1 883-85 [:::: 1 927-33 4: 2 67-70) ) later translated and discussed a passage from the Mahii-bhii�ya (Kielhorn [ 1 8 80-8 5 : I: 8.23 . 1 0. 3 ] ) concerning forms such as u$a (2nd pI. perfect of vas 'stay , dwell') which, according to Patafij ali , were not used in his time, instead, one used participial forms such a s u$ital; Bhandarkar noted that in the time of Kiityiiyana and Patafij ali such verbal forms as ii�a had become obsolete, gave more examples of this phenomenon, and concluded ( 1 883-85 [= 1 927-33 4: 2 73 ] ) 3 6 6 - in agreement with Goldstucker - that , a considerable time had elapsed between Piil)ini and Kiityiiyana and Patafijali. He assigned Piil)ini to the middle period of Sanskrit. towards the end of the Vedic period, Kiityiiyana to the classical period. Other scholars have also noted that changes occurred in Sanskrit between the time of pal).ini and Kiityiiyana's time such that the latter introduced additional statements to account for the derivation of new forms. One example is the following. 3 6 7 Pal)ini directly provides ( 3 . 1 .40) for the use o f kr 'do, make' in periphrastic perfect forms of the type miilflcakre 'desired, strove' em). However, the verbs

[11L2.5. 3 )

252

as, b h u 'be' also occur i n this formation , for example, iimantrayiimiisa 'in­

vited'. Katyayana declares (3 l AO varttika 3) that the use of all three verb s is to be accounted for in the periphrastic derivation, and PatafiJ ali shows how Pal)ini's rule can be interpreted to provide this kr is considered an abbreviation (see Kielhorn [ 1 887e : 248 ) ) . C . Kunhan Raj a ( ] 947 xvii-xviii), after noting that changes occurred in Sanskrit which required the reinterpretation of some rules, stated . "Thus the grammar holds more or less the same relation to a language which a statute bears to a situation in civic life . " The same view was expressed later by Thieme ( 1 956. "Both Kiityiiyana and Patafijali look upon Panini's grammar as a code containing the Jaws of correct word formation and make the assumption that this code must be valid for all times." Thieme went on to note ( 1 956. 23), however, that the instances where re­ in terpretation was made necessary by lingUIstic change "are few and far between." The degree to which historical changes in Sanskrit are to be made to account for Katyayana's comments has caused controversy . K Madhava Krishna Sarma ( 1 940-4 1 ; 1 945-59, 1 968. 8, 9 , 49, 54, 5 5 , 79, 1 1 9) argued that such changes in Sanskrit were the major cause for Katyayana's vi'm­ tikas, According to him ( 1 940-4 1 : 1 28), " . . . Katyayana's duty as a com· mentator was not to justify or defend Piqlini, but to introduce the neces­ sary modifications in order to make PaJ.lini keep abreast of later develop­ ments in the language ." 368 K. Madhava Krishna Sarma did distinguish ( 1 968: 54) between what he called historical varttikas and others, which he called academic varttikas. But from the copious number of passages he cited as evidence for historical varttikas, it is, I think, fair to say that he considered language change the principal motivation for Katyayana's state­ ments. One of Madhava Krishna Sarma's p apers ( 1 945-59) met with strong opposition from R. Rocher ( 1 962), who examined three rules with Katy a ­ yana's comments on them and concluded ( 1 962' 268) by expressing the hope that the evidence SUbmitted was sufficient " . . . to make the case of linguistic change a highly improbable one." She also noted ( 1 96 2 . 268) in a programmatic fashion, "In our opinion, it is a most dangerous procedure, to introduce into ancient Hindu grammar a concept which is a purely Western creation, and, even more so, a Western creation of a very recent date." Devasthali ( 1 960·61 ( 1 963 ) ) reacted to Rocher's article, defending the position espoused by K. Madhava K rishna Sarma and citing Bhandarkar in support of this position. According to Devasthali ( 1 9 60-6 1 [ 1 96 3 ] ' 57-5 8), " . . . the aim of Katyayana (and even of Patanjali) in composing their works must have been not to correct him [palJini] . . . , but to supple­ ment him " in view of the changes that had occurred in Sanskrit . 369 .

.

.

[II1 .2.5.3 . IIL2.6. 1 ]

253

The opposing opinions have been judiciously discussed by S. D . J omi ( 1 969a. viii-x), who concludes ( l 969a. x) that " . . . on purely theoretical grounds, the question, whether we can infer an evolution of Sanskrit from the examples (in the Maha-bha�ya] , must be answered in the negative." Rocher (forthcoming a) returns b riefly to this question. She dismisses it in what, in my opinion, is a rather cavalier fashion, sweeping aside Bhandarkar's discussion by saying that, divested of their style, his arguments are flimsy. I do not think this is proper. It is undeniable that there are some instances few, to be sure where Katyayana's suggested additions to the grammar indeed account for newer forms, as Rocher herself accepts (see note 367). It is equally clear, however, that such linguistic changes cannot be made to account for all or even most of Kiityayana's varttikas. The con· troversy arose, I think, because of extremes adopted by the adherent of the opposing positions. One side claimed that historical changes were the major reason for Katyayana's viirttikas. Rocher, on the other hand, has to an extent misunderstood the arguments of others. For, as far as I can see, the adherents of the view she opposes have not made Kiityayana guilty of the anachronism she perceived. They have merely claimed that Katyayana was aware of the need to account for forms which were, historically, post­ erior to PiiJ:tini. The fault of the adherents of this view is not that they have superimposed on Kiityayana a modem western principle of historical linguistics b ut that they have exaggerated the degree to which changes in Sanskrit are to be considered the basis for Katyayana's remarks.

2 .6. Methods and ideas found in the Mahii-bha$ya. 2.6. 1 . Generalities. The M ahii-bhii�ya is composed in the form of dialogues in which take part a student (si�ya) who questions the purpose (prayojana) of rules and their formulations, an unaccomplished teacher (acaryadeilya) who suggests solu­ tions which are not fully acceptable, and a teacher (acarya) who states what is the finally acceptable view (siddluinta) . Commentators also refer to an ekadeiin 'one who knows only part (ekadesa) of the final answer' and a siddluintin 'one who establishes the final view'. 3 7 0 In keeping with the purpose of the M aha·bhii�ya (see section IIL2 . 5 . l ) , not all of pal.lini's rules are subjected to independent discussions. The argumentation involved in these discussions includes the citation of examples (udaharalJO) and counter· examples (pratyudaharalJO) for rules and also illustrations (dntdnta) showing how things procede in grammar in some ways parallel to real life.

254

[ I I I .2.6. 1 . UL2.6.2J

R. S . Bhattacharya ( J 952.53) has discussed the purposes of the examples cited: essentially to indicate the import of rules and the terms contained in them ) ? 1 Although I spoke above o f a siddhdnta 'finally accepted view'. it is not always easy to determine what . in Kiityayana or Patafij ali's opinion. this siddhdnta is. For PatafiJali commonly presents arguments to support or re­ Ject several views (see Geiger [ 1 908 3 - 9 ] , Thieme [ 1 956: 3 ] ). One is left to infer what is the true siddhdnta . I n doing this, commentators make use of a principle of brevity ( liigha)!a). That solution of competing solu­ tions is acceptable which avoids prolixity (gaura)!a) For example. if two solutions which provide identically correct results are under consideration and one of them involves splitting a rule mto two rules (yoga-vibhiiga), the one which does not require this is preferred . In addition, prolixity in­ volved in understanding a rule (pratipatti-gaura)!a ) is avoided. If, given two competing solutions. one requires more assumptions and metarules for the proper interpretation o f a rule than the other, the latter is preferred (see Cardona [ 1 9 67a: 43-44j ). 2.6.2. Techniques oj interpretation. In the course of their discussion. Kiityayana and Patafijali make use not only of metarules which were not directly stated by Panini (see section m . 1 .3.7) but also o f general teclmiques o f interpretation. These were discussed summarily by Kielhorn ( l 887e), and were later treated in extenso by Renou ( 1 940a. 76-1 39). 372 Some o f these techniques and principles have been the objects of more recent discussions also. Katyay ana and Patafij ali frequently argue that a cer­ tain item will not be derived "because (it is) not (used to) denote (the meaning to b e conveyed)" (anabhidhcmat). For example. rule 3 .2 . 1 (karmany alJ) serves t o introduce the a ffLx or; a) after a root to form derivatives of the type -kara, which then combine with syntactically related items to form compounds of the type kumbha-kiira 'pot maker' ( kumbha-as kara-s, see note 1 58). Now, the compound kumbha-kara is related to a sentence such as kumbhiin karati 'makes pots': in b oth the pots in questions function as obj ects (karman) of making. Similarly, if the sun (iiditya) functions as ob­ Jects of seeing. one can say iiditya'!l pasyati. However, there was, at least according to Kiityiiyana and Patafijali, no compound aditya-darsa related to this sentence as kumbha-kara is related to kumbhan karoti. To avoid deriving -darsa by 3 . 2 . 1 to fonn a compound aditya-ciaria, then, the suggestion is made (Kielhorn [ 1 880-85 : n.94.2 ] ) that rule 3 . 2 . 1 be m ade more specific. It should not merely state that af} is affixed to a root which is construed

[IIL2 .6 . 2 J

255

with an item denoting an object (karman) of the action denoted b y the root. Instead, 3 .2. 1 should specify that the object in question is something brought into being (nirvartya) or modified (vikriyama[la). The rule thus modified now allows for deriving items such as kumbha-kara and kancja-liiva 'branch cutter' but prevents the derivation of a compound such as aditya­ daria. However, this is not sufficient. It is accepted as given that the Veda is neither created nor modified by anyone. Yet a compound vedddhyaya 'who studies the Veda' is to be derived. Under the new formulation of the rule this is not possible. Therefore, Katyayana and Patafij ali end up by invoking the principle of anabhidhana: 3 7 3 a compound such as aditya­ daria is simply not used to convey the meaning conveyed by adityam paiyati.

This principle has been discussed b y Kielhorn ( l 887e' 245-46), Renou ( l 940a' 1 29-3 1 ), R. S. Bhattacharya ( 1 966t) Charudeva Shastri ( 1 967' 1 07), S. D. Joshi ( 1 9 69a. vii), Cardona ( 1 972c. 228-32). Kielhorn ( 1 887e' 246) considered " . . . that the device of anabhidhiina , beyond acquainting us with the views of the commentators who happened to make use of it, is really of no value whatever." Tlus is a harsh j udgment indeed. Moreover, I think that, in so quickly rejecting this, Kielhorn failed to make one aware of a point which is of some interest. It is obvious that Katyay ana, like later Piil).iniyas (see section HI. 1 .5 . 7b), recognized that there were different kinds of objects (karman). It is equally obvious that this distinction was not con­ sidered pertinent by Piil).ini in stating rule 3 .2 . 1 .374 Indeed, as the discus­ sion in the Maha-bhii�ya shows, Pal)ini would have been hard put to state a single rule of any generality once he brought such a distinction into play here. There would have to be a series of rules relative to particular com­ pounds. Instead of proceding in such a way, Pal)ini 375 formulated a very general rule. Theoretically , this rule allows deriving items such as aditya­ daria. Moreover, such a compound is grammatically well-formed in that it conforms to the formal pattern of compounds like kumbha-kiira. It happens, however, that aditya-daria is not used. Not because there is something par­ ticularly strange about it; for the relation (object - action) involved is the same as in kumbha-kiir a, and compounds such as vedddhyiiya, where the object is neither effected nor affected, are used . One may, then, consider that the absence of a compound such as iiditya-daria is an accidental gap. pal).ini's rules allows for its formation according to the rules of Sanskrit, but it happens not t o be used. Another principle which Kielhorn ( l 8 87e: 246, cf. Renou [ 1 940a: 1 3 1 3 2 ] ) considered o f n o value i s vivak�ii (lit. 'the wish t o say').376 Tlus re­ jection fails to recognize an important fact. The concept of vivak$a is in­ voked in connection with sentences such as IlL 1 .5 . 5 c (7) (paraiur vrksarrz

256

[1II.2.6.2 . m . 2 6.3J

chinatti). I n this context, invoking vivak�a amounts simply to this. the gram. mar 18 not concerned with things as they are but as they are spoken about, that is, with sentences of the language If a speaker uses a sentence such as this, so that he wishes to speak of an axe as an agent of cutting, the gram. mar has to account for it. In this connection, then , vivak�a is simply part of a basic outlook of Pal)inian grammar: the grammarian deals with language. not with ontology Moreover. one should distinguish carefully between vivaksii as it is employed by early PiiI)inlyas such as Katyiiyana and Pataftj ali and the use of this principle by later commentators. 377 In all such cases, another aspect o f the question which Kielhorn and others have neglected to consider in detail is whether what are involved can be con· sidered unprincipled inventions of commentators or, on the contrary, exten· sions of tenets already valid for Pii�lini. It is clear, for example, that the Use of rule order as a decision procedure in the grammar is not an invention of Katyayana or Pat afij ali, who merely extended the domain of rule 1 .4.2 al· ready stated by Pal)ini (see section IIU .5 .2b and Cardona [ 1 970a. 48, 56] ) . In sum, 1 think there remains a great deal of work t o be done o n the tech· niques of interpretation and the principles used in the Maha·bha�ya. 2.6.3. Discussions of philosophical import. The Maha.bha�ya contains discussions of subjects on the threshold o f grammar and philosophy , many of them concentrated in the introductory section (paspaiaj. 378 These discussions have been the objects of a number of studies. A basic premise of grammar is, according to Pal)inlyas, that the relation (sambandha) between linguistic items (iabda) and their meanings (artha) is fixed and permanent (nitya), not the invention of someone. A question dis­ cussed at the beginning of the Mahii·bhasya is this. What is it precisely that one calls iabda 0 Two answers are given. A sabda is that which, when artic­ ulated, serves to convey an understanding of a meaning. Alternatively, one can understand a sabda to be merely sound. That is, any item can be viewed either qua signifier or qua sound complex. S. D . Joshi ( 1 9 66a) has taken up in detail the discussion of these views; see also Brough ( 1 95 1 : 3 1 -32), Biar· deau ( 1 964a. 3 7 1 ) , Naradeva ( 1 968). 379 A related question taken up in the Maha·bha�ya is whether these linguistic items (iabda) are perennial, eternal (nitya) or susceptible of production (kiirya). Moreover. a distinction is made between absolute eternality (ku(a­ stha·nityatii) such that an item is susceptible to no modification whatever, and what is called praviiha-nityata, the perennity of linguistic items as used through generations of speakers ) 80 On these questions see Ruegg ( 1 95 8 : 273-77; 1 95 9 : 3 9 , 43-45), Biardeau ( 1 964a: 35-43) .

[HL2.6.31

257

Concerning what items signify (artha), one important question discussed is: does a noun such as go 'cow, bullock' designate an individual thing (dravya) or a type? 38 1 The Mahii-bhii�ya discussions concerning this question have been dealt with by quite a few scholars: Strauss ( 1 927a: 1 3 7-50), Hiriyanna ( 1 938), Gaurinath Shastri ( 1 95 9 : 1 43-55), Ruegg ( 19 5 9 : 3840), Frauwallner ( 1 960), Biardeau ( 1 9 64a' 43-6 1 ) , K . Kunjunni Raja ( 1 969. 7578), Matilal ( 1 97 1 : 1 06-09 ; 1 97 3. 3 8 6-87), Narayana MUfti ( 1 9 7 1 ). The meaning of the term akrti (see note 3 8 1 ) has itself been the subject of some discussion. Commentators consider that this term was used in two values by PatafijaU' as an equivalent of jati 'generic property' and to denote a form, a particular arrangement of parts (avayava-sarrmiveia-viie�a, see Car­ dona [ 1 9 67·68 ' 3261 , Aklujkar P 970' 221). Sreekrishna Sharma (1 957: 6 1 ) concluded that Patafijali used akrti t o mean 'structural form' viewed in two ways: common form (= universal) and particular form. He distinguished ( 1 95 7 ; 65) between akrti 'structural pattern' and jat! 'kind or class', which, he noted, is an abstract concept. Some modern scholars (e.g., Strauss [ 1 9 27a: 1 3 5 n. 2 ] ) have considered iikrti synonymous with jati, others have consistently distinguished between iikrti 'form' and jiiti (see Frauwallner [1 960 . 9 3 ] , Scharfe [ 1 96 1 a: 1 29 4 1 ] , Biardeau [ 1 964a: 43-49 ] ) . M. M. Desh­ pande ( I 972b: 26-40) has given a survey of different opinions. The M ahii-bhii�ya on rule 4 . 1 .3 takes up the question of gender. The term IiJiga, u sed in the meaning 'gender', denotes, in normal Sanskrit, a mark or characteristic. I f the term is understood in this sense in grammar, then a linga is a characteristic of males, females, and things which are neither. A female (stri) would then be characterized by breasts and halT, a male (puru§a) by his body hair, others by neither. This conception of Iinga does not work in grammar, it is noted, so that another concept is intro­ duced. Any thing is characterized by different states of constituent elements or properties (gwJa) and these states constitute the genders of things . 38 2 On this see Strauss ( 1 927b), K. A. Subramania Iyer ( 1 945: 294-96 , 298·3 01 , 1 97 1 : 80), Ruegg ( 1 959: 40), Scharfe ( 1 9 6 1 a: 1 47), Sabhiipati Upiidhyiiya ( 1 9 63), Kr�J)a Sastri Mokate ( 1 969), Mattial ( 1 97 1 : 1 04). This q uestion is related to another topic discussed in the Maha-bha�ya, namely whether one is j ustified in recognizing a substance (dravya) as something distinct from its constitutent parts and properties. On this question see Ruegg ( 1 959: 4 1 ), Matilal ( 1 97 1 : 1 0 1 ·03; 1 973: 388.9 1).383 The concept of time (kiila) and its divisions are also discussed in the Maha-bha�ya (especially on rule 3.2.123, see section I I I . 3 . 1 .4(c» . Two of the questions treated are the follOWing. One speaks of actions as taking place currently (vartamana), in the past (bhitta), and in the future (bhavi�yat). Now, one can p roperly say ihddhlmahe 'We are studying

258

[IH.2.6.3J

(adhfmahe) here Uha)', using the present form of a verb, and the grammar accounts for this by introducing the L·suffix la! on condition that an ac· tion is characterized as current (3.2 . 1 23 ' vartam7me Ia!) B ut the sentence ihddhTmahe can be proper even if, at the moment, one is not actually studying. Therefore, current time (vartamana-kafa) is characterized more specifically once an action has begun and has not ended. the entire stretch of time included therein is referred to as current The other question is this. One can say of mountains "The mountains are standing" (tzsthanti parvata�I), as one also says of rivers "The rivers are flowing" ( sraFanti naciyah) . Such sentences are derived on condition that an action i s referred to current time (vartamana). Yet. the mountains are always there and the rivers always are flowing, so that it is difficult to see how one can speak o f current actions here, as opposed to past and future ones. Kiityayana answers that there are indeed time divisions (kala·vibhaga) here too. And PatailJ ali explains as follows. There are individuals such as kings, who existed m the past, exist now, and will exist . These different individuals perform activities. And it is with respect to these activities that one can speak of mountains as having stood at the time of past kings, standing at the time of present kings, etc . 3 84 Aspects of the Mahii·bhii�ya discussions on time have been treated by J . M. Shukla ( 1 9 5 3 . 380-8 1 ) and Satyavrat ( 1 967·68) . One recent work (Scharfe [ 1 96 1 a] ) has been devoted to an investigation of logical concepts, terms, and t echniques found in the Maha·bha�ya. The work is a loose assemblage of translations of passages with brief comments on their import . This is a useful collection of materials. Nevertheless, Scharfe's work suffers from two faults. First, the author procedes rather mechanically, equating terms used in other Indian systems in particular values with homophonous terms which occur in the Mahii·bhasya. and he does not always note important differences. For example, Scharfe ( 1 96 1 a. 9 3·96) says that the terms anvaya and vyatireka are used in the Maha-bhii�ya with the meanings they have in the context of contraposition (see Staal [ 1 9 60 ] ) , that is. a --+ b (anvaya) and {) -+ a ( vyatireka). However, these terms are used in other values in the context o f showing that a is the cause o f b : a -+ b (anvaya) and a -+ {) (vyatireka). And it is this value which the terms have in the Mahii·bhii�ya discussions considered by Scharfe (see Car­ dona [ 1 967·68 ; 3 1 4] and note 1 52 above). Moreover, Scharfe appears not to have full command of the modern logical apparatus he has used, this was pointed out by Staal ( 1 96 3 . 2 5 4.55). Less ambitious than Scharfe's work, yet by the same token more trustworthy, is the recent work by Rama Prasada Trrpathl ( 1 9 72), who discusses the views found in the Maha· bha�ya and other PaI;linlya t exts concerning the means of obtaining an d con· veying correct knowledge, what are called pramizr;a. This is a very useful work,

[ I lL2.63 . I1L2.7 J

259

rich i n information. It is also written from a traditional point o f view and in Sanskrit, which Will doubtless limit its audience . 3 8 5

Frauwallner ( 1 95 9 : 243 ; 1 9 60. 92) a n d Scharfe ( 1 96 1 a) have agreed in

chiding Patafij ali for what they considered his lack of philosophical acumen. Frauwallner ( 1 960

92) declared that Patafij ali had neither an inte rest in

nor a head for philosophical questions and claimed ( 1 960. 1 06·07) that

Patafijali took a topic of discussion from an earlier source and mangled it. Scharfe ( 1 96 1 a : 2 3 , 83·84) asserted that, in the passage considere d , Patafijali did not recognize the essential feature of citation, that he argued instead from primitive analogy. Frauwallner has been answered by Biardeau ( 1 964a 31 n. 1) and Staal ( 1 9 67. 48 n. 1 9) , and Scharfe was rebutted b y Staal

( 1 9 6 3 . 2 5 3· 5 5 ) , both I think quite justly. Scharfe simply misunderstood

the discussion in question. Frauwallner either misunderstood or refused to understand the context o f Patafij ali's discussion. Patafija]j's aim, after all, was not to set forth in the Maha.bha�ya a fully elaborated philosophical system. We do not know whether he had in fact a rrived at such a consistent system . But even if he had , his aim in the Maha·bha�ya was to discuss

Pal,1ini's grammatical rules, not to set down his own plulosophical views

in

full array.

2.7. There is

a

Other studies of the Mahii·bhii�ya.

large number o f passages in the Maha·bha�ya where e tymologies

are given . Swaminathan ( 1 9 6 6) has discussed the etymologies given there and their relation to the etymologies which appear in Yaska's Nirukta

(section m .3 .2 . 1 ) .

I n the M aha.bha�ya (Kielhorn [ 1 880·8 5 :

I:

2 2 .2 1 .2 3 , 1 1 7 . 2 1 .2 3 ] ) ,

Patafij ali notes that, according t o certain chanters o f the Sarna-ve da, there are short

(ardha

'half) vowels

e

and

o.

K . V. Abhyankar ( 1 95 7) has dis­

cussed details concerning this question. In the introductory section of the Maha-bha$ya , Patafij ali cites a verse (KIelhorn [ 1 880· 8 5 :

I:

2 . 1 9·20 ] ) which he calls a

bhraja·s[oka. 386

R. S .

Bhattacharya ( 1 9 53b) has suggested that another verse, cited by Kaiyata in lus commentary on 3 . 1 . 1 (Vedavrata ( 1 962·6 3 :

III:

4 ] ) , is also a B h raj a

verse. R. S. Bhattacharya ( 1 963) has also dealt with the term used to refer to the authors of analyzed texts

(pada-pii{ha)

pada-krira,

of Vedic texts.

Vedic quotations in the Maha-bha�ya have been compiled, though not

exhaustively , by Kielhorn (see 1 880·8 5 . I I : introduction, p. 22), Wacker· nagel ( 1 942), and Renou ( I 953b). V . P. Limaye ( 1 964·6 5 : 222 n. 3) remarks that he has compiled a complete list o f Vedic citations in the M aha·bha�ya .

[m.2.7

260

III.3. l . I J

This has been mcorporated in Limaye ( 1 9 74). Thieme ( l 9 64b , 1 967) ha� studied Patafijali's int erpretation of two important Rg.ve dic verses (8 5 8 . 1 2 , 1 . 1 64.5) i n the context o f grammar, and Palsule ( I 9 69b ) has studied Patafij ali's interpretation of anothe r Vedic verse . 3 87

3.

3.1 3.1 . 1

CHRON OLOG Y AND RI:ALlA

The dates of Pii(lini, Kcuya) ana and Patafijah

IntroductION.

Kiityayana and Patanjali have been assign ed widely dive rgent dates. 3 8 8 Renou gave the fourth century B . C. as Panini's date on two o ccasions ( 1 940a' 9; 1 9 5 6a. 62), but later ( 1 9 5 7a. 34 with note 5 1 5) said that Pal,1ini's dat e was either the fourth century or p OSSIbly the fifth. In 1 9 5 3 he remarked ( 1 9 5 3 d : 87) that Piil,1ini's mention of Greek writing (see section m.3 . 1 .2) in· dicated he could not b e dated earlier than the fifth or fourth century B . C . And i n his last treatment o f t he subject ( 1 969: 483) Renou remarke d, "Generally, I have decided, without absolute certainty, on the 4th or 5th centuries B . C." Tlueme, on the other hand, has steadily maintained that Piil,1ini's date certainly was earlier than the fourth century ( 1 9 3 5 a 80, 1 95 5b. 429), p robably not later than 500 B. C. ( 1 964: 72). Similarly , V . S. Agr awala ( 1 949. 1 95 1 ; 1 963a: 478) placed Pal,1ini at about 500 B. C . , and S. Bhatta· charya ( 1 963) also put him at no later than the sixth century. S imilarly Charpentier ( 1 92 3 : 1 50) argued that Piil)ini's rule 4 . 1 . 1 7 5 shows he must have known o f a Kamboja king, so that he could not be dated later than the second half o f the sixth century . Some scholars have claime d earlier dates. seventh century B. C. (K. B. P athak [ 1 930]), 700 . 600 B. C. K. Belvalkar [ 1 9 1 5 : 1 5 ] ) . five hundred to six hundred years before the Buddha (V. N. Gokhale [ 1 940. 1 09 1 ) . Certainly , most competent scholars have favored placing Pal)in i at a time earlier than the fourth century B . C .389 Despite these divergent views, in none of the surveys of Piil).inian scholar· ship written to date (Renou [ 1 940a, 1 9 5 73; 1 969] , R. Rocher [fo rt hc oming b]) is the evidence cited in support of these views summarized or evaluated, so that a reader could get the impression that opinions are not welJ founded or even whimsical . I think it worthwhile , therefore, briefly to set down the major arguments in favor of the opinions given above and others. Although the conclusion reached is not surprising (see section m .3 . 1 .7), I believe a sifting of evidence is worthwhile. There are two major kinds of evidence for determining Pal)ini's date: PaDin! .

,

[III.3 J . I - IH.3 . 1 .2]

261

internal evidence what Pal)ini says i n his own rules; and external evidence: stories, Piinini's possible identity with another author of the same name, the gap one thinks has to be assumed between PalJini and Katyayana. Similar evidence is to be considered for determming the dates of Katyiiyana and Patafijali.

3.1 .2

Possible internal evidence for P(nJini's date.

The ideal internal evidence for setting PalJini's date would be his mentioning persons whose dates were definitely known. PaJ)ini does mention grammarians such as ,.\pisali (see section I IL l .3 . 1 ) , b ut nothing definite is known about the dates of these. Some scholars have claimed, however, that Panini's rules do contain references which allow one to date him. There are two major pieces of such eVidence, both used to place PaUini at a relatively late date. Rule 4.1 .49 (indra-varUl;a-bhava-sarva-rudra-mrg.a-himdral)ya-yava-yavana­ ml.ttuldcarya�Uim anuk) provides for deriving certain feminine items by affix­ ing I to nominal bases given in the rule, concurrently, the bases receive a final augment an. Two types of feminine nouns are thus derived . Some de­ note a female associated with a male , for example, indranr 'wife of Indra', ml.ttulanz 'maternal uncle's wife'. Others do not; for example, yavanz 'a kind of barley'.390 The rule serves to derive yavanimr from yavana. Two questions arise. First, is yavanan[ of the type indriifJz or of the type yaviinl? And, in either case, to what does yavana refer? According to Katyayana (4. 1 .49 varttika 3. yavaniil lipyam), yavananz should be derived as a noun referring to a writing (lipi). Goldstucker ( I 8 6 1 ' 1 6- 1 7) considered that yavaniin[ re­ ferred to cuneiform writing. Weber ( 1 862 . 2, 1 6· 1 8) disagreed. According to rum, yavana referred to Greeks, so that yavancmr referred to Greek writing. Therefore, he assigned Pauini a date after Alexander the Great (Weber [ 1 875: 244; 1 876: 2 3 7-3 8 ] ) . 391 This argument is not acceptable. To begin with, it was Katyayana, not PiiJ;lini, who specified that yavaniin{ should refer to a writing. Hence, for Pal)ini this noun could simply have referred to a Yavana woman (see Liebich [ 1 89 1 . 7 ] , C. V. Vaidya [ 1 930: 1 50 ] , R. S. Bhattacharya [ 1 966m)). Moreover, it is known that Indians were associated with Greeks (Ionians) before Alexander (see Keith [ 1 9 1 4: clxix] , Belvalkar [ 1 9 1 5 : 1 5- 1 6 ] , V. Smith [ 1 924: 40] , V. S. Agrawa1a [ 1 9 63a' 469 ] ) . Therefore, the derivative yavaniinr cannot serve to demon· strate that PaJ)ini post-dated Alexander.392 Pauini's rule 2 . 1 .70 (kuml.trab sramarUidibhib) serves to derive the com· pound kumiira-sramarUi '(virgin) girl who is a Sramal).a'. Weber ( 1 862: 1 4 1 -42, see also Lakshman Rao [ 1 92 1 ] ) considered that this referred to Buddhist nuns, so that pal).ini had to post-date the Buddha. On the other hand,

262

[II I .3 . L2

-

111.3 . 1 .3 ]

K B . Pathak ( 1 930, see also Kalipad Mitra [ 1 922 1 ) argued that this term could refer also to J aina nuns, so that PaI,1ini need not be placed after the Buddha 393 The internal evidence suggested to demonstrate that PaI,1ini post-dated Alexander the Great o f the Buddha or to show that he came b e fore the Buddha ( se e note 393) is thus not probative 3. 1 .3 . External evidence for Panini's date.

According t o a story told in the Kathii-sarit - sagara, PaI,1ini and K atyayana were contemporaries. O ne of the few scholan who accepted this story as evidence on which t o base arguments regarding PaI,1ini's dates was BbhtIingk (1 839-40. xv-xviii) . However, by a series of calculations, B6htlingk still placed the Maha-bha�ya at about 1 50 B C. and PaI,1ini in the fourth century. But Bbhtlingk's arguments w ere hardly cogent, as was noted b y Goldstucker ( 1 861 : 85_86) . 394 There is a poet Pal)ini, to whom verses are attributed in anthologies: see Aufrecht (1 860, 1 882, 1 89 1 b), Pischel ( 1 885), Peterson - Durgaprasada ( 1 886. 54-58), K . C. Chatterji ( 1 933a, b), Krishnadeva UpadJtyaya ( 1 937), Rama­ chandra Rao ( 1 959) , Dasgupta De ( 1 962. 6 1 0 with note 1 ) , Yudhi�thira MlmaITlsaka ( I 973: I: 2 39-40; IIL82 92). 395 Pischel identified PaI,1ini the poet with Pal)ini the grammarian and proposed to place the latte r in the fifth or sixth century A. D. for this reason. However, Pischel's arguments for this chronology could not stand, and he was rebutted by Kielhorn ( 1 885b, see also R . G . Bhandarkar [ 1 8 83-85aJ [::: 1 927·33 1 : 1 64]). Indeed, Dasgupta and De assumed that, if the two authors were identical, Pal)ini the poet had to be placed in the fourth or fifth century B . C. K. C. Chatterji argued vigorously against identifying the poet and the grammarian because the for· mer used ungrammatical forms, because relatively early commentators such as the authors of the Kasika (section IV.2 . 1 ) did not invoke verses attributed to PiiI)ini in support of particular usages, and because the poem ] ambavati­ vijaya is not mentioned in the Mahii-bhasya. Several other scholars have nevertheless accepted the identification: Krishnadeva Upadhyaya, Ramachandra Rao, Yudhi�\hira Mimafllsaka, and also P. S. Subrahmanya Sastri ( 1 9 60 : xxvil). P. V. Kane ( 1 961 : 3 3 2 n . 3) WaS noncommittal . I have no definite opinion on this problem. However, whatever one's view, this cannot serve as solid evidence .for the date of Panini. One must, then, depend on relative chronology.' if the dates of Patafijali and Kat yay ana can be determined, PiiI,lini's date can be approximated .

[ m. 3 . 1 .4] 3.1 4.

263

The date of Patanjali

fhree major pieces o f evidence from the M aha-bhii�ya have been u se d to determine Patafij ali's date. (a) Rule 5 .3 . 99 (j[rlkLirthe capanye) provides that an affix (ka) is deleted in deriving n ominals such as sira 'image of Siva' , provided the object denoted by the derivative is u sed to earn a livelyhood (jzvikLirtha) and is not sold (apanya) . The derivative siva thus refers to an image which mendicants carry as they beg. In the Mahii-bhasya (KieIhorn [ 1 880.85 : I I ' 429.2-4 ] ) the fol­ lowing discussion is held concerning this rule. The rule states apWlye, so that the deletion applies only if a derivative refers to an object which is not sold Hence , it does not apply properly to provide sira , etc. For the M auryas, who were greedy for gold, arranged to sell such images. This objection is met as follows. Let the rule not apply to delete ka in the case of derivatives refer­ ring to these statue5. But it does apply in the case of derivates which refer to images that nowadays are intended for worship and not for sale. Goldstilcker ( 1 86 1 : 2 28-29) used this passage to establish that Patafij ali post-dated the Maurya king Candragupta M aurya, hence came later than 3 1 5 B . C . 39 6 (b) Rule 3.2 I I I (anadyatane [ali) provides that the L-suffix Ian is intro· duced after a root when the action signified by the root is referred to the past exclusive of the day on which one is speaking (anadyatana 'excluding today'). I n his second varttika on this rule Kiityiiyana states that a provision is to be made that Zan is also introduced if a root denotes an action which the speaker has not actually observed (parok$e), which is famous (loka-vijniite), and which the speaker could p ossibly witness. it being in the realm of his seeing (prayoktur darsana-ri�aye). Patafij al i illustrates this use of imperfect forms with two examples: ( l ) aru�zad yavanaf:z siiketam

'The Yavana besieged Siiketa.'

(2) arw;ad yavano madhyamikam 'The Yavana b esieged Madhyamrkii .'

Goldstilcker ( 1 86 1 : 229·30, 234) considered this passage,39 7 and concluded that the Yavana was M e nander. 398 From tms he concluded that Patanj ali wrote his comments on rule 3.2 1 1 1 between 1 40 and 1 20 B. C . 3 99 For the events in question had to b e such as were famous, Patafij ali had not seen, but could have seen. (c) R ule 3.2. 1 23 (vartamane tar) introduces the L-suffIx lat if an action is referred t o the present. Now, viirtamana in the rule means 'current'. I n his fIrst varttika on tms rul e , Katyayana states that the present endings (bhavanti) are to be taught (si�ya1 as introduced after a root when there is reference t o

264

[IlL3 . 1 .41

to an action which has begun (pravrttasya) but not ended (avirame). Such an action is not necessarily always in process (avartamanatJlat) . One can. for example, correctly say ihddhimahe 'We are studying here' even if, at the moment, one is not studying (see section I IL2.6.3). Another example given by Patafljali to Illustrate this use o f the present is (3) iha pusyamitral!l yajayama1:z 'We are officiating here at Pu�yamitra's sacrifice.' R . G. Bhandarkar ( 1 872b) used this example to argue as follows.400 As an example for Katyayana's varttika this shows that Pu�yamitra, the beginner of the Suriga dynasty, was having a sacrifice performed at the time of Patafijali. Therefore, Patafij ali's date is set at between 178 and 1 4 2 B . C . The evidence noted above was the source of much debate . Weber ( 1 862 1 5 1 ·5 5 ) read rn.iidhyamikiin in (2) (see note 397) and identified the Miidhyamikas in question with followers of the B uddhist school founded by Nagarj una (ca. 1 5 0 A. D. ). He interpreted (2) as saying that a Yavana had suppressed the Miidhyamikas. On the basis of the reading noted, Weber can· cluded that the Yavana ( 1 ) and (2) could not be Menander. He considered him to be the Indo-Scythian Kani$ka. But Kani�ka was a B uddhist, so that Weber had further to suppose that he had suppressed the Madhyamikas before becoming a Buddhist. In terms of his chronology, Weber put the event referred to in (2) at between five and forty-five A . D. After B handar­ kar's paper ( 1 872b) appeared, Weber ( 1 873a) replied, placing Patanjali at 25 A. D. Bhandarkar ( 1 873a) then answered, pointing out that both Gold· stucker and Weber were mistaken madhyamikii was the name of a city.40 1

Weber ( 1 87 3b) repreated what he had said in 1 862 and then ( 1 873c) ans· wered to Bhandarkar's paper (Bhandarkar ( l 873a]). He admitted that miidhyamikii (see note 40 1 ) need not refer to a Buddhist school, but he insisted that example (3) did not prove Patafij ali was a contemporary of Pu�yamjtra. After Bhandarkar ( 1 873d) answered, Weber admitted ( 1 873d. 305) that example (2) involved a city. He still insisted, however, that the Yavana was not Menander ( 1 873d: 305-06).40 2 Finally, Weber ( l 873d: 3 1 9·20, 498; 1 876: 240 n . 237), with his back to the wall, resorted to a counsel o f despair' examples such as ( 1 ) and (2) are not necessarily Patafijali's, he claimed, they could be consecrated examples (miirdhlibhi�ikta udaharm;za). For the Mahii·bhiiwa was once reconstructed (see section IU. 2.4 and Weber [ 1 875: 244] ). Earlier, BohtIingk ( 1 875a: 1 88) had argued that example (3) was not Patanjali's. B ut his argument was b ased on a false assumption: that Pataftj ali was Katyayana's adversary. so that the paraphrase of this varttika, with

ln1.3 1 .4]

265

i examples, could not be Patafj ali's (see section IIL2.5 1 ) . Arguments con· cerning whether such examples were really Patafij ali's continued until fairly recently. Liebich ( 1 899 3 1 2; 1 930. 264-67) cited parallels from Candra· gomin's and other grammars, showing that examples comparable to ( 1 ) and (2) given in these grammars referred to contemporary events; the comment· aries did not simply take over old examples like ( 1 ) and (2). For example , the commentary on Candra's rule 1 .2 . 8 1 (K. C. Chatterji [ 1 9 53-6 1 ' I: 76]) cites varttika 1 on Pal)ini 3 . 2 . 1 1 1 and then gives the example ajayaj jarto hU�lIin 'The Jarta conquered the Htll;a: 403 The Jainendra-maha-vp:ti also cites the varttika noted and gives the example arUl)an mahendro mathuram 'Mahendra besieged Mathura.' 404 Liebich ( 1 930: 264-65) accepted that ex­ amples ( 1 ) and (2) were indeed Patafijali's own, so that his date could be set at ca. 1 5 0 B. C . ; so also V. Smith ( 1 924: 227-29), Ramaprasad Chandra ( 1 929), Haraprasada ShastrI ( 1 93 1 : xxii), V. S. Agrawala ( 1 95 6-57), and, most recently, Yudhi�thira Mlmarpsaka ( 1 973. 1: 337_38).405 Nevertheless, C. Kunhan Raja ( 1 947: xvi) again expressed doubts: "We have yet to ascert· ain whether he [Pataftjali] gave the examples arUl)ad yapanab saketam . . . as a contemporary event, as his own sentence, or whether he took it from any record that was contemporaneous with the event ." And more recently Frau· wallner ( 1 960: 1 08) again said that Pataftj ali could have taken example (2) from some source. It is true that Patafijali might have taken such examples from earlier sources. The fact remains that these events could have been contemporaneous with Patafijali, in accord with the provisions of the varttJkas in question. A nd commentaries on the Ciindra and J ainendra grammars do indeed give different examples, although, to be sure, the Kasika on 3.2.1 1 1 repeats the Maha-bha�Y2 examples. What one wishes to conclude depends, then, on how skeptical one wishes to be. I personally accept that these were PatafiJ ali's examples, and I think the resultant dating is buttressed by the results of research concerning Katyayana's date (section III .3.1 .5) . Other arguments have been made against placing Patafijali in the middle of the second century B. C. Peterson ( 1 883·8 5 ; 1 83-88) argued against Goldstucker's claim regarding the Maurya kings (see (a) above). He accepted ( 1 883-85. 1 89) that PataftjaIi was a contemporary of Pu�yamitra, but argued that, since there were several Pu�yamitras in Indian history, this particular Pu�yamitra could be a later one . He chose Pu�yamitra from the fourth to fifth centuries A. D. Peterson's arguments were countered, effectively in my opinion, by R . G. B handarkar ( 1 883.85 a , 1 885). De La Vallee Poussin ( 1 9 30' 1 99-202) argued from a different point of view. Pal)ini's rule 2 .4. 1 0 (sudraram aniravasitanam) provides that a dvandva compound formed with terms denoting siidras (those who are not members

266

[111.3. 1 .4]

of the three twice-born castes) who are not excluded (alliravasita) is treated as singulal , for example, rajaka-tantuvayam 'washerman and weaver' In his discussion of this rule, Patafij ali ( K ielhorn [ 1 8 80-8 5 . l' 475.2- 1 0 ] ) asks what the exclusion refers to excluded from what or where'! The first suggestion made is that the rule refers to exclusion from the country of the Arya (iirydvarta, see section III 3 3 2). This meets with an objection The rule will now not provide for letting certain compounds be treated as singular which should be so treated. Among the examples given is saka-yal'anam ' Sakas and Yavanas'. The Sakas ( S cythians) and the Yavanas dwell beyond the bounds of Aryavarta. De La Vallee Poussin argued that the Brahmanas of India could not have considered the S akas so Important by 1 50 B. C as t o couple them with Yavanas. H e suggested, therefore, that Patafijali be assigned to ca. 50 B . C. 40 6 Patafijali ' s example saka-yal'allam engaged the attention of other scholars also . D . R. Bhandarkar ( 1 934. 276, 279-80) considered that by the time of PatafiJali the S akas had been Aryanized, like the Yavanas, and established their power in the north-west of the sub­ continent . According to him, the S akas had to be dated earlier than usual Harihar Trivedi ( 1 938) agreed with Bhandarkar. On the other hand, Konow ( 1 93 5 ' 1 9 1 ) concluded that the S akas mentioned by Patafij ali were known only as a foreign tribe connected with the Yavanas. Both scholars agreed, however, in assigning Patafijali to the second century B. C . De La Vallee Poussin later ( I 936) disagreeJ with b oth and reiterated Ius view. I am not sufficiently versed in details of early Indian history to make a sound judge­ ment o n this controversy. However, it i s accepted generally that there was a Saka kingdom in India by the middle of the first century B. C . And it remains possible that north-western I ndians knew them better than has been assumed before. I do not think the evidence from the Maha-bha�ya permits a definite decision for dating here. Still another kind of argument was advanced by D . C . Sircar ( 1 939). One of his majo r arguments against positing an early date for the Maha­ bha�ya is that in this text are cited verses in various meters and that Patafijali knew of many kinds o f literary productions the Mahii-bharata, Hari-va1J1sa and ornate poetry (kavya). Tlus led Sircar ( 1 93 9 : 634) to place Patafijali somewhere in the second century A. D . However, this argument is not telling. It is equally licit to say that such literary production had developed by the second century B. C. (see section I II .3 .3.2). The evidence i s thus n o t absolutely probative b u t sufficient to warrant conSidering seriously that PatafiJali lived in the second century B . C. 407

[IIL3 . 1 . 5 . m 3 1 .6] .

.

267

3 . 1 . 5 . Katyayana 's date. There is little evidence for deterrning Kiityayana's date. Levi ( 1 89 1 ) argued for considering him a contemporary of Alexander the Great. The basis for Levi's view is the term deviiniin;z-priya, which he considered a chancellery title.40B This term and others have recently been studied anew for their implications regarding Katyayana's dates in papers by Scharfe ( 1 97 1 b) and Jayapala Vidyalamkara ( 1 972). Scharfe ( 1 97 1 b ' 2 1 5) suggests that devaniin;z­ priya "is a translation of the hellenistic court title phllos ton basileon 'friend of the kings'. " [My transhteration] He also suggests ( I 97 1 b . 224) that the term saka-parthiva "king who eats vegetables ,, 409 was used by Kiityayana to refer to king Asoka, so that Katyiiyana is to b e placed in the middle of the third century B. C. Jayapiila Vidyalarpkara ( J 972: 1 2 1 ) also puts Kiityiiyana at about 2 5 0 B . C . K . P. Jayaswal ( 1 9 1 8 ; 1 9 1 9) arrived a t a similar date (248 - 1 80 B . C.) in a different manner. He interpreted the compound saka-parthiva as meaning "Parthivas who are S akas" and characterized Pataftja!i's interpretation of the compound (see note 409) as absurd.4 1 0 J ayapala Vidyalarpkara ( 1 972. 1 09 · 1 0) has argued, correctly i n my opinion, that J ayaswal's interpretation is not appropriate to Katyayana's varttika.4 1 1 to be assumed between P(7)ini and Kiityayana and Kiityayana and Patanjali.

3 . 1 .6. The intervals

Patafi] ali does not always give a single interpretation of a varttika He has to arrive at an interpretation through reasoning (S. P. Chaturvedi 1 95 0 : 1 44-45 ] , Thieme [ 1 955b: 429 ] ). I t is also known that between Kiityiiyana and Patafij ali there intervened authors who composed viirttikas and inter­ preted Kiityiiyana's statements (Kielhorn [ 1 887c: 1 04-06 ] ) . Moreover, Kiityayana did not himself receive the grammar directly from pal).ini. He too had to interpret the meaning and intention of rules (Thieme [ 1 9 3 5a. 1 30 ] ) . In addition, Katyiiyana knew of predecessors who had subjected PaJ}ini's rules to the same kind of scrutiny as his (Kielhorn ( 1 8 87c: 1 03· 04] ) . Finally, the language of Katyayana's time and place shows differences from PaJ}ini's which are best interpreted as historical and not merely dia­ lectal, which therefore w arrant assuming an interval of some time between the two (see section III.2.5 . 3).4 1 2 All these factors require that PiiJ}ini have preceded Katyayana b y some time . Now subjectivism enters in that one must suggest what would be a sufficient time to allow for these factors. I f one accepts that Patafij ali is to be dated at about 1 50 B . C. (see section IIL3. L4) and one assumes a

2 68

rm.3. 1 .6 - m 3 . 1 .8b ]

gap of two hundred years between him and Katyayana ( see S. P. Chaturvedi [ 1 950: 1 45]) and a similar gap b etween Katyayana and Patafij ali. these authors are then assigned respectively to the mid fourth and &ixth centuries B. C. If, on the other hand, one accept the arguments proposed for plac ing Katyayana in the middle of the third century B . C. ( see section 1Il.3 . 1 .5 ) and a similar gap of one hundred years is allowed between Katyayana and PaIJini, then the latter is assIgned to the early to mid fourth century B. C.

3 . 1 . 7.

Con clusion.

The evidence for dating PaI;lini, Katyayana and Pataftj ali is not absolutely probative and depends on interpretation. However, I think there is one certainty, namely that the evidence available hardly aIlows one to d ate Pal)ini later than the early to mid fourth century B . C.

3 . 1 .8. Excursus ' The places of origin of PalJini, Katyayana and Patafijali. 3.1 .8a. palJini. According to tradItion, Pal)ini came from Saliitura in the north·west of the subcontinent. This is reasonable and , to my knowledge, only one scholar has seriously argued that Pal)ini was not a north·westerner pure and slffip le. Franke ( 1 89 1 a ' 76, 1 89 1 b . 957 , 975) claimed that, b ecause Pal)ini referred to easterners more commonly than others, he was to be considered an east· ern grammarian. B ut even Franke assumed that Piil)ini had migrated from the north·west. Franke's view was shared by de La Vallee Poussin ( 1 930: 37) . However, Thieme showed that the evidence does not support this thesis .41 3

3 . 1 .8b. Kiztyayana. Goldstucker ( 1 86 1 : 2 1 7 , 236) and Weber ( 1 862' 44) considered K atyayana an eastern grammarian. However, R. G. Bhandarkar ( 1 873b [= 1 927-33 L 1 23-24]) noted, "But it is a question whether the distinction between North· em or Eastern grammarians, which Pa1)ini mentions [but see note 4 1 3 ) , really existed in the time o f Katyiiyana" and gave evidence to show that, at least according to Patafij ali, Katyiiyana was a southerner. In the first varttika in the introductory section of the Mahii·bha�ya, the phrase yathii laukika-vaidike�u is used, for which Patafijali ( Kielhorn [ 1 880.85 I : 8 . 8- ] 0 ) ) suggests two possible interpretations. Since the term laukika-vaidika i s com· posed o f items containing taddhita a ffixes, the phrase can mean 'as in (utterance of) worldly (usage and) Vedic (utterances, which convey) established norms (of behavior) (yatha laukike�u vaidike�u ca krtante$u) '

[III.3. 1 .8b - IU.3 . 1 .8c}

269

However, Patafijali also suggests that Kiityayana has here used laukika-vaidika as equivalent t o lake vede ca 'in worldly usage and in the Veda.' Regarding this, Patafijali says. southerners are fond of items containing taddhita affixes (priya-taddhita diik#r;iitya�); where one should say yatha lake vede ca, they use yatha laukika-vaidike$u (yatha lake vede cett prayoktavye yatha laukika­ vaidike�v iti prayufijate). From this Bhandarkar concluded that Katyayana was a southerner, and this view has not been refuted 4 1 4 It has b een accepted explicItly by modern scholars (Renou [1 957a. 1 7, 3 8 ] , Yudhi�tlura l'IffmiilJ1saka [ 1 97 3 ' I: 304-06] ). 3 . l .8c. Pataiijali. Goldstiicker and Weber tried to show that Patafijali was an easterner. Goldstiicker ( 1 8 6 1 ' 2 35-37) advanced two arguments. First, Patafij ali calls lumself gonardrya and Gonarda is an eastern area according to the Kasikii. Secondly , Kaiyata refers to Patafij ali as acaryadeSiya, which must mean 'who belongs to the country of the acarya', that is, who comes from the same area as the teacher K atyiiyana, who is an easterner (see section III .3. 1 .8c). These arguments are unacceptable. To begin with, it is at least doubtful that gonardrya refers in the Maha-bhawa to Patafij ali.4 1 5 In addition, acaryadeSrya refers simply to a participant in the dialogue who holds a particular position (see section III.2.6.!). Weber ( 1 862: 1 57) used a statement from the M ahii-bha$ya on 1 . 1 .57 (Kielhorn [ 1 880-8 5 : I : 1 44.1 0-1 1 ] ) to show that Patafijali was an easterner. In the course of an argument , it is noted that the term purva 'prior, eastern' can be used even if an object A which is said to occur before or east of B is separated fro m the latter by another object. An example of this is cited: ( 1 ) p!.trValJ! mathuraya7;l pataliputram 'Pa!aliputra is east of Mathura.' Weber ( 1 862: 1 57 ; reiterated 1 873b) interpreted this sentence differently. He considered that it meant 'Pataliputra comes before Mathura.' From this he concluded that Patanjali's example shows he came from an area east o f Pa!aliputra, modern Patna. R. G. Bhandarkar ( 1 873b [;;:;: 1 927-33 1 . 1 22-23 ] ) reached a different conclusion on the basis of another passage. He concluded that Patafij ali came from an area north by north-west of Oudh (Ayodhya). In the course of the discussion on rule 3 . 3 . 1 36, the following examples are cited (Kielhorn [ 1 88085: II. 1 62.6-7, 1 1 ] ) : 4 1 6 (2) y o 'yam adhvii gata ii piitaliputrat tasya yad avaram saketiit '(Something was done on that part of) the p ath traversed going from Pa!ali­ putra (and which lies) this side of Saketa.'

[III.3 I .Sc

270

.

UI.3.2.1 J

(3) yoyam adhva pataliputrad gantavyas tasya yat para,?1 saketat

'(Something will be done on that part of) the path which is to be traversed going to Piitaliputra and which lies beyond S aketa ' Here Siiketa (Ayodhya) is between Pataliplltra and the place where the speaker is sit uated. If this is Patafij ali's place, concluded Bhandarkar, then Patafij ali came from an area north by north-west of Ayodhya. Bhandarkar ( I 873c [= 1 92 7·33 1 ' 1 2 8]) also answered to Weber's suggestion, pointing o ut that example ( 1 ) means " . . is east o f . . " and not " . . is b e fore . . " Weber ( 1 87 3 d 3 1 4· 1 5) attempted to answer Bhandarkar, but could not do so convincingly. To re· concile his interpretation of ( 1 ) with examples (2) and ( 3) , Weber fell back on the supposition that the Maha-bhii�ya had at one time been reconstituted (see section H1.2 .4) , so that these examples could belong to different authors. This is obviously a de,perate attempt to salvage an unwarranted conclusion. Weber's position has nothing to recommend it and has been rightly rejected in recent works. 4 1 7

3.2. Relative chronology: Fauini and Yaska, Fanini and the pra tiiakhyas. 3 . 2 . 1 . Fanini and Yiiska.

Yaska, the author of the Nirukta, a treatise dealing with Vedic words and their etymological explanations, has frequently been considered to antedate panini. The early argume nts advanced in favor of this view were usually vague generalities. Roth ( 1 848. xv) considered it implausible that Pi"lJ)ini should have antedated Yaska because the latter's grammatical views are less advanced than pal).ini's. Max Muller ( 1 869. introduction, p. 5 ) considered Yiiska the earlier author, 4 1 8 b ut admitted he had no definite b asis for this opinion.4 1 9 Goldstucker ( I 86 1 . 222-25), on the other hand, advanced t w o pieces o f evidence to support the view that Yaska was prior t o Piu)ini . They are as follows. pal).ini knew the name yaska. Since there is no other Yaska in an· cient literature, this must be the author of the Nirllkta. Secondly , Parrini does not define the term upasarga 'preverb'. Yaska enters mto a discussion concerning preverbs and mentions various views concerning them, but he does not mention pal).ini, whose treatment o f these is more scientific and complete . The first argument is unacceptable, as was noted by Muller ( 1 869' introduction, p. 4) and Liebich ( 1 8 9 1 : 1 9) . pal).ini's rule 2 .4 6 3 (yaskridibhyo gotre) serves to derive the name yaska 'descendant of Yaska', but there is no indication whatever that this is anything but a p atronymic.4 2 0 Goldstticker's

rn1.3 . 2 . l j

271

second point i s also unacceptable, o n two counts. First, the Nirukta and the AHiidhyaYl are works of very different aims involving different areas of con­ cern, so that one cannot immediately draw firm chronological conclusions on the basis of such methodological differences as mentioned by Goldstucker (see Liebich [ 1 89 1 : 1 9 ]). Moreover, it is wrong to claim that Pal)jni did not define the term upasarga. Rules 1 .4.58 (prddayaf;) and 1 .4.59 (upasargal; kri; a-yoge) together provide that the items pra etc., when they are connected with items denoting actions, are called upasarga. And of course Goldstilcker's general theory regarding technical terminology has been shown to be unaccep­ table (see section HI . 1 .S .3a). Liebich ( 1 89 1 : 1 9) said in an early work that he would not be surprised if a precise study of Yaska's work showed it to be later than Pal)ini, of an epoch with Patafij ali.4 2 1 Later, however, Liebich ( l 9 1 9b: 2 2-29) cautiously suspected that Yaska preceded pal)ini. His evidence for this is terminological and stylistic. the development of technical terminology and the use of certain elements in compounds. However, none of the evidence is precise enough to warrant the assumption (Liebich [ 1 9 1 9b : 2 5 ] ) that Pal)ini took over a para­ phrase from yaska. 422 S. K . Belvalkar ( 1 9 1 5 : 6-8) also considered that Yaska antedated Pal)ini, and his argument too was based on stages of theoretical development and terminology. However, Belvalkar ( 1 9 1 5 . 7-8) also noted a negative argument which might be used to show that Yaska was later than Pal)ini If Yaska gives a certain explanation for a given word and this is not prOVided by palJini. one assumes that the word in that meaning was unknown to pal)ini. For, in a grammar of the caliber of Pal)ini's, such an omission is not to be countenanced . Hence, Yaska's knowledge of such a word in a particular meaning indicates he came after Piioini, when that word gained currency. Belvalkar rightly noted that this method leads to contradictory results. I have mentioned it, and other early discussions, be cause, as we shall see , the same arguments have again been propounded more recently . Those who have argued for Piil)ini's priority have proposed two kinds o f evidence. negative evidence o f the kind mentioned b y Belvalkar and positive evidence which is supposed to indicate that Yiiska knew Piil)ini's grammar. Thieme ( 1 935c: * 2 3*-*24*, summarized in Mehendale [ 1 968: 4-7 ] ) argued that Yiiska knew PalJini's grammar. Thieme's main points are as follows. In the introduction to the second chapter of the Nirukta (Sarup [ 1 927a: 44] ), Yiiska presupposes that at his time an exhaustive analysis of regular formations had already been carried out. Yaska is also familiar with the concept of a verb root (dhatu) . Moreover, Yaska's etymological explanations show that he knew Piil).ini's sutras. For example, he explains (Nirukta 2 . 2 , Sarup ( 1 927a' 4 5 ] ) danrjya1;z 'punishable' a s dar:zcJam arhati 'merits punishment', i n accord with

272

[1lI . 3 . 2 . l ]

Pal)ini's rules 5 . 1 .63, 66 (see note 422).423 In a later paper, Thieme ( 1 95 8: 46-48) added evidence to buttress his view. In connection with forms such as santi 'they are' , rdja 'king' ( nom. sg.), Yaska (Nirukta 1 . 1 , Sarup [ 1 927a: 44] ) speaks of the deletion of the initial sound (adi-lopa ) of as 'be' before nivrtti-sthana (lit. 'place of turning b ack') and the modification (vi1cira) of the penultimate sound (upadha) of the b ase rajan. Thieme argued that this shows Yaska knew Pal)ini's system. He must have known that endings such as -anti were treated in paJ.lini's system as marked with Ii and that before such endings the a- of as was deleted, Yaska used the term nivrtti-sthiina to re fer to such endings, Yaska must have b een familiar also with Par;mi's concept of a presuffixal b ase (wlga) such as ralan, which underwent operations Thieme does not say this explicitly, and 1 may be reading more into his statements than he intended, in which case I apologize m advance ; however, I cannot help but feel that the only presupposition which makes his argument hold together is that before Pal)ini composed his grammar no comparable ana­ lySIS of Sanskrit had ever been carried out. This was explicitly assumed by Satyavrat Samasrami ( 1 890), according to the summary given by Giridhara Sarma Caturveda ( 1 954. 1 -6) , Satyavrat Samasraml argued that Pal)ini's pre­ decessors (see section I ll . l .3. 1 ) were concerned only with sandlu rules, not with grammar. Giridhara S arma Caturveda ( 1 954: 6-8) correctly pointed out that this position is untenable. Though it is true that Palfini's is the first full grammar of Sanskrit we have , it does not follow that no grammarian before him had made any comparable analysis; on the contrary (see section III . I .3 , ! ), Now, the �g-veda pada-patha (analyzed text), to which Pal}ini refers (see sec­ tion 1 I l .3,2.2) analyzes compounds into component members (e,g. , sorna-pii1,l 'soma-drinker'), separates taddhita affixes (sarna-vat 'soma-fu!,), and also separates bases from the so-called pada endings (raja7)-bhil;z [rajobhil;z] 'through the space'), thus evincing more than a mere rudimentary analysis of sandhi phenomena (see Siddheshwar Varma [ 1 953 . 1 50-5 2 ] ) . Moreover, the ulf-adi affixes can plausibly be considered at least in part pre-Pal}inian (see section HI . 1 .4. 1 ) , and these presuppose the abstraction of roots, It is, therefore, not licit immediately to assume that Yaska's knowledge of the verb root or of presuffixal bases requires that he have known Piil}ini's rules in particular. As for the claim that Yaska's explanation of an item like dal)cjya shows he knew Pal)ini's rules, this is hardly acceptable. For all that such an explanation shows is that Yaska, like Pal)ini, knew what such a word meant. B. Bhattacharya ( 1 95 8 , 3-6) revived Goldstucker's views concerning technical terminology (see section I I I . 1 .5 .3a) and reasoned as follows, Yaska uses terms such as upadhii 'penultimate sound', which Par;ini defines, "Thus, if ProL Gold­ stucker's deductions be accepted, these evidences [sic] form to make a strong presumption in favour of the view that Yaska might have come after paJ.lini."

[HL3. 2 . 1

HI.3.2.2]

273

However, Goldstlicker's theory is not acceptable (see section I 1 I . L 5 .3a). Mehendale ( 1 968. 7- 1 2 ; see also 1 9 5 7 , 1 960, 1 965a: 47-49 , 1 965b) has reintroduced negative arguments of the kind noted and rejected by Belvalkar (see above). 424 His arguments are, in my opinion, open to serious doubts (see Cardona [ 1 972b: 1 72-74, forthcoming b ] ) . Laddu ( 1 967) also argued that Panini antedated Yaska, whom he considered a near contemporary of Katyayana and PatafijalL The basis for Laddu's conclusion is that Katyayana and Patafijali derive items not derived by Piigini and that their derivations agree with Yiiska's. This is the same negative argumentation noted already, and I agree with S. Bhate ( 1 968: 1 30) that the evidence adduced is not probative. In the most recent treatments of this issue, Shiva Narayana Shastri ( 1 969a. 68·79, 1 969b; 1 972b. 66-70) has argued in favor of Yiiska's priority. Interest­ ingly, the same evidence that led Thieme, whom Shiva Narayana does not mention, to conclude that Piil)ini antedated Yaska has led Shiva Narayana to the opposite conclusion. He notes ( 1 969a: 72) that Yiiska used the term nz'vrtti-sthcma, while Piil)ini marked affixes with k or n. According to him the former terminology is older. Shiva Narayana's arguments concern both com· parisons of terminology and meanings attributed to words.425 After all the arguments and evidence adduced in support of both views, I think the only reasonable conclusion that can be reached at present is, as Giridhara Sarma Caturveda remarked ( 1 954: 23), that the question of priority remains open. 426 3.2.2. PCll)ini and the pratisakhyas. The relative chronology of pal).ini and the pratisakhyas427 is a vexed question which has not yet been answered satisfactorily. Indeed, scholars do not agree concerning the chronology of the pratisakhya texts themselves. 428 The issue is complicated by the fact , accepted generally , that the texts of the pnitisakhyas as we have them now contain accretions to older core texts. The arguments of early scholars in the 1 9th century concerning the relation between Pal)ini and the priitiSiikhyas were for the most part vague generalities. For example, Weber ( 1 8 5 8a: 90) stated epigrammatically: the older a sutra, the more easily understood it is, the later a sutra, the less easily understood it is, and he concluded that the Viijasaneyi-pratisakhya was pre-pal)inian. Roth ( 1 848: xliii) and Muller ( 1 859: 1 20) considered that the pratisakhyas, qua Vedic texts, had to be earlier than pal)ini. Goldstucker, who, to my knowledge, was the first to say that the pratiSiik hyas were post·Piiginian, also argued partly in a vague and subjective manner: "In Pal)iru there is organism and life . In the Pratisiikhyas there is mechanism and death." 429

[III.3.2 .2 ]

274

Somewhat mOl e par ticular evidence was later given b y Liebich ( 1 9 1 9b 35-45) to show that the Viij asaneyi-priitisiikhya was pre-paf,1 inian. The two works contain rules which are identical or nearly so Hence, one may have b orro wed from the other. According to Liebich , the rules of the Viijasaneyi_ priitiSiikhya are stylistically less sharp and evolved than Panmi's, so that thev must be earlier. Venkatar ama Sarma ( 1 935 1 09·1 7) argue d i n similar fashi;n and agreed with Liebich. But such stylistic arguments can cut both ways Thieme ( 1 935tri, S .

49

27 4 , 2 7 7 ; N, 4 2 , 4 1 2, 4 2 1 , 4 3 0

Kelkar, Ashok R. 40 Kelley, G , B . 1 05 , 1 1 8 Keval1inanda,aras",afi 69, 146 Kharbds, Datta S. 69, 1 4 1 Kharwandikar, D , K . 69, N, 556 Kielhorn, Lorenz Franz 1 3, 1 4 , 6 9 ,

Lacoll1bt, Olivier 1 05 Laddu, Surcshachan dra Dnyanesh\\ar 7 5 , 7 8 , 2 27 , 240, 2 4 7 , 2 7 3 . N

1 96,

361, 369

[Add

A revised version o j Ladd u has n ow appeared:

( l 9 67e)

7 8 , 1 0 3 , 1 04 , I l l , 1 4 1 , 1 4 3 , 1 4 5 ,

Evolution of the Sanskrit language

1 4 6 , 1 4 7 , 1 4 8 , 1 4 9 , 1 5 0, 1 53 , 1 5 4 ,

from prillini

1 55 . 1 5 8, 1 60 , 1 62 , 1 6 3 , 1 65 , 1 6 7 ,

formations (Pal}ini 3, ] . 91 · 3.2.83)

1 68, 1 74 , 1 75 , 1 7 6, 1 7 8 , 1 7 9 , 1 90, 1 9 1 , 1 92 , 204, 2 3 7 , 2 4 3 , 244, 2 4 7 , 2 4 9 , 2 5 0, 2 5 1 , 2 5 2, 2 5 4 , 2 5 5 , 2 5 6 , 2 5 9 , 2 6 2, 2 6 3 , 266, 2 6 7 , 2 6 8, 2 6 9, 2 7 7 , 2 7 8 , 2 7 9, 2 80, 290, 2 9 1 , 3 0 8 , 3 0 9 ; N : 26, 2 9 , 3 2 , 3 5 , 5 1 , 7 9 , 80, 85, 1 04 , 1 1 1 , 1 2 4 , 1 25 , 1 2 6, 1 6 3 , 1 9 2 , 1 9 6 , 3 3 2, 3 3 9, 3 4 2 , 3 5 4 , 3 5 6 , 3 6 2 , 3 6 7 , 3 7 0, 3 7 7 . 3 8 9 , 3 96, 3 9 7 , 4 01 , 403, 4 0 8 , 4 1 1 , 4 1 5 , 4 4 3 , 4 4 9 , 4 5 6 , 490, 5 0 1 , 5 5 4

Kiparsky, Paul

7 2, 2 1 8, 2 1 9 , 2 2 1 , 2 2 2,

2 3 2 ; N: 84, 2 9 1

Kirfel, Willi bald 49 Kittel, Ferdinand 72, 24 1 Knauer, Friedrich 72 Konks, 1. 3 4 , 7 2 , 8 1 , 90, 1 2 7 Konow, Sten 7 2, 1 60, 209, 2 3 0, 2 6 6 ; N' 398

Koparkar, D . G . 72 Kotulkar. Mahadeva Vinayaka

to

Patanjali, primary

(Poana: Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit 1 974). Laddu ( 1 9 7 4 . 1 8) ar­ gues, rightly I think., that the view of

S, D. Joshi and J. A. F. Roodbergen according to "'hieh one cannot conclude any thing abou t historical changes from the discussions in the Maha-bhlisya (see above, my page 2 5 9), is overstat� d. J Lahiri, Prabodh Chandra 75, 247 Lakshman R ao, K. V. 76, 261 Larson, R alph 41 Law, B . C . 4 9 , 5 0 Lebrun, Yvan 1 06 Lees, R obert B. 49 Levi, Sylvain 76, 2 6 7 , N 367, 3 9 1 , 4 1 5 , 5 24

Liebich, Bruno

5 3 , 5 7 , 7 6, 1 4 0 , 144.

145, 1 4 8, 1 4 9, 1 50, 1 5 8, 1 6 2, 1 63 , 1 64, 1 7 6, 1 7 8, 1 94 , 1 95 , 200, 2 1 1 , 2 1 2, 2 1 3, 2 1 6, 2 30, 2 3 7 , 2 3 8 , 2 3 9 ,

72, 229

2 4 0 , 249, 2 5 0 , 2 6 1 , 2 6 5 , 2 70, 2 7 1 ,

37 9 274, 2 8 0 , 2 8 1 , 2 8 8 , 2 8 9 , 298, 299, 3 0 8, 309; N

5, 78, 1. 2 8 , 3 28 , 3 5 6 ,

388, 403, 407, 421, 428, 432, 447,

5 2 4 , 5 3 6, 5 5 4

77, 230

LimaYe, S . K .

1 5 , 7 7 , 227, 244, 2 5 9,

Limayc, V . P

3 0 5 , 3 54.

260, 2 7 7 , 296, 297; N

453 , 498, 5 1 6

r Addition to note 3 0 5 see Vlshva

Bandh u . l 428, 554

41

Lunt, Horace

50

Morgan, E . Delmar

41

M orgenstierne, Georg

50

83

Mukhopadhyaya, Sujit K u mar

55, 8 3 ,

Mliller, Friedrich Max(imilian)

346, 4 1 8 ,

1 75 , 2 7 0 , 2 7 3 , 274 , N

4 1 9 , 4 3 1 , 448

Munshi, K. M.

50

83, 2 1 1 , 225

M u ralldhara Misra Nagel, Erne;t

41

Nagao, G . M .

52

Nag,matha Sastri, P. V.

396

78; N

Ludv.ig, A l fred

3 89,

78, 2 7 7 , N

Lliders, Heinrich

416, 438

Mookerji, Satkari

84, 2 8 6

Nakamura, Hajime

84. N 5 1 9, 5 3 0,

1 5 9, 1 60, 1 7 3 , 1 94 , 200, 209, 227,

Nandi Natha MiSra

84

3 1 7, 3 65 , 3 6 8, 3 7 9, 4 0 7 , 4 3 0 , 4 3 2,

Naradcv3 SastrI

7 8 , I S 8,

Mddhava Kri�hna Sarma, K.

1 0, 1 1 8 , 2 9 8 ,

2 5 0, 252, 299; N 5 14 , 5 1 6, 5 3 2

79, 246

MadhusITdana Prasada M ishra M.lhlidcva

80, 288

Sastri

80, 2 7 9 , 2 8 2 ,

Mahesh D u tt Sharma 286, 288

Mlill, L

3 4 , 7 2 , 8 1 , 90, 1 27

Mlinavalli, Gangadhara Sastri

93, 1 1 6

Mangala Deva Shastri

80, 1 4 6 , 1 60,

Mal'lgharama Dviveda

81

244, 2 8 8 ; N ' 3 2 133

Marulkara, Sar'lkara SaS!r! Matilal, Bimal Knshna

8 1 , 245, 3 07

8 1 , 224, 2 3 0 ,

41

Mehcndalc, Madhukar Anant

3 4 , 82,

1 5 8, 1 98, 2 7 1 , 2 7 3 ; N. 4 2 0

Meile, Pierre

Millonig, Harald Mira;hi, V. V. Misra, A . P .

Misra, H.

82

Moghe. S. G .

8 2 , N: 490

48

sur Ie Mahiibhiiijya de Patafijali et Ie Pradfpa de Kaiyata, II. adhylIya 1

piida 1 iihnikas 5· 7 (= PiFl 5 1 .2)

(Pondichcry' Institut fran�ais d'Indo­

adhyrJya 1 piida 1 iihnika 1-4. J

Narasimhia, A. N. Narayana MiSra

85, 1 35 , 1 5 1

32, 8 5 , 1 1 6, 1 4 5 . 1 5 4 ,

N ' 3 97 , 4 4 5 , 4 5 9

Narayana M u rti. M . S .

8 5 , 1 5 3 , 212,

257, 3 0 3 , N : 1 7 7 , 1 93 , 2 6 8

86, N ' 481, 482

Narayana Ram Acarya

50

83, 257

lviookefji, Radha Kumud

8 0, 1 7 1 .

83, 277; N :

86, 170. 1 86 ,

Narendra Chandra Nath 24 1 , 2 4 2

Nawathe, P. D.

Negelein. J u l i u s

8 3 , 1 30, 2 3 1

Mookerji, Asutosh

[ Add: The second volume of the

commentanes edited by Narasimha·

287

47, 4 9 , 82; N. 4 8 2

Moka�e, Kmm SastrI

5 2 , 85, 245;

N . 347

Narayalta S1istri Bharadv1ijd

50

1 05

85, 308, N 5 1 4

Narasimhacharya, M . S.

logic). Correct the entry on page 8 5

8 2, 2 7 7 , N . 3 9 9

Meek, Mary-Uizabcth

Meid, Wolfgang

557

1 9, 2 9 6

of the bibliography to include.

2 5 7 , 3 0 0, 3 0 3 ; N ' 297, 3 0 1

Malum dar, B. C .

Narain Datt Tripathi

Prad/pa vyiikhyiinani, commentaires

8 0 , 17 1 , 287

ManavalIT, Ramasastr'i

Mann, J o h n

84, 2 5 6 , N

charya has appeared: Mahiibhii�ya

49

M.llkic1, Yakov

8 4 , 2 87

Nandkishore Shastri

Narang, Satya Pal

79

Madhukanta Sarma J h a

532

86, 2 2 7 48

Nene, Gopala Shastri

8 6 , 8 7 , 1 0 1 , 1 44,

145, 1 7 1, 1 74 , 177, 1 7 9, 2 8 3 , 2 86 ,

2 8 7 , 3 0 7 , N. 542

Nilakanta Sastri, K . N.

49

3 80 Ni!.l "antha Sastri, K. A. Nitti·Dolci, Luigia

Nityananda Panta Parvatiya

NobeL Johannes

NOluwa, J .

Paranjpe, Vinayak W.

87, 285

88, 283, N

Parson>, Charles

411

2 1 , 63, 86

Parret, Herman [Add.

50

93, 2 1 1

47 34, 1 1 8

On page 9 3 of the bibliography,

add the following entry'

52

Numcrkund, P.

3 4 , 7 2 , 8 1 , 90, 1 27

Parrel, Her man (Ed.) 1 97 6 History of linguistic thought

Oberhdmmer, G.

and contemporary linguistics (Berlin,

48

Ojlhara, Yutaka

8 8 , 8 9 , 1 6 5 , 1 66 , 1 93 ,

203, 207, 246, 280, 2 8 2 . 3 1 5 , 442

Oppert, Gustav

N, 9 7 , 99,

94, 1 73 . 2 2 6 ,

3 6 1 , 449, 450, 456, 5 3 2

Pathak, Shridhar Shastri

8 9 , N. 5 5 6

9 4 , 1 4 2, 1 44 ,

1 4 5 , 1 7 1 , 1 7 4 , 1 7 7 , 24 7 , N 8 9 , 1 40,

1 44 , 1 4 5 , 1 4 8 , 1 5 2, 1 5 9, 1 62 , 1 63 , 1 64 , 1 95 , 1 9 8 , 1 9 9, 200, 2 0 1 , 2 0 3 , 2 2 7 , 2 29, 240, 2 4 1 , 260, 2 8 9 , N' 7 1 ,

Pancholi, B a l a Krishna

Pathak, YlIgaiakiSora Pavolini, P . C.

Pa\\ tc, 1. S.

9 1 , 1 22 , 3 0 7 ,

N. 4 7 3

95 9 5 , 1 5 5 , 1 5 6, 1 5 9 , 1 6 3 , 1 64

1 64 , 1 6 5 , 1 6 6 , 1 6 7 , 1 90, 1 9 5 ; N

Pcriverlkatcsvara Sastri Peterson, Peter

9 1 , 299. N '

Pandey, Kanti Chandra

9 5 ; N ' 334, 536 9 5 , 1 1 6, 2 8 8

Phaejakc, SrIhara Ananta Phatak, Madhukar

91, N 556

Pandey, Ram Chandra Sharma

9 1 , 1 1 8,

Phelps, Flaine

96;

Pisani, Vittore

96

Pal)ejeya, Keiava Deva

9 1 ; N: 5 3 6

9 1 . N. 470

91 ; N . 473

Pal)ejeya, Rlidhliriima

N:

96, 173

556

49

96, 2 2 9 96, 2 6 2 ; N . 4 1 1

PIschel, Richard

91

Pandeya, Kalika Charan

S a5 tti

N . 320

Pietrangeli. Angelina

295

Pal) ejeya, Garlglirama

43,

9 5 , 1 50 , 2 6 2 , 2 6 5

Phadake, Ananta Sastri

5 35 , 5 3 9

Pandey, Ram Awadh

22, 3 4 8

95, 179

56, 5 7 , 62, 6 4 , 88, 8 9 , 9 7

2 2 1 , 3 0 7 , 3 3 2, 3 6 1 , 4 0 8

SO

Pokorny, J ulius

Prabhudayala Agnihotri

96, 1 5 1 , 2 7 7 ,

N: 4 0 7 , 4 1 7

Pandeya, Rajmani

91

Prajiia Devi

Pandeya, Ramajna

91

Pranatiharan, T . K .

9 2 , 1 80 , 1 86 , 2 0 0 , 2 0 6 ,

3 2, 9 6 , 1 4 3 ; N : 5 5 6

Pulgram, Ernst

51

2 0 7 , 2 1 1 , 2 1 2, 2 1 7 : N' 1 1 9, 1 6 6 ,

PUl)tamk.J.r, M ukund

299, 309

Puri, Baij Nath

Pandit, P. B.

9 3.

2 3 9 , 2 6 0 , 2 6 2 , 2 7 7 , 2 8 0, 2 8 1 ; N

1 8, 3 0 , 1 54 , 2 7 9

Paisule, Gajanan Balakrishna

Pandit, M . D ,

Sastri

Pathak, Kashinath Bapuji 89, 1 72 ,

173, N ' 1 14

Padhye, D. G.

Pandey, V. C.

93, 1 4 3 ,

296, 297, 306

8 9 , 1 40

Pade, Jagannath Shridhar

Paik, T S,

228

Pa�avardhana, Ramakrishl)a

89, 149

Ordra, L . d e Guzman

New York' de Gruyter), j Pataiijal, Deo Praka,h Shastri

1 01

Sastri

8 7 , 283

97, 2 7 6 , 2 7 7 ,

N,

407,

417

40

Pal)sikar, Wasudev Laxman Shastri

66,

PlIsalkar, A , D ,

3 1, 4 8

92, 1 4 4 , 1 45 , 1 7 1 , 1 7 7 , 1 7 9, 3 0 8 .

N: 473 Pant, Mohanvallabh Panthi, Tika Rama

Radhakrishnan, S 9 2 ; N. 4 7 3

Rlidhasyama MiSra

93; N : 5 5 5

Parameivarananda Sarma Bhaskara

Raghavan, V . 55,

1 44 , 1 4 5 , 1 7 1 , 1 74 , 1 7 7 , 1 7 9, 2 8 7

Paranjpe, vasudeva Goprua 1 5 9, 246

23, 93,

47 97

4 0 , 4 7 , 4 8 , 4 9 , 5 0, 9 7 ;

N : 344, 3 5 3, 444 Raghavan Pillai, K.

97 , 2 9 7 , N : 354

Raghunlitha Sarma

9 7 , 1 20 , 1 95 , 2 4 5 ,

2 9 6 , 3 0 0 ; N: 3 5 4 , 5 3 5

381

Raghunatha Kii'iinatha Sastri 98 Raghu Vira 99, 1 79 , 1 8 1 , N . 3 4 , 147 Rajanaravana SastrI 99. N 105 Rajavade, V K. 99, 1 4 6 Rajendralal Mitra 99, N . 3 9 1 , 4 1 5 Rajesl1\�ar Shastri Dravid 5 0 Ram Gopal 9 9 , 282 102 Ram Sharma [Correction: Read entry on page 99.] Ramacandra Dik�ita, T V 99 Ramachandra Dikshitar, V. R . 49, 99, 151 Ramachandra Rao. S . K . 99, 2 6 2 Ramachandra 5,15trl K o!ibhaskara 93 Ramachari, C 1 00 , N' 4 3 5 Ramakanta MiSra 1 00, 1 40, 1 7 8, 1 80; N. 4 1 7 1 00, N. 5 1 5 Ramakrishna Kavi, M. Ramalal 1 00 , N . 4 Ramamurti, K. S. 1 00 1 00 , N . 3 3 4 , Ramanarayal).3 Tripa!lIl 531, 536 Riimanathd Sastri 1 00; N : 5 4 2 Rama Nath Sharma 69, 1 00, 1 4 1 ; N : 1 83 , 5 5 6 [ Ad d . The forthcoming article has appeared: IlJ 1 7 ' 3 1 ·3 9 ( l 97 5 ) ] Raman ujacharya, N. S , 1 00, 2 2 3 Raman uja Tatacharya, N, S. 1 00, 1 6 8 ; N. 1 1 9 1 0 1 , 209, 2 5 8 , Rama Prasada Tripathi 307 . N ' 5 3 1 Ramasarana Dasa Vai�l}ava 101 Rama 5aral}a Sastr! 54, 308 1 01 Ramasu bba Sastri, S. 1 0 1 , 2 9 5 , 299, Rama Suresa TripathI 300, N . 5 28, 5 3 9, 5 5 5 Ramas,""ami Sastri. V. A . 1 02, 1 30, 3 0 3 : N: 5 3 2, 5 3 6 Ranade, R . D. 49 Rangacarya, K . 80, 288 Rangacharya, M . 1 0 2, 2 8 1 , 295. N. 467, 4 6 8 Rangacharva, V . 49 Rangaswami, O. p , 1 02, N : 4 6 4 1 0 2, 298 Rangaswami Iyengar, H. R. Ratna Goplil Bhatta 1 16 Rau, Wilhelm 7 0 , 7 1 , 72, 1 0 2, 147, 296, 2 9 7 ; N : 505, 5 06, 5 0 8 , 5 09, 511

Ravi Varma, 1. A. 1 0 3 , 296, 297, 299 Redard, Georges 50 Renou, Louis 2 9 , 5 0, 88, 8 9 , 1 03 , 1 04, 1 0 7 , 1 2 3 , 1 24 , 1 3 1 , 1 4 0, 1 4 1 , 142, 1 4 3 , 1 45 , 1 4 6 , 1 4 7 , 1 5 1 , 1 5 3 , 1 54 , 1 5 9, 1 6 6, 1 6 8 , 1 7 3 , 1 7 8, 1 8 0, 1 88 , 1 93 , 1 97, 203, 205, 2 1 1 , 228, 23 1 , 2 3 8 , 2 3 9, 243, 245, 246, 254, 255, 259, 2 60, 269, 2 7 9 , 2 80, 2 8 1 , 2 84, 2 8 5 , 2 8 6 , N . 62, 103, 1 1 7, 1 87 , 202, 2 ! 3 , 2 3 1 , 278, 308, 3 1 1 , 327, 344, 406, 4 07, 444, 449, 455, 460, 4 8 5 Ritti, S , 48 Rocher, Ludo 1 05 , 1 67 , 1 92 . N ' 8 Rocher, Rosane 34, 1 05 , 1 4 1 , 1 4 3 , 1 5 6 , 1 97 , 204, 205, 2 1 1 , 2 1 7 , 2 1 8, 220, 2 2 1 , 2 3 6 , 2 3 7 , 24 1 , 246, 2 5 2 , 2 5 3 , 2 60, 2 9 1 , 292, N : 8, 66, 1 75, 2 1 3 , 2 7 7 , 282, 3 6 7 , 4 9 0 [ Ad d. . forthcoming a has appeared . Semiotica 1 2.3 ' 2 6 3-80 ( 1 9 74),] Rogers, D avid Illis 1 06 ; N . 2 8 1 , 285, 323 Roodbergen, J. A , F . 6 4 , 6 5 , 1 06 , 1 5 2, 1 5 9, 24 5 ; N : 57 [ Addition to pages 204-205 : Roodbergen-)oshi ( 1 974 . vu-x) suggest still another explanation of the term karmadhiiraya: '(necessarily/inseparably) held together by/involved in (one and the same) action'. ] 1 06 , 2 7 0, 2 7 3 Roth , Rudolf Ruben, Walter 57 Rudradhara Jha Sarma 5 5 , 1 06, 2 4 5 Rudra Prasada Sarma 107, 1 79 1 07, 1 1 7 , 140, Ruegg, David Sey fort 2 5 6 , 2 5 7 , 299, 300, 307. N . 292, 297, 3 79 , 4 3 2 , 5 1 9, 5 3 1 , 5 3 2 , 5 34 , 5 3 9 , 550 9 1 , 107, Sabhlipati Sarma Upadhyaya 257, 3 07 1 07 , 2 9 8 , 299, N . 3 9 8 , Sadu Ram 4 98 , 5 00, 5 1 2, 5 1 7 , 5 2 1 Sag, Ivan A . 1 07 ; N : 3 2 0 Saksena B a b u R a m 48, 5 1 Salus, Peter 1 07 , 1 4 1 , N : 8 Sam aira mi, Satyavrat 1 07 , 2 7 2 . N : 4 2 4 1 08, 1 09 , 296, Sambasiva Sastri, K. 297, 299, N: 542

382 Sankalia, H . D .

51

Sankara Rama Sastn

1 0 8 , 142, 1 4 4 ,

179 Sankaran, A. 11 0 San karan, C. R. 1 08, 228 1 0 8 , 2 8 8 , 297 Santi Bhik�u Sastri Saporta, S u I 49 Sarup, lakshman 1 0 8, 2 7 1 , 272, 298; N: 4 1 9, 5 1 8 Sarvcswara Sharma, Peri 1 0 9 , 2 9 7 , 2 9 9 , N. 5 2 8 Sastri , P . P . S. 1 l 0, 245 Sati Prasada Misra 1 1 0, N. 555 Satyavrat 47, 4 8, 1 1 0, 2 5 8 , N 308, 5 0 5 , 528, 557 Scharfc, Hartmut 34, 63, 1 1 1 , 1 1 7 , 1 4 2 , 1 5 6 , 1 5 9 , 1 6 6, 1 67 , 1 90, 1 9 1 , 1 95 , 1 96, 200, 2 0 1 , 202, 203. 209, 242, 24 6, 257, 258, 259, 267 , N 59, 1 00, 1 5 6, 1 60, 203, 2 1 3 , 2 2 1 , 250, 260, 3 1 1 , 336, 4 1 7 [Add . . 1 9 7 3 "Tolklipplyam studies", German Scholars on India, contri·

1 (Edited by the Cultural Department, Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany, New Delhi) (Varanasi Chowkhamba), pp. 2 6 8·7 8 . 1 Schmidt, Richard 1 1 1, 214 Schmitt, L . E . 72 Schneider, U . 51 Schokker, G . H . 49 Schroeder, leopold von 1 1 1 , 240 Schropfer, Johann 111 Schubert, J. 51 Sebeok, T. 1 05 , 1 1 8 Sen, Malati 1 1 1 ; N: 4 4 8 S e n , Nilmadhav 1 1 1 ; N: 308 Sen, Sukumar 47, 5 1 , 1 1 1 , 1 99 , 2 3 8 , N. 3 7 1 Sengupta, Sailendranath 1 1 2, 1 44 Shaft, M. 52 1 12 ; N' Shah, Umakant Prcmanand 449 Shastri, D. N. 49, 9 6 , 1 1 2, 2 2 7 ; N. 333 Shefts, Betty 1 1 3 , 1 24 , 1 4 3 , 1 64, 1 90 , 1 9B, 2 0 2 , 2 1 1 , 2 4 6 ; N : 1 7 , 90, 210, 370 Shembavnekar, K. M. 1 1 3 , 276 butions to Indian studies, vol.

Shendc, Si ta Rama Sastri 41 Shivuganesha Murthy, R . S . J 1 3 , 209 Shiva Narayana Sha>tri 1 1 3 , 1 4 0 , 230, 273, N . 306, 4 1 8, 4 3 8 Shivaramaiah, B K . 1 1 3, 2 2 7 Shukla, Jayadev Mohanlal I S . 1 1 3 , 246, 258, 2 99. 300, N 499, 5 1 4 , 522, 528 4 6 , 1 1 3 , 2 7 9 , 307 . Shukla, Klllikapm1id N: 4 5 9 Siddiqui. A . 49 Sidhanta, N K. 50 Sil, Haren dra Chandra 1 1 4 . N' 308 Silverstein, MiLhacl 1 1 4 , 1 3 3 . 2 3 9 , 240, N 328 Simensohy, Th . 1 14 J 14, 2 2 9 Sil]1ha, Baladeva Simonsson, Nils 1 1 4 , 303 1 1 4 , 1 1 5 , 1 8 1 . 1 90, Singh, Jag Dev 2 0 7 ; N 38, 1 3 9 , 1 64 , 2 8 1 [ Add.: T o m y footnote 3 8 , add . On the Tolkappiyam see also Scharfe ( 1 97:3). j Sinha, Ani! C. 1 1 5 , 2 1 7 , 2 1 8, 222, 234; N ' 2 8 3 Sinha, B . P 50 Sinha, Jayadamba P. 49 41 Sinor Denis Sirear, Dinesh Chandra 1 1 5 , 26 6 , N. 398, 439 Sitaram Shastri 1 15 , 286, 287 SifiiramaclirI Slstri 1 1 6 , 296 Sivaprasada Bharadvaja 1 1 6, N. 308 Skold, Hannes 1 1 6 , 1 2 3 , 1 5 8. 1 5 9 , 1 60, 2 0 9 , 249, 274, 3 0 3 , N . 54, 249, 420 Smith, Vincent A. 1 1 6 , 26 1 , 265 Sobhita MiSra 3 2 , 8 5 , 1 1 6, 1 4 5 . N 3 9 7 , 445, 4 5 9 Speijer, J . S. 3 2, 1 1 6, 1 96 , 229, 2 3 9 Spies, O. 49 Sreekrishna Sharma, r: . R. 1 1 7, 2 5 7 , 303 . N 4 84, 494, 5 27 , 5 3 0 Srikmlamadlrya, Venkatadyahara 1 1 7, 290 Sriniv3sachari, C. S. 49 Srivatsankaracharya, V. 101 Staal, Johan Frederik 2 2 , 2 3 , 3 0, 3 2 , 3 3 , 3 4 , 3 8 , 5 5, 7 0, 7 1 , 72, 76, 8 8 , 1 03 , 1 06, 1 1 7 , 1 20, 1 2 3, 1 3 3 , 1 34 ,

3 83 1 3 6, 1 4 0, 1 4 1 , 1 7 3 , 1 8 2, 1 85 , 1 86 , 1 90, 1 9 1 , 2 0 3 , 204, 207 , 209, 2 1 2, 2 1 8, 2 1 9, 2 2 1 , 2 2 2 , 2 3 2 , 2 3 6 , 24 2, 2 5 8, 2 5 9 , 27 5 , 2 9 5 ; N ' 84, 1 4 9, 1 6 3 , 202, 2 9 1 , 3 1 9, 3 2 1 , 5 2 6 , 5 5 4

[ A dd,: forthcoming = Parret ( 1 97 6 ) , 1 02·3 6 ]

Stenzler, A. L 249 [ Add. On page 1 1 8 of the biblIo­ graphy, add the following entry Stenzler, A. F. 1 86 2 "Aus einem Briefe von Prof, Stenzler", 1St. 5 ' 44748 . J Strauss, Otto 1 1 8, 246, 2 5 7 , 3 0 3 Struve, V . 57 S ubba Rao, Voluri 1 1 8, 307 ; N , 5 5 1 Subrahmanya Sastri, P . S . 1 1 8, 147, 1 5 3 , 1 5 6 , 1 5 9, 1 66, 1 67 , 2 4 5 , 2 6 2 ;

N: 3 8 , 9 2 , 9 7 Subrahmanya Sastri, V . 1 1 9, 2 3 1 Subrahmanyam, K. G . 24, 1 1 9, 277, 27 8 ; N : 1 1 7

Subrahmanyam, P. S, 1 1 9; N: 3 2 1 [Add. The full version of the paper has appeared lL 3 6 : 346·66 ( 1 9 7 5 ) . 1 S ubramania lyer, K. A. 49, 97 , 9 8 , 1 1 9, 1 60, 1 94 , 1 97 , 2 0 9 , 2 24 , 2 5 7 , 2 9 6 , 2 9 7 , 2 9 8 , 2 9 9 , 30� 3 0 1 , 3 0 t 3 0 3 , 3 04 ; N : 207 , 2 8 6 , 3 34 , 3 83 , 500, 5 0 3 , 5 04 , 5 09 , 5 1 0, 5 1 3 , 5 1 4 , 5 1 5, 5 1 6, 5 1 9 , 5 2 8, 5 2 � 5 3 0, 5 3 3 , 5 3 5 , 5 3 6 , 5 3 8 , 5 39 , 5 4 2

Subramoniam, V. 1. 49 1 21 , 287 Sudlimli Misra Siistri Sudarsana Deva 1 29, 174 SUkla. P. S. 1 2 1 , 230 Sukla, Riimagovinda 1 2 1 , 246 Sukla, Sitliriima 121; N 556 S ukla, Siiryaniiriiyalp 1 2 1 , 296 Sukthankar, V. S. 51 Suppes, Patrick 41 Surendra Nath Shastri 57 Surya Klinta 96, 1 22 , 1 4 9 , 2 4 9 ; N, 434

Suryanarayana Sastri, S. S. 1 22 Sust!a Candra MiSra 1 22 ; N' 5 5 7 Swaminathan, V. 1 22 , 244, 2 5 9, 2 9 9 ; N' 5 1 6, 5 3 2 Takakusu, J u njiro

1 22 , 280

Tarakesvara Sastr! Caturvedl 1 2 2, 30 7 Taraporev"ala, l. J. 51 Tarski, All red 41 Tata Subbaraya Sastri 1 2 3 : N ' 480 Telang, Kashinath Trimbak 1 23 , 2 7 7 Thiem e , Paul 33, 38, 5 5 , 1 23 , 1 4 L 1 4 3 , 1 4 5 , 1 46 , 1 4 7 , 1 5 3 , 1 59, 1 6 0 ,

1 7 9, 1 8 1 , 1 85 , 1 86, 1 96 , 1 97 , 206, 207, 2 0 9 , 2 1 4 , 2 2 6 , 2 2 7 , 2 2 9 , 2 3 0, 2 3 6 , 2 3 9 , 24� 244, 24� 2 5 0 , 2 5 2. 254, 260, 2 6 7 , 2 6 8 , 2 7 1 , 2 7 2 , 2 7 3 . 2 7 4 , 2 7 5 , 27 8 , 2 7 9 , 3 0 9 ; N , 2 4 , 1 27 , 1 50, 1 6 3 , 2 0 1 , 204 , 207 , 2 4 6 , 2 4 7 , 24 9 , 3 4 0, 3 5 4 , 3 5 5 , 3 5 6 , 3 5 7 , 366, 367, 3 8� 4 2 2 , 4 2 3 , 4 2 � 430, 4 3 2, 433, 492, 554

Tiwari, Lakshmi Narayan 1 24 , 1 4 5 [Correct t h e entry to give t h e autho rs as: Tiwari, Lakshmi Narayan and Dirbal Sharma. J 1 24 Tiwan, Udai Narain 1 24 , 1 90, 2 1 2 Tiwary, Kapil Muni 1 25 , 1 86 ; N : 3 2 0 Toporov, V. N, Trapp, Valentin 1 25 , 24 6 Tnpathi, Shambu Nath 3 0, 4 9 , 1 25 , 1 4 5 ; N : 404 Trivedi, Harihar 1 25 , 266 Trivedi, Kamalasankara Pranasankara

8

1 2 5 , 1 6 2, 1 7 1 , 2 86, 2 8 , 3 05 , 3 0 6 , 3 0 7 : N : 4 7 0, 4 7 1 , 5 4 8

Turner, R. L. 51 Tymieniecka, Anna·Teresa

47

Umarji , Varadaraj 1 2 6, 1 5 1 Umesa MiSra Sarma 1 26 , N 1 05 Upadhyay, S. N. 51 1 26 , 2 7 5 Upadhyaya, Basudev 49 Upadhyaya. Jagannath Upadhyaya, Krishnadeva 1 26 , 2 6 2 UtgJkar, Narayana Bapuji 23 Vaidya, C . V.

1 26 , 1 4 6 , 2 6 1 , N. 3 9 3,

412

Vlima Deva M isra 1 27 ; N : 5 5 6 Van Nooten, Barend A . 1 2 7 , 1 86 , 2 0 2 , 2 1 0, 2 1 1 , 2 1 2, 2 3 0 ; N . 3 4 , 3 5 , 1 4 7 , 260, 2 6 2, 3 0 2

Varadarajiengar, M. B . 1 02 Varma, Satyakama 1 27 , 1 4 0 . 2 9 7 , 2 9 9 , 3 04; N: 4 1 4

JU"1"

5 1 , 1 2 7, 1 79 , 2 7 2 , N 2 3 8, 3 06 , 3 1 0, 3 7 0 , 4 2 8 ,

W ad egaon gkar , Narayana Dadaji

432, 495

Waldschmidt, Ernst

Varma, Siddhcshwar

Yaw, Srisa Chandra

1 28, 1 4 3 , 1 4 5 ,

2 8 0 , 286 Vedachala lyer,

P. S.

1 2 8 ; N. 38 1 29 , 1 7 4

Vedananda VedavagIia

Vedavati, Vyakararyopadh yflya N

1 2 9, 1 7 8 ,

129

Vedavrata

80, 1 29 , 1 6 1 , 1 6 2 , 1 63 ,

1 65 , 1 7 2, 2 3 2 , 243, 244, 2 4 5 , 2 5 9 ;

N ' 80, 1 1 6, 1 6 3 , 3 4 1 , 346, 3 5 1 ,

3 7 3 , 3 86 Vedpat! Mishra

1 29 , 247, 2 5 0 . N .

364. 44 3 Velankar, H . D. Vcrylmlidhava

51

Sastr!

Venkatacharya,

1 93 , 3 3 5

T.

1 2 9, 1 9 5 , N' 7 3 , 1 29, 2 7 4 . N

Venkatarama Sarma, V.

3 7 8, 4 2 9 Venktatasubbia, A. N ' 2 3 3 , 4 84 , 5 5 3

Vidhata Mishra

S.

1 3 0. 2 8 8 ,

1 3 0, 1 4 6 . 1 7 9

Vidyadhar, Dharmadhikari

Vidya Ni"a� Misra

Albrecht

53, ] 32 5 1 , 1 3 2, 1 5 8, 1 7 9,

2 2 6 , 248, 249, 2 5 0, 2 6 1 , 2 64 , 268,

2 69, 2 7 0, 273, 2 7 6 , 2 7 7 ; N ' 34 6, 402 , 4 1 4

Wecker, Otto

1 33 , 2 3 8

Frie d ri ch Westergaard, N L Weller,

51 1 3 3 , 1 4 4 , 240

Wezler, Albrecht

1 3 3 , 1 6 8, 1 69 , 1 96,

2 46; N . 2 1 8, 2 2 1 , 2 7 2, 3 3 6 , 5 1 3

[ Add .. forthcoming b has appeared'

1 97 5 l Whatmough, Joshua

51

1 3 0, N . 5 5 6

34, 1 3 0, 1 36 , 1 5 1 ,

32, 1 33 , 2 1 3 ,

2 1 6 , 2 2 6 , 2 3 6 , 2 3 7 , 2 3 8 , 2 3 9 , 240, 2 4 1 , 3 0 9 ; N . 4 2 , 90, 2 7 5 , 3 2 6 , 3 2 8 , 3 2 9 , 4 34 Windisch, Ernst

52

Winternitz, Moritz

1 30 ; N : 5 1 8

Vcnkita,ubramonia Iyer,

Weber,

Whitney, William Dwight

99

1 3 2,

286

Woods, J. H ,

Wool ncr, A. C. Yamaguchi, Yasplila

6 2 , 1 34 , 2 7 7 ; N ' 3 8 8

1 34 ; N . 40 7 49, 5 2

S.

52

1 3 4 , N ' 1 88

Yudhi�Fhira Mimamsaka

32, 43. 67,

1 5 9, 1 85 , 1 88, 1 90, 200, 2 09, 2 1 0,

7 9, 8 5 , 9 3 , 1 34, 1 3 5 , 1 39, 1 4 0, 1 4 2 ,

2 2 5 , 2 3 2 , 2 3 6 , 249, 250, 2 5 1 ; N '

1 4 5 , 1 4 6 . 1 4 7 , 1 4 8 , 1 4 9, 1 50, 1 5 1 ,

2 2 7 , 2 5 0, 2 9 5 , 3 2 1 Vidyasagara, Jibananda

1 30. 1 7 1

VindhYeSvari Prasada DvivedI Virendra

1 3 0, 2 8 3

4 8, 5 1 , 1 3 1 . N

434

[ Add.: Vishva Bandhu and Munishwar

Deo

1 97 2 New viirttikas to PiilJini's

grammar (PiilJiniyavakaralJe bhinava­ viirttik7mi) (a specimen) (= VIS 5 7 )

(Hoshiarpur Vishveshvaranand Insti­ tute).

Add a reference to this is my foot­ note 305. ]

Visvanatha

Vogel,

C,

1 3 1 , 2 1 2 , N' 294, 5 3 6

50

Vohra, Amarajlta Wackernage1, Jakob

1 3 1 ; N: 4 1 03 , 1 05 , 1 23 ,

1 3 1 , 1 3 2 , 1 5 3 , 1 59 , 1 8 5 , 1 88 . 2 1 3 , 2 2 6 , 2 3 0, 2 5 9 ; N 5 9

1 64, 1 6 5 , 1 70, 1 7 1 , 1 7 2, 1 7 3 , 1 75 , 1 76, 1 7 8, 1 7 9 , 1 80, 1 8 1 , 2 4 3 , 2 62 , 2 6 5 , 269, 2 8 1 , 2 8 2. 2 8 3 , 2 84 , 2 8 5 .

131

Vishva Bandhu

1 5 3 , 1 54 , 1 5 5 , 1 60, 1 6 1 , 1 62 , 1 6 3 ,

286, 2 88, 289, 2 9 4 , 299, 305, 3 0 7 ,

N, 1 , 30, 3 1 , 34, 3 5 , 3 9 , 4 4 , 5 5 , 7 8 . 8 2 , 1 29, 1 3 0, 1 3 1 , 1 34, 1 40, 1 4 1 , 1 4 2 , 1 4 3 , 1 44 , 1 4 5 , 1 4 6, 1 4 7 , 3 3 7 , 3 3 9 , 3 4 3 , 3 4 4 , 3 4 7 . 355, 3 9 5 , 4 0 5, 4 0 7 , 4 1 1 , 4 1 5 , 4 1 7 , 442. 444, 449, 4 5 3 , 4 5 6 , 4 6 3 , 464, 466, 4 7 0, 4 7 1 , 474, 475, 485, 486, 487, 5 0 1 , 504. 5 14 , 5 1 6, 5 1 8, 5 2 3 , 5 5 2 Zachariae, Th.

133

Zgusta, Ladislav Zide, N. H .

1 36 ; N ' 3 2 1

1 05 , 1 1 8